Google
This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on Hbrary shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project
to make the world's books discoverable online.
It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject
to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books
are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover.
Marks, notations and other maiginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the
publisher to a library and finally to you.
Usage guidelines
Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we liave taken steps to
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.
We also ask that you:
+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for
personal, non-commercial purposes.
+ Refrain fivm automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.
+ Maintain attributionTht GoogXt "watermark" you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it.
+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liabili^ can be quite severe.
About Google Book Search
Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web
at|http : //books . google . com/|
s
I
STANDARD
ENCYCLOPAEDIA of
f
PROCEDURE
EDWARD W. TUTTLB
EDITOR
FIRST SUPPLEMENT
Including
SUPPLEMENTAL FORMS
and
TEMPORARY INDEX
LOS ANGELES
L. D. POWELL COMPANY
CHICAGO
COFTBiaHT, 1916
BT If. D. POWELL OOMPAUT
L 2F05
EXPLANATORY NOTE
The words and figures at the top of each page refer to the volume
and title to which the page relates. The black figures at the left in
each column — thus 213-35 — represent respectively, the page and note
number of the original volume to which supplementary matter relates.
In examining a proposition in any one of the volumes the in-
vestigator should always be sure to turn to the Supplement to ascer-
tain what, if any, decisions directly in point have been made since the
original article was written. To illustrate : Suppose you are examin-
ing, authorities bearing on the rule stated in the article on ''Con-
clusions of Law," volume 5, page 213, note 35, to the effect that an
allegation that it was the duty of a party to do or not to do a thing,
is a mere conclusion of law. Run through this supplement until you
see the guiding terms ''Vol. 5" at the top of the page in the margin;
turn until you come to the running title "Conclusions of Law;" then
glance down the columns and turn until you see at the left of the
column the black figures "213-36." Following this will be found the
authorities supplementing the original work on this point.
Always glance over all the pages supplementing the original article
for any new matter. Such matter is placed under the page and note
number nearest to which it logically would have fallen but may be
readily and quickly distinguished by the black letter catch lines.
TABLE OF TITLES
Abatement, Pleas of 1
AbbreTiations 6
Abduction 5
Abortion 6
Aecessories and Aeeomplices 6
Aeeord and Satisfaction 8
Aeeonnt and Accounting 9
Adjoining Landowners 13
Admiralty 14
Adulteration 19
Adultery 19
Adverse Possession 20
Affidavits of Merits and Defense. . 21
Aifray 24
Agreed Case 24
AUenating Affections 24
Aliens 26
Alteration of Instruments 26
Amendments and Jeofails 28
Amicable Actions 89
Amicus Curiae 39
Animals 89
Annuitiea 40
Another Action Pending 41
Answers 46
Appeal Bonds 49
Appeals 51
Appearances 123
Apprentices 131
Arbitration 131
Architects and Builders 133
Arguments 134
Arraignment and Plea 168
Arrest in Civil Cases 172
Arrest of Judgment 172
Arson 176
Assault and Battery 176
Assignment for the Benefit of
Creditors 177
Assignments 178
Assistance, Writs of 179
Associations 179
Assumpsit 179
Attachment 181
Attorneys 205
Audita Querela 210
Bankruptcy Proceedings 210
Banks and Banking 223
Bastardy Proceedings 225
Beneficial Association^ 227
Bigamy 227
Bills and Answers 228
Bills and Notes 230
Bills of Exceptions 235
Bills of Particulars 248
Bills of Review 252
Bills To Enforce Decrees 255
Bills To Impeach Judgments and
Decrees 255
Bonds 255
Breach of Promise 256
Breach of the Peace 256
Bribery 257
Briefs 257
Burglary 263
Case (The Action of Trespass on
the) 264
Case and Question Certified, Be-
served or Reported 264
Case on Appeal 265
Cause of Action 269
Certainty in Pleading 271
Certificate of Probable Cause and
of Reasonable Doubt 273
Certiorari 274
Champerty 285
Change of Venito 285
Chattel Mortgages 292
Choice and Election of Remedies. 297
Civil Rights 301
CoUision 301
Commerce Court , 301
Composition With Creditors 301
Compounding Crime 302
Compromise and Settlement 302
Conclusions of Law 302
Confession and Avoidance 307
Consolidation of Actions 308
Conspiracy 309
Construction and Theory of Plead-
ings 310
Contempt 314
Continuances 323
Contribution 334
Copyright Proceedings 335
Coroner's Inquest 335
Corporations 335
Costs 361
Counterfeiting 376
Courts 376
Courts Martial 381
Covenant, Action of 382
Creditors' Suits 382
Criminal Conversation 383
Cross-Bill 383
Cross-Complaint 385
Cruelty to Animals 386
Customs and Usages 386
Customs Duties 386
Death by Wrongful Act 387
TABLE OF TITLES
Debt 398
Decedents' Estates 399
Declaration and Complaint 410
Decrees 415
Default 420
Demurrer 429
Demurrer to Evidence 439
Denials 441
Departure 444
Deposit in Court 445
Depositions 445
Detinue 451
Disclaimer 453
Discovery 453
Dismissal, Discontinuance and Non-
suit 458
Disorderly Conduct 466
Disorderly House 467
Disturbing Public Assembly 468
Divorce 468
Dower, Proceedings To Becover . . . 486
Due Process of Law 488
Duplicity 490
Duress 491
Easements 491
Ejectment 492
Elections ^ 494
Electricity 499
Embezzlement 502
Eminent Domain 504
Equity Jurisdiction and Procedure 516
Errors, Assignment of 525
Escheat 537
Estoppel 538
Estrays 540
Executors and Administrators .... 540
Exhibits 544
Extortion 545
Extradition 545
Factors and Brokers 547
False Imprisonment 549
False Personation 563
Filing 663
Findings and Conclusions 653
Forcible Entry and Detainer .... 657
Forgery 559
Forms of Action 661
Forthcoming Bonds 661
Fraud and Deceit 661
Frauds, Statute of 664
Fraudulent Conveyances 665
Freight Carriers 568
Frivolous and Sham Pleadings .... 570
Game and Fish 671
Gaming 671
Garnishment 673
Gifts 681
Grand Jury 681
Guaranty 682
Guardian Ad Litem 582
Guardian and Ward 686
Habeas Corpus 688
Hawkers and Peddlers 699
Health 699
Hearing 600
Highways, Streets and Bridges.... 600
Homesteads and Exemptions 601
Homicide 604
Husband and Wife 606
Illegality, How Pleaded 607
Immigration 607
Implied and Express Agreements . . 609
Incompetents 611
Indemnity 611
Indians 611
Indictment and Information 611
Inducement 613
Infants 613
Information and Belief 615
Inheritance 615
Injunctions 615
FIRST SUPPLEMENT
TO THE
STANDARD
ENCYCLOPAEDIA
OF
PROCEDURE
(VOLS. 1-12)
>«'i:-*0
\ PLEAS OF
29-B Linam v. Anderson, 12 6a. App.
735, 78 a E. 424; Pittsburgh, C. C. &
8t. L. B. Go. V. Schmuck, 181 Ind. 323,
103 N. B. 325; National Live Stock
Ins. Co. V. Wolfe (Ind. App.), 106 N.
E. 390; Immel v. Herb, 50 Pa. Super.
241.
SO-a Matbifl v, S., 94 Ind. 562; S. r.
Vincent, 91 Md. 718, 47 A. 1036; Lind-
sey V. 8., 69 O. St. 215, 69 N. E. 126;
8. r. Thomas, 61 O. St. 444, 56 N. E.
276; Corthell v, 8., 5 O. €. D. 123; 8.
r. Intoxicating Liquors, 44 Yt. 208;
Cook V. Ter., 3 Wyo. 110, 4 P. 887.
A question going to the legal existence
of the indictment cannot be raised by
plea in abatement. Beynolds v. 8., 1
Ala. App. 24, 55 8. 1016.
Misjoinder of counts cannot be taken
advantage of by plea in abatement.
United States v. Jones, 69 Fed. 973.
Objections to petit Jurors drawn for
the term are not available by plea in
abatement. State v, Thomas, 19 Minn.
484.
Kon-indorsement of names of witnesses
on the indictment. Dietzel r. S. (Tenn.),
177 S. W. 47.
Disqualification of Judge. — Matters
which go to the competency of the
trial judge cannot be set up by plea
in abatement. Wright v, 8., 3 Ala.
App. 24, 58 8. 68. Such plea is not
a proper method of questioning the
title of the presiding judge to his of-
fice. Davis V. 8. (Miss.), 67 8. 178.
But where the court is illegally held,
a plea in abatement and not a demur-
rer is proper method of attacking in-
dictment framed during the sitting of
such court. McBae r. 8., 71 Ga. 96.
30-12 Bogers v, 8., 32 O. C. C. 389,
13 O. 0. C. (N. 8.) 362.
30-13 S. V. Barr, 7 Penne. (Del.)
340, 79 A. 730; 8. V. Finley, 6 Kan.
366; McDaniel v. 8., 8 Okla. Cr. 209,
127 P. 358; 8. t?. McGinley, 153 Wis.
5, 140 N. W. 332.
31-19 8. V. Pile, 5 Ala. 72; Hale v,
8., 10 Ala. App. 22, 64 8. 530; Will-
iams V. 8., 60 Ga. 88; P. 17. Miller, 264
HI. 148, 106 N. E. 191, Ann. Gas. 1915B,
1240; Ford v. 8., 112 Ind. 373, 14 N. E.
241; 8. r. Vincent, 91 Md. 718, 47 A.
1036; Goldsberry i?. 8., 92 Neb. 211,
137 N. W. 1116; 8. i?. Haywood, 73 N.
C. 437; Rsher r. U. 8., 1 Okla. 352,
31 P. 195; S. V. Maloney, 12 B. L
Vol. 1
ABATEMENT, PLEAS OF
251; Chairs v. &,, 124 Tenn. 630, 139
S. W. 711; fcvera f>. S., 117 Tenn. 235,
96 S. W. 956; Brannigan v. P., 3 Utah
488, 24 P. 767; Cook v. Ter., 3 Wyo.
110, 4 P. 887.
Maimer of selecting Juroxs. — ^U. S. v.
Nevin, 199 Fed. 831. See also infra,
58-63.
Must diow ftaud. — ^No objection to the
qualifications of the grand jury can
be taken by plea in abatement except
for fraud in the drawing of the jury.
Wright V. S., 3 Ala. App. 24, 58 So.
68.
32-20 U. S. V. Rockefeller, 221 Fed.
462; Tompkins v, S., 138 Ga. 465, 75
S. E. 594; Ford r. S., 112 Ind. 373, 14
N. E. 241; Donahue v, S., 165 Ind. 148,
74 N. E. 996; Pontier V, S., 107 Md.
384, 68 A. 1059; Huling t?. S., 17 O. St.
583; Brannigan v. P., 3 Utah 488, 24
P. 767; S. V. Henderson, 29 W. Va. 147,
1 S. E. 225.
Prior expressions of opinion on part of
grand juror is not ground for abatement
of the indictment. S. v, Hamlin, 47
Conn. 95, 36 Am. Bep. 54.
That the grand Jurors had already
served at one regular term of the
grand jury may be pleaded in abate-
ment. Tompkins v. S., 138 Ga. 465,
75 8. E. 594.
That a grand juror was a partner in
the burglarized firm is not ground for
plea in abatement. Garnett v, S., 10
Ga. App. 109, 72 S. E. 951.
Juror not drawn at any time, good
ground. Crandall v. S., 2 Ala. App. 112,
56 S. 873.
Bias of grand Juror. — Objection that a
grand juror was related to the person
whom defendant is alleged to have as-
saulted, cannot be taken by plea in
abatement. Collins v. S., 3 Ala. App.
64, 58 S. 80.
Kot drawn in presence of proper of-
ficers.— The only available objection to
the indictment on the ground of dis-
qualifications of grand jurors is that
the grand jury was not drawn in the
presence of the officer designated by
law. Spivey i?. S., 172 Ala. 391, 56
S. 232.
32-22 Donahue 17. S., 165 Ind. 148,
74 N. E. 996.
33-23 Mizell v. S., 184 Ala. 16, 63
S. 1000; Bluett v. S., 151 Ala. 41, 44
S. 84; Curtis v. S., 9 Ala. App. 36, 63
S. 745; Mathes r. S., 3 Ala. App. 7, 57
S. 390.
33-25 Omission of prosecutor's en-
dorsement good ground. Bodes v. S.,
10 Lea (Tenn.) 417.
Evidence presented before grand Jury.
In the federal courts an issue of . fact
as to *what evidence was presented to
the grand jurors may be raised by a
plea in abatement. U. S. v. Swift, 186
Fed. 1002.
Erroneous endorsement. — An indict-
ment endorsed by one who is not a
member of the grand jury may be at-
tacked by plea in abatement. Deitz v.
S., 123 Ind. 85, 23 N. E. 1086.
Presence of unauthorised persons. — ^U.
S. t?. Cobban, 127 Fed. 713; U. S. v.
Terry, 39 Fed. 355; Wilson v, S., 70
Miss. 595, 13 S. 225, 35 Am. St. 664;
Durr V. S., 53 Miss. 425.
33-26 U. S. V. Cobban, 127 Fed. 713;
Sparrenberger v. S., 53 Ala. 481, 25
Am. Bep. 643.
That no vote was taken by the grand
jury is not proper ground for abate-
ment. Creek r. S., 24 Ind. 151.
The rejection of evidence exonerating
the accused is not ground for abate-
ment. U. S. V, Terry, 39 Fed. 355.
Hatters calling for Juror's testimony.
Matters which if true are provable only
by the testimony of the jurors may not
be set up by plea in abatement. XJ. S.
V. Greene, 113 Fed. 683; XJ. S. v, Jones,
69 Fed. 973; TJ. S. v. Terry, 39 Fed.
355.
The presence of a stranger in the grand
jury room, does not render the indict-
ment vulnerable to attack by plea in
abatement. State v. Gilliam, 62 Or.
138, 124 P. 266.
Illegal testimonyjL — ^Beception of ille-
gal testimony is ground for abatement.
U. S. V, Jones, 69 Fed. 973; U. S. t?.
Kilpatrick, 16 Fed. 765; Perkins v, S.,
66 Ala. 457; State v. Dayton, 23 N. J.
L. 49, 53 Am. Dec. 270; Hope 17. P., 83
N. Y. 418, 38 Am. Rep. 460.
Insufficiency of evidence before grand
Jury not a ground, etc. — Creek v. S., 24
Ind. 151; S. t?. Dayton, 23 N. J. L. 49,
53 Am. Dec. 270.
33-28 Merlette v. S., 100 Ala. 42, 14
S. 562; Munkers v. S., 87 Ala. 94, 6 S.
357; Diggs v, S., 49 Ala. 311; Thomas
V, S., 9 Ala. App. 67, 64 S. 192; White
V. S., 7 Ala. App. 69, 61 S. 463; Harper
r. S., 1 Ala. App. 232, 55 S. 258; Pull-
iam 17. Donaldson, 140 Ga. 864, 80 S. E.
I 315; Jordan v. S., 60 Ga. 656; Johnson
2
ABATEMENT, PLEAS OF
Vol. 1
V. S., 7 Ga. App. 551, 67 S. E. 224; S.
V. Bishop, 15 Me. 122; S. r. McGregor,
41 N. H. 407. But see N. J. Comp.
Laws, 1910, p. 1831; W. Va. Code, 1913,
S5559.
TiiltlalH — ^It is not ground for abate-
ment that the accused was described by
the initials of his first and middle name
instead of setting them out in full.
Eaves r. S., 113 Ga. 749, 39 S. E. 318.
But see Gardner r. S., 4 Ind. 632.
A middle name being regarded as en-
tirely immaterial, neither a mistake in
inserting it, nor its omission will sup-
port a plea of this character. Rooks
r. S., 83 Ala. 79, 3 So. 720; Smith v. S.,
8 Ala. App. 187, 62 S. 575.
Immateilal variance. — The names
Books and Bux, if not strictly idem
aonans, are so nearly the same accord-
ing to the rules of English pronouncia-
tion that the variance will not sup-
port a plea in abatement on the ground
of misnomer; and the court may so
decide, without evidence, and without
submitting the question to the jury.
Rooks i\ S., 83 Ala. 79, 3 8. 720.
36-47 Longmore v. Puget Sound T.
L. & P. Co., 78 Wash. 468, 139 P. 191.
See also vol. 1, p. 1034, n. 39.
37-48 Michelin Tire Co. v. Webb,
143 Mo. App. 679, 127 S. W. 948.
AiBdavit in natnre of plea In abate-
ment.— An objection that defendant is
not sued in its proper name cannot be
interposed by demurrer, but should be
presented by answer or affidavit in the
nature of a plea in abatement. Stude-
baker Corp. of America 17. Dodds, 161
Ky. 542, 171 S. W. 167. See also vol.
1, p. 711, n. 23.
38-50 Adler Goldman C. Co. v. Will-
iams, 211 Fed. 530.
A plea in abatement is Improper under
a statute which authorizes only three
kinds of pleas to an indictment; a plea
of (1) guilty; (2) not guilty; (3) a
former judgment of conviction or ac-
quittal. S. V. Gilliam,' 62 Or. 136, 124
P. 266.
3^57 Sloss-Sheffield S. & I. Co. V.
Milbra, 173 Ala. 658, 55 S. 890; Car-
roll r. Bowen, 113 Md. 150, 77 A. 128;
Scholl 17. Belcher, 63 Or. 310, 127 P.
968; Dufur Oil Co. 17. Enos, 59 Or. 528,
117 P. 457; Baflferty v. Davis, 54 Or. 77,
102 P. 305; Chamberlain v, Hibbard, 26
Or. 428, 38 P. 437; Hopwood 17. Pat-
terson, 2 Or. 49.
40-68 Brake t*. Lewis, 13 Ga. App.
276, 79 S. E. 167; Cook 17. Cook, 159
N. O. 46, 74 S. E. 639.
41-60 The seauence la immaterial if
defendant causes the plea in abate-
ment to be disposed of first. Brake
V. Lewis, 13 Ga. App. 276, 79 S. E.
167.
46-1 Verification is mmeceaeary
where the matters called to the court's
attention are apparent from the plead-
ings* Fields & Co. 17. Allison (Tex. Civ.),
171 S. W. 274.
Signature to plea. — ^A plea in abate-
ment may be signed by the prisoner's
attorney. If so signed and verified by
the prisoner it is sufficient. Bohanan
V. S., 15 Neb. 209, 18 N. W. 129.
46-2 A Yerlfication on information
and belief is bad. Bank v. Jones, 1
Swan (Tenn.) 391.
InsolBcient verification. — A verification
in the following words is not sufficient:
''Subscribed and sworn to before me
this 2d day of June, 1910. Wm. Crea-
gan. Notary Public." Chairs v. S.,
124 Tenn. 630, 139 S. W. 711.
Substance of verification. — The affidav-
it verifying a plea in abatement must
be positive as to the truth of every
fact contained in the plea and should
leave nothing to be collected by infer-
ence, it must state that the plea is
true in substance and fact. Chairs v.
S., 124 Tenn. 630, 139 S. W. 711; Bank
V. Jonesi 1 Swan ( Tenn.) 391.
46-8 Hyde r. U. S., 225 U. S. 347, 32
Sup. Ct. 793, 56 L. ed. 1114.
''Manifest injury.*' — An averment that
the action of the court in summoning
the jurors was to the ''manifest in-
jury" of the defendant is not suffi-
cient; it must be shown in what way
such action was injurious. U. S. v.
Merchants' & Miners Transp. Co., 187
Fed. 355.
46-5 XT. S. V. Rockefeller, 221 Fed.
462; Cannon f. S., 62 Fla. 20, 57 S.
240; Priest r. S., 10 Neb. 393, 6 N.
W. 468; Torres r. Ter. (N. M.) 121 P.
27; Cox f. P., 19 Hun (N. Y.) 430;
Ashby 17. S., 124 Tonn. 684, 139 S. W.
872; Chairs r. S., 124 Tenn. 630, 139
S. W. 711.
Setting up irregularities in selection of
Jurors. — Pleas in abatement setting up
mere irregularities in the selection of
jurors, should be drawn with the
greatest accuracy and precision, and
Vol 1
ABATEMENT, PLEAS OF
must be certain to every intent. When
it affirmatively appears that no pos-
sible injury could accrue to a defend-
ant by an irregularity, not amounting
to a substantial departure from the
requirements of law, in the selection
and impaneling of jurors an objecfibn
thereto should not avail. Young v. S.,
r>3 Fla, 55, 58 S. 188.
Amendable defects. — A failure of the
plea to allege that there was not am-
ple evidence before the grand jury,
sufficient to warrant the indictment
other than defendant's books and pa-
pers, if a defect at all, will not cause
a reversal, for the court will permit
an amendment. XT. S. v. Halstead, 38
App. Cas. (D. O.) 69.
Facta constltating a defense. — A plea
in abatement is not required to state
facts sufficient to constitute a defense.
S. t\ Tam, 178 Ind. 313, 99 N. E. 424.
47-7 Torres v. Ter. (N. M.), 121 P.
27; Wagner t?. S., 42 O. St. 537.
48-9 National Live Stock Ins. Co. v,
Wolfe (Ind. App.), 106 N. E. 390.
51-20 Neb. Rev. St., 1913, §9089;
Wyo. Comp. St., 1910, §6191.
51-22 Bright V. S., 76 Ala. 96; Wren
V. S., 70 Ala. 1; Thomas v, S., 9 Ala.
App. 67, 64 S. 192.
51-23 Thus baptized. — ^It is not nec-
essary to allege that he was baptized
by the name set out as his true name.
Bright V. S., 76 Ala. 96.
62-33 Kamp r. Bartlett, 164 HI. App.
338; Leslie r. Bartlett, 164 HI. App.
346; Rosenberg v. Oupersmith, 240 Pa.
162, 87 A. 570, Ann. Cas. 1915A, 312,
47 L. R. A. (N. S.) 706.
54-38 Self t\ Bull, 149 HI. App. 546;
Carroll v, Bowen, 113 Md. 150, 77 A.
128.
56-52 Mullikin v. Cleveland, C. C. &
St. L. R. Co., 164 HI. App. 37; Immel
f. Herb, 50 Pa. Super. 241; Burlew v.
Smith, 68 W. Va. 458, 69 S. E. 908.
56-53 Ross V, Berry, 17 N. M. 48,
124 P. 342.
. 56-54 Brown's Est. v. Stair, 25 Colo.
App. 140, 136 P. 1003; Harvey v. Provi-
dent Inv. Co. (Tex. Civ.), 156 S. W.
1127; Keator v. Whittaker (Tex. Civ.),
147 S. W. 606.
57-56 At first term at which indict-
ment is found if accused has been ar-
rested and, if nol^ then at the first
practicable term after his arrest. How-
ell V. S., 10 Ala. App. 1, 64 S. 522.
57-57 Hyde v. U. S., 225 XT. S 347,
32 Sup. Ct. 793, 66 L. ed. 1114; Chairs
r, S., 124 Tenn. 630, 139 S. W. 711;
Ransom v. S., 116 Tenn. 355, 96 S. W.
953.
Ten days after return of indictment
is too late to file a plea in abatement
for non-indorsement on indictment of
names of witnesses. Dietzelr. S (Tenn.),
177 S. W. 47.
57-58 Dowdell t?. U. S.> 221 U. S.
325, 31 Sup. Ct. 590, 55 L. ed. 753;
Moore-Mansfield Co. v. Marion, etc. Co.,
52 Ind. App. 548, 101 N. E. 15.
58-63 IT. S. t?. Nevin, 199 Fed. 831;
Spivey v. S., 172 Ala. 391, 56 S. 232.
58-64 Before arraignment. — Such a
plea may be filed after indictment and
before arraignment. Pulliam v. Don-
aldson, 140 Ga. 864, 80 S. E. 315; Tomp-
kins t?. S., 138 Ga. 465, 76 S. E. 694.
58-65 Lawrence v. S., 59 Ala. 61;
Linam v, Anderson, 12 Ga. App. 735,
78 S. E. 424.
59-70 Newman v. S., 14 Wis. 426.
By statnte this power is sometimes
withdrawn from trial courts. Morgan
V, S., 8 Ala. App. 172, 63 S. 21.
60-72 Crawford v. S., 112 Ala. 1, 21
S. 214; Wright <?. S., 3 Ala. App. 24,
58 S. 68; S. f?. Pace, 159 N. C. 462, 74
S. E. 1018.
Conditions may be imposed. — ^But see
Cochrane v. S., 6 Md. 400, wherein it
was held that the right to withdraw the
plea of not guilty and to demur to the
indictment, belong to the prisoner un-
conditionally, and is not a matter of
favor to be granted by the court upon
such terms as it may think proper to
impose, the court saying: "By allow-
ing the interposition of the demurrer,
the time of the court is saved, and if
on it, the indictment be quashed, the
prisoner could be re-indicted. We
think the prisoner has the right to
withdraw his plea of not guilty and
put in his demurrer; and this^ was the
decision in the case of Hume r. Ogle,
1 Croke Elizabeth, 196."
61-84 Crandall v. S., 2 Ala. App. 112,
56 S. 873.
64-96 Garnett v. S., 10 Ga. App. 109,
72 S. E. 951. See Hart v, Springfield
Ins. Co., 136 La. 114, 66 S. 558.
64-99 National Live Stock Ins. Co.
V. Wolfe (Ind. App.), 106 N. E. 390.
A demurrer for want of facts constitut-
ing a defense, etc. S. v. Tam^ 178 Ind.
313, 99 N. E. 424.
t"^
4
ABORTION
Vol. 1
65-1 Bookt V. S., 83 Ala. 79, 3 S.
720; Beetor V. 8., 11 Ala. App. 333, 66
S. 857 (demurrer to amended plea);
Bamesciotta v. P., 10 Hun (N. Y.) 137;
Stahl V. 8., 11 O. C. C. 23.
Foim of demuitgr.-— The demniter
should state that the plea does not
state faets sufficient to ^uash the in-
dictment, information or writ, or to
abate the action. 8. v. Tarn, 178 Ind.
313, 99 N. £. i24.
65-2 Ifizell r. S., 184 Ala. 16, 68 S.
1000; Spivey v. S., 172 Ala. 391, 56 8.
232; Curtis c. 8., 9 Ala. App. 36, 63 8.
745.
6e-10 An unlntemglble plea will be
stricken out on motion. Parris f). 8.,
175 Ala. 1, 57 8. 857.
70-32 Harper r. 8., 1 Ala. App. 232,
55 S. 258.
ABBREVIATIONS
75-13 That words "B. L. D.'* as
used in the records of the collector of
internal revenue mean ''Retail Liquor
Dealer" will be judicially noticed.
Billingsley r. 8., 4 Okla. Cr. 597, 113
P. 241.
78-14 Meyer v. Everett Pulp ft
Paper Co., 193 Fed. 857, 113 C. C. A.
643, t* e meaning of abbreviations as-
certained from the correspondence of
the parties.
Ovdinary trade abbxevlatloiis may be
explained by parol. Louisville & N. B.
Co. r. 8outhern Plour & G. Co., 136 Ga.
538, 71 8. £. 884; Wilson-Beheis-Bolfes
Lumb. Co. V. Ware, 158 Mo. App. 179,
138 8. W. 690.
"H" and ••L*\— That "H'' and "L"
mean "high" and "low" may 'be
shown. Halbrook v. Quinlan & Co., 84
Vt. 411, 80 A. 339.
"Div."— It may be shown that "Biv."
means "dividend." Halbrook t?. Quin-
lan ft Co., 84 Vt. 411, 80 A. 339.
As to coqilftinlng abbravlatioiifl in con-
tracts see 1 Ency. of Ev. 29.
70-18 8hillman v. Clardy, 256 Mo.
297, 165 8. W. 1050.
79-5 McKev v. C, 145 Ky. 450, 140
8. W. 658.
81-12 8. V, Demarco, 81 N. J. L.
43, 79 A. 418.
88-37 Absence of consent. — Instruc-
tion must not omit the words "against
her will." McKey v. C, 145 Ky. 450,
140 8. W. 658.
88-30 Joining divorced husband as
plaintiff. — A divorced wife having cus-
tody of child and supporting it, may
sue without joining divorced husband
as plaintiff. Magnuson r. O'Dea, 75
Wash. 574, 135 P. 640, Ann. Cas. 1915B,
1230, 48 L. B. A. (N. 8.) 327.
80-40 Vogt 17. Aldrich (8. D.), 151
N. W. 428.
ABDUOTIOH
78-2 Mere abduction of a female,
without more, is not indictable at com-
mon law nor under Act, April 4, 1901.
C. r. Franciet, 53 Pa. Super. 278.
ABOBTIOir
04-3 8. 17. Harris, 90 Kan. 807, 136
P. 264, 49 L. R. A. (N. S.) 580; 8. r.
Shields, 230 Mo. 91, 130 8. W. 298.
04-4 S. V, Brown, 3 Boyee (Del.)
499, 85 A. 797, defining ** procuring a
miscarriage." 8ee 8. v. Shields, 230
Mo. 91, 130 8. W. 298.
06-0 DeliTery in another connty. — A
physician who attempts to procure an
abortion in one county cannot be con-
victed in county where delivery takes
place. C. r. Bingaman, 51 Pa. Super.
336.
101-38 S. 17. 8hields, 230 Mo. 91,
130 8. W. 298.
106-61 P. r. Guaragna, 23 Cal. App.
120, 137 P. 279.
105-62 Ccmp. P. v. Wah Hing, 15
Cal. App. 195, 114 P. 416; 8. v. Brown,
3 Boyce (Del.) 499, 85 A. 797.
An allegation that the instruments em-
ployed were used 'Mn and about and
within the body" of the person suffi-
ciently indicates the manner in which
the offense was committed. P. t\ Guar-
agna, 23 Cal. App. 120, 137 P. 279.
106-64 A derieal omission from
part of a count of the name of the
woman operated upon will not render
the count insufficient. 8. i?. Brown, 3
Boyce (Del.) 499, 85 A. 797.
108-81 8. 17. Casto, 231 Mo. 398, 132
8. W. 1115.
100-87 ^There nse of drugs alonie
is charged in the indictment, proof that
an instrument caused the death is not
admissible. 8. 17. Sonner, 253 Mo. 440,
161 8. W. 723.
Vol 1
ACCESSORIES AND ACCOMPLICES
111-2 Adylce of pbysiclan, etc.— €.
V. De Groat, 259 Mo. 364, 168 S. W.
702.
112-3 S. V, Massey, 2 Boyce (Del.)
501, 82 A. 243.
112-5 S. r. Brown, 3 Boyce (Del.),
499, 85 A. 797.
112-8 S. r. Brown, 3 Boyce (Del.)
499, 85 A. 797.
117-38 Oonfosliig ''administer" and
"give." — An instruction telling the
jury that to ' ' administer ' * drugs means
to **give" them to a person, is erron-
eous, since to "give" may include the
idea that the drugs are taken into the
stomach. S. v. Stapp, 246 Mo. 338, 151
8. W, 971.
A00E880BIES AND AOOOMPUOES
125-1 C. r. Barton, 153 Ky. 465, 156
8. W. 113.
To constitate an accomplice one most
be 80 connected with a crime that at
common law he might himself have
been convicted either as principal or
an accessory before the fact. P. v,
Sweeney, 213 N. Y. 37, 106 N. E. 913;
P. t?. Bright, 203 N. T. 73, 96 N. E.
362, Ann. Cas. 1913A, 771.
126-2 Mere presence at the scene of
a killing without more does not con-
stitute guilt. 8. V. Larkin, 250 Mo. 218,
157 8. W. 600, 46 L. E. A. (N. 8.) 13.
126-5 Ackley v. TJ. S., 200 Fed. 217,
118 C. C. A. 403; Eaton v. 8., 8 Ala.
App. 136, 63 8. 41; 8. v. Wakefield,
88 Conn. 164, 90 Atl. 230; Bexley v. 8.,
141 Ga. 1, 80 8. E. 314; 8. v, Hoerr,
88 Kan. 573, 129 P. 153- 8kiles r. 8.,
85 Neb. 401, 123 N. W. 447; P. v.
Sweeney, 161 App. Div. 221, 146 N. Y.
8. 637; P. V. Pisano, 142 App. Div. 524,
127 N. Y. 8. 204, 25 N. Y. Or. 460; 8.
V. Eobertson, 166 N. C. 356, 81 8. E,
689; 8. V. 8tart, 66 Or. 178, 132 P. 612;
8. V. Wedemeyer, 65 Or. 198, 132 P.
518; Bragg v, 8., 73 Tex. Cr. 340, 166 8.
W. 162; Ollre v, 8., 57 Tex. Cr. 520,
123 8. W. 1116.
<<Ald" and ''abet" differentiated.
To "aid" does not imply guilty knowl-
edge 0¥ felonious intent, while to
"abet" includes knowledge of the
wrongful purpose of the perpetrator,
and counsel and encouragement of the
crime. P. v. Bond, 13 Cal. App. 175,
109 P. 150.
127-6 Cooper r. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 154
8. W. 989.
127-7 S. r. Bobbitt, 228 Mo. 252,
128 8. W. 953.
128-11 Montgomery i?. 8., 169 Ala.
12, 53 8. 991; McMahan v. 8., 168 Ala.
70, 53 So. 89.
128-12 8. r. Newman (8. C), 80
8. B. 482.
129-15 Buftanan v, 8., 4 Okla. Cr.
645, 112 P. 32, 36 L. B. A. (N. 8.) 83.
130-19 8. V. Lee, 228 Mo. 480, 128
8. W. 987; Buck r. C, 116 Va. 1031, 83
8. E. 390.
130-20 Harrison v. 8. (Tex. Cr.),
153 8. W. 139; Figaroa v. 8., 58 Tex.
Or. 611, 127 8. W. 193.
132-28 Bichardson v, TJ. 8., 181 Fed.
1, 104 C. C. A. 69; P. t?. Hyde, 156 App.
Div. 618, 141 N. Y. 8. 1089; Pierce t*.
8., 130 Tenn. 24, 168 8. W. 851; Espin-
oza V. 8., 73 Tex. Cr. 237, 165 8. W.
208; Silvas t\ 8. (Tex. Cr.), 159 8. W.
223; Cooper t\ 8. (Tex. Cr.), 154 8.
W. 989; Davis v. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 152 8.
W. 1094; Powers v. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 152
S. W. 909; Davis v 8., 61 Tex. Cr. 611,
136 8. W. 45.
Accomplice, not iirincipaL — Pendley r.
Sj (Tex. Cr.), 158 8. W. 811.
182-29 Bichardson v. U. 8., 181 Fed.
1, 104 C. C. A. 69; U. 8. v. Martin, 176
Fed. 110; Gratton v. 8., 4 Ala. App. 172,
59 8. 183; Deal v. 8.. 14 Ga. App. 121,
80 8. E. 537; 8trickland v. 8., 14 Ga.
App. 591, 81 8. E. 819; De Freese c.
Atlanta, 12 Ga. App. 201, 76 8. B. 1077;
Christian v. 8., 9 Ga. App. 61, 70 8. L.
258; Harbuck v. Atlanta, 7 Ga. App.
441, 67 8. E. 108; Shorter v. 8., 179
Ind. 527, 101 N. E. 821; C. v. Bottom,
140 Ky. 212, 130 8. W. 1091; 8. t?.
Treweilder, 103 Miss. 859, 60 8. 1015,
suggestion of error, over., Id. 1039; Rey-
nolds V. Publishers, 155 Mo. App. 612,
135 8. W. 103 ; 8. t?. Warady, 78 N. J. L.
687, 75 A. 977, aff. 77 N. J. L. 348, 72
A. 37; 8. v. Davenport, 156 N. C. 596,
72 8. E. 7; 8. v. Boland Lumb. Co., 153
N. O. 610, C9 8. E. 58; Condron t?. 8., 62
Tex. Cr. 485, 138 8. W. 594; Albright
r. 8., 73 Tex. Cr. 116, 164 S. W. 1001.
Violation of municipal ordinances. — ^By
analogy to the rule in misdemeanor
cases, all who participate either di-
rectly or accessorily in the violation
of a municipal ordinance may be held
as principals. Morse v, Macon, 9 Ga.
App. 829, 72 8. E. 284.
Violating liquor law. — Where a person
rents a house to another knowing that
he intends to use it for the illegal sale
6
ACCESSOniES AND ACCOMPLICES
Vol 1
or storage of intoxicating liquors, he
may be convicted as principal. Moody
V. 3., 14 Ga. App. 523, 81 S. £. 588.
133-32 McMahan v, S., 168 Ala. 70,
53 S. 89; Henderson v, S., 11 Ala. App.
37, 65 8. 721; Tucker v. S., 110 Ark.
633, 162 S. W. 1086; Beagan v. P., 49
Colo. 316, 112 P. 785; S. v. Brown, 2
Boyce (Del.) 405, 80 A. 146; S. 17. Mc-
Callister, 7 Penne. (Del.) 301, 76 A.
226; Lewis v. 8., 13C Ga. 355, 71 S. E.
417; P. V. Barrett, 261 111. 232, 103
N. E. 969; P. v. Archibald, 258 lU. 383,
•101 N. E. 582; P. t?. Van Bever, 248 111.
136, 93 N. E. 725; Anderson v. C, 144
Ky. 215, 137 8. W. 1063; S. v. Gow, 235
Mo. 307, 138 8. W. 648; 8. v, Ostman,
147 Mo. App. 422, 120 8. W. 961; 8. v,
Mangana, 33 Nev. 511, 112 P. 693; 8.
17. 8pence, 81 N. J. L. 265, 79 A. 1029;
S. 17. Wilson, 79 K. J. L. 241, 75 A.
776; P. 17. Katz, 154 App. Div. 44, 139
N. Y. 8. 137; Walker v, 8., 10 Okla.
Cr. 533, 139 P. 711; Metcalf v. 8., 10
Okla. Cr. 77, 133 P. 1130; Howard v.
S., 9 Okla. Cr. 337, 131 P. 1100; Bhea
r. 8., 9 Okla. Cr. 220, 131 P. 729;
Walker r. 8. (Okla. Cr.), 127 P. 895;
Bowes V. 8., S Okla. Cr. 277, 127 P.
883; Wishard v, 8., 5 Okl. Cr. 610, 115
P. 796; Morris f?. 8., 4 Okl. Cr. 233, 111
P. 1096; Moore v. 8., 4 Okl. Cr. 212, 111
P. 822; Greenwood t;. 8., 3 Okl. Cr.
247, 105 P. 371; Cox 17. 8., 3 Okl. Cr.
129, 104 P. 1074, rehear, denied, 105 P.
369; 8. V. Cline, 27 8. D. 573, 132 N.
W. 160; Drysdale v. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 156
S. W. 685; Bass v. 8., 59 Tex. Cr. 186,
127 8. W. 1020; Goode 17. 8. (Tex. Cr.),
123 S. W. 597.
Kot a principal nnlafls present aiding
and abetting. — ^Friend 17. 8., 109 Ark.
498, 160 8. W. 384.
If present^ aiding and assisting one
is responsible for a homicide whether
he iSred the fatal shot or not. Butler
r. 8., 61 Tex. Cr. 133, 134 S. W. 230.
Though in manslaughter there can be
no accomplices, the law of principals
may apply to that offense. Burnam 17.
S., 61 Tex. Cr. 616, 135 8. W. 1175.
Where a murder Is committed in the
perpetration of a robbery by two per-
sons acting in concert, both are guilty
of the murder, though the killing be
the act of one only. O. 17. De Leo, 242
Pa. 510, 89 A. 584.
All persons present aiding and abet-
ting a murder are regarded as princi-
pals and equally guilty. 8. 17. Davis, 88
S. C. 204, 70 8. B. 417.
133-33 A person who stands by and
aids or abets or takes part in a scheme
to get possession of a property at tho
cost of human life, is guilty of murder,
even though he does not himself fire
the fatal shot. 8. 17. Orrayo, 84 N. J.
L. 556, 87 A. 121.
137-46 Pierce v. S., 130 Tenn. 24,
168 8. W. 851; Kaufman v. 8. (Tex.
Cr.), 159 8. W. 58.
Oonvictien of principal necessary. — Tho
party who actually committed the fel-
ony must be proved guilty before evi-
dence is admissible of the guilt of the
accessories before tho fact, though
they are charged as principals. Os-
borne 17. 8., 99 Miss. 410, 54 8o. 450,
55 8. 52.
137-47 Booney r. TJ. S., 203 Fed.
928, 122 C. C. A. 230.
137-48 Cooper 17. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 154
8. W. 989; Harrison v, 8. (Tex. Cr.),
153 8. W. 139; Davis 17. S., 61 Tex. Cr.
611, 136 8. W. 45.
138-50 Merrill 17. 8., 175 Ind. 139,' 93
N. E. 857; Brunaugh 17. 8., 173 Ind.
483, 507, 90 N. E. 1019; P. 17. Katz, 209
N. Y. 311, 103 N. E. 305, 154 App. Div.
44, 139 N. Y. 8. 137.
138-SC Hunter a 8., 104 Ark. 245,
149 3. W. 99; P. v. Trumbley, 252 111.
29, 96 N. E. 573; P. V. Van Bever, 248
111. 136, 93 N. E. 725; P. 17. Lucas, 244
111. 603, 91 N. B. 659; Burnett 17. P.,
204 ni. 208, 68 N. E. 505.
139-57 If an accessory is charged
as principal without showing his rela-
tions to the crime according to the
facts, the charge must be as full and
specific as a charge against one who
commits the criminal act. P. 17. Trum-
bley, 252 m. 29, 96 N. E. 573.
141-62 P. 17. Cryder, 6 Cal. 23: P.
V. Bigler, 5 Cal. 23.
141-63 P. 17. Jordan, 244 HI. 386,
91 N. E. 482.
146-80 P. 17. Jordan, 244 HI. 386, 91
N. E. 482.
147-82 Indictment must allege facta
sufficient to constitute the offense by
the principal. Ex parte Griffin, 33 Nev.
490, 111 P. 939; Ex parte Smith, 33
Nev. 466, 111 P. 930.
167-43 August 17. 8., 11 Ga. App.
798, 76 8. E. 164.
158-44 Where there was evidence
that defendant's son did the shooting,
instructions assuming that actual firing
Vol 1
ACCORD AND SATISFACTION
of the gun by defendant was essential
to conviction were properly refused;
there being evidence of conspiracy.
Smith V. 8., 8 Ala. App. 187, 62 S.
675.
158-48 At common law it was nec-
essary to convict accessories of a fel-
ony of the same species as the prin-
cipal. P. V. Jordan, 244 HI. 386, 91
N. E. 482.
AOOOBD AND 8ATI8FA0TI0N
163-1 Eggland v. South, 22 S. D.
467, 118 N. W. 719.
164-2 Houston Bros, v, Wagner, 28
Okla. 367, 114 P. 1106.
164-3 B. & W. Engineering €o. v.
Beam, 23 Cal. App. 164 137 P. 624.
165-8 Brooklyn B. Co. v. Railroad,
151 App. Div. 465, 135 N. Y. S. 999;
Kochman v. Earp, 130 N. Y. S. 175,
duress.
165-9 Worcester C. Co. f7. Wood's
Sons Co., 209 Mass. 105, 95 N. E. 392;
Houston Bros. c. Wagner, 28 Okla. 367,
114 P. 1106.
165-11 See Marsh v. Fricke, 1 Ala.
App. 649, 56 S. 110.
Waiver. — ^Accord and satisfaction may
be waived. White Walnut C. Co. v.
Min. Co., 162 HI. App. 353, aff, 254 HI.
368, 98 N. E. 669.
165-12 Bell V. Pitman, 143 Ey. 521,
136 S. W. 1026; Houston Bros. v. Wag-
ner, 28 Okla. 367, 114 P. 1106.
165-13 See Galowitz v, Hendlin, 150
N. Y. S. 641.
166-14 Agreement must be exe-
cuted.— ^Brooklyn R. Co. v. Railroad, 151
App. Div. 465, 135 N. Y. S. 990.
Acceptance of new agreement.— Bell
r. Pitman, 143 Ey. 521, 136 S. W. 1026,
35 L. R. A. (N. S.) 820.
167-15 Fuller v. Smith, 107 Me. 161,
77 A. 706.
167-17 Abercrombie r. Qoode (Ala.),
65 S. 816; Forrester v. Linebaugh, 95
Ark. 623, 128 S. W. 855; De Vaughn v,
Rothchild, 14 Ga. App. 660, 82 S. E.
152; Fuller t?. Smith, 107 Me. 161, 77
A. 706; Scheffenacker v, Hoopes, 77
Md. Ill, 77 A. 130; Scott v. Imp. Co.,
241 Mo. 112, 145 S. W. 48; Brady t?. N.
J. Fidelity Ins. Co., 180 Mo. App. 214,
167 S. W. 1171; Brooklyn B. Co. v.
Railroad, 151 App. Div. 465, 135 N.
Y. S. 990; Slocum Co. v. St. Clair, 52
Pa. Super. 98; Philadelphia B Ss W. B.
Co. r. Walker, 45 Pa. Snper 524; Siegele
V. Ins. Assn., 28 S. D. 142, 132 N. W.
697; Hagen v. Townsend, 27 S. D. 457,
131 N. W. 512; Smoot V, Checketts, 41
Utah 211, 125 P. 412.
167-19 Valne recalTdd does not af-
fect validity. Beebe v. Worth, 146 N.
Y. S. 146.
168-20 Alabama City By. Co. v.
Gadsen, 185 Ala. 263, 64 S. 91; West-
em By. Co. V, Foshee, 183 Ala. 182, 62
S. 500; Cunningham C. Co. 17. Grain
Co., 98 Ark. 269, 135 S. W. 831; Meyer
V. Cement Co., 21 Cal. App. 602, 132 P.
611; Walliter v. Chicago Traction Co.,
245 HI. 148, 91 N. E. 1053; Day Lumb.
Co. V. Serrell, 177 HI. App. 30; Eunz
V, Ginocchio, 166 HI. App. 531; Anson
€7. Ins. Co., 162 HI. App. 505, af,, 252
HI. 369, 96 N. E. 846, 37 L. B. A. (N. S.)
555; Sparks v. Spaulding Mfg. Co., 158
la. 491, 139 N. W. 1083; Chapin v.
Little Blue School, 110 Me. 415, 86 A.
838; Fuller r. Smith, 107 Me. 161, 77
A. 706; Scheffenacker 17. Hoopes, 77 Md.
Ill, 77 A. 130; Olson 17. Parnsworth,
97 Neb. 407, 150 N. W. 260; Rose v,
American Paper Co., 83 N. J. L. 707,
85 A. 354; Castelli v. Jerrissati, 80 N.
J. L. 295, 78 A. 227; Post v. Thomas,
212 N. Y. 264, 106 N. E. 69; Dunn r.
Lippard Motor Car Co., 144 N. Y. S.
349; Metropolitan Shirt Waist Co. v.
Earmmer, 138 N. Y. S. 1067; McEenty
V. Oceanus Mfg. Co., 123 N. Y. S. 983;
Seeds, etc. Co. v. Conger, 83 O. St. 169,
93 N. E. 892, 32 L. R. A. (N. S.) 380;
Polin V, Weisbrot, 52 Pa. Super. 312,
86 A. 838; Hollinger 17. Granite Co.
(Tex. Civ.), 173 S. W. 603; Bergman
Produce Co. v. Brown (Tex. Civ.), 172
S. W. 554; Olson 17. Burton (Tex. Civ.),
141 S. W. 549; Cristler i?. Williams
(Tex. Civ.), 130 S. W. 608.
Must be dispute as to amount due.
White Walnut C. Co. 17. Min. Co., 162
HI. App. 353, aff, 254 HI. 368, 98 N. E.
669. Must be a bona fide dispute.
Baugh 17. Fist, 84 Ean. 740, 115 P.
551; Ogilvie f), Lee, 158 Mo. App. 493,
138 S. W. 926; Thayer 17. Harbican, 70
Wash. 278, 126 P. 625.
A dlqpnte as to matter of law as well
as of fact will sustain an accord and
satisfaction. So. Side Coal Co. r.
Gross, 157 HI. App. 218.
Betention of check containing teceipt
in full without indorsement thereon
does not constitute accord and sfeitisf ac-
tion* Groh 17. Great Eastern Casualty
Co., 155 HI. App. 18.
8
ACCOUNT AND ACCOUNTING
Vol. 1
The Bom recelyied 'mast W less than
what he is entitled to receive; it must
have been given in full satisfaction and
the creditor must have received it as
snch- Perin r. Cathcart, 115 la. 553, 89
K W. 12; Seattle B. Co. t?. Power €o.,
63 Wash. 039, 116 P. 289.
168-21 Heard r. Armstrong, 10 Ala.
App. 657 65 S. 849; Holslag v, Morse,
188 IlL App. 607; Worth Huskey Coal
Co. 1?. Parker Co., 157 HI. App. 199;
American Seeding Mach. Co. v. Baker,
55 Ind. App. 625, 104 N. E. 524; Cun-
ningham V, Irwin (Mich.), 148 N. W.
786; Baccaria v. Landers, 84 Misc. 396,
146 N. Y. 8. 158; Parker v. Mayes, 85
8. C. 419, 67 S. E. 559, 137 Am. St. 912;
Hagen t?. Townsend, 27 8. D. 457, 131
N. W. 512; Smoot v. Checketts, 41 Uteh
211, 125 P. 412; O'Connell V, Arai, 63
Wash. 280, 115 Pac. 95.
Boas not apply to balance claimed as
interest by way of damages. Ben-
nett r. Coal Co., 70 W. Va. 456, 74 S.
E. 418, Ann. Cas. 1913E, 678, 40 L. E.
A. (N. S.) 588.
Mistalce in amount. — ^Barber Asphalt
Pav. Co. r. Mullen (Mass.), 107 N. E.
978.
As between attorney and client. — Oen.
Fireproof Const. Co. r. Bntterfield, 143
App. Biv. 708, 128 N. Y. 8. 407.
169-24 See Ikard v. Armstrong, 10
Ala. App. 657, 65 8. 849.
171-30 Williams v. Tzzell, 108 Ark.
241, 156 S. W. 843.
172-36 Klair v. R. Co., 2 Boyce
(Del.) 274, 78 A. 1085.
Effect of not pleading. — Dickson v.
Wainwright, 137 Ga. 299, 73 S. E. 515.
173-37 Poer r. Johnson, 48 Ind.
App. 596, 96 N. E. 189; Crilly v. Buyle,
87 Neb. 367, 127 N. W. 251; First Nat.
Bank r. Latham, 37 Okla. 286, 132 P.
891.
173-39 Williams v, XJzzell, 108 Ark.
241, 156 S. W. 843; B. ft W. Engineer-
ing Co. V. Beam, 23 Cal. App. 164, 137
P. 624; Grand Lodge V. Grand Lodge,
83 Conn. 241, 76 A. 533.
of the answer may be made
to set up accord and satisfaction
brought out in the evidence. Engineer-
ing Co. V. Beam, 23 Cal. App. 164, 137
P. 624.
173-40 B. ft W. Engineering Co. v.
Beam, 23 Cal. App. 164, 137 P. 624.
176-48 Cahaba Coal Co. v. Hanby, 7
Ala. App. 282, 61 S. 3%
180-61 .iliat the claim was ih dis-
pute when lessor amount was accepted,
must be alleged. Louisiana Lumb. Co.
i\ Farrior Lumb. Co., 9 Ala. App. 383,
63 S. 788; Wilder v. Millard, 93 Neb.
595, 141 N. W. 156. . ,
181-63 Frederick v. Moran, 90 Neb.
96, 132 N. W. 935; Sawyer V, Haw-
thorne (la.), 149 N. W. 512.
184-77 Deming Inv. Co. r. McLaugh-
lin, 30 Okla. 20, 118 P. 380.
184-78 But see Business Men's R.
Co. r. Comet Co., 152 App. Div. 941,
137 N. Y. S. 823.
187-88 Purdy v. Van Keuren, 60
Ore. 263, 119 P. 149.
189-2 Dana v. Gulf, etc. R. Co.
(Miss.), 64 S. 214.
190-9 Babcock v, Huntoon (R. L),
93 A. 911.
191-13 Ryan r. Progressive Retailer
Pub. Co. (Ga. App.), 84 S. E. 834;
Fuller 17. Smith, 107 Me. 161, 77 A.
706; Worcester C. Co. t?. Wood's Sons
Co., 209 Mass. 105, 95 N. E. 392; Mur-
phy r. Lungstrass Co., 187 Mo. App.
577, 174 S. W. 114; St. Pierre v. Peer-
less Casualty Co. (N. H.), 92 A. 840;
Ross V. Am. Paper Co., 83 N. J. L. 707,
85 A. 354; Castelli T. Jereissati, 80 N.
J. L. 295, 78 A. 227; Schuller r. Robison,
139 App. Div. 97, 123 N. Y. S. 881;
Eng 17. Cammann, 85 Misc. 27, 147 N.
Y. 8. 23; Babcock <?. Huntoon (R. I.),
93 A. 911.
Qaestion of intont for Jury. — ^Rosser v.
Bynum (N. C), 84 S. E. 393.
191-14 Hunnicut L. Co. V. R. Co.,
2 Ala. App. 436, 57 S. 73; Powley v.
Thompson, 173 HI. App. 333; Scott v.
Parkview B. & I, Co., 241 Mo. 112,
146 8. W. 48; Brewster 17. Silverstein,
78 Misc. 123, 137 N. Y. S. 912; Ransom
V. Crawford, 44 Pa. Super. 592; Bab-
cock V. Huntoon (R. L), 93 A. 911.
ACXX>XJNT Ain> AOCOtTNTIKa
203-5 An account stated is an ac-
count balanced and rendered, with an
assent to the balance, express or im-
plied. Pox 17. Patachinkoflf, 132 N. Y.
S. 840.
Agreement to settle a tort at a stated
sum is not provable as an account
stated. Pudas v. Mattala, 173 Mich.
189, 138 N. W. 1052, 45 L. R. A. (\.
S.) 534.
203-6 S. r. R. Co., 246 HI. 188, 92
N. E. 814, 815. ^
9
Vol 1
ACCOUNT AND ACCOVNTINO
210-31 Napolean Hill C. Co. v. Gray,
99 Ark. 648, 137 S. W. 827; Tatrano %,
Pedersen, 21 Cal. App. 585, 132 P.
608; Vance v. Supreme Lodge, 15 Cal.
App. 178, 114 P. 83; Rosenbaum v. M<!-
Ewen, 24 Colo. App. 58, 131 P. 780;
S. V, IllinoiB Cent. R. Co., 246 ni. 188,
92 N. E. 814, 816; Dean k Son v. w!
B. Conkey Co., 180 111. App. 162;
IT. S. Health & Ace. Ins. Co. r. Batt,
49 Ind. App. 277, 97 N. E. 195; Mc-
Mahon v. Brown, 219 Mass. 23, 106
N. E. 576; Thomasma V. Carpenter, 175
Mich. 428, 141 K W. 559, Ann. Cas.
1915A, 690, 45 L. R. A. (N. 8.) 543;
Western Newspaper Union v. Piano
Mfg. Co., 118 Minn. 230, 136 N. W.
752 ; Adam Roth G. Co. t?. Hotel Monti-
cello Co., 183 Mo. App. 429, 166 S. W.
1125; Schultheis f?. Caughey, 146 App.
Div. 102, 130 N. Y. 8. 373; Bauer v.
Ambs, 144 App. Div. 274, 128 N. Y.
S. 1024; Stein r. Stein, 140 App. Div.
306, 125 N. Y. S. 244; Vernon v, Eng-
lish, 124 N. Y. S. 675; Harrison v. Bir-
rell, 58 Or. 410, 115 P. 141.
What constitntea— Barker Auto Co. v.
Bennett, 219 Mass. 304, 106 N. E. 990.
Beceiver does not act as agent. — ^A re-
ceiver, being an officer of the court, his
failure to object to the disallowance of
interest on the balances of trust funds
on deposit held not to render such bal-
ances accounts stated. Stone fJ. Trust
Co., 183 Mo. App. 261, 166 8. W. 1091.
211-32 Bassick G. M. Co. vl Beards-
ley, 49 Colo. 275, 112 P. 770, 33 L. R.
A. (N. S.) 852; MacPherson t?. Hard-
ing, 40 App. Cas. (D. C.) 404; Generes
t\ Security Life Ins. Co. (Tex. Civ.),
163 S. W. 386.
211-33 Joshua Henry Iron Wks. v,
Brenneman, 185 Fed. 183; Stewart f?.
L. Lasseter & Co., 4 Ala. App. 665, 59
S. 233; Atkinson r. Golden Gate Tile
Co., 21 Cal. App. 168, 131 P. 107; Vance
17. Supreme Lodge, 15 Cal. App. 178,
114 P. 83; W. A. Parkinson Co. V,
Tullgren, 177 111. App. 295; Rudolph
Wurlitzer Co. t?. Dickinson, 153 111.
App. 36, judgment a^., 247 HI. 27, 93
N. E. 132; First Nat. Bank t?. Peck,
180 Ind. 649, 103 N. E. 643; Graham
& Corry t?. Work, 162 la. 383, 141 N.
W. 428; Western Newspaper Union t?.
Piano Mfg. Co., 118 Minn. 230, 136
N. W. 752; Alexander v. Scott, 150 Mo.
App. 213, 129 S. W. 991; Bradley v.
McDonald, 157 App. Div. 572, 142 N.
Y. S. 702; Daintrey v. Evans, 148 App.
Div. 275, 132 N. Y. S. 126; Audley v. I
Jester, 148 App. Div. 94, 132 N. Y.
S. 1061; Hanan V. Sanford, 69 Or.
204, 137 P. 772; Bailey v. Frazier, 62
Or. 142, 124 P. 643; Miller v. Ryder,
145 Wis. 626, 130 N. W. 518.
Written promlBes not to dispute bill,
accompanied by excuses for failure to
pay it do not amount to an implied
account stated. McDonald v. Moss-
man, 181 Mo. App. 475, 168 S. W.
816.
Presumption ftom acquiescence. — Fail-
ure to object only raises a presumption
of assent to an account rendered, and a
contrary conclusion may be shown.
Kent r. Wilson, 149 App. Div. 841, 134
N. Y. a 206.
Mere silence by one when a bill is pre-
sented is not in itself a ground for
presuming acquiescence in its correct-
ness. King V, Kahn, 157 HI. App. 251.
An acconnt rendered and not objected
to within reasonable time becomes an
account stated. Carlisle v. Norris, 144
App. Div. 690, 129 N. Y. S. 585; Har-
rison c. Birrell, 58 Or. 410. 115 P.
141.
Though error exists in an account ren-
dered it may become stated by virtue
of retention without objection. Pick-
ham V. Illinois, Iowa & M. R. Co., 153
IlL App. 281.
212^4 Toric Optical Co. f>. Bech-
told, 138 N. Y. S. 1078.
Dlstingulsbed ttom account stated.
Culver V, Newhart, 18 Cal. App. 614,
123 P. 975.
213-36 Townsend v. Carter Const.
Co., 165 App. Div. 973. 150 N. T. S.
757.
216-44 Mere conflict in claim to oil
royalty does not assure equity jurisdic-
tion. Peterson v. Smith (W. Va.), 84
S. E. 250.
220-65 Southern R. Co. <?. Grant, 136
Ga. 303, 71 S. E. 422, Ann. Cas. 1912C,
472.
221-67 Rev. St., 1909, $1832; Reed v.
Kansas, etc Co. (Mo. App.), 174 S. W.
110.
223-77 Stansfield v. Dunne (Ariz.),
141 P. 736.
227-2 Chicago Crayon Co. I?. Choate,
102 .Ark. 603, 145 S. W. 197.
227-4 Carpenter v. Gray, 113 Va.
518, 75 S. E. 300.
228-6 Rotan Grocery Co. t?. Tatum
(Tex. Civ.), 149 g, W. 842.
1ft
ACCOUNT AND ACCOUNTING
Vol. 1
231-34 Chicago Crayon Co. r.
Choate, 102 Ark. 603, 145 8. W. 197;
Day r. Thomas, 2 Boyce (Del.) 488, 82
A. 237; Continental Lumber & Tie Co.
r. Miller (Tex. Oiv.), 145 S. W. 735.
232-40 Becovwy limited to items
alleged and proved. Armour & Co. v,
Bluthenthal, 9 Ga. App. 707, 72 S. E.
168.
23e-81 Smythe v. Dothan Foundry
k Macfa. Co., 166 Ala. 253, 52 S. 398;
Dixie Industrial Co. v. Manly, 2 Ala.
App. 365, 57 S. 49.
23T-9T Bergman Produce Co. v.
Brown (Tex. Civ.), 141 S. W. 153.
240-35 Priedman, Keller & Co. v.
Olson (Mo. App.), 173 S. W. 28. |
242*44 Ventress v. Gunn, 6 Ala.
App. 226, 60 S. 560.
243-53 United States Health & Ace.
Ins. Co. c. Batt, 49 Ind. App. 277, 97
N. E. 195.
243-55 Action on 1)alance agreed to.
Davidson Grocery Co. v. Johnston, 24
Ida. 336, 133 P. 929.
244-58 Joshua Hendry Iron Wks. v.
Brenneman, 185 Fed. 183.
Effect of not averring an account
stated. — ^Where the complaint does not
aver an account stated, plaintiff may
only recover money claimed to be due
by proving the original indebtedness.
O'LaughHn f?. Ayrault, 133 N. Y. S.
444.
24T-7T Murphey v. Springs & Co.,
200 Fed. 372, 118 C. C. A. 524, 45 L.
K. A. (N. 8.) 539.
247-T9 Defendant may diow under
a general denial any fact destroying
the cause of action, including payment
of the debt. Mayer Coal Co. v. Stall-
smith, 89 Kan. 81, 129 P. 831.
247-81 Bremer u. Ring, 146 App.
Div. 724, 131 N. Y. S. 487.
Frandt accident or mistake must be
specially pleaded. Barr I?. Lake, 147
Mo. App. 252, 126 S. W. 755.
249^3 Bosenbaum t?. McEwen, 24
Colo. App. 58, 131 P. 780.
249-94 Arkansas Fertilizer Co. f.
Banks, 95 Ark. 86, 128 S. W. 566;
MacPherson v. Harding, 40 App. Cas.
(D. C.) 404; Schmoker V. Miller, 89
Kan. 594, 132 P. 158; Bumham v.
Black, 121 N. Y. S. 616.
250-2 Jackson r. White, 188 Fed.
775, 110 C. O. A. 481; WillUms v.
Rutherford Realty Co., 159 App. Div.
171, 144 N. Y. S. 357.
250-5 South & N. A. R. Co. v. Louis-
ville & N. R. Co., 170 Ala. 265, 53 S.
1018.
250-6 S. 1?. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 246
m. 188, 92 N. E. 814, 816.
250-7 S. r. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 246
111. 188, 92 N. E. 814, 816.
250-9 United States Health & Ace.
Ins. Co. I'. Batt, 49 Ind. App. 277, 97
N. E. 195.
251-19 Hodges v. Kyle, 9 Ala. App.
449, 63 S. 761.
Defendant not precluded from disput-
ing any item. Jones v. University Re-
search Extension, 157 111. App. 132.
252-21 Treacy i\ Power, 112 Minn.
226, 127 N. W. 936.
252-29 Rosenbaum v, McEwen, 24
Colo. App. 58, 131 P. 780.
254-45 Loewer v. Lonoke Rice Mill.
Co., Ill Ark. 62, 161 S. W. 1042.
254-50 Generes v. Security Life Ins.
Co. (Tex. Civ.), 163 S. W. 386.
257-69 S. V, Illinois Cent. R. Co.,
246 m. 188, 92 N. E. 814, 817.
258-73 Barker Auto Co. v, Bennett,
219 Mass. 304, 106 N. E. 990.
263-94 Chrichton r. Hayles, 176
Ala. 223, 57 S. 696.
263-95 Holden v. Butler, 173 Mich.
116, 138 N. W. 1071; Title Guaranty &
Surety Co. v, Aetna Indem. Co.^ 167
Mich. 535, 133 N. W. 515; Clements v.
W. S. Cooper Co., 136 N. Y. S. 93;
Hurlburt v. Morris, 68 Or. 259, 135
P. 531.
268-98 Phalin v. Dearman, 181 Ala.
320, 61 S. 941; Mitchem v, Georgia
Cotton Oil Co., 139 Ga. 519, 77 S. E.
627; Laubengayer v. Rohde, 167 Mich.
605, 133 N. W. 535.
269-99 Hattiesburg Lumb. Co. v.
Herrick, 212 Fed. 834, 129 C. C. A.
288; U. S. V. Harsha, 188 Fed. 759;
Escambia County v. Blount Const. Co.,
66 Fla. 129, 62 S. 650; Ely v. King-
Richardson Co., 265 111. 148, 106 N. E.
619, L. R. A. 1915B, 1052; Manville v,
King-Richardson Co., 182 111. App. 224.
270-1 Ely V. King-Richardson Co.,
265 111. 148, 106 N. E. 619, L. R. A.
1915B, 1052; Belcher V. Big Four Coal
& C. Co., 68 W. Va. 716, 70 S. E. 712.
Where the discovery prayed for is only
in aid of an accounting, and the court
is without jurisdiction to render an ac-
11
Vol. 1
ACCOUNT AND ACCOJJNTINO
counting, the jurisdiction will not be
sustained on the ground that the peti-
tion is in the nature of a bill for dis-
covery. S. v. Denton, 229 Mo. 187,
129 S. W. 709, 138 Am. St. 417.
271-2 Symmers f?. Carroll, 207 N.
Y. 632, 101 N. E. 698, Ann. Cas. 1914C,
685, 47 L. B. A. (N. 8.) 196, af. order
149 App. Div. 641, 134 N. Y. S. 170.
271-4 Hicks V. Penn Mut. Life Ins.
Co., 210 Fed. 464; Morris & Co. r.
Whitley, 182 Fed. 286, decree rev., 183
Fed. 764, 106 C. C. A. 206; Farrar f?.
PUlsbury, 217 Mass. 330- 104 N. E.
737.
271-5 Levitan f. Houghton Nat
Bank, 182 Mich. 30, 148 N. W. 388.
272-13 Holmes v.. Wakelin, 48 Pa.
Super. 643.
273-14 Belcher v. Big Four Coal &
C. Co., 68 W. Va. 716, 70 S. E. 712.
273-15 Arkadelphia Mill Co. v.
Barker, 109 Ark. 171, 159 S. W. 208;
Excelsior Wrapper Co. V. Ynnd, 176
Mich. 372, 142 N. W. 353.
273-16 Hurlburt v. Morris, 68 Or.
259, 135 P. 531.
A railway company operattng its trains
over the tracks of another company
under a joint arrangement, may main-
tain a suit in equity ^r an account-
ing on injuries sustained by collision
and wrecks due to the negligence of
sueh other company; the remedy at law
for damages being inadequate. New
Orleans, etc. B. Co. v. New Orleans
Great Northern B. Co. (Miss.), 65 S.
508.
273-17 Yaldes r. Larrinaga, 233 IT.
S. 705, 34 Sup. Ct. 750, 58 L. ed. 704;
Gayle v. Pennington, 185 Ala. 53, 64
S. 572; McArthur v, Blaisdell, 159 Cal.
604, 115 P. 52; Noble v. Burnett Co.,
208 Mass. 75, 94 N. E. 289; Graham v,
Graham, 171 Mich. 307, 137 N. W. 153;
Kasovits V. Hungarian, etc. Ben. Soc,
130 N. Y. S. 72; Crennell f?. Fulton, 241
Pa. 572, 88 A. 783.
274-22 Morris & Co. «. Whitley, 183
Fed. 764, 106 C. C. A. 206, rev. decree,
182 Fed. 286.
274-26 Cascaden v, Dunbar, 3 Alaska
671; China & Japan Trading Co. v.
Provand, 155 App. Div. 171, 140 N. Y.
3. 79; Milwaukee Boston Store v, Katz,
153 Wis. 492, 140 N. W. 1038.
275-27 Complicated accounts. — A
bill for accounting will lie against a
county officer and his bondsmen, where
the bill shows facts which would ren-
der an accounting at law complicated,
if not impossible, and the discovery is
sought. Compton v. Gilder, 176 Ala.
309, 58 S. 271.
276-29 And vice versa.- -McNulty
a Gilbert, 154 App. Div. 297, 138 N.
y. S. 996.
277-32 Ktr where there is an ade-
quate remedy at law. Lannin v. Lynn
(Mich.), 151 N. W. 645.
277-35 Mayfield v. Berainger, 87 S.
C. 36i', 69 S. £. 673.
278-37 Driver v. Brunemer, 40 App.
Cas. (D. C.) 105.
282-44 Orieb r. Equitable Life
Assur. Soc., 189 Fed. 498.
282-S2 Or against ether belX8«— Two
of the heirs of a decedent may com-
pel an accounting by a third, whom
they charge with having secured a
large amount of the personal property
by fraud and undue influence. Powell
r. Pennock, 181 Mich. 688, 148 N. W.
430.
283-53 Vermeule v. Vermeule, 82
N. J. Eq. 434, 89 A. 535.
284-58 Poteet f. Imbaden, 73 W.
Va. 667, 80 S. E. 958.
286-76 Findley r. Warren, 244 Pa.
64, 90 A. 457.
288-84 Must negative remedy at
law. — A complaint for an accounting in
equity, which, fails to show that plain-
tiff has no adequate remedy at law, is
bad on demurrer. Stewart i?. Auer-
bach, 148 App. Div. 222, 132 N. Y. S.
1021.
288-85 Tice r. Dickerson, 60 Pla.
380, 53 S. 645.
289-87 Setting forth fiduciary rela-
tion.— A complaint alleging that
money was intrusted to an attorney for
a particular purpose, sufficiently avers
a fiduciary relation. Tiffany r. Hess,
122 N. Y. S. 482.
289-90 When demand onnecessary.
Where an account is complicated, giv-
ing rise to an independent equity, a
preliminary personal demand for an
accounting before resorting to equity
is not necessary. Chrichton v. Hayles,
176 Ala. 223, 57 S. 696.
An opportunity to aoconnt must be
given to the adverse party. Alywin
v. Morley, 41 Mont. 191, 108 P. 778.
289-91 Degree of certainty.— The
bill must be suflciently certain to ap-
12
ADJOINING LANDOWNERS
Vol. 1
priM the defendant of the matters as
to which he is ealled npon to account.
S. r. niinois Cent. B. Co., 246 111. 188,
92 N. E. 814, 816.
MatteiB witliin advene party's knowl-
edge.-—Bill need not contain precise al-
legations of matters charged to rest
in^ the knowledge of defendant con-
stituting the subject of a part of the
diseovery sought. 8. v. Illinois Cent.
R. Co., 246 111. 188, 92 N. E. 814, 816.
29O-03 Lindsey Lumb. Co. v. Mason,
165 Ala- 194, 51 S. 750.
291^ Pickett v. Pearsons, 17 Vt.
470.
South & N. A. R. Co. V. Louis-
vUle ft N. R. Co., 170 Ala. 265, 53 S.
1016.
296-27 AiipUcation of doctrine of
laches is largely a matter of discretion.
A court of equity will ordinarily give
effect to the statute of limitations but
obeys the spirit rather than the letter
of the statute. Sullivan v. Railroad
Co., 94 U. S. 806, 24 L. ed. 324; Mace
r. Ship Pond Land, etc. Co., 112 Me.
420, 92 A. 486; Lawrence v. Rokes, 61
Me. 38. So where lapse of time has
not changed the situation of parties
the right to recover what is admitted
due will not be denied. Mace v. Ship
Pond Land, etc. Co., 112 Me. 420, 92
A. 486; Spanlding v. Farwell, 70 Me.
El^teen jBtoB* delay not fatal, if ex-
plained. Briver 17. Brunemer. 40 App.
Cas. (D. C.) 105.
300-51 O'Eelley v. Clark, 184 Ala.
391, 63 S. 948.
301-52 Thomas v. Turner, 157 HI.
App. 16.
303-64 Del Genovese v. Del Geno-
vese, 149 App. Div. 266, 133 N. Y. S.
765.
304-68 Munn & Co. v. Americana
Co. (X. J. L.), 92 A. 344.
306-88 Patterson v. Northern Trust
Co., 170 IlL App. 501.
306-S9 It Is optional with the Judge
to settle the account himself or send
it to a master. McCarthy r. Gordon,
211 Mass. 115, 97 N. E. 88.
398-95 Crowley t?. McCambridge,
154 m. App. 135.
398-96 Pox r. Hall, 164 Cal. 287,
128 P. 749.
314-40 American Bonding Co. V. S.,
120 Md. 305, 87 A. 922.
Personal Judgment.— -In a suit in equity
for an accounting, the court may ren-
der a personal judgment where a more
specific remedy is not practicable.
Title Ins. & Trust Co. v, IngersolL 158
Cal. 474, 111 P. 360.
ADJOINIKa LANDOWNERS
317-1 Parker r, Hodgson, 172 A.la.
632, 55 S. 818; Langhorne v. Turman,
141 Ky. 809, 133 S. W. 1008, 34 L.
R. A. (N. S.) 211; Hanrahan v. Balti-
more. 114 Md. 517, 80 A. 312; Steeneck
V. O'Leary, etc. Co., 80 Misc. 507, 141
N. Y. S. 572; Bicak r. Bundle, 78 Misc.
358, 138 N. Y. S. 413; Bloomingdale
c. Duffy, 71 Misc. 136, 127 N. Y. S.
1080; Cooper v, Altoona Co., 53 Pa.
Super. 141; Walker r. Strosnider, 67
W. Va. 39, 67 S. E. 1087.
319-5 Walker r. Strosnider, 67 W.
Va. 39, 67 S. E. 1087.
319-6 Foundation of action is not
negligence, but the violation of prop-
erty rights. Freseman v, Purvis, 51 Pa.
Super. 506.
320-10 Louden r. City of Cincin-
nati (Ohio), 106 N. £. 970.
321-13 Elston «. McGlauflin, 79
Wash. 355, 140 P. 396.
322-17 Bloomingdale r. Duffy, 71
Misc. 136, 127 N. Y. S. 1080, ajf., 130
N. Y. S. 1105.
322-18 Parker v. Hodgson, 172 Ala.
632, 55 S. 818; Noceto v. Weill, 166
Dl. App. 162; Jamison t?. Myrtle Lodge,
158 la. 264, 139 N. W. 647; Bissell t?.
Ford, 176 Mich. 64, 141 N. W. 860;
Steeneck v, O'Leary, etc. Co., 80 Misc.
507, 141 N. Y. S, 572; Weiss <?. Kohl-
hagen, 58 Ore. 144, 113 P. 46; Cooper
r. Altoona, etc.. Co, 231 Pa 557, 80
A. 1047; Cooper v, Altoona Co., 53 Pa.
Super. 141; Walker r. Strosnider, 67
W. Va. 39, 67 S. E. 1087.
323-19 Jamison r. Myrtle Lodge,
158 la. 264, 139 N. W. 547; Walker
r. Strosnider, 67 W. Va. 39, 67 S. E.
1087.
32S-2S Patrick r. Smith, 75 Wash.
407, 134 P. 1076, 48 L. B. A. (N. B)
740; Walker v, Strosnider, 67 W. Va.
39, 67 S. E. 1087. See Lexington Ry.
Co. V. Baker, 156 Ky. 431, 161 S. W.
228.
Where rock or other debris are thrown
on adjoining land it "^mounts to tres-
pass for which defendant is liable re-
18
Vol. 1
ADMIRALTY
gardleRS of negligence, unless an ex-
press easement against premises has
been acquired. Ex parte Birmingham
Realty Co., 183 Ala. 444, 63 8. 67;
Birmingham Co. t\ Grover, 159 Ala.
276, 4S S. 682; Sloss-Sheffield Steel &
Iron Co. V. Salser, 158 Ala. 511, 48 S.
374. But "Where defendant held under
a deed from plaintiff allowing ease-
ment to use land in any manner neces-
sary to quarry or blast, the mere fact
that stones fell on plaintiff's land and
injured his property would not render
defendant liable in trespass for the in-
jury. Spencer t?. Gainesville, 140 Ga.
632, 79 S. E. 543. See Scott v. Bay, 3
Md. 431; Casselberry v. Ames, 13 Mo.
A pp. 575; Arthur v. Henry, 157 N. C.
393, 73 S. E. 206.
Use of high power explosives.— Parties
using such are liable irrespective of
the question of negligence or :want of
skill. Louden v. Cincinnati (Ohio), 106
N. E. 970.
326-26 Deubel v. Const. Co., 80 N.
J. L. 98, 77 A. 611; Stancourt Laun-
dry Co. V. Lamura, 147 N. Y. S. 895.
For the ordinary discomforts and in-
jurious effects attendant upon lawful
operations on his own premises, not
constituting a nuisance, there is no
liability except for proximate negli-
gence in mode of operation. Ex parte
Birmingham Bealty Co., 183 Ala. 444,
63 S. 67.
327-30 Eudnick v. Murphy, 213
Mass. 470, 100 N. E. 643, Ann. Cas.
1914 A, 538; In re Opinion of the Jus-
tices, 208 Mass. 603, 94 N. E. 849.
329-35 Norton r. Eandolph, 176 Ala.
381, 58 S. 283, Ann. Cas. 1915A, 714,
40 L. B. A. (N. S.) 129, it must be
alleged that the structure was mali-
ciously erected.
329-36 Bush r. Mockett, 95 Neb.
652, 145 N. W. 1001, 52 L. E. A. (N.
S.) 736.
330-37 Haitsch v, Duffy (Del.), 92
A. 249; Smoot i\ Heyl, 34 App. Cas.
(D. C.) 480; Milton v. Puffer, 207 Mass.
416, 93 N. E. 634, 32 L. B. A. (N. S.)
1010.
Landlord not liable for tenant's en-
croachment on adjoining land. Brooks
r. Eosenbaum, 217 Mass. 172, 104 N.
E. 469.
Lessor not liable for encroachment by
sublessee. Brooks v. Eosenbaum, 217
Mass. 172, 104 N. E. 469,
333^2 PhiUips t^. Brittingham, 2
Boyce (Del.) 173, 77 A. 964; Blalock
V. Atwood, 154 Ky. 394, 157 S. W. 694.
46 L. E. A. (N. S.) 3.
333-44 Description of trees in com-
plaint as '* noxious and poisonous" is
no ground of general demurrer. Acker-
man 1?. Ellis, 81 N. J. L. 1, 79 A. 883.
334-46 Ackerman v. Ellis, 81 N. J.
L. 1, 79 A. 883.
Draiaage ftrom roofs.— Where ashes and
dirt are deposited on his own lot near
neighbor's line, and the eaves and
waterspouts are so constructed that
such ashes and dirt are carried by the
water from eaves, the person is liable
in damages to his neighbor. If neigh-
bor does not make reasonable effort to
minimize damages this goes to extent
and not right of recovery. Wilson i?.
McCluskey, 53 Pa. Super. 25.
ADMIBALTT
365-35 Schuede v. Zenith S. S. Co.,
216 Fed. 666.
366-39 Schuede v. Zenith S. S. Co.,
216 Fed. 566.
369-42 In exercising snch jurisdic-
tion the court bas no power to include
causes not within the maritime and ad-
miralty jurisdiction, however conven-
ient it may be. The St. David, 209
Fed. 985.
369-44 Aurora Shipping Co. t?. Boyce,
191 Fed. 960, 112 O. C. A. 372; The
Fred E. Sander, 208 Fed. 724; The
Henry B. Smith, 195 Fed. 312.
Workmen's Compensation Act. — A state
act abolishing civil actions for the re-
covery of damages by workmen for per-
sonal injuries received on account of
employer's negligence does not with-
draw from workmen their remedy in
admiralty The Fred E. Sander, 208
Fed. 724.
373-79 Schuede t?. Zenith S. S. Co.,
216 Fed. 566.
No right to seek a new remedy in a
law court is given by this clause, but
merely the right to employ a common-
law form, if one is found competent
to furnish him the relief he is entitled
to under his contract. Schuede V,
Zenith S. S. Co., 216 Fed. 566.
The Judicial code, §24 (Act March 3,
1911, ch. 231, 36 St. at L. 1091 [Comp.
St., 1913, §991]) declares substantially
the same law. See Berton t?. Tietjen
I & Lang Dry Dock Co., 219 Fed. 763.
14
ADMIRALTY
Vol. 1
374-81 TTodn Workmen's Oompen-
ntiOB Aet. — ^An action under the legis-
ktive schedule of this act, brought by
a machinist injured while working updn
a Tcaael in defendant's dry dock, is
not within the exclusive jurisdiction
of admiralty. Berton r. Tiet jen & Lang
Diy Dock Co., 219 Fed. 763.
374-82 Berton r. Tietjen & Lang
Dry Dock Co., 219 Ped. 763.
370-92 See vol. 1, pp. 401, 407, 422,
and infroy 422-65.
376-93 Beteiitlon of joiiadiction.
In eases of concurrent jurisdiction be-
tween the federal and the state courts,
the court which first takes cognizance
should proceed without interference to
a finality. Berton f?. Tietjen & Lang
Dry Dock Co., 219 Fed. 763.
377-3 Navigation of the air.— Al-
though the jurisdiction in a4miralty
has been extended to meet new condi-
tions growing out of the needs of com-
merce, the court is not warranted in
assuming jurisdiction over aircraft.
The Crawford Bros. No. 2, 215 Fed.
269.
379-10 Ship raised from bottom.— A
ship which after sinking has been
abandoned to underwriters and had
her enrollment surrendered, still re-
tains her character as a vessel within
admiralty cognizance, when raised a
year later and put in dry dock to be
refitted for service. The George W.
Elder, 206 Ped. 268, 124 C. C. A. 332.
379-11 Paurtleiilar instances. — A
dredge (Bichmond Dredging Co. t*.
Standard American Dredging Co., 208
Fed. 862, 126 C. C. A. 20; North Amer-
ican Dredging Co. v. Pacific Mail S.
S. Co., 185 Fed. 698, 107 C. C. A. 620;
Postal Tele. Cable Co. v, P. Sanford
Boss, Inc., 221 Fed. 105); floating pile-
driver. In re P. Sanford Ross, Inc.,
196 Ped. 921.
A dzy-dock is not a vessel within the
meaning of a Statute including in the
word vessel ** every description of
water craft or other artificial contriv-
ance used or capable of being used, as
a means of transportation on water."
Berton v. Tietjen & Lang Dry Dock
Co., 219 Fed. 763, 771.
AeroplaiieB. — Admiralty has no juris-
dieHon of a suit to establish a lien
for salvage on an aeroplane which had
fallen into navigable waters. Aircraft,
liot being of the sea or restricted in
their activities to navigable waters,
are not maritime. The Crawford Bros.
No. 2, 215 Fed. 269.
381-29 Entirely foreign. — Claims
arising on foreign vessels, in foreign
places, and presented by foreigners
will not be considered. The Gloria de
Larrinaga, 196 Fed. 590.
382-32 Amoont must be snbstantial.
The rule in admiralty, like that in
equity, is that only substantial matters
will be dealt with. Thus where the
amount involved in a claim of recoup-
ment is quite unsubstantial admiralty
will not deal with it. Ely t?. Murray
& Tregurtha Co., 200 Ped. 868, 118
C. C. A. 620.
383-36 Must trtend to entire con-
tract.— ^The substance of the whole
contract must be maritime before ad-
miralty will take jurisdiction. Berton
V, Tietjen & Lan« Dry Dock Co., 219
Fed. 763.
384-37 Contracts for building ships,
etc. The Atlantic City (C. C. A.), 220
Fed. 281.
384-38 '*Port pay," or the wages
of a seaman while the ship is in port
may be recovered in admiralty. Schmidt
V. Pacific Mail S. S. Co., 209 Fed.
264.
38S-39 Bole illustrated.— A contract
for service as a seaman, fisherman,
beachman, trapman ''and such other
services as might be required,'* is a
maritime contract. North Alaska Sal-
mon Co. V. Larsen (C. C. A.), 220 Fed.
93.
387-50 The George W. Elder, 206
Fed. 268, 124 C. C. A. 332.
387-54 Stevedores' executory con-
tract.— Admiralty has jurisdiction of
a suit in personam for breach of an
executory contract to do stevedoring
services. Terminal Shipping Co. r. Ham-
berg, 222 Fed. 1020; The AUerton, 93
Fed. 219.
388-57 Effect of talcing secnrity.
The right to sue in admiralty on a debt
for supplies furnished is not affected
by the taking of a bond and mortgage
to secure the debt. Bobins Dry Dock
& Repair Co. v. Chesbrough, 216 Fed.
121, 132 C. C. A. 365.
389-66 Eadie v. North Pacific S. S.
Co., 217 Fed. 662.
391-82 The Navis, 196 Fed. 843;
The George T. Kemp, 2 Low. 477, 10
Fed. Cas. No. 6,341,
Services of a watchman are not mari-
time when rendered to vessel that is
15
Vol. 1
ADMIRALTY
disengaged and laid up for tepairs.
The Fortura, 206 Fed. 673. And see
The Sinus, 65 Fed. 226; The America,
56 Fed. 1021.
392-89 The storage of a yacbt's
boats during winter is a maritime
service. And the storing of the tackle,
apparel and furniture of a yacht is as
distinctly a maritime claim as the care
of the yacht itself. The Kavis, 196
Fed. 843.
393-96 Executory contract to famish
coaL — ^A contract to furnish all the coal
to a certain steamship line that might
be required by the buyer for the use
of its ships, is, in so far as it is
executory, not maritime. Steamship
Overdale Co. v. Turner, 206 Fed. 339.
A bond conditioned upon the keeping
by the charterer of the covenants of a
charter party, is not a maritime con-
tract. Eadie v. North Pacific S. S. Co.,
217 Fed. 662.
393-98 Aurora Shipping Co. v. Boyce,
191 Fed. 960, 112 C. C. A. 372.
394-99 The St. David, 209 Fed. 985.
The supreme court of the United
States was, in Atlantic Transport Co.
r. Imbrovek, 234 U, S. 52, 34 Sup. Ct.
733, 58 L. ed. 1209, 51 L. B. A. (N.
S.) 1157 (and note), presented with a
state of /acts practically identical with
those in Campbell v, H. Hackfeld &
Co. But the court does not say whether
the locality test is exclusive; for
''even if it be assumed that the re-
quirement as to locality in tort cases,
while indispensable, is not necessarily
exclusive, still in the present case the
wrong which was the subject of the
suit was we think of a maritime na-
ture,'* and hence admiralty had jur-
isdiction. See 22 Case and Comment,
p. 122.
395-1 Hamburg-Amerikanische Pach-
etfahrt Aktien Gesellschaft v. Gye, 207
Fed. 247, 124 C. C. A. 517; California-
Atlantic S. S. Co. V, Central Door &
Lumb. Co., 206 Fed. 5, 124 C. C. A.
189.
Injury to a vessel caused by a draw-
bridge over a navigable river, is a
maritime tort. Dorrington v, Detroit
(C. C. A.), 223 Fed. 232.
Injury to a submarine cable. — ^A suit
against a vessel for injury to a cable
resting on the bottom of a navigable
channel, and attached to either shore,
is within the jurisdiction of admiralty.
Postal Tel. Cable Co. v. P. Sanford
Boss, Inc., 221 Fed. 105.
397-22 California-Atlantic S. S. Co.
V, Central Door & Lumb. Co., 206 Fed.
5, 124 C. C. A. 139.
398-25 The Transfer No. 12 (C. C.
A.), 221 Fed. 409; Monongahela Biver
Consol. C. & C. Co. f7. Schinnerer, 196
Fed. 375, 117 C. C. A. 193; Aurora
Shipping Co. r. Boyce, 191 Fed. 960,
112 C. C. A. 372.
Ifo action in rem, etc.— The Starr, 209
Ffed; 882.
An action in rem for personal Ininries^
not resulting in death, given by state
statute, will not be enforced in admir-
alty. The Henry B. Snuth, 195 Fed.
312.
A right of ftctiOL. for death cannot be
maintained in admiralty unless given
by a federal or state statute. Bainey
V. New York & P. S. S. Co., 216 Fed.
449, 132 C. C. A. 509.
399-27 When Uen attaches.— No lien
exists in favor of a shipper until the
goods are actually shipped. The Ark,
196 Fed. 165.
401-42 The Samuel Little (C. C.
A.), 2^1 Fed. 308.
403-45 Dorrington v. Detroit (C. C.
A.), 223 Fed. 232.
Pumping out a yacht stationed in a
harbor is a salvage service. The Navis,
196 Fed. 843.
404-47 State sUtntes.-— Extent of
liability is regulated by the general
admiralty law and cannot be limited
by a local law. The Thielbek, 211 Fed.
685.
407-5S See vol. 1, pp. 376, 401, 422,
and infra, 422-65.
408-58 Schuede v. Zenith S. S. Co.,
216 Fed. 566.
409-61 Bainey v. New York & P. S.
S. Co., 216 Fed. 449, 132 C. C. A.
509; California- Atlantic S. S. Co. i\
Central Door & Lumb. Co., 206 Fed. 5,
124 C. C. A. 139.
409-62 It is not good practice, in
admiralty, to borrow a different pro-
cedure from other branches of the law,
merely to meet the exigencies of one
situation. Foster i;. Compagnie Fran-
caise de Navigation a Yapeur, 219 Fed.
351.
413-96 Bainey v. New York & P.
S. S. Co., 216 Fed. 449, 132 C. C. A.
509; California- Atlantic S. S. Co. t*.
Central Door & Lumb. Co., 206 Fed.
5, 124 C. C. A. 139.
16
ADMIRALTY
Vol. 1
IViijtgiiattou la j^leadinss inunatarlaL
It 18 immaterial whether the pleadings
count on contract or on tort. Bainey
r. New York & P. 8. S. Co., 216 Fed.
449, 132 C. C. A. 509.
413-1 The Fred R Sander, 208 Fed.
724.
BftUof obtained imdAr Woikmen's
CompeEnaatioii Act is a bar to a suit
in admiralty for compensation for the
same injuries. The Fred E. Sander,
212 Fed. 545.
Sea Ins. Co. r. Abont 500
Tons of Steel BaUs, 191 Fed. 250.
422^5 Aoconnting.— Admiralty will
entertain jurisdiction of an accounting
which is incidental to a suit already in
the admiralty court. The Emma B,
140 Fed. 771; The Thomas Sherlock,
22 Fed. 253; The John E. Mulford, 18
Fed. 455; The L. A. Brown, 2 Low.
464, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,118. Where,
however, the maritime questions aris-
ing would be purely incidental to the
accounting, admiralty has no jurisdic-
tion. The Zillah May, 221 Fed. 1016.
See also voL 1, pp. 376, 401, 407.
424-82 A Ubel filed before aU the
. servioeB aie perfoimed, though prema-
turely brought, may. where the cir-
cumstances warrant it, be allowed to
stand, and the prematureness of the
proceeding will only affect the question
of costs. The Lassell, 193 Fed. 539.
42T-11 A husband may maintain a
suit in admiralty for injuries suffered
by his wife in a collision. New York
k L. B. Steamboat Co., v, Johnson, 195
Fed. 740, 115 C. O. A. 540.
439-22 The Dawn, 212 Fed. 564.
440-20 In ceae of a colUaion, suit
may be in rem against one of the boats
and in personam against the owner of
the other. This is possible by virtue
of rule 46 which gives courts power
to regulate their practice in such man-
ner as they di^em expedient to the ad-
ministration of justice. The Sampson,
197 Fed. 1017.
448-94 Argo S. S. Co. v. Buffalo S. S.
Co., 223 Fed. 581.
459-T Monongahela Consol. C. ft C.
Co. V, Schinnerer, ^^'^ Fed. 375, 383,
117 C. C. A. 193.
458-26 No pre8imi]»tiQn arises in
favor of jurisdiction of a court of ad-
miralty; it must appear by direct and
positive averment. California-Atlantic
S. 8. Co. r. Central Door & Lumb. Co.,
206 Fed. 5, 124 €. C. A. 139.
A f ailnie to pted the state sutate
upon which the right of action for
wrongful death is based is not a juris-
dictional defect and unless proper ob-
jection is taken thereto the defect is
waived. Monongahela Consol. C. ft C.
Co. V, Schinnerer, 196 Fed. 375, 383,
117 C. C. A. 193. See also infra,
450-7.
453-27 Tort, etc. California-Atlan-
tic S. S. Co. V, Central Door ft Lumb.
Co., 206 Fed. 5, 124 C. C. A. 139.
457-51 State in which collision oo-
curred. — A failure to allege In which
of two states the collision occurred is
not a jurisdictional defect, since the
court will apply the law of the state
in which the proofs show the collision
took place. Monongahela Biver Consol.
C. ft C. Co. r. Schinnerer, 196 Fed. 375,
117 C. C. A. 193.
464-0 Foster i?. ComfMignie Fran-
caise de Navigation a Vapeur, 219 Fed.
351.
465-21 The SisiUna, 212 Fed. 1022.
465-24 Bule limited to parties only.
A rule providing that after joinder of
issue and before trial, any party may
by leave of court examine the opposite
party, his agents or representatives, or
deliver interrogatories* in writing for
the examination of such party, etc.,
does not authorize one party to examine
the officers and crew of the other
party's vessel. The Sisilina, 212 Fed.
1022.
465-28 Oompelllng discovery. — Dis-
covery of documents will not be com-
pelled where the moving party can
obtain either the originals or copies of
such documents and where the only
purpose of the discovery would be to
establish facts which could be obtained
by depositions taken on commission.
Circumstances might exist, however,
justifying the eonrt in compelling a
discovery. The Eros, 224 Fed. 194.
467-46 The Sisilina, 212 Fed. 1022.
468-59 Bin Of partlcalarB.-'In re
Webb, 219 Fed. 849.
471-2 Only facts properly pleaded
are confessed. The Fred E. Sander,-
212 Fed. 545.
482-126 In a rait for "port pay"
matters of set-off arising during the
voyage may be pleaded. Schmidt v.
Pacific Mail S. S. Co., 209 Fed. 264.
482-28 The amount involved in a
claim to tecoup must be substantial
17
Vol. 1
ADMIRALTY
Ely V. Murray & Tregurtha Co., 200
Fed. 368, 118 O. C. A. 520.
506-80 Where libelant is a receiver
in bankruptcy, the respondent in the
cross-bill will not be required to give
security. The Transit, 210 Fed. 575.
533-75 See The Zillah May, 221
Fed. 1016.
522-78 A shipbuilding company's
lien growing out of work done in the
construction of the vessel may be thus
asserted. The Atlantic City (C. C.
A.), 220 Fed. 281.
The mortgagee, ete. The Atlantic City
(C. C. A.), 220 Fed. 281.
524-97 Bringing In charterers.— It is
proper within the spirit of rule 59, for
claimant in a suit against a vessel for
supplies to bring in charterers of the
vessel, in order that the entire matter
•may be settled in one suit. Tho Louis
I)oUve,211 Fed. 783. ,^
In a suit for towage the claimant may
thus by analogy to cases covered by
rule 59 bring in a third party upon
whose request the services were ren-
dered. The Daylight, 206 Fed. 864.
527-31 The Ticeline, 208 Fed. 670.
529-51 The Bainbridge, 199 Fed.
404, refusal to dismiss held not an
abuse of discretion.
536-43 Lincoln v. Cunard S. S. Co.
(C. C. A.), 221 Fed. 622.
562-25 The Earl K., 215 Fed. 613.
554-52 The Transfer No. 21 (C. C.
A.), 218 Fed. 636.
558-96 New relief may be granted
to parties who do not appeal. Reid
17. Fargo, 213 Fed. 771, 130 C. C. A.
285.
562-48 Charts referred to % ^t*-
nesscs in the lower court should be
brought up with the record. The Cata-
wissa, 213 Fed. 14, 129 C. C. A. 352.
563-1(7 Reid v, Fargo, 213 Fed. 771,
130 C. C. A. 285.
567-79 The Dolbadarn Castle (O. C.
A.), 222 Fed. 838; Stern v. Fernandez
(C. C. A.), 222 Fed. 42; The A. G.
Brewer (C. C. A.), 220 Fed. 648; New
England S. 8. Co. t?. New York Dock
Co., 207 Fed. 73, 124 C. C. A. 633 ; Phil-
adelphia B. & W. B. Co. v. Southern
Transp. Co., 205 Fed. 732, 124 C. C.
A. 26; Monongahela Biver Consol. C.
& C. Co. V, Schinnerer, 196 Fed. 375,
117 C. C. A. 193; Merchants & Min-
ers' Transp Co. V, Bobinson Baxter-
Dissoway Tow. & Transp. Co., 194 Fed.
361, denying rehear, 191 Fed. 769, 113
C. C. A. 427.
TbA fact that no ^vrltten opliiion was
filed does not alter this rule when the
finding is obvious from the decree.
Monongahela Biver Consol. C. & C.
Co. 17. Schinnerer, 196 Fed. 375, 117
C. C. A. 193.
Where trial court omits to find nut-
terial facts which were proved by the
k>vidence the case will be reviewed
on the facts unaffected by any finding
of fact by the court below. The Ful-
lerton, 211 Fed. 833, 128 C. C. A. 359.
667-81 H a m b u r g-A m erikanische
Packetfahrt Aktien Gesellschaft v.
Gje^ 207 Fed. 247, 124 C. C. A. 517;
Boyal Ezch. Assur. v, Graham & Mor-
ton Transp. Co., 166 Fed. 32, 92 C. C.
A. 66.
568-86 The Nyack, 199 Fed. 383, 118
O. C. A. 67.
571-17 Double docket fee. — ^Where
there is a libel and cross libel, and but
one trial, a double docket fee may be
taxed. British & South American
Steam Nav. Co. v. Delaware L. So W.
B. Co., 195 Fed. 984.
572-36 IVhere witness testifies In
open court, the proctor's fee for tak-
ing his deposition will not be allowed.
Eriksson v. Grandfield, 193 Fed. 296.
Deposition nsed in more than one case.
Where a deposition is originally taken
and entitled in more than one case,
with a stipulation that it shall be used
in all cases, then a separate fee may
be taxed, but where it is originally
taken in one case only and subsequent*
ly by stipulation is used in another
case, separate fees cannot be taxed.
British & South A. S. N. Co. v. Dela-
ware L. & W. By., 195 Fed. 984.
573-44 Mileage of a witness from
Cape de Verde Islands to Boston, a
distance of over 7000 miles, has been
allowed, where he resided at Cape de
Verde and was a material witness.
Davis V. Smith, 199 Fed. 538.
573-49 Necessity of a role, order or
nsage. — In the absence of a statute
allowing such costs, a general order or
rule of court or a prevailing estab-
lished usage, must appear to have been
in force at the time to justify their
taxation. The Governor v, Ames, 199
Fed. 587.
574-59 Milwaukee v. Kensington 3
-iii
\%
ADULTERY
Vol. 1
8, Co, 199 Fed. 109; 120 C. C. A. 228; I
The Gladiator, 223 Fed. 381. *
Wliwe a decree Is rendered against a
tliird party brought in by petition of
a claimant, against whom the suit was
tmsnecessful, such claimant's costs
should be taxed against libelant. Mil*
waukee v, Kensington 8. S. Co., 199
Fed. 109, 120 O. C. A. 228.
575-65 Divided damages.— The gen-
eral rule in admiralty, binding in all
eases, where the circumstances are not
distinctly exceptional, is that the costs
will he divided where the damages are
divided. The Gladiator, 223 Fed. 381.
578-91 The Strathleven, 213 Fed.
979, 130 C. C. A. 385; Shoe v. George
Craig & Co., 194 Fed. 678, 115 C. 0. V.
ADITLTERATION
C. c. Crowl, 52 Pa. Super. 539.
Schraubstader t\ U. S., 199
Fed. 568, 118 C. C. A. 42; Nave-McCord
Merc. Co. v. TJ. S., 182 Fed. 46, 104 C.
C. A. 486; U. S. r. Frank, 189 Fed. 195;
U. S. r. Morgan, 181 Fed. 587; D. C.
r. Thompson, 37 App. Cas. (D. C.) 420;
a r. Closser, 179 Ind. 230, 99 N. £.
1057; P. V, Guiton, 73 Misc. 408, 133
N. Y.* S. 353; P. v. Bedding, 70 Misc.
420, 126 N. Y. S. 977.
583-10 S. r. Manrer, 255 Mo. 152,
164 8. W. 551, rev. 174 Mo. App. 162,
156 8. W. 991.
584-12 ''Imitation tatter." » An
averment that accused sold oleomar-
garine is not tantamount to accusing
him of selling "imitation butter." S.
V. Shortelli 174 Mo. App. 153, 156 S.
W. 988.
585-24 8. V. Lief, 248 Mo. 722, 154
S W 1133.
586-27 P. r. Hark, 140 App. Div.
150, 124 N. Y. S. 1023.
Where deceit is of the gravamen of the
offense it must be charged. S. v. Mar-
kus, 171 Mo. App. 38, 153 S. W. 488.
58G-20 C V. Phelps, 210 Mass. 109,
96 N. E. 69; S. c. Thorp, 94 Neb. 310,
143 Kev. 202, Ann. Cas. 19141), 180.
587-33 IT. 8. v, St. Louis Coffee &
8. Mills, 189 Fed. 191; St. Louis v,
Ameln, 235 Mo. 669, 139 8. W. 429.
588-41 See C. r. Graustein & Co.,
209 Mass. 38, 95 N. £. 97.
589-51 Besnlt of wmmlnation. — In-
structions in accordance with the re-
sults of examination of sample taken^
held proper. P. v. Butler, 140 App.
Div. 705, 125 N. Y. 8. 656.
ADXJLTEBY*
693-1 The gist of the crime of adult-
ery is the danger of introducing spur-
ious heirs into the family, whereby the
rights of the real heirs may bo im-
paired, and a man charged with the
maintenance of a family not his own.
U. 8. V, Mata, 18 Phil. Isl. 490.
503-3 Adultery not indictable at
common law nor by statute. Cook t\
8., 102 Ark. 363, 144 S. W. 221; Tur-
ney r. 8., CO Ark. 259, 29 8. V/. 893.
503-4 Cook V. 8., 102 Ark. 363, 144
8. W. 221.
503-6 Rich V. 8., 1 Ala. App. 243,
55 S. 1022; P. v. Martin, 180 111. App.
578; 8. V. Ling, 91 Kan. 647, 138 P.
582; 8. V. Holland, 162 Mo. App. 678,
145 S. W. 522; 8. v. Bigelow (Vt.), 92
A. 978.
595-8 8. t?. Case, 61 Or. 265, 122 P.
304. But see Ex parte Cooper, 162 Cal.
81, 121 P. 318; 8. v. Holland, 162 Mo.
App. 678, 145 8. W. 522.
506-12 Bell r. 8., 14 Ga. App. 809,
£2 8. E. 376.
507-13 Bell v. 8., 14 Ga. App. 809,
82 S. E. 376; Smith t?. 8., 14 Ga. App.
614, 81 8. £. 912.
507-14 U. S. V. Ortiz, 19 Phil. Isl.
174; U. 8. V. Eud, 16 Phil. Isl. 675; S.
V, La Bounty, 64 Wash. 415, 116 P.
1073.
Except where persons are living in
open and notorious adultery. Copeland
V. S., 10 Okla. Cr. 1, 133 P. 258.
In the Philippines no prosecution for
adultery shall be instituted except upon
complaint of aggrieved person, or of
the parents, grandparents, or guardian
of such person. (Sec. 1, Act No. 1773.)
It is not sufficient if the prosecuting at-
torney file the complaint at the instance
of the offended party; the complaint
must be made in writing by the of-
fended party if competent, or by one
of the persons mentioned in Act No.
1773. U. 8. 17. Artiz, 19 Phil. Isl. 174;
U. 8. r. Nawas, 14 Phil. Isl. 410.
508-18 Fonnal complaint by in-
jured spouse is necessary. S. v. La
Bounty, 64 Wash. 415, 116 P. 1073.
508-20 Verlflcatloii of information
is a commencepient of the prosecution.
19
Vol. I
' ADVERSE POSSESSION
Heacock v. 8.. 4 Okla. Cr. 606, 112 P.
049.
598-22 8. V. Leek, 152 la. 12, 130
N. W. 1062.
The fact that a cedefendant dies before
cause is brought to trial does not abate
action against other. U. S. v, De la
Tone, 25 PhU, Isl. 36.
599-23 Kitchens v. S., 10 Okla. Cr.
603, 140 P. 619; Mitchell v. S., 10
Okla. Cr. 697, 140 P. 622; S. V, Ayles
(Or.), 145 P. 19.
Erratmn. — Serra v. Mortiga, cited as
104 U. 8. 470, should be 204 U. 8.
470.
599-27 Alleging sex.— Affidavit for
warrant need not allege one party was
a man and other woman. Bich r. S.,
1 Ala. App. 243, 55 8. 1022.
A living together must be alleged in an
affidavit charging a person with living
in open and notorious adultery. 8.
v. GartreH, 14 Ind. 230.
602-38 An indictment which does
not allege that defendants lived in an
open state of adultery is fatally defec-
tive. Teston v. 3., 66 Pla. 244, 63 8.
433.
606-60 Safllcient allegation of in-
tent.— ^An information alleging an il-
licit intention between prisoner and
particeps, te have unlawful sexual con-
nection alleges sufficiently the intention
of the particeps. 8. \>. Grace, 86 Vt.
470, 86 A. 162.
607-69 8. V. Dlugi, 123 Minn. 392,
143 N. W. 971; 8. v. Ayleg (Or.), 145
P. 19.
608-73 Where there are two connts
it may be alleged in one that accused
was married to another person living,
and in the other count that the para-
mour was also married to another per-
son. Brown v. 8. (Tex, Cr.), 154 8.
W. 567.
610-74 That paramour was a mar-
ried person need not be alleged. 8.
V. Ling, 91 Kan. 647, 138 P. 582.
610-75 Bodkins r. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 172
8. W. 216.
612-85 8ee Bell v. S., 14 Ga. App.
809, 82 8. £. 376.
613-93 But see S. v. Dietz, 162 la.
332, 143 N. W. 1080.
ADVERSE PO8SESSI0K
619-5 Kinsella v. Stephenson, 265
111. 369, 106 N. £• 950; Lambert v.
Hemlet, 244 HI. 254, 91 N. E. 435;
Smith V, Algona Lumb. Co. (0r.)» 143
P. 921; Skausi v. Novak (Wash.), 146
P. 160.
621-12 Erp V. Tillman (Tex.), 131
8. W. 1057, rev. 121 8. W. 547.
In aa ejectment complaint a plaintiff
claiming a government subdivision by
deed and part of adjacent subdivision
by adverse possession must include the
latter in his complaint by an appro- J
priate description. Oliver V, Oliver^
(Ala.), 65 8. 373.
622-14 Where statate of limltatlona'
is relied upon by defendant to show
title, adverse possession need not be
specially alleged. Stephenson v. Van
BlokltfUd, 60 Or. 247, 118 P. 1026.
628-22 Erp r. Tillman (Tex.), 131
S. W. 1057, rev. 121 8. W. 547.
624-24 Bnle lllnstrated.— Tn an ae*
tion for trespass for unlawful cutting
of trees defendant pleaded the general
issue, and gave notice thereunder he
would prove the trees were taken from
his own premises. This is sufficient to
admit proof of adverse possession.
GrinneU v. Mayes, 167 Mich. 295, 132
N. W. 1019, 18 Det. Leg. N. 673.
626-85 Hill v. Cherokee ComsL Co.,
99 Ark, 84, 137 8. W. 553.
627-41 Acton v. Colbertson, 38
Okla. 280, 132 P. 812.
629-66 Fleming v. Howell, 22 Colo*
App. 382, 125 P. 551. See Folley v.
Thomas, 46 Ind. App. 559, 93 N. £. 181«
630-62 Oliver v. Oliver, 187 Ala.
340, 65 8. 373; Louisiana Lumb. Co. v,
Kennedy, 103 Tex. 297, 126 8. W. 1110.
680-64 Fleming v. HoweU, 22 Colo.
App. 882, 125 P. 551.
631-73 Answer irafficient. — Hill t?.'
Cherokee Const. Co., 99 Ark. 84, 137
8. W, 553.
632-80 Reynolds v. Palmer, 167 N.
C. 454, 83 8. E. 755.
633-81 Dodge v. Lavin, 34 R. I.
514, 84 A. 857, denying reargument, 34
R. L 409, 83 A. 1009.
683-82 Watson f. Hardin, 97 Arli^
83, 132 S. W. 1002; Stearns Co. v.
Newberg, 170 Mich. 324, 136 N. W.
359; Locklear v. Savage, 159 N. C. 236,
74 8. E. 347; Griffin V. Houston Oil
Co. (Tex. Civ.), 149 8. W. 567.
684-84 Homaby v. Tucker, 180 Ala.
418, 61 8. 928.
20
AFFIDAVITS OF MERITS AND DEFENSE
Vol 1
635-91 Slater r. Alford (Ark.), 174
8. W. 225; Abeles r. Pillman, 261 Mo.
359, 168 S, W. 1180; Bay v. Anders,
164 N. €. 311, 80 S. R 403; Berry v,
McPherson, 153 N. C. 4, 68 S. E. 892;
Smith r. Jones (Tex.), 132 S. W. 469.
e8S-92 Houston Oil Ca v, Good-
rich, 213 Fed. 136, 129 C. C. A. 488;
Bedsole r. Davis (Ala.), 66 S. 491;
Walker r. Steffes, 139 Ga. 520, 77 S. E.
580; Tyler r. Wright, 164 Mich. 606,
130 N. W. 205, 18 Det. Leg. N. 54;
Stokes V. Murray. 95 S. €. 120, 78 S. £.
741.
636-88 Bedsole «. Davis (Ala.), 66
S. 491; Tmitt r. Osier (Del.), 90 A.
467; Bisher v. Madsen, 94 Neb. 72,
142 N. W. 700; Page t?. Gaskill, 84 N.
J. L. 615, 87 A, 460; Coxe v. Carpenter,
157 N. C. 557, 73 8. E. 113; Dunlap v,
Bobinson, 87 S. C. 577, 70 S. E. 313;
MeColloeh r. Nicholson (Tex. Civ.) 162
S. W. 432; Dry den v. Makey (Tex.
Civ.), ^W 8. W. 302.
636-06 LeMoyne «. Meadors, 156
Ky. 832, 162 S. W. 526.
636-97 Pearee v. Aldrlch Min. Co.,
184 Ala. 610, 64 3. 321; Witherington
r. White, 165 Ala. 316, 51 S. 726; Mer-
ritt V. Westerman, 165 Mich. 535, 131
N. W. 66; Barfleld v, HiU, 163 N. C.
262, 79 8. E. 677; Dnnlap v. Bobinson,
87 S. C. 577, 70 8. E. 313.
637-08 Green «. Horn, 165 App.
Div. 743, 151 N. Y. 8. 215.
637-4 Jackson v, Larson, 24 Colo.
App. 548, 136 P. 81; Sullivan v. Fant
(Tex. Civ.), 160 8. W. 612.
637-6 Wm. Bice Inst. v. Goolsbee
(Tex. Civ.), 134 8. W. 397.
637-6 Chase c. Eddy (Vt.), 92 A.
99.
638-8 Based on mere ponenUm.
Where conclusions of an instruction
were predicated on a mere possession
and not adverse possession, the in-
■traetion is faulty. Salter v. Fox
(Ala.), 67 S. 1006.
Hatore of adrene title.~It is not er-
ror to charge that prescriptive title is
good against the true owner. Boberts
t. Tift, 136 Ga. 901, 72 3. E. 234.
688-9 Hardy r. Bandall^ 173 Ala.
516, 55 8. 997. See Jordan v. Smith,
185 Ala. 591, 64 8. 317; Le Moyne v.
Neal, 158 Ky. 316, 164 8. W. 964; Dry-
den V. Makey (Tez. dv,), 160 S. W.
302.
638^8 Ballard c. Bank, 187 Ala.
335, 65 S. 356.
Must define the extent of the posses-
sion under the evidence. Bryant v.
Strunk, 151 Ky. 97, 151 8. W. 381.
640-25 Harmless error. — Exceptions
to charge on adverse possession are im-
material where it was conceded plain-
tiff should recover if his paper title
covered the land in question and the
jury so found. Pilkington r. Welch (N.
C), 83 S. E. 801.
640-26 No error in refusing to
charge as to possession. Stewart r.
Smith, 135 Ga. 390, 69 S. E. 540.
640-28 Caldwell Land Co. i;. Cloyd,
165 N. C. 595, 81 S. E. 752.
641-32 See Oreen v, Horn, 165 App.
Div. 743, 151 N. Y. S. 215.
641-38 Cohen v. Anderson, 22 Cal.
App. 634, 135 P. 1096.
AFFIDAVITS OF MEBITS AKD DE-
FENSE
650-7 Courts of common pleas may
establish rules requiring affidavits of
defense from executors and adminis-
trators. Lowenstein v. Michael, 55 Pa.
Super. 628.
655-42 Start v. Heinzerling (Cal.
App.), 149 P. 50.
656-47 Van Woert t?. New York Life
Ins. Co. (N. D.), 151 N. W. 29, as
where judgment was rendered in a case
at issue upon the amended complaint
and answer to the original complaint.
660-72 Plea in abatement. — Affi-
davit of merits need not be filed with
a plea to the jurisdiction of the per-
son in the nature of a plea in abate-
ment. American Spirits Mfg. Co. v.
Peoria Belt By. Co., 154 HI. App. 330.
663-85 Southern S. S. Co. f>. Hull,
46 Pa. Super. 299.
663-88 Coyle v, SchruU, 49 Pa. Su-
per. 386.
667-10 Effect of failure to file.
See M'Clurg v, Puter, 52 Pa. Super.
485.
667-24 Attacking miiBciency of
statement — Defendant need only file a
suggestion that a good cause of action
is not alleged in the statement, when
such statement of claim is insufficient.
C. V. Acker, 53 Pa. Super. 54.
671-57 Flat Top Fuel Co. v. Benja-
min, 159 Bl. App. 631.
21
Vol 1 AFFIDAVITS OF MERITS AND DEFENSE
674-81 InsniUclent excuse. — An affi-
davit sworn to by a stranger, which
merely avers ''that the said defendant,
by reason of hie absence from the
county, is unable personally to present
his defense at this time,'' is insuffi-
cient. Bushong 17. Edwards, 52 Pa. Su-
per. 376.
679-15 Grey t\ Cohen, 182 111. App.
313.
681-23 Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron
Co. r. Tacony Iron Co., 46 Pa. Super.
164.
684-56 Bushong v. Edwards, 52 Pa.
Super. 376.
685-66 Eliel v. Chamberlain, 48 Fa.
Super. 610.
685-67 Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron
Co. t?. Tacony Iron Co., 46 Pa. Super.
164.
68)S-70 Banning, Cooper & Oo. v.
Murphy, 226 Pa. 568, 75 A. 852.
689-90 Extent of denlaL— An adi-
davit of defense should at least con-
stitute a denial of liability in whole
or in part. Woods v. Teter, 72 W. Va,
668, 79 S. E. 658.
689-97 Sufficient compliance. — An
affidavit which refers to the notice of
special matter which sets forth the nat-
ure of the defense, sufficiently complies
with the code. Biverside D. Co. v.
Hartford P. Ins. Co., 105 Miss. 184, 62
S. 169.
691-17 Plea in abatement.-^An affi-
davit of defense averring facts which
furnish the necessary material for a
formal plea in abatement is sufficient
to prevent judgment. Speier v. Lo-
cust Laundry, Inc., 56 Pa. Super. 323.
692-18 Erasure in instrument sued
on. Leber t?. Mooney, 48 Pa. Super.
92.
Only enough of the defense need be
set up to prevent a summary judg-
ment. U. S. 17. Schofield Co., 182 Fed.
240.
692-20 In an action on a promissory
note where there was no averment that
plaintiff's executive officer had no au-
thority to make the contract, the affi-
davit of defense is insufficient to pre-
vent judgment, the defenses set up
being, 1, violation of a contemporaneous
parol agreement and, 2, a corporation
was acting beyond its corporate pow-
ers in discounting the note. Mutual
Trust Co. V. Stern, 235 Pa. 202, 83 A.
614.
693-27 McClurg t?. Futer, 52 Pa.
485.
694-46 Southern S. S. Co. f?. Hull,
46 Pa. Super. 299.
695-67 Wentz v. Pennsvlvania Cas.
Co., 244 Pa. 517, 90 A. 800.
697-67 Hallowell r. Paige, 46 Pa.
Super. 108.
697-68 Seasonable precision and
distinctness is all that is required.
Baker t*. Tustin, 245 Pa. 499, 91 A. 891;
Law r. Waldron, 230 Pa. 458, 79 A. 647;
Markley v, Stevens, 89 Pa^ 279.
697-69 Breach of building contract.
In an action to recover balance due
under a contract for construction of a
bank building, an averment "that the
plaintiffs failed to complete the build-
ing . . . on or before the first day of
January, 1910, as required and agreed
upon . . . and did not complete the
same until May 16, 1910,'' is sufficient.
Price 17. People's Bank, 236 Pa. 324, 84
A. 790.
697-74 Loughney v, Klein, 221 Fed.
197; National Metal Edge B. Co. f?.
American Metal Edge B. Co., 246 Pa.
78, 92 A. 42.-
698-76 Columbia Laundry Co. r.
Ellis, 36 App. Cas. (D. C.) 583.
698-76 Columbia Laundry Co. v, El-
lis, 36 App. Cas. (D. C.) 583; Perry v.
Krausz, 166 111. App. 1; General E. Co.
V. Iron Works, 239 Pa. 411, 86 A. 1012;
Leechburg B. & L. Assn. v, Einter,
233 Pa. 354, 82 A. 498; BergdoU v.
Pitts, 41 Pa. Super. 257, 263, 264.
Negativing acceptance under contract.
An affidavit of defense alleging that
defendant did not accept goods as be-
ing of the quality ordered, states a
conclusion of law, and is therefore in-
sufficient. Fowler v. Cotton State Lumb.
Co., 39 App. Cas. (D. C.) 220.
Setting forth rescission. — An allegation
"that the contract was rescinded"
followed by the averment that plain-
tiff, "stated that no more .iron would
be delivered under it" is sufficient to
support the conclusion that the con-
tract had been rescinded. Sloss-Shef-
field Steel & Iron Co. i?. Tacony Iron
Co., 183 Fed. 645.
698-80 Swartz v. Historical Pub. Co.,
55 Pa. Super. 407, 410; Vulcanite Pav-
ing Co. V. Chester Tract. Co., 52 Pa.
Super. 447.
700-2 Varying ^nritten instroment.
An affidavit of merits may be stricken
22
AFFIDAVITS OF MERITS AND DEFENSE
Vol. 1
When defengea inteiposed seek to vary
the terms of the written contract set
forth in plaintiff's statement. Biley
r. International Banana Food Co., 185
IIL App. 629.
TOl-5 Breitweiser Lnmb. Co. v. Crick,
55 Pa. Super. 72.
701-6 Breitweiser Lumb. Co. v. Crick,
55 Pa. Super. 72; Beaver Falls Plan-
ing Mill Co. r. Whiteside, 54 Pa. Su-
per. 475.
701-10 Stage v. Smith, 41 Pa. Super.
273.
flhortagia in goods fnrnlBhed. — ^In an
action bj a brewing company for beer
sold during a month, an affidavit al-
leging that defendant had purchased
beer for a year (including month in
question) and that all barrels were of
uniform size, that during the month
in question a number of the barrels
were weighed and found two gallons
short, each gallon being worth a stated
price and the amount thus short should
be set off pro tanto against plaintiffs
claim, is sufficient. Mutual Union
Brew. Co. v. Dithrich, 54 Pa. Super.
560.
701-11 Baker r. Tustin, 245 Pa. 499,
91 A. 891; Breitweiser Lumb. Co. v.
Crick, 55 Pa. Super. 72.
702-28 Bole relaxed.— While rule
requires defendant when claiming credit
as a partial defense to set out amount
specifically, yet it cannot prevent a de-
fendant from availing himself of this
defense where the amount and facts re-
lating to the credit are in plaintiff's
possession and can be ascertained only
upon the trial. Prosise v, Phillips, 41
App. Cas. (D. C.) 226.
703-41 Before Judgment. — An affi-
davit of defense may be filed anytime
before judgment. Calchuff r. Driver,
46 Pa. Super. 79.
7<>4-53 Van Slyke i?. Books, 181
Mich. 88, 147 N. W. 579.
700-€5 Where leave of court not ob-
tained.— ^But where a supplemental affi-
davit was filed without leave of court
and judgment had been entered with-
out tiie court's knowledge of such fil-
ing, it was not error to refuse to strike
off a judgment entered for want of a
sufficient affidavit of merits^ Bern-
stein 19. Brown, 55 Pa. Super. 532.
707-74 Second Nat. Bank v. Claney,
178 IIL App. 427; Saundere V. Fox, 178
IIL App. 009.
707-82 A specification that affi-
davit is "vague and uncertain in its
terms" is sufficient upon a rule for
judgment for want of a sufficient affi-
davit of defense. Beaver Falls Plan-
ing Mill Co. V. Whiteside, 54 Pa. Su-
per. 475.
700-4 Baker v. Tustin, 245 Pa. 499,
91 A. 891.
710-12 Woodoleum Flooring Co. v,
Kayser, 45 Pa. Super. 372.
710-18 Woodoleum Flooring Co. v.
Kayser, 45 Pa. Super. 372.
710-14 Woodoleum Flooring Co. v.
Kayser, supra.
710-17 No mle of eovrt should in-
terfere with the office of an affidavit
of defense as here laid down. Ameri-
can Plate Glass Co. v, Struthers- Wells
Co., 201 Fed. 6, 119 C. C. A. 344.
To prevent delay to plaintiff by dila-
tory pleas. Mumford Bkg. Co. r. Farm-
ers' & M. Bank, 116 Va. 449, 82 S. £.
112.
711-22 TT. S« V. Stannard, 206 Fed.
326.
711-28 Speier v. Locust Laundry Co.
Inc., 56 Pa. Super. 323.
712-30 TT. S. V. Schofield Co., 182
Fed. 240.
714-52 Brieck Bros. Co. v, Baziotes,
242 Pa. 490, 89 A. 591.
Even if a plea and an affidavit of de-
fense are filed at the same time, plain-
tiff may take judgment if the affidavit
is insufficient. Dreifus v. Logan Iron
& S. Co., 245 Pa. 196, 91 A. 239.
Where as a matter of law plaintiff is
not entitled to judgment the refusal to
enter judgment for want of a sufficient
affidavit of defense is not error. Coates
V. Allegheny Steel Co., 234 Pa. 199, 83
A. 77.
714-53 See Bernstein v. Brown, 55
Pa. Super. 532 (where supplemental
affidavit was filed without leave of
court and after judgment had been en-
tered) ; McClurg v. Futer, 52 Pa. Super.
485.
714-55 Good cause of action must
be stated to entitle plaintiff to judg-
ment for want of sufficient affidavit of
defense. Rosenblatt t?. Weinman, 230
Pa. 536, 79 A. 710; Breitweiser Lumb.
Co. r. Crick, 55 Pa. Super. 72.
715-68 When the affidavit is strick-
en out default judgment may be en-
tered. Keith V. Keevan, 183 HI. App.
187.
23
Vol. 1
AFFRAY
717-82 Aggregating portions.
Where affidavit of defense in an action
of assumpsit admits a certain part of
the claim to be due, and presents no
sufficient defense to another part it is
regular under Act of 1897 for court to
grant judgment for the aggregate of
both portions, with leave to plaintiff
to proceed for the recovery of the bal-
ance as to which court shall adjudge
the affidavit of merits to be sufficient.
Vulcanite Paving Co. t?. Chester Tract.
Co., 52 Pa. Super. 447.
Insnfflcient defense as to Interest.
Where affidavit admits part of amount
due but denies liability for interest and
the affidavit is bad for uncertainty
court will award judgment for princi-
pal and interest. Vulcanite Pav. Co. v,
Chester Tract. Co., 522 Fa. Super. 445.
710-6 Thpmpson v. Donaldson, 43
Pa. Super. 585.
710-7 Stephens-Adamson Mfg. Co. v,
Armstrong, 245 Pa. 552, 91 A. 924;
Dreifus v. Logan Iron & S. Co., 245
Pa. 196, 91 A. 239.
720-8 But see Stephens-Adamson
Mfg. Co. V. Armstrong, 245 Pa. 552, 91
A. 924,
720-0 Stephens-Adamson Mfg. Co.
i;. Armstrong, supra,
720-12 Thompson v. Donaldson, 43
Pa. Super. 585,
721-31 Beck v. Scheckter, 235 Pa.
253, 83 A. 829.
725-3 Inducing a fight.— One may
be guilty of an affray where he uses
such abusive language or offensive con-
duct towards another as is calculated
or intended to bring on a fight, and is
struck by the other although he did
not return the blow. S. v. Lancaster
(N. C), 84 S. E. 529; S. r. Panning,
94 N. C. 940, 55 Am. Rep. 653.
727-15 S. €. Lancaster (N. C), 84
S. E. 529.
720-31 Defense of repelling unlawful
attack. Bracewell v, S., 10 Ga. App.
830, 74 S. E. 440.
AaBEED CASE
740-38 Lynch v. Bogers, 150 App.
Div. 311, 134 N. Y. S. 1071.
742-45 An effective Judgment upon
the submission must be possible.
Becker v. Oneida County, 157 App. Div.
457, 142 N. Y. S. 221.
745-64 West Chicago Park Comrs.
V. Biddle, 245 111. 168, 91 N. E. 1060.
747-73 Des Case r. Stiles, 161 App.
Div. 871, 147 N. Y. S. 9.
747-74 Bocklngham County v.
Brown, 76 N. H. 571, 79 A. 690.
748-73 Templeton v. Board of
Comrs., 173 Ind. 226, 89 N. E. 880,
transferred from appellate court, 44
Ind. App. 381, 89 N. E. 410.
740-83 Louisville v, Yreeland, 140
Ky. 400, 131 S. W. 195.
754-05 Strouse v. Nye, 53 Pa. Su-
per. 304.
765-1 Verbal agreement. — ^The fact
that the agrement to submit a case
to the circuit judge was not in writing
in accordance with the practice act
will not cause reversal if it appears
that substantial justice has been done.
Cummings v, Elsholtz, 154 111. App. 457.
732-50 Vera v. Mercantile F. & M.
Ins. Co., 216 Mass. 154, 103 N. E. 292;
New York Tel. Co. v. Siegel-Cooper Co.,
202 N. Y. 502, 96 N. E. 109, 36 L. B.
A. (N. S.) 560, af, judgment, 137 App.
Div. 158, 121 N. Y. S. 1033; Bradley v.
Crane, 201 N. Y. 14, 94 N. E. 359, rev,
judgment, 133 App. Div. 889, 117 N.
Y. S. 1130; MuUer v. Kling, 149 App.
Div. 176, 133 N. Y. S. 614.
Single Iflsue agreed upon. — An agree-
ment by the parties to the submission
to the jury of a single issue operates
to eliminate all other issues. Evans
V. Thompson (Ga.), 84 S. E. 128.
764-54 The judgment is a deter-
mination of both facts and law. Hoff
V. Hackett, 148 Wis. 32, 134 N. W. 132.
764-56 See Leonardo v. Bunnell, 77
Wash. 495, 137 P, 1033.
AZJENATINa AFFEOTIONB
770-1 Allen r. Porsythe, 160 Mo.
App. 262, 142 S. W. 820.
Bight is one acanired by the mar-
riage. Hamilton 17. McNeill, 150 la. 470,
129 N. W. 480, Ann. Cas. 1912D, 604.
770-2 Lupton v. Underwood, 3
Boyce (Del.) 519, 85 A. 965; O 'Gorman
f>. Pfeiflfer, 145 App. Div. 237, 130 N.
Y. S. 77; Jenness t?. Simpson, 84 Vt.
127, 78 A. 886.
Malice is the gist of the cause of ac-
tion. Hostetter v. Green, 150 Ky. 551,
150 S. W. 652. —
24
ALIENATING AFFECTIONS
IVoll
rrO-S Hamilton v. McNeiU, 150 la.
470, 129 N. W. 480, Ann. Cas. 1912D,
604. Compare Miller v. Pearce, 86 Vt.
322, 85 A. 620, 43 L. B. A. (N. 8.)
332; Knapp V. Wing, 72 Vt. 334, 47 A.
1075; Fratini v. Caslini, 66 Vt. 273, 29
A. 252, 44 Am. 8t. 843; Daley v. Gates,
65 Vt. 591, 27 A. 193.
TTl-T Lnpton r. Underwood, 3 Boyee
(Bel.) 519, 85 A. 965; Eliason v. Draper,
2 Boyce (Del.) 1, 77 A. 572; Golden r.
Gartleman, 159 111. App. 338; Burch
r. Goodson, 85 Kan. 86, 116 P. 216,
Ann. Cas. 1912C, 1177; Clazton v. Pool,
182 Mo. App. 13, 167 8. W. 623; Sims
r. Sims, 79 N. J. L. 577, 76 A. 1063, 29
L. B. A. (N. 8.) 842; Hall v. Smith,
80 Misc. 85, 140 N. Y. 8. 796; Nieberg
r. Cohen (Vt.), 92 A. 214; Gross v.
Gross, 70 W. Va. 317, 73 S. E. 961,
39 L, B. A. (N. S.) 261.
T72-8 Living apart. Eliason v.
Draper, 2 Boyce (Del.) 1, 77 A. 572.
A divoioed hnslmiid may maintain the
action. Hostetter v. Green, 159 Ky.
611, 167 8. W. 919; Philpott f?. Kirk-
patrick, 171 Mich. 495, 137 N. W. 232;
De Ford v, Johnson, 251 Mo. 244, 158
8. W. 29, Ann. Cas. 1915A, 344, 46 L.
B. A. (N. 8.) 1083.
T75-17 Wamock v, Moore, 91 Kan.
262, 137 P. 959.
77B-10 Cdmplaint sufficient. Web-
ber 9. Benbow, 211 Mass. 366, 97 N.
E. 758.
770-28 Fronk v. Fronk, 159 Mo.
App. 543, 141 8. W. 692.
780-25 Where dadazatloii alleges
adnlteiy as means of alleiiatlon an
action for alienation of affections and
one for criminal conversation are the
same. Miller v. Pearce, 86 Vt. 322, 85
A. 620, 43 L. B. A. (N. 8.) 332; Daley
r. Gates, 65 Vt. 591, 27 A. 193. See
also Knapp r. Wing, 72 Vt. 334, 47 A.
1075; Fratini v. Casline, 66 Vt. 275, 29
A. 252, 44 Am. St. 843.
780-28 Mental suffering need not be
alleged. Frederick v. Morse (Vt.), 92
A. 16.
781-80 Camp. Ellsworth v. Shimer,
128 N. T. 8. 883.
781-88 See Wamock v. Moore, 91
Kan. 262, 137 P. 959.
781-86 Work v. Campbell, 164 Cal.
343, 128 P. 943, 43 L. B. A. (N. 8.)
581; Lupton v. Underwood, 3 Boyce
(Del) 519, 85 A. 965; Sims v. Sims, 79
N. J. L. 677, 76 A. 1063, 29 L. B. A.
(N. S.) 842.
782-38 See Clazton v Pool, 182 Mo.
App. 13, 167 S. W. 623.
782-39 Bill of partlculan.-.Defend-
ant not entitled to bill of particulars.
Eliason v. Draper, 2 Boyce (Del.) 64,
77 A. 769.
Wife cannot recover if husband had no
affection for her at time of abandon-
ment or other causes had alienated the
affections. Hall v. Smith, 80 Misc. 85,
140 N. Y. 8. 796.
782-40 Judgment of divorce no de-
fense. De Ford v. Johnson, 251 Mo.
244, 158 8. W. 29, Ann. Gas. 1915A, 344,
46 L. B. A. (N. 8.) 1083. But see
Hamilton v. McNeill, 150' la. 470, 129
N. W. 480.
782-41 Want of affection between
husband and wife is no defense. De
Ford r. Johnson, 152 Mo. App. 209, 133
S. W. 393.
PrevlOTis unhappy relations between
the spouses is not a defense. Lupton
V. Underwood, 3 Boyce (Del.) 519, 85
A. 965; Bailey v, Kennedy, 148 la. 715,
126 N. W. 181.
782-42 Fact of estrangement be-
tween husband and wife is no djsfense
but may be considered in mitigation
of damages. Miller v. Pearce, 86 Vt.
322, 85 A. 620, 43 L. B. A. (N. 8.) 332.
782-43 P^oley v. Dutton (la.), 147
N. W. 154; Heisler v. Heisler, 151 la.
503, 131 N. W. 676. See Miller v. Miller,
154 la. 344, 134 N. W. 1058; Cornelius
V. Cornelius, 233 Mo. 1, 135 8. W. 65;
Gross t?. Gross, 70 W.' Va. 317, 73 S. E.
961, 39 L. B. A. (N. 8.) 261.
Parent, brother, or sister may counsel
in good faith within reasonable limits.
Luick r. Arends, 21 N. D. 614, 132 N.
W. 353.
A stranger giving honest advice is not
liable in absence of malice. Geromini
r. Brunelle, 214 Mass. 492, 102 N. E.
67, 46 L. B. A. (N. S.) 465.
783-44 Consent of wife is no de-
fense where husband alleges adultery
Powell 17, Strickland, 163 N. C. 393, 79
S. E. 872, Ann. Cas. 1915B, 709.
783-53 Luick v. Arends, 21 N. D.
614, 132 N. W. 353.
Evidence sufficient to go to Jnry, — ^Hos-
tetter V. Green, 150 Ky. 551, 150 8.
W. 652.
783-54 Where aaed as co-conspirv
torn it mast be shown that defendants
25
t'ot.i
ALIENS
acted jointly. Pronk v. Fronk, 159
Mo. Aip. 543, 141 8. W. 692.
Where a hnsliand saes parents of wife
the father is not responsible for acts
or conduct of mother unless there was
a conspiracy to bring about the alien-
ation. Pooley V. Dutton (la.), 147 N.
W. 154.
788-55 Hossfeia v. Hossfeld, 188
Fed. 61, 110 C. C. A. 131; Greuneich v,
Greunedch, 23 N. D. 368, 137 N. W.
415; Phelps <?. Bergers, 92 Neb. 851,
139 N. W. 632.
784-58 Lupton v. Underwood, 3
Boyce (Del.) 519, 85 A. 965; Powell v.
Strickland, 163 N. C. 393, 79 S. E. 872.
784-59 Poyrell v, Strickland, supra;
Frederick v. Morse (Vt.), 92 A. 16.
784-64 Divorce 'of wife may be
pleaded in mitigation. McNamara v,
McAllister, 150 la. 243, 130 N. W. 26,
Ann. Cas. 1912D, 463, 34 L. B. A. (N.
S.) 436.
785-67 Lupton v. Underwood, 3
Boyce (Del.) 519, 85 A. 965; Powell
V, Strickland, 163 N. C. 393, 79 S. E.
872.
ALIENS
780-10 Suravitz f>. Pristasz, 201
Fed. 335, 119 C. C. A. 573; Katalla Co.
p. Rones, 186 Fed. 30, 108 C. C. A.
132, aff. Bones v. Katalla Co., 182 Fed.
946; H. J. Decker, Jr. & Co. t?. South-
ern By. Co., 189 Fed. 224.
800-38 Sufficient allegation that
plaintiff is an alien. Mahoning Yal.
By. Co. <?. O'Hara, 196 Fed. 945, 116 C.
C. A. 495.
800-30 Katalla Co. r. Bones, 186
Fed. 30, 108 C. C. A. 132, af. judgment,
Bon<>s V. ]$atalla Co., 182 Fed. 946;
Bagenas v. Southern Pac. Co.. 180 Fed.
887.
A foreign corporation sued in a state
court by an alien may remove the ac-
tion to the federal court. H. J. Decker,
Jr. & Co. t?. Southern By. Co., 189 Fed.
224.
Allen's consent to removal.— An action
brought in a state by alien citizens and
residents against a citizen and resident
of another state is not removable to the
federal district court over plaintiff's
objection. Hall t?. Great Northern By.
Co., 197 Fed. 488.
Jurisdictional amount appearing^— An
action brought by an alien in a state
court against a non-resident who is A
citizen of another state, is removable
by the defendant, where the requisite
amount is involved. Bones 17. Katalla
Co., 182 Fed. 946.
•
808-64 Dependent upon statute.
The right of an alien to a jury de
meditate linguae, composed half of
aliens, and half of denizens, is statu-
tory. Wendling v. C, 143 Ky. 587, 137
S. W. 205.
813-8<^ Discrimination against for-
eign labor is an undue exercise of the
police power of a state and in viola*
tion of fourteenth amendment. Heim
V. McCall, 165 App. Div. 449, 150 N.
Y. S. 933.
ALTEBATION OF INSTBtrBONTS
810-1 "Wicker v, Jones, 159 N. C.
102, 74 S. E. 801, Ann. Cas. 1914B,
1083, 40 L. B. a: (N. 8.) 69; Com.
Nat. Bk. V. Baughman, 27 Okla. 175,
111 P. 332; Barton Bank v. Stephenson,
87 Vt. 433, 89 A. 639, 51 L. B. A. (N.
S.) 346.
A change In name of payee is a ma-
terial alteration when it changes a
conditional liability to an absolute li-
ability. Holbart V. Lauritson, 34 S.
D. 267, 148 N. W. 19.
810-2 Snell f>. Davis, 149 HI. App.
391; Matson v. Jarvis (Tex. Civ.), 133
S. W. 941.
Erasing name In lease.— Bryan v. Car*
ter, 169 Ala. 515, 51 S. 999.
Srasore of Indorsement. — Gray i?. Alt-
man (Tex. Civ.), 149 S. W. 760.
820-6 Wilson v. Barnard, 10 Qa. App.
98, 72 S. £. 943; International Bank
V. Mullen, 30 Okla. 547, 120 Pac. 257,
Ann. Cas. 1913C, 180; Holbart v. Laur-
itson, 34 a D. 267, 148 N. W. 19.
Where a note was changed by erasing
''order of" and inserting after name
of payee the words ''or bearer," it is
a material alteration. Builders' Idme
& Cement Co. ff. Weimer (la.), 151 K.
W. 100.
820-0 Increasing consideration by
alteration is a material alteration. Out-
cault Adv. Co. r. Young Hdw. Co., 110
Ark. 123, 161 S. W. 142.
Beductlon of amomit of note.— Wash-
ington Finance Corp. V. Glass, 74
Wash. 653, 134 P. 480. 46 L. B. A. (N.
S.) 1043.
26
ALTERATION OF INSTRUMENTS
Vol. 1
620-10 Pry v. Jenkins, 173 HI. App.
486; Schubert v. ocbnbert^ 168 III. App.
419; Bodine v. Berg, 82 N. J. L. 662,
82 A. 901, Ann. Cas. 1913D, 721, 40 L.
B. A. (N. S.) 65; Barton Bank v. Ste-
phenson, 87 Vt 433, 89 A. 639, 51 L. B.
A, (N. 8.) 346.
820-11 Waugh V Cook (Ark.), 167
S. W. 103; Shaw v. Probasco, 139 Ga.
481, 77 S. E. 577; Edington v. McLeod,
87 Kan. 426, 124 P. 163, Ann. Cas.
1913E, 315, 41 L. B. A. (N. S.) 230;
Commonwealth Nat. Bk. v, Baughman,
27 Okla, 175, 111 P. 332.
Adding luovlsioii for interest. — Ex-
change Bank v. Little, 111 Ark. 263,
164 S. W. 731; Columbia Co. V. Bech, 151
App. Div. 128, 135 N. Y. S. 206; Levy
V. Arons, 81 Misc. 165, 142 N. Y. S. 312.
820-13' Pensacola State Bank v,
Helton, 210 Fed. 57.
Aocalfirato or d^y time of payment
Baldwin v. Nat. Bank, 104 Tex. 122,
133 S. W. 864, rev. 124 S. W. 443, re-
hear, and judgment mod., 134 S. W.
1178,
820-14 Erasure of words ''see spec-
ial agreement" after signature to note
18 material. Central Bank r. Efird, 91
& a 135, 74 S. E. 136.
821-18 Wicker v. Jones, 159 N. C.
108, 74 S. E. 801, Ann. Cas. 1914B,
1083, 40 L. B. A. (N. S.) 69.
822-20 Hakes v. Bnss, 175 Fed. 751,
99 C. C. A. a[27; Blenkiron Bros. v.
Bogers, 87 Neb. 716, 127 N. W. 1062,
31 U B. A. (N. S.) 127; S. A. Brewing
Assn. V. Abbott Oil Co. (Tex. Civ.),
129 S. W. 373; Pitt V. Little, 58 Wash.
355, 108 P. 941.
Marginal writing in flgnreB.~Br7ant r.
Georgia, etc. Co., 13 Ga. App. 448, 79
S. £. 236.
An agent's memorandmn of fact on
original but not on duplicate is an im-
material alteration. Barnes-Smith M.
Co. V. Tate, 156 Mo. App. 236, 137 S.
W. 619. '
Addition of words "or bearer" to note
is not a material alteration. Douglass
i,. Lockhart (Tex. Civ.), 168 S. W. 382.
Filling in blanks not material ^Itera-
tion. Shows r. Steiner, 175 Ala. 363,
57 S. 700; Montgomery f?. Dresher, 90
Neb. 632, 134 N. W. 251, 38 L. B. A.
(N 8.) 423. Filling in blank space
left for attorney's fees in a judgment
note IP not a material alteration.
8chnitzer v. Krameri 189 HI. App. 350;
White r. Alward, 35 Hi. App. 195. But
where blanks in a note aie filled in,
without authority, as to terra and date
of interest, the alteration is material
and avoided the note as between orig-
inal parties. Ayres v. Walker, 54 Colo.
571, 131 P. 384; Hoopes v. CoUingwood,
10 Colo. 107, 13 P. 909, 3 Am. St 565.
822-21 Exchange State Bank v.
Taber, 26 Ida. 723, 145 P. 1090; Barnes-
Smith M. Co. V. Tate, 156 Mo. App. 236,
137 a W. 619; Wicker v. Jones, 159 N.
O. 102, 74 8. E. 801, Ann. Cas. 1914B,
1083, 40 L. B. A. (N. S.) 69; Interna-
tional Bank v. Mullen, 30 Okla. 547, 120
P. 257, Ann. Cas. 1913C, 180; Baldwin
V. Nat. Bank, 104 Tex. 122, 133 S. W.
864, rev. 124 S. W. 443, judgment mod.
134 S. W. 1178; Matson v. Jarvis (Tex.
Civ.), 133 S. W. 941.
824-22 BlenMron Bros. v. Sogers, 87
Neb. 716, 127 N. W. 106?, 31 L. B.
A. (N. S.) 127; Levy v. Arons, 81 Misc.
165, 142 N. Y. S. 312.
825-25 Snell r. Davis, 149 Til. ApD.
391. See Churchill v. Capen, 84 Vt.
104, 78 A. 734.
826-27 Phillips r. Big Sandy Co.,
149 Ky. 555, 149 S. W. 957.
Alteration in date of mortgage. — See
Styles r. Scotland, 22 N. D. 469, 134
N. W. 708,
826-28 Hess v. Schaffner (Tex.
Civ.), 139 S. W. 1024.
Need not plead* alteration in anticipa-
tion.—Boberds V. Laney (Tex. Civ.),
165 S. W. 114.
828-38 Matson v. Jarvis (Tex. Civ.),
133 S. W. 941.
830-37 Taney v. Gordon, 172 Ala.
439, 55 S. 239, Ann. Cas. 1913E, 251;
Churchill v. Capen, 84 Vt. 104, 78 A.
784.
881-38 Equitable Life A. Soc. v.
Meuth, 145 Ky. 160, 140 S. W. 157,
Ann. Cas. 1913B, 661, judgment mod.,
145 Ky. 746, 141 S. W. 37, Ann. Cas.
1913B, 661.
Mnst be set up in affidavit of defense.
Sober v. Moony, 48 Pa. Super. 92.
831-39 Answer denying genuineness
of signature does not raise question
of material alteration. Hessig-Ellis D.
Co. V. Todd Drug Co., 153 la. 11, 132
N. W. 866.
832-40 La Grange r. Coyle, 50 Ind.
App. 140, 98 N. E. 75.
835-46 Bankin v. Tygard, IdS Fed.
795, 119 C. C. A. 591j Gulf, etc Co. 9,
27
Vol. 1
AMENDMENTS AND JEOFAILS
Crenshaw, 169 Ala. 606^ 53 S. 812;
Pike County t?. Sowards, 147 Ky. 37.
143 S. W. 745; James v. Holdam, 142
Ky. 450, 134 8. W. 435; Ensign v.
Fogg, 177 Mich. 317, 143 N. W. 82;
Arnold v, Brechtel, 174 Mich. 147, 140
N. W. 610; Carterville v, Luscombe,
165 Mo. App. 518, 148 S. W. 966; Mus-
ser f. MuBser, 92 Neb. 387, 138 N. W.
699; Anderson v. Chicago & N. W. B.
Co., 88 Neb. 430, 129 N. W. 1008; Bay-
lis V. Kerrick, 64 Wash. 410, 116 P.
1082, an erasure on face of tax deed,
there being no erasure on record of
deed, is presumed to have been made
before execution.
Oonsent to tbe filing In of blanks may
be assumed. Montgomery v. Dresher,
90 Neb. 632, 134 N. W. 251, 38 L. B.
A. (N. S.) 423.
887-51 Hatfield, etc. Bist. v. Knight,
112 Ark. 83, 164 S. W. 1137.
837-52 Ohio Nat. Bk. v. GUI Bros.,
85 Neb. 718, 124 N. W. 152.
837-54 Calhoun v. McKay, 64 Fla.
226, 60 S. 182; Withers v. Hart, 96
Miss. 453, 51 S. 714; Eisner V. Crom-
mette, 151 N. Y. S. 3; Cornog v. Wil-
son, 231 Pa. 281, 80 A. 174; Matson 17.
Jarvis (Tex. Civ.), 133 S. W. 941.
838-55 Bankin v. Tygard, 198 Fed.
795, 119 C. C. A. 591; First Nat. Bk.
c. Liewer, 187 Fed. 16, 109 C. C. A.
70; Gulf, etc. Co. v, Crenshaw, 169
Ala. 606, 53 S. 812; Hatfield, etc. Dist.
«?. Knight, 112 Ark. 83, 164 8. W. 1137;
Hessig Drug Co. v, Todd Drug Co., 161
la. 535, 143 N. W. 669; Stevens v. Od-
lin, 109 Me. 417, 84 A. 899; CarterviUe
V, Luscombe, 165 Mo. App. 518, 148
8. W. 966; Hatch v. Bayless, 164 Mo.
App. 216, 146 8. W. 839; Musser v.
MuBser, 92 Neb. 387, 138 N. W. 599;
Cavitt V. Bobertson, 42 Okla. 619, 142
P. 299.
That alteration In a deed was
made after delivery is on party
asserting it. Tharp v, Jamison, 154 la.
77, 134 N. W. 583, 39 L. B. A. (N. S.)
100; Wicker v. Jones, 159 N. C. 102,
74 3. E. 801, Ann. Cas. 1914B, 1083,
40 L. B. A. (N. S.) 69.
830-56 Calhoun v. McKay, 64 Fla.
226, 60 8. 182; Ohio Nat. Bk. v. Gill
Bros., 85 Neb. 718, 124 N. W. 152.
839-57 Egymann v. Nutter, 155 HI.
App. 390.
839-58 Howard Piano Co. «. Glover,
7 Ga. App. 548, 67 S. H 277; Snell v.
DaviSi 149 HI. App. 391; Hessig Drug
Co. 1?. Todd Drug Co., 161 la. 535, 143
N. W. 569; Holyfield v. Harrington, 84
Kan. 760, 115 P. 546, 39 L. B. A. (N.
8.) 131; Wicker v. Jones, 159 N. C.
102, 74 8. E. 801, Ann. Cas. 1914B,
1083, 40 L. B. A. (N. 8.) 69.
Effect of tbe alteration. — The jury
must determine whether v the alteration
is such as to invalidate the instrument.
American Trust & 8av. Bank v, Per-
kins (Miss.), 67 8. 481.
840-62 Wicker v. Jones, 159 N. C.
102, 74 8. E. 801, Ann. Cas. 1914B,
1083, 40 L. B. A. (N. 8.) 69; 8. A.
Brew. Assn. v. Abbott Oil Co (Tex.
Civ.), 129 8. W. 373.
841-63 American Trust & Sav. Bank
V. Perkins (Miss.), 67 8. 481.
Batiflcation may be diown by circum-
stances. Matson v. Jarvis (Tex. Civ.),
133 8. W. 941.
AMENDMENTS AND JEOFAILS
849-5 Vickery v. New London & N.
B. Co., 87 Conn. 634, 89 A. 277.
849-7 Burr v. Powell, 63 Fla. 379,
58 8. 29; Louisville v. Mutual Life
Ins. Co., 147 Ky. 141, 143 8. W. 782
(answer amended); 8. v. Webber, 177
Mo. App. 60, 164 8. W. 184; Buehler
V. 8taudenmayer, 146 Wis. 25, 130 N.
W. 955, counterclaim amended.
Attachment afOdavlt. — ^An attachment
affidavit which fails to state the name
of a creditor may be amended so as to
correct the error. Greenwood G. Co.
V, Bennett, 101 Miss. 573, 58 8. 482,
598.
Set-off.~Bedf ord r. Miller, 212 Fed.
368, 129 C. C. A. 44.
849-9 8ee Hall e, Fea^ns (la.), 151
N. W. 481; 8. V. Nott (la.), 149 N. W.
79.
850-12 Distinction ImmatexlaL— ''It
makes no kind of difference whether
said first petition was susceptible to
amendment or whether the second be
considered as an amendment to the
first or regarded as an entirely sep-
arate or independent step in the in-
quiry; the court was clothed with
ample authority to proceed to the in-
vited\investigation." Moore v, 8uperior
Court, 22 Cat. App. 156, 133 P. 990.
850-13 Henry v. Montezuma Water
& Land Co., 55 Colo. 182, 133 P. 747;
Shipman v. Portland Const. Co., 64
Or. 1, 128 P. 989; Hughes v. Four 8tates
Life Ins. Co. (Tex. Civ.), 164 8. W.
28
AMENDMENTS AND JEOFAILS
VoUl
898; Keder v. Parks, 72 Wash. 255,
130 P. 111. See MiUikan t^. McGarrah,
164 App. IMv. 110, 149 N. Y. S. 484;
Horowitz V, Goodman, 112 App. Div.
13, 98 N. Y. S. 63.
DeBignatioii ImmateilaL — ^Wkere the
original pleading did not confer jnris-
dietion, it is immaterial that the new
pleading was designated "an amended
or supplemental petition.'' It is not
what it is called, bnt what it is that
fixes the character of the pleading.
Moore t?. Superior Court, 22 Cal. App.
156, 133 P. 990.
852-21 See the title '<Kew Cause
of Action or Defense."
853-2T Federal conrts governed by
federal rather than by state statutes
as to amendments. Truck ee River G.
E. Co. t?. Benner, 211 Ped. 79, 127 C.
C. A. 503; Van Doren v. Pennsylvania
E. Co., 93 Fed. 260, 35 0. C. A. 282;
Reardon v. Balaklala Const. Co., 193
Fed. 189; McDonald v, 8., 101 Fed.
171. See also Missouri, K. ft T. R.
Co. V. Wulf, 226 IT. S. 670, 33 Sup. Ct.
135, 57 L. ed. 355.
854-31 A connterdaim not stating
a canse of aetlon may be amended to
conform to the proofs where no objec-
tion is made to the evidence intro-
duced under it and its sufficiency is not
otherwise challenged. Buehler v. Stau-
dcnmayer, 146 Wis. 25, 130 N. W. 955.
855-32 Joyce v. Rubin, 23 Ida. 296,
130 P. 793; New Cumberland S. ft T.
Co. V. Ballentyne, 71 W. Va. 672, 77
S. £. 282.
That a non-snit or mistrial may be
avoided, the court may on its own
motion order an amendment. De Celles
r. Casey, 48 Mont. 568, 139 P. 586.
856-3T Walters f>, Webster, 52 Colo.
549, 123 P. 952, Ann. Cas. 1914A. 23,
denying defendant right to amend an-
swer without leave of court in the ab-
sence of an attack on the original.
In Florida the court may disregard an
amended bill of complaint filed with-
out its leave. Day v. Hurchman, 65
Fla. 186, 61 S. 445.
In Kew York, see Milliken v. McGar-
rah, 164 App. Div. 110, 149 N. Y. 8.
484; Merrihew 17. Kingsbury, 150 App.
Div. 40, 134 N. Y. S. 452.
86<MS1 Farmers' M. Co. r. Farmers'
Ins. Co., 161 la. 5, 141 N. W. 447.
Failure to obtain leare of court Is
cured by refusal of the court to strike
lat the amended complaint. Ross f.
Berry, 17 N. M. 48, 124 P. 342.
Limiting the is8ae8.^A declaration in
a^ libel suit which sets out a publica-
tion by defendant containing several
charges against the plaintiff, may be
amended so as to confine the case to
some of the charges. Aronson r. Bald-
win, 178 Mich. 565, 146 N. W. 206.
Part of pleading stricken ont.-— Where
a portion of defendant's answer is
stricken out as frivolous— it being on
information and belief when the de-
fendant had positive knowledge — ^the
court should allow defendant to amend.
Sharp V, Sharp, 145 N. Y. S. 386.
861*52 Mumma v, Mumma, 246 Pa.
407, 92 A. 504.
861-55 Patterson t?. Traction Co., 178
Mo. App. 260, 163 S. W. 955.
862-56 San Francisco & Suburban
H. Bldg. Soc. r. Leonard, 17 Cal. App.
254, 119 P. 405; Cartwright v. Ruffin,
43 Colo. 377, 96 P. 261; HaU I?. Hall,
172 Mich. 210, 137 N. W. 536; Hudson
V, Southwest Missouri R. Co., 173 Mo.
App. 611, 159 S. W. 9; Philip Gruner
& Bros. Lumb. Co. v, Hartshorn-Barber
R. & Bldg. Co., 171 Mo. App. 614, 154
S. W. 846; Mumma v. Mumma, 246 Pa.
407, 92 A. 504; Wright V. Eureka Cop-
per Co., 206 Pa. 274, 55 A. 978; Fitz-
patrick v, Fitzpatrick (Tenn.), 173 3.
W. 444; Bobbins v, Wyman, Partridge
& Co., 75 Wash. 617, 135 P. 656.
Eq^edally wbere plaintiff la in doubt
as to whicL remedy to follow. Cor-
bett V, B. A M. R. R., 219 Mass. 351,
107 N. E. 60.
864-64 Lewis v, Jerome, 44 Colo.
459, 99 P. 562, 130 Am. St. 131; Cart-
wright V. Ruffin, 43 Colo. 377, 96 P.
261; McCracken v. Montezuma W. & L.
Co., 25 Colo. App. 280, 137 P. 903.
864-66 Markley v. Western Union
Tel. Co., 151 la. 612, 132 N. W. 37;
Woods V. Teter, 72 W. Va. ,668, 79 S. E.
658.
No reason assigned for delay. — ^Where
at the trial and after the lapse of
three months from the time the orig-
inal answer was filed, defendant ap-
plied to amend so as to plead assump-
tion of risk, the court properly re-
fused the application since no showing
was made justifying the delay. Baxter
r. Riverside Portland C. Co., 22 Cal.
App. 199, 133 P. 1150.
865-68 Clark v. Wisconsin Cent. Ry.
Co., 261 111. 407, 103 N. E. 1041.
865-69 Demple v. Carroll, 21 Wyo.
447, 133 P. 137, 135 P, 117.
29
Vol 1
AMENDMENTS AND JEOFAILS
867-72 Bule in federal courts. — ^It
has uniformly been held in the fed-
eral courts that allowance or refusal
of leave to amend pleadings in actions
at law is discretionary with the trial
court and that its action is not review-
. able except in case of gross abuse of
discretion. Gormley v, Bunyan, 138 U.
a 623, 11 Sup. Ct. 453, 34 L. ed. 1086;
Chapman t?. Barney, 129 U. S. 677, 9
Sup. Ct. 426, 32 L. ed. 800; Bedford
V, Miller, 212 Fed. 368, 129 C. C. A.
44; Truckee River Gen. El. Co. v, Ben-
ner, 211 Fed. 72, 127 C. C. A. 503;
Montana Min. Co. v, St. Louis M. &
M. Co., 147 Fed. 897, 78 C. C. A. 33;
Dunn V. Mayo Mills, 134 Fed. 804, 67
C. C. A. 450; Lange v. Union Pac. E.
Co., 126 Fed. 338, 62 C. C. A. 48.
867-73 Morris i?. Brown, 177 Ala.
389, 58 S. 910; Strait v. Wilkins, 23
Cal. App. 774, 139 P. 911; Barkley f?.
Hibernia Sav. & L. Soc, 21 Cal. App.
456, 132 P. 467; Mills v, Jackson, 19
Cal. App. 695, 127 P. 655; Wiggington
f?. Denver & B. G. R. Co., 51 Colo. 377,
118 P. 88; Guggenheimer & Co. r.
Davidson, 62 Fla. 490 56 S. 801; Un-
derwood t?. Fosha, 89 Kan. 768, 133 P.
866; Lancaster v. Augusta Water Dist.,
108 Me. 137, 79 A. 463, Ann. Cas.
1913A, 1252; Merrill v, Leisenring, 166
Mich. 219, 131 N. W. 538; Wheelock
V, Homes Life Ins. Co., 115 Minn. 177,
131 N. W. 1081; American W. Co. v,
Gordon, 40 Okla. 618, 139 P. 123;
Joines t?. Combs, 38 Okla. 380, 132 P.
1115; Cohee v. Turner, 37 Okla. 778,
132 P. 1082; Drenijan t?. Warburton, 33
Okla. 561, 122 P. 179; Robinson & Co.
V. Stiner, 26 Okla. 272, 109 P. 238;
Alcorn v. Dennis, 25 Okla. 135, 105
P. 1012; Ricci t?. Pettaconsett Const.
Co. (R. I.), 80 A. 276; Weatherer v.
Herron, 27 S. D. 651, 132 N. W. 232;
S. V. Coleman, 71 Wash. 15, 127 P.
568.
Extent of court's discretion. — "While
much must necessarily be left to the
judicial discretion of the trial judge in
permitting additional or new pleas to
be filed by a defendant, after pleas
already filed by him have been ad-
judged to be defective or insufficient,
that discretion should be wisely exer-
cised. There must be a limit to plead-
ing." Seaboard A. L. Ry. v. Rentz,
60 Fla. 429, 54 S. 13. And see Frank-
lin P. Co. V, International H. Co., 62
Fla. 185, 57 S. 206, Ann. Cas. 1913C,
1247.
Bepeat^d failures to properly amend
a complaint which is capable of amend-
ment, will justify the court in refus-
ing further amendment. Relos v. Mar-
dis, 18 Cal. App. 276, 122 P. 1091.
868-74 Franklin P. Co. v. Interna-
tional H. Co., 62 Fla. 185, 57 S. 206,
Ann. Cas. 1913C, 1247; Clark v. R.
Co., 261 111. 407, 103 N. E. 1041.
869-78 Doty r. Shepard, 92 Kan.
122, 139 P. 1183.
869-79 Askew v. 3^ 11 Ala. App.
293, 66 S. 852; Lehman D. G. Co. 17.
Lemoine, 129 La. 382, 56 S. 324; Pull-
man Co. i\ Finley, 20 Wyo. 456, 125
P. 380.
871-83 Owl Creek C. Co. v. Goleb,
210 Fed. 209, 127 C. C. A. 27.
871-84 Faucett v. Rogers, 142 Ga.
145, 82 S. E. 563.
871-85 Stephenson r. Parsons, 6
Ala. App. 615, 60 S. 592.
Case diBmlssed on demurrer. — ^After
the case has been dismissed on demur-
rer, there is no petition in court to
amend. Chisholm v. Atlantic Coast
Line R. Co., 14 Ga. App. 166, 80 S. E.
528.
873-86 Markley v. Western Union
Tel. Co., 151 la. 612, 132 N. W. 37.
873-88 Cutler v, Allavena, 165 App.
Div. 422, 150 N. Y. S. 790.
873-89 Galligan t*. Luther, 54 Colo.
118, 128 P. 1123.
873-92 Jebeles & Colias C. Co. v.
Hutchinson & Son, 171 Ala. 106, 54 S.
618, Ann. Cas. 1913A, 1107; SchoUe t\
Finnell, 167 Cal. 90, 138 P. 746.
874-93 Tombigbee Val. R. Co. v.
Howard, 185 Ala. 612, 64 S. 338; Isbell
17. Anderson Carriage Co., 170 Mich.
304, 136 N. W. 457; Lowenstein v.
Holmes, 40 Okla. 33, 135 P. 727; Gross
Const. Co. t?. Hales, 37 Okla. 131, 129
P. 28; Goldman v. Broyles (Tex. Civ.),
141 S. W, 283, a trial amendment to
correct a clerical error allowed.
874-94- Register tJ. Harrell, 131 La.
983, 60 S. 638, amendment refused after
jury chosen.
Increasiiig damages. — ^An amendment
offered just before trial, alleging in-
creased damages, is properly refused
where the plaintiff has all the time
been conversant with the evideuoo
upon which his right to recover the
larger sum rests. Shellman v. Louis-
ville R. Co., 147 Ky. 526,. 144 S. W,
1060.
30
AMENDMENTS AND JEOFAILS
Vol. 1
876-95 Tombigbee Val. B. Co. t\
Howard, 185 Ala. 612, 64 S. 338.
876-86 Bnrr v. United Bys., 163 Cal.
663, 126 P. 873; Third St. Imp. Co. v.
HcLelland, 23, Cal. App. 369, 137 P.
1089; San FraHcisco & Suburban H.
Bldg. See. f. Leonard, 17 Cal. App.
254, 119 P. 405; Blumer v, Mahew, 17
Cal. App. 223, 119 P. 202; Hartford
P. Ins. Co. V, Brown, 60 Fla. 83, 53 S.
838; Dumont «. Peet, 152 la. 524, 132
N. W. 955; Darling 17. Manistee, 166
Mich. 35, 131 N. W. 450; Downs t?. Cas-
sidy, 47 Mont. 471, 133 P. 106, Ann.
Cas. 1915B, 1155; Liehtenstein v, Ko-
nig, 142 N. Y. S. 541; Wood v. Pehrsson,
21 N. D. 357, 130 N. W. 1010; Paulsen
V. Modem W. of A., 21 N. D. 235, 130
N. W. 231; Lowenstein v. Holmes, 40
Okla. 33, 135 P. 727; First State Bank
V, Bridges, 39 Okla. 355, 135 P. 378;
West f?. Bawdon (Okla.), 130 P. 1160;
Merchants ft P. Ins. Co. v. Crane, 36
Okla. 160, 128 P. 260; Herron t?. Bum-
ley Co., 29 Okla. 317, 116 P. 952;
Shawnee v. Slankard, 29 Okla. 133, 116
P. 803; Domurat r. Oregon- Washington
B. k Nav. Co., 66 Or. 135, 134 P. 313;
Taylor i?. Carr, 125 Tenn. 235, 141 S.
W. 745, Ann. Cas. 1913C, 155; Behne
V. Stapish, 68 Wash. 204, 122 P. 1002.
878-1 Cook V, Suburban Bealty Co.,
20 CaL App. 538, 129 P. 801; United
States P. ft G. Co. v. Parker, 20 Wyo.
29, 121 P. 531.
878-2 Sweeney r. McKendall, 32 B.
I. 347, 79 A. 940.
878-5 Pell City Mfg. Co. v, Cosper,
172 Ala. 532, 55 S. 214; Cauley v. Dunn,
167 N. C. 32, 83 S. E. 16.
Kot aUofwable. — ^Board of Comrs. v.
Dowdle, 136 La. 447, 67 S. 324.
878-6 Humphrey v. Smith, 142 6a.
291, 82 S. E. 885; Fish ft Hunter Co.
c. New England Homestake Co., 27
8. D. 221, 130 N. W. 841, amendment
aft«r evidence closed treated as de-
nied.
880-10 King v. Gray (Ala.), 66 S.
643; Quinn v. St Louis ft S. F. B.
Co., 253 Mo. 48, 161 S. W. 820.
880-12 Board of Comrs. v, Dowdle,
136 La. 447, 67 S. 324.
881-13 Neal r. Sheffield Brick ft T.
Co^ 151 la. 690, 130 N. W. 398.
See infrat 925-62.
Adiekes v. Chatham, 167 N.
C. 681, 83 S. E. 748.
Clark V, Illinois Cent. B. Co.,
134 La. 440, 64 S. 281; Fitzpatrick t\
Fitzpatrick (Tenn.), 173 S. W. 444.
886-31 Denver Omnibus ft Cab Co.
17. Gast, 54 Colo. 17, 129 P. 233; Ten-
nessee Uent. B. Co. v. Brown, 125 Tenn.
351, 143 S. W. 1129, amendment allowed
after motion in arrest of judgment.
Six months after Judgment taken by
default in divorce proceedinff the court
may allow an amendment of a clerical
error in the complaint. Eadie v, Eadic,
44 Mont. 391, 120 P. 239, Ann. Cas.
1913B, 479.
886-32 Canavan v, Canavan, 17 N.
M. 503, 131 P. 493, Ann. Cas. 1915B,
1064.
887-34 Ft. Worth By. Co. r. Ballou
(Tex. Civ.), 174^. W. 337.
888-39 Where pending an appeal
from a probate court, a rescript is sent
down suggesting an amendment to the
petition, the justice has jurisdiction to
allow the amendment. Thompson v.
Carruth (Mass.), 107 N. E. 395.
888-40 Thompson v, Carruth, 218
Mass. 524, 106 N. E. 159; Crockett r.
Black Wolf C. ft C. Co. (W. Va.), 83
S. E. 987.
Where declaration has been Held snlll-
dent by appellate court on remand,
lower court cannot order pleading to
be reformed against plaintiff^s protest.
Davis <?. Power Co.. (Fla.), 66 8. 563.
Demurrer sustained and affirmed may
be amended after remand. Norris v.
Burnett (Miss.), 66 S. 748.
889-42 Pyatt v, Biley, 265 111. 324,
106 N. E. 830.
890-45 The sufficiency In law of de-
fenses sought to be added by amend-
ment will not be determined upon the
hearing of motion to amend unless the
proposed defenses are obviously friv-
olous. State Bank v, Keshin, Blitstein
ft Co., 165 App. Div. 974, 150 N. Y. S.
157.
891-46 Wiggington v, Denver ft R.
G. B. Co., 51 Colo. 377, 118 P. 88.
891-48 Plitt t7. Illinois Surety Co.,
165 App. Div. 973, 150 N. Y. S. 756,
in New York the motion must be ac-
companied with a copy of the plead-
ing.
892-49 Baxter v, Biverside Portland
0. Co., 22 Cal. App. 199, 133 P. 1150;
Johnson v. Electric Park A. Co., 150
la. 717, 130 N. W. 807.
Delay fataL — A motion to amend the
complaint, made on the day the ct^sQ
w
Vol. 1
AMENDMENTS AND JEOFAILS
was set for trial, but a year after the
complaint was filed, is properly denied
because of the delay. Scholle v. Fin-
nell, 167 Cal. 90, 138 P. 746. See also
svpr.i, p. 67S,
802-51 Baxter r. Riverside Portland
C. Co., 22 Cal. App. 199, 133 P. 1150.
Effectual character of amendment.
That the proposed amendment would
be effectual must be shown by the
} tarty seeking the same. Watters v.
Lyons (Ala.), 66 S. 436.
In Georgia an affidavit, etc. Copeland
V. McClelland, 12 Ga. App. 785, 78 S.
E. 479.
894-56 United States F. & G. Co.
V. Nash, 20 Wyo. 65, 121 P. 541, 124
P. 269.
Service of a copy of an amendment
filed by leave of the court to avoid, a
ground for demurrer, is sufficient no-
tice. Barnes v. Carr, 65 Fla. 87, 61 S.
184.
896-60 Failure to conform to the or-
der of court by making the amendment
in black ink when the court ordered it
made in purple ink, is waived if the
court accepts the amendment as made.
Clover C: Co. v. Diehl, 183 Ala. 429, 63
S. 196.
896-61 King v. Gray (Ala.), 66 S.
643; State Bank v. Eeshin, Blitstein &
Co., 165 App. Div. 974, 150 N. Y. S.
157; Plitt V. Illinois Surety Co., 165
App. Div. 973, 150 N. Y. S. 756.
897-63 Stokes v. Murray (S. C), S3
S. £. 33.
898-65 Aronson v. Baldwin, 178
Mich. 565, 146 N. W. 206.
899-67 Shellman v, Louisville By.
Co., 147 Ky. 626, 144 S. W. 1060; Cur-
rent V, Citizens Bank, 16 N. M. 642,
120 P. 307; Behne 17. Stopish, 68 Wash.
204, 122 P. 1002.
Fallnre to ask for continuance. — No
error can be predicated upon a fail-
ure to grant a continuance as a con-
dition of amendment, where the party
did not ask for it. Aronson t>. Bald-
win, 178 Mich. 565, 146 N. W. 206.
899-68 Smith t\ Luckenbach, 158
App. Div. 485, 143 N. Y. S. 592; Sharp
V. Sharp, 145 N. Y. S. 386; Vervaeke
r. Adams Express Co., 230 Pa. 647,
79 A, 764.
901-73 Bosek v, Detroit United By.,
175 Mich. 8, 140 N. W. 978.-
902-74 American Exchange ^ank <?.
Mitchell, 179 111. App. 612.
902-T6 Current v. Citizens' Bank, 16
N. M. 642, 120 P. 307.
902-78 Sterling v. Marine Bank, 120
Md. 396, 87 A. 697, Ann. Cas. 1915A,
1219; Meredith v. Whillock, 173 Mo.
App. 542, 158 S. W. 1061.
903-84 Purser v. Bountree, 142 Ga.
836, 83 S. E. 958.
A construction will be given the amend-
ment which will save it from being
held repugnant to the original aver-
ment. Wagner v, Brady, 130 Tenn. 554,
171 S. W. 1179.
Facts arising after the commencement
of an action should not be set out in
an amended pleading. Milliken v. Me-
Garrah^ 164 App. Div. 110, 149 N. Y. S.
484.
904-85 Watters v, Lyons (Ala.), 66
S. 436.
904-87 Taulbee v. Lewis, 156 Ky.
721, 161 S. W. 1100.
905-89 Botwin v, Bose, 36 B. L 147,
89 A. 339.
905^90 Clark B. Co., 134 La. 440,
64 S. 281; Jones v. Citizens' State
Bank, 39 Okla. 393, 135 P. 373; Cotton
t;. Bea (Tex.), 163 S. W. 2.
905-93 Nelson v. Chittenden, 53
Colo. 30, 123 P. 656, Ann. Cas. 1914A,
1198.
Not, however, where a change in the
cause of action would result from the
amendment. Helton v. Helton, 64 Or.
290, 129 P. 532, 48 L. B. A. (N. 3.)
779.
911-17 Weinberger v. Agricultural
Ins. Co., 81 N. J. L. 127, 79 A. 542.
911-18 Georgia B. & B. Co. v. Au-
chinachie, 142 Ga. 513, 83 S E. 127;
King V. Donalson Oil Mill, 141 Ga. 46,
80 S. E. 290; S. v. Coleman, 71 Wash.
15, 127 P. 568; Gauf c. Milwaukee Ath-
letic Club,, 151 Wis. 333, 139 N. W.
207.
911-19 Western N. Union v. Judson,
1 Ala. App. 615, 55 S. 1026; Baxter v.
Biverside Portland C. Co., 22 Cal. App.
199, 133 P. 1150; Beeg c. McArthur, 17
Cal. App. 203, 119 P. 105; Harris v,
Woodard, 142 Ga. 297, 82 S. E. 902;
Swift V, Moore (Ga. App.), 82 S. E.
914; France t7. Chesapeake & O. B. Co.,
156 Ky. 126, 160 S. W. 757.
Where there is no merit to the pro-
posed amendment the court may dis-
allow it. Union Marine Ins. Co. v.
Charlie's Trans. Oo., 186 Ala. 443, 65
IS. 78.
82
AMENDMENTS AND JEOFAILS
Yol. 1
Hatters already adjudicated. — Defend-
ant cannot amend so as to set out mat-
ters already passed upon in a former
Boit between the same parties. Miller
r. Franklin, 14 6a. App. 180, 80 S. £.
549.
912-22 If amendment is inconsist-
ent with the allegations made by the
defendant in the answer sought to be
amended, it is not error for the court
to refuse the application. Engle v.
Legg, 39 Okla. 475, 135 P.. 1058.
912-24 Joyce v. Bubin, 23 Ida. 296,
130 P. 793; Grace v, Floyd, 104 Miss.
613, 61 8. 694; Stocking v. Boyer, 70
Wash. 615, 127 P. 194.
To sustain an instmction Court may al-
low a pleading to be amended so as to
obviate an objection to an instruction.
Stuhr V. Wright County Tel. Co., 119
Minn. 508, 138 N. W. 693.
Proof of a parol settlement of fire in-
surance with the insured is not a mate-
rial variance from a petition alleging
a written settlement, and amendment
mav be allowed to meet it. Merchants
& P. Ins. Co. V. Crane, 36 Okla. 160,
128 P. 260.
It is not error to refuse an amend-
ment which will permit the party re-
questing the same to introduce evi-
dence tending to establish a usage or
custom which contravenes a written
contract upon which the cause of action
is predicated. Drennan v, Warburton,
33 Okla. 561, 122 P. 179.
913-25 Stoking V. Boyer, 70 Wash.
615, 127 P. 194.
913-27 Ebner G. Min. Co. v. Alaska
J. G. Min. Co., 210 Fed. 599, 127 C.
C. A. 235; Armour & Co. v. Arbuckle,
205 Fed. 273, 123 C. C. A. 435; Richey
fT. Brinks, 100 Ark. 629, 140 8. W. 129;
Bowman v, Wohlke, 166 Cal. 121, 135
P. 37, Ann. Cas. 1915B, 1011; Yates
r. Philadelphia, B. & W. R. Co. (Del.),
82 A. 27; Trousdale v. Wagon Co., 25
Ida. 130, 137 P. 372; Clopton V. Meeves,
24 Ida. 293, 133 P. 907; Welsh v,
Haleen, 157 la. 647, 138 N. W. 502;
Mills r. Flynn, 157 la. 477, 137 N. W.
1082 (petition in slander amended to
conform to proofs); Malone v. Jones,
91 Kan. 815, 139 P. 387, L. R. A.
1915A, 328; Phillips County Bank v.
Lowe, 91 Kan. 338, 137 P. 930; Charles
r. Witt, 88 Kan. 484, 129 P. 140; Shad-
wick V. Smith, 147 Ky. 159, 143 S. W.
1027 (amendment setting up parol con-
tract extending the time of original
agreement); Title Guaranty & S. Co.
u. Com., 146 Ky. 702, 143 S. W. 401;
Davis V. Buss Mach. Works, 175 Mich.
61, 140 N. W. 986 (amendment alleg-
ing that plaintiff's ribs were broken,
allowed); Bosek v. Detroit United By.,
175 Mich. 8, 140 N. W. 978 (com-
plaint amended so as to designate the
nature of the injury sustained): Gates
V. Beebe, 170 Mich. 107, 135 N. W. 934;
Nilson V, Canadian N. By. Co., 117
Minn. 528, 136 N. W. 280; Babcock
V, Canadian N. Ry. Co., 117 Minn.
434, 136 N. W. 275, Ann. Cas. 1913D,
924; Merchants & F. Bank v. Smith
(Miss.), 64 S. 970; Ridgeway v. Mis-
souri, K. & T. R. Co., 161 Mo. App.
260, 143 S. W. 532; Fishman V. Baum-
stein, 150 N. Y. S. 101; Tilghman t?.
Seaboard A. L. R. €o., 167 N. C. 163,
83 S. E. 315, 1090; Chesapeake & 0.
R. Co. V. Swartz, 115 Va. 723, 80 S. E.
568.
Both parties entitled to amend. — ^Where
a defendant amended his answer to
conform to the proofs he cannot object
to the plaintiff amending the complaint
to conform to the same proof. Elgan
V. Frances Mohawk M. & L. Co., 34
Nev. 469, 125 P. 693.
Interstate commerce. — ^Where the proof
shows that the defendant railroad was
engaged in interstate commerce at the
time of the accident, the plaintiff may
amend so as to base his case on the
interstate commerce act. Vickery v, R.
Co., 87 Conn. 634, 89 A. 277; Gaines-
viUe M. Ry. v. Vandiver, 141 Ga. 350,
80 S. E. 997; Fernette V, R. Co., 175
Mich. 653, 141 N. W. 1084, 144 N. W.
834.
The withdrawal of defendants from
the case does not affect the right of
plaintiffs to proceed with the case and
to amend the complaint so as to con-
form it to the proofs. Belknap Glass
Co. t?. Kelleher, 72 Wash. 529, 130 P.
1123.
914-28 Merchants' & Planters' Ins.
Co. V. Crane, 36 Okla. 160, 128 P. 260.
915-30 Bom v. Castle, 22 Cal. App.
282, 134 P. 347; Atchison, T. & S. F.
B. Co. V, Baldwin, 53 Colo. 426, 128
P. 453; Holbert V. Keller, 161 la. 723,
142 N. W. 962; Underwood t?. Fosha,
89 Kan. 768, 133 P. 866.
915-31 Born v. Castle, 22 Cal. App.
282, 134 P. 347; Phillips County Bank
V. Lowe, 91 Kan. 338, 137 P. 930; Zelig
17. Blue Point Oyster Co., 61 Or. 535,
33
Vol. 1
AMENDMENTS AND JEOFAILS
113 P. 852; 122 P. 756; Chesapeake Sb
O. R. Co. V, Swartz, 116 Va. 723, 80
S. £. 568.
915-82 AtchiBon, T. ft fi. P. R. Co.
V. Baldwin, 53 Colo. 426, 128 P. 453;
Welsh V. Haleen, 157 la. 647, 138 N.
W. 602.
916-85 Stonewall v. Stone, 207 Fed.
540, 125 C. C. A. 139; Southern B. Co.
V. Gadd, 207 Fed. 277, 126 C. C. A.
21; Pfoh V, Porter, 23 Cal. App. 69,
137 P. 44; Mills v. Jackson, 19 Cal.
App. 695, 127 P, 655; Florence O. & B.
Co. V, Hiawatha O., G. & B. Co., 55
Colo. 378, 135 P. 454; Dubois t?. Bowles,
65 Colo. 312, 134 P. 112; Shelinskj v.
Foster, 87 Conn. 90, 87 A. 35, Ann. Cas.
1914C, 1007; Hanlon v. Krammerer Glue
Co., 53 Ind. App. 504, 102 N. E. 48; Hol-
bert V. Keller, 161 la. 723, 142 N. W.
962; Doty v. Shepard, 92 Kan. 122, 139
P. 1183; Benfield v. Croson, 90 Kan.
661, 136 P, 262; France v. Chesapeake
& O. B. Co., 156 Ky. 126, 160 8. W.
757; Louisville & N. B. Co. v. Waller
& Co., 154 Ky. 811, 159 S. W. 590;
fiandeen V. Bussell Lumb. Co., 45 Mont.
273, 122 P. 913; Blakeslee v. Van der
Slice, 94 Neb. 153, 142 N. W. 799;
Fulsom-Morris O. & M. Co. t?. Mitchell,
37 Okla. 575, 132 P. 1103; Coley t?.
Johnson, 32 Okla. 102, 121 P. 271;
Beard. f>. Boyal Neighbors of America,
60 Or. 41, 118 P. 171.
916-86 Sterling <?. Marine Bank, 120
Md. 396, 87 A. 697, Ann. Cas. 1915A,
1219; Bobinson & Co. v. Stiner, 26
Okla. 272, 109 P. 238; Ball v. Bankin,
23 Okla. 801, 101 P. 1105.
Limltatioiui on discretion. — ^The only
limitation upon the discretion of the
court in allowing amended pleadings
is that they must be in furtherance of
justice and must not change substan-
tially the claim or defense. Moore v.
Damron, 157 Ky. 799, 164 S. W. 103.
916-37 Maclaren v, Kramar, 26 N.
D. 244, 144 N. W. 85, 50 L. B. A. (N.
S.) 714.
916-40 Duffy v. Henderson, 155 la.
117, 135 N. W. 573; Dudley v, Wabash
B. Co., 238 Mo. 184, 142 S. W. 338.
917-41 After jury has retired.
Court may properly refuse to allow the
answer to be amended after the jury
has retired. Moore t?. Damron, 157 Ky.
799, 164 S. W. 103.
Amendment after Instructions given.
Quinn v, St, Louis & S. F. E, Cg., 253
Mo. 48, 161 S. W. 820. See supra, 880-
10. ^ '
917-42 Elgan v. Frances Mohawk
M. & L. Co., 34 Nev. 469, 125 P. 693
(amendment allowed after decision
and before judgment); Yervaeke v,
Adams Express Co., 230 Pa. 647, 79 A.
764; Monk 17. Hurlburt, 151 Wis. 41,
138 N. W. 59, 42 L. B. A. (N. S.) 535.
917-43 Winfrey v. Clapp, 86 Kan.
887, 122 P. 1055; O 'Toole i'. Lowen-
stein, 177 Mo. App. 662, 160 S. W.
1016; Atlantic Mills t?. Superior Court,
32 B. I. 285, 79 A. 677.
918-45 Louisville, etc. Co. v. Lot-
tich (Ind. App.), 106 N. E. 903 (where
proof does not relate to a new or dif-
ferent cause of action, or give new
right of recovery, or where amendment
does not change theory of complaint);
Shuford r. Life Ins. Co., 167 N. C. 547,
83 S. E. 821.
918-46 Atlantic, G. & P. Co. v.
Woodmere Bealty Co., 156 App. Div.
351, 142 N. Y. S. 953; Hathaway V.
Arnold, 157 Wis. 22, 145 N. W. 780.
919-50 Bowman v, Wohlke, 166 Cal.
121, 135 P. 37, 1915 B, Ann. Cas. 1011;
Born f?. Castle, 22 Cal. App. 282, 134
P. 347; Hyer 17. Holmes & Co., 12 Ga.
App. 837, 79 S. E. 58; Clopton V.
Meeves, 24 Ida. 293, 133 P. 907; South-
western P. etc. €o. V, Perkins, 90 Kan.
725, 136 P. 324; Patterson v. Gore, 177
Mich. 591, 143 N. W. 643; Gerkin r.
Brown & Sehler Co., 177 Mich. 45, 143
N. W. 48; Priebisch v. Ottenwess, 176
Mich. 476, 142 N. W. 762; Musser t?.
Musser, 92 Neb. 387, 138 N. W. 599
(answer amended so as to omit a plea
of fraud and threats in obtaining a
note); Adickes v, Chatham, 167 N. C.
681, 83 S. E. 748; American W. Co. v.
Gordon, 40 Okla. 618, 139 P. 123; Ful-
som-Morris C. & M. Co. V, Mitchell,
37 Okla. 575, 132 P. 1103; Merchants'
& P. Ins. Co. V. Crane, 36 Okla. 160, 128
P. 260; Offutt r. Wagoner, 30 Okla. 458,
120 P. 1018.
An accord and satisfaction, when
brought out in the evidence, may be
set up in the answer by amendment.
Engineering Co. 17. Beam, 23 Cal. App.
164, 137 P. 624.
* 'Claim" as used in the statute allow-
ing an amendment to conform to the
proof if it does not substantially change
the claim or defense, is synonymous
with ''cause of action." Loretto L.
34
AMENDMENTS AND JEOFAILS
Vol 1
& B. Soc. r. Garcia, 18 N. M. 318, 136
P. 858.
920-63 Nashville, etc. By. v. West-
ern Union Tel. Co., 142 Ga. 525, 83
S. £. 123.
Erralum. — ^The title cross-referred to
should have been "New Oaiiae of Ac-
tion or Defense." J
If no canao of action la stated, as dis-
tinguished from a defectively stated
cause of action, it cannot be amended.
Arkansas L. Ins. Co. v. American N. L.
Ins. Co., 109 Ark. 130, 161 S. W. 136;
Vickery v. New London N, R. Co., 87
Conn. 634, 89 A. 277. But see the title
"New Canae of Action or Defense."
920-54 Plitt V. Illinois Surety Co.,
165 App. Div. 973, 150 N. Y. S. 756,
upon the imposition of proper terms,
the court may allow an amendment
changing the cause of action.
921-65 Discretionary with court.
Pritchard r. Norfolk So. R. Co., 166 N.
C. 532, 82 S. E. 875.
921-56 Amendments before trlaL
Bule forbidding amendments which
change the cause of action does not ap-
ply to amendments made before trial.
Bowman v. First Nat. Bank, 115 Va.
463, 80 S. E. 95.
In Texas a petition may be changed by
amendment bo as to set up an entirely
new cause of action, but the party
amending must pay the costs up to the
time of the amendment. Wiebusch v,
Taylor, 64 Tex. 53; McLane v. Bel-
vin, 47 Tex. 493, 502; Reed v. Harris,
37 Tex. 167; Irvine V. Bastrop, 32 Tex.
485; Connally v. Saunders (Tex. Civ.),
142 S. W. 975.
922-57 Dumont v. Peet, 152 la. 524,
132 N. W. 955; Myers v. Chicago, B.
ft Q. R. Co., 152 la. 330, 131 N. W.
770; Trower V, Roberts, 30 Okla. 215,
120 P. 617.
924U58 Porter v. New York, 83 Misc.
367, 145 N. Y. S. 938.
924-59 Irwin 17. Coleman, 173 Ala.
175, 55 S. 492; Southern Ry. Co. v.
Cooper, 172 Ala. 505, 65 S. 211; West-
cm Ry. r. McPherson, 3 Ala. App. 380,
57 So. 396 (amended complaint held
not to constitute a departure); Henry
V. Phillips, 163 Cal. 135, 124 P. 837,
Ann. Cas. 1914A, 39 (introducing an
allegation of fraud in a complaint to
quiet title held proper) ; Third St. Imp.
Co. V. McLelland, 23 Cal. App. 369, 137
P. 1089; State Bank r. Plummer, 54
Colo. 144, 129 P. 819; Missouri Pac.
Ry. Co. V. Atkinson, 23 Colo. App. 357,
129 P. 5G6; Southern R. Co. v, Flem-
ing, 141 Ga. 69, 80 S. £. 825; Western
Union Tel. Co. v. Calhoun, 13 Ga. App.
482, 79 S. E. 371 (correcting name of
place where telegram received, held not
departure); Pittman v. Hodges, 13 Ga.
App. 25, 78 S. E. 688 (action for goods
sold and delivered cannot be converted
by amendment into an action for breach
of a contract to purchase plaintiff 's in-
terest in a partnership); Colozza v.
Iowa Cent. Ry. Co., 182 111. App. 89;
Bankwitz v. Northwestern Elev. Ry.,
182 XH. App. 55 (omitting a charge of
i^egligence contained in the original
pleading, does not change the cause of
action); Siegel v. Thompson, 181 111.
App. 164 (amendment to declaration in
slander); Ramsey v. Utica Bep. Bank,
156 Ky. 263, 160 S. W. 943 (amendment
in action on note allowed); Christina
V. Cusimano, 129 La. 873, 57 S. 157
(amendment to complaint on a mort-
gage note held not to change the sub-
stance of the demand); Firos v, Tay-
lor, 116 Md. 69, 81 A. 389 (amendment
limiting the allegations of negligence
to particular defendants); Arnold v.
Brechtel, 174 Mich. 147, 140 N. W. 610
(amendment reducing the amount of
land claimed in ejectment); Leonard v.
Leahy, 169 Mich. 406, 135 N. W. 335
(amendment describing the accident
more fully) ; Hudson" v. Southwest Mis-
souri R. Co., 173 Mo. App. 611, 159 S.
W. 9 (alleging new facts that neces-
sitate new evidence -to support them
does not change the cause of action);
Adcox V. Western Union Tel. Co., 171
Mo. App. 331, 157 S. W. 989; Knuckey
V. Butte Elec. R. Co., 45 Mont. 100, 122
P. 280; McCarthy v. Mullen (N. J. L.),
82 A. 933; Duffy t?. McKenna, 82 N. J.
L. 62, 81 A. 1101 (amendment in action
for deceit held not to set up a new
cause of action); Goldowitz v. Henry
Kupfer & Co., 84 Misc. 393, 146 N. Y.
S. 189; Pollock v. Jordon, 22 N. B. 132,
132 N. W. 1000, Ann. Cas. 1914A, 1264;
Derr Const. Co. v, Gelruth, 29 Okla.
538, 120 P. 253 (amendment to permit
proof of expenses for medical attend-
ance); Shawnee r. Slankard, 29 Okla.
133, 116 P. 8C3; Rick V. New York,
etc. R. Co., 232 Pa. 553, 81 A. 650
(amendment of description of a car al-
lowed in action for injuries from de-
fective car) ; Hodges r. McGovem, 230
Pa. 368, 79 A. 636; Atlantic Mills v.
35
Vol. 1
AMENDMENTS AND JEOFAILS
Superior Gourt, 32 E. I. 285, 79 A.
577; Miller 17. West Texas Lumb. Co.
(Tex. Civ,), 143 S. W. 970 (amendment
allowed curing failure to allege con-
tract price of attorney's services);
Sowles V, Hartford Life Ins. Co., 85
Vt. 56, 81 A. 98 (amendment to a dec-
laration held to set up a new cause of
action) ; Nowell v. Seattle Transfer Co.,
C3 Wash. 685, 116 P. 287. See title
"New Cause of Action or Defensa."
Defendant's character as an Interstate
commerce carrier. — ''It was contended
that by the allegation that the defend-
ant was engaged in interstate com-
merce at the time of the plaintiff's in-
jury, the amendment changed the cause
of action originally laid. We do not
think 80. The cause of action was the
injury sustained by the plaintiff in
the negligent operation of the specific
train described in the petition. The
time, the place and the manner of the
injury were not varied. No new rea-
son was brought into the case, and the
only added fact was the character of
the business in which the train was en-
gaged." Gainesville M. Ry. v. Van-
diver, 141 Ga. 350, 80 S. E. 997.
Judgment on one bar to recovery on
other, etc. Southern R. Co. v. Cooper,
172 Ala. 505, 55 So. 211; United States
H. & Ace. Ins. Co. v, Emerick, 55 Ind.
App. 591, 103 N. E. 435.
A count upon an account stated may
be added by amendment to a complaint
in trover. Gambill v. Fox Typewriter
Co. (Ala.), 66 S. 655.
"Inconsistency of claims for liability,
asserted in distinct counts, is not, un-
der our statutes, the test either of the
right to amend by interposing addition-
al counts or of the right to effect join-
der in one action in distinct counts. If
the cause of action asserted in distinct
counts is related in transaction or sub-
ject-matter as the quoted statutes pro-
vide, no error can he predicated of the
allowance of amendments." Gambill v.
Pox Typewriter Co. (Ala.), 66 S. 655.
Strlldng out one cause of action. — A
party who has joined an action sound-
ing in tort with an action sounding in
contract may amend by eliminating
cither remedy. Dowdy v. Calvi, 14
Ariz. 148, 125 P. 87S,
Work and labor to mechanic's Hen.
Where plaintiff was permitted to file
an amended complaint changing the
action from assumpsit for work and
labor done to one on a mechanic's lien,
the court said: "We do not think
that in strictness the amendment which
was made . . . did change the cause
of action. It only changed the rem-
edy;^ ... 'but the cause of action,'
or in other words the labor per-
formed and materials furnished . . .
were the same." Lackner v. Turn-
bull, 7 Wis. 105.
Bepladng creditor as plaintiff by a
trustee in bankruptcy and adding mat-
ter to show trustee's right to sue does
not state a new cause of action. Van
Camp V. McCulley (Ohio), 104 N. E.
1004.
Betting up estoppel. — An amendment to
complaint setting up an estoppel
affainst one of the defendants in re-
plevin, is proper, where such amend-
ment will meet the proof. Mills v.
IJackson, 19 Cal. App. 695, 127 P. 655.
Grounds of recovery. — Amendments
merely tending to enlarge the grounds
for the recovery of damages do not in-
troduce a new cause of action. Truckee
River G. E. Co. r. Benner, 211 Fed. 79,
127 C. C. A. 503.
New cause of action In counterclaim.
A defendant may not as a matter of
right introduce a new cause of action
by way of counterclaim by means of a
trial amendment, ^andelaria v, Miera,
18 N. M. 107, 134 P. 829.
A cause of action in partition may be
added by amendment to a petition in
ejectment. Hanson t?. Hanson, 86 Kan.
622, 122 P. 100.
Other slanderous words of the same
general character may be charged by
amendment in a complaint for slander.
Trower v. Roberts, 30 Okla. 215, 120
P. 617.
Changing the character in which plain-
tiff is maintaining the action is not ob-
jectionable where the facts warrant it.
Thus a party suing in his representa-
tive capacity may amend so as to de-
clare in his individual capacity. Hardy
r. Woods, 33 S. D. 416, 146 N. W. 568.
Proof not identicaL — Although proof
necessary to sustain the one complaint
is not entirely identical with that re-
quired by the other, the amendment
may be allowed, where both pleadings
have the same object in view. Born
V, Castle, 22 Cal. App. 282, 134 P. 347.
Setting up a different contract. — Where
the petition counts solely on the exe-
cution and failure to pay a promissory
36
AMENDMENTS AND JEOFAILS
Vol. 1
note it may not be amended so as to
coant on money had and received or
money paid for the nse and benefit of
defendant. Mineral Belt Bank v. Elk-
ing Lead & Z. Go.^ 173 Mo. App. 634,
158 S. W. 1066.
PsrfoctiBg original complaint. — ^An
amendment which merely perfects the
allegations of the cause stated in the
original complaint is not objectionable.
Steeley v. Lumb. Co.. 165 N. C. 27. 80
a £. 963.
An action nnder the federal employexs*
UaUlity act may be changed before
trial to one nnder the state law. Mid-
land Yal. B. Co. V. Ennis, 109 Ark. 206,
159 8. W. 214.
In ejectment errors in the description
may be corrected by amendment so
long as the amended pleading does not
relate to different property. Brown v.
Loeb, 177 Ala. 106, 58 S. 330.
DUIerent prosecutiQns. — ^A complaint
for malicious prosecution, alleging a
prosecution before "K" a clerk, can-
not be amended so as to set up a prose-
cution before "O" a justice of the
peace. Hanchey r. Brunson, 175 Ala.
236, 56 8. 971, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 804.
Changing description of a lot. — ^An
amendment of a complaint charging a
wrongful obstruction of a street, by
changing the description of the lot
alleged to have been damaged does not
introduce a new cause of action. Bar-
anco V, Birmingham Term. Co.^ 175
Ala. 146, 57 8. 434.
"The teet is whether the proposed
amendment is a different matter or
the same matter, laid in different ways,
to meet the varying phases of the tes-
timony and thus prevent a variance
between the allegations and the proof. ' '
Elmore-Quillan & €o. v. Cunningham, 4
Ala. App. 650, 58 8. 1004.
An aOegatlon of residence inserted in
a complaint for divorce substantially
changes the cause of action and is not
permissible. Holton v, Helton, 64 Or.
290, 129 P. 532, 48 L. B. A. (N. 8.)
779.
Changing character of goods in re-
plevin.— ^Replevin for specific property
cannot be amended so as to set up a
claim for a specific sum wrongfully
collected for plaintiff. Kansas City 8.
By. V. Tonn, 102 Ark. 20, 143 8. W.
577.
Changing description of parties. — ^There
is ao new cause of action introduced
by an amendment which describes the
plaintiffs as co-partners, whereas the
original complaint describes them as in-
dividuals. Ahlers V. Smiley, 163 Cal.
200, 124 P. 827.
925-60 Erratum. — The title cross-
referred to should have been "New
Cause of Action or Defense."
Adding new counts. — 8ee the title
''Several Counts."
926-61 Erratnnu — ^The title cross-
referred to should have been "New
Canse of Action or Defense."
In Equity.— See the title "Bills and
Answers."
925-63 A count in case may by
amendment be substituted in a declar-
ation in assumpsit. Sanborn v. Boston
& M. R. E., 76 N. H. 65, 79 A. 642.
926-64 From replevin to conversion.
"Even though the action were for re-
covery of possession instead of conver-
sion, yet to penalize plaintiff by dis-
missing the action, instead of permit-
ting an amendment, would be incon-
sistent with the spirit of our reformed
procedure, which demands a disregard
of technicalities when they in no way
affect the substantial rights of part-
ies.'* Missouri River Transp. Co. v.
Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co., 34 S. D.
1, 147 N. W. 82.
Money liad and received to statutory
action. — ^A complaint against a sheriff
for money had and received may be
amended so as to set out an action
under a statute which makes officers li-
able in a certain penalty for charging
more for any service than the law al-
lows. Kerwin v. Albrecht, 155 Wis.
599, 145 N. W. 205.
Express contract to quantum meruit.
An amendment to a complaint which
declares on an express contract, making
it one, counting on a quantum meruit
states a new cause of action, and is
not permissible. Jackson 17. Blair (Tex.
Civ.), 165 S. W. 522. But where all
the necessary elements of a quantum
meruit are exhibited in the- original
complaint counting upon an express
contract, an amendment adding a count
in quantum meruit, does not introduce
a new cause of action. Merchants' C.
Agency v. Gopcevic, 23 Cal. App. 216,
137 P. 609.
Reducing amount claimed in a com-
plaint upon an express contract to that
part of the entire compensation repre-
sented by work actually performed does
87
Voll
AMENDMEl^TS AlfD JSOPAILS
not change the action to one on a
quantum meruit. The contract contin-
ues to be the foundation of the action
and the amendment enables plaintiff to
statd the proper measure of damages.
Sauer i;. School Bist., 243 Pa. 294, 90
A. 150..
Equity to law. — "It must be conceded
that the plaintiff, in the first place,
might have brought his action at law.
The facts upon which the equity and
the law action are founded are sub-
stantially the same. The difference
practically is in the prayer for relief."
Amendment allowed. Rohrbach v. Ham-
mill, 162 la. 131, 143 N. W. 872. But
see Byrne r. MeKeachie, 29 S. D. 476,
137 N. W. 343.
Law to equity. — ^^ 'Under the statute in
relation to amendments, we have no
hesitation in holding that a party is
not estopped by bringing an action at
law from amending his pleadings be-
fore the case has finally been submit-
ted to the court, so as to change it into
an action in equity. We feel confident
that the universal practice is in accord
with this view." Barnes t\ Hekla F.
Ins. Co., 75 la. 11, 39 N. W. 122, 9 Am.
St. 450. Bee also King v. Livingston
Mfg. Co., 180 Ala. 118, 60 S. 143.
Case to covenant. — A party who has
mistakenly brought his action in case
may upon motion amend the form to
that in covenant. Eby v. Concord
Heights Co. (Del.), 90 A. 40.
Common counts added to trover. — ^A
complaint containing a count in trover
may be amended by adding the common
counts under the statute. Gambill v.
Pox Typewriter Co. (Ala.), 66 S. 655.
Tort to contract. — ^Where having an
election to sue in contract or in tort,
plaintiff proceeds in tort, the court can-
not change the complaint to one in con-
tract. Frankel r. Dinitz, 83 Misc. 124,
144 N. Y. 8. 770.
927-65 Youngs v, Wegner, 157 Wis.
489, 146 N. W. 803.
927-66 Southern Ry. Co. <?. Hanby,
183 Ala. 255, 62 S. 871; Tennessee, etc.
R. Co. V. Barker, 6 Ala. App. 413, 60
S. 486; Bray v. Lowery, 163 Cal. 256,
124 P. 1004; Second Nat. Bank v,
Clancy, 178 111. App. 427; Johnson v.
Citizens' Bank (Ind. App.), 107 N. E.
35; Cincinnati, etc. B. Co. v, Goode, 163
Ky. 60, 173 S. W. 329; Olivier, Voor-
hies & Lowrey v. Majors, 133 La. 764,
63 S. 323; McQee v. McGee, 161 Mo.
App. 40, 143 S. W. 77; Ben Kress Nur-
sery Co. tJ. Oregon Nursery Co., 45
Mont. 494, 124 P. 475; Maytham t?.
Parker, 81 Misc. 400, 142 N. Y. S. 582;
Za^ier v. Zagier, 167 N. O. 616, 83 S.
E. 913; gweeney v. McKendall, 32 B.
I. 347, 79 A. 940; Catobio u. Ibello, 32
R. I. 307, 79 A. 789; Hughes t?. Four
States Life Ins. Co. (Tex. Civ. App,),
164 S. W. 898; Robbins v, Wyman,
Partridge & Co., 75 Wash. 617, 135 P.
656.
Abandonment of original pleadings.
A trial amendment which omits all
reference to the sureties on the se-
questration bond, does not operate as
an abandonment of former pleadings,
so as to render the sureties no longer
necessary parties for disposition by the
judgment. Bushong i?. Alderson (Tex.
CSv.), 143 S. W. 200.
928-69 Adams 17. Georgia Ry. Co.,
142 Ga. 497, 83 8. E. 131.
929-71 Goss V. Weiman & Co., 5 Ala.
App. 404, 59 S. 364; Bieckmann v.
Merkh, 20 Cal. App. 655, 130 P. 27;
Chariton Nat. Bank t?. Whicher, 163 la,
571, 145 N. W. 299; Cincinnati, etc. R.
Co. t7. Goode, 163 Ky. 60, 173 S. W.
329; Ter. V. Woolsey, 35 Okla. 545, 130
P, 934.
All amended answer relates back and
takes effect as of the time the original
answer was filed. First Nat. Bank v.
Minge, 186 Ala. 405, 64 S. 957.
929-78 Cincinnati, etc. R. Co. r.
Goode, 163 Ky. 60, 173 S. W. 329.
930-74 Implied withdrawal of ad-
mlsslona. — Where a defendant in his
original answer makes no reference to
certain paragraphs in the petition,
containing material averments, an
amendment to the answer expressly
denying such paragraphs is a sufficient
joiiider of issue thereon, although
there is in the amendment no with-
drawal of the admissions of the para-
graphs in the original answer, implied
from the failure to answer them.
Moore t?. Calvert Mtg. Co., 13 Ga. App.
54, 78 S. E. 1097.
930-76 Beflllng pleas^ — An amend-
ment to a complaint striking out a
particular count does not require the
refiling of pleas addressed to each
separate count left in the complaint.
Doss V, Wadswdrth Red Ash C. Co., 185
Ala. 597, 64 S. 341.
Bight to answer whole petition. — An
amendment will not authorize an an-
88
ANtMAZ8
Tot. 1
Bwer to tke whole petition unless it
materially changes the cause of action.
Brooke r. Nat. Bank, 141 Ga. 493, 81
S. £. 223.
AHIOABI.E AOnONE
933-6 Who may submit controversy.
West Chicago Park Oomrs. v. Biddle,
245 ni. 168, 91 N. E. 1060.
933-8 Scope of ixiiiniry. — Court is
limited to the cause stated by the
facts and what is not set forth as ad-
mitted cannot be considered as exist-
ing, a I. B. T. By. Co. V, Hite, 41 Pa.
Super. 527.
933-9 JuxlBdletioiL— Filing of agree-
ment is sufficient to confer jurisdiction.
West Chicago Park Comrs. v, Biddle,
245 HI. 168, 91 N. E. 1060.
933-13 See S. I. B. T. By. Co. v.
Hite, 41 Pa. Super. 527.
AMICfUS OUBIAE
936-3 In re McClellan's Est., 27 S.
D. 109, 129 N. W. 1037, Ann. Cas.
1913C, 1029.
SoggMtionB by dlsdiarged attorney*
An attorney. in a pending suit having
been discharged by his cUent, and the
latter having stipulated for ft decree
disregarding rights of minors not par-
ties may properly suggest facts to the
court necessary for minor's protection.
Jones V. Hudson, 93 Neb. 561, 141 N.
W. 141, 44 L. B. A. (N. S.) 1182.
936-5 See Howard v, B. Co., 207 tJ.
S. 463, 28 Sup. Ct. 141, 52 L. ed. 297;
Ek parte Brockman, 233 Mo. 135, 134
8. W. 977.
937-10 S. f?. McDonald, 63 Or. 467,
128 P. 835, Ann. Cas. 1914A, 201.
937-11 S. V. McDonald, 63 Or. 467,
128 P. 835, Ann. Cas. 1914A, 201.
Want of eerTlce of pxocees^ — ^Amicus
curiae may suggest to court want of
service of process upon defendant. Chi-
cago, etc. B. Co. V, Anderson, 105 Tex.
1, 141 S. W. 513, rev. Chicago, etc. B.
Co. I?. Anderson (Tex. Civ.), 130 S. W.
182.
937-16 See Howard v, Dlinois Cent.
B. Co., 207 U. S. 463, 28 Sup. Ct. 141,
52 L. ed. 297.
938-17 S. V. McDonald, 63 Or. 467,
128 P. 835, Ann. Cas. 1914 A, 201; In
re McClellan's Est.. 27 S. D. 109, 129
N. W. 1037, Ann. Cas. 1913C, 1029.
938-19 ^S. r.'^McDonaldr^S^Or. 467,'
128 P. 835, Ann. Cas. 1914A, 201.
938-20 Cannot apply for vacation'of
judgment. S. v. Steiner, 58 Wash. 578,
109 P. 57. •*
938-22 Muskogee Co. v. Haskell,' 38
Okla. 358, 132 P. 1098, Ann. Cas. 1915A,
190.
»—
938-23 Masing special appearance.
Appearance of regular attorney of cor-
poration as amicus curiae to object to
sufficiency of service of citation is not
an appearance. Elliott v. Standard, etc.
Armor Co. (Tex, Civ.), 173 S. W. 616.
939-27 S. V, McDonald, 63 Or. 467,
128 P. 835, Ann. Cas. 1915A, 201; Chi-
cago, etc. B. Co. 1?. Anderson , (Tex.
Civ.), 130 S. W. 102. I - .
Unless JurisdictlonaL — ^Hurd v. Ingle-
heart (Tex. Civ.), 140 S. W. 119.
940-29 S. V. McDonald, 63 Or. 467,
128 P. 835, Ann. Cas. 1914A, 201.
ANIKALS
946-2 PhilUps V, Gamer (Miss.), 64
S. 735.
946-8 Holt t?. Myers, 47 Ind. App.
118, 93 K. E. 31, rehear, denied, 93 N.
E. 1002; Dix v, Somerset Coal Co., 217
Mass. 146, 104 N. E. 433; Warrick v.
Parley, 95 Neb. 565, 145 N. W. 1020;
Malafronte v. Milone, 35 B. I. 225, 86
A. 146; Missio v. Williams, 129 Tenn.
504, 167 S. W. 473, 1915A, L. B. A.
500. See American Exp. Co. f. Par-
carello (Tex. Civ.), 162 S. W. 926.
948-16 Wood V. Campbell, 28 S. D.
197, 132 N. W. 785, Ann. Cas. 1914B,
605.
949-29 Necessity of alleging ordi-
nance.— ^Where owner is liable . regard-
less of provisions of city ordinance al-
legations as to ordinance and violation
are surplusage. Forsythe r. Kluck-
hohn, 161 la. 267, 142 N. W. 225.
950-31 Holt V, Myers, 47 Ind. App.
118, 93 N. E. 31, rehear, denied, 93 N.
E. 1002.
960-37 Kleybolte v. Buffon, 33 O. C.
C. 211. See Gropp t?. Tea Co., 141 App.
Div. 372, 126 N. Y. S. 211.
By St., 1911, |1620.~Legault v. Mai-
acker, 156 Wis. 507, 145 N. W. 1081.
953-63 Byan v, Marren, 216 Mass.
556, 104 N. E. 353; Warrick v. Farley,
95 Neb. 565, 145 N. W. 1020.
964-61 Buchanan v. Stout, 139 App.
89
Vol 1
AmviTtsa
Div. 204, 123 N. Y. S. 724; S. v. Smith,
156 N. C. 628, 72 S. E. 321, 36 L. B.
A. (N. S.) 910; Low r. Barnes, 30 Okla.
15, 118 P. 389.
Turkeys and other fowls are animals
within statute. Holcomb v. Van Zy-
len, 174 Mich. 274, 140 N. W. 521, Ann.
Caa. 1915A, 1241, 44 L. B. A. (N. S.)
607.
954-63 See Ellis v. OUphant, 159 la.
514, 141 N. W. 415.
956-TT See Browdet-Manget Co. r.
Calhoun Co., 138 Ga. 277, 75 S. E. 243.
95T-S7 Scoville «. Columbia, 86
Conn. 568, 86 A. 85.
957-93 Financial status of town.
Averment that town had money suffi-
cient to pay the damages is surplusage.
Wea Tp. t;. Cloyd, 46 Ind. App. 49, 91
N. E. 959.
958-97 Waiver of dalm against
owner. — ^By presenting claim to board
of supervisors owner waives any other
Remedy and cannot sue owner of dogs
for any damages. Ellis v, Oliphant, 159
la. 514, 141 N. W. 415.
960-14 Contra, Missouri Pac. B. Co.
t?. Finley, 38 Kan. 550, 16 P. 951; Al-
frey v. Shouse, 163 Ky. 333, 173 S. W.
792; Clarendon L. I. & A. Co. v. Mc-
Clelland, 89 Tex. 483, 34 S. W. 98, 35
S. W. 474.
962-37 Iteasonableness of statute as
to the prevention of spread of com-
municable diseases is for the court.
Bishop V. S., 122 Tenn. 729, 127 S. W.
698.
965-60 U. S. V. El Paso, etc. B. Co.,
178 Fed. 846.
968-89 8ee Harrington v. Hall, 6
Penne. (Del.) 72, 63 A. 875; also James
V. Tindall (Del.), 88 A. 1003.
969-93 Johnson 17. Downing, 182 HI.
App. 536.
970-8 Thomas v. 8., 166 Ala. 40, 52
S. 34; S. t?. Hakon, 21 N. D. 133, 129
N. W. 234.
971-21 Animal otherwise Identified.
Kame of owner or person in possession
need not be alleged where the animal
is sufFiciently identified. Stokes 17. S.,
14 Ga. App. 522, 81 S. E. 595.
972-32 But see James v. S., 170 Ala.
72, 54 S. 494.
972-34 But effect need not be stated
where it is a matter of common knowl-
edge. Moore r. S. (Ind.), 107 N. E. 1.
979-9 Vaughn v. Bixby, 24 Cal. App.
641, 142 P. 100,
979-11 Allen v. Walden, 27 Okla.
94, 111 P. 316.
Statute is constitutional which author-
izes stock law elections. Ex parte Cow-
den (Tex. Cr.), 168 S. W. 539.
The police Jury of a parish has power
to enact a ''no fence" law for a par-
ticular ward of the parish. Miller x>,
Bopp, 136 La. 788, 67 S. 831.
989-19 Oliaracter of averments.
Not necessary that averments in plead-
ing shall be as full and specific as in
indictment or information for viola-
tion of criminal part of law. Lee r.
Mclnnis (Tex. Qv.), 128 S. W. 160. See
King f?. S. (Tex. Cr.), 74 S. W. 773.
981-21 White v. Steele, 5 Ala. App.
532, 59 S. 713.
981-25 An indictment alleging that
the stock law had been adopted in a
certain precinct when in fact it had
not, is fatally defective. Ex parte
Stein (Tex. Cr.), 135 S. W. 136.
It must go even further. — ^The indict-
ment must allege the name of the
owner of the land trespassed upon, and
the kind of live stock allowed to tres-
pass. Madison v, S., 11 Ala. App. -225,
65 So. 848.
981-29 Gest v. Dube (Tex. Civ.), 142
S. W. 965.
Remedy for impounding. — ^Means v,
Morgan, 2 Ala. App. 547, 56 S. 759.
982-33 Bell v. San Angelo (Tex.
Civ.), 146 S. W. 1195.
983-44 S. t?. Clifton, 152 N. C. 800,
67 S. E. 751, 28 L. B. A. (N. S.) 673.
984-54 Lawrence v, S., 10 Ga. App.
786, 74 S. E. 300.
ANNUITIES
987-1 Boutt t'. Newman, 253 111. 185,
97 N. E. 208; Nehls v, Sauer, 119 la.
440, 93 N. W. 346 (ci«. 2 Bl. Com. 40) ;
Henry v, Henderson, 81 Miss. 743, 33
S. 960, 63 L. B. A. 616; Wiegand r.
Woerner, 155 Mo. App. 227, 134 S. W.
596; Welsh t?. Brown, 43 N. J. L. 37;
Krigbaum v, Irvine, 10 O. D. 226, 8
O. N. P. 174; Dulaney's Admr. v, Du-
Uney, 105 Va. 429, 54 S. E. 40.
988-3 In re Tom's Est., 84 Misc.
312, 147 N. Y. S. 550.
988-4 Boutt V, Newman, 253 111. 185,
97 N. E. 208; Nehls f?. Sauer, 119 la.
440, 93 N. W. 346; Northern Cent. By.
Co. f?. Hering, 93 Md. 164, 48 A. 461;
MoBser v. Lesher, 154 Pa. 84, 22 A.
40
ANOTHER ACTION PENDING
Vol. 1
1085; Bnlaney's Admr. v. Dulaney, 105
Va. 429, 54 S. E. 40.
088-6 In re United States Trust Co.,
86 Misc. 603, 148 N. Y, S. 762.
"Bent cbarge" and "annuity** dls-
tingnlahad. — Wiegand v. Woerner, 155
Mo. App. 227, 134 S. W. 596.
988-7 I>lstinctlon between Income
and an annuity. — ^The former embraces
only the net profits, after deducting all
necessary expenses and charges. The
latter is a fixed amount directed to be
paid absolutely and without conting-
ency. Moore v, Downey, 83 N. J. Eq.
428, 91 A. 116; Matter of Dewey, 153
N. Y. 63, 46 N. E. 1039; In re Gurnee,
84 Misc. 324, 147 N. Y. S. 396; Du-
laney's Admr. v, Dulaney, 105 Va. 429,
54 8. £. 40.
AKOTHEB ACTION PEin>INa
096-1 Dowdy r. Calvi, 14 Ariz. 148,
125 P. 873; Fresno Plan. Mill Oo. V,
Manning, 20 Cal. App. 766, 130 P. 196;
Singletary t?. Chipstead, 142 Ga. 208,
82 8. £. 547; Blassingame v. Cattle-
men's Trust Co. (Tex. Civ.), 174 S. W.
900; Sparks 17. Nat. Bank of Commerce
(Tex. Civ.), 168 8. W. 48.
996-2 Kaplan v. Coleman, 180 Ala.
267, 60 8. 885; Seeger v. Young, 127
Minn. 416, 149 K. W. 735; Merriam v.
Baker, 9 Minn. 40; Pocoke v. Peterson,
256 Mo. 501, 165 8. W. 1017; Michelin
Tire Co. v. Webb, 143 Mo. App. 679,
127 S. W. 948; Compton V, Green, 9
How. Pr. (N. Y.) 228; Bundlet & Bey-
nolds V. Whitall, 135 N. Y. 8. 697.
996-3 Brown v. Brown, 110 Me. 280,
86 A. 32; Disbrow v. Creamery Pack.
Co., 115 Minn. 434, 132 N. W. 913.
In Texas the rule of the common law
that a suit pending between two part-
ies on a certain cause of action would
be cause for abating a second suit be-
tween the same parties on the same
cause of action in courts of the same
jurisdiction, does not exist. Cole v, 8.
(Tex. Civ.), 163 8. W. 353; Liberty
Milling Co. v. Continental Gin Co. (Tex.
Civ.), 132 8. W. 856; Garza v. Piano
Co. (Tex. Civ.), 126 8. W. 906. The
plaintiff in the suit could elect which
of the two suits he would try. Wilker-
son V. Ft. Worth & D. C. B. Co. (Tex.
Civ.), 171 8. W. 1041; Pullman Co. f>.
Hoyle, 52 Tex. (3iv. 534, 115 8. W. 315.
The trial of the second suit, if the two
eoita were between the same parties on
the same cause of action, would amount
to an election to abandon the first. Cole
17. 8. (Tex. Civ.), 163 S. W. 353. But
in Goggan & Bros. v» Morrison (Tex.
Civ.), 163 8. W. 119, it was held that
two courts of concurrent jurisdiction
would not at the same time entertain
a suit between the same parties over
the same subject-matter. A similar
rule was applied in Miller & Yidor
Lumb. Co. V, Williamson (Tex. Civ.),
164 8. W. 440.
99T-4 Mullikin r. Cleveland, etc. R.
Co., 164 111. App. 37.
First action will be dismissed when a
subsequent action between the same
parties embraces more fully the sub-
ject-matter in dispute. Schenck v.
Yard (N. J. Eq.), 86 A. 81,
997-9 Boone v. Boone, 160 la. 284,
137 N. W. 1059, 141 N. W. 938.
998-10 Most be Judicial proceedings.
A proceeding in a county court to call
in warrants is not judicial in character
and consequently does not abate a sub-
sequent action against the county to
enforce the outstanding warrants. Falls
City Const. Co. t?. Monroe Co., 208 Fed.
482.
998-11 Enforcing Judgment. — ^Where
the purpose of the action is merely to
enforce the judgment, a plea of an-
other action pending cannot avail in
the action commenced upon the judg-
ment before the time for appeal has
expired. 8weet8er v, Fox,^ 43 Utah 40,
134 P. 599, 47 L. B, A. (N. S.) 145.
Action In aid of judgmentr^-M action
to set aside a fraudulent Conveyance,
being in aid of judgment, will not abate
because an appeal is pending from the
judgment. Sewell v, Johnson, 165 Cal.
762, 134 P. 704, Ann. Cas. 1915B, 645.
998-12 Leyy of the attachment
must have been made. Wrisht Merc. &
L. Co. V. Eton Merc. Co. (Q^a.), 84 8.
E. 442. '
"Where no declaration Is filed on the
first attachment, it will not abate the
second attachment. Drake v, Lewis, 13
Ga. App. 276, 79 8. E. 167.
999-15 Homrich f . Bobinson (Mass.),
108 N. E. 1082.
999-16 U. 8. V. Herbert, 5 Cranch C.
C. 87, 26 Fed. Cas. No. 15,354; 8. v.
Benham, 7 Conn. 414; Knight v. 8.,
42 Fla. 546, 28 8. 759; Eldridge v. 8.,
27 Fla. 162, 9 8. 448; Irwin v, 8., 117
Ga. 706, 45 8. £. 48; Horst v. 8., 11
41
Vol 1
AKOTBtlR ACTION PENDim
Ga. App. 754, 76 S. E. 78; CabanisB v.
8., 8 Ga. App. 129, 68 S. E. 849; Gray
V. S., 6 Ga. App. 428, 65 S E. 191; Gan-
non V. People, 127 111. 507, 21 N. E.
625, 11 Am. St. 147; Hardin v. S., 22
Ind. 347; Button v. S., 5 Ind. 533; S.
V, McKinney, 31 Kan. 570, 3 P. 356;
S. v. Curtis, 29 Kan. 384; C. r. Cody,
165 Mass. 133, 42 N. E. 575; C. v. Mur-
phy, 11 Cush (Mass.) 472; C. r. Drew,
3 Cush. (Mass.) 279; C. v, Dunhaiii,
Thach. Cr. Cas. (Mass.) 513; Hartley
V, 8., 53 Neb. 310, 73 N. W. 744; 8. r.
Lambert, 9 Nev. 321; Whiting v. 8., 48
O. St. 220, 27 N. E. 96; Reed v. Ter., 1
Okla. Cr. 481, 98 P. 583; Smith v. C,
104 Pa. 339; C. r. Ramsey, 42 Pa. Super.
25; S. r. Security Bank, 2 S. D. 538,
51 N. W. 337; Zachary o. 8., 7 Baxt.
(Tenn.) 1; Carter r. S., 44 Tex. Cr. 312,
70 S. W. 971.
Concnrrent Jurisdiction. — The rule ap-
plies also where the prior indictment is
pending in a court of concurrent jur-
isdiction. Bartley v. 8., 53 Neb. 310,
73 N. W. 744.
999-18 8. V. Claney, 97 Neb. 721,
151 N. W. 155.
A pending mandamuB proceeding to
compel a city treasurer to repay taxes
will not bar a subsequent action against
the city to recover the taxes. Madary
V. Fresno, 20 Cal. App. 91, 128 P. 340.
1000-21 Petzet v, Cflark, 153 HI.
App. 152.
1000-22 Mississippi Yal. Fuel Co.
r. Watson Coal Co., 202 Fed. 122, 120
C. C, A. 276; Southern B. Co. v. Hayes,
183 Ala. 465, 62 8. 874; Billups v. Gil-
bert, 180 Ala. 437, 61 8. 901; Erikson v.
Ward, 185 111. App. 269. See Poland
1?. Loud (Me.), 93 A. 549.
1000-23 Early r. Ingham Cir. Judge,
166 Mich. 517, 131 N. W. 1104; Post
V. Bailey & Co., 68 W. Va. 434, 69 S.
E. 910. See Cunningham v, Williams
Co., 135 Ga. 249, 69 S. E. 101, in which
an equitable suit to cancel a fraudulent
conveyance made by a debtor was
abated because an action at law upon
the indebtedness was pending.
1001-24 Southern B. Co. v. Hayes,
183 Ala. 465, 62 S. 874.
1002-31 Michelin Tire Co. v. Webb,
143 Mo. App. 679, 127 8. W. 948.
1002-32 Sloss-Sheffield Steel & T.
Co. r. Milbra, 173 Ala. 658, 55 So. 890.
1002-35 Tinkham t7. Boston & M. B.
B (N. H.), 88 A, 709.
Bule illustrated.— Thus the United
States may sue for a penalty after suit
by an individual for the same penalty
where the declaration in the latter
was found bad on demurrer; amend-
ment not allowed, and no further ac-
tion taken by the individual. United
States V. Dwight Mfg. Co., 213 Fed.
522.
1008-37 Bed Deer Oil Develop. Co.
V. Muggins (Tex. Civ.), 155 8. W. 949.
1003-38 Bakow v. Tate, 93 Neb.
198, 140 N. W. 162.
1003-39 Cook & Laurie Contract.
Co. r. Denis, 126 La. 413, 52 S. 560;
Saint V. Martel, 126 La. 245, 52 8. 474.
1004-42 Ambursen Hydraulic Const
Co. V. Northern C. Co., 140 Ga. 1, 78 8.
E. 340; Southern B. Co. r. Diseker, 13
Ga. App. 799, 81 8. E. 269; Loomis «.
Federal Union Sur. Co., 163 111. App.
621; Beed v. Hollingsworth, 157 la. 94,
135 N. W\ 37; Jones v. Hughes, 156 la.
684, 137 N. W. 1023; Scott V, Demarest,
76 Misc. 289, 135 N. Y. 8. 264; Car-
penter, Baggott & Co. 1*. Hanes, 1G2
N. C. 46, 77 S. E. 1101; Missouri, K. &
T. By. V. Bradshaw, 37 Okla. 317, 132
P. 327.
This rule applies as well where the sec-
ond suit is instituted by the defendant
in the first suit as where the plaintiff
in both actions is the same person.
Ambursen Hydraulic Const. Co. v.
Northern C. Co., 140 Ga. 1, 78 8. E.
340.
1005-46 Ironton 9. Harrison Const.
Co., 212 Fed. 353, 129 C. C. A. 29;
Groom v, Mortimer Land Co., 192 Fed.
849, 113 C. C. A. 173; McClellan t\ Car-
land, 187 Fed 915, 110 C. C. A. 49;
Bunker Hill, etc. Co. r. Shoshone Min.
Co., 109 Fed. 504, 47 C. C. A. 200; Land
u. Ferro-Concrete Const. Co., 221 Fed.
433; Boniller v, Schuster Co., 212 Fed.
348; Adler Goldman C. Co. v. Williams,
211 Fed. 530; Falls City Const. Co. t?.
Monroe Co., 208 Fed. 482; Scott r.
George's Creek C. & L Co., 202 Fed.
251; Bixler v, Pennsylvania B. Co., 201
Fed. 553; People's Gaslight & C. Co. v.
Chicago, 192 Fed. 398; Coe v, Aiken,
50 Fed. 640; Lynch v, Ins. Co., 17 Fed.
627. Contra, Badford v. Folsom, 14 Fed.
97.
An action before the interstate com-
merce commission for illegal discrimin-
ation will not bar an action against the
same defendant by the individual who
has been discriminated against. Hills-
48
AmfTtEti ACTION PENDING
Vol. 1
dale Coal & C. Co. v, PennsylTania B.
Co^ 229 Pa. 61, 78 A. 28, 140 Am. St.
700.
1006-49 Nashville, etc. Ry. v. Hub-
ble, 140 Ga. 368, 78 S. E. 919; National
M« E. Box Co. V, American M. E. Box
Co., 246 Pa. 78, 92 A. 42; Pecos & N.
T. By. Co. V. Porter (Tex. Civ.), 156
S. W. 267; Biard & Scales v, Tyler Bldg.
& L. Assn. (Tex. Civ.). 147 S. W. 1168;
Puj^et Sound State Bank r. Gallucci, 82
Wash. 445, 144 P. 698.
An action pending in the federal sn-
preme court involving the same part-
ies, issues and subject matter as a
subsequent action in the state courts,
will not abate the latter. latt Lumb.
Co. V. Faircloth, 132 La. 906, 61 S. 866.
1006-60 Bemoral to federal conrt.
Where an action is removed from state
to federal court and recovery is denied
in the latter court, plaintiff may insti-
tute another action on the same cause
in the state court before the one in
the federal court has been dismissed.
Holbrook c. Quinlan & Co., 84 Vt. 411,
80 A. 339.
lOOT-53 Property in cnstody of
state court. — ^When a state court se-
cures by proper process the custody of
property which it is one of the objects
of the suit in the federal court to sub-
ject to its decree, the latter suit should
not be stayed, but should proceed as
far as possible without creating a con-
flict concerning the possession of the
property. Jenkins 17. Atlantic Coast
Line B. Co., 89 S. C. 408, 71 S. B. 1010.
1008-56 Kirby f. Johnson County
Sav. Bank, 12 Ga. App, 157, 76 8. E.
996; Wray v. Wray, 159 la. 230, 140
N. W, 414.
As to defendant. — An action is com-
menced as to the defendant when a
summons is served upon him or he ap-
pears without summons. Seeger v.
Young, 127 Minn. 416, 149 N. W. 735.
Summons not served. — ^Under a statute
which declares that ''an action is com-
menced as to each defendant when the
summons is issued against him," an
action is pending* from the time sum-
mons is issued even though it be not
served. Pettigrew o. McCoin, 165 N.
C. 472, 81 a E. 701, 52 L. B. A. (N.
8.) 79.
1008-67 Seeger r. Young, 127 Minn.
416, 149 N. W. 735.
Ko comprint filed. — ^After service of
snmnions in the first action, and after
answer was served, the action was
pending even though the complaint had
not been filed. Longmore v. Puget
Sound Co., 78 Wash. 468, 139 P. 191.
1009-61 TXntU Judgment becomes
final in former action it is still pending
and may be pleaded in abatement of
a subsequent action. Vance v. Heath,
42 Utah 148, 129 P. 365.
Judgment in first action opened up.
When a judgment by confession is
opened up to allow further pleas it is
deemed pending so as to abate a sub-
sequent action for the same cause.
Garvy v. National Foundry Co., 16X 111.
App. 455.
1009-62 Where no stay bond has'
been given, the fact that an appeal is
pending will not abate a subsequent
suit. 8ewell r. Johnson, 165 Cal. 762,
134 P. 704, Ann. Cas. 1915B, 645.
1010-67 McLaughlin v. Beyer, 181
Ala. 427, 61 S. 62; Tate v. Sanders, 24o
Mo. 186, 149 8. W. 485, Ann. Cas.
1914A, 998.
1010-68 Marcus f. National Council,
127 Minn. 196, 149 N. W. 197; Perham
V. Lane, 76 N. H. 580, 83 A. 805.
Where a nolle xwosequi has been en-
tered upon the former indictment the
second indictment will not abate. Jones
t\ S., 115 Ga. 814, 42 S. E. 271.
1011-69 Glironowski r. Zielinski
(Mich.), 134 N. W. 982; Barnett v. Cliff-
side MUls, 167 N. C. 576, 83 S. E. 826;
Brock V, Scott, 159 N. C. 513, 75 S. E.
724; Cook v. Cook, 159 N. C. 46, 74
S. E.« 639, Ann. Cas. 1914A, 1137, 40
L. B. A. (N. 8.) 83.
1011-71 Wamock I7. Moore, 91 Kan.
262, 137 P. 959; Bohon Co. v. Moren,
151 Ky. 811, 152 S. W. 944.
1013-78 McLaughlin v. Beyer, 181
Ala. 427, 61 S. 62; Dowdy v, Calvi, 14
Ariz. 148, 125 P. 873; Boschetti t?. Mor-
ton, 23 Cal. App. 325, 137 P. 1085;
American Surety Co. v, Sauers, 50 Ind.
App. 475, 98 N. E. 829; Long t\ Bar-
ter, 138 N. Y. S. 505; Kansas City, M.
& O. B. Co. V, S. (Tex. Civ.), 155 S.
W. 561; Keator v. Whittaker (Tex.
Civ.), 147 S. W. 606.
1014-79 Southern R. Co. v. Diseker,
13 Ga. App. 799, 81 S. E. 269.
1014-80 Suit first brought a bar.
An action by an individual to recover
a penalty, while pending, would bar
any other person, including the United
States, from suing for the same viola-
43
Vol. 1
ANOTHER ACTION PENDING
tion, where the statute allows recovery
by the United States or by any indiyid-
nal first bringing suit. U. S. v, Dwight
Mfg. Co., 213 Fed. 522.
1014-81 Singletary v. Chipstead, 142
Ga. 208, 82 S. E. 547; McFadden v. St.
Paul Coal Co., 183 111. App. 36.
1016-82 Myers v. Stein, 154 App.
Div. 631, 139 N. Y. S. 762.
1015-85 Warner v, Narragansett
Mut. F. Int. Co., Ill Me. 590, 90 A.
706.
1015-86 Moore-Mansfield Const. Co.
V. Indianapolis, etc. B. Co., 179 Ind.
353, 101 N. E. 295; Hawk v. Day, 148
la. 47, 126 N. W. 955.
1016-87 Barker r. Eastman, 76 N.
H. 277, 82 A. 166.
1017-8S Thorp r. Boudwin, 228 Pa.
165, 77 A. 421.
1018-91 PoUock V. Kinman, 176 HI.
App. 361.
1019-02 Seeger v. Young, 127 Minn.
416, 149 N. W. 735.
1020-93 Higdon V. Fields, 6 Ala.
App. 281, 60 S. 694; Eppinger V. Lind-
say, 141 Qa. 640, 81 S. £. 1036; Eppin-
ger V. Seagrayes, 141 Ga. 639, 81 S. E.
1035; Meier V. Hilton, 257 111. 174, 100
N. E. 520; Jefferson v. Bust, 149 la. 694,
128 N. W. 954; Olivier, Voorhies &
Lowrey v. Majors, 133 La. 764, 68 8.
323; Duplessis f>, Moine, 84 N. J. L.
687, 87 A. Ill; Allen r. Burr's Ferry,
B. & a B. Co. (Tex. Civ.), 143 S. W.
1185.
Ooiinty and state. — ^An action by tke
citizens of a county to compel a rail-
road company to construct its road
througk the county seat as required by
law will not abate a subsequent action
by the state against the railroad to
compel suck construction and to re-
cover for failure to do so. Kansas
City, M. & 6. B. Co. c. S. (Tex. Civ.),
155 8. W. 561.
Declaration in set-off. — The pendency
of an action by a defendant in the
form of a declaration in set-off, is as
good a reason for an answer in abate-
ment to a subsequent action upon the
same claim as is the pendency of an
original and independent suit for the
same cause of action. Manufacturers'
Bottle Co. V. Taylor Stites G. Co., 208
Mass. 593, 95 K. E. 103.
1020-95 Milbra «. Sloss-Sheffield 8.
& I. Co., 182 Ala. 622, 62 8. 176, 46 L.
B. A. (N. S.) 274; Boschetti v. Morton,
23 Cal. App. 325, 137 P. 1085; Wray V.
Wray, 159 la. 230, 140 N. W. 414.
1020-08 Speier v. Locust Laundry,
66 Pa. Super. 323.
Under a contract for fervlcea to be
performed during a stated period,
which provides for monthly payments,
a breach of the contract during any
month, is the foundation of a distinct
cause of action. Gravette v. Allen
Graphite Co., 1 Ala. App. 656, 66 8.
17.
1021-09 Actions for permanent in-
Jnriea. — ^An action for an injury to
property will not abate a subsequent
action for the continuance of the same
injury. Smith v. Sedalla, 244 Mo. 107,
149 8. W. 597.
Pending a aait for separation and ali-
mony, the wife may bring another ac-
tion upon an agreement made by hus-
band after the first suit was instituted,
to pay her an allowance. Hofmann v.
Nestel, 146 App. Div. 305, 130 N. Y.
8. 775.
1023-7 Different breaches of dif-
ferent bonds. — An action against a sur-
ety on saloon keeper's bond will not
abate because there is an action pend-
ing against the same surety on another
saloon keeper's bond; both actions be-
ing based on the unlawful sale of liq-
uor to plaintiff's husband. American
Sure^ Co. v, 8auers, 50 Ind. App. 475,
98 N. E. 829.
1024-8 Milbra v. 8chloss-8heffield 8.
& I. Co., 182 Ala. 622, 62 8. 176. 46
L. B. A. (N. 8.) 274; Kaplan v, Cole-
man, 180 Ala. 267, 60 8. 886; Under-
wood V. Underwood, 139 6a. 241, 77
8. E. 46; Jos. Bosenheim Shoe Co. v.
Home, 10 Ga. App. 582, 73 8. E. 953;
Meier v, Hilton, 257 111. 174, 100 N.
E. 620; Proctor v. Moran, 213 Mass.
406, 100 If. E. 672.
Sncceesive actions for posseseiQii. — A
summary proceeding brought by land-
lord against tenant for the possession
of land will not abate a subsequent
action for the same purpose; the is-
sues Whether the landlord is entitled
to possession on the two dates are dif-
ferent. Proctor 17. Moran, 213 Mass.
405, 100 N..B. 672.
Pending patent inroceedings by one co-
tenant of a mining claim the other co-
tenant may bring an action to quiet
title to the claim. O'Hanlon v. Buoy
Gulch Min. Co., 48 Mont. 66, 136 P.
913.
44
ANOTHER ACTION PENDING
Vol. 1
1025-11 Bepleyln and treqiMs.— A
pending action in replevin for chattels
will abate a subsequent action in tres-
pass for damages for the unlawful de-
tention. Duplessis V, Moine, 84 N. J.
L. 587, 87 A. 111.
1025-12 Erikson r. Ward, 268 HI.
259, 107 N. E. 593.
Mechanic's Hen and contract combined.
But a suit upon a mechanic's lien and
for personal judgment against the con-
tractor will abate a subsequent action
against the contractor for the amount
due upon the contract. Fresno Plan.
Mill Co. V. Manning, 20 Cal. App. 766,
130 P. 196.
102S-13 A foredosoie of tnist in-
atnunent and an action on the debt
thereby secured may proceed at same
time. The one will not abate the other.
Myers c. Stein, 154 App. Div. 631, 139
N. Y. S. 762.
1026-16 Wray v. Wray, 159 la. 230,
140 N. W. 414; Disbrow v. Creamery
Pack. Co., 115 Min. 434, 132 N. W.
913.
An action nnder the Torrens Act to
settle a title will abate a subsequent
action under the adverse claim statute
by a defendant in the former action
against the applicant. Seeger r. Toung,
127 Minn. 416, 149 N. W. 735.
Pending a divorce proceeding the wife
may not maintain an independent suit
at law against the husband for ex-
penses incurred by her in the mainte-
nance of their minor child. Libbe v.
Libbe, 157 Mo. App. 610, 138 S. W.
688.
1027-17 Epplnger v. Lindsay, 141
Ga. 640, 81 8. E. 1036; Eppinger «?. Sea-
graves, 141 Ga. 639, 81 S. £. 1035.
Part reUef by way of counterclaim.
A counterclaim may be interposed in
a municipal court in a sum equal to
that court's jurisdiction even though
an action is pending in a court of
higher Jurisdiction for the full amount
of the claim. In his counterclaim the
defendant cannot obtain full relief.
Riindlett v. Whitall, 135 N. Y. S. 697.
102T-18 Colbum r. Dortie, 49 Colo.
90, 111 P. 837; Williams r. Routt
County Comrs., 48 Colo. 541, 111 P. 71;
Rowden v. Meisinger, 164 111. App. 125;
Ponlson r. Markus, 34 S. D. 428, 148
K. W. S55; Comstock r. Droney Lumb.
Co., 69 W. Va. 100, 71 S. E. 255.
1028-19 Reis v. Applebaum, 170
Mich. 506, 136 N. W. 393; Pocoke v.
Peterson, 256 Mo. 501, 165 S. W. 1017.
1028-20 Van Slyke v. Van Slyke
(Mich.), 150 N, W. 114; Pocoke r. Pet-
erson, 256 Mo. 501, 165 S. W. 1017.
1081-30 Rundlett v. Whitall, 135
N. Y. S. 697.
Setting off claim in another action.
The mere pendency of a suit upon a
claim will not prevent the same claim
from being used as a set-off in another
action; or vice versa the introduction
of a claim as a setoff in one action
will not create a bar to a suit in an-
other court, in a direct action upon the
same claim. National M. E. Box Co.
r. American M. E. Box Co.. 246 Pa. 78.
92 A. 42. '
1081-31 Due diligence must be ex-
ercised by the party seeking the abate-
ment. Schenck v. Yard (N. J. Eq.),
86 A. 81. ^ ^'
The defense is available only as one in
abatement and not in bar. Blassingame
17. Cattlemen's Trust Co. (Tex. Civ.),
174 S. W. 900.
1032-33 Schenck v. Yard (N. J.
Eq.), 86 A. 81.
1082-34 Brown's Est. t?. Stair, 25
Colo. App. 140, 136 P. 1003.
1082-35 Hershey f. Kerbaugh, 242
Pa. 227, 88 A. 1009.
Remedy of defendant who relies on an-
other suit pending is by plea in abate-
ment or by application for stay of pro-
ceedings. Liggett V. Ritter, 54 Pa. Su-
per. 405.
1033-36 In Texas, etc. Trawick v.
Brown Co., 74 Tex. 522. 12 S. W. 216;
Wilkerson v. Ft. Worth & D. C. R. Co.
(Tex. Civ.), 171 S. W. 1041; Garza &
Co. V. Jesse French P. & O. Co. (Tex.
Civ.), 126 S. W. 906.
1084-89 Dean v. Storm (Okla.), 148
P. 732; Duncan v, Duncan, 93 S. C.
487, 76 S. E. 1099; Longmore v. Puget
Sound, etc. Co., 78 Wash. 468, 139 P.
191. See also vol. 1, p. 36, n. 47.
1038-42 Adler Golden C. Co. v. Will-
iams, 211 Fed. 530; Vance v. Heath, 42
Utah 148, 129 P. 365.
Affidavit of defense. — ^The objection
may be raised by affidavit of defense.
Speier v. Locust Laundry, 56 Pa. Super.
323.
A plea in abatement is also proper even
though the code permits the objection
to be made by answer. Longmore v.
45
Vol. 2
ANSWEHS
Puget Sound, etc. Co., 78 Wash. 468,
139 P. 191.
1036-43 Michelin Tire Co. v. Webb,
143 Mo. App. 679, 127 S. W. 948.
1037-47 EnroUmeuv of record of
prior action. — Xot only must tbe iden-
tity of the cause of action and the
parties be set out, but also the record
of the prior action must be enrolled.
Barker i?. Eastman, 76 N. H. 277, 82
A. 166.
1040-57 Seeger v. Young, 127 Minn.
416, 149 N. W. 735.
Where the names are not the same as
in the former action, the defendant
must show the identity of the parties.
McLaughlin v. Beyer, 181 Ala. 427, 61
S. 62.
ANSWEBS
4-4 Wright V, Anglo-California Bank,
161 Cal. 500, 119 P. 651; Reclamation
Dist. No. 730 V. Hershey, 160 Cal. 692,
117 P. 904; Kinard f?. Ward, 21 Cal.
App. 92, 130 P. 1194; Bose v, Lelande,
20 Cal. App. 502, 129 P. 599; Spaeth
V. Ocean Park B., M. & Inv. Co., 16
Cal. App. 329, 116 P. 980; Fowler v.
Cotton State Lumb. Co., 39 App. Cas.
CD. C.) 220; Wrenn v. Davis^ 139 Ga.
374, 77 S. E. 169; Southern Bell T.
& T. Co. V. Shames, 12 Ga. App. 463,
77 S. E. 312; Branch v, Johnson, 9 Ga.
App. 699, 71 S. E. 1123; Bazemore v.
Small Co., 9 Ga. App. 29, 70 S. E. 261;
Taylor r. Peoria & E. By. Co., 156 III.
App. 151; Putnam V. Middleborough,
209 Mass. 456, 95 N. E. 749; Yeomans
V, Board of Suprs., 174 Mich. 451, 140
N. W. 469; Grimme v. General Council,
167 Mich. 240, 132 N". W. 497; P. M.
Bruner Granitoid Co. v. Glencoe L. &
C. Co., 169 Mo. App. 295, 152 S. W.
601; Walsh v. Barrett, 154 App. Div.
461, 139 N. Y. S. 68; McKane i?. Dady,
128 App. Div. 190, 112 N. Y. S. 650,
af., 201 N. Y. 574, 95 N. E. 1133;
Long V, Shepard, 35 Okla. 489, 130
P. 131.
As to admissions by failure to deny,
see vol. 7, p. 109.
8-11 Maier v, Bomatzki, 95 Keb. 76,
144 N. W. 1036.
10-15 Friday r. Smith, 195 Fed. 742,
115 C. C. A. 542; Blanck v. Common-
wealth A, Corp., 19 Cal. App. 720,
117 P. 805; Briggs v. P., 21 Cal. App.
f:5, 121 P. 127; Brown v. P., 21 Colo.
App. 93, 121 P. 130; Lapin r. North-
western Elev. R. Co., 162 HI. App. 296;
Morrill r. Baggott, 57 111. App. 530,
af., 157 111. 240, 41 N. E. 639; North-
ern Coal & C. Co. 17. Bates, 146 Ky.
624, 143 S. W. 13; Cantrill T. Sebree's
Admx., 146 Ky. 269, 142 8. W. 415;
Booth r. Irving Nat. Exch. Bank, 116
Md. 668, 82 A. 652; Overland Sales Co.
V. Kaufman, 76 Misc. 230, 134 N. Y;
8. 599.
Contributory negligence is an affirm^
ative defense and must bo specially
pleaded with particularity, and no acts,
except those pleaded, can be proved on
the trial or, if proven, made the basis
of a verdict. Blalock v, Blacksher, 11
Ala. App. 45, 66 S. 863.
Publication of libel is admitted by an
answer which fails to deny it. Tully
V. New York Times Co., 78 Misc. 165,
137 N. Y. 8. 962.
ia-16 Joyce v. Rubin, 23 Ida. 296;
130 P. 793; Young v. White, 158 App.
Div. 760, 143 N. Y. S. 931.
11-19 Myers v. Stein, 154 App. Div.
631, 139 N. Y. 8. 762; In re St. George's
L. Roman Catholic Church, 244 Pa. 410,
90 A. 918.
12-22 No extension of time as a
matter of law results from the destruc-
tion by fire of a county court house
and all the records of a lawsuit. Hig-
son r. North River Ins. Co., 184 Fed.
165.
13-26 Before default. — ^Answer may
be filed as a matter of right at any
time before the case is marked in de-
fault. Craig & Co. v. Pierson Lumb.
Co., 179 Ala. 635, 60 S. 838; Hall <?.
Ticdeman, 141 Ga. 602, 81 S. £. 868.
Before final judgment. — Defendant may
appear and make his defense at any
time before final judgment. Fort-Mims
& Haynes Co. v. Branan-Akers Co., 140
Ga. 131, 78 S. E. 721.
13-28 United American, etc. Church
V. United American, etc. Church, 15S
N. C. 564, 74 S. E. 14; Wichman ft Son
i\ Fox, 96 S. C. 469, 81 S. E. 180.
When extension of time is granted in
which to file an answer, if it is filed
on or before the day fixed it is in
time. Combs v. Frick Co., 162 Ky. 42,
171 S. W. 999.
What judge. — A circuit judge at cham-
bers in another circuit than tho one
in which action is pending, without
notice to the adverse party or his at-
torney and without a showing that^
46
ANSWERS
Vol. 2
there is no resident or presiding judge
in that .circuit, has no right to grant
an extension of time to answer. Beck-
vith V. Martin, 98 S. C. 183, 82 S. £.
414.
15-32 Kosher v. Stuart, 64 Or. 123,
121 P. 901, 129 P. 491.
18-41 Erroneous extension. Tuska
V, Heller, Hirsh & Co., 140 App. Div.
323, 125 N. Y. S. 182.
lS-43 Morbeck r. Bradford-Kennedy
Co^ 19 Ida. 83, 113 P. 89.
ld-47 Burnett Cigar Co. v. Art Wall
Paper Co., 164 Ala. 547, 51 S. 263;
Citizens' Mut. F. Ins. Co. v. Bridge Co.,
113 Md. 430, 77 A. 378; Red water L.
& €. Co. i;. Reed, 26 S. D. 466, 128
N. W. 702.
19-49 Indicated admissionB not
stated. — ^An answer alleging denial of
each and everj allegation of the com-
plaiint, "except as hereinafter express-
ly admitted," is bad on demurrer for
failure to state what is included in the
exception. Salisbury v. La Fitte (Colo.
App.), 123 P. 124.
19-50 Carolina, etc. B. Co. v. Mum-
power, 205 Fed. 872, 124 C. C. A. 64;
Hitt Lumb. Co. r. Turner (Ala.), 65
S. 807; St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v.
Weatherly, 93 Ark. 269, 124 S. W.
1031; O'Neill r. Caledonian Ins. Co.,
166 Cal. 310, 135 P. 1121; Stevens v.
Kisley (Conn.), 91 A. 260; Johnstone
r. Kelly, 7 Penne. (Del.) 119, 74 A.
1099; Moore v. Calvert Mtg. & Dep.
Co., 13 Ga. App. 54, 78 S. E. 1097;
Beninghoff v. Futterer, 176 111. App.
579; Baxter v, Moore, 56 Ind. App.
472, 105 N. E. 588; Taylor v. Griner, 55
Ind- App. 617, 104 N. E. 607; Moore f?.
Crandall, 146 la. 25, 124 N. W. 812,
140 Am. St. 276; Bassett v. Lush, 156
Kv. 490, 161 S. W. 227, rehear, denied,
159 Kv. 621, 167 S. W. 869; In re Wat-
son, 163 App. Div. 41, 148 N. Y.
S. 525: Cunningham t>. Piatt, 82
Misc. 486, 144 N. Y. S. 51; Lum-
mus C. G. Co. V. Counts, 98 S. C. 136,
82 S. E. 391; Easterly v. Lumber Co.,
60 Wash. 647, 111 P. 876.
Constraing admlsulon. — An admission
in an adversary's pleading to be avail-
able must pe taken with all the qualify-
ing clauses included in it. Oklahoma
Moline Plow Co. v. Smith, 41 Okla.
498, 139 P. 285.
26-71 Gilmour v, Hawley Merchan-
dise Co., 21 Colo. App. 307, 121 P. 765;
Hyatt r. Lindner, 133 La. 614, 63 So.
241, 48 L. R. A. (N. S.) 256; Gordon
V. Freeman, 112 Minn. 482, 128 N. W.
834, 1118; Browning, King & Co. V,
Terwilliger, 144 App. Div. 516, 129 N.
Y. S. 431; Kimble v. Stackpole, 60
Wash. 35, 110 P. 677, 35 L. R. A.
(N. S.) 148; Kimberly-Clark Co. v. Pat-
ton Paper Co., 153 Wis. 69, 140 N. W.
1066.
Inoonsistent defenses permitted. — ^Den-
ver Omnibus & C. Co. v, Gast, 54 Colo.
17, 129 P. 233; Ilansell-Elcock Co. V.
Frankfort, etc. Ins. Co., 177 111. App.
500; Williams v. Hutton & Bourbannats
Co., 164 N. C. 216, 80 S. E. 257.
If inconsistent remedies are pursued by
plaintiff he cannot complain that de-
fendant's answer is responsive to both
remedies. Couch V, Crane, 142 Ga. 22,
82 S. E. 459.
27-72 Oldham's Admz. v. Oldham's
Admx, 141 Ky. 526, 133 S. W. 232;
Caruso t?. Brown, 142 Ky. 76, 133 S.
W. 948; Brown r. Emerson, 155 Mo.
App. 459, 134 S. W. 1108.
27-73 Egan v. Hotel Grunewald, 134
La. 740, 64 S. 698; Ewen v. Hart, 183
Mo. App. 107, 166 S. W. 315; Gregg V.
Wilmington, 155 N. 0. 18, 70 S. E.
1070; Hart-Parr Co. V, Keeth, 62 Wash.
464, 114 P. 169, Ann. Cas. 1912D 243.
Test of inconsistency. — All defenses
will be held consistent unless one of
them cannot be proved without dis-
proving the other. Ford & Isbell Lumb.
Co. t?. Cady Lumb. €o., 94 Neb. 87, 142
N. W. 300.
32-84 Prior authority of agent and
ratification. — An answer setting up an
agreement with plaintiff's agent as a
defense cannot rely upon both an actual
authority of the agent and ratification
by the principal, for a pleading must
proceed upon some single theory.
Beeves & Co. v. Miller, 48 Ind. App.
339, 95 N. E. 677, rev. 91 N. E. 812.
Misjoinder of causes of action is waived
by plea to the merits. Lampel Land
& Imp. Co. 1?. Spellings, 236 Mo. 33,
139 S. W. 345.
Denial and Justification not permitted
in libel. Schwing v. Dunlap, 130 La.
498, 58 S. 162.
Denial and set-off. — ^A plea denying the
paTtnership and one of set-off are not
inconsistent, where the first plea raises
the validity of an attempted incor-
poration. HeiBen v, Churchill, 179 Fed.
828, 103 C. C. A. 320.
47
Vol. 2
ANSWERS
Fraud and breach of warranty not in-
consistent defenses in action on note.
Minneapolis T. M. Co. v, PeterSi 112
Minn. 429, 128 N. W. 578.
Tender and general issne. — ^A party can-
not plead a tender of a part of the
sum declared for and at the same time
maintain a plea of the general issue to
the whole declaration. O'Meara v.
Cardiff Coal Co., 154 111. App. 321.
42-29 George F. Root Co. v. New
York Cent. & H. B. B. Co. (App. Div.),
151 N. Y. S. 702.
43-40 Hunt v. Di Bacco, 69 W. Va.
449, 71 S. E. 584.
43-41 Halfmoon Bridge Co. v. Canal
Board, 213 N. Y. 160, 107 N. E. 344.'
44-46 Levitt v, O'Bourke Eng. Const.
Co., 160 App. Div. 869, 144 N. Y. S.
474.
46-52 Meredith V, Boman, 46 Mont.
204, 141 P. 643.
When not characterized as counter-
claim.— New matter set up as an an-
swer will be regarded defense only.
Otto Huber Brewery v. Sieke, 146 App.
Div. 467, 131 N. Y. S. 271.
46-64 Vaughan v. Eujath, 44 Mont.
484, 120 P. 1121.
48-60 Not to vary admitted allega-
tions.— Where plaintiff sets out written
agreement and defendant admitted
execution of such contract the defend-
ant cannot set out in his answer a
contemporaneous parol agreement at
variance therewith. Bibb Sewer Pipe
Co. V, WestinghousOi etc Co., 142 Ga.
263, 82 S. E. 642.
61-69 * 'Without consideration. "—A
statement that the contract is without
consideration is a conclusion. Reese v,
Rawleigh Med. Co. (Ark.), 172 S. W.
820.
62-73 Hibernia Sav. & Loan Soc. v,
Dickinson, 167 Cal. 616, 140 P. 265.
63-76 Fairbanks v. Warrum, 66 Ind.
App. 337, 104 N. E. 983, 1141.
63-81 Zenot v. Pryor (Ind. App.),
106 N. E. 746; Barkenthien t?. P., 213
N. Y. 554, 107 N. E. 1034. See Almy
V. Com. Travelers' Assn. (Ind. App.),
106 N. E. 893.
64-82 Nelson Co. v. Silver, 160 App.
Div. 445, 145 N. Y. S. 124, reargument
denied, 161 App. Div. 889, 145 N. Y.
S. 1135.
64-83 Edelfson v, Portland B., L. ft
P. Co., 69 Or. 18, 136 P. 832.
66-86 Greer v. Malone-Beall Co.. 180
Ala. 602, 61 S. 285.
66-87 Berlin M. Wks. r. Ewart
Lumb. Co., 184 Ala. 272, 63 S. 567;
Browning, King & Co. v, Terwilliger,
144 App. Div. 516, 129 N. Y. S. 431.
66-89 Vogel Co. v, Wolff, 156 App.
Div. 584, 141 N. Y. S. 756.
66-91 Dunaway v. Anderson, 22 Cal.
App. 691, 136 P. 309; Welch v. Bigger,
24 Ida. 169, 133 P. 381.
67-93 Nobach r. Scott, 20 Ida. 558,
119 P. 295; Gahren, Dodge & Maltby
V. Farmers' Bank, 156 Ky. 717, 156 S.
W. 1127; Lafayette Trust Co. v. Hal-
dane, 146 App. Div. 553, 131 N. Y. S.
171; Hewitt v. Huffman, 55 Or. 57. 105
P. 98.
67-96 Bonning i?. Way, 18 Cal. App.
527, 123 P. 615; Blodgett V. Scott, 11
Cal. App., 810, 104 P. 842; Cooper V,
American Cent, Ins. Co., 139 Mo. App.
570, 123 S. W. 497; Britannia Min. Co.
V. United States F. & G. Co., 43 Mont.
93, 115 P. 46; Peters V. McPherson,
62 Wash. 496, 114 P. 188.
68-97 Kinney v. Maryland Casualty
Co., 15 Cal. App. 571, 115 P. 456.
In Missouri the doctrine of negative
pregnant is not recognized. Cooper v.
American Cent. Ins. Co., 139 Mo. App.
570, 123 S. W. 497.
69-1 Bartlett Est. Co. v. Fraser, 11
Cal. App. 373, 105 P. 130.
60-2 Simoneau v. Pacific Elec. By.
Co., 159 Cal. 494, 115 P. 320: Tustin
Packing Co. t?. Pacific Coast Fruit A.
Co., 21 Cal. App.. 274, 131 P. 338;
Glenn v. Union-Buffalo Mills Co., 154
App. Div. 513, 139 N. Y. S. 70; Oishei
V. New York Tazicab Co., 136 App.
Div. 683, 121 N. Y. S. 472; Krauss
Engineering Co. V, McKinnon, 66 Misc.
181, 121 N. Y. S. 396; Harrison v. Bir-
rell, 58 Or. 410, 115 P. 141; Peters v.
McPherson, 62 Wash. 496, 114 P. 188.
Bule stated. — ^In Pullen v. Seaboard
Trading Co. (App. Div.), 150 N. Y. 3.
719, the court said: ''This court has
often had occasion to state and apply
the rules applicable to the incorpora-
tion in a separate defense of denials
and of facts pleaded as a defense. . • .
The rule is now well settled by those
and kindred authorities that, if such
denials or allegations are essential to
render the other facts pleaded avail-
able as a separate defense, they should
not be stricken out; but, if they are
US
APPEAL BONDS
Vol. 2
not material or relevaut to the defeDse
they should not be left in to shield the
new matter alleged as a defense
against a demurrer."
62-10 Birmingham, etc. Co. v. Yates,
169 Ala. 381, 53 S. 915; Welles t?. Colo-
rado Nat Life Assur. Co., 49 Colo. 508,
113 P. 524; Bosenstock v. Laue, 140
App. Div. 467, 125 N. Y. S. 361, aff,,
122 N. Y. S. 525; Tullj V. New York
Times Co., 78 Misc. 165, 137 N. Y. S.
962; Bedwater L. & C. Co. V. Beed, 26
S, D. 466, 128 N. W. 702.
S^axate answer to each cofint must be
made. Philadelphia, B. & W. B. Co.
r. Gatto (Del.), 85 A. 721.
64-15 Berlin M. Wks. v, Ewart
Lumb. Co., 184 Ala. 272, 63 8. 567;
Speer v. American Stars of Equity, 157
111. App. 554; Duffy v. England, 176
Ind. 575, 96 N. E. 704.
64t-20 Hunner v, Sj^evenson, 122 Md.
40, 89 A. 418.
e5-22 Nelson r. Hall, 66 Fla. 35, 63
8. 156; Cunningham v, Piatt, 82 Misc.
486, 144 N. Y. 8. 51.
66-25 Gaynor v. Travelers' Ins. Co.,
12 Ga. App. 601, 77 8. E. 1072.
66-26 Marengo Abstract Co. v. Hoop-
er & Co., 174 Ala. 497, 56 8. 580; Mc-
Gill Co. r. Underwood, 161 App. Div.
30, 146 N. Y. 8. 362.
66-28 Pierce v. Wilke (la.), 145 N.
W. 908; Browning, King & Co. V. Ter-
williger, 144 App. Div. 516, 129 N. Y.
8. 431; In re 8t. George's L. Boman
Catholic Church, 244 Pa. 410, 90 A.
918.
67-33 Duffy v. England, 176 Ind. 575,
96 N. E. 704; Vallancey V. Hunt, 20
N. D. 579, 129 N. W. 455, 34 L. B. A.
(N. S.) 473; Guthrie 17. Huntington
Chair Co., 69 W. Va. 152, 71 8. E. 14.
68-38 Penn-American Plate Glass
Co. V. Harshaw, Fuller & Goodwin Co.,
46 Ind. App. 645, 90 N. E. 1047.
70-46 Gage L. Co. v. McEldowney,
207 Fed. 255, 124 C. C. A. 641, rev.
decree In re Clairfield Lumb. Co., 194
Fed. 181; Cochran t?. Burdick Bros., 7
Ala. App. 274, 61 8. 29; Nelson t?. Hall,
66 Fla. 35, 63 8. 156; 8alyer 17. Blessing,
151 Ky. 459, 152 8. W. 275; Knicker-
bocker Trust Co. V. Condon, 147 App.
Div. 871, 133 N. Y. 8. 95.
Specifjring paragraphs denied.— A de-
nial in the answer of specific para-
graphs of the complaint by number is
suflS^ient. Miller v. Cunningham, 71 Or.
518, 139 P. 927.
Oontenta, and not name, is what the
law looks upon in a pleading. Nelson
V. San Antonio Traction Co. (Tex.
Civ.), 142 8. W. 146.
APPEAI. BONDS
77-1 The bond for costs is the only
bond necessary to perfect an appeal.
Bartree v, Dunkin, 20 Wyo. 376, 123
P. 913.
77-2 Theisen v. Matthai, 165 Cal.
249, 131 P. 747; Bohn v. Bohn, 159 Cal.
366, 116 P. 567; Gregory v. Kansas
City, 244 Mo. 523, 149 8. W. 466; Folk
V. Kansas City, 244 Mo. 553, 149 8. W.
473.
78-3 Thomas v. 8pee8e, 14 Ariz. 556,
132 P. 1137; Willow Land Co. 1?. Gold-
schmidt, 11 Cal. App. 297. 104 P. 841;
County Court of Denver u. Gold Min. &
B. Co., 50 Colo. 365, 115 P. 706; Haas
1?. Teters, 17 Ida. 550, 106 P. 305; Ben-
nett V. Karasik, 164 111. App. 362;
Bairstow v. New York Life Ins. Co.,
148 111. App. 186; Coxe Co. v, Foley
(Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 85; Caplinger
V, Pritchard, 136 Ky. 349, 124 8. W.
352; Monk v, Quarles, 105 Miss. 895,
63 8. 298; Smith V. Holifield, 98 Miss.
649, 54 8. 84; J. & M. Elec. Co. v.
Centotella, 77 Misc. 670, 138 N. Y. 8.
571; Aldrich v. Public Opinion Pub.
Co., 27 8. D. 589, 132 N. W. 278; Amer-
ican Warehouse Co. i?. Hamblen (Tex.
Civ.), 146 8. W. 1006; Weil «. Cable
Co. (Tex. Civ.), 135 8. W. 755; St.
Louis, I. M. & 8. Ry. Co. V. Hurst (Tex.
Civ.), 135 8. W. 599; Ft. Worth & D.
C. By. Co. 1?. Leach (Tex. Civ.), 129
8. W. 399; Bardon v. Alexander (Tex.
Civ.), 128 8. W. 925; Abe Black & Co.
V. Largent (Tex. Civ.), 127 8. W. 1076;
Mara i?. Branch (Tex. Civ.), 127 8. W.
1076; 8impson r. Baker, 57 Tex. Civ.
460, 122 8. W. 959; 8mith v. Diamond
Ice & Storage €o. (Wash.), 118 P.
646; Robertson Mtg. Co. 17. Thomas, 63
Wash. 316, 115 P. 312; Carson v, Bunn,
59 Wash. 266, 109 P. 797. But see
Bohn 17. Bohn, 159 Cal. 366, 116 P. 507.
Court 's dlscretioiL — ^It has been held
that the mode of taking the security
and the time of perfecting it are mat-
ters of discretion to be regulated by
the court granting the appeal. The
Dos Hermanos, 10 Wheat. (U. 8.) 306,
6 L. ed. 328.
The appellate cooirt will or^er Becarit7
«
Vol. 2
APPEAL BONDS
to be given within a prescribed time,
where it has been omitted, and will
only dismiss the proceeding upon fail-
ure to comply with its order. Stewart
t\ Masterson, 124 tJ. 8. 493, 8 Sup.
Ct. 561, 31 L. ed. 507; Brown v. Mc-
Connell, 124 U. S. 489, 8 Sup. Ct. 559,
31 L. ed. 495; Seymour v. Freer, 6 Wall.
(U. S.) 822, 18 L. ed. 564; Davidson
u. Lanier, 4 Wall. (U. S.) 447, 18 L.
ed. 377; Brobst v, Brobst, 2 WalL (U.
S.) 96, 17 L. ed. 905; Anson, Bangs &
Co. V, Blue Bidge R. Co., 23 How.
(U. S.) 1, 16 L. ed. 517.
78-4 Bobinson v. Southern Nat.
Bank, 94 Fed. 22; Bochelle v. Evens
& Howard F. Brick Ce., 164 HI. App.
412; Martin v. Board of Fire Comrs.,
132 La. 188, 61 S. 197, 44 L.
R. A. (N. S.) 68; Luchini v. Police
Jury, 126 La. 972, 53 S. 68; S. v. Bun-
can, 49 Mont. 54, 146 P. 95; Board of
Tenement House Supervision v, Schlech-
ter, 83 N. J. L. 88, 83 A. 783; State
r. Orange & N. W. B. Co. (Tex. Civ.),
154 S. W. 335.
An administratrlz, as such, need not
give an appeal bond. Casey v, Tex-
arkana & Ft. S. B. Co. (Tex. Civ.), 151
S. W. 856.
Aflldavit in foxma panperla. — Edding-
ton r. Union Portland C. Co., 42 Utah
274, 130 P. 243.
Villftges exempt. — Trueman v. St.
Maries, 21 Ida. 632, 123 P. 508.
Exemption not Waived by reason of
exempt party's giving a defective bond.
Board of Comrs. v. Howard, etc. Co.,
132 La. 911, 61 S. 868; Board of Comrs.
r. Concordia, etc. Co., 132 La. 915, 61
S. 869; Board of Comrs. v. Hops, 132
La. 915, 61 S. 869; Board of Comrs. v.
Land Co., 132 La. 916, 61 S. 870.
National banks. — ^No security on writs
of error or appeals issuing from, or
brought to, the federal supreme court
by cUrection of the comptroller of the
currency in suits by or against nation-
al banks or their receivers. Pacific
Bank v, Mixter, 114 U. S. 463, 5 3up.
Ct. 944, 29 L. ed. 221.
78-6 Lunsford v. Alexander, 162 N.
C. 528, 78 S. E. 275.
78-7 Forbes u. Thorpe, 209 Mass.
570, 95 N. E. 955; Sheppick v. Shep-
pick, 44 Utah 131, 138 P. 1169; In re
Cleveland, 87 Vt. 422, 89 A. 477.
A transient poor person is not embraced
in the statute. Fletcher v, Anderson
(Tex. Civ.), 145 S. W. 622.
78-8 Lumpkin ©. B. Co., 136 Ga. 135,
70 S. E. 1101; Jesse French Piano &
Organ Co. v. Elliott (Tex. Civ.), 166
S. W. 29; Smith V, Queen City Lumb.
Co. (Tex. Civ.), 129 S. W. 1145; Bargna
V, Bargna (Tex. Civ.), 123 S. W. 1143.
Good faith mnst appear.— An affidavit
to appeal in forma pauperis must aver
that it is made in good faith. S. v.
Smith, 152 N. C. 842, 67 S. E. 965.
79-10 White v. White, 151 Ky. 96,
151 S. W. 1; Cook V, Spence, 143 Mo.
App. 157, 122 S. W. 340.
79-11 Becker v. Decker, 9 Ala. App.
241, 63 S. 24; Wheeler v. Fuller, 4 Ala.
App. 532, 58 S. 792; Callbreath v.
Coyne, 48 Colo. 199, 109 P. 428; First
State Bank v. Land Co., 123 Minn. 218,
143 N. W. 355; First State Bank i\
Stevens Land Co., 119 Minn. 209, 137
N. W, 1101. Ann. Cas. 1914A, 1146, 43
L. E. A. (N. S.) 1040.
80-12 Smythe t?. New Orleans Land
Co., 184 Fed. 892, 107 C. C. A. 214;
Blair V. Brownstone Oil & R. Co., 21
Cal. App. 676, 132 P. 605; Canavan r.
Canavan, 18 N. M. 468, 138 P. 200;
Kuehn v. Nero, 145 Wis. 256, 130 N.
W. 56.
Appeal bond necessary to confer Jorie-
dictton.— Little Butte C. Mines Co. v.
Girand, 14 Ariz. 9, 123 P. 309.
Since amendment of a defective appeal
bond is permissible, it will give the ap-
pellate court jurisdiction. Bauer o.
Crow (Tex. Civ.), 171 S. W. 296.
Belated appeal bond will defeat juris-
diction. Underwood v. Midland F. &
H. Co. (Tex. Civ.), 166 S. W. 86.
80-13 Dean <?. Ter., 13 Ariz. 152, 108
P. 476; Kyger v, Stallings, 55 Ind.
App. 196, 103 N. E. 674; People's Bank
of Elton V, Arceneaux, 134 La. 292, 64
S. 116; Burger v. Sinclair, 24 N. D. 326,
140 N. W. 235; Hawkins v, Sinclair,
24 N. D. 325, 140 N. W. 239; Seckerson
V. Sinclair, 24 N. D. 326, 140 N. W.
239; Jesse French Piano & Organ Co.
t?. Elliott (Tex. Civ.), 166 S. W. 29;
James t?. Golson (Tex. Civ.), 165 S. W.
896; Wright v. Bott (Tex. Civ.), 163
S. W. 60; Trim v. Planters' Cotton
Oil Co. (Tex. Civ.), 163 S. W. 103;
Le Blanc v, Jackson (Tex, Civ.), 161
S. W. 60; Browne Grain Co. v. Miller,
(Tex. Civ.), 143 S. W. 244; Moore v.
Moore (Tex. Civ.), 141 S. W. 1084;
Jones & Co. r. Cunningham, 79 Wash.
4, 139 P. 612; Mironski V. Noon, 65
Wash. 568, 118 P. 735,
50
APPEALS
Vol. 2
81-14 Murphy v. Williams (Tex.
Civ,), 116 S. W. 412, judgment mod..
124 S. W. 900; Wenatchce Orchard &
Irr. Co. V. Thompson, 60 Wash. 643, 111
P. 8/4.
Waiver.— Objection to failure to file a
cost bond on writ of error is waived
'where a general appearance is entered
without objection to such failure. Can-
avan v. Canavan, 18 N. M. 468, 138
P. 200.
81-15 National Surety Co. v. P., 54
Colo. 365, 130 P. 843; American Bond-
ing Co. 1?. Rudolph, 53 Colo. 389, 127
P. 133; Portis V. Illinois Surety Co.,
176 ni. App. 590; Inskeep v. Gilbert,
174 Ind. 726, 93 N. E. 8; Summit v, Co-
letta, 81 N. J. L. 153, 78 A. 1047;
Seidman €. Pinkelstein, 76 Misc. 549,
135 N. Y. S. 648; Lauder v. Heley, 25
X. D. 274, 141 N. W. 201; Nichols &
Sbepard Co. v. Horstad, 27 S. D. 262,
130 N. W. 776.
83-16 Simpson v. Guiseppe, 35 App.
Cas. (D. C.) 97; Bankers' Surety Co.
r. Linder, 156 la. 486, 137 N. W. 496.
88-24 Bankers Surety Co. v. Security
Trust Co., 39 App. Cas. (D. C.) 354;
Cook r. Spence (Mo. App.), 122 S. W.
340; Sullivan V. Fried, 42 Mont. 335,
112 P. 535.
Ai&zmed in i»art— Where a part of Hie
judgment is affirmed appellant giving
the bond will be held liable. Boyal
Theater Co. r. Collins, 102 Ark, 539,
144 S. W. 919.
Appeal diBmisMd. — ^The liability of a
surety on an appeal bond is fixed by
the dismissal of the appeal. Callbreath
r. Coyne, 48 Colo. 199, 109 P. 428.
90-28 Hydraulic P. B. Co. f?. Nen-
meister, 15 Mo. App. 592; Barber v.
Butherford, 12 Misc. 33, 33 N. Y. S.
89; Ingersoll i?. Seatoft, 102 Wis. 476,
78 N. W. 576, 72 Am. St. 89'2.
8av« for trmH or oollnsioiL— Denis v.
Veazey, 6 Mart. (La.) 40; Piercy v.
Piercy, 36 N. C. 214.
91-29 One of the obligees in a chan-
cery appeal bond could sue thereon, if
the other obligee assi^ed to him or
refused on request to join in the suit.
Both r. Bosenthal, 160 App. Div. 39,
144 N. Y. S. 963.
94-35 Dashley r. Daniel, 202 Fed.
426, 120 C. C. A. 532; C. v. Gould, 48
Pa. Super. 528.
95-38 P. V. Groszglas, 152 HI. App.
i60,
97-42 Wilson v. Dickey (Tex. Civ.),
133 S. W. 437.
98-46 National Surety Co. v. P., 64
Colo. 365, 130 P. 843.
98-46 Chicago, etc. R. Co. t?. Bank-
ers' Nat. Bank, 32 Okla. 290, 122 P.
499.
99^7 Adams v, Billingsley, 107 Ark.
38, 153 S. W. 1105.
104-57 Bortree v. Dunkin, 20 Wyo.
376, 123 P. 913.
104-58 Keithsburg & E. R. Co. v.
Henry, 90 111. 255; Watson v. Johnson,
13 Ky. L. R. 336.
Irregularities In the origliial suit not
corrected by appeal cannot be taken
advantage of in an action on the ap*
peal bon.l. Miller v, M'Luer, Gilm.
(Va.) 338.
126-1 An appeal Is not a new suit
but a continuation of the same suit.
Hopkins t?. Patton, 257 IlL 346, 100
N; E. 992.
128-17 Indianapolis v. Hawkins, 180
Ind. 382, 103 N. E. 10.
129-21 Appeal and writ of error
compared. — The ptocess by appeal is a
more extensive, expeditious and ade-
quate remedy than a writ of error, and
is calculated to reach errors which may
not be reached by a writ, as well as
those which may be reached by such
writ, but as to the latter it does not
supersede the remedy by writ. The
two remedies co-exist where the error
is apparent on the record. Lippitt v.
Bidwell, 87 Conn. 608, 89 A. 347.
Scope of writ of error. — ^A writ of er-
ror has no more extensive range nor
greater effect than an appeal; they are
merely different methods of obtaining
review of judgments of courts of in-
ferior Jurisdiction. Board of Comrs. v.
Jay, 122 Md. 324, 89 A. 715; Greenland
V. Co. Com., 68 Md. 59, 11 A. 581;
Coston V. Coston, 25 Md. 500.
Where the Judge acts without his Juris-
diction the only remedy is by appeal;
in such case a writ of error will not
issue. Brown v. Cray, 88 Conn. 141,
89 A. 1123.
129-22 Rye v. Banks, 66 Fla. 434, 63
S. 825.
129-25 Ex parte Colvert (Ala.), 65
S. 964; Hoeye v. Willis, 15 Ariz. 257,
138 P. 15; Ziegler v. GOliatt, 263 III,
ffl
Tol. 2
APPEALS
587, 105 N. E. 707: Collins v. Laybold
(Ind.), 104 N. E. 971; Simon v. Wabaih
(Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 738; Blose v.
Myers (Ind. App.). 107 N. E. S48;
Davila v» Barreiro, 20 P. E. 43.
130-27 Ex parts Jonas, 186 Ala. 567,
64 S. 960. '
134-41 Terwilliger v. Browninff,
King Co., 207 N. Y. 479, 101 N, E.
463.
134-44 That aggrieved party is In
contempt of court does not deprive him
of his right to appeal. Jones v. Jones,
75 Wash. 60, 134 F. 528.
134-45 Upshaw v. S., 11 Ala. App.
310, 66 S. 821; Nathan v. Planters'
Cotton Oil Co. (Mo. App.), 174 8. W.
126; Tyndall V. N. Y. Cent. & H. R.
B. Co. (N. Y.), 107 N. E. 577.
134-46 Stockton t?. Halstead, 179 Ind.
701, 100 N. E. 82; Stockton v. Yeoman,
179 Ind. 61, 100 N. E. 2; Blose V.
Myers (Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 548;
Washington Tp. v. Batts, 54 Ind. App.
229, 101 N. E. 842; Cole v. Cole, 112
Me. 315, 92 A. 174; Nathan u. Planters',
etc. Co., 187 Mo. App. 560, 174 S. W,
126; Cabassa v. Bravo, 21 P. B. 173.
134-47 Elbert v. Scott (Del.), 90 A.
587; Indianapolis V. Hawkins, 180 Ind.
382, 103 N. E. 10; Curless t?. Watson,
180 Ind. 86, 102 N. E. 497; In re
American Mut. L. Ins. Co. (Mass.), 102
N. E. 693; Pierson v. Daly, 49 Mont.
478, 143 P. 957; Thien V. Wiltse, 49
Mont 189, 141 P. 146; S. V. State Bank
& Tr. Co., 36 Nev. 526, 137 P. 400;
Livesley t?. Landon, 69 Or. 275, 138 P.
853, 8. V. Simpson, 69 Or. 93, 138 P.
467.
135-48 Hazzard t?. Gallncci. 89 Conn.
196, 93 A. 230.
135-49 Hoeye v. Willis, 15 Ariz. 257,
138 P. 15; Miami Copper Co. f?. Strohl,
14 Ariz. 410, 130 P. 605; Ft. CoUins
M & E. Co. 1?. Larimer & Weld Irr.
Co. (Colo.), 143 P. 1091; Bowen v. Wil-
son (Kan.), 144 P. 251; Cohen v. War-
den of Workhouse, 150 N. Y. S. 596.
Writ of error may be snbstitnted in
certain cases for appeal. Ft. Collins
M. & E. Co. r. Larimer & Weld Irr.
Co. (Colo.), 143 P. 1091.
135-50 Cohen v. Warden of Work-
house, 150 N. Y S. 596.
136-53 First Ave. Coal & L. Co. v,
Hite, 9 Ala. App. 251, 62 S. 1018.
)139-7S Lfifayette Bealty Co. v, Poer,
136 La. 472, 67 S. 335; Vicars t.
Tharp (Tex. Civ.), 174 fl. W, 949.
Vacating judgment In fonner texm.
An order denying a motion to set aaide
Judgment of former term, being made
without jurisdiction, is not appealable.
Banks v. Blake (Tex. Civ.), 171 S. W.
514. ^'
130-73 Coryell r. Pawcett, 54 Colo.
353, 130 P. 838; South Park Floral Co.
V. Garvey (Ind.), 107 N. E. 68; Ander-
son V, Board of County Comrs., 90 Kan.
15, 132 P. 996; Hansen v. Northwestern
Tel. Exch. Co., 127 Minn. 522, 149 N.
W. 131; More v. Western Grain Co.
(N. D.), 149 N. W. 564.
Deciding qnesttotts of general Inteiest.
Even though litigation may not be ef-
fective in all respects because of cir-
cumstances arising after the appellate
proceedings are taken, the appellate
court does not thereby lose jurisdiction,
and it may be retained for the de-
termination of questions properly pre-
sented involving the duties and author-
ity of public officials that are of gen-
eral interest to the public. S. v. South-
ern Tel. & Const. Ca, 65 Pla. 67. 61 S.
119.
130-74 Pfeifer v. Graves, 88 0. St.
473, 104 N. E. 529.
130-75 McCullough r. Gilcrease, 40
Okla. 741, 141 P. 5; Muskogee, G. ft
B. Co. V, Haskell, 38 Okla. 358, 132
P. 1098, Ann. Cas. 1915A, 190; Fisher
V. Lockridge, 35 Okla. 360, 130 P. 136.
130-76 Leaven v. Doney, 181 Ind.
481, 104 N. E. 856.
140-78 Wliat is a Judicial fonetlon.
Every judge to whom is committed the
decision of judicial, as distinguished
from administrative, matters is in the
exercise of a judicial function when he
80 decides. Brown v, Cray, 88 Conn.
141, 89 A. 1123.
140-70 Hkbeas conms and not ap-
peal is^ the remedy, if any, where an
order is made punishing a party for
contempt. McCall v, Lee, 66 Pla. 14,
62 S. 902.
140-80 Columbia City Land Co. r.
Buhl, 70 Or. 246, 134 P. 1035, 141 P.
208.
Decisions entered pursuant to mandate,
etc. Stewart v, Salamon, 97 TJ. S. 361,
24 L. ed. 1044; Elder v. Wood, 54 Colo-
236, 130 P. 323.
141-86 Board of Oomrs. v. Farmer >
Wren L, Co., 132 L«^. 916, 6X S. 870 j
sa
V"
APPEALS
Vol 2
Board of Comre. v. Concordia L. & T.
Oo^ 132 La. 915y 61 8. 869; Board of
Comrs. «. Howard L. & T. Co., 132 La.
911, 61 S. 868.
142-88 Colnmbia City Land Co. v.
Buhl, 70 Or. 246, 134 P. 1035, 141 P.
208; Fisher v. Tomlinson, 40 Or. Ill,
60 P. 390, 66 P. 696; Newberg Orchard
Assn. V. Osborn, 39 Or. 370, 65 P. 81;
Osbora 9. Logus, 28 Or. 302, 37 P.
456, 38 P. 190, 42 P. 997.
143-92 An appMl from a specific
part of a judgment is permitted by
Code Civ. Proc, |940, and ordinarily
snch appeal will bring up for review
only the part appealed from. G. Ganahl
L. Co. r. Weinsveig, 168 Cal. 664, 143
P. 1025.
145-1 Fowen Indnded In grsnt.— A
grant ef appellate jurisdiction implies
that there is included in it the power
necessary to its effective exercise and
to make iJl orders that will preserve
the subject of the action and give ef-
fect to the final determination of the
appeal. Kjellander r. Kjellander, 90
Kan. 112, 132 P. 1170, Ann. Cas. 1915B,
1246, 45 L. B. A. (N. S.) 943.
146-4 Barnes v. Noel (Tenn.), 174
8. W. 276; Hunt r. Johnson (Tex.),
171 S. W. 1125.
147-7 OoMral and restrlctlva ap-
peals.— ^The general appeal statute does
not apply to special proceedings in
which a restrictive appeal is authorized.
8. V. Superior Court, 82 Wash. 31, 143
P. 168; 8. 1?. Superior Court, 44 Wash.
554, 87 P. 514; 8. V. Superior Court, 42
Wash. 684, 85 P. 673; Western Amer-
ican Co. V. St. Ann Co., 22 Wash. 158,
60 P. 158.
TbB Improper imitlng of two canaea
of action will not give the ap-
pellate court jurisdiction where it
would not have had jurisdiction of
either cause. Hunt v, Johnson (Tex.),
171 a W. 1125.
148-16 Edwards v. Davenport, 11
Ala. App. 423, 66 S. 878; Hager v.
SehUess (Mich.), 149 N. W. 1058.
140-17 Tax Assessor r. Makee Sugar
Co., 18 Hawaii, 267.
140-18 Btatntory provialoiiak etc.
G. Ganahl Lumb. Co. v, Weinsveig, 168
CaL 664, 143 P. 1025.
152-28 Wilson v. Fisher, 92 Kan.
786, 142 P. 241; Louisville Property Co.
r. Whitley County S. Co., 163 Ky. 336,
173 8. W. 783; ynllins v. Towler, 163
Ky. 331, 173 S. W. 812; Qoodrum f?.
Flowers, 162 Ky. 724, 172 8. W. 1062;
Thomas v. Thomas, 162 Ky. 630, 172 S.
W. 1054; Ockerman r. Woodward, 162
Ky. 134, 172 8. W. 92; Ferguson v.
Gulf Lumb. Co., 135 La. 974, 66 S. 317.
162-81 A dedaion of a single sa-
preme court Justice in an action at law
is not appealable to the full court. The
only way to bring such decision before
the full court for review is by excep-
tions, unless he reports the questions
raised. Channell r. Judge of Cent.
Dist. Ct., 213 Mass. 78, 99 N. £. 769.
152-32 Effect of filing counterdalm
in Justice court — ^Although defendant
files in justice court a counterclaim ex-
ceeding that court's jurisdiction, this
does not give the euperior court orig-
inal jurisdiction of the case on appeal
where the counterclaim is ignored by
the trial judge. Consequently the de-
cision of the superior court is final and
no appeal lies therefrom. Hillger r.
Yenrick, 25 Cal. App. 604, 144 P. 980.
153-86 Middleton v. Whitridge, 213
N. Y. 499, 108 N. E. 192; Caldwell v.
New York, 210 N. Y. 576, 104 N. B.
126.
Statatory authority necessary. — ^Where
a lower court sits as an appellate court,
under statutory authority, no appeal
will lie from its judgment unless ex-
pressly given by statute. An excep-
tion to this rule would exist wher^ the
lower court exceeded its jurisdiction, in
which case its judgment will be re-
versed. Stephens v, Crisfield, 122 Md.
190, 89 A. 429; Board of County Comrs.
V. Jay, 122 Md. 324, 89 A. 715.
154-39 Lafayette Bealty Co. v. Poer,
136 La. 472, 67 8. 335.
154-40 Koe v, Snattinger, 91 Kan.
567, 138 P. 581.
164-41 Washington Tp. r. Ratts, 54
Ind. App. 229, 101 N. E. 842.
Power to enact statute. — ^Where the su-
preme court has jurisdiction to review
causes in which the "validity of a
statute" is drawn into controversy, its
jurisdiction will extend to cases in-
volving the power to enact the statute
as well as those concerning the judicial
construction or application thereof.
Boehringer <?. Yuma County, 15 Ariz.
546, 140 P. 507.
An order dlsmlsirfng a writ of certiorari
may be reviewed regardless of the
amount in controversy. Wong Kee v«
iLillis (Nov.), 138 P. 900.
53
Vol. 2
APPEALS
154-42 Indianapolis i\ Hawltins, 180
Ind. 382, 103 N. E. 10.
155-46 Appeal of Hotel Bond Co.
(Conn.), 93 Atl. 245.
156-50 Wiesberg v. Bosenberg, 150
N. Y. S. 632; In re Chriatensen 'g Est.,
77 Wash. 629, 138 P. 1.
156-54 Irby v, Kaigler, 6 Ala. App.
91, 60 S. 418; Osborn v, Cardeza. 209 N.
Y. 530, 102 N. E. 598. .
"Demurwr, overruled. "—A docket en-
try merely reciting "demurrer over-
ruled*' will authorize an appeal there-
from. Nelson Theatre Co. v. Nelson,
216 Mass. 30, 102 N. E. 926.
In New York the appellate term may
entertain an appeal from an order made
in the municipal court as indicated by
a mere indorsement and subsequent en-
try. Leavitt v. Williams, 150 N. Y. S.
667.
156-55 Hanchey v. St. Louis, I. M.
& S. B. Co., 135 La. 352, 65 S. 487;
First Nat. Bank v. Hesdorffer (Miss.).
65 S. 607. ''
156-56 As to formal entry of Judg-
ments— ^The statute authorizing ap-
peals contemplates a formal entry of
the judgment or decree appealed from;
and until so entered, there is no "final
judgment" which will sustain an ap-
peal.^ The mere announcement of au
opinion by the court or even the entry
by the circuit or city court on the trial
or motion docket of its rulings on de-
murrers or motions is not a judgment,
but merely a direction of the presiding
judge to the clerk as to what judgment
-should be entered on the records of the
court. Edwards v, Davenport, 11 Ala.
App. 423, 66 S. 878.
157-60 Judgment rendered by per-
emptory Instructions at request of both
parties is a judgment by confession, and
no appeal lies. Grand Lodge V, Bar-
low (Miss.), 67 8. 152.
157-62 Boldlng tliat there Is no
rigl^t of appeal, etc. Sauerbrunn t?.
Hartford L. Ins. Co. (App. Div.), 150
N. Y. 8. 1039; Nassau Finance Co. V.
Suffrin, 150 N. Y. 8. 690; O'Beirne V,
Carey, 150 N. Y. 8. 666; 8. v. Simpson,
69 Or. 93, 137 P. 750, 138 P. 467. 8ee
also vol. 6, p. 839 and supplement
thereto.
"Judgment for want of answer." — ^No
appeal lies from a judgment rendered
for want of answer even tl^ough testi*
mony is taken. 8. v. Simpson, 69 Or.
93, 138 P. 467.
158-63 A default entered without
Jurisdiction of person may be appealed
from without a preliminary motion to
set it aside. Gear v, Henry, 21 Hawaii
101.
158-65 Agreed case as to appeal in,
see vol. 1, p. 765, F.
158-66 Subpoena duces tecum.— A
vacation order requiring election com-
missioners to appear and bring with
them the poll books is not appealable.
A writ of certiorari is the proper meth-
od of having such order reviewed.
Bowden v. Webb (Ark.), 173 S. W. ISl.
161-74 Orders denying reargument
are not appealable. P. r. Connolly,
164 App. Div. 163, 149 N. Y. 8. 693.
161-80 Judson Lumb. Co. r. Patter-
son (Fla,), 66 S. 727; Eozinsky v. Sea-
wright, 142 Ga. 251, 82 8. E. 661; S.
V. Linderholm, 90 Kan. 489, 135 P.
564; Newbold V. Green, 122 Md. 648, 90
A, 513; Weil r. Boston El. B. Co., 216
Mass. 545, 104 N. E. 343; Henderson v.
Treadway, 187 Mo. App. 628, 173 8.
W. 46; In re Boberts' Est., 48 Mont
40, 135 P. 909; Gilbert v. Shingle Co.,
167 N. C. 286, 83 8. E. 337; 8. v. Har-
mon, 87 0. St. 364, 101 N. E. 286; Col-
umbia City Land Co. v. Buhl, 70 Or. 246,
134 P. 1035, 141 P. 208; American Life
& A. Ins. Co. V. Ferguson, 66 Or. 417,
134 P. 1029; Bordl v. Carson, 72 Wash.
117, 129 P. 908.
Not nntll the case is "ripe for Judg-
ment" in the trial court may excep-
tions be entered and heard in the ap-
pellate court. Lowd t>. Brigham, 154
Mass. 107, 26 N. E. 1004. This how-
ever, is a rule of practice in the in-
terests of justice and is waived where
not raised by the parties, or is over-
looked by the court. Weil v, Boston El.
B. Co., 216 Mass. 545, 104 N. E. 343.
Moreover although the right to enter
an appeal is thus in abeyance until final
judgment, the right to claim an appeal
is not thereby suspended. Oliver Dit-
son Co. V, Testa, 216 Mass. 123, 103 N.
E. 381.
162-8S International W. Co. v.
Bloomfield Mfg. Co. (N. C), 83 8. E.
609.
Voidable proceedings. — ^An appeal from
findings and order, which were void-
able because filed too late» will not be
dismissed for that reason. St. An-
M
APPEALS
Vol 2
tkony & D. El. Co. v. Martineau, 28 N.
D. 423, 149 N. W. 355.
162-86 Kozinsky v. Seawright, 142
Oa. 251, 82 S. E. 661.
162-88 If farther Judicial action is
essential to a final determination of
the rights of the parties, the judgment
is only interlocutor/, Zappettini v,
Buekles, 167 Cal. 27, 138 P. 696.
163-89 American Fidelity Co. r.
East Ohio Sewer P. Co., 53 Ind. App.
335, 101 N. E. 671.
163-91 Judson Lumb. Co. v. Patter-
son (Pla.), 66 & 727.
168-92 drver Bros. r. Merrett (Tex.
Civ.), 174 S. W. 929.
163-93 Busby v. Schrank (Tex.
Civ.), 174 S. W. 295.
163-95 Pake v. Leinkauf Bkg. Co.,
186 Ala. 307, 65 S. 139; Yazoo & M.
V. B. Co. c. James (Misa), 67 S. 152;
Henderson r. Treadway, 187 Mo. App.
628, 173 S. W. 46.
163-1 Hynes if. Jennings, 262 HI.
268, 104 N. E. 697; Eastern Bridge &
Struct. Co. r. Worcester Auditorium
Co., 216 Mass. 426, 103 N. E. 913.
^PartitloiL — As to parties having no in-
terest, a judgment in partition is final
and appealable; as to those having an
interest it is interlocutory, Albany
Hospital V. Hanson, 214 N. Y. 435, 108
N. E. 812. A judgment in partition
recognizing one as the owner of half
the property, is such a final judgment
as will serve as the basis of an ap-
peal, and it is not necessary that ap-
pellant shall wait until a judgment
homologating the partition proceedings
has been rendered. Brown v. Green, 132
La. 1090, 62 S. 154.
A docket entry or an order for a docket
entry is not a final decree. Day v.
Mills, 213 Mass. 585, 100 N. B. 1113;
Plaisted f>. Cooke, 181 Mass. 118. 63
N. E. 132. '
Bendering decree enforcible.— In a suit
to remove obstructions from the en-
forcement of a decree, a decision deny-
ing such relief is final and appealable.
Union Trust Co. v. Curtis (Ind.), 105
N. E. 562.
An order removing an assignee for the
benefit of creditors is not a final de-
cree. Pake V. Leinkauf Bkg. Co., 186
Ala. 307, 65 S. 139,
Zappettini r. Buckles, 167 Cal.
27, 13C P. 696.
166-5 Kolp V, Weil Bros. (Tex. Civ.),
173 S. W. 1006; St. Louis, S. F. & T.
K. Co. V. Tudle (Tex. Civ.), 171 S. W.
797; Wright f?. CHiandler (Tex. Civ.),
173 S. W. 1173.
Where causes are consolidated the
judgment must still be final as to all
the parties. Wright V. Chandler (Tex.
Civ.), 173 S. W. 1173.
165-6 Smith v. Graves (Ind. App.),
108 N. E. 168.
165-7 Brown v. Hughes, 243 Pa. 397,
90 A. 651.
Signing Judgment. — ^As to the necessity
of signing a judgment to make it final
and appealable, see "Api^eala," p. 156,
n. 55.
165-8 Adams v, Georgia By. Co., 142
Ga. 497, 83 S. E. 131; Eozinsky v.
Seawright, 142 Ga. 251, 82 S. E. 661;
Oliver Bitson Co. v. Testa, 216 Mass.
123, 103 N. E. 381.
166-14 Herreshoff v, American & B.
Mfg. Co., 164 App. Div. 238, 149 N. Y.
S. 703.
167-16 Hager v. SchUess (Mich.),
149 N. W. 1058, overruling of defend-
ant's plea which went to the whole bill,
held final.
167-18 The striking of amended
complaint which in effect amounts to
a dismissal is appealable. Hastings v.
United States F. & G. Co. (Ark.), 172
S. W. 1016.
167-23 Dlflmlwdng a petition. — ^An
order is appealable which dismisses a
petition asking that an administrator
include omitted property. In re Mar-
tin's Est., 82 Wa6h. 226, 144 P. 42.
168-32 McElroy v, Whitney, 24 Ida.
210, 133 P. 118; Trust Co. of America
V. United Box-Board Co., 213 N. T. 334,
107 N. B. 574.
169-33 Bemandlng proceedings. — A
circuit court order remanding the pro-
ceedings to the board of commission-
ers with instructions to set aside the
orders entered therein is appealable.
Thompson v, Ferguson, 180 Ind. 312,
102 N. E. 965,
Probate court proceedings. — ^An appeal
will not lie from an interlocutory ap-
pointment of a temporary guardian.
Est. of A. Enos, 18 Hawaii 542 (order
approving annual accounts of executor
appealable); Estes v. Probate Court, 36
B. I. 57, 88 A. 977.
A ruling declaring a rlitl^t of inherit-
55
Vol 2
APPEALS
flmce is a final deeision. Beyes 9. Ciria,
24 Phil. Isl. 127.
IlluBtratioiis of final Judgments or de-
crees. DurBt V. Hanni, 23 Colo. 431, 130
P. 77; Vise v. Porto Bico Sugar Co., 17
P. B. 415^ judgment dismissing a com-
plaint.
A Judgment on a plea In abatement Is
appealable even where there is neither
a dismissal by the plaintiff nor a trial
on the merits. Brooks Sd Co. v. Gen-
try (Miss.), 66 8. 812.
Denial of intervention is final judg-
ment from which an appeal will lie.
Korthern Ind. Land €o. v. Brown
(Ind.), 106 N. E, 706.
A Judgment for costs alone though en-
tered for defendant after verdict in his
favor, will not support a writ of error,
since such a judgment does not ad-
judicate the merits of the cause or dis-
pose of the action. G. W. Zaring &
Co. V. Humphreys (Fla.), 05 S. 665.
170-34 Bateman v. Gitts, 17 N. M.
fil9, 133 P. 969, Ann. Cas. 1915B, 1192;
Cocke 's Admr. v. Gilpin, 40 Va. 22.
J. 70-86 Idan Litto Temperance Soc.
r. Isakson, 219 Mass. 95, 106 N. £. 581;
8. 17. Barnett, 49 Mont. 252, 141 P. 287;
Borell 17. Carson, 72 Wash. 117, 129 P.
908.
170-36 Hirabelli v. Daniels, 44 Utah
88, 138 P. 1172; Nisius t?. Chapman, 178
Ind. 494, 99 N. E. 785.
170-37 Tipton <7. Postal Assn. (Tex.
Civ.), 173 S. W. 562.
171-40 Steinberg v. Jacobs, 21 Cal.
App. 765, 132 P. 106a
171-41 Emporia v, Emporia Tel. Co.,
90 Kan. 118, 133 P. 858; Dunham v.
Slidell, 133 La. 212, 62 S. 635; Vicks-
burg, S. & P. By. Co. 17. Webster Sand
Gravel. & C. Co., 132 La. 1051, 62 S.
140, 47 L. B. A. (N. S.) 1155; Beiseker
p. Svendsgaard, 28 N. D. 366, 149 N.
W. 352; Okla. Oomp. Laws, 1909, §6067;
Perry Pub. Library Assn. v. Lobsitz,
35 Okla. 576, 130 P. 919; Weaver 17.
Bichardson, 21 Wyo. 343, 132 P. 1148.
BCandamus. — An appeal may be taken
from a judgment granting or denying
a writ of mandamus. Ballagh t7. Su-
perior Court, 25 Cal. App. 149, 142 P.
1123.
171-43 Norris 17. Burnett (Miss.), 66
B. 748.
171-44 Tuckerman v, Curriet, 54
Colo. 24, 129 P. 220; MacDonald v.
Etna Indem. Co. (Conn.), 92 A. 154.
See Tipton i?. Bailway Postal Clerks 1.
Assn. (Tex. Civ.), 173 S. W. 562.
171-49 Hager 17. Schliess (Mich.),
149 N. W. 1058.
171-50 Barney v. Elkhart, etc. Co.,
167 Ind. 505, 79 N. E. 492; Natcher i?.
Natcher, 153 Ind. 368, 55 N. £. 86;
Bossert 17. Geis (Ind. App.), 107 N. E.
95. «
171-51 Bem. & Ball. Code, 11716,
Bubd. ly 6; Jones 17. Jones, 72 Wash. 517,
130 P. 1125, order fixing amount of at-
torney's fees.
Where costs are part of Judgment^ an
appeal from the judgment will not be
dismissed as to costs. Wade 17. Amal-
gamated Sugar Co., 71 Or. 75, 142 P.
350.
Tazlxig costs. — ^Court's direction to tax
certain items as costs, not appealable.
Schuh V. Beed, 259 lU. 138, 102 N. E.
210. But an order refusing to retax
costs has been held appealable. White
V. Stout, 72 Wash. 62, 129 P. 917.
171-53 In re Simmons, 206 N. Y.
577, 100 N. E. 455.
172-55 P. 17. District Court, 54 Colo.
576, 131 P, 424.
172-56 Harlow 17. Mason (Ark.), 174
S. W. 1163; Gear 17. Henry, 21 Hawaii
54; Bodrigues 17. Correia, 20 Hawaii
563.
172-58 Tiedemann 17. Tiedemann, 35
Nev. 259, 129 P. 313.
172-69 Outcault Adv. Co. «. Hooten
& Co., 11 Ala. App. 454, 66 S* 901; Fos-
ter 17. Haines, 13 Me. 307; Clapp v.
Balch, 3 Me. 216; Wyman i?. Dorr, 3
Me. 183.
BuUngff on pleadings alone» not appeal-
able.— ^'^ Manifestly it was not intended
by the act that from every adverse rul-
ing on the pleadings, in the ordinary
course of trials of civil cases that had
not been set down for hearing on the
pleadings alone, there might be an ap-
peal to this court." Compton 17. Jef-
ferson County Sav. Bank (Ala.), 66 8.
446.
In Alabama under Acts Special Sees.,
1909. pp. 339, 356, only adverse rulings
on tne pleadings in cases set down for
hearing on the pleadings alone are ap-
pealable. Compton 17. Jefferson County
Sav. Bank (Ala.), 66 S. 446.
Plea to Jurisdiction. — An order sustain-
ing a plea to the jurisdiction is appeal-
able. Oliver Ditson Co. 17. Testa, 216
Mass. 123^ 103 N, E. 881,
56
APPEALS
Vol 2
172-61 Burr if. Hull, 66 Fla. 20, 63
S. 300, an order denying a motion to
strike a eross-bill held appealable.
Iininopsrly stxiklxig oat amendod com-
plaint.—Hastings V. U. S. Fidelity, etc.
Co. (Ark.), 172 S. W. 1016.
172-62 Helms v. Georgia By. Co.
(Ala.), 66 8. 470; Scott v. First Nat.
Bank, 178 Ala. 272, 59 8o. 803; Dans
r- Short (la.), 150 N. W. 1047, an
order sustaining a motion to strike part
of petition held appealable.
173-65 Tndor v. Kennett (Vt.), 92
A. 213, order permitting the filing of
an answer, held appealable.
An oidar abating an action is appeal-
able. Klamath Lnmb. Co. v, Bamber
(Or.), 142 P. 359. In Mississippi nnder
Code, 1906, |§33 and 178 it is held
that a judgment on a plea in abate-
ment that an attachment was wrong-
fdlly sued out is final and appealable.
Chas. Brooks & Co. i;. Gentry (Miss.),
66 S. 812.
173-67 Consolidated Alfalfa Mill.
Co. V. Winsor, 40 OkUu 362. 138 P.
566; Consolidated Alfalfa Mill. Co. V.
Boberts, 40 Okla. 304, 137 P. 1179.
173-68 Priebe «. Southern By. Co.
(Ala.), 66 8. 573; Gilbert v. Shingle
Co., 167 N. C. 286, 83 S. E. 337.
Exceptions and not appeal is propet
remedy in judgment of nonsuit for fail-
ure to file bill of particulars. Nicker-
8on f7. Olines (Mass.), 107 N. E. 942.
An order reinstating a cause after vol-
untary nonsuit is not appealable. First
Christian Church V. Bobb, 69 Or. 283,
138 P. 856.
Keoessity of nonsuit diown. — ^Where it
is necessary for plaintiff to suffer a
nonsuit and this fact appears by the
record or the bill of exceptions an ap-
peal will be sustained. Ex parte Mar-
tin, 180 Ala. 620, 61 So. 905. Such
necessity would exist in a case in which
plaintiff became satisfied from an ad-
verse ruling that he could not recover.
Bush r. Bussell, 180 Ala. 590, 61 So. 373.
174-69 Marx r. Barbour Plumb, ft
Elec. Co., 10 Ala. App. 404, 64 S. 645,
no appeal from an order setting aside
a former order for dismissal.
Order for mistrial in criminal case be-
ing discretionary is not appealable. S.
r. Ford (N. C), 83 S. E. 831; 8. t?.
Hunter, 143 N. C. 607, 56 8. E. 547, 118
Am, St. 830.
pi— ^^^1 without prejudice is not a
final adjudication. Adams v. Pugh's
Admr., 116 Va. 797, 83 S. E. 370.
174-70 Davis t?. Biddle (Ark.), 174
S. W. 1196j Kickert v. Zoeger (Cal.),
146 P. 894; Brunson v, Santa Monica,
25 Cal. App. 383, 143 P. 792; Baldwin
V. Walls, 23 Cal. App. 349, 137 P. 1066;
Battle V. Hambrick, 142 Ga. 807, 83
8. E. 937; WilUams v. Huey, 263 HI.
275, 104 N. E. 1008; Franklin County
r. Blake, 257 HI. 354, 100 N. E. 929;
Chicago, I. & S. R. Co. <?. Taylor (Ind.),
108 N. E. 1; Kahle v. Crown Oil Co.
(Ind.), 100 K. E. 681; Pentz v. Cor-
scadden, 49 Mont. 581, 144 P. 157;
Lecher r. City of St. Johns (Or.), 146
P. 87; Bonner t?. Diller (Pa.), 89 A.
579; Zook v. Coker, 24 PhU. Isl. 434;
Succession of Nieves v. Succession of
Sanchez, 17 P. B. 837; Torres v. Calaf,
17 P. B. 585; American B. B. Co. r.
Quinones, 17 P. B. 247; Hicks v. Lee
(B. I.), 92 A. 556. See also vol. 6,
p. 1016; p. 1017, n. 92, and supplement
thereto. See the title "Indictment and
Information."
174-71 Norris r. Burnett (Miss.), 66
S. 748; Okla. Comp. Laws, 1909, |6067;
Board of County Comrs. v. Bobertson
(Okla.), 130 P. 947.
Judgment sustaining demurrer. — Adams
V. Georgia By. Co., 142 Ga. 497, 83
8. E. 131.
175-72 American Fidelity Co. r. East
Ohio Sewer P. Co., 53 Ind. App. 335,
101 N. E. 671; Slattery v. American
Surety Co., 217 Mass. 507, 105 N. E.
373; Sault Ste. Marie v. By. Co.
(Mich.), 151 N. W. 649; Wanner t?.
Martin, 173 Mich. 503, 139 N. W. 249
(but see Paccalona v. Peninsula B. ft
L. Co., 171 Mich. 605, 137 N. W. 518);
Torres v, Calaf, 17 P. B. 585; American
B. B. Co. V. Quinones, 17 P. B. 247;
Grover Irr. & L. Co. t?. Lovella Ditch,
etc Co., 21 Wyo. 204, 131 P. 43.
On appeal from the final Judgment,
rulings upon demurrers may be re-
viewed. Newbold r. Green, 122 Md.
648, 90 A. 513.
175-75 As to order making arrest,
see vol. 2, p. 975, n. 75.
176-78 8ee also vol. 3, p. 829, n.
58.
175*79 Steinberg v. Jacobs, 21 Cal.
AI)p. 765, 132 P. 1060; P. B. Code Civ.
Proc. 295; Davila t?. Barreiro, 20 P. B.
43; Johnson v. Muenz, 76 Wash. 526,
1 137 P. 126.
57
Vol 2
APPEALS
176-82 P. B. Code Civ. l>roc. 295;
Davila v. Barreiro, 20 P. R. 43. See
also vol. 3y p. 831, n. 62.
176-89 Alexander v. Woods, 103
Miss. 860, 60 S. 1017.
176-91 Fletcher v. Barton (Ind.
App.), 108 N. E. 137; Brown v. Green,
133 La. 725, 63 S. 303; Vermont Sav.
Bank v. Bailey's Admr., 87 Vt. 220, 88
A. 661.
177-92 Brown-Beane Co. r. Backer,
36 Okla. 698, 129 P. 1.
"Where irrepara'ble Injury would be
worked by the interlocutory injunction,
an appeal will lie from an order over-
ruling a motion to dissolve it. Diebert,
Bancroft & Ross Co. v. Bertie Sugar
Co., 131 La. 414, 59 S, 835.
177-93 Anderson v. Henderson, 103
Miss. 211, 60 S. 137; Beiseker v. Svends-
gaard, 28 N. D. 366, 149 N. W. 352;
P. B. Code Civ. Proc. 295; Davila r.
Barreiro, 20 P. B. 43; Warren V. War-
ren, 36 B. I. 167, 89 A. 651.
In ez parte proceeding. — An order re*
fusing a preliminary injunction in an
ex parte proceeding is appealable. Safe
Deposit & Tr. Co. v. Baltimore, 121 Md.
622, 88 A. 267.
An order refoslng to enjoin the fore-
closure of a mortgage by advertise-
ment is now appealable, by St., ch. 79,
Laws, 1907, changing the former law.
Beiseker v. Svendsgaard, 28 N. D. 366,
149 N. W. 352.
177-97 Taintor r. St. John (Mont.),
146 P. 939.
A distinction is made somettmes be-
tween orders appointing receivers and
orders refusing to appoint them. An
appeal lies from the former but not
from the latter. Tipton v, Bailway
Postal Clerks' Inv. Assn. (Tex. Civ.),
173 S. W. 562.
An anthorlsation to a receiver to sue
is interlocutory in its nature, and it
cannot be appealed from. Van Vleet
V. EvangeUne Oil Co., 133 La. 72, 62
S. 411.
178-98 Ex parte Jonas, 186 Ala. 567,
64 S. 960.
178-99 Williams v. Watt (Tex.
Civ.), 171 S. W. 266.
178-3 Contra, Southern Nat. Bank
V. Farmington Corp. (S. C), 83 S. E.
637.
Order for commission. — An appeal does
nbt lie from an order denying a motion
for the issuance of a commission id
take testimony. Nassau Finance Co. r.
Suffern, 150 N. Y. S. 690.
178-4 Baker v. Bohnert, 158 Wis.
337, 148 N. W. 1093.
179-9 Application to' stay proceed-
ings:—The rulings of t(he trial court,
or. an application to stay proceedings,
do not constitute a final judgment from
which an appeal may be taken. Craig
r. Norwood (Ind. App.), 108 N. K
395.
179-10 Henderson v. Treadway (Mo.
App.), 173 S. W. 46.
179-11 Barry f, Blackhawk Co. Bist.
Court (la.), 14^ N. W. 449, is review-
able on an apffeal from final judgment.
179-12 Kichelieu r. Union Pac. B.
Co., 97 Neb. 360, 149 N. W. 772; P. B.
Code Civ. Proc, |295; Davila r. Bar-
reiro, 20 P. B. 43.
180-13 Held appealable.— Pmett «.
Charlotte Power Co., 167 N. C. 598, 83
S. £. 830; Howard r. Bailroad, 122
N. C. 944, 29 S. E. 778; McNeal Pipe
Co. 17. Howland, 99 N. C. 202, 5 S. E.
745, 6 Am. St. 513; Fitzgerald V. AU-
man, 82 N. C. 492.
An order acoepting petition and bond
for removal of the cause to the federal
court is a. final judgment and appeal-
able. Long r. Quinn Bros., 215 Mass.
85, 102 N. E. 348.
180-lS Foote r. Foote, 53 Ind. App.
673, 102 N. E. 393; Berger Mfg. Co.
V. School Dist. (Okla.), 144 P. 1023;
Orr r. Orr (Or.), 144 P. 753; In re
Sneddon (Or.), 14 i P. 676; S. t\ Supe-
rior Court (Wash.), 146 P. 834.
180-16 Prince f. Mottman (Wash.),
146 P. 841.
180-17 P. V. Chicago Title & Trust
Co., 261 111. 392, 103 N. E. 997; Cramer
V, Illinois Com. Men's Assn., 260 111.
516, 103 N. E. 459; Park Eidge v. Mur-
phy, 258 111. 365, 101 N. E. 524.
180-18 Sherman v. Lewis (Cal.),
137 P. 249; Lapique t?. Plummer, 24
Cal. App. 687, 142 P. 107; S. v. District
Court (Mont.), 145 P. 724; Bahl t?. Mar-
low State Bank, 37 Okla. 170, 131 P.
525; Freiria & Co. v, Felix, Hmns. ft
Co., 20 P. B. 148 (holding that an
order setting aside a judgment by de-
fault and the levy and sale of defend-
ant's property may be appealed from);
Hemaiz, Targa & Co. r. Vivns, 20 P. B.
99 (order refusing to set aside default
judgment held ^n appealable order);
58
APPEALS
Vol 2
Davila v. Barreiro, SO P. R. 43, order
setting aside default not appealable.
181-20 Pope V. OlBen, 14 Ariz. 528,
132 P. 434; Ex parte Colvert (Ala.), 65
S. 964; Buff v. Georgia, S. Sd F. R. Co.,
67 Fla. 224, 64 S. 782; Lambert 17.
Cheney (Mass.), 108 N. E. 1078; Sher-
man r. CoUingwood (Mass.), 108 N. E.
508; Zuccaro v. Nazzaro, 216 Mass.
289, 103 N. E. 907; Fleming v. Wash-
ington & V. R. Co. (N. C), 84 8. E.
270; Beaver V, Mason, Ehrman & Co.
(Or.), 143 P. 1000; Davidson v, Almeda
Consol. Mines Co., 71 Or. 516, 142 P.
778; Abercrombie v, Heckard, 68 Or.
103, 136 P. 875; Crossen V. Oliver, 41
Or. 505, 69 P. 308; MeCormick Mach.
Co. V. Hovey, 36 Or. 259, 59 P. 189.
Judgment <m letriaL — ^Where a new
trial is granted this reopens the issues
and the appeal can only be taken from
the judgment on the retrial. Independ-
ent Brew. Co. v, Stewart (Ohio), 105
N. E. 143.
In South Oaxollna an order granting a
new trial is not appealable unless the
supreme court can render a judgment
absolute upon the right of the appel-
lant, if it shall determine that no error
was committed in granting it. Nunna-
maker 17. Smith, 98 S. C. 466, 82 S. E.
675; Daughty v. B. Co., 92 S. C. 361,
75 S. E. 653.
181-21 Turner v. F. W. Ten Winkel
Co., 24 Cal. App. 213, 140 P. 1086;
P. B. Code Civ. Proc, §295; Davila v,
Barreiro, 20 P. R. 43; Prince V, Mott-
man (Wash.), 146 P. 841; Burke v.
Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 80 Wash. 188,
141 P. 364.
Order reinstating a cause. — ^Where an
appeal is allowed from an order grant-
ing a new trial, this does not author-
ize an appeal from an order reinstating
a cause after voluntary nonsuit. First
Christian Church of Medford v. Robb,
69 Or. 283, 138 P. 856.
181-22 Smith v. Pacific Heights R.
Co., 17 Hawaii 96.
182-27 Milteer v. Seaboard Air Line
R. Co., 65 Fla. 357, 61 S. 749.
182-29 Elledge v. Superior Court,
131. Cal. 279, 63 P. 360 (order taxing
costs); Engel v, Ehret, 21 Cal. App.
112, 130 P. 1197, order taxing costs.
Porto Bico.— Code Civ. Proc, §295;
Davila v. Barreiro, 20 P. R. 43.
Order modifying Judgment. — An order
modifying a judgment based upon a
motion made subsequent to the entry
of the judgment and after the judg-
ment has been satisfied of record, is
one affecting the substantial rights of
the parties, and is appealable. Min-
neapolis St. P., R. & D. Elec. Tract.
Co. V. Grimes (Minn.), 150 N. W. 180.
Setting aside judgment entry. — An or-
der setting aside judgment entry and
the execution issued thereon is not ap-
pealable. Farris V. St. Paul's Baptist
Church, 216 Mass. 570, 104 N. E. 639.
183-31 Quashing execution. — An or-
der quashing an execution issued by the
clerk of district court on a judgment
of a justice of the peace is not appeal-
able as a special order made after final
judgment. Pierson v. Daly, 49 Mont.
478, 143 P. 957.
184-46 An order approving a bond
in a condemnation proceeding is not
appealable. Raystown W. P. Co. r.
Brumbaugh, 246 Pa. 225, 92 A. 140.
Payment of award. — A condemnation
award having been paid to a person,
an order of the court directing that
person to pay it to another is appeal-
able. In re Block, 209 N. Y. 127, 102
N. E. 638.
An order dismlBsing a remonstrance
filed in a drainage proceeding is not a
final appealable judgment. Crow v.
Evans, 178 Ind. 661, 100 N. E. 8.
186-49 In re Holt, 20 Hawaii 255.
186-61 An order to show cause is
not appealable. — Mahoney v. Sutphin,
164 App. Div. 794, 150 N. Y. S. 206.
See also vol. 5, p. 425, and supplement
thereto.
186-62 Directing recount of ballots.
An order of the district court direct-
ing the election board to open the
ballot boxes and proceed with a re-
count is not a final order, and an ap-
peal therefrom will not lie. Compton
V. Simpson, 43 Okla. 642, 143 P. 664.
186-64 GaLvin r. Logan (Ind.), 106
N. E. 871. See also vol. 8, p. 52, n. 23.
186-66 Potter v. Garrison, 161 Ky.
438, 171 S. W. 147; Kelly, Weber &
Co. V. Vordenbaumen Lumb. Co., 132
La. 916, 61 S. 870; Pass Christian i?.
Lizana (Miss.), 64 S. 209; Herrera r.
Heirs of Otero, 18 P. R. 434; Ocasio
t?. Enrique Monllor & Co., 18 P. R.
433; Mora v. Rosaly, 18 P. R. 170;
Globe Loan Co. t?. Betancourt (Tex.
Civ.), 171 S. W. 308.
186-68 Mullins v. towler, 163 Ky.
331, 173 8. W. 812.
59
Vol. 2
APPEALS
188-67 Fernandez t?. Bosado, 20 P.
B. 69; Globe Loan Co. v, Betancourt
(Tex. Civ.), 171 S. W. 308; Gorham-
Bevere Bubber Co. v. Broadway Auto.
Co., 71 Wash. 578, 129 P. 89.
Allegations of value, even if sworn to,
do not bind the appellate court, where
the contrary of the allegations is mani-
fest. Bloomfield v. Thompson, 133 La.
209, 62 S. 634.
188-69 Amount claimed by plaintiff.
Although the general rule is that stated
in the text, yet some cases bold that
even if the defendant is the appellant,
the amount claimed by the plaintiff is
still the governing amount. Kirby v.
Bainier-Grand Hotel Co., 28 Wash. 705,
69 P. 378; Trumbull v. School Dist.,
22 Wash. 631, 61 P. 714; Bleeker v.
Satsop B. Co., 3 Wash. 77, 27 P. 1073;
•Penter t?. Straight, 1 Wash. 365, 25 P.
469.
189-70 In partition the amount to
be distributed is the test, and not the
amount claimed by the litigants. Brown
17. Green, 132 La. 1090, 62 S. 154.
The test of jurisdiction is the value
of the property at the date of the
institution of the suit. In re Quaker
Bealty Co., 131 La. 84, 59 S. 23.
In injunction by taxpayer against a
municipality, it is not the amount of
his tax, but the whole amount involved
in the corporate action sought to be
enjoined which controls. Bloomfield v,
Thompson, 133 La. 209, 62 S. 634.
An ailldavlt as to the value of the
property in litigation made after the
judgment appealed from will not be
considered in determining the jurisdic-
tional amount. In re Quaker Bealty
Co., 131 La. 84, 59 S. 23.
189-72 Louisville Property Co. v,
Whitley County S. Co., 163 Ky. 336, 173
8. W. 783.
190-76 Mahaney v. Lee (Tex. Civ.),
171 S. W. 1093.
191-78 Mahaney v. Lee (Tex. Civ.),
171 S. W. 1093; Gorham-Bevere Bubber
Co. V, Broadway Auto. Co., 71 Wash.
578, 129 P. 89; Lauridsen v. Lewis, 47
Wash. 594, 92 P. 440; Sorrill V. Mc-
Gougan, 44 Wash. 558, 87 P. 825.
Plaintiff also lias rigbt of appeal under
circumstances stated in text. This be-
ing based upon the principle of mutual-
ity of remedy. . Gorham-Bevere Bubber
Co. V, Broadway Auto. Co., 71 Wash.
578, 129 P. 89. But where the counter-
claim is abandoned, then tke plaintift
has no right of appeal to the supreme
court unless the amount demanded in
his complaint is sufficient- to give juris-
diction. Gorham-Bevere Bubber Co. v,
Broadway Auto. Co., 71 Wash. 578, 129
P. 89.
191-80 The amount directly affected
by the error relied upon for reversal
is immaterial. Cardwell v. Union Pac.
B. Co., 90 Kan. 707, 136 P. 244.
192-89 Meyer v. Perkins, 20 Cal.
App. 661, 130 P. 206, 208. .
194-95 Altpeter r. Postal Tel.-Cable
Co., 22 Cal. App. 63, 133 P. 329; Oles
V. Macky'g Est (Colo.), 144 P. 891;
Pottlitzer v. Citizens' Trust Co. (Ind.
App.), 108 N. E. 36; Perez v. Soto, 20
P. B. 225; Bamos v, Esteves, 20 P. B.
122; Andujar v. Alonso, 17 P. B. 410.
194-97 Waban Bose Conservatories
V. Hall, 218 Mass. 533, 106 N. E. 137;
Bichardson v, Thompson, 40 Okla. 348,
138 P. 177.
194-98 In re Walden'a Estete, 168
Cal. 759, 145 P. 100; Mercantile Trust
Co. V. Miller, 166 Cal. 563, 137 P. 913;
Carstens & Earles v, Seattle (Wash.),
146 P. 381.
194-99 In^re Kirkman's Est., 168
Cal. 688, 144 P. 745; In re Bradley's
Est., 168 Cal. 655, 144 P. 136.
196-1 Adverse party, definition of.
Osborn v, Logus, 28 Or. 302, 37 P. 456,
38 P. 190, 42 P. 997.
196-16 Beceivers may appeal from
dismissal of petition filed on behalf of
creditors. Gephart V. Taylor, 124 Md.
Ill, 91 A. 772.
197-23 In re Bohanan, 37 Okla. 560,
133 P. 44; In re Guardianship of Billy,
34 Okla. 120, 124 P. 608.
198-24 MacDonald v, Aetna Indem.
Co. (Conn.), 92 A. 154, appeal allowed
to creditors of an insolvent indemnity
company.
A creditor of defendant corporation
may appeal from an order appointing
a receiver. People's Bank v. De Soto
Hdw. Co., 135 La. 1027, 66 S. 349.
198-26 Beard v. Hosier (Ind. App.),
107 N. E. 558.
199-33 A hnaband may not appeal
from a decree in a suit to partition
property inherited by the wife. Swan
V. Tapley, 216 Mass. 61, 102 N. E. 916.
Father as guardian of children. — ^A
father whose interests are adverse to
60
APPEALS
tol. 2
thoM of Idf eUldren cannot appeal
from a judgment from w^eh their
guardian ad litem failed to appeal.
Battyany v. McNeley (Waih.), 149 P.
Brother of a spendthrift may appeal
from a decree terminating his guard-
ianship of the spendthrift. Sullivan V.
Lloyd (Mass.), 108 N. E. 923.
200-34 Beard v. Hosier (Ind. App.),
107 N. K 558.
A mortgagee who has lost his interest
in the chattels has no appealable inter-
est from a decree foreclosing a lien
thereon. Bhode Island Warehouse Co.
r. W. H. Holt Mfg. Co., 36 B. I. 192,
89 A. 706.
200-38 In re Walden 's Est., 168 Cal.
759, 145 P. 100; Miller V. MUler, 263
111. 18, 104 N. E. 1078; Waban Bose
Conservatories f>. Hall, 218 Mass. 533,
106 N. E. 137; S. V. State Bank &
Trust Co., 36 Nev. 526, 137 P. 400.
201-40 P. V. Dillon, 257 lU. 68, 100
N. E. 170; Clark v. Stout (Ind.), 105
N. E. 569.
201-48 '^Aggrlered" explained.— The
word "aggrieved" refers to a substan-
tial grievance and the imposition of
an illegal obligation or burden or the
denial of some equitable or legal right.
8. I?. State Bank & Trust Co., 36 Nev.
526, 137 P. 400.
"Where no flndlngs are made as to a
particular defendant in tort action, he
may not appeal. Smith v. Qraves (Ind.
App.), 108 K, K 168.
202-44 Boundaries of Kahua 2, Hilo,
20 Hawaii 278; 8. v. Intoxicating
Liquors, 112 Me. 138, 91 A. 175.
203-48 Wagner v, Freeny, 123 Md.
24, 90 A. 774.
208-49 liovert v. Shirley Planting
Co., 135 La. 929, 66 8. 301.
208-52 Continental Gin Co. v. Mil-
bert, 10 Ala. App. 351, 65 8. 424.
203-68 New Orleans, etc. B. Co. v.
State Board of Appraisers, 135 La. 729,
66 8. 160; Bipley v. Brown, 218 Mass.
33, 105 N. E. 637; Bass v. Occidental
Life Ins. Co., 18 N. M. 282, 135 P.
1175.
From an order zedueiiig attorney's al-
lowaaoe, made on motion of other
parties than the attorney, he is the
proper person to appeal. Thomas v.
Thomas, 162 Ky. 630, 172 8. W. 1054.
204-54 Baas «. Occidental Life Ins.
Co, 18 N, M. 882, 135 P, 1175.
204-38 Southern Indiana Power Co.
V. Cook (Ind.), 107 N. E. 12.
206-66 Pottlitzer v. Citizens' Trust
Co. (Ind. App.), 108 N. £. 36; Bound
V. Land ft Power Co., 92 Kan. 894, 142
P. 292; 8. t^. Wells, 127 Minn. 252,
149 N. W. 286.
206-67 By conaentnig to amendment
of tbe Judgment so as to correct an
error made in his favor, a party is not
precluded from appealing, especially
when he has expressly reserved his
right to appeal. Crusel v. Brooks, 133
La. 477, 63 8. 114.
Oomplianco under mroteet will not de-
feat a party 'c right to appeal. Cheney
V. Bierkamp (Colo.), 145 P. 691.
Participating in a new trial, the grant-
ing of which was opposed by defend-
ant, does not defeat defendant's right
on appeal from final judgment to urge
the granting of new trial as error.
Hirabelli v. Daniels, 44 Utah 88, 138
P. 1172.
XTsing property awarded by the decree
as his own will defeat appellant 's right
to appeal. Kellogg v. Smith, 70 Or.
449, 142 P. 330.
206-71 Palmet v. Lavers, 218 Mass.
286, 105 N. E. 1000; Wright v. Grand
Lodge K. P. (Tex. Civ.), 173 8. W.
270.
Filing a remitter amounta to acqui-
escence.— ^Plinsky 17. Nolan, 65 Or. 402,
133 P. 71.
207-74 Jolley v. Vivian Oil Co., 131
La. 937, 60 8. 622.
207-7U Coffman v. Bushard, 164 Cal.
663, 130 P. 425.
208-81 Patterson v. Keeney, 165 Cal.
465, 132 P. 1043, Ann. Cas. 1914D, 232
(discussing and limiting the applica-
tion of rule stated in Morton v. Supe-
rior Court, 65 Cal. 496, 4 P. 489, cited
as contra in original volume); Warner
Bros. Co. I?. Freud, 131 Cal. 639, 645,
63 P. 1017, 82 Am. St. 400; Yndart v.
Den, 125 Cal. 85, 89, 57 P. 761; Kenney
V. Parks, 120 Cal. 22, 52 P. 40 (dist.
the case of Morton v. Superior Court,
65 Cal. 496, 4 P. 489, cited as contra
in original volume); Hatch i;. Jacob-
son, 94 HI. 584; Dickensheets v. Kauf-
man, 29 Ind. 154^ Hayes v, Nourse, 107
N. Y. 577, 14 N. E. 508, 1 Am. St.
891. Contra, 8. v, Conkling, 54 Kan.
108, 37 P. 992, 45 Am. St. 271; 8. v.
Wells, 127 Minn. 252, 149 N. W. 286.
Compliance wltli Judgment in man-
61
Vol. 2
APPEALS
danuui compelling a board to make an
official appointment, will not estop the
board from appealing. Mayor & Board
of Aldermen v. S.. 103 Miss. 645, 60 S.
676.
208-82 Must be volimtary payment.
A payment under a judgment which is
made without the knowledge or con-
sent of the party condemned, is not an
acquiescence by him in such judgment.
Anderson v. New Orleans R. & L. Co.,
133 La. 896, 63 S. 395.
209-83 Warner Bros. Co. v. Freud,
131 Cal. 639, 63 P. 1017; Vermont Mar-
ble Co. V. Black, 123 Cal. 21, 55 P.
599; Kenney v. Parks, 120 Cal. 22. 24,
52 P. 40.
209-84 Gutierrez v. Mogueras, 20 P.
R. 251.
209-85 Warner Bros. Co. r. Freud,
131 Cal. 639, 645, 63 P. 1017, 82 Am.
St. 400; Vermont Marble Co. t?. Black,
123 Cal. 21, 23, 55 P. 599.
A pnrdiase by mortgagee at f oreclosaxe
sale, when made to protect his inter-
ests, will not estop him from prosecut-
ing his appeal. Sunset Lumb. Co. v.
Bachelder, 167 Cal. 512, 140 P. 35.
210-89 Knox v. Steele, 18 Ala. 815,
54 Am. Dec. 181; Kenney v. Parks, 120
Cal. 22, 52 P. 40; Corwin r. Shoup, 76
HI. 246;. Scott v, Dilley, 53 Ind. App.
100, 101 N. B. 313; Ind. District v.
District Tp., 44 la. 201; CasseU v.
Fagin, 11 Mo. 207, 47 Am. Dec. 151;
Carll V, Oakley, 97 N. Y. 633; Hall r.
Lacey, 37 Pa. 366; Fly v. Bailey, 36
Tex. 119.
Assigning Judgment. — A party who as-
signs that part of a judgment which
is favorable to him waives his right
to appeal from the unfavorable part.
Beard v. Hosier (Ind. App.), 107 N. E.
558. ,
211-94 San Bernardino County v.
Riverside County, 135 Cal. 618, 67 P.
1047; Storke v. Storke, 132 Cal. 349,
64 P. 578; In re Shaver's Est., 131 Cal.
219, 63 P. 340; Est. of Baby, 87 Cal.
200, 25 P. 405, 22 Am. St. 239; Holt
V. Bees, 46 111. 181; Beard v. Hosier
(Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 558; Webster-
Glover, etc. Co. t?. St. Croix County, 71
Wis. 317, 36 N. W. 864.
211-96 Higbie f. Westlake, 14 N.
Y. 281.
212-99 Beard v. Hosier (Ind. App.),
107 N. E. 558.
91(lhl9 Bottema v, Tracy (Ind.
App.), 107 N. B. 741; Middleton v.
Escoe, 35 Okla. 646, 130 P. 905; Bilby
V. Unknown Heirs of Gray, 35 Okla.
430, 130 P. 533; Cook v. S., 35 Okla.
653, 130 P. 300; First Nat. Bank v.
Harding, 35 Okla. 650, 130 P. 905;
John V. Paullin, 24 Okla. 636, 104 P.
365.
An Interyenor whoso intoroets cannot bo
affocted is not a necessary party. Dan-
iels V. Butler (la.), 149 N. W. 265.
216-22 Aacortainlng propor partios.
The appellate court will examine the
record anH, if necessary, the summons,
in order to determine who are the
proper parties. Decatur v, Eady (Ind.
App.), 105 N. E. 590.
216-23 Ter. r. Ah Sing, 18 Hawaii
392.
Filing a briof will not make one a
party when his name is not contained
in the statement of appeal. Com. v.
Columbia Trust Co., 162 Ky. 825, 173
S. W. 386.
217-26 Beard v. Hosier (Ind. App.),
107 N. E. 558.
217-31 Shaw V, Garrett (Ind. App.),
108 N. E. 536; Schultze V. Maley (Ind.
App.), 105 N. E. 942.
218-33 West v. Johnson, 66 Fla. 4,
62 S. 913; Michael v. Isom, 43 Okla.
708, 143 P. 1053; Foreman v. Fish, 43
Okla. 641, 143 P. 661; Crow v. Hard-
ridge, 43 Okla. 463, 143 P. 183; Lindley
V, Hill (Okla.), 133 P. 179; National
Surety Co. t?. Oklahoma Presbyterian
College, 38 Okla. 429, 132 P. 652; Ap-
pleby V. Dowden, 35 Okla. 707, 132 P.
349.
AU partios to a Joint Judgment must
be made parties to the appeal where
their rights or interests would be af-
fected by a reversal or modification of
the judgment. Le Force v, Shirley
(Okla.), 145 P. 1150; ContinenUl G.
Co. V. Huff, 25 Okla. 798, 108 P. 369;
Weisbender v. School Dist., 24 Okla.
173, 103 P. 639; Strange V. Crisnion,
22 Okla. 841, 98 P. 937.
219-35 Montgomery v, McCabe, 6
Ala. App. 559, 60 S. 456; Smith v.
Graves (Ind. App.), 108 N. E. 168.
221-41 Michael v. Isom, 43 Okla.
708, 143 P. 1053; Foreman v. Fish, 43
Okla. 641, 143 P. 661; Crow v. Hard-
ridge, 43 Okla. 463, 143 P. 183.
223-48 Bottema v. Tracy (Ind.
App.), 107 N. E. 741; Le Force v. Shir-
ley (Okla.), 145 P. 1150; United Qtatea
98
APPEALS
Vol. 2
P. & G. Co. V. Ballard (Okla.), 145 P.
396; Syfert v. Murphy (Okla.). 144 P.
1022; Zeimann v, Bennett^ 39 Okla. 344,
134 P. 1124; Tueker v, Hudson. 38
Okla. 790, 134 P. 21.
224-49 Daniels v. Butler (la.), 149
N. W. 265; Miller v. Oklahoma State
Bank, 38 Okla. 153, 132 P. 344.
224-50 Chappie f>, Gidney, 38 Okla.
696, 134 P. 859.
225-51 Appeal ftom divisibla Judg-
ment affecting title. — A judgment af-
fecting distinct and independent par-
cels of land and adjudging the title
thereof to be in two different persons
'WhoUj . disconnected is divisible; and
one of such persons is not a necessary
party to an appeal involving only the
rights of the other in a particular par-
cel of such land. Grayson v, Durant,
43 Okla. 799, 144 P. 592.
226-63 Appellees in Insolvency pro-
ceedlngs^A party to a coneursus whose
claim is rejected by the trial court,
and who takes no appeal and makes
no answer to the appeals taken by
others, and as against whom nothing
is asked in the appellate court, is with-
out interest in the result of the appeal
and need not be cited to answer. In re
Great Southern Lumb. Co., 132 La. 989,
62 S. 117.
226-64 Bamos v, Esteves, 20 P. B.
122.
227-68 Beard v. Hosier (Ind. App.),
107 N. E. 558.
228-76 Oregon Auto-Bispatch v. Cad-
well, 67 Or. 301, 135 P. 880.
229-83 Deatb of appellee before ap-
peal, etc. Nye v. Jones, 35 Okla. 96,
28 P. 112; Skillern 17. Jameson, 29 Okla.
84, 116 P. 193.
230-84 Holmes v, Dillard, 40 Okla.
309, 136 P. 408.
234-7 Sheriff's successor. — Where the
sheriff's term of office expires pending
an appeal, the proceedings may con-
tinue with his successor as defendant.
Bank of St. Martinville v, Broussard,
131 La. 1078, 60 S. 690.
234-14 Ter. v. Ah blng, 18 Hawaii
392; Armstrong r. White, 43 Okla. 639,
143 P. 329; Appleby v, Dowden, 35
Okla. 707, 132 P. 349; Hawkins v.
Hawkins, 35 Okla. 641, 130 P. 926;
Cook V. 8., 35 Okla. 653, 130 P. 300.
Improper Joinder of stranger to the
judgment^ not ^ound for dismissal.
Children's Home v. Fetter (Ohio), 106
N. E. 761.
237-22 Dunbar v. Springer, 256 111.
53, 99 N. E. 889; Webber v. Billings
iMich.), 150 N. W. 332; Bansom v,
bseph E. Wickstrom & Co. (Wash.),
146 P. 1041; Simpson Logging Co. v.
(Thehalis County. 80 Wash. 245, 141 P.
344.
237-24 Brown v. Barr, 184 Mo. App.
461, 171 S. W. 4- Smythe v. Central*
Vermont B. Co. (Vt), 90 A. 901.
239-27 Parkside Realty Co. v. Mac-
Donald, 166 Cal. 21, 137 P. 21; In re
Yoell's Est., 164 Cal. 540, 129 P. 999;
Kett V. Colorado & S. By. Co. (Colo.),
146 P. 245; Canon City v. Cox, 55 Colo.
264, 133 P. 1040; Holt V. Savidge, 17
Hawau 84; P. v, Gerold, 265 HI. 448,
107 N. E. 165; Fisher v. Blumhardt
(Ind.), 107 N. E. 466; Cressler v. Tri-
State Loan & Trust Co. (Ind.), 107 N.
E. 68; McEeen v. Bowen & Co. (Ind.),
106 N. E. 529; Johnson V, Citizens'
Bank (Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 85; Bapier
I?. Guedry, 136 La. 443, 67 S. 322;
Frisco Land Co. v. Nevins, 135 La. 927,
66 S. 300; Louisiana Land Co. v. Blake-
wood, 131 La. 539, 59 S. 984; Cunning-
ham 9. Penn Bridge Co., 131 La. 196,
59 S. 119; Kennedy v. Ford (Mich.),
149 N. W. 1013; City of Kirksville V.
Ferguson (Mo.), 172 S. W. 4; Nygren v.
Board of Chosen Freeholders, 86 N. J.
L. 364, 90 A. 1111; Webster t?. Board
of Chosen Freeholders, 86 N. J. L. 256,
90 A. 1110; Seidman v. New York Rya.
Co., 88 Misc. 53, 150 N. Y. S. 578;
Bailey v. Inland Empire Co. (Or.), 146
P. 991; French & Co. r. Haltenhoff
(Or.), 144 P. 480; Frith v, Wright (Tex.
Civ.)', 173 S. W. 453; Stephen ville N.
& St. R. Co. r. Wheat (Tex. Civ.), 173
S. W. 974; Powers v, Munson, 74 Wash.
234, 133 P. 453.
A federal question, involved in an ac-
tion for wrongful death, cannot be
raised for the first time on appeal. Chi-
cago, E. I. & P. E. Co. V. Holliday
(Okla.), 145 P. 786.
TlnlesB Justice requires it, a question
not raised in the court below, nor in
the appellate court until after oral
argument, will not be considered. Mod-
ern Woodmen v. International Trust
Co., 25 Colo. App. 26, 136 P. 806.
240-29 Boonville Special Boad Bist.
V, Fuser (Mo.), 171 S. W. 962.
240-80 Standard Forgings Co. r.
Holmstrom (Ind, App.)^ 104 N, E, 872;
09
Vol. 2
APPEALS
Lamb v, Connor (WaBh.), 146 P. 174.
Misjolndor of parties. — Galvestoiii H.
& S. A. E. Co. 17. BraBsell (Tex. Chr.),
173 S. W. 522.
Unless a demnrrer is iiled raising ,the
objection that plaintiff was not saing
in a representative capacity, the ob-
jection will not be available on ap-
peal. German American Nat. Bank v.
Iiewis, 9 Ala. App. 352, 63 S. 74i.
That plaintiff Is a minor and not rep-
resented by guardian ad litem or next
friend is an objection that cansot be
first raised on appeal. Connelle/ r.
ConneUey, 43 Okla. 294, 142 P. 1113.
241-31 Akron Milling Co. v. Leiter
(Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 99.
241-82 Southern Pacific Co. v. Santa
Cruz (Cal. App.), 145 P. 736; M. R.
Smith li. Co. V. Bussell (Ean.), 144 P.
819.
A peremptory plea of prescription may
be Hied in the supreme court Bohm
«. Jallansi 134 La. 913, 64 S. 829.
242-35 Plea of res jQdicata.— Per-
emptory exceptions may be filed in the
supreme court, and a plea of res judi-
cata filed in that court will be disposed
of where the record contains all the
evidence, although such plea was not
filed in and decided by the trial court.
Bohm V. Jallans, 134 La. 913, 64 S.
829.
243-42 Houston, E. & W. T. B. Co.
V, Cavanaugh (Tex. Civ.), 173 S. W.
619.
Documents not offered In oTldence at
the trial cannot be considered. Weaver
V. Paper Co., 246 Pa. 438, 92 A. 553.
243-43 Speer v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 171
S. W. 201.
244-44 Failure of parties to answer
cannot be objected to on appeal where
the objecting party failed to ask for
a continuance in the trial court. Mur-
phy V. Hagan, 163 Ky. 407, 173 8. W.
1146.
245-47 McGraw v. Tillery, 178 Ala.
253, 59 S. 567; Peters r. Brunswick-
Balke-Callender Co., 6 Ala. App. 507,
60 8. 431; Tombigbee Valley B. Co. v.
Still Co., 6 Ala. App. 470, 60 S. 546;
Morris V. Hartley (Cal. App.), 146 P.
73; Waite v. C. E. Shoemaker & Co.
(Mont.), 146 P. 736; O'Hanlon v. Buby
Gulch M. Co., 48 Mont. 65, 135 P. 913;
Bobertson v. Frey (Or.), 144 P. 128;
Coto V. Bafas, 18 P. B. 493; Missouri,
etc. B, Co, V. Kemp (Tex. Civ.), 173
S. W. 532;.Demple v. Carroll, 21 Wyo.
447, 133 P. 137, 135 P. 117.
Urging stotQte of liniltation8.~A de-
fendant cannot urge the statute of lim-
itations for the first time in the ap-
pellate court where he permits a de-
cree pro confesso to be taken against
him in the lower court. Gardner v, Dun-
can, 104 Miss. 477, 61 S. 545.
245-48 Walker v. Gunnels (Ala.), 66
S. 45; Milbra v. Sloss-Sheffield S. & I.
Co., 182 Ala. 622, 62 S. 176, 46 L. B.
A. (N. 8.) 274; German -American Nat.
Bank v. Lewisy 9 Ala. App. 352, 63 S.
741; American Sales Book Co. v, S. H.
Pope & Co., 7 Ala. App. 304, 61 8.
45; Birmingham By., L. & P. Co. v.
Leach, 5 Ala. App. 546, 59 8. 358;
Blanc V. Connor, 167 Cal. 719, 141 P.
217; Byan v, Oakland Gas, etc. Co.,
21 Cal. App. 14, 130 P. 693; Harring-
ton V, Anderson, 23 Colo. App. 415, 130
P. 616; Munere & Portland Tract. Co.
V, Citizens' Gas & Oil Min. Co., 179
Ind. 65, 100 N. E. 65; Baub v. Lemon
(Ind. App.), 108 N. E. 631; American
Car & Foundry Co. v. Wyatt (Ind.
App.), 108 N. E. 12; Chicago & B.
B. Co. V. Mitchell (Ind. App.), 107 N.
E. 743; Akron Mill. Co t?. Leiter (Ind.
App.), 107 N. E. 99; Shanks v. Wil-
liams (Kan.), 144 P. 1007; Frisco L.
Co. V, Kevins, 135 La. 927, 66 8. 300;
Baltimore v. Lutcher, 135 La. 873, 66
S. 253; Salmon Brick & Lumb. Co. v.
Southern Pac. Co., 132 La. 356, 61 S.
401; Waldstein v, Dooskin (Mass.), 107
N. E. 927; Hoban v. Dempsey, 217
Mass. 166, 104 N. E. 717, Ann. Cas.
1915C, 810, L. B. A. (N. S.) 1915A, 1217;
Wilson r. Fire Ins. Co. (Mich.), 151
N. W. 752; Linn County Bank v Clifton
(Mo.), 172 S. W. 388; Schwanenfeldt
V. Met. St. By. Co., 186 Mo. App. 588,
174 8. W. 143; Hawkins v, St. Louis
B. Co. (Mo. App.), 174 S. W. 129; Chi-
cago, B. I. & P. B. Co. V. McBee
(Okla.), 145 P. 331; Shuler v. Collins,
40 Okla. 126, 136 P. 752; Coombs v.
Cook, 35 Okla. 326, 129 P. 698; Border
V. Carrabine, 24 Okla. 609, 104 P. 906;
Harris v. First Nat. Bank, 21 Okla.
189, 95 P. 781; Fisher r. St. Albans,
87 Vt. 524, 90 A. 582; Fadden v. Mc-
Kinney, 87 Vt. 316, 89 A. 351; North
Idaho Grain Co. t?. Callison (Wash.),
145 P. 232.
245-49 Parr v, Baer, 24 Cal. App.
149, 140 P. 712; Carpenter r. Bradford,
23 Cal. App. 560, 138 P. 946; Dalbey
c. Hayes (111.), 108 N. E, 657; Froemk^
64
APPEALS
Vol 2
p. Markt, 259 IH. 146, 102 K E. 192;
McCarty f. Williams (Ind. App.), lOS
N. £. 370; Mutual Trust & Bep. Co. v.
Travelers' Protective Assn. (Ind. App.),
100 N. E. 451; Southern B. Go. t\
Crone, 51 Ind. App. 300, 99 N. E. 762;
Baxter v. Boston ft M. B., 217 Mass.
312, 104 N. £. 733; Gage v, Boston &
M. B. B. (N. H.), 90 A. 855; Bhome
Mill Co. V. Farmers' & M. Nat. Bank,
40 Okla. 131, 136 P. 1095; Advance
Thresher Co. v. Doak, 36 Okla. 532, 129
P. 736; Galveston B. Co. r. King (Tex.
Civ.), 174 S. W. 335; Wm. M. Boy-
lance Co. r. Pyne (Utah), 141 P. 301;
Grow V, Oregon Short Line B. Co., 44
Utah 160, 138 P. 398; North Idaho
Grain Co. v. CalUson (Wash.), 145 P.
232.
Commoii-law liability. — ^Where plaintiff
below eounts upon defendant's com-
mon-law liability rather than upon his
statutory liability, he cannot proceed
upon the latter theory above. Egan
f. Louisville & S. I. Tract. Co., 55 Ind.
App. 423, 103 N. E. 1100.
246-50 Wooster t?. Scorse (Ariz.),
140 P. 819; Union Collection Co. v.
OUver, 23 Cal. App. 318, 137 P. 1082;
Farmington v. Biley, 88 Conn. 51, 89
A. 900; Hamalle v, Lebensberger (111.),
108 N. E. 669; Wheeler t?. Chicago &
W. I. B. Co. (ni.), 108 N. E. 330; P.
V Evans, 262 111. 235, 104 N. E. 646;
Lake Erie & W B. Co. c. Marott, 52
Ind. App. 332, 100 N. E, 865; Boss v.
Maine Cent. B. Co., 112 Me. 63, 90 A.
711; O'Hare t?. Gloag (Mass.), 108 N.
E. 566; Harrisonville r. Poster (Mo.
App.), 174 S. W. 129; Heifner v. Chi-
cago, B. I. & P. B. Co., 185 Mo. App.
517, 172 8. W. 618; Marth V. Wisker-
chen, 186 Mo. App. 515, 172 8. W. 410;
Round Mountain Min. Co. r. Bound
Mountain Sphinx Min. Co., 36 Nev. 543,
138 P. 71; Chicago, B. I. & P. B. Co.
r. Holliday (Okla.), 145 P. 786; Wal-
lace r. Killian, 40 Okla. 631, 140 P.
162; Duffey v. Scientific Amer. Comp.
Dept., 30 Okla. 742, 120 P. 1088; Brown
r. Aitken (Vt.), 92 A. 22; Board of
Directors of Quincy Val. Irr. Dist. V.
Scott, 79 Wash. 434, 140 P. 391.
Lachet^ — ^The trial court's attention not
having been called to the question of
laches, the appellant cannot urge it on
appeal. Parkside Bealty Co. v. Mac-
Donald, 166 Cal. 426, 137 P. 21.
QiM8ti0ii of estoppel must be raised
below. Bean v. Atkins (Vt.), 89 A.
Contributory negligence cannot be
raised for the first time on appeal.
TituB V. Pennsylvania R. Co. (N. J.
Eq.), 92 A. 944; Seeley r. By. Co. (Vt.),
92 A. 28.
Interstate commerce. — A defense based
on the interstate character of the con-
tract in question cannot be first raised
on appeal. "Western Union Tel. Co. v,
Taylor (Ind. App.), 104 N. E. 771.
Want of Jorlsdiction. — A defendant
who appears specially to contest the
jurisdiction and presents no further de-
fense, cannot on appeal present objec-
tions not going to the jurisdiction. P.
r. Stephens, 261 111. 121, 103 N. E. 581.
Judgment as bar. — An objection that a
former judgment was a bar to the re-
lief prayed for, must be made below.
Inlet Swamp Drainage Dist. r. Ander-
son, 257 111. 214, 100 N. E. 909.
Marshaling. — A defense based upon
the marshaling of securities must be
made below. Frith v. Wright (Tex.
Civ.), 173 S. W. 453.
An admission of liability at the trial
will estop the defendant from disput-
ing the same on appeal. Wright v.
Grand Lodge (Tex. Civ.), 173 S. W.
270.
246-51 Parr v, Baer, 24 Cal. App.
149, 140 P. 712; Dubois V. Bowles, 5ij
Colo. 312, 134 P. 112; Degge v. Carstar-
phen Elec. Co. (Colo. App.), 140 P.
478; Miller v. Engler, 54 Ind. App.
689, 103 N. E. 358; Schwanenfeldt r.
Metropolitan St. By. Co. (Mo. App.),
174 S. W. 143; St. Louis & S. F. R.
Co r. Brown (Okla.), 144 P. 1075;
Smith V. Northern Pac. B. Co., 79 Wash.
448, 140 P. 685.
Treating case as one in equity, etc.
Steltzer r. Chicago, M. & St. P. B. Co.
(la.), 149 N. W. 501.
A cbuige from law to equity will not
be permitted. Goldsmith v. Murray, 48
Mont. 337, 138 P. 187.
Oontrlbutory negligence. — The case on
appeal will proceed on the theory that
contributory negligence is in issue,
where such was the theory below. Mil-
ler V. Engle, 185 Mo. App. 558, 172 S.
W. 631.
Assumption that street is public one,
indulged in by both parties at tho
trial, will bar any issue as to such ques-
tion on appeal. Vandevere r. Kaiis'i3
City, 187 Mo. App. 297, 173 R. W. iVM),
246-52 Uuko i*. Kaio, 20 Hawau 567;
65
Vol.2
APPEALS
Gilchrist v. Hatch (Ind.), 106 N. E.
694; Domestic Block Goal Co. v, De
Armey, 179 Ind. 592, 100 N. E. 675,
102 N. E. 99; Ealer v, Euler, 55 Ind.
App. 547, 102 N. E. 856; McKiiley v.
Britton, 56 Ind. App. 21, 103 N. E.
349; Cobb v. Peters, 68 Or. 14, 136 P.
656; Smith V. Pacific Coal & O. Co., 75
Wash. 128, 134 P. 675.
Bnbmlttlxig lasaes. — ^Where instntctions
followed theory of the parties as to
issues, and appellant requested no in-
structions, the court will not reverse
the cause because certain issues might
have been eliminated Weber «. Towle,
97 Ne^. 233, 149 N. W. 406.
247-58 Holler r. S. (Ind.), 106 N.
E. 864; Geppelt r. Middle West Stone
Co., 90 Kan. 539, 135 P. 573; S r.
Gray, 112 Me. 558^ 91 A. 787; Cham-
bers r. Bessent, 17 N. M. 487, 134 P.
237; Baker v, Donlin, 88 Misc. 586, 151
N. Y. S. 433; Sykes v. Everett, 167 N.
C. 600, 83 S. E. 585; Weller r. Davis,
245 Pa. 280, 91 A. 664.
Though bills of exception are abol-
ished, timely objections must stiU be
made below. Kargman v. Carlo, 85 N.
J. L. 632, 90 A. 292.
248-65 Fountain r. Pateman (Ala.),
66 S. 75; Fisher 17. Blumhardt (Ind.),
107 N. E. 466; Metsker t?. Whitsell, 181
Ind. 126, 103 N. E. 1078; Colonial Pow-
er & L. Co. V, Creaser, 87 Vt. 457, 89
A. 472.
Fallnre to serve motion for new trial
need not be objected to below since
such defect is jurisdictional. Marshall
& Steams Co. v, Deneen Bldg. Co.
(Cal.), 146 P. 684.
QnaliflcationB of trial Jndge.— Objec-
tions to the qualifications of the judge
not available in the trial court may be
presented in the appellate court. ' San-
dusky Grain Co. v, Sanilac Circ. Judge
(Mich.), 150 N. W. 329; Bliss t?. Caille
Bros. Co., 149 Mich. 601, 113 N. W.
317.
249-66 Terra Ceia Estates r. Taylor
(Fla.), 67 8. 169; Fisher r. Blumhardt
(Ind.), 107 N. E. 466; Metsker r.
' Whitsell, 181 Ind. 126, 103 N. E.
1078; Nebel r. Bockhorst, 186 Mo. App.
499, 172 S. W. 452.
249-57 Empire Banch & Cattle Co.
r. Millet, 24 Colo. App. 464, 135 P.
127; Carrington v. Thomas C. Basshor
Co., 121 Md. 71, 88 A. 52; Stuart v.
Wood, 86 N. J. U 110, 90 A. 1030.
Bffanner of getting into court— Where
the superior court has original juris-
diction of the subject-matter and the
case comes into said court improperly
by appeal, and both parties appear, file
pleadings and go to trial without ob-
jections, the question of jurisdiction as
to the manner of getting into court is
waived and such objections will not be
heard for the first time in the supreme
court. State Nat. Bank v. Wood, 43
Okla. 251, 142 P. 1002.
250-58 Titus f. North Kansas City
Develop. Co. (Mo.), 174 S. W. 432;
Price t?. Davis, 187 Mo. App. 1, 173
8 W. 64; Grover Irr. & L. Co. v. Lovella
Ditch, etc. Co., 21 Wyo. 204, 131 P.
43, cit. 2 Standard Proc. 250. Contra,
Robinson v, S., 177 Ind. 263, 97 N. E.
929; Chicago & E. B. Co. v, Mitohell
(Ind App.), 107 N. E. 743; Stiles t?.
Hasler (Ind. App.), 104 N. E. 878.
Only where conrt is without Jurisdiction
can a failure to*state a cause of action
be taken advantage of on appeal.
Smith V. Greene, 187 Mo. App. 210, 173
S. W. 705.
Bight of action in another. — It may
be urged ^or the first time on appeal
that the cause of action for negligent
killing of {flainllff's husband was in
the personal representative, by virtue
of the federal employers' liability act.
La Casse r. New Orleans, T. & M. B.
Co., 135 La. 129, 64 S. 1012.
250-59 Stewart v, Preston, 77 Wash.
559, 137 P. 993.
That plea In abatement is not avail-
able for first time on appeal, see vol.
1, p. 61, n. 84.
UndertaJdng for attachment must be
attacked below. Lowenberg v. L.
Jaeobson's Sons, 25 Cal. App. 790, 145
P. 734.
251-61 In re Heaver's Est. (la.),
150 N. W. 698; Elliott f?. Page, 98 S.
C. 400, 82 S. E. 620.
252-63 Kline i\ Guaranty Oil Co.,
167 Cal. 476, 140 P. 1; Mengelkamp r.
Consolidated Coal Co., 259 111. 305, 102
N. E. 756; Bank i\ Paul (Ind. App.),
108 N. E. 532; Murphy v, Hagan, 163
Ky. 407, 173 S. W. 1146; Kimbrough t?.
Da vies, 104 Miss. 722, 61 S. 697; Sevier
t?. Mitchell (Or.), 142 P. 780.
252-64 Lehman, Durr & Co. t?. Green -
hut, 88 Ala. 478, 7 S. 299; Blake v.
Harlan, 80 Ala. 37; Southern B. Co.
r. Chambless, 10 Ala. App. 326, 65 S.
417; Stevens v, Bockport Co., 216 Mass.
66
APPEALS
Vol. 2
486, 104 N. E. 371; Irwin v. Pittsburg
& L. E. B. Co., 243 Pa. 7, 89 A. 802;
Galveston, H. & S. A. R. Co. v. Bras-
sell (Tex. Civ.), 173 S. W. 522.
253-66 Hiehborn v. Bradbury, 111
Me. 519, 90 A. 325; Hartley v, Lang-
kamp, 243 Pa. 550, 90 A. 402; Need-
ham V. Cooney (Tex Civ.), 173 S. W.
979.
253-68 Frogg v. C, 163 Ky. 175, 173
S. W. 383; McDowell v. Justice, 167
X. C. 493, 83 S. E. 803; Cook v. Wash-
ington-Oregon Corp. (Wash.), 146 P.
156.
253-70 Boss v. Wadsworth Bed Ash
Coal Co., 185 Ala. 59/, 64 S. 341; Bruce
T. Citizens' Bank, 185 Ala. 221, 64 S.
82; McCall V. Hall, 182 Ala. 191, 62
8. 68; Bush v, Bussell, 180 Ala. 590,
61 8. 373; English Lumb. Co. v. Hireen,
25 Colo. App. 199, 136 P. 475; Webb
c. Deadwyler, 142 Ga. 422, 83 E. E.
99; Lott r. Davis, 264 111. 272, 106
N. E. 179; Chicago B. Co. t?. Mitchell
(Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 743; Noyes v.
Caldwell, 216 Mass. 525, 104 N. E. 495;
Trenholm r. Miles (Miss.), 64 8. 209;
P. V. Willett, 213 N. Y. 368, 107 N. E.
707; Stebbens v. Longhoffer (Okla.),
143 P. 671; Hill Co. Cotton Oil Co.
r. Gathings (Tex. Civ.), 173 S. W. 597.
Veriflcatloiu — The sufficiency of a veri-
iication of a petition must be chal-
lenged below. Green r. J. H. McCloud
Co., 87 Vt. 242, 88 A. 810.
That bill of partlenlan not fdentliled
by the complaint with which it is filed,
necessitates an objection. Jordan v,
Indianapolis Coal Co., 52 Ind. App. 542,
100 N. E. 880.
254-71 American Tie & T. Co. «.
Naylor Lumb. Co. (Ala.), 67 8. 246;
Deason v. Gray (Ala.), 66 8. 646; Hig-
don 9. Garrett, 5 Ala. App. 467, 59 8.
309; Turnipseed v. Burton, 4 Ala. App.
612, 58 8. 959; Oles v. Wilson, 57 Colo.
246, 141 P. 489; Lott V, Davis, 264
111. 272, 106 N. E. 179; Birds Drainage
Dist. r. Cairo V. & C. B. Co., 257 IlL
57, 100 N. E. 141; Vandalia B. Oo.
r. House (Ind. App.), 108 N. EL 872;
Wood V. Bathman (Ind. App.), 108 N.
E. 126; Vulcan Iron Works Co. v. Elec-
tric Magnetic Gold Min. Co., 54 Ind.
App. 28, 99 N. E. 429, 100 N. E. 307;
Fry r. Hoffman, 54 Ind. App. 434,
102 N. E. 167, 103 N. E. 15; Book-
er t, Ludowici Celadon Co., 53 Ind.
App. 275, 100 N. E. 469; Prere i?. Mis-
joari, K. & T. B. Co. (Kan.), 145 P.
864; Price v. Davis, 187 Mo. App. 1, .
173 8. W. 64; Eder r. Crown Butte
Canal & Beservoir Co. (Mont.), 145
P. 1; 8tebben8 v. Longhoffer (Okla.),
143 P. 671; U. 8. <?. Cardell, 23 Phil.
Isl. 207; U. 8. t?. Palacio, 16 Phil. Isl.
660; U. 8. V. Lampano, 13 Phil. Isl.
409; U. 8. t?. Kosel, 10 Phil. Isl. 409;
Brittein v. Gorman, 42 Utah 586, 133
P. 370; 8. t?. Bitter, 74 Wash. 649, 134
P. 492; Ogden V. Bradshaw (Wis.), 150
N. W. 399.
Oroas-comidaint. — Bradford v. Wegg
(Ind. App.), 102 N. E. 845.
Defective complaint aided by proof.
A complaint though fatally defective,
may, if not properly objected to, be
so aided by the proof as to enable the
court on appeal to consider it. 8erra
f?. Mortiga, 204 U. 8. 470, 27 8up. Ct.
343, 51 L. ed. 571; U. 8. V. Destrito,
23 PhU. Isl. 28.
Waiver not binding on appellate court.
Court is not required to ignore the in-
firmities of a complaint which has not
been challenged below. Fairbanks v,
Warrum (Ind. App.), 104 N. E. 983.
No Jurladiction in the court must result
as a consequence of the failure to state
a cause of action. 8mith v, Greene,
187 Mo. App. 210, 173 8. W. 705.
2S4-72 Pishbaugh v. Beeler, 15 Ariz.
119, 136 P. 1057 (answer not sufficient-
ly particular as to items of payment);
Southern Pac. Co. v, Santa Cru« (Cal.
App.), 145 P. 736; 8urbaugh V. But-
terfield, 44 Utah 446, 140 P. 757.
Sufficiency of demnrrer in form and
Bubatance must be attacked below. Dre-
bing V, Zahrt, 55 Ind. App. 492, 104
N. E. 46.
Treating an aflirmatlve defenae as a
counterclaim cannot be cause for objec-
tion on appeal unless raised below.
Zindorf v. Tillotson (Wash.), 145 P.
587.
The suffictency of answer In dander
as averring the truth of the matters
spoken, must be questioned below. Vil-
leret v, Jeflfer, 131 La. 1017, 60 8. 669.
254-73 Webb v. Deadwyler, 142 Ga.
422, 83 8. E. 99; McDuffee f?. Hayden-
Coeur D'Alene Irr. Co., 25 Idaho 370.
138 P. 603; Hatchett t?. Blacketer, 168
Ky. 266, 172 8. W. 533.
255-75 Akron Milling Co. v. Leiter
(Ind. App.), 107 N. B. 99.
255-76 HoUer v. 8. (Ind.), 106 N.
E. 364; Bobinson v. 8., 177 Ind. 263,
67
Vol. 2
APPEALS
97 N. E. 929; Akron Milling Co. t?.
Leiter (Ind. App.), 107 N. B. 99;
Adams v. Helman (Ind. App.), 106 N.
£. 733.
255-7T Southern B. Co. <?. Brewster,
9 Ala. App. 597, 63 S. 790; Brevard
Naval Stores Co. v. Commercial Bank
(Fla.), 64 S. 943.
256-78 Birmingham By. L. & P. Co.
V, Roach (Ala.), 66 S. 82; Louisville
& N. R. Co. t?. Kay, 8 Ala. App. 562,
62 S. 1014; Hastaran v. Marchand, 23
Cal. App. 126, 137 P. 297; Rice v.
Eatonton (Ga. App.), 83 S. E. 868;
Eorrest V. Roper Furniture Co. (HI.),
108 N. E. 328; Pittsburg, etc. R. Co.
V, Crockett (Ind.), 106 N. E. 875;
Mississippi Central B. Co. v, Robinson
(Miss.), 64 8. 838; Brown v. St. Joseph
(Mo.), 171 S. W. 935; Lams v. Fish,
86 N. J. L. 321, 90 A. 1105; James v.
Hood (N. M.), 142 P. 162; Miele v.
Rosenblatt, 164 App. Div. 604, 150 N.
Y. 8. 323; 8. v. Heavener (N. C), 83
S. E. 732; Roberts t?. Wilkins, 40 Okla.
138, 137 P. Ill; U. 8. t?. Mabanag, 1
Phil. Isl. 441; 8. v. Connelly, 34 8. D.
520, 149 N. W. 360; King County v,
Martin (Tex. Civ.), 173 8. W. 960;
Francis v, Cornelius (Tex. Civ.), 173
8. W. 947; Jefferson Cotton Oil & F.
Co. V, Pridgen & Congleton (Tex. Civ.),
172 8. W. 739; Lyman v. James, 87
Vt. 486, 89 A. 932; Griffin v. Boston &
M. R.Co., 87 Vt. 278, 89 A. 220.
Illegal evidence though not objected to
below, will not be given the same
weight on appeal as legal evidence.
McLester Bldg. Co. v, Upchurch, 180
Ala. 23, 60 8. 173.
Fonn of Interrogatories. — Objection to
the form of interrogatories must be
made at the time they are submitted.
Inland Steel Co. v, Kiessling (Ind.),
108 N. E. 232.
256-79 Simoneau r. Pac. Elec. R. Co.,
166 Cal. 264, 136 P. 544.
256-80 Gilley v, Denman, 185 Ala.
561, 64 S. 97; Fidelity, etc. Ins. Co.
fJ. Friedman (Ark.), 174 8. W. 215;
Gavrilutz v. Savage, 166 App. Div. 309,
151 N. Y. S. 808; Muskogee Elec. Tract.
Co. V, Mclntire, 37 Okla. 684, 133 P.
213.
Competency of experts. — ^Huntsville r.
Pulley (Ala.), 65 S. 405.
257-81 Oliver t?. Oliver (Ala.), 65
8. 373; Birmingham Ry., L. & P. Co.
r. Saxon, 179 Ala. 136, 59 8. 584; Shaw
V, Cleveland, 5 Ala. App. 333, 59 8.
534; Stevens v. S. (Ark.), 174 8. W.
219; New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. t?.
Cella (Conn.), 91 A. 972; Jones v.
Rome (Ga. App.), 82 S. E. 593; P. c.
Spira, 264 111. 243, 106 N. E. 241;
Marks v. Box, 54 Ind. App. 487, 103
N. E. 27; Hollenback c. Stone & Web-
ster Eng. Corp., 46 Mont. 559, 129 P.
1058; James v. Hood (N. M.), 142 P.
162; Tilghman t?. R. Co., 167 N. C. 163,
83 8. E. 315, 1090; Anderson f?. Meier
& Frank Co., 68 Or. 21, 136 P. 660;
Glens Falls Ins. Co. t?. Melott (Tex.
Civ.), 174 8. W. 700; Houston, etc. R.
Co. V. Cavanaugh (Tex. Civ.), 173 8.
W. 619; National U. F. Ins. Co. v.
Burkholder, 116 Va. 942, 83 8, E.
404; Holdsworth v, Blyth & Fargo Co.
(Wyo.), 146 P. 603.
257-82 Cox f?. Moore, 142 Ga. 487,
83 8. E. 115- Martin v, Rome (Ga.
App.), 83 8. E. 872; Cohen f. Reich-
man, 55 Ind. App. 164, 102 N. E. 2S4;
McGuire v. Smith, 54 Ind. App. 509, 103
N. E. 71; Sullenbarger r. Ahrens (la.),
150 N. W. 71; Noyes v, Meharry, 213
Mass. 598, 100 N. E. 1090; Trzebietow-
ski V, Jereski, 159 Wis. 190, 149 N. W.
743.
258-83 Cleveland, C, C. & St. L.
R. Co. V, Hayes (Ind.), 104 N. E. 581;
Cleveland, C. C. & St. L. R. Co. v.
Hayes (Ind.), 102 N. E. 34; McCray
V. Whitney (Ind. App.), 104 N. E. 979.
258-84 Gamble-Robinson Com. Co.
V. Union Pac. R. Co., 262 111. 400, 104
N. E. 666, Ann. Cas. 1915B, 89.
258-86 Lincoln i\ Chicago & A. R.
Co., 262 111. 98, 104 N. E. 282; Schwan-
enfeldt v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 186
Mo. App. 588, 174 8. W. 143.
258-87 Halstead f. Olney J. Dean
& Co. (Ind.), 105 N. E. 903; Texas &
P. R. Co. r. White (Tex. Civ.), 174
8. W. 953,
258-88 • Pevton r. Shoe Co., 167 N.
C. 280, 83 S. E. 487; Houston, E. &
W. T. R. Co. V. Cavanaugh (Tex. Civ.),
173 8. W. 619.
Improperly Impeached. — ^Boone County
Lumb. Co. r. Niedermeyer, 187 Mo.
App. 180, 173 S. W. 57.
259-90 Mercantile Trust Co. r. Doe
(Cal. App.), 146 P. 692; Walsh v. Cold
Storage Co., 260 111. 322, 103 N. E.
185; Carney v. Marquette Min. Co., 260
111. 220, 103 N. E. 204; Brunnworth t:.
Kerens-Donnewald C. Co., 260 111. 202,
103 N. E. 178; Louisville & 8. I. Tract.
68
APPEALS
Tol. 2
Co. V, Lloyd (Ind. App.), 105 N. E.
519; Seewald v. Schmidt, 127 Minn.
375, 149 N. W. 655; Mosher r. Sut-
ton's New Theater Co., 48 Mont. 137,
137 P. 534.
259-91 Morris v. Beyman, 55 Ind.
App. 112, 103 N. E. 423; Person r.
Ames (la.), 150 N. W. 450; Pell r.
Northwest, etc. Ins. Co., 28 N. D. 355,
149 N. W. 358.
259-92 Webber v. Billings (Mich.),
150 N. W. 332; Amberg r. Kinley
(N. Y.), 108 N. E. 830; P. r. Harris,
87 Misc. 266, 150 N. Y. S. 557.
259-94 That party was piematnrely
forced to trial will not be considered
on appeal unless proper objection was
made in lower court. Braun *8 Exr. r.
Williams, 162 Ky. 45, 171 S. W. 996.
259-95 No waiver of Jury trial
Murphy v. Fitch, 35 Okla. 364, 130
P. 298.
260-98 Martinez r. Medina Val. Irr.
Co. (Tex. Civ.), 171 S. W. 1035.
Directing Jury to retire. — A party de-
siring the jury to retire during any
stage of the trial should request the
samoy otherwise he cannot complain
of the court's failure to direct the jury
so to do. Gillet i*. Shaw, 217 Mass. 59,
104 N. E. 719.
260^99 Alabama Fuel & Iron Co. r.
Benenante, 11 Ala. App. 644^ 66 S.
942; Louisville & N. B. Co. v. Mason,
10 Ala. App. 263, 64 S. 154; McCaskey
Begister Co. r. Nix Drug Co., 7 Ala.
App. 309, 61 S. 484; Appel v. Chicago
City E. Co., 259 111. 561, 102 N. E.
1021; Hamilton, Harris & Co. t'. Lar-
rimer (Ind.), 105 N. E. 43 (improper
conduct of counsel in the examination
of witness must be objected to below) ;
Kiogan & Co. v. King, 179 Ind. 285, 100
X. E. 1044; Domestic Block Coal Co.
T. Holden (Ind. App.), 103 N. E, 73;
Boss V. Kohler, 163 Ky. 583, 174 S. W.
36; Lawrence v. Board of Councilmen,
162 Ky. 528, 172 S. W. 953; Perkins
r. Baker, 41 Okla. 288, 137 P. 661; Mis-
souri, K. & T. B. Co. V, Long (Tex.
Civ.), 174 S. W. 329; Andrews r. Free
(UUh), 146 P. 555. See also vol. 2,
p. 829.
2e0-2 King v, Bobinson, 5 Ala. App.
431, 59 S. 371; Borinson v. Woodward,
88 Misc 116, 151 N. Y. S. 655; Ferebee
T. R. Co., 167 N. C. 290, 83 S. E. 360;
Yellowday r. Perkinson, 167 N. C. 144,
83 S. E. 341.
260-3 Boberson r. S. (Ga. App.),
S3 S. E. 877; Le^wi8 V, Fountain (N. C),
84 S. E. 278; Williams v, Phelps (Tex.
Civ.), 171 S. W. 1100. See S. r. Apple-
gate, 28 N. D. 395, 149 N. W. 356.
261-4 Delta Lumb. Co. t\ Schwarz
Wheel Co., 218 Fed. 85; Birmingham
By., L. & P. Co. r. Simpson, 177 Ala.
475, 59 8. 213; Tate f?. Holly, 25 Colo.
App. 218, 138 P. 64; Denver t?. Borkc,
25 Colo. App. 127, 135 P. 1191; Mc-
Whorter v. Ford, 142 Ga. 554, 83 8. E.
134; Wheeler v. Gilmore & P. B. Co.,
23 Ida. 479, 130 P. 801; State v. Pier-
not (la.), 149 N. W. 446; S. v. Nott
(la.), 149 N. W. 79; Bambo v. Empire
Dist Elec. Co., 90 Kan. 390, 133 P.
553; Boss t?. Kohler, 163 Ky. 583, 17*
S. W. 36; Cheek v. C, 162 Ky. 56, 171
S. W. 998; Thompson V. C, 122 Ky.
501, 91 S. W. 701; Buckles v. C, 113
Ky. 795, 68 S. W. 1084; McLellan v.
Fuller (Mass.), 108 N. E. 180; Chase
r. Tingdale Bros.,. 127 Minn. 401, 149
N. W. 654; Wallace v. Weaver, 47
Mont. 437, 133 P. 1099; B^iche v, Mor-
rison, 47 Mont. 127, 130 P. 1074; Hol-
lenback v. Stone & Webster Eng. Corp.,
46 Mont. 559, 129 P. 1058; Kargmau
v. Carlo, 85 N. J. L. 632 90 A. 292;
NeflP V, Hannan, 85 N. J. JL. 381, 88 A.
1068; Corbo v East Orange & A. Land
Co. (N. J. Eq.), 92 A. 345; Colbert v.
Journal Pub. Co. (N. M.), 142 P. 146;
Barefoot t?. Lee (N. C.),. 83 S. E. 247;
Kennedy v. Goodman, 39 Okla. 470, 135
P. 936; Mastel t?. Walker, 246 Pa. 65,
92 A. 63; Fortney t?. Breon, 245 Pa.
47, 91 A. 525; Cole v. Beiley (S. D.),
150 N. W. 299; Bowden v. S. (Tex.
Cr.), 174 S. W. 339; Fuller v. El Paso
Live Stock (Tex. Civ.), 174 S. W.
930; Sands f?. Sedwick (Tex. Civ.), 174
S. W. 894; Atchison, T. & S. F. B.
Co. V. Skeen (Tex. Civ.), 174 S. W.
655; Keevil v. Ponsford (Tex. Civ.),
173 S. W. 518; Jefferson Cotton Oil
& Fertilizer Co. v, Pridgen & Congleton
(Tex. Civ.), 172 8. W. 739; Martinez
V. Medina Valley Irr. Co. (Tex. Civ.),
171 S. W. 1035.
A peremptory iustmction need not be
objected to in lower court. Gulf, C. &
S. F. By. Co. V. Higginbotham (Tex.
Civ.), 173 S. W. 482.
Federal Employers' Liability Act. — Ob-
jection cannot be made for the first
time on appeal to the court's instruct-
ing upon the Federal Employers' Lia-
bility Act, or to the court's failure to
compel plaintiff to elect between that
act or the state act. Graber v, Duluth,
69
Vol. 2
APPEALS
S!, 8. & A. B. Co., 159 Wis. 414, 150
N. W. 489.
Mlarecitals of evidence in the Instruc-
tiona cannot be urged as error on ap-
peal where corrections not asked below.
Moore v. Pennsylvania B. B. Co., 242
Pa. 541, 89 A. 671.
261-5 Varnon v, Nabors (Ala.), 66
S. 593* Jordan v. Smith, 185 Ala. 591,
64 S. 317; Birmingham By., L. & P.
Co. V. Simpson, 177 Ala. 475, 59 S. 213;
Willoaghby v. Birmingham By., L. & P.
Co., 11 Ala. App. 611, 66 S. 887; Oliver
V, Camp, 9 Ala. App. 232, 62 S. 469;
Bogers v, Bogers, 57 Colo. 132, 140 P.
193; Clark v, Aldenhoven (Colo. App.),
143 P. 267; Makekau i\ Kane, 20
Hawaii 203 ; Indiana Union Traction Co.
V, Cauldwell (Ind. App.), 107 N. E.
705; Pittsburgh, C, C. & St. L. B. Co.
i?. Macey (Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 486;
O'Connor v. Baum, 54 Ind. App. 195,
100 N. E. 581; Hall V. Shenandoah
(la.), 149 N. W. 831; American Stable
Co. V. Clarke (Mass.), 108 N. E. 1077;
Walters v. Detroit United By. (Mich.),
149 N. W. 1004; Barton v. Gray, 57
Mich. 622, 24 N. W. 638; Miller v, Dela-
ware Biver Transp. Co., 85 N. J. L.
700, 90 A. 288; Curtis & Oartside Co.
V. Pribyl, 38 Okla. 611, 134 P. 71;
Moyer v, Pennsylvania B. Co., 247 Pa.
210, 93 A. 282; Sage v, Lehigh Val.
B. Co., 241 Pa. 49, 88 A. 77; Cole v.
Beiley (S. D.), 150 N. W. 299; An-
drews f?. Free (Utah), 146 P. 555.
262-6 Parkhill v. Bekins' Van, etc.
Co. (la.), 151 N. W. 506; Luckhurst v.
Shroeder (Mich.), 149 N. W. 1009;
Walters P, Detroit United By. (Mich.),
149 N. W. 1004; Boone County Lumb.
Co. V, Niedermeyer, 186 Mo. App. 180,
173 S. W. 57; Daugherty v. Stocks, 185
Mo. App. 541, 172 S. W. 616; 8. v.
Powell, 168 N. C. 134, 83 S. E. 310.
Explanatory charge should be re-
quested.— In an action against a car-
rier for wrongful ejection and assault
and battery, a charge that "if plaintiff
refused to pay his fare, the conductor
had a right to eject plaintiff, using no
more force than necessary, and you
could not find for plaintiff," as ignor-
ing plaintiff's right to recover though
ejection was warranted if more force
was used than necessary, in the ab-
sence of a request for an explanatory
charge. Willoughby v. Birmingham
By., L. & P. Co., 11 Ala. App. 611, 66
8. 887.
Bequest that terms be defined. — ^In an
action for injuries to a railway em-
ploye claimed to have been due to an
insecure handhold, where the charge
failed to define the word "secure," if
defendant wanted it defined it should
have offered a special charge. Galves-
ton, H. & S. A. B. Co. V, Boemer (Tex.
Civ.), 173 S. W. 229.
262-7 Sanitary Dist. of Chicago t?.
Munger, 264 111. 256, 106 N. E. 185.
Failure to give promised instructiona
is an oversight which is waived if not
called to court's attention. Williams
V. Weekley (S. C), 84 S. E. 299.
262-8 Clark v. Aldenhoven (Colo.
App.), 143 P. 267; Soulier v. Daab, 85
N. J. L. 681, 90 A. 266; Collier v. Gan-
non, 40 Okla. 275, 137 P. 1179.
263-12 Sovereign Camp W. O. W.
f?. Latham (Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 749,
751.
263-14 Allen v. Wildman, 38 Okla.
652, 134 P. 1102.
Inconsistencies in the findings must be
brought to the court's attention. Wil-
son V, Cheshire Brass Co., 88 Conn. 118,
89 A. 903.
268-15 Doudell v. Shoo, 20 Cal.
App. 424, 129 P. 478.
That an Issue not pleaded was deter-
mined by the referee cannot be raised
for the first time on appeal. Price v.
Davis, 187 Mo. App. 1, 173 S. W. 64.
264-16 London Irr. Canal & B. Co.
V. Berthoud, 57 Colo. 374, 140 P. 802;
Sullivan v. Atchison, T. & S. F. B.
Co., 262 111. 317, 104 N. E. 707; In re
Moore (Me.), 93 A. 180; McDowell v.
Justice, 167 N. C. 493, 83 S. E.-803;
United States F & G. Co. v. Ballard
(Okla.), 145 P. 396.
Amount of judgment. — ^No objection can
be raised for the first time on appeal
that the judgment is in excess of the
amount claimed. Swope v, Sherman, 7
Ala. App. 210, 60 S. 474.
Order of distribution. — Objection must
be made to an order of distribution.
It is not sufficient that motion was
afterward made to set the order aside.
Pottlitzer t?. Citizens' Trust Co. (Ind.
App.), 108 N. E. 36.
Order appointing a receiver should be
duly objected to below. Millikan tv
McAlphin, 181 Ind. 482, 104 N. E. 855.
264-19 lAck of opportunity.— Where
the party had no opportunity to object
to omissions in a decree, he may raise
70
APPEALS
Vol 2
ike qnestion on appeal. Kuhn v, GIos,
257 IlL 289, 100 N. E. 1003.
264-20 Cheney v. Taber (MasB.),
108 N. E. 1072; United Stetes P. & G.
Co. V. Ballard (Okla.), 145 P. 396.
265-22 Erronaoiui order vacating the
Judgment* — Where the order vacating
the judgment erroneously provided that
the taxed costs in the action should be
paid ''to the clerk," and the statute
requires payment to be made to plain-
tiff, the error should be made a ground
of objection. Guaranteed Inv. Co. V,
Van Metre, 158 Wis. 262, 149 N. W.
30.
265-23 An affidavit of merits on a
motion to vacate a default judgment,
if defective, must be objected to be-
low. Headdings v. Gavette, 86 App.
Div. 592, 83 N. Y. S. 1017. 8ee also
vol. 1, p. 721, n. 21.
266-26 Stephens v. Conley, 48 Mont
352, 138 P. 189.
266-27 Cox V. 8. (Tnd.), 106 N. E.
878; S. V. StoUberg (Idinn.), 150 N.
W. 924.
267-31 Objections to instmctlone
should be seasonably made. Consid-
eration of them has been refused when
they were interposed after argument
(Gonzales v. £Ute [Tex. Cr.]» 171 8.
W. 1149); after the jury retired (J.
H. Walker ft Co. v. Norris, 10 Ala.
App. 515, 63 8. 935); two days after
judgment (Moore v. Cooper Mfg. Co.
[Tex. Civ.], 171 8. W. 1034); in a
motion for new trial. Martinez v, 8.
(Tex. Cr.), 171 8. W. 1153.
267-32 Cliarlie's Transfer Co. v. W.
B. Leedy & Co., 9 Ala. App. 652, 64
S. 205; Elswick r. Deskins (W. Va.),
83 S. E. 283.
267-39 FizBt opportunity may be on
appeal, etc. Kuhn r. Glos, 257 HI. 289,
100 N. E. 1003; Pangbum r. Buick
Motor Co., 211 N. Y. 228, 105 N. E.
423.
Ko canae of action stated. — ^While the
objection that the complaint does not
state a cause of action must be con-
sidered at any stage of the case, it
will be received with greater favor and
permitted a wider field of operation
when made in due time by motion or
answer tiian when interposed after the
delay and expense of a trial. Carter
r. Butler (Mo.), 174 S. W. 399; East
St. Louia, I. & C. S. Co. v, Kuhlmann,
238 Mo. 685, 142 S. W. 253.
268-40 Akron Milling Co. r. Leiter
(Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 99.
Validity of the contract. — The ques-
tion of the validity of the contract
sued upon may be presented to the
court below by an objection to the ad-
mission of the contract in evidence.
Peters f. Brunswick-Balke-Callender
Co., 6 Ala. App. 507, 60 8. 431.
The prematore bringing of anlt is suf-
ficiently objected to when presented by
general demurrer; in the denials of
the answer; in the notice of mo-
tion for a new trial; and in the specifi-
cations of error in the bill of excep-
tions. Borger v, Connecticut Fire Ins.
Co., 24 Cal. App. 696, 142 P. 115.
A memorandnm of objections must be
filed with the demurrer. Gifford v. Gif-
ford (Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 308.
268-41 A motion to strike ont an
item improperly allowed in an account-
ing should be made, otherwise the error
will not be reviewed. Bhees v. Coe, 91
Kan. 493, 138 P. 576.
Bequest to instmct Jnry. — Objection
that evidence admitted for a particular
purpose may have been applied by the
jury to the substance of the case, is .
not available on appeal where the court
was not requested to instruct the jury
upon the point. Templer v, Lee, 55
Ind. App. 433, 103 N. E. 1090.
A motion to suppress a deposition is
not the proper method of presenting
the question as to proof of serving no-
tice of taking thereof. Cohen v. Belch-
man, 55 Ind. App. 164, 102 N. E. 284.
26S-42 Where on cross-examination
the incompetency of witness is dis-
closed there must be a request to strike
out his testimony, in order to base a
complaint on appeal. Schwanenfeldt v.
Metropolitan B. Co. (Mo. App.), 174
S. W. 143.
268-43 Birmingham By., L. ft P. Co.
V. Saxon, 179 Ala. 136, 59 S. 584; Louis-
ville, etc. Co. V. Lottich (Tnd. App.),
106 N. E. 903; Healey v. Perkins Mach.
Co., 216 Mass. 75, 102 N. E. 944; Bivers
V, Bichards, 213 Mass. 515, 100 N. E.
745: McKennan i*. Omaha ft C. B. St.
B. Co., 97 Neb. 281, 149 N. W. 826;
Littieri v. Freda, 241 Pa. 21, 88 A. 82.
268-44 Young v. Fresno Flume ft
Irr. Co., 24 Cal. App. 286, 141 P. 29.
Iffotion mnst be gpeciflc — ^''A general
motion for nonsuit, that plaintiff has
not proved a cause of action is without
force on appeal, unless some particular
71
Tol. 2
APPEALS
defect is pointed out, or unless the de-
fect actually existing is such that the
omission could not have been supplied,
if attention had been called to it."
Troy Automobile Exchange v. Home
Ins. Co., 164 App. Div. 761, 149 N. Y,
S. 978.
269-47 Form of objection sometimes
unimportant.— If a plea is bad, it is
unimportant that objection to it was
raised below by motion to strike in-
stead of by demurrer, Cain v. Osier
(la.), 150 N. W. 17^
270-52 Cougar v, Buffalo Specialty
Co. (Colo. App.), 141 P. 611; McCarty
r. Williams (Ind. App.), 108 N. E. 370;
Eulcr r. Euler, 55 Ind. App. 547, 102
N. E. 856; Hall V. Grand Lodge I. 0.
O. P., 55 Ind. App. 324, 103 N. E.
854; Boone County Lumb. Co. v, Nieder-
meyer, 187 Mo App. 180, 173 S. W. 57;
King County t?. Martin (Tex Civ.), 173
8 W 960; Pecos & N. T. By. Co. v.
Grundy (Tex. Civ.), 171 S. W. 318;
Shepherd V. Denver & E. G. R. Co.
(Utah), 145 P. 296; Gay r. Gay (W.
Va.), 83 S E. 75.
270-53 Eaton v. Klein (Tex. Civ.),
174 S. W. 331.
* 270-54 Deslandes f?. Scales (Ala.).
65 S. 393, Ellis v. Abbott, 69 Or. 234,
138 P. 488.
Defective deed.— Objections to the ad-
mission of a deed in evidence must
point out the defect in the deed. This
rule does not apply in a suit to quiet
title to land where the deed in ques-
tion docs not purport to convey the
land. House r. Grable, 25 Colo. App.
405, 138 P. 1012.
Mere objection on gronnd of variance
will not suiEce. The party must fur-
ther show that he is not prepared to
meet the evidence. Louisville & S. I.
Tract. Co. I?. Lloyd (Ind. App.), 105
N. E. 519.
Objection to admission of evidence
must assert reason, and if inapt, re-
ception cannot be complained of. Au-
trey r. S. (Ala.), 67 S. 237.
Beason apparent. — When, however, it is
apparent that the objection presents
but one question the reason for the rule
and the rule itself ceases to apply.
Eaton V, Klein (Tex. Civ.), 174 S. W.
331.
270-55 Birmingham Rv., L. & P. Co.
V. Saxon, 179 Ala. 136, 59 S. 5S4; Eck-
man v. Funderburg (Ind.), 108 N. E.
677; Clokey p, S. (Ind.), 107 N. E.
273; Marietta Glass Mfg. Co. r. Prnitt,
ISO Ind. 434, 102 N. E. 339; St. AlLan 's
Granite Co. v, Elwell & Co. (Vt.), 9J
A. 974; Garrison r. Newark Call P. &,
Pub. Co. (Vt.), 92 A. 690.
270-56 Josephs f. Briant (Ark.), 172
S. W. 1002; Pine Bluff & A. E. Co. <?.
Washington (Ark.), 172 S. W. 872;
Chunn v. Fire Ins. Co. (Ark.), 172 S.
W. 837; Cummings v, Lobsitz, 42 Okla.
704, 142 P. 993; Gay v. Gay (W. Va.),
S3 S F 75
270-57 Merritt v, Wyatt, 184 Ala.
262, 63 S. 962; Swindall v. Ford, 184
Ala. 137, 63 S. 651; Bloomington v.
Citizens' Nat. Bank (Ind. App.), 105
N. E. 575; Armstrong v. Stair, 217
Mass. 534, 105 N. E. 442; Congregation
Ohab Shalom v. Hathaway, 216 Mass.
539, 104 N. E. 379; Sanders v. K. Co.
(N. H.), 92 A. 546; Kipros v, Uintah
Ry. Co. (Utah), 146 P. 292; Burling-
ton Paper Stock Co. v. Diamond (Vt.),
92 A. 19.
271-58 Morton v, Clark, 10 Ala. '
App. 439, 65 S. 408; Oak Park t\ Swi-
gs rt, 266 111. 60, 107 N. E. 158; Wol-
cott V. Mongeon (Vt.), 92 A. 457.
271-59 Terra Ceia Estates v. Taylor
(Fla.), 67 S. 169; Cummings v. Buck-
field Branch R. R., 35 Me. 478; Carter
V, Thompson, 15 Me. 464.
271-60 S. V, Heavener (N. C), 83
S. E. 732.
271-61 Elliott V. Page, 98 S. C. 400,
82 S. E. 620; Overton v. Colored
Knights of Pythias (Tex. Civ.), 173
5 W. 472. ,
272-65 Ogden v, AspinwaU (Mass.),
107 N. E. 448.
An "objection" is not an "excep-
tion;" consequently the Appellate court
will disregard a bill of exceptions
where the defendants *' objected" to
portions of the charge and to the re-
fusal of the presiding judge to give the
rulings asked. Ogden v, AspinwaU
(Mass.), 107 N. E. 448.
272-67 In re Moore (Me.), 93 A.
180.
272-68 Maxwell v. Abrost Realty
Co. (C. C. A.), 218 Fed. 457; Oooley
r. Jones, etc. Mfg. Co. (Ga. App.), 84
S. E. 232; Scott t\ American Zine, L.
6 S. Co. (Mo. App.), 173 S. W. 23;
P. V. Journal Co., 213 N. Y. 1, 106
N. E. 759; Lawless v. Raddis, 36 Okla.
C16, 129 P. 711; Nelson v. St. Helens
Timber Co., 66 Or. 570, 133 P. 1167,
72
APPEALS
Vol 2
135 P. 169; Cole V. Eeiley (S. D.), 150
N. W. 299; St. Louis Southwestern R.
Co. V. Moore (Tex. Civ.), 173 S. W.
904; Trabue t?. Guaranty State Bank
(Tex, App.), 173 S. W. 612; Denton t?.
English (Tex. Civ.), 171 S. W. 248;
White V. Central Vermont B. Co. (Vt.),
89 A. 618.
Bight to except la purely statatory.
In re Moore (Me.), 93 A. 180; S. v,
Martel, 103 Me. 63, 68 A. 454.
Different rule by statute in homicide.
People V, Tomlins (N. Y.), 107 N. E.
496.
273^9 Clokey v. S. (Ind.), 107 N.
E. 273; P. V. Journal Co., 213 N. Y.
1, 106 N. E. 759.
Belief may be granted by appellate
court for failure to file exception. P.
». Journal Co., 213 N. Y. 1, 106 N. E.
750.
Znterpretation of the rule. — The rule
that on appeal from a judgment in a
eivil action only questions of law can
be considered and that those questions
muBt be presented by exceptions, must
be interpreted in the light of reason,
and is subject to certain inherent limi-
tations, and it has no application where
there is no opportunity for the taking
of an exception. Pangburn v, Buick
Motor Co., 211 N. Y. 228, 105 N. E.
423.
278-70 P. V. Willett, 164 App. Div.
1, 149 N. Y. S. 348; Grissom v. Beidle-
naan, 35 Okla. 343, 129 P. 853.
A fundamental error in instructing a
verdict for defendant where the ad-
mitted and proven facts show plaintiff
entitled to a verdict, need not be as-
signed. Neville v. Miller (Tex. Civ.),
171 S. W. 1109.
274-74 Tllinois Surety Co. v. S., 55
Ind. App. 31, 103 N. E. 363; Pullen v,
Eugene (Or.), 146 P. 822.
A ruling sustaining a demurrer to a
plea in abatement need not be ex-
cepted to. S. V, Wetzel (W. Va.), 83
8. R 68.
275-75 Hicks v. Bevels, 142 Ga. 524^
83 S. E. 115.
276-82 Gamett v. Parry Mfg. Co,
185 Ala. 326, 64 S. 559.
276-83 Morton v, Clark, 10 Ala.
App. 439, 65 S. 408; Pitela V. Roublicek,
97 Neb. 561, 150 N. W. 813.
An imiwoper Joinder of counts, based
on the federal and the state employers'
liability act will not be considered on
appeal in the absence of an exception
"to the motion to strike out one of
them. Atlantic Coast Line B. Co. v,
Jones, 9 Ala. App. 499, 63 S. 693.
277-85 Southern E. Co. v, Brewster,
9 Ala. App. 597, 63 S. 790.
277-00 Ortiz v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 173
S. W. 300.
277-91 Moapa Garden Co. v. San
Pedro, L. A. & S. L. E. Co. (Utah),
143 P. 218.
Exception to refusal of nonsuit is not
necessary where trial has resulted in
a verdict for plaintiff and defendant
has excepted to the verdict on ground
of no evidence to support it, because
the latter raises the question more ade-
quately than the exception to the over-
ruling of a motion for nonsuit. Hen-
derson 17. Maysville Guano Co. (Ga.
App.), 82 S. E. 588.
277-93 A party who has not yet ap«
peared when the receiver is appointed
need not reserve an exception to the
order making the appointment. Eyder
V. Shea (Ind.), 108 N. E. 104.
278-97 King v, Eobinson, 5 Ala.
App. 431, 59 S. 371; Gast V, Barnes
(Okla.), 143 P. 856.
Bight to examine Jurors. — ^Erroneously
denying counsel's right to examine a
juror may in Connecticut be* reviewed
without exceptions. Zalewski v. Water-
bury Mfg. Co. (Conn.), 92 A. 682.
That the court confused the issues can-
not be urged on appeal where the error
was not preserved by exception. New-
ton's Admx. t?. American Car Sprinkler
Co., 87 Vt. 546, 90 A. 583.
The method adopted by trial Judge in
inquiring into the misconduct of the
jury cannot be urged as error on ap-
peal unless proper exception was taken
thereto. Beckley V. Alexander (N. H.),
90 A. 878.
278-98 Hamilton, Harris & Co. v,
Larrimer (Ind.), 105 N. E. 43; Tucker
V. Eastridge, 51 Ind. App. 632, 100 IST.
E. 113; Spencer v. Johnson (Mich.),
151 N. W. 684; Knock v. Tonapah &
G. E. Co. (Nev.), 145 P. 939; Midland
Val. E. Co. V. Larson, 41 Okla. 360, 138
P. 173; Johnson v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 171
S. W. 1128.
Objecting party must move to take the
case ftom Jury where his objection has
been sustained to improper argument
of counsel to jury, if he wishes to have
counsel's misconduct reviewed on ap-
peal. Fadden V. McKinney, 87 Vt. 316
89 A. 351.
73
Vol 2
APPEALS
A I
^proper remarks of ootmsel. — ^Excep-
tion should be made to improper re-
marks of counsel or else request should
be made that the jury be instructed to
disregard them. Midland Val. B. Co.
V. Larson, 41 Okla. 360, 138 P. 173.
278-99 That Jury took the pleadings
into the jury room is an objection that
cannot be raised for the first time on
appeal. Oklahoma Fire Ins. Co. V,
Mundel, 42 Okla. 270, 141 P. 415.
278-1 Jones v. White (Ala.), 66 S.
605; Illinois Cent. E. Co. v. Eobinson
(Ala.), 66 So. 519; Littieri v. Freda,
241 Pa. 21, 88 A. 82; First State Bank
17. Knox (Tex. Civ.), 173 S. W. 894.
279-2 Nashville, C. & St. L. R. Co.
O. Hinds (Ala, App.), 60 S. 409; Har-
ris V. Hipsley, 122 Md. 418, 89 A. 852;
Ferebee v. Berry (N. C), 84 S. E. 262;
Bhome Mill. Co. v. Farmers' & M.
Nat. Bank, 40 Okla. 131, 136 P. 1095;
Newton v, American Car Sprinkler Co.
(Vt.), 92 A. 831.
Non-responsive answers must be ex-
cepted to. Peyton v. Shoe Co., 167 N.
0. 280, 83 S. E. 487.
Where court rules conditionally on the
admission of evidence, it being subject
to a subsequent motion to exclude, and
there is an exception to such ruling,
and thereafter the court allows the
evidence to stand and there is no ex-
ception reserved to the admission, the
ruling is not reviewable on appeal.
Ballard v. Bank of Boanoke (Ala.), 65
S. 356.
279-S Lookout Fuel Co. v. PhiHips,
11 Ala. App. 657, 66 S. 946; Cooley v.
Jonos, etc. Mfg. Co. (Ga. App.), 84 S.
E. 232.
279-4 Wilson v Bridgforth (Mies.),
66 S. 524.
limitation on the purposes for which
the evidence may be used, must be re-
quested. Elliott V. Norfolk Southern B.
Co., 166 N. C. 481, 82 S. E. 853.
279-7 Blake v. Hotel & E. Co., 263
HI. 471, 105 N. E. 323.
280-9 But see Conrow t?. Huffine, 48
Mont. 437, 138 P. 1094.
280-11 Alabama T. E. Co. v. Benns
(Ala.), 66 S. 589; Pryor v, S., 186 Ala.
27, 65 S. 331; Wise, Boles & Bowdoin v.
Fuller, 11 Ala. App. 427, 66 S. 827;
Anderson v. Anniston Elee. & G, Co.,
n Ala. App. 560, 66 S. 925; Kent v.
Cobb, 24 Colo. App. 264, 133 P. 424;
S, V. Nott ria.), 149 N. W. 79^ Ingram
V. Kansas City, S. & G. E. Co., 134 La>
377, 64 S. 146; O'Hare r. Gloag (Mass.),'
108 N. E. 566; Scott v. American Zinc,
L.1& S. Co., 187 Mo. Adp. 344, 173 8.
W. 23; Pe Sandro v, Missoula L. Sb W.
Co., 48 Mont. 226, 136 P. 711; Young
V. Missouri, O. & G. E. Cox (Okla.), 145
P. III85 Gast V. Barnes (Okla.), 143 P.
856; Shuler v. Hall, 42 Okla. 325, 141
P. 280; Shuler V. Collins, 40 Okla. 126,
136 P. 752; Weis? r. Pittsburg Eys. Co.
(Pa.), 89 A. 586; Ziserman v. Philadel-
phia Eapid Transit Co., 241 Pa. 13, ?S
A. 80; Franklin V, International & G.
N. E. Co. (Tex. Civ.), 174 8. W. 333;
Galveston, H. ft S. A. E. Co. f?. Pat-
terson (Tex. Civ.), 173 8. W. 273; Hor-
ton f?. Texas Midland E. B. (Tex. Civ.),
171 8. W. 1023; Gulf T. & W. E. Co. f>.
Dickey (Tex Civ.), 171 S. W. 1097;
Henderson & Grant t?. Gilbert (Tex.
Civ^.), 171 S. W. 304; Boyd v. San
Pedro, L. A. & S. L. E. Co. rUtah), 146
P. 282; Stacy v. Dolan (Vt.), 92 A.
453. See 4 Standard Proc. 316, n. 84>
and supplement thereto.
Peremptory instructiona. — ^There is soms
uncertainty in Texas as to the appli-
cation of this rule to peremptory in-
structions. That no exceptions need be
taken to peremptory instructions, see
Henderson t?. Gilbert (Tex. Civ.), 171 8.
W. 304; Owens v, Corsicana, etc. Co.
(Tex. Civ.), 169 S.W. 192. But for cases
apparently holdinsr otherwise, see Need-
ham V, Cooney (Tex. Civ.), 173 S. W.
979; Eailway Co. v. Wheat (Tex. Civ.),
173 8. W. 974; Case t?. Folsom (Tex.
Civ.), 170 8. W. 1066; Eailway Co. V.
Feldman (Tex. Civ.), 170 S. W. 133.
Error first discovered on appeal
Where, in an action on a contract, the
court omits to charge the conceded fact
that defendant had paid plaintiff a
small sum on the contract, and the
error is not discovered until after the
argument in the appellate court the
error will not be grround for reversal,
but a remittitur will be ordered and the
judgment affirmed. Moden v. Superin-
tendents of Poor (Mich.), 149 N. W.
1064.
An 'error in tbe instmctiona may be
saved by proper exception taken to the
same error in rulings on the evidence.
Ginzler v, Birmingham, 6 Ala. App.
666, 60 8. 976.
280-12 8. V. Williams (N. C), 83 8.
B. 714; Miller V. Western Union Tel.
Co., 167 N. C. 315, 83 8. E. 482; Horn-
thai V. Norfolk Southern B. Co., 167 N.
74
APPEALS
Vol. 2
C. 627, 82 S. E. 830; EQison v. Tel.
Co., 163 N. C. 5, 79 S. E. 277; Young
c. Missonri, O. ft G. B. Co. (Okla.), 145
P. 1118; Clark v. Morier (S. D.) 150
K. W. 475.
Instmctloiis become the law, of the
case when not excepted to. Clark v.
Mosier (S. D.), 150 N. W. 475.
280-13 Jordan v. Smith, 185 Ala.
591, 64 8. 317; McLellan v. Fuller
(Haas.). 108 K. E. 180; Quinn v, Mfg.
Co. (Minn.) 150 N. W. 919; Rade-
maeher v. Pioneer Tractor Mfg. Co.,
127 Minn. 172, 149 N. W. 24; Ford V,
Wanamaker (App. Div.), 150 N. Y. 8,
795.
281-14 Given v. Johnson, 213 Mass.
251, 100 K. E. 369; Miller v. Western
rnion Tel. Co., 167 N. C. 315, 83 8. E.
482; James 9. Golson (Tex. Civ.), 174
S. W. 688.
281-16 Pine Bluff & A. B. B. Co. v.
Washington (Ark.), 172 8. W. 872;
Pulliam V. Adams, 142 Ga. 523, 83 S.
E. 121; Barefoot v. Lee (N. C), 83 8.
K 247; Way v. Lyric Theater Co., 79
Wash. 275, 140 P. 320.
General exception lUnstrated. — ^An ex-
ception to part of a charge as a whole
"and to each sentence thereof separ-
ately and severally'' is a general ex-
ception, and is not to any particular
part, the charge not being wholly bad.
Han V. 8., 11 Ala. App. 95, 65 8. 427.
281-lT Zalewski v. Waterbury Mfg.
Co. (Conn.), 92 A. 682.
281-18 Watson v, Hecla Min. Co., 79
Wash. 383, 140 P. 317.
282-21 Yarbrongh v. Pellissier
(Wash.), 145 P. 81.
New triaL — ^The denial of a motion for
a new trial must be excepted to. Henry
V. 8piUer, 67 Fla. 146, 64 8. 745.
282-24 Judson v. Phelps, 87 Conn.
495, 89 A. 161; Newman v. Homer, 55
Ind. App. 298. 103 N. E. 411; Walker
c. Brooklyn (Mich.), 151 N. W. 628;
Blanchard Bros, v, Beveridge (N. J.
Eq.), 92 A. 384; Stroberg v. Merrill, 67
Or. 409, 135 P. 335; Yarbrough v. Pell-
issier (Wash.), 145 P. 81.
The exception admits for the purposes
thereof that the facts are true and
eorreetly found. Harrell v, Neill (Ind.
App.), 105 N. E. 926; 8. v, Jackson, 52
Ind. App. 254^ 100 N. E. 479.
282-2S Town of Sheridan v. Boths-
chUd, 181 Ind. 405, 104 N. E. 66; Met-
ealf V. Storey, 80 Wash. 119, 141 P.
315; Francis v. Brown (Wyo.), 145 P.
750.
Pure conclusion of law.— A finding that
a former judgment was not res adjudi-
cata, being purely a conclusion of law,
is reviewable even in the absence or
exception. Jones v, Bevillard, 209 N.
Y. 446, 103 N. E. 719.
To challenge a conclusion of law no ex-
ception is necessary. Under Wis.
8t., §2405, the court is not com-
pelled in any case to sit still and
see a miscarriage of justice go uncor-
rected simply because of a failure to
file an exception. In re Footers Will,
159 Wis. 179, 149 N. W. 738.
282-26 Barnes v. Noel (Tenn.), 174
8. W. 276; Eailroad Co. i?. Johnson, 114
Tenn. 632, 88 8. W. 169.
283-28 Moapa Garden Co. v. 8an
Pedro, L. A. & 8. L. B. Co. (Utah),
143 P. 218, granting nonsuit must be
excepted to.
28a-29 A referee's finding of fact
has the effect of a special verdict and
by analogy can be reviewed, in the first
instance, only by the trial court. North-
rop Nat. Bank v. Webster Bef. Co., 91
Kan. 434, 138 P. 587.
28a-30 Harrigan v. Dodge, 216 Mass.
461, 103 N. E. 919; Eandall v. Moody,
87 Vt. 68, 88 A. 321; Williams u. 8. M.
8mith Ins. Co. (W. Va.), 84 8. E. 235.
283-32 Phipps V Wise Hotel Co., 116
Va. 739, 82 8. E. 681.
283-33 Pangburn v. Motor Co., 211
N. Y. 228, 106 N. E. 423.
284-34 P. V. Journal, 213 N. T. 1,
106 N. E. 759; Francis v. Brown (Wyo.),
145 P. 750.
An exception to a Judgment as not
warranted by the findings does not raise
the question as to whether the findings
are warranted by the evidence. Wol-
cott V. Mongeon (Vt.), 92 A. 457.
285-38 The denial of a motion for
a new trial must be duly excepted to.
Jones V. Jones, 43 Okla. 361, 143 P.
37.
285-40 Meeker v. Waddle (Wash.),
145 P. 967.
285-43 Levert <?. 8hirley Planting
Co., 135 La. 209, 65 8. 111.
Exceptions to findings must be filed be-
fore judgment on the findings in order
that the sufficiency of the evidence to
support them may be considered. St.
George v, Tilley, 87 Vt. 427, 89 A.
75
Vol 2
APPEALS
474. Within five davs after party ac-
quires iiotice of findings. Meeker r.
Waddle (Wash.), 145 P. 967.
285-44 Written exception le neces-
sary to a decision in a jury waived
cased. Nahaolelua i*. Heen, 20 Hawaii
613.
Central Fonndry Co. V. Laird
(Ala.), 66"^ S. 571; Fairbanks r. War-
rom (Ind. App.), 104 N. E. 983; Akeley
V, Carpenter, 87 Vt. 248, 88 A. 897.
286-49 P. V, Koensgen (HI.), 106 N.
E. 840; Fairbanks v, Warrum (Ind.
App.), 104 N. E. 983.
286-50 Motion to exclude an Im-
proper statement of counsel must be
made in order to rely upon it as error.
Jackson v. S., 11 Ala. App. 303, 66 S.
877; McCaskey Register Co. v. Nix
Drug Co., 7 Ala. App. 309, 61 S. 484;
Birmingham Ry. L, & P. Co. V, Gon-
zales (Ala. App.), 61 S. 80.
286-51 Congregation Ohab Shalom «?.
Hathaway, 216 Mass. 539, 104 N. E.
379; St. Laurent v, Manchester St. Ry.
(N. H.), 92 A. 959.
Expected proof. — An exception to the
exclusion of evidence must state what
the testimony was expected to be, save
v.- hero the appellate court knows what
the party expected to prove. Coolidge
t\ Boston Elevated R. Co., 214 Mass.
568, 102 N. E. 74.
287-52 Territory t?. Furomori, 20
Hawaii 344; Hamilton v. Boston Elc-
vpted R. Co., 213 Mass. 420, 100 N. E.
604; Newton V, American Car Sprinkler
Co. (Vt.), 92 A. 831; Seeley v. Central
Vt. R. Co. (Vt.), 92 A. 28.
If bnt one proposition of law is con-
tained in the instruction a general ex-
ception will suffice. Burchmore r. Ant-
lers Hotel Co., 54 Colo. 314, 130 P.
846.
287-53 Granite Falls State Bank i?.
Ryan, 80 Wash. 243, 141 P. 354.
Exceptions to a master's report must
give the grounds upon which they are
based. Randall v. Moody, 87 Vt. 68,
88 A. 321.
r87-54 Wolcott <?. Mongeon (Vt.),
92 A. 457.
287-55 Sloss^heflfield S. & I. Co. v.
Dunn, 9 Ala. App. 524, 63 S. 812; Hasse
V. Herring, 36 Colo. 383, 85 P. 629.
288-59 Misleading instructions.
*'If defendant thout'ht an instruction
capable of an erroneous construction.
it should have made a specific objection
to it on that ground. Garretson-Orco-
son Lumb. Co. V. Goza (Ark.), 172 S. W.
825.
288-60 In re Moore (Me.), 93 A.
l.^'O; Kerr r. ShurtleflP, 218 Mass. 167,
105 N. E. 871; White's Admx. v. Rail-
road, 87 Vt. 330, 89 A. "618.
288-63 A joint exception must be
good as to all the parties. Haynes r.
Johnson (Ind. App.), 105 N. E. 164.
288-65 McDuffie & Sons v. Weeks, 9
Ala. App. 282, 63 S. 739; Daggs r.
Howard Sheep Co. (Ariz.), 145 P. 140;
Monaghan r. Green, 265 111. 233, 106
N. E. 792; State Exchange Bank v.
Paul (Ind. App.), 108 N. E. 532; Blose
17. Myers (Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 548;
Pittsburg Ry. r. Macy (Ind. App.), 107
N. E. 486; Kost f. R. Co. (la.), 149 N.
W. 851; Price V. Davis, 187 Mo. App.
1, 173 S. W. 64; Muskogee v, Irvln
(Okla.), 145 P. 415; Nidiffer r. Nidiffer
(Okla.), 144 P. 350; Maddox v. Bar-
rett (Okla.), 143 P. 673; Jones r. Jones,
43 Okl. 361, 143 P. 37; S. v, Connelly,
34 S. D. 520, 149 N. W. 360.
A motion for a new trial cannot be em-
ployed as a means of bringing to ap-
pellate court for review any matter ac-
cruing during trial to which no ob-
jection was made. Bradley v. Bradley,
123 Md. 506, 91 A. 685.
291-85 The filing of a motion for
appeal effects the appeal and transfers
the cause to the supreme court. Alfred
t\ Alfred, 87 Vt. 542, 90 A. 580.
Leave of cbanceller to file a motion
for appeal is only necessary in fore-
closure proceedings, and where the de-
cree was entered pro confesso. Gove t?.
Gove's Admr., 87 Vt. 468, 89 A. 868.-
292-89 Miami Copper Co. v, Strohl,
14 Ariz. 410, 130 P. 605.
298-92 Coxe Bros. & Co. t?. Foley
(Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 85.
293-96 TJpshaw t?. S., 11 Ala. Apn.
310, 66 S. 821; Hartfield v. Aldcrcte, 25
Cal. App. 732, 145 P. 146; Griflin r. S.
(Tex. Cr.), 174 S, W. 351.
293-97 Benjamin t?. Ernst (Wash.),
145 P. 79.
293-98 Texas. — As to procedure in
Texas. See Tyler Bldg. & L. Assn. t?.
Biard (Tex.), 171 S. W. 1122.
294-1 Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. i\ James
(Miss.), 67 S. 152.
295-8 In re Laing, 48 Okla. W8, 143
P. 665.
78
APPEALS
Vol. 2
Attom^yB mentioned- as movers.
Where it ia clear from a reading of a
motion of appeal that the appeal is be-
ing taken on behalf of a real party
in interest, the appeal will not be dis-
missed on the ground that the attor-
neys mentioned their own names as the
movers in the motion for a^^peal. Brown
r. Green, 132 La. 1090, 62 S. 154.
SoAdency of designation. — ^Where a
motion of appeal irives the names of
eonnsel for defendant, then recites
that the "mover'' desires to appeal,
the word mover being in the singular
must refer to defendant. McCormick
r. Alfred S. Americo Co., 131 La. 220,
r9 S. 127.
Failure t4> style the cause on appeal
plaintiff in error and defendant in er-
ror will not cause a dismissal. In re
Laing (Okla.), 143 P. 6C5.
296-12 Cast r. Barnes (Okla.), 143
P. 856; Maddoz r. Barrett (Okla.), 143
P. 673.
A petition in error must set forth the
errors complained of in a concise, spe-
cific manner. Hopley v, Benton, 38
Okla. 223, 132 P. 808; Wilson t'. Mann,
37 Okla. 475, 132 P. 487; Perkins r.
Perkins, 37 Okla. 693, 132 P. 1097.
296-14 Failure to verify the appli-
eation for writ of error, when verifica-
tion is required, will justify a rescission
of the order of appeal. Landry f?. Poir-
rier, 135 La. 731, 66 S. 163.
297-19 Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. v,
James (Miss.), 67 S. 152.
298-29 State r. Childress, 127 Minn.
533, 149 N. W. 550.
299-32 8pybuck Drainage Bist. No.
1 r. St. Francis County (Ark.), 172 S.
W. 893.
299-33 In Alabama upon the filing
of a proper statement of appeal the
elerk of the trial court is required to
forward to the clerk of the proper ap-
pellate court a certificate of appeal.
Upahaw r. S., 11 Ala. App. 310, 66 S.
821.
809-41 PttWc officers may defend
the rights of the state without prepay-
ment of costs on appeal. Coon v. Som-
mercamp (Ida.), 146 P. 728.
301-46 Blose r. Myers (Ind. App.),
107 N. E. 548; Walton v. Boss (W. Va.),
84 S. E. 245.
301-47 Order of Calanthe r. Arm-
strong, 7 Ala. App. 378, 62 S. 269; Blair
r. Brownstone Oil k Befining Co., lOS
Cal. 632, 143 P. 1022; McDonald r. Mc-
Donald, 168 Cal. 433. 143 P. 726; Title
Ins. & Tr. Co. r, California Develop. Co.,
168 Cal. 897, 143 P. 723; Hartfiold v.
Alderete, 25 Cal. App. 732, 145 P. 146;
Behrensmeyer f. Gwinn, 25 Ida. 186, 136
P. 623; People's Bank r. De Soto Hdw.
Co., 135 La. 1027, 66 S. 349; Commer-
cial Kat. Bank v, Sanders, 132 La. 174,
61 S. 155; Monk t?. Quarles, 105 Miss.
895, 63 S. 298; Crawford f?. Lees (N.
J. Eq.), 93 A. 201; Muskogee Electrl
Tract. Co. t\ Howenstine, 40 Okla. 543,
138 P. 381, 139 P. 524; Rhome Mill Co.
r. Farmers* & M. Nat. Bank, 40 Okla.
131, 136 P. 1C95; Lord's Ore. Laws,
§550, subd. 5, as amended by laws 1913,
p. 618; McCann r. Burns (Or.), 136 P.
659; P. R. Code Civ. Proc, §295; Davila
r. Barriero, 20 P. R. 43.
The general statutes regulating the
commencement of ordinary actions, as
affected by the statute of limitations,
apply by analogy to proceedings in
error. Dr. Koch Vegetable Tea Co.
V. Davis (Okla.), 145 P. 337.
802-48 School Dist. t?. Mackcy
(Okla.), 144 P. 1032; Wood v, McEwrn
(Okla.), 144 P. 590; Phillipps t\ Dill-
ingham (Okla.), 144 P. 363; Caswell v,
Eaton, 43 Okla. 718, 770, 144 P. 591;
Western Union Tel. Co. t?. Dabyns, 41
Okla. 403, 138 P. 570, appeal from ai
order sustaining a demurrer must be
taken within one year.
If the judgment is already appealed
from by a party entitled to appeal,
another party appealing from the same
judgment must do so within ten days
after service upon him of notice of
the prior appeal. Carstens t?. Seattle
(Wash.), 146 P. 381.
Appeals under the alternative method
provided for in the California code
may be taken within six months where
no notice of entry of judgment is
served. Hartfield t\ Alderete, 25 Cal.
App. 732, 145 P. 146.
302-49 Farmers' & M. State Bank
t?. Cox, 40 Okla. 307, 138 P. 148; Stacey
V, McNicholas (Or.), 144 P. 96.
Appeal from order appointing a re-
ceiver must be taken within t'.'n da^s.
Lamb v. Alexander (Okla.), 146 P. 443.
Appeal from order discharging attach-
ment must be taken within thirty days.
Bates-Fulkerson Co. t?. Freeman (Okla.>,
146 P. 1082; Kennedy Merc. Co. f. Dob-
son, 40 Okla. 306, 138 P. 147.
302-61 Six months. — Anderson r.
Limerick, 43 Okla. 484, 143 P. 183
77
Vol. 2
APPEALS
302-52 Bowen f?. Wilson (Kan.), 144
P. 251, an appeal taken more than six
months from the rendition of judgment
held too late.
303-S3 Order of Calanthe v. Arm-
strong, 7 Ala. App. 378, 62 S. 269.
303-59 Bickley v. Hays, 183 Ala.
606, 62 S. 767; Scott v. First Nat. Bank,
178 Ala. 272, 59 S. 303; Allen v. Gar-
ner (Utah), 143 P. 228.
303-60 Ventimiglia v. Eichner, 213
N. Y. 147, 107 N. E. 48.
No final decision. — ^Where judgment be-
low did not finally dispose of case and
it does not appear from record or bill
of exceptions that the case is not pend-
ing in court below the appeal is pre-
mature and will be dismissed. White
Prov. Co. V, Nashville, etc. R. Co., 142
Ga. 855, 83 S. E. 943.
303-61 Upshaw v. S., 11 Ala. App.
310, 66 • 8. 821; Tort v. White (Ind.
App.), 108 N. E. 27; Shay v. Horn (Ind.
App.), 106 N. E. 544; W. C. Hall Mill-
ing Co. V, Hewes (Ind. App.), 105 N.
E. 241; Ward V. Pittsburg Silver Peak
Gold Min. Co. (Nev.), 143 P. 119; Hol-
combe t?. Lawyers' Co. -Op. Pub. Co.
(Okla.), 143 P. 1046; Bodovitz v. Camp-
bell, 43 Okla. 644, 143 P. 661; Colter
V. Martin, 43 Okla. 618, 143 P. 660;
Comanche Merc. Co. <?. Curlee Cloth-
ing Co. (Okla.), 143 P. 190; Grier
D. Durham, 43 Okla. 527. 143 P. 169;
Bomano v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 171 S. W.
201; St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. V. Stapp
(Tex Civ.), 171 S. W. 1080; Gove V.
Gove's Admr., 87 Vt. 468, 89 A. 868.
304-62 Oberly v. fiarris (Okla.),
143 P. 663; Sanders -P. Hart, 35 Okla.
212, 130 P. 284.
304-63 Allen v. Garner (Utah), 143
P. 228.
305-67 St. Louis & 8. F. B. Co. v.
Nelson, 40 Okla. 143, 136 P. 590; Bhome
Mill. Co. V. Farmers' & M. Nat. Bank,
40 Okla. 131, 136 P. 1095; Gvosdanovic
fj. Harris, 38 Okla. 787, 134 P. 28; State
Sav. Bank v. Bedden, 38 Okla. 444, 134
P. 20; Powell v. Johnson-Larimer D.
G. Co., 35 Okla. 644, 130 P. 945; Hon-
ley t\ First Nat. Bank, 35 Okla. 649,
130 P. 945; Schollmeyer v. Van Buskirk,
35 Okla. 439, 130 P. 138.
Substitution of personal representative.
Time begins from such substitution.
McCann v. Burns (Or.), 136 P. 659.
305-68 Moyer v. De Witt, 166 Cal.
780, 135 P. 1126; Behrensmeyer t?.
Gwinn, 25 Ida. 186, 136 P. 623. . .
Porto Bico.— Code Civ. Proc, §295.
306-70 Cathin v. Vandegrift (Colo.),
144 P. 894; Terre Haute I. & E. Tract.
Co. V, Beeves (Ind. App.), 108 N. B.
275; Book v. Strauss Bros. Co. (Ind.
App.), 107 N. E. 692; Huber v. Tielk-
ing, 55 Ind. App. 577, 103 N. E. 853,
104 N. E. 314; Audia V. Denver & B. G.
B. Co. (Utah), 146 P. 559; Lindley r.
Bradshaw (Utah), 141 P. 300.
An nnnecessary motion for new trial
cannot extend the time for appeal.
Bowen v. Wilson (Kan.), 144 P. 251;
St. Louis & S. F. B. Co. v. Nelson, 40
Okla. 143, 136 P. 590; Cowart v. Parker
Washington Co., 40 Okla. 56, 136 P.
153.
306-74 Arzuaga <?. Boe, 20 P. R.
292; Torres i\ Calaf, 17 P. B. 1137.
Written notice required. — The notice of
entry of judgment required to start
the statute running is a written one.
Hartfield v. Alderete, 25 Cal. App. 732,
145 P. 146.
306-75 American Trust Co. v. Cres-
cent Ice Co., 133 La. 247, 62 8. 664.
308-85 Scott V. Linder, 18 Hawaii 7.
308-91 Terre Haute I. & E. Tract.
Co. r. Beeves (Ind. App.), 108 N. E.
275.
Accident, mistake and unforeseen cause
may excuse delay in appealing. Kenyon
V. Hayhurst (R. I.), 89 A. 15. But the
supreme court is not authorized to al-
low an appeal when the right has been
lost through any of these causes. Gove
V. Gove's Admr., 87 Vt. 468, 89 A. 868.
308-93 Terre Haute I. ft £. Tract.'
Co. V. Beeves (Ind. App.), 108 N. E.
275.
310-4 Thomas f. Speese, 14 Ariz.
556, 132 P. 1137; Garner v. Meizel, 22
Cal. App. 256, 133 P. 1165; Griffin r.
S. (Tex. Cr.), 174 S. W. 351; Dibert V.
Peterson (Wash.), 145 P. 589.
Notice pot lndiq;>en8able. — The giving
of notice Is not an indispensable step
in taking an appeal. It does not serve
any higher purpose than a summons
and its entire absence can be waived.
Stephens V. Conley, 48 Mont. 352, 138
P. 189.
310-5 Spaulding Mfg. Co\ v, Baek-
holtz, 40 Okla. 54, 135 P. 1052.
310-6 Citation of appeal is neces-
sary where the petition is filed after
the term at which the judgment was
rendered, or in vacation or at a subse-
quent term. .Succession of Morris, 136
La. 69, 66 S. 542.
78
APPEALS
Vol. 2
311-8 Commercial Nat. Bank r. San-
ders, 132 La. 174, 61 8. 155.
311-8 Smith v. Hibben (Ind. App.),
107 N. E. 40.
812-10 a €. Oleott* 67 Or. 214. 135
P. 95, 902.
812-11 Jones €. MoGinnis (Ind.
App.), 103 N. E. 853; Lane v. Went-
worth, 69 Or. 242. 133 P. 348, 138 P.
468; Martinez v Succession of Laurido,
21 P. B. 29; Candelas v. Bamirez, 20 P.
B. 31; Andnjar €. Alonso, 17 P. B. 410;
Allen r. Gamer (Utah), 143 P. 228.
Porto Rico,— Code Civ. Proc, J296.
The court must be furnished by the
clerk with a copy of the notice of ap*
peal. Coon v, Sommercamp (Ida.), 146
P. 728. . \ ^.,
312-13 Kissler €. Moss^ 26 Ida. 516,
144 P. 647. *
312-16 Smith v. Hibben (Ind. App.),
107 N. E. 40; Bowles t?. (^ooney
(Okla.), 146 P. 221. ;
313-17 Jackson r. b^perior Court,
20 Cal. App. 638, 120 P. 946; Templeton
r. Morrison. 66 Or. 493, 131 P. 319, 135
P. 95; Smith v. Bums (Or.), 135 P.
200 (holding that this rule does not
apply except in cases where one judg-
ment debtor can call upon another for
contribution in case he is compelled
to pay all of the judgment); Candelas
r. Bamires, 20 P. B. 31. , ,
813-18 Jaques v. Board of Suprs., 22
Cal. App. 627, 135 P. 686. ,
Filed witb secretary of lower court
P. B. Code CiT. Proc, (296; Candelas
V. Bamirez, 20 P. B. 31. \
813-19 Jackson v, Superior Court, 20
CaL App. 638, 129 P. 946; Candelas f.
Bamirez, 20 P. B. 31; Aponte t?. Freirea,
19 P. B. 1104.
An adverse party is a party whose in-
terest in the judgment appealed from
is in conflict with the modiflleation or
reversal sought by appellant. Smith v.
Burns (Or.), 135 P. 200.
313-21 'Where Judgment is against
one defendant only, who appeals, his
co-defendant is not an adverse party
within the meaning of (940 Code Civ.
Proc., and notice of appeal need not be
served upon him. Jackson v, Superior
Court, 20 Cal. App. 638, 129 P. 946.
314-24 Fraley f>. Hoban, 69 Or. 180,
133 P. 1190, 137 P. 751.
Dealgnmtiiig improper appellate conrt
in the notice of appeal does not vitiate
v- 'V
the notice, for in such case the appeal
may be considered by the proper court.
Du Tungco V. Barrera, 5 Phil. Isl. 125.
314-25 Fraley v. Hoban, 69 Or. 180,
133 P. 1190, 137 P. 751.
314-26 Fraley v. Hoban, 69 Or. 180,
133 P. 1190, 137 P. 751.
314-27 Ewart Lumb. Co. v. Ameri-
can Cement P. Co., 9 Ala. App. 152, 62
a 560; Stephens ©. Conley, 48 Mont.
852, 138 P. 189; Lecher v. St. Johns
(Or.), 146 P. 87.
The undertaking on appeal may be ex-
amined to supply the defects of the
notice of appeaJ which failed to desig-
nate the judgment appealed from. Hel-
ton V. Helton, 64 Or. 290, 129 P. 532.
Incorrect date. — Where the judgment
appealed from is otherwise identified,
the giving in the notice of an incorrect
date of entry of the judgment will not
invalidate the appeal. Wilson v. Un-
ion Iron Wks. D. D. Co., 167 Cal. 539,
140 P. 250:
315-29 Fraley v. Hoban, 69 Or. 180,
133 P. 1190, 137 P. 751.
315-33 Title Ins. & Tr. Co. v. Cali-
fornia Develop. Co., 168 Cal. 397, 143
P. 723.
Issuance by appellate clerk. — ^A notice
to co-parties issued by the clerk of ap-
pellate court is sufficient. Jones v, Mc-
Ginnis (Ind. App.), 103 N. E. 353.
A person other than the appellant or
bl8 attorney may be authorized by
these latter to sign the attorney's name
to the notice of appeal. Howard cu
Hartford F. Ins. Co. (Or.), 144 P. 450.
316-39 By dierlff. — A notice to co-
parties may be served by sheriff. Jones
V. McGinnis (Ind. App.), 103 N. E. 353.
317-43 Bechtell v. Central Station
Eng. (Ind.), 107 N. E. 73.
317-45 Cal. Code Civ. Proc, |941h.
317-46 Bechtell v. Central Station
Eng. Co. (Ind.), 107 N. E. 73; Coxe Co.
r. Foley (Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 85;
Clinton & 0. W. Ry. Co. r. Dean, 40
Okla. 51, 135 P. 1067; Page v. Sherman
(Or.), 143 P. 1115.
317-48 Quintero v. Morales, 19 P. B.
1120, held good ground for dismissal
if not so served where practicable.
319-60 Planters Trading Co. v.
Moore, 7 Ala. App. 393, 62 S. 302; In
re Great Southern Lumb. Co., 132 La.
989, 62 S. 117.
320-62 A written acceptance of
79
Vol 2
APPEALS
service of petition and order of appeal
upon a petition of appeal implies a
waiver of citation of appeal. In te
Great Southern Lumb. Co., 132 La. 989,
62 S. 117.
320-65 Proctor v. Jeffery (Or.), 144
P. 1192,
320-66 Coxe Co. t?. Foley (Ind.
App.), 107 N. E. 85; Childers v. La-
han, 18 N. M. 487, 138 P. 202.
323-76 Quilter v. Kearns, 135 La.
807, 66 S. 229.
323-78 Motion pleading prescrip-
tion.— A motion to dismisB on tha
ground that the appeal was not talien
in time will constitute an appearance.
Commercial Nat. Bank t?. Sanders, 132
La. 174, 61 S. 155.
324-86 So an order of revivor in
the trial court, made after the appeal
has been perfected, is of no force. Las-
seter v. Deas, 9 Ala. App. 564, 63 S.
735; Durbrow f?. Chesley, 23 Cal. App.
627, 138 P. 917; McCandless v. Carter,
18 Hawaii 218; Yazoo & M. V. E. Co.
r. Teissier, 135 La. 19, 64 S. 928; S. t\
Cobb, 134 La. 207, 63 S. 877; Board of
Comrs. V, Concordia Land & T. Co.,
132 La. 915, 61 S. 869; Board of Comrs.
V. Farmer-Wren L. Co., 132 La. 916, 61
S. 870; Board of Comrs. v, Howard L.
& T. Co., 132 La. 911, 61 S. 868.
Matters not disposed of. — ^Where an ap-
peal has been allowed from a judgment
which clearly and definitely disposed
of only one of the matters set up in the
pleading the parties to the suit may
proceed with reference to the other
matters not disposed of by the judg-
ment. Martel v, Peterman, 136 La. 14,
66 S. 381.
An appeal from a- non-appealable order
and a supersedeas bond given thereon
do not deprive the trial court of juris-
diction to proceed further in the case.
Velin r. Lauer Bros. (Minn.), 150 N.
W. 169.
324-87 Colburn t\ Williams (Ariz.),
141 P. 120; Pruett i*. Charlotte Power
Co., 167 N. C. 598, 83 S. E. 830.
325-89 Dinwiddle t\ Shipman (Tnd.),
108 N. E. 228.
Suspe:ids judgment, etc. C. t*. Burdo
(Mass.), 106 N. E. 550.
326-90 Henry v, Whitehurst, 66 Pla.
567, 64 S. 233.
326-92 Freare r. Rosenbledt, 20
Hawaii 682.
326-93 A recovery of property sold
under a decree cannot be had by the
purchaser pendimg appeal. Pillsbury t?.
McGarry, 69 Or. 261, 138 P. 836;
327-1 McLaughlin v, Beyer, 181 Ala.
427, 61 S. 62.
327-2 Button r. S., 123 Md. 373, 91
A. 417; ' Farris v. Baptist Church
(Mass.), 107 N. E. 955.
327-6 Farris v. Baptist Church
(Mass.), 107 N. E. 955.
327-7 Farris v. Baptist Church
(Mass.), 107 N. E. 955.
328-10 Liesny v. Metropolitan Life
Ins. Co., 148 N. Y. S. 1057.
328-12 Continuing injunction. — Ap-
peal does not have effect to continue in-
junction beyond time fixed by court for
its duration. Biggins r. Thompson, 96
Tex. 154, 71 S. W. 14; Ft. Worth St. B.
Co. V, Rosedale St. B. Co., 68 Tex. 163,
7 S. W. 381; Sanders V, Bledsoe (Tex.
Civ.), 173 S. W. 539.
329-17 A void Judgment may dur-
ing the term at which the trial was
had, be vacated, notwithstanding an
appeal is pending. Scott v. Watkins,
25 Colo. App. 340, 138 P. 432.
330-24 First Nat. Bank v. Acme Co.-
Op. Brick & T. Co. (la.), 149 N. W.
607; Martel v. Peterman, 136 La. 14,
66 S. 381.
330-26 S. t\ Childress, 127 Minn. 533,
149 N. W. 550.
331-30 Cook r. Suburban Realty Co.,
20 Cal. App. 538, 129 P. 801; Helms v.
Cook (Ind. App.), 108 X. E. 147; Smith
r. Hibben (Ind. App'.), 107 N. E. 40;
Succession of Morris, 136 La. 69, 66 S.
542; Frederick v. Marx, 127 La. 149,
53 S. 474; Thorne v. Harris, 35 Okla.
645, 130 P. 906; Honley t?. First Nat.
Bank, 35 Okla. 649, 130 P. 945; Mar-
tinez V. Succession of Laurido, 21 P. R.
29; Candelas v. Ramirez, 20 P. R. 31.
Premature appeal is ground for dis-
missal. White Prov. Co. v. Nashville R.
Co., 142 Ga, 855, 83 S. E. 943.
Effect of Joinder in error. — A joinder in
error is an unequivocal act implying
a submission by the appellee to the
jurisdiction of the appellate court, and
amounts to a waiver of an appeal, and
of any steps required to effectuate it.
Coats V. M. J. Elkan & Co., 7 Ala. App.
187, 60 S. 941.
331-32 Pruett v. Charlotte Power
Co., 167 N. C. 598, 83 S. E. 830.
Failure to except to a non-suit does
80
APPEALS
Vol. 2
not deprive the appellate court of jur-
isdiction of an appeal from the order.
P. r. Journal, 213 N. Y. 1, 106 N. E.
759.
331-34 S. V, Cobb, 134 La. 207, 63
S. 877.
332-42 Bacord on sabseqaent appeal
consists of the record on file in the
previous appeal, together with a copy
of 80 much of the proceedings of the
lower court as have taken place since
the cause was remanded on th^a first ap-
peal. Carey «. Hawaiian Lumb. Mills,
21 Hawaii 506.
334-52 ComitB to wUch damnrrer la
sustained, if in the record, may be con-
sidered in ascertaining whether an
amended declaration states a new cause
of action. Vogrin v. American Steel
k W. Co., 263 111. 474, 105 N. E. 332.
Camp. Bedington v. Oomwell, 90 Cal*
49, 27 P. 40.
Most be part of lower record. — ''A
pleading merely tendered and not filed
or made a part of the record of the
lower court by an order of that court,
although copied into the record by the
clerk, is not a part of the record, and
cannot be considered on appeal." C. v,
Pittsburg By. Co., 163 Ky. 645, 174 S.
W. 29, dt. National Concrete C. Co. v.
Duvall, 150 Ky. 192, 150 S. W. 46;
Lewis' Admr. v. B. Co., 147 Ky. 460,
144 S. W. 377, 39 L. B. A. (N. 8.) 929;
McGrew's Ezr. r. Congleton, 139 Ky.
515, 102 S. W. 1185; Weimer's Admr.
V Smith, 30 Ky. L. B. 1311, 101 8. W.
327.
33S-53 Bray v. Lowery, 163 Cal. 256,
124 Pac. 1004; New Albany r. Strack
(Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 547. See Boca
ft L. B. Co. r. Sierra Val. B. Co., 2 Cal.
App. 546, 84 P. 298. But see Beding-
ton V, Com well, 90 Cal. 49, 27 P. 40.
335-55 Continental Casualty Co. v*
Ogburn, 186 Ala. 398, 64 S. 619; Ten-
nessee Val. Bank v, S. M. ATery ft
Sons, 9 Ala. App. 363, 63 S. 813; P. r.
American Life Ins. Co. (HI.), 108 N.
E. 679; Mann V. Brown, 263 HI. 394,
105 N. E. 328.
335-57 Contra, Henry v. Monte-
zuma W, ft L. Co., 55 Colo. 182, 133 P.
747.
Ineofporatlng motions in record. — Mo-
tions of all sorts by which judicial ac-
tion is invoked during the progress of
the trial and the rulings thereon are
not parts of the record proper, and
their incorporation therein does not
make them such. They should be set
out in a bill of exceptions. Ex parte
Watters, 180 Ala. 523, 61 S. 904.
336-58 P. L. Turner Beal Estate Co.
t\ Anson (Wyo.), 142 P. 1052.
337-62 Stagway v. Biker (N. J. L.),
88 A. 1067.
337-63 The judgment roll is no part
of the record on appeal from an order
vacating a default judgment. Beller v.
Le Bouef (Mont.), 145 P. 945; Emer-
son V. McNair, 28 Mont. 578, 73 P. 121.
338-68 S. €. Powell, 184 Ala. 46, 63
S. 542; In re Shirey's Estate, 167 Cal.
193, 138 P. 994; Hicks Merc. Co, v.
Mu8gN)ve (Miss.), 67 S. 213; Liles r.
May, 105 Miss. 807, 63 S. 217; Glass v,
Gould, 41 Okla. 424, 138 P. 796; Coach
t?. Gage, 70 Or. 182, 138 P. 847.
338-70 Chambers r. Land Credit
Trust Co., 92 Kan. 1032, 142 P. 248.
339-74 In re He Laveaga's Est., 165
Cal. 607, 133 P. 307; Katterhenry r.
Ai;^nsman (Ind.), 108 N. E. 101; Hin-
shaw t?. Security Trust Co., 48 Ind. App.
351, 93 N. E. 567.
339-75 Jones v. Lee, 43 Okla. 257,
142 P. 996.
340-80 Polkinghorn v, Biverside
Portland C. Co., 24 Cal. App. 615, 142
P. 140.
840-81 Pantaze v. West, 7 Ala. App.
599, 61 S. 42; Jones v. Lee, 43 Okla.
257, 142 P. 996; Gulf, etc. B. Co. v.
Higginbotham (Tex. Civ.), 173 S. W.
482.
340-82 Hofreiter «. Schwabland, 72
Wash. -314, 130 P. 364.
340-84 Noblesville Business Men's
Assn. 17. Capital Furniture Mfg. Co.
(Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 85; Bacon v.
George, 216 Mass. 519, 104 N. E. 382;
Jones V, Lee, 43 Okla. 257, 142 P. 996;
Schollmeyer v. Van Buskirk, 35 Okla.
439, 130 P. 138; Nelson f». St. Helens,
Timber Co., 66 Or. 570, 133 P. 1167, 135
P. 169.
Notice of motion for a new trial is no
part of the record. Cross r. Mayo, 167
Cal. 594, 140 P. 283.
341-86 Bradley v. Bradley, 123 Md.
506, 91 A. 685.
341-91 Cable v. Myers, 43 Okla. 302,
142 P. 1114.
342-93 Nelms v. S. (Ark.), 174 S.
W. 233; Zalewski v. Waterbury Mfg.
81
Vol. 2
APPEALS
Co. (Oonn.)i 92 A. 682. See also vol.
4, p. 292.
342-95 McCall Co. 9. Smith (Ark.),
173 S. W. 845.
342-2 Mason v. Harlow, 92 Kan.
1042, 142 P. 243; Oklahoma Pire Ins.
Co. v. Kimpel, 39 Okla. 339, 135 P. 65
Bean v, Atkins (Vt.), 8y A. 643.
343-3 Upshaw v, S., 11 Ala. App.
810, 66 S. 821; Swope <?. Sherman, 7
Ala. App. 210, 60 S. 474; Marsicano v.
Phillips, 6 Ala. App. 229, 60 S. 553;
Bean v. Northern Trust Co., 259 111.
148, 102 N. E. 244; Ev^nsville Furni-
ture Co. V, Fruman (Ind. App.), 107
N. E. 27; Dennis v. Independent School
Dist. (la.), 148 N. W. 1011; Pile v.
Bank tff Flemington (Mo. App.), 173
5. W. 60.
Consolidating actions. — The record
must show that court refused upon
motion to consolidate actions, or the
error will be waived. Trabue v. Guar-
anty State Bank (Tex. Civ.), 173 S. W.
612.
345-11 Properly organized tribunal.
Record must show that the court ren-
dering the decision was properly or-
ganized pursuant to law. Allen v,
Scruggs (Ala.), 67 S. 301; Commission-
ers' Court V. Ballard, 4 Ala. App. 310,
59 S. 191.
345-12 That circuit court had appel-
late Jurisdiction in the cause must be
shown where that court had no original
jurisdiction in the matter. Illinois
Central B. Co. r. Burleson, 4 Ala. App.
384, 59 S. 230.
346-16 Order of Calanthe «. Arm-
strong, 7 Ala. App. 378, 62 S. 269.
On collateral attack, a general recital
in the judgment entry, of legal notice
by publication, is sufficient to support
the judgment. McMahan t?. Browne,
185 Ala. 272, 64 S. 553; White v. Simp-
son, 124 Ala. 238, 27 S. 297; Soulard
r. Vacuum Oil Co., 109 Ala. 387, 19
S. 414.
Constructive notice. — ^Where the notice
to a defendant is constructive only
and he does not appear, the facts con-
stituting a compliance with the statute
must be proved to and found by the
court to have been done; and on ap-
peal the record must show it. Mc-
Mahan f?. Brown, 185 Ala, 272, 64 S.
553; White f?. Simpson, 107 Ala. 386,
18 S. 151; Diston v. Hood, 83 Ala. 331,
3 S. 746.
:;47-20 Joinder of issue.— The rec-
ord need not show a joinder of issue
between the parties. Craddock v.
Walden, 184 Ala. 58, 63 S. 534.
?^'^'^K ^*^ ^' Cardwell, 5 Ala. App.
481, 59 S. 514; Graves v. Jenkins (Ind.
App.), 108 N. E. 531.
347-22 Shanan v. Brown, 179 Ala.
425, 60 S. 891; Sovereign Camp. W. O.
W. f?. Jones, 11 Ala. App. 433, 66 S.
348-24 Where the original pleading
is necessary to a determination of the
propriety of the amendment, it may be
considered on the appeal if in the rec-
ord. Redington v, Cornwell, 90 Cal. 49,
27 Pac. 40. Comp. Bray t?. Lowery, 163
Cal. 256, 124 P. 1004.
348-27 Warble v, Sulzberger Co., 185
Ala. 603, 64 S. 361; General Accident
Fire & L. Ins. Co. v. Shields, 9 Ala.
App. 214, 62 S. 400; SulUvan r. Brown,
67 Fla. 133, 64 S. 455; Bottema v.
Tracy (Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 741.
A recital in the Judgment entry that
demurrers were overruled not sufficient.
Glenn Befining Co. v, Webster, 5 Ala.
App. 441, 59 S. 717.
A recital in the minutes of the court
will not present for review a ruling
upon demurrer. White v. Steele, 5
Ala. App. 532, 59 S. 713.
Bulings upon the demurrers must be
shown, otherwise the appellate court
cannot pass upon the sufficiency of the
pleading demurred to. Prattville Cot-
ton Mills Co. V. McKinney, 178 Ala.
554, 59 S. 498.
349-34 McDuffie & Sons v. Weeks, 9
Ala. App. 282, 63 8. 739; Eckler v.
Wake, 87 Conn. 708, 88 A. 369; St.
Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Kendle,
163 Ky. 146, 173 S. W. 373.
350-37 Goulding Fertilizer Co. v.
Johnson, 65 Fla. 195, 61 S. 441; Sul-
livan V. Atchison, T. & S. F. B. Co.,
262 HI. 317, 104 N. E. 707; Noblesville
Assn. t?. Capital Furniture Mfg. Co.
(Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 85; Evansville
Furniture Co. f?. Freeman (Ind. App.),
107 N. E. 27. See also 4 Standard
Prog. 306, and supplement thereto.
350-38 Buford r. Graden, 5 Ala.
App. 421, 59 S. 368.
350-39 Glenn Befining Co. v. Wes-
ter, 5 Ala. App. 441, 59 S. 717: S. v,
Connelly, 34 S. D. 520, 149 N. W. 360.
A rule of the trial court» set out in
the record and authenticated by the
certificate of the judge who sat in the
case, is properly before the appellate
8?
APPEALS
Vol 2
eoart Wagner v. Freeny, 123 Md. 24,
90 A. 774.
351-40 O'Hare i^. Gloag (Mass.),
108 N. £. 566; Oliver v. Pettaconsett
Const Co., 36 B. I. 477, 90 A. 764.
351-41 Barnes & Jessnp Co. v. Wil-
liams, 64 Fla. 190, 60 S. 787.
351-43 Stamps v, Thomas, 7 Ala.
App. 622, 62 S. 314; Hall r. CardweU,
5 Ala. App. 481, 59 8. 514; Lyons v,
Armstrong, 142 6a. 257, 82 S. E. 651;
Selectmen v. Elwell, 219 Mass. 287,
106 N. E. 994; Taft v. Henry, 219 Mass.
78, 106 N. E. 553; Hicks Merc. Co. i'.
MusgroTe (Miss.), 67 S. 213; Elm City
Lumb. Co. r. Childerhose, 167 N. C.
34, 83 S. £. 22; Stout v. Railroad, 157
N. C. 366, 72 8. E. 993; Graham v. At-
wood, 41 Okla. 30, 136 P. 1080; Worrell
t. Fellows, 39 Okla. 769, 136 P. 750;
Gault t?. Thurmond, 39 Okla. 673, 136
P. 742; Homeland Bealty Co. r. Bob-
ison, 39 Okla. 591, 136 P. 585; Jones
r. State Bank, 39 Okla. 393, 135 P.
373; Palmer V. Clemens Horst Co., 66
Or. 33, 133 P. 634; Laughlin v. Mt.
Carmel & Locust Gap Transit Co., 241
Pa. 281, 88 A. 441; International Dev.
Co. t?. Sanger, 75 Wash. 546, 135 P. 28;
Iowa State Sav. Bank t?. Henry (Wyo.),*
136 P. 86^. See also 4 Stakdasd Pboc.
307, and supplement thereto.
352-44 Brannon f7. Birmingham, 177
Ala. 419, 59 S. 63; Continental G. Co.
r. Milbrat, 10 Ala. App. 351, 65 S. 425 ;
McCray v. Whitney (Ind. App.), 104
N". E. 979; Van Arsdale -Osborne Brok-
erage Co. V, Wiley, 40 Okla. 651, 140
P. 153; In re Colling 's Guardianship,
40 Okla. 629, 140 P. 141; Clark t?.
Moaer (S, D.), 150 N. W. 475; Fred-
erick t?. Morse (Vt.), 92 A. 16.
When all tlie evldeiiee is not Incor-
porated, only matters which do not re-
quire an examination of the evidence
can be determined by the supreme
court. Casner «?. Streit, 42 Okla. 710,
142 P. 1004; Weleetka Light & Water
Co. V. Castleborry, 42 Okla. 745, 142 P.
1006. * "
Ezdnded docnmentaxy evidence cannot
be considered on appeal even though
incorporated in the abstract. Schworm
r. Fraternal Bankers' Beserve Soc.
(la.), 150 N. W. 714.
A literal rebearsal of aU the testimony
will be considered only on the ques-
tions of directed verdict and non-
sait Oliver v. Grande Bonde Grain
Co. (Or.), 142 P. 541. .
The fact that no stenographer was
present at the taking of testimony
does not prevent the parties from in-
corporating such evidence in the rec-
ord. Wood V. MaCain, 84 0. D. 544,
149 N. W. 426.
352-47 Ewton v. McCracken, 9 Ala.
App. 619, 64 S. 177.
352-48 Hale v. Tennessee Coal, Iron
& B. Co., 183 Ala. 507, 62 S. 783; Fair-
banks V. Warrum (Ind. App.), 104 N.
E. 983; Blodgett v. Ahem, 217 Mass.
262, 104 N. E. 484; Supreme Lodge v.
Liberty Trust Co., 215 Mass. 27, 102
N. E. 96; Mathews v, Colburn, 215
Mass. 571, 102 N. E. 941; Kaufman i;.
Butte, 48 Mont. 400, 138 P. 770; First
N^t. Life Assur. Soc. t?. Farquhar, 75
Wash. 667, 135 P. 619.
353-49 Lyons v. Armstrong, 142 Ga.
257, 82 S. E. 651; Oliver v, Grande
Bonde Grain Co. (Or.), 142 P. 541.
353-51 Miller v. Armstrong-Land on
Co., 53 Ind. App. 501, 102 N. E. 47;
Cassanova v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 173 S. .W.
662.
858-52 Hutto v. Gamer, 7 Ala. App.
412, 61 S. 477; Houston, etc. B. Co.
r. Cavanaugh (Tex. Civ.), 173 S. W.
619.
354-53 McLaughlin v. Beyer, 181
Ala. 427, 61 S. 62; Owen v. Alabama
Great Southern By., 181 Ala. 552, 61
S. 924; Middlebrooks v. Sanders, 180
Ala. 407, 61 S. 898.
355-56 General Accident Fire & Life
Ins. Co. V. Shields, 9 Ala. App. 214, 62
S. 400; Louisville & N. By. Co. v. Shep-
herd, 7 Ala. App. 496, 61 S. 14; Ottum-
wa f7. McCarthy Imp. Co. (la.), 1'50
K W. 586; Com. v. Segee, 218 Mass.
501, 106 N. E. 173.
355-57 Handley v, Shaffer, 177 Ala.
636, 59 S. 286; Birmingham By., L. &
P. Co. V. Canfleld, 177 Ala. 422, 59
S. 217; Central of Georgia B. V. Mathis,
9 Ala. App. 643, 64 S. 197.
358-65 Ewart Lumb. Co. v. American
Cement P. Co. (Ala. App.), 62 S. 560;
Torson v. Beckley, 20 Hawaii 406;
Suloj V, Betlaw Mines Co. (Ind. App.),
107 N. E. 18; Patterson v. State Bank,
55 Ind. App. 331, 102 N. E. 880; St.
Albans Granite Co. v. El well & Co.
(Vt.), 92 A. 974.
A charge not made part of the bill
of exceptions cannot be considered on
review though printed in the record.
Smith V. Granite Co., 118 Me, 297 98
A. 103.
83
Vol. 2
APPEALS
Necessity for numbering Insirnetlons.
While the practice of submitting
charges without numbering them is to
be condemned^ yet the failure to do
so does not relieve the appellate court
from the duty of considering t^em.
The appellee or the appellate court
may number them for reference. Cen-
tral of Georgia Ry. Co. v, Stewart, 178
Ala. 651, 59 S. 507.
A strict constmction will be given a
statute providing that all instructions
requested, whether given or refused,
and all instructions, given by the court
of its own motion, shall be filed with
the clerk, and unless the record af-
firmatively shows that the instructions
were filed in accordance therewith,
such instructions are not a part of the
record and cannot be considered on ap-
peal. Suloj V. Betlaw Mines Co. (Ind.
App.), 107 N. E. 18.
358-66 Baltimore Ss 0. S. W. B. Co.
V, McCord (Ind. App.), 105 N. E. 516.
359-67 Brown v, S., 11 Ala; App.
321, 66 S. 829; Marsicano v, Phillips,
6 Ala. App. 229, 60 8. 553 : Indianapolis
Traction & Term. Co. v. Gillaspy (Ind.
I App.), 105 N. E. 242; Burrus v. S.
(Tex. Cr.), 172 S. W. 981. See also 4
Standard Prog. 316, and supplement
thereto.
359-68 Hodge v. Toyah, etc. Trr. Co.
(Tex. Civ.), 174 S. W. 334; Stephen-
ville, N. & St. B. Co. r. Wheat (Tex.
Civ.), 173 S. W. 974.
360-71 Bridgman v. Boss (Ala.
App.), 64 S. 173; Mondioli r. American
Bldg. Co. (Wash.), 145 P. 577.
360-74 Gumm v, Ferguson, 71 Or.
66, 142 P. 341.
Special findings not authorized by law.
Findings not assigned as error, and
which were made sometime after the
judgment was rendered and subsequent
to the signing of the bill of exceptions
will not be considered. Wells v. Louis-
ville & N. R. Co., 6 Ala. App. 579,
59 S. 343.
360-77 English f?. English (Ind.
App.), 106 N. E. 643; Shuler v. Collins,
4C Okla. 126, 136 P. 752; Shives f?. Froh-
berg, 40 Okla. 85, 136 P. 399; Walton
V. Kennamer, 39 Okla. 629, 136 P. 584;
Iowa S. Sav. Bank r. Henry (Wyo.),
136 P. 863.
361-78 Bottema r. Tracy (Ind.
App.), 107 N. E. 741; Mangan v.
Woodward <Mo. App.), 174 S. W. 121.
361-79 Cross v. -Mayo, 167 Cal. 594,
140 P. 283.
362-80 Alabama Great Southern By.
r. Taylor, 7 Ala. App. 683, 61 S. 475;
Mobley v. Chicago, B. I. ft P. B. Co.
(Okla.), 145 P. 321; Jones v. Bilby, 43
Okla. 330, 143 P. 330.
362-81 Where waiyer of notice of
entry of tlie Judgment is claimed, the
record must show sufficient facts to
constitute a waiver. Hughes Mfg. fr
Lumb. Co. r. Elliott, 167 CaL 494, 140
P. 17.
Suffidenoy of showing. — ^The conclusion
reached by the trial court is sufficient-
ly shown where the bill of exceptions
states that the court "handed down
a judgment for the plaintiff Peters
V, Brunswick -Balke-Callender Co., 6
Ala. App. 507, 60 S. 431.
362-82 The voltintary character of
a nonsuit is sufficiently shown 'where
it appears that a demurrer was sus-
tained to the complaint for a defect
which went to the whole cause of
action. Ex parte Martin, ISO Ala. 620,
61 S. 905.
362-83 Shockman t\ Buthruff, 28 N.
D. 597, 149 N. W. 680.
Waiver ef written notice of entry of
Judgment must be shown by the record.
Hartfield v. Alderete, 25 Cal. App. 732,
145 P. 146.
363-85 Beason v. Gray (Ala.), 66 8.
646 (bill of exceptions not signed in
time, stricken out); P. €. Bosenwaid,
266 Bl. 548, 107 N. B. 854; English r.
English (Ind.), 107 N. E. 547; Graves
r. Jenkins (Ind. App.), 108 N. E. 531;
Waddle v. Smith (Ind. App.), 108 N. E.
537. See also 4 Standasd Pboo. 370,
n. 54.
Identifying bill of ezceptionB. — ^The file
mark of the clerk is alone insufficient
to ' identify the bill of exceptions and
make it a part of the record, but it
may be a means of such identification
when taken in connection with the
order book entry and the judge's cer-
tificate. Thompson t?. Michigan Mut.
Life Ins. Co. (Ind. App.), 105 N. E.
780.
363-86 Catlin v, Yandegrift (Colo.),
144 P. 894.
Filing Of affidavit for appeal need not
be shown upon the record. Spybuck
Drainage Diet. No. 1 v. St. Francis
County (Ark.), 172 S. W. 893,
363-88 Bothlisberger r. Hamblin, 15
Ariz. 274, 138. P, 14,
84
APPEALS
Vol. 2
S6d-S0 Snmpter r. First Nat. Bk.,
67 FU. 413^ 65 S. 458.
S64-90 fimith r. Algona Lumb. Co.
(Or.), 136 P. 7.
364-93 Contents of.— ^ee Mangan 17.
Woodward (Mo. App.), 174 S. W. 131.
Poxm of abstract. — A copy of the full
record does not meet the requirement
as to an abstract. Johnson v, Ambur>
sen Hydranlic Const. Co. (Mo. App.),
173 8. W. 1081. See the title "State-
ment and Abstract of Case."
36e-96 Todd i^. Carter, 43 Okla. 238,
142 P. 996; O'Donnell v. McCool, 81
Wash. 452, 142 P. 1135.
366-97 Bartlett f. Lee, 136 La. 41,
66 S. 390; Hicks Merc. Co. !?. Musgrove
(Miss.), 67 8. 213.
366-99 Baca f. Unknown Heirs of
Jacinto Palaez (N. M.), 146 P.^ 945.
The court may ordsr the appellant to
farnish a copy of the stenographer's
minutes for the purpose of his appeal.
Gray V. Mossman, 88 Conn. 247. 90 A.
938.
867-4 Praecipe limits tbe record*
Only such papers and entries as are
mentioned in the praecipe are properly
a part of the record on appeal. Any
paper or entry not mentioned in such
praecipe is no part of the record, even
if copied into the transcript and cer-
tified by the clerk. King v. Steel Co.,
177 Ind. 201, 96 N. E. 337, 97 N. E.
529; Guynn t\ Newman, 174 Ind. 161,
90 N. E. 759; Workman v, S., 165 Ind.
42, 73 N. E. 917; Boos i?. Lang, 163
Ind. 445, 71 N. E. 120; Alexandria v.
Ldebler, 162 Ind. 438, 70 N. E. 512;
McCaslin v. Advance Mfg. Co., 155 Ind.
298, 58 N. E. 67; King v. Hoover (Ind.
App.), 105 N. E. 172; Holtz v. Trust
Co., 53 Ind. App. 194, 100 K. E. 398.
S67-7 Twiggs r. Williams, 98 8. C.
431, 82 8. E. 676.
Date of trlaL— The date of the trial
should be shown by the abstract since
sneh date is sometimes material in
passing upon the evidence. Dake v.
Ward (la.), 150 N. W. 60.
367-9 Xoblesville Assn. v. Capital
Parniture Mfg. Co. (Ind. App.), 107
N. E. 85.
367-10 Baca r. Unknown Heirs of
Jacinto Palaez (N. M.), 146 P. 945;
Glass r. Gould, 41 Okla. 424, 138 P.
796; Twigps t?. Williams, 98 8. C. 431,
82 8« E. 676.
The printed record must be in substan-
tial coBformity with the settled case.
where the sufficiency of the evidence
to sustain the verdict is challenged.
Watre v. Great Northern E. Co., 127
Minn. 118, 149 N. W. 18.
368-14 Baca i\ Unknown Heirs of
Jacinto Palaez (N. M.), 146 P. 045.
869-15 Exhibits not xrroperly identi-
fied as having been, received in evi-
dence, and bearing no indication that
they were filed with the clerk of the
trial court, will not be considered. Mc-
Farland r. Oregon Elec. B. Co. (Or.),
138 P. 458.
869-16 Chambers r. Land Credit
Trust Co., 92 Kan. 1032, 142 P. 248.
370-22 Marsicano v, Phillips, 6 Ala.
App. 229, 60 8. 553; Hoopeston Drain-
age Dist. t?. Honeywell, 259 111. 145, 102
N. E. 297: Flatter r. 8. (Ind.), 107
N. E. 9.
Absence of bill of exceptions. — ^Where
the transcript contains no bill of ex-
ceptions, and the proceedings shown by
the record proper are regular and sus-
tain a conviction* the conviction must
be affirmed. Webb r. S., 11 Ala. App.
306, 66 8. 870; Davis v. 8., 11 Ala.
App. 679, 66 8. 913.
870-24 Bullenbarger v. Ahrens (Ia.)»
150 N. W. 71; Twiggs v. Williams, 98
8. C. 431, 82 8. E. 676.
Time for binding tbe transcript. — ^Where
the law requiring the transcript to be
bound does not specify the time for
such binding, it must be done before
filing in the appellate court. King v»
Hoover (Ind. App.), 105 N. E. 172.
370-26 Mitchell v. Mason, 65 Pla.
208, 61 8. 579: Twiggs v. Williams, 98
8. C. 431, 82 8. E. 676.
371-28 Union Trust & Sav. Bank r.
Amery, 81 Wash. 133, 142 P. 492.
371-29 Hudgins r. Pickens County,
9 Ala. App. 228, 62 8. 995; George
Gifford Co. v. Willman, 187 Mo. App.
29, 173 8. W. 53.
371-31 Lowenberg r. L. Jacobson's
Sons, 25 Cal. App. 790, 145 P. 734;
Makateh v, 8., 5 Okla. Cr. 34, 113 P.
200; Rail Grain Co. v. First State
Bank, 39 Okla. 786, 136 P. 744; For-
tune V. Parks, 29 Okla. 698, 119 P.
134; Bruce r. Casey -Swasey Co., 13
Okla. '554, 75 P. 280.
372-33 Daniels v, Butler (Ia.)j 149
N. W. 265.
Wlien Judge may certify transcriptr
Where the transcript of the record pre-
pared consists entirely of the papers
85
Vol. 2
APPEALS
constituting the judgment roll it is
properly certified by the clerk. The
only transcript which the judge is re-
quired or authorized to certify is that
containing the testimony and other pro-
ceedings which are had in the trial of
issues of fact. Jaques r. Board of
Suprs., 22 €al. App. 627, 135 P. 686.
372-34 Casner c. Streit, 42 Okla.
710, 142 P. 1004.
372-35 Carter Coal Co. v. Clouse,
163 Ky. 337, 173 S. W. 794.
Contradicting Judge's certificate
Judge's certificate showing proper fil-
ing cannot be contradicted by sten-
ographer's certificate. Carter Coal Co.
t*. Clouse, l63 Ky. 337, 173 S. W.
794.
372-^7 Childers 17. Fleetwood, 39
Okla. 455, 135 P. 931, form of cer-
tificate.
373-41 In re Simons' Will, 266 111.
304, 107 N. E. 613.
373-42 Evansville Furniture Co. v.
Freeman (Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 27;
Childers <?. Fleetwood, 39 Okla. 455,
135 P. 931.
374-43 McCowen v. Trumann, 22
Cal. App. 361, 134 P. 341; Miller v.
Mencken, 124 Md. 673, 93 A. 219.
Filing with the clerk is sufficient
though the statute designates the dep-
uty clerk. Central Oregon Irr. Co. v.
Whited (Or.), 142 P. 779.
375-53 Smith r. Hibben (Ind. App.),
107 N. E. 40; Schultze v, Maley (Ind.
App.), 105 N. E. 942.
Effect of motion for new trial. — ^When
a party appealing from a judgment
has given notice of motion for a new
trial before perfecting the appeal, the
time for filing a transcript does not
begin to tun until the motion for a
new trial has been decided or the pro-
ceeding therefor dismissed. Baker t\
Filers Music Co., 24 Cal. App. 348, 804,
141 P. 395.
376-55 Excepting to sureties. — ^The
appeal is perfected upon the expiration
of the time allowed to except to
sureties and the transcript must be
filed within thirty days thereafter.
Sabin v, Owens Const. Co., 69 Or. 269,
138 P. 844.
376-56 Or after the date of its cer-
tification.— Jaques v. Board of Suprs.,
22 Cal. App. 627, 135 P. 686.
376-61 Kaneohe Banch Co. v. Kane*
ohe Eico MiU Co., 21 Hawaii 173.
The appellate conrt has no po^er to
extend the time for perfecting appeal.
Rook r. Strauss Bros. Co. (Ind. App.)-
107 N-. E. 692.
ConUusiveness of ex parte aflidavlt.
An ex parte affidavit upon which ap*
pellant obtains an extension of time
in which to file the transcript is not
conclusive of the rights of the oppos-
ing litigant who has not been heard.
Oertling v. Commonwealth Bonding &
C. Co., 134 La. 26, 63 S. 611.
377-62 In re Est. of Sniffen, 20
Hawaii 40.
377-66 O. H. Broun, Jr., Timber Co.
V, Coleman (Ala.), 67 S. 243; Buck
Creek Lumb. Co. V, Nelson (Ala.), 66
S. 476; Sampite f. Deslouche, 135 La.
330, 65 S. 479; Vasquez v. Vasquez,
132 La. 1008, 62 S. 123; Eichardson t?-
Cobb, 130 La. 203, 57 S. 889; Miller
V. Mencken, 124 Md. 673, 93 A. 219;
Bradley v. Bradley, 123 Md. 506, 91
A. 685; J. J. Newman Lumb. Co. v,
Lucas (Miss.), 67 S. 216; Buckhorn L.
& T. Co. V. McKay (N. C), 82 S. E.
958; Todd v. Page, 40 Okla. 19, 1,35
P. 737; Schmidt v. Beatie, 67 Or. 24S,
135 P. 875.
Prematnre filing. — An appeal will not
be dismissed because the transcript ia
prematurely filed. S. v. Patterson, 13-4
La. 875, 64 S. 805.
378-68 First caU of the dlvisloii.
Where the record is filed at the firsi
call of the division to which it be-
longs, although after the time pre-
scribed for the filing, the appeal will
not be dismissed. Schloss-Sheffield
Steel & I. Co. t?. Webster, 183 Ala. 322,
62 S. 764; National Union v. Sherry,
180 Ala. 627, 61 S. 944.
378-70 Kaneohe Banch Co. f. Kane-
ohe Rice Mill Co., 21 Hawaii 173.
378-74 Illness of official stenog-
rapher resulting in failure to obtain,
transcript is no excuse for failure to
file the record in time. Yazoo & M.
V. B. Co. V, Dampeer (Miss.), 66 S.
814.
379-83 OUar-Bobinson Co. v. O 'Neill,
80 Wash. 1, 141 P.^ 194.
380-84 Hodges f?. Wright, 81 Wash.
321, 142 P. 692; Ollar-Eobinson Co. r.
O'Neill, 80 Wash. 1, 141 P. 194.
380-85 Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. r.
Shields, 182 Ala.. 106, 62 S. 71; General
Accident Fire & L. Ins. Co. 17. Shielda,
9 Ala. App. 214, 62 S. 400.
I The record will control the bill of ex-
Si
APPEALS
Vol. 2
eeptions when they differ as to a mat-
ter. Bruce v. Citizens' Nat. Bank, 185
Ala. 221, 64 8. 82; Mann v. Bar den, 6
Ala. App. 555, 60 S. 454. And a dis-
crepancy between the record and the
attorney's brief will be resolved in
favor of the record. Liles v. May, 105
Miss. 807, 63 S. 217; Carrier Lumb. &
Mfg. Co. V. Boxley, 103 Miss. 489, 60
S. 645.
381-89 Button v. S., 123 Md. 373, 91
A. 417; Neville V. Miller (Tex. Civ.),
171 S. W. 1109.
381-90 Burbank r. Farnham (Mass.),
107 N. B. 351.
381-91 Eaton v. Klein (Tex. Civ.),
174 S. W. 331.
Impeaching bill of ezceptionSb — A bill
of exceptions incorporated into the rec-
ord cannot be impeached by a showing
on affidavit of the trial judge that he
was misled into signing it. The proper
procedure is to have the record cor-
rected in the trial court. Neville V.
Miller (Tex. Civ.), 171 S. W. 1109. See
also vol. 4, p. 362, n. 30.
382-98 Bernier r. Woodstock Agr.
Soc, 88 Conn. 558, 92 A. 160.
382-94 Scott 17. American Zinc, L.
i: S. Co., 187 Mo. App. 344, 173 S. W.
23.
Supplying lost pap6r& — ^It is within
the court's discretion to permit a sub-
stitution of other papers in place of
portions of the record lost. Watts v.
Chicago & E. I. B. Co. (Ind. App.), 104
N. £. 42. But where papers are missing
in lower court a motion to substitute
lost papers and for certiorari will not
lie. Brown Grain Co. v. Farmers &
M. Nat. Bank (Tex. Civ.), 173 S. W.
942.
383-95 Williams v. Pacific Surety
Co. (Or.), 146 P. 147.
Incomplete ceitlflcate may be supple-
mented before final submission of the
case. Steenslalid v. Hess, 25 Ida. J81,
136 P. 1124; Smith v. Inter-Mountain
Auto Co., 25 Ida. 212, 136 P. 1125.
A snpplemexitMy record containing a
supersedeas bond may be permitted
after the opinion in the case has been
delivered and before the mandate is-
sues. Chesapeake & O. K. Co. v. Kelly's
Admx., 161 Ky. 660, 171 S. W. 182.
S83-97 0. H. Broun, Jr., Timber Co.
r. Coleman (Ala.), 67 S. 248.
fiedtals in tbe certification of the evi-
doioe may be thus stricken out. Phoe-
nix, etc. Co. I?. Sinclair ft Co. <Ia.), 151
N. W. 462.
383-98 Unless approved by trial
Judge.— Eaton v. Klein (Tex. Civ.), 174
S. W. 331.
384-4 P. V, Holbrook (HI.), 107 K
E. 830; Burbank v, Farnham (Mass.),
107 N. E. 351.
385-6 Further proof than counsel's
aifidavlt is required where opposing
counsel files a sworn answer denying
the facts set out in the affidavit. Wil-
cox f>. Downing, 88 Conn. 368, 91 A.
262.
386-17 Varnon v, Nabors (Ala.), 66
S. 593; North Birmingham Trust ft Sav.
Bank v. Adams, 184 Ala. 564, 63 S.
1022; Chenoweth 9. Budge (Ariz.), 145
P. 406; Waggoner v. Saether, 267 HI.
32, 107 N. E. 859; Weil v. Federal Life
Ins. Co., 264 111. 425, 106 N; E. 246.
386-18 Bosenau v, Powell, 184 Ala.
396, 63 S. 1020.
387-21 Proceedings to determine ap-
pealability.— The question as to wheth-
er a cause is appealable to the cir-
cuit court from the common pleas can
be raised only by motion in the cir-
cuit court to dismiss the appeal and
not by motion for a new trial. Inde-
pendent Brew. Co. v. Stewart (Ohio),
105 N. E. 143.
387-22 Appellant has no right to
dismiss his appeal where appellee's
motion for affirmance is well taken.
Hubbell V. Armijo, 18 N. M. 68, 133 P.
978; Acequia Madre V. Meyer, 17 N.
M. 371, 128 P. 68.
387-23 Minneapolis, St. P. B. ft D.
Elec. Tract. Co. v. Goodspeed (Minn.),
150 N. W. 222.
Where the public is interested the case
will not be dismissed upon appellant's
motion. Bussell v. Crook County Court
(Or.), 145 P. 653.
387-24 Oertling r. Commonwealth
Bonding ft C. Co., 134 La. 26, 63 S.
6n: Cahn v. Wright (Miss.), 66 S.
782.
388-25 O. W. Zaring ft Co. v. Hum-
phreys (Pla.), 65 S. 665,
388-26 McCutchen v. Hudson, 132
La. 177, 61 S. 157.
388-27 Wilson r. Fisher, 92 Kan.
786, 142 P. 241; Lafayette Realty Co.
V. Poor, 136 La. 472, 67 8. 335; Bich-
ardson v. Thompson, 40 Okla. 348, 138
P. 177; Gutierrez v, Diaz, 20 P. B. 252;
Orosas v. Gutierrez, 20 P. B. 249 j Fer-
87
Vol. 2
APPEALS
nandez v, Eosado, 20 P. B. 69; Mar-
tinez V, Am. R. B. Co., 20 P. B. 49.
Necessary parties must be brought in
or the appeal will be dismissed. White
Lumb. Co. V. Beasley (Okla.), 146 P.
1082.
Defective organization of trial court.
An appeal will be dismissed where the
record fails to show that what pur-
ports to be the judgment presented for
review was rendered by a court organ-
ized pursuant to law. Gallahar v. In-
gram & Co., 9 Ala. App. 432, 62 8. 989;
Hudgins t?. Pickens County, 9 Ala. App.
228, 62 S. 995.
That the trial court did not have Jur*
Isdlction is cause for dismissal. Cen-
tral of Georgia By. v. Coursen, 8 Ala.
App. 589, 62 S. 977; Fourth Nat. Bank
V. Mead, 214 Mass. 549, 102 N. E. 69.
389-28 Agee r. Gate, 180 Ala. 522,
61 S, 900 (where the decision of ques-
tions presented would be useless; held
court will not review the case merely
to place responsibility for costs); Wil-
son V, Chesley, 23 Cal. App. 630, 138
P. 958; Bernard v. Weaber, 23 Cal.
App. 532, 138 P. 941; Nichols v.
Katres, 57 Colo. 471, 140 P. 792; Cory-
ell 17. Fawcett, 54 Colo. 353, 130 P.
838; South Park Floral Co. v. Garvey
(Ind.), 107 N. E. 68; Hyatt v, Lind-
ner, 136 La. 184, 66 S. 773; Carriker
t?. Gebhardt, 43 Okla. 149, 141 P. 432;
Spaulding i7. Yarbrough, 40 Okla. 731,
140 P. 782; Barber Asphalt Pav. Co.
V. Hamilton, 80 Wash. 51, 141 P. 199;
V oilman i?. Industrial Workers of the
World, 79 Wash. 192, 140 P. 337.
That the case has been settled pending
an appeal is good ground for dis-
missal. P. f7. Canon (Colo. App.), 145
P. 711; Stires V. Sherwood (Or.), 145
P. 645.
389-29 Chicago, I. & L. B. Co. t?.
Priddy (Ind. App.), 108 K E. 238;
Helms V. Cook (Ind. App.), 108 N. E.
147; Blose v, Myers (Ind. App.), 107
N. E. 548; Whidden v. Broadus (Miss.),
67 S. 155; Turner r. Simmons, 99 Miss.
28, 54 S. 658; In re Braker's Est., 158
App. Div. 925, 143 N. Y. S. 859;'
Cabassa v. Bravo, 21 P. B. 173; Wolk-
ers V, American B. B. Co., 20 P. B.
379; Ex parte Quintero, 20 P. B. 333;
Santiago r. Somen te, 20 P. B. 305;
Oronoz v. Montalvo, 20 P. B. 254;
Aponte f?. Freiria, 20 P. B. 87; P. v,
Olivencia, 20 P. B. 56; Allonge r. Bel-
aval, 19 P. B. 1022; Brown t?. Tucker
(Tex. Civ.), 139 S. W. 924; Gilliland
V. German-American State Bank, 59
Wash. 292, 109 P. 1020; Bartree f?.
Dunkin, 20 Wyo. 376, 123 P. 913.
InsiCfELcient appeal bond, see 2 Stand-
ard Peoc. 80, n. 13.
Failure to serve praecipe on defendant
no ground for dismissal. P. t?. Chicago
Title & Trust Co., 266 lU. 224, 107
N. E. 198.
Appeal prematurely taken. — White
Prov. Co. V. Nashville, etc. B. Co., 142
Ga. 855, 83 S. E. 943.
Withdrawal of record. — Where appel-
lant, without authority, removes the
record upon which his appeal is founded
the judgment of the trial court will
be affirmed. White f?. Craney (Ala.).
59 S. 622.
A party's failure to pray for the is-
suance of citation when he makes his
motion for an appeal, cannot be at-
tributed to the fault of the clerk or
sheriff, and in such case the appeal
will be dismissed. McCutchen v, Hud-
son, 132 La. 177, 61 S. 157,
389-30 Bennett v. Meek (Okla.), 145
P. 767; Myers f?. Hunt (Okla.), 145 P.
328.
Appeal for delay. — ^Where it sufficiently
appears to the appellate court that
the appeal was filed merely for delay,
the appeal will be dismissed. Buble v,
Daniel, 105 Miss. 569, 62 S. 642.
389-31 Gilmore v, First Nat. Bank,
43 Okla. 151, 141 P. 433; Thomason
V. Champlin, 43 Okla.- 86, 141 P. 411;
Wilhoit V. Haswell, 40 Okla. 387, 138
P. 794.
Wrong appellate court designated. — ^It
is not ground for dismissal of the ap-
peal that appellant designated an ap-
pellate court having no existence, be-
cause the appeal must be understood to
be to the court empowered by law to
take cognizance ef the matter on ap-
peal. Du Yungco I'. Barrera, 5 PhiL
Isl. 125.
389-82 Laahia v. Poomaikai, 20
Haw. 39; Oliveira f?. Silva, 18 Haw.
662; Johanna v, Larson (N. D.), 150
N. W. 535.
390-33 Appeal of O'Brion, 110 Me.
550, 88 A. 85.
399-34 Deal v. Western Clay, etc.
Co., 18 N. M. 70, 133 P. 974; Geronilla
V, Gadia, 23 PhU. Isl. 229.
390-35 Milliken v. Lane, 43 Okla.
259, 142 P. 1040.
390-30- Coryell V* Fawcett^ 54 Colo.
88
APPEALS
Vol. 2
353, 130 P. 838; Burns v. National M.,
etc. Co., 23 Colo. App. 545, 130 P.
1037; Yent t?. State, 66 Fla. 336, 63
S. 452; Barrs v. Peacock, 65 Fla. 12,
61 S. 118; Meyn V. Kansas City, 91
Kan. 29, 136 P. 898; S. v, Goflf, 135
La. 335, 65 8. 481; Fanst v. Cairns, 242
Pa. 15, 88 A. 786; Gutierrez v, Nogue-
ras, 20 P. B. 251; Carr v. Montesano,
76 Wash. 380, 136 P. 363.
Where no inrooaadlngg for revivor are
had after death of joint appellant, the
appeal will be dismissed. Holmes f?.
Dillard, 40 Okla. 309, 136 P. 408; Nye
1?. Jones, 35 Okla. 96, 28 P. 112; Skillern
v. Jameson, 29 Okla. 84, 116 P. 193.
890-37 Grevemberg r. Boane, 133
La. 679, 63 S. 280.
Notice of motion for new trial. — A
failure to give notice of intention to
move for a new trial is not ground for
dismissing an appeal from an order de-
nving_a new trial. Turner v, F. W.
Ten winkel Co., 24 Cal. App. 213, 140
P. 1086.
890-38 Imperfections in the stenog-
rapher's report, held not ground for
dismissal. Vicksburg 8. & P. B. Co.
c. Webster Sand, G. & C. Co., 132 La.
1051, 62 S. 140, 47 L. B. A. (N. S.)
1155.
Kaming return day. — ^Where a party in
his application for an appeal asked
that it be made returnable ''according
to law," the failure of the judge to
epeeify the return day, as required by
the statutes, is not ground for dis-
missal. Keplinger v, Barrow, 132 La.
244, 61 S. 217.
Failure to file transcript in time if at-
tributable to the stenographer is not
ground for dismissal. Be Coito V. De
Coito, 21 Haw. 250.
391-41 O'Connor t?. Towey, 70 Or,
399, 140 P. 625.
391-42 Bradshaw v. Knoll, 132 La.
829, 61 S. 839; Succession of 8t. Bizier',
132 La. 657, 61 S. 727.
391-43 Twinn Tree Lumb. Co. r.
Dav, 181 Ala. 565, 61 S. 914; Cautino
r. Mnnoz, 18 P. B. 849; Gandia v. Piza
Hermanos, 17 P. B. 780.
Belated motion. — A motion to dismiss
made more than three days after filing
of the transcript on appeal, is too late.
Askew V. Parker, 131 La. 733, 60 S.
226.
Want of neoeesary parties. — ^It is im-
material at what time a motion to dis-
miss an appeal for want of necessary
parties is filed, or where they are not,
in fact, cited, there is no prayer for
citation and they fail to appear, wheth-
er it is filed at all, for without such
parties there can be no final judgment,
and this court is therefore bound to
take notice of their absence, and may
ex proprio motu dismiss the appeal.
McCutchen v. Hudson, 132 La. .177, 61
S. 157.
On ground of acquleseence. — ^A motion
to dismiss an appeal because of acqui-
escence in the judgment may be made
at any time. Anderson t?. New Orleans
By. & L. Co., 133 La. 896, 63 8. 395.
391-45 Necessity for brief. — A mo-
tion for dismissal of an appeal, not
supported by brief or argument, will
not be considered. Murry v. Daughtry,
18 N. M. 44, 133 P. 1070. See the title
"Briefs."
392-46 Goebns v. Wallace (Miss.),
66 S. 978.
392-48 Dreyfus r. American Bond-
ing Co., 136 La. 491, 67 S. 342.
No question relative to the burden of
proof to sustain some allegation of the
pleadings can be raised on a motion to
dismiss. Brown V, Green, 132 Lft. 1090,
62 S. 154.
Where the original letters o£Fered in
evidence cannot be found, the court
will not act on the motion to dis-
miss until it has considered the evi-
dence, as the case may be decided
without the missing documents. Suc-
cession of White, 132 La. 890, 61 S.
860.
392-60 Plaintiff's right to prosecute
cross-appeal is not terminated by dis-
missal of defendant's appeal. Crane v.
Oregon R. & Nav. Co., 66 Or. 317, 133
P. 810. •
An opinion on the merits will be ren-
dered though a motion to dismiss, made
after the cause has been submitted and
argued, must prevail. Zook v. Cdker,
24 Phil. Isl. 378.
392-51 Stevens r. Tompkins, 24
Colo. App. 104, 131 P. 802.
393-54 Colburn r. Williams (Ariz.),
141 P. 120.
393-57 Scherubel t?. Askew, 42 Okla.
273, 141 P. 410.
394-63 Wliere additional delay and
expense to the litigants would result
from teinstatement and no useful pur-
pose would be served, the motion will
be denied, Geronilla f?. Gadia, 23 Phil.
I Isl. 229.
89
Vol 2
APPEALS
395-64 S. V. Foster, 44 N. J. L. 378.
395-69 Yazoo & M. V. B. Co. i\
Dampeer (Miss.), 67 S. 150.
396-73 If the appeal is without
merit and the party would not be
benefited by its restoration, the motion
for reinstatement will be denied.
Schenck v. Bengler, 105 N. Y. 630, 11
N. B. 382.
401-10 See Mund v, Behaume, 51
Colo. 129, 117 P. 159, Ann. Cas. 1913A,
1243.
402-14 Hillis <?. Bils, 53 Ind. App.
676, 100 N. E. 1047, 102 N. E. 140.
403-20 Carty t?. Jarrett, 21 Haw.
310; Bayner v. Posey (Tex. Civ.); 173
S. W. 246.
404-28 Points not presented in
brief. — A t eh earing will not be granted
to consider points jiot presented in the
briefs or argument upon which the case
was presented. Flores v. Stone, 21 Cal.
App. 105, 131 P. 348, 351, 131 P. 352.
404-30 Wittenberg v. Northern Ida-
ho Pine L. Co., 23 Idaho 75, 131 P. 1.
405-33 Sharkey v. Portland Gas &
Coke Co. (Or.), 145 P. 660.
406-36 Wliere petition is required a
motion will not do. Wyoming Goal
Min. Co. V. Stanko (Wyo.), 138 P.
182.
406-39 Met. Life Ins. Co. t?. Prankel
(Ind.), 104 N. E. 856.
Too late when filed on day judgment
of supreme court becomes final. Peter-
son V. Louisville & N. B. Co., 136 La.
460, 67 S. 331.
407-41 Beiff v, Portland, 71 Or. 421,
141 P. 167, 142 P. 827.
407-43 Gamble v, Hanchett, 35 Nev^
319, 133 P. 936.
407-45 An improper and disrespect-
ful brief will cause the dismissal of
the application. Birmingham By., L.
& P. Co. r. Saxon, 179 Ala. 136, 59 S.
584.
408-49 German v. Harwell, 103
Hiss. 521, 60 S. 212.
408-55 Crusel t\ Brooks, 133 La.
477, 63 S. 114; Gordon Jones Co. f?.
Lopez (Tex. Oiv.), 172 S. W. 987; Har-
rison r. Harker, 44 Utah 541, 142 P.
716; Pierce v. Seattle Electric Co.
(Wash.), 145 P. 228.
409-57 Colorado & 5. B. Co. v. Jen-
kins, 25 Colo. App. 348, 138 P. 437;
Weil f?. Federal Life Ins. Co., 264 111.
425, 106 N. E. 246; Witthauer v.
Wheeler (la.), 150 N. V;. 4C; Brock i\
Corbin (Kan.), 146 P. 1150; Weatern
Electric Co. v. National Automatic
Electric Sup. Co., 135 La. 559, 65 S.
741; Quaker Bealty Co. f?. Maierwatt
Eealty Co., 134 La. 1030, 64 S. 897;
S. V, Gray, 112 Me. 558, 91 A. 787;
Williams v. New York Life Ins. Co.,
122 Md. 141, 89 A. 97; Walsh v. Lake
Shore By. Co. (Mich.), 151 N. W. 754;
Kennedy v. Ford (Mich.), 149 N. W.
1013; Wilson f?. Bridgforth (Miss.), 66
S. 524; BoonviUe Special Boad Dist.
t?. Fuser (Mo.), 171 S. W. 962; Muck
!?. Hitchcock, 212 N. Y. 283, 106 N. E.
75; McDowell t\ Justice, 167 N. C. 493,
83 S. E. 803; Ferebee r. B. Co., 167
N. C. 290, 83 S. E. 360; Frith f. Wright
(Tex. Civ.), 173 S. W. 453.
A question as to the ralidity of a law,
not presented below, will not be con-
sidered in the appellate court. S. t?.
Derbyshire, 79 Wash. 227, 140 P. 540.
409-58 Motion for Jury triaL— The
trial court's decision on a motion for
a jury trial is immaterial where the
case is in the appellate court upon its
merits. Thompson & Co. v, Gosserand,
131 La. 1056, 60 S. 682.
410-61 Williams v. Prince, 142 Ga.
789, 83 S. E. 789; Gazaway v, S. (Ga.
App.), 83 S. E. 857: Bacon v. George,
216 Mass. 519, 104 N. E. 382; Blanch-
ard Bros. v. Beveridge * (N. J. Eq.),
92 A. 384; P. t?. Sweeney (N. Y.),
106 N. E. 913; Wolcott V. Mongeon
(Vt.), 92 A. 457.
410-62 Mutual Life Ins. Co. r.
Witte (Ala.), 67 S. 263; Georgia By.
Co. V. Stephenson (Ala.), 66 S. 495;
Franklin i?. S., 11 Ala. App. 305, 66
9. 875; McCaskey Begister Co. v. Nix
Drug Co., 7 Ala. App. 309, 61 S. 484;
Keating V. Keating, 23 Cal. App. 384,
138 P. 118; P. t?. Strosnider, 264 111.
434, 106 N. E. 229; English r. English
(Ind.), 107 N. E. 547; Bossert f?. Geis
(Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 95; St.. Paul
Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Kendle, 163
Ky. 146, 173 S. W. 373; Louisville t?.
Hehemann, 161 Ky. 523, 171 S. W.
165; Abbott Bros. & Co. v. Maine S. 8.
Co., 110 Me. 551, 88 A. 356; Mitchell
V. Cobb (Mass.), 107 N. E. 388; Gaff
17. Cornwallis, 219 Mass. 226, 1C6 N. E.
860; Lodi v, Goyette (Mass.), 106 N. E.
601; Atlantic Horse Ins. Co. v, Nero
(Miss.), 66 S. 780; Gibson v. Sherman
County, 97 Neb. 79, 149 N. W. 107;
Webster t?. Board of Chosen Freehold-
ers, 86 N. J. L, 256, 90 A. 1110; Bucher
90
APPEALS
Vol 2
t. Showalter (Okla.), 145 F. 1143; Ger-
hnger 17. Frank (Or,), 145 P. 1069;
Wood V. McCain, 34 S. D, 544, 149 N.
W. 426; Wilson v, S. (Tex. Cr.)i 173
S. W, 662; St. Albans Granite Co. ««
ElwcU (Vt.), 92 A. 974; First Nat.
Bank of Montpelier v. Bertoli (Vt.)>
92 A. 970; Silvain v. Benson (Wash.),
145 P. 175.
Facts stated in briefs 6f counsel can-
not aid the record. Atl. Horse Ins. Co.
17. Nero (Miss.), 66 8. 780.
"Wliere record la ambignous it may be
supplemented bj evidence. Paul v»
Barnbrook (Ind. App.), 106 N. E. 425.
Becord in anotber case not made a part
of th^ record submitted cannot bo re-
ferred tc by reviewing court Morrow
t?. Hall (la.), 151 N. W. 482.
"Where there is no transcript of the evi-
dence in tlie record the court will con-
aider only whether the judgment is
supported by the pleadings. Myers v.
Baltry, 163 Ky. 481, 173 S. W. 1138.
Court's refusal to permit an answer
will not be reviewed where the record
shows no motion for leave to file the
answer. Southern Cgtton Oil Co. v.
Lightrey (S. C), 84 S. E. 301.
410-63 Bowen r. Bowen, 265 HI.
638, 107 N. E. 129; Weil r. Mulvancy,
262 HI. 195, 104 N. E 273; St. Albans
Granite Co. v. Elwell & Co. (^t.), 92
A. 974,
41(K64 Bjorgo V, First Nat. Bank,
127 Minn. 105, 149 N. W. 3; Evans v
Sharbrough (Miss.)^ 64 S 466, Steger
Lumb. Co. 1^. Haynes (Okla.), 142 P.
1031.
411-68 Morris f>. Iden, 23 Cal. App.
388, 138 P. 120; Huffstetlei f. Our
Home Life Ins. Co., 67 Fla 324, 65 S.
1; Chicago 17. Francis, 262 lU. 331, 104
N. E. 662; Des Moines City B. Co. v,
Snsong (la ), 150 N. W. 6; C. r. Colum-
bia Trust Co., 162 Ky. 825, 173 S. vV.
386; In re Williams' Will (Mont.), 145
P. 957; Sargent v. Bealty Traders, 82
N. J. Eq. 331, 88 A. 1043; Muck v.
Hitchcock, 212 N. Y. 283, 106 N. E.
75; Southern Pac. Co. r. Walker (Tex.
Civ.), 171 S. W. 264; Duggins v Colby
(rtah), 145 P. 1042.
Appeal from order setting aside ver-
dict * leaves nothing to be considered
except the propriety of that order "
John Batt & Co Ltd. v. Earle, 164
App. Div 228, 149 N Y. 8. 623.
411-69 Bohman v. Jaftei, 87 Misc.
•339, 149 N. Y. S. 853; NaUe & Co. 9.
Costley (Tex. Civ.), 174 S. W. 625.
On appeal ttom part of a decree the
appellate court cannot review the mer*
its of^ the case as ^ whole, though the
suit was tried in equity, and was there-
fore triable de novo on appeal. First
Nat. Bank r. Acme Co.-Op. Brick &
Tile Co. (la.), 149 N. W. 607.
,412*71 The sufficiency of tbe plead-
ings will be reviewed where the error
alleged is that plaintiff had offered no
evidence sufficient to entitle him to re-
cover under the pleadings. Dudley A.
Tyng & Co. V. Woodward, 121 Md. 422,
88 A. 243.
412-75 Lafayette Bealty Co. r.
Poer, 136 La. 472, 67 S. 335.
Original Jurisdiction. — The appellate
court will not consider exhibits if by
doing so it would be exercising original
jurisdiction contrary to statute. Frei-
tag <?. Union Stock Yard & Transit Co.,
262 HI. 551, 104 N. E. 901.
418-77 Eborn v. Clark, 184 Ala. 363,
63 S. 1018; Henry V. Providence Gas
Burner Co. (B. L), 90 A. 168.
If reversal on record alone must be
granted, the court will not consider the
bill of exceptions or the assignments of
error. Bieker V. Cullman, 178 Ala. 662,
59 S. 625.
Where two causes of action are pleaded
and the verdict is based entirely upon
items embraced in one of them, the ap-
pellate court will not consider any as-
signment of error which pertains only
to the other cause of action and which
in no way affect the appellants. Hilder-
bran v. McCorkle, 92 Kan. 615, 141 P.
248.
418-78 Sandell v. Norment (N. M.),
145 P. 259.
413-79 aark r. Smith, 142 Ga. 200,
82 S. E. 563; Griffin v. S. (Ga. App.),
83 S. E. 891; So. Park Floral Co. v.
Garvey (Ind.), 107 N. E. 68; Cox r. S.
(Ind.), 106 N. E. 878; Edgren v. Coal
Co. (la.), 161 N. W. 519; C. v, Colum-
bia Trust Co., 162 Ky. 825, 173 S. W.
386; S. V. Goff, 135 La. 335. 65 S. 481;-
S. t?. Bd. of Suprs., 49 La. Ann. 578, 21
S. 731; Hansen v. N. W. Tel. Exch. Co.,
127 Minn. 522, 149 N. W. 131; Whid-
den V, Broadus (Miss.), 67 S. 155.
413-80 Clayton r. Martin, 7 Ala.
App. 190, 60 S. 963.
413-81 Macon Auto Co. v. Heard,
142 Ga. 264, 82 S, E. 658.
91
Vol. 2
APPEALS
Where a oount in stricken out, errors
cannot be predicated upon a demurrer
to that count. North Birminprham Tr.
& Sav. Bank v, Adams, IS I Ala. 564,
63 S. 1022.
413-83 Young r. Duncan, 218 Mass.
346, 106 N. E. 1.
413-84 Cahill v. E. B. & A. L. Stone
Co., 167 Cal. 128, 138 P. 712; Koch f?.
Speedwell Motor Car Co., 24 Cal. App.
123, 140 P. 598, 600; Warren r. War-
ren, 66 Fla. 138, 63 8. 726; Sherlock v,
Vam, 64 Fla. 447, 59 8. 958; Mitchell
& Co. f?. Atlantic, etc. R. Co. (Ga.
App.), 84 S. E. 227; Surrency v. Glenn-
ville Supply Co.. 13 Ga. App. 180, 78
S. E. 1013; Crawley t'. Studebaker Corp.
(Mich.), 149 N. W. 1019; Cooper v.
Romney, 49 Mont. 119, 141 P. 289; Wal-
lace V, Chicago, M. & P. S. R. Co., 48
Mont. 427, 138 P. 499; Stephens v. Con-
ley, 48 Mont. 852, 138 P. 189; Butte t?.
Goodwin, 47 Mont. 155, 134 P. 670,-Ann.
Cas. 1914C, 1012; Kelly v, Higginsville
(Mo.), 171 S. W. 966; Kanaly f. Bron-
son, 97 Neb. 322, 149 N. W. 781 ; Beach
V, Palisade Realty & A. Co., 86 N. J.
L. 238, 90 A. 1118; Homeland Realty
Co. V, Robison, 39 Okla. 591, 136 P.
585; Cerra v. Fajardo Develop. Co., 18
P. R. 984*; Parkes v, Lindenmann
(Wis.), 151 N. W. 787.
414-85 Ridge v, Norfolk Southern
R. Co., 167 N. C. 510, 83 S. E. 762;
Wasiljeff v. Hawley Pulp & Paper Co.,
68 Or. 487, 137 P. 755, quot 2 Standabd
Proc., pp. 414, 415.
414-86 Noyes v, Caldwell, 216 Mass.
525, 104 N. E. 495; Yazoo « M. V. R.
Co. V. Hawkins, 104 Miss. 55, 61 S. 161,
451.
Theory of case below not binding.
The fact that counsel for plaintiff or
the trial court may have said, in the
court below, that the case is a common
law action does not preclude the su-
preme court from holding it to be
within the Employer's Liability Act.
Wasiljeff v, Hawley Pulp & Paper Co.,
68 Or. 487, 137 P. 755.
415-87 Frost r. Los Angeles R. Co.,
165 Cal. 365, 132 P. 442; Beverly t\
Hardaway, 6Q Fla. 177, 63 S. 702.
416-89 Rome Scale Mfg. Co. t?. Har-
vey (Ga. App.), 83 S. E. 434; Kelley v
Davison (Mich.), 151 N. W. 671.
416-91 Walshe t?. Bwight Mfg. Co.,
178 Ala. 310, 59 8. 630.
415-92 Anderson r, Elec. & G. Co.,
11 Ala. App. 560, 66 S. 925; Judson
Lumb. Co. V. Patterson (Fla.), 66 S.
727; Bowen f?. Bowen, 265 111. 638, 107
N. E. 129.
What pleadings Gonsidered. — Where an
order appointing a receiver issues after
answer is filed, the bill and answer will
be considered on appeal, but only the
bill will be considered where receiver
is appointed upon bill alone. Carring-
ton v. Thomas C. Basshor Co., 121 Md.
71, 88 A. 52.
416-97 Pratville Cotton Mills Co. r.
McKinney, 178 Ala. 554, 59 S. 498: In
re Gamble's Est., 166 Cal. 253, 135 P.
970; Terra Ceia Estates t?. Taylor
(Fla.), 67 S. 169; S. v, Bullock, 136 La.
167, 66 S. 767; McLaughlin Bros. r.
Hilliard, 97 Neb. 326, 149 N. W. 807;
Haight V. Omaha & C. B. St. R. Co., 97
Neb. 293, 149 N. W. 778; Sanders f?.
Sanders, 167 N. C. 317, 83 S. E. 489.
416-98 Louisville & N. R. Co. v.
Bouchard (Ala.), 67 S. 265; Thompson
V. Cole, 6 Ala. App. 208, 60 S. 556;
Colorado Midland Ry. Co. v, Edwards,
24 Colo. App. 350, 134 P. 248; MitcheU
V. Mason, 65 Fla. 208, 61 8. 579; Akron
Milling Co. v, Leiter (Ind. App.), 107
N. E. 99; Johnson v. Citizens' Bank
(Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 35; In re Moore
(Me.), 93 A. 180; Hix v. Giles, 103 Me.
439, 69 A. 692; Allen V. Wildman, 38
Okla. 652, 134 P. 1102.
Bole of oonstmctiond — ^Doubtful Re-
citals in the record are construed most
strongly against the objector. Birm-
ingham Ry. L. & P. Co. V, Gonzalez.
183 Ala. 273, 61 S. 80.
417-1 P. t\ Dillon, 266 HI. 272, 107
N. E. 583.
Judges antliority to hear case* — ^Where
the record does not show that the
acting judge was called to preside at
the trial by the incumbent judge and
in his stead, the appellate court will
indulge a presumption to that effect.
P. V. Dillon, 266 111. 272, 107 N. E. 583.
417-2 Singleton r. Jackson, 177 Ala.
123, 59 S. 45; Terra Ceia Estates v,
Taylor (Fla.), 67 S. 169.
417-3 H. H. Hitt Lumb. Co. r. Tur-
ner (Ala.), 65 S. 807.
Default judgment, etc. McCauley v.
Western Nat. Bank (Tex. Civ.), 173
S. W. 1000.
418-10 Jackson r. Putnam, ISO Ala.
39, 60 S. 61; Henderson v, Jackson
Woolen Mills, 7 Ala App. 199, 60 8.
965; Konig v. Nevada-California-Oregon
Ry., 36 Nev, 181, 135 P. 141,
92
APPEALS
Vol. 2
41^13 A xedtol of a continuance
after answer asking affirmative relief,
does not operate as an appearance of
plaintiff, when no notice was given
plaintiff, and it is not shown that he
asked for the continnance or agreed
to it Smith V. Carr (Tex. Civ.), 173
S, W. e02. '
*
419-15 Hirsch A Spitz Mfg. Co. v.
Enterprise, 5 Ala. App. 387, 59 S. 315
(plea presumed withdrawn); Wood-
men of the World v. Jones, 4 Ala. App.
633, 59 8. 239 (replication to a special
plea presumed abandoned); Terra Ceia
Estates v. Taylor (Pla.), 67 S. 169;
* Nathan r. Planters Cotton Oil Co. (Mo.
App.), 174 8. W. 126, plea to the jur-
isdiction presumed properly sustained.
Kannor of amandment. — Where the
record fails to show how complaint
was amended after demurrer sustained,
it will be presumed that the amend-
ment was 80 made as to obviate the
objections pointed out in the demurrer.
General Ace. Fire ft Life Co. V. Shields,
9 Ala. App. 214, 62 8. 400.
That proof will ba aa broad as the
pleading, will be presumed by the ap-
pellate court in passing upon the suffi-
ciency of the pleading. Studebaker
Corp. of America v. Gollmar, 159 Wis.
336, 150 N. W. 442.
Tmth of tha allagatlona of petition
will be presumed when the case is pre-
sented to the appellate court as if on
exceptions of no cause of action.
Boagni v. Schell (La.), 66 S. 387.
420-18 Hanchey v. Brunson, 181
Ala. 453, 61 8. 258; Sjong t;. Occidental
Fish Co., 78 Wash. 4, 138 P. 313.
That complaint was amended will be
presumed where the record shows that
amendment was granted. Engen v, Ol-
son (Wyo.), 145 P. 756. Amendments
will not be regarded as made where
the bill of exceptions does not present
any evidence, or disclose that any of
the essential facts were established by
evidence received without objection.
Manhattan Co. v. White, 48 Mont. 965,
140 P. 90.
420-20 Parsons v. Age-Herald Pub.
Co., 181 Ala. 439, 61 8. 345; Watts v.
Atlanta B. ft A. B. Co., 179 Ala. 436,
60 8. 861; McOuffln r. Leufesty (Ind.
App.), 107 N. E. 475. See Spork r. In-
ternational Harvester Co. (Ind. App.),
107 N. E. 740.
420-21 In re Beclamation Diet., 22
CaL App. 439, 134 P, 726.
420-22 Harris Transfer ft Ware-
house Co. 17. Moore (Ala. App.), 65 U.
416; Morton «. Clark, 10 Ala. App. 439,
65 8. 408.
421-29 Haight r. Omaha ft C. B. St.
B. Co., 97 Neb. 293, 149 N. W. 778.
421-31 P. V, Pennington, 267 111. 45,
107 N. B. 871; 8. t?. Bullock. 136 La.
167, 66 8. 767: Homeland Eealtv Co. t?.
Kobison, 39 Okla. 591, 136 P. 585; Iowa
State Sav. Bank v. Henry (Wyo.), 136
P. 863.
422-34 McCaskey Begister Co. v.
Nix Drug Co., 7 Ala. App. 309, 61 8.
484; Georgia ft F. B. Co. v, tttapleton
(Ga.), 84 8. E. 120; Myers v, Saltry, 163
Ky. 481, 173 8. W. 1138; Sylvester r. N.
H. ft H. B. Co., 217 Mass. 148, 104 N.
E. 437; Sweikhart v, Hanrahan (Mich.),
150 N. W. 833; Mundy v. Irwin (N.
M.), 145 P. 1080; Elliott V, B. Co., 166
N. C. 481, 82 8. E. 853.
422-35 Adams v. Georgia By. Co.,
142 Ga. 497, 83 8. E. 131; Weil t\ Fed-
eral Life Ins. Co., 264 Bl. 425, 106 N.
£. 246.
Use of OTldence, etc. — ^Barnes ft Jes-
sup Co. V. Williams, 64 Fla. 190, 60 8.
787.
Motion to strike out toBtimony, etc.
Byerson Grain Co. v. Moyer, 9 Ala. App.
254, 63 S. 13.
422-88 Padgett v. Fertilizer Co., 11
Ala. App. 366, 66 8. 866; Clark v. Wat-
kins Medical Co. (Ark.), 171 S. W.
136; Berri v. Bogero (Cal.), 145 P.
95; Kinard v. Kaelin, 22 Cal. App. 383,
134 P. 370; P. v. Niehoff, 266 111. 103,
107 N. E. 119;. Sanitary Dist. of Chi-
cago V, Munger, 264 111. 256, 106 N. E.
185: Wright v. Glos, 264 111. 261, 106
N. JB. 200; Thompson t?. Miller (Ind.),
107 N. B. 74; Briggs t?. Sanford, 219
Mass. 572, 107 N. £. 436; Nathan v.
Planters,' etc. Co., 187 Mo. App. 560,
174 8. W. 126; Tyndall v. B. Co. (N.
Y.), 107 N. E. 577; Wagner 17. Stand-
ard Sanitary Mfg. Co., 244 Pa. 310, 91
A. 353; Lebovitz i?. Cogswell (Wash.),
145 P. 212.
That parol evldenee sustained the les-
see's claim on a lease, will not be pre-
sumed where the lease was unambig-
uous and upheld the lessor 's contention.
Long V, Hammond (Cal.), 145 P. 527.
All Inferences drawn to support ver-
dict. Czapinski r. Thomas Furnace Co.,
158 Wis. 635, 149 N. W. 477. And the
appellate court is warranted in assum-
ing any possible evidence within is-
93
Vol. 2
APPEALS
Buefl. Paul r. Bambrook (Ind. App.).
106 N. E. 425.
423-39 Farmer v. Myers, 90 Kan.
532, 135 P. 668.
423-40 Jones v. White (Ala.), 66 S.
605; Reid v. McElderry (Ala.), 66 S.
7; Eeid f?. AfcKlderry, 10 Ala. App.
472, 65 3. 421; Sloss, etc. Co. v, Bedd,
6 Ala. App. 404, .60 S. 468; Hunnieut
L. Co. V. B. Co., 2 Ala. App. 436, 67 S.
73; Dowdell v. Sunflower Grand Lodge,
91 Kan. 128, 136 P. 920.
423-42 Clark v. Watkins Medical
Co. (Ark.), 171 S. W. 136; Hanks V.
Oil Co. (Tex. Civ.), 173 S. W. 635.
423-43 Myers r. Pittsburg Coal Co.,
223 U. S. 184, 34 Sup. Ct. 559, 58 L.
ed. 906; Heckert v. Central Dist. & P.
Tel. Co. (C. C. A.), 218 Fed. 29; Den-
nis f?. Griswold, 142 Ga. 114, 82 S. E.
519; Sawyer <?. Hawthorne (la.), 149
N. W. 512; Walsh r. Boston Elev. R.
Co., 219 Mass. 515, 107 N. E. 360;
Adams v. Boston Elev. B. Co., 219
Muss. 515, 107 N. E. 360; Hicks v.
Hammond Pack. Co. (Mo.), 171 S. W.
937; Pickett v. Wren (Mo. App.), 174
fi. W. 156; Hawkins v. St. Louis & 8.
F. Co. (Mo. App.), 174 S. W. 129; Scott
r. American Zinc, L. & Smelt. Co. (Mo.
App.), 173 S. W. 23; McLaughlin v.
Bardsen (Mont.), 145 P. 954; Faber u.
New York, 213 N. Y. 411, 107 N. E.
756; Buckley v. Hudson Val. B. Co.,
212 N. Y. 440, 106 N. E. 121; Griswold
<?. Bingling (App. Div.), 150 N. Y. S.
1022; Drusky t\ Schenectady By. Co.,
164 App. Div. 406, 149 N. Y. S. 762;
Tolchinsky v. New York (App. Div.),
149 N. Y. S. 423; McEl^arney V. Clover
Farms, 150 N. Y. S. 154; Hall v. Pied-
mont B. Co., 167 N. C. 284, 83 S. E.
351; Tyson r. East Carolina B. Co., 167
N. C. 215, 83 S. E. 318; McAtee v.
Branning Mfg. Co., 166 N. C. 448, 82 S.
E. 857; Shepherd 17. B. Co., 163 N. C.
518, 79 S. E. 968; Locklear v. Savago,
159 N. C. 236, 74 S. E. 347; Cotton t?.
B. Co., 149 N. C. 227, 62 S. E. 1093;
Jones V, Citizens' State Bank, 39 Okla.
393, 135 P. 373; First State Bank v.
Bridges, 39 Okla. 355, 135 P. 378; Cara-
duc V, Schanen-Blair Co., 66 Or. 310,
133 P. 636; Hanks V. Houston Oil Co.
(Tex. Civ.), 173 S. W. 635; Dawson V.
King (Tex. Civ.), 171 S. W. 257.
In reviewing a dlnnilsBal of the com-
plaint the only question is whether the
court by the exclusion of evidence pre-
vented plaintiff from proving his case.
Glassman v, Bubin Bros.. 150 N. Y. S.
537,
424-44 Lake Shore Electric By. Co.
r. Kurtz (C. C. A.), 218 Fed. 165.
424-45 Ttutli of evidence ia pre-
sumed in reviewing the overruling of
a demurrer, to the evidence. GiUogly
V, Dunham (Mo.), 174 S. W. 118; Bar-
rett r. Delano (Mo.), 174 S. W. 181;
Brown r. Kansas City So. B. Co., 187
Mo. App. 104, 173 S. W. 73.
424-46 Central of Georgia B. Co. r.
Courson, 186 Ala. 155, 65 S. 179 (no
presumption that instruction was not
requested at proper time); Massey c.
Southern Land Co. (Ark.), 174 S. W.
531; Pile v. Bank of Flemington, 187
Mo. App. 61, 173 S. W. 50; Winborne
Guano Co. v. Plymouth Merc. Co. (X.
C), 84 S. E. 272; Cameron v. Joslyn
(Vt.), 90 A. .793.
Separate exceptions to the instructions
are presumed. Birmingham By., L. So
P. Co. V. Leach, 5 Ala. App. 546, 59 S.
358.
424-47 Middlebrooks V. Sanders, 180
Ala. 407, 61 S. 898; Thompson t?. Mil-
ler (Ind.), 107 N. E. 74; Cleveland, C.
C. & St. L. B. Co. r. Hayes (Ind.), 104
N. E. 581; McGlone v. Hanger (Ind.
App.), 104 N. E. 116; Cilley i?. Bacon
(Vt), 93 A. 261.
424-48 . Handley r. Schaffer, 177 Ala.
636, 59 S. 286; Fairbanks v. Warrum
(Ind. App.), 104 N. B. 983; Gordon f?.
First Uuiversalist Soc, 217 Mass. 30,
104 N. E. 448; Weller v. Davis, 245 Pa.
280, 91 A. 664.
425-49 Alexander r. Smithy 180 Ala.
541, 61 S. 68; Winborne Guano Co. v.
Plymouth Merc. Co. (N.*C.), 84 S. E.
272; Hornthal v. Norfolk S. B. Co., 167
N. C. 627, 82 S. E. 830; Allen v. Farm-
ers' & Merchants' Bank (Wash.), 135
P. 621.
Tliat a certain charge was given will
not be presumed where the record mere-
ly shows that it was requested and does
not show that it was given. White
Sewing Mach. Co. v. Sneed (Tex. Civ.),
174 S. W. 950.
425-60 Hall v. Gordon (Ala.), 66
S. 493; Erikson v. Ward, 266 111. 259,
107 N. E. 593; Wabash B. Co.r. Mc-
Doniels (Ind.), 107 N. E. 291; Inde-
pendent 5 and 10 Cent Stores v, Earles
(Ind. App.), 106 N. E. 730; Scott i\
American Zinc, L. & Smelt. Co., 187 Mo.
App. 344, 173 S. W. 23; Mauder r. S.,
97 Neb, 380, 149 N. W. 800; Langd^n
r. Withnell, 97 Neb. 335, 149 N. W.
781; Hutchinsou i?, Oshkosh, 159 Wis*
H
APPEALU
Vol. 2
141, 1« N. W. 711; Czapinski v.
Thomas Farnace Co.^ 158 Wis. 635, 149
N. W. 477.
Trath of defendant's evidence will be
presumed where the jury found for him.
O'Donnell v. Johnson, 36 B. L 308, 90
A. 165.
425-61 International A. Corp. r.
Southern Ry. Co. (Ala.)> 66 S. 14; Birm-
ingham By. L. & P. Co. V, Mayoi 181
Ala. 525, 61 S. 289; St. Louis, I. M.
& 8. By. Co. r. Elrod (Ark,), 173 S.
W. 836; Albrook v. Western Union Tel.
Co. (la.), 150 N. W. 75; Prediger v.
Lincoln Traction Co., 97 Neb. 315, 149
N. W. 775; Haight v. Omaha & C. B.
fit. B. Co., 97 Neb. 293, 149 N. W. 778;
Glens FaUs Ins. Co. v. Melott (Tex.
Civ.), 174 8. W. 700; Curkeet v. Joint
School Dist., 159 Wis. 149, 149 N. W.
708.
426-52 Swindall v. Ford, 184 Ala.
137, 63 S. 651; Beid t?. . McElderry, 10
Ala. App. 472, 65 S. 421; Hann v.
Shoaf, 9 Ala. App 300, 63 S. 764; Woos-
ter €. Scorse (Ariz.), 140 P. 819; Phil-
lips V, Jokische (Ark.), 174 S. W. 520;
Pavlovich v, Pavlovich, 22 Cal. App.
500, 135 P. 303; Modern Woodmen v.
Loveland (Ind. App.), 104 N. E. 518;
Briggs f?. Sanford, 219 Mass. 572, 107
N. £. 436; Young f>. Duncan, 218 Mass.
346, 106 N. E. 1; Tyndall v. New York
Cent. & H. B. B. Co. (N. Y.) 107 N.
£. 577; People t>. Santa Clara Lumb.
Co., 213 N. Y. 226, 107 N. E. 495; San-
ders r. Sanders, 167 N. C. 317, 83 8. E.
4S»; Babcock v. Glover (Tex. Civ.), 174
8. W. 710.
The troth of the court's findings will
be presumed. Mower v. Shannon, 178
Ala. 469, 59 8. 568.
426-54 United States F. & G. Co.
V. Hall (Tex. Civ.), 173 S. W. 892;
Todd 17. St. Louis Southwestern B. Co.
(Tex. Civ.), 173 8. W. 617, presump-
tion that conclusions of fact and law
were filed pursuant to request.
That judge was not inflnenced by evi-
dence erroneously admitted will not be
presumed. Blair V, Norfolk & W. B.
Co., 162 Ky. 833, 173 8. W. 162.
Filing concliiflioiis of law.— In absence
of showing in record the presumption
will be indulged that the conclusions
of fact and law were filed by re-
quest. Todd V, St. Louis, etc. B. Co.
(Tex. Civ.), 173 8. W. 617; Biggins f?.
Trickey, 46 Tex. Civ, 569, 102 8. W.
918.
426-65 Prejadidal remarks of juror.
Bemarks of juror during deliberation
that the defeated party was ''the
meanest man that ever lived," etc.,
were presumptively prejudicial, neces-
sitating a new trial, especially when,
damages awarded were excessive. Jolly
V. Doolittle (la.), 149 N. W. 890.
426-68 Gamble v. Andrews (Ala.), 65
8. 525; Smith V. Allen, 9 Ala. App.
371, 63 8. 770; Maloney v. Jones-Wise
Com. Co. (Ark.), 174 8. W. 239; Long
V. Hammond, 168 Cal. 790, 145 P. 527;
Watson V. Lawson, 166 Cal. 235, 135
P. 961; Myers r. Sal try, 163 Ky. 481,
173 8. W. 1138; Boyd v. Bradley, 134
La. 223, 63 8. 883; Shreveport v. Mar-
oun, 134 La. 148, 63 8. 857; Wakefield
V, Wakefield, 97 Neb. 652, 150 N. W.
1001; Simon V, Etgen, 213 N. Y. 589,
107 N. E. 1066; 8. V. Connelly, 34 8.
D. 520, 149 N. W. 360; Wells Fargo &
Co. Express v. Keeler (Tex. Civ.), 173
8. W. 926; Bastrop & Austin Bayou
Bice Growers Assn. t?. Cochran (Tex.
Civ.), 171 8. W. 294; Bennington Coun-
ty V, Manchester, 87 Vt. 655, 90 A.
502.
That statates of another state were in
evidence cannot be presumed in sup-
port of the judgment where the bill of
exceptions recited that it contained all
the evidence at the trial. Weil v. Fed-
eral Life Ins. Co., 264 HI. 425, 106 N.
£. 246.
426-69 Prudential Savings Bank v.
Looney (Ala.), 65 S. 770; Hutson t?.
Illinois Cent. B. Co., 186 Ala. 436, 65
8. 62; Potter v. Tucker, 11 Ala. App.
466, 66 8. 922; P. r. Pennington, 267
111. 45, 107 N. E. 871; Bonardo v. P.,
182 111. 411, 55 N. E. 519; Johnston v.
Citizens' State Bank (Ind. App.), 107
N. E. 35; Christensen v, Esbeck (IaO>
149 N. W. 76; P. v, Santa Clara Lumb.
Co. (N. Y.), 106 N. E. 927; BabcoCk t?.
Glover (Tex. Civ.), 174 8. W. 710; First
State Bank v, Jones (Tex. Civ.), 171
8. W. 1057; Escamilla v. Pingree, 44
Utah 421, 141 P. 103.
All Inferences necessary to support the
decree will be presumed to have been
made by the trial judge. Bennington
County V, Manchester, 87 Vt. 555, 90
A. 502.
427-60 Atlantic Coast Line B. Co.
r. Jones, 9 Ala. App. 499, 63 S. 693;
Shilling t?. Dodge, 22 Cal. App. 517, 135
P. 299; Busalt r. Doidge, 91 Kan. 37,
136 P. 904; Kaliamotes v. Wardwell,
112 Me. 557^ 91 A, 433 j Coolidge t?,
W
Vol. 2
APPEALS
Smith, 112 Me. 556, 91 A. 433; Heath-
cote V. Barbour, 36 B. I. 453, 00 A.
803.
Different Judges. — ^Thia presumption
does not exist where the judge who
passed upon the motion for a new trial
13 other than the one who presided at
the trial. Gibson v, Morris State Bank.
49 Mont. 60, 140 P. 76.
427-62 Ingalls r. Smith (Kan.), 145
P. 846; O'Hanlon v, Buby Gulch M.
Co., 48 Mont. 65, 135 P. 913.
An order general In terms will be pre-
sumed to have been granted for insuffi-
ciency of evidence. Waltz v, Silveira,
25 Cal. App. 717, 145 P. 169.
427-64 Berri v. Bogero, 168 Cal. 736,
145 P. 95.
Vacated on discretionary grounds.
There is no presumption that an order
vacating a 'default judgment was made
on discretionary grounds where there
is no showing of excusable neglect and
no meritorious defense. Beller v, Le
Bouef (Mont.), 145 P. 945.
428-69 Settlement of bill of excep-
tions.— It will be presumed that the
bill of exceptions was prepared and
settled in time. Hughes Mfg. & Lumb.
Co. V. Elliott, 167 Cal. 494, 140 P. 17.
429-72 Illinois Central B. Co. v.
Bobinson (Ala.), 66 S. 519; Tilghman
t\ Seaboard Air Line B. Co., 167 N.
C. 163, 83 S. E. 315, 1090.
429-73 Gillispie v, Darroch (Ind.
App.), 107 N. E. 475.
429-74 Jackson Lumb. Co. v. Cour-
cey, 9 Ala. App. 488, 63 S. 749; Craig
V. Craig's Est. (la.), 149 N. W. 454
(where appellee did not appeal) ; Kitch-
in V, Oregon Nursery Co., 65 Or. 20, 130
P. 408, 1133; 132 P. 956; Manz r. Klip-
pel, 158 Wis. 557, 149 N. W. 375.
429-75 Pairchild t?. Bay Point ft C.
B. Co., 22 Cal. App. 328, 134 P. 338;
Gumett r. Henry, 24 Colo. App. 272,
133 P. 1047.
430-78 Morrow v. Hall (Ta.), 151 N.
W. 482; Commissioners v, Westminster,
123 Md. 198, 91 A. 412; Carpenter v.
Carpenter, 104 Miss. 403, 61 S. 421;
Wefis V. Lusk (Mo. App.), 173 a W.
750; Billings r. Shaw, 209 N. Y. 265,
103 N. E. 142; Sharum t?. Muskogee,
43 Okla. 22, 141 P. 22.
430-81 Gebhart v, Shrader (W.
Va.), 83 S. E. 925.
430-82 Turner v, Eastside Canal So
Xrr. Co., 168 Cal. 103, 142 P. 69; Jolly
V. Doolittle (la.), 149 N. W. 890; Craig
V. Craig's Est. (la.), 149 N. W. 454;
Munroe v. Stanley (Mass.), 107 N. E.
1012; Morris V. HendersonviUe (N. C),
84 S. E. 260; St. Louis, L M. & S. B.
Co. r. Lewis, 39 Okla. 677, 136 P. 396;
Barber v. Toomey, 67 Or. 452, 136 P.
343; Beach's Est., 50 Or. 179, 92 P.
118.
431-84 Cummings v. McDonnell
(Ala.), 66 S. 717: Trask v, Boise King
Placers Co., 26 Ida. 290, 142 P. 1073;
P. V. Toledo, etc. B. Co., 265 HI. 502,
107 N. E. 220; Akron Milling Co. r.
Leiter (Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 99; Do-
mestic Block Coal Co. v, Holden (Ind.
App.), 103 N. E. 73; Bay r. Missouri,
K. ft T. B. Co., 90 Kan. 244, 133 P.
847; Illinois Cent. B. Co. v. Handy
(Miss.), 66 S. 783; Wallace v. Duke
(Okla.), 142 P. 308; City of Woodburn
t\ Apliii, 64 Or. 610, 131 P. 516; Wich-
ita Cotton Oil Co. V. Hanna (Tex.), 173
S. W. 644; Bla<Jk v, Suydam, 81 Wash.
279, 142 P. 700; Gage v. Gage, 78 Wash.
262, 138 P. 886.
482-87 Davis v. Parsons, 165 Cal. 70,
130 P. 1055; Gjurich v. Eieg, 164 CaL
429, 129 P. 464; Lincoln V. Chicago ft
A. B. Co., 262 HI. 98, 104 N. E. 282;
Beckley v. Alexander (N. H.), 90 A.
878; Winston 17. Terrace, 78 Wash. 146,
138 P. 673.
Unless the party offering the evldenco
moved to exclude it. MeCaskey Beg-
ister Co. v. Nix Drug Co., 7 Ala. App.
309, 61 S. 484.
Invited error. — ^Where questions asked
were limited as requested by a party,
he could not predicate error thereon.
Beid i\ Eastern S. S. Co., 112 Me. 34,
90 A. 609.
Illegal evidence admitted in rebuttal
of illegal evidence introduced by a
party cannot be complained of by him.
Lockridge V. Brown, 184 Ala. 106, 63
S. 524.
That Jury believed a party's witness
cannot be complained of by that party.
Schleich v, Baltimore ft O. B. Co., 245
Pa. 184, 91 A. 253.
TTsing docnments for xmrpose offered.
Party offering contract as aid in con-
struction of subsequent contract can-
not complain that it was so used.
Stephen v. Keen (Fla.), 67 S. 226.
432-88 P. V, Spencer, 264 HI. 124,
106 N. E. 219; Pettet r. Johnston
(Wash.), 145 P. 985; Lantz t?. Moeller,
76 Wash. 429, 136 P. 687,
96
APPEALS
Wol. 2
4S2-0O Gray v. Ellia, 164 Cal. 481,
129 P. 791; Mutual Life Ins. Co, v.
Good, 25 Colo. App. 204, 136 P. 821;
Judj V, Judy, 261 HI. 470, 104 N. E.
256; Olds t?. Lochner (Ind. App.), 106
N. E. 889; Thummel f?. Surplus (Mo.),
171 S. W. 929- McKennan f?. Omaha &
C. B. St. E. Co., 97 Neb. 281, 149 N.
W. 826; S. €. PoweU (N. C), 83 S. E.
310; Wichito Cotton Oil Co. f?. Hanna
(Tex.), 173 S. W. 644; Miller v. Camp-
bell (Tex. Civ,), 171 S. W. 251; Olson
t?- Carlson (Wash.), 145 P. 237,
Iiivited error includes charges given
without objection, for when not ex-
cepted to such charges must be deemed
approved, and a party who thus ap-
proves a charge is in the same situa-
tion as if that charge had been re-
quested by him. Elser v. Putnam Land
da Develop. Co. (Tex. Civ.), 171 S. W.
1052; Cleburne Street B. Co. v, Barnes
(Tex. Civ.), 168 S. W. 991.
If altei^tive and Inconalstent reqneBtfl
to charge are preferred, the party can-
not complain of the choice made by the
court Kosher Dairy Co. v. New York,
S. A; W. E. Co., 86 N. J. L. 161, 91 A.
1037.
Bain v. Ft Smith Light &
Tract. Co. (Ark.), 172 S. W. 843; Eas-
ton 9. Connecticut Co. (Conn.), 91 A.
645; Cincinnati, C. C. ft St. L. B. Co.
V. Simpson (Ind.), 104 N. E. 301; In-
diana Union Traction Co. r. Cauldwell
(Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 705; Terre Haute
Traction Co. r. Frischman (Ind. App.),
107 N. E. 296; Chicago, etc. B. Co. v.
Gorman (Ind. App.), 106 N. E. 897;
Pelton I?. Illinois Cent. E. Co. (la.), 150
N. W. 236; Boone County Lumb. Co.
r. Niedermeyer, 187 Mo. App. 180, 173
8. W. 57; Cleburne St B. Co. r. Barnes
(Tex. Civ.), 168 S. W. 991; Cranford v,
O'Shea, 75 Wash. 33, 134 P. 486; David-
aon Fruit Co. v. Produce Distributors
Co., 74 Wash. 551, 134 P. 510; Carlson
Sbeep Co. v. Schmidt, 21 Wyo. 498, 133
P. 1053.
Or was favorable to liim. — So. Bealty
Co. V. Keenan (S. C), 83 S. E. 39.
438-92 Exchange Bank i;. Bobinson,
1B5 Mo. App. 582, 172 S. W. 628.
438-03 UtKm matters not in issaa
"Where plaintiff requested instructions
on defenses not pleaded, he cannot
complain that those issues were sub-
mitted.'' Exchange Bank v. Bobinson,
185 Mo. App. 582, 172 S. W. 628.
433-94 Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Good,
25 Colo. App. 204, 136 P. 821,
Or indncod by pleadlnga and evidence.
Plaintiff cannot attack on appeal a
finding which was in accordance with
its complaint and evidence. Wiscon-
sin Lumb. Co. t?. Pacific Tank & Silo
Co., 76 Wash. 452, 136 P. 691.
434-97 Boone County Lumb. Co. t?.
Niedermeyer, 186 Mo. App. 180, 173
S. W. 57; Mason County v. McBeavy
(Wash,), 145 P. 993; Multerer v, Dal-
lendorfer, 158 Wis. 268- 148 N. W.
1084.
Consent given to an irregularity at the
trial will estop the consenting party
from complaining thereof on appeal,
particularly where he is benefited there-
by. Freeman v, Clark, 28 N. D. 578,
149 N. W. 565.
434-98 Birmingham By., L. & P. Co.
t?. Cockrum, 179 Ala. 372, 60 S. 304;
Nystrom t?. Barker, 88 Conn. 382, 91
A. 649; S. V, Eppinett, 136 La. 225, 66
S. 798; Boberts t?. Cooper, 131 La. 811,
60 S. 246. See P. r. Sweeney (N. Y.),
106 N. E. 913.
436-99 Bass v. Clements, 6 Ala. App.
167, 60 S. 443; Dean t?. Connecticut Tob.
Corp.i 88 Conn. 619, 92 A. 408; McKeen
t7. Bowen & Co. (Ind.), 106 N. E.
529; Grouch v. Heffner (Mo.), 171 S.
W. 23; Curtis v, S., 97 Neb. 397, 150
N. W. 264; Watts v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 171
S. W. 202; Paul Stone Co. v. Saucedo
(Tex. Civ.), 171 S. W. 1038; Denton f>.
English (Tex. Civ.), 171 S. W. 248.
435-1 Gingold v. Coplon, 186 Ala.
340, 65 S. 328; Curtis v. Brown, 219
Mass. 157, 106 N. E. 569; C. v. Double-
day-Hill Electric So., 243 Pa. 235, 90
A. 67.
437-18 Bugenstein v, Ottenheimer,
70 Or. 600, 140 P. 747.
437-23 Palmer v. Goodrum, 219
Mass. 260, 106 N. E. 1001.
437-24 Jones v, Bome (Ga. App.),
82 S. E. 593.
437-26 Thougb a nonsuit is termed
voluntary by plaintiff in his abstract,
if it is in effect involuntary the court
will treat it as such. Scott r. American
Zinc, L. & Smelt. Co., 187 Mo. App.
344, 173 S. W. 23.
437-28 Weller v, Davis & Sanford
Co. (Ga. App.), 82 S. E. 593; Hewitt
f?. Southern Wis. B. Co., 159 Wis. 309,
150 N. W. 502.
Exception to refusal to grant nonsuit
will not be considered where case was
later submitted to jury. Henderson t?.
97
Vol 2
APPEALS
Maysville Guano Cor(Ga. App.), 82 S.
E. 588. '
438-30 Illinois Cent. B. Co. r. Eob-
inson (Ala.)» 66 S. 519; McDuffie So
Sons V. Weeks. 9 Ala. App. 282, 63 S.
739; ridelity-Phenix Fire Ins. Co. t?.
Friedman (Ark.), 174 S. W. 215; Chan-
cey V, S. (Fla.), 66 S. 430; Florida East
Coast R. Co. V. Pierce, 65 Fla. 131, 61
S. 237; Morris-Roberts Co. v. Mariner,
24 Ida. 788, 135 P. 1166; Baillie t?. Wal-
lace, 24 Ida. 706, 135 P. 850; Panhandle
Lumb. Co. 17. Rancour, 24 Ida. 603, 135
P. 558; Oeohegan v. Union Elev. R. Co.,
266 IlL 482, 107 N. E. 786; Humason v.
Michigan Cent. R. Co.. 259 111. 462, 102
N. E. 793; Falk v. S. (Ind.), 106 N*.
E. 354; QiflPord V. Oifford (Ind. App.),
107 N. E. 308; Wheatcraft v. Myers
(Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 81; Ft. Wayne
A N. I. Tract. Co. v. Smith (Ind. App.),
107 N. E. 31; Cincinnati Gas, C. C. &
Min. Co. V, Underwood (Ind. App.),
107 N. E. 28; Marietta Glass Co. v.
Bennett (Ind. App.), 106 N. E. 419;
Hensler r. Fountain Park Co. (Ind.
App.), 106 N. E. 384; Pelton v. Illi-
nois Cent. R. Co. (la.), 150 N. W. 236;
Brossard v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co.
(la.), 149 N. W. 915; Middleton v.
Potts, 163 Ky. 550, 174 8. W. 9; Mil-
ler's Admr. v, Ewing, 163 Ky. 401, 174
S. W. 22; Interstate Coal Co. v. Gar-
rard, 163 Ky. 235, 173 S. W. 767;
Strickland v, Louisiana R. & Nav. Co.,
134 La. 238, 63 S. 888; Coles v. New
Orleans Ry. & L. Co., 133 La. 915, 63
S. 401; Giarruso v. New Orleans Ry. &
L. Co., 131 La. 559, 59 S. 979; Estey v.
Whitney, 112 Me. 131, 90 A. 1093;
Hufft V. Dougherty (Mo.), 171 S. W.
17; laser V. Nelson (Mo.), 171 S. W.
6; Davis v. Manning, 97 Neb. 658, 150
N. W. 1019; Nofsinger v, Paup, 97 Neb.
599, 150 N. W. 1005; Norman v, Kusel,
97 Neb. 400, 150 N. W. 201; Olson v,
Farnsworth, 97 Neb. 407, 150 N. W.
260; Langdon v. Withnell, 97 Neb. 335,
149 N. W. 781 ; Dore v. Omaha & C. B.
St. R. Co., 97 Neb. 250, 149 N. W. 792;
De Noon v. Lincoln Traction Co., 97
Neb. 1, 149 N. W. 48; WiUiams 17.
Western Travelers* Ace. Assn., 97 Neb.
352, 149 N. W. 822; Kohl v. Munson, 97
Neb. 170, 149 N. W. 314; Ryan t?. Man-
hattan Big Four Min. Co. (Nov.), 145
P. 907; Burngarner 17. Rice (N. C), 83
8. E. 803; Hammet r. S., 42 Okla. 384,
141 P. 419; Thompson 17. De Long, 40
Okla. 718, 140 P. 421; fit. Louis, I. M.
& S. R. Co. 17. Lewis, 39 Okla. 677, 136
P, 396; Bell 17. Bearman, 37 Okla. 645,
133 P. 188; Latourette i?. Miller, 67
Or. 141, 135 P. 327; Kelly 17. Lewis
Inv. Co., 66 Or. 1, 133 P. 826, Ann. Cas.
1915B, 568; Sullivan 17. Wakefield, 65
Or. 528, 133 P. 641; Martin r. Borough
of West Liberty, 243 Pa. 500, 90 A. 366;
Ainsley v, Pittsburg, C. C. & St. L.
R. Co., 243 Pa. 437, 90 A. 129; Shaw
17. Garrison (Tex. Civ.), 174 S. W. 942;
El Paso & Southwestern Co. 17. La Loude
(Tex. Civ.), 173 S. W. 890; Texas &
P. R. Co. 17. Stevens (Tex, Civ.), 173
S. W. 629; Virginia Fire & Marine Ins.
Co. 17. St. Louis Southwestern R. Co.
(Tex. Civ.), 173 S. W. 487; Frith i?.
Wright (Tex Civ.), 173 S. W. 453;
Gaines 17. Ogden Rapid Transit Co.
(Utah), 141 P. 110; Newton's Admx. v.
American Car Sprinkler Co., 87 Vt. 546,
90 A. 583; Culp 17. Kirkman, 79 Wash.
440, 140 F. 346; Hewitt 17. Southern
Wis. R. Co., 159 Wis. 309, 150 N. W.
502.
Mere possibilities and probabilities in-
consistent with the verdict opposed by.
direct evidence do not warrant disturb-
ance of verdict. S. 17. Wilson (W. Va.)j
83 S. E. 44.
438-31 Gay 17. Metcalf (Ala.), 66 S.
668; Illinois C. R. Co. 17. Robinson
(Ala.), 66 S. 519; Webber 17. Smith,
24 Cal. App. 51, 140 P. 37; Dunaway 17.
Anderson, 22 Cal. App. 691, 136 P. 309;
Read 17. W. T. Craft Realty Co. (Colo.
App.), 146 P. 128; First Nat. Bank v.
Brooks (Ga. App.), 82 S. E. 608; Camp-
bell 17. Hackfeld & Co., 20 Haw. 245;
P. 17. Grosenheider, 266 HI. 324, 107 N.
E. 607; Knox Engineering Co. t\ R. I.
S. Rv. Co., 264 111. 198, 106 N. E. 188;
Thain 17. S. (Ind.), 106 N. E. 690; Sov-
ereign Camp of Woodmen 17. Latham
(Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 749; Wheatcraft
17. Myers (Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 81;
Roberts Cotton O. Co. 17. Dodds, 163
Ky. 695, 174 S. W. 485; Cassady v.
Texas & P. R. Co., 131 La. 626, 60 S.
15; Golden 17. Bank of Lake (Miss.), 66
S. 782; Wenquist 17. Omaha & C. B.
St. R. Co., 97 Neb. 554, 150 N. W. 637;
Mauder i?. S., 97 Neb. 380, 149 N. W.
800; Herring -Hall-Marvin Safe Co. v.
Balliet (Nov.), 145 P. 941; Wilkinson o.
Bartholomew (Okla.), 146 P. 1081;
Myers 17. Cabiness (Okla.), 146 P. 33;
Lee 17. Fulsom (Okla.), 145 P. 808; Tyer
& Son 17. Wheeler, 41 Okla. 335, 135 P-
351; Everett 17. Combs, 40 Okla. 645,
140 P. 152; School Dist. No. 13 17. Ward,
40 Okla. 97, 136 P. 588; Lowenstein v.
Holmes, 40 Okla. 33, 135 P. 727; Avants
i;. Bruner, 39 Okla. 730, 136 P. 593;
98
APPEALS
Tol. 2
Chicago, R. I. A P. B. Co. v. Newburn,
39 Okla. 704, 136 P. 174; Moore t?.
Johnson, 39 Okla. 587, 136 P. 422;
Flynn v. Eadford Grocery Co. (Tex.
Civ.), 174 S. W. 902; Texas & P. B.
Co. t?. Stevens (Tex. Civ.), 173 S, W.
629; Virginia Fire Ins. Co. v, St. Louis,
etc. B. Co. (Tex. Civ.), 173 S. W. 487;
Frith t?. Wright (Tex. Civ.), 173 S. W.
453; Nat. U. F. Ins. Co. v, Burkholder,
116 Ya. 942, 83 S. £. 404.
Appellee faTored. — In determining suf-
ficiency of evidence appellate court
view it in the light most favorable to
appellee. 8o, Products Co. f. Frank-
lin, etc. Co. (Ind.), 106 N. E. 872; Pea-
body Coal Co. V. Yandell, 179 Ind. 222,
100 N. E. 758.
438-32 White v. Connecticut Co., 88
Conn. 614, 92 A. 411- Combs v. Combs
(Ind. App.), 105 N. B. 944; Spencer r.
Gross-Kelly & Co., 18 N. M. 191, 135
P. 77; St. Louis & S. F. B. Co. v.
Kerns, 41 Okla. 167, 136 P. 169; Squires
f?. Modern Brotherhood, 68 Or. 336, 135
P. 774; Oregon B. & Nav. Co. v, Taffe,
67 Or. 102, 134 P. 1024; 135 P. 332, 515.
439-33 Miller's Admr. r. Ewing, 163
Kv. 401, 174 S. W. 22; Cedar Bapids
Nat. Bank v, Bashara, 39 Okla. 482, 135
P. 1051.
The difllculty of obtaining positlTe
proof will be taken into consideration
by the appellate court in passing upon
the probative force of the evidence.
Scott V. American Zinc, L. & Smelt. Co.,
187 Mo. App. 344, 173 S. W. 23.
A f ailnre to ask peremptory instruc-
tion in the trial court does not prevent
a party from contending in the appel-
late court that the verdict was contrary
to the weight of the evidence. Carna-
han V. Hamilton, 265 HI. 508, 107 N. £.
210.
Contraiy to physical facts.— Though
the verdict of jury is ordinarily con-
elusive, yet where the evidence ac-
cepted by the jury is contrary to physi-
cal facts the verdict will be set aside.
Behling r. Wisconsin Bridge & I. Co.,
158 Wis. 584, 149 N. W. 484; Kalman
V. Pieper, 158 Wis. 487, 149 N. W. 203.
439-34 Ideal Cream Separator Be-
pair Works i?. Des Moines (la.), 149 N.
W. 640; Independent Order of Foresters
V, Bonner (Wash.), 145 P. 987.
439-36 Helms v. Georgia By. Co.
(Ala.), 66 B. 470; Taxicab & Touring
Car Co. V, Cabaniss, 9 Ala. App. 549,
63 S. 774; Hannix v, B. L. Badke Co.,
166 Cal. 333, 136 P. 52; American Art
Works V. Chicago Picture Frame Wks.,
264 111. 610, 106 N. E. 440; Southern
By. Co. V. Howerton (Ind.), 106 N. E.
369; Buchanan v, Caine (Ind. App.), 106
N. B. 885: Basher V, Basher (Ind.
App.), 106 N. E. 375; Taylor v. Griner,
55 Ind. App. 617, 104 N. E. 607; Maine
V, Bittenmeyer (la.), 151 N. W. 499;
Whinnery v. Cundiff (la.), 150 N. W.
659; Dugger v. Kelly (la.), 150 N. W.
27; Louisville So N. B. Co. t?. Stewart's
Admx., 163 Ky. 823, 174 S. W. 744;
Yandell v. Anderson, 163 Ky. 702, 174
S. W. 481; Louisville & N. B. Co. v,
McArthur, 163 Ky. 291, 173 S. W. 770;
Denney v, Abbott, 163 Ky. 499, 173 S.
W. 1159; Tavlor Sons Co. t?. Hunt, 163
Ky. 120, 173 S. W. 333; Voism t?.
Schwing Lumb. & Shingle Co., 131 La.
775, 60 S. 241; Beid v. Eastern S. S.
Co., 112 Me. 34, 90 A. 609; Anderson v.
Boston Elev. B. Co. (Mass.), 107 N.
E. 376; Burnett V, Worcester Brewing
Corp., 219 Mass. 91, 106 N. E. 597; Lof-
tus r. Fall Biver Laundry Co., 217
Mass. 240, 104 N. E. 675; Bragg &
Co. V. Johnson (Minn.), 150 N. W. 223;
Thompson v. Poe, 104 Miss. 586, 61 S.
656; Kemp v. Turman, 104 Miss. 501, 61
S. 548; Gillogly I?. Dunham (Mo. App.),
174 S. W. 118; Williams t?. Western
Travelers' Ace. Assn., 97 Neb. 352, 149
N. W. 822; Haight v, Omaha & C. B.
St. B. Co., 97 Neb. 293, 149 N. W.
778; Scott V. Blakely, 85 N. J. L. 729,
90 A. 317; Tulsa St. B. Co. v. Jacob-
son, 40 Okla. 118, 136 P. 410; Peters v.
Holder, 40 Okla. 93, 136 P. 400; Zo-
brist f?. Estes, 65 Or. 573, 133 P. 644;
Harriss v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 174 S. W. 354;
Thompson r. Pennington (Tex. Civ.),
174 S. W. 944; Glover v, Phillips (Tex. .
Civ.), 174 S. W. 657; Southern Kansas
By. Co. of Texas i?. Barnes (Tex. Civ.),
173 8. W. 880; Memphis Cotton Oil Co.
r. Gardner (Tex. Civ.), 171 S. W. 1082;
Ft. Worth Horse & Mule Co. v, Bur-
nett (Tex. Civ.), 171 S. W. 1076;
Thomas v. Barthold (Tex. Civ.), 171 S.
W. 1071; Becker v. Sunnyside Land &
Inv. Co., 76 Wash. 685, 136 P. 1147;
Puget Sound Electric By. v, Carstens
Pack. Co., 76 Wash. 364, 136 P. 117;
Bercer-Crittenden Co. v, Chicago, M.
& St. P. B. Co., 159 Wis. 256, 150 N.
W. 496.
439-36 Henderson v. Planters* & M.
Bank (Ala.), 66 S. 473; Helms v. Cen-
tral Georgia By. Co. (Ala.), 66 S. 470;
Alexander v. Smith, 180 Ala. 541, 61^
99
Vol. 2
APPEALS
S. 68; Hebert v. Patrick (Colo. App.),
146 P. 190; Southern Express Co. v.
Wniiamson, 66 Fla. 286, 63 8. 433;
Woodland v. Portneuf Marsh Val. Irr.
Co. (Ida.), 146 P. 1106; Nordyke, etc.
Co. V. Whitehead (Ind.), 106 N. E. 867;
Horine v, Hammond (Kan.), 146 P.
1144; Francois v, Maison Blanche
Realty Co., 134 La. 215, 63 S. 880;
Quint V, Foss, 112 Me. 699, 91 A. 785;
Shackford V. New England Tel. Co., 112
Me. 204, 91 A. 931; First Nat. Eealty
& Loan Co. v. Mason, 185 Mo. App. 37,
171 S. W. 971; Bood v. Murray (Mont.),
146 P. 541; Kohl v, Munson, 97 Neb.
170, 149 N. W. 314; Knock r. Tono-
pah & G. E. Co. (Nov.), 145 P. 939;
Dunn V. Carrier, 40 Okla. 214, 135 P.
337; Moore v, Johnson, 39 Okla. 587,
136 P. 422; Bumbaugh v, Bumbaugh,
39 Okla. 445, 135 P. 937; S. Yamamoto
c. Puget Sound Lumb. Co. (Wash.), 146
P. 861; Clapp r. Snohomish Bivei* Boom
Co.. 76 Wash. 69, 135 P. 808.
Unless clearly wrong. — Weber c. Towle,
97 Neb. 233, 149 N. W. 406.
440-3T Anderson v, Boston Elev. By.
Co. (Mass.), 107 N. E. 376; Pruitt «?.
B. Co., 167 N. C. 246, 83 S. E. 350.
440-38 Pendleton D. Poland, 111
Me. 563, 90 A. 426.
440-39 Atlantic Coast Line B. Co. V.
Whitney, 65 Fla. 72, 61 S. 179; Inde-
pendent Order of Foresters v, Bonner
(Wash.), 145 P. 987.
441-40 Central of Ga. E. Co. v.
Hingson, 186 Ala. 40, 65 S. 45; Jack-
son <?. Smith (Ark.), 174 S. W. 1189;
Borne S. Mfg. Co. v. Harvey (Ga.
App.), 83 S. E. 434; Meeker v. Trap-
pett, 24 Ida. 198, 133 P. 117; Jeffries
V. Alexander, 266 111. 49, 107 N. E. 146;
Wheatcraft v, Myers (Ind. App.), 107
N. E. 81; Bell f?. Providence Gas Co.
(B. I.) 90 A, 2; Just t?. Herry (Tex.
Civ.), 174 S. W. 1012; Thomas v. Barth-
old (Tex. Civ.), 171 S. W. 1071; North
Ben. L. Co. <?. Chicago, M. & P. S. By.
Co., 76 Wash. 232, 135 P. 1017.
441-41 Prairie Pebble' Phosphate Co.
V, Taylor, 64 Fla. 403, 60 S. 114; Tay-
lor Sons Co. V. Hunt, 163 Ky. 120, 173
S. W. 333; Franks v, C, 163 Ky. 96, 173
S. W. 327; Darling t?. By. Co. (Mich.),
151 N. W. 701; Olson t?. Famsworth,
97 Neb. 407, 150 N. W. 260; MerrUl v.
Missouri Bridge & I. Co., 69 Or. 585,
140 P. 439; Kennedy t?. First State
Bank, 34 S. D. 457, 149 N. W. 168;
Virginia Fire Ins. Co. v. St. Louis, etc.
B. Co. (Tex, Civ.), 173 S. W. 487; Gal-
veston, H. ft S. A. B. Co. V. Patter-
son (T«x. Civ.), 178 S. W. 273.
A verdict coattaxj to aiatters of com-
mon knowledge, conceded facts or all
responsible probabilities will be set
aside on appeal even where the .trial
court has refused on motion to change
it. Behling v. Wisconsin Bridge & I.
Co., 158 Wis. 584, 149 N. W. 484; Lee
r. 0. St. P. M. & O. By. Co., 101 Wis.
352, 77 N. W. V14; Flaherty f? Harri-
son, 98 Wis. 559, 74 N. W. 360; Both v.
Barret Mfg. Co.,. 96 Wis. 615, 71 N. W.
1034; Badger f?. Janesville Cotton Mills,
95 Wis. 599, 70 N. W. 687.
442-44 St. Louis, L M. & S. B. Co.
f?. Smith (Ark.), 174 S. W. 547; Ter.
V. Soga, 20 Haw. 71, 75; Cincinnati,
etc. Co. V. Underwood (Ind, App.), 107
N. E. 28; Eecord v. Littlefield, 218
Mass. 483, 106 N. E. 142.
442-45 Birmingham By, L. ft P. Co.
V, Nails (Ala.), 66 S. 5; HiUey v. B.
Co., 11 Ala. App. 605, 66 S. 883; Liles
t\ Montgomery Traction Co., 7 Ala.
App. 537, 61 S. 480; Nashville C. & St.
L. By. V. Blackmon, 7 Ala. App. 530,
61 S. 468 (holding the imposition of
punitive damages discretionary with
the jury); Scragg v. Sallee, 24 Cal.
App. 133, 140 P. 706; Wabash B. Co.
1?. McDoniels (Ind.), 107 N. E. 291;
Albrook t?. Western Union Tel. Co.
(la.), 150 N. W. 75; Taylor Sons Co. v.
Hunt, 163 Ky. 120, 173 S, W. 333; Cin-
cinnati, N. O, & T. P. B. Co. 17. Gold-
ston, 163 Ky. 42, 173 S. W. 161; Henry
c. Morris & Co., 42 Okla. 13, 140 P.
413; St. Louis & S. F. B. Co. t?. Fitts,
40 Okla. 685, 140 P. 144; Moore 1?. John-
son, 39 Okla. 587, 186 P. 422; Yard-
borough V, Columbia, etc. Co. (S. C),
84 S. E. 308; Mehegan v, Faber, 158
Wis. 645, 149 N. W. 397.
442-46 Avondale Mills v, Bryant,
10 Ala. App. 507, 63 S. 932; McNeil ©.
Webeking, 66 Fla. 407, 63 S. 728;
Kling V, Lumb. Co., 127 Minn. 468, 149
N. W. 947.
Bnoneow exomplaxy daHiageB not sep-
arated.— ^Bvt where exemplary dam-
ages are erroneously allowed, and it
cannot be determined how much of the
verdict was for actual damages, the er-
ror is prejudicial. Shriver t?. Frawley
(la.), 149 N. W. 510.
442-47 BinBingfaam By. L. A P. Co.
V. Coleman, 181 Ala. 478, 61 S. 890;
Petrie r. IlHnois Cent. E. Co,, 132 La.
100
APPEALS
Vol 2
290, 61 S. 381; ^£alir v. Forrestal, 127
Minn. 475, 149 N. W. 938.
In «Kti«Bi6 caflM only. — The power eon-
ferred on the supreme court to grant
a new trial beeauee a verdict is exces-
rive will be exercised only in extreme
cases. Hertzberg 9. Pittsburg Taxicab
Co.^ 24d Pa. 540, 90 A. 344; Turnpike
Boad Co. 17. Cumberland County, 225
Pa. 467, 74 A. 340.
442-48 Pratt Engineering Co. r.
Trotti, 142 Ga. 401, 83 8. E. 107; Jones
r. Sanitary Dist. of Chicago, 265 111.
98, 10« K. K 473; Tazoo * M. V. B.
Co. «. Hay, 104 Miss. 422, 61 S. 449,
44 L. B. A. (N. S.) 1138; Hutchinson
r. Western Bridge 4 C. Co., 97 Neb.
439, 150 N. W. 193.
CcnditiOBal grant of new triaL— The
fact that the court granted a new trial
unless plaintiff remitted a portion of
the damages, does not amount to a find-
ing that the jury was influenced by
passion or prejudice. Lynch v. South-
em Pac. Co., 24 Cal. App. 108, 140 P.
298.
Seathera By. Co. f^. Herron
(Ala.), 66 S. 627; Empire Life Ins. Co.
17. Qee, 178 Ala. 492, 60 S. 90; Doug-
las V. Berlin Dye Works A Laundry Co.
(Cal.), 145 P. 535; Pana r. Baldwin,
265 Dl. 119, 106 N. E. 454; Frere v.
Missouri K. ft T. B. Co. (Kan.), 145
P. 864; Eder V. Crown Butte Canal 8d
B. Co. (Mont.), 145 P. 1; Carney v,
Hawkins (B. L), 90 A. 418; Mehegan
V. Faber, 158 Wis. 645, 149 N. W. 397.
443-50 Cash v. Smith, 10 Ala. App.
417, 65 S. 193; Kashville. C. & St. L.
By. V. Hinds (Ala. App.). 60 S. 409;
Han V. Clayton, 4 Ala. App. 461, 59
8. 235.
443-51 Southern B. Co. v. Morgan,
178 Ala. 590, 59 S. 432; Terrill v.
Walker, 5 Ala. App. 535, 59 S. 775;
Davis V. S. (Pla.), 66 S. 429; SpeU v,
Johnson, 142 Ga. 242, 82 S. E. 663;
Ideal Cream Separator Bepair Wks. v.
Des Moines (Ta.), 149 K. W. 640; Walsh
c. By. Co. (Mich.), 151 N. W. 754;
Grorud v, Lossl, 48 Mont. 274, 136 P.
1069; Lizott V. Big Blackfoot Mill Co.,
48 Mont 171, 136 P. 46; Tulsa St. E.
Co. V, Jaeobson, 40 Okla. 118, 136 P.
410; Adams V. Simpson, 76 Wash. 508,
136 P. 704; McKay v. Seattle El^ct.
Co., 76 Wash. 257, 136 P. 134.
443-S2 J. B. Kilgor» & Son v. Shan-
non * Co., e Ala. App. 537, 60 S. 520;
McFarlane v. Bobertson, 142 Ga. 266,
82 S. E. 643; Parkes v, Lindenmann
(Wis.), 151 N. W. 787.
44SI-S3 Where prejudice <>r ignor-
ance of the jury brought about the
verdict, it will be set aside though ap-
proved by the trial judge. Southern
B. Co. V. Herron (Ala.), 66 S. 627.
444*65 Hazard v. Fostoria Gold Min-
Co. (Colo. App.), 146 P. 1072; Dickin-
son V. Erie B. Co., 85 N. J. L. 586, 90
A. 305
444-56 Enslen Development Co. v,
Barbour Plumbing & E. Co. (Ala.), 66
So. 514; Beid v. McElderry (Ala.), 66
S. 7: Gingold r. Coplon, 186 Ala. 340,
65 8. 328; Beid t?. McElderry, 10 Ala.
App. 472, 65 S. 421; Southern B. €o.
V, Poster, 7 Ala. App. 487, 60 S. 993;
Swope V, Sherman, 7 Ala. App. 210, 60
S. 474; Hearn V. Louisville Sd N. B,
Co., 6 Ala. App. 483, 60 S. 600; Georgia
Pine Lumb. Co, v. Central Lumb. & T.
Co., 6 Ala. App. 211, 60 S. 512; Bass f?.
Clements, 6 Ala. App. 167, 60 S. 443;
Wells r. Louisville & N. B. Co., 5 Ala.
App. 579, 59 S. 343; Glenn Befining Co.
V. Wester, 5 Ala. App. 441, 59 S. 717;
Huffman v. Sudbury (Ark.), 174 S. W.
1149; Supreme Tribe of Ben Hur r.
Gailey (Ark.), 173 S. W. 838; Blanc f?.
Connor, 167 Cal. 719, 141 P. 217; Simen
V. Sam Afergut Co. (Cal. App.), 146 P.
1058: Farrington V. McClellan (Cal.
App.), 146 P. 1051; Tomasini v. Smith
(Cal. App.), 146 P. 691; Ford v. Lou
Kum Shu (Cal. App.), 146 P. 199;
Kurze v, Douglas (Cal. App.), 146 P.
197; Fernandez v. Watt (Cal. App.),
146 P. 47; Herron f?. Gear (Cal. App.),
145 P. 731; Foote V. San Francisco Pro-
duce Co., 25 Cal. App. 787, 145 P. 730;
Eaton V. Locey, 22 €al. App. 762, 136
P. 534; Weill V. Danziger, 22 Cal. App.
688, 136 P; 308; Byan v. Mineral Coun-
ty High School Dist. (Colo. App.), 146
P. 792; Central Trust Co. v. Culver
(Colo.), 145 P. 684; Degge v. Carstar-
phen Electric Co. (Colo. App.), 140 P.
478; Edwards v. McLaughlin, 25 Colo.
App. 202, 136 P. 552; Monte Vista Canal
Co. V. Centennial Irr. D. Co., 24 Colo.
App. 496, 135 P. 981; Welles v. Bryant
(Fla.), 66 S. 562; Foster V. Sunday, 65
Fla. 329, 61 S. 625; Hau v. Palolo Land
ft Imp. Co., 20 Haw. 172; In re Simon's
Will, 266 HI. 804, 107 N. E. 613; Knox
Engineering Co. v. Bock Island S. E.
Co., 264 111. 198, 106 N. E. 188; Gil-
christ V. Hatch (Tnd.), 106 K E. 694;
Johnson V. Allispaugh (Ind. App.), 107
N. E. 686; Youtsey v. Lemley (la.),
101
I
Vol 2
APPEALS
151 N. W. 491; Morrow v. Hall (Ta.),
151 N. W. 482; Bell Jones Co. v. Erie
B. Co. (la.), 150 N. W. 7; Sprecher r.
Ensminger (la.), 149 N. W. 97; Sent-
ney v. Hutchinson Interurban By. Co.,
9C Kan. 610, 135 P. 678; Johnson 17.
Kansas Nat. Gas. Co., 90 Kan. 565,
135 P. 589, Ann. Cas. 1915B, 649; S. V.
Mayer, 90 Kan. 470, 135 P. 666; Sal-
mon Brick & Lumb. Co. 17. Southern Pae.
Co., 132 La. 356, 61 S. 401; Siekmann
V, Kern, 132 La. 100, 61 S. 128; McCabe
V. Keystone Life Ins. Co., 131 La. 1044,
60 S 678; Merchants' & Farmers' Bank
V. Harris, 131 La. 829, 60 S. 362; Gold-
berg V. Deslatte, 131 La. 798, 60 8.
246; Damm v, Boylston, 218 Mass. 557,
106 N. E. 177; Carey v. Gleason Expl,
& Min. Co. (Mich.), 149 N. W. 974;
Murphy v, Anderson (Minn.), 150 N.
W. 387; McKinley V, Northern Boom
Co. (Minn.), 149 N. W. 295; Illinois
Central B. Co. 17. Smith, 102 Miss. 276,
59 S. 87; Woods i?. Johnson (Mo.), 174
S. W. 375; London 17. Funsch (Mo.
App.), 173 S. W. 88; St. Louis Sash &
Door Works i?. Tonkins (Mo. App.), 173
S. W 47; Friedman, Keller & Co. 17.
Olson, 187 Mo. App. 469, 173 S. W. 28;
Thompson 17. Tonopah Lumb. Co.
(Nev.), 141 P. 69; Lamed v. MacCar-
thy, 85 N. J. L. 589, 90 A. 272; Gi!-
more 17. Smathers, 167 N. C. 440, 83 S.
E. 823; Fell i?. Northwest German
Farmers' Mut. Ins. Co., 28 N. D. 355,
149 N. W. 358; Hale 17. Becord (Okla.),
146 P. 587; Friar v. McGilbray (Okla.),
146 P. 581; Bailey 17. Williamson-Hal-
sell-Frazier Co. (Okla.), 145 P. 412;
Galer 17. Berrian, 43 Okla. 303, 140 P.
155; American Nat. Bank 17. Halsell,
43 Okla. 126, 140 P. 399; Franklin 17.
Wright, 42 Okla.' 17, 140 P. 403; Alfred
17. St Louis, I. M. & S. E. Co., 42 Okla.
4, 140 P. 415; Thigpen i?. Bisby, 39
Okla. 598, 136 P. 418; Semple 17. Baken,
39 Okla. 563, 135 P. 1141; Wolf 17. Ep-
penstein, 71 Or. 1, 140 P. 751; Peaslee
17. Gordon Falls E. & Mfg. Co., 68 Or.
244, 135 P. 521; Stroberg 17. Merrill,
67 Or. 409, 135 P. 335; Smith i?. Gev-
urtz & Sons, 67 Or. 25, 135 P. 190; Son
Cui 17. Guepangeo, 22 Phil. Isl. 216; Pa-
terno 17. City of Manila, 17 Phil. Isl. 26;
Capcllania de Tambobong 17. Antonio,
8 Phil. Isl. 683; Enriquez i?. Enriquez,
8 Phil. Isl. 565; Todd 17. St. Louis, etc.
E. Co. (Tex. Civ.), 173 S. W. 617; Ara
17. Butland (Tex Civ.), 172 8. W. 993;
Best 17. Kirkendall (Tex. Civ.), 107 S.
W. 932; Samman v. Miller, 116 Va. 873,
83 S. E. 382; Laughlin v. Seattle Taxi-
cab & Tr. Co. (Wash.), 146 P. 847;
Barnard 17. Clarke (Wash.), 146 P. 175;
Kleesattel i?. Orr, 80 Wash. 191, 141
P. 355; Edward Thompson Co. 17. Mur-
phine, 79 Wash. 672, 140 P. 1073; Dou-
gan 17. Seattle, 76 Wash. 621, 136 P.
IIOSL; Liebman 17. Welsh, 159 Wis. 597,
150 N. W. 966; Murphy 17. Baldwin, 159
Wis. 567, 150 N. W. 957; First Savings
& Trust Co. 17. Cazenovia & S. C. B.
Co., 159 Wis. 344, 150 N. W. 405.
Findings of fact prepared by counsel
may not be entitled to the same re-
spect as those judicially prepared.
Bibelhausen 17. Bibelhausen, 159 Wis.
365, 150 N. W. 516.
444-57 Shannon 17. Lee, 178 Ala. 463,
60 S. 99; Stephenson 17. Jebeles & Co-
lias C. Co., 10 Ala. App. 431, 65 S. 314;
Smith 17. Shadix, 5 Ala. App. 345, 59
S. 706; Northern Alabama B. Co. i;.
Bidgood, 5 Ala. App. 658, 59 S. 680;
In re Cowell's Est. (Cal.), 146 P. 425;
Cross 17. Mayo, 167 Cal. 594, 140 P. 283;
Johnson 17. All Night & Day Bank, 22
Cal. App. 717, 136 P. 516; Lynch v.
Lynch, 22 Cal. App. 653, 135 P. 1101;
Taber 17. Bailey, 22 Cal. App. 617, 135
P. 975; Salisbury 17. La Fitte, 57 Colo.
358, 141 P. 484; Dubois 17. Bowles, 55
Colo. 312, 134 P. 112; Bollins c. Fearn-
ley Inv. & B. E. Co., 25 Colo. App. 85,
136 P. 95; Jackson 17. Larson, 24 Colo.
App. 548, 136 P. 81; Weiss 17. Ahrens,
24 Colo. App. 531, 135 P. 987; Waters
17. Southern Asphalt & C. Co., 67 Fla.
440, 65 S. 457; Pidcock 17. Nace (Oa.
App.), 84 S. E. 226; Dearing 17. Hocker-
smith, 25 Ida. 140, 136 P. 994; Huf-
ton 17. Hufton, 25 Ida. 96, 136 P. 605;
Burmeister 17. Northern Trust Co., 266
111. 304, 107 N. E. 613; Burr 17. Beck-
ler, 264 Dl. 230, 106 N. E. 206; McKeen
17. Bowen & Co. (Ind.), 106 N. E. 529;
Davis 17. Little, 163 Ky, 512, 173 S.
W. 1129; Williams 17. EUerslie Planting
Co., 132 La. 332, 61 S. 392; Perrett r.
Morgan's L. & T. B. & S. S. Co., 131
La. 986, 60 S. 639; Gaff i?. Cornwallis,
219 Mass. 226, 106 N. E. 860; Lodi r.
Goyette, 219 Mass. 72, 106 N. E. 601;
Damm 17. Inhab. of Boylston, 218 Mass.
'557, 106 N. E. 177; Schwler i?. Hurl-
burt (Mich.), 151 N. W. 603; Golden
17. Bank of Lake (Miss.), 66 S. 782;
Nygren 17. Board of Chosen Freehold-
ers, 86 N. J. L. 364, 90 A. 1111; Web-
ster 17. Board of Chosen Freeholders,
86 N. J. L. 256, 90 A. 1110; Fell v.
Northwest, etc. Ins. Co., 2t N. D. 355,
102
APPEALS
Tol. 2
149 N. W. 358; BothweU v. Way
(Okla.), 145 P. 350; Gault v. Thurmond,
39 Okla. 673, 136 P. 742; Vincent v.
South Bend (Wash.), 145 P. 452; Han-
sen f?. Abrams, 76 Wash. 457, 136 P.
678; Borde r. Kingsley, 76 Wash. 613,
136 P. 1172.
445-68 Enslen Dev. Co. t?. Barbour
Co. (Ala.), 66 S. 514; Shannon v.
Tooker, 167 Cal. 484, 140 P. 10; Tout-
sey r. Lemley (la.), 151 N. W. 491;
Record V. Littlefield; 218 Mass. 483,
106 N. E. 142; Eosenberg v. National
Warehouse Co., 218 Mass. 518, 106 N.
E. 171.
Probate court findings. — ^Beview of con-
elusions on facts- entered by probate
court will not be disturbed unless it
is so manifestly against the evidence
that a judge at nisi prius would set
aside the verdict of a jury rendered
on the same testimony. Allen v,
Scruggs (Ala.), 67 So. 301; Briel r.
Exchange Bank, 180 Ala. 576, 61 S.
277.
445-59 Byan v. Mineral County
High School Dist. (Colo. App.), 146 P.
792; Williams V. Dockwfler (N. M.),
145 P. 475; Texas Midland R. R. t?.
Becker & Cole (Tex. Civ,), 171 S. W.
1024.
445-60 Atlantic Coast Line B. Co.
r. Hillhouse, 64 Fla. 173, 60 S. 339;
Potosi Zinc Co. v. Mahoney, 36 Nev.
390, 135 P. 1078; Smith v, Gevurtz &
Sons, 67 Or. 25, 135 P. 190; Covington
r. Hawes La-Anna Co., 245 Pa. 73, 91
A. 514; lannuccilH r. Carlone (B. I.),
90 A. 163; Bennington County v. Man-
chester, 87 Vt. 555, 90 A. 502.
445-61 Twinn Tree Lumb. Co. fl.
Hunter, 181 Ala. 565, 61 S. 914; Nolan
r. Zagar, 266 HI. 39, 107 K B. 105;
Music V. B. Co., 163 Ky. 628, 174 S.
W. 44; Morton v. De Young (Mich.),
151 N. W. 627; Carey v, Gleason Exp.
& Mining Co. (Mich.), 149 N. W.
974; In re Gordon's Est. (Minn.), 151
N. W. 529; Berndt V, Berndt, 127 Minn.
238, 149 N. W. 287; Todd v. St. Louis,
etc. B. Co. (Tex. Civ.), 173 S. W. 617;
Best V, Kirkendall (Tex. Civ.), 107 S.
W. 932; Williamson v. Levine (W. Va.),
83 S. E. 281 : McMillen v. Strange, 159
Wis. 271, 150 N. W. 434; Keck v, Mich-
igan Quartz Silica Co., 158 Wis. 500,
149 N. W. 208.
Jndge improperly influenced. — ^Unless
clearly erroneous, or that it is shown
the judge was influenced by improper
motives or misunderstood the evidence.
Knowlson v. Friar (Mich.), 151 N. W.
555.
446-62 Thornton v. Eseo, 181 Ala.
241, 61 S. 255; Dyer v. Dyer (Ark.),
173 S. W. 394; Terra Ceia Est. v, Tay-
lor (Fla.), 67 S. 169; Barnes ft Jessup
Co. f?. Williams, 64 Fla. 190, 60 S. 787;
Baker v. Baker (la.), 151 N. W. 459;
Nicholson v. DuflP (Mo. App.), 174 S.
W. 451; Mutual Benefit L. Ins. Co. v.
Cummings, 66 Or. 272, 126 P. 982, 133
P. 1169, Ann. Cas. 1915B, 535; Utah
Commercial & Sav. Bank v. Fox, 44
Utah 323, 140 P. 660; Highland v. Ice
(W. Va.), 84 S. B. 252.
The opinion of the txlal Judge may be
considered in order to ascertain the
reasons for his decision. Utah Com-
mercial & Sav. Bank v. Fox, 44 Utah
323, 140 P. 660.
Speiciflc performance. — Applications for
the enforcement of specific perform-
ance of a contract for the sale of real
estate are addressed to the sound
judicial discretion of the chancellor.
Gaskins v. Byrd, 66 Fla. 432, 63 S. 824.
446^3 Gay v, Metcalf (Ala.), 66 S.
668; Joiner v. Watkins, 186 Ala. 211,
65 S. 135; Bonner v, Campbell (Ark.),
174 S. W. 230; Dyer U. Dyer (Ark.),
173 S. W. 394; Nolan v. Zagar, 266 HI.
39, 107 N. E. 105; In re Wearin's Est.
(la.), 149 N. W. 621; Sposedo v. Mer-
riman, 111 Me. 530, 90 A. 387; Buben-
stein V. Lottow (Mass.), 107 N. E. 718;
Freeman v. Freeman (Miss.), 66 8.
202; Northern Assur. Co. v. J. J. New-
man Lumb. Co., 105 Miss. 688, 63 S.
209; Lett v. Hull, 104 Miss. 308, 61 S.
421; Southern Plantations Co. v. Ken-
nedy Heading Co., 104 Miss. 131, 61
S. 166; Board of Comrs. of Woodward
County r. Thyfault, 43 Okla. 82, 141
P. 409; Scott V. Hubbard, 67 Or. 498,
136 P. 653; Longstreth v, Philadelphia,
245 Pa. 233, 91 A. 667; Borough of Mt.
Oliver ». Goldbach, 244 Pa. 56, 90 A.
435; Smith v. Alderson, 116 Va. 986,
83 S. E. 373.
Written documents in evidence will be
construed by the appellate court ir-
respective of the construction placed
upon them by the trial court. North-
ern Assur. Co. 17. J. J. Newman Lumb.
Co., 105 Miss. 688, 63 S. 209.
446-64 T. S. Faulk & Co. v. Hobbie
Grocery Co., 178 Ala. 254, 59 S. 450;
Bonner v, Campbell (Ark.), 174 S. W.
230; McLaughlin Bros. if. Hilliard, 97
Neb. 326, 149 N. W. 807.
103
Vol.2
APPEALS
Credibility of witnttnes.— Where the
examination of the record on appeal in
a suit in equity leaves an appellate
court in doubt as to the equities be-
tween the parties^ the doubt depending
solely upon the credibility of material
witnesses who testified orally upon the
trial, suck doubt will ordinarily be
resolved in favor of the correctness of
the judgment of the trial court, Mc-
LaughUn Bros. r. Hilliard, 97 Neb. 326,
149 N. W. 807; Langmann v, Guernsey,
95 Neb. 221, 145 N. W. 270.
447-67 Southern B. Co. 17. Cleve-
land (Ala.), 60 S. 799; Olson v. Farns-
worth, 97 Neb. 407, 150 N. W. 260.
447-68 Gamer v, Schlentz (Wash.),
146 P. 166.
447-69 Dorset v. Chambers, 187 Mo.
App. 276, 173 S. W. 725; Waite v. C. E.
Shoemaker & Co. (Mont.), 146 P. 736;
Yarborough v, Columbia, etc. Co. (S.
C), 84 S. B. 308.
447-70 Girardino v. Birmingham
Southern B. Co., 179 Ala. 420, 60 8.
871; Yarbrough v. Carter, 179 Ala. 356,
60 S. 833; Chappell v. Falkner, 11 Ala.
App. 382, 66 S. 890; Western ft A. B.
Co. r. Smith (Ga. App.), 82 S. E. 906;
Button I?. S., 123 Md. 373, 91 A. 417.
In federal courts a motion for a new
trial will not be reviewed. Black v.
Canadian Pac. B. Co., 218 Fed. 239.
448-71 Girardino v. Birmingham
So. B. Co., 179 Ala. 420, 60 S. 871;
Bosche V. Bettendorf Axle Co. (la.),
150 N. W. 663; Ingalls v. Smith (Kan.),
145 P. 846; Bucher v. Showalter
(Okla.), 145 P. 1143; Turtle Creek Bor-
ough V. Pennsylvania Water Co., 243
Pa. 401, 90 A. 194.
448-72 Prejudidal error.— A judg-
ment will be vacated, and a new trial
ordered, where a new trial was refused
by the trial court on a proper showing
of newly discovered evidence which,
if furnished in the form of competent
proof, would seriously affect the pre-
vailing party's right of recovery. Mey-
erson v, Travin, 151 N. Y. S. 584.
448-73 Finding that interpleader
was not collusive is conclusive on ex-
ceptions. Page Belting Co. v. Prince
ft Co. (N. H.), 91 A. 961.
448-74 James Livingston Const. Co.
V. Bedmond, 150 N. Y. S. 1021.
449-76 Harvard r. Bank, 64 Fla.
308, 60 S. 345; Dawson v. Morris, 163
Ky. 220, 173 S, W. 348; In re Hunne-
well (Mass.), 107 N. E. 934; Taft v.
Henry, 219 Mass. 78, 106 N. E. 653;
Wentworth v. Market Co., 218 Mass.
91, 106 N. E. 118; Montcastle v. Wheel-
er, 167 N. C. 258, 83 S. E. 469; Sim-
mons V. Groom, 167 N. C. 271, 83 S. E.
471.
Begister. — ^Where there is a conflict of
evidence the register's finding has the
same weight as that of a jury. O'Kel-
ley V. Clark, 184 Ala. 391, 63 S. 948;
Metcalf V. First State Bank. 181 Ala.
323, 61 S. 900.
449-77 Apseloff v. Hyman, 162 Ky.
541, 172 S. W. 946; Farrow V. Work,
39 Okla. 734, 136 P. 739.
449-78 Dawson v. Morris, 163 Ky.
220, 173 S. W. 348.
Findings of a referee when approved
by trial court are not generally re-
viewable, but when the finding of the
ultimate and determinative fact is not
definitely stated by the referee the ap-
proval by the judge adds no force
thereto. French v. Bichardson, 167 N.
C. 41, 83 S. E. 31.
449-79 Stewart v. Hunter, 65 Fla.
325, 61 S. 623; Sherlock r. Varn, 64
Fla. 447, 59 S. 953; Nickeraon r. Glines
(Mass.), 107 N. E. 942; Browne v,
Fairhall, 218 Mass. 495, 106 N. E.
177; Bennett V, Eaowa County Bank
(Okla.), 145 P. 807; Pierce v. Mitchell,
87 Vt. 538, 90 A. 577.
449-80 Cummings if. MeDonnell
(Ala.), 66 8. 717; Butler ft Co. v,
Strickland-Tillman Hdw. Co. (Ga.
App.), 82 S. E. 815; Houser v. Laugh-
lin, 55 Ind. App. 563, 104 N. E. 309
(abuse of discretion as to change of
venue); Nickerson v. Glines (Mass.),
107 N. E. 942; Kelly V. Higginsville
(Mo.), 171 S. W. 966.
460^3 Blickenstaff f^. Cowgill (Iiid.
App.), 106 N. E. 376; Brittain V, Gor-
man, 42 Utah 586, 133 P. 370.
450-84 Bowning v. Klondike M. ft
M. Co., 165 Cal. 786, 134 P. 970; Staley
V. O'Day, 22 Cal. App. 149, 133 P.
620; Esden V. May, 36 Kev. 645, 135
P. 1185.
461-87 Houser v. Laughlin, 55 Ind.
App. 563, 104 N. E. 309; Heck r. C,
163 Ky. 518, 174 S. W. 19; Mansfield
v. C, 163 Ky. 488, 174 8. W. 16; Boyd
V. Chicago, B. ft Q. B. Co., 97 Neb. 238,
149. N. W. 818. .
451-88 Dussart o, M. Abdo Mere.
Co., 67 Colo. 423, 140 P. 806; De Puy
104
APPEALS
Vol. 2
V. Peebles, 24 Ida. 550, 135 P. 264;
Walton V. Kennamer, 39 Okia. 629, 136
P. 584; Fire Assn. v. Farmers' Gin
Co., 39 Okla. 162, 134 P. 443.
Ovamiling of motion to show cause
why an attachment should not be va-
cated will not be reviewed. Wilson t?.
Callan, 9 Ala. App. 265, 63 S. 27.
461-0O Bixlev-Theisen Co. v. Evans,
186 Ala. 507, 65 S. 81; Union Marine
Ins. Co. V. Charlie's Transfer Co!, 186
Ala. 443, 65 S. 78; Florence Oil & B.
Co. V. Hiawatha Oil, G. & B. Co., 55
Colo. 378, 135 P. 454; Dubois r. Bowles,
55 Colo. 312, 134 P. 112; Mantle v.
Jack Waite M. Co., 24 Ida. 613, 135
P. 854, 136 P. 1130; Lakin v. Chartered
Co. of Lower California, 111 Me. 556,
90 A. 427; Cnllen v. Western Mtg., etc.
Co., 47 Mont. 513, 134 P. 302; Adickes
r. Chatham, 167 N. C. 681, 83 S. E.
748; Cauley r. Dunn, 167 N. C. 32, 83
8. E. 16; Lowenstein v. Holmes, 40
Okla. 33, 135 P. 727.
Amendment of pleadings is within the
eourt's discretion. Lakin v. Chartered
Co. of Lower California, 111 Me. 556,
90 A. 427.
riling reply after verdict. — ^It is with-
in the discretion of the court, in an
action for money advanced, to allow
plaintiff to amend his pleadings to con-
form to the proof y showing that a re-
ceipt, given defendant for a part pay-
ment, by mistake omitted items for
which defendant should have been
charged. Halligan v. Heeler (la.), 148
N. W. 971.
461-91 Outcault Adv. Co. v, Hooten
ft Co., 11 Ala. App. 454, 66 S. 901;
Southern Surety Co. v. Waits (Okla.),
146 P. 431.
Permitting additional pleas. — Craig Ss
Co. r. Pierson Lumb. Co., 179 Ala. 535,
60 S. 838.
Beparating pleadings into paragraplis
ifl a discretionary matter with the
eonrt. Huntington, etc. Co. v. Spell
<Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 741; Adams v.
Antles (Ind. App.), 105 N. E. 931;
Walley v. Wiley (Ind. App.), 104 N. B.
318.
She overmling of a demurrer strictly
pro forma cannot be regarded as an
exercise of the court's discretion. In-
ternational Paper Co. v. Bellows Falls
Canal Co. (Vt.), 90 A. 943.
Bin of particQlar& — ^The denial of a
notiom for a more detailed bin of par-
ticulars will not be reversed in the
absence of abuse of discretion. Groves
17. McLaurin^ 66 Fla. 230, 63 S. 439;
Blue Ridge L. & P. Co. t?. Tutwilcr,
106 Va. 54, 55 S. E. 539; S. t?. Bailey
(W. Va.), 83 S. E. 910.
451-92 Eaton v. Southern Pac. Co.,
22 Cal. App. 461, 134 P. 801; Meier
& Frank Co. v, Mitlehner (Or.), 146
P. 796.
Competency of Jnrora, etc. — ^Healer v.
Inkman, 94 Kan. 594, 146 P. 1172.
Order of addressing jury. — ^The order
in which counsel shall address the jury
is within the court's discretion. Ex-
change State Bank r. Taber, 25 Ida.
723, 145 P. 1090.
Appointment of qpecial prosecutor.
The trial court is vested with la dis-
cretion in the appointment of a special
prosecutor and his judgment in the
matter will not be disturbed on appeal
unless abuse is shown. P. v. Strosnider^
264 HI. 434, 106 N. E. 229.
452-95 Standard Oil Co. v. Weeks,
6 Ala. App. 161, 60 S. 508.
Broader field in discretion of court in
passing on motion for new trial than
in determining motion to nonsuit. Bome
S. Mfg. Co. V. Harvey (Ga. App.), 83
S. E. 434.
452-96 Setting aside verdict.— Ernst
V. Milwaukee, etc. Co., 158 Wis. 467,
149 N. W. 146.
€^cial flndingi. — ^It is within the
judge's discretion to tequire the jury
to find specially on certain questions.
Surridge v, Ellis (Ark.), 174 S. W.
537; Hanover Fire Ins. Co. 17. Eisman
(Okla.), 146 P. 214.
452-97 Sherlock v. Yarn, 64 Fla.
447, 59 S. 953; New Bell Jellico Coal
Co. V, Sowders, 162 Ky. 443, 172 S. W.
914; Childers t?. C, 161 Ky. 440, 171
S. W. 149; Briggs v, Adams (Mass.),
107 N. E. 966; Gerlinger v. Frank (Or.),
145 P. 1069.
Allowance of leading questions. — An-
derson V. Berrum, 36 Nev. 463, 136 P.
973.
gestae. — Admissibility of evidence
as part of res gestae is a matter within
court's discretion. Callahan v. Chicago,
B. & Q. R. Co., 47 Mont. 401, 133 P.
687, 47 L. R. A. (N. S.) 587.
Ssctent of cross-examination. — Central
of Georgia R. Co. v. Stephenson (Ala.),
66 S. 495; Meadow t;. Evans (Ala.), 66
105
Vol 2
APPEALS
S. 446; St. Louig, I. K & S. B. Co. v.
McMichael (Ark.), 171 S. W. 115.
Number of witnesses. — The trial court
maj in its discretion limit the number
of witnesses who shall, testify to a
particular fact Geohegan v. Union
Elevated R. Co., 266 Dl. 482. 107 N. E.
786.
OompeUlng testimony.— In Indiana hy
statute the court on appeal will re-
view the court's ruling requiring plain-
tiff to testify in certain matters. Yost
V, Bunk (Ind. App.), 106 N. E. 644.
452-99 Birmingham, E. & B. B. Co.
V, Williams (Ala.), 66 8. 653 (recep-
tion of testimony by a person claim-
ing to be non compos mentis, discre-
tionary with court); Melvin v. Mur-
phy, 184 Ala. 188, 63 S. 546.
453-1 Johnson v, Jones, 39 Okla. 323,
135 P. 12, 48 L. B. A. (N. S.) 547.
Baa in criminal cases. — S. t?. Franklin,
11 Ala. App. 230, 65 S. 421.
Granting or refasing injunctions, etc.
Beiseker v. Svendsgaard, 28 N. D. 366,
149 N. W. 352.
Specific performance. — The trial court
has a large discretion in granting or
refusing specific performance. McGinn
V. Willey, 24 Cal. App. 303, 141 P. 49.
454-2 Montgomery Light & Tract.
Co. f>. Biverside Co. (Ala.), 66 S. 459;
Anderson v. Southern B. Co., 184 Ala.
468, 63 S. 473; In re Bainbridge's Est.i
(Cal.), 146 P. 427; Waltz v. Silveira,
25 Cal. App. 717, 145 P. 169; Otten v.
Spreckels, 24 Cal. App. 251, 141 P. 224;
Orchard v. Charlotte Harbor Sb N.
B. Co., 66 Fla. 353, 63 S. 717; Geor-
gia, etc. B. Co. V, Bryan (Ga. App.),
82 S. E. 913; Wall v, Facke, 21 Haw.
406 (order granting a new trial set
aside); Kost v, Chicago, B. I. & P. B.
Co. (la.), 149 N. W. 851; Olson v.
Parnsworth, 97 Neb. 407, 150 N. W.
260; Malmstad v. McHenry Tel. Co.
(N. D.), 149 N. W. 690; First Nat.
Bank v. Kornegay (Okla.), 146 P. 22;
Bennett r. Kiowa County Bank
(Okla.), 145 P. 807; Sipes v. Dickin-
son, 39 Okla. 740, 136 P. 761; St. Louis
& S. F. B. Co. r. Fisher, 37 Okla. 751,
133 P. 41; Arnold v. Treat (B. L),
90 A. 382; Gamer v. Schlentz (Wash.),
346 P. 166; Nordeen Iron Works v,
Bucker (Wash.), 145 P. 219; Hender-
son r. Hazlett (W. Va.), 83 S. E. 907;
Beuter t?. Hickman, etc. Co. (Wis.),
151 N. W. 795; Bakowski v. Zimmer-
man, 158 Wia^ 539| 149 N. W. 214. But
see Garriso v. Sun Prtg. & Pub. Assn.,
164 App. Div. 737, 150 N. Y. S. 284.
Conditional grant of new triaL — ^Jett
17. Old Nat. Bank Bldg. Co., 79 Wash.
562, 140 P. 554.
454-3 Pryor v. S., 186 Ala. 27, 65 S.
331; International Agr. Corp. v. Aber-
crombie, 184 Ala. 244, 63 S. 549, 49
L. It. A. (N. S.) 415 (discretion abused
in not granting a new trial); Bentz r.
Bridges, 177 Ala. 616, 59 S. 63; Bar-
nett V, S., 165 Ala. 59, 51 S. 299; Bur-
gage V. S., 113 Ala. 108, 21 S. 213;
Bradley v, S., 11 Ala. App. 329, 66 8.
820; Bolin i?. S., 11 Ala. App. 35, 65
8. 433; Fowlkes v, Lewis, 10 Ala. App.
543, 65 S. 724; Ellison v, S. (Ga. App.),
83 S. E. 867; Buchanan v. Firemen's
Ins. Co. (Kan.), 146 P. 411; Crouch t?
O'Banion, 163 Ky. 681, 174 8. W. 3;
Bamsey v. Lebow (Mass.), 107 N. E.
926; Ott t?. Tribute Tel. A Tel. Co.,
127 Minn. 373, 149 N. W. 544; laser
V. Nelson (Mo.), 171 8. W. 6; BatcliflP
17. Sharrock (Okla.), 145 P. 802; Davis
V. Gray, 39 Okla. 386, 134 P. 1100;
Dunlap V, Pittsburg B. Co., 247 Pa. 230.
93 A. 276; Virginia Fire & Marine
Ins. Co. V. St. Louis S. B. Co. (Tex.
Civ.), 173 8. W. 487.
Seasons influencing court are immate-
rial. Bome Scale & Mfg. Co. v, Har-
vey (Ga. App.), 83 8. E. 434.
Necessity for argument. — ^The question
of the necessity or advisability of
argument to support a motion for new
trial is left to the trial court's dis-
cretion. Sovereign Camp of Woodmen
t?. Latham (Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 749.
456-4 Ogden v, Aspinwall (Mass.),
107 N. E. 448; Brown v. Walla Walla,
76 Wash. 670, 136 P. 1166; Ernst v.
Milwaukee Western Fuel Co., 158 Wis.
467, 149 N. W. 146.
Setting aside Terdict.— The court's
action in setting aside a verdict will
not be reviewed unless there is an
abuse of discretion. Western Union
Tel. Co. f. Louisell, 4 Ala. App. 493,
59 S. 186.
466-6 Evidence merely cnmnlatiTe.
Court will not set aside a denial of
a motion for new trial where the
newly discovered evidence might have
been merely cumulative so far as rec-
ord shows. Hall «. Feagins (la.), 151
N. W. 481.
466-7 Ex parte Boak (Ala.), 66 S.
64; Berri v. Bogero, 168 Cal. 736, 145
P. 95; Watson v. Columbia Basin Dev.
106
APPEALS
Vol. 2
Co^ Sfi Cal. App. S5d, 135 P. 511; But-
ton r. S., 123 Md. 373, 91 A. 417;
Bodgers f. United States & Dominion
L. Ins. Co., 127 Minn. 435, 149 N. W.
671; Hodges V. Alexander (Okla.)* 145
P. 809; Philip Carey Co. v. Vickers,
38 Okla. 643^ 134 P. 851; Salt Lake
Hdw. Co. 17. Neilson L. & W. Co., 43
Utah 406, 134 P. 911; Mut. Life Ins.
Co. V, Poster (Vt.), 93 A. 258.
Motion to set aside verdict.— < 'The
question presented by this exception
(exception to ruling upon motion to
set aside the verdict) is not whether
ire should have exercised our discretion
in the way in which the judge exer-
cised his discretion. It is whether the
judge abused his discretion. ... To sus-
tain the exception it is necessary that
we should decide that the judge could
not honestly have taken the view
taken by him." Ogden v. Aspinwall
(Mass.), 107 N. E. 448.
Anmilllng the effect of ah appeal — ^The
supreme court has no power to re-
view the refusal of trial court to an-
nid the effect of an appeal, for it is
a matter lying within the discretion
of that court. Crownfield v. Phillips
(Md.), 92 A. 1033.
465-8 Amending record. — ^Action by
lower court in correcting record is final
and not reviewable on appeal. Dutton
V. 8., 123 Md. 373, 91 A. 417.
45^10 Snyder v, Snyder, 244 Pa.
331, 90 A, 717.
466-11 Mountain Timber Co. f.
Case, 65 Or. 417, 133 P. 92.
466-12 Huff r. Bidwell (C. C. A.),
218 Fed. 6; Perry v. Seals, 186 Ala.
514, 65 S. 151.
46T-1T Wilson v. Draper, 9 Ala.
App. 585, 63 S. 779; Chancey v, S.
(Fla.), 66 8. 430; Parks v. Hailey, 142
Ga. 391, 83 S. E. 100; National Live
Stock Ins. Co. V. Wolfe (Ind. App.),
106 N. E. 390; Jolly v. Doolittle (la.),
149 N. W. 890; S. t?. Mayer, 90 Kan.
470, 135 P. 666; Shoop V. Fidelity &
Deposit Co., 124 Md. 130, 91 A. 753;
Albiani r. JBangs (Mass.), 107 N. E.
406; Levering ft Garrigues Co. v. Cen-
tury H. Co. (App. Div.), 150 N. Y. S.
649; Nelson v. Davidson (Okla.), 145
P. 772; Jones v, Bennett, 40 Okla. 664,
140 P. 148.
46T-18 Olds V. Lochner (Ind. App.),
106 N. E. 889; P. V. Bailey, 164 App.
DiT. 756. 149 N. T. S. 823.
467-10 Christian *J. Smith Coal Co.
(Ala.), 66 S. 641; McLendon v. Ruben-
stein, 180 Ala. 615, 61 S. 902; Bradley
Lumb. Co. V, Hamilton (Ark.), 173 S.
W, 848; S. V, Stalker (la.), 151 N. W.
527; Turner Lumb. Co. v, Tonopah
Lumb. Co. (Nov.), 145 P. 914; Bradley
V. Village of Union, 164 App. Div. 565,
150 N. Y. S. 107; Gillihan v. Cieloha
(Or.), 145 P. 1061.
Prosecution on lesser offense. — ^<<The
defendant cannot complain that he has
been proceeded against for the lesser
of two offenses committed by him.
Neither is the fact that the evidence
given upon the trial discloses the com-
mission of a greater crime ground for
reversal upon conviction for the les-
ser.'* P. V. Gussfeld, 87 Misc. 274, 150
N. Y. S. 599.
467-20 Schultz r. Ericsson Co., 264
111. 156, 106. N. E. 236; Grorud v. Lossl,
48 Mont. 274, 136 P. 1069.
468-21 Interstate Lumb. Co. v.
Woods, 67 Pla. 202, 64 S. 741.
468-22 Boyd v. San Pedro, L. A. &
S. L. E. Co. (Utah), 146 P. 282, denial
of nonsuit held harmless.
The dismissal of a civil case for in-
sufficient evidence instead of giving
peremptory instructions for defendant
is not reversible error. Braun v, Peet,
97 Neb. 443, 150 N. W. 256.
468-23 Colorado Midland B. Co. v.
Edwards, 24 Colo. App. 350, 134 P.
248; Symmes v. Prairie Pebble Phos-
phate Co. (Fla.), 67 S. 228; Welles v.
Bryant (Fla.), 66 S. 562; Miller t?
Morine (la.), 149 N. W. 229; North
Biver Ins. Co. v. Dyche, 163 Ky. 271,
173 S. W. 784; Burley v. Old Colony
By. Co., 219 Mass. 483, 107 N. E. 365;
M'Nitt V. GiUiland, 246 Pa. 378, 92
A. 508.
460-24 Hartsell v, Boberts, 185 Ala.
201, 64 S. 90; Griffin V. S. (Ga. App.),
83 S. E. 871; Cincinnati, etc. B. Co. v,
Guinn, 163 Ky. 157, 173 S. W. 357;
People's Bank v. Levert, 133 La. 494,
63 S. 601; Eubanks v. McLeod, 105
Miss. 826, 63 S. 226; Johnson v. Am-
bursen Hydraulic Const. Co. (Mo.
App.), 173 S. W. 1081; Williams v.
Phelps (Tex. Civ.), 171 S. W. 1100;
Gulf, T. ft W. B. Co. t?. Dickey (Tex.
Civ.), 171 S. W. 1097.
Conduct of the trlaL — ^Error in forcing
parties to trial is harmless where it
appears that the parties cannot main-
tain the action and where the judg-
107
Vol. 2
APPEALS
ment recovered against them is vacated
upon appeal. Whelan v, Adams (Okla.)>
145 P. 1158.
Denial of nonmUt may be rendered
harmless by the subsequent admission
of sufficient evidence to take the case
to the jury. Scibor v. Oregon-Wash-
ington B. & N. Co., 70 Or. 116, 140
P. 629.
469-26 Curtis V. Biddle, 177 Ala.
128, 59 S. 47j Byan 9. Mineral County
High School Dist. (Colo. App.>, 146
P. 792; S. V, Han, 28 N. D. 649, 149
N. W. 970; S. V. Dahms (N. D.), 149
N. W. 965; Hanover Pire Ins. Co. f?.
Eisman (Okla.), 146 P. 214.
469-26 See Troy Automobile Ex-
change V, Home Ins. Co., 164 App. Div.
761, 149 N. Y. S. 978; Leavenworth
u. Brandon, 76 Wash. 394, 136 P. 375.
See P. V. Marendi, 213 N. Y. 600, 107
N. E. 1058.
Denial of amendment. — ^An erroneous
denial of plaintiff's request to amend
petition so as to allege greater dam-
ages is harmless where plaintiff does
not win his suit. Lyons t'. Armstrong,
142 Ga. 257, 82 S. E. 651; Smith's
Admz. V, Middlesboro Electric Co., 164
Ky. 46, 174 S. W. 773.
Directing Terdict is luunnleafl where
the jury could not lawfully have re-
turned any other verdict. Swift V.
Moore (6a. App.), 82 S. E. 914.
Transferring canse to eqnlty. — ^Though
error may exist in transferring a
cause from circuit court to chancery,
it will be considered harmless where
the evidence was undisputed and the
decision of the chancellor was correct.
Landreth V. Henson (Ark.), 173 S. W.
427.
469-27 Norvell V. Gilreath (Ala.),
66 S. 635; Baker 17. Britt-Carson Shoe
Co. (Ala.) 9 66 S. 475; Helms v. Central
of Georgia B. Co. (Ala.), 66 S. 470;
Corona C. ft 1. Co. v. Moore Stave Co.,
186 Ala. 593, 65 S. 51 (prejudicial
error in striking a count); I>rew v.
Fort Payne Co., 186 Ala. 285, 65 S.
71; S. V. Waterworks Co., 185 Ala.
388, 64 S. 23; Hoffman v, Moreman,
184 Ala. 220, 63 S. 942; Parsons v.
Age Herald Pub. Co., 181 Ala. 439,
61 S. 345 (striking out replication held
not prejudicial where the matters re-
plied to were elsewhere denied); Sov-
ereign Camp, W. O. W. v. Jones, 11
Ala. App. 433, 66 S. 834; Minge ft
Co. p, Barrett Bros. Shipping Co., 10
Ala. App. 502, 65 S. 671 (rulings made
on pleadings held not to prejudice
plaintiff where his complaint ^owed a
lack of ri^t to maintain the action);
Hagin r. Sheaf, 9 Ala. App. 300, 63 S.
764; Birmingham Transfer ft Traffic
Co. V. Still, 7 Ala. App. 556, 61 3. 611;
Woodmen of the World r. Jones^ 4
Ala. App; 668, 59 S. 239; Burriff 9.
Rodrigues, 22 Cal. App. 645, 135 P.
1105; Kinard i;. KaeUn, 22 Cal. App.
383, 134 P. 370; SCartinez 9. Martiness,
57 Colo. 292, 141 P. 469; WeUea v. Bry-
ant (Fla.), 66 a 562; Ferry Pass Ship-
pers ft Inspection Assn. 17. Penaacola
Lumb. Co., 65 Fla. 313, 61 S. 639;
Brand v. Atlanta Coast Line B. Co., 64
Fla. 1S4, 59 S. 956 (error in sustain-
ing a plea held prejudicial); P. v,
Koensgen (HI.), 106 N. E. 840; Bark-
ley V, Barkley (Ind.), 106 N. B. 609;
Jones V. Phoenix Ins. Co. (Kan.), 146
P. 354; Belmont Dairy Co. ip. Thrasher,
124 Md. 320, 92 A. 766; Shoop r. Fidel-
ity ft Dep. Co., 124 Md. 130, 91 A. 753;
Wagner v. Seattle (Wash.), 146 P.
621.
MisJoindAr haxmlesB.^— Galveston, H. ft
S. A. B. Co. V. BrasseU (Tex, Civ.), 173
S. W. 522.
Electloa betireeii catuiM. — ^The refusal
to require plaintiff to elect between
different causes of action which in fact
were tried as one, even if error, is
without prejudice to defendant. Begse
17. Carstarphen Elec. Co. (Colo. AppO,
140 P. 478; Johnson v. Wild Bice Boom
Co., 127 Minn. 490, 150 N. W. 218.
Denial of leave to file cross-bill is not
prejudicial where the decree would be
no more competent and conclusive if
offered under cross-bill than if offered
under answer to original bill. Amer-
ican Woolen Co. v. Lesher, 267 HI. 11,
107 N. E. 882.
A refornl to separate oom^laliit Into
paragraphs is not reversible error.
Huntington Light ft Fuel Co. V. Spell
(Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 741.
460-28 Singer Sewing Mach. Go. v,
Methvin, 184 Ala. 554, 63 S. 997 (le-
fusal to strike evidential m&tters from
the complaint held not prejudicial);
Pacific Imp. Co. v. Maxwell (CaL App.),
146 P. 900; Cook V, Packard Motor
Car Co., 88 Conn. 590, 92 A. 413;
Maine v, Bittenmeyer (la.), 151 K. W.
409; Bettinger V. Loring (la.),. 150 N.
W. 31; Morris V. Brown (Tex. dr.),
173 S. W. 265.
108
APPEALS
7ol. 2
n« preituua of poMlbly dafectlTe
ooDBtB i& a deelarAtioji is not matdrial
when thera are geod counts sustained
by the evidence and there is nothing
to indicate that the yerdict may pos-
sibly have beei^ found under a de-
fective count. McNeil v, Webekinir,
M Pla. 407, 63 6. 728.
460-S9 Moore v. Whitmire (Ala.),
66 8. 601; Woodward Iron Co. «. Fin-
ley (Ala.), ^ 8. 587; Ma^bank 9.
Lumpkin (Ala.), 66 8. 584.
Error in saatalsiliig demurrer, preju*
diciaL— ^eo»e «. Boberts, 186 Ala. 521,
65 8. 345; Central Lumb. Co. v. Mc-
Ohure Lumb. Co., 180 Ala. 606, 61 B.
821; Bieker v. Cullman, 178 Ala. 662,
59 8. 625; i^uinn v, Pratt ConsoL Coal
Co., 177 Ala. 434, 59 B. 49.
AdMlwIoa made by defendant in epen-
iniT etatement to j«ry renders harmless
an error in sustaining a demurrer. First
State Bank v. Bridgee, 89 Okla. 855,
135 P. ZIS.
4<ia-SO Connors-Weyman Steel Co. v,
Kilgere (Ala.), «6 6. 609; Moore v.
'WMtmire (Ala.), 66 8. 601; Woodard
Iron Co. V. Finley (Ala.), 66 8. 567;
ICaybank r. Lumpkin (Ala.), 66 8. 584;
Tillis V. Smith Sons Lumb. Co. (Ala.),
65 8. 1015; Cedar Creek Store Co. v.
Steadham (Ala.), 65 8. 984; Copeland
«. Union Nursery Co. (Ala.), 65 8. 984;
Baker v. Lehman ft Co., 186 Ala. 493,
65 8. 821; Eason Drug Co. v. Mont-
gomery Showcase Co., 186 Ala. 454,
65 8. 345; Sloss-Sheffield S. ft I. Co.
c. Smith, 185 Ala. 607, 64 8. 337;
Tatem c. Commercial Bank ft Tr. Co.,
185 Ala. 249, 64 8. 561; Twinn Tree
Lumb. Co. 1^. Day, 181 Ala. 565, 61 S.
914; Birmingliam By., L. ft P. Co. v,
Simpson, 177 Ala. 475, 59 S. 213; Wood-
men of the World v, Jones (Ala. App.),
M 8. 634; Padgett v. Qulfport Fer-
tilizer Co., 11 Ala. App. 366, 66 8.
866; Central of Georgia B. Co. v.
Campbell, 10 Ala. App. 288, 64 8. 540;
Louisville ft N. B. Co. r. Mason, 10
Ala. App. 263, 64 8. 154; Camp Trans-
fer ft Warehouse Co. v, Bonham, 10
Ala. App. 258, 64 8. 649; Frederick
«. Coosa Pipe ft Foundry Co., 6 Ala.
App. 810, 59 S. 702; Higdon V. Garrett,
5 Ala. App. 467, 59 8. 309; Miller V.
Assured 's Nat. Mut. F. Ins. Co., 264
m. 380, 106 K E. 203; Nashville By.
Go. €7. Johnson (Ind. App.), 106 N. E.
414; Unltod States F. ft G. Co. v. Shep-
herd's Home Lodge, 163 Ky. 706, 174
6 W. 487; Slater v. Lich (Wash.), 145
P. 996. See Priebe v. Southern By.
Co. (Ala.), Q^ 8. 573.
460^1 Hunter v, Taylor (Ala.), 66
S. 671; Baker v, Lehman Weil ft Co.,
186 Ala. 493, 65 S. 321; Massachusetts
Mut Life Ins. Co. v, Crenshaw, 186
Ala. 460, 65 S. 821; Liverett v, Nash-
ville, C. ft St. L. B. Co. Co., 186 Ala.
Ill, 65 S. 54; Birmingham By., L. ft
P. Co. V. Johnson, 183 Ala. 352, 61
8. 79; Bush v. Bussell, 180 Ala. 590,
61 S. 373; Pence v. Mutual Benefit
Life Ins. Co., 180 Ala. 583, 61 8. 817;
Louisvillo ft N. B. Co. v, Dilburn,
178 Ala. 600, 59 8. 438; Southern B.
Co. V, Jarvis, 11 Ala. App. 635, 66 8.
936; Loy v. Beid, 11 Ala. App. 231,
65 S. 855 (error in overruling demurrer
to a count cured by failure to intro-
duce evidence to support the counts);
Central of Georgia B. Co. v. Mathis, 9
Ala. App. 643, 64 8. 197; Greek-Amer-
ican Produce 6o. v. Pappas, 9 Ala. App.
311, 63 S. 799; Liverpool ft London ft
G. Ins. Co. V, Lavine, 5 Ala. App. 392,
59 S. 336; Morris v. Hartley (Cal.
App.), 146 P. 73; Ulman v, Thompson
(Ind. App.), 106 N. E. 611; National
Council V. Thomas, 163 Ky. 364, 173
S. W. 813; Lara way v. Croft Lumb.
Co. (W. Va.), 84 8. E. 333. See Na-
tional Live Stock Ins. Co. v, Wolfe
(Ind. App.), 106 N. E. 390.
Snor oared by instnietions.— An error
in overruling a demurrer is cured by
the court's withdrawing from the jury
all the evidence under the pleading
demurred to. Central of Georgia B.
Co. V, Hingson, 186 Ala. 40, 65 S. 45;
Ballanger v. Shumate, 10 Ala. App.
329, 65 S. 416.
460-32 Scragg r. Sallee, 24 Cal.
App. 133, 140 P. 706; Thain v, S.
(Ind.), 106 N. E. 690.
Prejudicial error in examining Juror.
A challenge for implied bias may be
taken for having served on the grand
jury which found the indictment; con-
sequently where the defendant has ex-
hausted his peremptory challenges be-
fore the completion of the jury it is
reversible error for the court to ex-
amine such a juror as though he had
been challenged for actual bias. Hol-
man v. S. (Ark.), 171 S. W. 107.
461-83 Drawing of Jnrorn. — The
drawing of a special jury before the
hour designated therefor in the order
is prejudicial error. P. v, Damron, 212
N. Y. 256, 106 N. E. 67.
109
Vol. 2
APPEALS
Calling jurors. — Error of clerk in call-
ing jurors will not affect the judgment
unless the complaining party was
prejudiced. Hanson v. Kendt (E[an.)>
146 P. 1190.
461-34 Hegarty v. Maudsley (la.),
150 N. W. 4 (improper cross-examina-
tion held harmless) ; Leavens v. Hoover,
93 Kan. 661, 145 P. 877 (restricting
cross-examination of witness, held
harmless); Olson t?. White Star Lumb.
Co., 159 Wis. 391, 150 N. W. 443, use
of. memorandum by witness held harm-
less.
Merely corroborative and cuniilatlve
answers to improper questions will not
constitute prejudicial error. Lockridge
V. Brown, 184 Ala. 106, 63 8. 524.
461-35 Rogers t?. Smith, 184 Ala.
506, 63 S. 530; Knox Engineering Co.
V, Koek Island S. R. Co., 264 111. 198,
106 N. E. 188.
Limiting number of witnesses to testify
to one point is not prejudicial. Geohe-
gan V. Union Elevated Co., 266 HI. 482,
107 N. E. 786, 787.
462-37 Norvell u. Gilreath (Ala.),
66 S. 635; Jones r. White (Ala.), 66
S. 605; Ward V. Lane (Ala.), 66 S.
499; Garrow f?. Toxey (Ala.), 66 8.
443; Age-Herald Pub. Co. t?. Water-
man (Ala.), 66 S. 16; Birmingham By.,
L. & P. Co. r. Saxon, 179 Ala. 136, 59
S. 584; Logan t?. Smith Bros. & Co.,
9 Ala. App. 459, 63 S. 766; Tuskegee
Land & Security Co. v. Birmingham
Realty Co., 5 Ala. App. 499, 59 S. 557;
Hall V. Cardwell, 5 Ala. App. 481, 59
S. 514; Shaw v. Cleveland, 5 Ala. App.
333, 59 S. 534; Ft. Smith Lumb. Co.
V, Shackleford (Ark.), 171 S. W. 99;
Blanc r. Connor, 167 Cal. 719, 141 P.
217; Fernandez v. Watt (Cal. App.),
146 P. 47; Colorado Springs & Inter-
urban Ry. Co. 17. Allen, 55 Colo. 891,
135 P. 790; Meeker t?. Fairfield, 25
Colo. App. 187, 136 P. 471; Tampa &
J. R. Co. V. Crawford, 67 Fla. 77, 64
S. 437; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v,
Whitney, 65 Fla. 72, 61 S. 179; Rav v.
S., 142 Ga. 655, 83 S. E. 518; Field
r. Ilardwick & Co., 142 Ga. 424, 83
S. E. 93; Yarn V. Chapman, 142 Ga.
243, 82 S. E. 641; Aiona v. Ponahawai
Coffee Co., 20 Haw. 724; Terre Haute,
I. & E. Tract Co. i\ Frischman (Ind.
App.), 107 N. E. 296; Louisville, etc.
Co. V. Lottich (Ind. App.), 106 N. E.
903; Woodworth t\ Iowa Cent. R. Co.
(la.), 149 N. W. 522; Franks v, C,
163 Ky. 96, 173 S. W. 327; Conowingo
Land Co. n McGaw, 124 Md. 643, 93
A. 222; Harford Nat. Bank v. Butledge,
124 Md. 46, 91 A. 790; Jewett <?. Bos-
ton El. R. Co., 219 Mass. 528, 107 N. E.
433; Manley v. Bay State B. Co.
(Mass.), 107 N. E. 409; Boeing v. Ford-
ney (Mich.), 150 N. W. 852; In re
Paulson's Est. (Minn.), 150 N. W.
914; Nichols u. Atwood, 127 Minn.
425, 149 N. W. 672; Klein v, Frerichs,
127 Minn. 177, 149 N. W. 2; J. J. New-
man Lumb. Co. 17. Dantzler (Miss.), 64
S. 931; Baxter v, Campbell Lumb. Co.
(Mo.), 171 B. W. 955; Lauff v. Ken-
nard ft Sons Carpet Co., 186 Mo. App.
123, 171 S. W. 986; Westlake t?. Keat-
ing Gold M. Co., 48 Mont. 120, 136
P. 38; Sleeper t?. Smith (N. H.). 91
A. 866; Ferebee t?. R. Co., 167 N. C.
290, 83 S. E. 360; Peyton v. Hamilton-
Brown Shoo Co., 167 N. C. 280, 83 S. E.
487; Rice V. Theimer (Okla.), 146 P.
702; Midland Valley R. Co. r. Lynn,
38 Okla. 695, 135 P. 370; H. S. Gile
Grocery Co. v, Lachmund (Or.), 146 P.
519; Everhart u. Fischer (Or.), 145 P.
33; MeClaugherty r. Rogue River Elec-
tric Co. (Or.), 140 P. 64; S. v. Le-
macks, 98 S. C. 498, 82 S. E. 879;
Fuller V. El Paso Live Stock Com. Co,-
(Tex. Civ.), 174 S. W. 930; Memphis
Cotton Oil Co. V. Tolbert (Tex. Civ.),
171 S. W. 309; Denton r. English
(Tex. Civ.), 171 S. W. 248; Kipros r,
Uintah R. Co. (Utah), 146 P. 292;
Doyle V, Langdon, 80 Wash. 175^ 141
P. 352; Zuloger v, Zeh, 160 Wis. 60O,
150 N. W. 406; Czapinski v. Thomas
Furnace Co., 158 Wis. 635, 149 N. W.
477.
Cross-ezaminatlon of witness as to
whether he did not give certain testi-
mony at the preliminary hearing, held
harmless. Bradley v, S., 11 Ala. App.
329, 66 S. 820.
Formal defects. — <' Appellate courts are
no longer reversing judgments be-
cause of the allowance of questions
and answers that are variant only in
form, and are clearly good in sob-
stance and effect." Huntsville v. Pul-
ley (Ala.), 65 S. 405.
Refusal to strike out direct testimony
after cross-examination was not preju-
dicial error where in a personal injury
case a physician had testified that a
certain condition would give pain and
a certain movement was limited and
evidentlv painful. Darling r. Grand
Rapids R. Co. (Mich.), 151 N. W, 701.
110
APPEALS
Vol. 2
Before each error can be disregarded
as Bon-mrejndicial it mnst appear such
error did not and could not have
prejudiced the complaining party. The
appellate court must not be called upon
to decide that the verdict was correct
uQtwithstanding the error. Huston v.
Johnson (N. D.), 151 N. W. 774.
Error beneflclal to appellant. — U the
erroneous admission or exclusion of
evidence tends to strengthen the theory
of the complaining party, it is not
reversible error. Memphis Cotton Oil
Co. V. Goode (Tex. Civ.), 171 S. W.
284.
Error cued by answer. — Questions call-
ing for hearsay evidence may be ren-
dered harmless by the answer. Scragg
r. Sallee, 24 Cal. App. 133, 140 P. 706.
462-38 Cummings r. McDonnell
(Ala-), 66 8. 717; Pearsall v, Hyde
(Ala.), 66 S. 665; Snead r. Patterson
(Ala.), 66 S. 664; Stouts Mountain
Coal & Coke Co. v. Tedder (Ala.), 66
8. 619; Moore v. Whitmire (Ala.), 66
8. 601; Ward v. Lane (Ala.), 66 8.
499; Stewart v, Riley (Ala.), 66 8. 488;
Bike r. McHugh (Ala.), 66 8. 452;
Garrow v. Toxey (Ala.), 66 8. 443;
Pierce v. Huntsville, 185 Ala. 490, 64
8. 301; Sloss-Sheffield 8. ft I. Co. v.
Mitchell, 181 Ala. 576, 61 8. 934; Briel
r. Exchange Nat. Bank, 180 Ala. 576,
61 8. 277; Carter v, Tennessee Coal,
I. ft B. Co., 180 Ala. 367, 61 8. 65;
Blalack 17. Blacksher, 11 Ala. App.
545, 66 S. 863; Lefkovitz v. Lester, 11
Ala. App. 504, 66 8. 894; Jefferson
Fertilizer Co. v. Burns, 10 Ala. App.
301, 64 S. 667; Taxicab ft Touring Car
Co. V, Cabaniss, 9 Ala. App. 549, 63
6. 774; Page 17. Haas Bros. Packing Co.,
9 Ala. App. 445, 63 S. 691; Nashville
O. ft St. L. B. Co. V. Hinds, 5 Ala.
App. 596, 59 S. 670; Tiner v. 8. (Ark.),
172 8. W. 1010; Bow v, OroviUe, 22
Cal. App. 215, 134 P. 197; In re Burn-
ham's Will (Colo. App.), 134 P. 254;
McTyre 17. Stearns, 142 Ga. 850, 83
8. E. 955; Martin v, Monroe, 142 Ga.
807, 83 8. E. 958; P. v. Spencer, 264
HI. 124, 106 'N. E. 219; Bobinson 17.
8. (Tnd.), 106 N. E. 533; Waltham
Piano Co. r. Lindholm Furniture Co.
(la,), 150 N. W. 1040; G. J. Stewart ft
Co. r. Whicher (la.), 150 N. W. 64;
Miller r. Kerr (Kan.), 146 P. 1159;
Beid €. Eastern 8. 8. Co., 112 Me. 34,
90 A. 609; Michael v. Smith, 124 Md.
116, 91 A. 762; Edgerly 17. Maccabees
(Mich.), 151 N. W. 692; Newton 17.
Consolidated Const. Co. (Mich.), 150
N. W. 348; Bragg ft Co. v, Johnson
(Minn.), 150 N. W. 223; Thomas t7.
St. Louis, I. M. ft 8. B. Co., 187 Mo.
App. 420, 173 8. W. 728; Boone County
Lumb. Co. V, Niedermeyer, -187 Mo.
App. 180, 173 8. W. 57; P. i7. Sarzano,
212 N. Y. 231, 106 N. E. 87; Tillett v.
B. Co., 166 N. C. 515, 82 8. E. 866;
Missouri, O. ft G. B. Co. v. Miller
(Okla.), 145 P. 367; Meier ft Frank
Co. 17. Mitlehner (Or.), 146 P. 796;
Levin 17. V. Clad ft Sons, 244 Pa. 194,
90 A. 570; Ebberts 17. Borough of
Edgewood, 243 Pa. 595, 90 A. 334;
Coons 17. McKees Bocks, 243 Pa. 340,
90 A. 141; Oliver 17. Pettaconsett Const.
Co., 36 B. L 477, 90 A. 764; 8. 17.
Lemacks, 98 8. C. 498, 82 8. E. 879;
Houston E. ft W. T. B. Co. 17. Cavanaugh
(Tex. Civ.), 173 8. W. 619; Missouri,
K. ft T. B. Co. 17. Empire Express Co.
(Tex. Civ.), 173 8. W. 222; Gulf, T.
ft W. B. Co. 17. Dickey (Tex. Civ.), 171
8. W. 1097; MoUoy 17. Brower (Tex.
Civ.), 171 S. W. 1079; Stofferan 17.
Okanogan County, 76 Wash. 265, 136
P. 484; McKay 17. Seattle Elec. Co., 76
Wash. 257, 136 P. 134.
463-30 Streit 17. Wilkerson, 186 Ala.
88, 65 8. 164; Birmingham By., L. ft
P. Co. 17. O'Brien, 185 Ala. 617, 64 8.
343; Empire Coal Co. i?. Gravlee, 9
Ala. App. 657, 64 S. 207; 8. 17. Lemacks,
98 8. C. 498, 82 8. E. 879; Texas ft P.
R. Co. 17. Graham (Tex. Civ.), 174 8.
W. 297; Bickford 17. Hupp (Wash.), 145
P. 454.
463-40 Norvell v. Gilreath (Ala.),
66 8. 635; Moore 17. Whitmire (Ala.),
66 8. 601; Bike 17. McHugh ft Groom
(Ala.), 66 8. 452; Pennsylvania F. Ins,
Co. 17. Draper (Ala.), 65 8. 923; Gilley
r. Denman, 185 Ala. 561, 64 S. 97;
C*. M. Staub Shoe Co. u. Byrne (Cal.),
145 P. 1032; Scott 17. McPherson, 168
Cal. 783, 145 P. 529; Tampa ft J. B.
Co. 17. Crawford, 67 Fla. 77, 64 8. 437;
Cole Motor Co. 17. Morrison, 142 Ga.
542, 83 8. E. 95; Silverthorne r. Arkan-
sas 8. B. Co., 142 Ga. 194, 82 S. E.
551; Boss u. Beynolds, 112 Me. 223,
91 A. 952; Boswell 17. Norton, 125 Md.
11, 93 A. 214; Herring-Hall-Marvin S.
Co. 17. Balliet (Nov.), 145 P. 941; Wil-
liams 17. Dockwiler (N. M.), 145 P.
475, 479; Evarart 17. Fischer (Or.), 145
P. 33; Ft. Worth ft D. C. By. Co. i?.
Firestone (Tex. Civ.), 173 8. W. 919;
Missouri, K. ft T. B. Co. 17. Empire
111
Vol. 2
APPEALS
Express Co. (Tex. Civ.), .173 S. W.
222.
463-41 First Nat. Bank f?. Johnson
(Ala.), 67 S. 234; Ward v. Lane (Ala.),
66 8. 499; Borne Industrial Ins. Co. v,
Eidson, 142 Ga. 253, 82 S. E. 641; P.
V. Strosnider, 264 111. 434, 106 N. E.
229; Boss r. Beynolds, 112 Me. 223, 91
A. 952; Manley v. Bay State By. Co.
(Mass.), 107 N. E. 409; De Sandro 17.
Missoula L. & W. Co., 48 Mont. 226,
136 P. 711; S. V. Heavener (N. C),
83 S. E. 732.
The withdrawal of an allegation to
support which erroneous evidence is
admitted will cure the error. Sappen-
field V, National Zinc Co.^ 94 Ejin. 22,
145 P. 862.
464-42 Turner Lumb. Co. v, Tonopah
Lumb Co. (Nov.), 145 P. 914; Darby
Coal Min. Co. v. Shoop, 116 Va. 848,
83 S. E. 412.
BemlBrion of part of damages may ren-
der harmless the admission of erroneous
evidence as to damages. Cranford v.
O'Shea (Wash.), 145 P. 579.
464-43 Central Ga. P. Co. t?. Stone,
142 Ga. 662, 83 S. E. 524; Wheatcraft
f?. Myers (Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 81;
6ullenbarger v. Ahrens (la.), 150 N.
W. 71; Witthauer t;. Wheeler (la.), 150
N. W. 46; Bamlet Bealty Co. v. Doff
(Mich.), 150 N. W. 307; Harriss V, S.
(Tex. Cr.), 174 S. W. 354; Witty v.
S. (Tex. Cr.), 171 S. W. 229.
465-44 Central of Georgia B. Co. v.
Teasley (Ala.), 65 S. 981 (admission
of irrelevant evidence held prejudi-
cial); Watson f>. Adams (Ala.), 65 S.
528; Troy Lumb. & C. Co. v, Boswell,
186 Ala. 409, 65 S. 141; Illinois Cent.
B. Co. f?. Lowery, 184 Ala; 443, 63 S.
952, 49 L. B. A. (N. S.) 1149; Si-
moneau v. Pacific Electric B. Co., 166
Cal. 264, 136 P. 544; Dublin v, Ogburn,
142 Ga. 840, 83 S. E. 939; Central of
Georgia v. Prior, 142 Ga. 536, 83 S.
E. 117; S. V. Kirk (la.), 150 N. W.
91; Hall v. Shenandoah (la.), 149 N.
W. 831; In re Schaffner's Est., 92 Kan.
570, 141 P. 251; Maloney v, Philpot,
219 Mass. 480, 107 N. E. 369; P. v.
Marendi, 213 N. Y. 600, 107 N. E.
1058; Bloom v. Union B. Co. (App.
Div.),' 150 N. Y. S. 779; P. v. Follette,
164 App. Div. 272, 149 N. Y. S. 888;
Mankes r. Fishman, 163 App. Div.
789, 149 N. Y. S. 228; Titus t?. Spencer,
151 N. Y. S. 515; Orient Land CO. r.
Boeder (Tex. Civ.), 173 S. W. 939;
Wichita Palls & W. B. Co. e. Asher
(Tex. Civ.). 171 S. W. 1114; Shepherd
r. Denver & B. G. B. Co. (Utah), 145
P. 296; Klas V. Kuehl, 159 Wis. 561,
150 N. W. 973.
Instruction to disregard does not cure
error. Institution, etc. v. Brookline
(Mass.), 107 N. E. 939.
Not cured by wlthdrawaL — ^Davis i^. S.
(Tex. Cr.), 172 S. W. 978.
An indemnity agreement erroneously
admitted in evidence is prejudicial,
since it would tend to show that the
plaintiff had so little faith in his case
that he required an indemnity bond
against possible loss. Coffman v, Xiouis-
ville & N. B. Co., 184 Ala. 474, 63 S.
527.
465-46 BoUins v. Pearnley Inv. &
B. E. Co., 25 Colo. App. 85, 136 P. 95.
466-46 T7nanthorized view by Judge.
Where a view is had by the trial
judge without the consent of the par-
ties and his decision is based in part
upon such view, the error will be pre-
sumed prejudicial. Elston v, McGlaoflin,
79 Wash; 355, 140 P. 396.
466-47 Header «. Evans (Ala.), 66
S. 446; WilUams v, Lyon, 181 Ala. 531,
61 S. 299; Cook & Laurie Contracting
Co. V. Bell, 177 Ala. 618, 59 8. 273;
Arkansas Logging Co. 17. Martin (Ark.),
173 S. W. 184; McKinnon v, Mcll-
hargey, 24 Ida. 720, 135 P. 826; Meyer-
Bridges Co. V. American Warehouse
Co. (Kan.), 146 P. 361; Leavens v.
Hoover, 93 Kan. 661, 145 P. 877 (re-
stricting cross-examination held harm-
less); Sandy Valley k E. B. Co. v,
Bentley, 161 Ky. 555, 171 S. W. 178;
Harford Nat. Bank v. Butledge, 124
Md. 46, 91 A. 791; Green r. North-
western Trust Co. (Minn.), 150 N. W.
229; Dunne vant v, B. Co., 167 N. C.
232, 83 S. E. 347; Hazlett v. Wilkin,
42 Okla. 20, 140 P. 410; Pecos & N. T.
B. Co. V, Amarillo St. B. Co (Tex.
Civ.), 171 S. W. 1103; De Pas v. South-
ern Wis. B. Co., 159 Wis. 306, 150
N. W. 408; Bogers r. Bosenfeld, 158
Wis. 285, 149 N. W. 33.
Cured by instruction. — ^Error In ex-
clusion of evidence is harmless where
court properly instructed as to suffi-
oiencv. Mundy's Exrs. v. Garland, 116
Va. 922, 83 S. E. 491. '
View by Jury. — A denial of view by
jury is not reversible unless injury re-
sulted to the applicant. Atlantic Coast
Line B. Co. v. Whitney, 65 Ela. 72, 61
8. 179.
112
APPEALS
Vol 2
lamltfttioii of cro88-ezamlnatlon. — Ginns
V, Sherer Co., 219 Mass. 18, 106 N. E.
600.
VThere an issue becomes immaterial hy
reason of the verdict or judgment, rul-
ings on evidence as to such issue are
harmless, as for example the exclusion
of evidence of decedent's age in an
action for wrongful death, where the
verdict is for defendant. Helms v,
Georgia E. Co. (Ala.), 66 S. 470.
466-48 Brown f?. Central of Georgia
B. Co., 185 Ala. 659, 64 S. 581; Alex-
ander V. Smith, 180 Ala. 541, 61 S.
68; Askew v, S., 11 Ala. App. 293, 66
S. 852; Phillips f?. S., 11 Ala. App.
35, 65 S. 444; Jefferson Fertilizer Co.
r. Bums, 10 Ala. App. 301, 64 S. 667;
Kendrick 9. Cunningham, 9 Ala. App.
398, 63 S. 797; Coolidge v. Austin, 22
Cal. App. 334, 134 P. 357; In re Burn-
ham's Will (Colo. App.), 134 P. 254;
Bevine v. Northwestern E. R, Co., 265
lU. 641, 107 N. E. 118; P. v. Strosnider,
264 HI. 434, 106 N. B. 229; Burley v.
Old Colony E. Co., 219 Mass. 483, 107
N. E. 365; Luckhurst 17. Schroeder
(Mich.), 149 N. W. 1009; Lauff v. Ken-
nard & Sons, 186 Mo. App. 123, 171
S. W. 986; Anderson t?. Meier & Frank
Co., 68 Or. 21, 136 P. 660.
466-49 Mizell r. Farmers' Bank, 180
Ala. 568, 61 S, 272; Neville V. Miller
(Tex. Civ.), 171 S. W. 1109.
467-50 Potter v. Shauf (Ala.), 65 S.
778; Michael t?. Smith, 124 Md. 116, 91
A. 762, exclusion of evidence favorable
to the adverse part, harmless error.
Subsequent admission of exdnded evi-
dence, etc — Ward r. Lane (Ala.), 66
S. 499; Scragg v. Sallee, 24 Cal. App.
133, 140 P. 706; Michael t?. Smith, 124
Md. 116, 91 A. 762; Wild Rose Orchard
Co. V. Critzer, 79 Wash. 462, 140 P.
561.
467-61 West v. Cowan (Ala.), 66 S.
816; Texas & P. By. Co. v, Spann (Tex.
Civ.), 173 S. W. 600; Trinity & B. V.
R. Co. V. Orenbaum (Tex. Civ.), 173
8. W. 531; Hooker Co. t^. Hooker (Vt.),
92 A. 443.
467-52 Snllenbarger v. Ahrens (la.),
150 N. W. 71; Cain v. Osier (la.),
150 N. W. 17; Sandy Valley & E. R.
Co. V. Bentley, 161 Ky. 555, 171 S. W.
ITS; Sweikhart V, Hanrahan (Mich.),
150 N. W. 833; Graseth r. Knitting Co.
CMinn.), 150 N. W. 804; Krum v. Sul-
livan & Schaberg Trans. & F. Co., 97
Kcb. 491. 150 N. W. 640; Ditzler Dry
Goods Co. V. Sanders (Okla.), 146 P.
17; Anderson & Day r. Darsey (Tex.
Civ.), 171 S. W. 1089; Behling v. Wis-
consin Bridge & Iron Co., 158 Wis. 584,
149 N. W. 484.
Miscondnct of Judge. — ^Remarks of the
trial judge may so tend to mislead
the jury as to be prejudicial. Peter-
son V, Pittsburg Silver Peak G. Min.
Co. (Nov.), 140 P. 519. Court's re-
mark, '*thiB witness is too smart,"
held to be reversible error. Chance v.
Ice & C. Co., 166 N. C. 495, 82 S. E.
845.
Induced by opposing counsel. — ^Im-
proper conduct of one counsel respon-
sive to improper remarks of other coun-
sel is not reversible error. Maine V.
Rittenmeyer (la.), 151 N. W. 499.
468-63 Christian r. Stith Co. (Ala.),
66 S. 641; Ogburn-Griffin Gro. Co. t?.
Orient Ins. Co. (Ala.), 66 S. 434; Loeb
V. Montgomery, 184 Ala. 217, 63 S.
1023 (an illustration used by the judge
in his instructions held not erroneous) ;
Mulder 17. Stokes, 184 Ala. 195, 63 S.
563; Sheffield Co. tJ. Harris, 183 Ala.
357, 61 S. 88; Continental Gin Co. r.
MUbrat, 10 Ala. App. 351, 65 S. 424;
Central of Georgia R. Co. v, Campbell,
10 Ala. App. 288, 64 S. 540; Charlie's
Transfer Co. V. W. B. Leedy & Co., 9
Ala. App. 652, 64 S. 205; Loeb v. Mont-
gomery, 7 Ala. App. 325, 61 S. 642;
Birmingham & A. E. Co. v. Norris (Ala.
App.), 59 S. 66; Railways Ice Co. v.
Howell (Ark.), 174 S. W. 241; Cook
V, Los Angeles By. Corp. (Cal.), 145
P. 1013; Nelson V, Nelson (Colo. App.),
146 P. 1079; Dean f?. Connecticut Tob.
Corp., 88 Conn. 619, 92 A. 408; Mc-
Gehee Lumb. Co. v. Tomlinson, 66 Fla.
536, 63 S. 619; McNeil v. Webeking, 66
Fla. 407, 63 S. 728; German-American
Lumb. Co. <?. Barrett, 66 Fla. 181, 63
S. 661; Shore v, Ferguson, 142 Ga. 657,
83 S. E. 518; Pulliam v. Adams, 142
Ga. 623, 83 S. E. 121; Georgia R. & B.
Co. f?. Auchinachie, 142 Ga. 513, 83 S.
E. 127; Atlanta v. Nelson, 142 Ga. 324,
82 S. E. 899; P. <?. Grosenheider, 266
HI. 324, 107 N. E. 607; Jeffries v,
Alexander, 266 111. 49, 107 N. E. 146;
P. V. Mendelson, 264 HI. 453, 106 N. E.
249; P. V. Spira, 264 111. 243, 106 N. E.
241; Schultz v. Ericsson Co., 264 HI.
156, 106 N. E. 236; Nordyke, etc. Co.
V. Whitehead (Ind.), 106 N. E. 867;
Thain v. S. (Ind.), 106 N. E. 690;
Pittsburg, C. C & St. L. R. Co. t?.
Macy (Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 486;
113
Vol. 2
APPEALS
Terre H&ute Traction Co. «. FriBchman
(Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 296; Marietta
Glass Co. V. Bennett (Ind. App^y 106
N. E. 419; Parkhill v. Bekins* Van,
etc. Co. (la.), 151 N. W. 606; Hongh
V. Illinois Cent. E. Co. (la.), 149 N. W.
885; Van Vliet Fletcher Auto. Co. t?.
Crowell (la.), 149 N. W. 861; Healer
V. Inkman (Kan.), 146 P. 1172; Wil-
liamson 17. Prairie Oil & Gas Co. (Kan.),
146 P. 816; Thomas f). Warrenburg, 92
Kan. 576, 141 P. 255; Smith V. Joplin
& P. B. Co., 91 Kan. 31, 136 P. 930;
Taylor v, Atchison Gravel, etc. Co., 90
Kan. 452, 135 P. 676; Lawrence t?.
Board of Councilmen, 162 Ky. 528, 172
S. W. 953; Louisville & N. B. Co. v.
Davis, 162 Ky. 572, 172 S. W. 966;
Mulloy V. Louisville, 161 Ky. 596, 171
S. W. 190; Hart f>. Leitch, 124 Md.
77, 91 A. 782; Taylor v. Indiana
Electric Co. (Mich.), 151 N. W. 739;
Kennedy v. Ford (Mich.), 149 N. W.
1013; Baski v. Great Northern B. Co.
(Minn.), 150 N. W. 618; Gronlund v.
Cudahy Packing Co., 127 Minn. 515,
150 N. W. 176; Johnson v. Wild Bice
Boom Co., 127 Minn. 490, 150 N. W.
218; Johnson V, Minnesota Farmers'
Mut. Ins. Co. (Minn.), 150 N. W. 174;
Chase v, Tingdale Bros., 127 Minn. 401,
149 N. W. 654; Tierney v. United
Bys. Co., 185 Mo. App. 720, 171 S. W.
977; Kieselhorst Piano Co. v. Porter,
185 Mo. App. 676, 171 S. W. 949; St.
Louis, I. M. & S. B. Co. 17. McMichael
(Ark.), 171 S. W. 115; Wenquist 17.
Omaha & C. B. St. B. Co., 97 Neb.
554, 150 N. W. 637; Usher 17. American
Smelt, ft Bef. Co., 97 Neb. 526, 150
N. W. 814; Jones 17. B. Co., 97 Neb.
306, 149 N. W. 813; Fitzsimons 17. Is-
man (App. Div.), 151 N. Y. S. 552;
S. 17. Heveaner (N. C), 83 S. E. 732;
Sorg 17. Brest (N. D.), 150 N. W. 455;
Seay 17. Plunkett (Okla.), 145 P. 496
(that pleadings were set out in full in
instructions, held harmless); Chicago,
B. I. & P. B. Co. 17. Newburn, 39 Okla.
704, 136 P. 174; Windham 17. S. (Tex.
Cr.), 173 S. W. 661; House 17. State
(Tex. Cr.), 171 S. W. 206; Galveston,
H. ft S. A. B. Co. 17. Boemer (Tex,
Civ.), 173 S. W. 229; Moore 17. Cooper
Mfg. Co. (Tex. Civ.), 171 S. W. 1034;
King 17. King (Wash.), 145 P. 971;
Crawford 17. O'Shea (Wash.), 145 P.
579; Perrault 17. Emporium Department
Store Co. (Wash.), 145 P. 438; Lebovitz
V, Cogswell (Wash.), 145 P. 212 (di-
rection as to form of verdict held harm-
less); North Bend L. Co. i?. Chicago,
M. ft P. S. B. Co., 76 Wash. 232, 135
P. 1017; Cranford 17. O^Shea, 75 Wash.
33, 134 P. 486; Falkner 17. Schultz, 160
Wis. 694, 150 N. W. 424; Dishmaker 17.
Heck, 159 Wis. 572, 150 N. W. 951;
Peterson 17. Lemke, 159 Wis. 353, 150
N. W. 481; Trzebietowski 17. Jereski,
159 Wis. 190, 149 N. W. 743; Behling
17. Wisconsin Bridge ft I. Co., 158 Wis.
584, 149 N. W. 484; Manz u. Klippel,
158 Wis. 557, 149 N. W. 375; Sobek
17. George H. Smith Steel Casting Co..
158 Wis. 517, 149 N. W. 152.
A charge that connael correctly stated
the law on a particular subject though
erroneous is harmless, where it is shown
by the bill of exceptions that counsel
did in fact state the law correctly. Be-
public Iron ft Steel Co. v. Passafume,
181 Ala. 463, 61 S. 327.
Entire charge conaidered. — ^And in de-
termining whether an instruction is
misleading, the entire charge, and not
merely the portion objected to, must
be considered. Spahn 17. People's B.
Co. (Del.), 92 A. 727.
ArgnmentatlTe IsBtraction is harmless.
Cummings 17. JiicDonnell (Ala.), 66 S.
717.
Election between conntSi — ^An error in
not compelling an election between,
counts, on resting of plaintiff's case,
may be cured by a proper instruction.
Yazoo ft M. Y. B. Co. 17. Fisher Bros.,
102 Miss. 702, 59 S. 877.
Amonnt of damages. — Error in instruc-
tion as to amount of damages is not
available where no complaint is made
as to the amount of verdict. Sovereign
Camp of Woodmen 17. Latham (Ind.
App.), 107 N. E. 749.
Cored by other Instmctlons. — ^Erron-
eous instructions may be harmless be-
cause cured by other instructions. S. t?.
Pier not (la.), 149 N. W. 446; 8. -o.
Steel, 184 Mo. App. 350, 171 S. W. 10-
Assoming the commlasloii of the crime
in the instruction is harmless where it;s
commission is proved beyond doubt. P.
V. Spira, 264 HI. 243, 106 N. E. 241.
A failure to state the issues may ^be
harmless. Peterson 17. Arland, 79 Wash..
679, 141 P. 63.
Use of word "bralceman** instead of
*' flagman" is not prejudicial where
from pleadings, evidence, and instruc-
tions as a whole the jury could not
have been misled by erroneous use of
word. Louisville & N. B. Co. i?. Cul-
pepper, 142 Ga. 275, 82 S, E. 659,
lU
APPEALS
Vol. 2
Abstract infltractioiiB calcnUtad to xnls-
lead will not cause a reversali unless
thej operated to the prejudice of ap-
pellant. Commings f?. McDonnell (Ala.),
66 S. 7i7; Lockridge v. Brown, 184 Ala.
106, 63 S. 524.
A charge on an iasae not raised, though
erroneous is not ground for reversal.
Schenck v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 174 S. W.
357.
Instrnctions on conelatlye proposttfons.
Where instructions are given as to the
rights of the parties on propositions
correlative to those in issue they are
not prejudicial although they might
have been omitted. Howard v. Dick-
son (la.), 149 N. W. 69.
468-54 Gamer v. Morris (Ala.), 65
8. 1000; Xorman V, Bullock County
Bank (Ala.), 65 S. 371; Coffman V.
Louisville & N. B. Co., 184 Ala. 474, 63
8. 527; Birmingham So. B. Co. v. Mor-
ris, 9 Ala. App. 530, 63 S. 768; Ten-
nessee Valley Bank v. S. M. Avery &
Sons, 9 Ala. App. 363, 63 S. 813; Spen-
cer ft Co. V. Bank of Hickory Bidge
(Ark.), 171 S. W. 128; Western & A.
B. Co. V. Knight, 142 Ga. 801, S3 S.
E. 943; Williams v. Hanks, 142 Ga. 126,
82 8. E. 522; Bryant v. S. (Ga. App.), 83
8. E. 795; P. V, Fryer, 266 111. 216, 107
N. £. 134; Studebaker Corp. of Amer-
ica r. Dodds & Bunge, 161 Ky. 542, 171
8. W. 167; McDowell v. Fuller (Mich.),
150 N. W. 353; Bauer v. Great Northern
B. Co. (Minn.), 150 N. W. 394; Dority
r. St. Louis B. Co. (Mo. App.), 174 8.
W. 209; Levine v. Kass, 87 Misc. 297,
149 N. Y. 8. 950; Greitz v. Linch, 151
K Y. 8. 545; Chicago, E. L & P.
B. Co. «. Beatty, 42 Okla. 528, 141 P.
442; Fortney v. Breon, 245 Pa. 47, 91
A. 525; Paysse r. Paysse (Wash.), 146
P. 840; Gourd V. Healy (App. Div.),
150 X. Y. 8. 1006; Bugajski v. Fuel Co.,
158 Wis. 4.54, 149 N. W. 277; Wyoming
Coal M. Co. V. Stanko (Wyo.), 135 P.
1090.
Prejudicial as to damages. — Norman v,
Bullock Co. Bank (Ala.), 65 8. 371;
Stewart c. Swartz (Ind. App.), 106 N.
E. 719.
Contradictory Instructions. — ^Where one
of two contradictory instructions is er-
roneous the error will be deemed pre-
judicial, if it cannot be ascertained on
which instruction the jury relied. J. T.
Burgher & Co. v. Floore (Tex.), 174
8. W. 819.
Headings of pleadings in Instmcting
)ni7«r— It is error for court, in the
course of its charge to read the plead-
ings to the jury, but such error will
not warrant a reversal unless coupled
with prejudice. Peery v. Dlinois Cent.
B. Co. (Minn.), 150 K W. 882.
Remedied by ezplanatorjr ebazge.— In
Alabama ''it is the general rule recog-
nized by this court that tiie giving of
a charge with misleading tendency is
not reversible error,'* The remedy is
to ask an explanatory charge. Ogburn-
Griffin Gro. Co. v. Orient Ins. Co. (Ala.),
66 8. 434.
Corrected instructions will not cure the
error unless the attention of the jury
is called to it and the instruction with-
drawn. Western, etc. Co. v» Sellers (Ga.
App.), 83 8. E. 445. Other instruc-
tions which when read together eon-
diet with the erroneous instruction, will
not cure the latter. Blake v, B. Co.,
(la.), 149 N. W. 880.
Misleading instructions.— In detinue
for a mule traded by defendant to
plaintiff and retaken by defendant af*
ter rescinding the contract for fraud or
breach of warranty, a charge that, if
the animal was the property of plain-
tiff when defendant took it, the ver-
dict should be for plaintiff, was mis-
leading. McCoy V, Prince, 11 Ala. App.
388, 66 8. 950.
Submitting tort action as one In con*
tract. — ^It is error to charge that the
case is for breach of contract in an ac-
tion for damages for mental suffering
from the delay in the delivery of a
telegram. Western Tel. Co. v. Hol-
land, 11 Ala. App. 510, 66 8. 926.
469-65 Amzi Godden Seed Co. v,
6mith, 185 Ala. 296, 64 8. 100; Florida
East Coast B. Co. v. Carter, 67 Fla. 335,
65 8. 254; Collins v, Godwin, 65 Fla.
283, 61 8. 632; Jennings V. Dignan Cent.
Co. (App. Div.), 150 N. Y. S. 820- 8.
V. Dahms (N. D.), 149 N. W. 965; Mc-
Millen v. Strange, 159 Wis. 271, 150
N. W. 434.
Affidavits of Jurors cannot be used to
show effect of erroneous instruction.
Blake v. Chicago, etc. B. Co. (la.),
149 N. W. 880.
Ko evidence to base Instruction on. — ^It
was held to be error to give an in-
struction on a proviso in an ordinance,
where there is no evidence bringing the
case within the exception of the pro-
viso. Blake v. Chicago, etc. B. Co.
(la.), 149 N. W. 880.
469-56 Turner v, Davis, 186 Ala. 77,
64 S. 958s Bruce r. Citizens' Bank, 185
113
Vol. 2
APPEALS
Ala. 221^ 64 S. 82; Hartsell v. Bob-
ertSy 185 Ala. 201, 64 S. 90; Southern
B. Co. 17. Parkes, 10 Ala. App. 318, 65
6. 202; Foutz v, Los Angeles, 167 Cal.
487, 140 P. 20; Coleman v, S. (Ga.
App.), 83 S. E. 154; P. v, Grosenheider,
266 lU. 324, 107 N. E. 607: Miller V.
Coulter (Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 14;
Louisville, etc. Co. v. Lottich (Ind.
App.), 106 N. E. 903; Depugh v. Fraz-
ier (la.), 149 N. W. 854; Christian v.
Ames (la.), 149 N. W. 616; Green r.
National Annuity Assn., 90 Kan. 523,
135 P. 586; State v, Trocke, 127 Minn.
485, 149 N. W. 944; Yazoo & M. V. R.
Co. V. Hare, 104 MIbb. 564, 61 S. 648;
S. t?. Corrigan (Mo.), 171 S. W. 51;
Daniels v, McDanidls, 184 Mo. App.
354, 171 S. W. 14; Mclnness r. Be-
public Coal Co., 49 Mont. 112, 140 P.
235; Ingle v. Southern By. Co., 167 N.
C. 636, 83 8. E. 744; Miller v. Western
Union Tel. Co., 167 N. C. 315, 83 S. E.
482; Gonzales v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 171 S.
W. 1149; Atchison, T. & S. F. By. Co.
V. Hill (Tex. Civ.), 171 8.. W. 1028;
Sobek V. Smith Steel Casting Co., 158
Wis. 517, 149 N. W. 152.
Befusal of peremi^tory InstractloiL
Dismissal by court because of insuffi-
ciency of evidence instead of peremp-
tory instructions for defendant is not
reversible. Braun v. Peet, 97 Neb. 443,
150 N. W. 256.
Safasal to repeat instructions is not
prejudicial error. Little Bock Gas &
Fuel Co. V, Coppedge (Ark.), 172 S. W.
885.
Kot applicable to evidence. — ^Befusal
harmless where there is but remote
application to evidence. Czapinski v,
Thomas Furnace Co., 158 Wis. 635, 149
N. W. 477.
460-57 Athens v. Miller (Ala.), 66
S. 702; Clokey v. S. (Ind.), 107 N. E.
273; Hubenthal V. Gibbons (la.), 150
N. W. 1067; Cole v, Johnson, 127 Minn,
291, 149 N. W. 467; Bugajski e. Mil-
waukee Western Fuel Co., 158 Wis. 454,
149 N. W. 277.
To disregard remarks of counsel. — ^Im-
proper remarks of counsel must be ex
mero motu excluded from the jury. If
the trial judge refuses to do so, upon
motion of opposing counsel, it is suffi-
cient ground for a new trial. Alabama
Fuel & Iron Co. r. Benenante, 11 Ala.
App. 644, 66 S. 942.
Instmctions as to malice as affecting
damages, if improperly refused, is pre-
judicial, and the fact that the verdict
is so small as apparently not to in-
clude punitive damages does not render
the error harmless. Cohalan v. New
York Press Co., 212 N. Y. 344, 106 N.
E. 115.
Presumption of innocence. — ^'An in-
struction on reasonable doubt does not
supply the place of an instruction on
presumption of innocence when re-
quested." Gentry v. State (MLbs.), 66
S. 982.
470-58 Miller r. Morine (la.), 149
N. W. 229; WUUams v. Assn., 97 Neb.
352, 149 N. W. 822; Harton v. Texas
Midland E. Co. (Tex. Civ.), 171 S. W.
1023.
A f allnre to aUow nominal damages
is reversible error where it affects a
substantial right of plaintiff or pre-
vents him from recovering costs. Braun
V. Peet, 97 Neb. 443, 150 N. W. 256;
Mollyneaux t?. Wittenberg, 39 Neb.
547, 58 N. W. 205. The rule, however,
is otherwise where plaintiff is not thus
injured. Heater v, Pearce, 59 Neb. 583,
81 N. W. 615.
Idisi4>plication of res ipsa loquitur by
jury harmless where it does not affect
result. Embler v. Gloucester Lumb. Co.,
167 N. C. 457, 83 S. E. 740.
4T0-60 Ocean Ace. & Guarantee
Corp. V. Joslin Dry Goods Co. (Colo.
App.), 146 P. 790; Cook t?. Washington-
Oregon Corp. (Wash.), 146 P. 156.
T7nnecessar3r findings. — ^For the pur-
poses of appeal from the denial of a
motion to set aside the verdict, a fail-
ure to make an unnecessary finding is
harmless, where the transcript con-
tains all the evidence. Koma v. Cli-
max Co., 88 Conn. 642, 92 A. 427.
470-60 Bynum f?. Stroup, 10 Ala.
App. 637, 05 S. 704; Western Union
Tel. Co. V, Anniston Cordage Co., 6
Ala. App. 351, 59 8. 757; Welles v.
Bryant (Fla.), 66 S. 562; Huffstetler r.
Our Home Life Ins. Co., 67 Fla. 324,
65 S. 1; Hohm t\ Jallans, 134 La. 913,
64 S. 829; Albiani r. Bangs (Mas8.)»
107 N. E. 406; McGuire v, Roberts
(Okla.), 146 P. 33; Sweetser v. Fox, 43
Utah 40, 134 P. 599, 47 L. R. A. (1^.
S.) 145.
In favor of partner not sning^ — Judg-
ment rendered in favor of a partner
not a party is fundamental error and
objection may be made by appeal. West-
ern Grocery Co. v. Jata A Co. (Tex.
Civ.), 173 S. W. 518; Hanner v. Sum-
1X9
APPEALS
Vol. 2
merlim, 7 Tex. Civ. 235, 26 S. W. 906.
471-61 Walton v. Eennamer, 39
Olcla. 629, 136 P. 584.
471-64 S. V. Applegate, 28 N. B. 395,
149 N. W. 356; Zimmerle v, Childers,
67 Or. 465, 136 P. 349. See Huston V.
Johnson (N. D.), 151 N. W. 774.
ICiscondnct of jurors will be presumed
injurious to losing party. Roberson v*
S. (Ga. App.), 83 8. E. 877.
Erroneons Instmctlons presumed pre-
judicial. Bu rased t?. S., 14 Qa. App.
832, 82 S. £. 595.
472-65 Spork v. Int. Harvester Co.
(In<l. App.), 107 N. E. 740; Walderen
P. 8. (Tox. Cr.), 174 S. W. 348; Iowa
State Sav. Bank v, Henry (Wyo.), 136
P. 863.
472-66 Comstock v, Jabant Heating
Co., 10 Ala. App. 663, 64 8. 178; Birm-
in<;ham By., L. & P. Co. v, Pratt &
McCurdy, 10 Ala. App. 273, 64 8. 510;
American Sales Book Co. v. 8. H. Pope
& Co., 7 Ala. App. 304, 61 8. 45; At-
lantic Coast Line r. Whitney, 65 Fla.
72, 61 8. 179; Mewborn v. Weitzer (Ga.
App.), 84 8. E. 141; Martin v, Rome
(Ga. App.), 83 8. E. 872; Thain v, '8,
(Ind.), 106 N. E. 690; Holler v. S.
(Ind.), 106 N. E. 364: Chicago R. Co.
r. Mitchell (Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 743;
Sovereign Camp W. O. W. v, Latham
(Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 749; Bottema v,
Tracy (Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 741;
Spork V, International Harvester Co.
(Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 740; New Point
r. Cleveland, etc. B. Co. (Ind. App.),
107 N. K 560; Mutual Life Ins. Co. t7.
Knkelstein (Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 557;
Henderson r. County Pub. Co. (Ind.
App.), 107 N. E. 295; Walsh v. By. Co.
(Mich.), 151 N. W. 754; Davis v. Blum-
enberg (Miss.), 65 8. 503; In re Mur-
ray (N. M.), 140 P. 1042; Gray v.
Southern R. Co., 167 N. C. 433, 83 8.
E. 849; Elm City Lumb. Co. v, Childer-
hose, 167 N. 0. 34, 83 8. E. 22; Rogers
tr. Mfg. Co., 157 N. C. 484, 73 8. E.
227; Wood f. McCain, 34 8. D. 544,
149 N. W. 426.
AuthoritieB and leaaoiui in support
must be given. Mutual Life Ins. Co.
r Finkelstein (Ind. App.), 107 N. E.
557; Ingle v. Southern Ry. Co., 167 N.
C. 636, 83 8. E. 744.
Extent of waiTer.—'^ Appellant's fail-
ure to state a point or proposition re-
lating to an alleged cause for new
trial waives any error relating there-
to. *' Indiana Union T. Co. v, Cauld-
' wen (Ind. App.)| 107 N, £. 705.
472-67 Central of Georgia B. Co. i?.
Stephenson (Ala.), 66 S. 495; Ogburn-
Griffin Grocery Co. i\ Orient Ins. Co.
(Ala.), 66 S. 434; Pennsylvania P. Ins.
Co. v> Draper (Ala.), 65 S. 923; Kin-
non V. Louisville & N. R. Co. (Ala.),
65 S. 397; Scarbrough v. Scarbrough,
185 Ala. 468, 64 9. 105; Gilley v. Den-
mafi, 185 Ala. 561, 64 S. 97; Morris &
Co. V. Barton, 180 Ala. 98, 60 8. 172;
Anderson v, Anniston Elec. & G. Co.,
11 Ala. App. 560, 66 8. 925; Wilson V.
Lewis, 11 Ala. App. 261, 65 S. 919;
Morton t?. Clark, 10 Ala. App. 439. 65
S. 408; Hooper r. Herring, 9 Ala. App.
292, 63 8 785; Alabama Great South-
ern R. Co. «. Taylor, 7 Ala. App. 583,
61 8. 475; Key v, Goodall, Brown &
Co., 7 Ala. App. 227, 60 8. 986; Staples
r. Steed, 6 Ala. App. 594, 60 8. 499;
Western Union Tel. Co. v, Anniston
Cordage Co., 6 Ala. App. 351, 59 8.
757; Machomich Merc. Co, v, Hickey,
15 Ariz. 421, 1^0 P. 63; Stephens v.
Lemoore Canal & Irr. Co., 22 Cal. App.
579, 135 P. 707; Bowles t?. Hickson, 22
Cal. App. 264, 133 P. 1149; Souza r.
Joseph, 22 Cal. App. 179, 133 P. 981;
Rogers f?. Ponet, 21 Cal. App. 577, 132
F, 851; Vujacich v. Southern Commer-
cial Co., 21 Cal. App. 439, 132 P. 80;
Wilson V. Hotchkiss, 21 Cal. App. 392,
132 P. 88; City and County of Denver
t?. Lathan, 57 Colo. 371, 141 P. 462;
Williams v. S. (Fla.), 66 8, 424; Miller
V, Fletcher Co., 142 Ga. 668, 83 8. E.
521; Ketterer v. Stringfield, 142 Ga.
441, 83 8. E. 116; Freeman v. Atlanta
(Ga. App.), 83 8. E. 436; Oak Park v.
Swigart, 266 111. 60, 107 N. E. 158;
Sullivan c, Atchison T. & 8. F. R. Co.,
262 III. 317, 104 N. E. 707; Holland v.
Claudel, 181 Ind. 295, 104 N. E. 577;
Cincinnati, C. C. & St. L. R. Co. v,
Simpson (Ind.), 104 N. E. 301; Town
of Sheridan v. Rothschild, 181 Ind. 405,
104 N. E. 66; Evansville Furniture Co.
V. Freeman (Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 27 j
First Nat. Bank v. Kansford find.
App.), 104 N. E.*604; Guyer v. Union
Trust Co., 55 Ind. App. 472^ 104 N. E.
82; Hall r. Grand Lodge I. O. O. F.,
55 Ind. App. 324, 103 N. E. 854; New-
man v. Horner, 55 Ind. App. 298, 103
N. E. 820; Indiana life Endow. Co. v.
Reed, 54 Ind. App. 450. 103 N. E. 77;
Scott V, Brenton (la.)t 150 N W. 56;
Sammons Co. v. People's Bank & Trust
Co., 134 La. 718, 64 8. 690; Merchants,
etc. Co. V, Murphy (Mass.), 107 N. E.
968; Wellington v. City of Cambridge
117
I
Vol. 2
APPEALS
(Mass.), 107 N. E. 976; Ideal Leather
Goods Co. V, Eastern S. S. Corp.
(Mass.), 107 N. E. 525; Option v, As-
pinwaU (Mass.), 107 N. ?:. 448; Hen-
nessey V. Preston, 219 Mass. 61, 106
N. E. 570: Dooley v, Sullivan, 218 Mass.
597, 106 N. E. 604; C. v. Farmer, 217
Mass. 507, 106 N. E. 150; Hopperman
V. Fore River Co., 217 Mass. 42, 104 N.
E. 463; Eastern Bridge Co. t?. Worcester
Auditorium Co., 216 Mass. 426, 103 N.
E. 913; Stevenson v. Brown (Mo.), 174
S. W. 414; Frank v, Butte, etc. M. &
L. Co., 48 Mont. 83, 135 P. 904; W. A.
Manda Inc. v» U. 3. Express Co., 85 N.
J. L. 720, 90 A. 269; Brobst i'. El i'aso
& S. W. Co. (N. M.), 145 P. 258; Win-
borne Guano Co. V, Plymouth Merc. Co.
(N. C), 84 S. E. 272; S. v. Heavener
(N. a), 83 S. E. 732; Tilghman v. Sea-
board A. L. R. Co., 167 N. C. 163, 83
S. E. 315, 1090; Lynch V Rosemary Mfg.
Co., 167 N. C. 98, 83 S. E. 6; O'Neil v,
James, 40 Okla. 661, 140 P. 141; Hop-
ley V. Benton, 38 Okla. 223, 132 P. 808;
Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. r. O 'Neil, 36
Okla. 792, 130 P. 270; Domurat V.
Oregon-Washington R. ^ Nay. Co., 66
Or. 135, 134 P. 313; Coons r. McKees
Rocks, 243 Pa. 340, 90 A. 141; Gibbs V.
Perez Samanillo, 25 Phil. Tsl. 392; San-
tiago V. Felix, 24 Phil. Isl. 378; Will-
iams f). Weekley (S. C), 84 S. E. 299;
So. Realty & In v. Co. f>, Keenan (S.
C), 83 S. E. 39; Vance' f?. Heath, 42
Utah 148, 129 P. 365; Smythe v. Cen-
tral Vermont R. Co. (Vt.), 90 A. 901;
Bickford f?. Hupp (Wash.), 145 P. 454.
See also infra, 854-14; vol. 8, p. 639, n.
84, and supplement thereto.
Points argued though not involved in
the appeal will not be considered. Des
Moinee City R. Co. v. Susong (la.), 150
N. W. 6.
A dlfferont rule prevails in some juris-
dictions. Crockett v. Blackwolf Coal
& C. Co. (W. Va.), 83 S. E. 987.
Where only one ground of demurrer is
discussed in appellant's brief and upon
oral argument the court is warranted
in assuming that the propriety of the
ruling with respect to the grounds of
depiurrer not discussed was confessed.
Beymond v. Holt (N. M.), 141 P. 156.
473-68 Roberson «• S. (Ga. App.),
83 S. E. 877; Ingle V. S. (Ind.), 106 N.
E. 373; S. V. Vancak (Ohio), 107 N. E.
511; Overton v. Colored Knights of
Pythias (Tex. Civ.), 173 S. W. 472.
473-69 Failure to urge in motion for
n6W triaL— Where on motion for new
trial no mention is made of rulings on
evidence objections and exceptions
saved are abandoned. Hartnett v.
Boston Store, 265 111. 331, 106 N. E.
837. , J
473-71 O. n. Broun, Jr. Timb. Co.
V, Coleman (Ala.), 67 S. 243; Cochran
V. Burdick Bros., 7 Ala. App. 274, 61
S. 29; Clark 17. Smith, 142 Ga. 200, 82
S. E. 563; Ideal Leather Goods Co. v.
Eastern S. S. Corp. (MassOi 107 N. E.
525.
Conceding correctness of instruction^
constitutes a waiver of error therein.
Domestic Block Coal Co. v, Holden
(Ind. App.), 103 N. E. 73.
473-72 Shoop v. Fidelity & Deposit
Co., 124 Md. 130, 91 A. 753.
473-74 Central Trust Co. t?. Culver
(Colo.), 145 P. 684; Devine I?. Ry. Co.,
266 111. 248, 107 N. E. 595; P. V. Carr,
265 III. 220, 106 N. E. 801; Dance-Jonea
Lumb. Co. 17. Katzenstein, 134 La. 143,
63 S. 855; Union Sawmill Co. V. Tay-
lor» 133 La. 1088, 63 S. 594.
Question as to yalidity of a statute
being presented for the first time in
appellate court may be considered in
supreme court. Sixbv t?. Chicago City
R. Co., 260 111. 478, 103 N. E. 249, Ann.
Cas. 1914D, 539.
474-7B FaUnre to file affidavits of
merits in a probate appeal to the circuit
fourt deprives that court of jurisdic-
tion and the supreme court cannot pre-
sume such afiidavits were filed. Huflf-
man t?. Sudbury (Ark.), 174 S. W. 1149.
474-76 Ex parte Phillips (Ala.), 66
S. 3; Ex parte Shoaf (Ala.), 64 S.
615; Ex parte Western Union Tel. Co.
(Ala.), 63 S. 8S; Knox E. Co. v. Rock
Island S. R. Co., 264 111. 198, 106 N. E.
188; Schultz v. Ericsson Co., 264 III.
156, 106 N. E. 236; Johanson v. Will-
iam Johnston Prtg. Co., 263 111. 236, 104
N. E. 1046; Roloff v, Luer Bros. Pack.
& Ice Co., 263 111. 152, 104 N. E. 109.^;
Gamble-Robinson Com. Co. f?. Union
Pac. R. Co., 262 111. 400, 104 N. E. 666,
Ann. Cas. 1915B, 89; West v, Ranney
Refrig. Co., 261 111. 5G0, 104 N. E. 182;
Tomasi v. DonH Coal Co., 257 111. 70,
100 N. E. 353; Tracy v. Queen City Fire
Ins. Co., 132 La. 610, 61 8. 687, Ann.
ras. 1914D, 1145; Faber t?. City of New
York, 213 N. Y. 411, 107 N. E. 756$
Lundstrom t?. S. (N. Y.), 106 N. E. 924;
Binns V. Vitagraph Co., 210 N. Y. 51,
103 N. E. 1108, Ann. Cas. 1915B, 1024,
L. R. A. 1915C, 839; Cohen v. Thomas,
118
Appeals
fol. 2
SOD K r. 407, 103 N. E. 708; People
T. State Water Supply Com., 209 N. Y.
299. 103 N. E 162; Cook v. Smith
(T«x.), 174 S. W. 1094; Bacipe, etc. Co.
r. Guetzkow Co. (Wis.), 151 N. W. 799.
474-77 Ex parte Atlantic Coast Line
B. Co. (Ala.), 67 S. 256; Jeffries v.
Alexander, 266 111. 49, 107 N. E. 146;
Simon p. Etgen, 213 N. Y. 689, 107 N.
E. 1066; Peevey r. Buchanan (Tenn.),
173 S. W. 447; S. 17. Lee, 124 Tenn.
385. 136 S. W. 997.
But tills mla is inapplicable where the
opinion of the appellate court is based
on an erroneous view as to the burden
of proof. Peevey v. Buchanan (Tenn.),
173 S. W. 447.
Qnastloiis «f law.— ''In so far as the
appellate division reversed the judg-
ment of the trial term, that decision is
not subject to review in this court. In
so far a» the decision of the appellate
division dismissed the complaint, it
presents for review in this court a
question of law and the right to re-
view that question is not affected by
the powers conferred upon the appel-
late division, etc." Faber v. New
York, 213 N. Y. 411, 107 N. E. 766.
47S-80 rrsHumpllops QPOB revsrssL
That the intermediate court reversed
because of error of law will be pre-
sumed where it made no findings of
fact, but stated that the facts were
undisputed. Dromgold v. Boyal Neigh-
bors, 261 m. 60, 103 N. E. 584.
475-S3 Vandiver v. American Can
Co. (Ala.), 07 S. 299.
bankruptcy after Judgmeitt does not
effect determination of appeal. Van-
diver V, American Can Co. (Ala.), 67 S.
299.
476-84 Vandiver r. American Can
Co. (Ala,), 67 S. 299; Steiert t?. Coul-
ter, 54 Ind. App. 643, 102 N. E. 113,
103 N. E. 117; Ashwell t?. MiUer, 54
Ind. App. 381, 103 N. E. 37.
476-87 Snceesslon of Nieves v. Suc-
cession of Sanchez, 17 P. B. 837.
Tke f ona in wlilch the question Is pat
controls the decision; that is, whether
the question is put for affirming or re-
versing. Dewey Land Co. v. Steven^
83 K. J. £q. 314, 90 A. 1040.
476-88 Vandiver r. American Can
Co. (Ala.), 67 S. 299; Maehado v.
Maehado (Cat. App.), 145 P. 738.
AmsiideA^ — ^Brown v, Sutton, 142 Ga.
781, 83 8. E. 790.
ADimiag eoiinsal feaiii The appellate
court, upon consent of the attorney,
may allow counsel fees though there be
no evidence before it, iustead of re-
manding the cause. Wright v. Grand
Lodge it P. (Tex. Civ.), 173 S. W. 270.
Where In an aotloti for sn injunction an
acoonntlxig is also askod and the in-
junction is properly dismissed, appell-
ant cannot? present sufficient evidence
to raise one question, suffer an adverse
judgment and on appeal ask the court,
while sustaining the correctness of
lower court's ruling on the questions
presented, to reverse and remand the^
cause for further trial. Holmes i'.
Webb City, etc. Assn. (Mo. App.), 174
S. W. 122.
476-8d JCOde of objection to defoct-
ive abstract. — If an abstract is so de«
f ective that only the record proper can
be considered, that fact should be
brought to the court's attention by
briefs and not by a motion to affirm.
Walls tJ. Tinsley, 187 Mo. App. 462, 173
S. W. 19.
476-90 Barnes «. Carr, 65 Fla. 87,
61 S. 184* Hess 17. Hartwig, 89 Kan.
599, 132 P. 148; Board of Comrs. v.
Bank (La.), 66 S. 187; S. if. Sam, 134
La. 376, 64 S. 145; Dudley A. Tyng ft
Co. 17. Woodward, 121 Md. 422, 88 A.
243; Holmes v. Webb City BIdg. ft
Loan 'Co. (Mo. App.), 174 S. W. 122;
Black 1?. S., 97 Neb. 273, 149 N. W.
785; Marine Trust Co. v, St. James
African M. E. Church, 85 N. J. L. 272,
88 A. 1075; Foil v. Northwest German
Farmers' Mut. Ins. Co., 28 N. D. 355,
149 N. W. 358; Hill v. S. (Okla.), 145
P. 492 (decree modified and affirmed
although appellant alone filed a brief);
Hoehler t?. Short, 40 Okla. 681, 140 P.
146; English v. Allen (Tex. Civ.), 173
8. W. 1172.
477-02 Simonean v. Pacific Electric
B. Co., 166 Cal. 264, 136 P. 544; Ideal
Cream Separator Bepair Wks. 9. Des
Moines (la.), 149 N. W. 640; Ayers
r. Coon (Okla.), 146 P. 707; St. Louis
ft S. F. B. Co. 1?. Hart (Okla.), 146 P.
436; Fitch V, Green, 39 Okla. 18, 134
P. 34: Atchison, T. ft 8. 'F. B. Co. v.
Boyce (Tex. Civ.), 171 8. W. 1094;
Wagner v, Seattle (Wash.), 146 P. 621.
Further time for electlQii to remit can-
not be granted by the supreme court
where the party has not remitted with-
in time first given. Jett v. Old Nat.
Bank Co. (Wash.), 145 P. 605.
Chnmting further time to r«mit« — ^Wfaere
court Affirms an order granting a ne^
119
1
Vol 2
APPEALS
trial unless plaintiff remits a portion
of the damages within a certain time
the appellate court cannot extend the
time for such election., Jett v. Old
Nat. Bank Co. (Wash.), 145 P. 605.
477-93 Reading v, Chicago, B. & Q.
B. Co. (Mo. App.), 173 S. W. 451.
477-94 J. H. Walker & Co. v. Nor-
ris, 10 Ala. App. 515, 6.3 S. 935; Dake
Advertising Agency v. P. J. Stilson Co.,
22 Cal. App. 31, 133 P. 327; Dubois P.
Bowles, 55 Colo. 312, 134 P. 112; Cart-
wright r. New Orleans By. & L. Co., 131
La. 210, 59 S. 124; Hill v, S. (Okla.),
145 P. 492; Stuart t?. University L. &
8. Co., 66 Or. 546, 132 P. 1, 1164, 135 P.
165; Gibbons v. Bhode Island Co. (B.
I.), 91 A. 9.
477-95 Kelly v. Higpinsville, 185 Mo.
App. 55, 171 S. W. 966; Higgins ». W.
M. Ostrander, 244 Pa. 279, 90 A. 636.
477-96 Southern States Fire & Cas-
ualty Ins. Co. V. Whatloy, 178 Ala. 671,
59 S. 63; Southern States Fire & Cas-
ualty Ins. Co. V, Brannon, 178 Ala. 115,
59 S. 60; Cook. & Laurie Contract. Co.
V. Bell, 177 Ala. 618, 59 S. 273.
Errors In compntation of interest on
wronff amount may be reached by a
modification of judgment without re-
versal. Central Ga. P. Co. V. Stone,
142 Ga. 662, 83 S. E. 524.
478-99 Francois t?. Maison Blanche
Bealty Co., 134 La. 215, 63 S. 880.
As between co-appellees the appellate
court cannot amend the judgment.
Louisiana Land Co. v. Blakewoody 131
La. 539, 59 S. 984.
478-1 Chappell v, Falkner, 11 Ala.
App. 382, 66 S. 890; Southern Express
Co. 17. Williamson, 66 Fla. 286, 63 S.
433; O'Bourke v. Fulton Bag & Cotton
Mills, 133 La. 955, 63 S. 480.
Misjoinder of defendants.— The eonrt
on appeal may correct a judgment by
striking out one of the parties where
there is a misjoinder. Carpenter v.
St. Joseph (Mo.), 174 S. W. 53.
Conforming Judgment to ▼erdlct.— In
suit for property or its alternative
value, the verdict was for the property
sued for, but the judgment awarded
plaintiff *'the property sued for de-
scribed as one heifer calf." Held, thd
appellate court may correct the error
80 as to conform to the verdict. Chap-
pell V, Falkner, 11 Ala. App. 382, 66
S. 890.
478-2 Exchange Bank v. Schultz
(la.), 149 N. W. 99; O'Brien 17. Masa-
achusi^ts Catholic Order of Foresters
(Mass.), 107 N. E. 400; Western Union
Tel. Co. V. Louisville & N. B. Co.
(Miss.), 65 S. 650; Wagenaar v. Bee-
man-Woodward Co., 65 Or. 109, 131 P.
1023; Mucllor Beal Estate Co. t?. Cohen,
158 Wis. 461, 149 N. W. 154.
By statute, 1909, ch. 236. Taylor r.
Pierce (Mass.), 107 N. E. 947.
Entering final decree.— Where it ap-
pears from the bill of exceptions that
the findings which have been made
dispose of the whole controversy, the
appellate court may enter a final decree.
O'Brien r. Massachusetts Catholic Order
of Foresters (Mass.), 107 N. E. 400.
478-3 Long v, Qwin (Ala.), 66 S.
88; Charpie v. Stout, 88 Kan. 682, 129
P. 1166; Tornroos V, White Co. (Mass.),
107 N. E. 1015; Wasserstrom v. Cohen,
Frank & Co. (App. Div.), 150 N. Y. S.
638; Brady v. Erlanger (App. Div.),
149 N. Y. S. 929; Wah-tah-noh-zhe r.
Mooro, 36 Okla. 631, 129 P. 877.
479-4 Central Ind. R. Co. v, Wishard
(Ind. App.), 104 N. E. 593; Healer v.
Inkman, 89 Kan. 398, 131 P. 611; Lov-
(^tt V, Jeter (Okla.), 145 P. 334; Boat-
right V. Portland By. L. & P. Co., 68
Or. 26, 135 P. 771; St. Louis S. F. &
T. By. Co. V. West (Tex. Civ.), 174 S.
W. 287.
479-5 Miller v, Johnson (Ala.), 66 S.
486; Garver v. Thoman, 15 Ariz. 38, 135
P. 724; Ft. Collins v. Wallace, 23 Colo.
App. 452, 130 P. 69; Ferry Pass Ship-
pers' & I. Assn. V, Pensacola Lumb.
Co., 65 Fla. 313, 61 8. 639; Terwilliger
V. Ballard, 64 Fla. 158, 59 S. 244; Me-
Cormick t?. Smith, 23 Ida. 487, 130 P.
999; Shirley Hill Coal Co. v. Moore, 181
Ind. 513, 103 K. E. 802; Inland Steel
Co. V, Ilko, 181 Ind. 72, 103 N. B. 7;
First Nat. Bank v, Bansford (Ind.
App.), 104 N. E. 604; Hall v. Grand
Lodge I. O. O. F., 55 Ind. App. 324, 103
N. E. 854; Whiteley v. Watson, 93 Kan.
671, 145 P. 568; Stevens v. Bockport
Co., 216 Mass. 486, 104 N. E. 371, Ann.
Cas. 1915B, 1054; Mobile & O. B. Co.
V. Greenwald, 104 Miss. 417, 61 8. 426;
Newton Oil & Mfg. Co. v. Sessum, 102
Miss. 181, 59 S. 9; Mantle r. White, 47
Mont. 234, 132 P. 22; Kargman v.
Carlo, 85 N. J. L. 632, 90 A, 292; Mc-
Alpin V. Hixon (Okla.), 145 P. 386;
Chicago, B. I. 8b P. E. Co. v, Newburn,
39 Okla. 704j 136 P. 174; Porter t>. Wil-
son, 39 Okla. 500, 135 P. 732; Thomas v.
Hill. 39 Okla. 491, 135 P. 940; Allen
V, Wildman, 38 Okla. 652, 134 P. 1102$
120
APPEALS
Vol 2
Midland Val. B. Co. r. Hardesty, 8S
Okla. 559, 134 P. 400; Midland Val. R.
Co. t?. Green, 38 Okla. 305, 132 P. 1086;
Lawless v. Baddis, 36 Okla. 616, 129 P.
711; Schaedler v. Columbia Contract Co.,
«7 Or. 412, 135 P. 536; Morgan v, Brosa,
64 Or. 63, 129 P. 118; Mas v. Borin-
quen Sugar Co., 18 P. B. 299; Prance-
B€lu V. Vaillant, 17 P. B. 279; Flynn v.
J. M. Badford Grocery Co. (Tex. Civ.),
374 S. W. 902; Ft. Worth & B. G. B.
Co. V. Hales (Tex. Civ.), 173 S. W. 991;
King County t?. Martin (Tex. Civ.), 173
a W. 960; Ft. Worth & D. C. B. Co.
c. Firestone (Tex. Civ.), 173 S. W. 919;
Biehman v. Wenaha Co., 74 Wash. 370,
133 P. 467.
4Td-8 Birmingham By., L. & P. Co. r.
Comer, 10 Ala. App. 261, 64 S. 633;
Florida East Coast B. Co. v. Hayes, 65
Fla. 1, 60 S. 792; Cain v. Osier (la.),
150 N. W. 17.
If passion and prejudice induce the
verdict awarding exemplary damages,
a remittitur will not be ordered, but
the case will be remanded. Jolly f).
Doolittle (la.), 149 N. W. 890; Bhyne
1?. Turley, 37 Okla. 159, 131 P. 695.
Kaminal damages^— Generally a failure
to assess merely nominal damages is
not a ground for reversal, but it is a
reversible error where plaintiff is sub-
stantially prejudiced, as where the
judgment carries costs. Wallace v.
Weaver, 47 Mont. 437, 133 P. 1099.
Baeovery of less amount than might
have legally been recovered is no
? round for reversal on behalf of de-
endant. Baker v. Central Grocery Co.
(G{L App.), 83 S. £. 504. \
480-9 Loss of the original papers
resulting in a failure to make up the
record, is cause for reversal where ap-
pellee is to blame for the loss. Quarles
V. Hiern, 70 Miss. 259, 121 S. 145. But
where the loss cannot be attributed to
appellee, the court will not reverse the
case. Germaine v, Harwell, 104 Miss.
679, 61 S. 659.
480-11 Colorado Springs, etc. B.
Co. V. Allen, 55 Colo. 391, 135 P. 790;
Utah Foundry & Mch. Co. t?. Utah Gas
& Coke Co., 42 Utah 533, 131 P. 1173.
480-12 Silverman v. Charles Jacobs
Co., 150 N. Y. S. 631.
481-16 Gray r. Cotton, 166 Cal. 130,
134 P. 1145; Union Nat. Bank v. Fin-
Jey, 180 Ind. 470, 103 N. E. 110; Stur-
^ott's Admr. v. McCorkle, 163 Ky. 8,
173 S. W. 149; Camden v. McAndrews
& Forbes Co., 85 N. J. L. 260, S8 A.
1034; Needhara t?. Cooney (Tex. Civ.),
173 S. W. 979; Auwarter v. KroU, 79
Wash. 179, 140 P. 326; Casassa v.
Seattle, 75 Wash. 367, 134 P. 1080;
Lowther v, Lowther-Kaufmann Oil Co.
(W. Va.), 83 S. E. 49; Menasha Wooden
Ware Co. r. Winter, 159 Wis. 437, 150
N, W. 626.
481-16 Kansas City, M. & O. B, Co.
17. Cave (Tex. Civ.), 174 S. W. 872; In-
ternational ft G. N. B. Co. v, Hammon
(Tex. Civ.), 173 S. W. Q13.
if court cannot place the liability as be-
tween two defendants, appellees, the
case will be reversed. Walters v, Balti*
more & O. B. B., 120 Md. 644, 88 A.
47; Keevil r. Ponsford (Tex. Civ.), 173
S. W. 518.
Joint judgment reversed as to appel-
lant cannot remain in force as against
party not appealing. Bowell v. Boss
(Conn.), 93 A. 236.
481-17 Snider v. Ostrander (Colo.
App.), 145 P. 283; Marston r. McLeod,
135 La. 239, 65 S. 228; Hay den v, As-
toria (Or.), 145 P. 1072; Anderson r.
Phegley (Or.), 145 P. 642, holding that
the supreme court having determined
all the questions presented by the rec-
ord would not remand the case so that
one of the parties could present new
issues.
A reyersal of an order granting a new
trial leaves the judgment standing as
if no order granting a new trial had
been made. Sherwin v. Southern Pac
Co., 168 Cal. 722, 145 P. 92.
To sabstltnte competent evidence.
Where court admits incompetent evi-
dence and plaintiff producing such ob-
tains judgment the cause will be re*
manded to allow him to substitute
competent evidence. Morgan v, Boyai
Ben. Soc, 167 N. C.«262, 83 S. E. 479.
Questions finaUir disposed of. — On trial
below after remand the court cannot
consider an exception which has al-
ready been finally disposed of; as for
example, that no cause of action is
stated. Commercial Nat. Bank v. San-
ders, 136 La. 226, 66 S. 854.
In equity when the record discloses
lack of development of the merits of
vital issues, and there is strong prob-
ability of the existence of evidence
decisive thereof, the decree will be re-
versed and the cause remanded for fur-
ther proceedings. Wildell Lumb. Co. v,
Turk (W. Va.), 83 S. E. 83; La Belle
121
Vol. 2 ?
APPHALS
Iron Works v. Savings Bank (W. Va.),
82 S. E. 614; Cook v. Raleigh Lumb. Co.
(W. Va.), 82 S. E. 327.
482-18 Alabama Consol. Coal & I.
Oo. V, Herzberg, 5 Ala. App. 330, 59 8.
306; Hairston v. Montgomery, 102 Miss.
364, 59 S. 793; Adami v. Gercken, 164
App. Div. 472, 150 N. Y. S. 8; Ajax
Grieb Bubber Co. v. Marshall, 150 K
T. S. 72.
Bedtlng facts found. — ^Where the final
determination of fhe cause in the ap-
pellate conrt is the result of the dif-
ferent findings of facts, the statute re-
quires the judgment to recite the facta
found. Blake v. De Jonghe Hotel &
B. Co., 260 111. 348, 108 N. E. 225, Ann.
Cas. 1914B, 365.
Beversal finaL — Judgment maj be re-
versed and no new trial granted where
it is obvious that no different case can
be presented in another trial. Jun-
tunen v, Quincy Min. Co. (Mich.), 151
N. W. 571.
On revenal of Judgment non obstante
veredicto for defendant, judgment will
be rendered for plaintiff where no mo-
tion for a new trial was made below.
Hanick v. Leader, 243 Pa. 372, 90 A.
146. See also Findley v, Warren, 244
Pa. 64, 90 A. 457.
Authorizing amendment of pleading.
The court upon reversal may authorize
plaintiff to amend so as to include an
indispensable party. Hartley v» Lang-
kamp, 243 Pa. 550, 90 A. 402.
Decree reinstating an injmiction.
Where the decree of the appellate court
has the effect of reinstating an injunc-
tion the appellee must obey the injunc-
tion without further service of process.
Caldwell v. George, 102 Miss. 773, 59 S.
888.
482-19 Wyoming Nat. Bank v. Ship-
pey, 23 Colo. App. 225, 130 P. 1021;
Exchange State Bank r. Taber (Ida.),
145 P. 1090; Bryant v. Bich's Grill, 216
Jufass. 344, 103 N. E. 925, Ann. Cas.
1915B, 869; Perkins t?. The Golden Girl
(Mich.), 151 N. W. 660; Pietsch v. Mc-
Carthy, 159 Wis. 251, 150 N. W. 482;
Bennett v. Beavers Beserve Fun Frater-
nity, 159 Wis. 145, 150 N. W. 181.
Belief to respondent. — On appeal for
insufficient damages, the court if it
finds the complaint bad may reverse
and direct the lower court to sustain
a demurrer to the complaint. Manhat-
tan Co. 17. White, 48 Mont. 666, 140 P.
90.
48JB-20 Williams v. Pacific Surety
Co., 66 Or. 151, 127 P. 145, 131 P. 1021,
132 P. 959, 133 P. 1186.
482-21 Marvel v. Cobb, 219 Mass.
458, 107 N. E. 442.
A Judgment non obstante vezedicto
can not be rendered by a single judge
of tho appellate court after affirmance
of the decision appealed from. Cobb v.
Marvel, 219 Mass. 458, 107 K E. 442.
482-23 De Yampert r. Duncan
(Ala.), 67 S. 287; Garrow v, Toxey
(Ala.), 66 S. 443; Louisville ft N. B.
Co. V. Dilburn, 178 Ala. 600, 59 S. 438;
Arizona- Parral Min. Co. r. Forbes
(Ariz.), 146 P. 504; Florida East Coast
B. Co. V. Geiger, 66 Fla. 582, 64 S. 238;
Christopher v. Mungen, 66 Fla. 467, 63
S. 923; Williams v. Phiel, 66 Fla. 192,
63 S. 658; Boss V. Savage, 66 Fla. 106,
63 S. 148; Borne Scale ft Mfg. Co. v,
Harvey (Ga. App.), 83 S. E. 434; Oak
Park V. Swigart, 266 111. 60, 107 N. E.
158; P. V. Moore, 265 HI. 444, 107 N.
E. 121; P. V. Brockamp (111.), 107 N.
E. 121; Chicago ft E. B. Co. 17. Dinius,
180 Ind. 596, 103 N. E. 652; Equitable
Life Ass. Soc. v. Stough (Ind. App.),
106 N. E. 722; Harmon v, Pohle, 55 Ind.
App. 439, 103 K E. 1087; George E.
Pew Co. V. Karley (la.), 150 N. W. 12;
Lavalleur v. Hahn (la.), 149 N. W.
257; Blizzard Bros. r. Growers* Can-
ning Co. (la.), 148 N. W. 973; Cincin-
nati, N. O. ft T. P. B. Co. t?. Padgett,
163 Ky. 284, 173 S. W. 780; Bates ©.
Northern, etc. Coke Co., 162 Ky. 459,
172 S. W. 918; Wilraor f?. Placide, 123
Md. 532, 91 A. 561; Taylor v. Pierce
(Mass.), 107 N. E. 947; Wenzel v.
Kieruj (Mich.), 151 N. W. 641; Illi-
nois Cent. B. Co. v. Jordan (Miss.), 66
S. 406; Whittcmore v. Boston ft M. B.
B. (N. n.), 90 A. 601; McBce v. O'Con-
nell (N. M.), 145 P. 123; In re Hein-
sheimer, 164 App. Div. 265, 149 N. Y.
S. 631; St. Louis ft S. F. B. Co. f^.
Hardy (Okla.), 146 P. 38; Vulcanite
Paving Co. f?. Philadelphia, 244 Pa. 80,
90 A. 456; Silvain ©. Benson (Wash.),
145 P. 175; Van Dinter v. Worden-
Allen Co., 158 Wis. 579, 149 N. W. 583.
The ''law of the case" is more bind-
ing upon the courts than the law of
precedent. Johnson f?. Success Brick
Mach. Co., 104 Miss. 217, 61 S. 178, 62
S. 4.
COnstrnctlon of complaint. — The con-
struction given to the complaint on a
former trial will be considered the law
of the case. Chicago ft E. B. Co. 9.
122
APPEARANCES
Vol. 2
Binius, 180 Tnd. 596, 103 N. E. 652.
Bight arising under federal law8.^The
law of. the case has do application
yrhere the right claimed by appellant
id one which arises under the consti-
tution and laws of the United States,
for with reference to all such ques-
tions the supreme court of the state
is not one of final jurisdiction. Louis-
ville & N. B. Co. V. S. (Miss.), 65 S.
881.
Error waiTed on first appeal will be
considered waived on second appeal.
Cleveland, etc. B. Co. v. Starks (Ind.
App.), 106 N. E. 646.
482-24 Oak Park v. Swigart, 266 HI.
60, 107 N. E. 158; New Bell Jellico
Ooal Co. r. Sowders, 162 Kj. 443, 172
8. W. 914; Bacon V, George^ 216 Mass.
519, 104 N. E. 382.
482-25 Tibbetts v. Terrill (Colo.
App.), 140 P. 936; McBee v. O'Connell
(N. M.), 145 P. 123; Perrault v. Em-
porium Department Store Co. (Wash.),
145 P. 438. See Gilcrest & Co. r. Des
Moines (la.), 151 N. W. 488.
Qnestion of negligence. — Ferebee v.
Norfolk So. B. Co., 167 N. C. 290, 83
S. £. 360.
483-26 Thornhill r. Wear, 131 La«
739, 60 S. 228; New Bell Jellico Coal
Co. V. Sowders, 162 Ky. 443, 172 S. W.
914; Olson V. Carlson (Wash.), 145 P.
237.
AdmiBBlbflity of eyidence. — German-
American Fire Ins. Co. v. Messenger,
25 Colo. App. 153, 136 P. 478; Utah
Assn. V, Boyle Furniture Co., 43 Utah
623, 136 P. 572.
483-27 Louisville & N. B. Co. r«
Stewart's Admz., 163 Ky. 823, 174 8.
W. 744.
APPEABAN0E8
488-1 Childers «. Lahann, 18 N. M.
487, 138 P. 202. See Washington C:oun-
ty Land & D. Co. v. Weiser Nat. Bank,
26 Ida. 717, 146 P. 116.
491-18 Childers r. Lahann, 18 N. M.
487, 138 P. 202.
491-21 See Woodhouse v. Nelson
Cattle Co., 91 Kan. 823, 139 P. 356.
Asldng r^ef which can only be granted
on hypothesis that court has jurisdic-
tion is a voluntary appearance. In re
Walden's Est., 168 Cal. 759, 145 P.
100.
Kbe term "appearance" signifies the
.•el }^ whkJf a person against whom
suit has been brought submits hinisolf
to the jurisdiction of the court. Rogers
V, Penobscot Min. Co., 28 S. D. 72,
132 N. W. 792, Ann. Gas. 3914A, 1184.
491-24 Lively t;. Picton (0. C. A.),
218 Fed. 401; Order of U. C. T. v. Boll,
184 Fed. 298, 106 C. C. A. 440; Order
of U. C. T. V. Bell, 62 Fla. 565, 56
S. 910; Mills v. Walker, 18 Haw. 243;
Valley Abstract Co. v. Page, 42 Ok la.
365, 141 P. 416; National Surety Co. r.
Oklahoma Presbyterian College, 38
Okla. 429, 132 P. 652; Crawford v.
School Board, 68 Or. 388, 137 P. 217,
50 L. B. A. (N. S.) 147; Rogers r.
Penobscot Min. Co., 28 8. D. 72, 132
N. W. 792, Ann. Cas. 1014A, 1184;
Page V. Com. Nat. Bank, 38 Utah 440,
112 P. 816.
Demnrrer bad. — Where demurrer was
to the jurisdiction of the court as
well as that no cause of action was
stated, while insufficient as a demurrer
was good as an appearance. Moore v,
De Groote, 158 App. Div. 828, 143 N.
Y. S. 873.
492-25 A plea to Jurisdiction con-
stitutes appearance. Banco Minero v.
Ross (Tex,), 172 8. W. 711.
492-26 Clark-Herring-Campbell Co.
u. H. B. Claflin Co. (C. C. A.), 218
Fed. 429; Sheldon t?. Landwehr, 150
Cal. 778, 116 P. 44; Baxter v. Bryant,
87 Misc. 180, 149 N. Y. 8. 527; Harris
V. Bennett, 160 N. C. 339, 76 S. E.
217; Rogers r. Penobscot Min. Co., 28
8. D. 72, 132 N. W. 792, Ann. Cas.
1914 A, 1184; Houston & T. C. R. Co. v.
Walker (Tex.), 173 S. W. 208; Santa
Fe, etc. Trust Co. f>. Cumley (Tex.
Civ.), 132 8. W. 889.
493-27 Woodhouse v. Nelson Cattle
Co., 91 Kan. 823, 139 P. 356. See Mur-
phy V. Herring-Hall, etc. Safe Co., 184
Fed. 495.
493-28 Quashing summons. — ' ' Wh ere
a summons or citation or the service
thereof is quashed on motion of a
defendant, he gains a continuance of
the cause, but nothing else, since, as
provided by Code 1906, §3946, his ap-
pearance for the purpose of the motion
gives the court jurisdiction of his per-
son for all purposes of the case."
Standard Oil Co. t?. 8. (Miss.), 65 8.
468; Illinois Cent. R. Co. V. Swanaon,
92 Miss. 485, 46 S. 83.
493-29 Case v. Mountain Timber Co.,
210 Fed. 565; Sit You Gune v. Hurd.
61 Or. 182, 120 P. 737, 1135. g<*
Welch r. Ladd, 29 Okla. 93, 116 P,
123
Vol. 2
APPEARAliCm
5/3; Lookabauprh v. Epperaon, 28 Okla.
4/2, 114 P. 738. Camp, Spears f. C.
C. C. & St. L. R. Co., 1S)0 JII. App.
616. * *
Motion to vacate order for alimony
and dismiss. Jonos f?. Jones, 59 Or. 308.
117 P. 414. '
Questioning sufficiency of service
whether by pica or motion constitutes
an appearance. St. Louis B. Co. v,
Bloel«er (Tex. Civ.), 138 S. W. 156.
495-30 Standard Oil Co. t?. S.
(Miss.), 65 S. 468.
Stipulation for settlement is not an
appearance. Washington County Land
& D. Co. V. Weisor Nat. Bank, 26 Ida.
737, 146 P. 116.
Stipulation for amended pleading.
Stipulation by defendants permitting
plaintiff to amend complaint. Robert-
son, etc. Co. V. Thomas. 60 Wash. 614,
111 P. 795.
496-37 Williston v, Raymond, 213
Fed. 627; Altpetcr v. Postal Tel. Cable
Co. (Cal. App.), 148 P. 241; Meyers v.
American Locomotive Co., 201 N. Y.
163, 94 N. K. 605, aff., 124 N. Y. S.
1122; King t?. Oliphant (Tex. Civ.),
137 S. W. 1167; Santa Pe, etc. Trust
Co. V. Cumh^y (Tex. Civ.), 132 S. W.
889; Page r. (^om. Nat. Bank, 38 Utah
440, 112 P. 816.
497-39 See Nat. Coal Co. r. Cin-
cinnati Gas, etc. Co., 168 Mich. 195,
131 N. W. 580..
498-47 Houston, etc. R. Co. f?. Walk-
er (Tex. Civ.), 167 S. W. 199. See Cran-
dall V. Krai^tzor, 155 111. App. 496.
498-49 Sfutzhak v, Regenik, 122
Minn. 352, 142 N. W. 709.
499-50 After motion for continuance
has been overruled, the attorney waives
his special appearance by participating
in the trial. Sheldon v. Landwehr, 159
Cal. 778, 116 P. 44.
499-52 See Hill v. Atanasio. 127 N.
Y. S. 344.
499-53 A motion to dissolve a tem-
porary injunction is not such an ap-
pearance as will prevent a default be-
ing taken. Donlan r. Thompson, etc.
Mill. Co.. 42 Mont. 257, 112 P. 445.
Petitioner for writ of assistance in tax
proceeding. — A grantee of tax sale pur-
chaser, appearing in tax proceeding by
petition for writ of assistance, be-
comes a party in an action to have the
sale set aside. Young v, Blanchard,
165 Mich. 340, 130 N. W.' 694.
499-54 Beal-Doyle, etc. Co. v. Odd
Fellows BIdg. Co., 109 Ark. 77, 158 S.
W. 955; Benjamin v. Birmingham, 50
Ark. 433, 8 S, W. 183; Job Iron & Steel
.V«; ^o ^^^"^^^ ^^^ ^^- 2^^' ^^^ S- '^•
.167; Shannon r. Zimmerman, 162 Mo.
App. 686, 145 S. W. 496; Doming Inv.
^'o^v. Love, 31 Okla. 146, 120 P. 635;
Criffin (To. v. Howell, 38 Utah 357. 113
P. 326. '
A writ of error taken by a party oper-
ates as a general appearance as to him.
Honry v. Spitler, 67 Fla. 146, 64 8. 745;
Busard v, Houston, 65 Fla. 479, 62 S.
483.
^?f^5?. ^^® ^^^^^ ^- ^«e^» S» Conn.
214, 93 A. 232.
In divorce action, admission of service
and filing answer does not give juris-
diction over non-resident. Henry v.
Henry, 81 N. J. Eq. 512, 86 A, 1102, af.
79 N. J. Kq. 493, 82 A. 47.
500-60 First Nat. Bk. r. Johnson, 130
La. 288, 57 S. 930; Leusch t?. Nickel,
16 N. M. 28, 113 P. 595; Ferguson <?.
McKee, 33 Okla. 332, 125 Pac. 458; Tur-
ner & Co. V, Dodson, 32 Okla. 566, 121
P. 1087; McCord Mercantile Co. v.
Dodson, 32 Okla. 561, 121 P. 1085.
Comp. Engels Exp. Co. t?. Ferguson, 79
Misc. 40, 138 N. Y. S. 1086.
Giving a forthcoming bond in trover
suit constitutes an appearance. Hall
?>. Roehr, 10 Oa. App. 379, 73 S. E.
550.
Fnmlsliing bond to dissolve garnish-
ment is an appearance. Carpenter v.
Miller, 2 Ala. App. 373, 56 S. 845. See
also supra, p. 499, n. 51.
501-63 By asUng leave to answer.
Dell School V. Peirce, 163 N. C. 424.
79 S. E. 687.
Filing cross-petition is an appearance.
Rakow V. Tate, 93 Neb. 198, 140 N.
W. 162.
Iietters between counsel relative to
continuing the case do not constitute
an appearance. Childers u. Lahann, 18
N. M. 487, 138 P. 202.
502-64 Motion to strike a Us pend-
ens filed in cross-bill is a general ap-
I»earance to cross-bill. King t?. Bar-
nard, 66 Fla. 252, 63 S. 429.
502-66 An appearance to challenge
Jurisdiction of person is special; an ap-
pearance for any other purpose is gen-
eral. P. T. Bloomington Cem. Assn., 266
Til. 32, 107 N. E. 143; P. v. Smythe, 232
III. 242, 83 N. £. 821; Hanson v. Han-
124
APPEARANCES
VoLU
BOQ, 86 Kan. 622, :22 P. 100; Aber-
crombie r. Abererombie, 64 Kan. 29, 67
P. 539; HaynM v. City Nat. Bank, 30
Okla. 614, 121 P. 182; Sit Ton Qune v.
Uutd, 61 Or. 182, 120 P. 787, 1135.
502^7 Wliitedda v. Drage, 56 Ind.
App. 679, 106 N. £. 882; Bishop 9.
FiBcber, 94 Kan. 105. 145 P. 890;
Haynefl v. City Kat Bank, 00 Okla.
614, 1^ P. 182.
THo t«8t Is tbe 'relief asked. Rogers «.
PAnobseot Mln. Co., 28 8. D. 72, 132 N.
W. 7n2, Ann. Cas. 1914A, 1184; Reedy
r. Howard, 11 S. D. 160, 76 N. W. 304.
604-68 Legan v, Smitb (Neb.)i 151
N. W. 955; 8. v. White, 164 N. C. 408,
79 S. E. 297; Rogers r. Penobscot Min.
Co., 28 S. D. 72, 132 N. W. 792, Ann.
c^as. 1914A. 1184.
l$<Vi.69 Lillie v. Modem Woodmen,
89 Neb. 1, 130 N. W. 1004; Albrecht
r. Zimmerly, 23 N. D. 337, 136 N. W.
240; Pratt v. Pratt, 41 Okla. 577» 139
P. 261.
60S-71 Whitesides v, Drage, 56 Ind.
App. 679, 106 N. E. 382; Bishop v,
Fischer, 94 Kan. 105, 145 P. 890; Rog-
ers V. Penobscot Min. Co., 28 8. D. 72,
132 N. W. 7d2, Ann. Cas. 1914A| 1184.
605-73 Seaeoast Lnmb. Co. f . Camp
Lnmb. Co., 63 Fla. 604, 59 S. 13.
505-T4 Drennan t?. Warbnrton, 38
Okla. 561, 122 P. 179.
Doaignatioii not eontroUing* — ^An ap-
pearance will not necessarily be con-
sidered speeial simply because it is so
designated. Dell School v, PeireO) 163
N. C. 424, 79 S. E. 687; Grant v. Grant,
159 N. 0. 628, 75 S. E. 734.
606-75 Bedford V, Board of Sapor-
visors, 168 la. 588, 144 N. W. dOlj 8.
r. Grimm/ 239 Mo. 135, 148 B. W. 483.
608-83. Denrarror.— Invoking jorfs-
dietion of court on merits of case by
demurrer is a general appearance. Order
of U. C. T. V. Bell, 62 Pla. 565, 56
8. 910; Valley Abstract Co. v. Page,
42 Okla. 365, 141 P. 416; Page r. Com.
Kat Bank, 38 TJtah 440, 112 P. 816.
Filing an answer, whick raises an is-
sue, constitutes a general appearance
even though the answer recites that the
appearance is merely for the purpose
of questioning the jurisdiction. Me-
f'hire Newspaper Syndicate r. Times
Printing Co., 164 App. Div. 108, 149 N.
y. S. 443.
TlunigSi vscfttlon of oxdor of comt.
made after return of process. Is also
sought, this does not render a special
appearance and a motion to vacate
service of process, a general appear-
ance. Mitchell Min. Co. f?. Emig, 35
App. Cas. (D. C.) 527.
Adjonmmont. — Special appearance is
not made general by adjournment at
defendant's request. Longcor e. At-
lantic, etc. Co« 122 Minn. 245, 142 N.
W. 410.
Plea or answer, ete.— Itassell v. Dan-
iels Roanoke River, etc. Co. (N. C), 84
8. E. 363; Steenstrup f. Toledo Foun-
dry Co., 66 Wash. 101, 119 P. 16, Ann.
Cas. 1913C, 427.
Obtaining time; eto. — ^Murphy r. Her-
ring-Hall, etc. Safe Co., 184 Fed. 495.
A demand for copy of complaint, if an
appearance, would be a special appear-
ance and not general, Tinder New York
practice. Hoyt r. Ogden, etc. Cement
Co., 185 Fed. 889.
Motion to vacate order for alimony and
dismiss constitutes general appearance.
Jones V. Jones, 59 Or. 308, 117 P. 414.
Ohange of venue. — A motion to remove
action to another county is general ap-
pearance though denominated special.
Princeton Coal Co. v. Gilchrist, fl Ind.
App. 216, 99 N. E. 426; Grant v. Grant,
159 N. C. 528, 75 8. E. 734; Jones v.
Jones, 59 Or. 308, 117 P. 414.
Asking leave to answer. — Where a de-
fendant in default asks leave to an-
swer he makes a general appearance.
Currif v. Goleonda Min. ft Mill. Co., 157
N. C. 609, 72 8. E. 980; Fitzgerald V.
Case Threshing Mach. Co., 94 S. C. 54,
r/ S. E. 739.
For eOQtinnance, etc. — ^Fanton v. By-
mm 26 8. D. 366 128 N. W. 325, 34
L. B. A, (N.S.) 801.
OonMftt to eontlDnance. — ^Eldon Ice Co.
V Van Hooter, 163 Mo. App. 591, 147
8. W. 161.
Vacating defttnlt — An appearance is
general ^en it raises the question of
the merits of the finding by a motion
to vacate a default. Chicago Copy Co.
r. Original Mfg. Co., 162 111. App. 500;
Currey <?. Trinity, etc. Co., 157 Mo. App.
423, 139 8. W. 212; Welch v. Ladd, 29
Okla. 03, 116 P. 573; Lookabaugh f>.
Epperson, 28 Okla. 472, 114 P. 738.
Motion for new trial on n on -Jurisdic-
tional grounds is a general appearance.
Maclay Co. r. Meads, 14 Cal. App. 36.3,
112 P. 195, rehear, denial, 113 P. 364;
125
Vol. 2i
APPEARANCES
Pierce v. Hamilton, 55 Colo. 448, 135
P. 796; Fowler v, Cont. Casualty Co., 17
N. M. 188, 124 P. 479; Ziska v. ^vey
(Okla.), 122 P. 722; Trugeon v. Galla*
more, 28 Okla. 73, 117 P. 797.
Obtaining stay of proceedings, etc.
Schlesinger t\ Modern Samaritan^ 121
Minn. 145, 140 N. W. 1027.
Notice of retainer and stipulation of
attorneys is a general appearance. Na-
tional Coal Co. V. Cincinnati Uas, etc.
Co., 168 Mich. 195, 131 N. W. 580.
Jurisdiction of subject matter. — Where
defendant appeared specially to object
to jurisdiction of court over the per-
son, and in the same motion challenges
the jurisdiction over the subject mat-
ter, this will constitute a voluntary
general appearance. S. v, Grimm, 239
Mo. 135, 143 S. W. 483; Clark v. Bank-
ers' Ace. Ins. Co., 96 Neb. 381, 147 N.
W. 1118.
A verified plea of privilege without
limitation is a. general appearance.
Early Grain Co. i?. Fite (Tex. Civ.),
14T S. W. 673; Santa Fe, etc. Trust
Co. f?. Cumley (Tex. Civ.), 132 S. W.
889.
Writ of error, etc. — ^Henry v, Spitlet,
67 Fla. 146, 64 S. 745; Busard 1?. Uous-
ton, 65 Fla. 479, 62 S. 483.
Motion to be substituted as party plain*
tiff. Chambers" V. Bacon, 153 App. Div.
194, 138 N. Y. S. 337.
Procuring stay of execution is a gen-
eral appearance. Woodhouse v. Nelson
Cattle Co., 91 Kan. 823, 139 P. 356.
511-84 Brown r. Fletcher, 206 Fed.
461, 124 C. C. A. 367, mod. 203 Fed. 70.
612-80 State v, American Surety
Co., 26 Ida. 652, 145 P. 1097.
613-91 Answer, etc. — McClure News-
paper Syndicate v. Times Printing Co.,
164 App. Div. 108, 149 N. Y. S. 443.
515-4 Childers v, Lahann, 18 N. M.
487, 138 P. 202.
515-5 Friebe v. Elder (Tnd.), 103 N.
E. 429, aff. 181 Ind. 597, 105 N. E.
151.
518-22 Valentine v. Cooley, Meigs
(Tenn.), 613, 33 Am. Dec. 166.
518-23 Cook V. Adams, 27 Ala. 294;
Williams r. Ewing, 31 Ark. 229; Hodges
r. Frazier, 31 Ark. 58; McCloskey r.
Sweeney, 66 Cal. 53, 4 P. 943; Clark
c. Turner, 1 Root (Conn.), 200; Nich-
olson 17. Wilborn, 13 Ga. 467; Kesler r.
Pennin^er, 59 111. 134; Peak v. Shasted,
21 111. 137; Wcthorill t?. Harris, 67 Ind.
452, 472; Bchoonover v. Irwin, 58 Ind.
287; Timmons v, Timmons, 6 Ind. 8;
Timmons v. Timmons, 3 Ind. 251; Cav-
endur v. Heirs of Smith, 5 la. 157; Arm-
strong V. Wyandotte Bridge Co., Mc*
Cahon (Kan.), 166; Cook's Heirs v.
Totton's Heirs, 6 Dana. (Ky.), 108;
Bustard v. Gates, 4 Dana (Ky.) 429;
Wainwright v, Wilkinson, 62 Md. 146;
Armitage v. Widoe, 36 Mich. 124; Lee
V, Jenkins, 30 Miss. 592; Gamache i\
Pre vest, 71 Mo. 84; Creech v. Creech,
10 Mo. App. 586; Garesche v. Gambs,
3 Mo. App. 572; I^ang v. BelloflP, 53 N.
J. Eq. 298, 31 A. 604; Bobbins V.
Mount, 33 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 24: Shep-
herd V. Hibbard, 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 96;
Camp V. Bennett, 16 Wend. (N. Y.) 48;
Mockey v. Grey, 2 Johns. (N. Y.) 192;
Matter of Bowne, 6 Dem. (N. Y.) 51;
Hope V. Seaman, 119 N. Y. S. 713;
Morcer v. Watson, 1 Watts (Pa.), 330,
349; Wright v. McNatt, 49 Tex. 425;
Fall River Foundry Co. v. Doty, 42 Vt.
412; Somers v. Rogers, 26 Vt. 585;
Starbird v. Moore, 21 Vt. 529.
Bule applies to appeals. — Cook. v.
Adams, 27 Ala. 294.
Entering appearance by attorney does
not confer jurisdiction over the infant.
Bonncll v. Holt, 89 111. 71.
The guardian or next friend may ap-
point an attorney. Alexander 17. F^ary,
9 Ind. 481; Doe v. Scoggin, 2 Ind. 208;
Doe r. Brown, 8 Black (Ind.), 44,*);
Brandon v. Carter, 119 Mo. 572, 24 S.
W. 1035, 41 Am. St. 673; P. v. New
York, 11 Wend. (N. Y.) 164; Mercer
«. Watson, 1 Watts (Pa.), 330. See
vol. 10, p. 761, n. 86, and supplement
thereto.
520-31 Houston, etc. R. Co. v.
Walker (Tex, Civ.), 167 8. W. 199;
Early Co. v, Fite (Tex. Civ.), 147 S.
W. 673.
520*35 Rogers r. 'Penobscot Min. Co.,
28 S. D. 72, 132 N. W. 792, Ann. Cas.
1914A, 1184.
520*36 A special appearance pre-
cludes the party from obtaining a de-
cision on the merits. Haynes v. City
Nat. Bank, 30 Okla. 614, 121 P. 182.
521-37 Miller V. Cbckins, 239 Pa.
558, 87 A. 58.
521.39 Motions consistent wltli
special appearance. — ^<<When objection
to the jurisdiction is clearly made^ the
mere fact that he (defendant) is given
and accepts an enlargement of the
129
APPEARANCES
Vol. 2
timo to answer until his motion is dis-
posed of, eannot be held to he in-
consistent with such objection, nor can
it be said that he thereby assumes the
jurisdiction exists." Longcor r. At-
lantic, etc Co., 122 Minn. 245, 142 N.
W. 410.
621^0 Fowler v. Cont. Casualty Co.,
17 K. H. 188, 124 P. 479.
JnxlsdlctUm aeqnlxed.— A special ap-
pearance gives the court jurisdiction
over defendant's person to the extent
of determining; the question presented.
Onver V. Kinney, 173 Ala. 593. 56 S.
203.
S22-60 Faxon v. All Persons, 166
Cal. 707, 137 P. 919; White t;. Elec.
Co., 139 Ga. 587, 77 S. E. 789; Mumford
r. Solomon, 8 Ga. App. 286, 68 S. E.
1075; P. V. Brown, 253 Dl. 578, 97 N.
E. 1075; Finch & Co. V, Zenith Furnace
Co., 245 111. 586, 92 N. E. 521, af.
146 111. App. 257; Bierma v. Columbia
Typewriter Mfg. Co., 179 III. App. 69;
Eldon lee Co. r. Van Hooser, 163 Mo.
App. 591, 147 S. W. 161; In re Ford,
157 Mo. App. 141, 137 S. W. 32; S. V.
Bourne, 151 Mo. App. 104, 131 8. W.
896; Legan v. Smith (Neb.), 151 N.
W. 955; Baxter c, Bryant, 87 Misc. 180,
149 N. Y. 8. 527; Boehmko f?. Northern
Ohio Tract Co., 88 O. St. 156, 102 N. E.
700; C. V. Hopkins, 241 Pa. 213, 88 A.
442; Wilfcie v. Murphy, 88 8. C. 415,
70 S. E. 1028; Rogers v. Penobscot Min.
Co., 28 S. D. 72, 132 N. W. 792, Ann.
Cas. 1914A, 1184; Bayer v. Bayer
(Wash.), 145 P. 433. See Detroit
Trust Co. V, Pontine Sav. Bank, 196
Fed. 29, 115 C. C. A. 663; Texas Co. V.
Central Fuel Oil Co., 194 Fed. 1, 114
C. C. A. 21.
624-51 Brown f>. Fletcher, 203 Fed.
70; Blanks r. Lephiew, 132 La. 545, 61
8. 615; First Nat. Bk. v, Johnson, 130
La. 288, 57 S. 930; National Coal Co.
p. Cincinnati Gas Co. (Mich.), 131 N.
W. 580; Newman v, Shreve, 229 Pa.
200, 78 A. 79; Bogers v. Penobscot Min.
Co^ 28 8. D. 72, 132 N. W. 792, Ann.
Cas. 1914A, 1184; Simon 17. Temple
Lumb. Co. (Tex. Civ.), 146 a W. 592.
S25-52 In a divorce action a writ-
ten, signed appearance by defendant
delivered to plaintiff and filed with
court does not confer jurisdiction of
person where no process was issued and
defendant was not .present in court.
Friebe v. Elder (In^.), 103 N. E. 429,
af. 181 Ind. 597, 105 N. E. 151.
526-56 A corporation appearing geni
erally consents to Jurisdiction. Meyers
V, American Locomotive Co., 201 N. Y.
163, 94 N. E. 605, af^ 124 N. Y. S. 1122.
426-57 Big Vein C. Co. v. Bead, 229
U. S. 31, 83 Sup. Ct. 694, 67 L. ed. 1053;
King V. Balston, 174 111. App. 93; Mc-
Sherry v, McSherry, 113 Md. 895, 77
A. 653, 140 Am. St. 428; S. «. Holtcanip,
245 Mo. 655, 151 S. W. 163.
Demurring to Jurisdiction of court over
subject matter is not a general appear-
ance by which objections to the juris-
diction of the person are waived. Kel-
ley v. Smith Co., 196 Fed. 466. 116 C.
C. A. 240. .
527-58 Dailey v. Foster, 17 N. M.
377, 128 P. 71; Hansen v. Mauss, 40
Utah 361, 121 P. 605. See Biley v. Lam-
son, 164 111. App. 297, certiorari denied,
253 HI. 258, 97 N. E. 417. Comp.
Klatte V. MclTeand, 95 Sl C. 219^ 78
S. £. 712.
Addng leave to answet after default,
Fitzgerald V, Case Threshing Mach« Co.,
94 S. C. 54, 77 S. E. 739.
Demurrer going to merita as well as
jurisdiction^ confers Jurisdiction. Shep<
pard V. Lincoln, 184 Fed. 182.
Olvlng replevy bond does not prevent
defendant from objecting to jurisdic-
tion of person. Brake «• IjewiS) 13 Ga.
App. 276, 79 S. E. 167.
Answering to merits. — ^An appearance
accompanied bv an answer to the mer-
its is general though at the same time
the parties question the jurisdiction.
Baxter u. Bryant, 149 N. Y. S. 527.
No cause of action stated. — "An ex-
ception to the jurisdiction of the coujf
filed by defendant is waived by the
subsequent filing of an exception of no
cause of action and going to trial on
the two exceptions.'* City Nat. Bank
V. Walker, 130 La. 810, 58 S. 580.
527-59 Drake 17. Lewis, 13 Ga. App.
276, 79 S. E. 167,
528^5 See First Nat. Bank r. John-
son, 130 La. 288, 57 S. 930.
528^9 Lesan Advertising Co. r.
Castleman, 165 Mo. App. 576, 148 S.
W. 433.
Appearance after motion to auadi over-
ruled.— ^That it gives jurisdiction, etc.
Henry v. Spitler, 67 Fla. 146, 64 S. 745.
529-72 St. Louis v. Glasgow, 254
Mo. 262, 162 S. W. 596; Lewisburp
Bridge Co. v. Union Co., 882 Pa. 255.
81 A. 824«
187
Vol. 2
APPEARANCES
Where court has Jarisdictlon of sub-
ject matter« — "But if the court in
which the suit is instituted posscssos
jurisdiction of the general class of casus
to which the particular suit involved
belongs, it is said then to possess jur-
isdiction with respect to the subject
matter of such cases, and therefore au-
thorized to perform the necessary ju-
dicial functions with respect of them,
if the parties voluntarily came into the
forum, as here, the one for relief and
other to defend." Western Stoneware
Co. V, Pike County, etc. Co., 172 Mo.
A pp. 696, 156 8. W. 1083.
In a suit for annulment of marriage
the defendant, even though he h^s ap-
peared generally and answered, may
deny the power and jurisdiction of the
court to annul the marriage. Beid v.
Eeid, 129 N. Y. S. 529.
530-74 S. V. NlYon, 232 Mo. 496, 134
S. W. 538; a V. Nolte, 233 Mo. 4r)l,
134 S. W. 542; Lillie v. Modern Wood-
men, 89 Neb. 1, 130 N. W. 1004.
531-76 Whitesides v. Drage, 56 Ind.
App. 670,, 106 N. K. 382; Rogers v. Pen-
obscot Min. Co., 28 8. D. 72, 132 N. W.
792, Ann. Cas. 1914A, 1184,
Opposing change of venue. — A general
appearance ojiposing motion for change
of venue on merits waives objections
to the jurisdiction of the court making
the order. Stockwoll v. Haigb, 23 N.
D, 64, 136 N. W. 764.
531-77" Sheppard v. Lincoln, 184
Fed. 182; Sessoms Grocery Co. t?. Int.
S. P. Co. (Ala.), 66 S. 479.
PlM^ in abatement, etc.— Parfitt r.
Sterling, etc. Co., 68 W. Va. 438, 69
8. E. 985.
532-70 Greer v. Vaughan, 96 Ark.
524, 132 8. W. 456; Castner t?. Cray, 54
Colo. 551, 131 P. 404; Reynolds «. Fire
Underwriters, 134 La. 515, 64 S. 396;
Smith V. Kiene, 231 Mo. 215, 132 S.
W. 1052; On (Tin V, Van Meter, 50 Mo.
430; Idalia Realty Co. v, Norman, 184
Mo. App. 146, 168 a. W. 643; Duluth
Brew & Malt. Co. v, Allen (Mont.), 149
P. 494; Carman v. Fox, 86 Miss. 107,
149 N. y. S. 213; Santa Fe, etc. Trust
Co. V. Cumley (Tex. Civ.), 132 S. W.
889; Snow v. Rudolph (Tex. Civ.), 131
8. W. 249. See Water (*o. v. El Campo
U I. & W. Co. (Tex. Civ.), 150 S. W.
259tDegetan t;. Mayer (Tex. Civ.), 145
S. W. 10.'54.
In attachment suits, see, vol. 3, p. 675,
n. 43 and supplement thereto.
Answer to merits waives defect in cita-
tion, after refusal to quash the cita-
tion. Kansas City So. B. Co. v, Tonn.
102 Ark. 20, 143 S. W. 577; National
Equitable Society, etc. v. Tennison
(Tex. Civ.), 174 S. W. 978; Boles v.
Adams (Tex. Civ.), 173 S. W. 561.
52i^8 Aiklng additional time to
answer is not waiver of service where
no summons had been served. Klatte
t?. McKeand, 95 S. C. 219, 78 S. E. 712.
0(^4-89 Boles v. Adams (Tex. Civ.);
173 S. W. 561.
536-92 Sharp r. McBride^ 134 La.
249, 63 S. 892; Allen t?. Henley, 130
La. 861, 58 S. 688; Newell v. Newell,
88 Neb. 705, 130 N. W. 743. See Pierce
V. Hamilton, 55 Colo. 448, 135 P. 796.
537-93 Case 17. Mountain Timber Co.,
210 Fed. 565; Hynes <?. All Persons, 19
Cal. App. 185, 125 P. 253; Salzer Lumb.
Co. V. Lindenmeier, 54 Colo. 491, 131 P,
442; Matthew v. Fleetwood, 3 Boyce
(Del.) 154, 82 A. 537; Henry v, Spitler.
67 Fla. 146-, 64 S. 745; Hathaway v.
Atlanta, 12 Ga. App. 648, 77 S. E. 916;
Sartorious v. Paper Mills Co., 10 Ga.
App. 522, 73 a. R. 854; P. v. Jones, 254
IlL 521, 98 N. E. 962; Szimkus.v. Rag-
auckas, 189 111. App. 407; Pittsburg B.
Co. f). Hodge, 175 Ind. 669, 94 N. E.
324; Kenthlcy V, Stump, 147 Ky. 406,
144 S. W. 87; Allen u. Henley, 130 La.
861, 58 S. 688; Young v. Beeves & Co.,
172 Mich. 363, 137 N. W. 701, 139 N.
W. 876, denying rehear., 137 N. W. 701;
S. r. Grimm, 239 Mo. 135, 143 S. W.
483; S. V. Shelton, 238 Mo. 281, 142 S.
W. 417; St. Louis t?. Smith, 235 Mo. 64,
138 S. W. 11; Duluth Brew & Malt. Co.
V. Allen (Mont.), 149 P. 494; Haner r.
Palmer, 88 Neb. 438, 129 N. W. 1001;
McDonald v, McArthur, 154 N. C. 122,
69 S. E. 832; Walton i?. Kennamer, 39
Okla. 629. 136 P. 584; Fetjmson V. Mc-
Kee, 33 Ok la. 332, 125 P. 458; Boles ©.
Adams (Tex. Civ.), 173 S. W. 561; Mar-
tin Co. 1'. Cottrell (Tex. Civ.), 142 S.
W. 48; St. Louis, etc. R. Co. 17. Bass
(Tex. Civ.), 140 S. W. 860; Rosenberg
r. Fidelity & G. Co., 115 Va. 221, 78 S.
E. 557. See Wainwnght f>. Watkins,
104 Miss. 438. 61 S. 4.54; Bakow V. Tate,
93 Neb. 198, 140 N. W. 162.
Does not operate to put party In de-
fault.— An appearance in an action be-
gun by publication waives only defect
of service, and does not go back to put
defendant in default for failure to an-
swer. Carroll v. Fowler, 33 S. D. 303,
145 N. W. 545,
128
APPEARANCES
Vol. 2
Appetxtaeo befbn and after Jadgmttit.
An appearance for special purpose be-
fore judgment coupled with a demand
for relief iueonslBtent with claim of
want of juriadiction ia a general ap>
pearanee and waiver of defects in
lervice of summons. But where appear-
aoeiS is after judgment, and for want
of proper service of process the judg-
ment is void, a different rule applies.
Spencer v. Court of Honor^ 120 Minn.
422, 139 N. W. 815; Godfrey v. Valen-
tine, 39 Minn. 836, 40 N. W. 163, 12
Am. St. 657.
After motioit to ^toadi <nramled, etc.
Boles 17. Adama (Tex. Civ.), 173 8. W.
561.
53t^-M WhiBn nndar aa appaaraaea
da baiia ease the defendant demurred to
jurisdiction of subject matter, but did
not preserve its right to question the
jurisdiction of the person the right to
object to the insufficiencj of service
was waived. Kane v, Pittsburg B. Oa^
241 Pa. 608, 88 A. 793.
Proteat In aaawor.— Where defendant
expressly reserved by its answer the
right to quaah service of summons un-
der special appearance, which motion
was overruled, its objection to the serv-
iee was not waived. Beal-Doyle Co. v.
Odd Fellowa Bldg. Co., 109 Ark. 77, 158
8. W. 965.
689-07 Beal-Doyle Go. 9. Odd Fel-
lows Bldg. Co., 109 Ark. 77, 158 8. W.
955.
539-08 Lowe v. Superior Coutt, 165
Cal. 708, 134 P. 190; Abbott v. Kellogg,
18 Cal. App. 429, 123 P. 227; Hanson v.
Hanson, 86 Kan. 622, 122 P. 100; Sharp
V. McBride, 134 La. 249, 63 S. 892;
Landman v. Benson, 91 Neb. 479, 136
N. W. 43; Newell v. Newell, 88 Neb.
705, 130 N. W. 743; McClure News-
paper Syndicate v. Times Printing Co.,
164 App. Div. 108, 149 N. Y. 8. 443;
In re McMullen, 85 Misc. 661, 148 N.
Y. 8. 1092; In re Byrd, 81 Okla. 549,
122 P. 516; Ziska V. Avey (Okla.), 122
P. 722: Bogers v, Penobscot Min. Co.,
28 a I). 72, 132 N. W. 792, Ann. Cas.
1914A, 1184; National Equitable 8oc.
V, Tenniaon (Tex. Civ.), 174 8. W. 978.
540-99 Lyon «. Ifoore, 259 HI. 23,
102 N. E. 179, rev. 168 HI. App. 462.
541-2 Filing aflldavlt aoA appeal
bond.— Turk v. Mayberry, 82 Okla. 66,
121 P. 665.
Motiini to vacata Judgmant curea de-
fect in return of service of summons.
HFTollingsworth v. Bing (Colo. App.), 141
l\ 139.
Motion to veeaU ezeontiQn after de*
fault judgment waives defect in serv*
ice of summons. Balfe v. Bumsey Co.,
55 Colo. 97, 133 P. 417, Ann. Cas.
1914C, CD2.
Incnxable defeeta^— Where a writ is
made returnable to no term known to
the law of the land, but to some other
day not the commencement of a term,
appearance and pleading will not cure
the defect in the writ. Brown v. Mar-
shall, 2^41 Mo. 707, 145 8. W. 810;
Flolladay v. Cooper, 3 Mo. 286.
Betnmable too late. — ^An error in mak*
ing the summons returnable too late
is waived by appearance. Olson Land
Co. V. Alki Park Co., 63 Wash. 521,
115 P. 1083, Ann. Caa. 1912D, 365.
542-8 Wmiston «. Baymond, 213
Fed. 527; N. Y. Code Civ. Proc, §424;
McClure Newspaper Syndicate v, Timea
Printing Co., 164 App. Hiv. 108, 149 N.
Y. 8. 443; S. D. Code Civ. Proc, §116;
Rogers v. Penobscot Min. Co., 28 S. D.
72. 132 N. W. 792, Ann. Cas. 1914A,
1184.
542-9 Oearlda v. Joknson, 183 Fed.
611; Kirby v. B. Co., 51 Colo. 509, 119
P. 1042, Ann. Cas. 1913B, 461; Kirby
V. B. Co., 51 Colo. 508, 119 P. 1056;
Johnson f>. Burke, 167 Mich. 349, 132
N. W. 1017, 18 Det. Leg. N. 675; Grant
V. Grant, 159 N. C. 528, 75 8. E. 734;
Jones V. Postal Co^ 91 S. C. 273, 74
8. E. 492.
543-10 Valley Abstract Co. iff. Page,
42 Okla. 865, 141 P. 416.
543-12 Tilles r. Pulitzer Pub. Co.,
241 Mo. 609, 145 8. W. 1143; McDon-
ald 17. McArthur, 154 N. C. 122, 69 8. E.
832.
543-lS Bluefields 8. 8. Co. «. Steele,
184 Fed. 584, 106 C. C. A. 564. See
Howland Pulp Co. v. Alfreds, 179 Fed.
482, 103 C. 0. A. 62; Irving v. Joint
Dist. Council, 180 Fed. 896.
544-23 Bichardson v. King (la.),
135 N. W. 640; Mecca Fire Ins. Co. v.
State Bank (Tex. Civ.), 135 8. W. 1083.
545-26 Boehmke v. Northern Ohio
Tract. Co., 88 0. St. 156, 102 N. E.
700.
Appearance to diow repreBentative
capadty. — ^Where defendants sued in
individual capacities appeared alleging
their representative capacities, the
court acquired jurisdiction after the
complaint bad been amended suing
129
I'
Vol 2
APPEABANCilS
them in the latter capacity. Pry or t?.*
Krause (Tex. Civ.), 168 S. W. 498.
545-27 Selvey's Ezrs. v. Arm-
Btrong's Admr., 73 W. Va. 13, 79 S. E.
1019.
645-80 Jnxlsdlction of lower court
is waived. Wilkerson v, McGhee, 163
Mo. App. 356, 143 S. W. 1198, adopt-
ing opinion, 153 Mo. App. 343, 134
S. W. 595.
Motion to dismiss* — ^A special appear-
ance to move to set aside judgment
and dismiss appeal does not confer
jurisdiction on appellate court other
than to pass on motion. Bittmiller v,
Overmass, 189 HI. App. 73.
545-31 Where defendant appeared
generally in supreme court he waives
his claim that cause should have been
heard in another court. Wilkerson v.
McGhee, 153 Mo. App. 343, 134 S. W.
595.
546-32 Shannon v, Zimmerman, 162
Mo. App. 686, 145 S. W. 496; Inter-
national Dev. Co. V. Sanger, 75 Wash.
646, 135 P. 28.
549-42 Welch v. Ladd, 29 Okla. 93,
116 P. 573.
Voluntary appearance after default,
when a judgment against co-defend-
ants had been set aside, will not pre-
clude the defendant from moving to
strike out a substituted complaint im-
properly filed. Gallup t?. Jeffery Co.,
86 Conn. 308, 85 A. 374.
549-44 Crystal v. Ohmer, 79 Misc.
227, 139 N. Y. S. 841; Dell School v.
Peirce, 163 N. C. 424, 79 S. E. 687;
Welch V, Ladd, 29 Okla. 93, 116 P.
573; Lookabaugh v. Epperson, 28 Okla.
472, 114 P. 738; Griffin Co. v. Howell,
38 Utah 357, 113 P. 326; Spencer v.
Osberg, 152 Wis. 399, 140 N. W. 67.
549-48 An appeal constitutes gener-
al appearance and waives irregularities.
Doming Inv. Co. v. Love, 31 Okla. 146,
120 P. 635.
549-49 In divorce case a motion to
vacate and dismiss action because of
lack of legal service of process is a
general appearance merely as ^ to
future proceedings, if granted and does
not relate back to validate the divorce
j)roceedingB. Dallas v. Luster, 27 N. D.
fisO, 147 N. W. 95.
550-50 Clarkson f?. Washington, 38
Okla. 4, 131 P. 935.
Procuring stay of execution is a waiver
of .iurisdiction. Woodhouse «, Nelson
Cattle Co., 91 Kan. 823, 139 P. 356.
Appearance after decree asking leave
to answer waives right to object to
want of proper service. Osburn v.
Maata, 66 Or. 558, 135 P. 16^.
550-51 Spencer r. Court of Honor,
120 Minn. 422, 139 N. W. 815. But see
Welch V. Ladd, 29 Okla. 93, 116 P. 573.
550-52 Fowler t?. Continental Cas-
ualty Co., 17 N. M. 188, 124 P. 479;
Dallas V, Luster, 27 N. D. 450, 147
N. W. 95; WiUett v, Blake, 39 Okla.
261, 134 P. 1109; Ziska t?. Avey (Okla.),
122 P. 722. See Spencer f?. Court of
Honor, 120 Minn. 422, 139 N. W. 815.
550-53 Pierce 'V» Hamilton, 55 Colo.
448, 135 P. 796: Willett v. Blake, 39
Okla. 261, 134 P. 1109.
551-54 See Brown v. Fletcher, 203
Fed. 70.
552-58 General appearance pre-
cludes Judgment by default and judg-
ment nil dicit, and when it is without
any plea defendant has right to offer
plea of the general issue. Craig & Co.
17. Pierson Lumb. Co., 179 Ala. 535, 60
S. 838.
554-76 Becltal of derk in order.
Where there appeared in an order en-
tered by the clerk as to a motion filed
for a new trial by an attorney for
some of defendants who answered, a
recital that the motion was filed for
those defendants **and other defend-
ants/' such cannot be construed an
appearance for non-resident defend-
ants who had defaulted and had been
brought in only by publication. Bar-
ron V, Williams Cooperage Co., 185 Mo.
App. 625, 171 S. W. 683.
555-79 Though not served. White
t?. White, 84 Misc. 114, 146 N. Y. S.
368.
558-91 Lipps V. Panko, 93 Neb. 469,
140 N. W. 761.
559-95 See Plummer v. Ash, 90 Kan.
40, 133 P. 157.
559-96 Duimo v, Arbuckle (App.
Div.), 151 N. Y. S. 669.
560-10 A rule of procedure.— '^ The
right to make a special appearance is
not a substantial one inherently exist-
ing; it is a privilege allowed by prac-
tice and must be exercised under the
rules of procedure.'' Mohr v. Union
Pacific B. Co., 140 Fed. 921; S. v.
Grimm, 239 Mo. 135, 143 S. W. 483.
561-16 An action must be pending.
Altpeter t>. Postal Tel, Cable Co. (Cal.
App.), 148 P. 241.
130
ARBITRATION
Vol 2
563-32 Substituting special appear-
ance,— May withdraw general appear-
ance and substitute special appearance
to attack court's jurisdiction after
amendment of praecipe and summons.
Hagstoz V. Mut. Life Ins. Co.. 179 Fed.
569.
564-33 Carnegie Steel Co. t?. Cam-
bria Iron Co., 185 U. S. 40.3, 22 'Sup.
Ct. 698, 46 L. ed. 968; S. v. Superior
Court, 63 Wash. 96, 114 P. 905. See
Szimkus v, Bagauckas, 189 III. A pp.
407,
565-47 See U. S. Fidelity Co. v.
Nash, 20 Wyo. 65, 121 P. 541, 124 P.
269.
APPBENTICES
583-6 Where an apprentice sued for
wrongfiil discharge, and the master's
defense was indifferent and careless
work, it was error to refuse an in-
struction containing the theory of the
defense. Lapan r. Machine Co., 178
Mich. 18, 144 N. W. 693.
ABSITBATION
593-3 Irwin t. Hoyt, 162 la. 679, 144
N. W. 584; Sholz v. Mills, 176 Mo.
App. 352, 158 S. W. 696.
Matter must l>e In dispute and not in
contemplation or a matter of account-
ing or appraisal. Toledo S. S. Co. i?.
Zenith Trans. Co., 184 Fed. 391, 106
C. C. A. 501.
693-8 Sholz V. Mills, 176 Mo. App.
352, 158 S. W. 696.
594-11 Comp, Dore t?. Southern Pac.
Co., 163 Cal. 182, 124 P. 817.
594-16 Pending action is terminated
by such submission. Shawhan r. Baker,
167 Mo. App. 25, 150 S. W. 1096.
595-17 Bore r. Southern Pac. Co.,
163 CaL 182, 124 P. 817.
595-18 Dore i?. Southern Pac. Co.,
163 Cal. 182, 124 P. 817; Lilley «.
Tuttle, 52 Colo. 121, 117 P. 896, Ann.
Cas. 1913D, 196; Hill r. Walker (Tox.
Civ.), 140 S. W, 1169.
595-21 Dore f>. Southern Pac. Co.,
163 Cal. 182, 124 P. 817.
595-22 Paine v. Kentucky Hef. Co,y
159 Ky. 270, 167 S. W. 375.
596-26 See Slaughter v. Crisman
(Tex. Civ.), 152 S. W. 205.
599-43 Slaughter f. Crisman (Tex.
Civ.), 162 S. W. 205.
599-45 Cravens v. Estes, 144 Ky.
511, 139 S. W. 761.
699-46 Cravens r. Estes, 144 Ky.
611, 139 S. W. 761.
601-53 Meloy v. Imperial Land Co.,
163 Cal. 99, 124 P. 712; Crystal Ice
Co. V. Elmer, 82 N. J, Eq. 486, 89 A.
247.
603-61 Unsworn statement of par-
ties may be received, etc. Karapschin-
sky i\ Rothbaum, 177 Mo. App. 91, 163
S. W. 290,
603-62 Beall f?. Board of Trade, 164
Mo. App. 186, 148 S. W. 386.
603-63 Cobb t?. Dolphin Mfg. Co.,
108 N. Y. 463, 15 N. E. 438; Welch v.
Probst, 151 App. Div. 147, 135 N. Y.
S, 642.
609-91 Cravens v. Estes, 144 Ky.
511, 139 S. W. 761.
Irrespective of statutory requirements.
Oystal Ice ('o. v, Elmer, 82 N. J. Eq.
486, 89 A. 247.
Where no hearing was contemplated
but meeting was to view premises and
award damages, no notice of time and
place is necessary. Hughes r. Sarpy
County, 97 Neb. 90, 149 N. W. 309.
611-98 Welch f?. Probst, 151 App.
Div. 147, 135 N. Y. S. 642.
612-6 A general statement In con-
versation that the arbitrator and um-
pire were ready to proceed with the
arbitration at a certain day, in the
presence of appellee, but with no in-*
formation to appellee's arbitrator, is
not sufficient notice of a meeting held
two days later. Oavens t\ Estes, 144
Ky. 511, 139 S. W. 701.
613-9 Written notice not necessary.
Cravens <?. Estes, 144 Ky. 511, 139 8.
W. 761.
614-14 Cravens t?. Estes, 144 Ky.
511, 139 S. W. 761.
619-37 Kecessity of taking oath.
Under Comp. St., 1910, p. 106, the fail-
ure of arbitrators to take oath and
not give hearing to parties is fatal
whether arbitration was made rule of
court or not. ('rvstal Ice Co. v, Elmer,
82 N. J. Eq. 486, 89 A. 247. That
arbitrators need not take oath. Lilley
r. Tuttle, 52 Colo. 121, 117 P. 896, Ann.
Cas. 1913B, 196.
619-38 Refusal of arbitrators to re-
open case for further hearing is Justi*
fled where to do so would make it im-
possible for them to return their award
181
Vol.2
ARBITRATION
within the time contemplated by the
agreement. In re Silliman, 159 Cal.
155, 113 P. 135.
610-39 Winter v. Meier, 178 IlL
App. 281.
Eqnitahle prindples may be applied.
Central, etc. Co. 17. Asphalt P. Co., 82
N. J. £q. 246, 87 A. 235; Clark M. Co.
V. Nat. Union F. Ins. Co., 160 N. C.
130, 75 S. £. 944, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 367.
621-47 Appearance aad offer of evi-
dence before two arbitrators before
and after appointment of third waives
any irregularity in procedure. Slaugh-
ter V, Crisman (Tex. Civ.), 152 S. W.
205.
The Irregularity of not swearing wlt-
neaeea is waived where no objection
was made, or exception taken. In re
SUliman, 159 Cal. 155, 113 P. 135; In
re Connor, 128 Cal. 279, 60 P. 862;
Hackney v. Adam, 20 N. D. 130, 127
N. W. 519.
621-49 rallnre of arbitrators to be
sworn is waived by failure to object.
Dore v. Southern Pac. Co., 163 Cal. 182,
124 P. 817.
621-SO Bobinson «. Patterson, 210
Fed. 839, 127 C. C. A. 389; Cravens
V. Estes, 144 Ky. 511, 139 S. W. 761.
622-S8 Welch v. Probst, 151 App.
Div. 147, 135 N. Y. S. 642.
623-68 But see Cravens v. Estes,
144 Ky. 511, 139 S. W. 761.
Most consult both sides. — Umpire has
no right to act alone upon information
from one party and arbitrator as to
what points were disagreed upon, in
the absence of other party and his
arbitrator. Cravens f. Estes, 144 Ey.
511, 139 S. W. 761.
626-80 But see Cotey Coal Co. 9.*
New York, etc. Coal Co., 231 Pa. 24,
79 A. 812.
627-88 Hackney v. Adams, 20 K D.
130, 127 N. W. 519.
Acceptance of benefits under award
will prevent motion to vacate award
under §1287, Code Civ. Proc. In re
Silliman, 159 Cal. 155, 113 P. 135.
628-93 Lapse of considerable time
does not deprive court of right to set
aside award. Thompson 17. Barber, 87
Kan. 692, 125 P. 33.
629-3 Information and beliefs-Be-
quirement of Civ. Code, 1910, S5049,
is not met by affidavit of party filing
exceptions that they are true to the
best of his knowledge and belief. East-
man C. Mills V. Suggs, 136 Ga. 388, 71
S. E. 667.
681-24 Jessup Co. v, Beed Co. (DeL
Ch.), 87 A. 1011.
A legal remedy under statute does
not preclude equitable remedy. Shaw-
han V, Baker, 167 Mo. App. 25, 150
S. W. 1096.
Oonenrrent remedies^— ''However, there
appears to be no legal objection to the
prosecution of proceedings, on the one
side to enforce and on the other, to
set aside an award, although manifest-
ly action at law to enforce the award
is at peril of having the award set
aside in equity." Early i;. Circuit
Judge, 166 Mich. 517, 131 N. W. 1104.
631-25 Jessup Co. r. Beed Co. (DeL
Ch.), 87 A. 1011.
633-40 Beall v. Board of Trade, 164
Mo. App. 186, 148 S. W. 386.
633-41 Tn New Jersey where tho
submission is made a rule of court the
method of enforcing the award other-
wise than by suit upon it or upon the
bond given is by attachment as for
contempt. Practice does not permit
the entry of judgment directly upon,
the award. Hoffman v, Westlecraft
(N. J. L.), 79 A. 318.
633-43 Dore f. Southern Pac. Co.,
163 Cal. 182, 124 P. 817.
633-44 Winter v. Meier, 178 HI.
App. 281: Thompson v. Barber, 87 Kan.
692, 125 P. 33.
633-45 Bight to enter' Judgment.
Where there is nothing in the agree-
ment authorizing arbitrators to enter
judgment, and they have ascertained
the respective rights and fixed the
amount due the court may enter judg-
ment. And this even though no rule
of court for submission of the case
to arbitrators has been entered. Mur-
phy & Co. V. Greenberg, 246 Pa. 387,
92 A. 511.
634-46 Kot reviewable on appeal
where not served within time pre-
scribed. Salomon v. Salomon, 150 App.
Div. 897, 134 N. Y. S. 648.
634-47 Thompson v. Barber, 87 Kan.
692, 125 P. 33.
Tn absence of statute a summary judg-
ment cannot be entered. Peele r.
Carolina B. Co., 159 N. C. 60, 74 S. E.
592.
639-66 Newcomb v. Hampton (N.
I H.), 92 A. 802.
132
ARCHITECTS AND BUILDERS
Vol 2
641-74 Street v. Parsons, 68 W. Va.
517, 70 8. E. 113. Soe Carpenter v.
Hutchison, 243 Pa. 260, 90 A. 154.
642-75 Bee S. v. Haldeman (Tex.
Civ.), 163 S. W. 1020.
643-80 In re Eunnewell (Mass.)*
107 N. E. 934.
644-02 Winter v. Meier, 178 111.
App. 281.
646-98 Winter v. Meier, 178 111.
App. 281.
656-67 Befoflal of arbitratoni to
liear eridence and to decide matter
witliout evidence is a good defense.
Meloy V. Imperial Land Co., 163 Cal.
99, 124 P. 712.
658-81 Ptendlxig proceedings to de-
tennine its validity.— Hill to enforce
specific performance will not be held
to await another award determining
the validity of tlio former. Crystal
lee Co. r. Elmer, 82 N. J. £q. 486, 89
A. 247.
661-S6 Early v. Ingham Circuit
Judge, 166 Mich. 517, 131 N. W. 1104.
664U15 Lilley v. Tuttio, 52 Colo. 121,
117 P. 896, Ann. Cas. 1013D, 196.
665-18 Florence Mach., etc. Co. v.
Agr. Corp., 10 Ala. App. 463, 65 B.
413.
ABUUlTiSCTS AND BUILDEBS
677-3 Johnson v. O'Neill, 181 Mich.
326, 148 N. W. 364, 150 N. W. 835.
678-11 See Dudley r. Strain (Tex.
Civ.), 130 8. W. 778.
679-15 Bowell v. Draper, 149 la. 725,
129 N. W. 54; Williar V. Nagic, 113
Md. 614, 77 A. 680.
68l>-29 Johnson v. O'Neill, 181 Mich.
326, 148 N. W. 364, 150 N. W. 835.
681-33 Larivee v. A 'H earn, 207
288, 93 N. E. 703.
Brown v. Coffee, 17 Cal.
App. 381, 121 P. 309, 311; Denotb V.
Carter, 85 N. J. L. 95, 88 A. 835.
681-39 See Audubon Bldg. Co. r.
Andrews, 187 Fed. 254.
682-44 See Benenato v, McDougall,
166 Cal. 405, 137 P. 8, 49 L. R. A.
(N. S.) 1202; Trunk v. Clark, 163 la.
620, 145 N. W. 277; Kortz v. Kimber-
lin, 158 Ky. 566, 165 S. W. 654.
683-45 Benenato v. McDougall, 166
Cal. 405, 137 1\ 8, 49 L. B. A. (N. S.)
1202.
Implied representations.— "So far as
the architect is concerned, there is al-
ways an implied contract that the work
shall be suitable and capable of be-
ing used for the purpose for which
it is prepared. Apart from questions
of public policy, this principle would
prevent him from recovering upon plans
and specifications prepared in violation
of law, unless he was directed to so
prepare them by the owner." Nave
V. McGrane, 19 Ida. Ill, 113 P. 82.
683-52 West v, McDonald, 64 Or.
203, 127 P. 784, 128 P. 818.
687-71 Blight deviation will not
prevent recoveiT', unless wilful. Pratt
V. Dunlap, 85 Conn. 180, 82 A. 195.
687-78 Boss Min. & Mill. Co. v.
Sothman, 50 Colo. 33, 114 P. 287;
Erumholz v, Tobias, 167 HI. App. 553;
Kleinschnittger 17. Dorsey, 152 111. App.
598; Henry 17. Jons, 164 la. 364, 145
N. W. 909; Lofsted v. Bohman, 88 Kan.
660, 129 P. 1168; Casavant v. Sher-
man, 213 Mass. 23, 99 N. E. 475; Gom-
pert V. nealy, 149 App. Div. 198, 133
N. Y. S. 689; Clement v. Didier-March
Co., 244 Pa. 616, 90 A. 927; Pressy v.
McCornack, 235 Pa. 443, 84 A. 427;
Morgan v. Gamble, 230 Pa. 165, 79 A.
410; Stude 17. Koehler (Tex. Civ.), 138
S. W. 193.
Wliat is substantial performance.
Pippy 1?. Winslow, 62 Or. 219, 125 P.
298.
688-79 Boss Min. Sb Mill. Co. i?.
Sethman, 50 Colo. 33, 114 P. 287; Ellas
V. Coleman, 137 N. T. S. 883; Mitchell
V. Lumb. Co., 31 Okla. 834, 124 P. 10;
Smith V. Cunningham Piano Co., 239
Pa. 496, 86 A. 1067; Pressy 17. Mc-
Cornack, 235 Pa. 443, 84 A. 427; Mor-
gan 17. Gamble, 230 Pa. 165, 79 A. 410;
Smyers 17. Zmitrovitch, 55 Pa. Super.
440.
689-80 Lofsted 17. Bohman, 88 Kan.
660, 129 P. 1168.
693-93 Schulze 17. Farrell, 142 App.
Div. 13, 126 N. Y. S. 678.
694-96 Funk 17. House (Tez. Civ.),
168 S. W. 481. See Growall r. Pacific
Surety Co., 21 Cal. App. 185. 131 P.
73.
695-98 West 17. McDonald, 64 Or.
203, 127 P. 784, 128 P. 818.
700-24 Callahan Const. Co. 17. U. S.,
47 Ct. CI. (U. S.) 229; City St. I. Co.
17. Kroh, 158 Cal. 308, 110 P. 933;
Schaefor & Co. v. Ely, 84 Conn. 501,
133
Vol. 2
ARGUMENTS
80 A. 775, Ann. Cas. 1912D, 899; Busse
V, Douglas, 165 Mich. 95, 130 N. W.
188, 17 Detroit Leg. N. 1241; Hedden
Const. Co. V, Realty Co., 136 App. Div.
601, 121 N. Y. S. 64, a/f., 202 N. Y.
622, 95 N. E. 1130; Creamery Package
Mfg. Co. t?. Russell, 84 Vt. 80, 78 A.
718, 32 L. R. A. (N. S.) 135.
700-25 Wiley V. Hart, 74 Wash. 142,
132 P. 1015.
700-27 See Draper v. Miller, 92
Kan. 275, 140 P. 890.
701-28 Borup t?. Von Kokeritz, 162
App. Div. 394, 147 N. Y. S. 832. See
Tubbs V. Delillo, 19 Cal. App. 612, 127
P. 514.
702-40 Growall v. Pacific Surety
Co., 21 Cal. App. 185, 131 P. 73.
702-42 Oldewurtel t?. Bevan, 117
Md. 645, 84 A. 66.
703-45 Tubbs <?, Delillo, 19 Cal.
App. 612, 127 P. 514.
703-47 Mannix v. Radke Co., 166
Cal. 333, 136 P. 52.
704-51 Brady t?. Oliver, 125 Tenn.
595, 147 S. W. 1135, Ann. Cas. 1913C,
376, 41 L. B. A. (N. S.) 60.
704-52 American R. Co. v. Keener,
263 111. 515, 105 N. E. 334.
712-17 See Scbmulbach r. Caldwell,
196 Fed. 16, 115 C. C. A. 650.
713-22 Second Nat. Bank a. Pan
American Bridge Co., 183 Fed. 391, 105
C. C. A. 611; Gnuske i\ Duflfy, 177 111.
App. 648; Borup r. Von Kokeritz, 162
App. Div. 394, 147 N. Y. S. 832,
Certificate conclnsive on owner in ab-
sence of fraud and mistake. Salfisberg
V. St. Charles, 154 111. App. 531; Land-
stra V. Bunn, 81 N. J. L. 680, 80 A.
496; Gerisch v, Herold, 81 N. J. L. 171,
79 A. 1028.
A special plea is necessary to set up
defense that architect's certificate was
a necessary condition precedent to pay-
ment. George v. Roberts, 186 Ala. 521,
65 S. 345.
714-23 Gnuske v, Duffy, 177 III.
App. 648; Federal Contracting Co. f?.
Coal Creek Dist, 166 III. App. 369.
Death of architect is a suflicieDt reason.
See Potter College v. Collctt & Bro.,
142 Ky. 322, 134 S. W. 173.
Subsequent modification of contract
providing for additional work -wherein
no mention is made of necessity of
architects's certificate, will permit
builder to recover for the additional
work regardless of certificate. Sweatt
V. Bonne, 60 Wash. 18, 110 P. 617.
715-24 Masek c. Chmelik, 169 111.
App. 589; Klcinschnittger t\ Dorsey,
152 111. App. 598.
717-28 Second Nat. Bank t?. Pan
American Bridge Co., 183 Fed. 391, 105
C. C. A. 611.
719-31 Anderson v. Odd Fellows, 84
N. J. L. 176, 86 A. 367.
720-32 Scully v. U. S., 197 Fed. 327.
720-33 Bee Central, etc. Co. v. As-
phalt P. Co., 82 N. J. Eq. 246, 87 A.
235.
ABaTJMENTS
726-1 S. f?. Boasso, 38 La. Ann. 202
(on motion for new trial); Belber v.
Calvo, 16 P. R. 342; Hickman t?. S.,
64 Tex. Cr. 161, 141 S. W. 973; Hull f\
Seattle, E. & S. R. Co., 60 Wash. 162,
110 P. 804.
Discretionary with court to permit dis-
cussion of law. Davis v. S. (Tex. Cr.),
151 S. W. 313.
Greater latitude allowed in argument
before court than before jury. Lowthcr
t\ Waycross, 12 Ga. App. 727, 78 S. K.
141.
726-4 Stating facts of reported de-
cisions proper. Betts V. Western Union
Tel. Co., 167 N. C. 75, 83 S. E. 164.
727-6 Cross v. S., 68 Ala. 476.
Time for arg^ument on motion for new
trial is within discretion of court. Coun-
sel are presumed to be ready when mo-
tion is made, and where court requires
argument even though counsel is not
prepared, there is no abuse of discre-
tion. S. V. Long, 93 S. C. 502, 77 8. K.
61; S. r. Davis, 88 S. C. 229, 70 S. K.
811, 34 L. E. A. (N. S.) 295.
Discretionary with court to permit the
reading of cases. Davis v. S. (Tex.
Cr.), 151 S. W. 313.
727-9 See Davis v. S. (Tex. Cr.),
151 S. W. 313.
727-10 Ft. Worth & D. C. R. Co. r.
Stalcup (Tex. Civ.), 167 S. W. 279.
728-14 Cross v. S., 68 Ala. 476; P.
V. Green, 99 Cal. 564, 34 P. 231; Lynch
r. S., 9 Ind. 541; S. 17. Tififhe, 27 Mont,
327, 71 P. 3; S. «?. Williams (N. C),
83 S. E. 714; S. t?. Gutterman, 20 N. D.
432, 128 N. W. 307, Ann. Cas. 1912C,
816; Dille t\ S., 34 O. St. 617. 32 Am.
Hep. 395; Thompson f?. S., 6 Okla. O.
50, 117 P. 216; Anselin V, S. (Tex,
134
AUQVMENTS
yoi. 2
Cr.), 160 S. W. 713; Chapman v. S.
(Tex. Or.), 147 S. W. 580; Zimmer V.
S., 64 Tex. Cr. 114, 141 8. W. 781.
See note in 46 Am. St. 23.
728-15 Hyman & Co. t?. Snyder Co.,
159 Ky. 354, 167 S. W. 146.
728-16 Murphy r. Bay, 161 Ky. 384,
170 S. W. 946.
730-22 St. Louis & S. P. B. Co. v.
Vanzego, 71 Kan. 427, 80 P. 944;
Southern Kan. By. Co. f. Michaels, 49
Kan. 388, 30 P. 408; Atchison, etc. B.
Co. r. Lambert, 32 Okla. 665, 123 P.
428.
Effect of nominal opening on Ids right
of reply. — Seaboard Ait Line By. t?.
Bentz, 60 Fla. 449, 54 S. 20, in which
the court said that if the plaintiff re-
fuses to fairly open his case, he should
not be permitted to reply; or if he is
permitted to do so, then the opposite
attorney should be permitted to reply
to him.
730-23 Pittsburg ft St. L. B. Co.
f?. Martin, 82 Ind. 476; Conrad t?. Cleve-
land, C. C. & St. L. B. Co.« 34 Ind.
App. 133, 72 N. E. 489; Harden 17. Bris-
coe, 36 Mich. 254; Henry v. Dussell, 71
Neb. 691, 99 N. W. 484; Atchison, etc.
B. Co. V. Lambert, 32 Okla. 665, 123
P. 428. But see Board of Corars. v.
Allbert, 6 Kan. App. 165, 51 P. 307;
Hackney t?. Delaware & A. T. & T,
Co., 69 N. J. L. 335, 55 A. 252.
731-29 Atchison, etc. B. Co. r. Lam-
bert, 32 Okla. 665, 123 P. 428.
T31-33 Atchison, etc. B. Co. r.
Lambert, 32 Okla. 665, 123 P. 428.
731-34 McVay t?. S., 104 Ark. 629,
150 S. W. 125 (even in a capital case);
Anselin t?. S. (Tex. Cr.), 160 S. W.
713.
Bight to reply lost by waiving argu-
ment. Tyre t?. Morris, 5 Ilarr. (Del.)
3; Seattle & M. B. Co. v. Boeder, 30
Wash. 244, 70 P. 498, 94 Am. St. 864.
See Seaboard Air Line B. Co. v. Beutz,
60 Fla. 449, 54 S. 20.
732-37 S. V, Knudson, 21 N. D. 562,
132 N. W. 149.
733-45 Adams v. S., 179 Ind. 44, 99
N. E. 483.
734-46 Lindsay v. S., 138 Ga. 818,
76 S. E. 369 (power to limit time);
Weaver v. S., 24 O. St. 584; Cooper v,
Bobischung Bros. (Tex. Civ.), 155 S.
W. 1050. See S. t?. McKinnon, 158 la.
619, 138 N. W. 523,
Axfnment may be limited to eyidence.
Campbell v. S., 62 Tex. Cr. 561, 138
S. W. 607.
Whether a reply is warranted by the
presentation of new points in argu-
ment is within discrotion of court. S.
V. Leek, J52 la. 12, 130 N. W. 1062.
734-48 Idaho, Gold Coin Min. &
Mill. Co. r. Colorado Iron Wks. Co.,
49 Colo. 66, 111 P. 553 (ruling held
proper); Irvin v. B, Co., 164 N. C.
5, 80 S. E. 78.
734-50 Alabama Fuel & Iron Co. r.
Bcnonanto, 11 Ala. App. 644, 66 S. 942;
Lemuels v. S. (Ark.), 166 S. W. 741;
Sullenbarger i;. Ahrens (la.), 150 N.
W. 71; Citizens' Mut. F. Ins. Co. v.
Bridge Co., 116 Md. 422, 82 A. 372
(whether argument within record); P.
f?. Swift, 172 Mich. 473, 138 N. W. 662;
Brinkmann v. Gotten stroeter, 160 Mo.
App. 596, 140 S. W. 1194; Craig t?.
Augusta-Aikon B. Co., 89 S. C. 161, 71
S. £. 983 (discretion not abused); Texas
& Pac. By. V, Garcia, 62 Tex. 285;
Glover v, Pfeuffer (Tex. Civ.), 163 S.
W. 984; Texas Midland B. B. 17. Wig-
gins (Tex. Civ.), 161 S. W. 445; Har-
rison t?. S., 8 Tex. App. 183; S. <?, Con-
roy (Wash.), 144 P. 538, court has a
large discretion in determining what
is proper argument. See Crider v.
McColley, 154 la. 671, 135 N, W. 364.
734-61 Jackson 17. S., 2 A4a. App.
226, 57 S. 110; Stadler v, Chicago City
B. Co., 159 III. App. 617; Vick €. S.
(Tex. Cr.), 159 S. W. 50.
735-62 McDonald f>. P., 126 HI. 150,
18 N. E. 817, 9 Am. St. 547 (much
latitude); Jacobs v, S., 103 Miss. 622,
60 S. 723 (great latitude); Norfolk-S.
B. Co. u. Tomlinson, 116 Va. 153, 81 8.
E. 89 (much latitude); S. v. Cooper
(W. Va.), 82 S. E. 358.
Wide latitude allowed^— P. v. Burke, 18
Cal. App. 72, 122 P. 435-448; Bell's
Admr. v. Louisville By. Co., 148 Ky.
189, 146 S. W. 383; Martin 17. S., 63
Miss. 505, 56 Am. Bep. 813.
736-53 See Wilbnrn f). S., 141 Ga.
510, 81 S. E. 444 (holding that allow*
ing the state three speeches and the
accused but two for the accused is not
error) ; Dille v. 8., 34 O. St. 617, 32 Am.
Bep. 395, where evidence was circum-
stantial and required a half day for its
presentation, defendant was entitled to
bo heard by both counsel.
736-54 Indisposition of defendant's
connsel does not deprive the state of
its statutory right to two addresses.
135
Vol. 2
iROUMENTS
Leggett V. B^ 62 Tex. Cr. 99, 136 8.
W. 784; Vines v. 8., 31 Tex. Cr. 31, 19
8. W. 545.
736^S 8. V. MiUer, 75 N. C. 73;
Holmes «. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 150 8. W.
926; Jenkins V. 8.. 60 Tex. Cr. 236, 131
8. W. 542.
If defendant'! coimsel dedlnes to ad-
dress tl&e Jnzy, the court, in its discre-
tion, may permit two speeches by the
prosecution. Walker V, 8., 64 Tex. Cr.
70, 141 8. W. 243.
737-58 8. 9. Garlington, 90 8. C. 138,
72 8. E. 564; Tex. Code Civ. Proe. 1895,
art. 704; llughes v. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 149
8. W. 173, but the prosecution has clos-
ing argument.
737-60 Childers v, Co., 161 Ky. 440,
171 8. W. 149; Hyman & Co. v, 8ny-
der Co., 159 Ky. 354, 167 8. W. 146;
8tout V. C, 148 Ky. 199, 146 8. W. 407;
Bowen €. 8., 3 Tex. App. 617.
An extension of time granted in the
discretion of the court on compliance
with rules. Wilbnrn v. 8., 141 Ga. 510,
81 8. £. 444.
Intexruplion of connstf to inform him
he had nearly consumed his time is not
ground for new trial. Wilbnrn v, 8.,
141 Ga. 510, 81 8. K 444.
Befnsal to allow associate counsel to
nse nnnsed time is not error when the
time allotted to each was agreed upon
in advance. Bmder 9. 8., 110 Ark. 402,
161 8. W. 1067.
738-61 Hamer v. 8., 104 Ark. 606,
150 8. W. 142 (allowing an extension
of two minutes not an abuse of dis-
cretion); Porter «. 8., 6 Ga. App. 770,
65 8. E. 814 (in which counsel cUd not
use the full time allotted him intend-
ing to argue the facts in rebuttal, the
prosecution's announcing there would
be no argument. It was held error for
the court to refuse to allow him to pre-
sent his argument on the facts within
the time limited for argument); Child-
ers V. C, 161 Ky. 440, 171. 8. W. 149;
llurphy V, Bay, 161 Ky. 884, 170 8.
W. 946; Hyman ft Co. v. 8nyder Co.,
159 Ey. 354, 167 8. W. 146; 8tont v.
C, 148 Kj . 199, 146 8. W. 407; Scott v.
C, 148 Ky. 80, 146 8. W. 406; 8. v.
Williams, 69 Mo. 110; Graham «. 8.,
90 Neb. 658, 134 N. W. 249; Creech v.
S. (Tex. Cr.), 158 8. W. 277; Holmes f?.
8. (Tex. Cr.), 150 & W. 926; Hughes
V. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 149 8. W. 173; King
V. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 148 8. W. 324; Jenk-
ins 17. 8., 60 Tex. Cr. 286^ 131 8. W.
542; Bailey v. 8., 37 Tex. Cr. 579, 40
S. W. 281; 8cott V. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 36 8.
W. 276. 8ee notes to 46 Am. St. 23;
42 L. B. A. (N. 8.) 209; 25 L. B. A.
(N. 8.) 1027.
A oonstttational gnaxmnty ''that in all
criminal prosecutions, the accused has
the right to be heard by himself and
counsel, or either,'' is not infringed by
limiting of argument. Lindsay c. 8.,
138 Ga. 818, 76 8. £. 369.
739^2 Wido latitude allowed to
court 's discretion. Helms v. Central of
Georgia B. Co. (Ala.), 66 8. 470.
Proasnxo of boalnesi not a ground for
depriving counsel of a reasonable time.
Mitchell f). Bobinson (Tex. Civ.), 162
8. W. 443.
789^8 Huskey v. 8., 129 Ala. 94,
29 8. 838 (larceny with a limit of one
hour and a half); Waters v. 8., 117 Ala.
108, 22 8. 490 (larceny case with a two
hour limit); Crawford f>. 8., 112 Ala.
1, 21 8. 214; Peagler v. 8., 110 Ala. 11,
20 8. 363 (murder case, one and one-
half hour limit); P. «. Tbck Chew, 6
Cal. 636 (thre^-quarters of an hour for
prosecution and half an hour for de-
fense in a grand larceny case in which
issues were few and simple); Wilburn
V. 8., 141 Ga. 510, 81 8. E. 444 (Umit
of three and a half hours); Lindsay 9.
S., 138 Ga. 818, 76 8. E. 369 (murder
case with two and half hour limit);
Wallace «. 8., 95 Ga. 470, 20 8. E. 250
(thirty minutes limitation in a misde-
meanor case); S. v. Biddle, 20 Kan.
711 (four hours and a half to each
side) ; Lucas 9. C, 149 Ky. 495, 149 S.
W. 861, 42 L. B. A. (N. 8.) 209 (cir-
cumstances not being complicated, a
thirty minute limitation held proper);
Stout V. C, 148 Ky. 199, 146 8. W. 407
(larceny with a limit of ten minutes) ;
Scott V. C, 148 Ky. 80, 146 8. W. 406
(ten minutes is not too short in a case
for conversion from a carrier where the
evidence is brief and simple); 8. f>.
Varnado, 131 La. 952, 60 8. 627 (trial
consumed three hours, the argument
was limited to a half hour on each
side) ; P. V. Smith, 122 Mich. 284, 81 N^.
W. 107 (thirty five minutes under eoart
rule, in case of statutory rape); Gra-
ham V. 8., 90 Neb. 658, 134 N. W. 249
(forty minute limit in prosecution for
abandonment of wife); Hanks v. 8., 88
Neb. 464, 129 N. W. 1011 (limit of an
hour and fifteen minutes on a side);
8. V. Collins, 70 N. O. 241, 16 Am. Bep.
771 (murder case with limit of one and
18Q
ARGUMENTS
Vol. 2
a half honra); Holmes v. S. (Tex. Cr.),
150 8. W. 926 (homicide case with a
limit of four and a half hours on a
side); Hughes v. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 149 S.
W. 173 (limit of argument to thirty
minutes. Counsel used this time argu-
ing for peremptory instruction to ac-
quit. On asking more time court of-
fered more time to argue to jury but
declined to hear more argument for in-
struction. Counsel declined to argue
to jury and state closed argument to
jury. No error); King v. 8. (Tex. Cr.),
148 8. W. 324 (two hours on each side);
Jenkins v. 8., 60 Tex. Cr. 236, 131 8.
W. 542 (rape case with a one hour
limit); Whitley v. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 66
8. W. 69 (thirty minutes in larceny
case); Glover v. Houston Belt & Term-
inal E. Co. (Tex. Civ.), 163 8. W. 1063
(personal injury suit with limitation
of one hour and fifteen minutes);
Mitchell V, Bobinson (Tex. Civ.), 162
S. W. 443. 8ee notes in 46 Am. 6t.
26; 2 Am. is Eng. Ann. Cas. 435.
T41-64 White t?. P., 90 HI. 117, 32
Am. Bep. 12 (larceny with limit of five
minutes); Childers v, C, 161 Ky. 440,
171 8. W. 149 (one hour in voluntary
zoanslanghter case with many witnesses
and conflicting evidence); Murphy V.
Bay, 161 Ky. 384, 170 8. W. 946 (per-
sonid injury suit seeking to recover
$2000 which is hotly contested, ten min-
utes IB too short a time. At least
twenty-five minutes should be allowed) ;
Hyman ft Co. V. 8nyder Co., 159 Ky.
354^ 167 8. W. 146 (limit of ten min-
utes in an action involving $2000, the
trial of which consumed two days); P.
V. Labadie, 66 Mich. 702, 33 N. W. 806
(a prosecution for assault with intent
to murder with a limitation of one
hour to each side); 8. v, Bogoway, 45
Or. 601, 78 P. 987, 81 P. 234, 2 Am. &
Eng. Ann. Cas. 434 (arson with limit
of one hour on each side); Cooper v,
Bobisehung Bros. (TeX. Civ.), 156 8.
W. 1050, in which eighteen witnesses
were examined at len^h and the testi-
mony conflicting, limit to thirty min-
utes improper. See notes in 46 Am. 8t.
27; 2 Am. ft Eng. Ann. Cas. 435.
Tilnritfng argimiant of connsel is a mat-
ter within the discretion of the trial
eourt, but it is an abuse of such power
to restrict the argument to one houir
where numerous witnesses are to be
examined and there is a great deal of
conflicting evidence. CMlders v: O.,
161 Ky. 440, 171 8. W. 149. 8ee also
vol. 2, p. 451, n. 92.
742-66 But see Lindsay V. 8., 138
Ga. 818, 76 8. E. 369.
742-66 In South Carolina^ Gen. 8t.,
12166, limits the time, for argument to
two hours for each counsel unless he
shall first obtain the special permis-
sion of court. 8. r. Jones, 29 8. C.
201, 7 8. E. 296.
748-68 Wilburn v. 8., 141 Ga. 510,
81 8. E. 444; Price v. 8., 137 Ga. 71,
72 8. E. 908; 8. v. Varnado, 131 La.
952, 60 8. 627, the rule limits the
maximum time only.
Bequest for additional time, by rule of
court, must be made before argument
begins. Lindsay v. 8., 138 Ga. 818, 76
8. E. 369.
743-60 ZSxtenslon of time should be
granted when properly requested.
Chance v. 8., 97 Ga. 346, 23 8. E. 832.
744-76 8ee notes in 122 Am. 8t.
723.
744-76 Home v, Bogers, 110 Ga. 362,
35 8. E. 715, 49 L. B. A. 176; Meredith
17. P., g4 m. 479; EUerbe i?. 8., 75 Miss.
522, 22 8. 950, 41 L. B. A. 569; 8. v,
Claudius, 1 Mo. App. 551; Wright v.
8., 7 Okla. Cr. 280, 123 P. 434; Carney
r. 8., 47 Tex. Cr. 566, 85 8. W. 7, 122,
Am. 8t. 715; Goodman v, 8., 47 Tex,
Cr. 388, 83 8. W, 196. 8ee 2 Am. &
Eng. Ann. Cas. 8; 16 Am. & Eng. Ann.
Cas. 629.
Betixement to rear of court room out
of hearing and control of proceedings
is as prejudicial as absence from court
room. Wright v. 8., 7 Okla. Cr. 280, 123
P. 434.
744-78 Brantley v, 8., 10 Ga. App.
24, 72 8. E. 520; Poe v. Arch, 26 8. D.
291, 128 N. W. 166; White r. 8., 61
Tex. Cr. 498, 135 8. W. 562.
744-79 Graves t;. P., 32 Colo. 127, 75
P. 412.
745-80 May ©. C, 153 Ky. 141, 154
8. W. 1074; Hughes V. 8. (Tex, Cr.),
149 8. W. 173; White v. 8., 61 Tex.
Cr. 498, 135 8. W. 562; Cravens v, 8.,
55 Tex. Cr. 519, 117 8. W. 156.
745-81 McVay v. 8., 104 Ark. 629,
150 8. W. 125, distinguishing between
affirmative consent and acquiesence by
silence.
745-83 The variety of lUnstrationa
is limited only by the resources of his
genius. . Mitchum V. 8., 11 Ga. 615;
137
Vol 2
AmvMEifTa
Pelham & H. R. Co. v, Elliott, 11 Ga.
App. 621, 75 S. E. 1062.
745^4 Tiner t?. S., 109 Ark. 138,
158 S. W. 1087; Henwood v. P., 57
Colo. 644, 143 P. 373; S. r. Ferrell, 233
Mo. 452, 136 S. W. 709; Stanton V. 8.
(Tex. Cp.), 158 S. W. 994.
746-85 Hardy t?. Randall, 173 Ala.
516, 55 S. 997; Walker f. S., 61 Fla.
78, 54 S. 387, request denied as to
money not in evidence and enclosed in
a vault. But see Carswell v. S., 10 Ga.
App. 30, 72 S. E. 602; Stanton ©. S.
(Tex. Cp.), 158 S. W. 994.
746-86 Positions of persons may, in
the court's discretion be demonstrated.
S. f7. Williams (N. C), 83 S. E. 714.
Handing pistol to Juror, and asking him
to see if a certain wound could be
self-inflicted, although not reversible
error, should not be indulged in. Bor-
ders V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 161 S. W 483.
747-87 Edwards r. S. (Tex. Cr.),
172 S. W. 227, quot. Standard PEoa
747-88 O'Brien v, Boston El. By.
Co., 214 Mass. 277, 101 N. E. 365; Ed-
wards t?. S. (Tex. Cr.), 172 S. W. 227
{quot. Standard Proc); Hardy t?. S.,
150 Wis. 176, 136 N. W. 638, jury in-
structed the case was by way of illus-
tration.
747-89 O'Brien v. Boston El. By.
Co., 214 Mass. 277, 101 N. E. 365; Ed-
wards t?. S (Tex, Cr.), 172 S. W. 227,
quot. Standard Prog.
748-90 Edwards v. S. (Tex. Cr.),
172 S. W. 227, quot. Standard Proc.
748-91 Edwards t?. S. (Tex. Cr.), 172
S. W. 227, quot. text.
The nse of an "apt lllnstration,'* etc.
Berry v. S. (Miss.), 22 S. 826.
748-94 Helms t?. Central of Georgia
Ry. Co. (Ala.), 66 S. 470; Fakes v. S.,
112 Ark. 589, 166 S. W. 963; St. Louis,
etc. R. Co. t?. Earle, 103 Ark. 356, 146
S. W 520 (ironical comment upon the
truth of witness' testimony not im-
proper); Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v,
Lindahl, 102 Ark. 533, 145 S. W. 191,
Ann. Cas. 1914 A, 561; St. Louis, L M.
& S R. Co. V, Aiken, 100 Ark. 437, 140
S. W. 698; Beasley v. S., 98 Ark. 324,
135 S. W. 895; Gjurich V. Pieg, 164 Cal.
429, 129 P. 464 (proper to comment on
findings of a former case introduced in
evidence); P. v. Burke, 18 Cal. App.
72, 122 P. 435, 448 (piece of dynamite
having been exhibited to the jury was
therefore subject of legitimate argu-
ment); Pelham ft H. B. Co. «. Elliott,
11 Ga. App. 621, 75 S. E. 1062 (proper
to comment on facts proved or admit-
ted but not facts not proved); P. i?.
Duncan, 261 HI. 339, 103 N. E. 1043;
S. f?. Cooper (la.), 151 N. W. 835; S.
V. Gulliver, 163 la. 123, 142 N. W.
948 (where counsel assailed an alibi
and minimized the character and value
of the evidence); S. f?. Vvilson, 157 la.
698, 141 N. W. 337 (a hat in evidence
being in evidence for all purposes, it
is proper to refer to blood spots on it) ;
S. 17. Kimes, 152 la. 240, 132 N. W.
180; Madisonville, H. & E. R. Co. t?.
Allen, 152 Ky. 706, 154 S. W. 5 (affi-
davit of what absent witness will tes-
tify to read as deposition); Slaughter
V, C, 149 Ky. 6, 147 S. W. 751; P. v.
Cona, 180 Mich. 641, 147 N. W. 525;
S. tJ. Fenton, 248 Mo. 482, 154 S. W. 51
(ridiculing testimony as illogical not
improper); Norris v. St. Louis, I. M. ft
S. R. Co., 239 Mo. 695, 144 S. W. 783
(remarks warranted by evidence); El-
lis r. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 234 Mo.
657, 138 S. W. 23 (inexperience of mot-
orman justifies argument on negligence
by "unskillfulness'O; S. t?. Ferrell,
233 Mo. 452, 136 S. W. 709 (on exhib-
its); S. V, Wellman, 253 Mo. 302, 161
S. W. 795; S. t?. Jones, 249 Mo. 80, 155
S. W. 33; P. f?. Mull, 167 N. Y. 247, 60
N. E. 629; P. v. Stilwell, 81 Misc. 456,
142 N. Y. 8. 628 (district attorney has
same rights as other counsel); Bouie
V. S., 9 Okla. Cr. 345, 131 P. 953; S. ©.
Duncan, 86 S. C. 370, 68 S. E. 684, Ann.
Cas. 1912A, 1016 ("within the four
corners of the evidence, great latitude
in argument is allowed"); Sutton r.
8. (Tex. Cr.), 172 8. W. 791; WhitfiU
t?. S. (Tex. Cr.), 169 S. W. 681; Zim-
mer v. S., 64 Tex. Cr. 114, 141 S. W.
781 (error to deny counsel right to
discuss a pipe in evidence identified as
the pipe used by deceased); Missouri,
K. ft T. B. Co. «. Coker (Tex. Civ.),
143 S. W. 218 (sufficient evidence to
predicate remarks); International ft
G. N. B. Co. f?. Davison (Tex. Civ.),
138 S. W. 1162; 8. <?. Kakarikos (Utah),
146 P. 750; Driscoll t?. Allis-Chalmers
Co., 144 Wis. 451, 129 N. W. 401. See
Merrill t;. 8., 11 Ala. App. 224, 65 S.
709; St. Louis, etc, Ry. Co. u. Deu-
wright, 112 Ark. 452, 166 8. W. 938;
Setzer r. S., 110 Ark. 226, 161 S. W.
190; Henwood <?. P., 57 Colo. 544, 143
P. 373; May C. C, 153 Ky. 141, 154
8. W. 1074; S. f?. Weiss, 63 Or. 462, 128
P. 448, after opening one of the ''cap-
138
ARGUMENTS
Vol. 2
tured bottles," it is not improper con-
duct on the part of the district attor-
ney to offer it to the jury and say
''smell of that; that's beer."
Testimony may lie stated or quoted.
8. V. Burns, 119 la. 663, 94 N. W. 238;
8. V. Mireovich, 35 Nev. 485, 130 P.
765; Hambleton v. Southwestern Tex.
Baptist Hospital (Tex. Civ.), 172 8. W.
574; 8. V. 8irmay, 40 Utah 525, 122 P.
748.
A statement said by witness to be true
becomes part of his testimony and is
a proper matter for argument. Hyde
r- U. 8., 35 App. Cas. (D. C.) 451.
Misstating evidence is not prejudicial
error. 8. v. Hayward, 153 la. 265, 133
N. W. 667; Williams v. 8., 4 Okla, Cr.
523, 114 P. 1114, particularly when in-
nocently made.
Evldenoe adduced on cross-examination
may be commented on by adverse party
although he could not have introduced
it in his own behalf. Bohanan v. Dar-
den, 7 Ala. App. 220, 60 8. 955.
liatters Judicially noticed may be com-
mented upon. P. V, Burke, 18 Cal. App.
72, 122 P. 435-448; 8. v. Wilson, 157
la. 698, 141 N. W. 337; O'Brien v.
Boston £1. By. Co., 214 Mass. 277, 101
N. E. 365.
«
Asking witness qnestions regarding Ills
testimony, during argument, improper.
Tancev v. Bruce, 109 Ark. 569, 160 8.
W. 863.
Improbability of evidence is proper
subject of argument. 8. v, Ferrell, 246
Mo. 322, 152 8. W. 33.
Testimony of aocnsed at a former trial
introduced in evidence may be com-
mented on although accused did not
take stand. 8. v. Kimes, 152 la. 240,
132 N. W. 180.
760-98 Billingsley i^. 8., 96 Ala. 126,
11 S. 409; Clayton v. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 149
8. W. 119; Green V. Wilson (Tex. Civ.),
150 S. W. 255.
760-99 8ee Holland v. 8., Ill Ark.
214, 163 8. W. 781.
750-3 P. i\ Pfansehmidt, 262 HI. 411,
104 N. E. 804, Ann. Cas. 1915 A, 1171;
C. V. Lynch, 49 Pa. Super. 370; 0. V.
Duffy, 49 Pa. 8uper. 344; Goldstein V.
S. (Tex. Cr.), 35 8. W. 289. 8ee Rid-
gell r. 8., 1 Ala. App. 94, 55 8. 327.
751-4 Cross r. 8., 68 Ala. 476; Boden
r. 8., 5 AJa. App. 247, 59 8. 751; Faulk
r. S., 4 Ala. App. 177, 59 8. 225; 8t.
XiOuis, etc. B. Co. p. McMichael (ArkO^
171 8. W. 115 (calling an engineer who
d|d not see plaintiff on platform
"blind" not an improper deduction);
8t. Louis, I. M. & 8. R. Co. i;. Devaney,
98 Ark. 83, 135 8. W. 802; P. v. Rog-
ers, 163 Cal. 476, 126 P. 143; Hen-
wood f?. P., 57 Colo. 544, 143 P. 373,
382; P. V. Hotz, 261 111. 239, 103 N.
E. 1007; 8. V. Gulliver, 163 la. 123, 142
N. W. 948; 8. t?. Wilson, 157 la. 698,
141 N. W. 337; Fish v, Welch's Admr.,
157 Ky. 19, 162 8. W. 553 (deduction
proper); 81aughter I?. C, 149 Ky. 5,
147 8. W. 751; Lee v, C, 142 Ky. 742,
135 8. W. 315; 8. <?. Risso, 131 La. 946,
60 8. 625; P. «. Cona, 180 Mich. 641,
147 N. W. 525; Berry v. 8. (Miss.), 22
S. 826; 8. t?. Terrell, 246 Mo. 322, 152
8. W. 33; Homer I?. Franklin, 186 Mo.
App. 434, 171 8. W. 568; Cowan <?.
Ertel, 95 Neb. 380, 145 N. W. 841, de-
duction that "defense has been fixed
up'' is not in violation of rules re-
garding argument); P. v. Mull, 167 N.
Y. 247, 60 N. E. 629; 8. u. Lee, 166 N.
C. 250, 80 8. E. 977; Enid City R. Co. V.
Reynolds, 34 Okla. 405, 126 P. 193 (sug-
gesting possible reasons for defendant's
sending his physician to plaintiff
proper); Cooper v. 8. (Tex, Cr.), 147 S.
W. 273; Chilson V. Oheim (Tex. Civ.),
171 8. W. 1074 (that as C had stood for
M in 1910, he would do so in 1911, is a
proper deduction); Gulf, T. & W. R.
Co. V. Culver (Tex. Civ.), 168 8. W.
514; Southern Kansas R. Co. v. 8hinn
(Tex. Civ.), 153 8. W. 636: 8. v. Jaku-
bowski, 77 Wash. 78, 137 P. 448; 8. v.
Marion, 68 Wash. 675, 124 P. 125; Kal-
berg 17. The Bon Marche, ' 64 Wash.
452, 117 P. 227 (in which counsel
stated, ''from the facts proven, I am
thoroughly convinced as anything in
the world, that the defendants' wagon
ran over the child in the manner
stated"); Jakopac v, Newport Min.
Co., 153 Wis. 176, 140 N. W. 1060. See
Cunningham v. 8., 117 Ala. 59, 23 8.
693; Wall v. 8., 2 Ala. App. 157, 56 S.
57; People v, Collins, 166 Mich. 4, 131
N. W. 78; Bouie v. S., 9 Okla. Cr.
345, 131 P. 953; Wrba v. S., 70 Tex.
Cr. 211, 156 S. W. 1164; 8. v. Peoples,
71 Wash. 451, 129 P. 108; Chicago M.
& P. 8. R. Co. V. True, 62 Wash. 646,
114 P. 515.
Season for disparity of the evidence
is legitimate argument. Globe & Rut-
gers Fire Ins. Co. t\ Chicago & A. R.
Co., 174 Mo. App. 542, 160 S. W. 907.
762-5 P. V. Ah Yute, 60 Cal. 95; P.
139
Vol. 2
ARGUMENTS
V. Bamharty 59 Cal. 402; P. v, Eosta,
14 Cal. App. 696, 112 P. 907; Spalm
V. P., 137 111. 538, 27 N. E. 688: Behler
V. S., 112 Ind. 140, 13 N. E. 272: S. €,
Gulliver, 163 U. 123, 142 N. W. 948;
Moore i'. Chicago, etc. By. Co., 151 la.
353, 131 N. W. 30; S. v. Mallon, 75
Mo. 355; Boss v. S., 8 Wyo. 351, 67 P.
924. See 46 L. B. A. 655, note e.
762-6 Brock v. S., 101 Ark. 147, 141
S. W. 756.
753-7 See S. v, Gulliver, 163 la. 123,
142 N. W. 948.
753-9 Jessie v. €., 112 Va. 887, 71
8. E. 612.
763-10 McElroy v. S., 106 Ark. 131,
152 S. W. 1019 (remarks held but an
expression of counsel's opinion as to
the weight of the testimony) ; St. Louis,
I. M. & S. B. Go. V. Earle, 103 Ark.
356, 146 8. W. 520; St Louis, L M. &
S. B. Co. V. Devaney, 98 Ark. 89, 135
S. W. 802; Marriage v. Electric Coal
Co., 176 HI. App. 451 (but not the ef*
feet of evidence not before the jury);
Eaneaid 17. Bull, 159 Ky. 527, 167 S.
W. 903; S. V. Myer, 259 Mo. 306, 168
S. W. 717; S. V. Gordon, 253 Mo. 510,
161 8. W. 721; MUlner v. S. (Tex. Cr.),
162 8. W. 348; Clayton v. S. (Tex. Cr.),
149 8. W. 119; Lee v. 8. (Tex. Cr.),
148 8. W. 706; Wrighti v. 8., 63 Tex.
Cr. 429, 140 8. W. 1105; Citizens' Sav-
ings Bk. & T. Co. V. Fitchburg Mut. F.
I. Co., 87 Vt. 23, 86 A. 1056.
Beferring to court's opinion on weight
of evidence by fact he did not .ttJce
case out of jury's hands is improper.
Thomas v. 8., 107 Ark. 469, 155 8. W.
1165.
754-11 Madetfonville, H. Sb E. B.
Co. V, Allen, 152 Ky. 706, 154 8. W.
5, calling it the affidavit of opposing
counseL
754-13 Harris v. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 167
8. W. 43, reference to witness convic-
tion of felony.
754-14 Cook f>. 8., 152 Ala. 66, 44
8. 549; Cross f>. S., 68 Ala. 476; South-
ern B. Co. V. Ellis, 6 Ala. App. 441, 60
8. 407; St. Louis, 1. M. ft 8. B. Co. 17.
Aiken, 100 Ark. 437, 140 8. W. 698;
Hope V. First National Bank, 142 Ga.
310, 82 8. E. 929; Mitchum 17. 8., 11
Ga. 615, 616; Pelham & H. B. Co. i>.
Elliott, 11 Ga. App. 621, 75 S. E. 1062;
Appel r. Chicago City B. Co., 259 HI.
561, 102 N. E. 1021; 8. «. Knudson, 21
N. D. 562, 132 K. W. 149; Anderson v.
8.| 7 Okla. Cr. 491, 124 P. 86 (that
witness was convicted of bootlegging
may be referred to) ; Millner v. 8. (Tex.
Cr.), 162 8. W. 348; Hysaw v. 8. (Tex.
Cr.), 155 8. W. 941; Clayton v. 8. (Tex.
Cr.), 149 8. W. 119: Gratland v. 8.
(Tex. Cr.), 146 8. W. 196; Owens v.
8., 6a Tex. O. 633, 141 8. W. 530 (ac-
cusing witness of perjury); Wright 9.
8., 63 Tex. Ct. 429, 140 8. W. 1105;
Citizens' Savings Bank & T. Co. «.
Fitchburg Mut. F. Ins. Co., 87 Vt. 23,
86 A. 1056, argument that experts were
hired when they testified they sxpected
to charge so much.
The interest or bias of » witness, etc.
Turner v. Cocheco Mfg. Co., 75 N. H.
521, 77 A. 999 (retaining of witness
by party) ; 8. v. Bivers, 84 Vt. 154, 78
A. 786.
Witness* lapse of memory legitimate
topic for argument. Stanfield v, 8., 3
Ala. App. 54, 57 S. 402.
754-15 P. 9. Preston, 19 Cal. App.
675, 127 P. 660; Henwood t?. P., 57 Colo.
544, 143 P. 373 (referring to the fact
of witness at conclusion of testimony-
shook hands with defendant as a trick
not improper, but to compare it with,
similar episode in another case is not
proper); Mitchum v, 8., 11 Ga. 615,
616; Pelham ft H. B. Co. v. Elliott^
11 Ga. App. 621, 75 8. E. 1062: Cin-
cinnati, etc. By. Co. i;. Troxell, 143 Ky.
765, 137 8. W. 543.
754-ie Mitchum v. 8., 11 Ga. 615,
616; Pelham & H. B. Co. «. Elliott, 11
Ga. App. 621, 75 8. E. 1062; Smith v.
Boyal Highlanders, 96 Neb. 790, 148
N. W. 952 (humorous reference to wit-
ness as a most illustrious protector and
to the color of his hair is not com-
mendable); In re Bean's Will, 85 Vt.
452, 82 A. 734.
754-19 See Hammock i^. S., 7 Ala.
App. 112, 61 S. 471, I state to you,
gentlemen, that the witness told the
God's truth when he said he bought
that whiskey is improper argument.
755-21 P. V. Hulf, 173 Mich. 620,
139 N. W. 1033, to unduly praise and
extol the skill and standing of state's
witness is improper.
755-22 Kulp «. U. 8., 210 Fed. 249,
127 C. C. A. 67; Cross v. 8., 68 Ala.
476; P. V, Lopes, 21 Cal. App. 188, 131
P. 104 (doubt of counsel as to truth of
defendant's testimony may be ex-
pressed); 8. V. McKinnon, 168 la. 619,
138 K. W. 523; Bean v. Kinseder, 92
Kan. 254, 139 P. 1024 (so far as de-
140
AB0UMENT8
7ol. 2
fendant'fl admiftions affected his cred-
ibility, liberal comment is allowed);
8. V. Miller, 90 Kan. 230, 133 P. 878,
Ann. Cas. 1915B, 818 (accusing defend-
ant of perjury while on the stand) ;
Lee c. C., 142 Ky. 742, 135 S. W. 315,
stating accused and victim were on a
parity from a moral standpoint. See
46 L. B. A. 665, note j.
75l!»-23 Kuntz v. Howard, 143 App.
Div. 830, 128 N. Y. S. 101.
755-24 Hardy t?. Schirmer, 163 Ckl.
272, 124 P. 993 (urging motive causing
defendant to allege self-defense):
Mitchum v. S., 11 Ga. 615, 616; Pelham
k H. K. Co. 17. ElHott, 11 Ga. App. 621,
75 8. E. 1062; 8. 17. Thomas, 135 la.
717, 109 N. W. 900 (bribery of wit-
ness) ; McDonald v. 8., 55 Tex. Cr. 508,
117 8. W. 131 (manufacturing de-
fense); Kewton's Admz. v, American
Car Sprinkler Co., 87 Vt. 546, 90 A.
S83; S. f7. Marion, 68 Wash. 675, 124
P. 125 (referring to the interposition
of an objection by the opposing coun-
sel, it was not reversible error for ap-
pellant's counsel to say, ''I don't
blame Mr. V for wincing"); Boss
V. S., 8 Wyo. 351, 57 P. 924, furnish-
ing eopies of evidence to witnesses.
T56-26 Dnnmore f7. 8., 115 Ala. 69,
22 8. 541; Ferguson & W. L. L. H. Co.
V. Good, 112 Ark. 260, 165 S. W. 628
(saying it was due to motions, quib-
blings and appeals of opposing counsel
that the case had been in court so
long) ; Schuman v. S., 106 Ark. 362, 153
S. W. 611 (effect of argument was to
charge the state with suppressing evi-
dence by failure to offer it) ; P. v,
Wong Louag, 159 Cal. 520, 114 P. 829
(murder of witness); Hendrix i7. Gold-
man, 163 HL App. 592- 8. 17. Helm, 92
la. 540, 61 N. W. 246; Porter v. C, 145
Ky. 548, 140 S. W. 643 (that counsel
for d^ense manufactured defense of
insanity); Turpin v, C, 14o Ky. 294,
lao 8. W. 1086, 140 Am. St. 378, 30 L.
B. A. (N. 8.) 794 (bribery of juror) ;
8. «. CHapper, 203 Mo. 549, 102 8. W.
560; Oens v. Beibstein, 143 N. Y. 8.
1103 (characterizing innocent act as
forgery); 8. t7. Nolan, 85 N. C. 576;
Harwell v. 8., 61 Tex. Cr. 233, 134 S.
W. 701; Gulf T. ft W. B. Co. v, Cul-
Ter (Tex. Civ.), 168 8. W. 514; Amer-
ican Express Co. v, Parcarello (Tex.
Civ.), 162 8. W. 926; 8. v. Montgom-
ery, 56 Wash. 443, 105 P. 1035, 134
Am. St. 1119.
Acddantal omtaiAn of cotmiel to sup-
ply tbe nams of one of his witnesses
cannot be commented upon. Delaney
17. Berkshire St. B. Co., 215 Mass. 591.
102 N. E. 901.
T5T-30 Harwell v. 8., 61 Tex. Cr.
233, 134 8. W. 701.
757-32 Denison f>. Keiser, 104 Ark.
94, 148 S. W. 1023; Yuekman 17, Con-
sidine, 175 HI. App. 613; Gosualdi i?.
Personerii, 128 N. Y. S. 683.
Defendant's statement may be com-
mented on. Prank v. 8., 141 Ga. 243,
80 S. E. 1016.
^58-33 * JUludlng to amonnt of dam-
age Claimed, not improper. Kulvie v.
Coal Co., 253 HI. 886, 97 N. B. 688;
Kulvie 17. Bunsen Coal Co., 101 111. App.
617 (a mere reference is not reversible
error); Carothers <7. Pittsburg B. Co.,
229 Pa. 558, 79 A. 134, stating amount
claimed by plaintiff.
758-36 New York Prod. Ex. Bk. 17.
Twelfth Ward Bk., 162 App. Div. 13,
147 N. Y. 8. 278, refusal to permit ex-
pert to demonstrate by chemicals
proper argument.
Failure to cross-examine rebutting wit-
nesses is legitimate subject for argu-
ment. Prank v. 8., 141 Ga. 243, 80 8.
E. 1016.
Beference to the challenging of Jurors
who were neighbors of state's only
witness, as proof that he told the truth
is reversible error. Evans 17. S., 98
Miss. 697, 54 8. 154, Ann. Cas. 1913B,
257..
Filing of plea asking a suspended sen-
tence if convicted is not a basis for
argument as to guilt of accused, but
if evidence justifies it prosecution may
argue against suspending the sentence.
Bradley v, 8. (Tex. Cr.), 162 S. W. 515.
A refusal to direct ▼erdlct may not
be construed by counsel as an indica-
tion of the court's opinion. Gulf, T. &
W. B. Co. V. Culver (Tex. av.), 168
S. W. 514.
XTnfayorable deductions ftom excep-
tions taken by party are not proper
argument. Vesper v. Lavender (Tex.
Civ.), 149 S. W. 377.
750-40 Carter v. Carter, 101 Ind.
450; Decries f7. Phillips, 63 N. C. 53.
See note to 9 Am. St. 568.
759-41 Olden v. S., 176 Ala. 6, 58
8. 307, quoV Dollar case cited in text.
Coifip. Hinsman v, S., 14 Ga. App. 481,
81 S. E. 367; Manning V. S., 13 Ga. App.
709, 79 S. E. 905.
141
Vol. 2
ARGUMENTS
769-42 Gordon t?. De Witt, 106
Ark, 283, 153 S. W. 807; McElroy v. S.
106 Ark. 131, 152 S. W, 1019; Bowen
t\ S., 100 Ark. 232, 140 S. W. 28; Will-
iams V, C, 153 Ky. 710, 166 S. W. 372;
Slaughter t?. C, 149 Ky. 5, 147 8. W.
751; Calico v. C, 145 Ky. 641, 140 S.
W. 1036; S. t?. Swain, 239 Mo. 723, 144
S. W. 427; S. v. Stamper, 159 Mo. App.
382, 141 S. W. 432; Henderson v, S.
(Tex. Cr.), 172 S. W. 793 (to' say "to
turn this defendant loose would invite
crime for all criminals" not improper);
Calderon v. S., 63 Tex. Cr. 639, 141 S.
W. 251.
759-43 S. i;. Prince, 258 Mo. 315, 167
S. W. 535.
759-46 Goodwin V. U. 8., 200 Fed.
121, 118 C. C. A. 295; Nixon v. 8., 14
Ga. App. 261, 80 8. E, 513; 8. v. Ac-
cardo, 129 La. 666, 56 S. 631 (state-
ment based on counsel's independent
investigation); S. v. Clark, 114 Minn.
342, 131 N. W. 369; 8. v. Webb, 254 Mo.
414, 162 8. W. 622; 8. V. Hess, 240 Mo.
147, 144 8. W. 489; 8. v. Phillips, 233
Mo. 299, 135 S. W. 4; 8. V. Gunderson,
26 N. D. 294, 144 N. W. 659 (*'I do
not come here to try a case unless the
defendant is guilty''); Cox i?. Ter., 2
Okla. Cr. 668, 104 P. 378 (counsel said,
if the evidence in this case did not
bring about a conviction, he would quit
prosecuting horse thieves, thereby im-
plying he was convinced of defendant's
guilt); Young v. 8., 19 Tex. App. 536,
*'yet we would hesitate at this day to
reverse a judgment because of a viola-
tion of this rule." See note in 46 L.
R. A. 667.
Violation of rule by prisoner's coun-
sel does not authorize a similar viola-
tion by state's counsel. Bennett v, 8.,
86 Ga. 401, 12 8. B. 806, 22 Am. St. 466,
12 li. R. A. 449; Nixon v, 8., 14 Ga.
App. 261, 80 8. E. 513.
A statement tbat court Is of tlia opin-
ion that defendant is guilty is error.
Paul V. 8., 99 Ark. 558, 139 8. W. 287.
76Qr48 Nixon V. 8., 14 Ga. App. 261
80 8. E. 513; Williams t;. 8., 4 Okla.
Cr. 523, 114 P. 1114.
761-49 P. t?. Cucchiette, 24 Cal.
App. 495, 141 P. 933. But comp, 8. v,
Wellman, 253 Mo. 302, 161 8. W. 795,
holding the prosecutor should never be
allowed to appeal to the jury to con-
vict because defendant has committed
other crimes.
761-51 See vol. 2, p. 823, n. 14 and
supplement thereto. See also note in
38 L. B. A. (N. 8.) 1130.
761-63 P. t?. Fritch, 170 Mich. 258,
136 N. W. 493; P. v. Becker, 210 N.
Y. 274, 104 N. E. 396; Stanfield t?. 8.
(Tex. Cr.), 165 S. W. 216; Fuller i?. 8.,
30 Tex. App. 559, 17 8. W. 1108;
Moore v. 8., 21 Tex. App. 666, 2 8. W.
887; Hatch t?. 8., 8 Tex. App. 416, 34
Am. Bep. 751. See note in 46 L. B. A.
663.
762-56 Picket v. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 51
8. W. 374, 11 Am, Cr. 106, following
statute.
762-58 See Wechter v. P., 53 Colo.
89, 124 P. 183 (but to say criminals
seldom serve their sentences is im>
proper) ; Parshall v. 8., 62 Tex. Cr. 177,
138 8. W. 759. But see Jacobs t?. 8.,
103 Miss. 622, 60 8. 723; 8. v, Thome,
41 Utah 414, 126 P. 286.
762-59 Jacobs v. 8., 103 Miss. ^22,
60 8. 723; Moray v. B. (Tex. Cr.), 145
8. W. 592.
Advice as to verdict held proper.
Trinity & B. V. B. Co. V. Dodd (Tex.
Civ.), 167 8. W. 238 (telling jury he
thought $35,000 a proper verdict);
Cameron Steam Pump Wks. v, Lubbock,
Light & Ice Co. (Tex. Civ.), 167 8. W.
256 (telling jury that if they find any
sum for appellant, appellee would
have to pay costs, improper); San An-
tonio ft A. P. B. Co. V, Wagner (Tex.
Civ.), 166 8. W. 24 (it is improper to
tell the jury to fix the verdict as high
as possible because if too high the trial
court will reduce it). See also Mis-
souri K. & T. B. Co. V. Nesbit, 40 Tex.
Civ. 209, SS 8. W. 891.
Asking Jury to disregard court's In-
fltructionB is unprofessional and merits
discipline by the trial court. P. r.
Howard, 179 Mich. 478, 146 N. W. 315.
Urging Jury to agree on verdict be-
cause of the expense of litigation is
proper. Blodgett v. Park, 76 N. H. 435,
84 A. 42, Ann. Cas. 1913B, 853.
Warning the Jury against hasty and
harsh verdicts is permissible. Cross v»
8., 68 Ala. 476.
762-60 See Pullman Co. V. Finley,
20 Wyo. 456, 125 P. 380, to tell the
jury to study the questions carefully
"because they catch," is proper.
763-61 Guse v. Power ii Min. Mach.
Co., 151 Wis. 400, 139 N. W. 195.
763-62 Pullman Co. t?. Finley, 20
Wyo. 456, 125 P. 380, argument held
142
ARGUMENTS
Vol. 2
not open to the eonstmction that it toFd
the jury the answers and the generid
verdict should harmonize regardless of
the evidence.
764-70 Hoskins v. C, 152 Kj. 805,
154 8. W. 919 (arguing the responsibil-
ity of enforcing the law lies with the
jury) J 8. r. Butler, 258 Mo. 430, 16?
8. W. 509; 8. v. Bogers, 253 Mo. 399, 161
8. W. 770, saying it would be a disgrace
to the jurors to acquit the defendant
under the testimony.
765-71 Dupuy v. Wright, 7 Ala. App.
238, 60 8. 997.
Intsntof counBel in making improper
remarks immateriaL P. v. Hail, 25 Cal.
App. 342> 143 P. 803.
765-72 8. 17. Dwyer, 133 La. 731, 63
8. 305 (remark that any of the jury
who could say on the evidence that the
accused was not guilty was a worse
coward than the accused); Hemphill v,
8. (Tex. Cr.), 165 8. W. 462, <'it would
be much worse to convict an innocent
man than for you to turn this defend-
ant loose and then in a week or two
for him to rape one of your wives,
sisters or daughters."
766-73 But see Hoskins v. C, 152
Ky. 805, 154 8. W. 919; 8. v. Dipley, 242
Mo. 461, 147 8. W. Ill (holding state-
ment, that the eyes of the people of W
county and of the United States were
upon the jury to see if they would do
their duty, was a proper rhetorical ap-
peal); Citizens' Sav. Bank & Tr. Co. v,
Ins. Co., 86 Vt. 267, 84 A. 970. Comp.
P. r. Hail, 25 Cal. App. 342, 143 P.
803.
766-74 P. 17. Molina, 126 Cal. 505,
59 P. 34; P. V. Burke, 18 Cal. App. 72,
122 P. 435, 448; Hunn t?. C, 143 Ky.
143, 136 8. W. 144; Sturgeon v. C, 31
Ky. L. B. 536, 102 8. W. 812; P. t?.
Gosch, 82 Mich. 22, 46 N. W. 101; 8.
r. HUton, 248 Mo. 522, 154 8. W. 729;
8. r. Elvins, 101 Mo. 243, 13 8. W. 937;
Graham t7. 8., 57 Tex. Cr. 104, 123 8.
W. 691; Howard t?. 8., 53 Tex. Cr. 378,
111 8. W, 1038; 8. <7. ValweU, 66 Vt.
558, 29 A. 1018; Hoffman t7. 8., 65
Wis. 46, 26 N. W. 110. Comp, Dollar
r. 8., 99 Ala. 236, 13 8. 575; Wells 17.
8. (Tex. Cr.), 145 S. W. 950.
766-75 Washington v, 8., 87 Ga. 12,
13 a E. 131; Williams V. C, 153 Ky.
710, 156 8. W. 372, holding reference
to fact of there being nine murder cases
on docket is improper.
767-76 Hemphill v. 8. (Tex. Cr.),
165 8. W, 462.
767-77 S. V. Hess, 240 Mo. 147, 144
8. W. 489.
767-78 Southwestern Tele, ft Tel.
Co. 17. Andrews (Tex. Civ.), 169 8. W.
218, advising the award of such dam-
ages as they (the jury) would suffer
under like circumstances. Comp. Wells
17. Ann Arbor B. Co. (Mich.), 150 N.
W. 340 (asking jurors which one of
them would accept plaintiff's injury for
a stated money consideration is im-
proper); Morrison r. Carpenter, 179
Mich. 207, 146 N. W. 106, holding,
"Would you fall in that sewer for
$10,000 and take your chances! Would
you go through life that way! Would
you have your son go through life that
wayf to be inflammatory and preju-
dicial.
767-80 Gulf, etc. B. Co. t?. Dooley
(Tex. Civ.), 131 8. W. 831; Newton's
Admr. v. American Car Sprinkler Co.,
87 Vt. 546, 90 A. 583.
768-81 Marriage v. Electric Coal
Co., 176 HI. App. 451 (but comment on
absence of witnesses not shown to have
any knowledge of the case is improp-
er); Buckley 17. B. Co., 215 Mass. 60,
102 N. E. 75 (no ground appeared for
the inference that defendant had not
called all the witnesses named in the
report (not in evidence) or that they
were not called for the reason sug-
gested); Dykstra t7. Grand Bapids, G.
H. & M. B. Co., 165 Mich. 13, 130 N.
W. 320, 18 Det. L. N. 22; Sherman v.
Southern Pac. Co., 33 Nev. 385, 111 P.
416, Ann. Cas. 1914A, 287; Houston,
etc., B. Co. 17. Boome, 105 Tex. 188, 146
8. W. 533; International & G. N. By.
Co. 17. Williams (Tex. Civ.), 160 8.
W. 639; Miller i?. Burgess (Tex. Civ.),
154 8. W. 591, argument within reC'
ord.
769-86 Craig v, Augusta-Aiken B.
Co., 89 8. C. 161, 71 8. E. 983.
771-92 Brock 17. 8., 123 Ala. 24, 26
S. 329; Crawford 17. 8., 112 Ala. 1,
21 8. 214; Du Bose 17. Conner, 1 Ala.
App. 456, 55 8. 432; Jones 17. Boston &
N. St. B. Co., 211 Mass. 552, 98 N. E.
506; Brown 17. 8., 98 Miss. 786, 54 S.
305, 34 L. B. A. (N. 8.) 811 (rule ap-
plies to both civil and criminal cases);
8. 17. Gunnoo (W. Va.), 83 8. E. 64.
See Scoville 17. Baldwin, 27 Conn. 316.
And see infra, p. 775, n. 10.
771-93 Mississippi Cent. B. Co. v,
Bobinson (Miss.), 64 8. 838.
771-94 Bales 17. Evans (Mich.), 148
N. W. 790.
143
Vol. 2
ARGUMENTS
778-09 Sacrey «. Louisville B. Co.,
152 Ky. 473, 153 S. W. 760j Powell v.
Strickland, 163 N. C. 393, 79 S. E. 87-,
* Ann. Cas. 1915B, 709.
To state the law as to plalntii^'s sight
to testify and what the court would
have ruled is improper. Johnson v,
Johnson, 166 Mo. App. 732. 150 S. .W.
1130.
778-1 See 16 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas.
309n.
778-2 Best 1^. S., 64 Tex. Cr. 464,
144 S. W. 589. See P. v. Greenwall, 115
N. Y. 520, 22 N. E. 180.
778-8 Lee v. U. S., 37 App. Cas. (D.
C.) 442; Frisby v. U. S., 35 App. Cas.
(D. C.) 513; 8. €. Thomas, 127 La. 576,
53 S. 868, Ann. Cas. 1912A, 1059, 37
L. B. A. (N. S.) 172; S. v, Wana, 245
Mo. 558, 150 S. W. 1065 (faUure to
produce coat); S. v. MeCord, 237 Mo.
242, 140 S. W. 885; P. V. Leonardo, 199
N. Y. 432, 92 N, E. 1060; McGuire r.
S., 2 O. C. D. 318; Crump t?. S., 7 Okla.
Cr. 535, 124 P. 632; Ward v, 8. (Tex.
Cr.), 151 S. W. 1073; Sweeney «?. S.
(Tex. Cr.), 146 S. W. 883; Walker v.
S. (Tex. Cr.), 145 S. W. 904; Boat v.
8., 64 Tex. Cr. 464, 144 8. W. 589;
Houston, E. & W. T. E. Co. <?. Boone,
105 Tex. 188, 146 8. W. 533; 8. v. In-
low, 44 Utah 485, 141 P. 530; 8. «?.
Sanderson, 83 Yt. 35, 75 A. 961, 138 Am.
St. 1061. See note in 34 L. B. A. (N.
S. 811.
774-4 S. V. Mow, 44 Utah 485, 141
P. 530.
"Where evidence is Inadmissible for any
purpose, comment improper. Bushing
V, 8. (Tex. Cr.), 137 S. W. 372.
774-5 Jessie v. C, 112 Va. 887, 71 8.
E. 612.
776-10 Earle v. 8., 1 Ala. App. 183,
56 8. 32 (unless one party only has a
right to offer such evidence) ; Schu-
man t?. 8., 106 Ark. 362, 153 8. W. 611;
Brown v. 8., 98 Miss, 786, 54 8. 305,
34 L. B. A. (N. 8.) 811; MUlner v. 8.
(Tex. Cr.), 162 8. W. 348; Kemper <?.
S., 63 Tex. Cr. 1, 138 8. W, 1025. See
* supra, 771-92.
775-11 See note in 121 Am. St. 809.
775-15 Butler v. 8., 142 Ghi. 286,
82 8. E. 654 (holding a statement to
the effect that the defendant has not
put his character in issue so we can-
not discuss it, is an improper discus-
sion of defendant's failure to intro-
duce character evidence); De Jean t?.
S. (Miss.), G6 S. 411; C. p. Weber, 167
Pa. 153, 31 A. 481; C. v. Bnmer, 1 Pa.
Dist. 641. See notes in 34 L. B. A.
(N. 8.) 818; 46 L. B. A. 666.
OhATOCter of prosecutrix. — No infer-
ence as to the good character of prose-
cutrix may be drawn from defendant's
failure to introduce evidence as to the
bad character of such witness S. v.
Hector, 158 la. 6C4, 138 N. W. 930;
S. V. Williams, 122 la. 115, 97 N. W.
992.
776-17 S. V. Griswold, 73 Conn. 95,
46 A. 829; P. v. Annis, 261 111. 157, 103
N. E. 568; Showwalter v. 8., 84 Ind.
562; 8. 17. Nicola (la.), 151 N. W. 70;'
8. V. Hector, 158 la. 664, 138 N. W.
930; S. t;. Snider, 119 la. 15, 91 N W.
762; S. V. Mosoley, 31 Kan. 355, 2 P.
782; Taylor v. C, 17 Ky. L. B. 1214,
34 8. W. 227; Gurley t;. 8., 101 Miss.
190, 57 8. 565; S. v. Larkin, 250 Mo.
218, 157 S. W. 600, 46 L. B. A. (N.
8.) 13; 8. V. Baker, 246 Mo. 357, 152
8. W. 46; 8. t?. Fields, 234 Mo. 615,
138 8. W. 518; S. v. Perrell, 233 Mo.
452, 136 8. W. 709; S. v. Dodson, 23
N. D. 305, 136 N. W. 789; Wilson v.
Ter., 9 Okla. 331, 60 P. 112; C. v. Green,
233 Pa. 291, 82 A. £50; Cober v. &.
(Tex. Cr.), 162 8. W. 869; Manley v. S.
(Tex. Cr.). 153 S. W, ai38; llinter v.
8. (Tex. Cr.), 150 8. W. 783; Eads r.
8. (Tex. Cr.), 147 S. W. 692; Morgan c,
8., 62 Tex. Cr. 120, 136 8. W. 1065;
Sawyers v. C, 88 Va. 356, 13 8. E.
708. See notes in 20 Am. & Eng. Ann.
Cas. 1273; 3 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas.
164; 9 Am. St. 567.
Friendly as well as unfriendly com-
ment forbiddMU — Gurley v. 8., 101 Miss.
190, 57 8. 565, guol. Yarbrough v. 8.,
70 Miss. 593, 12 8. 551.
Bule has no application to cItH action
for violation of ordinances.— Chicago
V, Everleigh, 162 111. App. 623.
That defendant has not made state-
ment cannot be referred to. Saffold
V. S., 11 Ga. App. 329, 75 S. E. 338.
777-18 Tin^ v. 8., 110 Ark. 251, 161
8. W. 195; Culbreath v. S., 90 Ark.
177, 131 8. W. 676; Bennett €. S., 86
Ga. 401, 12 8. E. 806, 22 Am. St. 465,
12 L. B. A. 449; S. v. Potts, 239 Mo.
403, 144 8. W. 495; 8. r. Buchf elder,
231 Mo. 55, 132 8. W. 229; 8. v, Knapp,
33 S. D. 177, 144 N. W. 921; 8. r.
Carlisle, 28 8. D. 169, 132 N. W. 686,
Ann. Cas. 1914B, 395; Knight «. 8.,
64 Tex. Cr. 541, 144 8. W. 967. See
note in 3 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 164.
Bare allusion to defendant's failure
144
ARGUMENTS
Vol. 2
not sufficient error to cause reversal.
Cutler V. S., 15 Ariz. 343, 138 P. 1048;
MitcheU v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 144 S. W.
1006; Combs V. 8., 55 Tex. Cr. 334,
116 S. W. 584.
Viilen the aaoertlon is directly made
or the inference plain that counsel in-
tended a reference to defendant's fail-
ure to testify, the objection is unten-
able. S. V. Bobertson, 133 La. 806, 63
S. 363.
Tbat 0WI7 penon knowing the facts
saTB the defendant* had testified is
proper argument, although inf erentially
calling attention to defendant's failure
to testify. C. V. Bichmond, 207 Mass.
240, 93 N. E. 816.
77T-«0 Bulofl V. P., 45 N. T. 213,
222; Crandall v. P., 2 Lans. (N. Y.)
309; People f. Myer, 164 App. Div.
296, 150 N. Y. S, 317.
Hotlon for new trial necessary'— Im*
proper reference to defendant's failure
to testify not ground for reversal, if
a new trial is not asked on this ground.
S. 17. Kimes, 152 la. 240, 132 N. W.
ISO; Grier v. Johnson, 88 la. 99, 55 N.
W. 80.
TTT-21 S. V. Nicola (la,), 151 N. W.
70 (quot. Code, |5484); S. V. Kimes,
152 la. 240, 132 N. W. 180; S. v. Snider,
119 la. 15, 91 N. W. 762; Grier v. John-
son, 88 la. 99, 55 N. W. 80; Okla.
Comp. Laws, 1909, {6833; Hopkins «.
S. (Okla. Cr.), 146 P. 917 (gwot. §5881,
Bev. Laws); Kelly f?. S., 6 Okla. Cr.
175, 117 P. 887.
T7T-a2 Kelly v. S., 6 Okla. Cr. 175,
117 P. 887; C. v. Moyer, 52 Pa. Super.
548 (obscure remark not intended as a
reference); S. v. Nieburg, 86 Vt. 392,
85 A. 769.
778-23 Coleman v. S. (Ga. App.), 83
O. Je«. 1o4«
778-24 Ineidental reference not re-
versible error. Pullen «. S., 70 Tex.
Cr. 156, 156 8. W. 935.
Bxamplea of indirect aUnsionB held er«
roneoaB.r-^ones v. S., 70 Tex. Cr. 343,
156 S. W. 1191, <'You just as well ex-
pect S. Jones (appellant) to go upon
the witness stand and testify that he
sold intoxicating beer as to expect 8
to do so.''
Examples of allnslonB held proper.
Guerrero V, 8. (Tex. Cr.), 171 S. W.
731 (counsel after repeating a conver-
eation, turned to defendant -and said
''did you deny it," and then to the
jury, "You know he would have de-
nied it to his father-in-law but said
instead if you can prove it, go to law. ' '
It was held this is not a reference to
defendant's failure to testify); Mason
V. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 168 8. W. 115, in
which defendant put on witnesses show-
ing his whereabouts from 9 to 10 p. m.
a remark by the district attorney that
it was not shown where he was from
the arrival of the train till 9 p. m. is
not a Reference to defendant's failure
to testify.
780-28 Smithson v. S., 127 Tenn.
357, 155 8. W. 133; Eads v. 8. (Tex.
Cr.), 147 8. W. 592.
780-20 Coleman 17. 8. (Ga. App.),
83 8. E. 154.
781-31 Cutler v. 8., 15 Ariz. 343, 138
P. 1048; 8. 17. Bobertson, 133 La. 806,
63 8. 363; 8. 17. Williams, 35 Nev. 276,
129 P. 317: 8. v. Dodson, 23 N. D. 305,
136 N. W. 789 (calling attention to
fact the defendant had not accounted
for his whereabouts on the night in
question is not objectionable as refer-
ring to defendant's failure to testify.
Counsel asked why didn't defendant
put on witnesses, etc. and on objection
by defendant he said ''I am not talk-
ing about the defendant, I am asking
why he did not put other witnesses on."
Such remarks not improper); 8. 17.
Knapp, 33 8. D. 177. 144 N. W. 921;
Sloan 17. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 170 8. W. 156;
Ethridge 17. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 169 S. W.
1152; Henson 1?. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 168 8.
W. 89; Link 17. S. (Tex. Cr.), 164 S. W.
987 (in which one counsel turned to
the other and after naming the wit-
nesses who had testified for the accused
said, **was there any one else," to
which a negative reply was made);
8. r. Gunnoe (W. Va.), 83 8. E. 64.
781-32 Link 17. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 164
8. W. 987
781-33 'Carlisle i?. U. 8., 194 F. 827,
114 C. C. A. 531; Cutler 17. 8., 15 Ariz.
343, 138 P. 1048; Davidson 17. 8., 108
Ark. 191, 158 S. W. 1103, Ann. Cas,
1915B, 436; Saffold 17. 8., 11 Ga. App.
329, 75 8. E. 338; 8. 17. Kimes, 152 la.
240, 132 N. W. 180; 8. i?. Hasty, 121
la. 507, 96 N. W. 1115; 8. i?. Snider,
119 la. 15, 91 N. W. 762; Topeka v.
Briggs, 90 Kan. 843, 135 P. 1184: 8. f?.
Hughes, 258 Mo. 264, 167 8. W. 529;
8. 17. Gordon, 253 Mo. 510, 161 8. W.
721; 8. 17. Winner, 153 N. C. 602, 69
8. E. 9; Diegel 17. 8., 33 O. C. C. 82;
8. 17. Knapp, 33 8. D. 177, 144 N. W.
921 ("Does he deny ever having forced
10
145
• 1
Vol. 2
ARGUMENTS
his presence upon her. Not by
no," is not a reference to defendant's
failure to testify); Harris v. S. (Tex.
Cr.), 167 S. W. 43; Walker v. S. (Tex.
Cr.), 145 S. W. 904.
781-34 S. V. Nicola (la.), 161 N. W.
70; S. f?. Gordon, 253 Mo. 510, 161 S.
W. 721 (dist, S. V. Snyder, 182 Mo.
462, 82 S. W. 12) ; S. <?. Fields, 234 Mo.
615, 138 S. W. 518; Vickers t?. S. (Tex.
Or.), 154 S. W. 578; Williams v, 8. (Tex.
Cr.), 146 S. W. 168; Deary t?. S., 62
Tex.- Crim. 352, 137 S. W. 699. See
note in 20 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 1274.
In Illinois and Iowa the rule is other-
wise. S. V. Krampe, 161 la. 48, 140 N.
W. 898.
782-38 C. 17. Bichmond, 207 Mass.
240, 93 N. E. 816, 20 Am. & Eng. Ann.
Cas. 1269; S. v. Glover, 91 S. C. 562,
75 S. E. 218. Comp. P. v. Smith, 84 Misc.
348, 147 N. Y. S. 641, where evidence
proving guilt is weak. See notes in
20 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 1274; 3 Am.
ft Eng. Ann. Cas. 167.
783-41 Ingram V. S., 110 Ark. 638,
162 S. W. 66; 8. v. Johnson, 3 Boyce
(Del.), 515, 85 A. 883; C. v, Bichmond,
207 Mass. 240, 93 N. E. 816, disclaimer
by counsel of intent to urge inferences
from failure to testify, with instruc-
tion.
783-42 Sustaining of objections in-
sufficient.—P. V, Annis, 261 111. 157,
103 N. E. 568.
783-43 See C. v. Bichmond, 207
Mass. 240, 93 N. E. 816, 20 Am. & Eng.
Ann. Cas. 1269, citing cases.
783-47 S. r. Baftery, 252 Mo. 72,
158 S. W. 585; S. v, Donaldson, 243 Mo.
460, 148 S. W. 79. See 3 Am. & Eng.
Ann. Cas. 167 n.
784-48 S. t7. Potts, 239 Mo. 403, 144
S. W. 495.
784-60 S. V. Miller, 234 Mo. 688, 137
S. W. 887. But see S. v, Larkin, 250
Mo. 218, 157 S. W. 600, 46 L. B. A. (N.
S.) 13.
786-51 See S. r. Larkin, 250 Mo. 218,
157 S. W. 600, 46 L. B. A. (N. S.) 13.
785-54 See note in 34 L. B. A. (N.
S.) 811.
In the absence of statute, the failure
of a co-defendant to testify is legiti-
mate argument. P. v. Buef, 14 Cal.
App. 576, 114 P. 48; P. V. Ye Foo, 4
Cal. App. 730, 89 P. 450.
786-65 In Oklahoma a co-defendant
can become a witness only at his own
request, and his failure to testify is
not legitimate argument. Hopkins t\
S. (Okla. Cr.), 146 P. 917; Irvin v, S.,
11 Okla. Cr. — , 146 P. 453, but such
comment cannot be considered a refer-
ence to defendant's failure to testify.
785-66 Contra, S. v. Medden (la.),
148 N. W. 995.
786-68 See note in 34 L. B. A. (N.
S.) 816.
Where the wife may be a witness only
on her request, a reference to her fail-
ure to testify is improper. Zumwalt t?.
S. (Ariz.), 141 P. 710.
787-60 Downing v. S., 61 Tex. Cr.
519, 136 S. W. 471. See note in 17 Am.
& Eng. Ann. Cas. 421.
787-61 S. r. Virgens (Minn.), 151
N. W. 190; Fannie v. S., 101 Miss. 378,
58 S. 2.
787-62 See note in Ann. Cas. 1913D,
559.
787-63 Zumwalt v, S. (Ariz.), 141
P. 710 (where defendant may use her
as witness); Hopkins v. S. (Okla. Cr.),
146 P. 917; Hampton v. S., 7 Okla. Cr.
291, 123 P. 571, 40 L. B. A. (N. S.)
43; Bhea v. Ter., 3 Okla. Cr. 230, 105
P. 314; Eads t?. S. (Tex. Or.), 170 S. W.
145; Bybee i;. S. (Tex. Cr.), 168 S. W.
526; Yates v, S. (Tex. Cr.), 152 S. W.
1064 (failure to take wife's deposi-
tion); Black r. S. (Tex. Cr.), 143 S. W.
932; Burnam v, S., 61 Tex. Cr. 616, 135
S. W. 1175; Coffey v. S., 60 Tex. Cr. 73,
131 S. W. 216; Eggleston c. S., 59 Tex.
Cr. 542, 128 S. W. 1105. See notes
in Ann. Cas. 1913D> 559; 17 Am. ft
Eng. Ann. Cas. 421.
788-64 But see Sullivan v, Boyer,
72 Cal. 248, 13 P. 655, 1 Am. St. 51.
788-66 Cross t?. S., 68 Ala. 476; P.
V. Hatch, 163 Cal. 368, 125 P. 907;
Mitchum V. S., 11 Ga. 615, 616; Pel-
ham & H. B. Co. V. Elliott, 11 Ga. App.
621, 75 S. E. 1062; Marriage t?. Electric
Coal Co., 176 111. App. 451; United
States r. & G. Co. v. Poetker, 180 Ind.
255, 102 N. E. 372 (not improper to
discuss the difference between the bond
as given and as the statute required it
to be); Louisville V. Arrowsmith, 145
Ky. 498, 140 S. W. 1022 (in which coun-
sel Bald he preferred a verdict against
the city because he was doubtful if
the evidence against the railroad com-
pany justified a verdict against it);
S. t?. Corpening, 157 N. C. 621, 73 S.
E. 214, 38 L. B. A. (N. S.) 1130;
Harrington 17. Comrs. of Wadesboroi 153
146
AROUMENTS
Vol. 2
X. C. 437, 69 S. E. 399; Chapman i?.
S. (Tex. Or.), 147 S. W. 580; Cooper
r. S. (Tex. Cr.), 147 S, W. 273 (may
state there are two kinds of burglary,
in a burglary with intent to commit
theft case), Crane v. Wood (Tex. Civ.),
138 S. W. 444. See P. V. Hatch, 163 Cal.
368, 125 P. 907 and note in 1 Am.
St, 54.
Beferezice to elements of damage
proper. — ^Burton v. Kansas City, 181 Mo.
App. 427, 168 S. W. 889.
Urging verdict warranted by evidence
proper. Ledwell v. Chicago City Ey.
Co., 160 111. App. 596.
Aavislnfi: as to legal effect of verdiet
improper Fain v. Nelms (Tex. Civ.),
15€ S W. 281
788-68 Kincaid v. BuU, 159 Ky. 527,
167 S W. 903.
788^9 I'rick t?. Aurora, E. & C. B.
Co., 154 111. App. 277; Manning v, Mc-
Clure 168 Mo. App. 533, 154 S. W
803; 'Harris V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 169 S.
W. 657 See Martinez v. The Paul
Taylor Brown Co., 6 P R. Fed. 405;
and note in 46 L. B. A 663.
Argument of hm calculated to prejn-
dioe is improper. Shelby Iron Co. v.
Greenlea^ 184 Ala. 496, 63 S. 470,
where a physician testified against his
patient^ argument that his testimony
was privileged and that he should not
be believed as he had no right to tes-
tify is improper.
Incorrect method' of arriving at meas-
ure of damages. — ^Brown v. Central
Pennsylvania Tract. Co.. 237 Pa. 324,
85 A. 362 (urging verdict as punish-
ment when compensatory damages only
are allowable); Fowlie's Admx. v. Mc-
Donald, Cutler & Co., 85 Vt. 438, 82 A.
677.
789-71 Brock v,.B., 101 Ark. 147,
141 S. W. 756; Marriage v Electric
Coal Co., 176 ni. App. 451; Hensler t\
Gordon, 152 Mo. App. 498, 133 S. W.
631.
790-72 Weehter v. P., 53 Colo. 89,
124 P. 183 (in stating the law counsel's
attention was called to an instruction
stating a contrary rule. It was held
improper for him to say the court had
given such instruction inadvertently
and that to effect such was destroying
the effect of the statute); Hyde t?. if.
S., 35 App. Gas. (D. C.) 451, 485; Odett
r. Chicago City By. Co., 166 HI. App.
270.
Xostmctions may be commented on and
construed. — ^Kincaid v. Bull, 159 Ky.
527, 167 S. W. 903.
790-73 See Hutchinson v, Nettleton,
175 111. App. 277.
790-74 To speak disrespectfully of
the administration of Justice, improper.
DriscoU t?. Cincinnati Tract. Co., 88 O.
St. 150, 102 N. E. 297; McGowen v. S.
(Tex. Cr.), 164 S. W. 999.
790-75 Delaney t?. Berkshire St. B.
Co., 215 Mass. 591, 102 N. E. 901, re-
ferring to statute not relating to evi-
dence or conduct of parties.
791-77 Minor v. S., 101 Miss. 107,
57 8. 548.
791-79 Keeley v. City Elec. R. Co.,
168 Mich. 79, 133 N. W. 1085, failure
to charge jury that court's statement
of the law only was to be considered
is error.
791-81 But see Harrington v. Wades-
boro, 153 N. G. 437, 69 S. E. 399, holding
that -counsel in arguing the law of the
case is entitled to state the facts in
another case for the purpose of apply-
ing the law of such case to the one at
bar.
791-85 Childress <?. S., 86 Ala. 77, 5
S. 775; Louisville & N. B. Co. v. Mason,
10 Ala. App. 263, 64 S. 154; Powers v.
Boise City, 22 Ida. 286, 125 P. 194;
Bale V, Chicago Junction B. Co., 259
111. 476, 102 N. E. 808; McGuire v. Chi
cago City B. Co., 179 111. App. 79;
Swan t?. Boston Store, 177 111. App. 349;
Lewman 17. Danville St. By. & L. Co., 161
111. App. 582; Bisel v, Kerens-Donne-
wald Coal Co., 159 111. App. 8; Budolph
V. Landmerlen, 92 Ind. 34; S. v. Leek,
152 la. 12, 130 N. W. 1062 (reference
to secret fraternities); Weil v, Hagan,
161 Ky. 292, 170 S. W. 618; Morrison
V. Carpenter, 179 Mich. 207, 146 N. W.
106; McDonnell v. Drug Co., 170 Mich.
291, 138 N. W. 383; Grimme v. General
Council, 167 Mich. 240, 132 N, W. 497;
Antosik t?. Michigan Alkali Co., . 166
Mich. 415, 132 N. W. 80; S. v. Brown,
247 Mo. 715, 153 S. W. 1027; Partello
V. Missouri P. B. Co., 240 Mo. 122, 145
S. W. 55 (if remarks based on the
record and not indecorous, appeals to
sympathy are not improper); Haake v,
Dulle Mill. Co., 168 Mo. App. 177, 153
•S. W, 74; Cameron t\ Cameron, 162 Mo.
App. 110, 144 S. W. 171; Wilson v. S.,
87 Neb. 638, 128 N. W. 38 (stating if
a verdict ot guilty is not returned, the
jury need not apologize to the prose-
cutor or the audience); Driscoll v Cin-
cinnati Tract, Co., 88 O. St. 150, 102 N.
147
Vol. 2
ARGUMENTS
E. 297; Watson v. S., 7 Okla. Cr. 590,
124 P. 1101; Mulkey v, S., 5 Okla. Cr.
75, 113 P 532; Cox v. S., 2 Okla. Cr.
668, 104 P. 378; Carter «. S, (Tex. Cr.),
170 S. W 739; Cooper v. S. (Tex. Cr.),
163 S. W. 424 (in seduction suit refer-
ring to jurors going home to their own
flaxen-haired girls and loved ones);
San Antonio, U. & 6. B. Co. 17. Moya
(Tex. Civ.), 173 S. W. 608 (in personal
injury case the remark ' * Here, sign this
paper, and we will give you $1 after a
while. You haven't got any right any-
way.' Why, gentlemen of the jury, a
dollar would not have paid for his
shoe," is not prejudicial or improper);
Postal Tel. C. Co. v. Smith (Tex. Civ.),
135 S. W. 1146; Gulf, C. & S. F. R.
Co. 1?. Dooley (Tex. Civ.), 131 S. W.
831; Davis r. Randall, 85 Vt. 70, 81 A.
250; Brown v. Swineford, 44 Wis. 282,
28 Am. Rep. 582. See S. «?. Robertson^
133 La. 806, 63 S. 363 (holding a refer-
ence to sisters and family of deceased
is not reversible error); Norfolk -South-
ern R. Co. V. Tomlinson, 116 Va. 153, 81
S. E. 89, and note in 46 L. R. A. 668.
But if based on the evicLence, such
argument not improper. Foster v.
Shepherd, 258 Hi. 164, 101 X. E. 411,
• Ann. Cas. 1914B, 572, 45 L. R. A. (N.
S.) 167; Mahoney v. Goldblatt, 163 111.
App. 563.
793-88 Phelps V. Chicago, R. T. &
P. R. Co., 162 la 123, 143 N W. 853;
Bevich t?. Dick, 177 Mich. 173, 143 N.
W. 56; Jenkins V, North Carolina Ore
n Co., 65 N. C. 563; Dallas Consol
Elec. St. R. Co. t?. Black, 40 Tex. Civ.
415, 89 S. W. 1087; Winston v. Ter-
race, 78 Wash. 146, 138 P. 673.
793-89 Jones v. Tucker, 3 Boyce
(Del.) 422, 84 A, 4, 1012; Appel <?. R.
Co., 259 111. 561, 102 N. E. 1021; Jenk-
ins V. North Carolina O. D. Co., 65 N. C.
663.
794-92 Houston f?. Quinn, 168 HI.
App. 593 (reference to physical infirm-
ities of parties not improper where
proved by legitimate evidence); Flem-
ing V. Chicago City Ry. Co., 163 HI.
App 185, but the language did not
inform the jury of any fact not de-
ducible from the evidence.
795-98 Alabama Fuel & Iron Co. r.
Benenante, 11 Ala. App. 644, 66 S.
942; Cvitanovich t\ Bromberg (la.), 151
N. W. 1073; Almon r. Chicago & N. W.
R. Co., 163 la. 449, 144 X. W. 997; Ellis
t\ Barkley, 160 Ta. 658, 142 N. W. 203;
Norris v. B. Co., 239 Mo. 695, 144 S. W.
783, 790; Texarkana & Ft. S. R. Co. f?.
Terrell (Tex. Civ.), 172 S. W. 742; MU-
ler V. Burgess (Tex. Civ.)., 136 S. W.
1174; Chicago, etc. R. Co. f?. Goodrich
(Tex. Civ.), 136 S. W. 81; Campbell t\
Prieto (Tex. Cv.), 143 S. W. 668. See
Gaines t\ S. (Tex. Cr.), 148 S. W. 717.
Beferrlng to the vocations of the par-
ties proper where brought out in evi-
dence and where it is helpful in deter-
mining the weight to be given the tes-
timony. Eaton V, Hope, 177 Mich. 411,
143 N. W. 241, value of horse is in
question. Counsel showed parties to be
farmer and banker.
796-2 Sorell v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 167 S.
W. 356. ,
796-5 Weil t?. Hagan, 161 Ky. 292,
170 S. W. 618 (appeal to mulct auto-
mobile owner to protect pedestrians);
S. 17. Risso, 131 La. 946, 60 S. 625 (but
when defendant is not connected with
the particular organization against
whom the appeal is made, such is not
reversible error); Solomon t?. Stewart
(Mich.), 151 N. W. 716; St. Louis, I.
M. & S, R. Co. V. O'Connor, 43 Okla.
268, 142 P. 1111, referring to fact that
counts and princes are stockholders of
defendant. See S. v. McPherson, 114
Minn. 498, 131 N. W. 645.
797-6 Alabama Fuel & Iron Co. f?-
Benenante, 11 Ala. App. 644, 66 S. 942;
Louisville & N. R. Co: v. Mason, 10
Ala. App. 263, 64 S. 154 (referring to
corporation's picking up scraps of
paper in the jury room to see if the
verdict is a quotient verdict) ; Union C.
Co. V. Wolf, 63 Ark. 174, 37 S. W. 877;
Washington, etc. R. Co. v. Patterson,
9 App. Cas. (D. C.) 423; Swift t?. Ren-
nard, 128 111. App. 181; Louisville & N.
R. Co. t;. Hull. 113 Ky. 561, 68 S. W.
433, 57 L. R. A. 771; Johnson r. R.
Co., 135 Mich. 353,-97 N. W. 760; Will-
iams V. St. Louis, etc. R. Co., 123 Mo.
573, 27 S. W. 387; Stewart f?. Metro-
politan St. R. Co., 72 App. Hiv. 459, 7b
X. Y. S 540; Dillingham v. Scales, 78
Tex. 205, 14 S. W. 566; First Nat. Bank
r. Sokolski (Tex. Civ.), 150 S. W. 312;
Gulf etc. R. Co. f?, Dooley (Tex. Civ.),
131 S. W. 831, Hartford F. Ins. Co. v
Becton (Tex. Civ.), 124 S. W. 474;
Chicago M. & P. S. R. Co. t?. True, 62
Wash. 646, 114 P. 515, court does not
know the name Standard Oil Co. to
be such as to prejudice the jury.
To say that a corporation is without
soul, etc. Olden t?. S., 176 Ala 6, 58
S. 307; St. Louis, etc. R. Co. tr.' EIrod
148
• «
AROmiENTS
Vol. 2
(Ark.), 173 S. W. 836; Swift v. Ken-
nard, 128 111. App. 181. But see Straus
r. Kansas City, etc. B. Co., 86 Mo, 421;
Hinton r. Cream City R. Co., 65 Wis.
323, 27 N. W. 147. But a statement
that the defendant is not soulless, but
owned its men, body and soul advanced
in attacking a witness' credibility is
not improper. Britten t?. South Penn
Oil Co., 73 W. Va. 792, 81 S. E. 525.
Appeal to teach corporation to obey
law not reversible- — ^Western & A. R.
Co. T. Cox, 115 Ga. 715, 42 S. E. 74;
Brown v. Central Pennsylvania Tracts
Co., 237 Pa. 324, 85 A. 362: Postal Tel.
Cable Co. v. Smith (Tex. Civ.), 135 8.
W. 1146; Texas, etc. R. Co. v. Beezley,
46 Tex. Civ. 108, 101 S. W. 1051; Hous-
ton Elec. B. Co. V. Robinson (Tex. Civ.),
76 S. W. 209; Texas, etc. B. Co. r.
Beckwith (Tex. Civ.), 32 S. W. 809.
Bat see Kinne V, International R. Co.,
100 App. Div. 5, 90 N. Y. S. 930.
799-7 Chicago, etc. B. Co. t?. Garner,
83 111. App. 118; Harper f?. Western Un-
ion Tel. Co., 92 Mo. App. 304; Pullman
Co. v. Pennock, 118 Tenn. 565, 102 S.
W. 73; Galveston, etc. R. Co. v. Kutac,
72 Tex. 643, 11 S. W. 127; Missouri,
etc. R. Co. <?. Cherry, 44 Tex. Civ. 232,
97 S. W. 712 (**why, this morning
Pres. Roosevelt said those corporations
should be controlled")? Colorado Canal
Co. V. Sims (Tex. Civ.), 82 S. W. 631
(that everyone dealing with an irriga-
tion eompany had been swindled) ; Atch-
iaon, etc. R. Co. f?. Bryan (Tex. Civ.), 28
S. W. 98, charging unfair dealing.
Power of emSient domain, etc. St.
Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. V. Elrod (Ark.),
173 S. W. 836.
799-8 St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co.
f?. Elrod (Ark.), 173 S. W. 836 (by rul-
ing made at conclusion of speech) ; Den-
ver, etc. B. Co. V, Nye, 9 Colo. App. 94,
47 P. 654; Quincy G. & E. Co. r. Bau-
mann, 203 HI. 295, 67 N. E. 807; New-
man t?. Vicksburg, etc. R. Co., 64 Miss.
115, 8 S. 172; Wendler v. People's House
Furnishing Co., 165 Mo. 527, 65 S. W.
737.
799-10 Bisel v. Kerens-Bonnewald
Coal Co., 159 HI. App. 8, remark that
corporation wants to be treated as an
individual is improper.
799-11 Almon v. Chicago & N. W.
B. Co., 163 la. 449, 144 N. W. 997.
799-12 Newell i). Cleveland, C. C. &
St. L. B. Co., 179 HI. App. 497; Cin-
cinnati, N. O. & T, P. R. Co. 17. Spears,
152 Ky. 200, 153 S. W. 236 (referring
to witness as a strikebreaker is im-
proper); Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co.
V. Coffelder, 31 0. O. C. 26. See Mo-
bile & O. R. Co. V, Carpenter, 104 Miss.
706, 61 S. 693, in which it was held that
the argument that, ' ' if a statement was
made by a railroad man as to how and
where an injury happened, every rail-
road man from Mobile to St. Louis
would swear it to be exactly that way,"
although not approved is not reversible
error.
Reference to a train crew as a '*gang"
is not error. Myers v. Chicago, B, &
Q: B, Co., 152 la. 330, 131 N. W. 770.
800-14 See Ann. Cas. 1913D, 1167 n.
800-16 Gibson v. Zeibig, 24 Mo.
App. 65.
801-18 Solomon v. Stewart (Mich.),
151 N. W. 716. Comp, Hoxie t\ Pfael-
zer, 167 111. App. 79.
801-19 S. t?. Lee, 130 La. 477, 58 S.
155; S. V. Jones, 127 La. 694, 53 S.
959; Clark f?. S., 102 Miss. 768, 59 S.
887; Hardaway v, S., 99 Miss. 223, 54 S.
833; Majors v, S., 63 Tex. Cr. 488, 140
S. W. 1095. See Jordan v. S., 62 Tex.
Cr. 380, 137 S. W. 133 (all persons in-
terested being negroes); and npte in
Ann. Cas. 1913D, 1167.
802-20 Hardaway 17. S., 99 Miss. 223,
54 S. 833, Ann. Cas. 1913D, 1166, sug-
gesting a white person be believed as
against a negro.
802-21 James v. S., 170 Ala. 72, 54
S. 494.
802-23 Jordan v, S., 62 Tex. Cr.
380, 137 S. W. 133.
803-26 American Express Co. v. Par-
carello (Tex. Civ.), 162 S. W. 926.
803-27 See note in 46 L. B. A. 653,
656.
803-29 Scott V. S., 110 Ala. 48, 20
S. 468; Henwood t?. P., 57 Colo. 544, 143
P. 373, 383; Heller v. P., 22 Colo. 11, 43
P. 124; Miller V, S., 8 Ga. App. 540, 69
S. E. 922 (referring to defendant as
**this notorious character,, this notor-
ious blind tiger '0; P- «• Hotz, 261 111.
239, 103 N. E. 1007; P. t;. Kahler, 93
Mich. 625, 53 N. W. 826; S. v. Harri-
son (Mo.), 174 S. W. 57 (calling de-
fendant a man with an evil face); S.
V, Schneiders, 259 Mo. 319, 168 S. W.
604; S. V, Helton, 255 Mo. 170, 164 S.
W. 457; S. r. Wellman, 253 Mo. 302,
161 S. W. 795; S. t?. Phillips, 233 Mo.
299, 135 S. W. 4; S. v. Mircovich, 35
Nev. 485, 130 P. 765; Norton i?. Wilson,
152 App. Div. 129, 139 N. Y. S. 1047
149
Vol. 2
ARGUMENTS
(saying defendant was guilty of lar-
ceny); Coble V. Coble, 79 N. €. 589,
28 Am. Bep. 338; Millner V. S. (Tex.
Cr.), 16& S. W. 348; Bishop v. S. (Tex.
Cr.), 160 S. W. 705; Calliham v. S.
(Tex. Cr.), 150 S. W. 617 (counsel
should not call defendant a hyena or a
brute, but such alone would not war-
rant reversal); Grimes v, S., 64 Tex.
Cr. 64, 141 S. W. 261; Paris r. S., 62
Tex. Crim. 354, 137 S. W. 698; McCon-
nell V. S., 22 Tex. App. 354, 3 S. W.
699, 68 Am. Rep. 647; Stone v. S., 22
Tex. App. 185, 2 S. W. 685; Andrews v.
United States Casualty Co., 154 Wis.
82, 142 N. W. 487, ''The United States
Casualty Co.! The United fitates
damnation and hell, creature of hell
. . . and behind that put devilish, ma-
licious, fraudulent, trying to deprive
this woman . • . of a just claim at the
hands of these harlots.'' See Hoskins
V, C, 152 Ky. 805, 154 S. W. 919; Bur-
rell V. S., 62 Tex. Cr. 635, 138 S. W. 707,
and notes in 9 Am. St. 559; 46 L. K. A.
652.
805-30 Morris V. S., 103 Ark. 352,
147 S. W. 74; S. <?. Biewen (la.), 151 N.
W. 102; S. V. Harrison (Mo.), 174 S.
W. 57 (referring to scene at the time
of the ravishment as ''horrible ordeal"
not improper); Ostertag v. Union Pac.
R. Co., 261 Mo. 457, 169 S. W. 1 (re-
ferring to claim agent as "ghoul" not
improper); S. t?. Schneiders, 259 Mo.
319, 168 S. W. 604; S. f?. Gordon, 253
Mo. 510, 161 S. W. 721 (referring to de-
fendant as a foreign thief); S. v. Mir-
covich, 35 Nev. 485, 130 P. 765; P. r.
Cummins, 209 N. Y. 283, 103 N. E. 169
(calling accused thief in larceny case);
' S. V. Knudson, 21 N. D. 562, 132 N. W.
149; Andrews t?. S., 33 O. C. C. 564;
Borders V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 161 S. W. 483;
Conger v, S., 63 Tex. Cr. 312, 140 S. W.
1112, calling defendant a "libertine"
and "rapist" although improper is
not reversible error.
806-31 S. r. Gordon, 253 Mo. 510,
161 S. W. 721; S. V. Rasco, 239 Mo. 535,
144 S. W. 449; Borders v, S. (Tex. Cr.),
161 S. W. 483.
807-33 Brown v. S., 99 Ark. 648, 138
S. W. 633.
809-36 Shedding of tears by daugh-
ters of deceased during argument is not
ground for reversal. Tiner t?. S., 109
Ark. 138, 158 S. W. 1087.
810-39 Colorado & S. R. Co. t?. Chiles,
50 Colo. 191, 114 P. 661.
810-40 _ Washburn v, Cuddihy, 8
Gray (Mass. J 430; In re Mason, 60
Hun 46, 14 N. Y. S. 434; Huffman r.
Click, 77 N. C. 55; Burt t?. S., 38 Tex.
Cr. 397, 40 S. W. 1000, 43 S. W. 344, 39
L. R. A. 305; Queen v. Crouch, 1 Cox
C. C. (Eng.) 94, See note in 40 L^ B.
A. 570.
811-43 Duncan <?. C, 13 Ky. L. B.
195, 16 S. W. 584 (improper to read from
paper definition of malice' copied from
book); S. t?. Rholeder (Wash.), 144 P.
914, §339 (4) Rem. & Ball. Code, provid-
ing the respective parties may address
the court and jury upon the law and
facts of the case is to be construed
with §§342, 343 vesting decisions of
questions of law in the court and ques-
tions of fact in the jury. Consequent-
ly reading law to the jury is not per-
missible.
In libel suits, reading law books is
proper in some states (S. v. Whitmore,
53 Kan. 343, 36 P. 748, 42 Am. St.
288); but not in others. Oakes t?. S.,
98 Miss. 80, 54 S. 79, 33 L. R. A. (N.
S.) 206; Heller t?. Pulitzer Pub. Co., 153
Mo. 205, 54 S. W. 457.
In a criminal case. — Worley t?. S., 136
Ga. 231, 71 S. E. 153; Cribb v, S., 118
6a. 316, 45 S. E. 396; McMath t?. S., 55
Ga. 303; aark f?. S., 8 Ga. App. 757,
70 S. E. 90; Reed v, C, 140 Ky. 736, 131
S. W. 776.
811-44 Marriage t?. Electric Coal Co.,
176 HI. App. 451.
Beading of inapplicable law properly
prevented, etc. Clark t?. S., 8 Ga. App.
757, 70 S. E. 90.
Bequlring law to be read to the court
in the presence of the Jury instead of
to the jury in the presence of the court
not an abuse of discretion, Godwin t?.
S., 123 Ga. 569, 51 S. E. 598; Clark t?.
S., 8 Ga. App. 757, 70 S. E. 90.
811-45 P. V. Anderson Tea Co., 178
111. App. 124; Manley i?. S., 62 Tex. Cr.
382, 137 S. W. 1137.
812-51 Beading Employer's Liabil-
ity Act not error where the court fully
explained it to the jury. Lang t;. Cam-
den Iron Wks. (Or.), 146 P. 964.
812-54 Permission to read irrelevant
statute properly denied. P. v. Montijo,
8 P. R. 1.
812-55 Sullivan v. Capital Traction
Co., 34 App. Cas. (D. C.) 358; Waxel-
baum V, Southern Ry. Co., 168 HI. App.
6G; S. V. McClure, 159 la. 351, 140 N.
W. 203. See Clark r. Iowa Cent. R. Co.,
162 la. 630, 144 N. W. 332, supreme
150
ABGUMElfTS
Vol 2
eonrt directed that the opinion, just
rendered should not be read in the
presence of the jury on second trial.
Beading opinion on former appeal prop-
erly refused, etc. McCullough v, S., 11
Ga. App. 612, 76 S. E. 393.
S13-56 S. t?. McClure, 159 la. 351,
140 N. W. 203.
Jenkins v. S. (Wyo.), 134 P.
260, holding it proper to read an argu-
ment in favor of circumstantial evi-
dence from an opinion.
In criminal but not in civil actions.
McMath I'. S., 55 Ga. 303; Glover v. S.
(Ga. App.), 82 S. E. 602.
813-60 Perkins t?. S. (Ter. Cr,), 144
S- W. 241; Millican t\ S., 63 Tex. Cr.
440, 140 S. W, 1136, court was familiar
with the case.
Western Union Tel. Co. v.
Bay (Tex. Civ.), 147 S. W. 1194,
814-60 Glover v. S. (Ga. App.), 82
S. E. 602.
815-77 Memorandmn on back of in-
dlctment^ not introduced in evidence,
should not be "ref erred to or read. John-
son 17. S., 125 Tenn. 420, 143 8. W. 1134,
Ann. Cas. 1913C, 261.
816-81 Hardy i'. Schirmer, 163 €al.
272, 124 P. 993; Heide v. Schubert, 166
m. App. 586 (if objection be made, the
court should not permit the reading
from a stenographic report of the tes-
timony) ; Baker v. Illinois Cent. B. Co.,
161 lU. App. 521; Smith V. B. Co., 79
Wash. 448, 140 P. 685; S. V. Harris, 74
Wash. 60, 132 P. 735, defendant's con-
fesaion admitted in evidence.
Qaoting evidence from memory is
proper. S. r. Pollard, 155 Mo. App.
319, 136 S. W. 735.
Beading letters not introduced In evi-
dence although referred to, not permis-
sible. Bond V. Cole, 49 Pa. Super. 144.
Where there is a controversy as to the
evidence, it is within the court's dis-
cretion to permit the stenographer to
read portions of the testimony. S. v,
Porgraves, 32 S. D. 21, 141 N. W. 990.
Testimony on former trial received in
evidence- Pod rat v. Narragansett Pier
B. Co., 32 B. I. 255, 78 A. 1041.
817-84 Ada Coal Co. -P. Linville, 152
Ky. 2, 153 8. W. 21, affidavit not read
when introduced may fee read to jury.
In the discretion of the court* — ^Van
Vliet Fletcher Auto. Co. v. Crowell
(la.), 149 N. W. 861.
Where there is no dispnte as to con-
tents, refusal of permission to !read dep-
osition not error, but if there is a
sharp dispute as to the contents read-
ing should be allowed. Wells Fargo &
Co. <?. Baker Lumb. Co. (Ark.), 171 S.
W. 132.
817-86 Curtin t?. People's Nat. Gas
Cq^, 233 Pa. 397, 82 A. 503, copy of
schedule attached to statement of
claim.
818-92 Georgia Southern & F. B. Co.
r. Bansom, 10 Ga. App. 558, 73 S. E.
858.
819-97 Jordan f?. Smith, 185 Ala.
591, 64 S. 317 (statement supported by
evidence); Shelby Iron Co. v. Greenlea,
184 Ala. 496, 63 S. 470; Louisville &
N. B. Co. r. Grimes, 184 Ala. 413, 63 S.
554; Olden t?. S., 176 Ala. 6, 58 8. 307;
Pruitt t?. S., 92 Ala. 41, 9 S. 406; Cole-
man V, S., 87 Ala. 14, 6 S. 290; Lane v.
S., 85 Ala. 11, 4 S. 730; Cross v. S., 68
Ala. 476; Louisville & N. B. Co. v. Ma-
son, 10 Ala. App. 263, 64 S. 154; New-
sum f?. S., 10 Ala. App. 124, 65 S. 87;
Blalock V. S., 8 Ala. Ap?. 349, 63* S. 26;
Nuckols V. Andrews, G Ala. App. 275,
60 S. 592; Boden V. S., 3 Ala. App. 199,
58 S. 72; St. Louis, L M. & S. B. Co.
V, Brown (Ark.), 169 S. W. 940 (argu-
ment proper); St. Louis, I. M. & S. B.
Co. V. Bearden, 107 Ark. 363, 155 S.
W. 499: McElroy V. S., 106 Ark. 131,
152 S. W. 1019; St. Louis, etc. B. Co.
V, Devaney, 98 Ark. 83, 135 S. W. 802;
P. V. Mitchell, 62 Cal. 411; P. v. Guar-
agna, 23 Cal. App. 120, 137 P. 279;
P. i?. Stein, 23 Cal. App. 108, 137 P. 271;
Wechter v. P., 53 Colo. 89, 124 P. 183;
Colorado & S. B. Co. t?. Chiles, 50 Colo.
191, 114 P. 661; Mitchum t?. S., 11 Ga.
615, 616; Pelham & H. B. Co. v, Elliott,
11 Ga. App. 621, 75 S. E. 1062; S. v.
O'Neil, 24 Ida. 582, 135 P. 60; P. V.
Melnick, 263 lU. 24, 104 N. E. 1111;
Appel V. B. Co., 259 111. 561, 102 N. E.
1021; Herricks v, Chicago & E. I. B.
Co., 257 lU. 264, 100 N. E. 897; P. v.
McCann, 247 111, 130, 170, 93 N. B.
100; Baggio V. P., 135 111. 533, 26 N.
E. 377; Lucas v. Pporia & E. By. Co.,
171 111. App. 1; S. <?. Wilson, 157 la.
698, 141 N. W. 337; Bean v. Kinseder
(Kan.), 135 P. 1180; S. v, Alexander,
89 Kan. 422, 131 P. 139; S. t?. Com-
stock, 20 Kan. 650; Boss v, Kohler, 163
Ky. 583, 174 S. W. 36; Knights of Mac-
cabees V. Shields, 162 Ky. 392, 172 S.
W. 696; Bogers v. C, 161 Ky. 754, 171
S. W. 464; Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P.
B. Co. V. Martin, 154 Ky. 348, 157 S. W,
151
Vol. 2
ARGUMENTS
710; Conley v. Central Kentucky Tract.
Co., 152 Ky. 764, 154 S. W. 41; Burton
V. C, 151 Ky. 687, 152 S. W. 545; Chi-
cago, St. L. & N. O. B. Co. v., Bowell,
151 Ky. 313, 151 S. W. 950; Kim-
trough 17. Bank, 150 Ky. 336, 150 8.
W. 325 (argument proper); Slaughter
t?. C, 149 Ky. 5, 147 S. W. 751; Allen
V. C, 145 Ky. 409, 140 S. W. 527; Tur-
pin V. C, 140 Ky. 294, 130 S. W. 1086,
140 Am. St. 378, 30 L. B. A. (N, S.)
794; Kentucky Wagon Mfg. Co. v, Du-
ganics (Ky.), 113 S. W. 128; Hous-
man <?. C, 128 Ky. 818, 110 S. W. 23d;
Louisville & N. B. Co. v. Crow, 32 Ky.
L. B. 1145, 107 S. W. 807; Citizens'
M. F. Ins. Co. V. Bridge Co., 116 Md.
422, 82 A. 372; Scofield v, Clarke, 179
Mich. 681, 146 N. W. 377, 388; Morri-
son 17. Carpenter, 179 Mich. 207, 146
N. W. 106; P. 17, Huff, 173 Mich. 620,
139 N. W. 1033; P. v, Montague, 71
Mich. 447, 39 N. W. 585; P. v. Aiken,
66 Mich. 460, 33 N. W. 821, 11 Am. St.
512; Evans 17. S., 98 Miss. 697, 54 S.
154, Ann. Cas. 1913B, 257; Martin 17.
S., 63 JVIiss. 505, 56 Am. Bep. 813; S. 17.
Harrison (Mo.), 174 S. W. 57; S. 17.
Wellman, 253 Mo. 302, 161 S. W. 795;
S. 17. Hyde, 234 Mo. 200, 136 S. W. 316,
Ann. Cas. 1912D, 191 (referring to claim
of accused, that be bought cyanide to
kill dogs, counsel's remark that he had
the name and genealogy of every dog
killed in the community was improper) ;
S. 17. Woolard, 111 Mo. 248, 20 S. W.
27; S. 17. Leaver, 171 Mo. App. 371, 157
S. W. 821; Haake 17. BuUe Mill. Co., 168
Mo. App. 177, 153 S. W. 74 (duty of
court to keep counsel within record);
S. 17. Beilly, 4 Mo. App. 392; Leete 17.
Southern Pac. Co. (Nov.), 139 P. 29;
Beckley 17. Alexander (N. H.), 90 4-
878 (where the jury took a view, re-
marks of counsel that plaintiff's claim
that the automobile was out of the
traveled part of the road was untrue is
legitimate); Kambour 17. Boston & M.
B., 77 N. H. 33, 86 A. 624 (but it is
proper to ask the jury to find this was
what the evidence proved); Tucker i?.
Henniker, 41 N. H. 317, 325; P. 17. Mull,
167 N. T. 247, 60 N. E. 629; P. 17.
Goldfarb, 152 App. Div. 473, 137 K.
Y. S. 284; S. 17. Bodgers (N. C), 83
S. E. 161; S. 17. Lane, 166 N. C. 333, 81
S. E. 620; S. 17. Knudson, 21 N. D. 562,
132 N. W. 149; Morris 17. S., 9 Okla. Cr.
241, 131 P. 731, 735; Morgan r. S., 9
Okla. Cr. 22, 130 P. 522; Ostendorf 17.
S., 8 Okla. Cr. 360, 128 P. 143; Watson
17. S., 7 Okla. Or. 590, 124 P. 1101;
Mulkey i?. S., 5 Okla. Cr. 75, 113 P.
532; Cox v. Ter., 2 Okla. Cr. 668, 104
P. 378; Zimmerle i?. Childers, 67 Or.
466, 136 P. 349; 8. 17. Hatcher, 29 Or.
309, 44 P. 584; C. v. Shoemaker, 240
Pa. 255, 87 A. 684; S. 17. Davis, 88 S. C.
229, 70 S. E. 811, 34 L. B. A. (N. S.)
295; S. 17. Duncan, 86 S, 0. 370, 68 S.
E. 684, Ann. Cas. 1912A, 1016; Brew-
ster 17. Miller, 31 S. D. 613, 141 N. W.
778; Johnson 17. S., 125 Tenn. 420, 143
S. W. 1134, Ann. Cas. 1913C, 261 (coun-
sel said witnesses for the state would
be able to remember better having tes-
tified before the grand jury. On ob-
jection such fact was not in evidence,
he read the memorandum on the in-
dictment which was not in evidence,
held reversible error); Northington v.
S., 14 Lea (Tenn.), 424; Bodkins 17. 8.
(Tex. Cr.), 172 S. W. 216; Gusman v.
S. (Tex. Cr.), 171 S. W. 770; Carter v.
S. (Tex. Cr.), 170 S. W. 739; Smith 17.
S. (Tex. Cr.), 168 S. W. 522; Stanfield
17. S. (Tex. Cr.), 165 S. W. 216; Cooper
17. S. (Tex. Cr.), 163 S. W. 424; Bradley
r. S. (Tex. Cr.), 162 S. W. 515; Millner
17. S. (Tex. Cr.), 162 S. W. 348; Dunn
17. S. (Tex. Cr.), 161 S. W. 467; Mc-
Gregor 17. S. (Tex. Cr.), 160 S. W. 711;
Sylvas 17. S. (Tex. Cr.), 150 S. W. 906
(''that J. 0. testified to the same facts
in the examining trial as he did in
this trial" should not be stated); Bob-
erts 17. S. (Tex. Cr.), 150 S. W. 627;
Thompson 17. S. (Tex. Cr.), 150 8. W.
181; aayton 17. S. (Tex. Or.), 149 S.
W. 119; Johnson 17. S. (Tex. Cr.), 148
S. W. 328; Williams v. S. (Tex. Cr.),
148 S. W. 306; Washington 17. S. (Tex.
Cr.), 147 S. W. 276 (in which prosecu-
tion asked accused to put on blood
stained clothes he wore at time of crime
but on objection of counsel he was
told he need not do so. The prosecut-
ing attorney pointing at accused said
to accused he declined to put them on
because of superstitutious fear. Held
the argument making it to appear to
have been the voluntary refusal of ac-
cused to don clothes was not without
the record); Knight 17. S. (Tex. Cr.),
147 S. W. 268; Majors 17. S., 63 Tex.
Cr. 488, 140 S. W. 1095; Johnson 17. S.
(Tex. Cr.), 138 S. W. 1021; Hutcherson
17. S., 62 Tex. Cr. 1, 136 S. W. 53; Bur-
nam 17. S., 61 Tex. Cr. 616, 135 S. W.
1175; Kirksey 17. S., 61 Tex. Cr. 298,
135 S. W. 124; Clements t?. S., 61 Tex.
Cr. 161, 134 S. W. 728; Boss 17. S., 61
Tex. Cr. 12, 133 S. W. 688jSmith v. S.,
44 Tex. Cr. 147, 68 S. W, 995j PU
153
ARGUMENTS
Vol. 2
Worth & J>. C. B. Co. V, Firestone
(Tex. Civ.), 173 S. W. fil9; Texarkana
& Ft, S. R. Co. 17. TerreU (Tex. Civ.),
172 8. W. 742; American Express Co.
V. Parcarello (Tex. Civ.), 162 8. W.
926; Pecos & N. T. R. Co. v. Suitor
(Tex. Civ.), 163 8. W. 185, 191; Ft.
Worth & D. C. R. Co. v. Wininger (Tex.
CHv.), 151 8. W. 686, -594; Kansas City
etc. B. Co. V. West (Tex. Civ.), 149
a W. 206; Western Union Tel. Co. 1?.
Bay (Tex. Civ.), 147 8. W. 1194; Moss
c. Slack (Tex. Civ.), 141 8. W. 1068;
Kansas City, etc. B. Co. v, Bigham
(Tex. Civ.), 138 8. W. 432; Gulf, etc.
B. Co. V, Dooley (Tex. Civ.), 131 8. W.
831; Hardy v. 8. (Tex. App.), 13 8.
W. 1008; Bryson v. 8., 20 Tex. App.
566; 8. V. Coyle, 41 Utah 320, 126 P.
305; Padden v. McKinney, 87 Vt. 316,
89 A. 351; In re Bean's Will, 85 Vt. 452,
82 A. 734; Norfolk-8. B. Co. v. Tom-
linson, 116 Va. 153, 81 8. E. 89; Mul-
lins V. C, 113 Va. 787, 76 8. B. 193;
Brown v, Swineford, 44 Wis. 282, 28
Am. Bep. 582. See Couch v. &., 6
Ala. App. 43, 40 8. 539; 8. i;. Dwyer, 133
La. 731, 63 8. 305; Wilson i?. 8., 41 Tex.
Or. 179, 53 8. W. 122, and notes in 46
Ii. B. A. 658; 9 Am. St. 559.
Bnle applies to prosecuting attorney.
P. 17. Hail, 25 Cal. App. 342, 143 P.
803; P. V. Stilwell, 81 Misc. 456, 142
N. Y. 8. 628.
Stating A material fact not in the rec-
ord but pertinent to the issue is rever-
sible error. St. Louis, I. M. & 8. B.
Co. V, Aiken, 100 Ark. 437, 140 8. W.
698.
B«iiiark8 must be wilful to warrant a
reversal. P. v. R^ef, 14 Cal. App. 576,
619, 114 P. 48; P. v. Ye Foo, 4 Cal.
App. 730, 89 P. 450.
Statement must be made aa a fact,
either by direct statement or innuendo,
to warrant reversal. P. v. Buef, 14
' Cal. App. 576, 619, 114 P. 48.
Consent to comments on facts not in
evidence will cure the error in a strong
rase. Scarborough v, 8., 46 Ga. 26.
820-98 P. V. Fleming, 166 Cal. 357,
136 P. 291, 303, Ann. Cas. 1915B, 881;
HolHday & Wyon Co. v, O'Donnell, 54
Ind. App. 95, 101 N. E. 642; ChUders v.
C, 161 Ky. 440, 171 8. W. 149; P. v.
Bollman, 178 Mich. 159, 144 N. W. 537;
8. r. Webb, 254 Mo. 414, 162 8. W. 622
(telling what a "crowd of witnesses"
would have testified to had not the
court stopped us); Johnson v, 8. (Tex.
Cr*), 167 8. W. 733; Bradley t?. 8. (Tex.
Or.), 162 8. W. 615; Yates f?. 8. (Tex.
O.), 152 8. W. 1064; Johnson r. S.
(Tex. Cr.), 138 S. W. 1021; First Nat.
Bank v, Harkrider (Tex. Civ.), 157 8.
W. 290. See notes in 46 L. B. A. 661.
621-99 Stanfield v. 8. (Tex. Cr.),
165 8. W. 216; Millner v. 8. (Tex. Cr.),
162 8. W. 348.
821-1 Birmingham, etc. Co. 17. Bren-
nen, 175 Ala. 338, 57 8. 876, Ann. Cas.
3014C, 1037 (in which counsel said I
know defendant's counsel. If he were
on the jury he would find for the plain-
tiflf); Louisville & N. B. Co. v. Holland,
173 Ala. 675, 55 8. 1001; Alabama Fuel
Sb Iron C!o. v, Benenante, 11 Ala. App.
644, 66 8. 942; Longer v. Beakley, 106
Ark. 213, 153 8. W. 811; St. Louis, I.
M. ft 8. B. Co. V. Earle, 103 Ark. 356,
146 8. W. 520; P. v, Mitchell, 62 Cal.
411; Mitchum v. 8., 11 Ga. 615; Cofield
V, 8., 14 Ga. App. 813, 82 S. E. 355;
Parker v. 8., 11 Ga. App. 251, 75 8.
E. 437 (in criminal seduction ease, to
ask conviction that child may have
name and be protected is improper);
P. V. Scott, 261 Dl. 165, 103 N. E. 617;
Angelos i?. Pelias, 150 HI. App. 527;
Cedar Bapids Nat. Bank v. Carlson, 156
la. 343, 136 N. W. 659; May t?. C, 153
Ky. 141, 154 S. W. 1074; Maryland &
P. B. Co. V. Knight, 122 Md. 576, 89 A.
1091 (reference to good character of
client); Taylor v. Metropolitan St. By.
Co., 256 Mo. 191, 165 S. W. 327; 8. v.
Dipley, 242 Mo. 461, 147 8. W. Ill;
8. t?. Leaver, 171 Mo. App. 371, 157 S.
W. 821; Fields v. Metropolitan St. B.
Co., 169 Mo. App. 624, 155 8. W.
845; O'Donnell V, McElroy, 157 Mo.
4pp. 547, 138 S. W. 674 (that defend-
ant 's counsel dropped the case) ; Tucker
V. Henniker, 41 N, H. 317; St. Louis,
I. M. & S. By. Co. V, O'Connor, 43
Okla. 268, 142 P. 1111; Daniels r. S.
(Tex. Cr.), 160 S. W. 707; Harwell v,
S. (Tex. Cr.), .160 8. W. 378; Liuer t?.
S., 70 Tex. Cr. 75, 166 8. W. 211; Grimes
V, S., 64 Tex. Cr. 64, 141 8. W. 261;
Davis r. 8., 64 Tex. Cr. 8, 141 S. W.
264; American Express Co. v, Parcar-
ello (Tex. Civ.), 162 S. W. 926; Gulf, T.
ft W. B. Co. V. Culver (Tex. Civ.), 168
S. W. 614; Western Union Tel. Ce. v.
Vickery (Tex. Civ.), 158 S. W. 792;
Brailaford v. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 158 8. W.
641; Quinn v. Dickinson (Tex. Civ.),
146 8. W. 993; Chicago, etc. B. Co. v,
Goodrich (Tex. Civ.), 136 8. W. 81;
Evart i;. Dalrymple (Tex. Civ.), 131 8.
W. 223; Padden v, McKinney, 87 Vt.
316, 89 A. 351; Lemons v, Harris, 115
153
.MMm
Vol. 2
ARGUMENTS
Va. 809, 80 8. E. 740 (reference to an
irrelevant code section calculated to
mislead is improper); Brown v. Swine-
ford, 44 Wis. 282, 28 Am. Bep. 582.
Landing client's bnsiness not improper.
Northcntt v. Springfield Omshed Stone
Co., 178 Mo. App. 38», 162 S. W. 747.
Where negligence is admitted, it is er-
roneous to refer to it. Taylor v, Spo-
kane, P. ft 8. B. Co., 72 Wash. 378, 130
P. 506.
821-2 Reference to cost of prosecur
tion, although of doubtful propriety, is
not reversible error. Calico v, C, 145
Ky. 641, 140 S. W. 1036.
821-3 S. V. Harrison (Mo.),. 174 S.
W. 67.
822-4 St. Louis, etc. B. Co. v. Brown
(Ark.), 169 S. W. 940; Turner v. Lov-
ington Coal Min. Co., 156 HI. App. 60;
Vandalia C. Co. v. Price, 178 Ind. 546,
97 N. E. 429 (even though there is some
evidence to this effect); Worden Lum-
ber & Shingle Co. v, Minneapolis, St.
P. & S. S. M. B. Co., 168 Mich. 74,
133 N. W. 949; Horner V. Franklin, 186
Mo. App. 434, 171 S. W. 568; Pitz-
gibbons v, Schenectady B. Co., 160 App.
Div. 66, 145 N. Y. S. 401; Haigh v.
Elevator Co., 123 App. Div. 376, 107 N.
Y. S. 936; Shawnee v. Sparks, 26 Okla.
665, 110 P. 884; Zimmerle v. Childers,
67 Or. 465, 136 P. 349; Tuohy v. Steel
Co., 61 Or. 527, 122 P. 36; Brown v,
Scranton, 231 Fa. 593, 80 A. 1113;
Horsf ord v. Glass Co., 92 S. C. 236, 75
S. E. 533, 542; Gordon Jones Co. i;.
Lopez (Tex. Civ.), 172 S. W. 98f. See
note in Ann. Cas. 19 14 A, 951.
823-6 Boster v, Chicago, M. ft St. P.
B. Co. (Mo. App.), 158 S. W. 440; Gra-
ham V, B. Co., 71 Or. 477, 142 P. 774.
823-8 Dupuy i;. Wright, 7 Ala. App.
238, 60 S. 997; Houston Chronicle Pub.
Co. V. McDavid (Tex. Civ.), 173 S. W.
467.
823-12 Goldman v, Wolff, 6 Mo. App.
490.
823-13 Lake Erie ft W. B. Co. v.
Huffman, 177 Ind. 126, 97 N. E. 434
Ann. Cas. 1914C, 1272, disagreement of
former jury.
823-14 P. V, Melnick, 263 HI. 24,
104 N. E. 1111; S. V. Matheson, 142 la.
414, 120 N. W. 1036, 134 Am. St. 426;
S. V. Clanser, 72 la. 302, 33 N. W. 686;
Whit V, S., 87 Miss. 564, 40 S. E. 324,
112 Am, St. 460 (reference to reversal
of appeal); Lamar v, S., 65 Miss. 93,
3 S. 78; C. V. Martin, 47 Pa. Super.
346; Eads t?. S. (Tex. Cr.), 170 S. W.
145; Kirksey v. S., 58 Tex. Cr. 188, 125
S. W. 15; Johnson v, 8., 42 Tex. Cr.
298, 59 S. W. 898; Bichardson v. S., 33
Tex. Cr. 518, 27 S. W. 139; PuUer v.
S., 30 Tex. App. 559, 17 S. W. 1108;
Moore v, S., 21 Tex. App. 666, 2 S. W.
887; 9ouse i;. S., 9 Tex. App. 567; Hatch
V, S., 8 Tex. App. 416, 34 Am. Bep. 751,
reference to reversal of judgment of
conviction on a technicality although
reprimanded. See also vol. 2, p. 761, n.
51, and notes in 38 L. B. A. (K. 8.)
1130, and 9 Am. St. 567.
li conviction appears on the record
reference thereto may be made. S. v.
Valure, 95 la. 401, 64 N. W. 280; P. v.
Campbell, 173 Mich. 381, 139 N. W.
24; P. i;. Yund, 163 Mich. 504, 128 N.
W. 742; P. i;. Kindra, 102 Mich. 147,
60 N. W. 458.
Even if in response to a statement of
opposing counsel that no case could
be found convicting a man under such
a statement of facts, a reference to a
former conviction is improper. Brewer
V, C, 11 Ky. L. Bep. 601, 12 S. W.
672.
824-17 Stewart v, U. S., 211 Fed. 41,
127 C. C. A. 477 . (conviction of acces-
sory); Willyard t?. S., 72 Ark. 138, 78
S. W. 765; Louisville ft N. B. Co. v.
Payne, 138 Ky. 274, 127 S. W. 993,
Ann. Cas. 1912A, 1291; Murphy's Sxr.
V, Hoagland, 32 Ky. L. B. 839, 107 8.
W. 303; Magness v. S., 103 Miss. 30,
60 S. 8.
In a will conteet, a reference to the
admission to probate of the will and a
statement that it would be presump-
tuous in the jury to decide otherwise,
constitute reversible error. Wads-
worth f?. Purdy, 31 O. C. C. 110.
824-18 Bome 17. Harris, 12 Ga. App.
756, 78 S. E. 475; Louisville, etc. B.
Co. V. Brown (Ky.), 113 S. W. 465;
Fadden v. McKinney, 87 Vt. 316, 89 A.
351, reference to result of divorce ac-
tion between parties to action for
breaking and entering house.
824-19 Cross v. S., 68 Ala. 476;
Bhodes v. C, 21 Ky. L. B. 1076, 54 S.
W. 184; Duncan v. C, 13 Ky. L. R.
195, 16 S. W. 584; Berry v. S. (Miss.),
22 S. 826; S. f>. Corpening, 157 N. C.
621, 73 S. E. 214, 38 L. B. A. (N. S.)
1130; S. i\ Blodgett, 50 Or. 329, 92 P.
820; Bodriguez i;. S., 68 Tex. Cr. 275,
125 S. W. 403.
824-20 See notes in 9 Am. St. 569,
and 46 L. B. A. 670.
154
ahovments
Vol 2
fief erence to power of apptilftto court
to reverse or reduce the verdict is im-
proper. Landro v. Great Northern B.
Co., 117 Minn. 306, 135 N. W. 991, Ann.
Cas. 1913D, 244.
824-23 Griffin v. 8., 90 Ala. 596, 8 S.
670; Barney v, S., 5 Ala. App. 302, 57
S. 598; Boden v. S., 3 Ala. App. 193,
58 8. 74; Ferguson & Wheeler, etc. Co.
f?. Good, 112 Ark. 260, 165 S. W. 628;
St. Louifl, etc. B. Co. v. Leflar, 104 Ark.
528, 149 8. W. 530; Bhea v. 8., 104 Ark.
162, 147 8. W. 463, 473; 8. V. Cabaudo,
83 Conn. 160, 76 A. 42; Woodward v.
U. S., 38 App. Cas. (D. C.) 323, 333;
Price r. 8., 137 Ga. 71, 72 8. E. 908;
8. r. Haverly, 4 Ida. 484, 42 P. 506;
Ochs V, P., 124 m. 399, 16 N. E. 662;
Spenler c. Turley, 158 111. App. 146;
Weinlander v. Volkman, 153 111. App.
137; Adams t?. 8., 179 Ind. 44, 99 N. E.
483; Cvitanovich v. Bromberg (la.), 151
N. W. 1073; Maine r. Bittenmeyer
(la.), 151 N. W. 499; 8. t?. Cleary, 97
la. 413, 66 N. W. 724; 8. V. Hutchin-
son, 95 la. 566, 64 N. W. 610; 8. t?.
Potts, 83 la. 317, 49 N. W. 845; Evans
C. Wks. r. Ball, 159 Ky. 399, 167 8. W.
390; May v, C, 153 Ky. 141, 154 S.
W. 1074; Kalamazoo v, Standard Paper
Co. (Mich.), 148 N. W. 743; P. t?.
Singer, 174 Mich. 361, 140 N. W. 522;
P. r. Smith, 106 Mich. 431, 64 N. W.
200; Gibson V. Iowa Cent. B. Co., 115
Minn. 147, 131 N. W. 1057; 8. <?.
Brooks, 92 Mo. 542, 5 8. W. 257; Con-
necticut Fire Ins. Co. v, Chester, P. &
S. G. B. Co., 171 Mo. App. 70, 153 S.
W. 544; S. t?. Knotts (N. C), 83 8. E.
972; S r. Hill, 114 N. C. 780, 18 8. E.
971; S. V. Underwood, 77 N. C. 502;
Jenkins t. North Carolina O. D. Co.,
65 N. C. 563; Champion l?. 8., 9 O. C.
C, 627; Star v. S., 9 Okla. Cr. 210, 131
P. 542; Eakins V, S., 7 Okla. Cr. 351,
123 P. 1035; 8. v. Hilton, 87 8. C. 434,
69 S. E. 1077, Ann. Cas. 1912B, 1057;
McHenry r. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 173 S. W.
1020; Gonzales v. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 171 S.
W. 1149; Dickson v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 168
8. W. 862; Gatlin v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 163,
8. W. 428: Holmes v. S., 70 Tex. Cr.
214, 156 8. W. 1172; Maxwell t?. S.
(Tex. Ct.), 153 8. W. 324; Lubbock r.
8. (Tex. Cr.), 147 8. W. 258; Campbell
r 8.. 62 Tex. Cr. 561, 138 S. W. 607;
Wright r. S., 60 Tex. Cr. 385, 131 8. W.
1070; Hilcher 17. 8., 60 Tex. Or. 180,
131 S. W. 592; Brantly t?. 8., 42 Tex.
Cr. 293, 59 8. W. 892; Barkman v. 8.,
41 Tex. Cr. 105, 52 8. W. 73; Bay v,
8.| 35 Tex. (?r. 354^ 33 8. W. 869; Chalk
V, 8., 35 Tex. Cr. 116, 32 8. W. 534;.
Washington v. 8., 35 Tex. Cr. 154, 32
S. W. 693; Sinclair r. S., 35 Tex. Cr.
J 30, 32 S. W. 531; Norrls v. S., 32 Tex.
Cr. 172, 22 8. W. 592; Heidenheimer v,
Thomas, 63 Tex. 287; Funk v. House
(Tex. Civ.), 168 S. W. 481; Internation-
al & G. N. B. Co. V. Davison (Tex. Civ.),
138 S. W. 1162; Western Union Tel.
Co. V, Sloss, 45 Tex. Civ. 153, 100 8.
W. 354; International & G. N. B. Co.
V. Goswick (Tex. Civ.), 83 8. W. 423;
Williams v. S., 24 Tex. App. 32, 5 8. W.
658; Fadden v. McKinney, 87 Vt. 316,
89 A. 351; Bea t\ Harrington, 58 Vt.
181, 2 Atl. 475 56 Am. Bep. 561; S. V.
Conroy (Wash.), 144 P. 538; Cranford
V. O'Shea, 75 Wash. 33, 134 P. 486.
See 8. V. Wilson, 157 la. 698. 141 N.
W. 337; P. V. Swift, 172 Mich. 473, 138
N. W. 662. But see P. v. McCann, 247
HL 130, 170, 93 N. E. 100; S. t\ Hatcher,
29 Or. 309, 44 P. 584.
Argning facts not in evidence is not
permissible even though in reply. P.
V. Mitchell, 62 Cal. 411; Campbell v.
P., 109 HI. 565, 50 Am. Bep. 621; Till-
ery v, 8., 24 Tex. App. 251, 5 8. W.
842, 5 Am. St. 882.
Where the argmnent prOYoking the re-
ply l8 not set out in the record, it will
be assumed the reply was appropriate.
But if set out, the propriety of the re-
ply will be considered. Evans Chemi-
cal Wks. V. Ball, 159 Ky. 399, 167 S.
W. 390.
827-27 Comp. P. v. Boyd, 174 Mich.
321, 140 N. W. 475; Calkins v. S., 18
0. St. 366, 98 Am. Dec. 121.
828-34 C. tJ. Nye, 240 Pa. 359, 87
A. 585; Burrell t;. S., 62 Tex. Cr. 635,
138 8. W. 707; Campbell t?. 8., 62 Tex.
Cr. 561, .138 8. W. 607. See note in
Ann. Cas. 1912C, 818.
828-35 To refuse to Instruct as to
improper argument is reversible error.
Dupuy V, Wright, 7 Ala. App. 238, 60
S: 997.
Instruction to disregard permissible in-
ferences, although there is no evidence
as to the inference itself is error, but
the court may tell the jury there is no
evidence on the point. S. v. Lee, 166
N. C. 250, 80 S. E. 977,
829-37 Tucker t\ 8., 167 Ala. 1, 52
8. 464; Garrison v. Wilcoxson, 11 Ga.
154; Zilke v. Johnson, 22 N. D. 75, 132
N. W. 640, Ann. Cas. 1913E, 1005; S.
V, Gutterman, 20 N. D. 432, 128 N. W.
307, Ann. Cas. 1912C, 816; C. v, Poli-
chinuB, 229 Pa. 311, 78 A. 382; Chap-
155
Vol. 2
AkOVMENTa
man v. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 147 S. W. 580; P.
V. Hite, 8 Utah 461, 33 P. 254; S. v.
Ward, 61 Vt. 163, 17 A. 483. See note
to Ann. Cas. 1912C, 817.
829-38 EidgeU i?. S., 1 Ala. App. 94,
65 S. 327. Comp. Illinoia Cent. E. Co.
r. Weinstein, 99 Miss. 515, 55 S. 48.
829-39 Carlisle v. U. S., 194 Fed. 827,
114 C. C" A. 531; Higgina t?. U. S., 185
Fed. 710, 108 C. C. A. 48; Birmingham
By., L. & P. Co. V. Gonzalez, 183 Ala.
273, 61 8. 80; Nashville, C. & St. L.
B. Co. V. Crosby, 183 Ala. 237, 62 8. 889;
Alabama Fuel & Iron Co. v, Benenante,
11 Ala. App. 644, 66 S. 942; Louisville
& N. B. Co. V. Mason, 10 Ala. App. 263,
64 S. 154; P. t?. Fleming, 166 Cal. 357,
136 P. 291.. Ann. Cas. 1915B, 881; P.
r. Stein, 23 Cal. App. 108, 137 P. 271
(citing many local cases); P. v. Kizer,
22 Cal. 10, 133 P. 516, 521, 134 P. 346;
P. r. Buef, 14 Cal. App. 576, 114 P. 48;
P. V, Yee Foo, 4 Cal. App. 730, 89 P.
450; WiUingham r. 8., 21 Fla. 761;
Kearney t?. 8., 101 Ga. 803, 29 8. E. 127,
65 Am. St. 344; Wheeless c. S., 92 Ga.
19, 18 S. E. 303; Von Pollnitz v. S.,
92 Ga. 16, 18 8. E, 301, 44 Am. St.
72; Young i\ 8., 65 Ga. 525; Veasey v.
8., 6 Ga. App. 208, 64 8. E. 709; Kingan
& Co. t?. King, 179 Ind. 285, 100 N. E.
1044; Ellis f?. Barkley, 160 la. 658, 142
N. W. 203; Lawrence t?. Board of Coun-
cilmen, 162 Ky. 528, 172 8. W. 953;
Wright I?. C, 155 Ky. 750, 160 8. W.
476; May t?. C, 153 Ky. 141, 154 8. W.
1074; Blanton f?. C, 147 Ky. 812, 146
S. W. 10; 8. tJ. Hall, 44 La. Ann. 976,
11 8. 574; 8. t?. Watson, 63 Me. 128;
8. r. Phillips, 233 Mo. 299, 135 8. W.
4; 8. 17. Humfeld, 182 Mo. App. 639, 166
8. W. 331; Sutorius t?. Stalder, 88 Neb.
843, 130 N. W. 750; Hanks t?. 8., 88 Neb.
464, 129 N. W. 1011; 8. <?. Parker, 84
N. J. L. 417, 86 A. 1103; 8. f?. Parker,
83 N. J. L. 172, 83 A. 690; 8. v. Lock-
man, 83 N. J. L. 168, 83 A. 689; 8. v.
Cameron, 166 N. C. 379, 81 8. E. 748;
8. r. Moeller, 24 N. D. 165, 138 N. W.
981; 8. V, Knudson, 21 N. D. 562, 132
N. W. 149; Irvine r. 8., 10 Okla. Cr.
4, 133 P. 259; Johnson v. 8., 5 Okla. Cr.
13, 113 P. 552; King v. 8., 91 Tenn. 617,
20 8. W. 169; Himmelfarb i?. 8. (Tex.
Cr.), 174 8. W. 587; Harvey V. 8., 35
Tex. Or. 545, 562, 34 8. W. 623; Watson
V. 8., 28 Tex. App. 34, 12 8. W. 404;
Jackson r. 8., 18 Tex. App. 586; Mason
f?. 8., 15 Tex. App. 534, 550; Bucker v.
8., 7 Tex. App. 549; 8. v, Sirmay, 40
Utah 525, 122 P. 748; S. t?. Cooper (W.
Ya.), 82 S E. 358.
Where Intemiptions are fireqtieDt, a
ruling that counsel shall make all his
objections at the conclusion of coun-
sel's argument neither hampers nor
harms the defendant. P. |7. Ong Git,
23 Cal. App. 148, 137 P. 283.
830^0 S. V, Ward, 61 Vt. 153, 17
A. 483.
If remarks are shown to be clearly
prejudicial, he will not be held to have
waived the right to object because he
ffiiled to object at the time. Watson
V. 8., 28 Tex. App. 34, 12 8. W. 404^
Mason f. S., 15 Tex. App. 534.
830*41 Long tJ. 8., 2 Ala. App. 96,
57 8. 62 (and jury has retired); 8. r.
Sinclair, 250 Mo. 278, 157 S. W. 339;
8. t;. Dgson, 39 Mo. App. 297; Norris
t\ S., 32 Tex. Cr. 172, 22 8. W. 592.
830-42 Fuller «. 8., 10 Ga. App. 34,
72 8. E. 515 (objection during charge
too late particularly in connection with
a curative instruction); 8. t?. Glass (N.
D.), 151 N. W. 229, after submitting
the case to the jury.
830-43 Carlisle t?. U. 8., 194 Fed.
827, 114 C. C. A. 531; S. t?. Latimer, 116
Mo. 524, 22 8. W. 804; 8. r. Sheets,
89 N. O. 543; Prey v. Failes, 37 Okla.
297, 132 P. 342.
830-44 Young v. S., 65 Ga. 525;
8. V. Wilson, 157 la. 698, 141 N. W.
337; Boss v. Kohler, 163 Ky. 583, 174 S.
W. 36; 8. V. Hobgood, 46 La. Ann. 85fT,
15 S. 406; 8. r. Hall, 44 La. Ann. 976,
11 8. 574; Cartwright f. 8., 71 Miss. 88,
14 8. 526; 8. v. Forsythe, 89 Mo. 667,
I 8. W. 834; S. t'. Snider, 151 Mo. App.
699, 132 8. W. 299; S. f?. Suggs, 89 X.
C. 527; Simmons v, 8. (Tex. Cr.), 164
8. W. 843; Boyce t?. 8., 62 Tex. Cr. 374,
137 8. W. 116; Harvey f?. 8., 35 -Tex,
Cr. 545, 562, 34 8. W. 623; Watson f?. S.,
28 Tex. App. 34, 12 8. W, 404; Jack-
son r. 8., 18 Tex. App. 586; Eucker r.
8., 7 Tex. App. 549.
830-45 P. r. Eogcrs, 163 Cal. 476, 126
P. 143; Hardy r. Schirmer, 162 Cal. 272,
124 P. 993; P. r, Kizer, 22 Cal. App.
10, 133 P. 516, 521, 134 P. 346; P. r.
Metzler, 21 Cal. App. 80, 130 P. 1192;
8. r. Kimes, 152 la. 240, 132 N. W. 180;
Blanton t?. C, 147 Ky. ^2, 146 8. \V.
10; 8. f?. Duvall, 135 La. 710, 65 S.
904; 8. V, Watson, 63 Me. 128; 8. t?.
Pollard, 14 Mo. App. 583; 8. t?. Abrams,
II Or. 169, 8 P. 327; Jones t?. S., 33
Tex. Cr. 7, 23 S. W. 793.
831-46 Nashville, C." & St. L. R. Co.
V. Crosby, 183 Ala. 237^ 62 S. 889; Louis-
166
AR0UMENT8
Vol. 2
Tille r. Bridwell, 150 Ky. 589, 150 S.
W. 672; Edwards v. S., 61 Tex. Cr. 307,
135 S. W. 540.
Objection in undertone or in wilting
commended. See Postal Tel. Cable Co.
V. Smith (Tex. Civ.), 135 S. W. 1146.
Immaterial -whether offending comisel
hears objection. — But see Miracle v.
C, 148 Kv. 453, 14G S. W. 1136; FarriB
r. C, 14 Bush (Ky.) 367.
S32-47 Birmingham Ry., L. ft P.
Co. V. Gonzalez, 183 Ala. 273, 61 S. 80;
Louisville & N. B. Co. v. Holland, 173
Ala. 675, 55 S. 1001; St. Louis, I. M. &
S. B. Co. V. Brown (Ark.), 169 S. W.
940; Southern By. Co. t'. Adams, 52 Ind.
App. 322, 100 N. E. 773; S. v. Cooper
(la.), 151 N. W. 838 (an objection at
commencement of argument to each and
every word of said speech and to the
vrhole speech, is not sufficient) ; S. v.
Phillips, 233 Mo. 299, 135 S. W. 4;
Burns v. United Rys. Co., 176 Mo. App.
330, 158 S. W. 394; Wack t;. St. Louis,
I. M. & S. R. Co., 175 Mo. App. Ill,
157 S. W. 1070; Gentry v. Wabash R.
Co., 172 Mo. App. 638, 156 S. W. 27;
Bieflin,'» r. Juede, 165 Mo. App. 216, 147
fi. W. 168; Torreyson r. Rys. Co., 164
Mo. App. 366, 145 S. W. 106; Brinkman
f?. Gottenstroeter, 153 Mo. App. 351,
134 S. W. 5S4; King v. S., 91 Tenn. 617,
20 S. W. 169; Crawford r. S. (Tex. Cr.),
147 S. W. 229; :P^erguson r. Fain (Tex.
Civ.), 164 S. W. 1040. See note in 7
Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 231. Comp.
Hutcherson V, S., 62 Tex. Cr. 1, 136
S. W. 53.
832-48 Gentry i?. Wabash R. Co.,
172 Mo. App. 638, 156 S. W. 27; Tor-
reyson 17. United Rys. Co., 164 Mo. App.
366, 145 S. W. 106.
Befosal of court to permit counsel to
assign reasons is an abuse of discretion.
Edwards i;. S., 61 Tex. Cr. 307, 135 B.
W. 540.
832-49 See Hoskins V. C, 152 Ky.
805, 154 S. W. 919.
As to -what relief must be asked for,
see note in 46 L. R. A. 644.
832-50 Singh f. S. (Tex. Cr.), 146
S. W. 891.
832-51 S. tJ. Harrison (Mo.), 174 S.
W. 57; S. V. Webb, 254 Mo. 414, 162
S. W. 622; Schwanenfeldt v. Metropoli-
tan St. B. Co. (Mo. App.), 174 S. W.
143.
832-62 King v. S., 100 Ala. 85, 14
S. 878; P. V. Babcock, 160 Cal. 537, 117
P. 549j P. <?. Shears, 133 Cal. 154, 65
P. 295; P. 17. Shem Ah Fook, 64 CaL
380, 1 P 347; P. f?. Warr, 22 Cal. App.
663, 136 P. 304; P. v. Metzler, 21 Cal.
App. 80, 130 P. 1192; Wheeless v. S., 92
Ga. 1§, 18 S. E. 303; Von PoUnitz v. S.,
92 Ga. 16, 44 A. S. R. 72, 18 S. E.
301; Ozbum V. S., 87 Ga. 173, 13 S. E.
247; Scarborough v, S., 46 Ga. 26;
Boone v. P., 148 111. 440, 36 N. E. 99;
Adams t?. S., 179 Ind. 44, 99 N. E. 483;
McPherson v, S., 178 Ind. 583, 99 N.
B. 984; Robb v. S., 144 Ind. 569, 43 N.
E. 642; Cromer v. S., 21 Ind. App. 502,
52 N. E. 239; S. v, Robertson, 133 La.
806, 63 S. 363; Spencer v. Johnson
(Mich.), 151 N. W. 684; P. V. McDowell,
63 Mich. 229, 30 N. W. 68; P. i?. Haley,
48 Mich. 495, 12 N. W. 671; S. v. Fre-
Hnghuysen, 43 Minn. 265, 45 N. W. 432;
S. V. Taylor, 98 Mo. 240, 11 S. W. 570;
Chestnut v. Sales, 44 Mont. 534, 121 P.
481 (instruction sufficient to comply
with request); S. V. Biggerstaff, 17
Mont. 510, 43 P. 709; Bohanan v. S., 18
Neb. 57, 24 N. W. 390, 53 Am. R. 791;
P. V. Seidenshner, 210 N. Y. 341, 104 N.
E. 420; S. V. Davenport, 156 N. C..596,
72 8. E. 7; 8. V. Knudson, 21 N. D. 562,
132 N. W. 149; Irvine v. S., 10 Okla.
Cr. 4, 133 1*. 259; St. Louis, I. M. &
S. R. Co. V, 0 'Connor, 43 Okla. 268, 142
P. 1111 (and a request to withdraw tho
remark should be made also); S. v.
Hawkins, 18 Or. 476, 23 P. 475'; S. f?.
Abrams, 11 Or. 169, 8 P. 327; C. f?.
Sushinskie, 242 Pa. 406, 89 A. 564;
Ickes V. Ickes, 237 Pa. 582, 85 A. 885;
Crawford v. Rice & Hutchins B. Co., 98
8. C. 121, 82 S. E. 273; King v, 8.,. 91
Tenn. 617, 20 3. W. 169; Himmelfarb
f?. S. (Tex. Cr.), 174 8. W. 687 (citing
numerous cases); Bodkins v. S. (Tex.^
Cr.), 172 S. W. 216; WhitflU f?. S.
(Tex. Cr.), 169 S. W. 681; Smith v. S.
(Tex. Cr.), 168 S. W. 522; Thompson
V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 163 S. W. 973; Hooper
V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 160 S. W. 1188; Stew-
art t?. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 158 S. W. 996; Good-
win V. 8., 70 Tex. Cr. 600, 158 8. W.
274; Bogue t?. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 155 8. W.
943; Chafino v, 8. (Tex. Cr.), 154 S. W.
546; Walls v, 8. (Tex. Cr.), 153 S. W.
130; Crutchfleld t?. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 152 8.
W. 1053; Collins V. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 152 8.
W. 1047; Kelly r. S. (Tex. Cr.), 151 S.
W. 304; Love v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 150 S.
W. 920; Wren v, S. (Tex. Cr.), 150 8.
W. 440; Warren v. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 149 8.
W. 130; Clayton v. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 149
8. W. 119 (citing numerous cases);
Gaines v, S. (Tex. Cr.), 148 8. W. 717;
Welch V. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 147 S, W. 572;
157
Vol. 2
ARGUMENTS
Williams v. 8. (Tex. dr.), 147 S. W.
571; Washington v, 8. (Tex. Or.), 14^7
8. W. 276; Singh <?. 8. (Tex. Or.), 146
8. W. 890; January v, 8. (Tex. Cr.), 146
8. W. 555; Gamble v, 8. (Tex. Cr.), 146
8. W. 551; McWhirter I?. 8. (Tex. Cr.),
146 8. W. 189; Wells V, 8. (Tex. Cr.),
145 8. W. 950; Wrigg f?. 8. (Tex. Cr.),
145 8. W. 342; Williams i;. 8. (Tex,
Ct.), 144 8. W. 622; Jones V. 8. (Tex.
Cr.), 141 8. W. 953; Owens v, 8., 63
Tex. Cr. 633, 141 8. W. 530; Majors v.
8., 63 Tex. Cr. 488, 140 8. W..1095;
Millican v. 8., 63 Tex. Cr. 440, 140 8.
W. 1136; Hickey v, 8., 62 Tex. Cr.
668, 138 8. W. 1051; Campbell v. 8., 62
Tex. Cr. 561, 138 8. W. 607; Diaz v,
8., 62 Tex. Cr. 317, 137 8. W. 377;
Edwards v. 8., 61 Tex. Cr. 307, 136 8.
W. 540; Florence t?. 8., 61 Tex. Cr.
238, 134 8. W. 689; Turner v. 8., 61
Tex. Cr. 97, 133 8. W. 1052; Hatchell
V, 8., 47 Tex. Cr. 380, 84 8. W. 234;
Gilmore v. 8., 37 Tex. Cr. 178, 39 8.
W. 105; Wright V. 8., 37 Tex. Cr. 146,
38 8. W. 1004; Boscow 1?. 8., 33 Tex.
Cr. 390, 26 8. W. 625; Missouri, K. &
T. Ey. i). Long (Tex. Civ.), 174 8. W.
329; Boss 17. Cleveland & 8ons (Tex.
Civ.), 133 8. W. 315; Bahm v. 8., 30
Tex. App. 310, 17 8. W. 416, 28 Am. St.
911; Kennedy v, 8., 19 Tex. App. 618;
Young V. 8., 19 Tex. App. 536; 8. v.
Ward, 61 Vt. 153, 17 A. 483; 8. v.
Cooper (W. Va.), 82 8. E. 258. See
Young V, 8., 65 Ga. 525; 8. v, Robert-
son, 133 La. 806, 63 8. 363.
It is counsel' 8 duty to request socli
instruction. — Williams v. 8., 4 Okla. Cr.
523, 114 P. 1114.
If argument is proper for a limited
purpose only, a general objection is in-
sufficient, the court should be asked to
limit it to its proper purpose. Brink-
man V. Gottenstroter, 153 Mo. App. 361,
134 8. W. 584.
Save in capital cases. — Johnson v. 8.,
5 Okla. Cr. 13, 113 P. 552; Johnson v.
U. 8., 2 Okla. Cr. 16, 99 P. 1022.
832-53 8. V. Finley, 245 Mo. 465,
150 8. W. 1051; Norris f?. St. Louis,
1. M. & 8. B. Co., 239 Mo. 695, 144
8. W. 783, 790; Torreyson v. United
Bys. Co., 164 Mo. App. 366, 145 8. W.
106; 8. I?. Wong Tung Hee, 41 Wash.
623, 84 P. 596; 8. V. Bailey, 31 Wash.
89, 71 P. 715.
832-54 See v. Public Service B. Co.,
82 N. J. L. 144, 81 A. 745.
Acquiescence in abandonment of argu-
ment without invoking a ruling of the
court or asking specific relief is a
waiver of the objection. Lavender v,
8., 9 Ga. App. 856, 72 8. E. 437.
833-60 Lake Erie & W. B. Co. v.
Huffman, 177 Ind. 126, 97 N. E. 434,
Ann. Cas. 1914C, 1272; Blume v, 8., 154
Ind. 343, 56 N. B. 771; Tucker i;. East-
ridge, 61 Ind. App. 632, 100 N. E. 113;
8. V, Butler, 258 Mo. 430, 167 8. W.
509; 8. V, Baftery, 252 Mo. 72, 158 8.
W. 585; 8. v. Basco, 239 Mo. 635, 144
8. W. 449, 463.
833-63 Wolffe t?. Minnis, 74 Ala.
386; Jackson v. 8., 2 Ala. App. 226, 57
8. 110; Kiech Mfg. Co. t?. Hopkins, 108
Ark. 578, 158 8. W. 981; Levi v. 8.
(Ind.), 104 N. E. 765; 8. v. WUson, 157
la. 698, 141 N. W. 337; Clark v. 8.,
102 Miss. 768, 59 8. 887 (court should
sua sponte rebuke counsel in jury's
presence); Collins v, 8., 100 Miss.
435, 56 8. 527; Martin v. 8., 63 Miss.
505, 56 Am. Bep. 812; Gibson 17. Zeibig,
24 Mo. App. 65; P. v. Pisano, 142 App.
Div. 524, 127 N. Y. 8. 204; Zimmerle
V. Childers, 67 Or. 465, 136 P. 349; 8.
V. Duncan, 86 8. C. 370, 68 8. E. 684,
Ann. Cas. 1912A, 1016; Whitfill v. 8.
(Tex. Cr.), 169 8. W. 681; Vick v, a
(Tex. Cr.), 159 8. W. 50; Brailaford
V, 8. (Tex. Cr.), 158 8. W. 641; Western
Union Tel. Co. t?. Vickery (Tex. Civ.),
158 8. W. 792; Brown t?. Swineford, 44
Wis. 282, 28 Am. Bep. 582. See Blyston-
Spencer v. United Bys. Co^ 151 Mo.
App. 118, 132 8. W. 1176.
An exception to the f allnre of the court
to take action is necessary to preserve
the error. Eiech Mfg. Co. v. Hopkins,
108 Ark. 578, 158 8. W. 981.
Gestures and other conduct of counsel
improperly indulged in must be ob-
jected to in the same manner. Sher-
man e, 8., 125 Tenn. 19, 140 8. W. 209.
833-64 Donaldson v. U. 8., 208 Fed.
4, 125 C. C. A. 316; Higgins t?. U. S,,
185 Fed. 710, 108 C. C. A. 48; Cross
V. 8., 68 Ala. 476; Bidgell v. 8., 1 Ala.
App. 94, 55 8. 327; P. t?. Lane, 101
Cal. 513, 36 P. 16; P. v. Metzler, 21
Cal. App. 80, 130 P. 1192; Torris v.
P., 19 Colo. 438, 36 P. 153; mink r.
P., 16 Colo. 467, 27 P. 1062; Von Poll-
mitz f?. 8., 92 Ga. 16, 18 8. E. 301, 44
Am. St. 72; Dale v. 8., 88 Ga. 552, 15
8. E. 287; Ozbum v, 8., 87 Ga. 173, 13
8. E. 247; Davis v. 8., 33 Ga. 98; Ap-
pel V, Chicago City B. Co., 259 HI. 561,
102 N. E. 1021; Boone v. P., 148 111.
440, 36 N. E. 99; Campbell v. P., 109
HI. 565, 50 Am. Bep. 621 j Earll r. P.,
163
ARGUMENTS
Vol. 2
99 m. 123; WilBon v. P., 9^; Dl. 299;
Sturonois t?. Morris, 177 111. App. 514;
P. V. Oldfield, 173 lU. App. 655; Hale
r. Hale, 169 111. App. 272; Coffin v. Chi-
cago, 159 111. App. 609; Dangerfield v.
Hope, 157 111. App. 63; Kunkel V. Chi-
cago Consol. Traction Co., 156 HI. App.
393; Adams V. S., 179 Ind. 44, 99 N. E.
483; Badley v. S., 174 Ind. 645, 92 N.
£. 541; Hook v. Citizens' Nat. Bank,
51 Ind. App. 628, 99 N. E. 437; Cromer
f?. S., 21 Ind. App. 502, 52 N. E. 239;
S. v. Nnsbaum, 52 Kan. 52, 34 P. 407;
S. f». McCool, 34 Kan. 613, 9 P. 618;
Louisville 9. Hehemann, 161 Ky. 523,
171 S. W. 165; Lawson V. C, 152 Ky.
113, 153 S. W. 56; Burton v, C, 151
Ky. 587, 152 8. W. 545; Louisville V.
Bridwell, 150 Ky. 589, 150 S. W. 672;
Idle V. C, 148 Ky. 618, 147 S. W. 381;
Miracle €. C, 148 Ky. 453, 146 S. W.
1136; Montgomery t?. Morton, 143 Ky.
793, 137 S. W. 540; S. V. Duvall, 135
La. 710, 65 S. 904; 8. t?. Hobgood, 46
La. Ann. 855, 15 8. 406; 8. v. Jeffer-
son, 43 La. Ann. 995, 10 8. 199; Habitz
r. B. Co., 170 Mich. 71, 135 N. W. 827;
P. t?. Harrison, 93 Mich. 594,. 53 N. W.
725; Langdon 1?. Minneapolis St. B. Co.,
120 Minn. 6, 138 N. W. 790; Cart-
wright c. 8., 71 Miss. 82, 14 8. 526;
S. r. Webb, 254 Mo. 414, 162 8. W.
622; S. V. Wana, 245 Mo. 558, 150 8. W.
1065; Stauffer v. Metropolitan 8t. B.
Co., 243 Mo. 305, 147 8. W. 1032; 8.
V. Phillips, 233 Mo. 299, 135 8. W. 4;
8. V. Groce, 230 Mo. 702, 132 8. W.
237; 8. V. Welsor, 117 Mo. 570, 21
8. W. 443; 8. V. Gay, 18 Mont. 61, 44
P. 411; McMartin V, 8., 95 Neb. 292,
145 N. W. 695; McLain <?. 8., 18 Neb.
154, 24 N. W. 720; Bohanan v. 8., 18
Neb. 57, 24 N. W. 390, 53 Am. Bep.
791; Bradshaw v. 8., 17 Neb. 147, 22
N. W. 361; S. V. McMahon, 17 Nev.
365, 30 P. 1000; P. V. Greenwall, 115
N. Y. 520, 22 N. E. 180; 8. tJ. Glass
(N. D.), 151 N. W. 229; 8. V. Knudson,
21 N. D. 562, 132 N. W. 149; Johnson
c. 8., 5 Okla. Cr. 13, 113 P. 552; Frey
r. Failea, 37 Okla. 297, 132 P. 342; 8.
f?. Hatcher, 29 Or. 309, 44 P. 584; 8.
r. Hawkins, 18 Or. 476, 23 P. 475; C.
r. Polichinus, 229 Pa. 311, 78 A. 382;
C. V, Weber, 167 Pa. 153, 31 A. 481;
C. t?. 8mith, 2 Pa. 8uper. 474; 8. t?.
Davis, 88 8. C. 229, 70 8. E. 811, 34
L. B. A. (N. 8.) 295; 8herman v, 8.,
125 Tenn. 19, 140 8. W. 209; King fj,
S., 91 Tenn. 617, 20 8. W. 169; How-
ard r. S., 37 Tex. Cr. 494, 36 8. W.
475, 66 Am. St. 812; Boseow v. S., 33
Tex. Cr. 390, 26 8. W. 625) McKinney
r. 8., 31 Tex. Cr. 583, 21 8. W. 683;
Southern Kansas B. Co. v. Shinn (Tex.
Civ.), 153 8. W. 636; 8. v. Cooper (W.
Va.), 82 8. E. 358; Williams f?. 8., 61
Wis. 281, 21 N. W. 56. 8ee Hinsman
V. 8., 14 Ga. App. 481, 81 8. E. 367,
and note in 7 Am. & Eng. Cas. 229.
In flagrant cases of abuse, even with-
out objection, a new trial will be
granted. Birmingham By., L. Sb P. Co.
17. Gonzalez, 183 Ala. 273, 61 8. 80;
Whaley v. Vanatta, 77 Ark. 238, 91 8.
W. 191, 7 Ann. Cas. 231; P. v. Kizer,
22 Cal. App. 10, 133 P. 516, 521, 134
P. 346; Klink v. People, 16 Colo. 467, 27
P. 1062; McMartin v, 8., 95 Neb. 292,
145 N. W. 695; Clark v. 8., 79 Neb.
482, 113 N. W. 804; Cranford v. O'Shea,
75 Wash. 33, 134 P. 486. See nolo 7
Am. & Eng. Cas. 231. The final test
determining whether the argument is
of such character, is, can the prejudicial
tendency or effect of the improper state-
ment be counteracted by appropriate in-^
atruction by the trial court, or is it
probably beyond the reach of such
remedial action. Birmingham By., L.
& P. Co. €. Gonzalez, 183 Ala. 273, 61
8. 80.
Unless tliere be a motfon to strike the
argument or an instruction asked charg-
ing the jury to disregard the remark,
no error can be founded on such re-
mark. 8. i;. Smails, 63 Wash. 172, 115
P. 82; Taylor V. Modern Woodmen, 42
Wash. 304, 84 P. 867; 8. <?. Wong Tung
Hee, 41 Wash. 623, 84 P. 596; 8. v.
Van Waters, 36 Wash. 358, 78 P. 897;
8. V, Bailey, 31 Wash. 89, 71 P. 715;
8. V. Began, 8 Wash. 506, 36 P. 472.
835-65 Higgins v. U. 8., 185 Ped.
710, 108 C. C. A. 48: Nuckols V. a, 109
Ala. 2, 19 8. 504; Cross t?. 8., 68 Ala.
476; Belk v. 8., 10 Ala. App. 70, 64
8. 515; Bidgell v. 8., 1 Ala. App. 94,
55 8. 327; St. Louis, 1. M. & S. B^ i\
Brown, 100 Ark. 107, 140 8. W. 279;
P. V, Amer, 151 Cal. 303, 90 P. 698;
P. V. Shem Ah Fook, 64 Cal. 380, 1 P.
347; P. V. Hail, 25 Cal. App. 342, 143
P. 803; Appel v. Chicago City B. Co.,
259 111. 561, 102 N. E. 1021; Bulliner
t?. P., 95 m. 394; Hale v. Hale, 169 111.
App. 272; Dangcrfleld f?. Hope, 157 111.
App. 63; Kunkel <?. Chicago Consol.
Tract. Co., 156 HI. App. 393; Hamilton,
Harris & Co. v. Larrimer (lAd.), 105
N. E. 43; Badley v. 8., 174 Ind. 645, 92
N. E. 541; Gillooley v, 8., 58 Ind. 182;
Houk r. Citizens' Nat. Bank, 51 Ind.
App. 628, 99 N. E. 437; Louisville r.
1(^9
Vol. 2
ARGUMENTS
Bridwell, 150 Ky. 589, 150 8. W. 672;
Montgomery v, Morton, 143 Ky. 793,
137 S. W. 540; S. v, Jefferson, 43 La.
Ann. 995, 10 S. 199; Langdon V. Min-
neapolis St. B. Co., 120 Minn. 6, 138
N. W. 790; S. v. Wellman, 253 Mo.
302, 161 S. W. 795; S. v. Wana, 245
Mo. 558, 150 S. W. 1065; S. v. Dudley,
245 Mo. 177, 149 S. W. 449; Stauffer
f?. Metropolitan St. E. Co., 243 Mo.
305, 147 S. W. 1032; S. v. Thompson,
132 Mo. 301, 34 S. W. 31; S. r. Wil-
liams, 121 Mo. 399, 26 S. W. 339;
Downs t?. Eacine-Sattley Co., 175 Mo.
App. 382, 162 S. W. 331; Torreyson v.
United Bys. Co., 164 Mo. App. 366, 145
S. W. 106; McMartin V, S., 95 Neb.
292, 145 N. W. 695; Hill V. S., 42 Neb.
503, 60 N. W. 916; Lee v. Dow, 78
N. H. 101, 59 A. 374; P. v, Hartigan,
210 N. Y. 144, 103 N. E. 1118; P. V.
Brooks, 131 N. T. 321, 30 N. E. 189;
S. t?. Knudson, 21 N. D. 562, 132 N. W.
149; Johnson t?. S., 5 Okla. Cr. 13, 113
P. 552; Prey t?. Failes, 37 Okla. 297,
132 P. 342; S. v. Hatcher, 29 Or. 309,
44 P. 584; C. V, Polichinus, 229 Pa. 311,
78 A. 382; S. f?. Papa, 32 B. I. 453,
80 A. 12; Sherman t?. S., 125 Tenn. 19,
140 S. W. 209;, Clayton v. S. (Tex.
Cr.), 149 S. W. 119; Steinhauser i\ S.
(Tex. Cr.), 48 S. W. 506; Boscow v, S.,
33 Tex. Cr. 390, 26 S. W. 625; 8. v.
Conroy (Wash.), 144 P. 538; Williams
17. S., 61 Wis. 281, 21 N. W. 56; Pull-
man Co. T. Finley, 20 Wyo. 456, 125
P. 380. See Douglas v, S., 21 Ind.
App. 302, 52 N. E. 238; S. v. Hatcher,
29 Or. 309, 44 P. 584; and note in 7
Am. & Eng. Cas. 229, also 46 L. B. A.
645, note IV.
Billing on objection to argument neces-
sary.— ^Birmingham By., L. & P. Co. v.
Gonzalez, 183 Ala. 273, 61 S. 80; Wal-
drip V. Grisham, 112 Ark. 57, 164 S. W.
1133; Ter. t?. Collins, 6 Dak. 234, 50 N.
W.*122; Willingham v. S., 21 Fla. 761;
Appel V, Chicago City B. Co., 259 111.
561, 102 N. E. 1021; S. v, Nusbaum, 52
Kan. 52, 34 P. 407; Wright t?. C, 155
Ky. 750, 160 S. W. 476; Louisville v.
Bridwell, 150 Ky. 589, 150 S. W. 672;
Eberts i?. Mount Clemens Sugar Co.
(Mich.), 148 N. W. 810; P. v. Singer,
174 Mich. 361, 140 N. W. 522; Town-
ship of Deep Biver v. Van Antwerp,
174 Mich. 19, 140 N. W. 531; Freeman
V. Shaw, 173 Mich. 262, 139 N. W. 66;
Close 17. B. Co., 169 Mich. 392, 135 K.
W. 346; Crane v. Boss, 168 Mich. 623,
135 N. W. 83; P. v. Sartori, 168 Mich.
308, 134 N. W. 200; Stauffer V. Metro-
politan St. B. Co., 243 Mo. 305, 147
S. W. 1032; Bohanan I?. S., 18 Neb.
57, 24 N. W. 390, 53 Am. Bep. 791;
McLain v. S., 18 Neb. 154, 24 N. W.
720; Bradshaw v. S., 17 Neb. 147, 22
N. W. 361; Cincinnati Gas & Electrie
Co., 31 O. O. C. 26; Kimm V. Wolters,
28 S. D. 255, 133 N. W. 277; Othold
1?. S. (Tex. Cr.), 33 S. W. 1084.
835-66 Hale t?. Hale, 169 HL App.
272: Spencer V, Johnson (Mich.), 151
N. W. 684; S. V. Webb, 254 Mo. 414,
162 S. W. 622; S. V. Pinley, 245 Mo.
465, 150 S. W. 1051; S. v, Souva, 234
Mo. 566, 137 S. W. 873; S. v. Phillips,
233 Mo. 299, 135 S. W. 4; S. v. Whit-
sett, 232 Mo. 511, 134 S. W. 555; S.
V, Humfeld, 182 Mo. App. 639, 166 S.
W. 33L
Failure of court to stop conns^ on ob-
jection when exceeding the bounds of
legitimate argument is equivalent to a
ruling that the argument is improper or
a refusal to tule. Fadden v. McKinney,
87 Vt. 316, 89 A. 351.
836-67 Johnston Bros. Co. «. Brent-
ley, 2 Ala. App. 281, 56 S. 742; Man-
ning V. S., 13 Ga. App. 709, 79 S. E.
905; Pelham & H. B. Co. v, Elliott,
11 Ga. App. 621, 75 S. E. 1062; P. v.
McCann, 247 HI. 130, 172, 93 N. E.
100; Marriage v. Electric Coal Co., 176
111. App. 451;.MothersiU v. Voliva, 158
111. App. 16; Legru V, Penwell Coal
Min. Co., 149 HI. App. 555; S. 17. WU-
son, 157 la. 698, 141 N. W. 337; Huckell
t>. McCoy, 38 Kan. 53, 15 P. 870;
Knights of Maccabees 17. Shields, 162
Ky. 392, 172 6. W. 696; Stroud V. C,
160 Ky. 503, 169 S. W. 1021; Owens-
boro Shovel & Tool Co. v. Moore, 154
Ky. 431, 157 S. W. 1121; Cincinnati, N.
O. & T. P. B. Co. t?. Martin, 154 Ky.
348, 157 S. W. 710; Houser t?. Carmody,
173 Mich. 121, 139 N. W. 9 (court will
not reverse unless it clearly appears
such argument was unwarranted by the
evidence and probably contributed to
the result); Morrison I?. Carpenter, 179
Mich. 207, 146 N. W. 106; Hlinois C.
B. Co. t?, Weinstein, 99 Miss. 515, 55
S. 48; Collins <?. S., 99 Miss. 52, 54
S. 666; S. V, Webb, 254 Mo. 414, 162
S. W. 622; e. I?. Ferrell, 233 Mo- 452,
136 S. W. 709; Doster v, Chicago, M.
& St. P. B. Co. (Mo. App.), 158 S. W.
440; Philpot V. Fifth Ave. Coach Co.,
142 App. Div. 811, 128 N. Y. S. 35;
Gesualdi u. Personeni, 128 N. T. S.
683; Williams v. S., 4 Okla. Cr. 523,
114 P. 1114; Western Union Telegraph
Co. V. Vickery (Tex. Cr.), 158 S, W.
160
ARGUMENTS
Vol. 2
79£; Freeman v. Oriewe (Tex. Civ.)i
143 S. W. 730.
The trial court, if in his judgxnent the
argnment was improper and prejudicial,
should grant a new trial unhesitatingly.
8. 17. Hall (la.), 1«0 N. W. 97.
8S7*68 St. Louis, I. M. & 8. B. Co.
r Aiken, 100 Ark. 437, 140 S. W. 698;
P. V, Bowers, 79 Cul. 415, 21 P. 752;
Frisby t. V. S., 35 App. Cas. (D. 0.)
513; Cofield V. B., 14 Ga. App. 813, 82
8. is. 855 (mere instruction to disre-
gard insufficient to cure error); Borne
V. Harris, 12 Ga. App. 756, 78 8. E.
475; Goldstone t^. Bustemeyer, 21 Ida.
703, 123 P. 635, app. in Powers v. Boise
Cfity (Ida.), 125 P. 194; Appel v. Chi-
cago City B. Co., 259 HI. 561, 102 N. E.
1021; Pate t?. Gus Blair Big Muddy
Coal Co., 158 HI. App. 578; Cameron
T, Cameron, 162 Mo. App. 110, 144 8.
W. 171 (insufficient correction); Inter-
urban By. & Term. Co. v, Bierman, 81
O. C. C. 663; Morris v. 8., 9 Okla. Cr.
241, 131 P. 731; Cox V. Ter., 2 Okla.
Cr. 668, 104 P. 378; Smith v. 8., 44
Tex. Cr. 137, 100 Am. St. 849, 68 8.
"W. 995; Andrews V. United States
Casualty Co., 154 Wis. 82, 142 N. W.
48T.
PeKsliitenft arguments— Bale v, Chicago
Junction B. Co., 259 Dl. 476, 102 N. E.
808; Moore v, Springfield & N. E. Tract.
Co., 180 m. App. 623.
837-^69 Gawn v. 8., 13 0. C. C. 116.
837-70 Louisville k N. B. Co. v.
Payne, 138 Ky. 274, 127 8. W. 993, Ann.
Cas. 1912A, 1291; Cranford v. O'Shea,
75 Wash. 33, 134 P. 486. See S. v.
Webb, 254 Mo. 414, 162 8. W. 622.
S37-71 Higgins v. V. 8., 185 Fed.
710, 108 C. C. A. 48; Lemuels v. 8.
(Ark.), 166 8. W. 741; Ferguson, etc.
Co. 9. Good, 112 Ark. 260, 165 8. W.
628; Holland v. 8., Ill Ark. 214, 163
8. W. 781; St. Louis, I. M. & 8. B.
Co. €. Aiken, 100 Ark. 437, 140 8. W.
•98; Clark L. Co. v. Bolin, 97 Ark.
S44, 133 8. W. 1116; P. v. McMahon,
124 Cal. 435, 57 P. 224; Wechter v. P.,
53 Colo. 89, 124 P. 183; Eckler r. Wake,
87 Conn. 708, 88 A. 369; Frank v. 8.,
141 Ga. 243, 80 S. E. 1016; 8. V.
CNeil, 24 Ida. 582, 135 P. 60; P. v.
8cott, 261 HI. 165, 103 N. E. 617; P.
«. McCann, 247 HI. 130, 93 N. E. 100;
Spahn V, P., 137 111. 538, 547; P. v.
Oldiield, 173 Til. App. 655; Ledwell v.
Chicago City B. Co., 160 HI. App. 596;
Colekin v. Bamborough, 159 HI. App.
130; Hagniann v, Schoelkopf, 157 HI.
App. 313; Elain v. Majestic Coal &
Coke Co., 155 111. App. 875; 8. i?.
Cooper (la.), 151 N. W. 835; Sullen-
barger t?. Ahrens (Ta.), 150 N. W. 71;
Spaulding v. Laybourn, 164 la. 277, 145
N. W. 521; 8. t?. Perry (la.), 145 N.
W. 56; Swanson v. Ft. Bodge, D. M.
ft 8. B. Co., 153 la. 78, 138 N. W.
351; Boss V. Kohler, 163 Ky. 588, 174
8. W. 36; Louisville & N. B. Co. v.
Mitchell, 162 Ky. 253, 172 8. W. 687;
Bogers v. C, 161 Ky. 754, 171 S. W.
464; 8acrey v. Louisville B. Co., 152
Ky. 473, 153 8. W. 760 ("When the
attorney for plaintiff makes his argu-
ment, he will say thines I cannot reply
to, but I will not butt in as P — has,''
though improper is not prejudice): Lex-
ington B. Co. V, Cropper, 142 Ky. 89,
133 8. W. 968; 8. v. Huvall, 135 La.
710, 65 8. 904; S; v. Bobertson, 133
La. 806, 63 8. 363 (to say the state's
witness is defendant's is not prejudi-
cial); 8. V. Beeves, 129 La. 714, 66 8.
648; Druck V. Antrim Lime Co^ 177
Mich. 364, 143 N. W. 59; 8. v. Brand,
124 Minn. 408, 145 N. W. 39; Mobile
ft O. B. Co. I'. Carpenter, 104 Miss. 706,
61 8. 693; Shows v. 8., 108 Miss. 640,
60 8. 726 ("If you don't convict this
defendant on this testimony, yen had
as well tear the roof off the court house
and throw the law books away"); 8.
r. Harrison (Mo.), 174 8. W. 57; 8.
V. McKinney, 254 Mo. 688, 168 8. W.
822; 8. V. Fenton, 248 Mo. 4S2, 154
8. W. 51; 8. 17. Swain, 239 Mo. 728, 144
8. W. 427; Northcutt 1?. Springfield
Crushed 8tone Co., 178 Mo. App. 389,
162 8. W. 747; Gentry v, Wabash B.
Co., 172 Mo. App. 638, 156 8. W. 27;
8chlaviek v, Friedman-Shelby Shoe Co.,
157 Mo. App. 83, 137 8. W. 79; Pig-
ford V. Norfolk Southern B. Co., 160
N. C. 93, 75 8. E. 860, 44 L. B. A.
(N. 8.) 865; Bouie v. 8., « Okla. Cr.
345, 131 P. 953; 8. V. Davis, 88 8. C.
229, 70 8. E. 811, 84 L. B. A. (N. 8.)
295; Himmelfarb 1?. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 174
8. W. 586; McGowen v. 8. (Tex. Cr.),
164 8. W. 999; Davis f?. 8. (Tex. Cr.),
154 8. W. 550; Clayton «?. 8. (Tex. Cr.),
149 8. W. 119; Collins V, 8. (Tex. Cr.),
148 8. W. 1065; Wright t?. €., 63 Tex.
Cr. 429, 140 8. W. 1105; Turner t?. 8.,
61 Tex. Cr. 97, 133 8. W. 1052; Mis-
souri, K. & T. B. Co. V. Dellmon (Tex.
Civ.), 171 8. W. 799; Missouri, K. &
T. B. Co. t?. Burk (Tex. Civ.), 162 8.
W. 457; International k G. N. B. Co.
t\ Williams (Tex. Civ.), 160 8. W. 639;
Missouri, K, & T. B. Co. v. Fesmire
21
161
Vol. 2
ARGUMENTS
(Tex. Civ.), 150 S. W. 201: Rahm c.
8., 80 Tex. App. 810, 17 S. W. 416, 28
Am. St. 911; Tweedle v. 8., 29 Tex.
App. 586, ^6 8. W. 544; BasQ v, 8., 16
Tex. App. 62, 69. 8ee Birmingliam By.,
L. & P. Co. 17. Gonzalez, 183 Ala. 273,
01 8. 80; Devine r. Chicago City B.
Co., 167 m. App. 361; 8. v. Johnson,
48 La. Ann. 87, 19 8. 213, and note in
46 L. B. A. 650.
837-71 SemarkB held not to waxrant
zovenaL— 43. v. Weiners, 4 Mo. App.
492; 8. V. Kring, 1 Mo. App. 438.
880-72 Goodwin v. U. S., 200 Fed.
121, 118 C. C: A. 295; Jones f?. Tucker,
8 Boyce (Bel.) 422, 84 A. 4, 1012;
8able v. 8., 14 Ga. App. 816, 82 8. E.
879; Johnson v, Chicago City B. Co.,
174 HI. App. 148; Perkins v. 8anitary
Dist., 171 111. App. 582; Prout t?. Mar-
tin, 160 HI. App. 11; Zeigler f^. Chicago
City B. Co., 152 111. App. 409; 8. V.
McClnre, 159 la. 351, 140 N. W. 203;
8. V. Leek, 152 la. 12, 130 N. W. 1062;
8. V. Briggs, 94 Kan. 92, 145 P. 866;
6mith V. lola Portland Cement Co., 86
Kan. 287, 120 P. 349; Wright v. C, 155
Ky. 750, 160 S. W. 476; Continental
Coal Corp. v. Cole's Admr., 155 Ky.
189, 159 8. W. 668; Carson 1?. C, 149
Ky. 294, 148 8. W. 30; Bell's Admr«
V. Louisville B. Co., 148 Ky. 189, 146
8. W. 383; Porter V. C, 145 Ky. 548,
140 8. W. 643; Hunn v, C, 143 Ky.
143, 136 8. W. 144; Southern B. Co.
«. Winchester's Admx., 143 Ky 38, 135
8. W« 411: 8. V. Bobertson, 133 La.
806, 63 8. 363; 8. v. Benjamin, 127 La.
516, 53 8. 847; 8. v. Johnson, 127 La.
458, 53 8. 702; P. v. Sharp, 163 Mich.
79, 127 N. W. 758, 17 Det. Leg. N.
767; 8. V. Donaldson, 243 Mo. 460, 148
8, W. 79; 6. 17. Basco, 239 Mo. 535,
144 8. W. 449, 463; Burns v. United
Bys, Co., 176 Mo. App. 330, 158 8. W,
394; Henley-Waite Music Co. v. Gran-
nis, 171 Mo. App. 392, 157 8. W. 817;
8. V. Murphy, 46 Mont. 591, 129 P.
1058; 8. V. Boberts, 44 Mont. 243, 119
P, 566; Ohio ft Western Pennsylvania
Dock Co. V. Trapnell, 88 O. St. 516,
103 N. E. 761; £dwards v. S., 9 Okla.
Cr. 306, 131 P. 956, 44 L. B. A.' (N. S.)
701 (where there is a conviction of
manslaughter under evidence of mur-
der); Manton v. Kittredge (B. I.), 88
A. 979 (where court directed a verdict,
* argument is a useless proceeding) ; Bod-
riguez €. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 158 S. W. 537;
Boberts v, 8. (Tex. Cr.), 150 8. W.
627 (counsel urged death penalty but
the jury did not inflict it); Clayton i?.
S. (Tex. Cr.), 149 8. W. 119; MDUcan
V. 8., 63 Tex. Cr. 440, 140 8. W. 1136;
Beeson v, 8., 60 Ter. Or. 39, 130 8. W.
1006; Dixon v. 8.. 50 Tex. Cr. 885, 97
8. W. 692; Galveston, etc. B. Co. v.
Duelm (Tex.), 23 8. W. 596; Glover v.
Pfeuffer (Tex. Civ.), 163 8. W. 984;
Fain v. Nelms (Tex. Civ.), 156 8. W.
28l!Vesper v. Lavender (Tex. Civ.), 149
8. W. 377; Guitar v. Bandel (Tex.
Civ.), 147 8. W. 642; Freeman v. Griewe
(Tex. Civ.), 143 8. W. 730 (isolated
statement, "To hell with the court
house,'* although highly improper is
not reversible error) ; Boss v, Cleveland
& Sons (Tex. Civ.), 133 8. W. 315;
Texas, etc. B. Co. v, Baney (Tex. Cfiv.),
23 8. W. 340: 8. t?. Inlow, 44 Utah 485,
141 P. 530; 8. t?. Boone, 65 Wash. 331,
118 P. 46; 8. 17. Cooper (W. Va.), 82
8. E. 358. See Frank v. 8., 141 Ga.
243, 80 8. E. 1016; Swan v. Boston
Store, 177 HI. App. 849 (counsel was
not entitled to the application of the
rule that substantial justice was done
where he himself caused substantial
justice to be clouded) ; S. v. Major, 134
La. 774, 64 8. 710; City of Kalamazoo
c. Standard Paper Co. (Mich.), 148 N.
W. 743; Morgan c. S., 9 Okla. Cr. 22,
130 P. 522; Thacker v. S., 3 Okla. Cr.
485, 106 P. 986; Crutchfield f>. 8. (Tex.
Cr.), 152 S. W. 1053, and note in 9
Am. St 569.
840-73 Wells v. S. (Ark.), 16 8. W.
577; P. V. Ah Len, 92 Cal. 282, 27 Am.
St. 103; Goldstone v. Bustemeyer, 21
Ida. 703, 123 P. 635, app. in Powers
V, Boise City, 22 Ida. 286, 125 P. 194;
Appel V. Chicago City B. Co., 259 lU. 561,
102 N. E. 1021; P. V. Hartford L. Ins.
Co., 252 m. 398, 96 N. E. 1049, 37 L.
B. A. (N. S.) 778; Duffin c. P., 107
ni. 113, 47 Am. Bep. 431; Vandalia C.
Co. f?. Price, 178 Ind. 546, 97 N. E.
429; Heyl v. 8., 109 Ind. 589, 10 N. E.
916; Isgrig V, Franklin Nat. Bank, 53
Ind. App. 217, 101 N. E. 398; 8. t?.
Weston, 98 la. 125, 67 N. W. 84; Massie
V, C, 18 Ky. L. B. 367, 36 S. W. 550;
Price V, C, 15 Ky. L. B. 43, 22 8. W,
157; Duncan v. C, 18 Ky. L. B. 195,
16 8. W. 584; P. r. Bingsted, 90 Mich.
371, 51 N. W. 619; Berry t?. 8. (Miss.),
22 8. 826; Lamar f?. 8., 65 Miss. 93, 3
S. 78; Cavanah v. 8., 56 Miss. 299;
S. V, Banks, 10 Mo. App. Ill; S. v.
Zumbunson, 7 Mo. App. 526; 8. v.
Craine, 120 N. C. 601, 27 8. E. 72;
International & G. N. B. Co. v. Irvine,
64 Tex. 529 (if a preponderance of evi-
dence the verdict, judgment will be
162
ARGUMENTS
Vol. 2
teversed); Ft. Worth & D. C. E. Co.
V. Wininger (Tex. Civ.), 151 8. W.
586, 594; First Nat. Bk. v. Sokolski
(Tex. Civ.), 150 8. W. 312; Hudson v.
8., 28 Tex. App. 323, 13 8. W. 388;
8. r. Moody, 7 Wash. 395, 35 P. 132;
8. r. Shawn, 40 W. Va. 1, 20 8. E.
873. See St. Louis, I. M. & 8. R. Co.
r. Devaney, 98 Ark. 83, 135 8. W. 802,
and note in 9 Am. St. 569.
841-74 Sparks i'. 8., Ill Ga. 830, 35
8. £. 654; Schlaviek v. Friedman-Shelby
Shoe Co., 157 Mo. App. 83, 137 S. W.
79 (permission to comment on evi-
dence not in the record denied); Craig
r. Augusta-Aiken B. Co., 89 8. C. 161,
71 8. £. 983.
841-75 Wechter v. P., 53 Colo. 89,
124 P. 183; Ballard <?. 8., 11 Ga. App.
104, 74 S. E. 846 (statement by the
court that ''what was said by counsel
on either side had nothing to do with
the case,*' is equivocal; he should have
instructed the jury that they were not
concerned with the particular matter
referred to); Knights of Maccabees v.
Shields, 162 Ky. 392, 172 8. W. 696;
In re Judicial Ditch v. Bigstone and
Traverse Counties (Minn.), 142, N. W.
802 (in which counsel referred to the
previous trial, an instruction that this
case was to be determined on its own
evidence is not adequate. They should
have been told to disregard such evi-
dence); Boster v. Chicago, M. ft St. P.
B. Co. (Mo. App.), 158 8. W. 440 (the
correction should fit the offense; the
Antidote kill the poison); Shawnee f?.
Sparks, 26 Okla. 665, 110 P. 884; C. V.
Shoemaker, 240 P. 255, 87 A. 684, vague
instruction does not cure.
841-76 Graham v. U. 8., 231 U. 8.
474, 34 Sup. Ct. 148, 58 L. ed. 319;
Ammennan v. United States, 185 Fed.
1, 108 C. O. A. 1 (argument promptly
stopped by court with instruction);
Jefferson v. 8., 110 Ala. 89, 20 8. 434;
Lingo's Admr. v. Alaska Treadwell Co.,
3 Alaska 9; Bank of Arizona r. Hav-
erty Co., 13 Ariz. 418, 115 P. 73; Ft.
Smith Lnmb. Co. v. Shaekleford (Ark.),
171 8. W. 99 (in connection with coun-
sel's remark disclaiming any intention
of discussing facts not in the record);
St. Louis, I. M. ft 8. By. Co. v. Drum-
right, 112 Ark. 452, 166 8. W. 938;
Ferguson ft W. L. L. H. Co. t?. Good,
112 Ark. 260, 165 8. W. 628; Tillman
«. 8., 112 Ark. 236, 166 8. W. 582;
Waldrip v, Grisham, 112 Ark. 57, 164
8. W. 1133 (court told jury they must
remember the evidence in the case);
McElroy c. 8., 106 Ark. 131, 152 8. W.
1019; Warren i;. 8., 103 Ark. 165, 146
8. W. 477, Ann. Cas. 1914B, 698 (and
counsel made statement similar in ef-
fect to instruction) ; St. Louis, I. M. ft
8. B. Co. V, Aiken, 100 Ark. 437, 140 8.
W. 698; St. Louis, etc. B. Co. v. De-
vaney, 98 Ark. 83, 135 8. W. 802; Story
r. Green, 164 Cal. 768, 130 P. 870, Ann.
Cas. 1914B, 961 (remark of court, "He
is not on trial for his knowledge of the
law" was sufficient to cure the error);
P. 17. Akey, 163 Cal. 54, 124 P. 718; P.
V. Luis, 158 Cal. 185, 110 P. 580; Hans-
brough V. Mann (Cal. App.), 146 P. 896;
P. V. Ong Git, 23 Cal. App. 148, 137 P.
283; P. V. Mancuso, 23 Cal. App. 146,
137 P. 278; 8. V. Watson, 21 Cal. App.
692, 132 P. 836; P. 1?. Lopez, 21 Cal.
App. 188, 131 P. 104 (instruction that
the jury should "consider the state-
ment as argument of counsel and not
as a statement of fact"); P* ^- Buef,
14 Cal. App. 576, 618, 114 P. 48; P. v,
Danford, 14 Cal. App. 442, 112 P. 474;
Kenwood t?. P., 57 Colo. 544, 143 P.
373; Koskoff 17. Goldman, 86 Conn. 415,
85 A. 588; Jones v. Tucker, 3 Boyce
(Del.) 422, 84 A. 4, 1012; Lee v. United
States, 37 App. Cas. (D. C.) 442 (with
apology of counsel) ; Worley v, S., 136
Ga. 231, 71 S. E. 153; Powers v. Boise
City, 22 Ida. 286, 125 P. 194; P. v. Hotz,
261 m. 239, 103 N. E. 1007; Appel V.
Chicago City B. Co., 259 111. 561, 102 N.
E. 1021; P. V. McCann, 274 111. 130, 172,
93 N. E. 100; Dale v. Chicago Junction
B. Co., 174 111. App. 495; Fleming t?.
Chicago City B. Co., 163 111. App. 185;
Whitehead i;. Springfield L. H. ft P. Co.,
161 lU. App. 564; Welty V. 8., 180 Ind.
411, 100 N. E. 73; Wilson v. 8., 175 Ind.
458, 93 N. E. 609; Pigg t?. 8., 145 Ind.
560, 43 N. E. 309; Grubb V. 8., 117 Ind.
277, 20 N. E. 257 (court did aU that
was asked); Burford i*. Dautrich, 55
Ind. App. 384, 103 N. E. 953; Home Tel.
Co. V. Weir, 53 Ind. App. 466, 101 N. E.
1020; Southern By. Co. v, Adams, 63
Ind. App. 322, 100 N. E. 773; 8.
t?. Biewen (la.), 151 N. W. 102; 8.
V. HaU (la.), 150 N. W. 97; 8. i?. Nor-
man, 160 la. 158, 140 N. W. 815;
Thompson v. Chicaj^o ft N. W. B. Co.,
158 la. 235, 139 8. W. 557; Sandy Val.
ft E. B. Co. V. Bentley, 161 Ky. 655,
171 8. W. 178; Glasgow Elec. Light ft
I. Co. V. Clark's Admx., 158 Ky. 734,
166 S. W. 214; Continental Coal Coro*
V. Cole^s Admr., 155 Ky. 139, 159 8.
W. 668; Cincinnati, N. O. ft T. P. B.
Co. r. Spears, 162 Ky. 200, 153 8. W.
163
Vol. 2
ARGUMENTS
236; Burton t\ C, 151 Ky. 587, 152 S.
W. 545: Louisville i;. Arrowsmith, 145
Ky. 498, 140 S. W. 1022; Wilson v. C,
141 Ky. 341, 132 S. W. 557; Turpin V.
C, 140 Ky. 294, 130 8. W. 1086, 140
Am. St. 378, 30 L. R. A. (N. S.) 795;
Handly t?. C, 15 Ky. L. R. 736, 24 S.
W. 609; Cotrell v, C, 13 Ky. L. R. 305,
17 S. W. 149; S. V. Carroll, 134 La. 965,
64 S. 868; S. v. Major, 134 La. 774, 64
S. 710; S. 17. Robertson, 133 La. 806, 63
S. 863, 372; S. t;. Tord, 42 La. Ann. 255,
7 8. 696 (course of argument stopped
by court and the jury instructed);
C. €. Richmond, 207 Mass. 240, 93 N. E.
816; C. V. Cunningham, 104 Mass. 545;
C. V. Bycd, 8 Gray (Mass.), 461 (in-
struction as to weight of argument);
Spencer i?. Johnson (Mich.), 151 N. W.
684; Crawl v. Dancer (Mich.), 147 N.
W. 495; Millspaugh v. Schultz, 180
Mich. 310, 146 N. W. 634; P. v. Mac-
Gregor, 178 Mich. 436, 144 N. W. 869;
Devich V. Dick, 177 Mich. 173, 143 N.
W. 56; 8chock v. Cooling, 175 Mich.
313, 141 N. W. 676 (instruction that
evidence was introduced for a limited
purpose only) ; Township of Deep River
V. Van Antwerp, 174 Mich. 19, 140 N.
W, 531 (correction of statement by
court with suggestion it ought not to
has been made); Bruce v. Michigan
Cent. R. Co^ 172 Mich. 441, 138 N.
W. 362; P. t?. Yund, 163 Mich.
504, 128 N. W. 742, 17 Det. Leg. N.
968; P. V. Stewart, 163 Mich. 1, 127
N. W. 816, 17 Det. Leg. N. 775; S. v.
Virgens (Minn.), 151 N. W. 190; Gra-
seth V, Northwestern Knitting Co.
(Minn.), 150 N. W. 804; Landro v. Great
Northern R. Co., 117 Minn. 306, 135 N.
W. 991, Ann. Cas. 1913D, 244; Carlton
County Farmers' Mut. F. Ins. Co. v.
Foley Bros., 117 Minn. 59, 134 N. "W.
809, 38 L. R. A. (N. S.) 175; S. v. Har-
rison (Mo.), 174 8. W. 57; 8. t?. Levy
(Mo.), 170 8. W. 1114; Ostertag t?. Un-
ion Pac. R. Co., 261 Mo. 457, 169 8.
W. 1; 8. V, Butler, 258 Mo. 430, 167
S. W. 509; S. V, Prince, 258 Mo. 315,
167 8. W. 535; 8. v. Dudley, 245 Mo.
177, 149 8. W. 449; Stauffer v. Metro-
politan St. R. Co., 243 Mo. 305, 147 8.
W. 1032; Schwanenf eldt 1?. Metropolitan
St. R. Co., 186 Mo. App. 588, 174 8. W.
143; Bolles f?. Kansas City S. R. Co.,
163 Mo. App. 697, 147 S. W. 497; Smith
V. Royal Highlanders, 96 Neb. 790, 148
N. W. 952; Roach t?. Wolff, 96 Neb. 43,
146 N. W. 1019; Egner V, Curtis, Towle
& Paine Co., 96 Neb. 18, 146 N. W.
1032, L. R. A. 1915 A, 153; Leete v.
, Southern Pac. Co. (Nev.), 139 P. 29;
Cavanaugh v, Boston A M. R. R., 76 N.
H. 68, 79 A. 694; Cooley v. Eastern Wire
Bound Box Co., 75 U. H. 529, 77 A. 936;
Turner v. Cocheco Mfg. Co., 75 N. H.
521, 77 A. 999; P. v. Poulin, 207 N. Y.
73, 100 N. E. 593; P. v. Dwyer, 160 App.
Div. 542, 145 N. Y. S. 748 (responsive
argument) ; Kuntz v, Howard, 143 App.
Div. 830, 128 N. Y. 8. 101; 8. r. Daven-
port, 166 N. C. 696, 72 S. E. 7; 8. v.
Wilson, 90 N. C. 736; Gunnells v. S., 7
Okla. Cr. 98, 122 P. 264; S. 17. Hum-
phrey, 63 Or, 640, 128 P. 824 (bill of
exceptions incomplete); 8. v» Moore, 82
Or. 65, 48 P. 468; Miller <?. Philadel-
phia Rapid Transit Co., 231 Pa. 627, 80
A. 1108; C. V. Hickman, 231 Pa. 305,
SO A. 254; Shoemaker v, Adams Express
Co., 51 Pa. Super. 284; Keefer v. Mel-
lott, 44 Pa. Super. 471 (counsel apol-
ogized and the court cautioned jury to
disregard the objectionable state-
ments); Champlin v, Pawcatuek ViJ.
St. B. Co., 33 R. I. 572, 82 A. 481;
Brown V. 8.. (Tex. Cr.), 170 8. W. 714;
Fondren v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 169 8. W.
411; Johnson v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 167 8.
W. 733; McElwee t?. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 165
S. W. 927; Thompson. V. 8. (Tex. Cr.),
163 S. W. 973; McGregor v. 8. (Tex.
Cr.), 160 8. W. 711; Stanton r. S.
(Tex. Cr.), 158 8. W. 994; Creech r.
S. (Tex. Cr.), 158 S. W. 277; Collins v.
S. (Tex. Cr.), 152 8. W. 1047; Kiaffer
t7. S. CTex. Cr.), 151 S. W. 1061; Col-
lins f?. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 148 8. W. 1085;
Lee V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 148 8. W. 706;
Welch V. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 147 8. W. 572;
O'Neal I?. 8. (Tex. Cr,), 146 8. W. 938;
Parshall t?. 8., 62 Tex. Cr. 177, 138 8.
W. 759; Jordan v. 8., 62 Tex. Cr. 380,
137 8. W. 133; Barrage v. 8., 61 Tex.
Cr. 625, 136 8. W. 41; La G*one t?. 8.,
61 Tex. Cr. 170, 136 8. W. 121; Smith
t?. S., 44 Tex. Cr. 187, 68 8. W. 995, 100
Am. St. 849; 8. A. N. & G. R. Co. v.
Moya (Tex. Civ.), 173 8. W. 608; Yel-
low Pine P^per Mill Co. v. Lyons (Tex.
Civ.), 159 8. W. 909; Consumers' Lig-
nite Co. I?. Hubner (Tex. Civ.), 154 S.
W. 249; McBlroy v, Sparkman (Tex.
Civ.), 139 8. W. 629; International ft
G. N. B. Co. V, Davison (Tex. Civ.),
138 8. W. 1162: El Paso Electric R.
Co. V. Shaklee (Te?. Civ.), 138 8. W.
188 (the court also sustained the objec-
tion to the argument); Missouri, K. &
T. R. Co. V. Cherry, 44 Tex. Civ. 232, 97
8. W. 712; Newton's Admx. t?. Amer-
ican Car Sprinkler Co., 87 Vt. 546, 90
A. 583; Fadden v, McKinney, 87 Vt.
164
ARGUMENTS
Vol 2
316, 8d A. 351; Neitzcl r. R. Co., 80
Wash. 30, 141 P. 186; S. r. Pacific Amer-
ican Fisheries, 73 Wash. 37, 131 P. 452;
Chicago, M. ft P. S. R. Co. v. Tme, 62
Wash. 646, 114 P. 515; Lasityr u. City,
61 Wash. 651, 112 P. 752 (holding ac-
tion of eourt in refusing to correct
counsel on the ground the jury had
proper instmetionB is not error); Tay-
lor f^. Modem Woodmen, 42 Wash. 304,
84 P. 867; S. V. Ha^rkins, 27 Wash. 375,
67 P. 814; 8. v. Cooper (W. Va.), 82 8.
B. 358; Pullman Co. f?. Pinley, 20 Wyo.
456, 125 P. 380. See Rouse f^. 8., 136
Ga. 356, 71 8. E. 667; Turpin v. C, 140
Ky. 294, 130 8. W. 1086, 30 L. B. A.
(N, 8.) 794; 8. V. Dwyer, 133 La, 731,
63 S. 305 (a belated instruction after
havini^ given his charge to the jury is
insoificient to remove the prejudice);
Western Union Tel. Co. v. Sloss, 45 Tex.
Civ. 153, 100 8. W. 354; Winston V. Ter-
race, 78 Wash. 146, 138 P. 673; and note
in 9 Am. 8t. 569.
Instmctloii sofflcieiit In connectioii with
connsei'tf withdrawal of the remarics.
Motley 9. 8., 105 Ark. 608, 152 8. W.
140; Sodriquez 9. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 158 8.
W. 537.
The coxrectioii diould be as broad as
the injury^ — Alabama Fuel ft Iron Co.
17. Benenante, 11 Ala. App. 644, 66 8.
942.
843-77 Holder v. 8., 58 Ark. 473, 25
8. W. 279; Ga^away u. 8. (Ga. AppO,
83 8. £. 857; Appel i?. Chicago City B.
Co., 259 pi. 561, 102 N. E. 1021 (dis-
senting opinion) • Appel r. Chicago City
B. Co., 172 m. App. 421; Brewer r. C,
11 Ky. t. Bep. 601, 12 8. W. 672; 8.
«. McKinney, 254 Mo. 688, 163 8. W.
822; Sehwanenfeldt v. Metropolitan 8t.
B. Co., 186 Mo. App. 588, 174 8. W.
143.
843-78 (^icago, B. I. ft P« B. Co. 9.
Gnnn, 112 Ark. 401, 166 8. W. 568;
Worden v, Gore-Meenan Cq^ 83 Conn.
642, 78 A. 422; Chicago ft E. B. Co. v.
Lein, 181 Ind. 386, 103 N. E. 847;
Smith V. lola Portland Cement Co., 86
Kan. 287, 120 P. 349; Houser v. Car-
mody, 173 Mich, 121, 139 N. W. 9;
Bates V, Kit^hel, 166 Mich. 695, 132
N. W. 459; Dutcher «. B. Co., 241 Mo.
137, 145 S. W. 63j Connecticut iHre Ins,
Co. V. Chester, P. ft 8. G, B. Co., 171
Mo. App. 70, 153 8. W. 644; St. Louis,
I. M. ft 8. B. Co. V. O 'Connor, 43 Okla.
268, 142 P. 1111: Shoemaker v. Adams
EzpFMs Co., 51 Pa^ Super. 284; Ley v.
Henry, 50 P». Super. 591; International
& G. N. B. Co. r. Irvine, 64 Tex. 529;
Selden-Breck Const. Co. v, Kelley (Tex.
Civ.), 168 8. W. 985; St. Louis South-
western By. Co. V. McNatt (Tex. Civ.),
166 8. W, 89; Missouri, K. ft T. B. Co.
t?. Burk (Tex. Civ.), 162 8. W. 457; In-
ternational ft G. N. B. Co. f. Williams
(Tex. Civ,), 160 8. W. 639; Yellow Pine
Paper Mill Co. v. Lyons (Tex. Civ.),
159 8. W. 909; Ft. Worth ft D. C. B.
Co. 1/. Wininger (Tex. Civ.), 151 8. W.
586, 594. See Ferguson ft Wheeler L.,
L. ft H. Co. 17. Good, 112 Ark. 260^ 165
8. W. 628; Appel <?. Chicago City B.
Co., 259 HI. 561. 102 N. R 1021 (al-
though the verdict was not excessive,
the~ improper argument affecting the
credibility of the witnesses could not
fail to affect the question of liability) ;
Walker ft ^ons v. Pisk (Tex. Civ.), 136
8. W. 101.
844-79 Wechter v. P., 63 Colo. 89,
124 P. 183; Cooper v. 8., 12 Ga. App.
561, 77 8. E. 878; P. V. Duncan, 261
m. 339, 103 N. E. 1043; 8. v. Cooper
(la.), 151 N. W. 835; Truax v. C, 149
Ky. 699, 149 8. W. 1033; 8. v, Harri-
son (Mo.), 174 8. W. 57: 8. v, Hilton,
248 Mo. 522, 154 8. W. 729; 8. v.
Baker, 246 Mo. 357, 152 8. W. 46; Con-
ger t?. 8., 63 Tex. Cr. 312, 140 8. W.
1112; 8. r. Thorne (Utah), 126 P. 287,
and counsel withdrew objectionable re-
mark. See P. V. Hail, 25 Cal. App. 342,
143 P. 803; Jones v. 8., 14 Ga. App. 568,
81 8. E. 801.
844-80 Dunlop r. XT. 8., 165 IT. 8.
486, 17 Sup. Ct. 375, 41 L. ed. 799;
St. Louis Southwestern B. Co. v, Lefiar,
104 Ark. 528, 149 8. W« 530; St Louis,
I. M. ft 8. B. Co. V. Brown, 100 Ark.
107, 140 8. W. 279; Western Union Tel.
Co. f?. Webb, 98 Ark. 87, 135 S. W.
366; California Wine Assn. v. Commer-
cial Union F. Ins. Co., 159 Cal. 49, 112
P. 858; P. V. Davenport, 17 Cal. App.
557, 120 P. 451 (in connection with in-
struction) ; Frisby V. U. 8., 35 App. Cas.
(D. C.) 513; Central Georgia P. Co. v.
Comwell, 141 Ga. 643, 81 8. E. 882;
Swengel v. La Salle Co. C. C. C, 182
HI. App. 623; Newell V, C. C. C. ft St.
L. B. Co., 179 HI. App. 497; Pruner v.
Detroit United By., 173 Mich. 146, 139
N. W. 48; Molin V. Wark, 113 Minn.
190, 129 N. W. 383, 41 L. B. A. (N. 8.)
346; 8. 17. Baker, 246 Mo. 357, 152 S.
W. 46; Sherman v. Southern Pac. Co.,
33 Nev. 385, 111 P. 416, 115 P. 909;
Turner v. Cocheco Mfg. Co., 75 N. H.
521, 77 A. 999; P. v, Stilwell, 81 Mlae.
456, 142 K Y. 8. 628; Smith V. U^ 6
166
Vol a
AmvMmrs
Okla. Cr. 3S0, 118 P. 1003; S. v. HU-
ton, 87 S. C. 434, 69 8. E. 1077, Ann.
Gas. 1912B, 1057; Taylor t?. S. (Tex.
Cr.), 42 S. W. 285; San Antonio, N. k
G. B. Co. V. Moya (Tex. Civ.), 173 S.
W. 608; St. Louis Southwestern B. Co.
t?. McNatt (Tex. Civ.), 166 S: W. 89;
S. V. Thorne, 41 Utah 414, 126 P. 286
(in view of conelusive character of evi-
dence); Citizens' Savings Bk. & T. Co.
r. Fitchburg Mut. P. I. Co., 87 Vt. 231,
86 A. 1056.
Withdrawal by conimel In connectioii
with court's Instmction 8afflci«iit. — Set-
zer I?. S., 110 Ark, 226, 161 S. W. 190;
St. Louis, I. M. k 8. B. Co^ 17. Brogan,
105 Ark. 533, 151 S. W. 699; Jenkins
r. Quick, 105 Ark. 467, 151 S. W, 1021;
Bouse V. S., 136 Ghi. 356, 71- S. £. 667;
Kulvie V. Coal Co., 253 HI. 386, 97 N.
E. 688; Simpson v. Peoria B. Co., 179
HI. App. 307; S. «. Knunm, 148 la. 631,
127 N. W. 985; Wack v. St- Louis, 1.
M. k S. B, Co., 175 Mo. App. Ill, 157
8. W. 1070; BoUes f. B. Co., 163 Mo.
App. 697, 147 S. W. 497; Burnham t?.
StiUings, 76 N. H. 122, 79 A. 987;
Diegel v, 8., 33 O. C. C. 82; Brenisholtz
V, Pennsylvania B. Co., 229 Pa. 88, 78
A^ 37; Ft. Worth k D. C. B. Co. v,
Stalcup (Tex. Civ.), 167 8. W. 279;
Trinity k B. V. B. Co. v. Dodd (Tex.
Civ.), 167 8. W- 238; Houston Chron-
icl«. Pub. Co. 1?. McDavid (Tex. Civ.),
157 8. W. 224; Galveston, H. k S. A.
B. Co. r. West (Tex. Civ.), 155 8. W.
343; Studebaker Bros. Co. v. Kitts (Tex.
Civ.), 152 8. W. 464. And see note in
7 Am. k Eng. Ann. Cas. 232.
845-81 Williams t?. C, 153 Ky. 710,
156 8. W. 372; 8. v, Harrison (Mo.),
174 8. W. 57.
Where the court withdraws the remark
and afterwards specially charges to the
same effect, the error is cured. Cincin-
nati, C. C. k St. L. B. Co. V. Simpson
(Ind.), 104 N. E. 301; Guilford C. Co.
t?. Clark (Ind. App.), 99 N. E. 777;
Puller r. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 154 8. W. 1021.
846-82 P. t7. Buef, 14 Cal. App. 576,
618, 114 P. 48; 8. V. Perrell, 246 Mo.
322, 152 8. W. 33; Stauffer f?. B. Co., 24S
Mo. 305, 147 8. W. 1032; 8. v. Dipley,
242 Mo. 461, 147 8. W. Ill; Dutcher
<?. Wabash B. Co., 241 Mo. 137, 145 8.
W. 63, 74; 8. t?. Deitz, 235 Mo. 332, 138
8. W. 529; 8. r. Wright, 141 Mo. 333> 42
8. W, 934; 8. V. PhilUps, 117 Mo. 389,
22 8. W. 1079; 8. v. Bivers, 90 N. C.
738; White i?. S. (Tex. Cr.), 29 8. W.
476; Bicki t?. 8., 19 Tex. App. 308. See
Douglas V, 8., 21 Ind. App. 302, 52 N*.
£. 238.
Bebuke saffldent where no farther rem-
edy requested. — Mathews v. 8., 32 Tex.
Cr. 355, 23 8. W. 690. But see 8. v.
Shores, 31 W. Va. 491, 7 8. E. 413, 13
Am. St.. 875.
847-83 P. I?. Buef, 14 Cal. App. 576,
114 P. 48, 54; P. i?. Botkin, 9 Cal. App.
244, 98 P. 861; Parkhill V. Bekins Van
k Storage Co. (la.), 151 N. W. 506;
Sandy Valley k E. B. Co. t. Bentley,
161 Ky. 555, 171 8. W. 178; Hoskins r.
C, 152 Ky. 805, 154 8. W. 919; Brewer
«. C, 11 Ky. L. B. 601, 12 8. W. 672;
8. 17. Smith, 250 Mo. 350, 157 8. W. 319
(in connection with an order striking
out the argument); 8. V, Braswell, 82
N. C. 693; Byrd v. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 151
8. W. 1068; Mabry f?. 8., 54 Tex. Cr.
449, 114 8. W. 378; Carver t?. 8., 36 Tex.
Cr. 552, 38 8. W. 183; Biggins v, Sass
(Tex. Civ.), 143 8. W. 689; U. S. «.
Musser, 4 Utah 153, 7 P. 389; 8. v.
Van Waters, 36 Wash. 358, 78 P. 897.
848-84 P. f7. Ernsting, 14 Cal. App.
708, 112 P. 913, counsel stated that re-
mark was but an inference and court
charged jury inferences were to be
drawn from facts legally proved.
848-86 Worley «. 8., 136 Ga. 231, 71
8. E. 153.
849-88 Glass v. 8., 109 Ark. 32, 153
8. W. 1071; Skaggs v, S., 88 Ark. 62,
113 8. W« 346, 16 Am. k Eng. Ann. Cas.
622; Dunham v. Chicago City B. Co.,
178 m. App. 188; Flynn «. Chicago City
B. Co., 155 HI. App. 494; Elam t?. Ma-
jestic Coal k Coke Co., 155 HI. App.
375; Neice v. Chicago k A. B. Co., 165
lU. App 627; P. r. Plopper, 158 HL
App. 250 (and instruction); Ellis t^.
Barkley, 160 la. 658, 142 N. W. 203
(and counsel admitted the justice of
the ruling); P. v, Hoek, 169 Mich. 87,
134 N. W. 1031; McLain tJ. S., 18 Neb.
154, 24 N. W. 720; Bradshaw t?. S., 17
Neb. 147, 2 N. W. 361. But see Birm-
ingham B. Co. r. Drennen, 175 Ala. 33S,
57 S. 876, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 1037; P. r.
Becker. 210 N. Y. 274, 104 N. E. 396.
OessatloB of argument along line ob-
jected to cures any prejudice connected
therewith, Crawford v. Bice k Hutch-
ins Co.. 9ff 8. C. 121, 82 8. E. 273.
Severe rebnke of eonnsel is necessary
in addition to the sustaining of an ob-
jection to improper argument calculated
to arouse prejudice, upthegrove t?. Chi-
cago, G. W- B. Co., 154 m. App. 460.
84^-89 Zumwalt v. 8. (Ariz.), 141 P.
166
ASOVMENTS
Vol. 2
710; P. f?. Amer, 161 Cal. 303, 90 P.
698; P. c. Hail, 25 Cal. App. 342, 143
P. 803; Ellis V. Barkley, 160 la. 658^ 142
N. W. 203; Lawson v. C, 152 Ky. 118,
153 S. W. 56; Idle v, C, 148 Kj, 618,
147 S. W. 381; S. V. Kanupka, 247 Mo.
706, 153 S. W. 1056; 8. v. Snider, 151
Mo. App. 699, 132 S. W. 299; C. 9. Su-
shinakie, 242 Pa. 406, 89 A. 564; Beeves
r. S. (Tex. Cr.), 153 S. W. 127; Moore
r. S. (Tex. Cr.), 144 S. W. 598; South-
ern Kansas B. Co. v. Shinn (Tex. Civ.),
153 S. W. 636; S. v. Humphrey, 63 Or.
540, 128 P. 824, where eounsel merely
set out his version of the prosecutor's
remarks.
The practice of sending up rin^ and
detached statements, etc. Chafino v. 8.
(Tex. Cr.), 154 S. W. 546; Ward v. S.
(Tex. Cr.), 151 S. W. 1073; Clayton V.
S. (Tex. Cr.), 149 S. W; 119; O'Neal v.
S. (Tex, Cr.), 146 S. W* 938; Gamble V.
S. (Tex. Cr.), 146 S. W. 551 (biU show-
ing an insufficiency of facts to require
court to consider it); Griffin v, Chad-
wiek, 44 Tex. 409; Kansas City, etc. B.
Co: V. West (Tex. Civ.), 149 S. W. 206.
Where enough of the proceedings Is not
sent up to enable the appellate court
to pass on the question it will be pre-
sumed the rulings of the trial court
were correct. Star r. 6., 9 Okla. Cr.
210, 131 P. 542.
Asking a qiedAl diarge» shown by a
bill of exceptions, does not show the
language objected to was used. Moore
r. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 144 S. W. 698.
Bin of exceptions held snfllclent.
American Express Co. v, Parcarello
(Tex. Civ.), 162 S. W. 926.
The phonognphle reporter's transcript
of his notes showing the portion of the
argument complained of, and the ob-
jection and action of the trial court
thereon should be brought into the ap-
pellate court. P. V. Fleming, 166 Cal.
357, 136 P. 291, 300, Ann. Cas. 1915B,
S81.
A signed statement of connael is not
the proper way to raise the question
of improper argument. Irvine v. 8.. 10
Okla. Cr. 4, 133 P. 259.
ne conrt shonld direct the stenogra-
pher to place the remarks on the record
when an objection is interposed. C. v.
Shoemaker, 240 Pa. 255, 87 A. 684.
The dxcmnstances under which the re-
marks were made must also be shown.
S. r. Thornton, 108 Mo. 640, 18 S. W.
841.
S51-02 Patrick v. 8., 104 Ark. 255,
149 S. W. 84; Scott r. P., ^^^ ^ ^^»
30 N. E. 329; Sparks v. Scharlaw, 171
111. App. 155; Britton v. McClelland, 156
111. App. 158; S. V. Kilduff, 160 la. 388,
141 N. W. 962j Boss v. Eohler, 163 Ky.
683^ 174 S. W. 36; St. Paul, etc. Ins.
Co. V. Kendle, 163 Ky. 146, 173 8. W.
373; Chesapeake ft 0. B. Co. v. Staple-
ton, 154 Ky. 351, 157 S. W. 702; Ban-
non V. Trust Co., 160 Ky. 401, 150 8. W.
510; Blanton v. C, 147 Ky. 812, 146
S. W. 10; Hendrickson V. C, 147 Ky.
298, 143 S. W. 993; Sparks V. Sip-
pie, 140 Ky. 642, 131 S. W. 389;
Keeton i;. S., 102 Miss. 747, 59 8. 884;
S. V. Teeter, 239 Mo. 475, 144 S.
W. 445; 8. v. Groce, 230 Mo. 702, 132
8. W. 237; 8. v. Hayes, 81 Mo. 574;
S. V. Vertrees, 33 Nev. 509, 112 P. 42;
S. V. Drake, 11 Or. J96, 4 P. 1204; 8. v.
Bash, 27 8. D. 185, 130 N. W. 91, Ann.
Cas. 1913D, 656 (absence of judge dur-
ing argument) ; Sherman v, 8., 125 Tenn.
19, 140 S. W. 209; Simmons v. 8. (Tex.
Cr.), 164 8. W. 843; Lee v. 8. (Tez.
Cr.), 162 8. W. 843; Hooper v. 8. (Tex.
Cr.J, 160 8. W. 1187; Grimes v. 8. (Tex.
Cr.), 160 8. W. 689; Luttrell v, 8., 70
Tex. Cr. 183, 157 8. W. 157; Holmes v.
8., 70 Tex. Cr. 214, 156 S. W. 1172;
Bogue V. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 155 8. W. 943;
Kirby v. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 150 8. W. 455;
McWhirter f?. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 146 8. W.
189; Moore v. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 144 8. W.
698; Holland v. 8., 61 Tex. Cr. 201, 134
8. W. 693; Epson V. 8. (Tez. Cr.), 36 8.
W. 584; Spencer v, 8., 84 Tex. Cr. 65,
29 8. W. 159; Griffin v. Chadwiek. 44
Tex. 409; Watson v. 8., 28 Tex. App.
34, 12 S. W. 404; Jackson v. 8., 18 Tex.
App. 586; Anschicks v, 8., 6 Tex. App.
524; Baker v. 8., 69 Wis. 32, 33 N. W.
52. See also vol. 4, p. 319, n. 92, and
supplement thereto.
That remarks were not ofldally re-
ported is immaterial where they are in-
corporated in the bill of exceptions.
Louisville ft N. B. Co. v, Payne, 138 Ky.
274, 127 8. W. 993, Ann. Cas. 1912A,
1291.
In Phfllpplnes the argument of counsel
forms no part of a bill of exceptions
and should be excluded therefrom.
Alino V. Yillamor, 2 PhiL Isl. 234,
Contents of bill of exceptions*— Bills
of exceptions should show, within them-
selves, a sufficient statement of the
evidence and arffument used so that
the court can tell therefrom whether
they were of such character as to re-
quire a reversal. Conger v. 8., 61 Tez*
16/
Vol. 2
ARUAlGifMtlNT AND PLEA
Or. 312, 140 S. W. 1112. See also S. v.
Gruber, 19 Ida. 692, 115 P. 1.
851-94 Miller t. 8., 9 Okla. Cr. 255,
131 P. 717; Smith «. S., 0 OkL Cr. 282,
114 P. 350.
851-96 Mayes v. P., 106 HL 306, 46
Am. Bep. 586; Choen v. S., 85 Ind.
209; Swanflon v. Ft. Bodge D. M. &
S. E. Co., 163 la. 78, 133 N. W. 351;
S. V. Teeter, 239 Mo. 475, 144 S. W.
445; Bouie V, &., 9 Okla. Cr. 345, 181
P. 953; Smith V. S., 5 Okla. Cr. 282, 114
P. 350; Sherman v, S., 125 Tenn. 19,
140 S. W. 209; Steinhanser «. S. (Tex.
Cr.), 48 S. W. 506; Jackson v, S., 18
Tex. App. 586.
85:^97 St. Louis, I. M. ft S. B. Co.
V. Earle, 103 Ark. 356, 146 S. W. 520;
Kinffan ft Co. v. King, 179 Ind. 285, 100
N. i. 1044; Louisville ft N. B. Co. «.
Wilkins, 143 Ky. 572, 136 S. W. 1023,
Ann. Cas. 1912I>, 518; Taylor f?. Met-
ropolitan St. By. Co., 256 Mo. 191, 165
S. W. 327; Stauffer v. Metropolitan St.
B. Co., 243 Mo. 305, 147 S. W. 1032;
Pullman Co. v. Finley, 20 Wyo. 456, 125
P. 380. See Cromer «. S., 21 Ind. App.
502, 52 K. E. 239.
852-98 P. 17. McMahon, 124 Cal. 435,
57 P. 224; Gannon f?. P., 127 111. 607, 21
N. E. 525, 11 Am. St. 147; Spaulding v.
Layboum, 164 la. 271, 145 N. W. 521;
Blanton vl C, 147 Ky. 812, 146 S. W.
10; Hendriekson V. C, 147 Ky. 298, 143
S. W. 993; MUler 9. S., 9 Okla. Cr. 255,
131 P. 717^ C. V. McClellan, 42 Pa. Su-
per. 504; Sherman v, S., 125 Tenn. 19,
140 S. W. 209; MeGowen v. S. (Tex.
Cr.), 164 S. W. 999; Southern Kansas B.
Co. V, Shinn (Tex. Civ.), 153 S. W.
636.
Incoiporatioii of acguuieiit In sliorfe*
hand report of trial is sufficient record
to show ground of objection. Whether
sufficient certification of judge that
language was thus used, quaere. Swan-
son V. Ft. Dodge, D. M. ft S. B. Co., 163
la. 78, 133 N. W. 361.
853-3 Bupel v. Oil Co., 176 Ind. 4,
95 N. E. 225, Ann. Cas. 1912E, 836,
written application.
A veQiNBt mad sepante ftam tbB briefto
of counsel is contemplated by the rule
of court. McLeod v. Citiaena' Bank, 61
FUu 350, 56 S. 190.
863-4^ Tbne for filing briefto Umits
the time for making request for* oral
argument. Bupel v. Ohio Oil Co., 176
Ind. 4, 95 N. E. 225.
854-X4 Kinnon v. Lonisville, etc. B.
(Ala.), 65 S. 397; Sovereign Camp W.
O. W. V. Latham (Ind. App.), 107 N.
E. 749; Merchants, etc. Co. v, Mui;phy
(Mass.), 107 N. B. 968; Wellington v.
City of Cambridge (Mass.), 107 N. E.
976.
ABBAXONMEMT AMD PLEA
861-8 Harmon «. S., 8 Ala. App. 311,
62 S. 438.
864^13 Johnson v, U. S., 225 TJ. 8.
405, 32 Sup. Ct. 748, 56 L. ed. 1142,
aff. 38 App. Cas. (D. C.) 347; Souther-
land V. 8., 176 Ind. 493, 96 N. S. 583.
864-16 Johnson v. U. 8., 225 IT. S.
405, 32 Sup. Ct. 748, 56 L. ed. 1142,
aff. 38 App. Cas. (D. C.) 347.
864-17 S. V. Witherspoon, 231 Mo.
706, 133 S. W. 323; 8. v. Moss, 164 Mo.
App. 379, 144 i W. 1109; S. t?. Ham-
Bhaw, 61 Wash. 390, 112 P. 379.
865-20 Whether in oyeci court. — ^A
person held under indictment must be
arraigned in open court, and on plea of
guilty can be sentenced by the court
only. One held under an information
may be arraigned, may plead and be
sentenced in vacation. Jones o.
M'Glaughry (la.), 151 N. W. 210.
866-23 Conspiracy is triable in court
of quarter sessions without arraign-
ment. C. V, Ferguson, 44 Pa^ Super.
626.
866-23 See McKay 9. S., 90 Neb.
63, 132 N; W. 741, Ann. Cas. 1913B,
1034, 39 L. B. A. (N. S.) 714.
After amended indictment is filed a re-
arraignment is not necessaiy in Louisi-
ana. 8. V, Evans, 135 La. 891, 66 8.
259.
866-24 8. 17. Dargatz, 244 Mo. 218,
148 8. W. 889; 8. V. Foley, 44 Mont.
311, 120 P. 225.
866-29 Andrews v, 8., 33 O. C. C.
564.
Filing demurrer after pie* of not gnilty
does not withdraw plea so as to re-
quire e new arraignment. 8. v. Can-
non, 232 Mo. 205, 134 8. W. 513.
867-81 Anderson v. 8., 33 O. O. OL
564.
867-33 U. S. V. Bomas, 1 Phil. Isl.
81.
869-48 8outherland v. 8., 176 Ind.
493, 96 N. E. 583.
869-49 Mason v. 8. (Tez. Cr.), 168
8. W. 115.
US'
AB&AIGNMENT AND PLEA
Yol. 2
^70-52 Jones r. McClaughry (la.)i
151 N..W. 210.
871-54 Demmxer waives arUtigmfleitt.
Kincade 17. S.^ 14 Ga. App. 544, SI 8. S.
910.
Heading under protest^ as where be
calls attention to fact that he does not
intend to waive arraignment, saves his
right thereto. Harris r. S., 11 (^a. App.
137, 74 S. E. 895.
871-58 S. 1?. Elasner (N. Id*.), 145 P.
679. See P. f?. Weeks, 165 Mich. 362,
130 K W. 697, 18 Det. Leg. N. 136.
872-60 ^Waiver hy attorney is not
permissible in felony eases. Souther-
Und t?. S., 176 Ind. 493, 96 N. ^ 583:
8. V, Meekins^ 41 La. Ann. 543, 60 S.
822; Younger V. S., 2 W. Va. 579, 98
Am. Dec. 791.
872-65 Burroughs v. S., 94 Neb. 519,
143 N. W. 450.
necessity of showing formal arraign-
ment.— ^It is immaterial whether record
shows a formal arraignment where it
does fihow defendant was present and
represented by counsel, aided in selec-
tion of jury, and cross-examined state 's
witnesses, introduced evidence in his
own behalf, and tnat case was proper-
ly submitted to jurv. Hast v. Ter., 5
Okla. Cr. 162, 114 P. 261.
873-72 Davidson tJ. S., 108 Ark. 191,
158 S. W. 1103, Ann. Gas. 1915B, 436.
874-73 S. V. Moss, 164 Mo. App. 379,
144 S. W. 1109; S. v, Brennan, 83 N.
J. L. 12, 84 A. 1066; S. v. Drown, 85
Vt. 233, 81 A. 641.
874-74 P. f?. Tomsky, 20 Cal. App.
672, 130 P. 184; S. t). Barr, 7 Penne.
(Del.) 340, 79 A. 730.
The gmeral issne cannot be eradsd
because if not tendered the statute
forces it. Barrett f>. 8., 175 Ind. 112^
93 N. K 543.
"Wliere bat one of two connti ie ideeded
to, and there is a convietion on the
nnpleaded count, the conviction is in-
valid because unsupported by a plea.
6. V. Brennan, 83 N. J. L. 12, 84 A.
1066; Gaither v. S., 21 TeX. App. 527,
1 8. W. 456.
874-75 P. f>. Weeks, 165 Mich. 362,
130 N. W. 697, 18 Det. Leg. N. 136;
a e. Drown, 85 Vt. 233, 81 A. 641.
Entry of plea alter "veidict withont
consent of accused does not cure a fail*
nre to plec^. 8. v. Brennan, 83 N. J.
L. 12, 84 A. 1066.
874-76 S. r. Drown, 85 Vt. 233, 81
A. 641.
875^8 P. r. Weeks, 165 Mich. 362,
130 N. W. 697, 18 Det. Leg. N. 136;
S. V. O'Kelley, 258 Mo. 345, 167 8. W.
980, 52 L. B. A. (N. S.) 1063; Davis
tJ. S. (Tex. Cr.), 158 S. W. 283. See
Toney v. 8., 10 Ala. App. 220, 65 8.
92.
876-82 Comp, P. r. Afton, 258 111.
292, 101 N. E. 557.
877^5 McKay «. S., 91 Neb. 281,
136 N. W. 1024, Ann. Cas. 1913B, 1034,
39 L. B. A. (N. 8.) 720, mod, 90 Neb.
63, 132 N. W. 741; Ann. Cas. 1913B,
1034, 39 L. B; a. (N. S.) 714.
879^94 In Oregon also under L. O.
L., 11500.
879-95 In Nebraska, Or. Code, $436,
provides for one day after receiving
copy of indictment in which to plead.
McKay v, 8., 90 Neb. 63, 132 N. W.
741, Ann. Cas. 1913B, 1034, 39 L. B.
A. (N. 8.) 714.
In OUaboma a defendant arraigned on
a felony charge is entitled to one day
in which to plead. Schlumbohm v, 8.,
5 Okla. Cr. 36, 113 P. 235.
In Texas, etc. Graham t\ 8. (Tex. Cr.),
160 8. W. 714.
880-99 8. «. Moss, 164 Mo. App. 379,
144 8. W. 1109.
882-13 8. f>. Holloway, 57 Or. 162,
110 P. 397.
883-17 Bearden «. 8., 13 Ga. App.
264, 79 8. E. 79; 8. t?. Holloway, 57 Or.
162, 110 P. 397.
88S-30 n. 8. f>. Molo, 5 Phil. Isl.
412; XT. 8. t?. Paquit, 5 PhU. Isl. 635.
886-32 S. r. Priedley, 73 W. Va. 684,
80 8. ;B. 1112.
886-^42 Where meh demnrrer is over-
ruled the eourt must submit to the jury
the issues made by the replication be-
fore trial on merits. Beynolds t-. 8.,
1 Ala. App. 24, 65 8. 1016.
DenmifW to replication to plea in abate-
ntent reaches back to the plea. Young
V, 3., 68 fla. 55, 58 8. 188.
M7-46* P. f?. McCarthy, 176 111: App.
A99.
888-51 See Pittcock t?. 8. (Tex. Cr.),.
163 8. W. 971.
888-52 See Hyde v, TJ. 8., 33 App.
Cas. (B. C.) 451, certiorari granted,
218 U. 8. 681, 31 Sup. Ct. 228, 54 L.
ed. 1207; Krause t?. S., 88 Neb. 473) 129
N. W. 1020, Ann. Cas. 1912B, 736.
169
Vol a
AUUAWifMENT AND PLEA
Sudi a plea must be taken before plead-
ing the general issue. Dowdell v, U. S.,
221 U. S. 325, 81 Sup. Ct. 590, 55 L.
ed. 753.
Objection to legality of grand jurors
may be interposed by plea in abate-
ment. Green v, 8., 60 Fla. 22, 53 S.
610. Camp, Obbaniss v, 8., 8 Ga. App.
129, 68 8. E. 849. See also 1 Stand-
ABD Pboc. 31.
Tnfmffldency of eyldence before grand
Jury not a ground for abatement.
Lesueur v. S., 176 Ind. 448, 95 N. E.
239. See also 1 Standard Pboo. 33.
Time for plea. — ^Plea in abatement must
be interposed before a plea in bar.
Green v. S., 60 Fla. 22, 53 8. 610.
See "also 1 Standard Prog. 57, and sup-
plement thereto.
889-53 Epley i?. P., 51 Colo. 596, 119
P. 1062.
TTnaathorized discharge of Jnry* — ^Wbere
the jeopardy relied upon is the un-
authorized discharge of the jury the
plea should set up the order of dis-
charge or aver that no order was entered
, upon the minutes. Andrews v, S., 174
Ala. 11, 56 8. 998, Ann. Cas. 1914B,
760.
"Wliere a different offense is shown' the
plea is demurrable. Huckabee <?. 8.,
168 Ala. 27, 53 S. 251.
A special plea is necessary. Boberson
V, 8., 183 Ala. 43, 62 8. 837; Graham v.
8., 11 Ala. App. 113, 65 S. 717. See
Ter. V. Lobato, 17 N. M. 666, 134 P.
222.
A copy of the accusation on which de-
fendant was previously tried, must be
set out in the plea. Whitley v» 8., 14
Ga. App. 577, 81 S. E. 797.
Proper practice where plea In bar is
Interposed is for counsel to prepare
written statement of facts relied upon
which defendant or his counsel reads,
whereupon the court inquires if that
is his plea and directs clerk to enter
statement on journal. If facts are con-
troverted by state a jury is empaneled
to determine the issue, and if the jury
finds for him he is discharged, but if
agai^ist him a trial on the merits is
then had. 8. V, Holloway, 57 Or. 162,
110 P. 397.
889-55 Plea mnst set forth the facts
to show how and in what manner ac-
cused had been in jeopardy. 8. f . Hol-
loway, 57 Or. 162, 110 P. 397, 791.
889-57 Oonylction or acquittal must
tuiTe been on the merits in order to
be available. P. v. Warden, 202 N. Y.
138, 95 N. E. 729, af. 139 App. Di^
488, 124 N. Y. 8. 341.
889-58 P. V. Strickler, 167 Cal. 627,
140 P. 270.
889-59 See P. t\ McGrath, 202 N.
Y. 445, 96 N. E. 92.
Plea of autrefois attaint is superseded
by plea of autrefois convict. Jenkins
V. S., 14 Ga. App. 276, 80 S. E. 688.
889-60 P. V. McGrath, 202 N. Y. 445,
96 N. E. 92.
Iiffanner of pleading prescribed by code
should be adhered to. Shirley v. C,
143 Ky. 183, 136 S. W. 227.
The date, place and offense must be
set out. P. V. Cuatt, 70 Misc. 453, 126
N. Y. 8. 1114; Creech v. 8. (Tex, Cr.),
158 8. W. 277.
890-68 See Green v, V. 8., 40 App.
Cas. (D. C.) 426, 46 L. B. A. (N. 8.)
1117.
893-79 Ex parte Holdaway, 105 ArK.
1, 150 8. W. 123; Wolfe V, 8., 102 Ark.
295, 144 S. W. 208. See Griffin v,
S., 12 Ga. App. 615, 77 S. E. 1080.
893-82 Griffin v. S., 12 Ga. App. 615,
77 S. E. 1080. See Patton v. 8., 62
Tex. Cr. 28, 136 S. W. 42.
895-86 P. V. Earing, 146 App. Div.
903, 133 N. Y. 8. 1136, af. 71 Misc.
615, 130 N. Y. 8. 1099.
895-86 Indndes every element of
the crime charged in indictment. P. €.
Hartsig, 249 111. 348, 94 N. E. 525.
895-91 Green i?. TJ. S., 40 App. Cas.
(D. C.) 426, 46 L. B. A. (N. S.) 1117;
P. t?. Pox, 150 App. Div. 114, 134 N.
Y. S. 642, af. 205 N. Y. 490, 99 N. E.
147.
896-93 Erratum. — ^Tbe second line of
the text should be omitted and re-
placed by the following, "But to de-
termine whether to impose life im-
prisonment or death the court may ex-
amine witnesses. "^8
897-96 Ex parte Biclcson, 36 Nev.
94, 133 P. 393.
A plea of goilty to an information
which charged no offense is not a plea
of guilty to any crime whatever. P.
17. BeU, 148 N. Y. S. 753.
Jurisdictional defects are not waived
by such plea. P. v. Earing, 71 Misc.
615, 130 N. Y. S. 1099.
897-97 P. V. Puchs, 71 Misc. 69, 25
N. Y. Cr. 507, 129 N. Y. S. 1012.
900-6 Bearden v. S., 13 Ga. App.
170
AnttAlGNMMT AND PLUA
Vol 2
S64, 79 S, E. 79; Woodward v. S., 13
Ga. App. 130, 78 S. E. 1009; Jenkins v.
S^ 6 Okla. Cr. 510, 120 P. 298; McDan-
iel 1?. S., 6 Okla. Cr. 710, 120 P. 299;
U. S. V. Grant, 18 Phil. IbI. 122; U. S.
V. Molo, 5 Phil. IbI. 412; U. S. v, Pa-
qmt, 5 PhU. IbI. 635.
In a murder case the court may dlBmlBs
eharge and allow defendant to plead
gcil^ to manslaughter. S. v. McDon-
ald, 10 Okla. Cr. 413, 137 P. 362.
901-7 TJ. S. V. Grant, 18 Phil. M.
122.
901-9 P. V. Bostic, 167 Cal. 754, 141
P. 380; S. V. George, 134 La. 861, 64
S. 800.
902-10 S. V, Maresca, 85 Conn. 509,
83 A. 635; P. t?. Walker, 250 111. 427,
95 N. K 475.
903-14 S. V. Maresca, 85 Conn. 609,
83 A. 635; Griffin i\ S., 12 Ga. App. 615,
77 S. E. 1080.
90S-20 S. V, Hopkins (Del.), 88 A.
473.
90ll»-21 C. 17. Ferguson, 44 Pa. Super.
626.
90ll»-22 Tucker 17. U. S., 196 Fed.
260, 116 C. C. A. 62, 41 L. B. A. (N.
8.) 70; C. V. Ferguson, 44 Pa. Super.
626.
905-24 Flea of nolo eontendere is
limited to misdemeanor cases punish-
able by fine alone. Tucker v. U. S., 196
Fed. 260, 116 C. C. A. 62, 41 L. B. A.
(N. 8.) 70.
905-26 C. V. Ferguson, 44 Pa. Su-
per. 626.
905-27 Allowable in Colorado under
Bev. St., 1908, §1982. Young t?. P., 53
Colo. 251, 125 P. 117.
OOS.28 n. S. V. Lair, 195 Fed. 47,
115 C. C. A. 49.
007-36 Hallinger r. Davis, 146 TJ. 8.
314, 13 Sup. Ot. 105, 36 L. ed. 986; XT.
S. r. Lair, 195 Fed. 47, 115 C. C. A. 49;
West r. Gammon, 98 Fed. 426, 39 C.
0. A. 271.
IM>T-3T S. r. Alderman, 81 N. J. L.
549, 79 A. 283.
908-58 P. i;. McCarthy, 176 111. App.
499; 8. V. Drown, 85 Yt. 233, 81 A. 641.
911-60 Boberson v. 8., 183 Ala. 43,
62 8. 837; Broughton V. 8., 9 Ga. App.
820, 72 8. £. 276.
Plea of Immiuiity cannot be preeented
under plea ot not guilty. Scribner v,
8., 9 Okla. Cr. 465, 132 P. 933, Ann.
lAlOP^ 881.
912-70 Smith v. United States, 208
Fed. 131, 125 C. C. A. 353; Prettyman
V. U. S., 180 Fed. 30, 103 C. C. A. 384;
Kimball v. Ter., 13 Ariz. 310, 115 P.
70; S. V. Buonomo, 87 Conn. 285, 87 A.
977; Jones v. S., 12 Ga. App. 133, 76 S.
E. 1070; International H. Co. v. C, 147
Ky. 657, 144 8. W. 1070.
That defendant is a corporation may
be shown under such plea. Madison-
viUe, etc' B. Co. v. C, 140 Ky. 255, 130
S. W. 1084.
913-74 XT. S. i\ Lewis, 192 Fed. 633;
S. V. Pace, 159 N. C. 462, 74 S. E. 1018.
Contra, Morgan t?. S., 8 Ala. App. 172,
63 8. 21. See also 1 Standard Proc.
60.
913-75 P. V. Kaiser, 150 App. Div.
541, 135 N. Y. 8. 274, af, 206 N. Y. 46,
99 N. £. 195.
913-77 Eagland v. S. (Ala.), 65 S.
776; Goemann v, S., 94 Neb. 682, 143
N. W. 800.
913-78 Phillips t\ IT. S., 201 Fed.
259, 120 C. C. A. 149.
914-79 Waller v. U. S., 179 Fed.
810, 103 C. C. A. 302, 31 L. E. A. (N.
8.) 113; P. t?. Jone8,^263 111. 564, 105
N. E. 744; P. V, Turner, 260 111. 84, 102
N. E. 1036, Ann. Cas. 1914D, 144; P.
V. Straueh, 247 111. 220, 93 N. E. 126;
Weatherholt v. S., 9 Okla. Cr. 161, 131
P. 185.
Tho offect of withdrawing a plea of
not guilty is to put defendant in same
position as if no plea had been en-
tered. Gibbons v. Ter., 5 Okla. Cr.
212, 115 P. 129.
Where there 1b a reserration of the
right to withdraw a plea of not guilty
and file a motion to quash, the subse-
quent filing of the plea does not ipso
facto withdraw the plea, especially
when accused went to trial on merits
without objections on same day. S. t?.
Seals, 135 La. 602, 65 S. 756.
916-87 In misdexneaaor cases the
record mnst show that issue was made
by plea of not guilty. P. v. McCarthy,
176 111. App. 499.
917-9S TJ, S. V. Molo, 5 Phil. Isl.
412.
918-4 Parker f?. S., 2 Ala. App. 127,
66 S. 872; James v. S., 110 Ark. 170,
160 8. W. 1090; S. t?. XJnsworth, 85 N.
J. L. 237, 88 A. 1097, aff. 84 N. J. L.
22, 86 A. 64.
918-e Wentxel f. P.» 55 Celo. 88, 188
P. 415.
171
Vol. 2
ARREST IN CIVIL CASES
A plea of the statute of limitatioiis will
not put in issne a charge of a continu-
ing conspiracy, guch allegations must be
denied under the general issue. U. S. <?.
Barber, 219 U. 8. 72, 31 Sup. Ct. 209,
55 L. ed. 99; U. 8. t\ Kissel, 218 U. S.
601, 31 Sup. Ct. 124, 54 L. ed. 1168, fev.
173 Fed. 823.
919-16 Fritz v. S., 178 Ind. ,463, 99
N. E. 727.
919-17 Alford v. S,, 137 Ga. 468, 73
S. E. 376.
919-18 Alford v. 8., 137 Ga. 458, 73
8. E. 375.
919-19 Alford v. S., 137 Ga. 468, 73
8. E. 375.
ABBEST IN OIVH. OASES
926-6 Soule r. Ottawa Circ. Judge,
175 Mich. 127, 140 N. W. 990.
927-10 Ex parte La Due, 161 Oal.
632, 120 P. 13.
927-11 8. t?. Keller (W. Va.), 81 S.
E. 972.
928-12 Ex parte Boyd, 36 Nev. 162,
134 P. 455, Ann. Cas. 1915A, 1277.
934-64 Reiss r. Levy, 165 App. Div.
1, 150 N. Y. 8. 440.
936-71 Lewis €?. Lewis, 77 Misc. 412,
136 N. Y. 8. 686, 3 Civ. Proc. (N.
S.) 1.
938-76 Ex parte Caples (Cal. App.),
148 P. 795; Manhattan Com. Co. v.
Leuchtenberg Co., 77 Misc. 665, 138 N.
Y. 8. 168.
939-89 Pratt v. Allegan Circ. Judge,
177 Mich. 668, 143 N. W. 890.
939-90 That affiant has personal
knowledge of the facts stated must be
shown. Martin r. Circuit Judge, 173
Mich. 22, 138 N. W. 273. See Soule tJ.
Ottawa Circ. Judge, 175 Mich. 127, 140
N. W. 990.
941-98 Manhattan Com. Oo. r. Leuch-
tenberg Co., 77 Misc. 665, 138 N. Y. 8.
168.
944-20 Juskovitz v, Rafsky, 130 1^.
Y. 8. 839.
955-3 Ex parte Caples (Cal. App.),
148 P. 795.
956-8 Brown u. Ball (N. D.), 150 N.
W. 890. .
964-76 Beinboth v. Ederheimer, 134
N. Y. 8. 16. ^ '
964-79 S. V. Keller (W. Va.), 81 S.
E. 972. '
966-89 Davidson r. Bheim, 184 JfL
Y. S. 1091.
966«9d Jnstioe of the peace Aay is-
sue Writ in the lUanner and under con-
ditions prescribed in §861-865, Code Civ.
Proc. Ex parte La Due, 161 Oai. 682.
120 P. 13.
968-19 Juskovitz v. Bafsky, 130 N.
Y. a. 839.
97l-d6 la an actitm for fllandAr
where it was alleged that defendant in
the presence of many said, "You thief,
what do you want heret ... I can
prove you are a thief,'' l&ere is a suM-
cient cause of action, and it is erton-
eous to set aside an order of arrest.
Juskovitz V. Bafsky, 180 N. Y. S. dd9.
972-64 8e6 Harpef v. Jefferff, 139 Ga.
756, 78 8. E. 172.
974-65 Ex parte Boyd, 36 Nev. lei,
134 P. 465, Ann. Cks. 1916A, 1277.
974-67 Comp. Badtke v. P., 171 HL
App. 462.
974-70 Ex parte Boyd, 36 Nev. 182,
134 P. 455, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 1277.
ABBE8T OF JUDaiOlTr
982-1 8. V. Heft, 155 la. 21, 184 N.
W. 950 (quoting statute); S. v. Muir,
92 Kan. 165, 139 P. 1158 (quoting' stat-
ute) ; Hamilton v. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 145 8.
W. 348.
982-2 S. V, 8tickney, 108 Me. 186,
79 A. 370.
988-9 8. V. Mead, 27 8. D. 381, 181
N. W. 305; 8. v. Mewhinney, 44 Utah
231, 139 P. 862.
983-10 P. t>. Tomsky, 20 Cal. App.
672, 130 P. 184.
984-13 Jones v. 8., 100 Ark. 195, 189
8, W. 1126; McManus v. Thing, 208
Mass. 55, 94 K E. 293.
984-15 Statutory gtonnda eselnalTe.
Jones e. 8., 100 Ark. 196, 139 S. W.
1126.
In Arkaneas, motion in arrest is Hot
recognized in civil cases. Collier «•
Newport, etc. Co., 100 Ark. 47, 139 S.
W. 635, Ann. Gas. 1913D, 458; Byas «.
Fielder, 99 Ark. 374, 138 S. W. 973.
984-16 n. 8. f . Maarey, 200 Fed. 997;
Parsons v, 8., 179 AIM. 28, 60 8. 864;
Mangrall v. 8., 1 Ala. App. 189, 66 S.
446; Collier v. Newporty ete. C0.4 100
Ark. 47, 139 8. W. 635, AailL. Oaa. lMdl>,
458; Byatf v. Fieldef, 99 Jk^rk. 9t% 1S8
8. W. 973; Kendall f.
172
ARREST OF JUDGMENT
Vol 2
Jamflft Grocer Co., 173 HI. App. 504;
O Toole 17. Tudor, 175 Ind. 827, 93 N.
£. 276; B. p. Hart, 133 Jjsl. 5, 62 S. 161;
S: V. Tufianio, 132 La. 843, 61 8. 844;
8. 17. McGrocklin, 130 La, 106, 57 8. 645;
S. «7. Houlehan, 109 Me. 281, 83 A. 1106;
Wilaon c. Kelso, 115 Md. 162, 80 A.
895; McManus v. Thing, 208 Mase. 55,
94 N. E. 293; S. v. Jenkins, 164 N. C.
527, 80 8. E. 231; Boville v. Paper
Mlllfl, 86 Vt. 305, 85 A. 623, 629; Demp-
607 ^' Poore (W. Va.), 83 8. E. 300.
8ee McFerran v, Swaynie, 60 Ind. App.
60, 98 N. E. 135.
Moat be founded on a defect in the In-
fomiation.— 8. v. Van, 44 Mont. 374, 120
P. 479; S. r. Tully, 31 Mont. 365, 78
P. 760.
986-lT O Toole r. Tudor, 175 Ind.
227, 93 N. £. 276.
987-22 8. 17. Young, 153 la. 4, 182
N. W. 813, Ann. Gas. 1913E, 70.
988-24 U.S. 17. Mazey, 200Fed.997;
8. V. Young, 153 la. 4, 132 N. W. 813,
Ann. Cae. 1913E, 70.
988-25 Pittsburgh, etc. B. Go. 17. 8.,
178 Ind. 498, 99 N. E. 801 ; 8. «. Young,
153 la. 4, 132 N. W. 813, Ann. Gas.
1913E, 70.
988-28 S. 17. Eamriek (W. Va.)i 81
8. E. 703.
989-32 P. 17. Zlotincke; 152 III. App.
363, quot» Blackstone.
989-33 P. 17. Zlotincke, 152 111. App.
363.
989-35 In Maaeacbnsetts. — C. k).
I>rohan, 210 Mass. 445, 97 N. E. 89.
But this statute is not applicable if the
verdict was defective in substance or
repugnant to the material issues sub-
mitted. McManus 17. Thing, 208 Mass.
55, 94 N. E. 293.
990-42 Under tlie Haasachusetts
statute^— G. 17. Cornell, 213 Mass. 135,
99 N. £. 975.
991-44 C. r. Drohan, 210 Mass. 448,
97 N. E. 89; P. v. Graeeflfo, 143 App.
IMt. 728, 128 N. Y. 8. 646; P. 17. Gard-
ner, 78 Misc. 514, 139 N. Y. 8. 1013;
Gibbons r. Ter., 5 Okla. Or. 212, 115
P. 129.
992-45 Lay v. S., 180 Ind. 1, 102
K. £. 274.
But see Pittsburgh, etc. B.
po. V. 8., 178 Ind. 498, 99 N. £. 801.
998-58 P. r. Ezell, 155 HI. App. 298;
8. 9. MosB, 164 Ho. App. 379, 144 8.
W. 1109.
993-69 P. t\ Ezell, 155 111. App.
298; S. r. Moss, 164 Mo. App. 379, 144
8. W. 1109.
994-60 8. v. Heft, 155 la. 21, 134 N.
W. 950.
994^1 8. 17. Muir, 92 Ean. 165, 139
P. 1158.
Failure to role on demurrer which
would not have been sustained is a
technical defect not ground for sustain-
ing a motion in arrest. 8. 17. Heft, 155
la. 21, 134 N. W. 950.
Constitutionality of statute creating
court cannot be raised for first time on
motion in arrest. Howell i?. Sherwood,
242 Mo. 513, 147 S. W. 810.
Filing away indictment to be brought
forward on defendant's arrest not a
matter for arrest. Allen 17. 8. (Tex. Cr.),
138 8. W. 593.
996-74 "Woodsman i?. S., 179 Ind.
697, 102 N. E. 130; Hamilton 17. 8. (Tex.
Cr.), 145 8. W. 348.
997-84 8. 17. Mewhinney, 44 Utah
231, 139 P. 862.
Insanity of defendant at trial not a
ground for arrest, but the motion will
be treated as a suggestion of the pres-
ent insanity and a motion to suspend
sentence during the period of his in-
sanity. Duncan v. 8., 110 Ark. 523,
162 8. W. 573. 8ee the title "Insane
Persons."
997-85 8. 17. Hogg, 126 La. 1053, 53
S. 225, 29 L. B. A- (N. 8.) 830.
996-92 Warren r. Badger, L. & Z.
Co., 255 Mo. 138. 164 8. W. 206, decis-
ion on' demurrer.
999-18 S. 17. Mewhinney, 44 Utah
231, 139 P. 862.
1000-19 Bank 17. Smith, 11 Wheat.
(U. S.) 171, 6 L, ed. 443; Warner 17.
Baker, 36 App. Cas. (D. C.) 493; Wor-
thy 17. Farmers' L. Confederation, 139
Ga. 81, 76 8. E. 856; Kelleher ». Chi-
cago City E. Co., 256 111. 454, 100 N. E.
145; Czerniak t7. Chicago. 161 111. App.
360 (declaration sufficient in absence of
demurrer); Cole t\ East St. Louis, 158
111 App. 494; Town of Cicero i?. Lake
Erie & W E. Co., 52 Ind. App. 298, 97
N. E. 389; Beheret v, Myers, 240 Mo.
58. 144 8. W, 824; Grover Irr. & L. Co.
r. Lovella, etc. Co., 21 Wyo. 204, 131
P. 43.
Defective anawer cannot be attacked
by arrest of judgment, if there be one
good paragraph. McGuffin v. Lenfesty
(Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 475.
173
Vol. 3
AB80N
1036-5 Jn BUnoiB, if judgsieiit k
arrested, it is erroneous to enter a
judgment for costs. Zander V. M/eiz,
162 Bl. App. 620.
ABSON
8-1 Williams v. S., 177 Ala. 34, 158
S. 921, Ann. Cas. 1915A, 584.
Both at common law and by statute
arson is an offense against possesBion
rather than the property. Johnson v.
S., 1 Ala. App. 148, 55 S. 268; Allen v.
8, (Tex. Cr.), 137 S. W. 1133.
6-14 S. t2. Donovan (Bel.), 90 A. 220.
5-16 S. V. Caporale, 85 N. J. L. 495,
89 A. 1034.
6-18 Charging burning of ''a ware-
house and tobacco house'' does not
charge two separate offenses, Wright
V, C, 155 Ky. 750, 160 8. W. 476.
10-42 P. ff. Waldhom, 82 Misc. 238,
143 N. Y. S. 484.
10-46 Goff V. S., 60 Fla. 13, 53 S.
327; P. V. Covltz, 262 111. 514, 104 N.
E. 887.
Iiocation of building. — Need not pre-
cisely state location of house, and the
allegation that it was in New York
county Is sufficient. P. v. Freeman, 160
App. Div. 640, 145 N. Y. S. 1061.
16-66 See S. f?. Stringer, 105 Miss.
851, 63 S. 270.
16-67 P. 17. Freeman, l60 App. Dir.
640, 145 N. Y. S. 1061.
16-69 Williams v. S., 177 Ala. 34,
58 S. 921, Ann. Cas. 1915A, 584, 4
Ala. App 92, 58 S. 925.
16-60 S. V. Myer, 259 Mo. 306, 168 8.
W. 717.
16-61 The nature of the estate or
claim of occupant is not the material
thing, but his possession. Johnson f?.
S., 1 Ala. App. 148, 55 S. 268.
17-66 P. V. Spira, 264 Dl. 243, 106 N.
E. 241; P. V. Covitz, 262 HI. 514, 104
N. E. 887; Overstreet V. C, 147 Ky.
471, 144 S. W. 751.
18-67 Tmstee. — Ownership is prop-
erly laid in one to whom a deed con-
veying the property destroyed was exe-
cuted for the purpose of indemnifying
him as surety of grantor, the bond be-
ing in force when building was set on
fire. Kinsey f. S., 12 Ga. App, 422, 77
S. E. 369.
19-72 Goff V. S., 60 Fla. 13, 17, 53
S. 327.
19-73 Savage v. 8., 8 Ala. App. 334,
62 S. 999, certiorari denied. Ex parte
S., 184 Ala. 1, 63 8. 1006.
19-76 Separate aUegationa as to
Vialue of the building and the property
therein are not Deeessaiy. 8. ^. Huff-
man, 69 W. Va. 770, 73 8. E. 292.
20-81 See Parb v. 8., 143 Wis. 561,
128 N. W. 65.
Snowledge of Insonncair— Indictment
need not allege that person who set
the fire knew it was insured. Arnold
V, S. (Tex. Cr.), 168 8. W. 122. Nor
by whonl or by what authority the
house was insured. Arnold v. 8. (Tex.
Cr.), 168 8. W. 122.
21-84 Parb v^ 8., 143 Wia. 561, 128
N. W. 65.
24-90 P. f>. Stewart, 163 Mich. 1,
127 N. W. 816.
Bnming ^^coeks" or "lihoclDB" of hay
will not sustain a conviction of the
charge of burning '^ stacks" of hay.
P. V, Doyle, 13 Cal. App. 611, HO P.
458.
24-91 Savage «. 8., 8 Ala. App. 334,
62 8. 999, certiorari denied, Ex parte
S., 184 Ala. 1, 63 8. 1006.
26^2 Johnson v. 8., 1 Ala. App. 148,
55 S. 268.
Proof of occupancy nnder claim of right
by alletged owner will sustain an al-
legation of ownership. Harrell «. S.,
121 Ga. 607, 49 8. E. 703; Bice v. 8.
(Ga. App.), 84 &^ E. 609.
27-93 WlMre Indietoieat alleged
ownerdiip in liiul»and and proof showed
property was purchased with his earn-
ings it ]0 immaterial* that deed was
taken in wife's name. Pinckard v, S.,
62 Tex. Cr. 602, 138 8. W. 601.
Title In wife- — Where there was evi-
dence showing that the person in whom
ownership of burned bam was alleged
in indictment to be had full control,
possession, and management thereof, it
was immaterial that the legal title to
the land was In his wife and the per-
son who was making a crop on shares
was using the farm. Johnson i?. 8., 1
Ala. App. 151, 55 8. 445.
ASSAULT AND BATTEET
33-1 Burton r. 8., 8 Ala. App. 295,
62 8. 894; 8. v. Honey, 2 Boyce (Del.)
324, 80 A. 240; 8. v. Tturaspe, 22 Ida.
360, 125 P. 802; Raefeldt t\ Koenig,
152 Wis. 459, 140 N. W. 56.
176
ASSIGNMENT, BENEFIT OF CREDITORS Vol. 3
33-2 Cox r. S., 99 Ark. 90, 136 S.
W. 989; McGlone v. Hauger (Ind. App.),
104 N. E. 116; Hixson t?. Slocum, 156
Ky, 487, 161 S. W. 522.
34-T See P. v. Cantwell, 253 111. 57,
97 N. E. 287, af. 160 111. App. 652; S.
V, Bray, 1 Mo. 180; S. v. Hays, 41 Tex,
526.
3S-10 Name of party injured must
be proved as laid in indictment. P.
V. Anderson, 267 111. 75, 107 N. E. 840;
Davis V. P., 19 HI. 73, 74.
35-11 See Black v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 150
S. W. 774.
Miller r. S. (Tex. Cr.), 150
S. W. 635. See Perkins v. S. (Tex.
Cr.), 138 8. W. 133.
Self-defense. — In Minnesota no burden
rests upon defendant to prove he acted
in self-defense, but the prosecution
must satisfy the jury the act was not
justifiable on that ground. S. v. Mc-
Grath, 119 Minn. 321, 138 N. W. 310.
3d-34 See Vansant v, Kowalewski
(Del.), 90 A. 421.
41-37 See Sellaod t?. Nelson, 22 N.
D. 14, 132 N. W. 220; Hunt t-. Di Bacco,
69 W. Va. 449, 71 S. E. 584.
42-39 The doctrine of contributory
negligence as a defense has no applica-
tion to an action for damages for as-
sault and battery. Steinmetz r. Kelly,
72 Ind. 442, 37 Am. Rep. 170; Enter v.
Foy, 46 la. 132; Eckerd i\ Weve, 85
Kan. 752, 118 P. 870, 38 L. R. A. (N.
S.) 516; Bauchpies r. Obert, 51 Pa.
Super. 441.
43-40 Wilhite t?. Fricke, 169 Ala.
76, 53 S. 157; Morris t?. McClellan, 169
Ala. 90, 53 S. 155, also reported in 154
Ala. 639, 45 S. 641; De Freitas r. Nunes,
156 in. App. 17; Southern R. Co. v
Crone, 51 Ind. App. 300, 99 N. E. 762;
Brown €. Barr (Mo.), 171 S. W. 4; Rae-
feldt V. Koenig, 152 Wis. 459, 140 N.
W. 56.
Tlie degree of force used need not be
speeifled in a plea of justification. La
Fevre r. Oossan, 3 Boyce (Del.) 376,
84 A. 127.
43-41 Theory of comparatiTe force
cannot be pleaded in Justification but
may be considered by jury in mitiga-
tion of damages. Morris v, McClellan,
169 Ala. 90, 53 S. 155.
44-42 Plea of moUiter manns im-
po0ait is no defense to a charge of
beating and wounding. La Fevre v.
Crossauy 3 Boyce (Bel.), 376, 84 A. 127.
44-44 See Salisbury v. La Fitte, 50
Colo. 404, 115 P. 633.
45-46 Hardy v, Schirmer, 163 Cal
272, 124 P. 993; Spenler v. Turley, 158
m. App. 146; Kehl v. Burgener, 157
HI. App. 468; Downs r. Jackson (Ky.),
128 S. W. 339; Riddle v. Moffitt, 159
Mo. App. 470, 141 S. W. 448.
46-40 Obscene or offensive language
cannot preclude recovery but may miti-
gate damages. Jones r. Bynum (Ala.),
66 S. 639.
ASSiaNMSNT FOB THE BENEFIT
OF OBEDITOBS
40-1 Hammond v. Ridley's Exrs., 116
Va. 393, 82 S. E. 102.
60-10 In re Rutaced Co., 137 App.
Div. 716, 122 N. Y. S. 454.
62-16 Brooksville Granite Co. v.
Latty, 83 Misc. 384, 144 N. Y. S. 1042.
A preylons attachment is good, in the
absence of statutory inhibition. Smart
V, Burgess, 35 R. I. 149, 85 A. 742.
53-17 Nalte v, Winstanley (Ariz.),
145 P. 246.
54-20 State Nat. Bank v, Wheeler &
Hotter Merc. Co., 104 Ark. 222, 148 S.
W. 1033.
56-33 Moore r. Bettingen, 116 Minn.
142, 133 N. W. 561, Ann. Cas. 1918A,
816; In re Rutaced Co., 137 App. Div.
716, 122 N. Y. S. 454.
58-48 In re Standard Cafeteria Co.,
68 Or. 550, 137 P. 774.
62-70 Bight lost by dela7.r— A cred-
itor who having due notice of an as-
signment and of the time limit within
which it must be accepted, declines to
become a party thereto until after the
time limit has expired, cannot then
compel the assignees to allow him to
become a party. International Trust
Co. V. Livermore (Mass.), 107 N. E.
392.
64-96 Mayberry v, Sprague, 207
Mass. 508, 93 N. E. 925.
66-11 McCord v. Sprinkel (Tex.),
141 S. W. 945, af, judgment, Sprinkel
V. McCord (Tex. Civ.), 129 S. W. 379.
67-17 Coleman v. Hagey, 252 Mo.
102, 158 S. W. 829.
73-63 Salyer «. Blessing, 151 Ey.
459, 152 S. W. 276.
78-01 In re Ellington P. Co., 131 La.
653, 60 S. 25; Major v. Lunn, 115 Minn.
404, 132 N. W. 321,
1%
177
Vol. 3
ASSIGNMENTS
81-19 Nealy i>. City Nat. Bank, 150
Ky. 512, 150 S. W. 679.
88-84 Paddell v> Jane0> S4 Miie. 212,
145 W. Y. S. 86«.
88-88 Paddell v. Janes, 84 Mise. 212,
145 N. Y. S. 868.
ABSiamfBNTS
8T-4 Rogers i;. Harvey, 143 Ky. 88,
136 8. W. 128.
88-11 Long V. B. Co., 170 Ala. 635,
54 S. 62.
91-19 Harlan Douglas Co. v, Moncur,
19 Cal. App. 177, 124 P. 1053.
91-20 Salt Pork Coal Co. v. Eldridge
Coal Co., 170 HI. App. 268.
98-27 Michigan Sugar Co. v. Moffett
(Miclr.), 149 K. W. 1025.
98-30 PAlmer v. Palmer, 112 Me.
149, 91 A. 281.
96^44 MiehigaA Sugar Co. v. Moffett
(Mich.), 149 N. W. 1025.
101-64 Leonard v. Springer, 174 HL
App. 516.
103-64 American Lithographic Co.
V. Ziegler, 216 Mass. 287, 103 N. £.
909.
103-66 Hall v. Hall, 112 Me. 234,
91 A. 949.
108-67 Wilson v. Shrader, 73 W. Va.
105, 79 S. E. 1083.
104-68 Beios v, Mardis, 18 Cal. App.
276, 122 P. 1091; MiUiken-Helm Com.
Co. V. Albers Com. Co., 244 Mo. 38, 147
S. W. 1065.
106-78 Shearer f>. Shearer^ 137 Ga.
51, 72 S. E. 428; Cross v. Page & Hill
Co., 116 Minn. 123, 133 N. W. 178.
106-74 Sternberg & Co. v. Lehigh
Val. R. Co., 78 N. J. L. 277, 73 A. 39,
af. 80 N. J. L. 468, 78 A. 1135.
107-77 Security Bank v. Callahan
(Mass.), 107 N. E. 385; Seiter t;. Mar-
schall (Tex.), 147 S. W. 226.
110-83 Wells i>. Crawford, 23 Colo.
App. 103, 127 P. 914; Ford ft Co. t'. At-
lantic Compress Co., 138 Ga. 496, 75
S. is. 609, Ann. Cas. 1913B, 226.
110-88 Carozza v. Baxley^ 203 Fed.
673, 122 C. C. A. 69; 8. v, Superior
Conrt, 67 Wash. 355, 121 P. 847.
The assignee of a daim under a super-
sedeas bond is the real party in in-
terest, and may sue in his own name.
Love V. Cahn, 93 Ark. 215, 124 S. W.
259,
111-86 Pecos & N. T. B. Co. v. Por-
ter (Tex. Civ.), 156 8. W. 267.
111-87 The Bupert City, 213 Fed.
263; Ballinger v, Vates (Colo. App.),
140 P. 931; Hull v. Massachusetts Bond-
ing & Ins. Co., 86 Kan. 342, 120 P. 544.
Contra, Martin v. Mask, 158 N. C. 436,
74 S. E. 343, 41 L. B. A. (N. S.) 641.
111-88 Bullman v, Bullman, 81 Kan.
521, 106 P. 52.
112-90 Birdsall r. Coon, 157 Mo.
App. 439, 139 8. W. 243; Walker v. City
of New York, 72 Misc. 97, 129 N. Y.
S. 1059; Vaughan v, Davenport, 159 N.
C. 369, 74 S. E. 967; Slaughter t\ Bank
of Texline (Tex. Civ.), 164 8. W. 27;
National Union F. Ins. Co. r. Denver
ft B. G. B. Co., 44 Utah 26, 137 P.
653.
113-92 Sweeney r. Poster, 112 Va.
499, 71 S. E. 548.
114-93 Ooffman r. Saline Val. B. Co.,
183 Mo. App. 622, 167 8. W. 1053.
114-98 Columbian B. C. Co. v. B6se,
187 Fed. 803, 109 C. C. A. 563; Thomp-
son V. Gimbel Bros., 71 Misc. 126, 128
N. Y. 8. 210; Trinity County Lumb. Co.
V. Holt (Tex. Civ.), 144 8. W. 1029.
118-7 Where assignor guarantees
payment of claim assigned he may join
assignee in the action. Kennedy Town
& Imp. Co. V. First Nat. Bank (Tex.
Civ.), 136 8. W. 558.
122-23 Krieger v. Feeny, 14 Cal.
App. 538, 112 P. 901.
124-35 Lapique 17. Denis, 23 Cal.
App. 683, 139 P. 237; McKnight r.
Lowitz, 176 Mich. 452, 142 N. W. 769.
126-43 Zaney 17. Bawhide Gold Min.
Co., 15 Cal. App. 373, 114 P. 1026.
139-61 Complaint on an order to
pay money should allege that such sum
is due under the terms of the assign-
ment. Mayor, Lane ft Co. r. Weinstein
Bealty Co., 87 Misc. 150, 149 N. Y. S.
1045.
130-64 The non-assignabiUty of the
6Ialm is ground for demurrer. Wilson
1?. Shrader, 73 W. Va. 105, 79 8. E. 1083.
132-73 Fav r. Bankers' Surety Co.,
125 Minn. 211, 146 N. W. 359.
134-79 Ketcham r. Bowland, 71
Misc. 439, 128 N. Y. 8. 695.
136-91 Wilcox t\ Downing, 88 Conn.
368, 91 A. 262.
136-92 Goldstein r. Schwartz, 148
N. Y. 8. 256,
J78
ASSUMPSIT
Vol 3
AMI8TAK0B, WBTTS OF
140-6 Long c. Morris, 176 Ala. 371,
58 8. 274.
140-7 Long V. Morris, 176 Ala. 371,
58 8. 274.
Eaal^alfiOt to the writ of habere facias
possessionem at law. Gardner €. Dun-
can, 104 Miss. 477, 61 S. 545.
141-9 Lnndstrum r. Branson, 92 Kan.
78, 139 P. 1172, 52 L. R. A. (N. 8.)
697; Clarke r. Aldridee, 162 N. C. 326,
78 S. £. 216; State r. Superior Court,
63 Wash. 312, 115 P. 307, Ann. Cas.
1913D, 1119.
142-16 Cigler r. Keinllth, 167 HI.
App. 65.
144-19 S. V. Superior Court, 63
Wash. 312, 115 P. 307, Ann. Cas. 1913D,
1119.
146-23 aarke v. Aldridge, 162 N. C.
326, 78 8. £. 216.
146-26 Combs r. Miller, 149 Ky. 546,
149 8. W. 906.
149-38 Gardner v. Duncan, 104 Miss.
477, 61 8. 545.
161-41 Cigler v. Keinath, 167 HI.
App. 65.
ASSOOIATIOKS
Hanley v. Elm Grove Mut. Tel.
Co., 150 la. 198, 129 N. W. 807;
O'BoDrke t?. Kelly The Printer Corp.,
156 Mo. App. 91, 135 8. W. 1011. See
Lafond r. Deems, 81 N. Y. 507, 514;
Waller r. Thomas, 42 How. Pr. (N. Y.)
337, 344; Park v. Spaulding, 10 Hun
(N. Y.) 128, 131; Caldicott v. Griffiths,
22 Eng. L. & Eq. 527; Fleming v. Hec-
tor, 2 Mees. & W. (Eng.) 172.
169-3 Leech v. Harris, 2 Brewst.
(Pa.) 571. See Edwards v. Old Set-
tlers' Assn. (Tex. Civ.), 166 S. W. 423.
169-4 Francis v. Perry, 82 Misc. 271,
144 N. Y. S. 167.
As miliicoiporatad voliintary charitable
aMJOciatlan can neither sue nor be sued
in its capacity as an association. Home
Benefit Assn. v. Wester (Tex. Civ.),
146 S. W. 1022.
160-6 Bolt in eqiiiitsr.— "The proper
method of suing such an association is
to institute a suit in equity against
some of the members as representing
themselves and all others having the
same interest, and after judgment, to
compel the defendants to see that the
treasury of the association pays the
179
claim." Wolfe «. Limestone CouneiL
233 Pa. 357, 82 A. 499.
161-9 Bossert v. Dhuy, 165 App. Div.
931, 151 N. y. 8. 877.
162-11 Kimball v. Lower Columbia
Fire Assn., 67 Or. 249, 135 P. 877;
Crawley t?. American Soc, 153 Wis. 13,
139 N. W. 734.
Deecrlbing defendant in lodge name.
Where the party is sued as "Armenia
Lodge No. 1930, of the Grand United
Order of Odd Fellows in America" al-
leged to be ''an unincorporated organ-
ization in the nature of an insurance
company, and is a local lodge," it is
not erroneous in absence of amendment,
to dismiss the petition on the ground
that no party defendant is described
therein. Cain v. Armenia Lodge, 12
Ga. App. 251, 77 S. E. 184.
Members dionld be made defendants.
' ' If the plaintiff had made the members
of the association, or possibly a major-
ity of them, including the officers, par-
ties defendant, we would not question
the propriety of his including the en-
tire association under its adopted name
also," but the association cannot be
sued in its name without joinder of any
officer or member. Hanley v. Elm Grove
Mut. Tel. Co., 150 la. 198, 129 N. W.
807; Conway v. Zender, 154 Wis. 479,
143 N. W. 162.
162-14 N. £. States Sangerbund v.
Fidelia M. & £. Soc. (Mass.), 105 N.
E. 629; OTtourke v. Kelly The Printer
Corp., 156 Mo. App. 91, 135 S. W. 1011,
where it was held that every member is
a necessary party plaintiff where they
sue as joint contractors.
163-16 Service of process on agent.
Statute providing that service on an
agent of an unincorporated association
shall be binding on the organization
and authorize judgment against indi-
vidual members is constitutional. Ap-
peal of Baylor, 93 8. C. 414, 77 8. E.
59.
ASSUMPSIT
170-1 Jones v. Moore, 198 Fed. 301;
Braham r. Honolulu Amusement Co., 21
Haw. 583.
lTl-4 Miller v, Ambrose, 35 App.
Cas. (D. C.) 75.
lTT-23 Porter r. Androscoggin &
Kennebec B. B. Co., 37 Mo. 349.
180-41 Worley f. Johnson, 60 Fla,
Vol. 3
ASSUMPSIT
294, 53 8. 543; Board of Highway
Comrs. V. Bloomington, 253 111. 164, 97
K. £. 280, Ann. Cas. 1913 A, 471; Lea-
Big V. American Pneumatic Carpet
Cleaning Co., 158 111. App. 420.
181-46 Bashar r. Pittsburg, etc. B.
Co., 73 W. Va. 39, 79 8. E. 1009.
185-68 Hall v. Philadelphia Co. (W.
Va.), 81 8. E. 727.
185-62 Hall r. Philadelphia Co. (W.
Va.), 81 S. E. 727.
187-76 Hall v. Philadelphia Co. (W.
Va.), 81 8. E. 727.
187-77 McCray r. Craig & Sons, 70
W. Va. 735, 75 8. E. 79.
191-15 Outcault Advertising Co. r.
Hooten & Co., 11 Ala. App. 454, 66 8.
901.
193-29 HoUister t?. Lyon, 177 111.
App. 652; American Surety Co. v. Fruin-
Bambrick Const. Co., 182 Mo. App. 667,
166 8. W. 333; Mankin v, Jones, 68 W.
Va. 422, 69 8. E. 981.
Not for breach of ezeoutory contract.
Common counts are not sustained by a
showing of a right to damages for
breach of an executory contract. El-
rod Lumb. Co. i;. Moore, 186 Ala. 430,
65 S. 175.
194-32 If there is no stipulation for
payment or performance of the cove-
nant, a promise to pay will be implied,
and assumpsit will lie on this promise.
Harvey t*. Maine Condensed Milk Co.,
92 Me. 115, 42 A. 342; Baldwin u. Em-
ery, 89 Me. 496, 36 A. 994; Varney v,
Bradford, 86 Me. 510, 30 A. 115.
195-39 Callan v. Peck (B. I.), 91 A.
34.
Mere tort. — ^Assumpsit does not lie for
damages for a mere wrong. Wilson i\
8hrader, 73 W. Va. 105, 79 8. E. 1083.
195-40 McElwee v. McCreight, 236
Pa. 545, 84 A. 1105.
196-43 Harty Bros. & Harty Co. r.
Polakow, 151 111. App. 199.
196-44 Wiliams v. Shows (Ala.), 65
S. 839; Batson v. Alexander City Bank,
179 Ala. 490, 60 8. 313; Joseph & Bros.
Co. t?. Hoffman, 173 Ala. 568, 56 3. 216,
Ann. Cas.'l914A, 718, 38 L. R. A. (N.
8.) 92; Marsh t?. Pricke, 1 Ala. App.
649, 56 8. 110; Elliott t?. Wilson, 2
Boyce (Del.) 445, 80 A. 35; Worley v.
Johnson, 60 Fla. 294, 53 8. 543; Lamb <?.
Tomlinson, 261 HI. 388, 103 N. E. 1058,
af, 177 111, App. 290; Wolf Co. v. Mon-
arch Refrig. Co., 161 Til. App. 21, af.
252 111. 491, 96 N. E. 1063, 50 L. R. A.
(N. 8.) 808; New Amsterdam Casualty
Co. t*. Saloman, 165 111. App. 264; Lau-
ser V. Fidler, 158 111. App. 94;' Leslie v.
Joliet Bridge & Iron Co., 149 111. App.
210; Edward Thompson Co. v, KoU-
myer, 46 Ind. App. 400, 92 N. E. 660;
Meyer v. Frenkil, 113 Md. 36, 77 A.
369; Newman t?. Levi (W. Va.), 81 8.
E. 1036; Curtis t?. B. Co., 08 W. Va. 762,
70 8. E. 776.
198-47 Ruse v. WilUams, 14 Ariz.
445, 130 P. 887, 45 L. R. A. (N. 8.)
923; Board of Highway Comn. V*
Bloomington, 253 111. 164, 97 N. E. 280,
Ann. Cas. 1913A, 471 ; Anderson r. Cald-
well, 242 Mo. 201, 146 8. W. 444.
199-54 Brueker €. Manistee & G. B.
R. Co., 166 Mich. 330, 130 N. W. 822.
209-57 Overcharges paid carrier
may be thus recovered. Priebe ۥ
8outhern Ry. Co. (Ala.), 66 8. 573.
202-71 Mercier v. James Murchie's
Sons Co. (Me.), 90 A. 722.
203-72 8tan8field v. Dunne (Ariz.),
141 P. 736.
205-77 8nelling v. Brown, 167 Mich.
202, 132 N. W. 549.
205-79 8t. Louis & 8. F. R. Co. tr.
Hall (Ala.), 65 8. 33; Minton v. F. G.
Smith Piano Co., 36 App. Cas. (D. C.)
137, 33 L. R. A. (N. S.) 305; Meyer v.
Frenkil, 113 Md. 36, 77 A. 369; Owen
t\ Hadley (Mo.), 171 8. W. 973.
206-80 Owen t\ Hadley (Mo.), 171
8. W. 973; Shoemaker v. Buffalo Steam
Roller Co., 83 Misc. 162, 144 N. Y. 8.
721.
206-82 Dillon v. Craig, 168 Mich.
216, 132 N. W. 1041.
208-93 Douglas v. Morrisville, 84 Yt.
302, 79 A. 391.
208-94 Ludwig v. Pusey & Janes
Co., 143 App. Div. 290, 128 N. Y. 8.
72.
208-96 Brueker v. Manistee & G. R.
R. Co., 166 Mich. 330, 130 N. W. 822.
210-8 Shannon & Co. r. McElroy, 3
Ala. App. 519, 57 8. 118.
212-15 Shannon & Co. v. McElroy,
3 Ala. App. 519, 57 S. 118.
212-16 Koltonski v. Electric Goods
Mfg. Co., 182 Fed. 208, 105 C. C. A.
48; Myrick <?. Wallace, 5 Ala. App. 398,
59 8. 704; Huff v. Simmers, 114 Md. 548,
79 A. 1003.
212-17 Huff V. Simmers, 114 Md.
548, 79 A. 1003.
213«29 Conditions precedents— In ae-
180
ATTACHMENT
VoVZ
■umpsit for work and labor on build-
ing, a defense that architect's eertifi*
eate was a necessary condition preced-
ent and the defense that the architect
was arbiter with respect to differences
mnst be specially pleaded. Qeorge r.
Boberts, 186 Ala 521, 65 S. 345.
215-40 Parwell v Mnrrav, 104 Cal.
464, 38 P. 199; Abadie r. Cabrillo, 32
Cal. 172; Wilkins f?. Stidger, 22 Cal.
231, 235, 83 Am. Dec. 64; Freeborn v,
6la[zer, 10 Cal. 337; Board of Comrs. r.
Gibson, 158 Ind. 471, 63 N. E. 982;
Brown c. Perry, 14 Ind. 32; Kersetter
r. Baymond, 10 Ind. 199; Peden r.
Scott, 35 Ind. App. 370, 73 N. E. 1099;
Jenson «. Lee, 67 Kan. 539, 73 P. 72;
Clark «. Fensky, 3 Kan. 385; Meagher
r. Morgan, 3 Kan. 366, 87 Am. Dec. 476;
Sehwartzel v. Karnes, 2 Kan. App. 782,
44 P. 41; Larson v, Schmaus, 31 Minn.
410, 18 N. W. 273; Hosley v. Black, 28
N. Y. 438; Allen v. Patterson, 7 N. Y.
476, 57 Am. Def . 542; Caldwell t?. My-
ers, 2 a D. 506, 61 N. W. 210.
ATTACHMENT
23^-3 Bncyms Co. v, M'Arthnr, 219
Fed. 266; Earp t?. Stephens, 1 Ala. App.
447, 55 8. 266; Fowler v. Dickson, 1
Boyce (Del.) 113, 74 A. 601; De Carle
r. Marks, 171 Mich. 167, 137 N. W. 94;
Dnlnth Brew. & Malt. Co. r. Allen
(Mont.), 149 P. 494; Hisor v. Vandiver,
82 X. J. L. 303, 82 A. 526; Garrison i;.
Seckendorff, 79 N. J. L. 203, 74 A. 311;
Leavitt & Milroy Co. r. Rosenberg
Bros, ft Co., 83 0. St. 230, 93 N. E.
904; Buckeye Pipe Line Co. t?. Fee, 62
O. St. 543, 564, 57 N. E. 446, 78 Am.
St. 743; Gilbert r. Burke, 11 Ohio C. C.
(N. S.) 282, 20 Ohio C. D. 586; Cook v.
Olds Gasoline E. Wks., 10 O. C. D. 236,
19 O. C. C. 732; Harlan v. Capital In v.
Co., 11 Ohio K P. (N. S.) 492; Van
Voorhies r. Taylor 24 Or. 247, 33 P.
380; Home Distilling Co. tt Himmel (W.
Va,), 82 S. E. 1094.
239-4 Green r. Coit, 81 0. St. 280,
90 N. E. 794, 135 Am. St. 784.
240-5 Oliver «. Kinney, 173 Ala. 593,
56 S. 203; Griffin Co. «. Howell^ 38 Utah
357, 113 P. 326.
2^40-6 Barber 9. Morgan, 84 Conn.
eiS, 80 A. 791.
241-7 Oliver t?. Kinney, 173 Ala.
593, 56 S. 203; Hood v. Commercial 6.
T. A S. Bank (Ala App.), 67 S. 721;
Barber v. Morgan, 84 Conn. 618, 80
A 791; Tonn v. ColUns, 116 Md. 52,
81 A. 219; Logan v. Greenwich Trust
Co., 144 App. Div. 372, 129 N. Y. S.
577; Buckeye Pipe Line Co. v. Pee, 62
0. St. 543, 564, 57 N. E. 446, 78 A. S. B.
743; Griffin Co. V. Howell, 38 Utah 357,
113 P. 326.
241-8 Pyatt f?. Biley, 252 HI. 36, 96
N. E. 570; Griffin Co. r. Howell, 38 Utah
357, 113 P. 326.
242-10 Baymond r. Leishman, 243
Pa. 64, 89 A. 791, Ann. Cas. 1916C, 780,
L. B. A. 1915A, 400.
Federal courta are not authorized to is-
sue foreign attachments as the original
process commencing actions against de-
fendants not amenable to personal
service. Bucyrus Co. r. M 'Arthur, 219
Fed. 266.
243-11 Bucyrus Co. <?. M 'Arthur, 219
Fed. 266; Anderson V, Dover (Miss.),
68 S. 166; Johnson r. Whilden, 166 N.
C. 104, 81 S. E. 1057; Harlan v. Capital
Inv. Co., 11 O. N. P. (N. S.) 492; Cart-
mell r. Eudolph Wurtlitzer, 5 O. N. P.
(N. S.) 604; John Fowler & Co. i\ Fin-
ley Bros., 6 P. E. Fed. 174. See Her-
nandez f)» Hutchison, 21 P. B. 175;
Griffin Co. <?. Howell, 38 Utah 357, 113
P. 326.
244-12 Earp t?. Stephens, 1 Ala.
App. 447, 55 S. 266 (summary and ex-
traordinary remedy); Green r. Coit, 81
0. St. 280, 90 N. E. 794, 135 Am. St.
784; Cook v. Olds Gasoline E. Wks., 10
O. C. D. 236, 19 O. C. C. 732.
244-13 S. r. Justice of Peace (Mont.) ,
149 P. 709; Duluth Brew, ft Malt. Co.
t:. Allen (Mont.), 149 P. 494; Brandly
V, American Butter Co., 130 App. Div.
410, 114 N. Y. S. 896; Miller v. Veld-
huyzen, 13 O. N. P. (N. S.) 546; Nichols
t;. Ingram (Or.), 146 P. 988.
244-14 Barber v. Morgan, 84 Conn.
618, 80 A. 791.
244-15 Blair v, Winston, 84 Md. 356,
35 A. 1101; City Bank v. Merrit, 13
N. J. L. 131; Baymond v. Leishman,
243 Pa. 64, 89 A. 791, Ann. Cas. 1915C,
780, L. B. A. 1915A, 400.
245-16 B. F. Bivenae Const. Co.
V. Kinney, 173 Ala. 721, 56 S. 206;
Oliver t?. Kinney, 173 Ala. 593, 56 S.
203; McCormack & Co. i?. Kinney (Ala.),
56 S. 203; Exchange Nat. Bank v. Clem-
ent, 109 Ala. 270, 19 S. 814; Dowdy v,
Calvi, 14 Ariz. 148, 125 P. 873; Keller
V, Carr, 40 Minn. 428, 42 N. W. 292;
Maurer v, Phillips, 182 Mo. App. 440,
168 S. W. 669; Nichols v, Ingram (Or.),
1 146 P. 988; Lopez v. Alvarez, 9 PhiL
181
Vol. 3
ATTACHMENT
Isl. 28; Griffin Co. r. Howell, 38 Utah
357, lis P. 326. See Sims, Harrison
& Co. V, Jacobson lb Co., 51 Ala. 186;
Johnson v. Stockham, 89 Md. 368, 376,
43 A. »43.
245-18 The statute of Ohio allowing
an attaehment of ten per cent of the
debtor's earnings in "an action for
necessaries is constitutional. Wicoz v.
K. B. Co., 20 O. C. C. (N. S.) 452.
246-19 Sturdee v. Cuba Eastern H.
Co./ 196 Fed. 211, 116 C. C. A. 43;
Dixon V, Corinne Bunkel Stock Co., 214
Fed. 418; Herrick v. Herrick, 186 Ala.
439, 65 S. 146; Earp v. Stephens, 1 Ala.
App. 447, 55 S. 266; De Garie v. Marks,
171 Mich. 167, 137 N. W. 94; Kelder-
house V. McGarrj, 82 Misc. 365, 143
N. Y. S. 741; Edwards Mfg. Co. v.
Ashland Sheet MiU Co., 11 0. C. C.
(K. S.) 479; Cook v. Olds Gasoline £.
Wks., 10 O. C. D. 236, 19 0. C. C. 732;
Miller «. Veldhuyzen, 13 O. N. P. (N.
8.) 546; Home Distilling Co. v. Him-
mel (W. Va.), 82 S. E. 1094.
24T-21 Earp r. Stephens, 1 Ala. App.
447, 55 8. 266; Kohler f7. Agassis, 99
Cal. 9, 33 P. 741; Merchants' Nat.
Union t?. Buisseret, 15 Cal. App. 444,
115 P. 58; Carson f?. Woodrow, 160 N. C.
143, 75 S. J^. 996; Leavitt & Milroy
Co. f. Bosenberg Bros. & Co., 83 O. St.
230, 93 N. E. 904; Gilbert v. Burke, 11
O. C. C. (N. S.) 282, 20 O. C. D.
586; Miller v. Veldhuyzen, 13 O. N. P.
(N. S.) 546; John. Fowler & Co. v. Fin-
ley Bros., 6 P. E. Fed. 174; Home Dis-
tilling Co. V. Himmel (W. Va.), 82 S. E.
1094.
248-22 De Carie v. Marks, 171 Mich.
167, 137 N. W. 94; Page v. McDonald,
159 N. C. 38, 74 S. E. 642; Leavitt,
etc. Co. V. Bosenberg Bros. & Co., 83
O. St 230, 93 N. E. 904; Green f?. Coit,
81 0. St. 280, 90 N. E. 794, 135 Am.
St. 784; Simon €. Temple Lumb. Co.
(Tex. Civ.), 146 S. W. 592; Damron
& Kelly V Citizens' Nat. Bank, 112 Va.
544, 72 S. E. 153.
248-23 Butterfleld v. Miller, 195 Fed.
200, 115 C. C. A. 152 (announcing rule
in Tenneesee); Shillaher v. Waldo, 1
Haw. 81, 41; American Steel & W.
Co. V. Meyers, 11 O. N. P. (N. S.) 652;
Harlan v. Capital Inv. Co., 11 O. N. P.
(N. 8.) 492.
248-26 Sims, Harrison & Co. v.
Jacobson & Co., 51 Ala. 186; Boznik
t?. Becker, 68 Wash. 63, 122 P. 593.
264'^U» 8ee Johnson v. Larson, 96
Neb. 193, 147 N. W. 476.
256-59 Woodward i?. Lishman, 80
N. J. L. 586, 78 A. 701.
266-62 Comp. S. K. Johnson & Son
V. Friedman-Shelby Shoe Co. (Ga.
App.), 83 S. E. 969.
260-78 Johnstone r. Kelly, 7 Penne.
(Del.) 119, 74 A. 1099.
260-81 See 5 Standabo Pboc. 633,
741.
263-92Hawk v, Harris, 112 la. 543, 84
N. W. 664, 84 A. S. B. 352. See Merri-
man fJ. Sarlo, 63 Ark. 151, 37 8. W.
879.
264-95 Greacen v. Buckley & Doug-
las Lumb. Co., 167 Mich. 569, 133 N.
W. 538. See 5 Standard Prog. 634.
266-99 Contra, Jordan v. Moore, 82
N. J. L. 552, 82 A. 850.
265^1 Kon-xesideiit deviseea. — At-
tachment may issue against the devisees
of a deceased debtor when the devisees
are non-residents of the state, and prop-
erty within the state devised by the
original debtor may be attached. Jor-
dan 17. Moore, 82 N. J. L. 552, 82 A.
850.
265-2 Jordan v, Moore, 81 N. J. L.
118, 78 A. 1048.
268-11 See Schlater 17. Broaddas, 3
Mart. N. 8. (La.) 321.
268-12 Fowler i?. Dickson, 1 Boyce
(Del.) 113, 74 A. 601; Leavitt & Milroy
Co. 17. Bosenberg & Co., 83 O. St. 230,
93 N. £. 904 (except those excepted
by Bev. St., §5521); Northern Pacific
B. Co. 17. Baum, 12 0. C. C. (N. S.)
271; Northern Pac. B. Co. i?. Baum, 32
0. C. C. 505. See 5 Standard Pkog.
740.
269-15 Jennings 17. Idaho By., L. &
P. Co., 26 Ida. 703, 146 P. 101, L. B.
A. 1915D, 115; Gurmarin r. Southern
Life & Tnist Co. (S. C), 84 S. E. 298.
269-16 Comp, Burr 17. Cooperative
Constr. Co., 162 111. App. 512.
269-17 See 5 Standard Prog. 636.
270-18 American Steel & W. Co. r.
Meyers, 11 0. N. P. (N. 8.) 652.
270-20 In aa action for neceeaaries,
nnder §10,253, 5 Page & Adams Ohio
Ann. Code, property other than per-
sonal earnings of the debtor may be
attached. Corbett 17. Goldwender, 20 O.
C. C. (N. S.) 451.
271-21 Johnson 17. Whilden, 166 N. C.
104, 81 8, E. 1057; Needham 17. Cooney
(Tex. Civ.), 173 8. W. 979.
271-23 Wages.— Schaap v. Flick, 14
182
ATTACHMENT
Vol 3
0. K P. (N. S.) 260; Parkinson t?.
Crawford, 13 O. N. P. (N. S.) 73; King
r. Laws, 5 O. N. P. (N. 8.) 414, 17
O. D. N. P. 349. See Corbett t;. Gold-
wender, 20 O. C. C. (N. S.) 451; Barrow
r. WiUiama, 12 Ohio N. P. (N. B.) 518,
construing f 10,253, Page & Adams Ann.
Gen. Code. Ten per cent of the debtor's
personal earnings may be attached when
the action is for necessaries. 5 Page
& Adams Ann. Code (Ohio), §10,253;
Deacon r. Powers, 20 O. C. C. (N. S.)
559. "Necessaries" within the mean-
ing of this statute "means such things
as are necessary for the debtor and his
family." It does not include gro-
ceries furnished the mother of an un-
married man, for there is no legal ob-
ligation of support. Deacon v. Pow-
ers, 20 O. C. C. (N. S.) 659; Pittsburgh
W. H. Co. V. Meckel, 9 O. N. P. (N.
S.) 5S1. See Zepp & Co. r. Dye, 16
O. N. P. (N. S.) 443. The word is
not used in the narrow sense as mean-
ing indispensable. Pittsburgh W. H.
Co. I?. Meckel, 9 O. N. P. (N. S.) 581.
Property of a married woman living
with her husband, neither of whom has
a homestead, is exempt. The fact that
^e is a prostitute, plying her vocation,
does not render it attachable. Barnes
t?. Elickman, 18 O. C. C. (N. S.) 182.
273-34 Corporate bonds may- be at-
tached. Tweedy r. Bogart, 56 Conn.
419, 15 A. 374; Bowker r. HUl, 60 Me.
172; De Beam r. De Beam, 115 Md.
668, 81 A. 223, 36 L. R. A. (N. S.)
421; Bates r. New Orleans, J. & G.
N. B. Co., 4 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 72, 13
How. Pr. 516; Yon Hesse r. Mackaye,
65 Hon 365, 8 N. Y. S. 894; King,
Brown ft Co. r. Hyatt, 41 Pa. 229.
278-35 Grier 17. Campbell, 21 Ala.
827 (levy may be made upon a candle-
stick worth but ten cents); U. S. v.
Graff, 67 Barb. (N. Y.) 304; Hartcog-
Hagood, etc. Co. v. Wilson, 97 8. C.
475, 81 S. E. 180.
Bonds registered in the names of
otiiers than the debtor cannot be at-
tached. De Beam v, De Galard de
Brassac de Beam, 115 Md. 685, 81 A.
222.
Sealed package in a locked safety de-
posit box may be attached. TUlinff-
kast r. Johnson, 34 B. I. 136, 82 A.
78S, Ann. Cas. 1914A, 960, 41 L. B.
A. (N. 8.) 764.
878-36 Conde v. Sweeney, 16 Cal.
App. 157, 116 P. 319.
274^38 Fowler v. Dickson, 1 Boyee
(Del.) 113, 74 A. 601.
274-39 Barber t, Morgan, 84 Conn.
618, 80 A. 791; Fowler v. Dickaon, 1
Boyce (Del.) 113, 74 A. 601; Nat Bank
V. Lake Shore ft M. S. B. Co., 21 0.
St. 221; Young v. South T. I. Co., 85
Tenn. 189, 2 8. W. 202, 4 Am. 8t. 752.
Tkoogh oevtlfloato not within tbe eute.
Bowman v, Breyfogle, 145 Ky. 443, 140
S. W. 694; Young t?. South T. T. Co., 85
Tenn, 189, 2 8. W. 202, 4 Am. St. 752.
278-40 Comp. National Bank e. I^e
Shore B. Co., 21 0. St. 221.
275-43 United States Exp. Co. v.
Hurlock, 120 Md. 107, 87 A. 834, Ann.
Cas. 1915A, 566.
276-45 Barber v. Morgan, 84 Conn.
618, 80 A. 791; Bowman v, Breyfogle,
145 Ky. 443, 140 8. W. 694.
When wltbia tka state.— United States
Exp. Co. f?. Hurlock, 120 Md. 107, «7
A. 834, Ann. Cas. 1915A, 566.
277-46 Oadiier's check. — Where a
trust company holds the amount of a
cashier 's. check to the depositor 's order,
and the depositor has not only drawn
a check upon it in favor of a railroad
company but has also assigned such
fund to the company, without notice,
however, to the trust company, an at-
tachment of the property of the rail-
road does not touch the fund. Sturdee
r. Cuba Eastern B. Co., 196 Fed. 211,
116 C. C. A. 43.
279-60 Eoonts r. Baltimore B. Co.
(Mass.), 107 N. E. 973.
280-65 Dawson r. Holcomb, 1 Ohio
275j Amadeo t*. Bosiy, 21 P. B. 833.
260-66 Buchanan v. Alexander, 4
How. (U. S.) 20, 11 L. ed. 857; Still-
man V. Isham, 11 Conn. 124; Spalding
V. Imlay, 1 Boot (Conn.) 651; Farmers'
Bank r. Ball, 2 Penne. (Did.) 374, 46
A. 751; Tracy t. Hombuckle, 8 Bush
(Ky.) 336; Chealy «. Brewer, 7 Mass.
259; Lodor V, Baker, 89 N. J. L. 49;
Bundle r. Scheetz, 2 Miles (Pa.) 330;
Bank of Tennessee r. Dibrell, 8 Sneed
(Tenn.) 379; Buck v. Guarantors' L.
I. Co., 97 Va. 719, 84 8. £. 950; BoUo
t7. Andes Ins. Co., 23 Gratt. (Va.)
509. See note in 44 L. B. A. N. 8.
218.
282-73 Beaolien r. Clark, 210 Main.
90, 96 N. E. 319.
Cknumit of tbe conxt in whose posaea-
sion the property is by virtjie of a
prior attachment, is necessary. Bern-
ington Typewriter Co. v. Hall, 183 Ala.
519. 63 S. 74.
183
Vol. 3
ATTACHMENT
SSS-rS Beaulieu r. Clark, 210 Mass.
90, 96 N. E. 319.
286-8S Bothweiler t\ Mason, 92
Kan. 612, 141 P. 245.
286-88 Wliare tha claimaiitB of the
proparty in xaplavln are in court, the
rule of the text does not apply. Both-
weiler 17. Mason, 92 Kan. 612, 141 P.
245.
286-92 Spokane M. Assn. v. Coffey,
123 Minn. 364, 143 N. W. 915.
288-97 Manila v. Gambe, 13 Phil.
Isl. 109.
288-98 Johnson r. Whilden, 166 K.
0. 104, 81 S. E. 1057.
290-2 McDermott v, Hayes, 197 Fed.
129, 116 C. C. A. 563.
iB94-20 Manila v. Gambe, 13 Phil.
Isl. 109.
A "debt" within the meaning of the
statute ''means some definite amount
of money, ascertained or capable of be-
ing ascertained, which may be paid over
to the sheriff or the court under an order,
while 'credits* and 'personal property'
are something belonging to the defend-
ant, but in possession and under the
control of the person attached." Manila
17. Gambe, 13 Phil. Isl. 109.
295-27 A Judgment is not attach-
able. Needham v. Cooney (Tex. Civ.),
173 S. W. 979.
296-31 Armstrong v. Kinsell, 164 N.
C. 125, 80 S. E. 235.
296-34 Interlocking Stone Co. v.
Scribner, 19 Cal. App. 344, 126 P. 178.
297-44 Ptoperty wliich has ceased
to belong to tha undivided estate and
which has passed under the contr-ol of
a third person, whose credit has been
duly recognized cannot be attached.
Ortiga Bros. & Co. v. Enage, 18 Phil.
Isl. 345.
298-49 Taylor v. Bacon, 102 Ark.
97, 142 S. W. 1128.
299-SO Wlien a fee simple er "any
less legal estate*' of defendant is at-
tachable, the interest of a son under
the will of his father may be attached,
where the will devises to the children
all his real estate subject to a life
estate in their mother and subject to
a trust condition that the property be
kept together and the rents and profits
divided until the younge&t child reach
thirty, at which time it should be sold
and the proceeds divided. Tatum v.
Commercial Bank & Trust Co., 185 Ala.
249, 64 S. 561.
299-S2 Ward r. Benncr, 89 Kan. 369,
131 P. 609.
299-53 Griggs v. Nadeau (C. C. A.),
221 Fed. 381; Jordan v. Landram, 35
App. Cas. (D. C.) 89; McCoy t\ Flynn
(la.), 151 N. W. 465 (property in the
hands of the personal representative
cannot be attached); In re Heller, 14
O. N. P. (N. S.) 604.
For debts of a deceased debtor ''at-
tachments may issue . . . against hi(
executor, administrator, trustee, heir O!
devisee in all cases in which the writ
might have issued againet such debtor
immediately prior to his decease, and
all real estate descended from or de-
vised by him to the heir or devisee may
be attached." Jordan v. Moore, 82 N.
J. L. 552, 82 A. 850.
300-61 Simmonds r. Fenton, 95 Keb.
771, 146 N. W. 944; Alvaran v. Marques,
11 Phil. Isl. 263; Lopez r. Alvarez, 9
Phil. Isl. 28; Guillermo «. Matienzo, 8
Phil. Isl. 368. See Merchants' Nat.
Bank r. Parker, 142 Ga. 265, 82 S. £.
658.
Proof waived by replevying the prop-
erty attached. Haag r. Rogers, 9 Ga.
App. 650, 72 S. E. 46.
301-63 Grier v. Campbell, 21 Ala.
327; Lyman v. James, 85 Vt. 355, 82
A. 177. See Rhine v. Logwood, 10 La.
Ann. 585.
Wlien the sale is void for failure to
record the certificate it may be at-
tached as the property of the vendor.
Ramos f. De la Rama, 15 Phil. Isl.
554
Property over whldi the defendant has
lost control cannot be attached. Oliver
V. Lake, 3 La. Ann. 78.
302-64 Kelly v. Baker, 26 App. Div.
217, 49 N. Y. S. 973.
Property in possession of a building
contractor is presumed to have been
furnished on the credit of the building
and is not subject to an attachment
against him. Pratt v. Nakdimen, 99
Ark. 293, 138 S. W. 974, Ann. Gas.
1913A, 872.
303-72 See L. R. A. 1915B, 351 n.
304-75 Wilson v, Clark, 11 Ga. App.
348, 75 S. E. 334; Macke v. Rubert, II
Phil. Isl. 480; Pena v. Mitchell, 9 PbU.
Isl. 587.
307-80 McCullough & Co. r. Taylor,
25 Phil. Isl. 110.
307-84 Carroll r. Sanford, 34 B. I.
337, 83 A. 855, 40 L. B. A. j^N. S.)
1204.
18i
ATTACHMEXT
Vol 3
308-86 See Heinszen & Co. i7. Peter-
son, 10 Phil. Isl. 330.
PoOTomrton of pledgee'! agent who re-
ceives the proceeds of pledged goods
when sold is the possession of the
pledgee so far as an attaching creditor
of the pledgor is concerned. Inder-
rieden Co. r. Bank of Newberg, 176
HL App. 301.
311-86 Buckeye Nat. Bank v. Huff,
114 Va. 1, 75 S. E. 769.
312-0T Comp, Cutters v. Baker, 2
La. Ann. 572, diat. in First Nat. Bank
V, Martin, 127 La. 733, 53 S. 973.
312-99 Pratt r. Nakdimen, 99 Ark.
293, 138 S. W. 974.
313-3 Carroll v. Haskins, 212 Mass.
593, 99 N. E. 477; Peterson V. Swen-
ningston, 178 Mich. 294, 144 N. W.
550.
315-9 Batrett f. Sargeant, 18 Yt.
365.
316-13 Erdman v. Erdman, 109 Ark.
151, 159 8. W. 201.
318-22 Crutts v. Daly, 84 Misc. 192,
145 N. Y. S. 850.
321-38 Entirety estate.— In an ac-
tion against husband and wife on their
joint notes, an estate held by them
by entireties may be attached. Union
Nat. Bank v, Pinley, 180 Ind. 470, 103
N. E. 110.
322-40 Johnston v. Shaw, 190 Fed.
466, 111 C. C. A. 298.
323-46 Coleman v. Zapp (Tex. Civ.),
135 S. W. 730.
Where a Judgment la doxmant because
of failure to issue an execution within
the year, an attachment may issue in
a scire facias proceeding to revive the
judgment. Coleman v. Zapp (Tex.), 151
8. W. 1040.
"When a Judgment has not been entered
80 that an execution can issue, an at-
tachment may be sued out. Coleman
r. Zapp (Tex. Civ.), 136 S. W. 730.
323-48 Bixon v, Corinne Bunkel
Stock Co., 214 Fed. 418.
323-49 Duluth Brew. & Malt. Co. v.
Allen (Mont.), 149 P. 494.
In an action in interpleader, a defend-
ant who by cross-complaint against the
plaintiff states a cause of action on
contract for the direct payment of
money may make an affidavit for an
attachment. Interlocking Stone Co. v.
Scribner, 19 Cal. App. 344, 126 P. 178.
824-64 Edwards v. Dealers' Ice &
Cold Storage Co. (Ariz.), 148 P. 908
(if tne contract is not fully secured);
Lowenberg v. L. Jacobson's Sons, 25
Cal. App. 790, 145 P. 734; S. ex rel. v.
Justice of Peace (Mont.), 149 P. 709;
First Nat. Bank r. Murphy, 34 Nev.
461, 125 P. 365, if originally secured
an attachment will lie "when such
security has been rendered nugatory by
the act of the defendants."
It mnst be a lien of a fixed, determinate
character, capable of being enforced
with certainty and depending on no
conditions. Edwards v. Dealers' Ice &
Cold Storage Co. (Ariz,), 148 P. 908,
citing cases.
327-62 Lowenberg v, L. Jacobson's
Sons, 25 Cal. App. 790, 145 P. 734.
328-64 Patterson r. McMinn (Tex.
Civ.), 152 S. W. 223.
329-6S Lowenberg r. L. Jacobson's
Sons, 25 Cal. App. 790, 145 P. 734;
Steele-Wedeles Co. v, Shoodoc Pond
Pack. Co., 153 111. App. 676; Christie &
Lowe V. Pennsylvania Iron Wks. Co.,
128 La. 208, 54 8. 742; Sondheimer Co.
V. Richland L. Co., 121 La. 786, 46 S.
806; Bestrepo v. Jaramillo, 149 App.
Div. 941, 134 N. Y. S. 352. See Elwell
& Co. V, Acme Portland Cement Co.,
154 App. Div. 122, 138 N. Y. S. 1004.
Original attachments will not lie to re-
cover unliquidated damages. Steele-
Wedeles Co. r. Shoodoc Pond Pack. Co.,
153 111. App. 576.
Itlargin between market price and con-
tract price is a sufficiently certain
basis for fixing the amount of the .
debt. Singer Mfg. Co. v. Johnson &
Son, 134 La. 590, 64 S. 479.
380-70 Landis v. Case, 5 O. N. P.
366, 7 O. D. 454; Patterson v. McMinn
(Tex. -Civ.), 152 S. W. 223.
331-72 Guarantee T. & B. Co. v.
Flannery (Md.), 93 A. 152.
332-73 Green v. Hoppe (Tex. Civ.),
175 S. W. 1117.
Where some act on the part of the
debtor, except the mere allowance of
time to lapse, is necessary to render
the debt due, it cannot be attached.
Bergin & Brady Co. v, Fraas, 3 O. N.
P. (N. S.) 206, 15 0. D. N. P. 369.
336-84 In an action for rescission
of a contract, an attachment does not
lie. Pineyro v. Utor, 1 Phil. Isl. 79.
338-97 Dowdy t?. Calvi, 14 Ariz. 148,
125 P. 873; Lowenberg v, L. Jacob-
son's Sons, 25 Cal. App. 790, 145 P.
734.
339-1 Beyer r. Blaisdell (Colo. App.),
185
Vol 3
ATTACHMENT
143 P. 385; Duluth Brew. & Malt. Co.
V. Allen (Mont.), 149 P. 494; Harlan
V, Capital Inv. Co., 11 0. N. P. (N. S.)
492.
In actton for sezricM rendered. — Cit-
izens S. ft T. Co. 17. Grossner, 17 0. C.
C. (N. 8.) 87.
S4a-8 ImpUed oontract.— Attachment
will issue in a suit on implied con-
tract to recover money fraudulently ob-
tained as necessary to purchase mining
claims. Beyer v, Blaisdell (Colo. App.),
143 P. 385.
341-4 Gillett t?, Pullman Co., 10 O.
N. P. (N. S.) 692.
342-6 Conran v. Fenn, 159 Mo. App.
664, 140 S. W. 82; Hisor <?. Vandiver,
83 N. J. L. 433, 85 A. 181.
342-7 Libel.— Cain v. Perfect, 89
Kan. 361, 131 P. 573.
343-9 Conran t?. Fenn,'l59 Mo. App.
664, 140 8. W. 82.
343-10 In Bdre facias.— An attach-
ment will issue in a scire facias pro-
ceeding to have a judgment entry cor-
rected and to revive the judgment.
Coleman v, Zapp (Tex.), 151 S. W.
1040.
344-12 In federal courts^ an attach-
ment cannot issue in a statutory pro-
ceeding. Dixon 17. Corinne Bunkel
Stock Co., 214 Fed. 418.
346-16 An obligation to pay a sum
of money includes the principal sum,
interest and perhaps attorney's fees.
Hermida v. Gestera, 20 P. B. 423.
346-19 Contra, S. v. Ehle, 112 Ark.
385, 166 8. W. 535.
347-26 Eckhardt v. Taylor, 90 Kan.
698, 136 P. 218; Crump <?. Sadler, 41
Okla. 26, 136 P. 1102; Callier v. Chun-
non, 40 Okla. 275, 137 P. 1179.
347-30 BucyruB Co. v. M'Arthur) 219
Fed. 266.
In federal conrta, the remedy by at-
tachment is specifically limited to
''common-law causes.'^ .Bucyrug . I?.
M 'Arthur, 219 Fed. 266. "
848-34 Interpleader. — A ~ defendant
in an action in interpleader may in
a proper case attach the fund held
by plaintiff before it is paid into court.
Interlocking Stone Co. v. Scribner, 19
Cal. App. 344, 126 P. 178.
351-44 In re Bule Ten, 1 P.B. Fed.
450. :
351-45 /Baldwin v. Flagg, '43 N. J.
L. 495j- BoBtwick /r)! Ctor,il65 App.
Div. ^5, 151 N. Y. 8. 74; Citizen's S.
& T. Co. V. Grossner, 17 0. C. C. (N.
S.) 87; Daniels V. Taylor, 13 0. C. C.
(N. 8.) 116; Landis v. Case, 5 0. N. P.
366, 7 O. D. 454; Raymond v, Leish-
man, 243 Pa. 64, 89 A. 791, Ann. Cas.
1915C, 780, L. R. A. 1915A, 400.
361-48 Stafford r. Mills, 57 N. J.
L. 570, 31 A. 1023.
361-48 A reaidenoe within tho state
long enoagh to give a person the rights
of cltizenalilp, to-wit, twelve months,
would be as a general rule sufficient to
make him a resident. Taylor c, Knox,
1 Ball. (U. S.) 158, 1 L. ed. 80.
362-49 Krone v. Cooper, 43 Ark.
547; Egener v, Juch, 101 Cal. 105, 35
P. 432, 873; Hanson v, Graham, 82
Cal. 631, 23 P. 56, 7 L. R. A. 127;
Howard t?. Citizens' Bank ft T. Co.,
12 App. Cas. (D. C.) 222; Robinson
V, Morrison, 2 App. Cas. (D. C.) 105;
Barron v, Burke, 82 III. App. 116;
Union Nat. Bank v. Finley, 180 Ind.
470, 103 N. E. 110; Gates V. Otis, 129
La. 1063, 57 S. 371; Dorsey v. Kyle, 30
Md. 512, 96 Am. Dec. 617; Field u.
Adreon, 7 Md. 209; Lawson v. Adlard,
46 Minn. 243, 48 N. W. 1019; Coles
& Sons' Co. V, Blythe, 69 N. J. L.
203, 54 A. 240; Stout v. Leonard, 37
N. J. L. 492; Garden t?. Ckrden, 107 N.
C. 214, 12 S. E. 197, 22 Am. St. 876;
Wheeler v, Cobb, 75 N. C. 21; Raymond
V. Leishman, 243 Pa. 64, 89 A. 791,
Ann. Cas. 1915C, 780, L. R, A. 1915A,
400; Eberly v, Rowland, 1 Pearson.
(Pa.) 312; Munroe v. Williams, 37 S.
C. 81, 16 S. E. 533, 19 L. R. A. 665;
Culhane Adj. Co. v. Farrand, 34 S. D.
87, 147 N. W. 271; Andrews r. Mundy,
36 W. Va. 22, 14 S. E. 414. See note
in L. R. A. 1915A, 406. Comp, Malone
f?. Lindley, 1 Phila. 192.
352-60 Hisor v. Vandiver, 83 N. J.
L. 433, 85 A. 181, one who has his
residence in another state but who
comes daily into the state of the foruniy
is a non-resident within the statute) ;
Raymond 17. Leishman, 243 Pa. 64, 89
A. 791, Ann. Cas. 1915C, 780, L. K.
A. 1915A, 400; Culhane Adj. Co. v.
Farrand, 34 S. D.-87, 147 N. W. 271;
Keelin v. Graves, 129 Tenn. 103, 165
S. W. 232, L. R. A. 1915A, 421.
353-51 Hanson v. Graham, 82 Cal.
631, 23 P. 56. 7 L. R. A. 127; Im-
perial Cotton Oil Co. T. Allen, 83 Miaa.
27, 35 S. 216; Culhane Adj. Co. t?.
Farrand, 34 S. D. 87, 147 N. W. 271.
An ambassador xesldliig at a f^nifga
hS6
ATTACHMENT
Vol 3
court ifl a &on-re«idcDt within tha mean-
iDg of the statate. Baymond v. Leish-
man, 243 Pa. 64, 89 A. 791, Ann. Cas.
1915C, 780, L. B. A. 1915A, 400.
864-54 A midnit houaehoULar with-
in the meaning of the exemption law
may at the same time be a non-resi-
dent within the meaning of the attain-
ment law. Union Nat. Bank v. Finley,
180 Ind. 470, 103 N. E. 110.
S66-IMI Hisor V. Yandiver, 83 N. J.
L. 433, 85 A. 181; Baldwin v. Flagg,
43 K. J. L. 495; Bnindred v. Del Hoyo,
20 N. J. L. 328; Weber v. Weitling, 18
K. J. Eq. 441, 448; Cnlhane Adj. Co.
«. Farrand, 34 S. D. 87, 147 N. W.
271.
359-60 Hisor v. Yandiver, 83 K. J.
L. 433, 85 A. 181. See Brundred v. Del
Hoyo, 20 N. J. L. 328.
356-64 Plemlster Groc. Co. v. Wright
M. & Lu Co., 10 Ga. App. 702, 73 S. E.
1077; Gates v. Otis, 129 La. 1068, 57
S. 371.
356-65 Flemister Groc. Co. v. Wright
M. jb L. Co., 10 Ga. App. 702, 73 B. E.
1077; Gates V. Otis, 129 La. 1063, 57
S. 371; Tyler v. Mahoney, 166 N. C.
509, 82 S. E. 870.
367-67 See note in L. B. A. 1915A,
400.
358-6S Bigrmond v. Leishman, 243
Pa. 64, 89 A. 791, Ann. Cas. 1915C,
780, L. B. A. 1915 A, 400; Keelin i?.
Graves, 129 Tena. 103, 165 8. W. 232,
L. B. A. 1915A, 421.
362-60 FalM itvtmmaUtkm as to
iMMMgr III liarti — ^Where a person, in
buying property says, ''I hayen't got
my cheek book here . . . but I will
send yoa a eheck when I get home,"
an affirmance that he has money in the
bank may be implied and the debt is
one fraudulently contracted. Matthews
r. Eby, 168 Mo. App. 134, 151 S. W.
470.
Tootle, Hosea & Co. v, Ly-
saght & Co., 65 Mo. App. 139.
364-97 Tootle, Hosea & Co. v. Ly-
■aght k Co., 65 Mo. App. 139.
36S-80 Designftting a p&mtm on
whom to file nonmoiiSd — To authorize
an attachment on the ground that de-
defendant is absent from the state six
months without having filed with the
county clerk the name of a person on
whom to serve summons, it is neces-
sary that a search be made of the
clerk's records since the date of
amendment of the act requiring sucli
filing: September 1, 1399. Lichenstein
V, Lorge, 137 N. Y. S. 1.
360-31 Hisor r. Vandiver, 83 N. J.
L. 433, 85 A. 181.
870-34 Pmcess actually senred.— At-
tachment on this ground cannot be
sustained where process was actually
served several days before the last day
of service. Obert Brew. Co. v. Keller,
173 Mo. App. 410, 158 8. W. 1057.
376-64 Wishny v. Gottfried, 131 N.
Y. fi. 693; Piper v. Wade, 28 S. D. 196,
132 N. W. 786. See George v. Miles,
138 N. Y. 8. 1089.
376-66 See Tombafck t?. Berkowitz,
132 N. Y. S. 772.
377-70 Shillaber v, Waldo, 1 Haw.
31; Holt Mfg. Co. u. Thomas, 69 Wash.
488, 125 P. 772.
378-71 Hill V. Atanasio, 127 N. Y.
8. 344.
Beslstaace of yayment of claim by de-
fendant is not sufficient ground to
grant an attachment. Technical Press
V. Silverman, 142 App. Div. 423, 126
N. Y. S. 833.
378-72 Holt Mfg. Co. v. Thomas, 69
Wash. 488, 125 P. 772.
379-77 €onran v. Penn, 159 Mo. App.
664, 140 S. W. 82.
381-86 Piper v. Wade, 28 S. D. 196,
132 N. W. 786.
381-88 Charleston Co-op. v, Allen &
Bros., 40 Utah 575, 123 P. 578, Ann.
Cas. 1914D, 1092.
382-82 Charleston Co-op. v, A. W.
AUen ft Bros., 40 Utah 575, 123 P. 578,
Ann. Cas. 1914D, 1092, under statute
declaring sale of personalty without
delivery to be fraudulent.
382-93 Moeller v. Van Loo Cigar
Co., 180 HI. App. 435; Conran V, Fenn,
159 Mo. App. 664, 140 S. W. 82; Hill
V. Atanasio, 127 N. Y. 8. 344; Amer-
ican Eng., etc. Co. r. O'Brien, 7 O. C.
C. (N. S.) 103, 18-28 O. C. D. 64; Peck
V. Toland, 2T S. D. 406, 131 N. W.
402.
383-95 Hill r. Atanasio, 127 N. Y.
8. 344.
384-S Selling personalty without de-
livery is declared fraudulent by stat-
ute and is sufficient to authorize an at-
tachment without a showing of a spe-
cific fraudulent intent. Charleston Co-
op. V, A. W. Allen & Bros., 40 Utah
575. 123 P. 578, Ann. Cas. 19141), 1092.
187
Vol. 3
ATTACHMENT
388-23 Holt Mfg. Co. t\ Thomas, 69
Wash. 488, 125 P. 772.
389-25 Moeller & Kolb v. Van Loo
Cigar Co., 180 111. App. 435; Crookston
State Bank v. Lee, 124 Minn. 112, 144
N. W. 433; First State Bank v. Smith,
43 Okla. 320, 140 P. 150.
390-28 First State Bank v. Smith,
43 Okla. 320, 140 P. 150.
300-29 First State Bank v. Smith,
43 Okla. 320, 140 P. 150.
391-35 Fatting in escrow pledged
Btock does not impair the security, and
such action will not entitle plaintiff
to an attachment. First Nat. Bank v.
Murphy, 34 Nev. 461, 125 P. 365.
391-36 See Conran v, Fenn, 159 Mo.
App. 664, 140 S. W. 82, on the author-
ity of BuUene v. Smith, 73 Mo. 151.
394-47 Holt Mfg. Co. v. Thomas, 69
Wash. 488, 125 P. 772.
394-51 Lutman v. Fields, 175 Mo.
App. 323, 162 S. W. 291.
The afftdavlt of attachment is not com-
petent. Bale V. Christian, 140 Ga. 790,
79 S. E. 1127.
394-52 Pate v. Yardeman (Tex.
Civ.), 158 S. W. 1183.
395-55 Kelderhouse v. MeOarry, 82
Misc. 365, 143 N. Y. S. 741;' First State
Bank 17. Smith, 43 Okla. 320, 140 P.
150.
395-56 Union Nat. Bank v. Finley,
180 Ind. 470, 103 N. E. 110.
396-60 Leavitt & Milroy Co. v,
Bosenberg Bros. & Co., 83 O. St. 230,
93 N. E. 904.
897-01 Oliver v. Kinney, 173 Ala.
593, 56 S. 203; Flezner V. Bickerson,
65 Ala. 129; Griffin Co. v. Howell, 38
Utah 357, 113 P. 326.
897-03 Additional affidavits are some-
times required by statute to enable the
court to determine the amount for
which a levy must be made. Failure
to file such additional affidavit affects
the levy only and may be ground for
reduction or discharge of the levy.
Corona Coal & Iron Co. v. Lucas E.
Moore Stave Co., 186 Ala. 593, 65 S.
51.
898-04 Plea need not be baaed on
the record, for it may be shown that
the affidavit or bond filed are on the
record by fraud and are not the ones
required by law. Oliver i?. !Eanney, 173
Ala. 593, 56 S. 203.
398-00 Objection on appeal comes
too late. Foley v. Boyer, 153 HI. App.
613.
Execution of a forthcoming bond doet
not waive the right to object to the
attachment on the ground there is no
affidavit. Oliver v. Kinney, 173 Ala.
593, 56 S. 203.
399-79 Damron v. Citizens* NaC
Bank, 112 Ya. 544, 72 S. E. 153.
400-84 Vioe-preaidents and directors
are not agents within the statute re-
quiring the affidavit to be made by
''the plaintiff, his agent, or attorney.''
Damron v. Citizens' Nat. Bank, 112
Va. 544, 72 S. E. 153.
401-85 Nichols v. Davis, 168 Cal.
570, 143 P. 758; Nichols v. Davis, 23
Cal. App. 67, 137 P. 41.
Affldavits s^ed by indi^ldnals aa
vico-preaident and as director of bank
without further explanation are not
sufficient. Damron v. Citizens' Nat.
Bank, 112 Ya. 544, 72 S. E. 153.
403-92 Leavitt & Milroy Co. r.
Bosenberg Bros. & Co., 83 O. St. 230,
93 N. E. 904, notary public who H at-
torney for one of the parties cannot
take an affidavit.
If the notary is attorney in the case,
the affidavit is irregular. Leavitt &
Milroy Co. v. Bosenberg Bros. & Co.,
83 O. St. 230, 93 N. E. 904; Bhinelander
Paper Co. v. Pittsburgh Min. Co., 15
O. C. C. (N. S.) 286.
!the Interest, which diaanalllles a notary
public, is some legal, certain and im-
mediate interest such as formerly dis-
qualified a witness from testifying.
Bhinelander Paper Co. t;. Pittsburgh
Min. Co., 15 O. C. C. (N. S.) 286.
A clerk of an attorney in the case is
not an interested person. Bhinelander
Paper Co. t^. Pittsburgh Min. Co., Id
0. C. C. (N. S.) 286.
Oafihier in plabitlff bank who is a
notary public may take an affidavit.
First Nat. Bank v. Cootes (W. Va.),
81 S. £. 844.
A deputy district derk may take the
attachment eVen though he is acting
as attorney in fact for the attaching
party. Lester v. Bicks (Tex. Civ.), 140
S. W. 395.
405-0 Page v, McDonald, 159 N. C.
38, 74 S. £. 642.
A verified petition is a sufficient affi-
davit when the petition contains, in
substance and effect, all the requisite
averments to authorize the writ. Bat-
188
ATTACHMENT
Vol. 3
terfield v. Miller, 195 Ped. 200, 115 C.
C. A. 152.
406-7 Bdvedsen v. First State Bank,
24 N. D. 227, 139 N. W. 105.
406-8 See Tonn v. Collins, 116 Md.
52, 81 A. 219.
407-9 Tonn v. Collins, 116 Md. 52,
81 A. 219.
407-13 Tonn u. Collins, 116 Md. 52,
81 A. 219. See Hadden v, Linville, 86
Md. 210, 234, 38 A. 37, 900.
407-14 Coleman v. Zapp (Tex. Civ.),
135 S. W. 730, three days.
407-17 EntitUng in wrong court.
An attachment written on a form con-
taining the wrong court at the top is
not invalidated where the error appears
nowhere else in the body of the affi-
davit and the clerk certified that the
affidavit was filed in the proper court.
Bernard «. McClanahan, 115 Va. 453,
79 S. £. 1059.
408-23 Neff v. Alvin, 182 111. App.
41.
410-S6 Page v, McDonald, 159 N. C.
38, 74 8. £. 642.
411-39 McMahon v, BoseviUe Trust
Co., 159 App. Div. 640, 144 N. Y. S.
841. See 3 Standard Flu)c. 433.
411-40 Having the means of knowl-
edge, and deposing positively to the
facts, the inference is that affiant had
knowledge of the fact. Geduld i?. Bal-
timore & O. B. Co., 70 Misc. 495, 127
N. Y. S. 317.
Hanford v, Duchastel (N. J.
L.), ^3 A. 586; Gilbert t?. Burke, 11 O.
C. C. (N. S.) 282.
413-44 Comp. Fayette Liquor Co. v,
Jones (W. Va.), 83 S. £. 726. See the
title "iDfoniiatlon and Belief."
Wbere tbe affiant la blind, the amount
of the claim may be stated on infor-
mation and belief, as the affiant must
rely upon the statements of others as
to the amount due. Peck v, Toland, 27
8. D. 406, 131 N. W. 402.
413-4T Slater v. American Palace
Car Co., 146 App. Div. 859, 954, 131
N. Y. S. 17; Kelderhouse v. McGarry,
82 Misc. 365, 143 N. Y. S. 741; Pettit
t7. U. fi. Motor Co., 77 Misc. 277, 136
N. T. S. 260; Kaplan r. Schannon, 150
N. T. S. 444; Lichenstein v. Large, 137
N. Y. S. 1.
Taylor Packing Co. v. Bo-
litho, 162 App. Div. 655, 147 N. Y. S.
561; Kaplan v. Schannon, 150 N. Y. S.
444; Houck Mfg. Co. v. Standard Screw
Products Co., 149 N. Y. S. 975.
414-Sl Test of sufficiency of aver-
ments.— The information furnished by
the moving papers must be such that
a person of reasonable prudence would
be willing to accept and act upon it.
Kelderhouse v, McGarry, 82 Misc. 365,
143 N. Y, S. 741.
41S-SS Thornley v. Lawbaugh (X.
D.), 143 N. W. 348, 47 L. B. A. (N.
S.) 1127.
416-S8 Nichols t?. Davis, 168 Cal.
570, 143 P. 758.
Negative pregnant. — An averment in
an attachment affidavit that payment
of the notes and that each of the
notes and each part of them had not
been secured is not objectionable as a
negative pregnant. Nichols v, Davis,
23 Cal. App. 67, 137 P. 41.
416-60 Merchants' Nat. Union f?.
Buisseret, 15 Cal. App. 444, 115 P. 58,
a recital that ''judgment" was not
sought to hinder, delay, etc., is insuffi-
cient.
416-61 Where either plaintiff or de-
fendant is a partnership, the individual
names of the partners should be stated.
Sims, Harrison ft Co. T. Jacobson & Co.,
51 Ala. 186.
417-65 Butterfield r. Miller, 195 Ped.
200, 115 C. C. A. 152.
418-70 Peterson v. Beggs (Cal. App.),
148 P. 541.
418-71 Lambert v. Property Ins.
Co., 145 App. Div. 913, 130 N. Y. S.
34, allegation held sufficient.
Negativing exceptions. — That the for-
eign corporation is not within the ex-
ceptions enumerated in Ohio Bev. St.,
15521, must be stated. Leavitt & Mil-
roy Co. V. Bosenberg Bros. & Co., 83
O. St. 230, 93 N. E. 904.
418-7S Barkley f?. Muller (App.
Div.), 153 N. Y. S. 923; Hilborn t?.
Pennsylvania Cement Co., 145 App.
Div. 442, 129 N. Y. S. 957.
419-76 Allied Mfrs. Co. v, Zurn, 165
App. Div. 975, 150 N. Y. S. 243. See
Bedhouse r. Graham, 20 Haw. 717, the
affidavit in a suit on an open account
must show that ''all the goods have
been delivered."
Failure of a foreign corporation to
comply with the statute must be al-
leged, under a statute providing no
process of attachment shall issue
against a foreign corporation who com-
189
Vol. 3
ATTACHMENT
plies with |148c of Bev. St., on the
ground it is a foreign corporation or
a non-resident. Leavitt & Milroy Co.
V. Bosenberg Bros. & Co., 83 0. St. 230,
93 N. E. 904; Bigalow Fruit Co. v. Ar-
mour Car Line, 74 0. St. 168, 78 N. E.
267; Geogbic Boiler Wks. v. Interna-
tional G. ft M. Co., 17 O, C. C. (N. 8.)
605. See also Taylor v: Crow Motor
Car Co., 16 0. N. P. (N. S.) 557; Bosen-
bam Co. v. Cohen & Mack, 13 O. C. C.
(N. S.) 102.
419-78 Conran v. Fenn, 159 Mo.
App. 664, 140 S. W. 82.
420-79 Person for whom labor is per-
formed and what labor was performed
must be stated. Eplin v. Blessing, 73
W. Va. 283, 80 S. E. 458.
421-83 See DuPont Co. i;. Pennsylvania
& I. Coal Co., 48 Ind. App. 538, 96
N. E. 204; Murphy v. Lindstedt, 142
App. Div. 777, 127 N. Y. S. 609. Comp.
Anderson v. Dover (Miss.), 68 S. 166,
by statute.
421-86 Parkinson V. Crawford, 13
O. N. P. (N. S.) 73 (allegation held
sufficient) ; Home Distilling Co. v. Him-
mell (W. Va.), 82 S. E. 1094, nature
of claim insufficiently stated. See
AlUed Mfrs. v. Zurn (App. Div.), 150
N. Y. S. 243.
422-88 Leavitt & Milroy Co. v.
Bosenberg Bros. & Co., 83 O. St. 230,
93 N. E. 904.
422^9 The nature of the indebted-
ness, whether on a judgment or a con-
tract, must be stated. Griffin Co. v,
Howell, 38 Utah 357, 113 P. 326.
423-92 Cain v. Perfect, 89 Kan. 361,
131 P. 573; Simon v. Temple I»umb.
Co. (Tex. Civ.), 146 S. W. 592.
423-93 Statement that defendant is
Indebted is equivalent to the word
**due." Avery & Co. v. Pope, 13 Ga.
App. 743, 79 S. E. 946.
424-95 Proof of non-payment need
not be tendered by plaintiflP. Bremer
V, Bing, 146 App. Div. 724, 131 N. Y.
S. 487.
424-96 Title by assignment must be
set *out. — Since an assignee of a claim
for brokerage commissions could not
sue thereon prior to the act of 1907,
an affidavit for an 'attachment in an
action thereon must state when the
plaintiff acquired title. Steele-Wedeles
Co. V. Shoodoc Pond Pack. Co., 153 111.
App. 576.
424-97 Bestrepo f?. Jaramillo, 149
App. Div. 941, 134 N. Y. S. 352; Grif-
fin Co. V. Howell, 38 Utah 357, 113 P.
326. See Anderson v, Dover (Miss.),
68 S. 166.
42S-98 Eckhardt v, Taylor, 90 Kan.
698, 136 P. 218.
425-2 Nichols v. t)avis, 168 Cal. 570,
143 P. 758, affidavit held sufficiently
certain.
426-6 Prusher f>. Vacuum Dye Mach.
Co., 148 App. Div. 68, 131 N. Y. S.
994.
The Idnd of machines sold must be
stated, where the action is for commis-
sions, the amount of which depends on
the kind of machines sold. Frusher v.
Vacuum Dye. Mach. Co., 148 App. Div.
68, 131 N. Y. S. 994.
426-7 Davis r. Mills, 21 Haw. 167;
Bremer v. Bing, 146 App. Div. 724,
131 N. Y. S. 487; MiUer v. Jones, 152
N. Y. S. 739.
Oonnterdaims known to plalntlif's as-
signor.—Plaintiff in his affidavit for at-
tachment need not state that he is en-
titled to recover the sum specified over
and above all counterclaims known to
his assignor. McMahon v. Boseville
Trust Co., 159 App. Div. 640, 144 N. Y.
S. 841; Bremer r. Bing, 146 App. Div.
724, 131 N. Y. 8. 487.
An affidavit negativing oonntexcbdmB
"known to defendant" is fatally de-
fective notwithstanding the court may
think the affiant meant to say "plain-
tiff" instead of ''defendant." Bey-
nolds V. Bean, 138 N. Y. S. 1104.
427-8 Davis v. Mills, 21 Haw. 167.
427-11 Words of statute need not be
used. Cutietta v. Cilluffo, 127 N. Y.
S. 297.
428-12 Beynolds v. Bean, 138 N. T.
S. 1104.
428-13 First Nat. Bank v. Murphy,
34 Nev. 461, 125 P. 365; Hisor v. Van-
diver, 83 N. J. L. 433, 85 A. 181; John
Fowler Sb Co. v. Pinlay Bros., 6 P. B,
Fed. 174.
Whexe defendants are partners the aver-
ments are insufficient if they relate
solely to one of the partners. Wishny
V. Gottfried, 131 N. Y. S. 593.
428-16 See Conran v. Fenn, 159 Bf o.
App. 664, 140 S, W. 82; Miller v. Veld-
huyzen, 13 0. N. P. (N. S.) 546.
428-17 Fayette Liquor Co. v. Jonea
(W. Va.), 83 S. E. 726.
420-18 "If the attaehment of per-
sonal eamix^ be sought under §10,253,
19Q
ATTACHMENT
Vol. 3
P. k A. Am. Gen. Code of Ohio, either
one of the three additional allegations
pointed out by the statute must be
stated in the affidavit. Barrow v. Wil-
liams, 12 O. N. P. (N. 8.) 518. That
liabilitj was incurred in the county
where suit is brought must be stated.
Parkinson t?. Crawford, 13 0. N. P.
(N. S.) 73.
429-19 Page f). McDonald, 159 K C.
38, 74 S. E. 642, affidavit held suffi-
cient.
That SDimiunui cannot be served on the
non-resident defendant must be stated.
Hisor t?. Vandiver, 83 N. J. L. 433, 85
A- 181. See in fray vol. 3, x>. 355, n. 59,
and supplement thereto.
430-22 Ildvedsen t;. First State
Bank, 24 N. D. 227, 139 N. W. 105
(affidavit sufficient); Wichman v. Fox
(S. C), 82 S. E. 1014, affidavit held
sufficient.
430-27 Sufficient allegatioiL— Allega-
tions that defendant is not an inhab-
itant of the state (Klepper v, Powell,
6 Heisk. [Tenn.] 503), that he is a
resident of a sister state (Grubbs t?.
Colter, 7 Baxt. [Tenn.] 432), and an
allegation of foreign citizenship (But-
terfield v. Miner, 195 Fed. 200, 115 C.
C A. 152), are sufficient averments of
the fact of non-residence of the defend-
ant.
431-32 See Bucyrus Co. v. M 'Arthur,
219 Fed. 266.
George v. Miles, 138 N. Y. S.
1089.
Hisor «. Vandiver, 83 N. J.
L. 433, 85 A. 181 (the rule requiring
an affirmation of facts that summons
cannot be served does not apply in
cases of outrageous assault and battery,
mayhem, or seduction) ; Millang v. Lam-
bros, 153 N. Y. 8. 944.
423-41 Fafinre of defendant to make
designation. — ^An affidavit which does
not sufficiently aver defendant's failure
to file with county clerk a designa-
tion of a person on whom process may
be served, is fatally defective. Lichen:
stein r. Large, 137 N. Y. 8. 1.
433-43 Bockfall Apartments v, Pos-
ner, 153 N. Y. 8. 979.
433-44 Taylor Packing Co. v. Bo-
litho, 162 App. Div. 555, 147 N. Y. S.
561.
484-47 Eahmke v. Weber, 187 Mo.
App. 698, 173 S. W. 78.
48449 Eplin r. Blessing, 73 W. Va.
283, 80 S. £, 498.
435-Sl Pepperell f?. Taylor, 5 PhiL
Isl. 536.
436-S7 Leavitt k Milroy Co. f?.
Bosenberg Bros. & Co., 83 O. St. 230,
93 N. E. 904.
437-S8 Dowdy v. Calvi, 14 Ariz.
148, 126 P. 873; Nichols v. Davis, 168
Cal. 570, 143 P. 758; Greenwood Groc.
Co. V, Bennett, 101 Miss. 573, 58 S. 482,
598; Baker v. Hahn (Tex. Civ.), 161
8. W. 443.
Failure to describe plural defendants
in the plural may be corrected by
amendment. Peterson t;. Beggs (Cal.
App.), 148 P. 541.
Changing "defendant" to "defend-
ants."—An affidavit in an action
against two defendants may be amend-
ed by changing the word * * defendant * '
to " defendants'' and adding "or either
of them." Nichols v. Davis, 23 Cal.
App. 67, 137 P. 41.
Attorney for i^laintlff may make the
amendment. Nichols v. Davis, 23
Cal. App. 67, 137 P. 41.
438-59 Penn f?. McGhee, 6 Ga. App.
631, 65 8. E. 686. See Dowdy v. Calvi,
14 Ariz. 148, 125 P. 873.
438-60 After Judgment, an amend-
ment substituting one Christian name
for another was denied in Garrison r.
Seckendorff, 79 N. J. L. 203, 74 A.
311.
438-64 Sims, Harrison k Co. v, Jacob-
son k Co., 51 Ala. 186; Silverman k
Son V, Sloat k Bro., 11 Ga. App. 193,
74 S. E. 938; Rothweiler V, Mason, 92
Kan. 612, 141 P. 245; Anderson v.
Dover (Miss.), 08 S. 166.
439-66 Luisi t. Jacobellis, 163 Dl.
App. 103; DuPont Co. v, Pennsylvania
k I. Coal Co., 48 Ind. App. 538, 96
N. E. 204.
439-66 Nichols t?. Davis, 23 Cal. App.
67, 137 P. 41; Silverman k Son r.
Sloat k Bro., 11 Ga. App. 193, 74
S, E. 938.
439-68 Greenwood Groc. Co. «?. Ben-
nett, 101 Miss. 573, 58 S. 482, 598;
Cutler r. Allavena, 165 App. Div. 422,
150 N. Y. S. 790.
439-69 Peterson v, Beggs (Cal. App.),
148 P. 541.
489-TO Bothweiler v. Mason, 92 Kan.
612, 141 P. 245.
439-71 A levy under an Insofllclent
affidavit cannot be upheld by an amend-
ment of the affidavit. Leavitt k Mil-
roy Co. i;. Bosenberg Bros, k Co.*, 83 ,
Wl
Vol 3
ATTACHMENT
O. St. 230, 93 N. E. 904; Pope t?.
Hibernia Ina. Co., 24 0. St. 481.
440*72 Payette Liquor Co. v, Joxxes
(W. Va.), 83 S. E. 726.
440-74 Cutler v. Alia vena (App. Div.),
150 N. Y. S. 790.
440-75 Oannot be correctlva. — Fay-
ette Liquor Co. v, Jones (W. Va.), 83
S. E. 726.
440-78 Ralphs t?. Bruns, 22 Cal. App.
153, 133 P. 997; Luisi v, Jacobellis, 163
111. A*pp. 103.
441-80 Balphs v. Bruns, 22 Cal. App.
153, 133 - P. 997, variance in amount
held fatal.
441-82 Brown v. Williams-Brooke
Co. (Miss.), 63 S. 351.
441-84 Bedundant averments do not
vitiate the aHdavit. Lowenberg i;. L.
Jacobson's Sons, 25 Cal. App. 790, 145
P. 734.
442-88 Northern Shoe Co. v. Cecka,
22 N. B. 631, 135 N. W. 177.
442-89 Exchange Nat. Bank v, Clem-
ent, 109 Ala. 270, 19 S. 814; Gruber
Co. <?. Davis (Mich.), 149 N. W. 990.
Defects apparent on the face of the
affidavit may be reached by motion to
quash. Gruber Co. v. Davis (Mich.),
149 N. W. 990.
Striking out portion of afUdavit. — It is
not proper to strike from a party 's affi-
davit any statements contained there-
in on the ground that they are im-
material or disclose no cause for at-
tachment; the affidavit must be con-
sidered as a whole. Crable & Son 17.
O'Connor, 21 Wyo. 460, 133 P. 376.
442-90 Exchange Nat. Bank v. Clem-
ent, 109 Ala. 270, 19 S. 814.
442-92 See Hayes v. Conger, 36 App.
Cas. (D. C.) 202.
443-94 Allied Mfrs. r. Zurn, 165
App. Div. 975, 150 N. Y. S. 243.
Or where abandoned. — Maurer v, Phil-
lips, 182 Mo. App. 440, 168 S. W. 669.
443-95 Gruber Co. v, Davis (Mich.),
149 N. W. 990.
(Hvlng forthcoming bond la not a
waiver of irregularities and defects in
the proceedings. Home Distilling Co.
V. Himmel (W. Va.), 82 S. E. 1094.
444-1 A receiver, suing out an at-
tachment, was required to give a bond
in McDermott 17. Hayes, 194 Fed. 902.
444-2 Earp v. Stephens, 1 Ala. App.
447, 55 S. 266; Wentworth i;. J£oore,
64 Wash, 451, 117 P. 251.
When defendant is foreign oozporatlon,
no bond is required. Baker v. More-
head & Co., 7 O. N. P. (N. S.) 384,
19 0. D. N. P. 230.
44S-1S Where the fnlfllmont of the
obligation may be legally enforced and
this fact is clearly shown by an authen-
tic document, no bond is required. Avalo
V, Porrata, 19 P. R. 19.
449-55 Beal name is to be preferred
to the trade name of the plaintiff. Wich-
man v. Poz (S. C), 82 S. E. 1014.
449-61 See Sims, Harrison & Co. ^.
Jacobson & Co., 51 Ala. 186.
450-64 Wentworth v. Moore, 64
Wash. 45, 117 P. 251.
462-79 In New Jersey, the bond is
required to be in double tho amount
of plaintiff's claim or double the value
of the property attached, if the action
be founded on contract; but if founded
on tort, the court or judge fixes the
amount of the bond, as shall, under
all the circumstances of the case, be
deemed reasonably conditioned for the
payment of any judgment recovered in
the action. Hisor v. Vandiver, 83 N. J.
L. 433, 85 A. 181.
453-83 Comp. Shillaber «. Waldo, 1
Haw. 31, 42.
455-6 Signing the jnstlflcatlon is a
sufficient signature of the surety under
a statute which does not provide that
the bond be ** subscribed " or prescribe
any rule as to its execution. Boger v.
Cedar Cove Lumb. Co., 165 N. C. 557,
81 S. E. 784.
457-22 Deputy clerk who la attorney
for the plaintiff may approve the bond.
Lester «, Ricks (Tex. Civ.), 140 S. W.
395.
458-29 Comp. Marquis v. Ireland, 86
Kan. 416, 121 P. 486, Ann. Cas. 1913C,
144, where tho signature of the bank,
who signed cz surety, is void for lack
of authority.
460-55 Hoznik v. Becker, 68 Wash.
63, 122 P. 593.
460-56 Greenwood Groc. Co. v, Ben-
nett, 101 Hiss. 573, 58 S. 482.
461-68 Boznik v, Becker, 68 Wasli.
63, 122 P. 593.
462-77 Boger v. Cedar Cove Lumb.
Co., 165 N. C. 557, 81 S. E. 784.
462-82 The absence of a Jostlflca-
tlon may be supplied by amendment.
John Fowler & Co. v. Finlay Bros., 6
P. B. Fed. 174.
462-85 The oml88lo]i of the cUub^
192
ATTACHMENT
Yol. 3
witli xtfexeaca to costs and the pay-
ment of damages may be supplied by
amendment for it is not a jurisdictional
defect. Boznik v. Becker, 68 Wash. 63,
122 P. 593.
403-88 Marquis v, Ireland, 86 Kan.
416, 121 P. 486, Ann. Cas. 1913C, 144.
466-2 Oommissionor. — The jurisdic-
tion of the commissioner upon the
proofs presented to him to order an
attachment must be as formal and pre-
cise and appear in the order, as is re-
quired in actions upon contract whero
a defendant is held to bail. Hisor t\
Vandiver, 83 N. J. L. 433, 85 A. 181.
466-11 Oartmell v. Rudolph Wurt-
Htzer Co., 5 O. N. P. (N. S.) 604 (jus-
tice of the peace has jurisdiction of
proceedings by attachment against for-
eign corporations). See Shillaber v,
Waldo, 1 Haw. 31.
Tlie municipal court in tho District of
Columbia has jurisdiction to issue writs
of attachment. Moses £: Sons v, Hayes,
36 App. Cas. (D. C.) 194.
A Justice of tho supreme court may
issue a writ of attachment in causes
pending in the supreme court as well
as causes pending in the court of first
instance. Cia. General Do Tabacos v,
Trinchera, 7 Phil. Isl. 708.
467-16 Attachment issued in blank.
Since the duty of the officer issuing
the writ of attachment cannot be
delegated, the attachment cannot be
issued in blank. Carson V. Woodrow,
160 N. C. 143, 75 S. E. 996.
468-26 An order granting an attach-
ment after Judgment rendered is a
nullity. Hernandez v. Hutchison, 21
P. B. 175.
469-31 Duluth Brew. & Malt. Co. t;.
Allen (Mont.), 149 P. 494; Johnson v.
Larson, 96 Neb. 193, 147 N. W. 476;
Closson v. Chase, 158 Wis. 346, 149
N. W. 26, holding the writ was not
issued before summons, as the so-called
second issuance of summons was only a
second placing in the hands of the offi-
cer for service.
Carson r. Woodrow, 160 N.
C. 143, 75 S, E. 996.
Court of general Jurisdiction cannot
iSBue to constable^ — Carson v, Woodrow,
160 N. C. 143, 75 S. E. 996.
4T6-69 Lyman r. James, 85 Vt. 355,
82 A. 177.
4T6-70 Writs against partnerships.
Sims, Harrison & Co. v, Jacobson &
€0., 51 Ala. 186.
4T9-8T Balphs v, Bruns, 22 Cal. App.
153, 133 P. 997.
The amount of each item claimed should
be stated. Hermida f. Gestera, 20 P.
R. 423.
Variance between aifidavlt and writ.
That an affidavit of attachment in a
justice's court is for a larger amount
than that specified in the writ of at-
tachment will not prevent a verdict
for the larger sum, where the de-
fendant made no objection. Myers t?.
Adams, 14 Ga. App. 520, 81 S. E. 595.
480-88 Balphs f). Bruns, 22 Cal. App.
153, 133 P. 997; Elwell & Co. r. Cement
Co., 154 App. Div. 122, 138 N. T. 8.
1004.
483-11 After consolidation of bills
in attachment brought by A. and B.
on property of a non-resident, B. may
move to quash A.'s attachment for
failure to join necessary parties de-
fendant, for until such consolidation B.
is not a party to the separate attach-
ment bills and so has not waived the
objection. King €. Patterson (Tenn.),
164 S. W. 1191.
An agreement that sheriff shall sell the
goods attached and place proceeds in
a designated depository t3 wait the
judgment constitutes a waiver of ob-
jections to the writ. Collier v, Gan-
non, 40 Okla. 275, 137 P. 1179.
483-16 Page v. McDonald, 159 N.
C. 38, 74 S. E. 642.
484-26 Greenwood Groc. Co. v, Ben-
nett, 101 Miss. 573, 58 S. 482, 598.
485-31 Tyson «. Beinecke, 25 Cal.
App. 696, 145 P. 153.
488-S3 Johnson v. Whilden, 166 N.
C. 104, 81 S. E. 1057. See Oliver v.
Kinney, 173 Ala. 593, 56 S. 203; Thorn-
ley i\ Lawbaugh (N. D.), 143 N. W.
348, 47 L. B. A. (N. S.) 1127.
491-69 To sheriff and not constable*
Writs of attachment issued by superior
courts must be addressed to sheriil and
not to constable. Carson v, Woodrow,
160 N. C. 143, 75 S. E. 996.
493-86 The creditor has a right to
designate what property shall be levied
on, notwithstanding the writ directs
the officer to take into his possession
all the property of the defendant. Curry
V. Equitable Surety Co. (Colo. App.),
148 P. 914.
494-91 Mandamus will not lie to
compel a levy on a specific piece of
property under a writ directing a levy
in general terms, even though the de-
ls
193
Vol. 3
ATTACHMENT
fendant possesses no other property.
Manotoc V. M'Micking, 10 Phil. Isl.
119.
494-94 Beaulieu v, Clark, 210 Mass.
90, 96 N. E. 319.
496-98 Remington Typewriter Co. v.
Hall, 183 Ala. 519, 63 S. 74; Beaulieu
i>. Clark, 210 Mass. 90, 96 N, E, 319.
601-25 Johnson v. Larson, 96 Neb
193, 147 N. W. 476.
501-30 Place of levy. — Statute
authorizes the official to pursue and at-
tach the property in an adjoining coun-
ty within twenty-four hours after its
removal. Pleak v. Marks & Shields
(la.), 152 N. W. 63.
502-84 Sells v. Price, 3 Ala. App.
634, 57 S. 265.
506-60 Weiss v. Ahrens, 24 Colo.
App. 531, 135 P. 987.
506-52 Mertens v. Northern State
Bank, 68 Or. 273, 135 P. 885.
509-54 Weiss t?. Ahrens, 24 Colo.
App. 531, 135 P. 987; Green v. Coit,
81 O. St. 280, 286, 90 N. E. 794, 135
Am. St. 784.
511-57 Weiss v. Ahrens, 24 Colo.
App, 531, 135 P. 987.
511-68 Brown v. Brown (Mich.), 134
N. W. 1121, construing C. L., §10,761.
512-59 See Bogers «?. Maine Cent. B.
Co. (Me.), 94 A. 758, holding the acts
of the officer in looking into a freight
car containing potatoes, saying ''I at-
tach these potatoes," and appointing a
keeper to look out for the cars con-
stituted a sufficient levy.
513-62 Parish r. Van Orsdale-©8-
borne B. Co., 92 Kan. 286, 140 P. 835.
514-64 Freiberg v. Johnson, 71 Tex.
558, 9 S. W. 455; Jones v. First State
Bank (Tex. Civ.). 140 S. W. 116;
Kessler v. Halff, 21 Tex. Civ. App. 91,
51 S. W. 48.
514-66 Parish v. Van Arsdale-Os-
borne B. Co., 91 Kan. 286, 140 P. 835.
519-82 Subject to Ilen8.~-The officer
cannot take the property out of the
hands of lienor when it is subject to
liens. Lindsey r. Mexican Crude Rub-
ber Co., 197 Fed. 775.
519-85 Bank deposit. — See Sturdee
V, Cuba Eastern R. Co., 196 Fed. 211,
116 C. C. A. 43.
621-88 Jolley r. Dunlop, 34 S. B.
213, 147 N. W. 980.
623-92 In re Clough, 197 Fed. 185;
Tolman r. Carleton, 110 Me. 571, 85
A. 390.
527-16 Barber v. Morgan, 84 Conn.
618, 80 A. 791.
Notice to the non-resident defendant
is not required. Barber v. Morgan, 84
Conn. 618, 80 A. 791.
529-19 Tolman v. Carleton, 110 Me.
57, 85 A. 390.
Brick in Idlns may be attached in a
similar manner. Such attachment oper-
ates to divest the owner of posses-
sion. Cary Brick Co. v. Tilton, 208
Fed. 497, 125 C. C. A. 499.
529-21 Arranging with the plaintiff
to gather the crop is not such an as-
sumption of dominion over the crop as
to constitute a levy. Sells t?. Price, 3
Ala. App. 534, 57 S. 265.
529-22 Growing com cannot be at-
tached by the sheriff's merely having
it pointed out to him and arranging
with the owner of the land to gather
it. Sells V, Price, 3 Ala. App. 534, 57
S. 265.
529-24 Jolley i>. Bunlop, 34 S. D.
213, 147 N. W. 980, a list of the prop-
erty levied on which does not state
its value, contained in the return is an
inventory.
630-25 Property released on se-
curity need not be appraised. United
States Surety Co. v. American Fruit
Product Co., 40 App. Cas. (D. C.) 239.
631-34 Be Carle v, Marks, 171 Mich.
167, 137 N. W. 94, disinterested free-
holders.
A county clerk is not, by virtue of
his office, an interested person. De
Carie t?. Marks, 171 Mich. 167, 137 N.
W. 94.
631-39 The county and state in
which the property is situated suffi-
ciently appears when stated in the offi-
cer's certificate accompanying the in-
ventory. Gruber Co. t?. Davis (Mich.),
149 N. W. 990.
632-43 Failure to state the values
of the property levied on is immate-
rial on collateral attack. Jolley r. Dan-
lop, 34 S. D. 213, 147 N. W. 980.
632-48 Officer may open a sealed
package or locked safety deposit box
which he has in his possession under
attachment. Tillinghast v. Johnson, 34
R. I. 136, 82 A. 788, Ann. Cas. 1914A,
960, 41 L. R. A. (N. S.') 764.
632-49 Sanders r. D. Landreth Seed
Co., 91 S. C. 26, 74 S. E. 120.
194
ATTACHMENT
Vol. 3
533-50 Levy on interest of a part-
ner in a partnership shall be made by
leaving a notice with one or more of
the partners or with the clerk of the
partnership. First Nat. Bank v. Jones
(Tex. Civ.), 139 fi. W. 671.
538-74 Service on bookkeeper of
owner is not sufficient where service
could have been had upon the owner
before return day. Brown u. Brown
(Mich.), 134 N. W. 1121.
540-87 In re (Hough, 197 Fed. 185.
544-7 Mott 1?. Holbrook, 28 N. D.
251, 148 N. W. 1061.
545-12 Klein V, Turner, 66 Or. 369,
133 P. 625.
545-14 Balphs v. Bruns, 22 Cal. App.
153, 133 P. 997.
549-41 Long t?. Tighe, 36 Nev. 129,
133 P. 60.
552-54 The demanding and receiv-
ing of a certificate of the secretary
of the corporation, showing the number
of shares of stock held by the defend-
ant, need not be shown in the re-
turn. This provision of the statute is
merelj for the purpose of aiding the
attaching officer. Barber V. Morgan,
84 Conn. 618, 80 A. 791.
553-57 Daniels v. Taylor, 13 0. C. C.
(N. 8.) 116.
555-66 Wren v, Cooksey, 147 Ky.
825, 145 S. W. 1116, return held suffi-
cient.
555-67 Ressmeyer v. Norwood, 117
Md. 320, 83 A. 347.
Boffldent description. — ^Describing the
property levied on as '*two town lots'*
in a certain city is sufficient when the
evidence showed that defendant owned
only that property. Wren v, Cooksey,
147 Ky. 825, 145 S. W. 1116.
556-68 Bessmeyer r. Norwood, 117
Md. 320, 83 A. 347; Blchardson i\ Hos-
kins L. Co., Ill Va. 755, 69 S. 935, re-
turn held sufficient.
557-69 Green" v, Coit, 81 O. St. 280,
90 N. E. 794, 135 Am. St. 784, full com-
pliance.
557-70 Parkinson v, Crawford, 13
O. N. P. (N. S.) 73.
561-00 Schwartzberg v. Central Ave.
8. Bank, 84 Kan. 581, 115 P. 110; San-
ders r. Landreth Seed Co., 91 S. C. 26,
74 8. E. 120.
561-81 See Gardner v. James, 5 B. I.
235.
As against tbe oflleer the return is
conclusive and it will be presumed that
he has taken such possession or con*
trol of the property as to render the
attachment valid. Cary Brick Co. t?.
Tilton, 208 Fed. 497, 125 C. C. A. 499.
564-12 Where a third person claims
the property and serves his affidavit to
that effect upon the officer, the officer
is not bound to keep the property
under attachment unless the plaintiff on
demand indemnify him against such
claim by a sufficient obligation. A per-
sistent seizure notwithstanding such
claim renders the levy illegal. Quesada
V, Artacho, 9 Phil. Isl. 104.
664-13 Eanaman v. Hubbard (Tex.
Civ.), 160 S. W. 304.
571-47 Conditions In excess of the
statutory requirements are regarded as
surplusage and do not affect the valid-
ity of the bond. Herrera v. Neis, 18
Phil. Isl. 366.
672-52 Thompson v. Wright, 22 Ga.
607.
572-63 Woodbridge r. Drought, 118
Ga. 671, 45 S. B. 266; Walter t\ Kier-
stead, 74 Ga. 18; Camp u. Cahn, 53
Ga. 558; Leusch v. Nickel, 16 N. M.
28, 113 P. 595.
Failare of officer to surrender the prop-
erty after bond is given does not in-
validate further proceedings under the
writ. Jennings t?. Wall, 217 Mass. 278,
104 N. E. 738.
Effect of replevin. — Where property
which has been attached has been re-
plevied the attachment is dissolved, the
bond is substituted for the property and
the case stands as if it had been
founded on ordinary principles. Wat-
ters r. Southern F. & C. Co., 13 Ga. App.
468, 79 S. E. 360.
577-77 Henry Cowell L. ft C. Co. v.
Pigel (Cal. App.), 148 P. 796.
687-40 Phillips t?. Eggert, 145 Wis.
43, 129 N. W. 654.
588-62 Busso-Chiuese Bank v. Nat.
Bank, 187 Fed. 80, 109 C. C. A. 398;
Matsumura v. Higgins, 187. Fed. 601,
109 C. C. A. 431 ; Stewart v. Murray, 14
Ga. App. 438, 81 g. E. 382; S. v. Burgy,
22 Ida. 586, 126 P. 779; In re Moyni-
han's Est. (la.), 151 N. W. 504; Grip-
pen r. S., 20 Wyo. 486, 124 P. 764,- 128
P. 622.
688-54 Williams v. Haycraft, 33
Okla. 697, 127 P. 494.
689-60 Strictly speaking, an attach-
ment on a mesne process does not con-
195
Vol. 3
ATTACHMENT
stitute a lien. In re Hansford, 194 Fed.
658, 115 C. C. A. 560.
589-62 In re Hansford, 194 Fed. 658,
115 C. C. A. 560. See Nichols t?. In-
gram (Or.), 146 P. 988, ''strictly speak-
ing, an attachment does not create a
lien, although the statute usee that
term; but at most is a contingent se-
curity, to satisfy the judgment of the
creditor, if he obtains one,"
591-63 Tetzloff i\ May, 151 la. 441,
131 N. W. 647.
592-70 Dalivery of writ to officer.
A writ of attachment on personal prop-
erty becomes a lien on the property
from the time the writ is delivered
to the oflScer. McClendon v. First Nat.
Bank, 112 Ark. 187, 165 S. W. 952.
692-71 Heyer v. Teare (Colo. App.),
143 P. 394.
593-75 Daniels v. Kunyons, 164 Ky.
309, 175 S. W. 338.
593-76 First Nat. Bank v. Powell,
130 La. 856, 58 S. 687; Neville v. Mil-
ler (Tex. Civ.), 171 S. W. 1109; John-
son i;. Larson, 96 Neb. 193, 147 N. W.
476.
594-77 Heyer v, Teare (Colo. App.),
143 P. 394; Mott tJ. Holbrook, 28 N. D.
251, 148 N. W. 1061; Nichols v. In-
gram (Or.), 146 P. 988; U. S. t?. Rega-
lado, 1 Phil. Isl. 125.
595-78 Ooit t?. Sistare, 85 Conn. 573,
84 A. 119; Woodward v. Lishman, 80
N. J. L. 586, 78 A. 701.
598-87 Merger of Uen In the Judg-
ment.—See Mott V. Holbrook, 28 N. D.
251, 148 N. W. 1061.
600-1 J. B. Inderrieden Co. v. Al-
len, 176 111. App. 301; Frantz v. Vin-
cent, 152 la. 680, 133 N. W. 121.
603-8 First Nat. Bank t?. Powell, 130
La. 856, 58 S. 687.
604-15 Ladd & Tilton Bank v. Com-
mercial State Bank, 64 Or. 486, 130 P.
975, 49 L. R. A. (N. S.) 657.
604-16 Curry v. Equitable Surety Co.
(Colo. App.), 148 P. 914; Coit v. Sis-
tare, 85 Conn. 573, 84 A. 119; Johnson
f?. Larson, 96 Neb. 193, 147 N. W.
476; Woodward t\ Lishman, 80 N. J.
L, 586, 78 A. 701.
The lien of an attadunent Issued out
of the small cause court is prior to an
attachment issued subsequently out of
the circuit court. Woodward v. Lish-
man, 80 N. J. L. 586, 78 A. 701.
610-36 In re Schow, 213 Fed. 514.
610-39 See vol. 3, p. 639, n. 38, and
supplement thereto.
617-63 Jensen v. Dorr, 23 Cal. App.
701, 139 P. 659.
Priority of dower interest. — The widow 's
distributive share in her deceased hus-
band's real estate is not subject to an
attachment levied thereon in his life-
time not confirmed by judgment or sale
prior to his death. Tetzloff v. May, 151
la. 441, 131 N. W. 647.
618-64 Coit V. Sistare, 85 Conn. 573,
84 A. 119; Klein v. Turner, 66 Or. 369,
133 P. 625.
618-66 Mott V. Holbrook, 28 N. D.
251, 148 N. W. 1061.
619-68 McDermott v. Hayes, 194
Fed. 902; First Nat. Bank f. Acme
Co-op. B. & T. Co. (la.), 149 N. W.
607.
620-71 See Pares v. J. Reynes & Co.,
2 P. R. Fed. 402.
Plaintiff a purchaser in good faith.
From the date of an attachment until
it is discharged or the writ executed,
the plaintiff as against third persons, is
deemed a purchaser in good faith and
for a valuable consideration of the real
property attached if the certificate of
attachment is made and filed as re-
quired by law. Consequently, such at-
tachment will prevail over a deed which
has not been recorded as required by
law, if the attaching creditor or the
purchaser had no notice of the un-
recorded deed. Mertens P. Northern
State Bank, 68 Or. 273, 135 P. 885.
620-72 Rice-Stix Dry Goods Co. r.
Saunders, 128 La. 82, 54 S. 479; Aris-
ton V. Cea, 13 Phil. Isl. 109; Fabian
V. Smith, Bell & Co., 8 Phil. Isl. 496
(although unrecorded); La Sociedad E.
De A. M. Y. B. v. Rossy, 17 P. R. 77;
Sola V. Morera, 7 P. R. 7, a recorded
cautionary notice of attachment does
not prejudice a property right acquired
prior to the recordation although it is
not recorded prior to the entry of such
notice.
Becording in the probate court is not
sufficient; the conveyance must be of
record in the office of the registry of
deeds, otherwise it has no priority over
a subsequent attachment lien. Kelly
V. Byers, 115 Minn. 489, 132 N. W.
919.
621-78 Chetham-Strode r. Blake (N.
M.), 142 P. 1130.
622-80 Ildvedsen r. First State Bank,
24 N. D. 227, 139 N. W. 105.
196
ATTACHMENT
Vol. 3
The words "In good faith'* in a stat-
ute, providing an unrecorded deed is
void as against subsequent purchasers
for a valuable consideration in good
faith whose conveyance is first recorded,
and against any attachment against the
person in whose name the property
appears of record, has reference to at-
tachment creditors as well as to sub-
sequent purchasers. Ildvedsen r. First
State Bank, 24 N. D. 227, 139 N, W.
105.
e25-90 Bell-Wayland Co. r. Miller-
Mitcher Co. (Okla.), 130 P. 593.
€26-92 National bank stock transfer.
Under the federal statutes, the rights
of a transferee of national bank stock
under an unrecorded transfer, good at
common law, are superior to the rights
of a subsequent attaching creditor of
the transferor without notice. Hazard
r. Nat. Exchange Bank, 26 Fed. 94;
Continental Nat. Bank t?. Eliot Nat.
Bank, 7 Fed. 369; Mapleton Bank t?.
fitandrod, 8 Ida. 740, 71 P. 119, 67 L.
B. A. 656; Bateman v. Gits, 16 N. M.
441, 120 P. 307; Doty v. First Nat.
Bank, 3 N. D. 9, 53 N. W. 77, 17 L. R,
A. 259.
Tbe tme owner of stock standing in
the name of another has priority over
an attaching creditor who did not ex-
tend credit on the faith of the debtor's
ownership of such stock. Hitchcock r.
Galveston Wharf Co., 50 Fed. 263; Gray
r. Graham, 87 Conn. 601, 89 A. 262, 49
L. B. A. (N. 8.) 1159; Sibley v, Quin-
aigamond Nat. Bank, 133 Mass. 515.
See also New York Com. Co. t?. Fran-
cis, 96 Fed. 266, mod. 101 Fed. 16, 41
C. C. A. 167; White V. Rankin, 90 Ala.
541, 8 8. 118.
026-94 'Where tbe recordation is Il-
legal, the conditional -sale does not rank
a junior attachment. Southern Iron &
E. Co. r. Voyles, 138 Ga. 258, 75 8. E.
248, Ann. Cas. 1913D, 369.
627-95 Snyder v. Carson, 155 la. 552,
136 N. W. 653; Holt Mfg. Co. t?. Cobs,
78 Wash. 39, 138 P. 322.
627-96 Bell-Wayland Co. v. Miller-
Miteher Co. (Ala.), 130 P. 593.
627-97 'Where answer of defendant
is improperly stricken from the files
and default taken, a subsequent mort-
gagee of the attachment property takes
subject to the lien of attachment for
tbe action stands as though nothing
had been done therein but file the com-
plaint, attach the property and issue
siimmons. Klein r. Turner, 66 Or. 369,
133 P. 625.
If the mortgagee of a chattel mort-
gage falls to reduce the property to
possession, or record the mortgage his
mortgage is void as to an attaching
creditor, notwithstanding actual notice
of the mortgage. Geiser Mfg. Co. t;.
Murray, 84 Kan. 450, 114 P.* 1046; Im-
plement Co. r. Parlin & Orendorff Co.,
51 Kan. 566, 33 P. 363; Bamsey v. Glenn,
33 Kan. 271, 6 P. 265.
629-4 As against an assignment for
benefit of creditors in a foreign state
the lien of a subsequent attachment
does not take priority. WulflP i\ Bose-
ville Trust Co., 164 App. Div. 399, 149
N. y. S. 683.
633-15 One who commences and
prosecutes to final judgment, within
sixty days after the first posting of
the notice of attachment, his claim
against the defendant shall share pro
rata with the attaching creditor in the
proceeds of the defendant's property.
Ida. Bev. Code, §4304; Howard v.
Grimes Pass Placer Min. Co., 21 Ida.
12, 120 P. 170, Ann. Cas. 1913C, 284.
637-27 Holmes v. Soper, 6 Haw. 564.
639-88 See Mott v. Holbrook, 28 N.
D. 251, 148 N. W. 1061.
642-67 Bogers v. Maine Cent. B.
Co. (Me.), 94 A. 758; Beaulieu v. Clark,
210 Mass. 90, 96 N. E. 319; JoUey v.
Dunlop, 34 S. D. 213, 147 N. W. 980.
643-73 Woodward r. Lishman, 80 N.
J. L. 586, 78 A. 701.
643-76 In re Schow, 213 Fed. 514.
643-76 Gary v. Graham, 108 Me.
452, 81 A. 666; Waterhouse v. Bird, 37
Me. 326; Gower t\ Stevens, 19 Me. 92,
36 Am. Dec. 737.
644-83 Failure to levy on the prop-
erty for thirty days does not affect the
lien which took effect on placing the*
order of attachment in the sheriff's
hand, Daniels v. Runyons, 164 Ky. 309,
175 S. W. 338.
648-1 Order of referee. — An attach-
ment dissolved by the officer taking
an alternative receipt from debtor is
not restored by the referee in sub-
sequent bankruptcy proceedings against
the debtor making an order that the
attachment be preserved. Gary v. Gra-
ham, 108 Me. 452, 81 A. 666.
648-3 Meegan r. Pettibone-Gentry;
Co., 85 Kan. 536, 118 P. 64.
Writ of prohibition will not lie to ob-
197
Vol. 3
ATTACHMENT
tain the discharge of an attachment of
the property of petitioner. Felizardo
V. Justice of the Peace, 3 Phil. Isl. 635.
648-4 Meegan v, Pettibone-Gentry
Co., 85 Kan. 536, 118 P. 64; Cartmell
V. Budolph Wurtlitzer Co., 5 O. N. P.
(N. S.) 604.
640-9 Howard t;. Grimes Pass Placer
Min. Go., 21 Ida. 12, 120 P. 170; Du-
Pont Co. r. Pennsylvania & I. Coal
Co., 48 Ind. App. 538, 96 N. £. 204.
The original attaching creditor, who
has a claim against the defendant not
included in his original complaint, may
file under the attachment proceedings.
DuPont Co. V, Pennsylvania & I. Coal
Co., 48 Ind. App. 538, 96 N. E, 204.
650-11 Kecessity ef precuxlng Judg-
ment in timOd — No creditor will be en-
titled to prorate unless he has pro-
cured his judgment within the 60 days
period; both the commencement and the
prosecution to final judgment within
that period are necessary. Howard t'.
Grimes Pass Placer Min. Co., 21 Ida.
12, 320 P. 170.
651-18 In Maine, the officer may
give the claimant written notice of the
attachment. Within ten days there-
after the claimant must deliver to the
officer a true account of the amount
due on his claim or he waives his
right to liold the property thereon.
Bev. St., ch. 83, §46. The claimant
must deliver the notice to the officer;
a delivery to the attorney of the cred-
itors is not a compliance with the stat-
ute. Hill V. Wiles (Me.), 92 A. 996.
667-46 Nature of proceeding. — An
interplea filed by a claimant of the
property attached is a separate suit in
which the interpleader is plaintiff and
plaintiff in the main action defendant.
Keet-Boundtree D. G. Co. t;. Hodges,
175 Mo. App. 484, 161 8. W. 862.
Bzcesslve levy. — The right to inter-
vene cannot be based on an abuse of
Srocess such as an excessive levy,
irook V, Young, 7 Ala, App. 631, 62
S. 326.
657-47 Union <To. Tnv. Co. v, Messix,
152 la. 412, 132 N. W. 823; Meegan v.
Pettibone-Gentry Co., 85 Kan. 536, 118
P. 64; Felizardo v. Justice of the
Peace, 3 Phil. Isl. 635; Bias r. Colon,
8 P. E. 76. See O 'Mallcv v. Townsley,
85 Kan. 489, 117 P. 1022; Schroder v.
Municipal Council, 7 P. B. 1.
Claimant cannot be compelled to Inter-
vene.— ^Dimsdale v, Tolerton-Warfield
Co., 151 la. 425, 131 N. W. 689; S-
i\ Blair, 238 Mo. 132, 142 S. W. 326.
657-48 Where goods liave been at-
tached, the claimant cannot intervene.
H. P. Cornell Co. v. Boyer (B. I.), 82
A. 385.
667-49 Dimsdale t. Tolerton-War-
field Co., 151 la. 425, 131 N. W. 689;
Felizardo v. Justice of the Peace, 3
Phil. Isl. 635; Houston B. E. Inv. Co.
V. Hechler, 44 Utah 64, 138 P. 1159.
See O'Malley a. Townsley, 85 Kan.
489, 117 P. 1022. Contra, H. P. Cornell
Co. u. Boyer (B. I.), 82 A. 385.
658-50 Alvarez r. Montinola, 1 Phil.
Isl. 624.
658-52 Meegan t?. Pettibone-Gentry
Co., 85 Kan. 536, 118 P. 64.
The fact that a forthcoming bond was
given by the defendant in the attach-
ment action, to whom the property was
delivered, which bond was not signed
nor procured to be given by the mort-
gagee, will not defeat the right of the
mortgagee to intervene in the attach-
ment proceeding, in order to have his
interest in the property determined.
Meegan v, Pettibone-Gentry Co., 85
Kan. 536, 118 P. 64.
660-70 An Intervening claimant to
the property attached cannot assail the
regularity or validity of the attach-
ment, for since his title to the property
does not depend upon the attachment
he is in no way concerned whether the
attachment is good or bad. Houston
B. E. Inv. Co. V. Hechler, 44 Utah 64,
138 P. 1159.
661-74 Houston B. E. Inv. Co. v.
Hechler, 44 Utah 64, 138 P. 1159.
662-76 Forbis i?. Piedmont Lumb.
Co., 165 N, C. 403, 81 S. E. 599.
662-77 The claimant Is not required
te join issue until final judgment in the
main case. Mahaffey Co. v. Busael &
Butler, 100 Miss. 122, 54 S. 807, 945.
Possession of the property obtained
peaceably by the mortgagee from one
of the defendants, after a forthcoming
bond was given, vrill not prevent a
hearing upon the interplea of such mort-
gagee, which was filed about the time
possession was obtained. Meegan. r.
Pettibone-Gentry Co., 85 Kan. 636, 118
P. 64.
662-79 Kahmke r. Weber, 187 Ho.
App. 698, 173 S. W. 76.
662-82 Cohen v, Harris, 61 Fla. 137,
54 S. 905.
198
ATTACHMENT
Vol 3
The right of ' property ' which the
Jozy i3 to try is an issue of superi-
ority as between the right of the plain-
tiff in attachment to subject the chattel
or property involved to the satisfac-
tion of his writ, and the claimant's
title, on the other hand, as against
such right; an issue of the liability
of the property to the plaintiff's writ
of attachment as against the claimant's
title. Cohen v. Harris, 61 Fla. 137, 54
S. 905; Volusia Co. Bank t?. Bigelow, 45
Fla. 638, 33 S. 704.
€62-83 Houston R. E. Inv. Co. v,
Hechler, 44 Utah 64, 138 P. 1159.
Oozporate character of original defend-
ant.— ^An intervener in an action against
a lumber company for damages, aided
by attachment, cannot raise the issue
as to whether the company is a cor-
poration or a partnership. Forbis t\
Piedmont Lumb. Co., 165 N. C. 403, 81
S. E. 599.
Keceeslty of proving claim against de-
fendant.— The plaintiff is not required
as against an interpleader to prove his
claim against defendant. Johnson v.
Mason, 177 Mo. App. 109, 163 S. W.
260.
664-90 Lee v. Lowery, 42 Okla. 148,
140 P. 1175.
664-93 Attorneys for attaching cred-
itors need not be made parties defend-
ant. Lyon t\ Bussell, 41 App. Cas.
(D. C.) 554.
665-98 Poor Grain Co. «. Franke
Grain Co., 171 Mo. App. 354, 157 S. W.
840.
665-2 Amonnt of damages. — The in-
terveners in a damage suit in which
attachment issued, cannot introduce
evidence as to the amount of damages.
Forbis V, Piedmont Lumb. Co., 165 N.
C. 403, 81 S. E. 599.
665-3 Under general denial, plaintiff
may show the interpleader's claim of
ownership is fraudulent. Gate City
Kat. Bank v. Boyer, 161 Mo. App. 143,
142 S. W. 487.
Buggies V, Helfrieh, 162 Cal.
553, 123 P. 369; Mesa County Nat.
Bank r. Berry, 24 Colo. App. 487, 135
P. 129; Qark v. Pond Creek Mill &
Elev. Co., 175 HI. App. 374; Lemp Brew.
Co. V. Mantz, 120 Md. 176, 87 A. 814.
Yariaaoed — ^A compromise between the
defendant and the interpleader is in-
admissible unless pleaded. Poor Grain
Co. r. Franke Grain Co.. 171 Mo. App.
354, 157 8. W. 840.
The original defendant who is in pos-
session may not introduce evidence to
support the claim of the interpleader.
Keet-Boundtree B. G. Co. t?. Hodges,
175 Mo. App. 484, 161 S. W. 862.
667-5 Cohen t?. Harris, 61 Fla. 137,
54 S. 905; Miles v. Honey (Mo. App.),
176 S. W. 429; Johnson v. Mason, 178
Mo. App. 109, 163 S. W. 260; Keet-
Boundtree D. G. Co. V. Hodges, 175 Mo.
App. 484, 161 S. W. 862.
668-8 Mesa County Nat. Bank v.
Berry, 24 Colo. App. 487, 135 P. 129,
See Gate City Nat. Bank v. Boyer, 161
Mo. App. 143, 142 S. W. 487.
668-10 Brock v, Toung, 7 Ala. App.
631, 62 S. 326; Keet-Boundtree D. G.
Co. 17. Hodges, 175 Mo. App. 484, 161
S. W. 862, instruction held mislead-
ing. See Gate City Nat. Bank v.
Boyer, 161 Mo. App. 143, 142 S. W.
487.
670-19 Dodder v. Moberly, 28 Okla.
334, 114 P. 714.
670-25 Dodder v, Moberly, 28 Okla.
334, 114 P. 714. Cimira, Nichols Bros.
V. Koshinick, 19 0. C. C. (N. S.) 148.
671-80 HoUoway v. Burroughs &
Taylor Co., 4 Ala. App. 630, 58 S. 953;
Biera v. Wolff's Auto Garage, 20 P. B.
172.
A deposit of money in court cannot be
made in lieu of such bond. Otis v. Nel-
son, 15 Ariz. 486, 140 P. 211.
671-81 Biera v. Wolff's Auto Gar-
age, 20 P. B. 172.
'671-82 The sacceBSfol party to the
suit should be the obligee of the bond.
Riera v. Wolff's Auto Garage, 20 P. B.
172.
671-33 Biera v. Wolff's Auto Garage,
20 P. R. 172.
671-34 Keleasing secnxlty on affl-
daylt of claimants. — After property
has been released to claimant on his
giving security, the court has no juris-
diction to order the security returned
pursuant to an affidavit by the claim- .
ant that he is the owner. Larsen v.
Richards, 43 Utah 196, 134 P. 583.
672-39 Where there la no actual aelz-
nre of the property as in the case of
an attachment of stock, the leaving of
a copy of the process and complaint
with the agent or attorney of the de-
fendant within the state, or if none,
with the person whe has possession, as
provided in |828, Gen. St., is not neces-
sary. Barber v. Morgan, 84 Conn. 618,
80 A. 791.
199
Vol. 3
ATTACHMENT
675-43 Tonn v. Collins, 116 Md. 52,
81 A. 219.
A general appeAiance does not militate
against defendant's right to have the
attachment discharged on the ground
the summons was invalid. Buluth Brew.
& Malt. Co. 17. Allen (Mont.). 149 P.
494.
677-44 Deal v. Powell (Vt), 92 A.
648.
Service of sanmioiiB In the county
where the salt is hronght, contrary to
the statute requiring the summons be
directed to the sheriff of the county
of defendant's residence, is no less ef-
fective than a futile summons directed
to defendant's residence. Tonn v, Col-
lins, 116 Md. 52, 81 A. 219. See supra,
n. 43.
680-54 Martin v. Bryant, 108 Me.
253, 80 A. 702: Baker v. Hahn (Tex.
Civ.), 161 S. W. 443.
Service of snmmonB may he made upon
the tenant, agent or attorney of the
non-resident "where goods and estate
are attached." Although the quoted
words were omitted from the revision
of 1871, they are to be read into the
statute for the reason that it was not
the evident intent of the legislature to
change the original statute providing
for service upon non-resident defendant.
Martin v. Bryant, 108 Me. 253, 80 A.
702.
681-55 Martin V. Bryant, 108 Me.
253, 80 A. 702.
682-57 A deaignAtion of a defend-
ant in an order of publication by the
initials only of his Christian name is
insufficient. White v, Gramley, 236 Mo.
647, 139 S. W. 127; .Missouri, K. &
T. E. Co. V. Morris, 153 Mo. App. 667,
134 8. W. 1027.
682-58 Bank of Venice v. Hutchin-
son, 19 Cal. App. 219, 125 P. 252.
683-60 Conclusive as to property
within jurisdiction of court. Conse-
quently the substituted service will not
bo quashed because the attached prop-
erty belonged to a third person. South
Bf&ota Com. Assn. v, Bamsey (S. B.),
147 N. W. 75.
684-62 Big Vein Coal Co. v. Bead,
229 V. S. 31, 33 Sup. Ct. 694, 57 L.
ed. 1053.
687-70 Xfpon the expiration of thirty
days after the granting of the attach-
ment, service by publication must be
commenced. MiIIb v. Housel (N. C),
85 B. E. 17.
687-71 Wright t\ Ankeny, 217 Fed.
988; Cosh-Murray Co. t?. Tuttich, 10
Wash. 449, 38 P. 1134.
687-72 CitiEens ' Nat. Bank v. Union
Central L. I. Co., 12 O. C. C. (N. S.)
401.
687-74 MUls r. Housel (N. C), 85
S. E. 17.
688-75 See Miller 17. Veldhuyzen, 13
O. N. P. (N. 8.) 646.
688-76 But see Miller v. Veldhuy-
zen, 13 O. N. P. (N. S.) 646.
690-81 The statate provision for
posting at three public places contem-
plates posting of notice at three sep-
arate places. Beid-Mnrdock & Co. v.
McGregor, 183 111. App. 300.
690-82 That attachment has been
levied need not be stated. iPindlay v,
Lumsden (Tex. Civ.), 171 S. W. 818.
691-87 Daniels t?. Taylor, 13 0. C. C.
(N. S.) 116.
694-99 Johnson v, Larson, 96 Neb.
193, 147 N. W. 476.
695-1 Koontz v. Baltimore B. Co.
(Mass.), 107 N. E. 973.
696-6 Oliver v. Kinney, 173 Ala. 593,
56 S. 203. See Lindsey v, Mexican
Crude Bubber Co., 197 Fed. 775; Home
Distilling Co. V, Himmel (W. Va.), 82
S. E. 1094. Contra, Hisor €. Vandiver,
83 N. J. L. 433, 85 A. 181.
698-17 Johnson v. Larson, 96 Neb.
193, 147 N. W. 476, filing answer and
motion to dissolve the attachment con-
stitute a general appearance. But see
Blinn v. Bickett, 3 O. N. P. (N. S.)
345, and 2 Stanbasd Pboc. 499.
698-18 Koontz v, Baltimore B. Co.
(Mass.), 107 N. E. 973; Beich V. Pike
Building Co., 11 O. D. 418; Mawiecke
V. Wolf, 7 O. D. 476.
701-28 Making mortgagee a partj.
Where the legal title is in the mort-
gagee, the creditor must make him a
party defendant. King v, Patterson
(Tenn.), 164 S. W. 1191.
702-84 Ownership. — There must be
an allegation and proof that defendant
is the owner of the property attached.
North Star Lumb. Co. v. Johnson, 196
Fed. 56.
703-86 A prayer for personal Judg-
ment is not necessary where the bill
contains a prayer for general relief.
Butterfield v. Miller, 195 Fed. 200, 115
C. C. A. 152.
705-49 See Conran v, Fenn, 159 Mo.
App. 664, 140 S. W. 82.
200
ATTACHMENT
Vol 3
TtgJAAirtQ complaint and affidayit to-
gether.— An insufficient complaint will
not be dismissed if the omitted facts
are stated in the affidavit. Western
Warehouse Co. 17. Flynt (Tex. Civ.), 149
S. W. 789.
T06-52 Demurrer to causes of at-
tacbmentu — ^''An attachment is not
subject to general demurrer if it con-
tains one valid ground of attachment,
although it contains another ground
tThich affords no basis for attach-
ment." Cleveland-Manning Co. v,
Stewart (Ga. App.), 84 S. E. 174.
T06-53 Johnson v, Muenz, 76 Wash*
526, 137 P. 126.
708-57 If the debt be due, the com-
plaint must be filed within the first
three davs of the return term; if the
debt be payable in the future, the com-
plaint must be filed when it becomes
due and payable. Exchange Nat. Bank
V. Clement, 109 Ala. 270, 19 S. 814.
710-05 Baker v. Hahn (Tex. Civ.),
161 S. W. 443.
711-67 Baker v. Hahn (Tex. Civ.),
161 S. W. 443.
Season for premature flUng must ap-
pear in the complaint or else it is de-
mnrrable. Johnson v, Muenz, 76 Wash.
526, 137 P. 126.
713-70 Balphs v. Bruns, 22 Cal. App.
153, 133 P. 997; Marston i*. F. C. Tib-
betts Merc. Co., 110 Me. 533, 87 A.
220; Johnson V. Muenz, 76 Wash. 526,
137 P. 126. '
715-73 Green 17. Hoppe (Tex. Civ.),
175 S. W. 1117.
Boznik v. Becker, 68 Wash.
es, 122 P. 593.
718-87 Exchange Nat. Bank v, Clem-
ent, 109 Ala. 270, 19 S. 814.
710-00 Kon-ownerdilp of property
not pleadable in abatement. Sims, Har-
rison & Co. V. Jacobson, 51 Ala. 186.
724-11 Time of rendition of Judg-
ment on attachment in foreclosure suit.
Bryant v, Shute's Ex., 147 Ky. 268, 144
The deflcleney in a mortgage fore-
dorare must first be determined before
judgment can be rendered in an at-
tachment in aid of such foreclosure.
Bryant v. Shute's Exr., 147 Ky. 268,
344 8 W 28
726-14 In re Forbes, 186 Fed. 79,
108 C. C. A. 191.
726-17 Hauser v, Murray, 256 Mo.
58, 165 S. W. 376.
726-18 Pyatt i\ Eiley, 252 111. 36,
96 N. E. 570, quot. Young v. Campbell,
10 111. 80.
728-20 Maurer v, Phillips, 182 Mo.
App. 440, 168 S. W. 669, general judg-
ment. See Oliver v, Kinney, 173 Ala.
593, 56 S. 203.
728-23 Cooper t?. Reynolds, 10 Wall.
(U. S.) 318, 19 L. ed. 931; Hood t\
Commercial G. T. & S. Bank (Ala.
App.), 67 S. 721; Peterson t?. Swen-
ningston, 178 Mich. 294, 144 N. W. 550;
South Dakota Comm. Assn. v, Bamsey,
34 8. D. 48, 147 N. W. 75; Baker v.
Hahn (Tex. Civ.), 161 S. W. 443. See
Martin v. Bryant, 108 Me. 253, 80 A.
702.
729-24 Oliver t?. Kinney, 173 Ala.
593, 56 8. 203; First Nat. Bank v.
Sanders Bros., 162 Ky. 374, 172 S. W.
689.
730-25 Pyatt v. Riley, 252 111. 36,
96 N. E. 570.
781-80 Mott V. Holbrook, 28 N. D.
251, 148 N. W. 1061; Iowa State Sav.
Bank v. Jacobson, 8 S. D. 292, 66 N.
W. 453.
732-31 In Texas.— Patterson v. Mc-
Minn (Tex. Civ.), 152 8. W. 223.
783-32 Johnston v, Shaw, 190 Fed.
466, 111 C. C. A. 298.
A Justice court has jurisdiction to fore-
close an attachment lien on land, and
to order the property sold. Bule v,
Richards (Tex. Civ.), 149 S. W. 1073.
734-33 Love t?. Pavlovich (C. C. A.),
222 Fed. 842; Wright t?. Manns, 111
Ind. 422, 12 N. E. 160; United States
Mtg. Co. V. Henderson, 111 Ind. 24, 12
N. E. 88; Sannes v. Boss, 105 Ind. 558,
5 N. E. 699; Smith v. Scott, 86 Ind.
346; Mertens v. Northern State Bank,
68 Or. 273, 135 P. 885; Moore-Shafter
Shoe Mfg. Co. V. Billings, 46 Or. 401,
80 P. 422; Bremer & Co. v. Fleck enstein
6 Mayer, 9 Or. 266; Hillman t?. Werner,
9 Heisk. (Tenn.) 586; Staunton v, Har-
ris, 9 Heisk. (Tenn.) 579.
737-44 A Judgment entered before
the expiration of three days of the re-
turn term is premature, by virtue of
a statute allowing a defendant to raise
the objection that the attachment is-
sued without bond or affidavit by plea
filed within the first three days of the
return term. Oliver v, Kinney, 173 Ala.
593, 56 S. 203.
737-45 A Judgment is not InTalid
became of a variance between the re-
201
Vol 3
ATTACBMENT
citals as to grounds of attachment in
the writ and in the affidavit, where such
variance is immaterial. Brown t?. Wil-
liams-Brooke Co. (Miss.), 63 S. 351.
Setting aside sale. — The circuit court,
issuing the attachment, has the same
power to set aside a sale made after
final judgment as it has to set aside
a sale made by virtue of an execution
upon final judgment. Jackson v. Hal-
sted, 82 N. J. L. 306, 82 A. 312.
T3T-4T Page v. McDonald, 159 N. C.
38, 74 S. E. 642.
788-50 Pyatt t?. Riley, 252 111. 36,
96 N. E. 570, quot. Miere v. Brush, 4
111. 21.
746-84 Equitable reUef.— A plaintiff
who has acquired no lien against the
property of a non-resident by any at-
tachment, and who cannot show fraud,
is not entitled to maintain a bill in
equity against one who has attached
the property as belonging to one not
the owner. Bemington Typewriter Co.
V. Hall, 183 Ala. 519, 63 S. 74.
748-95 King v. Patterson (Tenn.),
164 S. W. 1191.
749-2 Page v. McDonald, 159 N. C.
38, 74 S. E. 642.
749-3 Allied Mfrs. v. Zurn, 165 App.
Div. 975, 150 N. Y. S. 243. See S. v.
Parks, 34 Okla. 335, 126 P. 242.
750-9 Drake v, Lewis, 13 Ga. App.
276, 79 S. E. 167; Roznik t?. Becker, 68
Wash. 63, 122 P. 593. See Lamas v.
Roig, 15 P. B. 481, where no fraud ex-
ists, the attachment will be dissolved.
The failure of the complaint to state
a cause of action is sufficient to war-
rant the discharge of the affidavit. Kyle
V, Chester, 42 Mont. 522, 113 P. 749,
37 L. B. A. (N. S.) 230.
750-10 Greenwood Grocery Co. V.
Canadian Co. M. & E. Co., 72 S. C.
450, 52 S. E. 191, 110 Am. St. 627, 5
Ann. Cas. 261, 2 L. B. A. (N. S.) 79.
751-13 Johnstone v, Kelly, 7 Penne.
(Del.) 119, 74 A. 1099; Kountze v,
Scott, 49 Neb. 258, 68 N. W. 479;
"Woods V. Southern L. ft T. Co. (N. J.
L.), 93 A. 579; McKinlay t?. Fowler, 67
How. Pr. (N. Y.) 388; Kelly t?. Baker,
26 App. Div. 217, 49 N. Y. S. 973;
Thomley v, Lawbaugh (N. D.), 143 N.
W. 348, 47 L. B. A. (N. 8.) 1127;
Cartmell t?. Budolph Wurtlitzer Co., 5
O. N. P. (N. S.) 604; Greenwood Gro-
cery Co. V. Canadian Co. M. ft E. Co.,
72 S. C. 450, 52 8. E. 191. 110 Am.
St. 627, 5 Ann. Cas. 261, 2 L. B. A.
(N. S.) 79; Metts v. P. ft A. L. Ins.
Co., 17 S. O. 120; South Dakota Com.
Assn. f?. Bamsey, 34 S. D. 48, 147 N. W.
75. Comp, O'Malley v. Townsley, 85
Kan. 489, 117 P. 1022.
"Where Jurisdiction oyer a zum-xesldent
defendant is obtained by attachment
of his property, the rule does not ob-
tain. Greenwood Grocery Co. v, Cana-
dian County M. ft E. Co., 72 S. C. 450,
52 S. E. 191, 110 Am. St. 627, 5 Ann.
Cas. 261, 2 L. B. B. (N. S.) 79.
A denial of the material matters al-
leged in the complaint will not justify
an order vacating the attachment. Al-
lied Mfrs. V. Zurn (App. Div.), 150 N.
Y. S. 243.
751-15 Kelderhouse v, McGarry, 82
Misc. 365, 143 N. Y. S. 741.
752-16 Eplin v. Blessing, 73 W. Va.
283, 80 S. E. 458.
754-22 Miller, Sloss ft Scott v.
Jones, 9 Phil. Isl. 648.
756-28 By counterclaim for dam-
ages.— ^Dimsdale v, Tolerton-Warfield
Co., 151 la. 425, 131 N. W. 689.
756-29 Green v. Hoppe (Tex. Civ.),
175 S. W. 1117; Hart v. Jopling (Tex.
Civ.), 146 S. W. 1075.
756-80 Hart v, Jopling (Tex. Civ.),
146 S. W. 1075. See Fisher r. Taylor,
2 Mart. 0. S. (La.) 78.
758-42 Disqualification of the officer
serving the process is ground for dis-
charging the attachment. Parkinson t?.
Crawford, 13 Ohio N. P. (N. S.) 73.
758-43 A republication and not a
dismissal of the attachment, is the
remedy to cure a defective service by
publication, where the court has ac-
quired jurisdiction by attachment upon
the property of the non-resident de-
fendant. Mills V, Housel (N. C), 85
S. B. 17; Branch ©. Frank, 81 N. C.
180.
Failure to serve garnishee is not
ground for discharging attachment.
Benoski v. C. F. Adams Co., 18 O. C. C.
(N. S.) 478. See vol. 10, p. 493, n.
72, and supplement thereto.
759-49 Tyson v. Beinecke, 25 Oal.
App. 696, 145 P. 153.
761-53 Union Co. Inv. Co. v. Measix,
152 la. 412, 132 N. W. 823.
762-59 Moses & Sons v, Hayes, 36
App, Cas. (D. C.) 194.
763-67 McOomb p. Watt, 39 Okla.
20a
ATTACHMENT
Vol 3
412, 135 P. 361; S. v. Parks, 34 Okla.
335, 126 P. 242.
Kot necoasaxy to give bonil. — Coharie
Lumb. Co. 17. Buhmann, 160 N. C. 385,
75 S. £. 1008; Bear v. Cohen, 65 N. C.
511,
WalT«r of obJoctioiL — ^An agreement,
after seizure of chattels attached, tiiat
sheriif shall sell summarily and retain
the proceeds or place them in a desig-
nated depository, to abide the final
judgment in the proceeding, precludes
the defendant from insisting on a dis-
solution of the writ. Collier v, Gan-
non, 40 Okla. 275, 137 P. 1179.
764-69 Boznik v. Becker, 68 Wash.
63, 122 P. 593.
T64-72 Thornley t?. Lawbaugh (N.
D.), 143 N. W. 348, 47 L. B. A. (N. S.)
1127n.
765-80 A bond for the discharge of
tlie attadiment does not prevent de-
fendant from moving to dissolve the
attachment. Leavitt & Milroy Co. v.
Bosenberg Bros. & Co., 83 O. St. 230,
93 N. E. 904; Edwards Co. v, Gold-
stein, 80 0. St. 303, 88 N. E. 877.
765-84 Sims, Harrison & Co. v,
Jacobson k Co., 51 Ala. 186.
769-94 O'Malley t?. Townsley, 85
Kan. 489, 117 P. 1022, where owner of
property moved to vacate.
The sureties on the bond for replevin
of attached property cannot move to
quash the attachment. Hart v. Jop-
ling (Tex. av.), 146 S. W. 1075.
771-1 But see Steinman v, Kreider,
48 Pa. Super. 412, where made four
months after defense on the merits.
772-7 Leavitt & Milroy Co. r. Bosen-
berg Bros. & Co., 83 O. St. 230, 93 N.
£. 904; McComb f?. Watt, 39 Okla. 412,
135 P. 361.
776-21 McComb v. Watt, 39 Okla.
412, 135 P. 361.
781-44 See First Nat. Bank v, Ter-
rell (Okla.), 145 P. 1140.
783-52 Woods r. Southern L. & T.
Co. (N. J. L.), 93 A. 579; Anspach v.
Spring Lake, 58 N. J. L. 136, 32 A.
77; Lndwig v, Pusey & Jones Co., 143
App. Div. 290, 128 N. Y. S. 72; Mc-
Comb V. Watt, 39 Okla. 412, 135 P.
361.
Forbes v, Arizona-Parral Min.
Co. (Ariz.), 146 P. 509; Woods f. South-
em Life ft T. Co. (N. J. L.), 93 A.
679.
785-54 Elwell ft Co. v. Acme Port-
land Cement Co., 154 App. Div. 122,
938, 138 N. Y. S. 1004.
786-58 Culhane Adj. Co. «. Farrand,
34 S. D. 87, 147 N. W. 271.
787-66 Bendure v, Bidwell, 82 Miss.
33, 143 N. Y. S. 97.
Defendant has a right to Introduce evi-
dence to disprove the affidavit where
he seeks to dissolve the attachment on
the ground of the falsity of the affi-
davit. Miller, Sloss ft Scott t?. Jones,
9 PhU. Isl. 648.
787-67 Young v. Oark, 13 0. C. C.
(N. S.) 284; Cartmell t?. Budolph Wurt-
litzer Co., 5 0. N. P. (N. S.) 604; First
Nat. Bank v. Terrell (Okla.), 145 P.
1140.
790-83 Cartmell v. Budolph Wurt-
Htzer Co., 5 O. N. P. (N. S.) 604.
A motion in Tacatlon under Civ. Code,
§268, is made on the face of the papers
in the action. No evidence may be
received or considered in passing upon
such a motion. Standard Hay & G.
Co. t\ Batliff Bros., 144 Ky. 161, 137
8. W. 1035.
792-90 Hilborn v, Pennsylvania Ce-
ment Co., 145 App. Div. 442, 129 N. Y.
S. 957; Cartmell v. Budolph Wurtlitzer
Co., 5 0. N. P. (N. S.) 604.
793-93 Hilborn v, Pennsylvania Ce-
ment Co., 145 App. Div. 442, 129 N. Y.
S. 957; Nettleton v, Howe, 81 Wash.
32, 142 P. 450.
794-99 Statement of the court 'e
findings of fact need not be stated in
the order or otherwise, unless requested
by the plaintiff. Coharie Lumb. Co. v.
Buhmann, 160 N. C. 385, 75 S. E. 1008;
Millhiser v. Balsley, 106 N. C. 433, 11
S. E. 314.
794-1 Hilborn v. Pennsylvania Ce-
ment Co., 145 App. Div. 442, 129 N. Y.
S. 957.
794-4 C<mp, Jones v. First Nat. Bank
(Tex. Civ.), 140 S. W. 116.
796-20 Wilson t?. Callan, 9 Ala. App.
265, 63 S. 27.
798-29 Lapse of a year after defend-
ant had replevied the property will
defeat right to file a plea in abatement
attacking the grounds of attachment.
Wilson V, Callan, 9 Ala. App. 265, 68
S. 27.
805-56 Kon-ownershlp of property
attached by defendant may be pleaded
in abatement. Gardner v, James, 5 B. I,
235.
203
Vol 3
ATTACHMENT
806-70 Board of Comrs, r. Wilson,
88 Kan. 309, 128 P. 179.
Burden on plaintiff to prove that he
had no knowledge of an outstanding
equity. First Nat. Bank v. Gage, 71
Or. 373, 142 P. 539.
808-79 Rodgers v. Cades, 103 Ark.
187, 146 S. W. 507.
Attorney's foes are not allowable for
procuring the dissolution of an attach-
ment if it has not been shown that any
property was attached. Peters v. Snave-
ly-Ashton, 157 la. 270, 134 N. W. 592.
809-85 Tootle & Co. v. Lysaght &
Co., 65 ^0. App. 139.
809-86 First Nat. Bank v. Staake,
202 U. S. 141, 146, 26 Sup. Ct. 580,
50 L. ed. 967; In re Federal Biscuit
Co., 214 Fed. 221, 129 C. C. A. 635;
In re Louisell Lumb. Co., 209 Fed. 784,
126 C. C. A. 508; Cook f. Robinson,
194 Fed. 785, 114 C. C. A. 505; In re
Forbes, 186 Fed. 79, 108 C. C. A. 191;
In re Schow, 213 Fed. 514; In re Ala-
bama Coal & Coke Co., 210 Fed. 940;
In re Craft-Riordon Shoe Co., 185 Fed.
931; Hobson Coal Co. t\ Alabama Coal
Co. (Ala.), 66 S. 622; Schunack v. Art
Metal Novelty Co., 84 Conn. 331, 80
A. 290; Corey v. Lumb. Co., 24 Ida.
642, 135 P. 742; Lehman Stern & Co.
f?. Martin & Co., 132 La. 231, 61 S. 212;
Allen V. Ingalls, 33 Nev. 281, 111 P.
34, 114 P. 758, Ann. Cas. 1913E, 755;
Northern Shoe Co. r. Ceeka, 22 N. D.
631, 135 N. W. 177; In re Pardo, 5
P. R. Fed. 202 (the filing of voluntary
petition in bankruptcy releases an at-
tachment levied within four months
previous to the date of filing); Bank
of Garrison V. Malley, 103 Tex. 562,
131 S. W. 1064.
InsolTency of the defendant at the time
the attachment lien is acquired is
necessary to bring the attachment with-
in the statute. D. C. Wise Coal Co. v.
Columbia Z. & L. Co., 157 Mo. App. 315,
138 S. W. 67.
Attachments issuing from both state
and national courts are embraced with-
in the text. In re Federal Biscuit Co.,
214 Fed. 221, 129 C. C. A. 635.
"The assignment cannot, ipso facto,
operate the dissolution of an attach-
ment pending in a state court. The
proceedings and assignment in bank-
ruptcy must be made known to that
court, before a judgment of dissolution
of the attachment can be rendered.
Until they are made known, there is
nothing on which to predicate such
judgment. Of consequence, the at-
tachment is legal and valid until dis-
solved. (Cases.) The assignee in bank-
ruptcy may intervene in the state conrt
and obtain an order dissolving the at-
tachment. (Cases.) The bankrupt can-
not claim the dissolution." Sims, Har-
rison & Co. r. Jacobson & Co., 51 Ala.
186,
As to vacation of writ» see In re Fed-
eral Biscuit Co., 214 Fed. 221, 129 C.
C. A. 635.
Effect upon an attachment of exempt
property, see Folger v, Putnam, 194
Fed. 793, 114 C. C. A. 513; In re Forbes,
186 Fed. 79, 108 C. C. A. 191; First
Nat. Bank t?. Lee, 25 N. D. 197, 141
N. W. 716.
811-97 Colt V. Sistare, S5 Conn. 573,
84 A. 119; Tetzloff v. May, 151 la.
441, 131 N. W. 647, quaere as to an
attachment on realty.
812-99 Logan v. Greenwich Trust
Co., 145 App. Div. 917, 129 N. Y. S.
577.
Death of a non-resident defendant after
a valid levy and before service of
summons or commencement of publica-
tion does not dissolve the attachment
where service of publication, within
thirty days after granting the war-
rant of attachment, was commenced
against the personal representative of
the decedent, he having been substituted
as defendant. Logan v. Greenwich Trust
Co., 203 N. Y. 611, 96 N. E. 1120.
812-2 Craig v. Wagner, 88 Conn. 100,
89 A. 916.
812-3 Coit V. Sistare, 85 Conn. 573,
84 A. 119.
813-5 Nichols V. Ingram (Or.), 146
P. 988; Van Voorhies V. Taylor, 24 Or.
247, 33 P. 380.
An undertaking on appeal, although
operating to stay proceedings, does not
prevent the dissolution of the lien by
a judgment for the defendant. Nichols
V, Ingram (Or.), 146 P. 988.
The statutory duty of the connty clerk
of entering a disdiarge of the lien on
the margin of the record is not essen-
tial to a discharge of the real prop-
erty. Nichols V, Ingram (Or.), 146 P.
988.
813-6 First Nat. Bank v. Sanders
Bros., 162 Ky. 374, 172 S. W. 689;
Van Voorhies t?. Taylor, 24 Or. 247, S3
P. 380, dismissal of the action.
204
ATTORNEYS
Vol. 3
813-8 Ordsr of sale will issue in case
judgment is not paid. Jones v. Hed-
strom, 89 Kan. 294, 131 P. 145.
818-d See Hunneman v. Lowell Inst.,
209 Mass. 368, 95 K. E. 886.
814-10 Mertens r. Northern State
Bank, 68 Or. 273, 135 P. 885.
816-17 If a second cause of action
is added by amendment but abandoned
at the trial, the attachment will not
be dissolved. Boznik v, Becker, 68
Wash. 63, 122 P. 593.
816-20 Boznik 17. Becker, 68 Wash.
63, 122 P. 593.
816-29 Jackson v. Halsted, 82 N. J.
lu 306, 82 A. 312.
819-38 Inteirentlon of a third per-
son in an attachment suit does not
release an attachment. Meegan v. Pet-
tibone-Gentry Co., 85 Kan. 536, 118 P.
64.
820-41 Tolman v, Carleton, 110 Me.
57, 85 A. 390.
The debtor must resume control of the
property when the attachment is
quashed on his motion. Jones & Nixon
I?. First Nat. Bank (Tex. Civ.), 140
8. W. 116.
820-43 Schunack v. Art Metal Nov-
elty Co., 84 Conn. 331, 80 A. 290;
Meegan v. Pettibone-Gentry Co., 85
Kan. 536, 118 P. 64; Home Distilling
Co. V. Himmel (W. Va.), 82 S. E. 1094.
Consideration for bond. — ^The fact that
the defendant does not forthwith re-
ceive the property released from attach-
ment does not cause a failure of con-
sideration for the bond. The bond be-
ing under seal imports consideration.
Furthermore the discharge of the at-
tachment by operation of the law is
also a consideration. Jennings v. Wall,
217 Mass. 278, 104 N. E. 738.
821-46 Wan r. Kelly, 209 Mass. 370,
95 N, E. 858; Leusch v. Nickel, 16 N.
M. 28, 113 P. 595; Home Distilling Co.
r- Himmel (W. Va.), 82 S. E. 1094;
B<»aeh f. Blessing, 73 W. Va. 319, 80
S. £. 453.
State Nat. Bank v. Winn, 134
639, 64 S. 495.
Hanford r. Duchastel (N. J.
li.), 93 A. 586; Hermida & Palos t*.
Oestera, 20 P. B. 423.
S2T-65 See 2 Standabd Pkog. 175.
See 2 Standard Pace. 175.
Judgment is not final as to any
/act in the action notwithstanding the
merits of the action have been inquired
into. Lowe r. Swinehart Tire & Rub-
ber Co., 211 Fed. 165.
831-61 Consolidated A. Mill. Co. V.
Roberts, 40 Okla. 304, 137 P. 1179.
831-62 Johnson t?. Muenz, 76 Wash.
526, 137 P. 126.
Order denying motion for order direct-
ing sale of perishable property is not
appealable. Henry Cowell L. & C. Co.
f. Figel (Cal. App.), 148 P. 796.
882-63 Benoski v. C. F. Adams Co.,
18 O. C. C. (N. S.) 478.
832-64 Haves v. Conger, 36 App.
Cas. (D. C.) 202.
834-73 See 2 Standabd Paoo. 176.
838-89 Fresno P. Mill Co. v. Man-
ning, 20 Cal. App. 766, 130 P. 196.
843-8 Absence of writ from record
does not defeat appellant's right to be
heard, where the attack is confined
solely to the sufficiency of the papers
on which it was granted. Frusher v.
Vacuum Dye. Mach. Co., 148 App. Div.
68, 131 N. Y. S. 994.
843-10 On motion for reinstatement,
the evidence considered on the motion
to discharge the attachment should, if
oral, be certified by the court in the
same manner as bills of exceptions in
ordinary actions upon appeal are re-
quired to be certified. If the evidence
was by depositions, a transcript of such
written evidence, heard upon the trial
of the attachment, should be prepared
and certified as is required in equitable
actions upon appeal, and unless the
order discharging the attachment sufli-
ciently identifies the depositions read
or considered, the transcript should be
accompanied by a certificate of the
judge showing that the depositions con-
tained in such transcript were so read
and considered upon the hearing of the
motion. Buck r. Watson, 161 Ky. 169,
170 S. W. 509.
844-15 On reversal of a Judgment for
the defendant, the attachment remains
effectual. McLain v, Parker, 92 Kan,
561, 141 P. 243.
ATTOBNBTS
See the title ''Lawyer and Client."
849-4 In re Berpreron (Mass.), 107 N.
E. 1007; In to Kothachild, 140 App.
Div. 583, 125 X. Y. S. 629; Crafts v.
Lizotte, 34 R. I. 543, 81 A. 1081, rehear.
!?C5
Vol 3
ATTORNEYS
denied, 85 A. 384. See In re Thatcher,
190 Fed. 969.
859-7 In re Bergerson (Mass.), 107
N. E. 1007.
851-8 In re Flannery, 150 App. Div.
.369, 135 N. Y. 8. 612.
851-9 Hanson v, Grattan, 84 Kan.
843, 115 P. 646, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.)
240; In re Bailey (Mont.), 146 P. 1101;
Vernon Co. Bar Assn. v. MeKibbin, 153
Wis. 350, 141 N. W. 283.
Existence of quallficatloiis is for court.
* ' The legislature cannot limit the courts
in their right to determine the moral
qualifications of their officers or pre-
vent them from refusing to admit
morally incompetent persons to prac-
tice, nor compel them to retain such
upon the roll." In re Platz, 42 Utah
439, 132 P. 390.
851-10 See Buxton v. Lietz, 136 N.
Y. S. 829, aff. 139 N. Y. S. 46.
852-13 Bead v. Neff, 207 Fed. 890;
Williams v. Hatcher, 95 S. C. 49, 78 S.
E. 615.
852-14 €ollins v. Board of Supervis-
ors, 158 la. 322, 138 N. W. 1095; Schaf-
fer V. Troutwein, 36 Okla. 653, 129
P. 696, appeal bond signed by attorney
in case is void under Comp. Laws, 1909,
|273.
853-15 Shelton v. Tiffin, 6 How. (U.
S.) 163, 12 L. ed. 387; Mills v, Duryee,
7 Cranch 'U. S.) 481, 3 L. ed. 411;
Jarrell v. Cole, 215 Fed. 315, 131 C.
C. A. 589; Vandiever f. Conditt, 110
Ark. 311, 162 S. W. 47; Wyatt v. Burr,
25 Ark. 476; Parkside Eealty Co. v.
MacDonald, 167 Cal. 342, 139 P. 805;
Garrison v. McGowan, 48 Cal. 592;
Wilson t?. Cleaveland, 30 Cal. 192; Wil-
liams V. Uncompahgre Canal Co., 13
Colo. 469; Dobbins 17. Dupree, 39 Ga.
394; Harrell v. Williams, 14 Ga. App.
171, 80 S. E. 534; Williams t?. Butler,
35 HI. 544; Horner V. Doe, 1 Ind. 130,
48 Am. Dec. 355; Taylor v. New Or-
leans, 41 La. Ann. 891, 6 S. 723;
Patrick's Succession, 20 La. Ann. 204;
Houston V, Wilcox, 121 Md. 91, 88 A.
32; Kelso v. Stigar, 75 Md. 376, 24
A. 18; Henck v. Todhunter, 7 Har. &
J. (Md.) 275, 16 Am. Dec. 300; Dehn
<?. Dehn, 170 Mich. 407, 136 N. W. 453;
Masterson v. Le Claire, 4 Minn. 108;
Eiley t?. O 'Kelly, 250 Mo. 647, 157 S.
W. 566; Dexter Imp. Assn. v. Dexter
Christian College, 234 Mo. 715, 138 S.
W. 40; Miller v, Assur. Co. 233 Mo.
91, 134 S. W. 1003, Ann. Cas. 1912C,
102; Munhall v. Mitchell, 178 Mo. App.
494, 163 S. W. 912; Mignogna V. Chiaf-
farelli, 151 Mo. App. 359, 131 S. W. •
769; Vorce f?. Page, 28 Neb. 294, 44 N.
W. 452; Manchester Bank v. Fellows,
28 N. H. 302; S. 17. Passaic Agr. Soc,
54 N. J. L. 260, 23 A. 680; Dey 17. Tel.
Co., 41 N. J. Eq. 419, 4 A. 675; Inter-
national H. Co. f7. Champlain, 155 App.
Div. 847, 140 N. Y. S. 842; Bacon v.
Mitchell, 14 N. D. 454, 106 N. W. 129,
4 L. B. A. (N. S.) 244; Campbell v,
Kent, 3 Penr. ft W. (Pa.) 72; Patter-
son V. Bogers, 53 Tex. 484; S. 17. Mur-
phy (Tex. Civ.), 137 S. W. 708; Gregg's
Case, 1 Salk. 89, 91 Eng. Beprint 83;
Thompson 17. Blackhurst, 1 Nev. & M.
(Eng.) 266, 271. See Howard 17. Burke,
248 III. 224, 93 N. E. 775, 140 Am. St.
159.
853-16 An attorney most tfiow Ills
authority to bring suit if called upon
to do so. Gregory v, Hanna, 1 Haw.
118; Spencer i?. Bailey, 1 Haw. 205.
And if he fails after having filed a plea
such plea may be stricken. Smyth c.
Hegarty, 1 Haw. 366.
853-17 P. V. Western Meat Co., 13
Cal. App. 539, 110 P. 338; Miller c.
Assur. Co., 233 Mo. 91, 134 S. W. 1003,
Ann. Cas. 1912C, 102.
854-18 A motion to dismiss is a
proper method of challenging attorney 's
authority. Angreation v. Laibe, 152 111.
App. 417; Mead i?. Mead, 28 S. D. 131,
132 N. W. 701. Such motion is ad-
dressed largely to court's discretion.
Beecher v, Henderson, 4 Ala. App. 543,
58 S. 805.
854-21 Seaward v, Tasker, 143 N.
Y. S. 257.
855-22 French v. Meyer (Mass.) 107
N. E. 956; Montrose i?. Baggott, 161
App. Div. 494, 146 N. Y. S. 649; Swin-
fen V, Chelmsford, 5 Hurlst. & N.
(Eng.) 890.
An agreement not to take cliange of
venue may be entered into by attorney.
Terre Haute Brew. Co. v. Ward (Ind.
App.), 102 N. E. 395.
Payment of claims. — ^'^ While an attor-
ney has a general authority to receive
tender or payment of a claim in suit,
it is evident that special circumstances
may exist which limit this agency."
Stratton v, Graham, 164 App. Div. 348,
149 N. Y. S. 662.
Stlimlatiomi as to evidenco. — ^May make
stipulation for oral examination of wit-
I nesses and that notes of testimony
206
ATTORNEYS
Vol. 3
taken by stenograplier shall be treated
aa depositioiiB. Conrad's £zr. v, Con-
rad, 156 Ky. 231, 160 S. W. 937.
OallJiig in Jndge^ — May agree that a dis-
qualified judge shall eall in another
judge. Washoe Copper Co. v, Hickey,
46 Mont. 363, 128 P. 584.
S55-24 Grant City v. Simmons, 167
Mo. App. 183, 151 8. W. 187; Bacon v.
Mitchell, 14 N. D. 454, 106 N. W. 129,
^ L. B. A. (N. S.) 244; Purman v, Bon
Marche, 71 Wash. 238, 128 P. 210; Simp-
son r. Brown, 1 Wash. Ter. 247. Contra,
Bhutasel v. Rule, 97 la. 20, 65 N. W.
1013; Steinkamp r. Gaebel, 1 Neb.
(Unof.) 480, 95 N. W. 684.
856-26 C&mp, Kinnegar r. Kinne-
gar's Est., 168 111. App. 276.
856-27 ICay stipulate issnes.-— May
stipulate that on new trial being
granted the case shall be submitted on
the evidence in the bill of exceptions.
Monk V. Wabash R. Co., 166 Mo. App.
692, 150 S. W. 1083.
856-29 Grant City v. Simmons, 167
Mo. App. 183, 151 S. W. 187.
That tMtimony in one sliall apply to alL
May stipulate that, where there are a
number of cases against several defend-
ants, all the testimony admitted in one
trial concerning all the offenses shall
be received, but providing "only such
evidence as may be pertinent against
the defendant shall be considered in
each case.'' Rogers v, S., 32 0. C. C.
389.
855-30 Forbes r. Chicago, R. I. &
P. B. Co., 150 la. 177, 129 N. W. 810,
Ann. Cas. 1912D, 311; Tyrrell t?. MU-
liken, 135 Mo. App. 293, 115 S. W. 512;
Tyrrel v, Hammerstein, 33 Misc. 505,
67 N. Y. S. 717; Livingston Co. V. New
York College, 31 Misc. 259, 64 N. Y.
S. 140. Comp, Trimmier v. Thomson,
41 S. C. 125, 19 S. E. 291.
Stsnognphor's feeSwMiller «. Palmer,
25 Ind. App. 357, 58 N. E. 213, 81 Am.
St. 107; Thornton 17. Tuttle, 20 Abb.
N. C. 308, 7 N. Y. S. 801 ; Harry r. HU-
ton, 64 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 199,
85G-40 Bank of Glade Spring v, Me-
Ewen, 160 N. C. 414, 76 S. E. 222, Ann.
Cas. 1914C, 542.
85T-44 Masterton 9. Le Claire, 4
Minn. 163; Ashcraft 17. Powers, 22
Wash. 440, 61 P. 161.
IsBiumee and service of process may not
he waived by him. Bice v, Bennett,
29 S. D. 341, 137 N, W. 359.
857-45 Bank of Glade Spring v. Me-
Ewen, 160 N. C. 414, 76 S. E. 222, Ann.
Cas. 1914C, 542. But see Salt Lake
City V, Salt Lake Inv. Co., 43 Utah
181, 134 P. 603; Cogswell v. Cogswell,
70 Wash. 178, 126 P. 431^ wherein it
was held that an attorney could stip-
ulate for the entry of a decree quieting
title in plaintiff.
857-47 Biebold f). Hartzell, 23 N. B.
264, 136 N. W. 247.
857-48 See Vilas v. Bundy, 106 Wis.
168, 81 N. W. 812; Armour v. Kilmer,
28 Ont. (Can.) 618.
Kot at dlent's expense. — Johnson v,
Cunningham, 1 Ala. 249; Porter v.
EUzalde, 125 Cal. 204, 57 P. 899;
Lathrop v. Hallett, 20 Colo. App. 207,
77 P. 1095; Chicago & S. Tract. Co. v.
Flaherty, 222 111. 67, 78 N. E. 29; Con-
tinental Adj. Co. V. Hoffman, 123 111.
App. 69; Brewer v, Hartman, 116 Minn.
512, 134 N. W. 113; Bentley v. Fidelity
Co., 75 N. J. L. 828, 69 A. 202, 127
Am. St. 837; Kneeland V, Hurdy, 97
N. Y. S. 957; Paddock v. Colby, 18 Vt.
485; Briggs V. Georga, 10 Vt. 68; Tay-
lor V, Alexander, Bap. Jud. Quebec, 12
C. S. 159; Auge v. Filiatrault, Bap.
Jud. Quebec, 10 C. S. 157; Ex parte
James, 8 N. Bruns. 286.
857-51 Caxmot sae for rescission
where only authorized to sue for spe-
cific performance or to quiet title.
Neill t?. McClung, 71 W. Va. 458, 76
S. E. 878.
858-54 Bank of Glade Spring e. Me-
Ewen, 160 N. C. 414, 76 S. E. 222, Ann.
Cas. 1914C, 542.
858-56 Beinstatement. — An attorney
may not consent to reinstatement after
dismissal. Owens v, Cocroft, 14 Ga.
App. 322, 80 S. £. 906.
A retraxit mliy not be entered by an
attorney without client's consent. Bin-
con Water Co. v, Anaheim, 115 Fed.
543; Coates v, Santa Fe P. & P. B.
Co., 15 Ariz. 25, 135 P. 717; Hallack
V. Loft, 19 Colo. 74, 34 P. 568; Harris
r. Tiffany, 8 B. Mon. (Ky.) 225; Flan-
nagan r. Elton, 34 Neb, 355, 51 N. W.
967; Waldron t?. Angleman, 71 N. J. L.
166, 58 A. 568; Sheffer r. Perkins &
Co., 83 Vt. 185, 75 A. 6, 25 L. E. A.
(N. S.) 1313; Muse «. Farmers' Bank,
27 Gratt. (Va.) 252; Forest Coal Co.
V. Doolittle, 64 W. Va. 210, 46 S. B.
238. See Westbay v. Gray, 116 Cal.
660, 48 P. 800; Merritt V, Campbell, 47
Cal. 542; Barnard v. Daggett, 68 Ind.
207
Vol. 3
ATTORNEYS
305; Andrews t\ O'Eeilly, 34 B. I. 256,
83 A. 119.
858-59 Miocene Ditch Co. V, Moore,
150 Fed. 483, 80 C. C. A. 301; Harper
t\ Ins. Co., 56 Fed. 281, 5 C. C. A.
505; Abbe V, Bood, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 6;
Senn v, Joseph, 106 Ala. 454, 17 S.
543; Hall S. & L. Co. v, Harwell, 88
Ala. 441, 6 S. 750; Bobinson v. Mur-
phy, 69 Ala. 543; Pickett v. Bank, 32
Ark. 346; Hallack v. Loft, 19 Colo. 74,
34 P. 568; McMurray r. Marsh, 12 Colo.
App. 95, 54 P. 852; Derwort v, Loomer,
21 Conn. 245; Empire L. Ins. Co. v. Ma-
son, 140 Ga. 141, 78 S. E. 935; Phillips
t?. Dobbins, 56 Ga. 617; Boll t?. Kiv-
ilecki, 11 Ga. App. 9, 74 S. E. 444;
Schroeder v. Wolf, 227 111. 133, 81 N.
E. 13; Danziger v. Shoe Co., 204 111.
145, 68 N. E. 534, aff, 107 111. App.
47; McClintoek v. Helberg, 168 HI. 384,
48 N. E. 145; Jones v. Bansom, 3 Ind.
327; Jennings V. Hoop. Co., 50 Ind.
App. 241, 98 N. E. 194; Cottrell v.
Wheeler, 89 la. 754, 57 N. W. 433;
Martin v. Ins. Co., 85 la. 643, 52 N.
W. 534; Bigler V. Toy, 68 la. 687, 28
N. W. 17; Jones f?. Inness, 32 Kan.
177, 4 P. 95; Marbourg v. Smith, 11
Kan. 554; Loughridge v. Burkhart, 147
Ky. 457, 144 S. W. 65; Sebastian t?.
Bose, 135 Ky. 197, 122 S. W. 120;
Heath & Co. v, C, 129 Ky. 835, 113
S. W. 69; National Bank t\ Bowman,
30 Ky. L. Bep. 1236, 100 S. W. 831;
Landry's Succession, 117 La. 193, 41
S. 490; Beal Estate Tr. Co. <?. Trust
Co., 102 Md. 41, 61 A, 228; Hamburger
r. Paul, 51 Md. 219; Bohr v, Anderson,
51 Md. 205; Lewis v. Gamage, 1 Pick.
(Mass.) 347; Fetz v. Leyendecker, 157
Mich. 355, 122 N, W. 100; Eaton 17.
Knowles, 61 Mich. 625, 28 N. W. 740;
Bice i\ Troup, 62 Miss. 186; Parker V,
M'Bee, 61 Miss. 134; Walden v, Bolton,
55 Mo. 405; Grant City 17. Simmons,
167 Mo. App. 183, 151 S. W. 187; David-
son t\ Eozier, 23 Mo. 387; Schlemmer
t\ Schlemmer, 107 Mo. App. 487, 81
S. W. 636; Barton 17. Hunter, 59 Mo.
App. 610; Harris i\ Boot, 28 Mont. 159,
72 P. 429; Smith v. Jones, 47 Neb. 108,
66 N. W. 19, 53 Am. St. 519; Hamrick
r. Combs, 14 Neb. 381, 15 N, W. 731;
Faughnan r. Elizabeth, 58 N. J. L. 309,
33 A. 212; Watts I?. Frenche, 19 N. J.
Eq. 407; Lewis v. Duane, 141 N. Y.
302, 36 N. E. 322; Mandeville t\ Bey-
noldg, 68 N. Y. 528, aff* 5 Hun 338;
McKechnie r. McKechnie, 3 App. Div.
91, 39 N. Y. S. 402; Smith cw Brad-
hurst, 18 Misc. 546, 41 N. Y. 8. 1002;
Wilson 17. Jennings, 3 O. St. 528; Holden
V. Lippert, 12 O. C. C. 767; Countee 17.
Armstrong, 10 Wkly. L. B. 339; Turner
t?. Fleming, 37 Okla. 75, 130 P. 551,
Ann. Cas. 1915B, 831; Fleishman v.
Meyer, 46 Or. 267, 80 P. 209; Gray i?.
Howell, 205 Pa. 211, 54 A. 774; Brock-
ley 17, Brockley, 122 Pa. 1, 15 A. 646;
Isaacs 17. Zugsmith, 103 Pa. 77; North
Whitehall Twp. v. Keller, 100 Pa. 105,
45 Am. Bep. 361; Whipple t\ Whitman,
13 B. L 512, 43 Am. Bep. 42; GiUi-
land 17. Gasque, 6 S. C. 406; Davis 17.
Home Ins. Co., 127 Tenn. 330, 155 8.
W. 131, 44 L. B. A. (N. S.) 626; Con-
ley 17. Whitthorne (Tenn.), 58 S. W.
380; Mathews 17. Massey, 4 Bazt.
(Tenn.) 450; Peters r. Lawson, 66 Tex.
336, 17 8. W. 734; Cook t\ Greenberg
(Tex. Civ. App.), 34 S. W. 687; VaU
17. Conant, 15 Vt. 314; Timm 17. Timm,
34 Wash. 228, 75 P. 879; Budlong V.
Budlong, 31 Wash. 228. 71 P. 751; Watt
17. Brookover, 35 W. Va 323, 13 8. E.
1007, 29 Am. St- 811; Crotty 17. Eagle's
Admr., 35 W. Va. 143, 13 8. E. 59;
Fosha 17. O'Donnell, 120 Wis. 336, 97
N. W, 924; Kelly 17. Wright, 65 Wis.
236, 26 K W. 610; Macaulay 17. Policy
2 Q. B. 122; Fray t\ Voules, 1 El. &
El. 839, 120 Eng. Beprint 1125; B. v.
Pmsoneault, 22 Lower Can. Jur. 58;
Bank of Neva Scotia i?. Morrow, 17 N*
Bruns. 84?. But see Ins. Co. 17. Buch-
anan* 100 Ind. 63: Combs t7. Combs (Ind.
App.), 105 N. E. 944; Clinton t\ New-
York Cent. & H. B. B. Co., 147 App.
Div. 468, 13.1 N. Y. S. 881; Equitable
Trust Co. 17. MacLaire, 77 Misc. 116, 135
N. Y. 8, 1022; Prestwich 17. Foley, 18
C, B. N. 8. (Eng.) 806. See also
Chown 17. Parrott, 14 C. B. N. S. (Eng.)
74; Butler t/. Knight, L. B. 2 Exch.
(Eng.) 10^; In re Wood, 21 W. B.
(Eng.) 104.
858-61 Henderson r. Bank of Ozark,
178 Ala. 420, 59 S. 493. Comp. Lane
17. Brinson, 12 Ga. App. 760, 78 S. E.
725; McCornick 17. Shaughnessy, 19 Ida.
465, 114 P. 22, 34 L. B. A. (N. S.)
1188.
Assigning Judgment. — Attorney has no
authority to assign the judgment. Ritz
17. Bea, 155 la. 181, 135 N. W. 645.
Presumption of authority after Judg-
ment.— In a divorce action there is no
presumption that an attorney who ap*
peared for defendant prior to final judg-
ment has authority to appear in sub-
sequent proceedings. Keller 17. Keller,
208
ATTOBNETS
Vol. 3
100 App. Div. 325, 91 K Y. S. 528;
WulflP t;. Wulflf, 74 Misc. 213, 133 N.
Y. S. 807, aff. 151 App. Div. 22, 135
N. T. S. 289.
859-64 See Greenburg v, B. Co., 210
K. Y. 505, 104 N. E. 931, aff. 160 App.
Div. 888, 144 N. Y. S. 1118.
859-66 P. i\ Ceroid, 265 111. 448, 107
N. E. 165; MUler v. Lloyd, 181 111. App.
230. See Hickman v, McDonald, 164
la. 50, 145 N. W. 322; Kerr v, Mosley,
152 N. C. 223, 67 S. E. 482; Egolf B.
Co. V, Cleaver, 228 Pa. 60, 77 A. 245.
Attorney for adverse parties. — ^There
is no statutory provision which forbids
a creditor from retaining as his attor-
ney the person who has acted as attor-
ney for the bankrupt, but judicial pol-
icy discourages the practice of an attor-
ney acting at the same time for the
bankrupt and the creditors, because such
practice might lead to results which
should be strongly condemned. In re
KsDfman, 179 Fed. 552.
860-67 Seaward v. Tasker, 143 N.
Y. S. 257.
861-72 In re Weill (App. Div.), 150
N. Y. S. 802; In re Kopf (App. Div.),
149 N. Y. S. 619; In re La Par, 164
App. Div. 931, 149 N. Y. S. 435; In
re Birdseye (App. Div.), 149 N. Y. S.
617; In re JaflPe, 164 App. Div. 153,
149 N. Y. S. 505; In re Thorn, 164 App.
Div. 151, 149 N. Y. S. 507.
Miflcondiict while acting as Judge
cause for disbarment. S. v. Peck, 88
Conn. 447, 91 A. 274.
Xbe pnziKwe of disbarment is not pun-
ishment but to protect the administra-
tion of justice. In ire McDougall, 3
Phil. Isl. 70.
863-76 S. V, Peck, 88 Conn. 447, 91
A. 274.
864-78 Wemimont v. S., 101 Ark.
210, 142 S. W. 194, Ann. Cas. 1913D,
1156; P. t?. Amos, 246 111. 299, 92 N. E.
857, 138 Am. St. 239; In re Baisch, 83
N. J. Eq. 82, 90 A. 12; State Bar Com.
r. Sullivan, 35 Okla. 745, 131 P. 703;
In re Montague, 3 Phil. Isl. 577; In re
Evans, 42 Utah 282, 130 P. 217, rev,
22 Utah 366, 62 P. 913, 83 Am. St.
794, 53 L. B. A. 952; Vernon Co. Bar
Assn. r. M'Kibbin, 153 Wis. 350, 141
X. W. 283.
865-79 Ex parte Quarrier, 2 W. Va.
569. But see P. v, Payson, 215 111.
476, 74 N. E. 383; S. v. Ebbs, 150 N.
C, 44, 63 S. E. 190, 19 L. B. A. (N. S.)
8.02.
865-80 In Indiana the circuit court
of a county wherein an attorney had
tried a case has jurisdiction though he
was not a resident thereof. In re
Darrow, 175 Ind. 44, 92 N. E. 369.
In New York under Laws, 1912, ch. 253,
the power is in the appellate division.
In re Flannery, 150 App. Div. 369, 135
N. Y. S. 612.
866-82 S. t?. Peck, 88 Conn. 447, 91
Ai 274. See In re Wilcox, 90 Kan. 646,
135 P. 995.
Nature of proceeding. — '^A proceeding
to disbar an attorney is neither a civil
nor a criminal action, but is a pro-
ceeding sui generis, the object of which
is not the . punishment of the offender
but the protection of the court." In
re Davis (Mo. App.), 166 S. W. 341.
See also Wernimont v, S., 101 Ark. 210,
142 8. W. 194; In re Spencer, 137 App.
Div. 330, 122 N. Y. S. 190.
866-84 Who may institnte. — The bar
association (Boston Bar Assn. v. Casey,
196 Mass. 100, 81 N. E. 892) ; a private
individual with the sanction of the
bar association (In re Danford, 157 Cal.
425, 108 P. 322); *'any person inter-
ested" (P. V. Palmer, 61 111. 255);
a client (Wilson t?. Popham, 91 Ky.
327, 15 S. W. 859); another attorney
(Fairfield County Bar v, Taylor, 60
Conn. 11, 22 A. 441, 13 L. B. A. 767;
In re Davis [Mo. App.], 166 S. W. 341).
The courts may of their own initiative
and without complaint set on foot in-
quiries; or they may entertain a com-
plaint received from any source with-
in or without the profession, so the
state's attorney could prevent the com-
plaint. S. V. Peck, 88 Conn. 447, 91
A. 274.
Practise is to issue rule on attorney
to show cause stating the substance of
the charges. Barnes v, Lyons, 187 Fed.
881, 110 C. C. A. 15.
866-85 Notice unnecessary where
statute provides for disbarment upon
conviction of a felony. In re Sutton,
50 Mont. 88, 145 P. 6.
868-87 Construction of complaint.
The sufficiency of the complaint must
be looked on as a whole and determined
upon such examination, and it cannot
be tested by the same strictness as a
pleading in a civil suit. S. v. Peck, 88
Conn. 447, 91 A. 274.
868-90 S. i\ Peck, 88 Conn. 447, 91
A. 274.
lA
209
Vol. 3
AUDITA QUERELA
869-91 Worthen v. S. (Ala.)? 66 S.
686.
Verlflcatloii not necessary under Comp.
Laws, 1909, §267. State Bar Com. v.
Sullivan, 35 Okla. 745, 131 P. 703.
No verification necessary when the
charges are made by a bar association
or attorney general. P. v. Story, 265
111. 207, 106 N. E. 797; In re Evans, 94
S. C. 414, 78 S. E. 227.
870-95 Bes Judicata. — No judgment
rendered in a criminal prosecution can
be invoked as a basis for plea of res
judicata to an action for disbarment
proceedings. S. v, Cary, 135 La. 579,
65 S. 748.
870-97 P. V. Phipps, 261 HI. 576, 104
N. E. 144; P. V. Hooper, 218 111. 313,
75 N. E. 896; S. f?. Fourchy, 106 La.
743, 31 S. 325. See In re Whitridge,
162 App. Div. 884, 146 N. Y. S. 336.
But see P. v, Tanquary, 48 Colo. 122,
109 P. 260.
871-4 Wernimont v. S., 101 Ark. 210,
142 S. W. 194, Ann. Cas. 1913D, 1156.
On the trial the court is not limited to
the precise charges of the complaint,
nor is it bound by any particular rule
of law, nor is it necessary that the basis
of discipline should be acts creating
civil or criminal liability. Crafts v,
Lizotte, 34 R. I. 543, 84 A. 1081, rehear,
denied, 85 A. 384.
871-5 Contra, Wernimont v, S., 101
Ark. 210, 142 S. W. 194, Ann. Cas.
1913D, 1156.
871-11 S. V, McElhinney, 241 Mo.
592, 145 S. W. 1139. See In re Selleck,
168 Mo. App. 391, 151 S. W. 743.
872-12 S. r. Snook, 78 Wash. 671,
139 P. 764. See In re Robinson, 209
X. Y. 354, 103 N. E. 160, af. 151 App.
Div. 589, 136 N. Y. S. 548.
872-14 Beview limited to question
as to whether there is any evidence to
sustain it. In re Flannery, 212 N. Y.
610, 106 N. E. 630.
873-15 Jones v. McCullough, 138 Ga.
16, 74 S. E. 694.
873-16 County bar association insti-
tuting disbarment proceedings may ap-
peal from order dismissing petition.
Vernon Co. Bar Assn. v. McKibbin, 153
Wis. 350, 141 N. W. 283.
873-17 In re Oppenheim, 155 App.
Div. 889, 139 N. Y. S. 1053; Nugent r.
Metropolitan St. R, Co., 146 App. Div.
775, 131 N. Y. S. 423; In re Adriatico,
17 Phil. Isl. 324; In re Evans, 41 Utah
282, 130 P. 217, rev, 22 Utah 366, 62 P.
913, 83 Am. St. 794, 53 L. R. A. 952.
See In re Hawkins (Del.), 87 A. 243.
The sole question to be detexmlned is
whether the granting of his application
would promote the right administration
of justice. In re Thatcher, 83 O. St.
246, 93 N. E. 895, Ann. Cas. 1912A,
810.
873-19 Application not restricted to
a procedure in the nature of a bill of
review or other equity or common law
rule. In re Evans, 42 Utah 282, 130
P. 217, rev. 22 Utah 366, 62 P. 913, 83
Am. St. 794, 53 L. R. A. 952.
AUDITA QX7EBELA
877-3 Existence of another remedy
will not defeat right to audita querela.
Deal V. Powell (Vt.), 92 A. 648; Har-
mon V, Martin, 52 Vt. 255; Edwards v,
Osgood, 33 Vt. 224.
877-4 Turknett v. Western College
(N. M.), 145 P. 138.
ProceedUig by sapersedeas will lie in
place of audita querela. Henderson a.
Bank, 178 Ala. 420, 59 S. 493.
879-7 Improper serrice^-— When serv-
ice has not been made as required by
statute the defendant is entitled to
have judgment vacated upon audita
querela. Deal v, Powell (Vt.), 92 A.
648; Hill t\ Warren, 54 Vt. 73; Folsom
t\ Conner, 49 Vt. 4.
BANEBUPTOY PSOCnEEEDINaS
895-1 In re Weedman Stave Co., 199
Fed. 948.
897-5 |14b, danse 3 <<is not to be
too liberally construed." Novick v. E.
P. Reed & Co., 192 Fed. 20, 112 C. C.
A. 408.
A retroactiye effect may be given to
the act. In re Farmers' Co-Operative
Co., 202 Fed. 1008.
898-8 Order No. xxxviii, published
in 172 U. S. 653-723, 18 Sup. Ct. iv,
89 Fed. xiv, 32 C. C. A. xxxvii; Sabin
V. Blake-McFall Co. (C. C. A.), 223 Fed.
501.
899-10 A daim based on a tort as
known at common law is undoubtedly
provable whenever it may be resolved
into an implied contract. Reynolds r.
New York Trust Co., 188 Fed. 611, 110
C. C. A. 409.
The open accounts must be such as
would be available to the bankrupt
210
BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. 3
with which to meet his liabilities with-
in a reasonable time. Louisiana Nat.
Life Assur. Soc. v. Segen, 196 Fed. 903.
899-13 See In re Lyons Beet Sugar
Ref. Co., 192 Fed. 445.
90O-ie BlU of partlcalar8.~A ref-
eree has power to require creditors to
file a bill of particulars giving full
specifications of the items of their
claims. In re Siegel Co., 223 Fed. 368.
901-18 In re Stradley & Co., 187 Fed.
285.
901-24 See In re Fitzgerald, 191
Fed. 95.
903-31 Mechanics' Nat. Bank v,
Ernst, 231 U. S. 60, 34 Sup. Ct. 22, 68
L. ed. 121; National City Bank r.
Hotohkiss, 231 U. S. 50, 34 Sup. Ct. 20,
58 L. ed. 115.
903-38 In re McCarthy Portable
Elevator Co., 205 Fed. 986.
Tfine for prasentatlon of claImB of per-
sona asserting right to property in
hands of trustee may be limited by
court in its discretion. But this does
not apply to general creditors who are
given a year within which to file claim.
In re Lathrop, Haskins & Co. (C. C.
A.), 223 Fed. 912.
Lachefl in presentliig claim is no bar
to proving a claim if it is presented
within the year and the delay has not
been prejudicial to the rights of others.
In re Dunlap Carpet Co., 206 Fed. 726.
daiins of ownenliip adverse to the
bankrupt and his estate are not within
|57n. Nauman Co. v. Bradshaw, 193
Fed. 350, 113 C. C. A. 274.
905-38 01>j6ction after time for
amendment of claim has lapsed comes
too late. In re Stradley & Co., 187
Fed. 285.
906-44 The difltrlct court, sitting in
bankruptcy, has jurisdiction to recon-
sider allowed or disallowed claims, and
allow or disallow them. In re Pater-
son Co., 186 Fed. 629, 108 C. C. A. 493.
900-45 Answer to petition. — ^In re
Goble Boat Co., 190 Fed. 92.
907-53 Petition for review of ref-
eree's mUng on allowance of claim
must be filed within a reasonable time.
In re Verdon Cigar Co., 193 Fed. 813.
O07-64 Le Master v. Spencer, 203
Fed 210, 121 C. C. A. 416.
908-58 In re Wentworth Lunch Co.,
189 Fed. 831.
9KK65 In re Alexander, 193 Fed.
749,
911-72 In re National Boat & Sng.
Co., 216 Fed. 208.
913-76 In re UeLefyLJk, 204 Fed.
482.
914-77 Amendment of composition
may be permitted where bankrupt was
deprived of a chance to have the prop-
erty in hands of the trustee examined
and appraised for benefit of those who
were to assist him financially and he
was thus led, in good faith, to offer an
agreement which was rejected as in-
sufficient. In re Cockshaw, 220 Fed.
239.
914-78 Strict construction. — ''The
provisions of the statute relating to
compositions are in derogation of the
common law in that they compel dis-
senting creditors to accept the percent-
age agreed upon by the majority in
number and amount and deprive the
minority creditors of their remedies
on the balance of their respective
claims. Such provisions are therefore
strictly construed. " In re Kinnane Co.,
221 Fed. 762. In re Kinnane Co., 217
Fed. 488; In re Goldstein, 213 Fed. 115.
Composition proceedingB not in accord-
ance with the provisions of the Bank-
ruptcy Act, cannot be confirmed. In
re Kinnane Co., 221 Fed. 762; In ro
Kinnane Co., 217 Fed. 488; In re Gold-
stein, 213 Fed. 115.
914-79 In re Fox, 222 Fed. 135.
914-80 In re Frischknecht (C. C.
A.), 223 Fed. 417.
914-81 In re Fox, 222 Fed. 135.
914-82 In re Kinnane Co., 217 Fed.
488.
915-83 In re Frischknecht (C. C.
A.), 223 Fed. 417; In re Fox, 222 Fed.
135; In re Goldstein, 213 Fed. 115; In
re The Jackson Stores, 192 Fed. 705.
Consent of creditors. — ^If the bankrupt
is allowed to amend his composition,
he should obtain the consent of his
creditors as stated in text. In re Cock-
shaw, 220 Fed. 239; In re Kinnane Co.,
217 Fed. 488.
915-84 In re Fox, 222 Fed. 135.
915-86 Withdrawal of objections.
Objections to an offer in composition
which have been heard and sustained
cannot be withdrawn after the decis-
ion, under any agrement or transaction
by which the objecting creditor re-
ceives, directly or indirectly, a larger
amount on its claim than other credi-
tors of the same class. In re Levenson,
1223 Fed. 874.
?U
Vol 3
BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS
915-87 In re Frischknecht (G. C.
A.), 223 Fed. 417.
Interest accumulated on such deposit
should be turned over to the bankrupt
on final confirmation of the composition.
In re Kelley, 223 Fed. 383.
Deposit liable for damages or expemM
to the estate occasioned by the offer
of composition. In re "Wiener, 217 Fed.
173, 215 Fed. 278.
915-89 In re McVoy Hdw. Co., 200
F. 949, 119 C. C. A. 337.
Court may of its own motion inquire
into the regularity of a composition.
In re Kinnane Co., 221 Fed. 762.
Facts relating to a composition should
be investigated by the court independ-
ently of any agreement the creditors
may have made. In re Kinnane Co.,
221 Fed. 762.
916-90 In re Bay State Mill Co. (C.
C. A.), 223 Fed. 778; In re Maytag-
Mason Motor Co., 223 Fed. 684; In re
Frischknecht (C. C. A.), 223 Fed. 417;
In re Kinnane Co., 221 Fed. 762; In re
McKee, 214 Fed. 885.
Tlie word "dismissed** in il2e, provid-
ing that upon confirmation of the com-
position the case shall be dismissed,
means "no more than that the court
is not to proceed further with its ad-
ministration of the estate under the
bankruptcy act. It does not mean that
there is to be no longer any case before
the court, as if the petition or the pro-
ceedings had been dismissed under sec-
tions 3c, 18d, 18e, 58a (8), or 59d, 59g.*'
U. S. t\ Sondheim, 188 Fed. 378.
916-91 In re Maytag-^Iason Motor
Co., 223 Fed. 684.
916-92 • In re Lane, 125 Fed. 772.
Dividends not claimed within a year
by creditors under a composition agree-
ment should be returned to the bank-
rupt. In re Lane, 125 Fed. 772.
916-93 In re May tag-Mason Motor
Co., 223 Fed. 684; In re Lane, 125 Fed.
772.
916-96 In re Maytag-Mason Motor
Co., 223 Fed. 684.
917-9T Union Furn. Co. v. Walker-
Cooley Furn. Co., 206 Fed. 217.
917-2 In re Rochester S. & B. Co.
(C. C. A.), 222 Fed. 22.
917-3 Baumhauer r. Austin, 186 Fed.
260, 108 C. C. A. 306; In re People's
Pept. Store Co., 159 Fed. 286; In re
Swift, 118 Fed. 348,
Unless the findings are manifestly er-
roneous and flagrantly against the evi-
dence, the findings will not be over-
ruled. In re Brenner, 190 Fed. 209.
See In re Boner, 189 Fed. 93.
Determination of special master pre-
sumed correct and not subject to be
disregarded at court's discretion. In
re Senoia Duck Mills, 193 Fed. 711.
917-5 In re Waite, 223 Fed. 853; In
re Sheinberg, 223 Fed. 218.
The court is without Jurisdiction to
discharge a bankrupt where there are
no dischargeable debts; where the
claims are disputed a discharge cannot
be granted. In re Gulick, 190 Fed. 52.
918-7 In re Bacon, 193 Fed. 34, 113
v/. \jt A. oOo.
Computation of time. — ^The time of
twelve months does not commence to
run from the adjudication, but com-
mences after the expiration of one
month subsequent to adjudication. In
re Walters, 209 Fed. 133.
918-8 In re Bacon, 193 Fed. 34, 113
C. C. A. 358; In re Loughran, 215 Fed.
271; In re Daly, 205 Fed. 1002; In re
Churchill, 197 Fed. Ill; In re Chase,
186 Fed. 408.
That the discharge would be denied
because of §14b, which prohibits a dis-
charge within six years of a previous
discharge, is not an unavoidable pre-
vention. In re Yaine. 186 Fed. 535.
Ko notice to creditors is required in
determining whether or not the bank-
rupt was unavoidably prevented from
filing his application within the speci-
fied time. In re Chase, 186 Fed. 408.
Creditors waive objections to an order
extending the time by filing specifica-
tions of objection to the discharge. In
re Casey, 195 Fed. 322.
The application to permit filing within
the enlarged time is one addressed to
the discretion of the judge. In ro
Churchill, 197 Fed. 111.
918-9 In re Taunton, 216 Fed. 987.
919-12 In re Hockman, 205 Fed. 330.
919-13 The notice to creditors of
the hearing and the fixing of the date
should be upon order of the judge. In
re Hockman, 205 Fed. 330.
919-14 In re Hockman, 205 Fed. 330.
The referee has no authority^ — ^In re
Taylor, 188 Fed. 479.
919-15 In re Gillardon, 187 Fed. 289.
Any person may be appointed in the
212
BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS
Vol 3
court's discretion, although it is cus-
tomary to appoint the referee. In re
GUlardon, 187 Fed. 289.
920-20 In re Bacon, 193 Fed. 34, 113
C. C. A. 358; In re Springer, 199 Fed.
294; In re Westbrook, 186 Fed. 414; In
re Bichter, 190 Fed. 905.
Kew proceedings to secure discliarge.
Bankrupt cannot institute a second pro-
ceeding in bankruptcy involving the
same debts, creditors, etc., merely for
the purpose of procuring his discharge,
which he had failed to secure within
the statutory time in the original pro-
ceeding. In re Loughran, 215 Fed. 271 ;
In re Springer, 199 Fed. 294.
920-21 In re Bacon, 193 Fed. 34, 113
O. C At 358.
921-22 Petition is in nature of sep-
arate proceedings from the original
cause. In re Taylor, 188 Fed. 479.
921-2S In re Taylor, 188 Fed. 479.
921-24 In re Taylor, 188 Fed. 479.
A filing wltli the referee is not a filing
with the court, but the irregularity in
filing may be waived. In re Taylor,
188 Fed. 479.
921-25 Filing specifications is
equivalent to an appearance. In re
Magen Bros., 192 Fed. 883, 113 C. C. A.
207.
He is entitled to tlie whole day (during
business hours, at least) to enter his
appearance. In re Barrager, 191 Fed.
247.
922-28 A trustee may file objections
when authorized to do so at a meeting
of creditors called for that purpose.
In re Reiff, 205 Fed. 399; In re Hock-
man, 205 Fed. 330.
022-29 In re Hagy (C. C. A.), 220
Fed. 665; In re Miller, 192 Fed. 730.
Xicaye to iile objections is necessary.
In re Chase, 186 Fed. 408.
"Wlio are parties In interest. — The time
as of which the interest is to be de-
termined is the time of the beginning
of the opposition to a discharge. In
r« Westbrook, 186 Fed. 414. A credi-
tor is a party in interest although the
statute of limitations has run against
his cause of action. In re Westbrook,
186 Fed. 414.
Haley v. Pope, 206 Fed. 266,
124 C. C. A. 330.
023-34 Befnsal . of permission to
veirlfy objections, filed without veri-
flcation on the advice of the referee.
is an abuse of discretion. In re Miller,
192 Fed. 730.
924-44 See In re Taylor, 188 Fed.
479.
924-48 In re Glasberg, 197 Fed. 896,
117 C. C. A. 235; In re Downing, 199
Fed. 329; In re Miller, 192 Fed. 730
(obtaining credit on a false statement) ;
In re Gara, 190 Fed. 112; In re Sussman,
190 Fed. Ill; In re Graves, 189 Fed.
847.
Giving statement of financial condition
to a mercantile agency is not ground
for denial of discharge. Novick v. E.
P. Reed & Co., 192 Fed. 20, 112 C. C.
A. 408.
925-52 In re 'Main, 205 Fed. 421,
facts not legal conclusions must be
stated.
926-53 Facts stated on information
and belief are insufilcient upon which
to ground specifications in opposition
to a discharge. In re White, 222 Fed.
688.
926-58 FoUowiog language of stat-
ute not sufficient. In re Main, 205 Fed.
421; In re Mintzer, 197 Fed. 647.
926-59 In re Main, 205 Fed. 421.
926-61 Troeder v. Lorsch, 150 Fed.
710, 80 C. C. A. 376; In re White, 222
Fed. 688. Contra^ In re Magen Bros.
Co., 192 Fed. 883, 113 C. C. A. 207.
Following the language of the statute
is sufficient. It is sufficient to specify
only in such substantial form as will
inform one of the charges made against
him. In re Magen Bros. Co., 192 Fed.
883, 113 C. C. A. 207.
927-63 See In re Sheinberg, 223 Fed.
218.
927-64 In re Magen Bros. Co., 192
Fed. 883, 113 C. C. A. 207 (allegation
held sufficient); In re White, 222 Fed.
688.
928-71 Demurrer not proper or nec-
essary. In re Daugherty, 189 Fed. 239.
928-72 If not filed before the order
of reference is entered, objections are
waived. In re Daugherty, 189 Fed,
239.
929-75 In re Curie, 217 Fed. 688.
929-76 Withdrawal of opposition
may be considered by the court where
there is doubt as to the guilt of the
bankrupt of the alleged frauds. In re
Hammerstein, 189 Fed. 37, 110 C. C. A.
472.
A discharge cannot be pleaded as a do-
213
Vol 3
BANKRUPTCY PHOCEEDINOS
feiUM to a Buit until it is granted, and
it is not available as a defense unless
pleaded. In re Nuttall, 201 Fed. 557.
929-77 In re Julius Bros. (C. C. A.),
217 Fed. 3.
Ezdudlng from discharge debts, which
were scheduled under the' first petition
under which the bankrupt failed to ap-
ply for a discharge, is within the power
of the court. In re Westbrook, 186 Fed.
414.
930-80 Comp. Lindeke v. Converse,
198 Fed. 618, 117 C. C. A. 322.
930-81 In re Walsh, 213 Fed. 643.
930-82 In re Cuthbertson, 202 Fed.
266; In re Downing,- 199 Fed, 329.
Fraud involving moral turpitude is a
sufiicient ground. In re Cuthbertson,
202 Fed. 266.
Failure of creditor to receive duly
mailed notice of the hearing of the ap-
plication for bankrupt's discharge is
not sufficient ground to revoke the dis-
charge. In re Walsh, 213 Fed. 643.
930-83 In re Cuthbertson, 202 Fed.
266.
931-85 In re Cuthbertson, 202 Fed.
266.
931-88 Freed t\ Central Trust Co.,
215 Fed. 873, 132 C. C. A. 7; In re
Probst, 205 Fed. 512, 123 C. C. A. 580;
Kirsner v. Taliaferro, 202 Fed. 51, 120
C. C. A. 305; In re Epstein, 219 Fed.
635 (holding that referee has no juris-
diction to restrain trustee from proceed-
ing against bankrupt for contempt) ; In
re Stern, 215 Fed. 979; In re Farkas, 204
Fed. 343; In re Shear, 188 Fed. 677.
931-89 In re J. Jungmann, 186 Fed.
302, 108 C. C. A. 380; In re Krichevsky,
219 Fed. 347.
931-92 In re Kahn, 204 Fed. 581,
123 C. C. A. 107.
Beview of contempt order, see 5 Stanb-
ABD Prog. 427 and supplement thereto.
933-95 Who may be enjoined. — ^The
bankruptcy court has power (by §2,
ch. 15) to issue injunctions against per-
sons within the court's jurisdiction,
whether parties to the bankruptcy
proceedings or not, to prevent the
transfer or disposition of any part of
the bankrupt's property. Morehouse
u. Giant Powder Co., 206 Fed. 24, 124
Cf. \J* A.m lOO.
^nnction not granted as of course
where no showing made that creditor's
rights would be injured. In te Penn
Development Co., 220 Fed. 222.
933-1 In re Rochester S. & B. Co.
(C. C. A.), 222 Fed. 22; In re Knox (C.
C. A.), 221 Fed. 36.
Approval discretionary, etc. In re
Kreuger, 196 Fed. 705.
Subject to approval* etc. — ^In re Merritt
Const. Co. (C. C. A.), 219 Fed. 555;
Kiser Co. v. Georgia Cotton Oil Co., 208
Fed. 548, 125 C. C. A. 550.
934-2 In re Knox (C. C. A.), 221
Fed. 36; In re Kellar, 192 Fed. 830, 113
C. C. A. 154; In re Goldstein, 199 Fed.
665; In re Evening Standard Pub. Co.,
164 Fed. 517; In re Cohen, 131 Fed. 391.
The discretion of the referee is limited
to determination of the qualifications
of the trustee. In re Margolies, 191
Fed. 369.
934-4 In re Bochester S. & 6. Co.
(C. C. A.), 222 Fed. 22.
Where the trustee has been approved,
the power of the court to remove liim
is not applicable. In re Kellar, 192 Fed.
830, 113 C. C. A. 154.
Effect of vacating order. — ^An order va-
cating an order discharging a trustee,
does not have the effect of restoring the
old trustee. In re Rochester S. & B.
Co. (C. C. A.), 222 Fed. 22.
934-5 Corbett t?. Eiddle, 209 Fed.
811, 126 C. C. A. 535; In re Farrell, 201
Fed. 338, 119 C. C. A. 576; In re Na-
tional Boat & Eng. Co., 216 Fed. 208;
In re Newfoundland Syn., 196 Fed. 443.
937-7 In re Arden, 188 Fed. 475.
No Jurisdiction over exempt property.
Property set aside as exempt cannot
be ordered sold for any purpose by a
court of bankruptcy. In re Yungbluth
(C. C. A.), 220 Fed. 110; In re Bem-
merde, 206 Fed. 822.
937-8 In re Leigh, 208 Fed. 486.
One not claiming title to property can-
not question court's jurisdiction. In
re Fogelman, 188 Fed. 755.
937-9 In re Stipp Const. Co. (C. C.
A.), 221 Fed. 372.
937-11 Gibbons f). Goldsmith (C. C.
A.), 222 Fed. 826; Le Master v. Spen-
cer, 203 Fed. 210, 121 C. C. A. 416:
In re National Boat & Eng. Co., 216
Fed; 208; In re Plymouth E. Co., 191
Fed. 633.
Wliere a person is entitled to posaession
of the property, the bankruptcy court
is without jurisdiction to deprive him
of it by a summary proceeding. In re
Big Cahaba Coal Co., 190 Fed. 900.
Whether the assertion of ownership is
214
BANKttUPTCt PROCEEDINGS
Vol 3
merely colorable may be determined
however (In re Ironclad Mfg. Co., 191
Fed. 831, 112 C. C. A. 345) in a plenary
suit. In re Mimms & Parham, 193 Fed.
276.
938-13 In re Tomlinson. 193 Fed.
101.
In re United Wireless Tele.
Co., 192 Fed. 238.
939-23 Pleading in action to recover
prefereiices. — See Gering v. Ley da, 186
Fed. 110, 108 C. C. A. 222.
Contents of complaint for rent of prem-
ises of bankrupt estate. Crowe v. Bau-
m&nn, 190 Fed. 399.
Whether bill based on constructive
fraud, filed by a trustee to set aside a
preferential payment will lie, query.
Johnson f?. Hanley, Hoye Co., 188 Fed.
752.
Intervention by one claiming a lien on
the preferential transfer denied, for
the reason that all persons entitled to
participate in the assets or claiming a
lien thereon may come into the bank-
ruptcy court and have their rights ad-
judicated. Lovell V. Latham & Co., 1S6
Fed. 602.
Gkmsent of defendant to be sued in the
particular court need not be shown of
record. Nor need it be given before
the institution of the suit. McEldow-
ney i?. Card, 193 Fed. 475.
Katore of suit. — ^In re Raphael, 192 Fed.
874, 113 C. C. A. 198.
940-29 Kinder 17. Scharff, 231 U. S.
517, 34 Sup. Ct. 164, 58 L. ed. 343;
Yazoo & M. V. B. Co. v. Brewer, 231 U.
S. 245, 34 Sup. Ct. 90, 58 L, ed. 204;
Hammond t?. Whittredge, 204 U. S. 538,
27 Sup. Ct. 396, 51 L. ed. 606; Dushane
c. Beall, 161 U. S. 513, 16 Sup. Ct. 637,
40 L. ed. 791.
941-33 Sabin v. Larkin-Green Log.
Co., 218 Fed. 984.
941-36 In re Bochester Sanitarium
A B. Co. (C. C. A.), 222 Fed. 22; In re
Butt Mfg. & S. Co. (C. C. A.), 217 Fed.
16.
Everett r. Judson, 228 U". S.
474, 33 Sup. Ct. 568, 57 L. ed. 927;
Acme Harvester Co. v. Beckman Lumb.
Co., 222 U. S. 300, 32 Sup. Ct. 96, 56
li. ed. 208; In re Bolognesi (C. C. A.),
223 Fed. 771; Corbett v. Kiddie, 209
Fed. 811, 126 C. O. A. 535; In re Flat-
land, 196 Fed. 310, 116 C. C. A. 130;
Board of Comrs. «. Hurley, 169 Fed. 92,
94 C. C. A. 362; State Bank v. Cox, 143
Fed. 91, 74 C. C. A. 285; In re Schow,
213 Fed. 514; Matthews & Sons 17.
Webre Co., 213 Fed. 396.
942-38 In re Musica & Son, 205 Fed.
413.
942-39 Lindeke v. Converse, 198
Fed. 618, 117 C. C. A. 322.
943-41 Milkman r. Arthe (C. C.
A.), 223 Fed. 507.
943-42 Breit v. Moore (C. C. A.),
220 Fed. 97; Grandison t;. Bobertson,
220 Fed. 985.
944-44 In re Franklin Suit & Skirt
Co., 197 Fed. 591.
944-45 Lazarus v. Prentice, 234 U.
S. 263, 34 Sup» Ct. 851, 58 L. ed. 1305.
944-48 Babbitt v. Dutcher, 216 U.
S. 102, 30 Sup. Ct. 372, 54 L. ed. 402,
17 Ann. Cas. 969; Staunton v. Wooden,
179 Fed. 61, 102 C. C. A. 355; Hartman
v, Ackoury, 210 Fed. 188 (holding that
one district court has ancillary juris-
diction to aid any other United States
court to reduce to possession property
of a bankrupt estate situate within its
territorial limits) ; In re Musica & Son,
205 Fed. 413; In re Bathfon Bros., 200
Fed. 108; In re Britannia Min. Co., 197.
Fed. 459.
Ancillary proceedings may he instituted
by a creditor as well as the trustee.
In re Brockton Ideal Shoe Co., 200 Fed.
745.
District court lias ancillary Jurisdiction
upon the petition of a trustee appointed
and qualified in bankruptcy proceed-
ings in another district, to restrain a
sale of the bankrupt's assets under a
landlord's warrant of distress. In re
Printograph Sales Co., 210 Fed. 567.
945-50 In re Boston-Cerrillos Mines
Corp., 206 Fed. 794; In re Britannia
Min. Co., 197 Fed. 459; In re Harris
Co., 173 Fed. 735, 23 Am. B. B. 237;
In re Steele, 161 Fed. 886, 20 Am. B.
B. 446; Sherman v, Bingham, 3 Cliflf.
552; 7 N. B. B. 490, 21 Fed. Cas. No.
12 762.
946-51 In re Mitchell (C. O. A.),
219 Fed. 690; In re Tennesseb Const.
Co., 213 Fed. 33, 129 C. C. A. 627t In
re Lemen, 208 Fed. 80; Hills v. F. D.
M'Kinniss Co., 188 Fed. 1012.
Voluntary appearance of parties sought
to be adjudged bankrupts cannot give
court jurisdiction in the absence of
necessary length of residence in the
district. In re Mitchell (C. C. A.), 219
Fed. 690; Fogarty v. Gerrity, 1 Sawy.
233, 9 Fed. Cas. No. 4,895.
215
Vol. 3
BANKRUPTCY PHOCEEDINGS
947-53 In re E. & G. Theatre Co.,
223 Eed. 657; In re Beiermeister Bros.
Co., 208 Fed. 945; In re Wenatchee-
Stratford Orchard Co., 205 Ped. 964.
Wlukt is principal place of business.
If it is doubtful where the principal
place of businees of a corporation is
the doubt should be resolved In favor
of that jurisdiction in which the cor-
poration obtained its corporate exist-
ence and where the state law requires
the maintenance of an office. In re
Tennessee Const. Co., 207 Fed. 203;
In re Tygarts Biver Coal Co., 203 Fed.
178.
Necessity of doing business within pre-
ceding six months. — ^In re Thomas Mc-
Nally Co., 208 Fed. 291.
948-54 In re £. & G. Theatre Co.,
223 Fed. 657.
948-56 In re Sterne & Levi, 190 Fed.
70.
949-58 Bank of Andrews t?. Gudger,
212 Fed. 49, 128 C. C. A. 505; Corbett
t?. Riddle, 209 Fed. 811, 126 C. C. A.
535.
950-59 In re Tennessee Const. Co.,
213 Fed. 33, 129 C. C. A. 627; In re
Farrell, 201 Fed. 338, 119 C. C. A. 576;
In re Commonwealth Lumb. Co., 223
Fed. 667.
952-61 In re Schow, 213 Fed. 514;
In re Wagner's Est., 206 Fed. 364.
952-63 Morehouse v. Giant Powder
Co., 206 Fed. 24, 124 C. C. A. 158; In
re Schow, 213 Fed. 514; Matthews &
Sons V, Webre Co., 213 Fed. 396.
953-65 In re Watts & Sachs, 190 U.
S. 1, 23 Sup. Ct. 718, 47 L. ed. 933.
953-66 Bank of Andrews r. Gudger,
212 Fed. 49, 128 C. C. A, 505; In re
Maplecroft Mills, 218 Fed. 659; In re
Standard Fuller's Earth Co., 186 Fed.
578.
Property in hands of receiver. — ^Tho
pendency of a suit in a state court
for the dissolution of a corporation, in-
stituted against a corporation by stock-
holders for the protection of their
rights, and the possession of the corpor-
ate property by a receiver appointed
in such suit, although appointed more
than four months previous to the filing
of the petition in bankruptcy, does not
deprive creditors of the right to have
the corporate assets brought in to the
federal court fot administration under
an adjudication in bankruptcy when
they have duly asserted the right and
had the corporation declared bankrupt
as soon as it was known to be insolvent
and had committed an act of bank-
ruptcy. Bank of Andrews c. Gudger,
212 Fed. 49, 128 C. C. A, 505.
954-67 Corbett v. Riddle, 209 Fed.
811, 126 C. C. A. 535.
955-68 Bank of Dillon v. Murchison,
213 Fed. 147, 129 C. C. A. 499; In re
United Wireless Tel. Co., 196 Fed. 153 ;
In re Zehner, 193 Fed. 787.
955-70 The bankruptcy court should
enjoin persons from proceeding in the
state court, where it takes over exclu-
sive jurisdiction. In re Maplecroft
Mills, 218 Fed. 659. •
955-71 In re Mitchell (C. C. A.), 219
Fed. 690; In re Samuels, 215 Fed. 845,
132 C. C. A. 187; In re Mitchell & Co.,
211 Fed. 778; In re Duke & Son, 199
Fed. 199.
Jurisdiction over estate of secret part-
ner.— A court of bankruptcy in proceed-
ings against a partnership has no juris-
diction to administer upon the estate
of an alleged secret partner without
declaring him a bankrupt or findin|^
him insolvent. In re Samuels, 215 Fed.
845, 132 C. C. A. 187, rev. 207 Fed. 195;
In re Kramer, 218 Fed. 138.
Jurisdiction to determine sdlvency of
secret partner^ — ^Bankruptcy court h&s
jurisdiction to determine whether one,
who is alleged to be a secret partner
of a firm against which bankruptcy
proceedings are pending, is or is not a
member of the firm, and if he is,
whether he is solvent. In re Samuels,
215 Fed. 845, 132 C. C. A. 187.
958-83 In re Knox Auto Co., 210
Fed. 569 (authorizing trustee to sell
bankrupt's property at private ^sale).
See In re Farmers ' & M. Bank, 190 Fed.
726, 111 C. C. A. 454.
Determination of validity of lien of
creditor. — ^In re Jackson Brick & T. Co.,
189 Fed. 636.
Of proceedings to collect assets. — ^In re
Komit Mfg. Co., 192 Fed. 392.
BiU of particulars. — ^A referee may
compel the creditors to file a bill of
particulars setting forth the items of
their claims. In re Siegel & Co., 223
Fed. 368.
Keferee has Jurisdiction to determine
whether a preference has been received
or not. In re Keystone Press, 203 Fed.
710.
959-86 Board of dtreetefs can pat
SIQ
BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. 3
the eorporation into bankruptcy. In
re Kenwood Ice Co., 189 Fed. 525.
Pendency of an InToluntary petition
does not deprive the court of jurisdic-
tion to receive and consider a volun-
tary petition. In re Lachenmaier, 203
"Fed. 32, 121 C. C. A. 3d8.
OeO-S7 In ire Foster Paint & V. Co.,
210 Fed. 652.
902-85 The fact that the adoption
of a resolntion to file a petition in
bankruptcy by the directors of a cor-
poration is not shown in the petition
is not ground for setting it aside, m
re Kenwood Ice Co., 189 Fed. 525.
Oontants of vdlnntary petition^ — ^The
voluntary petitioner need only aver
that he "owes debts" which he is un-
able to meet and that he desires to'
take the benefits of the act. He does
not have to admit that he is insolvent
much less that he has committed any
act of bankruptcy within the preced-
ing four months. In re Lachenmaier,
203 Fed. 32, 121 C. C. A. 868.
962-06 Sabin t?. Blake-McFall Co.
(C. C. A.), 223 Fed. 501.
Form of yerlfication^ — ^Form No. 1, pub-
lished in 89 Fed. zv, 32 C. C. A. xzxiz.
PosltlTe statement of facts not xe-
qnired; verification may be made upon
the best of petitioner's knowledge, in-
formation and belief. Sabin v. Blake-
McFall Co. (C. C. A.), 223 Fed. 501.
962-97 In re McKee, 214 Fed. 885.
When notice necessary^ — The notice to
creditors provided for by Bankruptcy
Act, S59 (g) is required only when the
petition is dismissed by the petitioners,
or for want of prosecution, or by con-
sent of the parties. Where there has
been a full hearing on the merits, at
which the petitioners have introduced
evidence, the provisions of the section
do not apply. In re Chalfen, 223 Fed.
379.
962-98 Bight to dismiss volimtary
petition. — After adjudication a volun-
tary petition in bankruptcy cannot be
diRmissed upon motion of the bank-
rupt with the consent of the creditors.
In re McKee, 214 Fed. 885.
962-99 In re Samuels, 215 Fed. 845,
132 C. C. A. 187; Perkins v. Dorman,
206 Fed. 858.
Creditors when act of bankruptcy com-
mitted.— To entitle a creditor to main-
tain a petition in involuntary bank-
ruptcy against his debtor, he must
have been a creditor at the time the
act of bankruptcy alleged was commit-
ted. Brake r. Callison, 129 Fed. 201,
63 C. C. A. 359; In re Farthing, 202
Fed. 557; In re Callison, 130 Fed. 9S7.
Purchaser of claim bought after filing
of the petition in bankruptcy and to
create an additional creditor is not a
creditor, and cannot be counted in mak-
ing up the statutory number. Emerine
r. Tarault (C. C. A.), 219 Fed. 68.
Directors of a corporation who are also
creditors are not disqualified from be-
ing the petitioners because they were
on the board which admitted the cor-
poration's inability to pay its debts.
Home Powder Co. v. Geis, 204 Fed. 568,
123 C. C. A. 94.
Secnred creditors may be comited as
petitioning creditors in involuntary
bankruptcy proceedings only to such
extent as their provable claims are in
excess of the value of their securities.
Emerine v. Tarault (C. C. A.), 219 Fed.
68.
Creditors who were parties to assign-
ment for creditors, are disqualified
from filing an involuntary petition
based upon such assignment as the sole
act of bankruptcy. Despres v. Galbraith,
213 Fed. 190, 129 C. C. A. 534. And
this disqualification extends to their
subsequent vendees, who purchased
solely to qualify them to join in as
petitioners to make the required num-
ber. Utz & Dunn Co. v. Regulator Co.,
213 Fed. 315, 130 C. C. A. 17.
An amended petition will not be
stricken from files because order ex-
tending time within which to file the
same was not filed within the time for
filing the amended petition. In re B.
L. Radke Co., 193 Fed. 735.
963-1 Belative may be petitioner.
The terms of this section, to the ef-
fect that a relative or employe may
not be counted apply only when he
has not joined in the petition and da
not prevent him from bringing bank-
ruptcy proceedings. Perkins t?. Dor-
man, 206 Fed. 858.
963-2 In re Bolognesi (C. C. A.),
223 Fed. 771.
Withdrawal of petitioners may be per-
mitted within the court's discretion.
In re Bolognesi (C. C. A.), 223 Fed. 771.
Interveners may proceed in involun-
tary bankruptcy proceedings after with-
drawal of original petitioners. In re
Bolognesi (C. C. A.), 223 Fed. 771.
963-4 What are acts of bankruptcy.
Vol 3
BANKRUPTCY mOCEEVlNGS
An ''act of bankruptcy" must be such
at the time the act is committed or it
can not be the basis for involuntary
proceedings. In re Folkstad, 199 Fed.
363.
964-6 Deflnition. — ''Wage earner."
Blessing v, Blanchard (C. C. A.)> 223
Fed. 35.
964-7 Blessing v. Blanchard (C. C.
A.), 223 Fed. 35; Still's Sons v. Amer-
ican Nat. Bank, 209 Fed. 749, 12a C. C.
A. 473; In re Terry, 208 Fed. 162; In
re Folkstad, 199 Fed. 363.
Whetlier a debtor was or was not chief-
ly engaged In fanning is to be deter-
mined as of the time at which he com-
mitted the act of bankruptcy charged
against him. Counts v. Columbus Buggy
Co., 210 Fed. 748, 127 C. C. A. 298;
American Agr. Chem. Co. r. Brinkley,
194 Fed. 411, 114 C. C. A. 373; Flick-
inger v. First Nat. Bank, 145 Fed. 162,
76 C. C. A. 132; In re Disney, 219 Fed.
294.
965-8 In re FUenbecker, 205 Fed.
396.
966-12 Partnership engaged chiefly
in farming cannot be adjudicated an
involuntary bankrupt. Still's Sons v,
American Nat. Bank, 209 Fed. 749, 126
C. C. A. 473.
967-15 Oommerdal, moneyed and
business corporation. — ^In re B. L. Radke
Co., 193 Fed. 735.
''^igaged principally in«" — ^In re Cool-
idge Eef. & C. Co., 190 Fed. 908.
968-17 A "partnership* ' Is not an
"unincorporated company" within the
terms of the act (1898, ch. 541, §4b).
Still's Sons 17. American Nat. Bank, 209
Fed. 749, 126 C. C. A. 473.
97#-24 In re Mitchell (C. C. A.),
219 Fed. 690; In re Lachenmaier, 203
Fed. 32, 121 C. C. A. 368; In re Im-
perial Film Exchange, 198 Fed. 80, 117
C. C. A. 188; In re Lemen, 208 Fed. 80.
Compliance of foreign corporation peti-
tioner with provisions of state law need
not be alleged. In re B. L. Badke Co.,
193 Fed. 735.
Distinctions between petitions In volun-
tary and involuntary proceedings. — In
re Lachenmaier, 203 Fed. 32, 121 C. C.
A. 368.
970-25 In re Pressed Steel Wagon
Goods Co., 193 Fed. 811.
Time when the parties became creditors
must be shown. Brake v, Callison, 129
Fed. 201, 63 C. C. A. 359; In re Far-
thing, 292 Fed. 557.
Description of claim. — ^The sufficiency
of the petition in respect to describing
the claim is measured by the same
rules as would be applied in testing the
sufficiency of a complaint or declaration
in an action on such claim. In re Far-
thing, 202 Fed. 557.
970-26 Act of bankmptcy^— A fail-
ure to allege the commission of any
act of bankruptcy renders the petition
in involuntary bankruptcy proceeding
fatally defective. In re Louisell Lumb.
Co., 209 Fed. 784, 126 C. C. A. 508.
It is not sufficient to charge acts of
bankruptcy in the language of the stat-
ute. In re Deer Creek W., etc. Co., 205
Fed. 205; In re Hallin, 199 Fed. 806.
971-38 In re Condon, 209 Fed. 800,
126 C. C. A. 524.
971-39 In re Bosenblatt & Co., 193
Fed. 638, 113 C. C. A. 506; In re Stone,
206 Fed. 356. See In re B. L. Badke
Co., 193 Fed. 735.
972-47 Form of verification of
creditor's petition^ — Sabin €>. Blake-
McFall Co. (C. C. A.), 223 Fed. 501;
Form No. 3, published in 89 Fed.
xxviii, 32 C. C. A. lii.
A verification on Infonnatlon and be-
lief is not sufficient. Sabin v, Blake-
McFall Co. (C. C. A.), 223 Fed. 501; In
re Farthing, 202 Fed. 557.
Defect In the verification Is not Juris-
dictional.—Sabin V. Blake-McFall Co.
(C. C. A.), 223 Fed. 501; In re Farthing,
202 Fed. 557, cit. 3 Standard Proc. 973
OommlBsloner of deeds may properly
verify petition in bankruptcy. In re
Morse, 210 Fed. 900.
973-52 Amendment of verification
is discretionary with the court. In re
Farthing, 202 Fed. 557. It will be de-
nied where it would not be in further-
ance of justice nor in the interests of
the creditors. In re Farthing, 202 Fed.
557.
973-57 Sabin «. Blake-McFall Co.
(C. C. A.), 223 Fed. 501; In re Podalin,
202 Fed. 1014.
974-60 Sabin f?. Blake-McFall Co. (C.
C. A.), 223 Fed. 501.
974-62 Sabin V. Blake-McFall Co.
(C. C. A.), 223 Fed. 501.
975-64 Brandt v. May hew (C. C A.),
218 Fed. 422; In re Crum, 221 Fed.
729; In re Exum, 209 Fed. 716.
Exemption may be waived either by
bankrupt 's failure^ to claim it, or by
a general or specific surrender of it.
In re Exum, 209 Fed. 716.
218
BANKBUPTCT PROCEEDINGS
Vol 3 .
975-6S Brandt r. Mavhew (C. C. A.),
218 Fed. 422.
IJxnltotion of JnrlBdictloiL — It is the
duty of the court of bankruptcy to de-
termine claims of a bankrupt to an ex-
emption and to sever the property found
to be an exemption from the estate of
the bankrupt, but it cannot grant an
exemption. In re Elkin, 218 Fed. 971.
975-66 Brandt i;. Mayhew (C. C. A.),
218 Fed. 422; In re Humphreys, 221 Fed.
997; In re Crum, 221 Fed. 729; In re
Kelly, 199 Fed. 984.
DoBciiptioii of property^.— Where the
exemption is in specific property, a
claim for exemption is invalid if it fails
to accurately describe or designate the
property. In re Exum, 209 Fed. 716.
076-6T Brandt v. Mayhew (C. C. A.),
218 Fed. 422; In re Harrell, 222 Fed.
160; In re Humphreys, 221 Fed. 997;
In re Crum, 221 Fed. 729; In re Elkin,
218 Fed. 971; In re Bundy & Co., 218
Fed. 711; In re Liby, 218 Fed. 90; In
re Exum, 209 Fed. 716.
976-68 In re Liby, 218 Fed. 90; In
re Exum, 209 Fed. 716.
977-69 In re Bundy & Co., 218 Fed.
711.
977-71 In re Beauchamp, 101 Fed.
106.
No ri^t of ezemiitlon in partnership
asBOta. — In re Bundy A Co., 218 Fed.
711; In re I. S. Vickerman & Co., 199
Fed. 589; In re Mosier, 112 Fed. 138.
In re Lentz, 97 Fed. 486.
977-72 Chicago B. & Q. B. Co. f.
HaU, 229 U. S. 511, 33 Sup. Ct. 885, 57
L. ed. 1306; Brandt v. Mayhew (C. C.
A.), 218 Fed. 422; In re Humphreys,
221 Fed. 997; In re Crum, 221 Fed. 729;
In re Cheatham, 210 Fed. 370; In re
Kelly, 199 Fed. 984.
979-86 By publication^^idney L.
Bauman Diamond Co. v. Hart, 192 Fed.
498, 113 C. C. A. 104.
980-96 Mattoon Bank v. Bank, 102
Fed. 728, 42 C. C. A. 1; In re Cohn, 220
Fed. 956.
981-3 Bemnrren abolidieiL — ^Demur-
rers to petitions for an adjudication
in bankruptcy are abolished, and every
defense in point of law arising upon
the face of such petition must be raised
by motion to dismiss or in the answer
(governed by Rule No. 29 of Equity
Practice, 33 Sup. Ct. xxvii). In re
Jones, 209 Fed. 717.
982-8 An adjudication of baokrnptcy
must follow tho petition where the
answer interposed sets up ii6thing show-
ing cause against the adjudication. In
re Cohn, 220 Fed. 956.
984-17 Chapman r. Brewer, 114 U.
8. 169, 5 Sup. Ct, 799, 29 L. ed. 83;
Bank of Andrews v. Gudger, 212 Fed.
49, 128 C. C. A. 505; Corbett r. Riddle,
209 Fed 811, 126 C. C. A. 535; Sabiu
r- Larkin-Green Logging Co., 218 Fed.
984; In re McKee, 214 Fed. 885.
Bes adjudlcata. — ^''If petition charges
different acts of bankruptcy and the
adjudication does not show upon which
one of them it proceeded, it does not
render either charge res adjudicata in
the further procedings." In re Julius
Broa (C. C. A.), 217 Fed. 3.
984-22 The Talne of the bankrupt
estate must be considered in allowing
costs to officers and attorneys for serv-
ices rendered in the bankrupt case. In
re Ellett Electric Co., 196 Fed. 400.
985-25 The application for an ex-
amination need not in detail set forth
the nature and character of the testi-
mony intended to be adduced. In re
Bryant, 188 Fed. 530. _
Although an examination adjourned
without day for further examination, a
further examination may, in the court 's
discretion, be granted. In re Bryant,
188 Fed. 530.
Time of examination. — At any time
after the petition is filed and a receiver
appointed an examination may be
ordered. Cameron v, U. S., 231 U. S.
710, 34 Sup. Ct. 244, 58 L. ed. 448; In
re Bryant, 188 Fed. 530.
987-83 Perjury in examination.
The immunity from prosecution for per-
jury given by §7 applies only to past
transactions about which the bankrupt
is examined and does not prevent a
prosecution for perjury in the giving of
testimony. Cameron «. U. S., 231 U. S.
710, 34 Sup. Ct. 244, 58 L. ed. 448.
Cro88-ezamination of bankmpt should
be conducted as directed by General
Order No. xxii (89 Fed. x, 82 C. C.
A. xxv), and limited to matters sug-
gested in the direct examination. In
re Kinnane Co., 217 Fed. 488.
987-87 In re Samuels (C. C. A.), 215
Fed. 845.
990-47 In re Double Star Brick
Co., 210 Fed. 980.
990-50 In re Double Star Brick Co.,
210 Fed. 980.
219
Vol. 3
BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS
992-58 Prancis v, McNeal, 186 Fed.
481, 108 C. 0. A. 459.
Allegation of insolvency. — See Francis
V. McNeal, 186 Fed. 481, 108 C. C. A.
459.
992-61 Infancy of one partner. — Jen-
nings €. William A. Stannus & Son,
191 Fed. 347, 112 C. C. A. 91.
993-65 Francis v. McNeal, 186 Fed.
481, 108 C. C. A. 459; In re Young, 223
Fed. 659.
995-72 Corporation condnctlng a
restaurant. — In re United States B. &
E. Co., 187 Fed. 118, 109 C. C. A. 36.
995-73 The forfeiture of the char-
ter of a corporation under the state
law does not deprive the bankruptcy
court of jurisdiction to administer its
estate. In re Double Star Brick Co.,
210 Fed. 980.
996-76 In re Louisell Lumb. Co., 209
Fed. 784, 126 C. C. A. 508.
996-77 In te Louisell Lumb. Co., 209
Fed. 784, 126 C. C. A. 508.
996-79 In re Louisell Lumb. Co., 209
Fed. 784, 126 C. C. A. 508.
But this rule does not apply where the
petition becomes sufficient only after
amendment. In re Condon, 209 Fed.
800, 126 C. C. A. 524.
996-82 In re Louisell Lumb. Co., 209
Fed. 784, 126 C. C. A. 508; In re Bosen-
blatt & Co., 193 Fed. 638, 113 C. C.
A. 506.
Xnsafflcient amendment denied. — A
petition to amend original petition by
setting up a preference through legal
proceedings, will be denied Where such
amendment does not show that the al-
leged act of bankruptcy was committed
within four months prior to the filing
of the original petition. In re Jones,
209 Fed. 717.
997-90 Despres e. Galbraith, 213
Fed. 190, 129 C. C. A. 534.
997-96 Dismissing as to the partner-
ship allowable in a petition against a
partnership and its members where it
appears there is no partnership. In re
Bichardson, 192 Fed. 50.
998-5 Schedule may be corrected.
If the bankrupt has failed to schedule
property, which should be surrendered
to his trustee, and this fact is shown
upon his examination, he may be per-
mitted to correct his schedule. In re
Harrell, 222 Fed. 160.
999-13 In re McCarthy Portable Ele-
vator Co., 205 Fed. 986.
999-16 Amending objectionfl to com-
position.— Where the creditor alleged
in the objections to the confirmation
of a composition that certain transac-
tions were fraudulent concealments and
the proof disclosed that they were
fraudulent conveyances, the creditor
could amend his objections to conform
to the proof. In re Burman, 210 Fed.
512.
1000-17 See In re Johnson, 192 Fed.
356.
Amended specifications inwifflclent. — ^In
re Walker, 209 Fed. 144; in re Mintzer,
197 Fed. 647.
1000-23 In re Johnson, 192 Fed.
356.
1003-46 Home Bank v. Lohm (C. C.
A.), 223 Fed. 633.
1005-55 Pindel v. Holgate (C. C.
A.), 221 Fed. 342; Bernard V. Lea, 210
Fed. 583, 127 C. C. A. 219.
1006-57 In re Martin, 201 Fed. 31,
119 C. C. A. 363; Bode & Horn c. Phipps,
195 Fed. 414, 115 C. C. A. 316.
1006-58 In re Gold, 210 Fed. 410,
127 C. C. A. 142; In re Martin, 201 Fed.
31, 119 C. C. A. 363.
1007-62 Becord must diow that the
point of law assigned as error was
ruled on. Fidelity Trust Co. v, Bobin-
son, 192 Fed. 562, 113 C. C. A. 34.
1007-63 Hegner f?. American Tr. &
Sav. Bk., 187 Fed. 599, 109 C. C. A. 429.
1008-67 QiTii^ of bond not a juris-
dictional requisite to an appeal allowed
within the specified time. In te Qual-
ity Shop Co., 202 Fed. 196, 120 C. C. A.
410.
1008-72 In re Quality Shop Co., 202
Fed. 196, 120 C. C. A. 410.
1009-74 Comp, In re Donnelly, 187
Fed. 121, 109 C. C. A. 39.
1009-76 The court, not the Judge,
should be applied to for a stay. In
re Ironclad Mfg. Co., 190 Fed. 320, 111
C. C. A. 220.
1009-79 Bison v. Parham (C. C. A.),
219 Fed. 176, adjudication by referee
that deed of trust had been paid can
be reviewed only by appeal.
1010-82 B.-B. Electric & Tel. Mfg.
Co. t*. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 206 Fed. 885,
124 C. C. A. 545.
1010-83 In re Bay State Mill. Co.
(C. C. A.), 223 Fed. 778; In re McVoy
Hdw. Co., 200 Fed. 949, 119 C. C. A.
337.
220
BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. 3
A reftual to conflxni a composition does
not always have the effect of denying
a discharge and is not appealable as
such denial. In re McVoy Hdw. Co.,
200 Fed. 949, 119 C. C. A. 337.
10KK87 Order extending time with-
in which to apply for a discharge is
appealable. In re Casey, 195 Fed. 322.
AppMl from Jndsment denying dis-
chargOw — ^In re McVoy Hdw. Co., 200
Fed. 949, 119 C. C. A. 337.
lOia-88 Home Bank v, Lohm (C. C.
A.), 223 Fed. 633; Southern Cotton Oil
Co. V, Elliotte (C. C. A.), 218 Fed. 567;
Huttig S. & D. Co. t*. Stitt (C. C. A.),
218 Fed. 1; In re Lane Lum. Co. (C. C.
A.), 217 Fed. 546; Sterne v. Merchants*
Nat. Bank (C. C. A.), 216 Fed. 862;
Bernard i\ Lea, 210 Fed. 583, 127 C. C.
A. 219; Assets Bealization Co. f. Sov-
ereign Bank, 210 Fed. 156, 126 C. C.
A. 662; In re Hartzell, 209 Fed. 775,
126 C. C. A. 499; BR Electric & Tel.
Mfg. Co. V, Aetna Life Ins. Co., 206 Fed.
885, 124 C. C. A. 545; In re Streator
Metal Stomping Co., 205 Fed. 280, 123
C. C. A. 444; Lumpkin r. Foley, 204 Fed.
372, 122 C. C. A. 542; Cooper t?. Miller,
203 Fed. 383, 121 C. C. A. 567; Kiskad-
den r. Steinle, 203 Fed. 375, 121 C. C.
A. 559; In re Quality Shop Co., 202 Fed.
196, 120 C. C. A. 410; Adams v. Deckers
Valley Lumb. Co., 202 Fed. 48, 120 C.
C. A. 302; Nauman Co. v. Bradshaw,
193 Fed. 350, 113 C. C. A. 274.
Bight to a lien contested. — ^New Hamp-
shire Sav. Bank v. Varner, 216 Fed.
721, 132 C. C. A. 631.
Adjudging amonnt dne on clainu — ^Bell
r. Arledge, 192 Fed. 837, 113 C. C. A.
161.
Order reanirlng an accounting of money
received in contemplation of filing of
a petition against a bankrupt. * In re
Raphael, 192 Fed. 874, 113 C. C. A.
198.
1012-94 Assets Bealization Co. v.
Sovereign Bank, 210 Fed. 156, 126 C.
C. A. 662 (party to a controversy to
determine ownership of a claim may
appeal); In re Bandridge & Pugh, 209
Fed. 838, 126 C. C. A. 562.
1013-00 Writ of error as a petition
to revieWw — A writ of error which is ad-
dressed to questions of law involved in
a "proceeding in bankruptcy" may be
allowed to stand as a petition to review
and revise, since both are ranged on
the same side of the demarcating line
and the methods are substontially alike.
In re Breyer Print. Co. (C. C. A.), 216
Fed. 878; Freed V. Central Trust Co.,
215 Fed. 873, 132 C. C. A. 7.
1013-2 Bothwell v, Fitzgerald (C. C.
A.), 219 Fed. 408 (order dissolving in-
terlocutory injunction restraining pro-
ceedings in state court 14 a controversy
arising under bankruptcy proceedings) ;
In re Gold, 210 Fed. 410, 127 C. C. A.
142: In re Hartzell, 209 Fed. 775, 126
C. C. A. 499; In re Hamilton Automo-
bile Co., 198 Fed. 856, 117 C. C. A.
135; In re J. Jungmann, 186 Fed. 302,
108 C. C. A. 380.
1014-3 In re Hartzell, 209 Fed. 775,
126 C. C. A. 499; In re Hamilton Auto-
mobile Co., 198 Fed. 856, 117 C. C. A.
135; In re Knosher & Co., 197 Fed. 136,
116 C. C. A. 560.
1015-4 Inre Orr (C. C. A.),216Fed.
883; In re Lane Lumb. Co. (G. C. A.),
217 Fed. 546; In re Breyer Print Co.
(C. C. A.), 216 Fed. 878; Kirkpatrick
f7. Harnesberger, 199 Fed. 886, 118 C.
C. A. 334; In re Hamilton Automobile
Co., 198 Fed. 856, 117 C. C. A. 135;
Thompson D. Mauzy, 174 Fed. 611, 98
C. C. A. 457.
1015-6 In re J. Jungmann, 186 Fed.
302, 108 C. C. A. 380.
1016-8 Suit upon the trustee's bond
is not a proceeding in bankruptcy but
a plenary action and cannot be re-
viewed by petition to revise, under
Bankruptcy Act, §24b. XJ. 8. v. Bug-
gies (0. a A.), 221 Fed. 256.
1016-9 Southern Cotton Oil Co. V.
Elliotte (C. C. A.), 218 Fed. 567.
1016-10 In re Petronio (C. C. A.),
220 Fed. 269, holding that a proceeding
to determine title to property held by
trustee and claimed adversely by one
not a party to the proceedings is a
summary proceeding and reviewable by
petition to revise.
1017-11 Pindel v. Holgate (C. C.
A.), 221 Fed. 342; In re Lane Lumb. Co.
(C. C. A.), 217 Fed. 546.
Order's revisable. — This section (24b)
does not require that the circuit court
of appeals should revise every inter-
locutory order that may affect the
course of a bankruptcy proceeding, but
only such orders or decrees as have a
certain degree of definiteness and fin-
ality. In re Chotiner (C. C. A.), 218
Fed. 813.
1017-12 Matter of Loving, 224 U.
S. 183, 32 Sup. Ct. 446, 56 L. ed. 725;
221
Vol 3
BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS
Duryea Power Co. v. Sternbergli, 218
TJ. S. 299, 31 Sup. Ct. 25, 54 L. ed.
1047; Pindel <?. Holgate (C. C. A.), 221
Fed. 342; Bernard t?. Lea, 210 Fed. 583,
127 C. 0. A. 219; In re Judkins Co., 205
Fed. 892, 124 C. C. A. 205; Williamson
V. Eichardson, ^5 Fed. 245, 123 C. C. A.
427; Stuart v. Reynolds, 204 Fed. 709,
123 C: C. A. 13; In re Holden, 203 Fed.
229, 121 C. C. A. 435; In re Witherbee,
202 Fed. 896, 121 C. C. A. 254; In re
Zinner, 202 Fed. 197, 120 C. O. A. 411;
Johansen Bros. Shoe Co. v, Alles, 197
Fed. 274, 116 C. C. A. 636; In re Flat-
land, 196 Fed. 310, 116 C. C. A. 130.
1018-15 In re Tanenhaus, 211 Fed.
971, 128 O. C. A. 469 (within ten days) ;
In re Wink, 206 Fed. 348, within fifteen
days.
1020-20 In re Throckmorton, 196
Fed. 656, 116 C. C. A. 348.
1020-21 In re Witherbee, 202 Fed.
896, 121 C. C. A. 254.
1022-39 In re Endlar, 192 Fed. 762,
113 C. C. A. 48.
1022-40 See Wells & Co. <?. Sharp,
208 Fed. 399, 125 C. C. A. 615.
1023-43 Eacli method of procedure
for the review of orders in bankruptcy
is exclusive of the - other. Pindel i?.
Holgate (C. C. A.), 221 Fed. 342; Both-
well V, Fitzgerald (C. C. A.), 219 Fed.
408; Salsburg v, Blackford, 204 Fed.
438, 122 C. C. A. 624; In re Martin, 201
Fed. 31, 119 C. C. A. 363.
1023-44 Matter of Loving, 224 U. S.
183, 32 Sup. Ct. 446, 56 L. ed, 725; In
re Lane Lumb. Co. (C. C. A.), 217 Fed.
546; In re Orr (C. C. A.), 216 Fed. 883;
In re Breyer Print. Co. (C. C. A.), 216
Fed. 878; Freed v. Central Trust Co., 215
Fed. 873, 132 C. C. A. 7: In re Strea tor-
Metal Stamping Co., 205 Fed. 280, 123
C. O. A. 444; Cooper r. Miller, 203 Fed.
383, 121 C. C. A. 567; Kirsner t?. Talia-
ferro, 202 Fed. 51, 120 C. C. A. 305.
1023-45 Nelson D, Heckscher (C. C.
A.), 219 Fed. 682.
1023-46 Proceedings for the election
of a trustee are properly reviewed by
petition for review. In re Arti-Stain
Co., 216 Fed. 942.
Order to turn over property to the trus-
tee reviewable by petition. Kirsner v.
Taliaferro, 202 Fed. 51, 120 C. C. A.
305.
Other illnstrations. — Gibbons r. Gold-
smith (C. C. A.), 222 Fed. 826; Shoa
V. Lewis, 206 Fed. 877, 124 G. C. A.
537 (whether district court erroneously
exercised jurisdiction to determine the
merits of an adverse claim to proper-
ty); Nelson v. Hevkscher (C. C. A.),
219 Fed. 682 (order denying the peti-
tion of the trustee to recover certain
dividends); Snow v. Dalton, 203 Fed.
843, 122 C. C. A. 161, proceedings af-
firming referee's order entitling third
person to participate in certain secur-
ities for indebtedness of bankrupt cor-
poration.
1024-50 Order snstalnlng a chattel
mortgage executed by the bankrupt.
In re Flatland, 196 Fed. 310, 116 C. C.
A. 130.
1024-51 Bight to a lien.— Where
petitioner's claim has been allowed in
full, but his right to a lien rejected, his
remedy is to resort to a petition to re-
vise the action of the court in denying
the lien. Huttig S. & D. Co. v. Stitt
(C. C. A.), 218 Fed. 1.
1024-56 In re Goldstein (C. C. A.),
216 Fed. 887.
1024-57 In re Petronio (C. C. A.),
220 Fed. 269, a proceeding to determine
title to property held by trustee and
claimed adversely by one not a party
to the proceedings.
1025-63 Pennitting or rofoBing
amendments to petition in bankruptcy
is matter of discretion with lower
court and will not be reviewed unless
abuse of discretion is shown. Sabin v,
Blake-McFall Co. (C. C. A.), 223 Fed.
501.
1026-68 On reversal where it ap-
pears the petition was delayed and the
estate is substantially deteriorated and
is insufficient to meet petitioner's claim
costs will not be allowed either party.
In re Endlar, 192 Fed. 762, 113 C. C.
A. 48.
1026-69 Mitchell Store Building Co.
V, Carroll, 232 XJ. S. 379, 34 Sup. Ct.
410, 58 L. ed. 650; Lumpkin v, Foley,
204 Fed. 372, 122 C. C. A. 542. See
Hobbs V, Head & Dowst Co., 191 Fed.
811, 112 C. C. A. 325.
1026-71 The statute relates only to
appeals taken expressly under the
bankruptcy statute. Hobbs t?. Head &
Dowst Co., 191 Fed. 811, 112 C. C. A.
325.
1026-72 The remedy upon a dismis-
sal of a petition to review a decision
is by an application to the supreme
court for a writ; of mandamus or of
?2§
BANKS AND BANKING
Vol. 4
eertiorari. Kyle 9. Hammond, 192 Fed.
559, 113 C. C. A. 31.
1027-73 Lumpkin t?. Foley, 204 Fed.
372, 122 C. C. A. 542.
Findings should be raqnested. — Such
findings and conclusions will not ordi-
narily be made unless requested. The
request should be made before the de-
cree of court is entered. Washington
r. Tearney, 197 Fed. 307, 117 C. C. A.
53.
BANKS AND BANKING
4-5 After a bank corporation Is dis-
solved it is incapable of maintaining
an action. All actions by such a cor-
poration which are pending when cor-
poration is dissolved, abate upon such
dissolution in the absence of a statute
to the contrary. American Exchange
Bank r. Mitchell, 179 111. App. 612.
8-22 Depositor may sue to recover
the amount of his deposit if payment
is refused. Bank of Des'Are v. Moody,
110 Ark. 39, 161 S. W. 134.
8-23 Central Sav. Bank & Tr. Co. v.
Amalgamated Soc, 24 Colo. App. 438,
134 P. 1007.
Foxmal demand not necessary where
bank denies that it holds any of de-
positor's money. Altman v. Phillips
County Bank, 86 Kan. 930, 122 P. 874.
16-55 Toll V, Cobbey, 22 Colo. App.
244, 124 P. 357.
Pleading— aUegatlbns of liability^— A
bill by a creditor seeking to subject
the unpaid subscription to the stock
of a bank to the payment of the bank 's
debts was not demurrable for not show-
ing liability of the stockholder, when
it alleged that complainants were not
preferred creditors, and that the as-
sets of the bank, without the unpaid
subscription, were not sufficient to pay
the claims of preferred creditors and
that it was necessary to subject the
unpaid subscription. Drennen v. Jenk-
ins, 180 Ala. 261, 60 8. 856.
20-78 Toll V. Cobbey, 22 Colo. App.
244, 124 P. 357.
A bill seeking recovery of a fntctlonal
part or percentage of the stockholders'
liability comes within the equitable
jurisdiction of the court. Bankin v.
Miller, 207 Fed. 602.
Aoconntlng.— As liability of stockhold-
ers is secondary to that of the bank
itself, a creditor may come into equity
to have an accounting as to the liabil-
ities of the corporation and the distribu-
tion of its assets in order to determine
the amount of his claim for which the
stockholders are liable. Mosler Safe
Co. V. Guardian Trust Co., 153 App.
Div. 117, 138 N. Y. S. 298.
Sequestration or Insolvency proceed-
ings.—The stockholders' liability con-
stitutes a reserve or trust fund for the
benefit of creditors, and is enforceable
only in sequestration or insolvency pro-
ceedings in which all creditors are af-
forded an opportunity to be heard.
Northwestern Tr. Co. t*. Bradbury, 117
Minn. 83, 134 N. W. 513, Ann. Cas.
1913D, 69.
23-86 Mosler Safe Co. v. Guardian
Trust Co., 208 N. Y. 524, 101 N. E.
786.
23-90 Preliminary Judgment against
corporation.— Though the liability of
stockholders be secondary it is not
necessary to first absolutely exhaust the
assets of the corporation, legal and
equitable, before suing stockholders on
their liability, where the necessity for
resorting to the liability of stockhold-
ers is made to appear. Lamar v. Taylor,
141 Ga. 227, 80 S. E. 1085.
27-11 Stockholders of a safe deposit
company under §303 of the New York
Banking Law may be sued jointly or
severally. Mosler Safe Co. v. Guard-
ian Trust Co., 153 App. Biv. 117, 138 N.
Y, S. 298, af. 208 N. Y. 524, 101 N. E.
786.
30-34 InferentlaUy alleged. — An al-
legation that since a certain date the
superintendent of banks has been in
possession of the property, business and
assets of the plaintiff, and is now in
possession of the same "for the pur-
pose of liquidating its affairs in accord-
ance with section 19 pf the Banking
Law of the State of New York,'* is
sufficient to justify an inference of in-
solvency. La Fayette Trust Co. v.
Beggs, 163 App. Div. 959, 148 N. Y. S.
414.
32-44 In federal courts. — ^In the ab-
sence of any provision in the act of
congress creating the double liability
of stockholders of national banks, fix-
ing a period of limitation within which
actions for its enforcement must be
brought, the statute of limitations of
the state where suit is brought governs,
so far as applicable. Rankin v. Miller,
207 Fed. 602.
35-58 Separate decrees against any
2^3
Vol 4
BANKS AND BANKING
ofllcen of a bank participating in mis-
appropriations and transactions occas-
ioning losses, may be rendered, they
being jointly and severally liable for
813 ch misappropriations and losses. Ben-
edum V, First Citizens' Bank, 72 W.
Va. 124, 78 S. E. 656.
35-63 Petition by one other than
assignee should allege demand upon
and refusal by assignee to sue, Mur-
rell «. Traders' & Truckers' Bank, 113
Va. 665, 75 8. E. 97.
36-64 Snits by Stockholders— Where
the receiver refuses to sue directors of
a bank as its managing officers, to re-
cover sums lost through their negli-
gence and mismanagement, some of the
stockholders may institute suit on be-
half of all. Such receiver is properly
made a party defendant. Ellis t?. H. P.
Gates Mercantile Co;, 103 Miss. 560, 60
S. 649, Ann. Cas. 1915B, 526, 43 L. B. A.
(N. S.) 982.
Averring depositors* right to anew — ^In
an action by depositors of a bank where
suit should be by receiver, an allega-
tion that the receivers of said bank
have declined to institute any suit
against said directors to assert the
liability herein asserted, but which
does not state by whom or on what
ground the demand, if any, was made,
is insufficient to show right of de-
positors to bring suit. Saunders r.
Bank of Mecklenburg, 113 Va. 656, 75
S. E. 94.
36-67 Benedum t?. First Citizens'
Bank, 72 W. Va. 124, 78 S. E. 656.
38-82 COiarging usarlous Interest.
An indictment charging that de-
fendant on a certain date loaned S.
B. the sum of $24.50, and between
December 21, 1910, and March 3, 1911,
did wrongfully and unlawfully charge
said S. B. interest on the sum of $12.60,
is not bad as alleging that the inter-
est was charged after the loan was
made, nor because it fails to state the
time when the act was committed, or
because it charges more than one crime.
P. V. Young, 207 N. Y. 522, 101 N. E.
451, af. 153 App. Div. 567, 138 N. Y.
S. 50.
Immaterial variance. — ^Where it ap-
peared that the true balance due from
one bank to another was $14,947.68
instead of $14,895.97 as alleged in the
indictment, a directed verdict on the
ground of variance was properly re-
fused. The gist of offense was the mak-
ing of the false entry; exact amount of
the balance stated was not material.
Phillips V. U. 8., 201 Fed. 259, 120 C.
C. A. 149.
Instructions — ^In prosecution of nation-
al bank officials for making a false
report to comptroller of currency, the
court properly charged the jury that
the defendants might be found guilty
upon proof that the false entries were
made in pursuance of a previous ar-
rangement between the clerk who made
them and the defendants who insti-
gated them. Kettenbach v. U. S., 202
Fed. 377, 120 C. C. A. 505.
30-88 Publishing false report. — ^As
to indictment for making or publish-
ing a false report of the condition of
a bank, see, 8. v. O'Neil, 24 Ida. 582,
135 P. 60.
Surplusage. — Where an indictment
charges offense of rendering a false
statement to state corporation com-
mission, and also charges a failure to
make examination of money of bank
as required by statute, the latter charge
will be treated as surplusage and will
not vitiate the indictment. Thornton
V. C, 113 Va. 736, 73 S. E. 481.
40-94 Morris v. S., 102 Ark. 513,
145 S. W. 213; Brown V, S. (Tex.), 151
S. W. 561.
Description of deposit. — ^Allegation that
'* seventy -five dollars" was received,
sufficiently describes the property re-
ceived as being seventy-five dollars in
money and not some other species of
property. S. V. Taylor (Miss.), 64 8-
740.
40-95 Brown r. S. (Tex. Civ.), 162
8. W. 339.
41-96 Brown «. 8., 71 Tex. Cr. 353,
162 8. W. 339.
Kecessary allegations. — ^Under act mak-
ing it a criminal offense for a private
banker or his employe to receive de-
posits with actual knowledge that the
bank at the time is insolvent, an in-
dictment is insufficient which charges
that the accused, being the cashier of
a designated private bank, did with
actual knowledge that the said bank
was insolvent, receive the money of
a depositor, without alleging who the
owner or owners of the bank were, or
that the accused was a private banker,
or that he was the employe of a pri-
vate banker. In order to bring the
accused within the terms of the act,
224
BASTARDY PB0CEEDIN08
Vol. 4
he mnfft have b«en either a private
banker Mmselfy or the employe of a
private banker at the time he received
the (kqposit; and to charge him as the
employe of a private bank or bankers,
it must be charged that said banker or
bankers, or the owners of the private
bank, were then insolvent. The allega-
tion that the private bank desig-
nated was insolveiity without stat-
ing who its owner or owners were,
is not a sufficient charge that the
aeensed himself was insolvent if he was
prosecuted as a private banker, nor that
his principals were insolvent if he was
being prosecuted as an employe. Boyen*
ton r. C, 114 Va. 841, 76 S. E. 945.
41-9T A designation of defendant as
president of the bank is sufficient to
show that he was an officer of the
bank. Morris r. S., 102 Ark. 513, 145
8. W. 213.
Setttag out rsittesQiitatiTe capaoity of
deftndaat. — An indictment alleging that
the defendant as president of the bank,
knowing and having good reason to
believe the bank to be insolvent did
unlawfully receive a deposit of seventy-
five dollars in said bank, sufficiently al-
leges that in receiving the deposit de-
fendant was acting as agent or rep-
resentative of the bank. 8. V. Taylor
(Miss.), 64 S. 740. 8ee 8. f7. Winstand-
ley, 154 Ind. 443, 57 N. E. 109, holding
contra.
41-98 Ohaiaetsr of money deposited
need not be stated in the indictment;
that is, whether it Vas coin, bank bills,
treasury notes, etc., and the denomina-
tion thereof. 8. «. Taylor (Miss.), 64
8. 740.
dent of the American National Bank
of Bar ties ville, Okla., with acts of the
same character and degree, an order
of consolidation was permissible under
§1024 of the Bev. 8t. of the United
States (IT. 8. Comp. St., 1901, p. 720).
Norton «. IT. 8., 205 Ped. 693, 123
C. C. A. 609.
43-10 Allsgatloii tliat bank smtalnml
loss by the transaction, is not neces-
sary in an indictment for misappro-
priating funds of a bank. Norton v,
U. 8., 205 Fed. 593, 123 C. C. A.
609.
44-15 DnpUflityw^Where an indict-
ment charges that when a draft for
$27,125 was drawn there was substi-
tuted in its place three promissory
notes, aggregating said sum of $27,125,
which notes were fictitious, of no valne,
and wortjiless, such indictment is not
bad because of duplicity on the theory
that as three notes were used as sub-
stitutes for the draft, three offenses
are charged. Norton f . U. 8., 205 Fed.
593, 123 C. C. A. 609.
a prosecution
for receiving money with knowledge
of bonks' insolvency the court should
prcqperly instruet the jury in regard to
the question of solvency. Brown v. 8.
(Tex.), 161 8. W. 561.
4S-9 taidictOMnt for permitting share-
holders to become indebted to bank in
a sum exceeding fifty per cent of the
paid-up capital held Buffi<^ient where it
charged that defendants, as officers and
directors of a bank, knowing and wil-
ling^ permitted shareholders, including
themselves, to become indebted, etc. 8.
V, MePherson, 30 8. D. 547, 139 N. W.
368.
CtoDBoUdatlon of indictments^— Where
several indictments and all of the
counts charged the defendant as presi-
BASTABDT TROOEEDOXQB
56-1 Powell V, 8., 84 O. St. 165, 95
N. E. 660, 36 L. B. A. (N. 8.) 255.
56-8 Belford v. 8., 96 Ark. 274, 131
8. W. 953; Hamden v, Collins, 85 Conn.
827, 82 A. 636; C. v. SmalHng, 146
Ky. 197, 142 8. W. 372; Easton v. Eas-
ton, 112 Me. 106, 90 A. 977, 52 L.
B. A^ (N. 8.) 799; McDonald P. Brown,
90 Neb. 676, 134 N. W. 268; 8. V, Cur-
rie, 161 N. C. 275, 76 8. E. 694; S. V.
Speed, 7 Okla. Cr. 47, 121 P. 1090;
Anderson t?. 8., 42 Okla. 151, 140 P.
1142; 8. t?. Pickering, 29 8. D. 207, 136
N. W. 105, 40 L. B. A. (N. 8.) 144;
S. V. Beese, 43 Utah 447, 135 P. 270;
Bratt t?. Cornwell, 68 W. Va. 541, 70
8. E. 271.
57-4 8. V. Edens, 88 8. C. 302, 70 8.
E. 609.
68-S Smith i?. S., 146 Wis. Ill, 180
N. W. 894, 33 L. B. A. (N. 8.) 463.
68-6 S. 1?. Edens, 88 8. C. 302, 70
S. E. 609.
Jurisdiction of Justice of peace^ — Jus-
tice of peace may only conduct pre-
liminary examination and not try any
one accused of violating Gen. Code,
§13,008. McKelvy v. 8., 87 O. St. 1,
99 N. E. 1076.
69-T Belford v, S., 96 Ark, 274, 131
225
Vol. 4
BASTARDY PROCEEDINGS
S. W. 953; Dent v. McDougle (W. Va.),
84 S. £. 382.
59-8 P. 17. Michael, 189 111. App. 495;
P. 17. Hill, 152 111. App. 78; P. v. Anders,
173 HI. App. 561.
60-10 P. V. Oppenheimer, 170 Mich.
595, 136 N. W. 399. See S. t?. Bowdle
(Del.), 83 A. 1084; Jones v. S., 11 Ga.
App. 760, 76 S. E. 72; Anderson r. 8.,
42 Okla. 151, 140 P. 1142.
Where mother is not emanelpated suit
may be brought in county where her
parents reside. S. v. Stark, 149 la. 749,
129 N. W. 331, Ann. Cas. 1912D, 362.
60-11 That child waa bom In an-
other county does not affect mother's
right to bring action. P. v. Graft, 170
m. App. 309.
Bule as to venue. — ^<'In fixing the place
for trial, it makes no difference where
the cause of action arose, where the
child was bom, or where the mother or
child may be domiciled at the time the
action is brought." S. r. Pickering, 29
S. D. 207, 136 N. W. 105, 40 L. E. A.
(N. S.) 144; 8. V, Etter, 24 S. D. 636,
124 N. W. 957, 140 Am. St. 801; S. v.
Patterson, 18 S. D. 251, 100 N. W. 162.
62-23 Private counsel may prosecute.
* 'Section 1533m (ch. 648, Laws, 1907)
was designed to provide counsel at the
expense of the state for every mother
who desired to avail herself of its
provisions; but she is not limited to
the services of the district attorney."
Smith t?. S., 146 Wis. Ill, 130 N. W.
894, 33 L. B. A. (N. S.) 463.
63-27 Waiver of defective verifica-
tion.— A complaint verified before a
notary public is insufficient; but if no
objections are made until after the
hearing before the justice of the peace
the objection is waived. Sutorius v.
Stalder, 88 Neb. 843, 130 N. W. 750.
64-30 Place of birth. — Complaint
must show that child was born in the
county where action is brought. Camp-
bell V. S., 64 Fla. 39, 59 S. 893.
65-33 Contra, a complaint which fails
to allege the residence of the mother
within the county is fatally defective.
Anderson v. S., 42 Okla. 151, 140 P.
1142.
65-37 Hamden v. Collins, 85 Conn.
327, 82 A. 636.
66-40 Not retroactive^ — ^An amend-
ment to the return on the warrant does
not go back and validate proceedings
where court had erroneously assumed
K
jurisdiction and entered judgment.
Hamden v. Collins, 85 Conn. 327, 82 A.
636.
67-49 S. €. Edens, 88 S. C. 302, 70
S. E. 609. See Howe v. Grimes, 211
Mass. 33, 97 N. E. 371.
Where the bond Is refased the magis-
trate must commit accused for trial,
and the remand for and refusal of bond
need not be entered on the warrant.
Watts r. S., 12 Ga. App. 350, 77 S. E.
206.
68-52 S. V. Bowell, 4 Ala. App. 207,
58 S. 1007; P. V. Anders, 173 111. App.
561.
70-57 Oral denial — ^Denial under
oath need not be in writing. S. v.
Currie, 161 N. C. 275, 76 S. E. 694.
71-62 Acqnlttal of sednctlon. — ^A
plea is not good which avers that ac*
cused had been prosecuted and ac-
quitted of seduction, or that the prose-
cution had been abandoned. Tolbert
t?. S., 12 Ga. App. 685, 78 S. E. 131.
72-64 McKelvy v, 8., 87 O. St. 1,
99 N. E. 1076.
73-72 S. V, Noxon, 96 Neb. 843, 148
N. W. 903.
73-74 See Sutorius v. Stalder, 88
Neb. 843, 130 N. W. 750.
Municipal conrts should give instruc-
tions. P. t?. Lamberg, 160 HI. App.
644.
Where Instructions not requested no
error can be predicated on the failure
to give them. P. f). Oppenheimer, 170
Mich. 595, 136 N. W. 399.
73-75 Besemblance between the al-
leged parent and child is a proper sub-
ject of argument (P. v. Wing, 115 Mich.
698, 74 N. W. 179; Gilmanton v. Ham,
38 N. H. 108. See P. v. White, 53
Mich. 537, 19 N. W. 174), but to call
the attention of jurors to similar
peculiarities not brought out in evi-
dence is prejudicial. Hanawalt v, &,,
64 Wis. 84, 24 N. W. 489, 54 Am. Bep.
588.
Exhibiting child to 0how resemblance
to parent. — See 2 Standard Paoo. 746,
note; 2 Enct. of £v. 254, and supple-
ment thereto.
73-76 Error not xnreJudlclaL — ^Where
state's attorney in argument said, ''a
bastardy action is to find out who the
father of the child is, otherwise the
support of the child would fall upon
the state," without referring to the
particular case at bar, it was not error
226
BIOAMY
Vol 4
to ^ail to admonish the jury to dis-
regard the statement. S. r. Banik, 21
N. D. 417, 131 N. W. 262.
74-78 In name of county court.
Where after compromise the woman
attempts to discontinue the prosecution,
the circuit court has jurisdiction to
order the proceedings to be had in the
name of the county court. Dent v. Me-
Dougle (W. Va.), 84 S. E. 382.
74-70 Burnham t?. Tyron, 112 App.
Div. 769, 98 N. Y. S. 600; 8. v, Ad-
dington, 143 N. C. 683, 57 8. K. 398,
11 Am. & Eng. And. Cas. 314.
74-80 Smith v. Lint, 37 Me. 546;
Meredith v. Wall, 96 Mass. 155; Han-
isky t?. Kennedy, 37 Neb. 618, 56 N.
W. 208- P. V. Beehler, 63 Hun 42, 17
N. Y. S. 418; Hinton v. Dickinson, 19
0. St. 683; Jerdee v. 8., 36 Wis. 170.
75-89 Belford v, 8., 96 Ark. 274,
131 8. W. 953.
76-92 Imprisonment unconstltutlonaL
In Utah that part of a statute provid-
ing for imprisonment for an insolvent
defendant is held to be unconstitution-
al. 8. V. Beese, 43 Utah 447, 135 P.
270.
76-95 8. r. Hess (la.), 150 N. W.
609.
77-96 The mother who signs the com-
plaint, not being the "losing party,"
is not liable for costs. 8. v. Hess (la.),
150 N. W. 609.
79-14 See Kennedy v. 8., 9 Ga. App.
219, 70 S. E. 986.
79-16 The commonwealth may ap-
peal from a judgment of acquittal. C.
r. Smalling, 146 Ky. 197, 142 8. W.
372.
79-19 In Arkansas the appeal lies to
the circuit court. Belford v, 8., 96
Ark. 274, 131 S. W. 953.
Criminal court of appeals has no juris-
diction inasmuch as bastardy actions
are civil in nature. 8. V, Speed, 7 Okla.
Cr. 47, 121 P. 1090.
80-26 Belford r. 8., 96 Ark. 274, 131
8. W. 953; 8. 17. Edens, 88 8. G. 302,
70 S. B. 609.
Exclusion of certain spectators is not
error in absence of showing of abuse
of discretion. 8. v, Adams (8. C), 84
S. £. 368.
A dismissal erroneously ordered is re-
viewable. Bratt V. Cornwell, 68 W. Va.
541, 70 S. E. 271.
80-27 The weiSbt of the evidence
will not be considered on review. P. v.
Baker, 171 111. App. 611; M'ClelUn v.
8., 54 Ind. App. 144, 101 N. E. 887.
Where no assignments of error are
made there is nothing to review. S.
r. Dodd, 9 Ala. App. 65, 64 8. 169.
See 2 Standakd Proc. 472.
Verdict will not be disturbed if sup-
ported by the evidence (P. v. Gasner,
152 111. App. 54), or because the evi-
dence was conflicting (P. v. Bhodes, 153
111. App. 14; Cowan v, Ertel, 95 Neb.
380, 145 N. W. 841), unless clearly and
manifestly against the weight of evi-
dence. F. V. Guenther, 160 111. App.
279.
81-89 Exhibition of the babies.
Where after both sides had closed,
arguments had been made, and the
judge had delivered his charge, one
of the jurors asked if the jury could
see the babies the judge ordered the
exhibition of the alleged bastards, and
no objection was made by defendant
until after jury had retired, whereupon
a motion was made for a mistrial,
which the court refused, there was no
error. Sims v, 8. (Ga. App.), 84 8. E.
976.
Brantley v. 8., 11 Ala. App.
144, 65 8. 678; P. i?. McKeown, 171 111.
App. 146.
82-43 Brantley v. 8., 11 Ala. App.
144, 65 8. 678.
82-47 Costs follow conviction.— P.
V. Anders, 173 111. App. 561.
BENEFICIAL AS80CIATI0K8
86-18 In names of trastees. — ^Where
suit is to protect property rights, and
the legal estate is vested in trustees
the action should be brought in the
names of the trustees. Wolfe v. Lime-
stone Council, 233 Pa. 357, 82 A. 499.
BIGAMY
89-2 In Philippine Islands one who
contracts a second marriage while his
first wife is living, except in the event
of a bona fide absence of the first wife
for a period of seven years, and whose
whereabouts are unknown, or cannot
with due diligence be ascertained, is
guilty of illegal marriage. XJ. S. v.
Biasbas, 25 Phil. Isl. 71; U. S. V. San
Luis, 10 Phil. Isl. 163.
92-12 8. 9. Marks, 127 La. 1031, 54
8. 340.
227
Vol 4
BILLS AND ANSWERS
93-15 P. V. Priestley, 17 Cal. App.
171, 118 P. 965; Apkins «. C, 148 Ky.
662, 147 S. W. 376.
94-18 That the womaii is not lacwtvO.
wife of co-accused must be alleged.
Teston v. S., 66 Fla. 244, 63 S. 433.
94-20 P. 17. Price, 250 111. 109, 95 N.
E. 68; Richardson v, S., 71 Tex, Cr.
Ill, 158 S. W. 617.
94-22 P. V. Devine (Mich.), 151 N.
W. 646.
96-27 8ez of parttea.— The indict-
ment need not aver that one of the
parties was a man and the other a
woman. Witt V, S., 5 Ala. App. 137, 59
8, 715.
98-46 Nnllityof fonneriiutxtlagew— A
defense that the former marriage was
null and void is a good defense. P.
I?. Shaw, 259 Dl. 544, 102 N. E: 1031.
But an erroneous assumption that first
marriage was void or had been annulled
or dissolved is no defense. P. t?. Priest-
ly, 17 Cal. App. 171, 118 P. 965. For
example, the fact that defendant at
time of first marriage was under the
age of consent is no defense where the
first marriage had not been annulled.
Gamer v. S., 9 Ala. App. 60, 64 S. 183.
98-61 Honest belief in death of for-
mer spouse is no defense. Band V. S.,
129 Ala. 119, 29 S. 844; Jones V. S., 67
Ala. 84; Parnell v. S., 126 Ga. 103, 54
S. E. 804; Comett v, C, 134 Ky. 613,
121 8. W. 424; C. v. Hayden, 163 Mass.
453, 40 N. E. 846, 47 Am. St. 468, 28.
L. B. A. 818; 0. V. Marsh, 7 Met.
(Mass.) 472; S. V. Ackerly, 79 Vt. 69,
64 A. 450, 118 Am. St. 940, 8 Am. &
Eng. Ann. Cas. 1103. But the follow-
ing English cases hold it is a defense:
B. V. Tolson, L. B. 23 Q. B. IHv. 168,
8 Eng. Bui. Cas. 16; B. v. Bennett, 14
Cox C. C. 45; B. V. Moore, 13 Cox 0. C,
544.
98-55 Decree Interlocntory. — Or
where decree was inoperative on its
face until after six months. Witt c.
S., 5 Ala. App. 137, 59 8. 715.
A mere belief of defendant that first
wife had divorced him based solely ou
an order of publication in a news-
paper of suit by wife is no defense.
S. V, Trainer, 232 Mo. 240, 134 S. W.
528.
99-56 Stalev f?. S., 89 Neb. 701, 131
N. W. 1028, 34 L. B. A. (N. S.) 613.
99-58 Staley v, S., 87 Neb. 539, 127
N. W. 878. See Lesueur v. S., 176 Ind.
448, 95 N. E. 239.
99-59 Cowtra, Bunlap r. S., 126 Tenn.
415, 150 S. W. 86, Ann. Cas. 1913E,
264, 41 L. B. A. (N. S.) 1061.
99-63 Bennett v. S., 100 Miss. 684,
66 S. 777.
BXU« AND AK8WSBB
107-1 Praser t?. Fraser, 78 N. J.
Eq. 296, 81 A. 1133, aff. 77 N. J. Eq.
205, 75 A. 979.
113-Sl Wilson V. American Ice Co.,
206 Fed. 736.
116-41 Schwitters v. Barnes, 157 IlL
App. 381.
118-43 On fUdlim to state Jniiedic-
tional fact! the court must of its own
motion dismiss the bill. Stockbridge v.
Phoenix Ins. Co., 193 Fed. 558.
118^44 Southern States Fire Ins.
Co. 17. Kelley, 186 Ala. 259, 65 S. 828.
Thoi]^h claim for damages Is barred
the bill is not demurrable where it
states a cause for equitable relief.
Walshe v. D wight Mfg. Co., 178 Ala.
310, 59 8. 630.
121-60 Botli legal and eqnltable.
Because a bill contains a legal demand
as well as a sufficient equitable cause
of action does not render it demurrable.
Lewis V. Orcgor, 73 W. Va. 564, 80
S. E. 057.
122-61 Antoszewski v. City Plumb-
ing Co. (Mich.), 151 N. W. 635.
123-62 Gragg v. )lA:aynard, 164 lOeh.
535, 129 N. W. 723.
Several distinct and tmeomiected mat-
ters may be united in the same bill.
New Orfeans B. Co. v. N. O. Oreat
Northern B. Co. (Miss.), 65 S. 508.
12S-J64 A clear and accvxate state-
m^ent of the facts is necessary. Maiden
Gaslight Co. v. Chcvndler, 200 Mass.
354, 95 N. E. 791.
124-65 Woodward r. S., 173 Ala. 7,
55 S. 506; Bozeman f>. Sun Ins. Co., 170
Ala. 373, 54 S. 178.
124-67 Warner v, Mettler, 260 HI.
416, 108 N. E. 259; Baltimore, etc. B.
Co. V. Latimer, 118 Md. 183, 84 A. 377.
126-76 Collier t?. Board, 106 Ark.
151, 153 S. W. 259.
128-81 An emissloA to flXL In date
in the space left blank for that pur-
pose is not fatal where the time may
be made certain by reference to other
parts of bill and to the exhibits. Peer-
less Coal Co. V. Lamar, 180 Ala. 307, 60
S. 837.
228
hlLLS AND ANSWERS
Vol. 4
See Wilson r. American Ice
Co., 206 Fed. 736.
X30-9I> NiogatlT^ pregoaat. — ^An al-
legation that A's ''appearance waa not
entered by any one lawfully authorized
to enter same," is a negative preg-
nant and repugnant to good pleading.
MeBride v. Worley, 66 Fla. 564, 64
8. 235.
Id3-T In re Connor's Est., 254 Mo.
65, 162 S. W, 252, 49 L. E. A. (N. S.)
1108. See Brandt v. Luce, 177 Mich.
184, 142 N. W. 1117.
13T-aO Hayward v. MoDcwald, 192
Ped. 890, 113 C. C. A. 368; Wade i^
Moore, 66 Fla^ 3^7, 63 S. 582. See
Brooka 9. Eosenbaum, 217 Mass* 172,
104 N. E. 469,
13S-32 Hayward v. McDonald, 192
Fed. 890, 113 C. C. A. 368; Thompson
V. Lindsay, 242 Mo. 53, 145 S. W. 472.
142i-40 Norsworthy v. WiUonghby,
176 Ala. 145, 57 S. 717.
142-41 Vciisfe^ — A special primer not
necessary to warrant equity in estab-
lishing a trust. Book Depository f.
Trustees^ 117 Md. 86, 83 A. 50.
143-48 Beiger v. Tnrley, 151 la. 491,
131 V. W. 86«w
14S-S8 Jackson f^. Putnam, 180 Ala.
39, 60 S. 61.
146-68 aigiilBg aflldaTit appended to
bill and Terifying allegations is suffi-
cient signing of bill. Augii* ft Co. V.
Warder (W. Va.), 81 S. B. 708.
14T^€I0 Aiigir «. Warder (W. Va.),
81 a E. 708.
14I^T9 Hogan 9. Scott, 186 Ala. 310,
65 S. 209; Conoly v, Harrell, 182 Ala.
243, 62 S. 511; Cox «. Smith, 99 Ark.
218, 138 S. W. 978; Carpenter v. Dong-
lass, 104 Miss. 74, 61 S. 161, 425. See
Evans «. Pettus, 112 Ark. 572, 166 a
W. 955; Peabody v. George's Creek
Coal & L Co., 120 Md. 659, 87 A.
1097.
149-80 Cox V. Smith, 99 Ark. 218,
138 S. W. 978; Freeman v. Carnegie
Natural Gas Co. (W. Va.), 81 S. E.
572; Atlantie Term Cotta Co. i^ Moore
Const. Co., .73 W. Va. 449, 80 S. B.
924.
150-84 Holland Beformed School i^.
De Lozier. (K J. £q.), 93 A. 199.
160-86 Schnbs t^ Ziegler, 80 N. J.
Eq. 199, 83 A. 968, 43 L. E. A. (N. S.)
98.
151r91 Qt(}«ciiioii to JmlfldiotkNi
may bo taken by answer. Baltimore
Trust Co. 13. George's, etc. Coal Co., 119
Md. 21, 85 A. 949.
151-93 Bight to answer does not rest
in court's discretion; therefore the
court can impose no arbitrary condi-
tions. Jackson Skirt Co. v, Bosenbaum,
190 Fed. 197.
In absoice of an answer no decree
for relief can be taken against him.
Boss' Admz. v. Boss, 72 W. Va. 640, 78
S. E. 789.
15a-4 Bender v. Dialogue, 80 N. J.
Eqh 408, 84 A. 202.
153-5 Monarch Vacuum Cleaner Co.
V, Vacuum Cleaner Co., 194 Fed. 172.
155-20 Monarch Vacuum Cleaner Co.
V, Vacuum Cleaner Co., 194 Fed. 172.
156-21 Somerville Water Co. r. Bor-
ough of Somerville, 78 N. J. £q. 199,
78 A. 793.
159-30 An allegation in any way
relavant or which might influence the
decision of subject-matter is not im-
pertinent. Jones V. Hiller, 65 Fla. 532,
62 S. 583.
161-43 New matter^ — ^An answer de-
nying the contract alleged in the bill,
not in affirmative or negative terms,
but by statement of same contract
with conditions or limitations not men-
tioned in the bill is defensive and suffi-
cient if the truth of the averments
would preclude the relief sought. Ash
«. Lynch, 72 W. Va. 238, 78 S. E. 365.
161-44 Stemm v, Gavin, 255 HI. 480,
99 N. £. 663.
165-61 Southern States Fire Ins.
Co. i;. Kelley, 186 Al^. 259, 66 S. 328;
Fowler v Alabama L & S. Co., 164 Ala.
414^ 51 S. 393.
167-70 Bucker v. Jackson, 180 Ala.
109, 60 8. 139.
167-74 Comp. Wayland Creamery
Co. V. Dean, 169 Mich. 223, 134 N. W.
1116.
168-77 Trustees v. Boot, 63 Fla. 666,
58 S. 371.
170-87 S. f?. Heaphy (Vt.), 92 A.
813.
171-92 Christopher v. Mungen, 66
Fla. 467, 63 8. 923.
172-99 Christopher v. Mungen, 66
Fla. 467, 63 8. 923.
177-30 Monarch Vacuum Cleaner Co.
V. Vacuum Cleaner Co., 194 Fed. 172,
waiver of answer under oath does not
effect an answer of a corporation.
229
Vol. 4
BILLS AND NOTES
178-34 Any time before final hearing
(Augir V. Warder [W. Va.], 70 S. E.
719), or final decree. Collier v. Sew-
ard, 113 Va. 228, 74 S. E. 155; Ash v.
Lynch, 72 W. Va. 238, 78 S. E. 365.
Answer tendered alter final decree pro
conf esso is properly rejected unless ac-
companied by affidavits showing good
reason for delay. McDonald v. Mc-
Donald's Planing Mill Co., 73 W. Va.
78, 79 S. E. 1081.
179-36 Withdrawing answer to file
pleas, after reference to master, allow-
able. Stephens V. St. Louis Union
Trust Co., 260 Dl. 364, 103 N. E. 190.
179-45 Daugherty v. Camine, 261
111. 366, 103 nT E. 1003.
180-62 Law r. Taylor, 63 Pla. 487,
58 S. 844.
181-63 Delegal «. Delegal, 65 Fla.
190, 61 S. 444; Smythe V. Central Ver-
mont By. Co. (Vt.), 90 A. 901.
182-68 Delegal v. Delegal, 65 Fla.
190, 61 S. 444.
182-69 Pinellas Packing Co. v. Clear-
water, etc. Assn., 67 Fla. 433, 65 S.
591.
184-77 Consenting to a reference to
a master, waives exceptions. Perry v,
Pye, 215 Mass. 403, 102 N. E. 653.
185-86 Antoszewski r. <^ty Plumb-
ing Co. (Mich.), 151 N. W. 635.
186-89 Solficient ground' most 1>e
shown.— Where an amendment does not
present any ground for equitable relief
different from that shown by the bill
it is not error to deny leave to file
the amendment. Hilton v. Meier, 257
111. 500, 100 N. E. 962.
186-93 Taylor v. Taylor, 259 Dl. 524,
102 N. E. 1086.
187-97 See Mills v. Mason, 182 111
App. 69.
190-12 A party plaintiff may be
omitted. Backus v. Brooks, 195 Fed.
452, 115 C. C. A. 354.
191-14 Ez parte Delpey (Ala.), 66
S. 22.
193-23 Pennsylvania Steel Co. v.
New York City By. Co., 190 Fed. 602;
Boberts V, Hughes Co., 86 Vt. 76, 83
A. 807.
196-31 SloBs-Sheffield Steel Co. v.
McLauffhlin, 182 Ala. 266, 62 S. 96.
196-33 Magaw v. Huntley, 36 App.
Cas. (D. C.) 26.
Narrowing prayer for ieli«f does not
make a new case. Fisher v. Villamil,
65 Fla. 488, 62 S. 481.
A distribution per capita may be asked
for in amended bill though the original
bill prayed for a distribution per
stirpes. Wetmore V, Henry, 259 111. 80,
102 N. B. 189, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 247.
Adding grounds to sustain relief.
Where the original bill asked for ap-
pointment of receiver and the amended
bill stated the grounds to sustain the
petition, asking furthermore the dis-
solution and winding up the affairs,
there was no inconsistency. Ward f .
Hotel Bandolph Co., 69 W. Va. 197, 71
S. E. 105, Ann. Cas. 1913A,,607.
Bill for dissolution of partnenOiip can-
not be amended to change the cause
to a partition actiou between tenants
in common. Fooks v. Williams, 120
Md. 436, 87 A. 692.
197-34 Sloss-Sheffield Steel Co. v.
McLaughlin, 182 Ala. 266, 62 S. 96.
198-37 Ward v. Hotel Bandolph Co.,
69 W. Va. 197, 71 S. E. 105, Ann. Cas.
1913A, 607.
200-49 Starke 17. Storm's Exr., 115
Va. 651, 79 S. E. 1057.
Amendment discretionary pending de-
murrer. Crown Film Co. v. Bettls
Amusement Co., 206 Fed. 362.
200-50 Bowe v. Scott, 113 Va. 499,
75 S. E. 123.
203-66 Bay «. Mills, 213 Mass. 585,
100 N. E. 1113.
203-66 Too late five months after
final decree dismissing bill. Pittsburg
V. Pittsburg By. Co., 230 Pa. 189, 79
A. 235.
213-16 In Delaware party may file
an additioiial answer. Bancroft v. Ban-
croft (Del.), 85 A. 561.
214-20 Bancroft f. Bancroft (Del.),
85 A. 561.
214-22 McSwegln v. Howard, 70 W.
Va. 783, 74 S. E. 948.
216-29 Brown v. King, 172 Mich.
355, 137 N. W. 729.
218-45 Taylor v, Taylor, 259 HI. 524,
102 N. E. 1086.
218-46 Taylor t?. Taylor, 259 HL
524, 102 N. E. 1086.
BllJJSt AND NOTES
223-2 Standard v. Thurmond (Tex.
Civ.), 151 S. W. 627.
229-20 National City Bank v. Bank-
880
BILLS AND NOTES
Vol 4
era' Trust Co., 37 App. Cas. (D. C.)
553; Perry r, Pye, 215 Maes. 403, 102
N. E. 653; Gray V. Altman (Tex. Civ.),
149 S. W. 760.
230-21 Loeb r. Weil, 209 Fed. 608,
126 C. C. A. 430.
231-25 Boiler t\ McKinney, 159 N.
C. 319, 74 S. E. 966.
Note payable to cashier. — Where a bank
discounts a note payable to its cashier,
it may sue thereon in its own name,
even though the note be not negotiable.
Eades r. MuhlenbergCounty Sav. Bank,
157 Ky. 416, 163 S. W. 494.
232-26 Nelson v. Piper^ 213 Mass.
531, 100 N. E. 749.
The payee of a note for a sum to be
divided between herself and another
is entitled to sue thereon as the real
party in interest. Harris v. Johnson^ 75
Wash. 291, 134 P. 1048.
234-30 An nnrestrlcted Indorsement
of a cheek confers upon the indorsee
the legal title and the right to sue
thereon, although the check is taken f ot
collection. Citizens' State Bank f).
Tessman & Co., 121 Minn. 34, 140 N.
W. 178, 45 L. R. A. (N. S.) 606.
234-31 Southard v. Latham, 18 N.
M. 503, 138 P. 205; Baldwin v. Jordan
(Tex. Civ.), 171 S. W. 1016.
235-82 Consent of payee nnneces-
sary^ — ^Assignee of a non-negotiable note
may bring an action against the maker
for his own benefit in the name of
the payee without the latter 's consent.
Pierce v, Talbot, 213 Mass. 830, 100
N. E. 553.
236-33 If the indorsement is re-
stricted by the words, * ' for collection, ' '
no right to sue is conferred. Citizens'
State Bank v, Tessman & Co., 121 Minn.
34, 140 N. W. 178, 45 L. B. A. (N. S.)
606.
236-34 A note payable to two per-
sons in the alternative creates a joint
interest in the payees neither of whom
can, in the lifetime of the other, main-
tain an action on the note without
joining the other. Passut v. Heubner,
81 Misc. 249, 142 N. T. S. 546; Sweeney
V. Van Schaick, 144 N. Y. S. 319.
237-39 A party not Uable either as
maker or indorser is not a necessary
or proper party to a suit on a promis-
sory note. Grisham r. Connell Lumb.
Co. (Tex. Civ.), 164 8. W. 1107.
President of coxporation^ — In an action
on a promissory note payable to a cor-
poration, where the defense is fraud,
failure of consideration, and non-deliv-
ery, and the president of such cor-
poration is charged with personal re-
sponsibility for all the infirmities of
such note, and the note is indorsed in
blank by the corporation through its
president, and pledged by such presi-
dent to secure his own individual debt,
it is error to refuse to allow such
president to be made a party defend-
ant. Jenkins v. Planter' & Mechanics'
Bank, 84 Okla. 607, 126 P. 757.
In what name saed« — ^An action upon
a promissory note may properly be
brought against the maker thereof in
the name by which he signed the note.
Bresee v. Snyder, 94 Neb. 884, 143
N. W. 219.
238-40 Sharpe v. Baker, 51 Ind. App.
547, 96 N. E. 627, 99 N. E. 44.
238-41 Henderson v. Holcomb, 11
Ga. App. 353, 75 S. E. 268; Sharpe v.
Baker, 51 Ind. App. 547, 96 N. E. 627,
99 N. E. 44.
Dismissal as to some of the Joint mak-
ers.—Where an action is brought on a
joint and several note against all the
makers, who appeared and pleaded
jointly, and in the midst of the trial
the plaintiff elected to dismiss the
action as to two of the makers, the
effect of this action was to discontinue
the suit as to all the defendants, be-
cause the plaintiff might have sued
them all jointly, or each of them sev-
erally, but might not sue a part of them
jointly, under the circumstances men-
tioned. Springstead v, CrawfordvUle
State Bank, 63 Fla. 267, 57 S. 668.
241-47 Knozville Banking & Trust
Co. V, Mershon, 152 Ky. 169, 153 S. W.
238.
Irregnlar indorser and the maker are
not properly joined. Matawan Tile Co.
V. Golden, 53 Pa. Super. 430.
242-61 Joint payees or indorsees who
indorse are deemed to do so jointly and
severally, wherefore an action lies
against any one of them individually.
Hodgens v. Jennings, 148 App. Div. 879,
133 N. Y. S. 584.
243-62 One of seveni^ indorsers to
a note may be sued at option of holder,
without joining all the indorsers as
parties defendant. Home v, Oklahoma
State Bank, 42 Okla. 37, 139 P. 992.
246-66 Stone v. Goldberg & Lewis, 6
Ala. App. 249, 6Q S. 744.
831
Vol. 4
BILLS AND NOTES
Statutory foxm for dedaratioiis is not
subject to demurrer. St. Petersburg
Novelty Works r. Battle, 66 Fla. 303,
63 S. 445.
Sufficient oomplalntr— A complaint in
an action upon a promissory note which
in substance alleges that on or about
a certain date tke defendants made
their promissory note ^hereby they
promised to pay to the order of the
plaintiff a certain sum of money on. a
certain date with interest at six per
cent, but that no part thereof has been
paid, states a cause of action. First
Nat. Bank v, Stallo, 160 App. DiT. 702,
145 N. Y. 8. 747.
249-S7 Setting out the taxmB of the
written promise, where the terms are
the ordinary terms of a promissory
note, is sufficient, without setting forth
a copy of the written promise and
designating it a promissory note.
Equitable Trust Co. v. Stadler, 142 N.
Y. S. 292.
24T-60 Bowman t^. First Nat. Bank,
115 Va. 463, 80 S. B. 95.
248-63 Aatioipatlng and negativing
poflslble defenses not necessary. Davis
r. McEwen Bros., 193 Fed. 305, 113
C. C. A. 229.
249-419 Accoomu>dationindoi8er«— An
allegation that a defendant is sued as
indorser of a promissory note, but that
he received no independent considera-
tion, is equivalent to an averment that
he is an accommodation indorser and
■urety Baggs v. Funderburke, 11 6a.
App. 173, 74 S. B. 937.
24^7Q Location of payee bank.
Where a promissory note is made pay-
able to a certain bank or bearer, it is
unnecessary to allege where the bank
is located, or what particular bank was
referred to as payee of the note, al-
though there may be a number of banks
known by the same name. Harper v,
Peeples, 11 Ge. App. 161, 74 S. B.
1008.
First Nat. Bank «. Silver, 45
Mont. 231, 122 P. 584; Gallway & Co.
«. GoUiek & Smith, 142 N. Y. S. 468.
Hon-payniMit by the maker need not
be averred in an action by the holder
of a negotiable note against the in-
doreers only. Farmers' Nat. Bank «.
Howard, 71 W. Va. 57, 76 S. E. 122.
254-90 Suflloleiit aUegation of non-
paymentw— Allegation that the defend-
antot ''^not regturding the said promises,
have not perxonned the same or paid
said sum of money, though often re-
quested, but have refused and neg-
lected so to do,'' sufficient. Trask v,
Karrick, 87 Vt. 451, 89 A. 472.
254-81 Baldwin d. Jordan (Tex.
Civ.), 171 S. W. 1016. See also 6
Stanpabd Prog. 684, n. 15.
256-96 Beasonable value of attor-
ney's servloes need not be alleged if
note is set out. Florence O. & a, Co.
V, Hiawatha, etc. Co., 55 Colo. 378, 135
P. 454.
A copy of the notice of intention to
bring suit need not be attached to the
petition, where the petition alleges that
the notice has been nven to defendant.
Setze V. First Nat. Bank, 140 Ga. 603,
79 S. E. 540.
258-6 If Judgment is demanded for
the face of the note with interest and
there is an allegation that no part of
the note has been paid and that it is
overdue, it is auffioient. First Nat.
Bank 17. Stallo, 160 App. Div. 702, 145
N. Y. S. 747.
259-8 Baker r. Hahn (Tex. Civ.),
161 S. W. 443.
259-10 Allegation that the note was
**niade" by the defendants is equiv-
alent to an allegation that it was both
signed and delivered to take effect as
a negotiable instrument. First Nat.
Bank v, Stallo, 160 App. Div. 702, 145
N. Y. S. 747.
259-11 Settbig out the note in the
petition including the signature of de-
fendant is not equivalent to an allega-
tion that defendant executed the
note. Baker v. Hahu (Tex. Ci^.), 161
S. W. 443.
259-12 DellTory to Indoreee is suffi-
ciently alleged where there is an allega-
tion that the note was "indorsed" to
him, as this term imports the delivery
of the instrument. Trask v. Karrick,
87 Vt. 451, 89 A. 472.
260^14 Kenison r. Campbell, 21 Cal.
App. 193, 131 P. 89; First Nat. Bank
V. StaUo, 160 App. Div. 702, 145 N. Y.
S. 747; Beall v. Bussell, 76 Misc. 244,
134 N. Y. a 633; Hudson e. Moon, 42
Utah 377, 130 P. 774.
If oonaidMafeion is aBeced it must be
shown to be sufficient. Nelson e. Diflen-
derffer, 178 Mo. App. 46, 163 S. W.
271.
A tranaferee witHout indooMniflat of an
instrument made x>ayable to ''order"
must allege and prove consideration.
232
BILLS AND NOTES
Vol. 4
Witt I?. Segap Co., 66 Or. 144, 134 P.
316.
261-16 Kerr v. Smith, 156 App. Div.
807, 142 N. Y. S. 57.
Facts not condosioiu^ — ^A complaint
against the maker of a non-aegotiable
promissory note which merely alleges
that defendant's promise to pay was
made for a Taluable consideration, but
alleges nothing farther as to the con-
sideration, is demurrable on the ground
that it does not state facts sufficient
to constitute a cause of action. St.
Lawrence Co. Bank f. "Watkins, 195
App. Div. 884, 139 N. Y. 8. 1143.
262-20 JefiPerson County Sav. Bank
17. Interstate Sav. Bank, ff Ala. App.
363, 59 S. 348.
Good faithw— An averment that the
holder of a note purchased the same
in good faith is not equivalent to the
averment that the indorsee took the
note without notice of the maker's de-
feases against the payee. Union Trust
Co. V. Adams, 54 Ind. App. 166, 101
N. E. 741.
Allegation that note lawfully eame
Into jwsfleaiiion of plaintiff for value is
not equivalent to a plea that plaintiff
was a holder in due course, and in any
aspect was defective as stating mere-
ly a legal conclusion. Laing «. Hudgens,
82 Misc. 388, 143 N. Y. S. 763.
Sufllciant allegation as to tranrfar.
Where a suit was brought on a nego-
tiable note payable to the order of a
decedent and alleged to have been
transferred for value by his administra-
tor and indorsed by him before due,
there waa no error in overruling a de-
murrer tiiereto. Miles v. Bank of Har-
lem, 139 6a. 498, 77 S. E. 579.
When the holder buos on the note it
is not necessary to allege and prove
indorsement or assignment, unless the
indorsement or assignment is denied on
oath. Harper v. Peoples, 11 G^ App.
161, 74 8. E. 1008.
A bona fide ptixehaaer who seeks pro-
tection against secret defenses set up
by the niaker is required to plead his
bona fides. German-American Nat. Bank
«. Lewis, 9 Ala. App. 352, 63 8. 741.
263-22 Action by dhUdien of de-
ceased payee« — ^A complaint to recover
on a promissory note which alleges that
the payee died intestate, that he left
no widow, that he left plaintiffs ''as
his children and only children and heirs
at law," that all debts and claims
against the deceased have been paid,
that no letters of administration have
been granted on said estate, and which
also alleges that plaintiffs are the own-
ers of the note, is sufficient to show
the right of plaintiffs to maintain the
action. The phrase ''only children"
in the absence of words of qualifica-
tion must be construed to include de-
ceased as well as living children. Bar-
rett 17. Sipp, 50 Ind. App. 304, 98 N. £.
310.
2611^-30 Zndoxsement before maturity
need not be alleged in an action against
the maker of an overdue note. Beall
v. BusseU, 76 Misc. 244, 134 X. Y. 8.
633.
267-36 Beall v. Bussell, 76 Misc.
244, 134 N. Y. 8. 633: Baldwin v. Jor-
dan (Tex. Civ.), 171 8. W. 1016.
26d-41 Burwell r. Gaylord, 119
Minn. 426, 138 N. W. 685; Shaffer v,
Govreau, 36 Okla. 267, 128 P. 507;
Dunn 17. Townsend (Tex. Civ.), 163 8.
W. 312.
ITotlce. — ^Allegation that the note in
suit "was duly protested for non-pay.
ment" 'sufficiently alleges due notice
to the indbrsers of its non-payment.
Gleason t?. Thayer, 87 Conn. 248, 87 A.
790, Ann. Cas. 1915B, 1069.
Ifotlce of presentment, dlalumor and
protest to the maker need not be al-
leged. Badt €. Miller, 150 App. Div.
920, 135 N. Y. 8. 13.
272-49 Bombolaski v. First Nat.
Bank, 55 Ind. App. 172, 101 N. E. 837,
103 N. E. 422. 8ee Jackson €. Georgia
Fire Ins. Co. (Ala.), 66 8. 588.
Where forgery is relied upon as defense.
First Nat. Bank t?. Pennsboro (W. Va.),
83 8. E. 898.
A plea of non est ffectom by the de-
fendant denies that he executed the
note described in the petition, and also
denies that it was executed by any
person authorized by him to sign or
execute the same for him. Connor f.
Uvalde National Bank (Tex. Civ.), 156
8. W. 1092.
A personal xepresentative being sued
on a note purporting to have been
executed by his decedent, a denial that
he has sufficient knowledge or informa-
tion to form a belief that the note was
executed is a plea of non est factum.
Walsh V. Pearce, 148 Ky. 760, 147 8.
W. 739.
272-50 Denial of absolute delivery
and the allegation of conditional de-
233
Vol 4
biLLS AND NOTES
livery of the note in the answer is, in
effect; a denial of complete execution
of the same, it appears. Jones v. Bank,
39 Okla. 393, 135 P. 373.
272-51 Booth t\ Irving Nat. Exch.
Bank, 116 Md. 668, 82 A. 652.
273-53 State Bank of New Boston
V. Livingston, 182 111. App. 529; Gran-
nis i\ Stevens, 157 App. Div. 561, 142
N. Y. S. 835; Spencer & Co. r. Brown,
143 N. Y. S. 994.
Denial of consideration in absence of
general deniaL — Where the complaint
contains no specific allegation that
checks were given for a valid considera-
tion, under a plea, which contains no
general denial but which raises the is-
sue of want of consideration, by a de-
nial of consideration, and an affirmative
statement of want of consideration,
this special defense should not be dis-
missed as being inconsistent with any
admission by failure to deny. West v.
Jarmulowsky, 144 N. Y. 8. 755.
274-54 Sharp v. Sharp, 145 N. Y. S.
386.
274-65 In Shalleck u. Munzer, 121
Minn. 65, 140 N. W. Ill, an answer
examined and held to state a valid de-
fense of want of consideration and that
the instrument was an accommodation
note as between the real parties to
the action.
274-56 Goding f?. MacArthur Go., 181
111. App. 373.
''Without consideration."— A special
plea setting up that the instrument
sued on "is without consideration," is
sufficient. Cochran v, Burdick Bros., 7
Ala. App. 274, 61 S. 29.
274-57 Tatum v. Commercial Bank &
Trust Co., 185 Ala. 249, 64 S. 661;
Dicks V. Johnson, 66 Fla. 306, 63 S.
700.
A motion to strike properly lies to a
plea which attempts to set up fraud,
the allegations of which are not suffi-
cient. Morgan v. Cobb, 137 Ga. 545, 73
S. E. 844.
274-58 Allegation of knowledge^— A
plea alleging a failure of consideration
for the note, and breach of warranty,
of which the indorsees had knowledge
at the time of the indorsement to them,
is not obnoxious to demurrer for failure
to allege knowledge. Springstead v.
Crawfordville State Bank, 63 Fla. 267,
57 S. 668.
274-59 Goding «?. MacArthur Co.,
181 HI. App. 373 J First Nat. Bank t;.
Bupert, 178 Ind. 669, 100 N. E. 5;
Lemond t?. Smith (Tex. Civ.), 149 S. W.
751; Key f?. Hickman (Tex. Civ.), 149
S. W. 275.
Failure of consideration sufficiently al-
leged where the answer specifically al-
leges that part of the consideration for
the execution of the two notes, one
of which is involved in the suit, was
that plaintiff should take back certain
goods set out in the pleading, and
credit the invoice price thereof upon
the notes executed, and that notwith-
standing the continued willingness of
defendant to deliver the goods, plaintiff
has failed and refused to receive them.
Clayton v. Western Nat. Wall Paper
Co. (Tex.), 146 S. W. 695.
Facts eonstitnting tbe failure.— A plea
of failure of consideration should show
in what manner it has failed; the cir-
cumstances of the failure should be
set out with as much precision as in a
declaration. Farris v. Alfred, 171 Bl.
App. 172.
276-64 Mizell v. Farmers' Bank, 180
Ala. 568, 61 S. 272; Warner v. Bonds,
111 Ark. 238, 163 S. W. 788; First Nat.
Bank v. Rupert, 178 Ind. 669, 100
N. E. 5; Thomson t?. Citizens' Nat.
Bank, 32 0. C. C. 131, aff. 82 O. St. 446,
92 N. E. 1125.
Use of word "ftand" is not necessary
if the facts constituting such fraud
are sufficiently alleged. Muir v, Ede-
len, 156 Ky. 212, 160 S. W. 1048.
Duress, conclusion as to. — An answer
which alleges that plaintiff's attorney
approached defendant about the date of
the note, and threatened him to such
an. extent that he signed some kind of
a writing to pay something, will be
treated as a mere conclusion of the
pleader. Sutton i;. Hurley, 12 Qa. App.
312, 77 S. E. 218.
In absence of objections general aver-
ments of fraud and collusion against
the plaintiff are sufficient to raise an
issue upon which the defendant is en-
titled to be heard before a jury. Daniel
r. Browder-Manget Co., 13 Ga. App.
392, 79 S. E. 237.
Knowledge of falsity most appear. — ^In
action by bolder against an indorser a
plea that plaintiff made false repre-
sentations to induce defendant to pur-
chase certain receivers' certificates for
which the note was given is insufficient
in the absence of an allegation that
the representations were false to the
234
hlLLS OF EXCEPTIONS
Vol. 4
knowledge of the plaintiff when made.
Hodgens t?. Jennings, 148 App. Div.
879, 133 N. Y. S. 584.
277-65 Name of defendant on note
Ijy mlatake. — ^Where the name of a
party was inadvertently written on the
face of the note, this question is not
properly raised by answer in an action
at law to recover the amount due on
the note, but a complaint in equity
in the nature of a cross-bill to have
the alleged mistake corrected should be
filed. Liumbermen's Nat. Bank 17.
Campbell, 61 Or. 123, 121 P. 427.
A mistake in tbe aocnracy of an ac-
connty where the stating of such account
is the consideration moving between
the parties, must be specially pleaded
when suit is brought on the settlement,
or notice of the special matter must
be given where such notice is a sub-
stitute for special pleadings. Lowen-
stein V, Michael, 55 Pa. Super. 628.
277-66 Prayer for reformation is not
necessary where the mistake is merely
set up as a defense, and the correction
or reformation is not necessary in order
to place the defendant in statu quo.
Short r. Thomas, 178 Mo. App. 400,
163 8. W. 252.
277-67 Liab v. Kozuhowski, 53 Pa.
Super. 50.
In City State Bank r. Pickard, 35 Okla.
243, 129 P. 38, which was an actioh
by an indorsee on a note, the plea of
defendants held not to show that the
indorser had no title to the note, or
that the indorsee had notice that he had
no title.
In absence of plea of non est factmn
an indorsee is not required to prove the
execution of the indorsement. Butler
fT. First Nat. Bank, 13 Ga. App. 35, 78
S. E. 772.
279-70 Plea of non est factnnu — ^A
plea denying the allegation of the
petition that plaintiff is the bona fide
holder of the note, for value and be-
fore maturity, is not the equivalent
of a plea of non est factum as to the
indorsement, although such plea is
sworn to. Butler v. First Nat. Bank,
13 Ga. App. 35, 78 S. E. 772.
280-72 That note was delivered In
escrow is sufficiently pleaded by alleg-
ing indorsee is not a bona fide holder
and that note was delivered to payee
on certain conditions, to be effective
only when conditions complied with,
and that payee transferred note to
avoid performance of conditions. Bank
of Cartersville t?. Gunter, 4 Ala. App.
539, 58 S. 757.
282-77 Plea of extension of time
should allege that there was a valid
agreement supported by a considera-
tion, for such extension of time.
Hodgens v. Jennings, 148 App. Div.
879, 133 N. Y. S. 584.
283-79 Specific denial of non-pay-
ment as alleged in the complaint is not
necessary; it is sufficient to plead pay-
ment affirmatively. Harris v. Striker,
77 Misc. 219, 135 N. T. S. 762.
285-86 German-American Nat. Bank
t\ Lewis, 9 Ala. App. 352, 63 S. 741 ^
Balie v, Tett (Tex. Civ.), 164 S. W.
30.
BILLS OF EXOEPTIOKS
292-1 Padgett v, Gulfport Fertilizer
Co., 11 Ala. App. 366, 66 S. 866; Yates
r. McGill Brother, 1 Liberian Bep. 2.
Other definitions. — A bill of exceptions
is a memorial of matters occurring at
the trial of a cause which do not other-
wise appear of record. Kubik t\ Davis
(Or.), 147 P. 552.
292-2 Padgett v, Gulfport Fertilizer
Co., 11 Ala. App. 366, 66 S. 866; Meek
r. Chicago By. Co., 183 111. App. 256,
quot, from Lassers v. North -German
Lloyd Steamship Co., 244 111. 570, 91
N. E. 676; Bichmond v. Enochs (Miss.),
67 S. 649. See also 2 Standard Prog.
342.
293-3 Bichmond i\ Enochs (Miss.),
67 8. 649.
294-4 Norfolk & W. By. Co. f?. Hol-
brook, 215 Fed. 687, 131 C. C. A. 621;
P. u. Larsen, 265 111. 406, 106 N. E.
947;Yott v, Yott, 257 111. 419, 100 N. E.
902; Yates v. McGill Brother, 1 Liberian
Bep. 2; Bichmond v. Enochs (Miss.)y
67 S. 649; Fenn v, Beber, 153 Mo. App.
219, 132 S. W. 627; Bedsecker r. Wade,
69 Or. 153, 134 P. 5, 138 P. 485; Eaton
V, Oregon By. & Nav. Co., 22 Or. 497,
30 P. 311.
295-6 Weil v. Federal Life Ins. Co.,
264 111. 425, 106 N. E. 246; S. v. Gray,
112 Me. 558, 91 A. 787.
297-13 Lees v. U. S., 150 U. S. 476,
482, 14 Sup. Ct. 163, 37 L. ed. 1150;
Norfolk & W. By. Co. v. Holbrook, 215
Fed. 687, 131 C. C. A. 621; Copper Elv-
er, etc. Bv. Co. V. Beeder, 211 Fed.
280, 127 C. C. A. 648.
297-14 Copper Biver, etc. By. Co. «•
235
Vol 4
BILLS OF EXCEPTIONS
Beeder, 211 Fed. 280, 127 C. C. A. 648.
Prior term bills assembled in final one.
All prior term bills of exceptions must
be assembled in the one final or gen-
eral bill of exceptions which incor-
porates the motion for new trial or
other appropriate motion for review
after final judgment. Bohn r. Lucks,
165 Mo. App. 701, 147 S. W. 1112.
298-17 S. V. Gray, 112 Me. 558, 91
A. 787: State f?. Bogers, 253 Mo. 399,
161 S. W. 770.
298-19 Hatterman v. Tiernan, 182
111. App. 24; Kubik v, Davis (Or.)/ 147
P. 552; Byrd v. Cooper, 69 Or. 406, 139
P. 104; Sutherlin v. Bloomer, 50 Or.
398, 93 P. 135.
298-21 Nelms v, S. (Ark.), 174 S.
W. 233; Schultz v. Teaming Co., 182
111. App. 498; S. V. Evans, 135 La. 891,
66 S. 259; Glass v, Gould, 41 Okla.
424, 138 P. 796; Denton v. English (Tex.
Civ.), 171 S. W. 248.
Bill of ezceptionB unnecessary to review
matters appearing on record. P. r. Lar-
son, 265 111. 406, 106 N. £. 947.
302^7 AifidaTits filed in support of
motion must be embodied in bill of ex-
ceptions. Smith V. Eirk, 48 Mont. 482,
138 P. 1086.
Motions for new trial and for judg-
ment on findings of fact are not part
of record proper. Veverke v. Frank,
41 Okla. 142, 137 P. 682.
A sabseqnently settled bill of eze^
tlons is not a part of the authorized
record on appeal from an order grant-
ing or refusing a new trial, except
when the motion was made on the min-
utes of the court, or where the new
trial was ordered by the court of its
own motion. Frost v. Los Angeles By.
Co., 165 Cal. 365, 132 P. 442.
803-29 An affidavit in sapport of a
motion for change of judge, cannot be
presented by a bill of exceptions. Flat-
ter V. S. (Ind.), 107 N. E. 9; Adams v.
8., 179 Ind. 44, 99 N. E. 483.
303-32 Johnson v. Citizens' Bank
(Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 35.
304-34 North Biinningham Trust
Bank v. Adams, 184 Ala. 564, 63 S.
1022; liinn-McCabe Co. v. Williams
(Ark.), 172 S. W. 895.
304-44 Continental Casualty Co. «.
Ogburn, 186 Ala. 398, 64 S. 619; Poncot
V. St. Louis Ry. Co., 176 Mo. App. 225,
161 S. W. 1190.
305-47 Pamphlet of court rnlaa may
be made part of record in bill of ex-
ceptions. Weil r. Federal Life Ins* €o^
264 111. 425, 106 N. E. 2i6.
306-80 Hughes f. S. (Ala.), 66 S.
844; Morton €. Clark, 10 Ala. App. 439,
65 S. 408; Tenn. Valley Bank v. Avery
& Sons, 9 Ala. App. 363, 63 S. 813;
Birmingham By., L. ft P. Co. v. Leach,
5 Ala. App. 546, 59 S. 358; Qerdowsky
17. Zawlewicz, 180 HI. App. 481; Doyles-
town Agr. Co. v, Brackett, Shaw ft Lunt
Co., 109 Me. 301, 84 A. 146; Hagerstown
Brew. Co. v. Gates, 117 Md. 348, 83 A.
576; Ferguson v. Baker, 186 Mo. App.
619, 173 S. W. 41; MiUer V, Engle, 185
Mo. App. 558, 172 8. W. 631; Capps v.
Johnson (Tex. Civ.), 174 8. W. 294;
Texas & P. Ey. Co. t?. Hall (Tex. Civ.),
173 HI. 548: Gulf, etc. R. Co. v. Hig-
ginbotham (Tex. Civ.), 173 8. W. 482;
Quanah By. Co. v, Galloway (Tex. Civ.),
165 8. W. 546.
Exceptions well taken^ — ^Unlike a mem-
orandum of exceptions, a bill of excep-
tions need not contain a statement of
counsel that exceptions are well taken.
Ward V, Pittsburg Silver Peak Gold
Mining Co. (Nov.), 143 P. 119.
Exceptions sared to one order of the
court overruling two motions will pre-
serve for review the action of the court
upon both motions. Sotham v, Drovers
Tel. Co., 239 Mo. 606, 144 8. W. 428;
Mugan t7. Wheeler, 241 Mo. 876, 145 8.
W. 462.
306-61 Owens f. 8. (Ala. App.), 66
8. 852.
Ko presomption there were any excep-
tions taken. Lamport v, Smedley (N.
y.), 106 N. E. 922.
306-62 MMteni ooenrdng ftt time
Judgment by default ia rcNodeced are
immaterial, where an appeal is taken
from the overruling of a motion to set
aside the default; such matters are un-
necessarily incorporated in the bill of
exceptions. S. v. Allen, 168 Mo. App.
463, 151 8. W. 756.
30T-63 Deasou f>. Ghray SKeriif
(Ala.), 66 8. 646; Salter v. Greenwood,
112 Me. 548, 92 A. 786; Gill V. Bog-
gles, 97 8. C. 278, 81 8. E. 519; Best
V, State, 72 Tex. Cr. 201, 164 S. W.
996; Martinez i?. Gutierrez's 'Ueiiu
(Tex. Civ.), 172 8. W. 766.
307-54 BulingB on pleadfagWir— Tbe
action of the trial court in striking
special pleas will not be reviewed where
the bill of exceptions does not disclose
that action or that any exception was
^36
BILLS OF EXCEPTIONS
Vol. 4
reserved to it. Sovereign Camp, W. O.
W.ty. J0116B (Ala. App.)f 66 8. 834.
Attacbiiig all tevtimony to 'bUl of ez-
ovttona does not make it part of the
bill although |3, art. 7 of state consti-
tntion aaye it may be so attached. Nat.
Couneil v. McQinn, 70 Or. 457, 138 P.
493.
807-«5 P. V. Scanlan, 265 HI. 609,
107 N. E. 149; Hennessey v. Preston, 219
Mass. 61, 196 N. E. 570; Hoag t?. Wash-
ington-Oregon Corp. (Or.), 144 P. 674;
National Council v. McGinn, 70 Or. 457,
188 P. 493; Bedsecker v. Wade, 69 Or.
153, 134 P. 5, 138 P. 485; Hahn V.
Maekay, 63 Or. 100, 126 P. 12, 991;
Sanger f>. First Nat. Bank (Tex. Civ.),
170 S. W. 1087 (Rev. Civ. St., art.
2059) ; St. Louis Southwestern By. Co. v.
Wadsaek (Tex. Civ.), 186 S. W. 42;
Houston Transp. Oo. v, San Jacinto
Biee Co. (Tex. Civ.), 163 S. W. 1023.
All original bill of ezeeptlona provided
for by §657 Bums' St., 1908, should
contain nothhig but the evidence and
matters Incident thereto. Leach 17. Mat-
tix, 149 Ind. 146, 48 N. E. 791; McCoy
V, Able, 131 Ind. 417, 30 N. E. 528, 31
N. E. 453; Jose v. Huntet (Tnd. App.),
103 N. E. 392* Stapf v. State, 33 Ind.
App. 255, 71 NT. E. 165; consequently
an objection contained therein to the
fiHnff of a supplemental complaint can-
not be considered. Jose v. Hunter (Ind.
App.), 103 N. E. 892.
30S-56 Cooley v. Jones, etc. Mfg. Co.
(6a. App.), 84 S. E. 232; Coach v.
Gage, 70 Or. 182, 138 P. 847: Prata f.
S. (Tex. Cr.), 172 S. W. 974; Thomas r.
Barthold (Tex. Civ.), 171 S. W. 1071;
MOler 17. Campbell (Tex. Civ.), 171 S.
W. .251.
Ezceirtlon to adninioa of evidenoa
need not be reserved by 'bill of ex-
ceptions but may be reserved and noted
in the statement of facts. Houston,
etc. B. Co. V, Cavanaugh (Tex. Civ.),
173 S. W. 619.
3<^4S7 McLaughHn v. S. (Ark.), 174
8. W. 234. See 2 Standi&d Pbog. 352.
What bin of exceptioiiB may conslBt of
tmiflanpt of proceedinga^-AlI of plain-
tiff's testimony is necessary in the bill
of exceptions in eases where the error
complained of is the overruling of the
defendant's motion for a nonsuit. All
testimony of both parties must be in-
cluded -vi^ere it is sought to review the
action of the court on a motion for a
directed verdict. National Council t*.
McGinn, 70 Or. 457, 138 P. 493; West
V. McDonald, 67 Or. 551, 136 P. 650;
Hahn r. Maekay, 63 Or. 100, 126 P. 12,
991.
S08-ft9 White v. Snyder, 124 Md. 395,
92 A. 763.
808-60 Alabama Terminal B. Co. v.
Benns (Ala.), 66 S. 589.
aOO^l ITo presnlliption. — Where it
is not shown by bill or judge's certifi-
cate that all the evidence is incorpor*
ated in the bill it cannot be presumed
it was. Iowa State Sav. Bank v. Henry
(Wyo.), 136 P. 863.
809-62 Ingham v. Mitchell, 176 HI.
App. 469, a statement that ''the above
and foregoing is all the evidence heard,
offered or considered by the court on
the trial of this cause" is sufficient.
809-64 Williams t^. Wallace, 111 Ark.
509, 164 S. W. 301. '
809-66 That no stenographer was
preseiit will not deprive the parties
from having the substance of the evi-
dence inserted in the settled record.
Wood 17. McCain, 34 S. D. 544, 149 N.
W. 426.
810-67 Bradley v. S. (Ala. App.),
66 S. 820; Beaule v. Acme Finishing
Co., 36 E. I. 74, 89 A. T3.
Inooiporating ezdndod evidence. — It
is not fatal to a bill of exceptions that
it failed to state that the witnesses
would have testified to the matters * * of-
fered to be proved." Hartfield v. Gre-
ber (Tex. Civ.), 160 S. W. 603.
Filing transcript of evidence. — ^It is not
necessary that a transcript of the evi-
dence should be filed in the clerk's of-
fice before beingincorporated in a bill
of exceptions. Huffman v, Thompson,
177 Ind. 366, 98 N. E. 113.
Incoiporation by reference.— If the bill
refers to the pages of the transcript
where evidence can be found, it is suffi-
cient. Norfolk & W. By. Co. t?. Hol-
brook, 216 Fed. 687, 131 C. C. A. 621.
810-69 Grand Trunk By. Co. v. Ives,
144 U. S. 408, 12 Sup. Ct. 679, 36 L. ed.
485; Johnston t?. Jones, 1 Black (U.
S.) 209, 17 L. ed. 117; Cincinnati Trac-
tion Co. V, Beebusch, 192 Fed. 520, 113
C. C. A. 76; Taylor v. Pierce Bros., 219
Mass. 187, 106 N. E. 565; Cornell-An-
drews S. Co. t\ Boston & P. B. Corp.,
215 Mass. 381, 102 N. E. 625; West t;.
McDonald, 67 Or. 551, 136 P. 650.
Manner of setting out testimony. — The
bill of exceptions should give the sub-
237
1
Vol 4'
BILLS OF EXCEPTIONS
stance of the testimony in a narrative
form and not by question and answer.
Wheeling Terminal B. Co. v, Bussell,
209 J'ed. 795, 126 C. C. A. 519 ; Cornell
Andrews S. Co. v. Boston & P. E. Corp.,
215 Mass. 381, 102 N. E. 625. But see
Higdon V, Warrant Warehouse Co., 10
Ala. App. 496, 63 S. 938.
A bill containing the evidence in ez-
tenso will be stricken notwithstanding
the evidence be short. Irby v, Kaigler,
6 Ala. App. 91, 60 S. 418.
311-71 Immatexial and nselesa mat-
ters should be eliminated in setting
forth the testimony in a bill of excep-
tions. S. ex rel. v. District Court
(Mont.), 148 P. 383.
312-74 Attached transcrliit. — A
transcript, certified as containing all
evidence, riveted to bill of exceptions,
is sufficient to form part of bill of ex-
ceptions. McFarland v. Oregon Elec.
E. Co., 70 Or. 27, 138 P. 458.
312-76 A skeleton bill of exceptions
including the transcript of the sten-
ographer sufficiently identified, will do.
Bent V. People's Bank (Ark.), 169 S.
W. 821; Cable Co. V. Mathers, 72 W. Va.
807, 79 S. E. 1079. See Padgett v. Gulf-
port Fertilizer Co., 11 Ala. App. 366,
66 S. 866, for a discussion of the ques-
tion whether documents may be made
part of a bill of exceptions by being
attached as exhibits without further
identification.
Common law and statutory role^ — ^< Un-
der the common-law practice, docu-
ments that it was desired should be a
part of the bill were required to be
written out therein in full before the
bill was signed and sealed. . . . An-
nexation of such documents as exhibits,
or a reference thereto elsewhere in the
record was insufficient. Under mod-
ern practice, however, the rigor of these
rules have been, to some extent, modi-
fied, and it is now generally permis-
sible to omit copying into the bill itself
the document that it is desired to in-
corporate, provided the bill, at the
place where it is desired to insert the
document, properly describes and iden-
tifies the document and contains there
a direction to the clerk to so insert it
when making out the transcript of the
original." Padgett v. Gulf port Fertil-
izer Co., 11 Ala. App. 366, 66 S. 866.
Texas rule. — Documents need not be
copied in the bills of exceptions, pro-
vided there is a sufficient reference in
the bill by which the document con-
tained in the record may be identified.
Sanger t?. First Nat. Bank (Tex. Civ.),
170 S. W. 1087.
Position of document in record not ma-
terlaL — A paper read as evidence to
the jury and described in a skeleton
bill of exceptions in such manner as to
make its identity reasonably certain is
properly a part of such bill of excep-
tions if it appears to be copied by the
clerk into any part of the certified rec-
ord. Rowland L. Co. v, Barrett, 70 W.
Va. 703, 75 S. E. 57.
314-78 Jones v. White (Ala.), 66 S.
605; Bley v. Lewis (Ala.), 66 S. 454;
Anniston Mfg. Co. v. Southern Ry. Co.,
145 Ala. 351, 40 8. 965; Elliott v. Round
Mountain Coal & Iron Co., 108 Ala.
640, 18 S. 689; Parsons V. Woodward, 73
Ala. 348, 351; Padgett t?. Gulf port Fer-
tilizer Co., 11 Ala. App. 366, 66 S. 866.
The role requiring certainty of identi-
fication is satisfied if the reference
identifies the document in a way "to
reasonably exclude a mistake with ref-
erence thereto." Bley v. Lewis (Ala.),
66 S. 454, holding a direction to insert
a deed from A <'and" B justifies the
clerk in inserting a deed from A "to"
B.
A benefit oerti&ate is sufficiently in-
corporated in the record where the .
record shows by the filing marks of
the clerk that the paper was filed as a
part of the pleadings before the trial
commenced and the stenographer's
transcript of the evidence as incorpor-
ated in the bill of exceptions shows
that the policy was read in evidence
and also shows a call directing the clerk
to copy the same. Eminent Household
of Columbian Woodmen v, Howie, 109
Ark. 400, 160 S. W. 238.
Papers similarly marked. — A reference
in a bill of exceptions to a paper as
containing the evidence adduced on
the trial, suffices to incorporate in It
two batches of transcribed evidence,
bearing the same marks of identifica-
tion and obviously heard in tne same
trial. Marshall r. Stalnaker, 70 W. Va.
394, 74 S. E. 48.
316-80 Alabama Terminal R. Co. 9.
^enns (Ala.), 66 S. 589. See Conti-
nental G. Co. t7. Milbrat, 10 Ala. App.
351, 65 S. 425.
Where bine print is not identified as
having been received in evidence or
filed with clerk of court it will be dis-
regarded. McFarland v. Oregon Elec.
R. Co., 70 Or. 27, 138 P. 458.
238
mLLS OF EXCEPTIONS
Vol 4
315-81 By whom identified.— Papers
which show that they were identified
and made exhibits to a deposition by
the notary public taking same, need
not be identified or authenticated by a
chancellor or trial judge in order to
permit their incorporation into a bill of
exceptions. Great Eastern Casualty Co.
1?. Parsons (Tenn.), 177 S. W. 937.
316-83 Martinez v. Gutierrez's
Heirs (Tex. Civ.), 172 S. W. 766.
316-84 Brown v. S. (Ala. App.), 66
S. 829; McLaughUn v, S. (Ark.), 174 S.
W. 234; Thompson v. Miller (Ind.), 107
N. E. 74; S. V. Hamilton (Mo.), 172 S.
W. 593; Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Graham
(Tex. Civ.), 174 S. W. 297; Texas & P.
B. Co. 17. Hall (Tex. Civ.), 173 S. W.
548; Gulf, etc. B. Co. v. Higginbotham
(Tex. Civ.), 173 S. W. 482; Williams v,
Phelps (Tex. Civ.), 171 S. W. *1100;
Gulf T. & W. By. Co. v. Dickey (Tex,
Civ.), 171 S. W. 1097; Horton v, Tex.
Midland B. B. (Tex. Civ.), 171 S. W.
1023; Cleburne St. By. Co. v, Barnes
(Tex. Civ.), 168 S. W. 991; Batliff v.
Meadows, 116 Va. 975, 83 S. E. 395.
See St. Louis Southwestern By. Co. v,
Wadsack (Tex. Civ.), 166 S. W. 42. See
also 2 Standard Proc. 280, 359.
Chsagea requested. — "Where there is
no statement in the bill of exceptions
proper showing that the charges were
requested in writing as that they were
either given or refused by the court,
the charges can not be reviewed." An-
derson 17. Anniston Electric & Gas Co.,
11 Ala. App. 560, 66 S. 925.
316-85 Willey v. Herrett, 66 Or. 348,
133 P. 630.
Instmctlons are not prox^erly Identified
where they are referred to by number
only and no numbered instructions are
in the record. Harris v. Bremerton
(Wash.), 147 P. 638.
318-87 Ikumfflcient recital. — ^The fol-
lowing recital in a bill of exceptions
is not sufficient to include in the bill
the instructions referred to: *' defend-
ants moved the court to give the jury
instructions marked 1, 2, 3 and 4 (see
page for instructions.) ' ' Mudd v.
Shroader, 152 Ky. 696, 154 S. W. 21.
318-89 Cornell-Andrews S. Co. V.
Boston & P. B. Corp., 215 Mass. 381,
102 N. E. 625. See Wise, Boles & Bow-
doin V. Fuller (Ala. App.), 66 S. 827.
319-91 Within vbat time.— Court
cannot incorporate in the record its
findings of fact and conclusions of law
after the time allowed by law for fil-
ing them by attaching the same to a
bill of exceptions taken to his failure
to sooner find and file them. Hanks V.
Holt (Tex. Civ.), 148 S. W. 599.
319-92 Bemarkfl of connsel must be
incorporated in bill of exceptions or
they will not be considered on appeal.
St. Paul, etc. Ins. Co. v, Kendle, 163
Ky. 146, 173 S. W. 373. Prejudicial re-
marks of prosecuting attorney, made on
the voir dire examination of jurors can-
not be considered, unless the examina-
tion is preserved in the bill of excep-
tions. S. V, Morris (Mo.), 172 S. W.
603. But counsel's remarks are prop-
erly in the bill of exceptions in so far
as error is assigned upon or grew out of
them. P. 1?. Chytraus, 183 111. 190, 55
N. E. 666; L. C. Smith & Bros. Type-
writer Co. V, Blakemore, 183 111. App.
14.
Befusal to allow case to be argued
should be pointed out by a bill of ex-
ceptions. Campbell v, Chitwood (Ky.),
176 S. W. 36.
Incorporating statements of Jurors.
The declaration of counsel that he de-
sired the record to show that certain
statements of fact had been made by
certain jurors did not, without more, in-
corporate such statemests as facts in
the record. Denver City Tramway Co.
f?. Carson, 21 Colo. App. 604, 123 P.
680.
320-93 Louisville & N. B. Co. v, Mc-
Mullen, 5 Ala. App. 662, 59 S. 683;
Colorado Midland By. Co. -p. Edwards,
24 Colo. App. 350, 134 P. 248; St. Al-
bans Granite Co. v, Elwell & Co. (Vt.),
92 A. 974.
ITotwithstanding the biU recites that it
contains all the evidence, yet if it con-
tains other statements affording a rea-
sonable inference that admits of a dif-
ferent conclusion that construction un-
favorable to the party excepting will
be adopted. Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron
Co. V, Bedd, 6 Ala. App. 404, 60 S. 468.
321-98 P. V. Northern Trust Co., 266
111. 139, 107 N. E. 190; Thomas Bros. v.
St. Louis & S. F. B. Co. (Mo. App.),
173 S. W. 96; West i?. McDonald, 67 Or.
551, 136 P. 650; Eaton v. Oregon By. &
Nav. Co., 22 Or. 497, 30 P. 311; Shaw
V, Garrison (Tex. Civ.), 174 S. W. 942;
Sanger v. First Nat. Bank (Tex. Civ.),
170 S. W. 1087; Stone & Webster En-
gineering Corp. V. Goodman (Tex. Civ.),
167 S. W. 10; St. Louis Southwestern
239
Vol. 4
BILLS OF EXCEPTIONS
Ry. Co. V. Wadsack (Tex. Civ.i, IW S.
W. 42.
Oommlngllng exceptions. — ^Where sev-
eral exceptions are included in each bill
they will not be considered. Citizens'
Mnt. Fire Ins. Co. v, Conowingo Bridge
Co., 116 Md. 422, 82 A. 872; Junkins 17.
Sullivan, 110 Md. 539, 73 A. 264; Tall
V. Steam Packet Co., 90 Md. 248, 44 A.
1007, 47 L. E. A. 120.
Transcript of proceedings and evidence
is not a proper bill of exceptions. Hoag
V. Washington-Oregon Corp. (Or.), 144
P. 574; Willis f?. Horticultural Fire Be-
lief (Or.), 137 P. 761; West t?. McDon-
ald, 67 Or. 551, 136 P. 650; Eaton v,
Oregon By. & Nav. Co., 22 Or. 497, 30
P. 311; 8. I?. Murray, 11 Or. 413, 5 P.
55.
A bill of exceptions, to be suiBlcient,
shoiild p9 complete witbin itself, ex-
cept where the statute permits a refer-
ence to other parts of the record for a
statement of the facts necessary to a
proper explanation of the ruling to be
reviewed. Padgett v, Gulfport Fertil-
izer Co., 11 Ala. App. 366, 66 S. 866;
Texas & P. By. Co. v. Ha» (Tex. Civ.),
173 S. W. 548.
Logical arraagementw — ^The fact that
certain recitals appear in the wrong
place in the biU of exceptions is imma-
terial. Thomas Bros. t*. St. Louis & S.
F. B. Co. (Mo. App.), 173 S. W. 96.
822-99 Dennis v. Waterford Pack.
Co. (Me.), 93 A. 58.
Motion for a new trial— Wherre the bill
of exceptions states an exception to
the overruling of a motion for a new
trial, it will suffice if the language used
is the same as that of the court in its
order. Nolan r. Metropolitan St. B.
Co., 250 Mo. 602, 157 S. W. 637.
323-1 Bosenheim Shoe Co. f>. Home,
10 Ga. 582, 73 S. E. 953 (bill of excep-
tions held to sufficiently disclose the
parties to it); Huffman v, Thompson,
177 Ind. 366, 93 N. E. 113.
Labeled a memonuidiim of ezci^tlons.
The fact that the instrument is im-
properly labeled a memorandum of ex-
ceptions is immaterial if it is properly
settled as a bill of exceptions. Ward
tJ. Pittsburg Silver Peak Gold Min. Co.
(Nev.), 143 P. 119.
A transcript not styled a bill of excep-
tions cannot be considered for that pur-
pose even though the judge certified it
as containing all the evidence at the
trial save certain exhibits. Litscher v.
Alexander, 68 Or. 369, 136 P. 847.
824-4 Copper Biver By. Co. v.
Beeder, 211 Fed. 280, 127 C. C. A. 648;
Meek v. Chicago By. Co., 183 Dl. App.
256.
324-10 Antrey v. S. (Ala.), 67 8.
237; 8. V. Powell, 184 Ala. 46, 63 S.
542; Marshall u. Stalnaker, 70 W. Va.
394, 74 S. E. 48; Tracy's Admx. v. Car-
ver Coal Co., 57 W. Va. 587, 50 S. E.
825.
327-15 Code Civ. Proc, §650; HaT-
baugh V, Lassen Irr. Co., 24 Cal. App.
773, 142 P. 847.
A notation by tbe deik of court in a
criminal case that the defendant excep-
ted and reserved a bill cannot be con-
sidered a bill of exceptions. S. v, Brad-
ley, 136 La. 55, 66 S. 395.
32S-19 St^ulfttion. — Parties may
agree upon bill when correctness is at-
tested by counsel for both sides and in-
dorsed on bill. Houck Piano Co. V.
Primm, 112 Ark. 80, 164 S. W. 1138.
328-20 McDonough V. Blossom, 109
Me. 141, 83 A. 323.
Date of presentation. — ^Bequirement of
Code, 1907, §3019 that bill must show
date of presentation to the trial judge
is mandatory. Box v. Southern B. Co..
184 Ala. 598, 64 S. 69.
328-21 Moultrie v, Tarpio, 147 Cal.
876, 81 P. 1112.
Delay of reporter. — ^If the reporter is
unable to prepare the bill within the
proper time, the appellant should pre-
pare ''a bill of exceptions in the case
as if there had not been a stenographer
therein." Yazoo & M. V. B. Co. r.
Dampeer (Miss.), 66 S. 814.
328-23 Cato f. Crystal Ice Co.
(Miss.), 67 S. 155.
330-24 Flatter v. S. (Ind.), 107 K.
£. 9.
331-27 St. Louis Southwestern By.
Co. V. Wadsack (Tex. Civ.), 166 S. W.
42.
831-28 Missouri B. Co. t> . Beed, 110
Ark. 296, 161 S. W. 192; Ward r. Pitts-
burg, etc. Co. (Nov.), 143 P. 119; Pal-
mer V, Allen, 18 N. M. 237, 135 P. 1173;
Texas Midland B. B. v, Becker & Cole
(Tex. Civ.), 171 S. W. 1024; Moore t?.
Harrison, 114 Va. 424, 76 S. E. 920.
331^^ Thompson r. Alexander City
Cotton Mills Co. (Ala.), 67 8. 407;
Cerny v. Glos, 2C1 111. 331, 103 N. E.
240
BILLS OF EXCEPTIONS
Vol.4:
973; Proctor Coal Co. r. Strunk, 28 Ky.
L. R. 241, 89 S. W. 145; Groaa v. Wood,
117 Md. 362, 83 A. 337, Ann. Cas. 1914A,
30; S. V, District Court (Mont.), 148 P.
383; Texas Midland B. B. r. Bay (Tex.
Civ.), 168 S. W. 1013; Boyal Ins. Co.
V. Walker Lumb. Co. (Wyo.), 148 P.
340.
Ministerial act.— << The settling of a
bill of exceptions is not a judicial but
a ministerial act." Bichmond v, Enochs
(Miss.), 67 S. 649.
Stipalating improper bill. — The judge
is required only to sign a bill of excep-
tions which he deems a proper bill and
he is not bound by the stipulation of
the parties that a bill which is im-
proper, should be settled. National
Council V, McGinn, 70 Or. 457, 138 P.
493.
332-30 The pfesiding Judge is the
proper party to allow and sign the bill
where the court consists of a presid-
ing judge and assistant judges. Meek
t?. Chicago By. Co., 183 111. App. 256;
Dwire V, Dwire, 86 Vt. 474, 86 A. 164.
332-81 P. V. Bosenwald, 266 HI. 548,
107 N. £. 854; Meek r. Chicago By. Co.,
183 III. App. 256; Southall v. Evans, 114
Va. 461, 76 S. E. 929, 43 L. B. A. (N.
8.) 468.
TlM sDCceMor of a J«dg» may be au-
thorized by statute to allow and sign
the bill. Goardian Assur. Co. v. Quin-
tana, 227 U. 8. 100, 33 Sup. Ct. 236, 57
L. ed. 437; Farley v, Welch, 237 Mo.
128, 140 8. W. 875; S. v. Gibson, 187 Mo.
536, 554, 86 8. W. 177; Pcnn v, Beber,
153 Mo. App. 219, 132 S. W. 627; Ban-
ney v. Hammond Pack. Co., 132 Mo.
App. 324, 327, 110 S. W. 613. The stat-
ute of Missouri ($2032, Bev. 8t., 1909)
provides that: "In any case where the
judge who heard the cause shall go out
of office before signing the bill of ex-
ceptions, such bill, if agreed to be true
by the parties to the action, or their
attorneys, or shown to the judge to be
correct, shall be signed by the succeed-
ing or acting judge of the court where
the case was heard." S. r. Flick, 179
Mo. App. 236, 166 8. W. 893.
BedtalB In a blU of ezceptioiu cannot
be considered where signed by a judge
who did not try the case, where there
is nothing in the record to show that
the judge who tried the case was by
reason of death, sickness or other dis-
ability unable to sign it. Greenberg r.
{"arsons, 184 111. App. 434.
334-34 Befexee has autborlty^— De.
laney v. Gubbins, 181 Ind. 188, 104 N.
E. 13.
HlB authority ts co-eztenBive with the
period of his appointment, and the reg<.
ular judge is the proper one to sign
and allow the bill after the expiration
of such period. Aetna Indemnity Co. r.
Clay Co., 49 Ind. App. 438, 97 N. E. 562,
334-36 S. V. District Court, 50 Mont.
585, 148 P. 383; Polidoro i;. Victoria
Mills (B. I.), 84 A. 739.
335-38 Kates T. & W. Co. v. Klas-
sen, 6 Ala. App. 301, 59 8. 355; South-
ern Lumber Co. v. Lowe (Ark.), 176 S.
W. 165; Ky. Civ. Code Pr., 1334;
Stearns Coal & Lumber v. C, 163 Ky.
837, 174 8. W. 7n.
In MleMiiri the bill of exceptions may
be allowed by the trial court, or tho
judge thereof in vacation and filed in
such court, or with the clerk thereof
in vacation, at any time before the ap-
pellant shall be required by the rules
of such appellate courts to serve his
abstract of the record. Schafer v, Bob-
erts, 166 Mo. App. 68, 148 8. W. 393.
In Or^on no time is fixed by statute
within which a circuit judge may sign
a bill of exceptions or denying his
right to sign it after the term. West
V. McDonald (Or.), 144 P. 655, quot.
Che Gong v. Stearns, 16 Or. 219, 17 P.
871.
Before final Judgment. — Weil v. Federal
Life Ins. Co:, 264 111. 425, 106 N. E.
246.
336-39 Necessity for diligence^— The
right to have such entry made nunc
pro tune depends upon the diligence
shown by the party seeking it. Len-
gelsen t\ McGregor, 162 Ind. 258, 70 N.
E. 248; Ladoga Canning Co. v. Cory-
don Canning Co., 52 Ind. App. 23, 98
N. E. 849.
337-41 Wyss-Thalman v. Maryland
Casualty, 193 Fed. 53, 113 C. C. A. 383;
Knights of Pythias v. Bond, 109 Ark.
543, 160 S. W. 862; Burke v. White, 141
Ga. 72, 80 S. E. 311; Johnson v. Georgia
Fertilizer & Oil Co., 13 Ga. App. 784,
79 S. E. 1131; Behrensmoyer v. Gwinn,
25 Ida. 186, 136 P. 623; Worthy r. Bush,
160 111. App. 70; Taylor v, Schradsky,
178 Ind. 217, 97 N. E. 790; S. r. Coley,
163 Mo. App. 471, 143 S. W. 850;
Shetin r. Eastwood, 32 S. D. 95, 142
N. W. 176; Hanks V. Holt (Tex. Civ.),
148 S. W. 599.
Settlement after expiration of time foi;
HI
Vol. 4
BILLS OF EXCEPTIONS
appeal. — The bill may be settled after
the expiration of the time for appeal.
Sorg V. Wells, 31 S. D. 432, 141 N. W.
384; Juckett v. Fargo Merc. Co., 18 S.
, D. 347, 100 N. W. 742.
Delay caused by loss of the bill in mail.
Where a party's failure to present the
bill in time is caused by its being lost
in the mail after being sent to the clerk
in due time, the court will un motion
relieve the party of the omission. Long
V. Long, 162 Cal. 427, 122 P. 1077.
An act empowering the appellate court
to cure defects in the record does not
apply to bills of exceptions not pre-
sented in time. Moore f?. Harrison, 114
Va. 424, 76 S. E. 920.
The settlement of s bill of exceptions
Is a "proceeding" within the meaning
of a code provision giving the court
power to relieve a party to a proceed-
ing from failure to perform an act
within the time Required, where such
failure is brought about by inadvert-
ence, surprise or excusable neglect.
Kramm t?. Stockton Electric By. Co., 22
Cal. App. 761, 136 P. 523.
837-42 P. V. Ellsworth, 261 HI. 275,
103 K E. 1005; Iltzgerald v. James,
160 Til. App. 434; Lampton v. Johnson,
40 Okla. 492, 139 P. 526.
At a special session after term. — The
bill presented at a special session of
the court held after the term has ex-
pired, is too late. Boyd v, Kellog, 121
Md. 42, 88 A. 30.
Filing during adjournment of court.
The filing of bills of exception during
an adjournment is proper. City of Hen-
derson V. Kentucky, etc. Distilling Co.,
161 Ky. 1, 170 S. W. 210.
338-46 Oppenheimer v. Badke & Co.,
165 Cal. 220, 131 P. 365; Hurt v. Barnes,
140 Ga. 743, 79 8. E. 775.
Within thirty days after term^ — Sell f.
Turner, 138 Ga. 106, 74 S. E. 783; Bran-
flon V. Akers, 134 Ga. 78, 67 S. E. 540;
Crawford v. Goodwin, 128 Ga. 134, 57
S E. 240; Heery v. Burkhalter, 113 Ga.
1043, 39 S. E. 406; Carter v. Johnson,
112 Ga. 494, 37 S. E. 736; Dietz v,
Fahy, 107 Ga. 325, 33 S. E. 51; Huff v.
JVantley, 66 Ga. 599; Forsyth v, Preer,
t?i Ga. 281.
338-48 No written notice of decision
is necessary where the party himself
procured the findings of fact, conclu-
sions of law and judgment and filed
the same with the clerk. Henry v.
Meade County Bank of Sturges, 32 S.
D. 298, 142 N. W. 1130.
338-51 Early & Co. i\ Maxwell, 103
Ark. 589, 148 S. W. 496.
339-53 Time until certain day.
When time is given as above, to file a
bill, it may be filed during that day.
District of Columbia v, Tyrrell, 41 App.
Cas. (D. C.) 113.
339-64 A bill presented within sUt-
utory period after Judgment on motion
for new trial may be considered only
for the purpose of revising the motion
for new trial. McLeod V, Flournoy, 3
Ala. App. 547, 67 S. 630.
339-55 Cleveland, C. C. & St. L. By.
Co. V, Quinn, 54 Ind. App. 11, 101 N.
E. 406; Carter Coal Co. v. Clouse, 163
Ky. 337, 173 S. W. 794; Kennedy v.
Hub Mfg. Co. (Mass.), 108 N. E. 932;
Heck 17. Nason, 190 Mass. 346, 76 N.
E. 906; Conn v. Houston Oil Co. (Tex.
Civ.), 171 S. W. 520; Tooele Imp. Co. t?.
Hoffman, 43 Utah 532, 141 P. 744;
Bryant V. Kunkel, 32 Utah 377, 90 P.
1079; Colle V. Kewaunee, etc. R. Co.,
149 Wis. 96, 135 N. W. 536, court's
discretion in refusing to extend time
for filing the bill of exceptions held
properly exercised.
Such a statute is constitutional. — ^Tar-
nowski V, Lake Shore Ry. Co., 181 Ind.
202, 104 N. E. 16.
A Judge other than the trial Judge is
sometimes allowed to extend the time
for signing the bill, when the judge
who sat in the case cannot be reached
by reason of sickness, absence or other
sufficient cause. P. v, Rosenwald, 266
HI. 548, 107 N. E. 854; United R. & E.
Co. u. Dean, 117 Md. 686, 84 A. 75.
Consent of adyerse party. — ^The time
for presenting a bill of exceptions may
not be extended beyond ninety days
without the consent of the adverse
party. Kirk t?. Smith, 49 Mont. 196,
141 P. 149; Canning v. Fried, 48 Mont.
560, 139 P. 448.
340-56 Kennedy f?. Hub Mfg. Co.
(Mass.), 108 N. E. 932; Hack v. Nason,
190 Mass. 346, 76 N. E. 906; Hanne v.
Garvey, 255 Mo. 106, 164 S. W. 210;
Louisiana-Rio Grande Canal Co. 17.
Quinn (Tex. Civ.), 160 S. W. 151; Tooele
Imp. Co. V. Hoffman, 44 Utah 532, 141
P. 744; Butter V, Lamson, 29 Utah 439,
82 P. 473.
No waiver by failure to appear and
object. — Where a bill is settled and
filed after the time has expired, th^
242
BILLS OF EXCEPTIONS
Vol. 4
adverse party does not waive his right
to object by failing to appear and ob-
ject within ten days after notice of the
filing is served upon the clerk. Sorg
r. Wells, 31 S. D. 432, 141 N. W. 384.
Waiver of fixing of new time for set-
tlement.— The adverse party may waive
the fixing of a new time for settle-
ment either by express stipulation or
by subsequent action. If the adverse
party appeared and asked for a correc-
tion of the bill of exceptions, or pro-
posed amendments thereto, or served a
reply brief based on such bill of ex-
ceptions, it might constitute a waiver.
Porg V. Wells, 31 S. D. 432, 141 N. W.
384.
Proceeding to revive time for procnre-
ment of bllL — After the time, as fixed
by statute or as further allowed by
court, for the procurement and filing
of the transcript has been permitted to
expire a party can revive such time
only by proceeding on motion, sup-
ported by affidavit, showing good
cause therefor, and on at least six
days' notice to the opposite party.
Sorg r. Wells, 31 S. D. 432, 141 N. W.
3S4.
TTnlesB some good cause exist and can
be shown. Sorg i\ Wells, 32 S. B. 157,
142 N. W. 179.
340-58 Lupton v. Underwood, 3
Boyce (Del.) 519, 85 A. 965.
Consent order. — ^The court has no
power after the term to extend the
time for filing the bill by a consent
order. Moore t?. Harrison, 114 Va. 424,
76 S. E. 920.
Order made at snbseqnent temu — ^The
court may by orders made at a subse-
quent term of the court extend the
time within which to present the bill.
Shepherd V. McEvoy (Tex. Civ.), 144 S.
W. 285.
341-60 Judge lias power In vacation,
with consent of the parties, to make
an order extending the time within
which to file a bill of exceptions. Pecos
ft N. T. R. Co. t?. Cox, 105 Tex. 40, 143
S. W. 606, 157 S. W. 745. But not
where the time has already expired.
Smyer v. Pt. Worth & D. C. By. (Tex.
Civ.), 143 S. W. 683.
341-61 Mere agreements of counsel
cannot impose upon the judge the duty
nf making or approving a statement of
facts and bill of exceptions. Harris v,
f'amp (Tex. Civ.), 148 S. W. 597.
$42-63 Extending time for filing bill
of exceptions is within the sound dis-
cretion of the trial court. Breen v, Ken-
nedy, 158 Wis. 48, 147 N. W. 996.
342-64 Necessity of affidavit show-
ing caosow — The rule requires cause to
be shown on affidavit, on special mo-
tion, after notice. Northern Assur. Co.
r. Circuit Judge, 169 Mich. 238, 135 N.
W. 104.
342-6S Virginia rule.— -Code, 1904,
§3385, provides if time of signing is
postponed beyond thirty days consent
to that effect must be entered on rec-
ord as part of final order of court,
otherwise the exception is not well
taken and the bill is no part of record,
and when no memorandum of consent
is entered a bill filed after the thirty
days is not properly certified. The
fact of consent cannot be shown by a
nunc pro tunc order. Batliff f?. Mead-
ows, 116 Va. 975, 83 S. E. 395.
343-66 Gross v. Wood, 117 Md. 362,
83 A. 337, Ann. Cas. 1914A, 30. Contra,
Allen V, Garner (Utah), 143 P. 228.
344-69 Lamb v. Pate, 4 Ala. App.
628, 58 S. 943; S. V. Allen, 168 Mo. App.
463, 151 S. W. 756; Miller v. Miller, 36
Nev. 115, 134 P. 100; St. Germain V.
Bouchard, 36 R. I. 35, 88 A. 802; Ken-
dall V. Eossi (R. I.), 85 A. 922.
345-70 Missouri R. Co. r. Reed, 110
Ark. 296, 161 8. W. 192; Sea Ins. Co. «.
Fulk, 103 Ark. 503, 148 S. W. 251; P.
V. Chytraus, 183 ni. 190, 55 N. E. 666;
Hawes f?. P., 129 111. 123, 21 N. E. 777;
P. V. Jones, 103 HI. App. 189; S. v,
Youngberg, 70 Kan. 296, 78 P. 421- S.
c. Garner, 135 La. 746, 66 S. 181; Mc-
Namara v. Circuit Judge, 173 Mich. 602,
139 N. W.-876; Fern c. Reber, 153 Mo.
App. 219, 132 S. W. 627; Kubik v. Davis
(Or.), 147 P. 552; National Council t\
McGinn, 70 Or. 457, 138 P. 493; Maury
r. Keller (Tex. Civ.), 53 S. W. 59. See
Corby V. Mandell (Mich.), 152 N. W.
972,
That matters of which trial court took
Judicial notice were contained in the
bill is not a sufficient reason for refus-
ing to sign the bill. S. v. Allen, 168
Mo. App. 463, 151 8. W. 756.
346-73 S. 17. Allen, 168 Mo. App.
463, 151 S. W. 756.
347-76 S. V, Raynolds, 17 N. M. 662,
132 P. 249.
348-78 Mere failure to allow certain
exceptions contended for by petitioner
or to allow the statement without cor-
rections will not entitle petitioner to
843
Vol. 4
BILLS OF EXCEPTIONS
relief; the statute has application to
cases where the court refuses to settle
the statement or where there is no mode
provided by law for the settlement of
the same. Miller v. Miller, 36 Nev. 115,
134 P. 100.
349-82 Smalling v, Shaw, 144 Ky.
458, 139 S. W. 779.
"Bystanders" does not include attor-
neys for either party. Glover v. Pfeuf-
fer (Tex. Civ.), 163 S. W. 984.
When antlienticated by bystanders the
bill must show that it had been pre-
sented to the judge on the trial and
that he had refused to sign it and cer-
tified the cause of such refusal; further
the certificate of the bystanders must
show on its face that the persons sign-
ing were bystanders; that they were
present when the facts in dispute be-
tween themselves and the judge oc-
curred in court, and must point directly
to the matter in issue; moreover the
certificate must be given at the time
of the occurrence of tiie fact certified to
when the impression was formed from
such fact, without being liable to be
molded by the out of door opinions as
to what those facts were. Heiden-
heimer v. Thomas, 63 Tex. 287; Houston
V. Jones, 4 Tex. 170; Dehougne €. West-
em Union Tel. Co. (Tex. Civ.), 84 S.
W. 1066; Shook t?. Shook (Tex. Civ.),
145 S. W. 699.
340-83 Williams v. McCabe (Ark.),
171 S. W. 1194; Carnehan t?. Parker, 102
Ark. 439, 144 S. W. 907; Camelin v.
Smith, 53 Colo. 574, 128 P. 1125; North-
west Park Diet. t?. Hedenberg, 267 111.
^ 588, 108 N. E. 664 (where counsel stip-
ulated that certain judge should sign
' bill of exceptions) ; Indianapolis Out-
fitting Co. V, Brooks (Ind. App.), 108
N. E. 867; Caldwell v, Ulst (Ind. App.),
103 N. E. 879; S. t?. Garner, 135 La. 746,
66 S. 181; St. Louis Southwestern By.
Co. V. Wadsack (Tex. Civ.), 166 S. W.
42.
Signing ontflide the county.— -A judge of
a court of general jurisdiction has au-
thority co-extensive with the state and
may sign a bill of exceptions when be-
yond the limits of his county. Brue v.
McMillan, 175 Ala. 416, 57 S. 486.
860-84 Magill v. Brown, 98 HI. 235;
Caldwell v. TJlst (Ind. App.), 103 N. E.
879.
850-86 Cato v. Crystal Ice Co.
(Miss.), 67 S. 155.
350-86 Kowe r. Buttram, 180 Ala.
456, 61 S.258; Carnehan 17. Parker, 102
Ark. 439, 144 S. W. 907; Tishbeln v.
Paine, 52 Ind. App. 441, 100 N. E. 766;
Caldwell <?. Ulst (Ind. App.), 103 N. E.
879.
360-87 Tbe object of requiring the
Judge's elgnataie is to furnish a eer-
tain test of its accuracy and his cer-
tificate must be an unqualified state-
ment that the matters and things con-
tained therein are true. Carnekan v.
Parker, 102 Ark. 439, 144 S. W. 907;
Williams V. Griffith, 101 Ark. 84, 141
S. W. 495; Huff v. Citizens' Nat. Bank,
99 Ark. 97, 137 S. W. 802; Bailway t?.
Oyler, 61 Ark. 278, 10 S. W. 766.
851-89 See P. v, Bosenwald, 266 111.
548, 107 N. E. 864.
351-90 Hughes v. S. (Ala.), 66 S.
844; Williams €. McCabe (Ark.), 171 S.
W. 1194; Springfield f. Fulk, 96 Ark.
316, 131 S. W. 694: Denver V. Bubidge,
51 Colo. 224, 116 P. 1130; WUUams v.
P., 25 Colo. 251, 53 P. 509; Glasser v.
Hackett (Fla.), 20 S. 532; Mayo v, Hy-
note, 16 Fla. 673; Johnson 17. Tanner,
126 Ga. 718, 66 S. E. 80; Bailroad Com.
V. Palmer Hdw. Co., 124 Ga. 633, 53 S.
E. 193; Moore v. Kelly & Jones Co., 109
Ga. 798, 35 3. E. 168; Loud v. Pritehett,
104 Ga. 648, 30 S. E. 870; Jones v. S.,
100 Ga. 579, 28 S. E. 396; Lane V. Bob-
inson, 40 Ga. 467; Pennington v, Sparta
(Ga. App.), 82 S. E. 826; P. v. Bosen-
wald, 266 111. 548, 107 N. E. 854; Hill
Co. V, United States, etc. Co., 250 m.
242, 95 K. E. 150; CThaplin €. Illinois
Terminal B. Co., 227 HI. 166, 81 N. E.
15; Olds V, North Chicago St. B. Co.,
165 111. 472, 46 N. E. 446; West Chi-
cago St. B. Co. 1?. Morrison, Adams 4b
Allen Co., 160 HI. 288, 43 K. £. 893;
Ferris r. Commercial Nat. Bank, 158 IlL
237, 41 N. E. 1118; Magill V, Brown,
98 111. 235; Cooke Brewing Co. 9. Mitch-
ell, 177 111. App. 378; Foley v. Boyer,
153 111. App. 613; Provident Sav. L.
Assur. Soc. V. King, 117 111. App. 656;
Indianapolis & W. By. Co. c. Hill, 172
Ind. 402, 86 N. E. 414; Hamm tP. Bomine,
98 Ind. 77; Liverpool, etc. Ins. Co. V.
Kearney, 2 Ind. Ter. 67, 46 S. W. 414;
Smalling v. Shaw, 144 Ky. 458, 139 8.
W. 779; Proctor Coal Co. v. Strunk, 28
Ky. L. B. 241, 89 S. W. 145; Toner's
Admr. v. South Covington ft C. St. B.
Co., 22 Ky. L. B. 564, 68 S. W. 439;
Chenaut tJ. Quisenberry, 19 Ky. L. B.
1632, 43 S. W. 717; Cato V. Crystal Ice
Co. (Miss.), 67 8. 155; Buchanan v.
Louisiana Purchase Expo., 245 Mo. 337,
244
BILLS OF EXCEPTIONS
Vol 4
149 8. W. 26; Cincinnati Traction Co.
ff. Jtathman, 85 O. St. 62, 96 N. £. 1019,
Ann. Cas. 1913A, 911; (hirbade v. Larch
Mountain Inv. Co., 86 Or. 868, 59 P.
711; Harden V. Card, 14 Wto. 479, 85
P. 246,
"Kg tbne Is fixed by any ttatate in
this state within which a circuit judge
maj sign a bill of ezeeptions or deny-
ing hie light to sign it after the term.''
West «. McDenald (Or.), 144 P. 655,
quat, Che Qong v. Steami, 16 Or. 219,
17 P. 871.
CoBtnuy nde« — But eome Jurisdictions
hold that although the bill is presented
in time, failure of the judge to sign
the bill in time will Tender it invalid.
S. r. Toongberg^ 70 Kan. 296, 78 P.
421; Arnold v. Books (R. I.), 67 A.
420; Hartley r. Bhode Island Co., 28
B. L 157, 66 A. 63; Jones v, Burch, 3
Lea (Tenn.) 747, 749; Maury v. Keller
(Tex. Civ.), 53 S. W. 59; Anderson v.
C, 105 Va. 533, 64 8. E. 305.
PzoTisioDS are mamUtory which limit
the time within which the par^ except-
ing must file his bill of ezeepticn in
the cause; but ^e provisions defining
the duties of the clerk and of the trial
judges with respect to a bill of excep-
tions, which a party has so filed within
the time required are as to the time
of performance of such duties directory
merely. Pace r. Volk, 85 0. St. 413, 98
X. E. 111.
352-01 P. V. Bosenwald, 266 HI. 548,
107 N. E. 854.
Allen 17. Garner (Utoh), 143
P. 228; Metz v. Jackson, 43 Utah 496,
136 P. 784; Warnoek Insurance Agency
0. Investment Co., 35 Utah 542, 101 P.
699; Bryant v. Kunkel, 32 Utah 377, 90
P. 1079; Butter V. Lamson, 29 Utah 439,
82 P. 473; Virginia Beach D. Co. v.
Murray, 113 Va. 692, 75 S. £. 81. See
P. r. Bosenwald, 266 111. 548, 107 N. B.
854.
85S-9S Copper Biver By. Co. v,
Boeder, 211 Fed. 280, 127 C. C. A.
648; Houston v. Postell, 141 Oa. 792, 82
S. B. 148; Willey «. Herrett, 66 Or.
348, 133 P. 630; Gunter v. Merchant
(Tex. CSV.), 178 8. W. 191,
Sfi9^9fi Pye «. Pye, 141 Ga. 21, 80
8. £. 287; Texas is P. B. Co. v. Hall
(Tex. Civ.), 173 8. W. 648.
feflflteaejr of oectlfloattoar— Where it
appears from the bill that tiie oflicial
court stenographer certified that it con-
tained % ful, true aad complete tran-
script of all the testimony and that the
bill was O. K.'d by counsel for defend-
ant, the certificate of the judge to the
effect that the bill was tendered to
him with the request that the same be
signed and sealed and made a part of
the record ''all of which is accordingly
done," is sufficient. Gregorie v. Percy-
La Salle Min. & Power Co., 52 Colo.
495, 122 P. 785. A certificate reciting
that the bill of exceptions contains
''all the material facts, matters, and
proceedings occurring in the trial of
said cause not already a matter of rec-
ord therein," satisfies the statute
(Bern. & Ball. Code, §391). Globe Elec-
tric Co. i;. Montgomery (Wash.), 148
P. 596.
854-96 Contradicting certificate.— A
judge of the trial court cannot, after
verifying in his certificate to a bill of
exceptions a certain statement of facts,
within his knowledge, certify (by
means of an additional certificate at
the instance of the adverse party) that
such statement of facts, or some part
thereof, is not true. Langston r. Lang-
ston, 141 Ga. 675, 82 S. E. 36.
Dnty of Judge .before signing certificate.
"It is the duty of the judge of the
superior court to examine the bill of
exceptions and ascertain that it is true
as to matters the truth of which he
must certify, before, signing a certifi-
cate thereto." Langston v. Xiangston,
141 Ga. 675, 82 8. E. 36.
854-9T Tucumcari t?. Belmore, 18 N.
M. 331, 137 P. 585.
355-88 Order of referenced — ^If a
party is not content with the bill of
exceptions as settled by the trial judge,
his remedy is to make an application
to the appellate court for an order of
reference to have the question deter-
mined. Globe Electric Co. v, Montgom-
ery (Wash.), 148 P. 596.
355-2 Madison County i^. Maples, 103
Ark. 44, 145 S. W. 887; IndianapoHs
Outfitting Co. '17. Brooks (Ind. App.),
108 N. £. 867; Fairbanks v, Warrum
(Ind. App.), 104 N. E. 983.
Failnre to tender a bin of exoeptlonfl
vitliin time allowed will deprive party
of his right to have it filed and made
part of the record. Clark v. Wallace
Oil Co., 155 Ky. 836, 160 8. W. 506.
miere time is allowed for filing a bill
of eaEceptions, the bill should not only
be signed within the time but should
be filed with the clerk within the time
245
Vol. 4
niLLS OF EXCEPTIONS
80 allowed. Early & Co. v. Maxwell,
103 Ark. 5fl9, 148 8. W. 496.
Necessity of prior filing. — By statute it
is sometimes required that the bill of
exceptions he filed with the clerk prior
to its allowance by the trial judge. St.
Germain i;. Bouchard, 36 B. I. 35, 88
A. 802.
857-5 In Missonri the bill may be
filed at any time before the appellant
shall be required to serve his abstract
of the record. Grouch v. Heffner, 171
S. W. 23.
After expiration of trial Jndge's term.
If the bill of exceptions is signed by
the judge within his term it may be
filed after his term expires. Blake v.
De Jonghe Hotel & B. Co., 260 III. 348^
103 N. E. 225, Ann. Cas. 1914D, 365.
357-8 Harper v. Daniels^ 211 Fed.
57, 129 C. C. A. 242; Williams t\ Mc-
Cabe (Ark.), 171 S. W. 1194; Trustees
of Schools V, Griffith, 263 HI. 550, 105
N. E. 760; Farabee v, .Warren (Tnd.
App.), 108 N. E. 868; Jensen 17. Lichten-
stein (Utah), 145 P. 1036; Hotel Ver-
mont Co. 17. Cosgriff (Vt.), 94 A. 496.
If the bill is tendered in* time it is suffi-
cient. Flatter <?. S. (Ind.), 107 N. E.
9.
A law limiting time of filing a bill of
ezceptions does not apply to a case in
which tiiie time of filing has expired
prior to its enactment. Ottumwa B. Co.
V. Corrigan, 251 Mo. 667, 158 S. W. 39.
Effect of motion for new triaL — A bill
of exceptions filed within three months
after denial of motion for new trial
but beyond three months of the time
judgment was rendered will be consid-
ered only in connection with the re-
viewal of the motion for new trial.
Ewart Lumb. Co. v. American C. P. Co.,
9 Ala. App. 152, 62 S. 560.
Filing nimc pro tunc— "Where a bill
of exceptions is presented to and signed
by the trial judge within the time
given for its filing and the attorney
negligently fails to file it within that
time, it does not become a part of the
record, and should be stricken from
the files. . . . But where the failure
to file it within the time is not due to
such neglect, but is due to circum-
stances over which he has no control,
it is the proper practice for the trial
court to order it to be filed nunc pro
tune as of the proper time. Meek v,
Chicago By. Co., 183 HI. App. 256. And
see Bigley v. Sweet, 185 HI. App. 202.
In criminal cases a bill of exceptions
not filed within time permitted by law
may be considered when there has been
no fault or negligence on part of de-
fendant. Solis V, S. (Tex. Cr.), 174 S.
W. 343.
357-9 Hardin t?. Boberts Cotton Oil
Co., 187 Mo. App. 728, 173 S. W. 37.
358-12 Presentment to clerk.— A biU
delivered in due time to clerk with re-
quest to file and received by him is
filed though there is no file mark nor
record entry. S. €. Turner, 177 Mo.
App. 454, 163 S. W. 951.
35d-13 See Williams v. MeCabe
(Ark.), 171 8. W. 1194.
359-10 Harbaugh t?. Lassen Irr. Co.,
24 Cal. App. 773, 142 P. 847.
359-17 On solicitor generaL — ^Where
case was tried in a city court and eer-*
tiorari taken to superior court, and
upon overruling of certiorari, the bill
of exceptions should have been served
on solicitor general of the circuit court
instead of on city court. Mahaffey v,
S. (Ga. App.), 83 S. £. 795; McDonald
V. Ludowici, 3 Ga. App. 654, 60 S. E.
337.
300-19 Service by mailing a copy.
''If service of bills of exceptions gen-
erally were permitted to be made by
mailing a copy to counsel, it would
doubtless frequently happen that cases
would be heard in this court without
any knowledge on the part of the liti-
gant or counsel interested in sustaining
the judgment. Presley t?. Jones, 139
Ga. 814, 78 S. E. 126. See also Albrit-
ton V. Tygart, 139 Ga. 231, 77 S. E.
28, 45 L. B. A. (N. S.) 750. Service
by registered mail receipted by agent
of counsel, nothing else appearing, is
not sufficient. Gorman v. Central By.
Co., 141 Ga. 125, 80 S. E. 553. But
service by mail is proper in case of a
non-resident of the state who is not
represented by counsel upon whom
service may be had. Presley v. Jones,
139 Ga. 814, 78 S. £. 126.
360-20 Murphy v, Gould, 39 App.
Cas. (D. C.) 363.
360-21 Waiver of right to object.
A party who accepts a bill of excep-
tions served too late and asks for time
in which to serve amendments, waives
the right to object to the delay. Kramm
r. Stockton Electric B. Co., 22 Cal. App.
761, 136 P. 523.
360-22 Insnfllcient ezcose for delay.
A showing upon affidavit by defendant
246
iSILLS OF EXCEPTIONS
Vol. 4
that he did Hoi know a proposed bill
of exceptions should be served on the
adverse party within ten days and that
he expected to compromise the case
and avoid the expense of appeal, does
not establish such a case of inadvert-
ence or excusable neglect as will en-
title him to relief from his failure to
aerve the bill in time. Oppenheimer
r. Radke & Co., 165 Cal. 220, 131 P. 365.
Conaent of advene party is necessary.
Kramm v. Stockton E. B. Co., 22 Cal.
App. 737, 136 P. 523.
361-25 Acknowledgment of senrlce
upon a bill of exceptions is complete
waiver of all defects in the service
which the counsel signing it is legally
competent to waive, unless counsel in
the entry of acknowledgment distinctly
and specifically states that it is not to
be construed as waiving some particu-
lar defect then pointed out bv him.
Acta 1911, p. 149; Mitchell Automobile
Co. V. McDaniel (Ga.), 85 S. E. 635; J.
A. Cook & Son V. Parsons (Oa.), 84 S.
E. 559.
An entry of aervlce by the sheriff can-
not give validity to a void bill of ex-
ceptions and an acknowledgment of
aervice merely takes the place of serv-
ice and entry of service by the sheriff,
and is evidence that the physical paper
was served. Toole v. Geer, 12 Ga. App.
409, 77 S. E, 368.
861-29 Neville v. Miller (Tex. Civ.),
171 S. W. 1109.
362-30 Objections to the form and
stractnre of the biU of exceptions
should be addressed to the trial judge
whose function it is to settle the terms
of such document. Bedsecker v. Wade,
69 Or. 153, 134 P. 5, 138 P. 485.
Where the trial Jndge is misled Into
signing the bill of exceptions, the prop-
er proceeding is to have it corrected in
the trial court; the appellate court has
no power to change it upon affidavit of
the trial judge. Neville V, Miller (Tex.
Civ.), 171 S. W. 1109.
363-33 Scott V. American Zinc, L.
ft Smelt. Co., 187 Mo. App. 344, 173 S.
W. 23.
364-34 Cemy <?. Glos, 261 111. 331,
103 N. E. 973; Stockgrowers ' Bank v.
Gray (Wyo.), 144 P. 294; Callahan v.
Houck, 14 Wyo. 201, 83 P. 372.
365-35 Hayes v. Hayes, 137 Ga. 362,
73 S. E. 659.
Description of plaintiffs in the caption
of a bill of exceptions may be amended
as to the names of all the plaintiffs.
Thompson v. Simmons & Co., 139 Ga.
845, 78 S. E. 419.
Order extending time within which to
file the bill of exceptions may by proper
application to the trial court be amend-
ed nunc pro tunc so as to embraee
other parties inadvertently omitted.
Norris V. St. Louis, I. ft M. ft 6, B. Co.,
239 Mo. 695, 144 S. W. 783.
365-37 Substitution of lost bllL— A
second bill of exceptions substituted
for a lost one which had been signed
and filed, is ineffectual where the sub-
stitution is made without proper pro-
ceedings for that purpose instituted on
notice to the adverse party. S. u. Pow-
ell, 184 Ala. 46, 63 S. 542.
369-50 Mclntire v. Carr, 168 Mich.
462, 134 N. W. 452.
369-53 Nelms v. S. (Ark.), 174 S.
W. 233; Green v. S., 96 Ark. 175, 131 S.
W. 463, Ann. Cas. 1912B, 279; English
V. English (Ind.), 107 N. E. 547.
Appellate court has no Jurisdiction
where the bill of exceptions is not filed
in time. Houston f^. Strachen ft Co., 13
Ga. App. 582, 79 S. E. 495.
Modifying rule of trial courts— There is
no power in the appellate court to
change or repeal the trial court's mles
as to bills of exceptions. Boyd v. Kel-
log, 121 Md. 42, 88 A. 30.
Setting out the evidence in eztenso con-
trary to a statutory provision is ground
for striking out the bill. Irby v» Kaig-
ler, 6 Ala. App. 91, 60 S. 418.
370-54 Turner r. Thornton (Ala.),
68 S. 813; Deason v. Gray (Ala.), 66
S. 646; Buck Lumber Co. 17. Nelson
(Ala.), 66 S. 476; Boss v. Central of
Georgia By. Co. (Ala. App.), 68 S. 512
(not presented to trial judge for signa-
ture within time allowed); Owens v, S.
(Ala. App.), 66 S. 852; Trustees of
Schools V. Griffith, 263 111. 550, 105 N.
E. 760; Beaule v. Acme Finishing Co.,
36 B. I. 74, 89 A. 73; Henderson v. S.
(Tex. Cr.), 172 S. W. 793; Dayton r.
Free (Utah), 148 P. 408; Metz v. Jack-
son, 43 Utah 496, 136 P. 784.
370*56 Lamson v. Andrews, 40 App.
Cas. (D. C.) 39.
370-58 P. V, Bosenwald, 266 HI. 548,
107 N. E. 854. .
370-59 Exceptions pendente lite.
Where a direct bill of exceptions to a
judgment discharging a rule to make a
person defendant is dismissed because
247
rot. 4
BILLS OF PARTICULARS
prematurely bronghty the plaintiff in
error may file the official eopy of the
biU of exceptions, as exceptions pend-
ente lite. Workingmen 's Union Assn.
V. Beynolds, 138 Ga. 128, 74 S. E. 838.
371-60 Motion to b« mads in trial
court. — ^A motion to quash a bill of ex-
ceptions should be made in trial oourt,
where the bill settled and filed out of
time is settled before serTice of notice
of appeal. Sorg v. Wells, 31 S. D. 432,
141 N. W. 384.
87I.-63 Be Joannis v. Domestic Eng.
Co., 185 HI. App. 271.
Settled, signed and flledi— Hall «. Boyal
Neighbors, 231 lU. 185, 83 N. £. 145;
Tucker v. Flouring Mills Oo., 15 Or.
581, 16 P. 426. Signed* sealed and filed.
Cook's Est. f?. Fiedler, 24 Colo. Ap:).
544, 135 P. 1109. Approved, signed and
filed. Thaler r. Niedermeyer, 185 Mo.
App. 250, 170 S. W. 383.
371-64 In Texas it is not necessary
for the judge to order the bill of excep-
tions filed as part of the record. The
statute requires the clerk to file it,
and, when so filed, it is by force of the
statute made a part of the record. San-
§er r. First Nat. Bank (Tex. Civ.), 170
. W. 1087.
BIZiIiS OF PABTIOlTLABft
376-16 Groves r. McLaurin, 66 Pla.
230, 68 8. 439^ Kaufman v. Hopper, 151
App. Div. 28, 135 N. Y. S. 363.
It OKiniot aid pleading so as to entitle
plaintiff to judgment on pleadings.
Lewis «. City Bealty Co., 168 App. Div.
733, 143 N. T. S. 1026.
376-17 S. V, HargiB, 85 Kan. 873,
118 P. 699; S. V. Hewitt, 131 La. 115,
59 S. 34; S. v. Boone, 65 Wash. 331, 118
P. 46.
377-26 WatkiuB v. Cope, 84 N. J.
L. 143, 86 A. 545.
378-33 Kraus & Co. r. Mayer, 150
App. Div. 122, 134 N. Y. S. 694.
378-36 Patterson f . Corn Exchange,
197 Fed. 686; Kraus & Co. t?. Mayer,
150 App. Div. 122, 134 N. Y. S. 694;
Frost t?. International Bubber Co. (B.
L), 93 A. 641.
378-36 Watkins v. Cope, 84 N. J.
L. 143, 86 A. 545; Frost v. International
Bubber Co. (B. t), 93 A. 641.
378-37 Curtie f. Phelps, 209 Fed.
261; S. 17. Byan, 131 La. 1054, 60 S.
681; S. V. Boone, 65 Wash. 331, 118 P.
46.
37d-38 Curtis c. Phelps, 209 Fed,
261; Atlantic Works f?. U. S., 46 Ct. CI.
(U. S.) 57; Scanlon r. Wm. Henderson,
144 N. Y. S. 832.
379-41 Curtis r. Phelps, 209 Fed.
261; Hague v. Northern Hotel Co., 77
Misc. 142, 135 N. Y. S. 1047; Boland
Co. V. Emma Willard School, 76 Misc.
18, 136 N. Y. S. 814, mod. 152 App. Div.
915, 137 N. Y. S. 472; Scanlon t?. Wm.
Henderson, 144 N. Y. S. 832.
379-42 Green 17. Delaware L. & W.
E. Co., 211 Fed. 774.
380-44 Kraus & Co. v. Mayer, 150
App- Div. 122, 134 N. Y. S. 694.
380-47 Boland Co. «. Emma Willard
School, 76 Misc. 18, 136 N. Y. S. 314,
mod, 152 App. Div. 915, 137 N. Y. S.
474.
380-48 Facts known bj plalntiir.
That facts are peculiarly within plain-
tiff's knowledge is no ground for deny-
ing bill of the defense of contributory
negligence. Havholm v. Whale Creek
Iron Wks., 159 App. Div. 578, 144 N.
Y. S. 833.
That defendant is thOToagtaly infonned
will not preclude him from demanding
the bill of particulars. American Con-
diments Co. V. Audit Co., 164 App. Div.
927, 149 N. Y. S. 451.
Knowledge poBaoised by both parties.
It is no answer to a request for a bill
of particulars that the defendant
knows as much about the matter as
plaintiff. American Condiments Co. v.
Audit Co., 149 N. Y. S. 451.
.380-50 United Lace, etc. Co. v.
Barthels Mfg. Co., 213 Fed. 535; Atlan-
tic Works r. U. S., 46 Ct. CI. (U. S.)
67.
381-52 U. S. Title Guaranty Co. v.
Brown, 160 App. Div. 591, 145 N. Y.
S. 1014.
381-53 Doughertv v. Southern Pac.
Co., 139 N. Y. S. 1100.
381-54 Dougherty 17. Southern Pac.
Co., 139 N. Y. 8. 1100.
Where examination before trial ordered.
Where the necessity for obtaining evi-
dence from plaintiff to establish an af-
firmative defense authorized making
order of examination before trial, the
defendant cannot be required to fur-
nish bill of particulars in advance of
obtaining the evidence. Weber v. Col-
umbia Amusement Co., 154 App. Div.
882, 138 N. Y. S. 879.
381-55 Lamoure v. Lasell, 26 N. D.
638, 145 N. W. 577.
248
SILLS OF PARTICULAHS
Vol 4
d81-S6 KrauB & Co.. v. Mayer^ 150
App. Biv. 122, 134 N. T. S. 694. Bee
Updike «. Maee, 156 App. Div. 381, 141
N. T. B. 587.
888-S7 American CoHdiments Co. if.
Audit Co., 164 App. Biv. 927, 149 N.
T. 8. 461; Pace «. Amend, 164 App.
Biv. 200, 149 N. Y. 8. 738.
862-S9 Sully v. Tiffany ft Co., 168
App. DiT. 882, 147 N. Y. 8. 1088.
3S2^JBO Fernet v, Jamea Stewart ft
Co., 163 Ak). Div. 112, 148 N. Y. 8. 646,
rev. 146 N. Y. 8. 1.
382-68 C. V. Droliaa, 210 Mais. 445,
97 N. £. 89; Schulte v. Petruzzi, 149
App. Div. 907, 133 N. Y. 8. 503. .
888-^8 la ejactpiflnt only dioeloBiire
of deed o:r source of title is contem-
plated under Code, 1906, |1827, and evi-
dcnee need not be diBclosed. Mitchell
0. Tubb (Miss.), 65 8. 216.
888-88 See Kalina «. American L.
Co., 146 App. Div. 718, 181 N. Y. 8.
410.
884-71 Slaad«r.-*Kayata v. Ontra,
159 App. Div. 511, 144 N. Y. S. 475.
LIbeL— Siebert v. Vivoni, 3 P. K. Fed.
161; Irwin v. Taubman, 80 S. D. 502,
139 N. W. 115.
884-78 Barrett Mfg. Co. v. Sergeant,
159 App. Div. 511, 144 N. Y. 8. 475.
Bittaeh of tnist^^Bracken v. Toland,
153 App. Div. 57, 137 N. Y. 8. 1043.
384-77 Paisley v. Western New York
ft P. Tract. Co., 80 Misc. 258, 141 N.
y. 8. 63.
Actioii for consplracyw — ^Patterson r.
Com Exchange, 197 Fed. 686.
Penonal injuries. — ^Wilson v. New Eng-
land Navigation Co., 197 Fed. 88;
Wojtczak V. American Mfg. Co., 152
App. Div. 433, 137 N. Y. 8. 287; Kup
fennan v, Batchelor, 149 N. Y. 8. 486;
Norfolk Southern B. Co. «. Croeker
(Va.), 84 8. E. 681.
Assault and batter7.r-Bill will be de-
nied in action for assault and battery
where injuries are not claimed to be
permanent. Bens r. Lugt, 147 App.
Div. 638, 132 N. Y. 8. 522.
384-79 Fernet v, James Stcwatt ft
Co., 163 App. Div. 112, 148 N. Y. 8.
546, rev. 146 N. Y. 8. 1; Ithaca Trust
Co. V. Driscoll Bros., 163 App. Div. 54,
148 N. Y. 8. 775; Podona V. Lehigh Val.
Coal Co., 245 Pa. 501, 91 A. 920.
Oooteibntory negUgance, etc. Havholm
V. Whale Creek Iron Wks.. 159 App.
Div. 578, 144 N. Y. 8.' 833,
388<81' 6ee St. Johns Gas Co. r. Sue
Juan, 1 P. R. Fed. 160.
388'-88 In an aetion to foreclose me-
obanios* lisn a bill of particulars is not
demandable where the work was to be
done for a fixed price. State Bank v,
Pluauner, 54 Colo. 144, 129 P. 819.
885*88 Oranat «. Mendetz, 150 N.
Y. 8. 438.
ProfessiOBil iarvlcea^— Peabody f . Con-
ley, 111 Me. 174, 88 A. 411; Pace v.
Amend, 164 App. Div. 209, 149 N. Y. 8.
738.
Aoti«& for goods 861d and ddiTared
and labor performed. Posner v, Bosen-
berg, 149 App. Div. 270, 138 N. Y. 8.
702; aearj o. Ott, 149 N. Y. 8. 893.
In an action for commlsilons for loan
negotiated, defendant entitled to bill
^tatiiig if contract was oral or written,
•and if written a copy thereof. Astor
Mortg. Co. V. Tenney, 157 App. Div. 361,
142 N. Y. 8. 265.
885-84 Entitled to bill in snit on
common counts under Code Pub. Civ.
Laws, art. 75, §24, subd. 107, even
though account has been filed but not
made part of the declaration. Newbold
«. Green, 122 Md. 648, 90 A. 513. But
attached account may be ordered filed
as a bill of particulars to confine plain-
tiff to proofs. Newbold v. Green, 122
Md. 648, 90 A. 513.
885-80 Steames ff, Edmonds (Ala.),
66 S. 714; Bennett v. Bobinson, 180 Mo.
App. 56, 165 8. W. 856.
Wliaro platnttff is entitled to an ac-
connting as a matter of right a bill of
particulars will not be required. Til-
ton V. Gans, 155 App. Div. 612, 140 N.
Y. 8. 782.
Tlie renody is by motion for bill of par-
ticulars and not motion to make more
definite and certain. Stansfield v.
Dunne (Ariz.), 141 P. 736; Pleasant v.
Samuels, 114 Cal. 34, 45 P. 998.
886-90 Action for breach of tax
coUector'a bond is not one founded on
account. Steams €. Edmonds (Ala.), 66
S. 714.
In acooont stated a bill of particulars
is unnecessary. Cohen v, Clark, 44
Mont. 151, 119 P. 775.
387-91 Sherrick 17. S., 167 Ind. 345,
79 N. E. 193; 8. v. Bailey (W. Va.), 83
8. £. 910.
Intozlcatinl^ Iiqaor8.^-Accuse(l is not
entitled to a bill of partioulars detail-
ing class of liquors sold or kept, the
249
Vol 4
BILLS OF PARTICVLARS
names of purchasers, the kinds of liq-
nors in possession of the district attor-
ney and the names of witnesses for
prosecution where he is charged with
keeping a grog shop without a license.
3. V. Jackson, 135 La. 365, 65 S. 491.
387-92 Enson v. 8., 58 Fla. 37, 50
S. 948; P. V. Poindexter, 243 111. 68, 90
N. E. 261; P. V. Weil, 243 HI. 208, 90
N. E. 731; Cooke «. P., 231 Dl. 9, 82 N.
B. 863; Gallagher v. P., 211 HI. 158, 71
N. E. 842; Dubois v. P., 200 HI. 157, 65
N. E. 658; P. t?. Young, 182 111. App. 3;
Overstreet v. Com., 147 Ky. 471, 144 S.
W. 751; S. V. Pennsylvania B. Co., 84
N. J. L. 550, 87 A. 86; S. v. Corbin, 157
N. C. 619, 72 S. E. 1071; S. V. Davis (B.
I.), 92 A. 821; S. V. Bailey (W. Va.),
83 8. E. 910.
False reports — ^Where accused was
charged with making false report of
condition of bank, if by reason of his
long management and having made
many reports he is not able to identify
the particular report for which he was
indicted he should demand a bill of
particulars. S. v. O'Neil, 24 Ida. 582,
136 P.. 60.
micertalnty in indietmontw— Where an
indictment is so worded that accused
may be surprised at trial he is entitled
to a bill of particulars. May v. U. &,
199 Fed. 53, 117 C. C. A. 431.
387-03 Kettenbach r. IT. 8., 202 Fed.
377, 120 C. C. A. ^05; Fields v. U. S., 27
App. Cas. (D. G.) 433; Hyde f?. U. S.,
27 App. Cas. (D. C.) 362: S. t?. Rath-
bone, 8 Ida. 161, 67 P. 186; P. v. Gray,
251 HI. 431, 96 N. E. 268; Sherrick 17.
S., 167 Ind. 345, 79 N. E. 193; S. V.
MiUer, 90 Kan. 230, 133 P. 878, Ann.
Cas. 1915B. 818; 8. v. Snyder, 8 Kan.
App. 686, 57 P. 135; P. <?. McKinney,
10 Mich. 54; P. V. Dr. Kelly Medical
Co., 29 N. Y. Cr. 384, 146 N. Y. S. 856;
C. 17. 8hoener, 25 Pa. Super. 526; 8. 17.
Davis, 52 Vt. 376; 8. v. Bogardus, 36
Wash. 297, 78 Pac. 942.
388-94 S. 17. Lewis, 69 W. Ya. 472,
72 S. E. 475, Ann. Cas. 1913A, 1203.
888-95 Huber Brewery 17. Sieke, 146
App. Div. 467, 131 N. Y. 8. 271; P. J.
Duff & Sons 17. Levin. 76 Misc. 249, 134
N. Y. 8. 903.
388-90 Boland Co. 17. Emma WUlard
School, 76 Misc. 18, 136 N. Y. 8. 314,
mod. 152 App. Div. 915, 137 N. Y. 8.
474.
Breach of warranty^ — ^In an action on
burglary insurance policy where an-
swer sets up breach of warranty as to
previous application tJie defendant i&
not required to furnish bill of particu-
lars. Vanta 17. Massachusetts Bonding
& Ins. Co., 158 App. Div. 502. 143 N.
Y. 8. 705.
889-6 Herrman v. Leland, 148 App
Div. 641, 133 N. Y. S. 271; Boland Co.
17. Emma Willard School, 76 Misc. 18,
136 N. Y. 8. 314, mod. 152 App. Div.
915, 137 N. Y. S. 474.
Oeneral and special damages.— Where
in an action for libel the plaintiff does
not attempt to plead damages in the
loss of ''particular contracts, sales, em-
ployments or customers or clients" the
defendant cannot demand specifications
of such particulars, but where direct
loss in value of lease of hotel is claimed
particulars may be required as to date
of execution and expiration of lease,
parties thereto, and descriptions of the
property. Adams r. Scott, 33 8. D. 194,
145 N. W. 446.
389-8 Locker 17. American Tobacco
Co., 194 Fed. 232; Adams 17. Scott, 33 S.
D. 194, 145 N. W. 446.
Oonipixacyw — ^In an action for illegal
conspiracy in restraint of trade. Locker
17. American Tobacco Co., 200 Eed. 973.
390-11 8. 17. O'Neil, 24 Ida. 582, 135
P. 60: P. 17. Weiss, 158 App. Div. 235,
142 N. Y. 8. 1092: Norfolk Southern B.
Co. 17. Crocker (Va.), 84 8. E. 681;
Clinchfield Coal Corp. 17. Osborne's
Admr., 114 Va. 13, 75 S. E. 750; Wish-
ington-Va. By. Co. 17. Bouknight, 113
Va. 696, 76 S. E. 1032, Ann. Cas. 1913E,
546.
390-13 Comp. Mates Hermanos r. Or-
tiz, 19 P. B. 74.
391-14 Mere laches unaccompanied
by injury or prejudice to adverse party
is no ground for denying motion for bill
of particulars. Tilton 17. Gans, 155 App.
Div. 612, 140 N. Y. S. 782; Convery v.
Marrin, 128 App. Div. 265, 112 N. Y.
8. 673.
391-17 Too late after pleading.
White Auto Co. 17. Dorsey, 119 Md. 251,
86 A. 617; Noble 17. Segal, 214 Mass.
159, 100 N. E. 1112.
392-20 Updike 17. Mace, 156 App.
Div. 381, 141 N. Y. S. 587; Bracken v.
Toland, 153 App. Div. 57, 137 JtJ. Y. S.
1043.
Before issue Joined^^AppHcation will
be denied when made before issue id
joined except in unusual cases clearly
showing necessity therefor, and may ba
250
BILLS OF PARTICULARS
Vol. 4
granted where without the particulars
of the claim the defendant might be
prejudiced if required to plead. Brack-
en V, Toland, 153 App. Div. 57, 137 N.
Y. S. 1043; Chantrell Hardware Co. v.
Silberman, 141 N. Y. S. 317.
392-21 Strohoefer v. Security Mut.
Life Ins. Co., 148 App. Div. 763, 133 N.
Y. S. 289.
In Porto Sico there must he an affi-
davit showing necessity. St. Johns
Oas Co. V. San Juan, 1 P. R. Fed. 166.
393-28 Strohoefer v. Security Mut.
L. Ins. €o., 148 App. Div. 763, 133 N.
Y. S. 289.
393-25 Kennedy v. Goodman, 39
Okla. 470, 135 P. 936.
394-33 Saffldent if claim is stated
in a plain and direct manner (Midland
Val. B. Co. V, Green, 38 Okla. 305, 132
P. 1086), and in testing sufficiency will
be construed liberally by supreme court.
Kennedy v, Goodman, 39 Okla. 470, 185
P. 936.
395-41 In actlonB for legal services,
the services rendered on each opinion,
contract or suit should be grouped,
without going into minute details. Gor-
mely v. Smith (App. Div.), 150 N. Y.
S. 614; Pace v. Amend, 164 App. Div.
209, 149 N. Y. S. 738.
397-4T CtoodB sold and delivered.
In an action for balance due on bill
for goods sold the plaintiff must fur-
nish such information as he must be
presumed to have as to the use of
materials furnished, but not of details
as to the exact distribution of every
item or details he cannot furnish.
Cleary v. Ott, 149 N. Y. S. 893.
398-49 Furthmann v. Furthmann,
155 App. Div. 202, 139 N. Y. S. 1055;
Knox i;. Knox, 79 Misc. 648, 140 N. Y.
8. 356.
398-50 Kayata v, Ontra, 159 App.
Div. 511, 144 N. Y. S. 475.
Llbelone publication. — ^Plaintiff is en-
titled to bill giving names of agents
with whom he was charged with having
made unlawful agreement, but not
names of those who had informed de-
fendant. Irwin 17. Taubman, 30 S. D.
502, 139 N. W. 115.
398*52 In an action for personal in-
JoxleB defendant is entitled to name of
plaintiff's employer. Kupferman v,
Batchelor, 149 N. Y. S. 486.
409-B2 The evidence prosecution will
produce need not be set out. P. v. De-
pew, 237 Dl. 674, 86 N. E. 1090.
400-63 S. 1?. Lewis, 69 W. Va. 472,
72 S. E. 475, Ann. Cas. 1913A, 1203.
401-65 Bowe t?. Gress Lumb. Co., 86
(Ja. 17, 12 S. E. 177; Cary t\ Simpson
(Ga. App.), 82 S. E. 918.
But in a criminal case a bill of par-
ticulars which would have the effect
of amending the indictment may be
refused. Com. v. International Harv.
Co., 147 Ky. 735, 145 S. W. 400.
401-66 Bamlet Realty Co. v. Doff
(Mich.), 150 N. W. 307; Ralph v. Tay-
lor, 33 R. I. 503, 82 A. 279, re-argument
denied, 82 A. 495.
401-68 Hapke r. Davidson, 180 Mich.
138, 146 N. W. 624.
402.70 Wells t?. Caro, 74 Misc. 87,
131 N. Y. S. 573.
Discrepancy between bill and complaint
cannot be considered a nullity. Boville
r. Dalton Paper Mills, 86 Vt. 305, 85
A. 623.
402-71 See Close v. Ann Arbor R.
Co., 169 Mich. 392, 135 N. W. 346.
402-75 Boville v, Dalton Paper Mills,
86 Vt. 305, 85 A. 623.
Duty to famish. — One cannot be re-
quired to furnish a more particular
statement unless he has more informa-
tion than his adversary. Curtis v.
Phelps, 209 Fed. 261.
402-70 Boville t?. Dalton PapefMills,
86 Vt. 305, 85 A. 623.
402-78 Gitzendanner, etc. Co. v,
Cherouny P. & P. Co., 149 N. Y. S.
485; Seely v. Breakwater Co., 144 N.
Y. S. 771 ; Boville v, Dalton Paper Mills,
86 Vt. "305, 85 A. 623.
403-79 •Cohen v, aark, 44 Mont. 151,
119 P. 775.
404-89 Wells v, Caro, 74 Misc. 87,
131 N. Y. S. 573.
404-92 Does not apply to Justice's
coast but only to superior courts and
courts adopting their procedure. Rea v.
McGahee, 12 Ga. App. 326, 77 S. E.
204.
406-93 Delay immaterial. — ^Delay in
service of bill of particulars is im-
material where no prejudice results.
S. V, Crudupt, 136 La. 555, 67 S. 364.
Failure to serve in time. — Where a. er
motion for order precluding evidence
plaintiff failed to serve bill within
time, he should move to open his de-
fault and to be allowed to serve his
bill. Craig v. Roach, 139 N. Y. S. 317.
405-95 Stearnes v, Edmonds (Ala.),
66 S. 714; Nickerson i?. Glines (Mass.),
251
Vol. 4
BILLS OF REVIEW
107 N. E. 942; C. u. King, 202 Mass.
379, 384, 88 N. E. 454; Hines V, Stanley
Mfg. Co., 199 Mass. 522, 527, 85 N. E.
851; St. Johns Gas Co. v. San Juan,
1 P. E. Fed. 166. See Com. v, Cline,
213 Mass. 225, 100 N. E. 358.
Federal court has jurisdiction, regard-
less of statute, to order bill of par-
tienlars in actions on tort or on eon-
tract. Qreen I7. Delaware, L. & W. B.
Co., 211 Fed. 774.
406-88 Patterson v. Com Exchange,
197 Fed. 686.
406-4 Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. r.
Heinze (App. Div.), 148 N. Y. S. 214.
406-12 Order staying <<all piooeed-
ingg" Improper. — ^Borgrosser r. Bisch,
149 App. Div. 248, 133 N. Y. S. 688.
407-16 Eeaaonable time.^If a bill
of particulars is ordered plaintiff must
be allowed a reasonable time to file
same. Kawabata v. Okahara, 20 Haw.
261.
If order fails to state time within which
bill should be filed plaintiff could not
be in default until time of trial.
Equitable Trust Co. v, Tiedemann, 134
N. Y. S. 489.
4O8-a0 Prejndice mnst be shown.
P. V. Weil, 243 111. 208, 90 N. E. 731;
P. r. Poindexter, 243 III. 68, 90 N. E.
261; P. V. Smith, 239 111. 91, 87 N. E.
885; Gallagher t?. P., 211 lU. 158, 71
N. E. 842; Sherrick v. S., 167 Ind. 345,
79 N. E. 193.
406421 S. V. Miller, 90 Kan. 230, 133
P. 878, Ann. Cas. 1915B, 818.
408-23 American Security *& Trust
Co. I?. Kaveney, 39 App. Cas. (D. C.)
223; McDonald f. P., 126 111. 150, 18
N. B. 817; Begent v. P., 96 III. App.
189; S. r. Byan, 131 La. 1054, 60 S.
681; C. V, Giles, 1 Gray (Mass.) 468;
Prost V, International Rubber Co. (B.
I.), 93 A. 641; S. t\ Davis (R. T), 92
A. 821.
Applicable to matters pleaded, — A bill
of particulars cannot be used to en-
large a defense set up in a pleading
to the extent of matter not pleaded.
Marshall v. Saekett, 151 N. Y. S. 1045.
409-24 Waiver.— In an indictment
for keeping a saloon and selling liquor,
the filing of a bill of particulars as to
a particular sale does not constitute an
abandonment of the charge of keeping
a saloon, and evidence to prove this is
admissible. S. t;. Tufanio, 132 La. 843,
61 S. 844.
409-86 A party is not condudad br
statements in a bill of particulars
especiallj where the figures were re-
sult of a mere estimate. Oarton Toy
Co. V. Buswell Lnmb. Ss M. Co., 150
Wis. 341, 136 N. W. 147.
409-97 Oranjfo Saw Mill Co. v, Gar-
miehael Lumb. Co., 17 K. M. 69, 121
P. 608; Witschieben v, Glynn, 156 App.
Div. 193, 140 N. Y. fi. 1037.
Eoie is maodatorf which preeludes tiie
giving of evidence where party fails
to furnish a bill of particulara. Mc-
Kenna v. Horwita, 163 App. Div. 541,
148 N. Y. S. 970.
Motiott to aKclnde efvidflaee is i»reoia-
ture when included in a demand for
bill of particulars. Furthmann e. Fur^-
mann, 155 App. Div. 202, 139 N*. Y. S.
1055.
410-31 Niekerson r. Glinea (Mass.),
107 N. E. 942.
Amendable defects. — Failure to attach
bill of particulars where required does
not authorise disBtiaaal becaaie peti-
tion without such bill does not eat forth
a cause of action; such defect being
amendable and cured by verdict. Hill
17. Harris, 11 Ga. App. 858, 75 S. B.
518.
BILLS OF BSTIEW
413-1 Barz v. Sawyer, 159 la. 481,
141 N. W. 319.
414-2 Bars v. Sawyer, 159 la. 481,
141 N. W. 319.
416-7 Tisman <?. Tisman, 176 Mich.
94, 142 N. W. 358.
419-15 But in xtatore of bill of re-
Vlew.« — Where one claiming homeetead
privileges, not a party to the original
suit, brought a bill to set aside a de-
cree together with a party to ttie
original suit, the performance of the
original decree is not essential to the
right to maintain the suit. Powers f.
Scales, 61 Fla. 717, 55 S. 799.
420-17 Blondin t?. McArthur, 84 Vt.
516, 80 A. 663.
420-10 In Oeorgia motions for new
trial and exceptions to final decrees
can be had in equitable actions and so
the former use of bills of review has
been much narrowed. Burke «. White,
141 Ga. 72, 80 S. E. 311.
Under code. — ^In Iowa ''all forms of
actions are abolished by See. 3557 Cede,
but the substance remidBS, and by peti-
252
BILLS OF REVIEW
Vol. 4
tion tke relief obtained by bill of
reriew or bill ia the nature of a bill of
reriew is atill available through plead-
ing soeh as authorized by the code.
See Sections 3755, 4092 Code." Barz
c. Sawyer, 159 la. 481, 141 N. W. 319.
ThooiA aa additioiial lemody is af-
forded by statute a bill of review is
stQl maintainable. Kanawha Oil Co. v,
Wenner, 71 W. Va. 477, 76 S. E. 893,
43 L. K. A. (N. S.) 559.
42(^20 Hopkins v. Hebard, 194 Fed.
301, 114 C. C. A. 261; In re Brown, 213
Fed. 701: Long t?. Long, 104 Ark, 562,
149 8. W. 662; Harrigan r. Peoria
County, 262 HI. 36, 104 N. E. 172;
Gloa T. P., 259 111. 332, 102 N. E. 763,
Ann. Cas. 1914C, 119; Adaqis r. Adams,
77 N. J. Eq. 123, 79 A. 683.
421-21 Long v. Long, 104 Ark. 562,
149 S. W. 662: Harrigan t?. Peoria
Connty, 262 111. 36, 104 N. E, 172;
Glos u. P., 259 m. 832, 102 N. E. 763,
Ann. Cas. 1914C, 119; Adams v. Adams,
77 N. J. Eq. 123, 79 A. 683.
421-22 Leveridge v, Leveridge (N.
J. Eq.), 79 A. 422.
421-23 Glos r. P., 259 111. 332, 102
N. E. 763, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 119.
421-24 Harrigan r. Peoria County,
262 111. 36, 104 N. E. 172.
422-34 Attflndtiif the UU so as to
make it apply only to errors on the
face of the record, will not prevent its
being dismissed where no leave of court
was obtained to file it. Glos 17. P.,
259 in. 332, 102 N. E. 763, Ann. Cas.
1914C, 119.
424-3S Elzas v. Elzas, 183 HI. 132, 55
N. E. 673; Karsten v, Winkelman, 126
III. App. 418; Hoskins v. Hattenback,
14 la. 314; Burch v. Scott, 1 Gill ft J.
(Md.) 393; Stockley t?. Stockley, 93
Mich. 307, 53 N. W. 523; Shaffer v.
Shaffer, 51 W. Va. 126, 41 S. B. 166.
424-39 Pending an appeal from the
decree a bill of review is not main-
tainable. McLanahan v. Mills, 73 W.
Va. 246, 80 S. E. 351.
424-40 AdafliB f. Adams, 77 K. J.
Eq. 123, 79 A. 683.
425-41 Wlien tbe time has ezpixed
in which a bill may be filed the remedy
is by an original bill in the nature
of a bill of review. Penn v. Tucker,
114 Va. 669, 77 S. E. 473; Fore t?,
Foster's Admr., 86 Va. 104, 9 S. E.
497.
Brothers ft Co., 1 P. R. Fed. 53. See
In re Brown, 213 Fed. 701.
426-46 Phipps v. Wise Hotel Co.,
116 Va. 739, 82 S. E. 681, 685.
427-47 Phipps v. Wise Hotel Co., 116
Va. 739, 82 S. E. 681, 685.
428-53 Hervey u. Myer Bro. Co., 168
111. App. 267; Anderson f. Bank, 5
Sneed (Tenn.) 661. See Quinn f). Hall
(B. I.), 91 A. 71, where decree was
rendered in P. county and the biU of
review filed in N. county.
429*54 liaw of the case. — ^Having
once had a review of a decree by the
highest appellate court another cannot
be had for a re-ezamination of the
same alleged errors. McLanahan i?.
Mills, 73 W. Va. 246, 80 S. E. 351.
430-56 Glos V. P., 259 HI. 332, 102
N. E. 763, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 119; Quinn
p. Hall (B. I.), 91 A. 71.
430-57 Quinn v. Hall (B. I.), 91 A.
71.
43<K58 Wiseman v, Cottingham
(Tex.), 174 S. W. 281. .
4181-59 Aggrieved third persona must
proceed by an original bill in the na-
ture of a bill of exceptions. Quinn
V. Hall (R. I.), 91 A. 71; Doyle, Peti-
tioner, 14 B. I. 55.
433-66 Alcorn County v. Tuscumbia
D. Dist., 102 Miss. 401, 59 S. 798. See
Hollo way u. Safe Deposit & Tr. Co.,
122 Md. 620, 90 A. 95.
488-69 McLanahan r. Mills, 73 W.
Va. 246, 80 S. E. 351.
Decrees of appellate court. — "After
judgment is entered by an appellate
court a bill of review will not lie for
errors on the face of the decree. To
permit this would amount to allowing
a bill of review to act as a substitute
for an application to rehear in the
lower court the judgment of the ap-
pellate court." Harrigan r. Peoria
County, 262 111. 36, 104 N. E. 172.
433-70 In re Brown, 213 Fed. 701;
Hultberg v, Anderson, 252 111. 607, 97
N. E. 216.
435-T6 Morris v. Marshall, 185 Ala.
179, 64 S. 312; Barz t?. Sawyer, 159 la.
481, 141 N. W. 319.
An error of law is a misconception of
what the rule is which will eventually
be enforced by the court having the
final word. In re Brown, 213 Fed.
701.
425-42 Cerecedo Hermanos t*. Jaffe A miatake of law, pure and simple, does
253
Vol. 4
BILLS OF REVIEW
not furnish ground for relief. Har-
rigan v. Peoria County, 262 HI. 36, 104
N. E. 172.
435-78 Cerecedo Hermanoa v, JafFe
Brothers & Co., 1 P. R. Fed. 53.
486-81 Phipps v. Wise Hotel Co.,
116 Va. 739, 82 S. E. 681, 685.
437-85 Holloway t\ Safe Deposit &
Tr. Co., 122 Md. 620, 90 A. 95.
438-90 Where decree was void be-
cause of want of service of process on
petitioner the question of fraud will not
be considered, but the decree will be
reversed and remanded. Linkous v,
Stevens, 116 Va. 898, 83 S. E. 417.
439-93 Martin t\ Harsh, 164 HI.
App. 76; Anderson v. Bank, 5 Sneed
(Tenn.) 661. •
Evidence not reviewed. — ''On a bill of
review for errors of law, the court will
not reconsider evidence but only in-
quire whether the law was improperly
adjudged upon the facts which the
record shows were found by the court
on the former hearing. " Long v. Long,
104 Ark. 562, 149 S. W. 662; Hervey
17. Meyer & Bro., 168 lU. App. 267.
Only errors of law appearing of record
can be corrected; the court cannot re-
examine the evidence to correct errors
as to questions of fact. Such errors
must be corrected by appeal. Kanawha
Oil Co. t?. Wenner, 71 W. Va. 477, 76
S. E. 893, 43 L. B. A. (N. S.) 559.
440-99 Where there Is no showing
of newly discovered evidence but it is
only claimed the evidence was not fully
gone into the bill cannot be maintained.
Hultberg v, Anderson, 252 111. 607, 97
N. E. 216.
441-1 Hopkins v. Hebard, 194 Fed.
301, 114 C. 0. A. 261; Evans v. Parrott,
26 Ark. 600; Cole v. Littledale, 164 111.
630, 45 N. E. 969; Schaefer v. Wun-
derle, 154 111. 577, 39 N. E. 623; Car-
neal v: Wilson, 3 Litt. (Ky.) 80, 90;
Pfeltz V. Pfeltz, 1 Md. Ch. 455; Hol-
lingsworth v. McDonald, 2 Har. & J.
(Md.) 230, 3 Am. Dec. 545; Tisman V.
Tisman, 176 Mich. 94, 142 N. W. 358;
Vaughn v. Cutrer, 49 Miss. 782; Wat-
kinson v. Watkinson, 68 N. J. Eq. 632,
60 A. 931, 6 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 326,
69 L. E. A. 397; Wiser v, Blachly, 2
Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 488; Kennedy's
Estate, 15 Pa. Co. Ct. 494; Conrad tJ.
Conrad, 9 Phila. (Pa.) 510; Young v.
Henderson, 4 Hayw. (Tenn.) 189;
Frazer v. Syfert, 5 Sneed (Tenn.) 100;
Baker v. Watts, 101 Va. 702, 44 S. E.
929; Kern v. Wyatt, 89 Va. 885, 17
8. E. 549; Whitten f. Saunders, 75 Va.
563; Amiss v.. McGinnis, 12 W. Va.
371.
442-3 Stone v. Sewer Imp. Dist., 107
Ark. 405, 155 S. W. 99; Bar zt?. Sawyer,
159 la. 481, 141 N. W. 319; McLanahan
V. Mills, 73 W. Va. 246, 80 S. E. 35L
444 4 Long v. Long, 104 Ark. 562>
149 S. W. 662; Barz i;. Sawyer, 159
la. 481, 141 N. W. 319; McLanahan
v. Mills, 73 W. Va. 246, 80 S. E. 351.
444-5 Long 17. Long, 104 Ark. 562,
149 S. W. 662; Noble v. Crane, 40
App. Cas. (D. C.) 64; Barz v. Sawyer,
159 la. 481, 141 N. W. 319; Shook v.
Shook (Tex. Civ.), 145 S. W. 699; Mc-
Lanahan V. Mills, 73 W. Va. 246, 80 S.
E. 351.
446-8 Craufurd's Admr. e. Smith's
Exr., 93 Va. 623, 23 S. E. 235, 25 S. E.
657.
448-16 See Quinn v. Hall (B. I.), 91
A. 71.
448-17 Compound bill.— A bill to
review the former decree, afterward
amended to ask also for its annulment
because of fraud, is permissible as a
compound bill and the court may mould
the relief according to the proof. Long
V. Long, 104 Ark. 562, 149 S. W. 662;
Webster v. Diamond, 36 Ark. 532.
450-18 Hultberg «. Anderson, 252
111. 607, 97 N. E. 216.
450-19 Essentials of biU.— A biU
which "contains no charge of fraud,
error of law apparent upon the record,
or newly discovered evidence" cannot
be treated as a bill of review. Vaughn
V. Vaughn, 180 Ala. 212, 60 S. 872;
McCall V. McCurdy, 69 Ala. 65.
451-27 Pacts showing ftand must
be alleged, and not the pleader's con-
clusion that certain acts constituted
fraud. Harrigan v. Peoria County, 262
111. 36, 104 N. E. 172.
453-40 Harrigan t7. Peoria County,
262 HI. 36, 104 N. E. 172; Barz v.
Sawyer, 159 la. 481, 141 N. W. 319.
454-43 Olos V. P., 259 HI. 332, 102
N. E. 763, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 119.
455-52 Bevexsing the decree and en-
tering a correct one is perhaps the best
method of correcting the error. Kana-
wha Oil Co. V. Wenner, 71 W. Va. 477,
76 S. E. 893, 43 L. R. A. (N. S.) 559.
466-54 Barz v. Sawyer, 159 la. 481^
141 N. W. 319.
(54
BONDS
Vol. 4
456-55 See Barz v. Sawyer, 159 la.
481, 141 N. W. 319.
456-57 See McLanahan r. Mills, 73
W. Va. 246, 80 S. E. 351, where it was
held to be reversible error to deny the
right to file an amended and supple-
mental bill to a bill of review, and
have the same treated as an original
bill in the nature of a bill of review,
to impeach a decree for alleged fraud
in procuring it.
456-58 Quinn r. HaU (B. I.), 91 A.
71.
457-59 Quinn v. Hall (R. I.), 91 A.
71.
457-60 Laches. — ^Where an original
bill in the nature of a bill of review
to annul a final decree of divorce be-
cause of fraud is brought within two
years after divorce decree and four
months after knowledge of the divorce,
the complainant should not be denied
relief on the ground of laches. Parra'
more t?. Parramore, 61 Fla. 701, 55 S.
795.
457-63 The same principles are ap-
plicable generally to a bill of review
and to a bill in the nature of a bill
of review. Harrigan t\ Peoria County,
262 111. 36, 104 N. E. 172.
A bill to vacate proceedings in the pro-
bate court on the ground of fraud is
an original bill in the nature of a bill
of review. Hogan v. Scott, 186 Ala.
310, 65 S. 209.
BILLS TO ENFOBOXS DEOBEES
460-5 South Jersey Healty Co. v.
Staley (N. J. Eq.), 75 A. 934.
461-6 South Jersey Realty Co. v,
Staley (N. J. Eq.), 75 A. 934.
462-13 Princeton Coal & Min. Co.
r. Gilchrist (Ind. App.), 99 N. E. 426.
464-25 See Union Trust Co. t\ Cur-
tis (Ind.), 105 N. E. 562 (citing numer-
ous cases); Princeton Coal & Min. Co.
r. Gilchrist (Ind. App.), 99 N. E. 426,
and 6 Standabd Pboc. 786.
465-30 Princeton Coal & Min. Co. f.
Gilchrist (Ind. App.), 99 N. E. 426;
South Jersey Bealty Co. v, Staley (N.
J. Eq.), 75 A. 934.
469-48 When rule not applicable.
**But this rule has no application to
decrees that are complete and perfect
and free from any inherent defect
which prevents their execution." Hult-
berg f?. Anderson, 258 HI. 607, 97 N. E.
216.
470-50 Intervening conditions. — May
also show any changes in conditions
during the intervening time which
would make it inequitable to enforce
the decree. Pinel v. Pinel, 178 Mich.
596, 146 N. W. 117.
471-51 Hultberg v, Anderson, 252
111. 607, 97 N. E. 216.
471-52 Pinel i?. Pinel, 178 Mich. .596,
146 N. W. 117; Terry v. McClintoek, 41
Mich. 492, 2 N. W. 787.
BILLS TO IMPEACH JUDGMENTS
AND DECBEES
474-2 Quinn v. Hall (B. I.), 91 A.
71.
474-5 Quinn v. Hall (R. I.), 91 A.
71.
475-11 Quinn r. Hall (R. L), 91 A.
71.
475-12 Mistake of law affords no
ground of reljlef. Harrigan v, Peoria
County, 262 111. 36, 104 N. E. 172.
480-32 The substance and not the
form of the bill must be considered in
determining its real nature. Quinn v.
Hall (R. I.), 91 A. 71; Bailey v, Holden,
50 Vt. 14.
482-35 Harrigan r. Peoria County,
262 111. 36, 104 N. E. 172.
485-47 Harrigan v. Peoria County,
262 111. 36, 104 N. E. 172.
BONDS
496-1 Action on interest coupon. — ^An
interest coupon not being negotiable,
the complaint in an action thereon must
allege the issuance and delivery of the
bond and the lapse of time or other
circumstances which would render the
interest due. Apple v. National A. W.
Mach. Co., 76 Misc. 241, 134 N. Y. S.
582.
497-G Title.— An allegation that the
interest coupon came lawfully into the
possession of plaintiff is not a sufficient
allegation of title thereto. Apple v.
National A. W. Mach. Co., 76 Misc.
241, 134 N. Y. S. 582.
499-19 The contract sbould be
pleaded, or petition should allege that
the same is lost or beyond the reach of
plaintiff. National Surety Co. r. Board
of Education, 36 Okla. 569, 129 P. 25.
503-38 Nonpayment. — Where the
bond provided that the principal should
pay any judgments that might be ren-^
255
Vol. 4
BREACH OF PROMISE
dered upon dismisgal or trial of cer-
tain appeals, "or" surrender herself ia
satisfaction thereof, the complaint
averring simply non-payment of the
judgments, without specifically negatiT-
ing the condition following the dis-
junctive *'or," was held sufficient. Na-
tional Surety Co. v. P., 54 Colo. 365,
130 P. 843.
503-42 La Belle Iron Works v.
Quarter Sav. Bank (W. Va.), 82 S. E.
614.
504-48 In actions on penal bonds
the specific breach must be assigned.
Mutual Benefit Ins. Co. v. Brown, 80
Mo. App. 459.
505-50 Loeb v. Montgomery, 7 Ala.
App. 325, 61 S. 642.
Facts within defendant's knowledge.
Assignment of breach need not specify
facts peculiarly within the knowledge
of the defendant. Newcastle v. To-
man (Del.), 88 A. 65.
510-91 That bond was improperly
drafted is no defense. Harris v. Wood-
ard, 142 Ga. 297, 82 S. E. 902.
511-8 La Belle Iron Works v. Quar-
ter Sav. Bank (W. Va.), 82 S. E. 614.
514-17 P. V, Eevelli, 184 Dl. App.
233.
619-45 Demnrrer. — The due execu«
tion of the bond being charged in the
petition, the defense that it was given
without consideration, not appearing
therein, cannot be raised by demurrer.
Ahsrauhs v, Bowyer, 39 Okla. 376, 135
P. 413, 50 L. B. A. (N. S.) 1060.
519-46 See Wood v. Scudder, 155
App. r>iv. 254, 140 N. Y. Supp. 284,
for plea setting up as a separate de-
fense that bond was executed and as-
signed to the plaintiff pursuant to a
corrupt and usurious agreement between
plaintiff and defendant.
523-60 Variance. — ^Where the com-
plaint declares on a bond under seal
and the proof discloses an unsealed
promise to pay, there is a fatal vari-
ance. Hughes V, Spratling, 3 Ala. App.
517, 57 S. 629.
530-13 Sanity of maker. — Question
whether the maker at the time of the
execution of the note was .in the en-
joyment of a lucid interval, is one for
the jury to determine. Line v. Line,
119 Md. 403, 86 A. 1032, Ann. Cas.
1914D, 192.
534-28 Form of judgment. — ^In an
action on the bond there can be but
oaa judgment, and that must be for
the amount of the penalty, with an as-
sessment of damages for the breaches
assigned, and if subsequent breaches
occur, the remedy is by scire facias
upon that judgment. Keating v. Ped-
drick, 240 Pa. 590, 88 A. 11.
535*81 Summit v, Morris County'
Traction Co., 85 N. J. L. 193, 88 A.
1048.
586-32 Keating v. Peddrick, 240 Pa.
590, 88 A. 11.
BBfiACH OF
548-11 Waddell v. Wallace, 32 OUa.
140, 121 P. 245.
549-16 Huggins v. Carey (Tex.
Civ.), 149 S. W. 390.
549-17 WlMva no time for parfonn-
ince of a marriage is fixed actions for
breach may be brought after a reason-
able time. Corduan v. McCloud (N. J.
L,), 93 A. 724.
554-31 Hendry v. Ellis, 61 Fla. 277,
54 S. 797, 33 L. B. A. (N. 8.) 702.
554-88 Hendry v. Ellis, 61 Fla. 277,
54 8. 797,- 33 L. E. A. (N. 8.) 702.
That an abortion was advised by de-
fendant after seducing plaintiff may
be proved. Huggins v. Carey (Tex.
Civ.), 149 8. W. 390.
Injury to hsalth may be proved as an
item of damages without being special-
ly pleaded. Hively v, Golniek, 123
Minn. 498, 144 N. W. 213, Ann. Cas.
1915A, 295, 49 L. B. A. (N. 8.) 757.
To recover pnnittve damages there
must be allegations -of malice, wanton-
ness, or recklessness. Hively v, Gol-
niek, 123 Minn. 498, 144 N. W. 213,
Ann. Cas. 1915A, 295, 49 L. B. A. (N.
S.) 757; Vine V. Casmey, 86 Minn. 74,
90 K. W. 158.
Where damages are alleged in general
form the plaintiff can recover as com-
pensatory damages for mental suffering
and injury to health occasioned by the
breach of the contract. Houser v. Car-
mody, 173 Mich. 121, 139 N. W. 9.
557-45 See Sanborif t\ Bay, 194 Fed.
351, 114 C. C. A. 242,
BBEAOH OF THB PEAOB
558-2 Compared with disorderly con-
duct.— Garvin t*. Mayor, etc. (Ga. App.),
84 8. E. 90.
559-12 8. V. Webb, 163 Mo. App.
275, 146 8. W. 805,
35Q
' BRIEFS
Vol. 4
560-20 Elmore v. 8. (Ga. App.)» 83
S. E. 7d9.
665-46 Jackson v, 8,, 14 Ga. App.
19, 80 S. E. 20.
66T-10 The words "ezecntlTe, legis-
lative, or Judicial" officer are used in
their broadest sense and embrace state,
county, or precinct officers. Davis v.
S. (Tex. Civ.), 158 S. W. 288.
668-20 DixpUcity.— Under §105 Pen-
al Code, bribery may be committed by
asking for, receiving, or agreeing to re-
ceive a bribe, and when all three acts
are committed at the same time they
constitute but a single crime and an
information charging all is not duplici-
tous. P. V. Vazquez, 20 P. B. 338.
668-21 The nature of the matter In
reference to which the acts of the offi-
cer were intended to be influenced
should be described. Republic Hawaii
t?. Young Hee, 10 Haw. 114.
669-22 P. V, Glass, 158 Cal. 650, 112
P. 281; TJ. S. t?. Bautista, 14 Phil. Isl.
579; Minter V, S., 70 Tex. Cr. 634, 159
8. W. 286.
Need not state how the offense was
committed. If stated it may be con-
sidered as surplusage. Diegel v, S., 33
O. C. C. 82, aff. 86 O. St. 310, 99 N. E.
1125.
669-23 State or county officer.
Where indictment was for offering a
bribe to an assistant county officer it
need not allege whether he was a state
or county officer. The fact that it re-
cited he was a judicial officer was im-
material, even conceding he was not.
Davis V. S., 70 Tex. Cr. 524, 158 S. W.
288.
The Christian name of officer solicited
need not be averred. Boden tJ. S., 5
Ala. App. 247, 59 S. 751; P. v. Furlong,
127 N. Y. S. 422.
The officer's powers and duties need
not appear in indictment. S. v. Nick,
66 Wash. 134, 119 P. 15.
Knowledge of official character of the
other need not be averred. P. r. Glass,
158 Cal. 650, 112 P. 281; Diegel t?. S.,
33 O. C. C. 82, af, 80 O. St. 310, 99
N. E. 1125. But see Petitti v. S., 7
Okla. Cr. 12, 121 P. 278.
669-24 P. t?. McCann, 247 111. 130,
93 N. E. 100.
670-26 P. r. Vincilione, 17 Cal. App.
513, 120 P.. 438.
670-28 Manner of pleading Intent.
Where indictment charges solicitation
of a bribe the specific corrupt intent
must be pleaded, to-wit, "to influence
him with respect to his official duty,
action, vote, etc." 8. v. Davis (Ohio),
106 N. E. 770.
Being a statutory offense a guilty in-
tent need not be charged or proved. S.
V, Quinn, 131 La. 490, 59 S. 913.
672-46 S. V, DudouBsat, 47 La. Ann.
977, 17 S. 685. See P. v. Bock, 125
N. Y. S. 301.
672-48 Ex parte Winters (Okla.
Cr.), 140 P. 164.
673-64 The * failure to quote the
statutory definition of a bribe is not
error where the court required the jury
to believe beyond a reasonable doubt
every essential of bribery and also
charged fully on reasonable doubt.
Minter v. S., 70 Tex. Cr. 634, 159 S. W.
286.
674-1 Simon f. Wabash (lad. App.),
107 N. E. 738; Roberts v. S., 10 Okla.
Cr. 312, 136 P. 201; Bastrop fr Austin-
Bayou Rice Growers' Assn. v. Cochran
(Tex. Civ.), 171 S. W. 294.
Definition. — "A 'brief is a written
presentation of the questions involved
in a forensic controversy and of the
matters of fact and of law which de-
mand investigation. The primary ob-
ject is to convey information to the
court, and this cannot be done without
clearly stating the manner in which
the controverted points arise, the facts
which constitute the groundwork of the
legal dispute, and the governing prop-
ositions of law." Brunson t>. Emerson,
34 Okla. 211, 124 P. 979.
Office of a brief is to aid the court
in reviewing the case. It must cite
authorities and argue the issue. Mc-
Connell v. Davis (Okla.), 148 P. 687.
Beview is not limited to ouestions dis-
cussed in the briefs. Radovich t?.
French (Nev.), 135 P. 920, 136 P. 704.
Not a necessary prerequisite to hearing
appeal from an order granting tempo-
rary injunction. Ft. Worth Imp. Dist.
No. 1 V. City (Tex. Civ.), 158 S. W.
164.
In criminal cases, however, it is the
duty of the court to examine the rec-
ord and pass judgment though no briefs
have been filed. State v, Glogover, 178
Mo. App. 577, 161 S. W. 274,
257
Vol. 4
BRIEF8
A motion for <U«inl88al of an appeal
not supported by brief or argument,
will not be considered. Murry v.
Paughtry, 18 N. M. 44, 133 P. 1070.
576-3 Camden v. Armstrong Cork
Co., 210 Fed. 818, 127 C. C. A. 368;
Chi\5ago -& E. B. Co. v, Dinius, 180 Ind.
596, 103 N. E. 652; Keenan <?. Mt.
Pleasant, 176 Mich. 620, 142 N. W.
1114; Carby v. Combs, 166 Mich. 347,
130 N. W. 625; Jones v. Southern R.
Co., 164 N. C. 392, 80 S. E. 408; Mt.
Franklin Lime Co. i). May (Tex. Civ.),
150 S. W. 756.
JuzlBdictional facts.— Appellant's brief
must state facts showing appellate
cotlrt has acquired jurisdiction of the
cause, and what the appeal is from,
and must disclose that a record has
been settled in trial court (when such
is the fact and it is material). Hep-
ner v. Wheatley, 33 S. D. 34, 144 N. W.
923.
Statement of fact must be distinct
from argument. Reed r. McC ready, 170
Mich. 532, 136 N. W. 488.
In Porto Bico under Rule 42 the brief
should contain a concise statement of
the case without Reciting pleadings or
the evidence. Fajardo Dev. Co. v. Zal-
duondo, 20 P. R. 237.
576-6 Maginnis 17. Hartford Ins. Co.,
160 ni. App. 614.
576-6 Hart v. Schultz, 182 HI. App.
388.
577-7 Chas. Mulvey Mfg. Co. v. Mc-
Kinney, 161 HI. App. 514; Chickasha
Gas & Electric Co. v. Griffin (Okla.),
148 P. 729.
577-8 Beattys v. Straiten, 142 App.
Div. 369, 126 N. Y. S. 848.
577-10 New Point v. Cleveland, C.
O. & St. L. R. Co. (Ind. App.), 107 N.
E. 560; Mutual Life Ins. Co. v, Finkel-
etein (Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 557; S.
V. Rainford (Ind. App.), 105 N. E. 57;
Clarksville v. Ohio Hydraulic Mfg. Co.
(Ind. App.), 105 N. E. 67; Curry v,
Evansville (Ind. App.), 104 N. E. 978;
Wolf V, Akin, 55 Ind. App. 589, 104
N. E. 308; Skeels u. Porter (la.), 145
N. W. 332; Lynch v. Rosemary Mfg.
Co., 167 N. C. 98, 83 S. E. 6. See Mor-
ton V, aark, 10 Ala. App. 439, 65 S.
408.
Citing reporter ssrstem.— It is advisable
when citing a case in the reporter sys-
tem to also cite the state report. Bax-
ter «. Campbell Lumb. Co. (Mo.), 171
S. W. 955.
A mlscellaneons citation of anthorities
without showing the relation of the
authorities to the errors is not a com-
pliance, and presents no question.
Weidenhammer v. S., 181 Ind. 349, 103
N. E. 413, rehear, denied, 104 N. E.
577; Anderson v. S., 179 Ind. 590, 101
N. E. 84; Leach v. S., 177 Ind. 234,
97 N. E. 792.
577-11 Brief not signed by attorney
will not be considered. Hazard v.
Phoenix Woodworking Co., 78 N. J.
Eq. 568, 80 A. 456.
578-13 Great Southern Accident Co.
V. Guthrie, 13 Ga. App. 288, 79 S. E.
162; Thompson 17. S., 12 Ga. App. 201,
76 S. E. 1072; Bohall v. S., 176 Ind.
566, 96 N. E. 576; New Point t?. Cleve-
land, C. C. & St. L. R. Co. (Ind. App.),
107 N. B. 560; Harmon t?. Pohle, 55
Ind. App. 439, 103 N. E. 1087; Bishop
V, Eoss (Ind. App.), 103 N. E. 505;
Lay Co. v. Mendenhall, 54 Ind. App.
342, 102 N. E. 974; Berkey v, Rens-
berger, 49 Ind. App. 226, 96 N. E. 32;
Robertson V. Robertson, 178 Mo. App.
478, 163 S. W. 266; Texas v. Strange
(Tex. Civ. App.), 154 S. W. 327.
578-14 Styles v. Dickey, 27 N. D.
328, 146 N. W. 546.
578-15 Rahke v. McNulty, 55 Ind.
App. 615, 104 N. E. 523; Cleveland By.
Co. V. Means (Ind. App.), 104 N. E.
785; Southern Express Co. v. Schurz,
55 Ind. App. 213, 103 N. E. 667.
Failure to comply with this rule will
authorize an affirmance of the judg-
ment (Kelly f. S., 40 Okla. 355, 138
P. 167), or a dismissal of the appeal.
Williamson v. Human, 40 Okla. 199,
137 P. 664.
578-16 Moore v, Adams, 40 Okla.
100, 136 P. 410; Wood v. McCain, 34
S. D. 544, 149 N. W. 426; Lovelett v.
Heumpfner, 32 S. D. 35, 141 N. W.
1080; Pollard v. Allen & Sims (Tex.
Civ.), 171 S. W. 302.
Rule i8 mandatory. — Worrell v. Fel-
lows, 39 Okla. 769, 136 P. 750.
Digest of record. — To each proposition
there must be subjoined a brief state-
ment in substance of such proceedings
or part thereof, contained in the rec-
ord, as will be necessary and sufficient
to understand and support the proposi-
tion with reference to the pages of the
record. Pollard V. Allen (Tex. Civ.),
171 S. W. 302.
579-17 Skeels t?. Porter (la,), 145
N. W. 332.
258
BRIEFS
Vol. 4
S79-18 3teTenB v. Haile (Tex. OItOi
162 8. W. 1025.
A map may be afflzed to brief to illus-
trate the parties' contention when there
was no claim made that said map was
in evidence. Hamilton v, S. (Tex. Civ.),
152 S. W. 1117.
579-20 Beckett v. Stuart, 23 Cal.
App. 373, 138 P. 115; Hepner v. Wheat-
ley, 33 S. D. 34, 144 N. W. 923;
Kinkead v. Moriarty, 29 S. D. 202, 136
N. W. 101.
A Uke mlo applies to respondent's
brief. Zanello v. Smith Iron Works, 62
Or. 213, 124 P. 660.
579-21 Teegarden v, Ristine. (Ind.
App.), 106 N. E. 641; Schultze v, Maley
(Ind. App.), 105 N. E. 942; Eberle v.
Drennan, 40 Okla. 59, 136 P. 162.
Where error assigned was the over-
mUiig of the demurrer to answer, the
demurrer need not be set out In brief
where the answer was set out in full.
Bishop V. Boss (Ind. App.), 103 N. E.
505.
Where the complaint is set ont the pro-
priety of overruling demurrer will be
considered, even though the brief only
partially complied with requirements
of rule 22. Newman v, Horner, 55 Ind.
App. 298, 103 N. E. 820.
570-22 Hoisington v. Price, 32 S. D.
486, 143 N. W. 776.
580-24 Bradley v. Onstott, 180 Ind.
687, 103 N. E. 798; Baker v. Osborne,
55 Ind. App. 518, 104 N. E. 97; Gaar,
Scott & Co. f7. Bogers (Okla.), 148
P. 161; Young v. Missouri, O. & G. B.
Co. (Okla.), 145 P. 1118; CoUieri?. Gan-
non, 40 Okla. 275, 137 P. 1179; Avants
V, Bmner, 39 Okla. 730, 136 P. 593;
Hanson v. Paint Co., 36 Okla. 583, 129
P. 7; Wood V. McCain, 34 S. D. 544,
149 N. W. 426; Peterson v. MiUer, 33
S. D. 397, 146 N. W. 585; S. r. Shep-
ard, 30 S. D. 219, 138 N. W. 294; Un-
derwood V. Jordan (Tex. Civ. App.),
166 S. W. 88.
Evidence need not be quoted if stated
in clear narrative form with reasonable
fullness. King v. King (Wash.), 145
P. 971.
Where evidence is not set out the facts
will be assumed to have been correctly
found. Fall Oreek Tp. v. Shuman, 55
Ind. App. 232, 103 N, E, 677. And the
consideration thereof will be deemed to
have been waived. Vaupel v. Lamply,
181 Ind. 8, 103 N. E. 796. But the
court will BtiU correct any manifest
error to prevent a miscarriage of jus*
tice. Winterringer v, Sellen, 97 Neb.
739, 151 N. W. 162.
Oonfllct in briefs as to evidence.
Where appellant sets out his conclusions
as to what evidence shows and the ap-
pellee sets out his conclusions to the
opposite effect, the judgment will be
reversed because the court will not
take the time to find out what the evi-
dence is. Beck v. Gear, 180 Ind. 81.
100 N. E. 1.
580-25 Madeira v, Sonoma Magne-
site Co., 20 'CbI. App. 719, 130 P. 175.
580-26 Davis v, Blumenberg (Miss.),
65 8. 503. See Morrisey v. Schultz, 68
Wash. 237, 122 P. 1065.
581-27 Memphis B. Co. v. Steel, 108
Ark. 14, 156 S. W. 182, Ann. Cas. 1915B,
198; Shorter University v, Franklin, 75
Ark, 571, 88 S. W. 587; P. v. Guar-
agna, 23 Cal. App. 120, 137 P. 279; P.
t?. Stein, 23 Cal. App. 108, 137 P. 271;
P. V. Duncan, 22 Cal. App. 430, 134
P. 797; Nashville By. Co. v, Johnson
(Ind. App.), 106 N. E. 414; Mesker v.
Bishop (Ind. App.), 103 N. E. 492;
Kirklin v. Clark, 53 Ind. App. 358, 101
N. E. 753; American Nat. Bank v, Hal-
sell, 43 Okla. 126, 140 P. 390; Bhome
Mill. Co. V. Nat. Bank, 40 Okla. 131,
136 P. 1095; St. Louis B. Co. v, Shep-
ard, 40 Okla. 589, 139 P. 833; Gower
V. Short, 36 Okla. 30, 127 P. 485; Peter-
son V, Miller, 33 S. D. 397, 146 N. W.
585; Trinity By. Co. v. Dodd (Tex.
Civ.), 167 S. W. 238; Burnet Fuel Co.
V. Ellis (Tex. Civ.), 162 S. W. 911;
Trinity & B. V. By. Co. v. McCune
(Tex. Civ.), 154 S. W. 237. See King
V. King (Wash.), 145 P. 971.
Only instructlonfl objected to are re-
quired to be set out. Indianapolis Abat-
toir Co. t?. Bailey, 54 Ind. App. 370, 102
N. E. 970.
Or there Is a reference to the page
of transcript where they could be found.
Ford Motor Co. v. Freeman (Tex. Civ.),
168 S. W. 80.
581-20 Henderson v. County Pub.
Co. (Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 295; Bay-
burn V, Williams, 54 Ind. App. 617, 103
N. E. 116.
Where fifty-seven assignments of error
were combined together and presented
the matter as if appellate court was em-
powered to try the case on its merits,
the sufficiency pf the findings to sup-
port the judgment will be reviewed.
259
Vol 4
BRIEFS
Eastern Oil Co. v, Holcomb. 212 Fed.
126.
581-30 Morton v. aark, 10 Ala. App.
439, 65 S. 408- Dorsey 17. S., 179 Ind.
631, 100 K E. 369; Henderson v.
Country Pub. Co. (Ind. App.), 107 N.
E. 295; Judy v. Woods, 51 Ind. App.
325, 99 N. E. 792; Ex parte Whicker,
187 Mo. App. 96, 173 S. W. 38; Pack-
ard V. De Voe, 94 Neb. 740, 144 N. W.
813; Elm City Lumb. Co. v. Childer-
hose, 167 N. €. 34, 83 S. E. 22; Rogers
V. Mfg. Co., 157 N. C. 484, 73 S. E.
227; Axtmayer v, Ortiz, li P. E. 476;
S. V. Williams (S. D.), 151 N. W. 278;
Iowa Mfg. Co. V. Walcowich (Tex. Civ.),
163 S. W. 1054; Bixby v. Eoscoe, 85
Vt. 105, 81 A. 255.
Bole liberally construed. — Ogburn-Grif-
fin Gro. Co. f?. Orient Ins. Co. (Ala.), 66
S. 434.
Each ground of error insisted on should
be separately presented and numbered
in prqper order. Ogburn-Griffin Gro.
Co. f>. Orient Ins. Co. (Ala.), 66 S.
434.
Speciflcatioiis of errors must be framed
tersely setting forth the exact point
eomplained of without argument or cita-
tion of authorities. Afterwards coun-
sel may discuss and argue separately
each of the errors complained of and
cite his authorities. Puig v. Soto, 18
P. E. 130.
There can be no reconstractlon of an
assignment of error either in form or
substance (National Live Stock Ins. Co.
V. Gomillion [Tex. Civ.], 174 S. W.
330; Dees v, Thompson [Tex. Civ.], 166
S. W. 56), for appellee is entitled to
have the case presented upon exactly
the same questions passed upon and
considered in lower court. National
Live Stock Ins. Co. v. Gomillion (Tex.
Civ.), 174 S. W. 330; Iowa Mfg. Co.
t\ Walcowich (Tex. Civ.), 163 S. W.
1054; Edwards i?. Toungblood (Tex.
Civ.), 160 S. W. 288.
In cases of fondaznental error, the court
will take notice even though not men-
tioned in brief. Eadford Grocery Co.
V. Owens (Tex. Civ.), 161 S. W. 911.
See also Morgan v. Lomas (Tex. Civ.),
159 S. W. 869.
582-31 Morton v, Gark, 10 Ala.
App. 439, 65 S. 408; P. v. Measor, 20
Cal. App. 339, 128 P. 1016: Wolf v.
Akin, 55 Ind. App. 5S9, 104 N. E. 308;
Baker v, Osborne, 55 Ind. App. 518,
104 N. E. 97; Garvey v. Garvey, 156
Ky. 664, 161 S. W. 526; Welling «.
Beatrice Creamery Co., 95 Neb. 406, 145
N. W. 987; Haddock r. Stocks, 167
N. C. 70, 83 S. E. 9; Todd t?. Burger, 31
S. D. 622, 141 N. W. 515; Hughes v.
S., 126 Tenn. 40, 148 S. W. 543, Ann.
Cas. 1913D, 1262; Bushing v. Citizens'
Bank (Tex. Civ.), 162 S, W. 460; Mt.
Franklin Lime Co. v. May (Tex. Civ.),
150 S. W. 756; Pipkin v. First Nat.
Bank (Tex. Civ.), 149 S. W. 745; Mel-
lon V. U. S. Health Ins. Co., 85 Vt. 305,
82 A. 4.
583-32 Curry v. Evansville (Ind.
App.), 104 N. E. 978; Doehring v. Hol-
lenbeck (Ind. App.), 104 N. E. 770;
Watkins Nat. Bank ,i?. Polk (Okla.),
147 P. 1011; Livingston v. Chicago, R.
I. & P. B. Co., 41 Okla. 505, 139 P.
260; Carver v, Kenyon, 40 Okla. 232,
135 P. 1050; IT. S. Fidelity Co. v.
Overstreet, 38 Okla. 170, 132 P. 480;
Vanselous v, McClellan, 35 Okla. 505,
131 P. 172; Baskerville v. Thomas, 32
S. D. 432, 143 N. W. 371; Overton i?.
Colored K. of P. (Tex. Civ.), 163 S. W.
1053.
Assigiunents of error cannot be Joined
and briefed together where they pre-
sent different and distinct points of
law. National Live Stock Ins. Co. «.
Gomillion (Tex. Civ.), 174 S. W. 330.
583-33 Winterton Gum Co. r. Auto-
sales Gum & C. Co., 211 Fed. 612, 128
C. C. A. 212; P. f?. Iden, 24 Cal. App.
627, 142 P. 117; P. v. Balmain, 16 Cal-
App. 28, 116 P. 303; Atlantic C. B. Co.
V. Whitney, 65 Fla. 72, 61 8. 179; Lin-
coln V. Chicago B. Co., 262 111. 98, 104
N. E. 282; Stout v. Taylor, 168 111.
App. 410; Fox v. Worm, 55 Ind. App.
516, 104 N. E. 93; Judy v. Woods, 51
Ind. App. 325, 99 N. E. 792; Ellia v.
S., 8 Okla. Cr. 522, 128 P. 1095, 43 L.
B. A. (N. S.) 811; Duprel v. Collins, 33
8. D. 365, 146 N. W. 593; National
Live Stock Ins. Co. v» Gomillion ("ex.
Civ.), 174 S. W. 330; Pollard r. Allen
(Tex. Civ.), 171 S. W. 302? Trinity &
B. V. B. Co. f?. McCune (Tex. Civ.),
154 S. W. 237; Bobertson V. Pow, 155
Wis. 605, 145 N. W. 652.
583-34 . Illinois Central B. Co. V.
Nelson, 212 Fed. 69, 128 C. C. A. 525;
Murdough v, Murdough, 23 Cal. App.
179, 137 P. 267; Wills v. Woolner, 21
Cal. App. 528, 132 P. 283; Wills fJ.
Young (Ga. App.), 83 S. E. 275; Hen-
derson r. Country Pub. Co. (Ind. App.),
107 N. E. 295; McKinley v. Britton, 55
Ind. App. 21, 103 N. E. 349; Banney
260
BRIEFS
Vol. 4
I?. Lewis, 182 Mo. App. 58, 167 S. W.
601; Shaw v, Alexander, 94 Neb. 774,
144 N. W. 907; Whitney r. Broeder,
94 Xeb. 305, 143 N. W. 228; Brewer
r. Bljthe & Co. (Tex. Civ.), 158 S. W.
786; Comrs., etc. v. Seattle Factory Co.,
76 Wash. 181, 135 P. 1042; Robertson
r. Dow, 155 Wis, 605, 145 N. W. 652.
See also 8 Standard Peoc. 544, n. 81.
EzcepUoiui and objections. — Appellant's
brief must show an objection was inter-
posed to evidence or the ruling on ad-
mission cannot be reviewed. Brown v,
Brenner (Tex. Civ.), 161 S. W. 14.
Befeience to pages of the abstract of
evidence need not be made where evi-
dence was not necessary but the find-
ings were quoted in full Mondioli v.
American Bldg. Co. (Wash.), 145 P.
577.
684-35 Beed v, Chicago American,
162 HI. App. 287; Stid v, Missouri Pac.
B. Co., 236 Mo. 382, 139 S. W. 172;
Winterscheid v. Beichle, 45 Mont. 238,
122 P. 740.
S84-36 Bosenbaum Bros. 4^. Dramm
Co., 176 m. App. 205; Peak 17. Taub-
man, 251 Mo. 390, 158 S. W. 656; An-
aerson v. S., 8 Okla. Cr. 90, 126 P. 840,
Ann. Cas. 1914C, 314; Indian Land Co.
V. Widner, 35 Okla. 652, 130 P. 551.
Uidess it is apparent the assignment is
well taken.- Title Guaranty Co. t?.
Banker, 35 Okla. 128, 128 P. 696.
Precedence to supreme court decisions.
Counsel must make supreme court de-
cisions their first choice in presenting
precedents. Blizzard v. Brown, 152 Wis.
160, 139 N. W. 737.
585-8T Hart v. Schultz, 182 HI. App.
388; Smith v. Finney (Ind. App.), 104
N. E. 887; Bryant v. Modern Woodmen,
94 Neb. 380, 143 N. W. 331; Ingle t?.
Southern B. Co., 167 N. C. 636, 83 S. E.
744; Winbome Quano Co. v, Plymouth
Merc. Co. (N. C), 84 S. E. 272; Lynch
r. Rosemary Mfg. Co., 167 N. O. 98,
83 S. E. 6; Francis v. Bank, 40 Okla.
267, 138 P. 140.
Wbile it is good practice to identify
the points argued with the assignments
of error nothing in the rules require
it. Sweeney t?. Hewett, 34 S. D. 302,
148 N. W. 503.
Husak V. Clifford, 179 Ind.
173, 100 N. E. 4«6; Cleveland, etc. R.
Co. r. Bowen, 179 Ind. 142, 100 N. E.
465.
585-39 Cleveland, etc. By. Co. v.
Bowen, 179 Ind. 142, 100 N. £. 465.
•
585-40 Board v. Delinquent Lands
(Ark.), 150 S. W. 575; Vallejo & N.
R. Co. V. Savings Bank, 24 Cal. App.
166, 140 P. 974; Glasspoole Lumb. Co.
r. Lumb. Co., 22 Cal. App. 338, 134 P.
349; Davis t\ Pursel, 55 Colo. 287, 134
P. 107; Neikirk r. Boulder Bank, 53
Colo. 350, 127 P. 137; Mesa Land Co.
V, Hoyt, 24 Colo. App. 279, 133 P. 471;
Waukegan r. Wetzel, 261 111. 498, 104
N. E. 184; P. V, Gray, 251 111. 431, 96
N. E. 268; Equitable Powder Mfg. Co.
V. Cleveland R. Co., 155 111. App. 265.
af. 92 N. E. 979; Leach t?. S., 177
Ind. 234, 97 N. E. 792; Macbeth Glass
Co. V. Jones, 176 Ind. 221, 95 N. E.
567; Cribbs v. Stiver, 181 Mich. 82, 147
N. W. 587; Simmons v. Affolter, 254
Mo. 163, 162 S. W. 168; Austin v. Bluff
City Shoe Co. (Mo. App.), 158 S. W,
709; Erdmann r. United Rys. Co., 173
Mo. App. 98, 155 S. W. 1081; Bidenour
V. Wilcox Mines Co., 164 Mo. App. 576,
147 S. W. 852.
586-44 Bosenan v, Powell, 184 Ala.
396, 63 S. 1020; Louisville & N. R. B.
Co. t?. Holland, 173 Ala. 675, 55 8.
1001; Freiria & Co. v. Felix, 19 P. B.
1027; Peck v. Morgan (Tex. Civ.), 156
S. W. 917.
Discretionary witli ax^ellate court to
allow errors urged in supplemental brief
and not discpssed in original brief to
be considered. State v. Paysse, 80
Wash. 603, 142 P. 3.
Amended brief filed without leave be-
fore cause was argued allowed to
stand. Austin v. Bluff City Shoe Co.,
176 Mo. App. 546, 158 S. W. 709.
Where appellant lias filed an amended
brief meeting appellee's objections to
the original brief, the court will not
consider the objections raised. Ek v.
Fuel Co., 157 la. 433, 138 N. W. 547.
Kew briefs to comply with an act
passed but not published before other
briefs had been filed may be permitted
on motion. Security Trust, etc. Co. v.
Stuart (Tex. Civ.), 163 S. W. 396.
586-47 Padgett v. 8., 64 Fla. 389, 59
S. 946, Ann. Cas. 1914B, 897; Tucker
V. Tucker, 174 111. App. 251 (writ of
error dismissed because brief printed in
smaller type than required by rule of
court); Bank of Roxie v. Lampton, 103
Miss. 398, 60 S. 561; City v, S., 103
Miss. 314, 60 S. 325; Bradshaw V.
Stansberry, 164 N. C. 356, 79 S. E.
302; Baskerville v. Thomas, 32 S. D.
432, 143 N. W. 371; Sanford v, Helger
son, 31 S. D. 472, 141 N. W. 390.
261
Vol. 4
BRIEFS
Bupxeme court rule requiring printed
briefs applies to district court of ap-
peals. Weill V. Danziger, 22 Cal. App.
688, 136 P. 308.
587-49 Bose v. S., 8 Okla. Cr. 294,
127 P. 873; Simmons Hardware Co. v.
Adams (Tex. Civ.), 145 S. W. 285. See
Cline V, S., 9 Okla. Cr. 40, 130 P. 610,
45 L. R. A. (N. S.) 108.
Should be legible and on papet of
standard weight. Price v. S., 10 Okla.
Cr. .427, 137 P. 736.
587-50 Freiria & Co. v, Felix, 19 P.
B. 1027; Crawford V, Wellington E.
Com. (Tex. Civ.), 174 S. W. 1004.
In chancery where complainant is ap-
pellee the duty to serve the first brief
rests on him when the appellant has
perfected his appeal and printed the
record. Pinel v. Pinel, 172 Mich. 611,
138 N. W. 219.
Bule of court may be waived by stip-
ulation of parties. Block v, Lehman, 32
S. D. 40, 141 N. W. 982; Union Pacific
B. Co. V. Grace (Wyo.), 137 P. 881.
If served within thirty days after rec-
ord is filed in supreme court it is suffi-
cient. Hull V. Larson, 14 Ariz. 492, 131
P. 668.
587-51 A failure to file briefs
within the time allowed by rules of
court will justify a dismissal of the
appeal or an affirmance of the judg-
ment. Sewell V. Christie, 163 Cal. 76,
124 P. 713; McCowen t?. Trumann, 22
Cal. App. 361, 134 P. 341; Cochburn v.
Hawkeye Commercial Men's Assn., 163
la. 28, 143 N. W. 1006; Melin v. Stuart,
119 Minn. 539, 138 N. W. 281t Bowe
V. Campbell (N. C), 76 S. E. 474; Rose-
mond V, McPherson, 156 N. O. 593, 72
S. E. 570; Oksendahl v. Hales, 27 N.
D. 381, 146 N. W. 545; Hazard V. Phoe-
nix W. Co., 78 N. J. Eq. 568, 80 A.
456; Deal t?. Western Clay & G. Pro-
ducts Co., 18 N. M. 70, 133 P. 974;
HilUard 17. Ins. Co., 17 N. M. 664, 132
P. £49; Thomason v. Champlin (Okla.),
14a P» 991; Clayton v. Trimmer
(Ok!a.)i 14S P, 718, Mclnteer v. Broyles
(Okla.)j 148 P. 695; Davis <?. Vaughn
(Okla,), 148 P. 137; ^ Nicholson v.
Barnes, 'd2 Okla. 250, 140 P. 1155; Tur-
ner Hdw. Co. V. John Deere Plow Co.,
39 Okla. 633, 136 P. 417; Joiner r.
Cobb, 39 Okla. 581, 136 P. 421; Clin-
ton & 0. W. E. Co. v. White Lumb. &
C. Co., 39 Okla. 140, 134 P. 396; Mar-
tin 17. Glass, 39 Okla. 59, 134 P 51;
Huddlestun v. Osborne & Co. (Okla.),
130 P. 574; Ledbetter v. Kimsey, 39
Okla. 282, 128 P. 1086; Berry v. Wood-
ward, 38 Okla. 468, 133 P. 1127; Brid-
enbaugh v. McElrath, 34 S. D. 277, 148
N. W, 18; Jorgenson v, Tidrick, 34 S.
D. 276, 148 N. W. 18- S. v. Van Dyke,
31 S. D. 424, 141 N. W. 210; GuUikson
f?. Bovee, 31 S. D. 496, 141 N. W. 478;
Dakota Nat. Bank i;. Kleinschmidt, 31
S. D. 35, 139 N. W. 348; Bartholomew
V, Culver (Ter. Civ.), 171 S. W. 498;
Alderete v. Moore (Tex. Civ.), 166 S.
W. 453; Brown V. Cameron & Co. (Tex-
Civ.), 164 S. W. 425; Ft. Worth Belt
R. Co. V. Perryman (Tex. Civ.), 158 8.
W. 1181; Galveston H.&S.A.B. Co. v.
Short (Tex. Civ.), 158 S. W. 175; Gor-
don V. S. (Tex. Civ.), 151 S. W. 867;
Lfevold V. Stirrat, 72 Wash. 26, 129 P.
406; Lobell v. Stock Oil Co., 21 Wyo.
342, 132 P. 433; Grippen v, S., 20 Wyo.
486, 124 P. 764, 128 P. 622. But the
court in its discretion may, where the
facts warrant it, allow the appeal.
Strand 17. Crooked Biver Min. & M.
Co., 23 Ida. 577, 131 P. 5; Covert V.
Lovilia (la.), 149 N. W. 67; Cochburn
V. Hawkeye Commercial Men's Assn.,
103 la. 28, 143 N. W. 1006; Cole v. WU-
low Kiver Co., 60 Or. 594, 117 P. 659,
118 P. 176, 1030; Gonzalez v. Acha, 19
P. R. 1143: Danner v. Walker-Smith Co.
(Tex. Civ.), 154 S. W. 295. * In criminal
cases the proceedings ate reviewable
even though the rules for filing briefs
are not complied with. Murdock v. Ter.,
14 Ariz. 5, 123 P. 315; P. f?. Figueroa,
160 Cal. 80, 116 P. 391; S. t?. Maggard,
250 Mo. 335, 157 S. W. 354; S. v. Miles,
174 Mo. App. 181, 156 S. W. 758; Hess
V. S., 9 Okla. Cr. 516, 132 P. 505; White
V. S., 9 Okla. Cr. 187, 131 P. 189; WiU-
iams V. S., 9 Okla. Cr. 185, 130 P. 1177;
Smith V. S., 9 Okla. Cr. 15, 130 P. 517.
588-5S A motion for extension of
time to file reply brief waives a failure
to serve brief. Union Pacific E. Co. v.
Grace (Wyo.), 137 P. 881.
588-54 Melody v. By. Co., 161 la.
695, 141 N. W. 438; Miller V. C, 154
Ky. 201, 157 S. W. 373; S. v. Roy, 94
Neb. 690, 144 N. W. 169; Lawless t?.
Pitchford, 33 Okla. 633, 126 P. 782;
Waterman Lumber Co. <?. Holmes (Tex.
Civ.), 161 S. W. 70; Shannon V. Loeb,
65 Wash. 640, 118 P. 823.
If within spirit of rules, brief will not
be stricken. Hamilton t?. McNeill, 160
la. 470, 129 N. W 480, Ann. Cas. 1912D,
604.
Where no motion to strike is made court
262
mmtASi
roL4
will consider case. Dunn v. Blue Grass
Bealty Co., 163 Ky. 384, 173 S. W. 1122.
Condensing evidence^ — ^Where appel-
lant's brief does not comply with the
rules in regard to condensation of evi-
dence, and includes matter not assigned
as error, and otherwise encumbers the
record the judgment will be affirmed.
Smith V. Johnson (S. D.), 151 N. W.
46; Donahoe i;. Adebar (S. D.), 149 N.
W. 175.
588-57 P. V, Willett, 164 App. Div.
1, 149 N. Y. 8. 348. See Zinser t?. San-
itary Dist., 175 111. App. 9.
BUBGLABT
691-1 P. v. Mendelson, 264 HI. 453,
106 N. E. 249.
592-5 S. V. Puekett, 95 S. C. 114, 78
S. E. 737, 46 L. B. A. (N. 8.) 999.
593-8 Simpson v, 8., 5 Okla. Cr. 57,
113 P. 549.
593-9 See Schultz i?. 8., 88 Neb. 613,
130 N. W. 105, 34 L. E. A. (N. S.) 243.
594-10 Stephens v. 8. (Tex. Or.),
154 S. W. 1001; Snodgrass V. 8. (Tex.
Cr.), 148 8. W. 1095.
594-12 Burglary in railroad car.
An indictment for burglary and larceny
in a railroad car may charge the crime
to have been committed in any one of
the counties through which the car
passed. P. v. Goodwin, 263 HI. 99, 104
N. E. 1018.
595-18 "Burglarlomi entry."— May
be charged by an averment of a burg-
larious entry under Pen. Code, 1901,
11418, 422. Bain t). 8., 15 Ariz. 125, 137
P. 550.
596-19 Davis v, 8. (Ark.), 174 8.
W. 567.
597-23 Stephens «. 8. (Tex. Or.), 154
8. W. 1001.
597-24 Ko description of property
necessary in an indictment for burglary
with intent to commit larceny. Davis
f?. 8. (Ark.), 174 8. W. 567.
597-26 Jones v. 8., 12 Ga. App. 813,
78 8. E. 474.
597-26 8. 17. Biddle, 245 Mo. 451, 150
8. W. 1044, Ann. Cas. 1914A, 884, 43 L.
E. A. (N. 8.) 150.
598-29 Tarver v, 8., 95 Ga. 222, 21
8. E. 381; Josslyn v. Com., 6 Met.
(Mass.), 236; 8. v. Beckworth, 68 Mo.
82; Spears t?. 8., 2 O. St. 583; Stephen-
son «. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 154 8. W. 1001.
In tbe preUmlnary complaint^ the value
need not be alleged, if there is an al-
legation of stealing goods and chattels,
or goods and merchandise. Wheelei^
V. S., 79 Neb. 491, 113 N. W. 253.
598-30 See Jones t?. 8., 12 Ga. App.
813, 78 8. E. 474.
TTse of the word "honse" instead of
''storehouse" does not vitiate the in-
dictment. Drury v, C, 162 Ky. 123,
172 8. W. 94.
An "office." — ^It is sufficient to charge
the building was an '^ office" of a
named company. 8. t?. Ferguson, 149
la. 476, 128 N. W. 840.
Character of house need not be alleged
unless to charge specifically that it was
a private residence. Stephens t7. 8.
(Tex. Cr.), 154 8. W. 1001.
599-36 Vicente v. 8., 66 Fla. 197, 63
8. 423; 8. v. Ellis, 102 Miss. 541, 59 8.
841; James v, 8., 77 Miss. 370, 26 8. 928,
78 Am. St. 527.
600-37 P. V. Mendoza, 17 Cal. App.
157, 118 P. 964.
600-38 8. «. Henschel, 250 Mo. 263,
157 8. W. 311.
601-41 Badley v. 8., 174 Ind. 645,
92 N. E. 541. -
602-45 Simpson 9. 8., 5 Okla. Cr.
57, 113 P. 549.
603-60 In Texas in either or all of
them. Whorton «. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 151
8. W. 300.
603-52 Hopkins v. 8., 61 Tex. Cr.
590, 135 8. W. 553.
603-53 Lewis v. S., 72 Tex. Or. 377,
162 8. W. 866; Dennis t?. 8. (Tex. Cr.),
158 8. W. 1008.
604-67 Scott V, 8. (Ga. App.), 82 8.
E. 376; P. V. Goodwin, 263 HI. 99, 104
N. E. 1018; 8. v, Pueelier, 134 La. 632,
64 8. 493; 8. r. Perry, 116 La. 231, 40
8. 686; 8. v. Bums (Mo.), 173 8. W.
1070; Cunningham v, 8., 56 Neb. 691,
77 N. W. 60; 8. v. Flanagan, 48 W. Va.
115, 35 8, E. 862.
605-58 Scott V, 8. (Ga. App.), 82 8.
E. 376; 8. f?. Burns (Mo.), 173 8. W.
1070.
605-59 8. V, Burns (Mo.), 173 8. W.
1070.
606-63 Davis v. 8. (Ark.), 174 8.
W. 567.
Variance as to time. — ^" While the in-
dictment alleges specifically that the
burglary occurred on the 12th day of
February, yet as a general rule, if the
263
yd .4
CASE, THE ACTION ON THE
evidence shows it was committed within
the limitation and prior to the present-
ment of the indictment, this would be
sufficient" Brown v. S. (Tex. O.), 143
B W. 183,
606-65 p. f?. Mendelson, 264 lU. 453,
106 N. E, 249.
Bule iUuBtratecL— Where M was al-
leged to he the owner and proof was
that M and another had possession and
control there was no variance. Pow-
ers V, S^ 72 Tex. Cr. 290, 162 S. W. 832.
An allegation that ownership was in
prosecuting witness is sustained by
proof it was owned by him and his son
and that he was in charge. Whorton
V S. (Tex. Cr.), 151 S. W. 300.
608-71 S. V. Spear, 164 N. C. 452,
79 S. E. 869.
CASE (THE AOnON OF TBESPASS
ON THE)
621-19 Birmingham Water Works
Oo. V. Martini, 2 Ala. App. 652, 56 S.
830.
Action on the case is an equitable ac-
tion formed to meet cases of tort for
which the law had been unable to de-
clare a more convenient remedy and
is administered after the method em-
ployed by the law in its corresponding
form of action ex contractu, "the ac-
tion for money had and received. ' ' Teat
<?. Chapman & Co., 1 Ala. App. 491, 56
S. 267.
621.-20 Birmingham Water Works
Oo. V. Martini, 2 Ala. App. 652, 56 S.
830.
Trespass on the case includes both as-
sumpsit and case. Bagaglio v, Paolino,
35 B. I. 171, 85 A. 1048, rehear, denied,
86 A. 1136.
624-25. Oontractnal and statutory
obligsttlons. — ^''An action on the case
rnajj;^ be brought for the recovery of
damages for the omission or neglect of
a duty ox obligation arising from con-
tract as well as one imposed by stat-
ute."' Crosby v, Plummer, 111 Me. 355,
89 A. 145; Milford v. Bangor R. & E.
Co., 104 Me. 233, 71 A. 759, 30 L. E.
A. (N, S.) 631.
656-56 Waters v. Winn, 142 Qa. 138,
82 S. B. 637.
659-72 Interstate Lumb. Co. v. Buke,
183 Ala. 484, 62 S. 845.
658-74 Zavello v. Leichtman, 171
Ala. 66, 64 S. 537.
661-2 Defense must be based upon
plaintiff's obligation under the con-
tract or its incidents, must be a proxi-
mate cause, and must occur before or
concurrently with breach. Crosby v.
Plummer, 111 Me. 355, 89 A. 145.
662-3 Teat v. Chapman & Co., 1 Ala.
App. 491, 56 S. 267.
CASE AMD QUESTIOK CTBBTIFIED,
BESEBVXSD OB BEPOBTED
681-25
Howbert,
58 Xi. edL
683-36
Howbert,
58 L. ed.
685-41
Howbert,
58 L. ed.
Stratton's Independence v.
231 U. S. 399, 34 Sup. Ct. 136,
285.
Stratton's Independence v.
231 U. S. 399, 34 Sup. Ct. 136,
285.
Stratton 's Independence f •
231 U. S. 399, 34 Sup. Ct. 136,
285.
Questions certified not apposite to
facts as stated in the certificate will
go unanswered by the supreme court, r
Seim <?. Hurd, 232 U. S. 420, 34 Sup.
Ct. 406, 58 L. ed. 667; Woodward Co.
V. Hurd, 232 IT. S. 428, 34 Sup. Ct. 409,
58 L. ed. 670.
687-47 Necessity of a signed stipu-
lation.— ^The request for a reservation
need not contain a stipulation signed by
counsel where the action in the trial
court is ready for final judgment.
Beardsley v. Fairchild, 87 Conn. 359, 87
A. 737.
687-48 Necessity for lower court to
find facts. — ^Assignments of etror for
exclusion of evidence will not be con-
sidered by the supreme court of errors
where they are not founded upon a find-
ing of fact identifying the rulings ap-
pealed from although the entire evi-
dence was certified as part of the rec-
ord on appeal. Bristol ft Plainville
Tramway Co. f?. Evelin (Conn.), 94 A.
290.
712-48 Beporting ease before ver-
dict.— ^Where a case is reported before
verdict upon a stipulation to determine
whether or not a verdict for the de-
fendant upon the testimony could be
sustained, the supreme court will look
at the case as if a verdict for the de-
fendant had been returned. Gray v.
Gray, 111 Me. 21, 87 A. 661.
(ri2-49 Supreme court must settle
the facts, as well as the law, where
case comes up on report. Watson v.
Cameron, 111 Me. 343, 89 A. 143.
264
CASE ON APPEAL
Vol 4
7i:S-53 Cole V. Cole, 112 Me. 315,
92 A. 174.
719-73 Mass. St., 1910, ch. 555, §5;
Diamond v. Earle, 217 Mass. 499, 105
N. E. 363, 51 L. B. A. (N. S.) 1178.
719-74 Idan Litto Temperance Soc.
«?. Isakson, 219 Mass. 95, 106 N. £. 581.
719-77 Lee v. Blodget, 214 Mass.
374, 102 N. E. 67.
721-91 Certifying QuesticmB arising
in criminal causes. — To confer jurisdic-
tion of a case, certified to the supreme
court it should affirmativelj appear
that the question of law certified arose
in one of the two ways mentioned in
the statute. The court has no power to
certify any question arising in the
midst of a trial. It must be either in
the course of preliminary prooeedings
or upon conviction. S. v. Billings, 96
Minn. 533, 104 N. W. 1150; S. t?. Byrud,
23 Minn. 29. The statute (Qen. St.,
1913, §9251) provides for certifying to
the supreme court questions arising
"upon the trial of any person convicted
in any district court, or upon any de-
murrer or special plea to an indictment
or upon any motion upon or relating
thereto.'' But there is no warrant for
certifying questions that have arisen
upon a trial in which the jury dis-
agreed. S. 17. Toole, 124 Minn. 532, 144
N. W. 474,
730-39 Waldorf-Astoria Hotel Co. v.
New York, 212 N. Y. 97, 105 N. E. 803.
747-20 Stipulatioa of connseL — Jur-
isdiction cannot be acquired by stipula-
tion of counsel alone, the procedure pro-
vided for by the statute must be fol-
lowed. Greenough v. People's Sav.
Bank (R. I.), 94 A. 706.
751-47 Tex. Bev. St., 1911, art. 1623;
First Nat. Bank i?. Conner (Tex.), 17S
S. W. 1106; First State Bank t?. Power
(Tex.), 163 S. W. 581; Groce v. West
Lumber Co. (Tex.), 163 S. W. 581.
Ckmflict most be well defined. — It is the
duty of the court of civil appeals to
certify the case to the supreme court
when there is a clearly defined con-
flict between its decisions and that of
some other court of civil appeals. First
Nat. Bank v. Conner (Tex.), 172 S. W.
1106.
755-58 After the term expires the
court of civil appeals is without juris-
diction to certify questions to the su-
preme court. Noble v. Broad (Tex.
Civ.), 173 S. W. 643.
755*^1 Ft. Worth Imp. Bist. V. Ft.
Worth (Tex.), 158 S. W. 164.
757-67 A question previously de-
cided by supreme court will not be
certified to the supreme court by the
court of appeals. Lock v. Citizens'
Nat. Bank (Tex. Civ.), 165 S. W. 536.
757-68 Chicago, E. I. & G. R. Co. v,
Dalton (Tex. Civ.), 177 S. W. 556; Day
t7. Mercer (Tex. Civ.), 175 S. W. 764;
Qordon Jones Const. Co. v, Lopez (Tex.
Civ.), 172 S. W. 987; Sullivan-Sanford
Lumber Co. v. Reeves (Tex, Civ.), 125
S. W. 96.
757-69 A fact, which is not dl&-
doaed by the statement and opinions
from the court of civil appeals cannot
be considered by the supreme court as
a basis for its answer to a certified
question. American Bond Co. i?. Logan
(Tex.), 166 S. W. 1132.
759-71 San Antonio & A. P. R. Co.
V. Houston Pack. Co. (Tex.), 167 S. W.
228; First State Bank t?. Power (Tex.),
163 S. W. 581.
759-76 -San Antonio & A. P. R. Co.
f?. Houston Pack. Co. (Tex.), 167 S. W.
228.
759-78 ETidence considered. — Where
the question certified is whether the
evidence is sufficient to justify a con-
clusion that appellant was negligent,
only the evidence tending to show neg-
ligence can be considered. Carsey v,
Hawkins (Tex,), 163 S. W. 586.
CASE ON APPEAL
<(
case-
766-1 Tenng defined. — A
made'' or a '*case" is a written state-
ment of the facts in a case agreed to
by the parties, and duly authenticated
by the judge who tried the case, and
submitted to an appellate court for
the purpose of obtaining a review of
alleged errors of law occurring in the
proceedings of the court below, as
shown in the record thus presented."
Thompson v. Fulton, 29 Okla. 700, 119
P. 244.
767-5 Thompson v. Pulton, 29 Okla.
700, 119 P. 244.
768-13 Laborn v, Stephens (Okla.),
147 P. 162; Parker t?. Wadleigh, 43 Okla.
180, 141 P. 781; Homeland Eealty Co. v.
Bobison, 39 Okla. 591, 136 P. 585;
Wood V. Jones, 32 Okla. 640, 122 P. 678.
771-16 Okla. Eev. Laws, 1910,
§5241; S. V, Wilson, 43 Okla, 112, 141
P. 426; Thompson v, Fulton, 29 Okla.
700, 119 P. 244.
Instnsaentg of writing should not be
265
Vol. 4
CASE ON APPEAL
set out in full in preparing the case,
unless the instrument is to be construed
and, even then, only so much of it as
is necessary to a proper construction
should appear. Twiggs v. Williams, 98
S. C. 431, 82 S. E. 676.
773-25 Glass f^. Gould, 41 Okla. 424,
138 P. 796.
Bettis V, Cargile, 34 Okla.
319, 126 P. 222.
776-82 Labom v. Stephens (Okla.}^
147 P. 152.
777-36 Court will dismiss the appeal
if the case is not prepared according
to the rules. Twiggs 17. Williams, 98 S.
a 431, 82 S. E. 676.
777-37 Greer v. Keaton, 98 S. C
192, 82 S. E. 424.
778-41 Skeleton case on appeal In-
sufUdent^ — ^A case on appeal is not suffi-
cient which does not set out the evi-
dence in narrative form but is a mere
skeleton outline with directions to the
clerk to insert parts of the stenogra-
pher's notes, the testimony and the in-
structions. Sloan V. Equitable Life As-
sur. Society (N. C), 85 S. E. 216.
780-48 Grimes v. West (Okla.), 149
P. 135; Palmer-Gregory Chiropractic
College V. Hubble (Okla.), 148 P. 719;
Bowles V. Cooney (Okla.), 146 P. 221;
Michael v, Isom, 43 Okla. 708, 143 P.
1053: Armstrong I?. White, 43 Okla. 639,
143 P. 329; School Dist. No. 29 t?. First
Kat. Bank, 40 Okla. 568, 139 P. 989;
Bottoms V. Neuklrchner, 40 Okla. 142,
136 P. 774; Tucker v. Hudson, 38 Okla,
790, 134 P. 21; National Surety Co. v.
Oklahoma Presbyterian CoUego, 38
Okla. 429, 132 P. 052; Appleby v. Dow-
den (Okla.), 132 P. 349; American Nat.
Bank v. Mergenthaler Linotype Co., 31
Okla. 533, 122 P. 507; Price v. Coving-
ton, 29 Okla. 854, 119 P. 626.
After death of party, the service of a
case-made upon the attorney of such
party is a nullity where no revivor has
been first had. May v. Fitzpatrick, 35
Okla. 45, 127 P. 702.
781-53 Hardee v, Timberlake, 159
N. C. 552, 75 S. E. 799; Zell Guano Co.
f?. Hicks, 120 N. C. 29, 26 S. E. 650;
Gilbert f?. Devilbiss (Okla.), 148 P.
689; Haines v. Casaver (Okla.), 147 P.
1191; Michael v. Isom, 43 Okla. 708,
143 P. 1053; Spears <?• Southern Surety
Co., 43 Okla. 645, 143 P. 664; Jones v,
Bilby, 43 Okla. 494, 143 P. 330; Scott
V. Young, 43 Okla. 367, 143 P. 36; Todd
V. Carter, 43 Okla. ^38, 142 P. 996; Kin-
ney V, McPherren, 42 Okla. 209, 140 P.
1149; Wills V, Buzbee, 42 Okla. 206, 140
P. 1146; Jordon v, St. Louis & S. F.
B. Co., 41 Okla. 341, 143 P. 46; Veverka
V. Frank, 41 Okla. 142, 137 P. 682; Tal-
liaferro o. Exchange Bank, 40 Okla.
555, 139 P. 955; National Surety Co. v.
Oklahoma Presbyterian College, 38" Okla.
429, 132 P. 652; Brown-Beane Co. v.
Eucker, 36 Okla. 696, 136 P. 1075; Bet-
tis V. Cargile, 34 Okla. 319, 126 P. 222;
Edson V. Herod, 33 Okla. 482, 126 P.
577; St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. t?. Rickey,
33 Okla. 481, 126 P. 735; Cunyan r.
Clemmer, 33 Okla. 480, 126 P. 578;
Haynes v. Smith, 29 Okla. 703, 119 P.
246; Be vault v. Merchants^ Exch. Co.,
22 Okla. 624, 98 P. 342.
Ih OkliAoma, a party desiring to ap-
peal has three days under the statute
in which to serve a case made after the
entry of the judgment or order appealed
from; and, unless the case made is
served within that time, or within the
extension of time allowed by the court
or judge within such time, the case-
made is void, and will not be consid-
ered by an appellate court. Bunlaps v,
C. T. Herring Co. (Okla.), 145 P. 374;
Mobley v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co.
(Okla:), 145 P. 321; School Bist. t?.
Mackey (Okla.), 144 P. 1032; Upp Gro-
cery Co. V, Lins (Okla.), 144 P. 377;
Morris V. Caulk (Okla.), 144 P. 623;
Phillips V, Dillingham (Okla.), 144 P.
363; Hughes v, Martin, 43 Okla. 710,
144 P. 356; Parker v. Wadleigh, 43
Okla. 180, 141 P. 781; Edwards v. By-
num, 43 Okla. 148, 141 P. 678; Okla-
homa Fire Ins. Co. v, Kimpel, 39 Okla.
339, 135 P. 6; Williams v. New State
Bank, 38 Okla. 326, 132 P. 1087; Hengst
V. Thompson Oil & Gas Co., 37 Okla.
295, 131 P. 1075; Foulds v. Hubbard, 36
Okla. 146, 128 P. 108; Fife v, Cornelous,
35 Okla. 402, 124 P. 957; Wood v.
Jones, 32 Okla. 640, 122 P. 678; Moss
Brew. Co. v. S., 37 Okla. 303, 135 P. 356;
St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Nelson, 31
Okla. 51, 119 P. 625; Thompson V. Ful-
ton, 29 Okla. 700, 119 P. 244.
782-56 Okla. Rev. Laws, 1910,
§5242; S. V. Wilson, 43 Okla. 112, 141
P. 426.
783-57 Upp Grocery Co. f). Lins, 43
Okla. 756, 144 P. 377; Campbell v.
Ruble, 40 Okla. 48, 135 P. 1050.
784-61 Smilansky o. Murphy (Mich.) ,
152 N. W. 1067.
Where a case is tiled npon an agreed
statement a motion for new trial ifl un-
S66
CASE ON APPEAL
Vol i
authorized by statute, and the time for
making and serving a case for this court
runs from the date of the judgment,
unaffected by such motion or the order
overruling the same. An order extend-
ing the time, and a case-made served
in accordance therewith, after the ex-
piration of the time specifically given
by statute, are nullities, and a petition
in error with such case-made attached
gives this court no jurisdiction. Byrd v,
Harrison (Okla.), 145 P. 318; Dunlap v,
C. T. Herring Lumb. Co. (Okla.), W5
P. 374; School Dist. No. 38 v. Mackey
(OklaOi 144 P. 1032; Veverka v. Frank
(Okla.), 137 P. 682; St. Louis & S. F.
B. Co. V, Nelson, 40 Okla. 143, 136 P.
690; Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v, Sha^v^-
nee, 39 Okla. 728, 136 P. 591.
784-62 Minn. Gen. St., 1913, §7832;
Noonan v. Spear, 125 Minn. 475, 147 N.
W. 654.
784-63 Hughes v. Martin, 43 Okla.
710, 144 P. 356; Spears t?. Southern Sur-
ety Co., 43 Okla. 645, 143 P. 664; Scott
1". Young, 43 Okla. 367, 143 P.. 36; Par-
ker t?. Wadleigh, 43 Okla. 180, 141 P.
781; Wills c. Buzbee, 42 Okla. 206, 140
P. 1146; Vannier v. Fraternal Aid Assn.,
40 Okla. 732, 140 P. 1021; Talliaferro
V. Exchange Bank, 40 Okla. 555, 139 P.
955; Antis v. Parson, 40 Okla. 449, 138
P. 1020; Campbell i?. Ruble, 40 Okla.
48, 135 P. 1050; Hurst v. Wheeler, 35
Okla. 639, 130 P. 934; Fife v. Cornelous,
35 Okla. 402, 124 P. 957; Lawson V.
Zeigler, 33 Okla. 368, 125 P. 724; Love-
joy, Russell & James r. Graham, 33
Okla. 129, 124 P. 25; Haynes v. Smith,
29 Okla. 703, 119 P. 246.
785-64 Bettis v. Cargile, 23 Okla.
301, 100 P. 436.
785-65 Addressed to the sotind dis-
cretioii of the trial court. Smilansky v.
Murphy (Mich.), 152 N. W. 1067.
785-67 Hulme v. Diffenbacher, 53
Kan. 181, 36 P. 60; Atchison T. & S. F.
R. Co. V. Leeman, 5 Kan. App. 804, 48
P. 932- Bradley v. Farmers* State Bank
' (Okla.), 147 P. 302; Osborne f?. Chicago,
B. L & P. Ry. Co. (Okla.), 147 P. 301;
Lidecker Tool Co. v. Coghill, 35 Okla.
134, 128 P. 680; Murphey v. Favors,
31 Okla. 162, 120 P. 641; Casner v.
Wooley, 28 Okla. 424, 114 P. 700; Hor-
ner V. Goltry & Sons, 23 Okla. 905, 101
P. 1111; Shawnee v. Farrell, 22 Okla.
652, 98 P. 942.
786-70 The order must be idiown by
-'^A purported order of the
trial judge extending the time in which
to make and serve a case-made is with-
out force where the case-made fails to
show affirmatively that such order was
made and is entered of record." Mob-
ley t?. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co.
(Okla.), 145, P. 321; Fife V. Cornelous,
35 Okla. 402, 124 P. 957.
787-74 In Oklahoma three days is
allowed to suggest amendments, which
must be in writing. Rev. Laws, 1910,
§5242; S. v. Wilson, 43 Okla. 112, 141
P. 426.
When time commences to run. — ^The
time allowed by the trial court for the
suggestion of amendments to a case-
made commences to run, not from' the
date of the service of the case-made,
but from the expiration of the period
of extension. Memphis Co. v, Hutchison
(Okla.), 147 P. 771; Cummings V. Tate
(Okla.), 147 P. 304.
789-80 Security Trust & Sav. Bank
t?. Gleichman (Okla.), 147 P. 1009;
Welcher v. Burford (Okla.), 147 P. 774;
Brown v. Marks (Okla.), 146 P. 707;
Foral V, Bogle (Okla.), 146 P. 706;
Tracy f?. Dennis (Okla.), 145 P. 772;
Moore v. Howard Mercantile Co., 40
Okla. 491, 139 P. 524; School Dist. v.
Griffith, 33 Okla. 625, 127 P. 258; Rich-
ardson V. Thompson, 33 Okla. 120, 124
P. 64; Wood V, Jones, 32 Okla. 640, 122
P. 678; Cobb & Co. i?. Hancock, 31
Okla. 42, 119 P. 627; Thompson v, Ful-
ton, 29 Okla. 700, 119 P. 244; Ft. Smith
& W. R. Co. V. State Nat. Bank, 25
Okla. 128, 105 P. 647.
Form and contents of notice. — Such
notice should be in writing, and specify
the time and place when the case-made
will be presented to the judge for set-
tlement and signature. Brown i;.
Marks (Okla.), 146 P. 707.
Notice insni&cient which does not state
the time and place of its presentation
for settlement. Wyant v. Wheeler, 38
Okla. 68, 132 P. 137.
789-81 Walcher l\ Burford (Okla.),
147 P. 774; Brown v. Marks (Okla.),
146 P. 707; Foral v. Bogle (Okla.), 146
P. 706; Tracy v. Dennis (Okla.), 145
P. 772; Moore V, Howard Mercantile
Co., 40 Okla. 491, 139 P. 524; School
Dist. V. Griffith, 33 Okla. C25, 127 P.
258; Richardson v. Thompson, 33 Okla.
120, 124 P. 64; Cobb & Co. v, Hancock,
31 Okla. 42, 119 P. 627; Ft. Smith Sb
W. R. Co. V. State Nat. Bank, 25 Okla,
128, 105 P. 647.
267
Vol. 4
CASE ON APPEAL
790-82 Security Trust & Sav. Bank
V. Glcichman (Okla.), 147 P. 1009;
Walchcr v. Burford (Okla.), 147 P.
774; Brown f?. Marks (Okla.), 146 P.
707; Poral f?. Bogle (Okla.), 146 P.
706; Tracy v. Dennis (Okla.), 145 P.
772; Patterson v. Foreman, 38 Okla.
420, 133 P. 178; School Dist. r. Grif-
fith, 33 Okla. 625, 127 P. 258; Richard-
son t?. Thompson, 33 Okla. 120, 124 P.
64; Cobb 1?. Hancock, 31 Okla. 42, 119
P. 627; Thompson v, Fulton, 29 Okla.
700, 119 P. 244; Ft. Smith & W. R.
Co. V, State Nat. Bank, 25 Okla. 128,
105 P. 647.
Proper notice Jurisdlctloual. — ^" Where
no notice of the time of settlement of
a case-made is given or waived, and
there is no appearance of the opposite
party, either in person or by counsel,
a case-made so settled is a nullity, and
no jurisdiction is vested in this court to
decide any question arising thereon.''
Moore r. Howard Merc. Co., 40 Okla.
491, 139 P. 624.
790-86 Okla. Kev. Laws, 1910, J5244;
S. V. Wilson^ 43 Okla. 112, 141 P. 426;
Greer v. Keaton, 98 S. C. 192, 82 S. E.
424.
Ex judge given authority by statute
to certify, sign or settle a case-made
as if his term had not expired. Sess.
Laws, 1910, ch. 39 §1, pp. 59, 60; Dun-
lap t\ Rumph, 43 Okla. 491, 143 P. 329;
Oklahoma Fire Ins. Co. v. Kimpel, 39
Okla. 339, 135 P. 6. But an ex judge
is not authorized by §6075, Comp.
Laws, 1909, to sign and settle a case
made, if at the expiration of his term
of office the time for making and serv-
ing the case had expired or no time for
signing and settling the case-made had
been Sxed before his retirement. Rich-
ardson V. Beidleman, 33 Okla. 463, 126
P. 818.
Successor of trial judge may settle and
sign the case-made in case of death or
other inability of judge who tried the
cause. Sess. Laws, 1910, ch. 39, §1,
p. 59; S. V, "Wilson, 43 Okla. 112, 141
P. 426; Richardson «. Beidleman, 33
Okla. 463, 126 P. 818. In the absence
of a showing as to the inability of the
trial judge to sign and settle a case-
.made, such case-made signed and set-
tled by the successor is a nullity.
Brown v. Marks (Okla.), 146 P. 707.
Judge pro tempore, ''etc.'' Co-op. Gin
& Elev. Co. V. Asbury, 40 Okla. 141, 142
P. 802. <'The term of office of a judge
pro tern, expires after the last day
fixed for suggesting amendments, and
that a case-made settled and signed by
him after that time is a nullity." De-
loe V. McMahon (Okla.), 146 P. 220;
Shawnee v. State Pub. Co. 33 Okla.
363, 125 P. 462.
791-88 Reed v. Wolcott, 40 Okla. '
451, 139 P. 318.
791-90 Levy t. Holton (Okla.), 132
P. 1085.
792-93 Guild <?. More (N. D.), 152
N. W. 275.
A special Judge or Judge pro tern., while
possessing the power to sign and set-
tle a case made after he has ceased
to sit as judge, has no power to ex-
pend the time for its settlement and
signing, and where he attempts to do
his act is a nullity. Horner v. Galtry
& Sons, 23 Okla. 905, 101 P. 1111.
792-97 Hammerslough v. Hackett,
CO Kan. 57, 1 P. 41; Building Assn. V.
Beebe, 24 Kan. 363; Sloan v, Beebe,
24 Kan. 343; Friar v, McGilbray
(Okla.), 146 P. 581; S. t?. Wilson, 43
Okla. 112, 141 P. 426.
793-98 S. t?. Wilson, 43 Okla. 112,
141 P. 426.
793-1 Dunlap v. Rumph, 43 Okla.
491, 143 P. 329.
793-3 Bunlap t*. Rumph, 43 Okla. 491,
143 P. 329.
A Stipulation by counsel that the judge
could settle and sign a case-made while
outside the state, is without effect.
Bunlap V. Rumph, 43 Okla. 491, 143 P.
329.
795-14 Montemat r. Johnson, 42
Okla. 443, 141 P. 779; Brooks V. United
Mine Workers, 36 Okla. 109, 128 P. 236;
St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Burrow,
33 Okla. 701, 127 P. 478.
796-23 S. 17. Childress, 127 Minn. 533,
149 N. W. 550; S. V, Wilson, 43 Okla.
112, 141 P. 426; S. V. Parks, 34 Okla.
335, 120 P. 242.
Must bo abuse of discretions—But a mo-
tion for leave to settle a case after the
time has expired, is addressed to the
discretion of the court below, and will
not bo interfered with by mandamus,
unless a clear abuse of discretion is
shown. 8. V. Olsen, 124 Minn. 537, 144
N. W. 755.
708-26 Bank of Stilwell v, Morris,
41 Okla. 429, 138 P. 790; Brooks f?.
United Mine Workers, 36 Okla. 109,
128 P. 236.
798-27 Latta c. Way, 43 Okla. 638,
268
CAUSE OF ACTION
Vol 4
143 P. 663; Jones 17. Bilby, 43 Okla. 494,
143 P. 330; Gibbs V, Tanner, 43 Okla.
477, 143 P. 189; Landis v. Beal & Hines,
43 Okla. 287, 142 P. 1109; Montemat
u. Johnson, 42 Okla. 443, 141 P. 779;
Banks v. Watson, 40 Okla. 450, 139 P.
306; Ft. Smith & W. B. Co. t?. McKee,
38 Okla. 194, 132 P. 497; Brooks v.
United Mine Workers, 36 Okla. 109,
128 P. 236; Abbott v, Bodgers, 35 Okla.
189, 128 P. 908; 8t. Louis, I. M. & 8.
B. Co. V. Burrow, 3S Okla. 701, 127
P. 478.
"Wliat eonstitntes a soiXicient filing, see
Tucker t?. Thraves (Okla.), 145 P. 784.
rOing case-made before it is signed
and settled by judge is a nullity. St.
Louis & S. F. B« Co. t?. Bonham, 43
Okla. 637, 143 P. 660; Ft. Smith & W.
B. Co. V. McKee, 38 Okla. 194, 132 P.
497. '
0AT7SB OF ACnOK
801 See the title "Kew Cause of Ac-
tion or Deftense." '
801-*1 Murphy f?. Dee (Mo. App.), 175
S, W. 287.
802-3 See American Can Co. v. Stare,
1^0 Wifli 627, 138 N. W. 67.
802-6 Lovell v, Latham & Co., 211
Fed. 374; Mattix v. Swepston, 127 Tenn.
693, 155 S. W 928.
Pacts constituting a cause of action are
those facts which the evidence will
prove^ and not the evidence to prove
such facts. Hayes v. Page Mfg. Co.,
175^ m. A^. 410.
803-7 Atlanta & W. P. B. Co. v. Cole-
man (Ga.), 82 S. E. 499; Ottumwa t?.
Nicholson (la.), 143 N. W. 439; Mellor
t,. Mo. Pac. B. Co., 105 Mo. 455, 470, 471,
16 8. W. 849, .10 L. B. A. 36; Biddle f?.
Foreman (Mo. App.), 178 S. W. 227;
Hales V. Baines, 162 Mo. App. 46, 141
S. W, 917; Litton v. Chicago, B. & Q.
B. Co., Ill Mo. App. 140, 85 S. W. 978;
Wallace v. Weaver, 47 Mont. 437, 1S3
P. 1099; Cohen v. Clark, 44 Mont. 151,
119 P. 775; Westover t?. Hoover, 94
Neb.. 696, 143 N. W. 946; Soule v,
Weatherby, 39 Utah 680, 118 P. 833,
Ann. Cas. 1913B, 75; Cowley t>. North-
ern Pac. B. Co., 68 Wash. 558, 563, 123
P. 998, 41 L. B. A. (N. S.) 559; Amer-
lean Can Go. f>. Stare, 150 Wis. 627, 138
N. W. 67
806-11 See Ottumwa v. Nicholson
(la.), 143 N W 439; Cohen v. Clark,
44 Mont 151, 119 P. 775.
806-12 Johnson v, American S. & B.
Co., 80 Neb. 250, 255, 116 N. W. 517.
Cause of action includes subject of ac-
tion. Gronna v. Goldammer, 26 N. D.
122, 143 N. W. 394.
808-14 Vaughn v. St. Louis & S. F.
B. Co. (Mo. App.), 164 S. W. 144.
808-17 St. Louis Church v. Blanc, 8
Bob. (La.) 51; St. Francis Boman O.
Church V, Martin, 4 Bob. (La.) 62;
Grand Bapids, etc. B. Co. r. Heisel, 47
Mich. 393, 11 N. W. 212; Hutchins v.
Hutchins, 7 Hill (N. Y.) 104; Fisher v.
Clark, 41 Barb. (N. Y.) 329; Pickard
V. Collins, 23 Barb. (N. Y.) 444; Soule
V, Wpathorby, 39 Utah 5S0, 118 P. 833;
Koerber t?. Patck, 123 Wis. 453, 102 N.
W. 40, 68 L. B. A. 956.
800-19 Ohio, etc. B. Co. v. Kasson,
37 N. Y. 218; Hardison V. Beel, 154 N.
C. 273, 276, 70 S. E. 463, 34 L. B. A.
(N. S.) 1098.
810-20 Parker t?. Griswold, 17 Conn.
288, 42 Am. Dec. 739. See Wallace f.
Kruzer, 95 Neb. 615, 146 N. W. 984.
811-21 Burroughs V. Housatonic B.
Co., 15 Conn. 124, 38 Am. Dec. 64;
Louisville & N. B. Co v. Jackson, 139
Ga. 543, 77 S. E. 796; Wright v. B.
Co., 7 111. App. 438; Gott t?. Berea
College, 156 Ky. 376, 161 S. W. 204;
Jackson t?. Castle, 80 Me. 119, 13 A. 49;
Spring V, Eussell, 7 Me. 273; O'Cal-
laghan v. Cronan, 121 Mass. 114; Jenk-
ins r. Hanson, 101 Minn. 298, 112 N.
W. 216; Kinealy t\ B. Co., 69 Mo. 658;
Collier v. E. Co., 48 Mo. App. 398;
Thompson v. B. Co., 51 N. J. L. 42, 15
A. 833; McGuire v. Grant, 25 N. J. L.
356, 67 Am. Dec. 49; P. V. Albany, 5
Lans. (N. Y.) 524.
812-22 Rockwood v. Wilson, 11 Gush.
(Mass.), 221; Auburn, etc., Plank Bead
Co. V. Douglass, 9 N. Y. 444; Ciark v.
Foot, 8 Johns. (N. Y.) 421; Lasala v.
Holbrook, 4 Paigo (N Y.) 169, 25 Am.
Dec. 524; Fisher c. Clark, 41 Barb. (N.
Y.) 329; Pickard V, Collins, 23 Barb.
(N. Y.) 444; St. Louie & S. F. B. Co, v.
Burrous, 29 Okla. 378, 118 P. 143.
Does not justify maintenance of nuis-
ance.— Scott V. Bay, 3 Md. 431; Bad-
cliff V. Brooklyn, 4 N. Y. 195, 53 Am.
Dec. 357; Hay v. Cohoes Co., 2 N. Y.
159, 51 Am. Dec. 279; Carhart v. Au-
burn Gas Light Co., 22 Barb. (N. Y.)
297.
813-28 Whitnev r. Bartholomew, 21
Conn. 213; Scott r. Bay, 3 Md. 431; Ca-
hill r. Eastman, 18 Minn. 324, 10 Am.
2G9
Vol. 4
CAUS^ OF AQTION
Bep. 184; Van Pelt v. McGraw, 4 N. Y.
110, 113; Pickard t?. OoUins, 23 Barb.
(N. Y.) 444; Carhart v. Auburn Gas
Light Co., 22 Barb. (N. Y.) 297, 307;
Woodring t?. Forks Tp., 28 Pa. 355, 361,
70 Am. Dec. 134.
814-24 Burroughs V. Housatonic B.
Co., 15 Conn. 124, 38 Am. Dec. 64;
Wright f. B. Co., 7 Dl. App. 438.
815-26 Passaic Print Wks. v, Ely,
etc.. Dry Goods Co., 105 Fed. 163, 44
C. C. A. 426, 62 L. B. A. 673; Occum
Co. V. Sprague Mfg. Co., 34 Conn. 529;
Guethler v, Altman, 26 Ind. App. 587,
60 N. E. 355, 84 Am. St. 313; Boggs V.
Duncan Schell F. Co., 163 la. 106, 143
N. W. 482; Bourlier V. Macauley, 91
Ky. 135, 15 S. W. 60, 34 Am. St. 171,
11 L. B. A. 550; Jones v. Jones, 119 La.
677, 44 S. 429; Pickard V. Collins, 23
Barb. (N. Y.) 444; Thornton V. Thorn-
ton, 63 N. C. 211; Smith v. Bowler, 2
Disn. (Ohio) 153; Jenkins v. Fowler, 24
Pa. 308' Payne v. Western, etc., B.
Co., 13 Lea (Tenn.) 507, 49 Am. Bep.
666; Chatfield f?. Wilson, 28 Vt. 49;
Quinn v. Leathem, App. Cas. [1901]
(Eng.) 495; Allen v. Flood, App. Cas.
[1898] (Eng.) 1. Comp. Schonwald t?.
Bagains, 32 Okla. 223, 122 P. 203.
817-27 Guethler v. Altman, 26 Ind.
App. 587, 60 N. E. 355, 84 Am. St. 313.
818-28 White v. Dingley, 4 Mass.
433; Cook v. Chapman, 41 N. J. Eq. 152,
2 A. 286; Haldeman V. Chambers, 19
Tex. 1; Coleman V. Lytle, 49 Tex. Civ.
42, 107 S. W. 562. ^.^. ^,^»
8i9-30 Nitro-Glycerine ' Case, 15
Wall. (U. S.) 524, 21 L. ed. 206; Almy
t\ Cotton Bros., 2 IT. S. D. C. (Haw.)
163; Lincoln Coal Min. Co. v, McNally,
15 111. App. 181; Wright V, B. Co., 7
111. App. 438; Fidelity, etc. Co. v. Cutts,
95 Me. 162, 49 A. 673; Garcia v. Georg-
etti, 4 P. B. Fed. 495.
819-31 Goldnamer i;. O'Brien, 98
Ky. 569, 33 S. W. 831, 56 Am. St. 378,
36 L. B. A. 715; Frost v. Josselyn, 180
Mass. 389, 62 N. E. 469; Barton v. Gray,
57 Mich. 622, 24 N. W. 638; Batarra v,
Marcos, 7 Phil. Isl. 156.
820-32 Long t\ Elberton, 109 Ga.
28, 34 S. E. 333, 77 Am. St. 363, 46 L.
B. A. 428; Donovan t?. New Orleans, 11
La. Ann. 711; Beseman f?. B. Co., 50
N. J. L. 235, 13 A. 164; Morris, etc. B.
Co. t?. Newark, 10 N. J. Eq. 352; Bell-
inger t\ B. Co., 23 N. Y. 42; Fehr v.
Schuylkill Nav. Co., 69 Pa. 161; Forbes
V. Tiaco, 16 Phil. Isl. 534.
If the power or right is ezerciaed care-
lessly, negligently, etc. The Maling,
110 Fed. 227; Perry v. Worcester, 6
Gray (Mass.) 544, 66 Am. Dec. 431;
Abbot V. B. Co., 83 Mo. 271, 53 Am. Bep.
581; Bowe v. Addison, 34 N. H. 306;
Fehr v. Schuylkill Nav. Co., 69 Pa. 161.
If the work be f oi the benefit of an
individaal, by private capital and for
private emolument, although authorized
by legislative authority, an action will
lie. Trenton Water Power Co. t/. Baff,
36 N. J. L. 335; Tinsman 17. B. Co., 26
N. J. L. 148, 69 Am. Dec. 565.
822-35 Perry v. Oregon, 139 111.
App. 606; New York t?. Lord, 17 Wend-
(N. Y.) 285; Struve v. Droge, 10 Abb,
N. C. (N. Y.) 142, 62 How. Pr 233.
823-37 Bhode Islandw— Williams v.
Smith, 28 B. I. 125, 66 A. 63.
824-38 Hardie-Tynes Mfg. Co. v.
Cruse (Ala.), 66 S. 657; Buchanan v.
McClain, 110 Ga. 477, 35 S. E. 665;
Anderson v, Evansville Brew Assn., 49
Ind. App. 403, 97 N. E. 445; Chiles V.
Drake, 2 Mete. (Ky.) 146, 74 Am. Dec-
406; Downs v. Baltimore, 111 Md. 674,
76 A. 861; Hutchinson v. Merchants/
etc., Bank, 41 Pa. 42, 80 Am. Dec. 596;
Woodring V. Porks Tp., 28 Pa. 355^ 70
Am. Dec. 134; Poster v, C, 8 Watts &
S. (Pa.) 77; U. S. v. Baggay, 20 Phil.
Isl. 142; IT. S. t?. Bernardo, 19 Phil. Isl.
265; Diaz 17. San Juan L. etc., Co., 17
P. B. 64; Allison V. Farmers' Bank, 27
Va. 204; Hedges v. Price, 2 W. Va. 192,
94 Am. Dec. 507.
825-39 Anderson V, Evansville Brew.
Assn., 49 Ind. App. 403, 97 N. E. 445;
Fezler v. Gibson (Mo. App.), 166 S. W.
1096; Williams f?. Delaware & H. Co.,
156 App. Div. 695, 141 N. Y. S. 606.
The -violation of a mnnlcipal ordinance
does not ordinarily give rise to a cause
of action for damages. But the viola-
tion "of an ordinance having by legis-
lative adoption the force of a statute
may." Flynn v. Canton Co., 40 Md.
312, 17 Am. Bep. 603; Taylor v. Lake
Shore & M. S. B. Co., 45 Mich. 74, 7
N. W. 728; Orr v, Baltimore & O. B.
Co. (App. Div.), 153 N. Y. S. 920.
828-47 Gronna f . Goldammer, 26 N.
D. 122, 143 N. W. 394.
829-48 Buckeye Bef. Co. v. Kelly,
163 Cal. 8, 124 P. 536; Haberly v, Hab-
erly (Cal. App.), 149 P. 53; Grahame
V. Harris, 5 GUI & J. (Md.) 489; Brown
V, Stewart, 4 Md. Ch. 368; Wilson f?.
Benedict, 90 Mo. 208, 2 S. W. 283;
270
CERTAINTY IN PLEADING
yol 4
Barton v. Beynolds, 81 Misc. 15, 142 N.
Y. 8. 895; Smith v. Bryson, 62 N. C.
267^ 93 Am. Dec. 610.
830-49 Buckeye Bef. Co. v, Kelly,
163 Cal. 8, 124 P. 536; Brown v. Mann,
71 Cal. 192, 12 P. 51.
830-60 Haberly v. Haberly (CaL
App.), 149 P. 53.
CEBTAINT7 IK PLEADINa
833-1 Complete particularity is nn-
necessary where a reasonable inference
from the statement readily suggests the
facts. Flint Biver B, Co, v. Maples, 10
Ga. App. 573, 73 S. E. 957. But where
a violation of a statute is charged in
ferences will not aid the pleading unless
they are the only ones that can pos-
sibly be drawn. Domestic, etc. Co. v,
De Armey (Ind. App.), 97 N. K 706»
rehear, denied, 98 N. £. 875.
833-2 In plain and concise language
80 that a person of common understand'
ing may know what is intended South-
em By. Co. i?. French Lick, 52 Ind.
App. 447, 100 N. E. 762; Bichmond
Cedar Works v. Paper Lumber Co., 161
N. a 603, 77 S. E. 770.
834-9 Dow V. Oroville, 22 Cal. App.
215, 134 P. 197; National Fuel Co. t?.
Green, 50 Colo. 307, 115 P. 709. See
Terre Haute B. Co. t?. Ward (Ind. App.),
102 N. E. 395.
83S-14 Creen v. B. Co., 168 Mich.
104, 133 N. W. 956, Ann. Cas. 1913C,
98.
Certainty to a common Intent is suffi-
cient. Woodward Iron Co v. Marbut,
183 Ala. 310, 62 S. 804; Birmingham
Power Co* u. Goldstein, 181 Ala. 517, 61
S. 281; Lashes v. McDermott, 162 App*
Div 232, 147 N, Y. S. 446; Downer t?.
Tubbs, 152 Wis. 177, 189 K W. 820.
836-18 In the replication certainty
la especially requisite. First Nati Bank
V. Ulmor, 66 Fla. 68, 63 S. 145; Hills-
borough Groc Co. V, Leman, 62 Fla.
208, 56 8. 684.
837-21 Kinmore V, Cresse, 53 Ind.
App. 693, 102 N. E. 403; Dwyer v. Cor-
rugated Paper Products Co., 80 Misc.
412, 141 N. T. S. 240.
Test ot sni&ciency. — The facts must be
stated with sufficient certainty to en-
able the opposite party, the court and
the jury ta understand the ground relied
upon by thA pleader. Alabama Great So.
By. Co V Cardweli (Ala.), 65 8. 185;
Valerii p. Breakwater Co., 3 Boyce (DeL)
196, 84 A. 222; Campbell v. Walker, 1
Boyce (Del.) 580, 76 A. 475; Evans-
ville & 8. I. Tract. Co. v. Spiegel, 49
Ind. App. 412, 94 N. E. 718, 97 N. E
949; Beid t?. Lyttle, 150 Ky. 304, 150
S. W. 357; Cecil Paper Co. v, Nesbitt,
117 Md. 59, 83 A. 254; Eisminger V.
Beman, 32 Okla. 818, 124 P. 289*
841-36 Ames v. Nostrum, 53 Colo.
246, 125 P. 120; Thorworth V. Blanch-
ard, 86 Vt. 296, 85 A. 6.
842-39 AUegations that at some
time within three years from the execu-
tion of a deed the husband committed
adultery with unknown women are de-
murrable because there must be a rea-
sonable specification as to times and
places. Lemon v. Lemon, 141 Ga. 448,
81 8. E. 118.
•*0n or abont." — Alleging time as **on
Or about" is sufficient in action for per-
sonal injuries. May v. Illinois Cent* B^
Co., 129 Tenn. 521, 167 S. W. 477, L. B.
A. 1915A, 781.
84S.S3 Lee v. King, 142 Ga. 609^ 83
S, E. 272,
845-55 Mechie v. Slayback, 163 App.
Div. 407, 148 N. Y. 8. 890.
846-57 Kansas City So, By. Co. v.
Leslie, 112 Ark. 305, 167 S. W. 83, Ann.
Cas. 1915B, 834.
846-58 Pleading negligence.— ''It is
safer and better pleading ... to
set out with particularity the acts or
omissions counted upon to establish the
negligence imputed to the defendant "
Hills V, Shaw, 69 Or. 460, 137 P. 229.
847-59 Thomas v, Blythoi 44 Utah 1,
137 P. 396.
847-61 Dow V. Oroville, 22 Cal. App.
215, 134 P. 197; Terre Haute B Co. v.
Ward (Ind. App.), 102 N. E. 395.
858-8 Falor v. Doubet, 164 HI. App.
433: Biver Bealty Co, r. Blumenheim,
77 N. J. Eq. 291, 78 A. 675; MuUer v.
Muller, 76 N. J Eq. 158, 79 A. 429. See
also 4 Stanbabd Paoa 128.
850-9 Uncertainty as to date.
"V^ere there is an unfilled blank as to
date it is enough that the date is cer-
tain by reference to other parts ot and
exhibits to the bill. Peerless Coal Co.
v» Lamar, 180 Ala. 807, 60 8. 837.
859-11 Birmingham, etc. Co. v
O'Brien (Ala.), 64 S 343; McAuliffe v.
Helm, 157 Ky. 626, 163 8. W. 1091;
Lamoure t?. Lasell, 26 N. D. 638, 145
N. W. 577; Colclough V. Briggs, 95 S.
C 4 78 8 E. 530.
271
VoL 4
CERTAINTY IN PLEADING
In equity the objeetion of want of cer-
tainty may be taken by demurrer.
Muller V. MuUer, 76 N, J. Eq. 158, 79
A. 429.
859-13 Dow f>. Oroville, 22 Cal. App.
215, 134 P. 197; Lemon «. Lemon, 141
Oa. 448, 81 8. E. 118; Ivanhoff f>. Teale,
47 Mont 115, 130 P^ 972; Evants V, Tay-
lor, 18 N. M. 371, 137 P. 683. See Frit-
ter f?. Pendleton (Tex* Civ.), 134 S.
W. 1186, where demurrer was held to
be a general demurrer although desig-
nated special demurrer. See also 0
Standabd Pboo 905
859-14 Lucid «» Du Pont Powder Co.,
19£ Fed. 377, 118 C. C. A. 61; Cooper
17. McCoy (Ark.), 173 S. W. 412; Wood
17. Drainage Dist., 110 Ark . 416, 161
S. W. 1057; Johnson V. Mantooth, 108
Ark 36, 156 S. W. 448; McLaughlin v,
Hope, 107 Ark. 442, 155 8. W. 910, 47
L. B. A. (N. S.) 137; Sanders f?. Car-
penter, 102 Ark. 187, 143 S. W. 1091;
Southern Anthracite Coal Co. v, Hodge,
99 Ark. 302, 139 S. W. 292; U. S. Fidel-
ity^ etc. Co. r. Newton, 50 Colo. 379,
115 P. 897; Denver & E. G. B. Co. f?.
Vitello, 21 Colo. App. 51, 121 P. 112;
Sanitary Can Co. v, Lindley (Ind.
App), 105 N. E. 585; Schapker v.
Schwetz (Ind. App.), 105 N. E. 579;
Terre Haute Tract. Co. 17. Maberry, 52
Ind. App. 114, 100 N. E. 401 ; Board of
Comrs. v^ Spearman, 89 Kan. 106, 103
P. 677; McAuliffe v. Helm, 157 Ky. 626,
163 S. W. 1091; Beid t?. Lyttle, 150 Ky.
d04, 150 S. W. 357; Evertson f?. McKay,
124 Minn. 260, 144 N. W. 950; St. Louis
Sanitary Co. t?. Beed, 179 Mo. App.
164 161 S W. 315; Pullen t?. Seaboard
Trading Co. (App. Div.), 150 N. Y. S.
719; Peters v. Huppert, 159 App. Div.
829 144 X. Y. S. 1068; Womack t\ Car-
ter,' 160 N. C. 286, 75 S. E. 1102; New
Bern Banking Co. t? . Duffy, 156 N. C
83, 72 S. E. 96; Le Moure v. Lasell, 26
N. D. 638, 145 N. W. 577; Chriatoffer-
son V, Wee, 24 N. D. 506, 139 N. W. 689;
Colclough V. Briggs, 95 S. C. 4, 78 S,
E. 530; Gartin t\ Draper Coal Co., 72
W. Va. 405, 78 S, E. 673; Smith 1?.
Stone 21 Wyo. 62, 128 P. 612; Williams
V. Union Pac. B . Co., 20 Wyo. 392, 124
P. 505.
Motion may be denied when the grant-
ing there6f would require plaintiff to
set out practically all the evidence re-
lied upon to prove his case. Givens v.
North Augusta, etc. Imp. Co., 91 S. C.
417, 74 S. E. 1007.
Facts within adversary's knowledge.
Such motion may be denied when facts
are of a character beyond the knowl-
edge of the pleader and peculiarly
within the knowledge of the othei
party. Benjamin v. Metropolitan St.
By, Co., 245 Mo. 598, 151 8. W. 91
It is dlscretlonaxy wltb court to grant
or refuse the motion. Wemack v. Car-
ter, 100 N. C. 286, 75 8. E. 1102; Frey
tJ.'Pailes, 37 Okla. 297, 132 P. 342;
Skelton v. Inv. Co., 37 Okla. 82, 130 P.
562.
The object of the statute requiring a
party to make his pleading more def-
inite and certain is to inform the op-
posing party of the facts on which the
claim is based so as to enable him to
prepare his defense. Hodges cl Bay-
ley, 102 Ark. 200, 143 S» W. 92,
Motion will be denied when the liablt
ity would be the same in any evont.
Orr V. Hamburg-American Line, 164
App. Div. 805, 150 N. Y. S. 268,
861-16 Lucid v, Du Pont Powder Co.,
199 Fed. 377, 118 C. C. A 61; Weed e.
Drainage Dist., 110 Ark. 416, 161 S. W.
1057; Banders <?. Carpenter^ 102 AriC*
187, 143 8. W. 1091; Southern Anthra
cite Coal Co. t?, Hodge, 99 Ark. 302, 139
S. W. 292; Olcovich ©. Grand Trunk B.
Co., 20 Cal. App. 349, 129 P. 290; Gold-
field v. MacDonald, 52 Colo. 1.43, 119 P.
1069; Terre Haute Traction Co. v. Ma-
berry, 52 Ind, App. 114, 100 N. E 401 ;
Garnett Paper Co. r. Midland Pub. Co,,
156 Mo. App. 187, 136 S. W. 736; Ess-
linger V. Boehm, 81 N. J, L, 82, 79 A,
267; Dwyer f>. Corrugated Paper Pro-
ducts Co., 80 Misc. 412, 141 N. Y. S.
240; Wey t>. City Bank, 29 Okla. 313,
116 P. 943; ainchfield C. Corp. i?. Os-
borne's Admr. 114 Va. 13, 75 S. E
750; Smith t?. Stone, 21 Wyo. 62, 128
P. G12; Williams t>. Union Pac, B, Co.,
20 Wyo. 392, 124 P. 505. Comp^ Morris
V. Travelers' Ins. Co., 189 Fed. 211.
"A demnzrer is not a snbstitiite for a
motion to make more definite and cer-
tain " Dwyer v. Corrugated Paper
Products Co., 80 Misc. 412, 141 N* Y.
S. 240.
861-17 Baruch r. Young 149 App.
Div. 466, 134 N. Y. S. 53, Lamour© r.
Lasell, 26 N. D. 638. 145 N. W. 577;
Chesapeake By. Co. ti. Swartz, li5 "Va.
723, 80 S. E, 568.
862-10 See Driscoii v Hammill, 162
App, Div. 475, 147 N. Y. S. 509,
862-22 Mcintosh i. St. Louis B. Co.^
182 Mo. App, 288, 168 S. W. 821.
864-33 By stipuLation counsel may
waive motion, Bonta Hotel Co. t?. Ben
edict, 133 N. l. S, 462.
272
CERTIFICATE OF PROBABLE CAUSE
Vol. 4
By answer. — ^Defect in complaint be-
cause of indefinitenesB is cured hy an-
swer which after denial of title alleges
the land is part of an undivided half
and larger tract owned by him. Hen-
derson t?. Clark, 163 Ky. 192, 173 S. W.
367.
864-34 Bolton-Pratt Co. v. Chester,
210 Fed. 253; Pekin Stave Co. v. Barney,
104 Ark. 1, 147 S. W. 83; Faxon v. All
Persons, 166 Cal. 707, 137 P. 919; Hynes
V. All Persons, 19 Cal. App.lSS, 125
P. 253; Wilson V. First Nat. Bank, 7.7
Cal. App. 390, 119 P. 957; Powers v,
Boulder, 54 Colo. 558, 131 P. 395; Lud-
wig r. Ellis, 22 Ida. 475, 126 P. 769;
Banitary Cin Co. v, Lindley (Ind. App.),
105 N. E. 685; Naugle f?. Naugle, 89
Kan. 622, 132 P. 164; Eaton v. Green
Biver C. & C. Co., 157 Ky. 159, 162 S.
W, 807: S. -P. Webber, 177 Mo. App. 60,
164 6. W. 184; Denvir v. Park, 169 Mo.
App. 335, 152 S. W. 604; Cohen c. Clark,
44 Mont. 151, 119 P. 775; Wallace t?.
Keystone Auto Co., 239 Pa. 110, 86 A.
699; McGeary v. Leader Pub. Co., 62
Pa. Super. 35; Cleveland v, Butler, 94
S. C. 406 78 S. E. 81.
When motion mnat be made^ — ^'A mo-
tion to make a pleading more definite
and certain must be made in apt time,
and if made after answering or demur-
ring, it comes too late and then falls
within the discretion of the judge, who
may allow it or not as he may deem
best." Hensley v, McDowell Furniture
Co., 164 N. C. 148, 80 S. E. 154 and
cases cited. See also Peters v. Miller,
150 App. Div. 249, 134 N. Y. S. 881;
St. Louis, etc. B. Co. v. Young, 35 Okla.
521, 130 P. 911.
Uncertainty waived unless a motion to
idake complaint more specific is made.
Haynie v. Sites, 56 Colo. 115, 138 P. 42;
Beed v. Beed, 180 Ind. 611, 103 N. E.
S24; Barr V, Minto, 65 Or. 522, 133 P.
639; Gartin 17. Draper Coal & C. Co., 72
W. Va. 405, 78 S. E. 673. See Louis-
TillB & N. B. Co. V, Miller, 154 Ky.
236, 157 8. W. 8.
8M-36 See Fuhrmann t?. Coddington
Engineering Co., 156 Wis. 650, 146 N.
W. 796.
OEBTIFIOATE OF PBOBABLE
OAUBE AND OF BBASONABIf
]X>nBT
875-^0 P. r. WiUett (App. Div.),
149 N. Y. 8. 890.
It is an unwarrantable Interference
with due course of justice to stay the
enforcement of penalty where defend-
ant had pleaded guilty and had not
paid the penalty, and so the certificate
will be denied. P. v. Goodrich, 149 N.
Y. S. 406.
Accused compelled to disclose priv-
ileged matters^ — ^Where accused refused
to answer questions before the grand
jury on privileged grounds and was
thereupon taken before the supreme
court and directed to answer, and did so
before the grand jury, his conviction
id of such doubtful validity that a cer-
tificate of reasonable doubt will be
granted. P. v. Beichman, 73 Misc. 212,
132 N. Y. 8. 556.
Prejudicial procedure in selecting jury.
After all the evidence had been taken
and pending adjournment, one of the
jurors was taken ill. The attorneys
and defendant agreed that a juror be
deemed to be withdrawn and the trial
to date declared a mistrial; that the
eleven other jurors be resworn; that
a new juror be selected to take the
place of the absent juror; that the
testimony taken be read to the entire
new jury, and the case proceed in the
usual manner. This procedure was
sufficiently doubtful to entitle the de-
fendant to a certificate of reasonable
doubt. P. V. Toledo, 72 Misc. 635, 130
N. Y. S. 440.
876-61 P. V. Tirnauer, 77 Misc. 387,
136 N. Y. 8. 833.
877-66 P. t7. Hyde, 78 Misc. 480, 139
N. Y. S. 1000; P. f?. Vogarito, 146 N.
Y. 8. 255.
Beversal probable^ — ^Where the ques-
tions raised leave a serious doubt and
a probability of reversal the certificate
should issue. P. v. Markheim, 83 Misc.
632, 146 N. Y. S. 628.
Seasonable doubt safflcient^ — ^'The
judge hearing the application need not
arrive at a positive conclusion that the
trial court erred, but it is enough if he
have reasonable doubt as to the cor-
rectness of the law laid down by that
court." P. V. Tinauer, 77 Misc. 387,
136 N. Y. S. 833; P. V, Valentine, 19
Misc. 555, 44 N. Y. 8. 903. ''It is not
necessary for the applicant to show
that the alleged error did, in fact, prej-
udice the defendant, but the judge must
be satisfied that the error complained of
could not in any way have afPected or
prejudiced the defendant before he is
warranted in denying a certificate."
P. r. Tinauer, 77 Misc. 387, 136 N. Y.
IS
273
Vol. 4
CERTIORARI
S. 833; P. t>. Damron, 80 Misc. 114, 140
N. y. S. 787: P. V. Valentine, 19 Miac.
555, 44 N. Y. S. 903.
878-68 P. V. Pamron, 80 Misc. 114,
140 N. y. 8. 787.
878-69 Operates as a stay of pro-
ceedings.— ''A certificate of reasonable
doubt, then, does not afford any right
of appeal, for* that exists; the certifi-
cate, until vacated, but stays the exe-
cution of the judgment until the court
of appeals shall have heard the cases."
P. f. Willett (App. Biv.), 149 N. y. S.
390.
879-76 Upon forfeltiire of ball the
application will not be considered un-
til applicant's return. P. v, Willett
(App. Div.), 149 N. y. S.. 390.
OEBTIOBABI
887-1 S. t\ De Silva, 105 Tex. 95, 145
S. W. 330.
Office of writ. — Tuttle v. Hutchison
' (la.), 151 N. W. 845.
887-3 Quinones 17. District Court,
11 P. E. 415.
Must be from a superior to an inferior
tribunal having a reviewing or super-
seeding power. Kreudsen 17. Houghton,
IGO 111. App. 440.
Nature of remedy-— Certiorari is the
appropriate remedy to review the decis-
ion of the court of appeals and to cor-
rect the same so as to preserve uniform-
ity of legal decisions. Ex parte Louis-
ville & N. E. Co., 176 Ala. 631, 58 8.
315; McCulley v, Cunningham, 96 Ala.
583, 11 S. 694; Miller v. Jones, 80 Ala.
89.
888-8 Elbert v. Scott (Del.), 90 A.
587.
888-10 In Oklahoma the supreme
court is empowered to issue the com-
mon-law writ unaffected by any stat-
ute. Tiger i;. Creek County Court
(Okla.), 146 P. 912.
888-11 In New York under Code
Civ. Proc, §2120, writ may only issue
when expressly authorized by statute,
or where right existed at common law.
In re Sherman, 76 Misc. 45, 133 N. y.
S. 031.
889-15 Cass v, Duncan, 260 HI. 228,
103 N. E. 280; Riggs v. Green, 118 Md.
218, 84 A. 343.
The only office is to bring before the
court the record of the proceedings of
^n inferior tribunal for inspection. Cook
r. Court Comrs., 378 Ala. 394, 59 S. 483;
Cass V. Duncan, 260 111. 228, 103 N. E.
280; Sutler u. Burke (Vt.), 93 A. 842.
To Inquire into luriadletion^ — ^Writ of
certiorari runs against inferior tribun-
als, not for the purpose of reviewing
their proceedings, but only of deter-
mining whether theo^ have acquired and
have not exceeded their jurisdiction.
Endowment Dept. Dist. V. Harvey, 6
Ala. App. 239, 60 'S. 602; Conover 17.
Gatton, 251 111. 587, 96 N. E. 522.
889-16 Hicks Merc. Co. v. Musgrove
(Miss.), 67 S. 213; Grand Court of Cal-
anthe v. Baskin (Miss.), 67 S. 210;
Wells V. Driskell, 105 Tex. 77, 145 S-
W. 333, and cases cited. See also 2
Standard Pace. 375.
891-19 United States v. Beatty, 232
U. S. 463, 34 Sup. Ct. 392, 58 L. ed. 686,
dismiss, 203 Fed. 620, 122 C. C. A. 16;
Leonard v, Leonard, 101 Ark. 522, 142
S. W. 1133; Bloomfield t;. Thompson, 134
La. 923, 64 6. 853; In re Breck, 252
Mo. 302, 158 S. W. 843; Barrera v. Dis-
trict Court, 10 P. E. 181.
In nature of an aiipeaL — Certiorari pro-
ceedings are in the nature of an ap-
peal. The record considered is that
made and certified by the tribunal
whose proceedings are under review. S.
V, Duluth, 125 Minn. 425, 147 N. W. 820.
892-20 Wright v. Court of County
Comrs., 180 Ala. 534, 61 S. 918; District
of Columbia v, Witmer, 89 App. Cas.
(D. C.) 334; Rudolph t7. Creamer, 39
App. Cas. (D. C.) 1; Cass f. Duncan,
260 111. 228, 103 N. E. 280; McArdle c
Civil Service Com., 159 111. App. 464;
Budnick v. Murphy, 213 Mass. 470, 100
N*. E. 643, Ann. Cas. 1914A, 538; Reiff
V. Portland, 71 Or. 421, 141 P. 167; Her-
nandez V. Hutchison, 20 P. B. 484; Rod-
riguez V, Sepulveda, 19 P. R. 1107;
Arguelles v. Rossy, 19 P. R. 995; Fa-
jardo Development Co. v, Dist. Court,
15 P. R. 244; Mendez t;. Nussa, 13 P.
R. 366; Davidson v. Whitehill, 87 Vt.
499. 89 A. 1081.
893-22 Wright <?. Court of County
Comrs., 180 Ala. o34, 61 S. 918.
It should not issue where its use would
be inefficacious and valueless (Weed v.
Township Committee (N. J. L.), Sf A.
329), or where it would opera** in-
equitably or unjustly. Rudnick r. Mur-
phy, 213 Mass. 470, 100 N. E. 643.
894-23 Wright f?. Court of County
Comrs., 180 Ala. 534, 61 S. 918.
894-27 Bach v. Owens, 170 Jil. App,
m
CERTIORARI
Vol. 4
287; Hudson v. Owens, 170 111. App.
288; Sayles v. Probate Court (R. I.),
85 A. 674, re-argument denied, 86 A.
1055.
894-2ib Van Schaick v. Board, 82 N.
J. L. 219, 81 A. 1099. Contra, 8. v.
Wurdeman, 254 Mo. 561, 163 S. W. 849.
895-31 Custer Tp. r. Dawson, 178
Mich. 367, 144 N. W. 862; S. v, Wurde-
man, 254 Mo. 561, 163 S. W. 849; Perez
f?. Lopez, 18 P. R. 630; Aramburu v.
Cordova, 17 P. R. 913; Monserrat v.
Foote, 17 P. R. 876; Porto Rico Leaf
Tobacco Co. v, Aldrey, 13 P. R. 228;
Gimenez v. District Court, 9 P. R. 301.
BeViewing action of school board. — The
court will not review by certiorari the
action of a local board of education
under the school law until redtess has
first been sought in the special tribun-
als provided by the act. Board of Edu-
cation t7. State Board of Education, 81
N. J. L. 211, 81 A. 163.
895-31a. United Staes f?. Beatty, 232
U. S. 463, 34 Sup. Ct. 392, 58 L. ed.
686, dismiss^ 203 Fed. 620, 122 C. C. A.
16; Wright I?. Court of County Comrs.,
180 Ala. 534, 61 S. 918; Hines v. Trib-
ble, 4 Ala. App. 237, 57 S. 265; Pal-
mer V, Railroad Com., 167 Cal. 163, 138
P. 997; Imperial Water Co. v. Board of
Suprs., 162 Cal. 14, 120 ^, 780; Postal
Tel. Co. V. Superior Court, 22 Cal. App.
770, 136 P. 538; Huntington Park Imp.
Co. r. Superior Court, 17 Cal. App. 692,
121 P. 701; Pierce v. Hamilton, 55 Colo.
448, 135 P. 796; Bobbitt V. Blake, 25
Ida. 53, 136 P. 211; Knudsen v. Hough-
ton, 160 111. App. 440; Hatz t?. Hutchin-
son (la.), 150 N. W. 14; Barry v. Dis-
trict Court (la.), 149 N. W. 449; Ryan
r. Hutchinson, 161 la. 575, 143 N. W.
433; Lehigh Sewer Pipe Co. v, Lehigh,
156 la. 386, 136 N. W. 934; Chicago, B.
& Q. R. Co. V. Castle, 155 la. 124, 135
N. W. 561; Saucier v. Saucier, 135 La.
973, 66 S. 317; S. V. Board of Liquida-
tion, 135 La. 571, 65 S. 745; Levert v,
Moore Planting Co., 135 La. 493, 65 S.
621; Bloomfield v. Thompson, 134 La.
923, 64 S. 853; S. V. Berthelot, 131 La.
367, 59 S. 773; Denegre v, Tebault Fur-
niture Co., 130 La. 283, 57 S. 929; Cus-
ter Tp. V. Dawson, 178 Mich. 367, 144
N. W. 862; S. v, Morehead, 256 Mo.
683, 165 S. W. 746; S. v. Circuit Court,
168 Mo. App. 29, 151 S. W. 178; Arza-
don r. Chanco, 14 Phil. Isl. 710;
Springer v, Odlin, 3 Phil. Isl. 344; Mar-
tinez V, Nussa, 20 P. R. 337; Mouserrat
V. Foote, 17 P. R. 876; Torres r. Gill, 17
P. R. 38; Goenaga v, Aldrey, 16 P. R.
641; Del Toro v. Municipal Court, 16
P. B. 89; Fajardo Development Co. t?.
District Court, 15 P. R. 244; Delgado v.
District Court, 8 P. R. 484; Warren v.
Superior Court (R. I.), 82 A. 129; Dav-
idson V. Whitehill, 87 Vt. 499, 89 A.
1081; S. V, Superior Court, 80 Wash.
190, 141 P. 365; S. V. Superior Court, 71
Wash. 503, 129 P. 83; S. V, Superior
C8urt, 66 Wash. 225, 119 P. 883.
Distinction between mandamus and cer-
tiorari is that the former issues to com-
pel, and the latter review official or
judicial action*. West Jersey & S. R.
Co. V. Board of Pub. Utility Comrs., 85
N. J. L. 468, 89 A. 1017.
Kot concurrent remedies. — ^Writ of pro-
hibition and certiorari are not con-
current. S. V. Clifford, 78 Wash. 555,
139 P. 650.
Appeal inadequate. — ^Where the remedy
by appeal is inadequate certiorari will
lie. Timonds v. Hunter (la.), 151 N.
W. 96L
Decree obtained by fraud. — That a de-
cree was obtained upon false and fraud-
ulent testimony is no ground for issu-
ance* of certiorari, the remedy being a
motion for a new trial. Miller v,
Kramer, 154 la. 523, 134 N. W. 538.
897-83 Dendariarena v. Nussa, 19 P.
R. 956.
898-34 Rudnick v. Murphy, 213
Mass. 470, 100 N. E. 643, Ann. Cas.
1914A, 538; Belaval t?. Davila, 21 P.
R. 509; Arguelles i;. Rossy, 19 P. R.
995; Rios v, Rios, 15 P. R. 263* Mendez
V. Nussa, 13 P. R. 366; S. i;. Board of
Comrs., 29 S. D. 358, 137 N. W. 354; S.
V. Superior Court, 76 Wash. 291, 136
P. 147; S. t?. Superior Court, 74 Wash.
601, 134 P. 183. See S. v. Berthelot,
131 La. 367, 59 S. 773; S. f?. Crawford,
24 N. D. 8, 138 N. W. 2.
Quo warranto and not certiorari is the
remedy to review where action of super-
visors appointing a Spanish instead of
Union war veteran a member of relief
commission. Keelv v. Board of Suprs.,
158 la. 205, 139 N. W. 473.
898-35 Green v, Rogers, 18 Cal. App.
572, 123 P. 974; Grant V. Justice's
Court, 1 Cal. App. 383, 82 P. 263.
Where appeal is lost by limitation the
court may, in its discretion, grant the
writ of certiorari. Rohwer v. District
Court, 41 Utah 279, 125 P. 671.
900-39 No other remedy. — ^Where
the statute provides no means for re-
?75
Vol. 4
CERTIOBASI
view of a final order certiorari will lie.
Bowden v. Webb (Ark.), 173 S. W. 181.
900-42 American Law Book Co. v,
Superior Court, 164 Oal. 327, 128 P.
921; Borinquen Sugar Co. v. Lopez, 17
P. E. 984.
Where plaintiff appealed and at same
time sued out certiorari, having elected
to proceed on the appeal the certiorari
will be discontinued. Bradfield v» S.
(Del.), 91 A. 993.
900-43 Where appeal would event-
ually He.— -The fact that a party has
another remedy that is speedier and
more adequate does not prevent him
from pursuing the slower course. A
writ of certiorari may issue in a case
where an appeal would eventually lie.
Bios V. Bios, 15 P. B. 263; Nunez v.
Nussa, 14 P. B. 190.
901-45 Benedick v. Board of Bev-
enue, 177 Ala. 52, 58 S. 306.
901-46 S. V. Broaddus, 245 Mo. 123,
149 S. W. 473, Ann. Cas. 1914A, 823.
901-47 Battistini ' tJ. District Court,
8 P. B. 562.
The supreme court has power to tissue
certiorari only in cases within its ap-
pellate jurisdiction, and whenever nec-
essary and proper for the complete ex-
ercise of such jurisdiction. Fancher v,
Superior Court, 15 Ariz. 276, 138 P.
20; Powers v. Superior Court, 15 Ariz.
275, 138 P. 21. It cannot issue writ
of certiorari in a cause not within its
appellate jurisdiction. Tyler v. District
Court, 14 Ariz. 6, 123 P. 315.
901-49 Iberia, etc. B. Co. v. Mor-
gan's, etc. S. S. Co., 129 La. 492, 56
S. 417; S. V, Circuit Court, 168 Mo. App.
29, 151 S. W. 178; Creditors of Sanchez
V. Est. of Diaz, 12 P. B. 81; S. 17. Su-
perior Court, 76 Wash. 376, 136 P. 144;
S. V, Superior Court, 73 Wash. 110, 131
P. 482.
Where the writ is auxiliary only to up-
per court's jurisdiction, it cannot is-
sue until notice of appeal has been
given, for until that takes place no jur-
isdiction attaches to the upper court.
Ex parte Martinez (Tex. Cr.), 145 S. W.
959.
In Tennessee under Shannon's Code,
§4853, final judgment below is not es-
sential to issuance of writ when court
'*is acting illegally." S. v. Hebert,
127 Tenn. 220, 154 S. W. 957.
903-51 Ex parte Martinez (Tex.
Cr.), 145 S. W. 959,
In Missouri supreme court judge may
allow writ in vacation. S. v. Beynolds,
257 Mo. 19, 165 S. Wa 729.
994U54 Bowe v. Stevens, 25 Ida. 237,
137 P. 159 (where it was held non-resi-
dent directors of a foreign corporation
which had forfeited right to do business
did not have such beneficial interest);
P. 17. Lower, 254 111. 306, 98 N. E. 557;
Keely v. Board of Suprs., 158 la. 205,
139 N. W. 473; Pord t?. Mayor, etc. of
Bayonne (N. J. L.), 93 A. 591; Barnes
V. Essex Co. Park Com., 85 N. J. L. 70,
88 A. 837; Champlin v. Probate Court
(B. L), 92 A. 982.
994U55 See Quinones v. District
Court, 11 P. B. 415.
Application of third parties^— Only in
very exceptional eases will the writ is-
sue on application of a person not a
party to the action sought to be re-
viewed. Amadeo v. Bossy, 21 P. B.
333.
A rfval public service corporation may
be a "party aggrieved," and is inter-
ested in proceedings by which a com-
peting company may be authorized by
the public service commission to issue
bonds. P. V, Wilcox, 207 N. Y. 86, 100
N. E. 705, rev. 151 App. Div. 832, 136
N. Y. S. 1031.
904-56 Arpin f?. Del Tore, 8 P. B.
276.
905-59 Special interest. — Petitioner
need not have particular or special in-
terest. Where private or property
rights of citizens are invaded or threat-
ened by the illegal action of a public
body or board he is entitled to relief.
In such cases the state is not a neces-
sary party though the attorney general
may bring action in name of state, or
allow it to be brought in name of state
upon the relation of the citizen. Bawl
r. McCown, 97 S. C. 1, 81 S. E. 958.
906-62 Notice of application must be
given to the judge and the opposing
party and an application to another ap-
pellate court than the one designated
is not covered by the notice. Saucier
V. Saucier, 135 La. 973, 66 S. 317.
907-67 S. 17. Chickasha Cotton Oil
Co. (Okla.), 146 P. 433; American B. B,
Co. V, Municipal Court, 16 P. B. 227.
Petitioners in condemnation proceed-
ings.— ^Where application is made to re-
view proceedings of highway commis-
sioners by person whose land is taken
for a road the petitioners for the road
are not entitled to be made parties but
ism
r
CSnTtORABl
Vol. 4
ihej may appear and oppose the appli-
cation. Matthiessen v» Ott, 190 HI.
App. 301.
907-69 S. r. Chickasha Cotton Oil
Co. (Okla.), 146 P. 433.
907-72 Succession of Serres, 136 La.
531, 67 8. 356.
908-74 Smith f7. McCranie, 14 Ga.
App. 721, 82 S. E. 307.
908-77 McGovern v. Trammel], 14
Oa. App. 754, 82 S. E. 318.
908-82 See Prada v. Bossy, 20 P.
B. 181, Terifleation partly on informa-
tion and belief. Contra, North British,
etc. Ins. Co. v. Sims, 132 La. 411, 61 S.
509.
908-83 Unsanctioned pftition. — An
entry of filing upon an unsanctioned
petition does not so authenticate the
paper as to dispense with the necessity
for having it verified by the judge him-
self. McGovern v. Trammell, 14 Ga.
App. 754, 82 S. B. 318.
908-84 Torres v. District Court, 10
P. B. 20.
Mannar of stating case^ — The petitioner
sufficiently complies with* the rule of
the supreme court as to the manner of
stating the case where he adopts as
part of the case a brief prepared for
such court and which contains a full
statement of the case. Sanford-Bay
Iron Works r. Enterprise Foundry &
Machine Works (Tenn.), 172 S. W. 537.
Facts of recorcU — ^It is not proper to al-
lege facts not appearing in the record
however. Prada v. Bossy, 20 P. B.
181.
Error complained of.— Petition must
set out the injury or error complained
of or writ cannot be granted. Ex parte
Martinez (Tex. Cr.), 145 S. W. 959.
In Tennessee the petition must state
a cause of action for relief without ref-
erence to the record therein. Nashyille
I'. Patton, 125 Tenn. 361, 143 S. W.
1131.
909-90 Separate applications.— When
it is sought to review orders made by
different courts in different proceed-
ings a separate application must be
made in each case, for different judges
cannot be joined in the same applica-
tion. Ainadeo v. Bossy, 21 P. B. 333.
910-93 ' Edgeman 17. Stewart, 141 Ga.
686, 81 S. E. 1036.
The verity of assignments is tested by
the answer of the magistrate and if de-
nied in answer it cannot be considered
by the reviewing court. Brown r.
Gainesville, 125 Ga. 238, 53 S. E. 1002;
Davis V. Thompson (Ga. App.), 82 S.
E. 695; Jones v. Bome (Ga. App.), 82
S. E. 593; Bennett v. Griner, 14 Ga.
App. 429, 81 S. E. 363.
910-94 S. r. Minden, 132 La. 938, 61
S. 878.
911-96 It is sufficient to set forth
the evidence and the judgment and al-
lege that the latter is contrary to law
and the evidence Langley Mfg. Co.
V, Frey & Co., 10 Ga. App. 753, 73 S.
E. 1074.
911-97 Proof of venue.— No Writ
shall be granted or sustained in crim-
inal or quasi criminal case on the
ground that venue was not proved un-
less there is a distinct allegation that
there was a failure to prove venue and
a specific assignment of error thereon.
Bice V, Eatonton (Ga*. App.), 83 S. E.
868.
911-99 S. t?. Superior Court (Wash.),
147 P. 408.
911-1 Katthiessen v. Ott, 190 HI.
App. 301.
After lapse of eighteen years writ de-
nied. Cooper <?. Superior Court (Cal.
App.), 147 P. 606.
912-2 See Brown v, Davis Lumb. Co.,
133 La. 262, 62 S. 670.
912-8 Hernandez v, Hutchison, 20 P.
B. 484.
Lapse of eleven months will not require
denial of writ on ground of laches. P.
V. Bowling, 84 Misc. 201, 146 N. Y. S.
919, order aff., 148 N. Y. S. 1137.
913-5 Dunton v, Alexander, 142 Ga.
659, 83 S. E. 519.
Public service commissions law, §22
(Consol. Laws, 1910, ch. 48) providing
for rehearing does not abrogate time
fixed by Code Civ. Proc, §2125 for ob-
taining writ of certiorari. Buffalo V»
Buffalo Gas Co., 82 Misc. 304, 143 N.
Y. S. 716, af, 145 N. Y. S. 1117.
After void application. — ^"If for any
reason an original application for cer-
tiorari be void, it cannot be renewed
within six months; but any new appli-
cation must be within the thirty days
for the original application. *' Tuten f?.
Showalter, 14 Ga. App. 690, 82 S. E.
154.
To review tax sale proceedings may be
issued within three years. Bozarth i?.
Egg Harbor City, 85 N. J. L. 412, 89 A,
920.
277
Vol 4
CERTIORARI
In New York the four months allowed
under {2125 Code Civ, Proc. begin to
run (where writ is to review proceed-
ings closing town highways), when the
filing and recording of all papers in
proceedings is completed pursuant to
§191, Highway Law. P. v. Dowling, 84
Misc. 201, 146 N. Y. S. 919, order aff.
148 N. Y. 8. 1137.
913-6 However extreme clxcum-
stancee writ cannot issue after statu-
tory limitation. Holliday & Sons 17. Jof-
frion, 134 La. 843, 64 S. 793.
913-8 Humphries v. Nalley, 14 Ga.
App. 804, 82 S. E 357; Douglas <?. Wil-
son, 12 Ga. App. 666. 78 S, E. 50.
913-9 Tuten v. Showalter, 14 Ga.
App. 690, 82 8. E. 154j Southern Ry. Co.
V. Oliver, 13 Ga, App. 5, 78 S. E. 684.
But not to the sanctiottijig of the peti-
tion for certiorari. Sullivan v. Sur-
reney (Ga. App.)> 82 S. E. 926; Smith
V. McCranie, l4 Ga. App. 721, 82 S. E.
307.
914-12 Smith v. McCranie, 14 Ga.
App. 721, 82 a E. 307.
Sofllclent affidavit.^ — ^Where petition al-
leged that petitioner was ''unable to
pay the cost and give security*' instead
of "or give security" it was substan-
tially good. Smith v, McCranie, 14 Ga.
App. 721, 82 S. E. 307.
914-14 Must be properly approved.
Judge's statement in certificate that
petitioner had given bond and security
as required by law is no substitute for
his approval ot bond. Southern By. Co.
V. Oliver, 13 Ga. App. 6, 78 S. E. 684.
And 8ubse<}uent approval cannot save
certiorari from dismissal. Southern
Ry. Co. t?. Oliver, 13 Ga. App. 5, 78
S. E. 684.
915-19 Liability on bond. — Climax
r. Jeter, 12 Ga. App. 145, 76 8. E. 994.
Judgment cannot be rendered against
surety where writ was dismissed be-
cause bond was void. Bush v, Boykin,
137 Ga 464, 73 S. E. 652.
915-28 S. 17. Goodrich, 257 Mo. 40,
165 S. W. 707.
916-27 Malone v. Quincy, 66 Fla. 52,
62 S. 922; Barry v. Blackhawk County
Dist. (la.), 149 N. W. 449; S. v. Good-
rich, 257 Mo. 40, 165 S. W, 707; 8. v.
Wiethaupt, 254 Mc 319, 162 8. W. 163;
S. V. Forest, 177 Mo App 245, 162 S.
W. 706; Nunez v, Nussa, 14 P, B. 190;
D'Oiselay v. Aponte, 10 P. B. 492; 8.
i>. Superior Court, 72 Wash. 144, 129 P.
900.
918-28 Morefirld v. Koehn, 53 Colo.
3r,7, 127 P. 234. See S. r. Ross, 177 Mo.
App. 223, 162 8. W. 702.
Iiien foreclosure in justice court* — Since
a justice 's court is without jurisdiction
to foreclose mechanic's lien on real es-
tate, the court did not err in sustain-
ing certiorari and dismiss the plaintiff's
case. McAuliffe v, Baum (Ga. App.), 83
S. E. 448; McAuliffe v. Baam, 142 Ga.
590, 83 S. E. 239.
Judgment based on an Invalid ordtnanoe
may be quashed on certiorari. Malone
V. Quincy, 66 Fla. 52, 62 S. 922.
Issuing an order in excess of jurisdic-
tion will justify the writ. Chicago, B.
& Q. B. Co. V, Castle, 155 la. 124, 135
N. W. 561. Thus an erroneous order,
striking out papers properly filed, is
in excess of the court's jurisdiction an«l
may be annulled by .'•ertiorari proceed-
ings. Badovich v. French (Nov.), 135
P. 920.
Where no excess of Jurisdiction appears *
the writ will be denied. Aibreeht v.
Zimmerly, 23 N. D. 337, 136 N. W. 240.
In tbe PhiUppltteB certiorari only lies in
case of failure of jurisdiction of lower ^
court (Herrera t?. Banetto, 25 Phil. Isl.
245). or in excess of jurisdiction. Gala
V, Cui, 25 Phil. Isl. 522.
Certiorari and not prohibition is the
remedy to restrain court from exceed-
ing its jurisdiction. Barry V, Black -
hawk County Dist. (la.), 149 N. W.
449.
919-29 Kirby <?. Comrs. Court, 186
Ala. 611, 65 8. 163.
Court not properly organized.— Where
it is manifest that the judgment was
rendered by a court not properly organ-
ized the writ will be granted. Cramp
& Sons V, Curtiss Turbine Co., 228 U.
8. 645, 33 Sup. Ct. 722, 57 L. ed. 10C3,
rev, 202 Fed. 932, 121 C. C. A. 290.
Legal existence of court. — ^<<Writ of
certiorari cannot be used to bring in
question the legal existence of the court
to which the writ is directed." Bass
i'. Milledgeville, 122 Ga. 177, 50 8. E.
59; Morton v, Bome, 10 Ga. App. 604.
73 8. E. 1073.
919-31 Widrin v. Superior Court, 17
Cal. App. 93, 118 P. 550.
919-32 8. V. Bailroad Com., 109 Ark.
100, 158 8. W. 1076; 8. v. Boss, 177 Mo.
App. 223, 162 S. W. 702; Tiger f?. Creek
County Court (Okla.), 146 P. 912; Hodg-
don V. Goodspeed, 60 Or. 1, 118 P. 167;
£78
CERTIORARI
Vol i
bavidson r. Whitehill, 87" Vt. 499, 89
A. 1081.
91^33 S. r. Board of County Comrs.,
47 Mont. 531, 134 P. 291; Wilson 1\
State Water Supply Com. (N. J. L.), 93
A. 732; P. r. Pub. Service Com., 157.
App. Div. 698, 142 N. Y. S. 942. See
Quinones v. District Court, 11 P. B.
415.
Quasi-Judicial action.— The circuit
rourt may issue the writ to a judge of
that court to review ^uasi judicial ac-
tion of the judge. S. v. Qoodland, 159
Wis. 393, 150 N. W. 488.
Court martiaL — ^A court martial is not
a "court" within meaning of §§85 and
86 of the state constitution, but is a
"tribunal*' within meaning of §7810,
Bev. Codes, 1905. Certiorari is a proper
remedy to review proceedings to deter-
mine whether such tribunal has ex-
ceeded its jurisdiction. S. v. Peake, 22
N. D. 457, 135 N. W. 197, 40 L. B. A.
(N. S.) 354. See S. t?. Nuchols, 18 "N.
D. 233, 119 N. W. 632, 20 L. B. A. (N.
S.) 413.
921-34 S. r. Bailroad Com., 109 Ark.
100, 158 S. W. 1076; Lehigh Sewer Pipe
Co. V. Lehigh, 156 la. 386, 136 N. W.
934; S. V. Dist. Courii (Mont.), 146 P.
467; Lambertville v. Board of Educa-
tion (N. J. L.), 90 A. 242; P. t?. Waldo,
212 N. Y. 156, 105 N. E. 061.
922-35 8. r. Bailroad Com., 109 Ark.
100, 158 S. W. 1076; P. v. Waldo, 212
N, Y. 156, 105 N. E. 961.
922-36 See Bed Biver, etc. Co. v.
Grand Porks, 27 N. D. 8, 145 N. W.
725.
City council proceedings in election con-
test*— ^In Tennessee the circuit court
has supervisory jurisdiction by certior-
ari over proceedings of city council in
election contest over a member. Taylor
r. Carr, 125 Tonn. 235, 141 S. W. 745,
Ann. Cas. 1913C, 155.
Bevocatlon of liqnor license by city
council. — Certiorari is a proper proceed-
ing to obtain a review of the action of
a city council in revoking a liquor li-
cense. S. V. Duluth, 125 Minn. 425, 147
N. W. 820.
Granting or refusing business license.
Will not lie to review action of city of-
ficials in granting or refusing license
to conduct business, the act not being a
judicial one. In re Whitten, 152 App.
Div. 506, 137 N. Y. S. 360, appeal de-
nied, 152 App. Div. 938, 137 N. Y. 8.
1149.
Invalid ordinance. — In New Jersey the
invalidity of an ordinance may be re-
viewed by certiorari. Harrison Land
Co. f?. Crucible Steel Co., 82 N. J. Eq.
414, 89 A. 41.
923-38 See Davidson v. Whitehill,
87 Vt. 499, 89 A. 1081.
A ''Judicial action" is an adjudication
on the rights of the parties before the
court by notice or process, and on
whose claim some decision is rendered.
S. t?. Shocklee, 237 Mo. 460, 141 S. W.
614.
Judicial action of board* — ^In a pro-
ceeding before a local board not enjoy-
ing the character of an ordinary court
where public notice is required and
hearing of objections is provided, and
the order thereon is one faceting prop-
erty^ or rights of citizens the proceed-
ing is judicial and subject to review on
certiorari. Imperial Water Co. v. Board
of Suprs., 162 Cal. 14, 120 P. 780.
924-39 Cancellation of paving con-
tract by highway commissioner cannot
be reviewed by certiorari. Standard
Bitulithic Co. v, Carlisle, 161 App. Div.
191, 146 N. Y. S. 386, order resettled,
147 N. Y. S. 1143, and aff., 212 N. Y.
179, 105 N. E. 967.
Allowance of claims by water commis-
sioners may be reviewed by certiorari
when such payment of claims is chal-
lenged as unlawful. P. v, Winkler, 203
N. Y. 445, 96 N. E. 928, rev. 130 N. Y.
S. 691.
Action of county commissioners in mak-
ing division of funds of a school dis-
trict when new districts are formed is
reviewable on certiorari. S. t. County
Board, 126 Minn. 209, 148 N. W. 53.
Will not review action of highway com-
missioner in canceling a contract for
state paving because it was disadvan-
tageous to the state. In re Standard
Bitulithic Co., 212 N. Y. 179, 105 N.
E. 967.
A ruling of postmaster general that a
fraud order shall issue is not the ex-,
ercising of a judicial function, and ap-
pellants are not concluded by his de-
cision, being afforded relief in equity,
the order cannot be reviewed by cer-
tiorari. Degge V, Hitchcock, 229 U. S.
162, 33 Sup. Ct. 639, 57 L. ed. 1135, aff.,
35 App. Cas. (D. C.) 218.
Decision of governor. — Certiorari is
the proper remedy to review the decis-
ion of the governor in removing a
countv official from office, S. v, Eber-
279
Vol 4
CEBTIORAKI
hartaril6 Minn. 313, 133 N. W. 857,
Ann/ Cas. 1913B, 785, 39 L. E. A. (N.
S.) 788.
.Labor ' oommissioiiers. — Certiorari can-
not issue to review a determination of
labor commissioner which does not fin-
ally fix the rights of the parties. Key-
stone State Const. Co. v. Williams, 152
App. Div. 575, 137 N. T. S. 405.
924-43 Elbert v, Scott (Bel.), 90 A.
687; Rudolph v. Creamer, 39 App. Cas.
(D. C.) 1; Lehigh Sewer Pipe Co. v.
Lehigh, 156 la. 386, 136 N. W. 934.
925-44 Soto V. . Cordova, 17 P. B.
917.
Denial of Jury trial. — ^Where defendant
is erroneously deprived of a jury trial
it is such an illegality as will authorize
certiorari. Timonds v. Hunter (la.),
151 N. W. S61.
925-46 Endowment Dept. etc. v. Har*
vey, 6 Ala. App. 239, 60 S. 602; Karry
V. Superior Court, 162 Cal. 281, 122 P.
475; Rubenstine r. Superior Court, 18
Cal. App. 128, 122 P. 820; Dalton v.
Calhoun County Court, 164 la. 187, 145
N. W. 498; Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.
V, Brennan (la.), 136 N. W. 928; S. v.
Annick, 161 Mo. App. 13, 142 S. W.
1104, 1106; S. V. Crawford, 24 N. D. 8,
138 N. W. 2; Hodgdon v. Goodspeed, 60
Or. 1, 118 P. 167; Lagahit v, Nengasca,
12 Phil. Isl. 423; Herrera v, Barretto,
25 Phil. Isl. 245.
Order in attaclunent. — An order of cir-
cuit court refusing to quash a levy
made by virtue of a writ of attach-
ment is reviewable by certiorari, be-
cause proceedings under attachment are
statutory. Hisor v. Vandiver, 82 N. J.
L. 303, 82 A. 526; Franklyn v. Taylor
Hydraulic Co., 68 N. J. L. 113, 52 A.
714; Watson r. Noblett, 65 N. J. L. 506,
47 A. 438.
925-47 Endowment Bept., etc. v.
Harvey, 6 Ala. App. 239, 60 8. 602;
Herra v. Barretto, 25 Phil. Isl. 245;
Delgado t?. District Court, 8 P. R. 484.
925-48 Phillips County Court v. P.,
55 Colo. 258, 133 P. 752; Arguelles v.
Rossy, 19 P. R. 995; Del Tore v. Mu-
nicipal Court, 16 P. R. 89; Rios v. Rios,
15 P. R. 263; Diaz r. District Court, 9
P. R. 526.
Error In rejection of testimony not re-
viewable by certiorari. Miller r.
Kramer, 154 ila. 523, 134 N. W. 538.
926r50 Ferguson f . Trustees, 168 111.
App. 225^ Lehigh Sewer Pipe Co. v. Le-
highi 156 la. 386, 136 N. W. 934; S.
V. County Board, 126 Minn. 209, 148 N.
W. 53; In re Garrett- Williamson Lodge,
239 Pa. 474, 86 A. 1072; American Trad-
ing Co. t?. Sepulveda, 18 P. R. 829; Dav-
idson V, Whitehill, 87 Vt. 499, 89 A.
1081.
An order denying a new trial is not re-
viewable by certiorari. Hernandez v.
District Court, 17 P. R. 430.
926-51 Morefield r. Koehn, 53 Colo.
367, 127 P. 234; S. i\ County Board, 126
Minn. 209, 148 N. W. 53; In re Gar-
rett-Williamson Lodge, 239 Pa. 474, 86
A. 1072; Davidson v. WhitehUl, 87 Vt.
499, 89 A. 1081.
927-54 Adams v. Chattanooga Co.,
128 Tenn. 505, 161 S. W. 1131.
927-55 Lambertville v. Board of Ed-
ucation (N. J. L.), 90 A. 242.
Decision in election contests — ^Where an
election contest arises, and is filed and
heard and determined by the ordinary
of the county, such decision is final
and in rendering it he does not act in
a judicial capacity. Therefore it was
not error to refuse certiorari to have
the decision of the ordinary reviewed
and reversed. Harris v, Glenn, 141 Qa.
687, 81 S. E. 1103.
927-56 Besolutions abolisihing office.
Certiorari is proper remedy to review
resolutions to create new position where
the object is not to oust the incumbent
but to abolish the office. Loughran v,
Jersey City, 86 N. J. L. 442, 92 A. 55.
927-57 Robertson v. Russell, 13 Gra.
App. 27, 78 S. E. 682; Arthur V. Dupuy,
130 La. 782, 58 S. 570.
928-58 Endowment D^pt. etc. v.
Harvey, 6 Ala. App. 239, 60 S. 602.
A Judgment void for lack of jurisdiction
may be reviewed by certiorari. Hick-
man V. Hunter, 159 la. 201, 140 N. W.
425; Owen r. Smith, 155 la. 463, 136 N.
W. 119; Bardes v. Hutchinson, 113 la.
610, 85 N. W. 797.
928-59 Proceedings tinder unconsti-
tutional statute^ — Acts of a county com-
missioner done under an unconstituional
statute may be reviewed on certiorari.
Ferguson t?. Court (Ala.), 65 S. 1028.
928-65 In certiorari to review muni-
cipal action, names of other parties
than municipality must appear in in-
dorsement and not in body of writ.
Zeller t?. Guttenberg, 81 N. J. L. 305,
83 A. 466.
929-74 Notice to lower court.
Where stay of proceedings is not de-
280
CERTIORARI
Vol. 4
manded a notice of hearing served on
lower court is not a condition preced-
ent to the legal issuance of the writ.
DiUton V. Calhoun County Court, 164
la. 187, 145 N. W. 498.
929-75 Guillaume v. Guillaume, 132
La. 413, 61 S. 510. See Qoenaga v, Ald-
tey, 16 P. B. 641.
980-78 Amadeo v. Bossy, 21 P. B.
333; Belgado v. District Court, 8 P. B.
484.
930-83 Wilber Stock Food Co. v.
Wesley, 14 Ga. App. 179, 80 8. E. 677.
931-85 Each member of the board
whose proceedings are being reviewed
ehould be served. WiUiams v. Henry,
70 Or. 466, 142 P. 337.
931-86 Mamng writ with petition
by clerk of court to magistrate is not
sufficient service. Byals v. Comrs., 12
Ga. App. 221, 77 S. E. 8.
932-87 Writ wlU be dismissed if not
served within statutory time unless the
failure was not attributable to appli-
cant. Byals V. Comrs.. 12 Ga. App. 221,
77 S. E. 8.
932-88 n. S. Health Ins. Co. v. Hill,
9 Ala. App. 222, 62 S. 954; Tuttle v.
Hutchison (la.), 151 N. W. 845.
After iUing exceptions it is too late to
raise question of want of statutory not-
ice. Atlanta Wood en ware Co. v, Frank-
lin, 11 Ga. App. 245, 75 8. E. 9.
932-93 Operates as a supersedeas.
Biggs V. Green, 118 Md. 218, 84 A. 343.
932-94 Arthur v. Dupuy, 130 La.
782, 68 S. 670.
932-95 Appointing new officers^ — ^An
executive should not be restrained from
appointing new officers pending pro-
ceedings on certiorari to review the ac-
tion of such executive in removing
others from the offices sought to be
filled. P. 17. Griffing, 164 App. Div. 529,
150 N. Y. S. 209.
933-96 See Smith v. Walkeen Mill-
inery Co., 12 Ga. App. 119, 76 S. E.
992.
933-97 Davidson v. Whitehill, 87 Vt.
499, 89 A. 1081.
933-98 McArdle v. Civil Service
Com., 159 111. App. 464; Davidson v.
WhitehiU, 87 Vt. 499, 89 A. 1081.
933-99 Davidson v, Whitehill, 87 Vt.
499, 89 A. 1081.
934-4 Not too late where made while
pending rehearing by a litigant who
had applied for such rehearing. Bloom-
field V. Thompson, 134 La. 923, 64 S.
853.
Where writ is granted without notice,
the question as to whether the case is
a proper one for the issuance of writ
may be tried on a motion to quash be-
fore return. Morefield v. Koehn, 53
Colo. 867, 127 P. 234.
Before submission of cause. — ^Must be
filed before cause is submitted in su-
preme court. Lehman Dry Goods Co. v.
Lemoine, 129 La. 382, 56 S. 324.
934-9 McArdle v. Civil Service Com.,
159 DL App. 464; S. V. Shocklee, 237
Mo. 460, 141 S. W. 614.
Invited error. — ^The writ must be
quashed where errors complained of
were procured by party seeking to have
them reviewed. Matthiessen v. Ott, 190
HL App. 301.
934-10 Champlin v. Probate Court
(B. L), 92 A. 982.
Waiver. — ^Where no objections were
made for want of interest by respond-
ents, and telators moved for judgment
on pleadings, the latter 's lack of in-
terest is waived. S. v. S]iocklee, 237
Mo. 460, 141 S. W. 614.
935-12 Adams v. Chattanooga Co.,
128 Tenn. 505, 161 S. W. 1131. See Est.
of Vail V. Munoz, 14 P. R. 331.
935-14 An objection to Jurisdiction
will not reach such defects. Tuttle v.
Hutchison (la.), 151 N. W. 845.
935-15 Upon motion to quash proofs
may be heard to determine whether
circuit court should entertain the pro-
ceedings, whether the writ should be
barred by laches, or whether proceed-
ings should be treated as ratified by
acts of petitioner or whether adequate
excuse for delay is shown. Perguson
tJ. Trustees, 168 HI. App. 225.
Proof of notice of intention to apply
for writ. — Where relator swears he has
given the required notice of intention
to apply for the writ it will not be re-
called on mere averment of respondent
that the notice was insufficient, for he
must produce notice so court may decide
the sufficiency. Brown v. Davis Lumb.
Co., 133 La. 262, 62 S. 670.
935-17 Townsend V. Parke*, 21 Cal.
App. 317, 131 P. 766.
Answer should contain record where not
sufficiently set out in petition. David-
son V. Whitehill, 87 Vt. 499, 89 A. 1081.
935-18 Becord most Show lower
court's Jurisdiction, etc. Ferguson v.
Court of County Comrs. (Ala.), 65 S.
281
L
Vol 4
CERTIOttARl
1028; P. V. Waldo, 212 N. Y. 156, 105
N. E. 961.
BecoTd most contain petition* — To re-
Tiew refusal of judge to sanction peti-
tion for certiorari, the petition must
be incorporated in bill of exceptions,
or be Terified as part thereof by trial
judge. An unsanctioned petition can-
not be specified as part of record. Mc-
Oovem V. Trammell, 14 Ga. App. 754,
82 S. E. 318; Taylor v. Omega, 12 Ga.
App. 693, 78 S. E. 144.
936-19 S. v, Ohickasha Cotton Oil
Co. (Okla.), 146 P. 433.
Time of filing* — Answer must be filed
on first day of term to which it is re-
turnable. High Co. V, Georgia R. Co.,
12 Ga. App. 505, 77 S. E. 688.
986-23 Tebbettff t?. Holtcamp, 252
Mo. 333, 158 S. W. 853; In re Breck,
252 Mo. 302, 158 S. W. 843.
The return should contain all papers
responsive to the writ. Cook v. Court
Comrs., 178 Ala. 394, 59 S. 483. It is
proper to return the record, proceed-
ings in the nature of a record, the rul-
ings of the tribunal, and the evidence
received. S. v. Duluth, 125 Minn. 425,
147 N. W. 820.
937-29 Mechler v. Pialk, 82 N. J. L.
273, S2 A. 330.
938-36 Butter v. Burke (Vt.), 93 A.
842.
938-38 Defendants may amend their
return by striking out allegations. Le-
high Sewer Pipe Co. r. Lehigh, 156 la.
386, 136 N. W. 934.
938-39 Cook r. Court Comrs., 178
Ala. 394, 59 S. 483.
938-40 Cook v. Court Comrs., 178
Ala. 394, 59 S. 483.
939-42 See Cook v. Court Comrs., 178
Ala. 394, 59 S. 483.
939-44 Cook v. Court Comrs., 178
Ala. 394, 59 S. 483; Phillips County
Court V. P., 55 Colo. 258, 133 P. 752;
Byan v. Hutchinson, 161 la. 575, 143
N. W. 433; S. f?. Duluth, 125 Minn. 425,
147 N. W. 820.
CondnsiyenfiflS of answer^— Where an-
swer fails to verify averments of peti-
tion, and nothing is done to perfect it,
there is nothing to be determined. Ben-
nett V. Griner, 14 Ga. App. 429, 81 S.
E. 363.
940-47 In Kew Hampdiire the in-
quiry upon certiorari is not confined to
the record below. Broderick v. Hunt,
77 N. H. 139, 89 A. 302; Dinsmore i\
Mayor, 76 N. IL 1S7, 81 A. 533. If
the record is defective the deficiency
may be supplied by other evidence.
Broderick v. Hunt, 77 N. H. 139, 89 A.
302.
Facts outside record. — ^''The answer is
not confined to bringing the record be-
fore the court, and to admitting or
denying the allegation of the petition;
but the exigencies of the case may re-
quire the allegation of facts outside the
record upon which an issue may be
joined that will necessitate the taking
of testimony in such manner as the
court may order." Davidson -t?. White-
hiU, 87 Vt. 499, 89 A. 1081; Sowles v.
Bailey, 69 Vt..277, 37 A. 751.
940-50 S. V, Broaddus, 245 Mo. 123,
149 S. W. 473, Ann. Cas. 1914A, 823;
Martin v, Irvin (Tex. Civ.), 147 S. W.
1164.
940-52 Chandler t?. Baggett, 13 Ga.
App. 333, 79 S. E. 179.
Exceptions to tlia answer to writ of
certiorari must be filed in writing and
notice given to opposite party before
case is called for hearing. Humphries
V. Nalley (Ga. App.), 82 S. E. 357;
Chandler v, Bagget, 13 Ga. App. 333, 79
S. E. 179.
Office of traverse. — ^''The office of the
traverse to the answer of an inferior
judicatory is to contradict the state-
ments of the lower court as to what
actually transpired upon the trial, and
if the facts in dispute are material to
the issue the reviewing court cannot
properly pass upon the merits of the
case until it has ascertained what is
the truth in relation to these facts in
dispute,'^ Chandler v, Baggett, 13 Ga.
App. 333, 79 S. E. 179.
940-53 On denial of writ the record
sought to be quashed cannot be af-
firmed. Ford V. Erskine, 109 Me. 164,
83 A. 455.
940-54 The petition must be taken
as true, and counter affidavits, parol
evidence, or even records of the inferior
tribunal will not be considered. More-
field V. Koehn, 53 Colo. 367, 127 P. 234.
940-55 Bio v. Municipal Court, 16
P. E. 773.
941-58 Phillips County Court f?. P.,
55 Colo. 258, 133 P. 752; Cass t?. Dun-
can, 260 111. 228, 103 N. E. 280; 8. t?.
Goodrich, 257 Mo. 40, 165 S. W. 707;
S. V. Ross, 177 Mo. App. 223, 162 S.
W. 702.
941-59 Phillips County Court t?. P.,
282
CERTIORARI
Vol 4
r,n Colo. 258, 133 P. 752; S. r. Boss, 177
Mo. App. 223, 162 8. W. 702.
941-61 Kirby t?. Comrs. Court, 186
Ala. 611, 65 S. 163; Benedick t?. Board
of Bevenue, 177 Ala. 52, 58 S. 306.
In Colorado there are two different pro-
ceedings by certiorari: One to review
the action of an inferior tribunal or
board of officers; the other to secure
the trial de novo of causes previously
heard by justices of the peace. Chen-
oweth 17. State Board, 57 Colo. 74, 141
P. 132; Small 9. Bischelbergery 7 Colo.
563, 4 P. 1195.
Btfttntofy mrit.F— Where the petition
for common law certiorari showed the
judgment complained of was erroneous
but not void, the writ issued may be
treated as a statutory writ, having the
effect of removing case to circuit court
for trial de novo. McCarty Furniture
Co. V. Armstrong (Ala. App.)* 64 S.
168.
941-62 Kirby v. Comrs. Court, 186
Ala. 611, 65 S. 163; Morefield t?. Koehn,
63 Colo. 367, 127 P. 234; District of
Columbia v. Witmer, 39 App. Cas. (D.
C.) 334; In re Washington Party Nom-
inations, 237 Pa. 567, 85 A. 873; In re
Sinking Spring Borough, 52 Pa. Sup.
481.
In Texas, Bev. St. 1895, art. 339, pro-
vides for trial de novo in' which the is-
sues are confined to the grounds speci-
fied in the application for the writ.
See also art. 1294. Gulf, etc. By. Co. v.
Lemons (Tex. Civ.), 152 S. W. 1189.
Court may review the evidence where
the issue is that there was no legiti-
mate evidence. Butter v, Burke (Vt.),
93 A. 842.
942-63 Ford v. Erskine, 109 Me. 164,
83 A. 455.
943-64 Kirby if. Court Comrs., 186
Ala. 611, 65 S. 163; Benedick t>. Board
of Bevenue, 177 Ala. 52, 58 S. 306;
Mitchell V. Superior Court, 163 Cal. 423,
125 P. 1061; Chenoweth r. State Board,
67 Colo. 74, 141 P. 132; President, etc.
V. Eversz, 262 HI. 612, 104 N. E. 1048,
af.t 180 HI. App. 470; S. r. Goodrich,
257 Mo. 40, 165 S. W. 707; S. v, Bey-
nolds, 257 Mo. 19, 165 S. W. 729; S. v.
Gilbert, 164 Mo. App. 139, 148 S. W.
125; School Dist. r. Tates, 161 Mo. App.
107, 142 S. W. 791; Adams V. Chatta-
nooga Co., 128 Tenn. 505, 161 S. W.
1131.
JnriBdlctionw — ^The only question te-
Tiecwable is whether in making the
order the court exceeded its jurimlic-
tion. Dam v, Superior Court (Cal.)i
146 P. 684.
Evidence not in record. — Where -the er-
ror assigned is the alleged failure of
the court of appeal to properly apply
the law to a certain state of facts, the
supreme court will refuse a writ of re-
view where the evidence had not been
reduced to writing and there was no
agreed statement of facts. Gaiennie v.
Bouchereau, 130 La. 446, 58 S. 143;
Broderick v. Blunt, 120 JLa. 1051, 46
S. 20.
943-65 Ex parte Stewart, 185 Ala.
216, 64 So. 36, mod. 8 Ala. App. 663,
62 S. 338; In re Erdman's Estate, 179
Mich. 567, 146 N. W. 400; Van Dyke
V. Doughty, 174 Mich. 351, 140 N. W.
627; In re Badford, 168 Mich. 474, 134
N. W. 472; Arribas «. District Court,
9 P. B. 436.
SoflLdency of marks on ballots. — Court
may determine whether marks on a bal-
lot conformed to legal requirements, it
being a question of law. Harkness v.
Board of Canvassers (B. I.), 92 A. 567;
Bice V. Town Council, 35 B. I. 117, 85
A. 553.
944-67 P. tJ. State Board, 212 N. Y.
472, 106 N. E. 325; P. t?. Woodbury,
203 N. T. 231, 235, 96 N. E. 420; Bawl
V. McCown, 97 S. C. 1, 81 S. E. 958.
945-68 Ex parte Burnett, 180 Ala.
540, 61 S. 920, deny, certiorari, 6 Ala.
App. 568, 60 8. 472; Imperial Water Co.
V. Board of Suprs., 162 Cal. 14, 120
P. 780; Singleton v. Planters' Oil Mill,
14 Ga. App. 157, 80 S. E. 704; Knight
V. Cooley (Tenn.), 173 S. W. 435; Black
V. S. (Tenn.), 172 S. W. 281; S. v, Lee,
124 Tenn. 385, 136 S.' W. 997; Davidson
V. Whitehill, 87 Vt. 499, 89 A. 1081;
S. V. Parsons, l53 Wis. 20, 139 N. W.
825.
Wliere no cross-errors are assigned the
supreme court cannot review conclu-
sions of appellate court that evidence
warranted the findings. Garrett v. Gar-
rett, 252 Dl. 318, 96 N. E. 882, rev.
160 m. App. 321.
946-69 Atlantic Coast Line B. Co. v.
Thomas, 12 Ga. App. 209, 77 8. E. 13 r
Davidson v. Whitehill, 87 Vt. 499, 89
A. 1081.
946-70 Sexton r. Newark Dist. Tel.
Co., 84 N. J. L. 85, 86 A. 451.
946-71 Jennings r. McCown, 97 S. C.
484, 81 S. E. 963; International Har-
283
Vol. 4
CERTIORARI
Tester Co. v. Industrial Com., 157 Wis.
167, 147 N. W. 53.
946-72 Davidson r. Whitehill, 87 Vt.
499, 89 A. 1081.
947-75 S. V. Gilbert, 164 Mo. App.
139, 148 S. W. 125; Bohwer V. District
Court, 41 Utah 279, 125 P. 671; S. «•
Superior Court, 69 Wash. 439, 125 P.
779.
A denial of continuance not reviewable.
S. V, Parsons, 153 Wis. 20, 139 N. W.
825.
947-76 Bohwer v. District Court, 41
Utah 279, 125 P. 671.
Directing verdict.— << While a justice
of the peace has no authority to direct
a verdict, yet where the evidence shows
that the verdict as directed was de-
manded, this court will not reverse the
judgment of the superior court, refus-
ing to sustain the certiorari, on the sole
ground that the verdict was directed
by the justice. '' Simmons v. Hawkins,
13 Ga. App. 371, 79 S. E. 179; Meeks
1?. Carter, 5 Ga. App. 421, 63 S. £.
617.
947-79 Jones v, Bome (Ga. App.), 82
S. E. 593; McLeay v. Crane, 11 Ga.
App. 815, 76 S. E. 391; Duren v. Lay-
ton, 10 Ga. App. 394, 73 S. E. 432;
North British, etc. Ins. Co. v, Sims, 132
La. 411, 61 S. 509; Mitsch r. Biver-
side Tp.. 92 N. J, L. 603^ 92 A. 436:
SehmicT t?. Law, 83 N. J. L. 635, 87
A. 452; Mechler v, Fialk, 82 N. J. L.
273, 82 A. 330; Bice €. Town Coun-
cil, 35 B. L 117, 85 A. 553; Gulf, etc.
B. Co. V. Lemons (Tex. Civ.), 152 S. W.
1189.
948-80 Comp. Marten v. Bepp, 82 K.
J. L. 270, 82 A. 314.
948-84 Effect of rehearing on pro-
ceedings.— An application for rehearing
in case decided by supreme court pre-
vents the judgment from becoming
final while the court is deliberating
thereon. And where rehearing is
granted restricting it to certain issues
the whole case remains under control
of the court. Bloomfield i\ Thompson,
134 La. 923, 64 S. 853.
948-86 Wright <?. Court of County
Comrs., 180 Ala. 534, 61 S. 918; Pitard
V, McDowell, 6 Ala. App. 236, 60 S.
555.
The only Judgment to be rendered is
that the writ be quashed or that the
record of proceedings be quashed. Cass
«. Buncan, 260 111. 228, 103 N. E. 280.
Supreme court cannot act In advisory
capacity, but only pass upon facts pre-
sented. Levert v. Moore Planting Co.,
135 La. 493, 65 S. 621.
Only where facts are undisputed and
court of appeals refuses to follow su-
preme court decisions on law, can the
latter quash a judgment of appellate
court. S. V, Ellison, 256 Mo. 644, 165
S. W. 369, quashing Iba v. Chicago, B.
& Q. B. Co., 172 Mo. App. 141, 157
S. W. 675.
When order or Judgment la rereraed in
certiorari proceedings the whole case
falls and it is the end of the case.
Van Dyke v. Doughty, 174 Mich. 851,
140 N. W. 627.
949-87 Townsend v, Parker, 21 CaL
App. 317, 131 P. 766; Atlantic Coast
Line B. Co. v, Thomas, 12 Ga. App. 209,
77 S. E. 13; Wood v. MillviUe, 85 N.
J. L. 734, 90 A. 379; Erie B. Co. v.
Board of Utility, 85 N. J. L. 420, 89
A. 1001; Dubelbeiss V. West Hoboken,
82 N. J. L. 683, 82 A. 897, af. 81 N. J.
L. 98, 79 A. 290; P. v. State Board of
Tax Comrs. (App. Div.), 150 N. Y. S.
35; Zarate v. Villabaso, 12 P. B. 52.
New. TriaL — ^''The superior court has,
on certiorari, no power to grant a new
trial in an inferior judicatory on the
ground of alleged newly discovered evi-
dence.'' Laffltte t?. S., 105 Ga. Q95, 31
8. E. 540; Cherokee Mfg. Co. v. White,
11 Ga. App. 187, 74 8. E. 936.
Final Judgment may be ordered entered.
Ederheimer v, Carson, 14 Ga. App. 541,
81 8. E. 815. But final judgment will
not be ordered on certiorari granting
new trial where the evidence on new
hearing may be different. Langley Mfg.
Co. V. Prey & Co., 10 Ga. App. 753, 73
8. E. 1074.
950-90 Costa cannot be awarded
against defendant district judge. Hick-
man 1?. Hunter, 159 la. 201, 140 N. W.
425.
951-93 Ko appeal In certain eases.
Where the object of the writ is merely
to inquire into and direct the regular-
ity of the procedure in lower tribunal
the court exercises quasi appellate
power and its judgment being final no
appeal will lie. Biggs 9. Green, 118
Md. 218, 84 A. 343; Crockett <?. Parke,
7 Gill (Md.) 237.
951-96 Collingswood v. State Com.,
85 N. J. L. 673, 90 A. 277, af. 84 N.
J. L. 104, 86 A. 660; P. V. Waldo, 212
N. Y. 156, 105 N. E. 961.
Question of Jurisdiction will be re-
284
. CHANGE OF VENUE
Vol. 4
viewed on. appeal. S. v. Public Service
Com., 77 Wash. 1, 137 P. 302.
In Teoiieflsee either the losing or win-
ning party in the court of civil appeals
may by his petition for certiorari and
accordant assignment of errors have re-
viewed in the supreme court any ques-
tion of law or fact which that court
may not have passed upon. Knight v,
Cooley (Tenn.), 173 S. W. 435.
953-4 Mitsch v, Riverside Tp., 86 N.
J. L. 603, 92 A. 4Zfi.
UattezB not raised in appellate court
cannot be raised in supreme court.
Devine v. Chicago, etc. By. Co., 266 111.
248, 107 N. E. 595.
958-5 Edgeman v. Stewart, 141 Ga.
686. 81 8. £. 1036.
954-7 Davis v. Thompson (Ga. App.)>
82 S. E. 595.
954-11 Ko federal statnto has boen
PflBBOd enlarging the scope of certiorari
at common law, and cases where it has
been issued under state statutes to
state oificers are not controlling in fed-
eral courts. Degge v, Hitchcock, 229
U. 8. 162, 33 Sup. Ct. 639, 57 Lb ed.
1135, af, 35 App. Cas. (D. C.) 218.
955-13 The writ of certiorari is an
extraordinary remedy and it is impos-
sible to anticipate what exceptional
facts may arise to call for its use.
Degge f7. Hitchcock, 229 U. S. 162, 33
8up. Ct. 639, 57 L. ed. 1135, af. 35
App. Cas- (D. C.) 218.
956-24 Denver v. New York Trust
Co., 229 V. S. 123, 33 Sup. Ct. 657, 57
L. ed. 1101, rev. 187 Fed. 890, 110 C. C.
A. 24.
958-39 Cramp & Sons v, Curtiss Tur-
bine Co., 228 IT. S. 645, 33 Sup. Ct. 722,
57 L. ed. 1003, rev. 202 Fed. 932, 121
C. C. A. 290.
Mill Co. V. Hall, 147 Ky. 598, 144 S.
W. 760.
964-9 McCoy v. Gas E. & P. Co., 152
App. Div. 642, 137 N. Y. S. 591; In re
Evans, 42 Utah 282, 130 P. 217.
965-10 Begley v. Valentine, 160 Ky.
526, 169 S. W. 1026; Brown V. White,
153 Ky. 452, 156 S. W. 96; Green v.
Horn, 207 N. Y. 489, 101 N. E. 430;
Gannon v. Johnston, 40 Okla. 695, 140
P. 430 (holding that where land in the
adverse possession of another is con-
veyed, the grantee may maintain an
action in the name of his grantor to
recover from the adverse holder) ; Gernt
<?. Floyd (Tenn.), 174 S. W. 267.
966-17 Taylor v. Perkins, 171 Mo.
App. 246, 157 S. W. 122; Kelley v.
Blanchard, 34 B. I. 57, 82 A. 728.
967-21 Nathan v. Peterson, 177 111.
App. 104.
968-25 Ford v. Munroe (Tex. Civ.),
144 S. W. 349.
968-27 Bieman v. Morrison, 264 HI.
279, 106 N. E. 215; Johnson v. United
Eys. Co., 247 Mo. 326, 152 S. W. 362,
374.
Plea In abatements— Where the com-
plaint alleges an assignment of the
judgment, which is the basis of the
suit, to the plaintiff and that he was
the actual bona fide owner of said judg-
ment, a plea in abatement that the
plaintiff is an attorney at law and
that 'Hhe facts alleged in the com-
plaint disclose that" the assignment
was champertous, is insufficient; it
should deny the bona fides of the as-
signment or set up facts which render
it illegal. Bogers v. Hendrick, 85
Conn. 260, 82 A. 586.
971-35 Gernt v, Floyd (Tenn.), 174
S. W. 267.
959-1 Merchants' P. Assn. v, Jacob-
sen, 22 Ida. 636, 127 P. 315; Lehman
r. Detroit, etc. B. Co., 180 Mich. 362,
147 N. W. 628; Kelley v. Blanchard,
34 B. I. 57, 82 A. 728; In re Evans, 42
Utah 282, 130 P. 217.
962-6 Newport Boiling Mill Co. v.
Hall, 147 Ky. 598, 144 S. W. 760; Tay-
lor V. Bosenberg, 219 Mass. 113, 106
K. E. 603; Johnson v. United Bys. Co.,
247 Mo. 326, 152 S. W. 362, 374.
963-7 Kauffman v. Phillips, 154 la.
542, 134 N. W. 575j Newport Boiling
CHANGE OF VHinTE
973-1 Glinnan v. Judge, etc., 173
Mich. 674, 140 N. W. 87; P. v. Swift,
172 Mich. 473, 138 N. W. 662.
974-2 Statutory right.— "The right
to a change of venue is only bestowed
by the statute and the legislature has
authority to provide for the extent and
manner of its exercise." Heck v. C,
163 Ky. 518, 174 S. W. 19.
975-7 S. V. HoUoway (N. M.), 146 P.
1066.
975-8 Glinnan v. Judge, etc., 173
Mich. 674, 140 K W. 87; S. v. Hollo-
way (N. M.), 146 P, 1066.
285
Vol 4
CHANGE OF VENUE'
975-10 Graham v. S., 141 Ga. 812, 82
S. E. 282; Coleman i\ George, 140 Ga.
619y 79 S. £. 543; Mayhew v. S. (Tex.
Cr.), 155 S. W. 191.
In Porto Blco a judge has no authority
to transfer a case on his own motion
because he considers himself disquali-
fied. By §171 of Code of Grim. Proc.
Buch transfer can be made only in mo-
tion of prosecuting attorney or defend-
ant. P. V. Diaz, 18 P. B. 878.
976-11 Mayhew v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 155
e. W. 191.
976-13 To different cotintieB^— There
may be a change of venue as to differ-
ent defendants to different counties.
iWilflon V. &., 70 Tex. Cr. 3, 155 S. W.
242.
977-17 In former case^ — ^The ground
of objection may be the magistrate's
rulings in a former trial. S. V. Bar-
nett, 98 8. C. 422, 82 S. E. 795.
977-18 Erbaugh t?. P., 57 (Colo.), 48,
140 P. 188; S. I?. Boyd, 26 N. D. 224,
144 N. W. 232.
978-20 8. D. Sexton, 91 Kan. 171,
136 P. 901.
Changing Judge instead of place of trial
may be granted. 8. r. Cowan, 160 Mo.
App. 482, 140 8. W. 960; Dietz v. 8.,
149 Wis. 462, 136 N. W. 166, Ann. Cas.
1913C, 732.
978-22 P. V. Hyde, 149 App. Div.
131, 133 N. y. S. 780, af. 133 N. Y. 8.
806.
Prejudice in other clrciiits« — ^Where
local prejudice is found, an application
for change of venue should not be de-
nied because the same prejudice exists
in other circuits, there being no evi-
dence to such effect. 8. v, Anderson,
250 Mo. 83, 158 8. W. 817.
979-23 Prejudice is not shown
where in the selection of a jury a juror
indicated a greater prejudice against the
crime of incest than other offenses.
P. r. Turner, 260 III. 84, 102 N. E. 1036,
Ann. Cas. 1914D, 144.
979-24 Prejudice against negroes is a
ground for change of venue. Dorsey
t\ S., 179 Ind. 531, 100 X. E. 369.
979-25 Adams v, 8., 181 Ala. 58, 61
8. 352.
979-26 Wolfe v. 8., 107 Ark. 33, 153
S. W. 1102; 8. 17. Casey, 34 Nev. 154,
117 P. 5.
980-28 Godau r. 8., 179 Ala. 27, 60
8. 908; McElwain v, C, 146 Ky. 104,
142 8. W. 234; Tegeler v. S., 9 OkU.
Cr. 138, 130 P. 1164.
980-29 P. V. Pfanschmidt, 262 HI.
411, 104 N. E. 804, Ann. Cas. 191$Af
1171; P. V. Walker, 179 HI. App. 455;
P. I?. 8wift, 172 Mich. 473, 138 N. W.
662; 8. t?. Casey, 34 Nev. 154, 117 P.
5; 8. 17. Biley, 41 Utah 225, 126 P. 294.
980-30 Nichols v. 8., 102 Ark. 266,
143 8. W. 1071; Erbaugh u. P., 57 Colo.
48, 140 P. 188; P. v. Pfanschmidt, 262
m. 411, 104 N. E. 804, Ann. Cas. 1915A,
1171; Leach v. 8., 177 Ind. 234, 97 N. E.
792; Heck r. C, 163 Ky. 518, 174 S.
W. 19; Mansfield f?. C, 163 Ky. 488,
174 8. W. 16; Saylor ©. C, 158 Ky. 768,
166 8. W. 254; Chaney t?. C, 149 Ky.
464, 149 S. W. 923; Smith V. C, 148
Ky. 60, 146 8. W. 4; McElwain c. C,
146 Ky. 104, 142 8. W. 234; Tidewater
V. Portland Cement Co., 122 Md. 96, 89
A. 327; P. f7. Swift, 172 Mich. 473, 138
N. W. 662; 8. v. Shaffer, 253 Mo. 320,
161 8. W. 805; 8. V. Anderson, 252 Mo.
83, 158 8. W. 817; S. 17. Basco, 239 Mo.
535, 144 S. W. 449; Clarence v. S., 89
Neb. 762, 132 N. W. 395; S. 17. Casey,
34 Nev. 154, 117 P. 5; Ter. «. Cheney,
16 N. M. 476, 120 P. 335; P. v, Hyde,
149 App. Div. 131, 133 N. Y. 8. 780,
af, 133 N. Y. 8. 306; Gentry c. S.
(Okla. Cr.), 146 P. 719; Maddox f?. S.,
10 Okla. Cr. 569, 139 P. 994; Sayers «?.
8., 10 Okla. Cr. 233, 135 P. 1073; Ed-
wards 17. 8., 9 Okla. Cr. 306, 131 P.
956, 44 L. E. A. (N. 8.) 701; Tegeler
V. 8., 9 Okla. Cr. 138, 130 P. 1164;
Watson 17. 8., 9 Okla. Cr. 1, 130 P. 816;
Hughes 17. 8., 126 Tenn. 40, 148 8. W.
543; Stoner t?. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 162 8. W.
836; Harris f7. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 148 8. W.
1074; Looney c». 8., 115 Va. 921, 78
8. E. 625; 8. 17. Herold, 68 Wash. 654,
123 P. 1076; 8. v. Welty, 65 Wash. 244,
118 P. 9.
982-31 See Kennedy r. S., 141 Ga.
314, 80 8. E. 1012; Manley v. 8., 62
Tex. Cr. 392, 137 8. W. 1137.
982-32 P. t7. Swift, 172 Mich. 473,
138 N. W. 662.
983-34 Graham v. S., 141 Ga. 812,
82 '8. E. 282.
984-43 P. V, Pitzsimmons (Mich.),
149 N. W. 976.
985-47 SucceBsiye petitiona. — The
question of allowing accused to present
successive petitions for change of venue
is in the trial court's discretion and
will not be disturbed unless improv-
idently exercised* I^ichols 9, S., 102
?86
CHANGE OF VENUE
Vol. 4
Ark. 266, 143 S. W. 1071. A second
petition for change of venue cannot be
entertained when the court is still con-
sidering the first. Nichols v. S., 102
Ark. 266, 143 8. W. 1071.
Timely If filed before trial has begun,
though continuance had been obtained
and no notice served on prosecuting at-
torney. S. r. Boyd, 26 N. D. 224, 144
N. W. 232.
Before motion for a change of venire.
Motion for a jury from another county
must be made before a motion for
change of venue. Looney v, C, 115
Va. 921, 78 S. E. 625; Joyce f?. C, 78
Va. 289.
On new trial. — ^Motion for change of
venue is renewable in anew trial
when the exigencies of the situation de-
mand it. Looney t?. C, 115 Va. 921, 78
S. E. 625.
986-49 Failure to adc mllng on pe-
tition for change of venue is equivalent
to a withdrawal. Threet r. S., 110 Ark.
152, 161 S. W. 139.
987-52 Verification.— Where statute
requires a verified petition, an unveri-
fied motion signed by attorney is in-
sufficient. Young V, P., 54 Colo. 293,
130 P. 1011.
988-55 S. <?. Keller (Mo.), 174 S.
W. 67.
988-56 S. V. Keller (Mo.), 174 S.
W. 67.
988-58 Short notice may be reason-
able notice. S. v. Keller (Mo.), 174
8. W. 67.
989-61 Williams v. S., 103 Ark. 70,
146 8. W. 471.
990-64 In Sonth Carolina the f^cts
may be sworn to on information and
belief, but the sources of information
and grounds of belief must be stated
with particularity and certainty, other-
wise the court cannot determine the
sufficiency of the grounds, nor would
the affidavit if false afford the basis
of an indictment for perjury (this be-
ing necessary). 8. v, Bamett, 98 8. C.
422, 82 8. E. 795.
991-65 Tegeler v, S., 9 Okla. Cr. 138,
130 P. 1164.
991-66 Jones r. 8., 101 Ark. 439, 142
S. W. 838; WiUiams v. 8., 100 Ark.
218, 139 8. W. 1119.
991-69 Magness t?. 8., 103 Miss. 30,
60 8. 8; Maddox V. 8., 10 Okla. Cr. 569,
139 P. 994; Tegeler v, 8., 9 Okla. Cr.
138, 130 P. 1164.
991-70 Other witnesses cannot be
examined. — While it is proper to ex-
amine witnesses making affidavits
touching their knowledge of the sub-
ject-matter, it is error to examine other
witnesses to show that no prejudice
exists against defendant. Williams v.
8., 103 Ark. 70, 146 8. W. 471.
991-71 Tegeler v. 8., 9 Okla. Cr. 138,
130 P. 1164; Watson V. 8., 9 Okla. Cr.
1, 130 P. 816.
Admissions.^ — ^Facts alleged in moving
affidavits are taken as true unless de-
nied by counter-affidavits. P. v. Pfan-
Schmidt, 262 HI. 411, 104 N. £. 804,
Ann. Cas. 1915A, 1171.
The traverse to petition need not state
that no prejudice exists among the in-
habitants of the county. P. f?. Walker,
179 111. App. 455.
994-66 Harris r. 8., 71 Tex. Cr. 463,
160 8. W. 447.
995-93 Caffman v, 8. (Tex. Cr.), 165
8. W. 939.
995-97 Jurisdiction on changed
venue. — By statute the second court
had the same power and authority over
the subsequent proceedings as if the
proceedings had been begun before him.
He may, therefore, allow a new com-
plaint to be filed, even allowing a
change as to the offense charged. 8.
r. Grimes, 80 Wash. 14, 141 P. 184.
997-11 Accused waives right to ob-
ject that no seal was attached to cer-
tificate of transfer from one court to
another by moving for a change of
venue. Washmood v. U. 8., 10 Okla. Cr.
254, 136 P. 184.
999-19 When venue has been
changed the court to which proceedings
are transferred may proceed the same
as though cause were begun there, and
the judge acts as judge of such dis-
trict and not as acting judge of dis-
trict from which cause was taken.
8. r. Winbauer, 26 N. D. 43, 143 N. W.
387.
999-21 Prosecution may amend in-
formation where no different offense is
charged. • 8. t*. Woods, 24 N. D. 156,
139 N. W. 321.
IOO0I24* Collins V. 8., 64 Fla. 239, 60
8. 785.
1000-25 On remand original court is
reinvested with jurisdiction and may
compel clerk- of court of other district
to return papers and documents. Berg
r. 8., 64 Tex. Cr. 612, 142 S. W. 884,
1000-26 P. V, Piaz, 18 P, R, 878,
897
Vol. 5
CHANGE OF VENUE
1000-28 Oalling in another Judge is
a change of venue within meaning of
statute forbidding more than one
change. Dietz v. §., 149 Wis. 462, 136
N. W. 166, Ann. Cas. 1913C, 732.
1001-34 Case mdawfolly transferred.
All orders, judgments and decrees made
by a judge presiding at a criminal case
unlawfully transferred by change of
venue to such court, except to return
the files to the court where they proper-
ly belong, are void. Dodd V. S., 5 Okla.
Cr. 613, 115 P. 632.
[Vol. 5]
3-2 Change of presiding Judges in
same court is not a change of venue.
Greene v, American Malting Oo.| 153
Wis. 216, 140 N. W. 1130.
4-9 St. Louis, etc. By. Co. v, Trans-
meier, 106 Ark. 530, 153 S. W. 817
(limited to cases where a fair and im-
partial trial cannot be had); Stevens
V. Earll, 164 Mo. App. 461, 147 S. W.
211.
5-10 Gregory Printing Co. ,v. De
Voney, 257 HI. 399, 100 N. E. 1066.
5-13 Heinlen Co. v, Superior Court,
17 Cal. App. 660, 121 P. 293.
5-15 Bemoval of sheriff. — ^A change
may be had in proceedings to remove
a sheriff. S. V. Yager, 250 Mo. 388,
157 S. W. 557.
6-23 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Car-
ter, 11 Ga. App. 499, 75 S. E. 842;
S. V. Superior Court, 67 Wash. 321, 121
P. 460.
6-27 S. v. St. Louis, etc. By. Co., 245
Mo. 50, 149 S. W. 456. But see Holly
17. Holly, 157 la. 584, 138 N. W. 445.
6-32 Mayor, etc. v. Kane (Md.), 93
A. 393.
6-33 Contra, Fort v. White, 54 Ind.
App. 210, 101 N. E. 27.
6-36 S. V, District Court, 120 Minn.
458, 139 N. W. 947, -Ann. Cas. 1914C,
106.
7-39 Jones t?. Postal Tel. Co., 91 S. C.
273, 74 S. E. 492; Ferguson V. Fain
(Tex. Civ.), 142 S. W. 1184; Greene v,
American Malting Co., 153 Wis. 216,
140 N. W. 1130. See also 2 Standard
PROC. 542.
Obtaining time to plead does not con-
stitute a waiver. Donisthorpe V, Lutz,
155 la. 379, 136 N. W. 233.
7-40 By filing answer to merits. Trus-
tees V. Fetzer, 162 N. C. 245, 78 S. E.
152.
Piling cross-aotioxi asking affirmative
relief. Barbian v. Gresham (Tex. Civ.),
156 S. W. 365.
Motions Inconsistent therewith. — ^When
before motion for change was pre-
sented the moving party filed several
other motions, the application was
properly denied. S. v. People's Ice^ etc.
Co., 246 Mo. 168, 151 S. W. 101.
7-42 Dembitz v. Orange County
Tract. Co., 147 App. Div. 583, 132 N. T.
S. 593.
8«43 See Chicago, etc. B. Co. u. Cas-
tle, 155 la. 124, 135 N. W. 561.
FiUng demurrer with motion.-^Bight
not waived by filing demurrer to com-
plaint together with his motion for
change. Price v. Lucky Four, etc, Co.,
56 Colo. 163, 136 P. 1021.
9-47 S. V. District Court, 120 Minn.
458, 139 N. W. 947, Ann. Cas. 1914C,
106.
9-49 S. V. District Court, 43 Mont.
571, 118 P. 268, Ann. Cas. 1912C, 343;
Dixon V. Haar, 158 N. C. 341, 74 S. E. 1.
9-51 Van Alstine 17. Burt, 151 App.
Div. 81, 135 N. Y. S. 779; Fluckiger v.
Haber, 144 App. Div. 65, 128 N. T. S.
739.
Unless a large preponderance of the
witnesses live in another county. Kauf-
man V. Kaufman, 152 App. Div. 100, 136
N. Y. S. 592 ; Bed Hook Light & Power
Co. V. Bightmyer, 150 App. Div. 663,
135 N. Y. S. 725; Spanedda V. Murphy,
144 App. Div. 58, 128 N. Y. S. 884.
9-52 €ee €. v. District Court, 43
Mont. 571, 118 P. 268, Ann. Cas. 1912C;
343.
•
IhsaflLclent ground. — Where it is pro-
vided that an action may be brought
either in county where defendant re-
sides or the county where the injury oc-
curred, the venue could not be changed
from the latter to the former on the
sole ground that the place ''was not
the proper county." Gridley v, Fel-
lov.-, 166 Cal. 765, 138 P. 355.
9-53 Bohn v. Bohn, 164 Cal. 532, 129
P. 981; Upjohn v. First Methodist Soc,
156 App. Div. 147, 140 N. Y. S. 1104;
Barnes v. Boose velt, 87 Misc. 55, 149
N. Y. S. 291; English V, Gibbons, 79
Wash. 210, 140 P. 322.
10-54 Donohoe v, Wooster, 163 Cal.
114, 124 P. 730; Costello v. Bell (Cal.
App.), 148 P. 948; Aisbett t?. Paradise
Mountain M. & M. Co., 21 Cal. App.
267, 131 P. 330.
Entire cause mnst be transferred^
m
CEANQE OF VENUE
Vol. B
Where two defendants living in another
county are joined, and. one of them files
a plea to be sued in the county of his
residence, the court cannot dismiss as
to one, nor change the venue as to one
and refuse as to other, but must trans-
fer entire cause to the proper county.
Suter 17. Ihnken (Tex, Civ.), 143 S. W.
675.
11-55 S. V. District Court, 43 Mont.
571, 118 P. 268, Ann. Cas. 1912C, 343.
Error of Judge in granting a new trial
is not such prejudice or bias. Stahl v.
Schwartz, 67 Wash. 25, 120 P. 856.
Qnestion of fact for Jndge. — ^The ques-
tion of actual prejudice is one of fact
to be decided by the judge in view of
his own knowledge of the matter (Mil-
ler t?. Kerr, 94 Kan. 545, 146 P. 1159) ;
and he must exercise his discretion in
passing upon it. Miller v. Weston, 25
Colo. App. 231, 138 P. 424.
11-56 S. V. Clifford, 65 Wash. 313, 118
P. 40.
11-59 That Judge's son Is plaintiff's
attorney is not a ground for change.
King t?. Security Co., 241 Pa. 547, 88 A.
789.
12-61 See Davis v. O'Day, 137 N.
Y. S. 411.
12-62 Barnes V. Boosevelt, 150 V. Y.
8. 30.
12-63 For mere delay. — ^Where mo-
tion for change for prejudice of inhab-
itants is made to procure delay it is
not error to deny it. Houser v, Mc-
Laughlin, 55 Ind. App. 563, 104 N. E.
309.
Prejudice of judge distinct from preju-
dice of Inhabitants. — ^Where a change
of venue is asked because of prejudice
of judge, and an impartial judge is as-
signed, appellant cannot complain of
prejudice of inhabitants; the change of
venue provided for by statute because
of prejudice of judge being a distinct
ground from change allowed because
of prejudice of inhabitants. P. fJ. Qer-
old, 265 HI. 448, 107 N. E. 165.
Or his cause of action. — Ilamill v,
Schlitz Brew. Co. (la.), 143 N. W. 99.
12-64 Boyd v, Chicago, B. & Q. B.
Co., 97 Neb. 238, 149 N. W. 818.
13-67 S. V. District Court, 43 Mont.
571, 118 P. 268, Ann. Cas. 1912C, 343;
Brasky v. Hallock (App. Div.), 150 N.
Y, 8. 755; Hemenway t?. Fitzgerald, 159
App. Div. 748, 144 N. Y. S. 951; Kauf-
man v. Kaufman, 152 App. Div. 100, 136
N. Y. S. 592; Mayer v. Madigan, 150
App. Div. 519, 135 N. Y. S. 510; Orkin
1?. Machan, 148 App. Div. 197, 132 N.
Y. S. 1003; Maucher v. Hedges, 148
App. Div. 889, 131 N. Y. S. 1008; Sol-
berg V, Ft. Orange Const. Co., 142 N.
Y. S. 228.
13-68 McNeill & Co. t?. Doe, 163 Cal.
338, 125 P. 345; Miller v. Weston, 25
Colo. App. 231, 138 P. 424; Solberg V.
Ft. Orange Const. Co., 142 N. Y. 8. 228;
Culbertson V, Hunt Co., 79 Wash. 446,
140 P. 548.
13-69 Court acts only at Instance of
parties. — r**The convenience of wit-
nesses is, to a large extent, the con-
venience and economy of the parties,
and, where the parties have neglected
to assert their rights in a timely man-
ner, it is not for the courts to inter-
fere. ' ' Dembitz v. Orange County Tract.
Co., 147 App. Div. 583, 132 N. Y. S.
593.
14-70 Lewis v. Bethel, 156 App. Div.
894, 140 N. Y. S. 1041.
14-71 Where abandonment of action
by plaintiff would result if change is
made the motion will be denied. Bowe
V. Charles H. Ditson Co., 140 N. Y. S.
929.
Place where cause of action arose and
transactions occurred is an important
and controlling factor. Schuiz v, Hlid-
son Valley By. Co., 147 App. Div. 788,
131 N. Y. S. 995.
14-74 Carr v. Stern, 17 Cal. App. 397,
119 P. 35.
15-75 Van Alstine v, Burt, 151 App.
Div. 81, 135 N. Y. S. 779; Solberg i?.
Ft. Orange Const. Co., 142 N. Y. S. 228.
15-77 Deutsch v. Upton Cold Storage
Co., 146 App. Div. 588, 131 N. Y. S.
273.
15-79 Motion Is necessary as the fil-
ing of demand and affidavit does not
in itself change place of trial. Bohn
V. Bohn, 164 Cal. 532, 129 P. 981; Bar-
bour V. Fidler, 31 S. D. 351, 141 N. W.
88.
16-86 Gourley v. Pierce, 182 HI. App.
609; Cowie v. Strohmeyer, 150 Wis. 401,
136 N. W. 956, 137 N. W. 778.
17-87 Donohoe f?. Wooster, 163 Cal.
114, 124 P. 730.
19-2 Advance Veneer Co. v. Horna-
day, 49 Ind. App. 83, 96 N. E. 784;
Haines v. Beynolds, 95 App. Div. 275,
88 N. Y. S. 589.
After continuance has been obtained
the right to change of venue will be
289
Vol. 5
CHANGE OF VENUE
denied. Binga t?. Martin, 174 111. App.
217; Hamill v. Schlitz Brew. Co. (la.),
143 N. W. 99; S. t;. Clifford, 65 Wash.
313, 118 P. 40.
After pleadlxig in bar in a transitory
action, right to change of venue is
waived. Silverstone v, London Assur.
Corp., 176 Mich. 525, 142 N, W. 776.
After temporary restraining order. — ^It
is too late if motion is made after gi:ant-
ing rule for defendants to show cause
why injunction should not be granted
and temporary restraining order had is-
sued. Fortson Shingle Co. i?. Skagland,
77 Wash. 8, 137 P. 304.
19-3 Bule does not apply where trial
has been discontinued and application
is made before second trial has be-
gun. Greene v, American Malting Co.,
153 Wis. 216, 140 N. W. 1130.
20-6 Cronin v, Manhattan Transit Co.,
124 App. Div. 643, 108 N. Y. S. 963;
Palmer v, Schwarzenback, 151 App.
Div. 916, 136 N. T. S. 85.
20-7 Knickerbocker Ice Co. t?. Sur-
prise, 63 Ind. App. 286, 97 N. E. 357,
99 N. E. 58.
Federal Cement Tile Co. v,
Korff, 50 Ind. App. 608, 97 N. E. 185.
21-1.1 Kirby v. Union Pac. B. Co., 51
Colo. 509, 119 P. 1042; Ann. Cas. 1913B,
461.
24-21 Patterson v. Northern Trust
Co., 170 111. App. 501.
24-26 Bohn t?. Bohn, 164 Cal. 532, 129
P. 981; Hutson V. Wood, 263 111. 376,
105 N, E. 343; Barbour v. Fidler, 31 S.
D. 351, 141 N. W. 88. Contra, S. v. Dis-
trict Court, 49 Mont. 247, 141 P. 659.
Notice not necessary, beyond demand
and affidavit of merits to secure change
of venue to county where defendant
lives. Jaques v, Owens, 18 Cal. App.
114, 122 P. 430.
25-27 Ex parte Burch, 168 Cal. 18,
141 P. 813; Bohn v. Bohn, 164 Cal. 532,
129 P. 981; Barbour V. Fidler, 31 S.
D. 351, 141 N. W. 88.
Tbe disqualified Judge need not be
served. Livermore v. Brundage, 64 Cal.
299, 30 P. 848.
25-29 Bate of hearing.— It must aleo
state when it will be brought on for
hearing, even where the court has fixed
certain days for hearing of motions.
Bohn V. Bohn, 164 Cal. 532, 129 P. 981.
25-33 Patterson t?. Northern Trust
Co., 170 111. App. 501.
25-34 Hutson v. Wood, 263 HI. 376,
105 N. E. 343; Patterson v. Northern
Trust Co., 170 HI. App. 501,
26-35 Appearing to attack the not-
ice does not waive want of notice. Bohn
V. Bohn, 164 Cal. 532, 129 P. 981.
An admission of service of pleading
made without knowledge that defend-
ants had procured a change of venue
without demand or notice, and that the
pleading laid venue in changed county
is not a waiver of demand and notice.
Barbour V. Eidler, 31 S. D. 351, 141 N.
W, 88.
26-38 Shawnee Fire Ins. Co. v. Boll,
145 Ky. 113, 140 S. W. 49; S. v. Su-
perior Court, 67 Wash. 321, 121 P. 460.
27-40 Diligence of applicant.— Affi-
davit need not show he was diligent
in his efforts to ascertain within the
time fixed by the rule, if conditions ex-
isted affecting his right to a fair and
impartial trial. Federal Cement Tile
Co. i\ Korff, 50 Ind. App. 608, 97 N.
E. 185.
Demand on adversaryd — Affidavit must
show a written demand for change has
already been served, and that he has
neglected or refused to consent, and a
demand in the affidavit itself is not
sufficient. Gotthelf v. Merchants' Bank,
33 S. D. 259, 145 N. W. 542.
29-46 Bias and prejudice. — ^An affi-
davit setting forth that a fair and im-
partial trial cannot be had because of
local prejudice, and that judge is biased
and prejudiced in favor of opposite
party, and that applicant has suit pend-
ing against judge for alleged misrul-
ings and proceedings without jurisdic-
tion is not in itself sufficient to com-
pel a change of venue. Hanson v,
Kendt, 94 Kan. 310, 146 P. 1190.
29-47 Confusing *<liome" and "resi-
dence."— Affidavit is not defective be-
cause it stated defendant's **home"
instead of *' residence" was in another
countv. S. 17, District Court,' 120 Minn.
99, 139 X. W. 135.
30-48 Fraudulent aUegation as to
place. — ^^''here defendant is non-resident
but suit was brought on ground of fraud
in the county where the fraud was com-
mitted, he is not entitled to change of
venue where he fails to allege that the
allegation as to place where such fraud
was committed was inserted for the
purpose of conferring jurisdiction. San-
ders V. Dunn (Tex. Civ.), 158 S. W.
1041.
31-54 Bohil 17. Bohn, 164 Cal. 532^
129 P. 981,
290
CHANGE OF VENUE
Vol. 5
32-6S Stating mereiy party's de-
fense.— ^Averment in affidavit that af-
fiant ''has fully and fairly stated the
facts of her case herein to her attor-
ney^' who advised her she had a valid
defense is insufficient, because it was
in effect merely that she stated her de-
fense. Phillips V, Logan, 18 Cal. App.
287, 122 P. 1096.
32-56 Facts relied npon as a defense
need not be stated. S. v. District Court,
43 Mont. 571, 118 P. 268, Ann. Cas.
1912C, 343. *
32-58 Keeley v, Superior Court (Cal.
App.), 146 P. 526.
32-59 Another Judge called in. — ^Mo-
tion will be denied where a qualified
judge has been called in by the dis-
qualified judge. Ex parte Burch, 168
CaL 18, 141 P. 813.
32-60 Plaintiff by amendment to
complaint, while motion for change of
venue to defendant's residence is pend-
ing, cannot change venue to his own
place residence. Barbera v, Quittner,
154 App. Div. 322, 138 N. Y. S. 1000.
33-61 Court may not postpone hear-
ing to permit defendant to amend an-
swer on motion for change of venue
to enable him to present defense on
which he relies for such change, but he
may amend at special term and there-
after renew his motion. Kelley v. Ward,
149 App. Div. 443, 134 N. Y. 8. 451.
33-62 Junek v. Buzzelli, 148 Wis.
610, 134 N. W. 1124. See Lovell v,
St Clair, 126 Minn. 108, 147 N. W. 822,
where the action of the parties in ap-
pearing before another court in another
county did not constitute a change of
venue.
33-64 Comp. S. v. Halsey, 148 Wis.
171, 134 N. W. 362.
Where no sexrlce of sach demand is
made defendant is not entitled to
change as a matter of right. Hoffman
r. Hoffman, 153 App. Div. 191, 138 N.
Y. S. 356.
35-70 Ex parte Burch, 168 Cal. 18,
141 P. 813.
35-71 Agens v, Powell, 79 Wash. 131,
139 P. 873.
36-72 Conclusions should not be
sutedw-— Carr v. Stern, 17 Cal. App. 397,
120 P. 35.
Karnes of witnesses^ — Counter affidavits
must give names of witnesses it is pro-
posed to call (Jacina v. Lemmi, 155
App. Div. 397, 139 N. Y. S. 1034), and
must show what witnesses would tes-'
tify to the basis of proponent's knowl-
edge, and materiality of evidence. Ott-
ley V, Jackson, etc. Church, 157 App.
Div. 222, 141 N. Y. S. 816.
37-76 Within what time.— Need not
be heard or disposed of within the
time for answering, if application is
made within that time. Barbour v,
Fidler, 31 S. D. 351, 141 N. W. 88.
Court may suspend action on motion
until issues are made and permit inter-
rogatories to be filed and require an-
swer thereto. Houser v. Laughlin, 55
Ind. App. 563, 104 N. E. 309.
37-77 Simpson f?. Simpson, 165 HI.
App. 515 (after petition is presented
the judge has no power to render any
further order therein, except such as
made in connection with the one allow-
ing the change); Federal Cement Tile
Co. V. Korff, 50 Ind. App. 608, 97 N. E.
185; Wrought Iron Bange Co. v. Leach,
32 Okla. 706, 123 P. 419.
In Texas the change is mandatory when
prescribed showing is made. Crawford
V. Wellington E. Com. (Tex. Civ.), 174
S. W. 1004.
37-78 Barnett v. Gentry (Ark,), 173
S. W. 424; St. Louis, etc. E. Co. v.
Eeilly, 110 Ark. 182, 161 S. W. 1052;
Carr v. Stern, 17 Cal. App. 397, 120 P.
35; Hanson V. Hanson, 86 Kan. 622, 122
P. 100.
TTpon finding that a fair trial may be
had the judge has no discretion to order
a change under Acts, 3909, p. 751. St.
Louis, etc. By. Co. v, Eeilly, 110 Ark.
182, 161 S. W. 1052.
Conditions at time of appearance con-
trolling.— The right to a change of
venue must be determined by the con-
ditions existing at the time of the ap-
pearance of the party demanding the
change. Donohoe v. Wooster, 163 Cal.
114, 124 P. 730.
Where a like application in another case
had been denied, court may refuse to
hear application. Freeman t?. Ortiz
(Tex.), 153 S. W. 304.
38-79 Limiting witnesses. — Court
may limit the number of witnesses
called. St. Louis, etc. Ey. Co. v. Eeilly,
110 Ark. 182, 161 S. W. 1052.
38-84 Hanson v. Kendt, 94 Kan. 310,
146 P. 1190; Carpenter v. Central Ver-
mont Ey. Co. (Vt.), 83 A. 466; Crltler
V. Jacobson, 66 Wash. 322, 119 P. 819.
A positive aifidavit has greater pro-
bative value than one based on in-
291
Vol. 5
CHATTEL M0BT0A0E8
* formation and belief and not stating the
grounds of such. Hoffman t\ Hoffman,
153 App. Div. 191, 138 N. Y. S. 356.
39-85 Affidavit of prejudice of Judge
is conclusive and change mandatory. S.
r. Clifford, 65 Wash. 313, 118 P. 40.
39-86 St. Lpuis, etc. Ry. Co. f.
Reilly, 110 Ark. 182, 161 S. W. 1052;
Albers f. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., 95
Neb. 506, 145 N. W. 1013.
40-91 Carr f. Stern, 17 Cal. App. 397,
120 P. 35; Barnes v. Roosevelt, 87 Misc.
55, 149 N. Y. S. 291; Scaeif v, Crofford
(Tex. Civ.), 146 S. W. 1003.
40-92 Luter f. Ihnken (Tex. Civ.),
143 S. W. 675.
40-93 Imposing conditions. — ^A non-
Tesident is entitled to an unconditional
transfer, and to order change on pay-
ment of costs is error. Simpson v.
Simpson, 165 111. App. 515; Chicago,
etc. R, Co. V. Castle, 155 la. 124, 135 N.
W. 561.
By another Judge. — ^Where two judges
by agreement apportioned the business
of a judicial district, with neither hav-
ing exclusive control over any particu-
lar case, and each holding alternate
terms of court therein, one could order
a change of venue although the other
had heard a demurrer to a pleading.
S. r. District Court, 49 Mont. 247, 141
P. 659.
41-96 To what court.— §6007, Rev.
Codes, provides **to the nearest court
where the like objection or cause for
making the order does not exist, as fol-
lows: If in a district court, to another
district court." '* Nearest court"
means the court which can be reached
by the shortest route of travel in the
usual mode of travel. S. v. District
Court, 49 Mont. 247, 141 P. 659.
41-1 By answering and going to trial
on merits. Greeley, etc. Irr. Co. v.
Farmers' Pawnee Ditch Co. (Colo.), 146
P. 247; O'Rourke v. O'Bourke (Colo.),
144 P. 890.
42-3 And error In denying change is
not waived by going to trial. Wixom
V. Hoar, 158 la. 426, 139 N. W. 890.
42-4 Pajrment of costs. — ^Where court
in ordering change did not designate the
costs payable, and they were not paid
in time fixed there was no waiver of
chan«»c of venue, and the court to
which cause was sent was not deprived
of jurisdiction. Hamill t'. Schlitz Brew.
Co. (la.), 143 N. W. 99.
43-11 After an order of removal haa
beeii made the court making it may
make a restraining order as to disposi-
tion of property before actual removal.
Clow V. McNeill, 167 N. C. 212, 83 S. E.
308.
43-12 S. r. St. Louis, etc. Ry. Co,
245 Mo. 60, 149 S. W. 456; Little River
Drainage Dist. v. Tomlinson, 245 Mo.
1, 149 S. W. 454.
A mere clerical mistake in the order
of change does not deprive court of
jurisdiction. Chicago Great Western R.
Co. 17. Kemper, 256 Mo. 279, 166 S. W.
291. Thus an irregularity in the desig-
nation of the court does not deprive
the proper court of jurisdiction. Slay-
den, etc. Mill V. Robinson (Tex. Civ.),
143 S. W. 294.
Costs. — It has jurisdiction to determine
validity of costs taxed in both counties.
Asbell V, Aldrich (Kan.), 147 P. 1126.
Payment of fees. — ^In absence of stat-
ute or rule of court regarding payment
of fees, no jurisdictional question is in-
volved in the failure to pay fees.
Brown t\ Greer. (Ariz.), 141 P. 843.
44-19 See McNeill & Co. i?. Doe, 163
Cal. 338, 125 P. 345.
In Pennsylvania no appeal iriU He
where a county is a party except for
an abuse of power. Pittsburgh, etc.
Bridge Co. v. Allegheny County, 239
Pa. 67, 86 A. 693.
44-20 McNeill & Co. t?. Doe, 163 Cal.
338, 125 P. 345; Hutson v. Wood, 263
111. 376, 105 N. E. 343; Houser t?. Laugh-
lin, 55 Ind. App. 563, 104 N. E. 309;
Silverstone v. London Assur. Corp., 176
Mich. 525, 142 N. W. 776; Boyd t?. Chi-
cago, B. & Q. R. Co., 97 Neb. 238, 149
N. W. 818; Hinton v, Atchison & N. R.
Co., 83 Neb. 835, 120 N. W. 431; Stock-
well V. Haigh, 23 N. D. 54, 135 N. W.
764.
CHATTEL MOETaAOES
48-2 Tender most be made before
mortgagor can maintain action of re-
plevin. Danches v, Pariser, 145 N. Y,
S. 1066.
50-18 Measure of damages is the
difference between the market value of
the property at the time of the conver-
sion and the debts then existing, which
were liens upon, and satisfied by, the
sale of the property. Continental Gm
Co. V, De Bord, 33 Okla. 66, 123 P.
159.
Demand is not a necessary condition
292
CHATTEL MORTOAOES
Vol 5
precedent to maintaining an action of
wrongful conversion after the conver-
sion has been completed, and the prop-
erty has passed out of the possession of
the defendant. Continental Gin Co. V,
De Bord, 33 Okla. 66, 123 P. 159.
64-34 Laches. — A bill to redeem from
a chattel mortgage, if maintainable at
all, must be prosecuted with prompt-
ness and diligence, and before the par-
ties have their positions. A delay of
six years is too long. Osborne v. Mor-
gan, 171 m. App. 549.
65-38 Parties plaintiff. — Persons
jointly interested in the property cov-
ered by the mortgages are proper co-
complainants in an action for account-
ing or redemption. Zadek v, Burnett,
176 Ala. 80, 57 S. 447.
65-39 "Wliere there Is a cozmnuiilty of
Interest in the mortgaged property be-
tween the complainants, the bill is not
bad for multifariousness. Zadek v. Bur-
nett, 176 Ala. 80, 57 S.. 447^-
67-46 Shorter v. Dail, 122 Md. 101,
89 A. 329.
57-47 Instmctlons held proper as to
right of mortgagee to take possession
of property when he deems himself in-
secure. Wertz V. Barnard, 32 Okla. 426,
122 P. 649.
67-48 In Indiana under Burns' St.,
1908, {8636, where a mortgagee does
not take possession of the household
goods upon execution of the mortgage,
but leaves them in the possession of
the mortgagor, his assignee can not re-
cover them in an action of replevin; his
only remedy is to foreclose the mort-
gage. Drimmie l\ Hendrickson, 51 Ind.
App. 198, 99 N. E. 436.
58-50 Bight of Junior lien holder.
Where a senior lien holder consents to
the conversion of the property by the
debtor, his right of priority over jun-
ior lien holder is lost, and later a chat-
tel mortgagee, may maintain an action
against the mortgagor for the wrong-
ful conversion of the property. Na-
tional Citizens' Bank v. McKinley, 118
Minn. 162, 136 N. W. 579.
Though the action is replevin in form,
recovery may be had in conversion. Na-
tional Citizens' Bank v. McKinley, 118
Minn. 162, 136 N. W. 579.
59-58 Wright f?. Wright, 180 Ala. 343,
60 S. 931; Brown v. Erb-Harper-Rigney
Co., 48 Mont. 17, 133 P. 691.
Insolvency of defendant. — A verified
petition that plaintiff believes that
the defendants are insolvent or in im-
minent danger thereof, does not war-
rant the appointment of a receiver in
an ex parte application therefor. Man-
nos r. Bishop-Babcook -Becker Co., 181
Ind. 343, 104 N. E. 579.
Property liable to execution. — ^Where a
party has a bill pending for foreclos-
ure of a mortgage and the property is
levied upon under an execution in a
distress proceeding for rent, he may
by proper application in the foreclos-
ure suit, either by amendment or sup-
plemental bill, have a receiver appointed
in such foreclosure suit, and a restrain-
ing order against anyone seeking to
take the property bv execution. Guerra
t?. Nistal, 66 Fla. 579, 64 S. 236.
59-60 Ex parte Logan, 185 Ala. 525,
64 S. 570.
Insolvency of third party holding the
property^ — ^In an action at law to fore-
close a chattel mortgage where the
property has been put into the hands
of a third person, who is insolvent and
wasting, to the destruction of plain-
tiff's lien, the court may exercise its
equity powers and appoint a receiver,
and in such case the solvency or in-
solvency of the debtor does not affect
the question. Commerce Trust Co. v.
White, 169 Mo. App. 5, 154 S. W. 864.
Appointment of a receiver will be de-
nied where it appears that the property
involved is being devoted to the pur-
poses for which it was set apart, and
that the creditors are not suffering, nor
are liable to suffer any substantial in-
jury before the final decree. Brown v.
Erb-Harper-Rigney Co., 48 Mont. 17,
133 P. 691.
Auxiliary remedies. — ^Under the New
Yprk procedure the holder of a chat-
tel mortgage who brings an action in
the supreme court for foreclosure, after
default, is not entitled to a warrant
of seizure or attachment where he fails
to show matters required by §636, Code
Civ. Proc. Faraei v. Mailer, 154 App.
Div, 303, 138 N. Y. S. 961. See also
vol. 3, p. 325, n. 58.
60-61 Case Threshing Machine Co. v,
Johnson, 152 Wis. 8, 139 N. W. 445.
60-62 Execution against mortgaged
property. — The fact that a mortgagee
sued the mortgagor at law on the
mortgaged debt and levied on the
mortgagor's interest in the property,
but without satisfaction of the debt,
did not constitute a waiver of the
293
Vol. 5
CHATTEL MORTGAOEB
mortgage lien so as to preclude the
mortgagee from recovering the chat-
tels in detinue. Logan t*. Smith Bros.
& Co., 9 Ala. App. 459, 63 S. 766.
60-64 Attaching for imsecured deht.
Under the California statute while the
mortgagee can maintain only one ac-
tion for the recovery of the debt se-
cured by the mortgage, he may attach
the property for an unsecured debt
without thereby waiving his mortgage,
there being no inconsistency in the
assertion of the two claims. Flores v.
Stone, 21 Cal. App. 105, 131 P. 348, 351,
352.
60-65 Black r. Sloeumb Mule Co., 8
Ala. App. 440, 62 S. 308; Cate f. Mer-
rill, 109 Me. 424, 84 A. 897; Tiedt «.
Boyce, 122 Minn. 283, 142 N. W. 195.
Agreement to carry mortgagor. — ^An
agreement unsupported by a considera-
tion to carry the mortgagor for a time,
does not impair the right of the mort-
gagee to possession of the mortgaged
chattels, or impose a condition on his
right to bring detinue for their recov-
ery. Black V, Sloeumb Mule Co., 8 Ala.
App. 440, 62 S. 308.
61-67 Black v. Sloeumb Mule Co., 8
Ala. App. 440, 62 S. 308; Butts v. Lu-
cia (Tex. Civ.), 153 S. W. 686.
61-68 Barton v. Bowlin, 111 Ark. 123,
163 S. W. 502.
In Arkansas, §5415 of Kirby's digest
requiring in any suit to foreclose a
mortgage or deed of trust, or to replevy
under such mortgage or deed of trust
any personal property, the delivery by
the mortgagee to the mortgagor of a
verified statement of his account, show-
ing each item, debit and credit, and
the balance due, does not apply where
the debt remains wholly unpaid and
there are no credits thereon. Canady
t\ Tucker, 111 Ark. 640, 164 S. W. 755.
Against third persons. — After breach
of conditions mortgagee under a gen-
eral allegation of ownership may main-
tain action of replevin against a party
for interference with his rights. Dose
v. Beatie, 62 Or. 308, 123 P. 383, 125
P. 277.
The amount of the nnpald mortgage
debt may be adjudicated in a replevin
suit. Geiser Mfg. Co. r. Davis, 110 Ark.
449, 162 S. W. 59.
Beplevln by Junior mortgagee — ^parties.
Where junior mortgagee takes chat-
tels from mortgagor by writ of re-
plevin, the senior mortgage has a
right to be made a party to the replevin
suit by the court, and the fact that
he styles his pleading an intervention,
and is called an intervener, is imma-
terial. First State Bank of Ardmore
1?. King, 37 Okla. 744, 133 P. 30, 47 L.
R. A. (N. S.) 668.
62-76 Time of demand. — ^A demand
of possession within four days after
maturity of mortgage, made within a
reasonable time. Ellison v. Tucker-
man, 24 Colo. App. 322, 134 P. 163.
Possession must be demanded before
bringing suit. Chase Bros. Piano Co.
V, Conners, 182 111. App. 418.
62-78 Failnre to make demand.
Where damages for detention are not
awarded, the mortgagor cannot com-
plain of the failure of the mortgagee
bringing detinue to demand possession
before suit. Black v. Sloeumb Mule Co.,
8 Ala. App. 440, 62 S. 308.
64-93 Defense of release having been
set up as an affirmative defense, being
the sole question raised by the answer,
by a subsequent vendee of the mort-
gagor when sued by the mortgagee for
possession of the chattel, such vendee
cannot complain of a holding that un-
less such release was made out by
proof the plaintiff was entitled to judg-
ment. Johnson 17. Bonner (S. C), 75 S.
E. 369.
64-94 Partial defense.— In replevin
to recover possession of certain chat-
tels by virtue of a mortgage, the an-
swer not disclosing a complete defense
to the mortgage debt, but only a partial
failure of consideration, judgment prop-
erly entered in favor of the plaintiff.
Jones V. Bostick, 35 Okla. 363, 129 P.
718.
64-95 Plea in detlnne, which sets up
that the property was claimed under a
mortgage, which plaintiff through its
agent fraudulently procured defendant
to sign, in that the agent falsely told
defendant at the time he signed the
mortgage that it did not cover the
property sued for, that defendant relied
on such representation, and wholly rely-
ing thereon, signed the mortgage with-
out knowledge that it conveyed or con-
tained the property sued for, was a
good plea and not demurrable. A plea
in such case which failed to deny that
defendant knew he was signing a mort-
gage, and did not allege that plaintiff's
agent made any false or fraudulent
representations as to the contents
thereof, was insufficient. Hoobler t?. In-
294
CnATTEL MOIiTOAGES
Vol. 8
ternational Harvester Co., 1S5 Ala. 533,
64 8. 567.
64-96 Set-off may be proved or shown
bv defendant in any action to fore-
close a mortgage or deed of trust, or
to replevy under a mortgage or deed
of trust any personal property; this ap-
plies to action by mortgagor to recover
possession of the property (Geiser Mfg.
Co. V, Davis, 110 Ark. 449, 162 S. W.
59), and also where possession is taken
by the mortgagee to foreclose, and a
tender is made of the amount due. Bar-
ton V, Bowlin, HI Ark. 123, 163 S. W.
502.
OoimterclaixxL— -Defendants in action to
recover possession of mortgaged prop-
erty may set up a counterclaim for dam-
ages resulting to them on account of
alleged false and fraudulent misrepre-
sentations as to the property sold on
which mortgage was given, and for
breach of warranty. Hoover V. Thames,
96 S. C. 31, 79 S. E. 795. In an action
of claim and delivery defendant set up
a counterclaim that plaintiff maliciously
brought the action, held that defendant
could recover for feed of chattels after
seizure under general allegations of act-
ual damage in the counterclaim, but his
personal expenses at place of seizure
and traveling expenses in effort to pro-
cure sureties on his undertaking could
not be recovered unless specially
pleaded. Puller v. McLeod, 91 S. 0.
328, 74 S. E. 647.
65-99 The measure of damages in ac-
tion for conversion of mortgaged chat-
tels is the fair market value of the
property, provided such market value
does not exceed the amount sued for.
Houssels f. Coe & Hampton (Tex. Civ.),
159 S. W. 864; Bush v. Brown (Tex.
Civ.), 152 S. W. 683. For the detention
of cattle to which the plaintiff is en-
titled by virtue of a chattel mortgage
to secure a debt, the measure of dam-
age is the interest on the value of the
cattle during the period of their deten-
tion, where they do not exceed in value
the amount of the debt. Chattanooga
State Bank t?. Citizens' State Bank, 39
Okla. 255, 134 P. 954.
65-4 A prior mortgagee may follow
the mortgaged property when wrong-
fully sold by a junior mortgagee, the
former's title not being divested by
the sale, but he is not bound to do so
and may bring an action for damages
against the junior mortgagee. Bingham
r. Harby & Co., 91 S. C. 121, 74 S. E.
369.
66-14 Purchaser of a note secured
by a mortgage becomes owner of the
mortgage by reason of the transfer of
the note to her, and has the right to
foreclose the mortgage without a trans-
fer indorsed upon the mortgage. Erd-
man 17. Erdman, 109 Ark. 151, 159 S.
W. 201.
66-16 Jury trials — An action to fore-
close a chattel mortgage is essentially
a suit in equity, and cannot be trans-
formed into an action at law by mere-
ly raising an issue of law as the de-
fense in the answer. The interposition
of such a defense, therefore, does not
secure to the defendant the right to a
trial by jury of the le^al defenses
pleaded. Gresens v, Martin, 27 N. D.
231, 145 N. W. 823.
6T-17 Warrant of seiznrew— Under
tho New York practice in a proceed-
ing to foreclose a chattel mortgage af-
ter default, the plaintiff is entitled to
a warrant of seizure of the mortgaged
chattels in the possession of the de-
fendant, without setting forth in his
moving papers matters required by
1636, Code Civ. Proc. Coiro v. Baron,
158 App. Div. 591, 143 N. Y. S. 853.
67-22 Action to foreclose several
chattel mortgages is a perfectly proper
proceeding, and all parties interested
in the property should be made parties
to the action. Griffin v, Armsted, 143
N. Y. S. 770.
67-24 Brown v, Gatewood (Tex.
Civ.), 150 S. W. 950.
Assignee may sue, without joining his
assignor, where both the chattel mort-
gage and the note evidencing the debt
have been assigned to him. Wilson 9.
McCown & Co., 103 Ark. 422, 147 S. W.
451.
68-27 Neblett t?. Barron, 104 Tex.
Ill, 160 S. W. 1167.
Claimant to property. — ^An allegation
that a person unlawfully seized and
forcibly took the chattels from the
possession of a trustee and removed
them from the county, and sets up a
claim to such chattels, the exact nature
of which is not known to the plaintiff,
is sufficient to warrant the joining of
such person as a party defendant for
the purposes of foreclosure. Brown f?.
Gatewood (Tex. Civ.), 150 S. W. 950.
68-28 A demurrer for misjoinder
should be sustained, where the com-
295
Vol. 5
CSATTEL MORTOAOES
plaint joins a party defendant whose
only connection with the matter in liti-
gation is shown by an allegation that
she had actual notice of the advances
to her husband (for which the mortgage
was given) and shared in their use and
enjoyment, and that the corn and cot-
ton mortgaged were raised by the
mortgagee on land owned by her and
him jointly* West f>. Henry, 185 Ala.
168^ 64 S. 75.
The original beneflciaiy who has parted
with his interest in the debt, is not a
proper party. Howell v. Walker, 111
ArK 362, 164 S. W. 746.
69-39 Failure to allege value of the
cotton converted, in the petition, must
bo brought to the attention of the
court by special exception; a general
demufrer is not sufficient, and on mo-
tion for new- trial it will be presumed
that the value of the cotton upon
which foreclosure was sought was an
amount within jurisdiction of the court.
Houssels V. Coe (Tex. Civ.), 159 S. W.
864.
FalluM to show Juilsdiction of the
court over the person of the defendant
will not render mortgage foreclosure
proceedings void; the defect in the
proceedings is amendable under the
statute. Kinney i;. Avery & Co., 14 Qe.
App. 180, 80 S. E. 663.
Title In plaintiff. — A complaint to fore-
cloee three chattel mortgages which
shows that two were 'assigned to J. L.
and the third given to F. L. without
showing who F. L., is or that he is a
fictitious person, nor how title in mort-
gages was transferred from F. L. to
plaintiff is demurrable. Griffin v. Arm-
Bted, 143 N. Y. S. 770.
69-^3 Failure to submit issue raised
by pleadings. — Where the plea alleges
that the mortgage is fraudulent, and
the character of the property and ad-
mitted facts raise a presumption of
fraud, it is error to refuse to submit
the issue of fraud. A. Blanton Gro-
cery Co. <?. Taylor, 162 N. C. 307, 78
S. E. 276.
Findings. — ^In an action to foreclose
more than one chattel mortgage, the
court must find the amount due on the
debt secured by each mortgage separ-
ately. First National Bank v. Ma-
honey, 23 N. D. 568, 135 N. W. 771.
Judgment. — Statutory provisions which
prescribe certain essential elements of
a valid judgment foreclosing a lien on
personal property must be complied
with in all material respects. First Na-
tional Bank v. Mahoney, 23 N. D. 568,
135 N. W. 771.
69-44 Butts V. Lucia (Tex. Civ.), 153
8. W. 686.
70-51 Sale by special or^er of court.
Where a mortgage on personalty is fore-
closed in the statutory manner, and the
defendant interposes an affidavit of il-
legality, but fails to replevy the prop-
erty, it may be sold by special order
of the court as in the case of perish-
able property or property which is ex-
pensive to keep, or liable to deteriorate
from keeping. Armistead v. Weaver,
140 Ga. 740, 79 S. E. 783.
70-53 Armistead f). Weaver, 140 Ga.
740, 79 S. E. 783; Edwards t?. Price, 11
Ga. App. 658, 75 S. E. 1067, holding
that failure to make this affidavit ren-
ders foreclosure proceedings and execu-
tion and levy based upon it mere nulli-
ties. See Hillis v. B. T. Comer & Co.,
14 Ga. App. 30, 79 S. E. 930.
Affidavit of illegality, being interposed
by the defendant to the foreclosure,
grounds thereof which are not a proper
defense will be stricken out on demur-
rer. Armistead v. Weaver, 140 Ga. 740,
79 S. E. 783.
71-54 Provisions of mortgage con-
troL — Even though the statute pre-
scribes what notice of the sale shall be
given, yet the directions of the mort-
gagee must be observed if such direc-
tions are not prohibited by the statute.
Aultman & Taylor Co. t?. Forest, 23 Colo.
App. 558, 130 P. 1086.
71-57 Becordixig notice mandatory.
A statute requiring the recording of
the notice with an affidavit of service
is mandatory and must be strictly com-
plied with. Keade v, Woburn Nat.
Bank, 211 Mass. 320, 97 N. E. 773.
72-70 Aultman & Taylor Co. v. For-
est, 23 Colo. App. 658, 130 P. 1086.
72-73 Lipsohn v, Goldstein, 212 Mass.
144, 98 N. E. 703, 40 L. R. A. (N. S.)
627.
A mortgagee who sells at private sale
is held responsible and accountable for
at least the fair and reasonable value
of the property, regardless of the price
actually received by him. The rule is,
of course, less rigid where the sale is
at public outcry. Zadek t*. Burnett,
176 Ala. 80, 57 S. 447.
74-92 Lipsohn i;. Goldstein, 212 Mass.
296
CHOICE AND ELECTION OF REMEDIES Vol. 5
144, 98 N. E. 703, 40 L. R. A. (N*. S.)
627.
An Indebtedness not secured by the
mortgage cannot be satisfied out of the
proceeds of the sale of the mortgaged
property, without the consent of the
debtor, and his consent cannot be pre-
sumed in the absence of any evidence.
Bush V. First Nat. Bank (Tex. Civ.),
160 S. W. 319.
A mortgagee of tobacco sold under the
mortgage, while accountable for its
reasonable value, is entitled to be cred-
ited with the reasonable cost of grad-
ing and marketing the tobacco. Carroll
r. James, 162 N. C. 510, 77 S. B. 337.
The Jnnlor mortgagee of the property
is entitled upon a sale of the mortgaged
property, to any part of the proceeds
remaining after satisfying prior incum-
brances, to the extent of his lien debt.
Tale V. Stubblefield, 39 Okla. 462, 135
P. 933.
Expenses of mortgagor incurred in care
and management of mortgaged chattels
should not be deducted from the pro-
ceeds of the sale and the remainder only
applied upon the debt secured by the
mortgage. Rodgers v, Sturgis Nat.
Bank (Tex. Civ,), 152 S. W. 1176.
75-1 Personal Judgment cannot be en-
tered against the defendant by the
clerk, unless the amount due on the
indebtedness is found and a personal
judgment ordered therefor, or for a de-
ficiency. Pirst Nat. Bank v. Mahoney,
23. N. D. 568, 135 N. W. 771.
76-2 Kightlinger V. S., 105 Ark. 172,
150 S. W. 690; McElroy v. S. (Tex.
Cr.), 150 S. W. 797.
Indictment.— "It is the better practice
to set out the mortgage, or state the
subsance of it in the indictment; and,
to be a valid indictment, it must at
least set out that it was given to se-
cure an indebtedness, naming the
amount, and that the debt was unpaid."
McElroy v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 150 S. W.
797.
Dnplidty.— Under a statute making it
larceny fraudulently to conceal, or to
sell or dispose of mortgaged property,
an information charging the defendant
in a single count with concealing, sell-
ing and disposing of such property is
not subject to a motion to quash be-
cause of duplicity. S. v. Taylor, 90
Kan. 438, 133 P. 861.
76-4 The existence of the debt at the
time of the commission of the offense
must be alleged, but where the indict*
ment alleged that defendant sold a cow,
of a certain value upon which one W.
had a lien by virtue of a certain mort-
gage or deed of trust, with intent to
defeat W., the holder of the lien, in
the collection of his debt, it was held
that the existence of the debt was
sufficiently alleged. Osborne 17. S., lOD
Ark. 440, 160 S. W. 215.
76-5 Variance. — ^Where the indict-
ment alleges that the property was
subject to mortgage, proof that property
was subject to a deed of trust does not
constitute variance. Osborne v. S., 109
Ark. 440, 160 S. W. 215.
76-6 Value of the property sold and
amount of the debt must be alleged^
Kightlinger v. S., 105 Ark. 172, 150
S. y^. 690.
76-8 Means of frandnlent conceal-
ment.— An information so far as it
charges fraudulent concealment of
mortgaged property, is not subject to
a motion to quash on the ground that
the specific means employed to that
end are not stated. S. €. Taylor, 90
Kan. 438, 133 P. 861.
77-9 Consent of mortgagee* — ^A mort-
gagor who claims that the sale was
with consent of mortgagee is entitled
to have the issue of consent submitted
to the jury. La whom v. 8., 108 Ark.
474, 158 S. W, 113; Cowart t?. S., 71
Tex. Cr. 116, 158 8. W. 809.
77-14 8. t\ Taylor, 90 Kan. 438, 133
P. 861.
CHOICE AND ELECTION OF BEH-
EDIES
79-1 Howard r. J. P. Paulson Co., 41
Utah 490, 127 P. 284.
When applicable. — The rule of election
of remedies has application only where
the party against whom it is invoked
has two inconsistent remedies at his
disposal at the time of the supposed
election. Wiseman v. Cottingham (Tex.),
174 S. W. 281. The doctrine of elec-
tion of remedies is usually predicated
upon inconsistent remedial rights. Zim-
merman V. Harding, 227 U. 8, 489, 33
Sup. Ct. 387, 67 L. ed. 608; Capital City
Bank i?. Hilson, 64 Fla. 206, 60 8. 189;
Schwarzschild & Sulzberger Co. v. Sha-
piro, 182 111. App. 40; Virtue t?. Cream-
ery Package Mfg. Cfo., 123 Minn. 17,
142 N. W. 930, 1136; Hartwig t?. Secur-
ity, etc. Ins. Co., 167 Mo. App. 128, 151
8. W. 477; Omaha v. Bedick, 61 Neb.
297
Vol 5 CnOtC^ AND ELECTION OF REMEDIED
163, 85 N. W. 46j Clark D. Hall, 54 Neb.
479, 485, 74 N. W. 856, 858; Seiaballa
r. niinoiB Surety Co., 166 App. Div.
677, 152 N. Y. S. 760; Fifty-Fourth St.
Realty Co. v, Goodman, 80 Misc. 639,
141 N. Y. S. 959; Bull t?. Bearden (Tex.
Civ.), 159 S. W. 1177; Gibson v. Oppen-
heimer (Tex. •Civ.), 154 S. W. 694;
Whitney v. Parish of Vernon (Tex.
Civ.), 154 S. W. 264; Howard «. J. P.
Paulson Co., 41 Utah 490, 127 P. 284.
80-2 Wall V. Anaconda Copper M.
Co., 216 Fed. 242; Goldberger Iron Co.
r. Cincinnati I. & S. Co., 153 Ky. 20,
154 S. W. 374; Brown t?. Howard (Mo.),
175 S. W. 52; Hargadine-McKittrick
Dry Goods Co. v. Warden, 15 IMo. 578,
62 S. W. 593; Bodermund V, Clark, 46
N. Y. 354; Bobison v. Bass, 80 Misc.
132, 141 N. Y. S. 693; Pate v. Pruden-
tial Ins. Co., 138 N. Y. S. 249; Boney 17.
Halvorsen Co. (N. D.), 149 N. W. 688;
Behfield v. Winters, 62 Or. 299, 125 P.
289; Turnpike Co. v. Turnpike Co., 2
Swan (Tenn.) 282; Bauman v. Jaffray,
6 Tex. Civ. App. 489, 26 S. W. 260.
81-3 Weeke v, Beeve, 65 Fla. 374, 61
S. 749.
81-4 In re Stewart, 178 Fed. 463;
Calhoun County v. Art Metal Const. Co.,
152 Ala. 607, 44 S. 876; Capital City
Bank t?. Hilson, 64 Fla. 206, 60 S. 189;
Malsby v. Gamble, 63 Fla. 508, 57 S.
687; Garrett v. Farwell Co., 199 HI.
436, 65 N. E. 361 ; Gibbs V. Jones, 46 111.
319; Wells V, Western Union Tel. Co.,
144 la. 605, 123 N. W. 371; Virtue v.
Creamery Package Mfg. Co., 123 Minn.
17, 142 N. W. 930, 1136; MarshaU t?.
Gilman, 52 Minn. 88, 53 N. W. 811; In
re Van Norman, 41 Minn. 494, 43 N. W.
334; Spurr v. Home Ins. Co., 40 Minn.
424, 42 N, W. 206; Johnson-Brinkman
Co. 17. Central Bank, 116 Mo. 558, 22
S. W. 813; Hartwig v. Security, etc.
Ins. Co., 167 Mo. App. 128, 151 S. W.
477; Hill v. Combs, 92 Mo. App. 242;
O'Meara v. McDermott, 43 Mont. 189,
115 P. 912; Stone t?. Snell, 86 Neb. 581,
125 N. W. 1108; Chicago, B. & Q. B.
Co. V, Olsen, 70 Neb. 559. 97 N. W. 831;
Omaha t?. Bedick, 61 Neb. 163, 85 N.
W. 46; McNutt v. Hilkins, 80 Hun 235,
29 N. Y. S. 1047; Beap f?. City of Scran-
ton, 7 Pa. Super. 32; Sanford v, Cobe
(Tex. Civ.), 172 S. W. 584; McLane ».
Haydon (Tex. Civ.), 160 S. W. 1146;
Whitney v. Parish of Vernon (Tex.
Civ.), 154 S. W, 264; Howard v. J. P.
Paulson Co., 41 Utah 490, 127 P. 284;
Detroit Heat. & Light Co. t;. Stevens,
20 Utah 241, 58 P. 193; Pierce r.
Mitchell, 87 Vt. 538, 90 A. 577; Derosia
t?. Ferland, 86 Vt. 15, 83 A. 271; Bab-
cock, Cornish & Co. t?, Urquhart, 53
Wash. 168, 101 P. 713; Fuller- Warren
Co. V, Harter, 110 Wis. 80, 85 N. W.
698, 84 Am. St. 867, 53 L. B. A. 603.
liiisccnception of remedies. — ^Where a
wrong has been perpetrated and the
victim is doubtful which of two in-
consistent remedies is the right one,
he may pursue both until he recovers
through one, and, in the absence of
facts creating an equitable estoppel,
his prosecution of the wrong remedy
to a judgment of defeat will not estop
him from subsequently pursuing the
right one to victory. Union Cent. Life
Ins. Co. V. Drake, 214 Fed. 536, 131 O.
C. A. 82; Bankin v. Tygard, 198 Fed.
795, 119 0. C. A. 591.
An election of remedies obtained by
fraud and misrepresentation of the de-
fendant is not binding upon the plain-
tiff. Garrett v. Farwell Co., 199 111.
436, 65 N. E. 361.
83-5 Sullivan & Co. r. Bamsey (Tex.
Civ.), 155 S. W. 580.
83-6 Behfield v. Winters, 62 Or. 299,
125 P. 289.
84-8 Union Cent. Life Ins. Co. r.
Drake, 214 Fed. 536, 131 C. C. A. 82;
Logan V. Smith Bros. & Co., 9 Ala. App.
459, 63 S. 766; Schwarzschild & Sulz-
berger Co. V, Shapiro, 182 111. App. 40;
Sarbach v. Fidelity & Deposit Co., 87
Kan. 774, 125 P. 63; Washbon v. State
Bankj 86 Kan. 468, 121 P. 515; Bull v.
Bearden (Tex. Civ.), 159 S. W. 1177;
Howard v. J. P. Paulson Co., 41 Utah
490, 127 P. 284; Zwietusch v. Luehring,
156 Wis. 96, 144 N. W. 257.
Affirmance and deceit. — One may sue to
enforce his rights under a contract and
at the same time maintain an action
for deceit. Dilley v. Simmons Nat.
Bank, 108 Ark. 342, 158 S. W. 144;
Schwarzschild & Sulzberger Co. v. Sha-
piro, 182 111. App. 40; Fields t?. Brown,
160 N. C. 295, 76 S. E. 8.
84-9 Bull V. Bearden (Tex. Civ.), 159
S. W. 1177.
Satisfaction of fhe claim operates as
a bar where the remedies are consist-
ent. Schwarzschild & Sulzberger Co. i?.
Shapiro, 182 111. App. 40.
85-10 Bemedy in rem and in per-
sonam.— A creditor holding collateral
security may prosecute an action
298
CHOICE AND ELECTION OF REMEDIES Vol 6
againat the debtor and at the same
time proceed to realize upon the Becur-
ity, and is entitled to follow both
remedies until the debt is finally satis-
fied. Millhouse V. Krotz, 184 111. App.
507. See also Barchard v, Kohn, 157
111. 579, 41 N. E. 902, 29 L. E. A. 803.
"Until the demand is satisfied, the
creditor may seek at the same time,
but by separate and independent pro-
ceedings, both the enforcement of the
personal liability of the debtor and of
the rights conferred by the mortgage
. . . The doctrines of election and
waiver do not apply in such cases."
Logan 17. Smith Bros. & Co., 9 Ala^ App.
459, 63 S. 766.
86-11 In re Stewart, 178 Ped. 463;
Electioii without full knowledge.— ''If
such an. election was made, . . . ap-
pellant is bound by it," but "an elec-
tion does not occur through haphazard
or mistake. An important element in
such election is knowledge of -the facts
by the party charged with the election.
The option can only be intelligently ex-
ercised upon full knowledge of the
facts, and a party should not be held
bound by an election when he did not
know the facts upon which it could be
intelligently based." Sanford v. Cobe
(Tex. Civ.), 172 S. W. 584, quoting from
Wilson t?. Carroll (Tex. Civ.), 50 S. W.
222.
94-24 Personal representative.
Where a choice of remedies would have
Norcross v. Cunningham, 54 Colo. 517, j belonged to an injured employe had he
131 P. 42S; Weeke v. Reeve, 65 Fla. 3;*i Hved. the personal representative must
61 S. 749; Capital City Bank t?. Hil
son, 64 Ila. 206, 60 S. 189; Bernhard
r. Idahod Bank & Trust Co., 21 Ida.
598, 123 P. 481: Wells v. Western Union
Tel. Co., 144 la. 605, 123 N. W. 371;
Piersall v. Huber Mfg. Co., 159 Ky.
338, 167 S. W. 144; Thompson t?. How-
ard, 31 Mich. 309; Arky V. Floyd, 104
Miss. 364, 61 S. 545; Smith V, Berryman,
173 Mo. App. 148, 156 S. W. 40; Hill
V. Combs, 92 Mo. App. 242; Chicago,
B. & Q. B, Co. V. Olsen, 70 Neb. 559,
97 N. W. 831; Ideal Concrete Mach.
Co. V. National Park Bank, 159 App.
Div. 344, 145 N. Y. S. 119; Whitney v.
Parish of Vernon (Tex. Civ.), 154 S.
W. 264; Detroit Heating & L. Co. r.
Stevens, 20 Utah 241, 58 P. 193; Holt
Mfg. Co. V. Strachan, 77 Wash. 880,
137 P. 1006; Longfellow v. Seattle, 76
Wash. 509, 136 P. 855; Pickle 17. An-
derson, 62 Wash. 552, 114 P. 177; Bab-
cock, Cornish & Co. v. Urquhart, 53
Wash. 168, 101 P. 713; Gaffney v. Me-
irrath, 23 Wash. 476, 63 P. 520; Achey
?. Creech, 21 Wash. 319, 58 P. 208;
Bright V. Mollohan (W. Va,), 83 S. E.
298; Case Threshing Mach. Co. v. Rice
(Wis.), 139 N. W. 445; Davis v.
Schmidt, 126 Wis. 461, 106 N. W. 119;
Crook f?. First Nat. Bank, 83 Wis. 31,
52 N. W. 1131.
89-13 Capital City Bank v, Hilson,
64 Fla. 206, 60 S. 189.
92-20 Van Denbury V. Scott, 78 Misc.
281, 138 N. Y. S. 149.
92-21 Garrett v. Farwell Co., 199
lU. 436, 65 N. E. 361; Yarter v. Wal-
cott, 160 App. Div. 125, 145 N. Y. S.
132* Warren «. Susman (N. C), 84 S.
E. 760; Behfield v. Winters, 62 Or. 299,
125 P. 289.
make the election and be bound there-
by. Thus the personal representative
must elect whether to pursue the rem-
edy under the death statute against
the defendant or that afforded by the
Workmen's Compensation Act. Tum-
quist V, Hannon, 219 Mass. 560, 107 N.
E. 443.
95-26 Dowdy v. Calvi, 14 Ariz. 148,
125 P. 873; City Light, etc. Storage
Co. t?. St. Mary's Mach. Co., 170 Mo.
App. 224, 156 S. W. 83; Howard v. J.
P. Paulson Co., 41 Utah 490, 127 P.
284.
Prosecntion of one suit to Judgment is
equivalent to an election. Biard t?. Ty-
ler Bldg. & Loan Assn. (Tex. Civ.), 147
S. W. 1168.
97-30 Changing party's relation to
subject matter. — ^Where the election of
a remedy assumes the existence of a
particular status or relation of the
party to the subject matter of litiga-
tion, the party cannot afterwards pur-
sue another remedy by which he as-
sumes a different and inconsistent stat-
us or relation to the subject-matter.
Weeke i?. Eeeve, 65 Fla. 374, 61 S. 749.
But a mere offer to rescind the con-
tract will not operate to deprive plain-
tiff of the remedy for damages. Jones
V, Magoon, 119 Minn. 434, 138 N. W.
686.
97-31 Garrett i?. Farwell Co., 199 HI.
436, 65 N. E. 361; McCoy t?. Stockman,
146 Ind. 668, 46 N. E. 21; International,
etc. Corp. t?. Vanderpoel, 127 Minn. 89,
148 N. W. 895; Spurr t?. Home Ins. Co.,
40 Minn. 424, 42 N, W. 206; Williams
i\ Brown, 70 W. Va. 472, 74 S. E. 409.
299
tol. 5 CHOICE AND ELECTION OF REMEDIES
Mere bringing of action not condusiTe
election^ — ^Warren v. Susman (N. C),
84 S. E. 760; Kehoe v. Patten, 21 E, L
223, 42 A. 868; Jenks V. Smith, 14 B.
I. 634; Quidnick Co. v. Chafee, 13 B.
L 367; Brodkey t?. Leaser (Tex, Civ.),
157 S. W. 457.
BlBmlssal of suit without prejudice af-
ter the filing of an answer, is not a con-
clusive election against the mainte-
nance of another action. Goldberger
Iron Co. V, Cincinnati, I. & S. Co.| 153
K7. 20, 154 S. W. 374.
98-36 Hedges v. Pioneer Iron Works
(App. Div.), 151 N. Y. S. 495; Midtown
Contracting Co. v. Goldsticker, 165 App.
Div. 264, 150 N. Y. S. 809.
Where plaintiff sues upon a void con-
tract, mistakenly supposing it to be
valid, upon ^he determination that the
contract was void he could sue on a
quantum meruit, such action on his
part not being an election of remedies.
Whitney v. Parish of Vernon (Tex.
Civ.), 154 S. W. 264.
99-39 Stuart t?. Hayden, 169 TJ. S. 1,
18 Sup. Ct. 274, 42 L. ed. 639; Cheney
17. Bierkamp (Colo.), 145 P. 691; Cbn-
nihan v. Thompson, 111 Mass. 270, 272;
International, etc. Corp. v, Yanderpoel,
127 Minn. 89, 148 N. W. 895; Taylor v.
Short, 107 Mo. 384, 17 S. W. 970; City
Light, etc. Storage Co. v. St. Mary's
Mach. Co., 170 Mo. App. 224, 156 S. W.
83; Conrow v. Little, 115 N. Y. 387, 22
K. E. 346, 5 L. B. A. 693; Fields v.
Brown, 160 N. C. 295, 76 S. E. 8; Whit-
ney V. Bissell (Or.), 146 P. 141; Wright
r. Chandler (Tex. Civ.), 173 S. W. 1173;
Stinson v. Sneed (Tex. Civ.), 163 S.
W. 989.
99-40 McCurdy «. Eenan, 185 Ala.
183, 64 S. 578; Surrency v. Glenn ville
Supply Co., 13 Ga. App. 180, 78 S. E.
1013; Boney v. Halvorsen Co. (N. D.),
149 N. W. 688.
99-41 Wyllys Co. t?. Nixon, 165 App.
Div. 373, 150 N. Y. S. 944.
100-42 York Mfg. Co. v. Mager, 165
App. Div. 872, 150 N. Y. S. 973; Ship-
ley Construction & Supply Co. v. Mager,
165 App. Div. 866, 150 X. Y.S. 969.
100-47 The personal representative
may elect whether to pursue the remedy
undelr the death statute or that afi^orded
by the Workmen's Compensation Act.
Turnquist v, Hannon, 219 Mass. 560,
107 N. E. 443.
103-54 Frankel v. Dinitz, 83 Misc.
124, 144 N. Y. S. 770; Huggins v. Wat-
ers, 167 K. C. 197, 83 S. E. 334.
104-56 Frankel v. Binitz, 83 Misc.
124, 144 N. Y. S. 770.
105-eO In re K. Marks & Co. (C. C.
A.), 218 Fed. 453.
106-62 Where a suit in ecLolty to
have a wrongful sale set aside or an
action at law to recover the specific
property will lie, these do not preclude
the plaintiff from treating the sale as
a conversion and suing to recover the
value of the property. Paducah & Illi-
nois Ferry Co. v. Bobertson, 161 Ky.
485, 171 S. W. 171.
111-66 Cramer 17. Brownell, 166 App.
Div. 456, 151 N. Y. S. 1001.
1 12-67 Cramer 1;. Brdwnell, 166 App.
Div. 456, 151 N. Y. S. 1001; Oakland
Mfg. Co. V. F. C. Linde Co., 162 App.
l»iv. 543, 147 N. Y. S. 1045.
112-68 Oakland Mfg. €0. 17. F. C.
Linde Co., 162 App. Div. 643, 147 N.
Y. S. 1045.
112-70 Cramer t?. Brownell, 166 App.
Div. 456, 151 N. Y. S. 1001.
113-71 Trover, replevin or assump-
sits— >Where goods are sold upon condi-
tion that title is not to pass until they
are paid for and before that time the
vendee disposes of the goods the vendor
may stand upon his title and sue in
replevin or for the conversion of the
goods, or he may waive his title and
sue the vendee for the purchase price.
Twentieth Century M. Co. v. Excelsior
Springs M. W. & B. Co. (Mo.), 171 S.
W. 944.
114-76 Merle & Heaney Mfg. Co. t;.
Hicks, 178 111. App. 406.
115-78 When trover and assumpsit
both maintainable* — Where action of
assumpsit dismissed without prejudice,
plaintiff could maintain an action of
trover. Gibbs v. Jones, 46 111. 319.
116-81 Hockensmith «. Winton, 11
Ala. App. 670, 66. S. 954.
119-97 Accounting and cancellation
are inconsistent remedies and a resort
to one operates as a bar to the other.
Pickle V. Anderson, 62 Wash. 552, 114
P. 177.
120-1 A party has a right to change
from law to equity, where he has one
remedy in law and one in equity, and
may pursue either at his election, and
change his cause of action from one
to the other. Bohrbach t?. Hammill, 162
Ta. 131, 143 N. W. 872.
function and action for damage& — An
action for the recovery of damages sus*
800
COMPOSITION WITE CREDITORS
Vol. 5
fcained up to the commencement of the
3uity is not such an election of remedies
as would bar the plaintiff from seek-
ing the aid of a court of equity to
enjoin the further maintenance of the
dam. Feldkamp v, Ernst, 177 Mich.
550, 143 N. W. 887.
Besdssion and damages. — ^A person de-
frauded into making a contract has an
election to abide by the contract and
sue for damages or to rescind the con-
tract. But an election once determined
is determined forever. Bigler v, Beid
(Mo.), 171 S. W. 952. See also vol.
10, p. 37, n. 12.
122-10 After adverse verdict and
Judgment, too late. Warren v. Susman
(X. C), 84 S. E. 760.
123-15 Chaddock v. Tabor, 115 Mich.
27, 72 N. W. 1093; Lindsay t\ Oager,
11 App. Div. 93, 42 N. Y. S. 851.
CIVIL BIGHTS
125-2 For distinction between "nat-
ural,'' ''civil," and ''political'' rights,
see Byers t?. Sun Sav. Bank. 41 Okla.
728, 139 P. 948.
126-7 That defendant had rooms in
his hotel at the time, sufficient to ac-
commodate the plaintiff need not be
alleged in the complaint, since such
fact is presumed from defendant's oc-
cupation of innkeeper, and is moreover
a matter particularly within his own
knowledge. Jackson V. Virginia Hot
Springs Co., 213 Fed. 969, 130 C. C. A.
375, rev. 209 Fed. 979.
147-89 The Lackawanna, 201 Fed.
773.
148-90 Yang-Tsze Ins. Assn. i?. Fur-
ness, Withy & Co., 215 Fed. 859, 132
C. C. A. 201.
A vessel sheering from its course U
presumptively to blame. Nicholas
Transit Co. t?. Pittsburg S. S. Co., 196
Fed. 60.
149-96 The Anna W., 201 Fed. 58.
119 C. C. A. 396, modifying 181 Fed.
604; The Lackawanna, 201 Fed. 773.
149-97 St. Louis & T. R. Packet Co.
v. Murray, 144 Ky. 815, 139 S. W. 1078.
See The S. V. Luckenbach, 197 Fed.
888, 117 C. C. A. 214.
151-2 Cooper r. The Saratoga, 40
Fed. 509.
COIOCBBOE COUBT
153 Commerce court abolished.— rlJ.
S. Comp. St., 1913, §992.
COUJSION
137-43 Prince v. Eastern S. S. Co.,
109 Me. 395, 84 A. 894.
138-47 The Golden Rod, 194 Fed. 515.
138-48 The S. V. Luckenbach, 197
Fed. 888, 117 C. C. A. 214.
139-57 See The Agnella, 198 Fed.
147.
141-69 The North Point, 205 Fed.
958.
142-75 The Prudence, 191 Fed. 993.
144-79 The Haida, 191 Fed. 623,
ojf. 196 Fed. 1005, 115 C. C.,A. 376.
145-83 Island Transp. Co. v. Seattle,
205 Fed. 993.
146-84 The Princeton, 209 Fed. 199,
126 C. C. A. 209; The Henry W. Oliver,
202 F^d. 306.
COMPOSITION WITH CBEDIT0B8
180-25 Saul v. Buck, Hefflebower &
Neer, 72 Ga. 254; Shinkle v. Shearman,
7 Ind. App. 399, 34 N. E. 838; Partridge
V. Messer, 14 Gray (Mass.) 180; Gross,
Kelly & Co. v. Bibo (N. M.), 145 P.
480.
181-26 Fox V. Hudson's Exr., 150
Ky. 115, 150 S. W. 49.
185-45 Crowder v. Allen-West Com.
Co.,. 213 Fed. 177, 129 C. C. A. 521;
Batchelder & Lincoln Co. v, Whitmore,
122 Fed. 355, 58 C. C. A. 517; Atlas
Eng. Works v. First Nat. Bank, 50 Ind.
App. 549, 97 N. E. 952.
Otherwise If payments ▼olnntary.
Crowder v, Allen-West Com. Co., 213
Fed. 177, 129 O. C. A. 521; Smith t?.
Zeigler, 63 Hun 624, 17 N. T. S. 338,
44 N. Y. St. 50; Wilson v. Bay, 2 Per.
& Dav. 253, 10 Ad. & El. 82, 37 E. C.
L. 67, 8 L. J. Q. B. 224, 3 Jur. 384, 113
Eng. Eeprint 32; Langley v. Van Al-
len, 32 Can. Sup. Ct. 174, 3 Out. L. Eep.
5, 32 Out. 216.
186-47 Parties in pari delicto.— The
general rule is as stated in the text,
but some courts hold that the parties
(debtor and preferred creditor) are in
pari delicto and will not decree a re-
covery by the debtor or his assignee.
Mehr v, Starr, 138 N. Y. S. 317.
188-54 Gross, Kelly & Co. V. Bibo
(N. M.), 145 P. 480.
801
Vol. 5
COMPOUNDING CRIME
00MP0X7NDINO CBIME
189-1 The gist of the offense is the
agreement not to prosecute the crime,
known by injured party to have been
committed, in consideration of his re-
ceiving the obligation. Fountain v»
Bigham, 235 Pa. 35, 84 A. 131, Ann.
Cas. 1913D, 1185.
190-8 Hays v. S. (Ga. App.), 83 S. E.
502.
193-20 Jurisdlctioii and Tenue^^If
the parties entered into negotiations in
Alabama to compound a felony com-
mitted in Georgia, and after consent-
ing in Alabama to compound the felony
proceeded to Georgia and signed a writ-
ten agreement, the offenders may be
indicted in Georgia. Hays v, S., 142 Ga.
592, 83 S. E. 236; Hays V. S. (Ga.
App.), 83 S. E. 502.
OOMPBOMISE Ain> SETTLEMENT
194-1 St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v.
Chester, 41 Okla. 369, 138 P. 150.
194-2 Troll t?. Spencer, 238 Mo. 81,
141 S. W. 855; Borden r. Sandy River
& R. L. R. Co., 110 Me. 327, 86 A.
242; Peyton V, Hamilton-Brown Shoe
Co., 167 N. C. 280, 83 S. E. 487; Nath
t\ Oregon R. & Nav. Co., 72 Wash. 664,
131 P. 251.
195-3 See Deal v. Deal, 91 S. C. 351,
74 S. E. 482,
196-4 Roane v. Union Pac. Life Ins.
Co., 67 Or. 264, 135 P. 892.
196-7 Crandall Realty & S. Co. T.
Tanquary, 23 Colo. App. 564, 130 P.
1084; Roniger v. Mcintosh, 91 Kan,
368, 137 P. 792; Springfield F. & M. Ins.
Co. t?. Peterson, 93 Neb. 446, 140 N. W.
760.
196-8 Bynum v, Knighton, 137 Ga.
250, 73 S. E. 400, Ann. Cas. 1913A, 903.
197-11 Price f?. McEachern, 111 Me.
573, 90 A. 486. .
198-21 Manors v. Majors, 92 Neb.
473, 138 N. W. 574.
200-28 Blizzard Bros, v. Growers'
Canning Co. (la.), 148 N. W. 973.
Burden of proof. — Where plaintiff de-
clares upon a settlement the burden of
proving the terms is upon hira. Lin-
nan V. Linnan, 131 La. 535, 59 S. 981.
200-29 Aycock t?. Ross (Tex. Civ.),
169 S. W. 1037.
200-35 Frand is ground for setting
aside. — Nichols t?. Smith, 164 App. Div.
304, 150 N. Y. S. 410.
201-36 Jordy v. Dunlevie, 139 Ga.
325, 77 S. E. 162; South Bend Gas Co.
V. Jensen (Ind.), 105 N. E. 774.
201-39 Altman v. Powell (Tex. Civ.),
140 S. W. 1178.
201-40 Simons v. Hallidie Co., 73
Wash. 499, 131 P. 1169; Nath v. Oregon
R. & Nav. Co., 72 Wash. 664, 131 P.
251.
OOITQLTTSIOKS OF LAW
205-1 Helmick v. Carter, 171 HI.
App. 25,
Pleading diould state facts. — ^''A plea,
unless it follows a form prescribed by
the code for pleading a specific matter
of defense to some specific action, should
state the facts relied upon for a de-
fense to the action, and not the mere
conclusions which the pleader has
drawn from the facts in his possession.
Louisville & N. R. Co. v, Jones, 6 Ala.
App. 617, 60 S. 945.
205-2 Jones t?. Schaff Bros (Mo.
App.), 174 S. W. 176.
205-3 Jones v. Van Bever, 164 Ky.
80, 174 S. W. 795.
206-4 Cleveland, C, C. & St. L. Ry.
Co. V. Champe, 55 Ind. App. 243, 132
N. E. 868; Jones v. Schaflf Bros, 187
Mo, App. 597, 174 S. W. 177.
206-5 Woodward Iron Co. v, Marbut,
183 Ala. 310, 62 S. 804; Little Cahaba
Coal Co. fJ. Gilbert, 178 Ala. 515, 59
S. 445, quoting from Louisville & N. B-
Co. V, Jones, 130 Ala. 456, 470, 30 S.
586, 590; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. t?.
Thomas, 14 Ga. App. 619, 82 S. E. 299
(characterizing treatment received as
being "outrageous in the extreme and
deeply mortifying to his feelings*');
Western & A. R. Co. v. Watkins, 14
Ga. App. 388, 80 S. E. 916; Jones r.
Schaflf Bros. Co., 187 Mo. App. 597, 174
S. W. 177.
207-6 Callahan v. Broderick, 124 Cal.
80, 56 P. 782; Kerr v. Snowden, 24 Cal.
App. 152, 140 P. 704; Gibson v. Chi-
cago Great Western Ry. Co., 225 Mo.
473, 482, 125 S. W. 453; Johnson v.
Springfield Traction Co., 176 Mo. App.
174, 161 S. W. 1193; Post Pub. Co. v,
Bennett, 164 App. Div. 633, 149 N. Y.
S. 867; Laing t?. Hudgens, 82 Misc. 3S8,
143 N. T. S. 763; New Yotk Tel. Co.
V. Simon, 77 Misc. 192, 137 N. Y. S.
542; Jones v, Atlantic Coast Lumb.
302
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Vol. 5
Corp., 92 8. C. 418, 75 S. E. 698. See
also Korthwestem Mut. Life Ins. Co.
V. C, 164 Ky. 255, 175 S. W. 337.
208-8 Bobinson v. Ocean S. S. Co.,
162 App. Div. 169, 147 N. Y. S. 310.
209-16 Mattingly's Exr. v. Brents,
155 Ky. 670, 159. S. W. 1157.
Iiumfflclmicy of levies. — That defendant
**woqld not receive sufficient funds
from various levies made" to pay
plaintiff. Butherford School Tp. v.
Craney, 51 Ind. App. 236, 99 N. E.
485.
That an unprecedented rainfall was
cause of breaking of the dam, a con-
clusion. Sloss-Sheffield Steel & I. Co.
V. Webb, 184 Ala. 452, 63 8. 518.
Aa allegation tbat party would have
liad no legal counsel if plaintiff had
sot been appointed to defend him is
a conclusion. Knight v. Board of
Comrs., 179 Ind. 568, 101 N. E. lOlD.
210-17 Oonseqnences of delay In
Bnlng^ — ^That no injury has resulted, or
can result, to the defendant from the
delay in bringing suit. Pearsons v,
Washington College, 130 Tenn. 601, 172
S. W. 314.
Property "rendered worthless." — ^That
plaintiff's mill was rendered entirely
worthless by reason of the obstruction.
Weller t?. Missouri Lumb. & M. Co., 176
Mo. App. 243, 161 S. W. 853.
Besult of Jumping from automobile.
That it was impossible for plaintiff's
decedent to jump from the automobile
without being threatened with instant
death. Indiana Union Traction Co. f?.
Love, 180 Ind. 442, 99 N. E. 1005.
210-23 Bennett Lumb. Co. V. Fall
(Tex. Civ.), 157 8. W. 209; Ft. Worth
& D. C. By. Co. t?. Ayers (Tex. Civ.),
149 8. W. 1068.
210-24 Kewkirch v, McHugh, 165
App. Div. 406, 150 N. T. S. 1032 (see
this case for a discussion of the New
York cases as to whether or not plead-
ing "valuable consideration'' is a con-
clusion of law); White f>. Western
Union Tel. Co., 153 App. Div. 684, 138
N. Y. S. 598; Czerney v, Haas, 144 App.
Div. 430, 129 N. Y. S. 537; Kinsella
r. Lockwood, 79 Misc. 619, 140 N. Y.
8. 513.
210-25 Bush Const. Co. v, Bambrick-
Bates Const. Co., 176 Mo. App. 608, 159
211-26 Farris v. Alfred, 171 ' HI.
App. 172.
211-28 Bichmond 17. Madison Fe-
male Institute, 153 Ky. 301, 155 8. Wf
371; Hamilton Trust Co. V. Shevlin,
156 App. Div. 807, 141 N. Y. 8. 232.
That a deed waa Ineffective. — ^Boothe
V, Cheek, 253 Mo. 119, 161 8. W. 791.
That contract was valid and binding.
Bird V. Bowell, 180 Mo. App. 421, 167
S. W. 1172.
PoUdea not binding. — ^Averments that
insurance policies were of no binding
force and that there was nothing due
on them are conclusions. Weil v. Fed-
eral Life Ins. Co., 182 HI. App. 322.
Verbal agreement void and of no effect
under the statute of frauds. Bohrbach
v. Hammill, 162 la. 131, 143 N. W.
872.
Bights under ordinance^ — ^Mere state-
ments of parties as to what they con-
ceive their rights to be under an ordi-
nance are conclusions. Ward v. Ely-
Walker D. O. Bldg. Co., 248 Mo. 848,
154 8. W. 478.
"Futures.** — ^A plea which asserts that
the contract sued on is in violation
of a certain statute is a conclusion of
the pleader. Baker v, Lehman, Weil &
Co., 186 Ala. 493, 65 S. 321.
Non-negotiable Instruments — Browning,
King & Co. V, Terwilliger, 144 App.
Div. 516, 129 N. Y. 8. 431; Fulton r.
Varney, 117 App. Div. 572, 102 N. Y.
8. 608, non-negotiable instrument.
Promissory note^ — St. Lawrence, etc.
Bank t?. Watkins, 153 App, Div. 551,
138 N. Y. 8. 116.
213-35 St. Louis & S. F. B. Co. v.
Jamar, 182 Ala. 554, 62 8. 701; Colon
V, Gladding, McBean Ss Co., 166 Cal.
354, 136 P. 289; Vogrin v. American
Steel & Wire Co., 179 HI. App. 245;
Bartholomew v. Grimes, 51 Ind. App.
614, 100 N. E. 12; Tuell v, Inhab. of
Marion, 110 Me. 460, 86 A. 980; Coulter
V. Independence, 168 Mo. App. 710,
154 8. W. 860; Korach V. Loeffel, 168
Mo. App. 414, 151 8. W. 790; Nelson
r. Northern Pac. By. Co. (Mont.), 148
P. 388; McCarthy's Admr. v. North-
field, 87 Vt. 191, 88 A. 734.
214-36 Bartholomew v. Grimes, 51
Ind. App. 614, 100 N. E. 12; Coulter
D, Independence, 168 Mo. App. 710, 154
8. W. 860; Schmidt v, Papillion, 92
Neb. 511, 138 N. W. 725.
214-37 Metropolis T. & 8. Bank v.
Monnier (Cal.), 147 P. 265; Bacon v.
Soule, 19 Cal. App. 428, 126 P. 384;
303
Vol. 5
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Martinez v, Martinez, 57 Colo. 292, 141
P. 469; KUpatrick v. Miller, 55 Colo.
419, 135 P. 780; Kindel t?. Le Bert, 23
Colo. 385, 48 P. 641, 58 Am. St. 234;
Wilson t\ Baker Cloth. Co., 25 Ida. 378,
137 P. 896; Helmick i?. Carter, 171 HI.
App. 25; Swain v. Hunt, 62 Ind. App.
626, 99 N. E. 529; Town of Russell
V. Whitt, 161 Ky. 187, 170 S. W. 609;
Creekmore v. Bryant, 158 Ky. 166, 164
S. W. 337; Creekmore r. Central Const.
Co., 157 Ky. 336, 163 S. W. 194; BoyTi
i\ Shirk (Md.), 93 A. 417; Baltimore
& 0. B. Co. 17. Latimer, 118 Md. 183,
84 A. 377; Young l?. Litidquist, 126
Minn. 414, 148 N. W. 455; Lee v, Lee,
258 Mo. 599, 167 S W. 1030; Watson
Fireproof Window Co. V, H. Weiss Cor-
nice Co., 181 Mo. App. 318, 168 S. W.
905; Bobinson t7. Ocean S. S. Co., 162
App. Div. 169, 147 N. Y. S. "310; King
V. Murphy, 151 N. Y. S. 476; Bice v.
Braden, 243 Pa. 141, 89 A. 877; Leves
V. Nat. Slavonic Soc., 54 Pa. Super.
201; North Coast Dry Kiln Co. v.
Montecoma Inv. Co., 82 Wash. 247, 144
P. 58; Laun v. Kipp, 155 Wis. 347, 145
N. W. 183. See also 10 Standard Proc.
53.
215-39 Sutton v. Hurley, 12 Ga.
App. 312, 77 S. E. 218.
215-41 Bussell v. Whitt, 161 Ky.
187, 170 S. W. 609.
Oonsequencea of mistake^— An allega-
tion that except for the mutuiM mis-
take, the lease would not have been
executed is but a conclusion of law.
Hughey v. Smith, 65 Or. 323, 133 P.
68.
215-42 Smith V, Oaerre (Tex. Civ.),
175 S. W. 1093.
216-43 Davidson V. Buchanan, 164
App. Div. 352, 149 N. Y. S. 640.
216-44 Comp. Dana v, Morgan, 219
Fed. 313.
216-46 Turner v, Hamlin, 152 Ky.
469, 153 S. W. 778; Post Pub. Co. t?.
Bennett, 164 App. Div. 633, 149 N. Y.
S. 867; Groshut v. Kinetophote Corp.,
154 N. Y. S. 126; McCarthy v. Fitz-
gerald, 139 N. Y. S. 950; Baker v.
Hahn (Tex. Civ.), 161 S. W. 443.
That commissioners Incurred an In-
debtedness without the assent of two-
thirds of the voters, is a conclusion.
Streine i\ Comrs., 149 Ky. 641, 149
S. W. 928.
216-47 Brandt v, Meade (Ariz.), 148
P. 297; Lake V. Steinbach, 5 Wash.
659 32 P. 767.
216-48 Baker V. Hahn (Tex. Civ.),
161 S. W. 443.
216-49 Arizona Eastern B. Co. t.
Globe Hdw. Co., 14 Ariz. 397, 129 P.
1104.
216-50 Jones v. Schaff Bros. Co., 187
Mo. App. 597, 174 S. W. 177.
217-52 Hochfeld v. Portland, 72 Or.
190, 142 P. 824.
That no legal or valid vote was had or
taken. Purdin 17. Hancock, 67 Or. 164,
135 P. 515.
217-57 South Platte Ditch Co. r.
Larimer & Weld Reservoir Co. (Colo.),
145 P. 707; Comstock v. Larimer i
Weld Reservoir Co. (Colo.), 145 P. 700.
218-60 Angel V, Byars, 153 Ky. 208,
154 S. W. 1109; Lester v. Gatewood
iTex. Civ.), 166 S. W. 389; Pye v.
Wyatt (Ter. Civ.), 151 S. W. 1086.
218-61 Lack of Jorlsdlctlon as a
defense. — ^Where defendant sets up lack
of jurisdiction as a separate defense
it is a mere conclusion in the absence
of facts establishing that the- court
was without jurisdiction. Bushansky
€. Lantinberg, 84 Misc. 37, 145 N. Y. S.
898.
218-62 Sample v. Adams, 54 Ind.
App. 680, 100 N. E. 573 ; Pye r. Wyatt
(Tex. Civ.), 151 S. W. 1086.
218-63 Young v. WUey (Ind.), 107
N. E. 278.
Conviction by false evidence.^ — The
general allegation that a conviction
was obtained ''by means of evidence
which the defendants knew to be
false" is a mere conclusion. Craft v.
Moloney Belt. Co. (Va.), 85 S. E. 486.
218-65 Bidpath r. Heller, 46 Mont.
586, 129 P. 1054.
219-67 A general allegation of a
combination or conspiracy in restraint
of trade. (5orey v. Independent Ice
Co., 207 Fed. 459.
That defendant "Is In possession of
the property in the declaration men-
tioned under the provisions of the
original lease set out in the equitable
plea and that said lease is still in.
force and effect." Feldmeyer v.
Werntz, 119 Md. 285, 86 A. 986.
Other lllnstratlons. — ^That the failure
of the plaintiff to examine the work-
ing place before commencing te work
proximately caused his injury. Hen-
derson t\ Tennessee Coal, I. & B. Co.
(Ala.), 67 S. 414. That there was a
304
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
ToLB
safe or safer way for plaintiff to ride.
Choctawy C. & M. Co. f. Moore, 184
Ala. 449, 63 S. 558. Allegation that
bridge constituted an unreasonable ob-
struction of navigation, and was main-
tained without authority of law. Maul-
din V, Central, etc. By. Co., 181 Ala.
591, 61 S. 947. That defendant occupied
land in subordination to and in recog-
nition of plaintiff's homestead and
dower right. Vaughn v. Vaughn, 180
Ala. 212, 60 S. 872. An allegation that
a note was ''transferred" is a mere
legal conclusion on account of failure
to allege method of the transfer. Kel-
ley V, Kelley, 9 Ala. App. 306, 63 S.
740. Partnership agreement. Nixon V.
"Woodward, 6 Ala. App. 151, 60 S. 480.
That constable failed to deliver prop-
erty to plaintiff '*as required by law."
Southern Orchard Plant. Co. V. Gore,
83 Ark. 78, 102 8. W. 709. Never has
been a *' valid" delivery, and that de-
fendant ''unlawfully" obtained pos-
session. Fisher t;. Fisher, 23 Cal. App.
310, 137 P. 1094. Allegation that cer-
tain land has never been patented, but
is part of the public land of the United
States. McKenzie v, Fisher, 40 App.
Cas. (D. C.) 74. That petitioner's
claim was presented "as required by
law." Sparks v. Floyd County (Ga.
App.), 82 8. E. 583. An allegation that
work required an assistant to enable
plaintiff to perform the same with
safety states a mere conclusion. Cal-
don V. National Malleable Cast. Co.,
182 111. App. 458. That "plaintiff is
entitled to recover for and on behalf
of the estate." Cleveland, etc. By.
Co. V, Champe, 55 Ind. App. 243, 102
N. £. 868. An averment of a refusal
to furnish school privileges to plain-
tiff, without legal reasons for so do-
ing. Templer i?. School Tp., 160 la.
398, 141 N. W. 1054. That certain
property had a "taxable situs" in the
county. Northwestern Mut. Life Ins.
Co. V. C, 164 Ky. 255, 175 S. W. 337.
That arrests were made by deputy
sheriffs in their official capacity. Jones
V. Van Bever, 164 Ky. 80, 174 S. W.
795. That person adjudged non compos
mentis fully expected to pay for serv-
ices rendered previous to such proceed-
ing. Gilbert r. Gilbert's Com., 158 Ky.
58, 164 S. W. 316. That property was
not appraised as required by law. An-
gel V, Byars, ^153 Ky. 208, 154 S. W.
1109. That there was sufficient surplus,
under the laws of Kentucky, to have
carried the insurance policy. Dibrell
V, Citizens' Nat. Life Ins. Co., 152 Ky.
208, 153 S. W. 428. That defendants
are '* jeopardizing the rights of cred-
itors by grossly mismanaging the busi-
ness affairs of the bank, etc." Arent
17. Liquidating Comrs., 133 La. 134, 62
S. 602. That petitioner's note and
mortgage is prior in date and rank to
plaintiff's mortgage. Levy i7. Desposito,
133 La. 126, 62 S. 599. That plaintiff's
horse was driven in violation of the
ordinance, without alleging in what
respect it was violated, ^rickell f>,
Williams, 180 Mo. App. 572, 167 S. W.
607. The use of the word "nuisance"
in characterizing an act is of no avail
in a pleading in the absence of facts
from which such conclusion follows.
De Moll V. New York, 163 App. Div.
676, 148 N. Y. S. 966. That the
executor has repudiated his trust. In
re Watson, 163 App. Div. 41, 148 N.
Y. S. 525. That defendant has unlaw-
fully erected and maintained certain
buildings. P. v. American Sugar Bfg.
Co., 86 Misc. 78, 148 N. Y. S. 160. That
a note "lawfully came into the pos-
session of plaintiff for value." Laing
1?. Hudgens, 82 Misc. 388, 143 N. Y. 8.
763. That service was defective and
of no value. New York Tel. Co. v.
Simon, 77 Misc. 192, 137 N. Y. 8. 542.
That certain signs displayed by defend-
ant mislead and deceive the public.
Longenecker v, Longenecker Bros., 14d
N. Y. 8. 403. That subject-matter of
counterclaim grew out of the same
transaction described in complaint.
Chamberlain v, Townsend, 72 Or. 207,
142 P. 782, 143 P. 924. That labor ren-
dered was a necessary family expense.
Chamberlain v. Townsend, 72 Or. 207,
142 P. 782, 143 P. 924. That one surety
was primarily liable on the undertak-
ing. Templeton i^. Cook, 69 Or. 313,
138 P. 230. That a woman is not the
legal wife of a man. Leves v. National
Slavonic Soc, 54 Pa. Super. 201. That
property would not bring its full value
at foreclosure sale. Floore i^. Morgan
(Tex. Civ.), 175 8. W. 737. That the
suit does not come within certain ex-
ceptions provided by statute. Ander-
son, Clayton & Co. i*. Terry (Tex. Civ.),
167 8. W. 1. That defendants were the
consignees named in bills of lading and
that defendants were the assignees of
the shipper. St. Louis 8. W. By. Co.
V. Browne Grain Co. (Tex. Civ.), 166
8. W. 40. Averment that one was
legally elected. 8. t?. Greene, 87 Vt.
94, 88 A. 515. An averment of mal-
so
305
Vol 5
CONCLUSION^ OF LAW:
administration and mismanagement of
the corporate affairs. Curtiss v. Dean
(Wash.), 148 P. 581. That tender was
"wrongfully refused.*' Simpson Log-
ging Co. V. Chehalis County, 80 Wash.
245, 141 P. 344. That plaintiff had no
adequate Remedy at law. Barber As-
phalt Pav. Co. V. Hamilton, 80 Wash.
61, 141 P. 199.
219-78 That plaintiff had the right
to ride on a freight train. Chesapeake
& O. Ry. Co. V. CoUinsworth, 152 Ky.
197, 153 S. W. 241.
220-94 That stock was "held In
trust." — ^Alexander V. Fidelity Trust
Co., 215 Fed. 791.
220-98 Shipman f?. Portland Const.
Co., 64 Or. 1, 128 P. 989.
That the corporation had dissolved.
Klamath Lumb. Co. v, Bamber (Or.),
145 P. 650.
221-17 Birmingham & A. H. Co. f.
Norris, 4 Ala. App. 363, 59 S. 66;
Wood 17. Drainage Dist. No. 2, 110 Ark.
416, 161 S. W. 1057; Catlett t?. Colo-
rado & S. Ry. Co., 56 Colo. 463, 139 P.
14; Merriam v, Hamilton, 64 Or. 476,
130 P. 406; Emond t\ Kimberly-Clark
Co., 159 Wis. 83, 149 N. W. 760. See
Allen 17. Quercus Lumb. Co., 171 Mo.
App. 492, 157 S. W. 661.
< 'Willfully, wantonly and intentional-
ly."— An allegation that the ** motor-
man willfully, wantonly, or intentional-
ly propelled said car against plaintiff's
vehicle when he knew that plaintiff
would thereby be injured," is a mere
conclusion. Davis t;. Drcnnen Co.
(Ala.), 66 S. 642; Birmingham Ry., L.
& P. Co. 17. Nicholas, 181 Ala. 491, 61
S. 361; Jordan v. Alabama Citv, G. &
A. Ry. Co., 179 Ala. 291, 60 S. 309.
222-18 Birmingham, E. & B. R. Co.
V. Williams (Ala.), 66 S. 653; Hall i\
Mengel Box Co., 160 Ky. 586, 169 S.
W. 985. See Robinson v. Ocean S. S.
Co., 162 App. Div. 169, 147 N. Y. S.
310.
222-19 Standard Portland Cement
Co. 17. Thompson (Ala.), 67 S. 608;
Southern Ry. Co. i?. Harrison (Ala.), 67
S. 597; Boan v. W. T. Smith Lumb. Co.,
184 Ala. 535, 63 S. 564; Illinois Cent.
R. Co. V, Lowery, 184 Ala. 443, 63
S. 952, 49 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1149; Bir-
mingham Ry., L. & P. Co. r. Saxon,
179 Ala. 136, 59 S. 584; Ithaca Trust
Co. V, BriscoU Bros., 163 App. Div. 54,
148 N. Y. S. 775.
Biile.illastrated.-:-A plea was held de-
murrable which averred that plaintiff
was guilty of proximately contributing
negligence, in that he caused debris,
etc., to be placed in the culvert, and
thereby "contributed to the obstruc-
tions complained of.'' Brown 17. Ala-
bama G. So. R. Co. (Ala.), 67 S. 702.
**If the plaintiff received any injuries
at the time mentioned in said petition,
the same were caused by plaintiff's own
fault and neglgence," held not suffi-
cient plea of contributory negligence.
Benjamin i?. Metropolitan Ry. Co., 245
Mo. 598, 151 S. W. 91. A mere gen-
eral statement of a conclusion that, if
defendant was negligent, the plaintiff
was also guilty of negligence con-
tributing thereto, is bad pleading. John-
son t\ Springfield Traction Co., 176
Mo. App. 174, 161 S. W.^ 1193. i
222-20 Purdin 1?. Hancock, 67 Or.
164, 135 P. 515; Splonskofsky u. Minto,
62 Or. 560, 126 P. 15.
222-23 Mo. Rev. St., 1909, §1836; Mc-
Cullough 17. Phoenix Ins. Co., 113 Mo.
606, 21 S. W. 207; De Runtz 17. St.
Louis Police Relief Assn., 180 Mo. App.
1, 162 S. W. 1053; Moghabghab 17. Sher-
man & Sons Co., 161 App. Div. 135, 146
N. Y. S. 392.
223-25 Reese 17. Rawleigh Medical
Co. (Ark.), 172 S. W. 820; Barnard &
Bunker 17. Houser, 68 Or. 240, 137 P.
227.
223-27 Batiflcation when a fact and
when a conclasion of law« — The court
in Minnich 17. Darling, 8 Ind. App. 539.
36 N. E. 173, says: **In its technical
sense, ratification is itself a fact, and
not a conclusion of law to be drawn
from other facts or circumstances. Car-
ter r. Pomeroy, 30 Ind. 438. . . •
Ratification, in its technical sense, may
be pleaded in general terms, because it
is a fact. . . . But when it is used
in a sense akin to estoppel, it is not
proper to plead it in general terms, but
the acts done constituting it must be
specially pleaded, and if it merely state
legal conclusions, the pleading will be
bad on demurrer." But see Pollitz f7.
Wabash B. Co., 207 N. Y. 113, 100
N. £. 721, holding that a defense stat-
ing that "the plaintiff with full knowl-
edge thereof ratified and confirmed"
is a conclusion of fact and not a con-
clusion of law and ratification is snfii-
ciently pleaded without alleging facts
showing ratification.
224-33 Combs i7. Cardwell, 164 Ky.
542, 175 S. W. 1009 J Larue 17. Hays, 7
306
CONFESSION AND AVOIDANCE
Vol. 5
BuBh (Ky.) 50; Toler's Heirs v. Toler,
33 Ky. L. B. 594, 110 S. W. 388;
Langston v. Edwards, 21 Ky. L. B. 1277^
54 S. W. 833.
225-34 Kenigsberg V. Beininger, 159
la. 548, 141 N. W. 407; Jones v. Schaff
Bros. Co., 187 Mo. App. 597, 174 S. W.
177.
22S-35 Oliver V. Enriquez, 17 1^. M.
206, 124 P. 798, plaintiffs were the
owners in fee simple.
That a party is tlie owner of a Judg-
ment by transfer, is a conclusion. Gotee
r. Graves, 153 Ky. 26, 154 S. W. 386.
225-36 Farrell v. Kirkwood, 69 Or.
413, 136 P. 110.
Transaction "nsnrions." — ^It is not
necessary to allege in terms that a
transaction was ''usurious" if facts
which amount to usury are stated with
sufficient certainty. Shape v. Shape, 77
Misc. 649, 137 N. Y. S. 605.
226-37 Alabama Great S. B. Co. v.
Smith (Ala.), 68 S. 56; Davis v.
Drennen Co. (Ala.), 66 S. 642; Baker
r. Lehman, Weil & Co., 186 Ala. 493,
65 S. 321; Birmingham By, L. & P.
Co. V. Saxon, 179 Ala. 136, 59 S. 584;
KeUey v. KeUey, 9 Ala. App. 306, 63
8. 740; Boll V. Howell, 9 Ala. App. 171,
62 S. 463; Wood v. Drainage Dist. No.
2, 110 Ark. 416, 161 S. W. 1057; Ward
r. North American Accident Ins. Co.,
182 111. App. 317; Hanisch t?. North
American Union, 170 111. App. 79;
Creekmore v. Central Const. Co., 157
Ky. 336, 163 S. W. 194; Feldmeyer r.
Wemtz, 119 Md. 285, 86 A. 986; Ferber
r. Third Street Bealty Co., 166 App.
Div. 736, 152 N. Y. 8. 352; Bice v.
Braden, 243 Pa. 141, 89 A. 877; Emond
r. Kimberly-Clark Co. (Wis.), 149 N.
W. 760.
The court in Machomich Mercantile
Co. V. Hickey, 15 Ariz. 421, 140 P. 63,
says: "It is a general rule under the
codes that allegations of legal eon-
elusions instead of facts upon which
they are based do not usually make a
pleading bad on general iemuiTeT.**
226-38 Atlantic Coast Line B. Co.
V. Thomas, 14 Ga. App. 619, 82 S. E.
299; Bohrbach 17. Hammill, 162 la. 131,
143 N. W. 872; De Buntz v. St. Louis
Police Belief Assn., 180 Mo. App. 1,
162 S. W. 1053; Bush Const. Co. v.
Bambrick-Bates Const. Co., 176 Mo.
App. 608, 159 S. W. 738.
OaXTTESSIOK AND AVOIDANOB
228-1 Sefton f>. Mitchell, 120 HI.
App. 256.
231-19 First Nat. Bank v. Shank, 53
Colo. 446, 128 P. 56; Shirley v. Benick,
151 Ky. 25, 151 S. W. 357.
Failure to give color renders a plead-
ing purporting to be by way of con-
fession and avoidance defective and in-
sufficient. Shirley v. Benick, 151 Ky.
25, 151 S. W. '357.
Confession essentiaL — ^ * Usually one
may not plead in avoidance of a fact,
which the plea does not admit, for it
is of the essence of such a plea to con-
fess the truth of the allegation which
it proposes to answer and avoid.'' Le
Fevre v, Crossan (Del.), 84 A. 127.
BepUcation is demurrable which seeks
to avoid a plea without first confessing
it. Clingan v. Cleveland, etc. By. Co.,
163 111. App. 568.
233-23 An afOrmatlve defense Is re-
garded as a separate plea, and in de-
termining its sufficiency all of the al-
legations of the complaint not denied
in the separate defense, even though
elsewhere denied by the answer, are
deemed admitted. Mendelson v, Mar-
gulies, 157 App. Div. 666, 142 N. Y. S.
825.
237-48 Fleas In bar.— Pleas in the
nature of confession and avoidance in-
terposed in bar of the entire action,
and not as mere denial, are bad, where
none of them answer the whole com-
plaint, as they profess to do, and at
best any one of them being an answer
to but one count thereof. Jordan v,
Emanuel, 167 Ala. 176, 52 S. 310.
237-49 Defense of illegal considera-
tion.— ^In an action on a note a defense
set up in an answer that the note was
given for an illegal consideration, %
gambling transaction, is not new mat-
ter by way of confession and avoid-
ance. Hudson V, Moon, 42 Utah 377,
130 P. 774.
238-62 Manner ot statemeni.— New
I matter alleged in an answer should be
stated in ordinary and concise ian-
Iguage, and the facts must be set out
with the same precision as the facts
. in a complaint. Vaughan V, Kujath,
44 Mont. 484. 120 P. 1121.
245-79 In an action for assignment
of dower, a plea denying each and
every allegation of the complaint, which
then sets up facts of a sale of the
land under judgment against husband,
307
Vol 5
CONSOLIDATION OF ACTIONS
and that by reason of this fact plain-
tiff has no dower interest, amounts to
a plea in confession and avoidance,
despite the general denial. Holt v,
Hanley, 245 Mo. 352, 149 S. W. 1.
V
CONSOLIDATION OF ACTIONS
250-2 To prevent multiplicity of
suits, and economy of time and costs.
Wilmer t;. Placide, 118 Md. 305, 84 A.
491.
250-3 Atkinson v. Disher, 177 Ind.
665, 98 N. E. 807.
251-7 Atkinson v. Disher, 177 Ind.
665, 98 N. E. 807; Lumiansky v, Tessier,
213 Mass. 182, 99 N. E. 1051, Ann. Cas.
1913E, 1049.
Largely in court's discretion. — ^Irmegar
r. Tazewell County, 264 111. 172, 106
N. E. 227.
252-9 Ray t?. Missouri, K. & T. By.
Co., 90 Kan. 244, 133 P. 847; Wilson
1'. Wilson, 90 Neb. 353, 133 N. W. 447,
1124.
Consolidating appeals. — An appeal from
a final judgment may be consolidated
with an appeal from an order taxing
costs on granting a continuance. r3e
Keller f?. Harrison, 151 la. 320, 131 N.
W'. 53, Ann. Cas. 1913A, 300. See elso
2 Standard Peoc. 18.
253-14 Belease of mortgage and an-
nulment of deed. — Where objects nought
to be accomplished do not conflict
causes in equity may be consolidated;
so a suit by a mortgagor for an ac-
counting anl release of mortgage and
a suit to annul a deed may be con-
solidated. Wilmer v, Placide, 118 Md.
305, 84 A. 491.
255-17 Lumiansky v. Tessier, 213
Mass. 182, 99 N. E. 1051, Ann. Cas.'
1913E, 1049.
Consolidation merely operates to carry
on together two separate suits supposed
to involve identical issues, and is in-
tended to expedite the hearing and
diminish the expense. Atkinson V. Solen-
bcrger, 112 Va. 667, 72 S. E. 727.
1^55-18 Trozzo r. P., 51 Colo. 323,
117 P. 150; Succession of Finegan, 135
La. 473, 65 S. 614.
It is discretionary with the court
whether consolidation shall be ordered.
Eealtv Const. & Mtg. Co. t?. Superior
Court", 165 Cal. 543, 132 P. 1048.
255-19 McFaddin v. S. (Tex. Civ.),
139 S. W. 991.
256-21 Fidelity, etc. Ins. Co. ••
Friedman (Ark.), 174 S. W. 215.
260-41 O'Neill t\ Lockwhit Co., 82
Misc. 383, 143 N. Y. S. 729.
262-54 Atkinson v, Disher, 177 Ind.
665, 98 N. E. 807; Midland By. Co. v.
Island Coal Co., 126 Ind. 384, 2G N. E.
68; Whitaker r. Browning (Tex. Civ.),
155 S. W. 1197.
Suit in partition and to quiet titlo may
be consolidated where parties and sub-
ject-matter are the same. Terra Ceia
Estates v, Taylor (Fla.), 67 S. 169.
263-57 Hunt Co. v. Boston El. By.
Co., 217 Mass. 319, 104 N. E. 728.
265-64 On similar insurance policies.
Or when brought by same plaintiff
against same defendant on similar in-
surance policies issued by it, covering
property in one building and destroyed
by one fire. Torpedo Top Co. v, Boyal
Ins. Co., 162 HI. App. 338.
2C5-60 Burke f?. Hodge, 211 Mass.
156, 97 N. E. 920, Ann. Cas. 1913B,
381.
Actions Cot wrongful deaths — Separate
actions brought by children for wrong-
ful death of father and by personal
representatives of deceased ate proper-
ly consolidated because Bern. & Ball.
Code, §183, creates only one cause of
action. Benson 17. English Lumb. Co.,
71 Wash. 616, 129 P. 403.
266-69 Buchner i;. Wait (Tex. Civ.),
137 S. W. 383.
266-70 Trover and soit in equity.
Action in trover may be consolidated
with en action in equity. Cooper v.
Bowen, 140 Ga. 45, 78 S. E. 413.
267-73 Lumiansky v. Tessier, 213
Mass. 182, 99 N. E. 1051, Ann. Cas.
1913E, 1049.
268-84 Antagonistic liens. — ^Heal v,
Evans Creek Coal, etc. Co., 71 Wash.
225, 128 P. 211.
272-9 Bealty Const. & Mtg. Co. r.
Superior Court, 165 Cal. 543, 132 P.
1048: Lumianskv v. Tessier, 213 Mass.
182, 99 N. E. 1051, Ann. Cas. 1913E,
1049.
Tendering issue. — ^Where action has
been consolidated, any of plaintiffs can
tender an issue and the findings thereon
bind all the parties to action. Coghlan
f . Quartararo, 15 Cal. App. 662, 115 P.
664.
274-13 Atkinson v. Solenberger, 112
Va. 667, 72 S. E. 727.
275-18 Actions continue separate zy
308
CONSPIRACY
Vol 5
far as concerns docket entries, verdicts,
judgments and all aspects save only
the one of joint trial. Lumiansky v,
Tessier, 213 Mass. 182, 99 N. E. 1051,
Ann. Cas. 1913E, 1049.
276-19 But see Fidelity, etc. Ins. Co.
r. Friedman (Ark.), 174 S. W. 215.
276-22 He$tl v, Evans Creek Coal,
etc. Co., 71 Vash. 225, 128 P. 211.
277-25 Single Judgment. ~ Where
causes are tried together with the un-
derstanding that evidence taken in one
shall apply to both, but separate find-
ings shall be submitted, a single adjudi-
cation is not error if separate decrees
are entered and court finds on facts
separately. Yerger v, Hunn, 231 Pa.
245, 80 A. 527.
Appropriate remedies must be awarded
on each suit where suits at law and
in equity are consolidated for conven-
ience of trial. Lumiansky t;. Tessier,
213 Mass. 182, 99 N. K 1051, Ann. Cas.
1913E, 1049.
277-29 Attorney fees. — Consolida-
tion does not deprive party of right
to recover legal costs already paid, or
right to which has accrued. Bealty
Const. & Mtg. Co. V, Superior Court,
165 Cal. 543, 132 P. 1048.
278-S4 Beece v. West, 145 Ky. 331,
140 S. W. 543.
278-35 Trabne v. Guaranty State
Bank (Tex. Civ.), 173 S. W. 612.
278-38 Bealty Const. & Mtg. Co. v.
Superior Court, 165 Cal. 543, 132 P.
1048; Hilgers r. Tazewell County, 264
111. 399, 106 N. E. 229; Irmegar v. Taze-
well County, 264 111. 172, 106 N. E.
227; Beadicker v. Denning, 86 Kan.
617, 122 P. 103, rev. on other points, 87
Kan. 523, 125 P. 29; Tiefel Bros. v.
Maxwell (Tex. Civ.), 154 S. W. 319;
Brasfield v. Young (Tex. Civ.), 153 S.
W. 180; McFaddin v. S. (Tex. Civ.),
139 S. W. 991; Bolden v. Hughes, 48
Tex. Civ. 496, 107 S. W. 93; Castle v.
Castle, 69 W. Va. 400, 71 S. E. 385;
Whalen v. Eagle Lime Products Co.,
155 Wis. 26, 143 N. W. 689; Eau Claire
Fuel & S. Co. V. Laycock, 92 Wis. 81,
65 N. W. 732.
270-39 Torpedo Top Co. V. Eoyal
Ins. Co., 162 111. App. 338.
279-40 Torpedo Top Co. iJ. Boyal
Ins. Co., 162 HI. App. 338; Butler v.
Secrist, 92 Neb. 506, 138 N. W. 749;
Brasfleld v. Young (Tez. Civ.), 153 S.
• W. 180.
CONSPIRACY
-1 Mitchell r, Hitchman Coal &
Coke Co., 214 Fed. 685, 131 C. C. A.
425; Lawlor v, Loewe, 209 Fed. 721,
126 C. C. A. 445; Hedderly f?. U. S.,
193 Fed. 561, 114 C. C. A. 227; Ex
parte Hyde, 194 Fed. 207; Veriden t\
McLeod, 180 Mich. 182, 146 N. W. 619;
Clarkson v, Laiblan, 178 Mo. App. 708,-
161 S. W. 660; Washmood t?. U. S., 10
Okla. Cr. 254, 136 P. 184; Bausbach v.
Eeiff, 244 Pa. 559, 92 A. 224.
282-2 Beprivlng United States of
lawful duties^ — ^Indictment for con-
spiracy to commit the offense, defined
by §9 of the Customs Administrative
Act, 26 St. at L. 135 (IT. S. Comp.
St., 1901, p. 1895), held sufficient.
Heike v. U. S., 192 Fed. 83, 112 C. C.
A. 615.
Conspiracy to cheat and defraud insur-
ance company. — Indictment held suffi-
cient. P. V. Darr, 170 111. App. 130.
Conspiracy to defraud by means of post-
office. — ^Bequisites of indictment for
violation of U. S. Bev. St., §5480 (U.
S. Comp. St., 1901, p. 3696) stated. Ex
parte Kinf?, 200 Fed. 622; Dufour t?.
U. S., 37 App. Cas. (D. C.) 497.
283-4 Hedderly t?. U. S., 193 Fed.
561.
U. S. I?. Cella, 37 App. Cas.
(D. C.) 423, writ of certiorari denied,
Cella V. U. S., 223 U. S. 728, 32 Sup.
Ct. 526, 56 L. ed. 633.
284-G U. S. 17. Wupperman, 215 Fed.
135.
-18 U. S. V. Cella, 37 App. Cas.
(D. C.) 423, writ of certiorari denied,
Cella V. V. S., 223 U. S. 728, 32 Sup.
Ct. 526, 66 L. ed. 633.
288-20 Time of conspiracy need not
be alleged. S. v, Unsworth, 85 N. J.
L. 237, 88 A. 1097.
289-22 TJ. S. V. Cella, 37 App. Cas.
(D. C.) 423, writ of certiorari denied,
Cella <?. U. S., 223 U. S. TiiS, 32 Sup.
Ct. 526, 56 L. ed. 633.
200-24 The text applies ari well to
a preliminary complaint. P; r. Tor-
rellas, 10 P. B. 514.
When acts set out constitute other and
distinct crimes. — ^When an indictment
charging the defendants with the crime
of conspiracy to cheat and defraud the
state of New York out of money by
criminal means and false pretenses sefs
forth in detail, the acts, devices and
schemes alleged to have been committed
300
Vol. 5 CONSTRUCTION AND TBEORT OF PLEADINGS
and employed by defendants in plan-
ning and consummating the conspiracy,
the fact that said acts, devices and
schemes may have constituted other
and distinct crimes does not invalidate
the indictment, nor is it good ground
of demurrer that the facts alleged con-
stitue the crime of larceny. P. v» Dun-
bar Contracting Co., 82 Misc. 174. 143
N. Y. S. 337.
Offense which Is object of conspiracy
must be described with sufficient par-
ticularity. IT. S. V. Wupperman, 215
Fed. 135.
A conspiracy to obtain money by false
pretenses sufficiently stated as a con-
spiracy ''to obtain money or property
by false pretenses." P. v, Warfield,
261 HI. 293, 103 K. E. 979.
201-26 n. S. V. Shevlin, 212 Fed.
343; U. S. V, Cella, 37 App. Cas. (D. C.)
423, writ of certiorari denied, Cella v.
U. S., 223 U. S. 728, 32 Sup. Ct. 526,
66 L. ed. 633; P. t?. Warfield, 261 111.
293, 103 N. E. 979; S. V. Madden (la.),
148 N. W. 995.
The crime which is the object of the
conspiracy need only be named in gen-
eral terms. 8. «. Poder, 154 la. 686,
135 N. W. 421.
296-33 Allen v. S. (Ind.), 107 N. E.
471.
300-44 Intent to commit crime which
Is object of conspiracy. — Indictment
for a conspiracy to commit a felony
need not allege a criminal intent to
commit such felony, the intent to com-
mit the felony being no part of the
crime charged in the indictment. P.
V. Poindexter, 243 111. 68, 90 N. E. 261.
800-45 In conspiracy to obtain money
by false pretenses, the intent to ''cheat
and defraud" is sufficiently alleged if
such intent is expressed in equivalent
words. P. V. Warfield, 172 HI. App. 1.
800-46 U. S. T. Shevlin, 212 Fed.
343; P. t?. Darr, 179 111. App. 130.
Use of mails to defraud. — ^The indict-
ment should set forth a scheme, artifice,
plot, or plan, which, if executed, would
defraud some one, or obtain money or
property by means of the pretenses,
etc., alleged. IT. S. f?. Wupperman, 215
Fed. 135.
303-49 P. r. Darr, 179 HI. App. 130.
805-53 S. V. Mardesich, 79 Wash.
204, 140 P. 573.
305-54 Chaplin t?. U. S., 193 Fed.
879, 114 C. C. A. 93; Smith v. S., 8
Ala. App. 187, 62 S. 575; P. v. Pouchot,
174 111. App. 1; S. V. Poder, 154 la.
686, 135 N. W. 421.
306-58 U. S. V. Wupperman, 215
Fed. 135; P. V, Johnson, 22 Cal. App.
362, 134 P. 339.
Conspiracy to commit a crime against
the United States requires an overt
act. Byan v. IT. S., 216 Fed. 13, 132
C. C. A. 257.
307-59 Not necessary to allege overt
acts effective, nor in what manner the
act described would tend to effect the
object of the conspiracy. U. S. r. Shev-
lin, 212 Fed. 343.
308-62 U. S. V. Wupperman, 215 Fed.
135.
319-11 Ko conviction as to single
conspirator^— Of several persons in-
dicted one cannot be convicted unless
one or both the others are proved
guilty. P. V. Pouchot, 174 111. App. 1.
Where indictment charges three per-
sons with conspiracy, not necessary
that proof show that all are guilty,
but sufficient if proof shows guilt of
two, then the charge as to the other is
surplusage. Breese i). U. S., 203 Fed.
824, 122 C. C. A. 142.
320-14 Where it appears that there
are four defendants indicted, but only
three on trial, the jury cannot convict
the absent defendant as one of two
conspirators, but it may, if the evi-
dence so satisfy it, convict one of the
defendants on trial of conspiracy with
the absent one, while acquitting the
other two. C. v. Beard, 48 Pa. Super.
319.
322-26 Kruegel if. Murphy (Tex.
Civ.), 168 S. W. 983.
323-30 Barrow v. Briggs, 261 Mo.
244, 169 S. W. H8.
325-33 Darrow v. Briggs, 261 Mo.
244, 169 S. W. 118.
328-37 Darrow t?. Briggs, 261 Mo-
244, 169 S. W. 118.
331-44 Nickerson v. Glines (Mass.),
107 N. E. 942.
333-50 Hansen v. NicoU, 40 App.
Cas. (D. C.) 228.
OOKSTBTJOnON AND THEOBY OF
PLEADINOS
336-5 McGowln v. Dickson, 182 Ala.
361, 62 S. 685; Capital Sec. Co. v. Hol-
land, 6 Ala. App. 197, 60 S. 495.
336-6 Zeigler v. Zeigler, 180 Al%«
810
COXSTRUCTION AND THEORY OF PLEADINGS Vol f:
246, 60 S. 810; Trask t\ Karrick, 87 Vt.
451, 89 A. 472.
336-7 Southern Rv. Co. v. French
Lick, 52 Ind. App. 447, 100 N. E. 762.
336-8 Derosia v. Ferland, 86 Vt. 15,
83 A. 271.
337-10 Where the Intent of the
pleader Is plain, and he uses the cus-
tomary legal formulas judges should
not split hairs and throw him out of
court. Smith r. Metropolitan Life Ins.
Co., 79 Misc. 550, 140 N. Y. S. 327.
337-11 Quigley v. King, 182 Mo.
App. 196, 168 S. W. 285.
337-13 See Cleveland, etc. Ry. Co.
r. Oesterling (Ind.), 103 N. E. 401.
337-14 S»e Martin r. Palmer, 156
App. Div. 327, 141 N. Y. S. 396.
338-15 When allegation of time in
a complaint is uncertain it will be
construed to refer to a date most favor-
able to defendant. Thorwarth v,
Blanchard, 86 Vt. 296, 85 A. 6.
338-17 Lester v. Hutson (Tex. Civ.),
167 S. W. 321.
338-25 See Crancer Company v.
Combs, 94 Neb. 655, 144 N. W. 251, rev,
95 Neb. 403, 145 N. W. 863.
338-26 Goode v. Central Coal & Coke
Co., 167 Mo. App. 169, 151 S. W. 508.
339-27 Friedlander 17. Rapley, 38
App. Cas. (D. C.) 208.
339-31 Southern Ry. Co. v. French
Lick, 62 Ind. App. 447, 100 N. E. 762.
340-32 Wickersham Co. V. Nichols,
22 Cal. App. 731, 136 P. 511.
340-33 General rules of interpreta-
tion may be resorted to to ascertain
the meaning and legal effect of plead-
ings. McCray r. G. Craig & Sons, 70
W. Va. 735, 75 S. E. 79.
340-35 Sessinghaus Mill. Co. T.
Hanebrink, 247 Mo. 212, 152 S. W. 354,
Ann. Cas. 1914B, 875.
341-48 Evansville, etc. Co. v. Hoff-
man (Ind. App.), 105 N. E. 788; F.
Bimel Co. v. Harter, 51 Ind. App. 267,
98 N. E. 360; Butcher v. Greene, 50 Ind.
App. 692, 98 N. E. 876; Clark v. Gen-
eral Motor Car Co., 177 Mo. App. 623,
160 S. W. 576; Southern Kansas By.
Co. V. Crutchfield (Tex. Civ.), 165 S.
W. 551; Ft. Worth, etc. By. Co. V.
Keeran (Tex. Civ.), 149 S. W. 355.
Specific allegations control. — ^If a gen-
eral charge of negligence is followed
by an allegation of specific facts, the
latter govern the conclusions of negli-
gence. Gynthcr r. Brown, 67 Or. 310,
134 P. 1186.
Facts control conclusions. — Where
pleader states a conclusion and also
sets out the facts, the former must
yield to the latter. Louisville & N. R.
Co. r. National Park Bank (Ala.), 65
S. 1003.
342-52 Evansville, etc. Co. t?. Hoff-
man (Ind. App.), 105 N. E. 788.
342-5fl McCormick v. Smith, 23 Ida.
487, 130 P. 999; Domestic Block Coal
Co. r. De Armey, 179 Ind. 592, 100 N.
E. 675, 102 N. E. 99; Crotty v. Erie
B. Co., 149 App. Div. 262, 133 N. Y.
S. 696.
An averment that defendant knew or
should have known of a certain de-
fect is an implied averment that such
defect existed. Roberts v, Pendleton,
92 Kan. 847, 142 P. 289.
Court on appeal will indulge such in-
ference in aid of the pleading. Judah
r. Cheyne Electric Co., 63 Ind. App.
476, 101 N. E. 1039.
343-55 Shellhouse «. Field, 49 Ind.
App. 659, 97 N. E. 940.
343-56 Southern Ry. Co. f>. Hanby,
183 Ala. 255, 62 S. 87X; Ewart Lumb.
Co. V. American Cement Plaster Co., 9
Ala. App. 152, 62 S. 560.
"A replication, like other pleadings,
while it is to be construed most strong-
ly against the pleader, is yet to be
construed fairly and in the light of,
and with reference generally to, the
other pleading, and particularly to the
allegations of the plea it purports to
answer." Mobile Light & R. Co. v,
Drooks (Ala. App.), 66 S. 824.
343-57 Moss v. King (Ala.), 65 S.
180; Mauldin v. Central Ga. Ry. Co.,
181 Ala. 591, 61 S. 947; Birmingham
Ry., etc. Co. r. Nicholas, 181 Ala. 491,
61 S. 361; Birmingham Ry., etc. Co.
V. M'Leod, 9 Ala. App. 637, 64 S. 193;
German- American Nat. Bank v. Lewis,
9 Ala. App. 352, 63 S. 741; Standard
Phosphate Co. r. Lunn, 66 Fla. 220, 63
S. 429; First Nat. Bank v. Ulmer, 66
Fla. 68, 63 S. 145; Merrill-Stevens Co.
17. Durkee, 62 Fla. 549, 57 S. 42S; Small
r. TidwoU, 142 Ga. 496, 83 S. E. 12G;
Bailey v. Freeman, 140 Ga. 71, 78 S.
E. 423; Van Sant V. Rose, 260 111. 401,
103 N. E. 194, 49 L. R. A. (N. S.)
186, af. 174 111. App. 3S9; Kelleher v,
Chicago Citv Rv. Co., 256 HI. 454, 100
N. E. 145, rn\ 167 111. App. 325; Oaldon
V. Nat. Malleable Casting Co., 182 111.
311
Vol. 5 CONSTRUCTION AND THEORY OF PLEADINGS
App. 458; Roxsej v. St. Louis & S. By.
Co., 171 111. App. 109; Schaffner t;.
State Board, 163 111. App. 505; Hall v.
Huffman, 159 Ky. 72, 166 S. W. 770;
Woodruif v. Shea, 152 Ky. 657, 153 S.
W. 1005; Samuels r. Louisville Ry. Co.,
151 Ky. 90, 151 S. W. 37; Reid v. Lyttle,
150 Ky. 304, 150 S. W. 357; Odom v.
Gulf & S. I. R. Co., 101 Miss. 642, 57
S. 626; Murphy v. Patten (N. J. L.),
85 A. 56; Broussard v, Mayumi (Tex.
Civ.), 144 S. W. 320.
344-59 Libby v. Olcott, 66 Or. 124,
134 P. 13.
344-60 Zeigler v. Zeigler, 180 Ala.
246, 60 S. 810; Randolph V. Vails, 180
Ala. 82, 60 S. 159; Norton v, Randolph,
176 Ala. 381, 58 S. 283. Ann. Cas. 1915A,
714, 40 L. R. A. (N S.) 129; Eldredge v.
Mutual Life Ins. Co., 217 Mass. 444,
105 N. E. 361; Bowker V. Torrey, 211
Mass. 282, 97 N. E. 770.
345-67 Eldredge v. Mutual Life Ins.
Co., 217 Mass. 444, 105 N. E. 361 ; Bow-
ker t?. Torrey, 211 Mass. 282, 97 N. E.
770.
345-68 Libby v, Olcott, 66 Or. 124,
134 P. 13.
That acts, were not done will be pre-
sumed where such acts were not al-
leged to have been done and it is
necessary that they should be done.
Pletcher v. Board of Education, 85 N.
J. L. 1, 88 A. 834.
346-76 Pavlovich V. Pavlovich, 22
CaL App. 500, 135 P. 303; Kahle v.
Crown OU Co., 180 Ind. 131, 100 N. E.
681; Powers v. Universal Film Mfg.
Co., 162 App. Biv. 806, 148 N. Y. S.
114; Kalt Lumb. Co. v. Bupfgnac, 150
App. Div. 400, 134 N. Y. S. 1098;
Ruderman v, Bloch, 145 N. Y. S. 913;
Ryan v, Grissinger, 136 N. Y. S. 134;
Hoke V, Glenn, 167 N. C. 594, 83 S. E.
807; Lyon t?. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.,
165 N. C. 143, 81 8. E. 1; Brady t?.
Brady, 161 N. C. 324, 77 S. E. 235, 44
L. R. A. (N. S.) 279; Gregory v. Pin-
nix, 158 N. C. 147, 73 S. E. 814; First
Nat. Bank v. Messner, 25 N, D. 263,
141 N. W. 999; Dunlap v, Chicago, etc.
By. Co., 32 S. D. 581, 144 N. W. 226;
Wood D. General Ry. Signal Co. (Wis.),
151 K W. 269; Laun t\ Kipp, 155 Wis.
347, 145 N. W. 183; Burnham v. Mil-
waukee, 155 Wis. 90, 143 N. W. 1067;
Stinnett f>. Noggle, 148 Wis. 603, 135
N W. 167.
Denials. — ^Rules requiring liberal con-
atruction not applicable to denials.
PuUen V, Seaboard Trading Co. (App.
Div.), 150 N. Y. S. 719.
347-78 Page f?. United Traction Co.,
161 App. Biv. 383, 146 N. Y. S. 530;
Higby V. Kirksey (Tex. Civ.), 163 S.
W. 315.
348-79 Wadin v. Czuczka (Ariz.),
146 P. 491; Burnham t?. Milwaukee, 155
Wis. 90, 143 N. W. 1067.
348-80 Machomich Mercantile Co. v.
Hiekey, 15 Ariz. 421, 140 P. 63; Gus
Blass Dry Goods Co. i^. Reinman, 102
Ark. 287, 143 S. W. 1087; PoUitz f?.
Wabash R. Co., 207 N. Y. 113, 100 N. E.
721, mod. 150 App. Div. 715, 135 N.
Y. S. 789; Hoke v. Glenn, 167 N. C. 594,
83. S. E. 807; Dunlap v. Chicago, etc.
Ry. Co., 32 S. D. 681, 144 N. W. 226;
Texas-Mexican Ry. Co. i?. Reed (Tex.
Civ.), 165 S. W. 4; San Antonio v.
Bodeman (Tex. Civ.), 163 S. W. 1043;
Adkins V. Heard (Tex. Civ.), 163 S.
W. 127; Blum r. Kusenberger (Tex.
Civ.), 158 S. W. 779; Ind. & Ohio Live
Stock Ins. Co. V. Smith (Tex. Civ.),
157 S. W. 755; Boaz v. Ferrell (Tex.
Civ.), 152 S. W. 200; National Lumb.,
etc. Co. r. Maris (Tex. Civ.), 151 S. W.
325; Burns 1?. Russell Bros. (Tex. Civ.),
146 S. W. 707; Gibbens t?. Bourland
(Tex. Civ.), 145 S. W. 274; Pulp Wood
Co. V, Green Bay Paper & Fiber Co.,
157 Wis. 604, 147 N. W. 1058; Downer
r. Tubbs, 152 Wis. 177, 139 N. W. 820.
Proper test of a pleading is not what
the pleader claims to be his right on
the facts, but the justice of his case
on all the facts expressly stated, sup-
plemented by all which appear by rea-
sonable inference, giving to the plead-
ing the most liberal construction it
will fairly bear in favor of the plead-
er. S. f?. Steber, 154 Wis. 605, 143 N.
W. 156.
349-81 Hoke v. Glenn, 167 N. C. 594,
83 S. E. 807; Fidelity Trust Co. v.
Davis Trust Co. (W. Va.), 83 S. E. 59;
Anderson v. Prince, 60 W. Va. 557, 55
S. E. 656; Knox v. Horner, 68 W. Va.
136, 51 S. E. 979.
350-83 See Atwood v. Rose, 32 Okla.
355, 122 P. 929.
350-84 See Capital Security Co. v,
Holland, 6 Ala. App. 197, 60 S. 495.
351-87 Basler f^. Sacramento Elec-
tric, etc. Co., 166 Cal. 33, 134 P. 993.
351-88 Bryant v. Modem Woodmen,
94 Neb. 380, 143 N. W. 331.
351-89 Fink f?. Cleveland, etc. Rv.
Co. rind.), 105 N. E. 116; Schaefer v.
su
CONSTRUCTION AND THEORY OF PLEADINGS Vol. 5
Hinea (Ind. App.), 102 N. E. 838;
Pittsburgh, etc. B. Co. f?. Cottman, 52
Ind. App. 661, 101 N. E. 22; Croan i?.
Myers, 52 Ind. App. 143, 100 N. E.
880; Grand Trunk Western Ry. Co. r.
Porter, 49 Ind. App. 692, 97 N. E.
1040; Sbenk 17. Btahl, 35 Ind. App. 493-
498, 74 N. E, 538.
352-90 Cox V. Baltimore & 0. S. W.
R. Co., 180 Ind. 495, 103 N. E. 337, 60
L. B. A. (N. S.) 453; Libby v. Olcott,
66 Or. 124, 134 P. 13.
352-91 Meizell v. American Motor
Car Sales Co., 181 Ind. 153, 103 N. E.
1071.
If non-delivery of a deed is insufficient-
ly alleged it may be assumed that there
was some sort of a delivery qualified or
otherwise. Fisher v, Fisher, 23 Cal.
App. 310, 137 P. 1094.
Preaumptlons against a pleading relate
only to the facts necessary to consti-
tute a cause of action, and not to facts
tending to disclose an affirmative de-
fense. Esplenlaub r. Hedderick, 52
Ind. App. 139, 100 N. E. 382.
352-95 Enjoining official acts. — ^An
officer will not be restrained by injunc-
tion from performance of an official
duty, Aud in construing the pleadings
the averments will be strictly con-
strued, and every reasonable inference
will be indulged in favor of the legality
of the act sought to be restrained.
Marion County v, Perkins Bros. Co.
(Tex. Cfiv.), 171 S. W. 7^.
358-97 Gurganus v. Brown, 184 Ala.
530, 63 S. 537; DuBois V, Padgham,
18 CaL App. 298, 123 P. 207.
353-1 Hoehler v. Short, 40 Okla.
681, 140 P. 146.
Under Alabama code in an action on
an official bond all doubts and intend-
ments are in favor of rather than
against the sufficiency of the cbmplaint,
and the attack on the judgment is
general. American Bonding Co. v. New
York ft Mexican Whiting Co. (Ala.),
66 S. 847.
353-2 Macrill v. Hartington, 93 Neb.
670, 141 N. W. 825; McGrath Const.
Co. V, Waupaca-Green Bay Ry. Co., 148
Wis. 372, 134 N. W. 824.
353-3 Barker v, Moodie, 92 Kan.
566, 141 P. 562; Rotzien-Furber Lumb.
Co. V. Franson, 123 Minn. 122, 143 N.
W. 253; Christofferson v. Wee, 24 N. D.
506, 139 N. W. 689.
354-7 Robertson r. Corcoran, 125
Hinn« 118, 145 N. W. 812.
356-15 Rotzien-Furber Co. t;. Fran-
son, 123 Minn. 122, 143 N. W. 253.
356-18 Garstang v. Skinner, 165 Cal.
721, 134 P. 329; Indianapolis Tract.
Co. V. Kidd, 167 Ind. 402, 79 N. E.
347, 7 L. R. A. (N. S.) 143; Spencer
Light, etc. Co. v. Wilson (Ind. App.)»
104 N. E. 94; Washburn-Crosby Milling
Co. V. Brown (Ind. App,), 104 N. E.
997; Oliver Typewriter Co. t?. Vance,
48 Ind. App. 21, 95 N. E. 327; Quigley
1?. King, 182 Mo. App. 196, 168 8. W.
285; Cantrell v, Davidson, 180 Mo. App.
410, 168 S. W. 271; Miller v. Klein, 177
Mo. App. 557, 160 S. W. 562; Finer V.
Nichols, 175 Mo. App. 525, 157 8. W.
1023; Peterie v. Metropolitan St. Ry.
Co., 177 Mo. App. 359, 164 8. W. 254;
Benvir v. Park, 169 Mo. App. 335, 152
S. W. 604; Goode v. Central Coal &
Coke Co., 167 Mo. App. 169, 151 8. W.
508; Smith v. Wabash R. Co., 129 Mo.
App. 413, 107 8. W. 22; Burgeson v.
Schultz, 96 Neb. 553, 148 N. W. 157;
American Case & Register Co. f. Catch-
pole, 93 Neb. 276, 140 N. W. 145;
Omaha Nat. Bank v. Kiper, 60 Neb.
33, 82 N. W. 102; State Bank of Com-
merce v. Western Union Tel. Co. (N.
M.), 142 P. 156; Trown Shoe Co. v.
Cuff, 37 Okla. 776, 132 P. 1090; Cook
r. S., 35 Okla. 653, 130 P. 300; Neil-
son V. Edwards, 34 S. D. 399, 148 N.
W. 844; Arrowsmith V. Nelson, 73 Wash.
658, 132 P. 743.
But an omitted material fact cannot be
supplied by intendment. O 'Toole i\
Loewenstein, 177 Mo. App. 662, 160
S. W. 1016.
357-23 Williams v. Lyon, 181 Ala.
531, 6.1 S. 299; Martinez v. Martinez,
57 Colo. 292, 141 P. 469; Halstead v.
Dean & Co. (Ind.), 105 N. E. 903; Lake
Erie & W. R. Co. v, Barnett (Ind.
App.), 105 N. E. 931; McGlone v,
Hauger (Ind. App.), 104 N. E. 116;
McKinley v, Britton, 55 Ind. App. 21,
109 N. E. 349; Indiana Life Endow.
Co. r. Reed, 54 Ind. App. 450, 103
N. E. 77; Citizens' Tel. Co. t\ Fort
Wavne & S. Ry. Co., 53 Ind. App. 230,
IOO'N. E. 309.
358-24 McGlone v. Hauger (Ind.
App.), 104 N. E. 116; McKinley <?. Brit-
ton, 55 Ind. App. 21, 103 N. E. 349;
Indiana Life Endow. Co. v. Reed, 54
Ind. App. 450, 103 N. E. 77.
359-29 Cincinnati, etc. Ry. Co. V.
Simpson (Ind.), 104 N. E. 301; Muncie,
etc. Traction Co. t?. Citizens* Gas, etc.
Co., 179 Ind. 322, 100 N. E. 65; Evans-
818
Vol 5
CONTEMPT
ville Furniture Co. v. Freeman (Ind.
App.), 105 N. E. 258; McKinley t\ Brit-
ton, 55 Ind. App. 21, 103 N. E. 349;
Ind. Life Endow. Co. r. Reed, 54 Ind.
App. 450, 103 N. E. 77; Southern Ry.
Co. V. Friedley, 52 Ind. App. 192, 100
N. E. 481; Runkle r. Pullin, 49 Ind.
App. 619, 97 N. E. 956.
359-30 Muncie & P. Traction Co. v.
Citizens' Gas, etc. Co., 179 Ind. 322,
100 N. E. 65; Lake Erie & W. R. Co.
V. Barnett (Ind. App.), 105 N. E. 931;
Osborn r. Adams Brick Co., 52 Ind.
App. 175, 99 N. E. 530, 100 N. E. 472.
359-31 Cincinnati, etc. Ry. Co. '«.
Simpson (Ind.), 104 N. E. 301; South-
ern Ry. Co. V, Friedley, 52 Ind. App.
192, 100 N. E. 481.
359-34 Stockton r. Pancoast, 178
Ind. 203, 98 N. E. 122; Goecker v. Mc-
Osker, 177 Ind. 607, 98 N. E. 724;
Crawfordsville Trust Co. v, Ramsey
(Ind.), 98 N. E. 177; Brown-Ketcham
Iron Works r. Swift Co., 53 Ind. App.
630, 100 N. E. 584, 860; Lester t\ Hut-
son (Tex. Civ.), 167 S. W. 321; Hotch-
kin V. McNaught-Collins Imp. Co., 67
Wash. 206, 121 P. 455.
360-41 Lester r. Hutson (Tex. Civ.),
167 Q. W. 321.
361-42 Crawfordsville Trust Co. v.
Ramsey, 178 Ind. 258, 98 N. E. 177;
Stockton V, Pancoast, 178 Ind. 203, 98
N. E. 122; Goecker v, McOsker, 177
Ind. 607, 98 N. E. 724; Brown-Ketcham
Iron Works v. Swift Co., 53 Ind. App.
630, 100 N. E. 584, 860; S. i?. Barnett,
245 Mo. 99, 149 S. W. 311.
361-48 Where there is more than one
theory of the complaint it should be
tried on the one most clearly author-
ized by the facts. Lake Erie & W. R.
Co. r. Barnett (Ind. App.), 105 N. E.
931.
362-62 Loy r. Reid, 11 Ala. App.
231, 65 S. 855; Blanc «?. Connor, 167
Cal. 719, 141 P. 217; Nat. Union Fire
Ins. Co. V, Nason, 21 Cal. App. 297,
131 P. 755; Harrell i?. Neill (Ind.
App.), 105 N. E. 926; Chicago, I. &
L. Ry. Co. r. Myers (Ind. App.), 105
N. E. 645; Evansville Furniture Co.
V, Freeman (Ind. App.), 105 N. E. 258;
Egan V, Louisville, etc. Traction Co., 55
Ind. App. 423, 103 N. E. 1100; Euler
<?. Euler, 55 Ind. App. 547, 102 N. E.
856; Guthrie Ice Co. t?. Selby (Ta.),
147 N. W. 923; Preston v. Nat. Bank,
169 Mich. 571, 135 N. W. 278: McFall
17. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., 181 Mo. App.
244, 168 S. W. 344; Allen v, Quercud
Lumb. Co., 171 Mo. App. 492, 157 S. W.
661; Race r. Krum, 163 App. Div. 924,
147 N. Y. S. 818. But see Yazoo &
M. V. B. Co. 17. Hawkins, 104 Miss. 55,
61 S. 451.
OONTEMPT
366-2 A contempt may consist in
''speaking or writing contemptuously
of the court or judges acting in their
judicial capacity" and need not relate
to a cause still pending in court. In
re Fite, 11 Ga, App. 665, 76 S. E. 397.
Letters to Inflnence Judicial action.
One addressing a letter to the supreme
court endeavoring to influence a de-
cision to be rendered is guilty of con-
tempt when he is not a party in the
case. In re Rojas, 17 P. B. 1055.
Inserting proTisions in decree.— -It is
contempt for a solicitor to insert any
provision, though immaterial, in a de-
cree signed by a chancellor. In re P.,
83 N. J. Eq. 390, 91 A. 326.
366-4 Disobedience of void orders is
not a contempt. Ex parte Le Hardv,
17 P. R. 985; Coll v, Leake, 17 P. R.
823.
Order not addressed to party. — One can-
not be punished for contempt for dis-
obedience to an order of court not ad-
dressed to him. The disobedience con-
templated by the code is a failure or
refusal to obey a direct judicial order
and not one merely declaratory of the
rights of the parties. U. S. v. Ramay-
rat, 22 Phil. Isl. 183.
Befosal to desist in an argument before
jury in questions of law after being told
to do 80 by the court is not a contempt.
Ex parte Bullington (Tex. Cr.), 145 8.
W. 1190.
367-5 P. r. Seymour, 191 HI. App.
381; Ex parte Mettler (Mont.), 146 P.
747; Burnett v. S., 8 Okla. Cr. 639, 129
P. 1110, 47 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1175;
Narcida v. Bowen, 22 Phil. Isl. 365.
Refusal to answer before grand Jury is
a direct criminal contempt. In re Y.
Anin, 17 Haw. 336.
Inducing witness to leave^ — ^Inducing a
witness, waiting in adjoining hallway
to testify, to go away from courthouse
is a direct contempt committed in the
presence of the court. P. v, Jackson,
178 m. App. 121.
Perjury on witness stand is a criminal
contempt. In re Ulmer, 208 Fed. 461.
314
CONTEMPT
Vol 5
M7-7 The filing of a pitltion in vol-
lutary bankruptcy by a judgment
debtor upon whom an order in supple-
mentary proceedings has been served
and is pending is not contempt. Norton
V. Bielby, 86 Misc. 644, 149 N. Y. S.
592.
367-8 P. V. Seymour, 191 111. App.
381; Durham v. S., 97 Miss. 549, 52 S.
627; Ex parte Mettler (Mont), 146 P.
747; Greason v. Cumberland Ey. Co., 54
Pa. Super. 595; Narcida v, Bowen, 22
Phil. Isl. 365.
Destmctlon of a petition and order of
court made thereon is a contempt. In
re S., 83 N. J. Eq. 607, 91 A. 801.
Evading service of subpoena is a con-
structive contempt. Aarons v, S., 105
Miss. 402, 62 S. 419.
368-11 In re Dingley (Mich.), 148 N.
W. 218; Ex parte Sullivan, 10 Okla. Cr.
465, 138 P. 815.
368-13 In re Ulmer, 208 Fed. 461;
Bryan t\ S., 99 Ark. 163, 137 S. W.
561, Ann. Cas. 1913A, 908; In re Camp-
bell, 2 Haw. 27; McDougall v, Sheridan,
23 Ida. 191, 128 P. 954; P. v, Seymour,
191 111. App. 381; In re Dingley (Mich.),
148 N. W. 218; In re Ellison, 256 Mo.
378, 165 S. W. 987; In re Barnes, 204 N.
Y. 108, 97 N. E. 508, aff. 132 N. Y. S.
908; Hayes v, Hayes, 150 App. Div. 842,
135 N. Y. S. 225; Archer v. Turbo-Elec-
tric Const. Co., 86 Misc. 310, 149 N. Y.
S. 200; In re Brown (N. C), 84 8. E.
690; S. t?. Davis, 9 Okla. Cr. 94, 130
P. 962; Burnett v. S., 8 Okla. Cr. 639,
129 P. 1110; In re Decker, 1 P. R.
Fed. 381; Graham v, Williamson, 128
Tenn. 720, 164 8. W. 781.
Power to punish. — ^Before court may fine
for contempt, he must have jurisdiction
of subject matter, and of the person,
and authority to render judgment upon
facts adduced. Ex parte Coffee, 72 Tex.
Cr. 209, 161 8. W. 975.
In Utah ceurts of general and superior
jurisdiction possess inherent power. In
re Evans, 42 Utah 282, 130 P. 217, rev,
22 Utah 366, 62 P. 913, 83 Am. St. 794,
53 L. R. A. 952.
Municipal coiirts, though not courts of
record, may punish direct contempts.
Ex parte Pesquera, 17 P. R. 706.
The circuit court has such power. In
te Dingley (Mich.), 148 N. W. 218.
Courts of dtiancery and other courts
without criraina' jurisdiction. Mer-
chants' Stock, etc. Co. V, Board of
Trade, 201 Fed. 20, 120 C C. A. 582.
A mayor of unincorporated city having
powers and jurisdiction of justice of
peace can only punish for contempt in
his presence or in disobedience of pro-
cess. Ex parte Patterson, 110 Ark. 94,
161 8. W. 173.
369-14 See Rothschild & Co. t\ Ste-
ger Piano Mfg. Co., 256 111. 196, 99 N.
E. 920, Ann. Cas. 1913E, 276, 42 L. R.
A. (N. 8.) 793.
370-15 In re Pite, 11 Ga. App. 665,
76 S. E. 397; In re Brown (N. C), 84
8. E. 690; Graham r. Williamson, 128
Tenn. 720, 164 8. W. 781.
Misstatement made before another
Judge is not contempt of the court in
which action is pending. P. t?. Grogan,
178 111. App. 314.
That proceedings to oust judge were
pending does not alter the rule. 8. v.
McDonough, 117 Minn. 173, 134 N. W.
509.
371-18 Hanbury v. Benedict, 160
App. Div. 662, 146 N. Y. 8. 44.
371-19 Power of bankruptcy court.
While the court may punish for a crim-
inal attempt one who wilfully disobeys
an order to pay over money to another
or who has disabled himself from com-
plying, it has no legal power to try to
enforce such order in aid of party tG
whom the money is to be paid by civil
contempt proceedings resulting in a de-
cree committing the contemner to jail
until compliance with order, unless the
evidence in the contempt proceedings
clearly demonstrates a present ability
and a wilful refusal to obey. Freed r.
Central Trust Co., 215 Fed. 873, 132 C.
0. A. 7.
In issuance of search warrant the Uni-
ted States commissioner does not act
judicially. 8ee In re Chin K. 8hue, 199
Fed. 282.
372-21 Merchants' Stock, etc. Co. v.
Board of Trade, 201 Fed. 20, 120 C. C.
A. 582; Alfred v. Alfred, 87 Vt. 542, 90
A. 580. But see Ex parte Steiner, 202
Fed. 419, 124 C. C. A. 89, where it was
held that under judicial code, §§299,
300, the district court had power to
punish a contempt of the circuit court.
372-23 Merchants' Stock, etc. Co. v.
Board of Trade, 201 Fed. 20, 120 C. C.
A. 5^2. But see Nichols i?. 8., 8 Okla.
Cr. 550, 129 P. 673.
Ordinarily a change of venue is not al-
lowed. In re Brown (N. C), 84 8. E.
690.
815
Vol 5
CONTEMPT
372-24 McDougall v. Sheridan, 23
Ida. 191, 128 P. 954.
Legislature has no power to regulate
punishment for contempt in disobedi-
ence of process. Bryan v. S., 99 Ark.
163, 137 S. W. 561, Ann. Cas. 1913A,
908; Ford r. S., 69 Ark. 550, 64 S. W.
879.
373-25 Hewitt v. S., 12 Ga. App.
168, 76 S. E. 1054; In re Brown (N. C),
84 S. E. 690.
374-26 Hewitt v, S., 12 Ga. App. 168,
76 S. E. 1054.
The Inherent power to punish for con-
tempt must be exercised as prescribed
by the statutes and is limited by the
bounds fixed by the legislative author-
ity. Coll V. Leake, 17 P. R, 823.
375-28 McDougall v. Sheridan, 23
Ida. 191, 128 P. 954; In re Brown (N.
C), 84 S. E. 690.
378-42 In re Barnes, 204 N. T. 108,
97 N. E. 508, aff. 132 N. Y. S. 908.
379-43 Limitation of power.— Leg-
islature cannot punish witness for con-
tempt for refusing to answer before a
committee appointed by them. Ex parte
Wolters, 64 Tex. Cr. 238, 144 S. W.
531.
379-45 U. S. Comp. St., 1901, p. 725,
§1044, prescribing three year period of
limitations for criminal prosecution ap-
plies to contempts. Gompers v. United
States, 233 IT. S. 604, 34 Sup. Ct. 693,
58 L. ed. 1115.
379-46 Lapse of three years from in-
stitution of original contempt proceed-
ings will not preclude further proceed-
ings. In re Gompers, 40 App. Cas. (D.
C.) 293.
380-48 See Merchants' Stock, etc.
Co. V, Board of Trade, 201 Fed. 20, 120
\j» \j» A. OoZ,
380-49 Puget Sound T. L. & P. Co. v.
Lawrey, 202 Fed. 263.
380-50 Joinder. — A proceeding for
punishment for contempt cannot be
joined with an action in certiorari.
Beech t\ Crossfield, 12 Phil. Isl. 555.
380-52 Successor in interest Ifabla.
Lake f. Superior Court, 165 Cal. 182,
131 P. 371.
380-53 Schreiber v. Garden, 152 App.
Div. 817, 137 N. Y. S, 747; S. r.*Balti-
more, etc. R, Co., 73 W. Va. 1, 79 S. E.
834.
381-54 Judge.— In re Fite, 11 Ga.
App. 665, 76 S. E. 397.
Clerk of court. — m tne matter of Jones,
9 Phil. Isl. 347; Northcutt r. S., 70 Tex.
Cr. 577, 158 S. W. 1004; Kruegel v. Will-
iams (Tex. Civ.), 153 S. W. 903.
In Hawaii an attorney may be disbarred
who commits a conj;empt by writing an
insulting letter to the court. In re
Campbell, 2 Haw. 27.
382-55 Gompers r, u; S., 233 U. S.
604, 34 Sup. Ct. 693, 58 L. ed. 1115;
Merchants' Stock, etc. Co. v. Board of
Trade, 201 Fed. 20, 120 C. C. A. 582;
In re Gompers, 40 App. Cas. (D. C.)
293; Tuttle v. Hutchison (la.), 151 N.
W. 845; Ex parte Mettler (Mont.), 146
P. 747; Poland v. Poland, 63 Wash. 597,
116 P. 2.
Nature of proceeding. — A contempt pro-
ceeding partakes ' of the nature of a
criminal and also civil proceeding. By
this is meant that the proceedings may
be purely civil in the court in which
the contempt arises, but it may be an
offense against public justice, and may
be proceeded against by indictment or
presentment, and whichever procedure
is adopted the punishment is a criminal
one. Graham t\ Williamson, 128 Tenn.
720, 164 S. W. 781.
383-58 Jones v, TJ. S., 209 Fed. 585,
126 C. C. A. 407.
384-59 Staley t?. So. Jersey Eealtv
Co., 83 N. J. Eq. 300, 90 A. 1042.
384-60 P. V. Seymour, 191 HI. App.
381; Staley v. So. Jersey Realty Co.,
83 N. J. Eq. 300, 90 A. 1042; Hanburv
r. Benedict, 160 App. Div. 662, 146 N.
Y. S. 44; Oronoz f. Montalvo, 21 P. R.
331.
Converting civil into criminal contempt.
An action for civil contempt entitled in
a pending suit may be converted into a
criminal proceeding by the United
States filing a pleading appropriate to
a criminal cause and asking to be made
a party therein. IT. S. r. Huff, 206 Fed.
700; Chicago, etc. B. Co. v. Gildersleeve,
165 Mo. App. 370, 147 S. W. 836.
Punishment as showing classification.
*'The punishment for a civil contempt
is remedial and for the benefit of the
complainant in the contempt proceed-
ings. The punishment for a criminal
contempt is punitive — ^to vindicate the
authority of the court. If imprison-
ment be imposed in a civil proceeding
it must be coercive in its nature. The
committal must stand only unless and
until the defendant performs the affirm-
ative act required by the court's order.
816
CONTEMPT
Tol. 5
When inflicted in a criminal proceeding
it is fixed and certain as a punisLment
for completed disobedience of orders or
for other past wrongdoing." In re
Kahn, 204 Fed. 581, 123 C. C. A. 107.
Bankraptcy. — Such classification is ap-
plicable to bankruptcy proceedings. In
re Kahn, 204 Fed. 581, 123 C. C. A. 107.
385-61 Merchants' Stock, etc. Co. v.
Board of Trade, 201 Fed. 20, 120 C. C.
A. 582; Davis v, Davis, 138 Ga. 8, 74
S. E. 830; P. V. Seymour, 191 111. App.
381; Fiedler v, Bambrick Bros. Const.
Co., 162 Mo. App. 528, 142 S. W. 1111;
Ex parte Mettler (Mont.), 146 P. 747;
Staley v. So. Jersey Realty Co., 83 N.
J. Eq. 300, 90 A. 1042; Flathers V. S.,
7 Okla. Cr. 668, 125 P. 902.
Contempt for perjoiy. — A contempt pro-
ceeding to punish accused for perjury
in attempting to qualify as surety on
bail bond is criminal. Jones 17. U. S.,
209 Fed. 585, 126 C. C. A. 407.
387-63 As to the procedure to punish
perjury as contempt. See P. t\ Alvar-
ado, 19 P. B. 827; also P. v. Silva, 19
P. R. 263.
387-64~ Merchants' Stock, etc. Co. t*.
Board of Trade, 201 Fed. 20, 120 C. C.
A. 582; Davis v, Davis, 138 Ga. 8, 74
S. E. 830; Witmer v, Dist. Court, 155
la. 244, 136 N. W. 113, Ann. Cas. 1914D,
212; Chicago, etc. B. Co. v. Gildersleeve,
165 Mo. App. 370, 147 S. W. 836; Fied-
ler r. Bambrick Bros. Const. Co., 162
Mo. App. 528, 142 S. W. 1111; Ex parte
Mettler (Mont.), 146 P. 747; Staley r.
So. Jersey Realty Co., 83 N. J. Eq.
300, 90 A. 1042; Burnett r. S., 8 Okla.
Cr. 639, 129 P. 1110, 42 L. R. A. (17.
S.) 1175; Flathers t?. S., 7 Okla. Cr. 668,
125 P. 902; Oronoz v. Montalvo, 21 P.
R. 331. See Hanbury t?. Benedict, 160
App. Div. 662, 146 N. Y. S. 44.
Violation of injunction order by a city
and its officers is civil and not criminal
contempt. Bed River, etc. Corp. v.
Grand Forks, 27 N. D. 440, 146 N. W.
878.
388-65 In re Maury, 205 Fed. 626,
123 C. C. A. 642; P. v. Seymour, 191 111.
App. 381; P. V. Jackson, 178 111. App.
121.
No affidavit necessary* — ^Ex parte La-
pique (Cal. App.), 146 P. 690.
In Porto Bico it is considered better
practice to issue a warrant even where
the contempt is direct. Ex parte Pes-
quera, 17 P. R. 706.
389-66 In re Steiner, 195 Fed. 299;
Bowman v. Seaman, 152 App. Div, 690,
137 N. Y. S. 568.
Attachment may issue in first instance.
In re Steiner, 195 Fed. 299.
389-68 By indictment or present^
ment. — Graham r. Williamson, 128 Tenn.
720, 164 S. W. 781.
Where act is both a contempt and a
crime it is punishable both summarily
and by indictment. Merchants' Stock,
etc. Co. t?. Board of Trade, 201 Fed. 20,
120 C. C. A. 582.
390-71 Ex parte Northern, 18 Cal.
App. 52, 121 P. 1010; P. f. Seymour,
191 111. App. 381; Tuttle r. Hutchison
(la.), 151 N. W. 845; Grace t\ S.
(Miss.), 67 S. 212; Ex parte Mettler
(Mont.), 146 P. 747; Belangee t?. S., 97
Neb. 184, 149 N. W. 415; Ex parte IVl-
len, 17 N. M. 394, 128 P. 64; Nichols v.
S., 8 Okla. Cr. 550, 129 P. 673; Ex
parte Landry (Tex. Cr.), 144 S. W. 962.
Comp. Lee f. S. (Ark.), 143 S. W. 909.
In Oklahoma either by filing of affidavit
and issuance of attachment or rule to
show cause. Nichols v. S., 8 Okla. Cr.
550, 129 P. 673.
A contempt for a refusal to pay pur-
suant to an order is not one committed
in the immediate view and presence of
the court, and an affidavit of facts con-
stituting the contempt is essential to
give the court jurisdiction to hear and
determine the proceeding. Ex parte
Northern, 18 Cal. App. 32, 121 P. 1010.
A citation alone, embodying the in-
formation which the court ordered to
be entered on its records is sufficient
to give the accused information of the
offense charged. Poindexter v. S., 109
Ark. 179, 159 S. W. 197, 46 L. E. A.
(N. S.) 517.
Particularity of afftdavit.— It is only
necessary that the affidavit and motion
on which the order to show cause is
based clearly apprise defendant of the
nature of the charge. Morehouse v.
Giant Powder Co., 206 Fed. 24, 124 C.
C. A. 158.
No prescribed form n^ed be followed
in the information except that the de-
fendant must be clearly apprised of the
nature of the charge. Morehouse 1?.
Giant Powder Co., 206 Fed. 24, 124 C.
C. A. 158.
391-74 Notice. — Attachment may is-
sue in exceptional cases without notice.
Douglass Brick Co. v. Simpson, 233 Pa.
517, 82 A. 760.
392-75 Mitchell v. Superior Court,
317
Vol. 5
CONTEMPT
163 Cal. 423, 125 P. 1061; Ex parte Fnl-^
len, 17 N. M. 394, 128 P. 64; Bridges t\
S., 9 Okla. Cr. 450, 132 P. 503.
"Wlio may Institute. — One acquiring
rights to property under a judgment
may institute contempt proceedings for
violation of injunction. Gale v, Tuo-
lumne County Water Co. (Cal.), 145 P.
532.
Unauthorized order. — ^But court cannot
punish one for disobedience or resist'
ance of an order made without author-
ity. Chanco 17. Madrilejos, 9 Phil. Isl.
356.
392-76 Strain v. Superior Court, 168
Cal. 216, 142 P. 62.
Ai&davit required is Jurisdictional and
cannot be based on information and be-
lief. Belangee v, S., 97 Neb. 184, 149
N. W. 415.
Information and belief. — Affidavit does
not give court jurisdiction where alle-
gations are on information and belief.
Belangee t?. S., 97 Neb. 184, 149 N. W.
415.
393-77 Entry of order of contempt
is erroneous when the complaint in in-
junction suit has been dismissed. Thorn-
ton i;. P., 190 111. App. 68.
Where an injunction has ceased, be-
cause of dismissal of bill on which it
was founded, there can be no contempt
in disregarding it, even though erron-
eously dismissed. Bill Board Pub. Co.
V. McCarahan, 180 111. App. 542.
393-79 Supplemental charges may be
filed after hearing is begun if the de-
fendants are allowed an opportunity to
meet them. S. t?. Coffeyville, 90 Kan.
164, 133 P. 711.
393-81 One not a party to a pro-
ceeding in which an injunctional order
was entered, and who had no notice or
knowledge of existence can be punished
as for contempt in violating the order
even though the decree is broad enough
to cover the act charged and in its in-
tent and purpose to include parties
other than the immediate parties to the
suit. Harris v. Hutchinson, 160 la. 149,
140 N. W. 830, 44 L. B. A. (N. S.)
1035.
393-82 Affidavit may be general and
need not set out the specific facts re-
lied upon. Tuttle V, Hutchison (la.),
151 N. W. 845.
394-85 Belangee t?. S., 97 Neb. 184,
149 N. W. 415.
394-87 Krueger v. Krueger, 32 S. D.
470, 143 N. W. 368,
Or have had actual notice of decree or
order. Kidd v. Virginia Safe Deposit,
etc. Corp., lis Va. 612, 75 S. E. 145.
Estoppel. — ^But where a party has acted
upon and claimed rights under a decree
he cannot contend that he had neither
notice nor knowledge of its existence.
In re Hower, 44 Utah 476, 141 P. 101.
394-88 Appearance and answer is
waiver of service of order. Ex parte
Canavan, 17 N. M. 100, 130 P. 248.
395-90 Attachment is Improper in
absence of notice of rule to show cause.
Whelan v. Whelan, 161 111. App. 293.
395-94 Kruegel v. Williams (Tex.
Cr.), 153 S. W. 903.
Existence of other remedies does not
affect power of court to punish for con-
tempt. McDougall V, Sheridan, 23 Ida.
191, 128 P. 954.
396-98 Phillips Sheet, etc. Co. v.
Amalgamated Assn., 208 Fed. 335.
Verification. — A complaint need not be
verified. Del Toro v. Municipal Court,
16 P. B. 89.
Ck>ntempt for failure to pay alimony.
A complaint in contempt proceedings
against husband in default for payment
of alimony is not insufficient because it
does not allege defendant was able to
pay alimony as decreed, as the decre*
imports a finding that he was able to
pay the money. S. t\ Cook, 66 O. St.
566, 64 N. E. 567, Galley t?. Galley, 13
0. C. C. (N. S.) 522.
"There is no fixed formula for con-
tempt proceedings, and technical accur-
acy is not required. It is sufficient if
the offense is set out, so that the de-
fendant is clearly informed of the
charges against him and whether a
criminal or civil contempt is alleged;
and this is to be determined by exam-
ination of the entire record.** Schwarta
V, U. S. (C. C. A.), 217 Fed. 866.
396-97 In federal courts it is prop-
erly but not necessarily brought in
name of United States as charging
party, or may be entitled ' * In re . ' '
Phillips, etc. Co. v. Amalgamated Assn.,
208 Fed. 335.
In name of state. — ^Preferable to prose-
cute a contempt proceeding in name of
state. Galley v. Galley, 13 O. C. C. (N.
S.) 522.
397-99 Pearsons v, Jones, 170 HI.
App. 84.
397-3 Phillips Sheet, etc. Co. v.
Amalgamated Assn., 208 Fed. 335.
318
CONTEMPT
Vol. 5
399-20 Necessity of pleading. — The
defendant may make a showing in ex-
cuse of his contempt, or by denial, or
he may stand mute and the matter is
then heard by the court without further
pleading. Tuttle 1?. Hutchison (Ia.)>
151 N. W. 845; Drady V. Given, 126 la.
345, 102 N. W. 115.
401-24 Oehler t?. Levy, 256 111. 178,
99 N. E. 912; P. v, Grogan, 178 111. App.
314. See Tuttle v. Hutchison (la.), 151
N. W. 845.
Civil contempt. — ^Bule not applicable to
civil contempt. P. v, McWeeney, 259
111. 161, 102 N. E. 233; Hake v. P., 230
111. 174, 82 N. E. 561.
Limitation of rule. — ^In a case of con-
structive contempt for publication of
an article in a newspaper, the rule is
that the sworn answer, denying any in-
tention to traduce or vilify the court,
is conclusive when the meaning of the
publication is ambiguous or uncertain
but does not apply when the meaning
is unambiguous and clearly constitutes
a contempt. Ex parte Nelson, 251 Mo.
63, 157 S. W. 794.
401-25 P. t?. Gard, 259 lU. 238, 102
N. E. 255.
401-26 Tuttle t?. Hutchison (Ta.), 151
N. W. 845; Belangee v. S., 97 Neb. 184,
149 N. W. 415.
Under olficial oath. — An information is
sufficient when made under official oath
even though not specially verified by
prosecuting attorney. Poindexter 1?. S.,
109 Ark. 179, 159 S. W. 197, 46 L. R.
A. (N. 8.) 517.
Verlficatioii imnecessary. — ^While stat-
ute requires verification of preliminary
affidavit, it is not necessary that the
accusation for an indirect contempt be
verified. Nichols v. Quinn, 94 Kan. 742,
147 P. 1103.
402-29 Ex parte Sullivan, 10 Okla.
Cr. 465, 138 P. 815; Herald-Republican
Pub. Co. V. Lewis, 42 Utah 188, 129 P.
624.
The Judgment vril be set aside without
prejudice when relator is not allowed
his proper day in court. In re Ding-
ley (Mich.), 148 N. W. 218.
402-30 Herald-Republican Pub. Co.
t?. Lewis, 42 Utah 188, 129 P. 624.
402-31 In re Maury, 205 Fed. 626,
123 C. C. A. 642; Merchants' Stock, etc.
Co. V. Board of Trade, 201 Fed. 20, 120
C. C. A, 582; P. v, Gard, 175 111. App.
486, aff, 259 HI. 238, 102 N. E. 255; P.
f. Hamil, 145 N. Y. S. 400.
Newspaper articles. — Publication in a
newspaper of an article tending to in-
fluence the result of a pending suit may
be punished summarily as a contempt.
Ackerman v. Congdon, 7 Haw. 31.
Mattefs within court's knowledge. — ^It
is essential to summary proceeding that
court act on matters of fact of which
it has judicial cognizance. P. v. Stone,
181 111. App. 475.
An attorney who writes an insulting let-
ter to the court may be punished sum-
marily. Anything done intentionally
to insult the court in the exercise of its
legal powers may be so punished. In
re Campbell, 2 Haw. 27.
402-34 Tuttle v. Hutchison (la.) ,151
N. W. 845.
Ignoring subpoena. — A witness failing
to comply with a subpoena duces tecum
cannot be punished summarily but is
entitled to the hearing provided by
§232-240 Code Civ. Proc. Finnick v.
Petersen, 6 Phil. Isl. 172.
403-35 But see Nichols 17. S., 8 Okla.
Cr. 550, 129 P. 673.
403-37 In re Fite, 11 Ga. App. 665,
76 S. E. 397; McDougall v. Sheridan, 23
Ida. 191, 128 P. 954; In re Brown (N.
C), 84 S. E. 690; Atchison, T.&S.F.B.
Co. V. S., 35 Okla. 532, 130 P. 940; S.
V, North Shore Boom & Driving Co.,
67 Wash. 317, 121 P. 467, Ann. Cas.
1913D, 456.
Due process of law does not require a
jury in contempt. P. v, Seymour, 191
111. App. 381.
The common law procedure in con-
tempt cases presents no question of fact
to be tried by a jury. Storey v. P., 79
HI. 45; P. T. Seymour, 191 HI. App.
381.
Not a matter of right. — ^Not entitled to
jury as a matter of right. Merchants'
Stock, etc. Co. t?. Board of Trade, 201
Fed. 20, 120 C. C. A. 582.
In civil contempt. — Oehler v. Levy, 256
111. 178, 99 N. E. 912.
Where the contempt is committed out
of court, as for violating an injunction,
the right to a jury trial is secured by
the Bill of Rights §25. Nichols v. S.
8 Okla. Cr. 550, 129 P. 673.
404-40 The matter is discretionary
with the court. In re Brpwtt (N. C.)^
84 S. E. 690.
m
Vol. 5
CONTEMPT
404-41 P. V, Seymour, 191 111. App.
381.
405-43 Jones v. U. S., 209 Fed. 585,
126 C. C. A. 407; Fowler v, Vermillion
(la.), 149 N. W. 444; Staley t?. South
Jersey Realty Co., 83 N. J. Eq. 300, 90
A. 1042; Herald-Republican Pub. Co. v,
Lewis, 42 Utah 188, 129 P. 624. •
Ex parte affidavits are not juridical evi-
dence. Staley v. South Jersey Realty
Co., 83 N. J.'Eq. 300, 90 A. 1042.
406-45 Opposing testimony to de-
fendant's interrogatories will not be
heard. StuU t?. P., 173 111. App. 512.
In Utah this rule has been changed by
statute. Herald-Republican Pub. Co. v.
Lewis, 42 Utah 188, 129 P. 624.
Tliis rule has no application where de-
fendants without answering went to
trial and denied the facts under oath.
Kirk V, U. S., 192 Fed. 273, 112 C. C.
A. 631.
Circumstances control. — ^Whether an-
swer under oath operates to purge the
defense depends on circumstances. Ex
parte Smith, 14 Haw. 245; Burnett v.
S., 8 Okla. Cr. 639, 129 P. 1110, 47 L.
R. A. (N. S.) 1175.
406-46 "Where answer is inconsistent
the court is free to draw its own infer-
ences from the facts. P. v. Qrogan, 178
111. App. 314.
407-48 P. V. Seymour, 191 HI. App.
381.
407-49 P. V. Seymour, 191 HI. App.
381; StuU t?. P., 173 111. App. 512.
407-50 See U. S. v, Shipp, 203 U.
S. 563, 574, 27 Sup. Ct. 165, 51 L. ed.
319, 8 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 265; U. S.
V, Huff, 206 Fed. 700; Kirk t?. U. S.,
192 Fed. 273, 112 C. C. A. 531; Pierce
V. U. S., 37 App. Cas. (D. C.) 582, cer-
tiorari denied, 223 U. S. 732, 32 Sup.
Ct. 528, 56 L. ed. 634.
407-51 P. V. Seymour, 191 HI. App.
381.
It is no defense for having disobeyed
an order that respondents ultimately
won the suits in which the contempt
was committed. In re Steiner, 195 Fed.
299.
Where publication in newspaper is li-
belous per se, intent and mistake are
no defenses. Ex parte Nelson, 251 Mo.
63, 157 S. W. 794.
410-58 P. V. Prouty, 262 111. 218, 104
N. E. 387, Ann. Cas. 1915B, 155; Ex
parte Fullen, 17 N. M. 394, 128 P. 64;
Davidson v, Unger, 139 N. Y. S. 157.
Disobedience of Invalid order is not
contempt. Briggs v. Cass Circ. Judge,
178 Mich. 28, 144 N. W. 501; Smith t\
Smith, 80 N. J. Eq. 478, 85 A. 226.
410-59 Brougham v. Oceanic Steam
Nav. Co., 305 Fed. 857, 126 C, C. A.
321.
410-63 Ex parte Northern, 18 Cal.
App. 52, 121 P. 1010.
Must show tliat a hearing was had.
A recital in the judgement that ac-
cused ''having stated that they had no
legal reason to give why judgment
should not be pronounced against
them" does not show that they were
given an opportunity to be heard. Iler-
ald-Bepublican Pub. Co. r. Lewis, 42
Utah 188, 129 P. 624.
411-66 Ex parte Mettler (Mont.),
146 P. 747.
412-67 Krueger v. Krueger, 32 S. D.
470, 143 N. W. 368.
412-68 Beciting conclusions. — The
recital in the order that defendant "by
his conduct, words, and manner dis-
turbed the orderly proceedings of this
court" is insufficient as stating merely
conclusions. Ex parte Mettler (Mont.).
146 P. 747.
413-70 Orders must be tihown. — ^Au
order reciting that an attorney be fined
for contempt "for refusing to obey
orders of the court in open court" is
vague and indefinite in not stating what
orders. Ex parte Bullington (Tex. Cr.),
145 S. W. 1190.
415-73 Certification.— Order adjudg-
ing one in contempt must be certified.
Ex parte Mettler (Mont.), 146 P. 747.
416-74 See Ex parte Canavan, 17 N.
M. IDO, 130 P. 248, a judgment commit-
ting for a definite term '*or until fur-
ther order of the court" is not void for
uncertainty.
416-86 See In re Gompers, 40 App.
Cas. (D. C.) 293.
Tilmiting powers of Justices of tlie
peace. — McBumie v. Sullivan, 152 Ky.
686, 153 S. W. 945, 44 L. R. A. (N. S.)
186.
Maximum limit of punishment of attor-
ney for contempt is twenty-four hours.
S. 17. Williams, 131 La. 392, 59 S. 822.
417-87 Ex parte Creasy, 243 Mo.
679, 148 S. W. 914, 41 L. R. A. (N. S.)
478.
417-88 In re Maury, 205 Fed. 626,
123 C. C. A. 642; Osterhoudt t?. Pruden-
tial Ins. Co., 159 App. Div. 291, 144 N.
320
CONTEMPT
Vol 5
Y. S. 193; In re Rajas, 17 Phil. Isl. 1055.
417-91 Bothschild & Co. v. Steger
Piano Mfg. Co., 256 111. 196, 99 N. E.
920, Ann. Gas. 1913E, 276, 42 L. B. A.
(N. S.) 793; Haverstraw v. Eckerson,
158 App. Div. 419, 143 N. Y. S. 667.
Due process of law« — ^Judgment of im-
prisonment for civil contempt does not
deprive one of liberty without due pro-
cess of law. Bothschild & Co. 17. Steger
Piano Mfg. Co., 256 111. 196, 99 N. E.
920, Ann. Cas. 1913E, 276, 42 L. B. A.
(N. 8.) 793.
Only in criminal contempt may a fixed
and definite sentence be inflicted. In
re Kahn, 204 Fed. 581, 123 C. C. A.
107.
'dllS-OS Ez parte Lapique (Cal.
App.), 146 P. 690; Ex parte Jocgensen,
19 Cal. App. 217, 124 P. 1055; In re
Pavis, 11 Haw. 594.
418-94 In re Davis, 11 Haw. 594;
KetUes v. P., 221 111. 221, 77 N. E. 472;
P. V, Seymour, 191 111. App. 381.
Ck)nditl6nial Judgments of imprisonment
niav be rendered. S. v. Baltimore, etc.
B. Co., 73 W. Va. 1, 79 S. E. 834.
410-9B Comp, Beaufort County
Lumb. Co. V. Cottingham, 168 N. C.
544, 84 8. E. 864.
420-07 Beaufort County Lumb. Co.
t7. Cottingham, 168 N. C. 544, 84 S. E.
864.
420-98 Merchants' Stock, etc. Co. v.
Board of Trade, 201 Fed. 20, 120 C. C.
A. 582.
Under $§3477 and 3489, St., 1898, pro-
viding for punishment of contempt and
misconduct, (1) misconduct is not pun-
ishable unless it did or was calculated
to defeat or prejudice the rights or
remedies of some party; (2) the court
must determine and adjudge that such
misconduct was calculated to and did
defeat and prejudice such rights before
any fine was imposed; and (3) it is
necessary to adjudge and determine
whether or not such misconduct re-
sulted in actual loss to any party so
that a proper disposition of the fine
may be made. Stollenwerk v. Kleve-
now, 151 Wis. 355, 139 N. W. 203. Emer-
son V. Huss, 127 Wis. 215, 106 N. W.
518.
Damages. — Judgment may be rendered
for damages sustained by relator. S.
V. North Shore Boom, etc. Co., 67 Wash.
317, 121 P. 407, Ann. Cas. 1913D, 45G.
Merchants' Stock, etc* Co. t*.
Board of Trade, 201 Fed. 20, 120 C. C.
A. 682.
421-6 See In re Scheuer, 161 App.
Div. 528, 146 N. Y. 8. 709.
421-8 See U. 8. t?. Huff, 206 Fed.
700.
422-12 P. V, Hogan, 256 111. 496, 100
N. E. 177; Ex parte Creasy, 243 Mo. 679,
148 8. W. 914, 41 L. B. A. (N. 8.) 478.
Juriadictional facts must be made to
appear in the order of commitment. Ex
parte Northern, 18 Cal. App. 52, 121 P.
1010.
Fonn of writ. — ^Inasmuch as writ of
commitment is not the judicii^l process
referred to in §16 of the Foraker Act,
the writ need not run in the name of
"the United States of America, the
President of the United States, etc."
Ex parte Pesquera, 17 P. B. 706.
423-22 Abbott t?. Abbott, 24 Cal.
App. 475, 141 P. 939; In re Mills, 19
Haw. 88; In re Y. Anin, 17 Haw. 336;
In re Davis, 11 Haw. 594; Onomea
Sugar Co. v, Austin, 5 Haw. 555; Adams
V. Adams, 80 N. J. Eq. 175, 83 A. 190;
S. V, Chacon (N. M.), 145 P. 125;
Mocksville Lodge v, Gibbs, 159 N. C.
66, 74 8. E. 743; Pegram v, 8., 72 Tex.
Cr. 176, 161 8. W. 458.
When leyiewable. — ^If the proceedings
are not remedial but criminal they are
reviewable on appeal; as where plain-
tiff was prosecuted on an information
for alleged criminal contempt, and
judgment was imposed not to enforce
the order of the court allowing alimony
but as punishment for the criminal con-
tempt. Bridgess v. 8., 9 Okla. Cr. 450,
132 P. 503.
425-27 Gale v, Tuolumne County
Water Co. (Cal.), 145 P. 532.
426-28 Criminal contempt. — Where
there is evidence to show guilt, the find-
ing of fact by the trial court cannot be
reviewed by the appellate court.
Schwartz v. U. 8. (C. C. A.), 217 Fed.
866.
§1222, Code Oiv. Proc. makes no dis-
tinction, so far as the rights of appeal
are concerned, between direct and con-
structive contempts. Gale v. Tuolumne
County Water Co. (Cal.), 145 P. 532.
An order to sbow cause is not appeal-
able. Mahoney r. Sutphin, 164 ,App.
Div. 794, 150 N. Y. S. 206. See 2
Standard Proc. 185, and supplement
thereto.
426-29 Hultberg v. Anderson, 214
SI
321
Vol. 5
CONTEMPT
Fed. 349, 131 C. C. A. 125; Bed River
Valley, etc. Corp. v. Grand Forks, 27
N. D. 440, 146 N. W. 878.
Tbe criminal court of appeals has no
jurisdiction to revie^r civil contempt
proceedings. Wells r. S., 9 Okla. Cr.
326, 131 P. 725; Flathers v. S., 7 Okla.
Cr. 668, 125 P. 902.
426-80 Pierce v. U. S., 37 App. Cas.
(D. C.) 582, certiorari denied, 223 U.
S. 732, 32 Sup. Ct. 528, 56 L. ed. 634.
One declared in contempt may appeal
from the judgment, and where the prin-
cipal proceedings to which the con-
tempt proceedings are but incidental
and require no nnal judgment the ap-
peal may be perfected forthwith. En-
liquez v. Ambler, 2 Phil. Isl. 137.
Appellant is entitled to stay of ozeca-
tlon pending appeal. S. v, Superior
Court, 73 Wash. 296, 131 P. 816.
In Indiana the sufficiency of an inform-
ation for contempt can only be made
by a motion to discharge the rule to
show cause. Holler v, S. (Ind.), 106
N. E. 364; Davis v. S., 178 Ind. 682, 99
N. E. 425.
426-81 Will review only questions of
law. Pierce v, U. S., 37 App. Cas. (D.
C.) 582, certiorari denied, 223 U. S.
732, 32 Sup. Ct. 528, 56 L. ed. 634.
426-82 Not within jurisdiction to
modify the sentence on appeal. Pierce
t?. U. 8., 37 App. Cas. (D. C.) 582, cer-
tiorari denied, 223 U. S. 732, 32 Sup.
Ct. 528, 56 L. ed. 634.
426-83 In Iowa findings of fact, al->
though not conclusive, will be given
great weight. Keenhold V. Dudley
(la.), 151 N. W. 1076.
427-84 Beview of findings. — Supreme
court will give same force to findings
in contempt case as in other cases
where there is conflict of evidence. Ex
parte Winn, 105 Ark. 190, 150 S. W.
399. See 2 Standard Pboc. 444.
427-87 Grant t?. U. S., 227 U. S. 74,
33 Sup. Ct. 190, 57 L. ed. 423, af. In re
Grant, 198 Fed. 708; Hultberg i?. An-
derson, 214 Fed. 349, 131 C. C. A. 125;
Davis V. Davis, 138 Ga. 8, 74 S. E. 830;
Pearsons v, Jones, 170 HI. App. 84;
Wells t?. Wells (Okla.), 148 P. 723.
Proceedings for civil contempt are not
reviewable by writ of error. Freed v.
Central Trust Co., 215 Fed. 873, 132 C.
C. A. 7.
Waiver. — ^Right of review by writ of
error may be waived by payment of fine
to avoid imprisonment. In re Harts-
field, 13 Ga. App. 451, 79 S. £. 225.
428-80 P. V. Cohen, 163 111. App. 115;
S. V, Balitmore, etc. E. Co., 73 W. Va.
1, 79 S. E. 834.
Objection that there was no evidence of
guilt raises a question of jurisdiction.
Merchants' Stock, etc. Co. v. Board of
Trade, 201 Fed. 20, 120 C. C. A. 582.
428-40 Abbott «. Abbott, 24 Cal.
App. 475, 141 P. 939; Hatz v. Hutchi-
son (la.), 150 N. W. 14.
Certiorari does not lie to review a con-
viction of criminal contempt in proceed-
ings supplementary to execution in a
civil case. Hanbury f>, Benedict, 160
App. Div. 662, 146 N. Y. S. 44.
Bight to appeal barred^— Beview by
certiorari where right of appeal is lost
by lapse of time. Herald-Bepublican
Pub. Co. V. Lewis, 42 Utah 188, 129 P.
624.
District courts have jurisdiction to re-
view on certiorari. Del Tore f . Muni-
cipal Court, 16 P. B. 89.
42d-41 Montalvo v. Nussa, 20 P. B.
500.
429-48 Strain v, Superior Court, 168
Cal. 216, 142 P. 62; Montalvo 17. Nussa,
20 P. B. 500.
429-44 In re Davis, 11 Haw. 594;
£z parte Shepherd (Tex. Cr.}, 153 S.
W. 628.
480-45 Ex parte Pahia, 13 Haw. 575.
430-46 In re Webster, 1 Haw. 95;
Ex parte Pesquera, 17 P. B/ 706.
480-47 Ex parte Creasy, 243 Mo.
679, 148 S. W. 914, 41 L. B. A. (N. S.)
478; Ex parte Coffee, 72 Tex. Cr. 209,
161 S. W. 975.
481-62 S. V, Superior Court, 73
Wash. 296, 131 P. 816.
481-68 Enriquez v. Ambler, 2 PhU.
Isl. 137.
481-56 S. V. Barnett, 98 S. C. 422,
82 S. E. 795. See Blick v. Cockins, 247
Pa. 186, 93 A. 326.
482-62 Bed Biver Valley, etc. Corp.
f). Grand Forks, 27 N. D. 440, 146 N. W.
878.
In TTtali by statute the court is author-
ized in a contempt case to adjudge the
party in contempt to ''pay the party
aggrieved a sum of money sufficient to
indemnify him and to satisfy his costs
and expenses" in addition to fine and
imprisonment. Such damages must be
ascertained in the usual manner, and
322
CONTINUANCES
Vol. 5
an award of a lamp sum to many com-
plainants cannot be sustained where an
apportionment is impossible. In re
Hoover, 44 Utah 476, 141 P. 101.
0ONTINUAK0E8
\
441-S S. V. Cannon, 26 Ida, 182, 140
P. 963.
441-8 Bowling v. C, 148 5y. 9, 145
8. W. 1126. f ^J f
442-13 Pacific Cbal Co. i?. Pioneer
Min. Co., 205 Fed. 577, 123 C. C. A.
593; Kelsey v, Clausen, 257 111. 402, 100
N. E. 984; McAllister t?. Richardson,
103 Miss. 418, 60 8. 570; Holcombe V,
Trenton White City Co., 80 N. J. Eq.
122, 82 A. 618.
442-14 P. 17. Roman, 18 P. R. 217.
In criminal cases it is a matter of dis-
cretion. Curtis V. 8., 9 Ala. App. 36, 63
S. 745; Cox v, Jonesboro, 112 Ark. 96,
164 8. W. 767; 8. v, Hollingsworth, 134
La. 554, 64 8. 409.
443-18 8. V. Grune, 72 Wash. 448,
130 P. 751.
The state must show cause. — CuWer v,
8. (Okla. Cr.), 141 P. 26.
443-19 An adjournment to a fixed
time within fifteen days may be taken
by a justice of the peace to consider
eyidence. Perkins v. Westinghouse Air
Brake Co. (Del. Ch.), 87 A. 1027.
444-27 Jennings Co. v. Dyer, 41
Okla. 468, 139 P. 250.
444-20 Pool V. Riegal (Okla.), 147
P. 1193.
444-30 Davis v. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 154
8. W. 226; 8teenstrup v, Toledo P. &
M. Co., 66 Wash. 101, 119 P. 16, Ann.
Cas. 1913C, 427.
445-81 Miller v, Mayer, 151 N. Y.
8. 236; Wolff V, 8tern, 149 N. T. 8.
908; Stein v. Cohen, 149 N. Y. 8. 864.
445-32 Crawford t?. Crawford, 139
6a. 68, 76 8. E, 564; Kennedy v. Dukes,
137 Ga. 209, 73 8. E. 400; Kirby v. John-
son County Bank, 12 6a. App. 157, 76
8. E. 996; 8. v. Di Benedetto, 83 N. J.
L, 792, 85 A. 1135, af. 82 N. J. L. 168,
82 A. 521; Ter. V. Lobato, 17 N. M.
666, 134 P. 222; Miranda t?. Municipal-
ity of Navotas, 2 Phil. Isl. 667; Thomp-
son r. Hart (Tex. CJiv.), 157 8. W. 184.
445-34 Watkins «• C, 149 Ky. 26,
147 8. W. 947.
445-36 Louisville, etc. By. Co. v.
Wilson's Exr., 156 Ky. 657, 161 8. W.
513; Caudill v. C, 155 Ky. 678, 159 8.
W. 1149; Chapeze t?. Hathaway, 153 Ky.
519, 155 8. W. 1155; 8. f?. Hawthorn,
134 La. 979, 64 8. 873; 8. v. Cloud-
130 La. 955, 58 8. 827, Ann. Cas. 1913D.
1192; Becker v, 8., 91 Neb. 352, 136 N.
W. 17; Payne v. 8., 10 Okla. Cr. 314,
136 P. 201; Jones v. 8., 8 Okla. Cr. 576,
129 P. 446; Montgomery v. U. 8. Fidel-
ity Co., 90 8. C. 283, 71 8. E. 1084, 73
8. E. 182; Thompson v. 8., 70 Tex. Cr.
610, 157 8. W. 494; Collins f?. 8. (Tex.
Cr.), 152 8. W. 1047; Banner v. Thomas
(Tex. Civ.), 159 8. W. 102.
Wliere leading coiins^ was absent and
other counsel were not familiar with de-
fense a refusal of continuance is ground
for reversal. 8. v. Hollingsworth, 134
La. 554, 64 8. 409.
Where adversary agreed to absence,
A continuance ought to have been
granted when counsel is absent in reli-
ance on agreement with other attorney
even though associate counsel is pres-
ent. Pekin Cooperage Co. v. Doughten
(Ark.), 174 8. W. 1189.
446-44 Frey i?. 8hadbolt Mfg. .Co.,
145 N. Y. 8. 48 ; Epstein v. Ins. Co., 245
Pa. 132, 91 A. 244; P. v, Dominguez, 9
P. R. 483.
Olient's knowledge of conditions.
Where party knew of sickness of one
counsel and absence of other when em-
ploying them, refusal of continuance is
not abuse of discretion. Easterling v,
8., 12 Ga. App. 690, 78 8. E. 140.
446-45 Dale v, Beasley, 141 Ga. 594,
81 8. E. 849.
447-46 Louisville, etc. By. Co. v. Wil-
son's Ex'x., 156 Ky. 657, 161 8. W. 513;
Caudill e. C, 155 Ky. 578, 159 8. W.
1149.
448-53 Neven v, Neven (Nov.), 148
P. 354; Veloso v. Ang Seng Teng, 2
Phil. Isl. 622; Manton v. Kittredge (B.
L), 88 A. 979.
448-54 Party misinformed by coun-
sel.— Denial of continuance is abuse of
discretion where plaintiff, being import-
ant witness, was absent because in-
formed by his counsel that case would
be dismissed on motion but was not.
Cox V. Kirkwood, 41 Okla. 704, 139 P.
980.
448-56 Muldoon t?. Bray Land Co.
(Tex. Civ.), 171 8. W. 1027.
449-59 Illness of president of a cor-
poration plaintiff no ground. Jennings
Co. V. Dyer, 41 Okla. 468, 139 P. 250.
That confinement of wife is probable
323
Vol. 5
CONTINUANCES
any minute 18 sufficient where party is
a material witness. Bitchey f?. Fend-
ley, 11 Ga. App. 495, 75 S. E. 841.
SidmesB of members of familyii — Con-
tinuance granted because of absence
through sickness of child. Benford r.
-Shiver, 13 Ga. App. 135, 78 S. E. 860.
Accused incapacitated^ — ^Where an ap-
plication shows that accused was not
mentally or physicaly able to undergo
ordeal of trial, that he could not tes-
tify nor be of any assistance to his
counsel in preparation of case, a con-
tinuance must be granted. Graham v.
fi., 72 Tex. Cr. 9, 160 S. W. 714.
Where one of the defendants la per-
manently ill and unable to travel, and
there is no showing of a probability of
his ever being present or of his ability
to give a deposition it is not abuse of
dscretion to refuse a continuance. Bose
V, Monarch, 150 Ky. 129, 150 S. W. 56,
42 L. B. A. (N. S.) 660, rehear, denied,
151 Ky. 9, 151 S. W. 19, 42 L. B. A.
(N. S.) 667.
450-60 Sterling V. St. Marys, 137 Ga.
177, 73 S. E. 374.
450-66 Kilgore v, S., 99 Ark. 648, 137
S. W. 1092; Davey v. S., 99 Ark. 547,
139 S. W. 629; Sheldon v. Landwehr,
159 Cal. 778, 116 P. 44.
451-68 Latham v. IT. S., 210 Fed.
159, 127 C. C. A. 9; Sanders v. S., 181
Ala. 35, 61 S. 336; Gilbert v. S., 2 Ala.
App. 94, 57 8. 127; Shaffer V. Ter., 14
Ariz. 329, 127 P. 746; Joiner v.'S.
(Ark.), 167 S. W. 492; Wilson v. Chi-
cago, etc. By. Co., 161 la. 191, 142 N.
W. 54; Independent Life Ins. Co. v,
WilUamson, 152 Ky. 818, 154 S. W. 409;
S. V. Jackson, 134 La. 599, 64 S. 481;
B. t?. Barnett, 98 S. C. 422, 82 S. E.
795; Sharp t?. S., 71 Tex. Cr. 633, 160
8. W. 369; Best i?. 8., 64 Tex. Cr. 464,
144 S. W. 589; Montrose Lumb. Co, v,
Jefferson (Tex. Civ.), 153 S. W. 1187;
Sorenson v. Danaher Lumb. Co., 71
Wash, 38, 127 P. 586.
451-69 Betts Spring Co. v. Jardine
Mach. Co., 23 Cal. App* 705, 139 P.
657; Whitehurst 17. Brice & Co., 14
Ga. App. 209, 80 S. E. 670; Morgan v.
8., 13 Ga. App. 434, 79 S. E. 247; Bar-
ber 17. Travelers' Ins. Co., 165 HI. App.
239; Whitaker v. First Nat. Bank, 163
Ky. 623, 174 S. W. 47.
451-70 Whitaker i?. First Nat. Bank,
163 Ky. 623, 174 S. W. 47; Strom 17.
Toklas, 78 Wash. 223, 138 P. 880.
451-71 Whitaker v. First Nat. Bank,
163 Ky. 623, 174 S. W. 47.
451-72 Prevented by weather condl-
tions.—- Where witness was duly sub-
poenaed but because of inclemency of
weather was unable to be present, &
continuance should have been granted.
S. 17. Pierce (Vt.), 92 A. 218.
451-74 Bagland i?. S. (Ala.), 65 S.
776; Malone i?. S., 10 Ala. App. 178,
64 S. 632; Long i?. S., 66 Fla. 217, 63
S. 420; S. 17. Truskett, 85 Kan. 804, 118
P. 1047; S. V. Nelson, 36 Nev. 403, 136
P. 377; Fox f>. S., 71 Tex. Cr. 318, 158
S. W. 1141; Pease v. S. (Tex. Civ.), 155
S. W. 657,
452-77 Bichmire 17. Neeves, 182 111.
App. 77; S. V. Basco, 239 Mo. 535, 144
S. W. 449; Fuller v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 154
S. W. 1021; Stanton 17. S. (Tex. Cr.),
151 S. W. 808.
452-79 McDowell v. S. (Tex. Cr.),
155 S. W. 521: Pace v. 8. (Tex. Cr.),
153 S. W. 132.
452-82 Bose 17. S., 8 Okla. Cr. 294,
127 P. 873; Litchfield 17. S., 8 Okla.
Cr. 164, 126 P. 707, 45 L. B. A. (N. S.)
153; Gaines v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 150 S. W.
199.
452-83 Bagland 17. S. (Ala.), 65 S.
776; Peters 17. 8., 103 Ark. 119, 146 S.
W. 491; Title Guaranty Co. i?. Slinker,
35 Okla. 128, 128 P. 696, 698.
452-84 Bosley v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 153
S. W. 878.
452-85 Williams 17. S., 105 Ark. 698,
151 S. W. 1011; P. 17. Turner, 265 111.
594, 107 N. E. 162; P. 17. Donaldson, 255
111. 19, 99 N. E. 62, Ann. Cas. 1913D,
90; S. 17. Hawthorn, 134 La. 979, 64 S.
873; S. 17. Simpson, 133 La. 576, 63 8.
179; S. 17. Buhler, 132 La. 1065, 62 S.
145; S. 17. AUen, 129 La. 733, 56 S. 655,
Ann. Cas. 1913B, 454; S. 17. Beeves, 129
La. 714, 56 S. 648; S. i?. Nelson, 36 Nev.
403, 136 P. 377; Smith 17. 8. (Tex. Cr.),
148 S. W. 722.
453-88 S. 17. Madry, 93 S. C. 412, 76
S. E. 977; Taylor v. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 164
S. W. 844.
453-90 Benson 17. S., 112 Ark. 442,
166 8. W. 549; Jones 17. S., 8 Okla. Cr.
576, 129 P. 446.
453-91 Poulter i?. S., 72 Tex. Cr, 140,
161 8. W. 475; Loggins t?. 8. (Tex. Cr.),
149 8. W. 170.
First continuance shotdd be granted.
Sharp 17. 8., 71 Tex. Cr. 633, 160 8. W.
369; Boblnson 17. 8., 71 Tex. Cr. 661,
160 8. W. 456; Wells r. 8. (Tex. Cr.),
145 S. W. 950; Wilman 17. 8., 63
324
CONTINUANCES
Vol. 5
Tex. Cr. 623, 141 S. W. 110; Hambleton
V. Southwest Texas Baptist Hospital
(Tex. Civ.), 172 S. W. 674.
454-82 Bedmond 17. S., 4 Ala. App.
190, 59 S. 181; Wiliams v. S., 105 Ark.
698, 151 S. W. 1011; Hamer v. S., 104
Ark. 606, 150 S. W. 142; Hawley v, L.
A. Creamery Co., 16 Cal. App. 50, 116
P. 84; 8. V, Wooten, 136 La. 560, 67 S.
366; S. V. Buhler, 132 La. 1065, 62 S.
145; S. V. Peters, 258 Mo. 334, 167 8.
W. 620; Bose v. 8., 8 Okla. Cr. 294, 127
P. 873; Litchfield V. 8., 8 Okla. Cr. 164,
126 P. 707, 45 L. B. A. (N. 8.) 153;
Bethel v. 8., 8 Okla. Cr. 61, 126 P. 698;
Puig V. 8oto, 18 P. B. 130; Hamilton t?.
S. (Tex. Cr.), 168 8. W. 536; Pace v.
8. (Tex. Cr.), 153 8. W. 132; Bosley
17. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 153 8. W. 878; Boswell
V. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 150 8. W. 432; Missouri
K. & T. By. Co. V. Pitkin (Tex. Civ.),
158 8. W. 1035; Freeman i?. Griewe
(Tex. Civ.), 143 8. W. 730.
454-04 Hamer 17. 8., 104 Ark. 606,
150 8. W. 142; Williams i?. 8., 13 Ga.
App. 179, 78 8. E. 1012; Grusin 17. 8.,
10 Ga. App. 149, 75 8. E. 350; Bond v.
Grand Lodge, etc., 165 111. App. 490;
Baker v. Langan (la.), 145 N. W. 513;
8. 17. Ocky, 165 la. 237, 145 N. W. 486;
Johnson v. C, 151 Ky. 551, 152 8. W.
532; 8. 17. Hawthorn, 134 La. 979, 64 8.
873; 8. 17. Jackson, 134 Jja. 599, 64 8.
481; 8. 17. Simpson, 133 La. 576, 63 8.
179; 8. 17. Beeves, 129 La. 714, 56 S.
648; 8. V, Thomas, 250 Mo. 189, 157 8.
W. 330; 8. 17. Nelson, 36 Nev. 403, 136
P. 377; Hopkins 17. 8., 9 Okla. Cr. 104,
130 P. 1101; Bethel i?. 8., 8 Okla. Cr.
61, 126 P. 698; King v. King, 42 Okla.
405, 141 P. 788; Missouri, etc. B. Co. i?.
Vandivere, 42 Okla. 427, 141 P. 799;
Pimentel 17. Gutierrez, 14 Phil. Isl. 49;
TJ. 8. 17. Salvador, 2 Phil. Isl. 549; Ham-
ilton 17. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 168 8. W. 536;
Beaty 17. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 162 8. W. 877;
Miller 17. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 161 S. W. 128;
Chappell 17. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 161 8. W. 964;
Oliver i? 8. (Tex. Cr.), 159 8. W. 235;
Olausaen 17. S. (Tex. Cr.), 157 8. W.
477; Nunez 17. 8., 70 Tex. Cr. 481, 156
8. W. 933; Crutchfield 17. 8. (Tex. Cr.),
152 8. W. 1053; Giles 17. 8. (Tex. Cr.),
148 8. W. 317; Citizens' Planing Mill
Co. V. Tunstall (Tex. Civ.), 160 8. W.
424; Missouri, K. & T. By. Co. 17. Pit-
kin (Tex. Civ.), 158 8. W. 1035; Camp-
bell 17. Elliott (Tex. Civ.), 151 S. W.
1180| Budolph 17. Price (Tex. Civ.), 146
8. W. 1037; C. i?. Bass, 113 Va. 760, 74
S. E. 397.
Baaioiiablo diligence only required. Mc-
Iver 17. Moulding Co., 84 Misc. 60, 145
N. Y. 8. 1018.
On second appllcation.->Bule as to dili-
gence is not so strictly enforced on first
as on subsequent application, especially
where witness swears to material facts
requiring acquittal or mitigating of-
fense, valigura 17. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 150
8. W. 778.
456-05 Kirby Planing Mill Co. 17.
Hughes, 11 Ga. App. 645, 75 8. E. 1059.
456-96 Proper affidavit dilfts burd-
en.— ^Where affidavit for continuance
complies with the law it is error to
hold that burden of proof to show dili-
gence rests on accused to be proved by
evidence aliunde the affidavit. 8. 17.
Lundy, 131 La. 910, 60 8. 613.
456-97 TolHver 17. 8. (Ark.), 167 8.
W. 703; Joiner 17, 8. (Ark.), 167 8. W.
492.
456-1 Beliance on motion for change
of venae. — ^Where defendant had ample
notice of date of trial but telied, with
mistaken confidence, on his motion for
a change of venue there was no abuse
of discretion in refusing a continuance.
8. 17. Barnett, 98 8. C. 422, 82 8. E. 795.
457-2 Whitehurst 17. Brice & Co., 14
Ga. App. 209, 80 8. E. 670; P. i?. Moore,
161 111. App. 56; Pugh i?. 8., 6 Okla.
Cr. 578, 120 P. 296; Havard i?. 8. (Tex.
Cr.), 166 8. W. 507; Bosley 17. 8. (Tex.
Cr.), 153 8. W. 878; Ellington i?. 8., 63
Tex. Cr. 426, 140 8. W. 1104; 8. i?.
O'Brien, 66 Wash. 219, 119 P. 609.
"Summoned" is equivalent to "sub-
poenaed." Collins 17. 8., 12 Ga. App.
635, 77 8. E. 1079.
Issuance of snbpoena in another case is
not sufficient. Vanderberg 17. 8. (Tex.
Cr.), 148 8. W. 315.
Additional process is necessary where
after subpoena witness moves to an-
other county. Nesbitt 17. 8. (Tex. Cr.),
155 8. W. 202.
Subpoena by magistrate.— Where at the
time of commitment the accused has wit-
nesses summoned by magistrate to ap-
pear before the superior court he is en-
titled to continuance on their failure
to appear, even if no subpoenas have
been issued by clerk of superior court.
Carter i?. 8., 11 Ga. App. 141, 74 8. E.
846.
457-5 Allen 17. C, 145 Ky. 409, 140
S. W. 527; Giles 17. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 148 S.
W. 317.
458-6 Louisville B. Co. 17. YesBel'fl
325
Vol. 5
CONTIJfUA^CHS
Admx., 159 Ky. 664, 167 S. Wi 924; GUes
V. S. (Tex, Cr.), 148 S. W. 317.
458-8 Sufficient time to serve addi-
tional process. — ^Where subpoenas had
been returned showing witnesses had
not been found a long time before trial,
and no further process had been issued
or asked for, the motion for continu-
ance was properly overruled although
accused did not know where witnesses
resided. Stephens v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 154
S. W. 996.
458-10 An imprisoned accused can-
not be expected to possess the informa-
tion necessary to enable him to swear
that a witness he has not seen since
his arrest and whose address is un-
known to him can be secured upon a
future occasion. S. v. Simpson, 133 La.
576, 63 S. 179.
458-12 Time of iBsnance. — ^Issuance
of attachment, where if issued earlier
it might have been executed, is not
sufficient diligence. Allen 17. C, 145
Ky. 409, 140 S. W. 627. Applying for
attachment when case was called for
trial was not diligence. Collins v, S.
(Tex. Cr.), 148 S. W. 1065.
450-14 S. V. Pierce (Vt.), 92 A. 218.
450-15 McGinnis v. McGinnis, 159
la. 394, 139 N. W. 466; Trinity Ry. Co.
V. McCune (Tex. Civ.), 154 S. W. 237.
See Stephens v. Eldorado, 185 Mo. App.
464, 171 S. W. 657.
459-16 Ward v. Atkinson, 22 Colo.
App. 134, 123 P. 120.
459-17 To be ready for first texm.
Failure to procure commission to take
testimony of non-resident witnesses im-
mediately after case is docketed so as
to be ready at first term is not want of
due diligence. Bancroft v, Bancroft
(Del.), 85 A. 561.
461-25 Cole v, S., 70 Tex. Cr. 459,
156 S. W. 929.
462-28 Comp, Hill County Cotton
Oil Co. V. Gathings (Tex. Civ.), 154 S.
W. 664.
462-S2 "Where opponent is willing to
admit the witness would testify as
stated in affidavit for continuance, the
trial court may proceed with the trial.
S. V. O 'Neal, 136 La. 558, 67 S. 365.
462-34 Incapacitating illness peima-
nent.— Where witness is ill and there is
no likelihood of his ever being able to
attend, it is not an abuse of discretion
to refuse continuance. Burnsed. v, S.,
14 Ga. App. 832, 82 S. E. 595.
463-87 McCarty v. S., 10 Okla. Cr.
407, 136 P. 1122; Brown v. S., 72 Tex.
Cr. 33, 160 8. W. 374; Meadows v. S.
(Tex. Or.), 154 S. W. 546; Ragland v.
S. (Tex. Cr.), 153 S. W. 1137; Hart t?.
S. (Tex. Or.), 150 S. W. 188; Best r.
S., 04 Tex. Cr. 464, 144 S. W. 589. See
Creacy f). S. (Tex. Cr.), 166 S. W. 162.
463-38 Freeman v, Atlanta (Ga.
App.), 83 S. E. 436; Smith v. S., 13 Ga.
App. 32, 78 S. E. 685; Freeman i?. At-
lanta, 12 Ga. App. 564, 77 S. E. 891;
S. V. Cannon, 26 Ida. 182, 140 P. 963
(granting postponement where neither
court nor state was inconvenienced);
Raleigh t?. S. (Tex. Cr.), 168 S. W. 1050;
Dukes V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 168 S. W. 96;
Brown v. S., 72 Tex. Cr. 33, 160 S. W.
374; Giles <?. S., 70 Tex. Cr. 550, 157 8.
W. 943; Claussen <?. S., 70 Tex. Cr. 607,
157 S. W. 477; Cole v. S., 70 Tex. Cr.
459, 156 S. W. 929; Caples V. S. (Tex.
Cr.), 155 S. W. 267; Pierce v. S. (Tex.
Cr.), 154 S. W. 559; Fletcher v. S. (Tex.
Cr.), 153 S. W. 1134; Loggins v. S. (Tex.
Cr.), 149 S. W. 170; Bobinson V. S. (Tex.
Cr.), 145 S. W. 345; Wade f?. S. (Tex.
Cr.), 144 S. W. 246; Melton v. S. (Tex.
Cr.), 140 S. W. 781.
463-30 Simmons «. S. (Tex. Cr.), 155
S. W. 229; Yarborough v. 8. (Tex. Cr.),
147 S. W. 270; Hogue v. 8. (Tex. Cr.),
146 S. W. 905; Bobinson V, 8. (Tex.
Cr.), 145 S. W. 345.
463-41 S. V. Hawthorn, 134 La. 979,
64 S. 873.
After due diligence exercised* — ^Where
accused had exercised due diligence in
trying to obtain testimony of non-resi-
dent witnesses it was error to refuse
continuance, accused being entitled to
have such evidence weighed by jury
regardless of fact that it would prob-
ably not have affected the result.
Brown v. S., 71 Tex. Cr. 353, 162 8. W.
339.
463-42 Curtis f. S., 9 Ala. App. 36,
63 S. 745; Bruder f?. 8., 110 Ark. 402,
161 8. W. 1067; Hayes V. 8. (Ga. App.),
84 8. E. 497; Tolbert v, 8., 12 Ga. App.
685, 78 8. E. 131; Maddox v. 8.," 10
Okla. Cr. 569, 139 P. 994.
464-43 Oliver v. 8., 70 Tex. Cr. 140,
159 8. W. 235.
Continuance denied^ — ^Davenport v, 8.,
12 Ga. App. 565, 77 8. E. 830; 8. v. Dan-
iels, 164 N. C. 464, 79 8. E. 953; Mc-
Kelvey t?. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 155 8. W. 932;
Wade V. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 144 8. W. 246.
See Baker v. Langan (la.), 145 N. W.
513.
826
CONTINUANCES
Vol. 5
464^4 Gentry v. S. (Okla. Cr.) . 146
P. 719; Pierce v. S. (Tex. €r.), lo4 S.
W. 559; Giles v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 148 S.
W. 317; Dowd v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 148 S.
W. 304.
464^9 McElroy V, S., 100 Ark. 301,
140 S. W. 8; Wrenn V. S., 12 Ga. App.
694, 78 S. E. 202; Tate v. S. (Tex. Gt,),
146 S, W. 169.
465-50 Mayfield t^. Miles, 266 111.
186, 107 N. E. 152; Miller v. Burgess
(Tex. Civ.), 154 S. W. 591.
Costs on an adjournment by agreement
only include such as are taxable by law.
Stanley Hoisting Co. v. Capitol Realty
& Construction Co., 149 N. Y. S. 523.
465-51 Pekin Cooperage Co. v,
Dougbten (Ark.), 174 S. W. 1189.
465-52 Oorrespondence between at-
torneys is not binding on plaintiff.
Meredith t?. Bitter Boot Valley Irr. Co.
(Mont.), 141 P. 643.
465-55 Norman v. Order of U. C. T.,
163 Mo. App. 175, 145 S. W. 853.
To conform to evidence.^ — ^Amendment
made in personal injury case to con-
form to evidence adduced. Yates v.
Philadelphia B. & W. E. Co., 7 Penne.
(Del.) 472, 82 A. 27.
465-56 Francis v. Western Scteen
Co., 22 Cal. App. 32, 133 P. 327; Hill v.
Harris, 11 Ga. App. 358, 75 S. E. 518;
Wellman t?. O *Connor-Martin Co., 178
Mich. 682, 146 N. W. 289; Van Abel v.
Wemmering, 33 S. D. 644, 146 N. W.
697; Gulf, etc. By. Co. v. Stubbs (Tex.
Civ.), 166 S. W. 699; Texarkana v, Will-
iams (Tex. Civ.), 146 S. W. 333. See
Louisville & N. B. Co. v, Tuggle's
Admr., 151 Ky. 409, 152 S. W. 270.
465-57 Western Life Ins. Co. «. Gilt-
nane, 157 Ky. 275, 163 S. W. 192; Downs
r. Cassidy, 47 Mont. 471, 133 P. 106,
Ann. Cas. 1915B, 1155.
465-58 Buseyk v, Detroit United By.
Co., 180 Mich. 399, 147 N. W. 514;
Hazelton v. 8., 8 Okla. Cr. 184, 126 P.
703; Missouri Biver Trans. Co. v, Min-
neapolis, etc. By. Co., 34 S. D. 1, 147
N. W. 82.
466-59 Van Abel 17. Wemmering, 33
S. D. 544, 146 N. W. 697; Burger f?.
Covert, 75 Wash. 528, 135 P. 30.
Bringing in new parties with no inter-
est in land, and from whom defendant
did not claim did not require a con-
tinuance asked. Mortimer v, Jackson
(Tex. Civ.), 155 S. W. 341.
466-60 Harris v, S., 9 Okla. Cr. 658,
132 P. 1121; Missouri Biver Trans. Co.
V, Minneapolis, etc. By. Co., 34 S. D. 1,
147 N. W. 82. See Mosji v. Hunter (Mo.
App.), 174 S. W. 212.
Where sabstantially the same negU-.
gence was charged, refusal to continue
because of surprise is not abuse of dis-
cretion. Jackson v. Southwest Missouri
B. Co., 171 Mo. App. 430, 156 S. W.
1005. But if a new issue of negligence
is raised by amendment to pleading a
continuance may be granted. Wood v.
General By. Signal Co. (Wis.), 151 N.
W. 269.
In Michigan the rule is to allow a con-
tinuance whenever surprise is claimed
under such conditions as reasonably jus-
tify the claim, and when time is asked
to produce further testimony. Gerkin
V, Brown & Sehler Co., 177 Mich. 45,
143 N. W. 48; Berry t?. B. Co., 172 Mich.
181, 138 N. W. 1038; Leonard v. Leahy,
169 Mich. 406, 135 N. W. 335; Lester
V, Thompson, 91 Mich. 245, 51 N. W,
893.
466-61 Kansas City So. By. Co. v.
Leslie, 112 Ark. 305, 167 S. W. 83, Ann.
Cas. 1915B, 834; Wilson v. Chicago, etc.
By. Co., 161 la. 191, 142 N. W. 54; Ellis
f?. Wahl, 180 Mo. App. 507, 167 S. W.
582; Chicago By. Co. v. Trout (Tex.
Civ.), 152 S. W. 1137; Hood V. Gerrick,
69 Wash. 607, 125 P. 956.
Increasing demand. — ^Where in eject-
ment plaintiff was permitted to insert
the word **so" between the words ''be-
ing entitled" and raising damages from
$100 to $800 this was not enough to
entitle defendant to a continuance.
Idalia Bealty Co. v. Norman, 259 Mo.
619, 168 S. W. 749.
On appeal from Justice's courtd — ^Filing
amended complaint on appeal from jus-
tice's court is not in itself ground for
continuance where no new cause of ac-
tion is set up. Boberts v. Baltimore B.
Co., 72 W. Va. 370, 78 S. E. 357.
A mere amplification of pleading does^
not entitle the other party to a con-*
tinuance. Myers f . Hook, 11 Ga. App.
517, 75 S. E. 833.
Obligation the same^ — New matter not
increasing obligation under facts in.
original does not entitle one to a con-
tinuance. Pullman Co. V, Pinley, 20
Wyo. 456, 125 P. 380.
466-02 Where no reason is given it
is not an abuse of discretion to refuse
continuance. Lewisville Light Co. v,
Lester, 109 Ark. 545, 160 S. W. 861)
827
Tol. 5
CONTINVANCES
Hobson V, St. Louis, etc. B.. Co., 180
111. App. 84.
Affidavits^ — ^In Kentucky the party must
inform the court by affidavit stating
why the amended pleading is of such a
nature as that he cannot be ready for
trial. Phoenix-Jellico Ooal Co. v. Grant,
159 Ky. 95, 166 8. W. 812.
467-63 Crawford v. Crawford, 139
Ga. 394, 77 S. E. 557; Lundy v. Liv-
ingston, 11 Ga. App. 804, 76 S. E. 594.
467-64 Mayfield v. Miles, 266 111.
186, 107 N. E. 152; Troll t?. Prudential
Ins. Co., 172 Mo. App. 12, 154 S. W.
869; Harrison U. S. (Tex. Cr.), 151 S.
W. 552.
Matter of discretion. — S. «. McQuillin,
246 Mo. 517, 152 S. W. 347.
Affidavit must state that a trial in
other court was a necessity in order to
obtain all relief he was seeking in the
two suits. White v. Herhold, 182 111.
App. 477,
Pendency of suit in federal court no
legal ground for continuance of suit in
state court. Boynton <?. Brown, 103
Ark. 513, 145 S. W. 242.
Different parties. — Continuance is prop-
erly denied to await trial of another
defendant in another court. Price v,
S. (Tex. Cr.), 152 S. W. 640.
Where a party is Interested in two
court proceedings he is bound by the
first notice of trial, and the require-
ment for his presence at that trial is
reasonable ground for a continuance in
the other. Neven v, Neven (Nov.), 148
P. 354, cit Pinan v. Millmore, 1 Mich.
N. P. 172.
Where witnesses are indicted fcr c
separate offense, and not as accomplices,
it is not necessary to postpone the trial
until they have been tried. McKelvey
V. S. (TeX: Cr.), 155 S. W. 932.
468-72 Shaffer v. Ter., 14 Ariz. 329,
127 P. 746; Walker v, S., 11 Ga. App.
251, 74 S E. 1100; Samuels V. C, 154
■ Ky 758, 159 S. W. 575; Harris V. S.,
9 Okla. Cr. 658, 132 P. 1121.
468-73 Futch v. Quinn -Marshall Co.,
14 Ga. App. 692, 82 S. E. 55.
Discretionary with courts — ^Hollywood
17. S., 19 Wyo. 493, 120 P. 471, rehear.
denied, 122 P. 588, Ann. Cas. 1913E,
218.
Waiting for fee.— Where three weeks
before trial seccused and attorneys
agreed that latter should do nothing
until fee was paid, this is no ground
for continuance for lack of time to
prepare for trial. Quinton <?. S., 10
Okla. Or. 620, 139 P. 705.
Want of time to consult authorities is
not sufficient ground. Wright v. C,
114 Va. 872, 77 S. E. 503.
469-74 Due diligence in preparing
defense is not excused by withdrawing
a plea of not guilty to file a plea in
abatement. Ter. v. Torres, 16 N. M.
615, 121 P. 27.
469-75 Futch v. Quinn-Marshall Co.,
14 Ga. App. 692, 82 S. E. 55; Preston
V. Paintsville, 158 Ky. 700, 166 S. W.
188.
In disbaxment proceeding where ac-
cused did not claim he would be better
prepared with evidence if hearing were
postponed, it was not prejudicial error
to refuse continuance for want of time
to prepare his defense. In re Condon
(la.), 147 N. W. 769.
469-80 Hagan v. S., 66 Fla. 268, 63
S. 443.
470-83 See Hughes «. S., 126 Tenn.
40, 148 S. W. 543, Ann. Cas. 1913D,
1262.
471-91 Hartman v. Western Cold
Storage Co., 190 111. App. 182; Bent r.
Slade, 189 HI. App. 105; Ealeigh v. S.
(Tex. Cr.), 168 S. W. 1050.
The surpzlso ihast be such, as cannot
be obviated by the exercise of ordinary
care and due diligence on part of party
askin^j for continuance. St. Louis, etc.
R. Co. <7. Long, 41 Okla. 177, 137 P.
1156; Missouri, etc. R. Co. t?. Horton,
28 Okla. 815, 119 P. 233.
Unexpected evidence. — ^Where party is
surprised becausa of admission of evi-
dence he may move for a postpone-
ment to enable him to produce counter
evidence. Byrd v. Vanderburg, 168 Mo.
App. 112, 151 S. W. 184.
Different acts relied upon in second
triaL — Where defendant was tried a
second time and the prosecutor elected
to rely for conviction on a different
act than the one submitted to the first
jury, if accused is taken by surprise
and unable to make a proper showing
he should be granted a continuance.
McCreary v. C, 163 Ky. 206, 173 S- W.
351.
471-92 Preferred Ace. Ins. Co. v.
Patterson, 213 Ped. 595, 130 C. C. A.
175; Williams v. Uzzell, 108 Ark. 241,
156 S. W. 843; Moss r. Hunter (Mo.
App.), 174 S. W. 212; Ter. v. Gallegos,
17 N. M. 409, 130 P. 245; Watson v.
328
CONTINUANCES
Vol. 5
151ack Mountain R. Co., 164 N. C. 176,
80 8. E. 175; Pollock v. Jordan, 22 N.
D. 132, 132 N. W. lOOO, Ann. Cas. 1914A,
1264; Shanklin v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 152
S. W. 1063; St. Louis & S. F. R. Co.
V. White (Tex. Civ.), 160 S. W. 1128.
Where a different state of facts would
not be established by witnesses on an-
other trial, a continuance on ground of
surprise will not be granted. Louis-
ville V. Nicholls, 158 Ky. 516, 165 S. W.
660.
Varlanceii— Defendant entitled to a con-
tinuance when he has been surprised
by a material variance between the
pleading and the proof offered. Mc-
Donald f>. Central 111. Const. Co., 183
Mo. App. 415, 166 S. W. 1087.
Surprise because of dlsdiarge of Jury.
Where a case had been set for trial
on a certain day for accommodation of
parties, witnesses, and attorneys, de-
fendants could not assume merely be-
cause the common-law jury had been
discharged by court that there would
be no further trials. Gahren v, Parkers-
burg Nat. Bank, 157 Ky. 266, 162 S.
W. 1135.
"Where a witness has been improperly
allowed to testiiy, and defendant is
surprised, he must file motion for con-
tinuance, setting up facts constitutiug
the surprise, showing how he will be
injured b)r the testimony, why he should
have additionid time to prepare, and
what evidence he could produce, if
any, to rebut the testimony. A failure
to do this constitutes a waiver of ob-
jection to the testimony. Ostendorf v,
8., 8 Okla. Cr. 360, 128 P. 143.
471-93 Burdick v. Valerius, 172 HI.
App. 267; Moss f. Hunter (Mo. App.),
174 S. W. 212.
The affldavit most show wherein and
how movant is not prepared and how
or why he will be better prepared if
continuance is granted. Hyer t?. Holmes
ft Co., 12 Ga. App. 837, 79 8. E. 58;
Britton V, St. Louis Transfer Co., 155
HI. App. 317.
471-84 To file answer. — ^Defendant
not entitled to a continuance to file
an answer after overruling of a de-
murrer. Baird v. Prewitt, 158 Ky. 793,
166 S. W. 771.
Too many witnesses snnimoned. — ^The
fact that the state has summoned more
witnesses than it was entitled to is
no ground for continuance. S. v, An-
derson, 135 La. 326, 65 S. 478.
472-4 That there were no qualified
regular Jurors is no ground where case
had been tried and jury disagreed at
that term of court. Branch v, S. (Tex.
Cr.), 165 S. W. 605.
472-7 Johnson v, Bennington, etc.
By. Co., 87 Vt. 519, 90 A. 507.
473-9 Albert Hass Lumb. Co. v. Gib-
son, 172 Ala. Ill, 54 S. 994, Ann. Cas.
1913D, 497.
473-10 Steenstrup v. Toledo P. & M.
Co., 66 Wash. 101, 119 P. 16, Ann. Cas.
1913C, 427.
473-12 Continuance to obtain a sev-
erance will not be granted, and where
a severance involves a continuance it
will not be granted as a rule. Ortiz
tJ. S. (Tex. Cr.), 151 S. W. 1056.
473-16 Kepley v. Dingman, 36 Okla.
771, 130 P. 284.
Necessity of a showing* — ^A judge of
circuit court cannot, merely following
a practice of his court, continue a
cause without a showing. McBryde
Est. V. Gay. 14 Haw. 313.
473-18 A mere request or statement
of inability to meet issues presented
by amended complaint is not sufiicient.
Pollock V, Jordon, 22 N. D. 132, 132
N. W. 1000, Ann. Cas. 1914A, 1264.
473-19 Phoenix-Jellico Coal Co. v.
Grant, 159 Ky. 95, 166 8. W. 812; 8.
V. Turner, 133 La. 555, 63 8. 169; Moss
V. Hunter (Mo. App.), 174 8. W. 212;
Clay Co. Oil & Pipe Line Co. v. Marko-
witz (Tex. av.), 139 8. W. 924.
474-20 Mere conclusions are not suf-
ficient. For example, a statement that
defendant is "unable to attend the
trial" is a conclusion and insufficient.
Bichmire v. Neeves, 182 HI. App. 77.
474-23 Tompkins v. American Land
Co., 139 Ga. 377, 77 8. E. 623; Perry
fj. 8., 63 Tex. Cr. 637, 141 8. W. 209.
475-24 Western Warehouse Co. v.
Plynt (Tex. Civ.), 149 8. W. 789.
475-25 Claussen v. 8., 70 Tex. Cr.
607, 157 8. W. 477.
475-26 Dick v. 8., 10 Okla. Cr. 497,
139 P. 322; P. c. Roman, 18 P. R. 217.
Name of witness must appear in affi-
davit. 8. V, Peters, 258 Mo. 334, 167
8. W. 520.
475-28 8. jP. AUen^ 20 Ida. 263, 117
P. 849; 8. 1?. Analla, 18 N. M. 294,
136 P. 600; Boswell v. 8., 8 Okla. Cr.
152, 126 P. 826; 8. i?. Davis, 33 8. D.
243, 145 N. W. 719; Tores v. S. (Tex.
Cr.), 166 S, W, 523.
m
Vol 5
commvMcEs
Where the immaterial nature 6t tlie
evidence is shown by the absent wit-
ness' affidavit the motion will be de-
nied. Smith V. Huff (Tex. Civ.), 164
S. W. 429.
476-29 Foster v. fl. (OWa. dr.), 141
P. 449. '^
476-30 Pla. East Coast R. Co. v.
Smith, 61 Pla. 218, 55 S. 871; Miller
t?. Carney, 182 111. App. 535; In re Mil-
lard's Est, 161 la. 212, 141 N. W.
1050; Hmentel t>. Gutierrez, 14 Phil.
Isl. 49. See Bosley v. S. (Tex. Cr.),
153 S. W. 878.
476-32 Hagan «. S., 66 Pla. 268, 63
S, 443; Romine f?. S., 10 Okla. Cr. 350,
136 P. 775; Key v. S., 10 Okla. Cr. 206,
135 P. 950; Pace V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 153
S. W. 132; Tate i?. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 146
S. W. 169; Sandoloski <?. S. (Tex. Cr.),
143 S. W. 151.
476-33 Watson v. Dev. Co., 22 Cal.
App. 556, 135 P. 511; Ward v, Atkin-
son, 22 Colo. App. 134, 123 P. 120; S.
V. Honey, 2 Boyce (Del.) 452, 80 A. 38;
The Queen v. Ah Kaio, 8 Haw. 466;
S. V. Allen, 20 Ida. 263, 117 P. 849;
Miller i?. Carney, 182 HI. App. 635;
Torpedo Top Co. <?. Royal Ins. Co., 162
111. App. 338; S. t?. Ingraham, 118 Minn.
13, 136 N. W. 258; Boswell <?. S., 8
Okla. Cr. 152, 126 P. 826; Harris f>,
S., 72 Tex. Cr. 117, 167 S. W. 43; Tores
V, S. (Tex. Or.), 166 S. W. 523; Davis
V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 154 S. W. 226; Paige
t?. Menke (Tex. Civ.), 158 S. W, 1030.
477-3Sf Newhouse Mill & Lumb. Co.
17. Keller, 103 Ark. 538, 146 S. W. 855;
Pease v. S. (Tex. Civ.), 155 8. W. 657.
477-36 S. V, Probert (N. M.), 140 P.
1108; S. V, AnaUa, 18 N. M. 294, 136
P. 600; Wood V. French, 39 Okla. 685,
136 P. 734.
477-37 P. f?. Sliger, 17 Cal. App.
464, 120 P. 40; Black v. Downs, 176 111.
App. 358; Torpedo Top Co. t?. Royal
Ins. Co., 162 HI. App. 338; Pry I7. Hoff-
man, 54 Ind. App. 434, 102 N. E. 167,
rehear, denied, 103 N. E. 15; Romine
V, 8., 10 Okla. Cr. 350, 136 P. 775;
Gregg V, Kingfisher, 8 Okla. Cr. 8, 125
P. 1093; Puig r. Soto, 18 P. R. 130;
S. t?. Davies, 33 S. D. 243, 145 N. W.
719; Davis f?. S. (Tex. Cr.), 154 S. W.
226- Paige v. Menke (Tex. Civ.), 158
S. W. 1030; Thompson f>. Hart (Tex.
Civ.), 157 S. W. 184.
First application jbkj be OTerrnled, in
discretion of court, where affidavit fails
to state due diligence had been used.
Consumers' Lignite Co. v. Hnbner (Tex.
Civ.), 154 S. W. 249.
477-38 P. 1?. Donaldson, 255 111. 19,
99 N. E. 62, Ann. Cas. 1913D, 90; North
River Ins. Co. v. Dyche, 163 Ky. 271,
173 S. W. 784; Davis t?. S., 10 Okla.
Cr. 169, 135 P. 438; Boswell d. S., 8
Okla. Cr. 152, 126 P. 826; Giles i?. S.
(Tex. Cr.), 148 S. W. 317; Thompson
V, Hart (Tex. Civ.), 157 S. W. 184.
478-39 Watson v. Columbia Basin
Dev. Co., 22 Cal. App. 556, 135 P. 511;
P. V. SUger, 17 CaL App. 464, 120 P.
40; P. f?. Donaldson, 255 HL 19, 99
N. E. 62.
Mer^ stating due diligence has been
used without showing what diligence is
not sufficient. S. v. Cain, 247 Mo. 700,
153 S. W. 1039.
478-40 Meredith V. C, 148 Ky. 106,
146 S. W. 407; Romine v, S., 10 Okla.
Cr. 350, 136 P. 775; BosweU v, S., 8
Okla. Cr. 152, 126 P. 826.
478-41 S. V. Nelson, 36 Nev. 403,
136 P. 377; Boswell V. S., 8 Okla. Cr.
152, 126 P. 826.
All remedies exhausted* — ^Must affirma-
tively show in application that all legal
remedies to secure presence of witness
have been exhausted. Rose 17. S., 8
Okla. Cr. 294, 127 P. 873.
478-42 S. t?. Allen, 20 Ida. 263, 117
P. 849; Boswell t?. S., 8 Okla. Cr. 152,
126 P. 826.
478-43 Newhouse Mill & Lumb. Co.
tJ. Keller, 103 Ark. 538, 146 S. W. 855;
Boswell V. S., 8 Okla. Cr. 152, 126 P.
826.
470-45 Ward v. Atkinson, 22 Colo.
App. 134, 123 P. 120.
470-46 Beckman v. Waters, 161 Cal.
581, 119 P. 922; S. V. CarUsle, 30 S. D.
475, 139 N. W. 127.
479-48 Tompkins v, American Land
Co., 139 Ga. 377, 77 S. E. 623; P. t?.
Donaldson, 255 Dl. 19, 99 N. E. 62,
Ann. Cas. 1913D, 90; Key f?. S., 10
Okla. Cr. 206, 135 P. 950; Perry v. S., 63
Tex. Cr. 637, 141 S. W. 209; Carver
Bros. V. Merrett (Tex. Civ.), 155 S. W.
633.
479-40 P. r. Bamnovich, 16 Cal.
App. 427, 117 P. 572.
480-54 Pranklin v. Pord, 13 Ga. App.
469, 79 S. E. 366.
480-57 Where motion la not legally
verified refusal of continuance is not
error. Western Warehouse Co. ۥ
Flynt (Tex. Civ.), 149 S. W. 789.
CONTINUANCBS
Vol. 5
4d0-ei Byarg if. S. (Tex. Cr.), 171
S. W. 1132.
480-63 Ward v. AtkiMon, 22 Colo.
App. 134, 123 P. 120.
481-72 Wauhop v. Sawyer's Heirs
(Tex. Civ.), 159 S. W. 185; Continental
Lnmb. Co. v, Wilroy (Tex. Civ.), 151
8. W. 840. See White v. Herbold, 182
111. App. 477.
481-74 See Maplewood Colliery Co,
V. Siebemnann, 182 111. App. 452.
482-78 Marcucci e. Vowlnckel, 164
CaL 693, 130 P. 430; Mountz v. Apt,
51 Colo. 491, 119 P. 150.
482-79 Before case is noticed for
triaL Eisentraut v. Cornelius, 147 Wis.
282, 133 N. W. 34.
Waiting tni day of trial is too late
when suit had been pending six months.
Livermore v. Ayres, 86 Kan. 50, 119
P. 549.
482-85 8. f>. Schrum, 255 Mo. 273,
164 S. W. 202.
483-86 Too late after verdicts— Pee-
bles V. 8., 105 Miss. 834, 63 S. 271.
483-87 Dieekmann r. Merkh, 20 Cal.
App. 655, 130 P. 27; Wood Transfer Co.
V. Shelton, 180 Ind. 273, 101 N. E. 718.
483-aO Watts v. S., 8 Ala. App. 264,
63 S. 18; Huflfman v. S., 110 Ark. 632,
160 8. W. 894; Hagmann v, Schoelkopf,
157 m. App. 313; Candill f?. C, 155
Ky. 578, 159 8. W. 1149; Norman r.
Order of U. C. T., 163 Mo. App. 175,
145 8. W. 853; Bownd f?. 8., 93 Neb.
427, 140 N. W. 790; Brown v, 8. (Tex.
Cr.), 174 8. W. 360; Consumers' Lig-
nite Co. V. Hubner (Tex. Civ.), 154 S.
W. 249.
Where the state admitted every fact
set out in application and court
charged jury that such facts must be
taken as true, accused cannot com-
plain. Truett V. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 168 8.
W. 523.
Facts proved by other witnesses.
Where evidence of an absent witness
is read as a deposition and substantial-
ly same facts were proved by other
witnesses, it was not error to deny
continuance. Chesapeake By. Co. v.
Weddington^s Admr., 156 Ky. 383, 161
S. W. 208; Louisville By. Co. v. Wil-
son's Ext., 156 Ky. 657, 161 8. W. 513.
484-91 Where aflldayits are read to
Jury, a refusal to grant continuance is
not error. Chesapeake By. Co. v. Sta-
plcton, 154 Ky. 351, 157 8. W. 702.
{6178 Klrby*8 Digest provides that con-
tinuances shall not be granted where
court i>ermits to be read the statement
of what is expected to be proved by
the absent witness as his deposition.
Ezell V. Earner (Ark.), 171 8. W. 911.
484-02 Bhodes v. C, 151 Ky. 534,
152 8. W. 549; Breeden t?. C, 151 Ky.
217, 151 8. W. 407; Burford V. 8. (Tex.
Cr.), 151 8. W. 638.
485-04 Tiner v. 8., 110 Ark. 251, 161
8. W. 195; Ter. V. Torres, 16 N. M.
615, 121 P. 27.
Beading aflldavits in criminal cases.
The provision of statute that the ad-
verse party may consent to reading of
the affidavits for continuance as the
.deposition of absent witnesses has no
application to criminal cases. Madison
V. 8., 6 Okla. Cr. 356, 118 P. 617, Ann.
Cas. 1913C, 484.
486-4 Jones v. C, 154 Ky. 640, 157
8. W. 1079; Davis e. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 152
8. W. 1094.
Presumption as to appUcation^^-Where
it appears, however, that the applica-
tion for continuance was not a statu-
tory one, and the admissions were made
only on condition it was statutory, and
record fails to show on which of two
grounds court acted, the presumption
arises that application was not in com-
pliance with the law, and admission of
evidence contradictory to such admis-
sion is allowable. Consumers' Lignite
Co. V. Hubner (Tex. Civ.), 154 8. W.
249.
487-10 Instractions as to truth of
affidavits. — ^Refusal to instruct jury
that affidavits of absent witnesses
should be taken as true is reversible
error, and it is not enough simply to
receive them only as depositions. Rhodes
f?. €., 151 Ky. 534, 152 8. W. 549;
Breeden v. C, 151 Ky. 217, 151 8. W.
407.
487-11 Striplin v. S., 100 Ark. 132,
139 S. W. 1128; Davis v. 8., 64 Tex.
Cr. 8, 141 8. W. 264.
Error, to refuse physician ta testify
as to witness' physical and mental con-
dition, even where witness was present
in court. Yellow Pine Paper Mill Co.
V. Lyons (Tex. Civ.), 159 8. W. 909.
488-12 Scott V. Cleveland, 110 Ark.
9, 160 S. W. 868.
Affidavits as to husband's testimony.
Where affidavit filed by defendant made
a prima facie case for a continuance,
but a cross-affidavit filed by plaintiff
831
Vol. 5
coifumvANCEa'
shows that Absent witness is her huB-1
band, and cannot be examined against |
her, this does not justify a denial of
a continuance, unless it appear in the
cross-affidavit upon what subject wit-
ness will testify. Snyder v. Circ. Judge,
176 Mich. 546, 142 N. W. 767.
48a-lB Callahan v. IT. S., 195 Fed.
924, 115 O. C. A. 612; Scott i?. S., 3
Ala. App. 142, 57 8. 413; Shelley v.
S., 3 Ala. App. 675, 57 S. 416; Scott f?.
Cleveland, 110 Ark. 9, 160 S. W. 868;
Sullivan v. S., 109 Ark. 407, 160 S. W.
239; White V, S., 105 Ark. 698, 152
S. W. 163; St. Louis Ey. Co. f?. Wright,
105 Ark. 269, 150 S. W. 706; Fort
Smith, etc. Dist. v. Scott, 103 Ark. 405,
147 S. W. 440; Marcucci v. Vowinckel,
164 Cal. 693, 130 P. 430; Ford i?. Sim-
mons, 52 Colo. 249, 121 P. 167; Epley.
V. P., 51 Colo. 499, 500, 119 P. 155;
Baldwin v, Lafayette Land Co., 62 Fla.
129, 56 S. 943; Bay v. S., 142 Ga. 655,
83 S. E. 518; Harrelli?. S., 11 Ga. App.
407, 75 S. E. 507; McBryde Est. v.
Gay, 14 Haw. 313; The Queen v. Ah
Kaio, 8 Haw. 466; Cumberland Tel. &
Tele. Co. v. Laird, 161 Ky. 800, 171
S. W. 386; Samuels V. C, 154 Ky, 758,
159 S. W. 575; Bose v. Monarch, 151
Ky. 9, 151 S. W. 19, 42 L. B. A. (N.
S.) 667, over, petition for rehear., 150
Ky. 129, 160 S. W. 56, 42 L. E. A. (N.
S.) 660; S. t7. Bobertson, 133 La. 991,
63 S. 492; S. I?. Cain, 247 Mo. 700, 153
S. W. 1039; Bhodes f?. Guhman, 156 Mo.
App. 344, 137 S. W. 88; S. f?. Nelson,
36 Nev. 403, 136 P. 377; In re Tram-
ner, 35 Nev. 56, 126 P. 337, 41 L. B.
A. (N. S.) 1095; Ter. i?. Lobato, 17 N.
M. 666, 134 P. 222; Watson v. Black
Mountain E. Co., 164 N. C, 176, 80
S. E. 175; 8. t?. English, 164 N. C.
497, 80 S. E. 72; 8. v. Burney, 162 N.
C. 613, 77 S. E. 852; Cromartie c. At-
lantic Coast Line B. Co., 156 N. C. 97,
72 S. E. 98; Pollock <?. Jordon, 22 N.
D. 132, 132 N. W. 1000, Ann. Cas.
1914A, 1264; Tucker v. S., 9 Okla. Cr.
587, 132 P. 825; Houghton u. S., 8 Okla.
Cr. 526, 128 P. 1105; Jones v, S., 8
Okla. Cr. 576, 129 P. 446; Addington
V. S., 8 Okla. Cr. 703, 130 P. 311; Bose
V. 8., 8 Okla. Cr. 294, 127 P. 873; Mil-
ton V. S., 7 Okla. Cr. 407, 124 P. 81;
Fire Assn. v. Gin Co., 39 Okla. 162,
134 P. 443; Colo V. Willow Biver Co.,
60 Or. 594, 117 P. 659, 118 P. 176,
1030; Harkness f. Swissvale, 238 Pa.
544, 86 A. 478; U. S. v, Lorenzana, 12
Phil. Isl. 64; Puig v. Soto, 18 P. B. 130;
I r 1
T. <?. Otero, 18 P. B. 51; P. v, Guzman,
15 P. B. 276; P. v. Santos, 8 P. B.
348; Lummns Cotton Gin Co. t;. Counts,
98 S. C. 136, 82 S. E. 391; Broom «. At-
lantic Coast Line B. Co., 96 S. C. 368,
80 S. E. 616; S. V. Johnson, 92 S. C.
120, 75 S. E. 365; Carolina Timber Co.
r. Holden, 90 S. C. 470, 73 S. E. 869;
S. V. Fulwider, 28 S. D. 622, 134 N. W.
807; Fletcher f?. S. (Tex. Cr.), 153 S.
W. 1134; Gaines r. S. (Tex. Cr.), 150
8. W. 199; Kirby V. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 153
8. W. 455; Carver Bros. v. Merrett
(Tex. Civ.), 155 S. W. 633; Missouri,
K. & T. By. Co. V, Demere (Tex. Civ.),
145 S. W. 623: Freeman r. Grlewe
(Tex. Civ.), 143 8. W. 730; Dwire f?.
Dwire, 86 Vt. 474, 86 A. 164; Nye v.
Manley, 69 Wash. 631, 125 P. 1009.
A continiiaace dioiild be granted for
absence of witness when facts shown
would authorize court to relieve party
from judgment taken through mistake,
surprise, or excusable neglect. Meredith
V, Bitter Boot Val. Irr. Co. (Mont.),
141 P. 643.
Evidence conflictiiig^— It is no abuse of
discretion to deny a motion for con-
tinuance where evidence introduced on .
hearing of motion was conflicting.
Groover v. De Loach, 14 Ga. App. 207,
80 S. E. 535; Groover v. Heyward- Wil-
liams Co., 14 Ga. App. 207, 80 S. E.
536; S. V. Sexton, 91 Kan. 171, 136
P. 901.
400-16 Jones r. C, 154 Ky. 640, 157
S. W. 1079; Ter. V. Torres, 16 N. M.
615, 121 P. 27.
490-17 The accoeed mnst be present
at the hearing. Johnson ۥ S. (Miss.),
63 S. 338.
491-24 Carmack f>. S., 32 0. O. C.
55, 13 O. C. C. (N. S.) 362.
491-2B Sheldon v, Landwehr, 159
Cal. 778, 116 P. 44; Martin i?. Hubbard,
32 Okla. 2, 121 P. 620.
492-26 Weir v, S. ft J. T. Qark, 4
Ala. App. 302, 58 S. 793; Moore f. Chi-
cago, etc. B. Co., 151 la. 353, 131 N.
W. 30.
492-28 Acoeptiiig benefit of con-
tinuance is a consent to terms imposed.
Ford V. Simmons, 52 Colo. 249, 121 P.
167.
492-29 Weir r. 8. ft J. T. (^tk, 4
Ala. App. 802, 58 S. 793.
492-31 See Subelia v. Jelgerhnis, 32
S. D. 648, 144 N. W. 125.
493«S3 Oonrt may vacate order ef
S82
CONTINUANCES
Vol 5
eontinuanee where state shows a mate-
rial witness would leaye jurisdiction
without certainty of return. S. v. Bi
Benedetto, 83 N. J. L. 792, 85 A. 1135,
af. 82 N. J. L. 168, 82 A. 521.
493-36 Ford v. Simmons, 52 Colo.
849, 121 P. 167; Farmers' OU & G.
Co. V. Louisville Cotton Oil Co., 12 Ga.
App. 22, 76 S. E. 751; Masonic Life
Assn. V, Bobinson, 156 Ky. 371, 169
8. W. 1078; Madisonville, etc. B. Go.
V. Owen, 147 Ky. 1, 143 S. W. 421;
Clary r. S. (Tex. Cr.). 150 S. W. 919;
Woods V. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 150 S. W. 633.
Good faith must appear, otherwise it
may be denied. White v. S., 105 Ark.
698, 152 S. W. 163.
493-37 8. V. Jackson, 134 La. 599,
64 8. 481; Beaver v. 8., 63 Tex. Cr.
581, 142 8. W. 11. 8ee Manley v. 8.
(Tex. Cr.)> 154 8. W. 1008.
493-38 Bogers v, 8., 71 Tex. Cr. 149,
159 8. W. 40.
Where no diligence is shown to procure
witness after first continuance is
granted a second continuance is proper-
ly refused. Walls v. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 153
a. W. 130.
494-42 Effect of change in term.
Where after order of continuance had
been made, a change had been made in
the time of holding next term, the con-
tinuance applies to the changed date,
even though the parties were not ap-
prised of the change in date of term.
Guerra v. Guerra (Tex. Civ.), 158 8.
W. 191.
Jniisdiction la not lost by a justice of
peace where adjournment is taken to
allow parties to file briefs and sub-
mitting case finally later (Moir v.
Bourke, 156 la. 612, 137 N. W. 921),
nor where case is continued to issue
alias summons against third defendant.
Hawkins f. Castenholz, 171 Mich. 85,
137 N. W. 110.
494-43 A general contlnaance Is
tantamonnt to refusal to continue fur-
ther, and at a subsequent term there
must be a trial de novo. Bwire f.
Dwire, Se Vt. 474, 86 A. 164.
495-4B A party at whose reqnest
an irregular adjournment is taken (or
if taken with hia consent) cannot take
advantage of the irregularity. Per-
kins V, Westinghouse Air Brake Co.
(Del. Ch.), 87 A. 1027.
493-46 Mountz v. Apt, 51 Colo. 491,
119 P. 150; Baldwin v. Lafayette Land
Co., 62 Fla. 129, 56 8. 943; Shaw v. 8.,
7 Okla. Cr. 390, 123 P. 1116; Gaines «?.
S. (Tex. Cr.), 150 8. W. 199; Moreno
f?. 8., 64 Tex. Cr. 660, 143 8. W. 156,
Ann. Cas. 1914C, 863; Williams f. 8.,
63 Tex. Cr. 515, 140 8. W. 440; Wilson
V. 8., 63 Tex. Cr. 81, 138 8. W. 409.
495-47 Van Dyke «. Copper Co., 14
Ariz. 499, 132 P. 94; Shevalier v,
Stephenson, 92 Neb. 675, 139 N. W.
233.
Error in densrlng continuance to plain-
tiff is waived by asking and being
granted a voluntary dismissal. Fur-
man 17. The Bon Marche, 71 Wash. 238,
128 P. 210.
Scott V, 8., 137 Ga. 337, 73
S. E. 575; Kennedy v. Neeves, 258 111.
24, 101 N. E. 245.
Amending answer to meet the amend-
ment waives error in refusing contin-
uance because of amendment. St. Louis,
etc. B. Co. V. Wright, 105 Ark. 269, 150
S. W. 706.
495-53 Pocahontas Distilling Co. v.
U. 8. (C. C. A.), 218 Fed. 782; Calla-
han V. U. 8., 195 Fed. 924, 115 C. C.
A. 612; Scott v, S., 3 Ala. App. 142,
57 S. 413; Shelley v. S., 3 Ala. App.
675, 57 8. 416; Banks v. 8., 2 Ala.
App. 247, 57 8. 63; Gilbert v, 8., 2 Ala.
App. 94, 57 8. 127; Martin t?. 8., 1
Ala. App. 215, 56 S. 3; Joiner v. S.
(Ark.), 167 S. W. 492; Scott v. Cleve-
land, 110 Ark. 9, 160 S. W. 868; Sul-
livan V. 8., 109 Ark. 407, 160 S. W.
839; White v, 8., 105 Ark. 698, 152
8. W. 163; Ft. Smith, etc. Dist. <?. Scott,
103 Ark. 405, 147 8. W. 440; Morris
V. 8., 102 Ark. 513, 145 S. W. 213;
Swayne & Hoyt v, Wells-Eussell & Co.
(Cal.), 146 P. 686; Marcucci v. Vow-
inckel, 164 Cal. 693, 130 P. 430; Shel-
don e. Landwehr, 159 Cal. 778, 116 P.
44; Mead v. Broads, 21 Cal. App. 324,
131 P. 758; Dussart v, Merc. Co., 57
Colo. 423, 140 P. 806; Ford v, Simmons,
52 Colo. 249, 121 P. 167; Epley v. P.,
51 Colo. 601, 119 P. 153; Bradbury v.
Whitney, 51 Colo. 287, 117 P. 171; Mc-
Bae V. S^ 62 Fla. 74, 57 8. 348; Ken-
nedy V. Dukes, 137 Ga. 209, 73 S. E.
400; HoUoway v, Cochran (Ga. App.),
82 8. E. 761; Farmers' Oil, etc. Co. V,
Louisville Cotton Oil Co., 12 Ga. App.
22, 76 S. E. 751; Myers v. Hook, 11 Ga.
App. 517, 75 8. E. 833; Waldeyer v.
Wailuku Sugar Co., 19 Haw. 245; De
Puy V. Peebles, 24 Ida. 550, 135 P. 264;
Bichards v, Bichards, 24 Ida. 87, 132
P. 576; Purtell t\ Philadelphia Iron Co.,
167 HI. App. 125, aff. 256 HI. 110, 99
833
Vol. 5
CONTRIBUTION
N. E. 899, Ann. Oas. 1913E, 335, 43 L.
B. A. (N. 8.) 193; Baker V, Langan
(la.), 145 N. W. 513; S. V. Schneck, 85
Kan. 334, 116 P. 823; Masonic Life
Assn. V, Eobinson, 156 Ky. 371, 160
S. W. 1078; Independent Life Ina. Co.
V. Williamson, 152 Ky. 818, 154 S. W.
409; 8. 1?. Buhler, 132 La. 1065, 62 8.
145; 8. V. Allen, 129 La. 733, 56 8.
655, Ann. Cas. 1913B, 454; 8. v. Smith,
129 La. 61, 55 8. 710; Boney V. Healy,
170 Mich. 46, 135 N. W. 959; Gold V.
Detroit United By., 169 Mich. 178, 134
N. W. 1118; 8. V. Ingraham, 118 Minn.
13, 136 N. W. 258; 8. V. Peters, 258 Mo.
334, 167 8. W. 520; 8. v. Cain, 247
Mo. 700, 153 S. W. 1039; 8. v. Mc-
QnilUn, 246 Mo. 517, 152 8. W. 347;
Moss V. Hunter (Mo. App.), 174 8. W.
212; Gibson V. Pioneer Life Ins. Co.,
181 Mo. App. 302, 168 8. W. 818; Troll
t?. Prudential Ins. Co., 172 Mo. App. 12,
154 8. W. 869; Norman V. Order of
U. C. T., 163 Mo. App. 175, 145 8. W.
853; Bhodes v. Guhman, 156 Mo. App.
344,. 137 8. W. 88; Becker v. 8., 91 Neb.
352, 136 N. W. 17; Neven V. Neven
(Nov.), 148 P. 354; 8. V. Nelson, 36
Nev. 403, 136 P. 377: In re Tramner,
35 Nev. 56, 126 P. 337, 41 L. B. A.
(N. 8.) 1095; State Bank v. Western
Union Tel. Co. (N. M.), 142 P. 156;
Ter. V. Lobato, 17 N. M. 666, 134 P.
222; Massey t?. North Carolina B. Co.
(N. C), 84 8. E. 1047; Watson v. Black
Mountain B. Co., 164 N. C. 176, 80
8. E. 175; 8. v, English, 164 N. C. 497,
80 8. E. 72; 8. V, Daniels, 164 N. C.
464, 79 8. E. 953; 8. v. Burney, 162
N. C. 613, 77 8. E. 852; Cromartie v.
Atlantic Coast Line B. Co., 156 N. C.
97, 72 8. E. 98; Pollock v, Jordon, 22
N. D. 132, 132 N. W. 1000, Ann. Cas.
1914 A, 1264; Ex parte Petition of Hyde
Park. 12 Ohio C. C. 248; Gentry v, 8.
(Okla. Or.), 146 P. n9; Foster r. S.
(Okla. Cr.), 141 P. 449; Monagham v.
e., 10 Okla. Cr. 89, 134 P. 77, 46 L. B.
A. (N. 8.) 1149; Addington v. 8., 8
Okla. Cr. 703, 130 P. 311; Houghton v.
8., 8 Okla. Cr. 526, 128 P. 1105; Jones
i). 8., 8 Okla. Cr. 576, 129 P. 446;
Bethel v. S., 8 Okla. Cr. 61, 126 P.
698; Gregg v. Kingfisher, 8 Okla. Cr.
8, 125 P. 1093; Litchfield D. S., 8 Okla.
Cr. 164, 126 P. 707, 45 L. B. A. (N.
S.) 153; Bose v, 8., 8 Okla. Cr. 294,
127 P. 873; Hughes V. S., 7 Okla. Cr.
117, 122 P. 554; Pool V. Biegal (Okla.),
147 P. 1193; Jennings v. Dyer, 41 Okla.
468, 139 P. 250; St. Lou}s, etc. B. Co.
V. Long, 41 Okla. 177, 137 P. 1156;
Wolton 17. Kennamer, 39 Okla. 629, 136
P. 584; Fire Assn. «. Gin Co., 39 Okla.
162, 134 P. 443; Walker Bond & Co.
V. Purifier, 32 Okla. 844, 124 P. 322;
Keen v. Fletcher, 3l Okla. 791, 123 P.
842; Cole V. Willow Biver Land, etc
Co., 60 Or. 594, 118 P. 1030; Epstein
V, Ins. Co. of N. A., 245 Pa. 132, 91
A. 244; First Nat. Bk. v. Guaranty
Co., 238 Pa. 75, 85 A. 1126; Harkness
v. Swissvale, 238 Pa. 544, 86 A. 478;
John A. Boebling Sons Co. v. American
Amusement Co., 231 Pa. 261, 80 A. 647;
People's Nat. Bank 17. Hazard, 231 Pa.
552, 80 A. 1094, Ann. Cas. 1914B, 1115;
P. 17. Otero, 18 P. B. 51; P. i?. Guzman,
15 P. B. 276; P. 17. Santos, 8 P. B.
348; Lummus Cotton Gin Co. 17. Counts,
98 8. C. 136, 82 8. E. 391; 8. 17. John-
son, 92 8. O. 120, 75 8. E. 365; Owen
17. Western Union TeL Co.j 89 8. C.
190, 71 S. E. 782; Van Abel u. Wem-
mering, 33 8. D. 644. 146 N. W. 697;
Clark 17. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 174 8. W. 354;
K. C. So. B. Co. 17. Carter (Tex. Civ.),
166 8. W. 115; S. 17. MUler, 80 Wash.
75, 141 P. 293; Nye V. Manley, 69 Wash.
631, 125 P. 1009; S. 17. Angelina, 73 W.
Va. 146, 80 S. E. 141; Hollywood f?.
8., 19 Wyo. 493, 120 P. 471, 122 P. 588,
Ann. Cas. 1913E, 218. See U. S. v.
Pellejera, 17 Phil. Isl. 587.
The whole record on appeal must be
considered to determine whether there
was an abuse of discretion. Kirby v*
8. (Tex. Or.), 150 8. W. 455.
Where continuaace has been denied, all
facts disclosed by evidence will be con-
sidered by appellate court to determine
whether there was an abuse of discre-
tion. Harrison 17. 8., 10 Okla. Or. 210,
135 P. 948.
496-66 Hagan 17. S., 66 Fla. 268, 63
8. 443; Ellis 17. Wahl, 180 Mo. App.
507, 167 8. W. 582; Koch i?. Canners'
Co., 146 Wis. 267, 131 N. W. 404
CONTBIBTrnON
498-1 Yore 17. Yore, 240 Mo. 451, 144
8, W. 847; Peterson 17. Nichols, 71
Wash. 656, 129 P. 373.
Gontrlbution and eabroc^tion distin-
guished. Central Banking, etc. Co. v.
U. 8. Fidelity, etc. Co., 73 W. Va. 197,
80 8. E. 12L
498-4 In re Koch's Est, 148 Wis.
548, 134 N. W. 663.
601-22 Hinshaw v, Warren's Est.,
167 Mo. App. 365, 151 8. W. 497.
S34
CORPORATIONS
^Yol 5
601-30 Bayne d. Oreiner's Est., 118
Minn. 350, 136 N. W. 1041; Slaton f?.
Anthony (Tex. Civ.)* 143 S. W. 201.
503-46 Owens v, Blackburn, 161 App.
Div. 827, 880, 146 N. Y. S. 966, 969.
OOFTBIGHT PBOOSEDINaS
508-13 Dramatic prodactlons^— Pre-
liminary injunctions are granted more
readily in dramatic than in other cases,
because the delay involved in waiting
for *final decree would often amount
to a denial of justice. Chapp^ & Co.
©. Fields, 210 Fed. 864, 127 0. C. A.
448.
509-19 Woodman v. Lydiard-Peter-
sen Co., 192 Fed. 67.
Tlfle of the word ''court'* does not re-
quire that the judge acting by himself
shall assess the damages, but he may
direct the jury to assess the damages
within the prescribed limits. Mail &
Express Co. v. Life Pub. Co., 192 Fed.
899, 113 G. C. A. 377.
509-21 Court cannot arbitrarily
make findings of damages and profits
and fix the amount or impose penalties,
but may refer to a master to find such.
Huebsch u. Arthur H. Crist Co., 209
Fed. 885.
610-36 Bizon v. Corinne Bunkel
Stocjc Co., 214 Fed. 418.
T7nder Act March 4, 1909, ch. 820, §12,
85 St. at L. 1078, U. S. Comp. St.,
Supp., 1909, p. 1293, when it appears
that injunction Was issued before two
copies had been deposited in copyright
office or in the mail addressed to regis-
ter of copyrights, the injunction was
void because made in an action which
could not be maintained because the
court did not have jurisdiction. New
York Times Co. f>. Sun Printing & Pub.
Assn., 204 Fed. 586, 123 C. C. A. 54;
New York Times Co. v. Star Co., 195
Fed. 110.
512-50 Act March 4, 1909, ch. 320,
§36, provides that any party aggrieved
may maintain an action in equity, and
this includes a licensee. Aeolian Co. v.
Royal Music Roll Co., 196 Fed. 926. '
512-52 New Rule 37 in equity (198
Fed. xxviii, 115 C. C. A. xxviii ) pro-
vides: "All persons having an interest
in the subject-matter of the action and
obtaining the relief demanded may join
as plaintiffs, and any person may be
made a defendant who has or claims an
interest adverse to the plaintiff." Gau-
mont Co. V. Hatch, 208 Fed. 378.
512-55 New York Times Co. v. Sun
Printing & Pub. Assn., 204 Fed. 586,
123 C. C. A. 54; Crown feature Film
Co. V, Levy, 202 Fed. 805.
512-56 Crown Feature Rim Co. t?.
Levy, 202 Fed. 805.
513-58 Complainant most show his
title by setting forth facts to show
how he became proprietor and why he
has the right to bring the action.
Crown Feature Film Co. v. Levy, 202
Fed. 805.
515-75 Universal Film Mfg. Co. v,
Copperman, 206 Fed. 69.
516-90 Rule 9 (172 Fed. v); Uni-
versal Film Mfg. Co. V, Copperman, 206
Fed. 69: Crown Feature Film Co. c.
Bettis Amusement Co., 206 Fed. 362.
518-7 See Dam v. Kirk La Shelle Co.,
189 Fed. 842.
519-15 Huebsch v. Arthur H. Crist
Co., 209 Fed. 885.
OOBOirBB'S INQUEST
522-1 drcnmstances of the killing
known.— -A coroner cannot hold an in-
quest when the circumstances of the
killing were well known, when statute
provides for such only where cause is
unknown. Faucett f?. S., 10 Okla. Cr.
Ill 134 P. 839.
529-47 S. f?. Griffin, 98 S. C. 105, 82
S. E. 254.
529-50^ Affidavit under Act, 1912,
ch. 63, is a condition precedent to
authority of coroner to employ any one
at county expense to make autopsy.
Grinstead v. Monroe County, 156 !Ky.
296, 160 S. W. 1041.
OOBPORATIONS
546-1 United States F. & G. Co. t?.
Marks (Nev.), 142 P. 524 (surety com-
panies, while licensed to do business
within the state, are not prohibited by
law from suing on a mortgage to in-
demnify it against loss) ; Goodale Phon-
ograph Co. V. Valentine, 69 Wash. 263,
124 P. 691.
A corporation which has failed to pay
its annual tax is, by statute, denied the
right to sue while delinquent. Klamath
Lumb. Co. V, Bamber (Or.), 145 P. 650.
547-6 Conley f?. Daughters of the Re-
public of Texas (Tex. Civ.), 151 8. W.
877.
335
Vol. 5
COBPOBATIONS
K47-8 Conley v. Daughters of the Be-
public of Texas (Tex. Civ.), 151 8. W.
877.
548-9 Levert v. Shirley Planting Co-
135 La. 929, 66 S. 301.
549-15 Cotton v. U, S., 11 How. (U.
S.) 229, 13 L. ed. 675, 679; U. S. v.
Burrill, 107 Me. 382, 78 A. 568; St.
Louis & S. F. B. Co. v. Lewis, 28 Okla.
453, 114 P. 702.
550-17 Cotton v. U. S., 11 How. (U.
S.) 229, 13 L. ed. 675, 679; .Divine V.
Harvie, 7 T. B. Mon. (Ky.) 439, 18
Am. Dec. 194; U. S. v. Burrill, 107 Me.
382, 78 A. 568; Lodor V. Baker, 39 N.
J. L. 49; Keene v. Smith, 44 Or. 525,
75 P. 1065.
553-32 Bowe v Stevens, 25 Ida. 237,
137 P. 159.
554-37 Kewhall v. Western Zinc
Min. Co., 164 Cal. 380, 128 P. 1040;
GuUedge Bros. Lumb. Co. 17. Wenatchee
Land Co., 122 Minn. 266, 142 N. W.
305, 46 L. B. A. (N. S.) 697; South-
western Surety Ins. Co. v. Anderson
(Tex. Civ.), 152 S. W. 816. See Holmes
V. Jewett, 55 Colo. 187, 134 P. 665.
Pending equitable actions against a
foreign corporation upon the lapsing of
. the corporate charter are stayed until
the substitution of some one as defend-
ant to represent it. Murphy v, Mis-
souri & K. L. & L. Co., 28 N. D.'519,
149 N. W. 957.
Where the charter & forfeited for fail-
ure to comply with statute, the corpora-
tion cannot sue. C. B. Havens & Co.
V, Colonial Apartment House Co., 97
Neb. 639, 150 N. W. 1011.
A corporation whoso charter has ex-
pired cannot be sued. Kewhall v. West-
ern Zinc Min. Co^ 164 Cal. 380, 128
P. 1040.
554-40 Cushman V, Warren-Scharf
Asphalt Pav. Co. (C. C. A.), 220 Fed.
857; Lively v, Picton (C. C. A.), 218
Fed. 401; Castle's Admr. V. Acrogen
Coal Co., 145 Ky. 591, 140 S. W. 1034;
Service Lumb. Co. v. Sumpter Val. B.
Co., 67 Or. 63, 135 P. 539.
Not confined to suits in state of origin.
A dissolved corporation may sue as a
foreign corporation in the federal
courts. Cushman V, ' Warren-Scharf
Asphalt Pav. Co. (C. C. A.), 220 Fed.
857.
566-43 Compliance with the statute
pending the action cures the defect.
Riverdale Min. Co. f?. Wicks, 14 Cal.
App. 526, 112 P. 896,
556-44 Eiverdale IlCn. Co. v. Wicks,
14 Cal. App. 526, 112 P. 896.
566-45 Alaska Salmon Co. v. Stand-
ard Box Co., 158 Cal. 567, 112 P. 454;
Canadian Country Club f?. Johnson
(Tex. Civ.), 176 S. W. 835.
Effect of failure to pay tax upon a
pending action.— A forfeiture of the
charter of the corporation because of
a failure to pay the annual license tax
causes an action by the corporation to
abate, but does not by virtue o£ the
statutory provision abate actions
against the corporation. Such actions
may be prosecuted to final judgment in
the corporate name. Brandon t?. Ump-
qua L. & T. Co., 166 Cal. 322, 136 P.
62; Lowe V, Superior Court, 165 Cal.
708, 134 P. 190. The directors may be
substituted as parties defendant but
such substitution is not essential. Lowe
f?. Superior Court, 165 Cal. 708, 134
P. 190. The right to defend the action
includes the right to appeal in the
name of the corporation. Brandon v.
Umpqua L. & T. Co., 166 Cal. 322, 136
P. 62.
557-47 Holmes v, Jewett, 55 Colo.
187, 134 P. 665; Canadian Country Club
V. Johnson (Tex. Civ.), 176 S. W. 835.
When a corporation Is not shown to
possess a board of directors a petition
in the court of land registration may
be presented in its behalf by a *duly
authorized person. Capellania Be Tom-
bobong V, Cruz, 9 Phil. Isl. 145.
557-48 See Ellis v. Vandergrift, 173
Ala. 142, 55 S. 781.
558-49 S. V. McQuilHn, 260 Mo. 164,
168 S. W. 924; Canadian Country Gub
U. Johnson (Tex. Civ.), 176 S. W. 835;
Kiugsbury v. Phillips (Tex. Civ.), 142
S. W. 73.
559-53 Conley 17. Daughters of the
Eepublic of Texas (Tex. Civ.), 151 S.
W. 877.
559-55 German Corporation v. Ne-
gaunee German Aid Society, 172 Mich.
650, 138 N. W. 343; Grant's Pass Hdw.
Co. f?. Calvert, 71 Or. 103, 142 P. 569,
at law.
662-74 Adolph PhiUpp Co. v. New
Yorker Staats-Zeitung, 165 App. Biv.
377, 150 N. Y. S. 1044.
563-81 Honey lost by officer deal-
ing In fatnres may be recovered in an
equity suit on behalf of the corporation.
Medlin Mfg. Co. €. Moffatt Com. Co.,
218 Fed. 686.
336
CORPORATIONS
7ol. 5
564-93 Hutchinson 17. Philadelphia
& G. S. S. Co., 216 Fed. 795.
573-30 See 7 Standard Psoo. 569,
and supplement thereto.
576-44 A corporation can be tried
for crime only npon an Indictment or
presentment of a grand jury in the ab-
sence of an express statutory pro-
vision, or of a waiver of indictment.
Progress Club V, S., 12 Ga. App. 174,
76 S. E. 1029.
578-56 Three conditions must exist
to give a court Jurisdiction over a
foreign corporation. First, the transac*
tion of business within the state; sec-
ond, the agent carrying on the business
was authorized by and represented the
corporation; third, the existence of
some local law making a foreign cor-
poration amenable to suit. Connecticut
Mutual Life Ins. Co. v, Spratley, 172
TJ. S. 602, 19 Sup. Ct. 308, 43 L. ed.
669; W. J. Armstrong v. New York
Cent. & H. B. B. Co. (Minn.), 151 N.
W. 917.
579-58 W. J. Armstrong v. New
York Cent. & H. B. B. Co. (Minn.),
151 N. W. 917.
579-61 Travis v, Enox Terpezone
Co. (N. Y.), 109 N. E. 250, may compel
transfer of shares on books.
580-62 Boremus f?. National Cotton
Imp. Co., 39 App. Cas. (D. C.) 295;
Travis V. Knox Terpezone Co. (N. Y.),
109 N. E. 250; Hogue v. American Steel
Foundries, 247 Pa. 12, 92 A. 1073; Loan
Society v. Eavenson, 241 Pa. 65, 88
A. 295.
581-71 Lemon v. Imperial Window
Glass Co., 199 Fed. 927.
585-91 Great Western Life Assur.
Co. V. S., 181 Ind. 28, 102 N. E. 849,
103 N. E. 843.
586-94 Smith v. Inter-Mountain A.
Co., 25 Ida. 212, 136 P. 1125.
The principal place of business of a cor-
poration is its place of residence. Cook
r. W. 8. Bay Mfg. Co., 159 CaL 694,
115 P. 318; Trezevant t?. Strong Co., 102
CaL 47, 36 P. 395.
The residence of a non-resident do-
mestic corporation which appointed the
state auditor its attorney for purposes
of service but who did not appoint a
local attorney, is not the official resi-
dence of the auditor and it may be
sued in any county within the state.
Lemon t?. Imperial Window Qlass Co.,
199 Fed. 927,
686-95 Smith v, Inter-Mountain A.
Co., t5 Ida. 212, 136 P. 1125.
587-98 Atlantic, etc. E. Co. v, Spen-
cer, 166 N. C. 522, 82 S. E. 851. Contra,
Smith 17. Inter-Mountain A. Co., 25 Ida.
212, 136 P. 1125.
588-6 Great Western Life Assur. Co.
t?. S., 181 Ind. 28, 102 N. E. 849, 103
N. E. 843. See Drennen Motor Car Co.
f?. Evans (Ala.), 68 S. 303, holding
§6112 of the Code of 1907 does not
provide for all actions against a cor-
poration.
589-8 Beal-Doyle D. G. Co. v. Odd
Fellows Bldg. Co., 109 Ark. 77, 158 S.
W. 955; Trezevant V. Strong Co., 102
Cal. 47, 36 P. 395; Hammond 17. Ocean
Shore Dev. Co., 22 Cal. App. 167, 133
P. 978 (plaintiff may elect to bring the
action in the county named); Employ-
ers' Indemnity Co. v, Duncan, 159 Ky.
460, 167 S. W. 414; Bavies V. Oregon
P. & P. Co., 61 Or. 594, 123 P. 906,
for this county is its place of resi-
dence.
589-9 Peaslee-Gaulbert Co. v. Mc-
Math's Admr., 148 Ky. 265, 146 S. W.
770 (tort action); Cannel Coal Co. V.
Luna (Tex. Civ.), 144 S. W. 721.
"In any county where the corporation
transacts business." — ^Under this stat-
ute the corporation is held to be trans-
acting business in the county in which
its agent bouffht a consignment of lum-
ber. Strandall v, Alaska Lumber Co.,
73 Wash. 67, 131 P. 211.
589-10 Brennen Motor Car Co. v,
Evans (Ala.)> 68 S. 303; American Coal
Corp. V, Roux (Ala.), 68 S. 970; Louis-
Tille & N. B. Co. V. Dawson (Ala.
App.), 68 S. 674, corporation held to
be engaged in doing business by agent.
590-11 American Coal Corp. v,
Koux (Ala.), 68 S. 970; Drennen Motor
Car Co. V. Evans (Ala.), 68 S. 303.
690-12 Drennen Motor Car Co. f?.
Evans (Ala.)* 68 S. 303; Judge V. Wash-
burn-Crosby MiU. Co., 1 Ala. App. 470,
56 S. 2; Trezevant t?. Strong Co., 102
Cal. 47, 36 P. 395; Hammond v. Ocean
Shore Dev. Co., 22 Cal. App. 167, 133
P. 978; Peaslee-Gaulbert Co. «. Mc-
Math's Admr., 148 Ky. 265, 146 S. W.
770; Ehome Milling Co. «. Cunningham
(Tex. Civ.), 171 S. W. 1081; Planters'
Cotton Oil Co. V. Whites-Boro Cotton
Oa Co. (Tex. Civ.), 146 S. W. 225.
590-18 S. V. Eisjord (Wis.), 152 N.
W. 847.
Provided the defendant has an agent,
837
Vol. 5
CORPOMATUXm
* I
agency, or plaee of business in such
county. Tuggle r. Enterprise Lumb.
Co., 123 Ga. 480, 51 S. E. 433: Central
Georgia Power Co. v. Pamell, 11 Ga.
App. 779, 76 S. E. 157.
Venue In libel soit^ — Jones 17. Pulitzer
Pub. Co., 256 Mo. 57, 165 S. W. 304;
Houston V. Pulitzer Pub. Co., 249 Mo.
332, 155 S. W. 1068.
"Where part of action arose^— Kell Mtg.
Co. t?. Bank of Miami (Tex. Civ.), 155
S. W. 325.
i;90-14 Trezevant 17. Strong Co., 102
Cal. 47, 36 P. 395; Hammond v. Ocean
Shore Dev. Co., 22 Cal. App. 167, 133
P. 978; Central Georgia Power Co. v.
Parnell, 11 Ga. App. 779, 76 S. E. 157
(if it has an office and transacts busi-
ness there); Southern Coal & Coke Co.
V. Bowling Green Coal Co., 161 Ky. 477,
170 S. W. 1185; Swann-Day Lumber Co.
17. Comett, 161 Ky. 98, 170 S. W. 516;
Employers' Indemnity Co. v, Duncan,
159 Ky. 460, 167 S. W. 414.
590-15 Trezevant v. Strong Co., 102
Cal. 47, 36 P. 395; Hammond 17. Ocean
Shore Dev. Co., 22 Cal. App. 467, 133 P.
978; Central Georgia Power Co. v, Par-
nell, 11 Ga. App. 779, 76 S. E. 157 (if
it has an office and transacts business
there); Southern Coal & Coke Co. 17.
Bowling Green Coal Co., 161 Ky. 477,
170 S. W. 1185; Owensboro Shovel &
Tool Co. 17. Moore, 154 Ky. 431, 157 S.
W. 1121; Job Iron & Steel Co. f?. Clark,
150 Ky. 246, 150 S. W. 367.
Service of process may be In anotber
county^ — Owensboro Shovel & Tool Co.
17. Moore, 154 Ky. 431, 157 S. W. 1121.
Tbe word "performed'* is to be given
its usual and ordinary meaning as
meaning *f carried through," *'made
complete," ** executed," etc., and there-
fore it limits the venue to the county
in which the contract is to be completed
-or executed or perfected in all its es-
sential parts. If the contract is not of
such nature that it might be performed
in its essential features in any one
county, the plaintiff must bring his ac-
tion either in the county where the con-
tTact was made, or where the corpora-
tion has an office or place of business
or a chief officer or agent. Job Iron &
Steel Co. 17. Clark, 150 Ky. 246, 150 S.
W. 367.
693*26 American Coal Corp. 17. Boux
(Ala.), 68 S. 970; Hatcher «. Southern
R. Co. (Ala.) 9 68 S. 55, defining personal
injury.
594-32 Atlantic, etc. R. Co. i?. Spen-
cer, 166 N. C. 522, 82 S. E. 851; Plant-
er's Cotton Oil Co. V. Whites-Boro Cot-
ton Oil Co. (Tex. Civ.), 146 S. W. 225.
The fact that the corporation's resi-
dence is in another county is not suffi-
cient ground to obtain a change of
venue of an action brought in one of
the counties named in the constitution.
Cook t?. W. S. Bay Mfg. Co., 159 Cal.
694, 115 P. 318. Trezevant 17. Strong
Co., 102 Cal. 47, 36 P. 395; Fresno Nat.
Bank 17. Superior Court, 83 Cal. 491, 24
P. 157; Bond 17. Karma Ajax Consol.
Min. Co., 15 Cal. App. 469, 115 P. 254.
See Lewis 17. Southern Pacific Coast B.
Co., 66 Cal. 209, 5 P. 79.
694-33 "Where the corporation shows
its principal place of business to be
within another county, to defeat a mo-
tion for change of venue the plaintiff
has the burden of showing that the con-
tract was macle, or to be performed,
etc., in the county where the action is
brought. Hammond 17. Ocean Shore Dev.
Co., 22 Cal. App. 167, 133 P. 978.
594-37 Person includes corporations
in a statute providing that ''when a
sole defendant dies after judgment for
money against him execution shall not
issue thereon but the judgment may be
proved up and paid in due course of ad-
ministration," and this statute ap-
plies to a dissolved corporation with
the same force as to a demised per-
son. Allison 17. Bichardson (Tex. Civ.),
171 S. W. 1021.
696-42 Guilbert 17. Kessinger, 173
Mo. App. 680, 160 S. W. 17. See also 5
Standasd Pboc. 687^
696-44 Exhausting remedies against
corporation. — The statute begins to run
from the recovery of judgment. Damon
17. Webber, 111 Me. 473, 89 A. 734.
697-46 See Blackburn 17. Irvine, 205
Fed. 217, 123 C. C. A. 405; Irvine i;.
Blackburn, 198 Fed. 360.
698-64 Kelly 17. Dolan, 218 Fed. 966;
Holmes 17. Jewett, 55 Colo. 187, 134 P.
665; Hawaiian Bell Tel. Co. 17. Oriental
Tel. Co., 6 Haw. 393; Heeia Sugar
Plantation Co. 17. MeKeague, 5 Haw.
101; Mioton 17. Del Corral, 132 La. 730,
61 S. 771.
699-66 Layne & Bowler Co. i?. Winn-
field, 134 La. 323, 64 S. 127; Pardee r.
Alfrey Heading Co., 129 La. 749, 56 S.
660; Farrar 17. Pillsbury, 217 Mass. 330,
104 N. E. 737.
Where the president is alle^d to hay^
m
C0BP0RATI0N8
Vol 5
aathoxity from the board of directors,
he may sue. This authorization must
be alleged. LaTue & Bowler Co. v,
Winnfield, 134 La. 323, 64 S. 127; Par-
dee V. Alfrey Heading Co., 129 La. 749,
56 S. 660.
eOl-ee Witherbee v. Bowles, 201 N.
Y. 427, 95 N. E. 27.
e01-6T Hawaiian Bell Tel. Co. v.
Oriental Tel. Co., 6 Haw. 393; Mioton
V. Del Corral, 132 La. 730, 61 S. 771;
Lee V. Young, 147 Wis. 53, 132 N. W.
595. .
A member of a membersblp corporation
is in sufficient privity with the corpora-
tion to enforce its contracts with third
persons for his benefit. Lovitt i). Illi-
nois Sur. €o., 88 Misc. 100, 150 N. Y.
S. 609.
602-72 Bellevue Mills Co. v. Balti-
more Trust Co., 214 Fed. 817, stock-
holder.
e03-77 Mioton v. Del Corral, 132 Lia.
730, 61 S. 771.
Siibsidiar7 companies, controlled by the
corporation by the • ownership of its
stock, are not necessary parties defend-
ant to an action against the corporation
on a contract made by it on their be-
half, Texas Co. v. Central Fuel Oil Co.,
194 Fed. 1, 114 C. C. A. 21.
603-78 Individtial membenu— Illinois
8. Hospital f. Higgins, 15 111. 185.
"Wbere corporation dissolved. — ^Lakeside
Irr. Co. V. Buffington (Tex. Civ.), 168
S. W. 21.
e04-80 Hoben «. Citizen's Tel. Co.,
176 Mich. 596, 142 N. W. 1070.
If misnomer be too tecbnical a plea will
not be noticed. Sou1;hem B. Co. V.
Hayes, 183 Ala. 465, 62 S. 874.
€05-82 Central Foundry Co. v. Laird
(Ala.), 66 S. 571. See infra, p. 652, n.
63, and supplement thereto.
605-83 Hoben v. Citizens' Telephone
Co., 176 Mich. 596, 142 N. W. 1070.
605-85 "Wbere the only connection
between the .corporation joined with
the defendant corporation, or between
their directors is- that of ''stockholder
and director" the joinder is improper.
Bubber & Celluloid H. T. Co. v. Eubber-
Bound Brush Co., 81 N. J. Eq. 419, 519,
88 A. 210.
605-86 Vassar College v, Loose-Wiles
Biscuit Co., 197 Fed. 982; Witherbee v.
Bowles, 201 N. T. 427, 95 N. E. 27.
606-87 Virginia-Carolina Chem. Co.
V. Floyd, 158 N, C. 455, 74 S. E. 465.
607-88 Converse, Beitzer v. Medina
Irr. Co. (Tex. Civ.), 153 S. W. 380.
600-2 Intervention by stockholders
in action against corporation. Conti-
nental, etc. Bank v. Allis-Chalmers Co.,
200 Fed. 600.
609-4 See 5 Standasd Proc. 712, n.
71, and supplement thereto.
Interyention by other stockholders in
such suit held improper. Thomas v.
Barthold (Tex. Civ.), 171 S. W. 1071.
610-10 Unpaid subscriptions of a
foreign corporation may be reached by
its creditors. Bandall Printing Co. v.
Sanitas Mineral Water Co., 120 Minn.
268, 139 N. W. 606, 120 L. B. A. (N.
S.) 706; Bule v. Omega Stove & Grate
Co., 64 Minn. 326, 67 N. W. 60; First
Nat. Bank v, Gustin M. Con. Min. Co.,
42 Minn. 327, 44 N. W. 198, 18 Am. St.
510, 6 L. B. A. 676.
611-12 To enforce corporate debts.
A stockholder cannot be sued by a
creditor directly to enforce a corporate
debt, unless he consents to be sued.
Dotson i;. Hoggan, 44 Utah 295, 140 P.
128.
616-41 Knoll v. Levert, 136 La. 241,
66 S. 959, citation.
619-66 N. C. Bev. 1905, |440, (1);
Menefee v, Biverside Sb D. B. Cotton
Mills, 161 N. C. 164, 76 S. E. 741; Jones
& Co. V. Hancock & Sons (Va.), 85 S. E.
460.
Service on dissolved corporation is had
in the same manner as service on a go-
ing corporation. Castle's Admr. v. Aero-
gen Coal Co., 145 Ky. 591, 140 S. W.
1034.
619-67 Barden Merc. Co. v. Hart,
186 Ala. 513, 65 S. 327; Boyle v. Oro
Plata Min. & Mill. Co., 14 Ariz. 484,
131 P. 155; Jester v. Barret, 181 Ind.
374, 102 N. E. 29; Greacen v. Buckley
& Douglas Lumb. Co., 167 Mich. 569, 133
N. W. 538; Oklahoma Fire Ins. Co. v.
Barber Asphalt Pav. Co., 34 Okla. 149,
125 P. 734; Watertown v. Bobinsonj 59
Wis. 513, 17 N. W. 542, 69 Wis. 230, 34
N. W. 139; Cougar V, Galena & C. U.
B. Co., 17 Wis. 477, 485.
619-68 Ft. Smith Lumb. Co. v.
Shackleford (Ark.), 171 S. W. 99, eon-
struing Act 98, of Acts, 1909, p. 293.
620-74 Central Georgia Power Co. D.
Parnell, 11 Ga. App. 779, 76 S. E. 157.
621-75 Service may be made without
the state. — Straub v. Lyman Land &
Inv. Co., 30 S. D. 310, 138 N. W. 957, 46
L. B. A. (N. S.) 941,
$39
Vol. 5
C0RP0BATI0N8
621-83 Central Georgia Power Co.
17. Parnell, 11 Ga. App. 779, 76 S. E.
157; Hassell v. Daniels, etc. Steamboat
Co. (N. C), 84 S. E. 363: Menefee v.
Biverside & D. B. Cotton MUls, 161 N.
C. 164, 76 S. E. 741; Daviea f?. Oregon
P. & P. Co., 61 Or. 594, 123 P. 906;
Klatte V. McKeand, 95 S. C. 219, 78 S.
E. 712; Jones & Co. V. Hancock & Sons
(Va.), 85 S. E. 460.
Where no officers upon wliom process
may be served are within the Jurisdio-
tion of the court, service may be had
by depositing a copy of the process in
the office of the corporation commission.
A duplicate copy must be immediately
mailed to the office of the corporation
or to any officer. Ariz. Const., tit. ziii,
ch. ii, S25; Wilson's Corp. L., p. 18.
Mailing a copy to the personal residence
of the president only is insufficient
to confer jurisdiction. Boyle v. Oro
Plata Min. & Mill. Co., 14 Ariz. 484,
131 P. 155. Where the directors were
absent from the jurisdiction, service
upon the corporation through its resi-
dent agent and by mailing copies of
the writ to the absent officers was suffi-
cient to confer jurisdiction. Potomac
Oil Co. V. »ye, 14 Cal. App. 674, 113 P.
126, 130.
Belation of the person served to plain-
tiff.—George f?. American Gin Co., 46
S. C. 1, 24 S. E. 41, 67 Am. St 671, 32
L. B. A. 764.
623-86 Bond^ v. Karma-Ajaz Consol.
Min. Co., 15 Cal. App. 469, 115 P. 254;
Yadnais V, East Butte Ext. Cop. M. Co.,
42 Mont. 643, 113 P. 747; Pennsylvania
E. Co. V. Bennett, 47 N. J. L. 275; Phil-
lips V. Albert, 81 Misc. 131, 142 N. Y.
S. 325; Straub V. Lyman-Land & In v.
Co., 30 S. D. 310, 138 N. W. 957, 46 L.
E. A. (N. S.) 941; National Equit. Soc.
V. Tennison (Tex. Civ.), 174 S. W. 978,
citing authority.
Kon-resident president without the
state may be served under §1766, Eev.
St., 1909. John McMenamy I. & E. E.
Co. t?. Stillwell Catering Co^ 175 Mo.
App. 668, 158 S. W. 427.
623-87 Noel Const. Co. v. George W.
Smith & Co., 193 Eed. 492.
623-88 Straub t?. Lyman Land &
Inv. Co., 30 S. D. 310, 138 N. W. 957,
46 L. E. A. (N. S.) 941. See Majestic
Metal Bed Co. v. Mutual Furn. Co., 152
K. y. S. 994.
623-89 Van Damm v. New York
Cent. Stor. Co., 132 N. Y. S. 394; First
Kat. Bank v. Latham, 37 Okla. 286, 132
P. 891 (where the president is not
within the county) ; First Nat. Bank v.
Ingle, 37 Okla. 276, 132 P. 895; Straub
V, Lyman Land & Inv. Co., 30 S. D. 310,
138 N. W. 957, 46 L. E. A. (N. S.) 941.
623-90 Pennsylvania E. Co. v. Ben-
nett, 47 N. J. L. 275; Straub €. Lyman
Land & Inv. Co., 30 S. D. 310, 138 N.
W. 957, 46 L. E. A. (N. S.) 941.
623-91 Washington. A. & G. E. fi.
Co. V. Brown, 17 Walt (XT. S.) 445, 21
L. ed. 675; Pennsylvania E. Co. f?. Ben-
nett, 47 N. J. L. 275; Webb V. Cape
Fear Bank, 50 N. C. 288; Grubb f?. Lan-
caster Mfg. Co., 10 Phila. (Pa.) 316;
Straub v, Lyman Land & Inv. Co., 3d
S. D. 310, 138 N. W. 957, 46 L. E. A.
(N. 8.) 941. Contra, Oklahoma F. Ins.
Co. V. Barber Asphalt Pav. Co., 34 Okla.
149, 125 P. 734.
Service upon a director of a local
branch is not such service as the stat-
ute contemplates. Webb v. Cape Fear
Bank, 50 N. C. 288.
Ohairman of the board of directors may
be served. Oklahoma Fire Ins. Co. tr.
Barber Asphalt Pav. Co., 34 Okla. 149,
125 P. 734.
623-92 Schlesinger i\ Modern Sa-
maritans, 121 Minn. 145, 140 N. W.
1027; Polacsek v. American Iron ft S.
Mfg. Co., 164 App. Div. 925, 149 N. Y.
S. 372; Straub v. Lyman Land & Inv.
Co., 30 S. D. 310, 138 N. W. 957, 46
L. E. A. (N. S.) 941. But see Jackson
17. Waters Pierce Oil Co., 136 La. 764,
67 S. 822; Welch V. N. O. Great North-
ern E. Co., 128 La. 738, 55 S. 338; Wes-
ley 9. Beakes Dairy Co., 72 Misc. 260,
131 N. Y. S. 212.
A bookkeeper is not a managing agen^
on whom process may be served. Bos*
ers V, New York Cent. Stor. Co., 131 N.
Y. S. 591,
624-94 Service npon a person In
charge of the place of business is suffi-
cient where the officers could not be
found. Humphrey v, Coquillard Wagon
Wks., 37 Okla. 714, 132 P. 899,
624-96 Traveling salesman may be
served. Moinet v. Burnham, Stoepel Ss
Co., 143 Mich. 489, 106 N. W. 1126.
625-98 Contra. Pennsylvania B. Co.
€. Bennett, 47 N. J. L. 275.
625-1 Getchell v. Great Northern B.
Co., 24 N. D. 487, 140 N. W. 109.
625-2 Ft. Smith Lumber Co. v.
Shackleford (Ark.), 171 S. W. 99; Penn-
Isylvania B. Co. v. Bennett^ 47 N. J.
W
CORPORATIONS
Vol 5
L. 275. But see Booth v. A. Feldman
Const. Co., 139 N. Y. S. 315; Hassell v.
Daniels' Boanoke B. L. S. Co. (N. C),
84 S. £. 363.
Aipent In diarge for the time being.
Bobson €. Farbenfabriken, 206 Fed.
125.
626-7 Ft. Smith Lumb. Co. v.
Shackleford (Ark.), 171 S. W. 99.
626-9 Service In the county is not
required when service is made upon the
principal officers, but under 55 L. 0. L.
when service is upon a clerk or agent,
the place of service is so limited. Davies
V. Oregon P. Sb P. Co., 61 Or. 594, 123 P.
906, explain. Holgate v. 0. P. B. Co., 16
Or. 123, 17 P. 859.
627-13 See Brooks r. Orchard Land
Co., 21 Ida. 212, 121 P. 101.
Where an individnal is the corporation
in reality and he avoid service, sub-
stituted service may be had. Bentz v,
Crotona Park Eealty Co., 142 N. Y. S.
193.
627-16 McEendrick 17. Western Zinc
Min. Co., 165 Cal. 24, 130 P. 865. See
King V. Wilson, 86 Kan. 227, 120 P.
342, effect of misnomer notice.
628-26 Bobson v. Farbenfabriken,
206 Fed. 125; Delaware Ins. Co. v.
Hutto (Tex. Civ.), 159 S. W. 73, re-
turn sufficient.
629-27 Hoben i;. Citizens' Telephone
Co., 176 Mich. 596, 142 N. W. 1070;
Schlesinger 17. Modem Samaritans, 121
Minn. 145, 140 N. W. 1027; Supreme
Buling V. Sommers (Miss.), 66 S. 322.
629-28 Seaboard Air Line By. v.
Davis, 13 Ga. App. 14, 78 S. E. 687.
629-29 McKendrick v. Western Zinc
Min. Co., 165 Cal. 24, 130 P. 865 (show-
ing sufficient); Handlan-Buck Mfg. Co.
«. Chester, etc. B. Co., 167 Mo. App.
683, 151 S. W. 171.
630-33 Entry of service condiuiiTe.
In the absence of a timely traverse,
an entry of service made upon a corpor-
ation by serving a person who had been
its president will be treated as conclu-
sive of service on the corporation.
Winecoff V. Weedon, 142 Ga. 552, 82 S.
B, 1057.
636-34 Seaboard Air Line By. v.
Davis, 13 Ga. App. 14, 78 S. E. 687.
In the appellate oonrt^— A failure of the
return to show the person served was
a jurisdictional defect, which defect
cannot be amended in the appellate
court. Hoben v. Citizens' Tele. Co., 176
Mich. 596| 142 N. W. 1070.
636-36 Hoben v. Citizens' Telephone
Co., 176 Mich. 696, 142 N. W. 1070;
Greacen v, Buckley & Douglas Lumb.
Co., 167 Mich. 569, 133 N. W. 538.
632-48 Appearance and defense as
corporation* — Where a corporation is
made a defendant and appears and de-
fends as such, its existence as a corpor-
ation is admitted and cannot after-
wards be denied. P. e. Koensgen, 265
111. 292, 106 N. B. 840.
632-50 Hassell v. Daniels' Boanoke
B. L. S. Co. (N. C), 84 S. E. 363.
The appearance, In an indiyidoal capa-
city, of the officers or members of a
corporation does not waive defects of
notice as to the corporation. P. v.
Jones, 254 111. 521, 98 N. £. 962.
632-51 Gray d. Grand Biver C. & C.
Co., 175 Mo. App. 421, 162 S. W. 277;
Meyers v, American Locomotive Co., 201
N. Y. 163, 94 N. E. 605.
634-60 See also 3 Standard Psoo.
259, n. 77.
Attachment of flhares. — See 3 Standard
pROa 274, n. 38, and supplement there-
to.
634-62 That the plaintiff creditor re-
sides In a county other than the one in
which the debtor's principal office is lo-
cated is sufficient reason for an at-
tachment under 3 Comp. Laws, §10468.
Greacen v, Buckley & Douglas Lumb*
Co., 167 Mich. 569, 133 N. W. 538.
635-72 See also 3 Standard PRoa
268, n. 12, and supplement thereto, and
5 Standard Proc. 740, n. 37.
636-73 Contra, Jennings v, Idaho B.
L. & P. Co., 26 Ida. 703, 146 P. 101.
See 8 Standard PRoa 269, n. 17.
636-74 Somerville Lumb. Co. f.
Mackres, 86 Vt. 466, 85 A. 977. See 3
Standard Proo. 17.
Service as on non-resident.-— Where a
foreign corporation, doing business in
another state, fails to designate- a pro-
cess agent according to the statute, and
a writ of attachment is served in strict
compliance with the statute in case of
non-resident defendants, such service is
sufficient not only to bring the property
attached within the jurisdiction of the
court, but also to make the judgment
good as a personal judgment. Somer-
ville Lumb. Co. r. Mackres, 86 Vt. 466,
85 A. 977.
636-80 See 10 Standard Proc. 405,
n. 79.
A stockholder who is indebted to the
841
Vol 5
CORPORATIONS
corporation may be garnished by the
creditor. Dotson v, Hoggan, 44 Utah
295, 140 P. 128.
637-87 Young Hin v. Hackfield &
Co., 16 Haw. 427, return held sufficient.
See Ferreira «. Kamo, 18 Haw. 593.
Kotlce necessary. — ^Reed v. Bacine Boat
Co., 156 la. 12, 137 N. W. 458.
638-92 Bump v. Augustine^ 163 la.
307, 143 N. W. 1104, a default cannot
be entered on an answer by an officer
having no knowledge as though no an-
swer was filed.
Answer by attorney Insnfllcient. — Cen-
tral, etc. Ry. Co. v, Dickerson (Ga.
App.), 82 S. E. 942.
By whom answer niade^ — ^Answer must
be made either by one of the servants
or agents of the corporation who has
actual personal knowledge of the facts,
or by an officer of the corporation to
whom such knowledge will be imputed
by law. Central, etc. By. Co. v. Dick-
erson (Ga. App.), 82 S. E. 942.
An Inadequate answer by an officer not
possessing knowledge of the facts may
on motion be stricken. Bump v, Aug-
ustine, 163 la. 307, 143 N. W. 1104.
638-94 After change of name, suit
must be brought under new name.
Philapy v, Aukerman-Bright Lum. Co.
(Ind. App.), 105 N. E. 161.
Where the corporate name is changed
pending the action on contract, an as-
signment from the former to its suc-
cessor need not be pleaded there being
no other change in the corporation.
Posey V. White House Lumber Co. (Tex.
Civ.), 142 S. W. 931.
640-3 A plea that the plaintUT has
not paid its annual tax may be inter-
posed at any time before the trial of
the action. {6709, L. 0. L.; Klamath
Lumb. Co. V. Bamber (Or.), 145 P. 650.
640-4 Wilson & Co. v, Sprague Mow-
ing Mach. Co., 55 Ga. 672; New Bern
Bank & T. Co. f?. Puffy, 156 N. C. 83, *72
8. E. 96. V
Authorization of the suit by the di-
rectors need not be alleged. Goodale
Phonograph Co. V. Valentine, 69 Wash.
263, 124 P. 691.
641-8 Finch Van Slyck & McConville
1?. Le Seur Co. Coop. Co. (Minn.), 150
N. W. 226.
642-13 Cribb v. Waycross Lumb. Co.,
82 Ga. 597, 9 S. £. 426; St. Cecilia
Academy v. Hardin, 78 Ga. 39, 8 S. E.
305; Georgia, F. & A. By. Co. v. Blish
Mill. Co. (Ga. App.), 82 S. E. 784; Wel-
ler V, Davis & Sanford Co. (Ga. App.),
82 S. E. 593; Walker v, Shelbyville etc.
Tp. Co., 80 Ind. 452.
642-14 Gainsville, etc. Assn. v. At-
lantic, etc. B. Co. (N. C), 73 8. E. 242.
643-16 Storer v. Graham, 43 Mont.
344, 116 P. 1011.
Here description of the plaintiff as a
body corporate without setting out the
facts constituting it such is sufficient.
Head v, J. M. Bobinson, N. & Co. (Ala.),
67 S. 976; Southern Life Ins. Co. v.
Boberts, 60 Ala. 431.
643-17 Selma, etc., E. Co. v. Tipton,
5 Ala. 787, 39 Am. Dec. 344; Califor-
nia Steam Nav. Co. v, Wright, 6 Cal.
258, 65 Am. Dec. 511; Heeia Sugar
Plantation i?. McKeague, 5 Haw. 101;
Walker r. Shelbyville, etc., Tp. Co., 80
Ind. 452; Martin v. Kentucky Lands
Inv. Co., 146 Ky. 525, 142 S. W. 1038;
Commercial Bank «. Newport Mfg. Co.,
1 B, Mon. (Ky.) 13, 35 Am, Dec. 171;
Bury V. Mitchell Co. (Tex. Civ.), 74 S.
W. 341; Minter <?. Union Pac. B. Co., 3
Utah 500, 24 P. 911.
644-19 The omission to allege the
fact of incorporation is waived by fail-
ure to raise the defect either in the
demurrer or answer. Banco De Puerto
Bico V, Est. of Font, 14 P. B. 561.
646-27 Heeia Sugar Plantation Co.
V. McKeague, 5 Haw. 101.
Failure to comply with conditions pre-
cedent to actions is a matter of affirm-
ative defense (Alaska Salmon Co. t;.
Standard Box Co., 158 Cal. 567, 112 P.
454; California Savings & Loan Soc. r.
Harris, 111 Cal. 133, 43 P. 525; Labory
t?. Orphan Asylum, 97 Cal. 270, 32 P.
231; South Yuba Water, etc., Co. i?.
Boss, 80 Cal. 333, 22 Pac. 222; Biver-
dale Min. Co. v. Wicks, 14 Cal. App.
526, 112 P. 896), which is waived un-
less pleaded. Biverdale Min. Co. t?.
Wicks, 14 Cal. App. 526, 112 P. 896,
guot, California Savings & Loan Soc. t?.
Harris, 111 Cal. 133, 43 P. 525. The
omission from the complaint of an
averment of compliance is not ground
of demurrer (California Savings & Loan
Soc. V. Harris, 111 Cal. 133, 43 P. 525;
South Tuba Water, etc., Co. 17. Bosa, 80
Cal. 333, 22 P. 222); or ground for re-
versal of the judgment. California Sav-
ings & L. Soc. V. Harris, 111 Cal. 133,
43 P. 525.
The legality of the corporation is not
put in issne by an allegation that B«
848
COBPORATIONB
tot. 5
^led affidavits allowing no stock had
been subscribed for, allotted or issued,
where the affidavits themselves and
facts showing when and by whom they
were made is not set forth. O'Reilly v,
Noxon, 49 Colo. 362, 113 P. 486.
646-29 Isnie of right to trmnsact
bnsinefl^ by virtue of |6709, L. O. L.
can be raised by plea in abatement.
Hartford P. Ins. Co. v. Central B. B.
(Or.), 144 P. 417.
Although the statntory aiBdavit deny-
ing^ the corporate existence of the
plaintiff is filed with the answer, the
fact of plaintiff's corporate existence
is not put in issue unless it be denied
in the answer. Iroquois Mfg. Co. ©.
Annan-Burg Mtg. Co., 179 Mo. App. 87,
161 S. W. 320. ^
646-31 Gonsalves & Co. v, Watson,
16 Haw. 256; Finch Van Slyck & Mc-
Convilla v. Le Seur Co. Co-op. Co.
(Minn.), 150 N. W. 226; Willoburn
Baneh Co. v. Tegen, 49 Mont. 101, 140
P 231; first Kat. Bank v. Smith, 44
Mont 305, 119 P. 784; Houston Pack-
ing Co. V, Pagan, Lopez & Co., 20 P.
B. 233; Steamship Co. v. Bodgers, 21
8. C. 27.
Here general denial not sufficient.
Lummus Cotton Gin Co. V. Counts (S.
C), 82 S. E. 391.
SvaaiYe taswetu — ^Where a defendant is
alleged to be a corporation, an answer
declining, for want of sufficient in-
formation, either to admit or to deny
such an averment is evasive and an ad-
mission of the averment. Oaynor v.
Travelers' Ins. Co., 12 Ga. App. 601, 77
S. E. 1072.
646-32 Interstate B. Co. f>. B. Co.,
251 Mo. 707, 158 S. W. 349; Hartford
F. Ins. Co. V, Central B. E. (Or.), 144
P. 417.
PoaitlYe denial required^— William Wil-
son Co. V. Trainer (Cal. App.), 148 P.
954 (corporate existence cannot be de-
nied on information and belief because
perchance the plaintiff had failed to
pay its license tax and might have
lost its existence) ; Post Pub. Co. v.
Bennett, 164 App. I)iv. 633, 149 N. Y.
8. 867; Long Island B. Co. v. Jones, 151
App. Div. 407, 135 N. T. S. 954. Denial
on information and belief is insufficient
to raise the issue. Finch Van Slyck &
McConville t?. Le Seur Co. Co-op. Co.
(Minn.), 150 N. W. 226. Se^ the titles
"Denials"; * 'Information and BeUef.'*
Verified denial* — See Interstate B. Co.
[<?. B, Co., 251 Mo. 707, 158 S. W. 349.
647-34 Plea of forfeiture of corpor-
ate charter which does not negative
that the charter has been reinstated la
insufficient. St. Louis Steams Auto Co*
fK Singers, 179 HI. App. 556.
647-36 Belvidere Water Co. v. Bel-
videre, 82 N. J. L. 601, 83 A. 241. See
Bialto Co. V. Miner, 183 Mo. App. 119.
166 S. W. 629.
648-44 Edward Todd & Co. v. South-
ern Pac. Co., 150 K. Y. S. 979.
660-49 Authority of officers to act
for the company need not be pleaded.
Brown wood v. Brown* Tel. & Tel. Co.
(Tex. Civ.), 152 S. W. 709.
660-60 Martin v. Kentucky Lands
Inv. Co., 146 Ky. 525, 142 S. W. 1038;
New State Land Co. «. Wilson (Tex.
Civ.), 150 S. W. 253.
660-64 Authorization of suit by di-
rectors need not be alleged. Conley 17.
Daughters of the Bepublic of Texas
(Tex. Civ.), 151 S. W. 877. See supra,
p. 558, n. 53, and supplement thereto.
660-66 See Compagnie Generale v.
Herzig & Sons Co.. 89 Misc. 573, 153
N. Y. S. 717.
661-66 Bosado v. Ponce B. ft L. Co.,
18 P. B. 593; Southern Cotton Oil Co.
V. Lightsey (S. C), 84 S. E. 301.
Authority to act for the corporation
should be shown in the affidavit or
otherwise. Pacific Mail S. Co. v. The
Pacific, 3 U. S. D. C. (Haw.) 29.
661-61 A corporation cannot answer
under oath in equity. Coca-Cola Co. v.
Gay-Ola Co., 200 Fed. 720, 119 C. C. A.
164.
662-63 Harper v. Hendricks, 49 Kan.
718, 31 P. 734. See supra, p. 605, n. 82,
and supplement thereto.
662-66 Bodriguez v. Bamirez, 14 P.
B. 150.
Corporate powers need not be alleged.
Klemik v. Henricksen Jewelry Co., 122
Minn. 380, 142 N. W. 871.
The fact that a corporation has capital
stock is necessarily implied from an al-
legation that the corporation was or-
ganized and operated for profit. Daily
V. MarshaU, 47 Mont, 377, 133 P. 681.
That corporation has an office in the
county where the action is brought need
not be alleged. Crystal Biver Lumb.
Co. V. Consol. Naval Stores Co., 63 Fla.
119, 58 S. 129.
663-68 ilnch Van Slyck ft McCon-
ville V, Le Seur Co. Co-op. Co. (Minn.),
343
yd 5
CORPORATIONS
150 K. W. 226; Klemik v. Henricksen
Jewelry Co., 122 Minn. 380, 142 N. W.
871.
653-69 Where tlio name Imports a
corporate body there is a presumption
auch body is a corporation. Waller v.
Davis Ss Sanford Co. (Ga. App.), 82 S.
£. 593; Edenfield V. Bank of Millen, 7
Ga. App. 645, 67 S. E. 896.
654-73 Answer by a stockholder, see
infra, vol. 5, p. 698, n. 71.
"Where made by agent, the affidavit of
defense should show why it is not made
by an officer. Wakely t?. Sun Ins. Of-
fice, 246 Pa. 268, 92 A. 136.
657-85 Freeman v, Missouri & K.
Tel. Co., 160 Mo. App. 271, 142 S. W.
733; Post Pub. Co. v, Bennett, 164 App.
Div. 633, 149 N. Y. 8. 867; First Nat.
Bank v. Latham, 37 Okla. 286, 132 P.
891.
657-86 Sovereign Camp v. Buedrich
(Tex. Civ.), 158 S. W. 170.
Necessity for denial in the answer when
affidavit is filed, see supra, p. 646, n. 29,
and supplement thereto.
657-89 An admission of the fact of
Incorporation is conclusive. McKee v.
Title Ins. & Trust Co., 159 Cal. 206, 113
P. 140.
658-93 Blackwood v. Lansing Cham-
ber of Commerce, 178 Mich. 321, 144 N.
W. 823; Hough I?. St. Louis Car Co., 182
Mo. App. 718, 165 S. W. 1161. .
Under general issue the defense of ultra
vires is not available. Blackboard v.
Lansing Chamber of Commerce, 178
Mich. 321, 144 N. W. 823.
668-95 Breakwater Co. v. Donovan
(C. C. A.), 218 Fed. 340; Southern
States F. & C. Ins. Co. v, Lunsford
(Ala.), 68 S. 273; Marengo Abstract Co.
V. Hooper & Co., 174 Ala. 497, 56 S.
580; Arizona Life Ins. Co. V. Lindell,
15 Ariz. 471, 140 P. 60; Martin v, Ken-
tucky Lands Inv. Co., 146 Ky. 525, 142
S. W. 1038; Louisville Tobacco W. Co.
<?. Stewart, 24 Ky. L. R. 934, 70 S. W.
285; Conowingo Land Co. v, McGaw,
124 Md. 643, 93 A. 222; Blackwood f?.
Lansing Chamber of Commerce, 178
Mich. 321, 144 N. W. 823; Richard Han-
Ion Mlnry. Co. t?. Mississippi Valley
Trust Co., 251 Mo. 553, 158 S. W. 359;
Hough V. St. Louis Car Co., 182 Mo.
App. 718, 165 S. W. 1161; Gordon Malt
Co. V, Bartels Brew. Co., 206 N. Y. 528,
100 N. E. 457; Strodl t?. Farrish-Staf-
ford Co., 145 App. Piv. 406, 130 N. Y.
8. 35.
Snillclent plea. — ^An allegation that the
contract is ultra vires the corporation
or the charter of the corporation is
sufficient to raise this issue. Marengo
Abstract Co. v. Hooper & Co., 174 Ala.
497, 56 S. 580. See, however, Life Assn.
17. Cook, 20 Kan. 19.
658-97 Wright v. Hughes, 119 Ind.
324, 21 N, E. 907, 12 Am. St. R. 412;
Seamless Pressed Steel & Mfg. Co. v.
Monroe (Ind. App.), 106 N. E. 538;
State Life Ins. Co. v. Nelson, 46 Ind.
App. 137, 92 N. E. 2; Flint, etc., Co.
V, Kerr, etCL Mfg. Co., 24 Ind. App.
350, 56 N. E. 858; Hough «. St. Louis
Car Co., 182 Mo. App, 718, 165 S. W.
1161.
668-98 Meister & Sons Co. v. Wood
& Tatum Co. (Cal. App.), 147 P. 981;
Williamsburg Canning Co. t^. Be Laney,
158 Ky. 649, 166 S. W. 192; Hopkins
Chem. Co. v. Read Drug & Chem. Ck).,
124 Md. 210, 92 A. 478.
Snillcient allegation of authority of
president to execute note. Canadian
Long Dist. Tel. Co. t?. Seiber (Tex.-
Civ.), 159 S. W. 897.
AUegationB sofflcient to show agent's
authority. Southern States F. & C
Ins. Co. V. Lunsford (Ala.), 68 S. 273.
Batlfication of agent's act need not be
pleaded. Meister & Sons Co. v. Wood
& Tatum Co. (Cal. App.), 147 P. 981.
Petition sbotad allege who repiesented
corporation in making the contract.
Georgia, F. & A. By. Co. v. Parsons, 12
Ga. App. 180, 76 S. E. 1063.
The terms of the contract showing tlie
time of its execution and by which
agent made, should be set forth where
objection is raised by special demurrer.
Southern Express Co. v. Cowan, 12 Ga.
App. 318, 77 S. E. 208.
In an action for slander plaintiff need
not allege that the words complained of
were uttered by authority of defend-
ant corporation or the subsequent rati-
fication thereof. Hopkins Chemical Co.
V, Bead Drug & Chem. Co., 124 Md. 210,
92 A. 478.
Agency need not be alleged in a declar-
ation charging a corporation with a
trespass committed by a certain per
son as its agent. Lyons v, Davy-Poca-
hontas Coal Co. (W. Va.), 84 S. E. 744.
658-99 Scibor v. Oregon W. B. & N.
Co., 70 Or. 116, 140 P. 629.
Agent's name need not be stated.
Scibor €. Oregon W. B. & N. Co., 70 Or,
116, 140 P. 629.
du
C0RP0BATI0N3
(Vol: 6^
That ftgent*s~aet8 were wltliin the
scope of hl8 employment need not be
alleged. Scibor v. Oregon-W. B. & N.
Co., 70 Or. 116, 140 P. 629.
668-1 See 3 Ency. or 'Sv. 576.
669-2 Variance^— XJndet an allega-
tion of the execution of a written in-
strument by a private person, proof of
an instrument signed hj the corpora-
tion by him treasurer, does not consti-
tute a failure of proof but is an imma-
terial variance unless it misled the ad-
versary party to his prejudice. Luther
Lumber Co. v, Sheldahl Sav. Bank
(Wyo.), 139 P. 433. See generally the
title "Variance," 13 Ency. ov Ev.
659-4 Daniels v. Boanoke B. ft
Lumb. Co., 158 N. C. 418, 74 8. E. 331.
662-29 Officers, etCi>— Observer Co. v,
Bemedy Sales Corp. (N. O.)^ 85 8. E.
33.
665-44 The extent of the corporate
powers is a question for the court.
Marengo Abstract Co. v. Hooper ft Co.,
174 Ala. 497, 56 8. 580.
671-87 Execntion where corporation
dissolved. — A statute providing that ex-
ecution shall not issue on a judgment
after the death of defendant applies
to a dissolved corporation. Allison v,
Bichardson (Tex. Civ.), 171 8. W. 1021.
672-89 Glioses in action of corpora-
tion may^be levied on under the code.
Smith f?.^ United States Fire Ins. Co.,
126 Tenn. 435, 150 8. W. 97; Hillman
€. Moore, 3 Tenn. Ch. 454.
675-6 Sufficiency of affidavits— Ex
parte Koehler, 174 Mo. App. 297^ 156 S.
W. 982.
Joining stockholders in a suit to reach
assets subject to a judgment held un-
necessary. Johnson D. United Bys. Co.,
247 Mo. 326, 152 S. W. 362, 374.
676-7 Ex parte Koehler, 174 Mo.
App. 297, 156 8. W. 982.
676-11 Who may enter appeaL — ^Ap-
peal may be entered by the president
of the corporation or any agent man-
aging the case, or by the attorney of
record. Crumm «. Allen ft Co., 11 Oa.
App. 203, 75 8. E. 108.
676-12 Levert t?. Shirley Planting
Co., 135 La. 930, 66 S. 301, dUap. B. v.
Judge, 31 La. Ann. 823.
Where directors refuse to appeal when
demanded by stockholders, the stock-
holders may appeal in the name of the
eotporation. Levert v. Shirley Plant*
ing Co.» 135 La. 929, 66 8. 301.
677-16 See Banco De Puerto Bico r.
Est of Font, 14 P. B. 561.
677-17 As to intention. — ^P. t?. Dun-
bar Contracting Co., 165 App. Biv. 59,
161 N. y. 6. 164.
677-18 C. V. Illinois C. B. Co., 152
Ky. 320, 153 8. W, 459; C. <?. Punxsutaw-
ney 8. r. B. Co., 24 Pa. Co. Ct. 25.
677-19 Progress Clnh v, S., 12 Qa.
App. 174. 76 8. E. 1029; C. V. lUinois C.
B. Co., 152 Ky. 320, 153 8. W. 459; C.
fj, Punxsutawney S. P. B. Co., 24 Pa.
Co. Ct. 25.
What crimes In generaL — C. v. Illinois
C. B. Co., 152 Ky. 320, 153 8. W. 459
(involuntary manslaughter); C. v.
Punxsutawney 8. P. B. Co., 24 Pa. Co.
Ct. 25; Beg. v. Great Western L. Co., 3
Can. Crim. Cas. 514.
679-23 P. 17. Kernochan, 160 App.
Div. 105, 145 N. Y. 8. 117; 8. v. Taylor,
34 8. D. 13, 147 N. W. 72; 8. v. Secur-
ity Bank, 2 8. D. 538, 51 N. W. 337.
"Person*' used in manslanghter. — C. v.
Illinois O. B. Co., 152 Ky. 320, 153 8.
W. 459.
681-47 8. V. Taylor, 34 S. D. 13, 147
N. W. 72, -where the statute is silent.
681-48 Progress Club v. 8., 12 Ga.
App. 174, 76 S. E. 1029.
In Kentucky, a corporation is vrithin
the scope of subsection 6 of $51 of the
Civil Code of Proc. International Har-
vester Co. V. C, 147 Ky. 655, 145 8. W.
393.
682-65 Indictment for failure to file
with secretary of state a statement
showing the location of its place of
business and the name of a person upon
whom process may be served, held in-
sufficient. C. r. Benton Hotel Co., 145
Ky. 76, 140 S. W. 38.
683-61 Louisville & N. B. Co. v. C,
154 Ky. 293, 157 8. W. 369. v v
683-66 Ound Brew. Co. v. U. 8., 204
Fed. 17, 122 C. C. A. 331.
686-92 Western Pac. B. Co. v. God-
frey, 166 Cal. 346, 136 P. 284.
Venne of the action may be laid In the
county of the principal place of busi-
ness of the corporation. Dickinson r.
Kline, 96 Neb. 435, 148 N. W. 141.
686-83 Be Giverville Land Co. v.
Thompson (Mo. App.), 176 8. W. 409.
Judgment creditor, by garnishment pro-
ceeding, may enforce stockholder's li-
ability for his subscription. Nesom v.
City Nat. Bank (Tex. Civ.), 174 S. W.
715.
345
Vol. 5
COItPOltATIONS
686-96 See Bank v. Dunlap, 135 Cal.
628, 67 P. 1084; Brookline C. & P. Co.
V, Evans, 163 Mo. App. 564, 146 S. W.
828.
Becovery by credltorSy — A single cred-
itor cannot maintain, an action to re-
cover unpaid subscriptions. The bill
must be filed bj all the creditors or in
behalf of all who desire to make them-
selves parties. George W. Signer Tie
Co. V. Monett & S. W. Const. Co., 198
Ped. 412; Nuckels v. Robinson-Pettett
Co., 159 Ky. 214, 166 S. W. 972. See
Gordon v. Cummings, 78 Wash. 515, 139
P. 489.
Statutory proYlslonB^— Under the stat-
ute of Maine, taking out execution upon
the judgment is not a prerequisite to
suit against the stockholders. Damon i*.
Webber, 111 Me. 473, 89. A. 734.
Beceiver may sue for unpaid subscrip-
tions. Bergman Clay Mfg. Co. v. Berg-
man, 73 Wash. 144, 131 P. 4^5; Lathrop
V. Knapp, 37 Wis. 307.
Stockholder may sue on the same prin-
ciple permitting a stockholder to sue
generally for the corporation. Berg-
man Clay Mfg. Co. v, Bergman, 73
Wash. 144, 131 P. 485; Lathrop V,
Knapp, 37 Wis. 307. See also 5 Stand-
AUD PROC, 697,
Cozporation Inaolvent, etc. Spratling v.
Westbrook, 140 Ga. 625, 79 S. E. 536.
687-96 Commerce Trust Co. v, Het-
tinger, 181 Mo. App. 338, 168 S. W.
911.
687-98 Beceiver as assignee. — Com-
merce Trust Co. V, Hettinger, 181 Mo.
App. 338, 168 S. W. 911.
687-99 Brookline O. & P. Co. r.
Evans, 163 Mo. App. 564, 146 S. W. 828;
687-1 Guilbert v. Kessinger, 173 Mo.
App. 680, 160 S. W. 17. See 5 Stand-
ard pROC. 596.
687-2 Tender of stock certificate is
not a prerequisite to suit. McCord v.
Southwestern Sundries Co. (Tex. Civ.),
158 S. W. 226.
688-5 BosoflP 17. Gilbert Transp. Co.,
221 Fed. 972; Brookline C. & P. Co. v,
Evans, 163 Mo. App. 564, 146 S. W. 828;
Dickinson v, Kline, 96 Neb. 435, 148
N. W. 141.
Action by creditors. — Nuckels v. Bob-
insonPettett Co., 159 Ky. 214, 166 S.
W. 972.
The action should be brought in equity
' when the amount for which each stock-
holder is liable is unknown and depends
on the equities to be adjusted among
the creditors or stockholders or both.
Dickinson v, Kline, 96 Neb. 435, 148
N. W. 141.
689-6 McCord v. Southwestern Sun-
dries Co. (Tex. Civ.), 158 S. W. 226.
An allegation of the tender of the stock
subscribed for is not required. Utah
Hotel Co. V, Madsen, 43 Utah 285, 134
P. 577.
689-7 Defense to action to enforce
subscription.— That defendant had not
agreed to subscribe for the amount of
stock alleged in complaint. Philadel-
phia Med. Pub. Co. €. Wolfenden, 239
Pa. 262, 86 A. 849.
Iffatters of defense. — ^That minimum cap
ital stock fixed by the charter had not
been subscribed, or that the subscrip-
tions were colorable only, or that some
subscribers had been released. Dotson
t?. Savannah Pure Food Canning Co.,
140 Ga. 161, 78 S. E. 801.
689-8 See Gordon 17. Cummings, 78
Wash. 515, 139 P. 489.
689-9 Subsequent bankruptcy of the
corporation is not a defense. Galbraith
V. McDonald, 123 Minn. 208, 143 N. W.
353, Ann. Cas. 1915A, 420, L. B. A.
1915A, 464.
689-10 That the call is larger than
the amount of debts makes necessary
cannot be pleaded as a defense. Brook-
line C. & P. Co. V, Evans, 163 Mo. App.
564, 146 S. W. 828.
It is no defense that the corporation has
accepted from other subscribers, in
payment of their subscriptions, prop-
erty of a value less than the amount
of such subscriptions. Wikle t?. Avary,
12 Ga. App. 148, 76 S. E. 1039.
That certificate of stock has not been
issued is no defense to the action. De
Giverville Land Co. v. Thompson (Mo.
App.), 176 S. W. 409.
689-12 All stockholders must be
made parties to the action. Irvine v.
ElUott, 203 Fed. 82.
689-13 The stockholders at .the time
the debt was contracted may be joined
as parties defendant. Kiefhaber Lumb.
Co. V. Newport Lumber Co., 15 Cal.
App. 37, 113 P. 691.
All the creditors should be parties to
a proceeding in equity to enforce the
statutory liability. Gardiner v. Bank
of Napa, 160 Cal. 577, 117 P. 667.
689-15 Irvine v. Elliott, 203 Fed. 82;
McTamany v. Day, 28 Ida. 95, 128 P.
846
CORPORATIONS
Vol 6
563; Cojie v. Tannton Safe Dep. ft T.
Co., 216 Mass. 156, 103 N. £. 288; Zie-
verink V. Kemper, 50 O. St. 208, 34 N.
E. 250.
690-17 Cohen 17. Toy Gun Mfg. Co.,
172 m. App. 330.
690*18 All the creditozs may join.
Kuckels V. Bobinson-Pettett Co., 159
Ky. 214, 166 S. W. 972.
690-20 The pendency of reoelver-
Bhip proceedings does not affect the
right to enforce the stockholder 's li-
ability. Western P. R. Co. t?. Godfrey,
166 Cal. 346, 136 P. 284.
690-21 Irvine V. Elliott, 203 Fed. 82.
690-22 Bringing of suit to determine
Indebtedness and amount for which
each stockholder is liable is not a pre-
requisite to an action by the receiver
to recover the unpaid subscription and
stockholder '6 liability of a stockholder.
Quilbert v. Kessinger, 173 Mo. App.
680, 160 S. W. 17.
691-24 Cohen V. Toy Gun Mfg. Co.,
172 ni. App. 330.
692-26 Irvine v. Elliott, 203 Fed.
82 (construing Ohio statute ; Gardiner
t?. Bank of Napa, 160 Cal. 577, 117 P.
667 (without a prescribed form of ac
tion the remedy would be in equity);
Cohen v. Toy Gun Mfg. Co., 172 HI.
App. 330; Nuckels V. Robinson -Pettett
Co., 159 ky. 214, 166 S. W. 972; Kulp
«. Fleming, 65 0. St. 321, 62 N. E. 334,
87 Am. St. 611.
692-27 Enforcing liability^— In an-
other state; remedy, etc. American
Spirits Mfg. Co. 17. Eldridge, 209 Mass.
590, 95 N. E. 942; Putnam v. Misochi,
189 Mass. 421, 75 N. E. 956, 109 Am.
St. 648.
692-30 Irvine 17. Elliott, 203 Fed. 82.
693-33 Joinder of all stockholders as
parties defendant unnecessary. Cohen
r. Toy Gun Mfg. Co., 172 111. App. 330.
Absence of unpaid subscriptions suffi-
ciently averred. — An averment that the
corporation is without any property
"other than" the double liability of
its stockholders amounts to an asser-
tion that there are no unpaid subscrip-
tions. Irvine V. Elliott, 203 Fed. 82.
Allegation of capital stock. — ^Hanson v.
Pauson (Cal. App.)i 143 P. 73, com-
plaint sufficiently alleged total capital
stock subscribed in absence of special
demurrer.
695-61 General Rubber Co. v. Bene-
dict, 164 App. Div, 332, 149 N. T. S.
880; Black v. Simpson, 94 S. C. 312, 77
S. E. 1023.
Persons who were not directors at the
time of the acts complained of need
not be joined. Moran v. Vreeland, 81
Misc. 664, 143 N. Y. S. 522.
Joining of co-directors in an action
against the director guilty of a tort
is not necessary. German-American
Coffee Co. v. Piehl, 86 Misc. 547, 149
N. T. S. 413.
The question of negligence of the officer
is one for the jury. Hunsberger v.
Guaranty Trust Co., 164 App.' Div. 740,
150 N. Y. S. 190.
695-52 Fleisher v. West Jersey Sec.
Co. (N. J. Eq.), 92 A. 575.
Creditors. — ^Brown & Co. v. Ware, 87
Vt. 121, 88 A. 507.
Beceiver appointed by the federal court
may sue. Johnson v. Nevins, 87 Misc.
430, 150 N. Y. S. 828.
695-53 Hill V. Murphy, 212 Mass. 1,
98 N. E. 781; Fleisher f?. West Jersey
Sec. Co. (N. J. Eq.), 92 A. 575; Moran
V. Vreeland, 81 Misc. 664, 143 N. Y. S.
522.
One director may be sued alone. Ger-
man-American Coffee Co. v, Diehl, 86
Misc. 547, 149 N. Y. S. 413.
696-54 Hill v. Murphy, 212 Mass.
1, 98 N. E. 781.
696-55 Hill v. Murphy, 212 Mass. 1,
98 N. E, 781; PoUitz v. Wabash R. Co.,
207 N. Y. 113, 100 N. E. 721; Johnson
V. Nevins, 87 Misc. 430, 150 N. Y. S.
828; Drucklieb v, Harris, 84 Misc. 291,
147 N. Y. S. 298.
Suit in equity Is proper remedy.— Brown
& Co. t>. Ware, 87 Vt. 121, 88 A. 507.
696-57 Pollitz V. Wabash R. Co., 207
N. Y. 113, 100 N. E. 721.
696-58 Moran v. Vreeland, 81 Misc.
664, 143 N. Y. S. 522.
696-59 Statutory liability of direc-
tors authorizing indebtedness in excess
of tbo paid up yalue of the capital
stock. — ^Allegations of the' complaint,
see Rodriguez v, Ramirez, 14 P. R. 150.
696-60 Moran v, Vreeland, 81 Misc.
664, 143 N. Y. S. 622, complaint in-
sufficient.
Statute law of the state of the cor-
poration's domlcil regulating the duties
of the officers need not be pleaded.
German-American Coffee Co. t?. Diehl,
86 Misc. 547, 149 N. Y. S. 413.
That plaintiff is clearly within the stat-
847
Vol. 5
CORPORATIONS
nte must be shown. Mott Iron Wks.
V. Arnold, 35 E. L 456, 87 A. 17.
696-61 See Holmes v. Camp (App.
Div.), 154 N. Y. S. 513.
Bad faith must be alleged. Holmes v.
Smith (App. Div.), 154 N. T. S. 517.
697-66 Ellis V. Vandergrift, 173 Ala.
142, 65 S. 781; Holmes v, Jewett, 55
Colo. 187, 134 P. 665; DuPont V. Stand-
ard Arms Co., 9 Del. Ch. 324, 82 A. 692;
Mioton 17. Del Corral, 132 La. 730, 61
S. 771; Farrar v. Pillsbury, 217 Mass.
330, 104 N. E. 737; Perry v. Hayes, 215
Mass. 296, 102 N. E. 318; Strout V.
United Shoe Mach. Co., 215 Mass. 116,
102 N. E. 312; Converse v. United Shoe
Mach. Co., 209 Mass. 539, 95 N. E.
929; Deschamps v. Loiselle (Mont.), 148
P. 335; Moore v. Silver Valley Min.
Co., 104 N. C. 534, 10 S. E. 679; Smith
V. Oklahoma Sup. Co. (Okla.), 149 P.
879; Checotah Hdw. Co. v, Hensley, 42
Okla. 260, 141 P. 422; Kelly v. Thomas,
234 Pa. 419, 83 A. 307; Pellio v. Bulls
Head Coal Co., 231 Pa. 157, 80 A. 71;
Wolf V. Bailroad Co., 195 Pa. 91, 45 A.
936.
In case of the sale of all the corporate
property on a vote of the holders of
two-thirds of the stock, a dissenting
stockholder asserting fraud has choice
of one of two remedies — appraisal or
avoidance of the sale. Wall v. Ana-
conda Copper Min. Co., 216 Fed. 242.
69T-67 Mioton v. Del Corral, 132 La.
730, 61 S. 771.
697-68 Kelly v. Dolan, 218 Fed. 966;
Olson I?. Miller, 178 111. App. 165; Gil-
man 17. German Lith. Stone Co., 152
Ky. 606, 153 S. W. 996; Bobinson v.
De Luxe Motor Car Co., 170 Mich. 163,
135 N. W. 897; Smith v, Oklahoma
Supp. Co. (Okla.), 149 P. 879; Checotah
Hdw. Co. V. Hensley, 42 Okla. 260, 141
P. 422; Lee r. Steinhart Lumb. Co., 66
Wash. 572, 119 P. 1117; Smith 17. Stone,
21 Wyo. 62, 128 P. 612.
697-69 See Post i?. Buck's Stove &
Bange Co., 200 Fed. 918, 119 C. C. A.
214.
698-71 Davenport 17. Dows, 18 Wall.
(U. S.) 626, 21 L. ed. 938; Kelly 17.
Dolan, 218 Fed. 966; Holmes 17. Jewett,
55 Colo. 187, 134 P. 665; Oilman r. Ger-
man Lith. Stone Co^ 152 Ky. 606, 153
S. W. 996; Levert 17. Shirley Planting
Co., 135 La. 929, 66 S. 301; Mioton 17.
Del Corral, 132 La. 730, 61 S. 771;
Converse r. United Shoe Mach. Co., 209
Mass. 539, 95 N. E. 929; Sant 17. Perron-
ville Shingle Co., 179 Mich. 42, 146
N. W. 212; National Power & Paper
Co. 17. BoBsman, 122 Minn. 355, 142
N. W. 818, Ann. Cas. 1914D, 830;
Ebline 17. Nekarda, 143 App. Div. 193,
132 N. Y. S. 309; Byan v. Grissinger,
136 K. Y. S. 134; Smith v. Oklahoma
Supp. Co. (Okla.), 149 P. 879; Checo-
tah Hdw. Co. 17. Hensley, 42 Okla. 260,
141 P. 422; Porter 17. Healy, 244 Pa.
427, 91 A. 428; Pellio 17. Bulls Head
Coal Co., 231 Pa. 157, 80 A. 71: Wolf
17. Bailroad Co., 195 Pa. 91, 45 A. 936;
Skeen 17. Warren Irr. Co., 42 Utah 602,
132 P. 1162.
Defense by BtocUioldenk — ^The rale
allowing a stockholder to sue on behalf
of the corporation in a proper case per-
mits a defense by them for the cor-
poration under similar circumstances.
An independent petition for leave to
defend is unnecessary; the stockholder
may come in with his answer and ask
leave to file it. The right to defend
may be denied in a proper case, as
where the stockholder seeking to de-
fend controls the plaintiff corporation.
Hawaiian Com. & Sugar Co. v. Waikapu
Sugar Co., 8 Haw. 721.
The solYency or insolYeney of the cor-
poration does not affect the stock-
holder's right to sue. Kleinschmidt v.
American Min. Co., 49 Mont 7, 139
P. 785.
699-72 Smith i7. Westchester Bronz-
ville Bealty Co., 78 Misc. 75, 137 N. Y.
S. 690. See Hyams v. Calumet & Hecla
Min. Co. (C. C. A.), 221 Fed. 529;
Smith 17. CThase & Baker Piano Mfg. Co.,
197 Fed. 466.
A lien may be Impressed upon the prop-
erty and. assets of the corporation in
favor of the stockholders. In re Den-
nett (C. C. A.), 221 Fed. 350.
Wrongs arising ftom imoonstitntional
legislation are embraced within the
rule. Wathen 17. Jackson Oil & Bef. Co.,
235 U. S. 635, 35 Sup. Ct. 225.
699-73 Hyams 17. Calumet ft Hecla
Min. Co. (C. C. A.), 221 Fed. 529; Ven-
ner v. Great Northern By. Co., 117
Minn. 447, 136 N. W. 271 (complainb
sufficient); Endicott 17. Marvel, 81 N.
J. Eq. 378, 87 A. 230.
699-74 Hyams 17. Old Dominion Co.
(Me.), 93 A. 747.
699-76 Town t?. Duplex-Power Co.,
172 Mich. 519, 188 N. W. 338; Godley
17. Crandall & Godley Co., 153 App.
Div. 697, 139 K. Y. S. 236; Ganzer v.
848
C0BP0BATI0N8
Vol. 5
BoBenfeld, 153 Wis. 442, 141 N. W.
121,
700-80 Just V, Idaho Canal & Imp.
Co., 16 Ida. 639, 102 P. 381, 133 Am.
St. 140. See Home F. Ins. Co. v. Bar-
ber, 67 Neb. 644, 93 N. W. 1024, 108
Am. St. 716, 60 L. B. A. 927.
700-81 United Electric Sec. Co. v.
Louisiana Elec. L. Co., 68 Ped. 673;
North V, Union Sav. & L. Assn., 59 Or.
483, 117 P. 822. See note to 40 L. B.
A. (N. S.) 566, and infra, p. 710, n. 58
and supplement thereto. But see Kellj
V, Dolan, 218 Fed. 966.
701-82 Macon Gas Co. v, Bichter
(Ga.), 85 S. E. 112, to prevent cor-
poration from applying for an increase
of its common capital stock in excess
of the amount authorized by its char-
ter.
701-88 Ellis V. Penn Beef Co., 9 Del.
Ch. 213, 80 A. 666, cancellation of stock
where issue ultra vires and unlawful.
701-87 Town V. Duplex-Power Co.,
172 Mich. 519, 138 N. W. 338.
701-88 Biker & Son Co. v. United
Drug Co., 79 N. J. Eq. 580, 82 A. 930.
701-91 To cancel stock fraudulently
acquired. National Power & Paper Co.
1?. Bossman, 122 Minn. 355, 142 N. W.
818, Ann. Cas. 1914D, 830.
702-98 Chilton v. Bell County, C. &
I. Co., 153 Ky. 775, 156 S. W. 889;
National Power & Paper Co. €. Boss-
man, 122 Minn. 355, 142 N. W. 818,
Ann. Cas. 1914D, 830; PoUitz V. Wabash
B. Co., 207 N. Y. 113, 100 N. E. 721;
Continental Securities Co. f>, Belmont,
206 N. Y. 7, 99 N. E. 138 (accounting
for bonus given to defendants); Porter
V. Healy, 244 Pa. 427, 91 A. 428.
702-2 Breach of duty by majority
may be relieved in equity. Hyams t^.
Calumet & Heda Min. Co. (C. C. A.),
221 Fed. 529.
702-3 Hyamg v. Calumet & Hecla
Min. Co. (C. C. A.), 221 Fed. 529; Ellis
V. Vandergrift, 173 Ala. 142, 55 S. 781;
6a. Civ. Code, §2224; Macon Gas Co.
V. Bichter (Ga.), 85 S. E. 112; Bobin-
son V. De Luxe Motor Car Co., 170
Mich. 163, 135 N. W. 897; M;erriman
V, National Zinc Corp., 82 N. J. Eq.
493, 89 A. 764; Continental Sec. Co. v.
Belmont, 133 N. Y. S. 560. See Berg-
man Clay Mfg. Co. v. Bergman, 73
Wash. 144, 131 P. 485.
Interreiition by the stockholders in an
fiction by the corporation is proper if
the stockholders learn of collusive plans
to dismiss the action. National Power
& Paper Co. v. Bossman, 122 Minn. 355,
142 N. W. 818, Ann. Cas. 1914D, 830.
70a-4 Ga. Civ. Code, §2224; Macon
Gas Co. V. Bichter (Ga.), 85 S. E. 112.
703-7 Delevan v, B. Co., 154 App.
Div. 8, 139 N. Y. S. 17; Continental
Sec. Co. V. Belmont, 133 N. Y. S. 560.
703-8 Goodbody t?. Delaney, 80 N. J.
Eq. 417, 83 A. 988; Continental Secur-
ities Co. V. Belmont, 206 N. Y. 7, 99
N. E. 138.
704-9 Hunnewell v, B. Co., 196 Fed.
543; Pellio v. Bulls Head Coal Co., 231
Pa. 157, 80 A. 71.
704-10 Laches ia not a bar to an
action brought by a stockholder in be-
half of the corporation where such
action is based upon a legal right and
not on the favor or discretion of the
court. In such case the statute of lim-
itations is applicable. Pollitz t?. Wabash
B. Co., 207 N. Y. 113, 100 N. E. 721.
704-11 Holmes v, Jewett, 55 Colo.
187, 134 P. 665.
704-13 See Kelly v. Dolan, 218 Fed.
966.
704-15 Bobinson v, De Luxe Motor
Car Co., 170 Mich. 163, 135 N. W. 897;
National Power & Paper Co. v. Boss-
man, 122 Minn. 355, 142 N. W. 818,
Ann. Cas. 1914D, 830.
Where unable to sue because of havine
lost its corporate identity because of
failure to pay it» franchise tax, an ac-
tion by the stockholders of the cor-
poration wiH be entertained. Canadian
Country Club i?. Johnson (Tex. Civ.),
176 S. W. 835; Favorite Oil Co. t?.
Chaison (Tex. Civ.), 162 S. W. 423.
705-16 Holmes t?. Jewett, 55 Colo.
187, 134 P. 665; Lebus v. Stansifer, 154
Ky. 444, 157 S. W. 727; Chilton v. Bell
County C. & I. Co., 153 Ky. 775, 156
S. W. 889; Gilman v. German Lith.
Stone Co., 152 Ky. 606, 153 S. W. 996;
Mioton €?. Del Corral, 132 La. 730, 61
S. 771; Clarke V. Marks, 111 Me. 218,
88 A. 718; Bobinson v, De Luxe Motor
Car Co., 170 Mich. 163, 135 N. W. 897;
National Power & Paper Co. v. Boss-
man, 122 Minn. 355, 142 N. W. 818,
Ann. Cas. 1914D, 830; Deschamps v.
Loiselle (Mont.), 148 P. 335; Moss v.
Goodhart, 47 Mont. 257, 131 P. 1071;
Smith V, Oklahoma Supp. Co. (Okla.),
149 P. 879; Checotah Hdw. Co. v. Hens-
ley, 42 Okla. 260, 141 P. 422; Starr i;.
Vol 5
CORPORATIONS
Heald, 28 Okla. 792, 116 P. 188; North
V. ITnion Sav. & L. Assn., 59 Or. 483,
117 P. 822; Pellio V. BuUs Head Coal
Co., 231 Pa. 157, 80 A. 71; Wolf t?.
Bailroad Co., 195 Pa. 91, 45 A. 936;
Canadian Country Club v. Johnson
(Tex. Civ.), 176 S. W. 835; Bergman
Clay Mfg. Co. v, Bergman, 73 Wash.
144, 131 P. 485 (citing local cases);
Lee V. K. W. Steinhart Lumb. Co., 66
Wash. 572, 119 P. 1117; Smith V. Stone,
21 Wyo. 62, 128 P. 612. See note to
51 L. B. A. (N. S.) 100.
705-lT See note to 51 L. E. A. (N.
S.) 100.
705-18 LebuB v, Stansifer, 154 Ey.
444, 157 S. W. 727; Chilton V. Bell
County C. & I. Co., 153 Ky. 775, 156
S. W. 889; Mioton v. Del Corral, 132
La. 730, 61 S. 771; Hyams v. Old Do-
minion Co. (Me.), 93 A. 747; National
Power & Paper Co. v, . Bossman, 122
Minn. 355, 142 N. W. 818, Ann. Cas.
1914D, 830; Deschamps v. Loiselle
(Mont.), 148 P. 335; Moss v. Goodhart,
47 Mont. 257, 131 P. 1071; North Union
Sav. & L. Assn., 59 Or. 483, 117 P. 822;
Kelly V. Thomas, 234 Pa. 419, 83 A.
307; Pellio v. Bulls Head Coal Co., 231
Pa. 157, 80 A. 71; Wolf v. Bailroad
Co., 195 Pa. 91, 45 A. 936; Canadian
Country Club v, Johnson (Tex. Civ.),
• 176 S. W. 835.
The role applies to minority stock-
holders, for if they hold a majority of
the stock, they may control the election
of directors, or remove the objection-
. able director. Brandt v. Mcintosh, 47
Mont. 70, 130 P. 413.
A stockholder InterYening'in an action
against a corporation must make a
showing identical with that which would
enable him to commence an independ-
ent suit to assert or protect a cor-
porate right. Continental, etc. Bank 17.
Allis-Chalmers Co., 200 Fed. 600.
Contents of notice. — Notice should state
specifically the parties against whom
the corporation is to bring suit. Pellio
V, Bulls Head Coal Co., 231 Pa. 157, 80
A. 71.
705-19 Brandt i), Mcintosh, 47 Mont.
70, 130 P. 413.
706-20 Levert v. Shirley Planting
Co., 135 La. 929, 66 S. 301; Moss v,
Goodhart, 47 Mont. 257, 131 P. 1071;
Continental Securities Co. f. Belmont,
206 N. Y. 7, 99 N. E. 138; Kelly v.
Thomas, 234 Pa. 419, 83 A. 307; Pellio
V. Bulls Head Coal Co., 231 Pa. 157, 80
A. 71.
If the corporation be a national bank,
demand should be made upon the cor-
poration (that is, the directors) or the
receiver, if in the hands of a receiver,
or the comptroller of the currency.
Moss V. Goodhart, 47 Mont. 257, 131
P. 1071.
If the corporation la in the hands of
a receiver, the demand should be made
upon him. Moss v. Goodhart, 47 Mont.
257, 131 P. 1071. But as a foreign
receiver has no standing in court, a
demand upon him is not required. Beed
V, HoUingsworth, 157 la. 94, 135 N. W.
37.
Demand upon the president and secre-*
tary Insnl&cient. — ^Brandt v, Mdntosh,
47 Mont. 70, 130 P. 413.
706-22 Kelly v. Thomas, 234 Pa. 419.
83 A. 307; Pellio v. Bulls Head Coal
Co., 231 Pa. 157, 80 A. 71; Wolf t?.,
Bailroad Co., 195 Pa. 91, 45 A. 936.
Bule stated. — Continental Securities Co.
V. Belmont, 206 N. Y. 7, 99 N. E. 138,
states the rule as follows: ''If the
subject-matter of the stockholder's
complaint is for any reason within the
immediate control, direction, or power
of confirmation of the body of stock-
holders, it should be brought to the at-
tention of such stockholders for action,
before an action is commenced by a
stockholder unless it clearly appears by
the complaint that such application is
useless. '^
706-23 Continental Sec. Co. v. Bel-
mont, 150 App. Div. 298, 911, 134 N. Y.
S. 635.
707-25 Hyams v, Calumet & Hecla
Min. Co. (C. C. A.), 221 Fed. 529;
Dana v, Morgan, 219 Fed. 313; Ellis
V. Vandergrift, 173 Ala. 142, 55 S. 781;
Fleming v. Warrior Copper Co., 15 Ariz.
1, 136 P. 273, 51 L. B. A. (N. S.) 99;
Sheehy t?. Barry, 87 Conn. 656, 89 A.
259; Ellis V. Penn Beef Co., 9 Del. Ch.
213, 80 A. 666; Beed f. Hollingsworth,
157 la. 94, 135 N. W. 37; Chilton v.
Bell County C. & 1. Co., 153 Ky. 775,
156 S. W. 889; Hyams v. Old Dominion
Co. (Me.), 93 A. 747; National Power
& Paper Co. v, Bossman, 122 Minn. 355,
142 N. W. 818, Ann. Cas. 1914D, 830;
Kleinschmidt V, American Min. Co., 49
Mont. 7, 139 P. 785; Moss v. Goodhart,
47 Mont. 257, 131 P. 1071; Forrester
V, B. & M. Min. Co., 21 Mont. 544, 55
P. 229, 353; Appleton V, American Malt.
Co., 65 N. J. Eq. 375, 54 A. 454; Con-
tinental Securities Co. f, Belmont, 206
950
CORPORATIONS
Vol. 5
K". T, 7, 99 N. E. 138; Sage v. Culver,
147 N. Y. 241, 41 N. E. 513; Braswell
V. Pamlico Ins. & B.. Co., 159 N. C.
628, 75 S. E. 813; North v. Union Sav.
& L. Assn., 59 Or. 483, 117 P. 822;
Treat t\ Ins. Co., 203 Pa. 21, 52 A.
60.
707-26 Fleming v. Black Warrior C.
Co., 15 Ariz. 1, 136 P. 273, 51 L. R. A.
(N. S.) 99; Lebus V. Stansifer, 154 Ky.
444, 157 S. W. 727; Chilton V. Bell Co.
C. & I. Co., 153 Ky. 775, 156 S. W.
889; Sant v. Perronville Shingle Co.,
179 Mich. 42, 146 N. W. 212; Robin-
sdn V. De Luxe Motor Car Co., 170
Mich. 163, 135 N. W. 897; Klein-
Schmidt V. American Min. Co., 49
Mont. 7, 139 P. 785 (where demand
would be that directors sue one of their
number who controls the directorate, a
demand is unnecessary); O'Connor v.
Virginia Pass & P. Co., 46 Misc. 530,
92 N. Y. S. 525; Continental Sec. Co.
1^. Belmont, 133 N. Y. 8. 560; Canadian
Country Club v. Johnson (Tex. Civ.),
176 S. W. 835. See note to 51 L. R.
A. (N. S.) 102.
707-27 Hyamg v. Calumet & Hecla
Min. Co. (C. C. A.), 221 Fed. 529.
707-28 Ellis V. Vandergrift, 173
Ala. 142, 55 S. 781, no demand is re-
quired where the wrongdoers would
control the litigation.
708-31 Hawes v. Oakland, 104 IT. S.
450, 26 L. ed. 827; National Power &
Paper Co. v. Rossman, 122- Minn. 355,
142 N. W. 818, Ann. Cas. 1914D, 830.
708-35 Clarkson v. Tinkham, 156
App. Div. 869, 142 N. Y. S. 502; Pas-
eual 17. Del Saz Orozco, 19 Phil. Isl. 82.
Minority gtockholders may sue in a
proper case. Brandt v. Mcintosh, 47
Mont. 70, 130 P. 413; Lee v, K. W.
Steinhart Lumb. Co., 66 Wash. 572, 119
P. 1117.
A non-xesidettt stockholder cannot bring
an action, and the court has no juris-
diction of his suit. If, however, a resi-
dent of the state intervenes the court
has jurisdiction. Grant V, Greene
Consol. Copper Co. (App. Div.), 154 N.
Y. S. 596.
Stockholders of foreign corporation
may sue resident officers of the cor-
poration. Ganzer v, Rosenfeld, 153
Wis. 442, 141 N. W. 121.
Pecuniary damage to individual share-
holders necessary before he can sue.
Continental Sec. Co. v, Interborough B.
T, Co., 207 Fed. 467.
One fraudulently deprived of his stock
may sue on behalf of the corporation.
Empire Bealty Co. v. Harton, 176 Ala.
99, 57 S. 763.
708-36 Empire Realty Co. t?. Harton,
176 Ala. 99, 57 S. 763.
708-39 Smith v, Oklahoma Supp.
Co. (Okla.), 149 P. 879; Checotah Hdw.
Co. 17. Hensley, 42 Okla. 260, 141 P.
422.
708-40 Smith v. Oklahoma Supp.
Co. (Okla.), 149 P. 879; Checotah Hdw.
Co. V. Hensley, 42 Okja. 260, 141 P.
422.
709-44 Baum v, Sporborg, 146 App.
Div. 537, 131 N. Y. S. 267.
709-52 Harvey f?. Meigs, 17 Cal.
App. 353, 119 P. 941; Ellis v. Penn
Beef Co., 9 Del. Ch. 213, 80 A. 666;
Forrester r. B. M. Min. Co., 21 Mont.
565, 55 P. 353; Continental Securities
Co. V. Belmont, 206 N. Y. 7, 99 N. E.
138; Pollitz V. Gould, 202 N. Y. 11, 94
N. E. 1088; Ramsey v. Gould, 57 Barb.
(N. Y.) 398; Sayles v. Central Nat.
Bank, 18 Misc. 155, 41 N. Y. S. 1063;
Ervin v. Oregon By. & Nav. Co., 35
Hun (N. Y.) 544; Young v. Drake, 8
Hun (N. Y.) 61; Frothingham v. Broad-
way, etc. R. R. Co., 9 N. Y. Civ. Proc.
304; North f. Union Sav. & L. Assn.,
59 Or. 483, 117 P. 822. See note to
40 L. R. A. (N. S.) 566.
709-53 Hawes v, Oakland, 104 IT. S.
450, 26 L. ed. 827; Hitchings v. Cobalt
Central Mines Co., 189 Fed. 241; North
t\ Union Sav. & L. Assn., 59 Or. 483,
117 P. 822.
709-54 Clark v, American Coal Co.,
86 la. 436, 53 N. W. 291, 17 L. R. A.
557; Rankin €?. Brewery & Ice Co., 12
N. M. 54, 73 P. 614; Pascual v. Del
Saz Orozco, 19 Phil. Isl. 82, 100.
Transfer not recorded. — ^If the plaintiff
is not a stockholder of record, it at
least must appear that plaintiff is the
owner or holder of a certificate for
shares under such circumstances as give
him a right to have them transferred
to him on the books of the company.
Clarkson v. Tinkham, 156 App. Div. 869,
142 N. Y. S. 502.
710-56 Deschampg v, Loiselle
(Mont.), 148 P. 335; Elkins V, Camden
& A. R. Co., 36 N. J. Eq. 5. Comp.
Kingman v. R. Co., 30 Hun (N. Y.)
73.
Vexations pnrposee. — It should appear
from the complaint that the plaintifC
951
Vol. 5
CORPORATIONS
is the bona fide owner of the stock; i
that he bought the same in good faith,
and not for mere vexatious purposes.
Moore v. Silver Valley Min. Co., 104
N. C. 534, 10 S. E. 679.
T10-5T Babcock v. Farwell, 245 HI.
14, 91 N. E. 683, 137 Am. St. 284, 19
Ann. Cas. 74; Erng r. G. W. Schmidt,
197 Pa. 475, 484, 47 A. 877.
710-58 See supra, p. 700, n. 81, and
supplement thereto.
710-59 A continuing wrong may be
redressed by a stockholder although it
began before he became a stockholder.
Hyams v. Old Dominion Co. (Me.), 93
A. 747.
710-61 Holmes v, Jewett, 55 Colo.
187, 134 P. 665; Babcock v. Farwell,
245 111. 14, 91 N. E. 683, 137 Am. St.
284, 19 Ann. Cas.. 74; Smith V. Stone,
21 Wyo. 62, 128 P. 612.
711-63 Osborne v, Morgan, 171 HI.
App, 549; Endicott v. Marvel, 81 N. J.
Eq. 378, 87 A. 230; Warner v, Morgan,
81 Misc. 685, 143 N. Y. S. 516; Baker
i\ Seattle-Tacoma Power Co., 61 Wash.
578, 112 P. 647, Ann. Cas. 1912C, 859;
Smith V. Stone, 21 Wyo. 62, 128 P. 612.
See Backus v. Brooks, 195 Fed. 452, 115
O. C. A. 354; Venner v. E. Co., 160
App. Div. 127, 145 N. Y. S. 725.
711-64 Holmes r. Jewett, 55 Colo.
187, 134 P. 665; Ga. Civ. Code, §2224;
Macon Gas Co. v, Bichter (Ga.), 85
S. E. 112.
711-66 Holmes v, Jewett, 55 Colo.
187, 134 P. 665; Smith v. Stone, 21 Wyo.
62, 128 P. 612.
711-67 Merriman v. National Zinc
Corp., 82 N". J. Eq. 493, 89 A. 764.
Assignee of a BtocUiolder under an as-
signment for the benefit of creditors
held improperly joined as plaintiff.
Clarkson v. Tinkham, 156 App. Div.
869, 142 N. Y. S. 502.
712-68 Black v. Simpson, 94 S. O.
312, 77 S. E. 1023. See Brock v. Poor
(App. Dix.), 153 N". Y. S. 332; Canadian
Country Club v. Johnson (Tex. Civ.),
176 S. W. 835.
712-69 Lebus v, Stansifer, 154 Ky.
444, 157 S. W. 727; Clarke V. Marks,
111 Me. 218, 88 A. 718; Continental
Securities Co. v. Belmont, 206 N. Y. 7,
99 K. E. 138; North V. Union Sav. &
L. Assn., 59 Or. 483, 117 P. 822, query.
Suit should be in the name of the cor-
X>oratlon. — ^Levert r. Shirley Planting
Co., 135 La. 929, 66 S. 301.
952
712-70 Delevan v. R. Co., 154 App.
Div. 8, 139 N. Y. S. 17: Continental
Sec. Co. V. Belmont, 133 N. Y. S. 560.
That Btockboldeis cdmiUrly situated be
brongbt in may be directed by the
court. North v. Union Sav. & L. Assn.,
59 Or. 483, 117 P. 822.
712-71 Hyams v. Old Dominion Co.,
204 Fed. 681; Hill t?. Murphy, 212 Mass.
1, 98 N. E. 781; Converse v. United
Shoe Mach. Co., 209 Mass. 539, 95 N.
E. 929; McMUlan v. Miller, 177 Mich.
511, 143 N. W. 631; Coxe v. Hart, 53
Mich. 557, 19 N. W. 183; Kleinschmidt
17. American Min. Co., 49 Mont. 7, 139
P. 785; Brock v. Poor (App. Div.), 163
N. Y. S. 342; Starr f?. Heald, 28 OUa.
792, 116 P. 188; Pascual v. Del Saz
Orozco, 19 Phil. Isl. 82, although the
corporation is a nominal defendant, it
is in reality the real • plaintiff. See
supra^ vol. 5, p. 609, n. 4, and supple-
ment thereto. Comp, Toledo Traction
L. & P. Co. €?. Smith, 205 Fed. 643.
712-72 SUrr v, Heald, 28 Okla. 792,
116 P. 188.
ForMgn recelTer not a necessary party.
Reed t?. Hollingsworth, 157 la. 94, 135
N. W.»37.
712-73 Harvey t?. Meigs, 17 Cal.
App. 353, 119 P. 941; Brock f?. Poor
(App. Div.), 153 N. Y. S. 343.
713-74 See Lee v. Steinhart Lumb.
Co., 66 Wash. 572, 119 P. 1117, right
to sue stockholder.
Where the stockholdeni are not charged
with ftaudy they are not proper parties
defendant. McCrea v. Bobertson, 192
N. Y. 150, 84 N. E. 960, af. 114 App.
Div. 70, 99 N. Y. S. 689; Hay v. Brook-
field, 160 App. Div. 277, 145 N. Y. S.
543.
713-75 See Harvey <?. Meigs, 17 Cal.
App. 353, 119 P. 941.
713-76 Hyams r. Old Dominion Co.
(Me.), 93 A. 747.
Creditors. — ^In re Dennett (C. O. A.),
221 Fed. 350.
713-77 Conners t?. Connors Bros. Co.,
110 Me. 428, 86 A. 843 (bill sufficient) ;
Clubb f?. Cook, 161 App. Div. 775, 147
N. Y. S. 94; Continental Sec. Co. v. Bel-
mont, 133 N. Y. S. 560. See Bankers'
Trust Co. €?. E. E. Dietz Co., 157 App.
Div. 595, 142 N. Y. S. 847 (action to
set aside dividend); Tipton v. Bailway
PostiJ Clerks' Inv. Assn. (Tex. Civ.),
173 S. W. 562.
Oifer to do equity. — ^Where the corpora-
tion executed & fraudulent lease to
CORPORATIONS
Vol. 5
the defendant, who has a controlling
interest in it, and who controls its
funds, etc., the plaintiff stockholder is
not required to pay or offer to return
the consideration or allege an offer to
do equity. Franklin v, Havalena Min.
Co. (Ariz.), 141 P. 727.
A judgment recovered in a representa-
tive action by the stockholders should
provide for direct payment to the cor-
poration. Ebling V. Nekarda, 148 App.
Div. 193, 132 N. Y. S. 309.
713-78 Continental Securities Co. v,
Belmont, 206 N. Y. 7, 99 N. E. 138.
Transferee of stock need not allege in
his complaint' that his predecessors in
title did not assent to or acquiesce in
a fraudulent issue of stock. It is a
matter of defense. Continental Secur-
ities Co. V. Belmont, 206 N. Y. 7, 99
N. E. 138.
71S-79 Clarkson v. Tinkham, 156
App. Biv. 869, 142 N. Y. S. 602; Che-
cotah Hdw. Co. v, Hensley, 42 Okla.
260, 141 P. 422.
Where plaintiff sold his stock to others
and seeks a rescission of the sale to
establish his status as a stockholder to
enable him to sue, a petition is insuffi-
cient which does not show the number
of shares owned by plaintiff, the
amount paid, whether full value or
less, the total stock of the corporation
and its par value. Checotah Hdw. Co.
r. Hensley, 42 Okla. 260, 141 P. 422.
713-80 Bnle 94.— Smith v. Chase &
Baker Piano Mfg. Co., 197 Fed. 466;
Forrester v. B. & M. Min. Co., 21
Mont. 544, 55 P. 229, 353; North v.
Union Sav. Ss Loan Assn., 59 Or. 483,
117 P. 822.
In the state conrts an allegation of
ownership of stock at the time of the
transaction of which they complain is
not required. Forrester r. B. & M.
Min. Co., 21 Mont. 544, 55 P. 229, 353;
North V. Union Sav. & L. Assn., 59 Or.
483, 117 P. 822.
714-81 Wathen v. Jackson Oil &
Kef. Co., 235 U. S. 635, 35 Sup. Ct.
225; Continental, etc. Bank r. AIlls-
Chalmers Co., 200 Fed. 600; Smith r.
Chase & Baker Piano Mfg. Co., 197
Fed. 466; Continental Securities Co. r.
Belmont, 206 N. Y. 7, 99 N, E. 138;
Clubb V. Cook, 161 App. Div. 775, 147
N. Y. S. 94; Smith i\ Oklahoma Supp.
Co. (Okla.), 149 P. 879; Checotah Ildw.
Co. r. Hensley, 42 Okla. .2C0, 141 P.
422. See Harvey v. Meigs, 17 Cal. App.
353, 119 P. 941; Brock v. Poor (App.
Biv.), 153 N. Y. S. 332.
That bill is for benefit of all tlie stock-
holders must be alleged. Clarke f.
Marks, 111 Me. 218, 88 A. 718.
714-82 Strang v. Edson, 198 Fed.
813, 117 C. C. A. 455; Oilman t?. Ger-
man Lith. Stone Co., 152 Ky. 606, 153
S. W. 996; Mioton V. Del Corral, 132
La. 730, 61 S. 771; Moss v, Goodhart,
47 Mont. 257, 131 P. 1071.
If a minority stockholder, a demand
must be alleged. Brandt v. Mcintosh,
47 Mont. 70, 130 P. 413.
Bofficieiit demandt etc. Continental
Securities Co. v, Belmont, 206 N. Y.
7, 99 N. E. 138.
714-83 Strang v. Edson, 198 Fed.
813, 117 C. C. A. 455; Holmes v. Jewett,
55 Colo. 187, 134 P. 665; Gilman v.
German L. S. Co., 152 Ky. 606, 153
S. W. 996; Mioton v. Del Corral, 132
La. 730, 61 S. 771; Clarke v. Marks,
111 Me. 218, 88 A. 718; Brandt V. Mc-
intosh, 47 Mont. 70, 130 P. 413; Con-
tinental Securities Co. v. Belmont, 206
N. Y. 7, 99 N. E. 138; Starr v. Heald,
28 Okla. 792, 116 P. 188. See note to
51 L. B. A. (N. S.) 108.
An amendment to show refusal to sue
permissible. Clarke v, Marks, 111 Me.
218, 88 A. 718.
715-85 Continental, etc. Bank v, Al-
lisChalmers Co., 200 Fed. 600; Os-
I borne v. Morgan, 171 111. App. 549;
Ilyams v. Old Dominion Co. (Me.), 93
A. 747; Kleinschmidt v, American Min.
Co., 49 Mont. 7, 139 P. 785 (sufficient
allegation); Brandt v, Mcintosh, 47
Mont. 70, 130 P. 413; Checotah Hdw.
Co. 17. Hensley, 42 Okla. 260, 141 P.
422. See Continental Sec. Co. V. Bel-
mont, 133 N. Y. S. 660.
The reasons mast be adeqaate. — ^Wathen
t?. Jackson Oil & Bef . Co., 235 TJ. S. 635,
35 Sup. Ct. 225.
715-86 See Allen v, Francisco Sugar
Co., 193 Fed. 825, 114 C. C. A. 453.
715-88 Damage to the plaintiff
stockholder must be shown in an action
for an accounting against directors who,
in violation of the by-laws, had sold
out the assets of the corporation and
discontinuld business, where there is
no charge of fraud or bad faith. Levin
t\ Mayer, 86 Misc. 116, 149 N. Y. S..
112.
715-90 Disqualification of plaintiff
to act as prosecutor of a representative
sz
353
Vol. 5
CORPORATIONS
stockholder's suit is raised by demur-
rer if apparent on the face, Goodbody
V, Delaney, 80 N. J. Eq. 417, 83 A,
988.
716-94 Although nnsuceessfiil in the
action, attorney's fees may be awarded
where the voluntary repayment of the
money was apparently induced by the
commencement of the action. Baker v,
Seattle-Tacoma Power Co., 61 Wash.
678, 112 P. 647, Ann. Cas. 1912C, 859.
716-95 Leonard v, Hartzler, 90 Kan.
386, 133 P. 570, 50 L. R. A. (N. S.)
383; Valley Bank & Sav. Inst. t;. Ladies'
Cong. Sewing Soc, 28 Kan. 423. But
flee XT. S. Elec. L. Co. v. Leiter, 8
Mackey (D. C.) 575.
717-96 Smith v. Chase & Baker
Piano Mfg. Co., 197 Fed. 466.
717-99 U. S. Elec. Light Co. v,
Leiter, 8 Mackey (D. C.) 575; Leonard
1?. Hartzler, 90 Kan. 386, 133 P. 570,
60 L. R. A. (N. S.) 383; President Min.
& Mill. Co. V. Coquard, 40 Mo. App.
40. See note in 50 L. R. A. (N. S.)
384.
717-1 XT. S. Elec. L. Co. v. Leiter, 8
Mackey (D. C.) 575.
718-3 Leonard i\ Hartzler, 90 Kan.
386, 133 P. 570, 50 L. R. A. (N. S.)
383. But see S. v. District Court
(Mont.), 146 P. 539, holding actions
involving the trust estate must be
brought by the receiver.
718-4 Receiver is the custodian and
In control of the corporate business,
but his appointment does not affect the
title or ownership of corporate prop-
erty. Henry r. Epstein, 50 Ind. App.
660, 95 N. E. 275.
719-12 Bight to sue snsfpended^-Mil-
waukee Mut. F. Ins. Co. t?. Sentinel Co.,
81 Wis. 207, 51 N. W. 440, 15 L. R.
A. 627. See American Wks. Co. r.
Farmers* Loan & T. .Co., 20 Colo. 203,
37 P. 269, 46 Am. St. 285, 25 L. R. A.
338.
719-13 Du Pont t'. Standard Arms
Co., 9 Del. Ch. 324, 82 A. 692.
720-19 Talmage t?. Pell, 9 Paige (N.
Y.) 410.
720-22 Stevens r. Tilden, 122 Minn.
250, 142 N. W. 315. ^
721-28 See note in 46 L. R. A. (N.
S.) 452.
722-38 But see Chamberlain v, Pier-
cy, 82 Wash. 157, 143 P. 977 (proceed-
ing held to be equitable), dUt, Elder-
kin v\ Peterson, 8 Wash. 674, 36 P.
1089.
722-39 Hall v. Alabama T. & 1. Co.,
173 Ala. 398, 56 S. 235; Dill v. Ebev,
27 Okla. 5S4, 112 P. 973, 46 L. R. A.
(N. S.) 440. See note in 46 L. R. A.
(N. S.) 440.
723-46 See note in 45 L. R. A. (N.
S.) 422.
723-47 Nuckels v. Robinson -Pettett
Co., 159 Ky. 214, 166 S. W. 972.
Creditors need not Join in the action.
Nuckels V. Robinson-Pettett Co., 159
Ky. 214, 166 S. W. 972.
Lack of knowledge on the part of the
plaintiff that the corporate indebted-
ness exceeded the charter limit need
not be alleged in the complaint, it* be-
ing a matter for affirmative defense.
Nuckels 1'. Robinson-Pettett Co., 159
Ky. 214, 166 S. W. 972.
723-48 The remedy of a creditor to
reach funds paid as dividends in Uqai-
dation of insolvent corporation is by
a suit in equity. The proper plaintiff,
where the corporation is a going con-
cern is the corporation, but when it
has ceased to transact business the
proper plaintiff is the creditor. It is
not necessary that the creditor before
suing the stockholder first obtain a
judgment against the corporation and
have execution issued and returned
nulla bona. Garetson-Hilton Lumb. Co.
V. Hinson, 69 Or. 605, 140 P. 633.
724-50 Blackburn v. Irvine, 205 Fed.
217, 123 C. C. A. 405.
724-52 Rialto Co. t?. Miner, 183 Mo.
App. 119, 1C6 S. W. 629; Angldile
Comp. Scale Co. t?. Gladstone, 164 App.
Div. 370, 149 N. Y. S. 807; American
Food Products Co. r. American Milling
Co., 151 Wis. 385, 138 N. W. 1123.
725-54 Sociedad de Autores Es-
panoles v, Marin, 4 P. R. 288.
725-56 Angldile Computing Scale Co.
V. Gladstone, 164 App. Div. 370, 149
N. Y. S. 807; Frick Co. v. Pnltz, 162
App. Div. 209, 147. N. Y. S. 732.
If the charter of the foreign corpora-
tion be not renewed before the expira-
tion of twenty years from the filing
of its articles, its existence within the
state expires and it cannot bring an
action. Holmes v, Jewett, 55 Colo. 187,
134 P. 665.
725-57 Sioux Remedy Co. tr. Cope,
235 U. S. 197, 35 Sup. Ct. 57; E. & G.
Theatre Co. v, Greene, 216 Mass. 171,
103 N. E. 301; National Fertilizer Co.
354
CORPORATIONS
Vol. 5
V. Fall Biver Sav. Bank, 196 Mass. 458,
82 N. E. 671, 13 Ann. Cas. 510, 14 L.
B. A. (N. S.) 661.
T25.58 Doing bnslneas. — St. Louis
Bouthwestern B. Co. v, Alexander, 227
U. 8. 218, 33 Sup. Ct. 245, 57 L. ed.
486; Chesapeake & O. B. Co. v, Stojan-
owski, 191 Fed. 720, 112 C. C. A. 310;
Wendell v. Holland America Line, 40
App. Cas. (B. C.) 1; Interstate Amuse-
ment Co. V. Albert, 128 Tenn. 417, 161
B. W. 488.
725-59 Massachusetts St., 1903, eh.
437, §158, 60; St., 1906, ch. 372;
Schwartzwaelder Co. v, Silverman, 134
N. Y. S. 1114.
726-60 Security Co. 17. Bank, 93
Tex. 575, 580, 57 S. W. 22.
726-^1 Hooker r. Southwestern Imp.
Assn., 105 Ark. 99, 150 S. W. 398;
Security Co. v. Bank, 93 Tex. 575, 580,
57 S. W. 22; Jackson Woolen Mills v,
Moore (Tex. Civ.), 154 S. W. 642.
726^2 As to federal courts.-— But
see National Mercantile Co. v, Watson,
215 Fed. 929.
727-65 A failure to pay the license
tax in the state of tlie corporation's
domicile will not operate to deny the
corporation the right to sue in another
jurisdiction where the corporation is
not dissolved. This statute is penal in
its nature and will not be enforced
elsewhere. GuUedge Bros. Lumb. Co.
V. Wena tehee Lumb. Co., 122 Minn. 266,
142 N. W. 305, 46 L. B. A. (N. S.)
697.
727-66 Winston v. Idaho Hdw. Co.,
23 Cal. App. 211, 137 P. 601 1 Western
Electrical Co. v, Pickett, 51 Colo. 415,
118 P. 988; Heeia Sugar Plantation Co.
if, Kahanamoku, 6 Haw. 385; Heeia
Sugar Plantation Co. v, McKeague, 5
Haw. 101; MorriS'Boberts Co. v. Mar-
iner, 24 Ida. 788, 135 P. 1166; Hirsch-
feld V. McCullagh, 64 Or. 502, 127 P.
541, 130 P. 1131; New State Land Co.
V. Wilson (Tex. Civ.), 150 S. W. 253;
William A. Eastman & Co. v. Watson,
72 Wash. 522, 130 P. 1144; North Star
Trading Co. t?. Alaska Yukon P. E., 68
Wash. 457, 123 P. 605; Boston Tow
Boat Co. I?. John J. Semon Co., 64
Wash. 375, 116 P. 1083.
Application of statute confined to state
enacting it. David Lupton's Sons r.
Auto aub, 225 U. S. 489, 32 Sup. Ct.
711, 56 L. ed. 1177.
Kor can an assignee of a corporation,
failing to comply with the statute, en-
force the obligation. New State Land
Co. t?. Wilson (Tex. Civ.), 150 S. W.
253.
Substantial compliance requisite. — ^Mor-
ris-Boberts Co. r. Mariner, 24 Ida. 788,
135 P. 1166.
The word * 'prosecute* • in a statute
forbidding a corporation to prosecute
an action if there has been no com-
pliance with the statute includes the
prosecution of a suit. Western Elec-
trical Co. V. Pickett, 51 €olo. 415, 118
P. 988.
727-68 Muller Mfg. Co. v. First Nat.
Bank, 176 Ala. 229, 57 S. 762; American
Amusement Co. v. East Lake Chutes
Co., 174 Ala. 526, 56 S. 961; Alabama
Western B. Co. fh Talley-Bates Const.
Co., 162 Ala. 396, 50 S. 341; Farrior
t\ New England M. S. Co., 88 Ala. 275,
7 S. 200; Bowe t?. Stevens, 25 Ida. 237,
137 P. 159; Farrand Co. v. Walker, 169
Mo. App. 602, 155 S. W. 68; Interstate
Amusement Co. t^. Albert, 128 Tenn.
417, 161 S. W. 488. See Fidelity Trust
Co. t?. Washington-Oregon Corp., 217
Fed. 588; Christian v. American F. L.
& M. Co., 89 Ala. 198, 7 S. 427.
Althongh such Illegality is not pointed
ont in the pleadings. Interstate Amuse-
ment Co. V, Albert, 128 Tenn. 417, 161
S. W. 488.
The prohibition of the statute is con-
fined to the state enacting it. Meader
Furniture Co. v. Commercial Nat. Safe.
Dep. Co., 192 Fed. 616; American Food
Products Co. V. American Milling Co.,
151 Wis. 385, 138 N. W. 1123.
728-70 Gulledge Bros. Lumb. Co. v,
Wenatchee Lumb. Co., 122 Minn. 266,
142 N. W. 305, 46 L. E. A. (N. S.)
697; Dampfschieflfs Bhederei Union t?.
Cia. Trasatlantica, 8 Phil. Isl. 766:
Brook Bros, v, Froelich & Kuttner, o
Phil. Isl. 580.
728-71 Broadway Bond St. Co. v.
Fidelity Print. Co., 182 Mo. App. 309,
170 S. W. 394; Kingman Texas Imp.
Co. V. Borders (Tex. Civ.), 156 S. W.
614.
Contracts of the corporation with its
fiduciary agent may be enforced al-
though the statute was not complied
with. Kibby v. Cubie, Heimann & Co.,
41 Okla. 116, 137 P. 352; Verdigris
Biver Land Co. f?. Stanfield, 25 Okla.
265, 105 P. 337.
729-75 Duroth Mfg. Co. v. Cauffiel,
243 Pa. 24, 89 A. 798.
355
Vol. 5
COBPOBATIONS
720-7T Yandiver v, American Can
Go. (Ala.), 67 S. 299.
729-78 Sioux 'Remedy Co. v. Cope,
235 U. S. 197, 35 Sup. Ct. 57.
Statute does not apply to actions In
admiralty. — Spreckels Bros. Co. v, ^'Ne-
vadan," 1 U. 8. D. C. (Haw.) 354.
729-70 Vandiver v. American Can
Co. (Ala.), 67 8. 299; Kibby v. Cubie,
Heimann & Co., 41 Okla. 116, 137 P.
352; A. Leschen & 8onfi Bope Co. V.
Moser (Tex. Civ.), 159 S. W. 1018. See
American Amusement Co. v. East Lake
Chutes Co., 174 Ala. 526, 56 S. 961;
Ewart Lumb. Co. v, American Cement
Plaster Co., 9 Ala. App. 152, 62 S. 560;
Sioux Bemedy Co. v. Cope, 28 8. D.
397, 133 N. W. 683.
Subsequent engagement In local busi-
ness will not affect the right to enforce
interstate transactions. Victor Talking
Mach. Co. V, Lucker (Minn.), 150 N. W.
790.
730-81 Caesar i^. Capell, 83 Fed.
403; William A. Eastman & Co. v.
Watson, 72 Wash. 522, 130 P. 1144.
Treating amended complaint as com-
mencement of action. — Where a cor-
poration abandoned its original com-
plaint and filed an amended complaint
aOeging the payment of the annual
license fee last due, the filing of an
amended complaint will be regarded as
the commencement of the suit within
the meaning of the statute forbidding
a corporation from commencing suit
without alleging a compliance with the
statute. Wilson Case Lumb. Co. t;.
Mountain Timber Co., 200 Fed. 181.
781-83 David Lupton's Sons v. Auto
Club, 225 U. S. 489, 32 Sup. Ct. 711,
56 L. ed. 1177; Thomas v, Birmingham
By. L. & P. Co., 195 Fed. 340.
Where the local law makes void the
contracts of a corporation which has
not complied with the local statute, an
action thereon in the federal court can-
not be maintained by the corporation.
Thomas r. Birmingham By. L. & P.
Co., 195 Fed. 340.
732-88 W. J. Armsrong v. New York
Cent. & H. R. Co. (Minn.), 151 N. W.
917. See Rowe r. Stevens, 25 Ida. 237,
137 P. 159; Erie B. Co. t?. Van Allen,
t6 N. J. L. 119, 69 A. 484.
732-89 See Thomas v. Placerville G.
Q. M. Co., 65 Cal. 600.
732-92 St. Clair v. Cox, 106 U. S.
350, 27 L. ed. 223; Booz v, Texas &
P. By. Co., 250 111. 376, 95 N. E. 460;
Attorney-General v. Bay State M. Co,f
99 Mass. 148, 96 Am. Dec. 717; Doctor
17. Desmond, 80 N. J. Eq. 77, 82 A.
522; Somerville Lumb. Co. v. Mackres,
86 Vt. 466, 85 A. 977.
The transaction of an isolated brndness
act is not carrying on or doing busi-
ness within the meaning of this rule.
Doctor V. Desmond, 80 N. J. £q. 77, 82
A. 522.
732-93 Bowe v. Stevens, 25 Ida. 237,
137 P. 159; Edwards v. Van CleaTe,
47 Ind. App. 347, 94 N. E. 596; W. J.
Armstrong Co. v. New York Cent. &
H. B. Co. (Minn.), 151 N. W. 917.
A Maine corporation having its jMrin-
cipal place of business in Porto Blco
may be sued in the district court of
Porto Bico by a resident of New York
by virtue of 31 St. at L. 953, ch. 812.
Nevers v. Central Altagracea, 3 P. B.
Ped. 496.
733-96 St. Louis Southwestern B.
Co. t?. Alexander, 227 U. S. 218, 33 Sup.
Ct. 245, 57 L. ed. 486; Kirby ». Louis-
mann-Capen Co., 221 Fed. 267; Noel
Const. Co. V. George W. Smith Sc Co.,
193 Fed. 492; Michigan A. F. Co. v.
Aluminum Castings Co., 190 Fed. 879;
B. H. Herron Co. v. Westside Elec. Co.,
18 Cal. App. 778, 124 P. 455; Jameson
V. Simonds Saw Co., 2 Cal. App. 582,
84 P. 289; Doremus t. National Cotton
Imp. Co., 39 App. Cas. (D. C.) 295;
S. V. Pennsylvania Steel Co., 123 Md.
212, 91 A. 136; U. S. Asphalt Bef. Co.
V, Comptoir N. D. de Paris, 166 App.
Div. 64, 151 N. Y. S. 604; Harrell v.
Peters Cartridge Co., 36 Okla. 684, 129
P. 872.
TTnless the eotporatien lias property in
the state, it cannot be sued. West v.
Harlan & HoUingsworth Corp., 164 App-
Div. 925, 149 N. Y. S; 377.
Corporation engaged In interstate com*
merce is not doing business within the
state and cannot be sued there notwith-
standing it had filed a statement desig-
nating a person upon whom process
may be served. Cooper v. E. L. Welch
Co., 218 Fed. 719.
Parties defendant where ri^t to do
businese forfeited* — Where the corpora-
tion failed to pay its annual license
tax, thereby forfeiting its right to do
business, an action against it should be
brought against its directors instead of
against the corporation under St., 1907,
p. 746. Carpenter v. Bradford, 23 Cal.
App. 560, 138 P. 946.
356
CORPORATIONS
Vol 5
7d4-0d Boston Towboat Co. v. John
H. Sesnon Co., 199 Fed. 445; Winston
V. Idaho Hdw. Co., 23 Cal. Aop. 211,
187 P. 601; Alsing v. New England
Quartz Co., 66 App. Div. 473, 73 N. Y.
8. 347;North Star Trading Co. v. Alaska
Yukon P. E., 68 Wash. 467, 123 P.
605.
OonnterdftloiB gvowfng oat of the wa»
contract maj be'interposed, but counter-
claims which do not so arise maj not.
On the counterclaims the corporation
may interpose, however; it cannot ob-
tain affirmative relief where there has
been no compliance with the statute.
American Ink Co. v. Biegel Sack Co.,
79 Misc. 421, 140 N. Y. S. 107; Amer-
ican Ink Co. V. Biegel Sack Co., 141 N.
Y. S. 549.
784-1 Thomas v, Placerville G. Q.
M. Co., 65 Cal. 600, 4 P. 641.
734-8 Bennett v, Austria-Americana
8. S. Co., 161 App. Div. 753, 147 N. Y.
8. 198. But see amendment to §1780,
Code Civ. Proc.
Now TorkwSmolik v. Philadelphia &
B. C. ft I. Co., 222 Fed. 148.
Kon-iesldAnt plaintiif. — ^The personal
representatives, although one of them
be a non-resident, of a decedent who
was a resident of New York may sue
defendant corporation for damages con-
sequent upon the negligent killing of
deceased in Virginia. Mallory t?. Vir-
ginia Hot Springs Co., 157 App. Div.
253, 933, 141 N. Y. S. 961.
Wheio servlco is bad on a doilgnated
Btato ofidaly the cause of action must
have arisen within the state. Simon v,
B. Co., 236 U. S. 115, 35 Sup. Ct. 255;
Old Wayne Mut. L. Assn. v. McDon-
ough, 204 U. S. 8, 22, 27 Sup. Ct. 236,
51 L. ed. 345, 351.
Xntemal maaagome&t of foreign cor-
poratioo. — A Pennsylvania court will
not entertain a stockholder's bill
against a foreign corporation, when the
matter complained of relates to the in-
ternal management of the company.
Kelly V. Thomas, 234 Pa. 419, 83 A.
307; Kinney v. Mexican Plantation Co.,
233 Pa. 232, 82 A. 93; McCloskey v.
Snowden, 212 Pa. 249, 61 A. 796, 108
Am. St. 867 (although the tangible
property of the corporation is in Penn-
sylvania); Madden 17. Penn Electric
Light Co., 181 Pa. 617, 37 A. 817, 38
L. B. A. 638, 199 Pa. 454, 49 A. 296.
785-5 Atchison, T. ft S. P. B. Co.
V. Lambert, 32 Okla. 665, 123 P. 428.
The county of the residence of tho
plaintiff is a proper county in which to
bring the action. Atchison, T. ft S. F.
B. Co. V, Lambert, 32 Okla. 665, 123
P. 428.
Tho constittitional pro^don, {43 of
art. 9, of the Oklahoma constitution
applies to public service corporations
as well as to private corporations.
Atchison, T. ft S. F. B. Co. v. Lambert,
32 Okla. 665, 123 P. 428.
785-6 New York Life Ins. Co. v.
Pike, 61 Colo. 238, 117 P. 899, in the
county designated in the complaint.
Boal actions may be brought in the
county where the property is situated.
Austin V, King, 25 Colo. App. 363,
138 P. 57.
A single sale negotiated by a special
agent. — See also Good Beads Mach. Co.
V. a, 146 Ky. 690, 143 S. W. 18.
786-7 Employers' Indemnity Co. r*
Duncan, 159 Ky. 460, 167 S. W. 414.
786-8 Veve v. The Pajardo Dev. Co.,
15 P. B. 563.
737-11 Boff Oil ft Cotton Co. f?. King
(Okla.), 148 P. 90, comtruing §2, ch. 32,"
Session Laws, 1910-11, and denying the
foreign corporation a change of venue
to a city in which it had its place of
business.
Amendment of afllda^t supporting plea
of privilege by permitting president to
swear thereto in lieu of the affidavit
by the attorney, permissible. Kelly v,
A. B. Crouch Grain Co. (Tex. Civ.), 174
S. W. 630.
787-12 Austin t>. King, 25 Colo. App.
363, 138 P. 57; Menefee v. Biverside ft
D. B. Cotton Mills, 161 N. C. 164, 76
S. E. 741; McSwain v. Adams, G. ft P.
Co., 93 S. C. 103, 76 S. E. 117; Elliott
V. Standard, etc. Armor Co. (Tex. Civ.),
173 S. W. 616.
In OUo, service upon a foreign corpora-
tion may be had either under §11,290,
Gen. Code, relating to service upon for-
eign corporations, or under §11,288, re-
lating to domestic corporations; the
former statute is not exclusive. Lively
V. Picton (C. C. A.), 218 Fed. 401.
Service by pnbllcatlon cannot be had
on a foreign corporation who transacts
no business within the state or who
has no property there. Butkosky v»
Public Service B. Co., 155 App. Div.
631, 140 N. Y. S. 821; Hyde t?. Scott,
133 N. Y. S. 904.
Foreign cozporations transacting inter-
857
Vol. 5
CORPORATIONS
state commerce baslness only are in-
cluded within §13,521, How. Mich. St.,
1915. Yung t?. Excelsior Wrapper Co.
(Mich.), 151 N. W. 653; Showeni?. J. L.
Owens Co., 158 Mich. 321, 122 N. W.
640, 133 Am. St, 376.
737-13 Carpenter t?. Bradford, 23
Cal. App. 560, 138 P. 946; Jameson t?.
Simonds Saw Co., 2 Cal. App. 582, 84
P. 289; Matthews v. Montreal Min. Co.
(Mich.), 150 N. W. 127; Kendall v. Or-
ange Jud Co., 118 Minn. 1, 136 N. W.
291; Nathan v. Planters' Cotton Oil
Co., 187 Mo. App. 560, 174 S. W. 126.
Temporarily vitliln the state. — A cor-
poration doing business within the state
may be served by serving process on
an agent who comes into the jurisdic-
tion of the court upon business of the
corporation which is the subject of the
suit in which service is made. Premo
Specialty Mfg. Co. v. Jersey-Creme Co.,
200 Fed. 352, 118 C. C. A. 458, 43 L.
E. A. (N. S.) 1016; Ostrander v. Deer-
field Lumb. Co., 206 Fed. 540; Brush
Creek Coal & Min. Co. v, Morgan-Gard-
ner Elec. Co., 136 Fed. 505; Cone v.
Tuscaloosa Mfg. Co., 76 Fed. 891; Estes
f?. Belford, 23 Blatch. 1, 22 Fed. 275;
Doctor V, Desmond, 80 N. J. Eq. 77, 82
A. 522. See note in 43 L. B. A. (N. S.)
1015.
Wkkete In the ffcBte as a witness in an
action, service of process in another
action upon such agent is void. Rix t?.
Sprague Canning Mach. Co., 157 Wis.
572, 147 N. W. 1001, 52 L. B. A. (N.
S.) 583, and note.
Inveigled Ir.to the state. — Commercial
Mut. Ace. Co. i\ Davis, 213 U. S. 245,
29 Sup. Ct. 445, 53 L. ed. 782; Houston
f?. Filer & S. Co., 85 Fed. 757.
787-14 McKendrick v. Western Zinc
Min. Co., 165 Cal. 24, 130 P. 865;
Austin V. King, 25 Colo. App. 363, 138
P. 57; Nev.ers & Callaghan v. Central
Altagracia, 3 P. B. Fed. 496. See
American Hardwood L. Co. t?. T. J. Ellis
& Co. (Ark.), 171 S. W. 899, construing
Kirby's Dig., §834.
When the person designated Is located
In a county other than that in which
the action is brought, service upon him
is suflfieient. Austin t\ King, 25 Colo.
App. 363, 138 P. 57.
738-15 S. B. Beese Lumb. Co. v.
Licking C. & L. Co., 156 Ky. 723, 161
S. W. 1124; Gursky i?. Blair, 164 App.
Div. 612, 150 N. Y. 8. 422; Gulf Pipe
Line Co. v. Vanderberg, 28 Okla. 637,
115 P. 782, Ann. Cas. 1912B, 407, 34
L. B. A. (N. S.) 661, service upon fore-
man insufficient. Comp. Callahan Const.
Co. €?. Williams, 160 Ky. 814, 170 8. W.
203. Contra, Barrett Mfg. Co. t?. Ken-
nedy, 73 Wash. 503, 131 P. 1161, hold-
ing the statute is cumulative.
Althongli no longer employed by de-
fendant, the designated person may be
lawfully served. S. B. Beese Lumb.
Co. V, Licking C. & L. Co., 156 Ky. 723,
161 8. W. 1124.
The statute Is not exclusive, for there
is nothing therein excluding the ordi-
nary mode of service upon corporations.
Nevers & Callaghan v. Central Alta-
gracia, 3 P. B. Fed. 496, service on the
president is valid.
738-16 Herndon-Carter Co. v. Nor-
ris & Co., 224 U. S. 496, 32 Sup. Ct.
550, 56 L. ed. 857; Kirby v, Louismann-
Capen Co., 221 Fed. 267; Seacoast
Lumb. Co. V, Camp Lumb. Co., 63 Fla.
604, 59 S. 13 (in the absence of offi-
cers, directors and business agent);
Booz V, Texas & P. By. Co., 250 111.
376, 95 N. E. 460; Woodard v, Angl-
dile Computing Scale Co., 172 111. App.
211; Meixell v. American Motor Oar
Sales Co., 181 Ind. 153, 103 N. E. 1071;
Edwards t?. Van Cleave, 47 Ind. App.
347, 94 N. E. 596; Zabron r. Cunard 8.
S. Co., 151 la. 345, 131 N. W. 18, 34
L. B. A. (N. S.) 751; S. v, Pennsyl-
vania Steel Co., 123 Md. 212, 91 A.
136; Arnold v. Huber Mfg. Co., 166
Mich. 190, 131 N. W. 537; W. J. Arm-
strong Co. V. New York Cent. & H. R.
Co. (Minn.), 151 N. W. 917 (agent who
solicits freight and passenger traffic) ;
Straub f. Lyman Land & Inv. Co., 30
8. D. 310, 138 N. W. 957, 46 L. B. A.
(N. 8.) 941; Missouri, K. & T. B. Co.
V. Demere (Tex. Civ.), 145 S. W. 623;
Barrett Mfg. Co. v. Kennedy, 73 W^ash.
503, 131 P. 1161 (person served held
an ** agent"); Womach v. J. I. Case
Threshing Mach. Co., 62 Wash. 661, 114
P. 509; Sievers v. Dalles, etc. Nav. Co.,
24 Wash. 302, 64 P. 539.
"A single sale, negotiated by a special
agent for that particular instance, ren-
ders the selling agent the agent of the
non-resident seller for the service of
summons in a suit concerning that par-
ticular transaction, although he might
not be for a different transaction.**
International Harvester Co. v, C, 147
Ky. 655, 145 S. W. 393.
Wharfinger and pursers are agents
358
CORPORATIONS
Vol. 5
in the statute. Sievers v, Dklles, etc.
Nav. Co., 24 Wash. 302, 64 P. 539.
A local freight agent is not an agent
upon whom service may be had. Erie
R. Co. V. Van Allen, 76 N. J. L. 119,
69 A. 484.
A loccmotlTe engineer is not an "engi-
neer" within the meaning of Pamph.
L., 1896, p. 305. Erie E. Co. v. Van
Allen, 76 N. J. L. 119, 69 A, 484.
A traToling salesman is an agent upon
whom service may be made. Byerson
r. Wayne Circ. Judge, 114 Mich. 352,
72 N. W. 131, foil in Moinet v. Burn-
ham, etc., 143 Mich. 489, 106 N. W.
1126.
A bookkeeper is not an agent who may
be legally served. Erie R. Go. V, Van
Allen, 76 N. J. L. 119, 69 A. 484.
Sales agent. — R. M. Owen & Co. v.
Johnson, 184 111. App. 90.
"Any agent" within the statute means
such agents as may be deemed to have
representative capacity. Venner v. Den-
ver Union Water Co., 40 Colo. 212, 90
P. 623, 122 Am. St. 1036. The word
* ' agent * ' signifies * * any one who under-
takes to transact some business, or to
manage some affair, for another, by au-
thority and on account of the latter,
and to render an account of it." Nor-
folk, etc. r. Cottrell, 83 Va. 512, 3 S.
E. 123. He may be an agent having
but limited authority to represent his
principal. Jenkins v, Penn Bridge Co.,
73 S. C. 526, 53 S. E. 991. "Any
agent." In Erie R. Co. t?. Van Allen,
76 N. J. L. 119, 69 A. 484 it was held
that the "meaning of the word must
be ascertained with reference to the
words with which it is associated.
These refer to officers having some
general or supervisory capacity." Serv-
ice then upon a subordinate employe
would be invalid even though he sent
the process to the general solicitor of
the company. See also Mulhearn v.
Press Pub. Co., 53 N. J, L. 150, 23 A.
760.
7S8-1T Reed t?. Racine Boat Co.
(la.), 134 N. W. 1069; Elliott t?. Stand-
ard Steel W. & T. A. Co. (Tex. Civ.),
173^. W. 616.
Business agent. — Seacoast Lumber Co.
V. Camp Lumb. Co., 63 Fla. 604, 59
S. 13, in the absence of officers and di-
rectors.
738-18 Bentley Co. v, Chivers &
Sons, 215 Fed. 959; Michigan Aluminum
F. Co. V. Aluminum Castings Co., 190
Fed. 879; Carpenter t\ Bradford, 23 Cal.
App. 660, 138 P. 946; Jameson v. Sim-
onds Saw Co., 2 Cal. App. 582, 84 P.
289; International Harvester Co. v, C,
147 Ky. 655, 145 S. W. 393; Bauer V.
Union Central Life Ins. Co., 22 N. D.
435, 133 N. W. 988. But see Jackson
V. Waters-Pierce Oil Co., 136 La. 764, 67
S. 822.
Althongli the agents daim they were
doing business without authority from
the corporation service upon them con-
fers jurisdiction in an action to oust
them. S. V. American Sugar Mfg. &
B. Co., 90 Kan. 449, 133 P. 864.
Agent must be in employ of corpora-
tion at time of service. Garvey r. Cam-
pania Metalurgica Mezicana, 222 Fed.
732.
738-19 Carpenter v. Bradford, 23
Cal. App. 560, 138 P. 946; Jameson v.
Simonds Saw Co., 2 Cal. App. 582, 84
P. 289; Straub V. Lyman Land & Inv.
Co., 30 S. D. 310, 138 N. W. 957, 46 L.
E. A. (N. S.) 941.
788-20 Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v.
Goodrich (Tex. Civ.), 149 S. W. 1176.
Service on agent of one subsidiary com-
pany as service on another subsidiary
company. Postal Tel. Cable Co. v,
Thornton, 153 Ky. 176, 154 S. W. 1100.
A solicitor of freigbt and passenger
business, who cannot sell tickets or
make contracts, is not an agent of the
corporation who may be legally served.
Marcus v. B. Co., 174 111. App. 242.
738-22 St. Louis Southwestern B.
Co. 17. Alexander, 227 U. S. 218, 33 Sup.
Ct. 245, 57 L. ed. 486; Silsbee v. The
Quincy Hotel Co., 30 111. App. 204; Noj-
kus t?. Pittsburgh Coal Co. (App. Div.),
153 N. Y. S. 935 (resident director);
Smith V. R. Co., 154 App. Div. 130, 139
N. Y. S. 129.
President.— Lively v. Picton (C. C. A.),
218 Fed. 401; Kendall r. Orange Judd
Co., 118 Minn. 1, 136 N. W. 291; Mal-
lory V. Virginia Hot Springs Co., 157
App. Div. 253, 933, 141 N. Y. S. 961.
738-23 American Food Products Oo.
1*. American Milling Co., 151 Wis. 385,
138 N. W. 1123.
738-24 Wylie Permanent Camping
Co. V. Lynch, 195 Fed. 386, 115 C. C.
A, 288.
738-25 Booz v, Texas & P. By. Co.,
250 111. 376, 95 N. E. 460; Title Guar.
& Sur. Co. V, Slinker, 42 Okla. 811, 143
P. 41.
359
Vol 5
CORPORATIONS
738-26
Spratley,
43 L. ed.
Mail S. S,
MeSwain
& C. 103,
739-33
Oar Sales
1071.
Connecticnt Mut. Ins. Co. v.
172 U. S. 617, 19 Sup. Ct. 308,
569; Kalanianaole v. Pacific
Co., 2 U. S. D. C. (Haw.) 301;
V. Adams Grain & P. Co., 93
76 S. E. 117.
Meizell v. American Motor
Co., 181 Ind. 153, 103 N. E.
740-84 Serrlce upon an agent of a
domestic coxporatton, operating in an-
other state the property where the
claim arose, does not authorize judg-
ment against a non-resident corporation.
Carter Coal Co. v. Clouse, 163 Ky. 337,
173 S. W. 794.
74(^35 Seacoast Lumber Co. v. Camp
Lumber Co., 63 Fla. 604, 59 S. 13;
Nathan v. Planters' Cotton Oil Co., 187
Mo. App. 560, 174 S. W. 126.
That the corporation was doing busi-
iwss within the state at the time of
the service must be shown. Carpenter
r. Bradford, 23 Cal. App. 560, 138 P.
946. '
740-36 Herron Co. v. West Side
Electric Co., 18 Cal. App. 778, 124 P.
455; Johnson v. B. Co. (Vt.), 90 A.
507.
740-37 Jennings v. Idaho E. L. &
P. Co., 26 Ida. 703, 146 P. 101; Sipult
V. Wilson Land & G. Co., 94 Kan. 224,
146 P. 329. See also 5 Standabd Peoc.
635, n. 72, and supplement thereto.
740-38 Sutton v. Heinzle, 84 Kan.
756, 115 P. 560. Se6 also 10 Standabd
Peoo. 405, n. 80, and supplement there-
to.
741-42 Sutton v. Heinzle, 84 Kan.
756, 115 P. 560, for a debt owing to a
nonresident.
741-47 O'Connor v. Jones, 129 La.
411, 56 S. 350, garnishment.
Service of the writ of garnishment on
the local manager is sufficient. Frieze
p. Powell, 79 Wash. 483, 140 P. 690,
construing §§687, 226, sub. 9, Eem. &
Ball. Codes.
Amendment of writ to show defendant
is a foreign corporation instead of a
domestic corporation as described is
permissible. Marston v. F. C. Tibbetts
Merc. Co., 110 Me. 533, 87 A. 220.
Service to be In same manner as the
service of a summons. Barrett Mfg.
Co. 17. Kennedy, 73 Wash. 503, 131 P.
1161.
741-49 Johnson v. P. Co. (Tt.), 90
A. 507.
Appearance by the vice-president of a
corporation not doing business within
the state and therefore not amenable to
process, held not to confer jurisdiction
over the corporation where it does not
appear he had any authority to appear
or answer for it. Boremus v. National
Cotton Imp. Co., 39 App. Cas. (D. C.)
295.
741-50 An appearance of an attor-
ney as amicus curiae to object to the
sufficiency of service is not an appear-
ance for the corporation. Elliott v,'
Standard S. W. & T. A. Co. (Tex. Civ.),
173 S. W. 616.
742-51 Lowe v, Swinehart T. & B.
Co., 211 Fed. 165; Seacoast Lumber Co.
V. Camp Lumber Co., 63 Fla. 604, 59 8.
13;Koontz v. Baltimore R. Co. (Mass.),
107 N. E. 973; Nevers & Callaghan v.
Central Altagracia, 3 P. R. Fed. 496;
Elliott <?. Standard, etc. Armor Co.
(Tex, Civ.), 173 S. W. 616.
742-52 McConnon & Co. v. Laursen,
22 N. D. 604, 135 N. W. 213, sufficient
allegation.
742-54 Friedenwald Co. v. Warren,
195 Mass. 432, 81 N. E. 207; Hanson
V. Lindstrom, 15 N. D. 584, 108 N. W.
798; Big Basin Lumber Co. t?. Crater
Lake Co., 63 Or. 359, 127 P. 982; Hous-
ton Packing Co. f?. Pagan, Lopez & Co.,
20 P. R. 233.
743-55 Mitchell v. National Surety
Co., 206 Fed. 807; Muller Mfg. Co. V.
First Nat. Bank, 176 Ala. 229, 57 8.
762; Christian i;. American F. L. & M.
Co., 89 Ala. 198, 7 S. 427; Heeia Sugar
Plantation Co. f. McKeague, 6 Haw.
101; Wood & Selick t?. Ball, 190 N. Y.
217, 225, 83 N. E. 21, 23; Angldile
Computing Scale Co. v, Gladstone, 164
App. Div. 370, 149 N. Y. S. 807; Chap-
man 17. Hallwood Cash Reg. Co., 32 Tex.
Civ. 76, 73 S. W. 969; W. A. Eastman
& Co. V. Watson, 72 Wash. 522, 130 P.
1144; North Star Trading Co. v. Alaska
Y. P. E., 68 Wash. 457, 123 P. 605.
See Farrior v. New England M. S. Co.,
88 Ala. 275, 7 S. 200.
In a counterclaim a compliance must be
alleged. American Ink Co. v. Riegel
Sack Co., 79 Misc. 421, 140 N. Y. S^ 107.
Exceptions^ — Where it appears the sub-
ject of the action involves interstate
commerce, an allegation of compliance
is not required. Miller v. Goodman, 91
Tex. 41, 40 S. W. 718; Adams V, Gray
& Dudley Hdw. Co. (Tex. Civ.), 153 S.
W. 650.
860
COSTS
Vol. 5
In Kew York a coiporation to do busi-
ness within the state must first obtain
a certificate from the secretary of state.
In an action by such a corporation an
allegation of compliance with the stat-
ute is essential. On the other hand a
foreign corporation which is not doing
business within the meaning of the
statute is not required to secure a cer-
tificate from the secretary of state as
a condition precedent to the action.
Without it appearing in the complaint
or answer that the corporation is doing
business without having complied with
the statute a nonsuit will not be
granted. Angldile Computing Scale Co.
V, Gladstone, 164 App. Div. 370, 149 N.
Y. S. 807; Acorn Brass -Mfg. Co. t?.
Butenberg, 147 App. Div. 533, 132 N.
Y. S. 600; E. A. Strout Farm Agency v.
Hunter, 85 Misc. 476, 148 N. Y. S.
924; E. H. Stafford Mfg. Co. V. New-
man, 133 N. Y. S. 1073.
Amendment of complaint to ahow pay-
ment subsequent to the commencement
of the action is unnecessary. W. A.
Eastman & Co. v. Watson, 72 Wash. 522,
130 P. 1144.
743-56 Mergenthaler Linotype Co. v.
Hays, 182 Mo. App. 113, 168 S. W. 239;
Angldile Comp. Scale Co. v. Gladstone,
164 App. Div. 370, 149 N. Y. S. 807.
The omiaalon to aver compliance Is not
waived by failure to raise the defect
by demurrer or answer. Wood & Selick
V. Ball, 190 N. Y. 217, 225, 83 N. E.
21, 23.
"Dolni^ business*' must -be alleffed or
the defense is insufficient. Mergen-
thaler Linotype Co. v. Hays, 182 Mo.
App. 113, 168 S. W. 239.
That liability arose wltliln the state or
that it did not arise in an interstate
commerce transaction should be stated
or the plea is subject to demurrer.
Vandiver r. American Can Co. (Ala.),
67 S. 299.
743-67 American-Hawaiian £. & C.
Co. €. Hawaii, 16 Haw. 711 (where it
does not appear on the face of the
complaint that the plaintiff is a foreign
corporation); New State Land Co. f.
Wilson ( Xex. Civ.), 150 S. W. 253.
Omission to allege compliance with
statute may be taJ^en advantage of by
demurrer. MuUer Mfg. Co. f. First
Nat. Bank, 176 Ala. 229, 57 8. 762.
Kew York.— Frick Co. v. Pultz, 162
App. Div. 209, 147 N. Y. S. 732.
743-58 Bedding Gold & Copper Min.
Co. V. National Sur. Co., 18 Cal. App.
488, 123 P. 544; Wood, etc. Mach. Co. v.
Caldwell, 54 Ind. 270, 23 Am. Sep. 641;
Frick Co. v. Pultz, 162 App. Div. 209,
147 N. Y. 8. 732; Acorn Brass Mfg.
Co. V. Butenberg, 147 App. Div. 533,
132 N. Y. S. 600; Big Basin Lumb. Co.
t?. Crater Lake Co., 63 Or. 359, 127 P.
982.
New York. — ^American Ink Co. t?. Biegol
Sack Co., 141 N. Y. S. 549.
743-69 Todd v. LouisviUe & N. B.
Co. (Fla.), 67 S. 84 (plea insufficient
in that it did not allege that the cor-
poration was not doing business when
the statute was enacted so as to make
it applicable); Model Heat. Co. v. Ma-
garity, 2 Boyce (Del.) 459, 81 A. 394;
Sewing Mach. Co. v. Frame, 2 Penne.
(Del.) 430, 48 A. 188; Singer Mfg. Co.
V. Effinger, 79 Ind. 264; Daly v. Na-
tional Life Ins. Co., 64 Ind. 1; Wood,
etc. Mach. Co. v. Caldwell, 54 Ind. 270,
23 Am. Bep. 641; National Fertilizer
Co. V. Fall Biver Sav. Bank, 196 Mass.
458, 82 N. E. 671, 13 Ann. Cas. 510, 14
L. B. A. (N. S.) 561; Friedenwald Co.
V, Warren, 195 Mass. 432, 81 N. E. 207;
Hirschfeld v. McCuUagh, 64 Or. 502, 127
P. 541, 130 P. 1131.
743-60 Angldile Computing Scale
Co. V. Gladstone, 164 App. Div. 370, 149
N. Y. S. 807; Singer Sew. Mach. Co. v.
Foster, 133 N. Y. S. 1072; Houston
Packing Co. v. Pagan, Lopez & Co., 20
P. B. 233.
744-66 Contents of plea in abate-
ment.— "Where a plea proceeds upon
the theory that a court of this state can
have no jurisdiction over the defend-
ant, and that for such reason the ac-
tion itself must abate, it must, by
proper averment, show not alone that
such corporation has withdrawn from
the state, revoked the authority of its
agent, and ceased to do business there-
in, but it must show the additional
facts that such corporation has no prop-
erty, money, credits, or eflfects of any
kind over which such court might ob-
tain control or jurisdiction.'* Brown-
Eetcham Iron Wks. v. Swift Co., 53 Ind.
App. 630, 100 N. E. 584, 860.
COSTS
758-7 Jordan t?. S., 102 Ark. 43, 143
S. W. 131; Pierce CouAty v, Magnuson,
70 Wash. 639, 127 P. 302, Ann. Cas.
1914B, 889.
S61
Vol 5
COSTS
759-9 Jenkins v. S. (Wyo.), 135 P.
749, deny, rehear. 134 P. 260.
In Mississippi a person convicted of
murder and sentenced for life is not li-
able for costs of prosecution. S. v.
Burt, 103 Minn. 755, 60 S. 773.
760-131). See Smith v. S., 105 Ark.
58, 150 S. W. 149.
760-14 In the federal courts it is
not the practice to tax fees of trial
jurors, nor fees and mileage of persons
not examined as witnesses, nor fees for
service of subpoenas of persons who did
not testify. U. S. v, Wilson, 193 Fed.
1007.
762-17 ProBecnting attorney's fees
cannot be taxed in vagrancy cases
where he did not prosecute. Peay t?.
Pulaski County, 103 Ark. 601, 148 S.
W. 491.
Attorney's fees. — Town has no statu-
tory authority to adopt ordinance per-
mitting attorney's fee to counsel em-
ployed to prosecute gambling. Gordon
V. De Witt, 106 Ark. 283, 153 S. W. 807.
766-36 Amendment nmic pro tunc.
Judgment of conviction may be amend-
ed nunc pro tunc so as to require ac-
cused to pay costs. Villines v. S., 105
Ark. 471, 151 S. W. 1023.
766-38 Pierce County r. Magnuson,
70 Wash. 639, 127 P. 302, Ann. Cas.
1914B, 889.
769-57 Orr v. S., 5 Ala. App. 674,
59 S. 706; Rosenberg v, S., 5 Ala. App.
196, 59 S. 366; Franklin v. S., 4 Ala.
App. 674, 59 S. 237.
769-59 Ex parte Bowes, 8 Okla. Cr.
201, 127 P. 20.
770-61 Booth V, U. S., 197 Fed. 283,
116 C. C. A. 645.
771-72 Villines v. S., 105 Ark. 471,
151 S. W. 1023.
773-79 Board of Suprs. v. Board of
State Auditors, 180 Mich. 658, 147 N.
W. 603; S. V. Drummond, 128 Tenn. 271,
160 S. W. 1082.
773-80 County not liable for costs
in misdemeanor cases set out in §6388
Kirby's Dig. Jackson t?. Loftin, 102
Ark. 144, 143 S. W. 895.
775-83 Expenses of conferences with
two physicians and their attendance at
court allowable, but not items of type-
writing and subpoena fees. P. t>. Pren-
dergast, 80 Misc. 321, 141 N. Y. S. 255.
775-84 Stenographer's minutes tax-
able. Edwards v. Prendergast, 141 N.
Y, S. 254.
777-96 Where defendant was in-
dicted for a felony but convicted of a
misdemeanor and has no property to
pay the costs the county is liable and
accused cannot be imprisoned for the
payment of costs. Smith v. S., 105 Ark/
58, 150 S. W. 149.
777-98 Jarvis Law (Acts, 1897, eh.
20) regulating taxation of costs applies
only to trial costs and not costs on ap-
peal. Working v. S. (Tenn.), 174 S. W.
256.
778-5 Peay t?. Searcy County, 104
Ark. 133, 148 S. W. 500.
779-13 Under Kirby's Dig., §2333,
the certificate of the judge is not a ju-
dicial act, but the court has power to
correct it and retax the costs. Peay r.
Searcy County, 104 Ark. 133, 148 S.
W. 500.
782-25 S. 17. Jablousky, 169 Mo. App.
238, 152 S. W. 390; S. V. Flick, 167 Mo.
App. 6, 150 S. W. 1119.
783-27 McCook County t?. Burstad,
30 S. D. 266, 138 N. W. 303.
784-29 C. V. Shaffer, 52 Pa. Super.
230.
786-43 S. V, Bailey, 162 N. C. 583,
77 S. E. 701; S. v. Edmundson, 162 N.
C. 586, 77 S. E. 702.
787-53 S. r. Gordon, 254 Mo. 471,
162 S. W. 629.
789-65 Witness fees not certified.
Where a witness' fees in a criminal case
are not certified he may apply for re-
taxation at a subsequent day or terni
so as to include his claim, and if re-
lief is denied he may appeal. Peay r.
Searcy County, 104 Ark. 133, 148 S.
W. 500.
790-76 Jones f. Rountree, 11 Ga.
App, 181, 74 S. E. 1096; Knight t?. Mc-
Micking, 2 Phil. Isl. 698; Veve t\ Mu-
nicipality of Fajardo, 18 P. R. 738;
Gonzalez i;. Gromer, 16 P. R. 1.
791-77 Galpin t?. Chicago, 159 HI.
App. 135, af,, 249 ni. 554, 94 N. E.
961.
792-82 Jordan v. S., 102 Ark. 43,
143 S. W. 131; In re Davis (Mo. App.),
166 S, W. 341; Chadwick v. Life Ins-
Co., 158 N. C. 380, 74 S. E. 115; Per-
lus V. Silver, 71 Wash. 338, 128 P. 661;
Pierce County v. Magnuson, 70 Wash.
639, 127 P. 302, Ann. Cas. 1914B, 889.
792-83 Zander v. Metz, 162 111. App.
620; Galpin v. Chicago, 159 HI. App.
135, af., 249 111. 554, 94 N. E. 961.
793-88 Burton p. Chicago Mill 4^
863
COSTS
Vol. 5
Lumb. Co., 106 Ark. 296, 153 8. W.
114; Peay t?. Pulaski County, 103 Ark.
601, 148 8. W. 491; Kummeth v, Atkis-
Bon, 23 Cal. App. 401, 138 P. 116; Bond
V. United Railroada of 8. F., 20 Cal.
App. 124, 128 P. 786; Steensland v,
Hess, 25 Ida. 181, 136 P. 1124; State
Line Democrat v. Keosauqua Independ-
ent, 161 la. 566, 143 N. W. 409; Claus-
sen V. Cumberland Tel. & Tele. Co., 130
La. 143, 57 8. 780; Ex parte Nelson, 253
Mo. 627, 162 8. W. 167; Laclede Land
& Imp. Co. V. Morten, 183 Mo. App.
637, 167 8. W. 658; In re Davis (Mo.
App.), 166 8. W. 341; 8. v. Baker, 35
Nev. 300, 129 P. 452; Osborn v. Cardeza,
208 N. Y. 131, 101 N. E. 806, mod. 144
App. Div. 904, 128 N. Y, 8. 1137; Fried-
man t\ Borchardt, 161 App. Div. 672,
146 N". Y. 8. 896; Moore v. Vulcanite
Portland Cement Co., 160 App. Div.
673, 146 N. .Y. 8. 94; In re Toll Bridge,
etc., 152 App. Div. 633, 137 N. Y. 8.
485; Coddington 17. Harburger, 77 Misc.
211, 137 N. Y. S. 536; Martinez v.
Pagan, Lopez & Co., 17 P. R. 582; Mo-
desto V. Est. of Dubois, 16 P. R. 709;
Brown v. Kolb, 95 8. O. 217, 78 8. E.
894; In re Jacobs, 87 Vt. 454, 89 A.
634; Perius V. Silver, 71 Wash. 338, 128
P. 661; Pierce County v. Magnuson, 70
Wash. 639, 127 P. 302, Ann. Cas. 1914B,
889; In re Reeseville Drainage Dist.,
156 Wis. 238, 145 N. W. 671.
795-93 Peay v. Pulaski County, 103
Ark. 601, 148 8. W. 491; State Line
Democrat v. Keosauqua Independent,
161 la. 566, 143 N. W. 409; Martinez
u. Pagan, Lopez & Co., 17 P. R. 582;
Modesto V. Dubois, 16 P. R. 709.
797-1 Liability of attorney for costs
under §982, Rev. St. (U. "S. Comp. St.,
1901, p. 706). See Motion Picture Pat-
ents Co. V. Yankee Film Co., 192 Fed.
134.
799-6 IntexTener liable. — McKinley
V. National Citizens^ Bank, 127 Minn.
212, 149 N. W. 295.
Ck^-respondent In divorce suit made a
party at his instance is liable for costs.
Clark t?. Clark, 78 N. J. Eq. 304, 81 A.
1126.
809-11 See Delcambre v, Delcambre,
210 N. Y. 460, 104 N. E. 950, rev. 149
App. Div. 952, 133 N, Y. 8. 1118.
801-12 Where original grantee dis-
claims title in action to set aside a
conveyance, he cannot be taxed with
costs. Cook V. Dabney, 70 Or. 529^ 139
P, 721.
802-17 Renehan v, McAvoy, 116 Md.
356, 81 A. 586; Western Union Tel. Co.
V. First Nat. Bank, 116 Va. 1009, 83 8.
E. 424.
803-22 Cordova v. Banco Espanol,
8 P. R. 514; Finlay v. Finlay Bros. &
Waymouth Trading Co., 8 P. R. 371.
Where no costs are prayed for the
court may award same, as costs usually
follow the judgment. • Rivero V. Her-
nandez, 18 P. R. 1001.
804-23 8. V, Justice Court, 45 Mont.
375, 123 P. 405, 48 L. R. A. (N. 8.)
156; Nob Hill Garage & Auto Co. v.
Barde, 69 Or. 260, 138 P. 836.
804-24 An unsnccessful plaintiff is
liable not only for costs of his own
suit, but for those of a cross-action
brought by defendants. James v. Mid-
land Grocery, etc. Co. (Tex. Civ.), 146
S. W. 1073.
806-27 Clement «?. Louisiana Irr. &
Mill Co., 129 La. 825, 56 8. 902; Car-
roll V. James, 162 N. C. 510, 77 8. E.
337.
Bnle not applicable In replevin where
plaintiff fails to recover all property
sought. Kelly v. Hakes, 190 111. App.
210.
807-28 Simmons r. Simmons, 23 Ida.
485, 130 P. 784.
807-29 In Alaska under Comp. Laws,
1913, §1342. Ebner Gold Min. Co. v.
Alaska-Juneau Gold Min. Co., 210 Fed.
699, 127 C. C. A. 235.
Where neltlier party gucceeds in es-
tablishing his claim to a patent of land
neither is entitled to recover costs.
Hinchman v. Ripinsky, 202 Fed. 625,
121 C. C. A. 35.
808-31 Empire State Surety Co. v.
Moran Bros. Co., 71 Wash. 171, 127 P.
1104.
Where there are several Issues the par-
ties shall recover costs on those deter-
mined in their favor under Burns' Ann.
St., 1908, 8621. Harrell v. Neill (Ind.
App.), 105 N. E. 926.
808-33 Higgins v, Eaton, 204 Fed.
273, 122 C. C. A. 471, af. 202 Fed. 75,
122 C. C. A. 1; Darby v. Van Meter,
155 Ky. 462, 159 8. W. 940; Bridwell V.
Spencer, 176 Mo. App. 284, 161 8. W.
874.
809-36 Huff V. Bid well (C. C. A.),
218 Fed. 6.
810-40 McBermeitt r. Keesler, 240
Mo. 278, 144 8. W. 414. See Digman v.
West, 71 W. Va. 296, 76 8. E. 661.
363
Vol. 5
COSTS
811-41 See Qackenheimer v. Kann^
243 Pa. 75, 89 A. 807.
812-44 McDermeitt v. Keesler, 240
Mo. 278, 144 S. W. 414; Grieb V. Stahl
(Tex. Civ.), 155 S. W. 988.
812-46 Fisher f?. Davis, 24 Ida. 216,
133 P. 910; Murphy Chair Co. v. Amer-
ican Eadiator Co., 172 Mich. 14, 137 N.
W. 791; Millville Aerie of Eagles v.
Weatherby, 82 N. J. Eq. 455, 88 A. 847;
Great Northern By. Co. v, Sheyenne
Telephone Co., 27 N. D. 256, 145 N. W.
1062.
815-6S Parties defendant (having
been made such for refusing to join as
plaintiffs) for whose benefit part of
judgment was assigned in trust to be
collected when paid, cannot be held li-
able on reversal. Moore v. Vulcanite
Portland Cement Co., 160 App. Div. 673,
146 N. Y. S. 94.
817-67 See Parrish v. S. (Tex. Cr.),
150 8. W. 453.
In Hawaii under tule 24 (c) attorneys
are liable for costs incurred by their
respective clients. Cardozo v. Sociedade
Portugueza, etc., 19 Haw. 319; Waiku-
lani V. Carter, 12 Haw. 83.
819-71 In re Jones' Est., 166 Cal.
147, 135 P. 293; Dooley v. Welch, 172
Mo. App. 528, 158 S. W. 454.
Suit brought by procurement of defend-
ant.— ^Where an administrator brings a
suit at the procurement of another for
his benefit (although he is made a party
defendant), and not for benefit of the
estate and fails in the action; the costs
should be taxed against the person who
caused the suit to be brought though
he is nominally defendant. Scott v.
Pittman, 37 Okla. 470, 132 P. 491.
819-72 Ingham v. Mitchell, 176 HI.
App. 469.
820-74 Thompson v. Smith, 159 N. C.
439, 74 S. E. 635.
820-76 Davison v. Sibley, 140 Ga.
707, 79 S. E. 855.
822-80 See the title ''Guardian Ad
litem.*'
823-83 Minn. Rev. Laws, 1905,
§4349; Telford v. Henricksen, 122 Minn.
531, 142 N. W. 200; S. v. People's State
Bank, 22 N. D. 583, 135 N. W. 196.
824-92 In re Jew Yuen Mow, 20
Haw. 359; Wyse f?. Yellott, 119 Md. 463,
87 A. 419; In re School Dist. of Nobles
County (Minn.), 142 N. W. 928; Zim-
merman V. Miller, 237 Pa. 616, 85 A.
871; Lane v. Hewgley (Tex. Civ.), 166
S. W. 911; Gea. Board of State Hos-
pitals V. Bobertson, 115 Ya. 527, 70 8. £.
1064; McGowan v. Paul, 156 Wii. 214.
145 N. W. 666.
A police Judge, — Chesapeake ft 0. By.
Co. 17. Harmon, 159 Ky. 59, 166 S. W.
786.
A magistrate is a public officer. P. v,
Kempner, 154 App. Div. 674, 139 N. Y.
S. 440, af. 208 N. Y. 16, 101 N. E. 794,
Ann. Cas. 19141), 169, 46 L. B. A. (N.
S.) 970.
826-95 Board of Directors v. Wea-
sels, 21 Colo. App. 456, 122 P. 400.
826-87 Bnt the gnazdian ad litem is
personally liable. Beynolds «. Great
Northern By. Co., 206 Fed. 1008.
826-1 Lisle v. Quinlan, 72 Wash. 493,
130 P. 902,
826-2 See La Boque v, Kennedy, 161
N. C. 459, 77 S. E. 695.
826-4 Jackson c. Smith, 154 App.
Div. 883, 138 N. Y. S. 914.
827-6 An intervener who simply as-
sisted court in obtaining a correct deter-
mination of the facts is not liable. Jack-
son t;. Smith, 154 App. Div. 883, 138 N.
Y. S. 914.
828-10 James v. Walker, 143 Ey. 73,
146 S. W. 21.
820-13 Stote agendea are not liable
for costs. Board of Tenement Honae
Supervision v, Schlechter, 33 N. J. L.
88, 83 A. 783.
830-20 Where in mortgage foredoe-
nre a bill is filed in good faith on a
note absolute in terms, but mortgagor
succeeds in an affirmative defense, the
plaintiff will not be subjected to coats
when defendant was indifferent in mak-
ing mortgage absolute on its face when
Id tended only for collateral security.
Wilbur V. Jones, 80 N. J. Eq. 520, 86
A. 769,
832-20 And see the title ««GKianUan
Ad Litem."
Guardian ad litem for infant plaintiff
relieved from further action on condi-
tion that he pay taxable costs of action,
to that date. Sullivan v. Hoe, 164 App.
Div. 930, 149 N. Y. S. 558.
834-88 Junk v. Zieeke, 177 BL App.
103.
Under Code Pr., 38, sab. 4.^-Pope 0.
Lyttle, 157 Kj. 659, 163 S. W. 1121.
834-36 In absence of atatnte guard-
ian ad litem is personally reroonaible
for costs. B^nolds v, Qreat Northern
Ey. Co., 206 Fed. 1003.
364
COSTS
Yol 5
888-89 Hem v. Allen, 170 HI. App.
223; San Antonio, K. A G. By. Go. v.
Storey (Tex. Civ.), 17a S. W. 188.
888-^ Linn «. Kassau Meetrie B.
Co., 142 N. Y. S. 552.
838-87 Where separate suits are
Inrought against several defendants
jointly liable, and judgment and costs
are recovered against one, the costs of
the other suits will be taxed against
plaintiff, beeanse he should have but
one satisfaction of debt and costs. Kis*
•ire t>. Plunk ett-Jarrell Grocer Co., 103
Ark. 473, 145 S. W. 567.
83^-60 Wliere there are two appeals,
two notes of issue, and two separate
briefs submitted, the respondent may
tax a separate bill of costs against each
appellant. The test as to whether two
bills of costs should be taxed is whether
or not two separate issues were tried
and determined. In re Saunders Estate,
89 Mise. 582, 149 N. T. S. 461.
839-62 In a suit against a mort-
gagee and assignees to have liens de-
clared superior to mortgage where each
answered separately they were only en-
titled to one bill of costs. Whelan v.
Exchange Trust Co., 214 Mass. 121, 100
N. E. 1095.
840-64 Loomis v, Besse, 148 Wis.
647, 135 N. W. 123.
841-67 Ingeman v. Snare Ss Triest
Co., 158 App. Div. 915, 143 N. Y. S.
840. See Hook v. German American
Bank, 152 App. Div. 253, 136 N. Y. S.
1019.
842-74 Moore v. Terhune, 161 III.
App. 155.
848-7S P. V, Newcomb, 75 Misc. 258,
135 N. Y. S. 151.
844-79 Spinkg v. Superior Court
(Cal. App.), 148 P, 798; Whitaker v.
Moran, 23 Cal. App. 758, 139 P. 901;
Beiehert v. Walter, 80 Misc. 402, 141
N. Y. S. 266. See Hernandez t;. Blanco,
17 P. B. 546.
Where the bill is dismissed because of
compromise. Chicago Tele. Co. v. Wolf,
178 HI. App. 289.
On a discontinuance because of failure
to reinstate suit after reversal and re-
mand, costs are allowed to appellants
provided a judgment for costs has been
rendered, and if none is rendered each
party pays his own costs. Ambrosius f.
O'Parrell, 161 HI. App. 80.
845-81 IHsmissal of counterclaim
does not entitle plaintiff to costs where
amount sued for was more than $50.
Todd 17. Beck, 134 N. Y. S. 1108.
845-82 Schneider v, Schmidt, 82 N.
J. Eq. 81, 88 A. 179. «
Defendant is liable on dismissal by
complainant where former by same act
renders prosecution useless. Chicago
Tele. Co. v. Wolf,* 178 111. App. 289.
845-84 Where the findings of a ref-
eree are reversed, and a settlement was
made discharging defendant from li-
ability, judgment may be rendered
against plaintiff for costs. Ponder 17.
Green, 161. N. C. 60, 76 S. E. 632.
846-85 Class Journal Co. v. Valve-
less Inner Tube Co., 145 N. Y. S. 958.
Where both complaint and counter-
claim were dismissed the defendant is
entitled to costs. Gibbons v. Skinner,
160 App. Div. 706, 135 N. Y. S. 820.
849-94 See Fife v. Gate, 85 Vt. 418,
82 A. 741.
849-95 On an order practically dis-
missing the complaint the defendant is
entitled to costs. Hambright v. South-
ern By. Co., 98 S. C. 219, 82 S. E.
416.
850-1 On setting aside a legal de-
fault judgment costs are taxed against
defendant. Felix v. Josephthal, 76 Misc.
267, 134 N. Y. S. 923.
Where an order allowing an amendment
was practicaly a dismissal of the com-
plaint the defendant is entitled to
costs. Hambright v. Southern Ky., 98
S. C. 219, 82 S. E. 416.
850-3 Robinett v. Brown, 167 Cal.
735, 141 P. 368; Harvey t?. Denver &
B. G. R. Co., 55 Colo. 570, 139 P. 1098;
Donovan v. Maloney, 3 Boyce (Del.)
453, 84 A. 1032; Nampa & M. Irr. Dist.
V, Briggs (Ida.), 147 P. 75; Interstate
Auto & Supply Co. f7. Pioneer Imple-
ment Co. (la.), 141 N. W. 422.
851-11 See Pictorial Review Co. r.
Fitz Gibbon & Son, 163 la. 644, 145
N. W. 315.
852-18 Ramsey v. Rothwell, 168 Mo.
App. 271, 153 S. W. 792.
853-21 Brunswick Realty Co. r. Uni-
versity Inv. Co., 43 Utah 75, 134 P. 608.
85T-47 Collins v, Aetna Accident,
etc. Co., 142 N. Y. S. 304.
85T-48 Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. t?.
Housley (Okla.), 148 P. 689.
861-66 Ramsey r. Rothwell, 168 Mo.
App. 271, 153 S.' W. 792.
863-76 Baird v. Salnave, 174 Mich.
365
Vol. 5
COSTS
409, 140 N. W. 650; Dr. Shoop Family
Medicine Co. v. Davenport, 163 N. C.
294, 79 S. E. 602.
865-87 Blanton Grocery Co. v. Tay-
lor, 162 N. C. 307, 78 S. E. 276.
866-94 Donovan v. Maloney, 3 Boyce
(Del.) 453, 84 A. 1032; Globe Fire Ins.
Co. V, Chicago & A. B. Co., 174 Mo.
App. 542, 160 S. W. 907; Bamsey t?.
Eothwell, 168 Mo. App. 271, 153 S. W.
792.
873-33 Martin v. Brown, 162 Mo.
App. 223, 144 S. W. 1115. See Zarate
t\ VUlareal (Tex. Civ.), 155 S. W. 328.
875-42 Frazer v, Myers, 95 Neb. 194,
145 N. W. 357; Moraff v. Kohn, 157
App. Div. 648, 142 N. T. S. 775: G. P.
Putnam's Sons v, Pickett, 135 N. T. S.
817.
Act to relieTe sapreme court of New
York. — * * The sole test prescribed by the
provisions of said subdivision 5 . . .
is whether service has been actually
made in the county of New York."
Jacobs V. White, 164 App. Div. Ill, 149
N. Y. S. 500, cit. Moraff v. Kohn, 157
App. Div. 648, 142 N. Y. S. 775.
877-43 Costs will be limited to those
recoverable in lower court. Brewer v.
Chase, 3 Haw. 127.
880-56 Delaware, L. & W. B. Co. v.
Lyne, 193 Fed. 984, 113 C. C. A. 604.
880-57 In Kentucky costs on appeal
are discretionary where amount of the
judgment is reduced on appeal. Boggs
V. Turner, 145 Ky. 833, 141 S. W. 420.
881-58 Loomis v, Besse, 148 Wis.
647, 135 N. W. 123.
882-63 Ford v, Squatrito, 86 Conn.
710, 86 A. 579.
887-73 Jacobs v. White, 164 App.
Div. Ill, 149 N. Y. S. 500.
887-74 Post V. Levitan, 88 Misc. 334,
151 N. Y. S. 947.
890-81 Where plaintiff's recovery
was less than $300, reduced by defend-
ant's counterclaim, he is not entitled
to costs. Poswa V, Jones, 21 Cal. App.
664, 132 P. 629.
890-82 E. F. Houghton & Co. c. Al-
pha Process Co. (Del.), 93 A. 669.
892-83 Peck r. Haverstraw Water
Supply Co., 81 Misc. 428, 142 N. Y. S.
765.
804-95 Costs in special proceedings
are only allowed under statute. In ro
^^lolinari, 82 Misc. 663, 144 N. Y. S.
217.
In New Toxk costs may be allowed in
special proceedings under §3240 of
Code, but must be at rate fixed by stat-
ute in an action. Paley v. Smith, 132 N.
Y. S. 152.
In condemnation proceedings in the ab-
sence of statute the condemnor is li-
able for costs. Music v. Big Sandy B.
Co., 163 Ky. 628, 174 S. W. 44.
894-99 Compensation of surveyor
appointed by court may be taxed
against losing party. Beaumont Irr.
Co. V. De Laune (Tex. Civ.), 173 S. W.
514.
An action to recover real property
based upon fraud and deceit is one in-
volving title of real estate. Coffman
17. Bushard, 164 Cal. 663, 130 P. 425.
In trespass to try title, where defend-
ant did not disclaim, plaintiff may re-
cover costs even though he only re-
covers one-third of tract sued for. Zar-
ate V. Villareal (Tex. Civ.), 155 S. W.
328.
89S-1 Begnn In Justice conrt.— Where
in a proceeding in a justice court the
title to land is in dispute the case will
be certified to the circuit court and
costs awarded there to the successful
partv. Kinne v. Clever (Mich.), 150 N.
W. 327.
89B-2 Counterclaim. — ^Where in an
action to recover realty and a counter-
claim for unlawful interference with
an easement, judgment was rendered
for plaintiff for recovery of the realty
and six cents damages, and for the de-
fendant for six cents damages in his
counterclaim, the plaintiff is entitled to
his costs and defendant is not entitled
to any costs. Peck r. Haverstraw Water
Supply Co., 81 Misc. 428, 142 N. Y. S.
765.
896-6 See Barnes v. Ward, 190 HI.
App. 392.
899-17 Fife v. Cate, 85 Vt. 418, 82
A. 741.
900-19 In re Waldron's Will, 74
Misc. 310, 133 N. Y. S. 1104; In re Bar-
nard's Will, 137 N. Y. S. 315.
Costs of nnsaccessfnl proponent of a
will incurred in contest may be paid
out of assets of estate when he has
acted in good faith. In re Berthol's
Est., 163 Cal. 343, 125 P. 750.
901-20 Young v, Boach, 105 Miss.
6, 61 S. 984.
901-24 Costs charged to trust fnnd.
The allowance of costs and counsel fees
366
COSTS
Vol. 5
ont of a trust fund is generally limited
to suits instituted by executors or trus-
tees for the construction of a will, and
suits by claimants to such fund where
claims are successful. West v. Rector
of St. James Churchi 83 N. J. Eq. 324,
91 A. 101.
Counsel fees paid by executor or trustee
in resisting an effort to remove him
from office can only be allowed when
the expenditure was made in the course
of administration and made for benefit
of the estate. In re Titcomb, 80 Misc.
612, 142 N. Y. S. 1030.
902-28 See In re Long Island Loan
& Trust Co., 157 App. Div. 310, 142 N.
Y. S. 273.
{3010, Code 1907, does not authorize
cestuis que trustent or parties claiming
to be such to employ at expense of
trust fund attorneys for litigation
among themselves of adversary claims
as to their respective interest in the
trust. Wilks V. Wilks, 176 Ala. 151, 57
8. 776.
903-36 Butler v. Bocock, 160 HI.
App. 501.
904-40 Failure to perfect Judgment
within time is no forfeiture of right to
costs when motion for new trial was
filed and judgment was perfected there-
after because the motion operated as
a stay. Breen v. Arnold, 157 Wis, 528,
147 N. W. 997.
Failure to demur where petition does
not state cause of action. In such case
defendant is liable for all costs after
filing of answer. Farnsley's Admr. r.
Philadelphia Life Ins. Co., 156 Ky. 699,
161 8. W. 1111.
906-46 See Ambrosius v. OTarrell,
161 111. App. 80.
908-52 Libbey v. Holloway, 92 Kan.
163, 139 P. 1188; In re MoUnari, 82 Misc.
663, 144 N. Y. 8. 217; Goodloe v. Woods,
115 Va. 540, 80 S. E. 108; Croup v. De
Moss, 78 Wash. 128, 138 P. 671.
909-53 Blvdenburgh r. Ely, 161 App.
Div. 91, 146 N. Y. S. 259.
As to extra allowance. — ^Byan v. New
York, 159 App. Div. 105, 143 N. Y. S.
974; Venner r. Belmont, 158 App. Div.
899, 143 N. Y. S. 161.
909-54 Northrup Nat. Bank t?. Web-
ster Befining Co., 91 Kan. 434, 138 P.
587, aff. 89 Kan. 738, 132 P. 832; Tay-
lor t?. Denny, 118 Md. 124, 84 A. 369;
Crozier v. Nelson Mfg. Co., 120 Minn.
524, 139 N. W. 353; Schafer v. Eoberts,
166 Mo. App. 68, 148 S. W. 393; Morris
t\ Gray, 37 Okla. 695, 132 P. 1094;
Blanco v, Hernandez, 18 P. B. 686; Rob-
erts V. W. II. Hughes Co., 86 Vt. 460, 85
A. 982, See Chicago By. Equipment
Co. V, National, etc. Beam Co., 173 111.
App. 573; Collier V. Wetmore, 164 la.
344, 145 N. W. 944.
Apportionment of costs. — See Morrow
r. Hall (la.), 151 N. W. 482.
910*55 Campbell v. Southwestern
Tel. & Tele. Co., 108 Ark. 669, 158 S.
W. 1085; Peppers v. Cauthen (Ga.), 84
S. E. 477; Ahana V. Wa Yat, 17 Haw.
326; Hill V. Alber, 261 HI. 124, 103 N.
E. 612; Karle v. Schliek, 255 HI. 873,
99 N. E. 615; Comstock v, Bedmond,
252 HI. 522, 96 N. E. 1073; Cram v.
Waddell, 167 HI. App. 44; McCloskey
V. Bowden, 82 N. J. Eq. 410, 89 A. 528
(unless statute provides otherwise);
Hooper v, Davies, 166 N, C. 236, 81 8.
E. 1063; Newton v. American Car
Sprinkler Co. (Vt.), 92 A. 831.
Except on dismissal of bill. — ^Board i^.
Stead, 259 111. 194, 102 N, E. 173.
Both at common law and by statute.
McGowan v. Paul, 156 Wis. 214, 145 N.
W. 666,
The fact that a suit in equity was nn-
necessary to obtain relief does not af-
fect the court's discretion as to allow-
ance of costs, when no demurrer or
answer was taken to the form of the
action, and an equitable counterclaim
was interposed as well as affirmative
relief asked by defendant. Falbe i;.
Caves, 151 Wis. 54, 138 N. W. 87.
912-57 Capital City Tobacco Co. v.
Anderson, 138 Ga. 667, 75 S. E. 1040;
Cabiness t?. Texas Tie & Lumber Pre-
serving Co., 169 111. App. 353; Cram v.
Waddell, 167 111. App. 44; Patten r.
Ramsey, 31 Okla. 166, 120 P. 643;
Mountain Timber Co. v. Case, 65 Or.
417, 133 P. 92; Guckenheimer v. Kann,
243 Pa. 75, 89 A. 807; Wolf v. Gegen-
seitige Unterstuetzungs Gesellschaft
Gerraania, 149 Wis. 576, 136 N. W. 175.
913-60 See Zahn r. Hockland Tele.
Co., 153 Wis. 286, 141 N. W, 285.
Where plaintiff is successful In part,
but tenders other issues on which she
has not sustained the burden of proof,
she is neither required to pay nor can
she recover costs Becker v, Buffalo
Package Co., 85 Misc. 503, 148 N. Y. S.
782.
914-62 Supreme court may tax costs
of lower or appellate courts, or any
part thereof against any party as may
367
Vol 5
coara
be deemed equitable, under Act No. 229,
1910, {2. Brown V. Oreen, 133 La. 725,
63 S. 303.
915-71 Osborn v. Cardeza, 208 K. Y.
131, 101 N. B. 806, mod. 144 App. Div.
904, 128 N. T. a 1137.
Llxnitatlon of power of referee.
Barnes r. Midland B. Co., 161 App.
Div. 621, 146 N. Y. S. 1033.
917-T9 Ambrosius i;. O'Farrell, 161
HI. App. 80.
918-88 In re Bertbors Est., 163
Cal. 343, 125 P. 750; In re Est. of Yoell,
160 Cal. 741, 117 P. 1047; Crawfords-
ville Trust Co. v, Bamsey, 55 Ind. App.
40, 100 N. E. 1049, 102 N. E. 282.
920-96 Wade v. Amalgamated Sugar
Co., 71 Or. 75, 142 P. 350.
922-5 Costs taxed by clerk stand
against party until it is adjudged they
are improper. Beaumont Irr. Co. v. De
Laune (Tex. Civ.), 173 S. W. 504.
923-15 Soutbon v. Viguerie, 132 La.
1049, 62 S. 138.
923-16 "Wben action is dismissed tbe
time does not begin to run until find-
ings are filed. Jenks v. Allen, 151 Wis.
625, 139 N. W. 433.
On appeal it will be presumed costs
were taxed within time prescribed by
St., 1913, §2894a. Breen t?. Arnold, 157
Wis. 528, 147 N. W. 997.
Computation of time.— See Aran v. Her-
nandez, 17 P. R. 688.
Wbere Judgment is rendered on motion
for nonsuit a cost bill filed tye days
after signing judgment is within pre-
scribed time. In re Purcell's Est., 164
Cal. 300, 128 P. 932.
925-22 Notice waived where oppos-
ite party appeared and objected. Aran
V. Hernandez, 17 P. B. 688.
926-28 On adverse party. — Service
also is required on adverse party. Grif-
fith V, Welbanks & Co. (Cal. App.), 147
P. 986.
A copy must be filed also. Badovich «.
French (Nev.), 135 P. 920, rehear, de-
nied, 186 P. 704.
926-30 Steensland v. Hess, 25 Ida.
181, 136 P. 1124.
Cost bill not filed in time may be
stricken from files. Badovich v, French
(Nev.), 135 P. 920, rehear, denied, 136
P. 704; Clark V. Baker, 76 Wash. 110,
135 P. 1025.
Oompntatlon of tlme^ — ^Must be filed
within five days after written findings
and conclusions were filed. McDonnell
V. Huffine, 44 Mont. 411, 120 P. 792, cit.
Sellick V. De Carlow, 95 Cal. 644, 30 P.
795, and Porter V. Hopkins, 63 Cal. 53.
927-31 Waivor^-Objection that cost
bill was not properly served is waived
by appearance and objection to it. Cun-
ningham V. Friendly (Or.), 147 P. 752.
BtjfPViee of cost bill must be on attor-
ney and not on party. Badovich v,
French (Nov.), 135 P. 920, rehear, de-
nied, 136 P. 704.
927-33 Succession of Collado v.
Perez, 19 P. B. 348; Miller's Trustees
V. Smith, 114 Va. 619, 77 S. E. 462.
928-39 Cunningham v. Friendly
(Or.), 147 P. 752.
Peimlssion to amend verification ia
discretionary with the court and such
ruling will not be disturbed on appeal
unless abuse is shown. -Belaval t?. Fa-
jardo Sugar Growers' Assn., 18 P. B.
449.
928-41 Kelly v. Butte, 44 Mont. 115,
119 P. 171.
An imverifled statement of part can-
not be considered and must be disal-
lowed. Wbitaker «. Moran, 23 Cal.
App. 758, 139 P. 901.
930^6 Qalpin v. Chicago, 159 HI.
App. 135, aff., 249 HI. 554, 94 N. E.
961; Laclede Land & Imp. Co. f. Mor-
ten, 183 Mo. App. 637, 167 8. W. 658.
931-50 See Baker v. Becker, 153 Wis.
369, 141 N. W. 304.
931-51 Costs nnreasonably incorred
may be disallowed. Kinderman r.
Hersch, 53 Colo. 561, 129 P. 228.
931-62 Discretionary under {327 of
Code Civ. Proc, as amended by Act of
March 12, 1908. Bosado v, Hernandez,
17 P. B. 586.
Statutes allowing attorney's fee are
constitutional. Missouri, K. & T. By.
Co. V. Cade, 233 U. S. 642, 34 Sup. Ct.
678, 58 L. ed. 642.
Act, Tex. Slst Leg., ch. 47, providing
for attorney's fees as costs is constitu-
tional. Missouri, K. & T. By. Co. v,
Harris, 234 U. S. 412, 34 Sup. Ct. 790,
58 L. ed. 1377.
931-54 Albert Schwill & Co. v. Moul-
ton, 168 HI. App. 519; Johnson f>. Uni-
ted Bys. Co., 247 Mo. 326, 152 S. W.
362, 374; Waggoner «. Briggs (Tex.
Civ.), 166 S. W. 50.
931-55 Midland Tal. B. Co. v. Hcf-
ley, 112 Ark. 607, 165 S. W. 267; Mid-
368
COSTS
Vol. 5
land Val. B. Co. «. Horton, 112 Ark.
125, 165 S. W. 266; Evans v. Central
Life Ins, Co., 87 Kan. 641, 125 P. 86,
41 L. B. A. (N. S.) 1130. See Succes-
sion of CoUado V Perez, 19 P. B. 348.
PrerogatiTe court has no power to
award counsel fees. In re Queen's Es-
tate, 82 N. J. Eq. 588, 89 A. 860.
A court of eqiaity, in certain eases un-
der its general powers, may allow coun-
sel fees. Sears v, Nahant, 215 Mass.
234, 102 N. E. 491, Ann. Cas. 1914C,
1296; Frost 9. Belmont, 6 Allen (Mass.)
152.
932-86 Delaware, L. & W. B. Co. v.
Lyne, 193 Fed. 984, 113 C. C. A. 604;
Ortiga Bros. v. Enage, 18 Phil. Isl. 345;
Orense v. Jaucian, 18 Phil. Isl. 553;
Osorio V. Trias, 16 Phil. Isl. 511; Vargas
«. Boss, 15 Phil. Isl. 665; Mendiola v.
Villa, 15 Phil. Isl. 131; Alonso v. Maimi,
19 P. B. 32; Glenn v, Atlantic Coast
Line B. Co,, 96 S. C. 357, 80 S. E. 898.
Inteipleader. — ^Attorney's fee allowable
to interpleader provided bill was filed
in good faith. Women's Catholic Order,
etc. V. Hill, 191 HI. App. 629, 633.
In equity cases in federal courts at-
torney fees are not allowable, and the
defeated party need only pay the legal
taxable costs. Oelrichs v. Spain, 15
Wall. (U. S.) 231, 21 L. ed. 43; New
York Cent. H. B. B. Co. v. Bank of
Holly Springs, 195 Fed. 456, 115 C. C.
A. 358.
"In Missouri one litigant cannot be
compelled to pay the attorney's fees of
another either in equity or at law."
Johnson t?. United Rys. Co., 247 Mo.
326, 152 S. W. 362, 374; Pickel I?. Pickel,
243 Mo. 641, 147 S. W. 1059.
933-61 See Women's Catholic Order,
etc. V. Hill, 191 111. App. 629, 633.
934-63 in C^lfomia the statute has
not specifically enacted what shall con-
stitute recoverable costs, and so it must
be left to the discretion of the judge
where the cause was tried. Miller v.
Highland D. Co., 91 Cal. 103, 27 P. 536;
Bond V. United Bailroads of S. F., 20
Cal. App. 124, 128 P. 786.
936-71 Fees mast be paid in ad-
vance.— Knight V. MeMicking, 2 Phil.
Isl. 698.
93T-T7 See Wagner v. Philadelphia
B. & T. St. By. Co., 233 Pa. 114, 81 A.
944, Ann. Cas. 1913B, 536.
938-79 Homer f?. Oxford W. & E.
Co., 156 N. C. 494, 72 S. E. 624.
Expense of drafting report of teferee
and making copies to serve are not
taxable. Lemma v. Searle, 153 Wis. 24,
140 N. W. 65.
But payment of referee's fees are not
taxable when referee had forfeited his
right thereto by withholding his report.
Hertzberg v. Elvidge, 80 Misc. 290, 142
N. Y. S. 211.
938-80 Wadin v. Czuczka"; (Ariz.),
146 P. 491; Claussen v, Cumberland Tel.
& Tele. Co., 130 La. 143, 57 S. 780.
938-81 Spencer v. Dist. Court (B.
I.), 93 A. 647.
938-82 In New York there is no
such statute. Hertzberg V, Elvidge, 80
Misc. 290, 142 N. Y. S. 211.
In federal courts stenographer's fees
must be borne by the litigants as there
is no official stenographer to take down
and transcribe the evidence. In case
the minutes are written out, the party
securing such pays the additional
charge for transcribing. The success-
ful party taxes his share for taking the
testimony against his adversary and if
latter wishes a record for appeal he
must secure it for himself. If plaintiff,
however, refuses to undertake the ob-
ligation for stenographic services and
defendant procured such services the
latter on being successful cannot tax
such services against the plaintiff as
costs. Sedlacek v. Bryan, 192 Fed. 361.
939-83 Megrue v. Megrue, 160 App.
Biv. 817, 144 N. Y. S. 957; P. t?. State
Board Tax Comrs., 80 Misc. 557, 142
N. Y. S. 583; Hertzberg v. Elvidge, 80
Misc. 290, 142 N. Y. S. 211.
Service of writ must be upon the judge
and not on the clerk. Tuttle v. Hutchi-
son (la.), 151 N. W. 845.
939-84 Griffin v. Flank, 79 Misc. 415,
140 N. Y. S. 122.
939-85 Wliere court of equity ap-
points stenographer to t&ke and report
testimony his fees are taxable as costs
and disbursements. Investors' Syndi-
cate V. Pugh, 25 N. D. 490, 142 N. W.
919.
940-88 Salo v. Buluth & I. B. B. Co.,
124 Minn. 361, 145 N. W. 114.
In California party is allowed fees paid
for service of summons and subpoenas,
even though not made by officers when
she has paid or was liable for such
service. Pay v. Fay, 165 Cal. 469, 132
P. 1040.
940-89 Pboto litliographere of exhib-
M
369
Vol 6
COSTS
its taxable. Duplex Metals Co. v.
Standard Underground Cable Co., 218
Fed. 269.
941-92 Addreesed to sound discre-
tion of the court. Salo v, Puluth & I.
B. E. Co., 124 Minn. 361, 145 N. W.
114.
941-93 Beasonable costs of making
necessary map may be taxed as a dis-
bursement under Bev. Codes, §7169.
Kelly V. Butte, 44 Mont. 115, 119 P.
171.
942-94 Bauer Cooperage Co. 9.
Ewell, 149 Ky. 838, 149 S. W. 1137.
942-96 Bowery Bank v. Hart, 148
App. Div. 887, 132 N. Y. S. 1119.
942-99 Kramer v. Barth, 79 Misc.
80, 139 N. Y. S. 341.
943-5 See Kramer v. Barth, 79 Misc.
80, 139 N. Y. S. 341.
After mistrial, because of withdrawal
of jurors at plaintiff 's request to amend
complaint, on recovery at second trial
she cannot tax the costs after notice
and before trial and for trial fee at
first trial. Norton v. Erie E. Co., 83
Misc. 159, 144 N. Y. 8. 656.
944-6 Taxable^ — ^Bauer Cooperage Co.
V. Ewell, 149 Ky. 838, 149 S. W. 1137.
Becoverable by statute^ — ^Beaumont Irr.
Co. V. De Laune (Tex. Civ.), 173 S. W.
514.
944-7 Vnme witnesses are employes
of respondent railroad' company, their
mileage and per diem is taxable. Henry
V. Chicago, M. & P. S. By. Co. (Wash.),
147 P. 425.
Plaintiff need not anticipate admissions
on part of defendant and is entitled to
recover as costs fees of witnesses.
Frair v. Caswell, 79 Wash. 470, 140 P.
564.
944-8 Limited to 100 miles for wit-
nesses living without the district. U.
S. V. Green, 196 Fed. 255.
947-10 Witnesses attending without
subpoena. — Scott v. Kona Development
Co., 21 Haw. 408.
947-13 American Bank Protection
<'o. V. City Nat. Bank, 203 Fed. 715;
JTofstetter t?. Sound Trustee Co., 67
Wash. 537, 122 P. 6.
949-16 Expert witnesses. — Chadwick
V. Life Ins. Co., 158 N. C. 3B0, 74 S. E.
115.
949-17 Kinderman i\ Hersch, 53
golo. 561, 129 P, 228.
949-18 Independent Packing Co. €.
Burns, 168 111. App. 482.
950-20 In Montana it must be shown
that evidence expected could reason-
ably be offered as relevant to issues.
In re Gallatin Irr. Bist., 48 Mont. 605,
140 P. 92. '
950-21 Rodriguez v. Teixeira, 17
Haw. 489; Midge tt v. Vann, 158 N. C.
128, 73 8. E. 801; Hyman v. Devereux,
65 N. C. 588; Altgelt t?. Callaghan (Tex.
Civ.), 144 S. W. 1166.
951-25 Scott V. Kona Development
Co., 21 Haw. 408.
Bevlsal, §2803, provides for allowance
for expert witnesses. But where ex-
perts are subpoenaed by defendant and
not tendered or sworn because a non*
suit was granted the costs of such ex-
perts cannot be taxed against the plain-
tiff. Chadwick v. Life Ins. Co., 158 N.
C. 380, 74 S. E. 115.
952-32 In Illinois witness must
make affidavit (1) of number of days he
actually attended, and (2) that such at-
tendance was at the instance of one or
both of the parties or his attorney.
"Witness need not state the particular
term of court at which he attended.
Independent Packing Co. v. Burns, 168
111. App. 482.
953-33 In Mississippi unless "wit-
nesses make affidavit required under
Code, 1906, §§2200, 2201, their fees can-
not be taxed. Cohn v. Woods, 105 Miss.
716, 63 S. 221.
954-37 Expenses of bond to release
attachment cannot be taxed. Smith 9.
American Bonding Co., 160 N. C 574,
76 S. E. 481.
Pees paid for an official seazvh are in-
cluded among taxable disbursements.
Bose V. Swarthout, 73 Misc. 583, 133 N.
Y. S. 557.
Consular fees for taking depositions.
Duplex-Metals Co. tJ. Standard Under-
ground Cable Co., 218 Fed. 269.
Beasonable premium paid for a saper-
sedeas bond may be taxed as costs only
when such bond is given by a fiduciary.
Hull V, Burr, 63 Fla. 440, 57 S. 616.
955-43 Costs of printing evidence
not taxable by appellant where it was
unnecessary, having been made part of
record. Boss v, Stamford, 88 Conn. 260,
91 A. 201.
In North Carolina by rule of court.
Hardy v. Phoenix Mut. Life Ins. Co.«
167 N. C. 669, 83 S. K 801, ^
m
COSTS
yoi. 5
8111118 iMdd for transcript of evidoiice
for use of counsel are not taxable as
costs. Salo V. Duluth & I. B. B. Co., 124
Minn. 361, 145 N. W. 114.
956-44 Vniere a tlilrd pleading is
filed and stricken as insufficient treble
costs are allowed. Voorhees 1;. La. Pur-
chase Exp. Co., 243 Mo. 418, 147 S.
W. 783.
Increased costs tinder $3258 Code Civ.
Proc — See Femald v. Walker, 148 N.
Y. S. 399.
957-49 Johnson v. Citizens' Bank
(Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 35: Stephenson
t7. Joplin State' Bank, 160 Mo. App. 47,
141 S. W. ^91; Beveny v. Cook, 70 W.
Va. 282, 73 S. E. 921.
Where change of venne was had^ — ^A
ruling of court to which a change of
venue was had refusing to retax costs
accruing is not appealable, though other
court had refused jurisdiction, but the
appeal will be dismissed without preju-
dice to mandamus proceedings to deter-
mine which court should take jurisdic-
tion. Asbell V. Aldrich (Kan.), 147 P.
1126.
A sabseqnent Judge can hear motion to
retax. Chadwick v. Life Ins. Co., 158
N. C. 380, 74 S. E. 115.
Xnider circuit court mle 23, an appeal
must be taken within ten days after
taxation by clerk. Snyder v, McCar-
thy, 197 Fed. 166, 116 C. C. A. 390.
958-50 See Equitable Trust Co. v.
Kirchhoff, 140 N. T. S. 373.
An execntion on a Judgment for costs
will not be quashed because the taxa-
tion is erroneous. Deveny v. Cook, 70
W. Va. 282, 73 S. E. 921.
Erroneous taxation of costs cannot be
reviewed by petition for writ of pro-
hibition. Pope Mfg. Co. V, Arnold,
Schwinn & Co., 208 Fed. 406, 125 C. C.
A. 568.
959-53 Under Act 1911, p. 90. Frid-
die V. Braun, 7 Ala. App. 429, 61 S.
57.
960-61 Notice filed and served with-
in two days is sufficient without actu-
ally making motion to retax within that
time. Lind v. Weber, 36 Nev. 623, 134
P. 461, 135 P. 139, 141 P. 458, 60 L.
R. A. (N. S.) 1046.
960-63 May be acted upon at a sub-
sequent term where motion for new
trial is pending. Silex Sav. Bank v. El-
lis, 162 Mo. App. 395, 142 S. W. 796.
961-65 After the term at which de-
cree was entered, a motion being made
to correct the journal entry which was
done, the court also upon further evi-
dence properly retaxed certain costs.
Locke V. Oope, 94 Kan. 137, 146 P. 416.
Motion to retax after adjournment may
be made for relief from improper taxa-
tion but not to have his adversary
taxed therewith. Archer v. Cole (Tex.
Civ.), 157 S. W. 1183.
961-68 The legality of the costs may
be considered on a motion to retax.
Chadwick v. Life Ins. Co., 158 N. C.
380, 74 S. E. 115.
962-70 Where no showing is made
in opposition* and cost bill was properly
verified, and testimony given in sup-
port thereof the court cannot retax the
costs. Fay v. Pay, 165 Cal. 469, 132 P.
1040.
962-72 On objection to costs hear-
ing must be held whether parties ap-
pear or not. Torres v. Irizarry, 18 P.
R. 337.
On motion to retax where witnesses'
affidavits are introduced in evidence, it
is proper to allow defendant to also
file affidavits as evidence. Independent
Packing Co. v. Burns, 168 HI. App. 482.
962-73 Miller's Trustees v. Smith,
114 Va. 619, 77 S. E. 462.
963-80 Jackson v. Grand Crossing
Tack Co., 191 HI. App. 375; St. Louis
E. Co. t?; Kelly (Tex.Civ.), 173 S. W.
540; Guerra V. Guerra CTex. Civ,), 158
S. W. 191; Walter Box Co. f?. Black-
burn (Tex. Civ.), 157 S. W. 220; Simp-
son Logging Co. V. Chehalis County, 80
Wash. 245, 141 P. 344.
ImiK>sing terms^ — ^Where costs are im-
properly ta^ed it is error to impose
terms on the party as a condition pre-
cedent to obtaining a review. Corbett
r. Great Northern By. Co., 28 N. D.
136, 148 N. W. 4.
Motion to review must point out how
the moving party was aggrieved un-
der circuit court rule 33. McGowan v.
Paul, 156 Wis. 214, 145 N. W. 666.
964-82 In Oregon a bill of excep-
tions covers both the merits and the
objection to the cost bill. Wade v.
Amalgamated Sugar Co., 71 Or. 75, 142
P. 350.
964-8S Engel v. Ehret, 21 Cal. App.
112, 130 P. 1197.
Order reftudng to retax costs is not
appealable. White v. Stout, 72 Wash.
62, 129 P. 917.
371
Vol. 5
COSTS
BovlewAble only on appeal ftom jodg*
mentd— Ferris v, McNally, 45 Mont. 20,
121 P. 889.
In Afisaouii, etc., Parkes v. Woolsej,
185 Mo. App. 35, 171 S. W. 948.
96S^4 Swearingen v. Myers (Tex.
Civ.), 143 S. W. 664. But see McCas-
key r. Ft. Dodge D. M. & S. By. Co.,
154 la. 652, 135 N. W. 6.
966^8 Cnnningham v. Friendly
(Or.), 147 P. 752. See Kinderman v.
Hersch, 53 Colo. 561, 129 P. 228.
As to counsel fee8.---Crowell v, Dubois
(B. L), 82 A. 264.
966-90 Failure te file and serve cost
bin waives right to costs. Griffith v*
Welbanks & Co. (Cal. App.), 147 P. 986.
Enor in erroneous taxation is waived
by failure to move for new trial or ar-
rest of judgment within time pre-
scribed. Bamsey v, Bothwell, 168 Mo.
App. 271, 153 S. W. 792.
By appealing a party does not waive
the right to object to erroneous taxa-
tion of costs. Marshall v. Hatfield, 138
N. y. S. 733.
Allowance by appellate court. — ^If costs
are not taxed and allowed in the lower
court they cannot be allowed in appel-
late court. Lopez v. Ah Man, 7 Haw.
1.
967-95 The President, 213 Fed. 121;
Jordan v. Jordan, 175 Ala. 640, 57 S.
436; Seiler v. Klugman, 164 App. Div.
926, 149 N. Y. S. 436.
Where husband's divorce action bad
been dismissed with costs, and later
wife sues for divorce, the husband may
defend action but he cannot ask af-
firmative relief on the grounds of his
previous action until the Qosts of such
previous action have been paid. Hasse
V. Hasse, 149 App. IMv. 775, 134 N. Y.
8. 83.
973-19 Payment of costs is no
waiver of the right to review on appeal
of any issue. Boone f. Boone, 159 la.
284, 137 N. W. 1059, 141 N. W. 938.
Objecting to amended pleading^-rWhere
statute provides that on the overruling
of a demurrer, defendant may plead
anew on payment of costs, and penalty
for failure to pay, a plaintiff does not
waive payment of costs by failing to
object before adjournment on second
day of term following the term when
demurrer was overruled to the filing
of an amended pleading. BoUins v.
Central Maine Power Co., 112 Me. 175,
91 A, 837,
974-22 Camp. Perlns c. Silver, 71
Wash. 338, 128 P. 661.
974-23 Application to bave real
party in Interest pay costs may be
either by order to diow cause or by
notice of motion. Chambers v. Bacon,
153 App. Div. 194, 138 N. Y. S. 337.
974-26 Order granting restitation
of costs on reversal may be enforced
by execution. Drescher Botberg Co. o.
Landeker, 82 Miso. 441, 143 N. Y. 8.
1050.
976-81 See Connellee v. Blanton
(Tex. Civ.), 163 S. W. 407.
Szecntion cannot issne for five days af-
ter service of notice of bill of costs.
Buzo V. Buxo, 18 P. B. 188.
977-84 Bernard f. Cowen, 82 Misc.
384, 143 N. Y. S. 757.
977-86 Camp v. Morgan, 21 HI. 255;
Ambrosius «. O'Parrell, 161 HI. App.
80.
978-42 The supreme court has no
power to allow costs on appeal. Ochoa
«. Succession of Lanza, 17 P. B. 701;
Martinez v. Pagan, Lopez & Co., 17 P.
B. 582.
979-44 Hupp V. Superior Court, 22
Cal. App. 162, 133 P. 987; Carroll v.
James, 162 N. C. 510, 77 S. E. 337;
First Nat. Bank v. Badham, 90 8. C.
394, 73 S. E. 778.
Appeal from justice's eovrt^-Under
{{924, 978, 980, Code Civ. Proc, prevail-
ing party is entitled to costs regardless
of whether recovery is under $300.
Healey v. Superior Court, 167 Cal. 22,
138 P. 687.
VTbere both parties prevail costs will be
divided equally. Field v. Hudson (N.
M.), 147 P. 283.
"Prevailing party'* has reference to
prevailing interest and not necessarily
to the prevailing person. Where sev-
eral defendants severally appeal they
constitute but one party and are ne-
titled to a single bill of costs. Gerts
V. Milwaukee Electric By. & Light Co.,
153 Wis. 475, 140 N. W. 312.
980-46 Kretz v. Fireproof Storage
Co., 127 Minn. 304, 149 N. W. 955.
989-47 Burnett v. Senn, 93 S. C. 316,
76 S. E. 820.
980-48 Campbell v. Southwestern
Tel. * Tele. Co., 108 Ark. 669, 158
S. W. 1085; Brown v. Green, 133 La.
725, 63 S. 303; Bosenkranz v. Wolf
(N. J. L.), 93 A. 584.
On appeal ftom oremUlng of deoEiQxrex
978
COSTS
Wol 5
eosts in appellate division ate discre-
tionaiy, but on appeal to court of ap-
peals costs follow as a matter of course.
Vogel Co. V, Wolff, 160 App, Div. 831,
145 N. Y. S. 1085.
981-49 Wilson v, Cbesley, 23 Cal.
App. 630, 138 P. 958; Sprague «. Stead,
56 Colo. 538, 139 P. 544; Bose v. Stod-
dard, 181 111. App. 405; Friedenwald
9. Burke, 123 Md. 511, 91 A. 461; Con-
tinental State Bank v. Trabaue (Tez.
Civ.), 150 S. W. 209.
981-60 Wiley v. Hart, 74 Wash. 142,
132 P. 1015.
981-61 WhMre both Bidea appealed
and neither wholly succeeded there
will be no costs allowed. Standard
Plunger Elevator Co. v. Stokes, 212
Fed. 893, 129 C. C. A. 413.
982-54 See Bell v. Farmers' Bank
(Mo. App.), 174 S. W. 196.
982-55 Comp. Diana Shooting Club
V. Kohl, 156 Wis. 257, 145 N. W. 815.
Where Judgment la afflxmad but amount
reduced appellant is entitled to costs.
Brown v. Kolb, 95 S. C. 217, 78 S. £.
894.
982-56 Burnett v. Senn, 93 S. C. 316,
76 S. £. 820; Douglas Land Co. v. T.
W. Thayer Co., 113 Va. 239, 74 S. E.
215.
Whece judgment la reduced from $10,-
000 to $1000 the defendant is the party
substantially prevailing. Belmont v.
McAllister, 116 Va. 285, 81 S. E. 81.
983-59 Abney v. Citizens' Bank
(Tex. Civ.), 152 S. W. 734; Hathaway
V. United Tintie Mines Co., 42 Utah
520, 132 P. 388. See Fitzpatrick v.
Chicago, M. & St. P. B. Co., 121 Minn.
370, 141 N. W. 485.
Appellant Tefoaing to accept a release
of errors tendered before appeal can-
not recover costs on appeal. Virginia
Supply Co. V. Calfee, 71 W. Va. 300, 76
8. £. 669.
If appellant faHa to comply wltb rule
of court requiring lines of abstract to
be numbered the supreme court may
tax all costs on appeal against him,
even though the cause la reversed, as
a penalty for violating the rule. Wis*
ner r. Nichols (la.), 143 N. W. 1020.
Clerk of court liable for offldal negU-
gence^ — ^Where papers in a case were
lost by the clerk through negligence
be will be required to pay the costs of
issuance of citation and service on him
for the purpose of bringing up papers.
Parrish v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 150 S. W. 453.
984-6S Humboldt County v. Ward
Bros., 163 la. 510, 145 N. W. 49: St.
Louis, B. & M. By. Co. v, Gould (Tex.
Civ.), 165 S. W. 13; Adams t?. State
(Tex. Civ.), 146 S. W. 1086; Hudson v.
Jones (Tex. Civ.), 143 S. W. 197; Shan-
non V. Buttery (Tex. Civ.), 140 S. W.
858.
985-66 Stephenson v. Luttrell (Tex.
Civ.), 160 S. W. 666.
985-66 Harbison v. Hammons (Ark.),
167 S. W. 849.
986-69 Doming v. Carlisle Packing
Co., 226 U. S. 102, 33 Sup. Ct. 80, 57
L. ed. 140, dismiss. 62 Wash. 455, 114
P. 172; Lapique v. Agoure (Cal.), 148
P. 517: Knights of Maccabees v. Pel-
ton, 21 Colo. App. 185, 121 P. 949;
Kotite V, Title Guaranty ft Surety Co.,
191 111. App. 555; Mayer Bros. Co. v,
Parenti, 176 HI. App. 300; Wallace v.
Prudential Ins. Co., 174 Mo. App. 110,
167 S. W. 1028; Wenger v, Wenger, 51
Pa. Super. 612 godson v. Bolard (Tex.
Civ.), 150 S. W. 317. See Kappes t?.
American Linseed Co., 182 111. App. 68.
Motion will be denied where judgment
to which exception is taken is the re-
fusal of an interlocutory injunction
and not a money judgment. Furr v.
Bank of Fairmount, 139 Ga. 815, 78
S. E. 181.
Where there la evidence to sustain the
verdict, though conflicting, and there is
no question of law involved the judg-
ment will be sustained and ten per
cent damages may be allowed. Texas
& P. By. Co. V. Prater, 229 U. S. 177,
33 Sup. Ct. 637, 57 L. ed. 1139, aff.
183 Fed. 574, 106 C. C. A. 120.
988-71 Cairo, T. ft S. B. Co. v.
Brooks, 112 Ark. 298, 166 S. W. 167;
Weinstock-Nichols Co. V, Courtney
(Cal. App.), 147 P. 218; Koelling v.
Wachsning, 174 HI. App. 321. See
Brewster v. Miller, 32 S. D. 187, 142
N. W. 467.
988-72 WilUs v. Ivy (Ariz.), 141 P.
570; Simmang v. Smith (Tex. Civ.),
150 S. W. 494; Dillard u. First Nat.
Bank (Tex. Civ.), 143 S. W, 682.
988-73 Southern By. Co. v. Gadd,
233 U. S. 572, 34 Sup. CU> 696, 58 L.
ed. 1099: White v. Claxton,'12 Ga. App.
141, 76 S. E. 1040; Napier v. Dasher, 12
Ga. App. 153, 76 S. £. 1062; Sartorious
r. Paper Mills Co., 10 Ga. App. 522,
73 S. E. 854; Magill V. Young (Tex,
Civ.), 153 S. W. 184,
878
Vol 5
COSTS
989*74 White v, Claxton, 12 Ga.
App. 141, 76 S. E. 1040; Christie v.
Shingler, 10 6a. App. 529, 73 S. £.
751; Wittenberg v, Fisher, 183 Mo.
App. 347, 166 S. W. 1106. See Bevier
V. Horn, 180 HI. App. 647.
989-76 Beverly v, Gilmore, 139 Ga.
792, 77 S. E. 1055, 45 L. B. A. (N. S.)
1073; Home v. Hicks Bros., 138 Ga. 96,
74 S. E. 759; Savannah Lumb. Co. t?.
Davis, 14 Ga. App. 233, 80 S. E. 535;
Bradley v. Federal Life Ins. Co., 178
111. App. 524.
There may be a legal Inference that
writ of error was sued out for delay
only when no error of law is com-
plained of and verdict was amply sup-
ported by the evidence. Morrow Trans-
fer Co. V, Heard, 11 Ga. App. 187, 74
S. E. 1006.
Where no statement of facts or biUs
of exception appears in the record and
the question of damages for delay is
raised, the court may look into tl^e
record to determine whether any
grounds for appeal are presented.
Bates 17. Hill (Tex, Civ.), 144 S. W.
288.
990-81 See Missouri, K. & T. By.
Co. V. Pitkin (Tex. Civ.), 158 S. W.
1035.
990-84 New York, etc. B. Co. <?. Co-
hasset Water Co., 216 Mass. 291, 103
N. E. 829,
In Missoori, ten per cent, penalty pro-
vided by Bev. St., 1909, §2084. Barr
17. Quincy & O. K. C. B. Co., 181 Mo.
App. 88, 163 S. W. 573.
Interest at twelve per cent, may be
awarded in addition to double costs.
Elkins V. Felch, 211 Mass. 534, 98 N. E.
510.
991-85 In re Prager's Est., 167 Cal.
737, 141 P. 369; Taffe v. Smyth, 62 Or.
227, 125 P. 308.
Costs of Intermediate appeal. — ^Where
amount recovered in county court on
an appeal from justice's court is less
than in latter court costs are improper-
ly awarded against the appellant. But
the error does not require a reversal of
judgment. Goodwin v, Biddy (Tex.
Civ.), 149 S. W. 739.
991-88 See Jones t?. Vickers, 173 HI.
App. 481, where the judgment was in
excess of the ad damnum in declaration
and cured by remittitur.
992-89 Finleyson v. International
Harvester Co., 138 Ga. 247, 75 S. E.
103.
992-91 Dobek v, Austro-American
S. S. Co., 83 Misc. 641, 145 N. Y. S.
385; Kenney v. Seaboard Air Line B.
Co., 166 N. C. 566, 82 S. E. 849; Threatt
V. Johnson (Tex. Civ.), 158 S. W. 1137.
Where demurrer was overmled and
cause dismissed on its merits for want
of equity, costs on appeal will be de-
creed appellant on reversal of the de-
cree, sustaining the demurrer and re-
manding the cause with leave to amend
and for further proceedings. Bowan €.
Tracy (W. Va.), 82 8. E. 478.
Cost of former appeaL — ^Where cause
was reversed and second trial resulted
in favor of same party, he is not en-
titled to costs incurred at former trial.
Hedges v, Biddle (Or.), 146 P. 964;
Wade !?. Amalgamated Sugar Co. (Or.),
142 P. 350.
993-93 Where two appeals and con-
sequently two distinct issues are tried,
the successful party is entitled to costs
against both. In re Saunders' Est., 86
Misc. 582, 149 N. Y. S. 461.
993-94 Benehan v. McAvoy, 116 Md.
356, 81 A. 586.
994-97 West f?. Cowan (Ala.), 66 S.
816.
995-99 On reversal where costs be-
low are awarded to defendant he cannot
tax clerk's fee incurred in taking ap*
peal. Cunningham t?. Friendly (Or.),
147 P. 752.
995-1 Appellees will be adjudged
liable for costs on dismissal of an ap-
peal where by their actions after ap-
peal the real controversy is eliminated
and only a moot question remains. Og-
born V. Newcastle, 178 Ind. 161, 98 N.
E. 869.
995-2 Losing party. — ^A claimant in
a suit between other parties, who re-
moved suit by certiorari is liable for
costs on dismissal for want of prosecu-
tion. McCormack c. Malone, 10 Ala.
App. 623, 65 S. 711.
996-4 Wliere a bill in equity is dis-
missed costs both on appeal and below
will be awarded in the supreme court.
Fife u. Cate, 85 Vt. 418, 82 A. 741.
996-6 Burgess t?. Crumpton, 93 S. C.
562, 77 S. E. 356.
997-10 Jones & Co. v, Cunningham,
79 Wash. 4, 139 P. 612.
Appeal from an nnapi>ealable order.
Bellman v, Poe, 120 Md. 444, 88 A.
131.
997-11 Conlin v. Emanuel Lewis Inv,
374
COSTS
Vol. 5
Co. (Cal. App.), 147 P, 472; Kirby
Planing Mill Co. v. Hughes, 11 Ga.
App. 645, 75 S. E. 1059; McCaghren V.
Balch (Tex. Civ.), 152 S. W. 680; New-
berry i\ Dutton, 114 Va. 95, 75 S. E.
785.
997-12 Green v. Green, 138 Ga. 581,
75 S. E. 603.
Where modification is inmiateTial no
costs allowed to appellant. Ely v. King-
Eichardson Co., 265 111. 148, 106 N. E.
619, 1915B, L. B. A. 1052.
998-15 Edwards v, Hennepin Coun-
ty, 116 Minn. 101, 133 N. W. 469.
998-16 Eraser v. Brown, 203 N. Y.
136, 96 N. E. 365, Ann. Cas. 1913B, 14,
rev. 131 N. Y. S. 1115.
998-17 Loomis v. Federal Union
Surety Co., 180 HI. App. 590; Beeves
u. Both, 179 111. App. 95; Tonsor t?.
Fidelity & Deposit Co., 173 111. App.
383; MoBslander 17. Armstrong, 90 Neb.
774, 134 N. W. 922.
999-19 One-lialf costs may be taxed
to each party where remittitur is re-
quired. Lamb 17. Tomlinson, 177 111.
App. 290.
999-22 Taylor v. Scott, etc. & Co.,
178 HI. App. 487; Thomas v, Lee, 74
Wash. 286, 133 P. 446, 134 P. 510.
1000-24 Fitch v. Green, 39 Okla. 18,
134 P. 34.
1000-26 Akers v. Lord, 71 Wash.
299, 128 P. 672; Hallidie Co. v. Wash-
ington Brick, etc. Mfg. Co., 70 Wash.
80, 126 P. 96.
1001-27 Ettor v. Tacoma, 77 Wash.
267, 137 P. 820.
Unsuccessful intermediate appeal. — ^Up-
on final judgment in his favor, a party
who was unsuccessful in an intermedi-
ate appeal cannot recover expenses
paid out in such appeal. Troxell v,
Delaware, L. & W. B. Co., 205 Fed.
830.
1002-29 Expenses of surety bond on
appeal not to exceed one per cent, of
liability irrespective of amount dis-
bursed. Investors' Syndicate v, Pugh,
25 N. D. 490, 142 N. W. 919.
1002-30 West v. McDonald, 64 Or.
203, 127 P. 784, 128 P. 818.
1003-36 Costs Act, 1911 (Pub. Laws,
p. 756), is applicable to practice on
error in the court of errors and ap-
peals so far as its provisions are ap-
propriate thereto. International Watch
Co. i\ Delaware, L. & W. B. Co., 82 N.
J. L. 528, 82 A. 730.
1004-40 Scott r. Eona Development
Co., 21 Haw. 462; Nemaha Valley Drain-
age Dist. V. Stocker, 95 Neb. 668, 146
N. W. 936.
Printed statement of facts violating
rules of court, which cannot be used,
will be taxed against party responsible
for such, together with costs of all
orders and motion with reference there-
to. Hines f?. Sparks (Tex. Civ.), 146
8, W. 289.
1004-41 First Nat. Bank v. Bangs,
92 Kan. 1031, 141 P. 1013; Maxwell-
McClure Dry Goods Co. v. Woodruff,
89 Kan. 821, 132 P. 1005; Wynn c. Ed-
mondson Land & Cattle Co. (Tex. Civ.).
150 S. W. 310; Loehr V. Dickson, 151
Wis. 469, 138 N. W. 61j 1128, rehear.
denied, 139 N. W. 407.
1005-43 Evans v. McClure, 108 Ark.
531, 158 S. W. 487: Tucker Produce Co-
i\ Stringer (Tex. Civ.), 146 S. W. 1001.
1005-45 Boss V, Stamford, 88 Conn.
260, 91 A. 201.
1005-47 Blair v. Brownstone Oil &
Befining Co., 20 Cal. App. 316, 128 P.
1022; Bond V. United Bailroads of 8.
F., 20 Cal. App. 124, 128 P. 786.
1005-48 Graham v. Crisman (la.),
146 N. W. 756; In re Oldfleld's Est.,
158 la. 98, 138 N. W. 846.
1006-49 Styles v, Dickey, 27 N. D.
328, 146 N. W. 546.
1006-52 Loehr v. Dickinson, 151
Wis. 469, 138 N. W. 61, 1128, deny.
rehear., 139 N. W. 407.
1007-55 Bennett v. Hubs, 178 HI.
App. 233; Smith v, Eichelberger, 175
111. App. 231; Turner v. Turner, 164 111.
App. 1; Sanders v, Sutlive Bros. &
Co., 163 la. 172, 143 N. W. 492.
1007-57 Georgia Cane P. Co. v. Com
Products B. Co., 141 Ga. 40, 80 S. E.
318; Fippenger V. Ullrich, 178 HI. App.
611; Carpenter v. Modern Woodmen,
160 la. 602, 142 N. W. 411.
1008-58 Turner v. Turner, 164 HI.
App. 1; Weir v. Sanitary Dist., 160 111.
App. 174.
Briefs not complying with rule. — ^Where
briefs are typewritten, single spaced,
and blurred the court on its own mo-
tion may have the clerk prepare copies
for its use and tax costs against ap-
pellant. State Mut. Fire Ins. Co. i;.
Cathey (Tex. Civ.), 153 S. W. 935.
1008-59 Gulf & S. I. B. Co. v. Walk-
er, 104 Miss. 363, 61 S. 458.
875
Vol. 6 ;
COUNTEItFElTINO
1008-60 Finncane v, IlHnoiB Central
B. Co^ 169 ni. App. 175.
1000-61 Martinez v. Pagan, Lopez &
Oo^ 17 P. B. 582. See In re Queen's
Est., 82 N. J. £q. 588, 89 A. 860.
1009-63 Where ntmn on appeal
must contain the atenographer's min-
ntes, an expenditure for a copy is not
taxable against appellant. Wiener D.
Budinsky, 80 Misc. 234, 140 N. Y. S.
948.
1010-66 Tyler 9. Wise, 21 Haw. 166.
1010-68 Ulbright v. Baslington, 20
Ida. 539, 119 P. 292, 294; Todd v. How-
eU, 49 Ind. App. 59, 96 N. £. 618;
Mattingly's Exr. v. Brents, 156 Ky.
844, 162 S. W. 109; Investors' Syndicate
r. Pugh, 25 N. D. 490, 142 N. W. 919.
1011-69 Coxe V. Peck-Williamson
Heating & V. Co.. 208 Fed. 409, 125
O. C. A. 628, af. 204 Fed. 839; U. S.
Fidelity & Guaranty Co. V. White
(Miss.), 63 S. 329.
1012-71 Anderson V. Sands, 39 App.
Cas. (D. C.) 533; Smith v. Lancaster,
37 App. Cas. (D. C.) 25; Lee v. Welch,
37 App. Cas. (D. C.) 125; Charles v.
Witt, 38 Kan. 484, 129 P. 140; Sanders
1?. Standard Wheel Co., 152 Ky. 238, 153
S. W. 211; Houghton V, Tiffany, 116
Md. 655, 82 A. 831; Overman v, Lanier,
157 N. C. 544, 73 S. E. 192; Wynn v,
Edmondson Land & Cattle Co. (Tex.
Civ.), 150 S. W. 310. See Voigtmann
V. Seely, 198 Fed. 485, 119 C. C. A. 386;
Frost V. Chase, 37 App. Cas. (D. C.)
179.
1015-83 Taylor f?. New York Life
Ins. Co., 148 App. Div. 815, 133 N. Y,
S. 746, re-argument denied, 149 App.
Piv. 936, 134 N. Y. S. 1148; Dobek v.
Austro-American S. S. Co., 83 Misc. 641,
145 N. Y. S. 385; Young <?. Ingalsbe,
83 Misc. 176, 144 N. Y. S. 400.
1016-84 Bobek v. Anstro-Ameriean
S. S. Co., 83 Misc. 641, 145 N. Y. S.
385.
1016-85 Amendment of execution.
The circuit court has no authority to
amend an execution issued on a judg-
ment for costs by the supreme court,
if the proposed amendment involves a
change in the taxation of the costs as
certined from appellate court. Beveny
V, Cook, 70 W. Va. 282, 73 S. E. 921.
1017-92 S. V, Board of Education, 18
N. M. 286, 135 P. 1174.
1018-97 S. V. Board of Education,
18 N. M. 286, 135 P. 1174.
1021-11 Neblett v. Barron (Tex.
Civ.), 160 S. W. 1167; Zarate f?. Villa-
real (Tex. Civ.), 159 S. W. 873.
1023-17 Bestitntion of ooets paid.
Where one is compelled to pay costs
on a void judgment, and on appeal the
judgment is vacated the court cannot
order a restitution, but the remedy is
in an independent action. Swantek v.
Jarmozski, 174 Mich. 698, 140 N. W.
942
OOUKTEBFEITINO
8-21 U. S. V, Weber, 210 Fed. 973.
11-45 Wiggains «. U. S., 214 Fed.
970, 131 C. C. A. 266.
OOUBTS
21-1 For other deflnitiona see follow-
ing cases: Von Schmidt v. Widber, 99
Cal. 511, 34 P. 109; Dixon v. P., 53
Colo. 527, 127 P. 930; Moline v. Chi-
cago, B. & Q. B. Co., 262 111. 52, 104
N. E. 204; S. 17. Woodson, 161 Mo. 444,
61 S. W. 252; Jones v. Jones (Mo.
App.), 175 S. W. 227; Bradley D. Bloom-
field, 85 N. J. Eq. 506, 89 A. 1009.
21-3 Moline v. Chicago, B. & Q. B.
Co., 262 111. 52, 104 N. E. 204; 8. V.
Woodson, 161 Mo. 444, 61 S. W. 252.
22-8 Moline v. Chicago, B. & Q. B.
Co., 262 111. 52, 104 N. E. 204; Glover
c. Albrecht (Tex. Civ.), 173 8. W. 504.
22-15 P. V. McWeeney, 259 DL 161,
102 N. E. 233.
23-16 Jackson v. S., 102 Ala. 79, 15
S. 351; P. t?. McWeeney, 259 111. 161,
102 N. E. 233.
25-31 Where it Is destroyed by fire.
Law r. Palls, 109 Ark. 395, 159 S. W.
1130.
26-40 Montgomery Traction Co. f>.
Knabe, 158 Ala. 458, 48 S. 501; Louis-
ville & N. E. Co. V. Grant, 153 Ala.
112, 45 S. 226; Jackson v. S., 102 Ala.
76, 15 S. 351; Johnston V. Hunter, 50
W. Va. 52, 40 S. E. 448.
26-41 Montgomery Traction Co, v,
Knabe, 158 Ala. 458, 48 S. 501; Louis*
ville & N. B. Co. v. Grant, 153 Ala.
112, 45 S. 226; Williams V. Beutzel, 60
Ark. 155, 29 S. W. 374; Graham t?.
Parham, 32 Ark. 676; Chaplin v.
Holmes, 27 Ark. 414; Lawson v, Pulaski,
3 Ark. 1; Wicks t?. Ludwig, 9 Cal. 173;
Martin v, Scott, 118 Ga. 149, 44 S. E.
974; Eobinson t?. Ferguson, 78 HI. 538;
Galusha v. Butterfield, 3 111. 227; White
37ft
counrs
Vol. 6
V. Biggs, 27 Me. 114; Alabama G. S.
B. Co. r. Dalton, 86 Miss. 299, 38 S.
285; S. V. Hizon, 41 Mo. 210; In re
James, 4 Okla. Cr. 94, 111 P. 947;
Baker v. Newton, 27 Okla. 436, 112 P.
1034; American Fire Ins. Co. v. Tappe,
4 Okla. 110, 43 P. 1085; S. V. Rhodes,
48 Or. 133, 85 P. 332; Hodges v. Ward,
1 Tex. 244; Johnston «. Hunter, 50 W.
Va. 52, 40 S. E. 448.
Where a defendant Is tried and con-
victed for a crime by a court sitting
at a time not authorized by law, the
whole proceeding is void, etc. Hodo v.
S., 156 Ala. 43, 47 S. 134; Harris v,
8., 155 Ala. 673, 45 S. 216; Bawlinson
V. S., 154 Ala. 64, 45 S. 891; Gordy 9.
8., 154 Ala. 62, 45 S. 901; Biggsby v.
8., 153 Ala. 37, 45 8. 227; Walker v,
8., 142 Ala. 32, 38 8. 241; Brumley V.
8., 20 Ark. 77; In re Terrill, 52 Kan.
29, 34 P. 457, 39 Am. St. 327; In re
McClasky, 52 Kan. 34, 34 P. 459; Col-
lins t\ S., 5 Okla. Cr. 254, 114 P. 1127;
Lopez r. S., 12 Tex. App. 27.
AppeaL — A judgment rendered at a
time when the court is not legally in
session will not support an appeal.
Montgomery Traction Co. v. Knabe,
158 Ala. 458, 48 S. 501; Hodo v. 8., 156
Ala. 43, 47 8. 134; Harris v. 8., 155
Ala. 673, 45 8. 216; Bawlinson v. S.,
154 Ala. 64, 45 S. 891 ; Gordy v. 8., 154
Ala. 52, 45 8. 901; Louisville, etc. B.
Co. V. Grant, 153 Ala. 112, 45 8. 226;
Brumley t?. 8., 20 Ark. 77; White r.
Biggs, 27 Me. 114; Hodges v. Ward, 1
Tex. 244.
Habeas corpn& — ^A person convicted at
a time when court is not legally in
session will be discharged on habeas
corpus. Ex parte Jones, 27 Ark. 349;
In re Terrill, 52 Kan. 29, 34 P. 457,
39 Am. St. 327; In re James, 4 Okla.
Cr. 94, 111 P. 947; Ex parte De Hay,
3 8. C. 564; Ex parte Cole, 51 Tex.
Cr. 166, 101 S. W. 249.
27-42 Teime are tbe times fixed by
law for the transaction of judicial busi-
ness. Von Schmidt v. Widber, 99 Cal.
511, 34 P. 109.
27-43 But see Curry v, McCatfery,
47 Mont. 191, 131 P. 673, where it is
held that ''term" and ''session" as
used in this case mean the same thing.
A number of sessions may be included
in a term of court. S. v, McBain, 102
Wis. 431, 78 N. W. 602.
28-4Q Ex parte Daly, 66 Fla. 345, 63
8. 834.
28-47 The superior court in Califor-
nia has no terms. Yon Schmidt v, Wid-
ber, 99 Cal. 511, 34 P. 109.
30-51 Ex parte Baldwin (Ark.), 176
8. W. 680; P. V, Wells, 255 111. 450, 99
N. B. 606; Jones v. McClaughry (la.),
151 N. W. 210; 8. v. Martin, 24 N. C.
101; St. Louis & 8. F. B. Co. v. James,
36 Okla. 190, 128 P. 279, quot. from
Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Hand, 7 Kan.
386; 8. V. McBain, 102 Wis. 431, 78 K.
W. 602.
30-52 Jones v. McClaughry (la.), 151
N. W. 210; 8, V. Martin, 24 N. C. 101;
St. Louis & 8. F. B. Co. v. James, 36 •
Okla. 190, 128 P. 279, quot, from Onion
Pac. By. Co. t?. Hand, 7 Kan. 386.
All acts done within the term are re*
garded as contemporaneous. P. v.
Wells, 255 HI. 450, 99 N. E. 606.
31-66 Jackson v. S., 101 Ark. 473,
142 8. W. 1153; Straight V. Goodwin
(Tex. CTiv.), 157 8. W. 425.
31-57 Jackson v, S., 101 Ark. 473,
142 8. W. 1153; 8. v. Alpert, 87 Vt.
162, 88 A. 537; S. V. Alfred, 87 V4;.
157, 88 A. 534.
31-58 8. r. Alpert, 87 Vt. 162, 88 A.
537; 8. V. Alfred, 87 Vt. 157, 88 A.
534.
31-61 Brown f7. Marshall, 241 Mo.
707, 145 8. W. 810.
31-63 Barnes v, 6. (Fla.), 67 8. 131.
32-67 Liverpool & London & Globe
Ins. Co. T. People's Bank (Ga.), 85 S.
£. 114; Jones v. McClaughry (la.), 151
N. W. 210; Union Pac. By. Co. v. Hand,
7 Kan. 380; Brown r. S. (Okla. Cr.),
148 P. 181; Tucker v. S., 10 Okla. Cr.
565, 139 P. 998; St. Louis & S. F.
B. Co. V. James, 36 Okla. 196, 128 P.
279; First Christian Church v. Bobb,
69 Or. 283, 138 P. 856; Glover €. Al-
brecht (Tex. Civ.), 173 8. W. 504; S.
V. McBain, 102 Wis. 431, 78 N. W.
602.
32-68 Liverpool So London & Globe
Ins. Co. V. People's Bank (Ga.), 85 S.
E. 114; Jones V. McClaughry (la.)f 151
N. W. 210; Union Pac. By. Co. v. Hand,
7 Kan. 380; Hardee v. Timberlake, 159
N. O. 552, 75 8. E. 799; Brown t?. S.
(Okla. Cr.), 148 P. 181; Tucker v. 8.,
10 Okla. Cr. 565, 139 P. 998; St. Louis
Sb S. F. B. Co. V, James, 36 Okla. 196,
128 P. 279; Glover v, Albrecht (Tex.
Civ.), 173 S. W. 504; S. v. McBain, 102
Wis. 431, 78 N. W. 602.
Court cannot shorten a term. — Colonial
877
Vol 6
COVRTS
Homes B. & I. Go. v. Sample. 136 La.
195, 66 S. 788.
32-69 Colonial Homes B. & I. Co. v.
Sample, 136 La. 195, 66 S. 788.
32-70 Tucker v. S., 10 Okla. Or. 665,
137 P. 998; St. Louig & S, P. B. Co.
17. James, 36 Okla. 196, 128 P. 279,
quot, from In re Dossett, 2 Okla. 369,
37 P. 1066; First Christian Church v.
Bobb, 69 Or. 283, 138 P. 856.
Where Monday is the day designated
for the beginning of the terms in the
several counties, the term in one county
does not ipso facto end the Saturday
at midnight preceding the Monday fixed
for the beginnilig of the term in an-
other county. Barnes v, S. (Fla.), 67
S. 131.
33-71 Loewe v, TJnion Sav. Bank, 222
Fed. 342.
33-73 S. V, Bohrer (Ohio), 107* N. E.
513.
33-75 Moerecke v. Branyan (Ind.),
108 N. E. 948; Brown v. S. (Tex. Or.),
169 S. W, 437 (construing art. 1726,
Bev. St., 1909); Sharp v, S. (Tex. Or.),
160 S. W. 369.
34-77 Holman v, Hogg, 83 Mo, App.
370.
Absence of presiding Jndge.— A term is
not invalidated by the fact that the
presiding judge was unable to be pres-
ent at the opening of the special ses-
sion, where the assistant judges had
the power to open court, and to keep
it adjourned from time to time. S. v,
Alpert, 87 Vt. 162, 88 A. 537; S. v.
Alfred, 87 Vt. 157, 88 A. 534.
34-79 St. Louis & S. F. B. Co." v.
James, 36 Okla. 196, 128 P. 279.
35-80 See the statutes of the various
states and the following: Kan. Bev. St.,
1909, §3869; Grant City v. Simmons, 167
Mo. App. 183, 151 S. W. 187; Creed v,
S. (Tex. Or.), 155 S. W. 240.
35^1 McVay v, S., 104 Ark. 629,
150 S. W. 125.
36-89 Ex parte Daly, 66 Fla. 345, 63
S. 834. '
36-90 Athens t?. MUler (Ala.), 66 S.
702.
37-92 S. V. Alpert," 87 Vt. 162, 88 A.
537; S. V, Alfred, 87 Vt. 157, 88 A.
534.
^7.'^?. Ooulson V. S., 13 Ga. App.
148, 78 S, E. 1108; Graham v. C, 164
F^vi^^' ^^^ ®- ^' ^81; Edwards v,
S. (Tex. Op.), 172 S. W. 227; ValdezI
17. S. (Tex. Or.), 160 &. W. 341; fix
parte Martinez (Tex. Cr.), 145 S. W.
969; Browder t?. Memphis Independent
School Dist. (Tex. Civ.), 172 S. W.
152; S. V. Alpert, 87 Vt. 162, 88 A.
537; S. c. Alfred, 87 Vt. 157, 88 A.
534.
37-96 "Where the public welfare x^
Quires it, etc. — Lawrason i?. Swartz, 132
La. 511, 61 S. 554; S. i?. Alfred, 87 Vt.
157, 88 A. 534; S. v, Alpert, 87 Vt. 162,
88 A. 537. '
When necesBary.— In re Griffin,'177 Ala.
243, 59 S. 303.
The diflcretion of the Judge in calling
a special session is not subject to re-
view in the supreme court. Graham i;.
C, 164 Ky. 317, 175 S. W. 981; 8. v.
Alfred, 87 Vt. 157, 88 A. 534; S. v.
Alpert, 87 Vt. 162, 88 A. 537.
The record need not recite that in "the
opinion of the judge a special term was
necessary. Grant v, S., 62 Ala. 233.
38-99 Mayhew t?. S. (Tex. Cr.), 155
S. W. 191.
58-8 Hill r. S., 100 Ark. 373, 140
S. W. 576.
Ajnending defective order.— A defective
order calling a special term can be
validated by an amendment nunc pro
tunc after trial had at such term.
Beece v. S. (Ark.), 176 S. W. 165.
39-4 Beece t?. S. (Ark.), 176 S. W.
165.
39-5 Beams v. Kearns, 5 Coldw.
(Tenn.) 217; Hamilton v. Tucker Coun-
ty Court, 38 W. Va. 71, 18 S. E. 8;
Mayer v. Adams, 27 W. Va. 244.
39-6 In re Griffin, 177 Ala. 243, 59
S. 303; Graham v. C, 164 Ky. 317, 175
S. W. 981.
39-7 S. D. Alpert, 87 Vt. 162, 88 A.
537; S. V. Alfred, 87 Vt. 157, 88 A.
534; S. V. Hoke (W. Va.), 84 S. E.
1054.
39-11 Athens v. Miller (Ala.), 66 S.
702; Ashford «?. McKee, 183 Ala. 620,
62 S. 879; McVay v, S., 104 Ark. 629.
150 S. W. 125.
40-15 Hays v. S. (Ga. App.), 84 S. E.
497; Alabama B. Co. v, Dalton, 86 Miss.
299, 38 S. 285; Green t?. Morse, 57 Neb.
391 77 N. W. 925, 73 Am. St. 518; P.
r. Sullivan, 115 K T. 185, 21 N. E.
1039; Tucker v, S., 10 Okla. Cr. 565,
139 P. 998.
Courts have inherent power to control
the times of adjaunmeiil^ or to extend
37J
COVBTS
Vol. 6
the terms as the business of the court
may require, and this power should not
be restricted unless it is clear that it
is the lenslatiTe intent to do so. Hor-
kan V. Beasley, 11 Qa. App. 273, 76
S. £. 341.
41-19 Kneeland v. Wayne County
Nat. Bank, 38 Okla. 470, 134 P. 17,
construing effect of ch. 102, Laws, 1910,
upon power of sheriff to adjourn reg-
ular and special term from day to day
until judge attended to convene court.
41-20 Bescisslon of order of ad-
Jonnunent should in a proper case be
made by the court. Colonial Homes
B. & I. Co. V, Sample, 136 La. 195, 66
S. 794.
41-21 Ex parte Baldwin (Ark.), 176
S. W. 680; McVay v, S., 104 Ark. 629,
150 S. W. 125; Tucker v. S., 10 Okla.
Cr. 565, 139 P. 998.
42-22 Conlson v, S., 13 6a. App. 148,
78 8. E. 1108; Virginia Beach Develop-
ment Co. V. Murray, 113 Va. 692, 75
8. £. 81.
42-24 No exact formula or words
necessary in adjourning a term of court.
Liverpool & London & Globe Ins. Co.
V. People's Bank (Ga.), 85 8. E. 114.
43-30 The court in Ex parte Bald-
win (Ark.), 176 8. W. 680, says: "Wo
have no doubt of the power of the
eourt, even if in fact an order of ad-
journment has been announced, to re-
convene the court and change that ordci*
and proceed with other business."
44-34 Jones v. McClaughry (la.), 151
N. W. 210.
44-35 Yon Schmidt v. Widber, 99
Cal. 511, 34 P. 109.
Vacation period may be shortened by
an order entered on the minutes. Col-
onial Homes R. 8b I. Co. r. Sample, 136
La. 195, 66 S. 788.
45-39 Tucker v. Huson Ice So Mach.
Wks., 142 Ga. 83, 82 8. E. 496; Cam-
eron v. Clinton, 259 111. 599, 102 N. E.
1000.
46-43 Moore v, McGuire, 26 Ala.
461; 8. 17. Woodson, 161 Mo. 444, 61
8. W. 252.
48-56 Cannot file motion out of
time. — ^Parties cannot stipulate to file
a motion out of the time specified by
statute, and a cvstom of the court and
attorneys to treat the court as con-
structively in session after adjourn-
ment cannot validate such motion. 8.
p. Coleman, 182 Mo. App. 358, 170 8.
W. 442.
5a-7T Shea v. Starr, 76 X. H. 538,
85 A. 788.
55-24 Bozier v. Williams, 92 Bl. 187;
Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Surprise. 53
Ind. App. 286, 97 N. £. 357, 99 N. £.
58; In re Evans, 42 Utah 282, 130
P. 217.
56-29 Yazoo & M. V. B. Co. v. Kirk,
102 Miss. 41, 58 8. 710, 834, Ann. Cas.
1914C, 968, 42 L. E. A. (N. 8.) 1172.
Bnles of state court not binding on
federal court. Southern By. Co. v.
Smith, 214 Fed. 942, 131 C. C. A. 238.
57-30 In Texas.— Bev. Civ. St., 1911,
art. 1524; McElroy t?. 8. (Tex. Cr.),
172 8. W. 1144; Cooney v. Dandridge
(Tex. Civ.), 158 S. W. 177; El Paso
Electric By. Co. v, Lee (Tex. Civ.),
157 8. W. 748; Peck v. Morgan (Tex.
Civ.), 156 8. W. 917; Ft. Worth & D. C.
B. Co. f?. Wilkinson (JTex. Civ.), 152
8. W. 203.
58-40 Sea v. Glover, 1 111. App. 335;
E. F. Bowson & Co. v. McKinney (Tex.
Civ.), 154 8. W. 603.
6G-41 Hamilton v. Fowler, 83 Fed.
321; Gray v. Chicago, I. & N. B. Co.,
M) Fed. Cas. No. 5,713; Holder Tur-
pentine Co. V. M. C. Kiser Co. (Fla.)>
67 8. 85; Assets Adjust. Co. f?. Atkin-
son, etc., 180 111. App. 296; Mynor 17.
Hammar Bros., 173 111. App. 507; Pur-
cell 17. Hannibal & 8. J. B. Co., 50 Mo.
506; McElroy v. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 172 8.
Av. 1144; Johnson V, 8., 49 Teoc. Cr.
429, 93 8. W. 735; Missouri, K. & T.
.:. Co. V. Beasley (Tex.), 155 8. W.
:83; International & G. N. B. Co. v.
Parke (Tex. Civ.), 169 8. W. 397; Conn
i\ Bosamond (Tex. Civ.), 161 8. W. 73;
St. Louis, I. M. & 8. B. Co. v. West
Bros. (Tex. Civ.), 159 8. W. 142; E. F.
Bowson & Co. 17. McKinney (Tex. Civ.),
154 S. W. 603; Ft. Worth & D. C. B.
Co. 17. Wilkinson (Tex. Civ.), 152 8. W.
203.
50-43 Angel 17. Plume & Atwood
Mfg. Co., 73 111. 412; Federal Cement
Tile Co. 17. Korflf, 50 Ind. App. 608, 97
N. E. 185; Main 17. Lynch, 54 Md.
658; Ackerman v, Ackerman, 123 App.
Div. 750, 108 N. Y. S. 534; Jones 17.
Brown, 1 Pa. Dist. 675.
60-44 Saylor r. Taylor, 77 Fed. 476,
23 C. C. A. 343; Assets Adjust. Co. t\
Atkinson, etc., 180 III. App. 296; Ken-
nedy 17. Meredith, 3 Bibb (Ky.) 465;
Bell 17. North, 4 Litt. (Ky.) 133; S.
17. Posey, 17 La. Ann. 253, 87 Am,
Dec. 525.
879
Vol. 6
COURTS
60-48 Voight Brew. Co. f?. Circuit
Judge, 108 Mich. 356, 66 N. W. 217.
60-49 Odegard v. North Wis. Lamb.
Co., 130 Wis. 659, 110 N. W. 809.
61-52 Notice of setting for trial.
Hayden v. Superior Court, 22 Cal. App.
23, 133 P. 26.
61-53 Bnles requiring afllclaTltB of
defense from executors and administra-
tors. Lowenstein v. Michael, 55 Pa.
Super. 628.
Bule aboUdilng pleadings In monlclpal
court. — Weil v. Federal Life Ins. Co.,
264 111. 425, 106 N. E, 246.
61-58 Fry t?. Hoffman, 54 Ind. App.
434, 102 N. E. 167, 108 N. E. 15.
61-62 Motion to dismiss appeal. — ^Er-
vin V. Missouri & K. T. Co., 173 Mo.
App. 508, 158 S. W. 913.
Defining costs /illowable to prevailing
party on appeal. Bond v. United B. B.,
20 Cal. App. 124, 128 P. 786.
62-63 Begulating consideration of
errors on motion for new trial. Jacks
V. Williams-Bobinson L. Co., 125 Tenn.
123, 140 S. W. 1066.
63-75 Murphy t\ Gould, 39 App. Cas.
(D. C.) 363; Magnuson v. Billings, 152
Ind. 177, 52 N. E. 803: Chicago, L &
L. By. Co. V, Priddy (Ind. App.)', 108
N. B. 238; Fort 17. White (Ind. App.),
108 N. E. 27; Webster v. Bligh, 50 Ind.
App. 56, 98 N. E. 73; Price v. Swartz,
49 Ind. App. 627, 97 N. E. 938; Al-
baugh Bros., Drover & Co. v, Lynas, 47
Ind. App. 30, 93 N. E. 678; Horseman
V. Furbush, 124 Md. 581, 93 A. 149;
Main 17. Lynch, 54 Md. 658; Beco v.
Tonopah Extension Min. Co. (Nev.),
141 P. 453; Cohen 17. Cohen, 160 App.
Div. 240, 145 N. Y. S. 652; Inchausti
& Co. V. De Leon, 24 Phil. Isl. 224;
St. Germain v. Bouchard, 36 B. I. 35,
88 A. 802; International & G. N. By.
Co. 17. Parke (Tex. Civ.), 169 S. W.
397; Childress v. Bobinson (Tex. Civ.),
161 S. W. 78.
64-76 Harden u. Superior Court, 22
Cal. App. 23, 133 P. 26; Murphy 1\
Gould, 39 App. Cas. (D. C.) 363;
District of Columbia v. Humphries, 11
App. Cas. (D. C.) 68; Hoodless r. Jer-
nigan, 46 Fla. 213, 35 S. 656; Chicago,
I. & L. By. Co. V. Priddy (Ind. App.),
108 N. E. 238; Webster t?. Bligh, 50
Ind. App. 56, 98 N. E. 73; Price i?.
Swartz, 49 Ind. App. 627, 97 N. E.
938; Dillon 17. S., 48 Ind. App. 495, 96
N, £. 171; Albaugh Bros., Drover &
Co. 17. Lynas, 47 Ind. App. 30, 93 N. E.
678; Beco 17. Tonopah Extension Min.
Co. (Nov.), 141 P. 453.
64-T7 Murphy i?. Gould, 39 App. Cas.
(D. C.) 363.
65-78 Hayden r. Superior Court, 22
Cal. App. 23, 133 P. 26; Murphy v.
Gould, 39 App. Cas. (D. C.) 363; Dis-
trict of Columbia 17. Humphries, 11 App.
Cas. (D. C.) 68; Klinesmith 17. Van
Bramer, 104 HI. App. 384; Hopper r.
Mather, 104 111. App. 309; Chicago, I.
& L. By. Co. 17. Priddy (Ind. App.), 108
N. E. 238; Webster r. Bligh, ^0 Ind.
App. 56, 98 N. E. 73; Price 17. Swartz,
49 Ind. App. 627, 97 N. E. 938; Al-
baugh Bros., Drover & Co. v. Lynas,
47 Ind. App. 30, 93 N. E. 678; National
Loan & Inv. Co. 17. Bleasdale, 159 la.
529, 141 N. W. 456; Beco 17. Tonopah
Extension Min. Co. (Nev.), 141 P. 453,
approving dissenting opinion by Chief
Justice in Adams t7. Bogers, 31 Nev.
150, 101 P. 317.
66-89 The laws authorising the mak-
ing of such rules must be considered
in construing them. Missouri, etc. By.
Co. 17. Beasley (Tex.), 155 S. W. 183;
Ft. Worth & D. C. By. Co. 17. Wilkin-
son (Tex. Civ.), 152 S. W. 203.
67-05 Smith 17. Smith, 49 Pa. Super.
423.
68-99 Dalton v, Begister & Co., 248
Mo. 150, 154 S. W. 67.
68-2 Beco 17. Tonopah Extension Min.
Co. (Nev.), 141 P. 453 (approving dis-
senting opinion by Chief Justice in
Adams 17. Bogers, 31 Nev. 150, 101 P.
317); In re Evans, 42 Utah 282, 130
P. 217.
The court of appeals will enforce the
rules made by the supreme court for
the government of inferior courts. Peck
17. Morgan (Tex. Civ.), 166 S. W. 917;
Tinsley c. Bottom (Tex. Civ.), 155
S. W. 1053.
68-4 Tinsley 17. Bottom (Tex. Civ.),
155 S. W. 1053.
70-17 District of Columbia r. Hum-
phries, 11 App. Cas. (D. C.) 68; Price
V. Swartz, 49 Ind. App. 627, 97 N. E.
938; Albaugh Bros., Drover ft Co. 17.
Lynas, 47 Ind. App. 30, 93 N. E. 678;
Walker 17. Ducros, 18 La. Ann. 703;
Baker 17. S., 84 Wis. 584, 54 N. W.
1003.
70-18 Poultney r. La Fayette, 12 Pet.
(U. S.) 472, 9 L. ed. 1161; Omaha Elec-
tric L. & P. Co. 17. Omaha (C. C. A.),
380
COVETS MARTIAL
Yol 6
216 Fed. 848; Burget e. Bobinsoxi, 123 i
Fed. 262, 59 €. C. A. 260; White v.
Superior Court, 110 Oal. 60, 42 P. 480;
P. €. Demaaters, 105 Oal. 669, 39 P.
35; Shea V. Starr, 76 N. H. 538, 85
A. 788; Logan's Est., 213 Pa. 218, 62
A. 843; Greene V. Harris, 11 B. 1. 5;
Oibbes 9. Greenville, etc. B. Co., 14
a G. 385; Mills v. Bagby, 4 Tex. 320;
Be Leon «. Owen, 3 Tex. 153; Hudson
I?. Kline, 9 Gratt, (Va.), 379; Suffield
V, Bond, 10 Beav. 146, 50 Eng. Beprint
538; Butler r. Bulkeley, 2 Swanst. 373,
36 Eng. Beprint 658; Daniel r. Fal-
mouth, 5 L. J. Ch. 69.
74-43 McAulay v. McAulay, 96 S. 0.
86, 79 S. E. 785.
7T-61 Seaboard Air Line By. r. Bail-
road Com., 213 Fed. 27, 129 C. C. A.
613; Lykins I'. Chesapeake ft O. By.
Co., 209 Fed. 573, 126 C. 0. A. 395;
Birmingham Waterworks Co. v, Bir-
mingham, 211 Fed. 497.
In ordsr to rsrene a Judgment of lowet
court, there must be a concurrence of
three justices. McAulay r. McAulay,
96 S. C. 86, 79 S. E. 785.
The coneoxrence of four Jnstioes is
necessary in the decision of a case be-
fore the supreme court in banc. Del
Mar Water, etc. Co. v. Eshleman, 167
Cal. 666, 140 P. 591, 948.
77-62 Number of judges necessary
to hear and determine application for
interlocutory injunction suspending the
enforcement of a state statute upon
ground of unconstitutionality. Judicial
Code, 1266; Louisville & N. B. Co. v.
Bailroad Com., 208 Fed. 35.
86-21 The chancellor cannot file an
opinion as being ''by the court" when
his two colleagues had not heard the
case. Ebling 1?. Borough of Schuylkill
Haven, 244 Pa. 505, 91 A. 360.
87-28 Fink i>, San Augustine Gro-
eery Co. (Tex. Civ.), 1^7 8. W. 35.
Hisdemoaaor and felony cases* — ^Tucker
V. S., 7 Okla. Cr. 634, 124 P. 1134, 125
P. 1089.
Beasons for oondnsiona of courts — ^The
court should follow its own discretion
as to the degree of elaboration to be
accorded to the treatment of any
proposition and as to the questions
which are worthy of notice at all. P.
r. Burke, 18 CaL App. 72, 122 P. 435.
91-47 Skipper v. Kingsdale Lumb.
Co., 158 N. C. 322, 74 S. E. 342.
•t-49 A dlscnssiQn of tbo facts of
a case by an appellate court should not
be indulged in unless such discussion
tends to illuminate some legal principle
involved in the case. Bittenberry v,
Wharton, 182 Ala. 388, 62 S. 672.
91-53 See Burbank v, Ernst, 232 TJ.
S. 162, 34 Sup. Ct. 299, 58 L. ed. 551.
93-61 The written opinion contained
in the record may be adopted by the
appellate court as its own. Kenton
Water Co. v. Covington, 156 Ky. 569,
161 S. W. 988.
OOXTBTS MABTIAIa
98-7 A court martial Is not a court
within the meaning of {{85 and 86 of
the state constitution, nor within mean-
ing of 17810, Bev. Codes, but it is
a tribunal within the meaning of {7810,
Bev. Codes, 1905. S. i;. Peake, 22 N. D.
457, 135 N. W. 197.
Constitutional vrovislons^ ^^^ While
^'courts martial '^ discharge judicial
functions and are in a sense courts,
they are not within the meaning of a
state constitution declaring that the
judicial power of the state shall be
vested in certain named courts. S. r.
Long, 136 La. 1, 66 S. 377.
99-10 S. i;. Peake, 22 N. D. 457, 135
N. W. m.
108-63 IT. S. V. Colley, 3 PhiL Isl.
58; U. S. Tubig, 3 Phil. Isl. 244.
Philippine scoats are an integral part
of the regular army of the United
States and are not included in ''other
forces" whose officers may not be
tried by officers of the regular army
within meaning of the 77th Art. of War.
Atkinson V. Stewart, 23 Phil. Isl. 405.
110-76 No jurisdiction over person
serving in regiment of volunteers and
not mustered into service of United
States. Craycroft t. U. S., 48 Ct. CL
(U. 8.) 6.
111-77 {25 of ch. 5930 of the Laws
of Florida embraces commissioned offi-
cers of the national guard. Bowling r.
Lee (Fla.), 66 S. 142.
121-48 Promulgation of sentence is
for information and does not affect the
validity of the sentence. Lyon v, U. S.,
48 Ct. CI. (U. S.) 30.
128-97 n. a V. Colley, 3 Phil. Isl.
58.
128-99 An acquittal of manslaughter
by a court martial in time of peace
I does not bar a prosecution by the civil
38X
Vol.^
COVENANT, ACTION OF
government for murder on the same
facts. U. S. 1?. Grafton, 6 Phil. Isl.
65.
120-3 Kullan «. IT. S., 212 TJ. S. 516,
29 Sup. Ct. 330, 53 L. ed. 632; Ex parte
Tucker, 212 Fed. 569; Ex parte Dickey,
204 Fed. 322; Melvin v. V. S., 45 Ct.
CI. (U. S.) 213: Dowling t?. Lee (Fla.),
66 S. 142; U. 8. t?. CoUey, 3 PhU. Isl.
58.
130-4 Comp. Craycroft v. U. S., 48
Ct. CI. (U. S.) 5.
130-5 Ex parte Dickey, 204 Fed.
322; Dowling t\ Lee (Fla.), 66 8. 142.
130-6 8. V, Long, 136 La. 1, 66 8.
377.
131-7 Dowling v. Lee (Fla.), 66 8.
142; S. V. Long, 136 La. 1, 66 8. 377.
131-8 8. V. Peake, 22 N. D. 457, 135
N. W. 197.
OOVENANT, ACTION OF
134-1 Carroll t\ Cohen (Del.), 91 A.
1001.
For breach of a coyenant of lease by
which lessee was to make certain use
of hay raised on leased premises, the
action in covenant is a proper remedy.
Freeman v. Barnes, 162 111. App. 18.
134-2 Badzinski v. Ahlswede, 185 HI.
App. 513.
Agreement modified. — ^If on any ground
it can be held that the agreement un-
der seal declared on was modified by
previous parol agreement, or that it
was modified by a subsequent parol
agreement on a point essential to de-
fendant's liability, covenant is not the
proper form of action for the breach.
Badzinski v, Ahlswede, 185 HI. App.
513.
135-5 A cotmt in assumpsit may be
Joined with a count in covenant, under
B. I. Gen, Laws, 1909, ch. 283, §26.
Bowter v, 8eekonk Lace Co., 34 B. I.
304, 83 A. 437.
148-47 Jobbins v, Kendall Mfg. Co.,
196 Fed. 216.
158-6T Nil debet not a proper plea.
Badzinski v, Ahlswede, 185 111. App.
613.
158-68 Kon damnlflcatus not a prop-
er plea. Badzinski 17. Ahlswede, 185
HL App. 513.
CfKEDiTOBs* sxnrs
168-2 Lakin v. Chartered Co. of Low-
f^ California, 111 Me. 556, 90 A. 427;
Coleman v. Hagey, 252 Mo. 102, 158
8. W. 829.
169-5 Bruce v. Hoidal, 110 Minn.
362, 138 N. W. 313; Parsons v. Cathers,
92 Neb. 525, 138 N. W. 747; Ocean Nat.
Bank v. Olcott, 46 N. Y. 12; Marsullo
V. Bosendorf, 89 Misc. 559, 152 N. Y.
8. 51; Fisher V, Johnson, 152 N. Y. 8.
944; Byckman V. Manerud, 68 Or. 350,
136 P. 826.
Exception is made where the action is
to set aside a fraudulent conveyance.
See Fidelity Mortgage Bond. Co. v,
Morris (Ala.), 68 8. 153 (where the
court makes the general statement that
'4n this state the creditor may resort
to equity without exhausting his ordi-
nary remedy at law," but the action
is one to set aside a fraudulent con-
veyance), cit. Freeman t?. Pullen, 119
Ala. 235, 24 8. 57.
Creditors' suit in aid of attachment.
In Oregon it appears to be settled that
the commencement of an action at law,
and the attaching of the debtor's prop-
erty, constitute a sufficient foundation
for the commencement of a creditor's
suit. Byckman v. Manerudi 68 Or. 350,
136 P. 826.
172-6 Boise Butcher Co. v. Anizdale,
26 Ida. 483, 144 P. 337; Com v. Green-
berg, 181 HI. App. 669; Lakin «. Char-
tered Co. of Lower CaUfomiai 111 Me.
556, 90 A. 427; Holmes V, Webster
(Neb.), 152 N. W. 312; Parsons D.
Gathers, 92 Neb. 525, 138 N. W. 747.
174-T Holmes V. Webster (Neb.), 152
N. W. 312.
174-10 Bruce v. Hoidal, 119 Minn.
362, 138 N. W. 313; Heaton v. Dick-
son Co., 153 Mo. App. 312, 133 8. W.
159.
175-12 Bruce v. Hoidal, 119 Minn.
362, 138 N. W. 313.
175-13 American Brake 8. & F. Co.
V. Pere Marquette B. Co., 205 Fed. 14,
123 C. 0. A. 322.
175-15 American Brake 8. & F. Co.
V. Pere Marquette B. Co.| 205 Fed. 14,
123 C. 0. A. 322.
175-17 See Lakin 17. Chartered Co.
of Lower California, 111 Me. 556, 90
A. 427.
177-21 Com f?. Greenberg, 181 HI.
App. 669; Lakin V, Chartered Co. of
Lower California, 111 Me. 556, 90 A.
427; Parsons r. Gathers, 92 Neb. 52*5,
138 N. W. 747; Fisher 9. Johnson. 15^
N. Y. S. 944,
m
CROSS-BILL
Vol. 6
170-22 Corn r. Qreenberg, 181 Bl.
App. 669; IiakixL v. Chartered Co. of
Lower California, 111 Me. 556, 90 A.
427; Parsons V. Cathers, 92 Neb. 525,
138 N. W. 747; Demuth v. Kemp, 159
App. Div. 422, 144 N. Y. S. 690.
Betum conclusive. — ^Rowley v. Shepard-
son, 87 Vt. 57, 87 A. 528.
An execution issued on the Judgment
of a Justice of tbe peace and returned
unsatisfied is a sufficient compliance
with the requirements of the law to
show that all legal means have been
exhausted. Corn v, Qreenberg, 181 111.
App. 669.
182-30 Foreign insolvent corporation
which has ceased to do business in this
state. De Field v. Harding Dredge Co.,
180 Mo. App. 563, 167 S. W. 593.
183-32 Corn v. Greenberg, 181 HI.
App. 669. Comp. Elliott v. Kyle, 176
Ala. 167, 67 S. 752, holding that it
is unnecessary under the statute for
the complainant to bring suit in Ala-
bama upon his judgment in Tennessee,
and to obtain judgment thereon in
Alabama before maintaining the bilL
184-35 Corn r. Greenberg, 181 HI.
App. 669.
184-36 A creditor's bill may be
maintained in the circuit court upon
a judgment obtained in the municipal
court. Corn v. Greenberg, 181 HI. App.
669.
186-46 Waiver by filing answer.
After defendant has filed an answer
admitting the indebtedness to complain-
ant and consented to appointment of
receivers, and the receivers have en-
tered upon their duties, it is too late
to urge that complainant has not ex-
hausted his legal remedies. Yaryan
Naval Stores Co» v, B. Borchardt Co.
(C. C. A.), 217 Fed. 758.
198-11 Another creditor, who is pro-
ceeding by mortgage foreclosure to sell
a part of the land involved in the
relief sought by the plaintiff, is proper
party defendant. Bryant V, Thomas
(Ga.), 84 a K 739.
199-17 Boss V. Nichols, 25 Colo. App.
409, 138 P. 1013.
226-31 Crawford c. Wayne Circ.
Judge, 173 Mich. 109, 138 N. W. 705.
Where debtor's securities are of greater
value than the indebtedness, excess
may be reached. Davis v, Hincke, 183
HL App. 475.
240-12 Eastern Bridge & Structural
Co. t?. Worcester Aud. Co., 216 Mass.
426, 103 N. E. 913.
242-21 Morris v, Baird, 72 W. Va.
1, 78 8. E. 371, Ann. Cas. 1915A, 1273.
246-29 Decree may be in alternative
either to rent property if in five years
such rent would be sufficient to pay
liens or, if not, then to sell property.
Stafford v. Jones, 73 W. Va. 299, 80
S. E. 825.
OBIMINAIi CONVEBSATIOK
253-12 Jenness i'. Simpson, 84 Vt.
127, 78 A. 886.
253-16 Sunanday v, McKently, 244
Pa. 533, 90 A. 799.
256-34 That the wife is immoral and
had sexual relations with other men
without the knowledge of her husband,
is not provable in mitigation of dam-
ages. Scheffler 17. Bobinson, 159 Mo.
App. 527, 141 S. W. 485.
As to wife's nnchastity. — ^Hardy v.
Bach, 173 111. App. 123; Smith v, Hock-
enberry, 138 Mich. 129, 101 N. W. 207.
256-39 Marriage of defendant and
plaintiff's wife after void divorce.
Berney v. Adriance, 157 App. Div. 628,
142 N. Y. S. 748.
257-40 Swearingen v. Bray (Tez.
Civ.), 157 S. W. 953.
257-41 Kinkead v, Kennedy (la.),
133 N. W. 114.
257-43 Frederick v. Morse (Vt.)i 92
A. 16.
OBOSS-BILL
261-1 Lovell V. Latham & Co., 211
Fed. 374; Newberry V. Blatchford, 106
111. 584.
An original bill in the nature of a
cross-bill is distinguished from a cross-
bill in that it is a pleading filed by
leave of the chancellor by a person
not a party to the original suit, and
between whom and the complainant
there is no privity. Beynolds Co. v,
Beynolds (Ala.), 67 S. 293.
261-2 Ex parte Bailroad Co., 95 U.
S. 221, 24 L. ed. 355; Lovell v. Latham
& Co., 211 Fed. 374; Magruder r. Hat-
tiesburg T. & B. Co. (Miss.), 67 S. 485;
Thomason v. Neeley, 50 Miss. 310; Ful-
ton V. Fisher, 239 Mo. 116, 143 S. W.
438; Bacharach v. Bartlett, 81 N. J.
Eq. 248, 86 A. 966.
261-3 Ex parte Bailroad Co., 95 U,
S. 221, 24 L, ed. 355,
88^
Vol. 6
CROSS-BILL
262-5 Freeland v. South Penn Oil
Co., 189 Pa. 54, 41 A. 1000; Eason v.
Lyons, 114 Va. 390, 76 S. E. 957; Scott
17. Bowland, 82 Ya. 484, 4 S. E. 595.
262-6 McWhorter v. Ford, 142 Ga.
554, 83 S. E. 134; Hamalle v. Lebens-
berger, 267 111. 602, 108 N. E. 669;
HcConnel v. Smith, 23 111. 560; Arm-
strong V. Pierson, 5 la. 317; Martin v.
Murphy, 216 Mass. 466, 103 N. E. 930;
Matthews t^. Colburn, 215 Mass. 571,
102 N. E. 941; United Trust Co. t?.
Beed, 213 Mass. 199, 99 N. E. 1093;
Bassill 17. Bassill, 207 Mass. 365, 93
N. E. 600; Freeland 1?. South Penn Oil
Co., 189 Pa. 54, 41 A. 1000; Myers r.
Northcutt, 127 Tenn. 54, 152 S. W.
1034; Eason u. Lyons, 114 Va. 390, 76
S. E. 957; Freeman v. Egnor, 72 W.
Va. 830, 79 S. E. 824. See Edwards
17. Hudson, 165 111. App. 521.
''A cross-bill for relief is proper in
cases where, in the original suit, all
things in litigation touching the sub-
ject-matter cannot be brought before
the court, but the defendant, in order
to obtain a complete settlement of the
controversy, is entitled to some relief
which the scope of the plaintiff's suit
will not afford him." Bichards i?. Todd,
127 Mass. 167.
263-8 Hutson r. Wood, 263 HI. 376,
105 N. E. 343; Newberry 17. Blatchford,
106 m. 584; Martin 17. Murphy, 216
Mass. 466, 103 N. E. 930; Fulton V.
Fisher, 239 Mo. 116, 143 S. W. 438.
264-9 Hutson v. Wood, 263 111. 376,
105 N. E. 343; Martin i?. Murphy, 216
Mass. 466, 103 N. E; 930; Fulton 17.
Fisher, 239 Mo. 116, 143 S. W. 438.
264-10 Martin 17. Murphy, 216 Mass.
466, 103 N. E. 930; Fulton 1?. Fisher,
239 Mo. 116, 143 S. W. 438.
264-12 Newberry i?. Blatchford, 106
111. 584; Meurer 17. Stokes, 246 Pa. 393,
92 A. 506.
265-13 Fulton 17. Fisher, 239 Mo.
116, 143 S. W. 438.
265-15 Ex parte Bailroad Co., 95 U.
S. 221, 24 L. ed. 355; Buckner i?. Buck-
ner, 170 111. App. 314; Jewett 17. Iowa
Land Co., 64 Minn. 531, 67 N. W. 639,
58 Am. St. 555; Magruder 17. Hatties-
burg T. & B. Co. (Miss.), 67 S. 485;
Thomason 17. Neeley, 50 Miss. 310.
267-16 Thomason 17. Neeley, 50 Miss.
810; Averill i?. Vermont Valley B. B.
(Vt.), 92 A. 220.
267-18 O'Kelley i?. aark, 184 Ala.
391, 63 S. 948; Tarr v. Stearman, 264
111. 110, 105 N. E. 957 (even though it
be conceded that he is entitled to such
relief); Jackson 17. Sackett, 146 111.
646, 35 N. E. 234; Traders' Ins. Co.
17. Bace, 142 HI. 338, 31 N. E. 392;
HoUaday 17. Johnson, 12 la. 563; Hol-
brook'i7. Schofield, 211 Mass. 234, 98
N. E. 97; Duryee 17. Linsheimer, 27 N.
J. Eq. 366; Scott 17. Lalor's Exrs., 18
N. J. Eq. 301; McCune 17. Lytle, 197
Pa. 404, 97 A. 190; WiUiams 17. Church,
193 Pa. 120, 44 A. 272; Davis v. Willig,
56 Pa. Super. 423.
267-19 Masterson 17. Masterson, 32
Ala. 437; United States FideUty & G.
Co. 17. Newark, 72 N. J. Eq. 841, 66
A. 904; Johnson 17. Butler, 31 N. J.
Eq. 35 (settle affairs of partnership and
to account); Scott 17. Lalor's Exrs., 18
N. J. Eq. 301; McCune 1?. Lytle, 197
Pa. 404, 47 A. 190 (on a bill of ac-
counting if a balance is found due the
defendant) ; Eakin 17. Biddle, 127 Tenn.
426, 155 S. W. 166; McKee 1?. Dail, 1
Tenn. Ch. App. 689, 696.
Bill for partition.— -On a bill for parti-
tion where the defendant claims the
same relief as is sought by the original
bill, he may have a decree in his favor
without a cross-bill. Freeland 17. South
Penn Oil Co., 189 Pa. 54, 41 A. 1000.
Bill for specific performance* — On a
bill for specific performance where the
defendant sets up in the answer and
proves an agreement different from the
one sought to be enforced, he may have
a decree in his favor without a cross-
bill. Freeland i?. South Penn Oil Co.,
189 Pa. 54, 41 A. 1000.
Theory upon which relief is granted
defendant without cross-bilL — ^Freeland
17. South Penn Oil Co., 189 Pa. 54, 41
A. 1000, quot, from Claskey r. Barr, 48
Fed. 134; McCune 17. Lytle, 197 Pa. 404,
47 A. 190.
271-29 Lovell 17. Latham & Co., 211
Fed. 374; Martin 17. Murphy, 216 Mass.
466, 103 N. E. 930. See Bell 17. Mc-
Laughlin, 183 Ala. 548, 62 S. 798.
272-80 Fulton 17. Fisher, 239 Mo.
116, 143 S. W. 438.
273-37 American Car & F. Co. 17.
Merchants' Despatch Transp. Co., 216
Fed. 904; Hogg 17. Hoag, 107 Fed. 807,
memo, decision in 154 Fed. 1003; Grif-
fin 17. Fries, 23 Fla. 173, 2 S. 266, 11
Am. St. 351; Mississippi Lumb. Co. V*
Joice, 176 HI. App. 108; Daniel 17. Mor-
rison, 6 Dana (Ky.) 182; Wilmer V.
S84
CROSS-COMPLAINT
Vol. 6
Philadelphia & Beading Coal & Iron
Co., 124 Md. 599, 93 A. 157; Hooper v.
Central Trust Co.^ 81 Md. 559, 32 A.
505, 29 L. B. A. 262; Magruder v.
Hattiesburg Trust & Bank. Co. (Miss.),
67 S. 485; Thomason 17. Neeley, 50 Miss.
310; Pulton v. Fisher, 239 Mo. 116, 143
S. W. 438; Schomaker v, Schomaker,
247 Pa. 444, 93 A. 460; Meurer v.
Stokes, 246 Pa. 393, 92 A. 506. See
Hutson V. Wood, 263 HI. 376, 105 N. E.
343; Coombs v. Furey, 255 111. 61, 99
N. E. 78; Carla Land & Irr. Co. v.
Dimmit County Bank (Tex. Civ.), 165
S. W. 897.
The croes-bill is not auxiliary or de-
pendent upon the original suit if the
issue made by the original bill can be
completely disposed of without decid-
ing upon any claim the cross-complain-
ants may have. Lovell v, Latham &
Co., 211 Fed. 374.
275-39 Bacharach v, Bartlett, 81 N.
J. Eq. 248, 86 A. 966.
279-46 Lovell v. Latham & Co., 211
Fed. 374.
280-47 Douglass v, Blake (Ala.), 66
S. 617.
Pleading. — Cross-bill by intervener,
seeking independent and antagonistic
relief may adopt the pleadings and pro-
ceedings of record by reference and
need not recite them. Douglass v.
Blake (Ala.), 66 S. 617.
280-48 In Alabama an intervenor
may file an original bill in the nature
of a cross-bill, this being distinguished
from a cross-bill in that it is a plead-
ing filed by leave of the chancellor,
there being no privity between him and
the complainant. Heynolds Co. v, "Rey-
nolds (Ala.), 67 S. 293.
280-50 Wing v. Little, 267 Dl. 20,
107 N. E. 875.
282-60 Christmas Gold Min. Co. v.
Milliken, 200 Fed. 316; Poiset v. Town-
send, 166 HI. App. 384.
In niinplB, the filing of a cross-bill is
a matter of right, and requires no leave
of court, but it should be filed in proper
time. Beauchamp v. Putnam, 34 111.
378. •
vides that "a defendant in a chancery
suit may make his answer a cross-bill
against the complainant, or his co-
defendant or defendants, or all of them,
and may introduce any new matter
therein material to his defense, and
may require the same to be answered.
Code, 1906, ch. 19, §587; Magruder t?.
Hattiesburg T. & B. Co. (Miss.), 67 S.
485.
289-02 Zerban v. Eidmann, 258 111.
486, 101 N. E. 925; Newberry v.
Blatchford, 106 111. 584; Meurer v.
Stokes, 246 Pa. 393, 92 A. 506.
292-12 Meurer v. Stokes, 246 Pa.
393, 92 A. 506.
292-16 Fulton v. Fisher, 239 Mo. 116,
143' S. W. 438.
293-18 Bell v. McLaughlin, 183 Ala.
548, 62 S. 798; Etowah Min. Co. v.
Wills Valley M. & Mfg. Co., 121 Ala.
672, 25 S. 720; Abels t?. Planters & Mer-
chants Ins. Co., 92 Ala. 382, 9 S. 423;
Fulton V. Fisher, 239 Mo. 116, 143
S. W. 438.
294-22 Kirkpatrick v. Coming, 39 N.
J. Eq. 136.
Where a cross-bill is germane to tbe
issues made by the. original bill and
answer and the original complainant
makes no objection to its filing and
treats it as a proper pleading by an-
swering it, the court may properly make
it the basis of its decrees. Ackley v,
Croucher, 203 111. 530, 68 N. E. 86;
Buckner v. Buckner, 170 HI. App. 314.
Lovell f?. Latham & Co., 211
Fed. 374.
283-63 Christmas Gold Min. Co. t?.
Milliken, 200 Fed. 316.
280-78 Martin r. Murphy, 216 Mass.
466, 103 N. E. 930.
286-81 The SilBsiSBlppi statute pro-
CBOSS-COMPLAINT
299-9 As to filing cross-complaint in
divorce proceedings, see the title "Di-
vorce," vol. 7, p. 780.
300-16 In suit to quiet title a de-
fendant seeking affirmative relief may
have his cross-bill heard even though
the complaint was dismissed as to him.
Kinsella v. Stephenson, 265 HI. 369, 106
N. E. 950.
303-29 Judy v. Woods, 51 Ind. App.
325, 99 N. E. 792; Post v, Veve, 21
P. R. 30; Reserve Loan Life Ins. Co.
V. Benson (Tex. Civ.), 167 S. W. 266,
must contain allegations which, given
every reasonable intendment, would
justify evidence of facts essential to
be shown in order to obtain a judg-
ment.
305-34 Farmer r. Dakin, 28 N, D,
452, 149 N, W, 354.
885
Vol. 6
CBUELTY TO ANIMALS
30e-43 Eeid V. Bagland (Tex. Civ.),
156 8. W. 920.
309-5S Mesker v. Bishop (lad.
App.)^ 103 N. £. 492.
0BXFBLTT TO AKIMAIS
318-21^ SuffleiMit nvenneiit of opi-
tody. — Ajl affidavit alleging that the
defendant confined a cow and failed to
provide the same with proper food,
drink and protection, causing the death
of the cow, gufficiently cluirges that
the accused had the custody of the ani-
mal as owner or otherwise. Christian
f?. S., 171 Ala. 52, 54 S. 1001.
320-37 What constltateg cruelty is
a question of fact for the jury. P. v.
Downs, 136 N. Y. S. 440.
Ctr^TOaCB AND UaAOSS
327-1 Kent v. Patterson, 80 Misc.
660, 141 N. Y. 8. 932.
828-2 Loval t?. Wolf, 179 Ala. 605,
60 S. 298; Louisiana Bed Cypress Co.
V. Gilmors is Co., 13 Ga. App. 472, 79
8. E. 379; Stevens v. Wisconsin Farm
Land Co., 124 Minn. 421, 145 N, W. 173;
Zartner v. George, 156 Wis. 131, 145
N. W. 971.
328-3 Loval v. Wolf, 179 Ala. 605,
60 8. 298; Gonyer v. Williams, 168 Cal.
452, 143 P. 736; Kohn v. Sacramento
Electrie, G. 4 By. Co., 168 Cal. 1, 141
P. 626; Davis v. First Nat. Bank, 118
Cal. 600, 50 P. 666; Minor v. Lynch, 185
111. App. 89.
320-8 P^rks v. Griffith, 123 Md. 233,
91 A. -581; Eussell Miller Mill. Co. v.
Bastasch, 70 Or. 475, 142 P. 355; Charles
Syer & Co. «. Lester, 116 Va. 541, 82
8. E. 122.
330-11 Gladstein v. Levine, 49 Ind.
App. 270, 97 N. E. 184.
330-14 Donnelly v, Chicago City By.
Co., 163 111. App. 7.
331-18 Hamby v, Truitt, 14 Ga. App.
615. 81 8. E. 593; Consolidated Coal Co.
«. Jones & Adams Co., 120 111. App. 139;
Palmer v. Humiston, 87 O. St. 401, 101
N. B. 283; Oregon Pish. Co. V, Elmore
Pack. Co., 69 Or. 340, 138 P. 862; Pat-
ton V. Texas ft P. By. Co. (Tex. Civ.),
137 S. W. 721; Oriental Lumb. Co. v.
Blades Lumb. Co., 103 Va. 730, 50 8.
E. 270. But see Smith & Son v. Bloom,
159 la. 592, 141 N. W. 32, where it
was held that a usage of a business did
not have to be pleaded.
332-20 The court in Oregon Fisheries
Co. V. Elmore Pack. Co., 69 Or. 340, 138
P. 862, says: **If one would rely upon
a custom, he should plead the same, and
not only so, but should state that the
custom was known to the party to be
affected by the same, or should aUege
facts authorizing the conclusion that it
was of such general notoriety that the
other party would be presumed to have
knowledge of the usage."
333-25 Holder v. Swift (Tex. Civ.),
147 S. W. 690.
334-31 Louisiana Bed Cypress Co. c.
GUmore & Co., 13 Ga. App. 472, 79 8,
E. 379.
335-35 See Holder «. Swift (Tex.
Civ.), 147 8. W. 690, as to instruction
submitting issue of general custom.
CUSTOMS DITTIES
340-6 Llmitatiou of Jnrisdictloii.
The jurisdiction extends only to mer-
chandise lawfully entered and regu-
larly invoiced and appraised. In re Chi-
chester, 48 Fed. 281.
340-8 Hilton v, Merritt, 110 IT. 8.
97, 3 Sup. Ct. 548, 28 L. ed. 83.
341-12 Lim Quim v. Collector of
Customs, 23 Phil. Isl. 509.
341-15 Muser 17. Magone, 155 U. 8.
240, 15 Sup. Ct. 77, 39 L. ed. 135 j Hil-
ton 17. Merritt, 110 U. 8. 97, 3 Sup. Ct.
548, 28 L. ed. 83; In re Chichester, 48
Fed. 281; Lim Quim 17. Collector of
Customs, 23 Phil. Isl. 509.
342-91 Saltonstall 17. Birtwell, 66
Fed. 969, 14 C. C. A. 205.
342-25 n. 8. 17. Schefer, 71 Fed. 959.
343-30 Shaw 17. Prior, 68 Fed. 421.
Collector eaxm«t waive the requirements
of a statutory protest. U. 8. 17. Schefer,
71 Pod. 959.
343-32 A protest Is softdent, etc.
Shaw 17. Prior, 68 Fed. 421.
343-33 Smith v, U. 8., 91 Fed. 757;
Eiehards 17. U. 8., 91 Fed. 516.
Illastration. — The protest of an im-
porter stating that he objected to tne
duties assessed, * * claimng that the same
should be subject either to a duty of
10 per cent, under paragraph 24, or
free, under paragraph 653, as we are
unable to detect that the moss has un-
dergone any process of manufacture"
is suflScient. 6haw 17. Prior, 68 Fed.
421.
343-35 Protest made to adrtltinnal
886
DEATH BY WRONOFUL ACT
Vol. 6
duty. — ^Bnt it is not necessary to point
out the* proTisions nnder which the
goods are dutiable where no protest is
made to the assessment under the orig-
inal classification but only to an addi-
tional duty which protestants claim had
no application to their merchandise. In
re Houdlette, 48 Fed. 545.
344-36 IT. S. V. Pilditch, 99 Fed.
938.
Baference to a statute not In existence
does not make the protest insufficient
where no one has been misled. Bous-
sod Valadon Co. v. U. S., 66 Fed. 718.
344-37 Shaw v. Prior, 68 Fed. 421.
344-39 TJ. S. v. Curley, 66 Fed. 720.
344-40 Effeet of non-appearance of
Importer.— If importer who is appeal-
ing, fails to make an appearance after
notification from the board of general
appraisers, the board is justified in af-
firming the collector's decison notwith-
standing the improper classification. U.
8. V, China & Japan Trading Co., 71
Fed. 864, 18 C. C. A. 335.
351-94 Kennedy f?. TJ. S., 23 Ct €1.
(U. S.) 363.
DEATH BT WBOHGFUL ACT
364-1 St. Louis, S. F. & F. E. Co. i;.
Scale, 229 U. S. 156, 33 Sup. Ct. 651,
57 L. ed. 1129, rev. 148 8. W. 1099;
Swift & Co. r. Johnson, 138 Fed. 867,
71 C. C. A. 619, 1 L. E. A. (N. S.)
1161; Meese t?. Northern Pac. Ey. Co.,
206 Fed. 222; Hawkins v. Barber As-
phalt Pav. Co., 202 Fed. 340; Davidow
c. Pennsylvania E. Co., 85 Fed. 943;
Lapique t?. Agoure (Cal.), 148 P. 517;
McLaughlin v. United Eailroads (Cal.),
147 P. 149; Slaughter v. Goldberg,
Bowen & Co. (Cal. App.), 147 P. 90;
Grogan v. Denver ft E. G. E. Co., 56
Colo. 450, 138 P. 764; Farley v. New
York, etc. E. Co., 87 Conn. 328, 87 A.
990; Flanders v. Georgia S. ft F. Ey.
Co. (Fla.), 67 S. 68; McFadden r. St.
Paul Coal Co., 263 HI. 441, 105 N. E.
314; Ohnesorge v. Cliieago City Ey. Co.,
259 111. 424, 102 N. E. 819; Dougherty
i>, American McKenna Process Co., 255
111. 369, 99 N. E. 619, Ann. Cas. 1913D,
568; Burns V, Graftd Eapids, etc. E. Co.,
113 Ind. 169, 15 N. E. 230; Golding v.
Town of Knox (Ind. App.), 104 N. E.
978; Hough r. Illinois Cent. E. Co. (la.),
149 N. W. 885; Brown v. Thayer, 212
Mass. 392, 99 N. E. 237; O'Donnell t\
Inhabitants pf North Attlebprpugh; 212
Mass. 243, 98 N. E. 1084; Hamel v.
Southern E. Co. (Miss.), 66 S. 809;
Aley €. Missouri Pac. E. Co., 211 Mo.
460, 111 S. W. 102; Vawter v. Missouri
Pac. E. Co., 84 Mo. 679; McNamara v.
Siavens, 76 Mo. 329; Troll v. Laclede
Gas L. Co., 182 Mo. App. 600, 169 S.
W. 337; Marenen 9. Anaconda Copper
M. Co., 48 Mont. 249, 136 P. 968; Mel-
ville V. Bntte-Balaklava Copper Co., 47
Mont. 1, 130 P. 441; Sharrow v. Inland
Lines, 214 N. Y. 101, 108 N. E. 217;
Lichtenstem v. Augusta-Aiken Ey. ft
E. Corp., 165 App. Div. 270, 150 N. Y.
S. 992; Matter of Brennan, 160 App.
Div. 401, 145 N. Y. S. 440; Hood t?.
American Tel. ft Tele. Co., 162 N. C.
70, 77 S. E. 1096; Broadnax v. Broai-
nax, 160 N. C. 432, 76 S. E. 216; Killian
u. Southern Ey. Co., 128 N. C. 261, 38
S. E. 873: Eankine v. P. ft 0. Coal Co.,
15 O. 0. C. (N. 8.) 17; «. c, 33 O. C. C.
349; Chicago, E. I. ft P. Ey. Co. v.
Holliday (Okla.), 145 P. 786; St. Louis
ft 8. F. E. Co. 1?. Goode, 42 Okla. 784,
142 P. 1185; Shawnee Gas ft E. Co. v.
Motesenbocker, 41 Okla. 454, 138 P.
790; Missouri, K. ft T. Ey. Co. v, Len-
ahan, 39 Okla. 283, 135 P. 383; McFar-
land V. Oregon Electric Co., 70 Or. 27,
138 P. 458; Centofanti r. Pennsylvania
E. Co., 244 Pa. 255, 90 A. 558; Crider
f?. Moorhead, 51 Pa. Super. 532; Carri-
gan V. Cole, 35 E. I. 162, 85 A. 934;
Bennett r. Spartanburg Ey. G. ft E. Co.,
97 S. C. 27, 81 8. E. 189; EUiott V. City
of Brownwood (Tex.), 166 S. W. 1129;
Wilson V. Brown (Tex. Civ.), 154 8. W.
322; Eastern Ey. Co. v, Ellis (Tex.
Civ.), 153 8. W. 701; Kansas City, M.
ft O. Ey. Co. t?. Pope (Tex. Civ.), 152
8. W. 186; Gulf, C. ft 8. F. Ey. Co. v.
Lester (Tex. Civ.), 149 8. W. 841.
Koloff V. Chicago, M. ft P. 8. Ey. Co.,
71 Wash. 543, 129 P. 398; Manning V.
Tacoma Ey. ft Power Co., 34 Wash. 406,
75 P. 994; McKerral t). Edmonton, 7
D. L. E. (Eng.) 661. See Siegrist v.
Atchison, T. ft S. F. Ey. Co., 91 Kan.
260, 137 P. 975.
365-2 Missouri, K. ft T. Ey. Co. r.
Lenahan, 39 Okla. 283, 135 P. 383;
Centofanti v. Pennsylvania E. Co., 244
Pa. 255^ 90 A. 553; Carpenter v. Ehode
Island Co., 36 E. I. 395, 90 A. 768;
Carolina, C. ft 0. E. E. t?. Shewalter,
128 Tenn. 363, 161 S. W. 1136.
History of legialatioii, etc^ — ^Farley v.
New York, etc. E. Co., 87 Conn. 328,
87 A. 990; Melville v. Butte-Balaklava
Copper Co., 47 Mont. 1, 130 P. 441.
B87
Vol 6
DEATH BY WRONGFUL ACT
365-3 Larue f. C. 6. Kershaw Cont.
Co., 177 Ala. 441, 59 S. 155 (Tennessee
statute) ; Kling t?. Torello, 87 Conn. 301,
87 A. 987, 46 L. B. A. (N. S.) 930;
McCullough V. Chicago, B. I. & P. By.
Co., 160 la. 524, 142 N. W. 67; Hawkins
17. Smith, 242 Mo. 688, 147 S. W. 1042;
Johnson i;. Dixie M. & D. Co., 171 Mo.
App. 134, 156 8. W. 33.
366-4 Michigan Central B. Co. v.
Vreeland, 227 U. S. 59, 33 Sup. Ct. 192,
57 L. ed. 417; Garrett v. Louisville &
N. B. Co., 197 Fed. 715, 117 C. C. A.
109; Ohnesorge v. Chicago City By. Co.,
259 m. 424, 102 N. E. 819; Burns v.
Grand Bapids, etc. B. Co., 113 Ind. 169,
15 N. E. 230;Golding V, Town of Knox
(Ind. App.), 104 N. E. 978; Snedeker
V, Snedeker, 164 N. Y. 58, 68 N. E.
4; Matter of Brennan, 160 App. Div.
401, 145 N. Y. S. 440; Sharrow v. In-
land Lines, 82 Misc. 482, 144 N. Y. S.
55; Killian v. Southern By. Co., 128 N.
C. 261, 38 S. E. 873; Crider V. Moor-
head, 51 Pa. Super. 532; Carrigan v.
Cole, 35 B. I. 162, 85 A. 934; McLendon
V. Columbia (S. C), 85 S. E. 234; Bo we
f?. Bichards (S. D.), 151 N. W. 1001;
Pym t?. Great Northern B. W. Co., 4
B. & S. 396, 122 Eng. Beprint 508; B.
C. Electric By. Co. v. Gentile, 18 D. L.
"B. 264, 28 W. L. B. 795, App. Cas.
(1914), 1034, 111 L. T. 682.
Federal employers' liability act.
Michigan Cent. B. B. Co. v. Vreeland,
227 U. S. 69, 33 Sup. Ct. 192, 57 L. ed.
417, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 176; Thomas t?.
Chicago & N. W. By. Co., 202 Fed. 766;
Farley v. New York, N. H. & H. B.
Co., 87 Conn. 328, 87 A. 990; McCoul-
lough 17. Chicago, B. I. & P. By. Co., 160
la. 524, 142 N. W. 67; Fogarty v. North-
ern Pac. By. Co. (Wash.), 147 P. 652.
367-5 Hamel t?. Southern B. Oo.
(Miss.), 66 S. 809.
368-6 McFadden v. St. Paul Coal Co.,
263 111. 441, 105 N. E. 314.
369-8 Kling v, Torello, 87 Conn. 301,
87 A. 987, 46 L. B. A. (N. S.) 930;
Golding V. Knox (Ind. App.), 104 N.
E. 978; Schmelzer 17. Central F. Co., 252
Mo. 12, 158 S. W. 353,
370-13 Teti v. Consolidated Coal Co.,
217 Fed. 443; Hawkins v. Barber As-
phalt Pav. Co., 202 Fed. 340; McBride
17. Berman, 79 Ark. 62, 94 S. W. 913;
Willis Coal & M. Co. 17. Grizzell, 198
111. 313, 65 N. E. 74 (under Miner's
Act, Bev. St., 1899, p. 1175); Shawnee
G. & E. Co. V. Motesenbocker, 41 Okla.
454, 138 P. 790; Koloff V. CHiicago, M.
& P. S. By. Co., 71 Wash. 543, 129 P.
398.
The court in Whitley v, Spokane & I.
By. Co., 23 Ida. 642, 132 P. 121, says:
"A recovery in a foreign state, there-
fore, under the death s^tute of Idaho
authorizing such an action for a wrong-
ful death caused within this state,
would not bar an action in this state
by any one who is an heir under the
laws of Idaho, and who was barred
from participating as an heir under the
laws of the foreign state. In other
words, a recovery on such a cause of
action in a foreign state for the use
and benefit of persons who are heirs
under the law of such foreign juris-
diction is not a bar to the further
prosecution of an action in this state
for the use and benefit of such heir or
heirs under the laws of this state as
were not included within the recovery
in the foreign jurisdiction.'^
Judgment on the merit8.^Where stat-
ute provides that the detetrmination
of a suit for wrongful death shall not
be a bar to another action unless it be
decided on its merits, a default judg-
ment in the justice's court in favor of
the father of deceased will not bar au
action by his mother and sisters. Sut-
berry t?. Meridian Fertilizer Factory
(Miss.), 64 S. 723.
370-14 Beleaso by widow may be
pleaded in bar to action brought by de-
ceased's minor children. Hamilton v.
Missouri Pac. B. Co., 248 Mo. 78, 154
S. W. 86.
371-17 Michigan Cent. E. Co. v.
Vreeland, 227 U. S. 59, 33 Sup. Ct. 192,
57 L. ed. 417; Harris r. A. J. Spencer
Lumb. Co., 185 Ala. 648, 64 S. 557;
Lawrence <?. Seay, 179 Ala. 386, 60 S.
937; Hull v. Wimberly & Thomas Hdw.
Co., 178 Ala. 538, 59 S. 568; Denver &
Rio Grande B. Co. 17. Frederic, 57 Colo.
90, 140 P. 463; Fleming r. Capital Trac-
tion Co., 40 App. Cas. (D. C.) 489; Fer-
guson v, Washington & G. B. Co., 6
App. Cas. (D. C.) .525; Ohnesorge v.
Chicago City By. Co., 259 111. 424, 102
N. E. 819; Golding c. Town of Knox
(Ind. App.), 104 N. E. 978; Hammond
t?. Lewiston, etc. B. Co., 106 Me. 209, 76
A. 672, 30 L. B. A. (N. S.) 78; Mehe-
gan r. Boyne City B. Co. (Mich.), 141
N. W. 905; Hamel r. Southern B. Co.
(Miss.), 66 S. 809; Diarotti v. Missouri
Pac. By. Co. (Mo.), 170 S, W. 865;
McNamara v, Slavens, 76 Mo. 329;
388
DEATH BY WRONOFVL ACT
Vol. 6
Marques v, Koch, 176 Mo. App. 143,
161 8. W. 648; Maronen v. Anaconda
Copper M. Co., 48 Mont. 249, 136 P.
968; Melville v. Butte-Balaklava Cop-
per Co., 47 Mont. 1, 130 P. 441; Shar-
row r. Inland Lines, 214 N. Y. 101, 108
N. E. 217; McKay i?. Syracuse Rapid
Transit Ry. Co., 208 N. Y. 359, 101 K.
E. 885; Flaherty r. Meade Transfer Co.,
157 App. Div. 416, 142 N. Y. S. 357;
Rankine v. P. ft O. Coal Co., 15 0. C.
C. (N. S.) 17, 8. c, 33 0. C. C. 349; Chi-
cago R. I. & P. Ry. Co. f?. HoUiday
(Okla.), 145 P. 786; Shawnee 6. & E.
Co. r. Motesenbocker, 41 Okla. 454, 138
P. 790; Herndon V. St. Louis & S. F. R.
Co., 37 Okla. 256, 128 P. 727; Carrigan
V. Cole, 35 R. I. 162, 85 A. 934; Rowe
V. Richards (S. D.), 151 N. W. 1001;
Rowe V. Richards, 32 S. D. 66, 142 N.
W. 664; Fowlkes V. Nashville & D. R.
Co., 9 Heisk. (Tenn.) 829; Sullivan-
Sanford Lumb. Co. v. Watson (Tex.),
155 S. W. 179; Stephenville, N. & S. T.
Ry. Co. r. Voss (Tex. Civ.), 159 S. W.
64; Wilson V. Brown (Tex. Civ.), 154
S. W. 322; B. C. Electric R. Co. v. Tur-
ner, 18 D. L. R. 430, 49 Can. Sup. Ct.
470; B. C. Electric Ry. Co. v. Gentile,
18 D. L. R. 264, 28 W. L. R. 795, A. C.
(1914) 1034, 111 L. T. 682; Trawford v.
British Col. Electric R. Co., 9 D. L.
R. 817, 18 B. C. R. 132, 15 Can. Ry. Cas.
39, 23 W. L. R. 175.
Action for vipongful death cannot be
maintained by administrator, where de-
cedent's right to maintain an action for
personal injuries was barred by stat-
ute of limitations prior to her death.
Larue v. C. G. Kershaw Cont. Co., 177
Ala. 441, 59 S. 155; Casey v. Auburn
Tel. Co., 155 App. Div. 66, 139 N. Y. S.
579; Kelliher r. New York Cent. & H.
R. R. Co., 153 App, Div. 617, 138 N. Y.
o» o94.
372-20 Wabash R. Co. r. Gretzinger
(Ind.), 104 N. E. 69.
Action for wrongful death as property
rlgbt which survives* — The right to re-
cover such damages becomes an asset
of the beneficiary's estate and his
death does not terminate the right of
action. Union Steamboat Co. v. Chal-
fin 's Admrs., '204 Fed. 412, 122 C. C. A.
598; Andrews f?. Valley Ice Co., 167
Cal. 11, 138 P. 699.
By remarriage of plaintiff* — ^Where the
administratrix (deceased's widow) re-
marries, the action wil not abate even
though she was the sole beneficiary.
Wabash R. Co. r. Gretzinger (Ind.), 104
N. E. 69.
375-25 Willard v. Mohn, 24 N. D.
390, 139 N. W. 979; Carrigan v. Cole,
35 R. I. 162, 85 A. 934; Rinker f?. Hurd,
69 Wash. 257, 124 P. 687; Kranz v, Wis-
consin Trust Co., 155 Wis. 40, 143 N. W.
1049.
376-30 Teti v. Consolidated Coal Co.,
217 Fed. 443; Williams r. Chicago, B.
& Q. Ry. Co., 169 Mo. App. 468, 155 S.
W. 64.
377-31 Centofanti r. Pennsylvania
R. Co., 244 Pa. 255, 90 A. 558.
377-34 Dougherty v, American Mc-
Kenna Process Co., 255 111. 369, 99 N.
E. 619, Ann. Cas. 1913D, 668; Vawter
V. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 84 Mo. 679.
377-35 St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co.
V. Conley, 187 Fed. 949, 110 C. C. A.
97; Zikos V. Oregon R. & Nav. Co., 179
Fed. 893 (jurisdiction cannot be de-
clined because measure of liab^ity dif-
ferent); St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v.
Hesterly, 98 Ark. 240, 135 S. W. 874;
MeCullough V. Chicago, R. I. & Pac. Ry.
Co., 160 la. 524, 142 N. W. 67, 47 L.
R. A. (N. S.) 23; Bradbury v, Chicago,
R. L & P. Ry. Co., 149 la. 51, 128 N.
W. 1, 40 L. R. A. (N. S.) 684; Illinois
Central R. Co. t?. Doherty, 153 Ky. 363,
155 S. W. 1119, 47 L. R. A. (N. S.)
31; Waring v. B. & O. R. Co., 33 0. C.
C. 349, 8. c, 15 0. C. C, (N. S.) 33;
Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. t?. Lester (Tex.
Civ.), 149 S. W. 841; St. Louis, S. F.
& T. Ry. Co. v. Geer (Tex. Civ.), 149 S.
W. 1178; Rivera V, Atchison, T. & S.
F. Ry. Co. (Tex. Civ.), 149 S. W. 223;
Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. V. Blalock
(Tex. Civ.), 128 S. W. 706. See notes
in 47 L. R. A. (N. S.) 72, 40 L. R. A.
(N. S.) 684.
378-36 Centofanti v, Pennsylvania
R. Co., 244 Pa. 255, 90 A. 558.
37S-37 Centofanti v, Pennsylvania
R. Co., 244 Pa. 255, 90 A. 558.
378-38 St. Bernard r. Shane (C. C.
A.), 220 Fed. 852; Anderson v, Louis-
ville & N. R. Co., 210 Fed. 689, 127 C.
C. A. 277; Smith v. Empire State-Idaho
M. & D. Co., 127 Fed. 462; Davidow v.
Pennsylvania R. Co., 85 Fed. 943; Kan-
sas City So. Ry. Co. t?. McGinty, 76 Ark.
356, 88 S. W. 1001; St. Louis, etc. R.
Co. V. Haist, 71 Ark. 258, 72 S. W. 893,
100 Am. St. 65; Dougherty v. American
McKenna Process Co., 255 HI. 369, 99
N. E. 619, Ann. Cas. 1913D, 568; Chi-
889
Vol 6
DEATH BY WROKGFVL ACT
eago k E. I. B. Go. v. Bouse, 178 HL
132, 52 N. E. 951, 44 L. B. A, 410;
Burns v. Grand Bapids, etc. B. Co., 113
Ind. 169, 15 N. E. 230; Ash v. Balti-
more & O. B. Co., 72 Md. 144, 19 A.
643, 20 Am. St. 461; Walsh v. Boston,
etc. B. Co., 201 Mass. 527, 88 N. E. 12;
Nicholas v, Burlington, etc. By. Co.,
78 Minn. 43, 80 N. W. 776; Vawter v.
Missouri Pac. By. Co.-, 84 Mo. 679; Hill
V, Boston & M. B. B., 77 N. H. 151, 89
A. 482; Matter of Brennan, 160 App.
Div. 401, 145 N. Y. S. 440; Zeikus 17.
Florida East Coast By. Co., 153 App.
Div. 345, 138 N. Y. ft. 478; Boyle f>.
Southern By. Co., 36 Misc. 289, 73 N.
Y. 8. 465; Connor I7. New York, etc.
B. Co., 28 B. I. 560, 68 A. 481, 13 Ann.
Cas. 1038, 18 L. B. A. (N. S.) 1252;
Bivera v. Atchison, T. k S. F. B. Co.
(Tex. Civ.), 149 S. W. 223. See Bond
f. Pennsylvania B. Co.^ 124 Minn. 195,
144 N. W. 942. See also notes in 2 Am.
& Eng. Ann. Cas. 805, and Ann. Cas.
19140, 719.
880-40 Dougherty v, American Me-
Kenna Process Co., 255 HI. 369, 99 N.
E. 619, Ann. Oas. 1913D, 568; Bailroad
I?. Chambers, 73 O. St. 16, 76 N. E, 91
quoted in Waring r. B. k 0. B. Co., 15
O. C. 0. (N. S.) 33, «. c, 33 0. 0. C.
349
381-41 Gallagher r. Florida East
Coast By. Co., 196 Fed. 1000 (federal
court sitting in New York will not as-
sume jurisdiction under a Florida stat-
ute which has been held to be incon-
sistent with laws of New York. The
court based its decison upon Zeikus f>.
Florida East Coast By. Co. in 144 App.
Div. 91, 128 N. Y. S. 933. But see
now «. e., 153 App. Div. 345, 138 N. Y.
S. 478, under same statutes but where
complaint alleged that there were no
creditors); De Herrera t?. Texas, Mexi-
can By. Co. (Tex. Civ.), 154 8. W. 594.
381-43 St. Louis, etc. B. Co. v, Mc-
Namare, 91 Ark. 515, 122 S. W. 102;
Johnson v. Phoenix Bridge Co., 197 N.
Y. 316, 90 N. E. 953; Leonard t?. Colum-
bia Steam Na v. Co., 84 N. Y. 48 ; Zeikus
V. Florida East Coast By. Co., 144 App.
Div. 91, 128 N. Y. 8. 933; Texas, etc.
B. Co. 17. Gross (Tex. Civ.), 128 S. W.
1173; Texas, etc. B. Co. t?. Miller (Tex.
Civ.), 128 S. W. 1165; St. Louis, etc.
B. Co. t?. Sizemore, 53 Tex. Civ. 491,
116 S. W. 403. See. note in Ann. Cas.
1913D, 568.
382-44 Teti «. GonsoUdatad Coal Co.,
217 Fe4. 44a.
384-51 Thompson T. k W. Assn. t.
McGregor, 207 Fed. 209, 124 C. C. A.
479.
386-54 Winfree t?. Northern Pac. By.
Co., 227 U. S. 296, 33 Sup. Ct. 273, 57
L. ed. 518; St. Bernard v. Shane, 201
Fed. 453; Thompson v. Southern L. Co.
(Ark.), 168 8. W. 1068; Lapique «-
Agoure (Cal.), 148 P. 517; Fleming v.
Capital Traction Co., 40 App. Cas. (D.
C.) 489; Flanders v. Georgia S. k F.
By. Co. (Fla.), 67 S. 68; Florida East
Coast By. Co. v. Jackson, 65 Fla. 393,
62 8. 210; McFadden v. St. Paul Coal
Co., 263 111. 441, 105 N. E. 314; Aho a.
Jesmore, 101 Minn. 449, 112 N. W. 538,
10 L. B. A. (N. 8.) 998; Vicksburg S.
P. By. Co. r. Williams, 102 Miss. 735,
59 S. 883; Chandler v, Chicago k A.
B. Co., 251 Mo. 592, 158 8. W, 35; Mc-
intosh V. R. Co., 103 Mo. 131, 15 S. W.
80; McNamara 17. Slavens, 76 Mo. 329;
Troll V. Laclede Gas L. Co, 182 Mo.
App. 600, 169 8. W. 337 (public admin-
istrator where no known beneficiary);
Matter of Brennan, 160 App. Div. 401,
145 N. Y. 8. 440; Shawnee G. k E. Co.
17. Motesenbocker, 41 Okla. 454, 138 P.
790; Missouri, K. k T. By. Co. 17. Lena-
han, 39 Okla. 283, 135 P. 883; Cento-
fanti 17. Pennsylvania B. Co., 244 Pa.
255, 90 A. 558; Guioc-Co 17. Del Bosario,
8 Phil. Isl. 546; Bowe v. Bichards, 32
8. D. 66, 142 N. W. 664; St. Louis, 8.
F. k T. By. Co. r. Gear (Tex. Civ.),
149 8. W. 1178.
SurTiylng partner eannot maintain an
action for wrongful death. Lapique' 9.
Agoure (Cal.), 148 P. 517.
386-56 Kansas City, M. 0. By. Co.
17. Pope (Tex. Civ.), 152 S. W, 185;
Gulf, C. k 8. F. By. Co. «. Letter (Tex.
Civ.), 149 S. W. 841; Bivera 17. Atchi-
son, T. k S. F. By. Co. (Tex. Civ.), 149
8. W. 223.
^87-57 Federal employer's liabUty
act places the father in the forefront
of those allowed to recover for death
of son by negligence of employer while
engaged in interstate commerce, where
there is no surviving husband, widow
or children. Floyd r. Atlantic Coast
Line By. Co., 167 N. C. 55, 83 S. E. 12,
L. B. A. 1915B, 519.
387*58 Winfree 17. Northern Pac.
By. Co., 227 XT. 8. 296, 33 Sup. Ct. 273,
57 L. ed. 518; Strait 17. Yazoo k M. Y.
B. Co., 209 Fed. 157, 126 C. C. A. 105,
49 L. B. A. (N. S.) 1068; Ala. Cod«
1907, 12485; Hull 17. Wimborly 4
890
DEATB BY WRONOFUL ACT
Vol. 6
Thomas Hdw. Co., 178 Ala. 538, 59 S.
568 J Phillips v, Denver City Tramway
Co., 53 Colo, 458, 128 P. 460, Ann. Cas.
1914B, 29; Melzner 17. Northern Pac.
Ry. Co., 46 Mont. 162, 127 P. 146.
A gzandmother who stood In loco par-
entifl to deooased may maintain an ac-
tion for his death under a statute pro-
viding that the mother may maintain
such action. Atkinson v, Yarborough,
13 Ga. App. 781, 80 S. E. 29.
388-50 Florida East Coast By. Co.
t7. Jackson, 65 Fla. 393, 62 8. 210.
389^1 Hadley «. Tallahassee, 07
Fla. 436, 65 8. 545; Croft v. Cotton Oil
Co., 83 8. C. 232, 65 8. E. 216; Andrze-
jewski V, Northwestern Fuel Co., 158
Wis. 170, 148 N. W. 37. See Southern
By. Co. V. Hawkins, 35 App. Cas. (D.
C.) 313, 21 Ann. Cas. 926.
S9a-66 Davidow f. Pennsylvania B.
Co., 85 Fed. 943 (Pennsylvania statute) ;
Chandler v. Chicago & A. B. Co., 251
Mo. 592, 158 8. W. 35; Aley v. B. Co.,
211 Mo. 460, 111 8. W. 102; McNamara
r. Slavens, 76 Mo. 329; Harris v. Bail
& Biver Coal M. Co., 87 O. St. 450, 101
N. E. 923 (mining act) ; Centof anti v.
Pennsylvania B. Co., 244 Pa. 255, 90
A. 558; Koloff v. Chicago, M. & P. 8.
By. Co., 71 Wash. 543, 129 P. 898. See
Harper v. Louisville & N. B. Co., 141
Ga. 558, 81 8. E. 867.
In MisBlflaippl the widow may now bring
an action for damages for her husband 's
death, although she has as his personal
representative revived a suit brought
by him to recover for the personal in-
juries which resulted in his death.
Hamel v. 8. B. Co. (Miss.), 66 8. 809,
<. c, 66 8. 426.
391-67 Mott V. Long, 90 Kan. 110,
132 P. 998; Cheek r. Missouri, K. & T.
By. Co., 89 Kan. 247, 131 P. 617; Dia-
rotti V. Missouri Pac. By. Co. (Mo.),
170 S. W. 865 (Kansas statute); Mar-
ques r. Koch, 176 Mo. App. 143, 161 8.
W. 648; Chicago, B. L & P. By. Co. V.
Holliday (Okla.), 145 P. 786 (resident
decedent) ; Shawnee G. & E. Co. v. Mote-
senbocker, 41 Okla. 454, 138 P. 790; Big
Jack Mining Co. v. Parkinson, 41 Okla.
125, 137 P. 678; Herndon v, St. Louis
& 8. F. Co., 37 Okla. 256, 128 P. 727.
391-68 Fogarty r. Northern Pac.
By. Co. (Wash.), 147 P. 652, such
abuidonment material in mitigation of
damages.
391-70 Elberton v, Thornton, 138
Qa. 776, 76 8. E. 62, Ann. Cas. 1913E,
994; Armbruster r. Chicago, B. I. ft P.
By. Co. (la.), 147 N. W. 337; Chandler
V. Chicago & A. B. Co., 251 Mo. 592, 158
8. W. 35; Aley v. Missouri Pac. B. Co.,
211 Mo. 460, 111 8. W. 102 (wh^re both
parents were killed, the children need
not wait six months before bringing ae«
tlon); McNamara v. Slavens, 78 Mo.
329, but if widow brought an action
against def end&iit and then Tolnntarily
dismissed it, the minor ehildren could
not sue after the expiration of liz
months.
892-73 Hawkins «. Barber Asphalt
Pav. Co., 202 Fed. 340 (California atat-
ute); Pritchard if. Whitney Est. Co.,
164 Cal. 564, 129 P. 989; Buiz v. Santa
Barbara G. & B. Co., 164 Cal. 188, 128
P. 830; Bond V. United Bailroads, 159
Cal. 270, 118 P. 366, Ann. Cas. 1912C,
50, 48 L. B. A. (N. 8.) 687: Chiara v.
Stewart Min. Co., 24 Ida. 473, 135 P.
245; Maronen v. Anaconda Copper M.
Co., 48 Mont. 249, 136 P. 968; Melville
V, Butte-Balaklava Copper Co., 47 Mont.
1, 130 P. 441; Guioc-Co V. Del Bosaria,
8 Phil. Isl. 546; St. Germain v. Pot-
latch Lumb. Co., 76 Wash. 102, 135 P.
804 (Idaho statute) ; Binker v, Hurd, 69
Wash. 257, 124 P. 687.
393-74 St. Louis, etc. B. Co. f. Haist,
71 Ark. 258, 72 8. W. 893, 100 Am. St.
65.
393-75 Marques v. Koch, 176 Mo.
App. 143, 161 8. W. 648; Shawnee G. ft
E. Co. V. Motesenbocker, 41 Okla. 454,
138 P. 790; Herndon v. St. Louis A 8.
F. Co., 87 Okla. 256, 128 P. 727.
395-77 St. Louis, etc. B. Co. v. Seale,
229 U. 8. 156, 33 Sup. Ct. 651, 57 L.
ed. 1129, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 156; Mis-
souri, K. & T. B. Co. V. Wulf, 226 U.
S. 570, 33 Sup. Ct. 135, 57 L. ed. 355;
Strait V. Yazoo & M. V. B. Co., 209
Fed. 157, 126 C. C. A. 105, 49 L. B. A.
(N. S.) 1068 (Tennessee statute) ; Whit-
mer r. El Paso ft 8. W. Co., 201 Fed.
193, 119 O. C. A. 637 (New Mexicd
laws); St. Bernard v. Shan«» SOI Fed.
453 (Hlinois statute); Harris v. A. J.
Spencer Lumb. Co., 185 Ala. 648, 64 8.
557; Hull r. Wimberly ft Thomas Hdw.
Co., 178 Ala. 588, 59 8. 568; McBride
V. Herman, 79 Ark. 62, 94 8. W. 913;
St. Louis, etc. B. Co. v. Haist, 71 Ark.
258, 72 8. W. 898, 100 Am. St. 65; Flem-
ing V, Capital Traction Co., 40 App.
Cas. (D. C.) 489; Ferguson v. Washing-
ton ft G. B. Co., 6 App. Cas. (D. 0.)
525; Williams v. Western ft A. B. Co.,
391
Vol. 6
DEATH BY WlRONGFVL ACT
142 Ga. 696, 83 S. E. 525; Wabash B.
Co. v. McDoniels (Ind.), 107 N. E. 291;
Cleveland, C. C. & St. L, Ey. Co. f?.
Champe, 55 Ind. App. 243, 102 N. E.
868; Kentucky fitate Journal Co. v.
Workmen's C. Board, 161 Ky, 562, 170
S. W. 437, 1166; Slusher v, Weller, 151
Ky. 203, 151 S. W. 684; Penny v. New
Orleans G. N. B. Co:, 135 La. 962, 66
8. 313; Hammond v, Lewiston, etc. B.
Co., 106 Me. 209, 76 A. 672, 30 L. B. A.
(N. S.) 78; Bichardson v. Detroit &
M. By. Co., 176 Mich. 413. 142 N. W.
832; Mehegan r. Boyne Cfity By. Co.
(Mich.), 141 N. W. 905; Brown v. Chi-
cago & N. W. By. Co. (Minn.), 152 N.
W. 729 (discussing Iowa statute) ; Bich
V. St. Louis & S. F. B. Co., 166 Mo. App.
379, 148 S. W. 1011; Melzner <?. North-
ern Pac. By. Co., 46 Mont. 277, 127 P.
1002; Sharrow v. Inland Lines, 214 N.
Y. 101, 108 N. E. 217; McKay v. Syra-
cuse Bapid Transit By. Co., 208 N. Y.
359, 101 N. E. 885; Mallory v. Virginia
Hot Springs Co., 157 App, Div. 253,
141 N. Y. 8. 961 (if three executors,
they must sue jointly); Carpenter v.
Buffalo General Co., 155 App. Div. 655,
140 N. Y. S. 559, 4 N. Y. Civ. Proc. 13;
Hood V, American Tel. & Tel. Co., 162
N. C. 92, 77 S. E. 1094; Hood v. Ameri-
can Tel. & Tel. Co., 162 N. C. 70, 77 S.
E. 1096; Killian v. Southern By. Co.,
128 N. C. 261, 38 S. E. 873; Chicago, B.
I. & P. By. Co. V. Holliday (Okla.), 145
P. 786 (comparing Oklahoma statute
and Federal Employers * Liability Act) ;
Herndon V. St. Louis & S. F. B. Co.,
37 Okla. 256, 128 P. 727; Hall v. West
Jersey & S. B. Co., 241 Pa. 399, 88 A.
659 (New Jersey statute); Bowe v.
Bichards (S. D.), 151 N. W. 1001; Bowe
o. Bichards, 32 S. D. 66, 142 N. W. 664;
St. Louis 8. W. By. Co. i?. Brothers
(Tex. Civ.), 165 S. W. 488; Eastern By.
Co. V. Ellis (Tex. Civ.), 153 S. W. 701
(cannot be brought in name of sole
beneficiaries) ; St. Louis, S. F. & T. By.
Co. «. Geer (Tex. Civ,), 149 S. W. 1178;
Perry r. New Biver, etc. Coal Co. (W.
Va.), 81 S. E. 844; Osborn t?. Gillett,
L. B. 8 Exch. (Eng.) 88; McKerral <?.
Edmonton, 7 D. L. B. (Eng.) 661. See
Armbruster t?. Chicago, B. I. & P. By.
Co. (la.), 147 N. W. 337, action brought
by widow.
Under Federal Employers' Inability
Act giving right of action in such cases
to the personal representative, the
widow of deceased cannot maintain the
action. American B. Co. v. Birch, 224
U. S. 547, 32 Sup. Ct. 603, 56 L. ed.
879; Yaughan v, St. Louis & S. F. B.
Co., 177 Mo. App. 155, 164 S. W. 144;
Bich V. St. Louis & S. F. B. Co., 166 Mo.
App. 379, 148 S. W, 1011; Missouri, K.
&. T. By. Co. V. Lenahan, 39 Okla. 283,
135 P. 383; Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P.
B. Co. V. Bonham, 130 Tenn. 435, 171
S. W. 79; Eastern B. Co. v, Ellis (Tex.
Civ.), 153 S. W. 701; Kansas City, M.
& 0. By. Co. V. Pope (Tex. Civ.), 152
S. W. 185; Gulf, 0. & S. F. By, Co. <?.
Lester (Tex. Civ.), 149 S. W. 841; Biv-
era v. Atchison, T. & S. F. By. Co.
(Tex. Civ.), 149 S. W. 223.
Executor or administrator may sae.
The term personal representative means
either an executor or administrator.
Fleming v. Capital Traction Co., 40 App.
Cas. (D. C.) 489; Ferguson f?. Wash-
ington & G. B. Co., 6 App. Cas. (D.
C.) 525; Missouri, K. & T. By. Co. v.
Lenahan, 39 Okla. 283, 135 P. 383; Bowe
€7. Bichards, 32 S. D. 66, 142 N. W.
664; Gulf, C. & S. F. By. Co. <?. Les-
ter (Tex. Civ.), 149 S. W. 841; Bivera
t?. Atchison, T. & S. F. By. Co. (Tex.
Civ.), 149 S. W. 223.
Where a decedent has no nert of kin
or beneficiaries there can be no recov-
ery in favor of his administrator. Cin-
cinnati, etc. B. Co. V, Wilson's Admr.,
157 Ky. 460, 163 S. W. 493.
Bight of foreign administrator to main-
tain suit. — ^The administrator appointed
in another state can maintain an ac-
tion in Kansas to recover for the death
of a resident of such other state. Me-
trakos v, Kansas City, M. & O. By. Co.,
91 Kan. 342, 137 P. 953 cit. K. P. By.
Co. 1?. Cutter, 16 Kan. 568. A foreign
special administrator cannot maintain
an action for the wrongful death of a
resident of Kansas who was killed in
Kansas. Metrakos v. Kansas City, M.
& 0. By. Co., 91 Kan. 342, 137 P. 953.
396-78 Teti v. Consolidated Coal Co.,
217 Fed. 443; Gallagher v, Florida, etc.
By. Co., 196 Fed. 1000; Davidow v.
Pennsylvania B. Co., 85 Fed. 943; Mc-
Claugherty r. Bogue Biver Electric Co.
(Or.), 144 P. 569; Centofanti V. Penn-
sylvania B. Co., 244 Pa. 255, 90 A. 558.
397-80 Larue v, C. G. Kershaw Cont.
Co., 177 Ala. 441, 59 S. 155 (Tennessee
statute).
397-83 Teti r. Consolidated Coal Co.,
217 Fed. 443; McGovem f?. Philadel-
phia & B. By. Co., 209 Fed. 975; Me-
trakos V. Kansas City, M. & 0. By. Co.,
392
DEATH BY WRONGFUL ACT
Vol. 6
91 Kan. 342, 137 P. 953; Diarotti v. Mis-
souri Pac. Ey. Co. (Mo.), 170 S. W.
865 (under Kansas statute); Koloff v,
Chicago, M. & P. S. Ry. Co., 71 Wash.
543, 129 P. 398.
400-85 St. Bernard t?. Shane (C. C.
A.), 220 Fed. 852; Knight v. MoKne, E.
M. & W. Ry. Co., 160 la. 160, 140 N.
W. 839; Brown v. Chicago & N. W. By.
Co. (Minn.), 152 N. W. 729; Voris t?.
Chicago, etc. B. Co., 172 Mo. App. 125,
157 S. W. 835.
402-88 But see Brown v, Thayer, 212
Mass. 392, 99 N. E. 237.
402-89 McBride v. Berman, 79 Ark.
62, 94 8. W 913 (where there is no
personal repfesentative the widow and
heirs at law must be made parties to
the action); Shawnee G. & B. Co. v.
Motesenbocker. 41 Okla. 454, 138 P. 790
(all next of kin must be joined as par-
ties plaintiff when the statute does not
give the right to any one of them to
sue in a representative capacity).
403-90 See San Antonio & A. P. By.
Co. <7. Williams (Tex. Civ.), 158 S. W.
1171. ,
Wife not a necessary party plaintiff
with the husband in an action for the
wrongful death of their minor child un-
der a statute providing that such an
action may be brought by any one or
more of the beneficiaries for the bene-
fit of all. Chicago B. I. & G. By. Co. v.
OUver (Tex. Civ.), 159 S. W. 853.
405-84 Standard Forgings Co. v.
Holmstrom (Ind. App.), 104 N. E. 872;
Shelton u. Metropolitan St. By. Co., 167
Mo. App. 404, 151 S. W. 493; English
€7. New York, N. H. & H. B. Co., 161
App. Div. 831, 146 N. Y. S. 963; Hall
V, West Jersey & S. B. Co., 241 Pa. 399,
88 A. 659.
40T-9T fit. Louis, S. F. & T. B. Co.
V. Scale, 229 IT. S. 156. 33 Sup. Ct. 651,
57 L. ed. 1129, rev. (Tex. Civ.), 148 S.
W. 1099; Missouri, K. & T. B. Co. V.
Wulf, 226 U. S. 570, 33 Sup. Ct.
135, 57 L. ed. 355; Garrett f). Louisville
& N. B. Co., 197 Fed. 715, 117 C. C. A.
109; Kelly v, Chesapeake & 0. B. Co.,
201 Fed. 602; McChesney v, Illinois C.
B. Co., 197 Fed. 85; Ullrich v. New
York, N. H. & H. B. Co., 193 Fed. 768.
See note in 47 L. B. A. (N. S.) 75.
The answer may contain facts sufficient
to bring case under the Federal Em-
ployers' Liability Act, although com-
plainant does not expressly doelare on
that act. St. Louis, I. M. So S. By. Co.
V, Sharp (Ark.), 171 S. W. 95.
407-98 Bowe v. Bichards, 32 S. D.
66, 142 N. W. 664; Neil i?. West Vir-
ginia Timber Co. (W. Va.), 84 S. E.
239; Crockett v. Black Wolf Coat &
Coke Co. (W. Va.), 83 S. E. 987; Moss
V. Campbell's Creek B. Co. (W. Va.),
83 S. E. 721; Perry «. New Biver, etc.
Coal Co. (W. Va.), 81 S. E. 844.
.408-99 Alleging non-appointment of
executor or administrator when action
was commenced. Carpenter v, Bhode
Island Co., 36 B. L 395, 90 A. 768.
410-5 Thomas v, Chicago & N. W. B.
Co., 202 Fed. 766; Buiz t?. Santa Bar-
bara G. & E. Co., 164 Cal. 188, 128 P.
330; Slaughter v. Goldberg, Bowen &
Co. (Cal. App.), 147 P. 90; Barr V. So.
Cal. Edison Co., 24 Cal. App. 22, 140
P. 47 (sufficiency of allegation as to
existence of an heir); Farley t?. New
York, N. H. & H. B. Co., 87 Conn. 328,
87 A. 990; Chicago & B. L B. Co. v,
Morris, 26 111 400; Stewart, Admr. v.
Terre Haute & I. K. Co., 103 Ind. 44,
2 N. E. 208; Illinois Central B. Co. v.
Bohetty, 153 Ky. 363, 155 S. W. 1119,
47 L. B. A. (N. S.) 31; Schwarz v.
Judd, 28 Minn. 371, 10 N. W. 208; Troll
V. Laclede Gas L. Co., 182 Mo. App. 600,
169 S. W. 337; Maier V. Metropolitan
St. B. Co., 176 Mo. App. 29, 162 S. W.
1041j Johnson v. Dixie M. & D. Co.,
171 Mo. App. 134, 156 S. W. 33; Melz-
ner v. Northern Pac. By. Co., 46 Mont.
277, 127 P. 1002; Lucas v. New York C.
B. Co., 21 Barb. (N. Y.) 245; Boyle t?.
Southern By. Co., 36 Misc. 289, 73 N.
Y. S. 465. See note in 47 L. B. A. (N.
S.) 74.
Allegation that suit is brought for bene-
fit of widow. — It is not necessary to al-
lege that suit is brought for the benefit
of the widow, since plaintiff, who is the
personal representative of deceased
could not maintain the action other
than for the benefit of the heirs. Barr
V, Southern Cal. Edison Co., 24 Cal.
App. 22, 140 P. 47.
412-6 Parley v. New York, N. H. &
H. B. Co., 87 Conn. 328, 87 A. 990; Pit-
kin V. New York & N. E. B. Co., 64
Conn. 482, 30 A. 772.
414-11 Emancipation of minor must
be alleged. Wabash B. Co. v, McDon-
iels (Ind.) 107 N. E. 291.
415-13 Zeikus 17. Florida East Coast
By. Co., 153 App. Div. 345, 138 N. Y, S.
478.
898
Vol e
DEATH BY WRONGFUL ACT
416-16 Moffett v. Baltimore & O. B.
Co. (C, C. A.), 220 Fed. S9; Register
V. Harrell, 131 La. 983, 60 S. 638.
417-16 Anthony v. St. Louis, etc. B.
Co., 108 Ark. 219, 157 S. W. 394; Chand-
ler f>. Chicago & A. B. Co., 251 Mo. 592,
158 S. W. 35; Barker v. B. Co., 91 Mo.
86, 94, 14 S. W. 280; Sharrow v. Inland
Lines, 82 Misc. 482, 144 N. Y. S. 65.
417-17 Sharrow v. Inland Lines, 214
N. Y, 101, 108 N. E. 217 (holding that
it is not necessary that it appear from
the face of the complaint that the ac-
tion was commenced within the stat-
utory period), comments on Pemsi v.
Schmalz's Sons, 142 App. Biv. 53, 126
N. Y. S. 880.
418-18 See Sackheim v. Pigueron,
163 Appi Div. 180, 148 N. Y. S. 27, con-
struing Laws, 1913, ch. 228, amendment
to §841 Code Civ. Proc.
418-19 Wabash B. Co. v. McDoniels
(Thd.), 107 N. E. 291.
418-20 Newell v. Cleveland, etc. B.
Co., 261 Dl. 605, 104 N. E. 223.
410-22 Lawrence v. Seay, 179 Ala.
386, 60 S. 937; City of Chicago v. Major,
18 m. 349, 356, 68 Am. Dec. 553; Lich-
tenstern €. Augusta-Aiken By. i Elec-
tric Corporation, 175 App. Div. 270, 150
N. Y. S. 992. See Black v. Texas &
P. By. Co. (Tex. Civ.), 161 S. W. 1077.
426-86 Barr v. Southern Cal. Edison
Co., 24 Cal. App. 22, 140 P. 47; McCoul-
lough V. Chicago, B. I. So P. By. Co.,
160 la. 624, 142 N". W. 67; Johnson v.
Dixie M. & D. Co., 171 Mo. App. 134,
156 S. W 38.
426-38 Cleveland, etc. By. Co. v.
Champe, 55 Ind. App. 243, 102 N. £.
868.
427-dO Illinois Cent. B. Co. «. Pos-
ter, 207 Fed. 311, 125 C. C. A. 55; Mc-
CouUongh V. Chicago, B. I. is P. By.
Co., 160 la. 524, 142 N. W. 67, if the
action be brought on behalf of the par-
ents or other beneficiaries than the
widow and children, it is not enough to
allege their mere survival. Pecuniary
loss must be alleged and proved.
427-40 Young v. Fresno Flume &
Irr. Co., 24 Cal. App. 286, 141 P. 29,
loss of services, comfort^ protection
and society need not be specially al-
leged.
431-46 See also Lasatet v, St. Louis,
I. M. & S. B. Co., 177 Mo. App. 534, 160
S. W. 818.
431-49 Johnson 17. Chicago, etc. B.
Co., 174 Mo. App. 16, 160 S. W. 5;
Moyer v. Oshkosh, 151 Wis. 586, 139 N.
W*. 378.
434-64 Bolick v. Southern By. Co.,
138 N. C. 370, 50 S. E. 689.
436-66 Additional grounds of negU-
geiLce^ — ^In an action for the negligent
killing of plaintiff's decedent, plaintiff
may amend her petition by alleging
other and additional grounds of negli-
gence. Zitnik V. Union Pac. B. Co., 95
Neb. 152, 145 N. W. 344.
436->71 Teti v. Consolidated Coal Co.,
217 Fed. 443.
436-72 Missouri, K. & T. B. Co. v.
Wulf, 226 U. S. 670, 33 Sup. Ct. 135,
67 L. ed. 355.
436-73 Missouri, K. & T. B. Co. v.
Wulf, 226 U. S. 570, 30 Sup. Ct. 135,
57 L. ed. 355; Mott v. Long, 90 Kan.
110, 132 P. 998; Texarkana, etc. By.
Co. V. Casey (Tex. Civ.), 172 S. W. 729;
St. Louis, S. F. & T. B. Co. v. Smith
(Tex. Civ.), 171 S. W. 512.
A wldow» T7lio brought mit under th«
Federal Employers' Liability Act which
provides that the personal representa-
tive should bring suit,, will not after
judgment and after being appointed ad-
ministratrix, be allowed as administra-
trix, to adopt the judgment rendered
in her favor as widow, but the admin-
istratrix should be made a party and
defendant's motion for a new trial
should be granted and the case tried
anew. Vaughan r. St. Louis & S. F.
B. Co., 177 Mo. App. 155, 164 S. W.
144.
436-76 McKerral v. Edmonton, 7 D.
L. B. (Eng.) 661.
436-76 Oimerdilp of property which
caased fatal Injury^ — The plea of not
guilty does not put in issue the owner-
ship, possession or operation of the in-
strumentalities or property which caused
the injury alleged, but a defense based
upon an intended denial of such alle-
gations of the declaration must be
properly pleaded. Thomas v. Anthony,
179 HI. App. 463; Carr v. U. S. Silica
Co., 153 111. App. 611.
437-84 Crabbe «. Mammoth Channel
Gold M. Co., 168 Cal. 500, 143 P. 714;
Curran v. Lewiston, A. & W. St. By.
Co., 112 Me. 96, 90 A. 973; Peperkom
t?. St. Louis T. B. CJo., 171 Mo. App. 709,
154 S. W. 836.
438-86 Plea of not gniltyw — Southern
B. Co. r. Bice 's Admx., 115 Va. 235, 7S
S. £. 592.
39i
DSATS BY WnomPVL ACT
Vol. e
4SS-S4I See 7 Stanpabd ProoV 108,
and mpplement tliereto.
Pleft of Be naaneB admlxilstnrtor goes to
plaintiff's right to maintain the action.
Milbra v. Sloas-Sheffield S. ft I. Co., 182
Ala. 622, 62 S. 176, 46 L. B. A. (N.
S.) 274.
439-90 BichardBon «. Detroit ft M.
Ry. Co., 176 Mich. 413, 142 N. W. 882;
Parmentier «. M^Ginnis, 157 Wis. 696,
147 N. W. 1007.
440-91 Tinkham «. Everson, 219
Mass. 164, 106 N. E. 602; Buckley v.
Boston El. B. Co., 215 Mass. 50, 102 N.
E. 76; FoUert «. Brikson, 156 App. Div.
372, 141 N. Y. S. 428; Bober r. Northern
Pac. By. Co., 25 N. D. 894, 142 N. W.
22. ^
WlMn a question of law^ — ^If no wit-
nesses are produced to testify as to
what a person Injured and killed did
as he approached the erossing, the pre-
sumption tiiat he stopped, looked and
listened is sufficient to take the case to
the jury on the question of contribu-
tory negligence. But if there be direct
and positive oTidence that the deced-
ent did not stop, look and listen, and
there is no testimony that he did per-
fornt the duty, there can be no recov-
ery, and it is the duty of the court to
so declare as a matter of law. If the
testimony is conflicting, it is for the
jury to determine the fact. Schmidt v,
Philadelphia ft B. By. Co., 244 Pa. 205,
90 A. 569.
The qnestioii of due oare becomes one
of law for the court when there is no
conflict in the evidence, and the evi-
dence is such that the minds of all rea-
sonable men must arrive at but one
conclusion. Coulter v. Illinois C. B. Co.,
184 111. App. 208, af. 264 IlL 414, 106
N. E. 258.
440-94 Contributory negligence of
child's paxentw — Follert v, Erikson, 156
App. Div. 372, 141 N. Y. S. 428.
441^6 Atkinson «. Yarborough, 13
Ga. App. 781, 80 S. E. 29; Teachout v.
Grand Bapids, etc. By. Co., 179 Mich.
388, 140 N. W. 241; Tegels v. Great
Northern By. Co., 120 Minn. 31, 138 N.
W. 945; Nelson 9, Northern Pac. By.
Co., 119 Minn. 347, 138 N. W. 419;
Anderson «. Duluth, etc. B. Co., 116
Minn. 846, 133 N. W. 805; Bruck €.
New York Cent, ft H. B. B. Co., 165
App. Bir. 621, 151 N. Y. S. 286; Bober
». Northern Pac. By. Co., 25 N. D.
894, 142 N. W. 22; Lewis f>. Bio Grande
Western By. Co., 40 Utah 483, 123 P. 97.
See Sanderson i;. Chicago, M. ft St. P.
By. Co. (la.), 149 N. W. 188.
Occiq^tioa of married woman. — Ques-
tion whether married woman would have
resumed her occupation is one for the
jury in an action to recover damages
for injury to her estate caused by her
wrongful death. Nolte v, Chicago, B.
I. ft P. By. Co. (la.), 147 N. W. 192.
443-98 Moffett v. Baltimore ft O. B.
Co. (C. C. A.), 220 Fed. 39; Norfolk ft
W. By. Co. V. Holbrook, 215 Ped. 687,
131 C. C. A. 621; Baines v. Southern
By. Co. (N. C), 85 8. E. 294; Gulf, C.
ft S. P. By. Co. 17. Hicks (Tex. Civ.),
166 S. W. 1190; Freeman v. Morales
(Tex. Civ.), 151 S. W. 644. See Jones
V. Charleston ft W. C. Ey. Co., 98 S. C.
197, 82 S. E. 415.
When question for oourtr-^But where
dependence of plaintiff upon deceased
is made an essential to recovery, the
court will take judicial notice that a
child two years old was incapable of
rendering valuable services so that plain*
tiff could not be dependent upon him.
Beyond that age it may be a matter for
determination by the jury whether or
not the infant is capable of rendering
valuable services. James f>. Central, etc.
By. Co., 138 Ga. 415, 75 S. E. 431, 41
L. B. A. (N. S.) 795, Ann. Cas. 1913D,
468 (two years and eleven months);
Crawford v. Southern By. Co., 106 Ga.
870, 33 S. E. 826 (four and one half
years); Crenshaw v. Louisville ft N.
B. Co. (Ga. App.), 82 S. B. 767.
Dependencar of next of kin upon de-
cedent. Kenney v. Seaboard Air lane
B. Co., 167 N. C. 14, 82 S. E. 968.
443-99 Ohio Valley Trust Co. v.
Wernke, 179 Ind. 49, 99 N. E. 734; Terre
Haute, I. ft E, Traction Co. v. Maberry,
52 Ind. App. 114, 100 N. E. 401; Grif-
fin 17. Predonia Brick Co., 90 Kan. 375,
133 P. 574 (jury might consider what
deceased might reasonably be expected
to have contributed to his parents after
arriving at the age of twenty-one
years); Hays r. Hogan, 180 Mo. App.
237, 165 S. W. 1125; Gentry V, Wabash
B. Co., 172 Mo. App. 638, 156 S. W.
27; Waite v. Chicago, etc. B. Co., 168
Mo. App. 160, 153 S. W. 66 (failure to
do so not reversible error, when) ; Great
Western Coal ft Coke Co. v. Boyd, 43
Okla. 438, 143 P. 36; Great Western
Coal ft Coke Co. v. Coffman, 43 Okla.
404, 143 P. 30; Big Jack Mining Co. v.
395
Vol. 6
DEATH BY WBONGFUL'ACT
Parkinson, 41 Okla. 125, 137 P. 678;
Missouri, K. & T. By. Co. v. W^st, 38
Okla. 581, 134 P. 655; McClaugherty v.
Bogue Biver Electric Co. (Or.), 144 P.
569; Cosgrove v. Hay, 54 Pa. Super.
175; Kipros v. Uintah By. Co. (Utah),
146 P. 292; White's Admx. r. Central
Vermont By. Co., 87 Vt. 330, 89 A. 618.
Dlminntion of damages by reason of
contrlbntory negligence^ under Federal
Employers' Liability Act. Instructions
in the language of the statute is insulfi-
eient, but the jury must be charged
where casual negligence is partly attri-
butable to the employe and partly to
the carrier, he can recover only such
a proportional amount as bears the
same relation to the full amount as
carrier's -negligence bears to the en-
tire negligence attributable * to both.
Norfolk & W. B. Co. v. Earnest, 229
U. S. 114, 33 Sup. Ct. 654, 57 L. ed.
1096, 19140, Ann. Cas. 172; Louisville
& N. B. Co. V. Holloway's Admx., 163
Ky. 125, 173 S. W. 343.
Court may snbmit one Issue as to dam-
ages instead of separate issues as to
total damages, and where the issues sub-
mitted fully cover disputed points it is
not error to refuse to submit other is-
sues. Gray v. Southern B. Co., 167 N.
O. 433, 83 S. E. 849.
Expectation of inheritance not a proper
element. Bochester 17. Seattle, B. & S.
By. Co., 75 Wash. 559, 135 P. 209.
Pecuniary aid received from deceased.
An instruction which charges that the
jurv may give substantial damages if
it nnds that the next of kin had been
in the habit of claiming and receivng
pecuniary aid from deceased is erron-
eous. Standard Forgings Co. v. Holm-
strom (Ind. App.), 104 N. E. 872.
444-1 Cleburne E. & G. Co. v. Mc-
Coy (Tex. Civ.), 149 S. W. 534.
446-3 Shields ^j, L H. Dole Co., 168
HL App. 362: St. Louis, B. & M. By. Co.
V. Jenkins (Tex. Civ.), 163 S. W. 621
(discussion of instructions as to meas-
ure of damages); St. Louis, S. F. &
T. By. Co. V. Geer (Tex. Civ.), 149 S.
W. 1178. See Brown f). Erie B. Co. (N.
J. Eq.), 91 A. 1023.
446-5 Fischer v. Chicago & W. I.
B. Co., 171 111. App. 347.
446-6 But sach an tnstmction is
rightfully refused where it ignores the
rights of parents of a minor child.
Carlin v. Beahl, 172 HI. App. 197.
446-7 Embler v. Gloucester Lumb.
COr 167 N. C. 457, 83 S. E. 740.
446-10 Shields v, Keal, 158 Ky. 695,
166 S. W. 211 (self-defense); Dalton
V, St. Louis S. ft B. Co. (Mo. App.), i74
S. W. 468.
If no issue of malice or wantonness is
raised the instruction on the measure
of damages should not present any is-
sue of mitigating or aggravating cir-
cumstances. Goode V. ventral Coal 6
Coke Co., 167 Mo. App. 169, 151 S. W.
508.
446-13 Sanderson V. Chicago, M. &
St. P. By. Co. (la.), 149 N. W. 188;
Lunde v. Cudahy Pack. Co., 139 la. 688,
117 N. W. 1063; Tarranabena v. Cen-
tral Ice & C. S. Co., 134 La. 637, 64 S.
495; Profumo v. Central Ice & C. S.
Co., 134 La. 637, 64 S. 495; Lobach v.
Kansas City S. B. Co., 172 Mo. App.
278, 158 S. W. 397; Wells' Admr. v.
Coal Co., 116 Va. 1003, 83 S. E. 384.
Presumption of negUgence arises where
defendant produces no evidence. At-
kinson 17. Alexander, 142 Ga. 124, 82
S. E. 561.
447-14 Texas & P. B. Co. v. Shoe-
maker, 98 Tex. 451, 84 S. W. 1049;
Bock V. Fellman Dry Goods Co. (Tex.
Civ.), 173 S. W. 582.
Erratum^-' 'Plaintiff's," in first line
of text should be "defendant's."
448-16 St. Germain v. Potlatch
Lumb. Co., 76 Wash. 102, 135 P. 804.
448-22 Pittsburgh, C. C. & St. L.
By. Co. t?. Scherer, 205 Fed. 356, 123 C.
C. A. 484; Crabbe v. Mammoth Chan-
nel Gold M. Co., 168 Cal. 500, 143 P. 714;
Breen v. Iowa Cent. By. Co., 163 la. 264,
143 N. W. 846; Wilson v. Chicago, M.
& St. P. By. Co., 161 la. 191, 142 N. W.
54; Lunde v. Cudahy Pack. Co., 139 la.
688, 117 N. W. 1063; Jones V. Joplin &
P. By. Co., 91 Kan. 282, 137 P. 796;
Fike V. Atchison, T. Sa S. F. By. Co., 90
Kan. 409, 133 P. 871; Curran v, Lewis-
ton, A. & W. St. By. Co., 112 Me. 96,
90 A. 973; Teachout v. Grand Bapids,
etc. By. Co., 179 Mich. 388, 146 N. W.
241; Lincoln V. Detroit Sa M. By. Co.,
179 Mich. 189, 146 N. W. 405; Wisniew-
ski V. Detroit, G. H. & M. By. Co., 177
Mich. 481, 143 N. W. 613; Bichardson v.
Detroit & M. By. Co., 176 Mich. 413,
142 N. W. 832; Adams f?. Iron Cliffs
Co., 78 Mich. 271, 44 N. W. 270, 18 Am.
St. 441; Tegels V, Great Northern By.
Co., 120 Minn. 31, 138. N. W. 946; Nel-
son V, Northern Pac. By. Co., 119 Minn«
347, 138 N. W. 419; Anderson C. I>uluth,
etc. B. Co., 116 Minn. 346, 133 N. W.
896
DEATH BY WRONOFUL ACT,
yoi. 6
s *
805: Capp v. St. Louis, 251 Mo. 345, 158
a W. 616, 46 L. B. A. (N. S.) 731;
Tetwiler v. St. Louis, etc. By. Co., 242
Mo. 178, 145 S. W. 780; Bodan v. Tran-
sit Co., 207 Mo. 392, 105 S. W. 1061;
Biggins r. St. Louis ft S. B. Co., 197
Mo. 300, 95 S. W. 863; Peperkorn v, St.
Louis T. B, Co., 171 Mo. App. 709, 154
S. W. 836; Melzner v. Baven- Copper
Co., 47 Mont. 351, 132 P. 552; Nicholson
c. New York, 85 Misc. 563, 147 N. Y.
S. 779, aff. 150 N. Y. S. 1099 (holding
that Laws, 1913, eh. 228, placing the
burden of proving contributory negli-
gence in actions for death of a person
upon defendant applied* to an action
for a death which occurred prior to
such aet but action tried after section
became law. But see Sackheim v.
Pigueron, 163 App. Div. 180, 148 N. Y.
S. 27, holding under the same circum-
stances that such section did not ap-
ply); Bober v. Northern Pac. By. Co.,
25 N. D. 394, 142 N. W. 22; Hutcher-
von «• Amarillo St. By. Co. (Tex. Civ.),
176 S. W. 856; Hovey v. Sanders (Tex.
Civ.), 174 S. W. 1025; Lewis v. Bio
Grande Western By. Co., 40 Utah 483,
123 P. 97. See Commercial Nat. Bank
V. Page ft Brinton (Utah), 142 P. 709.
^'StQP, look and listen." — ^The presump-
tion is that decedent did his duty, which
required that he stop, look and listen
before attempting to cross the tracks
of defendant company. Schmidt v.
Philadelphia ft B. By. Co., 244 Pa. 205,
90 A. 569.
Where eye ^tnesses, rule not appU-
eable^ — The presumption of due care has
no application when there are eye wit-
nesses who testify as to the particular
circumstances. Chicago ft E. I. B. Co.
V. Heerey, 203 HI. '492, 68 N. E. 74;
Newell V. C. C. A. ft St. L. B. Co., 179
HI. App. 497: Bussler v. Chicago, M. ft
St. P. By. Co. (la.), 145 N. W. 533;
Platter v. Minneapolis ft St. L. B. Co.,
162 la. 142, 143 N. W. 992; Burge v,
Wabash B. Co., 244 Mo. 76, 148 S. W.
925; Battles v. United B. Co., 177 Mo.
App. 696, 161 S. W. 614.
450-2S Platter €. Minneapolis ft St.
L. B. Co., 162 la. 142, 143 N. W. 902;
Wilson V. Chicago, M. ft St. P. By.
Co., 161 la. 91, 142 N. W. 64.
<460-24 Humason r. Michigan Cent.
B. Co., 259 111. 462, 102 N. B. 793;
Chicago ft E. I. B. Co. v. Heerey, 203
HI. 492, 68 N. E. 74; Hlinois C. B. B.
Co. V. Nowicki, 148 HI. 29, 35 N. E.
358; Chicago ft A. By. Co. v. Carey, 115
HI. 115, 3 N. E. 519; Newell v. C, C,
C. ft St. L. By. Co., 179 HI. App. 497;
Merchants' Trans, ft S. Co. v. Chicago,
B. I. ft P. B. Co. (la.), 150 N. W. 720;
Sanderson v. Chicago, M. ft St. P. By.
Co. (la.), 149 N. W. 188; Wilson f?.
Chicago, M. ft St. P. By. Co., 161 la.
91, 142 N. W. 54; Plympton v. Boston
El. By. Co., 217 Mass. 137, 104 N. E.
444; O'Brien V, Boston El. By. Co.,
217 Masb. 130, 104 N. E. 442; Murphy
V. Boston ft M. B. B., 216 Mass. 178,
103 N. E. 291 (under statute providing
for recovery of damages against rail-
road for negligent death of person not
a passenger who was in the exercise
of due care, plaintiff must prove that
decedent was in exercise of due care);
Greenwood v. Boston ft M. B. B., 77
N. H. 101, 88 A. 217; Sackheim v,
Pigueron, 163 App. Div. 180, 148 N.
Y. S. 27, where wrongful death oc-
curred prior to amendment to 841b of
N. Y. Code Civ. Proc, but action tried
after section became law on Sept. 1,
1913. See also Nicholson 17. New York,
85 Misc. 563, 147 N. Y. S. 779.
Degree of proofs — ^Where no eye-wit-
nesses, plaintiff must establish the exer-
cise of ordinary care on the part of
deceased by the highest proof of which
the case is capable. Newell v, Cleve-
land, etc. By. Co., 261 HI. 505, 104
N. E. 223; CollisOn V. Hlinois Cent. B.
Co., 239 HI. 532, 88 N. E. 251.
Presence of eye-witnesses^^-The instruc-
tion given as to the presumption of
the exercise of due care when there are
no eye-witnesses does not relieve the
plaintiff from the burden of proving
the freedom of the deceased from
contributory negligence. Lunde « v.
Cudahy Pack. Co., 139 la. 688, 117 N.
W. 1063.
451-25 In case of a claim made by
the ancestor under the statute there is
no presumption, from the mere rela-
tionship of the parties, that the par-
ent is a pecuniary loser by the wrong-
ful termination of the child's life, ex-
cept for the period of minority. There-
fore there can be no recovery for the
period after minority in the absence of
evidence showing such loss and the
amount of it. Andrzejewski v. North-
western Fuel Co., 158 Wis. 170, 148 N.
W. 37.
Under the Federal Employezs' Liabil-
ity Act, the action for death by wrong-
ful act may be maintained in behalf
of widow, or husband, or children, or
397
Vol. 6
T)BBX,
parents upon proof of a reasonable ex-
pectation of pecuniary benefit, but
when it is for the benefit of others as
next of kin, there must be proof of
dependency. Dooley t. Seaboard Air
Line By. Co., 163 N. €. 454, 79 8. B,
970.
461-26 Garrett v. L. & N. By. Co.,
197 Fed. 715, 117 C. C. A. 109; Fischer
V. Chicago & W. I. B. Co., 171 111. App.
347; McCoullongh V. Chicago, B. I. &
P. By. Co., 160 la. 624, 142 N. W. 67.
Proof necessary to entitle widow to
more than nominal damages. — ^Proof
that deceased ''left a widow, was suffi-
cient to entitle her to nominal dam-
ages at least, but it was necessary for
her to prove that she received some
support or pecuniary aid from her hus-
band or had reason to believe that she
would thereafter receive such, before
she would be entitled to more than
nominal damages." Ooen «. Baltimore
& 0. S. W. B. Co., 179 m. App. 566.
452-27 A presnmiridon of nominal
damages will obtain in favor of par-
ents. But there is no presumption in
favor of substantial loss to parents or
dependent relatives. Standard Forg-
ings Co. 17. Holmstrom (Ind. App.), 104
N. £. 872; McCoullough V. Chicago, B.
I. & P. By. Co., 160 la. 524, 142 N. W.
67.
Collateral relatives^ — ^In a suit by the
administratrix on behalf of collateral
relatives to recover damages for the
death of a relative, there can be no
recovery unless it is proved that the
collateral ^relatives received pecuniary
assistance from and were dependent on
the. deceased. The burden of proof is
on the relatives. Huddleston v» Hen-
derson, 181 HI. App. 176.
462-28 Carolina C. & O. B. B. v.
Shewalter, 128 Tenn. 363, 161 S. W.
1136; St. Louis, B. & M. By. Co. V.
Jenkins (Tex. Civ.), 163 S. W. 621;
Texas & N. O. B. Co. v. Brown, 14 Tex.
Civ. App. 697, 700, 39 S. W. 140.
453-30 Halbert v. Louisville ft N. B.
Co., 183 111. App. 483, mother not living
with son. —-,£>/ ^.
463-36 Gulf, C. & S. F. By. Co. v.
McGinnis, 228 U. S. 173, 33 Sup. Ct.
426, 57 L. ed. 785; Illinois Cent. B.
Co. 17. Porter, 207 Fed. 311, 125 C. C.
A. 55; Pittsburgh, C, C, & St. L. By.
Co. V. Scherer, 205 Fed. 356, 123 C. C.
A. 484; Whitmer V. El Paso & S. W.
Co., 201 Fed. 193, 119 C. C. A. 637
(Texas statute); Louisville Jb N. B.
Co. V. Stewaftt's Admx., 156 Sy. 550,
161 S. W. 557; Bichardsoa t. Detroit
So M. By. Co., 176 Mich. 413, 142 N. W.
832; Collins v. Pennsylvania B. Co., 163
App. Div. 452, 148 N. Y. S. 777; Ball-
road Go. It. Le Gierse, 51 Tex. 189, 199;
Fogarty v. Northern Pac. By. Co^ 74
Wash. 397, 133 P. 609.
Waiver of erroTj— It is not reversible
error where no instruction is asked
that the recovery be apportioned among
the beneficiaries and no objection was
made to the verdict and no exception
taken. Hardwick «. Wabash B. Co.,
181 Mo. App. 156, 168 B. W. 328.
Apportioned by courts— Brown v. Grand
Trunk B. Co., 11 D. L. B. (Can.) 97,
28 0. L. B. 354, 15 Can. By. Cas. 350,
4 0. W. N. 942, 24 0. W. B. 255.
454-37 Gulf, O. ft S. F. B. Co. «. Me-
Ginnis, 228 U. S. 173, 33 Sap. Ot. 426,
57 L. ed. 785.
U&der tbe Ohio atatate^ the jury re-
turns a verdict for a groat Bum which
is apportioaed by the court, but under
the Federal Employers' Liability Act
the apportionment ia for the jury to
return. Pittsburgh, C, C. ft St. L. By.
Co. V. Scherer, 205 Fed. S66, 123 C. C.
A. 484.
4S6-4G OtoBti nbefe benefiefaileetM.
If all the benefieiariee do not bring
suit, only thoee bringing it shall be
responsible for eosts. Carpenter v.
Bhode Island Co., 36 B. L 396, 90 A.
768.
DEBT
468-28 ActioB hy nraaSclpatttf for
use of streets^ — ^Debt is the proper form
of action for the recovery by a munici-
pality of remuneration in a sum eertain
under an ordinance for the use of its
streets. City V. Postal Tel. C. Co., 164
111. App. 276, tfjf . in 253 HL 346, 97
N. E. 672.
476-64 Becovery penalty ttcm a cor*
poratlon. — ^Under statutes providing for
the recovery of a pecuniary penalty by
debt or assumpsit where no proviaioa
is made for imprisonment of the of-
fender, debt will lie where the offender
is a corporation even though imprieon-
ment is provided for, since a corpora-
tion cannot be imprisoned. Owosae f>.
Michigan Cent B. Co. (Mich.), 190 N.
W. 323.
478-63 Demand for and refusal of
898
DECEDENTS' ESTATES
Yol 6
payment. Cotton v, ThompBon (Tex.'^,
159 8. W. 455.
480-69 Ootton «. Thompsoii (Tex.))
159 S. W. 455.
488-99 Conowingo Land Co. v, Me-
Oaw, 124 Md. 643, 93 A. 222.
Plea of never was Indebted not proper
in debt on specialties. Conowingo Land
Co. V. McGaw, 124 Md. 643, 93 A. 222.
489-7 Conowingo Land Co. iu Me-
Gaw, 124 Md. 643, 93 A. 222.
DECEDENTS' ESTATES
602-2 As to power of ordinary in ad-
joining county to appoint administrator
in absence of regular ordinary, see In
re Williams, 139 Ga. 524, 77 S. E. 624.
502-3 S. V, Probate Court (Minn.),
153 N. W. 520.
502-5 Baker v. Baker, Eceles & Co.,
162 Ky, 683, 173 S. W. 109.
503-8 Wright f. Merrill, 26 Ida. 8,
140 P. 1101; McCormick v, Brownell,
25 Ida. 11, 136 P. 613; In re Black-
burn's Est., 48 Mont. 179, 137 P. 381;
Latham v, Mullen (B. I.), 92 A. 804.
{2660, Code CLt. Proc^ provides for
order of preference, and only those
relations who may share in distribution
may be appointed. In re Kroog's Est.,
84 Misc. 676, 147 N. Y. S. 887.
Person nominated by widow.-— In re
Alpaugh's Est., 83 N. J. Eq. 616, 91
A. 588.
Tli«re is no Inherent right to admin*
ister an estate; the liglit being statu-
tory. In re Brinckmann's Est., 89 Misc.
41, 152 N. Y. S. 542; In re D'Agostino,
88 Misc. 371, 151 N. Y. S. 957; In re
Comparetto, 88 Misc. 369, 151 N. Y. S.
961.
Bight of priority restricted to reaidenta
of the state. — B. I. aen. Laws, 1909,
ch. 312, §11; Latham 17. Mullen (B. I.),
92 A. 804.
A resident alien brother may be ap-
pointed. Matter of D'Adamo, 212 N.
Y. 214, 106 N. E. 81; In re Pulver's
Est., 149 N. Y. S. 599.
A sister of decedent not entitled to
share in property cannot have letters
S anted her. In re Elder's Est., 87
isc. 79, 150 N. Y. S. 114.
As to pnbUc administrator, see Nelson
V. Troll, 173 Mo. App. 51, 156 S. W. 16.
Consul general of nation to which de-
ceased belonged may be appointed. In
re Sinovcie's Est., 80 N. J. Eq. 260, 86
A. 917.
Existence of interlocutory decree does
not bar widow's right to administer.
In re Martin's Est., 166 Cal. 399, 137
P. 2.
Conunlttee of Idlot^-^Where next of kin
is idiot his right to administer may be
exercised by his committee. Anderson's
Committee v. Anderson's Admr., 161
Ky. 18, 170 S. W. 213.
Where none of ellglbles apply for let-
ters, then time of appointment as well
as designation of person is left to the
discretion of the court. Thompson v.
Archie's Admr., 158 Ky. 590, 165 S. W.
977; Spayd's Admr. p. Brown, 31 Ky.
L. B. 438, 102 S. W. 823.
Where person named failed to Qvalify,
the court can appoint any suitable per-
son, jurisdiction having been conferred
by the original petition showing juris-
dictional facts. Wilkie V, Bailey, 74
Wash. 241, 133 P. 388.
508-9 Jones v. Herbert, 77 N. H.
282, 90 A. 854.
Xaven though he is also a debtor.
Latham v. Mullen (B. I.), 92 A. 804.
503-12 Application need not be in
writing. Dallago i;. Atlantic Coast Line
B. Co., 165 N. C. 269, 81 S. E. 318.
S03-14 Sanchez r. Calderon, 19 P. B.
1046.
604-22 See Sanchez v. Calderon, 19
P. B. 1046.
Verification Is absolntely necessary in
Porto Bico. Sanchez v, Calderon, 19
P. B. 1046; Bivera v. Camara, 17 P. B.
503.
504*23 Carter v. Frahm, 31 S. D. 379,
141 N. W. 370.
604-24 Carter v. Frahm, 31 S. D.
379, 141 N. W. 370.
506-31 Appointment continues dur-
ing time of pendency of appeal. S. v.
Imel, 243 Mo. 180, 147 S. W. 989.
BenoraL — ^After a will has been ad-
mitted to probate and an independent
executrix is named therein, a tempo-
rary administrator cannot complain
even though he was wrongfully re-
moved. Hall 1?. Davison (Tex. Civ.),
176 S. W. 642.
After probate of the will the court has
no power to appoint an administrator,
even when executor consents. Turley
V. Evins, 109 Ark. 115, 158 S. W. 1080;
Steen v. Springfield, 91 Ark. 73, 120 S.
W. 408,
399
Vol 6
DECEDENTS' ESTATES
605-82 Lewis 17. Logan, 120 Md. 329,
87 A. 750; In re Belotti, 87 Misc. 81,
150 N. Y. 8. 421.
606-35 Sanchez v, Calderon, 19 P. B.
1046; Latham v. Mullen (B. 1), 92 A.
804.
Petition for appointment is JnrlBdlctioOi-
aly and without it the appointment, ap-
proval of bond, and issuance of letters
are nullities. Bombolis v. Minneapolis
& St. L. B. Co. (Minn.), 150 N. yi.
385.
606-38 Sanchez v, Calderon, 19 P. B.
1046.
A consul need not file bond where next
of kin are aliens and assets are dis-
tributable by direction of foreign juris-
diction; but where distributees become
Residents of the state he will be re-
quired to file bond. In re Orlando's
Est., 148 N. Y. S. 270.
Failure to give bond or the giving of
insufficient bond is only an irregularity
not affecting validity of appointment.
Batchelor v» Overton, 158 N. C. 395, 74
S. £. 20.
606-39 Amberson v. Candler, 17 N.
M. 455, 130 P. 255.
606-40 McAdams V. Wilson (Tex.
Civ.), 164 S. W. 59.
In Michigan under Comp. Laws, 1897,
§9311, every executor must give bond
even though testator dispensed with the
requirement. Chamberlain v, Husel, 178
Mich. 1, 144 N. W. 549.
606-41 Bull V, Bal, 17 N. M. 466, 130
P. 251; Amberson t?. Candler, 17 N. M.
455, 130 P. 255. •
Amendment nunc pro tnnCd — ^Irregular-
ity in not filling in blanks in bond by
the clerk of court may be remedied
nunc pro tunc. Dallago v. Atlantic
Coast Air Line B. Co., 165 N. C. 269,
81 S. E. 318.
608-48 Abuse of discretion. — The
action of the court in requiring an ad-
ditional bond is not subject to review,
unless the discretion vested in the court
has been manifestly abused or arbi-
trarily zeroised. Pratt V. Hill, 124 Md.
252, 92 A. 543.
609-66 Thompson t?. Archie *s Admr.,
158 Ky. 590, 165 S. W. 977.
Premature appointment of stranger.
The appointment of a stranger as ad-
ministrator made within thirty days
after the death of deceased, within
which time the widow, heirs at law
and creditors of the estate had a prior
right to apply, will not be set aside
upon the application of another
stranger, although it would be set aside
upon the application of any one of those
having a prior right. Franciscovich v,
Walton (Dr.), 150 P. 261.
609-6T Succession of Serres, 135 La.
1005, 66 S. 342.
An order refusing to appoint a person
as administrator is not appealable.
Flick 1?. Schenk, 212 Mo. 275, 110 S. W.
1074; S. V. Fowler, 108 Mo. 465, 18 S.
W. 968; Marshall v. Shoemaker's Est.,
164 Mo. App. 144 S. W. 1120.
Consnl general of nation to which de-
ceased belonged may appeal. In re
Sinovcic 'a Est., 80 N. J. Eq. 260, 86 A.
917.
Appeal diould be entitled ''In the
matter of the Estate of ,
Deceased." O'Brien c. Nelson, 164 Cal.
573, 129 P. 985.
609-68 In re Barnett's Est. (Okla.),
150 P. 692.
609-60 Holtz V. Mercantile Trust &
Sav. Co., 53 Ind. App. 194, 100 N. E.
398; In re Doolittle's Est. (la.), 149
N. W. 873. See Stines v. Brock, 185
HI. App. 22.
610-63 American Car Sa Foundry Co.
!?. Anderson, 211 Fed. 301, 127 C. C.
A. 587; Carr V, Illinois Central B. Co.,
180 Ala. 159, 60 S. 277, 43 L. B. A.
(N. S.) 634; White v. Hill, 176 Ala. 480,
58 S. 444; Alabama Great Southern B.
Co. t?. Hill, 139 Ga. 224, 76 S. E. 1001,
43 L. B. A. (N. S.) 236; Magoon t?.
Ami, 8 Haw. 191; Mesker v. Bishop
(Ind. App.), 103 N. E. 492; Sample
V. Adams, 54 Ind. App. 680, 100 N. E-
573; Hanson v. Sward, 92 Kan. 1, 140
P. 100; Ekblad v, Hanson, 85 Kan. 541,
117 P. 1028; Doran t?. Kennedy, 122
Minn. 1, 141 N. W. 851; Forrester v.
Southern Pacific Co., 36 Nev. 247, 134
P. 753, 136 P. 705; In re Queen's Est.,
82 N. J. Eq. 583, 89 A. 290; Smith v.
Steen (N. M.), 150 P. 927; Amberson
t?. Candler, 17 N. M. 455, 130 P. 255;
In re Brown's Est., 96 S. C. 34, 79
S. E. 791; Louisville & N. B. Co. i?.
Herb, 125 Tenn. 408, 143 S. W. 1138;
Abbott 1?. Coburn, 28 Vt. 663, 67 Am.
Dec. 735; Driggs «?. Abbott, 27 Vt. 580,
65 Am. Dec. 214; McFarland V, Stone,
17 Vt. 165, 44 Am. Dec. 325; Kolofl
f?. Chicago, M. & P. S. B. Co., 71 Wash.
543, 129 P. 398. See Whitwell v. Bart-
lett, 211 Mass. 238, 98 N. E. 98.
400
DECEDENTS' ESTATES
Vol. 6
Improper appolntmAnt of infant cannot
be collaterally attacked* Tomblin t*.
Peck, 73 W. Va. 336 80 8. E. 450.
Wbat is not collateral attack. — ^Where
letters were issued to applicant on es-
tate of Bobert Eranen he does not
thereby become administrator of es-
tate of Tyko Bobert Eranen although
that was his intention on filing the
petition, and an attempt to show that
he had never been appointed adminis-
trator of the latter 's estate is not a
collateral attack. Anderson v. Qualey,
216 Mass. 106, 103 N. E. 90 It is
not a collateral attack to deny plaintiff
the right to the possession of the prop-
erty. Ben 17. Farmers' Bank (Mo.
App.), 174 S. W. 196.
510-64 Milbra v. Sloss'Sheffield Steel
A Iron Co., 182 Ala. 622, 62 S. 176;
Doran r, Kennedy, 122 Minn. 1, 141
N W. 851.
Appointment where supposed intestate
la alive is void and may be collaterally
attacked. In re Barrett's Est (la.),
149 N. W. 247.
X*raad or collusion. — In an action by
administratrix where answer denies
that the letters were "duly issued,"
the defendants may attack appointment
only foi fraud or collusion. Webster
V. M. W. Kellogg Co, (App Div.), 153
N. Y. 8. 800.
61 1-66 Stephenson v, Wiess (Tex.
Civ,), 145 S. W. 287.
Also presumption of regularity of pro-
ceedings.— Johnston v. Frank, 97 Neb.
190, 149 N. W. 409.
511-66 Discretion of court. — Court is
not bound to recognize the nomination
of an executor by will, but has dis-
cretionary powers in the appointment.
The nomination will be recognized, how-
ever, in the absence of a strong show-
ing against such appointment In re
Doolittle's Est. (la.), 149 N. W. 873.
Oonflrmation. — ^The motive of the tes-
tator in making the appointment is not
open to inquiry, and unless there exists
some reason founded in law, for refus-
ing so to dO) the probate court to which
the will is presented should confirm the
appointment. Succession of Serres^ 135
La. 1005, 66 S. 342. The fact that a
testate succession owes no debts and
that there are no movable legacies to
be paid is an insufiicient reason for re-
fusing to confirm. Succession of Serres,
135 La. 1005, 66 8. 342.
511-67 Succession of Serres, 135 La.
1005, 66 S. 342; Journeay v. Shook
(Tex. Civ.), 152 S. W. 809, rev. 149
S W. 406.
612-69 Benunclatlon of right to ad-
minister.— Waiver may be made in open
court or by power of attorney filed
with clerk of court. Kim mens v. Abra-
ham (Tex. Civ.), 158 S. W. 256.
512-72 See Gaines' Est., 56 Pa.
Super. 118.
The executor may withdraw or revoke
a renunciation at any time before let-
ters are issued or at any time there-
after when the estate is without a law-
ful administrator. In re Dunham's
Will, 165 App. Div. 165, 150 N. Y. S.
692.
512-73 Bull V. Bal, 17 N. M. 466, 130
P. 251.
Two appointments. — There cannot be,
within the same jurisdiction, two valid
grants of administration on same es-
tate, existing at the same time. Carr
f?. Illinois Cenral B. Co., 180 Ala. 159,
60 S. 277, 43 L. B. A. (N. S.) 634;
McDowell V. Jones, 58 Ala. 25, 35.
513-74 Comstock v. Crawford, 3
Wall. (U. S.) 396, 18 L. ed. 34; Bum-
rill V. First Nat. Bank, 28 Minn. 202,
9 N. W. 731; Baler's Est., 2 How. Pr.
N. S. (N. Y.) 323; Flinn v. Chase, 4
Denio (N. Y.) 85; Mitchell v, Adams,
23 N C. 298; Strobel's Est., 11 Phila.
(Pa.) 122; Chapman v. Charleston, 30
S. C. 549, 9 S. E. 591, 3 L. E. A. 311;
Haigood v. Wells, 1 Hill Eq. (S. C.)
59; McGowan t;. Wade, 3 Yerg. (Tenn.)
375; Hensloe's Case, 9 Coke 36b, 77
Eng. Beprint 784^; Badenach's Goods,
10 Jur. N. S. (Eng.) 521; Crueifer t?.
Eeynolds, 3 Hagg. Eccl. (Eng.) 215;
Meek v. Curtis, 1 Hagg. Eccl. Bep.
(Eng.) 127.
513-75 Effect of resignation. See
Sample r. Adams, 54 Ind. App. 680, 100
N. E. 573.
Where there is sufficient cause for re-
moyal an administrator may be per-
mitted to resign. Marsh v. P., 15 111.
284; Thayer v. Homer, 11 Met. (Mass.)
104; Balch r. Hooper, 32 Minn. 158, 20
N. W. 124; Trumble v. Williams, 18
Neb. 144, 24 N. W. 716.
514-80 Dow V. Simpson, 17 N. M.
357, 132 P. 568; Koury v. Castillo, 13
N. M. 26, 79 P. 293; Henry's Est., 54
Pa Super. 274.
Power to revoke. — ^Letters of adminia-
%^
401
Vol. 6
DECEDENTS' ESTATES
tration onoe properly iseaedy can only
b« revoked nnder some power which
the law has conferred on surrogate's
court. Matter of McDonald, 211 N. T.
272, 105 N. £. 407; In re Orlando's Est.,
148 N. T. S. 270.
514-82 Est. of Ward 17. Chicago Title
& Truirt Co., 172 111. App. 532; Haddick
r. District Court, 160 la. 487, 141 N.
W. 925; Fry t?. Pry, 155 la. 254, 135
N. W. 1095; Davis' Admr. v. Davis, 162
Ky. 316, 172 B. W. 665; Ex parte Wil-
liams' Admr., 158 Ky. 61, 164 S. W.
307: Corey V. Corey, 120 Minn. 304, 139
N. W. 509; In re Engel, 155 App. Div.
467, 140 N. Y. S. 286, rev. 74 Misc. 308,
139 N. Y. 8. 1105; In re Engel, 83 Misc.
675, 146 N. Y. S. 793.
Grounds held aofB^lent to wacnat re-
moyal, etc. — ^In re Battle's Est., 158
N. C. 388, 74 S. E. 23; In re Marks &
Wollenberg's Est., 66 Or. 347, 133 P.
779; In re Marks & Co.'s Est., 66 Or.
340, 133 P. 777; In re Hooper's Est.,
76 Wash. 72, 135 P. 813. Incompetence
or disqualification arising after ap-
pointment, is a good ground. In re
Pulitzer's Est., 89 Misc. 657, 153 N.
Y. 8. 1100. Mismanagement and waste
good cause for removal. In re Grei-
fenstein, 86 Misc. 173, 149 N. Y. S. 136.
A widow who had previously been mar-
ried to another and had not been di-
vorced can be removed. Fields v. Woods
(Ala.), 67 S. 1016.
Insuffldeirt gtomiAB. — In re Sloman's
Est. (Mich.), 152 N. W. 957. Where
original petition prayed an accounting
and supplemental petition prayed ap-
pointment of administrator pendente
lite, without filing petition for removal
of present executor, the mere fact that
executor had deposited estate funds in
bank with his personal funds is insuffi-
cient ground for removal where he
acted properly in all other respects. In
re Wittmer's Est., 233 Pa. 599, 82 A.
1023; In re Kuntz's Est., 230 Pa. 557,
79 A. 755.
S15-83 In re Infelise's Est. (Mont.),
149 P. 365.
A prayer may be made In petition for
removal for the party's own appoint-
ment. Fields V, Woods (Ala.), 67 S.
1016.
Ballroad Aefendant In sutt may peti-
tion for revocation of letters on ground
of lack of jurisdiction to grant. Louis-
ville & N. R. Co. V, Herb, 126 Tenn.
^08, 143 S. W, 1138,
Heirs at law may maintain direct pro-
ceeding in equity to set aside appoint-
ment of one who had falsely and
fraudulently represented himself as next
of kin to decedent. Wallace v. Wal-
lace, 142 6a. 408, 83 S. £. 113; Wade
v. Watson, 133 Ga. 608, 66 S. E. 922.
Public administrator has sufficient in-
terest. In re.McMuUen, 85 Misc. 661,
148 N. Y. 8. 1092; Matter of Kroog's
Est., 84 Misc. 676, 147 N. Y. 8. 887.
Heirs by direct proceeding in equity
may ask that judgment granting let-
ters of administration be set aside on
the ground of false representations in
procurement. Wallace v. Wallace, 142
Ga. 408, 83 8. E. 113.
Public administrator can be removed
only at instance of one having prior
right to administer. Boynton i\ Heartt,
158 N. C. 488, 74 6. E. 470, Ann. Cas.
1913D, 616.
Nature of proceeding. — An application
for removal of administrator is not in
nature of an adversary proceeding, but
for the protection of the estate. It is
neither a civil action nor a special pro-
ceeding under Code Civ. Proc. In re
Battle's Est., 158 N. C. 388, 74 8. E.
23.
515-85 Haddick v. District Court, 160
la. 487, 141 N. W. 925.
Petition alone is not sufficient to author-
ize surrogate under §2685 of Code to
issue citation. Moorhouse v. Hutchin-
son, 2 Dem. Sur. (N. Y.) 429; Matter
of Owsley, 153 App. Div. 90, 137 N.
Y. 8. 1040; In re M 'Mullen, 86 Misc.
661, 148 N. Y. 8. 1092.
516-87 Allegations on information
and beUef are sufficient when support-
ing affidavits set forth the grounds for
the belief. Moorhouse v, Hutchinson,
2 Dem. Sur. (N. Y.) 429; Matter of
Owsley, 153 App. Div. 90, 137 N. Y.
S. 1040; In re M 'Mullen, 85 Misc. 661,
148 N. Y. 8. 1092.
5 1 7-8S Wbere tbe petition sIlowb sof -
ficient grounds for the removal it is
immaterial that the order of removal
is broader than the allegations of the
petition. Willson v. Dist. Court (la.),
147 N. W. 766.
517-89 Marshall v. Shoemaker's Est.,
164 Mo. App. 429, 144 8. W. 1120;
Rivera v, Camara, 17 P. E. 503; Sayles
V, Steere <B. I.), 85 A. 929.
Certloraarl to review. Haddick r. Dis-
trict Court, 160 la. 487, 141 N. W. 925.
4C2
DECEDENTS' ESTATES
Vol. 6
ApiMUftto «oiirt nay rwnove a^oiatee
for pro|)er cause on tbe appeal. Tcamel
V. Stafford (W. Ya.), 83 S. E. 299.
517«90 In re Battle's Bat., 158 N.
C. 388, 74 S. K 23.
U^eeamty fmMmL — Wtiere two sisterB
were defeated in their attempt to have
letters revoked aod one oar eUlier of
them appointed admiBistrator both
were necessary parties to appeal. White
V. Hill, 176 Ala. 480, 58 S. 444.
618-91 Shore v. Wall, 22 Colo. App.
146, 122 P. 1124; In re Marks fr Co.'e
Est., 66 Or. 340, 133 P. 777.
FindiagB.^ — Surrogate must make lad-
ings of fact supported by the evideaee
in harmony with petition and make
eonclusions of law upon facJs so fouad
and failure to do so is sufficient for
reversal. In re Engel, 155 App. Div.
467, 140 N. T. S. 286, rev. 74 Misc. 308,
133 N. Y. S. 1105.
In Nortb Carolina the clerk of wperior
court may remove executors and ad-
ministrators under the statute^ and an
appeal may be taS^en from his deciaioii
to the judge. The latter in reviewing
the findings might direct proper issues
of fact to be tried by a jury. In re
Battle's Est., 158 N. C. 888, 74 S. E.
23.
516-94 Craven V. S., 50 Ind. App.
30, 97 N. E. 1021.
S19-95 See Durst e. HaeBiii, 23 Colo.
App. 431, 130 P. 77.
€k>llectien of aeaeta. — ^Personal claims
due prior to the death of the decedent
cannot be collected in an action by
the next of kin. Nichoki v. Smithy 164
App. Div. 304, 150 N. Y. S. 410.
521-S Siificiettt aOogations. — See
Carmichael v. Pond (Ala.), 67 S. 384.
A snlfielent Identification of tiie prop-
erty should be contained in the peti-
tion. In re Babcock's Est., 65 Misc.
256, 147 N. Y. S. 168.
522-18 In re Silverman, 87 Misc.
571, 151 N. Y. S. 382,
522-15 Wrongfid posseasion. — Where
it is found on examination that a bank
holds drafts issued to decedent which
have not been paid the court may order
bank to stop payment and to issue
dnpliea'tes to adminietrator. In re Ben-
nett's Est. <Ia.), 149 N. W. 247.
528-16 In *re Lehmann'a Est., 85
Misc. 654, 148 N. Y. S. 1051.
Jb^ Vfem Tock, the juriadictiioa of sur-
rogate has been enlaigad by Lawe, 1614,
cfa. 448. He may now not only hear
but determine the issue where the light
to the property is in dispute. In re
Schwartzes Est., 87 Miac. 559, 151 N.
Y. S. 374.
628-18 See In re Boberts' Eat., 48
Mont. 40, 135 P. 909.
528-19 Leyerly <?. Leyerly, 67 Kan.
307, 124 P. 405.
528-2e In re Stambaugh's Eett, 246
Pa. 655, ^ A. 715.
Statute 18 mandatoxT' which requires
the filing of an inventory, end such in-
veatory m«et be upturned within ^me
specified. The f&ct that there le pend-
ing an action in circuit court for set-
tlement of accounts doee net affect the
duty to file the inventory. McGee v.
Weissinger, 147 Ky. 321, 144 S. W. 20.
528-21 Ko Jury trial on citation to
require an cKocutor to file Inventory.
Piatt v. Williams, 175 IlL App. 1.
Afldittanal Imrcobory. — ^Any one inter-
ested may petition for the filing of an
additional inventory where the admin-
i«trator has concealed or failed to list
any part of hie decedent's assets. Md.
Code, 1912, art. 93, §244; Pratt v. Hill,
124 Md. 252, S2 A. 543. The petitiim
should allege either that the administra-
tor has eencealed or has on his hands
and has omitted to return in the in-
ventory or list of debts some part of
his decedent 's Assets. Pratt v. Hill, 124
Md. 252, ^ A. 543; Cummings f?- Bob--*
inson, 95 Md. 83, 51 A. 1105.
Who if not htterested. — ^Two brothers
having released all their interest in
the estate are not legally iatereeted and
cannot pveeent the petiUon. In re
Blethen's Est., 112 Me. «9, 90 A. 726.
525-24 The JtidgBMnt should direct
administrator to inventory the property
and cause it to be appraised and held
and accounted for as adminirtrator.
Gray V, DoHbikSn, 179 Me. Ap^ 240,
166 S. W- 107O.
525-25 In re Stambaugh's Est., 246
Pa. 555, 92 A. 715.
525-29 Fowler v. Brady, 110 Md.
204^ 78 A. 15<
526-S8 Votice saffidant to comply
with statute. Stevens t?. Dunlap Mer-
cantile Co. (Miss.), 67 S. 1«0.
There must be proof of ooxopUaaco
witii §1491a ae well as §1492 of Code
Civ. Proc. Hawkins u. Superior Court,
1 165 Cal. 743, 134 P. 327,
403
Vol. 6
DECEDENTS' ESTATES
Time for presanldiig clalmB. — Soliss t;.
General Electric Co., 213 Fed. 204, 129
C. C. A. 548.
627-40 Tropico L. & Imp. Co. v. Lam-
bourn (Cal.), 148 P. 206; Oles V. Wil-
son (Colo.), 141 P. 489; Hicks v. Wil-
bur (E. L), 94 A. 872.
Falltire to make agreed inrovision for
plaintiff in will of deceased makes
plaintiff a creditor who must present
his claim for allowance before main-
taining a suit thereon. Morrison v.
Land (Cal.), 147 P. 259; Etchas v.
Orena, 127 Cal. 588, 60 P. 45.
Waiver of presentation. — The applica-
tion of the administrator for the ap-
pointment of commissioners to deter-
mine the validity of a claim against
the estate is an admission or waiver of
the presentation of the claim to him.
Hatch 1?. Dutch (Me.), 94 A. 487; Whit-
tier V, Woodward, 71 Me. 161.
627-41 Government claim. — Statute
limiting time of presentation is no bar
to a claim by the government. Minister
of Interior v. Parke, 4 Haw. 366.
CTLaim for maintenance of insane per-
son in a hospital is barred unless pre-
sented within time limited in notice to
file. Meade County v. Welch, 34 S. D.
348, 148 N. W. 601.
627-42 See Cal. Code Civ. Proc,
81500; Flores t?. Stone, 21 Cal. App.
105, 131 P. 348, 351, 352.
Also Indudes realty. — ^Fremd. v. Hogg
(Fla.), 67 S. 75.
627-43 Jones 47. Hert (Ala.), 68 S.
259.
627-46 S. 17. Packard, 250 Mo. 686,
157 S. W. 598; Bogue t?. Laughlin, 149
Wis. 271, 136 N. W. 606, Ann. Cas.
19130, 1367, 40 L. B. A. (N. S.) 927.
627-46 Obligation imposed by decree
of court. See Wickes v. Walden, 161
HI. App. 3.
Ckmmiissions to agent for selling prop-
erty. Est. of Armstrong, 182 HI. App.
482.
628-48 Furman 17. Craine, 18 Cal.
App. 41, 121 P. 1007.
628-49 Glass 17. Buzzard, 14 0. O. C.
(N. S.) 427, aff. 85 O. St. 461, 98 N. E.
1120.
628-61 Hart 17. Bjerke, 34 S. D. 557,
149 N. W. 423.
628-62 Hicks 17. Wilbur (B. L), 94
A. 872.
Presentation by suit, — An action
against the personal representative
operates as a presentation of the claim
sued on. Weller & Sons 17. Bensford,
185 Ala. 333, 64 S. 366.
629-66 Where there Is a principal
and an ancillary administration cred-
itors may prove their claims in either
jurisdiction, and it is not necessary to
prove them in both. Dow 17. Lillie, 26
N. D. 512, 144 N. W. 1082.
629-68 See Ward i?. Magaha, 71
Wash. 679, 129 P. 395.
629-69 Preeentation to conrt or ad-
ministrator.— Where code provides for
presentation of claim to the court, per-
sonal presentation thereof to the ad-
ministrator may be made. Weller &
Sons 17. Bensford, 185 Ala. 333, 64 S.
366.
Filing claim with deik of court is
sufficient. Bassieur 17. Zimmer, 249 Mo.
175, 155 S. W. 24.
630-61 Westetn States Life Ins. Co.
V. Lockwood, 166 Cal. 185, 135 P. 496;
Brown's Est. 17. Stair, 25 Colo. App. 140,
136 P. 1003; SuUenbarger 17. Ahrens
(la.), 150 N. W. 71; Craig 17. Craig's
Est. (la.), 149 N. W. 454; Charitan Nat.
Bank 17. Whicher, 163 la. 571, 145 N.
W. 299; Bassieur v, Zimmer, 249 Mo.
175, 155 S. W. 24; Sandusky i?. Court-
ney, 168 Mo. App. 325, 153 S. W. 1084.
Evidence to rapport the daim need not
be set forth. White t?. Almy, 34 B. I.
29, 82 A. 397.
630-62 Brown's Est. v. Stair, 25
Colo. App. 140, 136 P. 1003; Westing-
house E. & Mfg. Co. 17. Bobison, 42
Okla. 754, 142 P. 1105.
Claim held cmfllcient. — Josephs v. Bri-
ant, 108 Ark. 171, 157 S. W. 136.
630-66 Davenpott 17. Davenport, 110
Ark. 222, 161 S. W. 189.
630-66 Tucker v. Tucker, 21 Colo.
App. 94, 121 P. 125; Westinghouse E.
& Mfg. Co. 17. Bobison, 42 Okla. 754,
142 P. 1105.
Tax claim must be verified like other
claims. Graves' Admr. 17. Georgetown,
154 Ky. 207, 157 S. W. 33.
Verification Joriadictional.— Exhibition
of demand to administrator and filing
verified statement of it in court are
jurisdictional, and probate court is
without jurisdiction to hear and adjudi-
cate a demand without substantial per-
formance of these requirements. S. o.
Pratt, 183 Mo. App. 209, 170 S. W,
404
DECEDENTS' ESTATES
Vol. 6
418; Jenkins v. Morrow, 131 Mo. App.
288, 109 S. W. 1051. While verifica-
tion is jurisdictional a clerical error
writing maiden name instead of mar-
ried name of woman is not fatal. Hays
V, Miller's Est. (Mo. App.), 173 S. W.
1096.
531-67 The aflidavit of an attoxney,
Bupporting a claim against a decedent 's
estate, is sufficient where it states that
claimant is a corporation, and none of
its officers reside in the county (Em-
pire State M. Co. v, Mitchell, 29 Mont.
55, 74 P. 81), or which states that
claimant is a non-resident of the state
and not within the state to verify the
correctness of the claim. Westinghouse
E. & Mfg. Co. V. Bobison, 42 Okla. 754,
142 P. 1105.
Vextflcation by secretary of a corpora-
tion is sufficient. Western States Life
Ins. Co. 9. Loekwood, 166 Cal. 185, 135
P. 496.
631-68 Chariton Nat. Bank v. Which-
er, 163 la. 571, 145 N. W. 299.
682-70 An amendxnent changing
name of claimant is allowable. Trus-
tees Presbyterian Church v. Est. of Pax-
ton, 180 m. App. 658.
632-71 In re Williams ' Est., 47 Mont.
325, 132 P. 421; Kenyon v. Hayhurst,
35 B. I. 380, 87 A. 168. See Fragd
V, Deemar, 175 111. App. 246, where
executor's claim was filed after expira-
tion of time.
632-73 Notice to persoiiB Interested.
The probate court is not required to
give notice to parties interested before
proceeding to examine and determine
an administrator's claim. It may, in
its discretion, order notice to be given
to such parties. Kenyon v. Hayhurst,
35 E. I. 380, 87 A. 168.
When administrator is required to give
notice to legatees of the filing of a
personal claim against the estate. Tay-
lor V, Marshall, 56 Colo. 214, 138 P. 25.
634-80 In re Scholes' Est. (la.),
152 N. W. 3.
634-81 King v, Stott's Est., 254 Mo.
198, 162 S. W. 246.
634-85 In te Scholes' Est. (la.),
152 N. W. 3.
635-87 Kenyon v. Hayhurst, 35 B. I.
380, 87 A.. 168.
From an aUowance of part of a claim
an appeal may be taken. Currie v. Ben-
nette (Miss.), 67 S. 484; Meaders v.
Grayj 00 Miss, 400, 45 Am. Bep. 414.
Ab to what court appeal may be taken,
see Kolb t^. Stephens, 176 111. App.
391.
636-92 One of several administrators
may perfect the appeal. Kolb v,
Stephens, 176 HI. App. 391.
637-98 Kenyon v, Hayhurst, 35 B. I.
380, 87 A. 168.
As to insanity being gromid for relief
under such statute, see Kenyon v. Hay-
hurst, 35 B. I. 380, 87 A. 168.
637*99 Bond not necessary to appeal
by a claimant whose claim was allowed
in part. McKenzie v, Crowley (Ark.),
177 8. W. 873.
538-2 Kotice to an heir unnecessary.
In re Koch's Est., 148 Wis. 548, 134
N. W. 663.
539-9 Trustees Presbyterian Church
V. Est. of Pazton, 180 111. App. 658.
639-10 Keiffer Bros. Co. v» Bank of
Commerce, 105 Miss. 662, 63 S. 189.
639-12 But such an error may be
corrected on appeal. Hyde v. Honiter,
175 Mo. App. 583, 158 8. W. 83.
640-16 Hoshall v. Brown, 102 Ark.
114, 143 8. W. 1081; Larimer v. Snell,
181 m. App. 50.
540-17 Phipps V. Sappenfield, 54 Ind.
App. 139, 102 N. E. 841; Griffin v,
Hovey, 179 Mich. 104, 146 N. W. 210.
See Johnson v, Butherford, 28 N. D.
87, 147 N. W. 390.
An ez parte settlement of administra-
tion accounts does not necessarily pre-
clude relief in equity upon a claim not
reported therein or presented. When
approved such settlement is prima facie
correct only in so far as it adjusts
the accounts to the date thereof.
American Bank & Trust Co. v, Douglass
(W. Va.), 83 S. E. 920.
641-22 Beference to commissioners.
Under {54, ch. 66, Be v. St., providing
for appointment of commissioners to
decide unjust or illegal claims, a party
has no option to maintain a suit but
must submit his claim to the com-
missioners, whose report is final, saving
the right of appeal. Shurtleff v. Bed-
Ion, 109 Me. 62, 82 A. 645. See Bates
17. Ward, 49 Me. 87, 90.
Be-reference based on newly discovered
evidence need not be made where there
was a total failure of diligence to pro-
duce evidence on the reference. Turner
V. Young's Exr., 155 Ky. 604, 159 S. W.
1165.
541-26 Presentation before matur-
405
Vol 6
DSCEDENT8' ESTATES
itj. International Hajrester Go. v,
Champlin, 195 Apfi. Dxr. ^7, 140 N.
Y. S. 842.
643-a^ A pxtvsta sale of tba deeed-
ent's lands without an onier of the
court is invalid. Gibbe v. Singfleld
(Ark,), 171 S. W. 144.
643-40 Proceeding statutory* — ^A pro-
eeedinf by administrator to sell realty
to pay debts is purely statutory and did
not exist at common law. Therens f?.
Therens, 267 IlL 592, 108 N. E. 712;
Burr V. Bloemer, 174 111. 638, 51 N. E.
821; Whitman v. Fisher, 74 HI. 147.
Statutory provisions must be strictly
construed in order to justify sale. In
re Roberts, 214 N. Y. d69, 108 N. E.
562; Kingsland V. Murray, 133 N. Y.
170, 30 N. E. 845.
In r«m. — ^Proceeding for sale of real
estate is one in rem. Goodwin v. Sims,
86 Ala. 102, 5 3* 587, 11 Am. St. 21;
Johnson fi. Beaaley, 65 Mo. 250, 27 Am.
Bep. 276; Shane «. P., 25 N. D. 188, 141
N. W. 737.
643-41 Therens v. Therens^ 267 HI.
592, 108 N. E. 712.
646-47 8ev«n yoara' llmltatioiL— Pe-
tition will be barred by laches unless
filed within seven years unless good
reason is given for delay. Goetz v.
Wenzd, 177 111. App. 484; Fowler v.
Gordon, 174 111. App. 427.
647-66 Nebel v. Bockhorst, 186 Mo.
App. 499, 172 S. W. 452.
649-70 Tnrisdlctional facts.— A pro-
ceeding for sale is a distinct proceed-
ing though sale occurs in the general
course of administration, and the peti-
tion must aTlege jurisdictional facts.
Bucker v. Tennessee Coal, I. & B. Co.,
176 Ala. 456, 58 S. 465; Pinnacle Gold
Mining Co. V, Popst, 54 Colo. 451, 131
P. 413.
662-78 Bucket v. Tennessee Coal, I.
& B. Co., 176 Ala. 456, 58 S. 465.
662-70 Bucker v. Tennessee Coal, I.
A B. Co., 176 Ala. 456, 58 S. 465.
Sale of land in another state. — See P.
V. Parker, 54 Colo. 604, 132 P. 56.
664-82 Verification by afttoniey is
sufficient. In re Beed, 214 N. Y. 383,
108 N. E. 665.
664-86 Effect of amendment. See
Fowler v, Gordon, 174 HI. App. 427.
664-86 Notice inaoi&cient.— Blain v.
I>ean, 160 la. 708, 142 N. W. 418.
Where minor children were not pro^
•ttly aerred and did not make defense,
the sale and judgment under which it
was made are voidable, subject to be
defeated by proper proceedings to set
it aside. Hatfield v. Bichmond, 161 Ky.
352, 170 S. W. 95i:
666-87 Miles v. Meade (Ala.), 67 &
1012.
666-93 See Giles v. Kennedj
(Mass.), 108 N. E. 940.
667-98 Hicks v. Watson, 258 Mo.
425, 167 S. W. 533 ; Norton v. Beed, 253
Mo. 236, 161 S. W. 842.
Notice by publication insufficient on
resident heirs. There must be personal
service under Bev. St., 1909, §152.
Jackson v, Johnson, 248 Mo. 680, 154
S. W. 759.
Issuance of notice. — ^Notice need not be
by citation from the ordinary, but may
be signed 'by the administrator. Nixon.
«. Lehman, 137 Ga. 516, 73 S. E. 747.
667-99 Opportunity to be heard.
Interested parties have a right to be
Jieard either before or after the ap-
plication is made to the court to sell.
BandaH v. Gray, 80 N. J. Eq. 13, 83
A. 482.
668-4 Answer by heixs resisting ap-
plication and pleading fraud and col-
lusion must set out the facts consti-
tuting such with sufficient fullness to
apprise other party of what he will be
cahed upon to answer. Best v. Best,
161 N. C. 513, 77 S. E. 762.
660-18 Bobinson v. Martin, 103
Miss. 733, 60 S. 769.
681-28 Ikx Connecticat under Gen.
St., 1902, {353, the court may in its
discretion, order the sale of real estate
whether needed to pay debts or not,
whenever it is advantageous to do so.
Appeal of Oandee, 87 Conn. 85, 86 A.
758; Phelan V. Elbin, 84 Conn. 208, 213,
79 A. 187.
662-32 Clerk of court may grant
orders of sale in absence of judge. See
Hibernian Bank & Trust Co. v. WMt-
ney, 130 La. 817, 58 S. 583.
663-41 Property subject to sale. See
In re Bragg 's Est., 166 CaL 103, 134
P. 1140.
663-43 FaihOB to fix a minimum
price is not a defect which impairs
title of purchaser, where proceedings
conformed to statute in all other re-
spects. Bureh v, Cincinnati Trust Co^
14 O. O. C. (N. S.) 346.
666-61 Stone v. ElKott (Ind.), 106
N. £. 710; Doran «. Kennedy, 122 Mimu
406
DECEDlSNTS' B8TAtE3
va. 6
1, 141 N. W. 861; WilBon v. Wilson,
255 Mo. 528, 164 S. W. 561; Shane v.
P., 25 N. D. 188, 141 N. W. 737 (an
attempt to have declared void a sale
made by an administrator and the de-
cree authorizing same, even though
made in form of an action to quiet
title is a collateral attack); Yeaton «.
Barnhart (Or.), 150 P. 742.
Where bo JtiriBdictioiL — See Pinnacle
Gold Min. Co. v. Popst, 54 Colo. 451,
131 P. 413.
.
CoIlAteral impeachment for def oet of
party cannot be made. Saunders v.
Terry, 116 Va. 495, 82 S. E. 68.
566-63 Bucker v. Tennessee Coal, I.
& B. Co., 176 Ala. 456, 58 S. 465; Pin-
nacle Gold Min. COb 17. Popst, 54 Colo.
451, 131 P. 413.
Sale of land at frivste instead ot
public sale. See Shefifey t^. Davis Col-
liery Co. (C. C. A.), 219 Fed. 465.
JxngtSmAty In deeeilptlon of property.
Cathro 9. McArthur (N. D.), 152 .N.
W. 686.
667-67 Hoshall v. Brown, 102 Ark.
114, 143 S. W. 1081; Saunders v. Terry,
116 Va. 495, 82 8. £. 68.
Beettal in order that publication had
been duly made is presumed to be a
fact in absence of showing to contrary.
Hicks V. Watson, 258 Mo. 425, 167 S.
W. 533.
668-60 Dow V. LiUie, 26 N. D. 512,
144 N. W. 1082.
668-62 Holder of mortgage on intes-
tate's unincumbered realty, placed by
widow after his death cannot appeal.
Giles r. Kenney (Mass.), 108 N. £. 940.
669-66 As to liability of sureties, see
P. V. Parker, 54 Colo. 604, 132 P. 56.
670-76 Wliere recoid enitary does not
show to whom sale was made» aor a
description of the land sold it will be
presumed that the purchaser was the
person to whom the deed was made.
Hicks V. Watson, 258 Mo. 42SL 167 S.
W. 533.
671-80 Bein may move to set aside
confirmation of sale but not an ad-
ministrator. Golden 'e Est., 56 Pa.
Super. 300.
679-92 Pnrchaaer at sale necessary
party to the appeal. Stone <?. Myrtle's
Admr., 148 Ky. 57, 146 S. W. 20.
678-94 Ennis v. Cator (Tex. Civ.),
174 8. W. 947.
An order setting Mride an order of ooar
flnnatton of sale ia appealable. In re
West's Est., 163 CaL 352, 122 P. Mi.
673-96 MeDooeOd v. MeDMdel, iMft
Mo. 172, 145 S. W. 45X.
673^97 Bbsib * Pale «. C^tor (T«&
Civ.), 174 8. W. 947.
674-98 Lun^ v, Luftdy, 141 Oa.
387, 81 a. E. 129; MeMeen v. Grant,
268 m. 64, 108 N. S. 677.
674-99 In Wisconsin under (3918,
St., 1896, aetion to set aside sale must
be brought within Itvt years. Keilly r,
Seversen, 149 Wis. 351, 13^ N. W. 875,
One year after dlsooverx of fhMid.
Kerlec «. New Orleans Land Co., 130
La. Ill, 57 8. 647.
A married wmmn Is not relieved froa
the statutory bar of five years. Mar*
tin 17. Conner (Ark.), 171 S. W. 125.
674-2 Davison v, Buchanan, 164 App.
Div. 352, 149 N. Y. S. 640.
676-6 Abflsaoe of notioe ct appHca-
tiea to sellw — ^A sale made on petition
in substantial compliance with statute,
though no notice given of application
to sell, will not be set aside in a direct
proceeding unless there is actual fraud
or there exists some other ground of
acknowledged equity jurisdiction.
Steele c Kelley, 32 Okla. 547, 122 P.
934.
676-8 Keilly e. Seversoa, 149 Wis.
251, 130 N. W. 875. See Goellner v.
Qoellner (Mo. App.), 178 8. W. 229.
676-7 Bowsman 9, Anderson, 62 Or.
431, 123 P. 1092, 126 P. 270.
Bale by adnlnlstratriz to hnsband.
Broadhurst v. Hill, 137 0a. 883, 74
8. £. 422.
676-9 Davidson v, Buchannan, 164
App. Div. 852, 149 N. Y. S. 640.
An averment of inadequacy of yrlee
with intent to defraud is an allegation
of fact and not a conclusion of law.
Wetmore & Morse Granite Co. v. Ber*
toli, 87 Vt. 257, 88 A. 898.
676-19 Davidson v. Buchannan, 164
App. Div. 352, 149 N. Y. 8. 640.
677-13 Long v. Hoffman, 103 Ark.
574, 148 S. W. 245.
677-14 Pinnacle Gold Min. Co. v.
Popst, 54 Colo. 451, 131 P. 413.
677-16 PhiUips v. Denton, 158 K. O.
299, 73 S. E. 1006.
679-8S Williams v. Cobb (C. C. A.),
219 Fed. 663; In re Gay, 5 Mass, 419;
Leitch V. WeUs, 48 N. Y. 586.
407
Vol. 6
DECEDENTS' ESTATES
680-31 Bncker v, TTennessee Coal, I.
& B. Co., 176 Ala. 456, 58 S. 465.
As. to effect of decree^ see Koch v.
Peick, 81 N. J. Eq. 120, 86 A. 67.
t(81-89 Secured claimants — Creditor,
who has security for his claim, should
present his claim and notify the com-
missioners of his security. Wagner r.
Mut. Life Ins. Co., 88 Oonn. 536, 91
A. 1012.
583-51 Wagner v. Mutual Life Ins.
Co., 88 Conn. 536, 91 A. 1012.
583-53 Wagner v. Mutual Life Ins.
Co., 88 Conn. 536, 91 A. 1012.
584-60 Stockwell v. Beid's Est., 170
Mich. 476, 136 N. W. 476.
589-82 In re Huberts Est. (Pa.), 94
A. 556.
Contliigent interest is enough. In re
Bearse (App. Div.), 153 N. Y. S. 514.
589-84 Where twenty-six years
elapsed before bringing the suit and all
legacies have been paid the cestui que
trust under will may bring the action
in his own name without intervention
of an ancillary administrator. U. S.
Trust Co. 17. National Saving & Trust
Co., 37 App. Cas. (D. C.) 296.
590-88 Creditor of distributee may
not compel administrator to account.
In re Witt's Est., 141 N. Y. S. 179.
591-91 Hocking Valley By. Co. t?.
White, 87 0. St. 413, 101 N. E. 354,
Ann. Cas. 1914A, 190; In re Huber's
Est. (Pa.), 94 A. 556. But see Law-
son V, Burgee, 121 Md. 114, 88 A. 121.
591-92 Mere lapse of time is no bar
to remedy of an accounting. In re
Watson, 148 N. Y, S. 525, 163 App.
Div. -41. But see Norris v. Burnett
(Miss.), 66 S. 332* Comans v. Tapley,
101 Miss. 203, 57 S. 567, Ann. Cas.
1914B, 307.
592-94 See Metropolitan Trust Co.
f?. Stallo, 166 App. Div. 639, 649, 152
N. Y. S. 173, 183.
Legatees and next of kin must be cited
even though they may have assigned
their interests. In re Joslin's Est., 74
Misc. 332, 134 N. Y. S. 229.
Other legatees may intervene when one
legatee asserts a claim against the es-
tate dependent upon the construction
of the will. Hanvy t?. Moore, 140 Ga.
691, 79 S. E. 772.
692-95 Sureties should be notified.
Steinert i?. Van Aken, 165 App. Div.
206, 150 N. Y. S. 525.
592-96 What constitntes the plead-
ings.-~The written petition of the
executors for an accounting, their ac-
counts accompanying the same together
with the objections constituting the an-
swer to the petition and account, are
the pleadings. In re Heams, 214 N. Y.
426, 108 N. E. 816. Citation is all the
pleading necessary where proceeding
originates in the court of ordinary un-
der Civ. Code, |4073. Lyons r. Arm-
strong, 142 Ga.- 257, 82 8. E. 651.
593-2 Condnsions. — ^Averment in an-
swer that the executor had repudiated
the trust is a conclusion of law. In re
Watson, 163 App. Div. 41, 148 N. Y,
S. 525.
593-4 In re Joslin's Est., 74 Mise.
332, 134 N. Y. S. 229.
Kot until petition filed. — ^Inasmuch as
the presentation of petition gives court
jurisdiction, no citation can issue until
petition has been presented. In re Joa-
lin's Est., 74 Misc. 332, 134 N. Y. a
229.
595-12 Opitz V. Morgan (Fla.), 6?!
S. 67.
Removal ttom probate courts— Matter
of settlement may be removed from
probate court to court of equity. Kew-
ell €. Bradford (Ala.), 65 S. 800.
In Kew York the supreme couH and
surrogate's court have concurrent juris-
diction, yet the former will refuse to
exercise such unless special circum-
stances exist preventing the surrogate's
court from granting full relief or where
justice tequires it. Utica Trust & D.
Co. V. Thompson, 87 Mise. 31, 149 N. Y.
S. 392.
595-13 Allen v. Hunt, 213 Mass.
276, 100 N. E. 552; Brooks v. Hargrave,
179 Mich. 136, 146 N. W. 325.
596-15 Action in equity hy adminis-
trator to have account settled and con-
flicting clainis adjudicated. — ^Where the
administrator at the time of its ap-
pointment was also a creditor of the
estate holding collateral security for
its debt, and has sold such collateral
and holds the proceeds and other secur-
ities as to which adverse claims of
ownership were made by others, it was
held that the administrator might prop-
erly bring a single action to have idl
the rights and claims in the property
adjusted and its account settled, mak-
ing such third parties and the bene-
ficiaries of the estate parties to the
action. The plaintiff sued both as an
408
DECEDENTS' ESTATES
Vol 6
individual and as representative. A
demurrer for misjoinder of causes and
of parties was held properly overruled.
Metropolitan Trust Co. v. Stallo, 166
App. Div. 639, 649, 152 N. Y.. S. 173,
183.
597-20 Besldnary legatees should be
made parties. Nelson f. Errickson, 81
N. J. Eq. 226, 87 A. 116.
603-61 Frand and ooUnsloiL— It Is
competent for a beneficiary to include
in bis objections a charge of fraud and
collusion against an administrator in
the establishment of a claim against
the estate, and to ask that the amount
be charged against administrator. In
re Miller's Est. (la.), 149 N. W. 227.
604-SS Butler 17. Bocock, 160 III.
App. 501.
605-58 Surrogate may adjourn pro-
ceeding for an accounting although no
one appeared to oppose it on the re-
turn day. In re Brodcrick, 163 App.
Div. 91, 148 N. Y. 8. 541.
607-69 Wliere report la incomplete
in that it does not disclose theory upon
which various items were allowed it
may be recommitted for further find-
ings and report. Matter of Schroeder,
113 App. Div, 204, 213, 99 N. Y. 8.
176; In re Watson, 86 Misc. 588, 148
K. Y. 8. 902, aff. 165 App. Div. 252, 150
N. Y. 8. 776.
611-86 Medley v. 8hipes, 177 Ala.
94, 58 8. 304; Barter Co. r. Geisel, 18
Cal. App. 282, 122 P. 1094; Crump v.
Hart (Mo. App.), 176 8. W. 1089; Cag-
ney v. Daly, 149 N. Y. 8. 985.
612-87 Berlew can be bad In equity
where executor's report is so imperfect,
partial, and misleading as to amount
to a fraud in law, notwithstanding prior
approval by probate court. Candelaria
r. Miera, 17 N. M. 107, 134 P. 829.
613-89 Sufficient grounds. 8ee Mor-
gan 17. Gaiter, 182 Ala. 322, 62 S. 731.
614-91 Appeal of Borland, 234 Pa.
280, 83 A. 110.
616-2 Want of notice.— Bill must
show that plaintiff had not received
statutory notice and was not present at
hearing, or it will be presumed on ap-
peal that such notice had been given
and she was present. Adams v, Walsh
(Ala.), 67 8. 432.
617-8 Malkus v. Richardson, 124 Md.
224, 92 A. 474; Gallagher v, Martin,
102 Md. 115, 62 A. 247; Geesey v.
Geesey, 94 Md. 371, 51 A. 36; Hardt
V, Birely, 72 Md. 134, 19 A. 606;
Gavin v. Carlin, 55 Md. 530; In re Est.
of 8tratton, 46 Md. 551; 8cott v. Fox,
14 Md. 388.
618-9 McNally r. Hawkins, 163 Mo.
App. 692, 147 8. W. 503.
618-11 In Ifaflsacbniietts under Bev.
Laws, ch. 150, §17, St., 1907, ch. 438,
where account is settled in absence of
one adversely interested it may be
opened, in the discretion of court, at
any time within six months. Thomp-
son 17. De Visser, 219 Mass. 40, 106
N. £. 548.
619-12 Malkus v. Bichardson, 124
Md. 224, 92 A. 474, delay of two years
and eight months not fatal.
619-13 PennsylTania. — An account
settled and confirmed can be reviewed
only for error of law apparent on face
of record or for new matter which has
arisen since the decree. In re Nixon's
Est., 239 Pa. 270, 86 A. 849; Cramp's
Appeal, 81 Pa. 90; Green's Appeal, 59
Pa. 235.
Kew York. — ^Proof that one of debts
had not been paid or considered is
"other sufficient cause" under §2481,
Code Civ. Proc, for modification of de-
cree. In re Henry, 78 Misc. 319, 139 N.
Y. S. 690.
620-18 Chandler v. Probate Court,
26 Ida. 173, 141 P. 635.
The attorney general may move under
§2481, subd. 6, to reopen decree of sur-
rogate settling accounts on the ground
of fraud and collusion even though
there has been no appeal from decree.
In re Malone, 150 App. Div. 31, 134
N. Y. 8. 496.
624-30 Est. of Enos, 18 Haw. 542.
624-32 Est. of Enos, 18 Haw. 542.
62S-42 Comp. In re Heldman's Est.,
151 App. Div. 234, 135 N. Y. 8. 143.
A co-executor. — Est. of Enos, 18 Haw.
542.
625-43 Bringing In adverse parties.
In an appeal from final order settling
accounts all adverse interested parties
may be brought in and the proceedings
organized as an equitable action to set-
tle all the issues. The persons appear-
ing may be arranged as plaintiffs and
defendants according to their interests.
Cowie V. 8trohmeyer, 150 Wis. 401, 136
N. W. 956.
628-56 Petition JnrisdictionaL — A
petition for distribution is necessary to
409
Vol. 6
DECLARATION AND COMPLAINT
confer jurisdiction. Carter v. Frahm,
31 S. D. 379, 141 N. W. 370.
629-57 See In re Eobinson's Est.,
156 App. Div. 363, 141 N. T. S. 470.
A pttttlOB for final fleitlement is not
necessarily a petitiwi for distribution.
Carter t?. Frahm, 31 S. D. 379, 141 N.
W. 370.
Waiver of objocttons. — ^Where adminis-
trator filed an amended and supple-
mental petition asking distribution of
entire estate to himself, and it was
stipulated in court that the matter be
submitted upon an agreed statement of
facts, there is a waiver of necessity of
filing written objections to amended
petition. In re Davidson 's Est., 21 Cal.
App. 118, 131 P. 67.
630-61 Christianson i?. King County,
203 Fed. 894, 122 C. C. A. 188, af,
196 Fed. 791; Teynor v. Heible, 74
Wash. 222, 133 P. 1, 46 L. B. A. (N.
S.) 1033.
631-68 Gallagher v. Martin, 102 Md.
115, 62 A. 247.
631-69 Gallagher v. Martin, 102 Md.
115, 62 A. 247.
Jnrisdictloii of beqneathed personal
property. — The probate court has no
jurisdiction of the distribution of per-
sonal property passing by will. Pub.
St., 1901, ch. 196, §6; Stark t\ Winslow
(N. H.), 92 A. 733.
631-70 In te Spreckels* Est., 165
Cal. 597, 133 P. 289.
The state is aa Interested party, and
may ^contest, claim of alleged heir. The
object of hearing is to determine con-
flicting rights of claimants. In re Mc-
Clellan 's Est., 31 S. D. 641, 141 N. W.
965.
631-71 Setting off distributee's in-
debtedness.— The court has authority to
inquire into and determine the in-
debtedness of the distributee to the es-
tate and order deduction of same from
his share. Stenson v, Halvorson Co.,
28 N. D. 151, 147 N. W 800.
632-73 In re Forry's Est, 241 Pa.
354, 88 A. 677.
Effect of decree of distribution. — See
Carter t?. Frahm, 31 S. D. 379, 141 N.
W. 370.
Construction of decree. — See In re
Spreckels' Est., 165 Cal. 597, 133 P.
289.
633^74 Case t?. Clark (Mass.), 107
N. £. 936.
633-75 Booities between the legft-
tees should not be summarily disposed
of in a decree of distribution. Christ-
man t?. Christman's Est. (Miss.), 66 8
285
636-88 C. A. Burton Machinery Co.
V. Davies, 205 Fed. 141, 123 C. C. A.
373; In re Schmierer's Est., 168 Cal.
747, 145 P. 99; Luscomb r. Fintzelfoerir.
162 Cal. 433, 123 P. 247; Connolly %\
Probate Courts 25 Ida. 35, 136 P. 206-
?J?mP «• Hart (Mo. App.), 176 8. w'
1089; Stenson t?. Halvorson Co., 28 N.
?« i?A' ^^"^ ^' ^- 8^0; Steele v. Kelley,
32 Okla. 547, 122 P. 934; In re Evans
42 Utah 282, 130 P. 217, rev. 22 Utah
336, 62 P. 913; Meeker t\ Waddle
(Wash.), 145 P. 967; Krohn t?. Hirach,
81 Wash. 222, 142 P. 647; In" re Goss'
Est., 73 Wash. 330, 132 P. 409; Alaska
Bank, etc. Co. v. Noyes, 64 Wash. 672,
Where decree is made on insnfficloit
notice it is subject to collateral at-
*ack. Teynor v. Heible, 74 Wash. 222.
133 P. 1, 46 L. B. A. (N. S.) 1033.
636-90 Succession of Beems, 134 La,
1033, 64 S. 898; Succession of Ames, 33
La. Ann. 1317; Succession of Nicholson,
^ La. Ann. 358; In re White's Est.
(Pa.), 94 A. 470; Bice v. Braden, 243
Pa. 141, 89 A. 877.
Bill of review.— Before a fund has been
paid out under a decree of distribu-
tion a bill of review will be granted to
correct mistakes made. Where, how-
ever, a fund has been paid out in ac-
cordance with the terms of decree, a
bill of review will not lie as a matter
of right, but only where fraud has been
shown to have induced the decree. In
re White's Est. (Pa.), 94 A. 470.
Action pending appeal.— Appeal from
order denying partial distribution sus-
pends court's power to distribute es-
tate pending appeal. In re Spreckels'
Est., 165 Cal. 597, 133 P. 289.
As to procedure on appeal, see In re
Peck's Est., 87 Vt. 194, 88 A. 568.
As to scope of review, see Cort r. Maa-
sie, 171 111. App. 123.
DECLABATION AND COMPLAINT
642-ia Commencement by affidavit.
In action of replevin in a United
States court of Indian Territory, an
affidavit was filed, but no separate com-
plaint, but the affidavit contained the
essentials of a complaint. It was held
410
hEClARATlOn AND COMPLAINT
Vol. 6
that the affidavit shonld be treated as
both an affidavit and complaint, and
that the filing of the same and issu-
ance of a summons constituted the com-
mencement of an action. Scott v. Vul-
can Iron Works Co., 31 Okla. 334, 122
P. 186.
643-18 Siordan v. Chicago City By.
Co., 178 m. App. 323.
644-21 Birmingham, etc. Co. v. Law-
ler, 11 Ala. App. 534, 66 S. 897.
646-36 Harris v. Cocoanut Grove De-
velopment Co«, 63 Fla. 175, 59 S. 11.
648-49 Smith v, Colquitt (Tex. Civ.),
144 S. W. 690.
648-52 Scott V. Vulcan Iron Works
Co., 31 Okla. 334, 122 P. 186.
650-67 A mistake in the caption as
to offldal designation of parties is of
no grave consequence, if the allega-
tions in the body of it show with suffi-
cient certainty the real capacity in
which they are parties to the suit.
Owens V. Dudley, 162 Cal. 422, 122 P.
1087.
6S1-70 Stubbs v. Fourth Nat. Bank,
12 Ga. App. 539, 77 S. E. 893.
Where plaintiffs are described as ''B.
F. H. and A. V. H., administratrices of
P. H. H., deceased," in the caption,
and the body of the complaint describes
them as ''plaintiffs," without other
statement of the capacity in which they
sue, the complaint sufficiently shows
that plaintiffs sue in their representa-
tive capacity and not as individuals,
despite the omission of the word "as"
in the caption. Alabama City, G. & A.
B. Co. V. Heald, 178 Ala. 636, 59 S.
461.
662-81 A designation "Armour Fer-
tilizer Works, '» does not sufficiently
show that plaintiff is a corporation or
partnership. Hill v. Armour Fertilizer
Works, 14 Ga. App. 106, 80 S. £. 294.
660-17 The character of an action
must be measured by the allegations of
the complaint. Hotchkin v. McNaught-
CoUins Imp. Co., 67 Wash. 206, 121 P.
455.
660-18 Williams D, Lyon, 181 Ala.
531, 61 S. 299; Hendrix v. Southern By.
Co., 162 N. C. 9, 77 S. E. 1001; Smith
r. Gardner, 37 Okla. 183, 131 P. 538.
661-19 Templer v. Muncie Lodge, I.
O. O. F., 50 Ind. App. 324, 97 N. E.
546.
661-20 Lester «. Hutson (Tex. Civ.),
167 S. W. 321.
661-21 Crandall B. & S. Co. i\ Tan-
quary, 23 Colo. App. 564, 130 P. 1084;
Sullivan t\ Ashland Light Power & St.
By. Co., 156 Wis. 445, 146 N. W. 506.
Supporting the pleading on another
theory. — Where a pleading is drawn on
some definite theory and is insufficient
on that theory, it cannot be held good
on some other and entirely inconsistent
theory, though it may contain some
averments tending to show a cause of
action on such other theory. McGlone
17. Hanger (Ind. App.), 104 N. E. 116;
Indiana Life Endowment Co. v. Beed,
54 Ind. App. 450, 103 N. E. 77.
662-26 Bates r. Capital State Bank,
21 Ida. 141, 121 P. 561; Hicks t?. Bupp,
49 Mont. 40, 140 P. 97; Poyvers v. Uni-
versal Film Mfg. Co., 162 App. Div.
806, 148 N. Y. S. 114; Tuomey v, Walsh,
160 App. Div. 795, 145 N. Y. S. 722;
Franke v. H. P. Nelson Co., 157 Wis.
241, 147 N. W. 13.
665-34 Counts in complaints or de-
clarations should inform the court and
the defendant whether the action is in
case, trespass, assumpsit, etc., in order
that proper defenses may be interposed.
Lawrence v. Seay, 179 Ala. 386, 60 S.
937.
666-88 Abbott v. Harbesen Textile
Co., 162 App. Div. 405, 147 N. Y. 8.
1031.
666-39 Beich v. Cochran, 162 App.
Div. 619, 147 N. Y. S. 1090, aff, 213 N.
Y. 416, 107 N. E. 1029.
668-45 Bradley r. Federal Life Ins.
Co., 178 m. App. 524.
668-48 Beeves v. Lutz, 179 Mo. App.
61, 162 S. W. 280.
669-50 Jackson v. Virginia Hot
Springs Co., 209 Fed. 979; Wood r.
Drainage Dist., 110 Ark. 416, 161 S. W.
1057.
669-51 Friedlander t?. Bapley, 38
App. Cas. (D. C.) 208; Bradley v. Fed-
eral Life Ins. Co., 178 111. App. 524;
Brown v. City of Vicksburg (Miss.), 66
S. 983; Smith v. Stone, 21 Wyo. 62, 128
P. 612.
670-52 Schlinke r. De Witt County
(Tex. Civ.), 145 S. W. 660.
679-55 Jackson v, Virginia Hot
Springs Co., 213 Fed. 969, 130 C. C. A.
375; Phoenix Lumber Co. v. Begents,
197 Fed. 425; Warfield r. Hepburn, 62
Fla. 409, 418, 57 S. 618; Bradley v. Fed-
eral Life Ins. Co., 178 111. App. 524; *
Lappin t;. Nichols (Mo.), 172 S. W. 596;
411
Vol 6
DSCLAnATlON AND COMPLAINT
Pbilipp Co. V, New Yorker Staats-Zei-
tung, 165 App. Div. 377, 150 N. Y. 8.
1044; Canadian Agency €. Assets Beali-
zation Co., 165 App. Div. 96, 150 N. Y.
8. 758; P. r. American Sugar Refining
Co., 86 Misc. 78, 148 N. Y. 8. 160.
In the roles of code pleading there is
a distinction between an entire failure
to state a cause of action and the state-
ment of • one in an imperfect and de-
fective manner. Smith v. Stone, 21 Wyo.
62, 128 P. 612.
"Proof without allegation is as unavail-
ing as allegation without proof.''
Green v. Biggs, 167 N. C. 417, 83 8. E.
553.
671-58 Pranke v. H. P. Nelson Co.,
157 Wis. 241, 147 N. W. 13.
672-61 Alabama Great Southern B.
Co. V, Pouncey, 7 Ala. App. 548, 61 S.
601; Burgess v. Keck, 53 Colo. 224, 124
P. 345; Debnam r. Normandie Apts.
Co., 124 Md. 354, 92 A. 782; Franke v.
H. P. Nelson Co., 157 Wis. 241, 147 N.
W. 13.
General avennents of a breach by de-
fendant of a duty are sufficient. Ala-
bama Great Southern B. Co. v. Pouncey,
7 Ala. App. 548, 61 8. 601.
Description of a situation may show a
duty without the direct allegation of
such a duty. Biordan v. Chicago City
By. Co., 178 ni. App. 323.
673-66 Matters of detail which will
benefit the defendant only by hamper-
ing the plaintiff, need not be specified.
Hains v. Parkersburg, M. & I. By. Co.,
71 W. Va. 453, 76 8. E. 843.
674-71 Edward Todd & Co. v. South-
ern Pac. Co., 150 N. Y. 8. 979.
674-78 Laraway v. Croft Lumber
Co. (W. Va.), 84 8. E. 333.
675-77 Henry v, Spitler, 67 Fla. 146,
64 8. 745.
676-84 Puller v. Gage, 112 Me. 447,
92 A. 493; Shorey r. Chandler, 80 Me.
409, 15 A. 223.
677-88 Lappin <?. Nichols (Mo.), 172
8. W. 596.
677-90 Osborne v, Dannatt (la.), 149
N. W. 913.
678-94 Provisos and exceptions in
insurance policies. — ^''A distinction is
generally made between provisos and
exceptions in insurance policies, in so
far as the question of pleading is con-
cerned. Provisos are stipulations added
to the principal contract to avoid the
promise of the insurer by way of de-
feasance or excuse; and in an action
thereon it is incumbent on the insurer
to plead them in defense and support
them by evidence. Exceptions are
clauses taking something out of the
general operation of the contract so
that the promise is to perform only
what remains after the part excepted
is taken away; and in actions on poli-
cies of insurance containing such
clauses they must not only be negatived
by the plaintiff, but he must show by
evidence that his case does not fall
within the exception . . . However it
is the generally accepted rule that
death by suicide need not be negatived
by the pleader and this is true . . .
whether the non-liability on account
thereof appears on a proviso or an ex-
ception." Philadelphia Life Ins. Co. v,
Farnsley's Admr., 162 Ky. 27, 171 8.
W. 1004.
679-96 Morrison v. Baltimore & 0.
R. Co., 40 App. Cas. (D. C.) 391; Smitz
f. Wright, 64 Fla. 485, 60 8. 225; P. v.
American Sugar Refining Co., 86 Misc.
78, 148 N. Y. 8. 160; Bachia v. Piepcn-
brink, 77 Misc. 362, 136 N. Y. 8. 435.
680-2 A duty imposed by law and in-
volving no element of contract need
not be expressly alleged. Hains v. Par-
kersburg, M. & I. Ry. Co., 71 W. Va.
453, 76 8. £. 843.
^81-6 American Tie St Timber Co. f.
Naylor Lumb. Co. (Ala.), 67 8. 246.
681-7 Flynn t?. Barnes, 156 Ky. 498,
161 8. W. 523.
681-8 Mallow t\ Eastes, 179 Ind. 267,
100 N. E. 836; Reasoner V, Gulf, C. &
8. F. Ry. Co. (Tex. Civ.), 152 8. W.
213; Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. Swartz,
115 Va. 723, 80 8. E. 568.
682-10 Jackson v, Virginia Hot
Springs Co., 209 Fed. 979; Nashville,
C. & St. L. Ry. f. Crosby, 183 Ala. 237,
62 S. 889; Southern Ry. Co. v. Hobson,
4 Ala. App. 408, 58 8. 751*; Vickery v.
New London N. R. Co., 87 Conn. 634,
89 A. 277; Cairo r. Sheehan, 173 HI.
App. 464; Flynn V. Barnes, 156 Ky. 498,
161 8. W. 523; Millerke f?. Reiley, 31
S. D. 342, 141 N. W. 136.
The anticipating of defenses may be bad
pleading, but it does not destroy the
cause of action stated. Smythe v. Tom-
linson, 140 N. Y. 8. 840.
That defendant's automobile was on
the wrong side of street due to cir-
cumstances consistent with proper can*
412
DECLARATION AND COMPLAINT
Vol. 6
tion is a matter of defense to be
pleaded, and need not be negatived in
the complaint. Grier €. Samuel (Del.)i
85 A. 759.
683-11 Blalack v. Blacksher (Ala.
App.), 66 8. 863; Chesapeake & O. By.
Co. r. Swartz, 115 Va. 723, 80 8. E. 568.
684-12 Moore r. Industrial Const.
Co., 181 HI. App. 630; Chesapeake & 0.
By. Co. f>. Swartz, 115 Va. 723, 80 8. E.
568.
684-13 In an action on a life Inmir-
ance policy an exception in the promis-
sory clause of the policy must be nega-
tived by the plaintiff in his petition.
Vicars v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 158 Ey.
1, 164 8. W. 106.
684-15 Tiffany t\ Harvey, 158 App.
Div. 159, 143 N. Y. 8. 31; Baldwin t?.
Jordan (Tex. Civ.), 171 8. W. 1016,
whether a note sued upon had been
partly or wholly paid, held to be mat-
ters of defense. See also vol. 4, p. 254,
n. 91.
685-23 Phoenix Lumber Co. v. Be-
gents, 197 Fed. 425; Bates v. Capital
State Bank, 21 Ida. 141, 121 P. 561;
Lee V, Coon Bapids Nat. Bank (la.),
144 N. W. 630; Maisonneuve v, Del-
fares, 130 La. 714, 58 8. 520; Abbott
V, Harbeson Textile Co,, 162 App. Div.
405, 147 N. Y. 8. 1031; Boyle v. Break-
water, 239 Pa. 577, 87 A. 10.
690-32 Jackson 17. Virginia Hot
Springs Co., 213 Fed. 969, 130 C. C. A.
375; Sparks v. Floyd County (Ga.
App.), 82 S. E. 583.
691-33 Explanation of trade and
tedmlcal terms. — In declaring on a con-
tract containing trade terms it is not
necessary to expound their meaning in
the complaint, but an exception exists
where the terms are used technically
and have also a common meaning.
Baker r. Lehman & Co., 186 Ala. 493,
65 8. 321.
691-35 Time and place need not be
laid as to matters of inducement. Thor-
worth V. Blanchard, 86 Vt. 296, 85 A.
6.
691-37 Green v. G. H. McLoud Co.,
87 Vt. 242, 88 A. 810; 8. v. Greene, 87
Vt. 94, 88 A. 515.
691-42 Baker v. Lehman & Co., 186
Ala. 493, 65 8. 321; Sparks v, Floyd
County (Ga. App.), 82 8. E. 583; Young
r. Wiley (Ind.), 107 N. E. 278; Neu-
kirch V. McHugh, 165 App. Div. 406,
150 N. Y, 8. 1038.
692-44 Hedges v. Pioneer Iron
Works (App. Div.), 151 N. Y. 8. 495.
694-49 At common law facts must
be alleged positively, and cannot be on
information and belief. 8. v. Greene,
87 Vt. 94, 88 A. 515. See Green v. J.
H. McLoud Co., 87 Vt. 242, 88 A. 810.
694-50 Neacy v, Milwaukee, 151
Wis. 504, 139 N. W. 409.
694-Sl Linker v. Linker, 167 N. C.
651, 83 8. E. 736.
694-52 Boebling's Sons Co. r. South-
ern Power Co., 142 Ga. 464, 83 8. E.
138, cit. Standard Prog.
Where each altematlTe is good. — ^A
complaint alleging that defendant was
injured by a 'cable striking him, and
that the cable was insufficiently and
improperly held in place, alleging the
reasons, is not bad for alternative aver-
ments, each alternative being good.
Sloss, etc. Iron Co. v. Dobbs (Ala.), 65
8. 360.
695-56 Warfield^r. Hepburn, 62 Fla.
409, 418, 57 8. 618; 8orenson ft Lyle «7.
U. 8., 3 Haw. Dist. Ct. 291; Jones v.
Schaif Bros. Co., 187 Mo. App. 597, 174
8. W. 177.
Evidential facts pleaded may be strick-
en out. Cook V. Packard Motor Car
Co., 88 Conn. 590, 92 A. 413.
696-68 P. V, American Sugar Befin-
ing Co., 86 Misc. 78, 148 N. Y. G. 160.
696-60 Morrison v, Baltimore & O.
R. Co., 40 App. Cas. (D. C.) 391.
702-82 Birmingham, etc. Co. v. Nich-
olas, 181 Ala. 491, 61 8. 361; Friddle
17. Braun, 180 Ala. 556, 61 S. 59; Phil-
adelphia, B. & W. Co. V. Gatta (Del.),
85 A. 721.
Shipment of property cannot be al-
leged to be both intrastate and inter-
state in different counts of the same
declaration. Pornel «. Florida East
Coast By. Co., 65 Fla. 102, 61 8. 194.
In an action for damages for alleged
tortious homicide by defendant, a rail-
road company, it is permissible to set
forth the cause of action in two separ-
ate counts, one under the federal law
on theory that defendant was engaged
in interstate commerce and the other
based on the theory that the deceased
was engaged in intrastate commerce.
Atkinson v. Bullard, 14 Ga. App. 69, 80
8. E. 220.
702-83 Smith Co. r. Smick, 119 Md.
279, 86 A. 500; Commerce Trust Co. v.
White, 172 Mo. App. 537, 158 8, W. 457;
413
Vol. 6
DECLARATION AND COMPLAINT
Wellington v, Spencer, 37 Okla. 461, 132
P. 675, 46 L. R. A. (N. S.) 4fle.
Stating a cause of action for Hialicioas
irrosecntion and a cause of action for
false imprisonment in different para-
graphs of the same complaint withont
numbering them does not render the
complaint defective, as plainly they
were intended as separate counts.
Brown v. Alexander, 7 Ala. App. 452,
60 S. 975.
703-84 Bankson v. Illinois Cent. B.
Co., 197 Fed. 171 (Code of Iowa);
Bankson i\ Illinois Cent. B. Co., 196
Fed. 171; Birmingham, etc. Co. v. Nich-
olas, 181 Ala. 491, 61 S. 361; Friddle t\
Braun, 180 Ala. 556, 61 S. 59; Board
of Comrs. r. Board of Comrs. (Colo.),
143 P. 841; Pinnacle Gold Mining Co. v.
P. (Colo.), 143 P. 837; Wood t\ New
York Intern rban Water Co., 157 App.
Div. 407, 142 N. Y. 8. 626.
Complaint alleging that agents of the
defendaiit *' wantonly and wilfully ran
a car upon and against the plaintiff,"
does not attempt to allege two causes
of action; only one act is complained
of. Birmingham, etc. Co. r. Johnson,
183 Ala. 352, 61 S. 79; Birmingham,
etc. Co. V. Norton, 7 Ala. App. 571, 61
S. 459.
703-85 Levine v. C%ase, 164 App.
Div. 926, 149 N. Y. S. 442; Eaftery t\
Carter, 162 App. Div. 17, 147 N. Y. S.
271; Huguley v. Gardner, 157 App. Div.
720, 142 N. Y. S. 660; Stines r. New
York, 154 App. Div. 276, 138 N. Y. S.
962; Fischer f. New Yorker Staats-Zei-
tung, 149 App. Div. 48, 133 N. Y. 6.
497; Barrett Mfg. Co. v. Sergeant, 149
App. Div. 1, 133 N. Y. S. 526; Kenny
v. Phyfe, 139 N. Y. 8. 324; First Nat.
Bank v. Ingle, 37 Okla. 276, 132 P. 895;
State Bank of Paden r. Lanam, 34
Okla. 485, 126 P. 220.
On a motion to compel separato state-
ment and numbering of several causes
of action, ;the court is not concerned
with the question as to whether any
cause of action is sufficiently stated,
but is merely called upon to decide
whether plaintiff has attempted to state
more than one cause of action. Bene-
dict f. Thain, 150 App. Div. 137, 134 N.
Y. S. 720.
704-89 Fischer v. New Yorker
Staats-Zeitung, 149 App. Div. 48, 133
N. Y. S. 497; Barrett Mfg. Co. r. Ser-
geant, 149 App. Div. 1, 133 N. Y. S.
526,
705-92 Seveiral acts of nogUgtnce
may be charged in the same paragraph,
without rendering complaint defective
for duplicity. Grant v, Allen, 141 Ga.
106, 80 B. E. 279; Lake fihore ft M. S.
By. Co. V. Myers, 52 Ind. App. 59, 98
N. E. 654, 100 N. E. 313; Craine r.
Metropolitan St. B. Co., 246 Mo. 393,
152 S. W. 24; Clark r. St. Joseph Term-
inal B. Co., 242 Mo. 570, 148 8. W.
472; Gartin v. Draper Coal & Coke Co.,
72 W. Va. 405, 78 S. E. 673.
706-2 Central of Georgia v. Prior,
142 Ga. 536, 83 S. E. 117.
706-3 Young v, Hayes, 212 Mass. 525,
99 N. E. 327; McCall v, Atchley, 256
Mo. 39, 164 S. W. 593; Dayton Folding
Box Co. V. Daneiger, 161 Mo. App. 640,
143 S. W. 855.
XnoonBlBteiit counts. — ^Where a com-
plaint contains two or more counts stat-
ing but one cause of action in varying
forms, the different counts need not be
consistent. Rozwadow Young Men's
Assn. r. Langweil, 136 N. Y. S. 1065.
Fedexal Smployecs' UaWlltj Act and
Btato laws. — Where one is entitled to
recover either under the Employers'
Idability Act of Congress, or under the
general laws of negligence, the acts of
negligence relied on may be stated in
different counts of the petition, and a
motion to require plaintiff to elect upon
which cause of action she will rely will
be denied. Bankson v. Illinois Cent. B.
Co., 196 Fed. 171.
707-6 First Nat. Bank i?. Ingle, 37
Okla. 276, 132 P. 895.
Erroneous sabmlsslon as to counts.
Where plaintiff had a right of submis-
sion on one count, and the finding for
him on a second count could only have
been made by a determination in his
favor of every issue necessary for him
to prevail on the first count the verdict
will be sustained. Barker Auto Co. v.
Bennett, 219 Mass. 304, 106 N. E. 990.
708-6 Louisville 4b N. B. Co. t\
Adams, 148 Ky. 513, 147 S. W. 384.
708-9 Atkinson v, BuUard, 14 Ga.
App. 69, 80 8. E. 220; Citizens' Tele-
phone Co. <?. Ft. Wayne & S. By. Co.,
53 Ind. App. 230, 100 N. E. 309.
708-10 NatiooiJ L. Go. v. Wickliffe,
19 Cal. App. 234, 125 P. 357; Gardner
1*. Western Union Tel. Co., 14 Ga. App.
403, 81 S. E. 259.
AUegatlonB ftom ono eonot cannot be
Imported Into anotber, either fpr tb^
«4
DECREES
Vol. 6
purpose of BUBtainii^^ or destroying it,
unless the pleading, tfaougli in form con-
taining two counts, in substance and in
fact contains but one. Train v. Emer-
son, 137 Ga. 730, 74 S. E. 241.
708-11 Birmingham, etc. Co. v, Wil-
cox, 181 Ala. 512, 61 8. 908.
710-24 Lord Electric Co. v. Barber
Asphalt Pav. Co., 165 App. Div. 399,
150 N. Y. S. 1000.
710-2S By motioii to compel electloii.
S. V, Tittmann, 103 Mo. 569, 15 S. W.
941; Beed r. Kansas C. Milk Co., 187
Mo. App. 542, 174 8. W. 110; Zeideman
17. Molasky, 118 Mo. App. 106, 94 8. W
754.
713-S# Burnham-Hanna-Munger Dry
Goods Co. f. Hill, 17 N. M. 347, 128
P. 62; Scott V. Vulcan Iron Works Co.,
31 Okla. 334, 122 P. 186.
714-46 The legal measure of dam-
ages need not be set out. Ara v, Rut-
land (Tex. Civ.), 172 8. W. 993.
71ll»-62 On demutrer the prayer for
relief is not considered, but only the
facta alleged in the charging part of
the complaint. Idaho Irr. Co. v. Dill,
25 Ida. 711, 139 P. 714.
715-58 Weller v, Missouri L. & M.
Co., 176 Mo, App. 243, 161 8. W. 853;
Powers V. Uniyersal Film Mfg. Co., 162
App. Div. 806, 148 N. Y. 8. 114; Sulli-
van V. Adiland Light, etc. Co., 156 Wis.
445, 146 N. W. 506.
716-50 Musgrove t\ Macon County
Bank, 187 Mo. App. 483, 174 8. W. 171.
717-64 Crawfordsville Trust Co. v,
Ramsey, 178 Ind. 258, 98 N. E. 177;
<3oecker r. McAsker, 177 Ind. 607, 98
N. E. 724.
Ziegml t& ««iiitable^A prayer for re-
lief cannot convert an action otherwise
legal into a suit in equity. Hotchkin v,
McNaught-Collins Imp. Co., 67 Wash.
206, 121 P. 455.
718-67 Johnson v. Johnson, 206 N.
y. 561, 100 N. E. 408, Ann. Cas. 1914B,
407.
719-70 Templer r. Muncie Lodge, I.
O. O. P., 50 Ind. App. 324, 97 N. E.
546; Johnson v, Johnson, 206 N. Y. 561,
100 N. E. 408, Ann. Cas. 1914B, 407.
Effect on recovery. — The prayer does
not limit or measure the right of re-
covery, still it may be considered in
determining the relief actually sought
by the pleader. Rochester v. Wells
Pargo & Co., 87 Kan. 164, 123 P. 729,
40 L. B. A. (N. 8.) 1095.
721-99 S. V, Kuhns (Del.), 88 A. 455.
742-11 Gray v. Ames, 220 111. 251,
77 N. E. 219; Poland t?. Loud (Me.), 93
A. 549; Gilpatrick v. Glidden, 82 Me.
201,* 39 A. 166; Forbes v, Tuckerman,
115 Mass. 115; Gerrish -i?. Black, 109
Mass. 474.
A decree Hading tb* «dst«Bce of a
contract to cooTey under which the
purchaser is. entitled to specific per-
formance is final. Gainer r. Jones, 176
Ala. 408, 58 6. 288.
744-14 Bartlett v. Slater, 211 Mass.
334, 97 N. E. 991; Collier v, 8eward, 113
Va. 228, 74 8. £. 155.
Decree lield to be Interiocntory. — Gray
V. Ames, 220 111. 251, 77 N. E. 219.
745-17 Blue Point Oyster Co. v.
Haagenson, 209 Fed. 278.
747-24 Turtle Creek Borough v.
Pennsylvania Water Co., 243 Pa. 401,
90 A. 194.
None of complainants entitled to relief.
Where the record shows that none of
the complainants of record have any
right to relief, the court cannot grant
'relief to those unnamed persons on
whose behalf it is claimed the suit is
brought. Watson v. National Life &
Trust Co., 189 Ted. 872, 111 C. C. A. 134.
760-36 McParland r. Heverly, 46 Pa.
Super. 434.
750-37 McFarland r. Heverly, 46
Pa. Super. 434.
750-38 Mitchell v. Hitchman Coal &
C. Co., 214 Fed. 685, 131 C. C. A. 425;
Norsworthy v. Willoughby, 176 Ala. 145,
57 S. 717; Culberhouse r. Hawthorne,
107 Ark. 462, 156 S. W. 421; Warner v.
Mettler, 260 HI. 416, 103 N. E. 259;
Fordyce v. Dillaway, 212 Mass. 404, 99
N. E. 166; Miller V. Casey, 176 Mich.
221, 142 N. W. 589; Connor r. Jocfaen,
171 Mich. 69, 137 N. W. 69; Blytiie t\
Simmons (Miss.), 65 S. 571; McFarland
V. Heverly, 46 Pa. Super. 434; Beatty
V. EdgeU (W. Va.), 83 8. E. 903; New-
berry V, Dutton, 114 Va. 95, 75 8. E.
785. See Bittenhouse v, Kewhard, 232
Pa. 433, 81 A. 445,
AAegaitioa strldMn from oomplsint by
amendment cannot be embraced by the
decree. Gamble v. Andrews (Ala.), 65
8. 525.
Thb «cop6 of <Aie Ml mu^ be enlarged
by answer and proofs so as to embrace
matters occurring subsequent to the fil-
ing of the bill. Penver i?. Mercantile
415
Vol. 6
DECREES
Trust Co., 201 Fed. 790, 120 C. C. A.
100.
751-39 Norflworthy t7. Willoughby,
176 Ala. 145, 57 8. 717.
763-63 McFarland v. Heverly, 46
Pa. Super. 434»
754-68 Kuh v. CBeniy, 177 HI.
App. 271; Pittsmont Copper Co. v.
O 'Rourke, 49 Mont. 281, 141 P. 849.
764-61 Warner v. Mettler, 260 HI.
416, 103 N. E. 259; Dunbar v. Springer,
256 HI. 53, 99 N. E. 889; Jones v. WiU-
iams, 185 111. App. 499; Briggs v. Bey-
nolds, 176 111. App. 420; Miller 17. Casey,
176 Mich. 221, 142 N. W. 589; Wayland'
Creamery Co. v. Dean, 169 Mich. 223,
134 K. W. 1116; Blythe 17. Simmons
(Miss.), 65 S. 571; Spangler Brew. Co.
17. McHenry, 242 Pa. 522, 89 A. 665.
Belief agidnst a penon not a party.
Bice 17. Dougherty, 165 III. App. 125.
Permaoant injunction granted in suit
for temporary injunction. Austin Cloth-
ing Co. 17. Posey (Ala.), 64 S. 6.
766-66 Dixie Grain Co. 17. Quinn, 181
Ala. 208, 61 S. 886; Gardner 17. Dun-
can, 104 Miss. 477, 61 S. 545.
765-66 Fry 17. Jenkins, 173 HI. App.
486.
766-67 Fry i?. Jenkins, 173 HI. App.
486.
767-69 Hayward v, McDonald, 192
Fed. 890, 113 C. C. A. 368; Bexford 17.
Southern Woodland Co., 208 Fed. 295;
Maring v. Meeker, 263 HI. 136, 105 N.
E. 31; Thompson 17. Lindsay, 242 Mo.
53, 145 S. W. 472; Taylor 17. Smith
(Or.), 139 P. 852; Averill i?. Vermont
Valley B. B. (Vt.), 92 A. 220; Eureka
Marble Co. 17. Windsor Mfg. Co., 47 Vt.
430; Danforth 17. Smith, 23 Vt. 247.
If plaintiff falls to obtain relief in one
fonn he is not barred from such relief
as may be applicable to the case stated
by the bill. Ginn 17. Almy, 212 Mass.
486, 99 N. B. 276.
767-70 MUler 17. Casey, 176 Mich.
221, 142 N. W. 589; Grant i;. Swank (W.
Va.), 81 S. B. 967; Custer 17. Hall, 71
W. Va. 119, 76 S. E. 183.
767-73 Fordyce v. Dillaway, 212
Mass. 404, 99 X. E. 166.
769-'84 Proper issueB essential. — ^But
in order to grant one defendant relief
against a codefendant, it is not enough
that the latter is named as defendant
to the bill unless the bill and the an-
swer eeeking relief, considered to-
gether sufficiently taise the issues be-
tween such defendants. Freeman 17. Eg-
nor, 72 W. Va. 830, 79 8. E. 824.
762-10 Consent to decree on cross-
bill.— ^A decree is not void because not
based on evidence suporting the allega-
tions of the cross-bill where complain-
ant consented to entry of decree on
cj[0S8-bill. Eubanks 17. McLeod, 105
Miss. 826, 63 S. 226.
762-11 Fulton 17. Bamsey (W. Va.),
84 S. E. 1065.
763-14 Beinecke 17. Beinecke, 105
Miss. 798, 63 S. 215.
Failure to answer interrogatories. — ^Bos-
enau 17. Powell, 184 Ala. 396, 63 S. 1020.
Amended answer.— Felker i7. Bice, 110
Ark. 70, 161 S. W. 162.
763-16 See Blocker 17. Seay (Fla.),
68 S. 459.
764-17 Gillespie 17. Scott, 65 Fla. 175,
61 S. 322; Seacoast Lumber Co. 17. Camp
Lumber Co., 63 Fla. 604, 59 S. 13.
764-22 Peck 17. PhUUps (Fla.), 65 S.
4.
Wliere suit was irregularly brought in
the name of a deceased person as the
sole complainant, and after decree pro
conf esse a real party was made the sole
complainant, no notice thereof being
served on the defendants, and they not
appearing in the cause, a final decree
against them is erroneous. Whittle 17.
Long (Fla.), 67 S. 130.
765-26 Jett 17. Eldridge, 63 Fla. 442,
59 S. 16.
766-26 Bandall 17. Saucier, 102 Miss.
412, 59 S. 798. See Connor 17. Jochen,
171 Mich. 69, 137 N. W. 69.
Even thoagh snch plea be improper un-
der the court's order. Lukens Gulf Cy-
press Co. 17. Cochran, 65 Fla. 305, 61 S.
630.
766-27 Hull 17. Burr, 62 Fla. 499, 56
S. 673.
Substitated defendant. — ^Where tiie orig-
inal defendant dies after filing an an-
swer, a decree pro confesso could not
be taken against the substituted de-
fendant, if the original bill remains un-
altered, for the answer of the original
defendant is the answer of his succes-
sor. Dickens 17. Dickens, 174 Ala. 305,
56 S. 806; Bandall 17. Saucier, 102 Miss.
412, 59 S. 798.
766-31 Porter 17. Key West (Fla.),
68 S. 175.
For discussion of such a provisioui see
419
DECREES
Vol. 6
Loring i;. Gnimmon, 176 AIa. 236, 57
S. 818.
765-32 Decree by clerk. — ^The stat-
ute and rule do not authorize the clerk
to make a decree pro conf esse and file it
among the papers in the cause. Porter
V, Key West (Fla.), 68 S. 175.
766-86 Kotlce of amendment. — ^If
plaintiff is allowed to amend his com-
plaint after expiration of time allowed
by court, defendant must be notified.
Turner v, Jones (Fla.), 64 S. 502.
767-S9 Turner v. Jones (Fla.), 64 8.
502; Prout 1?. Dade County Security Co.,
55 Fla. 816, 47 S. 12.
767-41 Day v. Allaire, 31 N. J. Eq.
303.
The following held to be mifflcient
causes, for setting the decree pro con-
fesso aside: Want of notice (Boe-
buck 17. Batten, 64 Fla. 424, 59 S. 942) ;
deceit, surprise or irregularity. Roe-
buck V. Batten, 64 Fla. 424, 59 S. 942.
768-42 Turner 17. Jones (Fla.), 64 S.
502; Boebuck v. Batten, 64 Fla. 424, 59
8. 942.
768-46 Boebuck v. Batten, 64 Fla.
424, 59 S. 942.
769-53 McArthur v. Hood Bubber
Co. (Mass.), 109 N. E. 162; May berry
V. Sprague, 207 Mass. 508, 93 N. £.
925.
769-64 Hutchins f). Nickerson, 212
Mass. 118, 98. N. E. 791.
769-58 Hodges 17. Birmingham Se-
curities Co. (Ala.), 65 S. 920.
770-59 Where the defendants never
answered, a decree pro confesso should
have been entered before reference to
the master to hear the parties and re-
^ port his findings of fact, or after the
^ coming in of his report, and before di-
recting him to sell the property of the
defendant c^ompany. Eastern Bridge
Co. 17. Worcester A. Co., 216 Mass. 426,
103 N. E. 913.
771-74 McArthur 17. Hood Bubber
Co. (Mass.), 109 N. E. 162.
Pleadings when order entered control.
The final decree following a pro con-
fesso order is only such a decree as
would be authorized by the state of
the pleadings when the order was en-
tered. And if the bill, subsequent to
the entry of such order, is amended so
as to give the court jurisdiction, the
court should set aside the default and
. give time to defend. Cuebas r. Cuebas,
223 U. S. 376, 32 Sup. Ct. 277, 56 L.
ed, 476.
772-77 Hodges v, Birmingham Secur-
ities Co. (Ala.), 65 S. 920.
773-84 Woods i?. Glos, 257 111. 125,
100 N. E. 516; Zeiser 1?. Cohn, 207 N. Y.
407, 101 N. E. 184, Ann. Cas. 1914C,
493, 47 L. B. A. (N. 8.) 186; Smith 17.
First Nat. Bank, 151 App. Div. 317, 135
N. Y. S. 985.
778-87 Electric Boat Co. i?. Lake T.
Boat Co., 215 Fed. 377; Bureau of Nat.
Literature 17. Sells, 211 Fed. 379; Cen-
tral B. Co. 17, Jersey City, 199 Fed, 237;
Enterprise Lumber Co. 17. First Nat.
Bank, 181 Ala. 388, 61 S. 930; Highland
Bealty Co. 17. Avondale Land Co., 174
Ala. 326, 56 S. 716; Hall 17. Huff (Ark.),
169 S. W. 792; Merchants', etc. Bank
17. Harris (Ark.), 167 8. W. 706; Evans
17. Pettus, 112 Ark. 672, 166 8. W. 955;
Phillips 17. Grubbs, 112 Ark. 562, 167
S. W. 101; Baisch 1?. Warren, 18 Cal.
App. 655, 124 P. 95; Weiss 17. Ahrens,
24 Colo. App. 531, 135 P. 987; First
Church, etc. 17. Page, 257 111. 472, 100
N. E. 975; Huddleston 17. Henderson,
181 111. App. 176; Funk 17. Fowler, 179
HI. App. 356; Moore 17. Brandenburg,
179 111. App. 253; Kuh 17. O'Beilly, 177
111, App. 271; Schroth 17. Siegfried, 162
m. App. 595; Iowa Power Co. 17. Hoover
(la.), 147 N. W. 858; Harrison County
17. Ogden (la.), 145 N. W. 681; Holmes
17. Holt, 90 Kan. 774, 136 P. 246; Martin
17. Murphy, 216 Mass. 466, 103 N. E.
930; Stroh 17. O'Hearn, 176 Mich. 164,
142 N. W. 865; Davis v. Forrestal, 124
Minn. 10, 144 N. W. 423, Ann. Cas.
1915B, 448; Gibson 17. Shull, 251 Mo.
480, 158 S. W. 322; Thompson v, Lind-
say, 242 Mo. 53, 145 S. W. 472; Bakow
17. Tate, 93 Neb. 198, 140 N. W. 162;
Shevalier v. Stephenson, 92 Neb. 675,
139 N. W. 233; Bell 17. Dingwell, 91
Neb. 699, 136 N. W. 1128; Public Serv-
ice Corp. 17. Westfield, 82 N. J. Eq. 43,
91 A. 738, aff, 82 N. J. Eq. 662, 91 A.
740; Cook 17. Warner, 41 Okla. 781, 140
P. 424; Tokstad i?. Daws, 68 Or. 86, 136
P. 844; Hurst r. Brennen, 239 Pa. 216,
86 A. 778, Ann. Cas. 1914D, 428; Holden
t?. Bernstein Mfg. Co., 232 Pa. 366, 81
A. 428; Fire 17. Cate, 85 Vt. 418, 82 A.
741 ; Enright 17. Amsden, 70 Vt. 183, 40
A. 37; Whipple v. Fair Haven, 63 Vt.
221, 21 A. 533; S. 17. Cheney, 67 Wash.
151, 121 P. 48; Smith r. White, 71 W.
Va. 639, 78 S. E. 378, 48 L. B. A. (N.
S.) 623; Custer i?. Hall, 71 W. Va. 119,
76 S. E. 183; Ekern t\ McGovern, 154
sr
417
Vol 6
DECREES
Wis. 157, 142 N. W. 695, 46 L. R. A.
(N. S.) 796.
IndlTldual relief. — ^Zadek r. Burnett,
176 Ala. 80, 57 S. 447.
773-88 Miller v. Bowan, 251 111. 344,
96 N. E. 285; Fisher v, Trumbauer, 160
la. 255, 138 N. W. 528, 141 N. W. 419;
Bower Bros, v, Warren County, 103
Miss. 343, 60 S. 328; Waddle v. Frazier,
245 Mo. 391, 151 S. W. 87: Gill v. Ely-
Norris Safe Co., 170 Mo. App. 478, 156
S. W. 811; Potter v, Whitten, 161 Mo.
App. 118, 142 S. W. 453; Enright v,
Amsden, 70 Vt. 183, 40 A. 37; Ely v,
Johnson, 114 Va. 31, 75 8. E. 748.
Thoogli legal relief on a cro88-1>IU exr
Istfl, it will not be dismissed where
equity has jurisdiction of the subject-
matter and the parties. Smith v.
White, 71 W. Va. 639, 78 S. E. 378, 48
L. B. A. (N. S.) 623.
AllegatioziB which are not proved on
tlie trial, and upon which no relief is
decreed, will not authorize a decree on
such parts of the bill, which, if stand-
ing alone, would not give the court jur-
isdiction. Tarr v. Stearman, 264 111.
110. 105 N. E. 957.
774-94 Union Cent. Life Ins. Co. v.
Drake, 214 Fed. 536, 131 C. C. A. 82;
Central Imp. Co. v, Cambria Steel Co.,
201 Fed. 811, 120 C. C. A. 121; Doo-
little V. Doolittle (la.), 147 N. W. 893.
776-6 If Indefinite and uncertain de-
cree will be reversed. Bice v. Dough-
erty, 165 m. App. 125.
777-24 Preserving the evidence.
The evidence in an equity suit might
be preserved either by being copied
into the decree, or by a certificate of
evidence or a master's report. In
whatever form it is preserved it is a
part of the decree. Chicago Terminal
B. B. Co. V. Barrett, 252 111. 86, 96 N.
E. 794.
Where there is no certificate of evi-
dence the decree must recite sufficient
facts to sustain the conclusions of the
chancellor. Mitchell v. Mitchell, 263
m. 165, 104 N. E. 1037.
Decree dismiiising a bill. — A decree
granting relief must be supported by a
finding of specific facts in the decree
itself, or by evidence appearing in the
record, but the rule is otherwise as to
a decree dismissing a bill of complaint.
Neimes v. Strassheim, 176 111. App. 16.
777-25 Liebing v. Matthews, 216
Fed. 1, 132 C. C. A. 245.
Where answer admits allegations. — ^Hin-
ton V, Tyler, 163 111. App. 464.
779-40 Chicago Great Western B.
Co. V. Ashelford, 268 111. 87, 108 N. E.
761; Cameron v. Clinton, 259 111. 599,
102 N. E. 1000; Stevens r. Coffeen, 39
m. 148; Hanscom v. Maiden & Mel-
rose Gaslight Co. (Mass.), 107 N. E.
426.
779-43 Decree becomes effective
upon being signed. Hudson Trust Co. r.
Boyd, 80 N. J. Eq. 267, 84 A. 715.
789-46 Chicago Great Western B.
Co. V. Ashelford, 268 111. 87, 108 N. E.
761.
Time of entry. — A decree may be en-
tered on the last day of a term of the
court. P. V. Evans, 262 111. 235, 104
N. E. 646.
789-69 Chicago Great Western B.
Co. €. Ashelford, 268 111. 87, 108 N. E.
761.
Approval of the decree by the chan-
cellor is authority for the clerk to en-
roll it or enter it upon the record. Cam-
eron f?. Clinton, 259 111. 599, 102 N. E,
1000; Stevens v. Coffeen, 39 111. 148.
789-61 Sodi entries held improper.
Cuebas v. Cuebas, 223 U. S. 376, 32
Sup. Ct. 277, 56 L. ed. 476.
789-62 Cuebas v, Cuebas, 223 IT. S.
376, 32 Sup. Ct. 277, 56 L. ed. 476.
789-63 Where a decree was entered
prematurely, demurrers not having been
disposed of, the decree may be treated
as vacated, the demurrers disposed of
and the decree restored. Antoszewski
V, City Plumbing Co. (Mich.), 151 N.
W. 635.
789-64 Chicago, B. & Q. B. Co. v.
Wingler, 165 111. 634, 46 N. E. 712; 8.
1?. Northern Pac. By. Co., 157 Wis. 73,
147 N. W. 219.
When decree cannot be entered nunc
pro tunc. — Cameron v, Clinton, 259 111.
599, 102 N. E. 1000.
781-66 Hurd v, Goodrich, 59 HI. 450.
781-68 For example, see the follow-
ing cases: Hurd v. Goodrich, 59 111.
450; Gilpatrick r. Glidden, 82 Me. 201,
19 A. 166.
781-69 Whiting r. Bank of the Uni-
ted States, 13 Pet. (U. S.) 6, 10 L. ed.
33; Dexter v. Arnold, 5 Mason 303, 7
Fed. Cas. No. 3,856.
782-61 Hurd v. Goodrich, 59 HI. 450.
782-66 Effect of enrolment and its
omission on validity of decree. John*
418
DECREES
Vol. 6
Bon V. Johnson, 182 Ala. 376, 62 S. 706;
Hndson Trust Co. v. Boyd, 80 N. J. £q.
267, 84 A. 715.
782-67 See discussion in Hudson
Trust Co. 17. Boyd, 80 N. J. Eq. 267, 84
A. 716.
782-68 See discussion in Hudson
Trust Co. V. Boyd, 80 N. J. Eq. 267, 84
A. 715.
782-70 Oenerally decrees become ef-
fective ixninediately upon being signed,
and may be enforced by execution sub-
ject to rules and practice, without
waiting for any enrolment. Hudson
Trust Co. 17. Boyd, 80 N. J. Eq. 267, 84
A. 715.
In England, no appeal to the House of
Lord's can take place, unless the de-
cree appealed against has been enrolled.
See discussion in Hudson Trust Co. v.
Boyd, 80 N. J. Eq. 267, 84 A. 715.
783-74 Walker t?. Mclntire, 41 App.
Cas. (D. C.) 380; McSwegin v, How-
ard, 70 W. Va. 783, 74 S. E. 948.
784-88 Farmers' & Merchants' Bank
t7. Arizona M. S. & L. Assn. (C. C. A.),
220 Fed. 1; Givens 17. Grimmett (Ark.),
174 8. W. 247; Byder 17. Perkins, 219
Mass. 525, 107 N. E. 387; Hudson Trust
Co. 17. Boyd, 80 N. J. Eq. 267, 84 A. 715.
784-84 Givens 17. Grimmett (Ark.),
174 8. W. 247.
784-87 See Adams v, Pugh's Admt.,
116 Va. 797, 83 8. E. 370.
784-89 Mooney 17. Valentynovicz,
255 111. 118, 99 N. E. 344.
785-97 After tbe expiration of the
term at which a decree is rendered the
decree becomes an absolute finality.
Farmers' ft Merchants' Bank 17. Ariz-
ona M. S. & L. Assn. (C. C. A.), 220
Fed. 1.
785-98 Xnicertainty in decree as to
grounds on which based renders it in-
conclusive in subsequent litgation be-
tween the same parties upon the same
(demand. Laing 17. Price (W. Va.), 83
S. E. 497.
787-11 Hultbetg v. Anderson, 252
111. 607, 97 N. B. 216. But see Pinel 17.
Pinel, 178 Mich. 596, 146 N. W. 117.
The conrt may change the decree or
withhold assistance if the circum-
stances are such that it would be un-
just to enforce the decree. Terry i?.
Mcaintock, 41 Mich. 492, 2 N. W. 787.
787-14 Biehards 17. Harrison, 218
Fed. 134.
789-25 Hanscom 17. Maiden & Mel-
rose Gaslight Co. (Mass.), 107 N. E.
426.
789-26 Opening of final decree, Will-
lams 17. Lowe, 79 N. j. Eq. 173, 81 A.
760.
789-28 Careleflsness or incompetency
of attorney not sufficient to warrant
vacating decree. Long 17. Long, 104 Ark.
562, 149 8. W. 662.
790-32 The following were held
sufficient causes for setting aside the
decree: Where court allowed amend-
ment of biU after time limit, without
notice to defendants. Turner 17. Jones
(Fla.), 64 8. 502. In fraudulently mak-
ing a part of the record on appeal a
pleading defamatory of defeated
party's character, but which pleading
required no denial and did not mislead
the court. Corney 17. Corney (Ark.),
169 8. W. 808.
791-39 Herbst 17. Fidelia Musical &
E. Corp., 218 Mass. 174, 105 N. E. 629.
792-43 Bartak 17. Isvolt, 261 111. 279,
103 N. E. 967; Tosetti Brew. Co. 17.
Koehler, 200 111. 369, 65 N. E. 636,
upon motion made during the term in
which a decree was rendered, it may
be set aside or vacated at a subsequent
term to which it was continued.
792-45 Farmers' & Merchants' Bank
17. Arizona M. S. & L. Assn. (C. C. A.),
220 Fed. 1; Mooney i7. Valentynovicz,
255 m. 118, 99 N. E. 344; Gray 17.
Ames, 220 HI. 251, 77 N. E. 219.
Power over enforcement of decree.
While a court may not, after the term,
amend the principles of a final decree,
it has the inherent right to modify, by
a subsequent order, the time of the
enforcement or the manner in which it
shall be enforced. Fulton In v. Co. 17.
Dorsey (C. C. A.), 220 Fed. 298.
792-46 Farmers' & Merchants' Bank
17. Arizona M. S. & L. Assn. (C. C. A.),
220 Fed. 1; Gainer v. Jones, 176 Ala.
288, 58 8. 288; Mooney i?. Valentynovicz,
255 111. 118, 99 N. E. 344; Gray 17. Ames,
220 HI. 251, 77 N. E. 219; Cigler l?.
Keinath, 167 HI. App. 65.
Amendment nunc pro tunc. — ^The chan-
cery court could not by nunc pro tunc
entry bring oral testimony into the
record by recitals in the decree of its
recollection of the testimony. Bradley
Lumb. Co. 17. Hamilton, 109 Ark. 1, 159
8. W. 35; Bradley Lumb. Co. 17. Lang-
ford, 109 Ark. 594, 160 S. W. 866.
419
Vol. 6
DEFAULT
798-47 Mooney v. ValentTxioTfts,
255 HI. 118, 99 N. E. 344; Gray c.
Ames, 220 HI. 251, 77 N. E. 219.
793-48 Knight v. Hodge, 62 Fla. 516,
56 S. 942: Gray f. Ames, 220 HI. 251,
77 N. E. 219; Gerrish v. Black, 109
Mass. 474.
793-49 Felker v. Bice, 110 Ark. 70,
161 S. W. 162; Foxwell v. FoxweU, 122
Md. 263, 89 A. 494.
793-60 Foxwell v. Foxwell, 122 Md.
263, 89 A. 494.
793-61 Sweeney v. Brow (B. I.), 90
A. 1073.
793-63 Whitlock Cordage Co. f. Hine
(Md.), 93 A. 431; Foxwell 17. Foxwell,
122 Md. 263, 89 A. 494.
793-64 Foxwell v. FoxweU, 122 Md.
263, 89 A. 494.
793-66 Party had no knowledge of
proceedings. — ^In order to obtain relief
in equity from a decree, the party
against whom the decree is entered
must show not only that he was not
summoned, but also that he did not
know of the proceeding in time to make
a defense. Moore f . Price, 101 Ark. 142,
141 S. W. 501, quot. from 8. v. Hill, 50
Ark. 458, 8 S. W. 401.
794-64 Weil 17. Mulvaney, 262 111.
195, 104 N. E. 273.
796-84 Moore r. Davis, 70 W. Va.
547, 74 S. E. 670.
796-89 Gray v. Ames, 220 HI. 251,
77 N. E. 219; Tosetti Brew. Co. f?.
Koehler, 200 111. 369, 65 N. E. 636;
Primrose v. Wright, 102 Md. 105, 62 A.
238.
For clerical error or matter of form.
P. 17. Clark, 268 111. 156, 108 N. K 994;
Primrose t?. Wright, 102 Md, 105, 62 A.
238.
796-90 Motion in appellate court.
A decree entered in the superior court
cannot be amended on complainant's
motion in the supreme court. The
rights of the parties can be fully pro-
tected by an appeal from the final de-
cree of the superior court. Sweeney v.
Brow (B. I.), 90 A. 1073.
797-92 Surprise ana fraud. Gechter
V. Gechter, 51 Md. 187.
797-94 Whitlock Cordage Co. v. Hine
(Md.), 93 A. 431; Herbert v. Bowles, 30
Md. 271; Oliver V. Palmer, 11 Gill & J.
(Md.) 137.
797-97 Whiting v. Bank of the Uni-
ted States, 13 Pet. (U. 8.) 6, 10 L. ed.
33; Dexter v. Arnold, 5 Mason 303, 7
Fed. Cas. No. 3,856; P. v. Clark, 268 111.
156, 108 N. E. 994; Gray v, Ames, 220
Dl. 251, 77 N. E. 219 (by appeal or writ
of error, if the error is apparent on the
face of the record, and if not, by bill
of review or bill to impeach the decree
for fraud or other similar cause); To-
setti Brew. Co. v. Koehler, 200 Dl. 369,
65 N. E. 636; Adamski v. Wieczorek,
170 HI. 373, 48 N. E. 951; Bailey v.
Merchant's Ins. Co., 110 Me. 348, 86 A.
328; Gilpatrick v. Glidden, 82 Me. 201,
19 A. 166; Whitlock Cordage Co. r.
Hine (Md.), 93 A. 431; Foxwell v. Fox-
well, 118 Md. 471, 84 A. 552; Primrose
f?. Wright, 102 Md. 105, 62 A. 238;
Herbert v. Bowles, 30 Md. 271; Thruston
V. Devecmon, 30 Md. 210.
797-98 Whitlock Cordage Co. v. Hine
(Md.), 93 A. 431.
797-99 Foxwell v. Foxwell, 118 Md.
471, 84 A. 552; Primrose v. Wright, 102
Md. 105, 62 A. 238; Herbert f?. Bowles,
30 Md. 271; Thruston v. Devecmon, 30
Md. 210.
Decree obtained ttarongfa surprise, acci-
dent, or mistake in cases not heard on
the merits may be thus attacked. Bailey
17. Merchants' Ins. Co., 110 Me. 348, 86
A. 328.
798-11 Smith v. Alderson, 116 Ya.
986, 83 S. E. 373.
DEFAtJLT
804-1 In eminent domain proceed-
ings, although special proceedings, de-
fault judgments may be taken. Gwin-
ner t?, B. Co. (Ind.), 103 N. E. 794.
804-3 See Barnard f. Irwin, 8 Ala.
App. 544, 62 S. 963; Endowment Dept.
V Harvey, 6 Ala. App. 239, 60 S. 602;
Pepi V. Korn (B. I.), 88 A. 537.
The proper Judgment after an appear-
ance by counsel for defendant and after
filing an affidavit of merits setting up
his defense which was stricken out is
not a judgment by default but a judg-
ment nil dicit or for want of plea. The
entry of a judgment by default is not
necessarily reversible error, however.
Mann v. Brown, 263 111. 394^ 105 N. E.
328.
804-6 Stone t?. Elliott (Ind.), 106 N.
E. 710; In re Grout (Vt.), 92 A. 646.
Facts well pleaded are admitted. I>un-
can «. Duncan, 93 8. C. 487, 76 S. E.
1099.
420
DEFAULT
Vol 6
Damages not admitted by a default.
Mann v. Brown, 182 111. App. 1; Saun-
ders V, Fox, 178 111. App. 309; Marrone
«7. Ehrat, 175 111. App. 649. See infra,
p. 822, n. 52.
804-7 Blaloek v. Blocksher (Ala.
App.), 66* S. 863; Rose v. Lelande, 20
Gal. App. 502, 129 P. 599; Holder Tur-
pentine Co. V, M. C. Kister Go. (Fla.);
67 8. 85 (construing statute); Osburn
Auto Go. V. Black, 12 Ga. App. 754, 78
8. B. 470; Sanford V. Hart (App. Div.),
152 N. Y. S. 869; NaderbofP v. Geo.
Bens ft Sons, 25 N. D. 165, 141 N. W.
501, 47 li. B. A. (N. 8.) 853; A. J.
Birdflong ft Son v. Allen (Tex. Civ.),
166 8. W. 1177; Banner v. Walker-
Smitb Co. (Tex, Civ.), 154 8. W. 295.
See Haviland v. Bommersbeim, 81 Misc.
205, 142 N. Y. 8. 542.
Ondasloii to answer an mmecessaiy
lAaadlng does not autborize tbe entry
of a default. Consequently tbe omis-
sion to answer a cross-complaint wbicb
is but a repetition of tbe answer and
wbicb presents no new issues does not
autborize tbe entry of a default. Brooks
V. Wbite, 22 Gal. App. 719, 136 P. 500.
Wlitxe a pleading la filed, altbougb not
witbin tbe statutory period, tbe defend-
ant is not in default for tbe plaintiff,
by failing to take action tbereon, in ef-
fect grants an extension of time witb-
in wbicb to plead. Beber v. Beed, 166
Cal. 525, 137 P. 263, Ann. Gas. 1915C,
737; Bertagnolli Bros. v. Bertagnolli
(Wyo.), 148 P. 374, See Crossan v.
Cooper, 41 Okla. 281, 137 P. 354; Von
Scbiracb «7. Vance, 239 Pa. 300, 86 A.
856; Greenbrier Valley Bank i;. Bair,
71 W. Va. 684, 77 S. E. 274.
A demnxm filed is, until ruled on by
tbe court, equivalent to an answer witb-
in tbe meaning of tbe statute relating
to defaults. Davidson v. Grabam, 25
Cal. App. 484, 144 P. 147; Esden v.
May, 36 Nev. 611, 645, 135 P. 1185.
On^ tbose facts well pleaded are ad-
mitted by a default; consequently a'
default cannot be sustained if tbe
petition of tbe plaintiff fails to state
a cause of action. Da vies' Exr. v.
Louisville, 159 Ky. 252, 166 S. W. 969.
In Illinois.— If tbe plaintiff files an
afS davit of merits and tbe defendant
fails to file witb bis plea an affidavit
of meritorious defense to tbe wbole or
a part of tbe claim, tbe plaintiff is en-
titled to judgment as in tbe case of
default Kurd's Bev. St., 1911, cb. 110,
|55. It is not necessary before tbe
entry of jndgnrent tbat tbe plea of tbe
defendant be stricken from tbe files,
altbougb sucb practice is proper and
not uncommon. Cramer v. niinois Com.
Men's Assn., 260 111. 516, 103 N. £.
459.
The defendant Is not required to plead
each time the plaintiff amenda bis
pleading, so tbat be is not in default
if be fails to file a second affidavit of
defense to plaintiff's amended pleading.
Herbeck v, Kelly, 51 Pa. Super. 200.
Service of an answer npon plaintiff
within tbe statutory period does not
preclude tbe entry of a default if tbe
answer was not filed. S. v. District
Court (Mont.), 145 P. 724.
805-10 Brandon v, Leeds State 6k.,
186 Ala. 519, 65 S. 341; Barnard v.
Irwin, 8 Ala. App. 544, 62 8. 963; Kruse
f . 8. ex rel. Casparis Stone Co., 55 Ind.
App. 203, 103 N. E. 663; Galbraitb v,
Oklaboma St. Bk., 36 Okla. 807, 130
P. 541. Comp, Wacker v. Toung, 172
111. App. 255.
Presence of boy ftom attorney's office
in court does not make tbe proceeding
a trial. Silverman 17. Mark, 148 N. T.
S. 259.
805-12 See 5 Standabd Pboc. 667.
806-13 Texas & P. B. Co. v. Martin
Bros. (Tex. Civ.), 167 S. W. 792.
806-15 See 10 Standard Proc. 571.
806-17 See 8 Standard Proc. 766.
806-18 See, bowever, Kindgen v,
Craig, 162 App. Div. 508, 147 N. Y. 8.
571, and 12 Standard Prog. 766.
806-aO See 11 Standard Proc- 797.
806-24 Sberrell v, Huber, 186 HI.
App. 475; Green v. McGowan, 183 HI.
App. 149; Dan Talmage's Sons Co. v,
Epstein, 140 N. Y. 8. 394. See Order
of Calantbe v, Armstrong, 7 Ala. App.
378, 62 8. 269.
Filing complaint necessary. Cboctaw-
batcbie Hdw. L. Co. r. Adams, 10 Ala.
App. 613, 65 S. 678.
809-46 Motion to vacate a default
amounts to a general appearance.
Spencer v. Osberg, 152 Wis. 399, 140
N. W. 67. See generally 2 Standard
Proc. 493.
816-90 See 7 Standard Proc. 739.
816-5 Fox V. Nolan (la.), 145 N. W.
491.
816-7 Fox V. Nolan (la.), 145 N. W.
491; Cbamberlain -Wallace Co. 9. Akers,
26 N. D. 395, 144 N. W. 715.
421
Vol 6
DUFAVLT
817-14 Rarden Mercantile Co. v.
Hart, 186 Ala. 513, 65 S. 327; American
Bonding Co. v. New York & Mexican
Whiting Co. (Ala. App.), 66 S. 84^.
Comp. Delaware Tng. Co. t\ Hutto (Tex.
Civ.), 159 8. W. 73.
819-21 Long v, Tighe, 36 Xev. 129,
133 P. 60.
819-23 Domer r. Stone (Ida.), 149 P.
505.
Although co-defendants liaTe not been
eeired. — ^Langston v, Langston, 141 Ga.
675, 82 S. E. 36.
Though no fonnal default has been
entered, a judgment by default may be
rendered. Crouch v. 'EL. L. Miller & Co.
(Cal.), 146 P. 880.
819-24 See 12 Standard Pboc. 766.
820-26 See Atkinson t;. Shelton (Tex.
Civ.), 160 S. W. 316.
820-27 Affidavit by attorney reciting
service and that no answer or demurrer
has been served upon or received by
him is the usual practice in making
proof of default. Naderhoff v, Geo.
Benz & Sons, 25 N. D. 165, 141 N. W.
501, 47 L. B. A. (N. S.) 853.
820-28 Bichman v, Wenaha Co., 74
Wash. 370, 133 P. 467. See Naderhoff
t7. Geo. Benz & Sons, 25 N. D. 165, 141
N. W. 501, 47 L. B. A. (N. S.) 853.
820-29 If the action be for the re-
covery of money only or arise out of
contract, notwithstanding a general ap-
pearance of the defendant, in default
of demurrer or answer or a motion go-
ing to the jurisdiction of the court or
subject-matter, a default judgment may
be entered without notice of the assess-
ment of damages. Naderhoff v, Geo.
Benz & Sons, 25 N. D. 165, 141 N. W.
501, 47 L. B. A. (N. S.) 853. See also
Southworth t?. Curtis, 6 How. Pr. (N.
Y.) 271; Dix t?. Palmer, 5 How. Pr.
(N. Y.) 233.
820-30 Domer v. Stone (Ida.), 149
P. 505; Selinger t?. G. C, 81 Misc. 343,
142 N. Y. S. 194. See Holder Turpen-
tine Co. 1?. M. C. Kister Co. (Fla.), 67
S. 85; Neustel v. B. Co. (Ida.), 149 P.
462; Jones v. St. Joseph, etc. B. Co.,
183 Mo. App. 224, 170 S. W. 427;
Naderhoff v. Geo. Benz & Sons, 25 N.
D. 165, 141 N. W. 501, 47 L. B. A. (N.
S.) 853.
But one notice is necessary! P. v. Don-
nelly (App. Div.), 153 N. Y. S. 997.
820-32 Gate City Bank v. Strother
(Mo. App.), 175 S. W. 76.
A vetlfled comiflaint is not necessary
under subd. 4, §566, N. C. Bev., 1905,
allowing defaults 'Un actions for the
recovery of real property, or for the
possession thereof, upon the failure of
the defendant to file the undertaking
required by law, unless the 'defendant
is excused from giving such undertak-
ing before answering." Patrick «.
Dunn, 162 N. C. 19, 77 S. E. 995.
In a case not arising on contract the
plaintiff after taking default must ap-
ply to the court for the relief de-
manded; in other words, must establish
by proof the material allegations of his
complaint. Joyce v, Bubin, 23 Ida.
296, 130 P. 793.
Where an answer has been filed, al-
though it consisted of a general denial
only and therefore it did not put in
issue the execution of the note sued
on, evidence must be heard. Gate City
Bank v. Strother (Mo. App.), 175 8. W.
76.
820-33 See Central Lumber Co. v.
Braun, 34 S. D. 395, 148 N. W. 843,
under subd. 2, §237, Code Civ. Proc.
821-44 Winston v, Idaho Hdw. Co.,
23 Cal. App. 211, 137 P. 601.
822-49 Naderhoff v. Geo. Benz ft
Sons, 25 N. D. 165, 141 N. W. 501, 47
L. B. A. (N. S.) 853.
822-50 Mann v. Brown, 182 111.
App. 1.
823-62 Manaster t?. Kioebge, 257
111. 431, 100 N. E. 989; Marrone t?.
Ehrat, 175 111. App. 649; Ungar t?.
Feuer, 172 111. App. 204.
Bequest for assessment of damages by
Jury essential. Saunders v. Fox, 178
111. App. 309.
Proof of damages sustained by plain-
tiff necessary before the court can
award damages on a claim for liqui-
dated damages. Welch v. Bigger, 24
Ida. 169, 133 P. 381. Where unliquidated
damages are demanded, they must be
proved. Lamb v. McEIwaney (Ga.), 85
S. E. 705; B. B. Dancy ft Co. v, Bosen-
berg (Tex. Civ.), 174 8. W. 831.
JucU^ent by default without tlie aa-
sessment of damages can only be or-
dered in actions for the recovery of
a definite sum of money as such, and
wherein the court is not called upon
to ascertain or adjudge anything but
the existence and terms of the contract
by which it is due, and an action that
requires the determination of amounts
unliquidated is not deemed an action
422
DEFAULT
Vol 6
for the recovery of money only, as to
the relief sought. In snch an action
the amount of damages is not admitted
by the defendant by a failure to an-
swer. Naderhoff v, Geo. Benz & Sons,
25 N. D. 165, 141 N. W. 501, 47 L. B.
A. (N. S.) 853.
823-60 Post Pub. Co. v, Bennett, 164
App. Div. 633, 149 N. Y. 8. 867.
That cauM not on the tilal or motion
docket does not prevent the court from
giving a judgment by default. Dell
School V. Peirce, 163 N. C. 424, 79 S. E.
687.
Where an answer is on file and undis-
posed of, a default cannot be entered.
Davidson r. Graham, 25 Cal. App. 494,
144 P. 147; Gate City Bank t?. Strother
(Mo. App.), 175 8. W. 76; Armstrong
r. Elrick, 177 Mo. App. 640, 160 8. W.
1019. See Wacker v. Young, 172 111.
App. 255.
At any time during the rotnm day
designated in the notice of publication,
the trial court, in its discretion, may
enter a default judgment. Gwinner v,
R. Co. (Ind.), 103 N. E. 794.
Entry of Judgment at appearance term
unauthorized. Harrell v. Davis Wagon
Co., 140 Ga. 127, 78 S. E. 713.
Filing Judgment. — Shirran v, Dallas, 21
Cal. App. 405, 132 P. 454, 462.
824-61 Shirran r. Dallas, 21 Cal.
App. 405, 132 P. 454, 462.
824-63 As aifected by complaint.
Default judgment must not be more
favorable than was prayed for in the
complaint. Washington Co. L. & D.
Co. V. Western Nat. Bank (Ida.), 146
P. 116; Marrone v. Ehrat, 175 111. App.
649; Stevens i?. Van Wagoner-Linn
Const. Co. (App. Div.), 150 N. Y. B.
502.
Form of Judgment.— Where rendered
without a jury, a judgment by default
should show the existent of facts
authorizing the court to enter judg-
ment in such case. Coats v, M. J.
Elkan & Co., 7 Ala. App. 187, 60 S.
941. The evidence supporting the find-
ing as to the fact of service of process
need not be set out. Henderson t;.
Jackson Woolen Mills, 7 Ala. App. 199,
60 S. 965.
824-64 Statement in docket that
Justice waited one hour after time set
for trial before eutry of judgment is
not essential to the validity of the
judgment. B. D. Johnson Mfg. Co. v.
Read (W. Va.), 85 8. E. 726.
824-65 Esden r. May, 36 Nev. 611,
645, 135 P. 1185; Bouker Contracting
Co. V. Neale, 161 App. Div. 617, 146 N.
Y. S. 894; BertagnoUi Bros. v. Bertag-
noUi (Wyo.), 148 P. 374. See S. t?.
District Court (Mont.), 145 P. 724.
Conformity of Judgment to praecipe.
Where service of summons ad res is
had upon only one of two defendants
and the praecipe for default asks for
a default "against the defendant," it
is material error for the clerk to enter
a default against the "defendant''
without stating which one. On the other
hand where the service is had upon
two and the praecipe for default asks
for default "against the defendant"
it is material error for the clerk to
enter a default against the "defend-
ants." Stringfellow 17. Ajaz-Grieb B.
Co., 67 Pla. 317, 64 S. 947.
Acts of clerk are ministerial. — A clerk
is without authority to enter a default
if he must first determine the sufficiency
of a document as an answer to the
complaint. Bose r. Lelande, 2d Cal.
App. 502, 129 P. 599.
The power of the court to enter Judg-
ment is not affected by a statute giv-
ing the clerk authority to enter it.
Griffing V. Smith (Colo. App.), 142 P.
202.
Where defendant was personally served
without the state, default may be en-
tered by the clerk. Long v, Tighe, 36
Nev. 129, 133 P. 60.
In actions on contract for the recovery
of money or damages only, it is the
duty of the clerk upon entering de-
fault to immediately enter judgment.
Moore v. Fredericks, 24 Cal. App. 536,
141 P. 1049; Spencer v. Osberg, 152 Wis.
399, 140 N. W. 67.
824-66 When a default Judgment is
set aside because counsel was engaged
in a trial before the supreme court the
order should not require the moving
party to pay the costs. Gotham Bain-
coat Co. V, Levey, 149 N. Y. S. 482.
826-75 Opening defaults in divorce
cases, is the universal practice ''not
only when a defense comes out in the
evidence, but if, after the evidence is
taken, the defendant desires to be
heard. . . . The only limitation I can
think of would be an apparent lack of
good faith on the part of the appli-
cant." Grant f. Grant (N. J. Eq.), 92
A. 791.
826-77 Brinkley v, Wales-Biggs Pltn.,
423
Vol. e
DEFAULT
108 Ark. 47, 156 S. W. 185; Rehfuss v.
BehfuBS (Cal.)9 145 P. 1020; Hughes
Mfg. & L. Co. V. Elliott, 167 Cal. 494,
140 P. 17; Brown v. Martin, 23 Cal.
App. 736, 139 P. 823; Domer 17. Stone
(Ida.), 149 P. 505; Vapinski v. Toeetti,
53 Ind. App. 547, 102 N. E. 51; Bock
Island Plow Co. t?. Bixby (la.), 147 N.
W. 880;. Ky. Civ. Code Prac, §340,
subd. 3; Callahan Const. Co. v. Thomas,
160 Ky. 496, 169 S. W. 828; Northwest
Thresher Co. v. Herding, 126 Minn. 184,
148 N. W. 57; Verderber 17. Stine, 162
App. Div. 152, 147 N. Y. S. 178; Hotch-
kisB 17. King, 155 App. Div. 850, 140
N. Y. 8. 495; Cohen 17. Ganz, 150 N.
Y. S. 88; P. 17. Felstein, 147 N. Y. 8.
819; Krasne 17. B. Co., 140 N. Y. S.
355; Miller 17. 8mith (N. C), 85 8. E.
379; Pierce 17. Eller, 167 N. C. 672, 83
8. E. 758; N. D. Bev. Codes, 1905,
§6884; Murtha 17. Big Bend Land Co.,
27 N. D. 384, 147 N. W. 97; Pepi i?.
Korn (B. I.), 88 A. 537; Dunham v.
Deslandes (B. I.), 85 A. 921; 8. C.
Code Civ. Proc, 1912, |225; Farmers'
Bank 17. Talbert, 97 S. C. 74, 81 8. E.
305.
Unavoidable obstrnctlon in traffic caus-
ing tardiness of counsel at trial is suf-
ficient to warrant opening a default.
Hirschfeld i?. Monahan, 141 N. Y. 8.
520; Krasne i?. B. Co., 140 N. Y. 8. 355.
8ee also Leafgreen 17. Bernstein, 174
HI. App. 36.
Mere forgetfolness is not a sufficient
excuse within the meaning of the text.
Wood 17. Cobe, 80 Kan. 496, 103 P. 101;
Lovell 17. Willis, 46 Mont. 581, 129 P.
1052, Ann. Cas. 1914B, 687, 43 L. B.
A. (N. 8.) 930, and note; Beebe u.
Boberts, 3 E. D. 8mith (N. Y.) 194;
Dell School V. Peirce, 163 N. C. 424, 79
8. E. 687; Warner i?. Conant, 24 Vt, 351,
58 Am. Dec. 178; Nye r. 8ochor, 92 Wis.
40, 65 N. W. 854, 53 Am. St. 896.
827-78 Ex parte Doak (Ala.), 66 8.
64; Berri i?. Bogero, 168 Cal. 736, 145
P. 95; Hughes Mfg. & L. Co. 17. Elliott,
167 Cal. 494, 140 P. 17; Lang 17. Lilley
& Thurston Co., 164 Cal. 294, 128 P.
1026; Lynch i?. De Boom (Cal. App.),
146 P. 908; Durbrow i?. Chesley, 24 Cal.
App. 416, 141 P. 631; HoUingsworth 17.
Bing (Colo. App.), 141 P. 139; Morrell
Hdw. Co. 17. Princess M. Co., 16 Colo.
App. 54, 63 P. 807; Donald v. Bradt, 15
Colo. App. 414, 62 P. 580; Hall 17. Hol-
man (Ga. App.), 84 8. E. 174; Irvine
17. Grant (Ga. App.), 82 8. E. 819;
Nuestel 17. B. Co. (Ida.V 149 P. 462;
Kloepher v. Osborne, 177 HI. App. 384;
Kruse 17. 8., 55 Ind. App. 203, 103 N. E.
663; Mally i?. Boberts (la.), 149 N. W.
630; Bonayne 17. Hawkeye Commercial
Men's Assn., 162 la. 615, 144 N. W.
319; Hues ton 17. Preferred Ace. Ins.
Co., 161 la. 521, 143 N. W. 566; Green
17. C, 152 Ky. 239, 153 8. W. 242;
Bogers 17. U. 8. & D. Life Ins. Co.,
127 Minn. 435, 149 N. W. 671; 8Um-
mer 17. State Bank, 122 Minn. 187, 142
N. W. 144; Zinn 17. Huhn, 120 Minn.
491, 139 N. W. 952; Esden 17. May, 38
Nev. 611, 645, 135 P. 1185; Allen i?. Mc-
Pherson (N. C), 84 8. E. 766; Murtha
17. Big Bend Land Co., 27 N. D. 384,
147 N. W. 97; Murphy 17. Minot Foun-
dry & Mach. Co., 24 N. D. 186, 139
N. W. 518; Hahn 17. McBride, 88 0. St.
511, 103 N. E. 760; Hodges 17. Alex-
ander (Okla.), 145 P. 809- Fox 17. Ar-
tesian Well & 8. Co. (B. I.), 85 A. 937;
Brown 17. Caldwell (8. C), 84 8. E.
996; Farmers* Bank 17. Talbert, 97 8. C.
74, 81 8. E. 305; Central Lumber Co.
17. Braun, 34 8. D. 395, 148 N. W. 843;
Cowie 17. Barker, 32 8. D. 516, 143 N.
W. 895; Sanford 17. Potter, 32 8. D. 182,
142 N. W. 469; Southern Bene v. League
17. English (Tex. Civ.), 174 8. W. 659;
Mutual Life Ins. Co. 17. Foster (Vt.),
93 A. 258. See Wells Fargo & Co. Exp.
17. W. B. Baker L. Co., 107 Ark. 415,
155 8. W. 122; Western Stoneware Co.
17. Pike Co. Min. Spr. Co., 172 Mo. App.
696, 155 8. W. 1083; Citizens' Bank v.
Martin, 171 Mo. App. 194, 156 8. W.
488; Miller & Co. u. Curl, 162 N. C. 1,
77 S. E. 952.
827-79 8. 17. American Sur. Co.
(Ida.), 145 P. 1097; Domer r. Stone
(Ida.), 149 P. 505.
827-81 Callahan Const. Co. €. Thom-
as, 160 Ky. 496, 169 8. W. 828 (change
in terms of court by session act which
was not indexed) ; Kramer 17. Barth, 79
Misc. 80, 139 N. Y. 8. 341.
Notice to attorney is notice to the
client; a default judgment rendered on
failure to appear at trial wiH not be
vacated where the attorney had notice.
Bigsby 17. Eppstein, 39 Okla. 466, 135
P. 934. Setting forth that ** defend-
ant was informed by his attorney that
his case was not at issue and would
not be tried at said term'' is no ex-
cuse and will not relieve defendant
from a default judgment. Chamber-
lain-Wallace Co. 17. Akers, 26 N. D. 395,
144 N. W. 715.
827-82 FaUnre of agent to notify
424
DEFAULT
Vol 6
corporation of service is not an nnavoid-
able casualty or misfortune ' within the
statute. S. B. Beese L. Co. v. Licking
C. & L. Co., 156 Ky. 723, 161 S. W.
1124.
Temporary absence from jurisdiction on
business a good excuse for non-appear-
ance. O'Beirne v. Carey, 150 N. Y. 8.
666.
827-83 Bailey v, Taaffe, 29 Cal. 422;
Butler & Co. v, Strickland-TiUman
Hdw. Co. (Ga. App.), 82 S, E. 815;
Nuestel v, E. Co. (Ida.), 149 P. 462;
Moline r. E. Co., 262 111. 52, 104 N. E.
204; Brown f?. Eoyal Casualty Co., 183
111. App. 540; Armstrong f?. Elrick, 177
Mo. App. 640, 160 8. W. 1019; Miller
V. Fetters, 139 N. Y. 8. 316; Hodges
V. Alexander (Okla.), 145 P. 809.
Very large discretion rests in court in
vacating default judgments. Bern <?.
Eogero, 168 Cal. 736, 145 P. 95; Houser
V. Laughlin, 55 Ind. App. 563, 104 N. E.
309; Green v. C, 152 Ky. 239, 153 8. W.
242; Armstrong v. Elrick, 177 Mo. App.
640, 160 8. W. 1019; Schattenberg v.
E. Co. (Tex. Civ.), 168 8. W. 8.
"It Is tbe duty of tlie courts to re-
lieve a party from default if he fur-
nishes any reasonable excuse for his
neglect and shows a defense of fair
merit; no substantial prejudice appear-
ing to the other side from the delay.''
Br. 8hoop, etc. Co. r. Oppliger, 123
Minn. 635, 144 N. W. 743.
827-85 Cramer v. Illinois Com. Men 's
Assn., 176 111. App. 1; Jeude v. Sims,
258 Mo. 26, 166 8. W. 1048; 8tanton
r. Hanna, 185 Mo. App. 91, 170 8. W.
452.
An order refusing tbe motion has been
held final and appealable. Park Eidge
c. Murphy, 258 111. 365, 101 N. E. 524.
On the other hand such order has been
considered reviewable only where the
grounds of the motion strike at the
foundation of the cause of action or
the power of the court to pronounce
judgment. Duncan v. Duncan, 93 8. C.
487, 76 8. E. 1099.
An order allowing the motion is inter-
locutory and not appealable. Park
Eidge V, Murphy, 258 111. 365, 101 N.
E. 524. See also 2 Standard Pboo.
180.
828-87 Armstrong v. Elrick, 177 Mo.
App. 640, 160 8. W. 1019; Eosebud
Lumb. Co. f?. Serr, 22 S. D. 389, 117
N. W. 1042,
828-92 Bellance npon an oral ttip-
nlation postponing trial which violates
a rule of court requiring such stipula-
tions to be written, is not sufficient to
avoid a default. Empire 8. Pickling
Co. V. Pflater, 80 Misc. 162, 141 N. Y.
8. 817.
828-93 Fraud on part of counsel in
advising his client that the case was
settled when it was not is sufficient
ground to vacate the judgment. Con-
nell V. Nickey (Tex. Civ.), 167 8. W.
313.
829-96 See Bodgers v. U. 8. & D.
Life Ins. Co., 127 Minn. 435, 149 N. W.
671.
Negligence of attorney may justify the
setting aside of a default. Trumbull
V, Harris (Ark.), 170 S. W. 222; Slater
t\ Selover, 25 Cal. App. 525, 144 P.
298; Martin v, Parham, 14 Ga. App. 257,
80 8. E. 674; Domer v. Stone (Ida.), 149
P. 505; Leaf green v. Bernstein, 174 111.
App. 36; John O'Brien B. Wks. Co. f.
Home Brew. & Ice. Co. (Mo. App.), 175
8. W. 225; Kraus v. Comet Film Co., 139
N. Y, 8. 306; Allen v, McPherson (N.
C), 84 8. E. 766. Comp, Girards v. Eosen-
crans, 157 App. Div. 326, 142 N. Y. 8.
139. Where defendant's attorney ad-
vised that the service was bad, and re-
fused to file answer for that reason,
the default should be set aside. Betts
t?. Betts, 165 App. Div. 274, 150 N. Y.
S. 946.
Bad faith of agent. — ^''Tlie court may
in its discretion open a default judg-
ment obtained against a corporation
because of bad faith or intentional neg-
lect of the officer who is charged with
the duty of making defense." Eodgers
V, U. 8. & D. Life Ins. Co., 127 Minn.
435, 149 N. W. 671.
Where defendant's counsel withdraws
from the case after a heated discus-
sion with the court, the default suf-
fered may be opened in the court's dis-
cretion, but a new trial should be
granted only when the attorney is
actually out of the case and upon sub-
stitution of another attorney. Kugel-
man t>. Katz, 89 Misc. 461, 152 N. Y.
8. 365.
829-99 Comp. Anderson v. Lazaro-
witz, 142 N. Y. 8. 304.
829-2 Illness.— Armstrong r. Elrick,
177 Mo. App. 640, 160 8. W. 1019;
Citizens' Bank v, Martin, 171 Mo. App.
194, 156 S. W. 488.
Where defendant was misled by plain-
tiff's counsel, it has been held sufficient
425
Vol. 6
DEFAULT.
to set aside the default. KingBley v.
Daniels, 157 Ky. 194, 162 S. W. 813.
829-3 Esden v. May, 36 Nev. 611,
645, 135 P. 1185; Des Moines Mutual
H. & C. Ins. Assn. V. Clute (S. D.), 151
N. W. 281.
829-5 Altpeter v. Postal Tel.-Cable
Co., 25 Cal. App. 255, 143 P. 93. See
Mo. Bev. St., §12093-2104; Mattocks v.
Van Asmus, 180 Mo. App. 404, 168 S.
W. 233.
832-18 Want of necessary party to
suit is ground for setting aside a de-
fault judgment as irregular. Miller v.
Klasner (N. M.), 140 P. 1107; Ebell
f?. Bursinger, 70 Tex. 120, 8 S. W. 77.
832-20 Irregularity In the return of
a smnmons cannot be availed of where
defendant was in default when he ap-
peared and moved for a restraining
order. McDowell V. Justice, 167 N, C.
493, 83 S. E. 803.
833-27 See McGowin v. Dickson, 182
Ala. 161| 62 S. 685, converse.
834-33 Endowment Dept. 17. Harvey,
6 Ala. App. 239, 60 S. 602; Jeude v,
Sims, 258 Mo. 26, 166 S. W. 1048.
Satisfaction of judgment before applica-
tion for relief therefrom has been made
does not preclude the defaulting party
from obtaining relief. Patterson 17.
Keeney, 165 Cal. 465, 132 P. 1043, Ann.
Cas. 1914D, 232.
Judgment against all defaulting de-
fendants cannot be vacated on the ap-
plication of some of them; the most
the court can do is to vacate the judg-
ment 80 far as it affects the rights of
the moving parties. Osmont V, All Per-
sons, 165 Cal. 587, 133 P. 480.
"Where made and noticed during the
term or within the statutory period, a
default judgment may be set aside al-
though the hearing on the motion was
had after the term or the expiration
of the statutory period. Osmont v. All
Persons, 165 Cal. 587, 133 P. 480.
A continuance of the motion to a time
after the expiration of the statutory
period does not deprive the court of
authority to consider it, the motion be-
ing timely. Ex parte Doak (Ala.), 66
S. 64.
834-34 Goodykoontz v. Kelly, 185
111. App. 165; Domestic Block Coal Co.
V. Holden (Ind. App.), 103 N. E. 73;
Emery v, Airth, 180 Mich. 433, 147 N.
W. 536; Burgard t?. Burgard, 175 Mich.
565, 141 N, W. 649; Northwest Thresh-
er Co. V. Herding, 148 Minn. 57, 148 N.
W. 57; Montz t?. Moran (Mo.), 172 S.
W. 613; Cowie v. Harker, 32 S. D. 516,
143 N. W. 895; Mutual Life Ins. Co.
V, Poster (Vt.), 93 A. 258. See Irwin
V. Cunningham (Tex. Civ.), 177 S. W.
986.
Defendant may be relieved of a de-
fault decree against him if he appear
and petition the court within one year
after notice in writing of the decree
against him, and within seven years af-
ter the making of the decree, when he
is given no notice. Mich. Comp. Laws,
1897, |§496-498; McDowell i>. Mecosta
Circuit Judge, 178 Mich. 103, 144 N.
W. 498.
835-35 Osmont v. All Persons, 165
Cal. 687, 133 P. 480.
A subsequent affidavit filed without
notice which is not referred to in the
notice of motion cannot be considered
by the court. Forrest v. Knox, 21 Cal.
App. 363, 131 P. 894.
Actual service of the notice must be
had within ^ye years after the rendi-
tion of the judgment under f§627 and
628 of Burns' Ann. St. 1914. Young
17. Foster (Ind. App.), 104 N. E. 769.
Without notice* — ^Domestic Block Coal
Co. V. Holden (Ind. App.), 103 N. E.
73.
835-38 P. V. O'Connell, 23 Cal. 281;
Quan Quock Fong i?. Lyons, 20 Cal.
App. 668, 130 P. 33; Pryor v, American
Trust & B. Co. (Ga. App.), 84 S. E. 312;
Citizens' Bank v. Martin, 171 Mo. App.
194, 156 S. W. 488; Duncan t?. Duncan,
93 S. C. 487, 76 S. E. 1099; Delaware
Ins. Co. f?. Hutto (Tex. Civ.), 159 S.
W. 73. See Western Stoneware Co. r.
Pike Co. Mineral Spr. Co., 172 Mo. App.
696, 155 S. W. 1083.
Affidavit of all officers and directors of
a corporation as to ignorance of the
entry of judgment is not required.
Eodgers t?. U. S. & D. Life Ins. Co.,
127 Minn. 435, 149 N. W. 671.
835-37 Beher v. Reed, 166 Cal. 525,
137 P. 263, Ann. Cas. 1915C, 737,
grounds sufficiently clear.
885-38 Kloepher f?. Osborne, 177
111. App. 884.
But not on question whether defendant
has a meritorious defense. — Gebhard i?.
Brewers Malting Co., 185 DI. App. 256.
Oounter-affidavits on motion to set aside
office judgment* — See Citizens' Trust &
a. Co. V. Young (W. Va.), 83 S. E. 1007|
j|2Q
DEFAULT
Vol 6
Bank of Weslon v. Thomas (W. Va.),
83 S. E. 985.
835-40 Ex parte Payne, 130 Ala. 189,
29 S. 622; Osmont v. All PersonB, 165
Cal. 587, 133 P. 480; Start t7.,Heinzer-
ling (Cal. App.), 149 P. 50; Pryor v,
American Trust & B. Co. (Ga. App.), 84
S. £. 312; Brown v. Royal Casualty Co.,
183 m. App. 540: Post Falls L. & M. Co.
17. Messer L. Cfo., 183 111. App. 309;
Kloepher v. Osborne, 177 111. App. 384;
Citizens' Bank t?. Martin, 171 Mo. App.
194, 156 8. W. 488; Yudin t?. Stoller, 142
N. Y. 8. 484; Miller & Co. v. Curl, 162
N. C. 1, 77 8. E. 952; Qetchell v. Great
Northern B. Co., 24 N. D. 487, 140 N.
W. 109; Duncan v. Duncan, 93 8. C. 487,
76 8. E. 1099; Delaware Ins. Co. r.
Hutto (Tex. Civ.), 159 8. W. 73. 8ee
Western Stoneware Co. v. Pike County
Mineral Spr. Co., 172 Mo. App. 696, 155
8. W. 1083.
In divorce acttons. — ^Rehfuss v. Behfuss
(Cal.), 145 P. 1020. See 1 Standard
Pboc. 656.
Where tbe case Is at issue upon an
amended complaint and answer thereto,
no affidavit of merits need be filed.
Van Woert v. New York Life Ins. Co.
(N. D.), 151 N. W. 29.
Affidavit of merits by attorney insuffi-
cient where it does not affirmatively ap-
pear to know the facts. Des Moines,
etc. Ins. Assn. v, Clute (8. D.), 151 N.
W. 281. An affidavit by an attorney,
based upon knowledge acquired from
an investigation of the affairs of the
corporation has been held to be a suffi-
cient showing of facts to sustain an
order opening a default judgment.
Bodgers v. U. 8. & D. Life Ins. Co., 127
Minn. 435, 149 N. W. 671.
835-41 Reher v. Beed, 166 Cal. 525,
137 P. 263, Ann. Cas. 1915C, 737. See 1
8TAin)AB]> Pboc. 658.
Filing of verified answer is iireferable
to the filing of an affidavit of merits.
Beher r. Beed, 166 Cal. 525, 137 P. 263,
Ann. Cas. 1915C, 737.
836-42 Bailey v. Taaffe, 29 Cal. 422:
Emery v. Airth, 180 Mich. 433, 147 N.
W. 536; John O'Brien B. Wks. Co. t?.
Home Brew. & Ice Co. (Mo. App.), 175
8, W. 225; McEvoy v. Tide Water Oil
Co., 165 App. Div. 954, 150 N. Y. 8. 641;
Yudin V. Stoller, 142 N. Y. 8. 484. See
Moon V. Wright, 12 Ga. App. 659, 78 8.
E. 141; Dorian v. First C. 8. Union, 51
Pa. Super. 116, and 1 Stakdabo Pboc.
688.
Although by the better practice, the
tender of an answer is not absolutely
necessary. Bailey t;. Taaffe, 29 Cal.
422. See also Durbrow v. Chesley, 24
Cal. App. 416, 141 P. 631.
836-43 Brown v. Martin, 23 Cal.
App. 736, 139 P. 823; Henderson t?.
Swift Fertilizer Wks. (Ga. App.), 85 8.
E. 613; Hays v. Mercantile Inv. €o., 73
Wash. 586, 132 P. 406, reply of plain-
tiff. See Finberg v, Burkhardt, 239 Pa.
519, 86 A. 1062.
If Tacation is sought as a matter of
right, the court, on the hearing, should
not try the merits of the issues pre-
sented by the answer. Doherty v. Byan,
123 Minn. 471, 144 N. W. 140.
Objections to answer are waived by
proceeding to trial on the merits of the
motion without raising the defects in
the proper manner. Hueston v. Pre-
ferred Ace. Ins. Co., 161 la. 521, 143
N. W. 566.
836-45 Brown v. Martin, 23 Cal.
App. 736, 139 P. 823; Pryor f. Ameri-
can Trust & B. Co. (Ga. App.), 84 8.
E. 312; Post Falls L. & M. Co. v, Messer
L. Co., 183 111. App. 309; Kloepher fJ.
Osborne, 177 111. App. 384; Leaf green
V, Bernstein, 174 111. App. 36; Zinn v.
Huhn, 120 Minn. 491, 139 N. W. 952;
Jones V. St. Joseph, etc. B. Co., 183
Mo. App. 224, 170 S. W. 425; Colter t?.
Luke, 129 Mo. App. 702, 108 S. W. 608;
Perry v. Carthage Stone Co., 173 Mo.
App. 414, 158 S. W. 887; Bancroft-Gra-
ham V. Halley, 80 Misc. 191, 141 N. Y.
S. 911; Bass t?. Carley, 96 N. Y. 8. 1023;
Cowan V, Cunningham, 146 N. C 453,
59 8. E. 992; Arthur v, Schaffner (N.
D.)^ 152 N. W.'123; Murphy v. Minot
Foundry & Mach. Co., 24 N. D. 185, 139
N. W. 518; Order of Aztecs t?. Noble
(Tex. Civ.), 174 8. W. 623. See Nicoll
V. Weldon, 130 Cal. 666, 63 P. 63; Staley
V. O'Day, 22 Cal. App. 149, 133 P. 620.
Within a reasonable time not exceeding
the statutory period. Thereafter ho
may, however, bring an action in equity.
P. tJ. Davis, 143 Cal. 673, 77 P. 651. See.
infra, p. 844.
836-46 Osmont v. All Persons, 165
Cal. 587, 133 P. 480; Mich. Comp. Laws,
1897, 1496; McDowell v. Mecosta Cir-
cuit Judge, 178 Mich. 103, 144 N. W.
498; Doherty v, Byan, 123 Minn. 471,
144 N. W. 140; Grant r. Grant (N. J.
Eq.), 92 A. 791; Kressh <?. Novlck, 162
App. Div. 891, 148 N. Y. 8. 55; Verder-
ber V. Stine, 162 App. Div. 152, 147 N.
Y. S. 178; Kugelman v, Katz, 89 Misc.
427
Vol. 6
DEFAUIT
461, 152 'N. T. S. 365; CaUender v.
BresBler-Beard Mfg. Co., 152 N. Y. 6.
645; West Electric Hair Curler Co. v.
Hamilton Corp., 150 N. Y. S. 750; Cohen
17. Ganz, 150 N. Y. S. 88; North Dakota
Co. V. Mix, 25 N. D. 81, 141 N. W. 68.
WidA dlBcrotiLon is possessed by the
trial court in the imposition of terms.
North Dakota Co. v. Mix, 25 N. D. 81,
141 N. W. 68.
Temia in tlie sAtaro of a penalty should
not be imposed upon the defaulting
party. North Dakota Co. v. Mix, 25 N.
D. 81, 141 N. W. 68.
Teims most not deprive defendant of
any substantial right as claimed under
the issues of his proposed answer, or
terms which are burdensome, in a case
where there is no laches and the appli-
cation is timely. Doherty v. Byan, 123
Minn. 471, 144 N. W. 140.
Teims against public policy, as a con-
dition that defendant should not m&ke
a motion for a continuance when the
case is called for trial, will not be sus-
tained on appeal. Fitzgerald 17. J. I.
Case Threshing Mach. Co., 04 S. C. 52,
77 S. B. 741.
836-47 See Bertagnolli Bros. «. Bert-
agnolli (V^yo.), 148 P. 374.
837-50 Quan Quock Pong v, Lyons,
20 Cal. App. 668, 130 P. 33; Hertzberg
17. Elvidge, 79 Misc. 109, 140 N. Y. S.
670; Naderhoff 17. Geo. Benz & Sons, 25
N. D. 165, 141 N. W. 501, 47 L. B. A.
(N. 8.) 853; McCaulley 17. Western Nat.
Bank (Tex. Civ.), 173 S. W. 1000. See 1
Standabo Pboo. 656.
838-52 Default is not favoied In
divorce suits, and the courts are especi-
ally inclihed to interpose by opening
and setting aside such judgment and
giving defendant a day in court. Grant
17. Grant (N. J. Eq.), 92 A. 791.
838-53 McAnsh Dwyet & Co. 17.
Moore Fur. Co., 178 HI. App. 562; Bou-
ker Contracting Co. 17. Neale, 161 App.
Div. 617, 146 N. Y. S. 894. See Mc-
Cain 17. Mandell (Mich.), 153 N. W. 5.
Where defendants have not been prop-
erly served relief may be had in the
trial court on motion. Long 17. Gwin
(Ala.), 66 S. 88.
839-58 Altpeter 17. Postal Telegraph-
Cable Co., 25 Cal. App. 255, 143 P. 93;
Sirman v. Moore (Del.), 93 A. 666;
Felts 17. Boyer (Dr.), 144 P. 420; Cooper
17. Henry, 31 S. D. 369, 141 N. W. 90.
WlUiia diseiotlon of court to grant re-
lief. Fullen 17. Wunderlich, 54 Colo.
349, 130 P. 1007; Donald 17. Bradt, 15
Colo. App. 414, 62 P. 580.
In Oalifomia a defendant served by
publication may come in at any time
within a year and have the judgment
set aside. Parkside Bealty Co. 17. Mae-
Donald, 166 Cal. 426, 137 P. 21.
Where the court had not acquired Juris- ,
diction because service was void, judg-
ment will be set aside on application
as a matter of right. Atkinson 17. At-
kinson, 43 Utah 53, 134 P. 595.
839-57 Atkinson 17. Atkinson, 43
Utah 53, 134 P. 595.
Where the plaintiff has been guilty of
fraud or where the court had not ac-
quired jurisdiction because of invalidity
of service by publication, the affidavit
need not set out a meritorious defense.
Atkinson 17. Atkinson, 43 Utah 53, 134
P. 595.
839-58 See Lovejoy v. Stutsman
(Okla.), 148 P. 175.
In divorce acttona, where a defendant
makes default and suffers judgment
against him on an ex part^ showing,
his remedy is not upon motion for new
trial but by motion under i473. Code
Civ. Proc. BehfusB 17. Behfuss (Cal.),
145 P. 1020; Foley 17. Foley, 120 CaL 33,
52 P. 122, 65 Am. St. 147.
A motion for new trial is not the usual
or correct method for procuring a vaca-
tion of a default judgment. Bertag-
nolli Bros. 17. BertagnoUi (Wyo.), 148
P. 374.
839-59 Long 17. Gwin (Ala.), 66 S.
88; Hallock 17. Jaudin, 34 Cal. 165; Love-
joy 17. Stutsman (Okla.), 148 P. 175;
Bertagnolli Bros. 17. Bertagnolli (Wyo.),
148 P. 374. See Silverman 17. Charles
Jacobs Co., 146 N. Y. S. 1067; and 2
Standabd Pboo. 157.
Petition to review is the proper method
of setting aside a final default judg-
ment. Stanton 17. Hanna, 185. Mo. App.
91, 170 S. W. 452.
Writ of error coram nobis. — Jones i7. St.
Joseph, etc. B. Co., 183 Mo. App. 224,
170 S. W. 427.
TTnder the New Tork Municipal Court
Act, on appeal from default jud^pnent,
defendant may present affidavits to
show that he was never served with
summons. Cohn 17. Wilson, 88 Mise. 68,
150 N. Y. S. 577.
Remedy on entry of wrong form of
judgments — ^Where a judgment nil didt
428
DEMVBBEB
Vol. 6
flhould have been rendered instead of a
judgment hj default, appeal is the
proper remedy. Certiorari will not lie.
Endowment Dept. v, Harvey, 6 Ala.
App. 239, 60 S. 602.
8S9-60 Hogg V, Christenson (N. D.),
149 N. W. 562; Duncan 17.. Duncan, 93
8. C. 487, 76 8. E. 1099: Bertagnolli
Bros. V. Bertagnolli (Wyo.), 148 P. 374.
See Schmidt v, Brennan, 156 App. Div.
881, 141 N. Y. 8. 229.
Interlocutory default Judgments may be
set aside on motion. Stanton v, Hanna,
185 Mo. App. 91, 170 8. W. 452; Arm-
strong V. Elrick, 177 Mo. App. 640, 160
8. W. 1019.
Defects In petition reached by motion.
A motion to set aside a default judg-
ment on account of insufficiency of the
petition operates precisely as a general
demurrer. Any defect which could
have been reached by general demurrer
can after a default judgment be taken
advantage of by a motion to set aside
the judgment. Sheffield v. Causey, 12
Ga. App. 588, 77 8. E. 1077.
840-81 An order allowing defendant
to defend after a default judgment had
been entered against him is not subject
to collateral attack and is conclusive
he had a good defense. Home Inv. Co.
V. Emerson, 153 Wis. 1, 140 N. W. 283.
Where the clerk is without authority to
enter a default because an answer is on
file, although filed after the statutory
period, the court may set aside the judg-
ment at any time and it is immaterial
how the invalidity is called to the
court's attention. Beher 17. Beed, 166
Cal. 525, 137 P. 263, Ann. Cas. 1915C,
737.
844-77 The court may vacate with-
out a motion a default judgment en-
tered by the clerk where he has no au-
thority, or the judgment may be ques-
tioned for the first time on appeal.
Bertagnolli Bros. v. Bertagnolli (Wyo.),
148 P. 374. '
844-78 Verification of petition by
attorney sufficient. Frieze t?. Powell, 79
.Wash. 483, 140 P. 690.
852-24 Burrows v. McManus, 249
Mo. 555, 155 8. W. 403.
866-51 When motion to strike out
answer Instead of demurrer proper.
''It is true that as a general rule the
sufficiency of a pleading as stating a
cause of action or defense is to be
tested upon demurrer; but in this case
the defendants having failed to make
defense within the time prescribed by
the code were put upon terms as to the
filing of their answer, and when it was
tendered, and its insufficiency was
urged as an objection to the filing
thereof, the court in its discretion had
the power to refuse to permit it to be
filed or after it was pleaded, had the
power to strike it for insufficiency."
Combs t?. Prick Co., 162 Ky. 42, 171 8.
W. 999.
857-69 Faulty assignments in a
single count containing separable mat-
ters some of which are good and others
bad, may be reached by demurrer.
Chesapeake & O. By. Co. i;. Tinsley, 116
Va. 600, 82 8. E. 732.
860-85 A demurrer to an action on
an open account brought in the superior
court, on the ground that the items of
the account are not sufficiently specific,
should be filed at the first term. Watson
& Strickland v. Parian Paint Co., 138
Ga. 621, 75 8. E. 608.
A motion to dismiss the petition made
upon the trial of the case is in the nat-
ure of a special demurrer, and comes
too late. Bichards V, Shields, 138 Ga.
583, 75 8. E. 602.
A demurrer interposed during course of
trial, to the jurisdiction of the court,
properly overruled. Berry v, French,
24 Colo. App. 519, 135 P. 985.
Bule requiring demurrer to be filed
within ten days after filing of the speci-
fications must be complied with. Bo-
ville V. Dalton Paper Mills, 86 Yt. 305,
85 A. 623.
Should be filed at appearance term.
Avery & Co. t?. Pope, 13 Ga. App. 743,
79 8. E. 946.
863-93 Bebout f. Pense, 31 8. D.
619, 141 N. W. 515.
863-96 Hamilton v. P., 163 Bl. App.
541.
863-98 Smolikowski r. Laibe, 170
HI. App. 181.
867-21 Where a demurrer is incor-
porated in an answer the demurrer can
be insisted upon only at the final hear-
ing of the cause. Terra Ceia Est. v,
Taylor (Fla.), 67 8. 169.
869-34 Kinard v. George, 142 Ga.
Ill, 82 8. E. 560.
429
Vol. 6
DEMUBBEB
870-3T Must be free from imper-
fections. Georgia, P. & A. By. Co. v.
Blish MilUng Co., 15 Ga. App. 142, SZ
S. E. 784.
870-41 Belknap Glass Co. v. Kelle-
her, 72 Wash. 529, 130 P. 1123.
A demurrer ore tenus does not reach
plaintiff's want of legal capacity to
sue, but such a demurrer goes to the
cause of action. Jcnks r. Allen, 151
Wis. 625, 139 N. W. 433.
871-43 Title Guaranty & Surety Co.
V. Blinker, 35 Okla. 128, 128 P. 696;
Burnham v. Milwaukee, 155 Wis. 90, 143
N. W. 1067.
A demurrer by way of answer is not
recognized. Jenks V, Allen, 151 Wis.
625, 139 N. W. 433.
871-46 The custom of incorporating
in the answer a clause challenging the
sufficiency of the complaint, is not to
be commended. Mountain Supply D.
Co. V. Lindekugel, 24 Colo. App. 100,
131 P. 789.
873-52 Berry v. French, 24 Colo.
App. 519, 135 P. 985.
873-54 McElvoy v. Court of Honor,
163 111. App. 556.
The obJectionB that a complaint iB un-
certain and argumentative will not be
noticed where it is not pointed out
wherein these faults lie. S. v, Greene,
87 Vt. 94, 88 A. 515.
874-57 Gulf Citv Boiler Works Co.
V, Falligant, 6 Ala. App. 178, 60 S.
510; Evants v. Taylor, 18 N. M. 371,
137 P. 583; Lizarraga Hmns. V. Yap
Tico, 24 Phil. Isl. 504.
A demurrer on the ground that a com-
plaint is '^ambigous, unintelligible, and
uncertain" is insufficient. Berry v.
French, 24 Colo, App. 519, 135 P. 985.
Degree of particularity. — ^A demurrer is
not required to be more specific than is
sufficient to call the court's attention,
without argument, to the particular
matter at which the demurrer is aimed.
Cooley V. Maine, 163 la. 117, 143 N. W.
431.
Philippine Islands* — The demurrer must
distinctly specify the grounds upon
which any of the objections to the
complaint, or to any of the causes* of
action therein stated, are taken. Code
Civ. Proc, §91.
Strict compliance of statute required.
Deslandes t?. Scales (Ala.), 65 S. 393.
877-58 Deslandes f?. Scales (Ala,),
65 S. 393; Central Lumber & T. Co. v.
McClure Lumber Co., 180 Ala. 606, 61
S. 821; Citizens' Light, Heat & P. Co.
t?. Kendrick, 6 Ala. App. 423, 60 S. 526;
Barber Asphalt P. Co. V, Criat, 21 CaL
App. 1, 130 P. 435.
879-65 Berry v. French, 24 Colo.
App. 519, 135 P. 985; Atlantic Coast
Line B. Co. v, Whitney, 13 Ga. App.
345, 79 S. E. 181; Gillispie v. Darroch
(Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 475; Spiro v.
Robertson (Ind. App.), 106 N. E. 726;
Quality Clothes Shop 17. Keeney (Ind.
App.), 106 N. E. 541.
880-68 Berry <?. French, 24 Colo.
App. 519, 135 P. 985.
880-87 Berry v. French, 24 Colo.
App. 519, 136 P. 985.
888-5 MacMullan v. Kelly, 19 Cal.
App. 700, 127 P. 819; 8. V. Atlantic
.Coast Line B. Co., 67 Fla. 441, 63 S.
729; Idaho Irr. Co. v, DUl, 25 Ida. 711,
139 P. 714; Schaefer v. Hines (Ind.
App.), 102 N. E. 838; Line v. Line, 119
Md. 403, 86 A. 1032, Ann. Cas. 1914D,
192; Norton v. Beed, 253 Mo. 236, 161
S. W. 842; Schultz f?. Wise, 93 Neb. 718,
141 N. W. 813; Evants v, Taylor, 18 N.
M. 371, 137 P. 583; Berg v. Bates, 153
App. Div. 12, 137 N. Y. S. 1032; Ken-
dall v. Highway Comrs., 165 N. C. 600,
81 S. B. 995; Ahsmuhs f?. Bowyer, 39
Okla. 376, 135 P. 413, 50 L. B. A. (N.
S.) 1060; Sweet v. Crane, 39 Okla. 248,
134 P. 1112; Wheelwright f?. National
Copper Bank, 42 Utah 579, 133 P. 132.
Misnomer of parties cannot be taken
advantage of by demurrer but must be
reached by answer or affidavit in nature
of a plea in abatement. Studebaker
Corp. of America v, Dodds, 161 Ky. 542,
171 S. W. 167. See vol. 1, p. 37, n. 48;
p. 711, n. 23.
889-8 Limitations cannot be raised
by demurrer, unless the complaint af-
firmatively show lapse of statutory pe-
riod and the non-existence of facts tak-
ing the case out of the operation of
the statute. Bogers'i?. Ogburn (Ark.),
172 S. W: 867.
800-7 Western Ey. t?. Foshee, 183
Ala. 182, 62 S. 500.
890-8 The measure of damages is not
tested by a demurrer, but a demurrer
goes to the cause of action. Harris v*
Cocoanut Grove Develop. Co., 63 Fla.
176, 59 S. 11.
891-13 Ueyer v. Wright, 24 Colo.
App. 53, 131 P. 787; Galbreath Gas Go.
V. Lindsey, 35 Okla. 235, 129 P. 45;
i3Q
DEMURRER
Vol. 6
Bailey v. Arnold (Tex. Civ.), 156 S. W.
531.
892-17 Edward Todd & Co. v. South-
ern Pac. Co., 150 N. Y. 8. 979.
A motion to dlmnlfW as well &8 demnr-
rer is proper where want of jurisdic-
tion appears upon the face of the pro-
ceedings. Tigrett v. Taylor, 180 Ala.
296, 60 S. 858.
892-19 See Sissenguth i;. Bourne
(Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 743.
892-20 Tigrett v. Taylor, 180 Ala.
296, 60 S. 858.
893-2S Owen v. Brown, 78 Misc. 273,
139 N. Y. S. 451.
Objection tliat action should be in
equity court cannot be raised on demur-
rer but should be by motion to trans-
fer to equity docket. Nuckels v. Rob-
inson-Pettett Co., 159 Ky. 214, 166 S.
W. 972.
894-26 Sweet v. Crane, 39 Okla.
248, 134 P. 1112.
900-44 Martin v. Boyal Ins. Co., 1
P. B. Fed. 322.
901-51 Bebout v. Pense, 31 S. D. 619,
141 N. W. 515.
901-54 Newton 's Admz. v, American
Car Sprinkler Co., 87 Vt. 546, 90 A. 583.
901-58 Schultz V. Wise, 93 Neb.
718, 141 N. W. 813; Lord Electric Co.
V, Barber Asphalt Pav. Co., 165 App.
Div. 399, 150 N. Y. S. 1000; Dusen-
berry t?. Sagamore Develop. Co., 157
App. Div. 485, 142 N. Y. S. 595; Berg
V. Bates, 153 App. Div. 12, 137 N. Y.
S. 1032.
902-68 A. motion to strike is the
proper remedy. Citizens' Bank v. Com-
mercial Nat. Bank, 107 Ark. 142, 155
S. W. 102.
903-64 Franke v. H. P. Nelson Co.
(Wis.), 147 N. W. 13.
904-71 Hitt Lumber Co. v. Sherman
(Ala.), 66 S. 639.
904-72 Pinnacle Gold Min. Co. v, P.
(Colo.), 143 P. 837.
Bemedy by motion. — An objection
that each paragraph contains two
separate and distinct causes of ac-
tion cannot be reached by demurrer for
want of facts, but only by a motion to
require plaintiff to separate his causes
of action and to state them in differ-
ent paragraphs. Tishbein v. Paine, 52
Ind. App. 441, 100 N. E. 766; First Nat.
Bank €. Ingle, 37 Okla. 276, 132 P. 895;
Danielson v. Oarage Equipment Mfg.
Co., 151 Wis: 492, 139 N. W. 443.
904-75 Bowman i;. Wohlke, 166 Cal.
121, 135 P. %ff, Ann. Cas. 1915B, 1011.
904-78 Must be raised by demurrer
and not by objection to evidence.
Hooker Co. v. Hooker (Vt.), 92 A. 443.
905-79 "Williams t?. Lyon, 181 Ala.
531, 61 8. 299; Birmingham, etc. Co. v.
Nicholas, 181 Ala. 491, 61 S. 361.
905-81 Lucid v. E. I. Dupont De
Nemours Powder Co., 199 Fed. 377, 118
C. C. A. 61; McLaughlin v. Hope, 107
Ark. 442, 155 8. W. 910; Citizens' Bank
v. Commercial Nat. Bank, 107 Ark. 142,
155 8. W. 102; Barton v. Barton, 52
Ind. App. 319, 100 N. E. 688; Terre
Haute, I. & E. Tract. Co. v. Maberry,
52 Ind. App. 114, 100 N. E. 401; Board
of Comrs. v. Spearman, 89 Kan. 106,
130 P. 677; Gano v. Cunningham, 88
Kan. 300, 128 P. 372; Louisville & N.
R. Co. V. Moore, 150 Ky. 692, 150 8.
W. 849; Dwyer v. Corrugated Paper
Products Co., 80 Misc. 412, 141 N. Y.
8. 240; La Moure v, Lasell, 26 N. D.
638, 145 N. W. 577; Christofferson t?.
Wee, 24 N. D. 506, 139 N. W. 689;
Galbreath Gas Co. v. Lindsey, 35 Okla.
235, 129 P. 45; Colclough t?. Briggs, 95
8. C. 4, 78 8. E. 530; Washington-
Virginia By. Co. V. Bouknight, 113 Va.
696, 75 8. E. 1032, Ann. Cas. 1913E,
546; Jaeger v. City Ry. Co., 72 W. Va.
307, 78 8. E. 59; 8mith v. 8tone, 21
Wyo. 62, 128 P. 612.
A demurrer is not a substitute for a
motion to make more definite and cer-
tain. Dwyer v. Corrugated Paper Pro-
ducts Co., 80 Misc. 412, 141 N. Y. 8.
240.
Mere generality in the allegation of es-
sential facts, or mere conclusions of
fact, do not render a petition bad as
against demurrer. Gano v. Cunning-
ham, 88 Kan. 300, 128 P. 372.
Motion for bill of particulars is proper
remedy. Clinchfield Coal Corp. v. Os-
borne's Admr., 114 Va. 13, 75 8. E.
750.
Where the plea4ing is so uncertain as
to fall to state a cause of action or
defense, a demurrer is the better pro-
cedure, and not a motion to make more
definite. Reid v. Lyttle, 150 Ky. 304,
150 8. W. 357.
906-82 Where the specifications of
insufficiency in the demurrer relate
solely to matters which go only to the
uncertainty and ambiguity of the com-
431
Vol 6
DEMURRER
plainly the sufficiency of tlie facts stated
to constitute a cause of action cannot
be considered. Olcovich v. Grand Trunk
B. Co., 20 Cal. App. 349, 1^9 P. 290.
906-84 Oonstraction of tlie ambigu-
ous pleading. — When properly tested by
demurrer or other appropriate proced-
ure, ambiguities in a pleading should
be construed against the party in whose
interest the ambiguous language is
used; yet a court may not be held in
error for overruling a demurrer to an
ambiguous pleading where such a plead-
ing does not put the opposing party
at a disadvantage, and when under th«
allegations or averment of the pleading
a cause of action or a defense may
fairly be shown by proper evidence.
Standard Phosphate Co. v. Lunn, 66 Fla.
220, 63 S. 429. Where it appears that
the matter in respect to which the com-
plaint is uncertain or ambiguous is
peculiarly within the knowledge of the
defendant, such uncertainty or ambigu-
ity is not a ground of demurrer of
which the defendant can avail himself.
I>ow V. Oroville, 22 Cal. App. 215, 134
P. 197.
907-87 Must allege facts showing
ambiguity. McCreary v. Brady, 26
Colo. App. 297, 143 P. 829.
907-91 A petltioii which repudiates
the title of the defendant, and at the
same time seeks contribution, is not
bad as against a general demurrer.
Stephenson v, Luttrell (Tex. Civ.), 160
S. W. 666.
907-92 Hellen f>. Hellen, 170 m.
App. 464.
907-94 Landon v. Morehead, 34 Okla.
701, 126 t. 1027: Merchants' & Plant-
ers' Ins. Co. i;. Marsh, 34 Okla. 453, 125
P. 1100, 42 L. E. A. (N. S.) 996.
907-98 Gartin v. Draper Coal &
Coke Co., 72 W. Va. 405, 78 S. E. 673.
908-97 Bieman v. Morrison, 264 111.
279, 106 N. E. 215.
908-1 The answer la properly strick-
en out on demurrer when the allegations
are wholly irrelevant and immaterial
and set forth no defense. Linam v, An-
derson, 12 Ga. App. 735, 78 8. E. 424.
908-4 Burnham v. Milwaukee, 155
Wis. 90, 143 N. W. 1067.
909-5 C. V. Hume, 155 Ky. 475, 159
S. W. 966.
Remedy is by motion requiring plain-
tiff to file papers, or give reason for
not doing so. Eraver v. Henderson, 155
Ky. 633, 160 8. W. 257.
909-7 A failure to attaidi a copy of
the contract to the petition which sets
out the substance of a written contract,
does not render the petition demurrable.
Dotson V. Savannah Pure Food Can-
ning Co., 140 Ga. 161, 78 S. E. 801.
909-9 Maloney t?. North American
Union, 177 111. Apj). 658.
910-16 Variance between declara-
tion and a bond which is attached to
and made an exhibit to the declaration,
cannot be taken advantage of by de-
murrer. Cheney v, Trammell, 65 Fla.
451, 62 S. 916.
911-22 Stonebraker v. Littleton, 119
Md. 173, 86 A. 150 J Philipp Co. v. New
Yorker Staats-Zeitung, 165 App. Div.
377, 150 N. Y. S. 1044.
That cross-complaint does not state a
cause of action may be taken advantage
of by. demurrer. Gila Val. Copper M.
Co. t?. Gilpin, 14 Ariz. 664, 133 P. 98.
If a cause of action Is stated in tbe
petition, the fact that pleading con-
tains allegations of redundant and un-
necessary matter, which does not
weak««n the proper averments made,
will not render petition demurrable as
not alleging facts sufficient to consti-
tute a cause of action. Union Stock-
yards Nat. Bank v. Lamb, 92 Neb. 608,
139 N. W. 216.
Want of Jurisdiction it appears can be
taken advantage of by demurrer on
the ground that complaint does not
state facts sufficient to constitute a
cause of action. Hackett v, Strumpf,
156 App. Div. 58, 141 N. Y. S. 172.
912-23 Osborne v. Dannatt (la.), 149
N. W. 913.
912-25 Weller v, Missouri Lumb. is
Min. Co., 176 Mo. App. 243, 161 S. W.
853; Whitmore t?. Yeager, 3 Mo. App.
582.
912-26 Idaho Irr. Co. v. Dill, 25 Ida.
711, 139 P. 714; Weller v. Missouri
Lumb. & Min. Co., 176 Mo. App. 2r43,
161 S. W. 853; Posner v. Rosenberg, 153
App. Div. 249, 137 N. Y. S. 1084; An-
dersen V. Muhr, 36 Okla. 184, 128 P.
296.
A claim for non-recoverable damages is
a defect which cannot be reached by
demurrer. Barney Coal Co. u. Davis, 9
Ala. App. 235, 62 S. 985; Southern Iron
& Steel Co. V, Acton, 8 Ala. App. 502,
62 S. 402.
913-31 Beckwith v. Cowles, 85 Conn.
567, 83 A. 1113.
432
DEMURRER
Vol. 6
013-32 American Confectionery Co.
r. North British & Merc. Ins. Co., 199
Ped. 195; Tennessee Valley Bank v. S.
M. Avery & Sons, 9 Ala. App. 363, 63
8. 813; Johnson v. Florida East Coast
R. Co., 66 Fla. 415, 63 S. 713; Husak
v. Clifford, 179 Ind. 173, 100 N. E. 466;
S. V. Heaphy (Vt.), 92 A. 813.
Where plea may be amended so as to
state defense without a departure de-
murrer is proper, not a motion to
strike. Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co.
V. Webb, 184 Ala. 452, 63 S. 518.
Adequate remedy at law. — ^A separate
defense alleging that plaintiff has an
adequate remedy at law is demurrable
where the complaint sets out a cause
of action wholly equitable in its nat-
ure and in which only equitable relief
can be granted. Ward v. Chelsea Ezch.
Bank, 153 App. Div. 638, 138 N. Y. S.
720.
A demurrer to a crosa-complalnt that
it does not state a defense does not
raise the question of the sufficiency of
the pleading 'Ho state a cause of ac-
tion." Judy «. Woods, 51 Ind. App.
325, 99 N. E. 792.
913-34 Failure to answer each count.
A plea filed as an answer to a com-
plaint as a whole, where the complaint
contains several counts, is subject to
demurrer if it is not an answer to each
count of the complaint. Black v. W. T.
Smith Lumb. Co., 179 Ala. 397, 60 S.
154.
915-38 Indianapolis v. Woessner, 54
Ind. App. 552, 103 N. E. 368.
A partial defense must be alleged as
such. Ward v, Chelsea Ezch. Bank, 153
App. Div. 638, 138 N. Y. S. 720.
915-40 Christofferson t?. Wee, 24 N.
D. 506, 139 N. W. 689.
Form. — ^A demurrer to a paragraph of
counter-claim or set-off must be the
same in form as a demurrer to a com-
plaint. State V. Fiscus (Ind.), 105 N.
£. 230.
916-54 A replication must answer so
much of the plea as it professes to
answer, and if it is bad in part it is
bad for the whole. P. v. Union Gas &
Electric Co., 260 111. 392, 103 N. E.
245.
916-57 Bessierre v. Alabama City,
G. & A. By. Co., 179 Ala. 317, 60 S.
82; White v. Suggs (Ind. App.), 104 N.
E. 55; Chesapeake & 0. By. Co. v.
Swartz, 115 Va. 723, 80 S. E. 568.
Assumption of risk appearing from
face of complaint, that question may
be raised by demurrer. Kommerstad v.
Great Northern By. Co., 129 Minn. 376,
139 N. W. 713.
Mere Inferences of a defense suggested
by averments in the complaint will not
render it subject to demurrer. Wabash
B. Co. V. McNown, 53 Ind. App. 116, 99
N. E. 126, 100 N. E. 383.
Want of consideration may be taken ad-
vantage of where it appears from face
of complaint. Village of Seneca Falls
V, Botsch, 86 Misc. 481, 149 N. Y, S.
320.
917-59 Chesapeake & O. By. Co. v,
Swartz, 115 Va. 723, 80 S. E. 568.
917-60 Where assumption of risk
shown on face of complaint, demurrer
lies. Chesapeake & O. By. Co. v, Swartz,
115 Va. 723, 80 8. E. 668.
918-71 Davie 's Exr. v, Louisville, 159
Ky. 252, 166 S. W. 969.
919-72 Gilleran v. Colby, 164 App.
Div. 608, 150 N. Y. S. 326.
920-74 MacMullan v. Kelly, 19 Cal.
App. 700, 127 P. 819,
921-77 Inappropriate elements of
damage cannot be reached by demurrer,
where the declaration states a cause
of action. Tedder v. Biggin, 65 Fla.
153, 61 S. 244. Motion to strike is the
remedy for averments of damages not
recoverable. Marsicano v. Phillips, 6
Ala. App. 229, 60 S. 553.
Want of consideration in a centract
when such fact affirmatively appears
from complaint. Senaca Falls V, Botsch,
86 Misc. 481, 149 N. Y. S. 320.
Statute of frauds not available on de-
murrer. Stover 1?. Gamewell Fire Alarm
Telegraph Co., 164 App. Div. 155, 149 N.
Y. S. 650.
921-92 Schaefer v. Hines (Ind.
App.), 102 N. E. 838.
If a suit is prematurely brought, objec-
tion must be made by demurrer, if the
defect appears in the petition, or, if
not, by plea in abatement. Cooper v.
Bicketson, 14 Ga. App. 63, 80 S. E.
217.
923-14 Morgan v. Brown (Tex. Civ.),
156 S. W. 361.
924-16 Brooks v, Pullman Co., 213
Fed. 445, 130 C. C. A. 81; Keatley v.
Grand Fraternity, 198 Fed. 272.
925-25 Measure of damages cannot
be called into question by a general
demurrer. Swartz t?. Park (Tex. Civ.),
159 S. W. 338.
u
433
Vol. 6
DEMURRER
02S-28 Capacity of parties to sue.
Jenks V. Allen, 151 Wis. 625, 139 N. W.
433.
926-38 Cherokee Mills v. Standard
Cotton Mills, 138 Ga. 856, 76 S. B. 373.
927-50 Forster v. Brown Mach. Co.,
266 m. 287, 107 N. E. 588.
927-67 Stansfield v. Dunne (Ariz.),
141 P. 736. A general denial is good
as against a general demurrer. Dowdy
v. Valvi, 14 Ariz. 148, 125 P. 873.
928-58 Louisville & K. B. Co. v.
Moore, 150 Ky. 692, 150 8. W. 849;
Wheelwright v. National Copper Bank,
42 Utah 579, 138 P. 132.
General demurrer does not lie to * a
portion of the statement of the cause
of action. Southern Pac. Co. v, Pender,
14 Ariz. 573, 134 P. 289.
928-59 Daugherty v. Hermosa Land
& Z. Co. (Ariz.), 141 P. 716; CaUaway
V. Pearson, 139 Ga. 540, 77 S. E. 816;
Fosnaugh v, Jiles, 171 111. App. 187.
Mere formal defects will not be reached
by a general demurrer, when a good
cause of action or defense is shown.
Morgan v. Brown (Tex. Civ.), 156 S.
W. 361. Grammatical errors are not
reached by a general demurrer. Birm-
ingham, etc. Co. V, Barrett, 179 Ala.
274, 60 S. 262.
A general demnrrer is too vague and in-
definite to suggest that plaintiff has
omitted to allege whether he was the
owner, or merely a bailee of the prop-
erty alleged to have been injured. Cen-
tral of Georgia By. Co. v. Cooper, 14
Ga. App. 738, 82 S. E. 310.
929-81 Misjoinder of parties plain-
tiff not reached by general demurrer.
Trustees of Sailor's Snug Harbor v,
Carmody, 77 Misc. 494, 137 N. Y. S.
968.
930-70 Aalwyn v. Cole, 168 Cal. 165,
142 P. 79.
930-71 Cheney v. Trammell, 65 Fla.
451, 62 S. 916.
931-77 See Stephenson v. Luttrell
(Tex. Civ.), 160 S. W. 666.
931-78 Allegation In the alternative
is ground for special not general de-
murrer. Boebling's Sons Co. v. South-
ern Power Co., 142 Ga. 464, 83 S. E.
138.
931-80 Gephart f?. Taylor, 124 Md.
Ill, 91 A. 772.
932-85 Comp, Maiden v, Stewart, 163
Ky. 551, 174 S. W. 5.
933-90 McEvoy v. Court of Honor,
163 ni. App. 556.
933-93 Gartin r. Draper Coal & Coke
Co., 72 W. Va. 405, 78 S. E. 673.
934-98 McEvoy t?. Court of Honor,
163 111. App. 556; Morgan f?. Brown
(Tex. Civ.), 156 S. W. 361.
Oonunon law pleading cannot be done
by exhibits; tfn instrument relied upon
must be set out either according to its
legal effect or in haec verba; failure to
observe this rule renders a pleading sub-
ject to a special demurrer. Sehnert v.
Schipper, 168 111. App. 245.
Alternative pleading. — A general de-
murrer on the ground that no cause of
action is stated will not raise the ob-
jection that the allegations are in the
alternative, such defect should be at-
tacked by special demurrer. Boebling 's
Sons Co. f?. Southern Power Co., 142
Ga. 464, 83 S. E. 138. Allegations of
several breaches of duty in the alter-
native or disjunctively so that it is im-
possible to say upon which of several
substantive averments the pleader re-
lies, renders the pleading subject to
special demurrer as being obscure and
confused. Birmingham, etc. Co. v,
Nicholas, 181 Ala. 491, 61 S. 361.
935-97 Central of Georgia v. Prior,
142 Ga. 536, 83 S. E. 117.
936-98 Semi-Tropic S. Assn. f?. John-
son, 163 Cal. 639, 126 P. 488.
A failure to attach a bill of particulars
when required, is amendable and must
)>e taken advantage of by special de-
murrer, and is cured by verdict. Hill
V. Harris, 11 Ga. App. 358, 75 S. E. 518.
935-1 Wardlaw <?. Frederick, 13 Ga.
App. 594, 79 S. E. 523.
936-15 Jenks v, Allen, 151 Wis. 625,
139 N. W. 433; Manseau v. Mueller, 45
Wis. 430.
936-18 A defect In party plalntilT
must be taken advantage of by special
demurrer and is waived by general de-
murrer. Maiden v, Stewart, 163 Ky.
551, 174 S. W. 6. '
936-17 Biley v. Boyal Arcanum, 140
Ga. 178, 78 S. E. 803; Trustees of Sail-
or's Snug Harbor v. Carmody, 77 Misc.
494, 137 N. Y. S. 968.
936-19 Callaway v. Pearson, 139 Ga.
540, 77 S. E. 816.
938-35 Whitlock v, Mozley & Co.,
142 Ga. 305, 82 S. E. 886.
939-38 Southern By. Co. v, BretjS
m
DEMURRER
Vol. 6
(Ind. AppOy 100 N. E. 477; Kramer 17.
Barth, 79 Misc. 80, 139 N. Y. S. 341.
943-61 Freeman v. Falconer, 201
Fed. 785, 120 C. C. A. 32; Grant V. Na-
tional Bank of Auburn, 197 Fed. 581;
Spraggins i;. S., 183 Ala. 663, 63 S. 83;
Drennen v, Jenkins, 180 Ala. 261, 60 S.
856; Hamiter v. State Nat. Bank, 106
Ark. 157, 153 S. W. 94; Spangenberg v,
Spangenberg, 19 Cal. App. 439, 126 P.
379; Orandall B. & S. Co. v, Tanquary,
23 Colo. App. 564, 130 P. 1084; Patter-
son 1?. People, 23 Colo. App. 479, 130
P. 618; Waters v. National Woolen
Mills, 142 Ga. 133, 82 S. £. 535; Har-
grove V, Covington, 139 Ga. 308, 77 S.
E. 72; P. r. Taylor, 257 111. 192, 100 N.
E. 534; P. V. Webb, 256 111. 364, 100 N.
E. 224; Elliott V. Northern Trust Co.,
178 III. App. 439; Goldstein v. Chicago,
172 HI. App. 415; Moore-Mansfield
Const. Co. t7. Marion, etc. Traction Co.,
62 Ind. App. 548, 101 N. E. 15; South-
ern By. Co. V, Town of French Lick, 52
Ind, App. 447, 100 N. E. 762; James v.
Weisman, 161 la. 488, 143 N. W. 428;
Snouffer & Ford V. Tipton, 161 la. 223,
142 N. W. 97, L. B. A. 1915B, 173; Ken-
igsberg v, Beininger, 159 la. 548, 141
N. W. 407; Van Pappelendam v. Thomas,
157 la. 358, 137 N. W. 95^; Armstrong
t?. Illinois Cent. B. Co., 162 Ky. 539, 172
S. W. 947; National Ben. Assn. v. Clay,
162 Ky. 409, 172 S. W. 922; Grinstead
V. Monroe County, 156 Ky. 296, 160 S.
W. 1041; Franklin's Admr. v. Louisville
& N. B. Co., 155 Ky. 594 160 8: W.
162; Tarpy v. Lexington & E. B. Co.,
154 Ky. 345, 157 S. W. 726; McCreary
17. Williams, 153 Ky. 49, 154 S. W. 417;
Security Bank v, Callahan (Mass.), 107
N. E. 385; Heth t?. Smith, 175 Mich. 328,
141 N. W. 583; In re Butt's Est., 173
Mich. 504, 139 N. W. 244; Granite B.
Pav. Co. V. Fleming, 251 Mo. 210, 158
8. >W. 4; Stonemets 17. Head, 248 Mo.
243, 154 8. W. 108; Wilson t?. King's
Lake Brainage & L. Dist., 176 Mo. App.
470, 158 8. W. 931; Busboom 17. Schmidt,
94 Neb. 30, 142 N. W. 290; Boper i?.
Milboum, 93 Neb. 809, 142 N. W. 792,
Ann. Cas. 191 4B, 1225; Philipp Co. 17.
New Yorker Statts-Zeitung, 165 App.
Div. 377, 150 N. Y. S. 1044; Adamson
17. Greenwood Cemetery, 164 App. Biv.
832, 150 N. Y.S. 467; Van Slochem 17. Vil-
lard, 154 App. Div. 161, 138 N. Y. S. 852;
Western N. Y. Institution i?. Broome
County, 82 Misc. 63, 143 N. Y. 8. 241;
Pollak 17. Bodge Mfg. Co., 78 Misc. 350,
138 N. T. S, 429; Pease OU Co. i?. Oil
Co., 78 Misc. 285, 138 N. Y. 8. 177;
O'Connor i?. Virginia Pass, & P. Co., 46
Misc. 530, 92 N. Y, S. 525; McCarthy
17. Fitzgerald, 139 N. Y. 8. 950; Fields
17. Brown, 160 N. C. 295, 76 8. E. 8;
Oswego, D. & B. By. Co. 17. Cobb, 66
Or. 587, 135 P. 181; Pendar 17. H. & B.
American Mach. Co., 35 B. I. 321, 87
A. 1; Black 17. State Co., 93 8. C. 467,
77 8. E. 51, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 989; Mil-
lerke 17. Beiley, 31 8. P. 342, 141 N. W.
136; Tyler BIdg. & Loan Assn. 17. Biard
(Tex.), 171 8. W. 1122; Barre 17. Dag-
gett (Tex.), 153 8. W. 120; Allen 17.
Thomson (Tex. Civ.), 156 8. W. 304;
Kirby 17. Thurmond (Tex. Civ.), 152 8.
W. 1099; Boaz 17. Ferrell (Tex. Civ.),
152 S. W. 200; Chance 17. Pace (Tex.
Civ.), 151 8. W. 843; Stuart 17. Pederson,
41 Utah 308, 125 P. 395; Becker 17.
Southern By. Co., 115 Va. 201, 78 8. E.
580; Oconto County 17. Lindgren, 155
Wis. 303, 143 N. W. 707; Oconto County
17. MacAllister, 155 Wis. 286, 143 N.
W. 702; Brown 17. Ocean Ace. & Guar.
Corp., 153 Wis. 196, 140 N. W. 1112.
See also 8 Standard Proc. 480, n. 67.
In actioxiB for libel the demurrer ad-
mits the publication, and also the al-
legation of its falsity and malice. Gus-
tin 17. Evening Press Co., 172 Mich. 311,
137 N. W. 674, Ann. Cas. 1914D, 95.
947-64 Alzua 17. Johnson, 21 Phil.
Isl. 308; Miller 17. Gust, 71 Wash. 139,
127 P. 845.
947-85 Hoffman 17. Kelly, 184 Ala.
290, 63 8. 943; Matthews 17. Lopus, 24
Cal. App. 63, 140 P. 306; Krigbaum 17.
Sbarbaro, 23 Cal. App. 427, 138 P. 364;
Kilpatrick 17. Miller, 55 Colo. 419, 135
P. 780; Meyer 17. Wright, 24 Colo. App.
53, 131 P. 787; Cullen 17. Veasey (Del.),
89 A. 741; Strickland 17. Lowry Nat.
Bank, 140 Ga. 653, 79 S. E. 539; Graham
17. Marks, 98 Ga. 67, 25 8. E. 931; For-
ster 17. Brown Mach. Co., 266 111. 287,
107 N. E. 588; P. 17. Holten, 259 111.
219, 102 N. E. 171; Lindemann & Hov-
erson Co. 17. Advance Stove Works, 170
111. App. 423; Indiana Union Traction
Co. 17. Love, 180 Ind. 442, 99 N. E. 1005; .
Knight 17. Board of Comrs., 179 Ind.
568, 101 N. E. 1010; Domestic Block
Coal Co. 17. Holden (Ind. App.), 103 N. E.
73; Burley Tobacco Society 17. Gillespy,
51 Ind. App. 583, 100 N. E. 89; Clen-
denin 17. Pickett, 51 Ind. App. 283, 99
N. E. 630; Barz 17. Sawyer, 159 la. 481,
141 N. W. 319; Marion 17. Haynes, 157
Ky. 687, 164 S. W. 79; Kingsley 17.
Daniels, 157 Ky. 194, 162 8. W. 813;
435
Vol. 6
DEMURRER
Klemik v, Henrickflon Jevelrj Co., 122
Minn. 380, 142 N. W. 871; S. f?. Nichols
(Miss.), 63 S. 1025; Stonemets v. Head,
248 Mo. 243, 154 S. W. 108; Meehan v.
Union Electric L. & P. Co., 252 Mo.
609, 161 S. W. 825; S. V. Barnett, 245
Mo. 99, 149 S. W. 311; Weller v. Mis-
souri Lumb. Sb Min. Co., 176 Mo. App.
243, 161 S. W. 853; Tiedemann v. Tiede-
mann, 36 Nev. 494, 137 P. 824; Glover f?.
Baker, 76 N. H. 393, 83 A. 916; 8. v.
Clatsop County, 63 Or. 377, 125 P.
271; Alzua v, Johnson, 21 Phil. Isl. 308;
Dye V, Livingston Lum. Co. (Tex. Civ.),
161 S. W. 53; Lanza v. Eoe (Tex. Civ.),
151 S. W. 57L
949-69 Grant v. National Bank of
Auburn, 197 Fed. 581; Buttner v, Kas-
ser, 19 Cal. App. 755, 127 P. 811; Kil-
Patrick v. Miller, 55 Colo. 419, 135 P.
780; Graham v. Marks, 98 Ga. 67, 25
S. E. 931; Forster v. Brown Mach. Co.,
266 111. 287, 107 N. E. 588; Quinn v.
Chicago, 178 111. App. 115; Heth r.
Smith, 175 Mich. 328, 141 N. W, 583;
Stonemets 17. Head, 248 Mo. 243, 154
S. W. 108; Weller v, Missouri Lumb.
& Min. Co., 176 Mo. App. 243, 161 S. W.
853; Glover v. Baker, 76 N. H. 393, 83
A. -916; Fish V, Delaware, L. & W. B.
Co., 158 App. Div. 92, 143 N. Y. S. 365;
Pollak V. Dodge Mfg. Co., 78 Misc. 350,
138 N. Y. S. 429; McCarthy v, Fitz-
gerald, 139 N. Y. S. 950.
Oonclusions of law not admitted. S.
V, Barnett, 245 Mo. 99, 149 S. W. 311;
Weller v. Missouri Lumb. & Min. Co.,
176 Mo. App. 243, 161 S. W. 853. Gen-
eral charges of fraud are mere conclus-
ions of the pleader and are never ad-
mitted by demurrer. Sanitary Dist. of
Chicago t7. Gifford, 257 111. 424, 100 N.
E. 953. Allegations of law as to the
legal effect of the acts alleged are not
admitted. Hull v. Palmer, 155 App
Div. 636, 140 N. Y. S. 811. Statement
in declaration that a town ''was liable
to keep in repair, and did then and
there maintain" certain bridges, is not
admitted by demurrer, being a conclus-
ion of law. Tuell v. Marion, 110 Me.
460, 86 A. 980.
951-72 Lindemann Ss Hoverson Co.
t?. Advance Stove Works, 170 111. App.
423; Hamilton Trust Co. v. Shevlin, 156
App. Div. 307, 141 N. Y. S. 232.
952-76 Argumentative matter not
admitted. — Stonemets v. Head, 248 Mo.
243, 154 S. W. 108.
952-77 Preiss v. Zins, 122 Minn. 441,
J42 N. W. 822; Weller t?. Missouri Lumb.
& Min. Co., 176 Mo. App. 243, 161 S.
W. 853; Mason f?. Deitering, 132 Mo.
App. 26, 35, 111 8. W. 862; McCarthy
V. Fitzgerald, 139 N. Y. S. 950; Brown
V. Ocean Ace. & Guar. Corp., 153 Wis.
196, 140 N. W. 1112.
952-78 O'Connor v. Virginia Pass. &
P. Co., 46 Misc. 530, 92 N. Y. S. 525.
AH necessary Inferences to be drawn
from facts well pjeaded, admitted. Do-
mestic Block Coal Co. f. Holden (Ind.
App.), 103 N. E. 73; Klemik t?. Hen-
rickson Jewelry Co., 122 Minn. 380, 142
N. W. 871; Indiana & Ohio Live Stock
Ins. Co. V. Smith (Tex. Civ.), 157 S. W.
755.
952-81 Kilpatrick t;. Miller, 55 Colo.
419, 135 P. 780.
952-83 Heth i;. Smith, 175 Mich. 328,
141 N. W. 583.
953-95 Heth v. Smith, 175 Mich. 328,
141 N. W. 583.
954-98 Straus v. Foxworth, 231 XT.
S. 162, 34 Sup. Ct. 42, 58 L. ed. 168.
The law of a foreign state is admitted
to be correctly pleaded. Pendar c. H.
& B. American Mach. Co., 35 B. I. 321,
87 A. 1. But A demurrer does not ad-
mit an allegation of the pleading de-
murred to, that the law of another state
as construed and enforced by the courts
of that state is to a certain effect. Fish
r. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co., 158 App.
Div. 92, 143 N. Y. S. 365.
954-1 Strickland v, Lowry Nat.
Bank, 140 Ga. 653, 79 S. E. 539; Linde-
mann & Hoverson Co. t?. Advance Stove
Works, 170 111. App. 423; Hamilton
Trust Co. V, Shevlin, 156 App. Div.
307, 141 N. Y. S. 232.
955-5 W. & M. Oranite Co. v. Ber-
toli, 87 Vt. 257, 88 A. 898.
955-8 U. S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Pirft
State Bank, 103 Miss. 91, 60 S. 47;
Stonemets v. Head, 248 Mo. 243, 154 S.
W. 108.
958-12 Bowen v. Grand Trunk By.
Co., 86 Vt. 483, 86 A. 306; Qrover Irr.
& Land Co. v, Lovella Ditch, R. & Irr.
Co., 21 Wyo. 204, 131 P. 43,
956-13 Blizzard v. Brown, 152 Wis.
160, 139 N. W. 737.
957-19 P. r. Strawn, 265 HI. 292, 106
N. E. 840; Westfleld v. Public Service
Ry. Co., 84 N. J. L. 668, 87 A. 82; Hor-
witz V, American Surety Co., 83 N. J.
L. 402, 85 A. 219; Board of Education
V, Empire State Surety Co., 83 N, J. L,
%Z^
DSMURkEB
Vol 6
293, 85 A. 223; Pease Oil Co. v. Oil Co.,
78 Misc. 285, 138 N. Y. 8. 177.
On demurrer to a separate defense the
allegations of the complaint to which
the defense is pleaded as well as the
allegations of the defense are to be
taken as true. Berg v. Bates, 153 App.
Div. 12, 137 N. Y. S. 1032.
958-20 Pease Oil Co. t\ Oil Co., 78
Misc. 285, 138 N. Y. S. 177.
958-21 Board of Directors f. Dun-
bar, 107 Ark. 285, 155 S. W. 96; Zenor
V, Pryor (Ind. App. ), 106 N. E. 746.
959-22 Oolwell Lead Co. t?. Home
Title Ins. Co., 154 App. Div. 83, 138 N.
Y. 8. 738.
A defective complaint cannot be made
the basis of an effective demurrer. Title
Guarantee & Trust Co, v. New York,
205 N. Y. 496, 99 N. B. 160.
959-23 Horwitz v. American Surety
Co., 83 N. J. L. 402, 85 A. 219.
982-45 The court should not carry a
demurrer back and sustain it to a
pleading to which the adverse party
had previously demurred and which had
been overruled. P.. v. Board of Super-
visors, 171 111. App. 46.
964-67 Peabody v. Conley, 111 Me.
174, 88 A. 411.
If a demurrer la not a defense to tbe
whole declaration to which it is ap-
plied, it should be overruled. L. J. Al-
ford Lumb. Co. v, Bagland (Miss.), 63
8. 338.
967-77 Granara v^ Italian Catholic
Cem. Assn., 218 Mass. 387, 105 N. E.
1073. See Holland Beformed School
V, De Lazier (N. J. Eq.), 93 A. 199.
967-79 Hardie-Tynes Mfg. Co, v.
Cruse (Ala.), 66 8. 657.
969-85 Burgess v. Mazetta Mfg. Co.,
198 Fed. 855, 117 C. C. A, 70; Muncie
& Portland Traction Co. v. Citizens'
Gas & Oil Min. Co., 179 Ind. 322, 100
N. E. 65; Ingram's Admz. v, Butland
B. Co., 86 Vt. 550, 86 A. 813.
969-86 PoUak v. Stouts Mountain
Coal & Coke Co., 184 Ala. 331, 63 S.
531.
969-88 Eldorado Coal & Min. Co.
V. Mariotti, 215 Fed. 51, 131 C. C.
A. 359; Smith r. Jaccard, 20 Cal.
App. 280, 128 P. 1023, 1026; Peabody
V. Conley, 111 Me. 174, 88 A. 411; White
Automobile Co. v, Dorsey, 119 Md. 251,
86 A. 617; WooUey v. Canyon Exch. Co.
(Tex. <Xv.), 159 8. W. 403; Selvey <?.
Grafton Coal & €oke Co., 72 W. Va.
680, 79 8. E. 656.
970-89 Southern Pac. Co. v. Pen-
der, 14 Ariz. 573, 134 P. 289; Coody 17.
Coody, 39 Okla. 719, 136 P. 754; Sweet
V. Salt Lake City, 43 Utah 306, 134 P.
1167. .
979-91 Flea good as to portion Of
action. — Where a plea is a good defense
to a divisible portion of the action, a
demurrer thereto should not be sus-
tained. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Hoi-
lis, 64 Fla. 89, 59 S. 785.
971-92 Illinois Cent. B. Co. 17. Edo*
len, 154 Ky. 78, 156 S. W. 1029; Inter-
state B. Co. V. Missouri Biver & C. B.
Co., 251 Mo. 707, 158 8. W. 349.
Irrelevant matter specified. — ^Where a
paragraph in an answer contains both
relevant and irrelevant matter it will
be purged of the irrelevant matter on
special demurrer pointing out such ir-
relevancy; but if the demurrer goes to
the paragraph as a whole without speci-
fying the irrelevant matter, the de-
murrant cannot complain, that the en-
tire paragraph of the answer is not
stricken. Wardlaw v, Frederick, 13
Ga. App. 594, 79 S. E. 523.
971-93 Affirmative defenses of tbemr
selves insufficient, but which repeat the
general and specific denials, are not de-
murrable, the plaintiff should move to
have the repetitions stricken out. Van
Tuyl !?, Bobin, 80 Misc. 360, 142 N. Y.
8. 536.
971-94 Judy o. Woods, 51 Ind. App.
325, 99 N. E. 792.
971-95 School Tp. of Eden v, Stev-
ens, 158 la. 119, 138 N. W. 927.
972-1 Harrell v. Neil (Ind. App.),
105 N. E. 926; Sharp Lumb. Co. v. Kan-
sas Ice Co., 42 Okla. 689, 142 P. 1016;
Eddington v. Union Portland Cement
Co., 42 Utah 274, 130 P. 243.
"Where facts avrared entitle plaintiff to
an injunction, a demurrer for failure to
state a cause of action will be over-
ruled, as a complaint which entitles
plaintiff to any relief is sufficient as
against demurrer. Decker t7. Yohe, 179
Ind. 243, 100 N. E. 756.
974-6 Zenor v. Pryor (Ind. App.),
106 N. E. 746; Tishbein v. Paine, 52
Ind. App. 441, 100 N. E. 766; Tuomey
V. Walsh, 160 App. Div. 795, 145 N. Y.
S. 722.
"A complaint to be bad on demuirer,
must be wholly Insofficirat; if to any
extent, on any reasonable theory, it
presents facts sufficient to justify a
recovery, it will be sustained, however
487
Vol 6
DEMVRREit
inartifically the facts may be stated."
Fairmont Cement Stone Mfg. Co. v,
Davison, 122 Minn. 504, 142 N. W.
899, Ann. Cas. 1914D, 945; Klemik v.
Henrickson Jewelry Co., 122 Minn. 380,
142 N. W. 871. The rule is firmly es-
tablished that every reasonable intend-
ment will be indulged in favor of a
pleading to which a general demurrer
is urged and the only question which
will be considered in such cases is
whether any cause of action or ground
of defense is disclosed by the pleading.
Hoechten v. Standard Home Co. (Tex.
Civ.), 157 S. W. 1191. If under the
allegations plaintiff may prove such a
state of facts and inferences as would
withstand a motion for nonsuit' the
complaint is not vulnerable to a gen-
eral demurrer. Eddington v. Union
Portland Cement Co., 42 Utah 274, 130
P. 243.
974-T Klingman 17. Gilbert, 90 Kan.
545, 135 P. 682.
974-8 Downer V. Tubbs, 152 Wis. 177,
139 N. W. 820.
974-10 The rule In regard to repli-
cation is similar to Ihat in regard to
the plea, it must answer so much of
the plea as it professes to answer, or
it is demurrable. P. v. Union Gas &
Electric Co., 260 111. 392, 103 N. E.
245.
975-15 Moore-Mansfield Gk)nst. Co.
V, Indianapolis, etc. Co., 179 Ind. 356,
101 N. E. 296; Howley v, Scott, 123
Minn. 159, 143 N. W. 257; Millerke v.
Keiley,"31 S. D. 342, 141 N. W. 136.
Under a general demurrer, in which all
defendants join, the complaint, if good
as to one defendant, is good as against
all of them. Coffee v, Dorwart, 31 S.
D. 102, 139 N. W. 776.
982-58 Gilchrist v. Hatch' (Ind.), 106
N. E. 694; Harbeck t?. Harbeck, 87
Misc. 420, 149 N. Y. S. 791.
983-65 East Chicago v. Interstate
Iron Co. (Ind.), 107 N. E. 274.
983-72 Beverly v. Flesenthall Bros.,
142 Ga. 834, 83 S. E. 942.
987-3 Demurrer raises a question of
law for the court to decide. Cumbie
V. St Louis, etc. B. Co., 105 Ark. 406,
151 S. W. 237.
988-13 Judgment should do no more
than adjudicate that the complaint does
not state a cause of action, and that
the plaintiff has no right to sue, where
no answer filed and no facts are admit-
ted. Cavenaugh v, Jarman, 164 N. C.
372, 79 S. E. 673.
989-18 Pitzel c. Maier Brew. Co., 20
Cal. App. 737, 130 P. 705, 706.
989-28 Armstrong v, Illinois Cent.
B. Co., 162 Ky. 539, 172 S. W, 947;
Norris v, Burnett (Miss.), 66 S. 748.
Judgment should not be upon the mer-
its where the complaint is held demur-
rable because of failure to plead nec-
essary facts which could be supplied by
amendment, when plaintiff fails to file
an amended complaint. Pollak v. Dodge
Mfg. Co., 81 Misc. 216, 142 N. Y. S.
495.
991-;42 La Monte v. Kent, 163 Dl.
App. 1.
In Kentucky, where a demurrer to an
answer was overruled on Feb. 20, 1909,
and the case stood without any prepar-
ation by the defendant until Feb. 5,
1910, when the court finally dismissed
the action, and the plaintiff had never
filed, nor offered to file a reply, the
rendition of the judgment of dismissal
held to be a clerical misprison, which
under |763, Civ. Code, the court of
appeals could not review, the plaintiff
having made no motion in the lower
court to vacate the judgment. C. i?.
Prudential L. Ins. Co., 149 Ky. 671,
149 S. W. 921.
995-68 Oarlin v. Chicago, 177 HI.
App. 89.
996-79 Continental Trust Co. r. Bal-
timore B. & H. Co., 120 Md. 450, 87
A. 947.
997-80 John Beis Co. v. Zimmerli,
155 App. Div. 260, 140 N. Y. S. 3.
Order of amendment. — ^A trial judge
may, in an order sustaining a demur-
rer, provide that the plaintiff have an
opportunity to amend his petition so
as to meet the grounds of demurrer.
Olds Motor Works v. Olds Oakland Co.,
140 Ga. 400, 78 S. £. 902.
998-81 Imposing terms. — ^The court
has authority to name the conditions
on which it will allow a party to plead
over. Schwartz v. Williams, 163 App.
Div. 302, 137 N. Y. S. 1048.
999-85 Hamilton Trust Co. v. Shev-
lin, 156 App. Div, 307, 141 N. Y. S.
232.
1000-93 Where a demurrer present-
ing two grounds was sustained but it
does not appear whether it was sus-
tained on both grounds, the plaintiff is
not precluded from making siubstan-
438
DUMURREB TO EVIDENCE
Vol 1
tially the same allegations in his
amended complaint nor from maintain-
ing that they state a cause of action.
Tuthill t?. Forbes, 164 App. Div. 728,
150 N. Y. S. 387.
1006-15 Gheckly v. Joseph Lay Co.,
171 111. App. 252.
Defects In form were waived or cured
at common law. Grover Irr. & Land
Co. V, Lovelle Ditch, R. & Irr. Co., 21
Wyo. 204, 131 P. 43.
1008-22 Grover Irr. & Land Co. v.
Lovelle Ditch, R. & Irr. Co., 21 Wyo.
204, 131 P. 43.
1008-23 Board of Directors v. Dun-
bar, 107 Ark. 285, 155 8. W. 96.
The objection that the petition fails
to state a good canse of action is one
that is not waived by failure to demur
or by answering over after demurrer
filed and overruled, unless the defect
be aided or cured by the answer or
the subsequent proceedings. Grover Irr.
& Land Co. v. Lovelle Ditch, B. & Irr.
Co., 21 Wyo. 204, 131 P. 43.
1009-30 The filing of an amendment
to meet a ruling sustaining a demur-
rer is a waiver by the amending party
of his right to except to the order re-
quiring the amendment to be made.
Daniel v. Browder-Manget Co., 13 Ga.
App. 392, 79 S. E. 237.
1011-40 Brandon v, Leeds Bank,
186 Ala. 519, 65 S. 341.
1011-41 Harris Transfer Co. v.
Moor, 10 Ala. App. 469, 65 S. 416;
Hooker Co. v. Hooker (Vt.), 92 A. 443.
1013-62 Majestic Life Ins. Co. v.
Tuttle (Ind. App.), 107 N. E, 22.
1013-83 Moore v. Whitmire (Alai),
56 S. 601.
1014-65 Miller v. Assured 's Fire
Ins. Co., 264 111. 380, 106 N. E. 203.
1014-74 Harmless eiror. — ^Where it
does not appear that the failure to sus-
tain a demurrer on the ground of un-
certainty resulted in any substantial
injury or disadvantage to defendant,
after judgment rendered, the error, if
any, in overruling the demurrer is
harmless. Widemann Co. v, Digges, 21
Cal. App. 342, 131 P. 882.
1015-78 Lara way v. Croft Lumber
Co. (W. Va.), 84 S. E. 333.
1016-91 Sed also 2 STAin>ABD Proc.
174.
1017-92 See the .title ''Indictment
and InfoimatioD," and 2 Standabd
Proc. 174, n. 70 and supplement there
to.
DEHUBBEB TO EVIDEKOB
4-6 Smitheman i). U. S., 48 Ot. 01.
449.
6-7 Smitheman v. U. S., 48 Ct. CI.
(U. S.) 449; King t;. Cox, 126 Tenn.
553, 151 S. W. 58; Ward r. Walker
(Tex. Civ.), 159 S. W. 320.
5-10 Smitheman v, U. S., 48 Ct. CI.
(U. S.) 449; Gerardi t;. Gardner, 255
Mo. 538, 164 S. W. 568; Peak t;. Taub*
man, 251 Mo. 390, 158 S. W. 656; Par*
ker- Washington Co. v. Dennison, 248
Mo. 449, 155 8. W. 797; Maloney r.
United Rys. Co., 183 Mo. App. 292, 167
S. W. 471; Monk t?. Wabash R. Co., 166
Mo. App. 692, 150 S. W. 1083, 1087;
Midland Valley B. Co. v. Larson, 41
Okla. 360, 138 P. 173; Cameron & Co.
V. Henderson, 40 Okla. 648, 140 P. 404;
Crow V, Crow, 40 Okla. 455, 139 P. 122;
Anthony r. Bliss, 39 Okla. 237, 134 P,
1122; Lyon t?. Lyon, 39 Okla. Ill, 134 P.
650; Ward v. Walker (Tex. Civ.), 159
S. W. 320; Buck v. C, 116 Va. 1031,
83 S. E. 390; Newberry v. Watts, 116
Va. 730, 82 S. E. 703; Hick's Bepre-
scntative v, Bomaine, 116 Va. 401, 82
S. E. 71; White V, American Nat. Life
Ins. Co., 115 Va. 305, 78 S. E. 582.
7-11 Maloney v. United Bys. Co., 183
Mo. App. 292, 167 S. W. 471; Lyon V.
Lyon, 39 Okla. Ill, 134 P. 650.
10-13 Mottin V, Board of Comrs., 89
Kan. 742, 133 P. 165; Dority t;. St.
Louis B. Co. (Mo. App.), 174 8. W. 209;
Moss V. Hunt, 40 Okla. 20, 135 P. 282.
Credibility of witnesses cannot be con-
sidered by court. Terry v. Kansas
Gravel Co., 93 Kan. 125, 143 P. 485.
11-14 Mottin t7. Board of Comrs.,
89 Kan. 742, 133 P. 165; Osbom v,
Wabash B. Co., 179 Mo. App. 245, 166
S. W. 1118.
11-15 Williams v. Kansas City So.
B. Co., 257 Mo. 87, 167 8. W. 788, 52
L. B. A. (N. S.) 443; Hick's Admx.
!?. Bomaine, 116 Va. 401, 82 S. E. 71.
12-22 McCrary v, Sharpe (Ala.), 66
S. 441; Scales t?. Central Iron Co., 173
Ala. 639, 55 S. 821,
15-34' Newberry v. Watts, 116 Va.
730, 82 S. E. 703. See McMenamin r.
Southern By. Co., 115 Va. 822, 80 S.
E. 596.
17-47 Smitheman v. U. S., 48 Ct. CI
439
Vol. 7
DEMUBBEK TO EVIDENCE
(XT. S.) 449; King v. Cox, 126 Tenn.
553, 151 S. W. 68.
17-49 Joinder cannot be compelled
unless an express admission of all the
facts are made by the defendant.
Smitheman v, U. S., 48 Ot. CI. (U. S.)
449.
19-55 The aspect of the evidence
most favorable to the pleaded cause
will be considered by the court. Cor-
nett t7. Chicago B. & Q. B. Co. (Mo.),
171 S. W. 15.
Bight to proceed under state acts. — ^A
demurrer to the evidence is sufficient,
in a personal injury case against rail-
road, to raise the objection that no
action can be maintained under state
law where the Federal Employers' Li-
ability Act is involved. Moliter v.
Wabash B. Co., 180 Mo. App. 84, 168
S.. W. 250.
19-56 Schump Land Co. 17. Probst,
92 Kan. 103, 139 P. 1024; Brown v.
Cruse, 90 Kan. 306, 133 P. 865; Ken-
drick V, Harris, 171 Mo. App. 208, 156
S, W, 490; Gordon & Co. v. Farmers'
Trading Co., 36 Okla. 163, 128 P. 1082.
20-58 Longnecker v. Longnecker, 90
Neb. 784, 134 N; W. 926; Sims t?.
Hedges, 32 Okla. 683, 123 P. 155.
20-63 Beckermann v. Kortkamp
Jewelry Co., 175 Mo. App. 279, 157 S.
W. 855.
21-64 Stonega Coke & Coal v. Will-
iams. 115 Va. 657, 80 S. E. 100.
ZSvery reasonable Inference of fact
which jury may indulge the court must
indulge. Barr v. Johnson, 170 Mo.
App. 394, 155 S. W. 459.
If want of contribatory negligence on
the part of the demuree is sufficiently
proved to satisfy a jury, the court must
so find. Higgins v. R. Co., 116 Va.
890, 83 S. E. 380; Southern By. Co. t?.
Tyree's Admr., 114 Va. 318, 76 S. E.
341; Atlantic, etc. B. Co. v, Grubbs,
113 Va. 214, 74 S. E. 144; Chesapeake
& O. By. Co. V. Hoffman, 109 Va. 44,
63 8. E. 432; Bass v. Norfolk & W. By.
Co., 100 Va. 1, 8, 40 S. E. 100.
21-65 Peak v. Taubman, 251 Mo. 390,
158 S. W. 656.
Oonrt' is not concerned with defend-
ant's showing on demurrer to the evi-
dence so long as plaintiff's evidence is
not in conflict with physical facts and
is within the bounds of reason. Harris
V. Metropolitan St. By. Co., 168 Mo.
ApR 336, 153 S. W. 1067.
Presumptions. — On determination of e
demurrer to evidence where the evi-
dence is silent as to whether accident
happened before or after a certain
event brought out, it will be presumed
favorable to the plaintiif. Steele's
Admr. v. Colonial Coal & Coke Co., 115
Va. 385, 79 S. E. 346.
21-66 Bogers v. Hammond Packing
Co., 167 Mo. App. 49, 150 S. W. 556;
King 17. Cox, 126 Tenn. 553, 151 S. W,
58. See Southern By. Co. v, Darnell's
Admx., 114 Va. 312, 76 S. E. 291.
21-67 Beckermann V. Kortkamp
Jewelry Co., 175 Mo. App. 279, 157 S.
W. 855.
Where substantial evidence is intro*
duced warranting submission to jury.
Beading 17. Chicago, B. & I. B. Co.
(Mo. App.), 173 S. W. 451; Anthony
V, Bliss, 39 Okla. 237, 134 P. 1122.
22-71 Specifying def ects. — '<A1-
though the code does not so require,
good practice requires that when a de-
murrer to the evidence is sustained, the
court specify what the defect in the
proof is, if an essential fact has been
omitted, and what its view of the law
is if the question be as to the law
which governs." Holmes v. Culver, 89
Kan. 698, 133 P. 164.
23-75 Jeffords v, Dreisbach, 168 Mo.
App. 577, 153 S. W. 274.
23-76 Jeffords v. Dreisbach, 168 Mo.
App. 577, 153 S. W, 274.
25-86 King v. Coz, 126 Tenn. 553,
151 S. W. 58.
25-87 Sorenson v. Smith, 65 Or. 78,
131 P. 1022, aff, 129 P. 757; Potts V.
Union Traction Co. (W. Va.), 83 S. E.
918; Soward v. Car & P, Co., 66 W. Va.
266, 66 S. E. 329.
26-89 Lyon v, Lyon, 39 Okla. Ill,
134 P. 650; Sorenson t?. Smith, 65 Or.
78, 131 P. 1022, aff. 129 P. 757.
26-92 This practice is not available
in Alabama. McCray v. Sharpe (Ala.),
66 S. 441.
The difference being only at the stage
of proceedings at which each is avail-
able and the consequences resulting
from deferring motion to exclude. Potts
r. Union Traction Co. (W. Va.), 83 S.
E. 918.
26-93 It is error, upon demurrer, for
the trial court to direct the jury to
find full amount of plaintiff's claim
where the evidence is vague and uneer-
I tain and substantially incompetent and
440
DENIALS
Vol 7
the error is not cared by directing jary
to return and reconsider and thereafter
they found for the same amount. Will-
iamsport Hardwood Lumber Co. v, Bal-
timore & O. B. Co., 71 W. Va. 741, 77
8. £. 333.
DEMIAIiB
82-1 For ccnmtractlon of dttnlal^ see
the title "Oonstraction and Theory of
PloadingBi" 5 Standabd Pboo. 336, and
supplement thereto.
84-18 P. 17. Eoensgen, 256 HI. 292,
106 N. E. 840; 8. 17. Bambo, 95 Mo. 462,
8 8. W. 365.
37-37 Pullen v. 8eaboard Trading
Co., 165 App, Div. 117, 150 N. Y. 8.
719; Post Pub. Co. v. Bennett, 164 App.
Div. 633, 149 N. Y. 8. 867; New York
C. & A. L. Co. V. Brown, 82 Misc. 92,
143 N. Y. 8. 100.
For method of attacking want of cer-
tainty, see 4 8TANDABD PBGC. 859, and
supplement thereto.
87-38 Mattison v. 8mith, 1 Bobt. (N.
y.) 706, 19 Abb. Pr. 288.
87-39 Kew York Ooach & Auto L.
Co. 17. Brown, 82 Misc. 92, 143 N. T.
3. 100.
88-43 PuUen v. Seaboard Trading
Co., 165 App. Div. 117, 150 N. Y. 8.
719.
Fleming i;. Supreme Council,
32 App. Div. 231, 52 N. Y. 8. 1001;
Eoffman v, Susemihl, 15 App. Div. 405,
44 N. Y. S. 52; Smith V. Metropolitan
Life Ins. Co., 79 Misc. 550, 140 N. Y.
3. 327. See Lummus Cotton Gin Co. v.
Counts, 98 8. C. 136, 82 8. E. 391.
Beferring to paragraph by number. — ^A
statement in the answer, specifically
denying a particular numbered para-
graph of the complaint, is a good de-
nial of that paragraph. Miller v. Cun-
ningham, 71 Or. 518, 139 P. 927.
88-47 Board of Comrs. r. 8., 179 Ind.
344, 102 N. B. 97.
38-48 Mattison r. Smith, 1 Bobt. (N.
y.) 706, 19 Abb. Pr. 288; New York
Coach & Auto Lamp Co. v. Brown, 82
Misc. 92, 143 N. Y. 8. 100.
39-55 Lake Ontario Nat. Bank r.
Tudson, 122 N. Y. 278, 25 N. E. 367;
31enn v, Union-Buffalo Mills Co., 154
App, Div. 513, 139 N. Y. 8. 70.
il-60 Castiglione v, Austro-Ameri-
:ana S. 8. Co., 87 Misc. 288, 149 N.
r. S. 898.
41-62 Bradbury i?. Cronise, 46 Cal.
287; Dunaway v, Andersoii, 22 Cal. App.
691, 136 P. 309; Dobler v, Conron Bros.
Co., 166 App. Div. 785, 152 N. Y. 8.
266.
42-63 Woodworth v, Knowlton, 22
Cal. 164; Blankman v, Vallejo, 15 Cal.
639.
42-64 Otis 17. Ohio Mines Co., 15
Ariz. 264, 138 P. 777; Blankman 17.
Vallejo, 15 Cal, 639; Gahren, Dodge &
Maltby v. Farmers' Bank, 156 Ky. 717,
161 8. W. 1127. •
43-67 Gahren, Dodge & Maltby v.
Farmers' Bank, 156 Ky. 717, 161 8. W.
1127.
43-68 Welch 17. Bigger, 24 Ida. 169,
133 P. 381.
43-69 Gahren, Dodge & Maltby v.
Farmers' Bank, 156 Ky^ 717, 161.8.
W. 1127.
44-72 Drennen 17. WilliamB (Colo.),
148 P. 265.
44-78 See 10 Standabd Prog. 270.
45-84 See McCrea v. Ford, 24 Colo.
App. 506, 135 P. 465, denial criticised
but held sufficient to raise an issue.
45-86 Spencer 17. Levy (Tex. Civ.),
173 8. W. 550.
46-87 Keceflsary to diHclatm knowl-
edge or Infonnation. — ^It is insufficient
to state that defendant ''neither ad-
mits nor denies" without saying that
he was without sufficient information
upon which to base an admission or
denial. Moore v. Calvert Mtg. & D.
Co., 13 Ga. App. 54, 78 S. E. 1097;
Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Shamos,
12 Ga. App. 463, 77 S. E. 312.
48-91 Peacock v. United States, 125
Fed. 583, 60 C. C. A. 389; Spicer 17.
Hurley, 161 Cal. 1, 118 P. 249; Walker
V. Buffandeau, 63 Cal. 312; Sociedade
Do Espirito Santo v. Santa Clara Val-
ley Bank, 24 Cal. App. 592, 141 P.
1054; Brady v. Banch Min. Co., 7 Cal.
App. 182, 94 P. 85; Smith v, Stubbs,
16 Colo. App. 130, 63 P. 955; Ensley r.
Page, 13 Colo. App. 452, 59 P. 225;
Moore v, Calvert Mtg. & Dep. Co., 13
Ga. App. 54, 78. 8. E. 1097; First Nat.
Bank v. Martin, 6 Ida. 204, 55 P. 302;
McClure r. BigstafP, 18 Ky. L. B. 601,
37 8. W. 294, 38 8. W. 431; Sharp c.
Sharp, 145 N. Y.. 8. 386; Engel v.
Georgiades, 140 N. Y. 8. 93.
48-92 Warring v. Couch, 165 Cal,
383, 132 P. 587; Baphael Weill & Co. v.
Crittenden, 139 Cal. 488, 73 P. 238;
Ord V. Steamer Uncle Sam, 13 Cal. 370;
441
Vol I
jDENIALS
Humphreys v. McCall, 9 Cal. 59, 70 Am.
Dec. 621; Curtis i\ Bichards, 9 Cal.
34; Hanna v. Barker, 6 Colo. 303; Nash-
ville, etc. B. Co. f?. Carrico, 95 Ky. 489,
26 S. W. 177; S. 17. Butte City Water
Co., 18 Mont. 199, 44 P. 966, 56 Am. St.
574, 32 L. E. A. 697; Mills' Est., 40 Or.
424, 67 P. 107; Baymond t?. Johnson,
17 Wash. 232, 49 P. 492, 61 Am. St.
90S.
The rule applieg to corporatloxiB as well
as to natural individuals. Sloane v.
Southern Cal. By. Co., Ill Cal. 668, 44
P. 320, 32 L. B. A. 193.
Examples of matters which may be so
denied: that goods were sold by plain-
tiff to defendant (Alden S. Swan & Co.
V. McNaughton, 87 Misc. 333, 149 N.
Y. S. 9357; that goods sold were of an
alleged reasonable value (Alden S.
Swan & Co. v. McNaughton, 87 Misc.
333, 149 N. Y. S. 935) ; that the amount
of a note was, at the commencement of
the action, due and owing to the plain-
tiff. Sharp V. Sharp, 145 N. Y. S. 386.
49-94 Sociedade Do Espirito Santo
t?. Santa Clara Valley Bank, 24 Cal.
App. 592, 141 P. 1054; Sherman v,
Boehm, 13 Daly (N. Y.) 42; Baymond
V. Johnson, 17 WasJ^ 232, 49 P. 492,
61 Am. St. 908.
In an action for slander, an allegation
that defendant spoke the slanderous
words may not be thus denied. Pardi
V. Conde, 27 Misc. 496, 58 N. Y. S.
410.
50-96 That personal service of a de-
mand for possession was made upon
him cannot be so denied. Ensley v.
Page, 13 Colo. App. 452, 59 P. 225.
60-97 Northwestern Cordage Co. f?.
Galbraith, 9 S. D. 634, 70 N. W. 1048.
50-98 Nashville, etc. B. Co. V. Car-
rico, 95 Ky. 489, 26 B, W. 177.
50-99 Warring t?. Couch, 165 Cal.
383, 132 P. 587; Brown v. Martin, 23
Cal. App. 736, 139 P. 823.
50-2 Peacock t;. XJ. S., 125 Fed. 583,
60 C. C. A. 389; Wallace v. Bacon, 86
Fed. 553; Davidow v, Griswold, 23
Cal. App. 188, 137 P. 619; Mendocino
County v. Peters, 2 Cal. App. 24, 82 P.
1122; First Nat. Bank v. Walker (Ida.),
148 P. 46; First Nat. Bank v. Martin,
6 Ida. 204, 55 P. 302; Howard v, Mays-
ville & B. S. B. Co., 24 Ky. L. B. 1051,
70 S. W. 631; Herald V, Hargis, 21 Ky.
L. B. 1287, 54 S. W. 958; John Sim-
mons Co. 17. Van Bees, 87 Misc. 284,
149 N. Y. S. 857; Austen r. Westchester
Tel: Co., 8 Misc. 11, 28 N. T. S. 77 J
Steinberg v, Saltzman, 130 Wis. 419,
110 N. W. 198.
Foreign law. — ^Even though a foreign
law be regarded as a matter of record,
such matters may properly be put in
issue by a denial of knowledge or in-
formation sufficient to form a belief
as to such statute. Van Tassell f. Man-
hattan Elect. Supply Co., 83 Misc. 126,
144 N. Y. S. 793.
51-3 An assignment of a tax lien
which is not alleged to be a matter of
record may be so denied. Altman v,
Bungay Co., 161 App. Div. 583, 146
N. Y. S. 949.
52-6 S. <?. Butte City- Water Co., 18
Mont. 199, 44 P. 966, 66 Am, St. 574,
37 L. B. A. 697.
Form suggested by court. — ^The court
of civil appeals of Texas suggests the
following form as being in accord with
the statute (Bev. St., 1911, art. 1902):
''As to the allegations of fact in para-
graph — of plaintiff's petition herein,
the defendant says that it is not true,
as therein alleged, that [stating eo
nomine the facts which he denies], or
that defendant does not know whether
the allegations of fact that [stating
such facts] are true or not, and that
he has no such information as would
enable him to form a belief in refer-
ence thereto.'* Spencer t?. Levy (Tex.
Civ.), 173 S. W. 550.
Examples of denials that have been
held to be Insufficient In form. — See
Spencer v. Levy (Tex. Civ.), 173 S. W.
550. ''Denies that she has any knowl-
edge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth or falsity of the
allegations set forth in" certain enum-
erated paragraphs. Smith v. Metro-
politan Life Ins. Co., 79 Misc. 550, 140
N. Y. S. 327.
53-7 Xizamplea of allegations tliat
have been held to be Insufficient. — "Al-
leges and sets forth that, as this de-
fendant is informed and believes, he
denies that . ' ' Shain v. Du Jardin,
4 Cal. Unrep. 905, 38 P. 529. The
pleader "has no knowledge or inform-
ation upon which to found a belief and
therefoi^ denies the same." S. r.
Butte City Water Co., 18 Mont. 192, 44
P. 966, 56 Am. St. 574, 37 L. B. A,
697.
55-17 Long v. Shepard, 35 Okla. 489,
130 P. 131.
442
Denial^
yoi. 7
56-19 Long v, Shepard, 35 Okla. 489.
130 P. 131.
57-22 Long v, Shepard, 35 Okla. 489,
130 P. 131.
61-42 Conowingo Land Co. t?. Mc-
Gaw, 124 Md. 643, 93 A. 222.
63-61 Welch v. Adams, 87 Neb. 681,
127 N. W. 1064.
68-93 Feinstein v. Bitter, 150 N. Y.
S. 903.
85-6 Oa. Civ. Code, 1911, J5634;
Akers v. Decatur St. Bank (Ga. App.),
85 S. E. 201; Spencer v. Levy (Tex.
Civ.), 173 S. W. 650.
87-13 P. V. Hagar, 52 Cal. 171; Kin-
ard V. Kaelin, 22 Cal. App. 383, 134 P.
370.
87-ll!^ Denies '*each and every ma-
terial allegation of the complaint" held
good, but better form to omit the word
"material." Board of Comrs. v. S.,
179 Ind. 644, 102 N. E. 97; Brand Shoe
Co. V. Women's Wear Shop, 95 S. C.
35, 78 S. E. 446.
88-19 Kill tiel record and general
denial equivalent under .the code pro-
cedure. Oliver v, Gimbel, 38 Okla. 50^
132 P. 144.
88-24 Only such averments of the
complaint as the plaintiff is bound to
prove in order to maintain his action.
Adams Express Co. v. Darnell, 31 Ind.
20, 22.
88-26 Fidelity Phenix F. Ins. Co. v,
Sadau (Tex.. Civ.), 159 S. W. 137.
99-28 Lorenzo v. Navarro, 5 Phil.
Isl. 760.
92-38 Jurisdiction of state court.
Empire Banch & Cattle Co. v. Millet,
24 Colo. App. 464, 135 P. 127.
93-46 Symms-Powers Co. v, Kennedy,
33 S. D. 355, 146 N. W. 570.
94-62 Schultz v. Hunter (Mo. App.),
174 S. W. 179.
104-45 Special pleas are treated as
the general issue when they set up mat-
ter which could have been taken ad-
vantage of under the general issue.
Key West i?. Baldwin (Fla.), 67 S. 808.
See Taylor r. Branham & Co., 35 Fla.
297, 17 S. 552, 48 Am. St. 249, 39 L.
B. A. 362.
108-70 See, however, Wallace v.
Bacon, 86 Fed. 553.
109-74 Pratt v, Birmingham Ey., L.
& P. Co. (Ala.), 68 S. 151; H. H. Hitt
Lumber Co. v. Turner (Ala.), 65 8.
807; O'Neill V, Caledonian Ins. Co., 166
Cal. 310, 135 P. 1121; William Wilson
Co. V, Trainer (Cal. App.), 148 P. 954;
Kinard v. Ward, 21 Cal. App. 92, 130
P. 1194; Rose r. Lelande, 20 Cal. 502,
129 P. 599; Stevens v, Risley, 88 Conn.
442, 91 A. 260; Fowler v. Cotton State
Lumber Co., 39 App. Cas. (D. C.) 220;
Wrenn v, Davis, 139 Ga. 374, 77 S. E.
169; Baxter v, Moore (Ind. App.), 105
N. E. 588; Taylor v. Griner, 55 Ind.
App. 617, 104 N. E. 607; Bassett t?.
Lush, 156 Ky. 490, 161 S. W. 227; Yeo-
mans i;. Board of Suprs., 174 Mich. 451,
140 N. W. 469; Bruner Granitoid Co.
V, Glencoe L. & C. Co., 169 Mo. App.
295, 152 S. W. 601; De Kalb Holding
Co. V, Madison Theater Co., 165 App.
Div. 202, 151 N. Y. S. 85; PuUen v.
Seaboard Trading Co., 165 App. Div.
117, 150 N. Y. S. 719; Young v. White,
158 App. Div. 760, 143 N. Y. S. 931;
Lautman v. New York, 157 App. Div.
219, 141 N. Y. S. 1042; Walsh v, Bar-
rett, J54 App. Div. 461, 139 N. Y. S.
68; Lord v. WooUey, 82 Misc. 656, 144
N. Y. S. 385; Geo. A. Fuller Co. v.
Manhattan Const. Co., 44 Misc. 219, 88
N, Y. S. 1049; Krasutzky v. Clara De
Hirsch Home for Working Girls, 150
N. Y. S. 1058; Lummus Cotton Gin Co.
17. Counts, 98 S. C. 136, 82 S. E. 391;
Ward Cattle & Pasture Co. r. Ford
(Tex. Civ.), 175 S. W. 784; Kansas City
M. & O. By. Co. V, Cave (Tex. Civ.),
174 S. W. 872; Page r. Vaughan (Tex.
Civ.), 173 S. W. 541.
Aa afflimatlve statement in an an-
swer inconsistent with an allegation
of the complaint does not constitute a
denial of such allegation. Bodgers v,
Clement, 162 N. Y. 422, 56 N. E. 901;
PuUen V, Seaboard Trading Co., 165
App. Div. 117, 150 N. Y. S. 719; Lord
V. Woolley, 82 Misc. 656, 144 N. Y. S.
385.
Material allegations of complaint not
denied in ai&rmatlve defense deemed
admitted. — The affirmative defense is
to be treated as a separate pleading,
and the defendant is not entitled to
have the benefit of any denials made
in another part of the answer unless
repeated or incorporated by reference
and made a part of the affirmative de-
fense. Cunningham v, Piatt, 82 Misc.
486, 144 N. Y. S. 51. Where the an-
swer states that defendant neither de-
nies nor admits certain facts they are
taken as true. Moore v, Calvert M. &
D. Co., 13 Ga. App. 54, 78 S. E. 1097.
112-79 Doyle v. Franklin, 48 Cal.
443
Vol t
/
DSPAltTUnE
537; Canfleia v. Tobias, 21 Cal. 349;
Joyce V. Bubin, 23 Ida. 296, 130 P.
793; Citizens' Savings Bank v. Miller,
6 Ky. L. B. 522; Mandigo v. Bailey, 64
App. Div. 432, 72 N. Y. S. 227; Geo. A.
Fuller Co. 17. Manhattan Const, Co., 44
Misc. 219, 88 N. Y. 8. 1049.
112-84 Xorthwestem Mutnal Life
Ins. Co. V. C, 164 Ky. 255, 175 S. W.
337.
113-93 Connecticut M. L. Ins. Co. v.
Cook, 219 Mass. 222, 106 N. £. 853.
DSPABTUBE
117-1 Hellen v. Hellen, 170 111. App.
464; Weiss v, Sandoval Zinc Co., 165
111. App. 417; Finn v. Modern Brother-
hood of America, 118 Minn. 307, 136
N. W. 850; Crab Creek Lumber Co. v.
Othello, 81 Wash. 52, 142 P. 429; Lind-
stedt V. National Casualty Co., 73
Wash. 624, 132 P. 403.
118-4 fieply wiU be disregarded in
so far as it is inconsistent with peti-
tion. Stapp V. Godfrey, 158 la. 376, 139
N. W. 893.
118-5 See S trout v. United Shoe Ma-
chinery Co., 208 Fed. 646.
119-11 Comp. McAdow v. Kansas
City Western By. Co. (Mo. App.), 164
8. W. 188.
119-18 Landon v. Morehead, 34
Okla. 701, 126 P. 1027. See Georgia
Home Ins. Co. T. Halsey, 37 Okla. 678,
133 P. 202; West f. Middlesex Bank-
ing Co., 33 S. D. 465, 146 N. W. 598.
i:;a-21 Lindstedt V. National Cas-
ualty Co., 73 Wash. 624, 132 P. 403.
See Hallidie Machinery Co. v. Whidbey
Island Sand & Gravel Co., 73 Wash.
403, 131 P. 1156, 45 L. E. A. (N. S.)
40.
121-29 McAdow v, Kansas City
Western By. Co. (Mo. App.), 164 S.
W. 188; Niles v. Central Vermont By.
Co., 87 Vt. 356, 89 A. 629.
122-35 Hellen v. Hellen, 170 HI.
App. 464.
123-38 Suit by land owner for over-
flow.— ^Where the declaration averred
plaintiff was the owner and in posses-
sion of certain lands and the plea
asserted he did not have the fee simple
title, there was a departure and it did
not state a defense. Zinser v. Sanitary
Bist. of Chicago, 175 111. App. 9.
123-40 As where matter in reply
does not constitute a good defense.
American Ins. Co. i*. Bodenh'ouse, 36
Okla. 211, 128 P. 502.
124-44 Bochester German Ins. Ca
V. Bodenhouse, 36 Okla. 378, 128 P.
508.
124-46 Crane v. Franklin (Ariz.),
147 P. 718; Hellen v. Hellen, 170 HL
App. 464; Goodwin v, Tuttle, 70 Or.
424, 141 P. 1120.
This may be done by ^supplemental
petition. Michael* & Bro. v. Billings
Printing Co., 150 Ky. 253, 150 S. W.
77.
124-47 Leiter v, Dwyer Plumbing
Co., 66 Or. 474, 133 P. 1180.
125-51 Johnson v. Trump, 161 la.
512, 143 N. W. 510; Steel v. St. Louis,
L M. & S. By. Co., 165 Mo. App. 311,
147 S. W. 217; Leiter v, Dwyer Plumb-
ing Co., 66 Or. 474, 133 P. 1180; Ford
r. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 70 Wash. 29, 126
P. 69; Clemmons v, McGeer, 63 Wash.
446, 115 P. 1081. See Bounds & Jesse
V. Cloverport Foundry & Machine Co.,
159 Ky. 414, 167 S. W. 384.
126-53 Keeler 17. Parks, 72 Wash.
255, 130 P. 111.
127-55 Piatt V, Parker-Washington
Co., 161 Mo. App. 663, 144 S. W. 143.
128-66 Where reply comdsts of new
matter to meet defensive allegations of
the answer it is not a departure, unless
it contradicts the facts of the basis of
the complaint and a new basis for re-
lief is substituted. Finn v. Modern
Brotherhood of America, 118 Minn. 307,
136 N. W. 850.
Bule illustnrted.— Plaintiff set forth
letters which he claimed constituted
agency, and the answer was a denial
and that defendant was unauthorized
to enter into contract. The reply meet-
ing the latter defense and pleading
other letters to support the contract
pleaded cannot be deemed a departure.
Sturgeon r. Culver, 87 Kan. 404, 124 P.
419.
130-68 Finn v. Modem Brotherhood
of America, 118 Minn. 307, 136 N. W.
850.
131-71 In a suit on a note where
the answer avers facts showing fraud
or that the payee is fictitious, a reply
showing the holder purchased for value
before maturity without notice avoids
the answer and is no departure. Un-
ion Trust Company v, Adams, 54 Ind.
App. 166, 101 N. E. 741.
131-73 See Turner V. American Cas-
I ualty Co., 69 Wash. 154, 124 P. 486.
444 ,
DEPOSITIONS
Vol. 7
182-77 Merchants' & Planters' Ins.
Co. V. Marsh, 34 Okla. 453, 125 P. 1100,
42 L. R. A. (N. S.) 996; Springfield
Fire & Marine Ins. Co. t?. Halsey, 34
Okla. 383, 126 P. 237; Gage v. Con-
necticut Fire Ins. Co., 34 Okla. 744, 127
P. 407; Cranston v. West Coast Life
Ins. Co., 63 Or. 427, 128 P. 427.
132-78 Western Reciprocal Under-
writers Exchange v. Coon, 38 Okla. 453,
134 P. 22; Springfield Fire & Marine
Ins, Co. V. Null, 37 Okla. 665, 133 P.
235.
133-80 Gage v. Qonnecticut Fire
Ins. Co., 34 Okla. 744, 127 P. 407.
140-35 Rideiout 1?. Burkhardt, 255
Mo. 116, 164 S. W. 506; McAdow v,
Kansas City Western Ry. Co. (Mo.
App.), 164 S. W. 188.
140-37 Rideout v. Burkhardt, 255
Mo. 116, 164 S. W. 506; McAdow v,
Kansas City Western Ry. Co. (Mo.
App.), 164 S. W. 188.
That demurTer is overruled and an ex-
ception taken makes no difference
where party goes to trial. Niles v.
Central Vermont Ry. Co., 87 Vt. 356,
89 A. 629..
Wltboat moving to strike^ — Going to
trial on issues without moving to
strike out is a waiver. The question
cannot be raised by demurrer or objec-
tion to evidence. Purcell v, Corder, 33
Okla. 68, 124 P. 457.
141-41 American Confectionery Co.
V. North British, etc. Ins. Co., 199 Fed.
195; Merchants' & Planters' Ins. Co.
f?. Marsh, 34 Okla. 453, 125 P. 1100, 42
L. B. A. (N. S.) 996; Springfield Fire
& Marine Ins. Co. v. Halsey, 34 Okla.
383, 126 P. 237; Purcell v, Corder, 33
Okla. 68, 124 P. 457; Niles v. Central
Vermont Ry. Co., 87 Vt. 356, 89 A. 629.
In IGUMonrl it cannot be reached by
demurrer. Gruner & Bros. Lumb. Co. v.
Hartshorn-Barber R. & B. Co., 171 Mo.
App. 614, 154 S. W. 846.
money so paid. Henkel v. Carnegie
Trust Co., 213 N. Y. 185, 107 N. E.
346. ^
168-78 The statutes name the person
to whom the custody and care of the
money is given. Henkel i?. Carnegie
Trust Co., 213 N. Y. 185, 107 N. E. 346.
169-81 Matter of Walsh, 204 N. Y.
276, 97 N. E. 715.
159-82 In re Sohmer, 156 App. Div.
781, 141 N. Y. S. 740.
187-27 Funds deposited under act
held nnconstltutionaL — ^Where funds
-are paid into court under a provision
of an act which is later held unconsti-
tutional, the court must return the fund
to the source from which it came. In
re School Dist., etc. of Wilkinburg, 247
Pa. 449, 93 A. 489.
167-28 Interlocatory Judgment re-
versed and complaint dismissed. Ketch-
um V. Prevost, 157 App. Div. 781, 142
N. Y. S. 711.
170-44 Beinhold V. Hansson, 169 111.
App. 334; Avis v. Straus, 157 App. Div.
904, 142 N. Y. S. 283,
171-47 Beinhold 17. Hansson, 169
111. App. 334.
171-48 Oertmed copy of court's
order necessary. — No monej placed in
the custody of the court will be sur-
rendered without the production of a
certified copy of the order of the court;
the order to be by the judge by whose
direction it was made. N. Y. Code Civ.
Proc, J 751, ch. 8; Henkel V, Carnegie
Trust Co., 213 N. Y. 185, 107 N. E.
346.
172-58 Costs and disbursements of
an appeal by the chamberlain to have
funds deposited with a trust company
under order of court transferred to
him, should n^t be paid out of the
funds. In re Sohmer, 156 App. Div.
781, 141 N. Y. S. 740.
DEPOSIT IN C0X7BT
146-10 Mariner v. Ingraham, 255 HI.
108, 99 N. E. 351.
150-35 Sweetwater Cotton Oil Co.
V. Birge-Forbes & Co. (Tex. Civ.), 160
S. W. 1125.
156-72 §743, ch. 8, Code Civ. Proc,
provides that a party bringing money
into court pursuant to the court's di-
rection is discharged thereby from all
lur^er liability to the extent of the
DEPOSITIONS
191-11 S. V. Aenspacker, 130 La.
717, 58 S. 520.
193-16 Ez parte deposition^ etc
Miles V. Court, 173 111. App. 187.
Depositions tiJEen in issuance of a war-
rant cannot be used against defendant
when he has had no opportunity to
cross-examine the witness at the pre-
liminary examination. P. v. Warden
City Prison, 154 App. Div. 728, 13iJ
N, Y. S. 828,
445
Vol. 7
(
DEPOSITIONS
194-20 Beed v. Wilmington Bank
(Vt.), 93 A. 265; Johnson v. Perry, 54
Vt. 459.
197-28 In re Washington Steel &
Bolt Co., 210 Fed. 984.
198-29 Meikle 17. Hobson (la.), 149
N. W. 865.
200-41 Applicable in bankruptcy
court. In re Washington Steel & Bolt
Co., 210 Fed. 984.
201-44 Admiralty courts inay issue
a dedimus potestatem to take deposi-
tions in oral interrogatories in a for-
eign country. The Titanic, 206 Fed.
500.
203-47 Frank v. Gruber, 150 N. Y.
8. 664.
206-58 A non-resident party to the
record cannot have commission to take
his deposition. In re Middleby's Est.,
242 Pa. 39, 88 A. 773.
207-54 Owensboro City By. Co. r.
Eowland, 152 Ky. 175, 153 8. W. 206;
Old Line Bankers' Life Ins. Co. v,
Witt, 92 Neb. 743, 139 N. W. 641;
Orimsley v. Black, 54 Pa. Super. 413.
208-56 Meikle v. Hobson (la.), 149
N. W. 865.
209-59 Depositions taken before fil-
ing of bill, and before process or ap-
pearance cannot be read. Dixon r.
Dixon, 73 W. Va. 7, 79 8. E. 1016.
Before service of citation. — ^Defendant
cannot ignore a notice of filing inter-
rogatories served on him before he had
been served with citation. Missouri,
O. & G. By. Co. V. Browning (Tex.
Civ.), 166 8. W. 34.
Laches.^ — A deposition will be sup-
pressed which was taken after the
cause had been at issue for over Hve
years and on the very day set for the
trial, there being no circumstances ex-
cusing the delay. Zinser 17. Sanitary
District, 175 111. App. 9.
211-63 Before Joinder of Issae.
Depositions to be used in the district
court where an appeal is pending may
be taken before there has been a
joinder of issue in that court. Bayne v.
Greiners Est., 118 Minn. 350, 136 N.
W. 1041; Eitel V. Greiners Est., 118
Minn. 350, 136 N. W. 1041.
Depositions In special proceedings can
be taken only after a question of fact
has arisen thereon. An application for
a writ of mandamus is such a special
proceeding. Kummeth v, Atkisson, 23
^al. App. 401, 138 P. 116.
214-70 Grimsley v. Black, 64 Pa.
8uper. 413.
217-85 Within the court's discre-
tion. Fitzsimons v. Richardson, Twigg
& Co., 86 Vt. 229, 84 A. 811.
218-87 In re Martinelli, 219 Mass.
58, 106 N. E. 657.
Federal courts may issue letters roga-
tory. De Villeneuve v. Morning Jour-
nal Assn., 206 Fed. 70.
To whom addressed^— Letters rogatory
to obtain testimony of a German judge
will be addressed generally to the
(Courts and magistrates of Germany and
not necessarily to the judge whose evi-
dence is desired. The fact that some
of the interrogatories to be propounded
will relate to matters not admissible
under the lex fori is no reason for
denying the application. In re Smith,
79 Misc. 77, 139 N. Y. 8. 522.
220-92 Haadatory.— Application to
take deposition of a witness outside
state "must be granted upon satisfac-
tory proof of the facts authorizing it
unless the court or judge has reason
to believe that the appucation is not
made in good faith." Zeggio t>. Bobin-
son, 153 App. Div. 886, 137 N. Y. S.
1104.
224(-4 Wanner v, Mandell (Mich.),
134 N. W. 993.
226-9 Sofflcieiicy of allegation of
non-residence of witness. See Estrick
V. Kobre, 84 Misc. 39, 146 N. Y. 8.
952'.
AfUdavlt may be amended.— Frank v.
Gruber, 150 N. Y. 8. 664.
238-58 Official character treated as
words of description^ — ^Where the par-
ties stipulated that the deposition
should be taken before one F y *'a
notary public, '^ the judge was justified
in issuing the commission to F in
his private capacity, thereby treating
the words **a notary public" as words
of description. Henry v, Caswell, 23
Cal. App. 14, 136 P. 726.
249-66 msnomer. — Where deposi-
tion was issued to W. W. Brocks in-
stead of W. W. Brooks, who signed
and certified it, is no ground for rejec-
tion. Hardy r. Phoenix Mut. Life Ins.
Co., 167 N. C. 22, 83 8. E. 5.
245-86 Discretion of conxtw^It rests
in the discretion of the court whether
the original will shall be attached to
the dedimus potestatem. In re Hayes
Est., 55 Colo. 340, 136 P. 449.
446
DEPOSITIONS
Vol. 7
248-98 Utader the Sentacky statQte,
etc- — ^Kington Coal Co. v. Aaron, 147
Ky. 480, 144 8. W. 371.
258-22 In re Hernandez's Will, 158
App. Div. 815, 144 N. Y. 8. 150; Zeggio
V. Bobinson, 155 App. Div. 893, 139 N.
T. 8. 1070; In re Smith, 80 Misc. 628,
142 N. Y. 8. 151.
254-26 In lUinolB nnder a statute
permitting the opposite party upon
service of notice to take depositions on
written interrogatories to elect to have
it taken on oral interrogatories, a co-
defendant or co-plaintiff is not an op-
posite party. An opposite party is one
on the opposite side of the case. Corn-
well V, Bloomington B. M. Assn., 163
Dl. App. 461.
254-27 Baunination of nnwiUixig
irltnesses may be oral and not upon
written interrogatories. De Villeneuve
V. Morning Journal Assn., 206 Fed. 70.
258-34 Gen. St., 1902, §686, does
not prescribe exclusive method of tak-
ing depositions. A deposition may be
taken before a- notary public, commis-
sioner, or magistrate on notice under
i679. Bowell r. Boss (Conn.), 93 A.
236.
258-47 Scope of notary's authority.
The authority of a notary to take dep-
ositions being of statutory origin, the
scope of such authority will not be en-
larged by implication but is strictly de-
fined by the statutory limits. Ex
parte Alexander, 163 Mo. App. 615, 147
S. W. 521.
259-51 Where the parties each
named a different person as suitable to
take the deposition, a commission ad-
dressed to both nominees, or to such
one or more as should act, conferred
authority to either appointee to take
and certify the deposition. Morton v.
Clark, 10 Ala. App. 439, 65 S. 408.
26<^55 That the commissioner after-
wards became counsel of the party at
whose instance the depositions were
taken and as such conducted the cross-
examination of the witness, is not
ground for excluding the deposition.
Park V. Zellars, 139 0a. 585, 77 6. £.
922.
271-92 Park v. Zellars, 139 Ga. 585,
77 S. E. 922.
272-95 Error not prejudicial. — ^An
error in naming the place is not pre-
judicial where it consists merely of
designating a certain number on South
Main St., instead of the same number
on North Main St., the town being
small and it not being shown that the
parties did not know the correct place.
Squier v. Mitchell, 32 S. D. 342, 143 N.
W. 277.
274-98 Depositions taken on a legal
holiday under notice specifying that
day cannot be read on final hearing,
except by consent, the notice being
taken to intend the following day.
Dixon V. Dixon, 73 W. Va. 7, 79 8. B.
1016.
276-6 Where ten days' notice is re-
quired, a notice mailed so late on the
tenth day that it did not reach its
destination till the ninth day before
the taking, is insufficient. Zinser v.
Sanitary District, 175 111. App. 9.
277-7 Ex parte Alexander, 163 Mo.
App. 615, 147 S. W. 521.
277-8 Bobertson Lumbi Co. f. S wen-
son (N. D.), 138 N. W. 984; J. B. King
& Co. V, Hancock & Sons, 114 Va. 596,
77 S. E. 510, reasonable notice provided
for by code.
280-9 Kington Coal Co. v, Aaron,
147 Ky. 480, 144 S. W. 371.
285-30 Mistake as to court. Orant
Bros. V. U. S., 232 U. S. 647, 34 Sup.
Ct. 452, 58 L. ed. 776.
291-49 Missouri, K. & T. By. Co. v.
Goodrich (Tex. Civ), 149 S. W. 1176.
292-52 Mode of service.— Mailing
notice to take depositions to the at-
torney of a party who resides in the
state will not suffice. J. B. King &
Co. «. Hancock & Sons, 114 Va. 596,
77 S. E. 510.
296-66 Oterie 17. Vitale, 55 Pa. Su-
per. 492.
299-78 Delays caused by adverse
party. — After adjournment delays in
resuming the taking of deposition,
caused by the adverse party, will not
terminate the proceedings. Ex parte
Alexander, 163 Mo. App. 615, 147 S.
W. 521.
300-88 Old Line Bankers' Life Ins.
Co. V. Witt, 92 Neb. 743, 139 N. W.
641.
Subpoena duces tecum. — An officer au-
thorized by law to take depositions may
issue a subpoena duces tecum and com-
pel the attendance of a party as wit-
ness. Old Line Bankers' Life Ins. Co.
V. Witt, 92 Neb. 743, 139 N. W. 641.
An attorney having the custody of
documents and papers belonging to one
of the parties may be required to pro-
447
Vol. 7
DEPOSITIONS
dace such doenments and papers as the
opposing party to the action may be
required to furnish as evidence. Old
Line Bankers' Ins. €o. v, Witt, 92 Neb.
743, 139 N. W. 641.
301-89 S. V. Dickman, 175 Mo. App.
543, 157 8. W. 1012.
A non-resident defendant cannot be
put in contempt for refusing to testify
by deposition. Miles v. Armour, 239
Mo. 438, 144 S. W. 424.
Notaries imblic have the power to pun-
ish for contempt for failure to testify
by deposition. Ex parte Alexander,
163 Mo. App. 615, 147 S. W. 521.
302-90 Ex parte Alexander, 163 Mo.
App. 615, 147 8. W. 521.
On adjonxnment such a witness is
bound to reappear at the time fixed.
Ex parte Alexander, 163 Mo. App. 615,
147 8. W. 521.
302-91 Bight to strike out pleading.
In an action against a non-resident
the court has a right to -strike out de-
fendant's pleading if he refuses to
testify by deposition. The act grant-
ing such power is constitutional. Miles
V. Armour, 239 Mo. 438, 144 8. W. 424.
303-92 United 8tates r. U. 8. 8hoe
Machinery Co., 198 Fed. 870.
304-96 Inability of iMurty'a attor-
ney to be present at the taking of the
deposition because of his attendance
at court, will not cause the deposition
to be suppressed unless it be shown
that he would otherwise have attended
the taking of the deposition and that
other counsel could have been procured
to represent him at the taking thereof.
Little Bros. v. Brock, 91 8. O. 549, 75
8. E. 176; Leventhal v, Hollamon (Tex.
Civ.), 165 S. W. 6.
308-7 St. Louis Southwestern By.
Co. V. Woldert Grocery Co. (Tex. Civ.),
144 8, W. 1194.
311-15 Buckeye Powder Co. v. Haz-
ard Powder Co., 205 Fed. 827; Ex parte
Alexander, 163 Mo. App. 615, 147 8.
W. 521.
Scope of examination. — 8o far as the
taking of depositions is concerned, the
germane issues of the cause are not
unalterably fixed by the state of the
pleadings at the time, and the issues
which may be made the subjects of
proper inquiry are those that pertain
to the subject matter of the action and
not merely those that are encompassed
by the pleadings. Ex parte Alexander,
163 Mo. App. 615, 147 8. W. 521.
812-19 Howard v. Strode, 242 Mo.
210, 146 S. W. 792.
318-21 Iiegal and pertinent qnes-
tions. — ^The statute in Michigan gives
the officer issuing the summons to at-
tend before a commissioner power to
compel witness to answer all legal and
pertinent questions. Van Dyke v.
Doughty, 174 Mich. 351, 140 N. W.
627.
314-22 Van Dyke r. Doughty, 174
Mich. 351, 140 N. W. 627.
815-24 Befoaal to answer certain in-
terrogatories because the answers might
incriminate him is no ground for the
exclusion of the whole of deposition.
Carey v. Donohue, 209 Fed. 328, 126 C.
C. A. 254.
320-41 See Egan v. Hotel Gmnewald
Co., 134 La. 740, 64 8. 698.
322-48 That one set of qnestionn
was propounded to two witnesses who
made separate answers is no ground
for rejecting answers. Macon D. &
8. B. Co. 0. Tesbik, 13 Ga. App. 407,
79 S. E. 243.
824-53 Succession of Segura, 134 La.
84, 63 S. 640.
324-55 Succession of Segura, 134 La.
84, 63 8. 640.
826-67 Powell v. Hunter, 257 Mo.
440, 165 S. W. 1009.
327-68 Boggs v. Cullowhee Mining
Co., 162 N. C. 393, 78 8. E. 274.
329-84 Knowledge and belief.
Witness may swear that his answers
are true to the best of his knowledge
and belief. Senter v. Teague (Tex.
Civ.), 164 S. W. 1045.
330-87 Power denied from appoint-
ment.— ^A person appointed by a com-
mission to take a deposition has, by
virtue of the appointment, authority to
administer oaths to witnesses. Tomp-
"kins «. Tompkins, 257 111. 557, 100 N.
E. 965.
331-92 Attaching part or whole of
correspondence. — ^Where the interroga-
tory asked that a copy of that part of
correspondence upon which witness
based certain statements be. atached,
but upon objection the court ordered
that the complete correspondence be
attached such modification was im-
proper. Only such parts as referred to
subject matter in controversy would
be required, conditioned that defend-
ant produce, at trial the^ complete cor-
respondence for comparison with the
448
DEPOSITIONS
Vol 7
extracts attached, to answet. Herbst
€7. Keystone Briller Co^ 158 App. Biv.
503, 143 N. T. S. 748.
334-2 Nasser 9. Gaston, 70 Wash.
685, 127 P. 470.
334-4 Absence of f omial certUlcate
la immateiial where depositions were
taken by consent before deputy clerk,
and witnesses were duly sworn and
cross-examined, and answers were duly
sworn and subscribed to before that
official. Boberts v, Louisiana By. &
Nav. Co., 132 La. 446, 61 S. 522.
353-61 Nasser v. Gaston, 70 Wash.
685, 127 P. 470.
354-65 Nasser 17. Gaston, 70 Wash.
685, 127 P. 470.
That the answers only were read to
the witness, will not suMce. Nasser v.
Gaston, 70 Wash. 685, 127 P. 470.
367-16 The absence of officer's seal
on envelope is not ground for sup-
pressing the deposition where the sig-
nature to the certificate is elsewhere
on the same deposition authenticated by
seal. Wisegarver v, Yinger (Tex. Civ.),
122 8. W. 925; Texas & N. O. By. Co. v.
Siewert (Tex. Civ.), 163 S. W. 624.
Beqnisltes of seal^— Any character or
symbol shown either by the paper it-
self or by parol evidence to be in-
tended as a seal in compliance with
the law is sufficient. McClamroch
Marble Ss Tile Co. 17. Bristow, 94 8.
C. 252, 77 8. E. 923. ''[Seal]" The
word ^'seal" written in brackets across
the flap of the envelope, and intended
by the notary to be a compliance with
the statute, is sufficient. McClamroch
Marble ft Tile Co. v, Bristow, 94 8.
C. 252, 77 8. E. 923.
Place of seal. — ^The seal need not nec-
essarily be placed by the notary's sig-
nature. McClamroch Marble & Tile
Co. 17. Bristow, 94 8. C. 252, 77 8. E,
923.
376-45 Waiver of obligation to file.
Defendant summoned plaintiff to give
his deposition, but before it was taken
counsel agreed to waive defendant's
obligation to file it as required by stat-
ute. This waiver did not take from
the deposition its character as evi-
dence, but merely left it to be dealt
with like a deposition of one not a
party. Clark t7. Clark, 76 N. H. 430,
83 A. 515.
379-61 Filing is not recording. Beed
V. Wilmington Bank (Yt.), 93 A. 265.
883-80 Bofon d«po8iti(m read.
The proper time for the correction of
alleged mistakes in a deposition, is be*
fore the deposition is read. The issue
as to the mistake should not be sub-
mitted to the jury. Naysmith v, Au*
burn, 95 Neb. 582, 146 N. W. 971.
385-7 Court may return the deposi-
tion to officer taking it» though in an-
other state, for the purpose of having
the certificate corrected. National 8ur-
ety Co. V. American Compound Door
Co. (Tex. Civ.), 158 8. W. 1177.
386-10 Cleburne Electric & Gas. Co.
r. McCoy (Tex. Civ.), 149 8. W. 5S4.
391-36 Magee r. Paul (Tex. Civ.),
159 8. W. 325; Galveston, H. & 8. A.
By. Co. V. Young (Tex. Civ.), 148 S.
W. 1113.
As against a co-defendant who was
not present when defendant's deposi-
tion was taken, such deposition is ad-
missible if he had notice of the taking
thereof. Irwin v. Kansas City (Mo.
App.), 160 8. W. 30.
392-36 Walter v, Sperry, 86 Conn.
474, 85 A. 739 J In re Van Ness' Will,
78 Misc. 592, 139 N. Y. 8. 485; Bowen
V. Durant, 25 N. D. 11, 140 N. W. 728;
Tates V. Billings (Tex. Civ.), 148 8.
W. 1130.
Discretion of coort — Although discte-
tionary with the court to require the
entire deposition to be offered instead
of a portion thereof such discretion is
not absolute. Bowen 17. Durant, 25 N.
D. 11, 140 N. W. 728.
393-37 In Vermont the use of de-
position is governed by P. 8. 1630, and
may be used "by the person at whose
request it was taken, or by any person
claiming under him,'\ and adverse
party cannot use it. Lee v, Follensby,
86 Vt. 401, 85 A. 915.
394-88 8impson Fruit Co. v, Atchi-
son, T. & 8. F. By. Co., 161 HI. App.
406.
394-39 Simpson Fruit Co. v. Atchi-
son, T. is 8. F. B. Co., 161 HI. App.
406; Bichardson v. Metropolitan 8t.
By. Co., 166 Mo. App. 162, 147 8. W.
1126.
895-42. P. 8. (Yt.) 1630. See Lee r.
Follensby, 86 Vt. 401, 85 A. 915.
400-60 Atwood r. Atwood, 86 Conn.
579, 86 A. 29.
Detaching exhibits for convenience
does not destroy efficacy of deposition
to be used on anotiier trial unless there
449
Vol.
DEPOSITIONS
is a qnestion as to identity or genuine*
ness. Boll v. Howell, 9 Ala. App. 171.
62 S. 463.
401-69 8t. Louis Southwestern By.
Co. V. Woldert Grocery Co. (Tex. Civ.),
144 8. W. 1194.
402-71 Hartis v, Charlotte Electric
By. Co., 162 N. C. 236, 78 S. E. 164.
AJctions cODBolidated^— Upon the hear-
ing of consolidated causes a deposition
taken in one of them may be used in
so far as it is applicable to the issues
in. each of the consolidated causes.
Cassem r. Prindle, 258 HI. 11, 101 N.
E. 241.
406-78 Castleberry v. Bnssey (Tex.
Civ.), 166 8. W. 14.
411-95 A deposition taken at cor*
oner's Inanest and made a part of the
coroner's report, being mere ex parte
statements are not competent, for any
purpose other than contradiction, li^es
17. Court, 173 111. App. 187. 8ee supra,
p. 193, n. 16.
"Whi&n advtnary reads part of deposi-
ti(m of plaintiff, who is present at the
trial, tiie plaintiff may then read there-
from. Bichardson v. Metropolitan By.
Co., 166 Mo. App. 162, 147 8. W. 1126.
412-97 Southern By. Co. r. Dickson,
138 Oa. 371, 75 8. E. 462.
418-4 Dubowsky v. Binggeli (Mo.),
171 S. W. 12.
415-10 Le Master v. P., 54 Colo.
416, 131 P. 269; Hobbs v. C, 156 Ky.
847, 162 8. W. 104; Tilghman v. Sea-
board Air Line B. Co., 167 N. C. 163,
83 8. E. 315, 1090.
KecasBlty for residence. — ^The non-resi-
dent witness need not have a residence
outside the state. Devine v. Chicago
City By. Co., 182 HI. App. 366.
Even where personal attendance of a
WltnesB residing in another county may
be had, a party still has the right to
take his deposition. Funk v, Shawnee
Fire Ins. Co., 87 Kan. 568, 125 P. 35.
418-12 IgDOring sabpoena*— Plain-
tiff's deposition will not be suppressed
because he ignored a subpoena served
upon him by defendant since defend-
ant could have had him brought in by
attachment. Leventhal 17. Hollamon
(Tex. Civ.), 166 8. W. 6.
419-lS Hobbs v. C, 156 Ky. 8*7, 162
8. W. 104.
423-29 Wanner 9. Mandell (Mich.),
134 N. W. -993.
424-32 {4042, Code 1907, providing
tl|at objection must be made before
entering on trial. Wooten t>. Federal
Discount Co., 7 Ala. App. 351, 62 8.
263.
Who may object,*— A party may object
to interro^tories propounded by him.
Magee r. Paul (Tex. Civ.), 159 8. W.
325.
424-35 Balph v. Taylor (R. I.), 85 A.
941.
At first term of conrt^ — Objections to
the form or manner of taking deposi-
tions must in Texas be made at the
first term of court after the deposition
is filed. Missouri, O. & Q. By. Co. v.
Browning (Tex. Civ.), 166 8. W. 34.
426-87 Standard Talking Machine
Co. «. Matthews Supply Co., 6 Ala. App.
188, 60 8. 481; Cable Co. «. Mathers, 72
W. Va. 807, 79 8. E. 1079. See Bird
V» Thanhouser, 160 HI.. App. 653.
427-38 The first term of court after
the filing is the time fixed by statute
in Texas for making such objections,
consequently an objection made at the
second term that notice of the filing of
interrogatories was not served with
citation comes too late. Missouri O.
8b G. By. Co. 17. Browning (Tex. Civ.),
166 8. W. 341
427-40 After case anbrnitted to Jury.
A motion to suppress a deposition be-
cause no notice of taking it was given
comes too late if made after the case
has gone to the jury. Cohen v, Beich-
man, 55 Ind. App. 164, 102 N. E. 284.
428-43 A motion to qnasb deposi-
tions should be reasonably made. Hub-
bard-Zemurray Steamship Co. v, Cres-
cio, 179 Bl. App. 56.
431-57 Campbell v. Hayden, 164 Mo.
App. 252, 145 8. W. 103.
432-60 Houston, E. & W. T. By. Co.
V. Lacy (Tex.. Civ.), 153 8. W. 414,
Comp, Bird v, Thanhouser, 160 HI. App.
653, holding that questions and answers
wholly incompetent could be excluded
at trial, although no motion to sup-
press was previously made.
This rule cannot be invoked against
the party oflfering the evidence. Put-
nam Land & Development Co. i^. Elser
(Tex. Civ.), 159 8. W. 190.
433-06 Martin v. Monroe, 142 Ga.
807, 83 8. E. 958.
434-71 Before Jury sworn. — ^Bule of
court requires exceptions to be made
before jury is sworn. It is not enough
450
DETINUE.
Vol. 7
for eouBBel to atate that he would at
proper time object to the depositions
bnt actTiall3r filed no objections until
after jury was sworn. Cuuiberland
Glass Mfg. Co. V. De Witt, 120 Md.
381, 87 A. 927.
488-86 Chicago, B. I. & G. By. Oo.
V. Trout (Tex. Civ.), 152 8. W. 1137.
Also to refusal of witness to testify.
Young V, Corrigan, 208 Fed. 431.
43a^9 In re Ljle's Est., 93 Neb.
768, 141 N. W. 1127; Great Western
Life Assur. Co. 17. Shumwaj, 25 N. D.
268, 141 N. W. 479.
Determining relevancy^ — Ordinarily the
relevancy of interrogatories need not
be determined in advance of the trial;
but where a mass of questions totally
irrelevant as a matter of law are pro-
posed the court will not permit the op-
posite party to be harassed. American
Institute of Scientific Besearch v.
Bandolph, 141 N. Y. S. 949..
440-91 Marshall & E. T. By. Co. v.
Petty (Tex. Civ.), 145 S. W. 1195.
440-95 Hearsay and secondary ob-
jection may be made at the trial that
certain parts of the testimony were
hearsay and secondary, although such
objections were not noted on the ex-
amination before the commissioner.
Erk V. Simpson, 137 Ga. 608, 73 S. E.
1065.
442-1 New Bell Jellico Coal Co. v.
Braznell's Admr., 149 Ey. 418, 149 S.
W. 888; Ohio Pottery & Glass Co. i).
Black (Tex. Civ.), 149 S. W. 735.
Exceptions to stipulations as to what
deponent would testify may be oral
even where such rule prevails. New
Bell Jellico Coal Co. v, Braznell's
Admr., 149 Ky. 418, 149 S. W. 888.
Writing not required^— Objection may
be made to the competency and ma-
teriality of eVidence contained in a
deposition without filing objection
thereto in writing. In re Lyles Est.,
93 Neb. 768, 141 N. W. 1127.
444-5 Bichardson f. Metropolitan
By. Co., 166 Mo. App. 162, 147 S. W.
1126; Pecos & N. T. By. Co. v. Brooks
(Tex. Civ.), 145 S. W. 649. *.^
444-7 Btde lUnstrated.— An objection
that all the witness' testimony ap-
peared on cross-examination to be based
on hearsay, is too indefinite. Lucy v.
Davis, 163 Cal. 611, 126 P. 490. ^ .
446-11 i SncSi objection most be sup-
P(^ted,^^^eompotent . evldenco _ unless
the court judicially knows the facts.
Houston, E. & W. T. By. Co. v. Lacy
(Tex. Civ.), 153 8. W. 414.
449-28 Simpson Fruit Co. r. Atchi-
son T. & S. F. B. Co., 161 m. App. 406,
motion to suppress.
455-44 Defect of misnomer in com-
mission is waived where irregularities
in deposition are waived and only the
right to object to testimony on trial is
reserved. Hardy v. Phoenix Mut. Life
Ins. Co., 167 N. C. 22, 83 S. E. 5.
457-50 Waiver by failure to file ex-
ceptions.^— A party will be considered
to have waived any objection to the
time of taking the deposition if he
fails to file exceptions to the deposi-
tion within the time prescribed and does
not object at the trial. Oterie D, Vit-
ale, 55 Pa. Super. 492.
460-62 See Smith v, Morris, 181 Ala.
279, 61 8. 276.
460-68 Kummeth r. Atkisson, 23 Cal.
App. 401, 138 P. 116.
463-68 Costs of deposition in mand-
amus proceeding will not be charged
against petitioner when incurred by
adverse party before an issue of fact
has been raised. Kummeth V, Atkisson,
23 Cal. App. 401, 138 P. 116.
464-71 The court in its discretion
may disallow costs incurred in taking
depositions of witnesses who testified
at the trial. Engel v. Ehret, 21 CaL
App. 112, 130 P. 1197.
DETINUE
470-4 Tiefel Bros. & Winn f. Max-
weU (Tex. Civ.), 154 S. W. 319.
470-6 The gist of the action is the
wrongful detention and is not an ac-
tion on the contract. Gossett t?. Mor-
row (Ala.), 65 S. 826.
473-20 Tiefel Bros. & Winn v. Max-
well (Tex. Civ.), 154 S. W, 319.
474-34 Minge & Co. v, Barrett Bros.
Shipping Co., 10 Ala. App. 592, 65 S.
671.
Where parties are co-tenants plaintiff
cannot maintain detinue for crop un-
til his part has been set apart and de-
livered. Williams v. Lay, 184 Ala. 54,
63 S. 466; Williams v. Lay, 9 Ala. App.
373, 63 8. 792.
Prior possession is sufficient to sustain
detinue by one claiming such against
one who cannot show a superior title.
Maxler r. Hawk, 233 Pa. 316, 82 A. 251.
451
DETINUE
'Wiio may 8il6d— Where one party fur-
nishes the land and stock, and the other
the labor with which to make the crop,
with an agreement for equal division,
the parties are either tenants in com-
mon or landlord and tenant, and one
may not maintain detinue against the
other for part of crop. Tate v. Cody-
Henderson Co.. 11 Ala. App. 350« 66
S. 837.
475-36 Butler-Kyser Mfg. Co. <?.
Central Georgia E. Co. (Ala.\ 67 S.
333.
4T5-S7 Butler-Kyser Mfg. Co. v.
Central of Georgia E. Co. (Ala.), 67 S.
393; Minge & Co. v. Barrett Bros.
Shipping Co., 10 Ala. App. 592, 65 S.
671.
i^.«,-41 Tenants in common or those
standing in relation of landlord and
tenant may not resort to detinue for
a share of a joint crop. Tate v, Cody-
Henderson Co. (Ala. App.), 66 S. 837.
476-45 Butler-Kyser Mfg. Co. v.
Central of Georgia Ey. Co. (Ala.), 67 S.
393.
A plaintiff's prior possession entitles
him to recover in detinue if a subse-
quent possession of it shown by defend-
ant is unconnected with the true own-
ership. Blair i?. Williams, 159 Ala. 655,
49 S. 71; Hardison v, Plummer, 152
Ala. 619, 44 S. 591; Cammack v. Lav-
ender, 9 Ala. App. 443, 63 S. 686. ^
477-56 Gossett v. Morrow (Ala.),
65 S. 826.
478-62 Defendant may be estopped
from denying possession. Gustin v.
Wilson (Ala.), 66 S. 461,
478-68 Black v. Slocumb Mule Co.,
8 Ala. App. 440, 62 S. 308.
479-70 Black v. Slocumb Mule Co.,
8 Ala. App. 440, 62 S. 308.
.Where defendant acanlred possession
wrongfully no demand is necessary.
Chappell V, Falkner, 11 Ala. App. 382,
66 S. 890; Hodges V. Kyle, 9 Ala. App.
449, 63 S. 761.
1 480-84 ' Discontinuance as to some
defendants. — ^Being an action ex de-
licto, a discontinuance or dismissal as
to one of several defendants will not
discontinue the entire action. Gossett
i\ Morrow (Ala.), 65 S. 826; Strick-
land V. Wedgeworth, 154 Ala. 654, 45
S. 653.
'482-94a ^ Defective" allegations cured
by stipulation. — A defect in a declara-
Ition _ neither _ alleging detention ^nor
claiming return but asking for dam-
ages only is cured by a stipulation be-
tween parties to consider and defend
as a declaration in detinue, the plain-
tiff amending by claiming the return
of chattels or their value. Fidelity
Storage Corp. v. Maguire, 41 App. Gas.
(D. C.) 231.
482-99 Where a fortlicoming bond
has been filed, under plea of non de-
tinet defendant is estopped from -deny-
ing he was in possession or claimed
property. Gustin v. Wilson (Ala.), 66
S. 461; Savage t?. Russell, 84 Ala. 103,
4 S. 235.
Admissions — General issue when plead-
ed is an admission of possession by de-
fendant of property at the time of com-
mencement of suit. Chappell v. Falk-
ner, 11 Ala. App. 382, 66 S. 890;
Padgett V, Gulfport Fertilizer Co., 11
Ala. App. 366, 66 S. 866.
483-15 Gustin v. Wilson (Ala.), 66
S. 461.
485-35 Misleading instruction. Mc-
Coy V. Prince, 11 Ala. App. 388, 66 S.
950.
486-36 Finding of value treated as
surplusage^ — Where the verdict was:
''We, the jury, find for plaintiff for
the property sued for, or its alternate
value $35," it is in substantial con-
formity to §3781 of Code, the value
fixed being surplusage. Ghappell r.
Falkner, 11 Ala. App. 382, 66 S. 890.
486-39 As affected by stipulations.
A verdict which does not specify the
chattels or the separate value of each
is not defective when in conformity
with stipulation of the parties. Fidel-
ity Storage Corp. r. Maguire, 41 App.
Gas. (D. C.) 231.
487-49 See Fidelity Storage Corp. v.
Maguire, 41 App. Gas. (D. C.) 231.
487-52 Assessment of damages* — ^If
a money judgment value is to be re-
covered the damages are the lawful
interest upon the purchase price under
the terms of the sale contract. Jeffrey
Mfg. Co. t;. Mound Coal Co., 215 Fed.
222.
488-58 " Jeffrey Mfg. Co. t>. Mound
Coal Co., 215 Fed. 222. '
488-63 Jernigan t?. Willoughby, 159
Ala. 650. 48 S. 812; Carroll v. Black-
burn (Ala. App.), 68 S. 515. See also
Starr Piano Co. r. Baker, 8 Ala. App.
449, 62 S. 549.
489-72 . Want _ of demand.— Where
452
DISCOVERY
Vol. 7
chattel mortgagee sued in detinae for
failure to paj at maturity and no dam-
ages were awarded for detention, mort-
gagor could not complain because no
demand was made before suit was
brought. Black v. Slocumb Mule Co.,
8 Ala. App. 440, 62 8. 308.
490-77 Amendment of Judgment to
confoxm to verdict. — ^Where the judg-
ment incorrectly recites what the prop-
erty is, as for example, ''one heifer
calf" instead of '*one red cow," the
error may be corrected by the appel-
late court to conform to the verdict.
Chappell V, Falkner, 11 Ala. App. 382,
66 S. 890.
DTBChAINCEB
491-1 Kot a pleading. — ^A disclaimer
is, strictly speaking, not a pleading.
Howard v. Martin, 181 Ala. 613, 62 S.
99.
492-7 Certainty in description. — ^The
land disclaimed must be described with
certainty. Howard v, Martin, 181 Ala.
613, 62 8. 99.
492-8 Disclaimer and denial of pos-
session, in ejectment are incompatible
defenses and cannot be pleaded to-
gether. Howard v, Martin, 181 ATa.
613, 62 8. 99; Bernstein v, Humes, 60
Ala. 582, 31 Am. Bep. 52.
493-15 On disclaimer plaintiff may
take judgment without costs. !^oward
V, Martin, 181 Ala. 613, 62 8. 99.
493-16 Unless damages are songht
a party filing a disclaimer is no longer
considered a party to the suit. Wil-
liams V. Neill (Tex. Civ.), 152 8. W.
693.
494-19 McDonald v. McDonald,^ 203
Ped. 724.
494-20 In a salt for quieting title
end removal of cloud where defend-
ant is charged with conspiracy in hav-
ing created the very cloud sought to
be reviewed, he cannet answer merely
disclaiming interest or title but he will
be required te answer so as to deter-
mine the fact as te the conspiracy to
defraud. McDonald v. McDonald, 203
Fed. 724.
494-23 Wade v, Gilmer, 186 Ala.
524, 64 8. 611.
''The effect given to a disclaimer is
only an admission upon the record of
the plaintiff's right to recover the title
to tiie land, and a denial of the as-
sertion of any title to the land on
the part of the defendant." Havard
V, Uarter-Kelley Lumber Co. (Tex.
Civ.), 162 8. W. 922; Herring v. Swain,
84 Tex. 523, 19 8. W. 774.
495-28 Amendment of disclaimers.
Disclaimers, though not strictly plead-
ing, are within the remedial purview
of the statute of amendments. Martin
V. Howard (Ala.), 68 8. 982.
495-30 Wade v. Gilmer, 186 Ala.
524, 64 8. 611; Howard V. Martin, 181
Ala. 613, 62 8. 99.
Nature of Issues presented. — ^Where de-
fendant disclaimed in a suit of eject-
ment, suggesting that the suit arose
over a disputed boundary, and plaintiff
is stead of taking judgment in the dis-
claimer joined issue in the disclaimer,
the only issue presented was the de-
fendant's possession vel non. Wade V,
Gilmer, 186 Ala. 524, 64 8. 611.
DISCOVEBY
507-4 Thrasher t?. Doig & Geiger, 18
Fla. 809.
508-e Thrasher v. Doig, 18 Pla. 809;
Lesser v. Henry, 50 Pa. Super. 440.
519-12 Virginia & Ala. Min. & Mfg.
Co. V. Hale & Co., 93 Ala. 542, 9 8.
256.
514-14 The court in Carmichael v.
Pond (Ala.), 67 8. 384, says: "It has
been uniformly decided by this court
that our statutes authorizing parties
to suits at law or in equity to file
interrogatories to their adversaries,
which practice is sometimes called stat-
utory bills of discovery, do not deprive
the chancery court of any of its orig-
inal jurisdiction as to bills for dis-
covery. ' '
518-23 If there is no equity there
can be no discovery, and equity will
not retain jurisdiction. First State
Bank v, 8pencer (C. C. A.), 219 Fed.
503.
523-45 Brown v. Hoffman (App.
Div.), 151 N. Y. 8. 573.
523-47 8. t?. Elizabethtown Water
Co., 83 N. J. Eq. 216, 89 A. 1039.
524-52 First State Bank v. Spencer
(C. C. A.), 219 Fed. 503; Bacharach v.
Bartlett, 81 N. J. Eq. 248, 86 A. 966.
525-54 Bomer Bros. 17. Warren Coun-
ty, 103 Miss. 343, 60 8. 32S; Bobinson
r. Davis, 11 N. J. Eq.. 302, 69 Am.
Dec. 591.
453
Vol. 7
DlSCOVEltr
625-65 Calahan v. Holland-Cook
Mfg. Co., 201 Fed. 607; King v. Liv-
ingston Mfg. Co., 180 Ala. 118. 60 S.
143.
627-61 Bacharach v. Bartlett, 81 N.
J. £q. 248, 86 A. 966; Vejarano v.
Bruning, 165 App. Div. 246, 150 N.
Y. S. 778.
529-73 King v. Livingston Mfg. Co.,
180 Ala. 118, 60 S. 143; Franklin Tp.
V. Jones, 80 N. J. Eq. 517, 85 A. 347;
Franklin Tp. v. Trammell, 80 N. J. Eq.
551, 85 A. 411; Franklin Tp. «. Crane,
80 N. J. Eq. 509, 85 A. 408, 43 L. E.
A. (N. S.) 604; Van Eiper v. Bay, 87
Misc. 445, 150 N. Y. S. 947.
531-77 King v. Livingston Mfg. Co.,
ISO Ala. 118, 60 8. 143.
531-78 American Food Products Co.
V. American Mill Co., 151 Wis. 385, 138
N. W. 1123.
531-79 Facts ascertainable without
bill. — Where no sufficient reason is
shown why complainant could not as-
certain such facts without ine bill, it
will not be granted. Gayle v. Penning-
ton, 185 Ala. 53, 64 S. 572.
531-81 Adverse party's claim or
title* — ^It is essential to a bill for a
discovery that it set forth a title in
the party which is sufficient to sup-
port or defeat a suit, and that it pray
a discovery pertinent to that title and
nothing beyond. A party has no right
to a discovery except of facts and
deeds and writings necessary to his
own title or under which he claims;
for he is not at liberty to pry into
the title of another party. Bichardson
t?. Pennsylvania Coal Co., 203 Fed. 743.
536-12 Hitt Lumber Co. V, Cullman
Property Co. (Ala.), 66 S. 720. See
Bomer Bros. v. Warren County, 103
Miss. 343, 60 S. 328.
Inability to irrove the facts otherwise
than by defendant's answer must be
shown. Hitt Lumb. Co. v, Cullman Co:
(Ala.), 66 S. 720.
536-13 King v, Livingston Mfg. Co.,
180 Ala. 118, 60 S. 143; Bomer Bros.
I?. Warren County, 103 Miss. 343, 60
8. 328.
541-47 Proof of the main fact in
controversy between the parties can-
not be required by defendant, by his
answer, as an essential preliminary to
the discovery sought. Lesser v. Henry,
50 Pa. Super. 440.
545-68 New York Assets B. Co. t?.
Pf otzheimer, 158 App. Div. 700, 143 N.
Y. S. 898.
547-83 Beard r. Beard, 66 Or. 526,
133 P. 795.
549-89 Where two causes are Joined.
Cooper & Evans Co. €. Manhattan
Bridge Three-Cent Line,' 164 App. Div.
64, 149 N. Y. S. 433.
549-95 Virginia & Ala. Min. & Mfg.
Co. V. Hale & Co., 93 Ala. 542, 9 S.
256. • » , »
551-10 Witness reluctant or liostlle.
Where a witness, upon whose testimony
and evidence plaintiff must rely, might
be reluctant or hostile, the court may
grant an examination even though such
witness is a non-resident. Heller, Hirsh
& Co. €7. General Mfg. Co., 155 App.
Div. 211, 140 N. Y. S. 117.
552-13 An order for the examina-
tion'of a corporation before trial should
nauke the officer and state in what
capacity he is to be examined. Carples
17. Deere Wagon Co. (App. Div.), 152
N. Y. S. 434; Cohn «. Standard Mail
Order Co., 165 App. Div. 895, 149 N.
Y. S. 618.
555-24 Sullivan v. Ashland L., P.
& St. E. Co., 152 Wis. 574, 140 N. W.
316.
Under Wisconsin Bev. St., 14096, sub. 6,
defendant is entitled, before issue
joined, to examine plaintiff on all
points set out in the complaint. Hor-
lick's Malted Milk Co. v. A. Spiegel
Co., 155 Wis. 201, 144 N. W. 272.
555-25 Examination before trial to
determine amount of recovery. — Ordi-
narily an examination of the defend-
ants before trial to enable plaintiff to
frame a complaint will not be allowed
merely in order to enable the plain-
tiff to state the amount which he claims
to be entitled to recover, but where his
lack of information is not limited to
that item of his complaint, the order
should issue. Mendelson v. Newborg,
155 App. Div. 892, 139 N. Y. S. 1052.
555-27 Sullivan v. Ashland L., P.
& St. E. Co., 152 Wis. 574, 140 N. W.
316.
556-28 Wood v. Wilson (App. Div.),
151 N. Y. S. 853.
Defendants in possession of all infor-
mation that Is necessary to enable them
lo prepare an intelligent answer will
not be granted an order for inspection
of a paper. Slattery v. Slattery, 145
N. Y. S. 966.
454
DiaCdVEBT
Vol. 7
556-30 DiseoTBry to aid In farniflh-
Ing bin of particularB*— -Where party is
not in a position to furnish particulars
until discovery ig granted it is proper
to compel discovery first. Ball v.
Evening Post Pub. Co., 48 Hun (N. T.)
149. Where defendant by bill of par-
ticulars requires the plaintiff to state
the times and places of utterance of
slander, if plaintiff is not able to state
the times and places with particularity,
he is entitled to examine the defendant
as to the times and places. Pring v.
Thorp (App. Div.), 152 N. Y. S. 469.
556-32 Preparing to sieet defense.
Cook t?. People's Milk Co., 152 N. Y.
S. 465. '
556-33 New York Assets E. Co. v.
Pforzheimer, 158 App. Div. 700, 143 N.
Y. 8. 898; Kerr v. Hammond, 153 App.
IHv. 681, 138 N. Y. S. 619; Oppen-
heimer V, Van Eaalte, 151 App. Div.
601, 136 N. Y. S. 197; Crum v, Wright,
82 Misc. 419, 143 N. Y. S. 1080; Lerner
V, Kraus, 147 N. Y. S. 32.
557-36 American Food Products Co.
e. American Mill Co., 151 Wis. 385, 138
N. W. 1123.
557-40 Blum v. Bosenbaum, 37 Misc.
292, 149 N. Y. 8. 960.
558-44 Blum v. Bosenbaum, 87 Misc.
292, 149 N. Y. 8. 960; Crum v, Wright,
82 Misc. 419, 143 N. Y. 8. 1080: Ler-
ner V. Kraus, 147 N. Y. 8. 32; Bailey
V. Matthews, 156 N. C, 78, 81, 72 8. E.
92, app. in Fields v. Coleman, 160 N. C.
11, 75 8. E. 1005.
To harass and annoy defendants— Ber-
fer 17. Herbert, 81 Misc. 360, 142 N. Y.
. 2.
559-45 Lyon t?. Gloeckner, 80 Misc.
642, 141 N. Y. 8. 851.
As to execution of contract. — Goldowitz
V, Henry Kupfer & Co., 137 N. Y. 8.
690.
Bzamlnation as to forgeries^— In an
action by plaintiff to recover the
amount of forged checks, the defend-
ant is entitled to an examination of
plaintiff as to the alleged forgeries, the
circumstances under which they were
made, his knowledge as to the forgeries
and when obtained, etc., as being mat-
ters peculiarly and solely within the
knowledge of the plaintiff. Schnabel
V. Hanover Nat. Bank, 137 N. Y. 8.
725.
560-48 Brown I?. Hoffman (App.
IHv.), 151 N. Y. 8. 673; Nevine v.
Brooklyn Citizen, 166 App. Div. 219,
151 N. Y. 8. 139; Bruhl v. Nedwell, 164
App. Div. 932, 149 N. Y. 8. 442; Em-
pire Cream Separator Co. «. Diamond,
164 App. Div. 223, 149 N. Y. 8. 649;
Stevens v. Weygandt, 163 App. Div.
543, 148 N. Y. 8. 958; Meredith f?.
Dodd, 160 App. Div. 917, 145 N. Y. 8.
662; Mason t?. New York Be view Pub.
Co., 154 App. Div. 651, 139 N. Y. 8.
639; Weber v, Columbia Amusement
Co., 154 App. Div. 881, 138 N. Y. 8.
878; Sufrin v. Bhine Bealty & Improve-
ment Co., 153 App. Div. 887, 138 N. Y.
8. 382; Schulte V. Petruizi, 153 App.
Div. 889, 137 N. Y. 8. 1103; Prear V.
Duryea, 151 App. Div. 687, 136 N. Y.
S. 264; Goldsmith V. Levine, 89 Misc.
458, 152 N. Y. 8. 195; Van Biper v.
Bay, 87 Misc. 445, 150 N. Y. 8. 947; '
Crum V. Wright, 82 Misc. 419, 143 N.
Y. 8. 1080; Cook v. People's Milk Co.,
152 N. Y. 8. 465; Bannister v. Mur-
ray, 152 N. Y. 8. 192; Keit v. Winter
Garden Co., 147 N. Y. 8. 11.
Order for examination too broads— Sher-
man 17. Einhom, 162 App. Div. 815, 147
N. Y. 8. 1077; Goldsmith v, Levine, 89
Misc. 458, 152 N. Y. S. 195.
562-61 Vejatano v. Bruning, 165
App. Div. 246, 150 N. Y, 8. 778; Skelly
V. Mortimer, 154 App. Div. 921, 138
N. Y. 8. 1100; Kerr v. Hammond, 153
App. Div. 681, 138 N. Y. 8. 619; Crum
V. Wright, 82 Misc. 419, 143 N. Y. 8.
1080.
The order vUl not be granted where
the effect would be to allow movant
to cross-examine adverse party before
trial about his own case. Standard
Mail Order Co, v, Kaufman (App.
Div.), 153 N. Y. 8. 679; Bruhl v. Ned-
well, 164 App. Div. 932, 149 N. Y. 8.
442; Lawson v, Hotchkiss, 140 App.
Div. 297, 125 N. Y. S. 261; Dryden v.
Lattimer, 88 Misc. 473, 151 N. Y, 8.
.121; Lerner v, Kraus, 147 N. Y. 8.
32; Bochester Const. Co. v, Dobbie P.
& M. Co., 145 N. Y. S. 930; Locomobile
Co. t?. Nichols, 140 N. Y. 8. 1041.
Obtaining description of accident.— In
an action for damages the plaintiff
should not be ordered to answer de-
fendant's interrogatories which called
for a detailed description of precisely
how the accident happened. Wakeley
V. Boston Elevated By., 217 Mass. 488,
105 N. E. 436.
565-65 Examination as to a cotinter-
dalni refused. Empire Cream Sep-
455
Vol. 7
DISCOVERT
erator Co. t?. Diamond, 164 App. Div.
223, 149 N. Y. 8. 649.
565-67 People** Coat, etc. Co. v.
Light (App. Div.), 153 N. Y. S. 330;
Karel v. Conlan, 155 Wis. 221, 144 N.
W. 266, 49 L. B. A. (N. S.) 826. .
566-68 See Reynolds v. Beynolds, 81
Misc. 362, 142 N. Y. S. 1.
567-73 Harbnrger c. Westchester
Pire Ins. Co. (App. Div.), 152 N. Y.
S. 272; Oppenheimer v. Van Baalte, 151
App. Div. 601, 136 N. Y. 8. 197; Cauet
V. Smith, 86 Misc. 99, 149 N. Y. 8.
101; Sullivan V. Ashland L., P. & St.
E. Co., 152 Wis. 574, 140 N. W. 318;
American Food Products Co. «. Amer-
ican Mill Co., 151 Wis. 385, 138 N. W.
1123.
Affidavit must state nature of relief
demanded. Cauet v. Smith, 86 Misc.
99, 149 N. Y. S. 101.
568-80 Before issue JolnecL—'' If the
facts stated in the affidavit are suffi-
cient to show that the plaintiff may
be entitled to recover against the de-
fendant, and that discovery is neces-
sary in order to enable the plaintiff
to plead, that is sufficient. It is not
necessary that facts sufficient to con-
stitute a cause of action be stated.^'
Sullivan v. Ashland L., P. & St. B. Co.,
152 Wis. 674, 140 N. W. 316.
568-84 Tan Biper v. Bay, 87 Misc.
445, 150 N. Y. S. 947.
569-88 Oppenheimer v. Van Baalte,
151 App. Div. 601, 136 N. Y. 8. 197.
560-04 Guenther «. Bidgway Co., 159
App. Div. 74, 143 N. Y. 8. 961.
Order for examination of a corporation
must name some officer to be examined.
Cohn V. Standard Mail Order Co., 165
App. Div. 895, 149 N. Y. 8. 618. And
. see 5 Standard Paoo. 573.
571-8 Time when service may be
made on attorney. — ^Although the stat-
ute (Code Civ. Proc, 875) provides the
method of making service upon the at-
torney, it does not refer to the time
of service. Service upon the attorney
is not required to be made within the
time limited by the order, but may be
made within a teasonable time before
the examination. Tur v, Arrue, 156
App. Div. 547, 141 N. Y. 8. 586.
571-0 Service In wrong capacity. — ^A
service of the notice of an examination
before issue joined upon a person as
an individual rather than in the ca-
pacity of president of a corporation Is
not prejudicial and should be disre-
garded. American Food Products Co.
r. American Mill. Co., 151 Wis. 385, 138
N. W. 1123.
571-11 Horlick's Malted Milk Co. r.
A. Spiegel Co., 155 Wis. 201, 144 N.
W. 272.
573-27 An order for defendant's
examination wiU be vacated on notice,
if plaintiff's affidavit upon which the
order was granted fails to comply with
the statute. Cauet v. Smith, 86 Misc.
99, 149 N. Y. 8. 101.
580-81 Steames v. Edmonds (Ala.),
66 S. 714.
581-86 In Alabama interrogatories
to the parties, and their answers, are
treated as pleadings as well as evi-
dence. Southern By. Co. i>, Hayes, 183
Ala. 465, 62 8. 874.
584-8 If a defendant desires in-
formation as to the facts constituting
the plaintiff a body corporate, or as
to whether it is a domestic or a for-
eign body, he may propound interrog-
atories under the statute. Head v. Bob-
inson, Norton & Co. (Ala.), 67 8. 976.
585-17 P. M. Co. V. Ajax Bail
Anchor Co., 216 Fed. 634; Brooke v.
Boyd, 80 Wash. 213, 141 P. 357.
586-21 The imrpose of the statute
(Bern. & Ball. Code, fl226) is to en-
able the one party to a lawsuit to dis-
cover material facts and documents
solely within the knowledge, possession
or control of the other parly to which
he has not access. Such facts and
documents as are accessible to him he
must procure from the original sources.
Brooke V, Boyd, 80 Wash. 213, 141 P.
357.
588-29 Givens v. Southern Express
Co. (Miss.), 64 S. 737.
590-39 Miss. Code, 1906, §1938; Giv-
ens 17. Southern Express Co. (Miss.), 64
8. 737.
590-40 Giveiis v. Southern Express
Co. (Miss.), 64 8. 737.
591-46 - Givens 17. Southern Express
Co. (Miss.), 64 8. 737.
596-77 Indiana. — ^^'The court may
enforce the answer by attachment or
otherwise.'* Bums' Ann. St., 1908,
§265; Houser 17. Laughlin, 55 Ind. App.
563, 104 N. E. 309.
596-78 Houser 17. Laughlin, 55 Ind.
App. 563, 104 N. E. 309; Givens r.
Southern Express Co. (Miss.) 64 S. 737.
456
DISCOVERT
Vol. 7
Misstflslppl.— If he fail to answer with-
in a reasonable time, his plea shall be
dismissed, if he be plaintiff or com-
plainant, and if he be defendant, his
plea or answer may be taken off the
file and judgment by default entered,
or the bill be taken as confessed. Code,
1906, 11938.
600-95 Befnsal due to mistake.
"Where it is shown the party did not
refuse to answer the interrogatory, or
if he declined to answer under a mis-
take as to his rights, and not contu-
maciously, the interrogatories should
not be taken as confessed." Connell
V. Nickey (Tex. Civ.), 167 S. W. 313.
605-28 Singer Mfg. Co. v. Bowne,
81 N. J. Eq. 157, 85 A. 449; Whitten
V. Western Union Tel. Co., 141 N. C.
361, 54 S. E. 289.
606-37 S. 1?. Trimble, 254 Mo. 542,
163 S. W. 860; Evans v. Seaboard Air
Line Ry. Co., 167 N. C. 415, 83 S. E.
617; Girard Nat. Bank 17. McArthur,
165 N. C. 374, 81 S. E. 327.
607-38 Girard Nat. Bank v, McAr-
thur, 165 N. C. 374, 81 S. E. 327.
616-83 Bonoghue v. Callanan, 152
App. Div. 162, 13j6 N. Y. S. 657; Bosen
V, Simons, 82 Misc. 407, 143 N. Y. S.
726.
621-6 Ortman v. Beiley, 160 App.
Div. 258, 145 N. Y. S. 541.
If subpoena duces tecum is sufficient
to elicit such information, order will
be denied. Cohen v. Bothschild, 162
App. Div. 611, 147 N. Y. S. 915.
623-16 See Lamson Co. v. Butler,
164 App. Div. 927, 149 N. Y. S. 557.
625-27 New York Assets B. Co. v.
Pforzheimer, 158 App. Div. 700, 143
N. Y. S. 898; Murdock v, McCutchen, I
154 App. Div. 854, 140 N. Y. S. 41. I
626-31 S. V. Trimble, 254 Mo. 542,
163 S. W. 860.
626-32 Punkenstein v, Superior
Court, 23 Cal. App. 663, 139 P. 101;
Kullman, Salz & Co. v. Superior Court,
15 Cal. App. 276, 114 P. 589; S. v. Trim-
ble, 254 Mo. 542, 163 S. W. 860;
Hutchison v, McCaddon, 157 App. Div.
228, 141 N. Y. S. 809; Glowniak V, Le-
high VaUey E. Co., 152 N. Y. S. 740;
Williams f?. Snowman, 142 N. Y. S.
225; N. C. Bev., 1905, §1656; Evans i).
Seaboard Air Line By. Co., 16? N. C.
415, 83 S. B. 617; Girard Nat. Bank
D. McArthur, 165 N. C. 374, 81 S. E.
327. See Whitten t^. Western Union
Tel. Co., 141 N. C. 361, 54 S. E. 289.
SCateriality shown by affidavit. — <<The^
law does not require that the material-
ity of the evidence shall appear from
an inspection of the pleadings, alone.
• • • It is sufficient that the mate-
riality of the evidence appears from
the facts stated in the affidavits in
support of the motion." ' Denison Cot-
ton Mill Co. P. Schermerhorn, 257 m.
128, 100 N. E. 491.
627-39 Notice to produce too gen-
erals—tWhere a notice to produce books
and papers, served on a non-resident
defendant, is too extensive in range,
necessarily including a great mass of
irrelevant matter, and it appears that
their production will be a great ex-
pense and inconvenience, and a serious
injury of the party's business, it is
not error for the court to refuse an
order requiring their production. Jew-
ell V. Franklin Life Ins. Co., 138 Ga.
576, 75 S. E. 592.
632-56 Funkenstein t;. Superior
Court, 23 Cal. App. 663, 139 P. 101;
Kullman, Salz & Co. f?. Superior Court,
15 Cal. App. 276, 114 P. 589; Smith,
Carey & Co. v, Atchison Live Stock Co.,
90 Kan. 258, 133 P. 723; Atchison, T.
& S. P. By. Co. V. Burks, 78 Kan. 515,
96 P. 950, 18 L. R. A. (N. S.) 231;
Landon v. Morehead, 34 Okla. 701, 126
P. 1027.
632-59 Must specify the book or
documents — ^Funkenstein i?. Superior
Court, 23 Cal. App. 663, 139 P. 101;
Kullman, Salz & Co. v, Superior Court,
15 Cal. App. 276, 114 P. 589; Atchison,
T. & S. P. By. Co. V. Burks, 78 Kan.
515, 96 P. 950, 18 L. B. A. (N. S.)
231.
i 636-91 Denison Cotton Mill Co. v,
Schermerhorn, 257 111. 128, 100 N. E.
491.
638-96 Denison Cotton Mill Co. 17.
Schermerhorn, 257 HI. 128, 100 N. E.
491.
639-5 Denison Cotton Mill Co. v.
Schermethorn, 257 111. 128, 100 N. E.
491.
Where movaat lias a complete remedy
by examination before trial, or where
the books can be produced under a sub-
poena duces tecum, an order granting
examination of books at a going con-
cern ^s place of business will be de-
nied. Ortman v. Beiley, 160 App. Div,
258, 145 N. Y. S. 641.
457
Vol. 7 DISMISSAL, DISCONTlNtJANCE AND NONSUIT
641-19 N. Y. Code Civ. Proc, §803;
P. V. Hayes, 84 Misc. 263, 147 N. T. S.
102; Glowniak v. Lehigh Valley E. Co.,
152 K. T. S. 740; Girard Nat. Bank
V. McArthinr, 165 N. C. 374, 81 S. E.
827.
Bests in the sottnd legal discretion of
the court to permit the inspection and
the taking of a photograph. Merchants'
Nat. Bank v, Newton^ 165 N. O. 863,
81 S. B. 317.
642-22 An imnecessary order reqtdr-
ing the production of books and papers
will be vacated, particularly where
hardship would otherwise ensue. Lam-
son Co. V. Butler, 164 App. Div. 927,
149 N. Y. 8. 657.
644-40 Denison Cotton Mill Co. t,
Schermerhorn, 257 Bl. 128, 100 N. E.
491.
644-42 Imprisonment. — The court
may order the party bo disobeying to
be confined in jail until he complies.
Denison Cotton Mill Co. v. Schermer-
horn, 257 Bl. 128, 100 N. B. 491.
mSSilSSAL, DISOONTnnJAKOE
AND NONSXnr
651-1 Voluntary and involuntary
nonsuits defined and distinguished.
Diamond Bubber Co. v. Wernicke, 166
Mo. App. 128, 148 S. W. 160.
652-6 Sowle v. U. S., 46 Ct. CI. (U.
8.) 92.
In legal effect nonsuits, dismissals, and
discontinuances closely resemble each
other. Aetna Life Ins. Co. v, Hoppin,
255 ni. 115, 99 N. E. 375.
662-7 Coates v. Santa Fe, P. & P.
E. Co., 15 Ariz. 25, 135 P. 717; Pulton
f?. Ramsey (W. Va.), 84 8. E. 1065.
652-8 Coates v. Santa Fe, P. & P.
B. Co., 15 Ariz. 25, 135 P. 717,
652-9 Coates v. Santa Fe, P. & P.
B. Co., 15 Ariz. 25, 135 P. 717.
653-15 An involuntary nonsuit must
come at instance of defendant, and
cannot come at plaintiff's request.
.White V. Herhold, 182 111. App. 477.
654-16 Attorney's consent nnneces-
Bary* — A party may dismiss his case
without consulting with his attorney.
St. Louis, I. M. & S. By. Co. v, Blay-
lock (Ark.), 175 S. W. 1170.
654-18 Furman r. The Bon Marche,
71 Wash. 238, 128 P. 210.
654-19 Sowle o. U. S., 46 Ct CI, (XT.
8.) 92; Taylor v. Taylor (W. Va.), 85
S. E. 652.
Fonn of order. — ^An order disposing of
the cases which teads: "Ordered, that
the above eleven (11) causes be filed
away,'' amounts to a dismissal. Phil-
lips t?. Amett, 164 Ky. 426, 175 S. W.
660.
654-20 Under <581, subd. 1, Code
Civ. Proc, the plaintiff himself may
dismiss his action by filing with the
clerk a written request therefor. The
effect of such act ipso facto dismisses
the action though the clerk fails to
make^ the entry in the register. Hunt-
ington Park Imp. Co. v, Superior Court,
17 CaL App. 692, 121 P. 701.
Entry by clerk is sufficient evidence of
voluntary dismissal of a party by plain-
tiff, and it need not appear that ' ' they
go hence without day." Curfman c.
Fidelity & Deposit Co., 167 Mo. App.
507, 152 S. W. 126.
Provisional dismissal.— -Where the
court entered an order that if case
was not tried at next April term the
case should be dismissed, and when,
case was reached it was postponed by
consent, the order of dismissal did not
become automatically operative, be-
cause the dismissal was not absolute
and the parties, with the approval of
the court, treated the case as still pend-
ing. Bumham v. Haskell, 213 Mass. 386,
100 N. E. 639.
654-23 Furman v. The Bon Marche,
71 Wash. 238, 128 P. 210.
655-25 Whitman v. O Donovan, 14L
N. Y. S. 750.
655-26 Williams v, Frank Levy>
Inc., 152 N. Y. S. 454.
Payment of costs may be imposed.
Taylor v. Taylor, 70 Or. 610, 134 P.
1183, 140 P. 999; Mitchell V. Downing,
23 Or. 448, 32 P. 394.
655-27 Upon payment of costs plain-
tiff may as. a rule discontinue his suit.
Lawrence Ward's Island BetJty Co. 9.
XT. S., 209 Fed. 201, 126 C. C. A. 211.
656-29 Connolly v. Empire United
Bys. Co., 88 Misc. 118, 151 N. Y. S.
653; Williams «. Frank Levy, Inc., 152
N. Y. S. 454. See Holmes v. Holt, 90
Kan. 774, 136 P. 246.
Bight not absolnte.— ''The right to di»*
miss an action or a suit is not an ab*
solute one that the plaintiff can exer-
cise without leave of the court." Tay-
loy V. Taylor, 70 Or. 610, 134 P. 1183^
140 P. 999.
458
DISMISSAL, DISCONTINUANCE AND NONSUIT Vol 7
Plaintiff acting in fldndary capacity.
Plaintiff has absolute right to stipulate
for dismissal of an action prosecuted
for his own benefit, but when he acts
in a fiduciary capacity he must act
in good faith and if he acts in col-
lusion with defendant the dismissal
may be set aside. National Power &
Paper Co. v, BossmaUi 122 Minn. 355^
142 N. W. 818.
666-31 Lawrence Ward's Island
Bealty Co. v. U. S., 209 Fed. 201, 126
O. C. A. 211; Huske V. U. 8., 46 Ct.
CI. (U. S.) 35; Andrews v. French, 17
N. K. 615, 131 P. 996; Grossman v.
Gressman, 145 N. T. 8. 819; Long v.
Bagwell, 38 Okla. 312, 133 P. 50. See
Merchants' Nat. Bank' v. U. S., 214
Fed. 200, 130 C. C. A. 548.
666-84 Long v. Bagwell^ 88 Okla.
312, 133 P. 50.
667-36 Plaintiff cannot dismiss bis
suit when defendant would be preju-
diced thereby. Barnes v. Noel (Tenn.),
174 8. W. 276; Boone V, Bush, 91 Tenn.
29, 17 S. W. 792; Fisher u. Stovall, 85
Tenn. 316, 2 8. W. 567.
667-86 Bristol v. Bristol Water Co.,
85 Conn. 663, 84 A. 314.
667-38 Tl^ompson v, McCausland, 136
La. 774, 67 8. 826; Gressman v. Gress-
man, 145 N. Y. 8. 819; Yellowday «.
Perkinson, 167 N. C. 144, 83 8. E. 341;
Haddock v, 8tocks, 167 N. C. 70, 83
S. E. 9; Tee v. Noble, 23 N. D. 225, 135
N. W. 769; Tokstad v. Daws, 68 Or.
86, 136 P. 844. See Jackson c. Furst,
Edwards & Co. (Tex. Civ.), 154 8. W.
243, where answer was held equivalent
to a pleading demanding affirmative
relief and so precluded right to dis-
missal.
Before answer flled^— Plaintiff may dis-
miss or nonsuit his case at any time
before an answer asking affirmative re-
lief is filed by defendant. Morris V.
Anderson (Tex. Civ.), 152 8. W. 677.
Allowing Intervenor to withdraw.
Where a third person intervened as
party plaintiff, 4ind the party plaintiff
joined issue on plea and asked for af-
firmative relief against him, the inter-
venor cannot "Mthdraw plea without
prejudice. Dunlap t?. Southerlin, 63
Tex. 38; United Motor Dallas Co. c.
Hendricks (Tex. Civ.), 168 8. W. 878.
Effect of Yolimtary nonsuit as to in-
tervenors is to take them out of case
so far as concerned their own cause
of action against plaintiffs and defend-
ants but it had no effect upon proper
pleadings for affirmative relief against
them previously filed. Blunt. i?. Hous-
ton Oil Co. (Tex. Civ.), 146 8. W. 248.
658-39 Yellowday v. Perkinson, 167
N. C. 144, 83 8. E. 341.
658-42 Leverette v. Bice (Tex.
Civ.), 151 8. W. 594.
658-44 Ourr v. Grinson, 138 Ga. 665,
75 8. E. 979; Moore-Mansfield Const.
Co. V. Marion B. & E. T. Co., 52 Ind.
App. 548, 101 N. E. 15; Graves v.
Chapman, 248 Mo. 83, 154 8. W. 61;
Long 17. Bagwell, 38 Okla. 312, 133 P.
50.
659-47 Before trial means before the
commencement of the trial and not
before conclusion of the trial. Empire
Ranch & Cattle Co. v, Herrick, 22 Colo.
App. 394, 124 P. 748.
659-50 Lumiansky v. Tessier, 213
Mass. 182, 99 N. E. 1051.
660-51 Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Hop-
pin, 255 HI. 115, 99 N. E. 375; White
r. Herhold, 182 111. App. 477.
After peremptory instruction announced.
A plaintiff may nonsuit even though
the judge had announced his intention
of granting a perem^ftory Instruction
but afterward refused to carry out hia
announced intention. Gulf & S. I. B*
Co. V. WUliams (Miss.), 68 S. 776.
660-52 Howard v. Cave, 162 la.
506, 144 N. W. 307; Holmes f?. Holt,
90 Kan. 774, 136 P. 246; Ray v. EUis,
162 Ky. 517, 172 S. W. 951; Illinois
Central E. Co. v. Seibold, 160 Ky. 139,
169 S. W. 610.
A case is not submitted until after It
has been argued. Bunting v. Stone, 169
Mo. App. 1, 154 S. W. 807.
661-54 Aetna Life Ins. Co. f. Hop-
pin, 255 lU. 115, 99 N. E. 375; Ray
V, Ellis, 162 Ky. 517, 172 S. W. 951;
HUnois Central R. Co. f). Seibold, 160
Ky. 139, 169 S. W. 610.
661-55 MoororMansfield Const. Co. .
V. Marion, B. & E. T. Co., 52 Ind. App.
548, 101 N. E. 15; Gulf & S. I. E.
Co. V. Williams (Miss.), 68 S. 776;
Schaffer d. Deemer Mfg. Co. (Miss.),
66 S. 736.
661-57 Nelson v. Omaha & O. B.
St. B. Co., 93 Neb. 154, 139 N. W.
860. But see Illinois Central B. Co.
t?. Seibold, 160 Ky. 139, 169 S. W.
610.
661-58 Inman Mfg. Co. v. American
459
Vol. 7 DISMISSAL, DISCONTINUANCE AND NONSUIT
Cereal Co., 155 la. 651, 136 N. W. 932.
Peremptory instruction to jury is a
submissiQii. Schaffer f). Deemer Mfff.
Co. (Miss.), 66 S. 736.
661-62 Ehode i?. Dnff, 208 Fed. 115.
125 C. C. A. 343.
662-63 Illinois Central B. Co. v. Sei-
bold, 160 Ky. 139, 169 S. W. 610.
662-64 After the Jndge has begun
to annonnce his deciBion it is too late
for a voluntary nonsuit. Geo. J. Wolf
Co. V. Pulton Bealty Co., 83 N. J. L.
344, 84 A. 1041.
662-66 Kidd v. McCracken, 105 Tex.
383, 150 S. W. 885.
662-66 Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Hop-
pin, 255 m. 115, 99 N. E. 375; Moore-
Mansfleld Const. Co. v. Marion, B. &
E. T. Co., 52 Ind. App. 648, 101 N. E.
15.
In Kentucky the rule is abolished.
Illinois Central B. Co. v. Seibold, 160
Ky. 139, 169 S. W. 610.
662-67 Thompson v. McCausland, 136
La. 774, 67 S. 826; Cahoon v, Brinkley
(N. C), 84 S. E. 263; Yellowday v,
Perkinson, 167 N. C. 144, 83 S. E. 341.
In Connecticiit every action may be
withdrawn prior to verdict or final
judgment, whenever it can be done
without injuriously affecting rights of
defendants acquired by reason of the
action. Bristol v. Bristol Water Co.,
85 Conn. 663, 84 A. 314.
668-68 McNamara v. McDonald
(Mich.), 139 N. W. 876; Haddock v.
Stocks, 167 N. C. 70, 83 S. E. 9.
Serylng notice of nonanit ^on Judge.
Although art. 1955, Bev. St., 1911, pro-
vides that a nonsuit may be taken ''at
any time before the decision is an-
nounced'' by the judge, the mere fil-
ing of a paper announcing plaintiff
will take a nonsuit and not brought to
judge's attention until after announce-
ment of the decision is not sufficient
because some actual notice must be
served on judge of intention to take
nonsuit. Towell v. Towell (Tex. Civ.),
164 S. W. 23.
663-69 Texas practice.— The ease of
Kidd V. McCracken (Tex. Civ. App.),
134 S. W. 839, cited in note, has been
reversed by the supreme court, and
now the practice is that plaintiff may
take a nonsuit, where case is tried by
a judge at any time before the de-
cision is announced and such nonsuit
may be taken after information frq^
the judge as to what his decision will
be. Kidd v. McCracken, 105 Tex. 383,
150 8. W. 885. '
After commlMioner's findings.— Plain-
tiff may dismiss where a master, com-
missioner had already made findings
and furnished counsel copies. Moore-
Mansfield Const. Co. V. Marion, B. &
E. T. Co., 52 Ind. App. 548, 101 N.
E. 15.
''After decree a bill will not be dis-
missed even with consent of all the
parties." Smith v. Smith (N. J. Eq.),
92 A. 791.
664-71^ Haddock v. Stocks, 167 N.
C. 70, 83 S. E. 9.
665-81 Whitted v. Southwestern Tel.
& Tele. Co., 217 Fed. 835; Illinois Cen-
tral B. Co. V. Seibold, 160 Ky. 139, 169
S. W. 610; Schaffer V. Deemer Mfg.
Co. (Miss.), 66 S. 736.
665-82 Whitted v, Southwestetn Tel.
& Tele. Co., 217 Fed. 835. See Bhode
t?. Duff, 208 Fed. 115, 125 C. C. A.
343.
666-84 Puget Sound Traction, L. A
P. Co. V, Lawrey, 202 Fed. 263; Acme
Cement Plaster Co. v. Keys (Tex. Civ.),
167 S. W. 186.
Defendant served ontside county.— On
a transitory action brought in K coun-
ty where P was served and lived, and
J, the other defendant, having been
served in another county when the
action was dismissed against F, it
should also be dismissed against J un-
der 880 of Civ. Code Proc. Martin
t?. Franklin, 160 Ky. 61, 169 S. W.
540.
667-85 Wadley if. Dooly, 138 Ga.
275, 75 S. E. 153; Staab v. Bocky Moun-
tain Bell Tel. Co., 23 Ida. 314, 129
P. 1078; Budison 1?. Glover, 131 La.
381, 59 S. 817; Bogers v. Bogers (Mo.),
177 S. W. 382; Mason v. Stephens (N.
C), 84 S. E. 527; Purbeck I7. Gevurtz
& Son, 72 Or. 12, 143 P. 654, 922; Acme
Cement Plaster Co. v. Keys (Tex. Civ.),
167 S. W. 186. Se9 Puget Sound
Traction, L. ft P. Co. V. Lawrey, 202
Fed. 263; Lepman v. Wabash B. Co.,
185 ni. App. 583, *'0f course, after
issue joined, plaintiff alone has the
power to dismiss a party defendant out
of the case.'*
6^7-87 Beitman v. Birmingham
Paint & Glass Co., 185 Ala. 313, 64
S. 600; Beecher t?. Henderson, 4 Ala.
App. 643, 58 8. 805.
460
DISMISSAL, DISCONTINUANCE AND NONSUIT Vol. 7
668-88 Court must permit plaintiff
to dismiss as to party defendant im-
properly joined. McKeown v. Law-
rence, 56 Colo. 106, 136 P. 1014.
In aa action to establiab a boundary
where grantor was joined with adjoin-
ing landowner, and the pleadings con-
eeded there was no issue as to latter,
the plaintiff may dismiss as to him
over grantor's objection. Johnson r.
Trump, 161 la. 512, 143 N. W. 510.
668-90 In actions on contract as
distinguished from real actions a nol.
pros, may be entered any time as
against one or more of several co-
defendants. Einfield v, 8hermer, 56 Pa.
Super. 4^
668-91 See King v. Gibbs (Ala.
App.), 67 S. 757; Van Hoose v. South-
iirestem Machinery Co.^ 169 Mo. App.
K, 154 8. W. 165.
668-92 Stone v. Goldberg, 6 Ala.
App. 249, 60 S. 744.
669-93 Failure to acquire jurisdic-
tion over person. Miller r. Park City,
126 Tenn. 427, 150 8. W. 90.
Whero objection is one of venue and
not jurisdiction the cause should be
transferred instead of dismissed. Lester
V. Gatewood (Tex. Civ.), 166 S. W.
689.
669-94 Fisher t?. Trumbauer, 160 la.
255, 138 N. W. 528, 141 N. W. 419.
IHsmiaaal of soit as to one party whose
plea to the jurisdiction is sustained
does not necessitate dismissal as to all
when the cause can proceed so as to
ffiant complete relief with the remain-
ing parties before the ^ourt. White v.
North Georgia Electric Co., 139 Ga. 587,
77 S. E. 789.
669-95 Fisher r. Trumbauer, 160 Ta.
255, 138 N. W. 528, 141 N. W. 419.
669-96 Time of motion. — ^The ques-
tion of jurisdiction may be interposed
at any time before trial. Dhooghe r.
Chicago, B. I. & P. B. Co., 91 Neb. 613,
136 N. W. 1075.
Want of Jurisdiction diown by evi-
dence.— ^Where want of jurisdiction does
not appear from declaration but is
shown by the evidence the court must
dismiss upon its attention being di-
rected to the absence of jurisdiction.
Sumner Lumb. Co. e. Mills, 64 Fla. 513,
60 S. 757.
679-98 Tokstad v. Daws, 68 Or. 86,
136 P. 844.
679-99 Wbere amount involved is
ftaudulently stated to give court juris-
diction the case will be dismissed when
the fact is properly brought to court's
attention. The objection must be
raised by special exception in due or-
der of pleading. Levy v. Lupton (Tex.
Civ.), 156 8. W. 362.
670-1 Columbia Digger Co. v. Bec-
tor, 215 Fed. 618.
670-2 Boberts v, Anheuser-Busch
Brew. Assn., 215 Mass. 341, 102 N. E.
316.
Misjoinder of parties defendant is no
ground for nonsuit. Burggraf V. Brocha
(Or.), 145 P. 639.
Waiver of defects — ^Where instead of
objecting the party appeared, answered,
and raised the question for first time
after evidence had been concluded the
court should not order a dismissal be-
cause the defect is amendable. Bodda
V. Needham, 78 Wash. 636, 139 P. 628.
The fact that a receiver had been ap-
pointed since action was begun is no
ground for dismissal. O'Mara v. New-
ton Sb N. W. By. Co., 156 la. 701, 137
N. W. 942; Weigen v. Insurance Co., 104
la. 410, 73 N. W. 862.
671-3 Anderson v. Nawa, 25 Cal.
App. 151, 143 P. 555.
Wbere parties were Irretpilarly and im-
properly brought before the court, the
cause may be dismissed. Kirby v.
Soule, 178 Mich. 406, 144 N. W. 837.
Dismissal mandatory^ — ^By §581a, Code
Civ. Proc, it is made mandatory upon
court to dismiss an action in which
summons has not been served and re-
turn made within three years after
commencement of action. Caldwell v,
Begents of University, 23 Cal. App.
29, 136 P. 731; Bernard v. Parmalee,
6 Cal. App. 537, 545, 92 P. 658.
Order of publication prayed for.— It is
error to dismiss an action on demurrer
in first term where plaintiff has prayed
for order of publication on non-resi-
dent party and the order had not been
issued by the court. Berry v. Wil-
liams, 141 Ga. 642, 81 8. E. 881.
671-4 Swett t?. Mut. Ben. Life Ins.
Co., 14 O. C. C. (N. S.) 100, aff. 83
O. St. 470, 94 N. E. 1118.
671-5 Or where writ is voidable, as
where writ was returnable after an
intervening term. Densmore c. Hall,
109 Me. 438, 84 A. 983; McAlpine v.
Smith, 68 Me. 423.
671-6 Court lias inherent power, ir*-
461
Vol. 7 DISm8iSAL^pi8CQNTINJ74NCE 4ND NONStJIT
respective of provisions of Code, to
dismiss an action because summons was
not issued in accordance with require-
ments of Code. Est. of Chavier v. Est.
of Giraldez, 15 P. B. 145.
671-7 In Alabama a refusal to an-
swer proper questions on cross-examina-
tion of plaintiff is ground for nonsuit
(dismissal). Eoy r. Louisville & N.
K. Co., 9 Ala. App. 377, 63 S. 772*
671-11 Failure to comply with rule
to reply. Kelso v. Grundies, 174 111.
App. 289.
The order must be one the court can
lawfully make. Swett v. Mutual Ben.
Life Ins. Co., 14 O. C. C. (N. 8.) 100,
af. 83 O. St. 470, 94 N. E. 1118.
Failure to file bill of particulars ordered
by court is ground for nonsuit. Nicker-
Bon V, Glines (Mass.), 107 N. E. 942;
Pels v. Baymond, 139 Mass. 98, 28
N. E. 691.
672-14 Henderson t?. Ocean S. S. Co.
(Ga. App.), 84 S. E. 230.
Variance between proof and pleading
is cause for dismissal. Pirst Nat. Bank
r. Stam, 186 Mo. App. 439, 171 S. W.
567. Where plaintiff proves but a part
of his cause of action, a dismissal on
the merits will not be ordered, but all
parties may apply for leave to put
their pleadings in proper shape. Evans
V. Ascher Detective Agency, 87 Misc.
300, 150 N. Y. 8. 21.
Xnsufflcient evidence. — ^Where evidence
shows that plaintiff is entitled to some
damages, but because of a ruling of
court he is restricted to his proofs, but
may later be able to fix the amount
with legal certainty, a judgment of
nonsuit should be rendered. Arthur v,
Dupuy, 130 La. 782, 58 8. 570. But
where there is any evidence or enough
from which a reasonable person might
draw a deduction sustaining plaintiff's
contention, the court cannot direct a
nonsuit. Forsyth t?. Zebulon Cotton O.
Mill Co., 167 N. C. 179, 83 8. E. 320.
672-15 See Cary r. Simpson, 15 Ga.
App. 280, 82 S. E. 918.
673-20 Nelson v. Errickson, 81 N. J.
Eq. 226, 87 A. 116; Levy v, Horn, 153
N. Y. 8. 913; Domurat V. Oregon-Wash-
ington B. & Nav. Co., 66 Or. 135, 134
P. 313.
674-21 Swift V. Moore, 15 Ga. App.
254, 82 8. E. 914.
674-22 A motion for nonsuit or for
an instructed verdict should not be
granted where rea8oniru.& minds may
draw different conclusions from the
evidence, especially where evidence is
conflicting on material points. Domurat
V, Oregon-Washington B. & Nav. Co.. 66
Or. 135, 134 P. 313.
674-23 Diamond Bubber Co. v. Wer-
nicke, 166 Mo. App. 128, 148 8. W. 160;
Lyon V. Lyon, 39 Okla. Ill, 134 P.
650.
Qnestloiis raised.~A motion for non-
suit is in the nature of a demurrer to
the evidence and raises every question
of law arising in the course of the
trial, regardless of particular excep-
tions. Sykes v. Maine Cent. B. Co., Ill
Me. 182, 88 A. 478.
The point of difference lies in the stage
of the proceeding at which each is
available. Potts «. Union Traction Co.
(W. Va.), 83 8. E. 918; Sowar d v. Car
& P. Co., 66 W. Va. 266, 66 8. E.
329.
675-33 Ifiisjolnder of actions is no
ground for dismissal. Smith v. Amer-
ican Bonding Co., 160 N. C. 574, 76
8. E. 481.
The trial conrt la without authority
to dismiss-a summary proceeding where
defendant makes no objection to the
form of proceeding. Neilson Co. v,
Siess, 134 La. 327, 64 8. 128.
675-37 Budolph v. Sensener, 39 App.
Cas. (D. C.) 385.
I Dlgmlssal for want of prosecution Is
proper when plaintiff files a challenge
to array of jurors which is overruled
on demurrer ore tonus, and the plain-
tiff electing to sti^nd on his challenge
refused to proceed with the trial. Mc-
Caffery u McAndrews, 174 HL App.
391.
On failure to offer proof on cross-bill
there should be dismissal without
prejudice. Swift <?. Beemer (Tex. Civ.),
160 8. W. 989.
Dismissal dlscrstionary witb court.
Where a 'case is regularly called for
trial, and plaintiff being present of-
fered no evidence and did not ask for
a voluntary nonsuit, the court may find
the issues for defendant and enter
judgment on the findings. Kennedy v.
PUck, 164 HI. App. 483.
676-38 Drummond 1^. Lewis (Tex.
Civ.), 157 8. W. 266.
Want of prosecution. — ^If the plaintiff
does not come into court to prosecute
his suit, no judgment can be taJ&en
462
DISMISSAL, DISCONTINUANCE AND NONSUIT Vol. 7
against him and his action should be
dismissed, and when nq evidence is in-
troduced the proper practice is to dis-
miss the procee^ng. Libbe v. Libbe,
166 Mo. App. 240, 148 S. W. 460.
676-42 O'Brien v. Crowley, 85 N. J.
L. 383, 88 A. 1061.
676-44 Bubin v. Baynor, 181 HI.
App. 403; Stout V, White, 154 App. Biv.
921, 139 K ¥. S. 77 (where plaintiff
failed to file complaint and no excuse
was made for default); House v. Uni-
Tersal Crusher Corp., 115 Va. 558, 79
8. E. 1049; Jennings v. Pocahontas Con.
CoU. Co., 114 Va. 213, 76 S. E. 298.
677-45 Witter v. Phelps, 163 Cal.
655. 126 P. 593; Caldwell v, Begents of
University, 23 Cal. App. 29, 136 P. 731;
Biebold v. Hartzell, 23 N. D. 264, 136
N. W. 247.
That defendant was absent tiom state
or concealed himself to avoid service
is an available excuse to plaintiff. Wil-
son v. Leo, 19 Cal. App. 793, 127 P.
1043.
677-46 Failuxe to ask for contln-
nanoe to serve alias or pluries sum-
mons does not work a discontinuance
of the action. Kingsley V. Clark, 57
Colo. 352, 141 P. 464.
677-47 "Final sabmlssion*' means
such as is equivalent to the return of
a verdict, or refers to that state of
the cause when a judgment may be de-^
manded as of course. S. ti. District*
Court, 46 Mont. 384, 128 P. 583; 8. v.
District Court, 37 Mont. 298, 96 P.
337.
Xgnoraiice an excuBen — An abandonment
of his rights cannot be imputed to
one who did not know and whose fail-
ure was excusable and unintentional.
Bule V. Butori, 49 Mont. 342, 141 P.
672.
677-50 Bomero v, Snyder, 167 Cal.
216, 138 P. 1002; Witter I?. Phelps, 163
Cal. 655, 126 P. 593; Caldwell v. Begents
of University, 23 Cal. App. 29, 136 P.
731; White v. Herhold, 182 111. App.
477; Teu tenia Loan & Building Co. t?.
Connolly, 133 La. 401, 63 S. 63; Dia-
mond V, Kaufmann, 82 Misc. 396, 143
N. Y. 8. 730; Donovan v. Jordan, 25
N. D. 617, 142 N. W. 42; Stewart f).
Philadelphia, 240 Pa. 569, 88 A. 12;
Waring Bros. & Co. v, Pennsylvania B.
Co., 176 Pa. 172, 35 A. 106; Congdon
u. Aumiller, 79 Wash. 616, 140 P. 912.
See Johnston v. Baker, 167 CaL 260, 139
P. 86.
Inexciisable laches for twenty-four
years. McAuley v. Orr, 97 S. C. 214, 81
S. E. 489.
Two yeaza* delays— Where no excuse is
offered by plaintiff for a delay of over
two years after joinder of issue a
prima facie case of unreasonable neg-
lect is established, and especially where
younger issues have been tried and dis-
posed. Armstrong v. Star Co., 154 App.
Div. 320, 138 N. Y. S. 959.
678-65 Johnston u. Baker, 167 Cal.
260, 139 P. 86; Bomero «. Snyder, 167
Cal. 216, 138 P. 1002.
678-57 A canse sabmitted to the
court for final decision, whether kept
on docket or nol^ is not discontinued by
failure to enter any orders of contin-
uances therein for a period of eleven
years, nor does such failure prove an
abandonment of the cause. Taylor f>.
Taylor (W. Va.), 85 8. E. 652.
678-58 Bell v. Solomons, 162 Cal.
105, 121 P. 377; Phillips V. Amett, 164
Ky. 426, 175 S. W. 660.
678-69 Bomero V. Snyder, 167 Cal.
216, 138 P. 1002.
679-62 Goldman v. Palm tag (Cal.),
146 P. 429; Blickenstaff v. CowgiU (Ind.
App.), 106 N. E. 376; Mazer v. Pitts-
burg By. Co., 51 Pa. Super. 394; Lowe
V, Bing, 151 Wis. 664, 139 N. W. 429.
On appeal the dismissal cannot be at-
tacked because material parts of fecord
were wanting. ' The power to dismiss
does not depend upon completeness of
the records and is without regard to
merits or demerits of th'e cause. Bell
V. Solomons, 162 Cal. 105, 121 P. 377.
679-63 The fact that plaintiff was
flnandaUy embarraseed and could not
afford the time is no excuse. Tuttle
V. Dubuque F. & M. Ins. Co., 155 App.
Div. 802, 140 N. Y. S. 930.
679-65 Dome v. Southern By. Co.,
152 App. Div. 134, 136 N. Y. S. 510.
Stipulation. — ^Where parties have so
stipulated time may be extended. Nath-
an V. Dierssen, 164 Cal. 607^ 130 P.
12.
Matter pending before a master.
Where a cause by stipulation had been
referred to a master and it is still on
the court calendar it is error to dis-
miss it for want of prosecution wh^n
reached on call of calendar and mat-
ter is still pending before the master.
Bill Board Pub. Co. v, McCarahan, 180
HI. App. 525.
463
Vol. 7 DISMISSAL, DISCONTINUANCE AND NONSUIT
679-66 ninesg of Judge.— The fact
that the judge who formerly tried the
case was ill is no excuse when there
were twelve judges wh« could try it.
Bell 17. Solomons, 162 Cal. 105, 181 P.
377.
679-67 Omiasioiui of clerks— Failure
of clerk to keep the cause on the court
docket will not prejudice rights of
litigants. Taylor f?. Taylor (W. Va.),
85 S. E, 652.
Same issue being tried in anotber
action^ — A motion to dismiss for fail-
ure to prosecute should be denied
where another suit was pending against
another party involving the same pat-
ent. Kryptok Oo. v, Haussmann, 216
Fed. 267.
679-68 Filing of answer waives
laches in failing to prosecute prior to
such filing. Johnston v. Baker, 167
Cal. 260, 139 P. 86.
Effect of demurrer^ — ^Defendant does
not waive his right to object to any
delay in prosecution theretofore by de-
murring and moving for a 'change of
venue. Witter v, Phelps, 163 Cal. 655,
126 P. 593.
679-69 Budolph r. Sensener, 39 App.
Cas. (D. C.) 385.
680-71 Watts t?. S. M. Hamilton
Coal Co., 219 Fed. 1003.
680-73 Johnson t^. Bennington ft N.
A. St. By. Co., 87 Vt. 519, 90 A. 507;
Boright 1?. Williams, 87 Vt. 245, 88 A.
735.
680-74 In California.— Motions .for
nonsuit are not entertained until all
evidence desired to be presented by
plaintiff has been introduced; but where
it appears from plaintiff's own testi-
mony that it would not be proper to
enter judgment in his favor, then the
making of the motion and en affirm-
ative ruling on it can constitute no
error. Skelton f?. Schacht Motor Car
Co., 22 Cal. App. 144, 133 P. 504.
Pending an order for conunlssions to
take deposition a motion to dismiss for
want of prosecution cannot be made.
Dome V. Southern By. Co., 152 App.
Div. 134, 136 N. Y. S. 510.
Benewal of motion. — ^Motion to direct
verdict at close of plaintiff's case must
be renewed at close of all evidence.
Lanum r. Harrington, 267 HI. 57, 107
N. E. 826.
When notice unnecessary. — ^Notice of
motion to dismiss for want of jurisdic-
tion need not be given when it is
made at a regular term of court. Wooten
V, Biggs Drug Co. (N. C), 85 S. E.
146.
In Korth Dakota a motion to dismiss
cannot be made when a cause is con-
ditionally in final judgment and pro-
ceedings for its final determination are
pending before the court. John Mil-
ler Co. V. Minckler (N. D.), 152 N. W.
664.
Want of prosecution.— Defendant is
not barred from asking dismissal where
he failed to move for dismissal for
nearly a year after notice of trial when
plaintiff had not noticed the trial for
ive years after issue. Corcoran v. Mil-
ler, 145 N. T. S. 934.
681-75 Eichardson V. Wood (Me.),
93 A. 836. See Tigrett v, Taylor, 180
Ala. 296, 60 8. 858.
682-79 Hosier v. Ireland (C. C. A.),
219 Fed. 489; Wilson v. American Ice
Co., 206 Fed. 736. See Gray v. Lynn,
139 Ga.'294, 77 S. E. 156; Veit V. Mc-
Causlan, 157 App. 3>iv. 335, 142 N. Y.
S. 281.
682-83 Johnson v. Bennington & N.
A. St. By. Co., 87 Vt. 519, 90 A. 507.
Erratum. — ^The cases cited as contra
should be cited to the proposition that
on motion therefor a dismissal should
be ordered where the plaintiff fails to
ask for or refuses to avail himself of
an opportunity to amend a declaration
or complaint which fails to state a
cause of action.
Insuflciency of complaintw — ^The grounds
specified in §4354, Bev. Codes, are the
only grounds in which a nonsuit or dis-
missal of an action can be had, and in-
sufficiency of complaint not being spe-
cified is no ground for such action.
Ludwig V. Ellis, 22 Ida. 475, 126 P.
769. The fact that a complaint does
not state a cause of action cannot be
availed of on a motion for nonsuit.
Pacific Pav. Co. v. Vizelich, 141 Cal.
4, 74 P. 352; Keefe «. Keefe, 19 CaL
App. 310, 125 P. 929.
683-87 Judgment upon nonsuit by
consent should show a simple dismissal
and not a dismissal on the merits.
Boach 17. Lorence, 164 App. Div. 733,
150 N. Y. S. 151.
683-89 Schultz v. Byan, 131 La. 78,
59 8. 21.
683-90 Murray v. XT. S., 46 Ct. CI,
(U. S.) 94; Sowle i?. U. S., 46 Ct. CI.
(U. S.) 92; Beecher V. Henderson, 4
464
DISMISSAL, DISCONTINUANCE AND NONSUIT Vol 7
Ala. App. 543, 58 S. 805; Parrott r.
District Court, 20 Wyo. 494, 126 P. 45.
As to effect of dismissal of main cause
on issues raised between defendants
themselves, see Leske v. Wolf, 154 App.
Biv. 233, 138 N. Y. S. 859.
Certifying to law court. — ^A court in
equity having dismissed the bill could
not certify the cause to the law court.
Nissley v. Brace, 242 Pa. 105, 88 A.
914.
Effect on cross-bUL— Dismissal of plain-
tiff's petition on demurrer does not
have effect of dismissing cross-bill of
defendant alleging additional matters
germane to original petition and pray-
ing affirmative relief. Lacher v, Man-
ley, 139 Ga, 802, 78 S. E. 188.
Dismissal as to certain plaintiffs does
not work dismissal as to others on an
equitable petition to establish plain-
tiff's right to their interest in the pro-
ceeds of the sale of land. Lowe v.
IHndley, 141 Ga. 380, 81 S. E. 230.
A motion to amend cannot be made
after dismissal. S. i^. Boeh ringer
(Ariz.), 141 P. 126.
In Kew York ''in a case tried by a
jury, a dismissal of a complaint is
never more than a nonsuit. If the de-
fendant is entitled to a judgment on
the merits as matter of law the proper
practice is for trial justice to direct a
verdict." P. v. Prendergast, 150 N. T.
S. 683.
684-91 Brennan v, Keating (Minn.),
150 N. W. 397.
684-92 Germain v. Harwell (Miss.),
66 S. 396.
686-94 Puckett v. Jameson, 157 Ky.
172, 162 S. W. 801; Germain V. Har-
well (Miss.), 66 S. 396.
A suit in equity is properly dismissed
without prejudice to an action at law.
Crutcher v. Starks, 161 Ky, 690, 171
S. W. 433.
XTpon refusal of plaintiff to amend
bringing in certain parties the dismis-
sal should be without prejudice. Hare
V. Ft. Smith & W. E. Co., 104 Ark. 187,
148 S. W. 1038. A dismissal for want
of proper parties does not touch the
merits and must be without prejudice.
Hayden v. Perfection Cooler Co., 217
Fed. 171; Hyams v. Old Dominion Co.,
126 C. C. A. 532, 209 Fed. 808, 811.
685-95 Graves 17 Neosho Falls Bank,
S9 Kan. 179, 131 P. 146; Bursa v. Cash,
171 Mo. App. 396, 156 S. W. 779.
A dismissal is not a judgment on mer<
its. Johnston 17. Baker, 167 Cal. 260,
139 P. 86.
685-96 Coates v, Santa Fe, P. & P.
B. Co., 15 Ariz. 25, 135 P. 717.
Unless the dismissal is had under §127
of Code of Civ Proc. Est. of Tanco c.
De Asis, 22 PhH. Isl. 201.
686-97 Smith i>. Pinnell, 107 Ark.
185, 154 S. W. 497; Eodda 17. Needham,
78 Wash. 636, 139 P. 628.
Failure to attach bill of particulars.
Hill t?. Harris, 11 Ga. App. 358, 75 S. E.
518.
On misjoinder of causes of action the
remedy is to divide the actions and
not to« dismiss. Ayers v, Bailey, 162 N.
C. 209, 78 S. E. 66.
Defects in pleading, as for example
where irrelevant and surplus allega-
tions have been made, do not require
a disn^issal. Novotny 17. Kosloff, 214
N. Y. 12, 108 N. E. 189.
686-98 Bosenberg v, Dahl, 162 Ky.
92, 172 S. W. 113; Britton v. South
Penn Oil Co., 73 W, Va. 792, 81 S. E.
525.
686-1 Finck & Co. V, ^acodoches
Mercantile Co. (Tex. Civ.), 1C3 G. W.
590; Taylor 17. Taylor (W. Va.), 35 S.
E. 652.
689-12 The defendants must bo not-
ified of the motion to reinstate. McAl-
len t?. Crafts (Tex. Civ.), 166 S. T7. 3.
689-13 Stokes v. Murray, 04: S. C.
18, 77 S. E. 712; Parrott «. District
Court, 20 Wyo. 494, 120 P. 45. See
Sowle V. IT. S., 46 Ct. CI. (U. S.) 92;
Murray v, U. 8., 46 Ct. CI. (U. S.) Oi;
Watts V. S. M. Hamilton Coal Co., 219
Fel. 1003.
Error cannot be predicated on such rul-
ing. Zitnik V. Union Pac. B. Co., . 95
Neb. 152, 145 N. W. 344; Bradley v.
Slater, 58 Nebl 554, 78 N. W. 1069.
Consent to re-instatement in vacation
after adjournment does not confer jur-
isdiction on court. Comrs. v, Hopkins,
119 Ga. 909, 47 S. E. 319; Owens v. Co-
croft, 14 Ga. App. 322, 80 S. E. 906.
Kecessity for new sununons* — Dismissal
may be set aside and cause reinstated
without service of new summons where
order is made at same term, and while
opposing counsel is present and has
notice of application. Pierce v, Shelton,
93 Kan. 189, 144 P. 219.
690-16 Marx v, Barbour Plumbing So
Electric Co.^ 10 Ala. App. 404, 64 3.
m
465
Vol. 7
DISORDERLY CONDUCT
646; Brittain V. Gorman, 42 Utah 586,
133 P. 370; Higgs V. Cunningham, 71
W. Va. 674, 77 S. E. 273.
Contents of petition^— Petition to set
aside a dismissal for want of prosecu-
tion must show the averment of facts
constituting a cause of action and that
the dismissal was not because of negli-
gence on his part; also that he was
reasonably diligent in seeking a re-in-
statement during the term and he was
not negligent in failing to have motion
acted upon at the same term. Porter
t?. Kruegel (Tex.)i 155 S. W. 174, af.
136 S. W. 801.
Sufficiency of 8bowln|r. — There must be
a good legal showing for reinstatement,
especially where a reinstatement would
deprive defendant of the defense of
limitations. Jennings v. Pocahontas
Con. CoU. Co., 114 Va. 213, 76 S. E.
298.
Befasal to reinstate when case had been
set for trial before issue had been
joined is an abuse of discretion. Sut-
cliffe f?. Pence, 156 la. 643, 137 N. W.
1026.
690-17 Beinstatement after dismis-
sal without motion held proper. Mer-
chants Bank v. Miss. Nat. Bank (Miss.),
66 S. 537.
Dismissal witltont motion^— Where a
cause was dismissed without motion or
other proceedings because of death of
one of plaintiffs the dismissal will be
set aside and reinstatement granted on
proper motion. Merchants' Bank &
Trust Co. V. Mississippi Nat. Bank
(Miss.), 66 S. 537.
690-19 Marx «. Barbour Plumbing
& Electric Co., 10 Ala. App. 404, 64 S.
645.
690-22 Murray t?. XT. S.,. 46 Ct. CI.
(IT. S.) 94. See Parrott <?. District
Court, 20 Wyo. 494, 126 P. 45.
Or inadvertent omission of cause from
docket. Finck & Co. v, Nacogdoches
Mercantile Co. (Tex. Civ.), 163 S. W.
690.
691^1 Bill Board Pub. Co. v. Mc-
Carahan, 180 111. App. 539.
692-34 An order reinstating a cause
for trial after voluntary nonsuit is not
appealable. First Christian Church v,
Robb, 69 Or. 283, 138 P. 856.
692-35 Scott V. American Zinc, Lead
& S. Co. (Mo. App.), 173 S. W. 23.
692-37 Gulf & S. I. R. Co. v. Will-
iams (Miss.), 68 S. 776.
Kor to test adverse mlings^ — ^Gilbert c.
Waccamaw Shingle Co., 167 N. C. 286,
83 S. B. 337.
692-38 Jackman v. Hasbrouck (App.
Div.), 153 N. Y. S. 876; Griffin V. Pol-
lock (N. C), 83 S. E. 161.
Befasal to direct a verdict is never er-
ror. Armour F. Wks. I?. Abel (G4.
App.), 82 S. E. 907.
Evidence favorable to defendant can-
not be considered on an appeal for re-
fusal to nonsuit because there no evi-
dence of authority or ratification. New-
bury t?. Seaboard Air Line R. Co., 167
N. C. 50, 83 S. E. 20.
692-40 On appeal ttom Judgment of
directed verdict the real question is
whether the evidence may not support
a contrary finding. In determining this
the appellate court will regard as true
all material facts testified to by appel-
lant. Adams v. Paton & Co. (Tex. Civ.),
173 S. W. 546.
Plaintiff favored. — Court on reviewing
denial of nonsuit will construe the evi-
dence most favorable to plaintiff.
Eidge V, Norfolk S. R. Co., 167 N. C.
510, 83 S. E. 762; Tyson r. East Caro-
lina B. Co., 167 N. C. 215, 83 S. E. 318;
Hall V. Piedmont R. & E. Co., 167 N.
C. 284, 83 S. E, 351; Shepherd t?. North
Carolina B. Co., 163 N. C. 518, 79 S. E.
968; Cotton v. North Carolina B. Co.,
149 N. C. 227, 62 S. E. 1093.
DISOBDEBLY CONDUCT
693-1 Nature of the offense. — ^<< Dis-
orderly conduct means some act which
tends to a breach of the peace, or at
least to disturb that portion of the
public which may see or hear the con-
duct claimed to have been disorderly. ' '
Sheppard v. Jackson, 11 Ga. App. 811,
76 S. E. 367. It is a species of nuisance,
and it may be a violation of the ordi-
nance without necessarily being indict-
able at common law, and is not a crime
except as made so by law. It must tend
to disturb the peace or good order of
the town, or have a vicious or injurious
tendency. S. v, Moore, 166 N. C. 371,
81 S. E. 693. If the language used,
considering time and place, was cal-
culated to produce disorder and disturb
the public peace and quiet it is un-
lawful, even if no one was disturbed.
S. V, Byrnes (S. C), 84 S. E. 822.
694-2 Disorderly conduct and breach
of peace compared. See Garvin r. May-
or, etc. (Ga. App.), 84 S. E. 90,
m
DISORDERLY HOUSE
Von
696-12 PnWe place.— Where tlie
acts are .punishable if committed ''in
any public place" the words public
place are not restricted to places of
public gathering, but extend to all
places that are public in contradistinc-
tion to places that are purely private.
And so where the complaint fails to
show whether the misconduct charged
was committed in a public place it fails
to show the justice had jurisdiction
of the matter. Lofland v, &,, 3 Boyce
(Del.) 333, 83 A. 1033.
BISOBDEKLT HOUSE
699-1 S. V. McDonald, 121 Minn. 207,
141 N. W. 110; S. u, Schlosser, 85 N.
J. L. 165, 89 A. 522.
The ezpraaloiia ''honae of Ill-ftime**
and **lewd house or place for the prac-
tice of fornication and adultery" are
synonymous. Cotton v. Atlanta, 10 Ga,
App. 397, 73 S. E. 683.
A oovered wagon driven from place to
place and used for lewd purposes is a
"house" within the meaning of the
statute. S. V. Chauvet, 111 la. 687, 83
N. W. 717, 51 L. B. A. 630, 82 Am.
St. 539. And so a hack driver using his
hack and soliciting patronage may be
found guilty of keeping a "house of
ill -fame." S. t?. Bender, 163 la. 339,
144 N. W. 298.
A disorderly "blind tiger" is a dis-
orderly "tippling-house." Calhoun v.
Bell, 136 La. 149, 66 S. 761.
The terms "bawdy house" and "dis-
orderly house" mean the same thing.
Putnam v. S., 9 Okla. Cr. 535, 132 P.
916, 46 L. B. A. (N. S.) 593; Patterson
V. 8., 9 Okla. Or. 564, 132 P^ 693.
700-7 Where a redlight district had
been in existence for more than twenty-
five years, a bill to enjoin the main-
tenance of S number of houses should
be dismissed for laches. But such dis-
missal will have no effect on contempt
proceedings brought for disobedience
of an injunction granted. Weidner v.
Friedman, 126 Tenn. 677, 151 S. W. 56.
702-25 The words "whoring" and
** misbehaving " are sufficiently broad
to include acts of immorality. 8. v.
Schjosser, 85 N. J. L. 165, 89 A. 522,
dist, S. t?. DeLorenzo, 80 N. J. L. 600,
78 A. e6().
703-29 In Heotncky there Is nd stat-
ute describing or punishing the offense
of maintaining a disorderly house, but
it is, at common law, an indictable mis-
demeanor. And a lessor of property
wherein a disorderly house is being con-
ducted, having notice during tenancy
of the character of the house, is not
criminally liable unless it be shown
that in the leasing he knew the pur-
pose of lessee in letting, or was in pos-
session of such information as would
put a reasonably prudent person on not-
ice as to the purpose, or consented to
the premises being used for such un-
lawful purposes, or derived some profit
from such unlawful use. Blocker v, C,
153 Ky. 304, 155 8. W. 723.
703-30 P. r. Friend, 178 HI. App.
95; Farrell v. 8., 64 Tex. Cr. 200, 141
8. W. 635.
703-38 It iB immaterial that an in-
formation on which an indictment was
founded had not charged the house to
be a common nuisance, the indictment
charging the offense in the language
of the statute ''to the common nuis-
ance and disturbance of the neighbor-
hood." Com. V, Haines, 55 Pa. Super.
359.
704-37 Cabiness V. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 146
8. W. 934.
X>uplioit7. — An indictment for keeping
a disorderly house is not duplicitous
when drawn in conformity with Crim.
Proe. Act, f 74. 8. v, 8iciliano, 85 N. J.
L. 389, 91 A. 988.
706-48 Hatters of defense need not
be negatived, and so the allegation that
he had not immediately proceeded to
prevent the keeping of same, and that
he had not given the county attorney
notice that such house was kept on his
premises need not be laid. Davidson v.
8. (Tex. Cr.), 173 8. W. 1037.
709-75 Bowman v. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 164
8. W. 846.
710^78 Court should not express an '
opinion. Jones t^. 8., 14 Ga. App. 811,
82 8. E. 470.
711-85 Ocnsttistng instfuetiena.
Where the judge after defining 'Mewd
house" added, '4t is sufficient if it be
proved to your satisfaction beyond a
reasonable doubt, that fornication and
adultery were practised in such house, ' '
such addition was erroneous because it
excluded from the consideration of the
jury the necessity of the state to show
defendant's knowledge of such prac-
tises, and might have confused the jury.
Jones V. S., 14 Ga. App. 811, 82 8. E.
470.
i67
Vol. 7
DISTURBING PUBLIC ASSEMBLY
DSSTUSBOta PUBLIC ASSEMBLT
714-4 ' A political meeting is within
the statute. P. v. Malone, 1,56 App. Div.
10, 141 N. Y. S. 149.
BellgiooB worship.— << A religious meet-
ing is an assemblage of people met
for the purpose of performing acts of
Adoration to the Supreme Being, or to
perform religious services' in recogni-
tion of God as an object of worship,
love, and obedience, it matters not the
faith with respect to the Diety enter-
tained by the persons so assembled."
Cline V, S., 9 Okla. Cr. 40, 130 P. 510,
45 L. E. A: (N. S.) 108. If a congrega-
tion is assembled on church* grounds for
religious worship, the statute is ap-
plicable, although the disturbance takes
place when religious services are not
in progress. Ellis v. S., 10 Ala. App.
252, 65 S. 412.
Performance by sleight of hand trick-
ster at a school house is not a meeting
within the statute directed at disturb-
ances of schools and assemblages of per-
sons at school houses for purposes con-
nected with the exercises pertaining to
a school. Harwell t?. S., 10 Ga. App.
115, 72 S. E. 936.
715-6 Purpose and Intent to disturb
not necessary. Ellis v. S., 10 Ala. App.
252, 65 S. 412.
The words "mallcloasly and contempt-
uqusly" refer to the manner of the dis-
turbance. Walker v. S., 103 Ark. 336,
146 S. W. 862.
''Disturbance of only part of congre-
gation, etc." Erratum. — The citation
S. V, Wright, 40 Ark. 410, should be 41
Ark. 410, 48 Am. Rep. 43. Disturbance
of a single member of congregation is
sufficient. Walker V. S., 103 Ark. 336,
146 S. W. 862.
716-11 At what specific church the
offense was committed need not be al-
leged. Campbell v. S., 4 Ala. App. 104,
58 8. 125.
724-43 Proof that the disturbance
occurred on the churdi grounds or near
enough to disturb the congregation will
sustain a charge that a congregation
was disturbed at a church service.
Brown v, S., 14 Ga. App. 21, 80 S. E.
26.
725-48 As to whether or not a con-
gregation of persons constitutes a re-
ligious meeting assembled for religious
worship is always a question of fact
for the jury. Cline v, S., 9 Okla. Cr.
40, 130 P. 510, 45 L. E. A. (N. 8.) 108.
468
726-56 Immaterial error.— That the
charge used the words ^'religious pur-
poses'; while the information alleged
''religious worship" is immateriaL
Laird V. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 155 S. W. 260.
726-58 Defining wilfuL— The court
J? J?l wV?"?®. ^^'''''^ ^^^^®d t^e term
wilful It 18 not necessary to give a
special charge defining the word, nor
18 It necessary to carry the definition
torward m each paragraph of the
charge wherein the word was used.
Haynes <?. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 159 8. W. 1059.
DIVOBCE
738-1 Action for divorce is neither
ex contractu nor ex deUcto though par-
taking of the features of both, and is
controlled by the nature of the par-
ticular subject to iwrhich it relates.
A V?o *• ^^^®"» 3 Boyce (Del.) 361, 84
7S8-5 Emerson v. Emerson, 120 Md.
584, 87' A. 1033.
739-11 Masure v, Masure, 171 111.
App 438; Main t?. Main (la.), 150
N. W. 590; Emerson r. Emerson, 120
Md. 584, 87 A. 1033; Outlaw v. Outlaw.
118 Md. 498, 84 A. 383; White v. White
154 App. Div. 250, 138 N. Y. 8. 1082;
Gibson V, Gibson, 81 Misc. 508, 143 N.
Y. 8. 37; Cooke v. Cooke, 164 N. C. 272
80 8. E. 178, 49 "L. B. A. (N. S.) 1034;'
Gilbert t?. Hayward (R. I.), 92 A. 625;
Warren v. Warren, 36 E. I. 167, 89 A.
651.
739-12 Ex parte Helmert, 103 Ark.
571, 147 8. W. 1143; Gibson V. Gibson,
81 Misc. 508, 143 N. Y. 8. 37.
The right to a divorce is limited to the
causes and subject to the requirements
prescribed by statute. Worthington v.
District Court (Nov.), 142 P. 230.
739-13 Dunham t?. Dunham, 162 111.
589, 44 N. E. 841; Masure v. Masuro,
171 HI. App. 438; Cooke v. Cooke, 164
K C. 272, 80 8. E. 178, 49 L. B. A. (N.
8.) 1034. ^
739-19 8. V. Grimm, 239 Mo. 340, 143
8. W. 450.
Sux^erlor courts have original and ex-
clusive jurisdiction. Stone v, Duffy, 219
Mass. 178, 106 N. E. 595.
Circuit courts in chancery have no com-
mon law jurisdiction in divorce proceeds
DIVORCE
Vol 7
ings. Judson v, Judson, 171 Mich. 185,
137 N. W. 103.
T40-21 The appearance of a non-resi-
dent defendant does not confer juris-
diction of a suit brought by a plaintiff
not having a bona fide domicil in the
state. Worthington V, District Court
(Nev.)» 142 P. 230.
T40-24 Andrade V. Andrade, 14 Ariz.
379, 128 P. 813; Sneed v. Sneed, 14 Ariz.
17, 123 P. 312; Presson v. Presson
(Nev.), 147 P. 1081; Halpine t?. Hal-
pine, 52 Pa. Super. 80,
740-26 Gildersleeve v, Gildersleeve,
88 Conn. 689, 92 A. 684; Cohen 17.
Cohen, 3 Boyce (Del.) 361, 84 A. 122;
Harrison v. Harrison, 117 Md. 607, 84
A.' 57; Wacker v. Wacker, 156 App.
Div. 495, 139 N. Y. S. 78; Butler i?. But-
ler, 134 N. Y. S. 108; Connolly v. Con-
nolly, 33 S. D. 346, 146 N. W. 581;
Miller V. Miller (Vt.), 92 A. 9.
T40-27 A bona flde resident though
not a citizen of the state may maintain
an action for divorce. Cohen v, Cohen,
3 Boyce (Del.) 361, 84 A. 122. Plain-
tiff need not actually live in state dur-
ing the years preceding filing of suit.
Miller r. Miller (Vt.), 92 A. 9; Turner
V. Turner, 87 Vt. 65, 88 A. 3, 47 L. E.
A. (N. S.) 505.
741-30 Howell r. Heriff, 87 Kan.
389, 124 P. 168; McConnell r. McCon-
nell, 167 Mo. App. 680, 151 S. W. 175;
Shatney t?. Shatney, 76 N. H. 391, 83
A. 124; Yates v. Yates, 115 Va. 678, 79
S. E. 1040.
Plaintiff may bring action either in
county of his residence or residence of
wife, or where she may be summoned,
but in any case plaintiff must have been
an actual resident in good faith for one
year before filing his petition. Asling
17. Asling, 88 Kan. 331, 128 P. 185.
742-31 Carey r. Carey (Del.), 90 A.
405; Walker r. Walker, 111 Me. 404, 89
A. 373; Fleming v, Fleming, 36 Nev.
135, 134 P. 445.
742-33 Walker v. Walker, 111 Me.
404, 89 A. 373. See Carey <?. Carey
(Del.), 90 A. 405; Bethard f?. Bethard
(Del.), 90 A. 406.
In action for desertion. — Getz v. Getz,
81 N. J. Eq. 465, 88 A. 376.
742-34 Fleming f?. Fleming, 36 Nev.
135, 134 P. 445.
743-37 Under §2120, Ky. St., where
husband and wife lived within state up
to the time of separation, when wife
moved to New York, the court where
husband lived had jurisdiction in action
brought by him. Peterson v. Peterson,
156 Ky. 202, 160 8. W. 952; Miller v.
Miller, 141 Ky. 681, 133 S. W. 588.
743-38 Tiedemann v. Tiedemann, 36
Nev. 494, 137 P. 824.
743-39 See Yates t?. Yates, 115 Va.
678, 79 8. E. 1040.
743-40 Licht v, Licht, 150 N. Y. S.
643.
744-43 Presson t?. Presson (Nev.),
147 P. 1081.
746-48 The law of the country of
domlcU of the parties governs divorce
as well as every other incident of mar-
riage. Kapigian t?. Der Minassian, 212
Mass. 412, 99 N. E. 264.
746-52 Fitzpatrick v. Fitzpatrick
(Tenn.), 173 S. W. 444.
746-64 Miller v. Miller (Vt.), 92 A.
9.
746-55 Patch v. Patch, 86 Vt. 225,
84 A. 815.
Separate domiciles. — ^Where husband
and wife lived in different counties the
wife may maintain suit for divorce and
alimony in the county of her domicil
even though her husband had previous-
ly been granted a divorce in another
county. Auxier t?. Auxier, 155 Ky. 174,
159 S. W. 678, mod. 151 Ky. 504, 152
S. W. 573.
746-66 Sneed f?. Sneed, 14 Ariz. 17,
123 P. 312; Miller r. Miller, 67 Or. 359,
136 P. 15; Miller t?. Miller (Vt.), 92 A.
9.
747-67 Brown v. Brown, 164 HI.
App. 589.
Where parties are living apart imder
a separation agreement, there can be
no matrimonial domicil established by.
the act of the husband alone, and a
decree of divorce obtained by him in ^
Nevada, being void, cannot be set up
as a defense in an action to recover .
money for support under separation
agreement. Licht v, Licht, 88 Misc.
107,* 150 N. Y. S. 643.
748-64 §§1648 and 1649 E. L,
Hawaii, provide that a divorce suit can
be tried only in the circuit where the
parties last lived together as man and
wife, or if they have not so lived to-
gether then in the territory in the cir-
cuit where plaintiff resides. Martello 17.
Martello, 19 Haw. 243.
748-65 Martello v. Martello. 19 Haw,
243.
469
Vol 7
DIVORCE
749-69 Smilie r. Smilie, 24 Cal.
App. 420, 141 P. 829 (where change of
venue was denied because defendant
failed to eetablish residence); Hockett
17. Hockett, 34 8. D. 686, 149 N. W. 650.
750-80 Certificate of ln8aiiity.r— An
averment in bill that defendant had
obtained ^'a certificate that she was
crazy" is no ground for dismissal on
ground she was incapacitated from su-
ing. Blanton v. Blanton (Ala.)» ^7 S.
1000.
761-86 Against committee. — ^Where
defendant had been adjudged insane
and a committee appointed, and he was
never adjudged of sound mind nor his
committee discharged, the action is
properly brought against him and his
committee even though he may be of
sound mind when action is brought.
Huston V. Huston's Committee, 150
Ky. 353, 150 S. W. 386.
751-89 Trull v. Trull (Colo. App.),
146 P. 1079; Eobertson t?. Eobertson,
178 Mo. App. 47?, 163 S. W. 266.
But In an action to vacate a divorce
decree for ftaud, brought after death
of party guilty, the state is no longer
an interested party. McElrath t?. Mc-
Elrath, 120 Minn. 380, 139 N. W. 7«8.
To prevent ftaad or collusion. — The
only purpose for whicli the state is
made a party to divorce proceedings is
to prevent fraud or collusion. Orr v,
Orr (Or.), 146 P. 964. "The attorneys
in the case represent the respective
parties — ^the court in a sense represents
the state. It is the duty of the court,
representing the state, in accordance
with the letter and policy of the law,
to guard strictly against fraud, collus-
ion, or imposition when the husband or
wife seeks to dissolve the bonds that
bind them together." Behfuss «. Beh-
fuss (Cal.), 145 P. 1020.
752-08 Howatt v. Howatt> 158 App.
Div. 28, 142 N. Y. S. 908.
As to conclusiveness of Judgment on
co-respondent where he was served but
did not appear and defend. See Bay-
mond V. WilHston, 214 Fed. 525.
Season for bringing la co-respondent.
The purpose of the New York statute
by which notice may be given to a co-
respondent is to prevent injustice by
making it possible to have full repre-
sentation in the case of persons con-
cerned or to obtain such evidence as
should be heard, and to give the co-
Tespondent standing in court to de-
fend himself. Baymond r. Williston,
213 Fed. 525.
In Kansas a co-respondent cannot in-
tervene. Howell r. lleriff, 87 Kan. 389,
124 P. 168.
762-3 Discovery. — ^Where -the alleged
adultery and plaintiff's residence are
denied any inquiry as to his property
or income are improper until . such is-
sues have been established against
him. Van Valkenburgh v. Van Valken-
burgh, 149 App. Div. 482, 133 N. Y. S.
942; Bevnolds V. Beynolds, 81 Misc.
362, 142 N. Y. S. 1.
763-11 Manner of service. — ^Defend-
ant must be either served personally
within state or by service by publica-
tion. Henry v. Henry, 79 N. J. Eq. 493,
82 A. 47, af. 81 N. J. Eq. 512, 86 A.
1102.
763-16 Masure v. Masure, 171 Dl.
App. 438.
Service under defective pleading.
Service made personally even though
issued under a defective pleading is
sufficient to confer jurisdiction where
the defect in the pleading was amend-
able. Fitzpatrick V. Fitzpatrick (Tenn.),
173 S. W. 444.
754-28 In Bawail, in order to ob-
tain jurisdiction when personal notice
is served without the territory the de-
fendant must be notified of a day to
appear. It is not sufficient to serve him
with the usual form of summons used
for service within the territory. Zcavo
V, Zeave, 17 Haw. 463.
764-24 See 6 Standard Proc. 826.
754-26 Taylor v. Taylor, 64 Fla. 521,
60 S. 116.
755-27 Where defendant is a non-
resident. De la Montanya v. De la
Montanya, 112 Cal. 101, 44 P. 345, 53
Am. St. 165, 32 L. R. A. 82; Shillock r.
Shillock, 24 Cal. App. 191, 140 P. 954.
765-31 Dallas v. Luster, 27 N. P.
450^ 147 N. W. 95.
755-32 Lima r. Lima (Cal. App.),
147 P. 233; Masure v. Masure, 171 111.
App. 438; Kunzi f?. Hickman, 243 Mo.
103, 147 S. W. 1002; Dallas v. Luster,
27 N. D. 450, 147 N. W. 95,
765-35 Full compliance -with the
order of substituted service is neces-
sary, otherwise the court docs not ob-
tain jurisdiction. Miller t?. Miller
(Nov.), 142 P. 218.
756-42 Belknap i\ Belknap, 154 Ia«
213, 134 N. W. 734,
470
DIVOBGS
Vol. 7
^56-4S Lima «. Lima (Qal. App.)/
147 P. 233,
T57-46 "Wliere no time is stated
within which an order of publication
must be made after affidavit on which
same is based is sworn to and filed, it
must be made within a reasonable
time, and if not the order is Void. At-
kinson V. Atkinson, 43 Utah 53, 134 P.
695.
Oroimds of action, Incorrectly stated.
Where the notice of the order for pub-
lication stated the ground of suit was
to obtain an absolute divorce for de-
sertion and the fact was the suit was
brought for adultery, it was held that
notice of the order had not been pub-
lished as required hy the statute. Scott
V. Scott (N. J. Eq.), 85 A. 1022.
768-49 Bibelhausen v, Bibelhansen,
159 Wis. 365, 150 N. W. 516.
768-60 That notices do not run In
name of state does not affect the valid-
ity of the divorce obtained on such
publication. Gordon v, Munn, 87 Kan.
624, 125 P. 1.
768-51 "Wliere summons is served
personally outside the state, it is not
a prerequisite that there should be
eithc^ the return of the sheriff or affi-
davit of plaintiff, required under B. L.
1905, §4111. Bundennann v, Bunder-
mann, 117 Minn. 366, 135 N. W. 998.
768-55 Austin v. Austin, 173 Mich.
47, 138 N. W. 237, Ann. Cas. 1914D, 749.
AppeaiBXLce of non-resident defendant
does not confer jurisdiction where
plaintiff did not have a bona fide dom-
icil in the state. Worthington t?. Dis-
trict Court (Nev.), 142 P. 230.
768-56 Eichardson v. King, 157 la.
287, 135 N. W. 640.
769-58 See Dallas v. Luster, 27 K.
D. 450, 147 N. W. 95, as to effect of
general appearance.
"A court in another state cannot ad-
judge to be dissolved and at an end
the matrimonial relation of a citizen
of this state domiciled and actually
abiding here throughout the pendency
of the judicial proceeding there, with-
out a voluntary appearance therein, and
with no actual notice to him thereof,
and without personal service of pro-
cess on him in that state." P. v.
Baker, 76 N. Y. 82, 32 Am. Eep. 274;
Sterry v, Sterry, 79 Misc. 355, 140 N.
Y. S. 716.
T59-60 Henry v, Henry, 79 N. J.
Eq. 493, 82 A. 4T, aff. 81 N. J. Eq. 612,
86 A. 1102.
769-66 Miller r. Miller, 55 Ind. App.
644, 104 N. E. 588; Holton v. Helton,
64 Or. 290, 129 P. 532.
759-66 Amerland v, Amerland (Mo.
App.), 173 S. W. 104; Holton v. Holton,
64 Or. 290, 129 P. 532.
Following language of statnte<-^There
will be no uncertainty if the conditions
of residence are alleged in the lan-
guage of the statute. Sindowski t^.
Sindowski, 2 Boyce (Del.) 547, 84 A.
805.
760-68 Holton v. Holton, 64 Or. 290,
129 P. 532.
Not Jurisdictional but an irregularity.
Gelwicks v. Gelwicks, 160 la. 675, 142
N. W. 409.
760-70 Canavan v. Canavan, 17 N.
M. 503, 131 P. 493.
761-72 Presumption as to legality of
marriage^— Where marriage is alleged
the court will presume the marriage was
lawful. Etheridge v, Etheridge, 120
Md. 11, 87 A. 497.
761-77 Bishop v. Bishop, 155 Ky.
679, 160 S. W. 176.
761-80 Hebstock t\ Bebstock, 144
N. Y. S. 289.
761-81 Sindowski v. Sindowski, 2
Boyce (Del.) 647, 84 A. 805.
If language of the statute is followed,
it will suffice. Etheridge r. Etheridge,
120 Md. 11, 87 A. 497.
763-92 See Furthmann 17. Furth-
mann, 155 App. Div. 202, 139 N. Y. 8.
1055.
764-10 McAllister v. McAllister
(Nev.), 139 P. 781.
That the performance of marital duties
are thereby rendered impractical must
be alleged. Taylor v, Taylor, 63 Fla.
659, 58 S. 238.
765-14 Allegations too general.
Where after certain cruel acts were
specifically alleged, there was an addi-
tional allegation ''of many other ex-
cesses, outrages, and cruel treatment,*'
such allegation was too general to put
defendant on notice of what he was
called upon to answer. Fitzgerald v.
Fitzgerald (Tex. Civ.), 168 S. W. 452.
765-18 Complaint held insufficient.
Benson v. Benson (Utah), 146 P. 564.
765-19 The element of wrongfulness
must appear in the complaint, but need
not be charged in the words of the
471
Vol. 7
DIVORCE
statute. Nelson €. Nelson, 18 Cal. App.
602, 123 P. 1099.
766-24 Sufficient to allege desertion
In language of statute^ coupled with a
statement that husband without cause
left wife penniless and continued away
from her for the statutory period with-
out contributing at all to her support.
Pielding v. Fielding, 67 Fla. 143, 64 S.
546.
766-25 Separation and desertion are
not synonymous. There may be separa-
tion without desertion and vice versa.
Tipton V. Tipton (la.), 151 N. W. 90.
766-28 Intent to desert must appear.
See Tipton v. TipJ;on (la.), 151 N. W.
90.
768-37 Kinkaid v. Kinkaid, 25G 111.
548, 100 N. E. 217, rev. 168 111. App.
333.
768-39 Kinkaid v. Kinkaid, 2'56 HI.
548, 100 N. E. 217, rev. 168 111. App.
333.
768-40 Krzepicki i\ Krzepicki, 167
Cal. 449, 140 P. 13.
769-43e See Simpson v. Simpson, 21
Cal. App. 150, 131 P. 99.
772-64 Bancroft v. Bancroft (Bel.),
85 A. 561.
773-74 Doctrine of condonation ap-
plies to cases of cruelty. Bingham v.
Bingham (Tex. Civ.), 149 S. W. 214.
773-75 Hartl v. Hartl, 155 la. 329,
135 N. W. 1007; Bimmitt v. Bimmitt,
167 Mo. App. 94, 150 S. W. 1107; Mc-
Namara v, McNamara, 93 Neb. 190, 139
N. W. 1045; Penn v. Penn, 37 Okla. 650,
133 P. 207; Estee v. Estee, 34 Okla. 305,
125 P. 455; Murchison v. Murchison
(Tex. Civ.), 171 S. W. 790.
776-84 See Farwell t?. Farwell, 47
Mont. 574, 133 P. 958.
775-85 Benedicto v. Be la Kama, 3
Phil. Isl. 34. See Weiss v. Weiss, 174
Mich. 431, 140 N. W. 587.
775-86 See Seibert v. Seibert (N. J.
Eq.), 83 A. 230.
Cruelty as a defense to adultery is
not good. Bancroft t?. Bancroft (Bel.),
85 A. 561.
775-90 The answer should set forth
the matter of defense with the same
particularity as required of the com-
plaint. Bancroft v. Bancroft (Bel.),
85 A. 561.
777-10 Wendling v. Wendling, 134
N. Y. S. 65.
778-14 Plea necessary. — The de-
fense of bar by former action must be
made by plea and not by motion. Jor-
dan f. Jordan, 175 Ala. 640, 57 S. 436.
778-17 The pendency of a suit for
separation is no bar to a suit for di-
vorce, the actions being on different
grounds for different relief. Hall v.
Hall, 150 App. Biv. 688, 135 N. Y. 8.
741.
778-18 Cook V. Cook, 159 N. C. 46,
74 S. E. 639, Ann. Cas. 1914A, 125S, 40
L. E. A. (N. S.) 83.
779-S7 Bancroft t?. Bancroft (Bel.),
85 A. 561.
779-29 Voluntary separation does
not amount to desertion nor can deser-
tion be inferred from the mere fact
that the parties do not live together.
Freeman t\ Freeman, 82 N. J. Eq. 360,
88 A. 1071, 49 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1042.
779-30 See Epley v. Epley, 83 N. J.
Eq. 214, 89 A. 1028.
779-32 Gordon v. Gordon (N. H.),
92 A. 546; Egidi f?. Egidi (R. L), 93 A.
908. See Goeldner v. Goeldner, 158 la.
415, 139 N. W. 889.
Condonation by continned cohabitation.
Where condition of condonation is af-
terward broken by renewed acts the
petition for divorce is not abated, but
plaintiff could obtain her decree. Egidi
V. Egidi (R. I.), 93 A. 908.
779-33 Pittis i\ Pittis, 82 N. J. Eq.
635, 89 A. 749.
779-34 Longbotham v, Longbotham,
119 Minn. 139, 137 N. W. 387. Seo
Wolcott 17. Wolcott, 14 O. C. C. (N.
S.) 437.
Insanity and irresponsibility may be
a defense though not specially pleaded.
Bethel V. Bethel, 181 Mo. App. 601, 164
S. W. 682.
780-44 Pleading adultery in reply.
In an action for desertion whexe a
counterclaim was interposed alleging
abandonment, the husband's adultery
may be pleaded in reply. Brownrigg v.
Brownrigg, 80 Misc. 108, 140 N. Y. S.
778, af. 156 App. Biv. 913, 141 N. Y.
S. 1111.
780-63 Cook v. Cook, 159 N. C. 46,
74 S. E. 639, Ann. Cas. 1914 A, 1253,
40 L. R. A. (N. S.) 83; Pardo v. Pardo,
21 P. R. 184.
781-65 Pardo v. Pardo, 21 P. B. 184.
781-71 Levey v. Levey, 148 N. Y.
S. 417.
47B
DIVORCE
Vol. 7
But In Davis 17. Davis, 150 K. T. 8.
636, the court said: ''While it is trne
that defendant in an action for divorce
may interpose any counterclaim which
he or she may have for divorce in the
same suit, it is not obligatory upon the
defendant to do this; but he or she
may maintain a se]iarate action against
the other party for divorce."
782-72 Shatney v. Shatney, 76 N. H.
391, 83 A. 124.
Beqnislte residence of plaintiff. — Cross-
complainant is not entitled to affirma-
tive relief unless proof is offered that
plaintiff has resided in jurisdiction for
the requisite period. Coleman v. Cole-
man, 23 Cal. App. 423, 138 P. 362.
782-76 Amendment to conform to
the proofs allowable. Rea v. Bea, 174
Mo. App. 715, 161 S. W. 278.
782-77 See Hall v. Hall, 172 Mich.
210, 137 N. W. 536.
783-78 Rogers v. Rogers, 57 Colo.
132, 140 P. 193; Longbothom v, Long-
botham, 119 Minn. 1?9, 137 N. W. 387
(where it was held there was no abuse
of discretion in refusing an amend-
ment); Jackson v. Jackson, 49 Pa. Su-
per. 18.
Befosal to allow third amended plea
three years after first petition when
party knew facts all the time is not an
abuse of discretion. Lake v. Winslow,
36 Okla. 679, 129 P. 863.
783-81 Annulment to divorce.
Amendment of petition for annulment
of marriage to divorce allowable. Jes-
ter V. Jester (Del.), 90 A. 82. A di-
vorce complaint may be amended so as
to seek an annulment of the marriage.
Sortore v. Sortore, 70 Wash. 410, 126
P. 915.
783-82 Zachary r. Zachary, 141 Ga.
404, 81 S. E. 120; Penn 1;. Penn, 37
Okla. 650, 133 P. 207.
783-84 Penn r. Penn, 37 Okla. 650,
133 P. 207.
784-90 An ez parte supplemental
cross-complaint may be stricken on mo-
tion. Rogers v. Rogers, 57 Colo. 132,
140 P. 193.
784-98 Miller v. Miller, 55 Ind. App.
644, 104 N. E. 588;. Grant v. Grant, 159
N. C. 528, 75 S. E. 734; Johnson v. John-
son, 142 N. C. 462, 55 S. E. 341.
Verification is not Jurisdictional^— Rich-
ardson v. King, 157 la. 287, 135 N. W.
640; McCraney v. McCraney, 6 la. 232,
254, 68 Am. Dec. 702.
781^1 Following the statutes. — A
verification substantially complying
with the statute is sufficient. Grant V.
Orant, 159 N. C. 528, 75 S. E. 734.
Partly on personal knowledge. — ^A bill
cannot be verified partly on personal
knowledge and partly on information
and belief. Knol v. Knol, 171 111. App.
412. Cmitra, Stevens f?. Stevens, 170
Mo. App. 322, 156 8. W. 68, where such
verification was held a substantial com-
pliance with the statute.
786-4 BeYeriflcation not necessary
to an amendment made to conform to
the proofs. Rea v. Rea, 174 Mo. App.
715, 161 8. W. 278.
785-7 Robertson r. Robertson, 178
Mo. App. 478, 163 8. W. 266.
786-8 Robertson v. Robertson, 178
Mo. App. 478, 163 8. W. 266.
786-10 Furthmann t?. Furthmann, 155
App. Div. 202, 139 N. Y. 8. 1055.
787-20 Court not bound by issues
raised. — The court may as the repre-
sentative of the interests of the pub-
He make material inquiries bearing on
those interests irrespective of the is-
sues raised by the pleadings. Newman
V. Newman, 211 Mass. 508, 98 N. E. 507.
788-23 Trial must be before the-
court and not before master, referee, or
other delegated representative, and a
commission to take testimony of a non-
resident witness may be issued. Ban-
croft r. Bancroft (Del.), 85 A. 561.
Court cannot on its own motion appoint
a referee to hear and determine issues
on a supplemental complaint unless
agreed to by parties. Archuleta v,
Archuleta, 52 Colo. 601, 123 P. 821.
789-40 Antonata v. Antonata, 85
Conn. 390, 82 A. 967.
789-50 As affecting review on ap-
peal.— "The right of a trial by jury,
as enjoyed prior to the adoption of
the Constitution, is subject to the
power of a court of review to reverse
a judgment for the plaintiff without
remanding the cause in cases where
it clearly appears, as a question of law,
that in the end there can be no recov-
ery which could be permitted to
stand.** Kinkaid v. Kinkaid, 256 HI.
548, 100 N. E. 217, rev. 168 HI. App.
333.
790-62 Hearing on original and
cross-bin. — ^The issues on both the orig-
inal and cross-bill may be submitted
to the same jury even though the find-
473
u
Voll
DIVORCE
ings of jury on former have same effect
as a verdict at law while the findings
on cross-bill are merely advisory.
.Williford v. Williford, 162 111. App. 24.
790-56 Halgren v, Halgren, 160 App.
Biv. 477, 145 N. Y. S. 987; Wise V. Wise,
159 App. Div. 575, 144 N. Y. S. 649;
Moot V. Moot, 86 Misc. 495, 149 N. Y.
S. 302.
T90-57 Waiver under mlea of court.
Moot V. Moot, 86 Misc. 495, 149 N. Y.
S. 302.
790-59 InBtmctionB m to alimony.
Court must instruct on the law appli-
cable to permanent alimony in some
cases. Zachary v, Zachary, 141 Ga.
404, 81 S. E. 120.
791-61 De Fierros v. De Fierros
(Tex. Oiv.), 154 S. W. 1067.
791-63 De Fierros .t?. De Fierros
(Tex. Civ.), 154 8. W. 1067.
791-64 Jackson v. Jackson, 49 I^a.
Super. 18.
792-70 Yates v. Yates, 211 N. Y.
163, 105 N. E. 195, rev. 147 App. Div.
915, 131 N. Y. S. 1086; Walker v.
Walker (E. I.), 86 A. 894; Schultz v.
Schultz, 71 Wash. 327, 128 P. 660.
A new trial may W ordered when the
first trial resulted in favor of the de-
fendant, and a second trial resulting
in favor of the plaintiff was reversed.
Kinkaid v, Kinkaid, 256 HI. 548, 100
N. E. 217, rev. U68 HI. App. 333.
792-76 Clayton v. Clayton, 71 W. Va.
656, 77 S. E. 137.
792-78 Bishop v. Bishop, 82 Misc.
676, 144 N, Y. S. 143.
792-80 Eisenbach v. Eisenhach, 176
Mich. 354, 142 N. W. 345.
793-81 Peleaumoku V. Makaneole, 19
Haw. 68 (because of collusion) ; Hubner
V. Hubner, 67 Or. 557, 136 P. 667, for
want of jurisdiction over i>arties.
793-84 No gronnd for dismissal that
previous suits on same grounds had
been dismissed for failure to prosecute.
Jordan t\ Jordan, 184 Ala. 408, 63 S.
1024.
793-85 Gressman v. Grossman, 145
N. Y. 8. 819.
794-91 Lewis r. Lewis, 167 Cal. 732,
141 P. 367, 52 L. R. A. (N. S.) 675;
Lowman v. Lowman, 165 Cal. 352, 132
P. 439; Spitznaugle v. Spitznaugle, 87
Kan. 408, 124 P. 162; Allfree V. Allfree,
175 Mo. App. 344, 162 S. W. 660.
794-92 A divorce may be denied
where complainant is not blameless
though the evidence disclose statutory
grounds. Lyon v. Lyon, 39 Okla. Ill,
134 P. 650.
794-93 Peyton v. Peyton, 97 Neb.
663, 151 N. W. 150.
795-99 See Mallory v. Mallory, 160
HI. App. 417.
795-3 Ex parte Nelson, 253 Mo. 627,
162 S. W. 167; Crawford v. Crawford,
54 Pa. Super. 304.
796-13 Shurman v. Shurman, 148 N.
Y. S. 947.
796-14 Brown v. Brown (Cal.), 147
P. 1168; In re Seller's Est., 164 Cal.
181, 128 P. 334; In re Dargie's Est., 162
Cal. 51, 121 P. 320; Matter of Cran-
dall, 196 N. Y. 127, 89 N. E. 578, 17
Ann. Cas. 874, 134 Am. St. 830; Poss
V. Poss, 164 App. Div. 213, 149 N. Y.
S. 587.
For a discnasion as to the effect of
judgment during the waiting period un-
der §2374, St., 1911, see Rogers v. Hol-
lister, 156 Wis. 517, 146 N. W. 488.
796-15 Bishop v. Bishop, 82 Misc.
676, 144 N. Y. S. 143; Ousey v. Ousey,
1 Law Rep., Prob. Div. 56.
797-22 Dunham v. Dunham, 82 N.
J. Eq. 395, 89 A. 281.
797-27 A decree may he conditioiial
in order to work out the equities of
the parties. Doolittle f?. DooUttle (la.),
147 N. W. 893.
797-28 Karnes of parties^— Where
the original notices named the parties
as Lother, and the petition named them
as Lather, whereas their real names
were Luther, and the final decree prop-
erly named the parties it will be pre-
sumed any errors in name were cor-
rected by amendment before final de-
cree was entered. Richardson 17. King,
157 la. 287, 135 N. W. 640.
797-29 The fact of residence must
appear affirmatively in the findings.
Coleman v. Coleman, 23 Cal. App. 423,
138 P. 362.
798-dO An order against remarriage
in a decree is beyond the court's juris-
diction. P. V. Prouty, 262 111. 218, 104
N. E. 387, Ann. Cas. 1915B, 155,
798-31 RandaU i?. Randall, 175 DL
App. 392,
Custody of childTflTi. — ^It is not an es-
sential part of a decree for divorce
that the court make an order touching
the custody of children. Such orders
474
mvoBcs
Vol. 7
tnay be made at a later date or an an-
other proceeding. Arndt v. Arndt, 177
Mo. App. 420, 163 S, W. 282.
798-32 Austin v. Austin, 173 Mich.
47, 138 N. W. 237, Ann, Cas. 1914D,
749; Curnen V, Cumen, 155 App. Div.
536, 140 N. Y. S, 805. .
798-88 See Bishop v. Bishop, 82
Misc. 676, 144 N. Y. S. 143.
Tbat a d«crea wm not enrolled does
not affect its validity. Johnson v. John-
8on, 182 Ala. 376, 62 S. 706.
798-84 Hehfuss v, Behfuss (Cal.),
145 P. 1020; S. V. Wolfe, 63 Fla. 290,
58 S. 841.
798-88 S. V, Wolfe, 63 Fla. 290, 58
S. 841.
798-86 See 6 Standaad Peoo. 826.
799-38 Behfuss v. Behfuss (Cal.),
145 P. 1020; Foley v. Foley, 120 Cal. 33,
52 P. 122, 65 Am. 8t, 147; Miller v. Mil-
ler, 66 Or. 551, 131 P. 308, 133 P. 86.
799-89 Senn v. Senn (Del.), 92 A.
987; Foote v. Foote, 53 Ind. App. 673,
102 N. E. 393; Todhunter v. Be Graff,
164 la. 567, 146 N. W. 66; Gate v.
Christian, 112 Me. 427, 92 A. 489; S. v.
Superior Court, 78 Waah. 372, 139 P.
42.
A divorce Judgment absolute in form
is flnal though it may be vacated or
modified within a year under §2374 of
St., 1918. Yates «. Yates, 157 Wis. 219,
147 N. W. 60.
Cfouxt may vto forma reverse a decree
and reward for another hearing. Can-
ning 17. Canning (Vt.), 93 A. 259; Bur-
ton 1?. Burton, 58 Vt. 414, 422, 5 A. 281.
799-41 Prewitt v. Prewitt, 52 Colo.
522, 122 P. 766.
799-46 Todhunter v, De Graff, 164
la. 567, 146 N. W. 66; Gato v. Chris-
tiai^, 112 Me. 427, 92 A. 489.
After expiration of term a divorce
judgment is no more to be altered, re-
vised or set aside so far as the part
which grants the divorce is. concerned
than any other judgment. Guggenheim
<?. Guggenheim, 189 HI. App. 151; Chap-
man V. Chapman, 70 W. Va. 522, 74 S.
E. 661; Graham v. Graham, 149 Wis.
602, 136 N. W. 162; Bassett f?. Bassett,
99 Wis. 344, 74 N. W. 780, 67 Am. St.
863.
Court, 78
Court, 78
890-47 Barnes v, Willis, 65 Fla. 863,
61 S. 828.
Or the attomey-generaL— €emi v. Senn
(I>eL), 92 A. 987«
47S
809-48 ]>efeBdant in divorce rait
must be made party. Bichardson t?.
King, 157 la. 287, 135 N, W. 640.
800-49 Todhunter v, De Graff, 164
la. 567, 146 N. W. 66. ^
XiX parte application. — ^Where the court
announced his oral decision denying the
divorce and caused the same to be en-
tered «on the minutes^ it was error to
enter a decree granting the divorce
twenty-nine days later without notice
to defendant, on affidavits detailing
the conduct of defendant subsequent
to the trial and oral decision. Schultz
V. Schultz, 71 Wash. 327, 128 P. 660.
Where party procuring decree has died
during term» See Gato V. Christian, 112
Me. 427, 92 A. 489.
800-51 S. 17. Superior
Wash. 372, 139 P. 42.
800-52 S. t7. Superior
Wash. 872, 139 P. 42.
Application for modification of a di-
vorce decree is a continuation of the
original case. Bedolfe v. Bedolfe, 71
Wash. 60, 127 P. 594.
800-58 Fozwell v. Forwell, 122 Md.
263, 89 A. 494.
800-54 Behfuss v. Behfuss (Cal.),
145 P. 1020, procedure must be under
§473, Code Civ. Proc, and not upon
motion for new trial.
800-56 Tisman v. Tisman, 176 Mich.
94, 142 N. W. 358.
Or an original bill for ftaud. — ^Foxwell
i;. Foxwell, 122 Md. 263, 89 A. 494.
800-57 Dorrance v. Dorrance, 24 Mo.
625, 148 S. W. 94.
800-58 By motion for new trial,
where defendant has not had day in
court. Gato v. Christian, 112 Me. 427,
92 A. 489.
800-60 Court possesses mich power.
Behfuss V, Behfuss (Cal.), 145 P. 1020;
Earle v. Earle, 91 Ind. 27; Gato v.
Christian, 112 Me. 427, 92 A. 489;
Boyd's Appeal, 38 Pa. 241.
801-61 Johnson v. Johnson, 182 Ala.
376, 62 S. 706; Corney v. Corney, 108
Ark. 415, 159 S. W. 20; Johnson i;.
Johnson (B. I.), 92 A. 983.
801-68 Foxwell v. Foxwell, 118 Md.
471, 84 A. 552.
801-67 Behfuss v, Behfuss (Cal.),
145 P. 1020; Jones f?. Jones, 83 N. J.
Eq. 571, 91 A. 819.
801-68 Jones V, Jones, 83 N. J. Eq.
571, 91 A, 819.
yoi.:7:
DIVORCE
\ 1
801-TO False testlinoiiy.— Jones v.
Jones, 83 N. J. Eq. 571, 91 A. 819.
601-74 Tisman v. Ti8man,'176 Mich.
94, 142 N. W. 358.
801-76 Miller v. Miller (Nov.), 142
P. 218. See Borrance v. Dorrance, 242
Mo. 625, 148 S. W. 94.
Maintainable after death.— An . action
to vacate divorce decree because* of ab-
sence of legal service on defendant is
maintainable even after death of hus-
band when same is instituted to es-
tablish the fact that wife is widow of
deceased, and entitled to maintain pro-
ceedings to contest husband's will on
the ground of fraud and undue in-
fluence. Dallas V. Luster, 27 N. D. 450,
147 N. W. 95. *
Oonrt may vacate a decree pro con-
fesso on motion of wife made nearly a
year after, where the decree was ir-
regular. Hekkema v. Circuit Judcre
(Mich.), 151 N. W. 629.
802-77 Welch v. Welch, 16 Ark. 527;
Bush r. Rush, 46 la. 648, 26 Am. Rep.
179; 0*Rourke v, Lawrence, 132 La.
710, 61 S. 764; Dorrance v. Dorrance,
257 Mo. 317, 165 8. W. 783; McDonald
V. McDonald, 175 Mo. App. 513, 161
S. W. 850; Jones v. Jones, 82 N. J.
Eq. 558, 89 A. 29; Boyd's Appeal, 38
Pa. 241; De Souza v. De Souza (R. I.),
92 A. 983; Johnson v. Johnson (R. L),
92 A. 983; Graham v. Graham, 54 Wash.
70, 102 P. 891, 18 Ann. Cas. 999; John-
son «?. Coleman, 23 Wis. 452, 99 Am.
Dec. 193.
Even though party has remarried.— Mil-
ler V. Miller (Nev.), 142 P. 218.
602-78 Decree conclusive. — ^A de-
cree obtained by fraud dissolving the
marriage relation is conclusive. Bay
V. Bay, 85 O. St. 417, 98 N. E. 109.
803-81 A court cannot set aside a
decree on the ground of fraud where
he bases his findings on a private let-
ter the contents of which are unknown
to the opposing party until filed with
his order. Blundin V, Blundin (Nov.).
147 P. 1083. ^'
The fact that perjured testimony was
offered to secure a decree affords no
ground for vacating it. U. 8. v. Throck-
morton, 98 U. 8. 61, 25 L. ed. 93;
Whittley V. Whittley, 60 Misc. 201, 111
N. Y. 8. 1078; Orr f?. Orr (Or.), 146
P. 964; Robinson t?. Robinson, 77 Wash.
663, 138 P. 288.
Sufficiency of complaint-— An allegation
that while the cause was pending in
the supreme court defendant wrong-
fully and fraudulently procured the
filing and antedating of an answer and
caused it to be filed as part of the
record is an insufficient allegation of
the contents of the answer. It must
be specifically alleged what the fraud
was and its materiality. Corney t?.
Oorney, 108 Ark. 415, 159 S. W. 20.
?2^* Rehfuss V. Rehfuss (Cal.),
J45 P. 1020; McDonald v. McDonald
175 Mo. App. 513, 161 8. W. 850; Erd-
man v, Erdman, 43 Okla. 172, 141 p.
965.
f^S^i;^^ ^^ P*''*® E^^ards, 183 Ala.
* n ' A®- '^^J Johnson v, Johnson, 182
Ala. 376, 62 8. 706.
fUt^"^ Hughes V, Hughes, 162 Ky.
505, 172 8. W. 960. ^
803-86 Simmonds v, Simmonds, 78
Misc. 571, 138 N. Y. S. 639; Robinson
t?. Robinson, 77 Wash. 663, 138 P. 288.
804-87 Mallory v. Mallory, 160 BL
App. 417.
804-90 A consent decree will not be
set aside after death of a party solely
for the purpose of permitting plaintiff
to procure a part of estate of deceased
divorcee. Mallory v. Mallory, 160 DL
App. 417.
804-94 Richardson v. King, 157 la.
287, 136 N. W. 640; 8immond8 V, Sim-
monds, 78 Misc. 571, 138 N. Y. S,
639.
.804-95 Miller v. Miller (Nov.), 142
P. 218. '
805-3 Van Sickle v. Harmeyer, 172
111. App. 218.
80e-7 Gato r. Christian, 112 Me. 427,
A decree inadvertently entered after
plaintiff's death will be vacated. Dun-
ham V. Dunham, 82 N. J. Eq. 395. 89
A. 281.
806-8 Givernaud v, Givernaud, 81 N.
J. Eq. 66, 85 A. 830.
806-9 Givernaud r. Givernaud, 81 N.
J. Eq. 66, 85 A. 830.
806-10 Givernaud v, Givernaud, 81
N. J. Eq. 66, 85 A. 830.
806-11 Richards t?. Richards, 24 Ida.
87, 132 P. 576.
It Should be granted where the show-
ing creates a doubt as to the pro-
priety of the decree. Nihell v. NihelL
161 ni. App. 589.
806-12 As to waiver of eonditionB,
47a
DIVORCE
Vol. 7
eee Howatt v. Howatt, 158 App. Div.
28, 142 N. Y. S. 908.
Motion to modify is premature while
moving party is in contempt for non-
payment of alimony due before entry
of final decree. Bichards r. Bichards,
87 Misc. 134, 149 N. Y. S. 1028.
807-16 Gato v. Christian, 112 Me.
427, 92 A. 489.
807-18 JefiTries v. Alexander, 266 HI.
49, 107 N. E. 146.
807-10 Bichards v. Bichards, 87
Misc. 134, 149 N. Y. S. 1028. Comp.
Gildersleeve i?. Gildersleeve, 88 Conn.
689, 92 A. 684.
807-20 See Hester r. Hester, 103
Miss. 13, 60 S. 6.
807^1 Bay t?. Bay, 85 O. St. 417, 98
N. E. 109.
Sifect of void decree^ — ^A decree ob-
tained without jurisdiction does not
determine right of wife to alimony or
dower. Barberton Savings Bank v,
Belford, 14 O. C. C. (N. S.) 24.
807-23 PresnmptloiL as to Jurlsdlc^
tloiL-^Where it does not affirmatively
appear that plaintiff was non-resident
of place where decree was obtained* on
collateral attack it will be presumed
that the court had jurisdiction. Jef-
fries V. Alexander, 266 HI. 49, 107 N. £.
146.
808-25 Johnson v. Johnson, 182 Ala.
876, 62 S. 706. See Ex parte Ed-
wards, 183 Ala. 659, 62 8. 775.
808-27 Miller v. Miller, 89 Kan. 151,
130 P. 681.
808-29 Goodwin v, Goodwin, 158
App. Hiv. 171, 142 N. Y. S. 1102, aff.
80 Misc. 303, 141 N. Y. S. 175. See
Auxier v. Auxier, 155 Ky. 174, 159 S.
W. 678, mod. 151 Ky. 504, 152 S. W.
573; Curnen v. Curnen, 155. App. Div.
536, 140 N. Y. S. 805.
Bven if obtained through coUusion.
Ex parte Edwards, 183 Ala. 659, 62 S.
775.
Pennittiiig Infant to be heard. — ^A court
may open a judgment to give an infant
eo-respondent not represented at the
trial an opportunity to be heard on the
merits in defense of her chastity, al-
though a divorce judgment cannot be
collaterally Impeached. Shaw v, Shaw,
140 N. Y. S. 388, af, in 156 App. Div.
879, 141 N. Y. S. 425.
808-30 Hostetter v. Green, 159 Ky.
611, 167 S. W. 919; Averbueh v, Aver-
buch, 80 Wash. 257, 141 P. 701.
800-32 Ihinham v. Dunham, 82 N.
J. Eq. 395, 89 A. 281; Hunt V. Hunt,
75 Misc. 209, 135 N. Y. S. 39.
800-33 Alquier r. Mendez, 18 P. B.
86; Masterson f . Ogden, 78 Wash. 644,
139 P. 654. See Faversham v, Faver-
sham, 161 App. Div, 521, 146 N. Y. S.
569. I
809-34 See Dunham v. Dunham, 82
N. J. Eq. 395, 89 A. 281; Baker 17.
Stephenson (Tex. Civ.), 174 S. W. 970.
800-37 See Doolittle v. Doolittle
(la.), 147 N. W. 893.
810-42 Andrade v. Andrade, 14 Ariz.
379, 128 P. 813.
810-43 McNeill v. McNeill, 175 Mo.
App. 623, 161 S. W. 858, writ must
be sued out within sixty days after
^ntry of judgment. ..
810-44 Auxier v, Auxier, 151 Ky.
504, 152 S. W. 573; Bower v. Bower
(Ohio), 106 N. E. 969; Wolcott t?. Wol-
cott, 14 0. C. C. (N. S.) 437.
811-45 Gust V. Gust, 70 Wash. 695,
127 P. 292.
An appellate court cannot reverse a
judgment granting a divorce, although
it may otherwise review the decree.
Shehan 17. Shehan, 152 Ky. 191, 153
S. W. 243.
811-48 Exceptions^— But the general
provisions as to time apply only where
it is sought to appeal from a judgment
granting a divorce, and not where the
appeal is prosecuted from an order
awarding alimony or making a division
of property in divorce proceedings.
Howell V. Howell, 42 Okla. 286, 141 P.
412; Lewis V. Lewis, 39 Okla. 407, 135
P. 397.
811-51 Orr v. Orr (Or.), 146 P. 964.
811-52 Mallory v, Mallory, 160 111.
App. 417.
812-53 Hull V. Hull, 168 Mo. App.
220, 153 S. W. 531.
812-56 Borah v. Borah, 105 Ark.
697, 150 S. W. 112; Bell v. Bell, 105
Ark. 194, 150 S. W. 1031; Taylor v.
Taylor, 52 Pa. Super. 388.
Kot an abuse of discretion to refuse
to vacate a default judgment because
of a denial of continuance. Erickson
V. Erickson (la.), 147 N. W. 737,
812-57 Keenan v. Keenan, 219 Mass.
107, 106 N. E. 568.
812-59 Lewis v. Lewis, 167 Cal. 732,
141 P. 367, 52 L. B. A. (N. S.) 675;
SmUie €. SmiUe^^ 24 Cal. App. 420, 141
m •
[Vol. 7.
DIVORCE
P. 829. See Goodman v. Goodman, 127
Tenn. 501, 155 S. W. 388.
813-61 Be Coito v. De Coito, 21
Haw. 339; Barth v, Barth, 168 Mo. App.
423, 151 S. W. 769; Thompson f?. Thomp-
son, 50 Pa. Super. 159; Biddle v. Bid-
die, 50 Pa. Super. 30.
The sapieme court may try the case
de^iovo on the reeord, and direct mieh
a decree ^s the evidence warrants.
Where the record Is unsatisfactory it
is better to grant a new trial. Schultz
€. Schultz, 71 Wash. 327, 128 P. 660.
Findings not conduslTe^ — It is the duty
of appellate courts in Reviewing evi-
dence to look carefully beyond the
findings of fact, and to the evidence
on which the conclusion rests. Graham
V. Graham, 157 App. Div. 52, 141 N".
T. S. 766. Question is whether evi-
dence compelled such finding and not
whether evidence justified the finding.
Keenan «?. Keenan, 219 Mass. 107, 106
N. E. 568.
A dirorce decree ^vlU be affirmed if a
cause of action alleged in the pftition
is supported by the evidence alttiough
the trial court based the decree upon
another alleged cause of action not es-
tablished by the evidence. McNamara
V. McNamara, 93 Neb. 190, 139 N. W.
1045.
813-62 Biddle v, Biddle, 50 Pa.
Super. 30.
813-63 Young v. Toung, 23 Cal. AfiP.
247, 137 P. 1065; Harris V, Harris, 158
la. 555, 139 N. W. 896; Bimmitt f?.
Dimmitt, 167 Mo. App. 94, 150 S. W.
1107; Farwell t?. Farwell, 47 Mont. 574,
133 P. 958; Peyton v. Peyton, 97 Neb.
663, 151 N. W. 150; Allbee v. Allbee
(Nov.), 147 P. 452; Miller V, Miller
(Nov.), 142 P. 218; Bogers V, Bogers,
81 Wash. 502, 142 P. 1150; Hale V.
Hale, 76 Wash. 34, 135 P. 481; Griffith
V. Griffith, 74 Wash. 284, 133 P. 443;
Maxwell v. Maxwell (W. Va.), 84 S.
E. 251. See Ehrhardt V, Ehrhardt, 54
Pa. Super. 166.
813-64 Cottrell f?. Cottrell, 151 N. Y.
S. 289, 165 App. Div. 693.
813-65 De Coito v. De Coito, 21
Haw. 339; Dickinson 17. Dickinson, 54
Tnd. App. 53, 102 N. E, 389; Dill «.
Dill, 135 La. 32, 64 S. 972; Cherry v.
Cherry, 258 Mo. 391, 167 S. W. 539;
Darling v. Darling, 181 Mo. App. ^11,
16T S. W. 1166; Allfree v. Allfree, 175
Mo. App. 344, 162 S. IV. 650; Bea i),
Bea, 174 Mo. App. 715, 161 S. W. 278;
Cottrell f^, Cottrell, 165 App. Div. 693,
151 N. Y. S. 289; Penn v. Penn, 37
Okla. 650, 133 P. 207; Macomber r.
Macomber, 35 B. I. 371, 87 A. 170.
See Wells 9. Wells, 39 Okla. 765, 136
P. 738.
813-66 Machado v. Macbado (CaL
App.), 145 P. 738; Auxier t?. Auxier,
155 Ky. 174, 159 S. W. 678, mod. 151
Ky. 604, 152 S. W. 573.
813-67 Tietzel v. Tietzel, 17 N. }£
482, 131 P. 498.
813^8 De Fierros «. De Fierros
(Tex. Civ.), 154 a W. 1067; Henrie
V, Henrie, 71 W. Va. 131, 76 S. E. 837.
814-70 WheUier complainaDt knew
of defendant's prior marriage or di-
vorce within time prohibited for re-
marrying is immaterial and need not be
alleged in complaiiit. Snell «. Snell,
191 HI. App. 239.
814-72 Diacontinnanco of an annnll-
ment suit may properly be refused
where sought by the plaintiff in order
that he may press a suit for divotce.
Levey v. Levey, 150 N. Y. S. 610.
814-77 For dlstinctioB between ali-
mony aad allowaace, see Simpson v.
Simpson, 21 Cal. App. 150, 131 P. 99.
Nature ef permanent alimony^ — ^Per-
manent alimony is regarded rather as
a portion of the husband's estate to
which the wife is equitably entitled
than as strictly a debt. Walter v. Wal-
ter, 189 111. App. 345. *'In practical
application an award of permanent ali-
iQony may result in a division of tbe
husband's estate; but the controlling
element not to be lost sight of is bis
compulsory contribution for her sup-
port and maintenance under obligation
oi the marriage contract." Kiplingcr
V. Kiplinger, 172 Mich. 552, 138 N. W.
230; Bialy f?. Bialy, 167 Mich. 559, 133
N. W. 496, Ann. Cas. 1913A, 800.
Bight to alimony is a personal right
and not a property right. Faversham
V. Faversham, 161 App. Div. 521, 146
N. Y. S. 569.
Baals of aUfflony.— ''The tight to ali-
mony, whether x>endente or permanent,
is founded on the common-law obliga-
tion of the husband to support his
wife.*' Snider r. Snider, 179 Ind. 583,
102 N. E. 32.
815-78 Adkins e. Adkins, 33 O. C.
C. 592, 15 0. C. O. (N. S.) 161.
If a prima facie disfenae appears by
answer. Brown v. Brown, 83 Misc. 597,
145 N. T. S. 471,
UTS
DIVORCE
In a suit for legal Beparation it is not
recognized. Bandolph v. Field, 84 Mise'.
403, 146 N. y, S. 247.
"Wliere a foniMr husband was Uvlng
at time of her marriage alimony -will
not be awarded the wife. Bobinson
V. Bobinson, 82 N. J. Eq. 466, 88 A.
951.
815-79 "Whether a separate suit.
Where the action is for divorce the
application for alimony cannot be con-
sidered a separate suit, but is a pro-
ceeding for a separate judgment which
when granted has nothing to do with
the final judgment and will not bo
affected by it. Simpson v, Simpson, 21
Cal. App. 150, 131 P. 99. A motion
for alimony pendente l^te relates to a
cause of action separate and* distinct
from the divorce cause, but incidental
thereto. Libbe v. Libbe, 166 Mo. App.
240, 148 S. W. 460.
815-80 Emerson v. Emerson, 120 Md.
584, 87 A. 1033; Outlaw v. Outlaw, 118
Md. 498; 84 A. 383. See Austin v,
Austin, 173 Mich. 47, 138 N. W. 237,
Ann. Cas. 1914D, 749.
815-81 Outlaw v. Outlaw, 118 Md.
498, 84 A. 383.
815-83 Ex parte Helmert, 103 Ark.
671, 147 S. W. 1143; Haskell c. Haskell,
119 Minn. 484, 138 N. W. 787.
815-86 Snider v. Snider, 179* Ind.
583, 102 N. E. 32.
815-87 Ex parte Helmert, 103 Ark.
571, 147 S. W. 1143.
815-88 Kientz v. Kientz, 104 Ark.
381, 149 S. W. 86.
816-90 See 6 Standard Prog. 815.
816-91 Hardy v. Collins, 136 La.
467, 67 S. 333.
816-82 Ko Inherent right to ali-
mony.— ^"But a wife has no inherent
right to alimony upon an action
brought by a husband for divorce. It
is granted only upon the theory that
the wife may not be guilty of the
charge made against her, and if the
court can see when Buth a motion is
made that there is no reasonable pros-
pect of a wife succeeding in defeating
the plaintiff's action, then as a gen-
eral rule alimony is denied." Poss v.
Poss, 164 App. Div. 213, 149 N. Y. S.
687.
A wife who has been abandoned and
denied support may have a decree for
alimony without a divorce, and such
belief ma7 be granted her in a suit
. Vol. 7
for divorce brought by her husband,
on a prayer in her answer therefor as
affirmative relief. Huff t?. Huff, 73 W.
Va. 330, 80 S. E. 846.
816-93 .Snider v. Snider, 179 Ind.
583, 102 N. E. 32; Hughes v. Hughes,
162 Ky. 505, 172 S. W. 960; Mulhall
V. Mulhall, 120 Md. 22, 87 A. 490.
816-94 Poloke t?. Poloke, 37 Okla.
70, 130 P. 535. See Livingston t?. Supe-
rior Court, 117 Cal. 633, 49 P. 836, 38
L. B. A. 175.
017-95 Main v. Main (la.), 150
N. W. 590; Mulhall v. Mulhall, 120
Md. 22, 87 A. 490; Buckner v. Buck-
ner, 118 Md. 263, 84 A. 471; Libbe v.
Libbe, 166 Mo. App. 240, 148 S. W.
460; Hock v. Hock, 149 N. Y. S. 1027.
After a final jodgment diflsolving the
marriage the court may not grant coun-
sel fees. Bishop v. Bishop, 165 App.
Div. 954, 150 N. Y. S. 660.
817-96 Libbe v. Libbe,* 166 Mo. App.
240, 148 S. W. 460; Brown r. Brown,
83 Misc. 597, 145 N. Y. S. 471.
817-2 Bums' Ann. St., 1914, §1080,
allow wife's reasonable expenses, the
amount being discretionary. Ginter t?,
Ginter (Ind. App.), 104 N. E. 989.
817-5 Shillock v, Shillock, 24 Cal.'
App. 191, 140 P. 954.
Where In divorce proceedings a
husband was a non-resident and was
served by publication, and afterward
application was made for alimony and
he was personally served, having be-
come a resident, the court had juris-
diction to deal with the petition for
alimony. Parker v, Parker, 211 Mass.
139, 97 N. E. 988.
810-0 Main t?.' Main (la.), 150 N. W.
590; Buckner v, Buckner, 118 Md. 263,
84 A. 471; Lewis v. Lewis, 83 Wash.
671, 145 P. 980; Griffith fJ. Griffith
(Wash.), 128 P. 636, rev. 51 Wash. 56,
127 P, 585.
Where a decree is coercive and unduly
restrains a party as to rights as to ap
peal it is erroneous and will be re-
versed. Huff V. Huff, 73 1V\ Va. 380, 80
S. E. 846.
Suit money to carry on an appeal, may
be allowed the wife by the lower court.
Coleman v, Coleman, 23 *Cal. App. 423,
138 P. 362. To the contrary, see Bals-
Wic r. Balswic, 179 111. App. 118;
Seeger v. Seeger, 154 HI. App. 38.
810-11 Mengel v. Mengel, 167 Ia«
630, 138 N. W. 495,
479
Vol. 7
DIVORCE
819-12 DooHttle v. Doolittle (la.),
147 N. W. 893; Mengel v. Mengel, 157
la. 630, 138 N. W. 495; White v. White,
152 Ky. 769, 154 8. W. 33; Taylor v.
Taylor (N. M.), 142 P. 1129; Kostachek
17. Kostachek (Okla.), 124 P, 761. See
Bobinson v. Bobinson (N. J. Eq.), 92
A. 94.
819-13 Benedicto v. De la Bama, 2
Phil. Isl. 293.
819-14 Cameron v. Cameron, 30 S.
D, 634, 139 N. W. 329.
820-17 A receiver may sometimes
be appointed to take charge of the
property pendente lite (Warren v. War-
ren, 36 B. I. 167, 89 A. 651), although
this is not always proper. Oust v.
Gust, 78 Wash. 414, 139 P. 228.
820-18 Warren v. Warren, 36 B. I.
167, 8a A. 651. .
But Injunction may be denied wh,ere
bill did not allege jurisdictional resi-
dence on part of plaintiff. Swearingen
V. Swearingen (Tex. Civ.), 165 S. W.
16.
The order is abrogated by a final decree
determining the property rights of the
parties unless a further restraint *be
inserted. Kelly t?. Kelly, 89 Kan. 889,
132 P. 981.
820-23 Mulhall «. Mulhall, 120 Md.
22, 87 A. 490; Buckner V. Buckner, 118
Md. 263, 84 A. 471.
Necessity of process. — Where an action
had been brought for divorce and per-
manent alimony, and pending such ac-
tion an application was filed for tem-
porary alimony and a rule nisi ob-
tained requiring defendant to show
cause why the application should not
be granted, it was unnecessary to em-
body in such application a prayer for
ordinary process and have same served
On defendant as in original suit. Wil-
liams V. Williams, 137 Ga. 791, 74 S.
E. 242; Nipper v. Nipper, 129 Ga. 450,
59 S. E. 226.
821-24 Bailey v, Bailey, 22 N. D.
553, 134 N. W. 747; Cameron V. Cam-
eron, 30 S. D. 634, 139 N. W. 329.
An order obtained without notice is
not void for want of jurisdiction. But
such orders should not issue, except in
exceptional cases without notice. Buck-
ner 17. Buckner, 118 Md. 263, 84 A. 471.
821-30 See McCord v. McCord, 140
Ca. 170, 78. S. E. 833.
Allegation as to property. — ^Wif e need
not allege what property she owns as
that matter may be inquired into at
hearing. Meyer v. Meyer, 255 Dl. 436,
99 N. E. 591.
821-32 Collins v. ColUns, 71 N. T.
269; Abramowitz v, Abramowitz, 140
N. T. S. 275; Michelson v. Michelson,
136 N. Y. S. 533; Moriarty v. Moriarty,
10 N. Y. S. 228.
822-34 See Poss v. Poss, 164 App.
Div. 213, 149 N. Y. S. 58/.
822-36 Becker v. Becker, 153 Wis.
226, 140 N. W. 1082.
822-38 See Snider r. Snider, 179
Ind. 583, 102 N. E. 32.
822-39 . See Haskell r. Haskell, 119
Minn. 484, 138 N. W. 787.
823-40 Parker t?. Parker, 211 Mass.
139, 97 N. E. 988.
823-46 After the interlocutory de-
cree has been granted the court may
settle alimony. Shurman v. Shurman.
148 N. Y. S. 947.
824-48 Marriage in issue^ — ^Where
the answer denies the fact of marriage
the court has no jurisdiction to grant
alimony. The right to alimony de-
pends upon the status of parties and
when this is put in issue the court can-
not presume it to exist. Yangco r.
Bohde, 1 Phil. Isl. 404.
824-69 Effect of former settlement.
The trial court may consider all facta
in evidence as to property rights of
parties, and render such decree as may
be just and equitable irrespective of
whether or not a decree in an action
between them several years before had
settled their property rights up to that
time. Bayles v. Kayles, 91 Neb. 505,
136 N. W. 733.
824-60 Second, application.— If conrt
refuses temporary alimony pending an
action for permanent and temporary
alimony the applicant may again apply
for such, and the supplemental applica-
tion may be made a part of the orig-
inal suit by amendment. And if it ap-
pears that circumstances on second Ap-
plication are different from those pre-
vailing when first was refused it is
no abuse of discretion to allow reason-
able alimony. Waters v. Waters, 138
Ga. 805, 76 S. E. 48.
Court need not hear testimony. — ^The
court may award temporary alimony
upon bill, answer, cross-bill, etc., with-
out having heard testimony on same.
Mulhall V. Mulhall, 120 Md. 22, 87 A.
490, cit. Buckner t?. Buckner, 118 Jid.
4S0
DIVOBCE
Vol. 7
263, 84 A. 471. Wife need not produce
proof of the truth of her complaint be-
fore the court may award alimony.
Adkins v. Adkins, 33 O. C. G. 592, 15
O. C. C. (N. S.) 161.
825-62 Mengel v, Mengel, 157 la.
630, 138 N. W. 495; Tabor V. Tabor,
140 N. Y. 8. 313, af. 156 App. Div.
892, 141 N. Y. 8. 1148.
825-67 Bninson v. Bninson, 94 8. C.
11, 77 S. E. 704.
826-74 Williford v, Williford, 162
HI. App. 24; Winkler v, Winkler, 104
Miss. 1, 61 8. 1; Seism 9. Seism, 184
Mo. App. 543, 167 S. W. 456; Davis v,
Davis, 174 Mo. App. 538, 160 8. W.
829; Collett V. Collett, 170 Mo. App.
690, 157 S. W. 90; Hildebrand v. Hilde-
brand, 41 Okla. 306, 137 P. 711; Brun-
eon V, Brunson, 94 8. C. 11, 77 8. E.
704; Blair v. Blair, 40 Utah 306, 121
P. 19; Gibson t?. Gibson, 67 Wash.
474, 122 P. 15.
Ko Jiirlfldiction by consents — ^Where the
divorce is granted on the sole ground
of desertion the court is without juris-
diction to award alimony, and consent
of the parties cannot confer such juris-
diction. Andrews v. Whitney, 21 Haw.
264.
826-75 Ointer v. Ginter (Ind. App.),
104 N. E. 989.
Alimony ttHI be denied where parties
had been 'separat'ed over two years, and
husband had continued residing in same
place, and no suit had been filed for
support, and no new need or changed
condition of wife is shown to have
arisen, and it is doubtful which of the
parties was the deserter. Hatch v.
Hatch, 83 N. J. Eq. 168, 93 A. 700.
82^76 Morales v. Hivera, 8 P. B.
442.
S26-77 Santos t?. Sweeney, 4 Phil.
Isl. 79.
826-79 Laird v. Laird, 87 Kan. Ill,
123 P. 869; Winkler t?. Winkler, 104
Miss. 1, 61 8. 1, Ann. Cas. 1915C, 1250.
See Simpson v. Simpson, 21 Cal. App.
150, 131 P. 99.
826-80 But see Bensen v. Bensen, 20
Gal. App. 462, 129 P. 596. Contra,
Nichols V. Nichols, 169 Mich. 540, 135
N. W. 328.
827-81 Spitler fx Spitler, 108 111.
120; Drollinger v. Drollinger (Ind.
App.), 106 N. E. 428; Holman V, Hol-
man, 155 Ky. 493, 159 S. W. 937.
827-83 ITpon dismissal of complaint
no alimony is allowable. Cumen v.
Curnen, 155 App. Div. 536, 140 N. Y.
S. 805.
827-87 Bailey v. Bailey, 22 N. D.
553, 134 N. W, 747.
828-89 Green v. Green, 152 Ky. 486,
153 S. W. 775; Longbotham t?. Long-
botham, 119 Minn. 139, 137 N. W. 387;
Lemp V. Lemp, 249 Mo. 295, 155 S. W.
1057.
828-90 Installments or gross.-*
"Where the situation of the parties
and the possible contingencies are
such as the amount of alimony to be
paid cannot be placed in a lump sum
without danger of hardship to the de-
fendant, and uncertainty as to the
plaintiff, the court should provide for
the payment of a stated sum of money,
to be divided and distributed over fixed
periods of time." Boza v. Boza, 92
Neb. 78, 137 N. W. 986.
Judgment must definitely fix the pay-
mentSw — ^'But the number of payments,
their time of commencement and ter-
mination, must be fixed by the judg-
ment. They cannot rest upon any con-
tingency, nor be made defeasible by re-
marriage." Lally r. Lally, 152 Wis.
56, 138 N. W. 651.
828-94 Longbotham «. Longbotham,
119 Minn. 139, 137 N. W. 387.
828-96 Stone v. Bayley, 75 Wash.
184, 134 P. 820. See Walter V. Wal-
ter, 189 HI. App. 345 (where court
disregarded agreement of parties);
Emerson r. Emerson, 120 Md. 584, 87
A. 1033.
828-97 Ex parte Whitehead, 179
Ala. 652, 60 S. 924; Lally v, Lally, 152
Wis. 56, 138 N. W. 651.
Action at law^ — ^Alimony cannot ordi-
narily be enforced by action at law,
but only by application to the court
which granted it, subject to his dis-
cretion. Walter v. Walter, 189 HI.
App. 345.
829-6 S. €. Superior Court (Wash.),
148 P. 882, and court cannot be com-
pelled to try the case through man-
damus proceedings.
860-8 See Blair v, Blair, 145 N. Y.
S. 397.
Becanse relator is in default as to pay-
ment of alimony is no reason why he
cannot be heard in asking for a modi-
fication of a divorce decree. S. v.
Superior Court, 78 Wash. 372, 139 P.
42.
SI
481
Vol 7
DIVORCE
830-9 Rothermel v. Bothermel, 166
111. App. 577; Lake v. Houghton Circ*
Judge, 172 Mich. 660, 138 N. W; 249;
Millis 17. S. (Miss.), 63 S. 344; Mem-
field V. Merrificld, 151 App. Div. 931,
136 N. Y. S. 87.
Allowable after sequestratloii has
proved ineffectual. Jacobson v. Jacob-
son, 85 Misc. 253, 148 N. Y. a 341.
830-10 Bridges v. S., 9 Okla. Or. 450
132 P. 503.
831-12 Wulff r. Wulff, 74 Misc. 213,
133 N. Y. S. 807, aff. 151 App^ Div.
22, 135 N. Y. S. 289.
831-14 Wulff V. Wulff, 74 Misc. 213,
133 N. Y. S. 807, aff. 151 App. Div. 22,
135 N. Y. 8. 289.
831«20 Contemiit proceeding is
properly entitled in the style of the
divorce proceeding. Mitchell v, Supe-
rior Court, 163 Cal. 423, 125 P. 1061.
832-22 Averment of notice In ai&-
davits — ^Where the language of the af-
fidavit amounts to an allegation that
defendant was present when the order
awarding alimony was made it is un-
necessary to allege or prove he had
been served wi^t notice of the original
order. Mitchell t\ Superior Court, 163
Cal. 423, 125 P. 1061.
832-25 Gust r. Gust, 78 Wash. 412,
139 P. 199.
832-27 Boyle v. Boyle, 74 Wash. 529,
133 P. 1009.
Burden of proof of inability to pay is
on husband. Schaffner t*. Schaffner, 182
' 111. App. 450; Ex parte Canavan, 17 N.
M. 100, 130 P. 248.
832-30 Instituted pending appeal.
Where contempt proceedings are insti-
tuted pending appeal defendant, upon
giving bond is entitled to a stay. Brun-
son i;. Brunson, 91 S. C. 411, 74 S. E.
928.
833-34 Where receiver had been ap-
pointed, who took possession of all hus-
band's property, he may be ordered to
pay money by court, but husband can-
not be adjudged guilty of contempt for
failure to pay. Gust r. Gust, 78 Wash.
412, 139 P. 199.
833-37 Hamblin t\ Hamblin (Miss.),
65 S. 113.
833-42 Order should fix no definite
period of imprisonment. Boyden v.
Boyden, 162 111. App. 77.
834-46 The findings of the lower
court In regard to the contempt will
not be set aside unless clearly and palp-
ably against the weight of evidence.
Boyden t?. Boyden, 162 UL App. 77.
834-48 Davis t?. Davis, 138 Qa. 8,
74 S. E. 830.
834-66 See Hammontree v. Hammon-
tree, 139 Ga. 810, 78 S. E. 122.
835-6T Haines v. Baines, 138 Ga.
790, 76 S. E. 51.
Kg notice of application for execution
is necessary. Taylor v, Stowe, 218
Mass. 248, 105 N. E. 890.
liaking the levy* — ^Where judgment for
temporary alimony is for a certain sum
payable monthly, an execution may is-
sue in a gross sum for the aggregate
amount due at time of issuance. And
for failure to pay subsequent instal-
ments another execution may issue for
each sum as it falls due, but only one
execution can issue for the same sum.
Baines v, Baines, 138 Ga. 790, 76 8.
E. 51.
An order of snpplementazy proceedings
may issue. In re Donovan, 159 App.
Div. 228, 144 N. Y. S. 280.
836-69 See Bogers v. Day, 115 Mich.
664, 74 N. W. 190, 69 Am, St. 593.
Homestead exempt. — ^Byera v, Byers, 21
la. 268; Biffle t?. Pullam, 114 Mo. 50, 21
S. W. 450; Stanley t?. Sullivan, 71 Wis.
585, 37 N. W. 801, 5 Am. St. 245.
Homestead not exempt.— -Kimmerly v,
McMichael, 83 Neb. 789, 120 N. W. 487;
Praaman v. Traaman, 64 Neb. 472, 90 li.
W. 245, 97 Am. St. 650; Best v. Znta-
vern, 53 Neb. 604, 74 N, W. 64.
836-61 Lally v, Lally, 152 Wis. 56,
138 N. W. 651. See Masterson v, Og-
den, 78 Wash. 644, 139 P. 654.
836-62 Hemenway v. Wood, 63 la.
21, 3 N. W. 794; Abey v. Abey, 32 la.
575; Johnson v, Johnson, 66 Kan. 546,
72 P. 267; Mahoney v. Mahoney, 59
Minn. 347, 61 N. W. 334; Harding r.
Harding, 16 S. D. 406, 92 N. W. 1080,
102 Am. St. 694; Schultz v. Schultz, 133
Wis, 125, 113 N. W. 445, 126 Am. St.
934.
836-64 Jacobson v. Jacobson, 85
Misc. 253, 148 N. Y, S. 341. See Schrei-
ber V, Garden, 152 App. Div. 817, 137
N. T. S. 747.
838-74 Kiplinger v, Kiplinger, 172
Mich. 552, 138 N.^W. 230.
839-86 Buffalo 17. Letson, 33 Okla.
261, 124 P. 968.
841-1 Warren v, Warren, 36 B. I.
167, 89 A. 651.
482
DIVOBCE
^ol. 7
841-4 Maatenon v. Ogden. 78 Wash.
644, 139 P. 654.
841-7 Gordon v. Baker, 182 HI. App.
687.
841-11 Prewitt v. Prewitt, 52 Colo.
522, 122 P. 766; Walter V. Walter, 189
HI. App. 345; Mengel v, Mengel, 157
la. 630, 138 N. W. 495; Emerson V.
Emerson, 120 Md. 584, 87 A. 1033;
Wern v. Wem, 171 Mich. 82, 137 N. W.
71; Wald V. Wald, 168 Mo, App. 377,
151 S. W. 786; Gibson v. Gibson, 81
Misc. 508, 143 N. T« S« 37; Molinari v.
Acosta, 20 P. B. 477; Puigdollers V.
Monroig, 14 P. B. 756; Buzzo 17. Bnzzo
(Utah), 148 P. 362 (even where amount
had been fixed by consent of parties);
Gnst V, Gast, 70 Wash. 695, 127 P. 292;
Weber v. Weber, 153 Wis. 132, 140 N.
W. 1052; Lally €. Lally, 152 Wis. 56,
138 N. W. 651.
Authority to modify decree is statu-
tory. Pingree v. Pingree, 170 Mich. 36,
135 N, W. 923.
Modification after remarriage* — ^Linton
V. HaU, 86 Misc. 560, 149 N. Y. S.
385.
842-12 Silliman v. Silliman, 66 Or.
402, 133 P. 769.
Even after death of hvsband. — ^Pingree
V. Pingree, 170 Mich. 36, 135 N. W.
923.
842-13 lBnizo*r7 Buzzo" (Utah)," 148
P. 362.
842-14 ^Poss vr PoBB," 164 App.'" Div.
213, 149 N. Y. S. 587.
842-15 Ez parte Edwards, 183 Ala.
659, 62 8. 775.
842-16 Lally v. LaUy,"'l52 Wis. 56,
138 N. W. 651.
Allowing alimony. — ^If no alimony was
asked or granted the court cannot sub-
sequently order an allowance. Cam-
eron r. Cameron, 31 S. D. 335, 140 N.
W. 70Q.
As to past doe instalments court can-
not modify decree. McGregor v. Mc-
Gregor, 52 Colo. 292, 122 P. 390; Craig
V. Craig, 163 HI. 176, 45 N. E. 153;
Beers v. Beers, 74 Wash. 458, 133 P.
605.
842-17 Plotke v. Plotke, 177 Dl.
App. 344,
843-20 Plotke v. Plotke, 177 HI.
App. 344; Haskell v, Haskell, 119 Minn.
484, 138 N. W. 787; Levene v. Levene,
165 App. Div. 953, 150 N. Y. 8. 708.
Subsequent marriage of wife is ground
of relief from paying alimony (Emer-
son V. Emerson, 120 Md. 584, 87 A.
1033; Mowbray v. Mowbray, 136 App.
Div. 513, 121 N. Y. S. 45; Linton v.
Hall, 86 Misc. 560, 149 N. Y. S. 385),
though it does not ipso facto dissolve
the obligation. Gordon «. Baker, 182
111. App. 587.
Husband tlioagh he has remarried must
continue to pay alimony. Herrett v.
Herrett, 80 Wash. 474, 141 P. 1158.
844-25 Butler v. Butler, 34 Okla.
392, 125 P. 1127.
Order modifying decree may be ob-
tained by motion without the necessity
of filing a separate complaint. Puig-
dollers V. Monroigi 14 P. B. 756.
845-80 Bates v. Bates, 145 K. Y. S.
411.
845-42 Prewitt v. Prewitt, 52 Colo.
522, 122 P. 766; Haskell v. Haskell,
119 Minn. 484, 138 N. W, 387.
846-47 See Masterson v, Ogden, 78
Wash. 644, 139 P. 654.
846-48 Faversham v, Faversham, 161
App. Div. 521, 146 N. Y. S. 569.
846-40 Stone v. Duffy, 219 Mass. 178,
106 N. E. 595.
847-54 Faversham v, Faversham, 161
App. Div. 521, 146 N. Y. 8. 569. Contra,
Chumos V. Chumos, 93 Kan. 33, 143 P.
420.
847-55 Lally v. Lally, 152 Wis, 56,
138 N. W. 651.
Executor or administrator of deceased
husband is liable for arrears of ali-
mony. Stone V. Duffy, 219 Mass. 178,
106 N. E. 595.
847-56 Griffin if. Griffin, 154 Ky. 766,
159 S. W. 597.
As to execution of decree pending ap-
peal. See Bobinson v. Bobinson (N.
J. Eq.), 92 A. 94.
848-57 Dowling v, Dowling, 181 Mo.
App. 675, 164 S. W. 643; Gordan v.
Gordan, 91 S. C. 245, 74 S. E. 360.
849-60 Knapp v. Knapp, 23 Cal. App.
10, 136 P. 719. See Miller v. Miller,
65 Or. 551, 133 P. 86, mod. 65 Or. 551,
131 P. 308.
849-61 Williams v. WiUiams, 141 Ga.
791, 82 S. E. 226; Gore r. Gore, 138 Ga.
171, 74 S. E. 1029; Stauber v. Stauber,
168 ni. App. 179; Williford V, WilU-
ford, 162 111. App. 24; MUler v. Miller,
55 Ind. App. 644, 104 N. E. 588; Ginter
fj. Ginter (Ind. App.), 104 N. E. 989;
Huffman v. Huffman, 53 Ind. App. 201,
4831
. Vol. 7
DIVORCE
101 N. E. 400; Sliafer v. Sliafer, 53 Ind.
App. 325, 101 N. E. 680; Mengel v.
Mengel, 157 la. 630, 138 N. W. 495;
Ahrns v. Ahrns, 160 Ky. 342, 169 8. W.
720; Mulhall v. Mulhall, 120 Md. 22,
87 A. 490; Winkler v. Winkler, 104
Miss. 1, 61 S. 1; Dowling v. Dowling,
181 Mo. App. 675, 164 S. W. 643; Col-
lett t?. CoUett, 170 Mo. App. 590, 157
8. W. 90; Gordon I?. Gordon, 91 8. C.
245, 74 S. E. 360; Griffith V. Griffith, 74
Wash. 284, 133 P. 443; Beynolds v. Eey-
nolds, 72 W. Va. 349, 78 8. E. 360;
Henrie 17. Henrie, 71 W. Va. 131, 76 S.
E. 837.
An allowance of temporary alimony or
suit money to a wife having some prop-
erty or credit is not necessarily an
abuse of discretion. 8nider v. Snider,
179 Ind. 583, 102 N. E. 32; Gruhl v.
Gruhl, 123 Ind. 86, 23 N. E. 1101.
Allowing alimony. — While a judgment
of divorce improperly granted cannot
be reversed, alimony may be adjudged
to wife on appeal. White v. White, 152
Ky. 769, 154 8. W. 33.
849-62 Van Gordor v. Van Gordor,
54 Colo. 57, 129 P. 226; Friebe v. Elder
(Ind. App.), 103 N. E. 429, af. 181 Ind.
597, 105 N. E. 151; Judson v. Judson,
171 Mich. 185, 137 N. W. 103; Bene-
dicto !?. De la Rama, 7 Phil. Isl. 745;
Catton V. Catton, 69 Wash. 130, 124, P.
387. See Longbotham v, Longbotham,
119 Minn. 139, 137 N. W. 387.
The matter is discretionary with the
court. Ganger r. Gauger, 157 Wis. 630,
147 N. W. 1075.
The ooort should make an equitable di-
vision of the property even though the
property involved was the separate
property of the husband acquired be-
fore marriage. Hale v. Hale, 76 Wash.
34, 135 P. 481.
Wife's separate property will be re-
stored te her if she is granted divorce.
Piedler v. Fiedler (Okla.), 147 P. 769.
850-64 The court acquires Jurisdic-
tion over the property when it is de-
scribed in the pleading. Catton v. Cat-
ton, 69 Wash. 130, 124 P. 387. Court
is without jurisdiction to cancel a deed
given wife by husband or a mortgage
on his real estate purchased by wife
with her separate funds, unless an is-
sue be made in the pleadings showing
a right to such relief and evidence of-
fered in support thereof. Fiedler V,
Fiedler (Okla.), 147 P. 769.
850-66 See Clute v. Clute, 93 Neb.
756, 141 N. W. 1028.
851-68 Catton v. Catton, 69 Wash.
130, 124 P. 387.
Failure to schedule the property of the
parties will not render the pleading
demurrable. McCord I?. McCord, 140
Ga. 170, 78 8. E. 833. But a waiver of
right to any division of the property
results where it is not described in the
pleading. Perkins v. Perkins, 72 Or.
302, 143 P. 995.
851-75 An agreement of the parties
as to the distribution of the property
will be upheld by the court. Emery ۥ
Emery, 181 Mich. 146, 147 N. W. 452.
Community property may be assigned
to the wife. Cooper v. Miller, 165 Cal.
31, 130 P. 1048.
852-81 8illiman «. Silliman, 66 Or.
402, 133 P. 769,
852-82 Apple c. Apple, 105 Ark. 669,
152 8. W. 296.
852-84 8ee Howell v. Howell, 42
Okla. 286, 141 P. 412.
852-87 8chirmer t7. 8chirmer
(Wash.), 145 P. 981; Gauger €. Gauger,
157 Wis. 630, 147 N. W. 1075. See
Gleeson v. Gleeson, 94 Neb. 13, 142 N.
W. 292.
852-88 Scott V. Wheeler (la.), 151
N. W. 1100; Austin V. Austin, 173 Mich.
47, 138 N. W. 237; Banders v. Sandera,
167 N. C. 317, 83 8. E. 489.
''There Is no hard and fast rule by
which it can be determined which one
of two contesting parents is entitled
to the custody of the child on their
separation." Kjellander v. Kjellander,
92 Kan. 42, 139 P. 1013.
Court as receiver. — The jurisdiction of
the court as to the disposition of the
property and care of minor children is
a continuous one. But there is no pre-
cedent for the trial court to constitute
itself the receiver or curator of the en-
tire estate. Willson €. Willson (Wash.),
146 P. 615.
853-93 In Massachusetts the super-
ior court has jurisdiction. Stone v.
Duffy, 219 Mass. 178, 106 N. E. 595.
853-2 Yates r. Tates, 157 Wis. 219,
147 N. W. 60. See Stone v, Bayley, 75
Wash. 184, 134 P. 820.
858-3 See Carpenter v. Carpenter,
171 Mich 572, 137 N. W. 250.
854-13 Simmons i\ Simmons, 22 Cal.
App. 448. 134 P. 791; Harris i?. Harris,
484
DIVORCE
Vol. 7
65 Fla. 60, 61 8. 122- Zachary v, Zach-
ary, 140 Ga. 479, 79 S. E. 115; Sanders
V. Sanders, 167 N. C. 317, 83 S. E.
489; Colorado v. Capella, 18 P. R. 953.
The decree is decisive as long as it
continues in force. Stone V, Duflfy, 219
Mass. 178, 106 N. E. 595.
The common law right of the father
to the custody of the child must yield
to the discretionary power vested by
the statute in the court. Pearson €.
Pearson, 179 111. App. 127.
854-15 Pearson v. Pearson, 179 HI.
App. 127; Colson v. Colson, 153 Ky. 68,
154 S. W. 380; Shehan v. Shehan, 152
Ky. 191, 153 S. W. 243; Weiss v. Weiss,
174 Mich. 431, 140 N. W. 5S7; Dimmitt
r. Dimmitt, 167 Mo. App. 94, 150 S. W.
1107; Ex parte Boyd (Tex. Civ.), 157
8. W. 254; Holm v. Holm, 44 Utah 242,
139 P. 937.
*'The paramount consideration is the
suitable maintenance of the child in
accord with its station in life." Earle
V. fiarle, 158 App. Div. 552, 143 N. Y.
8. 841.
854-16 The father will be awarded
custody of children of tender years
when it appears it is not for their best
interests to remain with mother. Penn
V. Penn, 37 Okla. 650, 133 P. 207.
854-18 Ex parte Ellerd (Tex. Cr.),
158 8. W. 1145.
855-19 Lee i?. P., 53 Colo. 507, 127
P. 1023. See Shehan €. Shehan, 152
Ky. 191, 153 S. W. 243; Phipps v,
Phipps, 168 Mo. App. 697, 154 S. W.
825.
Katnre of the privilege* — ^"The privi-
lege of visitation of the parent is an
important one, but is not an absolute
right, nor is it the paramount consid-
eration; it must yield to the good of
the child, which is in the last analysis
the controlling consideration. '' Bedolfe
r. Bedolfe, 71 Wash. 60, 127 P. 594.
855-21 Wald v. Wald, 168 Mo. App.
377, 151 8. W. 786; Ex parte Ellerd
(Tex. Cr.), 158 8. W. 1145.
855-22 See P. v. Hoxie, 175 HI. App.
563. Comp. Dimmitt v, Dimmitt, 167
Mo. App. 94, 150 S. W. 1107.
855-25 Comp. Stone v, Bayley, 75
Wash. 184, 134 P. 820, where it was
held that the court could burden the
property for the benefit of the children.
855-28 Personal property of the
minor child may not be subjected to a
lien for his support. Longbotham v.
Longbotham, 119 Minn. 139, 137 N. W,'
387.
855-30 Earle v. Earle, 158 App. Div.
552, 143 N. Y. S. 841.
856-31 Bensen v. [Jensen, 20 Cal.
App. 462, 129 P. 596; Voss V. Voss, 157
Wis. 430, 147 N. W. 634.
Unless divorce is granted the court has
no jurisdiction over the custody of a
child. Bedding i\ Bedding (N. J. Eq.),
85 A. 712; Weigel v. Weigel, 60 N. J.
Eq. 322, 47 A. 183.
856-32 8. V. Coolidge, 72 Wash. 42,
129 P. 1088.
856-33 Gilbert V. Gilbert, 149 Ky.
638, 149 8. W. 964.
856-38 An Independent criminal
proceeding cannot be maintained. Ahd
another court in such a proceeding can-
not modify a decree in a divorce case
as to support of child by requiring a
bond as security for payment. 8. t?.
Coolidge, 72 Wash. 42, 129 P. 1088.
856-39 Shehan v. Shehan, 152 Ky.
191, 153 8. W. 243; Byder v, Perkins,
219 Mass. 625, 107 N. E. 387; Stone
V. Duffy, 219 Mass. 178, 106 N. E. 595;
Wald V. Wald, 168 Mo. App. 377, 151 S.
W. 786; Dimmitt v. Dimmitt, 167 Mo.
App. 94, 150 a. W. 1107; S. v. District
Court, 46 Mont. 425, 128 P. 590; White
f?. White,. 154 App. Div. 250, 138 N. Y.
8. 1082; Davis r. Davis, 150 N. Y. 8.
636; Gibbons t?. Gibbons (Or.), 147 P.
530; Miller v. Miller, 67 Or. 359, 136 P.
15; Gadsby v. Gadsby, 65 Or. 309, 131
P. 1022; Hall v. Whipple (Tex. Civ.),
145 8. W. 308; Harris t?. Harris, 71
Wash. 307, 128 P. 673.
Before majority. — May be modified any
time before children are of age. Phipps
V. Phipps, 168 Mo. App. 697, 154 8. W.
825.
Permitting visitation. — ^Decree may be
so modified as to permit parent to visit
children at stated intervals. Powers v.
Powers, 164 App. Dv. 533, 150 N. Y.
S. 213.
This applies though the judgment was
by consent. Sanders V, Sanders, 167
N. C. 317, 83 S. E. 489.
857-40 Harris r. Harris, 65 Fla. 50,
61 8. 122; Schlarb V. Sehlarb (la.), 150
N. W. 593; Duvall t?. Duvall, 147 Ky.
426, 144 S.W. 78; Phipps 17. Phipps,
168 Mo. App. 697, 154 S. W. 825; Ex
parte Boyd (Tex. Civ.), 157 8, W. 254;
Plummer v. Plummer (Tex. Civ.), 154 8.
W. 597; Beers c. Beers, 74 Wash. 458,
133 P. 605..
485
Vol. 7
DOWER
Bnxden of proYlng changed cixcmn-
stances is on party claiming the same*
Grego V. Schneider (Tex, Civ.), 154 S.
W. 361.
Here fact that, allowance was Inade-
qnate is no ground for modification, but
is a matter subject to correction on ap-
pe^. Brice v, Brice (MontOy 147 JP.
164.
Third persoDfl may Intervene when
party awarded custody became unfit for
the trust. Stone €. Duffy, 219 Mass.
178, 106 N. E. 595.
857-42 Bussell v. Bussell, 20 Gal.
App. 457, 129 P. 467.
858-47 S. V. District Court, 46 Mont.
425, 128 P. 590.
8(t8-49 .The Inquiry as to the pro-
priety of modifying the decree should
include an investigation as to the fin-
ancial ability of the party seeking the
custody of the child. Earle v, Earle,
164 App. Div. 713, 150 N. Y. S. 173.
858-50 8aeh a proceeding should not
he in the fozm of a mere motion sup-
ported by affidavits, but rather in a
supplemental petition setting out the
facts on which claim for relief is de-
manded, thus enabling defendant to
take issue thereon. Schlarb v. Schlarb
(la.), 150 N. W. 693.
858-51 Kotice mnst be gfyen, and
notice by publication is ineffective.
Blachly v. Blachly (la.), 151 N. W. 447.
858-53 See Scott v. Wheeler (la.),
151 N. W. 1100.
859-55 Purdy €. Ernst, 93 Kan. 157,
143 P.- 429.
850-56 P. 17. Hoxie, 175 Dl. App.
563.
850-59 Bower v. Bower (Ohio.), 106
N. E. 969.
Court of appeals may review the
grounds for a divorce and evidence sup-
porting the same in determining
whether alimony is reasonable or cus-
tody of infant children is properly be-
stowed. Anderson V. Anderson, 152 Ky.
773, 154 S. W. 1.
859-60 Bower v. Bower (Ohio), 106
N. E. 969.
Proceedings pending appeal. — See Scott
V. Wheeler (la.), 151 N. W. 1100.
Presumptions as to findings. — ^Whete
the court in its decree does not state
or recite the offer or introduction of
evidence, but simply says the court
'^ proceeding to hear the facts and rea-
sons urged in the motion finds, etc.,^' it
will be assumed on appeal that the court
disposed of the motion upon the state-
ments therein made and the affidavits
in support thereof. Schlarb v. Schlarb
(la.), 150 N. W. 593.
859-61 Simmons v, Simmons, 22 Cal.
App. 448, 134 P. 791; Sanders V. San-
ders, 167 N. C. 317, 83 S. E. 489.
DOWEB
866-81 Oircnit court has power to
admeasure dower. Browne €. Coleman,
62 Or. 454, 125 P. 278; Baer V. Ballin-
gaU, 37 Or. 416, 61 P. 852.
867-34 Carter v. Younger, 112 Ark.
483, 166 S. W. 547.
867-36 See Carter v. Younger, 112
Ark. 483, 166 S. W. 547.
868-39 Underground Electric Bys.
Co. V. Owsley, 196 Fed. 278, 116 C. C.
A. 98, mod. 190 Fed. 679; XJpshaw r.
Upshaw, 180 Ala. 204, 60 S. 804; Wil-
son V. Roebuck, 180 Ala. 288, 60 S.
870; Johnson V, Johnson, 106 Ark. 9,
152 S. W. 1017.
869-41 Bobertson v, Bobertson
(Ala.), 68 S. 52.
869-42 See Ahin v. Opele, 17 Haw.
525.
869-43 An equity court has no jnr-
isdictloii of a suit brought against a
widow for admeasurement of dower
where the widow denies she has any
dower rights. Ahin v. Opele, 17 Haw.
525.
871-57 Sprague v, Stevens (B. I.),
91 A. 43; Bragg V. Tinkling Land &
Imp. Co., 115 Va. 1, 78 S. E. 541.
872-60 Kirby v. Kelly, 90 S. C. 378,
73 S. E. 780; Bostick v, Barnes, 59 S.
C. 22, 37 S. E. 24.
Venue. — ^Where action may be brought
jointly against persons in possession of
any of the lands out of which dower is
claimed, then the fact that part of
lands may be in one county and part
in another does not deprive the court
of jurisdiction. Kirby <?. Kelly, 90 S.
C. 378, 73 S. E. 780; Barrett v. Watts,
13 S. C. 441.
872-65 While the statute of B. I.,
Qen. Laws, 1909, ch. 329, §15, provides
that a widow entitled to dower in sev-
eral parcels of land may sue in equity
all persons owning the various parcels,
such provision does not preclude her
from suing separately those owners, who
486
DOWER
Vol. 7
by reason of deatH or alienation after
commencement of suit will not be af-
fected by the decree. Sprague v, Stev-
ens (E. I.), 91 A. 43.
Hein of deceased defenduitd — In the
case of death of any party defendant
it is not necessary to make the heirs
at law or devisees parties before pro-
ceeding, but the failure to join only
eliminates the parcel owned by the de-
ceased from further consideration.
Sprague v, Stevens (E. I.), 91 A. 43.
Heir necessary party to an action by
widow for partition and dower where
land jointly held was voluntarily par-
titioned between surviving owner and
deceased owner's heir, and each took
a part. Vaughn v. Vaughn, 180 Ala.
212, 60 S. 872.
873-69 Murray r. Scully, 259 Mo. 57,
167 S. W. 1017.
8T8-70 Murray v. Scully, 259 Mo. 57,
167 S. W. 1017.
873-72 Murray v, Scully, 259 Mo. 57,
167 S. W. 1017.
876-92 See Murray t?. Scully, 259
Mo. 57, 167 S. W. 1017.
877-94 As to necessity of filing a
cross-bill, see Bragg V, Tinkling Land
& Imp. Co., 115 Va. 1, 78 S. E. 541.
880-19 Oommlssioiieni must give no-
tice of time of admeasurement of dower
to heirs, and dower should not be laid
off in absence of heirs, unless after not-
ice they fail to attend. Boss' Admx.
V. Ross, 72 W. Va. 640, 78 S. E. 789.
881-27 Written Instnictions in re-
gard to their duties need not be given.
Moran v. Stewart, 246 Mo. 462, 151 S.
W. 439, cit. Chicago, etc. R. Co. v. Ran-
dolph Townsite Co., 103 Mo. 451, 15 S.
W. 437.
882-33 There need be no written ez-
ceptionSy the trial court determining
the correctness or legality of the re-
port in any manner satisfactory to it.
When, however, the report was ap-
proved it became binding and then
party should except to order approving
it. Moran 17. Stewart, 246 Mo. 462, 151
S. W. 439.
885-51 Wade v. Wade, 153 Ky. 618,
156 S. W. 138, rev. on rehear. 154 Ky.
24, 156 S. W. 873; McClain v. McClain,
152 Ky. 206, 153 S. W. 234, extending
opinion, 151 Ky. 356, 151 S. W. 926.
886-61 Effect of voluntary parti-
tion.— ^Dower in land held in common
should be enforced against part of land
taken by heir of deceased co-tenant un<
der voluntary partition rather than
against that taken by surviving co-ten*
ant. Vaughn v, Vaughn, 180 Ala. 212,
60 S. 872.
886-62 Pierce v. O'Brien, 29 Fed.
402; Morgan v, Hendrcn, 102 Ala. 245,
14 8. 540; Thrasher o. Pinckard, 23 Ala.
616; In re Tomlinson, 9 Del. Ch. 446,
81 A. 468. 685; Baden v. McKenny, 7
Mackey (D. C.) 268; Scammon v, Camp-
bell, 75 ni. 223; Pelch v. Finch, 52 la.
563, 3 N. W. 570; Wall v. Hill, 7 Dana
(Ky.^ 173; Lawson v, Morton, 6 Dana
(Ky.) 471; Mahoney V. Young, 3 Dana
(Ky.) 588, 28 Am. Dec. 114; Carter v.
Parker, 28 Me. 509; Hobbs v, Harvey,
16 Me. 80j Bowie v. Berry, 3 Md. Ch.
359; MarKham v. Merrett, 7 How.
(Miss.) 437, 40 Am. Dec. 76; Wool-
dridge V. Wilkins, 3 How. (Miss.) 360;
Young V. Thrasher, 115 Mo. 222, 21 S.
W. 1104; Rannells t?. Washington Uni-
versity, 96 Mo. 226, 9 S. W. 569; Van
Dom V. Van Dorn, 3 N. J. L. 270, 4 Am.
Dec. 408; Turner v. Kuehnle, 70 N. J.
Eq. 61, 62 A. 327; Thompson v. Mor-
row, 5 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 289, 9 Am. Dec.
358; Shirtz v. Shirtz, 5 Watts (Pa.)
255; Gannon r. Widman, 15 Pa. Co. Ct.
474; Eobinet v. Pickering, 44 U. C. Q.
B. 337; Norton V, Smith, 20 U. C. Q.
B. 213.
887-63 Husted's Appeal, 34 Conn.
488; Parker v. Parker, 17 Pick. (Mass.)
236; Larrowe v. Beam, 10 Ohio 498,
against grantee of heirs. Sbe Man-
ning €. Laboree, 33 Me. 343.
887-64 Comp. Way v. Way, 42 Conn.
52; Allsmiller v. Freutchenicht, 86 Ky.
198, 5 S. W. 746. See Evertson v. Tap-
pen, 5 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 497.
887-69 Irregularities not affecting
the Judgments — Where judge at cham-
bers appointed commissioners, who as-
signed dower and made return to
proper court and judgment was duly en-
tered thereon, such judgment will not
be declared a nullity because the jud<?e
was sitting at chambers outside his cir-
cuit when the appointment was made,
or because the record did not show that
the commissioners made the affidavit
provided by law before assigning dow-
er. Cook V, Cook, 138 Ga. 88, 74 S. E.
795. See Early v. Oliver, 63 Ga. 11, 22.
888-73 Under §1600 of Code Civ.
Proc. a widow is entitled to damages
for withholding her dower, the amount
to be computed from her husband's
487
Vol. 7
DUE PROCESS OF LAW
death, or where it is against any other
person, from the time when she de-
manded it. Boessle v, Boessle, 163 App.
Div. 344, 148 N. Y. S. 659, rev. 81 Misc.
558, 142 N. Y. S. 984. See Gorden v.
Gordon, 80 App. Div. 258, 81 N. Y. S.
241.
890-90 Ko xlght of recovery In eze-
cntors. — Where wife died before her
dower had been admeasured her execut-
ors are not entitled to the relief prayed
for in her bill. Sims v'. Yerkes, 239 Pa.
695, 87 A. 56, af. 52 Pa. Super. 105.
890-92 Bell v. Golding, 151 App.
Div. 945, 136 N. Y. S. 278: Dudley v.
Tyson, 167 N. C. 67, 82 S. E. 1025, cit.
Bev., §2517. See Upshaw r. Upshaw, 180
Ala. 204, 60 S. 804; Vaughn v. Vaughn,
180 Ala. 212, 60 S. 872.
DT7E PB00ES8 OF LAW
894-1 Ez parte Sullivan, 10 Okla.
Cr. 465, 138 P. 815; Ekern t?. McGov-
ern, 154 Wis. 157, 142 N. W. 595, 46 L.
B. A. (N. S.) 796.
894-2 Drainage Comrs. V, Drainage
Dist., 266 ni. 636, 107 N. E. 895; Heim
V. McCall, 165 App. Div. 449, 150 N.
Y. S. 933; P. v. Crane, 165 App. Div.
449, 150 N. Y. S. 933.
The leglslatiire may classify where the
classification bears upon all alike with-
in the class. Citizens' Tel. Co. v. Ful-
ler, 229 U. S. 322, 33 Sup. Ct. 833, 57
L, ed. 1206; Chicago Dock Co. €. Fraley,
228 U. S. 680, 33 Sup. Ct. 715, 57 L. ed.
1022; Bradley v. Bichmond, 227 U. S,
477, 33 Sup. Ct. 318, 57 L. ed. 603;
Michigan Central B. Co. v. Powers, 201
IT. S. 245, 26 Sup. Ct. 459, 60 L. ed.
744.
895-3 Barrett 9. Indiana, 229 IT. S.
26, 33 Sup. Ct. 692, 57 L. ed. 1050;
Schmidinger e. Chicago, 226 U. S. 678,
33 Sup. Ct. 182, 57 L. ed. 364; Mobile,
J. & K. C. B.'B. V. Turnipseed, 219 U.
S. 35, 31 Sup. Ct. 136, 55 L. ed. 78,
Ann. Cas. 1912A, 463, 32 L. B. A. (N.
S.) 226; GundHng 17. Chicago, 177 U.
S. 183, 20 Sup. Ct. 633, 44 L. ed. 725;
York 17. Texas, 137 U. S. 15, 11 Sup. Ct.
9, 34 L. ed. 604; Chinn v. Foster-Mil-
bum Co., 195 Fed. 158; Butler t?. Perry,
67 Fla. 405, 66 S. 150; Dutton Phos-
phate Co. f?. Triest, 67 Fla. 370, 65 S.
282; U. S. 17. Ocampo, 18 Phil. Isl. 1;
S. t;. Sponaugle, 45 W. Va. 415, 32 S. E.
283, 43 L. B. A. 727.
896-4 Garlaod f7. Washington, 232 U.
S. 642, 34 Sup. Ct. 456, 58 L. ed. 772;
Elbert 17. Scott (Del.), 90 A. 587; Lynn
vl Flanders, 141 Ga. 500, 81 S. E. 205;
Sheldon 17. Hoyne, 261 111. 222, 103 X.
E. 1021.
896-5 What constitutes due process
of law In deportation proceedings. — Ex
parte Hidekuni Iwata, 219 Fed. 610.
Bemoral from office* — ^If one accept of-
fice from which by the law of the land
he is subject to be removed in any par-
ticular "Way, then deprival that way is
due process of law. If he takes an of-
fice which is in the power of the leg-
islature to abolish and he is thereby
deprived of it his removal is by due
process of law. Ekern f7. McGovern, 154
Wis. 157, 142 N. W. 595, 46 L. B. A.
(N. S.) 796, guot. from Attorney Gen-
eral <?. Jochim, 99 Mich. 358, 58 N. W.
611, 41 Am. St. Bep. 606, 23 L. B. A.
699.
896-6 Schmidinger v. Chicago, 226
U. S. 578, 33 Sup. Ct. 182, 57 L. ed.
364; Sheldon 17. Hoyne, 261 HI. 222, 103
N. E. 1021.
The regular administration of law ac-
cording to the prescribed procedure, is
due process of law. Frank 17. S., 142 Ga.
741, 83 S. E. 645; Sheldon v. Hoyne,
261 HI. 222, 103 N. E. 1021; Wilcox v.
Phillips, 260 Mo. 664, 169 S. W. 55;
Jones 17. Tore, 142 Mo. 38, 43 S. W.
384; U. S. V. Ocampo, 18 Phil. Isl. 1;
Carnegie Nat. Gas Co. c. Swiger, 72 W.
Va. 557, 79 S. E. 3, 46 L. B. A. (N.
S.) 1073.
Erroneons decision of conrL— A state
does not violate the due process of law
provisions, etc. Griggs 17. Hansen, 86
Kan. 632, 121 P. 1094, Ann. Cas. 1913C,
242, 52 L. B. A. 1161.
898-7 Barrett v. Indiana, 229 U. S.
26, 33 Sup. Ct. 692, 57 L. ed. 1050;
Schmidinger 17. Chicago, 226 U. S. 578,
33 Sup. Ct. 182, 57 L. ed. 364; Butler
17. Perry, 67 Fla. 405, 66 S. 150; Dut-
ton Phosphate Co. v. Priest, 67 Fla. 370,
65 S. 282.
A retroactiye law which impairs sub-
stantial property rights, would be un-
constitutional as denying due process
of law. Hanscom 17. Maiden & Melrose
Gas Light Co. (Mass.), 107 N. E. 426.
898-8 Sheldon v. Hoyne, 261 HI. 222,
103 N. E. 1021; Carnegie Natural Gas
Co. 17. Swiger, 72 W. Va. 557, 79 S. E.
3, 46 L. B. A. (N. S.) 1073; S. €. Spon-
augle, 45 W. Va. 415, 37 S. E. 283, 43
L. B. A. 727; Ekern v. McGovem, 154:
488
J)VE PROCESS OF LAW
Vol. 7
WiB. 157, 142 K W. 695, 46 L. e1 A.
(N. 8.) 796.
898-9 Carnegie Nat. Gas Go. v. Swi-
ger, 72 W. Va. 557, 79 S. E. 3, 46 L. B.
A. (N. S.) 1073 quoU Brannon on
Pourteenth Amendment, 467.
Bailroad commissioxL — Stimets v. High-
gate, 81 Vt. 231, 69 A. 878.
Public service commissioiL — George v.
Confiol. Light Co., 87 Vt. 411, 89 A. 635.
Collection of taxes and state revenue.
Wulzen <?. Board, 101 Cal. 15, 35 P.
353; Forbes v. Chuoco Tiaco, 16 Phil.
Isl. 534; S. V. Sponaugle, 45 W. Va. 415,
32 S. E. 283, 43 L. B. A. 727.
899-10 Chicago Dock Co. v. Praley,
228 U. S. 680, 33 Sup. Ct. 715, 57 L.
ed. 1022; Laurel Hill Cemetery v. San
Francisco, 216 U. S. 358, 30 Sup. Ct.
301, 54 L. ed. 515; Button Phosphate
Co. u. Priest, 67 Fla. 370, 65 S. 282.
902-18 Frank t?. S., 142 Ga. 741, 83
S. E. 645, quot. from McGehee on Due
Process of Law, 35.
902-20 Frank r. S., 142 Ga. 741, 83
S. £. 645, quoU from McGehee on Due
Process of Law.
907-41 Walters 17. McKinnis, 221
Fed. 746; Thomas V. Boise City, 25 Ida.
522, 138 P. 1110; Anderson v. Great
Northern By. Co., 25 Ida. 433, 138 P.
127; Hess t\ Conway, 93 Kan. 246, 144
P. 205; Wilcox v, PhUlips, 260 Mo. 664,
169 8. W. 55; Bledsoe v. Stallard, 250
Mo. 154, 157 S. W. 77; P. V. Kempner,
154 App. Div. 674, 139 N. Y. S. 440;
Matter of Grout, 105 App. Div. 98, 93
N. Y. S. 711; Ex parte Sullivan, 10
Okla. Cr. 465, 138 P. 815; Schields V.
McMicking, 23 Phil. Isl. 526; Straub
V. Lyman L. & Inv. Co., 31 S. D. 671,
141 N. W. 979.
*'I>ae process of law only means due
notice and opportunity to be heard."
Bass V. Yazoo & M. Y. B. Co., 136 La.
528, 67 S. 355.
Snbstitated sendee^— Statute providing
that service on an agent of an unin-
corporated association makes the asso-
ciation a party is not violative of the
due process clause of the constitution.
Ex parte Baylor, 93 S. C. 414, 77 S. E.
59.
Fundamental rights* — Walters r. Mc-
Kinnis, 221 Fed. 746; Ekern v. McGov-
ern 154 Wis. 157, 142 N. W. 595, 46 L.
B. A (N. S.) 796.
Dae process of law depends, etc* — ^Wil-
cox V. Phillips, 260 Mo. 664, 169 S. W.
55; Bertholf W CBeilly, 74 N. Y. 509,
30 Am. Bep. 323.
Service on a domestic corporation made
by delivering a copy to any one of cer-
tain officers, either within or without
the state, is sufficient notice to the cor-
poration and constitutes due process.
Straub V. Lyman L. & Inv. Co., 31 S.
D. 571, 141 N. W. 979.
Service upon one member of a late
partnership is sufficient to authorize a
judgment covering the partnership
property or interest of the late part-
ner not served, and such judgment does
not operate to deprive such person of
property without due process of law.
Thomas v. Nathan, 65 Fla. 386, 62 S.
206.
908-42 Southern Kansas By. Co. v.
Vance (Tex. Civ.), 155 S. W. 696.
909-43 Hanover Nat. Bank v. Moy-
seSy 186 U S. 181, 22 Sup. Ct. 857; 46
L. ed. 1113; In re Bump's Est., 152 Cal.
274, 92 P. 643. See note in 52 L. R. A.
(N. S.) 1161.
909-46 In re McPhee's, 154 Cal. 385,
97 P. 878.
912-52 Mobile, J. K. C. B. R. v.
Turnipseed, 219 U. S. 35, 31 Sup. Ct.
136, 55 L. ed. 78, Ann. Cas. 1912A,
463, 32 L. B. A. (N. S.) 226; S. u.
Thomas, 144 Ala. 77, 40 S. 271; Mead-
owcroft V. P., 163 111. 56, 45 N. E.
303; P. V. Cannon, 139 N. Y. 32, 34 N.
E. 759.
913-57 Mobile, J. & K. C. B. B. v.
Turnipseed, 219 U. S. 35, 31 Sup. Ct.
136, 55 L. ed. 78, Ann. Cas. 1912A, 463,
32 li. B. A. (N. S.) 226.
Must be rational connection.^ — ^"That a
legiidative presumption of one fact
from evidence of another may not con-
stitute a denial of due process of law
or a denial of the equal protection of
the law it is only essential that there
shall be some rational connection be-
tween the fact proved and the ultimate
fact presumed, and that the inference
of one fact from proof of another shall
not be BO unreasonable as to be a
purely arbitrary mandate." Mobile, J.
& K. C. B. B. V. Turnipseed, 219 U. S.
35, 31 Sup. Ct. 136, 55 L. ed. 78, Ann.
Cas. 1912A, 463, 32 L. B. A. (N. S.)
226; P. <?. Cannon, 139 N. Y. 32, 34
N. E. 759.
918-71 Garland V, Washington, 232
U. S. 642, 34 Sup. Ct. 456, 58 L. ed.
772; Frank v. S., 142 Ga. 741, 83 S.
489
Vol 1
PVPLicirr
E. 645; P. V. Heise, 257 HI. 443, 100
N. E. 1000; Belcher v. S., 9 Okla. Cr.
50, 130 P. 515; Schields v. McMicking,
23 Phil. IbI. 526, failure to allow ac-
cused time to prepare for trial.
Due process In criminal prosecutions.
"In criminal prosecutions the organic
guaranties of due process of law are
satisfied where sufficient notice of the
accusation and an adequate opportunity
to defend are afforded in a proper trib-
unal on a charge made under a valid
statute." Butler v. Perry, 67 Pla. 405,
66 S. 150.
928-95 In regulating tbe liquor traf-
fic, etc. Board of Oomrs. Excise 17.
Merchant, 103 K. Y. 143, 8 N. E. 484;
S. t?. Mellor, 13 R. I. 666; S. v. Higgins,
13 R. I. 330.
A conviction based upon illegal testi-
mony or upon suspicion is not obtained
by due process of law. McBae v. S., 8
Okla. Cr. 483, 129 P. 71.
DXTPLIOITT
936-19 Walley v. Wiley (Ind. App.),
104 N. E. 318.
938-25 Oomblnlng In one plea^— Al-
though the defendant is entitled to set
up different and inconsistent defenses,
he can combine them in one plea, as a
failure of consideration and breach of
warranty. Berlin Mach. Works v,
Ewart Lumb. Co., 184 Ala. 272, 63 S.
567.
940-31 Valerii v. Breakwater Co., 3
Boyce (Del.) 196, 84 A. 222; Roebling's
Sons Co. V, Southern Power Co., 142 Ga.
464, 83 S. E. 138; Culbertson t?. lola
Portland Cement Co., 87 Kan. 529, 125
P. 81; Hunner t?. Stevenson, 122 Md.
40, 89 A. 418; Cumberland Glass Mfg.
Co. i?. DeWitt, 120 Md. 381, 87 A. 927;
Schnell v, Michigan Bond & S. Co.
(Mich.), 150 N. W. 152; Norfolk & W.
B. Co. V. Ampey, 93 Va. 108, 25 S. E.
226; Grayson v. Buchanan, 88 Va. 251,
13 S. E. 457. See Strout v. United
Shoe Machinery Co., 202 Fed. 602; Cil-
ley V. United Shoe Machinery Co., 202
Fed. 598, complaint under Anti-Trust
Act held not to be duplicitous.
941-32 Coody v. Coody, 39 Okla. 719,
136 P. 754.
941-33 That a deed is void because
a forgery and because it represents a
contract of sale by a wife of her separ-
ate estate to her husband without hav-
ing been allowed by an order of court.
Echols V. Green, 140 Ga. 678, 79 S. E.
557.
942-34 Balaklala Consol. Copper Co.
V. Whitsett (C. C. A.), 221 Fed. 421;
Valerii v. Breakwater Co., 3 Boyce
(Del.) 196, 84 A. 222; Clark r. St. Jos-
eph Terminal R. Co., 242 Mo. 570, 148
S. W. 472; Murphy V. Chicago, M. &
P. S. B. Co., 21 S. D. 475, 141 N. W.
380; Chesapeake & O. By. Co. r. New-
ton's Admr. (Va.), 85 S. E. 461. See
Birmingham By., L. & P. Co. v, John-
son, 183 Ala. 352, 61 S. 79; Craine «.
Metropolitan St. By. Co., 246 Mo. 393,
152 S. W. 24.
Acts of two defendants^— Oreat West-
ern Sugar Co. v, Parker, 22 Colo. App.
18, 123 P. 670.
Olaims for permanent and temporary
damages to real estate, growing out of
the same act, may be united in one ac-
tion and in a single count of the de-
claration. Lyons v. Fairmont Beal Est.
Co., 71 W. Va. 754, 77 S. E. 525.
943-35 A count combining (1) a
breach of an express warranty as to
the condition of an automobile, and (2)
a breach of a contract to keep the same
in good running condition, etc., is a
typical example of duplicity. White
Automobile Co. v. Borsey, 119 Md. 251,
86 A. 617.
943-38 Cumberland Glass Mfg. Co.
V. BeWitt, 120 Md. 381, 87 A. 927.
943-40 Buckeye Powder Co. c. Du
Pont de Nemours P. Co., 196 Fed. 514;
Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Hill, 12
Ga. App. 392, 77 S. E. 316.
944-41 Cumberland Glass Mfg. Co.
V. DeWitt, 120 Md. 381, 87 A. 927.
944-42 Norfolk & W. B. Co. v. Am-
pey, 93 Va. 108, 25 S. E. 226; Grayson
V. Buchanan, 88 Va. 251, 13 S. E. 457;
Gartin v. Draper Coal & Coke Co., 72 W.
Va. 405, 78 S. E. 673; Sweeney v.
Baker, 13 W. Va. 158, 200; Coyle «. B.
Sb O. B. B. Co., 11 W. Va. 94.
944-43 Norfolk r. W. B. Co. t?. Am-
pey, 93 Va. 108, 25 S. E. 226.
945-45 In Virginia and West Vir-
ginia where special demurrers have been
abolished, duplicity in pleading cannot
be reached by a demurrer. Norfolk ft
W. B. Co. t?. Ampey, 93 Va. 108, 25 S.
E. 226; Grayson v, Buchanan, 88 Va.
251, 13 S. E. 457; Gartin v. Draper Coal
& Coke Co., 72 W. Va. 405, 78 S. E. 673;
Lvdick V, B. & 0. B. B. Co., 17 W. Va.
427; Sweeney v. Baker, 13 W. Va. 168,
490
EASEMENTS
Vol. 7
201; Coyle t?. B. & 0. E. B. Co., 11 W.
Va. 94.
947-49 If a more particular state-
xnent is not demanded the defect of
duplicity is deemed to have been
waived. Gartin v. Draper Coal & Coke
Co., 72 W. Va. 405, 78 S. E. 673.
DUBESS
949-1 Election of remedies. — One
who has been injured by duress is en-
titled to pursue the same remedies as
one injured by deceit. Neibuhr i\ Gage,
99 Minn. 149, 156, 108 N. W. 884, 109
N. W. 1. See 10 Standard Proc. 37.
951-12 Sternback v, Friedman, 23
Misc. 173, 50 N. Y. S. 1025; Friedman
V. Erste Kaiser F. J. U. Verein, 104 N.
Y. S. 909.
951-14 Graham v, Marks, 98 Ga. 67,
25 S. E. 931; Carswell r. Hartidge, 55
Ga. 412; Bond v, Kidd, 1 Ga. App. 798,
57 S. E. 944, plea insufficient.
EASEMENTS
955-2 McKenny v. McKenney, 216
Mass. 248, 103 N. E. 631.
A court of equity has jurisdiction to
locate a route not fixed by contract or
user. McMillan v, McKee, 129 Tenn.
39, 164 S. W. 1197.
955-5 Guilford County t?. Porter, 167
N. C. 366, 83 S. E. 564.
956-14 Straus f?. Putta, 265 111. 57,
106 N. E. 437.
957-15 Gardner v. Webster, 64 N.
H. 520, 15 A. 144; Pearne v. Coal Creek
Min. & Mfg. Co., 90 Tenn. 619, 18 S.
W. 402. See McMillan v. McKee, 129
Tenn. 39, 164 S. W. 1197.
957-18 Salmon v, Martin, 156 Ky.
309, 160 S. W. 1058.
958-26 Del Monte Live Stock Co. v.
Board of Comrs., 24 Colo. App. 340, 133
P. 1048; Feitler v. Dobbins, 263 111. 78,
104 N. E. 1088; Newell r. Sass, 142 111.
104, 31 N. E. 176; Longton v. Stedman
(Mich.), 148 N. W. 738.
959-27 Straus t?. Putta, 265 111. 57,
106 N. E. 437; Douglass t?. Biggin, 123
Md. 18, 90 A. 1000. See Mathews v.
Hickman, 115 Va. 144, 78 S. E. 555.
959-30 Manbeck v. Jones, 190 Pa.
171, 42 A. 536.
To Obtain Injunctive reUef the right
to the particular and definite way must
be clear. Shedd v, American Maize Pro.
Co. (Ind. App.), 108 N. E. 610.
959-32 Plaintiff held not entitled to
a mandatory injunction to remove an
obstruction to a right of way, where
before beginning such obstruction de-
fendant informed plaintiff of his plans
and plaintiff made no objection until
after the wor|p was done. Andrews v.
Cohen, 163 App. Div. 580, 148 N. Y. S.
1028.
960-33 XJnleea the reasonable enjoy-
ment of the easement is prevented by
the obstruction equity will not relieve
against it. Hockersmith €. Glideweli
(Ark.), 153 S. W. 252.
961-37 Wanamaker v. Schuylkill
Biver East Side B. Co., 244 Pa. 214, 90
A. 361.
962-47 Holloway r. Birdsong, 139
Ga. 316, 77 S. E. 146.
963-52 Shedd r. American Maize
Pro. Co. (Ind. App.), 108 N. E. 610.
963-53 Smith t\ Smith, 21 Cal. App.
378, 131 P. 890; Gibson v. Gross (Ga.),
84 S. E. 373; Newell v. Sass, 142 111.
104, 31 N. E. 176 (where lots ^old ac-
cording to a plan which showed them
to be on alley); Watertown v. Cowen,
4 Paige Ch. 510, 27 Am. Dec. 80; White
f?. Moore, 161 App. Div. 400, 146 N. Y.
S. 593. See Bond v, Barrett, 50 Pa.
Super. 307, where lots sold according
to a plan which showed them to be
on alley.
963-55 East Atlanta Land Co. v.
Mower, 138 Ga. 380, 75 S. E. 418; Sal-
mon V. Martin, 156 Ky. 309, 160 S. W.
1058; Schmidt V. Lieberum, 54 Pa. Su-
per. 500.
966-74 Bowington t?. Williams (Tex.
Civ.), 166 S. W. 719.
966-77 Holloway t?. Birdsong, 139
Ga. 316, 77 S. E. 146,
Complaint held not subject to demux-
rer. — ^Bodgers v, Stroud, 141 Ga. 559,
81 S. E. 873.
A complaint to enjoin encroachmenta
upon or interference with an easement
or right of way is insufficient when it
does not furnish the means or data for
entering a definite decree, if the facts
alleged be admitted or proven, includ-
ing a definite description as to dimen-
sions and location of such way. Shedd
r. American Maize Pro. Co. (Ind. App.),
108 N*. E. 610.
The details of the agreement by which
the right to use the road was promised
need not be set forth. Jann v, Stand-
491
Von
EJECTMENT.
ard Cement Co., 54 Ind. App. 221, 102
N. E. 872.
967-85 Holloway v. Birdsong, 139
Ga. 316, 77 8. E. 146; Shedd v. Ameri-
can Maize Products Co. (Ind. App.),
108 N. E. 610.
Complaint BliOTild contain a descxlption
of the land over which the easement
is claimed. Price t^. Bayless, 131 Ind.
437, 31 N. E. 88.
969-05 Snowden v. Bell, 159 N. C.
497, 75 S. E. 721.
Whether the use was under a claim of
right or by permission of the owner.
Cahill 1?. Mangold, 151 Ky. 156, 151 S.
W. 373.
Abandonment of easement is a ques-
tion for jury. Willets v, Langhaar, 212
Mass. 573, 99 N. E. 466.
970-2 The manner of ezercleing the
easement may be changed by the court
80 as to conserve the servient estate
end protect the rights of the owner of
the easement. Brown v, Batliff, 21 Cal.
App. 282, 131 P. 769.
Judgment should define width of way.
Salmon t?. Martin, 156 Ky. 309, 160 S.
W. 1058.
EJEOTBiENT
976-2 Hale v. Maikai, 12 Haw. 178;
Un Wong V. Kan Chu, 5 Haw. 225.
982-13 Question of collection of
rents may be included in an ejectment
suit. Tan Chiao Boe v, Vecina, 11 Phil.
Isl. 409.
984-22 Walton v. Malcolm, 264 HI.
389, 106 N. E. 211, where an attempt
was made to disaffirm a deed made by
an incompetent person, who had never
been legally declared insane, by an
action of ejectment, and it was held
that his remedy was by a suit in equity.
99e-87 Lehigh Valley Coal Co. v.
Midvalley Coal Co., 245 Pa. 402, 91 A.
427.
998-92 Becoyery of standing timber.
Ejectment cannot lie for the recovery
of standing timber if the time limited
for the removal thereof has expired.
Mt. Vernon Lumber Co. v, Shepard
(Ala.), 67 S. 286; Zimmerman V. Daffin,
149 Ala. 380, 42 S. 858, 123 Am. St. 58,
9 L. B. A. (N. S.) 663.
1007-2a Nahinai v. Lai, 8 Haw. 317.
1008-29 Grantee In deed holding as
trustee may sue in his own name
against third parties. Haw. T. ft L Co.
V, Barton, 14 Haw. 641.
i014-58 Hlinois Steel Co. v. KohnkOj
151 Wif«. 410, 138 N. W. 995.
1016-59 Landlord and tenants— In
those states where the rule announced
in the text above is in force, if a ten*
ant is in actual occupation of the prem*
ises, he, and not his landlord, is the
proper original defendant. lUinoiE
Steel Co. 17. Kohnke, 151 Wis. 410, 138
N. W. 995.
1016-63 Ejectment does not lie
against the government under Act,
March 16, 1895. Bush f?. Ter. of Hawaii,
13 Haw. 1. •
1019-74 Oo-ownen of an undivided
interest are indispensible parties de-
fendant. Casado v. Ubarri, 3 P. B.
Fed. 338.
Those claiming title may be joined with
the occupants as defendants, but plain-
tiff is not obliged to join them if the
parties who make the claim are not in
possession, and plaintiff seeks to re-
cover possession only. Illinois Steel Co.
V. Kohnke, 151 Wis. 410, 138 N. W.
995.
1023-92 Sosa v. Arzuaga, 17 P. B.
1042.
1023-93 Maukaa Sylva v. Wailuku
Sugar Co., 19 Haw. 385; Hlinois Steel
Co. V. Bogall, 159 Wis. 214, 149 N. W.
394.
1023-96 Farmer v, Bakin, 28 N. D.
452, 149 N. W. 354; Tan Chiao Boc v.
Vecina, 11 Phil. Isl. 409.
1024-2 Kalaeokekoi v. Wailuku Sug-
ar Co., -19 Haw. 366. See Spreckels v,
De Bolt, 16 Haw. 476, and Spreckels
17. Brown, 18 Haw. 91, where it was
assumed venue could be changed.
1024-5 Fitzpatrick v. Carver, 253
Mo. 189, 161 S. W. 714.
1026-19 See Palmer v. Newberry,
141 Ga. 61, 80 S. E. 322.
Under the code, it is sufficient for the
plaintiffs to allege that they are the
owners and entitled to the possession
of the land described. It is not neces*
sary to show how title was derived.
War Fork Land Co. v. Spivey, 162 Ky.
600, 172 S. W. 1042.
1027-21 Bolton v. Bennett, 56 Colo.
507, 138 P. 761.
1027-23 Diaz v. P., 17 P. B. 55.
1028-27 Jones 17. Wild, 186 Ala. 540,
65 S. 349; Boden v, Capehart, 185 Ala.
492
EJECTMENT
Vol. 7
579, 64 S. 590; Stringer «. Mitchell, 141
Ga. 403, 81 S. £. 194; SimmoBS t?.
Thompson, 138 Ga. 605, 75 S. E. 671;
Hunter 17. Bowen, 137 Ga. 258, 73 S.
£. 380; College Corner & Bichmond, etc.
Co. «. Moss, 92 Ind. 119; S. t?. Thomas,
87 Kan. 803, 126 P. 1082.
1028-28 Particularity of descrip-
tion.— All the description that is re-
quired by the present day rules is a
general description of the land which
shall be sufficiently certain to enable
the defendant to ascertain for what
he ia sued. S. v. Heaphy (Vt.), 92 A.
813. ** Whenever there are given, . . .
legally sufficient data from which a
certain and definite description of the
lands may be obtained — as, for in-
stance, by a survey — then the law is
satisfied, and the description is not void
for uncertainty.'' Jones v. Wild, 186
Ala. 540, 65 S. 349; Welden v. Brown
(Ala.), 64 S. 430; Griffin ©. Hall, 111
Ala. 601, 20 S. 485.
1032-51 See Roden «. Capehart, 185
Ala. 579, 64 S. 590. See Singleton v,
Jackson, 177 Ala. 123, 59 S, 45, com-
plaint failed to state what division of
county land was in. Cured by failure
to plead to the venue.
10S7-79 Bond of Murray, 118 Md.
445, 84 A. 655.
1038-82 Jeffreys v. Jeffreys, 183
Ala. 617, 62 S. 797; Bernstein v. Humes,
60 Ala. 582, 31 Am. Rep. 52; Brown v,
Hetherington, 65 Fla. 327, 61 S. 638.
1039-87 Martin v. Howard (Ala.),
68 S. 982; Howard V. Martin, 181 Ala.
613, 62 S. 99.
1039-88 Wade v. Gilmer, 186 Ala.
524, 64 S. 611. See Howard v, Martin,
181 Ala. 613, 62 S. 99; Doe t?. Goetchius,
180 Ala. 381, 61 S. 330.
1039-89 Howard t>. Martin, 181 Ala.
613, 62 S. 99; Doe r. Goetchius, 180
Ala. 381, 61 S. 330, quot. from McQueen
9. Lampley, 74 Ala. 408.
The only effect of snccessfully contest-
ing a diaclainier is to impose costs and
damages upon the unsuccessful -dis-
claimer. Wade f). Gilmer, 186 Ala. 524,
64 S. 611.
1039-90 Howard t;. Martin, 181 Ala.
613, 62 S. 99; Bernstein v, Humes, 60
Ala. 582, 31 Am. Rep. 52.
Plea of not guilty may be withdrawn
by consent of court and a disclaimer
^led. Oliver v. OUver (Ala.), 65 S.
373.
1041-3 In Arkansas^— Kirby's Dig.,
§2742, provides: "In all actions for
the recovery of lands, except in actions
of forcible entry and unlawful detainer,
the plaintiff shall set forth in his com-
plaint all deeds and other written evi
dences of title on which he relies for
the maintenance of his suit, and shall
file copies of the same as far as they
can be obtained, as exhibits therewith,
and," etc. McAlister e. Harness, 110
Ark. 293, 161 S. W. 185.
1041-4 Amendment upon terms. — ^If
defendant is placed at any disadvantage
by reason of the amendment of the
complaint in ejectment, such amend-
ment may be granted on terms. Broyles
V. Eversmeyer (Mo.), 171 S. W. 334.
1041-5 Mo. Rev. St., 1909, §1848;
Broyles f), Eversmeyer (Mo.), 171 S.
W. 334.
1042-11 Mo. Rev. St., 1909, §1848;
Broyles t?. Eversmeyer (Mo.), 171 S.
W. 334.
1042-12 Eppinger v. Seagraves, 141
Ga. 639, 81 S. E. 1035; Luquire v. Lee,
121 Ga. 624, 49 S. E. 834; Broyles v.
Eversmeyer (Mo.), 171 S. W. 334.
An insufficient description of the land
sued for may be cured by amendment,
where it appears that the description
in the original petition and that in
the amendment refer to the same land.
Stringer €. Mitchell, 141 Ga. 403, 81
S. B. 194.
1043-15 Adding or striking out the
name of any party or correcting mis-
take in the name of a party. Mo. Rev.
St., 1909, §1848; Broyles v. Eversmeyer
(Mo.), 171 S. W. 334.
1045-29 See Farmer t?. Dakin, 28 N.
D. 452, 149 N. W. 354.
1045-31 Fla. Gen. St., 1906, §1970;
Ayers t?. PuUan (Fla.), 65 S. 869; Brown
t?. Hetherington, 65 Fla. 327, 61 S. 638.
A verdict for plaintiff in ejectment
must describe the lands. If for the
defendant, it need not so describe same.
Doe V. Goetchius, 180 Ala. 381, 61 S.
C30.
Verdict, referring to declaration for
description insoficient^ — ^In an action
of ejectment, a verdict that "the plain-
tiff is entitled to the possession of the
property described in the declaration"
is fatally defective, under the require-
ments of the statute (Gen. St., 1906,
§1970) providing that the verdict shall
I state the quantity of the estate, and
493
Vol. 8
ELECTIONS
• • I
describe the land by its metes and
bounds, by the number of lot or other
certain description. Butts t^. Hobley
(Fla.), 66 S. 562.
1045-82 Martin v. Howard (Ala.)»
68 S. 982; Spears €. Wise (Ala.), 65 S.
786; Wade v. Gilmer, 186 Ala. 524, 64
S. 611; Doe v. Goetchius, 180 Ala. 381,
61 8. 330. See Oliver v. Oliver (Ala.),
65 S. 373.
That tbe defendant was In possession
of the property at the time of the com-
mencement of the action must appear
in the verdict, otherwise it is insuffi-
cient to sustain a judgment. Bimmcrle
V. Langdeau, 258 Mo. 202, 167 S. W.
532; Caldwell r. Stephens, 57 Mo. 589.
1046-33 Simmons 17. Thompson, 138
Ga. 605, 75 S. E. 671^
Identify land. — Croston v. McVicker
(W. Va.), 85 S. E. 710.
1047-37 A judgment is properly
rendered on a verdict which, when
read in connection with the pleading,
is sufficiently definite. Newman 17.
Peay (Ark.), 176 S. W. 143.
1048-41 Brown 17. Hetherington, 65
Fla. 327, 61 S. 638.
1048-43 A Judgment is Invalid
which is based on a verdict which de-
scribes a totally different property than
that described in the complaint. Spears
17. Wise (Ala.), 65 S. 786.
Judgment must confoim to findings.
Where there are several defendants
and only one cause of action is set out
there can be but one judgment and it is
error to enter several. Castle 17. Ka-
piolani Est., 16 Haw. 33.
1049-46 A judgment determining
that plaintiff is entitled to all of a cer-
tain quarter of land which is not in
cultivation sufficiently describes the
land. Stellwagen 17. Grissom (Mo.), 177
S. W. 636.
1049-47 Spears 17. Wise (Ala.), 65
S. 786.
1050-49 A judgment in ejectment
for the plaintiff is fatally defective
which does not state the quantity of
the estate and give a description as
required by Gen. St., 1906, §1970. Ay-
ers 17. Pullan (Fla.), 65 S. 869.
1050-50 Only parties and privies to
a suit can be dispossessed under a
writ of habere facias possessionem.
Puckett i'. Jameson, 157 Ky, 172, 162
S. W. 801.
^ ELEOnOKS
10-1 Waite 17. Brendlin (Cal. App.),
145 P. 739; Nance 17. Kearbey, 251 Mo.
374. 158 S. W. 629; Quigley i?. Phelps,
74 Wash. 73, 132 P. 738.
Mandamus to compel commissioners on
the theory of a vacancy is not a proper
remedy. P. 17. Britt, 163 App. Div. 734,
149 N. Y. S. 79.
10-2 Quo warranto^ — Only remedy
for contesting election under common
law was by quo warranto. Tazwell c.
Davis, 64 Or. 325, 130 P. 400.
10-3 See Waters 17. Lyons (Ala.), 66
S. 436.
12-10 Appeal of WyUe, 239 Pa. 510,
86 A. 1018.
12-11 Irmegar 17. Tazewell County,
264 111. 172, 106 N. E. 227; Curry 17. Mc-
Caffery, 47 Mont. 191, 131 P. 673; Live-
sley 17. Landon (Dr.), 138 P. 853; Perez
17. Lopez, 18 P. B. 630; Lane 17. Me-
Lemore (Tex. Civ.), 169 S. W. 1073.
13-13 Excejtt as otherwise provided
by statute. Irmegar 17. Tazewell Coun-
ty, 264 111. 172, 106 N. E. 227.
18-14 8. 17. Graves (Ohio), 107 N. E.
1018; Tazwell 17. Davis, 64 Or. 325, 130
P. 400; Topacio 17. Paredes, 23 Phil. Jsl.
238.
"Electionfl belong to the political
branch of the government and are be-
yond the control of the judicial power,
and that courts have no inherent power
to try contested elections, and have
nevet exercised such power, except
where it has been conferred by express
enactment or necessary implication."
Link 17. Karb (Ohio), 104 N. E. 632.
Juzlsdiction of court cannot be made
to depend on action or non-action of
contestant after he has filed contest
and while proceeding is pending.
Stephens 17. Nacey, 47 Mont. 479, 133
P. 361.
Prlmaiy elections. — Courts have no
power to declare primary election void
(Pflanz 17. Foster, 155 Ky. 15, 159 S. W.
641), unless it is conferred by statute.
Len 17. Montgomery (N. D.), 148 N. W.
662.
16-22 Patterson 17. P., 23 Colo. App.
479, 130 P. 618; Wilson 17. Whitley, 159
Ky. 69, 166 S. W. 775.
Legislature is without power under con-
stitution to confer on chancery courts
power to hear election contests. Walls
r. Brundidge, 109 Ark. 250, 160 S. W.
230.
494
ELECTIONS
Vol. 8
17-23 Walls u. Brundidge, 109 Ark.
250, 160 S. W. 230,
21-36 Supreme court. — In Minnesota
the constitution confers jurisdiction on
supreme court ''in such remeclial cases
as may be prescribed by law." And
that portion of Gen St., 1913, §357,
conferring jurisdiction on supreme
court to compel a city canvassing board
to correct mistake of fact or law in
canvassing returns is not unconstitu-
tional. Hunt V, Hoffman, 125 Minn.
249, 146 N. W. 733.
22-40 8. V, District Court, 50 Mont.
134, 145 P. 721.
23-45 Jurisdiction over mayoralty
contests-— While §2665, R. C, 1905, pro-
vides that the city council shall be
judge' of election and qualification of
its own members, that body has no
jurisdiction to try and determine a
contest over the office of mayor, but
such jurisdiction is conferred by §688,
et seq., B. C, 1905, on the district
court. Nelson v. Gass, 27 N. D. 357,
146 N. W. 537, Ann. Cas. 1915C, 796.
28-55 Jurisdiction of ordinaries to
try election contests is limited, and the
ordinary has no other powers than those
conferred by statute. Simpson v. Bimes,
141 Ga. 822, 82 S. E. 291.
Act 1582 Philippine Oommission. — See
Arnedo r. Llor^nte, 18 Phil. IbI. 257.
30-60 McBride v. Griswold (Nev.),
146 P. 756; Link v. Karb (Ohio), 104
N. E. 632.
33-77 Willie a Judge should have
vacated the bench because of affidavits
filed showing disqualification yet the
proceeding being equitable in its na-
ture whatever prejudice was worked in
circuit by refusal to vacate bench could
be remedied in this court. Potter v.
Campbell, 159 Ky. 328, 167 S. W. 404.
35-82 Curry v. McCaffery, 47 Mont.
191, 131 P. 673.
37-90 S. r. Markham, 160 Wis. 431,
152 N. W. 161.
Statute exclusive.^ — Statute in regard
to contested elections for state and
county offices is exclusive. Pflanz v.
Foster, 155 Ky. 15, 159 S. W. 641;
Stine v. Berry, 96 Ky. 63, 27 S. W.
809.
In Minnesota, ch. 3, Laws 1912 (Gen.
St., 1913, §567-609) known as "Corrupt
Practices Act," provides two remedies
for violation thereof, one by criminal
prosecution and other by a contest of
the election as regulated by election
contests in general. Its general validity
is upheld in Saari v, Gleason, 126 Minn.
378, 148 N. W. 293. If the successful
candidate publishes and distributes
false and defamatory circulars against
his opponent the defeated candidate
may maintain a contest to oust him
from office under this act. Olsen r.
Billberg (Minn.), 151 N. W. 550.
41-99 S. V, Weber, 180 Ind. 356, 102
N. E. 961.
41-1 S. V, Moss, 187 Mo. App. 151,
172 S. W, 1180.
43-3 Schneider v, Lang, 66 Fla. 492,
63 S. 913; P. r. Dillon, 266 111. 272,
107 N. E. 583; Potter v, Campbell, 155
Ky. 784, 160 S. W. 763.
Mandamus will lie to compel action on
part of a canvassing board, but it can-
not direct what the result of the action
must be. Davies v. Board of County
Comrs., 26 Ida. 450, 143 P. 945; Potter
V. Campbell, 155 Ky. 784, 160 S. W.
763; P. V. Freisch (App. Div.), 153 N.
Y. 8. 277.
45-6 Independent candidate whose
name is written in on ballot may in-
voke mandamus for a recount. In re
Dietz, 87 Misc. 610, 150 N. Y. 8. 43.
Persons entitled to relief. — Tamney v.
Atkins, 209 N. Y. 202, 102 N. ^. 567,
rev. 151 App. Div. 309, 136 N. Y. 8.
865.
47-10 Wilson r. Blake (Cal.), 147 P.
129.
Tet the writ should not be refused
because it imposes a difficult task, or
one which might on attempt prove im-
possible. P. V, Freisch (App. Div.), 153
N. Y. 8. 277.
Mandamus will not lie to undo what
has already been done. P. v, Sweitzer,
185 111. App. 282,
48-12 Election Board of Kingfisher
County V. S., 43 Okla. 337, 142 P. 984.
50-17 McBride v. Griswold (Nev.),
146 P. 756, where various remedies are
afforded the party seeking relief may
adopt any course at his option.
51-21 Injunction will not lie to pre-
vent election officers from doing what
the law requires them to do. Walls
V, Brundidge, 109 Ark. 250, 160 8. W.
230.
51-22 Lyle v, Longan (Tex. Civ.),
162 S. W. 1156.
Election under "Local Option Law."
495
Vol. 8
ELECTIONS
Patterson r. P., 23 Colo. App. 479, 130
P. 618.
Publlcatioii of returns. — Nor can a
county court or judge be Restrained
from publishing election returns even
though it be alleged that the statute
requiring such publication is uncon-
stitutional. Ponder V. Boone, 134 La.
583, 64 S. 476; Watson V. Cochran (Tex.
Oiv.), 171 S. W. 1067.
52-28 See also 2 Standard Proc. 185.
52-24 Abendan v, Llorente, 10 Phil.
Isl. 216.
A defeated candidate has the prima
facie right to contest the election.
Where he fails to show his own election
the court must still decide whether his
opponent was legally elected to the
office. Francis v, Sturgill, 163 Ky. 650,
174 S. W. 753.
53-26 See Sevetino t?. Governor-Gen-
eral, 16 Phil. Isl. 366.
53-29 Scow V. Gutches (Minn.), 152
N. W. 639.
55-40 Comp, Puerst v. Semmler, 28
N. D. 411, 149 N. W. 115.
57-51 Scow V. Gutches (Minn.), 152
N. W. 639.
58-58 One not nmWwg any daim to
the office, having received the smallest
number of votes, is not a necessary
party. Mayfleld v. Miles, 266 111. 186,
107 N. E. 152.
50-60 These contests are tried wltb-
ont a Jury, unless the court, in its dis-
cretion, shall submit the facts to a
jury. liivesley v, Landon, 69 Or. 275,
138 P. 853.
60-64 6. V. Markham, 160 'Wis. 431,
152 N. W. 161.
62-73 Perez u. Lopez, 18 P. R. 630.
62-76 §18, Act of May 19, 1874, Pub.
Laws, §§208, 213, provides method of
instituting an election contest. Under
this statute it is sufficient to aver that
petitioners voted at the election out
of which the contest grew and it need
not be alleged that they voted for the
office contested. Appeal of Wylie, 239
Pa. 510, 86 A. 1018.
62-77 Boyle v, McCown, 97 S. C. 15,
81 S. E. 310.
Time of filing salt. — Suits contesting
election must be filed within sixty days
after promulgation of election, and
citation must be served on def^dant
within that time. The mere filing of
a petition within this period is not
enough to prevent prescription from ac-
cruing where no service has been made
on defendant. Ficklin v. New River
Drainage Dist., 133 La. 203, 62 S. 632.
63-78 Tazwell v. Davis, 64 Or. 325,
130 P. 400,
64-82 Price v. Bussell, 154 Ky. 824,
159 S. W. 573.
How time compnted. — The time for fil-
ing protest of election is computed from
the issuance of proclamation of the
provincial board of canvassers and not
from day of election. Manalo e. Sevilla,
24 Phil. Isl. 609.
66-89 Weller v. Muenninghoif, 155
Ky. 77, 159 S. W. 632; Tazwell V.
Davis, 64 Or. 325, 130 P. 400; Quigley
V. Phelps, 74 Wash. 73, 132 P. 738.
67-93 Tazwell v. Davis, 64 Or. 325,
130 P. 400.
69-6 Potter v. Campbell, 159 Ky. 328.
167 S. W. 404, because the question of
eligibility cannot be adjudicated.
69-9 Oomplalnt must deny each and
every fact necessary to the eligibility
of candidate. Domenech v, Moret, 13
P. E. 96.
70-14 Taylor r. Weir, 155 Ky. 72, 159
S. W. 646.
Svfficient where it is inferred by rea-
sonable intendment. Boyle v. McCown,
97 S. C. 15. 81 S. E. 310.
71-19 Wallbrecht v, Ingram, 164 Ky.
463, 175 S. W. 1022; Weller f?. Muen-
ninghoff, 155 Ky. 77, 159 S. W. 632.
71-20 Weller v, Muenninghoff, 155
Ky. 77, 159 S. W. 632; Tazwell v. Davis,
64 Or. 325, 130 P. 400.
72-22 McWhorter v. Schramm, 97
Neb. 103, 149 N. W. 306. Comp. Weller
t?. Muenninghoff, 155 Ky. 77, 159 S. W.
632.
Both petition and answer must be
specific as to names of voters votinj^
fraudulently. Thompson t?. Stone, 164
Ky. 18, 174 S. W. 763.
72-23 See Bev. St., 1913, {2114; Mc-
Whorter 1?. Schramm, 97 Neb. 103, 149
N. W. 306.
72-24 Necessary allegationSi^ — ^Where
one seeks to have an election set aside
because certain persons were prevented
from registering through misconduct of
election officers it must be alleged that
such persons were qualified voters and
that their numbed was sufficient to
change the result. Ledbetter v. Kim-
sey, 38 Okla. 671, 134 P. 868.
496
ELECTIONS
Vol. 8
72-2S McWhopter v, Schramm, 97
Neb. 103, 149 N. W. 306.
74-37 Curry v. McCaffery, 47 Mont.
191,. 131 P. 673.
76-51 Answer or reply not filed in
time will be stricken unless a good
excuse affirmatively appears for delay.
Powell t?. Horn, 159 Ky. 532, 167 S. W.
928.
Extension of time. — ^Where, however,
eontestee within the time given to file
answer, appears with sufficient reasons
and asks for extension to file answer
at a later date within the period pre-
scribed for filing same, the court may
extend the time to answer. Weller v,
Muenningho£P, 155 Ky. 77, 159 S. W.
632.
78-72 Sugar City v. Board of Comrs.,
57 Colo. 432, 140 P. 809.
79-74 MaTring pleading more definite.
An amendment that merely undertakes
to make more definite and specific the
grounds set up in the original petition
is permissible. Clark v. Bobinson, 159
Ky. 25, 33, 166 S. W. 801.
79-77 Contestant is limited to the
grounds of contest specified in his
original notice, and these ji^rounds can-
not be enlarged by subsequent notices
or amendments to the original notice
not executed within the time required
for the service of notice of contest.
Taylor v. Weir, 155 Ky. 72, 159 S. W.
646.
80-79 S. V, District Court, 50 Mont.
134, 145 P. 721.
After period for commencing contest
has expired the petition cannot be
amended. Perez i\ Lopez, 18 P, E. 630.
80-84 Sugar City v. Board of Comrs.,
57 Colo. 432, 140 P. 809.
80-86 Wilson v. Hines, 99 Ky. 221,
35 S. W. 627, 37 S. W. 148.
81-89 Lewis v. Bandy (Okla.), 144
P. 624.
82-1 In te Sweeney, 209 N. Y. 567,
103 N. E. 164, rev. 158 App. Div. 496,
143 N. Y. S. 727.
82-2 A notice requiring eontestee to
answer in not less than three nor more
than ten days is insufficient. Baxter 17.
Watts, 155 Ky. 12, 159 S. W. 608;
Flannery v. Shanks, 155 Ky. 184, 159
S. W. 695.
85-17 Price V. Eussell, 154 Ky. 824,
159 8. W. 573.
$5-19 Computation of time of serv-
ice. See Price v. Russell, 154 Ky. 824,
159 S. W. 573.
Substituted service may be made where
eontestee purposely absents himself.
McKay v. Grundy, 155 Ky. 115, 159
S. W. 655.
86-30 In Minnesota under Gen. St.,
1913, §529, a change of venue is pro-
vided for in election contests. State
V, District Court (Minn.), 150 N. W.
625.
87-31 As to consolidation of petitions
involving same question. See Irmegar
V. Tazewell County, 264 HI. 172, 106
N. E. 227.
88-37 Bequirlng names of illegal
voters*— Where complaint alleges re-
ception of illegal or the rejection of
legal votes, the contestant will be re-
quired, on motion, to set out the names
of the persons who so voted or whose
votes were rejected, if known. A re-
fusal or failure to do so is cause for
dismissal. McWhorter v. Schramm, 97
Neb. 103, 149 N. W. 306.
90-44 Part of signers of petition may
not withdraw so as to deprive court
of jurisdiction. Irmegar t?. Tazewell
County, 264 111. 172, 106 N. E. 227.
93-66 Curry r. McCaffery, 47 Mont.
191, 131 P. 673.
95-81 McWhorter v. Schramm, 97
Neb. 103, 149 N. W. 306.
96-85 S. V. Greene, 87 Vt. 515, 89
A. 743.
97-87 Pleading. — A general allega-
tion of errors believed to exist is not
enough to sustain an application for
a recount. S. v, Greene, 87 Vt. 515, 89
A. 743. A defeated candidate upon a
naked allegation of mistake and over-
sight of election officers may have a
recount, without making a prima facie
showing that result will be thereby
changed. Snowden v. Flanery, 159 Ky.
568, 167 S. W. 893.
97-89 See Wheeler v. Coleman, 176
Mich. 285, 142 N. W. 570.
97-91 See Ledbetter v. Kimsey, 38
Okla. 671, 134 P. 868; Allen v. Wild-
man, 38 Okla. 652, 134 P. 1102.
98-95 Belated findings. — ^Failure to
make findings within statutory time
does not operate as a loss of jurisdic-
tion to tender decision afterwards. Ber-
nardo V. Eue (Cal. App.), 146 P. 79.
98-99 Tie vote. — ^Where the supreme
court on appeal finds that neither peti-
tioner nor eontestee was elected be-
497
Vol. 8
ELEcnmS'
cause of a tie vote the former has not
shown himself entitled to the office and
his petition will not be sustained. Libby
V. English, 110 Me. 449, 86 A. 975. Con-
testant not entitled to costs where
court decided election was a tie. Letch-
worth V. PHnn, 108 Ark. 301, 157 S. W.
402.
103-25 Attorney's fee not taxable.
Mendiola v. Villa, 15 Phil. Isl. 131.
106-44 Wheeler v. Coleman, 176
Mich. 285, 142 N. W. 670; Miner v.
Beurmann, 165 Mich. 672, 131 N. W.
388.
106-50 Kot a **civtt case" as that
term is used in statute conferring ap-
pellate jurisdiction in civil cases. Lane
t?. McLemore (Tex. Civ.), 169 S. W.
1073.
108-55 Liveslej t?. Landon, 69 Or.
275, 138 P. 853; Tazwell v. Davi^, 64 Or.
325, 130 P. 400.
108-57 Arzadon «. Chanco, 14 Phil.
Isl. 710. See S. f?. Superior Court, 82
Wash. 134, 143 P. 889.
112-78 Oasserly v. Marshall (S. D.),
150 N. W. 480.
113-81 Suffidency of and amendment
to notice of appeal. See Moon v. Har-
ris, 122 Minn. 138, 142 N. W. 12.
113-88 Smith v, Johnson, 161 Ky.
745, 171 S. W. 426.
113-84 Smith v. Johnson, 161 Ky.
745, 171 S. W. 425.
114-91 Ko appeal lies from decision
by county commissioners declaring elec-
tion void because of casting of illegal
votes. Galvin t?. Logan (Ind.), 106 N.
E. 871.
114-97 See Gray t. 0 'Banion, 23 Cal.
App. 468, 138 P. 977.
116-2 In Kansas the supreme court
on appeal is required to determine what
votes should have been counted and
what rejected substantially as if the
questions had been submitted in an
original quo warranto proceeding.
Mathewson v. Campbell, 91 Kan. 625.
138 P. 637. '
116-3 Libby v. English, 110 Me. 449,
86 A. 975. '
123-64 Issuance of mandate.^After
determination of the appeal the man-
date must issue at once, not as a mat-
ter of right but on the order of the
court. The issuance of mandate will
not prevent the filing of a petition for
rehearing. Allen v. Griffith, 160 Ky.
621^ 170 S. W. 33.
124-61 In re Cramer's Election Case,
248 Pa. 208, 93 A. 937.
12S-63 Pflanz v. Foster, 155 Ky. 15,
159. S. W. 641. .
129-82 Walls t?. Brundidge, 109 Ark.
260, 160 S. W. 230; Hager v, Bobinson,
154 Ky. 489, 157 S. W. 1138.
130-87 Hager t>. Bobinson, 154 Ky.
489, 157 S. W. 1138.
138-41 Bowden t?. Webb (Ark.), 173
S. W. 181 J Higgins r. Lockwood, 74
N. J. L. 158, 64 A. 184.
145-80 Indictment under Code, 1904,
§145a, subd. 1, held fatally defective.
See Bose v. C, 116 Va. 1023, 82 S. E.
699.
Sufficiency of Indictment.— In an indict-
ment under Corrupt Practices Act,
1911, p. 298, it is not necessary to set
out each step taken by authorities in
calling the primary, nor to allege facts
showing the party was entitled to hold
a primary, nor that primary was held
preliminary to an election; nor need it
specify the kind of work to be done
by the employe. It need negative only
the statutory exceptions which are
closely connected with the enacting
clause or in same clause that creates
the offense. S. v. Paris, 179 Ind. 446,
101 N. E. 497.
160-14 Setting out ordinaacev— An
information brought against one charg-
ing that he knowing her not to be a
competent person procured her regis-
tration as an elector is insufficient in
not alle^ng an ordinance requiring
registration. S. v, Pinyan (Ariz.), 149
P. 316.
152-28 Voting ''feloniously'* done.
Indictment must allege that the voting
was done "feloniously" or any word
of such import; and an indictment
charging the crime ip the language of
the statute is insufficient unless so al-
leging. S. V. Siege! (Mo.), 177 S. W.
353.
152-31 P. <?. Becker, 179 HI. App.
446; P. V, Walker, 179 HI. App. 455.
152-32 P. V. Walker, 179 HI. App.
455.
159-70 Electioneering by election of-
ficers at primary elections is not an
offense since primary elections are not
within the general election laws, S. r.
Simmons (Ark.), 174 S. W. 238.
162-87 "WilfuUy and designedly.*'
In an indictment for making false and
fraudulent return of canvass where tl}9
m
ELECTRICITY
Vol. 8
"words "wilfully and designedly" are
omitted, the offense charged will be
considered that stated generally in
§31 Corrupt Practices Act (Pub. Laws,
1911, p. 343). The particular offense
charged is violation of §62 of the Geran
Act (Pub. Laws, 1911, p. 321), which
by force of §70 is to be read in con-
nection with §15 of Primary Election
Laws of 1903 (Pub. Laws, 1903, p. 617).
8. r. Nixon, 86 N. J. L. 371. 90 A.
1102.
162-02 Karnes of persons falsely
ealled and counted must be alleged or
else there must be an allegation that
such names are unknown. Beach v. S.
(Tex. Cr.), 171 S. W. 715.
SI^OTBIOITT
167-1 City Electric Street R. Co. v.
Conery, 61 Ark. 381, 33 S. W. 426, 54
Am. St. 262, 31 L. B. A. 570; Spencer
L. P. H. & Water Co. v, Wilson (Ind.
App.), 104 N. B. 94; Smith's Admx. v,
Middlesboro Electric Co., 164 Ky. 46,
174 S. W. 773; Hebert v. Lake Charles
Ice, L. & W. Co., Ill La. 522, 35 S.
731, 100 Am. St. 505, 64 L. B. A. 101;
Hill V. Union Electric Light & Power
Co., 260 Mo. 43, 169 S. W. 345; Clark
V. Public Service Elec. Co., 86 N. J. L.
144, 91 A. 83; Shaw V. North Carolina
Public Service Corp. (N. C), 84 S. E.
1010; Turner v. Asheville Power &
Light Co., 167 K. C. 630, 83 S. E. 744.
168-3 Giraudi «. Electric Imp. Co.,
107 Cal. 120, 40 P. 108, 48 Am. St.
114, 28 L. B. A. 696.
168-4 Cochran v, Young-Hartwell
Mills Co. (N. C), 85 S. E. 149.
168-5 Southern Bell Tel. & Tele. Co.
, 17. Davis, 12 Ga. App. 28, 76 S. E. 786;
Lundy v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tele.
Co., 90 S. C. 25, 72 S. E. 658.
168-6 Gagnon v, St. Maries L. & P.
Co., 25 Ida. 87, 141 P. 88; Larson v.
Central B. Co., 56 HI. App. 263; Spen-
cer L. P. H. & Water Co. t?. Wilson
(Ind. App.), 104 W. E. 94; Wade V,
Empire Dist. Elect. Co., 94 Kan. 462,
147 P. 63; Metropolitan St. B. Co. f?.
Gilbert, 70 Kan. 261, 78 P. 807, 3 Ann.
Cas. 256; Smith's Admx. v. Middles-
boro Elec. Co., 164 Ky. 46, 174 S. W.
773; Cumberland Tel. & Tele. Co. V,
Cosnahan, 105 Miss. 615, 62 S. 824;
Hill V. Union Elec. L. & P. Co., 260
Mo. 43, 169 S. W. 345; Melcher v. Free-
hold Inv. Co. (Mo. App.), 174 S. W.
455; Kelly v. HigginsvUle, 185 Mo.
App. 55, 171 S. W. 966; Blackburn v.
Southwest Missouri B. Co., 180 Mo.
App. 548, 167 S. W. 457; Brown v. Con-
solidated L. P. & I. Co., 137 Mo. App.
718, 109 S. W. 1032; Shaw v. North
Carolina Public Service Corp. (N. C),
84 S. E. 1010; McClaugherty v. Bogue
Biver Electric Co. (Or.), 140 P. 64.
Highest degree of care practicable.
Shank v. Great Shoshone & Twin Falls
W. P. Co., 205 Fed. 833, 124 0. C. A.
35.
Ordinary care not snlflcient. — ^An in-
struction that it was the duty of the
company to use ordinary care in keep-
ing wires safe is erroneous because it
is incumbent to use a much higher de-
gree of care. Owensboro City B. Co. v,
Iladen, 155 Ky. 283, 159 S. W. 792.
*' Prudence requires those in control of
a deadly current of electricity to exer-
cise the highest degree of care in pro-
tecting the wires at points where per-
sons in the course of their lawful em-
ployment are liable to come in contact
with them.'* Geroski v. Allegheny
County Light Co., 247 Pa. 304, 93 A.
338; Yeager v. Edison Electric Co., 242
Pa. 101, 88 A. 872. There must be exer-
cised ''a high skill, the most consum-
mate care and caution, and the utmost
diligence and foresight in the con-
struction, maintenance, and inspection
of its plant, wires, and appliances con-
sistent with the practical operation of
the business.** Turner fJ. Asheville Pow-
er & Light Co., 167 N. C. 630, 83 B. E.
744.
169-0 Birmingham By., L. & P, Co.
V. Canfleld, 177 Ala. 422, 59 S. 217;
City Electric Street B. Co. v. Conery,
61 Ark. 381, 33 S. W. 426, 54 Am. St.
262, 31 L. B. A. 570; Eining v, Georgia
By. & Elec. Co., 133 Ga. 458, 66 S. E.
237; Staab v, Bocky Mountain Bell
Tel. Co., 23 Ida. 314, 129 P. 1078;
Economy Light & P. Co. V, Hiller, 203
111. 518, 68 N. E. 72; Smith V, Kewanee
L. & P. Co., 175 111. App. 354; Casey
V. Chicago City By. Co., 169 111. App.
425; Michigan City Gas & Electric Co.
V. Dibka, 54 Ind. App. 248, 100 N. E.
877; Logansport V. Smith, 47 Ind. App.
64, 93 N. E. 883 ; Hebert t>. Lake Charles
Ice, L. & W. Co., Ill La. 522, 35 S.
731, 100 Am. St. 505, 64 L. B. A. 101;
Greenwood v. Eastern Oregon Power
Co., 67 Or. 433, 136 P. 336; De Molina
V. San Juan Light So Transit Co., 4 P.
B. Fed. 356; White v. Beservation Elec-
tric Co., 75 Wash. 139, 134 P, 807j Mor-
499
Vol. 8
ELECTRICITY
rison v. Appalachian Power Co. (W.
Va.), 84 S. E. 506.
IBO-rlO Fairbairn r. American River
Electric Co. (Cal.), 148 P. 7S8; Temple
Electric Light Co. v, Halliburton (Tex.
Civ.), 136 S. W. 584.
Beasonable care. — "Where a corpora-
tion, for its profit, assumes to control
the distribution of a substance as dan-
gerous to human life as electricity when
the current is maintained at a high
voltage, it is its duty to exercise at
least reasonable care to prevent its
escape in a death dealing manner.'*
Webster v, Richmond L. & R. Co., 158
App. Div. 210, 143 N. Y. S. 57.
Where both parties are licensees on
land of a third person each must use
ordinary care to the other. Thomp-
son V. Tilton Electric L. & P. Co., 77
N. H. 92, 88 A. 216.
Duty of a company transmitting elec-
tricity is to put the wires high enough
to leave the road safe, not for any and
all travel, but for the usual and ordi-
nary travel. Mayhcw v. Yakima Power
Co., 72 Wash. 431, 130 P. 485.
171-16 Owensboro u. Knox, 116 Ky.
451, 76 S. W. 191; BorcU t?. Cumber-
land Tel. & Tele. Co., 133 La. 630, 63
S. 247; Sykes v. Portland, 177 Mich.
290, 143 N. W. 326; Gaetjens t?. New
York, 146 App. Div. 495, 131 N. Y. S.
169.
In an action against a municipal cor-
poration for death caused by negligent-
ly allowing a low voltage light wire to
become charged with a dangerous cur-
rent it is not necessary to name any
particular person, servant or agent or
officer of the municipality as the one
guilty of the negligence complained of.
Athens t\ Miller (Ala.), 66 S. 702.
171-17 Birmingham Ry., L. & P. Co.
t\ Cockrum, 179 Ala. 372, 60 S. 304.
Complaint held sufficient. — Atlanta Tel.
& Tele. Co. t-. Cheshire, 12 Ga. App.
652, 78 S. E. 53.
171-18 Sufficient allegations* — ^Where
the petition alleged that while plaintiff
was walking on public street of a city
he came m contact with broken wire
of defendant telephone company lying
on the sidewalk hrnvily charged with
electricity, that he did not see the wire
until coming in contact with it, and
that in his efforts to extricate himself
his hand was burned by the wire and
totally destroyed, those facts set out a
cause of action against the telephone
company. Southern Bell Tel. & Tele.
Co. V. Davis, 12 Ga. App. 28, 76 S. E.
786.
172-19 Hoxsey r. St. Louis & Spring-
field Ry. Co., 171 111. App. 109.
175-30 Birmingham Ry., L. & P. Co.
V, Cockrum, 179 Ala. 372, 60 S. 304;
Atlanta Tel. & Tele. Co. t?. Cheshire,
12 Ga. App. 652, 78 S. E. 53.
175-33 Doctrine of res ipsa loquitur
docs not apply where the cause of death
is not disputed, and defendant's negli-
gence as to condition of its wires is
not in doubt. Benton u. North Carolina
Public Service Co., 165 N. C. 354, 81
S. E. 448.
176-36 Southern Bell Tel. & Tele.
Co. V, Davis, 12 Ga. App. 28, 76 S. E.
786; St. Louis v. Bay State St. Ry. Co.,
216 Mass. 255, 103 N. E. 639, Ann. Cas.
1915B, 706, 49 L. R. A. (N. S.) 447;
Kelly V. Higginsville, 185 Mo. App. 55,
171 S. W. 966; Southwestern Tel. &
Tele. Co. v. Shirley (Tex. Civ.), 155
S. W. 663; May t?. Charleston Inter-
urban R. Co. (W. Va.), 84 S. E. 893.
177-38 Athens v. Miller (Ala.), 66
S. 702; Shaw t\ North Carolina Public
Service Corp. (N. C), 84 S. E. 1010.
Instances on wUch doctrine was ap-
plied.— ^In an action for injury caused
while plaintiff was using a telephone
and he received an electrical shock,
the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur ap-
plies. Cain V. Southern Massachusetts
Tel. Co., 219 Mass. 504, 107 K. E. 380.
Res ipsa loquitur applies in case of per-
son receiving a shock whereby he was
killed while turning on or off an elec-
tric light. Athens f). Miller (Ala.), 66
S. 702.
177-39 In New York the doctrine of
res ipsa loquitur does not relieve the
plaintiff of the burden of the issue nor
raise a conclusive presumption in bis
favor. The fact of the occurrence mere-
Iv furnishes some evidence which re-
quires the defendant "to go forward
with his proof.'' Huscher V. New York
& Q. E. L. & P. Co., 158 App. ©iv.
422, 143 N. Y. S. 639, aff. 139 N. Y. S.
537.
178-43 Broudy t?. By. Co. (Mich.),
151 N. W. 575.
179-47 Atlanta Tel. & Tele. Co. r.
Cheshire, 12 Ga. App. 652, 78 S. E.
53. See Dunbar v, HoUingsworth &
Whitney Co., 109 Me. 461, 84 A. 992.
Immaterial variance where complaint
500
ELECTRICITY
Vol 8
alleged shock was received on sidewalk
and proof was that she was on land of
a third person, when plaintiff was not
trespasser. Birmingham Ry., L. & P.
Co. V. Oockrum, 179 Ala. 372, 60 S.
304.
180-51 Decatur Light, P. & F. Co.
V. Newsom, 179 Ala. 127, 59 S. 615.
180-52 Instructions to conform to
pleadings. — When specific acts of nepj-
ligence are charged in complaint it is
essential that the instructions submit-
ting the issue to the jury shall require
a finding of the facts of negligence so
charged. May t?. Hannibal, 186 Mo.
App. 602, 172 S. W. 471.
181-56 Instruction as to Inspection.
Instruction that '* under the undisputed
facts of what occurred in this case, the
duty of inspection (of the wires) was
on the defendant company" is proper.
Barnett v. Atlantic City Electric Co.
(N. J. L.), 93 A. 108.
Charging as to degree of care. — ^The
plaintiff's objection to the instruction,
'*The defendant ought to exercise or-
dinary care which an ordinarily pru-
dent man would use in operating that
substance electricity over the wires and
at the place alleged and admitted in
the pleading," must be sustained as
exacting a too low degree of care. Tur-
ner V, Asheville Power & Light Co., 167
N. C. 630, 83 S. E. 744. An instruction
exacting a too low degree of care is
erroneous and prejudicial. Turner v.
Asheville Power & Light Co., 167 N.
C. 630, 83 S. E. 744.
185*64 Briggs v. Birmingham Ry., L.
& P. Co. (AJa.), 66 S. 95; Sykes v.
Portland, 177 Mich. 290, 143 N. W. 326.
186-72 Greenwood r. Eastern Oregon
Power Co., 67 Or. 433, 136 P. 336; Swan
17. Salt Lake & 0. R. Co., 41 Utah 518,
127 P. 267.
186-73 Greenwood v. Eastern Oregon
Power Co., 67 Or. 433, 136 P. 336.
187-74 Defendant's negligence in
stringing wires seventeen feet from
ground over decedent *s land is for the
jury. Card f. Wena tehee Vallev Gas
& E. Co., 77 Wash. 564, 137 P. 1047.
187-76 Guinn r. Bel. & A. Tel. Co.,
72 N. J. L. 276, 62 A. 412, 111 Am.
St. 668, 3 L. B. A. (N. S.) 988; Bur-
ton Tel. Co. V. Gordon, 4 O. C. C. (N.
S.) 1; Richmond & P. E. R. Co. v,
Rubin, 102 Va. 809, 47 S. E. 834.
Wliexo two defendantB are sued it is
a question of fact as to who was
responsible for maintenance in proper
condition of the wires which caused
the injury. Pressley v. Kinloch-Bloom-
ington Tel. Co., 104 111. App. 167.
Duty to insulate. — See Trammell i?.
Columbus R. Co., 9 Ga. App. 98, 70
S. E. 892; Knowlton v. Des Moines
Edison Licrht Co., 117 la. 451, 90 N. W.
818; Wilhito i\ Huntsville, 167 Mo.
App. 155, 151 S. W. 232; Southwestern
Tel. & Tele. Co. v. Shirley (Tex. Civ.),
155 S. W. 663.
Duty to maintain guards. — See Rowe
t?. N. Y. & N. J. Tel. Co., 66 N. J. L.
19, 48 A. 523; Parsons v. Charleston
Consol. R. G. & E. Co., 69 S. C. 305,
48 S. E. 284, 104 Am. St. 800.
Obedience to ordinance. — See Briggs v.
Birmingham Ry., L. & P. Co. (Ala.),
66 S. 95.
188-80 Dugan r. Erie County Elec-
tric Co., 241 Pa. 259, 88 A. 437.
Duty to inspect. — See Freeman v, Mis-
souri & K. Tel. Co., 160 Mo. App. 271,
142 S. W. 733; Fox f?. Manchester, 183
N. Y. 141, 75 N. E. 1116, 2 L. R. A.
(N. S.) 474;*Gentzkow t?. Portland R.
Co., 54 Or. 114, 102 P. 614, 135 Am.
St. 821.
188-81 Atlanta Tel. & Tele. Co. v.
Cheshire, 12 Ga. App. 652, 78 S. E. 53.
188-82 Only in the event that the
wire was broken by some cause over
which the defendant had no control
could the question pf reasonable notice
of its condition be at all material.
Southern Bell Tel. & Tele. Co. f?. Davis,
12 Ga. App. 28, 76 S. E. 786.
189-87 Shank v. Great Shoshone &
Twin Falls W. P. Co., 205 Fed. 833,
124 C. C. A. 35; Hill t?. Pacific Gas &
Electric Co:, 22 Cal. App. 788, 136 P.
492; Staab v. Rocky Mountain Bell
Tel. Co., 23 Ida. 314, 129 P. 1078;
Michigan City Gas & Electric Co. f?.
Dibka, 54 Ind. App. 248, 100 N. E. 877;
Wilkins V, Water & Light Co., 92 Nob.
513, 138 N. W. 754; Barnett «?. Atlantic
City Electric Co. (N. J. L.), 93 A. 108
(injury to fireman in extinguishing
fire) ; Caruso t?, Troy Gas Co., 153 App.
Div. 431, 138 N. T. S. 279, af. 209 N.
Y. 510, 102 N. E. 1100; Greenwood f?.
Eastern Oregon Power Co., 67 Or. 433,
136 P. 336; Card v. Wenatchee Valley
Gas & El. Co., 77 Wash. 564, 137 P.
1047.
Contzibutory negligence as a matter
501
Vol 8
EMBEZZLEMENT
of law. See Wilger c. Wisconsin Tract.,
L., H. Sb P. Co., 160 Wis. 654, 152 N.
W. 414.
189-88 Decatur Light, P. & F. Co.
t?. Newsom, 179 Ala. 127, 59 S. 615;
Casey t?. Chicago City By., 169 HI. App.
425.
190-89 Where deceased had seen a
horse apparently killed by a suspended
wire his grasping the live wire with
only a cotton handkerchief was a plain
disregard of common care and caution.
HcNamee v. Western Union Tel. Co.,
160 App. Div. 785, 145 N. T. S. 981.
190-93 Augusta By. & Electric Co.
t^. Beagles, 12 6a. App. 849, 78 S. E.
949.
Wliere^ by reason of a Btoim, high
voltage wires of an electric light com-
pany came in. contact with the wires
of a telephone company, and a well in-
formed troubleman is sent out by tele-
phone company with instructions to
locate the trouble and report but not
attempt to clear the wires, and his
taking hold of a telephone wire to see
if it was in contact with an electric
light wire is the sole proximate cause
of the injury because of such contact
he has no action against either the
telephone or electric light company.
Borell V. Cumberland Tel. & Tele. Co.,
133 La. 630, 63 S. 247.
191-2 Teachout v. Grand Bapids, G.
H. & M. B. Co., 179 Mich. 388, 146
N. W. 241.
192-3 Hill V. Union Electric Light &
Power Co., 260 Mo. 43, 169 S. W. 345;
Blackburn v. Southwest Missouri B. Co.,
180 Mo. App. 648, 167 S. W. 457. See
Jeffrey v. Union Electric L. & P. Co.,
171 Mo. App. 29, 153 S. W. 498.
193-17 Whether or not plaintiff is
guilty of contributory negligence in
picking a live wire off the sidewalk and
throwing it out of his way is a ques-
tion of fact for the jury. Southern
Bell Tel. & Tele. Co. v. Davis, 12 Ga.
App. 28, 76 S. E. 786.
194-22 Meehan v, Adirondack Elec-
tric Power Corp., 150 N. Y. S. 714;
Hayes t?. Southern Power Co., 95 S. C.
230, 78 8. E. 956. See Bomana i;. Bos-
ton El. B. Co., 218 Mass. 76, 105 N. E.
698.
194-24 See Thompson v, Tilton Elec-
tric L. & P. Co., 77 N. H. 92, 88 A.
216.
When a boy tlirew a corncob tied to
end of a string over an electric light
wire and pulled it toward him to de-
tach his kite and was thus shocked and
killed (the wire being four feet six
inches from outside of cornice of house)
his act was One which could not rea-
sonably be anticipated and the boy's
act and not the defective insulation
was the proximate cause of the injury.
Trout V, Philadelphia Electric Co., 236
Pa. .506, 84 A. 967, 42 L. B. A. (N. S.)
713.
195-26 Hayes v. Southern Power Co.,
95 8. C. 230, 78 S. E. 956.
195-28 Proximate canse. — ^Interroga-
tory No, 2 tead "Did the defendant use
ordinary care in leaving said wire so
that it came in contact with a limbf"
No. 3 read "Did the defendant use ordi-
nary care in respect to inspecting its
lines during and after the storm that
occurred during the night preceding the
injury!" No. 4 read "If to the sec-
ond and third questions you answer
'No* then answer this question 'Was
the want of ordinary care thus found
the proximate cause of the injury!' "
The affirmative answer to the last ques-
tion adequately finds the proximato
cause. Both acts of negligence here
found are actionable. Brown v. Eastern
Wisconsin B. & L. Co., 160 Wis. 459,
152 N. W. 158.
196-33 Verdict of $23,500 not exces-
sive. Southwestern Tel. & Tele. Co. V.
Shirley (Tex. Civ.), 155 S. W. 663.
A verdict of $22,500 reduced to $18,000
is not excessive where plaintiff had ft
life expectancy of thirty -five and one-
third years and was earning about
$100 a month as trouble man for a tele-
phone company. Hill v. Union Electric
Light & Power Co., 260 Mo. 43, 169
S. W. 345.
A verdict of $2300 for death of a sev-
enteen year old schoolboy earning $2
a day in vacation is excessive and
should be reduced to $1500. Kelly v,
Higginsville, 185 Mo. App. 55, 171 S.
W. 966.
EMBEZZLEMENT
202-2 Davis v. Director of Prisons,
17 Phil. Isl. 168.
History of statutes of embezzlement.
See S. V, Davis (B. L), 92 A. 821.
202-5 Davis v. Director of Prisons,
17 Phil. Isl. 168; P. V. Oliver, 7 P. B,
269.
502
Mbezzlement
Vol fi
&03-6 blstingiiislied ftom Urceny.
P. f?. Kent, 10 P. B. 325.
203-7 Davis t?. Director of Prisons,
17 Phil. Isl. 168.
206-31 Bmb«ul«inent diaflned. — S.
«. Dougherty (Del.), 86 A. 736; S. v.
Jones, 25 Ida. 587, 138 P. 1116; Baugh
V, Moore, 122 Md. 149, 89 A. 404, rehear.
deniedy 122 Md. 149, 89 A. 939; Spiegel
V, Levine, 161 App. Div. 764, 147 N.
Y. S. 78; S. f?. Baxter (Ohio), 104 N. E.
331.
207-33 See Davis v. Directors of
Prisons, 17 Phil. Isl. 168.
Fraudulent failure to account* — ^Embez-
zlement may be committed by a fraud-
ulent failure to account for funds as
well as by physical confiscation. S. v.
Bickford, 28 N. D. 36, 147 N. W. 407.
207-34 Penal Code of P. R., §|445-
448; P. i;. Kent, 10 P. B. 325.
211-54 Poteet «. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 153
S. W. 863.
211-56 Poteet v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 153
S. W. 863.
213-60 No common-law form of in-
dictment for embezzlement is possible
since embezsdement is purely statutory.
S. V. Davis (B. I.), 92 A. 821.
218-75 8. <?. Davis (B. I.), 92 A. 821.
Cannot aid defective Indictment. — ^A
bill of particulars is not designed to
uphold an insufficient indictment. Clary
t?. C, 163 Ky. 48, 173 S. W. 171.
221-92 8. V. Probert (N. M.), 140 P.
1108.
221-93 8. !?. Probert (N. M.), 140
P. 1108: 8. t?. Chapin (Or.), 144 P.
1187.
224-14 P. V, Alomar, 10 P. B. 282;
Irby V, 8. (Tex, Cr.)., 155 8. W. 543.
226-27 P. V, Quevedo, 15 P. B. 69;
P. V, Garcia, 11 P, B. 341.
226-28 Fiduciary capacity is suffi-
ciently shown by an allegation that
defendant was bailee. Tally v, 8., 105
Ark. 28, 150 8. W. 110.
228-34 Tally v. S., 105 Ark. 28, 150
a W. 110.
228-40 8. T. Nugent (Ind.), 106 N.
E. 361.
229-47 The "possession" referred
to in §12,467 of Gen. Code is more
than mere custodianship or naked pos-
session. It is a possession for the time
and purpose exclusive of the owner's
possession. Komito v, S. (Ohio), 107
N. E. 762.
229-60 Wbere a treasurer is accused
of the crime, it is sufficient to allege
that he was treasurer "and as such
treasurer" had control and possession
of certain money, and being so pos-
sessed of the money converted it. Prost
t;. 8., 178 Ind. 305, 99 N. E. 419.
231-69 P. f7. Alomar, 10 P. B. 282.
Money or merchandlBe. — An indictment
charging the embezzlement of "one
thousand dollars current of the United
States and of the value of $1000," is
sufficient as against the objection of
not stating whether it was money or
merchandise. Poteet f. 8. (Tex. Cr.),
153 8. W. 863.
232-67 It is sufficient to charge that
the money was "gold, silver, or paper
money." flilvie u. 8. (Ark.), 173 8. W.
867,
232-70 Clary v, C, 163 Ky. 48, 173
S. W. 171.
Equivalent value in American money.
A complaint charging the embezzle-
ment of ''one thousand dollars, gold
currency of the United States" is not
bad for not alleging the equivalent
value in *'pesetos," for the court will
take judicial notice of the relative
value for the purpose of fixing the pen-
alty. U. 8. V. Karelsen, 3 Phil. Isl. 223.
233-72 Clary v. C, 163 Ky. 48, 173
8. W. 171.
233-73 Describing a vendor's Uen
note as one for the payment of $8000,
and of the value of $8000 is sufficient.
Pye t?. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 171 8. W. 741.
233-76 "One check of the value of
forty-two and 50/100 ($42.50) dollars'*
sufficiently describes a check. 8. v.
Fraley, 71 W. Va. 100, 76 8. E. 134,
42 L. B. A. (N. 8.) 498.
235-85 8. v. Bickford, 28 N. D. 36,
147 N. W. 407.
236-87 See Clary v. C, 163 Ky. 48,
173 8. W. 171; P. i?. Alomar, 10 P. B.
282.
236-88 Guyton v, 8., 12 Ga. App.
562, 77 8. E. 830.
235-89 8ilvie «. 8. (Ark.), 173 8.
W. 857.
236-05 Oo-tenants. — The title to
money may be laid in one tenant in
common, notwithstanding his co-tenant
is entitled to a share on accounting. 8.
t?. Probert (N. M.), 140 P. 1108.
236-2 Ihdivldaal names.— It is not
necessary to allege the names of the
503
Vol. 8
EMINENT DOMAIN
persons composing a partnership or
other unincorporated association.
Hughes V. S., 109 Ark. 403, 160 S. W.
209.
237-9 Comp. Q. v. Chapin (Or.), 144.
P. 1187.
237-11 One lawfully in possession
may properly be designated as owner.
Waters v. S., 15 Ga. App. 342, 83 S. E.
200.
237-12 Joint owners. — Indictment
oiaming one of two joint owners is suffir
elent. Waters v. S., 15 Ga. App. 342,
83 S. E. 200.
237-18 S. V. Nugent (Tnd.), 106 N.
E. 361 J P. u. Rivera, 17 P. B. 1063.
240-42 P. V, Rivera, 17 P. R. 1063.
241-48 S. V. Nugent (Ind.), 106 N.
E. 361.
242-56 S. t?. Bickford, 28 N. D. 36,
147 N. W. 407.
242-57 8. V. Bickford, 28 N. D. 36,
147 N. W. 407.
243-59 S. V. Davis (R. I.), 92 A.
821.
Bule illustrated. — An indictment charg-
ing embezzlement from a bank by its
cashier at divers times ''beginning
with the said 27th day of April, 1906,
and ending with the said day
of July, 1909," stating the aggregate
amount charges but a single act of em-
bezzlement. S. V. Wetzel (W. Va.), 83
S. E. 68.
244-72 Bule fflnstrated.— Where in-
dictment alleged theft by bailee of
money to buy fixtures and whiskey it
is not necessary to show he received
money for both purposes. Either will
suffice. Himmelfarb v. S. (Tex, Cr.),
174 S. W. 586.
244-73 Tho aggregate misappropxla-
tlon may be treated as one crime, and
the total shortage proven may be more
or less than sum laid in information.
S. V. Bickford, 28 N. D. 36, 147 N. W.
407.
244-78 S. V. Boggs (la.), 147 N. W.
934.
FeloniouB intent inferred where agent
has applied money to his own use.
Marcus t?. Fidelity & Deposit Co., 165
App. Div. 977, 149 N. T. S. 1020.
245*79 Fraudulent intent conclusive-
ly presumed. Patterson v, U. S., 39
App. Cas. (D. C.) 84.
245-81 S. V. Probert (N. M.), 140 P.
1108.
245-82 S. V. Probert (N. M.), 140 P.
1108. Comp. S. V. Chapin (Or.), 144 P.
1187, where it was held that no mate-
rial variance occurred when the indict-
ment for larceny by a bailee alleged
ownership in husband, but the proof
showed that because of his poor health
wife had transacted the principal part
of the negotiations with defendant and
it was by her authority the funds were
turned over to defendant.
247-94 S. i\ Boggs (Ta.), 147 N. W.
934; Pye v, S. (Tex. Cr.), 171 S. W,
741.
247-97 P. V. Gerold, 265 BL 448, 107
N. E, 165.
248-9 In charging on ''reasonable
doubt'* the court, should instruct sub-
stantially as provided for by §238 of
Crim. Code. Clary v. C, 163 Ky. 48
173 S. W. 171.
249-13 Where indictment charges
one offense in different counts as de-
scribed in §9205, E. C. 1905, a verdict
of "guilty of embezzlement as charged
in the information ' ' is sufficient. S. 17.
Bickford, 28 N. D. 36, 147 N. W. 407.
250-23 Impeaching evidence.— -Where
newly discovered evidence is merely
impeaching it is not sufficient cause for
a new trial. McCrory i?. S., 11 Ga. App-
787, 76 8. E. 163.
EBUNENT DOMAIN
261-1 S. V. Superior Court, 80 Wash.
417, 141 P. 906.
261-2 Empire Mill Co. v. Dist. Court
(Idaho), 149 P. 499.
261-3 S. 17. Superior Court, 80 Wash.
417, 141 P. 906.
261-4 Chicago Great Western B. Co.
t?. Ashelford, 268 lU. 87, 108 N. E.
761; Sanitary Dist. v. Hunger, 264 HI.
256, 106 N. E. 185; Ridgely v. Balti-
more, 119 Md. 667, 87 A. 909.
Chancery court has no jurisdiction to
entertain condemnation proceeding.
Chambers V, Chattanooga Union By.
Co., 130 Tenn. 459, 171 S. W. 84.
262-5 Mayor, etc. of Baltimore v.
Kane (Md.), 93 A. 393.
An adversary proceeding. — Oregon B.
& Nav. Co. i\ Taffe, 67 Or. 102, 134 P.
1024, 135 P. 332, 515.
262-6 Compulsory not voluntary pro-
ceeding. Beatty v. U. S., 203 Fed. 620,
122 0. C. A. 16, rev. 198 Fed. 284.
604r
EMINENj; DOMAIN
Vol. 8
262-7 m. Rev. St., 1913, ch. 47; Chi-
cago, T. H. & S. E. By. Co. v. Green-
field, 268 111. 94, 108 N. E. 750; S. t?.
Superior Court, 80 Wash. 417, 141 P.
906.
Statutory remedy supersedes the com-
mon-law remedy. Herring t?. Gulick, 6
Haw. 57.
The time, maimer, occasloii, and method
of the exercise of the tight of eminent
domain are wholly in the control and
discretion of the legislatures of the
states except as restrained by the con-
stitution thereof. S. 9, Superior Court
(Wash.), 149 P. 652.
262-8 Elbert v. Scott (Del.), 90 A.
587, af. 88 A. 608; Lynchburg Inv.
Corp. V. Eudolph, 40 App. Cas. (D. C.)
129; Fay v, McFarland, 32 App. Cas.
(D. C.) 295; In re widening Fort Street,
6 Haw. 638; Mayor, etc. of Baltimore
t). Kane (Md.), 93 A. 393; Lajoie v.
Lowell, 214 Mass. 8, 100 N. E. 1070;
St. Louis 17. Glasgow, 254 Mo. 262, 162
S. W. 596; Thurman V. Multnomah
County, 70 Or. 401, 140 P. 626, 141 P.
1015; Johnston v, Delaware, L. & W.
E. Co., 245 Pa. 338, 91 A. 618; Tenorio
V. Manila B. Co., 22 Phil. Isl. 411;
Illinois Central B. Co. v. East Sioux
Falls Quarry Co., 33 S. D. 63, 144 N.
W. 724; Southern Kansas By. Co. V.
Vance (Tex. Civ.), 155 8. W. 696;
Beitzer v. Medina Valley Irr. Co. (Tex.
Civ.), 153 S. W. 380.
262-9 Bel Monte Live Stock Co. v.
Bd. of Comrs., 24 Colo. App. 340, 133
P. 1048; Western Union Tel. Co. v.
Louisville & N. B. Co. (Miss.), 65 8.
650.
268-11 Vallejo & N. B. Co. v. Becd
Orchard Co. (CaL), 147 P. 238; In re
Joralemon Street, 208 N. Y. 25, 101
N. E. 706.
263-12 A default Judgment may be
taken. Owinner v, Gary Connecting
Bys. Co. (Ind.), 103 N. E. 794.
264-16 Louisville & N. B. Co. v,
Lang, 160 Ky. 702, 170 S. W. 2; Balch
t?. San Antonio F. & N. B. Co. (Tex.
Civ.), 161 S. W. 1091.
264-25 See Des Moines Water Co. v.
City of Des Moines, 206 Fed. 657, 124
C. C. A. 445, af. 194 Fed. 557.
A XTnlted States district court has no
authority to condemn land in Texas for
a foreign corporation. Beitzer v, Me-
dina Valley Irr. Co. (Tex. Civ.), 153
S. W. 380.
265-28 Contra, Mayor, etc. of Balti-
more V, Kane (Md.)j 93 A. 393.
265-32 See Manila B. Co. v. Attor-
ney-General, 20 Phil. Isl. 523.
266-37 Priority of right.— Where
two cities are contending to condemn
the same property the primal mover
has the right. Chehalis v, Centralia, 77
Wash. 673, 138 P. 293.
266-38 A majority of the comznis-
slonen only need sign the petition.
Washington B. Ss E. Co. t?. Newman,
41 App. Cas. (D. O.) 439; Wiegand v.
Siddons, 41 App. Cas. (D. C.) 130.
266-41 Trustees of School v. McMa-
hon, 265 HI. 83, 106 N. E. 486; Trustees
of Schools V. Griffith, 263 111. 650, 105
N. E. 760, Ann. Cas. 1914D, 1136, where
school district is in two townships.
266-43 A foreign corporatioxi which
has complied with the laws of the state
wherein it does business may exercise
the power of eminent domain. Desert
Water, Oil & Irr. €o. fJ. S., 167 Cal.
147, 138 P. 981; San Joaquin, etc. Irr.
Co. f?. Stevinson, 164 Cal. 221, 128 P.
924; Northwestern Electric Co. t?. Zim-
merman, 67 Or. 150, 135 P. 330.
266-50 Butler County B. Co. t?. Bar-
ron, 173 Mo. App. 365, 158 S. W. S72;
S. V. Superior Court, -80 Wash. 417, 141
P. 906.
267-52 Comp. Spokane v. Onstine
(Wash.), 149 P. 1.
267-56 In re Leary Ave., 72 Wash.
617, 131 P. 225.
267-60 In re Willcox, 213 N. Y. 218,
107 N. E. 499.
268-64 Holder of a tax title is a
proper party defendant. Sanitary Dist.
17. Munger, 264 111. 256, 106 N. E. 185.
268-65 Lessee must be made party.
S. V, Superior Court, 80 Wash. 417, 141
P. 906.
269-79 Highway Comrs. v. Cham-
bers, 265 111. 113, 106 N. E. 492.
270-81 Dowd V. American Surety
Co., 69 Or. 418, 139 P. 112.
Szecutor is not a party interested in
condemning lands of a deceased person
and need not be made a party unless
there is a statute requiring it. High-
way Comrs. V. Chambers, 265 111. 113,
106 N. E. 492.
270-88 BecelTer of railroad must be
made a party. Seattle v. Seattle, B. &
S. B. Co., 83 Wash. 94, 145 P. 54, 1167;
8. V, Superior Court, 77 Wash. 593, 138
P. 277.
505
Vol. 8
EMINENT DOMAllf
271-04 Spokane i>. Onstine (Wash.),
149 P. 1. Bee P. v. Pisher, 209 N. Y.
892, 103 N. E. 734, rev. 141 N. Y. S.
1136, where it was held that a eon-
traetor who was stopped from com-
pleting a contract to cut timber, and
had filed his claim for damages, had no
right to intervene, because his rights
cannot be prejudiced by the judgment.
271-95 Thurman v. Multnomah Coun-
ty, 70 Or. 401, 140 P. 626, 141 P.
1015.
Kotioe of aroUcation of appraisal must
be served on each of the owners of
the real estate, or rights or easements
therein sought to be taken. One party
cannot avail himself of failure to give
notice to another. In re University
Avenue, 82 Misc. 598, 144 N. Y. S.
1086.
272-OG In absence of statute there
need be no notice of the order of con-
demnation, nor can landowner be heard
thereon. He is entitled to a hearing
only on the question of compensation.
Luther v. Comrs. of Buncombe County,
164 N. C. 241, 80 S. E. 386. But even
where statute makes no provision for
notice the law will imply the giving
of notice and action can be had only
on giving reasonable notice. New
Hayen Water Co. f. Bussell, 86 Conn.
361, 85 A. 636.
272-08 Bne proeess of law does not
require notice in such cases. Bemis v,
Guirl Drainage Co. (Ind.), 105 N. E.
496.
272-1 Contra, Loudenslager v. Clerk
of Atlantic County, 86 N. J. L. 555, 91
A. 1021.
272-5 Ward Co. v. Street Comrs., ill
Mass. 381, 104 N. E. 965; S. v. Superior
Court, 80 Wash. 417, 141 P. 906.
273-6 Crawford v. Frio County (Tex.
av.), 153 S. W. 388. •
273-7 Thurman v. Multnomah Coun-
ty, 70 Or. 401, 140 P. 626, 141 P. 1015;
Wheeler v. Town of St. Johnsbury, 87
Vt. 46, 87 A. 349.
273-13 Wiegand t^. Siddons, 41 App.
Cas. (D, C.) 130; Kirkwood r. Cronin,
259 Mo. 207, 168 S. W. 674; Chicago
Great Western B. Co. v. Kemper, 256
Mo. 279, 166 S. W. 291; Luther t?. Comrs.
of Buncombe County, 164 N. C. 241, 80
6. B. 386; S. V. Superior Court, 80
Wash. 417, 141 P. 906,
273-16 By accepting damages award-
ed^—In re condemnation of land, etc., in
Kansas City (Mo. App.), 176 S. W. 52§.
274-19 Notice sufBcient under stat-
ute. Newman v, Lynchburg Inv. Corp.,
236 U. S. 692, 35 Sup. Ct. 477.
Tnnnffident compliance. — Wiegand v.
Biddons, 41 App. Cas. (D. C.) 130;
Lynchburg Inv. Corp. v. Budolph, 40
App. Cas. (D. C.) 129.
275-80 Eastern Oregon Land Co. r.
Willow Biver Land & Irr. Co., 204 Fed.
516, 122 C. C. A. 636.
275-32 See In re condemnation of
land, etc., in Kansas City (Mo. App.),
176 S. W. 529. •
Notice by maU pursuant to court order
is Bufftcient. New Haven Water Co. 17.
Bussell, 86 Conn. 361, 85 A. 636.
275-30 Lynchburg Inv. Corp. v. Bu-
dolph, 40 App. Cas. (D. C.) 129; Burns'
Ann. St. (Ind.), 1908, §§931, 932; Gwin-
ner «. Gary Connecting Kys. Co. (Ind.),
103 N. E. 794; Bledsoe v. Stallard, 250
Mo. 154, 157 S. W. 77.
276-89 A valid ordinance is condi-
tion precedent to proceedings. Chicago
V. Arnold, 261 IlL 142, 103 N. E. 587.
Condition vubeequent^— Where statute
provides that no damages shall be paid
in condemnation proceedings except pur-
suant to an ordinance (where amount
involved is over $2000), the enactment
of an ordinance authorizing condemna-
tion is tather in nature of a condition
subsequent than precedent because it
cannot be Anally determined until after
appeal whether the compensation will
exceed the amount fixed. East Chicago
r. Interstate Iron & Steel Co. (Ind.),
107 N. E. 274.
276-41 See Paterson v. Kearny, 84
N. J. L. 456, 87 A. 103. Camp. City
& S. B. Co. V. Washington, W. ft G. B.
Co., 122 Md. 655, 90 A. 521.
277-42 Cleveland, C. C. & St. L. By.
Co. V. Hadley, 179 Ind. 429, 101 N. E.
473; Southern Indiana By. Co. v.
Indianapolis & L. By. Co., 168 Ind. 360,
372, 81 N. E. 65, 13 L. B. A. (N. S.)
197.
Oontra« — ^Filing map under §466, Civ.
Code, is not a condition precedent to
an action to condemn property. North-
western Pac. B. Co. V. JLambert, 166
CaL 749, 137 P. 1116.
Filing map nmio pco timo^— See In te
Public Service Com., 151 N. Y. S. 480.
A oopy of map shoi^d accompany eaek
copy of the complaint served. Oamp*
bell V. Steiner, 20 Haw. 365.
006
EMINENT DOMAIN
Vol. 8
"Wlier* 6Wiier*8 property la not Incloiied
in maps and plans he cannot make
claim for compensation to commission-
ersy because the petition applies only
to property rights included. In re Will-
cox (N. Y.), 107 N. E. 499.
27T-44 Johnston v, Delaware, L. &
W. E. Co., 245 Pa. 338, 91 A. 618.
279-65 Minneapolis, St. P. B. & D.
Elec. Traction Co. c. Goodspeed (Minn.),
150 N. W. 222; Wichita Falls & W. By.
Co. r. Wyrick (Tex. Civ.), 158 S. W.
570.
Petition held snfflcient under §1244,
Code Civ. Proc. Vallejo & N. B. Co.
f?. Home Sav. Bank, 24 Cal. App. 166,
140 P. 974.
Striking out matter*— An offer of con-
demnor tendering to defendant the use
of water from proposed reservoir, upon
stated conditions, in mitigation is not
a pleading and may be stricken out.
Byrd Irr. Co. v. Smith (Tex. Civ.), 157
S. W. 260.
Jnxisdictlon.— Filing of petition and
service of notice gives the court juris-
diction of the subject-matter and the
person. Chicago Great Western B. Co.
r. Kemper, 256 Mo. 279, 166 S. W. 291.
280-66 Mound City t^. Mason, 262
m. 392, 104 N. E. 685.
280-69 Mound City v. Mason, 262
ni. 392, 104 N. E. 685.
A de facto corporation may maintain
condemnation proceedings. Smith v.
Cleveland, C. C. & St. L B. Co., 170
Ind. 382, 81 N. E. 501; Sisters of Char-
ity V, Morris Bailroad Co., 84 N. J. L.
310, 86 A. 954, 50 L. B. A. (N. S.)
236.
280-70 Authorization to sne.— Where
petitioner is a corporation it need not
allege that it was authorized by its
board of directors to institute the suit,
this being a matter of evidence. In re
Otter Tail Power Co., 128 Minn. 415,
151 N. W. 198.
283-82 Jolitt ij. Muncie Electric
Light Co., 181 Ind. 650, 105 N. E. 234;
Weiss v. Comrs. of Sewerage, 152 Ky.
552, 153 S. W. 967; Inhab. of Lynnfield
V. Inhab. of Peabody, 219 Mass. 322,
106 N. E. 977; New York Municipal
By. Corp. V. Parkhill, 145 N. Y. S. 447.
SnlBctency of description of an ease-
ment for pipe line. See Carnegie Nat-
ural Gas Co. V. Swiger, 72 W. Va. 757,
79 a £. 3, 46 L. B. A. (N. S.) 1073.
A reasonably accurate description only
is necessary. Accuracy of description
is essential only in the decree. Chehalis
V. Centralia, 77 Wash. 673, 138 P. 293.
283-83 Postal Tel. Cable Co. v, Pat-
ton, 153 Ky. 187, 154 S. W. 1073; The
American B. Co. v, Quinones, 16 P. B.
143.
283-84 In re Otter Tail Power Co.,
128 Minn. 415, 151 N. W. 198.
284-85 Joliff v.. Muncie Electric
Light Co., 181 Ind. 650, 105 N. E. 234.
284-86 Weiss v. Comrs. of Sewerage,
152 Ky. 552, 153 S. W. 967.
Each owner's property need not be
described as a separate parcel where
the whole parcel desired to be taken is
set out. In re Public Service Com., 151
N, Y. S. 430.
285-91 In proceedings under Rapid
Transit Act (Laws, 1909, ch. 498) re-
quiring detailed plans and specifica-
tions, it is not necessary to allege the
completed preparation of such plans
and specifications because the acquisi-
tion of title is not contingent upon
such completeness. In re New York,
163 App. Div. 10, 147 N. Y. S. 1057.
286-95 Noell v. Tennessee Eastern.
Power Co., 130 Tenn. 245, 169 S. W.
1169.
286-98 New Haven Water Co. v.
Bussell, 86 Conn. 361, 85 A. 636; North-
west Park Bist. v, Hedenberg, 267 111.
588, 108 N. E. 664; Chicago v. Lehmann,
262 HI. 468, 104 N. E. 829; Louisville
& N. E. Co. V. Lang, 160 Ky. 702, 170
S. W. 2.
Sni&cient allegation. — An allegation
that plaintiff deems land ''to be and
is necessary for its use and purposes
aforesaid" is sufficient. Eckart v. Ft.
Wayne & N. I. Traction Co., 181 Ind.
352, 104 N. E. 762.
287-99 Northwestern Electric Co. v.
Zimmerran, 67 Or. 150, 135 P. 330.
General and specific allegations^ — ^Where
complaint alleged generally that the
land to be taken was all necessary,
and there were specific allegations that
certain parts of the tract were neces-
sary for certain specified uses it is
sufficient to allow petitioner to acquire
such lands as were reasonably necessary
to accommodate its future business.
Vallejo & N. B. Co. v. Eeed Orchard
Co. (Cal.), 147 P. 238.
287-2 St. Louis v. Glasgow, 254 Mo.
607
Vol 8)
EMINENT DOMAIN
262, 162 S. W. 596. Comp. In re Strauss,
152 N. Y. S. 1038.
tinder §1320, Eev. Laws, 1905, a school
district may exercise right of eminent
domain without making an unsuccess-
ful attempt to purchase. In re Applica-
tion to Condemn Land (Minn.), 141 N.
W. 801.
288-3 Joliff V, Muncie Electric Light
Co., 181 Ind. 650, 105 X. E. 234.
Offer to pay. — Complaint must allege
offer to pay when offer is a prerequisite
to a successful condemnation proceed-
ing. The Fajardo Development Co. v,
Zalduondo, 20 P. K. 237.
289-6 St. Louis t?. Glasgow, 254 Mo.
262, 162 S. W. 596.
290-17 As to effect of overruling,
see Joliff v. Muncie Electric Light Co.,
181 Ind. 650, 105 N. E. 234.
290-21 Postal Tel.-Cable Co. r.
Northern Pac. Ky. Co., 211 Fed. 824,
128 C. O. A. 350.
290-22 Chicago, T. H. & S. E. Ry.
Co. i;. Greenfield, 268 111. 94, 108 N. K.
750.
290-23 '<No pleading Is contem-
plated, and not only is no answer re-
quired, but if one is filed, it may be
stricken from the files." Chicago, T.
H. & S. E. Ry. Co. r. Greenfield, 268
m. 94, 108 N. E. 750.
. 291-24 Comp. Honaker v. New River,
H. & W. R. Co., 116 Va. 662, 82 S. E.
727.
291-32 Chicago v. Lehmann, 262 111.
468, 104 N. E. 829.
292-35 Mavor, etc. of Hvattsville v.
Washington, W. & G. R. Co., 122 Md.
660, 90 A. 515.
293-48 See Honaker f. New River,
H. & W. R. Co., 116 Va. 662, 82 S. E.
727.
293-50 A collateral attack on the
legality of corporate existence is not
permissible. Joliff t\ Muncie Electric
Light Co., 181 Ind. 650, 105 N. E.
234.
294-66 Admission by holder of a
tax title in his answer that he believed
same ineffectual to convey a valid fee
simple to him is a confession of invalid
title and precludes him from obtain-
ing compensntion. Sanitfirv Dist. i/.
Munger, 264 111. 256, 106 N. E. 185.
295-73 Objections must be specific.
Joliff V. Muncie Electric Light Co., 181
Ind. 650, 105 N. E. 234,
296-78 An amendment to original
notice of proceedings to owners cannot
be made before the assessors. Nash-
ville, C. & St. L. Ry. V. Western Union
Tel. Co., 142 Ga. 525, 83 S. E. 123.
296-81 New York Municipal Rv.
Corp. V. Parkhill, 145 N. Y. S. 447.
297-83 In re East 177th Street &
Bronx Park Ave., 80 Misc. 346, 141 N.
Y. S. 231.
297-89 Must not set out a new
cause of action. Nashville, C. & St.
L. Ry. V, Western Union Tel. Co., 142
Ga. 525, 83 S. E. 123.
297-94 See Letourneau t;. Erickson,
182 Mich. 617, 148 N. W. 675.
25)8-6 In re Montague Street, Brook-
ivn, 87 Misc. 120, 150 N. Y. S. 382.
299-8 Chicago f?. Great Western B.
Co. r. Kemper, 256 Mo. 279, 166 S. W.
291.
No appeal lies from the decision.
Seattle, P. A. & L. C. Ry. t?. Land,
81 Wash. 206, 142 P. 680; Western
American Co. v, St. Ann Co., 22 Wash.
158, 60 P. 158.
In Nevada under §5614, Rev. Laws,
the court or judge must determine '* be-
fore condemnation" these three ques-
tions: (1) Is the use to trhFch prop-
erty is to be applied one authorized by
lawt (2) Is the taking necessary to
such use? If land is already appro-
priated to a public use, is the use to
which it is sought to apply it a more
necessary public use! These three ques-
tions so involve each other that the
court may dispose of them at same
hearing and upon the same evidence.
Goldfield Consol. M. & T. Co. r. Old
Sandstrom A. G. Mining Co. (Nev.),
150 P. 313.
299-9 Not contrary to state constitu-
tion.— Riverside Drainage Dist. v. Buck-
ner (Miss.), 66 S. 784.
299-10 Goldfield Cohsol. M. & T. Co.
r. Old Sandstrom A. G. Min. Co. (Xev.),
150 P. 313.
In California all questions, except those
necessary to determine compensation,
are to be determined by court. San
Joaquin & Kings Eiver C. & I. Co. v.
Stevinson (Cal.), 147 P. 258; Vallejo
& N. E. Co. c. Beed Orchard Co. (Cal.),
147 P. 238.
Not essential under ch. 270 of Laws of
1914 conferring rights on drainage dis-
tricts. Biverside Drainage Dist. v.
008
EMINENT DOMAIN
Vol. 8
Biickner (Miss.), 68 S. 784. See Ald-
ridge t\ Btgue Phalia Drainage Dist.
(Miss.), 64 S. 377.
299-11 Staw V. Board of Drainage
Comrs., 160 Kj. 422, 169 S. W. 859.
Owner is entitled to Jury, not on the
question of appropriation but as to the
compensation of the land so appro-
priated. Cuyahoga Kiver Power Co. v.
Akron, 210 Fed. 524; Zimmerman v.
Ganfield, 42 O. St. 463, 471.
In federal courts a proceeding to con-
demn land is a suit at common law, and
defendant is entitled to have his dam-
ages assessed by a jury. Beatty v. U.
B., 203 Fed. 620, 122 C. C. A. 16, rev.
198 Fed. 284.
Legislature may delegate to a Jury the
power of fixing the compensation and
damages since the constitution is silent
as to the methods of determining these
matters. Truckee River General Elec-
tric Co. V. Durham (Nev.), 149 P. 61.
299-13 Pitznogle v. Western Mary-
land Ey. Co., 119 Md. 673, 87 A. 917,
46 L. B. A. (N. S.) 319; Skelton v.
Newberg (Or.), 148 P. 53; Cheyenne
V. Edwards (Wyo.), 143 P. 356.
299-14 Jury need not be part of
regular venire. Pitznogle v. Western
Maryland Ry. Co., 119 Md. 673, 87 A.
917, 46 L. R. A. (N. S.) 319.
800-17 Where neither party demands
a Jury to assess damages court need
not summon a jury. Davis r. O 'Bryant
(Mo.), 175 S. W. 931.
300-19 Kirkwood v, Cronin, 259 Mo.
207, 168 S. W. 674.
300-22 Kirkwood v, Cronin, 259 Mo.
207, 168 S. W. 674.
301-24 Kansas City i?. Woerishoeffer,
249 Mo. 1, 155 S. W. 779. See Truckee
River General Electric Co. f. Durham
(Nev.), 149 P. 61; Cheyenne v. Ed-
wards (Wyo.), 143 P. 356.
301-36 Under Rev. St., 1895, arts.
1297-1299, and district court rule 31,
the party who has burden of proof on
the whole case has the right to open
and close. Byrd Irr, Co. v, Smyth
(Tex. Civ.), 157 S. W. 260.
302-38 Truckee River General Elec-
tric Co. V, Durham (Nev.), 149 P. 61.
302-39 Chicago v. Lehmann, 262 111.
468, 104 N. E. 829; O'Hare v. Chicago,
M. & N. R. Co., 139 ni. 151, 28 N. E.
923; Chicago Great Western R. Co. v,
Kempei, 256 Mo. 279, 166 S. W. 291;
S. V. Superior Court, 82 Wash. 503, 144
P. 722; Carnegie Natural Gas Co. v.
Swiger, 72 W. Va. 557, 79 S. E. 3, 46
L. R. A. (N. S.) 1073.
302-43 Davis r. 0 'Bryant (Mo.), 175
S. W. 931.
303-45 Del Monte Live Stock Co. r.
Bd. of Comrs., 24 Colo. App. 340, 133
P. 1048.
303-50 Sayles' Civ. St. (Tex.), art.
4447; Southern Kansas Ry. Co. v.
Vance (Tex. Civ.), 155 S. W. 696.
303-52 New Haven Water Co. t?.
Russell, 86 Conn. 361, 85 A. 636.
§5226 Bev. Codes, while providing for
notice fails to provide what the notice
shall contain, how service shall be
made, or in what manner proof of
service of notice may be made. §4890
of Rev. Codes would then govern as to
proof of said service. Empire Mill Co.
V. Dist. Court (Idaho), 149 P. 499.
303-56 If any material issue of fact
is raised by an answer such issue must
first be determined by the court and it
is error to appoint commissioners and
direct the determination by them of
such issues. In re Ives, 155 App. Div.
670, 140 N. Y. S. 694.
803-57 County court is the proper
tribunal, and the district court has no
power to appoint commissioners. South-
ern Kansas Ry. Co. v. Vance (Tex.
Civ.), 155 S. W. 696.
Number of commissions. — ^Where sep*
arate tracts of same owner are taken
it is better to appoint one commis-
sion to assess compensation. Alabama
Power So. v, Adams (Ala.), 67 So. 838.
304-58 Art. 4448, Sayles' Civ. St.
(Tex.), provides for appointment by
county judge who must give preference
to those agreed upon between the
parties. Southern Kansas Ry. Co. v.
Vance (Tex. Civ.), 155 S. W. 696.
305-70 Petitioners for highway are
disqualified. Re Public Road, 5 Harr.
(Del.) 242; Epler t\ Niman, 5 Ind. 459;
Conant's Appeal, 102 Me. 477, 67 A.
564, 120 Am. St. Rep. 512.
305-77 That wife is cousin of a
stockholder is not disqualification in ab-
sence of showing of prejudice. Albany
& N. R. Co. 17. Cramer, 7 How. Pr.
(N. Y.) 164.
306-78 Readington v. Dilley, 24 N.
J. L. 209; Green t\ Wood, 6 Abb. Pr.
(N. Y.) 277; Re East 222nd Street, 122
N. Y. S. 320; Re Underbill, 32 Hun
609
voLa
EMINENT DOMAIN
(N. T.) 449. See Gingrich v. Harris-
burg, P. Mt. J. & L. B. Co., 1 Pearson
(Pa.) 74. Comp. Muire r. Smith, 2
Bob. (Va.) 458.
806-80 Be Boehester, 208 N. T. 188,
101 N. E. 875, 47 L. B. A. (N. S.)
151.
806-84 Mtomber of city cooncli not
disqualified. McDonnell v. Improvement
Dist., 97 Ark. 334, 133 S. W. 1126.
806-86 St. Louis v. Brown, 155 Mo.
645, 56 S. W. 298; Moore t?. Sandoun,
19 N. H. 93; S. r. Vandervere, 25 N. J.
L. 669; Beadington v. Dilley, 24 N. J.
li. 209; Be McCandless Twp. Boad,
110 Pa. 605, 1 A. 594.
306-87 Andover t?. Oxford County,
86 Me. 185, 29 A. 982; Danvers v.
Essex County, 2 Met. (Mass.) 185;
Wilbraham v. Hampden County, 11
Pick. (Mass.) 322.
306-02 Clout t^. Metropolitan B. Co.,
46 L. T. N. S. (Eng.) 141. '
808-17 In re Willcox, 165 App. Biv.
197, 151 N. T. S. 141.
808-19 Choice of experts* estimates.
Commissioners are not restricted to a
choice between the estimates of oppos-
ing experts and are not bound by their
opinions. New York Cent. & H. B. B.
Co. V, Newbold, 166 App. Div. 193,
151 N. Y. S. 732; In te East Thirty-
sixth Street, 153 N. Y. S. 1044.
808-20 Coinmlssioiiers have discre-
tionary powers. — Commissioners have
control of proceedings before them, and
it is discretionary with them to allow
proceedings to be reopened to receive
further evidence, and this discretion
will not be disturbed unless it has been
abused. In re Borden Avenue, 152 N.
T. S. 786.
808-23 Infoxmation independently ac-
quired.-—Commissioners may not take
into consideration information or
knowledge acquired aside from a view
of premises and sworn testimony ad-
duced at trial. Boutt County Dev. Co.
17. Johnson, 23 Colo. App. 511, 130 P.
1081.
812-48 Butler County B. Co. v, Bar-
ron, 173 Mo. App. 365, 158 S. W. 872.
812-62 Where viewers failed to file
report. See Del Monte Live Stock Co.
1?. Bd. of Comrs., 24 Colo. App. 340, 133
P. 1048.
812-57 Amended or corrected report
relates back to the filing of the orig-
inal. St. Louis V. Busch, 252 Mo. 209,
158 S. W. 309.
313-60 Award not a vested rlgbt.
The award upon confirmation of the
report does not become a vested right
which cannot be destroyed by setting
aside the order of confirmation. In re
Harmon and Himrod Streets, 146 K.
Y. S. 297.
Amendment of an order of conflrmatlon
may be made on notice to the parties
in the proceedings. In re Parker St.
in New York City, 156 App. Div. 537,
141 N. Y. S. 367.
313-62 In re East 16l8t Street, 159
App. Div. 662, 144 N. Y. S. 717; South-
ern Kansas By. Co. v, Vance (Tex.
Civ.), 155 S. W. 696.
Prot(»t by landowner^^Where the stat-
ute provides that the owner shall re*
ceive compensation for the land taken
and the damage to the land not taken,
the owner in his protest against the
amount of damages allowed by the com-
missioners need not allege the damage
to the land not taken since that is not
special damages, but is the natural and
necessary result of the taking. Wichita
Palls & W. By. Co. v. .Wyrick • (Tex.
Civ.), 158 S. W. 670.
313-64 Qronnds. — ^The reason speci-
fied in §3371 of Code Civ. Proc. for
setting aside an award does not pre-
clude other grounds for setting it aside.
In re Hudson Biver Toll Bridge, 81
Misc. 324, 142 N. Y. S. 949.
Objections or claims not raised before
the oomznissioners cannot be considered
on proceedings to set aside. In re
Spuyten Duyvil Boad, 87 Misc. 635, 150
N. Y. S. 405; In re East 227th and
228th Sts. in City of New York, 150
N. Y. S. 402.
314-70 New York Cent. & H. B. B.
Co. V. Newbold, 166 App. Div. 193, 151
N. Y. S. 732; In re Toll Bridge across
Hudson Biver, 83 Misc. 831, 145 N. Y.
S. 1058.
314-72 New York Central & H. B. B.
Co. V, Newbold, 166 App. Div. 193, 151
N. Y. S. 732; In re East Thirty-sixth
Street, 153 N. Y. S. 1044; In re Six-
teenth Street, 142 N. Y. S. 376.
314-74 In re Toll Bridge across Hud-
son Biver, 83 Misc. 331, 145 N. Y. S.
1058.
314-75 New York Telephone Co. r.
De Noyelles Brick Co., 154 App. Div.
845, 139 N. Y, S. 748; In re East
810
EMINENT DOMAIN
Vol. 8
Thirty-sixth Street, 153 N. Y. S. 1044.
315-76 Whitford V. V. S., 40 App.
Cas. (D. C.) 14.
An award that Is reasonable and not
arbitrary will be sustained. Pennsyl-
vania Co. V, U. S. (0. G. A.), 223 Fed.
759.
315-77 Sni^reme court may vacate
the order confirming the report because
of mlstalce. In re Harmon and Himrod
Streets, 146 N. Y. S. 297.
315-80 In i-e Widening Fort Street,
6 Haw. 638; Southern Kansas By. Co.
V. Vance (Tex. Civ.), 156 S. W. 696.
815-83 In re Harmon and Himrod
Streets, 146 N. Y. S. 297.
Under S6371, Code Olv. Proc, the court
must confirm the report or set it aside.
It cannot be modified by striking out
part of the award. Matter of Johns,
129 App. Div. 717, 721, 114 N. Y. S.
707; Matter of Guilford, 85 App. Div.
207, 83 N. Y. S. 312; P. v. Dawson, 87
Misc. 588, 150 N. Y. S. 679.
315-84 New York Telephone Co. v.
De Noyelles Brick Co., 154 App. Div.
845, 139 N. Y. S. 748; In re Toll Bridge
across Hudson Biver, 83 Misc. 331, 145
N. Y. 8. 1058.
316-86 In re Bensel, 157 App. Div.
936, 142 N. Y. S. 619.
Contra. — ^The supreme court in its diB-
cretion may correct the commissioners'
report in any manner. Manila <?. Es-
trada, 25 Phil. Isl. 208.
Oircnit court on review may correct
clerical errors in the report. St. Louis
V. Busch, 252 Mo. 209, 158 S. W. 309.
816-91 Be-appraisement. — When
award has been set aside because of
damage to property, after making the
award, a new appraisement must be
made, rather than to allow a supple-
mental report. In re Hudson River Toll
Bridge, 81 Misc. 324, 142 N. Y. S. 949.
316-92 In re East 16l8t Street, 159
App. Div. 662, 144 N. Y. S. 717.
De novo liearing.-^Where a resubmis-
sion is ordered because the commis-
sioners adopted an erroneous measure
of damages there must be a hearing de
novo upon evidence. New England
Telegraph Co. v. Neiger, 152 N. Y. S.
1085.
317-95 Patterson v, Baltimore, 124
Md. 153, 91 A. 966; Luther v. Comrs.
9f Buncombe Cpunty, 164 N. C. 241, 80
S. E. 386; Manila v, Batlle, 25 Phil.
Isl. 566.
FindingB conclOBive* — Courts will not
disturb findings of commissioners un-
less they appear to have acted arbi-
trarily or made the assessment on a
fundamentally wrong basis. In re
Eighth Ave. Northwest, 77 Wash. 570,
138 P. 10.
317-96 See Southern Kansas By.
Co. V. Vance (Tex. Civ.), 155 S. W.
696.
317-98 Jury trial may be had only
on the question of damages. Chicago
Great Western B. Co. v. Kemper, 256
Mo. 279, 166 S. W. 291.
318-99 Vallejo & N. B. Co. v, Beed
Orchard Co. (Cal.), 147 P. 238; Sani-
tary Dist. V. Boening, 267 HI. 118, 107
N. E. 810; Union Graiji & Hay Co. t?.
Cincinnati, 14 O. C. C. (N. S.) 85.
318-3 Contra, Sanitary Dist. v. Boen-
ing, 267 HI. 118, 107 N. E. 810; Illinois
Central B. Co.. t?. Boskemmer, 264 HI.
103, 105 N. E. 695.
318-5 Contra, Mayor, etc. of Hyatts-
ville 1?. Washington, W. & Q. B. Co.,
122 Md. 660, 90 A. 515.
318-6 See Pitznogle v. Western Mary-
land By. Co., 119 Md. 673, 87 A. 917,
46 L. B. A. (N. S.) 319.
318-8 Vallejo & N. B. Co. v. Beed
Orchard Co. (Cal.), 147 P. 238; Flagg
V, Worcester, 8 Cush. (Mass.) 69; March
V, Portsmouth & C. B. Co., 19 N. H.
372.
As to what relatlonBMp will not dis-
qualify juror, see North Arkansas & W.
B. Co. V, Cole, 71 Ark. 38, 70 S. W.
312; Fulton v, Cummings, 132 Ind. 453,
30 N. E. 949; Louisville B. & Nav. Co.
V. Morere, 116 La. 997, 41 So. 236;
Crowley t?. Gallatin County, 14 Mont.
292, 36 P. 313.
A Btockholder in the condemnor cor-
poration cannot be a juror. Bock Island
& A. B. Co. V. Lynch, 23 111. 645. See
Strang t?, Beloit & M. B. Co., 16 Wis.
635.
Taxpayer disqualified. Pond v. Milf ord,
35 Conn. 32; Mitchell V. Holderness, 29
N. H. 523; Nashua's Petition, 12 N. H.
425.
Petitlonera for highway disqualified.
Almond t?. Bockdale County, 78 Ga.
199; Keaton v. Godfrey, 152 N. C. 16,
67 S. E. 47.
319-10 Warner t\ Gunnison, 2 Colo^
511
Vol. 8 >
EMINENT DOMAIN
App. 430, 31 P. 238. Contra, Elliott v.
Wallowa County, 67 Or. 236, 109 P. 130,
Ann. Cas. 1913Ay 117; Portland V.
Kamm, 5 Or. 362.
319-13 Cowan v. Glover, 8 A. K.
Marsh. (Ky.) 356. Comp. Locke v.
Highway Comr., 107 Mich. 631, 66 N*
W. 658.
310-18 Elbert v. Scott (Del.), 90 A.
587, aff. 88 A. 608.
320-21 A challenge to array is prop-
erly overruled where the challenge to
disqualified juror was sustained. Trus-
tees of Schools V. Griffith, 263 HI. 550,
105 N. E. 760, Ann. Cas. 1914D, 1136.
320-24 See Lynchburg Inv. Corp. v.
Budolph, 40 App. Cas. (D. C.) 129.
Error in Instmctions in condemnation
proceeding upon other issues than that-
o£ compensation and upon which the
court itself has weighed the evidence
will not justify a reversal unless it has
caused substantial injury or a misear-
tiage of justice. Vallejo^ & N. B. Co. v.
Eeed Orchard Co. (CaL), 147 P. 238.
320-27 Contra, Skelton v. Newberg
(Or.), 148 P. 53.
322-30 Premature Judgment* — ^Where
judgment was rendered by the clerk on
the verdict of the jury, and the court
holding the case under advisement af-
terward made full findings on the evi-
dence, and gave its own judgment, the
rendition of judgment was premature
and the court could disregard it. Yal-
Icjo & N. B. Co. V, Beed Orchard Co.
(Cal.), 147 P. 238.
322-41 Dis^^ialiflcation of a Juror in
condemnation proceedings is ground for
setting judgment aside on appeal. San-
dusky Grain Co. v, Sanilac Circuit Judge
(Mich.), 150 N. W. 329; Mich. Air Line
By. V. Barnes, 40 Mich. 383.
323-50 Excessive damages no ground
for new trial. Pittsburg, etc. By. Co. v.
Crockett (Ind.), 106 N. E. 875.
323-63 New York Telephone Co. v.
De Noyelles Brick Co., 154 App. Div.
845, 139 N. Y. S. T48.
323-54 Drollinger v. Hastings & N.
W. B. Co. (Neb.), 153 N. W. 619; North-
em Pac. By. Co. «?. Union Lumber Co.,
76 Wash. 563, 137 P. 806.
324-59 Kankakee & S. B. Co. v.
Straut, 102 111. 666.
324-60 Officer should attend with
viewers. Patchin v, Brooklyn, 2 Wend.
(N. Y.) 377,
324-62 Purpose of viewer— View is to
enable the commissioners to better un-
derstand the evidence. Laflin v. Chicago
W. & N. B. Co., 33 Fed. 415; Denver
Co. V. Howe, 49 Colo. 256, 112 P. 779;
Heady v. Vevay & Mt. S. Turnp. Co.,
52 Ind. 117; Jeffersonville, M. & I. B.
Co. t?. Bowen, 40 Ind. 545; Harrison t?.
Iowa Midland B. Co., 36 la. 323; Manila
V, Estrada, 25 Phil. Isl. 208; Northern
Pac. By. Co. v. Union Lumber Co., 76
Wash. 563, 137 P. 306; In re East Spring
St., 41 Wash. 366, 83 Pac. 242; Wash-
burn t?. Milwaukee & L. W. B. Co., 59
Wis. 364, 18 N. W. 328.
324-63 Patterson t?. Baltimore City,
124 Md. 153, 91 A. 966; Drollinger r.
Hastings & N. W. B. Co. (Neb.), 153
N. W. 619; In re Certain Lands in
Twelfth Ward, 33 Misc. 648, 68 N. Y.
S. 965.
324-64 Bockford v. Mower, 259 HI.
604, 102 N. E. 1032; Patterson v. Balti-
more, 124 Md. 153, 91 A. 966.
326-73 Payment must precede the
final order of condemnation. Great
Northern By. Co. v. Benjamin (Mont.),
149 P. 968.
326-74 Central New England By. Co.
V, Whittley, 159 App. Div. 468, 144 N.
Y. S. 270.
326-78 Oomblnlng Judgment of ap-
propriation and judgment for damages
is a mere irregularity of form not re-
quiring reversal. Chicago, M. & P. S.
By. Co. V. Slosser, 82 Wash. 467, 144
P. 706.
326-79 Comp. Great Northern By.
Co. V. Benjamin (Mont.), 149 P. 968.
Where Judgment falls to describe the
land but refers to the petition for a
description, it may be reformed by ap-
pellate court so as to describe the land
as in petition. San Antonio, U. & G.
B. Co. V. Bobo (Tex. Civ.), 163 S. W,
377.
327-83 Amendment. — Where j u d g-
ment has become final no change or
modification which substantially varies
its terms can be made after the term
in which it was rendered. When time
has been fixed for payment of award
the court cannot afterward extend the
time. City of Des Moines v. Des Moines
Water Co., 218 Fed. 939.
327-88 An award to nnknownownffin
held improper. In re Hamburger, 86
Misc. 540, 149 N. Y. S. 173. But see In
re Bondell Ave., 150 N. Y. S. 403,
512
EMINENT DOMAIN
Vol. 8
327-02 Becanae of default.— Gwin-'
ner v, Q&ry Connecting Eye. Co. (Ind.),
103 N. E. 794.
Time for entry of Judgment. — See Ore-
gon E. & Nav. Co. V. Taffe, 67 Or. 102,
134 P. 1024, 135 P. 332, 515.
329-7 Watson r. Jersey City, 84 N.
J. L. 422, 86 A. 402.
330-19 Ruddick v. Columbus (Ind.),
108 N. E. 106.
331-22 Euddick v, Columbus (Ind.),
108 N. E. 106.
331-23 Bacon t?. Gennett (C. C. A.),
220 Fed. 663.
Ab to wbat constitutes final judgment,
see McLean v. District Court, 24 Ida.
441, 134 P. 636.
An order granted by default condemn-
ing the fee of the property and appoint-
ing commissioners is not appealable. In
re Platbush Ave. Extension, 151 N. Y.
S. 766.
The disposition of the deposit in a con-
demnation proceeding is essential to a
final disposition of the cause. Denver
6 E. G. E. Co. V, Mills (Colo.), 147 P.
681; Denver, etc. E. Co. t?. Lamborn, 8
Colo. 380, 8 P. 582.
332-24 Appellant may dismiss his
appeal without respondent's consent
when the issue is limited to the dam-
ages assessed, and does not bring up
the whole proceeding for a hearing de
novo. Minneapolis, St. P. E. & D. Elec-
tric Traction Co. v. Goodspeed, 128
Minn. 66, 150 N. W. 222.
332-25 Panhandle Traction Co. v.
Schenk, 73 W. Va. 226, 80 S. E. 345.
333-27 Elbert v. Scott (Del.), 90 A.
587, af. 88 A. 608.
333-28 Manila v, BatUe, 25 Phil. Isl.
566.
333-30 In re Condemnation of Land,
etc. in Kansas City (Mo. App.), 176 S.
W. 529.
333-32 Payment of amount awarded
as compensation does not estop plain-
tiff from appealing as to assessment of
damage. Truckee Eiver General Elec-
tric Co. V, Durham (Nov.), 149 P. 61;
Lake v. Bender, 18 Nev. 361, 4 P. 711,
7 P. 74.
833-34 Yazoo & M. V. B. Co. v.
Longview Sugar Co.. 135 La. 542, 65
S. 638.
Invited. errors — ^Where both parties re-
quested the court to approve the re-
M 613
port and enter judgment thereon, one
of the parties cannot thereafter appeal.
Manila E. Co. t?. Arzadon, 20 Phil. Isl.
452. 1
(General statutes of appeal are inappli-
cable. S. V, Superior Court (Wash.),
149 P. 652; Chicago, M. & P. S. Ey. Co.
r. Slosser, 82 Wash. 467, 144 P. 709;
S. V. Superior Court, 82 Wash. 31, 143
P. 168.
333-3e Yazoo & M. V. E. Co. v.
Longview Sugar Co., 135 La. 542, 65
S. 638.
Holder of naked legal title for exclu-
sive use of another has not sufficient
interest to maintain an appeal. Trus-
tees of Schools V. Griffith, 263 Dl. 550,
105 N. E. 760, Ann. Cas. 1914D, 1136.
335-55 Denver & E. G. Co. v. Mills
(C. 0. A.), 222 Fed. 481.
335-66 Ft. Worth t?. Morgan (Tex.
Civ.), 168 S. W. 976. See Virginia &
S. W. E. Co. t?. Nickels, 116 Va. 792,
82 S. E. 693.
335-59 On appeal, the Jurisdictional
facts must appear either in order of ap-
pointment of committee or in the judg-
ment upon their report. Town of Nor-
walk V, Podmore, 86 Conn. 658, 86 A.
582.
335-60 Sanitary Dist. of Chicago v.
Munger, 264 111. 256, 106 N. E. 185.
336-70 Potts t?. Atlanta, 140 Ga. 431,
79 S. E. 110.
336-72 S. V. Superior Court (Wash.),
149 P. 652.
337«78 Orleans-Kenner Electric Ey.
Co. t?. Metairie Eidge Nursery Co., 136
La. 968, 68 S. 93. See In re Eanier
Ave., 80 Wash. 688, 141 P. 1137. Comp.
Manila E. Co. v, Arzadon, 17 Phil. Isl.
288.
Possession pending appeal. — See S. t?.
Superior Court (Wash.), 149 P. 652.
337-79 McLean v. District Court, 24
Ida. 441, 134 P. 536.
338-84 Washington E. & E. Co. T.
Newman, 41 App. Cas. (D. C.) 439.
338-85 Kirkwood V, Cronin, 259 Mo.
207, 168 S. W. 674.
Second proceeding. — ^When a judgment
of expropriation has been reversed by
appellate court with instructions to trial
court as to procedure, the landowner is
entitled to be restored in possession of
the land, and the condemnor has the
right to begin another proceeding under
VoL%
EMINENT DOMAIN
court's instructions. American B. Co.
p. Ortiz, la P. E. 272.
The whole question of assessment of
damages may be again tried. David v.
Xiouisville & I. B. Co., 158 Ky. 721, 166
8. W. 230.
339-90 Sole question presented.
Great Northern By. Co. v, Benjamin
(Mont.), 149 P. 968; Chicago, M. & P.
8. By. Co. IK Slosser, 82 Wash. 467, 144
P. 706; Seattle, P. A. & L. C. By. Co.
u. Land, 81 Wash. 206, 142 P. 680;
North Coast B. Co. v. Gentry, 58 Wash.
80, 107 P. 1059.
839-93 Trustees of Schools v. Grif-
fith, 263 ni. 550, 105 N. E. 760, Ann.
Cas. 101 4D, 113p; Pittsburg, O. C. &
St. L. By. Co. V. Crockett (Ind.), 106
N. E. 875^ Louisville & N. B. Co. v.
White Villa Club, 155 Ky. 452, 159 S.
W. 983; Brack v. Mayor, etc. of Balti-
more (Md.), 93 A. 994; Detroit v. Gray,
183 Mich. 193, 150 N. W. 121; Spring-
fleld t\ Owen (Mo.), 170 8. W. 1118.
839-94 Pittsburg, etc. By. Co. v.
Crockett (Ind.), 106 N. E. 875; Music
u. Big Sandy B. B. Co., 163 Ky. 628, 174
S. W. 44.
340-95 Commercial Tel. Cable Co.
«. Pre vest, 133 La. 47, 62 S. 347; In re
East leist Street, 159 App. Div. 662,
144 N. y. S. 717; Wichita Falls & N.
W. By. Co. V, Mc Alary (Okla.), 144 P.
583; Pennsylvania B. Co. v. Beading
(Pa.), 94 A. 445.
340-96 Trustees of Schools. f?. Grif-
fith, 263 m. 550, 105 N. E. 760, Ann.
Cas. 1914D, 1186.
The Inadequacy must be such as to
show prejudice or corruption. Miller v.
Pulaski, 114 Va. 85, 75 6. B. 767.
840-97 Harrelson t?. Oro Grande
Lime & Stone Co., 23 Cal. App. 479, 138
P. 932; Union Grain & Hay Co. V. Cin-
cinnati, 14 O. C. C. (N. S.) 85.
View by Jury must be given consider-
able effect on the question of damages.
Mayor of Baltimore v. Megary, 122 Md.
20, 89 A. 331.
340-99 Elbert r. Scott (Del.), 90 A.
587, aff. 88 A. 608.
341-1 S. V. Superior Court, 82 Wash.
31, 143 P. 168.
341-5 Contesting validity of the tak-
ing. Excelsior Needle Co. e, Spring-
field (Mass.), 108 N. E. 497.
341-9 Seattle, P. A. & L. C. By. Co.
17. Land, 81 Wash. 206, 142 P. 680.
342-12 Elbert r. Scott (Bel.), 90 A;
587, af. 88 A. 608. |
342*13 Banaghan t*. County Comrs.,
213 Mass. 17, 99 N. E. 476. ,
342-22 N. Y. Code Civ. Proc, 83374;
In re Comrs. of Palisades Interstate
Park, 166 App. Div. 443, 151 N. Y. S.
977; Spokane V, Pittsburg Land & Imp.
Co., 73 Wash. 693, 132 P. 633. See Be
petition of Pittsburg, 243 Pa. 392, 90
A. 329, 52 L. B. A. (N. S.) 262.
346-33 S. V. Halsted, 39 N. J. L. 640.
846-36 Before a judgment is finally
rendered. Pitsnogle tJ. Western Mary-
land By. Co., 123 Md. 667, 91 A. 831.
346-36 Elkhart f>. Simonton, 71 Ind.
7; Be New Orleans, 4 Bob. (La.> 357;
State Park v, Henry, 38 Minn. 266, 36
N. W. 874; Witt t?. St. Paul & N. P.
B. Co., 35 Minn. 404, 29 N. W. 161;
Louisville, N. O. & T. B. Co. r. Byan,
64 Miss. 399, 8 S. 173; North Coast B.
Co. V. Gentry, 73. Wash. 188, 131 P. 856.
346-37 . Lamb t\ Schottler, 54 CaL
319; St. Joseph v. Hamilton, 43 Mo^
282; Schuylkill & S. Nav. Co. v. Decker,
2 Watts (Pa.) 343; Boberts v. Philadel-
phia, G. & N. B. Co., 1 Phila. (Pa.) 262.
Contra, Pollard r. Moore, 51 N. H. 188;
Beale «. Pennsylvania a. Co., 86 Pa.
509.
346-43 In re Comrs. of Palisades In-
terstate Park, 166 App. Div, 443, 151 N.
Y. S. 977.
346-44 *Sprague v. Northern P. B.
Co., 122 Wis. 509, 100 N. W. 842, 106
Am. St. 997; Milwaukee & L. W. B. Co.
V. Stolze, 101 Wis. 91, 76 N. W. 1113.
346-45 Not after time for appeal has
expired. P. v, Syracuse, 78 N. Y. 56.
336-46 North Coast B. Co. r. Gentry,
73 Wash. 188, 131 P. 856.
346-48 Elbert v. Scott (Del.), 90 A.
587, af. 88 A. 608; Parrish t'. Yorkville,
96 S. C. 24, 79 S. E. 635. See In re El-
bert (Del.), 88 A. 608.
347-62 Tennessee Coal, Iron, & B.
Co. V. Paint Bock Flume & T. Co., 128
Tenn. 277, 160 S. W. 522.
347-63 Preston v. Newton, 213 Masa.
483, 100 N. E. 641; Tennessee Coal, Iron,
& B. Co. t?. Paint Bock Flume & T. Co.,
128 Tenn. 277, 160 S. W. 522.
347-64 Iowa Power Co. v. Hoover,
166 Ta. 415, 147 N. W. 858.
347-56 Waiver.— Bight to recover
land may be waived and owner may sue
for damages. Texas & P. By. Co. v. El
514
EMINENT DOMAIN
Vol. 8
Paso & N. E. E. Co. (Tex. Civ.), 156
S. W. 561. * One remedy may be waived
and case set for hearing on other. Cald-
well r. Seattle, 75 Wash. 565, 135 P.
470.
348-61 Mitchell v.' Chicago, B. & Q.
Ry. Co:, 265 Dl. 300, 106 N. E. 833;
Hubbard v. Spring River Power Co., 89
Kan. 446, 131 P. 1182; Diamond v. In-
habitants, etc., 219 Mass. 587, 107 N.
E. 445; Knoxville By. & Light Co. v.
O 'Fallen, 130 Tenn. 270, 170 S. W. 55;
Caldwell v. Seattle, 75 Wash. 565, 135
P. 470.
348^3 F. A. Hihn Co. v. Santa Cruz
(Cal.), 150 P. 62; Diamond v. Inhabi-
tants, etc., 219 Mass. 587, 107 N. £.
445; Dietzel V. New York, 152 N. Y.
S. 640.
340.^4 Stoops r. Kittanning Tele-
phone Co., 242 Pa. 556, 89 A. 686.
349-66 Bivard t?. Missouri Pac. By.
Co., 257 Mo. 135, 165 8. W. 763; Second
Street Improvement Co. r. Kansas City
By. Co., 255 Mo. 519, 164 8. W. 515.
Implied assumpsit. — ^Where an unlaw-
ful entry has been made by one who
had no authority to condemn, the land-
owner may waive the tortious entry
and want of, power and recover a just
and reasonable compensation therefor
upon the theory of an implied assump-
sit. Lloyd V. Town of Venable (N. C),
84 8. E. 855; Salt Lake In v. Co. v. Ore-
gon Short Line B. Co. (Utah), 148 P.
439.
35(K83 Eastern Oregon Land Co. v.
Des Chutes B. Co., 213 Fed. 897; Stoops
V, Kittanning Telephone Co., 242 Pa.
556, 89 A. 686. See In re Olinger, 160
App. Div. 96, 145 N. Y. S. 173.
351-86a Joinder of tort feasors^— A
landowner damaged by a public im-
provement beneficial to both the rail-
road and the municipality may sue
either or both and need not join both
tort feasors. Central of Georgia By.
€o. r. Oarrison, 12 Ga. App. 369, 77 S.
E. 193.
851-87 Petition insufficient. Mur-
ray County V. Wood, 141 Ga. 561, 81 S.
£. 856.
362-98 Cleveland, C. C. & St. L. By.
Co. V. Hadley, 179 Ind. 415, 101 N. E.
473.
855-1 T See Engstrom v, Edendale
Land Co., 77 Wash. 658, 138 P. 302.
856-23 The one year period of llznl-
tatiODS prescribed by statute for the
bringing of such action does not apply
where the land was not appropriated
in the exercise of eminent domain, but
was taken by virtue of a conveyance
from the life tenant. Southern Ey. Co.
t\ Jennings, 130 Tenn. 450, 171 S. W.
82.
358-39 Mitchell v. Chicago, B. A Q.
Ey. Co., 265 111. 300, 106 N. E. 833; S.
V. Eicher (Mo.), 178 S. W. 171; John-
son V. Hawthorne Ditch Co., 32 S. D.
499, 143 N. W. 959; Dulin f?. Ohio Eiver
E. Co., 73 W. Va. 166, 80 8. E. 145. See
Edwards v. Eobcrts, 26 Colo. App. 538,
144 P. 856; Wanamaker v, Schuylkill
Eiver East Side R. Co., 244 Pa. 214, 90
A. 561. Comp. Eivard v, Missouri Pac.
Ry, Co., 257 Mo. 135, 165 S. W. 763.
Contra, Porter v, Aberdeen, etc. E. Co.,
148 K C. 563, 62 S. E. 741.
858-41 Skelton V. Newberg (Or.),
148 P. 53.
358-43 Tennessee Coal, Iron, & E.
Co. V. Paint Bock Flume & T. Co., 128
Tenn, 277, 160 S. W. 522.
359-56 In Bfllxmesota, when eject-
ment is instituted, the defendant may
by his answer turn the action into one
for the condemnation of the land, under
85423, 5424, G. S. 1913-. Potts v, Min-
neapolis St. P. & S. S. M. Ey. Co., 124
Minn. 413, 145 N. W. 161.
359-62 Johnson v. Hawthorne Ditch
Co., 32 S. D. 499, 143 N. W. 959; Eng-
strom r. Edendale Land Co., 77 Wash.
658, 138 P. 302.
360-65 Parrish V. Torkville, 96 S. C.
a4, 79 S. E. 635.
360-66 Parrish i\ Town of Yorkville,
96 S. C. 24, 79 S. B. 635.
360-71 Hinckley t?. City of Seattle,
74 Wash. 101, 132 P. 855, 46 L. R. A.
(N. S.) 727.
361-72 Skelton v, Newberg (Or.),
148 P. 53.
361-74 Tombigbee Valley E. Co. r.
Loper, 184' Ala. 343, 63 S. lOOG; Del
Monte Live Stock Co. r. Bd. of Comrs.,
24 Colo. App. 340, 133 P. 1048; Cham-
bers V. Chattanooga Union Ey. Co., 130
Tenn. 459, 171 S. W. 84. See Bunyan
V, Oomrs. of Palisades Interstate Park,
153 N. Y. S. 622.
363-92 Mayor, etc. v, Bregenzer
(Md.), 93 A. 425; Sandusky Grain Co.
17. Sanilac Circuit Judge (Mich.), 150 N.
W. 329; Carpenter r. St. Joseph (Mo.),
174 S. W. 53; Eothschild tJ. Interbor-
ough Eapid Transit Co., 162 App. Div.
515
Vol. 8 EQUITY JURISDICTION AXD PROCEDUSE
532, 147 N. Y. S. 1040; Oregon-Washing-
ton R. & Nav. Co. t?. Castner, 66 Or.
580, 135 P. 174; Wheeler v. Town of
St. Johnsbury, 87 Vt. 46, 87 A. 349.
Where the right to condemn does not
exist. St. Louis & S. F. B. Co. i*. Tulsa,
213 Fed. 87.
364-2 Injunction Is proper till right
to institute proceedings, end other
questions which cannot be tried in con-
demnation proceedings are determined.
Groce v. Greenville, S. & A. By. Co., 94
S. C. 199, 78 S. E. 888.
365-3 Carpenter v, St. Joseph (Mo.),
174 S. W. 53.
365-4 Knoxville Rv. & Light Co. v.
O 'Fallen, 130 Tenn. 270, 170 S. W. 55.
365-6 Where no appropriation has
been made for payment of property.
Johnston r. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co.,
245 Pa. 338, 91 A. 618. .
366-14 In an action to restrain a
continuous trespass begun under a
former owner, the petition must allege
that after the original entry without
his consent or knowledge such former
owner remained in ignorance of the tres-
pass and had not settled with appellee
for taking his property. Kamper v.
Chicago, 215 Fed. 706, 132 C. C. A. 84.
Petition held sufficient as to allegation
of inadequacy of remedy at law. Car-
penter r. City of St. Joseph (Mo.), 174
S. W. 53.
366-19 Complaint sufficient. Del
Monte Live Stock Co. v. Bd. of Comrs.,
24 Colo. App. 340, 133 P, 1048.
Insolvency of the defendant need not
be alleged. Carpenter v. St. Joseph
(Mo.), 174 S. W. 53.
368-32 See F. A. Hihn Co. V. Santa
Cruz (Cal.), 150 P. 62; Reitzer v. Me-
dina Valley Irr. Co. (Tex. Civ.), 153 S.
W. 380.
368^34 Kamper v. Chicago, 215 Fed.
706, 132 C. C. A. 84.
EQIHTY JURISDICTION AND PBO-
CEDUBE
377-6 A "civU information** is a
legal proceeding in chancery, older than
the court of equity whose equitable
powers when acquired were termed ex-
traordinary to distinguish them from its
ordinary or legal jurisdiation. Wilson
r. State Water Supply Com. (N. J. Eq.),
93 A. 732.
387-79 Eichmond Cedar Wks. u.
John L. Hoper Lumber Co., 168 N. C.
391, 84 S. B. 521.
Where the eqalties are equal, the law
prevails. South Side Bank v. Central
Wheeling Sav. Bank (W. Va.), 81 S.
E. 571.
Where equities are equal the first in
point of time prevails. Dell School r.
Peirce, 163 N. C. 424, 79 S. E. 687.
"Equity looks upon that as done which
ought to be done." Buchanan r. Will-
iams, 110 Ark. 335, 160 S. W. 190;
Hvnds V. Hynds, 253 Mo. 20, 161 S. W.
812; Martin r. Martin, 250 Mo. 539, 157
S. W. 575; Modern Woodmen of Amer-
ica V, Headle, 88 Vt. 37, 90 A. 893.
"Equality is equity." — Hynds r.
Hynds, 253 Mo. 20, 161 S. W. 812.
' 'Equity seeks to prevent the unearned
enrichment of one at the expense of an-
other." Berry v, Stigall, 253 Mo. 690,
162 S. W. 126.
388-83 Keeble v, Jones (Ala.), 65
S. 384; Echols v. Green, 140 Ga. 678, 79
S. E. 557; Fales v. Weeter Lumber Co.,
26 Ida. 367, 143 P. 526; Bennett c.
Stuart, 161 Ky. 264, 170 S. W. 642;
Tarbox v. Tarbox, 111 Me. 374, 89 A.
194; Barber v. Barber (Miss.), 63 S.
343; Koche t?. Hiss (N. J. Eq.), 93 A.
804; Commercial Nat. Bank r. Pago
(Utah), 142 P. 709; Casper v. Kalt-Zim-
mers Mfg. Co., 159 Wis. 517, 149 N. W.
754.
Equity aids the vigilant. — ^A maxim
which may be regarded as a special
form of the one stated in the text is:
Equity aids the vigilant, not those who
slumber on their rights. Boyd t?. Shirk
(Md.), 93 A. 417; Fuller t?. Melrose, 1
Allen (Mass.) 166; Tash v. Adams, 10
Cush. (Mass.) 252; Crawford v. Lees
(X. J. Eq.), 93 A. 201; Dell School r.
Peirce, 163 N. C. 424, 79 S. E. 687. This
maxim' is designed to discourage stale
demands and to extend relief only to
those who are free from laches. Tay-
lor V. Coggins, 244 Pa. 228, 90 A. 633.
Though the statute of limitations does
not apply to suits in equity, the princi-
pal prevails that suits brought after the
period of time that the law prohibits
actions at law are looked upon with
suspicion, and a sufficient excuse for
the delay must be shown. Southern
States Fire Ins. Co. f?. Kelley, 186 Ala.
2o9, 65 S. 328; Woodlawn Realty & De-
velopment Co. V. Hawkins, 186 Ala. 234,
65 S. 183; Mace t\ Ship Pond Land &
I Lumber Co., 112 Me. 420, 92 A. 486;
Taylor r. Coggins, 244 Pa. 228, 90 A.
516
EQUITY JURISDICTION AND PHOCEDURE Vol 8
633; Scran t<yn, etc Co. t\ Lackawanna,
etc. Co., 167 Pa. 136, 81 A. 484; Nolan
r. Donalioe (Wis.), 152 N. W. 468.
Want of knowledge of one 'a rights may
constitute a good excuse where no lack
of diligence is shown in ascertaining
the facts, or where the defendant is
responsible for the want of knowledge.
Taylor t?. Coggins, 244 Pa. 228, 90 A.
633. Laches will not as a general rule
he imputed to one in possession of land
for delay in resorting to a court of
equity to establish his right to the legal
title. Master t?. Boberts, 244 Pa. 342,
90 A. 735. Defendant may be estopped
from asserting want of diligence in
prosecuting a suit where he consented
to numerous extensions of time. Vliet
f . Cowenhoven, 83 N. J. Eq. 234, 90 A.
681. The reasonableness of the delay in
asserting a right is A question of fact.
Page Belting Co. v. Prince & Co. (N.
H.), 91 A. 961.
Where relief is sought against mistake
the party seeking it must remit the
other party to the position he occupied
before the transaction in which the mis-
take occurred. Tarbox v, Tarboz, 111
Me. 374, 89 A« 194.
389-^4 Anders v. Sandlin (Ala.), 67
S. 684; Harton v. Little (Ala.), 65 S.
951; Qayle v. Pennington, 185 Ala. 53,
64 S. 572; Baird v. Howison, 154 Ala.
359, 45 S. 668; Glover v. WalRer, 107
Ala. 540, 18 S. 251; Williams v. Higgins,
69 Ala. 517; Hill v. Kavanaugh
(Ark.), 176 S. W. 336; Gordon Tigor
Min. & E. Co. V. Brown, 56 Colo. 301,
138 P. 51; Langford V. Read (Fla.), 68
S. 723; C. V, Piliatreau, 161 Ky. 434,
170 S. W. 1182; Bennett V. Stuart, 161
Ky. 264, 170 S. W. 642; Ewald v. Ewald,
219 Mass. Ill, 106 N. E. 567; Peltzer
f. Gilbert, 260 Mo. 500, 169 S. W. 257;
Gilmore v. Thomas, 252 Mo. 147, 158 S.
W. 577; Munn & Co. v. Americana Co.,
83 N. J. Eq. 679, 92 A. 344; Munn &
Co. V, Americana Co., 83 N. J. Eq. 309,
91 A. 87; Galbraith V. Devlin (Wash.),
148 P. 589; Luebke V. Salzwedel (Wis.),
147 N". W. 831.
**No man shall be permitted to profit
by his own wrong.'* Buchanan t?. Wil-
liams, 110 Ark. 335, 160 S. W. 190.
Scope of the maxim. — ^The maxim has
reference to wilful misconduct in re-
gard to the matter in litigation and not
to conduct unconnected therewith and
with which the other party has no con-
cern. Shotwell t?. Stickle, 83 N. J. Eq.
188, 90 A. 246.
Both parties may be In delicto without
being in pari delicto. Vermont Acci-
dent Tns. Co. V. Fletcher, 87 Vt. 394, 89
A. 480; Harrington v. Grant, 54 Vt.
236.
389-85 Tower v. Stanley (Mass.),
107 N. E. 1010.
389-86 Hall v. Huff (Ark.), 169 S.
W. 792; Merchants' & Farmers' Bank
V, Harris (Ark.), 167 S. W. 706; Evans
V. Pettus, 112 Ark. 572, 166 S. W. 955;
Fallers i\ Hummel (la.), 151 N. W.
1081j Howard v. National French Draft
Horse Assn. (la.), 151 N. W. 1056; Na-
tional Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Light's
Admr., 163 Ky. 169, 173 S. W. 365;
Wotley f?. Tuggle, 4 Bush (Ky.) 168;
Linthicum v, Washington, B. & A. Elec-
tric R. Co., 124 Md. 263, 92 A. 917;
Shipley i\ Fink, 102 Md. 219, 62 A. 360,
2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1002; Popplein v.
Foley, 61 Md. 381.
Qualification of maxim. — ^This rule that
where a party is obliged to resort to
chancery for one purpose' his case will
be retained till the whole piatter is dis-
posed of applies only where the juris-
diction of chancery was rightfully in-
voked for that purpose. Toledo, etc.
R. Co. V, St. Louis R. Co., 208 111. 623,
70 N. E. 715; Deerficld Lumber Co. v,
Lyman (Vt.), 94 A. 837.
390-88 Goodman v. Georgia Life Ins.
Co. (Ala.), 66 S. 649; Hogan v. Scott,
186 Ala. 310, 65 S. 209; Public Service
Corporation f?. Westfield, 82 N. J. Eq.
43, 91 A. 738; Higgins, Neville & Boddy
i?. Wood, 43 Okla. 554, 143 P. 662;
Benson v. Nicholas, 246 Pa. 229, 92 A.
139; Peterson v. Smith (W. Va.), 84
S. E. 250. See Starke r. Storm's Exr.,
115 Va, 651, 79 S. E. 1057.
390-89 Moore r. Altom (Ala.), 68 S.
326; Hogan v. Scott, 186 Ala. 310, 65
S. 209; Lamphear r. Subers (N. J. Eq.),
93 A. 194; Imperial Realty Co. t'. West
Jersey Ry. Co., 79 N. J. Eq. 168, 81 A.
837; Mason V. Ross, 77 N. J. Eq. 527,
77 A. 44; Borough of South Amboy r.
Pa. R. R. Co., 77 N. J. Eq. 242, 76 A.
1038; Todd v. Staats, 60 N. J. Eq. 507,
46 A. 645; Supreme Lodge v. Ray (Tex.
Civ.), 166 S. W. 46; International Paper
Co. V. Bellows Falls Canal Co., 88 Vt.
93, 90 A. 943; Merrill r. Comstock, 154
Wis. 434, 143 N. W. 313.
Adequate remedy at law. — The con-
trolling question in determining
whether a petitioner has an adequate
remedy at law so as to deprive equity
517
Vol. 6 EQUITY JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE
of jurisdiction is not, has the party a
remedy I but is that remedy fully com-
mensurate with the necessities and
rights of the parties under all the cir-
cumstances of the particular case. Jen-
nings V. Southern Carbon Co., 73 W. Va.
215, 80 S. E. 368.
394-14 Hirsch r. Home Ins. Co. (R.
I.), 94 A. 722.
394-19 Shelton i\ Harrison, 182 Mo.
App. 404, 167 S. W. 634.
398-43 Prince t*. Hart (X. J. Eq.),
94 A. 571.
399-46 Smith v. Cain (Ala.), 65 S.
367.
399-47 Beardon v. Reardon, 219
Mafes. 594, 107 N. E. 522.
411-35 American Bank etc. Co. V.
Douglass (W. Va.), 83 S. E. 920.
413-43 Newell t?. Bradford, 187 Ala.
251, 65 S. 800; American Bank, etc. Co.
r, Douglass (W. Va.), 83 8. E. 920.
413-45 Newell v. Bradford, 187 Ala.
251, 65 S. 800.
416-63 A right to Inspect books of
a water company may be enforced in
equity where such right is based on
contract. Town of Boonton t?. United
Water Supply Co., 83 N. J. Eq. 636,
91 A. 814.
Decedent 'b estates. — Equity has concur-
rent jurisdiction with the orphans'
court of all matters pertaining to the
administration and settlement of the
estates of decedents. McCartie v. Mur-
phy, 83 N. J. Eq. 195, 93 A. 727;
Search V, Search, 27 N. J. Eq. 137; Frey
V. Demarest, 16 N. J. Eq. 236; Van
Mater v. Sickler, 9 N. J. Eq. 483.
419-82 Blakeman v, Blakeman, 39
Conn. 320.
Where the legislature confers the Jur-
isdiction in cases of mistake and does
not limit it to mistake of fact, it will
be presumed that the word was used as
generally understood in equity proceed-
ings. Tarbox r. Tarbox, 111 Me. 374,
89 A. 194; Jordan v, Stevens, 51 Me.
78, 81 Am. Dec. 556.
420-84 Vliet t\ Oowenhoven, 83 N.
J. Eq. 234, 90 A. 681.
420-85 National U. F. Ins. Co. €.
Light's Admr., 163 Ky. 169, 173 S. W.
365; Tarbox r. Tarbox, 111 Me. 374, 89
A. 194; Hicks v. Grimley, 213 N. Y.
447, 107 N. E. 1037.
A mutual mistake which will afford
ground for relief from a contract by re-
forming it means a mistake reciprocal
and common to both parties, where each
alike labors under the misconception
in respect to the terms of the written
instrument. Page v. Iliggins, 150 Mass.
27, 22 N. E. 63, 5 L. R. A. 152.
420-86 Brunswick & Topsham Water
Dist. V. Topsham, 109 Me. 334, 84 X.
644; Andrews t?. Andrews, 81 Me. 337,
17 A. 166; Young t?. McGown, 62 Me.
56.
420-8T Beardon t?. Beardon, 219
Mass. 594, 107 N. E. 522; Reis v. Apple-
baum, 182 Mich. 582, 148 N. W. 696;
Hicks V. Grimley, 213 N. Y. 447, 107 N.
E. 1037.
420-88 See Swarthmore Lumber Co.
V, Parks, 72 W. Va. 625, 79 S. E. 723.
Fraud whidi amounts to a mere tort
only will not be taken cognizance of by
equity. Swarthmore Lumber Co. c.
Parks, 72 W. Va. 625, 79 S. E. 723.
422-94 Mullen v. Callanan (la.), 149
N. W. 516. See Johnson f?. Hanley,
Hoye Co., 188 Ped. 752.
423-97 Beis v. Applebaum (Mich.),
148 N. W. 696.
423-99 Johnson c. Hanley, Hoye Co.y
188 Fed. 752.
425-12 Protection of the weak and
aged< — Equity intervenes to protect the
weak and the aged against imposition
by designing people, and even against
manifest improvidence though there is
no actual fraud in the other party.
Fidelity Title & Trust Co. v. Weitzel,
152 Pa. 498, 25 A. 569. Where persons
deal at arm's length and on an equal-
ity the interference is rare; but when
a relation importing confidence arises,
then ''those who meddle with such
transactions take upon themselves the
whole proof that the thing' Is right-
eous." McKnatt V. Mc^att (Del.
Ch.), 93 A. 867-
428-32 MonkA v. Beslandes (R. I.),
94 A. 854; Carroll v. Salisbury, 28 R. I.
16, 65 A. 274; McKenna r. Crowley, 16
R. I. 364, 17 A. 354; Belcher V. Arnold,
14 R. I. 613.
429-40 International Paper Co. r.
Bellows Falls Canal Co., 88 Vt. 93, 90
A. 943.
430-43 Hamwell t?. White (Ark.),
171 S. W. 108.
432-54 Lonergan r. Daily, 266 HI.
189, 107 N. E. 460.
433-61 Barber v. Barber (Miss.), 63
S. 843.
518
EQUITY JVRISDICTIOS^ AXD pnOCSDURE Vol 9
MiBrepreBentatlou of material fact*
BesclBsion of a contract in equity for
innocent misrepresentations by the
seller should be sought upon the ground
that the misrepresentations were of ma-
terial facts. Canadian Agency v. As-
sets Bealization Co., 165 App. Div. 96,
150 N. Y. S. 758.
433-63 McKnatt t\ McKnatt (Del.
Ch.), 94 A. 367. ^
433-67 Blackmon r. Quennelle
(Ala.), QQ S. 608; Eidlitz v. Manhattan
Wrecking, etc. Co., 164 App. Div. 591,
150 N. Y. S. 307.
434-73 Preventing doud on title.
If a party's title to real estate is about
to be clouded he is now by statute en-
titled to an injunction Irrespective of
any legal remedy at law. Winkie v.
Conatser (Tex. Civ.), 171 S. W. 1017.
436-74 Hilger v. Nebraska City, 97
Neb. 268, 149 N. W. 807.
435-76 Public Service Corp. v. West-
field, 82 N. J. Eq. 43, 91 A. 738.
436-78 Vechsler v. Blitzer, 165 App.
Div. 967, 150 N. Y. S. 770. ,
437-98 Haddock t\ Stocks, 167 N. C.
70, 83 S. E. 9. .
439-14 Powell v, Pennock, 181 Mich.
688, 148 N. W. 430.
439-15 Eeid t?. Heater (Mich.), 150
N. W. 842; Townsend r. Carter Const.
Co., 165 App. Div. 973, 150 N. Y. S. 757.
441-30 Simmons v. Lyles, 32 Gratt.
(Va.) 762.
446-67 • Of actions ex dellctOw— A
statute authorizing attachments in
equity does not confer upon courts of
equity jurisdiction of causes of action
ex delicto, solely by virtue of an at-
tachment sued out on any of the
grounds enumerated therein. Mabie r.
Moore (W. Va.), 84 S. E. 788; Swarth-
more Lumber -(^o. V. Parks, 72 W. Va.
625, 79 S. E. 723.
447-71 Myakka Co. v. Edwards
(Fla.), 67 S. 217.
447*74 Settling legal tltle«^Equity
may in the first instance, settle the
question of legal title, where other
grounds of legal jurisdiction are pres-
ent (Hart V, Leonard, 42 N. J. Eq. 416,
7 A. 865), but then only when the jur-
isdiction is not assailed or a trial at
law is waived. Lamphear r. Subers (N.
J. Eq.), 93 A. 194: Public Service Corp.
u. Westfield, 82 N. J. Eq. 43, 91 A. 738.
452-19 Shelton v, Harrison, 182 Ho.
App. 404, 167 S. W. 634.
452-20 Shelton v. Harrison, 182 Mo.
App. 404, 167 S. W. 634.
455-42 Naming a person In the cap-
tion of the bill as defendant and serv-
ing him with process are not alone suffi-
cient to constitute such person a party
to the suit so as to authorize the grant-
ing of relief against him. An averment
showing his interest in, and relation to,
the subject matter of suit and a prayer
for relief against him are indispensable.
But a prayer for general relief does not
warrant the granting of relief against
a person, in respect of whom no allega-
tion is made and no special relief
asked. B. D. Johnson Milling Co.
V, Bead (W. Va.), 85 8. E. 726; Free-
man I?. Egnor, 72 W. Va. 830, 79 S. E.
824.
A stipulation to be bound by the decree
cannot be filed by one who is not a
party to the suit. Hanscom v. Maiden
& Melrose Gaslight Co. (Mass.)» 107 N.
E. 426.
456-46 OuUey r. Elf ord, 187 Ala. 165,
65 S. 381.
456-51 Culley t?. Elf ord, 187 Ala. 165,
65 S. 381: Coffman v, Hope Nat. Gas
Co. (W; Va.), 81 S. E. 675.
457-56 Hartley v, Langkamp, 243 Pa.
550, 90 A. 402.
460-80 Both V, Stuernken, 124 Md.
404, 92 A. 808.
461-86 Board of Bevenue v, Merrill
(Ala.), 68 S. 971; Moseley r. Taylor
(Fla.), 67 S. 95; Hooker, Corser &
Mitchell Co. V. Hooker, 88 Vt. 335, 92
A. 443; Boberts v. Gruber (W. Va.), 82
S. E. 367.
"NegatiYeB pregnant" should be
avoided. McBride v. Worley, 66 Fla.
564, 64 8w 235.
Degree of particularity. — A general
charge of the matter of fact, as a rule,
is all that is required, and it is not
necessary to state minutely all the cir-
cumstances which go to prove the gen-
eral charge for these circumstances are
more properly matters of evidence.
Boyd V. Shirk (Md.), 93 A. 417. But
a general charge of fraud is not sufQ-
cient; the facts constituting the fraud
must be set out. Boyd v. Shirk (Md.),
93 A. 417.
461-89 Alder by answer. — ^The ora»
tor must stand or fall upon the allega-
tions of the bill unaided by the allega-
tions in the answer. Middlebury Elec-
tric Co. V. Murkland (Vt.), 93 A. 291;
519
Vol. 8 EQUITY JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE
Nye V. Stewart, 83 Vt. 521, 77 A. 340;
Thomas v. Warner, 15 Vt. 110.
461-90 H. H. Hitt Lumber Co. V.
Cullman Property Co. (Ala.), 66 S. 720;
Both V. Stuerken, 124 Md. 404, 91 A.
808; Whitman v. Surety Co., 110 Md.
421, 72 A. 1042; Miller i?. Baltimore
County Marble Co., 52 Md. 642; Fiery
r. Emmert, 36 Md. 464; Kunkel v. Mar-
kell, 26 Md. 390, 409; Williams V. West,
2 Md. 174, 198; Dunn v. Cooper, 3 Md.
Ch. 46; Antosezewski f?. City Plumbing
Co. (Mich.), 151 N. W. 635; Bennett
V. Clark, 181 Mich. 690, 148 N. W. 372;
Michigan Nat. Bank v. Hill, 181 Mich.
7, 147 N. W. 486; New Orleans & N. E.
R. Co. V, New Orleans Great Northern
R. Co. (Miss.), 65 S. 508; Fleisher t?.
West Jersey Securities Co. (N. J. Eq.),
92 A. 575; Long f?. P. B. Long Co., 82
N. J. Eq. 544, 89 A. 246; Hooker, Corser
& Mitchell Co. v. Hooker, 88 Vt. 335, 92
A. 443; Wade f?, Pulsifer, 54 Vt. 45;
Dennis V. Justus, 115 Va. 512, 79 S. E.
1077; Arnold V. Knapp (W. Va.), 84 S.
E. 895; Ross' Admx. v. Ross, 72 W. Va.
640, 78 S. E. 789; Campbell t?. MacKay,
1 Myl. & Cr. 603, 40 Eng. Reprint 507.
See Fidelity & Deposit Co. V. Wilkinson
Co. (Miss.), 64 S. 457.
Multifariousness. — ^The objection to
bills in equity on the ground of multi-
fariousness is confined to three classes:
First, where the bill embraces different
persons as plaintiffs or defendants, who
have no privity with each other (Exeter
College V, Rowlan, 6 Madd. 94, 56 Eng.
Reprint 1027; Attorney General v. Mer-
chant Tailors Co., 1 My. & K. 189, 39
Eng. Reprint 652); second, where the
same party sues or is sued in different
capacities (Ward v. Duke of Northum-
berland, 2 Anst. (Eng.) 469) ; and, third,
where the defendant is sued in regard
to several distinct matters which have
no connection with each other. Attor-
ney General v. Goldsmith Co., 5 Sim.
675, 58 Eng. Reprint 491.
Surplusage does not render a pleading
multifarious. West t?. Henry, 185 Ala.
168, 64 S. 75.
Rule against multifariousness Is not
much favored by the courts, and being a
rule of convenience the court has some
latitude of discretion. Hooker Co. v.
Hooker (Vt.), 92 A. 443; Wade V, Pul-
sifer, 54 Vt. 45.
Bill seeking i^temative or inconsistent
telief is not multifarious under the
statute. Kant r. Atlanta B. & A. R.
Co. (Ala.), 66 S. 598.
"To render a bill multifaxlotis the dif-
ferent grounds of the suit must be
wholly distinct from each other, and
each ground stated in the bill must be
sufficient in itself as a subject of equity
jurisdiction." Arnold r. Knapp (W.
Va.), 84 S. E. 895.
There Is no inflexible rule as to what
will render a bill multifarious. The
courts exercise a sound discretion in
determining the matter. Roth v. Stuer-
ken, 124 Md. 404, 91 A. 808.
461-92 The grounds for interference
of chancery should be clearly disclosed
in the bill. International Paper Co. «.
Bellows Falls Canal Co., 88 Vt. 93, 90
A. 943.
Interest In sabject.— It is a funda-
mental principle of equit(y pleading
that to entitle a party to sustain a bill,
he must show an inters t in the subject
of the suit, or a right to the thing de-
manded, and proper title to institute
the suit concerning it. Hollomon V.
Baltimore & V. R. Co., 122 Md. 628, 90
A. 844; Sellman 17. Sellman, 63 Md. 520.
462-94 The mere allegation of Juris-
dictional fapts is not sufficient to confer
jurisdiction. Deerfield Lumber Co. «.
Lyman (Vt.), 94 A. 837.
468-33 Waggoner v, Saether, 267 HI.
32, 107 N. E. 859.
468-38 Reinecke v. Reinecke, 105
Miss. 798, 63 S. 215.
470-54 No essential fact will be sup-
plied in the bill by intendment. Hodges
V, Birmingham Securities Co*., 187 Ala.
290, 65 S. 920.
471-56 Hodges v, Birmingham Se-
curities Co., 187 Ala. 290, 65 S. 920.
473-77 Motion addressed to the
sound discretion of the court, which will
be exercised according to the circum-
stances of each case. Turner t?. Jones,
67 Fla. 121, 64 S. 502; Prout f). Dade
County Sec. Co., 65 Fla. 816, 47 8. 12.
473-80 Both reasonable diligence
and a meritorious defense must be
shown. Turner v, Jones, 67 Pla. 121,
64 S. 502; Prout V. Dade County Sec.
Co., 55 Fla. 816, 47 S. 12.
479-53 Waiver of objections to Jur-
isdiction.— ^Where the case is one fall-
ing within the general jurisdiction of
chancery, failure to raise the question
of jurisdiction before trial upon the
merits will be treated as a waiver of
an objection based upon facts apparent
upon the face of the bill. Deerfield
520
EQUITY JURISDICTION AND PBOCEDUBE Vol 6
Lumber Co. v. L^rman (Vt.), 94 A. 887.
But if the case as finally made up dis-
closes want of jurisdiction, the failure
to plead or demur to the bill does not
amount to a waiver of the right to
raise the question, for jurisdiction can-
not be conferred by waiver nor by con-
sent of the parties. Deerfield Lumber
Co. r. Lyman (Vt.), 94 A. 837; Murphy
V. Lincoln, 63 Vt. 278, 22 A. 418; Holt
V. Daniels, 61 Vt. 89, 17 A. 786; Glid-
den t?. Elkins, 2 Tyler (Vt.) 218.
479-56 An objection for want of an
indispensable party may be made at
any time during the hearing. Hartley
V. Langkamp, 243 Pa. 550, 90 A. 402.
480-67 Peerson v. Gray, 184 Ala.
312, 63 S. 467; Both v, Stuerken, 124
Md. 404, 92 A. 808; Security Bank v,
Callahan (Mass.), 107 N. B. 385.
That no complete and adequate remedy
at law exists is not admitted by the
demurrer when the court can take ju-
dicial notice of public law not set forth
in the bill. Boutwell v. Ohamplain
Bealty Co. (Vt.), 94 A. 108. It is other-
wise when such judicial notice cannot
be taken, as for example, where the bill
avers that no adequate remedy at law
exists in another state. Weed v. Hunt,
76 Vt. 212, 56 A. 980.
The test as to whether a party may
demur to a bill or move to strike out
an answer in the nature of a cross-bill,
or put in exceptions to an answer is
whether or not in the alternative, the
party objecting could answer the plead-
ing. •Second Workingmen's Bldg. &
Loan Assn. v. Wickers, 83 N. J. Eq. 397,
91 A. 897.
480-68 Demurrer win lie to the
prayer of a bill in fehancery. Tantum v,
Campbell, 83 N. J. Eq. 361, 91 A. 120.
480-6^ Warren t?. Warren, 66 Fla.
138, 63 S. 726; Forster V, Brown Mach.
Co., 266 HI. 287, 107 N. E. 588; Hol-
land Reformed School Society V. De
Lazier (N. J. Eq.) 93 A. 199.
Indefiniteness and uncertainty in the
bill are grounds for demurrer. Boyd t?.
Shirk (Md.), 93 A. 417.
A general demurrer to the whole bill,
part of which is good, will be over-
ruled. Mayor v. Young (Md.), 94 A.
96; Northern Cent. R. Co. <?. Oldenburg,
122 Md. 236, 89 A. 601; Brown V, Ben-
zinger, 118 Md. 29, 84 A. 79, Ann. Cas.
1914B, 582; Moale v. Baltimore, 61 Md.
224; Dennison v. Yost, 61 Md. 139; Mil-
ler 17. Baltimore County Marble Co., 52
Md. 642.
Ziadiei apparent on the face of the bil!
may be raised by demurrer. Hogan v
Scott, 186 Ala. 310, 65 8. 209; Gaylc
t?. Pennington, 185 Ala. 53, 64 S. 572.
481-80 A plea and answer filed to a
bill overrules a pending demurrer. Som-
erset Rapid Transit Co. v. Mayor (Md.)
94 A. 911; Morton V. Harrison, 111 Md!
536, 75 A. 337; Frederick County v.
Frederick City, 88 Md. 654, 42 A. 218;
Hannah K. Chase's Case, 1 Bland
(Md.) 217, 17 Am. Dec. 277. And
the fact that the answer is subsequent-
ly withdrawn does not restore the de-
murrer. Somerset Bapid Transit Co. v.
Mayor (Md.), 94 A. 911.
482-96 Holland Beformed School
Society v. De Lazier (N. J. ITq.), 93 A.
199.
482-96 Beservation. — Though aftei
demurrer is overruled, the benefit there-
of is reserved until final hearing, that
action does not formally reinstate the
demurrer, and it is a technical error
for the court to again consider the de-
murrer separately and overrule it.
Smythe v. Central Vermont By. Co., 88 ♦
Vt. 59, 90 A. 901.
483-99 Dennard r. Monroe, 66 Fla.
254, 63 S. 428.
483-1 Dennard V. Monroe, 66 Fla.
254, 63 S. 428.
483-8 Demurrer to part of a bill be-
ing sustained the part demurred to is
thereby eliminated. Pollak v. Stouts
Mountain Coal & Coke Co., 184 Ala.
331, 63 S. 531. '
484-18 To be deemed responsive so
as to cast the burden of proof upon the
plaintiff, there must be a positive de-
nial of the averments of the bill. An
answer which alleges as facts what the
defendant could not personally know is
not responsive in the sense of being
evidence in the defendant 's favor. Corn-
well V. Sparks, 248 Pa. 109, 93 A. 868;
Hiegel v. American Life Ins. Co., 153
Pa. 134, 25 A. 1070, 19 L. B. A. 166.
Negative pregnant. — ^An answer in
chancery should be certain as far as
practicable, and to so much of the bill
as it is necessary to answer, the de-
fendant must speak directly without
evasion and not by way of negative
pregnant. Christopher V, Munger, 66
Fla. 467, 63 S. 923.
484-19 Freeman v, Egnor, 72 W. Va.
830, 79 8. E. 824.
485-21 When a supplemental bill if
521
Vol 6 EQUITY JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE
filed the defendants should be given an
opportunity to answer it under oath.
Duplesse r. Haskell (Vt.), 94 A. 503.
486-27 The test whether a party
may move to strike out an answer in
the natlire of a cross-bill is, whether
he couldy in the alternative, answer the
pleading. Second Workingmen's BIdg.
& Loan Assn. v. Wickers, 83 N. J. Eq.
397, 91 A. 897.
486-28 ''Insufficiency'* of the an-
swer, as ground for motion to strike out,
means that a portion of the bill has not
been answered, to which portion the
complainant is entitled to an answer,
and does not mean that the answer is
insufficient in the sense that it presents
no equitable defense. Second Working-
mens BIdg. & Loan Assn. v. Wickers, 83
N. J. Eq. 397, 91 A. 897.
486-29 Motion by defendant to
strike an answer from the files on the
ground that co-defendant, being a mar-
ried woman, did not join her husband,
is not proper. Such objection is avail-
able to complainant alone. Second
Workingmen's BIdg. & Loan Assn. v.
Wickers, 83 N. J. Eq. 397, 91 A. 897.
486-32 To obtain a more specific an-
swer the party should make exceptions
thereto. Barrett v. Twin City Power
Co., Ill Fed. 45; Smythe v. Central
Vermont Ry. Co., 88 Vt. 59, 90 A. 901;
Ladd 1?. Campbell, 56 Vt. 529; Blaisdell
V. Stevens, 16 Vt. 179.
486-41 Bosenau v. Powell, 184 Ala.
396, 63 S. 1020.
486^6 Catts v. Smyrna (BeL Ch.),
91 A. 297.
Effect on replication* — ^If a replication
is filed and later the plaintiff sets the
case down for hearing on bill and an-
swer, the replication is treated the same
as if never filed. Evans v. Mayor, etc.
of Crisfield, 122 Md. 184, 89 A. 430;
Warren i?. Twilley, 10 Md. 39; McKim
V. Odom, 3 Bland. (Md.) 407.
486-47 Where objections to Jurisdlc*
tion are abandoned the chancellor
should require counsel to formally with-
draw that paragraph of the answer
denying the jurisdiction of the court.
Ebling V. Borough of Schuylkill Haven,
244 Pa. 505, 91 A. 360,
A case at issae npon answer is to be
heard and conducted in court in the
same manner as an action at law where-
in trial by jury has been waived. Eb-
ling V, Borough of Schuylkill Haven,
244 Pa. 505, 91 A. 360.
Bequests for findings of fact and law
with the answers thereto, and the find-
ings of the judge, both of law and fact,
must bo filed in the prothonotary *s of-
fice. Ebling V. Borough of Schuylkill
Haven, 244 Pa. 505, 91 A. 360.
A decree nisi in accordance with the
findings is entered by the prothonotary.
Ebling V. Borough of Schuylkill Haven,
244 Pa. 505, 91 A. 360. Notice is given
to the parties or their counsel. Ebling
v: Borough of Schuylkill Haven, 244 Pa.
505, 91 A. 360. If no exceptions are
filed within ten days a final decree as
of course is entered by the prothono-
tary. Ebling V. Borough v. Schuylkill
Haven, 244 Pa. 505, 91 A. 360.
486-49 Hodson v. Nelson, 122 Md.
330, 89 A. 934; Evans V. Crisfield, 122
Md. 184, 89 A. 430; Austin Clothing Co.
V. Posey, 105 Miss. 720, 63 Sv 224, 64
S. 5.
Wbere hearing is had on biU and an-
swer the allegations of pertinent facts,
as distinguished from matters of opin-
ion in the answers, must be taken as
true, and material averments of the bill
denied by the answers, or neither ad-
mitted nor denied, cannot be considered.
Wilmer v, Philadelphia & Beading Coal
& Iron Co., 124 Md. 539, 93 A. 157. In
so far as the answer is responsive it
must be taken as true. Lyon r. Hyatts-
ville (Md.), 93 A. 919.
Answer taken as true where case is
submitted on bill and answer. Straus
r. Putta, 265 lU. 57, 106 N. E. 437.
487-50 Freeman v, Egnor, 72 W. Va.
830, 79 S. E. 824.
AfOrmative relief can be obtained by
defendant only by cross-bill. Hanscom
V. Maiden & Melrose Gaslight Co.
(Mass.), 107 N. E. 426.
487-52 CKelley v. Clark, 184 Ala.
391, 63 S. 948; Magruder f?. Hattiesburg
T. & B. Co. (Miss.), 67 S. 485.
487-66 Wilmet «. Coal Co., 124 Md.
599, 93 A. 157; Magruder v, Hattiesburg
T. & B. Co. (Miss.), 67 S. 485; Scbo-
maker 9. Schomaker, 247 Pa. 444, 93 A.
460.
Bnle Illustrated. — ^To a biU in equity-
seeking to recover a bequest, a cross*
bill to obtain an accounting for insur-
ance money alleged to have been con-
verted by the legatee is germane to the
original suit. Prince f>. Hart (N. J.
EqO, 94 A. 571.
487-69 Newberry v. Blatchford, 106
522
EQUITY jvnismcTion Ajij) proceduiie Voi d
Hi. 584; Beck v. Beck, 43 N. J. Eq. 39,
10 A. 155.
Necessity^ of sholiTing jurisdiction.
When the cross-bill pertains solely to
matters growing out of the original bill
the defendant is not obliged to show
any ground of equity to support the jur-
isdiction of the court. Averill V. Ver-
mont Valley E. E., 88 Vt. 293, 92 A.
220.
A cro8S*biU la demurrable where no dis-
covery is sought; where it contains
matters which should be set up by an-
no case in equity when he brings his
original bill, he cannot make one by a
supplemental bill setting up a new cause
of action. Jenkins v. International
Bank, 127 U. S. 484, 8 Sup. Ct. 1196.
32 L. ed. 189; Mellor v, Smither, 114
Fed. 116, 52 C. C. A. 64; Scheerer f?.
Agee, 113 Ala. 383, 21 S. 81; Nichols v.
Rogers, 139 Mass. 146, 29 N. E. 377;
International Paper Co. v. Bellows Falls
Canal Co., 88 Vt. 93, 90 A. 943.
488-81 Objection to an auswer in
*-„u.^.» ,. ^ r -^ — nature of crosa-bm may be made by
fiwer and where it is not germane to the special replication or by motion to strike
original bill. Meurer «?. Stokes, 246 qu^. Second Workingmen's Bldg. &
Pa. 393, 92 A. 506. ^
487-65 Cassady v. Cassady (W. Va.),
81 S. E. 829. ^
487-66 EeynoldB Oo. V. Eeynolds
(Ala.), 67 S. 293.
CrosB-bill by intervenotir-The inter-
vener may, by an original bill in the
nature of a cross-bill, assert a new and
independent claim, which touches the
subject-matter of the controversy be-
tween the parties to the original suit.
Keynolds Co. v. Eeynolds (Ala.), 67 S.
293.
488-68 The proper purpose of sacb
a petition is merely to bring to the at-
tention of the court the facts averred
in the bill it is proposed to file, and to
invite an order allowing it to be filed
Loan Assn* v. Wickers, 83 N. J. Eq. 397,
91 A. 897.
488-82 Freeman v: Egnor, 72 W. Va.
830, 79 S. E. 824.
492-18 Schmid v, Lancaster Ave.
Theatre Co., 244 Pa. 373, 91 A, 363.
493-36 Blfonissal of the bill may be
decreed where there is a failure of
proof. McClintic-Marshall Const. Co. f?.
Easton Trust Co., 248 Pa. 584, 94 A.
246.
494-42 OosB V. Spencer, 245 Pa. 12,
91 A. 215.
495-63 Legal titles— A court of
chancery is prone to submit a question
of legal title to a jury. Wilson v. How-
land (N. J. Eq.), 93 A. 688.
invite an oroer aiiowing m no uo ui^u ^ rrr'i ^ rr««i««^ fU T
and it is not to disclose the equity upon 495-55 Wilson v. Howland (W. J.
which the intervening complaint relies. Eq.), 93 A. 688.
Bouglass r. Blake (Ala.), 66 S. 617.
488-70 An original biUln the nature
of a CTOBS-blll, proper pleading. Eey-
nolds Co. V. Eeynolds (Ala.), 67 S. 293.
488-72 Amendments tending to pro-
mote substantial Justice are favored.
Cummings v, Hamrick (W. Va.), 82 S.
B. 44.
488-78 Antaszewski v. City Plumb-
ing Co. (Mich.), 151 N. W. 635: Starke
r. Storm's Exr., 115 Va. 651, 79 S. E.
1057.
ReawmaWft diligence in making amend-
ment necessary. An unexcused delay of
eight years in making an amendment
justifies court fa refusing it on demur-
rer. B. D. Johnson MilUng Co. v. Bead
(W. Va.), 85 S. E. 726.
488-80 Acts committed subsequent
to the bill and giving rise to damages
must be brought into the suit by a sup-
plemental bill. Duplesse v. Haskell
(Vt.), 94 A. 503.
496-56 McWhorter v. Ford, 142 Ga.
554, 83 S. E. 134; Wilson «. Howland
(N. J. Eq.), 93 A. 688; Matney if.
Barnes, 116 Va. 713, 82 S. E. 801;
Keagy t?.- Trout, 85 Va. 390, 7 S. E. 329.
495-68 Form of submission^— The is-
sue thus submitted to the jury may be
in writing. Wilson v. Howland (N. J.
Eq.), 93 A. 688. And may consist of
a series of specific questions. Wilson v.
Howland (N. J. Eq.), 93 A. -688. An
approved form as to issue of owner-
ship would be: **Wa8 Mrs, De Nyse
the owner of any of the islands which
she made the basis of her application
for a grant of lands under water, in
front of such islands, and, if so, what
islands I" Wilson v. Howland (N. J.
Eq.), 93 A. 688.
495-64 Ko judgment entered.— Upon
the issue at law which chancery sends
to the law court for trial before a jury
no judgment is entered, but a iran-
I script of the entire proceedings at the
Kew cause of acUon^If an orator has I trial in the law court is returned to
523
Vol 8 EQUITY JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE
chancery where the conduct and result
of the trial are subject to review. Mc-
Grath v, Norcross, 83 N. J. Eq. 355, 93
A. 801; McAndrewB & Forbes Co. t?.
Camden, 78 N. J. Eq. 244, 78 A. 232.
496-69 McGrath v, Norcross, 83 N.
J, Eq. 355, 93 A. 801.
Want of general verdict is not a ground
for a new trial where the special find-
ings of the jury are supported by the
evidence and conclusive of the issues of
law submitted to them. McGrath v.
Norcross, 83 N. J. Eq. 355, 93 A. 801.
496-76 Proceedings before master.
Where the orator's stenographer, offi-
cially appointed to take testimony be-
fore the master, proves incompetent,
the master may consider the notes taken
by defendant's stenographer. Newton
V. American Car Sprinkler Co., 88 Vt.
487, 92 A. 831.
Damages resulting from acts commit-
ted subsequent to tbe bill cannot be al-
lowed by the master where no supple-
mental bill is filed bringing those acts
into the case. Duplesse V, Haskell
(Vt.), 94 A. 603.
496-76 That aH Jurisdictional re-
quirements have been ' complied with
need not be shown upon the face of
the decree. Bull v. International Power
Co. (N. J. Eq.), 93 A. 86.
Deprivation of legal right. — ^A court of
equity cannot grant equitable relief
if the one from whom it must come
would thereby be deprived of a legal
right. Colonial Trust Co. V. Central
Trust Co., 243 Pa. 268, 90 A. 189.
497-78 The findings of the court are
by the better practice set out in the re-
cital part of the decree, and where
that has been omitted to be done, either
party may have the decree amended so
as to include them. Bull v. International
Power. Co. (N. J. Eq.), 93 A. 86.
Bights of third parties. — Equity having
assumed jurisdiction with respect to
the general subject under consideration,
the decree may be made broad enough
to include every incidental question or
dispute within the general purpose. Ac-
cordingly relief may be granted by the
decree to persons who are not parties
to the proceedings where such persons
are in like situation with the individ-
ual plaintiffs named. Turtle Creek Bor-
ough V. Pennsylvania Water Co., 243
Pa. 401, 90 A. 194.
497-80 Georgia S. & F. B. Co. <?. Ein-
steia (C. C. A.), 218 Fed. 55; Spangler
Brewing Co. v, McHenry, 242 Pa. 522,
89 A. 665.
Under a general prayer, the orator may
have relief agreeable to the case made
by the bill. Aver ill t?. Vermont Val-
ley E. E., 88 Vt. 293, 92 A. 220; Van
Dyke f?. Cole, 81 Vt. 379, 70 A. 593;
Western Union Tel. Co. t?. Bullard, 67
Vt. 272, 31 A. 286; Caffrin v, -Cole, 67
Vt. 226, 31 A. 313; Eureka Marble Co.
V. Windsor Mfg. Co., 47 Vt. 430; Dan-
forth V. Smith, 23 Vt. 247.
Affirmative relief to defendant eanaot
be granted where he does not ask for
it. Bar r as v. Youngs (Mich.)y 152 N.
W. 219.
Amendment of decree. — ^A final decree
may be amended even after enrollment
by inserting a clause which was inad-
vertently omitted in drawing it and
which is necessary to give effect to the
remedy of the successful party. Bull u.
International Power Co. (N. J. Eq.), 93
A. 86.
If any of the prayers of the bill will
justify the decree, it is good. Schnepfe
V. Schnepfe, 124 Md. 330, 92 A. 891.
498-89 After enrollment of the de-
cree in the absence of fraud, surprise
or irregularity in its procurement, a
substantial error in it will not be cor-
rected or a rehearing of the case
granted upon a mere petition, a bill of
review or an original bill for fraud be-
ing the appropriate remedies. Foxwell
V. Foxwell, 122 Md. 263, 89 A. 494;
Primrose v, Wright, 102 Md. 105, 62 A.
238; Bice t?. Donald, 97 Md. 396, 55 A.
620; Krone v. Linville, 31 Md. 138, 146;
Thruston v. Devecmon, 30 Md. 210, 217;
Pfeltz 17. Pfeltz, 1 Md. Ch. 455; Tomlin-
son «7. McKaig, 5 Gill (Md.) 256; Burch
V. Scott, 1 Gill Ss J. (Md.) 393. Excep-
tions to this rule exist where cases are
not heard on their merits and where the
decree was entered by mistake or sur-
prise or under such circumstances as
will satisfy the court that the enroll-
ment ought to be discharged and the
decree set aside. Foxwell «. Foxwell,
122 Md. 263, 89 A. 494; Primrose r.
Wright, 102 Md. 105, 62* A. 238; Downer
V. Friel, 57 Md. 531; Patterson f?. Pres-
ton, 51 Md. 190; Gechter p. Gechter, 51
Md. 187; Pfeaff v. Jones, 50 Md. 263,
269; Bank v, Eccleston, 48 Md. 145;
Herbert v, Bowles, 30 Md. 271, 278.
It is discretionary with the court to
allow the case to be opened. Cowan r.
Anderson (Mich.), 151 N. W. 608.
524
ERRORS, ASSIGNMENT OF
Vol. 8
49^91 HoIIoway P. Safe Deposit &
Trust Co., 122 Md. 620, 90 A. 95; Rub-
Iser & Celluloid Harness T. Co. v. Bub-
ber-Bound B. Co., 83 N, J. Eq. 510, 91
A. 641; Bichards i?. Shaw, 77 N. J. Eq.
399^ 77 A. 618; Quinn V. Hall (B. L), 91
A. 71.
Opening decrees. — ^As a general rule a
decree once enrolled cannot be opened,
except by bill of review or by an orig-
inal bill for fraud. To this rule, however,
there are well-founded exceptions in
cases not heard upon their merits, or
in which it is alleged that the decree
was entered by mistake or surprise, or
under such circumstances as will satisfy
the court, in the exercise of sound dis-
cretion, that the enrollment ought to
be discharged and the decree set aside.
Whitlock Cordage Co. v, Hine (Md.)i
93 A. 431; Holloway v. Safe-Deposit &
Trust Co., 124 Md. 539, 93 A. 154; Fox-
well V. Foxwell, 122 Md. 263, 89 A.
494; Mallcry v. Quinn, 88 Md. 38, 40
A. 1079; United Lines Tel. Co. V. Stev-
ens, 67 Md. 156, 8 A. 908; Downes V.
Friel, 57 Md. 531; Patterson v, Pres-
ton, 51 Md. 190; Gechter v. Gechter,
51 Md. 187; Pfeaflf 17. Jones, 50 Md.
263; Bank v. Eccleston, 48 Md. 145, 155;
Herbert V, Bowles, 30 Md. 271.
The matter must not only be new but
must be such as the party by the use of
reasonable diligence, could not have
Icnown. Bichards v. Shaw, 77 N. J. Eq.
399, 77 A. 618.
Time of flUng^^— A bill of review cannot
be filed after three years except for
new evidence* discovered after the de-
cree. Cumberland Lumber Co. f>. Clin-
ton, Hill Lumber & Mfg. Co. (N. J.
Eq.), 94 A. 647.
Dismissal of the bill will not be granted
after decree, even with the consent of
the parties. Smith v. Smith (N. J.
Eq.), 92 A. 791.
409-94 The decree becomes conclu-
sive where no appeal is taken there-
■JProm within the time limited by law.
<}umberland Lumber Co. v, Clinton Hill
Lumber & Mfg. Co. (N. J. Eq.), 94 A.
647.
499-96 Correction of record pending
appeaL — ^The court of chancery has the
power pending appeal to correct clerical
errors, errors of form or mistakes in
the drafting of decrees. Bull v. Inter-
national Power Co. (N. J. Eq.), 93 A.
S6.
No amendment of the decree can be
made by the supreme court. Sweeney
V. Brow (B. I.), 90 A. 1073. '
The 16wer court's Juxlsdiction may be
questioned for the first time by motion
in the appellate court. Deerfield Lum-
ber Co. V. Lyman (Vt.), 94 A. 837; Kel-
ley V, Moretown, 71 Vt. 840, 45 A. 224;
Coleman v. Aldrich, 61 Vt. 840, 17 A.
848.
BBB0B8, ASSIGMIAENT OF
520-7 Kinnon t?. Louisville & N. B.
Co. (Ala.), 65 S. 397; Colorado & S. By.
Co. V, Jenkins, 25 Colo. App. 348, 138
P 437; Salene r. Isherwood (Or.), 144
P. 1175; Bedsecker v. Wade, 69 Or. 153,
134 P. 5, 138 P. 485; Ede 1?. Ward, 32
S. D. 351, 143 N. W. 269.
520-8 M 'Bride v. Neal, 214 Fed. 966,
131 C. C. A. 262; Kinnon r. Louisville
& N. B. Co. (Ala.), 65 S. 397; Colorado
& S. By. Co. V, Jenkins, 25 Colo. App.
348, 138 P. 437; Cass V. Duncan, 260
HI. 228, 103 N. E. 280; Southern By.
Co. V. Bretz, 181 Ind. 504, 104 N. E, 19;
Turner v. First Nat. Bank, 40 Okla.
498, 139 P. 703; Salene v. Isherwood
(Or.), 144 P. 1175; Malin t?. James, 244
Pa. 336, 90 A. 714.
521-9 0. H. Broun, Jr. Timb^ Co.
V. Coleman (Ala.), 67 S. 243; Burns v.
Telegram Pub. Co. (Conn.), 94 A. 917;
Coast Central Mill. Co. v. Bussell Lumb.
Co., 88 Conn. 109, 89 A. 898; Waggoner
r. Saether, 267 111. 32, 107 N. E. 859;
S. V. Venzio, 84 N. J. L. 418, 87 A.
126; In re Murray (N. M.), 140 P.
1042; Trustees of High School r. Mc-
Cann, 246 Pa. 28, 91 A. 1051; Lesley
V. Ewing, 244 Pa. 480, 90 A. 797; Malin
V, James, 244 Pa. 336, 90 A. 714; Speer
V. State (Tex. Or.), 171 8. W. 201;
Dunn 1?. Epperson (Tex. Civ.), 175 S.
W. 837; Pollard 1?. Allen Sc Sims (Tex.
Civ.), 171 S. W. 302; Murphy v. Mur-
phy (Tex. Civ.), 171 S. W. 263. See
also 2 Standard Proc. 238-273.
"Plain error" will be considered under
rule 11, United States Circuit Court of
Appeals, although not assigned. Penn-
sylvania Co. 1?. Sheeley (C. C. A.), 221
Fed, 901.
523-10 Florida East Coast By. Co.
r. Knowles (Fla.), 67 S. 122.
525-14 Kice v. P., 55 Colo. 506, 136
P. 74, errors not assigned will not be
reviewed where state objects.
526-19 Smith Bros. Grain Co. 17. Jen-
525
Vol. 8
EBBOBS, ASSIGNMENT OF
son (Tex. Civ.)» 174 S.'W. 981; Milner
V. Sims (Tex. Civ.), 171 S. W. 784.
52 7-2 1 Eegister i\ Tidewater Power
Co., 165 N. C. 234, 81 S. E. 320;
Schmitt r. Philadelphia, 248 Pa. 124,
93 A. 879; Ee Bean's Road, 35 Pa. 280;
'Holt V. Guorguin (Tex.), 163 S. W.
10; Arno Co-op. Irr. Co. v. Pugh (Tex.
Civ.), 177 S. W. 991; Consol., etc. S.
& Rof. Co. V, Schulte (Tex. Civ.), 176
S. W. 94; Stephen ville, N. & S. T. Ry.
Co. V, Wheat (Tex. Civ.), 173 S. W.
974; Houston Oil Co. v, Drumwright
(Tex. Civ.), 162 S. W. 1011.
Asslgiiment necessary In Oklahoma.
Where error is apparent on the face of
the record, no exception is necessary
in the trial court to enable this court
to review the error on petition in
error and transcript, but this rule does
not do away with the necessity of a
proper assignment of such error in the
petition in error. Qourley V, Williams
(Okla.), 149 P. 229.
Giving of a peremptory Instmction is
not such a fundam'ental error or error
apparent of record as requires consid-
eration when not assigned and pre-
sented. Needham v. Cooney (Tex. Civ.),
173 S. W. 979.
529-22 M 'Bride v, Neal, 214 Fed.
966, 131 C. C. A. 262; Chenoweth v.
Budge, 16 Ariz. 422, 145 P. 406;. Ten-
nessee Cent. R. Co. v. Morgan (Tenn.),
175 8. W. 1148; Holt V. Guerguin
(Tex.), 163 S. W. 10; McPhaul v. Byrd
(Tex. Civ.), 174 S. W. 644; Stephenville,
N. & S. T. Ry. Co. €. Wheat (Tex.
Civ.), 173 S. W. 974; Western Grocery
Co. V, Jata & Co. (Tex. Civ.), 173 S.
W. 518; Terrell t\ Proctor (Tex. Civ.),
172 S. W. 996; Qwens v. Corsicana
Petroleum Co. (Tex. Civ.), 169 S. W.
192; Treidenbloom v. McAfee (Tex,
Civ.), 167 S. W. 28; Cisco Oil Mill i?.
Van Geem (Tex. Civ.), 166 S. W. 439;
Chicago, R, I. & G. Ry. Co. v, Howell
(Tex. Civ.), 166 S. W. 81; Ruth v. Cobe
(Tex. Civ.), 165 S. W. 530; Handy t?.
Roberts (Tex. Civ.), 165 8. W- 37;
Houston Oil Co. <?. Drumwright (Tex.
Civ.), 162 S. W. 1011.
530-23 Stephenville, N. & S. T. Ry.
Co. r. Wheat (Tex. Civ.), 173 S. W.
974, quot. from Hough f?. Fink (Tex.
Civ.), 141 .S. W. 147.
Tlie term "error in law apparent on
face of the record" seems to be synony-
mous with ** fundamental error."
Searcy v. Grant, 90 Tex. 97, 37 S. W.
320; Consolidated, etc. fi. & Ref. Co. v.
Schulte (Tex. Civ.), 176 S. W. 94.
531-30 Morton v. Clark, 10 Ala. App.
439, 65 S. 408; Merritt V. Dick (N. C),
85 S. E. 2; Haddock f?. Stocks, 167 N.
C. 70, 83 S. E. 9; Southern Spruce Co.
r. Hunnicutt, 166 N. C. 202, 81 8. B.
1079; Morris v. Bradley, 26 N. D. 362,
144 N. W. 711; Wood v. Green (Tenn.),
175 S. W. 1139; Wm. D. Cleveland &
Sons V, First State Bank (Tex. Civ.),
176 S. W. 663; Green v. Hoppe (Tex.
Civ.) 175 S. W. 1117; Anthony r.
Hardin (Tex. Civ.), 175 S. W. 857;
Taylor t?. Butler (Tex. Civ.), 168 S. W.
1004; Clarke v. A. B. Frank Co. (Tex.
Civ.), 168 S. W. 492; Rowe r. Cnitchfield
(Tex. Civ.), 168 S. W. 444; Supreme
Lodge K. P. V. Mims (Tex. Civ.), 167
S. W. 835; Burrow t?. Brown (Tex.
Civ.), 167 S. W. 254; Dees v. Thompson
(Tex. Civ.), 166 S. W. 56; Texas-Mex-
ican Ry.'Co. V. Reed (Tex. Civ.), 165
S. W. 4; Ferguson t?. Fain (Tex. Civ.),
164 S. W. 1040; Glover v. Houston
Belt, etc. Ry. Co. (Tex. Civ.), 163 8.
W. 1063; Bond t?. Hancock (Tex. Civ.),
163 S. W. 660; St. Louis & S. F. B. Co.
r. Finley (Tex. Civ.), 163 S. W. 104;
Randals <?. Pecos Valley State Bank
(Tex. Civ.), 162 S. W. 1190.
Defective assignments considered in
discretion of court to prevent miscar-
riage of justice. Davis v, Houston Oil
Co. (Tex. Civ.), 162 S. W. 913.
Assignments of error, not verifled by
the trial judge, cannot be considered*
Whitley r. S., 14 Ga. App. 577, 81 S.
E. 797; Vernon t?. S., 13 Ga. App. 274,
79 8. E. 85; Cummings «. Arnold, 13
Ga. App. 246, 78 S. E. 1102.
531-31 By statate in Arlsona an as-
signment which is insufScient will nev-
ertheless be considered if appellee fail
to make objections to it within ten
days after service of appellant's brief
upon him. Civ. Code, 1913, |1262;
Brought r. Minor (Ariz.), 148 P. 294..
Beference to record. — ^"Assignments of
error constitute an essential part of
the pleadings before us, and as such
must be so complete in themselves as
not to require reference to other parts
of the record presented for our con-
sideration." Burkhard r. Pennsylvania
Water Co., 243 Pa. 369, 90 A. 157.
531-33 Sweet v. Salt Lake City, 43
Utah 306, 134 P. 1167.
632-42 S. V. Lane (Ind.)i 105 N. £.
526
ERRORS, ASSIGNMENT OF
Vol. 8
147; Braden r. Leibenguth, 126 Ind.
336, 25 N. E. 899.
533-43 Corporate names. — More lati-
tude as to the name in suing or being
sued is indulged as to corporations than
individuals. Simons v, Kosciusko Bldg.y
L. & S. Assn.. 180 Ind. 335, 103 N.
E. 2.
Position of parties^ — ^Failure to proper-
ly designate in the caption the position
of the parties will not render the as-
signment insufflrient where such posi-
tion is clearly designated in the body
of the assignment. Modern Brotherhood
t?. Matkovitch (Ind. App.), 104 N. E.
795.
633-44 Jenkins f. Steele, 55 Ini.
App. 11, 102 N. E. 139, 103 N. E. 365,
assignment describing person as Lee
Jenkins not sufficient where record
showed his name as Le Boy Jenkins.
634-45 a. V. Lane (Ind.), 105 N. E.
147; Simons v, Kosciusko Bldg., L. &
S. Assn., 180 Ind. 335,- 103 N. E. 2;
Live Stock Ins. Assn. v. Edgar (Ind.
App.), 105 N. E. 641; Jenkins t?.' Steele,
55 Ind. App. 11, 102 N. E. 139, 103
N. E. 365.
634-48 Snyder f . S., 124 Ind. 335, 24
N. E. 891; Jenkins V. Steele, 55 Ind.
App. 11, 102 N. E. 139, 103 N. E.
365.
534-50 Klotz V. Schellenberger, 180
Ind. 287, 102 N. E. 134.
534-56 Boes D. Grand Bapids & I.
B. Co. (Ind. App.), 108 N. E..174, type-
written signature sufficient.
Omission to sign assignment may be
treated as waived where appellee raised
no objection thereto. Ex parte Shoaf,
186 Ala. 394, 64 S. 615; Hagin V. Shoaf,
9 Ala. App. 300, 63 S. 764.
535-58 Partiea to assignment of er-
rors« — "The assignment of errors must
be made by the identical party or
parties against whom the alleged er-
roneous judgment was rendered and
against the party or parties in whose
favor such judgment was rendered."
Jenkins t?. Steele, 55 Ind. App. 11, 102
N. E. 139, 103 N. E. 365.
535-59 Larkin 17. Haralson (Ala.), 66
S. 459.
637-67 Bell v. Bearman, 37 Okla.
645, 133 P. 188, the fact that the ap-
pellees lose their technical right to have
the appeal dismissed is not sufficient
reason to deny the amendment where
no new question is presented and ap*
pellees not injured thereby.
537-69 Book v. Strauss Bros. Co.
(Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 692; Smith v.
Hibben (Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 40.
''Inadvertence and mistake of counsel
when they wrote the assignment" it
not such a sufficient excuse as would
justify the court in permitting an
amendment after the time for appeal
has expired. Whether justifiable ex-
cuse if seasonably made, questionable.
Steel V. Yoder (Ind. App.), 108 N. E.
783.
539-78 Johnson v. Citizens State
Bank (Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 35; Boeck
V. Modern Woodmen, 162 la. 159, 143
N. W. 999; Webber v. BUlings (Mich.),
150 N. W. 332 ; Walker v. Modern Wood-
men (Mo. App.), 177 S. W. 331; Simp-
son t?. Cox, 95 S. C. 382, 79 S. E. 102;
S. V. Morse. (S. D.), 150 N. W. 293 j
Friedman v. Huntsville Cotton Oil Co.
(Tex. Civ.), 177 S. W. 573; Gulf, etc.
E. Co. T. Higginbotham (Tex. Civ.), 173
S. W. 482; Memphis Cotton Oil Co. V.
Tolbert (Tex. Civ.), 171 S. W. 309;
Ruth D. Cobe (Tex. Civ.), 165 S. W.
530.
Defect may be waived, etc. Board of
Water Comrs. v. Bobbins, 82 Conn. 623,
74 A. 938.
543-79 Kinnon v, Louisville, etc. B.
(Ala.), 65 S. 397; Eckart v. Marion,
B. & E. Traction Co. (Ind. App.), 109
N. E. 224; Mesker v. Bishop, 56 Ind.
App. 455, 103 N. E. 492; Carter v.
Reaves, 167 N. C. 131, 83 S. E. 248;
Texas & P. R. Co. v. Hall (Tex. Civ.),
173 S. W. 548; Gulf, etc. B. Co. f?.
Higginbotham (Tex. Civ.), 173 S. W.
482.
544-80 Childs v. Williams, 212 Fed."
151, 129 C. C. A. 9.
Reasons for Judgment. — Errors cannot
be assigned on the reasons for the
judgment of the court. Chicago v. Par-,
well, 260 HI. 565, 103 N. E. 606.
544-81 Odum v, Butledge (Qa. App.);
85 S. E. 361; Mojn v. Rose, 245 Pa.
601, 92 A. 39; Trinity County Lumb.
Co. V. Conner (Tex. Civ.), 176 S. W.
911; Coker v. Cooper's Est. (Tex. Civ.),
176 S W. 145; Anthony v. Hardin (Tex.
Civ.), 175 .S. W. 857; Walker V. Wil-
more (Tex. Civ.), 174 S. W. 921; Wood-
ard V. Eskridge (Tex. Civ.), 174 Sv W.
868; Jones V, Nix (Tex. Civ.), 174 S. W.
685; Killman V. Young (Tex. Civ.),
171 S. W. 1065; Burrow v. Brown (Tex.
527
Vol. 8
ERB0B8, ASSIGNMENT OF
Civ.), 167 S. W. 254; Glover v. Houston
Bel^ etc By, Co. (Tex. Civ.), 163 S.
W. 1063; Rushing f. Citizens' Nat.
Bank (Tex. Civ.), 162 S. W. 460;
Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Bryant
(Tex. Civ.), 162 S. W. 400.
545-82 Houston Pack. Co. t. Dunn
(Tex. Civ.), 176 S. W. 634.
546-83 Morton «. Clark, 10 Ala.
App. 439, 65 a 408.
546-84 Johnson v, Johnaon, 43 Okla.
582, 143 P. 670; Jones v. Lee, 43 Okla.
257, 142 P. 996; Turner t?. First Nat.
Bank, 40 Okla. 498, 139 P. 703; S. v.
Von Klein, 71 Or. 159, 142 P. 549 (that
court erred in sustaining the objections
of the state to questions asked one
witness concerning **J — L. — '')> Bich-
ardson v. Houston Oil Co. (T^x. Civ.),
176 8. W. 628; Keitt v. Gresham (Tex.
Civ.), 174 S. W. 884; Jones V. Nix
(Tex. Civ.), 174 S. W. 685.
540-88 Landers v. Joerger, 15 Ariz.
480, 140 P. 209; Webber v. Billings
(Mich.), 150 N. W. 332; Nelson v.
Michigan Tanning & Extract Co.
(Mich.), 150 N. W. 317; Gold v. Detroit
U. By., 169 Mich. 178, 134 N. W. 1118;
Canerdy v. B. Co., 156 Mich. 211, 120
N. W. 582; Santiago V, Felix, 24 Phil.
Isl. 378; Santiago t\ Somonte, 20 P. R.
305; Anderson & Day v, Darsey (Tex.
Civ.), 171 S. W. 1089,
Gronplng of asslgimieiits is. proper
where they relate to the same question
and may be considered together. Mem-
phis Cotton Oil Co. V. Tolbert (Tex.
Civ.), 171 S. W. 309.
550-89 Carter v. Beaves, 167 N. C.
131, 83 S. E. 248; Haddock v. Stocks,
167 N. C. 70, 83 S. E. 9; Friedman f?.
Huntsville Cotton Oil Co. (Tex. Civ.),
177 S. W. 573; Walker V. Wilmore (Tex.
Civ.), 174 S. W. 921; Babcock v. Glover
(Tex. Civ.), 174 S. W. 710.
552-92 Landers v. Joerger, 15 Ariz.
480, 140 P. 209; Mauldin t?. Gainey
(Ga. App.), 83 S. E. 276; Powder Val-
ley State Bank v, Hudelson (Or.), 144
P. 494; Brown v, Hughes, 244 Pa. 397,
90 A. 651; Roylance Co. 17. Descalzi,
243 Pa. 180, 90 A. 55; Strong v. Buck
Bun Coal Co., 241 Pa. 560, 88 A. 796;
Texas & P. B. Co. v. Hall (Tex. Civ.),
173 S. W. 548.
General ruling on exceptions. — ^^'If the
court below fails to make a separate
ruling on each exception, then the gen-
eral ruling covering all the exceptions
must be repeated in each assignment of
error." Prenatt v. Messenger Print.
Co., 241 Pa. 267, 88 A. 439, and cases
cited.
Fonn. — ^'The court erred in dismissing
the plaintiff's first exception, the excep-
tion and ruling thereon being as fol-
lows," this to b^ followed by an exact
copy of the exception and a precise
transcript of the record showing the
ruling of the court, and in the printed
book ^'the pages must be stated where
the matter refered to is to be found in
the paper book or appendix." Prenatt
t?. Messenger Print. Co., 241 Pa. 267,
88 A. 439.
Pennsylvania, etc. Prenatt v. Mes-
senger Print. Co., 241 Pa. 267, 88 A.
439.
552-93 Hicks f . Bevels, 142 Ga. 524,
83 S. E. 115; Capps v. Johnson (Tex.
Civ.), 174 S. W. 294; Darby t?. White
(Tex. Civ.), 165 S. W. 481.
The language of the court In dismiss-
ing exceptions must be stated in as-
signment of errors. Coates v. Young
Women's Christian Assn., 245 Pa. 426,
91 A. 863.
553-94 Wilson r. Lewis, 11 Ala. App.
261, 65 S. 919; Prenatt V. Messenger
Print. Co., 241 Pa. 267, 88 A. 439;
Foley t?. Philadelphia Bapid Transit
Co., 240 Pa. 169, 87 A. 289.
553-96 Alexander v. Wellington, 44
Colo. 388, 98 P. 631; Hanna t?. Barker,
6 Colo. 303; Colorado & S. B. Co. r.
Jenkins, 2S Colo. App. 348, 138 P. 437;
Dominion Trust Co. V, Bidall, 249 Pa.
122, 94 A. 464; Fedorawicz v. Citizens'
Electric Ilium. Co., 246 Pa. 141, 92 A.
124; Moyn V. Bose, 245 Pa. 601, 92 A.
39; Borough of Sunbury i?. Sunbury &
S. By. Co., 241 Pa. 357, 88 A. 543;
Simpson v. Cox, 95 S. C. 382, 79 8. E.
102; Ara V, Eutland (Tex. Civ.), 172
S. W. 993; Pecos & N. T. Bv. Co. v.
Amarillo St. By. Co. (Tex. Civ.), 171
8. W. 1103.
554-98 Kew points attacking consti-
tutionality of statutes cannot be con-
sidered when not raised below. Bapier
f. Guedry, 136 La. 443, 67 S. 322.
556-5 Hardy v, Lehigh Valley B. Co.,
240 Pa. 454, 87 A. 781.
Injunction must be stated. — ^An assign-
ment of error to an order dissolving a
preliminary injunction is not sufficient
where it does not set forth the injunc-
tion. Erie Coal & C. Co. V. Deal, 248
Pa. 58, 93 A« 826.
528
ERRORS, AS8I0NMENT OF
Tol. 8
556-7 Pt. Worth & D. C. Ry. Co. t?.
Craig (Tex. Civ.), 176 S. W. 827.
667-13 Martinez r. Gutierrez 'a Heirs
(Tex. Civ.), 172 S. W. 766.
Beferences to record are not sufficient.
Friedman r. Iluntsville Cotton Oil Co.
(Tex. Civ.), 177 S. W. 573; Campbell
r. Peacock (Tex. Civ.), 176 S. W. 774.
657-16 Lyons r. Armstrong, 142 Ga.
257, 82 S. E. 651.
668-16 Statements In assignments
must be faithful to the record. — ^Rule
31 (142 S. W. xiii) requires that to
each proposition there must be sub-
joined a brief statement sufficient to
explain and support the proposition
with reference to pages of the record.
National Live Stock Ins. Co. 17. Gomil-
lion (Tex. Civ.), 174 S. W. 330.
668-18 Exceptions and rulings in
equity case must be shown* — ''The as-
signment of error injan equity case must
show that exceptions were taken to the
matters assigned for error, and must
show the action of the court below
upon them.** Brown I?. Hughes^ 244
Pa. 397, 90 A. 651.
559-19 Pennsylvania rule, etc.
Markleton Hotel Co. 17. Connellsville &
S. L. By. Co., 242 Pa. 569, 89 A. 703;
Kane & E. R. Co. t?. Pittsburgh & W.
R. Co., 241 Pa. 608, 88 A. 793. And
the pages must be stated where the
matter referred to is to be found in
the paper books or appendix. Markle-
ton Hotel Co. t?. Connellsville & S. L.
By. Co., 242 Pa. 569, 89 A. 703.
560-24 In re Fulmer's Est., 243 Pa.
226, 89 A. 974.
561-26a That the citation is de-
fectlye and does not authorize a default
judgment is a fundamental error which
will be considered without being spe-
cifically assigned. St. Louis, B. & M.
By. Co. V, Hamilton (Tex, Civ.), 163
S. W. i666.
561-27 O'Neil r. James, 40 Okla.
661, 140 P. 141; Tramel t?. Guaranty
State Bank & Trust Co. (Tex. Civ.),
176 S. W. 65.
562-28 Central Foundry Co. f7.
Laird (Ala.), 66 8. 571.
56JB-29 Ohastain t?. Hoskins (Tex.
Civ.), 168 S. W. 421.
Grouping errors in one assignment. — ^A
general assignment to several distinct
rulings of the court will fail if one
of the rulings is correct. Buie r. Ken-
nedy, 164 N. C. 290, 80 S. E. 445.
563-33 Janulewycz t?. Quagliano, 88
Conn. 60, 89 A. 897,
564-39 St. Louis, B. & M. Ry. Co.
f. Hamilton (Tex. Civ.), 163 S. W. 666.
See Chicago R. Co. t?. Mitchell (Ind.
App.), 107 N. E. 743.
564-40 Holler t?. S. (Ind.), 106 N. E,
364,
565-41 Martinez 17. Jimenez, 21 P.
B. 196.
566-46 Bule changed t)y statute.
Under the provisions of the statute
(Burns' Ann. St., 1914, §348) the suffi-
ciency of the complaint can no longer
be assailed for the first time on appeal
by an assignment of error that it does
not state facts sufficient to state a
cause of action. Bobinson t;. S., 177
Ind. 263, 97 N. E. 929; Chicago & E.
B. Co. fJ. Mitchell (Ind. App.), '107 N.
E. 743; Combs r. Combs (Ind. App.),
105 N. E. 944; Stiles 17. Hasler, 56 Ind.
App. 88, 104 N. E. 878.
566-47 Laramore t7. Blumenthal (Ind.
App.), 108 N. E. 602; Illinois Surety
Co. r. S., 55 Ind. App. 31, 103 N. E.
363.
567-51 Indictment or information
cannot be assailed for the first time on
appeal by an assignment of error that
it does not state facts sufficient to
constitute a crime. (Burns' Ann. St.,
1914, {348, held applicable to indict-
ments or information.) Bobinson i?.
S., 177 Ind. 263, 97 N. E. 929.
568-54 Joint errors assigned to
more than ono paragraph of an answer
will fail if any one of the paragraphs
is good. Irose r. Balla, 181 Ind. 491,
104 N. E. 851.
568-56 Withdrawal of answer.— The
action of the court in denying per-
mission to withdraw an answer must be
assigned in order to have same re-
viewed. Bradley «. Onstott, 180 Ind.
687, 103 N. E. 798.
568-57 North Birmingham T. & S.
Bank v. Adams, 184 Ala. 564, 63 S.
1022; Hicks t?. Bevels, 142 Ga. 524, 83
S. E. 115; Hammond t?. Toyne, 181 Ind.
584, 105 N. E. 42; Lamb t?. Qoldfield,
L., etc. Mining Co. (Nev.), 138 P. 902;
O'Neil f7. James, 40 Okla. 661, 140 P.
141; Nelson v. Boggs (Tex. Civ.), 177
S. W. 1005; Mitchell i?. Bobinson (Tex.
Civ.), 162 S. W. 443; Carter v. South
Texas Lumb. Tard (Tex. Civ.), 160 S.
W. 626.
Ck>nrt'8 order most be set ont.— The
84
5291
IV. 8
ERRORS, ASSIGNMENT OF
assignment of errors must set out in
the exact language of );he court the or-
der sustaining the demurrer. Bidgway
V, Philadelphia & B. B. Co., 244 Pa. 282,
90 A. 652.
Description of pleading. — ^An assign-
ment of error is sufficiently specific
which purports to be directed against
the overruling of demurrers to an
amended complaint although the demur-
rers themselves were addressed to a
complaint not designated as amended,
and the record shows that but one com-
plaint had been filed. Shriver v, Mont-
fomery, 181 Ind. 108, 103 N. E. 945.
ee also Meiker v. Bishop, 56 Ihd. App.
455, 103 N. E. 492.
571-60 Judge v. Pullman Co., 209
Fed. 10, 126 C. C. A. 152.
572-63 Kelley v, Scanlon, 55 Ind.
App. 611, 104 N. E. 516.
572-6S Jones v. Adler, 183 Ala. 435,
62 S. 777; Louisville & N. B. Co. f?.
Turney, 183 Ala. 398, 62 S. 885; Barney
Coal Co. V. Davis, 9 Ala. App, 235, 62
S. 985; De Funiak Springs v. Perdue
(Fla.), 68 S. 234; Coonev-Eckstein Co.
V. King (Fla.), 67 8. 918; Daniel v.
Siegel-Cooper Co., 54 Fla. 265, 44 S.
949.
572-66 Morton v. Clark, 10 Ala.
App. 439, 65 S. 408.
573-67 Darby v. White (Tex. Civ.),
165 8, W. 481, that an exception to
such ruling was taken must also ap-
pear.
Plea of privilege. — ^An alleged error in
overruling appellant's plea of priv-
ilege will be disregarded where the
assignment presenting the question is
not even a substantial copy of the
only paragraph of appellant's motion
for a new trial which refers to the
subject. Ball Grain Co. v. Burks-Sim-
mons Co. (Tex. Civ.), 171 S. W. 1043.
573-68 Holding session of court in
absence of attorney. — An assignment
of error is without merit which com-
plains of the court's action in holding
a night session when appellant's lead-
ing counsel was unable to be present,
and which fails to show what if any-
thing transpired at the night session
but does show that appellant was rep-
resented by other counsel. Kirkland v.
Eutherford (Tex. Civ.), 171 S. W. 1031.
573-70 Orotmda of challenge. — As-
signments of error to the overruling of
defendant's challenge for cause to two
jurors are defective in that they do
not quote the bill of exceptions or set
forth the grounds of challenge in so
far as they appear from the ruling of
the judge. C. t?. Nye, 240 Pa. 359, 87
A. 585.
574-71 Ewton v. McCracken, 9 Ala.
App. 619, 64 8. 177; In re Scarry's Est.,
15 Ariz. 246, 137 P. 868; Dunaway. v.
Anderson, 22 Cal. App. 691, 136 P. 309;
Doolan t?. Heiser (Conn.), 94 A. 354;
Thomas v. S. (Fla.), 68 S. 944; Eden-
field V. Boyd (Ga.), 84 S. E. 436; Cha-
dima V. Kovar (la.), 150 N. W. 691;
Register v. Tidewater Power Co., . 165
N. C. 234, 81 S. E. 326; Redsecker t?.
Wade, 69 Or. 153, 134 P. 5, 138 P. 485;
Wood V. Green (Tenn.), 175 S. W. 1139;
Loveman Co. v. Bavless, 128 Tenn. 307,
160 S. W. 841; McCullough v. Hurt
(Tex. Civ.), 175 S. W. 781; Sullivan v.
Pant (Tex. Civ.), 160 S. W. 612.
Court has power to waive irregularity
in assignment of errors- in failing to
specifically indicate the particular rul-
ing complained of. Doolan v. Heiser
(Conn.), 94 A. 354.
676-73 Walker r. Lastinger, 141 Ga.
435, 81 S. E. 203; Odum t?. Rutledgo
(Ga. App.), 85 S. E. 361; Chadima r.
Kovar (la.), 150 N. W. 691; Mondamin
Bank 1?. Burke (Ta.), 147 N. W. 148;
Wilson t?. Wilson, 94 Neb. 192, 142 N.
W, 543; Porter v. American Cigar Box
Lumb. Co., 164 K C. 396, 80 S. E. 443;
McCullough V. Hurt (Tex. Civ.), 175 S.
W. 781.
577-75 Georgia & P. Ry. r. Newton,
140 Ga. 463, 79 S. E. 142; Ellis t?. Ab-
bott, 69 Or. 234, 138 P. 488; Darby e.
White (Tex. Civ.), 165 S. W. 481; Chil-
dress V. Robinson (Tex. Civ.), 161 S. W.
78; Brown v. Brenner (Tex. Civ.), 161
S. W. 14; Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co.
i\ Word (Tex. Civ.), 159 S. W. 375.
Bill of exceptions. — ^An assignment can-
not be considered where appellant's
brief fails to show that the action of
the court in excluding the testimony
has been reserved by bill of exceptions.
First State Bank & T. Co. fJ. South-
western Eng. & Const. Co. (Tex. Civ.),
170 S. W. 860.
578-76 In re Scarry's Est., 15 Ariz.
246, 137 P. 868; Dominion Trust Co. f.
Ridall, 249 Pa. 123, 94 A. 464.
578-77 Cox V. Moore, 142 Ga. 487, 83
S. E. 115; Atlanta v. Nelson, 142 Ga.
324, 82 S. E. 899; Brotherton v. Strick-
lin, 140 Ga. 610, 79 S. E. 459; GuUatt
V. S., 14 Ga. App. 53, 80 S. E, 340;
530
EBBOBS, ASSIGNMENT OF
Vol. 8
m
Hardy & Co. v. Jones Bros., 13 Ga. App.
457, 79 S. E. 246; Ellis v. Abbott, 69
Or. 234, 138 P. 488; Grand Lodge F.
& A. M. V. Dillard (Tex. Civ.), 162 S.
W. 1173, must appear what the docu-
mentary evidence would have shown.
578-78 Palmore v. S., 65 Fla. 539, 62
S. 581.
578-80 Winterton Gum Co. v. Auto-
sales Gum & C. Co., 211 Fed. 612, 128
C. C. A. 212; Crews & Green V. Parker
(Ala.), 6S S. 287; Brotherton v. Strick-
lin, 140 Ga. 610, 79 S. E. 459; Georgia
& F. By. t\ Newton, 140 Ga. 463, 79
8. E. 142; Jones r. Cole, 139 Ga. 596,
77 S. E. 810 (evidence deferred to
should be set out either literally or in
substance); Spann v. Edwards, 139 Ga.
715, 77 S. E. 1128; Mondamin Bank t?.
Burke (la.), 147 N. W. 148 (reference
to testimony as shown on pages 50 and
51 of abstract is too general); Carter
V. Beaves, 167 N. C. 131, 83 S. E. 248;
Morris r. Bradley, 26 N. D, 362, 144
N. W. 711; Dominion Trust Co. f?. Ridall,
249 Pa. 122, 94 A. 464; Guckenheimer
& Bros. Co. V. Kann, 243 Pa. 75, 89 A.
807; Cannon v. Wickham, 242 Pa. 16,
89 A. 21; Turner v. Missouri, K. & T.
By. Co. (Tex. Civ.), 177 S. W. 204.
Evldenoe rnuBt be correctly quoted.
Coons «. McKees Bocks, 243 Pa. 340,
90 A. 141.
581-81 Mclndoo v. Wood (Tex. Civ.),
162 S. W. 488, reference to the tran-
script of the evidence on pages '*16-
42" and '* 101-144" does not conform
to the rule.
582-86 Morton r. Clark, 10 Ala.
App. 439, 65 S. 408; General Accident,
etc. Ins. Co. v. Shields, 9 Ala. App. 214,
62 S. 400; Buie t?. Kennedy, 164 N. C.
290, 80 S. E. 445; Lee V, Moore (Tex.
Civ.), 162 S. W. 437.
682-87 Shaw v. Thompson Bros.
Lumb. Co. (Tex. Civ.), 177 S. W. 574.
Qualifications of witness shown. — ^The
court will overrule an assignment com-
plaining of the admission of testimony
on the ground that the witness was not
qualified, where such assignment fails
to set forth the preliminary examina-
tion of the witness recTpecting his
qualifications. Parry v. Cambria & I.
B. Co., 247 Pa. 169, 93 A. 336.
582-90 Maris r. Adams (Tex. Civ.),
166 S. W. 475.
Reeves & Co. r. McOee, 33
8. D. 276, 145 N. W. 544; Shaw r.
Thompson Bros. Lumb. Co. (Tex. Civ.),
177 S. W. 574; Maris v. Adams (Tex.
Civ.), 166 S. W. 475.
586-97 Moody t?. Southern Rv. Co.,
14 Ga. App. 258, 80 S. E. 911; Carney
i\ Marquette, etc. M. Co., 260 111. 220,
103 N. E. 204; Doggett V. Ruppert, 178
111. App. 230; Nelson v. Michigan Tan.
So Extr. Co. (Mich.), 150 N. W. 317.
But see Owens r. Corsicana Petroleum
Co.. (Tex. Civ.), 169 S. W. 192.
When the request for directed verdict
was made should be shown in assign-
ment. Collins I?. U. S. (C. C. A.), 219
Fed. 670.
Assignment sufficiently definite. — ^An as-
signment of error to the direction of a
verdict, on the ground that ** there was
nothing upon which to base said ver-
dict," is sufficientlv definite. Brown
V, Conner, 141 Ga. ^622, 81 S. E. 901.
An assignment of error that the court
erred in not directing a verdict for de-
fendant **as requested by the defend-
ant at the close of the testimony in
the case" is sufficiently specific. Nel-
son V, Michigan Tan. & Extr. Co.
(Mich.), 150 N. W. 317. .
586-98 See Gulf, etc. B. Co. v. Hicfr
ginbotham (Tex. Civ.), 173 S. W. 482.
686-1 Spencer v, Johnson (Mich.),
151 N. W. 684; Devich V. Dick, 177
Mich. 173, 143 N. W. 56.
586-2 Kell r. Boss (Tex. Civ.), 175
S. W. 752.
586-3 Stewart t?. Driscoll,* 56 Colo.
316, 139 P. 18.
587-6 Ulmer v. U. S. (C. C. A.), 219
Fed. 641 ("that the court's charge to
the jury and the language thereof wore
prejudicial to the rights of the defend-
ant" is too general); Stewart Bros. r.
Randall Bros., 138 Ga. 796, 76 S. E.
352; Williams r. S., 13 Ga. App. 179,
78 S. E. 1012; Hicks & Son t'. Mozlev
& Co., 12 Ga. App. 661, 78 S. E. 133;
Schulein t?. Tully, 183 111. App. 275;
Kahke r. MoXulty, 5^ Ind. App. 635,
104 X. E. 523; Corrigan r. Foot, 126
Minn. 531, 148 N. W. 98; Magnolia
Paper Co. v. Duflfy (Tex. Civ.), 176 S.
W. 89; Tannehill t\ Tannehill (Tex.
Civ.), 171 S. W. 1050; Stevens v, Cros-
by (Tex. Civ.), 166 S. W. 62; Arlams
r. Cameron & Co. (Tox. Oiv.), 161 S.
W. 417; S. r. Kakarikos (Utah), 146
P. 750; S. r. Smith (Utah), 146 P.
286.
-T International & G. N. Ry. Co.
531
Vol. 8
ERRORS, ASSIGNMENT OF
v. Jones (Tex. Civ.), 175 S. W. 488
(that court erred in its definition of
proximate cause and negligence, with-
out stating the definitions given is too
indefinite); Texas & N. O. R. Co. v.
Francis (Tex. Civ.), 165 S. W. 40;
Texas Co. v. Veloz (Tex. Civ.), 162 S.
W. 377.
mustrations of insufflciemt assigiimeiits.
Where the record contains what pur-
ports to be objections to the charge
which are signed by the plaintiff and
are marked '* approved" by the trial
judge, but do not show that they were
presented before the charge was read
to the jury nor that the objections were
overruled by the trial judge, nor that
the plaintiff excepted to such ruling,
the errors thus presented will not be
considered. Williams V. Phelps (Tex.
Civ.), 171 S. W. 1100. An assignment
stating that the court erred in its
charge '* because the same is contrary
to law upon its face" will not be con-
sidered where it docs not show how or
in what manner the charge is contrary
to law. Betts Oo. v. Mims, 14 Ga. App.
786, 82 S. E. 474.
691-8 Brundage v. S., 14 Ga. App.
460, 81 S. E. 384; S. V. Johnson, 161
N. C. 264, 76 S. E. 679.
592-9 Empire Coal Co. v. Qravlee, 9
Ala. App. 657, 64 S. 207.
592-10 Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co.
r. Templeton (Tex. Civ.), 175 S. W.
504; Galveston, H. & S. Ry. Co. v.
Averill (Tex. Civ.), 136 S. W. 98; Crys-
tal City & N. R. Co. v. Boothe (Tex.
Civ.), 126 S. W. 700; Galveston, H. &
S. A. By. Co. V. Vollrath, 40 Tex. Civ.
App. 46, 89 S. W. 279.
592-13 Ross V. Blunt (Tex. Civ.),
166 S. W. 913; Texas Co. V. Veloz (Tex.
Civ.), 162 S. W. 377.
592-14 National Ry. Co. v. Ligarde
(Tex. Civ.), 172 S. W. 1140.
593-22 Galveston, H. & S. Rv. Co.
V. Averill (Tex. Civ.), 136 S. W. 98.
594-24 See Louisville & N. R. Co.
17. Almand, 142 Ga. 661, 83 S. E. 516.
594-25 Pennsylvania Co. v. Sheeley
(C. C. A.), 221 Fed. 901; Bassett t\
Utah Copper Co. (C. C. A.), 219 Fed.
811.
596-31 But see Darby t?. White (Tex.
Civ.), 165 S. W. 481.
596-32 Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. v.
Shields, 182 Ala. 106, 62 S. 71; At-
lantic Compress Co. v. Chambliss (Ga.
App.), 84 S. E. 155; Sullivan v. S., 14
Ga. App. 762, 82 S. E. 314; Hart v. S.,
181 Ind. 23, 103 N. E. 846; Crowl f?.
American Linseed Co., 255 Mo. 305, 164
S. W. 618; Carter v. Reaves, 167 N. C.
131, 83 S. E. 248; S. V. Seaborn, 166
N. C. 373, 81 S. E. 687; C. I?. Filer, 249
Pa. 171, 94 A. 822; Dominion Trust Co.
V, Ridall, 249 Pa. 122, 94 A. 464; Rilg-
way r. Philadelphia & R. By. Co., 244
Pa. 282, 90 A. 652; Witmer V. Bessemer
& Lake Erie R. Co., 241 Pa. 112, 88
A. 314; Magnolia Paper Co. v. Duffy
(Tex. Civ.), 176 S. W. 89; Ford Motor
Co. V. Freeman (Tex. Civ.). 168 S. W.
80; Darby v. White (Tex. Civ.), 165
S. W. 481; Times Pub. Co. r. Rood (Tex.
Civ.), 163 S. W. 1037; Scott t?. Town-
send (Tex. Civ.), 159 S. W. 342; Lind-
say Land & L. Co. v. Smart Land &
L, Co., 43 Utah 554, 137 P. 837.
Not Bofflclent compliance. — An assign-
ment that ''the court e^red in giving
the jury the charge which is excepted
to as defendant's nineteenth exception,
on page 34, as there shown in the
bracket,'' is not a sufficient compliance.
Carter r. Reaves, 167 N. C. 131, 83 S.
E. 248.
59T-33 P. V. Ponsford, 181 Mich.
659, 148 N. W. 236; Texas & N. O. B.
Co. r. Petersilka (Tex, Civ.), 176 S.
W. 70.
598-35 National Ry. Co. v. Ligarde
(Tex. Civ.), 172 S. W. 1140.
598-36 Detroit v. Orummond, 216
Fed. 273, 131 C. C. A. 417; Hefiin V,
Eastern Ry. Co. (Tex. Civ.), 159 S. W.
499.
That the substance of refused charges
was not given in the general charge
must be shown. Western Union TeL
Co. V, White (Tex. Civ.), 162 S. W.
905.
599-37 Burnett Fuel Co. V. Ellis
(Tex. Civ.), 162 S. W. 911.
599-38 Tennessee Coal, etc. Co. r.
Wright (Ala.), 68 S. 339; Mondamin
Bank r. Burke (la.), 147 N. W. 148
(assignment that error was committed
in not giving ''the instructions asked
by the plaintiff, as shown on pages 73
to 75 of abstract," is too general);
Western Union Tel. Co. I?. White (I'ex.
Civ.), 162 S. W. 905.
Beference by number. — ^"In presenting
to this court an exception to the re-
fusal of the trial court to charge as
requested, it is not necessary to do
more than to refer to the request by
532
ERRORS, ASSIONMENT OF
Vol. 8
number, or hy clearly identifying it
in Borae other way.'* Lindsay Land &
L. Co. V. Smart Land & L. Co., 43 Utah
554, 137 P. 837.
599-39 Burma v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 172
S. W. 981.
600-43 Bessemer v. Whaley, 10 Ala.
App. 569, 65 S. 691; Davis v. S. (Fla.),
68 S. 460; Charles v. S., 58 Fla. 17> 50
S. 419; Mays v. Wilson, 141 Ga. 523,
81 S. E. 440; Griner V. S. (Ind,), 108
• N. E. 514; P. 17. MacGregor, 178 Mich.
436, 144 N. W. 869; Buie i?. Kennedy,
164 N. C. 290, 80 S. E. 445; Chicago,
R. I. & G. By. Co. V, Swaggerty (Tex.
Civ.), 163 S. W. 317.
601-44 Bogers t?. Ezell (Tex. Civ.),
174 S. W. 1011; Franklin i?. Internation-
al & G. N. By. Co. (Tex. Civ.), 174
8. W. 333; Galveston, H. & S. A. By.
Co. V. Harris (Tex. Civ.), 172 S. W.
1129; San Antonio, N. & G. B. Co. v.
Storey (Tex. Civ.), 172 S. W. 188; Gal-
veston, H. & S. A. By. Co. v. Kellogg
(Tex. Civ.), 172 S. W. 180.
By statute in Michigan (Act No. 52,
Public Acts, 1901) it is provided that
no exceptions need be taken. Patter-
son u Gore, 177 Mich. 591, 143 N. W.
643.
601-46 Carter v, S., 15 Ga. App.
343, 83 S. 'E. 153; Betts Co. t?. Mims,
14 Ga. App. 786, 82 S. E. 474.
602-47 Jesel v. Benas, 177 Mo. App.
708, 160 S. W. 528.
602-49 Gulf, C. & S. F. By. Co. t?.
Higginbotham (Tex. Civ.), 173 S. W.
482.
e03-50 Feil t\ Northwest, etc. Ins.
Co., 28 N. D. 355, 149 N. W. 358.
603-61 Ewart Lumb. Co. t?. American
Cement Plaster Co., 9 Ala. App. 152, 62
S. 560; Brown v. S., 15 Ga. App. 115,
83 S. E. 634; Mayor & Aldermen v. Du
Four, .13 Ga. App. 61, 78 S. E. 779;
Taylor Sons Co. f?. Hunt, 163 Ky. 120,
173 S. W. 333; Am. Credit Co. v. Cloth-
ing Co. (Ky.), 122 S. W. 840; Jones
V. Wocher, 90 Ky. 230, 13 S. W. 911;
Boss V. Blunt (Tex. Civ.), 166 S. W.
913.
Scope of assignment. — An assignment
that the verdict of the jury is contrary
to law, raises such errors occurring on
the trial as have been carried into the
verdict. Shirley Hill Coal Co. <?. Moore,
181 Ind. 513, 103 N. E. 802.
604-52 Moore v. Cooper Mfg. Co.
(Tex. Civ.), 171 S. W. 1034; Boss v.
Blunt (Tex. Civ.), 166 S. W. 913; Gal-
veston, II. & S. A. By. Co. V, Short
(Tex. Civ.), 163 S. W. 601.
• * Where there * is no evidence^—' * An
assignment that complains that the ver-
dict of the jury and judgment of the
court is contrary to the law and evi-
dence because there is no evidence to
establish a fact necessary to sustain
said judgment is sufficient; while it is
not sufficient if it merely alleges that
the evidence was insufficient to estab-
lish such fact necessary to support the
judgment." First State Bank v, Knox
(Tex. Civ.), 173 S. W. 894.
604-63 Feil t\ Northwest German,
etc. Ins. Co., 28 N. D. 355, 149 N. W.
358; First State Bank t?. Knox (Tex.
Civ.), 173 S. W. 894.
605-64 But see Moore v. Cooper
Mfg. Co. (Tex. Civ.), 171 S. W. 1034,
where an assignment substantially that
the verdict was contrary to the law and
the evidence is that it should have
been for the full amount was held too
general.
606-66 Patterson v. Gore, 177 Mich.
591, 143 N. W. 643; St. Louis, etc. By.
Co. V, Williams (Tex. Civ.), 170 S. W.
1069. See Galveston, H. & S. A. By.
Co. V. Craighead (Tex. Civ.), 175 S. W.
1199.
In Texas when "^rror is assigned, etc.
Buick Auto. Co. t?. Weaver (Tex. Civ.),
163 S. W. 594.
606-67 Harrold r. Wichita Falls &
N. W. By. Co., 43 Okla. 362, 143 P.
40.
606-69 Assigning excessive damages.
Assignments of error which complain
of a verdict as excessive, without point-
ing out in what respect, under the
facts, it is contended to be excessive,
are too general to require considera-
tion. San Antonio, etc. By. Co. v.
Storey (Tex. Civ.), 172 S. W. 188.
60T-62 An assignment that the de-
cision is contrary to the evidence is not
a proper assignment. Johnson v. Al-
lispaugh (Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 686.
607-64 Cross v. Mayo, 167 Cal. 594,
140 P. 283; Churchill G. & S. Co. v,
Newton, 88 Conn. 130, 89 A. 1121 (and
the supreme court cannot resort to the
evidence and construct a new finding);
Little V. Mundell (Ind. App.), 109 N.
E. 227.
607-6T Jones & Laughlin Steel Co.
t\ Wood, 249 Pa. 423, 94 A. 1067; Botge
533
Vol. 8
ERRORS, AS8I0NMENT OF
r. Simmler (Tex. Civ.), 176 S. W. 614.
608-68 Bute v. WilliamB (Tex. Civ.),
162 S. W. 989.
Supporting statements must substan-
tiate the error. — ^Brown v. Southern Gas
& G. Eng. Co. (Tex. Civ.), 176 S. W.
73.
609-Tl Cook V. Packard Motor Car
Co., 88 Conn. 590, 92 A. 413; Speights
V. Speights (Tex. Civ.), 176 S. W.
641.
609-72 Mowery v, Mowery (N. C),
85 S. B. 7; StroJ)erg V, Merrill, 67 Or.
409, 135 P. 335; Speights v. Speights
(Tex. Cij,), 176 S. W. 641; McCall Co.
V. Elliott (Tex. Civ.), 159 S. W. 872.
Conflict in findings will not be con-
sidered in the absence of a specific as-
signment showing in what the conflict
consists. Cope t?. Pitzer (Tex. Civ.),
166 S. W. 447.
611-76 Jones & Laughlin Steel Co.
t\ Wood, 249 Pa. 423, 94 A. 1067; Todd
V. St. Loius S. W. By. Co. (Tex. Civ.),
173 S. W. 617.
Sufficient assignm^it. — ^An assignment
referring by number to the conclusion
excepted to, which reference is followed
by a purported copy of such conclusion,
is sufficient although the same num-
bered finding was inadvertently copied
intead of the conclusion, such mistake
not being misleading. Jensen V. Griffin,
32 S. D. 613, 144 N. W. 119.
612-78 Steel v. Yoder (Ind. App.),
108 N, E. 783.
612-79 Miller v. Armstrong-Landon
Co., 53 Ind. App. 501, 102 N. E. 47.
612-80 Sufficient assignment. — An as-
signment that the '' findings oi fact
• • . do not support the findings and
conclusions of law'' will be treated as
alleging that the facts found do not
support the judgment rendered, where
the only conclusion of law reached was
that plaintiff was entitled, under the
facts found, to a judgment. Union Tel.
Co. V. Ingersoll, 178 Mich, 187, 144
N. W. 560.
612-81 Starr Piano Co. v. Baker, 8
Ala. App. 449, 62 S. 549; City of Sum-
mit V, Morris Countv Traction Co., 85
N. J. L. 193, 88 A. 1048.
Judgment must be set out, etc. Witmer
17. Bessemer & Lake Erie B. B. Co., 241
Pa. 112, 88 A. 314.
Judgment must be set out in totidem
verbis.— Ridgway v. Philadelphia & R.
"Ry, Co., 241 Pa. 282, 90 A. 652; Prcnatt
V. Messenger Print. Co., 241 Pa. 267,
88 A. 439; Hardy v. Lehigh Valley R.
Co., 240 Pa. 454, 87 A. 781.
614-85 Philadelphia Casualty Co. r.
Fechheimer (C. C. A.), 220 Fed. 401
(that ''court erred in entering judg-
ment for the plaintiffs, to which the de-
fendant then and there excepted" is
insufficient); Collins v. XJ. S. (C. C. A.),
219 Fed. 670 C' because the court errel
in entering judgment herein against
the defendant and in favor of tlMS
United States," is too general an as-
signment); Board of Comrs. v. B^ 179
Ind. 644, 102 N. E. 97; Grimes V. Gau-
ghan (Minn.), 152 N. W. 653; Crews r.
Johnson (Okla.), 148 P. 77; Stroberg
t?. Merrill, 67 Or. 409, 135 P. 335; San-
tiago V. Felix, 24 Phil. Isl. 378; Fried-
man 17. Huntsville Cotton Oil Co. (Tex.
Civ.), 177 S. W. 573; Norris Lumb. Co.
17. Harris (Tex. Civ.), 177 S. W. 515;
Alexander & Co. v, Fletcher (Tex. Civ.),
177 S. W. 614; American Nat. Bank
v. Warner (Tex. Civ.), 176 S. W. 863;
Campbell v. Peacock (Tex. Civ.), 176
S. W. 774; Fahey V. Benedetti (Tex.
Civ.), 161 S. W. 896.
Scope of assignments — ^An assignment
of error stating that ''said judgment
is contrary to law" limits the inquiry
of the court to the question whether
the proper judgment was rendered on
the pleadings and findings. Mooney v.
First State Bank (Okla.), 149 P. 1173.
Judgment upon the pleadings* — ^A gen-
eral assignment stating that the court
erred in rendering the judgment upon.
the pleadings, is sufficient, as it directs
the court's attention directly to the
point to be considered. Klink v. Chi-
cago, B. I. & P. By. Co. (C. C. A.),
219 Fed. 457.
616-86 American Soda Fountain Co.
V. Shell, 160 N. C. 529, 76 S. E. 631;
Gulf, etc. B. Co. V. Higginbotham (Tex.
Civ.), 173 S. W. 482.
617-93 Decree following legal con-
clusions.— Where it is sought to com-
plain of error in the awarding of a
decree which necessarily follows from
the conclusions of law, it is necessary
to specifically assign as error such
legal conclusions. New Castle Water
Co. V. Mahoning, etc. Co., 243 Pa. 100,
89 A. 811.
617-94 Jones & Laughlin Steel Co.
r. Wood, 249 Pa. 423, 94 A. 1067; In
re Scull's Est., 249 Pa. 52, 5?, 94 A.
476; Bidgway V. Philadelphia & B. By.
534
t!RRORS, ASSIGNMENT OF
Vol i
Co., 244 Pa. 282, 90 A. 652; In ro Ful-
mer'fl Est., 243 Pa. 226, 89 A. 974;
Pienatt «?. Messenger Print. Co., 241 Pa.'
267, 88 A. 439; Witmer t\ Bessemer &
Lake Erie B. R. Co., 241 Pa. 112, 88 A.
3U; Hardy f. Lehigh Valley R. Co.,
240 Pa. 454, 87 A. 781; Yerger r. Hunn,
231 Pa. 245, 80 A. 527; Arnold r. Rus-
Bell, etc Plow Co., 212 Pa. 303, 61 A.
9U.
Beference to decree not suiilclent.
Strong V. Buck Run Coal Co., 241 Pa.
660, 88 A. 796.
617-96 In re Weir's Est., 168 Cal.
330, 143 P. 612.
618-98 Bice v. Mvers (Okla.), 145 P.
1150; Avery v. Hays (Okla.), 144 P.
ing a new trial challenges only the
sufficiency of the grounds upon which
the order granting the new trial was
made. Ede v. Ward, 32 S. D. 351, 143
N. W. 269. An assignment that ''the
court erred in overruling defendant's
motion for a new trial because the Ter-
dict of the jury is contrary to the law
and evidence, and is not supported by
the evidence" can be considered only
in so far as it may be construed as an
assignment to the effect that the evi-
dence is insufficient to sustain the ver-
dict of the jurv. Weatherford V. Han-
ger, 16 Ariz. 427, 146 P. 759.
623-11 Pierce v. Wilke <Ta.), 145
N. W. 908; Reeves & Co. V. McGee, 33
6fi4; Harrold r. Wichita Falls & N. W. S. D. 276^ 145 N. W. 544.
Ry. Co , 4o Okla. 362, 143 P. 40; Board ^ " ^
of Comrs. v, Langston, 41 Okla. 715,
139 P. 956; Turner V. First Nat. Bank,
40 Okla. 498, 139 P. 703; S. r. Connelly,
34 S. D. 520, 149 N. W. 3(50.
EfTect of Texas Rules of 1912, etc. Kill-
man V. Young (Tex. Civ.), 171 S. W.
1064.
In the absence of an assignment of er-
ror to the overruling of the motion for
a new trial, the court will not review
questions relative to the sufficiency of
the evidence to sustain the findings or
verdict. Hazen r. Thompson, 33 S. D.
646, 146 IT. W. 1070.
620-^9 Dallam Countv t?. S. H. Sup-
ply Co. (Tex. Civ.), 176 S. W. 798;
Missouri, O. & G. By. Co. v. Black
(Tex. Civ.), 176 S. W. 755; Zmek v.
Dryer (Tex. Civ.), 174 S. W. 659;
National Live Stock Ins. Co. r. Gomil-
lion (Tex. Civ.), 174 S. W. 330; Brad-
shaw V. Kearby (Tex. Civ.), 168 8. W.
436; Lakeside Irr. Co. v. Buffington
(Tex. Civ.), 168 S. W. 21; Edwards t?.
Toungblood (Tex. Civ.), 162 S. W. 1164.
621-2 Todd r. St. Louis, etc. R. Co.
(Tex. Civ.), 173 S. W. 617; Overton
r. Colored Knights of Pythias (Tex.
Civ.), 163 S. W. 1053.
622-7 Kelley v. Kelley, 142 Ga. 861,
83 S. E. 856; Greensf elder V, White
Hdw. Co. (Mo. App.), 175 S. W. 275;
O. 17. Be Felippis, 245 Pa. 612, 91 A.
1059; American Nat. Life Ins. Co. V.
Rowell (Tex. Civ.), 175 S. W. 170;
Moore v Cooper Mfg. Co. (Tex. Civ.),
171 8. W. 1034; Galveston, H. & S. A.
Ry. Co. V. Short (Tex. Civ.), 163 S. W.
601. •
623-10 Scope of assignment. — ^An as-
«ignment that the court erred in grant-
624-12 Cherry Co. -r. Larson, 124
Minn. 251, 144 N. W. 949; Prosser v.
Manley, 122 Minn. 448, 142 N. W. 876;
Honston Oil Co. v, Payne (Tex. Civ.),
164 S. W. 886.
624-13 Rowsev r. Jameson (Okla.),
149 P. 880; Hodges v. Alexander
(Okla.), 145 P.* 809.
624-18 Deeter v. Burk (Ind. App.),
107 N. E. 304.
627-32 Pittsburgh, etc. Ry. Co. €.
Glinn (C. C. A.), 219 Fed. 148 (assign-
ments of error should be filed at the
time of settling the bill of exceptions) ;
^askerville v. Thomas, 32 S. D. 432, 143
N. W. 371.
Most be filed within statntory time.
''The assignment of errors constitutes
the complaint on an appeal, and it must
be filed within the time allowed by
the statute." Rook v. Strauss Bros.
Co. (Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 692; Huber
tJ. Tielking, 55 Ind. App. 577, 103 N. E.
853, 104 N. E. 314.
628-33 AsalgnmentB made on a sep-
arate paper, etc. Moon v, Butler &
Co., 9 Ala. App. 438, 62 S. 1019.
In Georgia. — ''Where error is not as-
signed in the main bill of exceptions,
nor in the supreme court, upon ex-
ceptions pendente lite brought up in
the record, the questions raised by them
will net be considered." Meldrim v,
Meldrim, 140 Ga. 400, 78 S. E. 1089.
629-39 S. v. Jackson, 134 La. 599,
64 S. 481.
639-42 In Texas, etc. Dees v,
Thompson (Tex. Civ.), 166 S. W. 56;
Cormelius V. Harris (Tex. Civ.), 163 8.
W. 346.
639-43 Porter v. American Cigat
535
Vol 8
ERRORS, ASSIGNMENT
Box Lumb. Co., 164 N. C. 396, 80 S.
E. 443.
630-44 McClendon v. Temple Cotton
Oil Co., 13 Ga. App. 487, 79 S. K 361
(when there are no assignments of er-
ror in the bill of exception, the writ
of error will be dismissed); Smith v.
Tinney (Ind. App.), 104 N. E. 887; S.
V, Morse (S. D.), 150 N. W. 293.
632-47 When an assignment of er-
rors is Inadvertently omitted, a type-
written statement of the errors relied
upon may be, on proper showing, in-
serted in the abstract after it is filed.
Proctor 17. Jeffery (Or.), 144 P. 1192;
Salene v. Isherwood (Or.), 144 P. 1175.
633-61 Failure of some of the appel-
lants to assign error does not affect
» rights of those filing assignments to
prosecute appeal. Huber v. Striebeck
(Ind. App.), 104 N. E. 314.
633-52 Sufficient service. — Where
brief containing copy of the assign-
ment of errors was served upon ap-
pellee's counsel, the service of a sep-
arate copy of the assignment of errors
IS not necessary. Palmer v. Allen, 18
N. M. 237, 135 P. 1173.
634-57 Walker & Co. v. Norris, 10
Ala. App. 515, 63 S. 935; Clark c.
Stout (Ind.), 105 N. E. 569; Southern
Ky. Co. V, Bretz, 181 Ind. 504, 104 N.
rA^^r^ ^«y®8 V. Johnson (Ind. App.),
105 N. E. 164. ^^ ^'
635-59 Walker & Co. v. Norris, 10
Ala. App. 515, 63 S. 935; Southern
By. Co. V, Bretz, 181 Ind. 504, 104 N.
■?L-^^' Hanover Canal Co. v. Wilson
(Wyo.), 143 P. 345.
635-60 Shbrtridge v. Southern Min-
eral Land Co., 186 Ala. 660, 65 S. 354:
Oilley V. Denman, 185 Ala. 561, 64 S.
97; Alabama Penny Sav. Bank v.
Holmes, 184 Ala. 469, 63 S. 969; Bron-
nenberg v. Coins (Ind.), 108 N. E. 862.
637-6T Morton v. Clark, 10 Ala.
App. 439, 65 S. 408.
638-74 Frank v. Butte & Boulder M.
«_^ <^o., 48 Mont. 83, 135 P. 904.
638-84 Gibson v. Chesapeake & O.
By. Co., 215 Fed. 24, 131 C. C. A. 332;
ilo^ , «^ ^' ^^arrison Const. Co., 212 Fed.
353 129 C. C. A. 29; Winterton Gum Co.
?o^'i.*°^?»'^^^''°' ^ ^' ^'o-» 211 Fed. 612,
128 C. C. A. 212; Georgia By. Co. v.
Stephenson (Ala.), 66 S. 495; Klnnon
nki'^S.^^'''"®' ®*^- ^- "^o- (Ala.), 65 S.
307; Brought v. Minor (Ariz.), 148 P.
294; Machomich Merc. Co. v. Hickey,
15 Ariz. 421, 140 P. 63; Bowles v. Hick-
son, 22 Cal. App. 264, 133 P. 1149;
Souza 17. Joseph, 22 Cal. App. 179, 133
P. 981; Muntzing t?. Harwood, 25 Colo.
App. 292, 137 P. 71 ; Rogers v. City of
New London (Conn.), 94 A. 364; Miller
V, Fletcher Co., 142 Ga. 668, 83 8. E.
521; Ketterer v. Stringfield, 142 Ga. 441,
83 S. E. 116; Clark v. Smith, 142 Ga.
200, 82 S. E. 563; Hobby v. Ashburn
Lumb. Co., 139 Ga. 118, 76 S. E. 864;
Smith f?. Randall, 138 Ga. 807, 76 S. E.
360; Martin v. Rome, 15 Ga. App. 496,
83 S. E. 872; Freeman V, Atlanta, 15
Ga. App. 421, 83 S. E. 436; Humphries
V. S., 15 Ga. App. 349, 83 S. E. 153;
Davenport t?. Burke (Ida.), 149 P. 511;
Lorenz r. Weller, 267 111. 230, 108 N.
E. 306; Sullivan v, Atchison, T. & 8. P.
By. Co., 262 HI. 317, 104 N. B. 707;
Wetmore v. Henry, 259 HI. 80, 102 N.
E. 189; Selemin v, Latrobe Steel ft
Coupler Co., 189 HI. App. 191; Askins
V. Hott, 188 111. App. 235; Molner v.
Molner, 186 111. App. 233; Lorenzo v.
Hunter, 185 HI. App. 574; Gak Park
Trust & Sav. Bank v, Murphey, 183 111.
App. 402; Chicago V. Biel, 182 HI. App.
2; Boland V. Claudel, 181 Ind. 295, 104
N. E. 577; Cincinnati, etc. By. Co. f?.
Simpson (Ind.), 104 N. E. 301; Picken
V. Miller (Ind. App.), 108 N. E. 968;
Steel V. Toder (Ind. App.), 108 N. E.
783; Indianapolis Union Ry. Co. v.
Sample (Ind. App.), 108 N. E. 400;
German Fire Ins. Co. t?. Zenker (Ind.
App.), 108 N. E. 160; Citizens' Nat.
Bank v. Kemey (Ind. App.), 108 N. B.
139; Chicago R. Co. i?. Mitchell (Ind.
App.), 107 N. E. 743; Sovereign Camp
W. O. W. t?. Latham (Ind. App.), 107
N. E. 749; Louisville & S. I. Traction
Co. V, Lloyd (Ind. App.), 105 N. E.
519; Indianapolis Traction Co. t?. Gill-
aspy (Ind. App.), 105 N. E. 242; Plum-
mer v. Indianapolis Union Ry. Co. (Ind.
App.), 104 N. E. 601; Guyer v. Union
Trust Co., 65 Ind. App. 472, 104 N. E.
82; Indiana Life Endow. Co. f?. Reed,
54 Ind. App. 450, 103 N. E. 77; Mer-
chant's, etc. Co. V, Murphy (Mass.), 107
N. E. 968; Wellington f?, Cambridge
(Mass.), 107 N. E. 976; Walsh v. Lake
Shore Ry. Co. (Mich.), 151 N. W. 754;
Western Min. Supply Co. v, Melzner,
48 Mont. 174, 136 P. 44; Brobst v. El
Paso & S. W. Co. (N. M.), 145 P. 25S;
Tilghman v, B. Co., 167 N. C. 163, 83
S. E. 315, 1090; Gray e. Southern B.
Co., 167 N. C. 433, 83 S. E. 849; S. v.
Heavener, 168 N. C. 156, 83 S. E. 732;
536
ESCHEAT
Vol. 8
Haddock r. Stocks, 167 N. C. 70, 83
8. E. 9; Roff Oil & Cotton Co. v. King
(Okla.), 148 P. 90; King v. King, 42
Okla. 405, 141 P. 788; Domurat t\ Ore-
gon-Washington R. & Nav. Co., 66 Or.
135, 134 P. 313; In re Donnelly's Est.,
246 Pa. 308, 92 A. 306; Coons t\ McKees
Rocks, 243 Pa. 340, 90 A. 141; Dayton
t?. Free (Utah), 148 P. 408; Brickford
V, Hupp, 83 Wash. 427, 145 P. 454; Gray
V. Fuller (Wash.), 147 P. 402. See also
2 Standard Paoc. 472^ n. 67, and sup-
plement thereto.
641-88 Scopo of general assignment
of error^—* * Under the general assign-
ment of error that the appellate court
erred in affirming the judgment of the
trial court, every question reviewable
in this court under the errors assigned
in the appellate court may be consid-
ered." Carney r. Marquette, etc. Min.
Co., 260 111. 220, 103 N. E. 204.
641-89 Bapier V. Guedry, 136 La.
443, 67 S. 322.
642-93 Kindel <?. Colorado & S. Ey.
Co., 67 Colo. 1, 139 P. 1105; Chicago
v: Chicago & O. P. E. R. Co., 261 111.
478, 104 N. E. 240; Kuh v. O'Reilly,
261 111. 437, 104 N. E. 5; Ross v. New
South F. & H. Co., 191 111. App. 353;
Benedict v. Holmes, 188 111. App. 145;
Erickson v, Madsen, 180 111. App. 412;
Phenix t?. Wilson, 179 111. App. 443;
Hunter i?. Boylance Co. (Utah), 143 P.
140.
644-94 See also O'Connor v. Mess-
enger, 183 111. App. 1.
645-97 When cross-errors cannot be
assigned. — ^Where an appeal is from a
single portion of a decree, it does not
carry up other independent matters in-
volved therein, and cross errors cannot
be assigned on such independent mat-
ters. Aster v, Balston, 179 111. App.
194.
645-1 A person not a party to the
cause cannot file cross-errors. German-
American, etc. Assn. v. Trainer, 184 111.
App. 527.
645-2 Guaranty State Bank v. Hull
(Tex. €iv.), 165 S. W. 104.
646-4 A proper statement mnst be
submitted under the cross-assignment.
Lee V. White (Tex. Civ.), 171 S. W.
1056.
646-6 The Texas rule, etc. Lee t\
White (Tex. Civ.), 171 S. W. 1056.
Function of cross-errors. — '*The assign-
ment of cross-errors in a chancery case
is the pleading of the party and sets
forth the ground upon which appellee
or defendant in error seeks a reversal
of the decree in whole or in part. ' ' Cook
V. Newbold, 189 HI. App. 537.
647-10 Cross-assignments against a
co-appellee are not permitted under
rule 101 (142 8. W. xxiv) which pro-
vides for cross-assignments only against
appellant. Missouri Pac. Ey. Co. V.
Cheek (Tex. Civ.), 159 S. W. 427.
648-19 Cass v. Duncan, 260 HI. 228,
103 N. E. 280.
648-20 In Indiana, etc. Jenkins v,
Steele, 55 Ind. App. 11, 102 N. E. 139,
103 N. E. 365.
Appellee's pleas to assignment of er-
rors.— **The defendant in error may
confess error or join in error, which
operates as a demurrer to the assign-
ment of errors, or he may plead some
subsequent fact operating to release
the errors assigned and to bar the
prosecution of the writ." Cass v. Dun-
can, 260 111. 228, 103 N. E. 280.
651-24 Brought V. Minor (Ariz.),
148 P. 294.
In Arizona. — ^Assignments of error
which are insufficient and uncertain will
nevertheless be considered by the court
where the appellee fails to pursue the
course outlined by §1262, Civ. Code,
1913, providing that if the appellee deem
the assignments of error insufficient
or defective in form he shall, within
ten days after the service of appellant's
brief file and serve a written notice
setting forth his objections to such as-
signments. Any objection not specified
in such notice shall be deemed waived.
Brought t?. Minor (Ariz.), 148 P. 294.
659-67 No motion to strike assign-
ment of error in Arizona. — A motion to
strike assignments of error because of
their insufficiency is not recognized in
Arizona, where **an objection to the
ruling or action of the court below will
be deemed waived in this court, unless
it has been assigned as error in the
manner provided by the rules." Ob-
jection is made by calling the court's
attention to the defective assignment.
Blaisdell v, Steinfeld, 15 Ariz. 155, 137
P. 555.
ESCHEAT
660-1 Connolly t?. Probate Court, 25
Ida. 35, 136 P. 205; Blount v, Horniblea,
3 N. C. 197j McCamey v. Cummings, 130
637
Vol. 8
ESTOPPEL
Tenn. 494, 172 S. W. 311; Sands v. Lyn-
ham, 27 Gratt. (Va.) 291, 21 Am. Bep.
348.
661-2 In re Miners' Est., 143 Cal.
194, 76 P, 968; In re Malone, 21 S. C.
435, while title vests immediately yet
the state cannot dispose of property
until after it had been ascertained in
manner prescribed by law that prop-
erty had in fact escheated.
663-8 Unknown Heirs of Buchanan
r. Creighton-McShane Oil Co. (Tex.
Civ.), 176 S. W. 914.
665-13 S. D. Civ. Code, §1111; In re
McClellan'fl Est., 31 S. D. 641, 141 N.
W. 965.
665-15 In re McClellan 's Est., 31 S.
D. 641, 141 N. W. 965.
666-16 Appearance of state in pro-
bato proceedings. — ^The state claiming
right by escheat is an interested party
within Probate Code, §30 7, and is en-
titled to contest the claim of an al-
leged heir at a hearing for distribution
and settlement. In re McClellan 's Est.,
31 S. D. 641, 141 N. W. 965.
668-24 Novak v. Trustees of Or-
phan's Home, 123 Md. 161, 90 A. 997,
Ann. Cas. 1915C, 1067.
673-47 Cross-complaint. — Where, in
escheat proceedings a cross-complaint
is filed, it is immaterial if answer there-
to was insufficient, for defendant must
Recover on the strength of his own title
rather than on the weakness of his ad-
versary's. Donaldson v, S. (Ind.), 101
N. E. 485.
673-50 ''The title which vests in
the state is not created or vested by
the judgment in the action. But the
judgment becomes evidence of the facts
upon which the state's title rests, and
renders effective " the right to recover
and reduce the property into possession
of the state." In re McClellan 's Est.,
31 S. D. 641, 141 N. W. 965.
673-56 P. r. Cutting, 3 Johns. (N.
y.) 1; French v. C, 5 Leigh (Va.) 512.
674-63 Novak v. Trustees oi Or-
phans' Home, 123 Md. 161, 90 A. 997,
Ann. Cas. 1915C, 1067.
674-64 Novak v. Trustees of Or-
phan's Home, 123 Md. 161, 90 A. 997,
Ann. Cas. 1915C, 1067.
675-69 Donaldson v. S. (Ind.), 101
N. E. 485.
676-71 See Christiansen v. King
County, 203 Fed. 894, 122 0. C. A. 188,
af. 196 Fed. 791.
Under la. Code, §3391. — McKeown v.
Brown (la.), 149 N. W. 593.
Costs are properly taxed against plain-
tiff inasmuch as it is incumbent on him
to make proof of heirship, and until
this was done the defendant as custod-
ian of the funds was not justified in
surrendering them. McKeown V. Brown
(la.^. 149 N. W. 593.
ESTOPPEIi
679-1 Estoppels are odious, and ev-
ery presumption is against them until
the right to apply them affirmatively
appears with certainty by the record.
In re Evans, 42 Utah 282, 130 P. 217.
680-8 Lang v. Lundy (Mich.), 152
N. W. 78; Barnard v. Ger. Amer. Sem.,
49 Mich. 444, 13 N. W. 811,
683-26 Lang v, Lundy (Mich.), 152
N. W. 78; Dean v, Crall, 98 Mich. 591,
57 N. W. 813, 39 Am. St. 571; Bemis
V. Pacific Coast Cas. Co., 125 Minn. 54,
145 N. W. 622; Merck v. Merck, 95 8.
C. 328, 78 S. E. 1027.
683-29 Barnes v, Marshall (Ala.),
69 S. 436; Millitello v. B. F. Roden Gro-
cery (Ala.), 67 S. 420; Gingold v. Cop-
Ion, 186 Ala. 340, 65 S. 328; Ahlers V.
Smiley, 11 Cal. App. 343, 104 P. 997;
McConnell v. American Nat. Bank (Ind.
App.), 103 N. E. 809; Bracket v. Mod-
ern Brotherhood, 154 Ky. 340, 157 S. W.
690; McLure V, National Bank, 263 Mo.
128, 172 S. W. 336; Lane v. Myers, 70
Or. 376, 141 P. 1022; -Christian V. Eu-
gene, 49 Or. 170, 89 P. 419; Ross r.
Jackson (Tex. Civ.), 165 8. W. 513;
In re Evans, 42 Utah 282, 130 P. 217;
Matzger v. Arcade Bldg. & B. Co., 80
Wash. 401, 141 P. 900.
685-30 In equity.— That the defense
of estoppel in pais need not be pleaded
in equity, see In re International Min-
eral Co., 222 Fed. 415; Plumb u. Curtis,-
66 Conn. 154, 33 A. 998; Hawley «.
Middlebrook, 28 Conn. 527.
686-38 Halsell v, First Nat. Bank
(Okla.), 150 P. 489; Gladstone Lumber
Co. V. Kelly, 64 Or. 163, 129 P. 763;
Ford V. Warner (Tex. Civ.), 176 S. W.
885; Young Men's Christian Assn. r.
Schow Bros. (Tex. Civ.), 161 S. W. 931.
687-44 Lane v. Myers, 70 Or. 376,
141 P. 1022.
690-56 Lang v, Lundy (Mich.), 152
N. W. 78; Bean v, Crall, 98 Mich. 591,
57 N. W. 813, 39 Am. St. 571; Merck
V. Merck, 95 S. C. 328, 78 S. E. 1027,
538
ESTOPPEL
TolB
691-57 Barnes r. Marshall (Ala.), 69
8. 436; Millitello r. B. F. Roden Gro-
cery (Ala.), 67 S. 420; J. M. Card Lnm-
bcr Co. V, Ozement, 187 Ala. 237, 65 S.
792; Gingold r. Coplon, 186 Ala. 340,
65 8. 328; Jones & Co. t\ Peebles, 130
Ala. 269, 30 S. 564; Mentry u. Broad-
way Bank & Trust Co., 20 Cal. App.
388, 129 P. 470: Fritz V, Mills, 12 Cal,
App. 113, 106 K 725; Mesa Co. Nat.
Bank t?. Berry, 24 Colo. App. 487, 135
P. 129; McConnell v, American Nat.
Bank (Ind. App.), 103 N. E. 809;
Grooms v. Morrison, 249 Mo. 544, 155
S. W. 430; Dibert v. D'Arey, 248 Mo.
617, 154 8. W. 1116; Conrow V. Huffine,
48 Mont. 437, 138 P. 1094; Halsell v.
First Nat. Bank (Okla.), 150 P. 489;
Christian v. Eugene, 49 Or. 170, 89 P.
419; Nickum t?. Burckhardt, 30 Or. 464,
47 P. 788, 48 P. 474; Parks v, Sullivan
(Tex. Civ.), 152 8. W. 704: Reed v.
Robertson (Tex. Civ.), 150 8. W. 306.
692-68 Johns €. CJlother, 78 Wash.
602, 139 P. 755.
692-59 In a suit against an admin-
istrator, evidence of an estoppel is ad-
missible under the general denial by
virtue of statute. McConnel v, Ameri-
can Nat. Bank (Ind. App.), 103 N. E.
809.
692-60 Stevens D. Los Angeles Dock
& Terminal Co., 20 Cal. App. 743, 130
P. 197; Ahlers v. Smiley, 11 Cal. App.
343, 104 P. 997.
693-67 McLure v. National Bank,
263 Mo. 128, 172 8. W. 336; Grooms v,
Morrison, 249 Mo. 544, 155 8. W. 430;
Colley t\ National Live Stock Ins. Co.,
185 Mo. App. 616, 171 8. W. 663; Lane
V. Myers, 70 Or. 376, 141 P. 1022; B. W.
McMahan & Co. v. 8. Nat. Bank (Tex.
Civ.), 160 8. W. 403; Johns v. Qother,
78 Wash. 602, 139 P. 755.
695-75 Ironton V. Harrison Const.
Co., 212 Fed. 353, 129 C. O. A. 29;
Ford V. Warner (Tex. Civ.), 176 8. W.
885.
695-78 Under a general denial in
ejectment defendant is permitted by
statute to prove an estoppel to defeat
plaintiff's cause of action. Fitch v,
Walsh, 94 Neb. 32, 142 N. W. 293. In
trespass to try title evidence of estoppel
is admissible under general issue. Birge-
Forbes Co. V. Wolcott (Tex. Civ.), 176
S. W. 605.
thider trayerse, evidence of estoppel is
not admissible. Bracket v. Modern
Brotherhood, 154 Ky. 340, 157 8. W.
690.
696-80 Canadian Long Bis. Tel. Co.
r. Seiber (Tex. Civ.), 159 8. W. 897.
696-81 Ohio & Colorado 8. & R. Co.
V, Barr, 58 Colo. 116, 144 P. 552; Blod-
gett V. Perry, 97 Mo. 263, 10 8. W. 891,
10 Am. St. 307; B. W. McMahan & Co.
V, 8. Nat. Bank (Tex. Civ.), 160 8. W.
403.
697-84 Portland v, Inman-Poulsen
Lumber Co., 66 Or. 86, 133 P. 829.
Omission' to allege that by reason there-
of plaintiffs were estopped, etc., does
not vitiate an otherwise sufficient plea
:of estoppel. Molina v, Bamirez, 15
Ariz. 249, 138 P. 17.
697-85 Gillen v. New York Life Ins.
Co,. 178 Mo. App. 89, 161 8. W. 667.
698-86 Ohio & Colorado L. & E. Co.
V. Barr, 58 Colo. 116, 144 P. 552.
698-90 Blodgett v. Perry, 97 Mo.
263, 10 8. W. 891, 10 Am. St. 307; S.
t?. Heaphy, 88 Vt. 428, 92 A. 813.
699-91 Ohio & Colorado 8. & R. Co.
r. Barr, 58 Colo. 116, 144 P. 552; Gillen
V. New York Life Ins. Co., 178 Mo.
App. 89, 161 8. W. 667.
704-22 Amarillo Nat. Bank v. San-
born (Tex. Civ.), 169 8. W. 1075.
706-23 Jones v. Burks, 110 Ark. 108,
161 .8. W. 177; Crumley v. Laurens
Banking Co., 141 Ga. 603, 81 S. E. 871;
Harlow v, Joseph, 183 Mich. 500, 149
N. W. 1047.
Variance. — ^Where the complaint sets
out a cause of action based upon estop-
pel by conduct, proof of a direct prom-
ise by defendant to pay the obligation
involved is inadmissible. Marks v.
Jones (Tex. Civ.), 154 8. W. 618.
The burden of proving the facts consti-
tuting an estoppel by conduct rests
upon the party claiming the benefit of
the estoppel. Long v. Shelton (Tex.
Civ.), 155 S. W. 945.
If more than one inference can be
drawn from the testimony, the question
of estoppel by conduct or equitable es-
toppel is one of fact. Munroe v. Stan-
ley, 220 Mass. 438, 107 N, E. 1012. On
the other hand, if but one inference can
be drawn from the facts, the court may
charge the jury as to the legal effect
of those facta. Harlow v. Joseph, 183
Mich. 500, 149 N. W. 1047.
706-32 Landnim & Co. v. Wright, 11
Ala. App. 406, 66 8. 892.
539
Vol. 8
E8TBAY8
706-36 Instruction approyecL — Camp-
bell V. Miller, 165 N. C. 51, 80 S. E.
974.
E8TBAYS
712-14 Moore v, Hensley (Mo.
App.), 175 S, W. 91.
Notice. — ^Where owner knows that his
animal has been taken up he need not
be served with personal notice by the
person who has taken the animal. Tid-
well 17. Hobinette (Ala. App.)y 68 S. 555.
715-34 Gibson v. Linthieum (Okla.),
150 P. 908.
722-73 See Moore v, Hensley (Mo.
App.), 175 S. W. 91.
EZECUTOBS AND ADMINISTBA.
TOBS
729-1 Snlng co-executor. — An execu-
tor may always maintain a suit against
his co-executor in equity for property
belonging to the estate. In re Watson,
148 N. Y. S. 902, aff. 150 N. Y. S. 776;
Franco v. Franco, 3 Ves. Jr. 75, 30 Eng.
Reprint 902; Earl Powlet v. Herbert, 1
Ves. Jr. 297, 30 Eng. Reprint 352. And
in New York under the code an action
may be maintained by one executor
against his co-executor for property be-
longing to the estate. In re Watson,
148 N. Y. S. 902, aff. 150 N. Y. S. 776.
Venue^— Suit by executor to marshall
assets and enjoin pending actions of
creditors may be brought in the county
of the residence of any creditor. Ragan
V. Smith, 142 Ga. 398, 83 S. E. 119.
729-2 Kinard r. George, 142 Ga. Ill,
82 S. E. 560; Craig v. Norwood (Ind.
App.), 108 N. E. 395, action for conspir-
acy and conversion may be maintained.
Bight of public administrator to sue.
See Flanagan v, Gehrke, 136 La. 402,
67 S. 194.
Property fraudulently conyeyed, etc.
McGuire V. Davis, 95 Kan. 486, 148 P.
755.
731-0 Meagher v. Kimball, 220 Mass.
32, 107 N. E. 431.
Devastavit.^ — An administrator de bonis
non cum testamento annexo cannot sue
for a devastavit committed by his pred-
ecessors. Sydnor v. Graves, 119 Md.
821, 86 A. 341.
731-7 Ehrman v. Bassctt, 159 App.
Div. 752, 144 N. Y. S. 976; Elliott v.
Blue, 74 W. Va. 209, 81 S. E. 982.
732-0 Leavitt v, Jas. F. Scholes Co.,
210 N. Y. 107, 103 N. E. 965, rev, 148
App. Div. 78, 132 N. Y. 8. 1033.
Bulo In New York. — ^An action at law
upon a contract made by the deceased
must be brought in the name of the exe-
cutor or administrator, but an action
on a contract made by him must be
sued on individually. Ehrman V, Baa-
sett, 159 App. Div. 752, 144 N. Y. S.
976.
733-10 Elliott V. Blue, 74 W. Va.
209, 81 S. E. 982.
733-11 Mallory v. Virginia Hot
Springs Co., 157 App. Div. 253, 933, 141
N. Y. S. 961.
734-13 Joinder of lieir^ — ^An execu-
tor or administrator may sue to protect
the interests of the estate and need not
join the heirs or next of kin as parties
plaintiff. Ryan v. Hutchinson, 161 la.
575, 143 N. W. 433; Rhodes v. Stout, 26
la. 313. The same rule applies where
executor or administrator is made de-
fendant. Ryan v, Hutchinson, 161 la.
575, 143 N. W. 433; Powell V, Spauld-
ing, 3 G. Gr. (la.) 443.
737-23 Itfisjoinder.— Where a right
of action accrues to one as an individ-
ual, as an executor, or as a trustee he
has three causes of action and he can-
not join them in one action. Taggart t?.
Francis Draz & Co.,166 App. Div. 381,
150 N. Y. S. 41.
737-25 Taggart v, Francis Draz &
Co., 166 App. Div. 381, 150 N. Y. S. 41.
738-28 Perry t?. New River & P.
Consol. Coal Co., 74 W. Va. 122, 81 S.
E. 844.
Insufficient allegations^ — ^Where plain-
tiff sued in his individual capacity, an
amendment merely adding the words
''as administrator'' is not sufl&cient to
state a cause of action for recovery of
damages to property unless it is alleged
either in original or amended petition
that the title to the property was in
the decedent, that such person is in
fact dead, and that plaintiff has been
duly appointed and qualified as admin-
istrator of his estate. Leathers v. Ra-
burn, 13 Ga. App. 744, 79 S. E. 946.
738-31 Trask i?. Karrick, 87 Vt. 451,
89 A. 472.
Solely In representatlTe capacity.
Whore plaintiff recites in the bill she
is administratrix of her father's es-
tate, but does not indicate that the bill
is filed solely as administratrix it will
be held that it is brought by her in-
540
EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS
Vol. 8
dividually and also as administratrix.
Lake v. Weaver, 80 N. J. Eq. 395, 86 A.
817, aff. 80 N. J. Eq. 554, 86 A. 821.
741-40 Perry v. New River & P.
Consol. Coal Co., 74 W. Va. 122, 81 S.
E. 844; Austin V. Calloway, 73 W. Va.
231, 80 S. E. 361.
741-43 Peavy v. Sangster, 13 Ga.
App. 418, 79 S. E. 215.
742-44 Amendment not allowed on
appeal. — ^Where an action was improp-
erly brought in a representative capa-
city, the appellate court ought not to
allow an amendment striking out the
designation of the plaintiff ''as execu-
trix" and permit the recovery to stand
as though the action had been brought
in an individual capacity, especially
where the defendant had challenged the
right to bring the action in representa-
tive capacity. Ehrman v, Bassett, 159
App. Div. 752, 144 N. Y. S. 976.
742-45 See Fentzka 's Admr. v. War-
wick Const. €o., 162 Ky. 580, 172 S.
W. 1060.
744-62 Craig v. Norwood (Ind.
App.), 108 N. E. 395.
Plea In abatement. — An executor's
right to sue and recover property can
only be questioned under a plea in
abatement. Purington r. Broughton
(Tex. -Civ.), 158 S. W. 227; Fisher V.
Giddings, 43 Tex. Civ. 393, 95 S. W.
33.
Objection as to want of capacity, not
appearing on face of petition is con-
trolled by §118 Civ. Code, and may be
raised by answer or other proper plead-
ing. Fentzka 's Admr. v. Warwick
Const. Co., 162 Ky. 580, 172 S. W. 1060.
The plea of ne unques administrator
asserts defendant's right to be held an-
swerable only to that plaintiff who had
lawful authority to sue. Milbra t?.
Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co., 182 Ala.
622, 62 S. 176.
746-68 Milbra v, Sloss-Sheffield Sted
& Iron Co., 182 Ala. 622, 62 S. 176.
746-69 See Purington v. BrOQghton
(Tex. Civ.), 158 S. W. 227.
747-72 IiOgal conclusions^ — ^A denial
of capacity to sue, and a verification
of the answer that "the facts therein
stated are true" is a mere conclusion,
and does not put in issue the appoint-
ment as administrator. Smithy i^. Bow-
ersock, 95 Kan. 98, 147 P. 1115.
747-74 El Paso & Southwestern Co.
17. La Londe (Tex. Civ.), 173 S. W. 890.
747-7S That the temporary admlnl*
tration liad lapsed should be faised b^
a sworn plea in abatement. El Paso &
Southwestern Co. v. La Londe (Tex
Civ.), 173 S. W. 890.
747-76 Where the administrator wai
an heir and the action had been re-
vived by him in his official capacity,
the judgment for money should run in
favor of administrator in his representa-
tive capacity for the purpose of admin-
istration. Bogers r. Schlotterback, 167
Cal. 35, 138 P. 728.
Against administrator as such.— Where
judgment was against the administra-
tor suing it should be entered against
him as such administrator and not in-
dividually. Christensen v. Christopher,
157 Wis. 525, 147 N. W. 830.
747-79 Pope v. Osborne, 182 111. App.
659.
Party procnrlng suit. — ^But where a suit
was brought by an administrator for
sole benefit of another, who is made a
party defendant, and not for the bene-
fit of the estate, the costs should be
taxed against him who procured the
suit to be brought. Scott r. Pittman,
37 Okla. 470, 132 P. 491.
748-81 Leavitt v, Jas. F. Scholes
Co., 210 N. Y. 107, 103 N. B. 065, rev.
148 App. Div. 78, 132 N. Y. S. 1033.
748-84 St. Bernard v, Shane, 201
Fed. 453.
748-85 Mattison v. Boston & M. B.
B., 205 Fed. 821; St. Bernard v. Shane,
201 Fed. 453; Knight v. Moline, E. M.
& W. By. Co., 160 la. 160, 140 N. W.
839; Agee v. Brent, 132 La. 821, 61 S.
837; Nathan Miller's Sons v. Blinn, 219
Mass. 266, 106 N. E. 985; Mallory v.
Virginia Hot Springs Co., 157 App. Div.
253, 933, 141 N. Y. S. 961; Conley v.
Huntoon (B. L), 92 A. 865; In re Goss'
Est., 73 Wash. 330, 132 P. 409. See
First National Bank v. Dowdy, 175 Mo.
Aipp, i78, 161 S. W. 859.
74d-86 That foreign letters of ad-
ministration were not properly authen-
ticated in accordance with 845 of the
Decedent's Estate Law (Consol. Laws,
N. Y., 1909, ch. 13), so as to qualify
complainant to sue under f 1836a, Code
Civ. Proe., is ground for staying the
suit but not for dismissing the bill.
Lecouturieir v. Ickelheimer, 205 Fed.
682.
Action involving title. — A foreign ad-
ministrator cannot maintain an action
541
Tol. 8
EXECUTOBS AND ADMINISTRATORS
involving title to real estate tinder §675
Code of Civ. Proc. Colburn r. Latham,
32 S. D. 310, 143 N. W. 278.
In New York, § 1836a of Code Civ.
Proc, added by laws of 1911, ch. 631,
provides that a foreign administrator
may sue in the courts of New York if
within twenty days after suit is brought
he shall file in office of the clerk of the
court a copy of the letters issued to
him properly authenticated, in default
whereof all proceedings may be stayed
until he does so. This is a condition
subsequent and not a condition pre-
cedent and the court has discretion in
the matter of staying the suit. Le-
couturier V, Ickelheimer, 205 Fed. 683.
750-87 See Mallory t?. Virginia Hot
Bprings Co., 157 App. Div. 253, 933, 141
N. y. S. 961.
760-88 Biddle v. Wilkins, 1 Pet. (U.
S.) 686, 7 L. ed. 315; Newberry v. Bob-
inson, 36 Fed. 841; Arizona Cattle Co.
V, Huber, 4 Ariz. 69, 33 P. 555; Way-
land V. Porterfleld, 1 Met. (Ky.) 638;
Barton v, Higgins, 41 Md. .539; Nichols
V. Smith, 7 Hun (N. Y.) 580; Moore tJ.
Fields, 42 Pa. 467; Hunt V. Lyle, 6 Yerg.
(Tenn.) 412; Page V, Cravens, 3 Head
(Tenn.) 383.
752-S Garver v. Thoman, 15 Ariz. 38,
135 P. 724.
A special administrator, although not
liable to an action by a creditor of the
deceased may be proceeded against in
equity to establish a trust in funds held
in trust by the testator. Meagher t\
Kimball (Mass.), 107 N. E. 431.
7S2-4 Northwestern Inv. Co. v. Pal-
mer, 113 Me. 395, 94 A. 481.
752-6 PartieB plaintiff.— Where hus-
band and wife rendered services to lat-
ter's parent under an implied promise
to pay therefor they may join as plain-
tiffs in an action to enforce the con-
tract against parent's estate. Burt V.
Gabbert, 174 Mo. App. 521, 160 S. W.
838.
763-7 See Grimes v. BarndoUar, 58
Colo. 421, 148 P. 256,
763-8 Beplevin. — ^An owner may sue
administrator in his official capacity for
the recovery of property if it has been
taken and is held in good faith. And
a court of equity may grant relief by
decreeing payment to be made for such
property out of the funds of the estate.
Silsby V. WicTNorsham, 171 Mo. App. 128,
155 S. W. 1094.
753-9 Trustee.— Where funds have
been lost, wasted, or misapplied by exe-
cutors a court of equity may on proper
application appoint a trustee to main-
tain an action for the recovery of the
funds. Lawson r. Burgee, 121 Md. 203,
88 A. 121.
764-10 Garver v. Thoman, 15 Ariz.
38, 135 P. 724; Jahp V. Bradley, 185 lU.
App. 215.
A debt for funeral expenses may be
sued against administrator or executor
in his representative capacity, the gen-
eral rule being that he may be sued
as such when the recovery would be a
direct charge upon the estate. Gold«n
Gate Undertaking Co. t?. Taylor, 168
Cal. 94, 141 P. 922, 62 L. R. A. (N. S.)
1152.
766-17 Co-executor is not an indis-.
pensable party where nothing Is asVed
against him. Praser t?. Cole, 214 Fed.
556, 131 C. C. A. 102.
766-19 Couch r. Crane, 142 Ga. 22,
82 8. E. 459.
766-20 Leggett v. Pelletreau (N.
Y.), 107 N. E. 509.
767-26 The character in which a
party is sued may be ascertained from
the substance of the allegations in the
petition considered in its entirety. Wal-
lace V. Wallace, 142 Ga. 408, 83 8. E.
113.
767-30 Stubbs v. Fourth National
Bank, 12 Ga. App. 539, 77 8. E. 893.
760-34 Tropico L. & I. Co. r. Lam-
bourn (Cal.), 148 P. 206; Morrison r.
Land (Cal.), 147 P. 259; Holbrook c.
Libby (Me.), 94 A. 482; Inhab. of
Boothbay Harbor r. Marson, 112 Me.
505, 92 A. 623.
Exception where claim arises in tort or
other wrongful act of the deceased.
American Trust Co. V. Chitty, 36 Okla.
479, 129 P. 51.
OlaUn and delivery. — One is not pre-
cluded from maintaining an action for
claim and delivery because he did not
file a claim therefor in the probate
court. Truman v, Dakota Trust Co., 29
N. D. 456, 151 N. W. 219.
An action for funeral expenses may be
maintained without previous presenta-
tion of claim. Golden Gate Undertak-
ing Co. tJ. Taylor, 168 Cal. 94, 141 P.
022, 52 T^ E. A. (N. S.) 1152.
Approved by orphan's court.*-The fact
that a claim was not passed by the or-
phans' court does not preclude the per-
048
EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS
Vol. 8
son from suing thereon. Schnepfe v,
Schnepfe, 124 Md. 330, 92 A. 891.
769-35 Tropico L. & Imp. Co. v.
Lambourn (Cal.), 148 P. 206. Comp.
Stewart v. Webb (Tex. Civ.), 156 S. W.
537, where it was held not necessary to
present a claim before bringing suit
in an action on notes to secure vendor 'a
lien and to foreclose the lien.
FaJlure to present daixii is not a mere
matter of abatement, but the presenta-
tion of claim is essential to the cause
of action. "Ward t\ Magaha, 71 "Wash.
679, 129 P. 395.
760-37 Morrison f?. Land (Cal.), 147
P. 259; Etchas v. Orena, 127 Cal. 588,
60 P. 45; Moore's Admr. v. Pierce, 160
Ky. 107, 169 S. W. 620; Holbrook v.
Libby (Me.), 94 A. 482; Dakota Nat.
Bank v, Kleinschmidt, 33 S. D. 132, 144
N. W. 934.
Variance^ — ^The claim sued upon must
be the identical claim presented. One
cannot present a claim founded on an
open account and maintain an action
on a promissory note, or vice versa.
Vanderpool r. Vanderpool, 48 Mont.
448, 138 P. 772; Brown r. Daly, 33 Mont.
523, 84 P. 883.
760-30 Morrison <?. Land (Cal.), 147
P. 259; Vanderpool v, Vanderpool, 48
Mont. 448, 138 P. 772.
Ckneral teae^ — ^Want of filing or pre-
sentment of a claim may be taken ad-
vantage of under the general issue.
Holbrook r. Libby (Me.), 94 A. 482;
Eaton V, Buswell, 69 Me. 552.
761-46 See Morrison v. Land (Cal.),
147 P. 259,
762-47 Bee Selkregg v. Thomas
(Colo. App.), 149 P. 273.
An execntor cannot waiyo the necessity
of the presentation of the claim. Ward
f?. Magaha, 71 Wash. 679, 129 P. 395.
In South Dakota inasmuch as the fail-
nre to make the allegation is a jurisdic-
tional matter the objection may bo
made at any stage of the proceeding
or on appeal. Dakota Nat. Bank v,
Kleinschmidt, 33 S. D. 132, 144 N. W.
934.
The better practice, when defendant ad-
ministrator wishes to raise question of
want of affidavit and demand, is for the
administrator by motion based upon his
own affidavit to obtain a rule against
the plaintiff to show cause why the ac-
tion should not be dismissed for want
ot affidavit and demand. Moore 's Admr.
V. Pierce, 160 Ky. 107^ 169 S. W. 620;
Thomas v, Thomas, 15 B.' Mon. (Ky.)
178, 181.
762-49 Miller's Admr. f?.Ewing, 163
Ky. 401, 174 S. W. 22.
Nature of plea. — The plea of plene ad-
ministravit is not a dilatory plea but
a plea in bar. Wheatman fj. Andrews,
85 N. J. L. 107, 89 A. 285.
764-54 Miller's Admr. t?. Ewing, 163
Ky. 401, 174 S. W. 22. See Ky. St.,
83866; Miller's Admr. v. Ewing, 163
Ky. 401, 174 S. W. 22.
765-56 Pryor t?. Krause (Tex. Civ.),
168 S. W. 498.
Judgment in different capacities.
Where an action is brought against an
executor or administrator personally
and also in his representative capacity
the judgment, under §1815, Code Civ.
Proc, is de bonis propriis and de bonis
testatoris respectively. It must, how-
ever, distinctly show whom of the in-
dividual and the representative it ob-
ligates. Legget V. Pelletreau, 213 K. Y.
237, 107 N. E. 509.
766-61 See 6 Stakdabd Prog. 806.
767-66 Personal Judgment. — Where
statute sets apart certain property for
the widow exempt from distribution and
sale, the executor's liability for dispos-
ing thereof is a personal one and a
judgment against him is enforceable
by rule. Pranzell's Exr. <?. Franzell,
153 Ky. 171, 154 S. W. 912.
767-67 Bust v. Carpenter, 159 Ky.
623, 167 S. W. 873, mod. 166 S. W. 180.
Judgment on decedent's debt. — A judg-
ment against an administrator for a
debt of his decedent should run de
bonis testatoris, not de bonis propriis.
Davidson v, Kunst, 72 W. Va. 116, 77
S. E. 548.
768-69 Miller's Admr. v. Ewing, 163
Ky. 401, 174 S. W. 22.
769-70 Cowip. Wheatman t?. Andrews,
85 N. J. L. 107, 89 A. 285.
769-71 Nathan u. Dierssen* 164 Cal.
607, 130 P. 12; Rodish r. Moore, 266
HI. 106, 107 N. E. 108: Joy v. Chicago,
B. & Q. B. Co., 183 111. App. 9^ aff.
263 111. 465, 105 N. E. 330; Ingham v.
Mitchell, 176 111. App. 469.
770-75 Amendment of irregular
Judgments — Where a judgment was
rendered against administratrix as such
without providing for collection out of
the property of the intestate, it is ir-
regular but not void and is amendable.
(43
Tol. 8
EXHIBITS
Humphrey v. Johnson, 143 Oa. 703, 85
S. E. 830.
770-79 Effect of return of execution
unsatiBfied. See In re Fritz's Est., 83
N. J. Eq. 610, 91 A. 1017.
In Kew York an execution can issue
only in the discretion of the surrogate,
under S! 1825, 1826 Code Civ. Proc. In
re Watson, 163 App. Div. 41, 148 N. Y.
S. 525.
771-80 Stewart v. Webb (Tex. Civ.),
156 S. W. 537.
771-81 Lane r. Cohen, 141 Ga. 501,
81 S. E. 128.
771-82 See §30, ch. 87, W. Va. Code,
S4056; American Bank, etc. Co. v. Doug-
lass (W. Va.), 83 S. E. 920.
774-97 Ezecatloii cthould not Issne
therefor as such costs SL^e payable in
due course of administration. Bodisch
V. Moore, 266 111. 106, 107 N. E. 108.
774-1 Where defendant dies during
the suit and his administrator appears
and defends, the decree should provide
for execution against the administrator
personally. Hanscom r. Maiden &. Mel-
rose Gaslight Co. (Mass.), 107 J>(. E.
426.
775-3 4 $1835, 1836, N, Y. Code Civ.
Proc; Sabsevitz v, Gabrilowitz, 148 N.
Y. S. 615.
775-4 Burie v, Blauvelt, 49 N. J. L.
114, 6 A. 312; Callanan v. Keenan, 158
App. Div. 84. 142 N. Y. S. 561; Conley
V. Huntoon (B. I.), 92 A. 865,
Action npon foreign Judgment. — A
creditor who obtained a judgment
against a special administrator ap-
pointed in Arkansas of a resident of
Missouri could not proceed on such
judgment against the local administra-
tor in the Missouri courts. First Na-
tional Bank t?. Dowdy, 175 Mo, App,
478, 161 S. W. 859.
776-5 In re Goss' Estate, 73 Wash.
330, 132 P. 409.
Extent of rule, — ^The reason of the rule
has no application to an equitable ac-
tion where the representative is brought
in for the protection of the equities of
the estate. Callanan v, Keenan, 158
App. Div. 84, 142 N. Y. S. 561.
778-18 Merrill v. Comstock, 154 Wis.
434, 143 N. W. 313.
780-88 Merrill v. Comstock, 154 Wis.
434, 143 N. W. 313.
781-39 Comp, Merrill r. Comstock,
154 Wis. 434, 143 N. W. 313.
786-70 The ordinary may sue for
the use of a distributee. Flanders r.
Sutton, 143 Ga. 764, 85 S. E. 914;
Mathis 17. Pordham, 114 Ga. 364, 40
S. E. 324.
786-71 A distributee of the estate
may sue. Flanders v. Sutton, 143 Ga.
764, 85 S. E. 914.
787-73 Vukmirovich r. Nickolich,
123 Minn. 165, 143 N. W. 255; Shipman
V. Brown, 36 Okla. 623, 130 P. 603.
790-81 Declaration held sufficient.
P. f?. Eardin, 171 111. App. 226.
791-98 Conclnsiveneaa of judgment*
The sureties are bound by any lawful
order or decree. Steinert t?. Van Aken,
150 N. Y. S. 525. Defense of fraud in
inducement to become surety is not ob-
jectionable as constituting a collateral
attack upon surrogate's decree on rep-
resentative bond. Steinert V. Tan
Aken, 150 N. Y. S. 525.
EXHIBITS
796-10 Jones v. Chicago, 167 HL
App. 175.
796-14 Contract partly in paroL
Where the contract relied upon rests
partly in parol and partly in writing
the part in writing need not be made
an exhibit in an action thereon. Tish-
bein v. Paine, 52 Ind. App. 441, 100
N. E. 766.
799-19 Harmless error. — ^In an ac-
tion against a railroad for damages
caused by elimination of a grade cross-
ing it was discretionary with the court
to order plaintiff to annex a copy of
order of the railroad commission to
the complaint and could have worked
no harm. Warner r. New York, N. H.
& H. B. Co., 86 Conn. 561, 86 A. 23.
806-63 Waiver. — ^In a mortgage fore-
closure suit the failure to make the
note an exhibit to the complaint, when
the mortgage itself was made an ex-
hibit, is waived when no objection was
made thereto. Felker v. Bice, 110 Ark.
70, 161 S. W. 162.
806-66 S. 17. McQuUlin, 256 Mo. 693,
165 S. W. 713; American Clay Machin-
ery Co. t\ Sedalia Brick & Tile Co., 174
Mo. App. 485, 160 S. W. 902.
811-72 Books of original entry.
Where the statement of claim suffi-
ciently described the goods and averred
their delivery, it is immaterial whether
the copy attached was a copy of the
644
EXTRADITION
,Tol. 8
book of original entries or of some
other book containing the necessary in*
formation. Bethlehem 8teel Co. v. Top-
liss (Pa.), 94 A. 1099.
816-96 Comp. Hellen r. Hellen, 170
111. App. 464.
817-1 Hogan t?. Scott, 186 Ala. 310,
65 S. 209; Conoly t?. Harrell, 182 Ala.
243, 62 S. 511; Jones v. Chicago, 167
m. App. 175.
818-2 Peabody <?. George's Creek
Coal & Iron Co., 120 Md. 659, 87 A.
1097; Freeman v. Carnegie Natural Gas
Co. (W. Va.), 81 S. E. 572.
818-3 S. f?. McQuiUan, 256 Mo. 693,
165 8. W. 713.
822-30 Freeman v, Carnegie Natural
Gas Co. (W. Va.), 81 S. E. 572; Atlan-
tic Terra Cotta Co. v. Moore Const.
Co., 73 W. Va. 449, 80 S. E. 924.
EXTOBHON
824-2 Arizona Pen. Code, 1913, §512.
828-29 See P. v. Fowler, 152 N. Y. S.
672, where it was held that New York
county did not have jurisdiction of case
where money was extorted in another
county, and the check was carried to
New York county where it was in-
dorsed and deposited in a bank.
EZT&ADinON
836-1 "The executive department
having thus elected to waive any right
to free itself from the obligation to
deliver up its own citizens, it is the
plain duty of this court to recognize
the obligation to surrender the appel-
lant as one imposed by the treaty as
the supreme law of the land, and as
affording authority for the warrant of
extradition.'' Charlton v. Kelly, 229
U. S. 447, 33 Sup. Ct. 945, 57 L. ed.
1274, 46 L. E. A. (N. S.) 397, aff. 185
Fed. 880.
837-4 It iB not necessary to produce
any varrant or equivalent of a war-
rant of any tribunal of the demand-
ing country, but an authenticated copy
of a document signed by *'The Examin-
ing Magistrate of Royal Superior Court
of Munich, Meidinger, Eoyal Council-
lor,'' to which royal seal is attached,
describing the accused, reciting the
charge, his flight, and probable guilt
is Bufficienti, Ex parte Schorer, 197 Fed.
67.
Ex parte Schorer, 197 Fed. 67.
839-^ See Ex parte Alvarez, 14 P.
R. 628,
639-11 Ooples of foreign complaint.
^''It is advisable that certified copies of
the foreign complaint and warrant be
attached to and made a permanent part
of the complaint; but it is sufficient
if, as was done in this case, those
documents alleging positively the re-
spondent's guilt, are presented to the
commissioner with the complaint, and
if depositions showing probable cause
are produced at the hearing." Pow-
ell 17. U. S., 206 Fed. 400, 124 0. C. A.
282.
840-13 Ex parte Alvarez, 14 P. E.
628.
840-14 Sufficiency of complaint. — If
the complaint intelligibly describes the
offense, and if the offense is punishable
by laws of both countries, and if by
any name it is included In the treaty
that is enough. Powell v. U. S., 206
Fed. 400, 124 C. C. A. 282.
840-16 See Ex parte Alvarez, 14 P.
B. 628.
842-25 Chariton v. Kelly, 229 U. S.
447, 33 Sup. Ct. 945, 57 L. ed. 1274,
46 L. E. A. (N. S.) 397, aff. 185 Fed.
880; Ex parte La Page, 216 Fed. 256;
Ex parte Schorer, 197 Fed. 67.
844-37 Collins r. Johnston, 237 U. S.
502, 35 Sup. Ct. 649; Chariton v. Kelly,
229 U. S. 447, 33 Sup. jCt. 945, 57 L. ed.
1274, 46 L. E. A. (N. S.) 897, aff. 185
Fed. 880.
845-38 Powell v. U. S., 206 Fed. 400,
124 C. C. A. 282.
846-45 Ex parte Flack, 88 Kan. 616,
129 P. 541, Ann. Cas. 1914B, 789, 47
L. B. A. (N. S.) 807 (imperative obli-
gation to comply); Eyan v. Eogers, 21
Wyo. 311, 132 P. 95.
Proceedings statutory. — "The proceed-
ing is purely constitutional and statu-
tory; the law prescribes certain condi-
tions; and, when these are fulfilled,
it becomes the duty of the executive
of the state, to which the person has
fled, to arrest the fugitive and to de-
liver him over to the agent of the de-
manding state." P. t?. Moore (App.
Biv.), 153 N. Y. S. 10.
847-46 The authority to hold a
fugitive from justice in extradition pro-
ceedings is quite distinct from the
authority to make a prelimnary arrest
until a proper complaint can be made
and a warrant obtained. Union Pa-
cific E. Co. V. Belek, 211 Fed. 699.
85
545
Vol. 8
EXTRADITION
848-49 Union Pacific B. Co. v. Belek,
211 Fed. 699.
849-52 Eyan v. Eogers, 21 Wyo. 311,
132 P. 95.
PresnxQptlons and burden of proof.
.When extradition papers are regular on
their face every intendment is to be
indulged in favor of their validity and
the burden is on the prisoner to show
that one of the conditions as prescribed
by the statutes has not been met. Ex
parte Massee, 95 S. C. 315, 79 S. E. 97,
46 L. R. A. (N. S.) 781.
The governor is not obliged to hear a
prisoner before ordering his removal.
Ex parte Chung Kin Tow, 218 Fed.
185.
Ko limitations on the right of the
executive to grant extradition save
such as are imposed by the constitution,
and the question of good faith of the
state is a political and not a judicial
question. In re Thaw (App. Div.), 152
N. Y. S. 771.
859-57 Oompton v. Alabama, 214 JJ.
S. 1, 29 Sup. Ct. 605, 53 L. ed. 885, 16
Ann. Cas. 1098; Ex parte Owen, 10
Okla. Cr. 284, 136 P. 197; C. v. Cooke,
55 Pa. Super. 435; Ex parte Lewis (Tex.
Cr.), 170 S. W. 1098; Thorp v. Metzger,
77 Wash. 62, 137 P. 330.
861-59 Chung Kin Tow v. Flynn (C.
C. A.), 218 Fed. 64; Thorp t?. Metzger,
77 Wash. 62, 137 P. 330.
852-68 Ex parte Graham, 216 Fed.
813; Ex parte Faihtinger (Tex. Cr.),
163 S. W. 441.
863-72 Ex parte Owen, 10 Okla. Cr.
284, 136 P. 197.
853-76 Under Rev. St., §§1040, 1041,
the governor may direct arrest of one
charged with a crime without any pro-
ceedings in court. S. V, Flournoy, 136
La. 852, 67 S. 929.
854-76 Scope of inquiry. — ^The gover-
nor ought not to attempt to pass upon
the question of guilt or innocence of
the accused, except so far as is neces-
sary to determine that an extraditable
offense has been charged and that ac-
cused was at such date within the
Jurisdiction of the demanding state.
Leonard v. Zweifel (la.), 151 N. W.
1054.
854-77 Ex parte Walters (Miss.), 64
S. 2; Ex parte Faihtinger (Tex. Cr.),
163 S. W. 441; Byan v, Rogers, 21
Wyo. 311, 132 P. 95.
866-79 Thorp r. Metzger, 77 Wash.
62, 137 P. 330.
856-84 S. V, Flournoy, 136 La. 852,
67 S. 929.
856-88 Chung Kin Tow v. Flynn (C.
C. A.), 218 Fed. 64; 8. V. Langum, 126
Minn. 38, 147 N. W. 708; Ex parte Wal-
ters (Miss.), 64 S. 2; P. 17. Moore (App.
Div.), 153 N. Y. S. 10; Ex parte Faih-
tinger (Tex. Cr.), 163 S. W. 441; Byan
t\ Rogers, 21 Wyo. 311, 132 P. 95.
Burden of pxoof. — ^While courts may
go behind the governor's warrant, yet
such warrant makes a prima facie case
on habeas corpus and the burden is
on accused to show the warrant was
not legally issued. Ex parte McDaniel
(Tex. Cr.), 173 S. W. 1018.
857-90 S. V. Ploumoy, 136 La. 852,
67 S. 929.
Scope of InQnlry^ — Under habeas cor-
pus the courts may inquire whether
prisoner is subject to extradition,
whether he is the person charged,
whether he is a fugitive from justice,
whether papers show he was in de-
manding state at time offense was com-
mitted, and whether the act charged
was a crime against laws of demand-
ing state; but judicial inquiry cannot
extend to the motive of the proceed-
ings. Ex parte Massee, 95 S. C. 315,
79 8. E. 97, 46 L. R. A. (N. S.) 781;
Ryan v. Rogers, 21 Wyo. 311, 132 P. 95.
Where a governor certifies the xeqniai-
tion papers as sufficient and the gover-
nor of the asylum state accepts that
view and issues the warrant a federal
court will not interfere unless it is
clear that the papers do not comply
with the statutory requirements. £x
parte Chung Kin Tow, 218 Fed. 185.
858-94 P. f?. Moore (App. Div.), 153
N. Y. S. 10; Ex parte Bruchman, 28
N. Tl, 358, 148 N. W. 1052.
Questions of fact. — Court will not re-
view the decision of the governor upon
a question of fact which the law makes
it his duty to decide and upon which
there was conflicting evidence. Ex
parte Willard, 93 Neb. 298, 140 N. W.
170.
859-95 P. V. Moore (App. Div.), 153
N. Y. S. 10.
Clerical errors in the copy of the in-
dictment are not available to the ac-
cused. Ex parte Kuhns, 36 Nev. 487,
137 P. 83.
Motion to quash. — ^The court cannot
consider the indictment from the stand-
546
FACTORS AND BB0KEB3
Vol 8
point of testing its sufficiency on a mo-
tion to quash. Such determination is
for the courts of the demanding state.
Pierce v, Creecy, 210 U. S. 387, 28 Sup.
Ct. 714, 52 L. ed. 1113; Worth V. Wheat-
ley (Ind.), 108 N. E. 958.
859-96 When petitioner is a fugitive
from justice. See Ex parte Graham,
216 Fed. 813.
859-97 Ex parte Duddy, 219 Mass.
548, 107 N. E. 364; S. v. Langum, 126
Minn. 38, 147 N. W. 708; Ex parte
Walters (Miss.)> 64 S. 2; Ex parte
Owen, 10 Okla. Cr. 284, 136 P. 197.
Identity of the prisoner is open to re-
view on habeas corpus. Ex parte Chung
Kin Tow, 218 Fed. 185.
Oovemor'a decision is reviewable when
it is made to appear that accused was
not within borders of demanding state
at the time when alleged crime was
committed. Ex parte Shoemaker, 25
Cal. App. 551, 144 P. 985; Ex parte
Bruchman, 28 N. D. 358, 148 N. W.
1052.
860-98 Drew v. Thaw, 235 U. S. 432,
35 Sup. Ct. 137, 59 L. ed. — ; Ex parte
Bruchman, 28 N. D. 358, 148 N. W.
1052; Ex parte McDaniel (Tex. Cr.),
173 S. W. 1018; Ex parte Hancock (Tex.
Cr.), 170 S. W. 145; Eyan v. Eogers, 21
Wyo. 311, 132 P. 95.
Inqnlry Into motive. — ^Where requisition
was made in due form it is not within
province of court upon habeas corpus
to inquire into the motives which
actuates the prosecution. Leonard v,
Zweifel (la.), 151 N. W. 1054; S. t?.
Langum, 126 Minn. 38, 147 N. W. 708.
Defenses. — One arrested on governor's
warrant in response to requisition pro-
ceedings cannot question the proceed-
ings on the ground that he is an in-
fant, and that the sister state, unlike
the state of the forum, does not pro-
vide for special method of punishing
infant criminals. S. v. Flournoy, 136
La. 852, 67 S. 929.
Presence of accused in detnanding
state. — The question as to whether or
not accused was within demanding
state at time of commission of alleged
offense is not one involving the guilt
or innocence of accused. Ex parte
Shoemaker, 25 Cal. App. 551, 144 P.
985.
861-1 Bail should not be allowed
pending hearing in habeas corpus un-
less some departure from the federal
law has been made to appear. Ex
parte Massee, 95 S. C. 315, 79 S. E. 97,
46 L. R. A. (N. S.) 781.
Bight to baU is absolute where person
is charged only with a misdemeanor
both under state and federal law, sub-
ject only to influence of public policy
and safety. Ex parte Thaw, 209 Fed.
954. And the court has the right to
appoint a commission to inquire into
the sanity of accused and to determine
whether his mental capacity if ad-
mitted to bail would probably be a
menace to the public peace. Ex parte
Thaw, 209 Fed. 954.
862-7 See Yollmer v. Board of
Comrs., 63 Ind. App. 149, 101 N. E.
321.
''In the absence of statutory provision
by the demanding state for the pay-
ment of the agent's expenses and coun-
sel fees, they must usually be paid by
the injured party, or the attempted re-
turn of the fugitive may fail." Worth
V. Wheatley (Ind.), 108 N. E. 958.
FACTORS AND BBOKEBS
864-1 See Hamilton M. T. Co. v. Me-
chanics' M. Co., 179 111. App. 145.
86e-6 Peter Cooper's Glass Factory
17. Devoe & Raynolds Co., 178 111. App.
298; Sutton & Cummins v, Kiel Cheese
& B. Co., 155 Ky. 465, 159 S. W. 950.
"The difference between a broker and
a factor is that a broker is a mere
negotiator between other parties, and
does not ordinarily act in his own
name, but in that of his employer. He
is not entrusted with the custody of
goods which he may be employed to
buy or sell*, and is not authorized to
buy or sell them in his own name. On
the other hand, the factor may buy or
sell in his own name, as well as in the
name of his principal, and he is en-
trusted with the possession, manage-
ment, control or disposal of the goods
to be bought or sold, and has a special
property in them.'' Sutton & Cummins
r. Kiel Cheese & Butter Co., 155 Ky.
465, 159 S. W. 950.
882-18 Action is transitory and in
personam. Brown & Brammer v. Wm«
Pearson Co. (la.), 150 X. W. 1057.
887-43 A modification of the original
agreement extending the time of
agency, must be pleaded to be avail-
able. Whitelock v. Beach, 174 Mo.
App. 428, IGO S. W. 815.
547
Voh8
FACTORS AND BROKERS
888-52 OsSome v. Dannatt (la.)*
, 149 N. W. 913.
That property is itee from Incum-
brances must be alleged when contem-
plated hj the contract. Fogg v. Mc-
Adam, 25 Gal. App. 522, 144 P. 296.
Alternative averments — ^An averment
that defendants "have acquired and
deceived, or become legally and duly
entitled to acquire and receive," stock
is insufficient to permit of recovery by
plaintiff, his right to recover on the
contract depending on the defendants'
having acquired the stock. To succeed
in the action he must be entitled to
recover under either alternative.
Bodgers r. McLoughlin (App. Biv.), 151
N. Y. a 999.
888-63 Osborne r. Dannatt (la.))
149 N. W. 913.
889-64 The principal's breach of his
contract not to sell below a certain
figure, if relied on by the broker, must
be set forth in the complaint. Briggs
V. HaU, 24 Cal. App. 686, 141 P. 1067.
889-66 Defects In abstract.— If the
^e of the property failed because of
a defective abstract furnished by the
defendant, the plaintiff must allege in
what respects the abstract was de-
fective. Cunningham v. Friendly, 70
Or. 222, 139 P. 928, 140 P. 989.
1899-60 Hevia v, Wheelock, 162 App.
Div. 759, 148 N. Y. S. 165.
892-69 Evidential matters iji sale
need not be pleaded. American Trust
Co. V. Good& 167 N. 0. 338, 83 S. E.
650.
893*79 Spernr Eealty Co. <?. Merriam
Bealty Co. (Miflti.), 150 N. W. 785.
Amendment of complaint before trial
by inserting clause to the effect that
defendant promised to pay a specified
sum in any event is not error. Kerr
Co. V. Corry, 211 Fed. 647, 128 C. C.
A. 151.
894-82 Rejection of claim by exacn-
trlx. — ^An allegation that the executrix
of the vendor had rejected the broker's
claim for commission does not amount
to an averment of non-payment of the
commission. John Reis Co. t?. Post, 163
App. Div. 962, 147 N. Y. S. 845.
Kon-pajment«— Where a memorandum
for the exchange of property stated
what the broker's commission was to
be, but did not contain an agreement
to pay the commission, a complaint
which merely sets out the memorandum
and alleges non-compliance therewith
on the part of defendant, does not al-
lege non-payment of the commission.
John Reis Co. v. Post, 163 App. Div.
962, 147 N. Y. S. 845.
896-87 See Farrington v, McClellan,
26 Cal. App. 375, 146 P. 1051.
.Amendment of broker's pleading to
conform to proof may be ordered in
case of variance. Clopton r. Meeves.
24 Ida. 293, 133 P. 907.
A declaration npon an express con-
tract will not permit of recovery upon
a quantum meruit. Stanley v. Whitlow,
181 Mo. App. 461, 168 S. W. 840.
896-88 If a contract for a limited
period is set out in the complaint, no
recovery can be had for a sale subse-
quent to that period, in the absence of
allegations that the time specified in
the original agreement was extended.
Whitelock v. Beach, 174 Mo. App. 428,
160 S. W. 815.
895-89 See Lowenstein v. Holmes, 40
Okla. 33, 135 P. 727.
Where the contract alleged provided
for a compensation of twenty-five cents
an acre and the contract proved pro-
vided that the broker was to receive
for his compensation all over an agreed
sum, there is a fatal variance. Haile v.
Keller (Tex. Civ.), 163 S. W. 393.
896-3 Baising issue of contract's
entirety. — ^Whether contract to find pur-
chaser for a piece of land was entire
or severable is properly raised by an
answer setting out in full the writings
constituting the contract. Bentley 9.
Edwards, 125 Minn. 179, 146 N. W.
347.
897-4 Bird r. Rowell, 180 Mo. App.
421, 167 S. W.^ 1172.
897-5 Ratification sufficiently pleaded.
Wilson V. Burch (Tex. Civ.), 162 S. W.
1018.
897-6 Mauser r. Hurdle (Colo. App.),
140 P. 479.
XTnder general issue, revocation cannot
be proved. Mauser v. Hurdle (Colo.
App.), 140 P. 479.
897-11 Replication. — ^Where the an-
swer sets up a written contract in
defense of the broker's action for com-
missions, a reply denying the validity
of such contract must do so by setting
up facts showing the invalidity. An
admission of the contract followed by
a general denial is not sufficient. Bird
648
FALSE IMPRISONMENT
Vol 8
r. Bowell, 180 Mo. App. 421, 167 S. W.
1172.
897-12 Mauser v. Hurdle (Colo.
App.), 140 P. 479.
808-14 Facts constltating Illegality
in broker's contract must be pleaded.
Moore v, Damron, 157 Ky. 799, 164
S. W. 103; Franck v. Blazier, 66 Or.
377, 133 P. 800. See 11 Standard Prog.
894.
809-20 Bu Perow v, Groomes, 42 App.
Cas. (D. C.) 287; Hoffhines v. Thorson,
92 Kan. 605, 141 P. 253. See Konda v.
Pay, 22 Cal. App. 722, 136 P. 514.
In snit against a corporation, lack of
authority of president to hire a broker
is a matter of affirmative defense to be
proved by the corporation. McGehee
Lumb. Co. 1?. Tomlinson, 66 Fla. 536,
63 S. 919.
000-28 Dyar t?. Stone, 23 Cal. App.
143, 137 P. 269; Low Moor Iron Co. v.
Jackson (Va.), 84 S. E. 100.
Good title. — ^The burden is upon the
broker to show that defendant failed
in his obligation to furnish a good
title. Keeder v. Epps, 112 Ark. 566, 166
S. W. 747.
000-20 Wheelan V. Hunt, 37 Okla.
623, 133 P. 52.
001-31 Maddux t?. St. Louis U. T.
Co., 186 Mo. App. 138, 171 S. W. 669.
001-30 Meyers v. Kilgen, 177 Mo.
App. 724, 160 S. W. 669.
002-42 Hanan v. McLeod, 93 Neb.
783, 141 N. W. 1130.
002-44 Weaver v. Gaskins, 180 HI.
App. 28; Duke V. Graham, 163 la. 272,
143 N. W. 817.
003-60 Blakeslee v. Peabody, 180
Mich. 408, 147 N. W. 570.
0O3-51 Shead v, Louisiana Lumb.
Co., 182 HI. App. 310.
003-53 Proper inference to be drawn
from conduct and language of broker
who spoke of relinquishing his claim
for commission is for the jury. Ingalls
V, Smith, 93 Kan. 814, 145 P. 846.
003-58 Kasar v, Spurling, 184 HI.
App. 357; Wolverine Farms Co. r. De
Young (Mich.), 148 N. W. 395; Stan-
ley V. Whitlow, 181 Mo. App. 461, 168
S. W. 840.
003-62 Shead v. Louisiana Lumb.
Co., 182 111. App. 312; Doggett V. Bup-
pert, 178 111. App. 230; Noonidg V. Mil-
ler, 178 Mo. App. 297, 165 S. W. 1119;
Perry v, Edelen, 181 Mo. App. 498, 164
S. W. 645; Wheelan v. Hunt, 37 Okla.
523, 133 P. 52.
004-75 Martin t?. Crumb, 158 App.
Div. 228, 939, 142 N. Y. S. 1096.
Where terms of a broker's contract are
ambiguous its meaning may be deter-
mined by the jury under proper in-
structions. Worthen v. Stewart (Ark.),
172 S. W. 855.
005-77 Whetlier defendant knew
broker was acting for both parties held
a question for the jury. Goldsberry r.
Thomas, 178 Mo. App. 334, 165 S. W.
1179.
005-80 XTpon motion for an Injunc-
tion restraining broker from selling
securities it need not be shown that the
broker is insolvent. Batterson v, Ray-
mond, 87 Misc. 229, 149 N. Y. S. 706.
FALSE IMPBI80NMBNT
013-1 Grorud v. Lossl, 48 Mont. 274,
136 P. 1069; Stephens r. Conley, 48
Mont. 352, 138 P. 189.
013-2 Waters v. National Woolen
Mills, 142 Ga. 133, 82 S. E. 535; Butler
V. Tattnall Bank, 140 Ga. 579, 79 S. E.
456. See Stevens v. Nater, 4 P. B. Fed.
158.
015-5 Gore v. Marshall Field ft Co.,
184 HI. App. 486; In re Smyser, 182 HI.
App. 208; Williamson V, Glen Alum
Coal Co., 72 W. Va. 288, 78 S. E. 94.
016-8 Tiede r. Fuhr (Mo.), 175 S.
W. 910.
016-11 Madden v. Meehan, 153 Ky.
648, 156 S. W. 116.
017-16 Polonsky v, Pennsylvania R.
Co., 184 Fed. 558; Rich €. Mclnery, 103
Ala. 346, 15 S. 663; Donati v. Righetti,
9 Cal. App. 45, 97 P. 1128; Seeger v.
Pfeifer, 35 Ind. 13; Grorud v, Lossl, 48
Mont. 274, 136 P. 1069; Brown V. Chad-
sey, 39 Barb. (N. Y.) 253; Dunlevy v.
Wolferman, 106 Mo. App. 46, 79 S. W.
1166; McConnell V. Kennedy, 29 S. C.
180, 7 S. E. 76; Williamson v. Glen
Alum Coal Co., 72 W. Va. 288, 78 S. E.
94; Johnstone v. Sutton, 1 T. B. (Eng.)
510.
010-21 Grorud r. Lossl, 48 Mont.
274, 136 P. 1069.
010-25 Grorud V. Lossl, 48 Mont.
274, 136 P. 1069.
020-26 Grorud v. Lossl, 48 Mont.
274, 136 P. 1069
549
Vol 8
FALSE IMPRISONMENT
921-83 False imprisonment Implies
a battery or unlawful force, although
the restraint may be no more than the
overcoming of the will. Weber v, Doust,
84 Wash. 330, 146 P. 623.
921-37 Tiede v. Fuhr (Mo.), 175 S.
W. 910.
.923-57 See Peterson v. Merritt, 25
Ida. 324, 137 P. 526.
Detention nnder Juvenile Delinquent
Act by an officer of the law without
warrant is not false imprisonment as a
matter of law. Weber v. Doust, 84
Wash. 330, 146 P. 623.
924-62 Boss v. Kohler, 163 Ky. 583,
174 S. W. 36.
925-72 Boss v. Kohler, 163 Ky. 583,
174 S. W. 36; Faloon t?. O'Connell
(Me.), 92 A. 932.
92e-73 Faloon v. O^Connell (Me.),
92 A. 932; Williamson v. Glen Alum
Coal Co., 72 W. Va. 288, 78 S. E. 94.
927-74 Tennessee Coal, Iron & K.
€o. V, Butler (Ala.), 65 S. 804; Butler
V, Tattnall Bank, 140 Ga. 579, 79 S. E.
456. «
To protect the officer, it must appear
that the process proceeds from a court
having authority of law to issue pro-
cess of that nature, that it is legal in
form, and on its face contains nothing
to notify or fairly apprise the officer
that it is issued without authority.
Brown v, Hadwin (Mich.), 148 N. W.
693.
927-76 XTnder John Doe warrant.
Where arresting officer has probable
cause he is justified in making the
arrest, even of the wtong person.
White V. Jansen, 81 Wash. 435, ;142
P. 1140. ' r^ i
928-83 S. V. Krakus TDel.), 93 A.
554.
928-84 Delay In uaklng arrests— If
the officer neglects to make the arrest
at the time, and waits for several
days, until after he has had ample time
to have a warrant issued, an arrest
under such circumstances without a
warrant, for an offense previously com-
mitted in his presence would be il-
legal. Wiggins V, S., 14 Ga. App. 314,
80 S. E. 724.
928-85 Keefe v. Hart, 213 Mass. 476,
100 N. E. 558; Usher t?. Severance, 86
Vt. 523, 86 A. 741.
929-87 Meldrum v. S. (Wyo.), 146
P. 596.
930-90 Cal. Pen. Code, $836; Fer-
guson V, Superior Court (Cal. App.)>
147 P. 603; S. f?. Wyatt (Del.), 89
A. 217; Waters v. National Woolen
Mills, 142 Ga. 133, 82 S. E. 535; Her-
manson v, Shaffer, 184 111. App. 273;
Pearson v. Great Southern Lumb. Co.,
134 La. 117, 63 S. 759; Caffnni v. Her-
mann, 112 Me. 282, 91 A. 1009; S. v.
Rogers, 166 N. O. 388, 81 S. E. 999;
Holmes v. he Fors, 36 Okla. 729, 129 P.
718. ^-
930-91 Graham i>. S. (Ga.), 85 S. E.
328; Porter V. S., 124 Ga. 297, 52 S.
E. 283, 2 L. B. A. (N. S.) 730; Harrel
t\ S., 75 Ga. 842; Sigmon V. Shell, 1C5
N. O. 582, 81 S. E. 739.
932-1 Graham f7. S. (Ga.), 85 S. E.
328; Toft v, Hamilton (la.), 153 N. W.
146; Beisler v, Interborough Bapid
Transit Co., 79 Misc. 91, 139 N. Y. S.
335.
Violation of moziicipal ordinance^r— A
private person is not authorized to
make an arrest for the violation of
a municipal ordinance committed in
his plresence. Graham v, S. (Ga.), 85
S. E. 328.
932-3 S. H. Kress & Co. v» Lawrence
(Tex. Civ.), 162 S. W. 448.
933-4 See Sanders v. S., 181 Ala. 35,
61 S. 336.
933-5 See Condron v. Carr, 156 App.
Div. 658, 141 N. Y. S. 721.
934-10 Eldredge v. Mitchell, 214
Mass. 480, 102 N. E. 69.
934-11 Jackson 17. Miller, 84 N. J.
L. 189, 86 A. 50.
935-14 Meldrum v. S. (Wyo.), 146
P. 596.
937-26 Scibor v, Oregon-Washington
B. & Nav. Co., 70 Or. 116, 140 P. 629.
938-32 Meldrum v. S. (Wyo.), 146
P. 596.
The officer most not Intentionally cthoot
a fugitive disdemeanant, nor must he
discharge a firearm while in pursuit in
such a manner as to cause such fugitive
injury. S. v. Cunningham (Miss.), 65
S. 115, 51 L. B. A. (N. S.) 1179.
941-56 Manning 17. Mitchell, 73 Ga.
660; Burke v. Bell, 36 Me. 317; Brish
V. Carter, 98 Md. 445, 57 A. 210; Kirk
17. Garrett, 84 Md. 383, 35 A. 1089;
Twilley t?. Perkins, 77 Md. 252, 26 A.
286; Cochran t?. Toher, 14 Minn. 385;
Newhall v. Egan, 28 B. I. 584, 68 A.
471* Bergeron v. Peyton, 106 Wis. 377,
82 N. W. 291.
550
FALSE IMPBISONMENT
'Vol 8
942-57 Hermanson v. Shaffer, 184 III.
App. 273.
942-58 Hermanson v. Shaffer, 184 111.
App. 273; Grab V. Lucas, 156 Wis. 604,
146 N. W. 504.
945-82 For Illegal arrest at inetance
of private party such person is liable
in damages to party arrested, Porrett
V. Lauer's Est. (Mich.), 151 N. W.
619.
946-83 IndlTidnal liabiUty. — The
cases in which an officer may make an
arrest are specified by {36 of Crim.
Code Prac. If he makes an arrest In
any other way he is liable in his indi-
vidual capacity and it is not his offi-
cial act. Jones r. Van Bever, 164 Ky.
80, 174 S. W. 795.
946-84 Wife not liable for act of
husband. Prentiss v, Bogart (Wash.)y
147 P. 39.
946-85 Louisville & N. B. Co. v.
Owens, 164 Ky. 557, 175 S. W. 1039.
See Alabama, etc. Co. v. Bice (Ala.),
65 S. 402.
946-87 HoUiday v. Coleman, 12 Ga.
App. 779, 78 S. E. 482.
948-95 Boss v. Kohler, 163 Ky. 583,
174 S. W. 36.
949-97 Teal t?. Pissel, 28 Fed. 351;
Mcintosh V, BuUard, 95 Ark. 227, 129
S. W. 85; Bush V, Buckley, 100 Me.
322, 61 A. 774, 70 L. B. A. 464; Lang-
ford 17. Boston, etc. By. Co., 144 Mass.
431, 11 N. E. 697; Doty v. Hurd, 124
Mich. 671, 83 N. W. 632; Brueckner
V. Frederick, 109 Mo. App. 614, 83 S.
W. 775; Booth v, Kurrus, 55 N. J. L.
370, 26 A. 1013; Whitney <?. Hanse, 36
App. Div. 420, 55 N. Y. S. 375; Smith
r. Jones, 16 S. D. 337, 92 N. W. 1084;
Marks V. Sullivan, 9 Utah 12, 83 P.
224, 20 L. B. A. 590; Gelzenleuchter
V. Niemeyer, 64 Wis. 316, 320, 25 N.
W. 442; Brown v. Chapman, 6 C. B.
365, 60 E. C. L. 365, 136 Eng. Eeprint
1292; Cooper v. Harding, 7 Q. B. 928,
53 E. C. L. 928, 115 Eng. Beprint
737; West v. Small wood, 3 Mees. & W.
(Eng.) 418; Anderson r. Wilsen, 25
Ont. Eep. 91; Smith r. Evans, 13 U. C.
C. P. 60.
949-98 Lemmon v. King (Kan.), 148
P. 750. ^ ^'
950-3 A vice-president and manager
of a corporation who signed the bond
to obtain an illegal arrest in a civil
proceeding is liable for the false im-
prisonment. Hays V. Hutchinson &
Shields, 81 Wash. 394, 142 P. 865.
950-7 Arrest In civil proceeding.
One causing arrest of another in a
civil proceeding must answer in dam-
ages even though the arrest was in pur-
suance of a court order when the court
has exceeded its jurisdiction or had no
authority. Hamilton v. Pacific Drug
Co., 78 Wash. 689, 139 P. 642.
951-9 Boss 17. Kohler, 163 Ky. 583,
174 S. W. 36.
962-18 St. Louis, I. M. & S. By. Co.
t?. Tukey (Ark.), 175 S. W. 403; Ayres
& Co. V. Harmon (Ind. App.), 104 N. E.
315; Chicago, B. L & P. By. Co. v. Bad-
ford, 36 Okla. 657, 129 P. 834; Scibor
V. Oregon-Washington B. & Nav. Co.|
70 Or. 116, 140 P. 629; Bice 17. Har-
rington (B. L), 94 A. 736.
Detention after pardon* — ^Where the
plaintiff was lawfully in custody of a
warden appointed by a contractor for
convict labor and confirmed by the
court, and plaintiff was pardoned, but
the warden refused to release him be-
cause he had no authority to do so,
the contractor is liable for false im-
prisonment. Weigel 17. McCloskey
(Ark.), 166 S. W. 944.
952-19 Alabama F., €tc. Co. r. Bice
(Ala.), 65 S. 402; Louisville & N. B.
Co. 17. Owens. 164 Ky. 557, 175 S. W.
1039.
953-21 lalabillty of sheriff for acts
of his deputy, see Jones u. Van Bever,
164 Ky. 80, 174 S. W. 795.
953-22 Louisville & N. B. Co. v.
Owens, 164 Ky. 557, 175 S. W. 1039;
Foster v. Grand Bapids By. Co., 140
Mich. 689, 104 N. W. 380; Bice 17. Har-
rington (E. I.), 94 A. 736.
953-23 Bedgate v. Southern Pac. Co.,
24 Cal. App. 573, 141 P. 1191.
964-26 As to liability of attorney,
see Tiede v. Fuhr (Mo.), 175 S. W.
910.
954-28 Sheriff who restrains a per-
son's liberty by virtue ef process or
order of a court of competent jurisdic-
tion is not liable in a suit for false
imptisonment notwithstanding defects
or irregularities occurring in the pro-
ceedings on which the order was issued.
Peterson r. Merritt, 25 Ida. 324, 137
P. 526.
954-32 Detention under jurenile de-
linquent act by an officer without a
551
Tol 8
WAL8E IMPRISONMENT
warrant. Weber r. Donst, 84 Wash. ]
330, 146 P. 623. j
055-36 Acqnleflcence In Judgment for
contemplM — ^Where one "waa convicted of
contempt and did not appeal nor seek
review of the proceedings by any other
proceedings but paid his fine after hav-
ing been committed to jail he cannot
thereafter maintain an action against
the judge and sheriff for false im-
prisonment. Pierce r. Mitchell, 77
Wash. 453, 137 P. 1008.
965-37 Smith r, Hibler (N. J. L.),
92 A. 364 (colorable . jurisdietdon of jus-
tice of the peace eufficient) ;'" >^int r.
Lon8ddIe/>41 Okla. 448, 139 P. 268,
966-41 Broom r. Douglasfl, 17? Ala.
268, 57 9., 860, 44 L. B. A. (N/S.)
164? Gardner v. Couch, 137 Mich. 358,
100 N. W. 673, 101 N. W* 802; Gordon
V, District Court, 36 Nev. 1, 131 P,
134; Flint 9. Lonsdale, 41 Okla. 448,
139 P. 268; Smith V. Jones, 16 S. D.
837, 92 N. W. 1084; Hayes v. Hutchin-
son & Shields, 81 Wash. 394, 142 P.
865; Gordon v, Denison, 24 Ont. Rep.
576, app. this point in 22 Out. App. 315,
but reversed on other grounds.
Polico Judge is not liable in damages
where he acts judicially and within his
jurisdiction. Clark P. Hampton, 163
Ky. 698, 174 a W. 490; McBurnie f?.
Sullivan, 152 Ky. 686, 153 S. W. 945,
44 L. E. A. (]Sr. «J.) 186.
968^48 Clark «. Hampton, 163 Ky.
698, 174 S. W. 490.
968-64 Cook v. Macon, 54 Ga. 468;
Culver V, Streator, 130 111. 238, 22 N.
E. 810, 6 L. E. A. 270; Peters v. Linds-
borg, 40 Kan. 654, 20 P. 490; Pollock
17. Louisville, 13 Bush (Ky.) 221, 26 Am.
Eep. 260* Curran v, Boston, 151 Mass.
505, 24 N. E. 781, 8 L. E. A. 243; Gul-
likson v. McDonald, 62 Minn. 278, 279,
64 N..W. 812; Eu6her u. Dallas, 88 Tex.
151, 153, 18 S. W. 338; Galveston r.
Hemmis, 72 Tex. 558, 11 S. W. 29; Gal-
veston V. Posnainsky, 62 Tex. 118, 132,
50 Am. Bep. 517; Eoyce v. Salt Lake
City, 15 Utah 401, 407, 49 P. 290.
Enforcing illegal ordinance^ — ^Bule ap<
plies where officers of a municipality
attempt to enforce an illegal ordinance.
Easterly v. Irwin, 99 Ta. 694, 68 N. W.
919; Caldwell t;. Prunelle, 57 Kan, 511,
46 P. 947. Comp. McGraw v. Marion,
98 Ky. 673, 34 S. W. 18, 47 L. E. A.
593.
960-61 Waters v. National .Woolen
MiUs, 142 Ga. 133, 82 S. E. 535.
A compUint following tbe OodA form
(Code 1907, vol. 2, p. 1198, form 19)
is smfScient. Deason v. Gray (Ala.), 66
S. 646.
961-62 Waters v. National Woolen
Mills, 142 Ga. 133, 82 S. E. 535.
961-63 Legal condoBioii illustrated.
An allegation that the arrests were
made by deputies in their official ca-
pacity is a mere legal conclusion. Jones
V. Van Bover, 164 Ky. 80, 174 S. W.
795.
961-66 Forman r. Central, 57 Colo.
535, 148 P. 573; Hanson r. Sward, 92
Kan. 1, 140 P. 100.
963-77 Gordon v. West, 129 Ga. 532,
59 S. E. 232; Grist €. White, 14 Ga.
App. 147, 80 a E. 519.
Ol8t of an action of false imprisonment
is ifnlawfulness of the imprisonment.
King V. Gray (Ala.), 66 S. 643.
963-80 Wliero allegation was "ma-
licions" instead of ''unlawful," amend-
ment suhstltuting latter is permissible
before jury retires. King v. Gray
(Ala.), 66 S. 643.
964-86 Preliminary affidATitr— Where
complaint simply alleges that warrant
was issued without preliminary affi-
davit having been filed it is demurrable.
Clark r. Hampton, 163 Ky. 698, 174 8.
W. 490.
966-88 Murphy f>. McAdory, 183
Ala. 209, 62 S. 706.
966-92 King V. Gray (Ala.), 66 S.
643; Murphy V. McAdory, 183 Ala. 209,
62 S. 706.
968-18 Bhodes v. McWilson (Ala.),
69 S. 69.
970-29 Probable cause and want of
malice are not defenses, when arrest was
in a civil proceeding and court ez-
ceeded its jurisdiction. Hamilton v.
Pacific Drug Co., 78 Wash. 689, 139 P,
642.
971-39 Waddle v. Wilson, 164 Ky.
228, 175 S. W. 382.
971-40 Questions of law and fact.
Questions of malice and probable cause
are for the jury where the evidence is
confiicting. Bhodes V. McWilson (Ala.),
69 S. 69.
971-41 An indictment in the lan-
guage of the statute is not sufficient
where every fact necessary to consti-
tute the offense is not set out in the
statute. Carroll v. C, 164 Ky. 599. 175
S. W, 1043.
652
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Vol 8
TALSE PSBSOKATION
972-1 See IT. S. r. Navarro, 18 Phil.
Isl. 357; U. S. t?. Salazar, 5 Phil. Isl.
500.
What constitutes. — Impei^sonation of a
policeman is comprehended within stat-
ute forbidding impersonation of an
executive officer. Ex parte Preston, 72
Tex. Cr. 77, 161 S. W. 115.
Criminal Intent and guilty knowledge
are constituent elements of the offense.
Brown v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 170 S. W. 714.
Elements of offense. — ^''To constitute
the offense of impersonating an officer,
under the section above quoted [Sec.
2122, Kirby's Digest] it is not suffi-
cient that one falsely asserts that he
is an officer and has the authority to
act as such, nor is it sufficient that he
declares his attention to act as such;
but, to constitute this offense, it is
essential that he assumes or exercises
or attempts to exercise some of the
functions, powers, duties, or privileges
incident or belonging to the office which
he asserts he holds at the time.'' Mar-
tin V. S. (Ark.), 169 S. W. 776.
9T4-7 U. S. 17. Barnow, 221 Fed. 140.
975-16 Variance as to person imper-
sonated. — Where the information
charges the accused with exercising or
attempting to exercise the functions of
"a sheriff or deputy sheriff in Wyan-
dotte county," he cannot be prosecuted
under a statute which declares it un-
lawful for a person without authority
to attempt to exercise the functions
of a deputy sheriff, the proof showing
he impersonated the sheriff and not a'
deputy sheriff. S. V, Bose (Kan.), 150
P. 601.
Variance between complaint and in-
formation.— ^The fact that the com-
plaint alleged that accused did "unlaw-
fully, willfully, and falsely assume and
pretend, etc.," the omission of the
word "willfully" in the information
does not constitute a fatal variance.
Brown v, S. (Tex. Cr.), 170 S. W. 714.
FILINa
978-6 S. V. Kuhns (D^l.), 88 A. 455.
979-7 Judicial discretion.r^The ques-
tion of filing pleadings out of time
rests largely within the discretion of
the trial court; but this discretion must
be a sound judicial one, dependent on
all the circumstances, and must never
be used arbitrarily or capriciously."
Checotah Hdw. Co. v. Hensley, 42 Okla.
260, 141 P. 422.
986-23 Haines' Lessee r. Lindsey, 4
Ohio 88, 19 Am. Dec. 586.
FINDINaS AND OOKCLXTSIOITS
993-1 Cherry v, Peay (Ark.), 171 S.
W. 924; Schafer v. Midland Hotel Co.,
41 Okla. Ill, 137 P. 664; Faour & Bros.
t\ Moran, 40 Okla. 597, 139 P. 833;
Case Thresh. Mach. Co. r. Lyons & Co.,
40 Okla. 356, 138 P. 167; Clackamas
Southern Ey. Co. r. Vick, 72 Or. 580,
144 P. 84.
994-14 N. C. Eev., 1905, |541; Eley
r. Atlantic Coast Line B. Co., 165 N.
C. 78, 80 S. E. 1064; Clackamas So. Ry.
Co. V. Vick, 72 Or. 580, 144 P. 84;
Davison t?. Kellar (S. D.), 152 N. W.
106; McKenna V. Whittaker, 9 S. D.
442, 69 N. W. 587; Sewall t?. Colby
(Tex. Civ.), 163 S. W. 694; Dennis r.
Kendrick (Tex. Civ.), 163 S. W. 693;
Frieze v. Powell, 79 Wash. 483, 140 P.
690.
995-16 'Davison- 17." Kellar (S. D.),
152 N. W. 106.
In Wisconsin, the statute requiring that
the facts found and the conclusions of
law thereon be stated separately, is di-
rectory only. Wallis r. First Nat. Bank,
155 Wis. 533, 145 N. W. 195.
996-20 Procednie where no findings
or conclusions. — * * Where the court fails
to make such findings and conclusions
as the statute contemplates, this court
will adopt one of three courses: (a)
Affirm the judgment if clearly sup-
ported by the preponderance of the
evidence; (b) reverse if not so sup-
ported, or (c) remand for further trial
and findings in close cases where the
evidence is evenly balanced or nearly
so." Wallis V, First Nat. Bank, 155
Wis. 533, 145 N. W. 195.
996-22 *'A Judgment rendered with-
out findings of fact or conclusions of
law has no foundation and is void."
Clackamas So. By. Co. t?. Vick, 72 Or.
580, 144 P. 84; Frederick & Nelson v.
Bard, 66 Or. 259, 134 P. 318.
996-23 Fryberger t?. Anderson, 125
Minn. 322, 147 N. W. 107; Brundy v,
Canby, 50 Mont. 454, 148 P. 315.
Findings on an Interlocutory motion
are not necessary. Fryberger v. Ander-
son, 125 Minn. 322, 147 N. W. 107.
553
Vol 8
FINDINGS AND CONCLV&tONS
No further finding necessary upon any
issues presented by the pleadings where
court finds that appellant's right of
action is barred by the statute of lim-
itations. Tropico Land & Imp. Co. v.
Lamboum (Cal.), 148 P. 206.
097-28 Sausalito Bay Land Co. v.
Sausalito Imp. Co., 166 Cal. 302, 136 P.
57; Milwaukee Land Co. v. Buesink, 50
Mont. 489, 148 P. 396, findings unneces-
sary where evidence justifies but one
conclusion.
ThoaglL a request be made this is so.
Milwaukee Land Co. v. Buesink, 50
Mont. 489, 148 P. 396.
997-29 Humboldt Mill. Co. v. North-
western Pac. By. Co., 166 Cal. 175, 135
P. 603; Watson t?. Lawson, 166 Cal. 235,
135 P. 961; Fernandez r. Watt, 26 Cal.
App. 86, 146 P. 47; Francis t?. Western
Screen. Co., 22 Cal. App. 31, 133 P.
327; Brown i?. Brown, 12 S. B. 506, 81
N. W. 883.
998-81 New York Life Ins. Co. u.
Daley, 25 Cal. App. 376, 143 P. 1033.
998-32 Stanwood v, Carson (Cal.),
147 P. 562; Brown v. Brown, 12 S. D.
506, 81 N. W. 883.
999-33 Stanwood v. Carson (Cal.),
147 P. 562.
999-35 Discretionary matters^—For-
mal findings in support of an order
vacating a judgment because of excus-
able neglect or inadvertence are un-
necessary, such order resting within
the discretion of the judge. Frieze v.
Powell, *79 Wash. 483, 140 P. 690.
1000-36 Schofield v. Texas Bank &
T. Co. (Tex. Civ,), 175 S. W. 506;
Arlington Heights Eealty Co. V. Cit-
izens' By. & L. Co. (Tex. Civ.), 160
S. W. 1109; Peoples t?. Terry (Tex.
Civ.), 43 S. W. 846.
1000-40 Cook 17. Washington-Oregon
Corp. (Wash.), 146 P. 156; Frieze v.
Powell, 79 Wash. 483, 140 P. 690;
White Crest Can. Co. «?. Sims, 30 Wash.
374, 70 P. 1003; Potwin V, Blasher, 9
Wash. 460, 37 P. 710.
Incomplete or defective findings are not
ground for reversal in an equity case.
Cook V, Washington-Oregon Corp.
(Wash.), 146 P. 156.
1000-41 Moynihan v. Brennan (N.
H.), 90 A. 964.
1002-61 Weishaar v. Pendleton, 73
Or. 190, 144 P. 401; Clackamas Southern
By. Co. V. Vick, 72 Or. 580, 144 P. 84;
Jennings f?. Frazier, 46 Or. 470, 80 P.
1011.
1002-62 Jennings 17. Frazier, 46 Or.
470, 80 P. 1011.
Findings on Intermediate issnes^ etc.
Weishaar u. Pendleton, 73 Or. 190, 144
P. 401.
1002-64 Smith Lumb. Co. v, Bussell,
92 Kan. 646, 144 P. 819; Joyce u. Mc-
Donald (Mont.), 149 P. 953; Thompson
V. Tonopah Lumb. Co. (Nov.), 141 P.
69; Simpson Tp. 1?. Hill, 40 Okla. 233,
137 P. 348.
1003-66 Shannon v, Mereness (Conn.),
93 A. 529; Chicago, I. & L. By. Co. v.
Myers (Ind. App.), 105 N. E. 645;
Nordman v. Johnson, 94 Kan. 409, 146
P. 1125; Averill V, Wierhauser (Tex,
Civ.), 175 S. W. 794; Bruce v. Stark
(Tex. Civ.), 175 S. W. 795; Edwards v.
McGuire (Tex. Civ.), 165 fi. W. 477;
Sewall V. Colby (Tex. Civ.), 163 S. W.
694.
1003-66 Simpson Tp. v. Hill, 40
Okla. 233, 137 P. 348.
1004-62 Overton v. Colored Knights
of Pythias (Tex. Civ.), 173 S. W. 472.
1006-64 Timm v. Low (Ind. App.),
104 N. E. 870.
1006-70 Moynihan r. Brennan (N.
H.), 90 A. 964.
1006-72 After entry of Jndgment»
request comes too late. Austin v.
Diffendaffer, 96 Neb. 747, 148 N. W.
907,
1007-76 Dennis v, Kendrick (Tex.
Civ.), 163 S. W. 693, quoU Standard
Proo.
1009-84 Sails v. Barons, 40 Kan.
697, 20 P. 485.
1012-11 In re Hotchkiss' Will
(Conn.), 92 A. 419.
1016-38 Texas-Mexican By. Co. v.
Beed (Tex. Civ.), 165 S. W. 4.
1017-42 Eddy v, American Amuse-
ment Co., 21 Cal. App. 487, 132 P. 83;
St. Anthony, etc. Co. v, Martineau, 28
N. D. 423, 149 N. W. 355; Crane v.
First Nat. Bank, 26 N. D. 268, 144
N. W. 96; Bruce v, Stark (Tex. Civ.),
175 S. W. 795; Averill v. Wierhauser
(Tex. Civ.), 175 S. W. 794; Barnes v.
Albert, 87 Vt. 251, 88 A. 815.
Findings null if filed after statutory
time. — Findings of fact and conclusions
of law filed more than ten days after
the court adjourned for the term are
a nullity and cannot be considered on
654
F1ND1N08 AND CONCLUSIONS
Vol 8
appeal. Bliss i>. San Antonio School
Board (Tex. Civ.), 173 S. W. 1176;
Sewall V. Colby (Tex. Civ.), 163 S. W.
694; Dennis v. Kendrick (Tex. Civ.),
163 S. W. 693; Standard P. & W. P. Co.
V, Rowan (Tex. Civ.), 158 S. W. 251.
Court cannot* 1>7 order, extend the
statntory time within which to file find-
ings of fact and conclusions of law.
Alsworth V, Beppert (Tex. Civ.), 167
8. W. 1098.
1017-43 Augast v. Garner Co. (Tex.
Civ.), 166 S. W. 1197.
1017-44 St. Anthony, etc. Co. v.
Martineau, 28 N. D. 423, 149 N. W.
355; Crane v. Bank, 26 N. D. 268, 144
N. W. 96.
1018-45 Eddy r. American Amuse-
ment Co., 21 Cal. App. 487, 132 P. 83.
1019-57 When preliminary service
not necessary. — ^Where the record does
not show that the court gave any di-
rection that findings be prepared by
the plaintiff, it is not necessary that
service of the proposed findings be had
on defendant before being signed by the
judge as required by §634 Code Civ.
Froc.^ as amended in 1913. Hoffman 9.
Bush Co. (Cal. App.), 149 P. 177.
1020-63 L. 0. L., 1157; Clackamas
Southern By. Co. v. Vick, 72 Or. 580,
144 P. 84.
1020-69 L. 0. L., 1158; Clackamas
Southern By. Co. v. Vick, 72 Or. 580,
144 P. 84.
1021-70 Smith v. Washington, 92
Kan. 646, 141 P. 250.
1025-88 Lynip v, Alturas School
Dist., 24 Cal. App. 426, 141 P. 835.
1028-5 No findings on pleading of
adverse party^ — ^'^When findings of
fact as made conform to and are as
broad as the material averments of one
of the parties necessarily determining
the judgment given in his favor, there-
by negativing the legal hypothesis of
the adverse party, no findings of fact
are essential with respect to the alle-
gations contained in the pleadings of
the latter. '' Clackamas So. By. Co. «.
Vick, 72 Or. 580, 144 P. 84.
1029-15 Findings that are arga-
mentatlve discussions of the evidence
are not sufficient. Lanford & Co. r.
Mathis, 9 Ala. App. 434, 62 S. 967.
1031-21 Schafer v. Midland Hotel
Co., 41 Okla. Ill, 137 P. 664; Paour &
Bros. 9. Morad, 40 Okla. 597, 139 P.
833; Cbm Thresh. Mach. Co. v. Lyons
ft Co., 40 Okla. 356, 138 P. 167; Gland
17. Malson, 39 Okla. 456, 135 P. 1055.
1032-29 Sayre r. San Pedro, L. A.
& S. L. B. Co., 23 CaL App. 773, 139
P. 910.
1034-33 Simmons f>. Simmons, 166
Cal. 438, 137 P. 20; Batcliflf V. Batcliff
(Tex. Civ.), 161 S. W. 30.
1035-35 Simmons v. Simmons, 166
Cal. 438, 137 P. 20; Humboldt Mill Co.
V. Northwestern Pac. By. Co., 166 Cal.
175, 135 P. 503; Crescent Lum. Co. v,
Larson, 166 Cal. 168, 135 P. 502.
1037-43 Implied Issues, etc. — Cres-
cent Lumb. Co. V, Larson, 166 Cal. 168,
135 P. 602.
1038-50 Johnson v. McFry (Ala.
App.), 68 S. 718; California Mother
Lode Min. Co. v. Page, 165 Cal. 549, 133
P. 14; Griswold t?. Winters (Cal. App.),
148 P. 527; Nordman r. Johnson, 94
Kan. 409, 146 P. 1125; Orr v. Sutton,
127 Minn. 37, 148 N. W. 1066; C. r.
School Dist., 241 Pa. 224, 88 A. 481;
Davison v. Kellar (S. D.), 152 N. W.
106.
Additional findings on material Issues.
''If material facts in issue have been
omitted in the findings, it is the duty
of the court, on request, to make ad-
ditional findings on such issues." Smith
Lumb. Co. r. Bussell, 93 Kan. 521, 144
P. . 819.
1039-51 Carnahan v, Shull, 55 Ind.
App. 349, 102 N. E. 144.
1040-54 Griswold v. Winters (Cal.
App.), 148 P. 527; Beckett v, Stuart, 23
Cal. App. 373, 138 P. 115; Emerzian v.
Asato, 23 Cal. App. 251, 137 P. 1072.
1041-59 Emerzian v. Asato, 23 Cal.
App. 251, 137 P. 1072.
1045-69 Shawver v. Shawver, 25 Ida.
70, 136 P. 436.
Findings upon immaterial issues may be
disregarded. Bogers 17. Schlotterback,
167 Cal. 35, 138 P. 728.
1045-70 Beynolds v. Jackson, 25
Cal. App. 490, 144 P. 305.
1048-80 National Surety Co. t?. S.,
181 Ind. 54, 103 N. E. 105; McClure v.
Anderson (Ind. App.), 108 N. E. 757;
Shedd 17. American Maize Pro. Co.
(Ind. App.), 108 N. E. 610; Westphal
V. Williams (Ind. App.), 107 N". E. 91;
Michigan Commercial Ins. Co. v. Wills
(Ind. App.), 106 N. E. 725; Deemer 17.
Knight, 55 Ind, App. 397, 103 N. E.
868; Knight 17. Eerfoot (Ind. App.),
555
Vol. 8
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
102 N. E. 983; Carnahan v, ShuH, 55
Ind. App. 349, 102 N. E. 144; Judah t\
Cheyne Electric Co., 53 Ind. App. 476,
101 N. E. 1039; Briggs v. Sanford, 219
Mass. 572, 107 N. E. 436; Dailey v.
Foster, 17 N. M. 654, 134 P. 206; GU-
bert t?. Hayward (B. I.), 92 A. 625.
1048-82 PhUadelphia Casualty Co.
V. Pechheimer (C. C. A.), 220 Fed. 401;
In re Hill's Est., 167 Cal. 59, 138 P.
690; Perry t?. Quackenbush, 105 Cal.
299, 38 P. 740; Nichdls V. Wolf (Cal.
App.), 148 P. 799; Horn v. Lupton
(Ind.), 105 N. E. 237; Knight v. Kei-
foot (Ind. App.), 102 N. E. 983; Eraser
v, State Sav. Bank, 26 N. M. 340, 137
P. 592; Godley v. Crandall & Godley
Co., 212 N. Y. 121, 105 N. E. 818; Dav-
ison V. Kellar (S. D.), 152 N. W. 106;
Biloy I?. Jorgenson (S. D.), 150 N. W.
771; Cointe v. Congregation of St.
John, 154 Wis. 405, 143 N. W. 180.
Findings refused if not of ultimate
facts^ — Special findings which do not
call for the finding of an ultimate or
controlling fact are properly "refused.
Bradley v. Western Casket, etc. Co., 185
HI. App. 375.
niustiations 'of findings of nlttmate
facts^ — Conununity property. — A finding
that certain property owned by a mar-
ried person is separate or community
property is the finding of an ultimate
fact and the evidence from which this
fact is determined is not to be found
by the court. In re Hiirs Est., 167 Cal.
59, 138 P. 690.
1061-86 Evidentiary ftyctBj--^ * Where
a finding is of the evidence and not of
the fact in issue, it will not aid the
judgment, unless the evidentiary facts
thus determined carry with them, by
necessary implication, the ultimate fact
which diiould have been determined.'*
Nichols V. Wolf (Cal. App.), 148 P. 799.
1062-86 Eraser v. State Sav. Bank,
26 N. M. 340, 137 P. 592.
1064-96 Sandstone Spring Water Co.
V. Kettle Biver Co., 122 Minn. 510, 142
N. W. 885; Eraser r. State Sav. Bank,
26 N. M. 340, 137 P. 592; Biley v. Jor-
genson (S. D.), 150 N. W. 771.
1064-97 Horn v. Lupton (Ind.), 105
N. E. 237; Gagnon v, Baden Lick Sul-
phur Springs Co. (Ind. App.), 105 N.
E. 512. "
1066-1 Knight r. Kerf opt (Ind.
App.), 102 N. E. 983.
1066-6 Schafer v. Midland Hotel
Co., 41 Okla, 111, 137 P. 664.
1068-12 Calkins v. Berliner (Cat
App.), 147 P. 985.
1069-17 Wiley f. London, etc. Piro
Ins. Co. (Conn.), 92 A. 678.
1060-20 Bank of Oroville v. Law-
rence, 4 Cal. Unrep. €as. 845, 37 P. 936;
Paisley v. Casey, 18 N. Y. S. 102; St.
Louis S. W. By. Co. v. Miller ft White
(Tex. Civ.), 176 S. W. 830.
1060-23 Francis v. Western Screen
Co., 22 Cal. App. 32, 133 P. 327.
1061-30 In re HiU's Est., 167 Cal.
59, 138 P. 690; Perry f?. Quackenbush,
105 Cal. 299, 38 P. 740; Breeze «. In-
ternational Bank Corp., 25 Cal. App.
437, 143 P. 1066.
1062-34 Knowlson v. Friar (Mich.),
151 N. W. 555.
1062-36 Great Western Power Co.
17. Pillsbury (Cal.), 149 P. 35; Pierce r.
EUer, 167 N. C. 672, 83 S. E. 758; Shen-
ners V. Adams (Okla.), 148 P. 1023.
1063-42 General conUoBioiiB niiBatlfl-
factory^ — If party is dissatisfied with a
general conclusion of law, he should ask
for conclusions upon specific points.
Shaw V, Thompson Bros. Lumb. Co.
(Tex. Civ.), 177 S. W. 574,
1064-46 Takekawa v. Hole (Cal.),
149 P. 593.
1064-48 Lesh v, Davison, 181 Ind.
429, 104 N. E. 642.
1066-64 Hole v. Takekawa, 165 Cal.
372, 132 P. 445; Beach V. Franklin Tp.
(Ind. App.), 103 N. E. 498; Hornaday
t?. Cowgill, 54 Ind. App. 631, 101 N. E.
1030.
1066-66 Motions to modify, strike
out, or add to special findings are not
recognized as methods to set aside er-
roneous findings. Beach v, Franklin
Tp. (Ind. App.), 103 K. E. 498.
1066-66 Hole v. Takekawa, 165 Cal.
372, 132 P. 445.
1067-69 During tenn^— ^Chicago, I.
Sb S. B. Co. r. Taylor (Ind.), 108 N. E.
1.
1076-8 Brown v. Brown, 12 S. D.
506, 81 N. W. 883.
1076-9 Brown t?. Brown, 12 S. D.
506, 81 N. W. 883.
1076-11 Dowd r. Clarke, 51 OaL
262.
1076-14 Overton v. Colored Knights
of Pythias (Tex. Civ.), 173 S. W. 472,
1076-16 Tomlinson t?. Ayres, 117
Cal. 568, 49 P. 717; Saul f?. Moscone^
556
FORCIBLE ENTRY AND DETAINER
Vol. a
16 CfJ. App. 506, 118 P. 452; Kritzer t?.
Tracy Eng. Co., 16 Cal. App. 287, 116
P. 700; Continental Bldg. & L. Assoc.
17. Woolf, 12 Cal. App. 725, 108 P. 729.
1077-19 Hess v. Bean, 66 Tex. 663,
2 S. W. 727; Gainesville Water Co. r.
Gainesville, 57 Tex. Civ. 257, 122 S. W.
959.
1079-23 Joyce v, McDonald (Mont.),
149 P. 953.
1080-26 Thurston v. Blunt, 216
Mass. 264, 103 N. E. 478.
1080-32 Sufficient ezception. — ^Where
attorney stated to the judge that ''the
petitioners excepted to the rulings" it
was sufficient to save an exception to
all the rulings set forth in the findings
of fact, although he did not indicate
what particular rulings he excepted to.
Thurston V. Blunt, 216 Mass. 264, 103
N. E. 478.
1082-39 Pickfotd v. Borland, 76
Wash. 339, 136 P. 128.
1083-43 Meeker v. Waddle, 83 Wash.
628, 145 P. 967, when notice of the fil-
ing of the findings is not served, ex-
ceptions may be taken within ^ve days
after acquiring notice in any way.
1084-46 Must be filed within rea-
sonable time after ruling excepted to is
made. Thurston v. Blunt, 216 Mass.
264, 103 N. E. 478.
1085-69 Knight v. Nicholas (Ind.
App.), 102 N. E. 50; Schrage v. McCoy,
28 Ind. App. 434, 63 N. E. 50; Bader
V. Sheets, 26 Ind. App. 479, 59 N. E.
1090.
1086-70 Tuell v. Homann (Ind.
App.), 108 N. E. 596; Teegarden v, Ris-
tine (Ind. App.), 106 N. E. 641; Hat-
field r. Booker (Ind. App.), 104 N. E.
798-Guyer r. Union Trust Co., 55 Ind.
App. 472, 104 N. E. 82; Carnahan v.
ShuU, 55 Ind. App. 349, 102 N. E. 144;
Homaday t?. Cowgill, 64 Ind. App. 631,
101 N. E. 1030; Guynn v Wabash Coun-
ty, L. ft T. Co., 53 Ind. App. 391, 101
N. E. 738.
1087-71 Tuell v. Homann (Ind.
App.), 108 N. E. 596; Teegarden v.
Eistine (Ind. App.), 106 N. E. 641;
Hatfield v, Booker (Ind. App.), 104 N.
E. 798; Carnahan v, Shull, 55 Ind. App.
349, 102 N. E. 144; Guynn v. Wabash
County, L. & T. Co., 53 Ind. App. 391,
101 N. E. 738.
FOB0IBU3 EKTBT AND DETAINEB
1090-1 Elements of forcible entry,
See Hammond Savings & Trust Co. v,
Boney (Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 480.
1090-5 Harris v. Harris (Ala.), 67
S. 465.
1090-e Bilby V. Brown, 41 Okla. 98,
137 P. 102; Vance V. Ferguson (S. C),
85 S. E. 241.
1090-7 Juneman v, Pranklin, 67
Tex. 411, 3 S. W. 562; Bull v, Bearden
(Tex. Civ.), 159 S. W. 1177. See Ham-
mond Savings & Trust Co. v, Boney
(Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 480.
IO9I-8V2 Johnson v. Biddle, 41 Okla.
759, 139 P. 1143.
1091-9 See Murrah v. Acrey (N. M.),
142 P. 143. Comp. Benuszaitis r. Ead-
awiczus, 172 111. App. 259.
1092-10 Wolff 1?. Jurgenson, 185 HI.
App. 347; Purcell t\ Merrick, 172 Mo.
App. 412, 158 S. W. 478; Ball 1?. Dancer
(Okla.), 143 P. 855; Northcutt v. Bas-
table, 39 Okla. 124, 134 P. 423.
1092-11 Title involved with pos-
session.— While unlawful entry and de-
tainer, is purely a possessory action and
may be maintained without regard to
title, still, title is sometimes involved;
as where there is no relation of land-
lord and tenant, and the entry of de-
fendant was peaceable and under a
claim of right, then the right to posses-
sion depends upon the true ownership.
Chilton V, White, 72 W. Va. 545, 78 S.
E. 1048.
1092-12 See Bowman t?. Goodrich,
94 Neb. 696, 144 N. W. 240.
Plea of title by intervener on appeaL
On an appeal from justice's court to
county court it is error for the latter
to permit, over objections of both part-
ies, an intervener to file a plea putting
in issue the title. And where after per-
mitting this, the county court transfers
the whole cause to the district court it
is properly dismissed there as there is
no provision of statute for district
courts acquiring jurisdiction in this
manner. Bilby v. Stuart, 39 Okla. 451,
135 P. 931.
1093-14 PuTcell v. Merrick, 172 Mo.
App. 412, 158 S. W. 478.
1093-20 Comp. Keenan v, Goodman,
175 HI. App. 556.
1094-21 McRobert v, Bridget (la.),
149 N. W. 906.
1095-29 Harris «. Harris (Ala.), 67
a 465,
657
Vol. 8
FORCIBLE ENTRY AND DETAINER
1097-49 See McBobert v. Bridget
(la.), 149 N. W. 906.
1098-69 Gross v. Baker (Okla.)» 148
P. 734. See Bobinson v. Bamsey (Mo.
App.), 176 S. W. 282, as to kind of pos-
session.
Oonstructlve posBesBion is ordinarily
not sufficient to support the action. Wat-
son V. Smith, 180 111. App. 289. But
constructive possession by true owner is
sufficient to maintain action against a
wrongdoer or mere trespasser. Chil-
ton V. White, 72 W. Va. 545, 78 S. E.
1048.
Seal party In Interest — ^The rule that
every action must be prosecuted in the
name of the real party in interest ap-
plies to cases of forcible entry and de-
tainer. Towles V. Hamilton, 94 Nel).
588, 143 N. W. 935.
A trespasser cannot maintain the action.
Derrington V. Childers, 156 Ey. 452, 161
S. W. 216.
A person with deed to a cemetery lot
has only possession that it is possible
to have of a cemtery lot and may main-
tain action. Vance v, Ferguson (S. C),
85 S. E. 241.
1099-60 Occupant of public land.
One in peaceable possession of land be-
longing to the United States may main-
tain an action against an intruder who
has ousted him even though the form-
er's possession was in violation of law
and without right. Murrah «. Acrey
(N. M.), 142 P. 143.
1099-64 Jackson v, Mulzer, 174 111.
App. 272. :
1100-65 .Watson v. Smith, 180 HI.
App. 289.
1105-92 Comp. Mastin «. May, 127
Minn. 93, 148 N. W. 893.
1105-96 Howard t?. Davis, 40 Okla.
86, 136 P. 401; Boman Catholic Church
V, Familiar, 11 Phil. Isl. 310; Cioco v,
Muro, 9 Phil. Isl. 100- Bishop of Cebu
V. Mangaron, 6 Phil. Isl. 286; Bago v.
Garcia, 5 Phil. Isl. 524.
1106-10 Forcible entry and de-
tainer, and trespass. — ^Where complaint
states both a case of forcible entry and
detainer and a case of trespass the
proper remedy is to demand an elec-
tion as to what remedy plaintiff will
pursue. Vance v. Ferguson (S. C), 85
S. E. 241.
1107-11 See Bull v. Bearden (Tex.
Civ.), 159 S. W. 1177.
1108-21" Benavides r. Benavidet
(Tex. Civ.), 174 S. W. 293.
$3345, 0. I^ 1897^-An action must be
prosecuted before the justice of the
peace in the precinct where the prop-
erty is situated. Brasswell v, Hallibur-
ton (N. M.), 143 P. 476.
1108-23 In the FbUlpplnes justices
of the peace do not have jurisdictiou
unless the action is commenced withio
a year from date of wrongful posses-
sion. |80 of Act 190 as amended by
Act 1778, defines jurisdiction of justices
of peace and court of first instance.
Gutierrez v. Bosario, 15 Phil. Isl. 116.
Act 136 of Philippine Commission and
Code Civ. Proc, conferring exclusive
jurisdiction on justice of the peace
over actions of forcible entry and de-
tainer for one year after cause of ac-
tion arises does not deprive the court of
first instance of jurisdiction of any
other proper action to recover posses-
sion of real estate. Ledesma v, Marcos,
9 Phil. Isl. 618.
1108-26 See Cahill v. Pine Creek Oil
Co., 38 Okla. 568, 134 P. 64.
Jurisdiction. — As soon as question of
title appears the justice of the peace
must refuse to proceed further. But if
he wrongfully holds jurisdiction and
awards possession of land, the district
court on appeal, when such facts ap-
pear must dismiss the action for want
of jurisdiction. Bowman t?. Goodrich,
94 Neb. 696, 144 N. W. 240.
1109-29 Purcell v, Merrick, 172 Mo.
App. 412, 158 S. W. 478.
1109-30 Purcell v, Merrick, 172 Mo.
App. 412, 158 S. W. 478.
1114-66 Complaint Insufflciently de-
scribes the premises where it was set
out as ''a house occupied by defend-
ant, and such premises as are appurte-
nant thereto, located on the north one-
third (except that part lying east of
the road) of the south half, etc." Stev-
ens V. Carey, 183 111. App. 24.
1116-75 Barry v. Bannerman, 175
Mo. App. 142, 157 S. W. 853.
1117-86 Signing of the complaint
not necesary. Wolif v, Jurgenson, 185
111. App. 347.
1118-1 Purcell v. Merrick, 172 Mo.
App. 412, 158 S. W. 478.
1119-5 Amendment may be made by
adding a count claiming reasonable
rental value of the land sued for dur-
ing the pendency of the appeal. Har-
ris 17. Harris (Ala.), 67 S. 465.
R58
/
FORGERY
Yol 8
1120-16 It l8 no defense that plain-
tiff has tonveyed her interest in prop-
erty to another party daring the suit.
Kelsey v. Palmer, 184 HI. App. 325.
1 121-22 Va Amendment to confoxm
to statute^ — ^Where the statute pre-
scribes that a notice in form of a sum-
mons be served on defendant five days
before return day, and the form there-
of is prescribed by the statute, the
court cannot, where the notice given
was an ordinary summons in tort,
amend it so as to conform it to the
statute because proper statutory notice
is prerequisite to the court's jurisdic-
tion. Collins V, Wheaton, 85 N. J. L.
508, 89 A. 1004.
1122-30 In Kew Jersey the district
courts have no jurisdiction to try such
eases without a jury. The statute re-
quiring the clerk to call a jury with-
out application therefor by either party.
Collins V. Wheaton, 85 N. J. L. 508, 89
A. 1004.
1 122-36 Va Directing verdict— Where
the evidence shows a bona fide peace-
ful possession and a forcible ouster of
plaintiff, and there is no showing of
defendant's possession or of his claim
of right or interest prior to plaintiff's
peaceful entry it is material error to
direct a verdict for defendant. Davis
V. Drummond (Fla.), 67 S. 99.
1122-40 Katnre of possession Is for
Jnry^— If after obtaining permission to
occupy one's land, a person before go-
ing into possession procured a written
lease from an adverse claimant as to
part of the land, and apparently takes
possession thereunder without the first
person's knowledge, it is for the jury
to say under whom he holds. Goad v.
Walker, 73 W. Va. 431, 80 S. E. 873.
Wliat is actual possession is a mixed
question of law and fact and depends
upon the. character and conditions of
the property. The question of intent
connected with overt acts is important.
Bobinson v. Bamsey (Mo. App.)y 176 S.
W. 282.
1123-41 Harris v. Harris (Ala.), 67
8. 465.
1123-61 Conditional Judgment Im-
properd— If the jury returns a verdict
of guilty, the court should give judg-
ment for plaintiff for the restitution of
the premises, and for costs, and at
plaintiff's option, for all rent found to
be due and unpaid at time of judg-
ment. The court cannot impose condi-
559
tions that before plaintiff can have
writ of restitution he must pay defend-
ant a certain sum of money. Brought
V. Minor (Ariz.), 148 P. 294.
1124-66 See McClusky v. Nelson,
179 HI. App. 182.
1126-66 Amendment, — Judgment
may be amended to conform to com*
plaint at a subsequent term of court.
Stevens v. Carey, 183 HI. App. 24.
1130-8 A question of demand not
raised in court below cannqt be re-
viewed on appeal. Hudleson v. Hutson,
173 111. App. 178.
Objection to judgment cannot be con-
sidered on review unless such objection
was urged in trial court. Elisburg v.
Berkey, 185 111. App. 389.
F0BOEB7
1136-4 Bunker r. S. (Tex. Cr.), 177
S. W. 108 quot. 8 Standard Peoc. 1136.
1136-6 Barron t?. S., 12 Ga. App. 342,
77 S. E. 214; Bunker v. S. (Tex. Cr.),
177 S. W. 108 quot. 8 Standard Peoo.
1136.
Elements of the offence* — ^To constitute
forgery three things must exist: (1)
There must be a false making or other
alteration of an instrument in writing;
(2) a fraudulent intent; (3) and the
instrument must be apparently capable
of effecting a fraud. Dowling v, U. S.,
41 App. Cas. (D. C.) 11.
1139-21 Charging an accomplice.
In an indictment of an accomplice to
forgery the forgery itself must be prop-
erly charged and there must be proper
allegations to show that the party
charged is an accomplice. Warren v.
S. (Tex. Cr.), 149 S. W. 130.
1141-34 Meredith v. S. (Tex. Cr.),
164 S. W. 1019.
1141-36 In Texas Code Or. Proc,
1911, art. 225, provides for venue. See
Pye V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 154 S. W. 222.
1143-43 Dowling t?. U. S., 41 App.
Cas. (D. C.) 11.
1146-52 Newsum v. S., 10 Ala. App.
124, 65 S. 87; Whorton v. S. (Tex. Cr.),
152 S. W. 1082.
1146-54 Befeience to statute. — ^An
information need not refer to the par-
ticular section of the code under which
the accused was prosecuted. S. v.
Stickler, 90 Kan. 783, 136 P. 329.
1146-68 Statute of limitations docs
not run against the crime of forgery.
Vol. 8
FORGERY
P. V. Dougherty, 266 111. 420, 107 N. E.
695.
Pleading venue. — ^An information which
laid the venue only in the opening sen-
tence is sufficient, as repetition does not
strengthen the charge. S. v. Stickler,
90 Kan. 783, 136 P. 329.
1148-69 Bownd v. S., 93 Neb. 427,
140 N. W. 790.
Wilfully. — ^Where the information ac-
cused defendant of forgery charging
he "did wilfully, unlawfully, fraudu-
lently and feloniously, with intent then
and there to cheat and defraud" the
word wilfully when used in this specific
statement implies a criminal intent.
P. V. Okomoto (Cal. App.), 147 P. 598.
1148-70 Without autbority.— Where
the indictment recites that accused ' ' did
make, forge, and counterfeit" the in-
strument it sufficiently alleges that it
was without authority. Ary v. S., 104
Ark. 212, 148 S. W. 1032. An allegation
that accused feloniously and falsely al-
tered a check by adding $100 to the
amount for which it had been drawn,
and that ii was done with intent to
defraud the drawer, sufficiently alleges
that the alteration was made without
the drawer's consent or authority. S.
V. Stickler, 90 Kan. 783, 136 P. 329.
1153-3 Pye v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 154 S.
W. 222.
1154-6 The description may be
either in haec verba or according to its
legal tenor and effect. Bartlett v. S.,
8 Ala. App. 248, 62 8. 320.
1156-20 Bartlett v, S., 8 Ala. App.
248, 62 S. 320 J S. v. Jarrell, 73 W. Va.
782, 81 S. E. 523.
1156-21 Bartlett V. S., 8 Ala. App.
248, 62 S. 320.
1157-23 Bartlett v. S., 8 Ala. App.
248, 62 S. 320.
1157-24 Pye v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 154 S.
W. 222. See Johnson t*. S. (Tex. Cr.),
170 S. W. 144.
Immaterial yaziances of signatnres.
Where indictment charged that accused
forged the name of ' * Mrs. J. N. Grigg ' '
to a check and she testified her name
was Eliza A. Griggs but she married
J, N. Griggs there was no fatal vari-
ance. Shores v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 150 S.
W. 776.
1159-28 Collum v, S. (Tex. Cr.), 153
S. W. 1144.
1163-62 Whorton v. S. (Tex. Cr.),
152 S. W. 1082; Wesley t?. S. (Tex.
Cr.), 150 S. W. 197.
1163-59 Barron v. S., 12 Ga. App.
342, 77 S. E. 214; S. t\ Barber, 105
Miss. 390, 62 S. 361.
1164-64 S. V. Chapman, 103 Miss.
658, 60 S. 722.
1164-66 DiUard t?. S. (Tex. Cr.), 177
S. W. 99; Lamb-Campbell v. S. (Tex.
Cr.), 162 S. W. 879; Cheesebourge t\ 8.
(Tex. Cr.), 157 S. W. 761; S. t?. Smith,
77 Wash. 441, 137 P. 1008.
Extxinsic facta need be stated only
when the operation of the instrument
on other's rights is not manifest upon
the face of the instrument. P. v. Bis-
ing, 207 N. Y. 195, 100 N. E. 694, rev.
148 App. Div. 935, 133 N. Y. S. 1138.
1165-67 See Whitmire v. S. (Tex.
Cr.), 156 S. W. 1179.
1167-79 Authority of treasorer of
a life insurance company to sign re-
ceipts for premium need not be alleged.
Lamb-Campbell t?. S. (Tex. Cr.), 162 S.
W. 879.
1167-80 Lamb u. S. (Tex. Cr.), 148
S. W. 1088.
1168-84 Davis v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 156
S. W. 1171.
1168-86 In Texas it is unnecessary
to allege whether the bank on whom
check is drawn is incorporated or not.
Davis V, S. (Tex. Cr.), 156 S. W. 1171.
Alleging incorporation. — ^An indictment
is fatally defective when alleging
forgery in the second degree it fails
to allege that the institution upon
which the check was drawn was incor-
porated and was a bank. An averment
that it was doing business as a bank is
insufficient. And an averment that it
was "duly organized under the laws
of Missouri" is insufficient allegation
that it was incorporated. S. t\ Wash-
ington, 259 Mo. 335, 168 S. W. 695.
1168-86 Davis v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 156
S. W. 1171.
1169-87 Dowling v, U. S., 41 App.
Cas. (D. C.) 11.
1176-96 S. r. Burtenshaw, 25 Ida.
607, 138 P. 1105.
1171-99 Barron v. S., 12 Ga. App.
342, 77 S. E. 214.
1171-4 Davis V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 156
S. W. 1171; Pye v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 154
S. W. 222.
Kame of bank. — ^Where the indictment
simply alleged that the bank intended
to be defrauded was "The First Na-
tional Bank" it was not vicious and
fatal in failing to allege what bank
660
FRAUD AND DECEIT
Yol. 10
was meant because it would have been
forgery whatever bank may have been
intended. Bowen V, S. (Tex. Cr.)> 162
S. W. 1146.
1172-7 S. «. Barber, 105 Miss. 390,
62 S. 361. See S. v, Burtenshaw, 25
Ida, 607, 138 P. 1105.
1173-8 Dudley <?. S., 10 Ala. App.
130, 64 S. 534; S. V, Stickler, 90 Kan.
783, 136 P. 329.
1173-11 King V, S., 8 Ala. App. 239,
62 3. 374.
1174-20 S. 17. Chissell, 245 Mo. 549,
150 8. W. 1066.
1176-31 An indictment under §236
Penal Code, 1910, must allege the
forged paper was uttered and published
as true, but this allegation is not neces-
aary under an indictment founded on
§245. Barron v. S., 12 Ga. App. 342,
77 S. E. 214.
1177-41 Following the statute.
Sufficient to allege this offense sub-
stantially in the language of the stat-
ute. WilUams r. S. (Okla. Cr.), 142 P.
1181.
Name of deftauded person^ — ^Not neces-
aary to allege any particular person
was intended to be defrauded, and the
insertion of such name is surplusage.
Williams t?. S. (Okla. Cr.), 142 P. 1181.
1178-46 S. V. McBride, 72 Wash.
390, 130 P. 486.
1181-69 Such a variance is npt
fataly since the allegation in the in-
dictment is controlled by the instru-
ment set out. BaWlings 17. S. (Ark.),
174 S. W. 150.
1182-73 Brown r. S. (Tex. Cr.), 158
S. W. 533.
1184-90 Eaper t?. S. (Ga. App.), 84
S. E. 560.
FORMS
For fonns supplementing voL 9, pages
1-620, see infra, this volume.
FOBMS OF ACTION
2-8 Norton v. Beed, 253 Mo. 236, 161
S. W. 842; Maronen v. Anaconda Cop-
per Min. Co., 48 Mont. 249, 136 P. 968;
O'Neal t?. Bush & Tillar (Tex.), 173
e. W. 869; Pecos & N. T. By. Co. f?.
Amarillo St. By. Co. (Tex. Civ.), 171
S. W. 1103. See Moore v, Carolina P.
& L, Co., 163 N. C. 300, 79 S. E. 596.
The prtaiciples underlying the common-
law forms of action have not been abol-
ished^ however, and a reference to the
forms as well as the principles under-
lying them not infrequently aids in de-
termining the character of a right or
remedy. Maronen u. Anaconda Copper
Min. Co., 48 Mont. 249, 136 P. 968
FOBTHCOMINa BONDS
11-67 Kunst tJ. Pindley, 73 W. Va.
152, 80 S. E. 136.
17-21 Early r. Hampton, 15 Ga. App.
95, 82 S. E. 669.
26-86 Kunst v, Pindley, 73 W. Va.
152, 80 S. E. 136.
26-93 The amount for which execu-
tion may issue is the value of the
property only, provided it does not ex-
ceed the amount collectible on the
execution. The statute does not con-
template execution for the penalty or
the amount of the execution. Kunst r.
Findley, 73 W. Va. 152, 80 S. E. 136.
27-94 Kunst t?. Pindley, 73 W. Va.
152, 80 S. E. 136.
27-95 Notice of motion la amendable.
Kunst t?. Findley, 73 W. Va. 152, 80
S. E. 136.
Value of property taken under the
execution and released under the bond
must be stated in the notice of motion.
Kunst V. Findley, 73 W. Va. 152, 80
S. E. 136.
28-3 Whether or not there haa been
a breach of the bond is the only issue
that may be properly raised in a suit
where the execution of the obligation
is not denied. Salmon 17. Lynn (6a.
App.), 85 S. E. 203.
28-7 Salmon V. Lynn (Ga. App.), 85
S. E. 203.
29-14 The principal obligor may off-
set it by judgment which has been
rendered in his favor against the
obligee therein. Walker t?. Gamble, (W.
Va.), 82 S. E. 1014.
29-17 Hartshorn 17. Bank of Gough,
15 Ga, App. 167, 82 S. E. 805.
29-18 Contra, Peeples v. T. W. Gar-
rison & Son, 141 Ga. 411, 81 S. E. 116;
Hartshorn v. Bank of Gough, 15 Ga.
App. 167, 82 S. E. 805,
29-21 Peeples v, T. W. Garrison &
Son, 141 Ga. 411, 81 S. E. 116; Harts-
horn V, Bank of Gough, 15 Ga. App.
167, 82 S. E. 805.
29-22 Salmon v, Lynn (Ga. App.), 85
S. £. 203.
• FBAUD AND DECEIT
35-3 Gullett 17. Leaverton, 188 HI.
App, 66; DiUon i;, Hill (Mo.), 178 S,
661
Vol. 10
FRAUD AND DECEIT
W. 85; Stacey v. Eobinson, 184 Mo.
App. 54, 168 S. W. 261; Lembeck v.
Gerken, 86 N. J. L. Ill, 90 A. 698;
King V. Murphy, 151 N. Y. S. 476;
Hunt V. Lewis, 87 Vt. 528, 90 A. 578;
Baser v. Moomaw, 78 Wash. 653, 139
P. 622.
36-4 Where a conspiracy Is alleged
in the complaint it is simply a means
of connecting the defendants with the
overt acts of each individual, and does
not change the action from one of de-
ceit. Eoper t?. Noel, 32 S. D. 405, 143
N. W, 130; Lovelett V. Heumpfner, 32
S. D. 35, 141 N. W. 1080; Hull I?. Do-
heny (Wis.), 152 N. W. 417.
37-12 Hockensmith v. Winton, 11
Ala. App. 670, 66 S. 954; Hines t?.
Brode, 168 Cal, 507, 143 P. 729; Ponder
V. Altura Farms Co., 57 Colo. 519, 143
P. 670; Van Vliet Fletcher Automobile
Co. V. Crowell (la.), 149 N. W. 861;
Price V. Macomber, 163 la. 406, 144
N. W. 1020; Shuttlefield v. Neil, 163
la. 470, 145 N. W. 1; Girouard v. Jas-
per, 219 Mass. 318, 106 N. E. 849; Big-
ler f?. Keid, 186 Mo. App. Ill, 171 S.
W. 952; Home v. John A. Hertel Co.,
184 Mo. App. 725, 171 S. W. 598; Hat-
ton V, Cook, 166 App. Div. 257, 151
N. Y. S. 577; Meyersohn v. Gershel,-
85 Misc. 435, 147 N. Y. S. 882; Franzel
V. Dinitz, 83 Misc, 124. 144 N. Y. S.
770; Eeger t?. Henry (Okla.), 150 P.
722; Whitney t?. Bissell (Or.), 146 P.
141- Davis V, Burns (Tex. Civ.), 173
9. W. 476. See also voL 6, p. 120,
n. 1.
38-17 Burton V. Driggs, 20 Wall.
(U. S.) 125, 22 L. ed. 299; Yonkerman
Co. V, C. H. Fuller's Advertising
Agency, 135 Fed. 613; Steiner v. Clis-
by,' 103 Ala. 181, 15 S. 612; Donovan
V. Purtell, 119 111. App. 116; Penobscot
R. Co. V. Mayo, 67 Me. 470, 24 Am.
Rep. 45; Himmelberger Lumb. Co. v,
Dallas, 165 Mo. App. 49, 146 S. W.
95; Hanrahan v. Nat. Bldg. Assn., 66
N. J. L. 80, 48 A. 517; Humbird v,
Davis, 210 Pa. 311, 59 A. 1082: John-
son V, Cate, 77 Vt. 218, 59 A. 830;
Robinson V. Welty, 40 W. Va. 385, 22
S. E. 73; McKinnon V. Vollmar, 75 Wis.
82, 43 N. W. 800, 6 L. B. A. 121.
S9-19 Rumelv Products Co. «. Moss
(Tex. Civ.), 175 S. W. 1084.
40-26 Van Vliet Fletcher Automo-
bile Co. V. Crowell (la.), 149 N. W.
861; Winters V. Coward (Tex. Civ.),
174 a W. 940,
40-30 Ponder v. Altura Farms CJo-
57 Colo. 519, 143 P. 570.
41-41 McKinley v. Warren, 218 Mass.
310, 105 N. E. 990. Comp, Beusens r.
Gerard, 160 App. Div. 625, 146 N. Y.
S. 86; Continental Securities Co. v, Bel-
mont, 83 Misc. 340, 144 N. Y. S. 801.
42-42 Carr v. Swift, 185 Mo. App.
86, 170 S. W. 914.
42-48 Stewart v. Biley (Ala.), 66 S.
488; Merlau v. Kalamazoo Circ. Judge,
180 Mich. 393, 147 N. W. 503.
42-45 Ganow v. Ashton, 32 S. D.
458, 143 N. W, 383.
46-69 Hicks v. Grimley, 213 N. Y.
447, 107 N. E. 1037.
46-74 Durango Land & Timber Co.
tJ. Shaw (Tex. Civ.), 165 S. W. 490.
47-79 Wife not » necessary party
plaintiff where husband was only one
conducting the preliminary negotiations
and he did not act as her agent, and
he had paid the purchase price, and she
was not present, and was ignorant of
the false representations. Tempel v.
Idler, 26 Colo. App, 562, 144 P. 324.
47-88 Wife necessary party where
husband conveyed real property belong-
ing to himself and wife as tenants by
entireties. White V. Woods (Ind. App.),
106 N. E. 536.
49-96 American Ezch. Nat. Bank r.
Seagroves, 166 N. C. 608, 82 S. E. 947.
49-97 King v. Murphy, 151 N. Y. S.
476.
59-99 Quiet title.— Fraud provable
under general issue in action to quiet
title. Gillespie f. Darroch (Ind. App.),
107 N. E. 475.
61-9 Neilson v, Edwards, 34 S. D.
399, 148 N. W. 844.
52-14 To show good faiths — ^Allega-
tions that plaintiff offered to return
the note and offered to rescind only
go to show his good faith and are un-
necessary for any other purpose. Ganow
V. Ashton, 32 S. D. 458, 143 N. W.
383.
52-16 Robertson f . Frey, 72 Or. 599,
144 P. 128.
52-19 Gullett f . Leaverton, 188 HL
App. 66.
53-22 Kilpatrick V, Miller, 55 Colo.
419, 135 P. 780; King !?. Murphy, 151
N. Y. S. 476.
52-23 €orry v. Sylvia j Cia (Ala.),
68 S. 891; Kilpatrick c. Miller, 55
I Colo* 419, 135 P. 780 1 Hnffqtetler Vx
m
FRAUD AND DECEIT
\Vol. 10
Onr Home Life Ins: Co., 67 Fla. 324,
65 8. 1; Kalfus v, Baviea' Exr., 164
Ky. 390, 175 S. W. 652; King v. Murphy,
151 N. Y. S. 476; American Exch. Nat.
Bank v. Seagroves, 166 N. O. 608, 82
8. E. 947; Donaldson v. Temple, 96 S.
0. 240, 80 8. £. 437; Klaveness f>.
Preese, 33 8. D. 263, 145 N. W. 661;
Laun V. Kipt, 155 Wis. 347, 145 N. W.
183,
Use of tenn * 'fraud.* '^The term
''fraud" is a conclusion from facts
stated, and the word or an equivalent
need not be used if the facts appear
showing a fraudulent transaction. Way
V. Bronston, 91 Kan. 446, 138 P. 601.
Each component of fraud must be al-
leged and found to exist as a matter of
fact, and the absence of any one of
them is fatal to the party asserting
fraud. Smith v. Anderson (Or.), 144
P. 1158; Wheelwright V, Vanderbilt, 69
Or. 326, 138 P. 857.
63-24 Moon v. Benton (Ala. App.),
68 8. 589.
64-26 Baughtrey v, Hermosa Lead &
Zinc Co., 16 Ariz. 193, 141 P. 716; Up-
ton V. Weisling, 8 Ariz. 298, 71 P. 917;
McFarland v. Clarlsbad Hot Springs
Sanitarium Co., 68 Or. 630, 137 P. 209;
Donaldson v. Temple, 96 8, C. 240, 80
8. E. 437; Baser f. Moomaw, 78 Wash.
653, 139 P. 622.
64-28 Huffstetler r. Our Home Life
Ins. Co., 67 Fla. 324, 65 8. 1,
64-29 Kilpatrick v. Miller, 55 Colo.
419, 135 P. 780.
66-33 Beynolds r. Evans, 123 Md.
365, 91 A. 564; Neilson v. Masters, 72
Or. 463, 143 P. 1132; Scribner V. Pal-
mer, 81 Wash. 470, 142 P. 1166.
Scienter must be alleged^ — ^Robertson v.
Prey, 72 Or. 599, 144 P, 128.
Avennent of scienter essential.— But
there must be an averment if scienter
in an action for fraud and deceit or
the complaint is demurrable. Kimber
V. Young, 137 Fed. 744, 70 C. C. A. 178;
Nash V, Bosesteel, 7 Cal. App. 504, 94
P. 850; Colorado Springs €o. v. Wight,
44 Colo. 179, 96 P. 820, 16 Ann. Cas.
644; Mizell «. Upchurch, 46 Fla. 443, 35
8. 9; Wooten v. Callahan, 26 Ga. 366, 32
Ga. 382; Wightman v. Tucker, 50 HI.
App. 75; Trimble v, Beid, 97 Ky. 713,
31 8. W. 861; Hoist V. Stewart, 154
Mass. 445, 28 N. E. 574; Vincent V. At-
bett, 94 Miss. 46, 47 8. 641; Fenwick
D, Bowling, 50 Mo. App. 516; Pettigrew
V. CheUis, 41 N, H. 95; Byard v. Holmes,
34 N. J. L. 296; L. D. Garrett Co. v.
Appleton, 101 App. Div. 507, 92 N. Y.
8. 136, af. 184 N. Y. 657, 76 N. E.
1099; Coyle r. Nies, 43 Hun (N. Y.)
635, af. 120 N. Y. 6|1, 23 N. E. 1152;
Bolfes V. Eussel, 5 Off 400; Griswold v.
Gebbie, 126 Pa. 353, 17 A. 673; Cox r.
Highley, 100 Pa. 249; Bromonia Co. i?.
Greenwood Drug Co., 78 8. C, 482, 59
S. E. 363; West v. Emery, 17 Vt. 583,
44 Am. Dee. 356; Northwestern Steam-
ship Co. V. Horton, 29 Wash. 565, 70
P. 59; Ormrod V. Huth, 14 Mees. & W.
(Eng.) 651.
66-34 Montreal Bank v. Thayer, 7
Fed. 622; Pryor v. McNairy, 1 Stew.
(Ala.) 150; Terrell t?. Bennett, 18 Ga.
404; Forsyth t?. Vehmeyer, 176 HI. 359,
52 N. E. 55, af. in 177 U. 8. 177, 20
Sup. Ct. 623, 44 L. ed. 723; Davis v.
Central Land Co. (la.), 143 N. W. 1073;
Baldwin v. West, Hard. (Ky.) 50;
Hoist V. Stewart, 154 Mass. 445, 28 N.
E. 574; Beebe v. Knapp, 28 Mich. 53;
Fenwick v. Bowling, 60 Mo. App. 516,
521; Thomas v. Beebe, 25 N, Y. 244.
Alleging knowledge.— ^' A complaint at
law for damages for fraud is insuffi-
cient, where there is no allegation of
knowledge." Canadian Agency v. As-
sets Bealization Co., 165 App. Div. 96,
150 N. Y. 8. 758.
66-36 Neilson v, Edwards, 34 8. D.
399, 148 N. W, 844.
66-36 Corry v. Sylvia y Cia (Ala.),
68 8. 891.
66-37 Kronfeld V. Missal, 87 Conn.
491, 89 A. 95.
56-38 Hamlin v, Oliver (N. H.), 93
A. 966; Spead v. tomlinson, 73 N. H.
46, 59 A. 376, 68 L. B. A. 432; Eobert-
Bon V. Frey, 72 Or. 599, 144 P. 128.
67-39 White v. Woods (Ind. App.),
106 N. E. 536.
57-41 Dillon v. Hill (Mo.), 178 S.
W. 85; Eobertson v. Frey, 72 Or. 599,
144 P. 128. See Kilpatrick v. Miller,
55 Colo. 419, 135 P. 780,
67-42 Wall v. Graham (Ala.), 68 S.
298,
67-44 An answer alleging fraud
must aver that the party making the
false representations knew them to be
false and that they were made with in-
tent to defraud, and that the party
seeking to be relieved from the fraud
relied upon such representations. Out-
cault Advertising Co. v. Buell, 71 Or.
52, 141 P^ 1020, A counterclaim based
663
Vol. 10
FRAUDS, STATUTE OF
on deceit must set out that defend-
ant was damaged. Cross v. Sny-
der's Admx., 164 Ky. 370, 176 S. W.
641.
57-45 Cohen i^^Kohler, 158 App. Div.
435, 143 N. Y. 87497.
58-46 King v. Murphy, 151 N. Y. S.
476.
59-64 Wabash R. Co. v. Grate, 53
Ind. App. 583, 102 N. E. 155; Carter
1?. Orne, 112 Me. 365, 92 A. 289.
59-60 Kimble v. Gillard, 177 Mich.
250, 143 N. W. 79.
60-62 Allegations as to conspiracy.
"Where the petition alleged that the de-
fendants conspired together to defraud
the plaintiff in an exchange of lands by
false representations but states facts
making a sufficient charge of false rep-
resentations upon which he relied to
his injury, the allegations as to the con-
spiracy may be disregarded and he
may recover if his proofs support the
allegations of fraud. Shelberg v, Jones
(la.), 151 N. W. 1066.
61-71 Shoudy t?. Beeser, 48 Mont.
579 142 P 205.
61-72 Shuttlefield t?. Neil, 163 la.
470, 145 N. W. 1; Eeynolds t?. Evans,
123 Md. 365, 91 A. 564.
61-73 Where the facts are not con-
troverted and furnish the basis only
of the inference that the defendant is
guilty of the fraud alleged, the court
may infer the fraud as a matter of law
and direct a verdict. Shoudy v. Beeser,
48 Mont. 579, 142 P. 205.
62-76 Kerr i\ Shurtleff, 218 Mass.
167, 105 N. E. 871.
62-78 Bingham v. Eish, 86 N. J. L.
316, 90 A. 1106.
62-80 Bingham v. Eish, S6 N. J. L.
316, 90 A. 1106.
62-81 Tillis v. Smith Sons Lumber
Co. (Ala.), 65 S. 1015.
65-4 D. S. Giles & Son v, Horner, 97
Neb. 162, 149 N. W. 333. See Clear-
water 17. Forrest, 72 Or, 312, 143 P. 998.
65-8 Bule illustrated. — The finding
that the representations were made in
reckless disregard of whether they were
true or false will sustain an allegation
that the defendant had positive knowl-
edge of their falsity.. Turk v. Botsford,
70 Or. 198, 139 P. 925.
FBAUDS, STATXJTE OF
68-1 Moore v. Whitmire (Ala.), 66
S. 601; Berry t?. French, 24 Colo. App.
519, 135 P. 985; Campbell v. Burnett,
120 Md. 214, 87 A. 894; Moormeister r.
Hannibal, 180 Mo. App. 717, 163 S. W.
926; Martin f?. Harrington, 174 Mo.
App. 707, 161 S. W. 275; Fahey u. Ben-
edetti (Tex. Civ.), 161 S. W. 896.
73-26 Ex parte Banks, 185 Ala. 275,
64 S. 74; Conoley v. Harrell, 182 Ala.
243, 62 S. 511; Lundquist v. ChUd, 182
111. App. 585; Florin f?. Bayman, 176
111. App. 106; Hanson t?. Marion, 128
Minn. 468, 151 N. W. 195 (cit 10 Stand-
ard Proc. 73); Wirtz v. Guthrie, 81 N.
J. Eq. 271, 87 A. 134; Goodrich i;. Rog-
ers, 75 Wash. 212, 134 P. 947. See E.
& L. Co. 1/. Metz, 165 App. Div. 533, 150
N. Y. S. 843.
Demurrer Improper. — The statute of
frauds is an affirmative defense and
must be pleaded and cannot be taken
advantage of by demurrer. Stover r.
Game well Fire Alarm Tel. Co., 164 App.
Div. 155, 149 N. Y. S. 650.
74-26 Goodrich V. Rogers, 75 Wash.
212, 134 P. 947.
74-27 Jennings v. Augir, 215 Fed.
658; Ex parte Banks, 185 Ala. 275, 64
S. 74; Union Cemetery Co. r. Alexander
(Ala. App.), 69 S. 261; Lurie r. Pinan-
ski, 215 Mass. 229, 102 N. E. 629; Mil-
hoUand v, Pavne, 159 App. Div. 10, 143
N. Y. S. 1090'; Edwards i?. Old Settlers'
Assn. (Tex. Civ.), 166 S. W. 423; Texas
Brewing Co. t?. Walters (Tex. Oiv.)> 43
S. W. 548.
74-28 May v. Sloan, 101 IT. S. 231,
25 L. ed. 797; Thomas J. Baird Inv. Co.
r. Harris, 209 Fed. 291, 126 C. C. A.
217; TrapnalPs Admx. r. Brown, 19
Ark. 39; Jamison v. Christman (Kan.),
148 P. 247; Smith r. Theobald, 86 Ky.
141, 5 S. W. 394; Beid ». Stevens, 120
Mass. 209; Bean 17. Lamprey, 82 Minn.
320, 84 N. W. 1016; Metcalf t?. Brandon,
58 Miss. 841; Schultz v. Hunter, 188
Mo. App. 520, 174 S. W. 179; Moor-
meister V. Hannibal, 180 Mo. App. 717,
163 S. W. 926; Altoona Portland Ce-
ment Co. V. Burbank (Okla.), 143 P.
845; Rogers r. Rogers, 20 R. I. 400, 39
A. 755; Cosand r. Bunker, 2 S. D. 294,
50 N. W. 84; Hotchkiss v. Ladd, 36 Vt-
593; Thompson r. English, 76 Wash. 23,
135 P. 664; Goodrich i?. Rogers, 75
Wash. 212, 134 P, 947; McClanahan v.
Otto-Marmet Coal & Mining Co. (W.
Va.), 82 S. E. 752; Kaufer v. Stumpf,
129 Wis. 476, 109 N. W. 561.
If reasonable objection to tbe testi-
mony be made. Johnson v. Tindall
(Tex. Civ. App.), 161 S. W. 401.
564
FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES
Vol 10
75-80 See Thomas J. Baird Inv. Co.
r. Harris, 209 Fed. 291, 126 C. C. A.
217.
76-31 Arbogast t?. Johnson, 80 Wash.
537, 141 P. 1140; Goodrich v. Rogers,
75 Wash. 212, 134 P. 947.
76-32 Anderson v. Dailey, 25 Colo.
App. 175, 336 P. 461; Oushing v. Mon-
arch Timber Co., 75 Wash. 678, 135 P.
660.
76-34 Kendrick t?. Cunningham, 9
Ala. App. 398, 63 S. 797; Storthz t?.
Watts (Ark.), 175 S. W. 406.
Verbal amendment. — Plaintiff may
prove and recover on a verbal emend-
ation of the written description made
whUe contract was in fieri in the ab-
sence of any pleading of the statute of
frauds. Moore !?. Whitmire (Ala.), 66
8. 601.
76-38 Directed verdict.— Defense of
statute cannot be presented merely by
a request for a directed verdict. Tyr-
rell V. Robinson, 180 HI. App. 286;
Lanser v. Fidler, 158 111. App. 94;
Hodges t?, Bankers' Surety Co., 152 111.
App. 372.
76-39 Miller v. Upton. 6 Ind. 53;
Matthews v, Martin, 177 Mo. App. 379,
164 S. W. 154. See Brown v. Higgins,
45 Ark. 456, where it was held the de-
fense might be oral.
78-49 McDonald v. Place (Vt.), 90
A. 948.
78-50 Milholland v, Payne, 159 App.
Div. 10, 143 N. Y. S. 1090.
May be waived by agreement. — Schultz
p. Hunter, 188 Mo. App. 520, 174 S.
W. 179.
78-51 First Nat. Bank v, G. Geske
& Co. (Wash.), 148 P. 593.
78-63 Johnson t?. Latimer, 71 Ga. 470,
475; Tyrrell r. Robinson, 180 111. App.
286; Holt r. Brown & Co., 63 la. 319,
19 N. W. 235; Hackworth v. Zeitinger,
48 Mo. App. 32; Yeoman v, Mueller, 33
Mo. App. 343; Boramer t\ American
Spiral Spring Butt Hinge Mfg. Co., 81
N. Y. 468; Geneva Mineral Springs Co.
r. Coursey, 45 App. Div. 268, 61 N. Y.
S. 98; Graham v. Heinrich, 13 Okla. 107,
74 P.. 328,
79-54 Moormeister r. Hannibal, 180
Mo. App. 717, 163 S. W. 926; Good-
rich V. Rogers, 75 Wash. 212, 134 P.
947,
79-55 Box V. Stanford, 13 Smed. &
M. (Miss.) 93, 51 Am. Dec. 142.
80-58 Comp. Gard v. Ramos, 23 Cal.
App. 303, 138 P. 1T)8; Hanson v, Mar-
ion, 128 Minn. 468, 151 N. W. 195 (cit.
10 Standard Proc. 73, 79); Volkening
r. Raymond, 91 Misc. 53, 154 N. Y. S.
145.
80-59 Motion to dlamlss.— Statute of
frauds may be taken advantage of by
motion to dismiss at close of plaintiff *8
case where it does not appear from
pleadings that the contract was in
parol and within the statute. Hanson
V, Marion, 128 Minn. 468, 151 N. W.
195.
81-63 Altoona Portland Cement Co.
V. Burbank "(Okla.), 143 P. 845.
82-72 Epstein v. Hiller, 146 N. Y.
S. 305.
82-73 Day t?. Adcock, 11 Ala. App.
471, 66 S. 911; Wachal t?. Davis, 164
la. 360, 145 N. W. 865; Waldock v.
First Nat. Bank, 43 Okla. 348, 143 P.
53.
82-76 Crystal Ice Co. v. Holliday
(Miss.), 64 S. 658.
82-77 Comp. Day v. Adcock, 11 Ala.
App. 471, 66 S, 911.
83-81 Newman v. Benge & Flemister
(Tex. Civ.), 167 S. W. 6.
FBAUDULENT CONVEYANCES
91-8 Situs of real property. — The law
of the state where the property is sit-
uated determines whether a convey-
ance of real property is fraudulent.
Klinger v. Hyman (C. C. A.), 223 Fed.
257.
91-11 Klinger v. Hyman (C. C. A.),
223 Fed. 257.
93-16 Allen v. Kane, 79 Wash. 248,
140 P. 534.
94-19 Smallwood v. Moore (C. C*
A.), 223 Fed. 38.
102-47 Fidelity Mortgage Bond Co.
V. Morris (Ala.), 68 S. 153; Scheve v.
Vanderkolk, 97 Neb. 204, 149 N. W.
401.
102-49 Person not entitled to object
to conveyance. — ^But one who is en-
titled to a right of way across the land
of the defendant so long as he owns
it, is not a creditor whe can object to
a voluntary conveyance by the defend-
ant. Arbaugh t?. Alexander, 164 la.
635, 146 N. W. 747.
103-52 Heinz t?. White, 105 Ala.
670, 17 S. 185; Schwabacher Bros. Co.
565
Vol. 10
FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES
V, Palmer, 4 Alaska 75; Francis v. Wil-
kinson, 147 111. 370, 35 N. E. 150; Son-
ger t?. Partridge, 107 111. 529; White v.
Bussell, 79 111. 155; Gliatto V. Dobritz,
182 111. App. 437; Henry v. Stevens, 108
Ind. 281, 9 N. E. 358; Second Nat.
Bank t?. Brady, 96 Ind. 498; State Bank
V, Davis, 4 Ind. 653; Laney v, Laney,
2 Ind. 196; Beed v. Bobbins (Ind.
App.), 108 N. E. 780; Farmers' Sb Mer-
chants' Bank v. Daiker (la.), 148 N.
W. 1020; Thompson V. Thompson, 94
Kan. 168, 146 P. 344; Bryant v. Mans-
field, 22 Me. 360; Walton v. Tusten, 49
Miss. 569; Fredericks V, Davis, 3 Mont.
251, aff., 104 U. S. 618, 26 L. ed. 849;
Stockwell V. Stockwell, 72 N. H. 69. 54 ,
A. 701; Hildebrand v. WiUig, 64 N. J.
Eq. 249, 63 A. 1035; Servis v. Nelson,
14 N. J. Eq. 94; Jones i?. Gorman, 42
N. O. 21; White v. Brocaw, 14 O. St.
339; Hershey V. Weiting, 50 Pa. 240;
Fowler v. Stonenm, 11 Tex. 478, 62 Am.
Dec. 490; Eggleston v, Sheldon (Wash.),
148 P. 575; Boothe V. Bassett, 82 Wash.
95, 143 P. 449; Fargo V. Ladd, 6 Wis.
106.
104-58 Bider v. White, 3 Mackey
(D. C.) 305; Gait V. Jackson, 9 Ga.
151; Peacock t?. Terry, 9 Ga. 137; Fran-
cis V. Wilkinson, 147 Hi. 370, 35 N. E.
150; Dunaway v, Bobertson, 95 Dl. 419;
Barrow t?. Barrow, 108 Ind. 345, 9 N.
E. 371; State Bank <7. Davis, 4 Ind. 653;
Beed v. Bobbins (Ind. App.), 108 N.
E. 780; Jones V, Farris, 70 la. 739, 29
N. W. 812; Day v. Lown, 51 la. 364, 1
N. W. 786; Holliday V. Holliday, 10 la.
200; Durand v. Higgins, 67 Kan. 110,
72 P. 567 (such grantor cannot have his
title quieted as against such convey-
ance) ; Bay v. Thomas, 140 Ky. 570, 131
S. W. 503; Hood t?. Frellsen, 31 La.
Ann. 577: Creamer v. Bivert, 214 Mo.
473, 113 S. W. 1118; Larimore «. Tyler,
88 Mo. 661; Parker t?. Parker, 4 Neb.
(Unof.) 692, 96 N. W. 208; Stockwell
V. Stockwell, 72 N. H. 69, 54 A. 701;
Servis V. Nelson, 14 N. J. Eq. 94; Sweet
V. Tinsler, 52 Barb. 271, 273; Nichols
V. 6mith, 164 App. Div. 304, 150 N. Y.
S. 410; O'Connor f?. Byan, 9 Ohio Dec.
(Reprint) 575: Wilson c. Demander, 71
Tex. 603, 9 S. W. 678; McClenny V.
Floyd, 10 Tex. 159; Peaslee t?. Barney,
1 D. Chip. (Vt.) 331, 6 Am. Dec. 743;
James r. Bird, 8 Leigh (Va.) 510, 31
Am. Dec. 668; Edgell f?. Smith, 60 W.
Va. 349, 40 S. E. 402; Goldsmith V.
Goldsmith, 46 W, Va. 426, 33 S. E. 266.
106-54 Schermerhom v, De Cham-
brun, 64 Fed. 195, 12 C. C. A, 81, 26 XJ.
S. App. 212; Gregory V, Haworth, 25
Cal. 653; Lathrop v. Pollard, 6 Colo.
424; Jackson I?. Dutton, 3 Har. (Del.)
98; Fletcher v, Fletcher, 2 MacArthur
(D. C.) 38; Brady t?. Huber, 197 111. 291,
64 N. E. 264, 90 Am. St. 161; Songer v.
Partridge, 107 HI. 529; Kitts V. WU-
son, 130 Ind. 492, 29 N. E. 401; Brigga
V. Coffin, 91 la. 329, 59 N. W. 259;
Weir V. Day, 57 la. 84, 10 N. W. 304;
Massi t?. Lavine, 139 Mich. 140, 102 N.
W. 665; Poppe t?. Poppe, 114 Mich. 649,
72 N. W. 612, 68 Am. St. 503; Buckman
V. Conover, 37 N. J. Eq. 683; Anderson
V. Tuttle, 26 N. J. Eq. 144; Eyre v.
Eyre, 19 N. J. Eq. 42; Boothe v. Bas-
sett, 82 Wash. 95, 143 P. 449.
105-56 Heinz v. White, 105 Ala.
670, 17 S. 185; Stockwell v. Stockwell,
72 N. H. 69, 54 A. 701; Owen v. Sharp,
12 Leigh (Va.) 427.
105-56 Davis v. StovaU Sb Bro., 185
Ala. 173, 64 S. 586; Lathrop v. Pollard,
6 Colo. 424; Jackson v. Dutton, 3 Har.
(Del.) 98; Francis r. Wilkinson, 147
111. 370, 35 N. E. 150; White v. Bussell,
79 HI. 155; Kitts V. Wilson, 130 Ind.
492, 29 N. E. 401; Laney v. Laney, 2
Ind. 196; McLaughlin t?. McLaughlin,
16 Mo. 242; Ober V. Howard, 11 Mo.
425; Hildebrand V. Willig, 64 N. J.
Eq. 249, 53 A. 1035; Nichols v. Smith,
164 App. Div. 304, 150 N. T. S. 410;
Pride v. Andrew, 51 0. St. 405, 38 N.
E. 84; White V. Brocaw, 14 O. St. 339;
Battle V. Street, 85 Tenn. 282, 2 S. W.
384; Peaslee V, Barney, 1 D. Chip.
(Vt.) 331, 6 Am. Dec. 743; Wilson r.
Trawick, 10 Tex. 428.
106-59 Allen t?. Kane, 79 Wash. 248,
140 P. 534; Wildasin «?. Long (W. Va.),
82 S. E. 205.
106-62 Pence f. Bhonemus (Ind.
App.), 108 N. E. 129.
108-65 Klinger v, Hyman (C. C. A.),
223 Fed. 257; Jenkins t?. Lockard'a
Admr., 66 Ala. 377; Thuringer v. Traf-
ton, 58 Colo. 250, 144 P. 866; Eppich
V. Blanchard, 68 Colo. 139, 143 P. 1035;
Lougheed v, Armstrong (N. J. Eq.), 92
A. 93; Grant County Bank V. Hayes
(Or.), 149 P. 473,
10SM8 Pence r. Bhonemus (Ind.
App.), 108 N. E. 129; Brundage i?.
Chenewotth, 101 la. 256, 70 N. W. 211,
63 Am. fit. Bep. 382, quoi. and app, in
Farmers' & Merchants' Bank v. Daiker
(la.), 148 N. W. 1020; Hall v. Sands,
52 Me. 355: Webster v. Hardyi 181 Ho.
566
PRAtJDULENT CONVEYANCES
Vol Id
App. 9, 163 S. W. 541; Weinstock v.
Hallenbeck, 163 App. Div. 858, 966, 146
N. Y. S^ 1047.
112-78 §2458 Code is broad enough
to include subsequent creditors. Quinn-
Marshall Co. v. Whittaker, 116 Va. 965,
83 S. £, 398.
114-83 See note in 135 Am. St. 330.
115-84 Davis v. Stovall & Bro., 185
Ala. 173, 64 S. 586. And see note in
135 Am. St. 330.
118-99 Allen v. Kane, 79 Wash. 248,
140 P, 634.
119-1 Allen v. Kane, 79 Wash. 248,
140 P, 634.
121-9 Gliatto v. Dobritz, 182 IlL
App, 437.
121-10 Cohen v. Levy (Mass.), 168
N. E. 1074; Gately r. Kappler, 209
Mass. 426, 95 N. E. 859; Pierce r.
O'Brien, 189 Mass. 58, 75 N. E. 61;
Mansfield v. Dyer, 131 Mass. 200;
Morse v. Aldrich, 130 Mass. 578; Bris-
tol County Sav. Bank !?. Keavy, 128
Mass. 298; Carroll v. Hay ward, 124
Mass. 120; Snow v. Paine, 114 Mass.
520; Wadsworth V. Williams, 100 Mass.
126; Port Huron Mach. Co. v. Larson,
95 Neb. 60, 144 N. W. 1054; §7401, L.
O. L.; Grant County Bank v. Hayes
(Or.), 149 P. 473.
127-27 Commercial State Bank v.
Ankrum (Mo. App.), 177 S. W. 778.
127-28 Commercial State Bank v.
Ankrum (Mo. App.), 177 S. W. 778;
Koopman v. Mansolf (Mont.), 149 P.
491; Clough & Parker v, Glines & Stev-
ens Co., 77 N. H. 408, 92 A. 803; Leav-
engood v. McGee, 50 Or. 233, 91 P. 453;
Allen V. Kane, 79 Wash. 248, 140 P.
534.
132-46 Commercial State Bank «.
Ankrum (Mo. App.), 177 S. W. 778.
134-52 Allen v. Kane, 79 Wash. 248,
140 P. 534.
140-78 While heirs and not creditors
of the heirs have the right to have de-
creed void an executor's sale to himself,
yet where executor and legatees enter
into a collusive agreement to defeat
the right of creditors, the latter may
attack it and show it fraudulent. Webb
V. Deadwyler, 142 Ga. 422, 83 S. E. 99.
141-75 Citizens' State Bank v, Mc-
Shan (Tex. Cr.), 172 S. W. 565.
144-85 American Surety Co. v. Con-
way, 222 Fed. 140.
144-90 Joint debtors.— The co-
debtor of one of two joint debtors who
has made a fraudulent conveyance is
not a necessary party. Graham Gro-
cery Co. !?. Chase (W. Va.), 84 S. E.
785.
145-98 American Surety Co. v. Con-
way, 222 Fed. 140; Eggleston t?. Shel-
don (Wash.), 148 P. 575.
147-4 Home Powder Co. t?. Lively,
182 Mo. App. 130, 168 S. W. 351, trus-
tee named in the deed of trust is
proper party defendant.
150-15 McDonald v, Asay, 139 HI.
123, 27 N. E. 929; Long v. Garey In-
vest. Co., 135 la. 398, 112 N. W. 550;
Treadway v. Turner, 10 Ky. L. Rep.
949, 10 S. W. 816; Chapin v. Dodds, 104
Mich. 232, 62 N. W. 351; Hunt r. Dean,
91 Minn. 96, 97 N. W. 574; Lindell Real
Est. Co. V. Lindell, 133 Mo. 386, 33 S.
W. 466; Iron Nat. Bank v. Dolge, 46
App. Div. 327, 61 N. Y. S. 680; Aug-
usta Sav. Bank r. Stelling, 31 S. u.
360, 9 S. E. 1028; Carkeek v. Boston
Nat, Bank, 16 Wash. 399, 47 P. 884.
150-16 Hunt 17. Dean, 91 Minn. 96,
97 N. W. 574; Lindell Real Est. Co. v.
Lindell, 133 Mo. 386, 33 S. W. 466.
150-17 Taylor v. Cloud, 40 Ga. 288;
Smith V. Bryan, 34 Ga. 53.
152-26 Eppich v, Blanchard, 58 Colo.
139, 143 P. 1035.
155-37 Plaintiff's statns must be
alleged^-— A petition which fails to
state that plaintiff is either a judg-
ment creditor or an attachment credi-
tor fails to state an essential requisite
to a cause of action. Commercial State
Bank v, Andkrum (Mo. App.), 177 S.
W. 778.
155-38 Eckhart t?. Burrell Mfg. Co.,
236 HI. 134, 86 N. E. 199; Eggleston v.
Sheldon (Wash.), 148 P. 575.
158-45 Leavengood r. McGee, 50 Or.
233, 91 P, 453.
159-48 Leavengood v, McGee, 50 Or.
233, 91 P. 453.
163-60 Mauch Chunk Nat. Bank v,
Shrader (W. Va.), 81 S. E. 1121.
166-65 Eppich v. Blanchard, 58
Colo. 139, 143 P. 1035.
167-66 Pence v, Rhonemus (Ind.
App.), 108 N. E. 129.
168-68 Burns' Ann. St. (Ind.) 1914,
§4018; Pence v. Rhonemus (Ind. App.),
108 N. E. 129.
176-13 Adams v. Davidson (Ala.),
68 S. 267.
567
Vol 10
FRElOnT CARRIERS
181-35 Pace's Trustee v. Pace, 162
Ky. 457, 172 S. W. 925.
187-55 Effect of grantee pleading
the statute of limitations. — ^''When the
statute of limitations is invoked by the
grantee in a conveyance attacked as
fraudulent, the plea operates to deny
that any prejudice resulted to the pur-
suing creditor by reason of the execu-
tion of the conveyance, and thereby
challenges his right to . attack it. ' '
Pace's Trustee v. Pace, 162 Ky. 457,
172 S. W. 925.
191-69 Klinger v. Hyman (C. C. A.),
223 Fed. 257 (New York statute);
Schwabacher Bros. Co. v. Palmer, 4
Alaska 75; Eppich «. Blanchard, 58
Colo. 139, 143 P. 1035; Idaho Hdw. &
P. Co. V, Saunders, 26 Ida. 424, 143 P.
1183; Capital Lumb. Co. v. Saunders,
26 Ida. 408, 143 P. 1178; Grant County
Bank I7. Hayes (Or.), 149 P. 473; Citi-
zen's State Bank v. McShan (Tex.
Civ.), 172 S. W. §65; Panell v. First
Nat. Bank (Tex. Civ.), 163 S. W. 340;
Eipon Hdw. Co. v. Haas, 157 Wis. 466,
145 N. W. 1096; Germania Nat. Bank
V, Lachenmaier, 156 Wis. 673, 146 N. W.
779.
192-70 Question of law.— Where
fraudulent intent is apparent upon the
face of the instrument or admitted, or
some interest inconsistent with the con-
veyance is reserved then it is a ques-
tion for the court alone. Panell v.
First Nat. Bank (Tex. Civ.), 163 S.
W. 340.
192-72 Bona fide purchaser.— ^Wheth-
er a grantee was a purchaser for value
and in good faith is a question of fact.
Peterson v. Tull (Wash.), 148 P. 598.
193-74 Klie v. Wellman (Mo. App.),
175 S. *W. 267; Nathenson v. Crossland,
64 Pa. Super. 610.
213-64 Humiston, Keeling & Co. r.
Yore, 181 Mich. 629, 148 N. W. 266;
Coffey V, McGahey, 181 Mich. 225, 148
N. W. 356; Scheve V. Vanderkolk, 97
Neb. 204, 149 N. W. 401; N. Y. Laws,
1914, ch. 507; Klein t?. Maravelas, 89
Misc. 466, 152 N. Y. S. 584.
215-71 Scheve v, Vanderkolk, 97
Neb. 204, 149 N. W. 401.
216-73 It Is the general rule that
a creditor must reduce his claim to
judgment before he is entitled to have
such property impounded as security
for the claim. But this rule has its ex-
ceptions. Coffey V, McGahey, 181 Mich.
225, 148 N. W. 356; Scheve v. Vander-
kolk, 97 Neb. 204, 149 N. W. 401.
Exception "wlien claims need not be re-
duced to Judgment. — Where goods are
sold in bulk without complying with
the Bulk Sales Law and the vendor im-
mediately thereafter dies intestate and
insolvent, the creditors of the decedent
need not, in such case, reduce their
claims to judgment and have executions
returned nulla bona nor file them in
the probate court for allowance, before
they can proceed to impound the stock
of goods and subject it to the payment
of their claims. Coffey v. McGahey, 181
Mich. 225, 148 N. W. 356; Scheve v.
Vanderkolk, 97 Neb. 204, 149 N. W.
401.
Waiver by failing to demur. — ^The oV
jeetion that the claim has not been
reduced to judgment comes too late if
made for the first time at the hearing
of the cause. Coffey v, McGahey, 181
Mich. 225, 148 N. W. 356..
216-74 The purchaser is made tlie
receiver under th e Michigan statute.
Coffey V, McGahey, 181 Mich. 225, 148
N. W. 356; Humiston, Keeling & Co.
V. Yore, 181 Mich. 629, 148 N. W. 266.
Or he may have a receiver appointed
to impound the stock of goods. Scheve
f?. Vanderkolk, 97 Neb. 204, 149 N. W.
401.
216-75 Bemedy by gamlBlmient is
not exclusive under the statute. Coffey
17. McGahey, 181 Mich. 225, 148 N. W.
356.
216-78 Coffey t?. McGahey, 181 Mich.
225, 148 N. W. 356.
FBEIGHT CABBIEBS
219-2 Sevier v. Mitchell, 72 Or. 483,
142 P. 780.
221-12 See Gulf & I. S. B. Co. v.
Blalock (Tex. Civ.), 162 S. W. 1009,
under facts, the only action is one for
damages for delay in delivery.
223-27 Mills v, C. & N. W. E. Co.,
183 HI. App. 53, where it delivered live
stock to a wrong place so that the
shipper was obliged to sell at a loss.
226-49 See Western & A. B. Co. v.
White Provision Co., 142 Ga. 246, 82
S. E. 644.
229-62 One employed to caxe for
live stock in consideration of the ex-
cess over a certain weight, has not such
an interest in the stock that he is a
568
FBEWBT CABniEHa
Wol 10
neeessarj party to an action for its
loss. Sevier t?. Mitchell, 72 Or. 483,
142 P. 780,
230-66 Gulf, C, & S. P. B. Co. v.
Drahn (Tex. Civ.), 163 S. W. 330.
231-67 Gulf, O. & S. P. B. Co. t.
Drahn (Tex. Civ.), 163 S. W. 330.
231-Tl Central of Georgia B. Co. v.
Cooper, 14 Ga. App. 738, 82 S. E. 310;
Litzenberg v. Cole, 166 App. Div. 134,
151 N. Y. S. 687; Pine V. Barrett, 81
Misc. 234, 142 N. Y. S. 533.
Canler cannot assert tliat the censig-
nor is not entitled to sne. — Central of
Georgia B. Co. v. Cooper, 14 Ga. App.
738, 82 S. E. 310.
232-74 Kansas City So. B. Co. v.
Mabry, 112 Ark. 110, 165 S. W. 279.
236-79 Alabama G. S. B. Co. v, Alt-
man & Co. (Ala.), 67 S. 589.
235-80 Gibson v. Inman Packet Co.,
Ill Ark. 521, 164 S. W. 280; Deaver-
Jeter Co. i?. Southern B, Co., 95 S. C.
485, 79 S. E, 709.
Where a consignee has no property in
the goods, he cannot maintain the ac-
tion. Gibson v. Inman Packet Co., Ill
Ark. 621, 164 S. W. 280.
236-81 Williamsport Hardwood
Lumber Co. v. Baltimore & O. B. Co.,
71 W- Va. 741, 77 S. E, 333.
237-89 Price Brokerage Co. v. Bush-
feldt, 185 Mo. App. 32, 171 S. W. 976,
assignee as interpleader.
240-6 Salt against the Initial carrier
for loss beyond its line has been au-
thorized' by statute. Bowden t?. Phila-
delphia, B. & W. B. Co. (Del.), 91 A.
209.
241-7 See Western & A. B. Co. v.
White Provision Co., 142 Ga. 246, 82 S.
E. 644.
241-8 Veitch v. HI. Cent. B. Co. (Ala.
App.), 68 S. 575.
242-21 See Central Georgia B. Co.
V, Cooper, 14 Ga. App. 738, 82 S. E.
310.
244-30 Cleveland, O. O. & St. L. E.
Co. V. Blind (Ind.), 105 N. B. 483, an
allegation that plaintiff paid and be-
came indebted and obliged to pay the
charges for transportation shows a con-
sideration.
246-36 Harrell «. Southern B. Co.,
14 Ga. App. 451, 81 S. E. 384, allega-
tion too general.
246-37 Harrell v. Southern B. Co.,
14 Ga. App. 451, 81 S. E. 384.
246-42 Cincinnati, N. 0. & T. P.
B. Co. V. Veatch, 162 Ky. 136, 172 S.
W. 89.
248-62 Foster v. International & G.
N. B. Co. (Tex. Civ.), 175 S. W. 762,
damages for loss of profits due to de-
lay.
Special damages must be alleged. Fos-
ter 17. International & G. N. B. Co.
(Tex. Civ.), 175 S. W. 762; Williams-
port Hdw. Lumb. Co. v. Baltimore &
O. B. Co., 71 W. Va. 741, 77 S. E. 333.
248-63 Central of Georgia B. Co. v.
Cooper, 14 Ga. App. 738, 82 S. E. 310.
249-62 Williamsport Hdw. Lumb. Co.
V. Baltimore & O. B. Co., 71 W. Va.
741, 77 S. E. 333.
250-68 Hunt v. Chicago, B. & Q. B.
Co., 95 Neb. 746, 146 N. W. 986, com-
plaint insufficient because it failed to
show that defendant knew of the sale
at which horses were to be sold. See
Norfolk Trucker's Exch. v. Norfolk S.
B. Co., 116 Va. 466, 82 S. E. 92, declara-
tion sufficient to admit proof of unrea-
sonable delay.
261-76 Surplnflage. — ^In an action
for damages for breach of an alleged
duty to furnish a car on application, if
there is no cause resulting from breach
under statute, if sufficient facts are
alleged to state a common law cause
of action, the allegations as to duty
and liability under code sections will
be treated as surplusage. Youmans v,
Georgia & P. By. Co., 142 Ga. 781, 83
S. E. 784.
262-86 Hunt r. Chicago, B. & Q. B.
Co., 95 Neb. 746, 146 N. W. 986.
Denial mmecessary where facts reliev-
ing the carrier from liability are al-
leged. Burke v. Gulf, C. & S. P. B. Co.,
147 N. Y, S. 794.
263-89 San Antonio, U. & G. B. Co.
V. Storey (Tex. Civ.), 172 S. W. 188.
263-90 See Oranor v. Southern B.
Co., 13 Ga. App. 86, 78 S. E. 1014.
264-92 See Castiglione v. Austro-
Americana S. S. Co., 87 Misc. 288, 149
N. Y. S. 898.
266-98 Lyon v. Atlantic Coast Line
B. Co., 165 N. C. 143, 81 8. E. 1.
266-1 McFall v. Chicago, B. & Q.
E. Co., 181 Mo. App, 142, 168 S. W.
341.
266-7 Under a general denial, it may
be proved that the carrier transported
the goods to the destination with rea-
sonable diligence. Gulf, C. & S. P. B.
569
VollO
pniVOLOVS AND SEAM PLtlADtmS
C6. V. Brackett-Fielder M. & G. Co.
(Tex. Civ.), 162 8, W. 1191.
266-9 Contra, Wall v. Northern Pac.
B. Co., 50 Mont. 122, 145 P. 291, aff.
Nelson f. Great Northern B. Co., 28
Mont. 297, 72 P. 642.
256-lS Whether there was a conver-
sion by the carrier is a jury question.
Nashville, etc. B. v, Truitt Co., 14 Ga.
App. 767, 82 S. E. 465.
257-14 \^ether there was a waiver
of compliance with the terms of the
contract by acceptance of the shipment.
Coyne 17. Grand Bapids & I. B. Co., 185
111. App. 431.
Oonstmctlon of oral negotiations.
Whether oral negotiations amounted to
a contract upon the part of the rail-
road to carry through to destination is
for the jury. Wichita Falls & W. By.
Co. I?. Asher (Tex. Civ.), 171 S. W.
1114.
257-17 "Whether delivery was within
terms of the bond. — Chicago, B. I. &
P. B. Co. f?. Title Guar. & Sur. Co.
(Ark.), 172 S. W. 263.
267-22 Whether notice given within
time reqtdred by contract. — ^Ball v.
Lusk, 189 Mo. App. 297, 175 S. W. 238.
257-28 Bell v. Union Pacific B. Co.,
177 111. App. 374; Johnson i?. New
York, N. H. & H. E. B., Ill Me. 263,
88 A. 988; McFall v. Chicago, B. & Q.
B. Cq^ 181 Mo, App. 142, 168 S. W.
341; Herold v. IJnlted States Exp. Co.
(Neb.), 152 N. W. 393; Barnet v. New
York Cent. & H. B. Co. (App. Div.),
153 N. Y. S. 374; Farmers* Merc. Co. v.
Northern Pac. B. Co., 27 N. D. 302, 146
N. W. 550; Gulf, O. & S. F. B. Co. t?.
Green (Tex. Civ.), 176 S. W. 63
(whether road-foundering of a jack was
caused while in charge of the carrier) ;
Gulf, C. & S. F. B. Co. V. Marshall
(Tex. Civ.), 164 S. W. 446.
Whether carrier had absolved itself
trom liability by proof of one of the
excepted perils is for the jury. Cincin-
nati, N. 0. & T. P. B. Co. r. Veatch,
162 Ky. 136, 172 S, W. 89.
Which carrier was negligent is for the
jury to ascertain. Atchison, T. & S.
F. B. Co. V. <St. Louis & S. F. B. Co.,
41 Okla. 80, 135 P. 353, 48 L. B. A.
(N. S.) 509,
268-29 Andrews V. Yitaldo (Tex.
Civ.), 176 S. W. 737.
268-81 Perkins 9, C. O. C. & St. L.
B. Co., 183 111. App. 531, unless there
is no conflict in the evidence.
FBIVOLOUS AND SHAH FI£AD-
IKGS
262-2 Oermain v. Harwell (Miss.),
66 S. 896; Moody v. Belden. 60 Hun
582, 15 N. Y. S. 119.
262-3 A fHvolons answer is one that
does not in any view of the facts
stated present a defense to the action.
Sheets V. Bamer, 125 Minn. 98, 145 N.
W. 787.
268-7 Germofert Mfg. Co. r. Castles,
97 8. C. 389, 81 S. E. 665; Germofert
Mfg. Co. r. Delleney, 97 S. C. 395, 81
S. E. 667.
263-9 Germofert Mfg. Co. v. Castles,
97 8. C. 389, 81 8. E. 665; Germofert
Mfg. Co. V. belleney, 97 S. C. 395, 81
S. E, 667.
''A 'sham reply' is one suficient on
its face, but so clearly and undisput-
ably false that it presents no real issue
of fact to be determined by a trial."
Sheets v. Bamer, 125 Minn. 98, 145 N.
W. 787,
264-10 Germofert Mfg. Co. «. Castles,
97 8. C. 389, 81 8. E. 665; Germofert
Mfg. Co. V. Delleney, 97 8. C. 395, 81
8. E. 667.
264-13 Bad faith not necessary.
Sheets V. Bamer, 125 Minn. 98, 145 N.
W. 787,
270-44 Alden 8. 8wan & Co. v. Mc-
Maughton, 87 Mise. 333, 149 N. Y. a
935.
270-46 Tallman v. Mitchell-McDer-
mott Const. Co., 153 N. Y. 8. 629, as
matters of public record.
Ownership. — ^A denial upon information
and belief of ownership of property is
frivolous. Tallman t?. Mitchell-McDer-
mott Const. Co., 153 N. Y. 8. 629.
272-66 Hyland t?. Montgomery, 150
N. Y. 8. 613.
277-82 Kline v. Harris (N. D.), 152
N. W. 687.
277-86 Kline <?. Harris (N. D.), 152
N. W. 687.
282-7 Baker v. Britt Co. (Ala.), 66
8. 475.
283-14 Sam v, Mohawk Cloth. Co.*
161 App. Biv. 539, 146 N. Y. 8. 567.
Erratum. — ^Word "not'* should be in-
serted after words *'it will."
286-36 Interstate Chem. Corp. v.
570
OAMING
Vol. 10
Pannington Corp., 100 S. 0. 196, 84 S.
E. 710.
291-64 Germofert Mfg. Co. v.
Castles, 97 S. C. 389, 81 S. E. 665; Germ-
ofert Mfg. Co. V. Delleney, 97 S. C. 395,
81 S. E. 667.
291-65 Germofert Mfg. Co. v.
Castles, 97 8. O. 389, 81 S. E. 665;
Germofert Mfg. Co. v. Delleney, 97 S.
C. 395, 81 S. E. 667,
292-69 Sloss-Sheffield S. & I. Co. v.
Webb, 184 Ala. 452, 63 S.,518; Atlantic
Coast Line B. Co. v, Harwell, 10 Ala.
App. 587, 65 S. 711; Lewis v. Weitbrec,
68 Colo. 147, 143 P. 1037; Sheets v.
Earner, 125 Minn. 98, 145 N. W. 787;
Towne t?. Bunn, 118 Minn. 143, 136 N.
W. 562; Interstate Ohem. Corp. v, Farm-
ington Corp., 100 S. C. 196, 84 S. E.
710; Germofert Mfg. Co. t?. Delleney, 97
S. C. 395, 81 S. E. 667; Germofert Mfg.
Co. t'. Castles, 97 S. 0. 389, 81 S. E.
665.
293-75 Germofert Mfg. Co. v.
Castles. 97 S. C. 389, 81 S. E. 665;
Germofert Mfg. Oo. v. Delleney, 97 S.
O. 395, 81 S. E. 667; Standard Sew.
Mach. Co. V. Henry, 43 S. C. 17, 20 S. E.
790.
294-76 Germofert Mfg. Co. v.
Castles, 97 S. -C. 389, 81 S. E. 665;
Germofert Mfg. Co. f?. Delleney, 97 S.
C. 395, 81 S, E. 667.
295-78 Germofert Mfg. Co. v.
Castles, 97 S. O. 389, 81 S. E. 665;
Germofert Mfg. Co. v. Delleney, 97 S.
C. 395, 81 S. E. 667.
295-79 Germofert Mfg. Co. v.
Castles, 97 S. C. 389, 81 S. E. 665;
Germofert Mfg. Co. t?. Delleney, 97 S.
C. 395, 81 S. E. 667.
298-6 Sheets v. Bamer, 125 Minn. 98,
145 N. W. 787; Interstate Chem. Corp.
17. Farmington Corp., 100 S. C. 196, 84
S. E. 710; Germofert Mfg. Co. v. Castles,
97 S. C. 389, 81 S. E. 665; Germofert
Mfg. Co. r. Delleney, 97 S. C. 395, 81
S. E. 667.
311-46 Liability of the fish com-
missioner for the acts of his deputy
cannot be raised by demurrer to the
complaint, since upon demurrer the al-
legations of the complaint must be
taken as true. Webb v. Le Boy, 168 N.
C. 236, 84 S, E. 257.
311-47 C. V. Phoenix Hotel Co., 157
Ky. 180, 162 S. W. 823, indictment for
selling game. Bee Douglas v. Smith, 66
Pla. 460, 63 S. 844; S. v. Morgan, 133
La. 1033, 63 S. 509 (construing in-
formation charging market hunting);
Partridge v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 170 S. W.
717; S. V. Vosgien, 82 Wash. 685, 144
P. 947, charging violation of 846, p.
378, Laws, 1913.
The animals killed or taken should be
specified if the offense charged is the
wrongful killing or taking of such
game; but this is not necessary in an
information charging hunting or pur-
suit without taking or killing. P. V,
Jacobs, 165 App. Div. 721, 151 N. Y.
S. 522.
Indictment for polluting water by
throwing in it matter deleterious to
the propagation of fish is not bad for
want of an allegation that the stream
is one fit for propagation of fish, or
in which fish are propagated. S. v.
Southern Coal & Trans. Co., 71 W. Va.
470, 76 S. E. 970, 43 L. B. A. (N. S.)
401.
Indlctmmt for catching flsb with seine^
etc., need not allege that the fish basket
used was a device like a seine, net, gig
or spear under the statute. Bolton v.
S., 12 Oa, App. 358, 77 S. E. 208.
312-61 Where the exception does not
constitute a material part of the defin-
ition of the offense it need not be nega*
tived in complaint. S. v, Harvey (Vt.),
92 A. 452; S. V, Carruth, 85 Vt. 271,
81 A. 922; S. V. Smith, 61 Vt. 346, 17
A. 492. That land on which defendant
hunted was not his own need not be al-
leged. S. V. Kirby, 34 S. D. 281, 148 N.
W. 633.
GAME AND FISH
807-8 Adequate remedy, at law^ — An
injunction to prevent an oflScer from
executing the laws of the state in de-
stroying the nets of plaintiff will not
lie for he has an adequate remedy at
law fo^ all damage he may suffer. Ster-
rett t?. Gibson (Tex. Civ.), 168 S. W.
16.
GAMING
318-1 The rule stated. — ^Where wag-
ering is not in violation of a penal
statute the law will aid the parties in
rescinding their agreement, and the
courts will give relief to one who
wishea to withdraw his money from a
stakeholder any time before it is paid
over. Matthews v, Lopus^ 24 Cal. App.
571
Vol. 10
OAMINO
63, 140 P. 306* Schenekv. Hirshfield, 22
Cal. App. 709, 136 P. 725. But where
wagering is a penal offense one cannot
recover his money from a stakeholder
even though he has repudiated his bet
before the event was consummated.
Matthews v. Lopns, 24 €al. App. 63,
140 P. 306; Schenck v. Hirshfield, 22
Cal. App. 709, 136 P. 725.
322-20 See Benisch v, Mandelbaum,
160 App. Div. 206, 145 N. Y. S. 91.
323-32 An answer is mifllciently
specific which alleges that the money
sued for was won in a game of chance.
Clark V. King, 178 Mo. App. 381, 162
S. W. 669.
327-66 Wing v. Little, 267 DL 20,
107 N. E. 876.
328-76 In Tennessee under Shan-
non's Code, §3162, giving the right of
recovery to the wife, or children where
there is no wife, recovery may be had
by adult children as well as minor
children. Coles v» E. C. & H. E. Mor-
row, 128 Tenn. 550, 162 8. W. 577.
330-89 Soper r. Michal, 123 Md. 542,
91 A. 684.
331-99 §§2506 and 2507, Bev. Laws,
1910, do not furnish authority for the
seizure and destruction of money as
being ''an article or apparatus suit-
able to be used for gambling purposes.
Miller v, S. (Okla.), 149 P. 364.
336-30 S. t7. Johns, 259 Mo. 361, 168
S. W. 587.
336-36 S. f?. Lawrence, 9 Okla. Cr.
16, 130 P. 508.
337-37 Whatley v, S. (Ala. App.),
68 S. 491.
337-39 Rogers r. S. (Ala. App.), 67
S. 781.
An indictment Is sufficient which
charges defendant with keeping a room
to be used for gambling since it plainly
informs him of the nature of the ac-
cusation against him under §973 of the
Penal Law (Consol. Laws, ch. 40) and
that it was not one of the other num-
erous places specified therein. P. v.
Abelson, 162 App. Div. 674, 148 N. Y.
S. 30.
339-52 See Eogers v. S. (Ala. App.),
67 S. 781.
341-60 Under Code 1907, §6984.
Whatley v. S. (Ala. App.), 68 S. 491.
Where the game Is specifically diarged
the evidence is restricted to proof of
the game specified. Hicks v, S. (Ga.
App.), 84 S. E. 837.
A prellflilnAxy complaint must specify
the game played. P. v. Guilarte, 11 P.
B. 334; P. r. Ruiz, 10 P. E. 629.
343-76 S. V, Henaghan, 73 W. Va.
706, 81 S. E. 539.
343-78 S V. Johns, 259 Mo. 361, 168
S. W, 587.
Policy game. — ^Where the statute enum-
erates the game of policy as one of the
forbidden gamea an in&ctment in the
language of the statute for maintain-
ing or exhibiting the same is sufficient
although policy as judicially defined is
not a game but a lottery. Polk v. 8.
(Tex. Cr.), 154 S. W. 988.
344-82 Johnson v, S., 10 Okla. Cr.
597, 140 P. 622.
346-86 S. 17. Kobey, 74 Wash. 562,
134 P. 174.
345-87 Johnson v, S., 10 Okla. Cr.
597, 140 P. 622, over. Proctor v, Ter.,
18 Okla. 378, 92 P. 389, and Brown v.
S., 5 Okla. Cr. 41, 113 P. 219, cited in
notes.
346-89 To term the game gambling
is sufficient. S. v. Poulis (UUh), 145
P. 1044.
346-90 Poker. — A charge that owner
conducted a poker game played with
cards for checks as representatives of
value is sufficient. S. €. Bobey, 74
Wash. 562, 134 P. 174.
346-94 The distinctiye features of
the tables named need not be described.
S. V, Henaghan, 73 W. Va, 706, 81 8. E.
539.
350-18 Suiilcient indictment. — An
indictment alleging that defendant kept
a place to which persons might and did
resort for gambling with intent that
such persons "might resort" thither
for gambling is sufficient under §65 of
Crimes Act (2 Comp. St., 1910, p. 1766).
S. V. Ford, 86 N. J. L. 73, 90 A. 1025;
S. V. Griffin, 84 N. J. L. 429, 87 A. 138,
aff,, 90 A. 259.
361-29 Whatley v. S. (Ala. App.),
68 S. 491.
363-42 Indictment for conducting
poolroom is sufficient where it charged
the providing and keeping of a place
where money was bet, and that money
was received and deposited to be trans-
mitted elsewhere to be wagered on
races either actually run or advertised
to be run. The indictment need not
show the occupation or control of the
poolroom by the defendant, it being
sufficient to show he provided, kept, or
572
OABNISHMENT
Vol. 10
maintained premises wherein persons
meet or bet or deposit money to be sent
elsewhere to be bet. C. v. Starr, 160
Ky. 260, 169 S. W. 743,
DnpUdty. — An indictment charging a
Tiolation of each and all of six offenses
designated in §337a of Penal Code is
bad. P. V. Plath, 166 Cal. 227, 135 P.
054.
356-62 Bettlxig on hone race^ — ^An in-
dictment charging defendant as cus-
todian of money bet on a horse race
need only allege the name of the party
from whom the money was received
and that it was knowingly received
as a bet upon a contest of speed be-
tween horses, coupled with the aver-
ment that the act was feloniously, wil-
fully, and unlawfully done. S. v. Gum-
mings, 248 Mo. 509, 154 S. W. 725.
366-68 P. V. Weiss, 158 App. Div.
235, 142 N. Y. S. 1092; P. v. Cavanagh,
157 App. Div, 224, 141 N. Y. S. 812.
366-69 P. V. Weiss, 158 App. Biv.
235, 142 N. Y. S. 1092.
867-71 See Whatley v. 8. (Ala.
App.), 68 S. 491.
367-72 Omission of tbe word ''did"
before the words '^ unlawfully and
knowingly allow and permit « • • a
minor ... to engage in games," etc.,
does not invalidate the indictment. Ter.
V. Church, 14 N. M. 226,' 91 P. 720.
368-81 Bobinson v. S. (Tez. Or.), 163
S. W. 434.
361-8 Bogers r. 8. (Ala. App.), 67
S. 781,
362-14 Oharglng on drcnmstantial
evidenced — Court must charge on law
relating to circumstantial evidence
where the guilt of accused rests en-
tirely on such evidence, and failure to
do 80 is error requiring the granting
of a new trial. Kincaid v. S., 13 Ga.
App. 683, 79 S. E. 770.
368-27 P. «. Weiss, 158 App. Div.
235, 142 N. Y. S. 1092.
OABNII
i:i/,iHC
,372-11 McLaughlin v. Aumsville
Merc. Co. (Or.), 144 P. 1154; Pedlas V.
Golbus, 156 Wis. 341, 146 N. W. 526.
372-18 Atkins v. Evans (W. Va.),
84 S. E. 901 ; Pedlas v, Golbus, 156 Wis.
341, 146 N. W. 526.
373-20 White f. Casey, 25 Tez. 552;
Johnson €. Hall (Tex, Civ.), 163 S. W.
399,
878-21 White 9. Casey, 25 Tex. 552;
Johnson V. Hall (Tex. Civ.), 163 S. W.
399,
874-26 Illinois Cent. B. Co. v.
Weaver, 54 111^ 319; Boof V. Blake
(Mich.), 153 N. W. 3; McLaughlin v.
Aumsville Merc. Co. (Or.), 144 P. 1154;
Baldwin v. Percival (Vt.), 92 A. 101;
Pedlas V. Galbus, 156 Wis. 341, 146 N.
W. 526.
876-27 Baldwin v. Percival (Vt.),
92 A. 101.
876-31 McLaughlin t\ Aumsville
Merc. Co. (Or.), 144 P. 1154; Wise r.
Beed, 79 Wash. 134, 139 P. 753; At-
kins V. Evans (W. Va.), 84 S. E. 901.
877-34 Elzy v. Morrison, 180 HI.
App. 711.
377-38 Clough v. Glines & Stevens
Co. (N. H.), 92 A, 803.
878-40 Atwood v, Boan, 26 N. D.
622, 145 N. W. 587, 51 L. B. A. (N. S.)
597; Johnson v. Hall (Tex. Civ.), 163 S.
W. 399; Atkins V. Evans (W. Va.), 84
S. E, 901.
370-46 Atwood v. Boan, 26 N. D.
622, 145 N. W. 587, 51 L. B. A. (N. S.)
597.
379-47 A garnlnliinmit proceeding
becomes an advenary proceeding on
the contest of the answer of the gar-
nishee, but it is not such until it
reaches that stage. Barlow v. Lincoln-
Williams Twist Drill Co. (Mich.), 152
N. W. 1034.
88(MS0 Wise v. Beed, 79 Wash. 134,
149 P. 325.
881-61 Billon v. Fahey, 88 Conn.
605, 92 A. 412.
Oandslunent statutes are construed lib-
erally but this does not diminish the
obligation of beneficiary to follow
strictly the form and requisites of the
writ or summons prescribed by statute.
Dillon V. Fahey, 88 Conn. 605, 92 A.
412.
382-67 To recover an equitable as-
stgnmentk garnishment is not a proper
remedy. McLane v. Haydon (Tex.
Civ.), 160 S. W. 1146.
383-69 Wallace v. Duke (Okla.),
142 P. 308.
The contention that a debt on an ac-
count stated is not within the statute
authorizing garnishment in an '' action
to recover damages founded upon con-
tract express or implied," is not sound.
Wallace V. Duke (Okla.), 142 P. 308,
578
Vol. 10
GARNISHMENT
Wbere the claim Is for unliquidated
damages, the remedy of garnishment is
not available. Henriques V, Vinhaca,
20 Haw. 702.
383-71 Continental IMst. Co. V.
Swanson, 79 Wash. 128, 139 P. 865.
384-78 Koontz v. R. Co., 220 Mass.
285, 107 N. E. 97a, L. R. A. 1915D, 838;
Wallace v. Duke (Okla.), 142 P. 308.
If a gaznlBhee simmions is Issaed be-
fore the commencement of the action,
the service thereof upon the garnishee
is invalid and of no effect. Hudson v,
Patterson, 123 Minn. 330, 143 N. W.
792.
386-90 Lund v. Dole Valve Co., 185
HI. App. 350.
387-92 Mennella v. Bottigliero, 191
HI. App. 674.
390-10 Aigeltinger Co. v. Healy-
Tibbitts Const Co., 23 Cal. App. 608,
139 P. 436, 438; Dickinson v. Davis, 164
la. 449, 145 N. W. 957; Truan f?. Range
Power Co. (Minn.), 145 N. W. 26;
Scheuerman v. Mathison (Or.), 144 P.
1177; McKenna v. Citizens' S. Bank
(Wis.), 144 N. W. 991.
391-11 Koontz v, Baltimore B. Co.,
220 Mass. 285, 107 N. E. 973, L. B. A.
1915D, 838.
391-13 Amarillo N*at. Bank v. Pan-
handle T. & T. Co. (Tex. Civ.), 169 S.
W. 1091; Barkley v. Kerfoot, 77 Warfi.
556, 137 P. 1046.
391-14 Atchison, T. & S. F. B. Co.
f?. Bowman (Kan.), 147 P. 813.
392-17 Clough V. Glines & Stevens
Co. (N. H.) 92 A. 803.
392-22 Frey t\ Superior Court, 22
Cal. App. 421, 134 P. 733; Koontz v.
Baltimore R. Co., 220 Mass. 285, 107
N. E, 973, L. R. A. 1915D, 838.
395-35 American Trust & Sav. Bank
r. O'Barr (Ala. App.), 67 S. 794; Aigel-
tinger Co. t\ Healy-Tibbitts Const. Ctf.,
23 Cal. App. 608, 139 P. 436, 438;
Koontz V. Baltimore R. Co., 220 Mass.
285, 107 N. E. 973, L. R. A. 1915D,
838; Scheuerman v, Mathison (Or.), 144
P. 1177; Baldwin v. Percival (Vt.), 92
A. 101.
396-39 Legan t?. Smith (Neb.), 151
N. W. 955.
Creditor may make demand. — ^Legan v.
Smith (Neb.), 151 N. W. 955.
397-47 Dickinson v, Davis (la.), 153
N. W. 203; Scheuerman v, Mathison
(Or.), 144 P. 1177, at commencement of
proceedings.
398-49 Frieze v. Powell, 79 Wash.
483, 140 P. 690.
398-60 Manwell v. Grimes (Okla.),
149 R 1182.
398-61 Divine v. Harvie, 7 T. B.
Mon. (Ky.) 439, 18 Am. Dec. 194; Man-
well V. Grimes (Okla.), 149 P. 1182;
Keene v. Smith, 44 Or. 525, 75 P. 1065.
409-66 Johan Bohan & Son B. Wks.
Co. V. Young (Mo. App.), 176 S. W. 295.
401-67 Chief of police^ being an offi-
cer of a municipal corporation, cannot
be garnished. John Rohan & Son Boiler
Wks. Co. V. Young (Mo. App.), 176 8.
W. 295.
401-69 Curtis v, Hutchinson, 126
Minn. 264, 148 N. W. 66.
406-79 See 5 Standard Proc. 636.
Stockholders who have been wrongfully
paid money by the corporation held by
it as involuntary trustees for the plain-
tiffs may be garnished therefor. Smith
©. Gruber Lumb. Co., 81 Wash. Ill, 142
P. 493.
406-80 See 5 Stakdasd Proo. 740.
409-4 McClung v, Watson (Ter.
Civ.), 165 8. W. 532, livestock in pos-
session of bailee.
409-8 See Ann. Cas. 1914D, 81, note.
410-17 Koontz v. Baltimore B. Co..
220 Mass. 285, 107 N. E. 973, L. R. A
1915D, 838. See note in L. B. A. 1915B,
838,
411-20 Koontz v. Baltimore B. Co.,
220 Mass. 285, 107 N. E. 973, L. B. A.
1915D, 838.
412-23 Modlin v. Smith, 13 Ga.
App. 259, 79 S, E. 82. See Boof c.
Blake (Mich.), 153 N. W. 3, dist, Nach-
tegall V. Beilley, 165 Mich. 347, 130 N.
W. 699.
413-25 Elzy v, Morrison, 188 HL
App. 711.
413-26 Boof V. Blake (Mich.), 153
N. W. 3, aff, Meigs v. Weller, 90 Mich.
629, 51 N. W, 681.
416-48 Bansom v. Bidwell (Conn.),
93 A. 134.
417-60 Barkley v. Kerfoot, 77 Wash.
556, 137 P. 1046.
421-70 Aigeltinger Co. v. Healy-Tib-
bitts Const. €o., 23 Cal. App. 608, 139
P. 436, 438.
426-14 Oertlflcate of award of the
Fire Claims Commission is not subject
to garnishment. Hyman Bros, v^ Sing
Warn, 16 Haw. 106,
574
GARNISHMENT
Tol 10
426-16 BarcuB v. O'Srien (Tez.
Civ.), 171 8. W. 492«
426-16 Hyman 9. Sing Wara^ 16
Haw. 106.
427-18 See Barcus f. O'Brien (Tez.
Civ.), 171 S. W. 492.
429-30 Liverpool, etc., Ins. Co. v.
People's Bank (Ga.), 85 8. E. 114;
DodBon V. Warren Hdw. Co. (Tex. Civ.),
162 8. W. 952.
Before expiration of time for rehearing.
Comp, Dodson v, "Warren Hdw. Co.
(Tex. Civ.), 162 8. W. 952.
429-35 Mathewson v, Shewmake, 15
Ga. App. 706, 84 8. E, 174; Creditor's
Collection Assn. v. Bisbee, 80 Wash.
358, 141 P. 886; Frieze v. Powell, 79
Wash. 483, 140 P. 690. See Koppen v.
Union Iron & Foundry Co., 181 Mo.
App. 72, 163 S. W. 560.
Seamen's wages may be attached.
Schnack o. Clark, 21 Haw. 661. But
see Holt t;. Tullett, 17 Haw. 416; Sim-
erson v. I. I. 8. Nav. Co., 2 U. 8. D. C.
(Haw.) 181; Holland 17. Helene, 1 U. 8.
D. C. (Haw.) 281.
Fees of an attorney appointed to de-
fend an indigent accused of crime are
not exempt as being fees of a public
officer. Curtis v, Hutchinson, 126 Minn.
264, 148 N. W. 66.
430-36 Lund v. The Dole Valve Co.,
185 111. App. 350; Frieze v. PoweU, 79
Wash. 483, 140 P. 690.
Whether wages earned after service
ol process and before answer by the
garnishee are covered by the writ. See
Frieze v. Powell, 79 Wash. 483, 140 P.
690.
432-47 See Kong r. Chillingworth,
19 Haw. 428.
433-63 Dividends.^It is not within
the power of a bankruptcy court, in
the absence of statutory authority, to
permit the garnishment of a declared
dividend, especially where the rights
of an assignee are involved. In re
American Electric Tel. Co., 211 Fed.
88.
434t-56 First Nat. Bank v,, Dimmick
(Ala.), 67 8. 309; Nesom v. City Nat.
Bank (Tex. Civ.), 174 8. W. 715.
435-61 Money due nonresident de-
fendants from an insurance company
doing business in the forum, for a loss
covered by an insurance policy issued
in the state of defendant's residence
upon homestead property, all of which
)8 exempt from seizure in that state,
may be the subject of garnishment in
the forum. Person v. Williams-Echols
Dry Goods Co., 113 Ark. 467, 169 8. W.
223.
437-77 aark v. Minge (Ala.), 65 a
832.
440-93 W. A. 8mith & Bro. v. 8pin-
nen- Weber k Peters (Ark.), 170 8. W.
84.
441-94 Nor will a colorable assign-
ment.— ^W. A. 8mith & Bro. v. Spinnen*
Weber & Peters (Ark.), 170 8. W. 84.
441-99 Midway Five OU Co. v. Citi-
zens' Nat. Bk., 25 Cal. App. 366, 143
P. 800.
442-1 Guillot V. Wallace (Tex. Civ.),
168 8. W. 978.
442-11 Barton 8eed, F. ft I. Co. o.
Mercantile Nat. Bank, 128 Tenn. 320,
160 8. W. 848.
443-19 Waggoner «. Briggs (Tex.
Civ.), 166 8. W. 50.
446-37 Although deposited in the
name of another, a deposit belonging
to defendant may be garnished. Citi-
zens' Bank & Trust Co. v. Sogers (Tex.
Civ.), 170 8. W. 258.
446-38 Jordon Marsh Co. V. Hale,
219 Mass. 495, 107 N. E. 357.
447-40 Where the holder of the
check has paid the maker in full for
the check, the deposit is not subject
to garnishment at tiie suit of another
creditor of the maker. Farrington o.
F. E. Fleming Com. Co., 94 Neb. 108,
142 N. W. 297.
448-48 American Trust ft 8av. Bank
V. O'Barr (Ala. App.), 67 8. 794;
Clough V. Glines ft 8tevens Co. (N. H.),
92 A. 803.
460-61 Goyer Co. v. Williamson, 107
Ark. 189, 154 8. W. 525; O'Neill ©.
Sewell, 85 Ga. 481, 11 8. E. 831; Dob-
bins V, Orange ft A. R. Co., 37 Ga. 240;
Tracy & Loyd v. Hornbuckle, 8 Bush.
(Ky.) 336; Divine v, Harvie, 7 T. B.
Hon. (Ky.) 439, 18 Am. Dec. 194; Wild
V. Ferguson, 23 La. Ann. 752; Travel-
ers' Ins. Co. 1?. Maguire, 218 Mass. 360,
105 N. E. 1023; John Bohan ft 8on
Boiler Wks. Co. t?. Young (Mo. App.),
176 8. W. 295; Keene v. Smith, 44 Or.
525, 75 P. 1065; Oglesby r. Durr (Tex.
Civ.), 173 8. W. 275; Buck v. Guar-
antors L. I. Co., 97 Va. 719, 34 8. E.
950; Bollo t7. Andes Ins. Co., 64 Ya.
509, 14 Am. Bep. 147. 8ee note in 44
L. R. A. (N. S.) 218,
575
Vol 10
GARNISHMENT
i51-63 HeseltOB v. Campion^ 111
Me. 583, 89 A. 12L
452-7d Fanrie v. Board of Direetors
(C. G. A.)> 222 Fed. 251.
454-94 Turner v. Qibson, 105 Tez.
488, 151 8. W. 793, 43 L. E. A. (N. 8.)
571. 8ee note in 43 L. B. A. (N. 8.)
571, 575.
461-44 Sherman v. HaTena, 94 Kan.
554, 146 P. 1030.
463-61 Sherman v. Havenfl, 94 Ean.
654, 146 P. 1030.
464-65 Sherman v, HaTens, 94 Ean.
554, 146 P. 1030.
466-84 Barkley v. Kerfoot, 77 Wash.
556, 137 P. 1046.
466-85 But see Barkley v. Kerfoot,
77 Wash. 556, 137 P. 1046.
467-98 If not accepted as payment
the creditor may garnish the debt
represented by the check. Kirby Plan-
ing Mill Co. V. Titus, 14 Ga. App. 1,
30 8. E, 18.
468-11 Frieze «« Powell* 79 Wash.
183, 140 P. 690.
470-27 Substantial compUaneew— Mc-
Laughlin f7. Aumsville Merc. Co. (Or.),
144 P. 1154.
472-39 Atwood v. Boan, 86 K. D.
622, 145 N, W. 587, 51 L. B. A. (N. 8.)
597.
472-40 Atwood V. Boan, 26 K. D.
622, 145 N. W. 58T, 51 L. B. A. (N.
S.) 597.
Wages caxmot be attached if no per-
sonal service has been had unless the
suit is brought in the county or city
in which the defendant resides, or in
the county or city where the debt was
contracted or the cause of action ac-
crued, Laws, 1911, p. 141; Jenkins
8on8 Music Co. v. Sage, 184 Mo. App.
340, 171 8. W. 672.
474-44 See note in 49 L. B. A. (N.
8.) 548.
474-45 Atkins v. Evans (W. Va.),
84 8. E. 901,
479-70 Person v. Williams-Echols
Dry Goods Co., 113 Ark. 467, 169 8. W.
223.
481-70 Thomas f;. Citizens' Nat.
Bank, 157 Wis. 635, 147 N. W. 1005.
Appearance of nonresident does not
operate to give jurisdiction to impound
property not otherwise reachable by
the court's process. Thomas v, <^ti-
zens' Nat. Bank» 157 Wis. 685, 147 N.
W. 1005.
481-80 Th« aatioaal lioma for dis-
abled soldiers^ which is located on ter-
ritory ceded by the state under an act
of cession ^ving the United States ex-
clusive jurisdiction thereof, reserving
however, the right to serve civil and
criminal processes thereon, is not sub-
ject to trustee process, because it is
not ''within the state," this phrase
meaning "within the jurisdiction of
the state." Brooks Hdw. Co. v. Oreer,
111 Me. 78, 87 A. 889.
485-2 Friedman v. First Nat. Bank,
39 Okla. 486, 135 P. 1069, 49 L. B. A.
(N. 8.) 548. 8ee note to 49 L. B. A.
(N. 8.) 548.
488-28 Johnson v. fiall (Tez. Civ.>
163 8. W. 399.
488-31 An agent or member of a
partnership should make an affidavit
for a partnership plaintiff. Dodson i?.
Warren Hardware Co. (Tex. Civ.), 162
8. W. 952.
480-37 Pedlas f. Oolbus, 156 Wis.
341, 146 N. W. 526,
400-44 In a tort action, the affidavit
must show that defendants are not resi-
dents of the state, or their residence is
not known or ascertainable with due
diligence, or that defendant is a for-
eign corporation. Pedlas v, Golbus, 156
Wis. 341, 146 N. W. 526.
Description of plaintiff. — An affidavit
stating ''Now comes W. H. Co., a firm
composed of," etc., clearly shows the
plaintiff to be a partnership. Dodson
r. Warren Hdw. Co. (Tex. Civ.), 162
8. W. 952.
Where an ezecntor or administrator is
garnished. — Joiner v. L. Mohr & Sons,
14 Ga. App. 364, 80 8. E. 856; Joiner c.
Dougherty- Ward-Little Co., 14 Ga. App.
360, 80 8. E. 854.
401-62 Stovall 9. Joiner, 10 Oa.
204, 73 8. E. 22.
Where the debtor had been adjudicated
a bankrupt, an amendment must be de-
nied. Joiner v. Dougherty-Ward-Idttle
Co., 14 Ga. App. 360, 80 8. E. 854.
402-66 Good v, 81eeth, 176 Mo. App.
619, 160 8. W. 1.
404-76 Dillon v, Fahey, 88 Conn.
605, 92 A. 412.
Variance in the file nnmbezs upon the
writ of garnishment and the affidavit
is not ground for c^uashing the wri^
576
OARNISEMENT
Vol. 10
Bodton V. Warren Hdw. Co. (Tex. Civ.),
162 S. W. 952.
494-77 Dillon 9. lUiey, 88 Conn.
605, 92 A. 412.
495-80 Simerson v. I. I. S. Nav. Co.,
2 U. S. D. C. (Haw.) 181.
495-85 Frieze v. Powell, 79 Wash.
483, 140 P. 690.
496-86 Central of Georgia B. Co. f?.
Dickerson, 15 Oa. App. 293, 82 S. E.
942; Ferreira v. Eamo, 18 Haw. 593;
McCain v. Mandell (Mich.), 153 N. W.
6. See Frieze v, Powell, 79 Wash. 483,
140 P. 690; 5 Standard Psoa 637, n.
87, and supplement thereto.
497-93 Billon v. Fahey, 88 Oonn.
605, 92 Atl. 412; McCain v. Mandell
(Mich.), 153 K. W. 5; Atkins V. Evans
(W. Va.), 84 8. B. 901.
497-95 Price v. The Boot Shop
(Dr.), 146 P. 1088; Atkins v. Evans
(W. Va.), 84 S. E. 901.
497-98 Turks Head Tailoring Co. v.
Anthony (B. I.), 94 A. 857.
500-18 Marsh f. Wilson Bros., 124
Minn. 254, 144 N. W. 959; Farrington
V, F. E. Fleming Com. Co., 94 Neb. 108,
142 N. W. 297.
501-19 Oulf Nat. Bank v. Bass (Tez.
Civ.), 177 S. W. 1019,
501-21 Bickman v. Bickman, 180
Mich. 224, 146 N. W. 609; Peck t?.
Monahan, 87 Vt. 312, 89 A. 358.
501-22 Oulf Nat. Bank v. Bass (Tex.
Civ.), 177 S. W. 1019.
502-25 Citizens' Nat. Bank o.
Dasher (Ga. App.), 84 S. E. 482;
Marsh 17. Wilson Bros., 124 Minn. 254,
144 N. W. 959.
508-35 Bums v. Payne, 31 Or. 100,
49 P. 884; Baldwin v. Percival (Vt.),
92 A. 101.
503-86 Dickinson «. Davis (la.), 153
N. W. 203.
504-89 Southern Amusement Co. r.
Neal, 15 Ga. App. 130, 82 8. E. 765;
Modlin V. Smith, 13 Ga. App. 259, 79
B. E. 82; Hoyt v, Clemans (la.), 149
"N. W. 442; Farrington r. F. E. Fleming
Com. Co., 94 Neb. 108, 142 N. W. 297;
Burns v, Lowe (Tex. Civ.), 161 S. W.
942. See Dickinson v. Davis (la.), 153
N. W. 203.
504-40 Scheuerman v. Mathison
(Dr.), 144 P. 1177; Barkley 9. Kerfoot,
77 Wash. 556, 137 P. 1046.
506-49 Price v. The Boot Shop (Dr.),
146 P. 1088; Peck «; Monahan, 87 Vt.
312, 89 A. 358; Bank of Union v. Baird,
72 W. Va. 716, 79 S. B. 738.
608-66 Wise v. Seed, 79 Wash. 134,
149 P. 325.
609-62 Lund v. The Dole Valve Co.,
185 111. App. 350. See Barkley t;. Ker-
foot, 77 Wash. 556, 137 P. 1046.
610-65 Baldwin v. Percival (Vt.), 92
A. 101.
It does not reach debts incurred or ef-
fects coming into the garnishee's hands
after answer. Lund f . Dole Valve Co.,
185 lU. App. 350.
518-18 See Gravitt o. Owen, 141 Ga.
674, 81 S. E. 1107.
Unless the lien Is lost. — Childress v.
Harmon (Tex. Civ.), 176 S. W. 154.
519-28 Holbrook f>. Fyffe, 164 Ky.
435, 175 S. W. 977; MeClung v. Watson
(Tex. Civ.), 165 S. W. 532.
519-29 Vanderploeg & Kuiper v.
Peterson, 190 Bl. App. 61; Peck v,
Monahan, 87 Vt. 312, 89 A. 858.
Where original process is void, the
garnishee had the right to pay the
money into the bankruptcy court, the
defendant having been adjudged a
bankrupt. The subsequent perfection
of the process by amendment would not
render the garnishee liable to pay the
fund twice when he had previously
lawfully paid it over to the bankruptcy
court. Joiner v, Dougherty- Ward-Little
Co., 14 Ga. App. 860, 80 S. E. 854.
523-53 Shaw v. Boyd, 19 Haw. 83.
See Barton Seed, F. & I. Co. v. Mer-
cantile Nat. Bank, 128 Tenn. 320, 160
S. W. 848.
524-62 First Nat. Bank v. Minge,
186 Ala. 405, 64 S. 957. See Elzy v,
Morrison, 180 Dl. App. 711.
525-72 Minge «. First Nat. Bank
(Ala.), 68 S. 141; Perry t?..Pye, 216
Mass. 403, 102 N. E. 653.
527-81 J. Schroeder Wine & L. Co!
V, Willis Coal & M. Co., 179 Mo. App.
93, 161 S. W. 352; Schroeder Wine & L.
Co. V. Willis Coal & M. Co., 179 Mo.
App. 109, 161 S. W. 357.
527-82 Wilmer 17. Mann, 121 Md.
239, 88 A, 222.
527-84 Ogle v, Barron, 247 Pa. 19,
92 A. 1071; Bussell v, Hamilton (Tez.
Civ.), 174 S. W. 705.
528-86 See Schempp v. Fry, 165 Pa.
510, 30 A. 941; Baldy <?. Brady, 15 Pa.
103; Bank of Union v. Baird, 72 W. Va.
716, 79 S. E. 738.
87
577
Vol 10
OABNISHMENT
628-87 Cltizena.' Bank & Trust Co. f),
Eogers (Tex. Civ.), 170 S. W. 258.
529-90 Atwood f>. Boan, 26 N. D.
622, 145 N. W. 587, 51 L. B. A. (N.
S.) 597 (see note).
631-12 A motion to set aside service
by publication on the ground the gar-
nishee is not indebted to the movant,
who is defendant, is not the proper
method of disposing of a ease where
this issue is pending for trial between
the garnishee and the plaintiff. An
order setting aside publication on this
ground is erroneous. Chambers f>. Bane,
91 Ean. 88, 136 P. 923.
532-17 See Eussell v. Hamilton (Tex.
Civ.), 174 S. W. 705.
MaWng and dellvexlng a verified sched-
ule to the officer serving process is not
essential to making of a valid claim of
exemption by defendant. People's Nat.
Bank v. Boyles, 34 S, ^D. 288, 148 N.
W. 135.
532-18 Time within which to inter-
pose defense. Schroeder v. Davenport.
29 N. D. 400, 150 N. W. 926.
532-21 In the municipal court of
Chicago. — See Mclnemev v. Graham,
185 ni. App. 303.
533-29 MacAusIand 9. Taylor
(Mass.), 107 N. E. 942,
533-30 Contra, Wilmer v. Mann, 121
Md. 239, 88 A. 223.
533-31 Answer on appeaL— The fil-
ing of an answer for the first time in
the circuit court where the case is on
appeal from the justice's court will be
denied. Jamison v, H. K. Mulford Co.
(Miss.), 67 S. 148.
534-32 Central of Georgia B. Co. r.
Bickerson, 15 Ga. App. 293, 82 S. E.
942.
534-35 . MacAusIand «• Taylor
(Mass.), 107 N. E. 942.
535-37 See Central of Georgia B.
Co. V. Dickerson, 15 Ga. App. 293, 82
S. E. 942.
An affidavit showing the person answer-
ing to be a duly authorized person to
make answer for the corporation is
necessary. Hutson v. Illinois Cent. B.
Co., 186 Ala. 436, 65 S. 62. See thd
title "Corporations."
535-38 Central of Georgia B. Co. t?.
Dickerson, 15 Ga. App. 293, 82 S. E.
942. See 5 Standaed Peoc. 638, n. 92,
and supplement thereto.
Attorney of corporation cannot answer
a summons of garnishment in its behalf.
Central of Georgia B. Co. r. Dickerson,
15 Ga. App. 293, 82 S. E. 942.
Some one having sufficient knowledge
to state whether the corporation is in-
debted to the defendant must respond
for the corporation. Bump v. Augustine,
163 la. 307, 143 N. W. 1104.
Answer by attorney insufficient. — Cen-
tral of Georgia B. Co. r. Dickerson, 15
Ga. App. 293, 82 S. E. 942.
535-41 By corporations.— See vol. 5,
p. 638, n. 90, and supplement thereto.
535-42 Must answer In the terms of
the ^summons and as to the defendants
named therein. Citizens' Nat. Bank ».
Dasher (Ga. App.), 84 S. E. 482.
The answer of a corporation must be
supported by an affidavit showing the
person answering is duly authorized to
answer. Hutson v, Illinois Cent. B.
Co., 186 Ala. 436, 65 S. 62; Decatur, C.
& N. O. B. Co. V. Crass, 97 Ala. 519, 12
S. 43.
536-49 Baldwin ». Percival (Vt.),
92 A. 101 ; Peck v. Monahan, 87 Vt. 312,
89 A. 358.
536-51 But see Central of Georgia
B. Co. V. Dickerson, 15 Ga. App. 298, 82
S. E. 942.
537-59 Signing pleading.— A verifi-
cation of the answer by the secretary
of the garnishee defendant, which
states that he has read the answer and
knows its contents and believes the
same to be true is a sufficient signing
of the answer. Frieze v. PoweU, 79
Wash. 483, 140 P. 690.
537-62 See Citizens' Nat Bank r.
Dasher (Ga. App.), 84 S. E, 482.
537-70 Central of Georgia B. Co. v.
Dickerson, 15 Ga. App. 293, 82 S. E.
942.
Gamidiee may be permitted to sign an
answer which was signed by the at>
torney. Wilmer v. Mann, 121 Md. 239,
88 A. 223.
540-87 McLaughlin v. Anmsville
Merc. Co. (Or.), 144 P. 1154.
542-4 Joiner v. L. Mohr & Sons, 14
Ga. App. 364, 80 S. E. 856; Joiner v.
Dougherty-Ward-Little Co., 14 Ga. App.
360, 80 3. E. 854; Koontz v, Baltimore
R. Co., 220 Mass. 285, 107 N. E. 973, L.
B. A. 1915D, 838; MacAusIand 9. Tay-
lor (Mass.), 107 N. E. 942.
The plaintiff or a dalmont are not nec-
essarily concluded by the answer of tlu^
578
GARNISHMENT
Vol. 10
trustee. While the plaintiff may not
contradict or impeach the trustee, he
may examine him to elicit facts. Jordon
Marsh Co. v. Hale, 219 Mass. 495, 107
N. E. 357.
642-7 Bobbins v, Vandermeiden, 182
Mich. 674, 148 N. W. 747.
DiBcontinoance of motion to traverse
is not an admission of the correctness
of the answer of the garnishee. Olivier,
Voorhies & Lawrey v. Majors, 133 La.
764, 63 S. 323.
543-10 MacAusland v. Taylor
(Mass.), 107 N. E. 942.
643-13 Modlin r. Smith, 13 6a. App.
259, 79 S. E. 82; McLaughlin 17. Aums-
ville Merc. Co. (Or.), 144 P. 1154. See
Barlow v. Lincoln-Williams Twist Drill
Co. (Mich.), 152 N. W. 1034.
Bxliibitixig and reading traverse to a
party and his counsel is not sufficient
service of notice of traverse within
the statute. Vaughan v. Bank of Cobb-
town, 14 Ga. App. 9, 79 S. E. 1130.
649-41 Baldwin D. Percival (Vt.),
92 A. 101.
649-48 See Olivier, Voorhies & Low-
rey v. Majors, 133 La. 764, 63 S. 323.
65CMk9 A general denial is a auffi-
eient answer in such suit. Maroosis t\
Catalano (Neb.), 152 N. W. 559.
660-62 Baldwin v. Percival (Vt.), 92
A. 101.
661-60 Atchison, T. & S. F. B. Co.
r. Bowman (Kan.), 147 P. 813, in non-
liability affidavit prescribed by Code
Civ. Proc, §234.
662-66 Farrington v, F. E. Fleming
Com. Co., 94 Neb. 108, 142 N. W. 297.
In Alabama. — See Prudential Sav. Bank
V. Looney (Ala.), 65 S. 770; Blackman
& Co. V. Collier (Ala. App.), 68 S. 519.
954-75 Citizens' Bank v. Chippewa
Circuit Judge (Mich.), 152 N. W. 1077;
Western Nat. Bank v, Texas Christian
University (Tex. Civ.), 176 S. W. 1194;
Barcus r. O'Brien (Tex. Civ.), 171 S.
W. 492. See Prudential Sav. Bank r.
Looney (Ala.), 65 S. 770.
666-80 An independent action by
one interpleader against another can-
not be ingrafted on a garnishment
proceeding by the mere filing of a
counterclaim. S. r. Wilson, 176 Mo.
App. 268, 161 S. W. 1179.
668-97 By Jury. — ^Reeves Grocery Co.
r. Thompson, 105 Miss. 729, 63 S. 187.
561-14 A daimant of a portion of
the indebtedness is not entitled to dis-
solve the garnishment to the extent
of his indebtedness. First Nat. Bank v.
Case Thresh. Mach. Co., 140 Ga. 737, 79
S. E. 781. '
561-20 The use of the word "trus-
tee" in the singular number does not
render void a bond where there are
two trustees, it being apparent the
bond applied to the whole trustee pro-
cess. McXamara v. Dorey, 219 Mass.
151, 106 N. E. 592.
562-22 Gist f. Johnson-Carey Co.
(Wis.), 151 N. W. 382.
662-23 Gist v, Johnson-Carey Co.
(Wis.), 151 N. W. 382.
562-26 First Nat. Bank r. Case
Thresh. Mach. Co., 140 Ga. 737, 79 S. E.
781.
564-39 Amendment of complaint
from an action on express contract to
one on quantum meruit, the transac-
tions involved in the original and
amended complaint being identical, is
not prejudicial to and does not release
the sureties. Gist v, Johnson-Carey Co-
(Wis.), 151 N. W. 382.
566-52 Price r. The Boot Shop
(Or.), 146 P. 1088.
Money paid must belong to the defend-
ant.— ^Western Fruit & Candy Co. v
Petersberger, 161 la. 436, 143 N. W
399.
566-64 But see Citizens' Bank v
Commercial Nat. Bank (Ark.), 177 S
W. 21.
567-56 Citizens' Bank t\ Commcr
cial Nat. Bank (Ark.), 177 S. W. 21
Citizens' Bank v. Commercial Nat
Bank, 107 Ark. 142, 155 S. W. 102.
667-57 On the vacation of the judg
ment against the defendant upon which
the writ of garnishment issued, the
garnishment falls. House 17. Anderson
(Colo. App.), 149 P. 1054.
567-59 Stub v. Hein, 129 Minn. 188,
152 N. W. 136. See Bobbins v, Vander-
meiden, 182 Mich. 674, 148 N. W. 747.
568-63 Smith v. Bank of Higden
(Ark.), 170 S. W. 1008; W. A. Smith &
Bros. V. Spinnen-Weber & Peters
(Ark.), 170 S. W. 84; Pickering Mfg.
Co. r. Gordon (Tex. Civ.), 166 S. W.
899.
Where the original suit was amended,
after the service of the writ of gar-
nishment, to charge a defendant in his
individual capacity instead of in a
579
Vol. 10
GARNISHMENT
corporate capacity, since no judgtaient
can be rendered against the defendant
to the original petition under which the
writ was issued, no judgment can be
rendered against the garnishee. Pick-
ering Mfg. Co. V, Gordon (Tex. Civ.),
166 S. W. 899.
669-64 Atwood v. Boan, 26 N. D.
622, 145 N. W. 587, 51 L. E. A. (N. S.)
597.
670-71 Notwithstanding an assign-
ment of plaintiff's claim pending suit.
Bergh t\ Crosby, 186 HI. App. 195.
Amendment. — The omission of this re-
cital may be supplied by amendment
at a subsequent term of the trial court
upon a motion nunc pro tunc. Pruden-
tial Sav. Bank v. Looney (Ala.), 65 S.
770.
570-74 Prudential Sav. Bank u.
Looney (Ala.), 65 ,S. 770.
671-79 Yawitz r. United Bys. Co.,
179 Mo. App. 718, 162 S. W. 727.
671-82 See White Oak Coal Co. v.
Beck, 176 111. App. 86.
672-87 MacAusland r. Taylor
(Mass.), 107 N. E. 942; Bigham Hdw.
& Furn. Co. v. Sparks Lumber Co.
(Tex. Civ.), 176 S. W. 1194. See Frieze
V, Powell, 79 Wash. 483, 140 P. 690.
672-91 Fruitticher t?. Ebersole, 16
Ala. App. 411, 64 S. 650.
676-11 Where the garnishee has a
lien on the note sought to be- garnished,
the order of the court requiring its de-
livery to the officer should provide that
he turn it over to the office j upon the
payment of his claim by the judgment
creditor. Wise v. Reed, 79 Wash. 134,
149 P. 325.
676-12 Appointing receiver to col-
lect a debt due by the garnishee is not
warranted by the law of Texas. Gulf
Nat. Bank v. Bass (Tex. Civ.), 177 S.
W. 1019.
681-63 Frieze v. Powell, 79 Wash.
483, 140 P. 690. See Berg V. Randall,
189 HI. App. 627.
682-66 Irregnlar Judgment will be
vacated where the application there-
for, is made with reasonable promptness
and where it is clear the irregularity
is prejudicial to the garnishee. White
Oak Coal Co. v. Beck, 176 111. App. 86.
683-73 State Sav. Bank tJ. Guaranty
Abstract Co. (la.), 151 N. W. 512.
683-81 Becital of service by publica-
tion is conclusive upon the garnishee
where ample time elapsed between the
date of the notice and the entry oi
judgment for the court to have ac
quired jurisdiction by a proper notice
Reid, Murdock & Co. v. McGregor, 182
111. App. 300.
683-82 Citizens' Bank v. Commer
cial Nat. Bank (Ark.), 177 S. W. 21;
State Sav. Bank r. Guaranty Abstraci
Co. (la.), 151 N. W. 512; Eppler t?
HUley (Tex. Civ.), 166 S. W. 87.
Exemption may be claimed by defend
ant notwithstanding judgment againsi
the garnishee. Johnson v. Hall (Tex
Civ.), 163 S. W, 399.
684-83 Zimmer t\ First Nat. Bank
(Tex. Civ.), 173 S. W. 1016.
686-93 State Sav. Bank v. Guaranty
Abstract Co. (la.), 151 N. W. 512.
688-12 First S. Bank «. Lattimei
(Okla.), 149 P. 1099.
690-22 Bank of Union v. Baird, 7S
W. Va. 716, 79 S. E. 738.
691-26 Waggoner v. Brigga (Tex
Civ.), 166 S. W. 50.
691-26 Carter ©. I^rst Nat. Bank.
15 Ga. App. 55, 82 S. E. 628.
692-28 Attorney's fees from tbe
garnishee cannot be recovered by the
plaintiff. Waggoner V. Brigga (Tex.
Civ.), 166 S. W. 60.
692-33 See Eppler v. Hilley (Tex.
Civ.), 166 S. W. 87.
693-38 State Sav. Bank v. Guaranty
Abstract Co. (la.), 151 N. W. 612;
United States Exp. Co. r. Hurlock, 120
Md. 107, 87 A. 834, Ann. Cas. 1915A,
566.
693-39 State Sav. Bank v. Guaranty
Abstract Co. (la.), 151 N. W. 512.
694-44 See Mclnerney v. Graham,
185 m. App. 303.
Notice to defendant of appeal by gar-
nishee. State Sav. Bank v. Guaranty
Abstract Co. (la.), 151 N. W. 512.
698-86 By voluntary appearance or
submission. — ^Atkins v, Evans (W. Va.),
84 S. E. 901; Pennsylvania B. Co. c.
Rogers, 52 W. Va. 450, 44 S. E. 300,
62 L. R. A. 178.
699-94 Fraley v. Hoban, 69 Or. 180,
133 P. 1190, 137 P. 751.
600-98 Frieze v. Powell, 79 Wash.
483, 140 P, 690.
Appearance by garnishee to a adre
facias on a conditional judgment
waives any preceding irregularities in
580
GRAND JURY
Vol 10
the process by which he was brought
before the court. Mclnerney v. Gra-
ham, 185 111. App. 303.
600-99 Ferreira v. Kamo, 18 Haw.
593; Chamberlain v. Wallace, 176
Mich. 609, 142 N. W. 1072.
eOl-9 Mclnerney t?. Graham, 185 111.
App. 303.
aiFTS
603-15 Alleging donatio causa mor-
tis.— An allegation which does not say
that the gift was made in contempla-
tion of the death of the donor, or state
a delivery of the property to the donee
or any one for him is insufficient to
plead a gift causa mortiB. Hillman i\
Young, 64 Or. 73, 127 P. 793, 129 P.
603-16 6ee Clinchfleld Coal Corp. v.
Steinman (C. C. A.), 217 Fed. 875, bill
sufficient.
604-23 Fagan t?. Trontman, 24 Colo.
App. 473, 135 P. 122.
604-24 Comp, Hayes v. Hayes, 126
Mmn. 389, 148 N. W. 125.
604-25 See Hayes v. Hayes, 126
Minn. S89, 148 N. W. 125.
605-29 Whether the gift was ac-
cepted and executed by performance of
the donee sufficient to take it out of
the statute of frauds is a question to
be determined by the jury when the
matter is before them on the evidence.
Hayes v. Hayes, 126 Minn. 389, 148
N. W. 125.
605-30 Fagan v, Troutman, 24 Colo.
App. 473, 135 P. 122.
605-34 Oases in which the court
passed upon specific instructions in-
volving gifts, see Holloway v. Hoard,
140 Ga. 380, 78 S. E. 928; Thompson
V. Thompson (la.), 153 N. W. 196;
Prentz v. Schwarze, 122 Md. 12, 89 A.
439. '
ORAND JUBY
610-9 Bector v. 8., 11 Ala. App. 333,
66 S. 857; Viers t?. S., 10 Okla. Cr. 28,
134 P. 80.
610-10 P. V. Turner, 260 HI. 84, 102
N. E. 1036.
Obimty clerk's presence indispensable.
e. V. Wetzel (W. Va.), 83 S. E. 68.
611-18 P. V. Turner, 260 111. 84, 102
N. E. 1036.
614-28 Eector v. S., 11 Ala.. App.
333, 66 S 857.
616-44 Provision mandatory. S. v.
Wetzel (W. Va.), 83 S. E. 68.
617-48 Spelce v. S., 10 Ala. App.
196, 65 S. 199. ^^
618-67 See S. v. Wetzel (W. Va.).
83 S. E. 68. V ;,
619-63 Patten v. U. S., 42 App. Cas.
(D. C.) 239. ^^
619-64 31 St. at L. 1223, ch. 854;
Patten v. U. S., 42 App. Cas. (D. C.)
239.
622-82 In federal courts etc. U. S.
V. Breeding, 207 Fed. 645.
At common law, etc. Jones v. Mc-
Claughry (la.), 151 N. W. 210.
In Alabama the number may be in-
creased to eighteen in the discretion
of the court. Ex parte Lawler, 185
Ala. 428, 64 8. 102; Hafley v. S., 8 Ala.
App. 378, 62 S. 319; Yeager t?. S., 8 Ala.
App. 374, 62 S. 318.
In Oklahoma, twelve. Viers v. S., 10
Okla. Cr. 28, 134 P. 80. •
624-87 Ex parte Lawler, 185 Ala.
428, 64 S. 102; Patten v. U. S., 42 App.
Cas. (D. C.) 239,
625-92 Ex parte Lawler, 185 Ala.
428, 64 S. 102.
626-98 Viers v, S., 10 Okla. Cr. 28,
134 P. 80.
Withdrawal of Juror. — "But after a
grand jury has once been legally or-
ganized, and the number is subsequent-
ly reduced, the law does not authorize
an increase unless the number is re-
duced below that required by law."
Moore v. S., 9 Ala. App. 672, 62 S.
320; Hafley v. S., 8 Ala. App. 378, 62
S. 319; Yeager v, S., 8 Ala. App. 374,
62 S. 318.
628-15 Sufficient proof of oath. P.
V. Miller, 264 111. 148, 106 N. E. 191,
Ann. Cas. 1915B, 1240.
634-43 McComb v. Fourth Judicial
Dist. Court, 36 Nev. 417, 136 P. 563;
Hemphill v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 170 S. W.
154.
637-53 Before pleading to indict-
ment. P. 1?. Miller, 264 111. 148, 106
N. E. 191, Ann. Cas. 1915B, 1240;
Berkenfleld v. P., 191 111. 272, 61 N. E.
96.
641-74 P. V, Miller, 264 HI. 148, 106
N. E. 191,
644-94 Motion to quash. P. v. Mil-
ler, 264 111. 148, 106 N. E. 191, Ann.
Cas. 1915B, 1240.
649-23 Discussioii of evidence by
third persons, not witnesses, before
581
Vol. 10
OVARANTY
grand jury will vitiate indictment. S.
r. Wetzel (W. Va.), 83 S. E. 68.
650-25 U. S. t\ Bolles, 209 Fed. 682,
no right to be heard.
659-68 P. r. Strauss, 165 App. Div.
58, 150 N. Y. S. 991.
QVARANTY
666-1 First Nat. Bank v. Nakdimen,
111 Ark. 223, 163 S. W. 785.
For additional definitions, see Tyson t?.
Reinecke, 25 Cal. App. 696, 145 P. 153;
Cownie v. Dodd (la.), 149 N. W. 904;
Crowder S. Bank t'. American Powder
Mills (Okla.), 148 P. 698.
670-11 Norvell v. Gilreath (Ala.),
66 S. 635; Westchester Mortgage Co.
V. Thomas B. Mclntire (App. Div.),
153 N. Y. S. 437.
A demand is sufficient to fix the right
of action where it was shown that since
' the last payment under the contract
the principal has been insolvent. Cownie
V, Dodd (la.), 149 N. W. 904.
670-12 Westchester Mortgage Co. v,
Thomas B. Mclntire (App. Div.), 153
N. Y. S. 437.
672-19 Postlethwaite v. Minor, 168
Cal. 227, 142 P. 55.
Tlie remedy for breacli of an executory
contract contemplating a future guar-
ty in a certain manner is by a suit for
specific performance or other appropri-
ate action based upon the contract
itself. Postlethwaite v. Minor, 168
Cal. 227, 142 P. 55.
673-25 Westchester Mortgage Co. v,
Thomas B. Mclntire (App. Div.), 153
N. Y. S. 437.
674-26 Jones v. Buck (Del.), 90 A.
86; Scott V. Alton Banking & Trust
Co. (Mo.), 175 S. W. 920.
676-34 See Postlethwaite v. Minor,
168 Cal. 227, 142 P. 55.
678-40 Boschetti r. Morton, 23 Cal.
App. 325, 137 P. 1085; Holmes v, A. J.
Schwab & Sons, 141 Ga. 44, 80 S. E.
313. And sec Young r. Bank of Miami
(Tex. Civ.), 175 S. W. 1102.
678-41 Holmes r. A. J. Schwab &
Sons, 141 Ga. 44, 80 S. E. 313; Lon-
don V. Funsch, 188 Mo. App. 14, 173
S. W. 88; Young t\ Bank of Miami
(Tex. Civ.), 175 S. W. 1102.
681-50 A defendant may in the
same action be sued both as guarantor
and indorser following the general rule
that demands against the same party
may be joined when they are all oi
the same nature and the same judg-
ment has to be given in each, although
the pleas may be different. Bowman
V. First Nat. Bank, 115 Va. 463, 80
S. E, 95.
682-57 Bothchild Bros. v. Lomaz
(Or.), 146 P. 479.
682-63 See Norvell v. Gilreath
(Ala.), 66 S. 635.
687-76 K6lther presentment* de-
mand, protest, nor notice, need be al-
leged where the guaranty is for the
payment of a note. Westchester Mort-
gage Co. V. Thomas B. Mclntire (App.
Div.), 153 N,*5r. S. 437.
687-78 Complaint sufficient. Nor-
vell 17. Gilreath (Ala.), 66 S. 635.
688-80 See Norvell v. Gilreath
(Ala.), 66 S. 635.
693-4 Fort Dearborn Nat. Bank v.
Miller, 178 111. App. 450.
That no snit was brought against the
principal debtor is a matter of affirma-
tive defense which must be specially
pleaded. Fort Dearborn Nat. Bank v.
M;iller, 178 HI. App. 450.
Loss or damage resulting from a fail-
ure to give such notice must be shown.
Fort Dearborn Nat. Bank v. Miller,
178 111. App. 450.
693-5 Norvell v, Gilreath (Ala.), 66
S. 635.
693-7 Gambill r. Fox Typewriter
Co. (Ala.), 66 S. 655.
That extension of time was made with-
out notice to the guarantor must be
pleaded to be available. Valley Nat*
Bank v. Cownie, 164 la. 421, 145 N. W.
904.
695-14 Norvell v. Gilreath (Ala.),
66 S. 635; L. L. Satler Lumber Co. V.
Exler, 239 Pa. 135, 86 A. 793. See
Farmers' Nat. Bank r. Updegraf, 161
la. 666, 143 N. W. 481.
699-44 F. W. Cook Brewing Co. €.
Goldblatt, 184 HI. App. 266.
699-45 L. L. Satler Lumber Co. v*
Exler, 239 Pa. 135, 86 A. 793.
699-49 F. W. Cook Brewing Co. I?.
Goldblatt, 184 HI. App. 266.
aUABDIAN AD LITEM
706-1 Whitney v. Porter, 23 HI. 445;
We tt rick t?. Martin, 181 111. App. 94;
Easton t\ Easton, 112 Me. 106, 90 A«
682
GUARDIAN AD LITEM
Vol 16
977, 52 L. R. A. (N. S.) 799; Gibson
r. Pollock, 179 Mo. App. 188, 166 S. W.
874; Kellett i-. Rathbun, 4 Paige Ch.
(N. Y.) 102, 106; Anderson v. Ander-
son, 164 App. Div. 812, 150 N. Y. S.
359; Kindgen v, Craig, 162 App. Div.
508, 147 N. Y. Supp. 571; Hill v. Guar-
anty Trust Co., 157 App. Div. 907, 142
N. Y. S. 346; In re Rousos, 119 N. Y.
S. 34; Gulib V. Bncquio, 16 Phil. Isl.
444; Simmons V. Arnim (Tex. Civ.), 172
S. W. 184.
708-9 Am t?. Arn (Mo.), 173 S. W.
1062.
Where guardian's Interests are adverse
to those of the ward, the judgment is
not binding upon a minor not in court.
Pearce v, Heyman (Tex. Civ.), 158 S.
W. 242.
708-12 la. Code, §3480; In re Brack-
eys Est. (la.), 147 N. W. 188 (although
the person bringing the action does not
designate himself as next friend he may
be assumed to be such); Ewing's Heirs
r. Armstrong, 4 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 69;
Easton v. Easton, 112 Me. 106, 90 A.
977, 52 L. R. A. (N. S.) 799; Hanlin v.
Burk Bros. M. & P. Co., 174 Mo. App.
462, 160 S. W. 547; Ferencz v. Greek
Catholic Union, 54 Pa. Super. 642;
Bundick v. Moore-Cortes Canal Co.
(Tex. Civ.), 177 S. W, 1030.
708-13 In re Rousos, 119 N. T. S.
34.
709-14 Arizona Eastern R. Co. v.
Carillo (Ariz.), 149 P. 313; Greenburg
i\ New York C. & H. R. Co., 210 N. Y.
505, 104 N. E. 931; Anderson r. Ander-
son, 164 App. Div. 812, 150 N. Y. S.
359; Bautista v. Tiongson, 11 Phil. Isl.
579; Smith «. R«dden, 1 Tex. Unrep.
Cas. 360.
710-15 Colt V. Colt, 19 Blatchf. (U.
8.) 399, 467 (Connecticut practice);
Pinchback v. Graves, 42 Ark. 222;
Treiber v. Shafer, 18 la. 29; Winston v.
McLendon, 43 Miss. 254; Clark v.
Crosswhite, 28 Mo. App. 34; Graham v.
Crosas, 19 P. R. 184, 216; Brown v,
Severson, 12 Heisk. (Tenn.) 381, 390.
See note in Ann. Cas. 1912D, 364.
711-17 S. V, Burkam, 23 Ind. App..
271, 55 N. E. 237; McMakin v, Strat-
ton, 82 Ky. 226; Walker v. Smyser, 80
Ky. 620; Stinson v. Pickering, 70 Me.
273; Kellett v, Rathbun, 4 Paige Ch.
(N. Y.) 102, 106; Matter of Ludlow, 5
Redf. (N. Y.) 391; Graham v, Crosas,
19 P. R, 184; Hawkins v. Forrest, 1
Tex. Unrep. Cas. 167. See Hagan v.
Grimshaw, 15 La. Ann. 394.
711-19 On death of guardian after
taking of testimony and before decree,
a guardian ad litem must be appointed
before the decree is pronounced. Bev-
erlys v. Miller, 6 Munf. (Va.) 99.
711-20 Fitcli V. Cornell, 1 Sawy. 156,
172, 9 Fed. Cas. No. 4,834.
711-21 Cato r. Easley, 2 Stew.
(Ala.) 214; Price v. Winter, 15 Pla. 66.
713-27 Swoope v. Swoope, 173 Ala.
157, 55 S. 418, Ann. Cas. 1914A, 937.
722-72 Roy t?. Rowe, 90 Ind. 54;
Sleeper v, Killion (la.), 147 N. W.
314; Darrow t?. Calkins, 154 N. Y. 503,
49 N. E. 61, 61 Am. St. 637, 48 L. R.
A. 299 (cannot be appointed until ex-
piration of period of publication of
summons); Boiling v. Campbell, 36
Okla. 671, 128 P. 1091; Boiling v. Gib-
son, 36 Okla. 678, 128 P. 1093.
If service be inBu£Qclent» the appoint-
ment will be void. Brown v. Brown,
157 Ky. 804, 164 S. W. 70.
724-76 S. V. Stark, 149 la. 749, 129
N. W. 331, Ann. Cas. 1912D, 362.
724-77 Galbraith v. Pennington, 184
Mo. App. 618, 170 S. W. 668.
725-86 Anderson v, Anderson, 164
App. Div. 812, 150 N. Y. S. 359, quot.
Rima v. Rossie Iron Wks., 120 N. Y.
433, 24 N.»E. 940.
Judgment rendered without a guardian
having been appointed is not binding
on the minor. Trask v. Boise King
Placers Co., 26 Ida. 290, 142 P. 1073.
Statute forbids a reversal. — Thomas v.
St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co., 187 Mo.
App. 420, 173 S, W. 728.
726-88 Trask v. Boise King Placers
Co., 26 Ida. 290, 142 Pac. 1073.
726-89 See Hill v. Guaranty Trust
Co., 157 App. Div. 907, 142 N. Y. S.
346, an appearance without a guardian
ad litem would not be effective.
726-91 Wettrick v, Martin, 181 111.
App. 94; Eubanks t?. McLeod, 105 Miss.
826, 63 S. 226; Bundick v. Moore-
Cortes Canal Co. (Tex. Civ.), 177 S. W.
1030. See Graves v. Graves, 255 Mo.
468, 164 S. W. 496.
728-94 Williams v. Williams, 265 111.
64, 106 N. E. 476; Thurston v. Tubbs,
250 111. 540, 95 N. E. 479, Ann. Cas.
1912B, 375. See note in Ann. Cas.
1912B, 376.
728-95 Galbraith v. Pennington, 184
583
Vol. 10
GUARDIAN AD LITEM
Mo. App. 618, 170 S. W. 668. See Wet-
trick V, Martin, 181 HI. App. 94.
729-2 Nicholson v. Wilborn, 13 Ga.
467.
An order appointixig a guardian ad
lltom nunc pro tunc will not be granted
after verdict. Boylen v. McAvoy, 29
How. Pr. (N. Y.) 278.
732-14 Williamson r. Grider, 97 Ark.
588, 135 S. W. 361; Ewing's Heirs v.
Armstrong, 4 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 69;
Shields v, Bryant, 2 A. K. Marsh. (Ky.)
342; Stinson v. Pickering, 70 Me. 273.
See note in Ann. Cas. 1912B, 376.
733-19 Where the infant appears by
his general guardian, it is the duty of
the surrogate to inquire into the facts
and ascertain if the interests of the in-
fant require the appointment of a spe-
cial guardian, no application to the sur-
rogate is needed. Matter of Ludlow,
5 Redf. (N. Y.) 391.
A next tiienA is appointed by the court
in theory of law, but no formal ap-
pointment is required. He may sue
without any other appointment or rec-
ord than a recital in the pleadings.
Butler f7. Winchester Home, 216 Mass.
567, 104 N. E. 451; Gray v, Parke, 155
Mass. 433, 29 N. E. 641.
Any act of recognition by the court of
the person assuming to act as guard-
ian ad litem is equivalent to an ap-
pointment. Lukua V. Manaia, 21 Haw.
160.
734-22 An objection that the appli-
cant was erroneously describedt in that
he is not the father but the grand-
father, is without merit. Eisenman v.
Griffith, 181 Mo. App. 183, 167 S. W.
1142.
734-24 See Anderson v. Anderson,
164 App. Div. 812, 150 N. Y. S. 359.
By reference to a sufficient complaint
in the cause, the necessary facts may
be incorporated in the petition for ap-
pointment. Arizona Eastern B. Co. v.
Carillo (Ariz.), 149 P. 313,
734-26 Arizona Eastern B. Co. v,
Carillo (Ariz.), 149 P. 313; Anderson
V. Anderson, 164 App. Div. 812, 150 N.
Y. S. 359; Everart v. Fischer (Or.), 147
P. 189.
734-27 Arizona Eastern B. Co. v.
Carillo (Ariz.), 149 P. 313.
735-30 Stewart t?. Parr (W. Va.), 82
S. E. 259.
737-53 Swoope v. Swoope, 173 Ala.
157, 55 S. 418, Ann. Cas. 1914A, 937.
Legal guardian need not be appointed
as guardian ad litem. Stewart c. Parr
(W. Va.), 82 S. E. 259.
738-55 Swoope i;. Swoope, 173 Ala.
157, 55 S. 418, Ann. Cas. 1914A, 937.
738-58 Faulkner v. Brown, 143 N.
Y. S. 791.
739-59 The next fUend should have
the interest of the infant at heart.
Swoope v. Swoope, 173 Ala. 157, 55 S.
418, Ann. Cas. 1914A, 937.
740-71 Swoope v. Swoope, 173 Ala.
157, 55 S. 418, Ann. Cas. 1914A, 937;
Heuel <?. Stein, 165 App. Div. 14, 150
N. Y. S, 540; Salunga v. Evangelista,
20 PhU. Isl. 273, 304.
741-73 Heuel v. Stein, 165 App. Div.
14, 150 N. Y. S. 540.
741-75 Heuel t?. Stein, 165 App. Div.
14, 150 N. Y. S. 540.
742-79 See 12 Standard Pboc. 735,
n. 4.
742-81 See McHakin v, Stratton, 82
Ky. 226.
743-84 Omlaalon to file affidavit can
be reached only by special demurrer
and the objection is waived by gen-
eral demurrer. Maiden v. Stewart, 163
Ky. 551, 174 S. W. 5.
744-95 The porpose of this require-
ment id to secure jurisdiction of the
guardian ad litem, as the application
for the appointment is not made by
him. Arizona Eastern B. Co. v. Carillo
(Ariz.), 149 P. 313.
A record showing of appearance by the
guardian ad litem satisfies the statutory
requirement that his written consent
be filed. Arizona Eastern B. Co. v,
Carillo (Ariz.), 149 P. 313; Arn v. Am
(Mo.), 173 S. W. 1062; Galbraith r.
Pennington, 184 Ho. App. 618, 170 8.
W. 668.
745-5 Trask v. Boise King Placers
Co., 26 Ida. 290, 142 P. 1073.
746-8 If an irresponsible person be
appointed, a bond may be exacted.
Faulkner v. Brown, 143 N. Y. S. 791.
748-13 Dudley i?. Tyson, 167 N. C.
67, 82 S. E. 1025. See Welsh v. Koch,
4 Cal. App. 571, 578, 88 P. 604.
748-14 CAulder v. Chenault's Exr.,
154 Ky. 777, 159 S. W. 578.
The irregnlarlty Is cored by service of
sonunons upon the infants and the filing
of the answer of the guardian ad litem.
Dudley «. Tyson, 167 N. C. 67, 82 S. E.
1025.
684
GUARDIAN AND WARD
Vol. 10
r49-20 Bell v. Burkhalter, 183 Ala.
527, 62 S. 786; Coffey r. Proctor .Coal
Co., 14 Ky. L. R. 415, 20 8. W. 286;
McGarity v. New York City R. Co., 51
Misc. 666, 101 N. Y. S. 191; Smart V.
Haring, 14 Hun (N. Y. 276.
To abate tbe action it must be alleged
and proved that there was no ratifica-
tion of the action. Bell v, Burkhalter,
183 Ala. 527, 62 S. 786.
761-35 Swoope r. Swoope, 173 Ala.
157, 55 S. 418, Ann. Cas. 1914A, 937;
Barwick i?. Eackley, 45 Ala. 215.
753-45 Thurston v. Tubbs, 250 111.
540, 95 N. E. 479, Ann. Cas. 1912B, 375;
Fuller V. Smith, 49 Vt. 253. See note
in Ann. Cas. 1912B, 375.
753-48 See note in Ann. Cas. 1912B,
376.
Presumption on appeal. — '<We cannot
know from the record before us whether
a guardian ad litem was appointed or
not. The appeal being upon the judg-
ment roll, we cannot look outside of
it to determine the question. Harper
V. Minor, 27 Cal. 107; Sharp v. Daugney,
33 Cal. 505, 512). Proceedings relat-
ing to the appointment form no part
of the judgment roll. (Code Civ. Proc,
sec. 670; Emeric v. Alvarado, 64 Cal.
592). In this condition of the record
we must presume in favor of the action
of the court below, especially as the an-
swer itself and the recitals in the judg-
ment show that the appearance and an-
swer of the defendant were by a guard-
ian ad litem. (Sharp v, Daugney, su-
pra; Emeric f?. Alvarado, supra)."
Batchelder v. Baker, 79 Cal. 266, 21 P.
754.
753-49 Apthorp 17. Bockus, Kirby
(Conn.) 407.
754-53 S. V. Superior Court, 74
Wash. 559, 134 P. 172.
754-55 Horowitz v. Independent W.
S. O., 188 111. App. 162.
755-62 Butler v. Winchester Home,
216 Mass. 567, 104 N. E. 451.
756-67 Horowitz t?. Independent W.
S. O., 183 ni. App. 162.
760-82 Ahearn t?. Bowery Savings
Bank, 164 App. Div. 809, 150 N. Y. S.
244.
761-85 An agreed statement of facts
cannot be entered into by a gu$irdian
ad litem. Lathers r. Fish, 4 Lans. (N.
Y.) 213; Greene i?. Babey, 35 B. I. 11,
85 A. 118, Ann. Cas. 1915A, 1290 and
note.
761-86 Smoot v. Byan (Ala.), 65 S.
828; Greenburg v. New York, C. & H.
B. Co., 210 N. Y. 505, 104 N. E. 931.
See 2 Standaed Proc. 518, n. 23.
762-91 In re Seabury's Est., 87
Misc. 241, 150 N. Y. S. 420; In re
Stevenson's Est., 150 N. Y. S. 423;
Simmons v, Arnim (Tex. Civ.), 172 S.
W. 184, Comp, Allen v. Lucas, 15 Haw.
52.
765-9 Simmons D. Arnim (Tex. Civ.),
172 S. W. 184.
765-10 No farther representation of
or service upon the minor is necessary
to the taxing of guardian ad litem's
services. Simmons t?. Arnim (Tex. Civ.),
172 S. W. 184.
766-13 Simmons v. Arnim (Tex.
Civ.), 172 S. W. 184.
772-35 The Etna, 1 Waje 474, 8
Fed. Cas. No. 4,542; Swoope v. Swoope,
173 Ala. 157, 55 S. 418, Ann. Cas. 1914A,
937; Barwick v. Rackley, 45 Ala. 215;
Hare v. Shaw, 84 Ark. 32, 104 S. W.
931, 120 Am. St. 17; Apthorp V. Backus,
Kirby (Conn.) 407, 1 Am. Dec. 26;
Butler V. Winchester Home, 216 Mass.
567, 104 N. D. 451; S. t\ Superior Court,
74 Wash. 559, 134 P. 172. See note in
Ann. Cas. 1914A, 943.
772-37 In re Haynes' Will, 82 Misc.
228, 143 N. Y. S. 570.
772-38 See note in Ann. Cas. 1914A,
943.
773-41 S.' f?. Superior Court, 74
Wash. 559, 134 P. 172.
773-43 See Qillispie v. Darroch
(Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 475.
OUABDIAN AND WABD
779-1 Linderholm v. Ekblad, 92 Kan.
9, 139 P. 1015; Brack v. Morris, 90 Kan.
64, 132 P. 1185.
The superior court has no jurisdiction
to appoint a guardian to have the care
of the property of a minor. De Ferrari
V. De Ferrari (Mass.), 107 N. E. 404;
Stone V. Duffy, 219 Mass. 178, 106 N.
E. 595.
779-3 In New Yoi^ ''the statutes
conferring upon surrogate's courts
power to appoint and control guardians
of infants have in no way impaired the
powers of the supreme court in this re-
spect." Haug t?. Hewitt, 87 Misc. 67,
150 N. Y. S. 236.
785-34 In re Cobum, 165 Cal. 202,
131 P. 352.
585
Vol 10
GVAUDtAJf AND WARD
Petition in words of statute alleging
person to be "mentally incompeteiit to
manage his property'' is good. In re
Coburn, 166 Cal. 202, 131 P. 352.
796-5 In re Coburn, 165 Cal. 202. 131
P. 352. '
802-46 Brack v. Morris, 90 Kan. 64,
132 P. 1185.
807-71 Felieiano v. Camahort, 22
Phil. Isl. 235.
810-94 In re Guardianship of Rob-
erts, 18 Haw. 304.
812-9 Quo warranto to oust a guard-
ian is improper. Linderholm v. Ekblad,
92 Kan. 9, 139 P. 1015.
813-23 P. V. Buck, 149 111. App. 283;
Piat t\ Allaway, 2 Bibb. (Ky.) 554;
Ledwith v. Union Trust Co., 2 Dem. (N.
Y.) 439. See note in Ann. Cas. 1912B.
977. '
813-24 Lord v. Hough, 37 Cal. 657.
814-33 Writ of error does not lie.
Piat V, Allaway, 2 Bibb. (Ky.) 554.
The time within which to appeal from
an order removing the guardian is
twenty days from the date thereof and
not twenty days from the time peti-
tioner first heard of the order. Alemany
V. Sweeney, 3 Phil. Isl. 424.
815-45 Owen v. Pye, 115 Md. 400, 80
A. 1007. See note in Ann. Cas. 1912B,
977.
819-81 See Clark v. Superior Court,
20 Cal. App. 305, 128 P. 1018, when
shown to the court by affidavit or veri-
fied petition, the court may make an
order providing for a temporary cus-
tody until hearing of petition.
822-94 See Chapman v. American
Sur. Co., 201 111. 594, 104 N. E. 247.
822-9S Chapman v. American Sur.
Co., 261 HI. 594, 104 N. E. 247, not a
common law action.
823-97 Chapman v. American Sur.
Co., 261 111. 594, 104 N. E. 247, before
as well as after the termination of the
guardianship.
824-2 Chapman <?. American Sur.
Co., 261 HI. 594, 104 N. E. 247.
826-16 Chapman v, American Sur.
Co., 261 HI. 594, 104 N. E. 247.
Where the probate court could not au-
thorize a certain investment of the
ward's funds by the guardian, it could
not on the accounting confirm it. Chap-
man V. American Sur. Co., 261 HI. 594,
104 N. E. 247.
833-^3 In re Srouf e 's Est., 74 Wast.
639, 134 Pac. 471.
835-69 Gronna t*. Goldammer, 26 N.
D. 122, 143 N. W. 394.
836-73 Cobleigh v, Matheny, 181 HI.
App. 170.
836-74 Sureties on the guardian's
bond may. Gronna v. Goldammer, 26
X. D. 122, 143 N. W. 394.
836-76 Baker v, Bundy, 55 Ind. App.
272, 103 N. E. 668.
839-5 Gillispie «?. Darroch (Ind.
App.), 107 N. E. 475.
843-35 Prima facie evidence only.
Vaccaro v. Cicalla, 89 Tenn. 63, 14 S.
W. 43,
847-51 The time within which to
bring proceedings to open and modify
the final settlement rests in the sound
discretion of the court in view of all
the circumstances of the case. In re
Moore, 112 Me. 119, 90 A. 1088.
847-52 Manegold f?. Beaver (Ala.),
66 S. 448.
847-56 See Euler v. Euler, 55 Ind.
App. 547, 102 N. E. 856, statute limits
right to such persons only as are ad-
versely affected by the mistake, fraud
or illegality entering into final settle-
ment and who were not personally
present.
Impleading two sets of sureties on sev-
eral bonds involving the settlement of
several accounts is allowable in an ac-
tion to surcharge and falsify where the
accounts have been commingled. Vick
r;. Ferrell (W. Va.), 85 S. E. 549.
847-57 Administrator of ward. — ^Eu-
ler V. Euler, 55 Ind. App. 547, 102 N.
E. 856.
848-60 Allegations showing plain-
tiff to have right to institute proceed-
ings within statute are essential. Euler
V. Euler, 55 Ind. App. 547, 102 X. E.
856.
857-49 See note in Ann. Cas. 1912B,
407.
Authorization to sue by a competent
court is required in the cases enumer-
ated in the statute. Delgado t\ Cabassa,
10 P. R. 48.
857-50 Suits affecting the title to
real property cannot be brought by gen-
eral guardian. In re Catlings Est., 89
Misc. 93, 151 N. Y. S. 254.
857-51 Tuttle t?. Garrett, 74 ni. 444.
See note in Ann. Cas. 191 2D, 364.
A partition suit may be maintained by
586
OUARDIAN AND WARD
Vol Id
the guardian on behalf of the ward.
Shaffer r. Shaffer, 69 W. Va. 163, 71
8. E. Ill; Suter v. Suter, 68 W. Va.
690, 70 S. E. 705.
858-53 S. V. Burkam, 23 Ind. App.
271, 55 N, E. 237.
858-58 See note in Ann. Cas. 1912B,
407.
859-59 Everart t?. Fischer (Or.), 147
P. 189 J Everart v, Piacher (Or.), 145 P.
33.
860-61 diaries v. Witt, 88 Kan. 484,
129 P. 140, not reversible error.
860-62 Actloxu involvliig pexsonal
propeity of the ward. Wright v. Cos-
mopolitan L. Ins. Assn., 154 111. App.
201.
868-14 See Everart v. Fischer (Or.),
145 P. 33.
869-20 See Everart v, Fischer (Or.),
145 P. 33, demurrer or answer.
872-39 In action presenting e^nit-
able features there is no right to jury
trial. Kuhn v. Johnson, 91 Kan. 188,
137 P. 990.
875-66 Tobin v. Addison, 2 Strobh.
L. (S. C.) 3.
876-69 Disposition of proceeds from
an action on behalf of the ward are
subject to the control of the supreme
court in New York and that court may
order payment into court or the giving
of a bond by the guardian where the
surrogate's court has not done fio.
Haug V. Hewitt, 87 Misc. 67, 150 N. Y.
S. 236.
876-75 Acceptance of benefits un-
^er a Judgment by the guardian will
not prevent the ward's appealing
therefrom, the guardian not being a
party. Scott v, Dilley, 53 Ind. App. 100,
101 N. E, 313.
877-88 Simmons f. Goodell, 63 N.
H. 458.
879-1 After the death of the gnard-
ian, the liability of the surety can be
determined only in equity. United
States F. & G. Co. v. Pittman, 183 Ala.
602, 62 S, 784.
879-3 A transfer of the suit to
eqnity will not be granted on request
of co-sureties on the various bon'ds who
are all defendants for the purpose of set-
tling any rights of contribution they
may have as that may be done in an
independent suit. Beakley v. Cunning-
ham, 112 Ark. 71, 165 S. W. 259.
If an accounting would be a useless
act, an action in equity against the
principal and sureties may be resorted
to. Duck r. M'Grath, 160 App. Div.
4S2, 145 N. Y. S. 1033.
886-4 S. v. United States Fid. & G.
Co. (Mo. App.), 176 S. W. 542, settle-
ment by administrator of guardian un-
der Rev. St., 1909, 1461, not essential
prerequisite.
880-6 Buck V, M'Grath, 160 App.
Div. 482, 145 N. Y. S. 1033.
881-8 Beakley v, Cunningham, 112
Ark. 71, 165 S. W. 259; Duck t?.
M 'Grath, 160 App. Div. 482, 145 N. Y.
S. 1033.
881-9 Beakley v, Cunningham, 112
Ark. 71, 165 S. W. 259.
882-11 See, however, United States
F. & G. Co. t?. Pittman, 183 Ala. 602,
62 S. 784.
883-16 Gronna v. Goldammer, 26 N.
D. 122, 143 N. W, 394.
884-24 People v. Wirtz, 184 HI. App.
505, suit held to have been brought in
the name of the state although the
summons calls upon defendants to an-
swer to the relator.
885-32 Beakley v, Cunningham, 112
Ark. 71, 165 S. W. 259.
885-36 See Beakley v. Cunningham,
112 Ark. 71, 165 8. W. 259.
887-42 United States F. & G. Co. v.
Pittman, 183 Ala. 602, 62 S. 784.
900-41 Wilson v. Central Altagracia,
3 P. E. Fed. 159.
904-69 Order may be general, re-
quiring the resident guardian to pay
and deliver the money and property in
his hands, it being unnecessary to as-
certain the amount. The court need
not await the determination of litiga-
tion involving the estate. Fidelity
Trust Co. V, Davis Trust Co. (W. Va.),
83 S. £. 59,
905-70 Fidelity Trust Co. t?. Davis
Tfust Co. (W. Va.), 83 S. E. 59.
906-82 Personal service not neces-
sary. Fidelity Trust Co. r. Davis Trust
Co. (W. Va.), 83 S, E. 59.
90T-8T Venue. — ^Proceeding by for-
eign guardian to obtain transfer of
money and property out of hands of
resident guardian is properly instituted
in county where resident guardian was
appointed, even though property has
been removed to another county. Fidel-
587
Vol 10
HABEAS CORPUS
ity Trust Co. t\ Davis Trust Co. (W.
Va.), 83 S. E. 59.
HABEAS OOBPUS
911-1 Habeas corpus is an appropri-
ate relnedy to protect the right of lib-
erty of one illegally restrained. S. v.
Bush (Ala. App.}; 68 S. 492.
911-2 Martin r. District Court, 37
Colo. 110, 86 P. 82, 119 Am. St. 262;
Ex parte Casper (Colo. App.), 144 P.
1137; P. I?. Hoxie, 175 111. App. 563;
8. V, McDonald, 123 Minn. 84, 142 N.
W. 1051.
ELabeas corpus proceeding is a collateral
rather than a direct attack. Hopkins
r. M'Claughry, 209 Fed. 821, 126 C. C.
A. 545; S. r. Speake (Ala.), 65 S. 840;
8. r. Dobson, 135 Mo. 1, 36 8. W. 238.
Legal or equitable. — Habeas corpus is
a legal proceeding. Ex parte Chambers
(Mass.), 108 N. E. 1070; Ex parte
Canova, 84 8. C. 473, 65 8. E. 625. But
a habeas corpus proceeding to deter-
mine the custody of minor children is
equitable in nature. Campbell v. Camp-
bell, 76 Mo. App. 396; Knapp v, Tolan,
26 N. D. 23, 142 N. W. 915, 49 L. B.
A. (N. S.) 83.
Habeas corpus proceedings to deter-
mine the custody of a child is a private
suit. Cormack v. Marshall, 211 ill. 519,
71 N. E. 1077, 67 L. R. A. 787; P. v.
Dewey, 23 Misc. 267, 50 N. Y. 8. 1013.
As writ of error. — The writ of habeas
corpus is not in the nature of a writ
of error. Ex parte Charlton, 185 Fed.
680. 8e6 10 8TANDABD Pboc. 962, note
64.
As new and Independent proceeding.
In the Matter of Suzuki, 3 U. 8. D. C.
(Haw.) 476.
911-3 8. V. Gordon, 105 Miss. 454,
62 8. 431.
It is a summary proceeding. — ^Worth v,
Wheatley (Ind.), 108 N. E. 958; Board
of Prison Comrs. v. Crumbaugh, 161 Ky.
540, 170 8. W. 1187; P. v. Moss,
6 App. Div. 414, 39 N. Y. 8. 690; Arn-
old V. Schmidt, 155 Wis. 55, 143 N. W.
1055.
912-6 Walters i?. McKinnis, 221 Fed.
746; S. V. Speake (Ala.), 65 8. 840.
915-3T Decision of a board of spe-
cial inquiry is final as to the rejection
of aliens afflicted with any mental dis-
ability and the facts cannot be retried
in habeas corpus proceedings. U. 8.
i;. Williams, 204 Fed. 844; U. 8. v.
Williams, 204 Fed. 846. See also Ex
parte Pugliese, 209 Fed. 720; In re
Rhagat Singh, 209 Fed. 700.
916-48 In re Burrus, 136 U. S. 586,
10 Sup. Ct. 850, 34 L. ed. 500; Ex parte
Van Moore, 221 Fed. 954; Ex parte
Thaw, 209 Fed. 56.
916-50 Walters v. McKinnis, 221
Fed. 746; In the Matter of Atcherley,
3 V. S. D. C. (Haw.) 404; In the Mat-
ter of Marshall, 1 U. S. D. C. (Haw.)
34.
916-51 Walters r. McEjunis, 221
led. 746.
917-52 In the Matter of Atcherley,
3 U. S. D. C. (Haw.) 404.
Cases of peculiar urgency^^ — ^In the
Matter of Atcherley, 3 U. S. D. C.
(Ilaw.) 404, the court quoting from ex
parte Boyall, 117 U. 8. 241, 6 Sup. Ct.
734, 29 L. ed. 86S, says: *'The follow-
ing cases are specifically set forth as
containing some if not all of the prin-
ciples intended by the supreme court
to furnish the authoritative test of
* peculiar urgency' ": 1. "When the
petitioner is in custody by state au-
thority for an act done or omitted to
be done in pursuance of a law of the
United States, or of an order, process
or decree of a court or judge thereof"
(Ex parte Boyall, 251). 2. "Where,
being a subject or citizen of a foreign
state, and domiciled therein, he is in
custody, under like authority, for an
act' done or omitted under an alleged
right, title, authority, privilege, pro-
tection or exemption claimed under the
commission, or order or sanction of any
foreign state, or under color thereof,
the validity and effect whereof depend
upon the law of nations." (Ibid. 251).
3. **So, also, when they are in the
custody of a state officer it may be nec-
essary by use of the writ to bring
them into a court of the United States
to testify as witnesses." (Ibid. 252).
The exceptional cases. — ^In the Matter
of Atcherley, 3 U 8. D. C. (Haw.)
404.
"The federal courts should never in-
terfere by writ of habeas corpus with
the administration of justice in the
state courts (including territorial courts
when the latter are, as in Hawaii, in
the same position as state courts) ex-
cept in cases involving the authority
and operations of the general govern-
ment, or its obligations and relations
to foreign nations, and, even then, only
588
HABEAS CORPUS
Vol 10
because of peculiar urgency." In the
Matter of Atcherley, 3 U. S. D. C.
(Haw.) 404.
917-53 In the Matter of Bitting, 1
U. S. D. C. (Haw.) 69.
918-61 S. V. Rockett, 136 La. 1091,
68 S. 189. But see In re Garvey, 7
Colo. 502, 4 P. 758; S. V. Wilson (Mo.),
175 S. W, 603.
The court of Impeachment has no jur-
isdiction to grant or quash a writ of
habeas corpus. P. r. Hayes, 82 Misc.
165, 143 N. Y. S. 325.
Courts of concurrent Jurisdiction.— A
court will not on habeas corpus review
the proceedings of a court of concur-
rent jurisdiction. Martin v. District
Court, 37 Colo. 110, 86 P. 82, 119 Am.
St. 262; P. t?. District Court, 22 Colo.
422, 45 P. 402.
A Judge of a city court may grant the
writ although the petitioner is held un-
der process of a superior court. Mc-
Bride v. Groeber (Ga^ App.), 85 S. E.
86.
918-62 Tyler t?. Houghton, 25 Cal.
26; P. t?. Turner, 1 Cal. 143, 52 Am.
Dec. 295; Ex parte Attorney General,
1 Cal. 85; Ex parte Pells, 28 Fla. 67,' 9
8. 833; Ex parte Eagan, 18 Fla. 194;
8. r. Gleason, 12 Fla. 190; In re Bum-
ette, 73 Kan. 609, 85 P. 575; In re
Gunn, 50 Kan. 155, 32 P. 470, 19 L. E.
A. 519; Ex parte Phillips, 7 Kan. 48;
In re Jackson, 15 Mich. 417; Ex parte
Bethurum, 66 Mo. 545; Ex parte Jilz,
64 Mo. 205, 27 Am. Rep. 218; Vail v.
Dinning, 44 Mo. 210; 8. v. Hall, 47 Neb.
579, 66 N, W. 642; In re White, 33 Neb.
812, 57 N. W. 287; 8. v. Frazier, 28
Neb. 438, 44 N. W. 471; Ex parte
Johnson, 1 Okla. Cr. 414, 98 P. 461;
Ex parte Zuccaro (Tex. Cr.), 162 8.
W. 844; Ex parte Gould, 60 Tex. Cr.
442, 132 S, W. 364, 31 L. R. A. (N. 8.)
835; Ex parte Patterson, 42 Tex. Cr.
256, 58 8. W. 1011, 51 L. R* A. 654;
Godbe V. 8alt Lake City, 1 Utah 68;
In re Graham, 7 Wash. 237, 34 P. 931;
In re Rafferty, 1 Wash. 382; In re
Booth, 3 Wis. 157; Ex parte Bergman,
3 Wyo. 396, 26 P. 914. 8ee Corrie t?.
Corrie, 42 Mich. 509, 4 N. W. 213; and
note in Ann. Cas. 1913A, 156.
This power is (denied in ex parte
Hickey, 4 8med. & M. (Miss.), 751
(holding the judges of the supreme
court have jurisdiction in their individ-
ual capacity, but they have not pewer
to act on the writ in the first resort as
a court); In re Schenck, 74 N. C. 607.
Necessity for legislative enactment.^A
constitutional provision that a supreme
court shall have appellate jurisdiction
only, except in cases of habeas corpus,
etc., does not ex proprio vigore confer
original jurisdiction upon the supreme
court in cases of habeas corpus, etc. It
merely invests the court with capacity
to receive original jurisdiction in the
event the legislature sees fit to confer
it. Prison Assn. r. Ashby, 93 Va. 667,
25 8. E. 893.
In Alabama, a prisoner who, by some
court or judge, competent to act in
the premises, has on a proper applica-
tion, been denied relief on habeas cor-
pus, may renew the application in the
supreme court, but the jurisdiction of
the supreme court is revisory and ap-
pellate—not original. Ex parte Brown,
63 Ala. 187; Ex parte Burnett, 30 Ala.
461; Ex parte Croom, 19 Ala. 561; Ex
parte Chaney, 8 Ala. 424; Ex parte
8imonton, 9 Port. 383.
lb Texas, the court of criminal appeals
cannot grant a writ of habeas corpus
in any case except a criminal matter.
Ex parte Zuccaro (Tex. Cr.), 162 8. W.
844; Ex parte Singleton (Tex. Cr.), 161
8. W. 123. A person restrained of his
liberty by virtue of a violation of a
writ of injunction preventing the open-
ing of theatres on the 8abbath must
address his petition for habeas corpus
to the supreme court, not the court of
criminal appeals. Ex parte McDowell
(T«x. Cr.), 172 8. W. 213; Ex parte
Mussett (Tex. Cr.), 162 8. W. 846; Ex
parte Zuccaro (Tex. Cr.), 162 8. W.
844. 8ee also Ex parte Cummings (Tex.
Cr.), 170 8. W. 153.
In Louisiana. — ^The city court of the
city of Shreveport is not authorized to
issue the writ of habeas corpus. 8. r.
Fulco, 136 La. 627, 67 8. 521. The su-
preme court and each of the justices
thereof has power to issue the writ
of habeas corpus, at the instance of a
person in actual custody, in any case
where it may have appellate jurlsdic- .
tion. 8. V. Guillory, 128 La. 558, 54 8.
1008. One judge of the court of ap-
peals may order the issuance of the
writ of habeas corpus, and two members
may determine the issues presented by
the return. 8. ex rel. Futch v. Rockett,
136 La. 1091, 68 8. 189.
A single Judge of the supreme court,
has jurisdiction to issue the writ and
589
Vol 10
HABEAS CORPUS
to hear and determine the same alone.
In re White, 33 Neb. 812, 57 N. W. 287;
In re McMasters, 9 Okla. 432, 60 P.
280; Hathaway v. Holmes, 1 Vt. 405.
A common law habeas corpus is a form
of remedy which can be administered
only by the court in banc and not by
a single judge; though a single judge
may allow the writ. Gosline f?. Place,
32 Pa. 520.
918-63 In re Burnette, 73 Kan. 609,
85 P. 575; Ex parte Ryan, 124 La. 286,
50 S. 161; Ex parte Shean, 25 Ohio St.
440; Ex parte Shaw, 7 Ohio St. 81, 70
Am. Dec. 55; Ex parte Patterson, 42
Tex. Cr. 256, 58 S. W. 1011, 51 L. B. A.
654; Ex parte Lambert, 37 Tex. Cr.
435, 36 S. W. 81; Ex parte Lj-nn, 19
Tex. App. 120. See Ex parte Walton,
12 Whart. (Pa.) 501; and note in Ann.
Cas. 1913A, 156.
Willie the matter Is pending in a dis-
trict court, the supreme court will not
take jurisdiction. S. v, Garig, 133 La.
720, 63 S. 301.
919-64 Ex parte Shoffner, 173 Mo.
App. 403, 158 S. W. 853.
An application by a parent for a writ
of habeas corpus to recover the pos-
session of his minor child may be
brought in the district court in the
jounty where the unlawful detention
takes place. S. ex rel. Gunnarson v.
Nebraska Children's Home Soc, 94
Neb. 255, 143 N. W. 203.
Custody of children. — ^Where a court
rendering a divorce finds neither par-
ent a suitable person to have the cus-
tody of the children, the children be-
come wards of that court and any ap-
plication for a change of custody
should be made to that court. An an-
swer to a writ of habeas corpus issu-
ing out of another court does not con-
fer upon it jurisdiction to hear and de-
termine the issue whether the applicant
is a suitable person. Ex parte Crist
(Ohio), 105 N. E. 71.
919-65 S. ex rel. Graves v, Haugen,
124 Minn. 456, 145 N. W. 167.
Thongh not formally designated as a
party, the state is always a real party
to the record in habeas corpus proceed-
ings. Proceedings Upon a Writ of
Habeas Corpus Issued by the C. J., 1
Liberia 190; S. v. Gordon, 105 Miss.
454, 62 S. 431.
919-67 Huxford v. Brown, 7 Ala.
App. 447, 62 S, 271.
919-68 Huxford v. Brown, 7 Ala.
App. 447, 62 S. 271.
919-69 Harrison v. Barker, 44 Utah
541, 142 P. 716.
920-76 Huxford v. Brown, 7 Ala.
App, 447, 62 S. 271.
Person In actual custody. — S. v. Beck-
ett, 136 La. 1091, 68 §. 189.
920-77 Mathews v. Swatts (Ga.
App.), 84 S. E. 980; P. t?. Moss, 6 App.
Div. 414, 39 N. T. S. 690.
If not made to the Judge or court of
the county in which the prisoner is
confined, the petition must state that
such judge is absent from the county.
Ex parte Shoffner, 173 Mo. App. 403,
158 S. W. 853.
920-78 Polo V. D'Achille, 157 App.
Div. 300, 142 N. Y. S. 511.
Sufficiency of the petition cannot be
tested by demurrer after the issuance
of the writ and after appearance in
answer thereto. Mathews v, Swatts
(Ga. App.), 84 S. E. 980.
An exception to the rule requiring a
petition for a writ exists where a jus-
tice of the supreme court has evidence
in a judicial proceeding taken before
him that any person is illegally impris-
oned or restrained of his liberty within
the state. Polo r. D'Achille, 157 App.
Div. 300, 142 N. Y. S. 511.
920-79 Lee Leong v. TT. S. (C. C.
A.), 217 Fed. 48, immigration proceed*
ings.
920-80 U. S. c. Williams, 204 Fed.
844; Ex parte Whicker, 187 Mo. App.
96, 173 S. W. 38; P. t\ Burgos, 18 P.
B. 72.
920-81 U. S. 17. Williams, 204 Fed.
844; S. t?. Dobson, 135 Mo. 1, 36 S. W.
238; Ex parte Bergman, 3 Wyo. 396,
26 P. 914.
921-84 In re Farrell, 22 Colo. 461,
45 P. 428; S. V, Guillory, 128 La. 558,
54 S. 1008. See P. v, Hayes, 163 App.
Div. 725, 149 N. Y. 6. 250. See Ex
parte Davis (Okla. Cr.), 146 P. 1085;
and note in Ann. Cas. 1912C, 952.
I^ the order committing petitioner haa
been vacated, there is no question to be
determined in the habeas corpus pro-
ceeding. In re P., 168 Cal. 306, 142 P.
1081,
921-86 Release on bail prevents the
issuance of the writ. See note in Ann.
Cas. 1912C, 951.
One at liberty on his own recognisance
590
I
HABEAS CORPUS
Vol. 10
cannot obtain a writ of habeas corpus.
Ex parte Smith, 6 Okla. Cr. 660, 118
P. 590.
922-92 Porter v. Porter, 60 Fla. 407,
53 S. 546, Ann. Ca&. 1912C, 867; Tark-
ington V. S., 1 Ind. 171; S. v. Michel,
105 La. 741, 30 S. 122, 54 L. E. A.
927; C. V, BriggB, 16 Pick. (Mass.) 203;
Tytler v. Tytler, 15 Wyo. 319, 89 P.
1, 123 Am. St. 1067. See note in Ann.
Cas. 1912C, 868.
In federal courts. — See In re Burrus,
136 U. S. 586, 10 Sup. Ct. 850, 34 L.
ed. 500, and note.
Not an adversary proceeding* — ^''Upon
the first application for this writ a
doubt was entertained whether the
writ could properly be issued against
a wife on the application of the hus-
band. This doubt originated in the
well-known rule that there can be no
adverse interest between husband and
wife, but that in contemplation of law
the custody of both wife and child be-
longs to the husband and father, and
is actually in him. But on considera-
tion, the writ being in the name of
the commonwealth, the technical objec-
tion of a suit between husband and
wife is avoided; and inasmuch as the
writ is designed to secure and promote
personal liberty, slight objections ought
not to be entertained. The process may
be often useful and highly beneficial,
as the only efficient and peaceful rem-
edy for a husband to obtain the cus-
tody of his child, when he is entitled to
it. The court, therefore, are of opinion,
that a writ of habeas corpus might is-
sue to a wife at the instance of her
husband." C. V. Briggs, 16 Pick.
(Mass.) 203,
923-94 See note in 44 L. B. A. (N.
S.) 389.
923-95 See Byers t?. Seller, 16 Wyo.
232y 93 P. 59, 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 468.
923-97 In re Haigler, 15 Ariz. 150,
137 P. 423; P. v. Pillot, 19 P. R. 250;
S. v. Foster, 84 Wash. 58, 146 P. 169.
Ball fixed by the department of com-
merce and labor may be reduced on
habeas corpus. In the Matter of Su-
zuki, 3 U. S. D. C. (Haw.) 476.
924-98 In re«Haigler, 15 Ariz. 150,
137 P. 423,
924-3 Huxf ord f?. Brown, 7 Ala. App.
447, 62 S, 271.
925-7 Mathews v. Swatts (Ga. App.),
84 S. E. 980; S. v, Wurdeman, 254 Mo.
561, 163 S. W. 849; S. v. Dobson, 135
Mo. 1, 36 S. W. 238.
When reasonable cause Is shown, the
writ of habeas corpus issues as of right.
Walters v. McKinnis, 221 Fed. 746.
926-8 Walters v. McKinnis, 221 Fed.
746; 8. V. Wurdeman, 254 Mo. 561, 163
S. W, 849; S. V. Dobson, 135 Mo. 1, 36
S. W. 238; Ex parte Bergman, 3 Wye.
396, 26 P. 914.
926-11 S. V. Dobson, 135 Mo. 1, 36
S. W. 238; C. tJ. Lecky, 1 WaUs (Pa.)
66; 26 Am. Dec. 37.
926-12 Ex parte Wills (Okla. Cr.),
148 P. 1069.
The test, aa to the right to the writ of
habeas corpus, is ''the existence of
such an imprisonment or detention^
actual though it may not be, as de-
prives one of the privilege of going
when and where he pleases; and, upon
such restraint being alleged, the court
or judge will, in the exercise of dis-
cretion, determine whether the individ-
ual liberty of the petitioner and the
demands of justice, if the petitioner is
being held under the warrant or pro-
cess of a court, authorize the issuance
of the writ." S. v. Wurdeman, 254
Mo. 561, 163 S, W. 849.
Where all the questions raised have
been passed npon by an appellate court
on an appeal from a judgment of con-
viction, an inferior court should not en-
tertain jurisdiction of the writ. Ex
parte McCallan (Tex. Cr.), 175 S. W.
1067.
925-13 Soga v. Jarrett, 20 Haw. 120;
S. V. Dobson, 135 Mo. 1, 36 S. W. 238;
925-16 Holder v. Beavers, 141 Ga.
217, 80 S. E. 715.
926-18 In the Matter of Atcherley,
3 U. S. D. C. (Haw.) 404; Ex parte
Chambers (Mass.), 108 N. E. 1070.
Bringing of child into court at the
hearing of an order to show cause why
the writ should not issue is unneces-
sary. Ex parte Chambers (Mass.), 108
N. E. 1070.
926-22 Proceedings Upon a Writ of
Habeas Corpus Issued by the 0. J., 1
Liberia 190.
927-25 Proceedings Upon a Writ of
Habeas Corpus Issued by the C. J., 1
Liberia 190,
927-2S P. V, Booker, 51 Cal. 317; P.
V, Hayes, 82 Miss. 165, 143 N. Y. S. 825.
Authority of court to which writ la
591
Vol. 10
HABEAS C0BPU8
returned. — ^Wliere a writ of liabeas cor-
pus issued out of the supreme court
18 made returnable before a judge of
an inferior court, the authority of the
officer before whom the writ is returned
is the same as the authority of the
court issuing the writ would have been
had the writ been returned before it.
P. V. Booker, 51 Cal. 317.
927-32 Service on Sunday is a null-
ity under the Texas statute. P. v,
Dewey, 23 Misc. 267, 50 N. Y. S. 1012.
928-36 S. f). Wurdeman, 254 Mo. 561,
163 S. W. 849.
Where the prosecuting attorney has
actual notioe, the formal notice re-
quired by the statute would serve no
useful purpose. S. v, Wurdeman, 254
Mo. 661, 163 S. W. 849.
928-36 Barth v. Olise, 12 Wall. (U.
S.) 400, 20 L. ed. 393; S. v, Broaddus,
245 Mo. 123, 149 S. W. 473, Ann- Cas.
1914A, 823, 830, see notes.
929-43 P. V, Warden, 160 App. Div.
480, 145 N. Y. S. 1064; Polo «?.
D'Achille, 157 App. Div. 300, 142 N.
Y. S. 511.
929-46 Betum should be made at
the time and place specified in the writ,
but a failure to comply literally with
this statutory requirement is not fatal.
Bearden v. Donaldson, 141 Ga. 529, 81
S. E. 441.
931-61 Proposed amendments which
would bring no new issues into the case
are properly denied. P. V, Hoxie, 175
111. App. 563.
932-64 In re Breck, 252 Mo. 302, 158
8. W. 843.
At common law the return was con-
clusive as to the matters alleged in it.
In re Breck, 252 Mo. 302, 158 S. W.
843.
A return of a military ofUcer that the
petitioner is held as a prisoner of war,
etc., is conclusive, by virtue of statute.
In re Smith, 14 Phil. Isl. 112; Mekin v.
Wolfe, 2 Pha. Isl. 74.
932-66 P. V. Warden, 160 App. Div.
480, 145 N. Y. S. 1064.
932-70 The effect of the demurrer
is to admit the truth of the facts stated
in the return. Thorp v. Metzger, 77
Wash. 62, 137 P. 330.
933-74 In re Breck, 252 Mo. 302,
158 S. W.. 843.
934-86 Proceedings Upon a Writ of
Habeas Corpus Issued by the 0. J., 1
Liberia 190.
934-89 Befusal of obedience to wxtt
by military authorities, see In re Kemp,
16 Wis. 359, quoted in note to Ann.
Cas, 1914C, 30.
934-96 Declining to hear the case
on habeas corpus is not error when the
application was first made on the very
day the case was set for trial, and a
special venire had been duly ordered
and were in attendance. Muldrew v,
S. (Tex, Cr.), 166 S. W. 156.
Scope of inquiry* — The "inquiry can
only go to the extent of ascertaining
whether the magistrate who pro-
nounced final judgment had jurisdie-
tion of the person and of the oifense
and had power to impose the sentence
under which the relator is held." Cohen.
V, Warden of Workhouse, 150 N. Y. S.
596.
936-98 Waiver of grounds assigned.
Grounds for discharge set forth in the
application for habeas corpus which
are not discussed by counsel in his
brief or im the argument of the case
will be deemed waived. £x parte De
Vore, 18 N. M. 246, 136 P. 47.
TTollmlted Jurisdiction will not be exer-
cised after issuance of writ. Although
a court is authorized to issue writs of
habeas corpus, it does not follow that
after issuing a writ, the court may
proceed to a case ef which it would not
otherwise have jurisdiction. Interdie-
tion of Gasquet, 136 La. 957, 68 S. 89.
935-99 U. S. V. Williford (C. 0. A.),
220 Fed. 291; In re Mills, 19 Haw. 88;
Cohen v. Warden of Workhouse, 150 N.
Y. S. 596.
Inquiry Into Impeachment charges. — On
a habeas corpus granted upon a writ-
ing purporting to be a pardon of a
governor alleged to have been im-
peached, the court has no jurisdiction,
to inquire into the sufficiency of the
charges for which a governor may be
impeached, nor whether the proceed-
ings to that end have been properly
conducted, unless at their foundation
in their exercise, constitutional guar-
anties have been broken down or limi-
tations ignored. P. v. Hayes, 82 Misc.
165, 143 N. Y. S. 325.
Qullt or Innocence of prisoner will not
be determined on the habeas corpus
proceeding. Munsey v. Clough, 196 U.
S. 364, 25 Sup. Ct. 282, 49 U ed. 515;
Peebles v. Mangum, 142 Ga. 699, '83
S. E. 522; P. v. Pillot, 19 P. B. 250; Ex
parte McDaniel (Tex. Cr.), 173 S. W.
592
HABEAS CORPUS
Vol 10
1018; Ex parte Jenningi (Tex. Cr.), 172
S. W. 1143.
In rare axid ezceptioiial cases, where
the facts before the court cannot be
materially changed, qualified or ex-
plained, the writ may be resorted to.
P. V. Hayes, 166 App. Div. 507, 151 N.
Y. S. 1075.
936-3 See Ex parte Massee, 95 S. C.
315, 79 S. E. 97.
936-4 S. V. Sparks, 27 Tex. 705. See
nete in Ann. Cas. 1914A, 829.
Presence of petltioner<~Where the
prisoner has given bail for his appear-
ance, he cannot have his right to dis-
charge adjudicated, unless he is actu-
ally in the presence of the court or in
the custody of an officer subject to
court order. If he fails to appear with-
out legal excuse, his bail will be for-
feited, and his application for the in-
quiry as to the legality of his arrest
and detention will be considered
abandoned. Ex parte Massee, 95 S. C.
315, 79 S. E. 97.
936-5 8. V. Broaddus, 245 Mo. 123,
149 S. W. 473, Ann. Cas. 1914A, 823.
930-7 Ex parte Joyce, 212 Fed. 285;
Gesline f?. Place, 32 Pa. 520; Ex parte
Massee, 95 S. 0. 315, 79 S. E. 97.
In extradition proceedings, bail should
not be allowed pending hearing, unless
some depa]*ture from the federal law
appears. Ex parte Massee, 95 S. C. 315,
79 8. E. 97.
936-9 Ex parte Charlton, 185 Fed.
880; Ex parte Whicker, 187 Mo. App.
96, 173 S. W. 38; P. v. Pillot, 19 P. B.
250; Arnold v. Schmidt, 155 Wis. 55,
143 N. W. 1055. See Ex parte Bur-
roughs, 10 Okla. Cr. 87, 133 P. 1142.
Whether complainant had actual knowl-
edge of the facts stated in the com-
plaint cannet be determined in habeas
corpus proceedings. Ex parte Vaughan
(Gal.), 147 P. 124.
The powers of the court coxnmlssleners
on habeas corpus are cenfined to an
examination of the evidence for the
purpose of ascertaining whether the
determination of the magistrate is en-
tirely unsupported thereby. S. v, Hau-
gen, 124 Minn. 456, 145 N. W. 167.
93T-ld See, however, P. r. Hanley,
1«4 App. Div. 150, 149 N. Y. S. 452.
938-12 P. V. Pease, 207 U. S. 100,
28 Sup. Ct. 58, 52 L. ed. 121 ; Ex parte
Shoemaker, 25 Cal. App. 551, 144 P.
985; Ex parte Walters (Miss.), 64 S.
2; P. t>. Board of Police Comrs., 89
Misc. 248, 153 N.Y. S. 491; P. v. Moore
(App. Div.), 153 N. Y. S. 10; Ex parte
Owen, 10 Okla. Cr. 284, 136 P. 197; Ex
parte Massee, 95 S. C. 315, 79 S. E.
97.
That petitioner was not in the demand-
ing state at the time of the commis-
sion of the offense may be shown. Ex
parte Shoemaker, 25 Cal. App. 551, 144
P. 985; P. V. McLaughlin, 145 App.
Div. 513, 130 N, Y. S. 458.
938-13 Chung Kin Tow v. Flynn (C.
C. A.), 218 Fed. 64.
938-14 Presence of petitioner in
demanding state. — ^Whether the papers
show the petitioner was in the demand-
ing state at the time of the commis-
sion of the offense may be ascertained.
Ex parte Massee, 95 S. C. 315, 79 S. E.
97;
938-15 Ex parte Chung Kin Tow, 218
Fed. 185; Ex parte Massee, 95 S. 0.
315, 79 S. E. 97.
938-18 In re Jew Yuen Mow, 20
Haw, 319.
938-19 Ex parte Chung Kin Tow,
218 Fed. 185; S. t?. Flourney, 136 La.
852, 67 S. 929; Ex parte Massee, 95
S. C. 315, 79 S. E. 97.
939-20 Drew v. Thaw, 235 U. S.
432, 35 Sup. Ct. 137, 59 L. ed. — ;
Worth V. Wheatley (Ind.), 108 N. E.
958; P. V. Moore (App. Div.), 153 N.
Y. S. 10.
939-21 Eoberts f?. EeUly, 116 U. S.
80, 29 L. ed. 544, 6 Sup. Ct. 291; Ex
parte Sheemaker, 25 Cal. App. 551, 144
P. 985: Lamar v. Splain, 42 App. Cas.
(D. C.) 300.
Whether there is an indictment duly
certified by the governor of the de-
manding state may be determined; but
the technical sufficiency of the indict-
ment will not be inquired into. P. V,
Moore (App. Div.), 153 N. Y. S. 10.
Whether the act charged is an offense
against the laws of the demanding
state may be determined. Ex parte
Massee, 95 S. C. 315, 79 S. E. 97.
939-22 Drew v. Thaw, 235 U. S. 432,
35 Sup. Ct. 137, 59 L. ed. — ; Goodale
V. Splain, 42 App. Cas. (D. C.) 235;
Ex parte Massee, 95 S. C. 315, 79 S.
E. 97.
That the prisoner is not likely te luive
a fair trial cannot be considered. U. S.
17. Cooke, 209 Fed. 607, 126 C. C. A.
429,
88
593
Vol. 10
"HABEAS CORPUS
Motive actuating prosecution will not
be inquired into. Leonard v. Zweifel
(la.), 151 N. W. 1054.
939-23 Worth v. Wheatley (Ind.),
108 N. E. 958; Ex parte Hancock (Tex.
Cr.), 170 S. W. 144.
939-24 Goodale v, Splain, 42 App.
Cas. (D. C.) 235.
That petitioner is an infant* and that
the demanding state does not provide
for a special method of punishing in-
fant criminals cannot be shown on
habeas corpus proceeding. S. v, Flour-
noy, 136 La. 852, 67 S. 929.
940-28 Keizo v. Henry, 211 U. S.
146, 29 Sup. Ct. 41, 53 L. ed. 125; Ex
parte Jim Hong, 211 Fed. 73, 127 C.
C. A. 569; Hopkins v. McClaughrey, 209
Fed. 821, 126 C. C. A. 545; Ridgeway
t?. Bessemer, 9 Ala. App. 470, 64 S.
189; In re Mills, 19 Haw. 88; In the
Matter of Atcherley, 3 U. S. D. C.
(Haw.) 404; Ex parte Sullivan, 10 Okla.
Cr. 465, 138 P. 815; Bruce v. East, 43
Utah 327, 134 P. 1175; Bandy v. Hehn,
10 Wyo. 167, 67 P. 979, 15 Am. Cr. 395.
See Ex parte Whicker, 187 Mo. App.
96, 173 S. W. 38; Ex parte Vinton, 65
. Or. 422, 132 P. 1165.
The question of the Jurisdiction of a
court martial is open to inquiry on
habeas corpus. S. i?. Lonsr, 136 La. 1,
66 S. 377.
940-29 Stevens v. McClaughry, 207
Fed. 18, 125 C. C. A. 102; Ex parte
Petkos, 212 Fed. 275; In re Mills. 19
Haw. 88.
940-30 Ex parte Brown, 63 Ala.
187.
Whether petitioner would be placed in
Jeopardy a second time if tried en a
second indictment may be decided in a
habeas corpus proceeding. P. v, Hayes
(N, Y.), 109 N. E. 77.
941-32 Harlan <?. McGourin, 218 U.
S. 442, 31 Sup. Ct. 44, 54 L. ed. 1101,
21 Ann. Cas. 849, af. 180 Fed. 119;
Stevens v. McClaughry, 207 Fed. 18,
125 C. C. A. 102; In re Burkell, 2
Alaska 108; In re Peraltareavis, 8 N.
M, 27, 41 P. 538; Ex parte Foster, 69
Or. 319, 138 P. 849; Ex parte Sierra,
16 P. R. 790; Ex parte Lawson (Tex.
Cr.), 175 S. W. 698.
941-33 Stevens v, McClaughry, 207
Fed. 18, 125 C. C. A. 102; Ex parte
Bradley, 50 Mont. 354, 146 P. 944; Ex
parte McDonald, 50 Mont. 348, 146 P.
942.
Writ of error available.— One who is
restrained of his liberty by virtue of
a judgment of a court which is beyond
its jurisdiction and void is not barred
from a release therefrom, by a writ of
habeas corpus, by the fact that he
might have secured such relief by a
writ of error but failed to apply for
it until it was too late. Stevens V.
McClaughry, 207 Fed. 18, 125 C. C.
A. 102.
941-34 Bi4geway v. Bessemer, 9 Ala.
App. 470, 64 S. 189; Kinkaid V. Jack-
son, 66 Fla. 378, 63 S. 706.
941-35 S, V. Kilbourne, 68 Minn.
320, 71 N. W. 396; S. i\ Wurdeman, 254
Mo. 561, 163 S. W. 849; Doyle's Peti-
tion, 16 K. L 537, 18 A. 159, 27 Am.
St. 759, 5 L. R. A. 359; Ex parte Muse
(Tex, Cr.), 168 S. W. 520. See P. t?.
Wendel, 33 Misc. 496, 68 N. Y. S. 948.
'Wliere a statute collaterally involved
is unconstitutional, a writ of habeas
corpus should not be granted where
the holding of the same to be invalid
will foreclose the right to an appeal
or writ of error and constitute a iinal
determination of the case. S. t?. Wurde-
man, 254 Mo. 661, 163 S. W. 849.
942-38 Ex parte McWilliams, 254
Mo. 512, 164 S. W. 221 ; Ex parte Her-
man, 79 Wash. 149, 139 P. 1083; Pel-
lissier V, Eeed, 75 Wash. 201, 134 P.
813.
942-40 Ex parte Lane (Ala. App.),
67 S. 727.
Whether a trial Judge la a de facto
judge may be determined In a habeas
corpus proceeding. P. v, Hayes, 86
Misc. 88, 149 N. Y. 8. 115.
942-41 Harlan i\ McGourin, 218 TT.
S. 442, 31 Sup, Ct. 44, 54 L. ed. 1101, 21
Ann. Cas. 849, af, 180 Fed. 119; Blake
V. Moyer, 208 Fed. 678, 125 C. C. A.
576, af. 206 Fed. 555; Stevens v, Mc-
Claughry, 207 Fed. 18, 125 C. C. A.
102; Moyer v, Anderson, 203 Fed. 881,
122 C. C. A. 175; Ex parte Tucker. 212
Fed. 569; In re Burkell, 2 Alaska 108;
Ex parte Silvas, 16 Ariz. 41, 140 P.
988; Ex parte Stanton (Cal.), 147 P.
264; Nash t\ Mangum, 141 Ga. 648, 81
8. E. 883; Holder v. Beavers, 141 Ga.
217, 80 S. E. 715; In re Turner, 94 Kan.
115, 145 P. 871; S. 17. Dobson, 135 Mo-
1, 36 S. W. 238; P. v, Hayes, 151 App.
Div. 561, 136 N. Y. S. 854; Cohen r.
Warden of Workhouse, 150 N. Y. S.
596; Ex parte Shaw, 7 O, St. 81, 7Q
m
HABEAS CORPUS
Vol 10
Am. Dec. 55; In re McAdaxns, 21 O. C.
C. 450, 11 O. C. D. 780; Ex parte Cow-
den (Tex*. Cr.), 168 S. W. 539.
The court cannot go behind an order
of the board of prison commissioners
directing the rearrest of a paroled con-
vict, for the board has authority to is-
sue such a warrant. Board of Prison
Comrs. v. Crumbaugh, 101 Ky. 540, 170
S. W. 1187,
Scope of Inquiry. — ''After conviction
and judgment, the courts, on habeas
corpus, will not inquire into the legal-
ity of the grand jury, how it was sum-
moned, etc.; nor can the sufficiency of
the evidence on which the prisoner was
convicted be investigated, nor the facts
thereof retried, or the evidence re-
viewed; nor will the prisoner be per-
mitted to disprove the charge on which
he was found guilty; nor can a de-
fective indictment, one which would
be held bad on demurrer, be investi-
gated, nor made the subject of fur-
ther inquiry or review. The writ of
habeas corpus is not framed to retry
issues of fact, or review the proceed-
ings of a legal trial, however irregular
or erroneous." S. v. Dobson, 135 Mo.
1, 36 S. W. 238.
943-42 Henry v. Henkel, 235 U. S.
219, 35 Sup. Ct. 54, 59 L. ed. — ; Ex
parte Siebold, 100 U. S. 371, 25 L. ed.
717; Stevens v, McQaughry, 207 Fed.
18, 125 C. C. A. 102; Ex parte Greaves,
222 Fed. 157; Ex parte Lam Pui, 217
Fed. 456; In re Bruno Munro, 1 Alaska
279; Ex parte Burner, 23 Cal. App. 637,
139 P. 90; Martin r. District Court, 37
Colo. 110, 86 P. 82, 119 Am. St. 262;
McDonald v. Smith (Fla.), 66 S. 430;
Worth I?. Wheatley (Ind.), 108 N. E.
958; S. V. Billings, 55 Minn. 467, 57 N.
W. 206, 794; Ex parte Siegel (Mo.),
173 S. W. 1; In re Heffron, 179 Mo.
App. 639, 162 S. W. 652; Ex parte
Towndrow (N. M.), 145 P. 257; P. ex
rel. Price v, Hayes, 151 App. Div. 561,
136 N. Y. S. 854; Cohen v. Warden, 150
N. Y. S. 596; Ex parte Shaw, 7 O. St.
81, 70 Am. Dec. 55; Ex parte Ambler
(Okla. Cr.), 148 P. 1061; Ex parte
Woods, 7 Okla. Cr. 645, 125 P. 440;
Ex parte Jung Shing (Or.), 145 P. 637;
Ex parte Foster, 69 Or. 319, 138 P. 849;
Trono Felipe v. Director, 24 Phil. Isl
121; Schields V. McMicking, 23 Phil.
Isl. 526; Quilatan v. Caruncho, 21 Phil.
Isl. 399; Ex parte Le Hardy, 17 P. R.
985; Ex parte Cowden (Tex. Cr.), 168
S. W. 5391; In re Pikulik, 81 Wis. 158,
51 N. W. 261.
The validity of a pardon may be in-
quired into in a habeas corpus proceed-
ing where the petitioner is detained by
the warden upon an order of the gov-
ernor purporting to revoke the pardon.
Stewart v. S. (Okla. Cr.), 146 P. 921;
Ex parte Crump, 10 Okla. Cr. 133, 135
P. 428.
943-43 un Inquisition to determine
sanity. — Where the statute provides for
the appointment of two others who
with the judge shall constitute a jury
for the determination of the sanity of
a person, the appointment of three
others who with the judge held an ex--
amination and found a person insane
is net an irregularity which renders a
judgment void and subject to impeach-
ment on habeas corpus. S. ex rel. Kelly
V, Kilbourne, 68 Minn. 320, 71 N. W.
396.
043-44 But see Hanges r. Whitfield,
209 Fed. 675.
Sufficiency of evidence will not be con-
sidered. Hanges v. Whitfield, 209 Fed.
675; Cohen v. Warden, 150 N. Y. S.
596.
944-46 Dimmick f?. Tompkins, 194
U. S. 540, 24 Sup. Ct. 780, 48 L. ed.
1110; Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U. S.
651, 4 Sup. Ct. 152, 28 L. ed. 274; Hop-
kins i\ McClaughry. 209 Fed. 821, 126
C. C. A. 545; Ex parte Clifton (Cal.
App.), 146 P. 1064; Pulliam v. Donald-
son, 140 Ga. 864, 80 S. E. 315; Bopp V.
Clark (la.), 147 N. W. 172; In re Latta,
43 Kan. 533, 23 P. 655; Ex parte Siegel
(Mo.), 173 S. W. 1; S. V. Dobsom, 135
Mo. 1, 36 S. W. 238.
The pleadings in courts of inferior jur-
isdiction will be examined on habeas
corpus as critically as on demurrer. Ex
parte Goldsworthy, 22 Cal. App. 354,
134 P. 352.
944-46 Ex parte Dubuque, 1 Alaska
16; Ex parte Ruef, 150 Cal. 665, 89
P. 605; Ex parte Goldsworthy, 22 Cal.
App. 354, 134 P. 352; Ex parte Muse
(Tex. Cr.), 168 S. W. 520.
944-49 Ex parte Clifton (Cal. App.),
146 P. 1064.
944-50 Ex parte Siegel (Mo.), 173
S. W. 1.
944-51 Former Jeopardy. — The re-
fusal of the court to entertain a plea
of former jeopardy and denial of a
hearing thereon, is a matter reachable
595
Yol. 10
HABEAS CORPUS
by an application for habeas cbrpus.
P. V. Burgos, 18 P. B. 72.
945-52 Biggins v. U. S., 199 U. S.
547, 26 Sup. Ct. 147, 50 L. ed. 303; Ex
parte Tucker, 212 Fed. 569; S. i\ Gun-
ter, 11 Ala. App. 399, 66 S. 844; Minto
i;. S., 9 Ala. App. 95, 64 S. 369; Ex
parte Meads (Cal. App.), 147 P. 985;
Ex parte Gano, 90 Kan. 134, 132 P. 999;
In re Cica, 18 N. M. 452, 137 P. 598,
51 L. B. A, (N. S.) 373; P. ex rel Bul-
lock V. Haves, 166 App. Div. 507, 151
N. Y. S. 1075; P. v. Clancy, 163 App.
Div. 614, 148 N. Y. S. 977; P. i?. Schleth,
68 Misc. 307, 123 N. Y. S. 686; Trono
Felipe v. Director, 24 Phil. Isl. 121;
Ex parte Sierra, 16 P. B. 790. See Ex
parte Lawson (Tex. Cr.), 175 S. W. 698.
Pendency of appeal bars right to writ.
Ex parte Barnett (Tex. Cr.), 167 S. W.
845.
Where relief may be had under Juven-
ile act.— Stoker v. Gowans (Utah), 147
P. 911.
945-53 Biggins f?. U. S., 199 U. S.
547, 26 Sup. Ct. 147, 50 L. ed. 303; In re
Chapman, 156 U. S. 211, 15 Sup. Ct.
331, 39 L. ed. 401; Cooley f?. Morgan
(C. C. A.), 221 Fed. 252; Kinkaid V.
Jackson, 66 Fla. 378, 63 S. 706; In re
Cica, 18 N. M. 452, 137 P. 598, 51 L.
B. A. (N. S.) 373; P. t?. Hayes, 166
App. Div. 507, 151 N. Y. S. 1075; Ex
parte Shaw, 7 0. St. 81, 70 Am. Dec.
55. See Martin v. District Court, 37
Colo. 110, 86 P. 82, 119 Am. St. 262.
945-54 Nash r. Mangum, 141 Ga.
648, 81 S. E. 883; Holder v. Beavers,
141 Ga. 217, 80 S. E. 715.
945-56 Ex parte Hunt (Tex. Cr.),
161 S. W. 457.
946-57 Ex parte Melosevich, 36 Nev.
67, 133 P. 57; P. r. Hayes, 151 App.
Div. 561, 136 N. Y. S. 854. See note
in 51 L. B. A. (N. S.) 373.
946-58 In re Burns, 113 Fed. 987;
S. V. District Court, 35 Mont. 321, 89
P. 63. See Ex parte Hill, 122 Ala. 114,
26 S 230
946^59 * In re Spencer, 228 U. S. 652,
33 Sup. Ct. 709, 57 L. ed. 1010; Harlan
r. McGourin, 218 U. S. 442, 31 Sup. Ct.
44, 54 L. ed. 1101, 21 Ann. Cas. 849,
af. 180 Fed. 119; Stevens v. Mc-
Claughry, 207 Fed. 18, 125 C. C. A. 102;
Bk parte Halev, 1 Ala. App. 528, 56
S. 245; Ex parte Morton, 132 Cal. 346,
64 P. 469; Harris r. Lang, 27 App. Cas.
(D. C.) 84, 7 L. B. A. (N. S.) 124, 7
Ann. Cas. 141; S. V. Poster, 109 La.
587, 33 S. 611; Ex parte McClare, 6
Okla. Cr. 241, 118 P. 591; Ex parte Fos-
ter, 69 Or. 319, 138 P. 849; Cruz v. Di-
rector of Prisons, 17 Phil. Isl. 269; In
re Blystone, 75 Wash. 286, 134 P. 827.
Until the valid portion of the sentence
has been served release cannot be se-
cured by habeas corpus. O'Brien 17. Me-
Claughry, 209 Fed. 816, 126 C. C. A.
540; Martin v. District Court, 37 Colo.
119, 86 P. 85; In re Chase, 18 Ida. 561,
110 P. 1036; In re Groves, 83 Kan. 238,
109 P. 1087; Ex parte Foster, 69 Or.
319, 138 P. 849; Ex parte Ellerd (Tex.
Cr.), 158 S. W. 1145; Beese v. Olsen, 44
Utah 318, 139 P. 941.
947-60 The court may go behind tbe
contempt Judgment to ascertain wheth-
er the trial court had jurisdiction of
the person and subject-matter and
whether having such it had authority
to render judgment on the facts ad-
duced. Ex parte Coifee (Tex. Cr.), 161
S. W. 975.
Jurisdiction of snbject-matter^— It is
competent to inquire "not alone as to
the jurisdiction of the court commit-
ting the prisoner over the subject-mat-
ter and his person, but to inquire as
well as to the jurisdiction to commit
as for the specific offense charged, that
is, inquire into the facts concerning
the particular exercise of jurisdiction
by which the petitioner is restrained of
his liberty." In re Heffron, 179 Mo.
App. 639, 162 S. W. 652.
947-61 Facts sUted in the order
cannot be denied. — Ex parte Mettler,
50 Mont. 299, 146 P. 747.
If the question prisoner refused to an-
swer is not set forth in the order of
commitment, the prisoner will be dis-
charged on habeas corpus. Ex parte
Waugh, 40 Okla. 188, 137 P. 105.
948-66 See note in 44 L. B. A. (N.
S.) 389.
948-67 P. V. Warden, 160 App. Div.
480, 145 N. Y. 8. 1064; Polo v.
D'Achille, 157 App. Div. 300, 142 N.
Y. S. 511.
948-69 Ex parte Gytl, 210 Fed. 918.
Retaining Jurisdiction. — In a case be-
tween the parents involving the cus-
tody of a child the court may retain
jurisdiction for the purpose of making
any orders that may thereafter be-
come necessary for the child's well-
being. Andrews r. Andrews (Ark.),
I 173 S. W. 850. But if the action ie
596
HABEAS CORPUS
Vol 10
not between the husband and wife, a
clause to this effect in the order is
coram non judice. S. v. Rassieur, 186
Mo. App. 214, 171 S. W. 688.
Compenaatlon for services and expenses
in caring for the child will not be
awarded in a habeas corpus proceeding.
Harrison v. Barker, 44 Utah 541, 142
P. 716.
048-70 Peebles v. Mangum, 142 Ga.
699, 83 S. E. 522.
948-71 See notes in 44 L. R. A. (N.
S.) 389; and 51 L. R. A. (N. 8.) 373.
948-73 Bryant i?. U. S., 214 Fed. 51,
130 C. C. A. 491; S. ex rel Works v.
Langum, 125 Minn. 304, 146 N. W.
1102; P. r. Deyo, 103 App. Div. 126, 93
N. Y. S. 80, 181 N. Y. 425, 74 N. E.
430; Halderman's Case, 53 Pa. Super.
554
950-88 Ex parte Haubelt, 57 Ter.
Cr. 512, 123 S. W. 607. See Ann. Cas.
1912D, 359.
950-90 See Ann. Cas. 1912D, 359.
951-95 Ex parte Fraley, 4 Okla.
Cr. 91, 111 P. 662; Ex parte Justus,
26 Okla. 101, 110 P. 907. See Ann. Cas.
1912D, 350. •
951-96 Cormack v. Marshall, 211 111.
519, 71 N. E. 1077, 67 L. R. A. 787;
In re Breck, 252 Mo. 302, 158 S. W.
843; Knapp r. Tolan, 26 N. D. 23, 142
N. W. 915, 49 L. R. A. (N. S.) 83;
Jamison v. Gilbert, 38 Okla. 751, 135 P.
342.
When doctrine applies. — ''But when
liberty, or the desired status in con-
test has been once attained, then the
doctrine of former adjudication ap-
plies and is conclusive till the condi-
tion or situation of the person or per-
sons whose liberty or status is in ques-
tion has changed." In re Breck, 252
Mo. 302, 158 S. W. 843.
952-2 Willis V. Bell, 86 Ark. 473, 111
S, W^ 808; Kirkland tJ. Canty, 122 Ga.
261, 50 S. E. 90; Mahon r. P., 218 HI.
171, 75 N. E. 768; In re Hamilton, 66
Kan. 754, 71 P. 817; In re Lederer, 38
Misc. 668, 78 N. Y. S. 236; P. i?. Dewey,
23 Misc. 267, 50 N. Y. S. 1013; Knapp
r. Tolan, 26 N. D. 23, 142 N. W. 915,
49 L. R. A. (N. S.) 83; Jamison v. Gil-
bert, 38 Okla. 751, 135 P. 342; Ex
parte Puller (Tex. Civ.), 123 S. W.
204. See Children's Home v. Fetter
(Ohio), 106 N. E. 761. But see Orey
I?. MoUer, 142 Mo. App. 579, 121 S. W.
1102. Camp, Orey v. Moller, 142 Mo.
App. 579, 121 S. W. 1102.
Judgment In another state Is conclu-
sive.— See note in 49 L. R. A. (N. S.)
83.
952-3 Willis t\ Bell, 86 Ark. 473,
111 S. W. 808; Kirkland r. Canty, 122
Ga. 261, 50 S. E. 90; P. v. Moss, 6 App.
Div. 414, 39 N. Y. S. 690; Tillman r.
Tillman, 93 S. C. 281, 76 S. E. 559;
Patton 17. Shapiro (Tex. Civ.), 154 S.
W. 687; Ex parte Fuller (Tex. Civ.),
123 S. W. 204. See note in 49 L. B. A.
(N. S.) 83.
954-8 In proceedlni^ Involving the
custody of children. — Mahon t\ P., 218
111. 171, 75 N. E. 768.
954-9 Cormack t;. Marshall, 211 HI.
519, 71 N. E. 1077, 67 L. R. A. 787.
954-10 Ex parte Casper (Colo.
App.), 144 P. 1137; P. v. Moss, 6 App.
Div. 414, 39 N. Y. S. 690; Ex parte
Suarez & P., 20 P. R. 510; Ex parte
Hubbard (Tex. Cr.), 140 S. W. 451.
Oases involving custody of children.
Ex parte Casper (Colo. App.), 144 P.
1137; Ex parte Ryan, 124 La. 286, 50
S. 161..
954-11 Cormack v, Marshall, 211 HI.
519, 71 N. E. 1077, 67 L. R. A. 787;
Board of Prison Comrs. v. Crumbaugh,
161 Ky. 540, 170 S. W. 1187; Ex parte
Rvan, 124 La. 286, 50 S. 161; Ex parte
Wiggins, 165 N. C. 457, 81 S. E. 626;
In re Holley, 154 N. C. 163, 69 S. E.
872; Ex parte Johnson, 1 Okla. Cr. 414,
98 P. 461.
An order of a Justice of the supreme
judicial court dismissing a petition for
a writ of habeas corpus is not appeal-
able, habeas corpus being a legal pro-
ceeding. Ex parte Chambers (Mass.),
108 N. E. 1070.
955-12 P. V. Moss, 6 App. Div. 414,
39 N. Y. S. 690.
An order awarding the custody of a
minor child is a final and appealable
order. Jamison r. Gilbert, 38 Okla. 751,
135 P. 342.
955-13 S. I?. Ray, 81 Kan. 159, 105
P. 46; Ex parte Whicker, 187 Mo. App.
96, 173 S. W. 38; Notestine V. Rogers,
18 N. M. 462, 138 P. 207; Jamison r.
Gilbert, 38 Okla. 751, 135 P. 342; Wise-
ner v, Burrell, 28 Okla. 546, 118 P. 999,
Ann. Cas. 1912D, 356, 34 L. R. A. (N.
S.) 755. Contray Martin v. District
Court, 37 Colo. 110, 86 P. 82, 119 Am.
St. 262; Miller V. Gordon, 93 Kan. 382,
144 P. 274. See note in Ann. Cas. 1912D,
361.
597
Vol 10
HABEAS CORPUS
956-15 Walters v. McKinnig, 221
Fed. 746; Jamison v. Gilbert, 38 Okla.
751, 135 P. 342, order remanding pris-
oner. Contra f Martin f. District Ct.,
37 Colo. 110, 86 P. 82, 119 Am. St.
262. See note in Ann. Cas. 1912D, 361.
956-19 S. V. Lacrouts, 134 La. 900,
64 S. 824; Ex parte Muse (Tex. Cr.),
168 S. W. 520; Ex parte Barnett (Tex.
Cr.), 167 S. W. 845.
956-20 Ex parte Ryan, 62 Tex. Cr.
19, 136 S. W. 65; Ex parte Thomas, 61
Tex. Cr. 573, 136 S. W. 60.
956-24 Jolinson v. Harris, 13 Ga.
App. 61^, 79 S. E. 588; 8. r. McDonald,
123 Minn. 84, 142 N. W. 1051.
956-25 Stone v. Duffy, 219 Mass.
178, 106 N. E. 595.
957-26 A pardon having been grant-
ed and its validity denied by the
warden of the prison an appeal will
lie from an order quashing a writ of
habeas corpus, although the term of
imprisonment has expired in the mean-
time. P. 17. Hayes, 163 App. Div. 725,
149 N. Y. S. 250.
957-27 Davis v. Smith, 7 Ga. App.
192, 66 S. E. 401; Mahon v, P. ex rel.
Robertson, 218 111. 171, 75 N. E. 768;
Miller v. Gordon, 93 Kan. 382, 144 P.
274; Ex parte Suarez & P., 20 P. R.
510.
957-28 S. V. Lacey. 158 Ala. 16, 48
S. 343; S. r. Towery, 143 Ala. 48, 39
S. 309; S. V. Gordon, 105 Miss. 454; 62
S. 431. See S. v. Livingston, 170 Ala.
147, 54 S. 109, and note in Ann. Cas.
1912D, 360.
Prosecuting attorney. — Ex parte Vilar,
17 P. R. 809. But see Davis v. Smith,
7 Ga. App. 192, 66 S. E. 401.
957-29 P. 1?. Warden, 160 App. Div.
480, 145 N. Y. S. 1064.
Any aggrieved person. — Ex parte
Suarez, 20 P. R. 510. One against
whom a judgment for costs and attor-
ney's foes has been rendered may ap-
peal. Ex .parte Whicker, 187 Mo. App.
96, 173 S. W. 38.
958-31 Ex parte Boling, 94 Neb.
766, 144 N. W. 815; Ex parte Eldridge
(Tex. Cr.), 162 S. W. 1149.
Wliere appellant failed to produce the
body of the child and expressed his in-
tention of disobeying an adverse order
by placing himself beyond the reach
of legal process, his appeal will be
dismissed. Ex parte Meyer, 809 N. Y.
59, 102 N. E. 606.
Notwithstanding an appeal is taken
without a stay of the proceedings and
without giving any supersedeas, the
petitioner being represented in the ap-
pellate court, the questions raised on
appeal are not moot questions and will
be determined. Miller r. Gordon, 93
Kan, 382, 144 P. 274.
958-32 Where an order of appeal is
erroneously granted, the action of the
court in refusing to accept bail will be
sustained. S. v, Lacrouts, 134 La. 900,
64 S. 824,
958-33 But see Cuevas r. Cartagena,
21 P. R. 51, appeals are governed by
special act.
Bill of exceptions. — S. v. Livingston,
170 Ala. 147, 54 S. 109.
To what court. — ^An appeal from an
order on a habeas corpus sued out to
inquire into petitioner's commitment
in a civil proceeding, should be prose-
cuted to the supreme court and not the
court of criminal appeals. Ex parte
Cummings (Tex. Cr.), 170 S. W. 153.
An order of the district court dismis-
sing a writ which issued on the ground
petitioner is in custody in violation of
the federal constitution is appealable
direct to the supreme court of the Uni-
ted States. Collins v. Board of Control
(C. C. A.), 219 Fed. 885.
959-35 Duty of transmitting tbe
record to the supreme court rests on
the court or judge from whose order
the appeal is taken. Cuevas r. Carta-
gena, 21 P. B, 51.
959-39 Whitfield v. Krawza, 214
Fed. 83, 130 C. C. A. 523.
959-42 Trial de novo.— Where an
appeal is taken in a habeas corpus pro-
ceeding to obtain custody of a child,
the case is not triable de novo. Hall
r. Wintermute, 163 la. 657, 145 N. W,
276.
960-49 P. r. Bolton (Colo. App.). 146
P. 489; Ex parte Latham (Tex. Cr.),
164 S. W. 377; Harrison t?. Harker, 44
Utah 541, 142 P. 716.
961-53 Ex parte Sanchez, 20 P. B.
109.
Submission to the decision of the trial
court dismisses an appeal from its de-
cision on habeas corpus. Ex parte
Simpkins (Tex. Cr.), 161 S. W. 97.
961-54 Chinese held under warrantB
of deportation who were eonditionalljr
698
BEALTS
Vol. 10
discharged on habeas corpus until af-
ter the mandate of the circuit court of
appeals could be filed, will not on re-
versal be remanded to custody for de-
portation where the case in the lower
court was not heard on the merits.
Frick V. Lee Tung Jung, 205 Fed. 38,
123 C. C. A. 311.
961-66 S. V. Neel, 48 Ark. 283, 3
8. W. 631; Gosline v. Place, 32 Pa. 520.
See S. t;. Dobson, 135 Mo. 1, 36 S. W.
238.
961-57 S. V, Wurdeman, 254 Mo, 561,
163 S. W. 849; Ex parte Wiggins, 165
N. C. 457, 81 S. E. 626. See note in
Ann. Cas. 1914A, 829.
962-61 Writ of prohibition is the
proper remedy to restrain further ac-
tion by a court which improperly is-
sued a writ of habeas corpus. S. v.
Speake (Ala.), 65 S. 840.
962-62 See note in Ann. Cas. 1913A,
159.
962-64 Henry v. Henkel, 235 U. S.
219, 35 Sup. Ct. 54, 59 L. ed. — ; Charl-
ton t?. Kelly, 229 U. S. 447, 33 Sup. Ct.
945, 57 L. ed. 1274; Ex parte Spencer,
228 U. S. 652, 33 Sup. Ct. 709, 57 L.
ed. 1010; Glasgow t?. Moyer, 225 U. S.
420, 32 Sup. Ct. 753, 56 L. ed. 1147;
In the Matter of Gregory, 219 U, S.
210, 31 Sup. Ct. 143, 55 L. ed. 184; Har-
lan V. McGourin, 218 U. S. 442, 54 L.
ed. 1101, 31 Sup. Ct. 44, 21 Ann. Cas.
849, aff. 180 Fed. 119; Dimmick i?.
Tompkins, 194 U. S. 540, 24 Sup. Ct.
780, 48 L. ed. 1110; Cooley v. Morgan
(C. C. A.), 221 Fed. 252; Ex parte
Jim Hong, 211 Fed. 73, 127 C. C. A.
569; Stevens v. McClaughry, 207 Fed.
18, 125 C. C. A. 102; Moyer v. Ander-
son, 203 Fed. 881, 122 C. C. A. 175;
Ex parte Lam Pui, 217 Fed. 456; Blake
V. Moyer, 206 Fed. 559; S. ex rel. «?.
Neel, 48 Ark. 283, 3 S. W. 631; P. v.
District Court, 22 Colo. 422, 45 P. 402;
Dowling r. Lee (Fla.), 66 S. 142; In
re Vitali, 153 Mich. 514, 116 N. W.
1066, 126 Am. St. 535; S. v. Dobson, 135
Mo. 1, 36 S. W. 238; Ex parte McDon-
ald, 49 Mont. 454, 143 P. 947; In re
Jones, 46 Mont. 122, 126 P. 929; In
re Cica, 18 N. M. 452, 137 P. 598, 51
L. R. A. (N. S.) 373; P. V. Hayes, 151
App. Div. 561, 136 N. Y. S. 854; P. v.
Wells, 57 App. Div. 140, 68 N. T. S.
59; P. ex rel. Bullock v. Warden, 87
Misc. 595, 150 N. Y. S. 24; Ex parte
Foster, 69 Or. 319, 138 P. 849; Pass-
more Williamson^ Case, 26 Pa. 9; C, v.
Francies, 63 Pa. Super. 278; P. v, Bur-
gos, 18 P. R. 72; Ex parte Sierra, 16
P. R. 790; Arnold t?. Schmidt, 155 Wis.
55, 143 N. W. 1055.
963-66 Sheriff cannot be taxed for
costs. Ex parte Nelson, 253 Mo. 627,
162 S. W, 167.
963-67 Proceedings Upon a Writ of
Habeas Corpus Issued by the C. J., 1
Liberia 190. But see Ex parte Nelson,
253 Mo. 627, 162 S. W. 167; Ex parte
Jacobs, 87 Vt. 454, 89 A. 634.
963-68 Ex parte Whicker, 187 Mo.
App. 96, 173 S. W. 38.
963-72 See note in Ann. Cas. 1914C,
30.
963-73 S. V. Wurdeman, 254 Mo.
561, 163 S. W. 849; Ex parte Sullivan,
10 Okla. Cr. 465, 138 P. 815.
964-75 S. V, Wurdeman, 254 Mo. 561,
163 S. W. 849.
965-83 Suspensioiiof writ is a legia-
lative, not an executive, function. Ex
parte McDonald, 49 Mont. 454, 143 P.
947.
HAWKEBS Ain> PEDDLEBS
968-2 S6876 Kirby's Dig.; Rottner
V. S., 108 Ark. 607, 156 8. W. 1027.
See South v, S. (Tex. Cr.), 162 S. W.
510.
A corporation cannot be licensed as a
peddler. Singleton 17. S., 14 6a. App.
527, 81 S. E. 596.
969-4 Conway v. Waddell, 90 Ark.
127, 118 S. W. 398; Singleton V. S., 14
Ga. App. 527, 81 S. E. 596.
The essential thing is that a peddler
must do business by going about from
place to place selling and delivering
merchandise in a retail way. It is the
method of disposing of the goods which
makes the person a peddler. Dewitt
V. S., 155 Wis. 249, 144 N. W. 253.
Distinguished from one selling by sam-
ple, etc. City of Milan v. Allen (Mo.),
175 S. W. 933; Scribner v. Mohr, 90
Neb. 21, 132 N. W. 734, Ann. Cas.
1912D, 1287, 1293; Ideal Tea Co. i?.
City of Salem (Or.), 150 P. 852. Drum-
mers selling by wholesale are not ped-
dlers. Smith V. Wilkins, 164 N. C. 135,
80 S. E. 168.
HEALTH
983-30 Agent. — An indictment charg-
ing violation under Laws, 1909, ch. 36,
599
Vol. 11
HEARING
for failare to light stairways in a
building used as a factory which al-
leges that the defendant as agent "did
fail and neglect to properly and ade-
quately light certain stairs leading to
a work-room in a cellar," is sufficient.
P. V. Pullman, 166 App. Div. 99, 151
N. Y, S. 741.
993-1 P. V. Hustion, 178 HI. App.
293. Comp. Brown v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 168
S. W. 861.
996-32 Single act alleged^— In an
action against a druggist for negligent-
ly compounding a prescription, where
the proof showed the prescription had
been filled twice but the declaration
did not allege it, there is no fatal vari-
ance between the pleadings and the
proof. Mcllvaine v. Lutz, 57 Pa. Super.
527,
997-40 See Daniels v. Dick (Kan.),
147 P. 845, as to instructions on the
burden of proof.
9-42 Matters admitted. — When a
plaintiff has his cause set down for
final hearing on bill and answer, he ad-
mits all matters stated in the answer
susceptible of proof by legitimate
proof (Curry v. Leonard [Ala. J, 65 S.
362; Luchs V, Christman, 42 App. Cas.
[D. C] 326; Straus v. Putta, 265 111.
57, 106 N. E. 437; Wilmer v. PhUadel-
phia & Beading C. & I. Co., 124 Md.
599, 93 A. 157; Hodson t?. Nelson, 122
Md. 330, 89 A. 934; Bubenstein v. Lot-
tow, 220 Mass. 156, 107 N. E. 718), and
which are responsive to the bill (Lyon
V. Mayor, etc. [Md.], 93 A. 919), or
well pleaded. Wichita r. Wichita Water
Co. (C. C. A.), 222 Fed. 789.
22-32 Peimsylvaiiia. — ''When a case
is at issue upon answer, it is to be
heard and conducted in court in the
same manner as an action at law where-
in trial by jury has been waived."
Ebling V, Borough of Schuylkiir Haven,
244 Pa. 505, 91 A. 360.
HiaHWAYS, STBBETS AND
BBIDQES
42-1 A way may be a public high-
way, though it is not of great length,
and terminates on private property.
Stewart v. Swartz (Ind. App.), 106
N. E. 719.
45-15 A road is none the less a high-
way, though tarely used, if used by
those who desire to go that way. Stew-
art V. Swartz (Ind. App.), 106 N. B.
719.
56-52 Bailey t?. Driver (Ind. App.),
107 N, E. 38.
77-40 Bronnenberg i?. Goins (Ind.).
108 N. E. 862.
84-87 Fisher v, Blumhardt (Ind.),
107 N. E. 466.
Issues raised below. — ^Where no issue
of damages was presented in the com-
missioners' court, the issue could not
be litigated on appeal. Bronnenberg v,
Goins (Ind.), 108 N. E. 862.
108-22 Bailey v. Driver (Ind. App.),
107 N. E. 38.
128-55 Trial de novo where lower
court without JuiisdlctioiL — Sinee the
jurisdiction of the court to which an
appeal is taken in a relocation proceed-
ing is purely derivative, it does not ac-
quire jurisdiction to try such proceed-
ing anew where the original tribunal
lacked jurisdiction in the matter. Steg-
ner v. Wassmann (Mo.), 178 S. W. 466,
wherein the statute upon which the
original proceeding was based provided
as a condition precedent to the right
of the county court to order a pro-
posed relocation or change in a road
that the landowners shall have exe-
cuted and filed with the court their
relinquishment of the right of way for
such proposed change or relocation, and
the relinquishment of one of such own-
ers had not been filed in accordance
with such condition, thereby depriving
the county court of jurisdiction.
146-80 Baltimore & O. B. Go. v. Gil-
mor (Md.), 94 A. 200. But see Barden
V. S. (Neb.), 152 N. W. 330.
174-51 Getting v. Pollock, 189 Mo.
App. 263, 175 S. W. 222.
178-72 Hendricks f>, Jackson (Ga.),
84 S. E. 440; Borton V. Mangus, 93 Kan.
719, 145 P. 835.
180-73 niustratlQii of special injurr*
A party who lives upon and owns
property abutting the street obstruction
but not abutting the obstructed por-
tion who is forced to take a more cir-
cuitous route to sCnd from the city,
may sue in equity to abate the ob-
struction as a nuisance. South St North
Alabama B. Co. i;. Schaufler (Ala.), 86
So. 502.
186-12 Sloss, etc. Co. v. Johnson,
147 Ala. 384, 41 S. 907, 119 Am. St.
600
HOMESTEADS AND EXEMPTIONS
Vol. 11
89, 8 L. B. A, (N. S.) 226, 11 Ann.
Cas. 285; Tate v. Seaboard Air Line
B. Co., 168 N. C. 523, 84 S. E. 808.
187-20 Baltimore & O. B. Go. v. Gil-
mor (Md.), 94 A. 200.
188-21 Where a street npon which
plaintiff's property abuts is so ob-
structed that he finds himself front-
ing upon a cul-de-sac he is entitled to
damages. Sandstrom t?. Oregon- Wash-
ington B. & Nav. Co. (Or.), 146 P.
803.
189-26 Baltimore & 0. B. Co. r. Gil-
mor (Md.)i 94 A. 200.
196-78 Steuben Tp. v. Lake Shore &
M. S. By. Co. (Ind. App.), 108 N. E.
545.
198-86 Moore v. Gar Creek Drain-
age Dist., 266 ni. 399, 107 N. E. 642.
202-7 Colby v. Inhab. of Pittsfield
(Me.), 95 A. 1..
206-21 Knight v. Haverhill, 77 N. H.
487, 93 A. 663.
206-22 Knight v. Haverhill, 77 N. H.
487, 93 A. 663.
236-30 PermlBSion to use street.
Whether or not by permitting the
street to be graded by a private party,
the county impliedly invited the pub-
lic to use the same is a question for
the jury. Tait i;. King County (Wash.),
148 P. 586.
238-43 Boos r. Northfield Tp. (Mich.) ,
152 N. W. 1042; Kuhns v. Upper Allen
Tp., 57 Pa. Super. 386,
241-48 Tait v. King County (Wash.),
148 P. 586.
252-86 Dozier v. Woods (Ala.), 67
S. 283; Carter t?. Caldwell (Ind.), 109
N. E. 355,
262-87 Ware v. Lamar (Ga. App.),
85 S. E. 824.
266-94 Blackden v. Blaisdell (Me.),
93 A. 540.
268-86 See Heuel v. Wallowa Coun-
ty (Or.), 149 P. 77.
269-90 Getting v. Pollock, 189 Mo.
App. 263, 175 S. W. 222.
277-43 Salter v. Decatur County, 15
Ga. App. 687, 84 S. E. 162.
282-72 Herrlein v. McKeesport, 247
Pa. 277, 93 A. 319.
282-76 Eichenhofer v. Philadelphia,
248 Pa. 365, 93 A. 1065; Herrlein v.
McKeesport, 247 Pa. 277, 93 A. 319.
283-77 Ashland v. Boggs, 161 Ky.
728, 171 S. W. 461.
601
HOMESTEADS AND EXEMPTIONS
294-4 Bailly v. Farmers' State Bank
(S. D.), 150 N, W. 942.
296-10 Keeline v. Sealy, 257 Mo.
498, 165 S. W. 1088; Kelly v. McLeod,
165 N. C. 382, 81 S. E. 455; Alton Mer-
cantile Co. V, Spindel, 42 Okla. 210,
140 P. 1168.
295-11 Pocoke v, Peterson, 256 Mo.
501, 165 S. W. 1017.
296-12 Tatum v. Tatum (Ala.), 67
S. 977.
297-17 In re Crum, 221 Fed. 729;
In re Irving, 220 Fed. 969; Fuller r.
American Supply Co., 185 Ala. 512, 64
S. 549; Keeline v. Sealy, 257 Mo. 498,
165 S. W. 1088; Pocoke t?. Peterson,
256 Mo, 501, 165 S. W. 1017; Kelly v.
McLeod, 165 N. C. 382, 81 S. B. 455.
302-38 Hyde v. Ishmael, 42 Okla.
279, 143 P. 1044; Johnson v. Conger
(Tex. Civ.), 166 S, W. 405.
303-39 Hyde v. Ishmael, 42 Okla.
279, 143 P. 1044.
317-99 S. r. Superior Court, 84
Wash. 663, 147 P. 408.
346-91 Undivided property.—' ' Prop-
erty, while held in indivision, cannot
become affected by the homestead ex-
emption.'^ Caire & Graugnard c.
Hickox, 136 La. 803, 67 S. 887; Bank
of Jeanerette v. Stansbury, 110 La. 301,
34 S. 452.
359-61 Tlie only llmitatloii to his
selection is that he cannot exclude his
residence and that part actually used
for homestead purposes. Hughes v.
Hughes. (Tex. Civ.), 170 S. W. 847.
366-6 Action of commlssionerB not
conduslTe. — The action of the commis-
sioners in assigning a certain quantity
of land as a homestead is not con-
clusive, and the court may, afte/ re-
ceiving their report, exercise his own
judgment in determining the rights of
the parties. Mount v. Fourth Street
Bank, 156 Ky. 503, 161 S. W. 220.
369-29 €k>iirt may make new allot-
ment himself instead of appointing
other commissioners, and may either
diminish the quantity of property set
aside or increase it, as the facts may
seem to him to justify. Mount f?-
Fourth Street Bank, 156 Ky. 503, 161
S. W. 220.
371-39 Order of sale may be decreed
of an undivided Interest in the prop-
erty to the extent of the value in ex-
Vol. 11
HOMESTEADS AND EXEMPTIONS
cess of the homestead, fixing the per-
centage that such excess bears to the
whole. General Bond & Cas. Ins. Co.
V. Trabue (Tex. Civ.), 174 S. W. 689.
877-73 Davis v. Cox (Tex. Civ.),
176 8. W. 931, foreclosure of vendor's
lien.
377-75 Davis v. Cox (Tex. Civ.), 176
S. W. 931.
887-32 After iflsaance of letters of
ftdmiiilstiutioiL— When letters of ad-
ministration have been granted upon
an estate, the probate court has no
jurisdiction to set apart a homestead
under the provisions of Code, 1907,
84224, and, if it does, its decree is
coram non judice and void. Hynes v.
Underwood (Ala.), 67 S. 994,
411-15 Stocker v, Curtis, 264 Dl.
582, 106 N. E. 441.
411-16 Stocker t?. Curtis, 264 111.
582, 106 N. E. 441.
412-24 King v. King (Ga.), 85 S. E.
95,
Need not negative exceptionB.— In an
action brought by a party to enjoin
the sale of his homestead under an
order of sale it is not necessary for
him to allege that the judgment was
not rendered for any one of the class
of claims against which there is no
homestead exemptions. King t?. Wil-
son, 95 Kan. 390, 148 P. 752.
421-84 See Abramson v, Larrabee,
134 La. 833, 64 S. 766, where the right
of homestead was asserted in a peti-
tion in intervention after judgment
decreeing a sale of the property.
422-86 See Abramson v, Larrabee,
134 La. 833, 64 S. 766.
430-31 McCammon v. Jenkins
(Okla.), 145 P, 1163.
430-33 Fuller v. American Supply
Co., 185 Ala. 512, 64 S. 549.
433-53 Parker v. Schrimsher (Tex.
Civ.), 172 S. W. 165, wife's right in
the homestead is a vested right.
433-55 Oxford i?. Colvin, 134 La.
1094, 64 S. 919.
434-57 Parker t?. Schrimsher (Tex.
Civ.), 172 S. W. 165.
434-58 Becker t?. Hampton, 137 La.
— , 68 S. 626.
434-61 Robinson & Co. v. Cosner,
136 La. 595, 67 8. 468; Alton Mercan-
tile Co. V. Spindel, 42 Okla. 210, 140
P. 1168; Parker v. Schrimsher (Tex.
Civ.), 172 S. W. 165; Hudgins f?. Thomp.
son (Tex. Civ.), 163 S. W. 659.
438-74 Russell v. Hamilton (Ter.
Civ.), 174 S. W. 705.
439-87 Purdy v. Melton, 164 Ky.
749, 176 S. W. 346.
No abandonment. — The division of
homestead property by a fence and the
building of a house to rent on a por-
tion of the property does not consti-
tute an abandonment of the homestead
as to that portion where claimant al-
ways reserved such premises for the
use of himself and family. Turnpaugh
t?. Dickey (Tex. Civ.), 166 S. W. 1194.
440-88 Purdy t\ Melton, 164 Ky.
749, 176 S. W. 346; Scheuber v. Ballow,
64 Tex. 166; Randleman t?. Cargile
(Tex. Civ.), 163 S. W. 350.
440-80 Purdy v. Melton, 164 Ky.
749, 176 S. W. 346; Perkins v. Perkins
(Tex, Civ.), 166 S. W. 915.
442-99 Blatchley v. Dakota L. & C.
Co., 26 N. D. 532, 145 N. W. 95; Mc-
Cammon V. Jenkins (Okla.), 145 P.
1163.
443-1 Johnson v, Goldstein (Tex.
Civ.), 173 S. W. 458.
443-4 Purdy v. Melton, 164 Ky. 749,
176 S. W. 346.
444-7 Puller r. American Supply Co.,
185 Ala. 512, 64 8. 549; Boyer r, Dague
(la.), 149 N. W. 73; Purdy v. Melton,
164 Ky. 749, 176 S. W. 346; Keeline
r. Sealy, 257 Mo, 498, 165 S. W. 1088;
Pocoke V. Peterson, 256 Mo. 501, 165
S. W. 1017; Blackwell v. Vaughn (Tex.
Civ.), 176 S. W. 912; Parker v. Schrim-
sher (Tex. Civ.), 172 8. W. 165.
Bemoval of household goods. — A re-
moval of all or part of the household
goods and a storage or use of them
elsewhere, with a present clearly estab-
lished intention to presently return to
the homestead, is not an abandonment.
Pocoke V, Peterson, 256 Mo. 501, 165
S. W, 1017.
446-8 Boyer v, Dague (la.), 149 N.
W. 73.
445-14 Boyer v. Dague (la.), 149 N.
W. 73.
446-17 Pocoke v. Peterson, 256 Mo.
501, 165 S. W. 1017.
446-18 Boyer i?. Dague (la.), 149 N.
W. 73; Tompkins f?. Lochte Co., 136
La. 57, 66 S. 417; Pocoke v. Peterson,
256 Mo. 501, 165 S. W. 1017.
447-19 Pocoke v. Peterson, 256 Mo.
501, 165 S. W. 1017.
602
HOMESTEADS AND EXEMPTIONS
Vol. 11
447-20 Pocoke v. Peterson, 256 Mo.
501, 165 8. W. 1017.
448-21 See Bose v. Farmers & Me-
chanics' Bank, 95 Kan. 331, 148 P.
745.
448-27 Alton Mercantile Co. v. Spin-
del, 42 Okla. 210, 140 P. 1168,
449-80 McCammon v. Jenkins (Okla.),
145 P. 1163.
464-46 Purdy v. Melton, 164 Ky.
749, 176 S. W. 346.
456-56 Perkins r. Perkins (Tex.
Civ.), 166 8. W. 915:
460-68 People's Nat. Bank v, Max-
son (la.), 150 N. W. 601.
460-69 Conveyance, constitatlng a
mortgage, does not forfeit homestead.
A conveyance by the owner to a third
person, who contracted to reconvey to
the wife upon the payment of a debt,
she remaining in possession, constituted
a mortgage and did not forfeit the
homestead exemption. People's Nat.
Bank v. Maxson (la.), 150 N. W. 601.
460-70 Mount t?. Fourth Street
Bank, 156 Ky. 503, 161 S. W. 220;
Pocoke V. Peterson, 256 Mo. 501, 165
8. W. 1017; Tumpaugh i?. Dickey (Tex.
Civ.), 166 8. W. 1194.
465-94 Filing declaration not indis-
pensable.— But see Fuller v. American
Supply Co., 185 Ala. 512, 64 S. 549,
holding that "the filing of a declara-
tion with the probate judge is not an
indispensable condition upon which
the owner of a homestead may have
the protection of his exemption dur-
ing temporary absences in which he
intends to return, and continuously
keeps it within his power to do so."
467-3 McDowell «?. Norther oss (Tex.
Civ.), 162 8. W. 13.
468-6 McDowell v. Northcross (Tex.
Civ.), 162 S. W. 13.
469-11 Smith v. McBryde (Tex.
Civ.), 173 8. W. 234.
470-17 C. t?. Cassady, 159 Ky. 776,
169 8. W. 497; Smith v, McBryde (Tex.
Civ.), 173 8. W. 234.
471-19 In re Gerber, 186 Fed. 693,
696, 108 C. C. A. 511; In re Wilder, 221
Fed. 476; In re Crook, 219 Fed. 979;
In re Swanson, 213 Fed. 353; Fuller
c. American Supply Co., 185 Ala. 512,
64 8. 549; Blackford v, Boak, 73 Or.
61, 143 P. 1136; St. Louis Type Foun-
dry V, Livestock, etc. Print. & Pub.
Co., 74 Tex, 651, 12 S. W. 842, 15 Am.
St. 870; Smith v. McBride (Tex. Civ.),
173 8. W. 234; Campbell r. Honaker*s
Heirs (Tex. Civ.), 166 8. W. 74; 8. v.
McNeill, 58 Wash. 47, 107 P. 1028, 137
Am. St. 1038; North Pac. Loan & T.
Co. 17. Bennett, 49 Wash. 34, 94 P. 664;
Becher v. Shaw, 44 Wash. 166, 87 P.
71, 120 Am. St. 982; Mikkleson V.
Parker, 3 Wash. Ter. 527, 19 P. 31.
473-21 In re Crook, 219 Fed. 979;
In re Swanson, 213 Fed. 353.
473-23 Person t\ Williams-Echols
Dry Goods Co., 113 Ark. 467, 169 8. W.
223.
474-26 In Oklaboma there is no such
statute. Parsons v, Evans (Okla.), 145
P. 1122.
475-33 Stanton v. French, 83 Cal.
194, 23 P. 355; Kahn V. Hayes, 22 Ind.
App. 182, 53 N. E. 430; Parsons v.
Evans (Okla.), 145 P. 1122; York v.
Carlisle, 19 Tex. Civ. 269, 46 8. W.
257. .
479-47 Parsons r. Evans (Okla.),
145 P. 1122.
Besident debtors only are entitled to
claim the benefit of the exemption
laws. Person v. Williams- Echols Dry
Goods Co., 113 Ark. 467, 169 8. W.
223; Keelin t\ Graves, 129 Tenn. 103,
165 8. W. 232.
Bona fide resident when exemption
claimed. — Debtor, who has before the
sale of his property and at the time
he claims exemption, by a change of
intention and circumstances in good
faith, again become a resident of the
state, is entitled to the benefit of the
exemption law. Stein v, Staats (W.
Va.), 81 S, E. 1132.
481-60 Stein v. Staats (W. Va.), 81
S. E. 1132.
493-12 Claim Interposed after a sale
during the pendency of suit. — The
ri^ht to an exemption is not lost by
failing to claim the property when
levied on and the exemptionist is en-
titled to claim the proceeds of the
sale of the several items of property
which he selected. Anderson t?. Dover
(Miss.), 68 S. 166.
506-90 Character In which exemp-
tion claimed stated. — A statement in
the affidavit to the list that "the debt-
or is a husband, that he is temporarily
absent, and that exemption is claimed
in his behalf by the affiant, his wife,"
sufficiently specifies the character in
which the debtor claims to be exempt.
603
Vol n
HOMICIDE
Stein f. Staatfl (W. Va.), 81 S. E. 1132.
526-33 Ab when he has a greater
number of animals. Parsons v, Kvans
(Okla.), 145 P. 1122.
620-46 Parsons c. Evans (Okla.),
145 P. 1122.
631-56 Parsons v. Evans (Okla.),
145 P. 1122.
633-64 Schwartz t;. Birnbaum, 21
Colo. 21, 39 P. 416.
540-12 Cotton v. Bea (Tez.), 163
S. W. 2.
HOMIOIDE
672-3 Bobinson 17. S. (Fla.), 68 8.
649; 8. f?. Mickey (Ida.), 150 P. 39;
S. r. Morse (8. D.), 150 N. W. 293.
Rule applied to kUllng by automobile.
Madding r. 8. (Ark.), 177 8. W. 410.
676-18 P. V. Witt (Cal.), 148 P.
928.
670-26 8. V. Mickey (Ida.), 150 P.
39.
582-36 Glover v. 8. (Ark.), 172 8.
W. 876; Fisher V. 8., 109 Ark. 456, 160
S. W. 210.
612-40 Omission of the word "un-
lawfully" is not fatal where it was
charged that accused ^'did feloniously,
wilfully, and with malice aforethought
kill," etc. Greer v. C, 164 Ky. 396,
175 8. W. 665.
623-00 Deliberation is sufficiently
charged where it is alleged that de-
fendant feloniously, wilfully, deliber-
ately, premeditatedly, and with malice
aforethought made an assault upon the
deceased with intent feloniously, wil-
fully, deliberately, premeditatedly, and
with malice aforethought to kill and
murder him, and did then and there
with a loaded gun feloniously, wilfully,
premeditatedly, and with malice afore-
thought shoot and inflict on him a
mortal wound of which he instahtly
died. 8. v, Johnson, 92 Kan. 441, 140
P. 839.
625-4 Manner of death.->The indict-
ment need not allege ' ' a mortal wound ' '
or "mortal injury," or "mortal sick-
ness" where the language sets out
clearly facts constituting the crime,
from which the connection between the
facts alleged as the cause of death
and the death itself appears. Robin-
son t?. 8. (Fla.), 68 8. 649.
632-34 8. V. Miller, 264 Mo. 395, 175
8. W. 187.
630-54 Carter v. 8. (Ala.), 67 S
981.
644-78 Jones v. 8. (Ala. App.), 65
8. 690.
648-88 Burton f?. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 175
8. W. 334.
650-03 Harris v. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 172
8. W. 975; Witty r. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 171
8. W. 229.
652-5 Lee v. 8. (Ark.), 172 8. W.
1025.
Whether accused should stand bis
ground or retreat is for the jury tc
determine. Greer v. C, 164 Ky. 396.
175 8. W. 665.
653-7 Bone v. S. (Ala. App.), 68 S.
702.
654-13 De Wyre i?. 8. (Ala.), 67 S.
577; Buflfkin V. 8. (Ind.), 106 N. E.
362.
Character of weapon used. — Where the
court in defining malice assumed the
instrument used in the killing was a
deadly weapon, but also defined a dead-
ly weapon, he did not take from the
jury the question as to whether a cer-
tain metal instrument was a deadly
weapon. 8. v. Killion, 95 Kan. 371,
148 P. 643.
Apprehension of defendant. — An in-
struction that if defendant was not
the aggressor, he was justified in strik-
ing the deceased though defendant was
not in actual danger and retreat would
not have increased it, is bad in sub-
stance and withdraws from the jury
the question of his reasonable and
honest belief in the imminence of his
peril. Jones t\ 8. (Ala.), 69 S. 66.
654-14 De Wyre f. 8. (Ala.), 67 S.
577; Lee i\ 8. (Ark.), 172 8. W. 1025.
654-15 Forman v. 8. (Ala.), 67 8.
583; Pollard v. 8. (Ala. App.). 68 S.
494; S. V. Anselmo (Utah), 148 P.
1071.
654-19 Meaning of justifiable hom-
icide.— ^To charge that "justifiable
homicide, as applicable to the defense
set up in this case, means killing in
self-defense, or in defense of person
against one who manifestly intends by
violence or surprise to commit a felony
on the person killing," is not subject
to the criticism that it is too limited.
Bvrd r. 8., 142 Ga. 633, 85 S. E. 513,
lI R. a. 1915B, 1143.
655-20 Unwritten law.— It is the
right and dujty of the court to warn
the jury to try the cause not under
eo4
HOMICIDE
Vol 11
the unwritten law but by the law of
the state. An instruction that the
unwritten law has no force and no one
has the right to appeal to any other
tribunal than the courts is proper. S.
V. Lemacks, 98 S. C. 498, 82 S. £. 879;
S. V. Harmon, 79 S. C. 80, 60 S. E.
230.
656-26 Kelly v. S. (Ala. App.), 68
S. 675.
Intoxication. — A requested instruction,
"and if you believe that defendant's
mind was so intoxicated from the re-
cent immoderate use of intoxicating
liquors that he was incapable of cool
and collected consideration," etc., that
fact should be considered in passing
on the issue of manslaughter, is erro-
neous. Harris f?. S. (Tex. Cr.), 169
S. W. 657.
660-44 De Wyre v. S. (Ala.), 67 S.
577.
Express and implied malice. — After
having defined "malice aforethought"
there is no error in defining express
and implied malice even though de-
grees in murder have been abolished.
Brown v, S. (Tex. Cr.), 174 S. W. 360.
660-46 Herrera v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 170
S. W. 719.
661-48 While premeditation, willful-
ness, and deliberation must be present
to constitute murder in the first de-
gree, it is not error to refuse to charge
that they must succeed each other in
that precise order. S. v. Mack, 86 N.
J. L. 233, 90 A. 1120.
661-50 Witty v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 171
S. W. 229.
Alcoholic insanity. — Cheadle v. 8.
(Okla. Cr.), 149 P. 919.
662-51 Floyd r. S. (Ga.), 84 S. E.
971.
662-52 Dunn r. S. (Ga.App.), 84
S. E. 488.
In the absence of a request, an omis-
sion to define the words ''reasonable
doubt" will not be grounds for re-
quiring a new trial. Elder v, S. (Ga.),
85 S. E. 197; Battle v, S., 103 Ga. 53,
29 S. E. 491.
663-53 It l8 confoBlng and improper
to tell the jury that ''the oath of a
juror imposes upon him no obligation
to doubt where no doubt would exist if
no oath had been administered." S. V.
Alderson (W. Va.), 82 S. E. 1021; S. r.
Taylor, 57 W. Va. 228, 50 S. E. 247.
663-54 S. r. KiUion, 95 Kan. 371,
148 P. 643.
664-56 Jones v. S. (Ala. App.), 68
S. 690; Cheadle v. S. (Okla. Cr.), 149
P. 919.
6*65-67 Boyett v. S. (Fla.), 68 S.
931.
666-59 King v. S. (Ark.), 173 S. W.
852.
Aggravated assault.— W^en there is
some evidence that pocket knife used
would not necessarily infiict a mortal
wound the court should charge on ag-
gravated assault. Bolden v, S. (Tex.
Cr.), 166 S. W. 503.
667-61 Thompson v. S., 88 Ark. 447,
114 S. W. 1184.
669-66 Booker t?. S. (Ga. App.), 85
S. E. 255; Morgan v. S. (Ga. App.),
85 S. E. 254; Lewis v, S. (Ga. App.),
84 8: E. 609; P. t?. Schultz, 267 HI.
147, 107 N. E. 833; Burton v, S. (Tex.
Cr.), 178 S. W. 334; Thompson v, 8.
(Tex. Cr.), 177 8. W. 503.
Where there is no evidence of pre-
meditation or other proof of malice the
accused is entitled to an instruction on
voluntary manslaughter. Miller t?. G.,
163 Ky. 246, 173 8. W. 761.
670-68 See Humphrey r. S. (Okla.
Cr.), 146 P. 230.
671-72 Butler r. 8. (Ga.), 85 8. E.
340, where it was held that the read-
ing by the court of the entire section
defining manslaughter (Pen. Code, 1910,
§65) while charging on the subject of
voluntary manslaughter was not ob-
jectionable as entrenching on the law
of justifiable homicide.
671-73 Booker v, 8. (Ga. App.), 85
8. E. 255, where it was held that the
court did not err in omitting, in con-
nection with instructions on manslaugh-
ter, to charge that ''provocation by
words, threats, menaces, etc., shall in
no case be sufficient to free the person
killing from the guilt and crime of
murder, ". especially in the absence of
a written request that this part of §65
of the Pen. Code of 1910, be so given.
671-74 8. r. Lewis, 264 Mo. 420, 175
8. W. 60; 8. V. Heavener, 168 N. C. 156,
83 8. E. 732.
Error cured by Terdict. — ^Where jury
found accused guilty of manslaughter
he was not prejudiced by court's re-
fusal to define the difference between
murder and manslaughter. P. v. Grosen-
heider, 266 Dl. 324, 107 N. E. 607.
672-7B Johnson v. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 167
8. W. 733.
605
Vol 11
HUSBAND AND WIFE
672-7B See Elder i;. 8. (Ga.), 85 S.
E. 197; Swain v, S., 15 Ga. App. 445,
83 S. E. 642.
673-77 S. V. Miller (W. Va.), 84 S.
E. 383.
674-83 See P. v. Phipps (111.), 109
N. E. 25, where defendant relied upon
insanity and self-defense.
674-84 Mc Anthony t?. S. (Tex. Cr.),
174 S. W. 1046.
676-87 Bone v. S. (Ala. App.), 68
S. 702.
676-90 Forman V. S. (Ala.), 67 S.
583; Buckhanon V. S. (Ala. App.), 67
S. 718.
686-39 S. V. Gould, 261 Mo. 694, 170
S. W. 868.
687-42 ~ Howerton v. 8. (Ala.), 67 S.
979, where indictment charges the mur-
der was committed by administration
of poison it is necessary to state the
degree of murder in the verdict.
688-44 Harmless error. — Where one
is charged as accessory before the fact
and another is charged as principal,
a verdict finding both defendants guilty
of murder in the second degree is
neither material nor harmful error.
Buie f. S. (Fla.), 67 S. 102.
689-60 Specificatlen of degree. — A
verdict finding defendant guilty of
assaulting and wounding complainant
under circumstances which would have
constituted murder or manslaughter if
death had ensued, in the manner and
form as charged in the information is
not so defective and indefinite because
of failure to specify the degree of the
offense, as to be void. Ex parte Hig-
gins (Kan.), 150 P. 515.
689-61 Williams V. S. (Tex. Cr.),
174 S. W. 1042.
692-64 Roberts V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 168
B. W. 100.
HUSBAND AND WIFE
701-1 McKie t\ McKie (Ark.), 172
S. W. 891; Greenwood v. Greenwood,
113 Me. 226, 93 A. 360; Rogers f.
Rogers (Mo.), 177 S. W. 382.
706-19 Rogers v, Rogers (Mo.), 177
S. W. 382.
711-38 McKie v. McKie (Ark.), 172
S. W. 891.
712-39 Schomaker v. Schomaker,
247 Pa. 444, 93 A. 460.
713-44 Accounting. — On proof that
a husband has received his wife 's mone^
a court of equity will compel him and
his representatives to account to hei
unless he can show that he disposed
of the money under her directions oi
that it was a gift to him. Riker v
Riker, 83 N. J. Eq. 198, 693, 92 A
586; Cole V, Lee, 45 N. J. Eq. 779, li
A. 854.
Becovery of property conveyed by bus-
band to .wife for which the considera*
tion has failed may be had by husband
by a bill for its reconveyance undei
Pub. Laws, 1913, ch. 48, §2. Green-
wood V. Greenwood, 113 Me. 226, 93 A.
360.
716-65 Patterson «?. Franklin, 168
N C. 75, 84 S. E. 18.
718-75 Little Rock Gas & Fuel Co.
V. Coppedge (Ark.), 172 S. W. 885;
Blair v, Seitner Dry Goods Co. (Mich.).
151 N. W. 724; Casteel r. Brooke
(Okla.), 148 P. 158.
719-76 Hains v, Parker sburg, M. St
I. Ry. Co. (W. Va.), 84 S. E. 923.
719-78 Meier v. Wagner (Cal. App.).
150 P. 797; Corbin v. Huntington (W.
Va.), 82 S. E. 323.
720-80 Comp. Hains v. Parkersburg,
M. & I. Ry. Co. (W. Va.), 84 S. E.
923; Corbin ix Huntington (W. Va.),
82 S. E. 323.
720-84 Little Rock Gas & Fuel Co.
V, Coppedge (Ark.), 172 S. W. 885;
Blair t\ Seitner Dry Goods Co. (Mich.),
151 N. W. 724; Galveston, H. & 8. A.
Ry. Co. V. Brassell (Tex. Civ.), 173 S.
W. 522.
720-89 Little Rock Gas & Fuel Co-
V. Coppedge (Ark.), 172 S. W. 885.
721-91 Little Rock Gas & Fuel Co.
V. Coppedge (Ark.), 172 S. W. 885;
Meier v. Wagner (Cal. App.), 150 P.
797.
726-27 Bryant v. Freeman (Tenn.),
173 S. W. 863.
733-76 See Bryant r. Freeman
(Tenn.), 173 S. W. 863.
738-91 In an action for gpecific per-
formance against the husband by pur-
chaser of land which husband has con-
tracted to sell, the wife is not a proper
party because she cannot be compelled
to release her dower. Solomon v.
She wit z (Mich.), 152 N. W. 196.
740-99 See Gambrill Mercantile Co.
V. Allen (Kan.), 150 P. 519.
740-2 Horsburgh V. Murasky (CaL),
147 P. 147.
606
IMMIGRATION
Vol. 11
741-10 Horsburgh v. Murasky (Cal.))
147 P. 147.
751-79 Partition suit.— In all suits
against the wife the husband must be
joined; so in a suit to partition land
which a married woman claimed by
gift, the husband is a necessary party.
Tannehill r. Tannehill (Tex. Civ.), 171
S. W. 1050.
766-65 Nibeck v. Eeidy (la.), 153
N. W. 186.
768-66 Bight to sue alone.— The
facts authorizing a married woman to
sue alone need not be proved as laid.
Texas City Terminal Co. v. Thomas
(Tex. Civ.), 178 8. W. 707.
785-31 On appeal. — The defense can-
not be availed of for the first time
on appeal. Boshwitz v. Lawhorn
(Tenn.), 176 S. W. 1037.
786-37 Boshwitz v. Lawhorn (Tenn.),
176 S. W. 1037.
810-33 Schnepfe V. Schnepfe, 124
Md. 330, 92 A. 891.
834-18 Paganini v. Polostrini (Cal.
App.), 146 P. 1046.
835*20 See Paganini V. Polostrini
(Cal. App.), 146 P. 1046.
847-2 First Nat. Bank v. Daniel
(Tex. Civ.), 172 8. W. 747.
853-46 Sikes i\ Sikes (Ga.), 85 8.
E. 193; Keup v. Keup (Neb.), 152 N.
W. 555.
857-64 Without statutory authexlty.
Action for separate maintenance may
be maintained though there is no stat-
ute authorizing it, and the wife's right
to temporary maintenance and suit
money is to be determined independent-
ly of the provisions of the divorce
statute. 8. v. Superior Court (Wash.),
147 P. 436.
859-77 In proceedings under Comp.
St., 1910, §3937, the court has no juris-
diction to make a permanent and final
adjudication of the property rights be-
tween the parties. Brown v. Brown
(Wyo.), 146 P. 231.
860-82 Brown r. Brown (Wyo.), 146
P. 231.
866-15 Klosowski v. Klosowski, 266
111. 360, 107 N. E. 634.
867-20 Gilbert v. Hay ward (R. I.),
92 A 625.
879-75 P. V. Selby (Cal. App.), 148
P. 807.
881-84 Wlio may make complaint
and issue warrant. — Only wife or an
agent of the West Virginia Humane
Society are authorized te make com-
plaint. A notary public is not author-
ized to issue a warrant returnable
either before themselves or before a
justice of the peace for violation of
§16, ch. II, ch. 144, 85174, Code, 1913.
Howell V. Wysor (W. Va.), 82 8. E.
503.
886-20 Imprisonment Is aoC for debt
due by husband to wife, but for his
failure to obey the statutory obliga-
tions incident to the marriage relation.
S. 17. English (S. C), 85 S. E. 721.
ZLLEOALITY, HOW PLEADED
891-1 Sprague v, Webb (App. Biv.),
153 N. Y. 8. 1020; Barry v. Mulhall,
162 App. Div. 749, 147 N. Y. S. 996;
Dunham v. Hastings Pavement Co., 56
App. Div. 244, 67 N. Y. S. 632; Texas
& P. Coal Co. V, Lawsen, 89 Tex. 394,
32 8. W. 871; Bishop v. Japhet (Tex.
Civ.), 171 8. W. 499; Willis v. Weather-
ford Compress Co. (Tex. Civ.), 66 8.
W. 472; Pasteur Vaccine Co. t?. Burkey,
22 Tex. Civ. 232, 54 8. W. 804.
892-3 Sprague r. Webb (App. Div.),
153 N. Y. 8. 1020; Barry v. Mulhall,
162 App. Div. 749, 147 N. Y. 8. 996;
Pasteur Vaccine Co. v. Burkey, 22 Tex.
Civ. 232, 54 8. W. 804, illegality of
contract cannot be waived by the
parties.
892-4 Sprague v. Webb (App/ Div.),
153 N. Y. 8. 1020; Barry r. MulhaU,
162 App. Div. 74^, 147 N. Y. 8. 996;
Pasteur Vaccine Co. v, Burkey, 22 Tex.
Civ. 232, 54 8. W. 804.
893-8 Pasteur Vaccine Co. t?. Burkey,
22 Tex. Civ. 232, 54 8. W. 804.
894-12 Franck v, Blazier, 66 Or. 377,
133 P. 800.
IMMia&ATION
002-3 Admission to imiular poeaea-
sion does not prevent the commissioner
general of immigration from establish-
ing rules requiring one to be re-ex-
amined as to his fitness for admission
on his arrival in the United States
proper. Healy v. Backus (C. C. A,),
221 Fed. 358.
903-13 The person excluded is en-
titled to htve the secretary of labor
determine his appeal and the determina-
tion of the appeal by another person,
not authorized is neither a fair hearing
$07
Vol. 11
IMMIGRATION
nor due process of law. Ex parte Tauie
Shee, 218 Fed. 256,
904-16 Ex parte Tsuie Shee, 218
Fed. 256.
905-25 Ex parte Iwata, 219 Fed.
610.
905-27 A telegrapMc application for
a warrant can be resorted to only in
case of necessity. Jouras v, Allen (C.
C. A.), 222 Fed. 756.
905-29 Healy v. Backus (C. C. A.),
221 Fed. 358.
Particularity of warrant. — A warrant of
arrest is not void because it does not
show what act or acts bring the de-
fendant within the excluded classes, and
is sufficient if it specifically charges
him with the fact that he is unlaw-
fully in this country because of his
entry without inspection. Lee Sim v.
U. S. (C. C. A.), 218 F«d. 432.
906-37 Jouras v. Allen (C. C. A.),
222 Fed. 756; Whitfield v. Hanges (C.
C. A.), 222 Fed. 745. See Choy Gum
V. Backus, 223 Fed. 487; Ex parte
Iwata, 219 Fed. 610; Ex parte Lam
Pui, 217 Fed. 456.
906-39 Jouras v. Allen (0. O. A.),
222 Fed. 756,
907-42 The refusal of a request for
counsel puts upon the official so acting
a great burden of explanation and of
scrupulous regard for the prisoner's
rights which must be satisfactorily
met. Ex parte Chin Loy You, 223 Fed.
833; Ex parte Lam Pui, 217 Fed. 456.
907-44 Witnesses need not be sworn.
The immigration inspector need not
put the witnesses under oath, and he
may decide the question of the right of
an alien to enter the country upon his
own inspection and examination. Lee
Sim V. U. S. (C. C. A.), 218 Fed. 432.
The hearing is sununary and adminis-
trative rather than judicial, and need
not be conducted in accordance with
the procedure and rules of evidence fol-
lowed in the courts of law. The essen-
tial matter is that there shall have been
an honest effort to arrive at the truth
by methods sufficiently fair and rea-
sonable to amount to due process of
law. Ohin Yow v. XT. S., 208 U. S.
8, 28 Sup. Ct. 201, 52 L. ed. 369; Ex
parte Chin Loy You, 223 Fed. 833.
912-86 Fong Ping Ngar t?. U. S. (C.
C. A.), 223 Fed. 523.
912-87 Presumptions as to Mon-
golians.— ^In deportation proceedings
there is a presumption that a person
of the Mongolian race is an alien. Lee
Sim V. U. S. (C. C. A.), 218 Fed. 432.
912-89 Certificate lost.— Where de-
fendant claims he had lost the cer-
tificate required by the Chinese Ex-
clusion Act, the burden of proving
that he had such statutory certificate
is upon him. Lau Lau (C. C. A.), 223
Fed. 768.
916-21 Lew Ling Chong c. U. S. (C.
C. A.), 222 Fed. 195.
915-25 Fong Ping Ngar v. U. S. (C.
C. A.), 223 Fed. 523; Yee Bt v. V. S.,
222 Fed. 66.
A review of the facts by the circuit
court of appeals is not precluded on an
appeal from district court affirming the
commissioner's report. Lew Sing Chong
V. U. S. (C. C. A.), 222 Fed. 195.
917-34 Ball on reversaL— If the writ
of habeas corpus is sustained and pris-
oner is discharged he may have bail
to insure his appearance if the ruling
were reversed but only ih that case.
U. S. V. Sisson, 220 Fed. 538.
917-35 Ex parte Chin Loy You, 223
Fed. 833.
918-40 Whitfield f?. Hanges (C. C,
A.), 222 Fed. 745.
918-41 Ex parte Bun Chew, 220
Fed. 387.
921-63 Whitfield t?. Hanges (C. O.
A.), 222 Fed. 745.
922-62 See Whitfield t\ Hanges (C.
C. A.), 222 Fed. 745; Ex parte Tsuie
Shee, 218 Fed. 256, where it was held
that a person excluded may raise by
petition in habeas corpus the question
as to whether his appeal to the secre-
tary of labor was determined by a
person having legiJ authority to hear
it.
924-79 Whitfield v. Hanges (C. C.
A.), 222 Fed. 745, a deportation case.
926-84 U. S. V. Sisson, 220 Fed. 538.
The- country whence he came means
from which he originally came. There-
fore a Chinaman entering the United
States from Mexico or Canada, where-
in he was temporarily domiciled, is
properly deported to China. Lee Sim
V, U. S. (C. C. A.), 218 Fed. 432; U. 8.
V. Sisson, 222 Fed. 693; Ex parte Jung
Sew, 221 Fed. 500; U. S. v, Sisson,
220 Fed. 541; Ex parte Bun Chew, 220
Fed. 387.
926-89 Amendment of wmrrant
Where the warrant of deportation does
608
IMPLIED AND EXPRESS AGREEMENTS Vol 11
not provide for deportation to the port
required by law, it Is doubtful if the
court has power to ehange it, and the
detention thereunder is illegal. U. S.
V. SissoBy 220 Fed. 588.
928^ Civil Ttfnady not neliisive.
The provision for a civil remedy does
not exclude a criminal prosecution. The
government may proceed either by in-
dictment to punish the misdemeanor or
by civil action to collect the penalty
as a debt. U. 8. v, Stevenson, 215 U.
S. 190, 109, 30 Sup. Ct. 35, 54 L. ed.
153; MUlon r. U. S., 219 Fed. 186, 134
C. C. A. 560.
IMPLIED AlVD &ZPBE88 A0B8S-
936-8 Yancey «. Boyce, 28 N. D. 187,
148 N. W. 539.
938-7 Elrod Lumber Co. f>. Moore,
186 Ala. 430, 65 S. 175; Owen v. Had-
ley, 186 Mo. App. 1, 171 S. W. 973;
Daniels v. McDaniels, 184 Mo. App.
354, 171 S. W. 14; Waite v. Shoemaker
& Co., 50 Mont. 264, 146 P. 736.
942-16 BuUard v. Eames, 219 Mass.
19, 106 N. £. 584.
945-23 Bhinevault V. Barrett, 185
ni. App. 423 (as where defendant re-
fuses to make payment due, except
apon plaintiff's performance of impos-
sible conditions); Waite v. Shoemaker
& Co.^ 50 Mont. 264, 146 P. 736.
94S-25 Borup v. Von Kokeritz, 162
App. Div. 394, 147 N. T. 8. 832.
946-26 Scarbrough r. "Wheeler (Tex.
Civ.), 172 S. W. 196.
946-28 Levins r. Phillips, 152 N. Y.
S. 1025.
946-38 Horton «. Biherson (K D.),
152 N. W. 529; Loudon r. Spencer, 84
Wash. 236, 146 P. 612.
952-SO -C. T. Patterson Co. r. Port
Barre Lumber Co., 136 La. 60, 66 S.
418; John Cowan v, Meyer (Md.)> 94
A. 18.
9B6-S9 Carroll v. Palmer Mfg. Co.,
181 Mich. 280, 148 N. W. 390.
962-22 Monogram Hardwood Co. v.
Thrower, 10 Ala. App. 414, 65 S. 89.
973-69 See Harbeck v, Harbeck, 87
Misc. 420, 149 N. Y. S. 791.
97«-T9 Harless u. Haile (Tex. Civ.),
174 8. W. 1020.
979-98 Byrne v. Dorey (Mass.), 109
N. E. 146.
981-7 Wadin v. Czuczka (Ariz.), 146
P. 491.
The facts and drcnmstances upon
which an implied agreement rests need
not be pleaded. Underwood v. New
Netherland Bank, 150 N. Y. 8. 487.
982-10 Wadin v. Czuczka (Ariz.),
146 P. 491. See Averill Machinery
Co. V. Bain (Mont.), 148 P. 334; Antene
V. Jensen (Okla.), 148 P. 727.
983-12 Wadin v, Czuczka (Ariz.),
146 P. 491; Averill Machinery Co. c.
Bain (Mont.), 148 P. 334; Sloan v.
Mitchell, 164 App. Div. 687, 149 N. Y.
8. 1015; Bealty Merc. Credit Assn. €.
Monger, 152 N. Y. S. 1045; Whamond
V. North Side Board of Trade, 148 N.
Y. 8. 263.
ATnmeni of aectptanee. — McGowin L.
& £. Co. V. Camp Lumber Co. (Ala.),
68 S. 263.
985-14 Buck Creek Lumber Co. 9.
Nelson (Ala.), 66 S. 476. .
985-lB Yawger ft Co. 17. Joseph
(Ind.), 108 N. B. 774.
986-20 Lufkin v. Harvey, 125' Minn.
458, 147 N. W. 444.
986-24 Where contract based aiK>n
past consideratloiL — Tudor v. Security
Trust Co., 163 Ky. 514, 173 S. W. 1118.
989-44 Klemik v. Hendrickson Jew-
elry Co., 128 Minn. 490, 151 N. W. 203.
993-62 Sloes-Sheffield 8. & L Co. v*
Payne (Ala.), 68 8. 359.
994-6B George GifPord Co. r. Will-
man, 187 Mo. App. 29, 173 8. W. 53.
In case of a spoliBbtion of the contract,
however, the original contract must be
declared upon. Smith v. Barnes (Mont.),
149 P. 963.
999-80 Hall r. International Liberty
Union, 161 Ky. 299, 170 8. W. 631;
Realty Mercantile Credit Assn. f?. Mon-
ger, 152 N. Y. S. 1045; Hedges v. Pio-
neer Iron Wks., 166 App. Div. 208, 151
N. Y. 8. 495; Marcus Con. Co. v. Wein-
bros B. E. Co., 162 App. Div. 495, 147
N. Y. 8. 576; Scarbrough c. Wheeler
(Tex. Civ.), 172 S. W. 196. See Mc-
Cormick f>. Badham (Ala.), 67 S. 609.
"Actually*' performed. — ^An allegation
that plaintiflF '* actually" performed a
contract is cot sufficient. Marcus Con.
Co. V. Weinbros R. E. Co., 162 App.
Div. 495, 147 N. Y. S. 576.
1000-81 Sloss-Sheffield S. & L Co.
r. Payne (Ala.), 68 8. 359; Ketchum
r. Alexander (App. Div.), 153 N. Y.
89
609
Vol. 11 IMPLIED AND EXPRESS AGREEMENTS
S. 864; Caluwaert v. Schapiro, 152 N.
y. S. 1016.
1002-83 Tawger & Co. v. Joseph
(Ind.), 108 N. E. 774; Caluwaert v,
fichapiro, 152 N. T. S. 1016.
1002-85 Hall v. Interaational Lib-
erty Union, 161 Ky. 299, 170 S. W.
631.
1003-86 Hall v. International Lib-
erty Union, 161 Ky. 299, 170 S. W.
631.
1006-96 Woodward Iron Co. v. Pra-
zier (Ala.), 67 S. 430; Wadin v. Czu-
czEa (Ariz.), 146 P. 491; Averill Ma-
chinery Co.. t?. Bain (Mont.), 148 P.
334.
1007-98 Woodward Iron Co. v. Pra-
zier (Ala.), 67 S. 430.
1007-99 Woodward Iron Co. v. Pra-
zier (Ala.), 67 S. 430.
1008-7 Sloss-Sheffield S. & I. Co. €.
Payne (Ala.), 68 S. 359.
1010-14 No issuable defense Is
raised by the plea of general issue in
a suit upon an unconditional contract
in writing. It amounts to a state-
ment simply that: **I promised to pay
the plaintiff; I have not paid him; but
I do not owe him." Graves t?. Denny
(Ga. App.), 84 S. E. 187.
1013-^3 Badzinski v. Ahlswede. 185
lU. App. 513.
1019-73 George v, Boberts, 186 Ala.
521, '65 S. 345; Dean v, Connecticut
Tobacco Corp., 88 Conn. 619, 92 A.
408.
1022-9S See Woodin v. Leach, 186
Mo. App. 275, 172 S. W. 62,
1033-55 BepUcations In nature of
general issue. — Replications setting up
contracts substantially contradicting
the versions of the contracts as set
up in the pleas are in the nature of a
general issue and not subject to de-
murrer. Varnon t\ Nabors (Ala.), 66
S. 593.
To a q>ecial plea of ftaud in the pto-
curement or failure in the consideration
of a contract, a special replication is
not necessary. A general replication
is the only proper reply to such plea,
and on the issue thus joined, plaintiff
may introduce any evidence that would
be admissible under a special replica-
tion if one were allowed. Coffman v,
Viguesney (W. Va.), 84 S. E. 1069.
1041-80 Schade v. MuUer (Or.), 146
P. 144.
1045-95 George Gifford Co. t?. Will-
man, 187 Mo. App. 29, 173 8. W. 53;
Gossett f?. Vaughn (Tex. Civ.), 173 S.
W. 933.
1046-96 The omiBsion of provisl<»8
not qualifying or affecting a provision
which is subject of suit does not pre-
sent a variance. Petershagen v. Star
Clothing Co., 188 Mo. App. 581, 176
S. W. 466.
1054-32 Darling v. Bradstreet (Me.),
93 A. 50; Young v. Slatington B. Mills,
56 Pa. Super. 134.
What tbe contract between the iNurtles
is, is a question for the jury. Wadin
V, Czuczka (Ariz.), 146 P. 491; Dar-
ling V, Bradstreet (Me.), 93 A. 50;
Auburn Shale Brick Co. v. Cowan Bldg.
Co. (Md.), 93 A. 443; Furness, Withy
& Co. V. Randall, 124 Md. 101, 91 A.
797.
1057-45 Clark v. J. R. Watkins
Medical Co. (Ark.), 171 S. W. 136;
Carroll t;. Cohen (Del.), 91 A. 1001;
Reif V. Commercial Cabinet Co., 185
111. App. 577; Furness, Withy & Co. r.
Randall, 124 Md. 101, 91 A. 797; Wald-
stein t\ Dooskin (Mass.), 107 N. B.
927; Foltmer 17. First Methodist £.
Church, 127 Minn. 129, 148 N. W.
1077; Marshall v, Sackett & Wilhelms
Co., 166 App. Div. 141, 151 N. Y. S.
1045; City Messenger & Del. Co. v. Pos-
tal Tel. Co. (Or.), 145 P. 657.
1050-46 Blocher v. Mayer Bros. Co.,
127 Minn. 241, 149 N. W. 285; KieburU
t7. Seattle, 84 Wash. 196, 146 P. 400.
See Wenzel v. Kieruj (Mich.), 151 N.
W. 641.
1061-53 Young «. Slatington B.
Mills, 56 Pa. Super. 134.
Whether facts offered come within pxo-
vislon of contract. — Where in the con-
struction of a contract a legal principle
is not involved but simply a determina-
tion as to whether facts offered in evi-
dence come within the provision of the
contract legally construed, it is a ques-
tion of fact and must be submitted to
the jury. Tomasek v, Edwardsville,
183 111. App. 493.
1064-69 Darling v. Bradstreet (Me.) ,
93 A. 50; Harrison v. Dickerson (N.
J. L.), 93 A. 718.
1064-70 Ferguson v. Christensen
(Colo.), 147 P. 352; Waits t. Shoe-
maker & Co., 50 Mont. 264, 146 P.
736.
1066-75 International Text-Book Ce.
610
INDICTMENT AND INFORMATION
Vol. 12
V, Martin (MasB.), 108 N. E. 469. See
Vaughan t;. Perry (Ga.), 84 S. E. 541.
10B6-76 Carroll v. Cohen (Del.), 91
A, 1001.
1068-90 Clark v. J. R. Watkins
Medical Co. (Ark.), 171 S. W. 136.
INOOMFETENTS
14-2 The Btatns of a spendthrift does
not continue after the person appointed
guardian ceases to hold that office. Sul-
livan 17. Lloyd (Mass.), 108 N. £. 923.
On account of profligacy merely, inter-
diction is not allowed. Interdiction of
Gasquet, 136 La. 957, 68 S. 89.
17-34 A brother of the spendthrift,
who brought the petition upon which
a guardian was appointed, is a party
aggrieved by a decree accepting the
resignation of the guardiaxf. Sullivan
I?. Lloyd (Mass.), 108 N. E. 923.
INBSMinTY
29-49 Venue. — ^Farmers' S. Bank v.
Equitable Fed. & T. Guar. Co. (S. D.),
152 N. W. 512.
31-66 Harrison v. Douglas (Ga.
App.), 85 S. E. 970, petition sufficient.
INDIANS
38-13 Kitto r. S. (Neb.), 152 N. W.
380.
39-22 Thompson v. Hi^l (Okla.), 150
P. 203.
After action of conunissioa and secre-
tary on allotment. — Courts of equity
have jurisdiction, after the Commission
to the Five Civiliised Tribes and the
secretary of the interior have exercised
their powers and exhausted their juris-
diction, to determine whether by error
of law, or through fraud or gross mis-
take of fact, the Commission or the
secretary has failed to allot land in
the Cherokee Nation to the citizen,
who, under the law and the treaties,
was entitled to the same. Thomas t\
Glenn (Okla.), 150 P. 887; Harnage
V. Martin, 40 Okla. 341, 136 P. 154.
40-26 P. t?. Becker (N. Y.), 109 N.
E. 116.
40-29 Kitto !?. S. (Neb.), 152 N. W.
380.
The crime of assault by an allottee In-
dian upon another allottee Indian, com-
mitted within the limits of an Indian
reservation, not being reserved to the
jurisdiction of the federal courts, is
within the jurisdiction of a state court.
Kitto r. S. (Neb.), 152 N. W. 380.
45-71 That an allotment certificate
had been issued at the time of the
commencement of the action must be
shown. Thompson V. Hill (Okla.), 150
P. 203.
INBIOTMENT AND INFOBMATIOK
93-16 8. V. Pullerton Lumber Co. (S.
D.), 152 N. W. 708.
114-14 In Missouri. — S. v. Teague
(Mo. App.), 176 S. W. 250, in cases
of felony only.
120-48 Where preliminary hearing
was held subsequently td convening of
term. — An information may be filed
during the term at which the prelim-
inary hearing was held. 8. r. Kilmer
(N. D.), 153 N. W. 1089.
144-90 Where the Information is
verified by the prosecuting attorney,
the affidavit of the prosecuting witness
is not required to be filed with it. 8.
V. Hobson (Mo.), 177 8. W. 374.
152-36 C. r. March (Pa.), 94 A. 142.
190-13 Bedtal held suflicient.— The
language, '*the grand jurors, duly im-
paneled and sworn . . . upon their
oath present,'' is not obnoxious to the
objection that it shows that only one
of the grand jurors were sworn. 8, v.
Ransburg, 137 La. — , 68 S. 737.
191-17 8. I?. Fullerton Lumber Co.
(8. B.), 152 N. W. 708.
192-24 Erroneous designation of of-
fense-—8. V. Bunch (Ark.), 177 8. W.
932.
199-64 An omission in the second
count of the words ''in the name and
behalf of the citizens of Georgia," is
not fatal on demurrer. Braxley v. 8.
(Ga.), 85 S. E. 888.
228-39 Banks r. 8. (Ala. App.), 69
8. 242.
220-43 Banks t\ 8. (Ala. App.), 69
8. 242.
240-98 In Tennessee, the code pro-
vides that the omission to endorse the
names of the witnesses upon the in-
dictment shall not invalidate the find-
ing of the indictment. Dietzel v. 8.
(Tenn.), 177 8. W. 47.
256-68 8. t?. Teague (Mo. App.), 176
8. W. 250.
611
Vol 12 INDICTMENT AND INFORMATION
2S8-8S Where not drawn under stat-
ute.—An information which does not
purport to have been drawn under any
particular statute but which concludes
contrary to the form of the statute is
sufficient. 8. v. Horner (S. D.), 153
N. W. 766. ^'
E^4of^ HiitfmAn V. S, (Ind.), 109 N.
273-47 S. V. Hobson (Mo.), 177 8.
W, Of 4.
302.73 Braxley v. 8. (Qa.), 88 8. B.
ooo.
^341 Blackwen v. S. ([Pla.), 68 8.
30e-S8 8. V. Cox, 136 La. 1008, 68
8. 107.
813-32 Blackwell v. 8. (Fla.), 68 8.
328-90 Bobinson i?. 8. (Fla.), 68 8.
320-93 Robinson v. 8. (Fla.), 68 8.
649; 8. t?. Mines, 137 La. — , 68 8. 837:
8. r. 8tovall (La.), 68 8. 741.
342-68 fl. 17. Horner (8. D.), 153 N.
W. 766.
346-79 Mark Tick Hee f?. U. 8. (C.
C. A.), 223 Fed. 732.
361-37 Mathews v. 8. (Ga. App.),
85 8. E. 284. ' ^^^'
388-25 Webb v. 8. (Fla.), 68 S.
943.
394-56 Webb v. 8. (Fla.), 68 S.
943.
399-11 8. r. Cameron (Ohio), 109
N. B. 584. V />
406^2 8. V. 8iegel (Mo.), 177 8. W.
353.
406-43 8. V. Siegel (Mo.), 177 8. W.
353.
409-62 Clark t?. C. (Ky.), 177 8. W.
251; Greer v. C, 164 Ky. 396, 175 8.
W. 665; Overstreet v. C, 147 Ky. 471.
144 8. W. 751.
415-93 8. r. Gremillion, 137 La. — ,
68 8. 615.
416-99 A charge that "heretofore,
on day of ," etc., sufficiently
shows the offense to have been com-
mitted before the filing of the informa-
tion. Taylor v. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 177 S.
W. 82.
429-95 Huffman v, 8. (Ind.), 109 N.
E. 401. '
4Sr-46 8. V. 8iegel (Mo.), 177 8. W.
353.
f ^f-49 8. V. DoremuB, 137 La. —,
68 8. 605; Robinson «. 8. (Miss.), 68
8. 249.
440-67 Huffman v. 8. (Ind.), 100 N.
£• 401.
441-64 Bnles of oommiBsloiier.— An
indictment charging a violation of the
quarantine rules of the commissioner of
agriculture should precisely designate
and identify the rule violated and
should set forth the rule in its exact
85TT'284^''*^^''' ""' ^' ^^''' ^^^'^'
442-77 Curtis v. 8. (6a. App.), 85
S^E. 980 (forgery); P. v. Ynskauskas
(HI.), 109 N. E. 319; 8. v. 8chwartz.
137 La. — , 68 8. 608; Taylor v. Si
(Tex. Cr.), 177 8, W. 82.
442-78 Manning «. 8. (Ga. App.),
85 8. E. 930; 8. v. Schwartz, 137 La.
— , 68 8. 608.
447-88 Armstead v. 8. (Okla. Cr.).
150 P. 511. ^'
450-92 8. V. Schwartz, 137 La. — .
68 8. 608; Armstead t\ 8. (Okla. Cr.).
150 P. 511. -*
459-26 Crowder v. 8. (Tex. Cr.).
177 8. W. 501.
462-33 Johnson f). 8. (Tex. Cr.), 177
8. W. 490.
480-60 Simmons e. 8. (Miss.), 68 S.
913; 8. «. Homer (8. D.), 163 N. W.
766.
487-04 8. V. Horner (8. D.), 153 N.
W. 766; Bunker i?. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 177
8. W. 108.
495-34 Where not Jointly charged la
the Information. — A person arrested
two days after the arrest and commit-
ment of two others may be indicted
jointly with them although the infor-
mation against hira did not in so many
words charge him as a joint offender,
where the descriptions of the offense
are substantially identical as to time,
place and nature. C. v. Trembley, 59
Pa. Super. 182.
499-52 Lewellen «. U- 8. (C. C. A.),
223 Fed. 18; 8. tJ. JarreU (W. Va,), 85
S. E. 525.
601-54 8. r. Jarrell (W. V^.), 85
8. E. 525.
601-56 Johnson t?. 8. (Tex. Or.),
177 8. W. 490.
507-78 8. V, Burk (Mo. App.), 176
8. W. 487; 8. I?. JarreU (W. Va.), 85
8. E. 525. '
612
INFANTS
Vol. 12
515-3 Bell V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 177 8. W.
966.
520-18 ZJinltittioxi as to nmnber of
counts.— §215 of the Criminel Code of
the United States imposes no restric-
tion as to the number of counts an
indictment may contain. Stern v. United
States (C. C. A.), 223 Fed. 762.
581-47 Bash <?. 8. (Ala. App.), 69
8. 239. ^^ '
536-68 Weeks v, 8. (Md.), 94 A. T74,
545-30 8. V. Anderson, 187 La. — ,
69 8. 167. '
561-60 8. V, Thompson, 137 La. — ,
68 8. 949, impossible date.
568-1 S. V, Schell (la.), 153 N. W.
62.
570-3 8. V, Schell (la.), 153 N. W.
62.
582-84 Assaolt with Intent to com-
mit Urofloy from the person is included
within the offense of assault with in-
tent to rob. .8. V, Schell (la.), 153 N.
W. 62.
598-9 8. V. ScheD (la.), 153 N. W.
62.
616-52 Shiver v, S. (Ala. App.), 69
8. 238.
633-32 8. V. Taylor (N. D.), 153 N.
W. 981. ^
651-47 But see 8. t?. Jarrell (W.
Va.), 85 8. E. 525, by statute.
665-18 .8. 1?. Fullerton Lumb. Co. (8.
D.), 152 N. W. 708, omission of defend-
ant's name from title of cause.
667-20 GUes v. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 177
fi. W. 1167.
671-48 Weeks r. 8. (Md.), 94 A.
774.
672-53 Weeks v, 8. (Md.), 94 A.
774, not the subject of an appeal.
INDXJOSMEMT
720-17 Pecos & N. T. B. Co. v, Amar-
rUlo St. By, Co. (Tex. Civ.), 171 8. W.
1103.
iNPAirrs
735-5 Simmons v, Arnim (Tex. Civ.),
172 8. W. 184.
774-42 Holton v. Rogers (Ala.), 67
S. 1004.
790-24 Tenns cannot be imposed on
the opening of a default judgment
against an infant. Stern v, Bechnitz,
152 N. y. 8. 976.
792-42 When it if apparent that a
defendant sued as an adult is a minor,
he may take advantage of the defect
by an appeal or writ of error in the
nature of an appeal. Kelly v. Kelly
(Tex. Civ.), 178 S. W. 686.
795-57 Hays v. Wicker, 161 Ky.
706, 171 8. W. 447.
797-66 An appeal f^m an ordor of
support. has the effect only of a cer-
tiorari and therefore the appellate
court is restricted to an examination
of the record. C. r. Palmer, 59 Pa.
Super. 307.
798-70 Where curator Is without
authority. — A statute forbidding courts
to stay, reverse, or impair judgments
in favor of infants merely because the
infant appeared by attorney only is
broad enough to reach a case where
the appearance by curator was un-
authorized. Bobinson v. Hood, 67 Mo.
660; Thomas v. St. L., etc. By. Co., 187
Mo. App. 420, 173 8. W. 728.
805-30 Ex parte Price (Ala.), 68 8.
866.
807-45 That the court was satis-
fiod by the evidence of all the facts
averred which were necessary to sup-
port the decree need not be recited.
Ex parte Price (Ala.), 68 8. 866.
The evidence on which the order was
made need not be stated in the order.
Ex parte Price (Ala.), 68 S. 866.
808-55 At chambers. — ^An order of
sale and reinvestment which is granted
at chambers is void. Powell v. Hey-
man (Ga.), 85 8. £.891.
809-58 Simmons f?. Arnim (Tex.
Civ.), 172 8. W. 184.
811-63 When a petition is presented
in vacation, a minor does not become a
ward in chancery. Powell v. Heyman
(Ga.), 85 S. E, 891.
811-65 Simmons «. Arnim (Tex.
Civ.), 172 8. W. 184.
813-76 The mineral right in an in-
fant's land may be sold without selling
the surface. Simmons v. Arnim (Tex.
Civ.), 172 8. W. 184.
816-86 Comp. Walton Bank & Trust
Co. 1?. Glinn, 161 Ky. 60, 170 8. W.
511, under §491 of the code.
818-93 Holton v, Sogers (Ala.), 67
8. 1004, petition sufficient.
824-21 Maiden v. Stewart, 163 Ky.
551, 174 S. W. 5.
826-30 Maiden v. Stewart, 163 Ky.
613
Vol 12
INFANTS
551j 174 S. W. 5, unless the custody
of the fund is retained by the court.
837-96 Void sale.—Equity will not
confirm a void order of sale and re-
investment unless it is made to appear
that the rights of none of the parties
interested will be injured. Powell v.
Heyman (Ga.), 85 S. E. 891.
852-93 See Maiden v. Stewart. 163
Ky. 551, 174 S. W. 5.
861-57 Hayes v. Hayes (Ala.), 68
8. 351.
863-68 Transferring cause ftom dx-
colt court. — The statute in Kentucky
makes no provision for a transfer to
a county court of a proceeding begun
by indictment in the circuit court. It
lies exclusively with the county court
to determine whether a juvenile offend-
er shall be treated as a delinquent child
or a felon; the circuit court has no
power to determine such a question and
should dismiss the case instead of or-
dering it transferred. C. v. Franks
(Ky.), 175 S. W. 349.
863-69 Simultaneotui Jurisdiction ol
suit Involving custody. — "The juvenile
court and the court in which a suit in
separation from bed and board is pend-
ing between the parents of a child may
have simultaneous, though not concur-
rent, or conflicting jurisdiction of the
custody of the child; that of the
juvenile court to be exercised as be-
tween the state, or so to speak, the
child, and the parents of the child; and
that of the other court to be exer-
cised as between the two parents."
8. 17. McCloskey, 136 La. 739, 67 8.
813.
864-73 Ex parte Bartee (Tex. Cr.),
174 S. W. 1051.
Not penal act. — Ex parte Bartee (Tex.
Cr.), 174 8. W. 1051.
In the nature of guardianship proceed-
ing.— Ex parte Bartee (Tex. Cr.), 174
fi. W. 1051.
864-76 In Texas, the statute author-
izes a child to be proceeded against
upon complaint duly filed. If an in-
dictment is returned charging him with
an offense, it may be dismissed and pro-
ceedings had upon complaint. But the
returning of an indictment is not neces-
sary to authorize placing of a child in
a training school. Ex parte Bartee
(Tex. Cr.), 174 8. W. 1051.
870-0 Notice to the parents of an
application to modify a judgment af-
fecting custody of a child is not juris-
dictional although it is the proper and
better practice to notify them of the
application. Stoker I7. Gowans (Utah).
147 P. 911. '
873-34 Presence of chlld^-In Stoker
V. Gowans (Utah), 147 P. 911, the
court when discussing the hearing had
before the modification of a judgment
rendered under the juvenile act, said
that although it is permitted by statute
that evidence be taken in the absence
of the child, "and no doubt, in many
instances it may be necessary to do
so, yet it were better if it can be done
that the children, especially those over
the age of ten years, were permitted
to be present and to be heard in their
own defense respecting their custody,
conduct and control."
Presence of parents. — ^At a hearing had
before the modification of a judgment
affecting the custody of « juvenile, the
parents or guardian should be permitted
to be present. Stoker «. Gowans
(Utah), 147 P. 911.
876-62 Under a law providing for a
child's detention for an indeterminate
period of not more than ^ve years, a
judgment sentencing a child for an in-
determinate period of not less than two
nor more than five years is not void but
merely irregular. Ex parte Bartee
(Tex. Or.), 174 8. W. 1051.
876-64 Stoker v, Gowans (Utah),
147 P. 911.
878-68 Ex parte Bartee (Tex, Cr.),
174 8. W. 1051.
Orders of a chancellor in regard to the
custody of the child are interlocutory
in nature and not appealable. They
may be reviewed in mandamus pro-
ceedings, however. Hayes v. Hayes
(Ala.), 68 S. 351.
878-69 Ex parte Bartee (Tex. Cr.),
174 8. W. 1051.
878-71 Stoker v. Gowans (Utah),
147 P. 911.
880-76 Application to court for dis-
charge.— ^If for any cause the child
should no longer be held as a delin-
quent, he or any one in interest act-
ing in his behalf may apply to the
juvenile court for a modification of the
judgment and a determination of the
right of his custody. The court can
order a hearing upon the application
and modify its former judgment in ac-
cordance with the facts, and if the
614
INJUNCTIONS
Vol 12
court refuses to act in accordance With
the facts or deprives the parent, custo-
dian or guardian of any rights (in the
case of a married female, this may per-
haps include the husband), an appeal
may be taken. Stoker v, Gowans
(Utah), 147 P. 911.
880-78 See McCallen v. S. (Tex. Cr.),
174 8. W. 611, construing Texas stat-
utes.
880-82 Stoker v, Gowans (Utah),
147 P. 911.
ZNFOSliATIOir AND BELIEF
006-7S Cotporate existence of a na-
tional bank is a matter of record and
therefore cannot be denied on informa-
tion and belief. First Nat. Bank v.
Walker (Ida.), 148 P. 46,
IMHEBITANOE
039-20 In re Stacey's Est., 89 Misc.
88, 152 N. Y. S. 717.
003-86 AU leasee for years are, by
§2672, N. Y. Code Civ. Proc, declared
to be personal property. ''All such
leases and all rights thereunder are to
go to and belong to the personal rep*
resentative, and this includes covenants
contained in such instrument, whether
running with the land or otherwise.''
Walker v. Bradley, 89 Misc. 516, 153
N. Y. S. 686.
004-2 Walker 9. Bradley, 89 Misc.
516, 153 N. Y. S. 686.
065-3 Walker v, Bradley, 89 Misc.
516, 153 N. Y. S. 686.
007-20 Hatch v. Hatch (XTtah), 148
P. 433.
071-60 Longpre v. Diaz, 237 U. &
512, 35 Sup. Ct. 731.
INJX7NOTION8
[I-II]
000-13 Cartwright v. Warren (Tex.
Civ.), 177 S. W. 197.
615
SUPPLEMENTAL FORMS
TO
STANDARD
PROCEDURE
ABATEMENT
TO
INJUNCTIONS
(Vols. 1-12)
EXPLANATORY NOTE
The incorporation in Standard Procedure of numerous forms in the
notes under the several titles, for the purpose of illustrating the text
as well as serving the convenience of the practicing lawyer, proved to
be so helpful that it was considered desirable to enlarge upon this
feature as much as possible. To that end a volume (Vol. 9) was de-
voted entirely to Forms. But it is obviously impossible for one volume
to contain anything like a complete collection of procedural forms.
In further pursuance of the purpose to make this feature of Standard
Procedure as useful as possible, it has been deemed advisable to in-
corporate in this Supplement additional forms relating to the titles
found in the first twelve volumes, with proper cross-references. As
the work progresses other additional forms will be included under the
titles yet to be published, so that with the completion of the work a
representative set of forms will be available, which will cover or be
readily adaptable to most cases with which a lawyer is likely to be
confronted.
SUPPLEMENTAL FORMS
TO
STANDARD PROCEDURE
(Vols. 1-12)
ABATEMENT, FI.EA8 OF
[See 9 Standard Pboc. 1.]
Variance Between Writ and Declar-
ation.
Now comes the said
ant herein, by
defend-
- his attorney,
and defends the wrong (or force, if in
trespass) and injury, when, etc., and
prays jadgment of the said writ and
declaration, because he says that the
said writ is in (here state form of ac-
tion) and his said declaration is In
(here state form of declaration and also
other matter of variance) and this the
defendant is ready to verify by the
record.
Wherefore defendant prays judgment
of the said wfit and declaration and
that the same may be quashed.
Bankmptcy Pnls Darrien Continuance.
And now on, to-wit, the day
of , 19 — , comes the defend-
ant in the above entitled action, by his
attorney, by leave of court first had
and obtained in this behalf, and for a
further plea herein says: that the plain-
tiifs ought not further to have or main-
tain their aforesaid action against him
the said defendant, because he says that
after the last pleading in this cause, to-
wit, on the day of ,
19--, this defendant was and had been
continuously during the six months
next preceding said day of
, 19 — , an actual resident of
the county of and state of
in the district of ,
division thereof; that on the
last mentioned day this defendant was
duly adjudged a (voluntary) bankrupt
by and in tiie district court of the Uni-
ted States of America for the aaid divis-
ion of the said district, under the acts
of Congress of 1898 relating to bank:
ruptcy and the amendments thereto;
that afterwards on, to-wit: the
day of , 19 — , the said district
court of the United States of America
granted to this defendant a certain
discharge in the words and figures fol-
lowing, to-wit: (insert copy of dis-
charge).
And the defendant further says that
the several supposed causes of action
in the plaintiff's said declaration set
forth are, and each of them is, in re-
spect of debts and claims, by the said
acts of Congress, and the amendments
thereto, made provable against the es-
tate of this defendant and which ex-
isted on the said day of
, 19: — , and the said supposed
causes of action are not, nor is any
one of them in respect of any such
debt or debts as are by said act and
the amendments thereto exempt from
the operation of said discharge in bank-
ruptcy.
Wherefore the defendant prays judg-
ment of the said writ and declaration
and that the same may be quashed.
Kon-Joinder of Plaintiff's Guardian.
Now comes the defendant and de-
fends the wrong (or force, if in tres-
pass) and injury, when, etc., and says
that heretofore on, to-wit, the — —
day of , 19 — , at a session of
the honorable
court holden
within and for the county (or district)
of y state of , the said
plaintiff A. was adjudged an insane
person (or state other incapacity) and
one B., of — — — in said county of
, was duly appointed his guard-
ian and that afterwards on the
ABATEMENT, PLEAS OF
day of
-, 19—, said B.
accepted said appointment and duly
qualified as such guardian and entered
upon the duties of said guardianship,
and at the time of the commeneemeiit
of this suit and service of said writ
the said B. was and ever since has
been and still is guardian of said A.,
and his appointment as guardian afore-
said was not at said time nor ever
has beeiL revolted, apnalled or set aside
but eT*r since haa remained and still
remains in force. And this the said
defendant is ready to verify by the
record.
Wherefore inasmuch as the plaintiff
has sued out the writ and declaration
thereon in his own name and not by
his guardian as aforesaid the said de-
fendant prays judgment of the afore-
said writ and declaration and that the
same may be quashed, and for his
costs.
Another Action Pending as to Pigct of
Amount GLaiaMl
The defendant further answering
says that as to the matters alleged in
the eount of plaintiff's said
declaration (or complaint) he the said
plaintiff ought not further to have and
maintain his aforesaid action therefor
against defendant because he alleges
that a\ the commencement of this ac-
tion there was and now is another ac-
tion pending in the ■■■■■ ■■■■" court in
and for the county of -— ^— - in this
state, between the same parties as in
this -action and for the same cause as
that set forth in the said ■ ' »■
count of the plaintiff's declaration (or
complaint) herein.
Action Prematiuely Brought
Now comes the defendant in the
above entitled action and prays judg*
ment of the plaintiff's said writ and
declaration and that the same may be
qnashed, because he says that at the
time of the commencement of the plain-
tiff's said action for the recovery of
said debt, the same wa« not due, inas-
much as (here state the fact showing
that debt was not due at that time) and
this the defendant is ready to verify:
Wherefore he prays Judgment of said
writ and declaration and that the same
may be quashed.
OamiiOmiont in Another State.
The defendant answering the com-
plaint herein alleges that by the
laws of the state of , viz:
(here cite the foreign law) it is pro-
vided as follows (her^ set forth provis-
ions as to garnishment relied upon);
that the defendant is a resident of said
state.
That on or about the
day of , 1ft — , and prior to the
commencement of this action, one, A.
B., began an action in said state of
■ ■ ■ , in the ■ eourt against
the plaintiff herein upon a claim alleged
by said A. B. to be and which was due
and owing by the plaintiff to said A.
B. amounting to dollars; that
such proceedings were had in said ac-
tion; that on said day a writ of gar-
nishment was duly issued by said court,
and the sheriff of the county of
in said state duly garnished and levied
upon any and all debts or claims what-
soever possessed by the plaintiff against
this defendant, including the alleged
claim in this action; that said action
is still pending and said garnishment
and levy are in full force and effect.
Wherefore, etc.
Plaintiff ITot tho Beal Partj in Xntanst
— ^Provioiu Aaaignmont.
(Begin as in preceding form.) That
before the commencement of this ac-
tion the said plaintiff assigned and
transferred all his right, title and in-
terest in said alleged claim and cause
of action in said complaint set forth
to one C. D., and that said 0. D. there-
after was and until after the commence-
ment of this action continued to be
the sole owner and holder of eaid al-
leged claim and cause of action and
was and is the refd party in interest
therein. Wherefore, etc.
Kon-Joindar of Co-obligor.
(Begin as in preceding form.) That
the supposed contract (or bond or other
cause of action) mentioned in the plain-
tiff's said complaint, if any such waa
made, was made with the plaintiff by
the defendant and one A. B. jointly
(and if partners, add as partners under
the firm name and style of A. B. k Co.) ;
that said A. B. is still living and la
within the state of , to wit, at
— ' , in the county of — , and
within reach of the ordinary proceaa
of this court. Wherefore, etc.
ABDTXOnOK
[See 9 Staitdabd Pboo. 4; aUo 1 BtASD-
AKD Paoc. 83, 86, 88.]
ACCORD AND SATISFACTION
ABORTION
[See 9 Btandabd Pboc. 5.]
dvll Action for Oanslxig MlscaarrUge of
Plaintiff's Daughter.
Catherine Arnold of Warwick, in the
county of Kent, complains of William
H. Gaylord of Pawtucket, in the county
of Providence (in the custody of the
sheriff if under arrest) in an action of
trespass on the case; for that whereas
heretofore, to-wit, on the day
^f , 1» — , and on divers other
days and times after that day and be-
fore the commencement of tliis suit, to-
wit, at said Pawtucket, the defendant,
contriving and wrongfully and unlaw-
fully intending to injure the plaintiff
and deprive her of the comfort, society
and service of Catherine Arnold, her
daughter and servant, did wrongfully,
wilfully and unlawfully use a certain
instrument, by then and there forcing,
thrusting, and inserting the said instru-
ment into the womb and privates of
the (or^did wrongfully, wilfully and un-
lawfully administer a certain noxious
drug to) said Catherine Arnold, she be-
ing a woman then and there pregnant
with child, with intent and for the pur-
pose of procuring, and did by so forc-
ing and thrusting and inserting said in-
strument as aforesaid, or by adminis-
tering said noxious drug as aforesaid)
procure the miscarriage of the said
Catherine Arnold. By reason whereof
the said Catherine Arnold became mor-
tally sick, weak and disordered in her
body, of which sickness, weakness and
disorder aforesaid the said Catherine
Arnold on and from, to-wit, the — — ^
^ay of , 19 — f did languish and
languishing did live until, to-wit, the
day of — — , 19 — , when
she died, and by reason thereof she,
the plaintiff, lost and was deprived of
the fellowship, society, assistance and
service of her said daughter and serv-
ant as aforesaid, and also by means of
the said several premises she, the plain-
tiff, was forced and obliged to and did
pay, lay out and expend divers large
sums of riioney, to-wit, dol-
lars, in and about the nursing and tak-
ing care of the said Catherine Arnold,
her said daughter and servant, and in
and about the burial of her remains,
to the damage of the plaintiff as she
says (ten thousand) dollars. Based on
Amol3 u. Gaylord, 16 B. I. 573, 18 Atl.
177.
AO0B8SOBIS8 AMI) A000MFU0B8
[See 9 Stakdabd Paoo. 5.]
Indictaieiit of Aeeawcvy Wliere Princi-
pal l8 Unknown.
And the jurors, etc., on their oath
present, that some person or persons to
the jurors aforesaid unknown, on the
day of f 19—, at
-, in the county of
with force and arms, the store building
of 1 — ^ did then and there breaJt
and enter, in the night time of said
day, with the intent then and there to
commit the crime of larceny and (here
describe property stolen) then and there
being of the value of dollars,
of the property, goods and chattels of
, did then and there in said
building feloniously steal, take and
carry away contrary to the form of the
statute in such case made and provided,
and against the peace and dignity of
the btate.
And the jurors aforesaid, on their
oath aforesaid, do further present, that
John Doe and Bichard Boe, late of
aforesaid, in the county afore-
said, before the said felony and burg-
lary and breaking and entering said
building with said intent was commit-
ted in form and manner aforesaid, to-
wit, on the ■ day of ,
18 — , at aforesaid, in the
county aforesaid, did feloniously and
maliciouslr counsel, hire, move, incite,
command, and in other ways procure
said person, or persons, to the jurors
aforesaid unknown, so breaking and en-
tering said building with said intent,
the said felony and burglary and break-
ing and entering said building with
said intent in manner and form afore-
said, to do and commit; and became
and were then and there thereby ac-
cessories thereto, to-wit, to said fel-
ony and burglary and breaking and
entering said building with said in-
tent, before the fact, contrary to the
statute in such case made and provided
and against the peace and dignity of
the state. Based on Com. v. Glover, 111
Mass. 396.
AOOOBD AND gATUKF ACTION
[See 9 STiLNDAKu Proc. 7.]
Answer of Accord and Satisfaction.
That on the
day of
»■ !■
19 — , the plaintiff agreed to accept in
full satisfaction of the claim sraed
upon, the' promissory note of the de-
ACCORD AND SATISFACTION
fendant (with sureties) for the amount
of dollars, and payable on or
before the day of ,
19 — ; and that thereupon the defend-
ant executed said note to the plaintiff,
and the plaintiff accepted the same in
full satisfaction of the claim sued upon
herein.
Making and Performance of Kew Con-
tract.
Comes now the defendant in fhe
above entitled cause and for answer to
the complaint (or petition) herein says
(or alleges): that the defendant on, to-
wit, the day of '• — ,
19 — , entered into a contract with the
plaintiff whereby the defendant agreed
to (here state in substance the terms
of the new contract); the performance
of which last mentioned agreement (or
contract) the plaintiff agreed to accept
in full satisfaction and discharge of
the defendant's promises and undertak-
ings in the plaintiff's said declaration
mentioned; that on, to- wit, the
day of , 19 — , the defendant,
in pursuance of said first mentioned
agreement, did (here state the manner
of performance of the new contract);
by reason whereof the defendant be-
came then and there and was released
and discharged, etc. (continue as in pre-
ceding form).
Payment to the Plaintiff's Cfredltor.
(Begin as in preceding form.) Be-
cause he says, that on, to-wit, the
day of , 19 — , and be-
fore the commencement of this action,
the plaintiff was justly indebted to one,
A. B. in the sum of dollars;
that on, to-wit, th* last mentioned day
and date an agreement was entered into
between the said plaintiff and this de-
fendant whereby this defendant agreed
to pay or cause to be paid the said
A. B. the sum of dollars, the
amount due and owing from the plain-
tiff herein to the said A. B.; and it
was then and there further agreed by
and between the plaintiff and this de-
fendant that in consideration of the
payment of the said sum of
dollars by this defendant to said A. B.,
as aforesaid, this defendant should be
wholly released and discharged from
the said several promises and undertak-
ings in the plaintiff's said declaration
mentioned, and also of and from all
sums of money thereupon due, owing, or
accrued. And the defendant further
says that in reliance upon said last
mentioned agreement he did afterward!
on, to-wit, the — -^— day of ,
19-—, in pursuance of said agreement,
pay to the said A. B. the sum oi
dollars, the sum in said agree-
ment mentioned as due and owing
from the plaintiff to said A. B., and
the said A. B. then and there accepted
said sum of ' dollars from this
defendant at and for payment for and
on behalf of said plaintiff to said A. B.,
hy^ reason whereof and according to the
tenor and effect of said agreement lie
the said defendant became and then
and there was wholly released and dis-
charged from said several promises and
undertakings in the plaintiff's said
declaration mentioned and also of and
from all damages or sums of money
thereupon due, owing, or accrued. And
this the defendant is ready to verify.
Wherefore he prays judgment, if the
plaintiff ought to have and maintain
his aforesaid action thereof against
him, etc.
Pnis Dazrein Oonttnniince^
And now on, to-wit, the — ^— -
day of f 19 — , comes the de-
fendant in the above entitled action by
his attorney, by leave of court first
had and obtained in this behalf; and
for a further plea herein says, that the
plaintiff ought not to further have and
maintain his aforesaid action against
him the said defendant, because he says
that after the last pleading in this
cause, to-wit, on the day of
-, 19^, this defendant delivered
to the said plaintiff the promissory
note of B.. C. for dollars (or
here state the means of accord and sat-
isfaction).
That the plaintiff accepted the same
in full satisfaction of the costs and
damages in his said action demanded.
Wherefore, etc.
AOCOXJKT AND ACOOTTNTINa
[See 9 Standard Proc. 8.]
Complaint against administrator or
executor for money held hy decedent
%n trust, see Executors and Adicinis-
TRATORS.
Complaint hy minority stockholders
against directors for accounting, ete^,
see Corporations.
Executor or administrator, hy,
Decedents' Estates.
ACCOUNT AND ACCOUNTING
BUI for Accoimtlng Among Oo-tenaata
of an Oil and Gas Lease.
In the above entitled action the
plaintiff complains and alleges:
I^rst. That he is an owner of an
undivided one-third interest in and to
a certain oil and gas lease; that said
lease was made on the day of
• , 19 — , by A. B. to the plain-
tiff and C. D. and E. F. as tenants in
common and grants to them as lessees
the privilege of mining for oil and gas
on (here describe premises leased) for
a period of years from the
date thereof, or as long as oil or gas
are produced in paying quantities; that
in said lease the said lessees agree to
drill two wells on said lands within one
year from the date of said lease, and
agree to give the lessor a fixed propor-
tion of the oil produced, a stipulated
price for each gas well and a bonus of
dollars (or whatever the
terms of the lease grant).
Second. That the defendants and the
plaintiff have taken possession and
have drilled and completed two wells,
both of which are producing oil at the
' rate of ■ barrels per day and
at the time of filing this bill,
barrels of oil have been produced and
run into the pipe line tanks.
Third. That no understanding or ar-
rangements have been made between
himself and his co-tenants as regards
the expense of drilling said wells, and
that no division has ever been signed
by them and filed with the pipe line
company for the oil that has been run
into the tank and that hereafter may
be run into the company's lines.
Fourth. That he was not a party to
the contract made with the person who
drilled said wells, said contract having
been made by G. D. and the defend-
ants herein; that said contractors
have *not been paid and that the con-
tractor who drilled the first well has
issued a foreign attachment against
said C. D. and E. F. and attached their
interest in all machinery and oil in and
about said leasehold and oil run into
the pipe line of said company.
Fifth. That he has already contrib-
uted to his share of the expense of
procuring said lease and drilling and
operating said wells upon sai4 lease-
hold the sum of dollars and is
ready and willing to pay his full pro-
portionate share of the expenses of
operating said leasehold.
Sixth. That his, the plaintiff's in-
terests, are being jeopardized by the
defendants in their manner of operat-
ing said leasehold and refusing to pay
their contractors.
Seventh. That said C. D. and E. F.
have sold barrels of oil run
from said wells without this plaintiff's
consent and have failed to render any
account to him or give any account of
the use to which said money was
placed. Wherefore the plaintiff prays
that the court may decree:
I. The proportionate interest of each
of said co-tenants in said leasehold,
machinery, and oil produced from said
leased premises.
II. To account between the parties.
ITT. That a division order may be
made in accordance with the propor-
tionate share of each owner, and such
other and further relief as may be
just. Based on Smiley v, Galla^er,
164 Pa. 498, 30 Atl. 713.
Complaint Against Promoters of Cor-
poration for Accounting for Profits
Secretly Derived From Sale of Land
to the Corporation.
■ ■
(Title and venue.)
The plaintiff in the above entitled
action complains and alleges:
That at all the times hereinafter men-
tioned the plaintiff was and still is a
corporation, duly organized and exist-
ing under and by virtue of the laws
of the state of .
The articles of incorporation bear-
ing date of day of ,
19 — , stated that the object of said
corporation is to acquire and hold a
certain tract of land (here describe the
tract) and other tracts from time to
time, for the pun>ose of mining thereon
for oil, gas and other minerals, and
the principal office of said corporation
is at , state of .
That one A. B. was the owner in
fee of the first above described tract
of land, and on the ■ day of
-, 19 — , said A. B. made an
agreement of sale or a land option with
the defendants C. D. and E. F. ac-
cording to the terms whereof said 0.
D. and E. F. were given the right to
purchase all of said A. B. 's title and
interest in said described tract of land
for the sum of dollars.
That, as the plaintiff is informed and
believes, the defendants O. D. and E. F.
thereupon prepared an agreement in
writing which provided in effect that
the signers thereof should pay the sums
set opposite their respective names to-
ACCOUNT AND ACCOUNTING
wards th« purchase price of said de-
Bcribed' tract at the price of ' ■ '*
dollars.
That, as said plaintiff is informed
and believes, said' defendants O. D. and
E. F. thereupon proceeded to procure
signatures to said agreement, and in
order to induce subscription to said
agreement, represented to all the sign-
ers thereof and to aU persons who be-
came and now are stockholders in said
corporation, the plaintiff herein, that
the purpose of forming said corpora-
tion was primarily to acquire and hold
said above described tract as above set
forth, and falsely represented to said
persons that said premises or tract of
land was cheap at the price of
dollars, and that they, the said B. C.
and C. B., were themselves desirous
of becoming stockholders in said cor-
poration, and that they, said defend-
ants, would subscribe to said stock for
said purpose, and falsely represented
that the price asked by said A. B., the
owner of said tract of land, for said
premises, was the sum ol ' ■
dollars to be paid as follows, viz. (here
describe method and terms of pay-
ment); and further falsely represented
that said defendants C. I>. and £. F.
would make no profit out of said sale
to said corporation plaintiff, except as
members and stockholders thereof; and
represented that they desired to secure
enough signers of said agreement and
enough subscribers to said stock of said
proposed corporation, together with the
amount of their own subscription, to
make up the sum of dollars,
the amount falsely represented by them
as the purchase price of said tract of
land from said A. B.
That the defendants concealed from
all persons to whom such representa-
tions were made and all persons who
by reason of their said subscriptions
became stockholders In said corpora^
tion, that said premises could be
bought for a less sum than — ^— —
dollars, and concealed from all such
persons that said defendants O. B. and
£. F. would make or intended to make
any profit Whatever out of said land
except such as might accrue to them
as stockholders in said corporation.
That by reason of said false repre-
sentations as made by the defendants,
as aforesaid, many and divers persons
were induced to sign said agreement
to take stock in said corporation and
thereby and by reason of said false
representation so made by pit defend-
ants as aforesaid, became and now ore
stockholders in said corporation and
were induced to and did become stoek-
holders, as aforesaid, in the belief that
no profit would be made out of the pur-
chase of said tract of land from A. B.,
except such as might be made by all
of said stockholders alike.
That on or about, to-wit, the — —
day of , 19 — , the said defend-
ants G. B. and E. F. Issued a eall in
writing to the signers of said agree-
ment asking for the payment in cash
of the amounts respeetirely subscribed
by them, and in pursuance of said call
the signers of said agreement there-
upon paid in cash the amount by them
respectively subscribed. ^
That on, to-wit, the ' ■ ■ ■ day
of ■ ■ . ■ , 19 — , the said defendants
C. B. and E. F. issued a call to the
subscribers to said agreement for a
meeting to complete the organization
of said corporation, and on the ■
clay of ' , 19 — , said meeting was
held and the organization of said cor-
poration was duly effected and com-
pleted under the laws of the state of
That at said first meeting of said
corporation the said C. B. and E. F.
procured themselves to be elected re-
spectively, president^ secretary and
treasurer of said corporation.
That thereupon and at the request of
said C. B. acting as president of said
corporation and said E. F. acting as
secretary and treasurer thereof, the
said A. B. executed and delivered to
the plaintiff a warranty deed of said
described tract of land falsely reciting
therein that the eonsideration of said
deed was the sum of ■' dollars,
when in truth and in fact the eon-
sideration for said deed was the sum
of dollars.
That said E. F. acting as secretary
and treasurer of said plaintiff corpora-
tion caused it to appear from the ledger
and cash book of the plaintiff that
' dollars in cash had been paid
to said A. B. for said warranty deed,
when in truth and in fact the sum of
' ' dollars was the only consid-
eration moving from the plaintiff to
Said A. B.; said false and fraudulent
entries were so made by the defendant
E. F. for the purpose of deceiving the
plaintiff and the stockholders of the
plaintiff, and concealing from them and
each of them that the said defendants
Cj B. and E. F. were making a secret
ACCOUNT AND ACCOUNTING
profit upon the purchase of said prop-
erty. , , _.
The plaintiff is informed and believes
that the plaintiff C. D, received as his
share of said secret profit the sum of
— — dollars, and that said E. F.
received as his share of said secret
profit the sum of dollars.
Wherefore the plaintiff demands judg-
ment against said defendants.
1. That they the said defendants
may account to and with the plaintiff.
2. That said defendants may be
ordered to restore to the plaintiffs such
moneys as may be found to have been
improperly received by them, and for
such other relief as may be just. Based
upon Fountain Spring Park Co. V. Rob-
erts, 92 Wis. 345, 349, 66 N. W. 399.
CJomplaint To Compel Guardian To Ac-
count After Termination of HiB
OnardiansMp.
The plaintiff complains of the defend-
ant and alleges:
That on the day of ,
19 — , thB defendant was duly appointed
the general guardian of the estate of
the plaintiff, then a minor, and there-
upon duly qualified and entered upon
the discharge of his duties as such
guardian and continued to be such
guardian until the day of
— , , 19 — , at which time your
plaintiff attained the age of twenty-
one years, thereby terminating said
guardianship.
That during the continuance of such
guardianship the said defendant, as
such guardian, had the care, custody
and management of the property and
estate of the plaintiff and in right
thereof as said guardian, received large
sums of money and other property
belonging to the plaintiff's said estate.
That during the continuance of said
guardianship the said defendant paid
out and expended divers sums of money
for the education and maintenance of
the plaintiff, as his said ward, but
plaintiff is informed and believes, and
therefore avers that the sums of money
and other property received by the de-
fendant as guardian, as aforesaid, were
far in excess of the sums expended by
him as said guardian in the education
and maintenance of the plaintiff as his
said ward.
That the defendant at the time of
the termination of said guardianship as
aforesaid had and still has large sums
of money and other property belonging
to the plaintiff, for which he has never
accounted.
That since the termination of said
guardianship, as aforesaid, the plaintiff
has on divers days and dates requested
the defendant to render an accounting
of his said guardianship which the de-
fendant, though often requested has
failed and still fails and refuses to
do.
Wherefore the plaintiff demands
judgment against the defendant.
1. That he may render an account
of his said guardianship.
2. That he may pay over to the
plaintiff all such sums of money and
other property as may be found to be-
long to the plaintiff and for such other
relief as may be just.
Report of Bef eree on Accounting.
To the (court, naming it).
The referee respectfully reports that
having himself first been duly sworn,
he was on the day of ,
19 — , attended by the said parties and
their attorneys at the ofice of
in
-, when the defendant herein
filed a statement hereto attached
marked **B'' and the plaintiff filed his
counter statement also hereto attached
marked "C." The defendant also pro-
duced his books of account, together
with the vouchers herewith filed
marked *'D."
And thereupon, as well the parties
as the witnesses by them respect-
ively produced, were severally sworn
by the referee and examined on oath
respecting the matters in controversy
in the presence of said parties and their
attorneys, the said examination being
commenced on the day aforesaid and
continued by adjournment to the next
day when the same was concluded (or
otherwise as the fact may be).
The referee then proceeded carefully
to consider the premises, and upon ex-
amination of the papers in the cause,
the books, statements and vouchers
constituting the written evidence in
the cause, and the oral testimony, as
well of the parties themselves as of
the other witnesses aforesaid, finds:
I. (Here state in detail the findings
of fact.)
n. I do further find (here state in
detail the further findings), etc.
All of which is respectfully submit-
ted.
Beferee.
8
ACCOUNT AND ACCOUNTING
days
Referee's fees for
each $ , paid by
Exceptions to Befexee's Beport.
The plaintiff (or defendant) excepts
to the report of the referee made and
returned in this case, upon the follow-
ing grounds:
I. (Here state ground of exception.)
II. And further because (here state
further grounds of exception), etc.
Wherefore plaintiff (or defendant)
asks that said report shall be set aside
and that said cause be referred to some
other referee.
Answer Tliat tbe Goo4s Were Destroyed
Withont Fault of Defendant.
The defendant in the above entitled
action for answer to the plaintiff's
complaint herein alleges:
That it is true that he, the said de-
fendant, had the care and managem.ent
of the goods described in the com-
plaint, said goods being entrusted to
him for the purpose of selling the same
at a profit to the plaintiff, and to ren-
der a reasonable account for the same
to the said plaintiff. Nevertheless the
defendant says that after the delivery
of the said goods, wares and merchan-
dise to the defendant, and before the
defendant could sell or otherwise dis-
pose of the same or any part thereof,
at a profit, said goods, wares and mer-
chandise were on, to-wit, the ■
day *of , 19 — , without any
neglect or default of the said defend-
ant, destroyed by (here set forth the
manner of destruction).
ACTIONS. — See Consolidation of Ac-
tions ; Dismissal, Discontinuance
and nonsittt; suits and actions.
ADjrOINma I.AND OWNERS
[See 9 Standard Proc. 16.]
Complaint for Backing up Water.
The plaintiff in the above entitled ac-
tion complains against the defendant
herein and alleges:
I. That before and at the time of
committing the wrongs hereinafter de-
scribed the plaintiff was the owner of
certain lands described as follows:
(here particularly describe the prop-
erty), through which the waters of a
certain stream known as ,
were ac customed to flow, and the plain-
tiff was and is entitled to the free and
unobstructed flow of said waters in the
channel of said stream below said prop-
erty.
n. That on the day of
, 19 — , the defendant erected
and has ever since maintained a cer-
tain dam across said stream below the
plaintiff's said property, and has there-
by, during that time, obstructed and
stopped the natural flow of water of
said stream and raised it feet
above its ordinary and natural level
and caused it to back up on the said
property of the plaintiff and flood the
same, whereby (here state the nature
of injury inflicted); all to the plain-
tiff's damage in the sum of
dollars. Wherefore, etc.
Complaint for Damages Cknsed liy Vi-
brating Machinery.
The plaintiff in the above entitled ac-
tion complains against the defendant
herein and alleges:
I. That, the plaintiff on the
day of , 19 — , and for a long
time prior thereto was and still is the
owner of a lot of land on ■
street, in (here briefly de-
scribe premises) on which there is and
was for a long time prior to said last
mentioned date a substantial house
and from which plaintiff derived a rev-
enue by renting.
IT. That on, to-wit, the >
day of , 19 — , the defendant
erected a power house and other build-
ings on the }ot adjoining the plaintiff's
said lot on the (north) and erected
and maintained said power house and
other buildings, and constructed and
erected and put in place large and pow-
erful engines and other machinery on.
said ground occupied by the defendant.
And ever since their construction and
erection the defendant has operated
said engines and machinery night and
day, and in so doing has caused con-
tinual loud noises and has caused a
shaking, reverberation, vibration and
quivering of the ground in the vicinity,
and especially of the said ground of the
plaintiff, and has caused a shaking,
reverberation, movement and disturb-
ance of said house of the plaintiff; and
by reason of said noises, shakings, re-
verberations, movement, and disturbance
of said ffround and house of the plain-
tiff, said house has been injured and
damaged making it necessary to repair
the same from time to time, and con-
tinually ever since the defendant con-
structed and erected said machinery as
aforesaid; and by reason and in conae-
ADJOINING LANDOWNERS
quenee of said shaking, movement and
disturbance of said house the plaintiff
has been compelled to expend and has
expended great sums of money in the
necessary repairs of said house, to-wit,
the sum of dollars.
And said shaking, reverberations and
movement of said house and the ground
on which it stands has cracked, weak-
ened and permanently injured and
damaged said house to the extent of
■ dollars; and that by reason
of the said wrongs of the defendant the
plaintiff has been unable to rent said
house except for a rental very much
less than it would have brought but
for said defendant's wrongdoing in the
premises, whereby the plaintiff has been
damaged in the further sum of
dollars. Wherefore, etc. Based on
Chamberlain r. Missouri Elec. L. & P.
Co., 158 Mo. 1, 57 S. W. 1021.
Complaint for Damages and Ihjimctioii
Against Proprietor of House of Pros-
titution.
In the above entitled action the plain-
tiff complains against the defendant
herein and alleges:
I. That the plaintiff is and at the time
of the commission of the wrongs and
injuries hereinafter mentioned was the
owner in fee in the following described
real property (description), which said
real property so owned by the plaintiff
lies and is located in the immediate
vicinity of the property hereinafter
described as being occupied and main-
tained by the defendant.
H. That said real property so
owned by the plaintiff as aforesaid is
situated in the residential portion of
the city of , state of ,
and is now occupied by the plaintiff
for residence purposes only and is suit-
able and valuable for residence pur-
poses only.
III. That the defendant was also at
the time of the commission of the
grievances hereinafter stated, and still
is, the owner and is possessed of cer-
tain other premises in the immediate
vicinity of the premises owned by the
plaintiff as aforesaid. The said prem-
ises 80 owned and occupied by the de-
fendant being described as follows, to-
wit (description).
rv. That on or about the
day of ' , 1© — , the defendant
erected and constructed upon said last
described premises a certain building
and immediately occupied, and has ever ^ ,
since and does now occupy, said build- 1 that the said improvements were oC
ing as a house of prostitution and for
the purpose of assignation and prostitu-
tion, and does therein maintain and
carry on said immoral practices and
maintain said house as a public resort
for immoral, lewd and obscene pur-
poses and as a house of prostitution
and assignation.
y. That at all times subsequent to
said day of , 19 — , de-
fendant's said premises have been and
are the resort at all times of lewd, im-
moral, and dissolute characters, both
male and female; that loud, offensive,
disorderly and unseemly behavior is
constantly abundant thereupon and as-
sails the sight and hearing of the plain-
tiff and his family and visitors at
all times both day and night.
VI. That defendant threatens to
and, unless restrained, will continue to
80 use said premises as aforesaid to
the irreparable damage of the plain-
tiff.
Vn. That by reason of the premises
the comfortable use and enjoyment of
the plaintiff's said property has been
and is end will be greatly interfered
with and destroyed; the said real prop-
erty of the plaintiff is rendered unsuit-
able and unsalable for residence pur-
poses and thereby greatly depreciated
and lessened in value, to the damage
of the plaintiff in the sum of ■
dollars.
Wherefore the plaintiff prays judg-
ment.
1. That the defendant be restrained
by injunction from maintaining or us-
ing said premises and the buildings
thereon as a house of prostitution or
for other immoral purposes to the in-
jury of the plaintiff, or permit them
to be so used.
2. That the plaintiff recover from
the defendant the sum of dol-
lars damages and the costs of this ac-
tion.
3. And for such further relief as
may be just. Based on Redway v,
Moore, 3 Idaho 312, 29 Pac. 104.
Action for Injury Caused by Negligent
Excavation of Adjoining Land.
That plaintiff at all times herein
mentioned was and now is the owner
in fee simple and entitled to the pos-
session of certain lots of land (here
describe the land), together with the
improvements thereon, consisting of
(here describe buildings and improve-
ments upon the lots); that the value of
said premises was dollars;
10
ADJOINING LANDOWNERS
the best character and descriptioiiy and
substantial and safe, and wholly free
from all the injurious effects, damages,
nuisances and results hereinafter set
forth.
That on or about, to- wit, the -^—
day of , 19 — , defendant en-
tered upon the lot or parcel of land
lying immediately to the (west) of
and butting upon and against the plain-
tiff's said property and the improve-
ments then and there situated thereon,
and excavated and dug out the soil and
ground to a very great depth, to-wit,
the depth of feet, down to
and under the foundations of plaintiff's
said buildings and improvements, and
the said excavation was dug close up
to and against the said buildings and
improvements, and was of great depth,
to-wit, the depth of feet, and
of great length, to-wit, the length of
feet, and of great width, to-
wit, the width of feet.
And the defendants kept and main-
tained the excavation or hole so made
as aforesaid, and in the place afore-
said for a long space of time, to-wit,
the space -of years then next
following, and by means and in conse-
quence of which the rains and surface
water and melting snow gathered and
accumulated in said excavation until
the said rain and surface water and
melting snow was of great depth, to-
wit, the depth of ■ feet, and
filled the entire size of said excavation
so that it became a lake or pond into
which all the water of the vicinity
drained and the water from said lake
0£ pond ran and flowed in, under and
through the foundation walls of the
plaintiff's said buildings; and by means
and in consequence of which flowing
and flooding, and also by means of the
freezing of said water which had run
and flowed in and under and through
said foundation walls, as aforesaid, the
foundation walls and other walls of
said buildings, were raised and heaved
and cracked and bulged and broken
and thrown out of plumb and destroyed,
and the foundation walls of said build-
ings were weakened so that said build-
ings became dangerous to live in; and
by means of the premises there were
many cracks made in the foundation
walls of said buildings and said walls
were broken and destroyed, and said
walls became bulged and thrown out
of plumb; and by means of the prem-
ises the doors and windows of said
buildings and the walls surrounding said
doors and windows were disarranged so
that they would not open or close, and
the plastering upon the walls and ceil-
ings of said buildings were broken and
cracked and destroyed, and many stones
in said buildings were broken and de-
stroyed and the roof upon said build-
ing was torn and broken so that the
water ran through and upon the said
buildings and greatly damaged and de-
stroyed the same; and by meana
of the premises said buildings and
walls were otherwise greatly de-
stroyed and injured; and by means
of the premises plaintiff was compelled
to lay out divers sums of money en-
deavoring to repair the loss and de-
struction as aforesaid, to-wit, the sum
of dollars; and by means of
the premises and the unsafe condition
of the buildings caused by the defend-
ant as aforesaid, the said plaintiff has
lost divers sums of money which he
otherwise would have collected as rents
from said premises, to-wit, the sum of
dollars. And the plaintiff
further avers that by reason of the
said several premises above set forth
the said property above described has
been greatly damaged and depreciated
in value and great loss of rents from
the said premises has accrued and been
suffered by plaintiff, and the said prop-
erty was otherwise greatly damaged
and injured, to-wit, to the amount of
dollars. "Wherefore, etc. Based
upon Garvy i;. Ooughlan, 92 111. App.
582.
Oomplaint for Damages From Blasting.
The plaintiff complains and alleges:
That during all the times hereinafter
mentioned the plaintiff was and ever
since has been and still is the owner
in fee simple and in possession of a
lot of land with a dwelling house there-
on described as follows: (here de-
scribe premises).
That at the time of doing the wrongs
hereinafter stated said dwelling house
was a frame and plastered building
with stone and brick foundation and
stone and brick chimneys, and occupied
by plaintiff as her dwelling house.
That said defendant, the city of Cin-
cinnati, through its board of trustees,
contracted with and employed the de-
fendant, W. J. G. Co., to excavate and
construct for said city a tunnel sup-
plying water to said city.
That said defendants made the ex-
cavations for and construction of said
tunnel along, through and under tii9
ADJOINING LANDOWNERS
11
ground ajj&ccnt to the said dwelling
house of the plaintiff.
That in the process of so doing said
defendants loosened and removed the
earth and rock hy means of blasts of
high power explosives. And that in so
doing the said defendants trespassed
upon and under, and broke into the
plaintiff's said land and dwelling house
with force and violence by means of
said explosions of great power and
frequency and in close proximity to
plaintiff's said dwelling house.
That the defendants thereby pro-
duced concussions and vibrations of the
earth and air and of the material of
plaintiff's said dwelling house. And the
defendants thereby caused the founda-
tions; walls, ceiling, chimneys, cistern,
vault, and window glass, of plaintiff's
said house to crack, break and fall, and
rendered said house unsafe for habita-
tion and untenantable and deprived
plaintiff of the use of said house.
And that said defendants by said ex-
plosions continued through day and
night caused terrifying and disturbing
noises and vibration of the ground and
air and dwelling house of the plaintiff
and deprived plaintiff and her family
of sleep and rest, and of the enjoyment
of her home and property, and thereby
caused }ier great inconvenience, dis-
comfort, suffering, injury, damage and
loss.
That the excavation for and con-
struction of said tunnel was entirely
within and under the management and
control of the defendants.
That by reason of the above described
acts of the defendants the plaintiff has
been damaged by said defendants in
the sum of dollars. Where-
fore, etc. Held sufficient in Louden v.
Cincinnati, 90 Ohio St. 144, 106 N. E.
970, L. E. A. (N. S.) 1915E, 356.
Note. — In some jurisdictions or un-
der some circumstances negligence is
the gist of the action and must there-
fore be alleged and proved. See the
title "Injuries to Persons and Prop*
orty;" and notes in L. B. A. (N. S.)
1915E, 356; 27 L. B. A. (N. S.) 425;
12 L. B. A. (N. S.) 389.
Complaint Against Co-tenant for In-
jury to Party Wall by Negligently
Excavating.
The plaintiff complains and says:
That on the day of
19 — y he was the sole owner and pro-
prietor of a brick house in which he
resided ynth his family and in which
he conducted his business as a manu-
facturer and dealer in boots and shoes;
that he was also the sole owner and
proprietor of the lot of ground on which
the said brick house was and is situ-
ated, said lot of ground being described
as follows: (here describe).
That on the day of ^,
19 — , he sold and conveyed to the de-
fendant, who owned the adjoining lot
east of the lot above described, one un-
divided moiety of the eastern wall of
the said brick house and of the ground
on which said eastern wall then stood;
the said wall to be used and held by
them as tenants in common as a party
wall.
And the plaintiff farther avers that
afterwards, to- wit, on the day
of — ' , 19 — , the said defendant
dug and excavated below, beneath and
adjacent to the foundation of said east-
ern wall; and that in so digging and
excavating as aforesaid he performed
his work in so careless and unskillful a
manner that by reason of said digging
and excavating as aforesaid, the de-
fendant caused the walls of said house
to give way, crack and settle down
and caused other injuries to the said
house; whereby the said house be-
came and still is, so unsafe as to ren-
der the same dangerous to inhabit
either as a dwelling house or as a busi-
ness house; and that by reason thereof
the plaintiff has been obliged to aban-
don said hodse both as a dwelling and
a place of business; all of which is to
the damage of the plaintiff in the sum
of dollars. Wherefore, etc.
Based upon Moody v, McClelland, 39
Ala. 45.
Answer by Adjacent Owner That Ex-
cavating Was Done by a Sldllf ul and
Careful Contractor*
The defendant in the above entitled
action answers the plaintiff's com-
plaint herein and alleges:
That before and at the time of the
fall of the wall in said complaint men-
tioned he was the owner and in pos-
session of A lot forming the northern
boundary of the lot described in said
complaint; that there had been recent-
ly erected on the lot owned by the
plaintiff a brick building, which was
placed on the northern border of the
lot occupied by the plaintiff and close
to if not on the northern boundary line
of said lot and adjacent to and almost
touching the southern boundary line of
the defendant's said lot. That defend*.
12
ADJOINING LANDOWNERS
ant desired to erect a brick store house
on his owji lot with a basement story,
to be made by excavating earth on his
own lot; that he employed for this pur-
pose, as contractor and builder, one
J. K., to make said excavation and
erect on defendant's lot said brick
store house; that said J. K. was a
prudent and skillful contractor and ob-
ligated himself to perform said work
in a careful and workmanlike manner,
and that tho excavation complained of
was done by the employes of said J.
K, and not by the defendant, his agents
or servants. Wherefore, etc. Based on
Myer v, Hobbs, 57 Ala. 176.
ADAOSAXaTT
[See '9 Standard Proc. 17, 1149.]
Libel la Sem on Bill of lAcUng.
To the honorable A. B., judge of the
district court of the United States for
the district of :
The libel and complaint of O. & D.
against the schooner E., her tackle, ap-
parel and furniture, and against all
persons intervening for their interest
therein, in a cause of contract civil and
maritime alleges as follows:
I. That at the times hereinafter
mentioned the libelants were co-part-
ners doing business under the firm name
and style of C. and company, at
, in the county of ,
and state of .
n. That on or about the ■
day of , 19 — , at the port
. of , the master of the schooner
E. loaded on board his vessel (here
describe goods covered by bill of lai-
ing), and gave therefor a bill of lad-
ing, by which he 'acknowledged the re-
ceipt of the same in gt>od order and
condition, and agreed to deliver the
same in like good order and condition
at the port of , the dangers of
the seas excepted, unto the libelants
or their assigns, they paying freight
therefor. And the libelant attaches a
copy of said bill of lading hereto and
makes same a part hereof,
in. That thereafter on or about the
day of , 19 — , the
said schooner E. sailed from the port
of i and arrived at the port
of , on the day of
: , 19 — , and delivered the said
(here describe goods covered by bill of
lading) to the libelants, but not in the
same good order and condition in which
they were received^ but on the con-
trary tho same were (here state their
damage) $ that the whole of the said
damages amounts to the sum of
dollars.
IV. That all and singular the prem-
ises are true, and the said schooner E.
is now within the port of
and within the admiralty and maritime
jurisdiction of this honorable court.
Wherefore the libelants pray that
process in due form of law may isBue
against the said schooner E., her tackle,
apparel and furniture, and that all per-
sons interested may be cited to appear
and answer upon oath, all and stngular
the matters aforesaid, and that the
said vessel may be condemned and sold
to pay libelants' claim, with interest
and costs, and that libelants may have
such other and further relief as in law
and justice they may be entitled to
receive.
Claim by Agent.
And now before this honorable court
appears C. D., owner of said ship Y.,
b}' E. F., his agent, and claims the
above named ship Y., and prays to de-
fend this suit accordingly.
Proctors for claimant,
district of , county
of
E. P., being duly sworn, says that
0. D. of is the true and bona
fide owner of the ship Y., etc., against
which this suit has been commenced by
A. B., libelant, and no other person is
the owner thereof; that for the pur-
poses of this suit deponent is the agent
of the owner and is duly authorized
by the said owner to put in this claim.
And deponent furUier says that at the
time of the commencement of this suit
the said ship Y., etc., was in his pos-
session as agent, and that he is the
lawful bailee thereof for the owner.
E. F.
Sworn to before me this
day of , 19 — .
Bond to MiarBhal for Beleaae of Vessel
Attaclied.
District court of the United States of
America, the — ^^— district of
Know all men by these presents that
we, A. B. and C. D., of , in
the county of , and state of
, are held and firmly bound
UDto J. K., Esq., marshal of the Uni-
ted States, for the district of
, in the sum of ' dol-
lars (double the amount claimed in
the libel), to be paid to the said J. E.,
ADtlLTEltlt
13
marBiia), etc., or his Buccessor in office,
for the payment of which well and
truly to be made we bind ourselves
and each of us, our and each of our
heirs, executors and administrators,
jointly and severally, firmly by these
presents. Sealed with our seals and
dated the day of ,
Whereas a libel has been filed in the
district court of the United States for
the district of , on
the day of , 19 — , by
X. Y.y libelant, against the steamer
M., her engines, tockle, apparel and
furniture, for the sum of dol-
lars, on which process of attachment
has issued, and the said steamer M.,
her engines, etc., is in custody of the
marshal under the said attachment, cmd
Z., the owner thereof, has applied for
a discharge of said steamer M., her
engines, etc., from the custody of the
marshal, and has filed a claim claiming
the said steamer, her engines, etc., as
owner, and has filed a stipulation for
the claimant's costs pursuant to the
rules and practice of the said court.
Kow, therefore, the condition of this
obligation is such that if the above
bounden A. B. and O. D. shall abide
by and perform the decree of this court
then this obligation shall be void;
otherwise the same shall be of full
force and effect.
A. B.
C. D.
Sealed and delivered and taken and
acknowledged this day of
, 19 — , before me.
United States of America,
District of .
A. B. and C. D., being duly sworn, do
depose and say, and each for himself
says, that he is worth the sum of
dollars (double the amount of
the bond) over and above all his just
debts and liabilities.
Sworn to this day of ,
19 — . Before me.
I approve of the sufficiency of the
sureties to the within bond.
Dated this day of ,
19—.
(Signed by the judge or libelant's
proctor).
ADUl.TEBATIOir
[See 9 Standard Pbog. 46, 1012, and
alio 1 Standaju) Paoo. 582, 583, 587.]
ABXTLTEBY
[See 9 Standard Proc. 47.]
Oomplalnt for Damages for Delivery of
Adulterated Milk.
(Title.)
The plaintiff in the above entitled
action complains against the defendant
herein and alleges:
That the plaintiff is engaged in the
business of manufacturing butter and
cheese; that in said business he re-
quires, needs, and uses large quantities
of pure milk and cream, from which
said milk and cream he manufactures
and ships to the open market large
Quantities of butter and cheese.
That as a part of his said business
he maintains and runs a factory at
for the manufacture of such
butter and cheese; that at such fac-
tory he purchases large quantities of
miUc from his patrons to be used in
the said manufacture of butter and
cheese.
That the defendant was one of the
patrons of the plaintiff and furnished
and delivered large quantities of milk
at the factory of the plaintiff at
. That the defendant promised
end agreed at the time of bringing
his first milk to said factory to bring
nothing but milk of first class quality.
That he brought and delivered milk to
said factory from the day of
f 19 — , to th.e day of
r-, 19 — f in all about ■
pounds; that he teceived in payment
therefor the sum of dollars,
being the price of high quality or
superior milk.
That during all of said time, the de-
fendant instead of furnishing milk of
first class or superior quality, did in
fact furnish and deliver at the plain-
tiff's said factory as aforesaid milk,
adulterated with water, only about
per cent of which was milk
and per cent water, and made
foul by stale, filthy and impure water;
that the defendant well knew that said
adulterated milk was to be used in the
plaintiff's said business; that it was
to be mixed with other milk at said
factory; and that plaintiff's said busi-
ness depended on the use of milk of
first class or superior quality.
That by reason of said adulterated
milk so furnished by the defendant as
aforesaid, the product of said factory
was greatly lessened in value and dam-
aged; that the butter and cheese man-
14
ADULTERY
ufacturcd therefrom and the milk with
which the adulterated milk furnished
by the defendant was mixed became
very poor and of inferior quality and
unfit for use or trade except as second
or third class quality and at many
times was entirely worthless, by reason
whereof the business of the plaintiff
was greatly injured thereby.
That the defendant well knowing
the premises continued to send and de-
liver impure, unwholesome, foul and
adulterated milk to said factory, know-
ing the same to be adulterated and un-
wholesome, all to the damage of the
plaintiff in the sum of ■■ dol-
lars.
Wherefore, etc, Adapted from Stran-
ahan, etc. Co. v. Ooit, 55 Ohio 6t. 398,
45 N. E. 634.
ADVERSE POSSESSION
[See 9 Standard Proo. 48; and also
1 Standard Proo. 625.]
ATFIDAVITS. — See Attachment;
Bankruptcy Proceedings ; Bills
OP Particulars ; Change op Venue ;
Consolidation op Actions; Con-
tempt; Continuances; Decedents'
Estates; Divorce; Husband and
Wipe; Information and Belbep.
AFFIDAVITS OF MEBIT8 AND DE-
[See 9 Standard Proc. 49.]
^See 9 Standard PBoa 49.]
AGBEED CASE
[See 9 Standard Psoa 49.]
AUENATING AFFECTIONS
[See 9 Standard Proc. 50.]
Oomplalnt Against Mother for Alienate
Ing Husband's Affections.
(Title.)
The plaintiff in the above en-
titled action complains of the defend-
ant herein and alleges:
That on or about the day
of , in the state of ,
the plaintiff was lawfully married to
one , who is the son of ;
that at all times since said marriage
the said and the plaintiff
have been, and now are, husband and
wife; that by reason of said marriage
the plaintitf became and was entitled
to the support, company and society of
her said husband.
That from and after the time of said
marriage, and until the interference on
the part of the defendant hereinafter
set forth, the said (husband)
was deeply attached to his said wife,
the plaintiff; that the plaintiff and her
said husband lived happily together as
husband and wife, and but for the
wrongful and malicious a^ts of the de-
fendant, hereinafter set forth, would
have continued so to live together.
That shortly after the said marriage
the said defendant, conceiving and har-
boring an intense dislike of the plain-
tiff, wrongfully and maliciously sought
to prejudice the mind of said
against the plaintiff, and alienate his
affections from her, and has ever since
sought and endeavored, by subtle con-
trivances, by coaxing and threats of
disinheriting the said , to en-
tice him to separate himself from the
plaintiff, and to leave and desert her.
That (etc., stating other facts in
reference to alleged alienation).
That said defendant has, by her said
acts and contrivance, by threats made
to the said , and by misrepre-
senting the plaintiff to him, wrongfully
and maliciously alienated the affections
of her said husband from the plaintiff,
and has wrongfully and maliciously en-
ticed him to separate himself from her,
whereby the plaintiff has been deprived
of the society, comfort end support of
her said husband, by reason of which
the plaintiff has been damaged in the
sum of dollars.
Wherefore, plaintiff demands jndg*
ment, etc. Adapted from Williams v.
Williams, 20 Colo. 51, 37 Pac. 614.
Ctomplaint for Alienating Hnsbaiid's
Affections by Slandering Wifew
(Title and venue.)
The plaintiff in the above entitled ae*
tion complains of the defendant herein
and alleges:
I. That on, to-wit, the day
of , 1^— > the plaintiff A. B.
and C. D. were lawfully joined in mar-
riage at , in the county of
, and state of ; that
said 0. D. then became and ever since
has been and still is the lawful hus-
band of this plaintiff; that from the
date of their said intermarriage until
date of the making by the defendant
of the several false and slanderous
', statements (or if in writing, say libels)
ANIMALS
15
lierelnafter mentioned, lived happily
and harmoniously together as husband
and wife at , in the county of
', in this state.
II. That on, to-wit, the
day of y 19 — , at said ,
in the county aforesaid, and at divers
other times and places since that time
the defendant M. A., in the presence of
divers persons then and there being, to-
wit, in the presence of (here name the
persons if known to the complainant)
did falsely, wickedly and maliciously
speak, publish and declare concerning
this plaintiff that she had been a lewd
and unchaste woman, that prior to her
marriage to said G. D. she had been a
common prostitute in the city of
m. And the plaintiff further al-
leges that on the ^-^— — day of
, 19 — , at f aforesaid,
the said * defendant wickedly and wil-'
fully contriving to injure the plaintiff
and deprive her of the comfort, society,
assistance and support of her said hus-
band and to alienate and destroy his af-
fections for your plaintiff, falsely,
wickedly and maliciously did speak and
publish to or cause to be spoken and
published to the plaintiff's said hus-
band, the following false, malicious and
slanderous words, to- wit: (here state
the slanderous words, and if they were
not direct set forth their innuendoes).
IV. That by reason of the speaking
and publishing of the said false and
malicious words by the defendant, and
for no other reason, the plaintiff's hus-
band's affections for her were and are
alienated and destroyed; and since said
day of f 19 — , by rea-
son of said false, malicious and slander-
ous words, and for no other reason, the
plaintiff's husband has refused, and still
does refuse, to live with the plaintiff
as her husband oc to associate with her
in any manner, and from said
day of , 19 — , has entirely with-
drawn his support from the plaintiff,
and by reason of said wicked, malicious
and slanderous words so spoken and
published as aforesaid, the plaintiff has
been wholly deprived of the society,
comfort, aid, sympathy, assistance and
support of her said husband, which she
otherwise ought to and would have en-
joyed; and was and has been from
thence hitherto wholly deprived of her
home and means of support and has
suffered great distress in body and
mind; all to her damage in the sum of
\ r dollars. ."Wherefore, etc.
Adapted from Case v. Case, 45 Neb.
493, 63 N. W. 867.
Answer of Parent Denying ]4alic% and
Alleging Parental Advice.
The defendant answers the plaintiff's
complaint herein and says:
He admits that he counseled and ad-
vised the plaintiff's said wife to leave
the plaintiff and live separate and apart
from him, but he says that the plain-
tiff's said wife is the daughter of the
defendant and that the defendant was
informed by his said daughter and be-
lieved that her life with the plaintiff
was unhappy and had become unbear-
able by reason of the plaintiff's habits
of intoxication and cruel •treatment of
his said wife, the daughter of the de-
fendant; and that the defendant there-
upon counseled and urged the plain-
tiff's said wife to leave her said hus-
band and return to and live at the
home of the defendant.
That said advice and counsel was
given for the welfare of the defend-
ant's said daughter and that in giving
said parental advice the defendant was
not actuated by any malice or ill-will
toward the plaintiff.
Wherefore, etc.
ALIENS
[See 9 Standard Proc, 51; 11 Stand-
ard Proc. 899. See also Immigration.]
ALIMONY. — See DivoRCB ; Husband
AND Wife.
ALTESATION OF IN8TBUMBNT8
[See 9 Standard Proc. 51.]
AMENDMENTS AND JEOFAILS
[See 9 Standard Proc. 52.]
Bill of particvXars, affidavit and order
to show cause, see Bills ov Par-
ticulars.
AMIOABLE ACTIONS
[See 1 Standard Proc. 933.]
ANIMALS
[See 9 Standard Proc. 54, 317J
Injury to stoch while being transported,
see Freight Carriers.
Answer, Dog Killed While Attacking
the Defendant.
The defendant answering the com-
16
AS1MAL8
plaint in the above entitled action,
says:
I. That he admits that he killed the
plaintiff '« dog.
II. He further alleges that at the
time when he killed the plaintiff's said
dog as charged in said complaint and
admitted in this answer, that the plain-
tiff 's said dog was attacking and biting
the defendant, who was then and there
peacefully passing along on the public
highway known as street, in
the town of , and the plain-
tiff's said dog had then and there fast-
ened his teeth' in the calf of the de-
fendant's leg, and the said killing was
a means of self protection upon the
part of the, defendant against the at-
tack of said dog such as he might law-
fully employ. '
Oomplalnt for Being Bitten by Wolf
Owned by the Defendant.
The plaintiff complains and alleges:
That the defendant was and is the
owner and keeper of a wolf of the
canine species, a ferocious wild animal;
that on the day of ,
19 — , the defendant was leading said
wolf by a chain in and along
street, in the city of , r^
county; that the plaintiff while law-
fully passing along said street was bit-
ten by said wolf to his damage in the
sum of dollars. Based on
Hayes v. Miller^ 150 Ala. 621, 43 6o.
818.
Complaint for Injury by yiciooB Bull.
The plaintiff complains and alleges:
That the defendant on, to-wit, the
day of , 19 — , did
wrongfully and negligently keep a cer
tain bull, the said defendant then and
there well knowing that said bull was
used and accustomed to gore, wound
and injure mankind; that on said
day of f 19 — , at
, in the county of , the
said bull while so kept by the defend-
ant as aforesaid, did attack the plain-
tiff and did then and there gore the
plaintiff with its horns and did then
and there greatly lacerate, bruise and
wound the plaintiff in the back, shoul'
der and side; and by teason of said
goring the plaintiff became sick, sore
and distressed and so remained for the
period of months, during
which time he suffered and underwent
great pain and was thereby hindered
and prevented from performing his
usual buainessi all to hia damage in
the sum of dollars; and alsf
by means of the premises, he, the said
plaintiff was put to great expense, costs
and charges for medical and surgical
care and attendance, in and about the
cure of said wounds, to his farther
damage in the sum of dol-
lars. Wherefore, etc. Based on Brooks
i;. Taylor, 65 Mich. 208, 31 N. W. 837.
Indictment for Driving Animals From
Bange or Pasture.
(Caption and commencement.)
That on the day of
19 — , in the county of , state
of , with force and arms, one
, late of said county, one cer-
tain (describing animal or
animals if more than one) the property
of , then and there being, did
wilfully take into his possession, and
drive and remove from their accus-
tomed range, without the consent of
and with intent to defraud the said
owner thereof, the said
(animal) not being the property of
said (accused).
(Conclusion.)
Based on Darnell v. State, 43 Tex.
147.
ANNUITIES
[See 9 Standard Pboo. 58.]
ANOTHBB ACTION PBNBINO
[See 9 Standard Proc. 61.]
As to part of amount claimed, gee
Abatement, Pleas of.
Demurrer because of, see Demurseb.
ANSWEBS
[See 9 Standard Proc. 62, 385, 533,
and cross-references thereunder.]
Accord and satisfaction, see Accord and
Satisfaction.
Agreement that defendant shall not he
liable, see Electricity.
Ejectment, in action of, see Ejectuknt.
Failure of foreign corporation to com-
ply with statutory regulations, see
Corporations.
Failure to perform contract, see Archi-
tects AND Builders.
For answers in the nature of pUas in
abatement, see AsATEiiSNT, Plkas of.
Fraud in procuring note, see Fraud and
Deceit.
Illegality of eoimderation of promise to
marry, see I^keach ov Promise.
APPnENTlCES
17
In lieu of demurrer, see Equity Juris-
diction AND PBOCBDURB.
Of justification wi action for false tm-
prisonment, see False Impeisonmknt.
That defendant is a bona fide purchaser,
see Creditors' Suits.
That defendant signed draft as officer
of corporation, see Bills and Notes.
That defendant, unable to read, signed
under false representation, see Bills
AND Notes.
That defendant was not fitted to marry
on account of disease, see Breach of
PROinSB. •
That goods were destroyed without fault
of defendant, see Account and Ac-
counting.
That plaintif is not bona fide holder,
see Bills and Notes. .
APPEAI. BONDS
[See 9 Standard Proc. 71. See also
Bonds; Undertakings.]
court, for the following reasons, to-
wit: (state reasons for seeking rein-
statement). Based on motion in Hall
V. O'Brien, 5 111. 405.
Stipulation That Canses May Be Oon-
soUdated and Heard Together.
(Tmes.)
It is hereby stipulated and agreed
that the abov6-entitled suits be con-
solidated and entered upon appeal in
court as one case, and heard
in court as one case. Based
on stipulation in Minneapolis Har-
vester Wks. t?. Hedges, 11 Neb. 46, 7
N. W. 531.
[See 9 Standard Proc. 71.]
Case and question certified, reserved or
reported, see 9 Standjuu> Proc. 245.
Bnl0 To Sbow Cftuse Why Appeal
Should Not Be Dismissed.
It having been suggested and shown
to the court by af&davits, that (hexe
state substance of affidavits showing
facta on which motion is based).
It is hereby ordered, on motion of
A. B., solicitor for the said appellees,
that the appellants show cause before
this court on the day of
^ 19 — , at the supreme court
rooms in the city of , or as
soon thereafter as the said court shall
be at leisure to hear the same, why
said appeal should not be dismissed, or
such other order made as the case may
require, and that either party have lib-
erty to take depositions and produce
exhibits in pursuance of this rule.
Based on Black v. Baritan Canal Co.,
24 N. J. Eq. 456.
Motion for Beinstatement of Appeal
Previously Dismissed.
(Title.)
Now comes the said , ap-
pellant herein, by , his attor-
ney, and moves that the above-en-
titled cause, heretofore on the docket
of this court, and dismissed at this
term for (state reason for dismissal),
be reinstated on the docket of this
APPBABANCES
[See 9 Standard Proc. 80.]
General Appearance and Waiver of
Process.
Now comes the defendant (or in case
of more than one defendant, the de-
fendant A. B.), (or by his attorney
J. N.) and waives the issuance and
service of summons in this action and
voluntarily enters his appearance here-
in, reserving to himself the right to
plead within days from this
day of , 19 — •
Special Appearance.
(Name of opposing counsel.)
Sir: Please take notice that I am
retained by and appear as the attorney
of A. B., the defendant (or one of the
defendants) in the above entitled ac-
tion, for the purpose of moving to
(here state purpose of special appear-
ance) and for that purpose only.
J. M., Attorney for A. B.,
(defendant for th^ purpose of this mo-
tion only).
Another Form,
Now comes the above named defend-
ant, by his attorney , and spe-
cially appears in the said action for
the sole purpose of making a motion
to quash the summons in, and dismiss
said action, a copy of the notice of
which motion is hereto annexed and
filed herewith (or a notice of special
appearance may be combined with no-
tice of the motion).
APPBENTICBS
[See 9 Standard Proc. 81.]
Order Binding One Out as Apprentice.
(Title.)
It appearing to the satisfaction of
18
APPRENTICES
the court, upon the application of
, that is an infant
of
years; that said
is an orphan child, the son of
and , who died on the follow-
ing dates, to-wit: —
day of
on the
on the
-, 19—, and
day of
f 19 — , in the county of
, state of (or other-
wise as the facts may be, as that the
father is dead or in prison and the
mother is unable to support the child) ;
that said is now in the care
and custody of ; that said
(name of person in whose care
and custody infant is) was duly noti-
fied of the application herein to bind
said out as an apprentice,
and is now before the court (or other-
wise as the case may be); >that said
(child) has no estate what-
ever; that said (name of per-
son in whose care and custody he is)
is not able to give him proper care
and support (or otherwise as the case
may be, as that he would not "bring
him up in moral courses," etc.); that
y of the of ,
county of , has signified his
willingness to take said and
teach him the art of (state occupa-
tion planned) until he shall arrive at
the age of twenty-one years.
Now, therefore, it is ordered and
decreed that the clerk of the
court of the county of enter
into an indenture of apprenticeship with
the said upon his entering
into the bond required by law. Based
upon Small v. Small, 2 Bush (Ky.) 45.
Oomplaint for Entidng Away.
(Title.)
The plaintiff above-named complains
of the defendant and for cause of ac-
tion alleges:
That on the day of ,
19 — , one was, and still is,
duly bound to the plaintiff as an ap-
prentice for the term of
years, from the day of ,
19 — (or until he arrives at his ma-
jority, if such be the case).
That the defendant herein, well
knowing said fact, on said
day of , 19—, enticed said
• against the plaintiff's will
and consent to leave the service of said
plaintiff; that by reason of said en-
ticing on the part of the defendant
herein said • did on aaid day
leave the plaintiff's said service
against his will and without his con-
sent.
That the defendant herein, on or
about the day of ^
19 — , well knowing said to
be bound to the plaintiff as an appren-
tice, received and admitted said
into his service; that he still
retains him in his said service or em-
ploy.
That by reason of the premises, the
plaintiff herein has suffered loss in the
profit of the service of said -^— —
from the said day of »
19 — ; that he has also been put to
considerable expense, to-wit, the sum
of dollars, in endeavoring to
locate and recover back said
from said defendant, all to the dam-
age of the plaintiff in the sum of
dollars.
Wherefore, etc.
ABBITRATION
[See 9 Standard Proo. 81.]
Agreement for ArbltratioiL
This agreement made and concluded
this day of , 19 — , by
and between A. B. of, etc., and C. D.
of, etc. Witnesseth:
That whereas certain disputes and
matters of difference have arisen and
are still subsisting between the above
named parties, and whereas they are
desirous that a speedy and inexpensive
settlement and determination should be
made of the same, it is therefore here-
by agreed by and between the said
parties to submit and refer the matters
of defence and dispute between them,
hereafter set forth, to J. M., and the
same are hereby submitted to the
award, order, final end, and determina-
tion of the said J. M. (or, in case of
more than one arbitrator as follows:
To the award, order, final end, and de-
termination of J. M. and P. W., ar-
bitrators nominated by the said A. B.
and C. D. respectively; and in case
they cannot agree in determining said
matter or thing in controversy, then
said two arbitrators shall choose a
third, and the finding of a majority of
said arbitrators shall be final).
The matters to be arbitrated, aa
aforesaid, are as follows: (here state
in detail the matters of difference).
And it is further mutually agreed
that the costs of the cause shall abide
i the event of the award, and the coat
ARCHITECTS AND BUILDERS
19
of reference and award shall be in the
discretion of the arbitrator (or arbi-
trators), who' may direct to and by
whom and in what manner the same or
any part thereof shall be paid.
And the parties hereto further
mutually agree that the award of said
arbitrator, or the majority thereof, in
writing shall be made within
days from the date hereof, and that
the same may be filed with a motion
for judgment thereon in the '
(here name the court), and upon notice
to the adverse party, the court may
render final judgment thereon, as fully
and completely and with the same force
and effect as if upon the verdict of a
jury.
. And it is further hereby mutually
agreed that the said parties hereto,
their executors and administrators, shall
on their respective parts in all things
stand to obey, abide by, perform, and
keep the award so to be made as afore-
said.
In witness whereof, etc.
Award of ArMtraton.
In the matter of
Arbitration between
A. B. and C<
We, the undersigned, who were duly
appointed and agreed upon in the an-
nexed agreement of arbitration to hear
and determine certain controversies, dis-
putes and matters of difference therein
set forth, arising and existing between
the said A. B. and C. D., do hereby
certify that on the day of
-, 19 — , we took and subscribed
said
the sum of
dol-
or of 'J
)tween }•
J. D. J
the oath required of us by law, as such
arbitrators, which oath so taken is
hereto attached, and that we gave to
each of said parties to said submission
days' notice in writing of
our first meeting.
We further certify, that on the
day of , 19 — , at
o'clock, in noon, pur-
suant to such notice we met at the
office of
and state of
-, in the city of
-, and proceeded
to hear the allegations and evidence of
the parties herein and their witnesses,
and that thereafter we duly adjourned
from time to time until this
day of , 19 — , and having
heard all the evidence, proofs and argu-
ments as well of the parties as their
several witnesses, we do hereby find
and adjudge that there is now due and
Qwing from the Qaid — • to the
lars, which sum it is ordered that the
said pay to said
within
days, from this day
(or set out any other conclusion, or
the finding of any special fact by the
arbitrators).
We certify that we, as arbitrators,
have each been occupied in the hearing
of said controversy and in preparing
our award days, and that an-
nexed hereto is a true statement of the
witnesses present and the witnesses who
were examined before us upon said ar-
bitration, and the number of days that
they were severally in attendance upon
said hearing.
We further find and adjudge that the
costs of this alhbitration, amounting to
dollars, shall be paid by
, within days from
the date hereof.
P. W.
J
. W.\
. M.J
Arbitrators.
AB0HITE0T8 AlTD BUILDEBS
[See 9 Standakd Pbog. 85.]
Complaint Against AxcUtect for Fraud
and Collusion.
The- plaintiff in the above entitled
action complains against the defendant
herein and alleges:
I. That at all times hereinafter men-
tioned the defendant was and is an
architect and held himself out to be
skilled in examining and superintend-
ing work under a building contract, and
the plaintiff relying on the defendant's
skill in this behalf employed him to
draw the plans for and superintend the
construction of a certain apartment
house, which the plaintiff was to build
on street, in the city of, etc.
The said defendant drew the plans and
specifications for said apartment house
and the contract for the building of
same was let to one J. M., a carpen-
ter and builder.
That said contract of building pro-
vided, among other things, that work
in constructing said apartment house
should be performed according to the
plans and specifications furnished by
the defendant which said plans and
specifications were made a part of said
contract, and that all work done in
erecting said apartment house should
be done under the supervision and sub-
ject to the approval of the defendant
as architect, and that payments there-
under were to be made in amounts aAd
20
ARCHITECTS AND BUILDERS
at the times specified in said contract^
upon the furnishing by the architect
of a certificate that certain work had
been satisfactorily performed.
That by said contract it was pro-
vided that the first payment should be
made upon the completion of (here
state the stage of work at which the
first payment became due).
That wholly regardless of his duty
in this behalf, the defendant, acting in
collusion with the said J. M., the build-
er aforesaid, with intent to defraud and
deceive the plaintiff, and to induce
plaintiff to make the said first pay-
ment, fraudulently and collusively gave
to said J. M., a certificate that (here
state substance of certificate showing
satisfactory completion of work to the
stage at which the first payment be-
came due); that said certificate was
wholly false and untrue, to the knowl-
edge of the defendant and the said
J. M., and in truth and in fact the
defendant had not examined the work,
ftnd the work required to be done be-
fore the first pa3mi6iit became due had
not been done and has never since been
done; that the said J. M. has there-
after abandoned his contract and has
done no more work on the said apart-
ment building.
That it was provided by the terms
of said building contract that defend-
ant should not give a certificate for pay-
ments by the plaintiff to the said
J. M.^ unless at such time the premises
should be free from all liens and claims
chargeable to said J. M.; but the de-
fendant, with intent to defraud and
deceive plaintiff, fraudulently and act-
ing in collusion with said J. M., gave
the above described certificate, although
to the knowledge of defendant and
said J. M., the premises were not free
from liens and claims chargeable to
said . J. M., and there were then and
there existing liens on the premises
which the plaintiff was subsequently
compelled to paj'.
That plaintiff believed and relied
upon the certificate so made as afore-
said, and in reliance thereon paid to
said J. M. the sum of dol-
lars, being the first payment in said
building contract provided for; that by
reason of the foregoing and in con-
sequence of the said fraudulent and
collusive act of the defendant as afore-
said, the plaintiff was greatly injured,
to his damage in the sum of — ^—
dollars. iWliereforei etc.
Answer, Failnre To Perform Ckmtnct
and flet-Off of Damagee for BxeMb.
The defendant answering the plain-
tiff's complaint herein alleges:
I. That the services rendered and
the materials furnished, mentioned in
said complaint, were performed and
furnished under a contract, a copy
whereof is hereto annexed and made
a part hereof; that the plaintiff failed
to perform said contract according to
its terms; that he was notified to per-
form said contract but failed to com'
ply, and he gave up and surrendered
said contract; that plaintiff, after re-
ceiving the second payment in accord-
ance with the terms of said contract,
abandoned said contract and utterly
failed to perform any further the re-
quirements therein and ceased to be
entitled to any more payments or
money thereunder.
And the defendant for a counter^
claim herein, alleges that he has sas-
tained damages to the amount of
dollars, by reason of the non-
performance by the plaintiff of the said
contract, and which said sum the plain-
tiff is liable to pay this defendant on
account of the expenses paid and sus-
tained by the defendant in procuring
materials and labor for the peiiormance
of said contract and the defendant de-
mands judgment therefor. Based on
Alger r. Vanderpoel, 2 Jones & S. (N.
Y.) 162.
ABBAIGNBCBNT Ain> PISA
[See 9 Standard Proc. 87.]
Motion To Witbdraw Plea of Not CKdL-
ty and File Motion To Qnadi.
(Caption.)
Qomes now the defendant and files
his motion asking leave of the court
to withdraw her plea of not guilty, and
file a motion to set aside the indict-
ment, as provided in section
of the code, for the reasons enumerated
in subdivision thereof. See
State V, Hale, 44 Iowa 96.
ABKBST IN CIVIL CASES
[See 9 Stakdabo Pboc. 93.]
Habeas corpus, petition for by one
arrested for debt, see Habeas Cor-
pus.
Privilege, see 9 Stakdaro Proc. 1000,
ASSAULT AND BATTERY
21
ABBEST OF JUDGMENT
[See 9 Standard Proc. 107.]
Notice to District Attorney of MotloiL
Sir: — Please take notice that, on the
indictment herein, on the evidence tak-
en at the trial of this action, on the
annexed affidavit and upon all proceed-
ings heretofore had in this case, I will
move the court on the day of
, 19 — , for an order arresting
judgment against said defendant and
for other and further relief as may be
just.
Motion In Azrest*
(Title or caption.)
Now comes the defendant In the
above entitled case, by his attorney^
after verdict and before any judgment
rendered thereon (or, before jjudgment
and sentence) and moves the court to
arrest the judgment (and sentence) in
this case, and sets forth and assigns
as grounds for the motion:
That (etc., setting out all the differ-
ent grounds of the motion).
Wherefore, the defendant prays that
the judgment (and sentence) be ar-
rested, etc. Based on motion in Phil-
lips V. Preston, 5 How. (U. S.) 278,
and State v. Hill, 72 Me. 238.
A&SfON
[See 9 Standard Proc. 108.]
Indictment far burning hridge, see
Highways, Streets and Bridges.
ASaATTLT AND BATTERY
[See 9 Standard Proc. 109. See also
Homicide.]
Dedaratlon Against BaUroad Compa&y
for Assault by ISmploye.
(Title of action and court.)
The plaintiff in the above entitled
action complains against the defendant
herein and alleges:
T. That the defendant is a corpora-
tion duly organized and existing under
the laws of the state of , and
a common carrier of passengers.
n. That on the day of
, 19 — , the plaintiff purchased
a ticket at >, a station upon ^ho
defendant corporation's railway line,
entitling plaintiff to first class passage
to , another station on the
defendant corporation's said railway
line, paying therefor the sum of ^
cents, the amount demanded by the
agent selling said ticket.
III. That the plaintiff thereupon
entered one of the defendant corpora-
tion 's regular passenger cars at ,
said first named station, intending to
go as a passenger thereon to ,
the destination named on his said tick-
et; that after reaching a point a few
miles from said , the plaintiff,
while a passenger as aforesaid, was
wrongfully, unlawfully and with great
force and violence, and while the train
was moving rapidly and was far from
any station or dwelling house, ejected
from the car in which he was riding,
by the servant and employes of the de-
fendant corporation who were in charge
of the running of said train, to-wit, the
brakeman and conductor thereof; that
said servants and employes of said de-
fendant corporation acting within the
scope of their authority and employ-
ment as aforesaid, did then and there
unlawfully and without provocation, so
violently assault, beat, bruise, wound
and ill-treat the plaintiff that he was
unconscious for one hour or there-
abouts; that the plaintiff, by means of
the premises, was obliged to and did
walk from where he was ejected from
the defendant corporation's said car to
his home in ; that by reason
of the foregoing the plaintiff became
sick, sore and disabled, and was in-
capacitated from following his ordinary
vocation for a period of one month,
and suffered permanent injury to his
nervous system, all to his damage in
the sum of dollars. Where-
fore, etc.
Plea That Defendant Acted in Defense
of One Wliom He Was Bound To
Protect*
And for a further plea in this behalf
as to the assaulting, beating, bruising,
wounding and ill-treating of the plain-
tiff, as in said plaintiff's complaint al-
leged, the defendant says the plaintiff
ought not to have or maintain his
aforesaid action against him, the de-
fendant, because he says that the plain-
tiff at the time of the supposed as-
sault in the plaintiff's complaint al-
leged, at aforesaid, in the
county of , did with force and
arms make an assault on one A. B.,
the son of the plaintiff (or anyone else
whom the plaintiff had a right to pro-
tect), and would have then and there
beaten, bruised, wounded and ill-
treated the said A. B. (or otherwise)
22
ASSAULT AND BATTERY
if the defendant had not immediately
defended him, the said A. B., so being
his son as aforesaid, against the plain-
tiff, as he lawfully might do, and in
so doing he did necessarily and un-
avoidably a little beat, bruise and ill-
treat the said plaintiff, doing him no
unnecessary damage on that occasion;
and so the defendant says that if any
hurt or damage then and there hap-
pened to the plaintiff, the same was
occasioned by the assault so made by
the plaintiff upon the said A. B. and in
the necessary defense of him, the said
A. B., against the plaintiff, which are
the same supposed trespasses in the
plaintiff's declaration mentioned; and
this the defendant is ready to verify.
"Wherefore, etc.
Flea of Moderate CoirectioiL
n. And for a further plea, etc. (as
above), because he says that he, the
said defendant, before and at the time
when the said trespass is, in the plain-
tiff's above declaration, supposed to
have been done, to-wit, at , in
the county of , was instructor,
teacher and master of a public school,
to-wit, the school of district No.
, in said , and the said
A. B. was then and there a pupil in
said school and did then and there be-
have and conduct himself in an un-
seemly and contumacious and disorder-
ly manner, and did then and there re-
fuse to obey the reasonable rules of
said school and lawful commands of
the defendant as said schoolmaster;
whereupon the said defendant did then
and there moderately correct him, the
said A. B., for his said misbehavior;
which is the same assaulting, beating
and ill-treating the said A. B. in his
said complaint alleges; and this he is
ready to verify. Wherefore, etc.
relief by and contribute to the expense
of this action, alleges:
I. That at the term of the
(or on the day of ,
court, in and
> plaintiff
ASSIGNMENT FOB THE BENEFIT
OF OBEDITOBS
[See 9 Standard Peoc. 115.]
Complaint "by judgment creditor to $et
aside fraudulent assignment, see Cred-
itors' Suits.
Bill In Equity To Set Aside Aaslgximeiiit
on Qround of Fraud.
The plaintiff complaining on behalf
of himself and all other judgment cred-
itors of the defendant whose executions
have been returned unsatisfied and who
<ihall| in duo time, come in and ask
19—, in the)
for the county of
recovered a judgment, which was duly
given by said court, against the de-
fendant J. K., for dollars, in
an action wherein this plaintiff was
plaintiff and said defendant J. K. was
defendant; that on the day
of , 19 — , said judgment was
docketed in the office of the clerk oi
said county (or other proper office).
II. That on the day of
, 19 — , an execution in due
form was issued upon said judgment,
against the real and personal property
of said defendant , to the
sheriff of said county, in which county
defendant resided and still resides;
that said execution has been duly re-
turned by said sheriff wholly unsatis-
fied (or unsatisfied except as to
dollars), and there* is now due to plain-
tiff on said judgment dollars
and interest from the — ^— — day of
, 19—.
m. That on the day of
, 19 — , and after the contract-
ing of the debt on which the aforesaid
judgment was recovered, the defendant
J. K. executed and delivered to the
defendant L. M. a general assignment
of all his property in trust for the pay-
ment of his debts, a copy of which
said assignment is hereto annexed
marked exhibit "A" and made a part
of this complaint; that the defendant
L. M. accepted said trust and has col-
lected a large sum of money and other
property from the assets of his assignor,
amounting in all to dollars.
rV. That the property assigned aa
aforesaid is of the value of
dollars.
y. That said assignment was made
by the said J. K. with the intent to
delay, hinder and defraud his creditors;
that it was not accompanied by an
immediate and continued change of pos-
session of said assigned property.
VT. That the said assignor omitted
from his schedule certain (here de-
scribe property or interest omitted)
which were valuable and which he
owned at the time of said assignment,
and which ought to have been included
among his assets.
VII. That the pretended indebted-
ness set forth in said assignment as
due from the defendant J. K. to the
ASSIGNMENTS
23
defendant L. M. is fictitious; that in
fact no such indebtedness exists or
existed, but the same was inserted in
said assignment for the purpose of
enabling the defendant J. K. to dis-
tribute the proceeds passed under said
assignment among his friends and there-
by keep the possession and control
thereof himself.
Vm. That said general assignment
and acts hereinbefore set forth were
made in pursuance and conformation of
certain fraudulent and collusive agree-
ments between the said defendants
J. K. and L. M.
IX. That the defendant J. K. has
no property other than that included
in the assignment aforesaid out of
which the said execution could be satis-
fied in whole or in part; and that
unless said property can be reached
and applied to the pa3nment of said
judgment the same will remain wholly
unpaid.
Wherefore the plaintiff demands judg-
ment:
1. That said deed of assignment be
adjudged invalid and void as against
the plaintiff and such other judgment
creditors as ^all join herein as afore-
said.
2. That a receiver of all of the
property and effects of said defendant
J. K. be appointed.
3. That the defendants be adjudged
to account for all the property received
by them or either of them under said
assignment and for the proceeds aris-
ing from the sale of any or all of said
property and deliver the same to the
receiver.
4. That an injunction may issue
from this honorable court enjoining and
restraining said defendants or either
of them, or their or either of their
servants, agents or attorneys from in
any manner selling, disposing of, tak-
ing, or interfering, except to preserve
the same, with the property belonging
to the defendant J. K.
5. That said receiver pay out of the
proceeds of said property the judgment
aforesaid and the costs and expenses
of this action and hold the balance
thereof subject to the order of this
court.
Dedaration or Complaint by Assignee
for Benefit of Creditors.
(Name of court.)
A. B., as assignee for the "
benefit of Creditors of
J. K.
against
X, Y., defendant.
The plaintiff complains as assignee
for the benefit of the creditors of J. K.,
and alleges:
I. (Set forth the cause of action
accrued to the assignor in the usual
form.)
n. That on or about the
day of , 19 — , the said J. K.
duly executed and delivered to this
plaintiff an assignment of all the prop-
erty of said J. K., including the cause
of action herein set forth, in trust for
the benefit of his creditors, which as-
signment was then and there duly
acknowledged and duly accepted by this
plaintiff by indorsement thereon signed
and acknowledged by him, and said as-
signment was thereupon duly filed for
record in the office of the clerk of the
county of . (If the action in-
volves the rights to real property add:
And a certified copy of said assignment
was immediately thereupon, upon the
day of , 19—, filed
for record in the office of the Registry
of Deeds for the county of .)
That this plaintiff thereupon and be-
fore the commencement of this action
qualified as assignee under said assign-
ment and entered upon his duties as
such and made and filed the inventory
and bond required by law. Wherefore,
etc.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS. — See Ea-
ROBS, Assignment of.
ASSIGNMENTS
[See 9 Standard Proc. 115.]
Plavntiff not the real party in interest —
previous asignment, see Abatement,
Pleas op.
Creditors' suit to set aside fraudulent
assignment, see Creditors' Suits.
Complaint hy assignee in bankruptcy
to set aside conveyance, see Fraud-
ulent Conveyances.
Answer of payment to Assignor or
Other Settlement With Him Before
Notice.
The defendant in the above entitled
action in answer to the plaintiff's com-
plaint herein alleges:
That before the commencement of
this action and on or about the . ■
24
ASSIGNMENTS
day of , 19 — , this defendant
without any notice whatever of any
assignment or transfer from A. B. to
plaintiff of the alleged cause of action
set forth in the plaintiff's said com-
plaint, paid to the said A. B. (assignor)
the sum of dollars, being the
full amount for which this action is
brought; which said sum the said A. B.
(assignor) received in full satisfaction
thereof. Wherefore, etc.
ASSISTANCE, WRITS OF
[See 9 Btanbabd Proc. 117.]
Petition for Writ.
(Title of cause and court.)
To the honorable court for
the county of , state of
The petition of A. B. of, etc., re-
spectfuUy shows that on the
day of , 19 — , a writ of execu-
tion directed to the sheriff of said
county, issued out of this court by
virtue of a decree made on the '
day of , 19 — , in the above
entitled action commanding the sheriff
to sell (here describe the premises).
That on the day of ,
19 — , J. K., being then and there sheriff
of said county, in pursuance of said
writ of execution having first duly ad-
vertised the sale according to law to
take place at (here set out the time
and place of sale as advertised) did
offer the premises for sale at public
auction and your petitioner having bid
the sum of dollars, which said
sum was greater than that bid by any
one else at said sale, the sheriff did
then and there publicly and according
to law, sell said premises to your
petitioner for said sum, he being the
highest bidder therefor.
That in pursuance of said sale the
said sheriff on the day of
, 19 — , executed and delivered
to your petitioner a deed of convey-
ance of said premises, whereby the said
sheriff did bargain, sell, assign, grant,
transfer and convey unto your peti-
tioner, his heirs and assigns, all and
singular the said premises, with their
appurtenances, to have and to hold the
same to his and their use forever; and
that said conveyance was afterwards
duly acknowledged by the said sheriff
and duly recorded, as will more fully
appear by reference to said deed.
And your petitioner further shows
that at the time of said sale the de-
fendant C. D. was and still is in pos-
session of said premises, and on the
day of , 19 — , and at
divers times since your petitioner ex-
hibited to the defendant said deed of
conveyance duly acknowledged and
recorded as aforesaid, and demanded of
bim possession of said premises, but
that the defendant has hitherto refused
and still does absolutely refuse to de-
liver the same to your petitioner.
Wherefore your petitioner prays that
a writ of assistance may issue from
this court commanding the sheriff of
said county to put your petitioner in
possession of said premises and for
such other and further relief as may
be just.
ASSOCIATIONS
[See 9 Standard Pbog. 118.]
ASSUMPSIT
[See 9 Standard Proc. 118.]
ATTACHMENT
[See 9 Standard Proc. 124.]
Garnishment, see Garnishicxnt.
Afldavit for Speciflc Attachment.
A. B., plaintiff in the above entitled
action, being duly sworn, on oath de-
poses and says, that his claim in this
action against the defendant J. K. is
for money due upon a promissory note
(or otherwise), and that it is a just
claim; that he believes he ought to re-
cover thereon the sum of dol-
lars, for which he has a lien on (here
describe the property against whidi at-
tachment is sought) described in his
complaiut by virtue of a mortgage
therewith exhibited; and said (proper-
ty) is about to be sold, concealed or
removed from this state (or that he
has reasonable cause to believe and does
believe that unless prevented by this
court the said property will be sold,
etc.) A. B.
Subscribed and sworn to before me,
this day of , Ifr— .
Kotice of Le^y of Attachment of Prop-
erty in Hands of Third Pexson.
(Title of cause and 'venue.)
T hereby certify the within to be a
true copy of the original warrant of
attachment, as issued to me in the
within iiamed action^ and that the at-
ATTACHMENT
25
tachment, of wkieh the within la a true
copy, is now in my hands and that by
it I am commanded to attach all the
estate, real and personal, including
money and bank notes of the within
named defendant, C. D., within my
county, except such articles as are by
law exempt from execution, and to
take into my custody all books of ac-
count, vouchers, and papers relating to
the property, debts, credits and effects
of said defendant, together with all
evidences of title to real estate; and
that all such property, debts an4 ef-
fects,, and all rights and shares of
stock with all interest and profits there-
in and all dividends thereon or there-
from, belonging to the said defendant
now in your hands and possession or
under your control, will be liable to
said warrant of attachment and are
hereby attached by me, and you are
hereby required to deliver such moneys,
bank notes, vouchers, evidences of title
to real estate, shares of stock, interest,
profits and dividends thereon, and all
property capable of manual delivery
into my custody forthwith and without
delay.
And I hereby require you to furnish
me with a certificate in that behalf
as required by the (Code of Procedure) ,
of any rights, shares, debts or other
property of said defendant, incapable
of manual delivery, and in default
thereof you will be liable to the exami-
nation and attachment in such case
provided by law.
Dated at , this day
of , Ifr— .
Sheriff of the county of
Based on O'Brien i?. Mechanics' &
Traders' F. Ins. Co., 56 N. Y. 52.
Bond To Indemnify OfiBcec
Know all men by these presents that
we, A. B., as principal, and J. K. and
G. F., as sureties, of the county of
, and state of , are
held and firmly bound unto L. M. in
the sum of dollars, to be paid
to aaid L. M., his heirs, executors, ad-
ministrators or assigns, for which
payment, well and truly to be made, we
bind ourselves and our heirs, executors
and administrators, jointly and several-
ly, firmly, by these presents, sealed
with our seals this day of
f 1»— .
The condition of the foregoing obli-
gation is fluch that whereas the above
bounden A. B. on the r-r-r day of
'■ ■ , 19 — , placed in the hands of
said L. M., sheriff of said county, an
attachment writ in favor of said A. B.
against the estate of X. Y., issued out
of the ■ court of said county
of ■■■■ , on the day of
, 19 — , and returnable to the
next term of said court to be
held on the ■■ ■
•day of
dollars,
19 — ^ for the sum of
and has caused the said L. M. to levy
said attachment writ on the property
of said Z. Y. described as follows, to-
wit (here describe property attached).
Now therefore, if the said A. B. shall
secure and hold harmless the said L. M.,
sheriff as aforesaid, from all loss, cost,
damage or expense, to which he may
be subjected by reason of said levy, if
it shall afterwards appear that the
property which may be levied on does
not belong to said defendant, or is not
Bubjqct to levy and sale, then this obli-
gation to be void, otherwise to remain
in full force and effect.
A. B. (seal.)
J. K. (seal.)
G. F. (seal.)
Beceipt to Attaching Oficer.
Beceived of J. K., sheriff for the
county of , state of — '• ^
dollars, lawful money of the
United States, all of which is this day
attached as the property of C. D. at
the suit of A. B., of the town of
, in said county, against said
0. D. of said , as per writ
demanding
dollars damages
and costs of suit, and returnable to
the tetm of the court
within and for said county on the
day of , 19 — .
Which said property we hereby joint-
ly and severally acknowledge to be the
proper estate of said defendant, and
to be of the value of dol-
lars..
And wo further jointly and severally
agree to keep the same at our own
risk and expense and to redeliver the
same to the said J. K., sheriff, or his
order, on demand, and on failure so
to do, to pay the said J. K., sheriff as
aforesaid, for said property at the
above valuation of dollars,
and hold him harmless from all loss,
cost, damage, or expense he may sus-
tain thereby.
Dated at , this day
of , 19—.
C. D. (seal.)
L. M. (seal.)
26
ATTACHMENT
Based on Von Wettberg v, Oarson, 44
Conn. 288.
AJ&davlt and Claim of Third Person to
Attaclied Property.
J. K., being duly sworn, says, that
on the day of , 19 — ,
L. M., sheriff of
county, under
and by virtue of a writ of attachment
issued in said action, attached, as the
y^roperty of the above-named defendant,
personal property described as follows:
(insert description); that at the time
of said attachment the said property
was not the property of said defendant
but was and is the property of affiant,
who acquired title to said property In
the following manner (state manner
of acquiring title); that the value of
said property is dollars, and
this affidavit is made for the purpose
of obtaining the possession of said prop-
erty.
To L. M., sheriff of county:
I hereby claim the property described
in the above affidavit and demand pos-
session of the same.
Application for Order To Sell Perish-
able Property.
The petition of A. B., plaintiff in
the above entitled action (or C. D.,
defendant) respectfully represents to
the court herein, that under and by vir-
tue of a writ of attachment issued in
the above entitled cause, J. K., sheriff
of said county of , on the
day of , 19—, levied
upon, seized and took (here describe
the property), which is perishable in its
nature and unless sold or otherwise dis-
posed of will deteriorate in value, or
even become valueless, prior to the
time of final judgment in the above
named action (or in case of live stock,
allege the great expense of keeping) ;
that it will be to the interest of both
parties hereto and will further the ends
of justice that the said property be
sold and the proceeds of the sale there-
of held subject to the determination
of the above action.
Wherefore your petitioner prays that
an order be granted directing the sale
of said property as soon as expedient,
in the manner required by law.
Application for Seduction of Excessive
Attachment.
C. D., the defendant above named,
says:
I. That in the above entitled aetior
pending in said court, the plaintiff, A.
B., alleges that the defendant is in-
debted to him in the sum of ■
dollars and claims dollars as
damages.
n. That in said action, property be-
longing to said defendant of the value
of dollars, has been attached
by J. K., sheriff of said county, under
and by virtue of a writ of attach-
ment issued therein, said property so
attached being described as follows,
to-wit: (here describe the attached
property).
III. That said defendant believes
that said plaintiff has no reasonable
ground for alleging said indebtedness
of dollars, or reasonable ex-
pectation of recovering judgment there-
for or claiming damages in the said
amount of dollars.
lY. That the said attachment for
the sum of dollars is excessive,
oppressive and vexatious.
Wherefore the said plaintiff prays
this honorable court to cite said A. B.,
the plaintiff (or L. M., his attorney)
to appear before him on the
day of , 19 — , then and there
to give a bill of particulars of his said
claim and to state under oath the
amount thereof; and that so much of
said above described property as is not
reasonably required to secure the pay-
ment of the said alleged claim of the
plaintiff together with costs, may be
released from said attachment.
Petition for Intervention by Third Per-
son l^ose Property Is Attached.
The petition of J. K. respectfully
shows:
That L. M., the sheriff of
county, on the day of ,
19 — , by virtue of a writ of attachment
issued in the above entitled action, at-
tached as the property of the defend-
ant and now unlawfully holds under
said writ, the following described per-
sonal property: (describe property).
That the said property was and is
the property of the petitioner, and that
the defendant had not at the time of
the said attachment, "nor has he now
any right, title, or interest therein.
Wherefore your petitioner asks leave
to intervene in this action and prays
that said property may be released from
said attachment and for such other
relief as may be just.
ATTOBNEYS
\S€e 9 Standard Proc. 139. See also
Lawyee and Client.]
BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS
27
BAILMENTS. — See Peesonal Prop-
erty.
ATTDITA QUEBELA
[See 9 Standard Proc. 143.]
Application for Writ.
(Title.)
The petition of
I7 shows:
, respectful-
That (etc., setting forth the facts
justifying the rendering of the relief
sought).
Your petitioner, therefore, complains
that, by reason of the premises he is
unjustly oppressed, and also complains
that (etc., setting forth other com-
plaints) .
Your petitioner, therefore prays the
court to allow him a writ of audita
querela against the said , and
that his complaint being heard, the
said be called before the
court and that justice be caused to be
done to your petitioner; that the judg-
ment obtained upon the said
shall be stricken from the record, set
aside and declared void for the cause
herein set out, and that (stating spe-
cifically any other relief sought).
And your petitioner will ever pray.
(Verification.)
Based on Newhart v. Wolfe, 102 Pa.
561.
BAKKBUPTCY PBOCEBDINOS
[See 9 Standard Proc. 143.]
PUIS DARREIN CONTINUANCE.—
See Abatement, Pleas of.
Complaint by assignee in bankruptcy to
set aside fraudulent conveyance, see
Fraudulent Conveyances.
Petition To Intervene.
United States district court, for the
district of »
In Bankruptcy.
In the Matter of
Alleged Bankru
To the honorable
of ^
Ptj
-, judge of
the district court of the United States
for the district of
The petition cT
respectfully
represents and alleges:
That he is a creditor of and has a
provable unsecured claim against the
above named , amounting to
dollars; that tho nature and
amount of said claim is as follows, to-
wit: (here state amount and nature
of claim); that no part of said claim
has ever been paid although payment
of same has been demanded.
That the petition filed herein by
, praying that said
be adjudged an involuntary bankrupt,
is still pending, and that your petition-
er desires to join in the said petition.
Wherefore your petitioner prays that
ho be allowed to join in said petition
of said .
Petition After Adjudication for Ap-
pointment of Receiver by Beferee
and the Consent of Creditors There-
to.
(Title, etc.)
To , Esq.,
Referee in Bankruptcy.
The petition of respectfully
shows:
That he is a creditor of , the
bankrupt herein, and has a provable
claim for dollars.
That said was duly ad-
judicated a bankrupt herein on the
day of , 19 — , and on
the same day this proceeding was duly
referred but that a trustee herein can-
not be appointed for some time.
That the value and assets of the
bankrupt's estate are substantially as
follows, viz:
(Here state full particulars.)
That to preserve said estate a tem-
porary receiver must be appointed to
take charge of the same for the fol-
lowing reasons: (state fully).
That it is necessary and for the best
interest of all the creditors of this
estate that the business of the said
bankrupt be continued until a trustee
can be duly appointed and qualify for
the following reasons: (state fully).
That no previous application has
been made to this court for the order
hereinafter asked.
Wherefore, etc.
Consent of Creditors,
We, the undersigned creditors of said
bankrupt, holding unsecured claims in
the amounts set opposite our names, do
hereby consent to and request the ap-
pointment of a receiver herein.
Petition by Beceiver To Continue Busi-
ness.
To the district court of the United
States, for the district of
28
BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS
The petition of
shows:
respectfully
That on the
day of
19 — , your petitioner was duly ap-
pointed temporazy receiver herehi and
duly qualified by filing the required
bond.
That as such receiver he has taken
possession of the following property,
assets and effects of the bankrupt, to-
wit: (here describe property).
That the said bankrupt was at the
time of the adjudication herein car-
rying on the business of manufacturing
automobile radiators at , and
had on h^nd a large amount of mate-
rial in process of manufacture, and a
large number of partially completed
radiators, and had a considerable num-
ber of unfilled orders; that the value
of said material and unfinished radia-
tors would be greatly increased by the
use of the said material in completing
the manufacture of said unfinished
radiators; that otherwise the value of
the same will be largely lost to the
estate.
That your petitioner believes it is
to the best interest of the estate that
he be permitted to continue said busi-
ness until such time as the materials
now on hand shall have been manufac-
tured into finished radiators.
^Wherefore your petitioner respectful-
ly prays that he be authorized and
empowered to continue said business as
formerly conducted by the bankrupt for
the period of days, or until
such materials shall have been manu-
factured into finished radiators; and
that in the conduct of said business
he may be empowered to enter into
such contracts and incur such expense
as to him shall seem necessary for the
conduct of said business.
Petition To Amend Schedule.
Your petitioner respectfully shows:
That on the day of
19 — , he was duly adjudged a bank-
rupt and he duly filed his schedules as
required by law.
That when your petitioner filed his
said schedules, through inadvertence
and mistake, he omitted from his said
schedule the names of certain creditors
and the statutory facts regarding their
said claims; that said names and facts
are as follows: (here set forth the
names of omitted creditors and de-
scription of their claims).
Tliat the above mentioned creditors
who were so omitted have not been
notified of the first meeting of cred-
itors.
That when the schedules of property
belonging to your petitioner were pre-
pared an4 filed your petitioner through
inadvertence and mistake omitted there-
from certain interests in property which
he held, which said interests were as
follows: (here describe property and
interests omitted).
That there has been no previous ap-
plication for the order hereinafter
asked.
Wherefore your petitioner prays for
an order allowing him to amend his
said schedules in the manner above set
forth, and that notice may issue accord-
ingly.
Petition That Baakrapt Tom Over Ckm-
cealed Property.
(Title, etc.)
To , referee in bankruptcy:
The petition of , respectful-
ly shows:
That he is the duly qualified and
acting trustee herein.
That he has examined the bankrupt
and other witnesses in this proceeding
and has further examined the books of
said bankrupt, and from said examina-
tion and testimony he is convinced and
believes that said bankrupt has in his
possession and under his control prop-
erty and assets that belong to his said
estate, decribed as follows: (here de-
scribe concealed property), which said
property and assets said bankrupt is
fraudulently concealing from your peti-
tioner as trustee of said bankrupt
estate.
That the value of said concealed
property and assets is at least -^-^—
dollars.
That the source of knowledge and
ground of belief of your petitioner as
to said concealment of said property are
as follows, viz: (here state fully source
of knowledge and from whom ob-
tained).
That no previous application has been
made for an order herein.
Wherefore your petitioner prays that
an order may issue from this court to
said bankrupt ordering and directing
him forthwith to turn over to your
petitioner as trustee of said estate, said
property and assets so concealed as
aforesaid, and for such other and far-
ther relief as may be just.
BANKBVPTCT PnOCEBDINOS
29
Petmon of Tmstae To Bring Suit.
(Title, etc.)
To the United States district court
for the district of :
The petition of
shows:
That he is the duly qualified and
acting trustee herein.
That among other assets of said
bankrupt estate there came into the
hands of your petitioner as said trus-
tee a certain contract bearing date of
the day of , 19—,
between the bankrupt and one — — .
That, as your petitioner is informed
and believes, at the time of the adjudi-
cation herein the said bankrupt had
completed said contract in accordance
with the terms thereof.
That he has caused the said ■
to be examined under §210 of the bank-
ruptcy laws of 1898, and that said
denies that he owes the bank-
rupt any sum of money by reason of
said contract.
That your petitioner has been ad-
Vised by competent counsel that he, as
trustee, has a good and valid cause of
action against said under said
contract; that the creditors herein
have requested your petitioner, as trus-
tee, to institute legal proceeding against
said to enforce payment of
the amount claimed to be due under
said contract.
That no previous application has been
made for the order herein prayed for.
Wherefore your petitioner prays for
an order authorizing and permitting
him to bring suit against the said
, in the court for the
county of
-, and prosecute the
same to final judgment.
Affldavlt as to SzemptlODS.
(Title, etc.)
, being duly sworn, deposes
and says:
That on the day of ,
19 — , he was duly adjudged bankrupt
in this court. That on the
day of , 19 — , he duly filed his
schedules herein; that schedule
sets forth the property to which the
afiiant is eiititled as exempt under the
law of the state of .
That he resided in said state for the
period of six months next preceding
the filing of his petition of bankruptcy.
That said property is of the value
of dollars, as follows: (here
set forth the estimated value of each
exemption separately).
That said property as above de-
scribed should be set off to affiant as
exempt property under the law.
(Jurat.)
Objection to Trustee's Account.
(Title, etc.)
, a creditor and person in-
terested in the above entitled estate,
appearing by , his attorney,
hereby excepts to the trustee's account
filed herein in the following par-
ticulars:
I. He objects to the following items
of expenditure as unnecessary, unwar-
ranted and unlawful: (here describe
items of account objected to) and asks
that the trustee be surcharged there-
with.
n. He objects to the account on the
ground that the trustee has failed to
account for the following assets be-
longing to the estate (here enumerate
and describe).
m. He objects to said account on
the ground that the said trustee has
wasted and negligently lost the follow-
ing assets belonging to said estate
(here describe).
rv. (Set forth specifically other
grounds of objection.)
Wherefore your petitioner respectful-
ly prays that the said account be not
allowed; that the .trustee be not dis-
charged until he has accounted for the
matters above set forth.
Dated at , this day
of , Ifr— .
Creditor.
Petition To Beclaiiti.
(Title, etc.)
To the district court of the United
States for the district of
The petition of
shows:
respectfully
That at all the times mentioned here-
in, , the said bankrupt, was a
merchant engaged in business in the
city of .
That your petitioner owns and is en-
titled to the immediate possession of
the property set forth in the schedule
annexed hereto marked ' ' A. " and made
a part hereof. That said property is
of the value of dollars.
That your petitioner is informed and
believes that on the day of
, 19 — , an involuntary petition
in bankruptcy was filed against the
said in this court j that on the
30
BANKRUPTCY PBOCEEDINGS
day of
19 — , said
was duly adjudged a bank-
rupt, and one ^ was duly ap-
pointed as receiver in bankruptcy of
the said , and that after his
said appointment the said receiver took
possession of and now continues in pos-
session of the property described in
said schedule "A."
That said property is in the same
condition in which it was at the time
of delivery by your petitioner to said
•
That before the filing of this peti-
tioUy your petitioner demanded of
, receiver, the return of said
goods and merchandise described in
said schedule ''A,'' but said demand
was refused by said receiver.
That at divers times prior to the
filing of said petition in bankruptcy,
the said , by. false and fraud-
ulent representations, induced your pe-
titioner to sell and deliver to him the
goods and merchandise described in
said schedule ''A," and by such false
and fraudulent representations made
with the intent to defraud and deceive
the plaintiff, said , well know-
ing that the plaintiff relied upon the
truth of said false and fraudulent rep-
resentations, procured said property to
be delivered into his said 'b
possession.
That at the time the said goods and
merchandise were so delivered to said
by reason of said false rep-
resentations, the said was in-
solvent and unable to pay his debts
in fuU, and said false representations
were made with full knowledge of his
said insolvency; and were made with
intent to defraud and deceive your peti-
tioner and with the intent to obtain
possession thereof, and with the intent
and design not to pay for the same
when the term of credit upon which
the same had been purchased should
have terminated.
That the said false and fraudulent
representations which were made to the
petitioner by said were as fol-
lows: (here set out in full the false
representations) .
Wherefore your petitioner prays that
, temporary receiver herein, be
directed to deliver to your petitioner
all of the said property described in
said schedule *'A" upon condition that
your petitioner file a bond with the
clerk of this court in a sum to be ap-
proved by the court, conditioned that
if your petitioner faUs to establish his
right, title and interest in and to said
property, then and in that event your
petitioner will repay to the said tem-
porary receiver or trustee hereafter to
be elected, the value of said property
and reimburse him for all* loss, cost or
expense "to which he may be subjected
by reason of this order; and that your
petitioner have such other and further
relief as may be just.
Petition To Beroke DlBcharge.
(Title, etc.)
To the honorable
-, judge of the
district court of the United States
for the district of :
9 respeetful-
The petition of
ly shows:
That he is a creditor herein; that
his claim against said estate was filed
and allowed in the sum of
dollars; that said claim is affected by
the discharge herein.
That said was, in this court,
duly adjudged a bankrupt on the
day of , 19 — , and
thereafterwards on the ■ day of
, 19 — , by an order of this
court was discharged from his debts;
that one year has not expired since
the date of said order granting said
discharge.
That since the granting of said dis-
charge your petitioner has acquired
knowledge of the following facts:
(here set forth facts which would be
grounds for revocation).
That the sources of your petitioner's
knowledge and information are as fol-
lows: (here set forth fully sources of
information) .
That your petitioner had no knowl-
edge of the facts above set forth prior
to the granting of said discharge.
That said discharge was obtained by
said bankrupt through fraud.
Wherefore your petitioner prays for
an order revoking said discharge, on
the ground of fraud in obtaining the
same and for such other and further
relief as may be just.
BANKS Ain> BAJsnsum
[See 9 Standard Pace. 181.]
Complaint hy hanJe against agent for
indemnity, see Indemnitt.
Insolvency, complaint hy creditor to
close up business, etc., see Ck>KFOBA-
TIONS.
Complaint by Bank To Becover Amount
of Obeck Paid by Ifiatake.
The plaintiff in the above entitled
BANKS AND BANKING
31
action complains against the defendant
herein and alleges:
I. That the plaintiff is a corpora-
tion duly organized and existing under
the laws of the state of , and
engaged in the banking business at
^^^^^"^^""^^"^
n. That at times prior to the •
day of , 19 — , the defendant
had an account with this plaintiff at
such bank and made deposits of money
with the plaintiff, which said sums of
money the plaintiff held subject to the
defendant's written order for pay*
ment.
III. That on the day of
, 19 — , the defendant presented
to the plaintiff his written order to
pay himself the sum of dol-
lars; that on said day the amount held
by the plaintiff on deposit for the de-
fendant as aforesaid was the sum of
dollars, but that the plain-
tiff believing that the amount so held
on deposit as aforesaid was
dollars, or more, paid to the defendant
the said sum of dollars upon
his said written order; that on the
day of as soon as the
plaintiff discovered said error and over-
payment, the plaintiff informed the
defendant thereof and demanded repay-
ment of said sum of dollars,
which the defendant refused and has
ever since refused to do.
Wherefore, etc.
OoinplAipt Against Bank for Paying
Forged Check.
I. That defendant is (continue as in
paragraph I of preceding form).
n. That on, to-wit, the
day of , 19—, the plaintiff had
an account with the defendant as such
bank and from time to time made de-
posits of money with the defendant
which the defendant held subject to
the plaintiff's written order for pay-
ment.
m. That on, to-wit, the — ^—
day of , 19 — , one 0. D. pre-
sented at said defendant's bank a cer-
tain check or written order for pay-
ment of money, which said check or
order for payment purported to have
been signed by the plaintiff and was m
the words and figures following, viz:
(here insert copy of check together
with all indorsements thereon).
IV. That said check or order for
payment was not and never had been
signed by the plaintiff or by any' per-
son thereunto authorized by him, but
the plaintiff's signature to said check
or order for payment was false, ficti-
tious, forged and counterfeit.
V. That on, to-wit, the
day of , 19 — , the said defend-
ant by its servants and agents negli-
gently and wrongfully paid to said C.
D. the amount of said false and forged
check or order for payment, to-wit, the
sum of dollars, and deducted
the said sum of dollars from
the moneys of the plaintiff so held on
deposit as aforesaid.
VI. That as soon as the plaintiff
discovered that said check or order for
payment was false and forged and that
the amount thereof had been paid by
the defendant to said 0. D. and de-
ducted from the plaintiff's said moneys
so deposited as aforesaid, the plaintiff
notified the defendant that said check
or order for payment was false and
forged, and requested the defendant to
credit the plaintiff's said account with
the sum of dollars, being the
amount which defendant had wrong-
fully deducted from the plaintiff's said
moneys so deposited as aforesaid.
VIT. That the defendant, though re-
quested, refused and ever since has
refused to credit the plaintiff's said ac-
count with the sum of dollars,
or to pay to the said plaintiff the said
sum.
Wherefore, etc.
Oomplalnt for Befasal To Bepay De-
posit.
I. (As in paragraph I of preceding
form.)
II. That on the day of
, 19—, the plaintiff deposited
with defendant, in the course of its
said banking business, subject to plain-
tiff's order, the sum of dol-
lars.
III. That on the day of
, 19 — , plaintiff demanded from
the said defendant the said sum of
dollars, which said sum or any
part thereof the said defendant then
and there refused and ever since has
refused and now refuses to pay to the
plaintiff, to his damage in the sum of
dollars.
Wherefore, etc.
Answer That Bank JJned Diligence in
Presenting Check or Draft.
(Title.)
The defendant answering the com-
plaint on file herein alleges and denies:
That if it ever had or handled the
S2
]SANK8 AND BANKINO
check described in plaintiff's petition,
it took the same in due course of busi-
ness, and that in handling the same it
handled it in the ordinary, customary,
and usual manner in which such mat-
ters are handled by banks doing busi-
ness in the city of , state of
-, and elsewhere; that if it ever
handled said check, it used due dili
gence and all care necessary end
proper, and such as is customary in an
effort to collect the same; that it was
not negligent in any particular in any
manner, or in any way, in its efforts
to collect said check; that if it ever
handled said check, it presented the
same promptly for payment in the
usual and customary manner in which
such items are handled by the banks
of , and in such prompt,
usual, and customary manner as plain-
tiff knew the said check would be
handled by said bank when the same
was deposited with it for collection.
That if it ever handled said check,
the same, when presented promptly and
properly and through the proper chan-
nels, was dishonored, not paid, and re-
turned to this defendant, and im-
mediately by it reported dishonored
and returned to the plaintiff.
This defendant denies that it has
been guilty of any negligence, neglect,
or carelessness whatever in connection
with the handling of said check or its
presentation for payment, and denies
that it is liable to the plaintiff in
any sum whatever in this case, and
of this it puts itself upon the country.
Dorchester v. Merchants' Nat. Bank
(Tex.), 163 S. W. 5.
BASTABDT FBOGEEDIKaS
[See 9 Standard Pboc. 182.] -
Complaint on Bond Executed in Bas-
tardy Proceeding.
(Title.)
The plaintiff above-named complains
of the defendant and for cause of ac-
tion alleges:
That on the day of ,
19 — f there was pending before a cer-
tain justice of the peace of
county, state of , a certain suit
wherein the state of
ex rel.
was plaintiff, and
the defendant; that on the
day of , in said year, said jus-
tice required said defendant to enter
. into a bond, in the penal sum of
1 • - . doUarS} conditioned that he
would be and appear before tlie
court at the term
thereof,
-, to answer to the
complaint in said action, which wai
for bastardy, and not depart without
leave, and abide the judgment and or-
ders of the court; and failing so to do
would pay such sums of money over
to such persons as might be adjudged
by such court.
That and , defend-
ants herein, executed their bond con-
ditioned as aforesaid, a copy of which
bond is hereto attached as exhibit
''A" and made a part hereof; that
the same was taken and approved by
the said justice on the — ~— — day
of , 19—-.
That default has been made in the
conditions of said bond, in this: that
on the day of , 19 — ,
such proceedings were had that judg-
ment was rendered in said suit in favor
of the plaintiff, and against said de-
fendant, for the sum of dol-
lars, and costs taxed at dol-
lars, and that the said defendant pay
or repay said judgment, and failing
therein that he be committed to jail;
that said defendant did not appear
and abide the orders and judgment of
the court, but absconded and left the
state of , and has failed and
refused to pay or replevy said judg-
ment. .
Wherefore, etc. Sustained in (TIark
et al V. State, 125 Ind. 1, 24 N. E.
744, holding that complaint need not
demand a performance of the condi-
tions of the bond prior to the bringing
of the action.
BEinSFIGIAL AflSOCIATIOKB
[See 4 Standard Pboo. 86. See also
Associations ; Insurance.]
BETTINa. — See Gamino; Elections.
BIGAMT
[See 9 Standard Proc. 184.]
BlUiS AND ANSWBBB
[See 9 Standard Proc. 185. See aUo
Answers.]
Answer in lieu of demurrer, see Equity
Jurisdiction and Procedure.
For accounting, see Account and Ac-
counting.
For injunction, see Injuncfrons.
Motion for better statement of natwre
BILLS AND NOTES
33
of claim or def&n»e, ie$ Eqttitt Jttus*
DICTION AND PbOOEDUBB.
Motion to Btrike, Bee Equitt Jxtbisdio-
TION AND PBOGEDXTBX.
To Bet aside asBignment, see Assign-
ment roB THE BsNsriT or Cbbditobs.
To Bet aside judgment, see Bills To
IMFSAOH JUDGHXNTS AND DSGBXES.
BIIiLa AND NOTES
[See 9 Standard Pboc. 194.]
Ansioer that bank wed diligeftce in pre-
senting check or draft, see Banks
AND Banking.
Complaint by bank against agent for
negligence in presenting check, see In-
mtMNITT.
Complaint by bank to recover amount of
check paid by mistake, iee Banks and
Banking.
Forged check, complaint against bank
for paying, see Banks and Banking.
Fraud in procuring, answer, see Fbattd
AND Deceit.
' Complaint on Lost Note.
The plaintiff in the above entitled
action complains against the defendant
herein and alleges:
That on the day of ■■>
19--, the said defendant C. D. for a
valuable eonsideration executed andcle-
livered to the plaintiff A. B. his certain
promissory note for the sum of
dollars, payable in months
after date, with interest at the rate
of per cent, per annum.
That the whole amount of said note
with Interest is now due and unpaid.
That the plaintiff is now the owner of
said note and entitled to receive the*
money due and unpaid thereon. That
the said plaintiff has not endorsed or
transferred said note, but that the same
since its maturity has been lost.
Wherefore, ete.
Complaint KaUng Co-Payee Defendant
for Befosal To Join as Plaintiff.
That on. the
day of
19"-, the dtf endant O. D., for a valuable
consideration, executed and delivered to
the plaintiff and one E. F., his certain
promissory note for the sum of
dollars, payable to said plaintiff and
said B. P. jointly in months
after date, in the words and figures
following: (here set out copy of note).
That said note is now due and
wholly unpaid.
That the defendant E. F., prior to
the bringing of this sait| was requested
by the plaintiff to join in said suit but
refused and still refuses so to do.
Wherefore the plaintiff demands
judgment against the defendant C. D.
for the sum of dollars, with
interest thereon from the — — day
of , 19 — , and for costs of suit,
and against said E. F. for an adjust-
ment of his interest in the suit and
against both said defendants for other
and proper relief.
Complaint Against ISakor by Piyea
Who Has Bean Held as Indorser.
That on the
day of
19—, for a valuable consideration, the
defendant executed and delivered to
the plaintiff his certain promissory note
of that date for the sum of
dollars, payable to the plaintiff or order
in months from date, a copy
of which note with the endorsements
thereon is hereto annexed and made a
part of this complaint.
That thereafter on the ' day
of , 19 — , and before the ma-
turity of said note the plaintiff en-
dorsed the same and negotiated it for
value.
That at the maturity of said note
payment of the same was demanded of
the defendant, but was refused, where-
of the plaintiff had due notice; that
thereafter on, to-wit, the day
of , 19—, the plaintiff was
compelled to, and did in fact pay, to
, the holder of said note, on
account of the amount due thereon
from the defendant, the sum of
dollars, and that no part of the same
has been paid to the plaintiff; that
the defendant is therefore justly in-
debted to the plaintiff in the sum of
dollars, with interest thereon
from the day of ,
19—.
Wherefore, etc.
Complaint Where False Name
Been Signed by Mistake.
That on the
day of
19 — , the defendant, Henry King, at
' , in the county of , for
a valuable consideration executed and
delivered to the plaintiff his certain
promissory note of that date for the
sum of dollars, payable to the
plaintiff or order in months
from date; that through a mistake said
defendant Henry King signed said note
"Henry Kean" though it ought to
have been signed with the defendant's
true name Henry King, end was so
34
BILLS AND NOTES
intended to have been signed, as said
note was given for the benefit of said
Henry King and for property which
went to his use; said sum of
dollars is now due and wholly unpaid
on said note, and the defendant though
often requested has wholly neglected
and refused to pay the plaintiff the
same or any part thereof, to the dam-
age of the plaintiff in the sum of
dollars.
Complaint for Deficiency After Sale of
Collateral Security.
The plaintiff in the above entitled
action complains against the defendant
herein and alleges:
That on the day of ,
19 — , for a valuable consideration the
defendant executed to the plaintiff his
certain promissory note of that date
for the sum of dollars, pay-
able to the plaintiff, or order,
months from date, with interest at
seven per cent, per annum; that on
the same day the defendant deposited
with the plaintiff certain (here de-
scribe collateral) as collateral security
for the payment of said note, with the
agreement and understanding regarding
said collateral as follows: (here set out
the agreement as to sale of collateral
in case of non-payment of note, etc.)
That no part of said note has been
paid except the sum of dol-
lars received on the day of
-, 19 — , from the sale of
received as collateral as aforesaid,
which said was sold to the
highest bidder at public auction after
due notice and advertisement of the
same in accordance with the terms of
the said agreement regarding the col-
lateral.
That there remains due and unpaid
on said note the sum of dol-
lars, with interest thereon from the
day of , 19—.
Wherefore, etc.
Complaint by Joint Maker for Con*
tribution.
That on the
day of
19 — , the plaintiff and the defendant
'executed and delivered to one J. K.
their joint and several promissory note
of that date, for dollars, pay-
able to said J. K. or order in
months from date, of which the fol-
lowing is a copy: (here insert copy of
note).
That thereafter and after the ma-
turity of said note the plaintiff was
compelled to pay and did pay the whole
amount due on said note, and no part
thereof has been repaid to him, but
the defendant though/ often requested
to repay one-half of the amount so
paid out by the plaintiff^ haa refused
and still refuses so to do.
Wherefore the plaintiff demands judg-
ment against the defendant in the sum
of — — — dollars, being one-half of
the amount which the plaintiff was
compelltd to pay and did pay on said
note.
Plea That Defendant Signed Dzmft m
Officer of Corporation.
The defendant answering the plain*
tiff's complaint in tbe above entitled
action says:
That the said draft mentioned in said
complaint was given in settlement of
a debt due by the M. N. Co. to said
plaintiff, of which said M. N. Co., the
defendant at said time, was treasurer,
and of which L. B. the drawee named
in said draft, was financial agent; that
said defendant gave said draft as
treasurer aforesaid, in settlement of
said debt, and said plaintiff well knew
this to be so, and received and accepted
said draft for said purpose aforesaid,
and said draft is not the personal debt
of the defendant, but is the debt of
said N. M. Co.
Wherefore, etc. Based on lifartin c.
Smith, 65 Miss. 1, 3 So. 33.
Answer by One Unable To Bead, That
He Signed Under False Repreaenta-
tlona as to tke Character of tbe In*
stnunent.
I. That this defendant is a Oerman by
birth and education and unable to read
or write the English language (or blind
or otherwise disabled from reading in-
strument); that on the day
of , 19 — , the date of said sup-
posed note referred to in the com-
plaint, A. B. the payee in said note
falsely and fraudulently represented to
the defendant, with intent to cheat, de-
fraud and swindle him; that he, the
said payee, would appoilit defendant
sole agent for the district of ,
for the sale of a certain patented ma-
chine, to-wit, a cream separatot, and
would deliver to him one of said ma-
chines free of cost (state any other
material representations) ; thereupon
the defendant signified his acceptance
of said agency and said payee presented
to this defendant a certain instrument
partly in writing and partly printed|
BILLS OF EXCEPTIONS
35
to be signed in dnplieate, which this
defendant was unable to read and
which the said A. B. then and there
falsely and fraudulently represented to
be a contract of agency embracing the
terms of the aforesaid oral agreement
between the plaintift and the defend-
ant.
II. That the defendant relying upon
the truth of said representations and
believing that said instrument em-
bodied the aforesaid contract of
agency, without negligence on his part
attached his signature to the said in-
strument, and said A. B. immediately
took the same, and the defendant has
not since that time seen the said in-
strument.
m. Upon information and belief
the defendant alleges that in truth and
in fact the instrument so signed by
the defendant as aforesaid was not a
contract for agency as represented by
the plaintiff, but was in fact in form
a promissory note and that the same
is the identical note upon which this
action is brought.
IV. That this defendant never in-
tended to sign or deliver said note and
never received any consideration of any
kind therefor, but that the same if
signed by this defendant was signed
under the circumstances hereinbefore
set forth and not otherwise.
Wherefore, etc. Based on Walker v,
Ebert, 29 Wis. 194.
Answer dalmlng Extension of Time
and Agreement Kot To Sue.
The defendant answering alleges:
That after the said note in plain-
tiff's said complaint mentioned and be-
fore the commencement of this suit
the said plaintiff for a valuable con-
sideration, agreed with the defendant
herein that if he, said defendant, would
pay to the plaintiff the sum of
dollars at the beginning of each month,
the same to be applied on the payment
of said note, that he, the plaintiff,
would extend the time of payment
thereof accordingly and would not
bring suit on said note until the last
instalment thereof should have become
due. That the defendant has at all
times since said agreement been will-
ing to pay said note in such instal-
ments, but the plaintiff has failed and
refused to accept the same or to re-
ceive any amount to be applied on said
note less than the full amount thereof.
Wherefore, etc. Culver v. Johnson,
90 HI. 91.
Answer That Plaintiff Is Not a Bona
Fide Holder Having Acanlred Kote
With Knowledge of Fraud.
Defendant answering the plaintiff's
complaint herein alleges:
That said note in the plaintiff's com-
plaint mentioned was given for (here
set forth consideration of note and cir-
cumstances attendant on giving it
which would constitute fraud).
That at and prior to the time said
note was transferred to the plaintiff he
had full knowledge of all the facts
above set forth.
BILLS OF EXCEPTIONS
[See 9 Standard Peoc. 214.]
Bill of Exceptions for Denial of Chal-
lenge of Juror.
(Title of cause and venue.)
Be it remembered that the above en-
titled cause came on to be heard for
trial the — ^— day of ,
19 — , being the judicial day of the
term of the court, and came
also the jury called to try said cause.
That each and all of said jurors were
duly sworn to true answers make to
such questions as might be asked them
touching their competency to serve as
jurors; that one of said jurors, so called
and sworn, was J. K. The plaintiff
by his counsel propounded to said J. K.
the following questions, to which he re-
turned the following answers: (here
set forth in full the questions and
answers) .
That the plaintiff thereupon ob-
jected to the competency of said J. K,
to serve as a juror, and stated to ttie
court, as ground for challenge, that said
J. K. shows by his answers that: (here
set forth ground of challenge), but the
ccurt overruled the plaintiff's chal-
lenge, to which ruling the plaintiff at
the time excepted, and the said J. K.
was sworn and served as a juror there-
in. That the foregoing questions and
answers comprise all the questions asked
of and all the answers made by said
J. K., and that no other or further
statements were made by him. And
now on the day and year above writ-
ten the plaintiff presents to the judge
of the said court this bill of
exceptions which is signed and sealed
and made part of the record.
For Misconduct of Juror.
Be it remembered that on the
^mi
36
BILLS OF EXCEPTIONS
day of , 19 — , the plaintiff
moved the court for a new trial for the
reason, as therein specified, that J. K.,
one of the jurors impaneled to try said
cause, was guilty of misconduct in that
he, said juror (here state fully in what
the misconduct of the juror consisted).
That the plaintiff in support of his
said motion filed and read to the court
his own affidavit and the affidavits of
L. M. and O. P. (here insert affidavits) ;
that the defendant filed and submitted
to the court his own affidavit and the
affidavit of J. K. (here insert affi-
davits).
That no other affidavits were filed or
submitted and no other evidence was
heard or given upon said motion; that
the plaintiff's motion was overruled, to
which he at the time excepted, on the
day of , 19 — .
And now on the day last named this
bill of exceptions is signed, sealed and
made a part of the record.
Application for Writ of Mandamus to
Court Stenographer To Oompel Him
To Write Out and FUe Ezeeptiona to
Bulings.
To the honorable , judge of
the court in and for the
county of
The petition of A. B. of ,
in the county of , and state of
-, respectfully alleges:
That J. K. is the official stenographer
of the court of said county,
duly appointed and qualified; that sec-
tion of the Code of Civil Pro-
cedure provides: (here quote section of
code showing the duty of stenographer
to furnish transcript).
That at the term of said
court there was then pending an action
between one C, D. and your relator,
which said action came on to be tried
and was tried at said term and judg-
ment therein was rendered against your
relator; that during the course of the
trial of said cause your relator ob-
jected to the admission of certain evi-
dence and excepted to the ruling of the
court thereon; that under the above
quoted section of the Code of Civil
Procedure it was and is the duty of the
said J. K., as such official stenographer,
to furnish to your relator without com-
pensation a full transcript of the ob-
jections and exceptions had and made
at the trial of said cause.
That your relator demanded of the
said J. K. that he so do. That said
J. K. thereupon refused and ever since
said demand has refused to fnniiali to
your relator said transcript as afore-
said without compensation.
Wherefore your relator prays jiid|^
ment that a peremptory writ of man-
damus issue out of this court commaBd-
ing said J. K., official stenographer, to
furnish to the relator a full transcript ef
all the objections, rulings of the court
and exceptions, had and made daring
the trial of said cause and for sueh
other judgment or order as may be
proper. Based on State ex rel, Kranieh
V. Supple, 22 Mont. 184, 56 Pae. 20.
BIUiS OF PABTIOUIJaUl
[See 9 Standard Pboc. 221.]
In an Action of EJeetmeat.
To defendant above named and — ,
his attorney:
Please take notice that the following
are the particulars of the plaintiffs
claim of title in and to the premises
described in plaintiff's declaration (or
complaint), which said statement of
particulars contains an abstract of the
documentary evidence as to the said
claim to be introduced by plaintiff at
the trial of this cause (here set out
in separate paragraph description of
various documents relied upon, their
dates, parties thereto, witnesses thereto,
the place of record and the reeori
thereof, etc.).
Plaintiff's Attorney.
, this day
Dated at
of , 19—.
Affldavlt To Amend BUL
(Title of cause and venue.)
A. B. of , county of — — ,
etc., being duly sworn deposes and
says:
I. That he is the plaintiff in the
above entitled cause.
II. That he has fully and fairly
stated the facts in this cause to j
Esq., his counsel therein, and that he
is advised and believes that it is neces-
sary to amend the bill of particulars
heretofore served by the plaintiff on
the defendant in this cause, in the fol-
lowing respects: (here state the pro-
posed amendments and the reasons for
omission from the original bill).
m. That said proposed amendments
as above set forth are true and for
claims which ought justly to be allowed
to the plaintiff upon trial of this aetioa.
Subscribed and sworn, etc.
BONDS
37
Oxdw To Show CauM Wliy AniDcbiieiit
Bkoiild Kot Be Allowed*
(Title of cause and venue.)
On service of this order and a copy
of the affidavit upon which the same
is granted^ let C. D. the defendant
above named, or his attorney, show
cause before me at , in the
city of , on the day
of , ift— ^ at o'clock
in the —
— noon, why the bill of par-
ticulars heretofore served herein should
not be amended in the respects set
forth in said affidavit, and it is fur-
ther ordered that in the meantime all
the proceedings in this cause be and
they are hereby stayed.
Judge.
BILLS OT SEVHSW
[See 9 Standard Proo. 224.]
BlUiS TO EUTOBCE DE0BEE8
[See 9 Standard Proc. 226.]
BILLS TO IMPEACH JUDGMENTS
AND DEOBEES
[See 9 Standard Proc. 227.]
Of divorce, see Divorce.
Bill or Oomplalnt To Set ABlde Jndg-
mezLt.
(Title.)
The plaintiff above-named, complain-
ing of the defendant, respectfully
shows:
That on the day of ,
19 — , judgment was rendered and en-
tered by this court in an action then
and there pending, wherein the above-
named defendant was plaintiff, and the
plaintiff herein was defendant, by
which it was adjudged and decreed that
(set forth nature of judgment).
That said judgment was obtained by
(state irregular metjiod by which it is
alleged to be obtained; if it be al-
leged that it was obtained by fraud,
allege in detail facts constituting
fraud).
That the plaintiff did not discover
or know of said (fraud) until on or
about the day of ,
19 — ; that thereupon the plaintiff (state
acts done upon discovery and show
due diligence); that this action is
brought within years after
the discovery of such (fraud).
That the ^aintiff has suffered dam-
ages by the rendition of said former
judgment in this, that is to Bay (ex-
plain damage suffered).
Wherefore, etc.
[See 9 Standard Proc. 228.]
BOABD OF HEALTH. — See Health.
BONDS
[See 9 Standard Proc. 228, and also
Admiralty; Attachment.]
Complaint on bond given in hastardy
proceedings, see . Bastardy Proceed-
ings.
BOOKS AND DOCUMENTS.— See Dis-
covery.
BOYCOTT. — See Conspiracy ; Labor
Unions,
BBEACH OF PBGlilSB
[See 9 Standard Proc. 238.]
Answer That * Defendant Was Not
Fitted To Marry on Account of
Disease.
I. That he admits that thete was an
indefinite agreement between the plain-
tiff and himself to marry, but denies
that anj definite time for said mar-
riage between them was agreed upon.
II. And the defendant ftirther says
that a few days after entering into said
agreement with the plaintiff, he, the de-
fendant, was advised by , his
physician, that he was so diseased as
to be unfit to marry, which fact the
defendant immediately communicated
to the plaintiff and asked that the mar-
riage might be deferred until his re-
covery from said disease, to which the
plaintiff then and there assented; that
at no time since has plaintiff recovered
from said disease.
m. Defendant further says that at
the time of filing this answer he was
and still is diseased and that at no
time since making his contract to mar-
ry with the plaintiff herein has he been
in condition to marry.
Wherefore, etc. Based on Allen v.
Baker, 86 N. C. 91.
Answer of Illegality of Cbnsideratlon
of Promise To Marry.
The defendant answers the plaintiff's
complaint herein and alleges:
That he admits that he promised to
marry the plaintiff.
38
BONDS
That the consideration of said con-
tract of marriage was the agreement
of the plaintiff to then and there have
illicit intercourse with the defendant
and that said contract of marriage was
made upon no other consideration.
Wherefore, etc. Based on Edmonds
t?. Hughes, 115 Ky. 561, 74 S. W. 283.
BBEACH OF THE PEACE
[See 9 Standard Prog. 240. See also
Security To Keep tke Peace.]
BBIBEBY
[See 9 Standard Prog. 240.]
BRIDGES. — See Highways, Streets
AND Bridges.
BUCKET SHOPS. — See 10 Standard
Proc. 352.
BUBGLABY
[See 9 Standard Proc. 243.]
Indictment Charging Possession of
Burglarious Tools and Implements.
(Venue and title of court.)
The jurors for the state upon their
oaths present that A. B. of ,
in the county of , on, to-wit,
the day of ,19—, at
aforesaid, with force and
arms, had in his possession an imple-
ment designed and intended by him
to be used in the commission of
burglary, against the statute in such
case made and provided and against the
peace and dignity of the state.
CARRIERS. — See Corporations;
Freight Carriers; Injuries to Per-
sons AND Pr6perty; Interstate Com-
merce; Liens; Passengers; Public
Service Corporations ; Railroads ;
Ships and Shipping; Steieet Rail-
roads; Warehousemen.
Complaint for failure to Tceep goods
dry, see Freight Carriers, and 9
Standard Proc. 1155.
Complaint for faihere to provide cars,
see Freight Carriers.
Water carriers by, see 9 Standard Proc.
17, 1149.
CASE AKD QWBSnoiH OE&TIFIED^
BESEB\nBD OB BCPOBTED
[See 9 Standard Proc. 245.]
CASE ON APFEAIi
[See 9 Standard Proc. 246.]
CATTLE. — Bee Animals ; Feei6H7
Carriers.
CASE (THE ACTION OF TBESPASS
ON THE)
[See 9 Standard Proc. 244.]
CEBTAINT7 IN PLEADING
[See 9 Standard Proc. 252.]
Demurrer for uncertainty, see Dsmitbbeb.
Motion for further and better statement
of nature of claim or defense, see
Equity Jurisdiction and Progeduri.
Motion To Make More Definite tad
Certain.
The defendant (or plaintiff) in the
above entitled action moves that the
plaintiff (or defendant) herein be or-
dered to make his complaint (or an-
swer) more definite and certain by
stating (here state in what particulars).
CEBTIFICATE OF FBOBABLE CAUSE
AND OF BEASONABLE DOUBT
[See 4 Standard Proc. 870, 871, 880.]
CEBTIOBABI
[See 9 Standard Proc. 252.]
Writ of to board of health, see Health.
Petition for Writ of Certiorari to Jus-
tice of tbe Peace.
(Venue.)
To the
county:
The petition of J. K. respectfully
represents that on the day of
, 19 — , one A. B., a justice of
the peace in and for said county of
, rendered a judgment against
your petitioner and in favor of one
L. M. for the sum of dollars,
damages, and dollars, costSy
in a certain action then pending before
said justice, wherein said L. M. was
plaintiff and your petitioner was de-
fendant.
As your petitioner is informed and
verily believes the said judgment i»
void for the following reasons, to-wit:
(here state facts clearly showing that
the justice had no jurisdiction to render
the judgment).
"WTierefore your x>etitioneT preys that
a writ of certiorari may be issned cat
court of
CHATTEL MORTGAGES
39
of this court to aaid A. B., justice of
the peace, to the end that this court
may be certified of all the proceedings
in said action, and the said pretended
judgment against your petitioner be
duly reversed.
(Signed) J. K. •
(Allowance to be endorsed on petition.)
The writ of certiorari is hereby al-
lowed and ordered to issue as prayed
in the within petition.
Judge.
Demnirer to Petition.
(Title, etc.)
Comes now the respondent herein by
his attorney, , and demurs to
the petition herein, and for cause of
demurrer alleges (or shows):
That the same is not sufficient in law
in that it does not show that any in-
ferior court or tribunal has exceeded
its jurisdiction or has proceeded illegal-
ly and that no appeal is allowed, and
no mode provided for reviewing the
proceedings (or that the petition does
not state facts sufficient in law to jus-
tify the issuance of the writ).
Wherefore respondent prays judg-
ment whether he be compelled to make
any or further answer to said petition;
and he prays to be hence dismissed
with his costs in this behalf incurred.
Motion To QtiasiL Writ.
(Title, «tc.)
And now comes the defendants,
, supervisors (or other board
or commission) as aforesaid, by
their attorney, and move the court to
quash the said writ of certiorari issued
in the above entitled cause. And for
grounds of said motion show to the
court here the following:
I. That the petition for said cer-
tiorari fails to show that there was
any insufficiency or error in the pro-
ceedings therein set forth, or any want
of jurisdiction on the part of the said
supervisors (or other board or commis-
sion) to make the order therein com-
plained of.
IT. That said petition shows that
(here state the matters appearing from
the petition which form the basis of
the motion to quash). Wherefore, etc.
m. That (here state any other
grounds such as laches in prosecution
or that the controversy has become a
moot question).
CHANGE OF VEIHJE
[See 9 Standard Proc. 258.]
Affidavit by Third Person.
(Title of cause and venue.)
A. B. and C. D., being first duly
sworn, each for himself upon oath de-
poses and says that he is a resident of
said county; that he believes
that J. K., the defendant in the above
entitled cause, cannot have a fair and
impartial trial of his said cause in said
county of , for the reason that
there exists so great a prejudice against
him therein (or state any other reason
which exists); that the belief as to
such prejudice (or other reason) is
based upon the following facts and cir-
cumstances, to-wit: (here state fully
the facts and circumstances upon which
the belief of said prejudice [or other
reason] is founded).
(Signed) A. B.
C. D.
Subscribed and sworn, etc.
CHATTEL MOBTOAaSS
[See 9 Standard Proc. 260.]
ComplaM for deficiency after sale of
collateral security, see Bii^LS and
Notes.
Complaint for Redemption After Void-
able Sale to Mortgagee.
(Title of cause and venue.)
The plaintiff in the above entitled
action complains against the defendant
herein and alleges:
I. That on the day of
, 19 — , plaintiff became and
was indebted to the defendant herein
in the sum of dollars, and to
secure the same, the said plaintiff in
due form of law on the said day and
date executed and delivered to the
defendant herein a chattel mortgage,
whereby he sold, assigned and trans-
ferred to the defendant all his right,
title and interest in and to (here de-
scribe the mortgaged property).
II. That when said mortgage was
given the total existing indebtedness
due and owing to the defendant from
the plaintiff was dollars, and
said amount was stated in said mort-
gage as the consideration therefor.
IIT. That subsequently thereto on op
about the day of ,
19 — , the said defendant caused said
mortgage to be duly filed for record in
the clerk ^B office of the town of
40
CHATTEL MORTGAGES
, the flame being the town
wherein said property was located (or
in the proper office of record).
IT. That the debt for which said
n^ortgage was given as security, by the
terms and conditions of said mortgage,
became due and payable on the
day of , 19 — .
V. That said debt was not paid upon
the date upon which it became due and
payable as aforesaid; that thereafter
on the day of , 19 — ,
the defendant herein took actual pos-
session of said property under said
mortgage and caused a sale to be made
of all of the said property covered by
said mortgage, at auction, and upon
the day of said sale the defendant bid
in all of the property so covered by
mortgage as aforesaid, at and for the
sum of — dollars, which said
sum of — -^— dollars was far less
than the actual value of said property
at that time; that said sale was ir-
regularly made and unfairly conducted
in that (here state all irregularities
and unfair conduct).
VI. That ever since the said* prop-
erty was so taken by the defendant
and by him sold as aforesaid the de-
fendant has claimed to be the legal
owner thereof and still holds and re-
tains possession of the same, except
that since the said sale he has sold
certain portions of said property realiz-
ing from the sales thereof between the
sum of and dollars.
Vn. That at the time the said prop-
erty was taken by said defendant as
aforesaid and by him thereafter sold
the value of the same was about
r- dollars, and the indebtedness
then due and owing from the plaintiff
to the defendant on said mortgage did
not exceed the sum of dollars,
and there was no other indebtedness
existing due or owing from the plain-
tiff to the defendant.
Wherefore by reason of the premises
as herein set forth the plaintiff de-
mands the judgment and decree of this
court, that said defendant account to
the plaintiff herein for the true and
full value of the property so taken and
unfairly sold by him at the time the
same was so taken, retained and sold
as hereinbefore stated and set forth,
and that the value thereof, so to be
ascertained, be applied in payment and
extinguishment of said debt secured by
said mortgage as aforesaid, that the
amount remaining due upon said mort-
gage be ascertained. That it be ad-
judged that plaintiff may redeem upon
payment of the sum so found to be
due and that the pljiintiff herein have
judgment against said defendant for
the balance, together with such other
and further relief as may be just, and
for fhe costs and disbursements of this
action. Based on Casserlv r. Wither-
bee, 119 N. Y. 522, 23 N.*E. 1000.
1^111 by Judgment Creditor To Adjudge
Mortgage Void.
(Title of cause and venue.)
In the above entitled action the
plaintiff complains against the defend-
ant herein and alleges:
I. That the plaintiff herein, in an
action in the court for the
county of , duly recovered a
judgment in his favor against the de-
fendant C. D. for the sum of
dollars; that the judgment roll thereof
was duly filed and the judgment en-
tered and docketed in said county
clerk's office on the dav of
, 19—.
II. That on or about the '
day of , 19 — , an execution on
said judgment was duly issued to the
sheriff of the county of (and
by him on the day of ,
19 — , returned wholly unsatisfied).
III. That at the time of issuing said
execution the said defendant C. D. was
and still is the owner and in possession
of (subject to the nominal possession
of the receiver as hereinafter specified)
a large quantity of machinery and
other personal property situated and
located in a certain mill owned by said
defendant C. D., subject to incumbrance
as hereinafter set forth; which said
mill is situate in the town of
and known as the ^^— ^— mill, and
which said mill and personal property
are of the value of dollars.
That on or about the r- day
of , 19 — , said defendant C. D.
executed a mortgage to the defendant
E. F. upon the aforesaid mill and real
estate upon which the same stands to
secure the sum of dollars and
interest, which mortgage professes, by
its terms, not only to cover said real
estate but also the machinery and other
personal property situated in said mill
as aforesaid; said mortgage was filed
for record in the Registry of Deeds
for said county of , on the
^ day of , 19 — , but was
not filed for record in the clerk's office
of the town of , where said
defendant 0. D. resided at the timQ
CHATTEL MORTGAGES
41
said mortgage was so executed and de-
livered to said defendant E. F., .until
some time subsequent to the
day of , 19 — , when the same
was filed for record as a chattel mort-
gage in the clerk's office of the town
of , where the defendant C. D.
then resided; that default was made in
the payment of the money secured by
said mortgage or some portion thereof
before the issuing of said execution.
IV. That said defendant E. F. has
commenced an action which is now
pending in this court for the foreclosure
of his aforesaid mortgage, in which
action this plaintiff is made a defend-
ant by virtue of holding a mortgage
on said real estate subsequent in re-
spect to the lien to said mortgage of
E. F.y but which action does not, as
he is advised and believes, involve the
question of his right under his said
judgment and execution; that in said
action by an order of this court dated
the day of , 19 — ^
the defendant J. K. was appointed re-
ceiver not only of said real estate but
of said machinery and other personal
property as well, and is still acting as
such receiver and as such is in nom-
inal possession of said personal prop-
erty though the same has not been
removed from said mill.
V. That at the time when said debt
to this plaintiff was created, upon
which the aforesaid judgment was
founded, the said mortgage to the de-
fendant E. F. was, so far as it pro-
fessed to cover said machinery and
other personal property, a secret mort-
gage unfiled for record and unknown
to this plaintiff, and that he dealt with
and gave credit to said defendant C. D,
without any knowledge, notice or in-
formation thereof, and he is advised
and believes that said mortgage to the
defendant E. F., in so far as it pur-
ports to cover or affect the said ma-
chinery and other personal property
was and is absolutely void as against
this plaintiff and is void as against his
aforesaid judgment and the execution
issued or others that may be issued
thereon.
VI. That the defendant E. F. in his
foreclosure action above mentioned
seeks to obtain a sale of both the real
estate and personal property above de-
scribed and to have the same sold to-
gether; that if such sale is so made to-
gether the plaintiff is advised and be-
lieves it will be difficult if not impos-
sible to determine how much of the pro-
ceeds of such sale are the proceeds of
the real estate and how much of the
personal property, and the rights of the
plaintiff will thereby be greatly jeopar-
dized and imperiled, if not wholly de-
feated; and he greatly fears much of
the property would be unnecessarily
sacrificed by such sale.
Vn. That the plaintiff is advised
and believes that by reason of the ap-
parent lien and incumbrance upon said
personal property as hereinbefore set
forth, and of the appointment of said
receiver and his possession of said per-
sonal property thereunder as aforesaid,
the sheriff of the county of is
prevented from seizing and selling said
machinery and other personal property
under and by virtue of the aforesaid
execution, and giving a good, sufficient
and unquestionable title thereto to the
purchasers thereof; that said plaintiff
has no sufficient, complete or adequate
remedy at law by which his right under
his said judgment and execution can be
preserved and enforced and that it is
necessary for him to seek the inter-
vention of this court as a court of
equity to determine and enforce his
rights under said judgment and execu-
tion.
Wherefore, this plaintiff prays that
this court ascertain and adjudge his
rights as against and upon said ma-
chinery and other personal property,
and that by its judgment or decree the
aforesaid mortgage for dol-
lars in favor of the defendant E. F.
may be adjudged absolutely null and
void as against this plaintiff in so far
as it affects said machinery and other
personal property; that a receiver be
appointed in this action to take pos-
session of said machinery and other
personal property and sell the same in
conformance with the rules and prac-
tice of this court, and that a decree
or judgment be entered herein directing
the receiver appointed herein, out of
the proceeds of such sale, to pay to
the sheriff of county, or to
this plaintiff the amount due on' the
aforesaid judgment in favor of the
plaintiff, to be applied on said execu-
tion or judgment, or so much thereof
as said proceeds will pay; and provid-
ing further for the dispositiou to be
made of the residue of said proceeds
if any there be. And that meanwhile
the defendants and each of them, their
or each of their servants, agents and
attorneys be enjoined and restrained by
order of this honorable court from
42
CHATTEL MORTGAGES
selling or otherwise interfering with
any of said personal property or ma-
chinery; and for such other and fur-
ther relief, order or judgment as in
the premises may be just and equitable,
together "with the costs and disburse-
ment of this action. Based on Stew-
art V. Beale, 7 Hun (N. Y.) 405.
Oomplaliit by Mortgagee To Becover
Mortgaged Chattels ttom Mortgagor.
(Title.)
The plaintiff complains of the de-
fendant and for cause of action al-
leges:
That on the day of ,
Id — , the defendant made, executed and
delivered to the plaintiff a chattel
mortgage in words and figures follow-
ing, to-wit: (set forth chattel mort-
gage).
That no part of the debt secured by
said chattel mortgage has been paid.
That affiant has especial ownership
in the above described property, and
is entitled to the immediate possession
. of the same. That said goods and
chattels are wrongfully detained from
him by said defendant, and that said
goods and chattels were not taken in
execution or on any order of judg-
ment against plaintiff, or for the pay-
ment of any tax, fine, or amercement
issued against him; or by virtue of
any order of delivery issued under the
chapter of the €ode of Civil Procedure
providing for the replevin of property,
or on any other mesne or final process
issued against said plaintiff.
Wherefore, the plaintiff prays for
judgment against the defendant for
the possession of the said property, or,
in case possession thereof cannot be
had, for a judgment against the de-
fendant for the value thereof and for
the costs herein expended.
Sustained in Hodgers v, Graham, 36
Neb. 730, 55 N. W. 243, holding that
it was not objectionable that com-
plaint failed to allege that the note,
for the payment of which the mort-
gage set forth in the petition was giv-
en to secure, was due, since it stated
the date the note matured, which was
prior to bringing of the suit.
Complaint by Mortgagee for Conver-
sion of Mortgaged Property.
(Title.)
The plaintiff above-named complains
of the defendant and for cause of
action alleges;
That (etc., alleging incorporation of
plaintiff if such be the case).
That therefore, to-wit, on the
day of , 19 — , one
made, executed and delivered to plain-
tiff his certain chattel mortgage in
writing, bearing date that day, upon
the following described personal prop-
erty, situated and being in the county
of , state of , to-wit:
(describe property); to secure the pay-
ment by said to plaintiff of
his, said 's certain promissory
note (or notes) bearing date the
day of , 19—, for
the sum of
dollars (each), and
payable to the order of the plaintiff;
that said mortgage was conditional to
the effect that if any attempt should
be made to remove from said county
of ^ dispose of, or injure said
property, or any part thereof, by the
said or any other person,
then, therefrom and thereafter, it
should be lawful, and the said — ^—
thereby authorized plaintiff to treat the
debt thereby secured as fully due and
payable, and to take such property
wherever the same might be found, and
to hold or sell and dispose of the
same; that said mortgage was on the
day of , 19 — , duly
and regularly filed in the office of the
county , of said county of
state of
and ever
since has been, and still is, on file in
said office of said county .
That afterwards, to-wit, on or about
the day of , 19 — ,
the said fraudulently, and in
total disregard of the terms and stip-
ulations contained in said chattel mort-
gage, transferred and delivered said
property to said defendant, and the
said defendant then and there received
and took said property from said
, well knowing the terms and
conditions of said chattel mortgage.
That by reason of said fraudulent
transfer and delivery of said personal
property on said day of
, 19 — , by said to
said defendant, plaintiff was on said
date, and ever since has been and still
is, the special owner of and entitled
to the immediate possession of said
personal property, and to hold, sell
and dispose of the same, and to apply
the proceeds arising therefrom in satis-
faction of its said mortgage.
That said (give name of article
covered by mortgage) is of the Reason-
CHOICE AND ELECTION OF REMEDIES
43
able value of
•way).
dollars; that
That on or about the day
of , 19 — , the said defendant,
then being in the possession of said
personal property, then and there
wrongfully and unlawfully converted,
disposed of, and appropriated said per-
sonal property to his said own use and
benefits.
That afterwards, to-wit, on or about
the day of , 19 — ,
plaintiff made demand of defendant
for the immediate possession of said
property, which demand was by said
defendant then and there refused; and
said defendant still fails and refuses
to deliver said property to plaintiff, or
to pay plaintiff the value thereof.
That by reason of said wrongful and
unlawful conversion of said property
by defendant, plaintiff is damaged in
the sum of dollars.
Wherefore, etc. Based on J. I. Case
Threshing Machine Co. v. Campbell, 14
Ore. 460, 13 Pac. 324.
Indictment for Bemovlng Mortgaged
Property.
The jurors for the state aforesaid
and the county aforesaid upon their
oaths present, that J. K. on the
day of , 19 — ^ at
, in the county of ,
executed to one L. M. a chattel mort-
gage conveying certain personal prop-
erty, to-wit: (here describe property)
to secure the payment of a certain
note for dollars, executed and
delivered on that date l3y said J. K.
to said L. M., and after the execution
of said chattel mortgage and while the
same was in full force and effect the
Baid J. K. on the day of
, 19 — , at ^^— ^— aforesaid,
did with force and arms, fraudulently,
feloniously and unlawfully remove and
conceal said personal property beyond
the reach and control of the said L. M.,
with the intent him the said L. M. to
cheat and defraud, contrary to the
form of the statute in such case made
and provided and against the peace and
dignity of the state. Based on Cooper
V. State, 37 Ark. 412.
Indictment for Selling Mortgaged Prop-
erty*
(Title and venue.)
The jurors for the state aforesaid
and the county aforesaid upon their
oath present, that J. K. on the
day of . ■ J 19r— , at — r— , in
-, executed to
the county of
one L. M. a chattel mortgage convey-
ing certain personal property, to-wit:
(here describe property) to secure the
payment of a note for dol-
lars, executed and delivered on that
date by said J. K. to said L. M., and
after the execution of said chattel mort-
gage and while the same was in full
force and effect the said J. K. on the
day of y 19 — , at
, in the county of — ; ,
did with force and arms, sell and dis-
pose of a part of the said property
(describing it) embraced in said mort-
gage, to one P. N., without the consent
and against the will of the said L. M.,
with intent to hinder, delay and de-
feat the rights of said L. M. under
said mortgage, against the form of the
statute in such case made and provided
and against the peace and dignity of
the state. Based on Pickens v. State, 79
N. C. 652.
CHOICE AND ELECTION OF HEME-
[See 9 Standard Proc. 261.]
CIVIL BIGHTS
[See 9 Standard Proc. 261.]
Complaint Against Theatre Proprietor
for BefuBing Admission.
(Title of cause and venue.)
The plaintiff in the above entitled
action complains against the defendant
herein and alleges:
That the defendant was on the
day of , 19—, the
owner and manager of a certain theatre
in the city of , known as and
called the theatre; that on
the said day of ,
19 — , the said defendant was exhibit-
ing for hire at said theatre a certain
play or entertainment for the benefit
and amusement of the general public,
at and for a stipulated price of ad-
mission to all persons who might apply
for admission thereto; that 'on said
day of , 19—, the
plaintiff made application at the box
office of the said theatre
where tickets for admission thereto
were then and there being sold to the
general public, and then and there ten-
dered to the agent of the defendant in
charge of said box office, the sum of
cents, the same being the said
stipulated price of admission, and re^
44
CHOICE AND ELECTION OF REMEDIES
quested a ticket of admission to said
theatre.
That the said defendant then and
there through his said agent, did wil-
fully, maliciously, wrongfully and
knowingly refuse to sell to the plaintiff
a ticket for admission as aforesaid, and
wilfully, maliciously^, wrongfully and
knowingly refused to allow the plain-
tiff to enter said theatre, for
the purpose of attending the entertain-
ment there furnished as aforesaid, at
the same time and place selling to
others such tickets as were requested
by the plaintiff at the price tendered
by the plaintiff; that the said refusals
of the defendant were based solely on
account of the race and color of the
plaintiff.
That the plaintiff was then and there,
upon payment of the stipulated price
of admission, entitled to admission to
the said theatre, and that the
said defendant in violation of the stat-
ute (here set out the statute by title
and enactment) tortiously and wrong-
fully distinguished and discriminated
and made a restriction against the
plaintiff, whereby and by reason of said
distinction, discrimination and restric-
tion and in conformity with said stat-
ute the said defendant has forfeited
to the plaintiff a sum not exceeding
dollars.
Wherefore, etc.
COLLISION
[See Admiralty; Motor Vehicles;
and also generally 5 Standard Proc.
132,]
COMMERCIAL PAPER.— See Bills
AND Notes.
COMMITMENT. — See Infants.
COMPLAINT. — See Declaration and
Complaint; Indictment and Infor-
mation,
OOMPOSmON WITH CBEDITOBS
[See 9 Standard Proc. 262.]
CONCEALMENT OF BIRTH AND
DEATH. — See Infants.
COMPOTTNDINa CBJOSE
[See 9 Standard Proc. 262.]
COMPROMISE AKD SETTLEMENT
[See 9 Standard Proc. 263.]
CONCLUSIONS. — See Findings and
Conclusions.
CONFESSION AND AVOIDANCE
[See 9 Standard Proc. 264.]
CONSIDERATION. — See Impukd and
Express Agreements.
CONSOLIDATION OF ACTIONS
[See 9 Standard Proc. 264.]
Stipulation for consolidating on appeal,
see Appeals.
Affidavit Jn Support of Motion for Con-
solidation.
(Title of the several causes.)
A. B. being first duly sworn says
that he is the defendant in all of the
above entitled actions which are pend-
ing in the courts above named, and in
all of which the parties plaintiff and
defendants are the same; that each of
such actions is brought (here state the
gist of the cause of action showing
th^t the different actions are all for
the same cause of action); that the
defense in all of these actions is the
same, viz: (here state nature of de-
fense); that the questions which will
arise and are to be tried are, as affiant
is informed and believes, substantially
the same in all of such actions; that
the summons and complaint in said
actions were served on this defendant
respectively on the day, and
the day of , 19 — ,
and that the said causes are at issue
by the service of his answer to said
complaint on the day of
-, 19 — ; that plaintiff has re-
fused to consent to a consolidation of
said action.
Subscribed, etc.
Stipulation That Actions May Be Con-
solidated for TriaL
(Title.)
Tt is stipulated and agreed by and
between the counsel in this cause that
the jury now impaneled in the case
of vs. , be also sworn
in this cause, and that the same be
submitted to them, and that the court
render such judgment in both causes
as may seem right and proper from
the finding of the jury. See Pons v.
1 Hart, 5 Fla. 457,
CONSPlRAClt
coNSPiBAcnr
[See 9 Standard -Proc. 264.]
Complaint for Conspiracy To Cheat aod
Defraud.
(Title of cause and venue.)
And the plaintiff says that at the
time of the acts and doings hereinafter
set forth it was and now is a munic-
ipal corporation duly established by
law in the county of , in the
state of , and was duly author-
ized by law to purchase land on which
to construct a reservoir to be used in
supplying said city and its inhabitants
with water.
That the defendant J. K. was a mem-
ber and the chairman of the
water board, a board duly authorized
and empowered to purchase for the
plaintiff land to be used for the pur-
pose aforesaid; that said J. K. by vir-
tue of his said official position knew,
and had a part and share in determin-
ing, the action of said water board
under said authority * in making said
purchase; that the defendant L. M.
well knew of said position, knowledge
and authority of said J. K., and that
said defendants corruptly took advan-
tage of said position, knowledge, and
authority, and, intending and contriv-
ing to cheat and defraud the plaintiff,
did corruptly and fraudulently conspire
and agree with each other that the
said J. K. should impart to said L. M.
knowledge of the doings of the said
water board in the selection of said
land and of the piece of land which
said board should consider suitable for
a site for said reservoir, did conspire
and agree that said L. M. should be-
come the pui'chaser and owner of the
lot of land which should be so con-
sidered suitable for a site for said
reservoir,, did conspire and agree that
said water board acting for the plain-
tiff should purchase the said land for
the plaintiff from the said L. M. at an
advance or increase above the price
paid therefor by said L. M., and did
so conspire and agree to divide the
profits of said transaction between
themselves.
And the plaintiff further says that
in consequence and pursuance of said
corrupt and fraudulent conspiracy and
agreement said J. K. did impart to said
L. M. said knowledge, and that said
water board had considered a certain
lot of land suitable for a site for said
reservoir (which said water board hau
in fact done); that said L. M. did
thereupon purchase said lot of land
more particularly described in a certain
deed thereof to the plaintiff, which will
be produced if required, and thereafter
said water board acting in behalf of
the plaintiff, being thereto influenced
by said J. K., did purchase said land
for said city and pay therefor the
sum of dollars, being in ex-
cess, over the sum paid therefor by
said L. M. and over the price which
said water board could have purchased
the same but for said corrupt and
wrongful agreement and acts of said
defendants, by the sum of
dollars. And that said defendants did
divide the profits of said corrupt and
fraudulent transaction * equally between
themselves.
And the plaintiff says that by reason
of said corrupt and fraudulent con-
spiracy and agreement and said acts
of said defendant the plaintiff was un-
lawfully, unjustly and wrongfully de-
prived, defrauded and cheated of said
sum of dollars.
Wherefore, etc. Based on Boston v,
Simmons, 150 Mass. 461, 23 N. E. 210.
Complaint on Conspiracy To Boycott.
(Title of cause and venue.)
The plaintiff in the above entitled
action complains against the defend-
ants herein and alleges:
I. That at all the times herein men-
tioned the United Upholsterers' Union,
Local No. 28, was and now is an as-
sociation of persons formed and com-
posed of upholsterers, employed in the
manufacturing of mattresses and bed-
ding at various places in the city of
, and county of , and
is generally known as a labor union;
and that at all of said times defend-
ant A. B. was and still is the presi-
dent, and defendant C D. was and
still is the secretary, and that defend-
ants J. K., L. M. and N. P. were and
are respectfully members thereof.
n. That at all the times mentioned
h'erein, and since the day of
', 19 — , plaintiff has been and
now is a corporation duly organized
and existing under and by virtue of
the laws of the state of , with
its principal place of business at
, in the county of ,
and state of .
That the principal business carried
on and done by said plaintiff at said
place of business, at all the times herein
mentioned, has been and now is the
46
CONSPIRACY
manufacturing of mattresses, bedding,
and upholstered goods and selling the
same to various patrons and customers,
with whom the plaintiff has established
business relations, and to the public in
general, upon whose patronage and
trade the plaintiff depends for its exist-
ence.
III. That the plaintiff at all times
mentioned herein has employed and is
now employing about seventy-five work-
men, which said number of workmen is
necessary for the proper conduct of its
said business; that on or about the
day of , 19 — , a walk-
ing delegate or representative of said
union, called upon the manager of the
plaintiff at its said place of business,
and informed the plaintiff, through its
said manager, that six men, all mem-
bers of said union, who were then in
the employ of the plaintiff must quit
and abandon the employ of plaintiff for
the reason that the said six men would
not work in the same establishment
with workmen who were not members
of said union and that all other em-
ployes of the plaintiff with the excep-
tion of said six men were non-union
workmen; that if *the plaintiff would
not discharge all his non-union mat-
tress makers and employ none but mat-
tress makers who were members of said
union, that said union would call out
on strike the said six men, members
of said union as aforesaid, and that
said union would declare a boycott
against the plaintiff and against the
business of the plaintiff and would not
allow any of the members of said union
to enter or remain in the employ of
the plaintiff; that thereupon the plain-
tiff, through its manager, notified the
said representative, or walking dele-
gate of said union, that it declined
and refused to comply with the said
demands and would reserve the right
to employ any one whom it pleased,
provided said persons were willing to
enter the employment of the plaintiff
and could do the work required.
IV. That upon the refusal of the
plaintiff to comply with the demands
made as aforesaid by said walking dele-
gate or Representative of the said
union, and in order to coerce plaintiff
to the subjection of its said business
to the control of said union and the
members thereof, the said union inaugu-
rated and declared a boycott upon the
said place of business of the plaintiff,
and did then and there carry out ito
said threat, and did call out on strike
the said six men, members as aforesaid
of said union, and said six men there-
upon quit and abandoned the employ
of the plaintiff, and since that time
have not been in such employment with
the plaintiff, though all of said six
men have visited the manager of the
plaintiff and informed the plaintiff
through its said manager, that they
were willing and anxious to again enter
and remain in the employment of the
plaintiff but were i^fraid to do so by
reason of the fact that they feared
violence at the hands of said union and
certain members thereof if they entered
the employment of the plaintiff at any
time when said boycott was being car-
ried on.
V. That on or about the
day of 9 19 — , the defendants
entered into a combination, confedera-
tion, and conspiracy, for the purpose
of coercing the plaintiff to subject the
control of its said business to the said
union and certain members thereof, by
inaugurating and declaring a boycott
on the said business of the plaintiff,
and thereupon on the day of
-, 19 — , in pursuance of said
unlawful combination, confederation and
conspiracy placed and continued to
place representatives or pickets in the
vicinity of the said place of business
of the plaintiff, and that said represen-
tatives or pickets at all times inter-
cept, interfere with, molest, intimidate,
and frighten the non-union employes of
the plaintiff, and endeavor by threats
of doing violence to the persons of said
employes, to prevent them the said non-
union employes from remaining in the
employ of the plaintiff; that said pick-
ets or representatives have approached
and continue to approach the said non-
union employes of plaintiff and have
informed and continue to inform said
non-union employes, that if they remain
in the employ of the plaintiff they
will meet with great bodily harm and
injury; that said pickets and represen-
tatives so stationed as aforesaid have
informed several employes of the plain-
tiff as follows: '*You had better quit
the employment of the Crescent
Feather Company or we will fix you,"
meaning thereby that unless said non-
union employes of plaintiff quit said
employment, said pickets and represen-
tatives would inflict or cause to be in-
flicted on said non-union employes great
and serious physical violence.
C0}f8PIBACr
47
VI. That in furtherance of the said
unlawful combination, confederation
and conspiracy, the defendants in ad-
dition to oral notice given to the non-
union employes as aforesaid, sent vari-
ous patrons and customers of the plain-
tiff notices, of which the following is
a copy: (here insert notice sent, if
any).
vn. That in furtherance of said
combination, confederation and conspir-
acy, the defendants have conspicuously
posted in many public places in said
city of , the following poster
or card: (here insert copy of posters
used).
Vm. That subsequent to the
day of , 19 — , and
Bince said boycott so ordered as afore-
said by said union, the said union an^
the members thereof have conspired,
confederated and combined among
themselves and with other parties to
the plaintiff unknown, and will con-
tinue to conspire, confederate and com-
bine among themselves and with other
parties to the plaintiff unknown, to pro-
vide means and methods for impeding
the plaintiff in the conduct and trans-
action of its aforesaid business, to in-
terfere by means of threats and in-
timidations, with employes not mem-
bers of said union, employed by the
plaintiff, who are engaged in the line
of work similar to that of the mem-
bers of said union, and to generally
impede and obstruct the plaintiff from
carrying on and conducting its said
business, and by threats and intimida-
tions, by reason of placing pickets or
representatives as aforesaid, compel
and force the said employe engaged as
aforesaid with the plaintiff, to quit
and abandon the service of the plain-
tiff.
IX. That the defendants in fur-
therance of their said unlawful com-
bination, confederation and conspiracy,
continue to place representatives or
pickets in the vicinity of the said place
of business of the plaintiff, and that
said representatives or pickets are sta-
tioned for the purpose not only of in-
ducing and intimidating the non-union
employes of the plaintiff as aforesaid,
but are for the purpose of intimidating
patrons and customers of the plaintiff
who may desire to attempt to do busi-
ness with the plaintiff; that, since the
said representatives or pickets so
placed as aforesaid, and since the said
notices and posters hereinbefore set
out, have been distribtited among the
patrons of the plaintiff, plaintiff is un-
able to say how many of its said
patrons and customers have been in-
timidated by reason of the presence of
said representatives or pickets, or by
reason of having received said notices
and having read said posters herein-
before set out, and have been prevented
thereby from patronizing the plaintiff,
but on information and belief, tha
plaintiff avers the fact to be that mnnv
persons and customers of the plainiift
have been and now are frightened and
intimidated from entering the place ot!
business of the plaintiff by reason of
the fact that representatives and pick-
ets of said union are stationed as afore-
said and by reason of the said notices
and posters hereinbefore set out.
X. That the representatives and
pickets of said union are still engaged
in the acts hereinbefore complained of,
and threaten to continue the commis-
sion of said acts and each of said acts
to the irreparable injury and damage
of the plaintiff, and that as a conse-
quence of the acts hereinbefore set
forth the plaintiff has already been
damaged in the sum of dol-
lars, and if the said acts continue as
the defendants threaten to continue
the same, the plaintiff will be irrepar-
ably damaged and the said business
will be greatly injured if not de-
stroyed.
XT. That the plaintiff is without any
plain, speedy, or adequate remedy at
law, or without any remedy or relief
other than an order and injunction of
this court enjoining and restraining
each and all of said acts and enjoin-
ing the defendants from the contin-
uance of the commission of any and
all of said acts.
XII. That the defendants and each
of them are financially irresponsible
and unable to respond to any judg-
ment for damages against them for
and on account of the commission of
the acts, or any of them hereinbefore
alleged to have been committed and
threatened to be committed by the de-
fendants.
Wherefore the plaintiff prays: That
the defendants and each of them, their
and each of their agents, attorneys, rep-
resentatives and servants be perpetual-
ly restrained and enjoined from the
performance and commission of the
said acts and each of said acts herein-
before complained of and from in any
48
CONSPIRACY
manner interfering with the plaintiff
in the conduct of its said business, and
restraining and enjoining the defend-
ants and each and all of them from
causing any person or persons, any
agent or agents, any representative or
representatives, any picket or pickets,
to be stationed in the vicinity or neigh-
borhood of the said place of business
of the plaintiff or from otherwise at
any time or times, impeding, harassing,
annoying, threatening, intimidating or
interfering with any person or persons
transacting business with the plaintiff,
or from sending the customers and
patrons of the plaintiff the said notices
hereinbefore set out, or from posting
in any conspicuous place or otherwise
the said poster or card hereinbefore set
out, and for costs and for such other
and further relief as to this court may
seem just. Based on Crescent Feather
Co. V. United Upholsterers* Union, 153
Cal, 433, 95 Pac. 871.
CONTEMPT
[See 9 StandabdPboo. 266. See aUo
Injunctions.]
Affidavit In Oivll Contempt Proceedings
Showing Failure To Comply Witli
Court's Order for Payment of Money.
(Title of cause and venue.)
A. B., being first duly sworn, says
that he is the plaintiff in the above
entitled action; that on the
day of , 19 — , at , in
said county, he served the order hertto
annextd (or a copy of which is hereto
annexed) on C. D., the defendant in
this action, by delivering to him a true
copy thereof, and at the same time ex-
hibiting to him tht original order and
the signature of the judge thereon; and
then and there demanded of the said C.
D. that he pay the sum required to be
paid by said order; and that said C. D.
refused to pay the same and stated to
affiant that he would not pay the said
sum at any time; and your affiant fur-
ther says that said sum is still unpaid.
(Signed) A. B.
Subscribed and sworn, etc.
Order To Show Cause.
(Title of cause and venue.)
Whereas A. B., an attorney and offi-
cer of this court, did, on the
day of , 19 — (here set out
in full the acts done, the words spoken
or written document submitted which
constitute the contempt).
Now therefore the said A. B., attor-
ney and officer as aforesaid, is hereby
ruled and ordered to appear in this
court on the day of ,
19 — , then and there to show cause,
if any he can, why he should not be
held to be punished for his contempt
hereinbefore set forth.
CONTimJAKCES
[See 9 Standard Pboo. 269.]
Notice of Motion for Contlnuanca
(Title of cause and venue.)
To J. K., Esq., attorney for the defend-
ant:
Take notice that a motion will be
made on the first day of the next term
of said court to be held at the court
house in , in said county, on
the day of , 19 — , for
a continuance of the above entitled
cause, on the grounds of (here set out
the grounds for continuance, as sick-
ness or absence of counsel, absence of
material witness or any other adequate
ground for continuance).
Said motion will be based upon an
affidavit, a copy of which is annexed
hereto.
Affidavit as to Absence of Documents.
(Title of court and cause and venue.)
I, A. B., defendant in the above en-
titled action, being duly sworn on oath,
depose and say: That certain papers
and documents material to mv defense
in this cause are now in the hands of
J. K., who resides at , in the
state of ; that among the said
documents and papers I specify the fol-
lowing: (here describe the papers to
be used at the trial); that said papers
and documents are necessary to the
successful defense of said cause, and
T cannot proceed to trial without them;
that I have used due diligence to pro-
cure them at the present term of
court by (here state methods used to
procure them), but to this date I have
not received them.
And I further aver that T fully ex-
pect and believe that T can proi'urc the
said documents and papers by the next
term of court, and that this application
IB not made for delay but that justice
may be done.
Subscribed and sworn, etc.
Affidavit Based on Sickness of Sole
CounseL
(Title of court and cause and venue.)
C. D., being duly sworn, says that
he is the defendant in the above en-
CO^POliATtOifB
4d
titled action; that issue therein was
joined on the day of ,
19 — , and that this defendant has fully
and fairly stated the case to L. M.,
£sq.| his counsel herein, and that upon
the statement thus made he is advised
by said counsel and believes that he
has a valid and substantial defense to
said action.
That affiant has used due diligence to
prepare for the trial of this cause at
the present term of this court (here
state diligence used).
That L. M.y Esq., was and is his
sole counsel in said cause and is the
only attorney conversant with the facts
in the case, and that said L. M. was
fully prepared and was relied upon
by the affiant to try said cause at this
term, but that on or about the
day of , 19 — , said L. M. was
taken seriously ill and has been ever
since that time and now is seriously
ill and is unable to converse upon or
attend to any matters of business.
That it is and has been impossible
for any other attorney to become suffi-
ciently cognizant of the facts in said
cause to prepare for trial thereof at
this term because of the condition of
said L. M. and because of the com-
plexity of the case (here state facts
showing complexity of case and the
inability of any other attorney to pre-
pare for trial).
That if it is impossible for said L.
M. to try said cause at the next term
this affiant will be able to procure some
other attorney to try said cause.
Subscribed and sworn, etc.
Affldayit of PbyslclaxL
(Title and venue.)
C. D., being duly sworn, deposes and
says:
That he is a duly licensed physician
practicing at ; that on the
day of , 19 — , he at-
tended J. K., the defendant, and found
him suffering from (here describe con-
dition), and that in his opinion it would
be unsafe for said J.. K. and dangerous
to his health to leave his room for at
least weeks from the date
hereof.
Subscribed and sworn, etc.
How Pleaded; Implied and Express
Agreements.
Performance, see 9 Standard Phoc. 958.
COKTBIBT7TION
[See 9 Standard Proc. 272.]
Complaint for hy joint maker, see Bills
AND Notes.
CONTE ACTS. — See Accord and Sat-
isfaction ; Architects and Builders ;
Bills and Notes; Breach op Prom-
ise; Corporations; Covenant, Action
OF; Fraud and Begeit; Illegality,
OOFTBiaHT PBOOEEDINGS
[See 9 Standard Proc. 275. See also
Patents; Trade-Mabks and Trade
Names.]
COBONEB'S INQX7EST
[See 9 Standard Proc, 277]
COBPOBATIONS
[See 9 Standard Proc. 280.]
Complaint against promoters for ac-
counting for secret profits, see Ac-
count AND Accounting.
Complaint hy receiver to set aside fraud-
ulent transfer of corporate property,
see Fraudulent Conveyances.
Defense that defendant signed draft as
officer of corporation, see Bills and
Notes.
Petition hy corporation for letters testa-
mentary or of administration, see
Decedents' Estates.
Complaint by Stockholders— Allegation
of Befnsal of Directors To Sue.
I. (State facts showing cause of
action by corporation and that plain-
tiffs are stockholders.)
II. That plaintiffs first learned the
truth in regard to the said (briefly
refer to transaction described above),
and the fraud practiced by the defend-
ants, as aforesaid, about the
day of , 19 — , and that they
have in no manner ratified the (trans-
action) after knowledge of the facts
of said fraud, nor has said corpora-
tion ratified said (transaction); and
this action is brought by the plaintiffs
and not by said corporation because
the board of directors of said corpora-
tion is entirely controlled by the said
defendants (promoters); that never-
theless the plaintiff on the
day of , 19 — , and before this
action was brought demanded in writ-
ing of said board of directors that an
action be brought against said defend-
ants (promoters) to prqtect the inter-
ests of said corporation and its stock-
holders- and to recover the amount so
50
CORPORATIONS
fraudulently obtained by said defend-
ants (promoters), but said board of
directors refused to bring such action,
or any action whatever, against said
defendants (promoters).
Complaint Agaixist Ofllcen of Corpora-
tion for Inducing Purchase of Btock
by False Prospectus.
(Title of court and cause and venue.)
The plaintiff in the above entitled
action complains against the defendant
herein and alleges:
I. That the L. M. Company is and
was, at all times hereinafter men-
tioned, a corporation duly organized
and existing under the laws of the
state of , and that the defend-
ants C. D., E. F. and X. Y. are and
have been since the day of
, 19 — , directors of the said
corporation.
n. That the said defendants did on
the day of — , 19 — , for
tiie purpose of inducing the public to
purchase stock in said company, pre-
pare and cause to be printed, circulated
and distributed among the public (or,
did publish in the , a news-
paper of wide circulation in the city
of ), a certain prospectus or
statement signed by them, a copy of
which is hereto attached and made a
part hereof (or set forth the exact
representations of the prospectus).
m. That the plaintiff had no knowl-
edge of the falsity of said statements
contained in said prospectus and that
he received a copy thereof (or read
the same in the newspaper),
on or about the day of ,
19 — f and believed and relied on the
truth of said representations therein
contained and was thereby induced to
and did on the day of ,
19 — , purchase of said company
shares of its capital stock and paid
therefor the sum of dollars.
IV. That the said representations
and statements contained in said pros-
pectus were false in each and every
particular; that the defendants knew
that they were wholly false when they
issued and published the same as afore-
said; that in truth and in fact (here
state the facts as to the matters mis-
represented).
V. That said L, M. Company is now
insolvent and that the stock thereof,
including the stock so purchased as
aforesaid by the plaintiff, is wholly
worthless (or worth not exceeding |
dollars per share), and that
the plaintiff has suffered damage by
reason of his said purchase to the
amount of dollars.
Wherefore, etc.
Complaint To Avoid TTnlawful Trans-
fer of Property to a Director of a
Corporation.
(Title of court and cause and venue.)
The plaintiff in the above entitled
action complains against the defendant
herein and alleges:
I. That at all times hereinafter men-
tioned the defendant company was and
now is a corporation duly organized and
existing under the laws of the state of
, and that the defendant J, K.
was and still is a director (or other
officer) of said defendant company.
II. That on or about the
day of , 19 — , the plaintiff duly
recovered judgment against the defend-
ant company in the court,
for the county of ^ for the sum
of dollars; that thereafter plain-
tiff caused execution upon said judg-
ment to be duly issued to ^
sheriff of the county of ^
where said defendant company then
had and now has its principal place
of business; that said sheriff has here-
tofore returned said execution wholly
unsatisfied and that said judgment re-
mains wholly unpaid.
III. That on or about the — ^-^—
day of , 19 — , at a meeting of
the board of directors of said defend-
ant company, at which meeting the
above named defendant C. D. was pres-
ent and participated, the said directors
of the said defendant corporation
adopted a resolution authorizing the
transfer to said defendant C. D. of all
the property and assets (or describe
the property transferred if less than
the whole) of the said defendant cor-
poration in satisfaction ef a pretended
indebtedness to said C. D. from said de-
fendant company; that said defendant
C. D. at said meeting voted for the
adoption of said resolution.
IV. That thereafter, to- wit, on the
day of J 19 — ^ pur-
suant to said resolution, said defendant
company executed and delivered to said
defendant J. K., an assignment of
(here describe the property).
V. That said assignment was whol-
ly without consideration and was made
with intent to hinder, delay and de-
fraud the creditors of said defendant
CORrOBATIONS
51
company and in pnrsnance of a scheme
to turn over to* said defendant G. D.
the property and assets of said defend-
ant company and enable him to ap-
propriate and convert the same to his
own use, and in this manner to render
valueless the stock of said defendant
company and to effectuate a dissolu-
tion thereof without due process of
law; and to enable said defendants,
or some of them, to organize another
company and carry on business under
another name, for the purpose of cheat-
ing and defrauding the creditors of
said defendant company.
Wherefore the plaintiff demands judg-
ment:
1. That the aforesaid assignment
and transfer of the property of said
defendant corporation to the defendant
C. D. be canceled and set aside.
2. That a receiver of tho property
of said defendant company be ap-
pointed.
3. That the defendant C. D. be di-
rected to turn over the property of the
defendant company to such receiver or
to account for its full value, and that
said receiver be authorized and directed
to hold the same, or its money equiv-
alent, for the benefit of said defendant
corporation, its creditors and stock-
holders, and for such other and further
relief as may be just and equitable and
for the costs of this action.
Complaint by a Creditor Against an
Insolvent Bank To Close up tbe Busi-
ness and Charge the Directors Per-
sonally.
The plaintiff complains and alleges:
I. (Allege corporate existence of
defendant bank and that it was en-
gaged in a general banking business.)
n. That said defendant owes the
plaintiff -' dollars, a balance of
deposits made by him in the usual
course of business; that payment there-
of has been demanded and refused; that
it owes other persons whose names and
the amounts owed to each are unknown
to the plaintiff; that this action is
brought in behalf of the plaintiff and
all creditors who choose to become
parties hereto or become interested
herein.
That said defendant has been in-
solvent since the ^-^— day of
, 19 — , during all of which
fcime the defendants J. K., L. M. and
J. P., X. Y. and T. S. have been direc-
tors of and stockholders in said bank.
That the capital stock of said bank
is dollars, in shares of ■
dollars par value.
That the said directors knowing that
said bank was insolvent, semi-annually
from the day of ,
19 — , to the day of ,
19 — f voted, paid and each received a
dividend of five per cent, of the par
value of the stock held by them, with-
out having reason to believe that there
were sufficient net profits properly ap-
plicable to such payments.
That said votes of said directors de-
claring said dividends when said cor-
poration was insolvent diminished and
impaired the capital and capital stock
of said bank; that there were never
any net profits on the business of said
bank applicable to the payment of said
dividends or either of them.
That during all the time since the
day of , 19 — , the de-
fendant J. K. has been president, and
the defendant L. M. has been cashier
of said bank; that said J. K. fraud-
ulently converted more than
dollars of the funds of said bank to
his own use and replaced the same
with worthless securities known to said
J. K. and L. M. to be so worthless
and that they reported to the state
treasurer, etc., that said worthless se-
curities were of par value.
That during all the times above men-
tioned from said day of
, 19 — , to the commencement
of this suit said directors of said bank
grossly neglected to perform the offi-
cial duties and negligently permitted
the money and effects of said bank to
be stolen, wasted and squandered; that
they allowed insolvent and irresponsible
persons and corporations to overdraw
their accounts and negligently allowed
the moneys of said bank to be loaned
to irresponsible persons without ade-
quate security, whereby said money was
lost; that they negligently permitted
said J. K., president as aforesaid, to
steal and embezzle the funds and se-
curities of said bank, by which
dollars of the funds of said bank were
lost, and the bank thereby became in-
solvent and unable to pay its creditors
more than cents on the dollar
of their several claims.
Wherefore the plaintiff prays judg-
ment of this court, adjudging and de-
claring the corporate right, privileges
and franchises of the said defendant
i forfeited; that the business of the de-
52
CORPORATIONS
fcndant be elosed up under the direc-
tion of this court; that the receiver
heretofore appointed by this court be
authorized and directed to collect the
assets of said bank and convert the
same into money and hold the same
subject to the order of this court; that
the said defendant and all persons hav-
ing any property or assets of the said
defendant in their possession deliver
the same to the said receiver; that
the said defendant make, execute and
deliver to said receiver good and suffi-
cient deeds of conveyance of all real
estate owned by said defendant, and
good and sufficient assignments and con-
veyances of any and all right, title
and interest in or to any real estate
belonging to said defendant; that said
receiver be also authorized and di-
rected to collect all claims or demands,
of "eyerj kind, due or owing to said
bank from any and all persons or cor-
porations, and hold and retain the same
subject to the order of this court; that
a fair and just distribution of the
property and assets of the said defend-
ant, or the proceeds from the sale
thereof, be made among the creditors
of said defendant in the manner pro-
vided by law; that each and every of
the said creditors be required to exhibit
to this court and to file in the office
of the clerk of this court, each and
every of their claims and demands
against said defendant, duly verified,
and become parties to this suit in the
manner required by law; that in de-
fault thereof, they and each of them
so in default be wholly precluded from
all benefits of the judgment which shall
be made and entered in this action
and from the distribution which shall
be made under such judgment; that the
creditors of the said defendant and
each and every of them be restrained
and enjoined by the order of this
court from exercising any of the cor-
porate rights, privileges or franchises
of the said defendant and from col-
lecting or receiving any debts or de-
mands due to said defendant, or from
paying out, or in any way transferring
or delivering to any person, any of the
moneys, property or effects of the said
defendant, that the creditors aforesaid
and each of them be restrained and
enjoined by the order of this court
from commencing any action or pro-
ceeding against the defendant to en-
force or collect their said claims, with-
out the order of this court.
The plaintiff further prays judgment
against the defendants J. K., L. M.,
J. P., X. Y. and T. S. in the sum of
dollars and for such further
and other relief as may be just. Based
on Hurlbut v, Kelly, 62 Wis. 590, 22
N. W. 852.
Complaint by Minority Stockhdldor
Against Directors for Accounting and
Cancellation of Illegal Contract.
The plaintiff complains and alleges:
That the plaintiff and the defendants
0. D. and £. F. are residents of the
state of , and that the defend-
ant, Company, is a corpora-
tion duly organized and existing under
the laws of the state of and
having its principal place of business
at , in the state of ^
with shares of capital stock
of the par value of
That the. plaintiff and the defend-
ants 0. D. and E. F. are the owners
of substantially all the stock in said
defendant company, to-wit,
shares being held by the plaintiff and
shares by said O. D. and
E. F.
That at a regular meeting of the
stockholders of said corporation, said
0. D. and E. F. were elected president
and treasurer respectively and ex-offieio
members of the board of directors 'of
said corporation, and the plaintiff was
elected the other director of said com-
pany, said board consisting of three
members.
' That at all times herein mentioned
said C. D. and E. F. were and now
are co-partners in business under the
firm name of C. D. & Company; that
at a meeting of the board of directors
of said corporation, held on the
day of , 19 — ,
at which said meeting were pres-
ent the plaintiff and C. D. and E. F.,
a resolution was passed by a vote of
the majority of the board in which
said vote O. D. and E. F. participated
and voted in the affirmative and the
plaintiff voted in the negative, which
said resolution authorized the board of
directors to enter into a contract with
said C. D. & Company, whereby said
C. D. and Company were to act as
selling agents of said defendant com-
pany, the said contract to provide that
said C. D. and Company as such agents,
should pay all the expense of manu-
facture and the expense of conducting
said business, in consideration of a com-
CORPORATIONS
53
mission of
per cent, on the
gross sales of said company, and to
provide that after the payment of said
expenses and deducting their said com-
mission that they, said C. D. & Com-
pany, should pay over the residue of
the amount received from said gross
sales to the defendant company.
That said contract was executed by
said defendant company and said C. D.
& Company in accordance with the
terms and provisions of said resolu-
tion; and a copy of the same is hereto
annexed and made a part hereof.
That said C. D. and E. F. under th«
firm name of C. D. and Company en-
tered upon the performance of said con-
tract and from the day of
-, 19 — , have been and now are
acting as the selling agents of said de
fendant corporation, under said con-
tract, and have sold the entire output
of said corporation.
That as a stockholder and director of
said defendant company the plaintiff
requested of the said C. D. and E. P.
and each of them that he be allowed
to inspect the books and records and
accounts of the defendant company,
which request was denied, said C. D.
and E. F. stating that the only books
of the said defendant company con-
sisted of a minute book of the meet-
ings of stockholders and directors, and
that all other books of account were
the property of said C. D. & Company.
That the said C. D. & Company as
selling agent of said defendant com-
pany is bound to render a true and
accurate account of the business con-
ducted by said C. D. & Company under
said contract and the accounts when so
submitted should be open to the in-
spection and consideration of the board
of directors; that the said C. D. &
Company have been called upon by the
plaintiff both as a director and stock-
holder in said defendant company, to
render an accounting to said defendant
corporation, but this the said C. D. &
Company has refused and still refuses
to do.
Wherefore the plaintiff demands judg-
ment:
1. That defendants C. D. and E. P.
and C. T>. and Company may be directed
to render an account to the defendant
company of all moneys received and
all goods sold under said contract to-
gether with all vouchers relating to
such transactions.
2« That said contract may be set
aside and declared null and void; and
for such other and further relief as
may be just. Based on Sloan v. Clark-
son, 105 Md. 171, 66 Atl. 18.
Oomplalnt Against Directors as Indi-
viduals for Making Unlawful Divi-
dends and Distribution of Capital
Stock.
(Title of court and cause.)
Plaintiff complains against the de-
fendants herein and alleges:
T. That on the day of
-, 19 — , and from that day until
day of , 19 — , the
the —
L. M. Company was a corporation duly
organized and existing under the laws
of the state of , and as such
corporation doing business at ,
in the county of , in its said
corporate name.
n. That on the
day of
, 19 — , said L. M. Company
made and delivered to the plaintiff its
promissory note, of which the follow-
ing is a copy (here insert copy of note),
and that said promissory note remains
wholly unpaid and there is now due
the plaintiff thereon the said sum of
dollars, with interest, accord-
ing to the tenor and effect of said
note.
TIT. That on the day of
, 19 — , the directors of said L.
M. Company, and while said corpora-
tion was so indebted to the plaintiff
as aforesaid, made and declared a
dividend to the stockholders of said
corporation of dollars, per
share, amounting in all to the sum of
dollars, and afterwards paid
said dividend to its stockholders afore-
said; and the plaintiff avers that said
dividend was not made from the sur-
plus profits arising from the business
of said corporation.
TV. That on the day of
, 19 — , the said directors of
said corporation divided among and
paid the stockholders thereof the
whole of the capital stock of said cor-
poration, towit, the sum of
dollars.
V. That during all the times herein-
before mentioned the said C. D., E. P.,
and J. K. and each of them were di-
rectors of said corporation and as-
sented to the making of said dividend
and the division and payment of said
capital stock as aforesaid,
YHierefore, etc.
54
COEFOEATIONS
Answer of Fftilnre of Foreign Oocpora-
tlon To Comply Wltb Statutory Beg-
Qlations.
(Title and venue.)
The defendant in the above entitled
action answers to the plaintiff's com-
plaint herein and alleges:
I. That at the tine ef the execution
of said supposed bond and ever since,
the United States Express Company,
for whose sole use and benefit this
action is brought, was an association of
persons usually called an express com-
pany and were then and there and ever
since have been engaged in the business
of transporting and carrying packages
of bank notes, coin, goods, wares and
merchandise and other articles over
and upon the railroads, rivers and other
thoroughfares in this state and other
states of the Union, and receiving and
agreeing to receive compensation there-
for.
And that the employment of said N.
M. and his appointment as agent for
Bald express company, mentioned in
said supposed bond, was by said sup-
posed bond intended to be and in fact
was to serve the said express company
in the business aforesaid, to-wit, in the
county of , state of .
And the defendants say that all moneys
mentioned in the complaint as having
been received by said N. M. were re-
ceived by him in the course of his said
employment and agency in the busi-
ness aforesaid in said county.
And the defendants say that the
business so carried on and conducted
and prosecuted by said company
through said agency and employment
of said N. M. was and is wholly un-
lawful in this, to-wit: that at no time
before the execution of said supposed
bond, nor at any time since and while
said N. M. was engaged in the em-
ployment and agency aforesaid, did said
express company file with the recorder
of said county in which said agency
was carried on and in which said com-
pany had an office all the time as afore-
said, a statement showing the full name
of every member of said association
and company and the proper place of
residence of each such member, and the
amount of capital employed in said
business, and also an agreement that
legal process served on any agent of
said express company and association
in said county should be deemed and
taken to be good service upon said as-
aociation or company. All of which they
wholly omitted to do in manner and
form aforesaid, contrary to the stat-
ute in such case made and provided, of
all which the defendants were ig-
norant till the time of the commence-
ment of this suit.
Wherefore, etc. Daniels v. Barney,
22 Ind. 207.
Defense Tbat Stock Is Held Merely as
Pledgee.
(Title of court and cause and venue.)
The defendant above named in an-
swer to the complaint of the plaintiff
in the above entitled action denies and
alleges as follows:
1. (Denials of the averments of the
complaint alleging his ownership of
stocky etc.)
2. The defendant alleges that at all
times since the day of
, 19 — , and during all of the
time mentioned in the said complaint
one J. K. was the owner of said
shares of the capital stock of said
company, a corporation.
Defendant alleges that on the
day of , 19 — , the
said J. K. pledged the said
shares of stock unto and deposited the
same with the defendant as collateral
security for a loan of dollars;
that ever since said stock was so
pledged to him and during all the times
in said complaint mentioned, the said
shares of stock being the iden-
tical stock mentioned in the plaintiff's
said complaint, were held by the de-
fendant in pledge as collateral secur-
ity for said loan of dollars,
which said debt is still unpaid; that
prior to the day of
19-^, the said
shares of stock
BO held by this defendant as aforesaid
were evidenced by certificates
standing in the name of J. K. on the
books of such corporation, which said
certificates had been endorsed by said
J. K. and deposited by him as col-
lateral as aforesaid.
On the day of ,
19 — , the defendant at the request of
said J. K. deposited said certificates
with an officer of said corporation, to-
wit, L. M., the secretary thereof, and
then and there directed and requested
said secretary to transfer said stock on
the books of said corporation to the
name of the defendant as pledgee and
to issue to the defendant a new cer-
tificate therefor in the name of the
defendant as pledgee; that thereafter
in disregard of the said request and
COSTS
55
direction of the defendant tlie said
secretary transferred the said stock on
the books of said corporation unto the
name of the defendant, failing and
neglecting to enter the same on
the said books, and failing and
neglecting to issue a new certificate
therefor in the. name of the defendant
as pledgee; that this defendant im-
mediately repudiated and disavowed the
ownership of said stock and again de-
manded of the said secretary that a
certificate for said stock be issued in
the name of the defendant as pledgee,
in accordance with his former instruc-
tions, and requested said secretary to
amend the said erroneous certificate by
writing therein the word "pledgee"
following the name of the defendant;
that said secretary refused to so amend
said erroneous certificate, but then and
there promised to correct the said error
by issuing a new certificate therefor in
the name of the defendant as pledgee
as soon as an officer of said corpora-
tion was there to sign such new cer-
tificate.
That the defendant has from time to
time since said day of
, 19 — , up to the day
of , 19 — , made repeated de-
mands of a like nature upon said secre-
tary and received like answers until the
day of f 19 — , on
which last mentioned day and in com-
pliance with a demand in writing, made
by the defendant's attorney said secre-
tary corrected and rectified said mis-
take and issued a new certificate in
the name of the defendant as pledgee.
That the defendant never did accept
said certificate of stock so erroneously
issued to him as aforesaid, and during
all of the time mentioned in the plain-
tiflf's said complaint this defendant ap-
peared on the book of said corporation
as a stockholder solely by and through
the mistake or neglect of the officers
of said corporation and in utter disre-
gard of his request and instruction at
the time said shares were so
deposited for registration as aforesaid;
that defendant is not and never has
been the owner of said stock or any
part thereof and was at all times men-
tioned herein a pledgee, holdiing said
stock as collateral security for the pay-
ment of the aforesaid loan of
dollars and not otherwise.
Wherefore, etc. Based on Shattuck &
Desmond W. Co. t*. Gillelen, 154 Cal.
778, 99 Pac. 348.
48
Defense of Exemption From Individual
Liability Under Foreign Statute.
(Title of court and cause and venue.)
Now comes the defendants in the
above entitled action and for answer
to the complaint of the plaintiff herein
allege:
I. (Admit the incorporation of the
defendant corporation as alleged.)
II. (Deny specifically the averments
as individual liability of stockholders.)
III. And for a separate and distinct
defense these defendants allege that
the defendant corporation is a corpora-
tion duly organized and existing un-
der the laws of the state of ;
that (naming or describing the act or
law of the foreign state) provides as
follows: (here quote the law of exemp-
tion relied upon).
That defendants subscribed for the
stock of said corporation and paid for
the same in full, and that all of said
stock sold to or now owned by the de-
fendants is fully paid for and non-
assessable, and that section of
said act provides (here quote law pro-
viding for non:liability of stockholders
for full paid and non-assessable stock),
(or allege any other provision of the
laws of said foreign state exempting
stockholders from liability).
Wherefore, etc.
COSTS
[See 9 Standard Proc. 287.]
Judgment for in favor of garnishee, see
Garnishment.
Complaint To Recover Costs Against
Party Discontinuing Action.
The plaintiff complains and says:
That on or about the day
of ^ 19 — ^ the defendant com-
menced an action against the plaintiff
in the court of
county without any cause of action and
(here state the various steps taken in
the action such' as issuing summons,
etc.); that defendant incurred costs in
and about the conduct of the said
action and in preparing his defense
therein (here state nature and amount
of various items of costs).
That on or about the day
of , 19 — , the defendant with-
out the consent of the plaintiff and
against his will, and with a view to
prevent the plaintiff from recovering
his said costs, so incurred in preparing
to defend said action as aforesaid,
56
COSTS
withdrew and discontinued his said ac-
tion against the plaintiff and neglected
and refused to return said summons to
said court and wholly neglected and
refused to enter and prosecute his said
action against the plaintiff (or caused
a dismissal to be entered in said ac-
tion); that the plaintiff was prevented
thereby from recovering before said
court his said costs and expense so in-
curred by him as aforesaid, and the
defendant has hitherto neglected and
refused to pay said costs to the plain-
tiff, although requested so to do, and
the same remain wholly unpaid, to
plaintiff's damage, in the sum of
dollars.
"Wherefore, etc.
COUNTEBCLAIM. — See Cross-Com-
plaint; Cross-Bill; Set-off, Coun-
tbbclaim and recoupment.
COUNTEBFEITINa
[See 9 Standard Proc. 290.]
COVENANT, ACTION OF
[See 9 Standard Proc. 292.]
Warranty, see 9 Standard Proc. 1259.
Complaint for Damages In Action on
Grantee's Covenant,
The plaintiff complains and alleges:
That the defendant on the
day of , 19 — ,'in consideration
of the conveyance to him by the plain-
tiff for the sum of dollars of
a certain lot of land described as fol-
lows (here describe land) agreed that
he would erect upon said lot of land
a good substantial brick house, the
same to be used and occupied as a
dwelling house; that he would not erect
or cause to be erected upon said prem-
ises any building or other structure
that would be objectionable to said
vicinity or a nuisance.
That the plaintiff in consideration of
said sum of « dollars, and in
the further consideration of the said
promises and agreements of the defend-
ant on the day of ,
19 — , conveyed to the defendant the
above described premises; that the de-
fendant did not and has not erected
a good substantial brick house to be
• used and occupied as a dwelling house,
but on the contrary has erected upon
said promises a brick building which
said brick building is used as a (hero
state the objectionable business car-
ried on in building) and is a nuisance
to the vicinity.
That the plaintiff owns many other
lots in the vicinity of said above de-
scribed lot and that by reason of the
objectionable use to which said brick
building is put and the nuisance there-
by created and continued th« plaintiff's
said lots have become lessened, and the
plaintiff is hindered from selling them;
to his damage in the sum of — ^—
dollars.
Wherefere, etc.
CBEDITOB8' SUITS
[See 9 Standard Proc. 294. See also
Assignment por the Benewt op Cred-
itors; Fraudulent Conteyances.]
Complaint To Beadi Property in Kame
of Another Where Purchase Money
Was Furnished by Debtor.
(Title of court and cause and venae.)
The plaintiff in the above entitled
action complains against the defend-
ants herein and alleges:
I. That on the day of
, 19 — , at , judgment
was rendered in the court in
his favor against the defendant A. B.
in the sum of dollars, in an
action entitled (state title and num-
ber).
II. That on the day of
, 19 — , said judgment was
docketed in the office of the clerk of
said county.
III. That on the day of
, 19 — , an execution was issued
upon the said judgment against the
personal and real property of the de-
fendant A. B., to the sheriff of said
county in which county the
said defendant then resided.
IV. That said execution was re-
turned by said sheriff wholly unsatis-
fied, and no part of said judgment has
ever been paid.
V. That on the day of
, 19 — , the said defendant
A. B. , contracted for and purchased a
ci?rtain tract or parcel of land from
one J. K., which said tract or parcel
of land is described as follows (here
describe land), for the consideration of
dollars, and then and there
paid or caused to be paid to the said
J. K. for said land, the said sum of
dollars of his, the said defend-
ant's own money, and then and there
caused the said real estate to be con-
veyed by said J. K. to defendant L. M.,
CROSS'BILL
57
who at all times herein mentioned was
and now is the wife of said defend-
ant A. B.y with intent to cheat and
defraud the plaintiff and prevent the
enforcement of his said judgment; that
the said defendant L. M. accepted said
conveyance with knowledge of the fore-
going facts and with Intent to aid her
said husband in so cheating and de-
frauding the plaintiff as aforesaid, and
caused the same to be recorded in the
office of the recordej of said county.
Wherefore plaintiff prays that the
court will decree a conveyance of so
much of said real estate as may be
necessary for the payment of said
execution and judgment, and for such
other and further relief as to the court
may seem just and proper in the prem-
ises.
Oomplalnt by Judgment Creditor To
Set Aside Fraudulent Assigimieiit.
(Title of court and cause.)
The plaintiff complains against the
defendants herein and alleges:
I, IT, m. (Allege judgment, issuing
of execution thereon and return unsat-
isfied as in previous form.)
TV. That after the contracting the
debt upon which the aforesaid judg-
ment was founded the defendant J. K.
made an assignment of all his property
to the defendant L. M. in trust for the
payment of his debts (or made an
assignment a copy of which is hereto
annexed).
V. That said L. M. accepted the
said trust and has collected large sums
of money, and other valuable property
from the assets of the defendant J. K.,
amounting in all to the value of more
than dollars.
VI. That said assignment was made
with the sole intent to delay and de-
fraud the creditors of the defendant
J. K.; that ever since the said assign-
ment was executed and delivered the
said property has remained and still
remains in the possession and under
the control of said J. K., who falsely
claims to be the agent of said defend-
ant L. M., the assignee under said sup-
posed assignment.
VTT. That the pretended indebted-
ness named and set forth in said as-
signment as due from J. K. to L. M.
is fictitious; that the defendant J. K.
was not indebted to the defendant L.
M. in the sum named therein or in any
sum whatever.
Vni. That the defendant J. K. has
no other property than that covered by
said assignment as aforesaid, out of
which the plaintiff could obtain satis-
faction of his said execution or judg-
ment in whole or in part, and that
unless said property so assigned as
aforesaid can be applied to the pay-
ment of said judgment the same will
remain wholly unpaid ^nd unsatisfied.
Wherefore the plaintiff demands
judgment:
I. That the said assignment be ad-
judged fraudulent and void as against
the plaintiff.
IT. That said L. M. be ordered to
account under the direction of this
court for all the property received by
him as aforesaid.
III. That the defendants and each
of them, their and each of their agents,
servants and attorneys be enjoined
from interfering with said property or
the proceeds thereof except by order of
and under the direction of this court.
IV. That the plaintiff's said judg-
ment be satisfied out of said property
or the proceeds thereof and for such
other and further relief as may be
just.
Answer That Defendant Is a Bona Fide
Purchaser.
The defendant E. F. in the above
entitled action answering the plaintiff's
complaint herein alleges:
That he, the said defendant, did on
the day of , 19—,
buy from J. K., the person mentioned
in the complaint, the lands and
tenements described in the complaint,
for the consideration of dol-
lars; he the said J. K. being then
seized in fee and in possession thereof
(here state how and when the con-
sideration was paid); that said pur-
chase was without any fraud or in-
tent on the defendant's part to hin-
der or delay or defraud the said plain-
tiff or any other creditor or creditors
of the said J. K., and without any
knowledge, information or belief at
that time or previous thereto that the
said J. K. sold the premises with the
.intent in the said complaint alleged.
Wherefore, etc.
OBIMINAL CONVEBSATION'
[See 9 Standard Proc. 313.]
CfBOSS-BIUi
[See 9 Standard Proc. 314. See also
Cboss-Oomplaint. ]
58
CROSS-COMPLAINT
OBOSS-OOMFLAINX
[See 9 Standard Pbog. 1oI4. See also
Cross-Bill; Declaration and Com-
plaint; Set-Opf, Counterclaim and
Recoupment.]
Oeneral Form Answer and Oross-Oom-
plaint.
(Title.)
Now comes the defendant above
named) and answering the complaint
on file herein, denies and alleges: (de-
nying either generally or specifically
the material allegations of plaintiff's
complaint and setting up any new mat-
ter constituting a defense).
For a cross-complaint against the
said plaintiff, defendant alleges: (set
forth facts constituting cause of action
as in ordinary complaint).
Wherefore,, etc.
(Verification.)
0BT7ELTY TO ANIMALS
[See 9 Standard Proc. 54, 317.]
DAMAGES. — See Adjoining Land-
owners; Adulteration; Alienating
Affections ; Electricity ; Eminent
Domain; False Imprisonment;
Fraud and Deceit ; Freight Carriers ;
implied and Express Agreements;
Injuries to Persons and Propbrtt.
DEATH BY WBONGFUL ACT
[See 9 Standard Proc. 318. See aho
Injuries to Persons and Property.]
Complaint fat death caused hy coming
in contact with live wire, see Elec-
tricity.
DEATH, CONCEALMENT OF. — See
Infants.
DEOEDENTS' ESTATES
[See 9 Standard Proc. 323. See aUo
Executors and Administrators; In-
heritance.]
Petition for Probate of WiU.
(Title.)
To the court of the county of
-, state of
of the
The petition of ,
county of , state of ,
respectfully shows:
That died on or. about the
day of , 19—, in the
county of
-, state of
death was a resident of the county of
, and left
state of
property in the county of ,
state of .
That the value and character of the
said property end the probable revenue
therefrom are as follows, to-wit: (state
fully the value, character, etc., of all
property of deceased discovered at time
of petition).
That the estate and effects in respect
of which the probate of the will is here-
in applied for does not exceed in value
the sum of *.
That said decedent left a will and
testament bearing date the
day of , 19—, in the posses-
sion of , which your petitioner
alleges to be the last will and testa-
ment of said decedent, and which is
herewith presented to said court;
That is named in said will
as executor — thereof; and the said
person — so named (refuses
or consents) to act as such; (and in
case of refusal, add, that your peti-
tioner is a persoYi interested in the will
of said decedent).
That , aged about
years, residing at , and ,
years residing at
named therein as
devisees and legatees.
That the subscribing witnesses to the
said will are , residing in the
, county of , state of
; and , residing in the
, county of , state of
aged about
That the next of kin of said decedent
whom your petitioner— advised and be-
lieve— , and therefore allege — to be
the heir — at law of said testa — , and
the name — , age — , and residence — of
said heirs are as follows: f
aged about years, residing at
That said decedent at the time of his
years, residing at
-, aged about
That at the time said will was
executed, to-wit: on the said
day of , 19 — , the said testa-
was over the age of
wit: of the age of
years, to-
years or
thereabouts, and was of sound and dis-
posing mind, and not acting under
duress, menace, fraud or undue in-
fluence, and was in every respect com-
petent, by last will to dispose of all
his estate.
That said will is in writing, signed
by the said decedent and att^ted by
said subscribing witnessea, at the re-
DECEDENTS' ESTATES
59
quest of said testa — , subscribing their
names to the said will in tfa« presence
of said decedent and in the presence
of each other, and your petitioner —
allege — that said witnesses, at the time
of attesting the execution of said will,
were competent.
Wherefore, your petitioner — pray —
that the said will may be admitted to
probate, and that letters be
issued to your petitioner, , and
that for that purpose a time be ap-
pointed for proving said will, and that
all persons interested be duly notified
to appear at the time appointed for
proving the same; and that all the
necessary and proper orders may be
made in the premises.
Petition for Probate of Foreign Will.
(Title.)
To the court of the county of
-, state of
The petition of
ty of , state of
of the coun-
, re-
spectfully shows:
That (same as in preceding form of
petition for probate (»f will to the point
marked with a *, where say):
That said decedent left a will bear-
ing date of the day of
f 19 — , which has been duly
proved, allowed and admitted to pro-
bate in the court of the coun-
ty of , state of , and
a duly authenticated copy of said will
and the probate thereof in said court
is presented and filed herewith and
made a part hereof; that said court at
the time of admitting said will to pro-
bate was a court of competent juris-
diction and had jurisdiction of said
matters and of all parties interested in
said estate;
That is named in said will
as executor — thereof; and the said
person — so named (refuses or
consents) to act as such; (and in case
of refusal, add, that your petitioner is
a person interested in the will of said
decedent.
That , aged about
years, residing at , ,
aged about years, residing at
, are named therein as devisees
and legatees.
Wherefore (same as in preceding
form of petition for probate of will).
Petition for Letters of Administration
Witb Will Annexed.
(Title.)
To the
state of
court of the county of
The petition of
ty of , state of
f of the coun-
, re-
spectfully shows:
That died on or about the
day of , 19 — , leav-
ing a last will and testament; that said
will and testament has heretofore been
admitted to probate in this court;
That by the terms of said will and
testament, was appointed
execut — thereof; and in pursuance
thereof, letters testamentary were is-
sued to said , by the order
of this court, and duly quali-
fied as such execut — ;
That said died on the
, 19 — , leaving said estate un-
administered upon, and it is necessary
that an administrator of said estate
should be appointed, and that letters
of administration, with the will an-
nexed thereto, be issued to him;
That the property of said estate left
unadministered is as follows, to-wit:
(describe character and value of prop-
erty).
Wherefore, petitioner prays that let-
ters of administration with the will an-
nexed be issued to him.
Petition by Corporation for Letters.
(Title.)
To the —
of
court of the county
-, state of
company
The petition of the
respectfully shows:
That your petitioner is a corporation
duly organized and existing under and
by virtue of the laws of the state of
, and having its principal place
of business in the city of ,
county of , state of ;
that petitioner is authorized by its
articles of incorporation to act as
executor, administrator, guardian, as-
signee, receiver, depositary or trustee;
that it has a paid up capital stock of
not less than thousand dollars
({^ ) of which thous-
and dollars has been actually paid in
in cash; that it has deposited with the
treasurer of the said state for the
benefit of its creditors the further sum
of thousand dollars ($ — )
in bonds and securities in compliance
with the provisions of (here
designate title of act); which said
bonds and securities are now held by
said treasurer in his official capacity,
for the uses and purposes aforesaid;
that petitioner has complied with all
the requirements of said act and has
60
DECEDENTS' ESTATES
procured from the (state name of board
or officei having authority) of the state
of a certificate of authority
stating that it has complied with the
requirememtb of said act and is author-
ised to act as executor, administrator,
guardian, assignee, receiver, depositary
or trustee.
That (same as in ordinary petition
foi letters of administration or letters
testamentary by an individual; if let-
ters of administration are sought, state
also facts showing nomination of cor-
poration or otherwise show right of cor-
poration to appointment as administra-
tor)
Petition for Special Letters of Admin-
istration. '
(Title.)
To the court of the county
of , state of :
The petition of
the county of
, resident of
and state of
, respectfully shows:
That died on or about the
day of , 19—, at
f in the county of ,
and state of
That said deceased at the time of
■ death was a resident of
in the county of
and state of , and left estate
in the county of , state of
-, consisting of real and per-
sonal property of the value of
$ ; said personal property being
of the probable value of , and
said real estate being of the probable
value of , and described as fol-
lows, to-wit (here describe property,
giving legal description if possible).
That your petitioner is the public
Administrator of said county of
, state of (or other
person entitled to such letters); that
there has been unusual delay in the
granting of letters of administration
upon said estate (or letters testamen-
tary of the last will and testament of
said deceased) and that there is dan-
ger that said estate will be neglected,
and greatly damaged thereby.
That it is necessary that some person
should be authorized to take charge of
and care for the property of said es-
tate and collect the rents and profits
thereof.
Wherefore, your petitioner prays that
he be appointed special administratof
of said estate to collect and take
charge of the estate of said decedent.
Nomination of One Not Entitled To
Act in Place of One Entitled to
Letters.
(Title.)
To the
of —
court of the county
, state of
The undersigned respectfully repre-
sents that he (or she) is the husband
(or wife, or other relative of decedent
entitled to letters of administration)
of , deceased, and as such is
entitled to administer upon the estate
of said deceased; that he (or she)
does not desire to undertake the ad-
ministration of said estate, and respect-
fully requests that , whose
petition for letters is presented and
filed herewith, may be appointed ad-
ministrator of said estate in his (or
her) stead.
Objection to Appointment of Ezecntor
or Administrator.
(Title.)
To the —
of
court of the county
-, state of
Now comes,
-, one of the
(specify whether he is heir,
legatee, devisee of decedent, or other
interest giving him right to oppose ap-
pointment of executor named in wUl
or applicant for letters of administra-
tion where there is no will) and ob-
jects to the granting of letters
to , the person named in the
will .of said , deceased (or to
the granting of the petition of
for the appointment of himself as ad-
ministrator of the estate of said de-
ceased) for the following reasons, to-
wit:
(Specify all reasons for opposition.)
Wherefore, this contestant respectful-
ly prays that the application of said
, for letters testamentary (or
for letters of administration) be de-
nied and the court will make such
other and further order in the premises
as may be proper.
Petition for Bevocation of Letters of
Administration In Favor of One Hav-
ing a Prior Bight TlieEeito.
(Title.)
To the —
of
court of the county
-, state of
The petition of
of the county of
-, a resident
— , state of
-, respectfully shows:
That died on or about the
day of '. > 19—, at
DECEDEXTS' ESTATES
61
state of
in the county of
and
That said deceased at the time of
death was a resident of
county of state of
That deceased left estate in the said
county of , state of — ,
consisting of real and personal prop-
erty, of the probable value of
dollars ($ — ); said personal prop-
erty being of the probable value of
$ , and said real estate be-
ing of the probable value of
dollars, andb described as follows
(here insert description).
That the next of kin of said de-
ceased and whom your petitioner is
advised and believes and therefore al-
leges to be the heirs at law of said
deceased are as follows: (here insert
names, residences, and relationship of
each heir).
That an order or decree was duly
made and entered by this court on the
day of -f 19 — , appoint
mg
-, administrator of the es-
tate of said deceased and letters of ad-
ministration were by said order issued
to said , as administrator there-.
of, and thereupon said '■ • duly
qualified and received said letters and
entered upon his duties as such admin-
istrator and is now administering upon
the estate of said decedent.
That .your petitioner is a (state re-
lationship of petitioner to deceased) of
said deceased and has a right to let-
ters of administration prior to that of
who has been appointed, as
aforesaid, such administrator.
Wherefore, your petitioner prays
that the letters of administration here-
tofore issued to said may be
revoked and that letters of administra-
tion upon the estate of said ,
deceased, may be issued to him.
Citation on Application To Sevoke Let-
ters in Favor of One Having Prior
Bight Thereto.
(Title.)
The people of the state of ,
to , administrator of the es-
tate of , deceased:
Greeting:
By order of this court you, the said
administrator of the estate of
, deceased, are hereby cited to
appear before the court of
, state of
the county of
on the day of
at • o'clock in the
-, 19—,
-noon of
said day and show cause, if any you
can, why your letters of administration
should not be revoked, and ,
a relative of the said decedent ap-
pointed as such administrator in your
place.
In testimony whereof, etc.
[Seal.]
Account Current of Bxeentor or Ad-
ministrator.
(Title.)
To the — ^— court of the county
of , state of :
, as (administrator
or executor) of the estate of ,
deceased, renders to the court his first
account-current and report of his ad-
ministration of said estate up to and
including the day of ,
19 — , as follows, to-wit:
Letters of upon said estate
were duly issued to him on the
day of , 19 — .
Notice to creditors has been duly
published, the first publication thereof
being on , 19 — (a copy of
which notice was duly filed in court
within days after the first
publication thereof, to-wit, on the
day of , la— ).
Decree establishing due notice to
creditors Was duly made and filed in
court on day of ,
19—.
An inventory and appraisement of
said estate was returned and filed on
the day of , 19 — ,
showing the total value of said estate
to be the sum of $ .
The following is k statement of the
claims presented and allowed against
said estate, to-wit (state name of
claimant, amount and other particulars
required by statute in reference to
claim).
Said — is chargeable as fol-
lows:
Amount of inventory and ap-
praisement $ .
Gain on sales over appraise-
ment
Parcel , appraised
at $ , sold for
$ — ■ , gain $ .
Interest collected on
Note of $ .
Mortgage of .... $ .
Principal collected in excess
of appraisement on
Note of $ .
Mortgage of .... $ .
Account of — ....
62
DECEDENTS* ESTATES
Bents collected on
Parcel from
Total charges
Said
is entitled to credits
as follows:
Loss on sales less than ap-
praisement
Parcel , appraised
at $ , sold for
$ ■ , loss $■
Property set apart to family
^ by order of court (ap
praised at)
Homestead set apart (ap-
praised at) i
Property lost or destroyed
Parcel , (stating
• method of loss) i
Cash paid out as follows:
Family allowance, voucher
No. i
Court clerk,
voucher No.
fees,
(Other cash payments in
same manner)
Total «redit8
The balance consists of the following
items:
Cash on hand
Property on hand (apprais
al value)
Total
The said further states to
the court (giving any further matter
necessary to be reported or explanatory
of items previously reported).
And said asks that said ac-
count be approved and settled and that
an order be made for the payment of
the claims filed as aforesaid, or for such
other portion thereof as shall be proper,
out of the cash balance on hand.
[Verification.]
First and Final Accoimt, Report and
Petition for Distribntion.
(Title.)
To the
court of the state of
— *
•
, as of the estate
of , deceased, renders to the
court his first and final account and
report and presents therewith his peti-
tion for distribution of said estate as
follows, to-wit:
Said is chargeable as fol-
lows:
Amount of inventory and
appraisement .........
Parcel appraised
at dollars
i$ ), sold for
dollars ($ ),
gain dollars
(enumerate each parcel
in this way and show the
amount of gain on each).
Interest collected on note
of (enumerate
each note separately)
dollars.
Principal collected in excess
of appcaisement on note
of .... — — ^^—
dollars (♦ )
Rents collected
On parcel from
$
Total charges $
And he is entitled to credits as fol-
lows:
Loss on sales less than appraisement:
Parcel appraised at
dollars ($ ),
sold for dollars
($ ), loss t
Property set apart to family
by order (appraised value). $
Homestead set apart (apprais-
ed value) $
Parcel r lost by decree
in case No. ,
vs. (at appraised
value) $
Parcel personal prop-
erty burned (at appraised
value) $
Cash paid out as follows:
On family allowance, vouch-
er No. $
To county clerk fees, vouch-
er No. t
To for funeral,
voucher No. $
To ■ on claim, vouch-
er No. $
Commission allowed by law
on dollars ($— )
the total value of estate
administered $
Attorneys' fees agreed on
subject to approval of
court $
(Add other cash payments
with voucher numbers.)
Total credits $
Which when deducted from
total charges leaves for dis-
tribution a balance of $ ■
The said balance consists of
the following described
property, to-wit:
Cash on hand $
DECEDENTS' ESTATES
63
And the following described
property, to-wit (here de-
scribe all the remaining
property and state its ap-
praised value) $
Total $
Letters of , were duly issued
upon said estate on the day
of , 19—,
Notice to creditors has been duly
published, the first publication thereof
having been made on the day
of , 19 — (also where required
by statute to be done the following:
a copy of which notice was duly filed
in court within days after the
first publication thereof, to-wit, on the
— day of , 19—.
Decree establishing due notice to
creditors was duly made and filed on
the day of , 19—.
An inventory and appraisement of
said estate was duly returned and filed
on the day of , 19 — ,
showing said estate to be of the value
of dollars ($ ).
The following claims have been pre-
sented and allowed against said estate,
to-wit :
Names Amount
of claimant. of claim. Class.
(Or if all claims have been paid omit
the last and say: **A11 claims pre-
sented and allowed against said estate
have been fully paid as shown by the
foregoing account.*')
That the whole of said estate is sep-
arate (or community) property.
Said estate is now in condition to be
finally settled and distributed.
The following named persons are the
next of kin and only heirs at law of
the deceased, to-wit (here give names,
relationship and residence of each).
fif there is a will insert the fol-
lowing]: By the terms of the last will
of the deceased duly admitted to pro-
bate herein on the day of
, 19 — , the said deceased de-
vised and bequeathed, in the propor-
tions and manner in said will specified,
his (or her) whole estate to the fol-
lowing-named devisees and legatees
(here give names, relationship and resi-
dence of all legatees or devisees under
will).
There is a collateral inheritance tax
of dollars ($ ) pay-
able on legacy to
and there is
the value of which for that
purpose has not been ascertained (or
there is a collateral inheritance tax due
on the distributive shares of
and , giving names and amount
due on each). (If there is no col-
lateral inheritance tax, omit the fore-
going).
Wherefore said prays that
said account be approved, allowed and
settled; (that the amount of collateral
inheritance tax to be paid on the
devise , [or on the shares of
, giving names and amount of
each] be ascertained and determined) ;
and that a decree be made for the
distribution of all of said estate to
the persons entitled thereto; and for
all other and proper relief.
[Verification.]
Final Account, Beport and Petition for
Distribution of Estate Following an
Account Current.
(Title.)
To the
of :
court of the state
, as administrator (or other-
wise) of the estate of , de-
ceased, renders to the court his final
account and report for settlement of
said estate and presents therewith his
petition for distribution thereof as fol-
lows, to-wit:
Said is chargeable as fol-
lows:
Balance chargeable on settle-
ment of last account cur-
rent $
(Here add any other gains to
estate as in account cur-
rent) $
Total charges $
He is entitled to credit as follows:
Paid on claim vouch-
er No. $
Paid
on claim vouch-
er No.
Commission allowed by law
on dollars ($ )
the total value of the estate
administered $-
Attorneys* fees agreed upon
subject to approval of
court $-
(Add any other items of credit.)
Total credits $-
Which when deducted from
total charges leaves for dis-
tribution a balance of $-
The said balance consists of
the following described
also such a tax on the devise to I property, to-wit:
U!
64
DECEDENTS' ESTATES
Cash on hand $
And the following described
property, to-wit: (here de-
scribe all the remaining
property and state its ap-
praised value) $
Total $
Letters of were duly issued
on the day of , 19 — .
Notice to creditors has been duly
published, the first publication thereof
having been made on the day
of , 19 — , (also where neces-
sary, a copy of which notice was duly
filed in court within days
after the first publication thereof, to-
wit, on day of ,
19—).
Decree establishing due notice to
creditors was duly made and filed in
court on day of ,
19—.
In accordance with the order for the
payment of claims hereinbefore made
all claims allowed against said estate
have been paid, as shown by the fore-
going account, and said estate is now
in condition to be finally settled and
distributed.
Said deceased left as his next of kin
and only heirs at law certain persons
whose names, relationship and resi-
dences are as follows, to-wit:
Names. Belationship. Besidence.
(If there is a will duly probated add
the following): By the terms of the
last will of said deceased admitted to
probate herein, the said estate is dis-
posed of as follows:
He bequeaths specific money legacies
as follows: To the sum of
dollars (etc.,. enumerating the
legatees and amounts to each).
He made specific devises of land as
follows, to (here describe land
devised, etc., enumerating all devises).
And the rest and residue of said
estate he devised and bequeathed as
follows (here state how and
to whom).
That the whole of said estate is sep-
arate (or community) property.
There will be collateral inheritance
taxes payable on the legacy to
in the sum of dollars; and on
the legacy to in the sum of
dollars, and there will also
be such taxes to pay on the devise
to , the value of which for
that purpose has not been ascertained.
(If there is no collateral inheritance
tax omit the foregoing.)
Wherefore the said asks
that said account be approved, allowed
and settled (and that the amount of
collateral inheritance tax to be paid on
said legacies and devises be ascer-
tained and determined) and that a
decree be made for the distribution of
all of said estate to the persons en-
titled thereto and for all other and
proper relief.
(Verification.)
ObJectionB to Accoimt of Executor or
AdminlBtrator.
(Title.)
To the court of the county
of , state of :
Now comes , who is inter-
ested in the estate of , de-
ceased, being one of the heirs at law
(or a devisee or legatee under the will
of said deceased) and files these his
objections and exceptions in writing,
to the account the administrator (or
executor of the last will and testament
of, etc.) of the estate of said de-
ceased filed herein on the day
of , 19—. .
Said
contests and objects to
the allowance of said account for the
following reasons, to-wit:
(Specify particularly objections to
account either as a whole or as to the
allowance of any particular item
thereof, stating reasons for objections,
as that a claim allowed against the
estate objected to is barred by the
statute of limitations, or was not filed
within the .requisite time, or is not
properly a charge against said estate,
etc.)
Petition for Order Setting Apart Ex-
empt Personal Property.
(Title.)
To the —
of
court of the county
The petition of
shows:
That on the
-, state of
respectfully
day of
19 — , the inventory and appraisement
of the property of the estate of
, deceased, was returned to this
court, in which the administration of
said estate is now pending;
That the following described per-
sonal property is returned in said in-
ventory as the property of said es-
tate, to-wit (insert list of property).
That said property is by law exempt
from execution.
DECEDENTS' ESTATES
65
'That the family of said deceased con-
sists of , the surviving widow
(or husband) of decedent^ and ,
minor children of said decedent.
Wherefore, petitioner prays that all
of said personal property be set apart
out of said estate for the exclusive use
and benefit of the family of said
decedent.
Petition for Family AUowaace.
(Title.)
To the —
of
court of the county
; state of
respectfully
The petition of
shows:
That died on or about the
day of , 19 — , and
that the matter of his estate is now
pending in this court;
That said decedent at the time of
his death left him surviving as the
members of his family, your petitioner,
his widow, and (giving names
and ages of minor children); that your
petitioner, his widow, is without estate
of her own (or insufficient estate of
her own) and is entitled to an allow-
ance out of the property of said estate
of a reasonable amount for the main-
tenance of herself and minor children
of the decedent , in number
according to their circumstances and
manner of living; that the property of
said estate, exempt by law from execu-
tion, is not sufficient for the mainte-
nance of said family; that
dollars per month is a reasona'ble
amount to be paid by the estate of
decedent for that purpose.
Wherefore, your petitioner- prays that
an order or decree may be made author-
izing and directing the administrator
(or executor) of said estate to pay to
your petitioner for the support and
maintenance of herself and her said
minor child (or children) the sum of
$ per month, (the same to date
from the date of the death of said
decedent) and to continue until the
further order of the court.
Petition for Order or Decree To Set
Apart Becorded Homestead for Use
of Family.
(Title.)
To the —
of
court of the county
-, state of
The petition of -
of the estate of
-, the
deceased,
the county of
state of
represents as follows:
That said deceased was a resident of I
-, at the time of his (or her)
death and left an estate in said county
and state.
That letters were issued to
your petitioner on the day of
, 19 — , and that on the
day of , 19 — , the said
duly returned an inventory
and appraisement of the property of
said estate;
That a certain parcel of land in said
inventory mentioned and hereinafter
particularly described, together with
the dwelling house thereon and its ap-
purtenances, was selected from the com-
munity property of said spouses (or
the separate property of deceased) by
said deceased in his (or her) lifetime
and was duly declared and recorded as
a homestead by declaration recorded in
the office of the county recorder for
the county of on the
day of , 19 — , in Book
of Homesteads, page , a
copy of which said declaration of
homestead is annexed hereto and made
a part hereof; that said declaration
of homestead was in full force and
effect at the time of the death of the
said deceased.
That said premises do not exceed in
value the sum of five thousand dollars
($5000.00) (or the statutory amount)
and were appraised as appears by said
inventory and appraisement at the sum
of dollars ($ ) only.
That the family of said deceased
consists of , his widow (or in
case of wife^s decease, her husband)
and minor children, viz.:
(here give names and ages of chil-
dren) and that said widow was the
wife of the deceased (or said husband
was such) at the time said homestead
was declared and recorded as afore-
said.
That the said parcel of land is sit-
uated in said county of and
state of , and is particularly
described as follows, to-wit: (here give
description).
Wherefore, your petitioner prays that
an order or decree be made and entered
heroin setting apart the said homestead
ponRi sting of said parcel of land above
described together with the dwelling
house thereon, and its appurtenances,
for the exclusive use and benefit of
the said , widow (or surviving
husband or minor child or children) of
the said , deceased.
66
DECEDENTS' ESTATES
of
Dated at
19—.
this
day
Order Setting Apart Becorded Home-
stead Selected Out of Community
Property.
(Title.)
The inventory and appraisement here-
in having been duly made and filed,
and the following described real es-
tate having been appraised therein at
not exceeding (statutory
amount) in value, * and having been
duly selected and recorded as a home-
stead in the lifetime of said decedent
and being community property;
Now on motion of — , it is or-
dered by the court that the same be
set off to , the surviving
■ of said decedent, as
property, subject to no other liability
of said decedent than such as exists
or has been created under (give title
of act governing). Said land is de-
scribed as follows, to-wit: (set forth
legal description of premises).
Order Setting Apart Becorded Home-
stead, Selected by Survivor from
Separate Property.
(Title.)
The (etc., as in previous form to *,
where say as follows:) and having
been duly selected and recorded as a
homestead by the of said
decedent during h life, out of h
separate property, the said decedent
not having joined in said selection, now
on motion of , it is ordered
by the court that the same be set off
for the period of years from
this date to the family of said
decedent, namely h and
^ minor children, the same
thereafter to vest in the legal heirs
of said decedent, and to be thereafter
subject to no other liability of said
decedent than such as exists or has
been created under the provisions of
(state title of act governing) if any
such liability there be. Said land is
described as follows, to-wit: (give legal
description of premises). .
Order Setting Apart Becorded Home-
stead, Selected by Decedent from
Separate Property.
(Title.)
The inventory and appraisement
herein having been duly made and filed,
and the following described real es-
tate having been appraised therein at
not exceeding
(statutory
amount) dollars in value, and having
been duly selected and recorded as a
homestead by said decedent during
h life, out of h separate prop-
erty, now on motion of , the
of said deceased, it is ordered
by the court that the said premises
be set off to , the surviving
of said decedent, as h
property subject to no other liability
of said decedent than such as may exist
under (state title of act governing) if
any such liability there be. Said land
is described as follows, to-wit: (give
legal description).
Petition for Order or Decree To Set
Apart Homestead, Kone Having Been
Selected by Decedent.
(Title.)
To the
of
court of the county
state of
The petition of
as follows:
represents
That said deceased was a resident
of the county of , state of
, at the time of his (or her)
death, and left an estate in said coun-
ty and state.
That on the
day of
19 — , an inventory and appraisement of
the property of the estate of said
, deceased, was returned to
this court;
That the following described real es-
tate is returned in said inventory and
appraisement, to-wit: (here give de-
scription); that said property is ap-
praised in said inventory and "appraise-
ment at the sum of dollars
(^ ).
That the said real estate hereinbe-
fore described was the community prop-
erty of said deceased and , his
wife (or her husband), having been ac-
quired by their joint effort while Tiving
together as husband and wife (or was
the separate property of said ).
That no homestead was selected,
designated and recorded by either the
Raid deceased or , during the
lifetime of said deceased;
That the family of said deceased con-
sists of , his widow (or her
husband), and , minor children
(giving names and ages thereof).
That — is now residing upon
the said property, and selects and desig-
nates the same as the property which
it is desired shall be set apart as a
homestead.
DECEDENTS' ESTATES
67
Wherefore, your petitioner prays that
an order or decree be made and entered
herein, setting apart the said property,
together with the dwelling-house there-
on, and its appurtenances, for the ex-
clusive use and benefit of the said
, widow (or surviving husband
and minor child or children) of the
said , deceased.
Dated at , this day
of , 19—.
Petitioner.
Attorney for Petitioner.
Order Setting Apart Homestead, None
Having Been Selected by Decedent.
(Title.)
On motion of , it having
been duly made to appear to the court
that no homestead had been selected
by the deceased in his lifetime, it is
ordered by the court that the land de-
scribed as follows, to-wit: ' (give de-
scription), be and the same is hereby
set apart as a homestead for the use
of , the surviving ,
and , the minor children of
said decedent. (That said land is
community property, or if separaite
property, say, that said land was sep-
arate property of said deceased, and
that the same be set apart only for
the period of years from this
date.)
Petition for Order or Decree Vesting
Homestead or Community Property
in Survlyor.
(Title.)
To the —
of
court of the county
-, state of
The petition of
shows:
respectfully
That he is interested in the real
property hereinafter described and in
the title thereto as hereinafter stated:
That prior to the day of
, 19 — f the petitioner herein
and , his wife, had intermar-
ried and had become husband and wife
and so remained husband and wife
until the death of said as
hereinafter set forth.
That the said real property herein-
after described was acquired by your
said petitioner and , his wife,
durinp their said marriage relation and
was community property of said
spouses.
[That on or about the day
of , 19 — , said real estate was
duly selected and recorded as a home-
stead by declaration of homestead duly
executed, acknowledged, and recorded
in volume of homesteads in
the office of the county recorder of
the county of . (In case of
petition for vesting of community prop-
erty instead of homestead this whole
paragraph should be omitted.)]
That on or about the day
of , 19 — , the said
died at
(give place of death)
and thereupon said homestead (or com-
munity property) and all title thereto
vested and now remains in your peti-
tioner as surviving spouse of said mar-
riage;
That the following is the name, re-
lationship and residence of each of the
persons who would be an heir at law
of the separate property of the said
deceased, to-wit:
Name. Besidence. Relationship.
That the following is a statement of
all claims of creditors against the de-
ceased with the name and residence of
each creditor together with a state-
ment of his claim:
Statement
Name. Kesidence. of Claim.
Said real property is situated in the
county of , state of ,
and is described as follows, to-wit
(giving description).
Wherefore, your petitioner prays for
an order or decree of this court ad-
judging that the title to said home-
stead (or community property) was
vested in your petitioner on the
day of , 19 — , and for such
other or further order as may be just
in the premises.
[Verification.]
Petition for Order of Sale of Personal
Property.
(Title.)
To the court of the county
of , state of :
The petition of
-, the duly
appointed, qualified and acting admin-
istrator (or executor) of the estate of
, deceased, represents as fol-
lows:
That the following claims against
said estate have been duly approved
according to law and allowed by said
administrator (or executor) and the
68
DECEDENTS' ESTATES
judge of this court, and are filed here-
in, viz.: (insert list of claims allowed).
That the expenses of administration
which have been incurred herein are
as follows, to-wit: (insert list of said
expenses).
That the amount of family allowance
now due under the order of this court,
heretofore made, is the sum of
dollars, and the amount which will be-
come due up to the time of final dis-
tribution of said ' estate will be about
the sum of dollars;
That the sum of dollars is
due to persons named in the will for
legacies bequeathed them in said will
of decedent.
That the commissions of the admin-
istrator (or executor), fees of counsel
and other expenses of administering
upon said estate to accrue will amount
to about the sum of dollars.
That the tol^l amount of claims due
and to become due from said estate,
costs and expenses of administration,
and family allowance amount to about
the sum of dollars.
That the inventory and appraisement
of the property of said estate has
been duly made and filed herein, con-
taining a description and valuation of
all real estate and personal property of
said estate; and said inventory and ap-
praisement is hereby referred to and
made a part hereof.
That of the personal property of said
estate there has been set apart for the
use and benefit of the family of the
decedent the following, to-wit: (insert
list and description of property as set
apart).
That of said personal property the
following has been specifically be-
queathed as follows, to-wit: (insert list
and description of bequests).
That the remainder of the said per-
sonal property and the condition there-
of is particularly described in Schedule
"A," hereto annexed, and hereby re-
ferred to and made a part hereof as
is fully set forth herein. (If short,
insert here instead of by use of sched-
ule.)
That a sale of the remaining per-
sonal property belonging to said estate
will be sufficient to pay all the above
enumerated items (or is necessary for
the payment of said claim, commissions,
costs and expenses of administration,
aiKl family allowance.
(If a private sale is asked for, state:
^at said property can be sold to bet-
ter advantage at private sale than at
public auction.)
Wherefore, your petitioner prays that
an order of this court be made direct-
ing that the whole or so much of said
remaining personal property be sold at
public auction (or private sale) as
shall be necessary for the payment of
said claims, costs and expenses of ad-
ministration and family allowance, and
for such other or further order as to
the court shall seem proper in the
premises.
Objections to Order (Granting Bale of
Real Property.
(Title.)
To the court of the county
of , state of :
The undersigned, one of the heirs at
law of said , deceased (or oth*^r
person entitled to object to such order),
objects to the granting of the order of
sale of real property petitioned for in
the petition of , heretofore
filed herein, for the following reasons:
.(jSpecify in detail the cause or causes
why the order petitioned for should
not be granted.)
Wherefore, your petitioner prays that
the order sought in said petition be
denied and for such other relief as to
the court may seem just in the prem-
ises.
Notice of Motion To Vacate Bale of
Beal Estate and for a Se-sale There-
of.
(Title.)
To :
You will please take notice that on
the day of , 19 — , at
the hour of
o'clock of said
day or as soon thereafter as counsel
can be heard, at the court room of
said court, the administrator (or
executor) of said estate will move the
court to vacate and annul the sale here-
tofore made to you by him of the fol-
lowing described real property of said
estate, to-wit: (insert description) and
will also move said court to set aside,
vacate and annul the order confirming
the sale of said property to you so
far as said order relates to said prop-
erty, on the ground that you have
neglected and refused to pay to said
administrator (or executor) the balance
of the purchase price due from you to
him for said property and because you
have refused to comply with the terms
of said sale, and still continue to neglect
and refuse to pay the same or any part
DECEDENTS' ESTATES
69
thereof, or to comply with the said
terms of said sale in any manner. Said
motion will be based upon the papers
on file in the matter of the above en-
titled estate a,nd the order of the
court therein and upon oral and docu-
mentary evidence to be introduced at
the hearing of said motion.
Petitioii for Order Oompelliiig Adzoln-
istrator To Specifically Perform Con-
tract To Oonvey Beal Estato.
(Title.)
To the —
of
court of the county
The petition of
shows:
That on the —
-, state of
respectfully
day of
19 — , your petitioner entered into a
written agreement with , the
decedent, concerning certain real estate
belonging to said decedent; that said
agreement was duly executed and
acknowledged by said parties thereto
and was duly delivered by said
and was on the day of ,
19 — , duly filed for tecord in the coun-
ty recorder's office of the county of
, state of , that being
the county in which said real estate
was situated, and was duly recorded
in Book . of deeds, page
; that said agreement is an-
nexed hereto and is hereby referred to
and made a part hereof;
That your petitioner has performed
all of the matters and things required
by said agreement to be performed on
his part, and by reason of the premises
is entitled to a specific performance of
said agreement according to the terms
thereof, to-wit: a conveyance of the
premises described in said agreement.
That before the petitioner became
entitled to such specific performance,
to-wit: on the day of ,
19 — , said died.
That in the matter of the estate of
said deceased such proceedings were
had in the court of the coun-
ty of , in this state, that on
the day of , 19 — ,
was appointed the adminis-
trator (or executor) of said estate;
that subsequently be filed his bond and
took the oath of office as such admin-
istrator (or executor) and is now duly
qualified and acting administrator (or
executor) of said estate.
Wherefore, your petitioner prays for
an order of court authorizing and di-
recting the said , administrator
(or execu^r) of the estate of said
, deceased, to specifically per-
form said agreement by executing to
your petitioner a good and sufficient
deed of the real property described in
said agreement.
Petition for Order Directing Invest-
ment of Funds.
(Title.)
To th'e —
of
, state of
court of the county
-, respectfully
The petition of
shows:
That there is in the hands of your
petitioner as the administrator (or
executor) of the estate of said ,
deceased, the sum of dollars
($ )^ which is now on deposit
in the
bank at
in
said county of
state of
That (stating reason or cause for in-
vestment of funds pending settlement
of estate).
Wherefore, your petitioner prays that
an order be made authorizing and di-
recting that said sum of money be
invested in such securities of the
United States or of the state of
, as this court may deem ad-
visable and direct.
Affidavit Charging Concealment or Em-
bezzlement of Estate.
(Title and venue.)
of , in the county
of , and state of , be-
ing first duly sworn, complains to the
court of said county and says
that he is the administrator duly ap-
pointed and qualified of the estate of
f deceased; that affiant has
good reason to believe and suspect that
of , in the county of
, and state of , has
concealed, embezzled and conveyed
away certain goods and chattels (or
money or choses in action) belonging
to the estate of said deceased.
Wherefore, your informant prays that
the said may be cited to ap-
pear before this court at a time and
place designated to be examined upon
oath regarding the matters herein set
forth.
(Jurat.)
Petition of Surety To Be Beleased.
(Title.)
To the
court of
state of
The petition of
shows:
respectfully
70
DECEDENTS' ESTATES
That the petitioner is one of the
sureties on the bond of , the
administrator (or executor) of the es-
tate of , deceased, heretofore
given by him on qualifying as such
administrator (or executor), which said
bond has been duly filed and recorded
In this court and is now in full force
and effect.
That your petitioner desires to be re-
leased from said bond, and from all
responsibility thereunder on account of
the future acts of said administrator
(or executor).
Wherefore, petitioner prays that a
citation be issued herein directed to
said administrator (or executor) requir-
ing him to give other security, and that
your petitioner be released from fur-
ther liability on account of said bond.
Petition for Possession of Personal
Property.
(Title.)
To the . court of the county
of , state of :
The petition of
•, executor
(or administrator) of the estate of
, deceased, respectfully shows:
That one , is in possession
of the following described property
and chattels, to-wit: (describe the
property claimed).
That this property was in
lifetime the property of said « ,
deceased; that said property now be-
longs to the estate of said ,
unconditionally; and that it is for the
best interests of said estate that your
petitioner as executor (or administra-
tor) thereof to obtain possession of said
property and Aold the same as assets
of said estate.
Wherefore, petitioner respectfully
asks for a citation or rule on said
, commanding him to turn over
said property to him as executor (or
administrator) of said estate and for
such other and further relief as the
court may deem necessary and just.
Petition To Tenninate Life Estate.
(Title.)
To the —
of
said real estate by deed executed and
delivered by to the said
, and duly recorded on the
day of ,19 — , in
Book , page of
Deeds, in the office of the county
recorder of said
county, a
copy of which deed is hereto annexed,
marked '' Exhibit A," and made a
part hereof.
That said , being the same
person mentioned as lifei tenant in
said deed, died on the day
of , 19 — , at , by
reason whereof his life estate in said
premises has terminated and petitioner
has become entitled to the possession
thereof.
Wherefore, petitioner prays that
an order be made and entered herein
decreeing that the said died
on the day of ^ 19 — .
(Verification.)
DEOLABATION AKD OOMPI.AINT
[See 9 Standard Proc. 335. See aUo
Bills and Answers; Cross-Bill;
Cross-Complaint.
By assignee for benefit of creditors^ see
Assignment for the Benefit of Cred-
itors.
Exhibit, form for referring to, see 8
Standard Proc. 804.
For particular declarations and com"
plaints, see the particular titles.
court of the county
-, state of
represents as
The petition of
follows;
That is the owner in fee
Df the following described real 'estate,
to-wit: (give legal description).
That said , on the
day of , 19 — , became the
owner of an estate for life in the
DECREES
[See 9 Standard Proc. 737. See also
Bills To Impeach Judgments and
Decrees; Judgments; Judgments
AND Decrees, Enforcement of.]
Establishing heirship, see Inheritance.
Petition to revoke or annul decree of
divorce, see Divorce.
Decree Setting Aside Conveyance as
Fraudulent and Giving Leave To Pro-
ceed in Execution.
(Title of court and cause and venue.)
(Becitals of trial findings, etc.)
It is adjudged that the conveyance
(describing it) dated the day
of , 19 — , executed by the de-
fendant J. K. to the defendant L. M.
was made with intent to defraud the
creditors of said J. K. and is void as
against the plaintiff in this action; and
that the judgment confessed by defend-
ant J. K. in favor of the defendant
X. P. in the court and entered
in the office of the clerk of
for dollars, was made with
DEMUBREB TO EVIDENCE
71
intent to defraud the creditors of the
defendant J. K. (or is insufficient, and
in law, fraudulent as against creditors
of said J. K.) and that the same and
all proceedings thereunder, and the
sheriff's certificate bearing the date of
the day of , 19 — , and
his deed bearing the date of the
day of , 19 — , to
the defendant, £. F. in pursuance there-
of are each and all void as against
the plaintiff in this action (and said
judgment is ordered to be canceled and
discharged of record by clerk of this
court).
And it is further adjudged that the
plaintiff in this action, be allowed to
proceed upon the execution heretofore
issued on the judgment in his favor or
to issue another execution as he may
be advised; and that the said defend-
ant (naming him) deliver to the sheriff
upon any such execution said property
(describing it) to be sold thereunder
and applied to satisfy said judgment,
and interest thereon and also the costs
of this suit.
DEEDS. — See Covenants, Action on;
Ejectment; Lands and Land Tbans-
FERs; Reformation; Rescission and
Cancellation.
DBFAXTLT
{See 9 Standard Proc. 866, 471. See
also Judgments.
Entry of on petition to ascertain heir-
ship, see Inheritance.
Notice of Mot^n To Set Aside Default.
(Title of court and cause and venue.)
To :
Take notice that upon the affidavit
a copy of which is herewith served, I
will move said court at the court house
of said court on the day of
-, 19 — , at the hour of
o'clock in the noon of said day or
as soon thereafter as counsel can be
heard, that the default entered (or
judgment entered by default) against
said defendant in this action and all
subsequent proceedings therein be set
aside for the reasons following (here
set out in full the grounds for setting
default aside).
Attorney for Defendant.
Dated at , the day
of , 19—.
DELINQUENT AND DEPENDENT
PERSONS. — See Infants.
44
DEICU&BEB
[See 9 Standard Proc. 377.]
Certiorari, to petition for, see Certiorari.
Demurrer to evidence, see Demurrer to
Evidence.
Oeneral Fonn on Several Oroimds of
Demorrer.
(Title of court and cause and venue.)
The defendant demurs to the plain-
tiff's complaint on the following
grounds (or any of them):
1. That the court has no jurisdiction
of the person of the defendant (or of
the subject-matter of the suit).
2. That the plaintiff has not legal
capacity to sue (state in what way in-
capacitated).
3. That it appears from the com-
plaint herein that there is another
action pending between the same
parties for the same cause of action
(state in what court).
4. That there is a (defect or) mis-
joinder of parties plaintiff (or defend-
ant), (state in what the defect or mis-
joinder consists).
5. That several causes of action
have been improperly united in this
(set forth how they are improperly
united).
6. That the complaint is uncertain
in this, that (point out in what par-
ticulars the uncertainty consists).
7. That the complaint is ambiguous
in this, that (point out specially the
ambiguities).
8. That the complaint does not state
facts sufficient in law to constitute a
cause of action.
Demurrer to Betnm to Alternative
Writ of Mandamng,
(Title of court and cause.)
The relator herein demurs to the re-
turn of J. K. to the alternative writ
of mandamus issued in this cause on
the ground that it appears upon the
face thereof that the same does not
state facts sufficient to constitute a de-
fense nor show any cause for not obey-
ing said writ.
DEMUBBEB TO EVIDENOE
[See $ Standard Proo. 384.]
Demurrer to Plaintiff 's Evidence.
(Title of court and cause.)
Be it remembered that after the jury
was sworn to try the issue joined in
72
DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE
this cause the plaintiff to prove anS
maintain the said issue on his part
showed in evidence to the jury by one
witness E. F. that (here set out the
testimony of witness).
And the plaintiff further to maintain
and prove the said issue on his part
showed in evidence to the jury a writ-
ing in words and figures following, to-
wit (here insert a copy of writing).
And defendant says that said testi-
mony and evidence tends to establish
the following and only the following
facts (here state the facts which the
evidence tends to establish).
And the defendant further says that
the matters and facts so shown in evi-
dence to the jury by the plaintiff are
not sufficient in law to maintain the
said issue on the part of the plaintiff
and that he the said defendant is not
bound by law to answer the same.
Wherefore, for want of sufficient
matter in that behalf shown in evi-
dence to the jury the defendant prays
judgment and that the plaintiff may
be barred from having ur maintaining
his aforesaid action thereof against
him, etc.
Attorney for Defendant.
(The above may be readily adapted
to a demurrer to defendant's evidence
by changing the word *' defendant" to
*' plaintiff," and concluding with the
following prayer:
Wherefore, for want of sufficient
matter in that behalf shown in evi-
dence to the jury, the said plaintiff
prays judgment and that the jury afore-
said may be discharged from giving
any verdict upon the said issue and
that his damages by reason of the mat-
ters complained of may be adjudged to
him, etc.)
Joinder in Demurrer by Plaintiff.
And the said plaintiff inasmuch as
he has shown in evidence to the jury
sufficient matter to maintain the issue
upon his part and which the said plain-
tiff is ready to verify, and inasmuch
as the defendant does not deny or in
any manner answer the said matter,
prays judgment and his damages by
reason of the matters complained of, to
be adjudged him, etc.
Attorney for Plaintift.
(The above may be readily adapted
to joinder by the defrndant by con-
cluding the prayer as follows, "prays
judgment and that the said plaintiff
may be barred from having or main-
taining his action against the defend-
ant and that the jury may be dis-
charged from giving their verdict upon
the said issue."
Attorney for Defendant.)
DENIALS
[See 9 Standard Proc. 62, 385, 533,
and cross-references thereunder. See
also 7 Standard Proc. 31, et seq,]
DEPARTUBE
[See 7 Standard Proc. 140, et seq,]
DEPOSll! IN COXntT
[See 9 Standard Proc. 387. See also
Interpleader.]
DEPOSITIONS
[See 9 Standard Proc. 389.]
Perpetuation of testimony, see 9 Stand-
ard Proc. 965.
Stipulation for Taking Deposition on
Oral Interrogatories.
(Title of court and cause and venue.)
It is hereby stipulated that the
deposition of J. K. a witness on be-
half of the in above entitled
action may be taken on oral inter-
rogatories before N. P., a notary public
(or any other officer or person agreed
upon) in and for the county of
in this state, at his office in said coun-
ty on the day of ,
19 — , between the hours of
a. m. and p. m. of that day,
and if not completed on that day, may
be continued from day to day there-
after, at the same place until com-
pleted. And when so taken, the said
deposition may be used on the trial of
said action, subject to the same ob-
jections (except as to the form of in-
terrogatories) as if the witness were
there present and testifying therein.
Stipulation To Take on Written Inter-
rogatories.
(Title of court and cause and venue.)
It is hereby stipulated and agreed by
the parties to the above entitled action,
that the deposition of may
be taken on the annexed interrogatories
and cross-interrogatories before
(or any other person agreed upon),
rnd that a notice for the taking of
uaid deposition as well as the issuance
DISCLAIMER
73
of a commiBsion be and is Hereby
waived; that said officer shall reduce
the answers to said interrogatories, if
any, to writing or cause the same to
be reduced to writing, and after
authenticating shall forward the same
to , clerk of the
court,
county, which deposi-
tion shall be introduced at the trial
of said cause by either party subject
to objections for incompetency, im*
materiality and irrelevancy.
Witness our signature this
day of , 19 — .
■■ " >
Attorney for Plaintiff.
Attorney for Defendant.
Fonn of Deposition Taken on N^otice or
Stipulation.
(Title and venue.)
Deposition of J. K., a witness, taken
before me, , at my office in the
city of , in said county on the
day of , 19 — , pur-
suant to the annexed notice (or stip-
ulation) to be used on the part of the
plaintiff (or defendant) in a certain
action now pending in the
court for the county of , and
state of , wherein A. B. is
plaintiff and C. D. is defendant.
The said witness being first duly
sworn by me to testify to the truth,
the whole truth and nothing but the
truth relative to said action, in answer
to oral questions propounded by E. F.,
who apifbared as attorney for the plain-
tiff (or defendant) deposed and made
answer as follows: [Here write out
questions and answers in full number-
ing each interrogatory. If any ob-
jection is offered to any of the inter-
rogatories insert (** objected to by
plaintiff for defendant]") and state
ground of objection.]
Upon cross-examination the witness
testified as follows:
[Here set out cross-examination (and
redirect examination, if any) in the
same manner as the direct examina-
tion.]
[Corrections by the witness, if any,
should be added at the end of the
deposition before it is signed.]
Kotice of Motion To Suppress Deposi-
tion.
To , Esq., attorney for defend-
ant (or plaintiff):
Sir:—
You are hereby notified that on tho
— ■ day of , 19—, at
- o'clock — m., or as soon
thereafter as counsel can be heard
herein the plaintiff (or defendant) by
his counsel will move the court here-
in to suppress the deposition of J. K.
taken and on file in this action on
the following grounds (here set forth
in detail the grounds such as irreg-
ularity of service, lack of notice or
other grounds for suppression).
(Date.)
Attorney.
Motion To Suppress Part of Deposi-
tion.
(Title of court and cause and venue.)
And now comes the defendant (or
plaintiff) in the above entitled action
by , his attorney, and moves
to suppress and strike out from the
deposition of , the questions
and answers herein specifically pointed
out upon the grounds mentioned and
set forth in said deposition, to- wit:
(here set forth the interrogatory and
answer with the objections).
DETIKUE
[See 9 Standard Proc. 398.]
Ple« of Non Detinot.
And the said defendant by ,
his attorney, comes and defends the
wrong and injury (or force and injury)
when, etc.; and says that he doth not
detain the said goods and chattels in
said declaration specified or any part
thereof, in manner and form as the
said plaintiff hath above thereof com-
plained against him; and of this the
said defendant puts himself upon the
country, etc.
DISCLAIMEB
[See 9 Standard Proc. 398.]
The defendants A. B. and C. D. an-
swering the plaintiff's complaint herein
say:
That they disclaim all right, title
and interest in or to any or all of the
premises described in said complaint.
That they or either of th#m have
not nor ever had any right, title
or interest in or claim of any kind
or nature against the said premises or
any part thereof, nor did they or either
of them ever pretend to ever have such
interest, title or claim.
Dated, etc.
Attorney for, etc.
74
DISCLAIMER
Based on Angus v. Craven, 132 Cal.
691, 64 Pac. 1C91.
Plea of Disclaimer as to Part of Prem-
ises.
And now comes the defendant in the
above entitled action and for a plea
to the plaintiff's said declaration says
that he is not in possession of and does
not claim and has not entered upon or
been in possession of or claimed any
part of the lands in said declaration
described, except the following de-
scribed lands (here describe the lands
claimed) : and as to all the lands ex-
cept those herein above particularly de-
scribed, this defendant disclaims any
and all interest.
And for a further plea, etc.
DISCOVERT
[See 9 Standard Peoc. 399.]
Motion for leave to file interrogataries,
see Equity Jurisdiction and Pro-
cedure.
Motion To Expunge or Strike Out In-
terrogatories.
(Title of court and cause and venue.)
(PlaintiflP) in the above entitled
action moves that the (defendant's)
interrogatories herein, filed, numbered
and , be expunged and
stricken out and the plaintiff be not re-
quired to answer the same, upon the
ground that said interrogatories do not
seek a discovery of facts material to
the defense of said action but require
a disclosure of the means and methods
by which plaintiff expects to prove his
c«se.
Motion To Suppress Answers and for
Fuller Answers.
And now come the (defendants) in
the above entitled action and by their
attorneys move to suppress the (plain-
tiff's) answers to the interrogatories
herein filed by the defendants (or to
certain interrogatories, describing them)
on the ground that said answers are
evasive, irresponsive, and contain im-
proper matter (or any other sufficient
reason), and to require the (plaintiff)
to make other and fuller answers to
said interrogatories.
Notice of Motion for Order for Inspec-
tion of Books and Documents.
(Title.)
To -, attorney for (defendant) :
You will please take notice that the
plaintiff in the above entitled action
will on the day of ,
19 — , at o'clock — m,, or as
soon thereafter as counsel can be heard,
at the court room of said
court, move the said court for an order
directing you to allow the plaintiff to
inspect and take copies of (describe
the books to be inspected or the in-
struments to be copied) which said
book or (papers) contain evidence con-
cerning the merits of this action.
Said motion will be based and heard
upon an affidavit a copy of which is
hereto annexed and served herewith,
and all the papers filed in said action
and the records of the court herein.
DISMISSAI^ DI8C0NTINUAN0E AMD
NONSUIT
[See 9 Standard Proc. 405.]
Costs, complaint to recover against party
discontinumg, see Costs.
Motion for reinstatement of appeal pr&'
viously dismissed, see Appeals.
DI80BDBBI.T CONDUCT
[See 9 Standard Proc. 413.]
•
DISORDERLY HOUSE
[See 9 Standard Proc. 414.]
DISTUEBINa PUBUC ASSEMBLY
[See 9 Standard Proc. 417.]
DIVOBCE
[See 9 Standard- Proc. 418.]
Compkivnt for .separate maintenance, see
Husband and Wipe.
Findings in, see Findings and Con-
clusions.
Complaint to Declare ICaniage Void.
The plaintiff complains and alleges:
T. That she is now and for more than
last past has been a bona
fide resident of this state and now re-
sides at in said state.
IT. That on the day of
, 19 — , she was married to the
defendant at in said state.
III. That at and prior to the time
of said marriage the said defendant
had another wife living, and that the
defendant's marriage with said other
wife was at the time of the plaintiff's
snid marriage, in force and undissolved
by decree of divorce or otherwise.
(Or III. That plaintiff is a white
DIVORCE
75
person and the said defendant is a
mulatto; or allege any cause which un-
der the statute of the state where the
marriage was celebrated, makes the
marriage void.)
Wherefore the plaintiff prays that
said marriage may be by the decree
.of this court declared null and void
for the reason above set forth and for
such other and further relief as may
be just.
Complaint on Ground of Desertion.
The plaintiff in the above entitled
action complains and alleges:
T. That the plaintiff and defendant
intermarried at , in the county
. on
of
-, and state of
or about the
day of
19 — , and ever since have been and now
are husband and wife.
II. That the plaintiff is and has
been a bona fide resident of this state
for more than years, and of
said county of for more than
months immediately preceding
the commencement of this action.
m. That on or about the
day of , the said defendant,
disregarding the solemnity of his mar-
riage vows, willfully and without cause
deserted and abandoned the plaintiff
and ever since has and still continues
to, so willfully and without cause,
desert and abandon said plaintiff and
to live separate and apart from her
without any sufficient cause or reason
and against her will and without her
consent.
Complaint on Ghround of Willful Neglect
and Failure To Provide, Having
Ability.
I. (Allege marriage as in previous
form.)
II. (Allege residence as in previous
form.)
III. That the defendant for more
than one year last past has willfully
neglected to provide for the plaintiff
the common necessities of life having
the ability so to do, and has compelled
the plaintiff to live upon the charity
of her friends, notwithstanding he is
abundantly able to support her and is
worth as this plaintiff is informed and
believes about the sum of dol-
larS; and is in constant receipt of
wages sufficient for their .-joint support,
from his daily labor, to-wit, about
dollars per mouth.
"Wherefore, etc.
Affidavit in Support of Application for
Suit Money.
A. B. being duly sworn says that she
is the plaintiff in the above entitled
action.
'^hat she is without means of sup-
port for herself or children hereinafter
named; and is also without means to
pay necessary expenses for counsel fees
and disbursements in the prosecution
of said action (if in feeble health so
state).
That the children of said marriage
consist of (here give names and ages
of children) ; that they are residing
with and dependent upon affiant.
That defendant is about to sell and
dispose of his personal property and
convert the same into money and re-
move with the same beyond the juris-
diction of this court; that he threatens
and gives out that he will so do and
is attempting to mal^e such sale; that
he has declared to affiant and, as she
is informed and believes, to others, that
such is his purpose, and affiant believes
and fears that he will so do unless re-
strained from so doing by order of this
honorable court.
That the defendant is a strong, able-
bodied man and earns about the sum
of dollars per week in his
business as a and that he has
real and personal property amounting
to the value of dollars (or
otherwise set out his financial condi-
tion).
Petition for Bevocation of Decree
Granting Limited Divorce.
(Title.)
The joint petition of the above-named
plaintiff and defendant respectfully
shows:
That heretofore, to-wit, on the
day of , 19 — , a judg-
ment or decree for a limited divorce
and separation between said petitioners
herein was duly entered in this action.
That your said petitioners have af-
fected a reconciliation and mutually de-
sire to end the separation and resume
their marital relations; that they and
each of them desire that said judgment
or decree be revoked.
Wherefore your petitioners pray for
an order of this court, adjudging and
decreeing that the said judgment may
be revoked in accordance with the stat-
ute in such case made and provided,
and that it bo cancelled and discharged
of record.
[Verification.]
76
DIVORCE
Petitioii To Annul Decree on Chronnd
of Fraud in Procuring Same.
(Title.)
Now comes, , defendant in
the above entitled action and respect-
fully represents:
That on the day of ,
19 — , he was lawfully married to
, the plaintiff, at , in
the county of , and state of
; (that the issue of said mar-
riage were [here give names and ages
of children]).
That he resided with his said wife
after their said intermarriage, at
-, in the county of
and state of
day of
-, until the ■
-, 19 — , when his said
wife (here state facts with reference
to wife's leaving).
That during his wife's said absence
he removed their goods and effects,
with her knowledge and consent, to
; that during his wife's said
absence he received letters from her
and sent divers letters to her from
said .
That on the day of
he went to said
for the pur-
pose of accompanying his said wife to
their home; that she then and there
informed your petitioner that she had
obtained a divorce from him and re-
fused to return to their said home
(or allege otherwise as the facts may
be).
Your petitioner further represents
that he has since ascertained that his
said wife while in said on a
visit as aforesaid did on the
day of , 19 — , commence pro-
ceedings for divorce against your peti-
tioner in the courts of the said county
of , and state of ,
wherein she alleged, among other
things, that she had lived with her
said husband as his wife in said state
and made oath before , a jus-
tice of the peace within and for said
county of , that she did not
know where her said husband, your
petitioner, then resided, that she had
used reasonable diligence to ascertain
his residence but had been unable to
do so, and thereupon she had obtained
from a justice of said court
an order for the publication of notice
of the pendency of said action, in the
, a newspaper published at
-, in said county of
(or allege other false and fraudulent
acts as the case may be).
That at the term, 19 — , of
said court a decree of divert- c
was granted to his said wife and a
decree granting her the care and cus-
tody of said child (or children) as
prayed for in her said complaint, all
of which proceedings will more fully
and particularly appear by the record
of said action now remaining in said
court.
And your petitioner avers that the
statements contained in said complaint
that (here negative and deny all the
false statements of the complaint) as
well as many other allegations therein
contained were not true and that said
decree of divorce was wrongfully and
fraudulently obtained.
Wherefore your petitioner prays for
a review of the same and that said
decree of divorce, and said decree,
granting to said — ^— the plaintiff
therein, the care and custody of said
children, may be annulled, set aside
and vacated. Based on Lord r. Lord,
66 Me. 265. ,
BUI To Impeach Decree of DiTorce on
OroundB of Fraud.
(Title.)
The plaintiff above named complains
and says;
That on the day of ,
19 — , the defendant herein commenced
an action for divorce against the plain-
tiff herein, charging (here set out in.
substance the - allegations of libel or
complaint for divorce).
That on the day of ,
19 — , the defendant herein made an
affidavit in the words and figures fol-
lowing: (setting out in full or by refer-
ence to exhibit a copy of the affidavit
on which the defendant obtained an
order for notice by publication).
That on the said affidavit the court
entered an order granting leave to pub-
lish sumnions in words and figures fol-
lowing: (setting out a copy of order
in full or by reference to exhibit).
That thereupon the defendant herein
proceeded to serve the plaintiff herein
with a summons by publication, and
that he published a summons for
consecutive weeks commenc-
ing on the day of ,
19^, and ending on the day
of , 19-—; said summons was
in the words and figures following, to-
wit (insert copy of summons as pub-
lished in full or by reference to ex-
hibit).
That thereafter such proceedings
DOWER, PROCEEDINGS TO RECOVER
77
Were had in said action that an order
of default was entered in said cause
against plaintiff herein on the
day of , 19 — .
That thereafter said action came on
to be heard on the day of
-, 19 — , before the Hon.
one of the judges of the said court as
an undefended divorce suit and that
the defendant herein, who was plaintiff
in said action, gave evidence in sup-
port of the allegations of his said com-
plaint; but that this plaintiff, who was
defendant in said action, was not pres-
ent and was not represented in said
action and had no knowledge that such
a hearing was being held.
That thereupon the court on the
day of , 19 — , made
and entered its findings of fact and
conclusions of law and a decree grant-
ing to the defendant, who was plaintiff
in said action, a divorce from the
plaintiff, who was defendant therein;
That said divorce was procured by
the defendant herein by fraud, in this,
to-wit, that the defendant in his said
affidavit made oath that the address
of this plaintiff was at ,
, when in truth and in fact
this plaintiff's then address was at
, which fact was then well
known to the defendant at the time
of making said affidavit.
That the plaintiff never received any
summons and complaint in said divorce
action or any notice of any kind until
recently, on the day of
, 19 — , when she was informed
that said decree of divorce had been
made.
Wherefore the plaintiff prays that
said decree of divorce may be reversed,
annulled and set aside and for such
other relief as to the court may seem
just. Based on Ohaney v. Chaney, 56
Wash. 145, 105 Pac. 229.
DOWISB, PBOCEEDINaS TO BE-
COVEB
[See 9 Standard Proc. 427.]
Complaint for Damages for Detention
of Dower.
(Title.)
The plaintiff in the above entitled
action complains and alleges:
I. That she is the widow of said
, deceased, late of the city of
, county of , state of
leaving a last will and testament which
has been duly admitted to probate in
said county, a copy whereof is hereto
annexed); that letters of administra-
tion (or letters testamentary) were
duly granted and issued to one, ,
or. the day of , 19 — .
That said
-, deceased, died
seized and possessed of the following
described real estate (giving descrip-
tion).
That the plaintiff as the widow of
said , deceased, was and is
entitled to a life interest in an un-
divided third portion of said above de-
scribed premises. That the value of
the mesne profits of said premises since
the death of said , deceased, is
the sum of dollars per year,
no part of the said one -third portion
of which has been paid to the plaintiff.
That on or about the day of
that the said
de-
ceased, died in said city on the
day* of , 19 — , intestate: (or
, 19 — , the plaintiff duly de-
manded her said one-third portion of
said mesne profit, which the defendant
then and there and ever since has re-
fused to pay to the plaintiff.
W^heref ore the plaintiff demands judg-
ment that the defendant be
adjudged to account to the plaintiff for
the annual value of the mesne profits
of said premises, and to pay the plain-
tiff one-third of the amount thereof
together with interest thereon and the
costs of this action.
Complaint for Partition of Lands in
Wlilch There Is a Dower Interest
(Title.)
The plaintiff in the above entitled
action complains of the defendant
herein and alleges:
That on or about the day
of , 19 — , one died
intestate, seized in fee of the follow-
ing described real property (giving
legal description).
That said deceased left surviving ,
him , his widow, one of the
defendants herein, who is entitled to
dower in the above described property.
That said deceased left as his chil-
dren and only heirs at law, the plain-
tiff (here set out names and relation-
ship of all heirs and if any are minors
so state), who are tenants in common
with the plaintiff in said property.
That the plaintiff and defendants are
entitled as such h^irs, subject to said
dower, each to an undivided (state the
shares of each) of said above described
property. (In case of incumbrances
upon the property, their nature should
78
DOWER, PROCEEDINGS TO RECOVER
be stated, and the holder or holders
thereof should be made parties).
Wherefore, plaintiff prays judgment:
That the shares of the parties as
above alleged in and to said premises
be confirmed; that a partition thereof
be made, or if the same cannot be
equitably divided that a sale thereof
may be had and a division of the pro-
ceeds thereof may be made among the
said defendants in accordance with
their respective shares (in case of a
mortgafjfe or other incumbrance there-
on, add, after the said sum of
dollars, [stating amount of mortgage,
etc.], has been paid to the said
); and that such other and
further orders may be made herein as
shall seem just.
[Verification.]
DRUGS AND DRUGGISTS. — See
Health.
DUPLiornr
[See 9 Standard Proc. 435.]
Motion to compel election between counts
in indictment. See Indictment and
Information.]
Kotice of Motion To Compel ElectioiL
(Title.)
To
-, attorney for
You will please take notice that on
the day of , 19 — , at
o'clock in the — m., or as
soon thereafter as counsel can be heard,
the defendant by his counsel will move
the above-entitled court that the plain-
tiff be required to elect between the
first and second stated causes of action
in said complaint set forth, and state
on which of said causes of action he
will rely; and that on such election be-
ing made the defendant will move that
the other be stricken out, or in de-
fault of the plaintiff so electing the
defendant will move that said second
cause of action be stricken out as be-
ing redundant; and for such other re-
lief as may be just and for the costs
of this motion.
DTTBESS
[See 9 Standard Proc. 436.]
EASEMENTS
[See 9 Standard Proc. 437.]
EJECTMEKT
[See 9 Standard Proo. 440.]
Bill of particulars, see Bills of Pas-
ticulars.
Disclaimer, see Disclaimbr.
Complaint by Tenant*
(Title.)
The plaintiff in the above entitled
action complains of the defendant here-
in and alleges:
That one is the owner in
fee simple of a certain tract or parcel
of land in the township of ^
county of , state of ^
bounded and described as follows, to-
wit: (describing land).
That on the day of ,
19 — , the said by his inden-
ture of that date by him subscribed
leased the said premises to the plain-
tiff for the term of years.
That the defendant herein withholds
possession of said premises from the
plaintiff herein.
Wherefore the plaintiff prays judg-
ment against said defendant:
For the restitution of said land and
premises.
For the sum of -■ dollars dam-
ages for the withholding thereof to-
gether with the costs of this action.
For dollars, the value of the
rents and profits thereof, together with
the costs of this suit and for such
other and further relief as to the court
may seem just.
Plea of' Not in Possession Joined With
Plea of Not Guilty.
(Title.)
Now comes the defendant herein and
answering the plaintiff's complaint
herein alleges:
That he was not, at the time of the
commencement of this action, in pos-
session of the premises in said com-
plaint described.
That he is not guilty in manner and
form as in said complaint alleged.
Wherefore, etc. Based on Buesing r.
Forbes, 33 Fla. 495, 15 So. 209.
Answer With Ctonnterclaim for Im-
provementSy etc*
(Title.)
The defendant in the above-entitled
action answering the plaintiff's com-
plaint herein says:
(Make denials and allege affirmative
defense if any.)
DOWER, PROCEEDINGS TO RECOVER
79
By way of counterclaim herein, the
defendant alleges:
That he has been in possession of the
premises in said complaint described,
since the day of ,
19 — , holding adversely to the plaintiff
herein, by title founded upon a written
instrument, to-wit (describe the deed
or other instrument in its legal sig-
nificance).
That under the said deed (or other
instrument) the defendant entered into
exclusive possession of said premises,
adversely asserting title thereto in
good faith, founded upon said deed (or
instrument) and in the full belief that
the said deed (or instrument) conveyed
to him a good title, and still continues
to so hold possession of said premises,
claiming title thereto under said deed
(or instrument).
That the defendant while so in pos-
session of said premises, holding pos-
session adversely as aforesaid has made
divers permanent and valuable improve-
ments thereon, to-wit: (setting out the
nature of the improvements and fully
describing them) which said improve-
ments are of the value of
dollars.
That during the time last mentioned
the defendant has paid the taxes as-
sessed against said premises for the
years 19 — and 19 — , and that the
amounts so paid in taxes and the dates
of payment are more particularly shown
by the tax receipts hereto annexed and
made a part hereof.
Wherefore, defendant demands judg-
ment that the complaint herein be dis-
missed with costs to this defendant sus-
tained herein, or that if the plaintiff
is adjudged to be entitled to recover
possession of the said premises, that
the said defendant's said claim for
improvements and said taxes be al-
low;ed and that he recover the same as
provided by law, and for such other
relief as to the court may seem just.
Answer With Cottnterclaiin for Befor-
mation of Deed.
(Title.)
The defendant in the above entitled
action answering the plaintiff's com-
plaint herein says: (make denials and
allege affirmative defense, if any).
By way of counterclaim herein, the
defendant alleges:
That heretofore, to-wit, on the
day of , 19—-, the
plaintiff herein sold to the defendant
herein, and agreed to convey to hin.,
the following described property, to-
wit: (describing all property involved
in transaction).
That the defendant fully performed
all the conditions on his part to bo
performed and the plaintiff executed
and delivered to the defendant a deed
intended as a conveyance of said prem-
ises above described, but which by
mistake in drawing the same, which
mistake was then and there unknown
to the parties to said deed, conveyed
only the following described premises,
to-wit (describe the land included in
deed).
That the defendant, supposing and
believing said deed to be in pursuance
of the contract before mentioned and
to include all of the first-above de-
scribed land, and without negligence
on his part, accepted said deed and
took possession thereunder of the said
premises which he had contracted for,
and still retains possession thereof.
That the premises described in the
plaintiff's said complaint are a part of
the premises mentioned in said con-
tract and the same which by said mis-
take were omitted from said deed.
That immediately upon the discovery
of said mistake, to-wit, on or about
the day of , 19 — ,
the defendant requested that the plain-
tiff correct and reform the said deed
by conveying to the defendant said
land omitted as aforesaid, which the
plaintiff refused and still refuses to
do.
Wherefore, the defendant prays judg-
ment that the said deed be reformed
by correcting said mistake in the
boundaries so that said deed shall ex-
press the true intent and meaning of
the parties and shall constitute a good
and valid conveyance of the entire
premises covered by and included in
said contract; that the said defendant
bo adjudged the true owner of the said
premises in the plaintiff's said com-
plaint described and that the title
thereto be passed to and vested in this
defendant, and for such other and fur-
ther relief as may be just and equitable
in the premises and for the costs and
disbursements of this action.
ELECTIOX.^— See Choice and Elec-
tion OP Remedies; Duplicity; In-
dictment AND InPORMATION.
80
ELECTIONS
ELECTIONS
[See 9 Standard Pboc. 447.]
Indlctmeiit for Illegal Voting.
(Caption and commencement.)
That on the day of — ,
19—, in the of , in
said county of , state of
, meetings of the duly qualified
voters of said of ,
and the several wards (and precincts)
thereof for the election of (inserting
the officers to be voted for or matter
to be voted upon) having been duly
called and noticed according to law,
were then and there held, the same
then and there being the regular an-
nual election (or if special so state and
specify the purpose for which called);
That the defendant of said
, then and there in one of said
wards, to-wit, in ward (in the
precinct thereof) at said elec-
tion did wilfully, fraudulently and
knowingly, vote upon a name other
than his own, to-wit, upon the name of
one , the said then
and there being a qualified voter in
said ward (and precinct).
Whereas in truth and in fact the
name of said (the accused)
was not (name of qualified
voter) as aforesaid, but was .
(Conclusion.)
Indictmdiit for Intisiid&tloii of EzDr
ployee. '
(Caption and commencement.)
That heretofore, to-wit, on the
day of , 19 — , in the
said county of
•, at a general
(or special) election held on said date
in the several precincts of said county
of , for the purpose of elect-
ing the officers of said county of
(or state other purpose for
which election was held), one, -,
did unlawfully by threats and menaces
attempt to influence one , the
said , being then and there a
legal and qualified voter entitled to
vote at said election, to give and cast
his said vote at sa'd election, as he
the said should require and
dictate; that the said then
and there being in the employment of
the said , he the said
then and there did unlawfully threaten
to discharge the said = from his
said employment unless he the said
: — would give and cast his vote
at said election as he the said ■ *
should desire and dictate.
(Conclusion.)
Complaint of Private Person on Con-
test.
(Title.)
Now comes the above-named plaintiff
(or relator) who brings this action in
the name of the state, and complaining
of the defendant above-named respect-
fully alleges:
That at a general (or state character
of election) duly called and held in
the county of (or city or
town) pursuant to law, on the
day of , 19 — , for the election
among other officers, of a (here name
the office in dispute) for the term of
years, from , 19 — ,
there were duly cast (state number of
votes cast) legal votes for said office
for the plaintiff herein (or relator) and
(state number of votes cast for de-
fendant) legal votes for the defendant;
that there were no other legal voted
casi for said office at said election and
that the plaintiff herein (or relator)
was thereby duly elected to said office.
That notwithstanding the fact that
the plaintiff herein (or relator) was
duly and legally elected to said office
as aforesaid, the canvassing board of
said county (or city or town) on the
day of , 19 — , pro-
ceeded to canvass said returns and to
make a statement thereof, and errone-
ously and illegally determined thereby
that said , defendant above-
named, had received legal
votes for said office and the said
only legal votes for
said office; and unlawfully determined
that the said ; had received
the greatest number of votes and was
elected to said office of , and
thereupon, on said day, unlawfully
made out and delivered to said
an illegal certificate of election setting
forth that said had received
the greatest number of votes for said
office and was elected thereto.
That in truth and in fact the said
plaintiff herein received the greatest
number of votes cast for said office
at said election; that of the
votes so counted for the said
were illegally cast by persons not en-
titled to vote at said election, to-wit:
(allege number of votes illegally cast,
where cast, and the ground for claim of
illegality).
ELECTRICITY
81
(If the relator has qualified for office
set forth the facts as follows):
That OD the day of ,
19 — y the said plaintiff (or re-
lator) duly qualified as such ,
by taking and subscribing the oath of
office as required by the constitution
and laws of this state and filing the
same with (and duly execut-
ing the official bond with sureties in
manner, form and substance in the sum
of dollars as by law required).
That on the day of ,
19 — , the said defendant usurped and
intruded into said office of for
said county (or city or town) and has
ever since unlawfully exercised the
same, converting to his ow^i use the
fees and emoluments thereof and ex-
cluding the plaintiff (or relator) from
said office and withholding from the
(relator) the fees and emoluments
thereof.
Wherefore your relator demands judg-
ment that said be adjudged
guilty of usurping and intruding into,
and unlawfully withholding said office
and the fees and emoluments thereof;
that he be excluded from the same
and the privilege and franchises there-
of; that the said , the plaintiff
(or relator), be adjudged entitled to
have, hold and exercise said office and
to the fees and emoluments thereof by
virtue of said election; and that the
plaintiff (or relator) recover the costs
of this action.
Jndgment of Onster From OfBlce on
Election Contest.
(Title.)
(After a recital of the trial, findings,
etc., continue):
It is hereby adjudged and decreed
that the defendant ■ has no
right to the office of (name same) and
that he be ousted and excluded there-
from.
That the plaintiff (or relator)
is and has been since the day
of , 19 — , entitled to the said
office by virtue of the election alleged
in the complaint and to the franchises,
privilege, emoluments and fees thereof,
and that he have and recover, of the
defendant , the sum of
dollars as the costs of this action.
(Where the statute provides for a
fine continue: it is further adjudged
and decreed that the said defendant be
fined the sum of dollars, which
when collected shall be paid into the
treasury of the state in the manner
provided by law.)
ELEOTBIOITY
[See 8 Standard Pboc. 171-174, 180-185.
See also Injuries to Persons and
Property.]
Cfomplalnt for Death Caused by Com-
ing in Contact With Live Wire. •
(Title.)
Now comes the plaintiff • , as
administrator of the estate of •
deceased, and, complaining of the de-
fendant, , a corporation or-
ganized and existing under and by
virtue of the laws of the state of
•, states that on the
day of
19 — , defendant
owned, maintained and operated in the
city of , , a system
of electric lights, and that, by means
of wires, the electric current was car-
ried over, upon and along the streets
of , , from the power
house to the various points of service
in said city; that during the night of
the day of , 19—,
or early on the morning of the
day of , 19 — , said company's
wires became disabled and out of re-
pair, and, being either broken or dia-
eiagSLged from their fastenings, fell to
the ground upon the sidewalk and
crossing in the city of at
the intersection of street and
street in said city, and said
defendant negligently permitted said
wire to remain so grounded and lying
upon said street crossing from about
o'clock m. until after
daylight in the morning, when said
street was thronged with passers-by.
That the deceased, , while
passing along said street about or a
little after daylight had his attention
called to said obstruction lying upon
said crossing and being ignorant of
the character of said wire, and pre-
suming, and having a right to presume,
that defendant would not permit a
live wire to remain under the feet of
passers-by upon so crowded a thorough-
fare, .took hold of same to cast it
aside out of the way of pedestrians,
and was killed by the powerful cur-
rent with which said wire was at the
time charged.
And plaintiff alleges that deceased
came to his death by the gross negli-
gence and wanton misconduct of de-
fendant, its agents and employes, and
that deceased came to his death with-
out fault on his part, and to the damage
to his estate in the sum of
dollars.
Wherefore, plaintiff prays damages
82
ELECTRICITY
in the sum of
dollars, and his
costs in and about this cause expended.
See Texarkana Gas, etc. Co. v. Orr, 59
Ark. 215, 27 S. W. QQ, 43 Am. St. Rep.
30, and 6 Btandaed Proc. 407.
Answer of Agreement That Defendant
Shall Not Be Liable.
(Title.)
The defendant for a further and
separate defense herein alleges that the
placing of electrical apparatus by de-
fendant on the premises occupied by
said plaintiff and referred to in said
complaint and all the work done by de-
fendant in the erection of said equip-
ment and subsequent furnishing to said
plaintiff of electrical current were done
at the plaintiff's special instance and
request; and upon and under the terms
of a certain written agreement hereto
annexed, marked exhibit "A" and
made a part hereof. (In this case the
contract annexed contained the follow-
ing provision: **The company is hereby
relieved of all claims for damages re-
sulting from the electrical wiring and
use of electrical current, when the wir-
ing and equipment upon the premises
shall have been approved by the New
York board of fire underwriters.**)
That immediately after the installa-
tion of said electrical equipment and
long before the said loss and damage
complained of the New York board of
fire underwriters did duly approve the
said wiring and electrical equipment
upon the premises of the said plaintiff
and duly gave a written certificate of
such approval of all of which the plain-
tiff had due notice.
Wherefore, etc. Based upon Dechert
V. Municipal Elec. Light Co., 84 Hun
575, 32 N. Y. Supp. 727.
EldBEZLEMEKT
[See 9 Standard Proc. 453.]
Affidavit charging concealment or em-
bezzlement of estate, see Decedents'
Estates.]
EMBBACEBY
[See 9 Standard Proc. 455.]
EMINENT DOMAIN
[See 9 Standard Proc. 457.]
Complaint by Bailroad Corporation for
Condemnation of Land.
(Title.)
The plaintiff in the above entitled
action complains and alleges:
That plaintiff is a corporation duly
organized and existing under and by
virtue of the laws of the state of
, with its principal place of
business in the of •
county of
-, state of
That the plaintiff is incorporated for
the purpose, among other things, of
constructing, owning, maintaining, and
operating a railroad (state the general
direction and terminals); that said rail-
road has been definitely located by the
plaintiff over and through the parcel
of land hereinafter described; and that
said land is necessary for the right of
way of said road.
(Allege with more particularity the
location of the road) and that a map
thereof so far as the same is involved
in this proceeding . is hereto annexed
and marked exhibit **A,'* which said
map is hereby referred to and made a
part hereof.
That the following is a description
of the land required as aforesaid for
the right of way of said railroad (de-
scribe land by metes and bounds). That
said land is sought to be taken in this
proceeding and that the same does not
include the whole but is only a part
of an entire tract.
That the defendants herein claim to
own the tract of land heretofore de-
scribed, and also the larger tract of
which it is a part and are all the
owners or claimants thereof known to
the plaintiff.
[(Tf owners are unknown allege as
in the following section.)
That the true names of the defend-
ants, John Doe and Richard* Roe (etc.),
are unknown to this plaintiff and they
are therefore herein designated by
fictitious names; and plaintiff prays
that when their true names become
known or are discovered they may
herein be inserted by appropriate
amendments to this complaint.]
That none of the property herein-
before described has heretofore been
appropriated to any public use and that
the said railroad of the plaintiff has
been located in such a manner as will
result in the greatest public good and
convenience with the least private in-
jury.
Wherefore the plaintiff prays that
the court will ascertain and assess:
1. The value of the property sought
to be condemned and all improvements
thereon pertaining to the realty and of
EMINENT DOMAIN
83
each and every separate estate or in-
terest therein.
2. The damages which will accrue to
the portion not sought to be condemned
of the larger parcel of land of which
the land hereinbefore described is a
part, by reason of its severance from
the portion sought to be condemned,
and the construction of the improve-
ment as proposed by the plaintiff.
3. How much the portion not sought
to be condemned and each estate or
interest therein will be benefited if at
all, by the construction of the plain-
tiff's proposed improvement and if the
benefit shall be equal to the damages
assessed under the last preceding par-
agraph of this prayer that the owner
of said parcel shall be allowed no com-
pensation, except the value of the por-
tion so taken; but if the benefit shall
be less than the damages so assessed
the former may be deducted from the
latter and the difference between the
two be the only damage allowed .in ad-
dition to the value of land so con-
demned as aforesaid.
4. The cost of good and sufficient
fences along the line of the railroad
of the plaintiff and the cost of cattle
guards where fences may cross the line
of said railroad.
5. That plaintiff have judgment
against said defendants condemning the
premises hereinbefore particularly de-
scribed to public use for the purposes
hereinbefore set forth as provided by
law and thereafter upon compliance
with the requirement of said judgments
and the provisions of law in that be-
half in force, a final order of con-
demnation of said premises be made
and entered herein; and for such other
and further relief in the premises as
may to the court seem just.
(Verification.)
Condemnation Petition for Blgbt to
Overflow Iiands.
(Title.)
To the
of
court for the county
-, state of
The petitioner herein respectfully
shows:
That it is a corporation duly organ-
ized and existing under and by virtue
of the laws of the state of
for the purpose of the improvement of
a stream flowing in and through a part
of said county and known as the
river, and (state other pur-
poses) and that for such purposes it
has taken prior possession of such
stream and its tributaries with the
intent in good faith to improve the
same and its tributaries by clearing
and straightening the channels thereof,
closing sloughs, erecting sluiceways,
booms of all kinds, side rolling and
flooding dams, and such other improve-
ments as may be necessary for the pur-
pose aforesaid.
That said stream in its natural con-
dition is not navigable and can only be
made navigable for (state purpose) by
the improvement which your petitioner
has already made and is about to make
in said stream for that purpose.
That said improvement requires the
overflowing of a number of tracts of
land hereinafter described, and that
your petitioner and the several owners
of said several tracts cannot mutually
agree for the purchase, lease or use of
said several tracts of land, or such
easement therein as is necessary to the
use of your petitioner, nor can they
agree upon the compensation to be
made for the taking of said property
by your petitioner for such use.
The following are' the tracts of land
above referred to, to-wit (describe fully
and separately the several tracts).
Wherefore your petitioner prays that
an order be made prescribing the notice
to be given of the time and place of
hearing on this petition.
If any minor or otherwise inca-
pacitated persons are parties in inter-
est [that a guardian ad litem be ap-
pointed to appear and act for (here
name the minor or other)]; that it be
adjudged that your petitioner is en-
titled to acquire lands herein sought
for the purposes specified in said peti-
tion; that commissioners, be appointed
to ascertain and appraise the damages
occasioned by such taking and the com-
pensation to be made to the respective
owners or other persons interested in
said real estate, and that such other
proceedings be had in the premises as
are required by law.
Petition by Owner of Land for Assess-
ment of Damage in Condemnation
Proceedings.
(Title.)
The plaintiff complains and alleges;
That he was the owner of certain
premises situated in and de-
scribed as follows: (describe whole
tract of land).
That on the — — day of ,
19 — , the (state name of pub-
lic service company), without the con-
84
EMINENT DOMAIN
sent of the plaintiff, took possession of
a portion of said land described as fol-
lows, (describe portion of land taken).
That on or about the day
of , 18 — , the said defendant
constructed its railroad (or other pub-
lic utility), on said strip of land last
above described, without any grant or
conveyance from or agreement with the
plaintiff herein.
That said taking and construction
was without any right or title, legal
or equitable thereto and with only the
verbal consent of the plaintiff on con-
dition of being compensated for the
land so taken as aforesaid.
That the defendant has never made
any compensation to the defendant for
the land so taken.
That the defendant has used, since
said taking, and now uses said land as
a part of its permanent railroad {ot
other public utility).
That the plaintiff is ready and willing
and hereby tenders the defendant a
good and sufficient deed conveying to
the defendant title to said right of
way (or piece or parcel of land).
Wherefore, etc. Based on Fries t?.
Wheeling & L. E. R. Co., 56 Ohio St.
135, 46 N. E. 516.
EQUITT JTTBISDICnON AND PEO-
CEDURE
[See 9 Standard Proc. 469. See also
Bills and Answers; Cross-Bill.]
Discovery f see Discovery.
Injunction, see Injunctions.
Motion To Strike Parts of Bill.
(Title.)
Now comes the defendant and moves
to strike out the following parts of
the bill of complaint herein, to-wit:
from line to line in
paragraph , inclusive; and from
line to the first period in line
The
paragraph
ground of this motion is that said
specified portions of the bill are (here
state ground of striking, as scandalous,
impertinent, etc.).
Answer in Lieu of Demurrer.
(Title, etc.)
And the defendant for a further an-
swer to the bill of complaint on file
herein says, that the plaintiff's said
bill of complaint fails to alloflre or set
out therein any matter of equity en-
titling the plaintiff to the relief prayed I
for therein; and, particularly (here
specify defects of the bill).
Motion To Strike Out Parts of Answer.
Now comes the plaintiff and moves
that all that portion of defendant's
answer relating to the affirmative de-
fense (or in case of counterclaim or
set-off so allege) set forth therein, be-
ing that portion of said answer begin-
ning with line , in paragraph
, and extending to and includ-
ing line , in paragraph ^
be stricken out for the reason that
(state grounds of insufficiency or reason
for moving to strike that particular
portion of answer).
Motion for Leave To File Interrog-
atories.
Now comes the plaintiff (or defend-
ant) within twenty-one days after the
joinder of issue and asks leave of the
court to file the written interrogatories
hereto -annexed and hereby exhibited to
the court, for the discovery by plaintiff
(or defendant) of facts and documents
which are material to the plaintiff's
cause of action (or to defendant's de-
fense) herein. The said facts and
documents relate to (set out the part
of the pleading to which interrogatories
refer).
That if this motion is granted the
plaintiff (or defendant) , be
required to answer interrogatories
■ to -, inclusive; and
plaintiff (or defendant) , be
required to answer interrogatories
to y inclusive, as in-
dicated by the note at the foot of said
interrogatories hereto annexed.
Motion for Leave To File Intenog-
atories To Be Answered by an Officer
of Corporation.
Now comes the plaintiff and moves
that he be granted leave under Equity
Rule to file the interrogatories
hereto annexed and hereby exhibited
to the court which said interrogatories
are to be answered by ,
(here name official designation) of the
company, a corporation. The
reason for propounding said interrog-
atories to said officer is that the facts
sought to be elicited thereby are pe-
culiarly within his knowledge, and the
information sought thereby, as the
plaintiff is informed and believes, ate
matters of record contained in record
books which are in the custody and
under the control of said officer.
EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS
85
Motion for BevivoT.
(Title.)
Now comes the plaintiff and respect-
fully represents:
That the oripfinal defendant herein
, died on the day of
, 19 — , and that thereafter on
the day of , 19—,
one was by the probate court
of the county of granted let-
ters of administration upon the estate
of said (or was appointed
executor under the will of )
and duly qualified thereunder and is
now administrator (or executor) of said
estate of .
Wherefore the plaintiff prays that
this cause be revived and proceed
against the said , as adminis-
trator (or executor) of the estate of
, and that this court make all
the necessary orders in the premises.
Motion for Further and Better State-
ment of Nature of Claim or Defense.
(Title.)
Now comes the plaintiff (or defend-
ant) and moves that the defendant (or
plaintiff) be ordered to file herein a
further and better statement of the
nature of his defense (or claim) the
ground for the granting of this motion
being that the defense (or claim) as set
forth in the answer (or bill of com-
plaint) herein is so vague and indef-
inite that the plaintiff (or defendant)
is unable to intelligently prepare his re-
ply or defense (or answer thereto).
And that such costs may be imposed
against the plaintiff defendant (or
plaintiff) as the court may deem just.
Motion To Transfer to Law Side.
(Title.)
Now comes the defendant and moves
that this cause be transferred to the
law side of this court, and there pro-
ceeded with, for the following reasons:
(state reasons for transferring, as that
plaintiff has full and complete remedy
at law or any other sufficient ground
for transferring).
Wherefore the defendant moves that
this cause be ordered transferred to the
law side of this court, that the plain-
tiff be ordered to amend his bill and
such other orders as to costs or other-
wise may be made as shall be deemed
just and proper.
EBBOBS, ASSIGNMENT OF
[See 9 Standard Proc. 478. See also
Bills of Exceptions.]
Ctoneral Fonn.
(Title.)
Now comes the said , plain-
tiff in error by , his attorney,
and represents unto the court that in
the above entitled cause in the
court there is manifest error for which
the judgment of the said
court should be reversed; and among
other error, said assigns the
following: (enumerate the several
causes of error in numerical order).
Wherefore, for the foregoing and
other error appearing on the face of
the record, the plaintiff in error prays
that the judgment of said
court may be reversed.
Joinder In Error.
(Title.)
Now comes the said , the
defendant in error, by , his at-
torney, and says that there is no error
either in the record and proceedings
aforesaid or in giving judgment afore-
said in the manner and form as above
assigned; and therefore prays that the
said judgment may be affirmed, and
that the costs may be adjudged to him.
Assignment of Gross-Error.
(Title.)
Now comes , the defendant
in error, by , his attorney, and
assigns the following cross-errors: The
court erred in (state grounds of cross-
error).
ESTATES. — See Decedents' Estates;
Executors and Administrators ;
Lands and Land Transfers.
ESTOPPEL
[See 9 Standard Proc. 481.]
ESTBAY8
[See 9 Standard Proc. 484. See aUo
Animals ; Trespassing Animals.
EXEoxrross and administba-
TOBS
*
[See 9 Standard Proc. 484. See also
Decedents' Estates; Inheritance.
Fratidulent conveyance, Complaint against
debtor's personaJ representative to set
aside, see Fraudulent Conveyances.
Counterclaim by Executor,
(Title.)
86
EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS
The defendant for a counterclaim
herein alleges that said
(the plaintiff's testator) before and at
the time of his death was indebted
to the defendant (or if the executors,
plaintiffs, were indebted in their repre-
sentative capacity say: before and at
the time of the commencement of this
action the plaintiff as executor of said
was and still is indebted to
the defendant) in the sum of
dollars for the following cause (here
state the causes of action relied upon).
Wherefore, etc.
Complaint 'by Ancillary Executor.
(Title.)
(Allege the cause of action as ac-
cruing to the decedent.)
That on the day of ,
19 — , at , in the state of
the said
died; that
he was at the time of his death, a
resident of said state of —
That said
left a last will
and testament whereby he appointed
the plaintiff sole executor thereof; that
thereafter on the day of
■f 19 — , said will was duly ad-
mitted to probate by the
court of the county of , in
said state of , and letters tes-
tamentary were thereupon duly issued
and granted by said court to the plain-
tiff and that said court had jurisdic-
tion and was duly authorized and em-
powered by the laws of the said state
of to admit said will to pro-
bate and to issue said letters as afore-
said.
That thereafter and on or about the
day of , 19 — , a duly
exemplified copy of said will was duly
admitted to probate in the
court of the county of in this
state and ancillary letters testamentary
were duly issued by said court last
above mentioned, to the plaintiff here-
in, appointing hira ancillary executor of
said will and that thereupon the plain-
tiff duly qualified and has ever since
and now is acting as such ancillary
executor.
Wherefore, etc. Based on Schluter
r. Bowery Savings Bank, 117 N. Y. 125,
22 N, E. 572.
Complaint Against Administrator or
Executor for Money Held by Decedent
in Trust.
(Title.)
The plaintiff in the above entitled
action co&plains against the defendant
herein and alleges:
That one in his lifetime, on
or about the day of y
19 — , received from the plaintiff herein
for safe keeping, — bonds (or
other securities), of the par value of
dollars; that thereafter and
about the year 19 — , the said
converted said bonds (or other secur-
ities) into money at the request of the
plaintiff herein, receiving from the sale
thereof about the sum of dol-
lars; that he loaned of said proceeds
the sum of dollars but re-
tained in his own possession from said
proceeds the remaining sum of abeut
dollars, which remaining pro-
ceeds were more than the sum of
dollars, but what sum this
plaintiff cannot more particularly atate
in hands on deposit as aforesaid.
That no part of said dol-
lars has been paid or accounted for
and the plaintiff is informed and be-
lieves and therefore alleges that said
thereafter mingled the same
with his own private funds and used
the same until his death.
That thereafter and on or about the
day of , 19—, the
said died leaving a last will
and testament wherein and whereby the
said defendant was appointed executor;
that on or about the day of
-, 19 — , said will was duly ad-
mitted to probate by * the
court of the county of , and
state of , in which said county
the said resided at the time
of his death, and letters testamentary
were duly issued and granted by said
court to the defendant as sole executor
and defendant thereupon duly qualified
as such executor and has ever since
been and now is acting as such
executor (or in case deceased died
intestate, say, that on or about the
day of , 19 — , upon
the petition or application of one
, letters of administration were
duly issued and granted by the
court of the county of , state
of , in which said county the
deceased resided at the time of his
death, to , defendant herein,
who thereupon duly qualified as such
administrator and has ever since been
and now is acting as such).
That plaintiff has caused a claim for
?^aid sum of dollars to be duly
presented to said executor (or admin-
FACTORS AND BROKERS
87
istrator) but he has refused to allow
the same.
Wherefore the plaintiff, who has
heretofore eleeted to treat the forego-
ing cause of action as a debt due upon
a contract, prays that said defendant
may account and pay over to him the
said sums and the income thereof if
it can be traced and if it cannot be
traced that he may have judgment
against said executor (or administra-
tor) for the sum of dollars
and interest thereon from the
day of , 19 — , together with
the costs of this action.
EXHIBITS
[See 8 Standard Proc. 490.]
EXTOBTIOK
[See 9 Standard Proc. 490. See aUo
Indictment and Information.]
EXTRADITION
[See 9 Standard Proc. 490.]
— ^ dollars has been demanded of
the defendant but he has neglected and
refused and still neglects and refuses
to pay the same.
Wherefore, etc.
Complaint Against Bank for Money
Deposited by Factor.
(Title.)
(After alleging the defendant's in-
^corporation, proceed) :
That the plaintiff herein is a dealer
in (or manufacturer of) and
sends certain portions of his goods and
wares to the city of for sale
upon commission.
That doing business at the
said city of
aforesaid as a
FACTORS AND BBOKEBS
[See 9 Standard Proc. 493.]
Complaint Against Factor for Insur-
ance Money Collected on Principal's
Loss.
(Title.)
The plaintiff in the above entitled
action complains against the defendant
herein and alleges:
That at all the times hereinafter
mentioned the defendant was engaged
in the business of selling goods, wares
and merchandise on commission.
That on or about the day
of ^ 19 — , the plaintiff shipped
to the defendant (state the kind and
quantity of goods shipped) to be by
the defendant stored and sold for plain-
tiff's account, the defendant to retain
from the proceeds of such sale the
usual commission therefor.
That the defendant received and
stored said (here state goods) and had
the same insured, the plaintiff paying
the insurance premiums on said pol-
icy (or policies) of insurance.
That on or about the day
of , 19 — , said goods were
damaged or injured by fire; that the de-
fendant thereupon collected under said
policy (or policies) of insurance thereon
the sum of dollars damages to
said goods.
That the payment of said sum of
46
commission merchant, is the agent of
the plaintiff and as such agent receives
and sells for said plaintiff his said
goods and wares upon commission.
That between the day of
, 19 — , and the day
of , 19 — , the plaintiff shipped
and consigned to said , as his
agent, certain goods, wares and mer-
chandise described as follows (describe
goods) to be sold by said on
commission and that said re-
ceived, sold and rendered an account
of the sale of said goods as the agent
of this plaintiff; that as the plaintiff
is informed and believes, said
thereupon deposited the proceeds, ob-
tained from the sale of said goods, as
aforesaid, in the said defendant bank
in the name of said as agent,
for the sole benefit and as the money
of the plaintiff; that thereafter and in
settlement of their account with the
plaintiff for the proceeds of said sale
so received as aforesaid, less the
amount to which he was entitled as
commission, said affent drew,
delivered and paid to the plaintiff his
check against the said defendant bank
of which the following is a copy, to-
wit: (insert copy of check).
That said plaintiff thereupon en-
dorsed said check and presented the
same to the defendant bank for pay-
ment, but the same was not paid and
the sum was duly protested for non-
payment and still remains unpaid.
That as the plaintiff is informed and
believes the proceeds received by said
, the agent for the plaintiff as
aforesaid, from the sale of the plain-
tiff's said goods, wares and merchandise
and deposited by him in said defend-
ant bank as aforesaid remained in said
bank at the time of drawing and de-
88
FACTORS AND BROKERS
livering said check for payment and
the demand of payment thereof; that
the said funds have never been with-
drawn by said , agent, and still
remain in said bank as the funds and
property of the plaintiff.
Wherefore, etc.
Counterclaim Against Factor of Undis-
closed PxlnctpaL
(Title.)
The defendant for a counterclaim
herein alleges that the goods mentioned
in said complaint were, with the priv-
ity of the plaintiff, sold and delivered
to the defendant by one in his
own name, as sole owner, and as and
for his own goods.
That said was in fact the
agent and factor of the plaintiff in
respect to said goods.
That the plaintiff did not appear, and
was not known by the defendant, at
or before the time of the sale and de-
livery of said goods by said
to the plaintiff to be the owner of said
goods or in any way interested therein.
That the defendant bought and ac-
cepted said goods of and from said
as the true and sole owner
and seller thereof; and that credit for
the said goods was given to the defend-
ant by said and not by said
plaintiff.
That the said before and at
the time of the sale and delivery of
said goods to the defendant as afore-
said, was and still is indebted to the
defendant for the following cause
(state cause of action relied on as
counterclaim) .
Wherefore, etc.
FALSE IMFBISONMENT
[See 9 Standard Pace. 496.]
€k>mplaint Against Physician for De-
claring Plaintiff Insane.
The plaintiff in the above entitled
action complains against the defendant
herein and alleges:
That on the day of ,
19 — , at , in the county of
-, state of
-, the plain-
tiff herein was forcibly and illegally
arrested and conveyed against his will
and committed to the custody of the
superintendent of the insane asylum in
the city of , county of ,
as insane and a proper person for care
and treatment under the provisions of
chapter of the laws of ,
and was there forcibly and illegally
confined and detained from the
day of , 19 — ^ to the -
day of y 19 — , inclusive, in all
a period of
days; that he was
not insane at the time of his said ar-
rest and imprisonment, nor was he in-
sane before that time nor has he been
insane at any time since; that his ar-
rest was caused and procured by the
defendants herein by means of certam
certificates of said defendants sub-
scribed to and made before , a
justice of the peace within and for
said county, certifying and declaring in
the words and figures following, to- wit:
(insert copies of certificates in full, or
by reference to exhibits); that by rea-
son of said certificates the plaintiff
was on said day of ,
19—, arrested and confined as aforesaid
and committed into the custody of the
said superintendent of said asylum, for
the whole period of days as
aforesaid; that still protesting that he
the plaintiff was not and had not been
insane, and feeling deeply grieved by
his said arrest and imprisonment as a
lunatic in said insane asylum on said
verified certificates and approval there-
of so made and issued against him by
the defendants, as aforesaid, he did
afterwards on, to- wit, the day
of , 19 — , take and enter an
appeal therefrom under chapter
of the laws of to the Hon.
a justice of the
court, who thereupon called a jury to
decide upon the facts of the plaintiff's
alleged lunacy, which said jury after
a full and fair investigation of the
same did on the day of
19—, find said plaintiff to
be sane, whereupon said justice did
forthwith discharge the plaintiff from
his said confinement in said insane asy-
lum; that said verified certificates and
said approval thereof in manner and
form aforesaid, were each and all of
them made and issued by the defend-
ants, without proper and ordinary care
and prudence and without due examina-
tion, inquiry and proof into tilie mien-
tal and physical condition of the plain-
tiff's health and without due examina-
tion, inquiry and proof into the fact
whether the plaintiff was sane or in-
sane and that they were not made and
issued in form, substance and effect,
in compliance with the requirements of
chapter of the laws of
and were invalid; that the
said arrest and confinement of the
plaintiff as aforesaid, as a lunatic
FACTORS AND BROKERS
89
thereon Wfts ft gross Tiohition of duty
and obligation on the part of the de-
fendants herein towards the plaintiff
herein as a harmless and inoffensive
citizen and was a gross and culpable
wrong and a false imprisonment, for
which the defendants are liable to him
in damages; that by means of the prem-
ises and of the facts of his case as
herein set forth and alleged, the plain-
tiff has sustained great damages at
the hands of the defendants herein, he
has been publicly, unjustly, negligently
and illegally certified by them to be
a lunatic and deserving confinement as
such and was through their instrumen-
tality on said verified certificates and
approval thereof, arrested and com-
mitted as a lunatic to said
Insane Asylum, and there confined for
said period of days; his char-
acter as a peaceful, harmless citizen
has been by such arrest and imprison-
ment greatly maligned and injured, his
' feelings have been grossly outraged and
he has suffered the keenest mental
anguish thereby, all to plaintiff's dam-
age in the sum of dollars; (al-
lege any special damages).
Wherefore the plaintiff demands judg-
ment against the defendants for
dollars damages together with
the costs of this action. Based upon
Ayers v. Bussell, 50 Hun 282, 3 N. Y.
Supp. 338.
AnBwer of Jucrtiflcatioii hf Officer for
Arrest Under ^Mmlnal Process.
The defendant, answering the plain-
tiff's complaint on file herein, alleges:
That before and at the time of com-
mitting the alleged (name offense), the
defendant herein was a (constable or
other officer) within and for the town-
ahip of (or county of
).
That one , a justice of the
peace within and for the township of
, duly elected, qualified and
acting as such justice of the peac^-
issued under his hand and seal a war-
rant directed to any constable or sheriff
of said county.
That said warrant was delivered to
this defendant to be executed;
That said warrant commanded the
said officer to arrest the plaintiff and
to bring him forthwith before the said
(or state before whon\), then
and there to answer to the charge of
feloniously, (etc., stating crime charged
in warrant).
That by virtue of the said warrant
so issued as aforesaid, the defendant
herein did arrest the plaintiff and r^;-
strained him and had him in his cus-
tody until he, the plaintiff, was dis-
charged (or set forth the facts of ar-
rest and detention)'.
Answer of Jnstiflcation by Private Per-
son Aiding an Officer.
(Title.)
That on or about the day
of — , 19 — , the said plaintiff
was engaged in the commission of
(state the wrongful acts which plain-
tiff was committing); that on said day
before , an acting justice of
the peace (or other officer) within and
for said county, an affidavit was fil^d
by one , charging the plaintiff
with (state charge in affida-
vit or complaint).
That upon the filing thereof said jus-
tice (or other officer) issued his war-
rant in due form of law, under his
hand and seal, said justice (or other
officer) then and there being competent
and having full jurisdiction of said
offense, a copy of which said warrant is
herewith filed and made a part hereof,
marked exhibit "A," and which said
warrant was directed to any constable
(or sheriff) of said township (or coun-
ty) commanding the arrest of the said
plaintiff and that he be brought be-
fore said justice (or other officer) for
examination; that said justice (or other
officer) delivered said warrant to
, who was then and there an
acting constable (or sheriff) of said
township (or said county), and who
was duly qualified as such constable;
and said received said war-
rant and proceeded to execute the same,
by arresting the said plaintiff; that the
said constable (or sheriff) then and
there commanded the defendant to as-
sist him in making said arrest; that,
in obedience to said command of said
constable (or sheriff) who was then
and there acting by virtue of said war-
rant, the defendant herein aided in
the arrest of the plaintiff herein, using
no more force than was necessary to
make said arrest and convey the plain-
tiff before said justice of the peace;
that this is the same imprisonment
mentioned in the plaintiff's said com-
plaint.
Wherefore, etc.
90
FALSE PERSONATION
FALSE PERSONATION
[See 9 Standard Pboc. 503.]
Indictment for Acting as Officer Author-
ized To Perform Marriage Gereniony.
(Caption and commencement.)
That heretofore, to-wit, on the
day of , 19 — , in the
county and state aforesaid,
did commit the crime of false persona-
tion in the following manner, to-wit:
said , not then and there being
a justice of the peace (or a minister
of the gospel or other person author-
ized to perform marriage ceremonies)
did falsely and fraudulently represent
himself to be a justice of the peace
(or minister of the gospel), and as-
suming to act as such justice of the
peace (or minister of the gospel) did
then and there marry •. — and
[Conclusion.]
FAI.SE PRETENSES. — iSec 9 Stand-
ard Proc. 892.
FILINa
[See 9 Standard Proc. 504.1
FINDINGS AND 0ON0LT7SIONS
[See 9 Standard Proc. 504.]
Bequest for Findings and Concltudons.
(Title.)
Now comes the plaintiff (or defend-
ant) in the above entitled action and
hereby requests the court to make the
following findings of fact and con-
clusions of law in this action, to-wit:
(Set forth in detail the separate find-
ings of fact asked for, in numerical
order following in the same manner
with the conclusions of law requested.)
General Form.
(Title.)
This cause coming on for trial at the
term of said court and having
been tried before the court (a jury
trial having been waived) on the
day of , 19—, ,
appearing as counsel for the plaintiff,
and , appearing as counsel for
the defendant; and after hearing the
allegations and proofs of the parties,
the arguments of counsel, and being
advised in the premises, I hereby make
and file the following findings of fact
end conclusions of law constituting
mj decision in said action:
Findings of Fact.
1. That (etc., stating the facta
found) .
Concliisions of Law.
1. That (etc., specifying the several
conclusions).
Let judgment be entered accordingly.
In Action for Divorce.
(Title.)
This cause coming on for trial at
the term of said court and
having been tried before the court on
the day of , 19 — ,
, appearing* as counsel for the
plaintiff and , appearing as
counsel for the defendant (or no per-
son appearing for the defendant) and
after hearing the allegations and proofs
of the parties, the arguments of coun-
sel, and being advised in the premises,
I hereby make and file the following
findings of fact and conclusions of law
constituting my decision in said action:
Findings of Fact.
The plaintiff and defendant herein
were married at , in the county
of , state of , on the
day of
-, 19 — , and
cohabited together as husband and wife
from thence until the day of
, 19—.
That both the plaintiff (and defend-
ant) are bona fide residents of the
state of and have so resided
in this, state for more than
year continuously next before the com-
mencement of this action and the fil-
ing of the complaint herein; that at
the time of the commencement of this
action the plaintiff was a bona fide
resident of said county of ,
having resided therein for more than
months immediately prior
thereto.
That there are as issue of said mar-
riage the following children, viz.,
— , aged years; ,
aged
aged
That on the
• years, and
years.
day of
19 — (state facts as to desertion, act
or acts of adultery, etc.)
That the plaintiff and defendant have
not cohabited with each other since
the day of , 1^— (in
case of divorce granted on ground of
adultery, say: that each and every of
said acts of adultery was committed
without the consent, connivance, privity
or procurement of the plaintiff and that
the plaintiff has not cohabited with the
defendant since his discovery of said
adultery).
FINDINOS AND CONCLUSIONS
91
That (etc., alleging facts as to fit-
ness or unfitness of plaintiff or defend-
ant to have custody and control of
children).
That the property mentioned and de-
scribed in the complaint is (community
property) and is of the value of
dollars.
That (etc., giving finding as to rights
of parties in property).
Concliuions of Law,
As conclusions of law, from the fore-
going facts the court finds:
That the plaintiff is entitled to a
decree of this court dissolving the
bonds of matrimony heretofore existing
between the plaintiff and defendant;
decreeing the plaintiff and defendant
each to be free and absolutely released
from the bonds of matrimony and all
obligations thereof.
That the defendant (or plaintiff as
the case may be) is entitled to be
awarded the sole charge, control, cus-
tody and education of the children
issue of said marriage, (or in case the
custody of one of the children is
awarded to the husband and one to the
wife, aaj:
That the plaintiff is entitled
to be awarded the charge, control, cus-
tody and education of , one
of the issue of said marriage; that
the defendant is entitled to
bo awarded the charge, control, custody
and education of , one of the
issue of said marriage).
(In case of an award of e division
of property, add conclusion as to.)
Against Oarnldiee.
(Title.)
The issue joined in this garnishee
action coming on for trial at the
term of said court and hav-
ing been tried by the court,
appearing as counsel for the plaintiff,
appearing as counsel for the
defendant, and appearing as
counsel for the garnishee, I hereby
make and file the following findings
of fact and conclusions of law con-
stituting my decision in said garnishee
action :
Findings of Fact,
That at the time of the service of
the garnishee summons on said gar-
nishee, to- wit, on the day of
f 19--, the said garnishee was
indebted to , the principal de-
fendant, in the sum of dollars
presently and absolutely due (here give
the consideration of the debt as for
instance for merchandise sold and de-
livered by the defendant to said gar-
nishee).
That the said garnishee at the time
of said service had in his possession
and under his control the following de-
scribed personal property and effects
belonging to said principal defendant
as bailee thereof and with no lien or
interest therein, to-wit: (describe the
property so held and state its value).
Conclusions of Law,
And as conclusions of law from said
facts I find, that said is
liable as garnishee to the plaintiff upon
said indebtedness in the sum of
dollars, and also that he is liable as
such garnishee by reason of the said
personal property in his hands and that
the plaintiff is entitled to have the said
indebtedness paid and said property de-
livered over to be applied upon the
judgment in his favor against said de-
fendant.
And it appearing that the plaintiff
has recovered judgment in the principal
action against the defendant in the sum
of dollars damages and costs
which said judgment remains wholly
unsatisfied I further find that the
plaintiff is entitled to judgment against
said garnishee adjudging:
That he is liable as garnishee as
aforesaid.
That he pay over to the sheriff of
county the said indebtedness
due to the defendant, to-wit, the sum
of dollars and interest there-
on from the day of ,
19 — , to be applied toward the satis-
faction of said judgment against the
principal defendant.
That he deliver over, within ■
days after the service on him of a
certified copy of this judgment, all the
personal property above described to
said sheriff.
That said sheriff sell and dispose of
said personal property above described
in the same manner as if levied upon
execution and make due return of such
sale.
That the plaintiff recover his costs of
this garnishee action to be taxed, and
have execution therefor.
(Add any other provisions necessary
to protect the interests of the parties.)
In Action ^Fo'Quiet Title.
(Title.)
(After preliminary recitals as in the
fijeneral form given above, proceed as
follows) :
92
FlNDimS AND CONCLUSIONS
Findings of Fact.
That on or about the day
of , 19 — , the plaintiff entered
into actual possession of all the land
and premises described in the com-
plaint, claiming it in his own right;
that ever since said date, the said
plaintiff has occupied, used and culti-
vated said land, having and keeping
the same surrounded by a substantial
enclosure, using and claiming the same
in his own right from that date to
the present time, adversely to all the
world and especially as against the
defendants herein. (A finding of pay-
ment of the taxes should be inserted
where necessary).
That neither one of the defendants
herein, nor any grantor or predecessor
of any of said defendants, has been
in possession of any part of said prem-
ises since the day of ,
19 — ; that the plaintiff first entered
upon said premises justly and lawfully
and not as a trespasser as against the
rights of any or either of said defend-
ants or of any or either of those under
or through whom they claim.
That the whole of the land described
in the said complaint lies within the
city of , county of ,
state of .
That all. the averments and allega-
tions of the plaintiff's complaint are
true and all the denials and allegations
of the defendant's answer are untrue.
Conclusions of Law,
As conclusions of law from the fore-
going facts the court finds and decides
hereby:
That the plaintiff is the owner in
fee simple and entitled to the posses-
sion of all the lots, tracts, and par-
cels of land as the same are par-
ticularly described in his complaint on
file herein as against the defendants all
and severally, and all persons claiming
or to claim the same or any part of
said land by, through or under said de-
fendants or either ' of them; that
neither one of said defendants has any
right, title or interest in or to said
land or any part thereof.
That the plaintiff is entitled to a
decree as prayed for in his said com-
plaint to quiet his title to said land
against said defendants and each of
them and all persons claiming or to
claim, by, through or under them or
either of them the said defendants.
That the plaintiff is entitled to ft
judgment for his costs to be taxed here-
in against only the defendants who
have answered herein contesting tii0
plaintiff's rights in said premises; that
as to the other defendants who have
not answered or who have answered
disclaiming costs are not to be taxed.
Let judgment be entered accord-
ingly.
FOBOIBLE ENTBY AND DETAINEB
[See 9 Standard Proc. 506.]
Oomplalnt on Statute for Forcible
Entry.
(Title.)
Now comes the plaintiff above named
and complains against the defendant
herein and for cause of action alleges:
1. That at all the times hereinafter
mentioned he was in the peaceable and
actual possession of all that certain
piece or parcel of land described as
follows, to- wit (describe the land by
legal description) and of the dwelling
house, bams, and appurtenances there-
on.
2. That on the day of
, 19 — , and while the plaintiff
was so in possession of said land and
premises the defendant with violence
and by force entered thereon and in a
forcible manner ejected the said plain-
tiff and put him out of said lands and
tenements and broke the doors and
windows 'Of said house and tore down
and destroyed said barns and sheds
(or set out the facts showing a forcible
entry) contrary to the form of the
statute and to the damage of the plain-
tiff in the sum of dollars.
(If the entry be peaceable but fol-
lowed by forcible expulsion of owner,
under some statutes it is a forcible
entry, in which event for the second
paragraph above should be substituted
the following:. That on the
day of , 19 — , and while the
plaintiff was so in possession of said
land and premises the defendant peace-
ably entered thereon and afterwards
and on the same day forcibly turned
out and expelled the plaintiff therefrom
[or if the eviction was by threats and
menacing conduct, state the fact in re-
gard thereto], contrary to the form of
the statute and to the damage of the
plaintiff in the sum of dol-
lars.)
3. That the said defendant unlaw-
fully withholds and keeps possession of
said land and premises and has so held
and kept possession of the same at all ^
I times since the said . day of
I — , 19^.
POttClBLE ENTRY AND DETAINER
93
4. That in consequence of said acts
the plaintiff has been deprived of the
rents, issues and profits of said land
and premises to his damage in the sum
of dollars.
Wherefore, etc.
Oomplalnt on Statate for Forcible De-
tainer.
(Title.)
Now comes the plaintiff above named
and complains against the defendant
herein and for cause of action al-
leges:
That on the day of ,
19 — , he was entitled to the possession
of the following described premises,
to-wit: (describe same by legal descrip-
tion); that on said day, the defend-
ant herein peaceably (or otherwise as
the fact may be) but without right so
to do entered and took possession of
the said premises and from that day
hitherto has kept and still keeps and
holds possession of the said premises
unlawfully and by force (or by menaces
and threats of violence, stating them)
contrary to the statute in such case
made and provided.
(If any special damage has been done
the property allege the same and state
amount of damages.)
That in consequence of the said un-
lawful acts of said defendant, the
plaintiff has been deprived of the rents,
issues and profits of said land and
premises ever since said day
of , 19— "i to his damage in the
sum of dollars.
Wherefore, etc.
Complaint for Unlawfol Detainer.
(Title.)
Now comes the plaintiff above named
and complains against the defendant
herein and for cause of action alleges:
That on or about the day
of , 19 — ^ the plaintiff herein
by a lease made at , in the
county of , leased, demised,
and let to the said defendant herein
the premises situate, lying and being
in , in the county of ,
and state of , more particularly
described as follows, to-wit (describe
premises by metes and bounds), to have
and to hold the said premises to the
said defendant for the term of
thence next ensuing, at the monthly
rental of dollars, payable in
advance.
That by virtue of said lease, the de-
fendant herein went into possession and
(etc., foi
occupation of the said premises, and
still continues to hold and occupy the
same.
That according to the terms of said
lease there became due on the
day of , 19 — , for the rent oi
said premises the sum of — ^— dol-
lars; on the day of
19 — , the sum of
each month's rent due).
That on the day of ^j
19 — , and within one year after said
rent became due as aforesaid, by the
terms of said lease, the plaintiff in writ-
ing demanded of (the lessee)
payment thereof, or that he surrendei
the possession of said premises within
days (statutory period); but
said defendant neglected and refused
for the space of days after
said demand as aforesaid to quit the
possession of said premises or to pay
the said unpaid rent; that the said
rent still remains due and unpaid; that
a copy of said demand is hereunto an-
nexed and made a part of this com-
plaint, marked ''Exhibit A."
That said defendant unlawfully holds
over and continues in possession of the
said premises aft.er default in payment
of the rent as aforesaid and without
the permission of the plaintiff, by rea-
son whereof the plaintiff has sustained
damages in the sum of dol-
lars.
(If any special damages for injury
to the property have been suffered, al-
lege them.)
Wherefore the plaintiff demands judg-
ment:
For the restitution of said prem-
ises.
For the sum of dollars for
waste and injury, and for the detention
of said premises.
For the sum of dollars rent
due as aforesaid.
That said damages and rent money
may be trebled.
For the costs of this action, and for
such other and further relief as to the
court may seem just.
WUt of Beetitation.
(Title.)
The people of the state of to
the sheriff (or other officer) of
county of , greet-
ing:
Whereas on the
., 19-,
day of
-, as plaintiff.
recovered judgment in the — —
court of the county of > against
94
FORCIBLE ENTRY AND DETAINER
for the restitution of certain
premises hereinafter described; and
whereas said plaintiff also recovered
judgment for the sum of dol-
lars, being (treble) the rents for the
detention of said premises, — ^—
dollars damages for the holding there-
of, and dollars costs of suit,
which said judgment was docketed in
the clerk's office of said court on the
day of , 19 — ;
Now, therefore, you the said sheriff
(or other officer) are hereby commanded
to deliver to said , the plain-
tiff herein, the possession of the land
and premises described in said judg-
ment, as follows, to- wit: (describe
property by legal description).
And whereas the sum of
dollars (treble) rents, dollars
damages, and dollars costs,
are now at the date of this writ due
on said judgment, you the sheriff (or
other officer) are hereby further re-
quired to satisfy said judgment and
all acciuing costs out of the personal
property of said judgment debtor
, or if sufficient personal prop-
erty of the debtor cannot be found
then out of the real .property in your
county (or other subdivision) belonging
to him, on the day whereon said judg-
ment was docketed in the aforesaid
county of , or at any time
thereafter and make return of this writ
within days after your re-
ceipt hereof with what you have done
indorsed hereon.
rOREIGN CORPORATIONS. — See
CoaPOBATIONS.
FOBGEBY
[See 9 Standard Peoc. 507.]
Forged check, complaint against hanJc
for paying, see Banks and Banking.
FOBTHOOMINa BONDfl
[See 9 Standard Proc. 512; 10 Stand-
ard Paoc. 8.]
FBAUB AND DECEIT
[See 9 Standard Proc. 512; 10 Stand-
ard Proc. 53, et seq. See also Fraud-
ulent Conveyances.]
Complaint against architect for fraud
and collusion, see Architects and
Builders.
Complaint against promoters of corpora-
tion for accounting for secret pro/it,
see Account and Accounting.
Conspiracy to cheat and defraud, com-
plaint for, see Conspiracy.
Decree of divorce, petition to annul for
fraud in procuring, see Divorce.
Signature by one unable to read, oh'
tained by false representations as to
character of instrument, see Bills and
Notes.
Stock, purchase of, complaint for in'
during by fraud, see Corporations.
Answer of Fraud in Procuring Note.
(Title.)
The defendant in the above entitled
action answering the plaintiff's com-
plaint herein alleges:
That the note set forth in said com-
plaint was procured by the plaintiff
from this defendant by fraud and false
represenations as hereinafter set forth,
to- wit :
That prior to the making and de-
livery of said note, the plaintiff rep-
resented to the defendant: (set -out the
false representations relied on).
That said representations were false
and were made by plaintiff with knowl-
edge of their falsity and with the in-
tent to deceive and defraud the defend-
ant.
That the defendant relied upon the
said representations and believed them
to be true and was thereby induced to
and did make and deliver said note to
the defendant in payment for (set forth
the pretended consideration of note);
that (if the defendant has received any-
thing front the plaintiff, add averments
as to same).
That heretofore, to-wit, on the
day of , 19 — , the de-
fendant notified the plaintiff that he
rescinded the aforesaid purchase and
then and there tendered to him the re-
turn of said (consideration received)
and demanded of him the return of the
said note; that the plaintiff refused and
still refuses to accept the return of said
(consideration) or to surrender said
note.
Wherefore, etc.
Answer of Fraud in Becorery of Judg-
ment.
(Title.)
The defendant in the above entitled
action answering the plaintiff's com-
plaint herein alleges:
That after the commencement of the
action mentioned in the plaintiff's said
VRAVDVIEKT C0NVEYAXCE8
95
complaint the plaintiff with intent to
deceive the defendant herein and pre-
vent him from defending said action
falsely and fraudulently represented
(set forth the false representations re-
lied upon, as for instance, that he, the
plaintiff, intended to and would dismiss
said action without costs to the defend-
ant and that defendant need not appear
therein, or otherwise as the facts may
be).
That, relying on said false and fraud-
ulent representations, this defendant
omitted to appear therein and defend
said action as he would otherwise have
done but for such false representations.
That the plaintiff thereafter and
without the knowledge of, or any notice
to the defendant, obtained judgment
therein as of the defendant's default.
That the defendant had a good, sub-
stantial and sufficient defense to said
action and would have shown on. the
trial thereof that (set forth in sub-
stance the facts that the defendant
could have urged in defense of the
original action).
Wherefore the defendant prays that
said judgment be adjudged to be null
and void; that the plaintiff be for-
ever restrained from enforcing said
judgment; and for the costs of this
action.
Oonnterdalm of Damages for Fraud in
Procurement of Notes Sued on.
The defendants further answering the
complaint, by way of counterclaim, al-
lege :
That the notes set out in the com-
plaint were two of three notes for the
same amount purporting to be executed
for the purchase price of a stallion sold
by McLaughlin Bros., the payees in the
said notes, to these defendants through
their co-defendant, H. E. Eldridge, who
made the sale as the agent of the said
McLaughlin Bros.
That it was agreed between the de-
fendants and said agent of McLaughlin
Bros, that each of these defendants
should own a certain interest in the
said stallion aggregating fifteen-
eighteenths and should be liable for a
corresponding portion of the purchase
money thereof.
That in order to obtain the signatures
of the answering defendants to said
notes, the said. agent represented and
stated to these defendants that he had
an agreement from one C D. and E. F.
to purchase the remaining three-
eighteenths interest in said horse and
to sign each of said notes with the an-
swering defendants. The said agent
also stated and represented that he
could and would obtain the signatures
of said two parties to said notes. That
said statements were material, were
believed by these defendants and that
except for said statements these de-
fendants would not have signed said
notes. That relying upon these state-
ments the defendants did sign said
notes; that the statements were false
and untrue and were known by the
said agent to be false and untrue. That
said agent also stated to one of the
defendants , before he signed
said notes, that the same would not
be delivered until the* parties purchas-
ing the remaining three shares in said
horse should sign the same and that
delivery should not be made without
the knowledge of the first seven signers
nor without the approval and accept-
ance of the signers of the remaining
three shares of said horse. That con-
trary to said agreement and without
the knowledge or consent of these de-
fendants the agent himself signed said
notes for the remaining three shares
and without the knowledge or consent
of these defendants contrary to their
agreement and without their acceptance
of the said agent as co-signer with
them all, the said agent undertook to
deliver the said notes to his principals,
McLaughlin Bros. That said agent was
at that time and has ever since been
insolvent and has failed to pay any
portion of said notes to these defend-
ants, whereby the defendants are dam-
aged in the amount of the balance due
thereon.
Wherefore, etc. Based on Union
National Bank v. Mailloux, 27 S. D.
543, 132 N. W. 168.
FBAUDS* STATUTE OF
[See 9 Standard Proc. 519.]
FBAUDXTLENT CONVEYANOES
[See 9 Standard Proc. 522; 10 Stand-
ard Proc. 158, et seq,]
Answer that defendant « bona fide pur-
chaser, see Creditors' Suits.
Complaint hy judgment creditor to set
aside fraudulent assignment, see Cred-
itors ' Suits.
Complaint to avoid tmlawful transfer of
property to director of corporation^
see Corporations.
§6
FkAVDUtENT CONVETAKCES
Complaint to reach property in name of
another where purchase money was
furnished hy debtor, see Creditors'
Suits.
Decree setting aside and giving leave to
proceed in execution, see Decrees.
Fraudf sufficient allegation of, see 10
Standard Proc. 158 ,160.
Indictment for, see 10 Standard Proc.
212.
Insolvency, allegation of, see 10 Stand-
ard Proc. 165.
Knowledge of and participation by
grantee, see 10 Standard Proc. 164,
Oomplalnt by Creditor Who Has No
Judgment.
(Title.)
The plaintiff in the above entitled
action for himself and on behalf of
all other creditors of the defendant
, complains against the defend-
ants herein and alleges:
That the defendant
, 18 in-
debted to the plaintiff in the sum of
dollars with interest from
(describe nature of indebted-
ness).
That said defendant while so in-
debted to the plaintiff on the
day of , 19 — , not having other
property sufficient to pay his said debt
to the plaintiff and being the owner
of real estate described as follows, to-
wit: (describe same) and with intent
to defraud his creditors conveyed the
same to the defendant , who
had knowledge of such fraudulent in-
tent, for the colorable consideration of
dollars, but in fact without
any actual consideration (or in con-
templation of insolvency and with in-
tent to prefer said defendant
as a creditor to the exclusion of the
plaintiff).
Wherefore, the plaintiff prays that
said conveyance be set aside; that said
property may be administered for the
benefit of the creditors of said ,
and for such other and further relief
as to the court may seem just.
Complaint Against Debtor's Personal
Bepresentatlve.
(Title.)
The plaintiff in the above entitled
action complains and says:
(Allege facts showing indebtedness
of decedent to plaintiff, the death of
decedent and the appointment, etc., of
defendant as administrator or execu-
tor.)
That at a time subsequent to the
creation of the above indebtedness to
the plaintiff, and on or about the
day of , 19—, the said
(decedent), with intent to
hinder, delay and defraud his creditors,
including the plaintiff, did (allege the
fraudulent transaction, as for instance,
purchased the land hereinafter de-
scribed and caused the title thereto to
be taken in the name of the defend-
ant ; that the consideration for
the purchase of said land was paid hy
the said (decedent); that no
part thereof was paid by the defend-
ant ; that said land is de-
scribed as follows, to-wit: [give de-
scription]).
That said decedent was wholly in-
solvent at the time of his death and
left assets amounting to about the sum
of dollars and liabilities ag-
gregating about the sum of
dollars.
That this action is brought for the
benefit of all creditors of said
(de'-e^ent).
Wherefore, the plaintiff prays judg-
ment that the purchase of said lands
as above set forth be declared fraud-
ulent and void as against the plaintiff
and the other creditors of
(decedent) ; that the defendant
may be adjudged to hold said lands
in trust for said creditors; that a re-
ceiver of said land may be appointed
with power to sell the same; that the
defendant be directed to
execute and deliver to said receiver a
good and sufficient deed of said prem-
ises; that said receiver sell said prem-
ises under the direction of this court
and pay the proceeds thereof to the
defendant (administrator or executor)
or to some other suitable person to be
appointed by this court for distribution
among the just creditors of said
(decedent); that the plaintiff be ad-
judged a creditor of said
(decedent) in the sum of dol-
lars; and for such other and further
relief as may be just together with
the costs and disbursements of this
action.
Complaint by Assignee in Bankmptcy.
(Title.)
The plaintiff in the above entitled
action complains against the defendants
herein and alleges:
That heretofore, to-wit: on the
day of , 19 — , one
, of , duly filed his
petition in the United States district
court for the district ot
fBAUDULENT CONVEYANCES
S?
-, praying tliat h© be ad-
judged a bankrupt pursuant to act of
congress, and that pursuant to such
petition said was by said court
on said day duly adjudged a bankrupt;
that thereafter and on the day
of , 19 — , this plaintiff was
iduly elected and appointed by the cred-
itors of said as trustee in
said bankruptcy proceedings and such
election and appointment was duly ap-
proved by . f referee in bank-
ruptcy, before whom said proceedings
were pending; that thereupon the
plaintiff duly qualified as such trustee
by giving the bond required by said
court and taking the oath required by
law; that he thereupon entered upon
his duties as such trustee and brings
this action in his said representative
capacity.
That (etc., setting forth the property
owned by bankrupt during the four
months next preceding the filing of his
petition).
That (etc., alleging the indebtedness
of the bankrupt to the defendant).
That (etc., alleging the transfer or
conveyance within four months of prop-
erty described, to the defendant for
the purpose of giving him a preference,
and the knowledge of the defendant of
such purpose).
Wherefore, etc. (demanding judg-
ment for the return of the property
or its equivalent in money).
Oomplaint by Becelver To Set Aside
Fraudulent Transfer of Corporate
Property.
(Title.)
The plaintiff in the above entitled
action complains against the defendants
herein and alleges:
(After alleging the corporate capac-
ity of the defendant corporation pro-
ceed as follows):
That on or about the day
of , 19 — , by a judgment of
the court, for the county of
That in and by said judgment it was,
among other things, provided that said
receiver should collect all debts, de-
mands and other property of said de-
fendant corporation and said receiver
was authorized to maintain any action
or special proceedings for any such
purpose whatever tending to the per-
formance of his duties as such receiver.
That on or about the ' day
of , 19 — , the said defendant
corporation was insolvent (or in con-
templation of insolvency), and with in-
tent to give a preference to the defend-
ant , paid to said the
sum of dollars; that at the time
of said payment the said was
a shareholder and was otherwise inter-
ested in said defendant corporation.
That on or about the day
of
19-
-, in an action wherein
was plaintiff and the said defendant
corporation was defendant, this plain-
tiff was duly appointed permanent re-
ceiver of said corporation and of all
its stock, franchises, and property of
every kind and description, with the
usual powers and duties incident to re-
ceivership; that on the day
of , 19—, the plaintiff duly
qualified as such receiver and is now
acting in that capacity.
, the defendant cor-
poration while so insolvent or in con-
templation of insolvency, and with in-
tent to give a preference to the defend-
ant transferred and assigned
to said (describe property
transferred and its value), which said
property was a portion of its assets;
that the aforesaid transfer was made
by the defendant corporation and a«-
cepted by the defendant with
intent to hinder, delay, cheat and de-
fraud the creditors of the said defend-
ant corporation and was made when the
said corporation was insolvent and with
intent on the part of said corporatiea
to create a preference, and after said
corporation had refused payment of its
notes and other obligations.
That the only other assets of said
corporation at said times were its out-
standing book accounts upon' which the
plaintiff has been unable to realize more
than the sum of dollars; that
the liabilities of said corporation at
said times exceeded the sum of
dollars.
Wherefore, the plaintiff demands
judgment:
That the said payments and trans-
fers, and each of them, so made as
aforesaid by the defendant corporation
to the defendants and ,
be declared to be unlawful and null
and void as in fraud of the creditors
of such corporation.
That the defendant be com-
pelled to account for the moneys so
paid to him by the defendant cor-
poration.
That the defendant be di-
rected to turn over the property trans-
dd
FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES
ferred to him as aforesaid or its money
equivalent to the plaintiff as receiver
as aforesaid.
That the defendants and each of
them, their or either of their attorneys,
servants or agents be enjoined and re-
strained from making any disposition
pending this action of the moneys and
property so paid and transferred to
them or either of them, except to sur-
render the same to the plaintiff as such
receiver.
That the plaintiff as such receiver
hold these moneys and assets subject to
the further order of this court.
That the plaintiff have such other
and further relief as may be just.
Petition by Judgment Creditor To Be
Made Co-plaintiff.
(Title.)
The petition of of ,
respectfully represents:
That this action was brought by the
above named plaintiff as a judgment
creditor of the above named defend-
ant, f to reach the property of
said , alleged to have been
fraudulently conveyed to the de-
fendant , and to set aside the
conveyance and transfer as fraudulent
and void as against the creditors of
said defendant .
That your petitioner is a judgment
creditor of said defendant ,
having duly recovered a judgment
against him in the court
within and for the county of '
on the day of , 19 — ,
for the sum of
ages and
ing in all
dollars dam-
dollars costs, mak-
dollars, which said
judgment remains in full force and
effect, unappealed from,- and is now
due and wholly unsatisfied.
That on the day of ,
' 19 — , execution was duly issued on said
judgment to the sheriff of
county, commanding him to satisfy said
judgment out of the p-^rsonal property
of said defendant and if suffi-
cient personal property could not be
found then out of the real property
of said defendant on the day
when said judgment was docketed in
said county, to-wit, the day
of , 19 — , or at any time there-
after; which said execution was after-
wards on the day of ,
19 — , returned by said sheriff wholly
unsatisfied.
That your petitioner is ready and
willing to contribute to the expense of
this action on being let in as a party
co-plaintiff that (state any special rea-
son for allowing petitioner to be let
in). •
"Wherefore, your petitioner prays that
he be allowed to come in as a party
plaintiff in this action, and for such
other and further relief as to the court
may seem just.
FREIGHT CABBIEBS
[See 10 Standabd Pboc. 222, 242, et
seq., 248, 251.]
Answers by carrier, see 9 Standard
Peoc. 71.
Complaints against carrier, see 9 Stand-
ard Proc. 1018.
Libel in rem on bill of lading, see Ad
MIRALTY.
Water, carriers by, see 9 Standard Pboc.
17, 1149.
Complaint for Failure To ProTide Cars.
(Title.)
The plaintiff complains of the de-
fendant and for cause of action al-
leges:
(Allege corporate existence of the de-
fendant and the fact that it was and
is a common carrier.)
That the plaintiff heretofore, to-wit:
on the day of , 19 — ,
was and still is engaged in the business
of (state specifically business con-
ducted), and in the course of such busi-
ness is engaged in distributing and
shipping the said goods, wares and mer-
chandise to his various customers
throughout the United States.
That on the day of ,
19 — , at , in accordance with
the usual custom the plaintiff made re-
quest upon the defendant for
cars for the shipment and distribution
to his customers as aforesaid, of cer-
tain of the plaintiff's said goods, wares
and merchandise, from to
That the defendant received and ac-
cepted said request for cars.
That the plaintiff was willing, ready
and able to pay the freight charges on
all cars so requested by him.
That the defendant failed and re-
fused to furnish to the plaintiff within
a reasonable time said cars so
requested as aforesaid.
That by reason of the failure of the
defendant to furnish said cars
so requested as aforesaid, the plaintiff
was unable to distribute and ship said
goods, wares and merchandise, and was
FREIGHT CARRIERS
99
forced to and did, leave the same for
a long time upon the steamers in which
they were transported to said ;
and that in consequence of being' so
left on said steamers, a large part of
said goods decayed and were wholly
lost to the plaintiff, to the damage of
the plaintiff in the sum of
dollars.
Wherefore, etc. Based on Di Giorgio
Co. V. Pennsylvania R. Co., 104 Md.
693, 65 Atl. 425.
Complaint for Not Keeping Gk>od8 Dry
After Notice of Perlsliable Nature.
(Title.)
The plaintiff complains and alleges:
That (etc., alleging corporate exist-
ence of defendant and the fact that it
was a common carrier).
That, on the day of ,
19 — , at , a station along the
line of said defendant's railroad, the
plaintiff herein delivered to the agent
of the defendant at said (de-
scribe quantity and character of prop-
erty) of the value of dollars,
then in good condition to be trans-
ported by the defendant to ,
another station along said defendant's
railroad. The defendant by its said
agent received said (repeat briefly, de-
scription of goods received) for ship-
ment as aforesaid, and agreed in con-
sideration of the sum of dol-
lars paid by the plaintiff to carry and
transport the same and deliver it safely
and in good condition at its said sta-
tion at .
That each of the parcels containing
said were conspicuously
marked with the words "keep dry."
That the plaintiff knew or ought to
have known that said would
be damaged and made worthless by al-
lowing the same to become wet.
That the defendant failed and neg-
lected to properly jcare for or transport
said and by reason of such
failure became wet and was
wholly lost to the plaintiff to his dam-
age in the sum of dollars.
Wherefore, etc.
Complaint Agalnst"^ Freight 'Carrier for
Loss of Stock in Transit Through
Negligence.
The plaintiff complains and alleges:
I. (Allege corporate existence of de-
fendant.)
^ II. That at all times herein men-
tioned the defendant was a common
carrier of freight for hire over its
railway line from Ephrata, in the state
of Washington, to St. Paul, in the state
of Minnesota.
III. That on the day of
-, 19 — , the plaintiff at said
Ephrata delivered to the defendant
horses, then in good health
and condition, of which he was the
owner, to be transported by it over its
said line of railway, in consideration of
certain tolls to be charged and paid
therefor; that the defendant accepted
said horses for such transportation and
it was its duty to transport them safe-
ly over its own line of railway- and
connections, and deliver them in good
condition to the consignee at their
destination; that by and through the
negligence of the defendant in failing
to properly feed, water and care for
said horses in course of transportation,
twenty of said horses died in the state
of Montana, during the course of said
transportation by the defendant, and
were and are a total loss to the plain-
tiff, and the rest of said horses were
damaged to the extent of dol-
lars each; that the horses which died
were of the reasonable value of
dollars each; and that further by rea-
son of the premises, the plaintiff has
been damaged in the sum of
dollars. Wherefore, etc. Based on
Smith V. Great Northern By. Co., 92
Minn. 11, 99 N. W. 47.
Complaint Under Statute for Failure To
Feed and Water Cattle.
Plaintiff complains against the de-
fendant herein, and alleges:
I. (Allege corporate existence of de-
fendant.)
II. That at all times herein men-
tioned the said defendant corporation
was a common carrier engaged in the
business of carrying live stock and ani-
mals in the states of ; that
on the day of , 19 — ,
the said defendant received of the
plaintiff at , in the state of
, a carload of cattle, the prop-
erty of the plaintiff, to be by said de-
fendant transported to , in the
state of , and said defendant
issued a bill of lading to the said plain-
tiff for said cattle, in which said bill
of lading the plaintiff was named as
consignee and the destination was giv-
en as , in the state of ,
and the plaintiff was from the date
thereof and now is the lawful holder
of said bill of lading.
100
FREIGHT CARRIERS
m. That it became the duty of the
defendant corporation to transport said
cattle to the plaintiff at , m
the state of , and it was the
duty of the defendant corporation not
to confine the said cattle in its cars for
a longer period than twenty-eight con-
secutive hours without unloading the
same for rest, water and feeding for
a period of at least five consecutive
hours, unless prevented from so unload-
ing by storm or other accidental causes.
Nevertheless in utter disregard of its
duty in this behalf the said defendant
confined said cattle in its cars for a
longer period than twenty-eight con-
secutive hours, without unloading the
same for rest, water and feeding for
at least five consecutive hours, although
the defeudant was not prevented from
so unloading the same by storm or
other accidental causes.
Whereby and by reason of 'the dr
fendant corporation's negligence and
utter disregard of its said duty certain
(here state number) of said cattle died,
and some of said cattle were made
lame, and all of said cattle were made
sick and were thereby greatly injured
and damaged by reason of the negli-
gence and said breach of duty of said
defendant corporation; all to the plain-
tiff 's damage in the sum of
dollars. "Wherefore, etc.
FBIVOLOUS AND SHAM PLEAD-
INGS
[See 9 Standard Proc. 525.]
GAME AND FISH
[See generally 10 Standard Peoc. 306,
et seq.]
QAMINQ
[See 9 Standard Proc. 527; and gen-
erally 10 Standard Proc. 314, et seq.]
GARNISHMENT
[See 9 Standard Proc. 530. See also
generally 10 Standard Proc. 365,
et 8cq.]
Findivns ar/ninat garnishee, see Find-
ings AND C:0N('LUSI0NS.
Tendency of nnrnhhmcnt proceedings in
another state, see Abatement, Pleas
OF,
Answer of Gamishoe Stating Facts and
Submitting laiability to Court.
(Title.)
State of
-, county of
ss.
being first duly sworn, de-
poses and says: That on the
(lay of , 19 — , he was served
with a garnishee process in the above
entitled action; that he was not at
that time and is not now in any way
or to any extent indebted to defendant;
that the only facts from which it might
be contended that such an indebtedness
or liability existed are as follows, to-
wit: (state fully all the facts upon
which liability might be founded).
Deponent further says, that he did
not have at the time of the service of
the aforesaid process upon him, and
does not now have in his possession
or under his control any real or per-
sonal property, effects or credits be-
longing to the said defendant, except
as above stated, and he hereby submits
the question of his liability as garnishee
to this honorable court.
(Jurat.)
Answer of Interpleader by Garnishee.
(Title and venue.)
(Begin as in preceding form to point
where statement of facts as to indebted-
ness is made.)
• Affiant admits that he is indebted in
the sum of dollars upon (state
the nature of the indebtedness); but
affiant further says that the defendant
claims that the said debt is due to him
from this affiant, while one ,
who resides at , in the county
of , and state of ,
claims that the said debt is due to him
from affiant.
Affiant further says that he has in
his possession and under his control
the following described personal prop-
erty, to- wit: (describe same); that the
defendant and said each claim
to be the owner and entitled to the
same.
That affiant is not in collusion with
either of the said claimants, and is
unable to determine which of said
claimants is entitled to said property;
that he makes this affidavit as an an-
swer to said garnishment, and also as
a motion that said be inter-
pleaded as a defendant in this gar-
nishee action and that affiant may pay
said sum and deliver said property into
court and have a receipt therefor and
be thereby forever discharged from all
GUARANTY
101
liability to either of said parties for
the same.
(Jurat.)
Order Interpleading Claimant to Prop-
erty in Oamishee'a Poeseaaion.
(Title.)
On reading and filing the affidavit of
, garnishee in this action, and
on motion of , attorney for
said garnishee:'
It is ordered that (the
claimant) be interpleaded as defendant
in this garnishee action.
That notice thereof, signed by the
plaintiff's attorney, setting forth the
facts upon which this order is based, be
served on said claimant so interpleaded
together with a copy of this order.
That after service of said notice, to-
gether with a copy of this order, the
said garnishee is to pay to the clerk
of this court, the sum of dol-
lars, which said sum is the amount
claimed by said and by the
defendant herein and a receipt there-
for from the clerk shall be a full and
complete discharge of said garnishee
from all liability to any party for the
amount so paid. That the amount so
paid shall be held bv the clerk sub-
ject to the further order of the court.
That said notice and a copy of this
order be served on the said claimant
by delivering a copy of said notice and
this order to him personally.
Judgment in Favor of Oaznishee for
Costs.
(Title.)
This action, being at issue between
the plaintiff and , garnishee
therein, and having been tried at said
term by the court, a jury trial having
been duly waived, and the court hav-
ing filed its findings, wherein it finds
Qs facts that the answer of said gar-
nishee is true and as conclusions of
law that said is not liable as
garnishee and ordered judgment ac-
cordingly (or the jury having returned
a verdict therein wherein it is found
that [insert substance of verdict] and
the court having ordered judgment for
the garnishee upon said verdict).
Now on the motion of , at-
torney for said garnishee, it is ordered
and adjudged that the said do
have and recover of the said plaintiff
the sum of dollars, his costs
as taxed and allowed herein.
GENERAL ISSUE AND GENERAL
DENIAL. — See 9 Standard Proc.
533. See also Answers; Denials.
GIFTS
[See generally 10 Standard Proc. 604,
et 8€q.]
GRAND JT7BY
[See 9 Standard Proc. 536.]
GUARANTY
[See 9 Standard Proc. 538. See also
10 Standard Proc. 683, et seq.]
Complaint by a Transferee of the Prin-
cipal Obligation.
That on or about the
of , 19 — , one
day
made
and delivered to one his cer-
tain promissory note in writing; that
said note was for the sum of
dollars and payable to said ,
or order, days after date.
That on or about the day
of , 19 — , the defendant herein
executed and delivered to said
a certain instrument in writing, by the
terms of which he guaranteed to whom
it might concern the payment of said
note, said written guaranty being in
the words and figures following, to-
wit: (insert copy of guaranty^).
That on or about the day
of — , 19 — , the said
indorsed and delivered said note to the
plaintiff; that at the same time and for
the same consideration as hereinafter
set forth the said also trans-
ferred andx delivered to the plaintiff
herein the said guaranty of the de-
fendant.
That for and in consideration of the
endorsement of said note and the trans-
fer of said guaranty to the plaintiff and
at the same time of said endorsement
and transfer, the plaintiff in considera-
tion of and relying upon said guaranty,
sold and delivered to said
goods, wares and merchandise to the
value of dollars.
That said note became due and pay-
able by its terms on the day
of , 19 — , but the same was
not paid, of all of which the defendant
had due notice; that the defendant,
though often requested, neglects and
refuses to pay said notes in accord-
ance with the terms of his said instru-
ment of guaranty.
Wherefore, etc.
102
GUARDIAN AD LITEM
GUABDIAN AD LITEM
[See 9 Standard Proc. 541, and also,
generally, 10 Standard Proc. 703, et
seq.]
Petition hy on heTialf of infant for re-
moval of general guardian, see Guard-
ian AND Ward.
Petition In Case of Non-resident Infant
Defendant.
(Title.)
To the —
of
court of the county
-, state of
The petition of
-, the plain-
tiff in the above entitled action, re-
spectfully shows:
That the above entitled action has
been commenced and is now pending
in the aforesaiti court, for the purpose
of (state briefly the purpose of the
action), that the defendant is
a necessary and proper party to said
suit; that said is a minor and
not a resident of this state and has
no general guardian within this state.
That no appearance by or on behalf
of said has been entered in
this action; that no application for
the appointment of a guardiaa ad litem
has been made by him or on his behalf
to the best of the petitioner's knowl-
edge and belief.
Wherefore your petitioner prays that
, who is a competent and re-
sponsible person, be appointed guardian
ad litem of the said defendant for the
purposes of this suit.
(Verification.)
Consent To Act.
(Title and venue.)
, being first duly sworn,
says: That he resides at , in
said county of ; that he is the
general guardian of , an in-
fant (or incompetent) named in the
foregoing petition (or that said
has no guardian); that affiant believes
he is fully competent and qualified to
properly understand and safeguard the
rights and interests of the said infant
(or incompetent) as guardian ad litem
in the manner set forth in said fore-
going petition; that he is not in any
manner adversely interested to the
rights or interests of said infant (or
incompetent) in said matter; that he
Is not in any way connected in busi-
ness with the adverse party or his
connael; that he is financially respon-
sible to answer for any liability he
may incur as such guardian ad litem;
and that he hereby consents to act as
such guardian ad litem:
(Jurat.)
OUABDIAK AKB WABD
[See 9 Standard Proc. 546, and also
generally, 10 Standard Proc. 776, et
seq,]
Complaint to compel account after ter-
mination of guardianship, see Account
AND Accounting.
Decree removing disabilities of minora
see Infants.
For account^ see account hy administra-
tor or executor, under Decedents'
Estates.
Non-joinder of plaintiff's guardian, see
Abatement, Pleas op.
Order Prescribing Notice of Hearing
Petition for Appointment of <Hiard-
ian of Minors.
(Title.)
It is ordered by the court that notice
of the time and place of hearing the
petition of for the appoint-
ment of as guardian of tl^e
person (and estate) of . a
minor child of
-, be given to
, who has custody of said
minor, and to , relatives of
said minor, by notice served personally
upon said persons at least
days before the time of such hearing,
which hearing is set down for
day of , 19—, at
o'clock, in the
-noon of said day.
at the court room of this court.
Notice of Application for I«etters of
Ouardianship.
(Title.)
Notice is hereby given that
has filed with the clerk of this court
a petition praying for letters of guard-
ianship of the person (and estate) of
, a minor; and that the
day of , 19—, at
o'clock in the noon of said day at
the court room of said court at the
court house in the county of ,
has been fixed by said court for a
hearing on said petition, at which time
and place any person interested in said
petition may appear and show cause
why the prayer of said petition should
not be granted.
Order Appointing CKiardlan.
(Title.)
The petition of —
pointment of ■
for the ap-
as the guardian
HABEAS CORPUS
103
of the perflon (and estate of)
coming on regularly this day to be
heard, and it appearing that notice of
said hearing has been duly given as
directed by the court, and required by
law, the court, after hearing the evi-
dence, grants said petition.
it is therefore ordered by the court
that be appointed guardian
of the person (and estate) of the said
, and that letters of guardian-
ship be issued accordingly upon his
giving bond to said in the
sura of dollars, and taking
the oath as required by law.
Petition for Allowance for Education
and Maintenance of Ward.
(Title.)
To the
of —
court of the county
-. state of
respectfully
The petition of
shows:
That your petitioner is the duly ap-
pointed, qualified, and acting guardian
of the person and estate of ,
a minor (that said minor has a father
living, if such be the case); that it is
for the best interest of said minor that
he be educated at ; that the
sum of dollars ($ )
per quarter (or per annum) will be re-
quired to pay for his tuition, mainte-
nance, necessary, school books, etc.,
while attending said institution (that
the father of said minor is unable finan-
cially to expend said sum for the educa-
tion and maintenance of said minor
either at said institution or other suit-
able place); that said minor has prop-
erty, the income of which is amply suf-
ficient'for his maintenance and educa-
tion as aforesaid.
Wherefore, your petitioner prays that
this court issue an order authorizing
the said guardian to expend said sum
of '. — . dollars ($ ) per
quarter (or per annum) for the mainte-
nance and education of said ward as
aforesaid.
Petition for Bemoval of Guardian.
(Title.)
The petition of
by his next friend (or guardian ad
litem) , respectfully sets forth:
That on the day of ,
19 — , was duly appointed as
guardian of the person (and estate) of
said .
That therenfter nnd on the
day of , ID—, said
-, an infant.
That (etc., stating fully facts show-
ing ground for removal).
Wherefore, petitioner prays that said
be removed as guardian of
said , that his letters of guard-
ianship be revoked, and for such other
and further relief as to the court may
seem just.
HABEAS CORPUS
[See 9 Standard Proc. 556, and see
generally 10 Standard Proc. 908, tS,
acq,"]
Petition by Person Arrested for Debt.
(Title.)
To the
court of
coun-
ty, state of
The petition of
of
duly qualified as such guardian.
4e
respectfully shows:
That he is imprisoned and restrained
of his liberty by at (state
place of confinement) in said county.
That your petitioner is" not committed
or detained by virtue of the. final judg-
ment or order of any competent tribunal
of civil or criminal jurisdiction. That
the cause or pretense of said confine-
ment or restraint is as follows, to-wit:
On the day of , 19 — ,
one filed with , a jus-
tice of the peace in and for the town-
ship of , in said county, an
affidavit, a copy of which is hereto at-
tached and made a part of this peti-
tion marked ** Exhibit A;** that there-
upon the said issued a writ
under and by virtue of which ,
the sheriff of county, arrested
the body of the petitioner and still
restrains the petitioner of his liberty.
The claim upon which said writ and
affidavit were filed and issued was a
claim arising out of contract between
the petitioner and said , and
said affidavit does not set forth suffi-
cient facts upon which to issue capias
in a civil action, in that it does not
allege that (set forth deficiencies of
affidavit in full); and said affidavit is
deficient in other manner and matters.
Wherefore, petitioner prays that a
writ of habeas corpus may issue di-
rected to said , commanding
him , that he have the bodv of the
petitioner, by him imprisoned and de-
tained, together with the time and
cause of such imprisonment and deten-
tion, before said court, to do and re-
ceive what shall then ani^ there be con-
sidered concerning the said petitioner
In pursuance of the statute in such
104
HABEAS CORPUS
case provided. Based on Booraem v.
Wheeler, 12 Vt. 311.
Petition by Person Detained Under Im-
migration Laws.
(Title.)
To the court of the county
of , state of :
respectfully
The petition of
shows:
That said is imprisoned and
unlawfully detained by , the
Steam -
is
general manager of the
boat Company; that said
not committed or detained by virtue of
the final judgment or order of any
competent tribunal, civil or criminal,
or by virtue of an execution issued upon
said judgment.
That he is a resident and citizen of
the United States, born in ,
of parents domiciled there.
That the cause or pretense of his
said confinement and detention is that
on the day of , 19 — ,
the petitioner left said for a
-; that on
., 19-,
temporary visit to
the day of
upon his return to the United States
from said temporary visit, his right to
land in the United States was denied
and he was arrested and detained as
an alien. That the commissioner of
immigration after a hearing at the port
of refused to allow the peti-
tioner to land; that upon an appeal
from said decision to the department
of commerce and labor, said decision
was affirmed. That thereupon the peti-
tioner was placed in the custody of
the Steamship Company to be
sent to ; that he is now in the
custody of and unlawfully detained by
said Steamship Company.
The petitioner further shows: that
the petitioner was hindered and pre-
vented by the officials and agents of
said commissioner of immigration from
obtaining testimony for and producing
the same at said hearing, especially
that of and , both of said
persons being familiar with
(state facts); that had the petitioner
been given a reasonable and proper op-
portunity he could have produced at said
hearing incontrovertible and over-
whelming evidence that he was born in
the United States and had always re-
sided therein, until his departure on
said temporary visit as aforesaid.
That the petitioner was arbitrarily
denied such a hearing or an opportunity
to prove his right to enter the country
or to produce the testimony aforesaid
at said hearing.
Wherefore, your petitioner prays that
a writ of habeas corpus may issue di-
rected to , the general manager
of said Steamship Company,
commanding him that he have the body
of the said , by him imprisoned
and detained, together with the time
and cause of such imprisonment and
detention, before said court to do and
receive what shall then and there be
considered concerning said , in
pursuance of the statute in such case
provided. Based on Chin Yow r. United
States, 208 U. S. 8, 28 Sup. Ct. 201,
52 L. ed. 369.
Petition on Behalf of Person Detained
as Insane.
(Title.)
To the court of the county
of , state of :
of the
The petition of
of , in the county of
and state of
-, who makes and
verifies this petition on behalf of
of , in said county,
respectfully shows: That said
is imprisoned and restrained of his lib-
erty by , the superintendent of
the State Insane Hospital (or other
proper title of the institution) at
(name place of confinement and name
of institution) in said county; that
said is not committed or de-
tained by virtue of the final judgment
or order of any competent tribunal of
civil or criminal jurisdiction, or by
virtue of execution issued upon such
order or judgment. *
That on or about the day
of , 19 — , the said
was duly committed to said State In-
sane Hospital (or other institution) as
an insane person and from thence hith-
erto he has been confined and restrained
in said hospital.
That he is now fully restored to his
reason and understanding and is now
wrongfully and unlawfully restrained
of liberty.
Wherefore, your petitioner prays that
a writ of habeas corpus may issue di-
rected to said commanding
him that he have the body of the said
by him imprisoned and de-
tained, together with the time and
cause of said imprisonment and deten-
tion, before this court (or officer, nam-
ing him) to do and receive what shall
then and there be considered concern-
ing the said ' ' ■ in pursuance of
HEALTH
105
the statute in such made and provided.
(Verification.)
Adapted from Gresh's Case, 12 Pa.
Co. Ct. 295.
Answer to Petition and Writ for Cus-
tody of Child.
(Title.)
Now come the respondents and an-
swering the petition and writ and mak-
ing return thereto, say:
That they have in their custody and
control the child , mentioned
in said petition, under the authority
and by reason of (set forth the author-
ity and reason of their having said
child in their custody and control).
Said respondents deny that (making
appropriate denials).
Wherefore, etc.
(Verification.)
HAWKERS AND PEDDLEB8
[See 9 Standard Proc. 563, and also
10 Standard Proc. 968, et seq.]
[See 9 Standard Proc. 565, and also
generally 10 Standard Proc. 977, et
seq,]
Indictment for poisoning, see 9 Standard
Proc. 579, et seq.
Indictment for practicing profession
without license, see 9 Standard Proc.
789.
Indictment for selling drugs without li-
cense, see 9 Standard Proc. 564.
Writ of Certiorari to Board of Health.
(Title.)
The people of the state of ,
to , ,
(etc.), as and comprising the Board
of Health of the county of ,
state of — :
Whereas upon the verified petition of
, that the Board of Health of
the county of , state of ,
on the day of , 19 — ,
without authority or jurisdiction in the
matter made, passed and adopted a
resolution and order in writing, pur-
porting to (set forth the act complained
of as being in excess of the jurisdic-
tion of the board).
And whereas it further appears to
the court by the said verified petition
that your proceedings in the passage
and adoption of the said resolution and
order wore without authority and in ex-
cess of 70ur jurisdiction, for the fol-
lowing reasons (set forth in detail the
reasons).
And whereas in like manner it fur-
ther appears to the court that the party
plaintiff and petitioner herein is a^^arty
in interest and beneficially interested
herein in this (set forth facts showing
petitioner's interest); that there is no
appeal from said resolution and order,
or either thereof; nor any plain, speedy
or adequate remedy, and the court be-
ing willing that your proceeding in the
premises and all matters appertaining
thereto should be certified and returned
unto the said court of the
county of , state of :
Now, therefore, you are hereby com-
manded to certify, or cause to be cer-
tified and returned to this court on
the day of , 19—, at
o'clock — m., at the court
room thereof in the court house in the
city of , annexed to this writ,
a full, true and correct transcript of
all the papers, records, and files in
your possession or under your control,
including the proceedings of the said
Board of Health and all the evidence
taken by or for you or said board in
said matter of (set forth matter com-
plained of as in excess of authority and
jurisdiction of the board as stated
above) in order that the same may
be reviewed by this court and such
action be taken thereon as of right
should be taken and done. And have
you then and there this writ.
Witness, etc.
Complaint Against Druggist for Neg-
ligently Selling Poison.
The plaintiff in the above entitled
action, as administrator of the estate
of said , complains against the
defendant herein and alleges:
That on the day of ,
19 — , the plaintiff applied to the de-
fendant at , who was then and
there engaged in the business of sell-
ing drugs and medicines and filling pre-
scriptions, which application was then
and there made to the defendant
through his agent , and re-
quested the defendant through his agent
aforesaid to put up and sell to him
twenty cents worth of the oil of sweet
almonds, to be administered to his wife
as a physic, and the defendant by his
said agent , then and there
undertook to fill said order and to bcU
to the plaintiff said medicine for his
wife as aforesaid. And the defendant,
by his said agent, did then and there
106
HEALTH
pretend to fill said order and to sell
to the plaintiff said twenty cents worth
of the oil of sweet almonds, as re-
quested by the plaintiff; yet the defend-
ant, h^ his said agent, did so careless-
ly and negligently put up said medicine
and make said sale, that instead of
putting up. the oil of sweet almonds,
as was called for, he put up and sold
to the plaintiff twenty cents worth of
a certain poisonous drug called the oil
of bitter almonds, to-wit: about one-
half ounce thereof. And the same was
wrongfully, negligently and carelessly
sold and delivered to the plaintiff for
his said wife by the defendant, by his
said agent, instead of the medicine
called for by the plaintiff as aforesaid.
And , the wife of the plaintiff,
without any fault on her part, took the
said oil of bitter almonds so put up
and sold by the defendant as aforesaid,
in the same manner and quantity that
she would have taken the oil of sweet
almonds and at the same time suppos-
ing it to be such, and afterwards on,
to-wit, the day of ,
19 — , the said
died from the
effects of said oil of bitter almonds,
so sold by the defendant and so taken
by her as aforesaid. And the plaintiff
says that on the day of
, 19 — y he was duly appointed
and qualified as administrator of the
estate of said and that said
: left her husband, the plain-
tiff herein, and two children
and as her next of kin, to the
damage of the plaintiff and the said
next of kin in the sum of
dollars.
Wherefore, etc. Based on Davis v.
Guarnieri, 45 Ohio St. 470, 15 N. E.
350.
HEARINQ
[See 9 Standard Proc. 565, and also
generally 11 Standard Proc. 1, et
seq.]
HEIRSHIP. — See Inheritance.
HIGHWAYS, STREETS AND
BBIBQES
[See 9 Standard Proc. 569, and gen-
eralhj 11 Standard Proc. 32, et seq.
See also Eminent Domain; Injuries
TO Persons and Property; :Motor
Vehicles; Negligence; Special As-
8E8SMSKT.
Complaint To Sestraln Opeoing of
Highway Defectively Laid Out.
(Title.)
The plaintiff complains and alleges:
That on and prior to the
day of , 19 — , the plaintiff was
and is the owner and in possession of
a certain tract or parcel of land de-
scribed as follows, to-wit: (desciibo
land).
That on the day of ,
19 — , a petition presented to the super-
visors (or other officers) of of
-, signed by more than
freeholders of the said
-, pray.
ing that a highway be laid out as fol-
lows, to-wit: (describe the proposed
highway and give terminals), which
said highway if laid out would run
over and through the land of the plain-
tiff hereinbefore described.
That upon the filing of said petition
the supervisors (or other officers) of
said (set forth in detail the
action taken by the board of super-
visors or other officers on the petition),
and made and signed an order pur-
porting to lay out said highway in ac-
cordance with said petition in which
said order said highway was described
as follows, to-wit: (give description of
highway as in the order laying out).
That said highway as laid out, runs
over and through the land of the plain-
tiff herein; that the plaintiff never con-
sented to the making of said order
laying out the said highway, nor made
any agreement with the said super-
visors (or other officers) concerning the
damages sustained by him by reason of
the laying out of said highway; that
said supervisors (or other officers) by
an order made on the day of
, 19 — , pretended to assess the
damages from the laying out of said
highway, and awarded as such dam-
ages to the plaintiff the sum of
dollars.
That on the day of ,
19 — , the said supervisors (or other
officers) gave notice in writing to the
plaintiff requiring him to remove the
fences upon his said land within the
bounds of said proposed highway as
aforesaid; that it is the intention of
said supervisors (or other officers) and
they so threaten that if the plaintiff
does not remove his said fences on or
before the day of ,
19 — , they will cause the same to be
roinovfd and to open said highway, in
case the plaintiff does not comply with
said order.
HUSBAND AND WIFS
107
That by feason of tho following facta
(sot out in detail the wrongful acts of
the supervisors or those done in excess
of authority) their said orders are null
and void; that by reason of said facts
the said supervisors (or other officers)
have no legal right to cause the re-
moval of the plaintiff's said fences;
that notwithstanding this, unless re-
strained by this court said supervisors
(or other officers) will remove the said
fences and open said highway, to the
great and irreparable injury of the
plaintiff herein; that plaintiff has no
adeouate and complete remedy at law.
Wherefore, the plaintiff prays judg-
ment that the said order laying out
said pretended highway, be declared
null and void and that said supervisors
(or other officers) and their successors
in office be perpetually enjoined from
removing the plaintiff's said fences
within the limits of said proposed high-
way or any part of said fences and
from opening said highway; and for
such other and further relief as may
be equitable, together with the costs
of this action. Based upon Ruhland r.
Jones, 55 Wis. 673, 13 N. W. 689.
Complaint Against City and Individual
for Damages Caused by Frightening
Horse on City Streets.
T. (Allege corporate existence of
city.)
IT. (Allege statutory conditions
precedent to suit against city — such as
notice or presentation of claim. See 9
Standard Proc. 857.)
TIT. That prior to the time herein-
after mentioned the defendant citj
negligently and carelessly licensed and
knowing] J' permitted upon its said
streets the use and operation of, and
defendant maintained and
operated (here describe the appliance
and its method of operation); which
said apparatus and the operation there-
of, in its ordinary use as aforesaid, was
calculated to frighten horses of ordi-
nary gentleness and to render them
unmanageable and dangerous.
rv. That on the day of
Indictment for Burning Bridge.
(Caption and commencement.)
That on the day of
, 19 — ;, while the plaintiff was
lawfully driving in and upon the said
streets (and in the exercise of due
care on his part), his horse took fright
at said apparatus and became wholly
unmanageable, whereby plaintiff ,was
thrown from his carriage and greatly
injured to his damage in the sum of
' dollars. Wherefore, etc.
19 — , at and in the county of
state aforesaid, with force
and arms did then and there unlawful-
ly, wantonly and maliciously set fire
to and burn a bridge (or public bridge),
the property of (in case of private
bridge, state name of owner; in case
of public bridge, ownership need not
be averred, but say, a public bridge,
erected by authority of law, over a
public road at [describing place where
bridge is located and if bridge known
by particular name, give it]).
(Conclusion.)
See Duncan v. State, 29 Fla. 439, 444,
10 So. 815.
HOMESTEADS ANB EXEMPTIONS
\Sce 0 Standard Proc. 571, and also
generally 11 Standard Proc. 284.]
Affidavit hy hanl'nipt as to, see Bank-
ruptcy i*RQCEEDINGS.
Order setting apart recorded homestead,
see Decedents' Estates.
Petition to set aside in probate court,
see Decedents' Estates.
Petition to vest homestead in survivor,
see Decedents' Estates.
HOMICIDE
[See 9 Standard Proc. 573, and gen
erally 11 Standard Proc. 568, et seq.
See aUo Indictment and Informa
tion.]
HUSBAND AND WIFE
[See 9 Standard. Proc. 587, and also
generally 11 Standard Proc. 694, et
seq.]
Alienation of affections, see Alienating
Affections.
Community property, petition to vest in
stirvivor, see Decedents' Estates.
Dower, see Dower, Proceedings To Re-
cover.
Petition To Become a Sole Trader.
(Title.)
The petition of , respectful-
ly shows:
That she is a married woman, the
wife of .
That she is now and has been for
six months next preceding the filing
of this petition a resident of said coun-
ty of , state of .
That she is desirous of becoming a
i08
HUSBAND AND WIFE
Bole trader under the provisions of
(state title of act governing), and ot
obtaining a decree authorizing her to
carry on, in her own name and on her
own account, in said county and state,
the business hereinafter mentioned.
That she makes this application in
good faith, to enable her to support
herself and others dependent upon her
for support, to-wit: (giving their names
and relation).
That she does not receive sufficient
support from her said husband for the
reason that (state causes of insufficient
support, if known).
That the reason why a divorce is
not sought from her said husband is
because (state reasons).
That the nature of the business pro-
posed to be conducted is (state general
nature of business).
That the capital (if any) to be in-
vested in said business is the follow-
ing, to-wit: : dollars.
That the sources from which said
capital is derived are the following,
to-wit: (stating them).
Wherefore, petitioner prays that the
court render judgment, authorizing her
to carry on in her own name and on
her own account, the business herein-
before described.
(Verification.)
Affldaylt of Sole Trader.
-, county of
(Title.)
State of
ss.
I, A. B., do, in presence of Almighty
God, solemnly swear that this applica-
tion was made in good faith, for the
purpose of enabling me to support my-
self (and any dependent, such as hus-
band, parent, sister, child, or the like,
naming them, if any), and not with
any view to defraud, delay, or hinder
any creditor or creditors of my hus-
band; and that of the moneys so to be
used by me in business, not more than
five hundred dollars have come, either
directly or indirectly, from my husband.
So help me, God.
(Jurat.)
Cal. Code Civ. Proc, §1818.
Complaint Against Married Woman as
Sole Trader.
The plaintiff in the above entitled
action complains against the defendant
herein and alleges:
That the defendant herein is a. mar-
ried woman, the wife of one .
That on the day of ,
court in and for tr.e
-, in this state, de-
19—, the
county of
creed the defendant a sole trader; that
at all the times hereinafter mentioned
the said defendant was and is a soN
trader doing business as (describe busi-
ness) at .
That on or about the day
of , 19 — , the plaintiff sold and
delivered to the defendant at her spe-
cial instance and request (describe
goods sold) of the value of
dollars, which said goods, wares and
merchandise were used by the defend-
ant in her business as such sole trader,
by reason whereof defendant became
indebted to the plaintiff in said sum
of dollars.
That the defendant has not paid the
same nor any part thereof, to the dam-
age of the plaintiff in the sum of
dollars.
Wherefore, etc.
Petition for (Separate Maintenance)
Alimony Wltbout Divorce.
(Title.)
The plaintiff in the above entitled
action complains against the defendant
herein and alleges:
That, etc. (alleging marriage of
plaintiff and defendant).
That, etc. (alleging residence).
That, etc. (alleging names and ages
of any children).
That on or about the day
of , 19 — , the defendant (state
facts as tq abandonment or desertion).
(That for a period of time said de-
fendant continued to contribute to her
support and maintenance separate and
apart from himself, or as the case may
be.)
That on or about the day
of , 19 — f the defendant ceased
and refused to further provide for the
plaintiff (and their said child or chil-
dren).
That at no time since the last men-
tioned date has the defendant con-
tributed or offered to contribute in any
way to the support and maintenance of
the plaintiff (and their said child or
children).
The plaintiff further avers that she
is entirely without means of support
for herself (and her said child or chil-
dren) during the pendency of this suit;
that she is without means to carry on
this action (that said child or children
are wholly dependent upon her for sup-
port, maintenance and education).
That the defendant is abundantly
IMPLIED AND EXPRESS AGREEMENTS
109
able to support the said plaintiff (and
their said child or children) and is
worthy as this plaintiff is informed and
believes, about the sum of
dollars, and is in constant receipt of
wages, from his daily labor, sufficient
for their said support jointly with
himself, to-wit, the sum of
dollars per month.
Wherefore, the plaintiff prays that
the defendant may be ordered to pay
the plaintiff a reasonable sum for the
maintenance of herself (and said child
or children) during the pendency of
this suit, and such further sum as will
enable her to carry on this action;
that on the final hearing herein she
may be decreed reasonable alimony out
of the property and income of the de-
fendant, together with the costs of this
suit and such other and further relief
as to the court may seem just.
ZLLEQALITT, HOW PLEADED
[See 9 Standard Proc. 593, and also
generally 11 Standard Peoc. 891.]
That Contract la Void by the Law of
the Place Where Made.
(Title.)
The defendant in the above entitled
action answering the plaintiff's com-
plaint herein says:
That the (contract) alleged in said
complaint was made without this state,
to-wit, in the state of , where
the defendant was then domiciled.
That by an act of the legislature of
said state of entitled (set
forth the title of the act and its date
of enactment) it is enacted (set forth
the law relied on).
That, etc. (showing that the contract
in question is not within any exceptions
in the statute, if there be any such
exceptions) .
Wherefore, etc.
IMMIORATION
[See generally 11 Standard Proc. 899,
et BeqS\
"Habeas corpus, petition for hy person
detained, see Habeas Corpus.
IMPLIED Ain> EXPRESS AQBEE-
MEKTS
[See generally 11 Standard Proc. 931.]
Answer claiming extension of time and
agreement not to sue, see Bills and
Notes.
Answer contract void hy law of place
where made, see Illegality, How
Pleaded.
Answer of failure to perform contract
and set-off of damages for breach, sec
Architects and Builders.
Answer of illegality of consideration of
promise to marry, see Breach of
Promise.
Cancellation of illegal contract, com-
plaint for by minority stoclcholders,
see Corporations.
Complaint for Damages for Breach of
Contract Besultixig in Loss of
Profits.
(Title.)
The plaintiff in the above entitled
action complains and alleges:
That on, to-wit, the day of
-, 19 — , plaintiff entered into
an agreement with defendant whereby
(state the substance of the agree-
ment); a copy of which agreement is
hereunto annexed marked exhibit " A, ' *
and made a part hereof.
That after the execution of afore-
said agreement the plaintiff entered
upon the performance of the said con-
tract and was performing the work
thereunder in a careful and workman-
like manner and in every way comply-
ing with the terms and conditions of
said contract, until thereafter, on the
day of , 19 — , when
the defendant wrongfully, improperly,
erroneously and without right, declared
said contract with the plaintiff for-
feited and thereby prevented and ever
since hab prevented the plaintiff from
performing and carr3dng on the work
contemplated by said contract.
That plaintiff expended large sums
of money in the preparation for and
execution of said contract, and con-
tracted large indebtedness in and about
doing what was necessary and proper
to be done under said contract (state
the nature and amount of the expendi-
tures in preparation for and in partial
execution of the contract).
That except for such wrongful for-
feiture and breach of said contract on
the part of defendant as aforesaid, the
plaintiff would have made and received
from the performance of said contract
in accordance with the terms and con-
ditions thereof great gains and profits,
to-wit: (state the estimated profit or
gain in single items if several parts to
contract).
That by reason of the premises plain-
tiff has been damaged in the sum of
dollars.
110
IMPLIED AND EXPRESS AGREEMENTS
Wherefore, etc.
Answer Failure of ConslderatioiL
(Title.)
The defendant in the above entitled
action answering the plaintiff's com-
plaint herein says:
That the note set forth in the said
complaint was given by the defendant
in payment of certain goods, wares and
merchandise described as follows, to-
wit: (describe merchandise, etc.) which
the plaintiff then and there pretended
to sell to the defendant; that said note
was without any other consideration
therefor.
That the plaintiff was not the owner
of said merchandise, but the same was
the property of one ; that
thereafter and on or about the
day of , 19 — , the said
brought an action of replevin against
this defendant for said merchandise;
that on the day of ,
19 — , the said
duly recovered
a .judgment therein awarding him pos
session of said merchandise; that in
pursuance thereof said took
said merchandise from the defendant.
That by reason of the premises there
was an entire failure of consideration
for said note.
Wherefore, etc.
IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT. — See
Habeas Corpus.
INCEST
[See 9 Standard Proc. 595, and also
generally, 12 Standard Proc. 1.]
INOOMPETENTS
[See generally 11 Standard Proc. 13,
ft aeq. See also Guardian ad Litem;
Guardian and Ward; Infants.]
INDEMNITY
[See 9 Standard Proc. 595, and also
generally 12 Standard Proc. 21.]
Conyplailnt against maTcer by payee who
has been held as indorser, see Bills
AND Notes.
Complaint Against Agent for Negli-
gence in Presenting Check.
(Title.)
The plaintiff in the above entitled
action complains against the defendant
herein and alleges:
That at all times hereinafter men-
tioned the plaintiff was and now is a
corporation duly organized and exist-
ing under the laws of the state of
and conducting a general
banking business at , in the
county of .
That at all times hereinafter men-
tioned the defendant was and now it
(continue as in first paragraph).
That previous to the acts herein-
after complained of, the said plaintiff
and said defendant had entered into an
agreement whereby said defendant was
for a compensation, to act as general
agent for the plaintiff in the coUectioD
of all drafts, checks and other nego-
tiable instruments payable in or in the
vicinity of said city of , and
whereby said defendant undertook to
use due care and diligence in said col-
lections.
That on the day of ,
19 — , the firm of deposited
with the plaintiff for collection a check
drawn by on the
bank in said city of for the
sum of dollars, which said
check was in the words and figures fol-
lowing, to-wit: (set out copy of check
with endorsements thereon).
That the plaintiff immediately there-
upon in the ordinary course of busi-
ness forwarded said check to the de-
fendant, its agent as aforesaid, for col-
lection.
That as plaintiff is informed and be-
lieves and therefore alleges the fact to
be, the defendant received said check
on the day of — i , 19 — .
That as plaintiff is informed and be-
lieves and therefore alleges the fact to
be the defendant wrongfully failed
and neglected to present said check to
said bank for payment, for a
period of days after receiving
the same as aforesaid, by reason of
which neglect and delay said check was
not presented to said bank
until the day of ,
19 — , in the afternoon thereof, at which
time payment thereof was refused, and
the reason given therefor was that said
had no funds on deposit with
said bank.
That on the day that said check was
received by the defendant and on all
of the days following there were funds
of the said on deposit with
said bank sufficient to meet
said check which said funds were avail-
able for that purpose, and if said check
had been presented in the ordinary
x^ourse of business the same would have
been paid.
»-^ —
INDICTMENT AND IXFOEMATIOX
111
That on the above facts
brought' an action against the plaintiff
herein in the court alleging
negligence in the collection of said
check, and demanding judgment for the
amount of said check with interest and
costs. That the plaintiff herein gave
due notice of said action to the defend-
ant herein showing that the plaintiff
herein would be primarily liable for
such negligence, if found, but that the
defendant herein would be bound to
indemnify the plaintiff herein. That at
that time the plaintiff offered to said
defendant the control of the defense
in said action but said defendant re-
fused and neglected to take part in
said defense. That said re-
covered judgment against the plaintiff
in the sum of dollars, being
the amount of said check together with
interest thereon and costs of suit.
That the plaintiff herein conducted
the defense in said action with due
diligence. That after judgment against
it the plaintiff herein gave notice of
said judgment to the defendant herein,
but said defendant declined and refused
to take any part in said proceedings.
That the principal issue litigated In
the said action, without an affirmative
finding upon which, as the issues de-
veloped, a verdict for the then plaintiff
could not have been given, was tho
existence of negligence on' the part of
the defendant herein. That such ver-
dict was given and the negligence of
the defendant herein was thereby es-
tablished. That the plaintiff herein was
primarily liable for such negligence,
but that the defendant herein was
liable to the plaintiff herein.
That by reason of the negligence of
the defendant herein and bv reason of
the said judgment and the affirmance
thereof and by reason of the necessary
defense of the said action the plaintiff
herein was obliged to pay and did pay
at various times large sums of money
in satisfaction of said judgment, costs
and disbursements; amounting in all to
the sum of dollars. That al-
though the plaintiff made due demand
upon the defendant for reimbursement
for the above mentioned payments the
defendant refused and ever since has
refused and neglected to pay the same,
and still refuses and neglects to pay
the same.
Wherefore, etc.
INDIANS
[Sec 9 Standard Proc. 598, and also
generally, 12 Standard Proc. 36.]
INDICTMENT AND INFORMATION
[See 9 Standard Proc. 598; and also
generally 12 Standard Proc. 53, et
seq,]
Against accessory where principal is un-
known, see Accessories and Accom-
PLPCES.
Burglary, possession of hurglariotis tools,
see Burglary.
Complaint for contributing to delinquen-
cy of minor, see Infants.
For burning bridge, see Highways,
Streets and Bridges.
For concealment of birth and death, see
Infants.
For driving animals from range or pas-
ture, see Animals.
For false personation, see False Per-
sonation.
For fraudulent conveyance, see 10 Stand-
ard Proc. 212.
F(9r gaming, see Gaming.
For removing mortgaged property, see
Chattel Mortgages.
For selling mortgaged property, see
Chattel Mortgages.
For violation of election laws, see Elec-
tions.
Information for contributing to delin-
quency of female, see Infants.
Motion to withdraw plea of not guilty
and file motion to quash, see Arraign-
ment AND Plea.
Motion To Quasli.
(Caption.)
Comes now the above-named defend-
ant and moves the court to quash the
indictment (or information) filed
against him in said cause, for the fol-
lowing reasons, to-wit: (giving rea-
sons).
Motion To Compel Election Between
Counts.
(Caption.)
Comes now the above-named defend-
ant and moves the court to compel the
prosecution to elect between (etc.,
stating counts between which it is
sought to have an election made), and
state which it will rely on; and that
on such election the other count be
quashed; or in default of the prosecu-
tion so electing, then that the
count be quashed for the reason (state
reason).
112
INDUCEMENT
INDUCEMENT
[See 12 Standard Proc. 718, 720.]
INFANTS
[See 9 Standard Pboc. 607, and also
generally 12 Standard Proc. 727, et
aeq; Guardian ad Litem; Guardian
AND Ward; Parent and Child.]
Decree Bemoving DlsabllitieB of Minor.
(Title.) '
This cause, coining on to be heard
on the day set for the hearing of the
same, to-wit, on the day of
, 19—, and it appearing to the
satisfaction of the court from an in-
spection of the petition in the cause
and from the affidavits of
and filed therein that it will
be to the interest of the said
to be relieved of the disabilities of
non-ago, and that the said ^— ^— is
over the age of eighteen years, and of
discreet and mature judgment, and
competent to manage his own property
and business, it is therefore, ordered,
adjudged and decreed that the dis-
abilities of non-age of the said
be, and the same are hereby, removed,
BO as to invest him with the right to
sue and be sued, contract and be con-
tracted with, to buy, sell, and convey
real estate, and generally to do and
perform all acts which said minor could
lawfully do if twenty-one years of
age. Sustained in Boykin v. Collins,
140 Ala. 407, 37 So. 248. In some states
the decree should show that the neces-
sary preliminary steps were taken. 12
Standard Proc. 807.
Indictment for Concealment of Death
of Bastard Child.
(Caption and commencement.)
That on or about the day
of ^ (naming accused),
was pregnant with a child; that th*^
Baid was at said time an un-
married woman (or otherwise as the
facts may be).
That said child if born alive would
have been a bastard.
That the said was on the
^— — day of , 19 — , at the
• of , in said county
and state, delivered of said child.
That said child was afterwards found
to be dead.
That the said , after the
birth of said child, did wilfully and
wickedly endeavor to conceal the fact
of the death of said child, the issue
of her body, that it might not be known
whether such issue was bom alive or
not, or whether it was not murdered
(or otherwise follow the wording of
the statute).
(Conclusion.)
Petition To Declare One Ward of
Juvenile Court.
(Title of court.)
In the Matter of , a person
under twenty-one years of age.
To the honorable — — — eonrt of
the county of , state of
Your petitioner , respectful-
ly represents that the above named
herein is now residing within said
county and is a person under the age
of twenty-one years, to-wit, of the age
of years, on or about the
day of , 19 — , and
is a person defined in subdivision
— of section one, within the
meaning of the act of the legislature
of said state, entitled: "An Act to
be known as the Juvenile Court Law,
approved , 19 — . That the said
person comes within the provisions of
section of said act and more
particularly said person (set forth
facts bringing person proceeded against
within act).
That the said person is now in the
custody and control of .
That your petitioner is the
of said person and is entitled to the
custody thereof.
That the names and residences of
the relatives of said person living in
the said county are as follows: (stat-
ing names and residences).
That in order to secure the attend-
ance of said person at the hearing of
said matter, it will not be necessary
that a warrant be issued for the arrest
of said person .
Wherefore, your petitioner prays that
this honorable court inquire into such
matter and declare said person a ward
of the juvenile court and deal with
said person as provided in the above
entitled act of the legislature, and
make such order in the premises as to
this honorable court may seem meet
and proper, to which order your peti-
tioner now consents.
(Verification.)
Criminal Complaint Against One Con-
tributing to Delinquency of Minor.
(Caption.)
Personally appeared before me, this
INFANTS
113
day of
of the county of
-, 19-,
state of
who, being first duly sworn,
on oath, complains and says: That on
or about the day of ,
19 — , at , in the county of
state of
the crime
of misdemeanor was committed by the
defendant , who at the time
and place last aforesaid, did wilfully
and unlawfully commit the acts and
omit the duties hereinafter more par-
ticularly set forth; all of which mani-
festly tended to cause, and did en-
courage, contribute to, and cause one
, who was then and there a
—male person under the age of
twenty-one years, to come within, and
remain a person within the provisions
of section of an act of the
legislature of the state of ,
entitled "An Act to be known as the
Juvenile Court Law, etp.," approved
, 19 — , in the manner follow-
ing, to- wit: That at the time end place
last aforesaid, said defendant
did wilfully and unlawfully (state act
committed), all of which ^ilful and
unlawful acts and course of conduct
as aforesaid did thereby then
and there manifestly tend to and did
encourage, cause and contribute to the
said becoming and remaining
such a person as is described in said
section of said juvenile court
law, to-wit: A person under twenty-
one years of age who is .
All of which is contrary to the form
of the statute in such cases made and
provided, and against the peace and
dignity of the people of the state of
Said complainant therefore prays that
a warrant be issued for the arrest of the
said defendant — and that — he — may
be dealt with according to law.
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this day of , 19 — .
Judge of the said court sitting as a
commiting magistrate.
Oommltment on Oomplaint for Con-
trlbuting to DeUnquency of Minor.
(Caption.)
The people of the state of ,
to the sheriff of the county of
It appearing to me that the offense
of a misdemeanor, to-wit, the commis-
sion of acts and the omission of duties
that manifestly tended to cause and
did encourage, contribute to and cause
one , who was then and there
a male person under the age of
twenty-one years to come within and
to remain a person within the pro-
visions of section of an act
of the legislature of the state of
, entitled, "An Act to be
known as the Juvenile Court Law,
etc.,'* approved , 19 — , has
been committed, and that there is
sufficient cause to believe the within
named defenTSant guilty
thereof, I hereby order that — ^he — be
held to answer to the same, and that
ho be admitted to bail in the sum of
dollars, and that — ^he — be
committed to the sheriff of
county until — ^he — give such bail or
be legally discharged.
Dated (etc.).
Judge of the
court, sitting as
committing magistrate.
Information for Contributing to De-
linquency of Female.
(Caption.)
The said is accused by the
district (or prosecuting attorney) in
and for the county of , state
of , by this information of the
crime of a misdemeanor (or felony as
the case may be). The said
on- or about the day of ,
19—^, and prior to the filing of this
information, at and in the county of
, state of , did wil-
fully and unlawfully (and in case of-
fense constitutes a felony, add felon-
iously) commit acts and omit duties
hereinafter more particularly set forth;
that at the time and place last afore-
said, the said defendant did
wilfully and unlawfully (and felonious-
ly) take one , a female person
of the age of years, to a
(state place, hotel, etc.), in the
of , and give her
intoxicating liquors to drink, and un-
dress and go to bed together, she, the
said , not then and there be-
ing married to the said defendant.
All of which wilful and unlawful
(and felonious) acts and course of con-
duct, as aforesaid, did thereby then
and there manifestly intend to do,
and did encourage, cause, and con-
tribute to the said becoming
and remaining such a person as is de-
Boribed in section of the
juvenile court law of the state of
114
INFANTS
, and cause her to be in danger
of leading an idle, dissolute and im-
moral life.
(Conclusion.)
INFORMATION. — See Indictment
AND Information.
INFORMATION AND BELIEF
[See 9 Standard Proc. 615, and also
geiierally, 12 Standard Proc. 888, et
seq.]
INHEBITANCE
[See 9 Standard Proc. 616, and also
generally 12 Standard Proc. 912;
Decedents' Estates; Executors and
Administrators.]
Entry of Default on Petition To Ascer-
tain Heirship.
(Title.)
The following named persons, to-wit:
(giving names) who alleged
to have or claim some right or inter-
est in the estate of , deceased,
having failed to appear in the mat-
ter of the petition of to have '
the rights and interests of all persons
in said estate declared, and said per-
sons having each been duly served
with notice of said petition as required
by law and by the order of the court,
and the time limited for such appear-
ance having expired, it is ordered and
adjudged by the court that said* per-
sons so failing to appear as aforesaid
are in default in said proceedings, and
that the same be l^eard and determined
in their absence.
Decree Establishing Heirship.
(Title.)
Comes now , the petitioner
herein by , h— attorney—,
and also comes , complainant
herein, by , h— attorney—,
and (giving other appearances) and
(insert names of persons not appear-
ing) come not but herein make de-
fault, each of them having been duly
served with process herein, and
failed to answer or plead to
the complaint of filed herein,
evidence and arguments of counsel, the
court makes and renders judgment as
follows, to-wit:
It is ordered, adjudged and decreed
by the court that died
— testate on the • day of
j^ 19 — , leaving surviving as h —
only heirs at law the persons whose
names and relationship to said decedent
are as follows, to-wit: (giving names
and relationship).
(If deceased died intestate, proceed
thus: And that thereupon the estate
of saia decedent descended to his said
heirs at law, and is now vested in
them, subject to administration, in the
following proportions, to-wit: The said
is the owner of an undivided
thereof; the said ,
etc., giving amount each is entitled to;
and each of said persons is entitled to
distribution of said estate according to
his or her respective rights and inter-
ests herein set forth,) or (if deceased
died testate proceed thus: That said
decedent left a will which has been
duly admitted to probate herein, and
that by the terms of said will the
whole of the said estate is devised and
bequeathed as follows, to-wit: A spe-
cific money legacy of $ is be-
queathed to ; the following
personal property is bequeathed to
, to-wit: (describe prG'j>erty);
the following described real estate' is
devised to , to-wit: (d£Sfrip-
tion of property). To be held (etc.,
giving any conditions or limitations)
and all the residue of said estate is
disposed of as follows: (describe); and
that upon the distribution of said es-
tate the said devisees and legatees are
entitled to the rjBspective portions there-
of as above set forth, and that in case
the estate is not sufficient to satisfy
all the said bequests and devises the
order of priority shall be as follows:
(state order).
the said — = are each adjudged to
be in default accordingly, and ,
having failed to answer or plead to
the complaint of filed herein,
said are each adjudged to be
in default accordingly, and the issues
being joined, the court proceeds to tho
trial thereof, and after hearing the
IN JUNCTIONS
[See 9 Standard Proc. 620, and also
generally 12 Standard Proc. 991, ei
seq.]
Complaint against proprietor of house of
prostitution, see Adjoining Land-
owners.
Complaint to en jam boycott, see Con-
spiracy.
Complaint to restrain opening of high-
way, see Highways, Strekts and
Bridges.
INJURIES TO PEKSOXS AND PROPERTY
115
Complaint to set aside assignment for
benefit of creditors and injunctioUt sec
Assignment for Benefit of Cred-
ITORS.
Bill by Railroad Against Another Ball-
road To Enforce Handling of Cars.
The plaintiff complaina and says:
That at all times hereinafter men-
tioned (etc., alleging the corporate ex-
istence of plaintiff) ; that the complain-
ant is the owner of a line of railroad
from (designate general route); that a
large part of its business consists in
the transportation of freight cars from
points in the states of ,
and to points in , and
other states
(east ■ or west,
etc.) thereof; that it is engaged as a
common carrier in a large amount of
interstate commerce which is regulated
and controlled by the Interstate Com-
merce Act of Congress.
That,* etc. (alleging corporate exist-
ence of defendant and that the defend-
ant owns and operates a railroad, etc.).
That the defendant's line of railroad
connects with the complainant's said
line at or near (giving name
of place); that a large and important
part of the complainant's business con-
sists in the interchange of freight cars
between the complainant and defend-
ant; which said interchange of ears is
subject to the provisions and regula-
tions of the Interstate Commerce Act;
that it is the duty of the defendant to
afford reasonable and equal facilities
for the interchange of traffic and to
receive, forward and deliver freight
cars in the ordinary transaction of busi-
ness, without any discrimination.
That on or about the day
of , 19 — , and on divers other
days and dates between said day and
the commencement of this action, the
defendant and its employes refused to
receive, and have since continued to
refuse to receive, and have given out
and threatened that they will refuse to
receive, from the complainant cars
billed over its said railroad, for trans-
portation by the complainant to their
destination, for the reason that the
complainant employs as locomotive engi-
neers in its service, men who are not
members of the Brotherhood of Loco-
motive Engineers; that the defendant
and the locomotive engineers in the
employ of the defendant have refused
and (lo rrfuse to handle cars to be
interchanged with the complainant's
said railroad for the reason aforesaid;
notwithstanding that they, the defend-
ant and its employes continue to af-
ford the other railroad companies full
and free facilities for the interchange
of traffic, while refusing to transact
such business with the complainant,
thereby illegally discriminating against
the complainant, whereby the complain-
ant will suffer' irreparable injury; that
complainant has no adequate or com-
plete remedy at law.
Wherefore, the complainant prays
that an order may issue from this
court directed to the defendant, its offi-
cers, agents, servants and employes en-
joining them from refusing to afford
and extend to the complainant, the
same facilities for an interchange of
interstate business between the com-
plainant and the defendant as are en-
joyed by other railroad companies, and
from refusing to receive from the com-
plainant cars billed from points in one
state to points in another state which
the complainant may offer to the de-
fendant and for such other and further
relief as may be just. Based on In re
Lennon, 166 IT. 8. 548, 17 Sup. Ct. 658,
41 L. ed. 1110.
INJX7BIES TO PEBSONS AND PBOP-
EBTY
[See this title iphen ptiblifihed. See
also 9 Standard Prog. 635.]
Complaint against proprietor of hoiiftc of
prostitution for damages and injunc-
tion, see Adjoining Landowners.
Complaint for alienating husband's af-
fections, see Alienating Affections.
Complaint for backing up water, see
Adjoining Landowners.
Complaint for damages caused by vibrat-
ing machinery, see Adjoining Land-
owners.
Complaint for damages for blasting, see
Adjoining Landowners.
Complaint for death by coming in con-
tact with live wire, see Electricity.
Complaint for negligent excavation, see
Adjoining Landowners.
Damages by carrier, allegation of, see
10 Standard Proc. 248.
Frightening horse on city streets, com-
plaint against city and ind^idual, see
Highways, Streets and Bridges.
Injuries by animals, see Animals; Tres-
passing Animals.
Injimcs to animals, see Animals;
Freight Carriers.
Injuries to stock while being transported,
see Freight Carbiebs.
116
INNS AND INNKEEPERS
INNS AND INNEEEPEBS
[See this title when published,
also 9 Standabd Proc. 649.]
See
INQUntY, WBIT OF
[See this title when published,
also 9 Standard Proc. 651.]
See
INSANE PEBSONS
[See this title when published. See
also 9 Standard Proc. 653.]
False imprisonment, complaint against
physiciati, see False Imprisonment.
Habeas corpus, petition on behalf of
person detained as insane, see Habeas
Corpus.
INSOLVENOT
[See this title when published. See
also ArsSTQNMENTS TOR THE BENEFIT
OP Creditors; Fraudulent Convey-
ances.]
Allegation of, see 10 Standard Proc. 165.
Of bank, complaint by creditor to close
up business, see Corporations.
INSPECTION. — See Discovery,
INSTBUCnONS
[See this title when published.l
INSURANOE
[See this title when published,
also 9 Standard Proc. 657.]
INTEREST
[See this title wheii published.]
INTEBNAIi REVENUE
[See this title when published,
also Penalties y Forfeitures
Fines; Search and Seizure.
See
See
AND
INTERPLEADER
[See this title when published. See
also 9 Standard Proc. 664; and De-
posit IN Court.]
Anstver of interpleader by garnishee, see
Garnishment.
Order interpleading claimant to gar-
nished property, see Garnishment.
INTERSTATE COMMERCE
[See this title when published,
also 9 Standard Proc, 671.]
See
INTERVENTION
[See this title when published. Set
also 9 Standard Proc. 673.]
Petition by creditor to be mads cO'plain<^
tiff in action to set aside conveyance,
see Feiaudulekt Conveyances.
Petition for by third person whose prop-
erty is attached, see Attachment.
Petition for in bankruptcy proceedings, '
see Bankruptcy Proceedings.
INTOXICATINQ LIQUORS
[See this titfie when published,
also 9 Standard Proc. 676.]
JEOPARDF
[See this title when published,
also 9 Standard Proc. 686.]
See
See
See
JOINDER OF ACTIONS
t
[See this title when published,
also 9 Standard Proc. 687.]
Demurrer for misjoinder, see Demubkeb.
JOINT STOOK COMPANIES
[See this title when published,^
JOINT TENANTS
[See this title when publ%shed.1
JUDGMENT RECORDS
[See this title when published. See aUo
9 Standard Proc. 687.]
JUDGMENTS
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proc. 710.]
See Arrest of Judgment; Audita
Querela; Decrees; Default; Elec-
tions; Garnishment.
see
Answer of fraud in recovery of.
Fraud and Deceit.
Bill or complaint to set aside, see Bills
to Impeach Judgments and De-
crees.
JUDGMENTS Ain> DECREES, EN-
FORCEMENT OF
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proc. 724.]
Decree setting aside fraudulent convey-
ancc and giving leave to proceed in
execution, see Decrees.
Writ of assistance, see Assistance,
Writs of.
LIENS
117
JUDOMENTS Ain> DEOBEES,
VIVAL OF
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proc. 747.]
JUDGMENTS, SATISFACTION OF
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proc. 748]
JUDICIAL OFFICEBS
[Se^ this title when pubHshed."]
JUDICIAL SALES
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proc. 546, 749.]
Application for order to sell perishable
attached property, see Attachment.
Notice of motion to vacate sale, see
Decedents' Estates.
Objection to order for sale, see Deced-
ents ' Estates.
Petition of executor or administrator to
sell personal property, see Decedents '
Estates.
JUBIBS AND JUBOBS
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proc. 752; and Verdict.]
Bill of exception for challenge to or
misccmduct of juror, see Bills op Ex-
ceptions.
JUBISDICTION
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proc. 756.]
Demurrer for lacTc of, see Demurrer.
JUSTICES OF THE PEACE
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proc. 758.]
JUSTIFICATION
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proc. 758.]
JUVENILE COURTS. — See Infants.
KIDNAPING
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proc. 759.]
LABOB UNIONS
[See this title when published. See also
Injunctions.]
C<ynspiracy to boycott, complaint on, see
Conspiracy,
LACHES
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proc. 760.]
LANDLOBD AND TENANT *
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proc. 760.]
Complaint in ejectment by tenant, see
Ejectment.
Complaints for forcible entry and de-
tainer, see Forcible Entry and De-
tainer.
LANDS AND LAND TBANSFEBS
[See this title when published. See also
Adjoining Landowners ; Covenant,
Action op; Ejectment; Injuries to
Persons and Property; Bpormation;
Vendor and Purchaser; Waste.]
Petition to terminate life estate, see
Decedents' Estates.
"Reversions, injury to, see 9 Standard
Proc. 1089.
Warranty, action on, see 9 Standard
Proc. 1259.
LABCENT
[See this title when published,
9 Standard Proc. 772.]
See also
LAWYEB AND CLIENT
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proc. 139; and Substitu-
tion op Attorney.]
- LEWDNESS
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proc. 774.]
LIBEL AND SLANDEB
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proc. 775.]
Answer of parent denying malice and
alleging parental advice, see Alienat-
ing Affections.
Complaint by alienating husband's af-
fections by slandering wife,
Alienating Affections.
see
LICENSES
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proc. 789.]
LIENS
[See this title when published. See al89
9 Standard Proc, 790.]
118
LIMITATION OF ACTIONS
LIFE ESTATES AND REMAINDERS.
See 9 Standard Proc. 790. See also
Lands and Land Transfeks.
Petition to terminate life estate, see
Decedents' Estates
LIMITATION OF ACTIONS
[See this title when pvhlished. See also
9 Standard Proc. 790.]
LIS PENDENS
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proc. 795.]
LIVEBY STABLES
[See this title when published.']
LOAN ASSOCIATIONS
[See this title when published.]
LOGS AND LOGGING
■
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proc. 796.]
LOST INSTBUMENTS
[Sec this title tchen published. See also
9 Standard Proc. 798.]
Complaint on lost note, see Bills and
Notes.
LOTTEBIES
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proc. 799.]
MALICIOirS MISCHIEF
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proc. 800.]
MALICIOUS PBOSECUTION
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proc. 803.]
MANDAMUS
[See this title when published. See also
' 9 Stand.\rd Proc. 806.]
Application for writ to eompcl court
stenographer to write out and file ex-
ceptions, see Bills of Exceptions.
Demurrer to return to alternative writ,
see Demurrer.
MANDATE
[See tins title when pvhUshrd. See also
9 Standard Proc. 815, 1051.]
MABBIAQE
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proc. 817.]
Complaint for separate maintenance, see
Husband and Wife.
Complaint to declare marriage void, see
Divorce.
MARRIED WOMEN. — See Husband
AND Wife.
MABSHALING ASSETS
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proc. 817.]
MASTEB AND SEBVANT
[See this title when published. See aUo
9 Standard Proc. 819.]
Derlarati&n against railroad company
for assault by employe, see Assault
AND Battery.
Enticing away apprentice, see Apfben-
tices.
Indictment for mtimidation of employe
at electian, see Elections.
MAYHEM
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proc. 824.]
MECHANICS' LIENS
[See this title when pjiblished. See also
9 Standard Proc. 824.]
MINES AND MINERALS
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proc. 828.]
Accounting among co-tenants of an oil
and gaji lease, see Account and Ac-
counting.
MISOEOENATION
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proc. 829.]
MISTAKE
[See this title ivhen published. Sec also
9 Standard Proc. 830.]
Jxccovery by banJc of amount of checl;
paid by mistake, sec Banks and Bank-
ing.
MONEY COUNTS
r.^r^ this title when published. See otoO
MoN£7 Had and Beceivbd.1
NOTICE
119
MONE7 HAD AND BECEIVED
[See this title when puhlished. See also
9 Standard Proc. 830; Assumpsit.]
M0K0P0LIE8
[See ikis title when published. See also
9 Standard Proc. 831.]
MOBTOAGES
[See this title when puhlished. See also
9 Standard Prog. 832.]
Chnttelf complaint for redemption after
voidable sale to Tnortgagee, see Chat-
tel MORTGAOBS.
Complaint by judgment creditor to avoid,
see Chattel Mortgages.
Complaint for conversion of mortgaged
chattels, see Chattel Mortgages.
Comphnnt to recover mortgaged chat-
tds, see Chattel Mortgages.
MOnOMB
[See ihis title when published. See also
9 Standard Prog. 852.]
For XMpectiqn of boolcs and documents,
see Discovery.
Far leave to file interrogatories, see
TCqum Jurisdiction and Procedure.
For leave to withdraw plea, etc., see
Arraignment and Plea.
For reinstatement of appeal, see Ap-
PBAI.S.
In arrest of judgment, see Arrest of
Judgment.
Notice of motion for continuance, see
Continuances.
To expunge or strike out interrogatories,
see Discovery.
To make more definite and certain, see
Certainty in Pleading.
To quash indictment, see Indictment
AND Information.
To quash writ, see Certiorari.
To set aside default, see Default.
To strike ov^t parts of biU or answer,
see Equity Jurisdiction and Pro-
cedure.
To suppress answers, see Discovery.
To suppress deposition, see Depositions.
MOTOB VEHICLES
[See this title when published. See also
Injuries to Persons and Prop-
erty.]
NAMES
[See this title when puhlished. See also
Indictment and Information.]
4T
False name signed to note, complaint on,
see Bills and Notes.
NE EXEAT
[See this title when puhlished. See also
9 Standard Proc. 860.]
HATUBALIZATION
[See this title when published.']
NEOXJOENCE
[See tlUs title when published. See also
9 Standard Proc. 864; Injuries to
Persons and Property.]
Answer that excavating was done by
skiUful and careful contractor, see
Adjoining Land Owners.
Complaint far negligent excavation, see
Adjoining Landowners.
Injury to stock while being transported,
see Freight Carreers.
In presenting check or draft, see Banks
AND Banking; Indemnity.
Of carrier, see 10 Standard Proc. 246.
NEUTkAlflnr LAWS
[See this title when puhlished. See also
9 Standard Proc. 870]
NEWBPAFEB8
[See this title when published.']
NEW TBIAL
[See this title when puhlished. See also
9 Standard Prog. 872.]
NOLO CONTENDEBE. — See 9 Stand-
ard Proc. 92.
NOLIiB PBOSEQXTI
[See this title when puhlished. See also
9 Standard Proc. 876.]
NOTARIES
[See this title when published.]
NOTICE
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proc. 876.]
Of defence, with plea of general issue,
see 9 Standard Proc. 879.
Of motion for continuance, see Continu-
ances.
Of motion for inspection, see Discovery,
Of motion to set aside default, see De-
fault.
Of motion to suppress deposition, see
Depositions.
120
NUISANCE
NOVATION. — ^iwiow- of making and
performance of new contract, see Ac-
OOBD AND Satisfaction.
NUISANCE
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Peoc. 879.]
NX7I. TIEL BEOOBD
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Prog. 888.]
OATH AND AFFIRMATION
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proc. 888.]
OBJECTIONS AND EXCEPTIONS
[See this title when published. See also
Bills of Ezoeptions.
OBSCENITY'
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proc. 888.]
OBSTBUCTINa JUSTICE
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proc. 890.]
OBTAININO PB0PEBT7 BY FALSE
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proc. 892.]
OFFICEBS
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proc. 895.]
OBDEBS
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Prog. 900.]
Binding out apprentice, see Apprentices.
Citation on application to revoke letters,
see Decedents' Estates.
Setting apart recorded homestead, see
Decedents' Estates.
To show cause why amendment to bill
of particulars should not be allowed,
see Bills of Particulars.
To show cause why party should not
be adjudged in contempt, see Con-
tempt.
OTEB AUTD PBOFEBT
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proc. 909.]
PABDON
[See this title when published. See aUo
9 Standard Proc. 909.]
PABENT AND CHILD
[See this title when published. See aUo
9 Standard Proc. 910.]
Civil action for catuing miscarriage of
plaintiff's daughter, see Abortion.
Habeas corpus, answer to petition for
writ, see Habeas Corpus.
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proc. 912.]
Demurrer for defect or misjoinder of,
see Demurrer.
Making co-payee defendant for refusal
to Join as plaintiff, see BiLUi and
Notes.
N on- Joinder of co-obligor, see Abate-
ment, Pleas of.
}f on- Joinder of plaintiffs guardian see
Abatement, Pleas of.
Petition by Judgment creditor to be
made co-plaintif in action to set aside
conveyance, see Fraudyusnt Oonvet-
ANCES.
Plaintiff not the real party in interest —
previous assignment, see Abatbmxst,
Pleas of.
PABTITION
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proc. 916.]
Dower, complaint for partition of lands
in which there is dower interest, see
Dower, Proceedings to Becoveb^
:-i:J:i:ii:
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proc. 930.]
PABT7 WALLS
[See this title when published.']
Complaint against co-tenant for neg-
ligent injury to, see Adjoinino Land-
owners.
PASSENGEBS
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proc. 940; Injuries to
Persons and Property.]
PATENTS
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proc. 943; Copyrights;
Injunctions ; Trade - Mai^s and
Trade Names.]
PRINCIPAL AND AGENT
121
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standabd Pboc. 948.1
PAWNBBOKEBS
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Peoc. 789.]
PAYMENT
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standabd Prog. 950.]
To assignor before notice, see Assign-
ments.
To plaintiff's creditor, see Acoord and
Satisfaction.
PENALTIES, FOBFEirUBES AND
FINES
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard |Proo. 953.]
PENSIONS AND BOUNTIES
[See this title when publish€d,'\
PEBJUEY
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proc. 960.]
PEBSONAL PBOPEBTY
[See this title when published. See also
Freight Carriers.]
Judicial sales of, see Decedents' Es-
tates; Judicial Sales.
That goods were destroyed without fault
of defendant, see Account and Ac-
counting.
PETITIONS
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proc. 966; and the spe-
cific titles dealing with particular
subject-matter.]
PHYSICAL EXAMINATION
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proc. 968.]
PHYSICIANS AND SUBGEONS
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Prog. 968.]
Affidavit by physician as to illness of
party, see Continuances.
Complaint against physician for declar-
ing plaintiff insane, see False Im-
prisonment.
PIBAOY
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proc. 971.]
PLEADING
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proc. 971, and particular
titles.]
Duplicity, notice of motion to compel
election, see Duplicity.
Filing, see 9 Standard Proc. 604.
Motion to make more definite and cer-
tain, see Certainty in Pleading.
PLEA IN EQUITY
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proc. 972.]
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proc. 979; and Abate-
ment, Pleas of; Answers; Arraign-
ment AND Plea; Detinue; and other
specific titles.]
PLEDGES
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proc. 985.]
Complaint for deficiency after sale of
collateral security, see Bills and
Notes.
Defense that stocJc is held merely as
pledgee, see Corporations.
POISONS. — See Health.
POOL SELLING, BUCKET SHOPS,
etc. — See 10 Standard Proc. 352.
POST OFFICE
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proc. 987.]
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proc. 990.]
PRFJiTMTNABY EXAMINATION
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proc. 991.]
PRINCIPAL AND AGENT
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proc. 994.J
Answer that defendant signed draft as
officer of corporation, see Bills and
Notes.
122
PRINCIPAL AND SURETY
Complaint against factor, see Factobs
▲KD Bbokebs.
Counterclaim against factor of undis-
closed principal^ see Factobs and
Bbokzks.
PBINOIPAL Aia> SUBETT
[See this title when published. See also
0 Standard Pbog. 998.]
Petition by surety to he released from
administrator's bond, see Decedsnts'
Estates.
PBI80N8 Aia> FBISOKSBS
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standabd Peoc. 1079.]
PBIVATE AND TOUi B0AD8
[See this title when published.]
PBivnisaB
[See this title when published. See aUo
9 Standard Peoc. 1000.]
PRIZE FIOHTINa
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Pboc. 1000.]
PBOBATE 0OX7BTS
[See this title when published. See also
Decedents' Estates; Executors and
Administrators ; Guardian and
Ward; Infants; Inheritance; In-
sane Persons; Wills.]
PB0GE88
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proc. 1002; and Service
OF Process and Papers.]
Variance between writ and declaration,
see Abatement, Pleas of.
Waiver of, see Appearances.
PB0FANIT7
[See this title when publisTied. See also
9 Standard Proc. 1006.]
PROHIBITION
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proc. 1007.]
PBOSTITUTION
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proc. 1009.]
Complaint against proprietors of house
of prostitution for damages and in-
junction, see Adjoining Landowners.
FUBLIO DSUinCENNESS
[See this title when pubUshed. See d»
9 Standard Pboc. 1010.]
FUBIJO LANDS
[See this title when pubUshedJ]
PUBUO 8BBVICE COEFOBATIOIIS
[See this title when published. See oIm
9 Standabd Pboc. 1011.]
Pma DABBEIN OONXmnANCE
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standabd Pboc. 1011.]
Bankruptcy puis darrein continuance,
see Abatement, Pleas of.
PUBS FOOD LAWS
[See this title when published. See abo
9 Standard Proc. 1012.]
Complaint for damages for delivery of
adulterated miik, see Adl^tseation.
QUASH. — See Indictment and In-
formation; Motions.
Q17IA TIMET
[See this title when published. See aUo
9 Standard Proc. 1012.]
QUIETING TITLB
[See this title when published. See aUo
9 Standard Proc. 1013.]
Findings in action to guiet title, see
Findings and Conclusions.
QUO WABBANTO
[See this title wJien published. See tiso
9 Standard Proc. 1015.]
BAILBOADS
[See this title when published. See oIm
9 Standard Proc. 1018; and Fruoht
Carriers; Passengers.]
Condemnation of land, complaint for,
see Eminent Domain.
Injunction against another railroad to
compel handling af cars, see iNJiHfC-
tions.
[See this title when published. See <*•
9 Standard Proc. 1022.]
IClOnT, WRIT OF
123
[Bee this title when published. See also
9 Stakdabd Pbog. 1023.]
Complaint by receiver to set aside fraud-
ulent transfer of corporate property,
see Fraudulent Cokveyangss.
Petition by receiver in bankruptcy to
conttnue business, see Bankruftct
Pbocxedings.
SEOEIVINa STOLEN a002>8
[8ee this title when published. See also
9 Standakd Peoc. 1031,]
BZSCOONIZAKCES AND BAIL
[Bee this title when published. Bee also
9 Standard Proc. 1032.]
BECOBDS
[Bee this title when published.]
[See this title when published. Bee also
9 Standard Proc. 1037.]
Exceptions to referee *s report, see Ac-
count AND Accounting.
Beport of referee on accounting, see Ac-
count AND Accounting.
BEFOBMATIOK
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proc. 1047.]
Of deed, counterdaim for in action of
ejectment, see Ejectment.
BESEABIKa
[See this title when published.]
BEJOINDEB AND SUBSBQUENT
FLEADINOS
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proc. 1048.]
[See this ^itle when published. ' See also
9 Standard Proc. 1050.]
BBUaiOUB 80CIETIBS
[Bee this title when published.]
SEMOVAL OF CAUSES
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proc. 1053.]
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proc. 1055.]
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Prog. 1056.]
Complaint to recover mortgaged chattels,
see Chattel Mortgages.
EEPUOATION AND BEPLT
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proc. 1070.]
BEFUONANOT
[See this title when published.]
BES0X8SI0N AND CANCELLATION
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proc. 1074.
Complaint for by minority stooJcholders,
see C0RPORATION8.
[See this title when published.]
BBS JX7DICATA
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proc. 1073]
BESTITUTION, WRIT OP. — See For-
cible Entry and Detainer.
BETUBN8
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proc. 1085.]
BE8TBAINT OF TBADE
[See this title when published.].
BEVIVOB
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proc. 1090.J
Motion for, see Equity Jtteisdiotion
AND Procedure.
BEWABD8
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proc. 1099.]
BIGHT, WBIT OF
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proc. 1100.]
124
RIOT
BIOT
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proo. 1101.]
[See thie title when published. See also
9 Standard Proo. 1103.]
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proc. 1104.]
SALVAGE
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proo. 1111.]
SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL DISTBICTS
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proo. 1111.]
Plea of moderate eorreetion of pupil, see
Assault and Battery.
SCIRE FACIAS
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Prog. 1112.]
SEAMEN
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proo. 1118.]
SBABCH AND SEIZX7BE
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proo. 1118, 1119.]
8ECUBITY FOB COSTS
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proo. 1119.]
sbcubit7 to keep the peaob
[See this title when published.]
SEDXrCTION
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proo. 1122.]
SENTENCE AND JUDOMENT
[See this title when published.]
Motion in arrest, see Arrest of Judg-
ment.
SEPARATE MAINTENANCE. — See
Husband and Wife.
SEPARATE TBIALS
[See this title when published.]
SEQtJESTBATION
[See this title when ptiblished. See alsc
9 Standard Proo. 1122.]
SERVICE OF PROCESS AND PAPERS
[See this title when published. See disc
9 Standard Proo. 1126.]
SET-OFF, COUNTERCLAIM AND BK
COUPMENT
[See this title when published. See alsc
9 Standard PRoa 1136.]
Counterclaim against factor of undis-
closed principal, see Factors ani
Brokers.
Counterclaim by executor, see EzBCumts
AND Administrators.
Counterclaim in ejectment, see Eject-
ment.
Cross-complaint and answer, general
form, see CROSS-Ck)MPLAiNT.
For damages for non-performance of
builder's contract, see Architects and
Builders.
Fraud in procurement of notes sued
upon, see Fraud and Deceit.
SEVERAL COUNTS
[See this title when published.Y
Election, notice of motion to compel, see
Duplicity.
[See this title when published.]
SHERIFFS, CONSTABLES AND MAB-
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proo. 1079, 1139; and
Prisons and Prisoners.]
SHIPS AND SHIPPINa
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proo. 1149; and Ad-
miralty; Freight Carriers.
SODOM7
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proo. 1167.]
SOLE TBADEB. — See Husrand and
Wife.
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Prog. 1157; and Tax-
ation.
SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADINGS
125
SPEOIAL nrrEBBOOATOBIES TO
JUBIES
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Psoc. 1159.]
SPEOIFIO PBBFOBMANOB
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standabj) Prog. 1159.]
By administrator, petition to compel con-
veyance, see Decedents' Estates.
STATEMENT AND AB8TBA0T OF
0A8E
[See this title when published. See also
Case on Appeal.]
STATEMENT OB APFIDAVIT OF
CLAIM
[See this title when published. See also
Atfidavits of Merits and Defense.]
STATES AND TEBBITOBIEB
[See this title when published.}
STATUTES
[See this title when publishedJ]
STAY OF PROCEEDINGS. — See
Supersedeas and Stay of Proceed-
ings. See also 9 Standard Proo. 1170.
STEN0GBAPHEB8
[See this title when published.]
Mandamus to compel court stenographer
to write and file exceptions, see Bills
OF Exceptions.
STIPULATIONS
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proc. 1173.]
Depositions, for talcing, see Depositions.
For consolidation of actions, see Ap-
peals; Consolidation of Actions.
STOCK AND STOCEHOLDEBS
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proo. 1174; and Wind-
ing Up Corporations.]
Complaint by minority stocTcholder
against directors, see Corporations.
Complaint by stocJcholders, allegation of
refusal of directors to sue, see Cor-
porations.
Defense that stocTc is held merely as
pledgee, see Corporations.
Purchase of stock, complaint for induoing
by fraud, see Corporations.
STBEET BAILBOADS
[See this title when published. See aUo
Injuries to Persons and Property;
Negligence; Bailroads.]
STREETS. — See Highways, Streets
AND Bridges.
STBIKINa OUT AND WITHDRAWAL
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proo. 1176; and Mo-
tions.]
SUBPOENA
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proc. 1177.]
SUBROGATION
[See this title when published.. See also
9 Standard Proc. 1179.]
SUBSCBIPTIONS
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proc. 1181.]
substitution of attobnet
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proc. 1181.]
SUITS AND ACTIONS
[See this title when published.}
Action prematurely brought, see Abate-
ment, Pleas of.
Consolidation of actioM, see Consolida-
tion op Actions.
SUNDAY AND HOUDATS
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proc. 1182; and Illegal-
ity, How Pleaded.]
SUPEB8EDEAS AND STAY OF PBO-
CEEDINOS
[See this title when published. See aUo
9 Standard Proc. 1170.]
sup:
r AL PLEADING
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proc. 1183.]
126
SUPPLEMENTARY PROCEEDINGS
SUPPLaCBNTABY PBOOXSEDINGS
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Pbog. 1189; and Cksd-
iTORs' Suits.]
SUBPLUSAOS AND SCANDAIi
[See this title when published. See also
Frivolous and Sham Pleadinos;
Motions.]
ttUKVlVAIi
[See this title when published. See also
Abatement, Pleas of.]
TAZATIOSi
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proo. 1195; and Spegul
Assessment.]
TELEGBAPHB Ain> TELEPHONES
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proc. 1197; and Injuries
TO Persons and Property.]
TENANTS IN 002OK>N
[See this title when published.}
Accounting among co-tenants of an oil
and gas lease, see Account and Ac-
OOUNTINO.
Complaint against ^so-tenant for neg-
ligent injury to party wall, see Ad-
joining Landowners.
Complaint maJdng co-payee defendant
for refusal to join as plaintiff, see
Bills and Notes.
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proc. 1198.]
THEATEBS AND SHOWS
[See this title when published.']
Complaint against theater proprietor for
refusing admission, see Civil Bights.
THBEATS
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proc. 1201.]
TQCE TO PLEAD
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proc. 1203.]
TITUS
[See this title when published. See also
0 Standard Proo. 1205; and QuoniNG
Title.]
TOBTS
[See this title when published. See also
Injuries to Persons and pROPERanr;
Negligence; cmd numerous other titles
dealing with specific torts.]
TBADS-MABKS AND TBADE NAMES
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proc. 1208.]
TBEASON
[See this title when published. See aUo
9 Standard Proc. 1210.]
TBANSFBB OF OAT78EB
[See this title when published.]
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard PRoa 1212.]
Becaption, plea of in justification of
trespass, see 9 Standard Proc. 1023.
TBESPASSINO ANIMALS
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proo. 1220; and Ani-
mals.]
TBESPASS TO TB7 TITUS
[See this title when published. See dko
Title; Trespass.]
TBIAL
[See this title when published. See dUo
9 Standard Proc. 1222.]
Demurrer to evidence, see Ducdrur to
Evidence.
Findings, see Findings ami) Conclu-
sions.
Stipulation for eonsoUdation of actions
for trial, see Consolidation or Ao-
TIONS.
TBOVEB AND CONVEBSION
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard PRoa 1224.]
Complaint by mortgagee far conversion
of mortgaged chattels, see Chattel
Mortgages.
TBUSTS AND TBUBTBBS
[See this title when published. See aiso
9 Standard Proc. 1228; and Aooodmt
AND AOOOUNTING.]
Complaint against administrator or ex-
ecutor for money held by decedent in
WHARVES
127
truit, tee EzxotJiots and Adicinis-
SKATOBS.
ULTBA VIBES
[Bee ihie title when pvhhehed. Bee aUo
9 Standabd Pboo. 286.
UVDERTAKXmMI
[Bee this title when published. Bee dko
Bonds; Bbooonjzances and Bail.]
UKBUE Diri^DSNCE
IBee this title whm published.']
VJXJTED STATES
{Bee this title when published.']
UNITED STATES OOUBTS
[Bee this title when published. Bee aho
9 Standard Prog. 1234; ai^ Equity
Jurisdiction and Progedxtre.]
Case and question certified, see 9 Stand-
ard Proc. 245.
[Bee this title when published. Bee ake
Chanob or Venue.
UNLAWFUL DETAINER. — See For-
cible Entry and Detainer.
UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY
[Bee this title when published. Bee also
Aitray; Disorderly Conduct; Riot.]
X7SE AND OCCUPATION
[Bee this title when published. Bee also
9 Standard Proc. 1234.]
U8UBY
[Bee this title when ^published. Bee also
9 Standard Proc. 1238.]
VAOBANtnr
[Bee this title when published. Bee also
Indictment and iNroRMATiON; Pros-
titution.]
VABIANCE AND FAILUBE OF
PROOF
[Bee this title when publishecT]
Between writ and declaration, see Abate-
ment, Pleas of.
VENDOR AND PURCHASER
[Bee this title when published. Bee also
9 Standard Proc. 1241.]
VENIRE DE NOVO
IBee this title when publisTied.]
VERDICT
[Bee this title when published. Bee aUe
9 Standard Proc. 1248.]
VSRIFIOATION
[Bee this title when published. Bee aUo
9 Standard Proc. 1255.]
VIEW
[Bee this title when published. Bee aUso
9 Standard Proc. 1257.]
[Bee this title when published. Bee edko
9 Standard Proc. 1257.]
Of process, see Appearances.
WAREHOUSEMEN
[Bee this title when published. Bee aUo
9 Standard Proc. 1257.]
WAFJSANT8
[Bee this title when published.]
Commitment on complaint for contribut-
ing to delinquency of minor, see In-
fants.
Bearch warrants, see 9 Standard PRoa
1118.
WASTE
[Bee this title when published. Bee aiso
9 Standard Proc. 1266.]
WATERS AND WATERCOURSES
[Bee this title when published. Bee also
9 Standard Proc. 1271.]
Complaint for bacJcing up water, see Ad-
joining Landowners.
CondemTiation, petition for right to over-
flow lands, see Eminent Domain.
WEAPONS
[Bee this title when published. Bee also
9 Standard Proc. 1275.]
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES
[Bee this title when published,]
WHARVES
[Bee this title when published.]
i2d
WILLS
WILLB
[See this title when published. See aUo
9 Standard Proc. 1001, 1276.]
Petition far probate, see Decedents'
Estates.
WINDINO UP OOKPOBATIONS
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proc. 1281.]
WITHDRAWAI. OF JUBOB
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proc. 1281.]
[See this title when published. See aUo
9 Standard Proc. 1281.]
WOBK Ain> LABOR
m
[See this title when published. See aUo
9 Standard Proc. 1283.]
WBIT OF ASSISTANCE. — See Assist-
ange, Writs of.
WBIT OF ENTBY
[See this title when published. See also
9 Standard Proc. 1292.]
wbit of ebbob
[See this title when published. See olio
9 Standard Proc. 1293.]
^VBIT OP INQUIBY. — See Inquibt,
Writ of.
WRIT OF RESTITUTION. — See Fob-
cible Entry and Detainxr.
TEMPORARY
CROSS-REFERENCE
INDEX
TO
STANDARD
PROCEDURE
(Vols. 1-12)
EXPLANATORY NOTE
This index is intended for temporary nse pending the completion of
the work and the issuance of a permanent index. Its purpose is both
to make more accessible the matter already published and to show the
connection with the matter yet to appear. It does not duplicate the
analyses prefixed to the articles^ which should always be consulted.
Cross-references are both to other articles and to index heads, which
are differentiated by distinctive type, the former being in capitals and
the latter in italics.
When an article is cross-referred to always examine the index matter
under that head as well as the analysis of the article itself (if already
published). The words supra and infra are used where reference is
made to other matter appearing under the same general index bead.
TEMPORARY
CROSS-REFERENCE INDEX
TO
STANDARD PROCEDURE
(Vols. 1-12)
ABANDONTifENT, see DnroECB; High-
ways, Stkebts and Bbidoes;
Homesteads and Exemptions ;
Husband^ and Wue; Parent and
Child; Waters and Waterck>x7rses.
Of appeal, 2-393
Of attack in homieide, question of
fact, 11-65
Of contract, qnantnin meruit on, 11-
946, 953
Question of fact, 11-1063
Of counts by election, 12-687
Of homestead, 11-433
Business homestead, 11-466
By acquisition of new one, 11-450
By sale and conveyance, 11-456
Divorce, as affecting, 11-454
Essentials, 11-440
Filing declaration, 11-464
Of part of, 11-465
Pleading, 11-468
Question of fact, 11-430
Statutory provisions, 11-439
Termination of family relation, 11-
451
ABATEMENT, see Abatement, Pleas
or; Intoxicating Liquors; Nms-
ANGE; Bevivob; Stjevival.
By attainment of majority, 12-802,
804
By consolidation or dissolution of cor-
poration, see Winding Up Cor-
porations.
By death (see fully SUBVIVAL), 1-527;
6-356, 372, 783
Appeal, 2-230
Of bankrupt, 3-990
ABATEMENT, eontd.
By death, contd, ^^
Of relator, information in civil
suits, 12-712
By insanity, see Insane Persons.
Divorce action, 7-810, 846
Of bankrupt, 3-990
Criminal conversation, of right of
action, 6-253
Election contest, 8-89
ABATEMENT, PLEAS OT-^ConauU
analysis of this article, 1-24
Affidavit of defense, as a, 1-711
As a waiver of, 1-711
Affidavit to support, 12-899
Alienage, 1-805
Waiver by not pleading, 1-811, 812^
Amendment, 1-849
Another action pending, 1-994, 1031
Attachment, 1-998; 3-256, 797
Not in first action, 1-997
Appearance by, 2-491
Arraignment and plea, 2-888
Arrest in civil cases, to affidavit
for, 2-970
Attachment, for want of affidavit,
3-398
Another action, see supra, Another
action pending
In proceedings to vacate, 3-796-803
Waiver, right to vacate, 3-765
Audita querela, to writ of, 3-880
Bills and notes, extension of time,
4-282
Certainty in pleading, great certainty
required in dilatory, 4-834, 837
INDEX
ABATEBiEKT, PLBAS OF, contd.
Corporations, corporate existence,
when, 5-645
Demurrer to plea does not search
record, 6-961
Denials, nul tiel corporation, in abate-
ment or in bar, 7-76
Discovery in support of, 7-576
Dower, proceedings for, 7-875
Duplicity, 7-937
Garnishment, 10-595-597
Grand jury, objections raised by,
10-644
Bemedy for failure to swear grand
jury, 12-616
Guardian ad litem, absence of, 10-729
Irregularity in appointment, 10-748
Guardian and ward, want of capacity
to sue, 10-869
Action by foreign instead of local
guardian, 10-902
Misnomer of accused, for, in indict-
ment, 12-627
Waiver by demurrer, 12-670
ABBBEVIATIONB — Consult analysis
of this article, 1-73. See Indict-
ment AND Information.
In criminal pleading, generally, 12-
310, 566
Amendment, 12-566
Of name of party, 4-839
ABDUCTION — Consult analysis of this
article, 1-77. See False Imprison-
ment; Kidnaping. See also Crim-
inal Procedure,
ABORTION — Consult analysis of this
article, 1-91, See also Criminal Pro-
cedure,
Homicide in attempting, indictment
for, 11-603; 12-575
Means used, averment as to, 11-604
With malice aforethought, 11-604
ABSTEACTS OF TITLE, see Title.
ABUSE OF PROCESS, see Malicious
Prosecution; Process.
ACOESSOBIES AND ACCOMPUOES.
Consult analysis of this article, 1-
123. See Arraignment and Plea;
Indictment and Information.
Abortion, 1-107
Evidence, 1-118
Charging defendant as principal and
accessory, 12-680
Conclusions of law, in charging as to,
12-349
Elections, illegal voting, 8-157
Embezzlement, instructions as to tes-
timony, 8-248
Forgery, principals at common law,
8-1138
A0CE880BIES AND AOOOMPLICES,
contd.
Gaming, variance, principal and ac-
cessory, 10-359
Joinder, in indictment, of principal
and accessory, 12-497
ACCIDENT, account stated, impeached
for, 1-254
Ground of equity jurisdiction, 8-416
ACCIDENT INSURANCE, see Insur-
ance.
ACCOMPLICES, see Accessobiss and
Accomplices.
AOOOBD AND SATISFACTIOK —
Consult analysis of this article, 1-
162, 163. See Composition With
Creditors ; Compromise and Settle-
ment; Belease.
Arbitration, of award, 2-657
Covenant, action of, 6-161
Under general issue, 3-188
AOCOXTNT AND A0OOX7NTIKO —
Consult analysis of this article, 1-
193. See Equity Jurisdiction and
Procedure.
Affidavit based on books of, 12-895
Assumpsit, on account stated, 3-204
Attachment, of accounts, 3-292
Claim of third persons, 3-654, 656
In equity, 3-349
Bankruptcy proceedings, failure to
keep as objection, to discharge,
3-927
Proof of account, 3-901
Bills of particulars, 4-385
Choice of remedies, accounting and
rescission, 5-119
Assumpsit or account, 5-98
Copyright proceedings, 5-518
Creditors' suits, parties, 6-191
Cross-bill, not necessary to affirmative
relief, 6-297
Curtesy, action by tenant in, 6-325
Debt, statutory action of "book ac-
count," 6-471
Decedents' estates, accounting for
assets, 6-589-626
Equity, jurisdiction, 8-439
Factors, action against, 8-870
Fraudulent conveyances, running ac-
counts, existing creditors, 10-111
Eeference to state, 10-203
Reference where long, 10-197
Guardian, accounting by, 10-822
Action on bond, 10-879
Correcting account, 10-817
Bequiring foreign guardian to ac-
count, 10-903
Partnership, on dissolution of, home-
stead involved, 11-341
INDEX
ACCUSATION, Bee iKinGTMEKT AND In-
formation.
Indictment, distinguished from, 12-
74
Nature of, accused entitled to know,
12-294
ACKNOWLEDGMENT, of homestead,
necessity, 11-304
Of declaration, 11-309
Of waiver, 11-437
ACQUITTAL, in homicide, under one
count, 11-681
ACTION, see Cause of Action; Choice
AND Election of Remedies; Con-
solidation OF Actions; Construc-
tion AND Theory of Pleadings;
Forms of Action; Joinder of Ac-
tions; Jurisdiction; New Cause
OF Action or Defense; Penalties,
Forfeitures and Fines; States
AND Territories; Successive Suits;
Suits and Actions; United
States; Venue.
Guardian, of incompetent, by, 12-18
On bond of, 1218
Ward, between jzuardian and, 12-19
Husband and wife, between, as to
separate property, 11-704
Indemnity, on bond of, ex contractu,
12-29
Prerequisites, 12-26
Indian, allottee, by, 12-45
Individual Indians, 12-44
Tribes, 12-42
Title of, in criminal complaint, 12-
131
United States, against, for Indian
depredations, 12-47
ACTION ON THE CASE, see Case
(the Action of Trespass on the).
ACT OF GOD, see infra, Performance.
AD JOmiNO LANDOWNERS — Con-
sult analysis of this article, 1-316.
See Nuisance; Party Walls.
Case, the action on the, negligent
use, 4-632
Cause of action, negligent use, 4-814
None from reasonable use, 4-812
Disorderly house, injunction, 7-699
Easements, 7-955-972
Subdivision of single tract, 7-963
Ejectment, projections, 7-1006
ADJOURNMENTS, see Continuances.
Depositions, of taking, 7-297
Elections, in recounts, 8-106
Of sessions and terms of court, 6-39
Improper adjournment, as ground for
demurrer, 12-650
ADMINISTRATORS, see Decedents*
Estates; Executors and Admin-
istrators.
ADIIBBALT7 ^^ Cmtnlt oAOlysis of
this article, 1-335. See Collision;
Liens; Proceedings in Rem; Sal-
vage; Seamen; Ships and Ship-
ping; United States Courts;
Wharves.
Appeal bonds, summary proceedings
on, 2-87
Bills of particulars, in use, 4-378
Collision, 5-132-152
Corporations, 5-564
Death by wrongful act, 6-384
ADJIISSIONS, see 1 Ency. or Ev. 394,
904
By answer, 11-12-15; 12-16
* By demurrer, 12-655
ADOPTION, see Parent and Child.
ADX7LTEBATI0N — Consult analysis of
this article, 1-581. See Health;
Pure Food Laws. See also Crim-
inal Procedure.
ADULTEBY — Consult analysis of this
article, 1-591. See Alienating Af-
fections; Criminal Conversation;
Divorce. See also Criminal Pro-
cedure,
Criminal conversation, necessary to
prove, 6-252
Divorce, allegations, 7-762-764
Co-respondents, 7-752
Defenses, 7-779
Fornication, joinder with, 12-536
Incest, committing, by, 12-6
Indictment for, 12-576
ADVANCEMENTS, see Inheritance.
ADVERSE POSSESSION.— Con9tf»
analysis of this article. 1-615. See
Easements; Ejectment; Limita-
tion OF Actions.
Champerty, in transfer, 4-965
Not pleaded to judicial transfer,
4-968
Eminent domain, sufficient for dam-
ages, 8-352
AFFIDAVITS. See Affidavits of Mer-
its AND Defense; Information and
Belief; Motions; Oath and Af-
firmation; Statement or Affi-
davit OF Claim. See also 1 Enct.
OF Ev. 702
. Alien, in proceedings to deport, 11-
905
Alleging source of information, 12-
895
Annexing affidavit of party from
whom knowledge obtained, 12-896
Appeal, of interest by party to, 11-74
Arrest in civil cases, 2-927-965
Additional on motion to discharge,
2-973, 974
By whom made, 2-929, 931, 939, 942
INDEX
AFFIDAVITS, eantd.
Arrest ^n civil cases, oontd.
By whom taken 2-932, 933
Errors and irregularities, 2-961
Filing, 2-959
Form and contents, 2-933, 959; 12-
897
Supplementing and amending, 2-
961
Arrest in criminal case, for, see In-
dictment AND InFOBMATION;
Warrants.
Attachment, for, 3-396, 443
Disjunctive allegations, 3-434
Form and contents, 3-405, 443; 12-
897
Supplemental, 3-439
Attorneys, by, 1-672, 674, 675; 3-399,
402, 856; 12-896
Books of account, based on, 12-895
By agent, see Principal and Agent.
Continuance, for, 5-474, 483; 11-19
Against, 5-483, 487
Corporations, for attachment of, 5-
636
For garnishment of, 5-637
Costs, for recovery of, 5-928, 952
Criminal complaint, to, 12-124
Default, form of, 12-898
Of, no answer, 6-820
Deposition, on application to take,
7-223, 229
Discovery, for examination of party,
7-566, 569
As to materiality of interrog-
atories, 7-589
For inspection, 7-631
Divorce, for alimony, 7-821
Opposing, 7-824
For publication, 7-756
With pleading, jurisdictional,
where, 7-785
Equity shown by, execution against
homestead, 11-345
Execution denied by, 11-1017
Exemption, claim of, 11-484
Filing contest of, 11-522
On hearing of right to, 11-520
Extradition, state, showing crime,
8-850
Form of, 12-898
Filing, homestead contest, 11-332
Following language of statute, 2-955;
3-410, 429
Forfeiture, for, 12-898
Grpunds of belief, stating, 12-894
Homestead, by contestant of, 11-332
In excess of legal amount, 11-347
Supporting execution against, 11-
344
AFFIDAVTTS, (fonid.
Incompetents, appointing gurdiaa
for, 12-16
Indictment, preliminary to, 12-122
Information, as basis of, 12-122
Information and belief, on, 12-126.
See Invormation and Bkubp.
Injunction proceedings, in, 12-898
Juvenile acts, proceedings by, IZ-SBS
Violation of, 12-881
Mandamus, in, 12-898
Misdemeanors in prosecutiom of» 12-
86
Ke exeat, for writ of, 12-899
Next friend, by, 12-735
Of claim, 1-667. See Statbiodtp ob
Affidavtt or Claix.
Pleas of abatement, in support of, 12-
899
Police regulations, for violatioii of,
12-86
Prosecution by, in higher coort0» 12-
86
Records, based on facts in, 12-805
Replevin, in, 12-899
Search warrant, to obtain, 12-899
Telephone, on facts received over, 12-
895
Warrant based on, 12-122, 124
affidavitb of MEBITS AKD BB-
FENSE — Consult analysis of this
article, 1-643. See Chanqk op
Venue ; CoNTmirANCBS ; Default ;
Inquiry, Writ op; Statement ob
Appidavit op Claim ; Summary Pro-
GESDiNos ; Supersedeas and Stat op
Proceedings; Time To Plead.
Accusation based upon, demurrer
where affidavit defective, 12-649
Admiralty, default, 1-502
Appeal bonds, in actions on, 2-103
Change of venue, when required, 5-31
Default, for relief, 6-835, 837, 839
Form of, 12-898
Variance, between, and information,
12-630
AFFIBMATIOTT, see Oath and Av-
PmitATION.
ATFBAY — Consult analysis of this
article, 1-723. See Breach of the
Peace; Disorderly Conduct; Riot;
Unlawpul Assembly. See also
Criminal Procedure.
Indictment for, conviction of other
offense, 12-576
AGS, of infant, necessity of pleading,
12-756
AGENCY, see Principal and AeRHT.
INDEX
AGBEED OAS^^^ Consult analysis of
this article, 1-732. See Amicable
Actions; Case and Question Cer-
tified, Beserved OB Bepobted; Case
ON Appeal; Stipulations.
Demurrer to evidence, 7-13
AGBEEMENT, to pay or perform, dis-
tinguished from indemnity, 12-23
AGRICULTURE, see Lands and Land
Tbansfebs.
AIDER BY VERDICT, see Indictment
and Information; Pleading; Waiy-
AIDING AND ABETTING, see Ac-
cessories AND Accomplices.
ALIENATING AFFECTIONS — Con-
sult analysis of this article, 1-769.
See Adultery; Criminal Conver-
sation.
Criminal conversation distinguished,
6-252
ALIENATION, of Indian lands, re-
strictions on, 12-50
ALIENS — C(msult analysis of this
article, 1-786. See Immigration;
Naturalization; United States
Courts.
Admiralty, consul may intervene for,
1-524
Jurisdiction of, 1-381
Attachment, against, 3-268, 270
In favor of, when, 3-260
Bail by, 11-906
Claim of citizenship, determination
of, 11-921
Death by wrongful act, action by,
6-397
Deportation, judgment of, conclusive-
ness, 11-904, 908
Jurisdiction, 11-905, 929
Notice of hearing, 11-906
Of Chinese, 11-909
Proceedings for, nature of, 11-902
Bights of alien at hearing ,11-903,
906
Habeas corpus, federal jurisdiction in
deportation, 10-915
Husband as, effect on wife's suits,
11-714
Prostitutes, excluding, 11-929
ALIMONY, see Divorce.
Separation agreements, in actions on,
11-824
ALLEY,, street as, 11-46
ALLOTMENT, see Homesteads and Ex-
emptions; Indians.
Homestead, of, 11-346
Affidavits in, by creditor, 11-347
Appeal from probate allotment, 11-
403
Application for, 11-354, 390, 391
ALLOTMENT, eontd.
Homestead, contd.
By appraisers, 11-360
Certiorari to review, 11-368, 404
Collateral attack of, 11-368
Contesting, 11-394
Dower, analagous to assignment
of, 11-351
Jurisdiction, 11-353, 387
Manner of, 11-361
Beassignment, 11-368, 405
Becordari to review, 11-368
Statutes governing, 11-352
Time of, 11-386
To deceased's family, 11-384
To widow, method of assigning, 11-
396
Under execution, effect of, 11-364
Vacating, 11-334
When necessary, 11-350
To Indian, as affecting citizenship,
12-46
As affecting jurisdiction, 12-42
Enforcement of, 12-47
ALTEBATXON OF INSTBX7MENTS —
Consult analysis of this article, 1-
817. See Counterfeiting; Forgery.
Attachment, writ of, 3-482
Bills of exceptions, interlineations,
4-324
In 'indictment, as ground for quash-
ing, 12-631
By interlineation, erasure, or in-
sertion of words, 12-320
ALTEBNATIVE PLEADING (6-694),
see Indictment and Information;
Pleading.
AMBASSADOBS AND CONSULS, see
United States.
AMBIGUITY, see Certainty in Plead-
ing; Demurrer.
In verdict, homicide, 11-681, 683, 691
AMENDMENTS AND JEOFAILS —
Consult analysis of this article, 1-
844. See Indictment and Infor-
mation; Justices of the Peace;
Parties; Pleading.
Abatement, pleas of, 1-62
Account and accounting, account
amended, 1-224
Of pleadings, 1-220, 302 ^
Admiralty, 1-471, 481
After reference, 1-547
At hearing, 1-542
Changing rem to personam, 1-421
Costs on amendment, 1-577
In appellate court, 1-478, 479
Of apostles, 1-562
Affidavits, see infra, Arrest in civil
cases; Attachment; Garnishment.
48
J
INDEX
AACENI>MENT8 AMD JEOFAILS,
contd.
Affidavits of merits and defense,
amendments of, 1-705, 707, 710
As condition to riglit to amend,
1-654
I^ew, on amendment, 1-666, 704, 715
Answers, in equity, see Bills and
Answers.
Limitations on amendment of, see
New CAirsB of Action ob De-
fense.
Appeals, amended pleadings of rec-
ord, 2-335
As to parties in^ 2-235
Information, amending on appeal,
12-556
Of criminal complaint, 12-567
Of petition, 2-296
Of record, 2-380, 385
What made pending, 2-326
Appraisement of homestead, 11-518
Arbitration, to motions to vacate,
2-623
Arrest in civil eases, of affidavits,
2-961
Of complaint, 2-964
Of process in, 2-969
Arrest of judgment, amendments
after motion, 2-996
Not for amendable defects, 2-1017
Assignments, as to parties, 3-118
Of allegations, 3-130
Assumpsit, 3-183, 209
Power discretionary, 3-213
Attachment, dissolved by amend-
ment, 3-814
Of affidavit for, 3-436, 439
Of bonds, 3-462, 464
Of pleas to vacate, 3-803
Of writ, 3-485, 488
Pleadings in main action, 3-712-718
Pleadings of intervenor, 3-664
Beturns, 3-546, 549
Attorneys, amendment of charges
against, 3-869
Bankruptcy proceedings, 3-996, 1001
Bastardy proceedings, 4-65
Bigamy, amending indictment, 4-97
Bills and answers, 4-185, 219
Answer to amended bill, 4-207
By interlineations, 4-208
Designating amendments, 4-209
Necessity of answering amended
bill, 11-4
New matter by cross-bill not an-
swer, 4-213
Of answers, 4-210-217
By infant, 12-779, 805
Parties, to bring in, 11-18
Pills of exceptions, 4-361, 369
AinSNBliBNTS AlTD JEOFAILS,
contd.
Bills of particulars, 12-567
Bonds, of pleas, 4-509
Breach of promise, of complaint, 4-
554
By grand jury, of indictment, 12-542
By prosecuting attorney, of indict-
ment, 12-547
Of information, 12-560
Case on appeal, 4-787, 799
Case or question certified, Connecti-
cut, 4-689
Case, the action on the, 4-656
Maine, 4-714
Massachusetts, 4-721
New Hampshire, 4-727
Cause of action, 4-802
Change in, see New Cattse or Ac-
tion OB Defense.
Attachment, 3-716
Bills and answers, 4-195
Case, action on the, 4-656
Detinue to trover, 7-482
Elections, 8-79
In action for wrongful death, 6-
434
Parties, 6-435. See Pabties.
Caption, to criminal pleading, 12-563
Certainty in pleading, by amend-
ment, 4-863
Certiorari, of petition for, 4-909
Information, 12-561
Of writ, 4-928
Change of venue, amending tran-
script, 4-998
By amendment of complaint, 5-33
Claim of exemption, 11-330, 497
Commerce court, pleadings in, 5-169
Complaint, bridges, for injuries from,
11-281
Changing grade of highway, 11-138
Pot failure to do road work, 11-142
For injuries from highways, 11-231
•Conform to proof, to, 12-552, 562
Consolidation of actions, for purpose
of, 5-252
Continuances, by reason of, 5-465, 466
Contribution, amendment of plead-
ing, 5-503
Corporations, of pleadings, 5-652
Costs, on amendment and affirmance
of judgment, 5-992
Courts martial, amendment of
charges, 6-115
Creditors' suits, 6-222
Criminal complaint, of, 12-563
Criminal conversation, 6-255
Criminal proceedings, in, 12-69^
Cross-bills, 6-291
Cross-complaint, 6-91Q
INDEX
AMENDMENTS AND JEOFAILS,
contd.
Customs and usages, to set up, 6-333
Customs duties, on appeal, 6-350
Date, as to, criminal pleading, 12-561
Death by wrongful act, 6-434
Amendments as to parties, 6-435
Decedents' estates, petition for dis-
covery, 6-521
Of claims, 6-531
Of decree of distribution, 6-633
Of inventory, 6-525
Petition to sell, 6-554
Decrees, 6-789, 794, 799
Default after amended bill, 6-164.
Default, new service after amend-
ment, 6-807
None by evidence introduced, 6-825
Demurrer, 6-887
Amendment after filing, 6-941
After sustaining, 6-996-1001
Beflling after amendment, 6-869
Time to demur extended by, 6-861
To amended pleading, 6-938; 7-141.
See New Cause of Action ob
Defense.
Demurrer to evidence, 7-17
Departure, amendment not a, 7-119
Bemedy for (7-141), see New
Cause of Action or Defense.
Depositions, excluded by n6w issues,
7-400
Of commissions and returns, 7-383,
386
Of interrogatories, 7-253
Descriptive matters, as to, in crim-
inal pleading, 12-549, 552
Discovery of bill, 7-337
Making unnecessary, 7-601
Dismissal, by omitting party, 7-654
Allowed before dismissal, 7-683
Not for amendable defects, 7-686
Divorce, 7-782
Ejectment, 7-1041-1045
Elections, of pleadings in contests,
8-78, 81
Of indictment for false Registra-
tion, 8-151
Of record in contests, 8-101
Eminent domain, 8-296
Equity in, 8-488
Error, assignments of, amendment
to, 8-537
Based on, 8-568
Executors and administrators, as to
representative capacity, 6-435, 8-
742, 758
Of .iudgment against, 8-770
Exhibits, 8-814
Factors and brokers, in actions
against, 8-873
AMENDMENTS AND JBOFAZ&S^
contd.
Factors and broken, eontd.
In actions for commissions, 8*894
Feloniously, to supply the irotd, 12-
561
niing, of amended pleadings, 8-978
Findings and conclusions, 8-1066, 1071
Foreib& entry and detainer, 8-llH
Forgery, indictments, 8-1146
Formal parts of ertmintl pleading; as
to, 12-563
Frauds, to plea, statute of, 10-81
Fraudulent conveyaneee. plesdings,
10-151, 173
Freight carriers, 10-885
Frivolous and sham pleading^ 10-802
Gaming, of indictment, 10-8lo
Garnishment, of affidavit, 10'491
Of answers, 10-587
Of bonds, 10-492
Grand jury, by, of Indictment, 19-942
Guardian ad litem, amendment to
substitute, 10-725
Guardian and ward, of petfti<m for
removal, 10*812
In actions for aceonnting, 10^838
Of pleadings in behalf of mtrd,
10-876
Habeas corpus, amendments of re-
turn, 10-931
Indictment, for failure to do road
work, 11-142
By consent of accused, 12-647
By court, sua sponte, 12-648
Grand jury, by, 12'542
Indorsement on, of, 12-565
In general, 12-542
Besubmission for, 12-145
Statutes, as to, applicable to Infor-
mations, 12-559
Information, new plea and arniigB<-
ment on, 2-865, 877. See Indzot-
hent and Infork ation.
By court, sua sponte, 12-560
By substitution of new information^
12-560
In general, 12-555, 557
Terms, right to impose, 12-558
Time, as to, 12-561
Judgments, see Jin>0UEN^8, and
supra, Decrees.
Jurat, of, before trial, 12-566
Justice's court, in, see Justices or
THE Peace.
Names, of, criminal pleading, 12-550,
561
Nei^ cause of action, see npra, Olatne
of Action.
Offer of jndgment, nnne pro tone,
5-862
INDEX
AACENI>MENT8 KSD JEOFAILS,
contd.
Order, for commitment of juvenile,
12-875
Parties, as to, see Parties.
Petition for homestead, 11-322, 393
Upon infants attaining majority,
12-804
Place, as to, in criminal pleading,
12-552, 561
Plea, before, 12-558
Plea puis darrein continuance, 1-174
Prayer, 6-719
Becord, highway proceedings, 11-89
In indictment, 12-110; 12-548
In information, 12-563
Betum of homestead appraisement,
11-363
Of service of process, 5-630; 12-751
Schedule of homestead exemption, 11-
323, 511
Signature, of, to criminal pleading,
12-565
Time, allegations of, 12-551-554, 563
Title, as to, in information, 12-563
To correct misjoinder, motion to re-
quire, 8-1106
United States courts, act of Congress
governing in, see United States
Courts.
Unlawfully, to supply the word in
information, 12-561
Verdict, 11-690
» Waiver, as, of defects in indictment,
12-670
Warrant, for failure to do road work,
11-142
Writings, as to description of, in
criminal pleading, 12-563
AMERCEMENT, see Sheriffs, Con-
stables AND Marshals.
AinOABLE AOTIONS — Consult analy-
sis of this article, 1-931. See
Agreed Case; Case and Question
Certified, Besseved or Beported;
Stipulations.
Costs, 5-894
Frivolous and sham pleading, remedy,
10-274
AMICUS 0X7BIAE — Consult analysis of
this article, 1-934.
Highway proceedings, in appeal from,
11-64
AMIMAIiS — Consult analysis of this
article, 1-941. See Cruelty to Ani-
mals; Estrays; Bailroads; Tres-
passing Animals.
ANNUITIES — Consult analysis of this
article, 1-987. See Equity Juris-
diction AND Procedure.
Oarnishment, when liable to, 10-422
ANOTHEB ACTION PENDING ~ Can-
suit analysis of this article, 1-994.
See Abatement, Pleas of.
Abatement, plea of must negative ex-
ceptions, 1-49
Admiralty, 1-532
Attachments, successive, when, 3-253^
256
Another attachment, in proceed-
ings to vacate, 3-797
Another suit, 3-256, 259
Choice of remedies, when not a bar,
5-90
Continuances, because of, 5-467
Demurrer, 6-935
Under codes, 6-896
Divorce, 7-778
Eminent domain, 8-291
Condemnation, to action for dam-
ages, 8-355
Garnishment, of demands in suit,
10-424
Another garnishment on same de-
fendant, 10-469
Defendant may sue garnishee,
where, 10-514
In criminal cases, as ground for
quashing indictment, 12-631
ANSWEB IN CODE PLEADING, see
Answers.
ANSWEB8 — Consult analysis of this
article, 2-1. See Bills and An-
swers; Confession and Avoidangs;
Denials; Information and Belief;
Issues in Pleadino and Practicx;
Pleas; Set-off, Counterclaim:
AND BEOOUPMENT.
Accord and satisfaction, ai&rmative
defense, 1-172
Allegations, 1-184
Account, in actions on book, 1-236,
237
Stated, 1-247, 249
Accounting, answer in, 1-291, 296,
299 301
Admiralty^ 1-460, 464, 481
To intervener, 1-524
Amendment, 1-849, 930
By infant at majority, 12-779, 805
Animals, injuries to, 1-967
Another action pending, 1-1035
Arbitration, in actions on awards, 2-
653, 658
Attachment, in main action, 3-718
In proceedings to vacate, 3-796
To intervener in, 3-665
Bankruptcy proceedings, 3-980, 999
Banks and banking, 4-12
Bills and notes, 4-271, 285
Case, the action on the, 4-658
Collision, 5-134
e
INDEX
AKS^9f7SB8, eonid.
Commerce court, 5-169
Complaint incorrectly entitled, 12-736
Composition with creditors, 5-177, 180
Compromise and settlement, impeach-
ing, 5-199
Confession and avoidance, 5-228, 248
Consideration, partial failure of, 11*
1021, 1024
Construction and theory of pleading,
5-335
Corporations, 5-645, 648, 654
Foreign, action by, 5-743
Actions against, 5-744
In garnishment of, 5-638
Creditors' suits, 6-218-221
Cross-complaint, to, 6-306-309
Death by wrongful act, 6-436-439
Decedents' estates, action against
purchaser, 6-578
To application for distribution, 6-
629
To petition for account, 6-593
Default, tendered on motion for re-
lief, 6-836, 839
Demurrer, distinguished, 6-850
For insufficiency of, 6-913
To part of, 6-857
Where good in part, 6-970, 974
With answer, 6-864
Denials, 7-31, et seq.
Depositions before answering, 7-210
Disclaimer, 7-491
Discovery, in statutory action, 7-547
Divorce, 7-771, 780
Alimony, 7-823
Dower, in proceedings for, 7-875
Duplicity, 7-931
Duress, specially pleaded, 7-951; 11-
1027
Ejectment, claiming homestead in, 11-
391, 419
Elections, in contests, 8-75, 77
Eminent domain, necessity for, 8-290
Error, assignment of, 8-568
Estoppel, necessity for, 8-682, 69S
Setting up, 8-693, 702
Estrays, 8-723
Executors and administrators, by, 8-
762, 764
In action by foreign, 8-751
In actions on bonds, 8-790
Factors and brokers, 8-868, 874, 896,
906
False imprisonment, 8-968, 970
Forcible entry and detainer, 8-1119,
1121
Fraud and deceit, general denial, 10-
58
Necessity of pleading, 11-1027
Frauds, statute of, 10-71-75
AKSWBSS, cmtd.
Fraudulent conveyances, 10-178, 188
Freight carriers, 10-252-254
Frivolous and sham pleading, 10-276
Garnishment, by garnishee, 10-533,
543
Exceptions to, 10-597
Judgment against garnishee on, 10-
573
Guardian ad litem, by, 10-757; 12-756
Guardian by, 10-870
Habeas corpus, to return, 10-933
Hearing, compelling answer before,
11-4
Heirship proceedings, in, 12-922
Highways, contractor's action for im-
provements in, 11-126
Injury from, 11-229
Homestead, foreclosure on, 11-380
Inconsistent defenses, 11-1029
Indemnity, in action on, 12-31
Justice's court, in, see Justicxs of
THE Peace.
Motion to quash indictment, to, 12-
636
Notice of defense, 7-78; 10-279
Novation, specially pleaded, 11-1032
Partial defenses, setting forth, 11-
1030
Penalty, in actions for, 11-169
Verification of, contract actions, 11-
1033
ANSWERS IN EQUITY, see Bills and*
Answers.
ANTITRUST LAWS, see Monopolies.
APPEAL AND ERROR, see Appeals;
Justices of the Peace; Weit of
Ebbob.
APPEAL BOKDS — C(ynsuli analysis of
this article, 2-76. See Undertak-
ings.
Admiralty, 1-559, 560
Appeals, filed to perfect, 2-301
Appellate court, given in, 11-752
Approval of, highway proceedings, 11-
75
Bastardy proceedings, 4-80
Corporations, 5-676
Decedents' estates, 6-537
Elections, in contests, 8-113
Eminent domain, 8-336
Filed too late, effect, 11-75
Guardian and ward, on appeal from
accounting, 10-849
Not required where, 10-815, 877
Infants, in actions concerning, 12-796
In highway proceedings, ll-70n, 72,
74, 132
Jurisdictional, 11-75
Municipality, by, 11-143, 166
INDEX
AFPBAL BOMDS^ somid.
Neceosity for and effect, tee Bupeb-
SS0SA8 AKD STAT OF PBOCEIDINOS ;
UNDVTAKINQ8.
Bifning, in bighwAj proceedings, 11-
132
Substituted bond, 11-76
SncoesaiTe nppeal, 11-75
Sureties on, 11-76
Waiver ot defects in, by continuance,
11-75
AFnUIifl--Coiuii» amOysii of ihU
article, 2-106. See Appeal Bonds;
Ebbobs, Assignment op; Bills or
BzcwnoNS; Beiipb; Cask on Ap-
fSAL; Ca8B and QuBsnoN Cbbti-
PUD, Rrsbbvkd qb BcpoanD; Ceb-
TiPiCATB or Pbobabilb Cause and
OF BEAaOWABUB DoUBT; OEBTIOEABI;
Cobtb; Goubts; JuBisDionoN; Jus*
ticb8 op the pea.ob; law op the
Case; Mandahus; Mandate; Be-
MISSION OP Damaobs; Bevibw ;
STAnMENT AND AB8TIUCT OP CaSE;
Supeesedeas and Stat op Pbogeed-
iN«a; Undebtakinos; Wbit op Eb-
Abatement, plea of after, 1-61
Abstract of record, see Statement
AND ABSTBACT op CaSE.
Aeeessoriee, presumption of princi-
pal's guilt, 1-161
Accounting, final decree, 1-814
Interlocutory decree, 1-307
Admiralty, 1-553, 570
Amendments after remanding, 1-474
Costs, 1-578
Paupers, stipulations, 1-507
Affidavits of interest, 11-74
AiBdavits of merits, questions be-
low, 1-721
Agreed case, 1-765
Amendment after, 1-887, 890
Criminal complaint, 12-567
Of indictment, 12-548
Of information, 12-556
Amicable actions, 1-934
Amicus curiae, not by, 1-939
Amount, as affected by, 11-61
Animals, 1-969
Another action pending, appeal from
dismissal, 1-1009
Appearance, by taking, 2-499
Cures, irregularities in taking, 2-
K 545
None by special, 2-561
Of infant, by guardian, 12-739
Waiver of want of jurisdiction, as,
11-63
Appraisement of homestead, from, 11-
519
APPEAXJ9^ c&ntd.
Apprentices, from actions for rdease
of, 2-579
Arbitration, from judgment on, 2-641^
643
Order of recommital. 2-626
Orders vacating, 2-630
Arguments in appellate couVts, 2-^-52;
11-79
Arraignment and plea, 2-S67, 877
Arrest in civil cases, from orders,
2-975
Arrest of judgment, after trial de
novo, 2-995
Prom order, 2-1036
Assistance, writ of, order grasting
or refusing, 3-155
Order restraining execution of, 3-
157
Attachment, effect on lien of, 3-S44
Proceedings to vacate or disaoke,
3-824-846
Returns taken as true, 3-561
Too late to vacate, 3-775
What reviewable, 3-S39
Attorneys, from disbarment, 3-871
Audita querela, 3-880
Bankruptcy proceedings, 3-1001, ICAV
1028
Writ of error after jury trial, 3-
1013
Bastardy proceedings, 4-79, 83
Bill and answer, amendment on ap-
peal, 4-203
Bulings on amendment, 4-219
Bill of exceptions, 4-287-371
Proceedings to amend, 4-369
Bill of particulars, review of refusal,
4-408
Bill of review, cumulative with, 4-
420
Of decision in appellate court, 4-
435
Review of leave to file, 4-424
Bill to impeach appellate judgment,
4-475
Breach of the peace, 4-565
Brief, see Brieps; Statement asp
Abstract op Case.
Case and question certified, 4-674, 7»u
Case on appeal, 4-766, 800
Certificate of evidence, 11-915
Certificate of probable cause, to sta^
in criminal cases, 4-86S
Habeas corpus in federal courts, 4-
868
Unless frivolous, 4-868
Certiorari, as a substitute, 4-.991
Choice when concurrent, 4-900; 11*
54
Prom court of review, 4-951
10
INDEX
▲PPfiAUi, eonid,
Oertiorariy contd,
Not granted when, 4-895, 900
When time expired, 4-898
Where appeal adequate, 11-54; 12-
882
Change of venue, orders, 6-44; 11-133
ChineBe exclusion proceedings, 11-914
Choiee and election of remeSes, 5-123
Commerce court, review of commis-
sioner's orders, 5-160
From judgments, 5-178
Confirmation of sale of infant's prop-
erty, 12-840
Consolidation of actions, when re-
viewed, 5-278
On appeal, in highway proceedings,
11-77
Contempt, 5-423-4
Continuance, in highway proceedings,
11-79
Beview of order, 5-496
Contribution, jurisdictional amount,
5-505
Copyright proceedings, 5-519
Corporations, 5-676
Costs, criminal cases, from taxation
of, 5-789
After motion to retax, 5-963-
FaUure to recover more than judg-
ment below, 5-880
In appellate proceedings, 5-978,
1023
In highway proceedings, on affirm-
ance, 11-103
On dismissal, 11-103
On reversal, 11-104
Statutory, 11-102
Taxation of, 11-104
Offer of judgment, effect on, 5-853
Judgment less than offer, 5-869
Benewal of in appellate court, 5-
861
Presumptions as to, 5-965
Beviewing judgment as to, 5-920
Bules, denial for violation of, 6-69
Courts martial, review of sentence,
6125, 127
Beview by civil courts, 6-129
To general court, 6-131
To United States Supreme Court,
6-131
Cross-bill, while original remains, 6-
294
Cross -complaint, 6-311
Cruelty to animals, in action for pen-
alty, 6-321
Customs duties, from appraisement,
6-340-344
Matters reviewable, 6-345
eonid.
Customs duties, ^onid.
To court of customs appeals, 6-345-
351
Damages, assessed by appellate court,
highway proceedings, 11-90
Decedents' estates, from confirma-
tion of sale, 6-572
From judgment on claims, 6-535-
540
From order appointing administra-
tor, 6-509
From order for additional bond^ 6-
507, 508
From order of distribution, 6-636
Assets of insolvent, 6-588
From order of removal, 6-617
From order of sale, 6-568
In discovery of assets, 6-522
Insolvent estates, 6-586
Order denying accounting, 6^96
Order on inscuvency, 6-681
Order setting aside accounts, 6-628,
626
Decisions reviewable, highway pro-
ceedings, 11-52, 67, 114, 131, 264,
432
Indictment, final decisions, 12-658
Decrees, 6-798
Pro forma for purpose of appeal,
6-745
Default, review of motions for relief
6-827-829
From judgment, 6-839
Demurrer, considered in appellate
court, 6-987
From order on, indictment, 12-668
Harmless error, 6-1012-1016
Beview, 6-1016-1019
Demurrer to evidence, 7-36
De novo hearing, see infraf Beview.
Deposit in court retained pending,
7-170
Depositions, use on, 7-399
Objections below, 7-448, 451
Detinue, review, 7-489, 490
Disclaimer, 7-496
Discovery, from order for examina-
tion, 7-575
From order for production, 7-642
Dismissal, discontinuance and non-
suit, from order of, 7-691, 692
Highway proceedings, alteration of
highway, 11-130, 138
Discontinuance of highway, 11-
266
Effect of dismissal, 11-78
For want of notice, ll-132n
For want of parties, 11-78
Disorderly conduct, methods of re-
view, 7-697
11
INDEX
APPBAI0, eonid.
Divorce, effect of abatement, 7-809,
810, 813
Commitment for non-payment of
alimony, 7-834
Oustody and support of children,
7-859
From decree, for alimony, 7-847
Modifying alimony, 7-845
From division of property, 7-852
Due process of law, 7-915, 916
Criminal cases, 7-926
Easements, review, 7-971
Effect of, from highway tribunal, 11-
59, 60, 115
Stay of deportation, pending, 11-
903
Vacates decision of lower court,
when, 11-60
Elections, from canvassing boards,
8-52
Procedure in contests, 8-112, 124
Eeview of contest, 8-106, 124
Beview of registration boards, 8-
136
Embezzlement, 8-251
Eminent domain, 8-330-342
Jury on appeal, 8-300
Equal division of judges, afi&rmance,
6-82
Equity jurisdiction and procedure, 8-
499
Informations in equity, appeal, of,
12717
Errors, assignment of, 8-518
Writ of, see Writ op Ebbor.
Escheat, 8-670
Estrays, not from proceedings, 8-717
Extortion, criminal, 8-834
Failure to take, as waiver, 12-781
Final decisions, see supra, Decisions
reviewable^r
landings, of lower court, review, 11-
433
On appeal, highway proceedings,
11-115
Forcible entry and detainer, 8-1129-
1132
Forthcoming bond, reversal of orig-
inal judgment, 10-8
Fraudulent conveyances, 10-210
Frivolous, admiralty, 1-576
Frivolous and sham pleadings, from
judgment on, 10-301
Gaming, from judgment for destruc-
tion of devices, 10-335
Garnishment, 10-592, 594
Effect of appeal, 10-386
Grand jury, review of organization,
10-633
APPEALS, contd.
Grand jury, contd.
Discretion of courts in reconvening,
10-661
Objections not first on appeal, 10-
644
Guardian ad litem, error to appoint
for competent, 10-713
Appointment on or after, 10-724
Judgment against infant without
10-728
May take, 10-771
Reversal where none of record, 10-
731
Guardian and ward, from decrees on
accounting, 10-848, 852
From judgment on claim, 10-855
Beview, of appointment, 10-805, 808
Dismissal of petition, 12-17
Effect of, 12-17n
Of award of custody, 10-820
Of judgments, in general, 10-876,
877
Of removal, 10-814, 816
Habeas corpus, from proceedings, 10-
979, 980; 11-924
Beview by habeas corpus from ap-
pellate court, 10-962
Harmless error, see infra, Beview.
Health, from regulations, 10-979, 980
Heirship, from proceedings, 12-926
Highways, alteration proceedings, 11-
115, 127, 129
Collision on, 11-256
Discontinuance of, 11-262
Injuries from, 11-247, 256
Obstructions on, abatement of, 11-
186
Proceedings to establish, 11-50, 69n *
Prosecutions for obstructing, 11-160
Bepairing, proceedings for, 11-113
Boad work, prosecution for failure
to do, 11-142
Homesteads, from allotment of, 11-
325, 396, 403
In actions to protect, 11-432
Immigration proceedings, in, 11-903
Incompetent, from appointment of
guardian, for, 12-17
Indictment and information, motion
to quash, from order in, 12-644
Necessity of, on appeal from jus-
tice court, 12-86
Objections below, 12-633
Pending appeal, 12-93
Infants, in actions concerning, 12-798
Injunction, from, 11-111
Inspection of animals, 1-964
Intermediate appellate courts, 11-85,
115, 131, 266
Invited error, see infra, Beview,
12
INDEX
APPEAU3, eonid.
Justices eourty from, see Justigib of
THE Peace.
Juvenile courts, from, 12-877, 882
Mandamus, in highway proceedings,
11-107
Not available where appeal lies, 11-
106n
Nolo contendere, from plea of, 2-907
Bepleading after, 2-906
Notice of, Chinese exclusion proceed-
ings, in, 11-915
Infants, in actions respecting, 12-
796
Proof of filing, 11-73
Waiver of, by appearance, 11-73
Objections and exceptions, made be-
low, highways, 11-247, 264
Pardon, plea of, pending, 2-917
Parties, amicus curiae, highways, 11-
64
Attorney general, 12-717
Highway proceedings, ll-51n, 114,
130, 131, 262
Infants, in actions respecting, 12-
794
Interested or aggrieved, 11-64, 130
Penalties, in actions for, 11-166,
170
Belator, 12-717
Bemonsttants as defendants, in
highway proceedings^ 11-67
Penalty, actions for, 11-166, 169, 170
Petition from dismissal of, highways,
11;69
Presumptions, hearing, as to objec-
tions to, 11-19
Highway proceedings, regularity
of, 11-86
Juvenile proceedings, 12-878
Beplication, as to filing of, 11-5
Service on infants, as to, 1€-751
Proceedings in appellate court, ad-
journment, highway proceedings,
11-79
Notice of hearing, 11-78
Opening and closing, 11-79
Prohibition, where appeal adequate,
12-882
Quashing, where premature, high-
ways, 11-62, 68n
Questions of fact, appeal from high-
way proceedings, 11-87
Batiflcation, effected by infant's ap-
peal upon attaining majority, 12-
781
Becord, abstract or statement of case,
see Statement and AssTaAcr of
Case.
Agreed case, 1-765
Case on appeal, 4-764
AFPBA£8^ e&ntd.
Becord, contd.
Indictment, 12-646
Stenographer 's notes, as, see State-
ment AND Abstract of Case.
Transcript, highway proceedings,
1177, 133
What constitutes, 2-331; 4-299
Beference on, in highway proceed-
ings, 11-80, 134, 266
Beview and decision, 2-409
De novo hearing, 2-409
Chinese exclusion proceedings^ 11*
915
Highway proceedings, 11-80
Election of offenses, refusal to re-
quire, 12-683
Findings of lower court, 11-115, 433
Habeas corpus, by immigrant, 11-
924
Harmless error, 2-457
Evidence, as to, 12-249
Hearing at wrong term, 11-15
Infant's appeal, 12-797
Injuries from highways, 12-248
Instructions, 11-249, 658
Suggesting majority of plaintiff,
12-803
Highway proceedings, 11-78, 82,
115, 133, 247, 265
Immigration proceedings, 11-904
Indictment, 12-633
Bequiring election of counts in,
12-672
Infant's appeal, 12-797
Invited error, as bearing on decree
pro confesso, 11-5
Issues raised below, 11-433
Judgment of appellate court, 2-475
Enforcing, 11-89
Highway proceedings, 11-88, 116
Mandate, see Mandate.
On infant's appeal, 12-798
Vacating, highway proceedings,
11-266
Bules, see Bulbs of Coubt.
Appeal for violation of, 6-68
Of appellate court, effect of viola-
tion, 6-69
Time of filing record, 6-61
Sole trader proceedings, 11-818
Statutory in nature, 11-50, 63, 71
Supersedeas, from refusal of, home-
steads, 11-331
Taking and perfecting, appeal bond*
see Appeal Bonds; Undebtas-
INOS.
Notice of appeal, see supra, Kotiee.
Statutes must be complied with, ll-
71, 132
18
lNDE}t
eonid.
Taking and perfecting, eonid.
Time for, highway proceedings, 11-
62, 129
To what court, highway proceed-
ings, ll-61-62n, 129, 262
To secretary of labor, immigra-
tion, 11-922
Undertaking on, see Appeal Bonds.
iWaiver, of appeal in highway pro-
ceedings, 11-77
Of want of jurisdiction, by appear-
ance, 11-63
Withdrawal of, 11-77
APPBABA1T0E8 — Consult analysts of
this article, 2-484. See Justices of
THE Peace.
Admiralty, by filing claim, 1-505
Effect of, 1-493, 500
Affidavits of merits, by filing, 1-711
Appeals, by attorney presumed au-
thorized, 2-419
Docketing in, amounts to, 2-321
Part of record on, 2-334
Becord conclusive, 2-419
Waives process in, 2-311; 11-73
What is in court of, 2-322
Apprentices in court, 2-574
Attachment, effect, 3-694-696
Bight to appear, 3-692
Time, 3-692, 693
To compel appearance, 3-244
Waiver of defects in affidavit, 3-443
What is appearance, 3-696-699
Attorneys, authority presiuned, 2-419;
3-853
Authority may be denied, 3-854
Not in person where by, 3-855
Of attorney general, to informatioui
12710
Bankruptcy proceedings, creditor op*
posing composition, 3-915
Of bankrupt, 3-979-980
At discharge, 3-923
Of creditors, 3-980
Bastardy proceedings, of accused, 4-72
By guardian, 12-739
Common injunction on default in, 12-
1006
Contempt, required of accused, 5-398
Corporations, by foreign, 5-741
In general, 5-630, 633
Costs, separate defendants, 5-841
Decree pro confesso, notice of ap-
plication, 6-773.
Default, defect of process cured by,
6-809
Appearance or non-appearance, ef-
fect, 6-815, 816
No jurisdiction in rem by, 6-810
APPEABANCES, contd.
Default, contd.
Non-appearance as default, 6-804,
805
Demurrer, eonstitutea, 6-941
Non-appearance at hearing, 6-981
Deposition, waiver by appearing at
taking, 7-457
Dismissal, for non-appearanee of
plaintiff at trial, 7-676
Waiver of error in reinatatament,
7-690
Divorce, 7-758
Effect on quasi in rem proeeedlngiy
6-813; 10-475
Equity, in, 8-473-478
Error, assignment of, of parties to,
8-536
Forcible entry and detainer, notice
not waived by, 8-1096
Garnishment, changes in rem to per-
sonam, 10-475
Grand juror, 10-620
Guardian ad litem, 10-757
Guardian, at application for app<unt-
ment, 10-795
Habeas corpus, jurisdiction by, 10-
913
Jurisdiction not conferred by, appel-
late court, 11-63
Justice's court, in, see Jusncxs of
THE Peace.
Of infant, by guardian, 12-739
Of non-resident, injunction, 12-1016
Waiver of jurisdictional defects in
application for guardianship, 12-
16
APPBAISAL, see Decedents' Estates.
Amendment of, 11-518
Appointment of appraisers, on claim
of exemption, 11-515
Attachment, of property seized, 3-529-
532
Conclusiveness of, on claim of azemp-
tion, 11-519
Of homestead, 11-300, 324
Application for, 11-354
Appointment of appraisers, 11-356,
391, 515
Approving report of appraisers, 11-
363
. At instance of creditor, 11-347, 352
Notice of, 11-515
Objections to, 11-358
Beappraisement, 11-368
Beturn of appraisers, ezceptioas to,
11-366
Signing, 11-518
Time and place of filing, 11-515
Vacating, 11-619
Verification of, 11-518
14
INDEX
APPRAISAL, conid.
Of homestead, cantd.
Viewing premises, 11-359
Of minor's property, before sale, 12-
824
APPBENTIOES — Consult analysis of
this article, 2-567
APPBOPBIATION, of homestead, by
occupancy, 11-300
ABBITBATIOK — Consult analysis of
this article, 2-588
Abatement, submission ground for,
. 1-30
Agreed case distinguished, 1-735
Appeals, 2-183
Attorneys, authority to submit, 3-
856
Building contract providing for, 2-719
Case or question certified, on award,
4-719
Costs, power to award, 5-915
Debt, to recover award, 6-477
Decedents' estates, of claim, 6-540
Eminent domain, 8-317
Guardian ad litem cannot submit to,
10-759
AB0HITECT8 AlH) BUILDEBS —
Consult analysis of this article, 2-675'
See Liens; Mechanics' Ldsns;
Municipal Corporations.
Qarnishment, not before due, excep-
tions, 10-421
ABGUMBNTATIVE PLEADINGS, see
Certainty in Plea^ino.
ABGTJMENTS — Consult afialysis of
this article, 2-722
Abortion, 1-114
Amendment during or after, 1-880,
917
Amicus curiae, by, 1-937
Appeals, 2-401, 402; 11-79
Bastardy proceedings, 4-73 ^
Bills of exceptions, objectionable re-
marks, 4-319
Briefs, must be clear and definite, 4-
584
Commerce court, 5-170
Equity, on demurrer, 8-482
On- hearing, 11-29
Submission of cause without, 11-30
Error, assigning, remarks of counsel,
8-586
Not argued, waived, 8-639
Gaming, criminal trial, 10-363
Lacfhes, raised by in accounting, 1-
295
Motion to quash indictment, on, 12-
637
ARMY AND NAVY, see Courts Mar-
tial; Navy and Army; Pensions
AND Bounties.
ABBAiamCEKT AM PLSA — Con*
suit analysis of this article, 2-857.
See Indictment and Information;
Jeopardy; Sentence and Judg-
ment.
Abatement, plea of may be at ar-
raignment, 1-57
Strictness as to form, 1-41
Abortion, 1-113
Accessory with principal, 1-151
Amendment, before or at time of,
12-548
Animals, injuring, motion to quas]},
1-974
Another indictment jmnding, 1-999
Arrest of judgment, for want of, 2-
993
Change of venue, second arraignment,
4-999
Courts martial, 6-115
Cruelty to animals, former convic-
tion, 6-315
Demurrer, on arraignment, 12-653
Due process of law, plea necesBary^
7-920
Former acquittal, adultery, 1-612
' Grand jury^ objection to after plea,
10-635, 641
Guilty, of, ascertaining the degree of
murder on, 11-688
Motion to quash indictment, before or
at time of arraignment, 12-634
ABBE8T IK CIVIL OASES — Consult
analysis of this article, 2-922. See
Beqoonizances and Bail.
Admiralty, bail, 1-508
Process, 1-490
How executed, 1-495
Affidavits for, 12-897
Appeals, 2-175
Attorneys, privilege, when, 3-851
Bankruptcy, of bankrupt, 3-987, 990
Contempt, as imprisonment for debt,
5-421
Homicide committed during, ques-
tions of law and fact, 11-651
Indictment, illegal arrest of accused
as affecting, 12-90
Information filed before, 12-119
Of Indian, action for, 12-45
To enforce judgment, see Judgments
AND Decrees, Enforcement of.
ABBEST IN CBIMINAL CASES, see
Dub Process of Law ; Extradition ;
False Imprisonment; Habeas Cor-
pus; Malicious Prosecution; Priv-
ilege; Process; Sheriffs, Con-
stables, and Marshals; War-
bants.
15
INDEX
ABREST IN CRIMINAL CASES, conid.
On defective warrant, effect on in-
formation, 12-613
Without warrant, see False Impris-
onment.
ABBEST OF JUDGMENT — Consult
analysis of this article, 2-979
After overruling, demurred, 6-994
Alienage of grand juror, 1-806
Appeals, assignment of error, 8-626
Mere irregularities, 10-644
Motions for not of record on, 2-339,
341
Reasons for motion in record, 2-360
Case or question certified, R. I., 4-748
Complaint incorrectly entitled, 12-736
Criminal cases, in, for substantial
defects, 12-698
Election of offenses, for failure to
require, 12-685
Embezzlement, for substantial de-
fects, 8-250
Error, assignment of, on motion, 8-
626
Name of accused, for alteration as
to, in indictment, 12-321
New indictment on, 12-150
ASSON — Consult analysis of this
article, 3-1. See also Crimiwil Pro-
cedure.
Indictment for, 12-576
ASSAULT AND BATTERY -^ Consult
analysis of this article, 3-31. See
Master and Servant; Parent and
Child; Trespass. See also Criminal
Procedure,
Admiralty, not in rem, 1-417
Affray, when included in, 1-730
Aggravated assault, 12-576
As criminal offense, 12-77
Attachment, as grounds for, 3-366
Averments of, in homicide, 11-598
Case, the action on the, 4-627
False imprisonment, may include, 8-
920
Felonious assault, 12-576
Indictment for, in county court, 12-
89n
Joinder with other offenses, 12-675
Upon wife, actions for, 11-722
With deadly weapon, 12-577
With intent, to kill, 11-592; 12-577
To ravish, 12-581
To rob, 12-582
ASSIGNEE, ACTION BY, see Assign-
ments.
ASSIG^TMEMT FOB THE BENEFIT
OF CRESDITOBA — Consult analysis
of this article, 3-47. See Bankruptcy
Proceedings ; Composition With
Creditors ; Creditors ' Suits ;
Fraudulent Conveyances; Insolv-
ency; Judgments and Decrees,
Enforcement of; Receivers.
Attachment, where fraudulent intent,
3-392
Dissolved by, 3-809
Intervention by assignee, 3-d58
Priorities, 3-629
Vacating, by assignee, 3-765
By assignor, 3-766
Creditors' suits, parties, 6-200
Fraudulent conveyances, action to set
aside, 10-115
Allegations by assignee, 10-172
Garnishment of assignee, 10-456
Homestead, of, see Allotment.
ASSIGNMENT OF EBBOES, see &-
RORs, Assignment of.
AfiSIGNMEMTS — Consult analysis of
this article, 3-84. See Parties; Sur-
vival; Vendor and Purchaser.
Accounts by assignee, 1-284
Admiralty, assignees as parties, 1-430
Appeal bonds, action on, 2-91
Appeals, assignees as parties, 2-227
Assignment for creditors, 3-49
Assumpsit, proving under general is-
sue, 3-188
Attachment, in favor of assignee. 3-
259, 364
Of bonds for, 3-447
Of interest of assignor, 3-13
Priorities, 3627
Bankruptcy proceedings, proof of
claim, 3-901, 902
Bills and notes, parties in actions, 4-
234
Allegations, 4-263, 267
By delivery, assignor party, 4-242
Bills of review, assignee cannot main-
tain, 4-431
Corporation, of judgment by, 5-669
Assignee of subscription may sue,
5-687
Stockholders' suits, by whom, 5-709
Costs, action in name of assisrnor, 5-
816
Creditors' suits, by assignee, 6-188
Of property to receivers, 6-234
Decedents' estates, of claims, 6-529
Exemption claim, assertion of by as-
signee, 11-479
Forcible entry and detainer, asBignees
as parties, 8-1099
Fraudulent conveyances, setting aside
by assignee, 10-117
16
INDEX
ABSiaNMEKTS, contd.
Freight carrier s, assignee of bill of
lading as party, 10-237
Garnishment, in effect, 10-502-506
Priorities, 10-516
Subsequent assignments, 10-51*8
Guaranty, assignees as parties, 10-674
Assignor not joined, 10-681
Husband and wife, actions between
assignees of, 11-713
Indemnity contract, action by as-
signee, 12-29
ASSI8TAN0E, WBITS OT^ Consult
analysis of this article, 1-139. See
Judgments and Degrees, Envoroe-
MENT OF.
Decrees, 6-788
Parties, wife as party, homestead in-
volved, 11-342
AaaOOlATlOirS — Consult analysis of
this article, 3-158. See Beneficial
Associations; Joint Stock Com-
panies; Labor Unions; Partner-
ship; Religious Societies.
Accounts of building and loan asso-
ciations, 1-273
Certainty in pleading, names of in-
dividuals, 4-840
Corporations cannot sue as, 5-553
Declaration and complaint, in name
of individuals, 6-653
Embezzlement, allegation of owner-
ship, 8-237
Exhausting remedy in association as
condition to action, see Suits and
Actions.
ASSUMPSIT — Consult analysis of this
article, 3-166. See Joinder of Ac-
tions ; Monet Counts ; Monet Had
AND Received; Several Coxtnts;
Use and Occupation; Work and
Labor. See also Quantum Meruit;
Quantum Valebant.
Accord and satisfaction, replication,
1-188
Accounts, 1-216 •
Action on book, 1-233
Defense, under general issue, 1-228
Affidavit of defense, necessity, 1-663
Arbitration, on award, 2-646
Attachment, on waiver of tort, 3-340
Bills and notes, action, 4-227
Bills of particulars, 4-385
Choice of remedies, or account, 5-98
Or case, 5-116
Or covenant, 5-98
Or detinue, 7-474
Or replevin, 5-114
Or rescission, 5-116
Or trespass, 5-115
Or trover, 5-115
ASSUMPSIT, eontd.
Contract not payable in money, on,
11-953
Contribution, action for, 5-500
Corporations, action against, 5-568
Debt, distinguished, 6-464
Denials, general issue, 7-63
Belease under general, 7-73
Eminent domain, for taking under, 8-
349
Factors against, 8-869
Gaming, recovery from stakeholder,
10-324
Gifts, for ineffectual, 10-602
Guaranty, when proper, 10-672
Highways, for improvements in, 11-
126
Indebitatus assumpsit, nil debet in
declaration in, 10-1013
Parties to, 11-957
Where an express contract exists,
11-936, 947
Where damages liquidated, 11-957
Indemnity bond, on, 12-29
Non-assumpsit, plea of, 11-1013, 1016
Sealed contracts, on, 11-951
ASSUMPTION OP BISK, see Master
AND Servant; Neoliosncx.
ATTAOHMZBKT — Consult analysis of
this article, 3-216. See Contempt;
Forthcoming Bonds ; Garnish-
ment; Homesteads and Exemp-
tions; Judgments and Degrees,
Enforcement op; Justices of the
Peace; Process; Sequeste^tion;
Undertakings; Witnesses.
Admiralty, 1-491
Decree, 1-548
Foreign attachment not in rem, 1-
419
Affidavit, of defense, foreign, 1-665
For attachment, 12-897
Another claim pending,. 1-998
Appeal, from orders on, 2-175
Pending, 2-329
Appearance, personal in, 2-499
Arbitration, to enforce judgment, 2-
644
Arrest in civil cases, 2-922
Assignment for creditors, of property
assigned, 3-51, 55
Assignee's remedy against unlaw-
ful, 3-73
Assignor's remedy against, 3-83
Bond, action on, see Bonds ; Principal
AND Surety; Summary Proceed-
ings.
Choice of remedies, or detinue, 5-116
Or foreclosure, 5-121
Consolidation of actions, effect on
attachment, 5-276
17
INDEX
ATTAOHMENT, Gonid,
Corporations, by and against, 5-633,
636
Against foreign, 5-740
As natural persons, 5-576
Divorce, for alimony, 7-834
Exemption, as defense to attachment,
11-486
Time to assert, 11-492
For costs, against guardian, 12-802
Fraudulent conveyances, right to at-
tack, 10-100
Action before judgment, 10-131
Exhausting legal remedies by, 10-
137
Garnishment, in attachment proceed-
ings, 10-387, 389
Homestead, 11-334
Entry, as affected by attachment
lien, n-319
Parties, 11-342
Jurisdiction by seizure and notice, 6-
811
Justice court, in, see Justices of the
Peace.
Property in custodia legis, see Gab-
NISHMENT.
In admiralty, 1-495
Vacating, attachment of exempt prop-
erty, 11-520
Wife's separate property, 11-827
ATTEMPTS, see Indictment and In-
formation; and specific criminal
law titles.
Conviction of attempt, where com-
pleted offense charged, 12-583
To commit incest, 12-12
ATTORNEYS — Consult analysis of this
article, 3-847. See Ajiouments;
Lawyee and Client; Liens; Neg-
ligence; Substitution of Attor-
ney.
Abatement, plea of by attorney, 1-34
Accounts, 1-273
Admiralty, fees of proctor and coun-
sel, 1-571, 572, 579
Affidavit by, see Attorneys.
Arrest in civil cases, 2-929
Attachment, 3-399, 400, 402
Of merits, 1-672, 675
On information and belief, 12-896
Agreed case, both may sign, 1-755
Alien immigrant, right to counsel, 11-
903, 907, 909
Amendment, signature by, 1-904, 905
Information, of, by prosecuting
attorney, 12-555, 560
Amicus curiae, need not be, 1-936
Appeal, orders on admission of, 2-
ass
ATTOBNETS, contd.
Appeal, contd.
Conduct of counsel, no exceptions
below, 2-260
Misconduct, must appear in rec-
ord, 2-349
Harmless error, when, 2-467
Appearance, 2-517, 555; 6-347
Act constituting, 2-501, 552
Authority presumed, 2-556, 559
Authority where questioned, 2-557
By attorney general, to informa-
tion, 12-710
Entry of, 2-553
Equity, in, 8-473, 475
For corporation, 5-631
Becord should show name, 2-552
Taking part in proceedings, 2-499
Unauthorized, sef aside, 2-564
Arbitration, discretion to hear coun-
sel, 2-603
Arguments, by, 2-726, 856
Comments on opposing, 2-755
Criticism of opinion, 2-726
Incidental remarks not admis-
sions, 2-732
In criminal cases, by proaeeutiBg,
2-759, 762; 8-243
Defendant's counsel on failure
of accused to testify, 2-785
Motives ascribed on evidence not
misconduct, 2-753
Number heard, 2-735
Presence of opposing counsel, 2-745
Shedding tears, 2-808
Where witness, 2-729
Arraignment and plea, in absence of
counsel, 2-869
Not to enter plea, 2-883
Not to enter plea of guilty, 2-892
Plea of not guilty not entered, 2-
908
Attachment, affidavit by, 3-399, 400,
402
• Bond by in name of principal, 3-447
Signature by attorney, 3-455
Bills and answers, signature by coun-
sel, 4-146
Bills and notes, allegation of attor-
ney's fees, 4-256
Bills of exceptions, signature, 4-323
Bills of review, signature by counsel,
4-449
Party bound by answer of coun-
sel, 4-453
Champerty, contingent fee, when, 4-
963
Payment of costs, 4-964
Commerce court, 5-170
18
INDEX
ATTORNEYS, conid.
Continuance, for absence, 5-444, 446
Death or disability, 5-446
Time to prepare, 5-468
Costs, liability for, 5-817
Action begun without authority^ 5-
813
Fees of as costs, 5-931
On appeal, 5-1008
Prior to offer of judgment, 6-868
Lien on for services, 5-906
Witness fees, right to, 5-951
Courts martial, right to counsel, 6
115
Cross-bill, service of process on, 6
288
Customs duties, appearance on ap
peals, 6-347
Declaration and complaint, signature
6-719721
Default, by dishonest act of, relief
6-828
Demurrer, interposed in disbarment
6-857
Deposition, notice, 7-287, 289
Signing, 7-284
Presence at examination, 7-303.
Discovery, not of privileged com-
munications, 7-534
Affidavit for examination of party
by, 7-567
Dismissal, discontinuance and non-
suit, retraxit not entered by, 7-
653
Neglect to prosecute, 7-678
Power to dismiss, 7-654
Divorce, counsel fees, 7-817
Signing pleadings, 7-784
Dower, demand, 7-865
Essoign, not by, 7-863
Estoppel to sue on claims previously
defended by him, 10-105n
Exemption claim, assertion of, by at-
torney, 11-481
False imprisonment, not liable when,
8-954
Garnishment, liable to, 10-407
Answer by, 10-535
Grand jury, prosecuting attorney pres-
ent when, 10-651
Advice of prosecuting attorney, 10-
654
Guardian ad litem required to be,
where, 10-740
Power to employ, 10-761
Heirship proceedings, appointing at-
torney in, 12-923
Information and belief, allegations
on, by attorney, 12-900
Juvenile, counsel appointed for, 12-
872
ATTOBMETS^ eonid.
Offer of judgment by, 5-859
Separation agreements, counsel fee^
in actions on, 11-824
Signature to assignment, of errors, 8-
534
Cross-errors, 8-647
To pleadings, 4-449; 4-146; 6-719
In divorce, 7-784
To informations in civil suits, 12-
715
Verification by, see Veripication.
In creditors' suits, 6-218
Of claims against estate, 6-531
Of criminal complaint, by prosecut-
ing attorney, 12-290
AUCTIONS AND AUCTIONEERS, see
Judicial Sales; Sales.
AUDITA QUEBELA — Consult analysis
of this article, 3-875.. See Super-
sedeas AND Stat of Proceedings.
AUTOMOBILES, see Highways,
Streets and Bridges; Motor Ve-
hicles; Negligence.
AUTREFOIS ACQUIT, see Arraign-
ment AND Plea; Jeopardy.
BAGGAGE, see Passengers.
BAIL, see Arrest in Civil Cases;
Bonds; Recognizances and Bail.
BAILMENTS, see Personal Property.
See also Embezzlement; Factors
AND Broicers ; Freight Carriers ;
Garnishment; Inns and Innkeep-
ers; Liens; Negligence; Passen-
gers ; Pawnbrokers ; Pledges ;
Principal and Agent; Replevin;
Sales ; Ships and Shipping ; Trover
AND Conversion; Warehousemen.
Agistment, 1-976
Attachment, 3-309
Exemption claim, assertion of by
bailee, 11-479
Garnishment of bailee, 10-409
BANKRUPTCY, see Bankruptcy Pro-
ceedings.
Conspiracy te conceal assets, 5-298n
Discharge in, plea of, 11-1032
Joinder of bankrupt, in actions on
joint obligations, 11-979
Petition in, as affecting homestead
entry, 11-319
BANKBXTPTCY PBOCEEDIKOS^
Consult analysis of this article^ 3-
881. See Insolvency.
Appeals, assignee in bankruptcy as
party to, 2-227
Attachment, transfer in violation of
bankruptcy act as grounds for,
3-391
Dissolved by, 3-809
Banks, insolvency of, 4-51
19
INDEX
BANS&UFTCY PBOOEEDDTOB, eontd.
Case or question certifiedi 4-682
Choice of remedies by trustee, 5-93
Discharge in, plea of, see Belsase.
Dower, jurisdiction, 7-868
Fraudulent conveyances, setting
aside by trustee, 10-116
Allegations by trustee, 10-171
Garnishment of trustee, 10-455
Bestraining proceedings in state
courts, 12-1017
BANKS Ain> BANEJNQ — Consult an-
alysis of this article, 4-1. See In-
solvency.
Corporations, jurisdiction of national
banks, 5-584
Deposit in court, fund in bank, 7-160,
164
Fraud and deceit, by officials, joinder,
10-49
Garnishment, special deposits, safety
deposit box, 10-437
Of bank deposit, 10-445, 448
Priorities as to checks, 10-447
BASTABD8, LEGITIMATION OF, see
Parent and Child.
BASTABDY PBOOEEDIKaS — Con-
suit analysis of this article, 4-54
Appeals, 2-184
Guardian ad litem, unnecessary, 10-
714
BEGIN AND BEPLY, BIGHT TO, see
Opening and GLosiNa.
BENEFICIAI. AS80CIATI0KS — Con-
sult analysis of this article, 4-84. See
Associations; Insubance.
BETTEBMENTS, see Landlord and
. Tenant; Lands and Land Tbans-
FEBS,
BETTING, see Gaming.
BIQAMT — Consult analysis of this ar-
ticle, 4-88. See also Criminal Pro-
cedure in general.
BILL AND AN8WEB IN EQUITY, see
Bills and Answers.
BIIJiS AND AKSWEBS — Consult an-
alysis of this article, 4-102. See
Equity Jurisdiction and Proced-
ure; Bills of Beview; Bills to
Enforce Degrees; Bills to Im-
peach Judgments and Decrees;
Cross-Bill; Declaration and Com-
plaint; Hearing; Pleading; Plea
IN Equity.
Accounting, bill for, 1-288, 290, 299
Account stated, amendment, 1-258
Answer in, 1-291, 294, 296, 299, 301
Impeached by bill, 1-249, 250
Admissions by answer, 11-12
BILLS AMD ANSWERS^ eontd.
Amendment of bill to bring in par-
ties, 11-18
Annuities, bill for, 1-989
Answers, in general, 8-483
Arbitration, bill for relief from, 2-
631
Answer, 2-632
Assignment for creditors, bill to set
aside, 3-60
Bill by assignee, 3-67
Avoiding answer, 8-478, 483
Banks and banking, bill for liability
over subscription, 4-20
Bills against officers, 4-37
Bills of review, 4-411
Answer to, 4-452
Bills to enforce decrees, 4-559
Answer to, 4-468
Bills to impeach judgments and de-
crees, 4-480, 489
Answer, 4-488
Chattel mortgages, bill to redeem, 5-
55
Common injunction on failure to an-
swer, 12-1006
Compelling answer, 11-4
Compromise and settlement, allega-
tions in bill to set aside, 5-200
Copyright proceedings, 5-512, 514
Corporations, parties, 5-607
A.n8T7er8 5-654
Stockholders' suits, bill, 5-713, 716
Creditors' suits, 6-208, 218
Answer, 6-186, 219
Cross-bills, 6-261, 294
Affirmative relief under answeri 6-
267
Answer to, 6-286
Amendments, 6-291
Answers as, 6-286
Form and sufficiency, 6-270
Hearing of, with biU, 11-20
Decedents' estates, accounting In
equity, 6-597
Bill to set aside accounts, 6-616
Bill to set aside sale, 6-573, 576.
Decree, pro confesso, insufficient an-
swer, 6-765
Where no answer, 11-4, 5
Demurrer, to part of bill, 6-857, 866
Bill good in part, 6-967
Considered as application to set
the bill for hearing on bill and
answer, 11-8
Not interposed to answer, 6-857;
11-8
Discovery, see Disoovery.
Dismissal of bill for want of parties,
11-18
20
INDEX
BILLB AND ANSWERS, eontcL
Divorce, bill, 7-759, 771
Answer, 7-771, 780
Dower, answer asserting homestead,
11-391
Elections, bill for injunction, 8-61
Eminent domain, application for in-
junction, 8-366
Evidence, answer as, 12-904
Exceptions to answer, 8-485; 11-8
Form of bill, 8-460
Fraudulent conveyances, bills, 10-150,
178
Answers, 10-178
By grantee, 10-181, 184
Frivolous and sham pleading, in bills,
remedy, 10-274
Gifts, allegation in bill, 10-603
Guardian, bill by foreign guardian
for transfer, 10-905
Bill for accounting, 10-837
Health, in equity proceedings under
statute, 10-987
Hearing on bill and answer, as
waiver of defects in answer, 11-9
In general, 11-3; 11-7
On withdrawal of replication, 11-8
Who may set for, 11-8
Homesteads, allotment of, 11-391'
Averring illegal conveyance of, 11-
383
Bill by heirs for surrender of, 11-
406
Creditors' suits against, 11-342
Foreclosure on, 11-379
Waiver of, averment of, 11-438
Infants, in suits against, 12-756
Information and belief, averments on,
12-899, 902
Informations, as compared with bill,
12-714
Injunction, answer, in highway pro-
ceedings, 11-111
To protect homestead, 11-412, 413
To restrain vacation of highway,
11-270
Judicial sale, bill to set aside, 12-
852
Subrogation, in homestead proceed-
ings, 11-391
Trust deed, to foreclose, on home-
stead, 11-379
Verification, of cross-bill to procure
stay, 11-21
Wife, separate property of, bills in
suits against, 11-830
BILLS AND NOTES — Consult analysis
of this article^ 4-220. See Altera-
tion OF Instruments; Banks and
Banking; Interest; Lost Instru-
ments.
BILLS Am) KOTES, eonid.
Arrest in civil cases, averments for,
2-947
Attachment, of negotiable paper, 3-
295
Not before due, 3-334
Subject to, 3-526
Between husband and wife, suits on,
11-709
Debt, action on, 6-470
Duress, defense by endorser, 7-950
Embezzlement, description in indict-
ment, 8-233
Fraudulent conveyances, parties to
action, 10-148
Garnishment, not of maker or in-
dorser, 10-437, 443
After delivery in payment by de-
fendant to garnishee, 10-467
Modification of rule, 10-439, 441
Guaranty, distinguished from indorse-
ments, 10-668
Indorsee as party, 10-676
Indemnity, distinguished from, 12-24
Liability on, nature of, 12-24
Usury as a defense, foreclosure on
homestead, 11-383
BILLS OP DISCOVEEY, see Discov-
ery.
BILLS OF EXOEPTIONS — Consult
analysis of this article, 4-287. See
Errors, Assignment of ; Statement
AND Abstract or Case.
Appeals, to make of record in, 2-340,
342
Necessary to review evidence, 2-
351, 355
Becord must show duly signed and
filed^ 2-363
Arguments, presenting errors regard-
ing, 2-851
Arrest of judgment, need not include
motion for, 2-1030
Attachment, in proceedings to va-
cate, 3-843
Case on appeal, functions same, 4-
767
Election between, 4-800
Turning into exceptions, 4-799
Case or question certified, to show
reservation, 4-695, 696
Certificate of probable cause not un-
til settlement, 4-869
Elections, in contests, 8-118
Necessity for bill, 4-872, 875
Chinese deportation proceedings, 11-
915
Error, assignment of, for multiplicity
of, 8-627
49
21
INDEX
OF BZ(XBPnONS» conid.
Findings and eoncluaionB, ineorpor-
atingy objections and exceptions,
8-1082
Gnardian ad litem, served, 10-772
Highway proceedings, 11-76; 11-133
Indictment, on motion to quash, 12-
646
BILLS OF FABTICULABS — CofuiiZt
analysis of this article, 4-372
Abatement, plea of, not waived by
demand, 1-56
Accounts, not with stated, 1-246
In pleadings in nature of, 1-222
Accused, entitled to, 12-296, 301
Amendment of, 12-567
Arrest of judgment, will not aid in-
dictment, 2-1009
Assignment for benefit of creditors,
3-61
Assumpsit, may be required, 3-209
Bigamy, 4-96
Certainty in pleading, 4-861
Conspiracy, criminal, 5-314
Civil, 5-331
Criminal conversation, 6-255
Death by wrongpfnl act, 6-434
Departure, none between complaint
and biU, 7-119
Discovery, examination not before
furnishing, 7-556
Disorderly house, not of right, 7-707
Divorce, 7-786
Dower, in proceedings, 7-877
Elections, in contests ,8-88
Eminent domain, 8-297
Obscene matters not charged, to
show, 12-296
BILLS OF PEACE, see Quia Timet;
QuiETiKG Title.
BILUI OF BEVIEW — Consult analysis
of this article, 4-411. See Bills
AND Answebs; Buxs To Impeach
JUDeXENTS AND DECEEES; DeCBEES;
Appeal, where appeal lies, 1V399
Decrees, 6-797
Divorce, 7-800
Equity, in general, 8-499
Ouar^an and ward, review of final
account, 10-845, 848
Homestead, for fraud in obtaining,
11-399
Infants, of judgments against, 12-784
Motion to vacate, where also a reme-
dy, 11-399
To impeach judgments and decrees,
4-473
BILLS OF BEVIVOB, see Revivob.
BnJUS TO ENFOBOE DECBEB8 —
Consult analysis of this article, 4-
459
Decrees, 6-786
BILLS TO IMPEACH JXJDGMENTS
AND DECBEES — Cons^t analysis
. of this article, 4-472. See Bills
AND Answers; Bills of Review.
Decrees, 6-797
Default, 6-844
BILLS TO PEBPETUATE TESTI-
MONY, see Perpetuation of Testi-
mony.
BLACKMAIL, see CoNSFmACT; Extor-
tion; Threats.
BLASPHEMT — Consult analysis of
this article, 4-492. See Criminal
Procedure.
BONA FIDE PUBCHASEB, see Bills
AND Notes; Fraudulent Convey-
ances; Notice; Vendor and Pur-
chaser.
Under judgments against infants, 12-
781
BONDS — Consult analysis of this ar-
ticle, 4-494. See Appeal Bonds;
JustipiCation ; Officers ; Beooo-
nizanges and Bail; Sbcuritt for
Costs; Securitt To Keep the
Peace ; Sequestration ; Sheriffs,
Constables and Marshals; Un-
dertakinos.
Admiralty, stipulations, .1-505, 519
Form of, and of stipulation, 1-514
For release, 1-508
For value, 1-510
Marshal, to, 1-511
Surety bonds, costs for, 1-573
Affidavit of defense in action on, 1-
665
Appeal, 2-301
Apprentices, from master for, 2-574
Arbitration, action on, 2-648
Arrest in civil cases, 2-964
Actions on, 2-975, 976
Assignments for creditors, actiona on
assignee's bond, 3-80
Assumpsit, will not lie on, 3-177, 194
Attachment, for, 3-443, 464
Dissolution for defects in, 3-762
By claimant, 3-671, 672
For pajnnent of money subject to,
3-526
Forthcoming, 3-570
Distinguished from dissolution
bond, 3-820
Bestitution bond on sale, 3-576
Bankruptcy, by receiver in, 3-909
By petitioner, 3-969
On appeal, 3-1007, 1008
Certiorari, on application, 4-913, 914
22
INDEX
BONDS, eonid*
Copyright, proceedings on seizare, 5-
515
Customs duties, action on, 6-355
Debt, action of, 6-469
Decedents' estates, of administr-a-
tors, 6-506; 8-781
On sale, 6-569
Divorce, for payment of alimony, 7-
834
Estrays, to state on sale, 8-714
Executors and administrators, 6-506
Actions on, 8-781, 792
Exemption contest, 11-523
Forthcoming bonds, 3-570; 10-4
Sufficiency as such, 10-31
Garnishment for, 10-492
Objections to defects, 10-597
By claimant, 10-565
To discharge, 10-561, 565
Grand jury, bondsman, ground of
challenge, 10-640
Guardian, actions on, 10-879, 899; 12-
18
Before mortgaging property, 12-
859
Of ancillary guardian, 10-907
On sale of property, 12-825
Guardian ad litem, 10-749
Indemnifying surety on, 12-25
Juveniles, on being admitted to
bail, 12-872
Next friend, on execution sale, 12-
792
Parties, to actions on, 11-965
Peace, costs of, 5-764
BOOKS, see Discovery.
BOUNDABIES, see Lands and Land
Transfers.
BOUNTIES, see Pensions and Bount-
ies.
BOYCOTT, see Injunctions; Labor
Unions; Monopolies.
BRANDS, see Animals.
BBEAOH OF PROMISE — Cofwult ari-
aVysia of this article, 4-545
Attachment, 3-339
Infant, complaint by, 12-754
BBEAOH OF THE PEACE — Consult
analysis of this article, 4-558. See
also Criminal Procedure.
Forcible entry and detainer, action to
prevent, 8-1090
Security against, see Security To
Keep the Peace.
BBIBEBY — Consult analysis of this
article, 4-566. See also Criminal
Procedure.
BRIDGES, see Highways, Streets and
Bridges; Waters and Water-
courses.
BRIDGES, eontd.
Admiralty jurisdiction, 1-397
At common law, 11-47, 48
Definition, 11-47
Elections, 8-145
Highway, as part of, 11-49
Ij^aintaining, duty of, 11-50
Public and private, distinguished,
11-47
Scope of term, question of fact, 11-
48
BBIEFS — Consult analysis of this ar*
ticle, 4-574
Appeal, for rehearing, 2-407
Case or question certified, N. H., 4-
727
Commerce court, 5-170
Customs duties, on appeal, 6-349
Equity, at hearing, 8-493
Errors, assignment of not in brief,
waived, 8-639
BROKERS, see Factors and Brokers;
Principal and Agent.
BUCKET SHOP, see Gaming.
BUGGERY, see Sodomy.
BUILDERS, see Arcpitbcts and Build.
ER8; Implied and Express Agree-
ments; Work and Labor.
BUILDING RESTRICTIONS, see In-
junctions ; Lands and Land Trans-
fers.
BUILDING AND LOAN ASSOCIA-
TIONS, see Loan Associations.
BURDEN OF PROOF, see Opening and
Closing ; Trial. And see * * Enctclo-
p^fflDiA OF Evidence."
Abatement, plea of, 1-68
Abduction, 1-87
Contract actions, 11-1036
Death, in action for wrongful, 6-446
Deportation of Chinaman, 11-912
Homestead contest, 11-333
Indemnity, as affected by notice, 12-
27
BUBOLABY — donsult analysis of this
article, 4-590. See also Criminal
Procedure.
Jc.'nder with other offenses in in-
dictment, 12-533, 534, 675
CALENDARS, see Courts.
CANALS, see Admiralty; Navigable
Waters; Waters and Water-
courses.
CANCELLATION OF INSTRUMENTS,
see Equity Jurispiction and Pro-
cedure; RESaSSION AND CANCELLA-
TION.
CAPACITY, see Incapacity.
23
INDEX
CAPIAS, see Judgments and Decrees,
Enforcement op.
Penalties, in actions to enforce, 11-
928
CAPTION, see Pleading and specific
titles.
CABE, DEGBEE OF, see Negligence.
CABNAL KNOWLEDGE, incest, aver-
ring in, 12-5
Bape, .ioinder with, 12-534
CABBIEBS, see Corporations; Freight
Carriers; Interstate Commerce;
Liens ; Monopolies ; Passengers ;
Public Service Corporations ; Bail-
roads ; Ships and Shipping ; Street
Bailroads ; Warehousemen.
Jurisdiction, contracts, at sea, 1-^S5
CABBYING ABMS OB WEAPONS, see
Weapons.
CASE, see Case (the Action on the) ;
Suits and Actions.
CASE AND QUESTION CERTIFIED,
RESERVED OR REPORTED —
Consult analysis of this article, 4-664
Appeals, 2-288
Bankruptcy proceedings, 3-1028
CASE ON APPEAIt — Consult analysis
of this article^ 4-764. See Bills op
Exceptions; Statement and Ab-
stract OP Case.
Admiralty, apostles, 1-562
Agreed case, 1-766, 767
Appeals, 2-332, 342, 386
Must show final decision, 2-162
Should be certified, 2-352, 355, 357
Arguments, errors regarding, 2-849
Bastardy proceedings, 4-81
Case or question certified, excepting
party to prepare, N. Y., 4-739,
741
Costs, appeals, of transcript, 5-1010,
1014
CASE (THE ACTION OF TRJBSPASS
ON THE) — Conmlt analysis of this
article, 4-610
Adjoining landowners, lateral sup-
port, 1-325
Animals, for injuries by, 1-954
Apprentices, for enticing, 2-585
Choice of remedies, or trespass, 5-100
Or assumpsit, 5-116
Civil rights, for damages, 5-125
Corporations, 5-571
Denials, general issue, 7-64
Release under general, 7-73
Easement, for obstructing, 7-957
Fraud and deceit, action of deceit,
10-36
Highways, by owner of fee in, 11-
125
CASE (THE ACTION OF TBSSPABS
ON THE), contd.
Indemnity, on implied, 12-29
Where no form of writ, 10-2
CATTLE, se^ Animals; Freight Cab-
riers; Railroads; TRBSPASsme
Animals.
CAUSA MORTIS, see Gifts.
CAUSE, see Suits and Actions.
CAUSE OF ACTION — Consult analysis
of this article, 4-801. See Limita-
tion op Actions; New Cause of
^ Action or Defense; Several
Counts; Suits and Actions.
Admiralty, recognizes equitable
rights, 1-422
Change by amendment, 1-475
Affidavit of defense, determines nec-
essity of, 1-664
Amendments changing, 1-475, 863,
882, 910, 925; 7-125. See also
New Cause of Action or De-
fense.
Assumpsit, 3-183, 209
Attachment, 3-716
Bills and answers, 4-195
Case, action on the, 4-656
Death by wrongful act, 6-434
Elections, 8-79
Information, 12-557
Parties, 6-435
Amicable actions, stated in, 1-933
Another action pending, no cause in
first, 1-1003
Identity of cause, 1-1020, 1026
Answer, none where total failure of,
2-53
Appeal bonds, when arises on, 2-88,
91
Appeals, failure to state raised on,
2-250
Error assigned on, 8-564
Arbitration, award on as, 2-644
Architects and builders, recovery
where owner completes, 2-694-706
Arrest in civil cases, facts stated, 2-
944, 954
As ground of, 2-953
Process need not state, 2-968
Arrest of judgment, not accrued, 2-
989
Defect not cured, 2-1021
For want of, 2-989, 1000
Assignment for creditors, remains
against assignor, 3-49, 51
By and against assignee, 3-72, 82
Assumpsit, not changed by amend-
ment in, 3-183
Not new by amendment, 3-209
Attachment, on what, 3-323
24
INDEX
OATTSE OF ACTION, contd.
Attachment^ contd.
Change in cause of action by
amendment, 3-716
Statement in writ, 3-478, 480
Statement of in affidavit, 3-421
Variance, 3-440
Banks, for liability over subscription,
4-23
beneficial associations, 4-84
Bills and answers, stating part of bill,
4-113, 130
Amendments changing, 4-195, 198
Breach of promise, 4-546
Case, action of, setting out, 4-642,
656
Amendments changing, 4-656
Certainty in pleading, 4-845, 859
Champerty, where independent of, 4-
936
By party injured, 4-967
Change of venue, locus, 5-9
Complaint, see tn^ra, Declaration and
complaint.
Compromise and settlement, claim
without foundation, 5-195
Conclusions of law, insufficient to
state, 5-205
Conditions precedent, see Condiiions.
Contribution, when accrues, 5-501,
502
Copyright proceedings, from federal
statutes, 5-507
Corporations, for dividends, accrues
when, 5-693
Fqreign, on what liable, 5-734
Criminal conversation, at common
law, 6-250
Abandonment of, 6-253
Cross-bill, must state, 6-272
Cross-complaint, fully stated, 6-304
Not supplied by supplemental
pleading, 6-310
Death by wrongful act, by deceased
necessary, 6-371
Amendments changing, 6-434
Arising in another state, 6-377, 384
New cause created, 6-366
Declaration and complaint, definition,
6-641, 642
Pacts constituting, 6-685, 722
Statement of, 6-641, 668, 711
Prayer for relief not statement,
6-717, 719
Separately stated, 6-701 ; 7-940
Several counts, 6-706, 710
Suggestions as to how to state, 6-
728
Default, judgment on facts not con-
stituting, 6-833
CAUSE OP ACTION, ccmtd.
Demurrer, 6-910, 912
General sufficient, 6-923, 927, 929
. Not to part, 6-859
Where not specific, 6-878
Departure, new cause of action, 7-
125
Detinue, 7-474, 478
• Discovery, plaintiff must have, 7-528
Bill must show, 7-536
In affidavit for examination of
party, 7-567
Necessary for examination of party,
7-567 .
Divorce, amendments adding, 7-783
For alimony alone, 7-815
Duplicity, ill pleaded, 7-933
What constitutes one, 7-940, 943
Easements, without necessity for use,
7-961
Ejectment, 7-985, 996
Disseisin, 7-1000, 1007
Elections, amendment changing
ground of contest, 8-79
Befusing vote, intent, 8-139
Eminent domain, taking without
compensation, 8^348
Error, assignment for want or insuffi-
ciency of, 8-56^
Estoppel, pleading as an element in,
8-686
Executors, and administrators, filing
of claims, 8-759
De son tort who have, 8-778,- 779
.On bonds, 8-782, 785 '
Extortion, 8-824
Factors and brokers, 8-866
For commissions, accrues when, 8-
884
For nonfeasance, 8-874
Tender of purchase price, 8-908
Facts constituting, 6-685 et seq.; 6-
722 et seq.
False imprisonn^ent, 8-914, 920, 959,
965
Against whom, 8-945, 958
Forcible entr.y and detainer, when
accrues, 8-1107
Fraud and deceit, 10-35, 37
Fraudulent conveyance, allegation of
existence, where, 10-156
Freight carriers, against connecting
carriers, 10-239
Consignor or consignee, 10-227, 237
Garnishment, in principal defendant,
10-393, 397
Indemnity, when accrues in, 12-28
Inducement (see Inducement), 6-668
Separate statement of (6-701; 7-940),
see Se\t:ral Counts.
CENSUS, see United States.
86
INDEX
OEBTAINTY IN* PLEADING — Consult
analysis of this article, 4-832. See
Indictment and Information; In-
ducement.
Abatement, in pleas of, 1-42
Abbreviations, use of, 12-310
Abduction, 1-80, 81
Abortion, 1-101, 110
Accord and satisfaction, distinctly
set forth, 1-175, 179, 180, 181
Ambiguity, 1-186
Account, should be certain, 1-223
Accounting, 1-289, 290
Admiralty, 1-448, 451, 461
Claims, 1-503
Exceptions taken, 1-469, 470
Adulteration, exceptions in statute,
1-585
Indictment, 1-585, 588
Adultery, 1-600, 603, 605, 611
Charging incest by, 12t6
Adverse possession, 1-624, 631
Affidavits of defense, not required in,
1-697
Affidavits of merits and defense, 12-
898
Affray, 1-725, 729
Agent, acts of^ 12-900
Agreed case, rules may be applied in,
1-753, 754
Alienating affections, 1-781
Ambiguous words, to be avoided, 12-
308
Altered instrument, spoliation, 1-829
Alternative, charging homicide in
the, 11-591
Amendments to make certain, infor-
mation, 12-561
Animals, injuries by, 1-955, 956
Injuries to, 1-967, 968
Another action pending, 1-1037, 1039
Answers, argumentative denials, 2-21
Higher than complaints, 2-55
New matter in; 2-45, 52
Partial defenses, 1-55
Appeal bonds, in actions on, 2-98, 104
Arbitration, 2-649, 652
Architects and builders, 2-685, 710
Argument, charging by way of, 12-
323
Arson, 3-5, 28
Charging disjunctively, 3-7
Negativing exceptions, 3-11
Assault and battery, 3-35, 36
Assignments, 3-123, 134
Assumpsit, 3-184, 210
General allegations, 3-208
Attachment, 3-703
Affidavit not as pleading, 3-419
In proceedings to vacate, 3-800
26
0EBTAINT7 IN* PLEADINa, c<mid.
Bills and answers, 4-123
Amendments, to make certain, 4-189
In answer, 4-170
Bills and notes, setting out, 4*245,
248, 270
Bills of exceptions, certainty of, 4-
394, 400
Bills of particulars distingniahed
from motion to make definite and
certain, 4-375
To make definite and certain, 4-381
Bills to impeach judgments and de-
crees, 4-484, 488
Bonds, 4-497, 507
Breach of contract, 11-992, 1007
Breach of promise, 4-550
Breach of the peace, in indictment,
4-562
Burglary, 4-593, 603
Case, the action on the, 4-642, 656
Certiorari, in petition, 4-907, 911
Charging criminal offense, generally,
12321, 342
Civil rights, necessary aUegationa, 5-
125
Compounding crime, 6-190
Conclusions of law, 5-205
In criminal pleading, 12-344
Motion when proper, 5-227
Conditions precedent, non^perform-
ance of, 11-1020
Conspiracy, indictment, 5-282, 309
Construction and theory of pleading,
specific allegations, 5-341
Continuando, adultery, 1-606 •
Incest, 12-6
Injuries from highway, 11-227
To charge continuing offense, 12-
504
Contract, 11-981
Copyright proceedings, alternative al-
legation, 5-513
Corporations, 5-638
Denials by, 12-909
Stockholders' suits, 5-713, 715
Counterfeiting, 6-6, 16
Courts martial, 6-114
Covenant, action of, 6-145, 155
Creditors' suits, 6-209
Criminal pleading, modem rules as
to, 12-304
Cruelty to animals, 6-317
Customs duties, in indictment, 6-359
Damages, injuries from highways, 11-
112
Date, use of Anno Domini, 12-308
Death by wrongful act, 6-404, 438
Indictment, 6-457
Means of homicide, 11-589
Naming beneficiaries, 6-413
INDEX
CEBtAlWTT IN PLEADING, eontd.
Debt, action of, 6-478, 485
Decedents' estates, not observed in
claims, 6-530
Petition to sell, 6-549, 553
Declaration and complaint, 6-669, 700
General observations, 6-722, ' 729
Decree pro confesso, admits only the
certain allegations, 6-769
Uncertain allegfttions proved, 6-
771
Demurrer, 6-872, 886, 905, 935; 12-
654
• Admits facts well pleaded, 6-943,
955
For uncertainty, injuries from high-
ways, 11-229
In indictment, 12-650
Motion instead, where, 6-905
Demurrer to evidence, 7-14
Denials, 7-37
Notice of defense, 7-80
Describing accused, in preliminary
complaint, 12-139
Detinue, 7-481, 482
Disjunctive allegations, 1-84
In indictment, 12-650
Disorderly house, indictments, 7-705
Disturbing public assembly, 7-715,
723
Divorce, 7-759, 771
Defenses, 7-773
Dower petition for assignment, 7-873,
875
Duplicity, in indictment, for viola-
tion of road laws, 11-258
In general, 12-629, 651
Duress, 11-1027
Easements, description, 7-955, 966,
969
Ejectment, 7-1027, 1035
Elections, in contests, 8-65, 73
In indictment, 8-152, 158
Electricity, allegations of negligence,
8-171, 175
Embezzlement, indictment, 8-213, 241
Eminent domain, 8-279, 289
Error, assignment of, certainty in, 8-
538, 539
Estoppel, 8-695, 702
Evidence not to be pleaded, indict-
ments, 11-619; 12-323, 346
Executors and administrators, plead-
ing capacity, 8-738, 744
Exhibits, construction of, 8-811
Extortion, in indictment, 8-829
Factors and brokers, action for com-
mission, 8-885
False imprisonment, 8-959, 965
False personation, in indictment, 8-
974, 975
0EBTAINT7 IK FLEADINa, eontd.
Forcible entry and detainer, 8-1109
Forgery, indictments, 8-1143, 1177
Fornication, charging incest by, 12-6
Forthcoming bond, 10-28
Fraud and deceit, 10-51, 57; 11-1027
Frauds, statute of, special plea of,
10-77
Fraudulent conveyances, 10-151, 172
Freight carriers, by plaintiff, 10-242,
252
Frivolous and sham pleading, uncer-
tain allegations not sham, 10-271
Gaming, in actions to recover, loss,
10-323
Actions for penalties, 10-329
In indictments, 10-337
Grammar, mistakes in, effect, 12-311
Guaranty, 10-682, 693
Guardian and ward, representative
capacity, 10-868, 870
In action on bond, 10-890
Haec verba, declaring in, 11-989, 1007
Heirs, petition to determine, 12-920
Highways, injury from, 11-213
Indictment, for failure to make,
13-105
For failure to repair, 11-117
Injunction, answer in, 11-111
Complaint for, 11-110
Homestead, exemption, 11-422
Petition for, 11-392
Homicide, describing victim, 11-606
Indictment, in general, 11-570, 574,
591
Identifying statute violated, 12-139
Illegality, 11-896
Incest, indictment for, 12-4
Indictment, 12-294
Against highway oflScers, 11-143
Constitutional provisions, 12-294
Demurrer where uncertain, 12-650
Duplicity in, 12-651
Homicide, 11-591, 619
Inference, charging by way of, 12-
322
Intendments, cannot aid, 12-324
Judicial notice, chKTgiiig matters
of, 12-347
Juvenile acts, for violating, 12-881
New indictment, in, found upon re-
submission, 12-354
Presumption, matters of, 12-347
Property, setting out, 12-298
Quashing for uncertainty, 12-628
Inducement, in action on contract,
11-989
Information, 12-294
Information and belief, see In-
formation AND Belief.
Allegations on, 12-899
27
INDEX
0EBTAIKT7 IK PLEABUfa, contd.
Information and belief, contd.
Answers in equity, 12-902
Pleas on, 12-905
Quashing for uncertainty, 12-628
Injuries from highways, 11-226
Jurisdictional facts, to be pleaded in
affidavit and information, 12-138
Juvenile acts, indictment for violat-
ing, 12-881
Knowledge, adultery, 1-607
Legal effect, pleading according to,
11-989, 1007
Marriage, allegations as to, in in-
cest, 12-6
Matters of aggravation, negativing,
12-354
Motion, to make certain, injuries from
highways, 11-229
To quash, indictment, 12-633
Name of offense, in criminal plead-
ing, 12-344
Naming affiant, in preliminary com-
plaint, 12-140
Negativing exceptions, in preliminary
affidavit, 12-138
Necessity of, in indictment, 12-299
New matter, in answer, 12-905
Notice, of injuries from highways,
11-225
Numbers, how used, 12-310
Participles, use of, 12-324
Penalty, complaint for, obstructing
highway, 11-164
Person and property injured, describ-
ing in preliminary complaint, 12-
138
Place of offense, in preliminary com-
plaint, 12-137
Plea of guilty, degree of offense, 2-
893
Poisoning, in indictment, 11-602
Preliminary affidavit or complaint,
as compared with indictment,
12-135
Charging in language of statute,
12-134
Statement of offense, 12-133
Prior conviction, 12-354
Prolixity, to be avoided, 12-304, 305
Property, charging as to,. in criminal
pleading, 12-298
Provisos and exceptions, in indict-
ment, 1-85; 11-104
Public records, matterij of, 12-901,
909
Punctuation, effect of mistakes in,
12-313
Becital, by way of, 12-322
Secord, of former conviction, 12-355
0EBTAINT7 IK PLEAJ>IK0, eontd.
Replication, on information and be-
Uef, 12-910
Repugnancy, in indictment, 12-508
Sale of infant's property, petition
for, 12-818
Schedule of exemptions, 11-506
Setting out witnesses, in preliminary
complaint, 12-140
Spelling, mistakes in, effect, 12-311
Surplusage, indictment not rendered
double by, 12-502
Symbols, use of, 12-310
Technical words, in pleading, 12-303
Time and place, allegations as to, m
indictment, 12-411,' 426
Highway officers, proseeutiona
against, 11-144
In caption, 12-178
Indictment, generally, 12-296
In homicide, 11-579
In incest, 12-5
Injuries from highways, 11-^27
In preliminary complaint, 12-136
Want of consideration, 11-1025
Weapons, describing in indictment,
11-589
Manner in which used, 11-597
Wounds, in indictment, 11-625
CERTIFICATE OP HOMESTEAD, see
Declaration,
CEBTIFICATE OF PBOBABI.E
CAUSE AKD OF BEA80NABI.E
DOUBT — Consult analysis of this
article, 4-866
OEBTIOBABI — Consult analysis of this
article f 4-881. See Justices op
THE Peace; Taxation.
Admiralty, use in, 1-423
Allotment of homestead, to review,
11-368
Appeals, appeal adequate, highways,
11-54, 96
On diminution of tecord, 2-380
Pending appeal, 11-54
To review appeal from highway
board, 11-54
Application for, highway alteration,
11-136
Bankruptcy proceedings, 3-1028
Case or question certified, requiring
certification, 4-682, 708, "^5
Contempt, to review, 5-428
Costs on, highways, 11-102, 137
Courts martial, issued when, 6-131
Damages, to review assessment of,
Demurrer to pleadings, 6-857
highways, ll-93n
Discretionary with court to grant,
11-92
INDEX
OEELnOKABl, contd.
Effect of, on highway proceedings,
11-61
Elections, not for contest, 8-49
To review, contests, 8-108
Nomioation proceedings, 8-131
Eminent domain, 8-340, 342
Estoppel to sue out, highways, 11-94
Garnishment, to review void judg-
ment, 10-594
Guardian, appointment reviewed by,
10-805
Habeas corpus, to supplement the
writ, 10-961
Health, to correct errors in regula-
tion, 10-980, 981
Hearing, solely upon the record, 11-
98, 137, 268
Heirship proceedings, in, 12-927
Highway proceedings, to review, al-
teration of highway, 11-128, 135,
137
Discontinuance of highway, 11-260,
267
Establishing highway, 11-54, 91
Bepairing highway, 11-113
Homestead, allotment of, in general,
11-325
To review probate assignment of,
11-404
Indictment, pending certiorari, 12-93
To review order quashing, 12-643
Infants, in actions concerning, 12-792
Jurisdiction, for want of, 11-99
Juvenile court judgment, to review,
12-882
Parties, highway proceedings, 11-94,
135
Petition for, highways, 11-96, 267
Homestead allotment, 11-404
Quashing, where belated, 11-97
Becord, as basis of review, 11-98, 137,
268
Beturn to, highways, 11-98, 136
Scope of review, 11-127, See . also
supra, Becord.
Stay effected by, highways, 11-61
Supersedeas, operates as, 11-61
Technical errors, not to review, 11-92
"Writ of error, when adequate, 11-55
Writ of, form and contents, high-
ways, 11-97
CHALLENGE, see Gband Juby; Jxtsies
AND JuaoBS.
CHAMBEBS, ACTS IN, see Judicial
Offigebs.
OHAMPEBTT — C<msult analysis of this
article, 4-959. See also Criminal
Procedure.
GHANCEBT, see E4)uitt Jubisdiction
A2n> Pbooxdubb,
CHANGE OF VEinTE — Con^Zt analy-
sis of this article, 4-972; 5-1. Seo
Justices of the Peace; Tbansfeb
OF Causes; Venue.
Affidavit of merits, 1-653
Appeals, from orders, 2-179
Presumption against error, 2-417
Arguments, comments on, 2-759
Arraignment and plea unnecessary
after, 2-867
Arraignment before and after, 2-869
Plea after, 2-881
Where accused stood mute, 2-877
Attorneys, in disbarment, 3-871
Bastardy proceedings, 4-60
Bills of exceptions, exceptions be-
fore change, 4-296
Consent to, as waiver of irregularities
in indictment, 12-670
Contempt, not allowed, 5-372
Corporations, 5-594
Actions against foreign, 5-737
Costs, civil cases, 5-953
Criminal case, paid by original
county, 5-779
Depositions, application when, 7-222
Discovery, production of documentij,
jurisdiction, 7-617
Elections, in contests, 8-86
Embezzlement, in general, 8-213
Eminent domain, 8-265
Garnishment, depends on statutes, 10-
485
CHABGE TO JUBY, see Gband Jubt;
iNSTBUCnONB.
CHABITIES, see Public Chabities.
OHATTEL MOBTGAGES -— Consult an-
alysis of this article, 5-46. See
MOBTOAGES.
Attachment, of interest under, 3-315,
319
Against mortgagor, 3-524
Choice of remedies, attachment ' and
foreclosure, 5-121
Equity, jurisdiction, 8-404
Garnishment, interest of mortgagor,
where, 10-443, 445
CHECK, see Bnxs and Notes.
CHINESE, see Aliens; Civil Bights;
. Immigbation; Miscegenation.
Juanguage, pleading partly in, 12-308
Proceedings to exclude, 11-908
CHOIOE AND ELECTION OF BEIOS-
DIES — Consult analysis of this ar-
ticle, 5-78
Admiralty, rem or personam, 1-413
Change from tort to contract, 1-477
In rem and in personam, 1-441
Annuities, 1-989
INDEX
eaotofi AKD fiXfonoK of bsmb-
DIES, eonid.
Another action pending, concurrent
remedies, 1-1025
Law and equity, 1-1001
Arbitration, of actions on award, 2-
661
Action on original claim waiTet
award, 2-664
Assumpsit, not for tort without bene-
fit, 3-195
Indebitatus assumpsit for fraud or
appropriation, 3-198
Attachment, when affected, 3-251, 252
Suing on fraudulent contract does
not prevent, 3-366
Third person not bound to inter-
vene, 3-648
. Bankruptcy proceedings, appeal or
error, 3-1022
Bills of particulars, not to compel by,
4-380
Certiorari and appeal, 4-900
Chattel mortgages, by mortgagor, 5-
59
Composition with creditors, 5-177, 180,
187
Contract or tort, 4-625; 5-103, 117,
362
Against carrier, 10-219, See Pas-
sengers.
Corporations, same as persons, 5-550
Costs, law and equity, 5-899
Death by wrongful act and survival
by statute, 6-367
Detinue or assumpsit, 7-474
Detinue or mandamus, 7-474
Ejectment, when appropriate, 7-985,
1007
Eminent domain, by owner, 8-347, 370
Forcible entry and detainer, not ex-
clusive, 8-1090
Fraud and deceit, contract or dam-
ages, 10-37, 39
Freight carriers, ex contractu and ex
delicto, 10-219
Gaming, election by state, 10-335
Guaranty, 10-672
Indebitatus assumpsit or upon special
contract, 11-938, 942; 12-29
Indictment or information, 12-670
Theory of pleadings, 5-357
CHURCHES, see Religious Societies.
CITIES, seo Municipal Corpoeations.
CITIZENS, see Aliens; Civil Rights;
Extradition; Immigration; Natur-
alization.
Indian allottees, citizenship of, 12-
46
CIVrL DAMAGE LAWS, see Intoxi-
oating Liquors.
CIVIL BIGHTS — Consult analtfils of
this article, 5-124
CIVIL SERVICE, see Municipal Cob-
PORATIONS; OFFICERS.
CLAIM, see Attachment; Gaek:>3-
ment; Judgments and DEcsELi.
Enforcement of; Statemkxt os
Affidavit of Claim.
Of exemption^ affidavit of eontestast,
11-332
Amendment, 11-330, 497
Appraisement on, 11-512
As defense, 11-419
Assertion of, 11-326
By answer, 11-354
By declaration, certificate or
schedule, 11-304, 391
Contents of, 11-496
Contesting, 11-331, 394, 520, 522
Declaration of, on removal, IHi^
Double exemption, 11-500
Filing, 11-495
Form and sufficiency, 11-329
Levving against homestead, 11-343.
■^498
Bemedies of claimant, 11-3^0
Replevin to try, 11-520
Schedule to accompany, 11-330, .'v-
Statutory contest of, 11-520
Verified statement of, 1-667
CLAIM AND DELIVERY, see Bi
FLEVIN.
CLERK OF COURT, see Courts; Jr
DiciAL Officees; Justices of tei
Peace; Officers.
Criminal complaint, taking oath tc,
12-290
CLOUD ON TITLE, see Quiettng
Title. .
Creditor's suit, 6-188
COLLATERAL ATTACK, see Jr:*^
ments; JuBisDicnoN ; Res Jcdi-
cata.
Guardian's lease, 12-860
Highway proceedings, 11-56
Homestead allotment, 11-363, 3^2,
402
Judicial sale, of infant's property,
855
Juveniles, judgments as to, 12STS
Proceedings to mortgage uktsni f
property, 12-859
COLLEGES AND UXIVERSTTreS, «ee
Schools and School Districts.
00UJ8I0K — Consult anolpsis of ^>-'
article, 6-132. See Admisalti:
Highways, Streets a>t) Bbips^^'
Motor Vehicles; Negugemi:
Passekqers ; Railroads ; Ships i>^
Shipping ; Street Railroads. ^
Admiraltyi juriadiction of, 1-39T
•"O
60
mmx
OOLLISIOK, conid.
Joinder of actions, 1-443
Limitation of liability, see Ships and
Shipping.
On highways, action for, 11-251
Pleading, 11-253
Trial, 11-253
Pleading facts of, 1-457
COLLOQUIUM, see Indictment and In-
formation; Libel and Slander;
Pleading.
COLLUSION, between guardian and
ward, judicial sales, 12-848
COLOB, see Confession and Avoid-
ance.
COLORED PERSONS, see Civil Bights ;
Miscegenation.
COMBINATIONS, see Conspiract;
Labor Unions; Monopolies.
COMMENCEMENT, see Pleading.
Of action, see Limitation of Ac-
tions; Suits and Actions,
COMMERCE, see Admiralty; Collis-
ion; Commerce Court; Customs
Duties; Freight Carriers; Hawk-
ers and Peddlers; Health; Immi-
gration; Indians; Internal Rev-
enue; Interstate Commerce; Mon-
opolies; Navigable Waters; Pub-
lic Service Corporations; Rail-
roads; Restraint of Trade; Sea-
men; Ships and Shipping;
Wharves.
OOMMEBOE COUBT — Consult analy-
sis of this articUf 5-153. See In-
terstate Commerce.
COMMERCIAL PAPER, see Bills and
Notes.
COMMISSION, see Depositions; Fac-
tors AND Brokers; Principal and
Agent.
COMMISSIONERS, see Judicial Offi-
cers; Public Service Corpora-
tions; References.
Court, jurisdiction of, 11-139
Examination of incompetents, 12-16
Sale of infant's property, hearing of,
before, 12-823
COMMITMENT, see Preliminary Ex-
amination; Process; Sentence and
Judgment; Warrants.
Contempt for, 5-422
Illegal, as ground for demurrer, 12-
650
Of juvenile, 12-862, 871, 874, 876, 879
Prior to indictment, 12-90
Prior to information, 12-612
Where motion to quash, sustained, 12-
642
COMMITTEE, in highway alteration,
view by committee, 11-134
COMMITTEE, cantd.
Of incompetent, action against, 12-ld
Appointment of, 12-14
Summary proceedings against, 12-
19
COMMON CARRIERS, see Freight Car-
RiERS; Interstate Commerce; Pas-
sengers.
COMMON COUNTa, see Assumpsit;
Money Counts; Monet Had and
Received; Several Counts; Work
and Labor. See also Qwintum Me-
ruit; Quantum Valebant,
COMMON LAW, bridge, meaning of, at,
11-47
Amendment of information, 12-555
Common injunction, at, 12-1006
Criminal proceedings at, how insti-
uted, 12-87
Exemptions at, 11-469
Felonies, prosecution of, 12-74
Homestead unknown at, 11-294
Husband and wife, actions betweem,
at, 11-701
Wife's separate propetty, actions
as to, 11-724
Incest at, 12-1
Indictment at, charging death in, 11-
631
For failure to repair highway, 11-
116
In general, 12-74
Information at, 12-84, 112, 117, 122
Amendment of, 12-555
In civil cases, 12-704
Mandamus, a common law writ, 12-
1008
Misdemeanors, prosecution of, 12-74
Joinder with felonies, 12-522
Offense, indictment for, 12-303
Parties plaintiff at, in contract ac-
tions, 11-958
Pleading, failure of consideration,
at, 11-1021
In criminal cases, 12-306
Certainty in, 12-295
Technical words, use of, 12-309
Presentment at, 12-83
Respondeat ouster, at, 12-657
Wife's contracts, suits on, at, 11-714
COMMONS, see Easements; Lands
and Land Transfers.
COMMITNITY PROPERTY, see Hus-
band AND Wife.
Actions respecting, between husband
and wife, 11-840
Nature of, 11-833
COMPANY, see Associations; Cor-
porations; Joint Stock Com-
panies; Partnership; Public
Service Cobpobationb.
81
INDEX
COMPETITION, see Monopolies; Re-
straint or Trade; Trade-Marks
AND Trade Names.
COMPLAINT AND PETITION, see
Declaration and Complaint; In-
« dictment and Information; Pe-
titions ; Preliminary Examina-
tion.
Criminal complaint, amendment of,
12-565
Defined, 12-86
Form of, 12-286
Highways, against highway officers,
11-143
For failure to do road work, 11-
116, 140, 142
Penalty, action for, cumulative,
11-160
Nature of, 12-86
OOMPOSinOK WITH CBEDITOBS —
C(MMult analysis of this article, 5-
174. See Assignment for the
Benefit of Creditors ; Bankruptcy
Proceedings; Insolvency; Re-
lease.
OOMPOXrMDING OBQCB — Consult an-
alysis of this article, 5-189. See
Indictment and Information; Ob-
structing Justice.
Accessories, not made by, 1-130
As gist of illegality, in contract, 11-
897
COMPROMISE AND SETTLEMENT
Consult analysis of this article, 5-
194. See Accord and Satisfaction;
Composition With Creditors; Be-
lease.
Account stated not impeached, 1-255
Bankruptcy proceedings, 3-905, 913,
917, 1002
• Corporations, 5-549
Guardian ad litem, by, 10-755, 759
CONCEALED WEAPONS, see Weap-
ons.
CONCEALMENT OF BIRTH AND
DEATH, see Infants.
OONCLXJSIONS OF ULW — Consult an-
alysis of this article, 5-204. See
CHtTAINTT IN PLEADING; FINDINGS
AND Conclusions; Indictment and
Information; Negligence; Plead-
ing.
Abatement, not in pleas, of, 1-47
Affidavit of merits, not to be in, 1-
698
Agreed case, 1-763
Amendments introducing, 1-912
Answers, no denial of, 2-11
New matter in, 2-51
Bills and answers, in bills, 4-126
Bonds, improper, 4-496
0ON0LT7SIONS OF LAW, eontd.
Criminal pleading, in, generally, 12-
348
Felony, - in charging, 12-344
Illustrations, 12-349
Misdemeanor, in charging, 12-344
Offenses, charging bj name, 12-344
Declaration and complaint, 6-680, 691,
693.
General observations, 6-726
Decrees, pro confesso, not admitted,
6-769
Demurrer, does not admit, 6-949
Discovery, allegation of materiality,
7-535
Errors, assignment of, 6-610
Findings and conclusions, exceptions,
8-1084, 1087
Fraud and deceit, 10-53
Fraudulent conveyances, allegations
of fraud, 10-158
CONDEMNATION, see Eminent Do-
main.
CONDITIONS, see Surra and Actions.
See also Implied and Ezfbbss
Agreements; Notice; Tender; and
specific titles.
Averment of conditions precedent
and subsequent, 3-186; 6-677, 684
By foreign corporation, 5-742
Performance, see Performance,
Pleading performance of, 11-998
OONPESSION AKD AVOIDANCE —
Consult analysis of this article, 5-228.
See Answers; Pleading; Pi£as.
'Accord and satisfaction, replication,
1-189
Accounts, defenses by, 1-228
Answers, confession not required in,
2-24
Must be denial of, 2-54
Need not give color, 2-23, 49
New matter in, 2-37
Arbitration, plea in action on award,
2-655
Bills and answers, avoidance in bill,
4-118, 132
Bills of particulars, of defense, 4-
388
Bonds, matter specially pleaded, 4-
610, 519
Breach of promise, matters specially
pleaded, 4-555
Case, the action on the, defenses, 4-
660
Covenant, non-performance, 6-160
Declaration and complaint, defense
not anticipated, 6-681, 685
Demurrer, confession by, 6-938, 955
Denials, not of good, 7-108
Ejection, not used, 7-1034, 1036
32
INDEX
OONFESSIOir AND AVOIDANOE,
contd.
Errors, assignment of; ple^s to, 8-653
Frauds, statute of, pleading statute,
10-71
Plea of illegality, nature of, 11-896
CONCESSION OF JUDGMENTS, see
JUDGMEN TS
CONFESSO, BILL TAKEN PRO, sec
Decrees; Default; Equity Jueis-
DicnoN AND Procedure.
CONFIDENCE GAME, see Gaming ; In-
dictment AND Inform ATiON.
CONFIRMATION, of guardian's lease,
12-860
Of guardian's mortgage, 12-859
Of sale, see Decedents' Estates;
Infants; Judicial Sales.
Effect on title, 12-839
Guardian's deed, 12-842
CONFLICT OF LAWS, see Remedy;
Statutes.
Homestead right, 11-330
CONSENT, amendment of indictment
• of accused to, 12-543,' 547
Amendment of information to, 12-
560
Hearing by, 11-4
Of accused to file information, 12-117
CONSll)ERATION, see Implied and
Express Agreements.
Accord and satisfaction, 1-165, 167
Pleading, 1-180
Failure or want of, see Rescission
AND Cancellation.
Bills and notes, 4-273
Demurrer because of, 11-988
Pleading, 11-1021, 1024
Under general denial, 7-99
Under general issue, 3-189; 7-74
Judicial sales, effect on, where inade-
quate, 12-850
Order fixing, 12-835
Pleading, in assumpsit, 3-185
Conclusions of law, 5-210
In indemnity, 12-31
Of assignment, 3-128
Of bi]]s and notes, 4-260
Of bonds, 4-501
Of contracts generally (see Im-
plied AND Express Agree-
ments), 6-677; 11-986
Variance, as to, in contract actions,
11-1047
OONSOLIDATION OF ACTIONS —
Consult analysis of this article, 5-
249. See Joinder of Actions;
Severance.
Admiralty, 1-525-527
Appeal, on, 2-402; 5-252
In highway proceedings, 11-77
CONSOLIDATION OF ACTIONS, contd.
Attachment on, 3-323
Bridges, actions for destroying or in-
juring, 11-273
Criminal prosecutions, see Separatb
Trials.
Disorderly house, with other offenses,
7-708
Elections, of contests, 8-87
Equity, 8-497; 11-14
Guardian and ward, of proceedings
for accounting, 10-838
C0NSPIBAC7 — Consult analysis of this
article, 5-281. See Injunctions;
Monopolies; Restraint of Trade;
and also Criminal Procedure,
Abortion, complaint charging, 1-121
Customs duties, indictment, 6-358
CONSTABLES, see SHERirrs, Con-
stables AND Marshals.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, see Stat-
utes.
Appeals, statutes limiting, 2-187
Contracts, unconstitutional, 11-892
Incompetents, statutes as to, 12-14
Indictment, under constitutions, 12-
75, 77
Certainty in, provisions as to, 12-
294
Statutory forms of, must not in-
fringe constitution, 12-300
Information, under constitutions, 12-
85
Certainty in, see supra, Indictment.
Quashing indictment, where accused
is deprived of constitutionai
right, 12-631
CONSTBUCTION AND THEORY OF
PLEADINOS — Consult analysis of
this article, 5-335. See Choice and
Election of Remedies; Indictment
AND Information. •
Admiralty, construction, 1-449
Bills of exceptions, construed as
pleading, 4-319
Contract or tort, 10-219
Decrees, no relief, on another ground,
6-752
Demurrer, 12-655
Fraud and deceit, construction, 10-51
Frauds, statute of, allegations as to
writing omitted, 10-69
CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE, see Notice.
CONTAGIOUS DISEASES, see Health.
Actions for injuries to, 1-958
Animals, complaint for inspection, 1-
964
Quarantine and inspection, 1-963
CONTEMPT — Consult analysis of this
article, 5-363. See also Criminal
Procedure,
33
INDEX
CONTEMPT, contd.
Appeals, 2-184
Appearance, by failure of, 2-563
Arbitration, to enforce award, 2-644
Bankruptcy proceedings, before ref-
eree, 3-931
Bills and answers, for failure to an-
swer, 4-154
Bills to enforce decrees, to enforce,
4-463
Copyright proceedings, enforcement
of decree outside district, 5-519
CJorporations, liable for criminal, 5-
680
Costs, enforcement of payment, 5-978
Courts martial, 6-132
Creditors' suits, disposing of prop-
erty, 6-235
Decrees, attachment to enforce, 6-787
Deposit in court, for failure to make,
7-155
Depositions, refusal to answer, 7-313
Discovery, refusal to answer, 7-596-
600
Failure to produce, 7-609
Non-production, 7-644
Divorce, non-payment of alimony, 7-
830
Garnishment on failure to answer, 10-
534
Guardian and ward, to enforce pay-
ment on accounting, 10-842
Habeas corpus, jurisdiction only con-
sidered, 10-946
Allegations in petition in case of,
10-924
Indictment or information for, 12-
80, 85
Injunction, ^ as affecting, in highway
proceedings, ll-108n
Prosecuting attorney, in contempt
for failure to prosecute, 12-95
CONTINUANCES — Consult analysis of
this article, 5-438. See also Ad-
joumments.
Abatement, plea of, waived by, 1*60
Absence of counsel, for, 11-17
Accessories, principal moving for new
trial, 1-160
Accounting, by master in, 1-309
Affidavit of merits, 1-653; 11-19
Amendment, granted on, 1-898; 11-17
Amendment refused when necessitat-
ing, 1-892
Appeals from orders of, 2-179
In appellate coutt, 2-400, 401
Arbitration, 2-618, 620
Arguments, comments on, 2-758
Costs, in criminal cases, 5-787
Continuance fees, 5-942
CONTINUANCES, eontd.
Courts, unfiniahed trials at end of
term, 6-33
Courts martial, 6-117
Depositions, in taking, 7-297-299
Discovery, to obtain answer, 7-591
Examination ot party, 7-572
Pending production, 7-634
Divorce, defective service of process,
7-755
More liberality in, 7-792
Elections, in contests, 8-93
Embezzlement, 8-243
Error, assignment of, 8-573
Justice's court, in, see Justices or
THE Peace.
Heirship proceedings, 12-923
Homestead proceedings, 11-323
In appellate court, highways, 11-79
In equity, 11-16
Infant, to allow answer or eleetion
of, 11-19
CONTINUANDO, see Pleading; Ce»-
TAINTY IN PLEADINO.
In indictment, 12-505
For incest, 12-6
Parties, to bring in, 11-18
Proof, for additional, 11-18
Waiver, as of defects in appeal bond,
11-76
Of defects in indictment, 12-670
Of written complaint, 11-163
CONTRACTS, see Implied and Express
Agreements. See also Accord and
Satisfaction; Account and Ac-
counting ; Annuities ; Answers ;
' Appeal Bonds; Architects and
Builders ; Assignments ; Associa-
tions ; Assumpsit ; Attorneys ;
Banks and Banking; Bills and
Notes; Bonds; Breach of Prom-
ise; Chattel Mortgages; Choice
AND Election of Bemediss; Com-
position With Creditobs; Cove-
nant, Action of; Debt; Declara-
tion AND Complaint; Denials;
Departure; Duress; Estoppel; Ex-
hibits; Factors and Brokers;
Forthcoming Bonds; Fraud and
Deceit; Frauds, Statute of;
Fraudulent Conveyances ; Gam-
ing; Guaranty; Husband and
Wife; Illegality, How Pleaded;
Indemnity; Infants; Injuries to
Persons and Property; Insane
Persons; Insurance; Interest;
Interpleader; Joinder of Actions;
Landlord and Tenant; Lands and
Land Transfers; Limitation of
Actions; Logs and Logging; Lost
Instruments; Mastek and Ser-
34
INDEX
CONTRACTS, c<mid,
vant; Mistake; Money Counts;
Money Had and Beceived; Mort-
gages; Notice; Oyer and Profert;
Parent and Child; Parties;
Partnership; Pawnbrokers; Pay-
ment; Penalties, Forfeitures
AND Fines; Personal Property;
Principal and Agent; Principal
AND Surety; Beceivers; Becog-
nizances and Bail ; *Beformation ;
Belease; Bescission and Cancel-
lation; Bestraint op Trade;
Sales; Seamen; Ships and Ship-
ping; Specific Performance; Stip-
ulations; Subscriptions; Succes-
sive Suits; Suits and Actions;
Sunday and Houdays; Survival;
Tender; Trusts and Trustees;
Use and Occupation ; Usury ; Vari-
ance AND Failure of Proof;
Vendor and Purchaser; Waiver;
Warehousemen; Work and Labor;
and other titles involving specific
kinds of contracts.
Accord and satisfaction, 1-162
Account stated, how pleaded, 1-243
Admiralty, jurisdiction of, 1-383-394
In rem, 1-415, 416
Joinder of actions on, 1-440, 442
Pleading of, in, 1-454
Tort action changed to contract, 1-
477
Affidavits of merits, in actions on, 1-
661, 665, 700
Altered instrument, new considera-
tion, 1-828
Animals, agistment, 1-976
Arbitration, of submission to, 2-593
Architects and builders, 2-676-705
Assumpsit on, see Assumpsit.
Attachment, interest under contract,
3-302
Of claim under, 3-525
On cause of action on, 3-336-340
Between husband and wife, suits on,
11-705
Choice of remedies, quantum meruit,
5-98
Affirmance or disaffirmance, 5-99
Or tort, 5-103-118; 10-219
Beformation, 5-120
Consideration, see Consideration,
Copy of, annexing to pleading, see
Exhibits.
Corporations, ultra vires, 5-565. See
Illegality, How Pleaded.
Customs and usages, under general
issue, 6-329
Debt, on what action lies, 6-468, 474
Allegation of agreement, 6-480
CONTRACTS, cmid.
Denial, issue raised by, see Denials.
Departure, different contract or
breach, 7-136
Discontinuance as to part of defend-
ants, 7-667
Easements, construction, 7-956
Factors and brokers, action in own
name, 8-878
Fraud of, action not ex contractu,
8-909
Actions against third persons, 8-
910
Fraud and deceit, pleading, 10-52
General issue, see Denials.
Husband, of, suits on, 11-715
Indemnity, of, nature, 12-24
When implied, 12-22
Reformation, after action on, 5-120.
See Reformation.
Wife, of, suits on, 11-714, 715
Written instruments, pleading, 6-697
CONTRIBUTING TO DELINQUENCY
OR DEPENDENCY, see Infants.
OONTBJBUTIOM' — Consult analysis of
this article, 5-497. See Equity Jur-
isdiction AND Procedure ; Principal
'AND Surety.
Admiralty, jurisdiction of, 1-400
Jurisdiction of general average, 1-
403
Defined, 12-23
Equity jurisdiction, 8-415, 441
Forthcoming bonds, 10-31
Guaranty, against co-guarantor, 10-
701
Indemnity, distinguished from, 12-23
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE, see
Negligence. ^
CONVERSION, see Tboyke and Con-
version.
Equity jurisdiction, 8-409
Bequests to infants, 12-809
CONVICTION, see Verdict.
CONVICTS, see Prisons and Prisoners.
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, see As-
sociations ; Beneficial Associa-
tions ; Corporations ; Religious
Societies.
COPY, of indictment, on record, 12-110
COPYBIOHT VBOCEEDUHQB — Con-
sult analysis of this article, 5-506.
See Patents-; United States
Courts.
CORAM NOBIS (2-129), see Judg-
ments; Writ of Error.
CORAM VOBIS (2-129), see Writ of
Erbob.
35
INDEX
OOBOKEB'S IKQT7EST — ConwZt
aitalyais of fhis article, 5-521
Indictment filed, pending, 12-92
Information based on, 12-117
COBPOBATIONS — Consult analysis of
this article, 5-536. See Associa-
tions; Joint Stock Companies;
Monopolies ; Municipal Corpora-
tions; Penalties, Forfeitures and
Tines; Public Service Corpora-
tions; Railroads; Religious So-
cieties; Schools and School Dis-
tricts; Service of Process and
Papers; Stock and Stockholders;
Street Railroads; Subscriptions;
Ultra Vires; Winding Up Cor-
porations; and other specific titles.
Abatement of actions by and against,
see Survival; Winding Up Cor-
porations.
Admiralty, venue, foreign corpora-
tion, 1-426
* Affidavits of merit by, 1-673
Agreed case, as parties in, 1-745
Appeals, defunct not party in, 2-227
Appearance of, 2-517
Arguments, appeals to prejudice
against, 2-797, 799
Arrest in civil cases, affidavit in be-
half, 2-930
As relators, informations in civil
suits, 12-713
Attachment in favor of, 3-259, 261
Affidavit, 3-400, 418
Against, 3-265, 268, 269
As absconding debtor, 3-369
For debt of shareholder, 3-302
Foreign, 3-346
Of shareholders, for corporate debt,
3-302
Of shares, 3-274, 527
Service of notice on, 3-536
Bankruptcy proceedings, 3-991, 995
Petition against, 3-967
Proof of claims, 3-900
Verification, by corporation, 3*973
Of objection to discharge, 3-924
Banks, suits in corporate name,. 4-4
Continued after receivership, 4-51
Liability over subscription, 4-18
Bills and answers, use of seal, 4-147,
177
Certainty in pleading, names, 4-840
Change of venue, affidavit by whom,
6-31
Consolidation, effect on actions, see
Winding Up Coiu^orations.
Contempt, 5-380
Death, remedy by indictment, 6-467
Declaration and complaint, character
and existence sh9wn, 6-652
C0BP0BATI0K8, ccnid.
Default, by, 6-805
Service on, 6-807
Denials, nul tiel corporation, 7-76
Of lack of knowledge and belief,
7-49
On information and belief, 12-909
Depositions, notice, 7-291
Discovery, bill for, 5-573; 7-525
Examination before trial, 7-552
Filing interrogatories against of-
ficers, 7-584
Proceedings against officers for re-
fusal, 7-601
Dissolution, see Winding Up CoRPCttA-
TIONS.
Embezzlement, allegation of owne^
ship, 8-236
Escheat, holding over statutory time,
8-672
Foreign, compliance with local laws,
5-725, et seq. 742; 6-683n
Fraud and deceit, sale of stock, join-
der of parties, 10-49
Garnishment, interrogatories, admir-
alty, 1-465
Agents liable, 10-408
For debts due non-residents, 10-4S0
Of non-resident by non-residents,
10-481-483
Of private, 10-405
Shares of stock, 10-433
Unpaid subscriptions for stock, 10-
434
Injunction, see Injunctioxs.
Joinder, in indictment, 12-497
Mandamus, see Mandamus.
Prosecution of, in inferior courts, 12-
80n
Variance, in actions respecting, 11-
1052
COSTS — CoTisult analysis of thisarticlef
5-746. See PAUPsass ; - Security ?oa
Costs; and other specific titles.
Abatement, pleas of, failure to pay
or secure, 1-29
Accounts, in action on, 1-233, 240
Admiralty, 1-570-580
Appealability of decrees for, 1-556
Awarded when, 1-575-579
Remedy at law, 1-577
Taxation of, 1-579
Agreed case, 1-758, 765, 768
Amendment^ payment on, 1-899
Appeals, as part of jurisdictional
amount, 2-192
In highway proceedings, 11-102, 103
Judicial discretion, review, 2-456
Prepayment, 2-300
Arrest of judgment, 2-1036
86
INDEX
COSTS, conid.
Assignments for creditors, actions to
set aside, 3-62
In suits on assignee's bonds, 3-82
Assignments, indemnity, to assignor
when name used, 3-91
Attachment for, against guardian, 12-
802
Bankruptcy proceedings, 3-9l84
Bastardy proceedings, 4-76
Appeals, 4-82
Bonds, in judgments on, 4-542
Breach of promise, 4-557
Certiorari, 4-950
Beview of highway alteration, 11-
137
Champerty, agreement to pay by at-
torney, 4-964
Civil rights, 5-126
Commerce court, 5-170
Compromise and settlement, in suits,
5-201-203 ^'- '
Consolidation of actioOMK 5-277
Contempt, in proceedings pi, 5-432
Copyright proceedings, 5-51^^
Corporations, stockholders' suits, 5-
716
Courts martial, 6-132
Covenant, action of, recoverable
when, 6-162.
Customs duties, in advance on ap-
peal, 6-351
Forfeiture, 6-358
Death by wrongful act, 6-456
Criminal action, 6-459
Default, notice of taxation, 6-820
Demurrer, 6-1019
Depositions, 7-460, 466
Disclaimer, 5-801; 7-495
Discovery, examination of party, 7-
574
Order for production, 7-642
Dismissal, discontinuance and non-
suit, 7-687
On reinstatement, 7-690
Elections, in contests, 8-101-103
On appeal, 8-124
Equity, English and American prac-
tice, 8-498
Suit against infants, 12-799
Error, assignment of, necessary, 8-617
On motion for new trial, 8-626
Execution for, 12-802
Executors and administrators, 8-747
Actions on bonds, 8-792
On judgments ajsrainst, 8-774
Exemption, as affecting assertion of,'
11-491
Extradition, foreign, 8-845
State, 8-862
37
COSTS, conid.
Filing, motion to compel, 8-990
Fraudulent conveyances, 10-210
Frivolous and sham pleading, on
amendment, 10-300
Guardian ad litem, defendant may
look to, 10-712
Compensation taxed as, 10-766
When liable, 10-768-770
Guardian, in proceedings for removal,
10-816
In action on bond, 10-899
In habeas corpus proceedings by,
10-820
In proceedings to remove, 12-19n
On accounting, 10-852
On claims against ward's estates,
10-855
When charijeable, 10-878
Habeas corpus, on proceedings, 10-963
Heirship proceedings, 12-926
Highway proceedings, on review of,
11-102
Incompetent, appointing guardian for,
12-17
Infants, taxing against, 12-798
Informations in. civil suits, in, 12-716
Mandamus, in highway proceedings,
11-107
Next friend, taxing against, 12-799
Penalties, in actions for, highways,
11-143, 167, 170
Taxing on appeal, highways, 11-104
Witnesses, of, not examined, ll-103n
CO-TENANTS, see Joint Tenants;
Tenants in Common.
COUNSEL, see Attorneys; Lawyer
AND Client.
COUNT (6-701), see Several Counts.
COUNTERCLAIM, see Set-off, Coun-
terclaim AND Recoupment.
COUNTEEFEITING — Consult analysis
of this article, 6-1. See Alteration
OF Instruments; Forgery; and
Criminal Procedure,
Joinder with offense of passing coun-
terfeit money, 12-535
COUNTIES, see Municipal Corpora-
tions.
COURT COMMISSIONERS, see Ju-
dicial Officers; References.
COURT OP APPEALS, see Admiralty;
United States Courts.
COURT OP CLAIMS, see United States
Courts.
COURT OP CUSTOMS APPEALS, see
Customs Duties.
INDEX
00T7BTS — Consult analysis of this
article, 6-19. See Admiralty; Cer-
tiorari; Commerce Court; Con-
tempt; Courts Martial; Customs
Duties; Due Process of Law;
Equity Jurisdiction and Pro-
cedure; Judgment Records; Juris-
diction; Judicial Notice; Judicial
Oppicers; Justices op the Peace;
; Martial Law; Orders; Probate
Courts; Prohibition; Records;
Transfer of Causes; United
States Courts; War; Writ of
Error.
Agreed case, desii^nation, 1-739
Amendments, by sua sponte, 1-855
Of indictment, 12-543, 545 .
Of information, 12-560
Appeal, courts of, 2-137, 152
Conduct of judge, no exceptions be-
low, 2-278
Objections, 2-260
Record must show misconduct, 2-
349
Dismissal on own motion, 2-388
Dockets and calendars, 2-397-400
Power to issue injunction, 12-1011
Arguments, see Arguments.
Arraignment and plea, see Arraign-
ment AND Plea.
Arrest of judgment, inherent power
.of, 2-984
Assignments, questions for, 3-138
Assistance, writs of, in discretion of,
3-141
Issuance by, 3-152
Attachment, return made to what, 3-
542
Motion to dissolve before what, 3-
749
Attorneys, officers of, 3-849
Power over resigned, 3-874
Power to disbar, 3-861-866
Power to reinstate disbarred, 3-873
Qualification judicially determined,
3-851
Bills and answers, caption and ad-
dress, 4-109
Calendars, see infra, Dockets and
Calendars.
Caption, setting forth name of court,
12-174
Change of venue, see Change of
Venue.
''Children's" court, see Juvenile
Court.
Claims of, see United States Courts.
Commerce court, court and judges, 5-
155
Jurisdiction of other courts, 5-159
OOUBTS, contd.
Consolidation of actions, power inher-
ent, 5-251
On own motion, 5-270
Contempt, inherent power to punish,
5-368
Discretion, 5-369
Offended judge qualified, 5-372
Statutes limiting constitutional
courts, 5-373-375
Continuance, power general, 5-442
Courts, martial, 6-98
Customs duties, board of general ap-
praisers as court, 6-339
Court of customs appeals, 6-345
Declaration and complaint, named in,
6-645
De facto judge, finding indictment
under authority of, 12-88n
Demurrers, in inferior, 6-856
Deposit in court, 7-146-173
Inherent power to order, 7-146
Dismiss^, ^sconti nuance and non-
flOiit, discretion controlling right
ot paintiflP, 7-656, 658
Discretion as to reinstatement, 7-
' \ 689 k
Beopening after motion for non-
suit, discretion, 7-674
Dockets and calendars, 6-48
Appearance, entry on, 2-552
On appeal,' 2-397
Easements injunction, discretioii, 7-*
959
E^iinent domain, trial of preliminary
questions by, 8-302
Equity jurisdiction and procedure, 8-
371
False imprisonment, judiciary within
jurisdictions not liable, 8-955-958
Findings and conclusions, 8-991
Garnishment, property in custodia
legis, 10-450-458
Grand jury, authorizing submission
of bill to, 12-91
Indictment, organization of court as
affecting, 12-108
Power to dispense with, 12-302
Jurisdiction, see Jurisdiction.
Juvenile acts, proceedings under, 12-
880
Minutes of, showing return of In-
dictment, 12-105n
Showing amendment of indictment,
12-549
Of concurrent jurisdiction, enjoining
proceedings in, 12-1016
Presumptions' as to proceedings of,
12-106n
Removal of cause, see Behoval of
Causes.
88
INDEX
OOTTBTS, coniA.
Beviewlng acts of immigration offi-
cers, 11-918, 927
Territorial, jurisdiction in, Indian
matters, 12-41
Title of, in complaint or affidavit,
11-131
Tribal courts, jurisdiction, 12-41
Impeaching judgments of, 12-42
Rules of court, see Bules of Court.
Transfer of cause, see Transfer of
Causes.
C0XJBT8 MABTIAL — Consult analysis
of this article, 6-95. See Martial
Law; War.
COVENANT, ACTION OP — Consult
analysis of this article, 6-133. See
Assumpsit; Debt; Implied and
Express Agree ments^ Landlord
AND Tenant; Lands and Land
Transfers.
- Arbitration, action on award, 2-647
Choice and election of remedies, or
debt, 5-98
Corporations, 5-562, 570
Debt, distinguished, 6-465
Guardian's deed, covenants in, 12-
843
Non est factum, denies execution of
instrument, 11-1016
Performed, plea of, 11-1021
COVENANTS, see Covenant, Action
OF.
COVERTURE, see Husband and Wife.
CBBDITOBS' SUITS — Consult analysis
of this article, 6-164. See Assign-
ment FOR THE Benefit op Cred-
itors ; Bankruptcy Proceedings ;
Fraudulent Conveyances; Insolv-
ency; Judgments and Decrees,
Enforcement op; Marshaling As-
sets; Supplementary Proceedings.
Another action pending, 1-1018
Annuities, 1-990
Banks and banking, for unpaid sub-
scriptions, 4-14
For liability over subscription, 4-26
Suits against directors, 4-36
Bills to enforce decrees, distinguished,
4-461
Choice and election of remedies, 5-94
Consolidation of actions, 5-268
Corporations, parties, 5-611
Dower, against interest, 7-870
Equity jurisdiction, 8-445
Executors and administrators, de son
tort, 8-779
Fraudulent conveyances, 10-90
Homestead, against, 11-334
Exhausting other assets, 11-335
Pleading, 11-342, 419
CBEDITOBS' SUITS, contd.
Indians, against, reaching personal
property, 12-49
Receivers, 12-49
CRIMES, see Indictment and Infor-
mation.
Infamous, meaning of, 12-75n
Prosecution of, at common law, 12-74
Under constitutions and statutes,
12-75
CRIMINAL AFFIDAVIT, see Indict-
ment AND iNFORMATipN.
Statutory forms, not applicable, 12-
303
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT, 12-86
Amendment of, 12-565
Form of, 12-286
Judicial notice, pleading matters of,
12-348
Presumption, charging matters of, 12-
348
Reverification on amendment, 12-566
Signing and verifying, 12-288, 289
Statutory forms, not applicable, 12-
303
CSIMINAI. CONVEBSATION — Con-
sult analysis of this article, 6-250.
See Adultery; Alienatino Af-
fections.
Alienating affections, distinguished,
1-770
Barred by, 1-771
Bills of exceptions, time and place, 4-
397
Case, the action on the, 4-627
CRIMINAL LIBEL, see Libel and
Slander.
CI^IMINAL PLEADING, see Arraign-
ment AND Plea; Indictment and
Information^; and specific offenses.
See also Pleading.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, see Acces-
sories AND Accomplices; Appeals;
Arguments ; Arraignment and
Plea; Arrest of Judgment; Cer-
tificate OP Probable Cause and
OF Reasonable Doubt; Cer-
tiorari; Change op Venue; Con-
tinuances; Coroner's Inquest;
Corporations ; Costs ; Due Process
OF Law; Extradition; False Im-
prisonment; Grand Jury; Habeas
Corpus; Highways, Streets and
Bridges; Indictment and Infor-
mation; Instructions; Jeopardy;
Juries and Jurors; Jurisdiction;
Justices of the Peace ; Justifica- *
TiON; Limitation of Actions; Ma-
licious Prosecution ; Motions ;
New Trial; Nolle Prosequi; Ob-
jections and Exceptions^ Opening
39
INDEX
CBIMINAL PROCEDURE, conid,
AND Closing; Order of Proof; Par-
don; PENAi/rnss, Forfeitures and
FiNE3; Preliminary Examination;
Process; Recognizances and Bail;
Returns; Review; Rewards; Sen-
tence AND Judgment; &|eparate
Trials; Service of Process and
Papers; Sheriffs, Constables and
Marshals; Statement by Ac-
cused; Statutes; Time To Plead;
Transfer of Causes; Trial; Vari-
ance AND Failure of Proof; Ven-
ire De Novo; Venue; Verdict;
View; Waiver; Warrants; With-
drawal OF Juror; Witnesses;
Writ of Error ; and see also specific
offenses.
CROPS, see Lands and Land Trans-
fers.
CfBOSS-BIIiL — Consult analysis of this
article, 6-259. See Bills and An-
swers; Cross-Complaint; Equity
Jurisdiction and Procedure; Set-
off, Counterclaim and Recoup-
ment.
Accounting, 1-300
Another action pending, 1-1028, 1030
Creditors' suits, 6-222
Cross -complaint, analogous to, 6-296
Depositions, on original issue, 7-398
Discovery, by defendant, 7-535
Divorce, cross-petition, 7-780, 781
Dismissal, 7-793
Equity jurisdiction and procedure, 8-
487
Filing, delay in, as affecting right to
a stay, 11-21
Guardian ad litem, 10-716
Cross-bill by, 10-757
Hearing on bill and cross-bill, 11-11,
20
Homestead exemption, pleading, by,
11-419
Stay of proceedings, as affecting a,
11-20
Verification of, to procure stay, 11-
21
DBOSS-OOIdPItAIKT — Consult aruHysis
of this articjie, 6-295. See Cross-
Bill; Declaration and Complaint;
Set-off, Counterclaim and Re-
coupment.
Amendment, 1-849
Another action pending, 1-1028
Divorce, dismissal, 7-793
Ejectment, 7-1045
Guardian and ward in action on bond,
10-897
Highway proceedings, in action to en-
join, 11-56
CROSS DEMAND, see Cbo86-Bill;
Cross-Complaint; Set-off, Coux*
terclaim and Recoupment.
Admiralty, cross libel, 1-^84
CROSS-EXAMINATION, see Enotglo-
PiEDIA OF EVIDBNCB,
Illegality shown on, 11-894
CROS^P^GS, see Hiohways, Stuets
AND Bridges; Injttries ro Pebsoks
AND Property; Railroads; Street
Railroads.
CBX7ELTT TO ANIMALS — Camutt
analysis of this article, 6-313. Bee
also Criminal Procedure.
Continuando, charging under, 12-506
CUL DE SAC, highway as, 11-44
Street, included in term, ll-46n
CURATOR, see Guardli^ ad Litem;
GUARDUN AND WaRD; INOOXPB-
TENTS; Insane Persons.
0T7BTESY — Consult analysis of this
article, 6-323. See Husband and
Wipe.
Attachment, not of inchoate interestj
3-307
Custody of wife, taking from hus-
band, 12-17n
CIJSTODIA LEGIS, see Attachment;
Garnishment; Judgments and De-
crees, Enforcement of; RscEiyBBS.
CUSTOSiS AND VBAQBB'-CansuU
analysis of this article, 6-327
CUSTOMS DUTIES — Consult analysis
of this article, 6-337. See Internal
Revenue; Penalties, Fobfettures
AND Fines; Search and Seizubb;
United States Courts.
CUTTING TIMBER, see Lo08 and
Logging.
DAMAGES, see Injuries to Persons
and Property; and specific titles.
Adjoining landowners, lateral sup-
port, 1-320
Admiralty, claim increased, 1-476
Affidavit of defense, averment of, 1-
701
Agreements to pay or perform, in,
1223
Alienating affections, 1-783-785
Answers, new matter in mitigation,
2-45
Establishing highway, 11-113
Appeals, reversal for excessive, 2-479
Assessment by appellate court, 11-
90
Excessive modified on, 2-477
Not increased on, 2-478
Assault and battery, abusive lan-
guage, 3-45
Assignment for creditors, in suit on
assignee's l)ond| 3-92
40
INDEX
DAMAGES, conid.
Assumpsit, 3-187
Breach of contract, pleading, 11-1009
Bridges, destroying or injuring, 11-
273
Default, assessment on, 6-822. See
Inquiry, Weit of.
False imprisonment, 8-966
Fraud and deceit, pleading specific
facts, 10-57
Highways, appeal from assessment,
1168, 69
For changing grade of, 11-138
For opening, 11-112
Injuries from, 11-198, 226
Homestead, for breach of contract to
sell, 11-374
Indemnity contracts, for breach of,
1223
Instructions as to, contracts, 11-1073
Interest, see Intebest.
Levy, wrongful levy on homestead,
11-415
Liquidated, common counts where,
11-957
Miandamus to recover, highways, 11-
112, 113
Notice of claim for, injury from
highways, 11-205
Pleading, in action on indemnity,
12-31
Kemission of part, see Beicssion of
Damages.
Trespass, for, by owner of fee in
highway, 11-125
DATES, see Certainty in Pleading;
Indictment and Information.
Alleging, in contract action, 11-985
In indictment, 12-608, 650
Quashing, where impossible date
alleged, 12-628
Amendment as to, 12-561
Anno Domini, use of, in pleading, 12-
308
DAY IN CX)UBT, see Default; Due
Process of Law.
DEADLY WEAPONS, see Weapons.
DEATH, see Death by Wrongful Act;
Revivor; Survival.
Abatement by, 1-527; 6-372; 12-712.
See Survival.
Instructions as to means of homi-
cide, 11-655
Of husband, as affecting actions for
torts upon wife, 11-838
Of incompetent, effect of, 12-18n
Of joint contractor, action against
survivors, 11-977
Of wife, as affecting claims, 11-827
DEATH, conid.
Pleading, in indictment, .11-628
Place of death, 11-586
Time of death, 11-581
DEATH BT WBOKaFXn. ACT — Con-
suit analysis of this art^le, 6-361.
See Injuries to Persons and Prop-
erty; Master and Servant; Mines
AND Minerals; Negligence; No-
tice; Parent and Child; Parties;
Passengers ; Penai/ties, Forfeit-
ures AND Fines; Hailroads; Ships
AND Shipping; Street Bailroads.
Admiralty, jurisdiction of, 1-398
Health, negligence by druggist, 10-995
DE BENE ESSE, see Depositions. -
DEBT — Consult tmalysis of this article,
6-460. See Accord and Satisfac-
tion; Assumpsit; Compromise and
Settlement; Garnishment; Money
Counts; Money Had and Begeived;
Payment; Belease.
Account on, 1-216
Defenses, 1-228
Account stated, action on, 1-246
Arbitration, action on award, 2-647
Arrest for, see Arrest in Civil Cases.
Bills and notes, action, 4-226
By joint owners, joinder, 11-969
Corporations, 5-562, 569
Covenant, action of, when similar, 6-
135
Denials, nil debet, 7-63, 75; 11-1013"
Non est factum, 7-64, 74
For penalties, for failure to do road
work, 11-143
For obstructing highway, 11-142
Under contract labor law, 11-928
Guaranty when proper, 10-673
Husband and wife, suits on debts be-
tween, 11-709
Information of, at common law, 12-
704
Nil debet, simple contract, 11-1013
DEBTOB, homesteads created for bene-
fit of, 11-295
DEOEDENTS' EST ATES — Con^uZt
analysis of this article, 6-494. See
Curtesy; Death by Wrongful
Act; Dower; Equity Jurisdiction
AND Procedure; Executors and
Administrators ; I n h e r it ance ;
Judgments and Decrees, Bevival
OF; Partition; Probate Courts;
Bevivor; Scire Facias; Survival;
Trusts and Trustees; Wills.
Accounts, probate settlements, 1-272
Advancements, deducting, 12-927
Aliens, 1-795
Appearance in proceedings, 2-551
41
INDEX
DEOEDSSKTS* S8TATES, eantd.
Attachment, not against, 3-265
Of legacy, 3-297-299
Bankruptcy proceedings, death of
bankrupt, 3-990, 993
Burglary, ownership of premises, 4-
603
Case or question certified, Mass., 4-
718
Contribution in probate court, 5-500
Costs, payment out of fund, 5-9Q3
Death by wrongful act, action by
heirs, 6-392
Action by personal representative,
6-394-397
Detinue, by personal representative,
7-480
Dower, 7-863-892
Eminent domain, parties, 8-269
Equity- jurisdiction, administration, 8-
412
Donatio mortis causa, 8-401
Legacies, 8-401
Error, assignment of, in probate, 8-
560
Executors and administrators, 6-502;
8-725
Findings and conclusions, when neces-
sary, 8-1001
Forcible entry and detainer, by per-
sonal representative, 8-1102
Fraudulent conveyances, resort to
equity where debtor deceased, 10-
125
Setting aside, by personal repre-
sentative, 10-138
Distributee as party, 10-147
Heirship proceedings, decree in, dur-
ing administration, 12 025
Determining heirs, 12-914
Partition of homestead premises, 11-
• 406
DECEIT, see Feaud and Deceit.
DECISION, see Findings and Conclu-
sions; Judgments; Law of the
Case.
DECLARATION of homestead, 11-304
Contents, 11-310
Effect of filing and recording, 11-
317
Filing, 11-315
Formal requisites, 11-309
Parties, 11-308
DECI.ABATION AND OOIdPLAINT --
Consult analysis of this article, 6-
638. See Assumpsit; Bills and
Answers; Case; Cause op Action;
Certainty in Pleading; Conclu-
sions OP Law; Construction and
Theory op Pleadings; Covenant,
Action of; Cross-Bill; Cross-
declabation and oomplaiht,
contd.
Complaint; Debt; Duplicity; Ex-
hibits; Inducement; Information
AND 'Belief; Joinder of Actions;
Judicial Notice; JuBiSDicnoH;
Justices of the Peace; Negli-
gence; Pleading; Prayer; Ri-
PLEvm; Bepugnancy; Several
Counts; Striking Out and With-
drawal; Supplemental Pleading;
Surplusage and Scandal; Venue;
Verification; Writ of Entry; and
specific titles.
Accounts, 1-218, 221
Accounts stated, 1-243
Book account, 1-236
In equity, 1-288
Adjoining landowners, 1-325
Light and air, 1-328
Age of infant, showing, 12-756
Alienage, alleged, 1-800
Appearing in, 1-810
Alienating affections, 1-774-782
Altered instrument, action on, 1-827
Amendments, see Amendments asd
Jeofails.
Changing highway grade, 11-138
Injuries from highways, 11-231
Animals, injuries by, 1-955
Infectious diseases of, 1-960
Injuries to, 1-966
Appeal bonds, in action on, 2-96
Apprentices, declaration of master, 2-
581
Arbitration, on award, 2-648, 652
For equitable relief, 2-631
Architects and builders, 2-709
Allegations, of acceptance, 2-689
Arrest in civil cases, averments, 2-
962-964
Assault and battery, damages, 3-40
Assignment for creditors, complaist
to set aside, 3-60
By assignee, 3-76
Complaint, to enforce, 3-67
Assignments, 3-122
Assumpsit, declaration in. 3-180
Joinder of counts, 3-2u6
Attachment, in main action, 3-700
Audita querela, 3-879
Automobiles, for injuries from, 11-
254
Banks and banking, for loss of col-
lection, 4-12
Against of&cers, 4-37
On Uability over,' 4-29^ 30
Beneficial associations, 4-86
Bills and notes, 4-244-270
Bonds, 4-496-607
42
tNDEl
DfiOLAltAVlON AKD OOMPI.A.ZNT,
corttd.
Breach of contract, averment of, 11-
1006
Breach of promise, 4-549
By infant, 12-754
Bridges, injuries from defective, 11-
276
Case, the action on the, 4-641
Chattel mortgages, conversion, 5-66
Action by mortgagee for possession
563
Civil rights, for damages, 5-125
Committee of incompetent, in action
against, 12-19n
Composition with creditors, perform-
ance alleged, 5-177
Comproifiise and settlement, on com-
promise, 5-198
Conditions, pleading performance of,
11-998
Consideration, averment of, 11-986,
1024
Consolidation of actions, effect on
pleadings, 5-275
Conspiracy, 5-323-330
Construction and theory of pleading,
5335
Contract labor law, enforcing penalty
under, 11-928
Contract, on, 11-981
Contribution, 5-503
Contributory negligence, negativing,
11-216
Copyright proceedings, 5-512
Corporations, 5-638-653
Actions for mismanagement, 5-696
For dividends, 5-695
■ Foreign, 5-742, 744
Stockholders' suits, 5-713
Covenant, action of, 6-145-157
Creditors' suits, bill or complaint, 6-
208
Criminal conversation, 6-254-256
Cross-complaint, 6-296-312
Form and sufficiency, 6-301
Germane to original, 6-,364
Damages, averment of, for breach of
contract, 11-1009
Death by wrongful act, 6-404
Necessity for allegation of loss, 6-
424
Debt, declaration, 6-478
Definition of declaration, 12-73
Demand and notice, pleading, 11-995
Demurrer, to part, 6-857
For uncertainty, injuries from high-
ways, 11-229
/' Overruled if good in part, 6-969
. Deportation proceedings, 11-905, 911
Detinue, 7-480
DECI.AEATIOK AND OOMPtiAXNT,
contd.
Discovery, examination of party to
frame, 7-555
Dismissal of, because incorrectly en-
titled, 12-736
Divorce, complaint, 7-759-771
Duress, set-out, 7-951-953
Easements, 7-955, 966-969
Ejectment, 7-1024-1034,
Elections, attaching complaint to no-
tice of contest, 8-83
Befusing vote, etc., 8-141
Electricity, negligence, 8-171
Eminent domain, petition in action
for damages, 8-351, 354
Complaint for injunction, 8-366
Estoppel, set out as cause of action,
8-686
Estrays, for penalty, 8-722
Executors and administratorB, aver-
ments of capacity, 8-739
Actions by foreign, 8-751
Actions on bonds, 8-788
Capacity as defendant, 8-757
De son tort, 8-779
Exhibit, contract attached as, 11-992
Extortion, 8-826
Factors and .brokers, for proceeds, 8-
872
By factor, 8-879
For commissions, 8-885
False imprisonment, 8-959
Forcible entry and detainer, 8-1109,
1117
Forthcoming bonds, 10-28
Fraud and deceit, 10-50
Under common count, 10*50
Frauds, statute of, :iO-68
Fraudulent conveyances, complaint,
10-150-178
Freight carriers, 10-242
Frivolous and sham pleadings, reme-
dy, 10-273
Gaming, actions for penalties, 10-329
Becovery from stakeholder, 10-326
Gifts, allegation of gift, 10-603
Kecovery of ineffectual, 10-603
Guaranty, averments as to, 10-682-691
Guarantor, against principal, 10-701
Guardian and ward, in action on
bond, 10-879
By foreign guardian, 10-902
Showing guardian's authority, 12-
754
Hawkers and peddlers, in action for
penalty, 10-975
Health, in aetion for penalty, 10-984,
994
For negligence of druggist, 10-995
Heirship proceedings, . 12-922
43
INDEX
DEOLABATION AND C02CPLA.INT,
contd.
Highways, for improvements in, 11-
125, 126
Injuries from, 11-112. IIIJ, 214, 218,
252
Bemoving obstructions from, 11-
173
Homestead, for illegal conveyance of,
11-383
Illegality, construction as to, 11-893
Indemnity, on contract of, 12-31
Indian tribe, in action ly member
of, 12-48
Indictment, distinguished from, 12-73
Infants, actions by and against, 12-
735, 754, 756
Information and belief, allegation on,
12-899
Injunction, for, in highway proceed-
ings, 11-110
Injuries from highways, description
of, 11-226
Intent, averment as to, 11-989
Juvenile proceedings, 12-865
Mandamus to restore highway, 11-125
Motion to make certain, see Oebtain-
TY IN Pleading.
Municipal corporation, remedy over
against individual, 11-251
Negativing defenses, 11-1005
Negligence, injury from highways,
11-214, 278
New promise at majority, alleging,
12-756
Notice, pleading, injury from high-
ways, 11-223, 227
Novation, 11-994
Partial performance, averring, 11-
1004
Parties, averments as to, 11-958
Penalty, for, failure to repair high-
way, 11-123
Encroachment upon highways, 11-
163, 168
Batiflcation of infant's contract,
pleading, 12-756
Statutory form, contract, 11-983
Time, pleading, injuries from high-
ways, 11-227
Of performance of contract, 11-
1004
Trespass, 11-125
Variance between declaration and
notice of injury, 11-223
Waiver, of homestead, 11-438
Of performance, 11-1005
DECREES — Consult analysis of this
article, 6-737. See Appeals; Bills
OP Bbview; Bills To Enforce De-
grees; Bills To Iaipeach Judg-
DECBEES, contd.
MENTS AND DECREES; DxrAUur;
Equity Jurisdiction and Pro-
cedure ; Injunctions ; Judgiont
Becords ; Judgments ; Judgments
and Decrees, Enporcemskt op;
Judgments, Bevival of; Judg-
ments, Satisfaction op; Orders;
Beformation ; Bescission and
Cancellation ; Beview ; Spscipio
Performance.
Accounting, 1-306, 314
Account stated, 1-256, 257
Acquiescence in by infant, as estop-
pel, 12-781
Admiralty, 1-547, 650
Appealability of, 1-554
In appellate court, 1-568
Jurisdiction to enforce foreign, 1-
406
On default, 1-501
Annuities, 1-992
Appeals, what is final, 2-163, 164
Appealability, 2-147, 153, 156, 193
From final decrees, homesteadSy 11-
432
Bills of review, 4-411
Decree on review, 4-455
Bills to enforce, 4-459
Bills to impeach, 4-472
By consent, against infants, 12-768
Collision, interlocutory, 5-148-150
Confirming sale, of infant's prop-
erty, 12-835
Copyright proceedings, 5-517-519
Costs, neceraity for decree, 5-917
Ci editors * suits, 6-236-249
Cross-bill, on, 6-293
Decedents' estates, f .'r acconnting, 6-
594
Determining heirs, 12-925
Of distribution, C-632-634
Insolvent estate, 6-587
On appeal, 6-539
Setting aside accounts, 6-617, 622
Settling accounts, 6-609
Default, see Depault.
Divorce without jurisdiction, 6^14
Equity, 8-470
Belief after term, 6-838
Depositions, after decree, 7-215
Dismissal, of, 7-651*
"Without prejudice," 7-685
Divorce, 7-794
Alimony, 7-825
Modifying and vacatingi 7-S41,
846
Custody and support of diildipi
7-854 ^
Modifying, 7-866
44
INDEX
DEOBEES, conid»
Divorce, contd.
Division of property, 7-861
Without jurisdiction, 6-814
Dower, judgments, 7-883-888
Easements, 7-957, 960, 970
Emancipating infant, 12-807
Eminent domain, 8-368
Error, assignment of, 8-617
Findings of fact embodied in, 11-432
Fraudulent conveyances, in action to
set aside, 10-197
Guardian ad litem, appointing, 10-750
Ouardian and ward, appointing guard-
ian, 10-800
Adjudication account, 10-840, 841
Hearing, necessary to, 11-3
Heirship proceedings in, 12-924
Homestead, in creditors ' suit, against,
11-343
Infants, by and against, conveying
lands of, 12-766, 823
Making absolute at majority, 12-
778
Proceedings to review, 12-784
Provision for day in court, 12-775
Where infant not in esse, 12-774
Injunction, to enforce, 12-994
Interlocutory, vacating at final hear-
ing, 11-23
Notice, establishing proof of service
of, 12-921
Parties, jurisdiction of, necessary,
11-6
Possession, to surrender, as affecting
abandonment of homestead, 11-
449
Presumptions as to, in guardianship
proceedings, 12-17
Pro confesso, 11-4. See Default.
Bedemption of wife's separate prop-
erty, 11-832
Separation agreements, in* suits on,
11-824
Sole trader proceedings, 11-818
Tribal • court, of, enforcement, 12-46
Vacating, against infants, 12-779
Waiver of homestead declared in, 11-
439
Wife's separate estate, against, 11-
832
DECREE PRO CONFESSO, see De-
FADliT.
DEDICATION, see Lands and Land
Transfers.
DEEDS, see Lands and Land Trans-
fers; Mortgages.
DEFAMATION, see Libel and Slan-
dxr.
WSFAXTLT '•^ Coniult analysis of this
article, 6-800. See Affidavits of
Merits and Defense; Appeals;
Decrees; Divorce; Due Process of
Law; Equity Jurisdiction and
Procedure ; Infants ; Inquirt,
Writ of; Insane Persons; Issues
IN Pleading and Practice; Judg-
ment Records; Judgments; Juris-
diction; New Trial; Notice; Pro-
ceedings IN Rem; Res Judicata;
Sequestration; Time To Plead;
Writ of Error.
Abatement, plea of, not permissible
after, 1-53
Accounts, failure to file, 1-226
Admiralty, 1-500
Answer not filed, 1-463
Decree, 1-501
Appealability of decree, 1-556
Costs, setting aside, 1-577
Affidavit of merits, to open, 1-655;
12-898
Defense stated, 1-687
To prevent, 1-661, 670
Amendment, on not pleading to, 1-
930
Answers, leave after, 2-16
Appeals, from judgments by, 2-157
Appearance, after default, 2-549, 561
Entered by plaintiff, 2-519
Withdrawal of, 2-565
Arrest of judgment, not until set
aside, 2-1033
Attachment, judgment void when, 3-
736
Attorneys, in disbarment, 3-870
Bills in equity, pro confesso, 4-155
Amendment sets aside, 4-205
Bills of review, of decrees pro con-
fesso, 4-433
Bills to impeach decrees pro con*
fesBO, 4-475
Calendars and dockets, 6-48
Common injunction on, 12-1006
Complaint, insufficiency not waived
by, 8-565
Corporations, of, 5-632
Judgments, 5-665, 667
Cross-bill, failure to answer, 6-290
Cross-complaint, entry of judgment
on, 6-311
Decrees, 6-741, 742, 762
Denials, admission by failure to denyi
exceptions, 7-109-114
Depositions, taken after, 7-216
Notice of taking, 7-270
To set aside, use, 7-398
Detinue, judgments, inquiry, 7-488
Discovery, non-production of docu-
ment, 7-645-647
45
INDEX
bEfAtrtiT, eontd.
Discovery, contd.
Examination of party, 7-551
For refusal to answer, 7-596-604
Dismissal for, 7-675
Divorce, proof of facts, 7-791
Division of property, 7-851
Setting aside when on publication,
7-803
Ejectment, against casual ejector, 7-
1035
Election contests, proof required, 8-
90
Emancipation of infant, as affecting,
12-767
Equity, pro confess©, 8-468
Decree, 6-762; 8-470
For want of answer, 11-4
Setting aside decree pro confesso,
against infants, 12-768
Executors and administrators, what
judgment against, 8-766
Garnishment, judgment on default of
garnishee, 10-571
Vacating judgments, 10-581
Guardian, effect, 10-871
Bemoval of guardian not answer-
ing, 10-812
Heirship proceedings, in, 12-922
Infants, against, 12-766
DEFENDANTS, see Pabtibs.
DEFENSES, see Abatement, Pleas of;
Answers; Abbaionment and Plea;
Bills and Answers; Denials;
New Cause of Action oa Defense ;
Pleading; Plea of Equitt; Pleas.
Abortion, 1-110
Adulteration, 1-589
Affidavit of defense, 1-643
Affidavit of merits, averments in, 1-
678, 686; 12-898
Alienating affections, 1-782
Aliens, by, 1-799
To crime in foreign state, 1-808
Animals, to lien for agistment of, 1-
978
Infection, contributory negligence,
1-961
Injuries by, 1-952, 953
Annuities, actions for, 1-990
Answers, not pleaded, waived, 2-10
In equity, see Bills and Answers.
Partial, 2-55
Separately stated in, 2-59, 61-65
Sufficiency of new matter, 2-48
Anticipating, 4-118; 6-681
In criminal pleading, 12-350
Apprentices, by master or by, 2-581-
585
Enticing, 2-586
Arraignment and plea, 2-857
DEFENSES, eonid.
Assignments, against assignor, 3-130
Avoiding apparent defenses, 4^118
Homestead exemption, as a, 11-419
Illegality, pleading, 11-894
Inconsistent, 2-26
Notice of, see Notice of Defense.
Pleas, see Pleas.
DEFINITENE8S, see Cebtaintt dc
Pleading.
DEFINITIONS, exemption, 11-469
Highway, 11-42
Homestead, 11-292
Incest, 12-11
Indemnity, 12-22
Indian band, 12-43
Injunction, 12-993
Manslaughter, 11-579
DE INJTJBIA, see Justification; Bef-
ligation and Reply.
DELAY, see Laches.
DELIBERATION AND PREMEDITA-
TION, see Homicide; Indioticent
AND Information.
DELINQUENT, see Infants.
DELIVERY BOND, see Forthcoming
Bonds.
DEMAND, see Notice; Payment;
Pleading; Suits and Actions; and
specific titles.
Accounting, 1-280
Bills and notes, 4-224-267
For appraisement, on claim of ex-
emption, 11-514
In action by assignee, 3-128
On indemnitor, 12-26
Pleading, in. contract actions, 11-995
DEMUBEEB — Consult analysis of this
article, 6-845. See Amesh^ments
AND Jeofails; Appeals; Cause of
Action; Chrtainty in Pleading;
Departure; Dupucity; Frivolous
AND Sham Pleadings; Indictment
AND Information; Inquiry, Writ
of; Issues in Pleading and Prac-
tice; Joinder of Actions; Judg-
ment Records; Judgments; Mulh-
fariousness; Objections and Ex-
ceptions; Orders; Parties; Be-
pugnancy; Time to Plead; Wait-
er; Writ of Error.
Abatement, for matter dehors record,
1-36, 41
To 'pleas of, 1-6^
To replication to plea of, 1-67
Accord and satisfaction, to plea of,
1-190
Accounts, to defenses, 1-228
Accounting, demurrer in, 1-291, 295,
296
Admiralty, exceptions instead^ 1-460
46
INDEX
£>EllinfiBEB, conid*
Admissions by, 12-655
Adverse possession, to defenses, 1-631
Affidavit of defense, as a, 1-711
As waiver of special, 1-711
Affidavit of merits, not for want of,
1-707
Aider by verdict, as affecting, 12-703
Alienage, raised by, 1-803
Alien's right questioned by, 1-810
Amendments, 1-849
After, 1-871-873
Of indictment on, 12-548
Amicus curiae, not by, 1-937
Another action pending, 1-1035
Appeals, from orders on, 2-174; 12-
568
Exceptions to rulings, when, 2-274,
275
Of record on, 2-336
Presumption against error, 2-420
Record should show, 2-348
Waived by pleading over, 2-207
Answer, where incorporated in th<^,
11-22
Arbitration, in actions on award, 2-
652, 666
Arraignment and plea, no rearraign-
ment after, 2-866
At time of, 12-653
• Pleading over, 2-884
To plea, 2-885, 886
To replication, 2-886.
Arrest of judgment, grounds sufficient
for, 2-1013
After pleading over, 2-1016
Where failure to interpose, 2-1015
Assumpsit, general and special de-
murrer, 3-190
To general assumpsit, 3-214
Attorneys, in disbarment, 3-870
Bankruptcy, to petition, 3-981
Before jury sworn, 12-653
Bills and answers, for want of prayer
for process, 4-146
After amended bill, 4-207
After demurrer, 4-198-200
Answering after, 4-151
None to answer, exceptions, 4-179-
185
To bill, 4-150
Bills of particulars, for failure to
furnish, 4-390
Bills of review, 4-454
Bills to enforce decrees, 4-469
Bills to impeach judgments and de-
crees, 4-489
Case,' no ad damnum clause, 4-642
Case or question certified, Ind., 4-699
On pleadings not considered, N. II.,
4-726
DEMUBBSBy eonid.
Cause of action, to determine exist-
ence, 4-801
Certainty, special for want of, 4-859
Champerty, appearing in pleadings, 4-
966n
Commerce court, 5-169
Motion to dismiss instead, 5-171
Complaint, for defect in entitling, 12-
736
Conclusions of law, 5-226
Consideration, because of, 11-988
Corporations, failure to allege incor-
poration, 5-644
Stockholders' suits, 5-715
Courts, equal division, 6-81
Creditors' suits, legal remedy not ex-
hausted, 6-186
Want of jurisdiction, 6-218
Cross-bill, grounds, 6-289
Death by wrongful act, failure to
name beneficiaries, 6-410
Defense, to notice of, 7-84
Denials, amounting to general issne,
7-106
Departure, 7-141
Disclaimer, to, 7-492
Discovery, to bill, 7-539
Divorce, 7-780
Dower, 7-875
Duplicity, remedy, 7-944
Election, no ground of contest, 8-81
Embezzlement, for formal defects of
indictment, 8-243
Eminent domain, 8-290
Objections as, 8-295
Equity, in, 8-480
Errors, assignment of, 8-568
To assignment, 8-659
To plea to assignment, 8-659
Estoppel, raised by, 8-693
Executors and administrators, mis-
joinder of actions, 8-737
Failure to a*llege filing of claims,
8-759-761
Exhibits, failure to file, 8-804, 818
Forcible entry and detainer, 8-1118
Form of, to indictment, 12-654
Fraudulent conveyances, to bill, 10-
188
Frivolous and sham pleading, to, 10-
275, 291
Ghiardian and ward, capacity to sue,
10-869
Foreign guardian, no authority
shown, 10-902
Hearing on, 12-655
Highways, complaint for injury from,
. 11-228
Homestead contest in, 11-333
47
mj)t:x
DSMtTBSEB^ conid.
Illegal commitment^ as ground for,
12-650
Improper adjournment, as ground
for, 12-650
Indictment, quashing for demurrable
defects, 12-612
Indictment to, after motion to quash,
12-643
For misjoinder of offense, 12-684
Grounds of, 12-646, 647
Insufficient grounds, 12-650
Where overruled, 12-657
Where some counts good, 12-656
Where sustained, 12-656
Infancy, on ground of, 12-754
Information and belief, to allega-
tions on, 12-900
Information, to, 12-646
After motion to quash, 12-643
Judgment on, withdrawal before, 12-
655
Misjoinder of counts in indictment,
12-650
Motion to dismiss, as substitute for,
7-681
New trial, for overruling demurrer,
12-658
Pending, effect on hearing, 11-5
Plea, conclusion of, special demurrer,
5-231
Pleading to merits, after, 12-653
Plea in abatement, waived by, 12-
670
Striking out judgment, after, 12-654
To answer, 11-1031
In equity, 11-8
To first count, does not effect cap-
tion, 12-173
Uncertainty for, 11-229
Waiver by, of defects in indictment,
12-669
DEinrBBEB TO E'VIDENOE — Consult
analysis of this article, 7-1. See
Dismissal, Discontinuance and
Nonsuit; Trial.
Appeals, presumption against error,
2-424
Dismissal, after, 7-661
Nonsuit compared, 7-674
DENIALS — Consult cmalysis of this
article, 7-31. See also Affidavits
OF Merits and Defense; Answers;
Bills and Answers; Duplicity;
Information and Belief; Issues
in Pleading • and Practice ; Plea
IN Equity; Pleas; Rejoinder and
Subsequent Pleadings ; Replica-
tion AND Reply.
Accord and satisfaction, replication,
1-187, 188
DEKIALS, contd.
Admiralty, failure admits allegation,
1-463
Affidavit of defense not in form of,
1694
Altered instruments, general or spe-
cial, 1-829-834
Answers, specific admissions with, 2-
19
When necessary in, 4-163
Argumentative, in contract actions,
11-1014
Arbitration, of submission, 2-657
Bonds, 4-510
Conditions precedent, non-perform-
ance of, 11-1019
Confession and avoidance, where al-
lowed, 5-243-248
Conjunctive, 4-849
Contract actions, generally, 11-1014
Corporation, by, on information and
belief, 12-909
Covenant, action of, 6-158
Departure, restating with denial, 7-
127
Eminent domain, 8-291, 292
Errors, assignment of, of plea to, 8-
653
Escheat, 8-672
Estoppel, nature of, 8-679
Forcible entry and detainer, 8-1119-
1121
Fraudulent conveyances, of fraud, 13-
179
Frivolous and sham pleading, 10-277
Garnishment, traverse of affidavit, 10-
491
Of answer, 10-543
Guardian's bond of performance, 10-
896
Habeas corpus, traverse of return, 10-
933
On information and belief, 11-1017;
12-905
Traverse, in habeas corpus, 11-923
DENTISTS, see Physicians and Sun-
OEONS.
DEPABTUBE — Consult analysis of this
article, 7-116. See also AMENDiaNTS
AND Jeofails; DEuxTBam; Bbfu-
CATION AND BEPLY.
Assumpsit, 3-214
Contract actions, in, 11-1034
Demurrer, 6-907
DEPENDENCY, see Infants,
DEPORTATION, see Immigration.
DEPOSIT IK OOVUT — Consult andly
sis of this article, 7-144. See Costs;
Tender.
Admiralty, 1-531
Custody on appeal, 1-565
48
INDEX
DEPOSIT nr OOUBT, eonid.
Appeal bonds, in lieu of, 2-78
Attachment, of money in lieu of bond,
3-281
Bill of partieulars, 4-390
Costs, claimants, 5-832
Payable out of fund, 5-904
Discovery, of document for inspec-
tion, 7-640
Eminent domain, payment, 8-330
Equity, payment into court, 8-497
Oarnishment, payment into court by
garnishee, 10-551
Discharge by, 10-566
Order for payment by garnishee,
10-575
DEPOSITIONS — CofMiilt atialytis of
this article, 7-174. See Disoovxby;
WiTNESSXS.
Admiralty, see 1 Encyclopjcdia op
EVIDENGB 280.
Costs and fees, 1-572, 574
Before grand jury, indorsing affiant's
name on indictment, 12-625
Bill of exceptions, must be inserted
in, 4-315
Consolidation of actions, taken be-
fore, 5-274
Continuance to take, 5-451, 459
Courts martial, 6-117
Garnishment, disclosure by deposition,
10-538
Hearing in chancery, as affected by
return of commission, 11-15
DBP08IT0BIES, see Personal Prop-
DESCENT AND DISTEIBUTION, see
Decedents' Estates; Executors
AND Administrators; Inheritance.
DESCRIPTION, see Certainty in
Pleading; Indictment and Inpor-
MATION.
Adverse possession, pleading, 1-629
DESEBTION, see Coxtrts Martial;
DiVORCB,
As affecting action for slander of
wife, 11-722
DETHnTE — Consult anaXysis of this
' article, 7-467. See Beplevin.
Attachment by third person, 3-649
Chattel mortgages, 5-61
Factor by, 8-878
General issue, 7-64
Husband and wife, between, 11-708
DILATORY PLEAS, see Abatement,
Pleas op; Pleas.
DIMINUTION, see Appeals.
DIRECTION OP VERDICT, see Ver-
dict.
DISBARMENT, see Attornstcl
DISCHARGE, see Arbitration; Bank-
ruptcy Proceedings ; Compromise
and Settlement; Implied and Ex-
press Agreements; Payment; Re-
lease.
Of contract, special plea of, 11-1012
DISOIiAUCBB — consult anaXysiB of
this article, 7-491
Bills and answers, 4-151
Costs, 5-801; 7-495
Ejectment, where allowed, 7-1038
Eminent domain, 8-294
Equity in, 8-479
Fraudulent conveyances, 10-188
DISCONTINUANCE, see Dismissal,
Discontinuance and Nonsuit.
DISOOVEBY — Consult analysis of this
article, 7-498. See Depositions;
Physical Examination; SiiPFLB-
MENTARY PROCEEDINGS.
Accounting, necessity for alleged, 1-
290
Admiralty, interrogatories, 1-465, 467
Attachment, examination of defend-
ant, 3-739
Examination of third party, 3-740
Bankruptcy, examination of bank-
rupt, 3-985, 987
BUls and answers, use of charging
part for, 4-132
Bill must be fully answered, 4-155
Bill of particulars not to obtain,
4-380
By answer, 4-l!;i, 163
Interrogating part, 4-133, 136
Waiver of penalties for, 4-144
Corporations, 5-573
Creditors' suits, creditor entitled t0|
6-226
Cross-bill, dismissal, no affirmative
relief on, 6-291
Decedents' estates, of assets, 6-519
Deposit in court, on examination of
party, 7-152
Elections, in contests, 8-87
Equity, in, see supra, bills and an-
swers.
Jurisdiction, 8-442
Garnishment interrogatories to gar-
nishee, 10-532
By answer or disclosure, 10-533
Oral examination of garnishee, 10-
539
Infant, by, 12-779
PISCBETION, appeals, from abuse of,
2-159
Of court, amendments, 2-297
Of indictment, 12-547, 549
Of information, 12-555, 558, 560
INDEX
DISCRETION, etmid.
Of court, contd.
Election, between counts, in indict-
ment, 12-671
Compelling election of offenses,
12-684
Granting certiorari, 11-136
Granting continuance, 11-16
Hearing causes out of order, 11-16
Homestead contest, as to form of
issue in, 11-333
In allowing appeal, 2-297
Incompetent, in restoring, 12-20n
Information, leave to file, 12-113
Quashing indictment, 12-636, 640
Beplication in equity, allowing,
11-9
Stay, in granting, 11-21
View, in allowing, 11-232
Writ of review, in granting, 11-92
Of highway tribunal, altering high-
ways, 11-126
In allowing road, ll-99n
Review of, by courts, 11-127
Review of judicial, 2-449, 456
DISEASE, see Health.
DISMISSAL, DISOONTINUANOB
AND KONBUIT — Consult analysis
of this article, 7-648. See Abrest
OF Judgment; Continuances; De-
ItURBER TO EVIDENCX; JUSTICES OF
THE Peace.
Accounting, dismissal in, 1-305
Admiralty, commencement premature,
1-424
At hearing, 1-542
Costs on lack of jurisdiction, 1-577
Decree of dismissal, appealability,
1-555
Dismissal, 1-529
Dismissal of appeal, 1-562
Effect where cross-libel, 1-489
Alienage, dismissal for, 1-803, 811
Amendments after motion for non-
suit, 1-879
^Another action pending, effect, 1-
1010-1013
Appeals, dismissal, 2-386
As bar to further, 2-142
Effect of, 11-78
From guardianship petition, 12-17
Prom orders, 2-173
Infant's appeal, 12-796
In highway proceedings, 11-78
Alteration of highway, 11-133
Discontinuance of highway, 11-
265
Parties, dismissal for defects in, 2-
235
Presumption nonsuit proper^ 2-423
ISMI88AL, DISOOWmroAHOB
AND NONSDnr, contd.
Appeals, contd.
Reinstatement after dismissal, 2-
394, 397
Where no notice of appeal given,
11-132
Appearance, special to dismiss, 2-500
Assumpsit, nonjoinder of parties, 3-
180
Attachment, dissolved by voluntary,
3-817
Dissolution, discontinuance of ac-
tion when, 3-822
Bankruptcy, of application for dis-
charge, 3-929
Bastardy proceedings, dismissal, 4-74
Of appeal, 4-82
Bill in equity, dismissal, 4-205
For want of parties, 11-6
For want of prayer for process, 4-
146
For want of prosecution, 11-6
Bill of review, dismissal on hearing,
4-455
Bill of particulars, failure to fur-
nish, 4-410
Bill to impeach judgments and de-
crees, 4-480
Certainty, for lack of, 4-862
Certiorari, motion to dismiss, 4-913,
915
Quashal or dismissal, 4-935
Commerce court, motion to dismiss,
5-171
Complaint, because incorrectly en-
titled, 12-736
Consolidation, discontinuance after,
5-274
Costs upon, 5-843, 849
Dismissal on appeal, 5-995
Payment before another action, 5-
967
Creditors' suits, because of legal
remedy, 6-186
Cross-bill, 6-291
Dismissal for new matter, 6-276
Cross-complaint, of original action, 6-
311
Decedents' estates, of proceedings to
sell, 6-561
Demurrer, distinguished from motion,
6-852
Nonsuit after overruling, 6-994
Not with motion, 6-868
Demurrer to evidence, nonsuit equiv-
alent, where, 7-26
Departure, defect of parties, 7-143
Deposit in court, withdrawn, on, 7-
168
50
INDEX
DISMISSAL, DI800NTINXJAN0E
AND N0NSI7IT, conid.
Discovery, dismissal for refusal to
answer, 7-596, 600
Dismissal of bill, 7-540
Non-production, nonsuit for, 7-645
Divorce, 7-792
Elections, in contests, •8-90, 91
Dismissal of appeals, 8-121
Eminent domain, abandonment, 8-342,
346
Dismissal, 8-290
Equity, dismissal in, 8-479
After default, for want of equity,
6-770
Error, assignment of, dismissal for
not filing, 8-630
Escheat, nonsuit, 8-&73
Forcible entry and detainer, 8-1122
Frivolous and sham pleading, remedy,
10-273
Oarnishment, on constructive service,
ends main case, 10-475 ,
Quardian ad litem, lack of, 10-729
Habeas corpus, dismissal, 10-949
Improper joinder of defendants, to
cure, 12-498
Indictment, of resubmission after,
12-146, 150
Information in civil suit, of, for want
of prosecution, 12-716
Judgment of, final, highway altera-
tion proceedings, 11-131
Of first count, effect on caption, 12-
173
Petition for highway, 11-69
Transfer pendente lite, for, 6-761
DISOBDEBLY COMDITCT — C(m9ult
'analysis of this article, 7-693. See
also CrimiTial Procedure.
DISOBDEBLY HOUSE — Consult aji-
alysis of this article, 7-968. See
Qaming; Lewdness; Peostitxjtion.
See also Criminal Procedure,
Charging offense of, by name, 12-349
DISTRESS, see Landlord and Tenant;
Replevin; Taxation.
DISTRIBUTION, see Decedents' Es-
tates.
DISTRICT COURT, see Jurisdiction;
United States Courts.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, see United
States.
DISTRINGAS, see Process.
DISTURBING PEACE, see Affray;
Breach of the Peace; Security
To Keep the Peace.
DISTtmBINa PUBLIO ASSEMBLY —
Consult analysis of this article, 7-
713. See also Criminal Procedure.
DIVOBOE — Consult analysis of this or-
ticle, 7-728. See Marruge.
As affecting joinder of husband and
wife, 11-715
Assistance, writs of, 3-144
Bigamy, when defense, 4-98
Bill of particulars, 4-398
Bill to impeach decree, 4-475
Creditors' suits, to enforce alimony,
6-188
Default, jurisdiction, 6-814
Effect on alimony^ substituted serv-
ice, 6-823
Discovery, filing interrogatories, 7-
583
Disposition of homestead, on, 11-454
Garnishment, after, 10-406
To recover alimony, 10-406
Separate maintenance, proceedings
for, 11-853
DOCKETS AND CALENDARS, see Ap-
peals; Appearances; Courts;
Judgment Records; Justices of
THE Peace.
Of juvenile proceedings, 12-872
DOCUMENTS, see Discovery.
DOMICILE, see Divorce; Jurisdiction.
DOWER^ WRIT OF, see Dower, Pro-
ceedings To Recover.
]>OWEB» PBOOEEDINaS TO BB-
OOVEB — Consult analysis of this
article, 7-860
Assignment of, asserting .homestead
right, 11-391
Attachment, not of unassigned inter-
est, 3-307
Equity jurisdiction, 8-437
Fraudulent conveyances, not fixed by
judgment, 10-209
DRAINS AND DRAINAGE, see Wat-
ers AND Watercourses.
DRUGGISTS, see Health; Intoxicat-
ing Liquors.
DRUGS, see Health.
DRUNKARDS, see Incompetents; In-
toxicating Liquors ; Public Drunk-
enness.
DRUNKENNESS, see Incompetents.
See also Drunkards.
As ground of divorce, 7-767
DX7E PROCESS OF I«AW — Consult an-
alysis of this article, 7-893. See
Default; Jurisdiction.
Arraignment and plea, necessary to,
2-864, 875
Courts martial, 6-109
Meaning of, 12-76
Under federal constitution, 12-76
Under state constitutions, 12-77
DULY, a legal conclusion, 5-212
51
IXDEX
DUFUOITT — C&Muli analysis of this
article, 7-931. See Indictment and
Infqkmation ; Joindee of Actions;
Several Counts.
Abatement) plea of, 1-39
Duplicity in, 1-50
Abortion, indictment for, 1-99
Account stated, several pleas to, 1-
251
Adulteration, indictment for, 1-584
Adultery, indictment, l-d03
Adverse possession, defenses, 1-631
Animals, injury by infection, 1-961
For injuries to, 1-972
Indictment for shipping infected, 1-
963
Driving from range, 1-976
Answers, inconsistent defenses, 2-26;
5-243
In equity, different defenses, 4-169
Arrest of judgment for, 2-1019
Arson, 3-5
As ground for quashing indictment
or information, 12-629
Assault and battery, several defenses,
2-44
Breach of the peace, indictment, 4-
562
Burglary, several counts, 4-604
Case, the action on the, 4-657
Civil rights, indictment, 5-130
Continuando, as affecting, 12-504
Cruelty to animals, in counts, 6-315;
12-505 .
Declaration, causes of action sep-
arately stated, 6-702, 706
Defined, 12-500
Demurrer, commingling, causes or de-
fenses, 6-904
Indictment or information, for
duplicity in, 12-651
Beached by, where, 6-906
Oeneral, 6-926
Special, 6-935
Denials, general and specific, 7-103
Disorderly house, in indictment, 7-705
Disturbing public assembly, 7-717
Ejectment, plea and disclaimer, 7-
1039
Embezzlement, in charging, 12-505
Errors, assignment of, pleas to, 8-658
Factors and brokers, in declaration,
8-877
False personation, in indictment, 8-
974
Forcible entry and detainer, 8-1118
Forgery, 8-1177
Fraudulent conveyances, alternative
allegations, 10-157
DUPUCiTV, conid.
Gaming, indictments, 10-336; 12-505
Several different ways, 1-338, 34S,
347, 355
Health, in indictment, 10-992
Highways, indictment against high-
way, officers, 11-144
Indictment for failure to repair, 11-
117
Indictment for violating road laws,
11-258
Homicide, indictment for, 11-629
Inducement, pleading not rendered
double by, 12-511
In indictment and information, gen-
erally, 12499
Intoxicating liquors, indictment for
selling to Indians, 12-52n
Plea in criminal case, 2-883, 893; 4-
511
Replication, in, 4-508
Surplusage as affecting, 12-510
Verdict, cured by, 12-701
DTJBS88 — Consult analifsis of this or-
tirle, 7-949. See Fraud and Deceit;
Extobtion; Thbeats; Undue In-
fluence.
Assumpsit, for benefit received by, 3-
200
Conclusion of law, 5-214
Defense of, must be pleaded, 11-1027
In contract, question of fact, 11-1056
Instructing as to, 11-1067
EASEMENTS — CoTisult analffsis of this
article, 7*954. See Private and Toix
Hoads.
Adjoining landowners, ' lateral sap-
port, prescription, 1-318
Light and air, 1-327
Case, remedy for injuries and ob-
structions, 4-636, 640
Allegations of title, 4-646
Description, 4-644
Ejectment, 7-987, 988
For cemetery lot, 7-989
For land subject to, 7-989, 992
EDUCATION, see Schools and^ School
Districts.
EJECTMENT — Consult analysis of this
- article, 7-973. See Adverse Pos-
session; Dower ; Forcible Ek'irt
and Detainer; Beal and Mixed
Actions; Title; Trespass To Tet
Title; Writ of Entry.
Another action pending, 1-999
Answer in, claiming homestead, 11-
391
Between husband and wife, 11-708
Champerty, not pleaded by plaintiff
4-971
Consolidation of aetions, 5-269
58
INDEX
EJECTMENT, eontd.
Corporations, 5-572
Curtesy, to recover, 6-324
Dower, after assignment, 7-890
Easements, not for, 7-957
Incidental recovery with land, 7-
958
Eminent domain, possession withont
condemnation, 8-359
Frandulent conveyances, by pnrchaser
at execution sale, 10-97
Guardian and ward, by whom main-
tained, 10-863
Homestead, ejectment for, 11,376, 388,
391, 416
Parties, 11-340
Pleading in, 11-419
Indian allottee, by, 11-45, 46
Injunction, against ejectment from
homestead, 11-381
United States, by, for Indian, 11-46
Wife's real property, for, parties, 11-
725
ELECTION, BETWEEN COUNTS OK
OFFENSES, see Indictment and
Information; Sevekal Counts.
Abortion, 1-113
As abandonment of other counts, 12-
687
Between causes of action or defenses,
see Motions; Pleading; Several
Counts."
Defenses, 2-26
Discretion of court as to, 12-671
Incest, of counts in indictment for,
11-298
Indictments, between, 12-670
Between counts in indictment, 12-
659, 671, 686
Between indictment and informa-
tion, 12-670
Informations, between, 12-671
Instructions, equivalent to, 12-686
Misjoinder, cured by, 12-687
Motion to compel, time for, 12-685
Nolle prosequi, as equivalent to elec-
tion, 12-687
Principal and accessory, 1-150
Sufficiency of, 12-686
Time for, indictment, 12-686
Verdict of not guilty, as* equivalent
to, 12-687
ELECTION OF EEMEDTES, see
Choice and Election of Remedies.
SISCTIONS — Consult analysis of this
article, 8-1
Alienage, raised in actions, 1-813
Appeals, 2-185
Equity jurisdiction, 8-409
Service of process on election day, see
Service of Process and Papers.
ELS0TBI0IT7 — Consult analysis of
this article, 8-166. See Nmligenge;
Public Service Corporations;
Street Bailroads.
ELEVATED BAILBOADS, see Street
Bailroads.
ELEYATOB, see Negligenge; Passen-
gers.
Emancipation, see Infants.
EMBFiZZTiBMFiNT — Consult analysis
of this article, 8-198. See also
Criminal Procedure.
Attachment, as grounds for, 3-366
Banks and banking, indictment, 4-
39, 42
Oonthiuando, charging under a, 12-
505
Joinder with larceny, 12-534
Bepugnancy, in charging, 12-339
EMBBAOEBY — Consult analysis of
this article, 8-252. See Bribery;
Obstructing Justice. See sAso
Criminal Procedure.
EMINENT D01£AIN — Consult analy-
sis of this article, 8-256
Appeals, 2-184
Guardian ad litem necessary, 10-715
EMPLOYEBS' LIABILITY ACTS, see
Master and Servant.
ENTICING, see Abduction ; Alienating
Affections; Master and Servant;
Parent and Child.
ENTBY, OP HOMESTEADS, see Home-
steads AND Exemptions; Titlb.
ENTBY OF JUDGMENT, see Judg-
ments.
ENTBY, WBIT OP, see Writ of En-
try.
EQUITY, see Equity Jurisdiction and
Procedure.
EQUITY JURISDICTION AND PBO-
CEDUBE — Consult analysis of this
article, 8-371. See Account and
Accounting ; Annuities ; Assign-
ment for the Benefit of Cred-
itors ; Assignments ; Assistance,
Writs of; Bills and Answers;
Bills of Beview; Bills To En-
force Decrees ; - Bills To Impeach
Judgments and Decrees; Choice
AND Election of Bemedies; Com-
position With Creditors; Con-
solidation OF Actions; Contribu-
tion; Creditors' Suits; Cross-
Bill; Decedents' Estates; De-
crees; Depositions; Disclaimer;
Discovery; Dismissal, Discontinu-
ance AND Nonsuit; DowiJR; Dupu-
city; Estoppel; Executors and
Administrators; Exhibits; Fraud-
ulent Conveyances; Hearing;
01
53
INDEX
BQUIT7 JUBIBDIOTIOH AHD PBO-
CSEDUBB, contd.
Husband and Wife; Infants; In-
jUNcnoNs; Insani Psbsons; In-
TEBPLBADER; ISSIFES IN PUBADINO
AND PEACnCB; JUDGMENTS AND DE-
(SEES, ENfOBGEMENT OF; JU-
DICIAL Sales ; Jurisdiction ;
Laches; Legal Remedy; Liens;
Limitation of Actions; Lost In-
struments ; Marshaling Assets ;
Maxims; Mistake; Mortgages;
Motions; Multifariousness; Mul-
TtPUCiTT OF Suits; Ne Exeat;
New Trial; Notice; Nuisance;
OBjBcnoNS and Exceptions; Ord-
ers; Parties; Partition ; Partner-
ship; PENAiTiESy Forfeitures and
Fines (relief against) ; Petitions ;
Flea in Equttt; Principal and
Surety; Process; Quia Timkt;
Quieting Title; Beceivers; Bef-
ORMATION ; BEHEARINO ; B^EPUCA-
tion and Befly; Bescission and
Cancellation ; Bevivor ; Seques-
tration; Service of Process and
Papers; Specific Performance;
Striking Out and Withdrawal;
Subpoena; Subrogation; Supple-
mental Pleading; Surplusage and
Scandal; Time To Plead; rTRUSTS
AND Trustees; Variance and Fail-
ure OF Proof; Venue; Verifica-
tion; Waiver; Waste; Wills.
Admiralty, in, 1-375, 407, 421
Admitting truth of answer, 11-15
Affidavit of merits, 1-658
Allowance in lieu of homestead, biU
to secnre, 11-391
Amendment of bill, to bring in
parties, 11-18
Another action pending, 1-1000
Law action not pleaded, 1-1000
Answer, as evidence, 12-904
Appals, 2-291
Evidence is part of record, 2-351
Trial de novo, 2-435
Appearance, special, 2-507
Appraisers of homestead, appoint-
ment, 11-357
Arbitration, relief from award, 2-
621
Specific performance of award, 2-
658, 661
Arrest of judgment, not for trial of
common law action, 2-999
Assignments, remedy at law, 3-95
Parties, 3-115, 118
Associations, parties, 3-160
Attachment, of equitable interest, 3-
287
BQUR7 JUKDBDSmOV AHD FIO-
CEDX7BE, eontd.
Attachment, contd.
Only by express statute, 3-347
Under code, 3-348
Auxiliary remedies, eonunoa injuie-
tion, 12-1006
Bill and answer, hearing on, 11-3, 7
Bill and cross-bill, hearing on, 11-20
Bills of exceptions, 4-298
Bills of particulars, in use, 4-377
Bills of review, 4-413
Bills to enforce decrees, 4-460
Bills to impeach judgments and de-
crees, 4-473, 491
Case or question certified, B. L, 4-
748
Cause of action, same person plaint-
iff and defendant, 4-830
Certainty in pleading, not so strict
as in law, 4-858
Certiorari, not review equity proceed-
ings, 4-926
Commission, return of, as affeetiag
the hearing, 11-15
Community property, suits respect-
ing, 11-841
Composition with creditors, setting
aside fraudulent preference!, 5-
187
Consolidation of actions, power of
court, 5-252; 11-14
In general, 5-267, 269
Not law and equity, 5-266
Continuance, 11-16, 17
Amendment of bill as affecting, 11-
17
For additional proof, 11-18
To bring in parties, 11-18
To protect infant, 11-19
Contribution, concurrent jurisdiction,
5-498
Converting property, bequeathed to
infants, 12-809
Corporations, may have equitable
remedies, 5-563
Pleading incorporation, 5-641
Service of process, 5-617
Costs, criminal eases, relief from, 5-
768
Against infants, 12-799
Discretion of court, 5-910, 914
Informations in civil suits, 12-716
Offer of judgment, 5-853
Bule in awarding, 5-808, 813 •
Courts, equal division, dismissal
without prejudice, 6-82
Creditors' suits, 6-168, 249
Cross-bUls, 6-261, 294
Hearing on bill and cross-bill, U-
11
54
INDEX
EQXnTY JUBISDIOTIOK AKD PBO-
0EDT7BE, eonid.
Cross-bills, contd.
May supply jurisdiction to do com-
plete justice^ 6-269
Veri^cation of, to procure stay,
11-21
Custody of infants, 12-861
Decedents' estates, setting aside
sales, 6-573
Accounting for assets, 6-595
Opening accounts, 6-612
Demurrer, purpose, 6-849
Nonjoinder of parties, 6-898
Objections reached by general, 6-
927
Specific statements, where, 6-884
To answer, not proper, 11-8
Where incorporated in the answer,
11-22
With plea or answer, 6-866
Denials, no admission by failure, 7-
113
Deposit in court, may be ordered, 7-
146
Bemedies as to, 7-168
Depositions, inherent power, 7-187
Publishing, 7-380
Time for taking, 7-209* 218
Witnesses, how examined, 7-303
Discovery, 7-507, 542
Discretion of court, as to order of
hearing causes, 11-16
Dismissal of bill, for want of parties,
11-18
Distinction between law and equity
actions, 6-666
Divorce, conferred by statute, 7-738
Procedure to enforce alimony, 7-
839
Docket order, for hearing, 11-16
Dower, 7-866, 872
Issues to jury, 7-879
Duplicity, plea only affected, 7-932
Easements, 7-935
Elections, jurisdiction of contests, 8-
16, 19
Emancipation, powers over, 12-805
Eminent domain, relief when, 8-361,
366
Equity reserved, hearing on, 11-11
Error, assignment of, 8-558
Exceptions to answer, 11-8
Executors and administrators as part-
ies, 8-735
Exhibits, part of pleading, 8-814
Forthcoming bonds, relief from for-
feiture, 10-19
Enforcement in equity, 10-23
Surety may protect property, 10-31
EQT7IT7 JX7BISDI0TI0K AKD PBa
OEDUBE, contd.
Fraud and deceit, relief in equity, 10-
44, 46
Fraudulent conveyances, remedy by
cancellation, 10-92
Exhausting legal remedies, 10-122
Jurisdiction, federal and state, 10-
148
Garnishment, equitable, 10-377
Equitable debts, 10-396
Equitable set-off by garnishee, 10-
525
Masters in chancery, not subject,
10-454
Guardian and ward, jurisdiction, 10-
779, 784
Action on bond, 10-879
Of accounting, 10-823
To remove guardian, 10-809
Parties to accounting, 10-836
Health, statutory, to enforce orders,
10-986
Heirs, determining, 11-916, 923
Highways, removing encroachments
on, 11-167
Suit to vacate, 11-56
Homesteads, allotment, as incidental
relief, 11-353
Bill for, 11-351, 391
Jurisdiction to allot, 11-388
Vacating, 11-334
Appointing appraisers, 11-357
Bill by grantee or mortgagee of,
11-375
Protection of, 11-409
Belief against destruction of, 11-
334
Sale of, 11-370
Husband and wife, suits between, 11-
704, 711
Infants, equitable estate, sale of, 12-
810
Personal property, power to sell,
12-861
Be vie wing judgments against, 12-
781
Statutory powers over, 12-811
Informations in chancery, 12-704
Jurisdiction, 12-706
Scope of remedy, 12-706
Where adequate remedy at law, 12-
709
Injunctions, an equitable remedy, 12-
1009
Power to grant, 12-999
To protect settlement rights, 11-
820
Issues, as affecting term of hearing,
11-15
55
INDEX
EQXJIT7 JX7BISDI0TI0K AKD PBO-
OEDtJKE, contd.
Joinder of information and bill in
equity, 12-705
Jury trial; see Juries and Jubors.
On special issues see Issues in
Pleading and P^ctice.
Juveniles, concurrent jurisdiction
over, 12-863
Lease by guardian, authorizing, 12-
860
Legal remedy available, 11-335, 410,
412
Marshaling securities, homesteads, 11-
338
Mistake, correcting, highway pro-
ceedings, 11-109
Multiplicity of suits, see Mui/nPLi-
ciTY OF Suits.
Notice of hearing, 11-13, 14
Objections to pleadings, at hearing,
11-23
Parties plaintiff, 11-962
Time for objecting to, 11-23
Pleadings, submission on the, 11-11
Plea, incorporated in answer, 11-23
Quieting title, to homestead land, 11-
410
Belief incidental to other jurisdic-
tion, 11-353
Bemedy at law, absence of, see
Legal Bemedy.
Beplication, as waiver, 11-9
Cause at issue on, 11-7
Discretion in allowing, 11-9
In federal practice, 11-8
Presumption as to filing, 11-5
Bule for, as affecting hearing, 11-9
Sale of infant's property, power to
order, 12-807
Sequestration, jurisdiction of unaf-
fected by garnishment, 10-472
Settlement contracts, ' jurisdiction
over, ^11-819
Specific performance, of indemnity,
12-29
Stay, pending hearing on bill and
crossbill, 11-20
Subpoena to hear judgment, 11-13
Terms of court, existence of, 11-14
Tribe, suit by member of, 12-44
Waiver, by hearing on bill and an-
swer, 11-9
By replication, 11-9
Of objecrtion to premature hear-
ing, 11-19
Wife's separate property, suits con-
cerning, 11-724, 824
EQUITY PLEADING, see Bills akd
Answers; Bills of Review; Bills
' To Enforce Decrees; Bills TO
Impeach Judgments and Dbcrees;
Cross-Bill; Demusree; Mulot-
fariousness; Pleading; Pixa in
Equity; Bepucation and Reply.
EQUITY RESERVED, see Equity Jur-
isdiction and Procedure.
EBBOBS, assignment of -- Ccnnil
analysis of this article, 8-513. Sec
Appeals; Writ of Eregb.
Admiralty, 1-561
Briefs, to specify error, 4-581
By what parties, 2-429, 434
Case on appeal, must show error, 4-
771, 776
Case or question certified, necessary
on, 4-699
Not required in, 4-706
Certiorari, in petition, 4-910
On appeal from court of review,
4-953
Customs duties, filing on appeal, 6-
348
Election between counts, ruling on
motion to compel, 12-672
Fraudulent conveyances, by whom,
10-211
Guardian and ward, in appeal from
proceedings for removal, 10-815
Necessity for, 2-386
To review errors of law on record,
2-409
Petition, in, 2-296
Specification, ia notice of appeal, 2-
315
Instructions, error in, 2-358
EBBOB, WBIT of, see Writ of Er-
ror.
ESCAPE, see Prisons and Prisoners;
Bescue.
ESCHEAT — Consult analysis of this
article, 8-660
Alienage, 1-810
ESCBOWS, see Lands and Land Trans-
fers.
ESTATES, see Lands and Land Trans-
fers; Title.
Of decedents, see Decedents' Es-
• TATES.
Of incompetents, jurisdiction, 12-14
ESTOPPEIi — Consult analysis of tkit
article, 8-678. See Judgments; Law
OF THE Case; Bes Judicata.
Account stated, not in general, 1<
251
Appeal, *' Invited errors," 2-431-433
Assignment for creditors, by taking
benefit of, 3-56-58
From claiming benefit, 3-62
56
INDEX
B8T0PPfiL» eontd.
Attachment^ by laches, 3-396
To object to return by pleading, 3-
546
By record, homestead allotment, 11-
364
Certainty in pleading, 4-849
Certiorari, to sue out, 11-94
Choice of remedies, by, 5-80
Under general issue, 5-122
Confession and avoidance, not, plea
of, 5-230
Corporations, by use of name, plead-
ing, 5-642
Stockholders, by judgment against,
5-669
Stockholders' suits, 5-710
Costs, offer of judgment not, 5-865
Departure, 7-133
Divorce, to have set aside, 7-804
Elections, to contest, 8-55
Equity jurisdiction, 8-429
Forthcoming bond, of obligors, 10-29,
30
Fraudulent conveyances, ratification,
10-120
Knowledge when credit given, 10-
120
Homestead, to claim, question of fact,
11-430
ESTBAYB — Consult aimlysis of this
article, 8-709. See Animals; Tres-
passing Animals.
Animals running at large, regulation
of, 1-979
EVIDENCE, see Appeals; Instruc-
tions; Judicial Notice; New
Trial; Objections and Exceptions ;
Offer of Proof; Opening and Clos-
ing; Order of Proof; Physical Ex-
amination; Statement by Ac-
cused ; Stipulations ; Striking
Out and Withdrawal; Trial;
Variance and Failure op Proof;
View; Witnesses. See also Ency.
OF Ev.
Averment as to, 4-128, 846; 6-669,
695
In criminal pleading, 12-346
Before grand jury, as ground for
quashing, 12-620, 622
Effect of failure to preserve, 12-
624
Demurrer to evidence, 7-1
Findings, supported by, 8-1055
Non-suit, 7-648
Objections to, as remedy for mis-
joinder of offenses, 12-685
Of abandonment of homestead, 11-
469
On deportation hearing, 11-902, 907
EVIDENCE, contd.
On hearing in equity, 11-25
Parol, to show alteration of indict-
ment, 12-320
Sufficiency on appeal, see Appeals.
EXAMINATION BY CORONER, in-
dictment pending, 12-92
EXAMINATION OF ACCUSED, see
Preliminary Examination.
Examination of incompetents, 12-16
EXAMINATION OF PARTIES BE-
FORE TRIAL, see Discovery.
EXCEPTIONS, see Bills of Excep-
tions; Demttrrer; Objections and
Exceptions.
Admiralty, 1-468-471, 473, 481
To claims, 1-504
Answer to, in equity, 11-8
Negativing, see Indictment and In-
formation ; Intoxicating Li-
quors; Physicians and Sur-
geons.
EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY, see Im-
plied AND Express Agreements;
Lands and Land Transfers; Re-
scission AND Cancellation; Sales;
Vendor and Purchaser.
EXCLUSION ACTS, see Immigration.
EXECUTIONS, see Garnishment;
Judgments and Decrees, En-
forcement OF ; Sequestration ;
Supplementary Proceedings.
Against homestead, 11-343
Afladavit to support, 11-344
Appraisement on, 11-512
Duty to inform debtor of his right
to homestead, 11-360
Filing exemption claim with offi-
cer, 11-495
Homestead allotted, under, 11-346
Notice to debtor, of his rights, 11-
474
Against Indian lands, 12-49
Against infant's property, 12-791
Injunction to stay, 12-792
Pine, to enforce, 11-142
Injunction is in nature of, 12-994
Judgment, following form of, 12-791
Levy of, on homestead, 11-332
Lien of, as affecting homestead en-
try, 11-319
Sale on, of contested homesfead, 11-
332
Trespass, for levying on homestead,
11-416
Wages, exempt from, 11-501
Waiver of homestead, endorsement
of, on execution, 11-438
57
INDEX
EZECtJTOBS AKD ADHIMI8TBA-
TOBS — Consvli analysis of this
article, 8-725. See Death by
Wrongful Act; Decedents' Es-
tates; Equity Juusdiction and
Pboceduke ; Inheritance ; Pro-
bate Ck)URTs; Bevivor; Survival;
Wills.
Abatement, plea by administratory
1-35
Accounts in equity, 1-274
Administration, decree as to heirs
pending, 12-925
Advancements, effect on distribation,
12-927
Appeals, as parties to, 2-225, 227
Appearance of, 2-519
Appointment, 6-502
Application, 6-503
Issuance of letters, 6-512
Objection to, 6-504
Persons entitled to, .6-511
Assignments, actions by assignee in
name of, 3-92-94
Attachment, not against, 3-265
Against foreign, 3-270
Bills and notes, not joined with joint
party, 4-240
Certainty in pleading, designation, 4-
841; 6-651; 8-741
Copyright proceedings, action in an-
other State, 5-512
Corporations, stockholders^ suits, 5-
709
Costs, 5-818-821
Offer of judgment by, 5-859
Creditors' suits, fraudulent convey-
ance by deceased, parties, 6-191
Death by wrongful act, action by
personal representative, 6-394-397,
400
Averring capacity, 6-407
Changing capacity by amendment,
6-435
Denial of capacity, 6-438
Default by, 6-806
Detinue, may maintain, 7-480
Judgment on revivor. 7-489
Distribution, determining heirs on,
12-916
Forcible entry and detainer, by per-
sonal representative, 8-1102
Foreclosure on homestead, adminis-
trator as party, 11-379
Forthcoming bonds, may give, 10-7
Enforcement by successors, 10-23
Personally liable on, 10-7
Fraudulent conveyance, action by
personal representative of grant-
or, 10-114
By deceased, setting aside, 10-138
EXECUTOBS Ain> ABMlJIlHTfiA-
T0B8» eontd.
Fraudulent conveyances, eonid.
Personal representative as party,
10-146
Garnishment when subject, 10-460-464
Heirs, proceedings to determine, 12-
914
Homestead, allotment of, 11-386
As part of the estate, 11-401
Inventory, assigning homestead in
the, 11-386
Jurisdiction to appoint, over Indians'
estates, 12-41
Notice by administrator, of injuries
from highways, 11-201
Personal claims of, 6-532
Besignation, 6-513
Bevocation of letters, 6-514
Sales of infant's property, 12-812
Special administrators, 6-505
EXEMPTIONS, see Homesteads aki>
Exemptions; Judgments and Dx-
CBEES, ENVORCBMENT OF; TaXATIOK.
Of Indian allotments, 12-50
EXHIBITIONS, see Thkatebs and
Shows.
EXHIBITS — Cofuiat analysis of this
article, 8-793. See also 5 Enct.
of Ev. 459
Accounts, in actions on, 1-220
Admiralty, with pleadings, 1-458
AfBdavits of merits, with, 1-699
Agreed case, in, 1-755
Annexing to pleading, 4-851; 6-698
Arbitration, awards in action on, 2-
651
Arrest in civil cases, with affidavits,
2-938, 941
Attaching contract as, to pleading,
11-992
Attachments, affidavits, defects aided
by reference, 3-409
Bill in equity, as part of, 4-148
Bills and notes^ as exhibits, 4-245
Bills of exceptions, in, 4-312
Copyright proceedings, of infringe-
ment, 5-513
Costs, fees for copies, 5-940
Plans, maps, models and surveys,
5-941
Demurrer, when considered on, 6-986
For failure to attach, 6-909
Depositions, annexing papers, 7-331,
365
To commission, 7-245
Certification of, 7-355
Ejectment, abstracts, etc., where re-
quired, 7-1040
Eminent domain, maps, 8-284
58
tNDSX
XiZHtBlTS, conid.
Findings and conclusions, reference
in, 8-1025
Fraudulent conveyances, 10-151
Habeas corpus, documents annexed
to petition, 10-924
With return, 10-930
EXPERIMENTS, see 5 Ency. or Ev.
471
EXPLOSIVES, see Injuries to Per-
sons AND Property; Negligence.
EX POST FACTO LAWS, see Stat-
utes
EXPBESS COMPANIES, see Freight
Carriers; Public Service Corpora-
tions; Ships and Shipping; Ware-
housemen.
EXTORTION — Consult analysis of this
article, 8-823. See Duress; Pen-
alties, Forfeitures and Fines;
Threats. See also Criminal Pro-
cedure,
Assumpsit for money obtained, 3-200
Bribery, distinguished, 4-567
EXTBADinON — Consult analysis of
this article, 8-835. See Process;
Warrants.
Abatement, where crime charged not
one for which extradited, 1-31
Affidavit for, 12-898
Bankrupt, of, 3-932
False imprisonment, arrest without
warrant, 8-936
Habeas corpus, federal jurisdiction
in, 10-914
Allegations in petition in case of,
10-922
Determination on hearing on re-
turn, 10-937
FACT AND LAW, QUESTIONS OF,
see Province op Judge and Jury.
FACTORS AND BBX)KEBS —^ Consult
analysis of this article, 8-863. See
Gaming f Principal and Agent.
Accounts of in equity, 1-274
Attachment of interest of owner, 3-
312
FALSE IMPBISONMENT — OonwZf
analysis of this article, 8-911. See
Abduction; Kidnaping; Malicious
Prosecution; Sheriffs, Constables
AND Marshals.
Of Indian, action for, 12-46
FALSE PEBSONATION — Consult
analysis of this article, 8-972. See
Obtaining Property by False Pre-
tenses. See also Criminal Pro-
cedure,
Elections, of voter, indictment, 8-156
FALSE PRETENSES, see Obtaining
Property by False Preisenses.
FEDERAL CONSTITTJTlON, prosecu-
tions under, 12-75, 76
FEDERAL COURTS, see Courts; Ju-
dicial Officers; Removal of
Causes; United States Courts.
Injunction in, 12-1011
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, see In-
dians ; Interstate Commerce ; Pub-
lic Lands; United States.
FEDERAL QUESTION, see Removal
OF Causes; Writ of Error.
FELONIOUSLY, see Indictment and
Information.
Alleging in indictment, 12-610
Amendment to supply, 12-561
Incest, in indictment for, 12-10
FELONY, see Compounding CUms.
Indictment for, 12-74, 77, 667
Charging by name, not sufScient,
12-344
Joinder in indictment, 12-681
Of felonies, 12-524
Of felony and misdemeanor, 12-501,
522
Prosecution of, at common law, 12-
74, 84
Under constitutions and statutes,
12-85
FENCES, see Lands and Land Trans-
fers; Railroads.
FERRIES, see Navigable Waters.
FipELITY INSURANCE, see Insur-
ance.
FIGHTING, see Prize Fighting
FILES, see Filing ; Striking Out and
Withdrawal,
FllJira- — Consult analysis of this ar-
ticle, 8-977. See Indictment and
Information; Justices of the
Peace.
Abandonment of homestead, 11-463
Affidavit, of homestead contest, 11-
322, 522
Affidavit of merits, 1-671-702-705
Appeal, notice of, 11-74
Of appellate court decision, 11-89
Appearance by, 2-501
Appraisement, on claim of exemp-
tion, 11-518
Arrest in civil cases, of affidavit, 2-
959
Attachment, of papers preliminary,
3-471
Of affidavit for, 3-403
Of bond for, 3-445
Of claims of creditors, 3-649
Of declaration or complaint, 3-708
Of writ and return, 3-523
Bankruptcy proceeding, proof of
claims, 3-901
Of objections to discharge, 3-924
59
INDEX
FILINO, conid.
Bankruptcy proceeding, contd.
Of petition, 3-959
As affecting homestead entry, 11-
319
For appeal, 3-1018, 1021
For discharge, 3-924
Schedule, 3-973, 978
Bastardy proceeding, of justice'!
transcript, 4-68
Bills and answers, of bill, 4-148
Exceptions to answers, 4-183
Improper remedy, 4-179
Bills of exceptions, 4-355-359
Bills of particulars, 4-404
Bills of review, without leave, 4-423
Time and place, 4-424, 429
BUls to impeach judgments and de-
crees, 4-481
Briefs, 4-587
Case on appeal, 4-798
Case or question certified, certificate
in federal courts, 4-679
Certiorari, failure to mark "filed,''
4-908
Change of venue, transcript, 4-997
Contempt, of evidence in proceeding,
5-416
Costs, offer of judgment, 5-862
Of bill, 5-926
Cross-bill, time for, 6-280-285
Cross-complaint, 6-306
Customs duties, of protest on appeal,
6-342
Decedents' estates, of claims, 6-527-
529
Declaration and complaint, 6-721
Non-suit for failure to file, 7-676
Demurrer, 0-936
To indictment, 12-655
Demurrer to evidence, time for, 7-14
Depositions, of interrogatories, 7-250
In other actions, 7-406
Of exceptions to interrogatories, 7-
251
Eeturns, 7-374-380
Discovery, of interrogatories, statu-
tory, 7-580-596
Additional interrogatories, 7-596
Time for interrogatories, 7-588
Elections, objections to nominations,
8-131
Of notice of contest, 8-86
Emancipation, decree of, 12-807
Eminent domain, of report of com-
missioners, 8-312
Equity, demurrer, 8-480-481
Errors, assignment of, when and
how, 8-627-633
Cross-errors, 8-645
Necessary in federal courts, 8-629
FILIKG, conid.
Errors, assignment of, contd.
Nunc pro tunc by order, 8-632
Exceptions to return of homestead
appraisers, 11-367
Exemption claim, 11-495
Effect of, 11-498
Upon execution, 11-475, 477
Exhibits, 8-804, 818
Evidence, in heirship proceedings, 12-
924
Findings and conclusions, 8-1017
Of objections and exceptions to,
8-1083
Forthcoming bonds, 10-14
Frivolous and sham pleading, refus-
ing leave to file, 10-290, 297
Grand jury, of list, 10-616
Of minutes, 10-657
Guardian and ward, letters of for-
eign guardian before action, 10-
901
Homestead, claim, with levying offi-
cer, 11329, 331
Declaration of, 11-307
Effect of, 11-317
Necessity of, 11-315
Who may file, 11-316
Petition, 11-354
Beturn of appraisers, 11-362
Indictment, 12-98-99
Improperly filed, demurrer where,
12-651
Quashing where, 12-626
Indorsement of, on information^ 12-
120
Information, 12-113, 117, 120
In civil cases, 12-711
Of file mark of clerk, 12-120
Place of, 12-118
Where belated, 12-626
Opinion, right of court to file, 6-84
Preliminary complaint, warrant is-
sued on, 12-124
Schedule of exemptions, 11-503
FINDING LOST GOODS, see Personal
Property.
FINDINGS, see Findings and Conclu-
sions.
FINDIKaS AKD OONCLtTSIOira—
CoTisult analysis of this articU, 8-
991. See Issues in Pleadino and
Practice; Judgment Begobds;
Verdict.
Admiralty, findings on reference, 1-
544
Weight of findings on appeal, 1-567
Adverse possession, 1-641
Appeals, exceptions below, 2-262, 281,
283
As part of record on, 2-336
60
INDEX
FIKDHmS AND COKOLUSIOKS,
contd.
By appellate court, in highway pro-
ceedings, 11*88, 115
Conclusiveness on, 2-444, 446; 11-
433
Findings presumed justified, 2-425
Interlocutory findings, review, 2-448
Of referees not part of record on,
2-338
Arrest in civil cases, findings in or-
ders of, 2-968
Attachment, review on appeals, 3-840
Attorneys, in disbarment proceed-
ings, 3-871
Bankruptcy proceedings, in record on
appeal, 3-1028
Bills of review, errors in findings not
reviewable, 4-439
Case or question certified, necessity
for findings, 4-695
Findings certified, 4-757
Case, the action on the, 4-662
Commission, of, to examine incom-
petent, 12-16
Commissioner, see Judicial Offigsbs.
Contempt, in trial of, 5-411-413
Coroner's inquest, 5-532
Decrees, recitals, 6-777
Default, when required, 6-823
Divorce, by referee, 7-789
Conclusiveness of findings, 7-808
Dower, report of commissioners, 7-
881
Damages for detention, 7-888
Duress, findings, 7-953
Easements, findings, 7-971
Eminent domain, report of commis-
sioners, 8-309
Error,' assignment of, 8-607-612
Escheat, inquisition, 8-673
Estoppel, findings, 8-708
Frauds, statute of, 10-83
Fraudulent conveyances, in action to
set aside, 10-193-197
Fraudulent deceit, 10-65
Grand jury must be legally organ-
ized to make, 12-88
Guardian and ward on account, 10-
840
Highways, action for collision on, 11-
256
Action for injuries from, 11-244
Homestead, foreclosure on, 11-380
In actions to protect, 11-431
Indian allotment suits, in, 12-49
Judgment of deportation, in, 11-912
Juvenile proceedings, in, 12-874
Non-suit, not after findings, 7-663
Bef eree, see Befxbences.
Decedents' estates, 6-607
FINDTKOS AND OOKOLUSIOKS,
contd.
Bequest for, court rule as to time
for, 6-61
Verdict and special findings, incon-
sistent, 11-246
FINES, see Penaxties, Forfeitures
AND Fines; Sentence and Judg-
ment.
FIBE ABMS, see Weapons.
FIRE INSUBANCE, see Insurance.
FIRES, see Injuries to Persons and
Property; Railroads.
FIXTURES, see Lands and Land
Transfers ; Waste.
FLOODING LAND, see Waters and
Watercourses.
FLOODS, see Waters and Water-
courses.
FOOD LAWS, see Adulteration;
Heauth; Pure Food Laws. *
FOBOIBLE ENTBT AlID DETAIN-
EB — Consult analysis of this ar-
ticle, 8-1088. See Ejectment; Real
AND Mixed Actions; Writ of En-
try. See also Criminal Procedure.
By Indian allottee, 12-45
Ejectment, distinguished, 7-983
FORECLOSXTRE, eee Chattel Mobt-
OAOEs; Liens; Mechanics' Liens;
Mortgages; Pledges; Special As-
sessment; Taxation; Vendor and
Purchaser.
FOREIGN ATTACHMENT, see Admir-
alty; Attachment; Garnishment.
FOREIGN CORPORATIONS, see Cor-
porations; Removal of Causes;
Service of Process and Papers.
FOREIGNERS, see Aliens; Immigra-
tion.
FOREIGN LAWS, see Judicial Notice;
Statutes. See also 5 Ency. of Ev.
806.
FORESTS, see Logs and Logging; Pub-
lic Lands.
FORFEITURE OF HOMESTEAD, see
Abandonment.
FORFEITURES, see Penalties, For-
feitures AND Fines; Search and
Seizure.
FOBGEBY — Consult analysis of this
article, 8-1133. See Alteration of
Instruments; Counterfeiting; In-
dictment AND Information. See
also Criminal Procedure.
Joinder with uttering forged instru-
ment, 12-535
Of affidavit, to criminal complaint,
12-129
Repugnancy in charging, 12-339, 340
61
mmx
rORMEB ACQUITTAL OR CONVIC-
TION, see ASBAIGNMENT AND Plea;
Jeopardy.
FORMER ADJUDICATION, see Jeop-
ardy; Law of the Case; Res
Judicata.
FORMER JEOPARDY, see Jeopardy.
FORMER JUDGMENT, see Res Judi-
cata.
FOBMS — See Yolume IX, and specific
titled. See also Supplement to
Standard Proc.
Answers, 2-70
Bankruptcy proceedings, 3-898
Petition for appeal, 3-1019
Requirements as to schedules, 3-978
Bill of particulars, forms and con-
tents, 4-393
Form of order for, 4-406
Bills and answers, general form of
answer, 4-174
Bills of exceptions, form and requi-
site, 4321-327
Form of certificate, 4-353
Bills of review, form and contents,
4-448-451
Certiorari, of writ of, 4-928
Costs, offer of judgment, 5-955
Demurrer, general, 6-871
Error, assignment of, 8-531-539
Findings and conclusions, 8-1024-1032
Statutory forms, of indictment, 12-
299, 302
FOBMS OF AXfROlS — CoTisult analysis
of this article, 10-1. See Assump-
sit; Case (the Action of Tres-
pass on the) ; Covenant, Action
OP; Debt; Detinue; Dower; Eject-
ment; Replevin; Trespass; Trov-
er AND Conversion.
Amendment, changing, 1-925, 926.
See New Cause of Action or
Defense.
Animals, injury to, 1-965
Appeal bonds, 2-93
Apprentices, for enticing, 2-585-587
Arbitration, on awards, 2-646,647
Assumpsit, 2-170-215
Banks and banking, for negligence
in collecting, 4-12
For liability over subscription, 4-
21, 22
On subscriptions, 4-13
Bills and notes, 4-225-229
Bills of particulars, affecting grant-
ing of, 4-383
Breach of promise, 4-547
Case, the action on the, 4-612-662
Amendments changing, 4-656
From facts alleged, 4-641
FORMS OF AOnOK, contd.
Case, the action on the, oontd.
Objection to improper form, when,
4-661
Choice of remedies, 5-98
Consolidation of actions, what joined,
5-264
Conspiracy, civil, 5-321
Contempt, criminal or civU, 5-382
Contribution, 5-498
Corporations, same as persons, 5-559-
563, 564576
For dividends, 5-693, 694
For mismanagement, 5-695
On subscription, 5-688
Statutory liability of stockholders,
5-691
Stockholders' suits, 5-702
Subscriptions, 5-722
Costs, offer of judgment, 5-851
Covenant, action of, 6-134-163
Criminal conversation, 61-253
Customs duties, to recover back, 6-
353
Death by wrongful act, 6-372
Debt, grounds for, 6-465
On what contracts, 6-468
To recover penalty, 11-143, 162
Declaration and complaint, conclu-
sions, 6-711
General observations as to, 6-723
Prayer for relief indicating, 6-718
Stated in caption of declaration,
6-645, 654-667
Demurrer, mistake in remedy, 6-910
Departure, changing form, 7-138. See
New Cause of Action ok de-
fense.
Detinue, in general, 7-470-490
For personal property, 7-474
Discovery, statutory action, 7-546
Due process of law, forma of pro-
cedure, 7-896, 898
Ejectment, 7-976, 981
Election of remedies, see Choice and
Election of Remedies.
Eminent domain, for taking without
compensation, 8-348, 358
Escheat, 8-664
Estrays, civil actions, 8-721
Ex contractu or ex delicto, 1-413;
4-625, 651; 5-359; 10-222
Extortion, 8-825
Factors and brokers, 8-868-882, 905
Forcible entry and detainer, civil
under statutes, 8-1090
Freight carriers, how determined, 10-
222
Game and fish, infringement of
rights, 10-306
INDEX
FOBMS OF AOnOK, conid.
Gaming, recovery from stakeholder,
10-324
Actions for penalties, 10-329
Recovery by winner, 10-328
Gifts, to recover for ineffectual gifts,
10-602
Guaranty, 10-672
Habeas corpus, as civil action, 10-911
Hawkers and peddlers, for penalties,
10-975
How determined, 1-413; 4-625; 641,
651; 5-359; 10-222.
Penalty, to recover, 11-143, 162
FORNICATION, see Lewdness.
Adultery, joinder with, 12-536
Incest committed by, 12-6
Marriage, negativing, in charging,
12-351
Rape, joinder with, 12-536
FOBTHCOBilNa BONDS — Consult
analysis of this article , 10-3. See
Bonds; Replevin; Sequestration;
Undertakings.
Attachment, 3-570
Distinguished from dissolution, 3-
820
Limitation of actions, 3-670
FRANCHISES, see Corporations; Pub-
lic Service Corporations; Quo
Warranto; Street Railroads.
FRATERNAL ASSOCIATIONS, see As-
sociations ; Beneficial Associa-
tions; Insurance; Religious So-
cieties.
FBAT7D AND DECEIT — Consult analy-
sis of this article, 10-33. See Ac-
count AND Accounting; Equity
Jurisdiction and Procedure ;
Money Had and Received; Post-
OrpiCE; Reformation; Rescission
AND Cancellation; Trusts and
Trustees; Undue Influence.
Account stated, impeached for fraud,
1-250, 254
Replication to plea of, 1-252, 253
Affidavits of merits, how stated in,
1-698
Alien, in admission of, 11-908
Architects and builders, prevents re-
covery by, 2-698
Arrest in civil cases, statements, 2-
946, 958
Averments in complaint, 2-963
Assumpsit, for, 3-198
Proof under general issue, 2-189;
3-213
Attachment, debts fraudulently con-
tracted, 3-360
Fraudulent intent to dispose of
property, 3-378, 396
FBATTD AND DECEIT, contd.
Bankruptcy proceedings, as objection
to discharge, 3-926-927
Bastardy proceedings, release, 4-72
Bill in equity, allegations in, 4-126
Bills and notes, specially pleaded, 4-
278
Bills of particulars, 4-398
Bills to impeach judgments and de-
crees for fraud, 4-473
Averments of fraud, 4-485
. Bonds, plea, 4-519
Case, the action on the, 4-632
Scienter alleged, 4-648
Choice and election of remedies, 5-104
Instead of assumpsit, 5-116
Composition with creditors, fraud in,
5-180
Compromise and settlement, im-
peached for, 5-199
Allegations in bill to set aside, 5-
200
Conclusion of law, allegation of, 5-
214
Contract, in, when for jury, 11-1056
Corporations, venue, 5-593
Covenant, action of, plea of fraud,
6-160
Decedents' estates, setting aside
sales, 6-575
Defense of, must be* pleaded, 11-1027
Departure, 7-131
Replication of changing action, 7-
140
Divorce by collusion, 7-770
Collateral attack, 7-808
Setting aside, 7-803
Dower, allegation in petition for, 7-
875
Equity jurisdiction and procedure,
jurisdiction, 8-420-428
Factors and brokers, specially plead-
ed, 8-897
Forcible entry and detainer, allega-
tions of fraud, 8-1117
Forthcoming, sureties not liable, 10-
30
Frauds, statute of, allegations to take
out of, 10-72
Fraudulent conveyances, alleging
fraud, 10-157
Defense, denial of fraud, 10-179
Homestead allotment, impeaching
for, 11-365
Husband and wife, suits between,
for 11-712
Instructing as to, 11-1067
Issue of, proof of homestead on, 11-
422
Judgment against infant, as ground
for setting aside, 12-782
63
INDEX
GIST OF ACTION, contd.
Disturbing public assembly, 7-715
Incest, sexual intercourse in, 12-7
GOOD WJXiL, see Injunctions; Part-
NEBSHIP; BeSTBAINT OF TRADE ;
Trape Marks and Trade Names.
GOODS SOLD AND DELIVEBED, sec
Assumpsit } Sales; Work and
Labor.
GBAND JITRY ^- Consult analysis of
this article, 10-606. See Arraign-
ment AND Plea; Indictment and
Information; Juries and Jurors.
Abatement, plea of, improper com-
position, 1-31
Improper proceedings by, 1-33
Must negative exceptions, 1-48
Plea in, where grand jury not
sworn, 12-616
Absence of juror during charge, ef-
fect, 12-618
Alleging impaneling of, 12-608
Amendment of indictment, by, 12-
542
Arrest of judgment, want of juris-
diction, 2-990
Illegal organization, 2-1023
Not for irregularities in obtaining,
2-1022
Challenging, no opportunity, as
ground for quashing indictment,
12-616
Charge to, 10-646
As ground for quashing indict-
ment, 12-618, 627
Presumptions as to, 12-638
De facto, indictment by, 12-89, 617
Error, assignment of error in sum-
moning, 8-555
Findings, 10-656
As affected by constituion of grand
jury, 12-88, 89; 607, 617
Illegal evidence before, effect on in
dictment, 12-620
Impaneling, demurrer where irreg
ular, 12-661
Indictment, new indictment by, 12
543
Quashing, for objections pertain
ing to grand jury, 12-614, 616
Information filed during session of
12-121
Irregularities in, effect on indict
ment, 12-89, 614
Jurisdiction, demurrer for want of
12-648
List of, defects in, effect on indict
ment, 12-631
Misconduct of, as ground for quash
ing, 12-620
■New indictment by, 12-543
GBAND JX7BT, contd.
Organization of, as shown by record,
12-99, 100
Irregular, effect where, 12-89, 614
Presumptions as to, 12-99
Presence of unauthorized person he-
fore, effect, 12-618
Presentments, right to make, 12-83
Prosecution instituted by, 12-87
Besubmission to, 12-146, 641
Return of, 12-95, 96, 98, 103
Special, objections to formation of,
12-608
Statement by prosecuting attorney,
effect of error in, 12-618
Successive indictments by, 12-149
Testimony of member of, to prove
illegal evidence before, 12-639
Venire, defects in as ground for
quashing, 12-616
Effect of failure to order, 12-89
Want of authority of, demurrer to
indictment for, 12-647
Witnesses before, 10-652
Examination by unauthorized per-
son, 12-619
Incompetency of, as ground for
quashing, 12-622
Indorsement of, on indictment, 12-
240
Remedy for failure, 12-640
GRANT, see Basements; Lands axd
Land Transfers ; Vendor and Pub-
chaser.
GROUND-RENTS, see Lands and Land
Tr A N SFERS
GROUNDS OF ACTION, see Cause op
Action; Duplicity; Joinder op
Actions; Negligence; Several
Counts; Suits and Actions.
Separate statement of, 6-704; 7-940
OUABANT7 — Consult analysis of this
article, 10-665. See Bills and
Notes ; Contribution ; Frauds,
Statute of; Indemnity; Insure
ance; Principal and Surety; War-
rants.
Bills and notes, guarantor not joined
as defendant, 4-241, 243
Contract of, natnte, 12-24
Indemnity, distinguished from, 12-24
GUABDIAN AD LITEM — Consult
analysis of this article, 10-703. See
Default; Incompetents; Infants;
Insane Persons.
Admiralty, suit in without, 1-427
Answer by, 12-756
Appeal by, 12-794
Appointment of, in appellate eonit,
12-798
Bankrupt, for, 3-990
66
INDEX
OUABDIAK AD UTEBC, contd.
Bastardy proceedings, 4-62
Costs, 5-834
Enforcement of, against, 12-802
Liability for, 12-799
Next friend, 5-832
Security for, 12-800
Decedents' estates, on applications to
sell, a-549
Decrees, before rendering, 6-749
Default, no jurisdiction by appear-
ance, 6-810
Discovery, filing interrogatories, not
against next friend, 7-583
Equity in, 8-477
Guardian and ward, when ward sues
or defends by, 10-857
In action by ancillary guardian,
10-907
None on transfer to foreign guard-
ian, 10-905
Of infant at accounting, 10-839
Heirship proceedings, in, 12-923
Judgments, consent judgments by,
12-768
Juvenile delinquents, for, 12-872
Bight to purchase ward's property,
12-832
Sale of property, appointment on,
12817
GUABDIAN AND WABD — Consult
analysis of this article, 10-774. See
Guardian ad- Litem; Incompetents;
Infants; Insane FIsbsons; Parent
AND Child.
Accounts, in equity, 1-274
Actions between, 12-19
Appeals, guardian necessary party,
2-225
By guardian, 12-795
From appointment of, 12-17
Appearance, by guardian, 2-560; 12-
739
Appointment of guardian, of incom-
petents, 12-14
Appeal from, 12-17
Costs in, 12-17
Attachment, against guardian, 3-263
Bankruptcy proceedings, insane bank-
rupt, 3-991
Bond, by guardian, on mortgaging,
12-859
On sale of property, 12-825
Collusion, between guardian and
purchaser, 12-848
Commitment of delinquent ward, ef-
fect, 12-879
Costs, guardian's liability, 5-822; 10-
878, 899
In appointment proceedings, 12-17
In removal proceedings, 12-19
GUABDIAN AND WABD, contd.
Deed, to ward's property, 12-841
Duties, 12-19
Equity jurisdiction, 8-408, 12-862
Forcible entry and detainer, by
guasdian, 8-1102
Garnishment, in general not subject,
10-460
Guardian ad litem, suit by general
guardian, 10-709-711
Application by general guardian,
10-734
Guardian as purchaser, effect on
sale, 12-849
Hearing, on sale of ward's property,
12-823
Homestead, petition for by guardian,
11-392
Indian, guardian for, 12-41, 46
Lease, by guardian, 12-859
Liability of guardian, sale of prop-
erty, 12-845
Notice, of petition for guardianship,
1215
Of application for mortgage, 12-
859
Of appointment, 12-17
Oath of guardian, on sale of prop-
erty, 12-827
Order for sale of property, 12-814
Parties in accounting, 1-283, 284, 287
Personal property^ guardian's power
over, 12-860
Proceeds from sale of property, dis-
position of, 12-844
Purchase money, action by guardian
for, 12-843
Removal of guardian, 12-19
Right to purchase ward's property,
12-832
Sale of ward's property, conduct of,
12-828
Guardian may petition for, 12-815
Powers of guardian respecting, 12-
812
Setting aside, 12-845
Without authority, 12-850
Service on guardian, 12-743
Settlements, of incompetent's guard-
ian, 12-19
Wards of chancery, 12-811
HABEAS OOBFGTS — Consult analysis
of this article, 10-908. See Cer-
tiorari; Forms; Jeopardy; Juris-
diction; Witnesses.
Admiralty, use in, 1-423
Ad testificandum, 3-986
Appeals, by immigrant, 11-924
To secretary of labor, 11-922
Apprentices, to release, 2-585
07
INDEX
BABEAB OOBFT78, conid.
Bail, pending, immigration proceed-
ings, 11-917, 924
Case or question certified (Mass.)}
4-718
Certificate of probable cause, in fed-
eral courts, for appeal, 4-868
Contempt, 5-429
Courts, equal division, dismissal of
writ, 6-82 ,
Courts martial, jurisdiction, 6-130
Demurrer, 6-857
Deportation of Chinese, to review,
11-918
Due process of law, as remedy, 7-929
Extradition, foreign, review, 8-844
State, review, 8-857
Guardian, for custody, 10-817-820
By foreign guardian, 10-902
Jurisdiction to issue, as affecting in-
junction, 12-1011
Juvenile proceedings, to review, 12-
878, 882
Petition, by alien, 11-922
Proceedings on, 11-923
Speedy trial, because of denial of,
12-95
HABITUAL CRIMINAL, see Indict-
ment AND Information.
HABITUAL DRUNKARDS, see DisoE-
DEBLT Conduct; Divorce; Intox-
icATiNa LiQuoaa; Public Drunken-
ness.
HARBOR, see Colusion; Navigable
Waters.
HARMLESS ERROR, see Appeals.
HARTER ACT, see Admirai/ty; Col-
usion; Ships and Shipping.
HAWKEBS AND PEDDLERS — Con-
9ult analysis of this article, 10-969.
See Licenses; Municipal Corpora-
tions.
HEALTH — Consult analysis of this
article, 10-976. See Adulteration;
Animals ; Intoxicating Liquors ;
Nuisance; Physicians and Sur-
geons; Pure Food Laws.
Animals, regulating slaughter, 1-985
HEABZNO — Consult analysis of this
article, 11-1. See Equity Jurisdic-
tion and Procedure; Rehearing;
Trl^l.
Accounting, preliminary in, 1-305
Admiralty, 1-537-547
Evidence at, 1-640
Original and cross-libel, 1-488
Appeal, on, Chinese exclusion pro-
ceedings, 11-915
Infant's appeal, 12-797
HEABINO, contd.
Appeal, on, contd.
In highway proceedings, 11-78
Alteration of highway, 11-133
De novo hearing, 11-80
Discontinuance of highway, 11-
265
Notice of, 11-78
Arbitration, before arbitrators, 1-597-
609
How conducted, 2-618
How fixed in, 2-617
Umpire, appointment of, 2-621
Assistance, writ of, application for,
3-151
Bankruptcy proceedings, claims, 3-905
Of application for discharge, 3-921
To revoke discharge, 3-931
Bills and answers, amendments at, 4-
202, 215
Bills of review, 4-454
Bills to enforce decrees, 4-469
Bills to impeach judgments and de-
crees, 4-490
By board of special inquiry, immigra-
tion proceedings, 11-902
Case or question certified, 4-762
Certiorari, in highway proceedings,
11-98
Alteration of highway, 11-137
Discontinuance of highway, 11-268
On application for, 4-940
In federal courts, 4-958
Scope of review, 11-98
Change of venue, of application, 4<
988
Chinese entitled to, exclusioii pro-
ceedings, 11-909
Collision, 5-135-148
Creditors' suits, 6-223-236
Cross-bill, of original and cross-bill,
6-291
Customs duties, on appeal, 6-350
Decedents' estates, account, petition
for, 6-594
Setting aside, 6-617, 622
Claims, against insolvent estate, 6-
583
On reference, 6-542
Discovery of assets, 6-522
Distribution, questions on, 6-631
Sales, application for, 6-559
Confirmation of, 6-571
Demurrer, upon, 12-655
Deportation of alien, 11-906
Divorce, trial, 7-786-791
Alimony, 7-824
Application to modify alimony, 7-
845
Custody and support of childres,
7-854
68
INDEX
HEABINO, eontd.
Dower, trial, 7-878
Pinal, 7-882
Dae process of law, proceeding with-
out, 7-907
Emancipation proceedings, 12-806
Eminent domain, on report of com-
missioners, 8-314-317
Equity, on demurrers, 8-482
In general, 8-493; and the title
HSARINO.
Exclusion of Chinese, 11-909
Exemption, contest of, 11-523
On affidavits, 11-520
Exhibits, how proved, 8-819
Guardian and ward, application for
appointment, 10-795
Account, 10-838
Claims, 10-855
Of habeas corpus by guardian, 10-
818
Of petition for removal, 10-813
Habeas corpus, by alien, 11-923
Heirship proceedings, 12-921, 923, 924
Homesteads, 11-363
Immigration proceedings, 11-902, 906
Steamship company's right to hear-
ing, 11-927
Juvenile proceedings, 12-872
Commitment pending, 12-871
Motion to quash indictment, of, 12-
637
Beceiver, of motion to appoint, 11-
495
Sale of infant's property, prior to,
12-822
Sole trader proceedings, 11-818
HEIBS, see Decedents' Estates; Ex-
ECITTORS AMD ADMINISTRATORS; IN-
HERITANCE.
Proceedings to determine, 12-914
Nature of proceedings, 12-916
Petition, 12-919
HIGHWAYS, STREETS AND
BBIDOES — Consult analysis of this
article, 11-32. Soe Easements;
Eminent Domain ; Injuries to Per-
sons AND Property; Motor Ve-
hicles; Municipal Corporations;
Navigable Waters ; Negligence ;
Nuisance; Private and Toll
BoADS; Public Service Corpora-
tions; Bailroads; Special Assess-
ment; Street-Bailroads ; Tax-
ation.
Ejectment, 7-988
Electricity, injuries to person on high-
ways, 8-193
Guardian ad litem in highway pro-
ceedings, 10-715
IIOLIDAYS, see Sunday and Holidays.
HOMESTEADS AND EXEMPTIONS -^
Consult analysis of this article, 11-
284. See Attachment; Garnish-
ment; Judgments and Decrees,
Enforcement op; Public Lands.
Attachment, against exempt property,
3-271, 391
Homestead after lien of, 3-604
Motion to vacate, 3-761
Baising issue in pleadings, 3-704
Bankruptcy proceedings, claim in
schedules, 3-974-978
Forthcoming bond, for exempt prop-
erty, quashed, 10-11
Failure to deliver as breach of, 10-
18
Obligors not estopped to claim, 10-
30
Fraudulent conveyance of, action will
not lie, 10-94
Pleading exemption in action to
set aside, 10-180
Provision for in decree setting
aside, 10-209
Garnishment, duty of garnishee as to
exemptions, 10-527
HOMICIDE — Consult analysis of this
article, 11-568. See Coroner's In-
quest; Death by Wrongful Act;
Indictment and Information. See
also Criminal Procedure.
By administering poison, 10-997
Charging, in general, 12-303
Anticipating defenses, 12-351
Conclusions of law, 12-344
Name of deceased, substituted for
that 6f accused, effect on in-
dictment, 12-317
HOBSE, see Animals; Hkjhwats,
Streets and Bridges; Bailroads.
HOBSE-BACING, see Gaming; High-
ways, Streets and Bridges.
HOTELS, see Inns and Innkeepers.
IIOUSEBBEAKING, see Burglary.
HOUSE OF ILL-FAME, see Disorderly
House.
HUNTING, see Game and Pish; Li-
censes.
HT7SBAND AND WIFE — Consult
analysis of this article, 11-694, See
Adultery; Auenatino Affections ;
Breach of Promise; Curtesy;
Divorce; Dower, Proceedings To
Becover; Fraudulent Convey-
ances; Homesteads and Exemp-
tions; Infants; Marriage; Par-
ent AND Child; Parties; Principal
AND Agent.
Actions, by wife, to protect home-
stead, 11-416
Appeals, marriage of woman, 2-227
99
eo
INDEX
HUSBAND AND WIFE, cmid.
Appearance of married won\aii, 2-517
As witnesses, see 6 Enct. of Ev. 845,
et seq.
Bankruptcy, examination of wife,
3-981
Complaining witness, wife as, 4-91
Discovery, confidential maters, 7-
534
Failure of wife to testify, 2-786; 6
Enct. op Ev. 893
Privileged communication between,
see 10 Ency. op Ev. 165.
Attachment of homestead, wife as
party, 11-342
Burglary, ownership of premises, 4-
602
Case, injuries to wife, 4-627
Conveyances between husband and
wife, 11-460
Of homestead, 11-374
Costs, liability, 5-826
Covenant, action of, joinder, 6-144
Curtesy, 6-323
Death by wrongful act, action by
widow, 6-390
Pecuniary loss, burden of proof, 6-
451
Default by married women, 6-806
Demurrer, want of capacity of wife,
6-895
Desertion, as affecting homesteads,
11-453
Divorce, 7-728
As affecting homestead, 11-454
Dower, 7-863
Duress, of other, 7-949
Ejectment, joinder, 7-1014, 1020
To recover homestead, 11-340
Embezzlement, allegation of joint
ownership, 8-237
Eminent domain, parties, 8-270
Equity jurisdiction, 8-406
Appearance by, where, 8-477
Errors, assignment of, jointly or sev-
erally, 8-639
Exemption, assertion of by wife, 11-
481, 488
Forcible entry and detainer, notice
to both, 8-1095
Against wife, 8-1105
By husband, 8-1101
Fraudulent conveyances, recovery by
wife, of property transferred to
husband, 10-106
Transfer in fraud of wife's
rights, 10-112
Garnishment liable, where, 10-406
Highways, injuries to wife from, ac-
tion by husband, 11-208
HUSBAND AND WIFE, eontd.
Homesteads, see Homesteads and
Exemptions.
Parties, ejectment, 11-341
In homestead waiver, 11-434
Joinder in declaration of home-
stead, 11-308
Setting aside conveyance or mort-
gage of homestead, 11-3S1
Where homestead involved, general-
ly, 11-340, 341
Partition involving homestead, 11-
341
Petition by husband for guardian-
ship of wife, 12-16
Separation of, as affecting home-
stead, 11-453
Writ of assistance, wife as party to,
11-342
HYPOTHETICAL PLEADING, see
Pleading.
IDEM SONANS, see Names.
IDIOT, see Insane Peesons.
HjLEGALITY, as substituted for audita
querela, 3-878
Affidavit of, see Judgments and De-
crees, Enfoscement or
ILLZSO ALIT7, ROW PLEADED — Con-
sult analysis of this article, 11-891.
See Implied and Express Agree-
ments; Sunday and Holidays.
Assumpsit, illegality under general
issue, 3-189
Bills and notes, 4-276
Bills of particulars, of acts, 4-399
Bonds, negativing illegalitv, 4-502
Eminent domain, 8-292
False imprisonment, unlawfulness, 8-
963
ILLEGITIMATES, see Bastardy Pro-
ceedings; Parent and Child.
ILL-FAME, see Disorderly House.
IMMATEBIAL AVERMENT, see Sur-
plusage AND Scandal.
IMMiaBATIOK — Con«uZt analysis of
this article, 11-899. See Aliens;
Naturalization.
Habeas corpus, 10-915
IMMUNITY, see Privilege; Process.
IMPARLANCE, see Time To Plead.
IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS, sec
Opftcers.
IMPERTINENCE, see Surplusage and
Scandal.
IMPLIED AND EXPBE8S AGBEE-
MENTS — Consult analysis of this
article, 11-931. See Assumpsit;
Use and Occupation. See also
Cov tracts; Performance,
IMPORTS, see Customs Duties,
70
INDEX
IMPRISONMENT FOB DEBT, see Ar-
BEST IN Civil Cases; Judgments
AND Decrees, Enforcement of.
Of husband, as affecting abandonment
of homestead, 11-448
To enforce fine, highways, 11-142
IMPROVEMENTS, see Lands and Land
Transfers.
INCAPACITY, see Incompetents;
Mental State.
Physical, see Breach of Promise;
Marriage; Physical Examina-
tion.
To sue and be sued, see Aliens; As-
sociations ; Corporations ; De-
murrer; Guardian ad Litem;
Guardian and Ward;; Husband
AND Wife; Infants; Insane
Persons; Incompetents.
INCEST — Consult analysis of this ar-
ticle, 12-1. See Lewdness; Prosti-
tution. See also Criminal Procedure.
Anticipating defenses, in charging,
12-351
Joinder with rape, 12-535
INCOME TAX, see Internal Bevenus;
Taxation.
IKCOMPETENTS — Consult analysis of
this article, 12-14. See Guardian
AD Litem; Guardian and Ward;
Husband and Wife; Infants; In-
sane Persons.
INCONSISTENCY, see Answers ;
Choice and Election of Remedies;
Departure; Duplicity; Joinder of
Actions; Repugnancy.
INCUMBRANCES, see Covenant, Ac-
tion of; Lands and Land Trans-
fers; Title; Vendor and Pur-
chaser.
Agreement to pay, distinguished from
indemnity, 12-25
Knowledge of, homesteads, 11-337
INDEBITATUS, see Assumpsit.
INDECENCY, see Obscenity; Post-
office,
INDECENT ASSAULT, see Assault
AND Battery; Rape.
INDECENT EXPOSURE, see Obscen-
ity.
INDEMNITY — Consult analysis of this
article, 12-21. See Bonds; Guar-
anty; Insurance; Principal and
Surety; Security for Costs; Se-
curity To Keep the Peace; Sher-
iffs, Constables and Marshals;
Undertakings.
Attachment bonds, 3-443, 671, 765
Bonds of, actions on, 4-527
Forthcoming bonds, 10-3
Garnishment, bonds, 10-492, 561
INDSMNIT7, contd.
To assignor in action in his name,
3-91
To purchaser, on setting aside sale
of infant's property, 12-855
INDIANS — Consult analysis of this ar-
ticle, 12-36
Agreed case, as party to, 1-743
INDICTMENT AND INFOBMA-
TION — Consult analysis of this ar-
ticle, 12-53. See Arraignment and
Plea; Grand Jury; and specific
criminal law titles. •
Abatement, pleas of, see Abatement,
Pleas of.
Information, right to prosecute by,
1-31
Abduction, 1-79
Ability to consummate assault, hom-
icide, 11-611
Abortion, 1-96
Homicide in attempting, 11-603
Accessories and accomplices, 1-136
Averments as to, homicide, 11-636
Adulteration, 1-582
Adultery, 1-599-611
Charging incest by, 12-6
Affray, 1-725-728
Aggravated assault, for conviction of
common assault, 11-678
Alien prostitutes, indictment for im-
porting, 11-929
Alternative, charging in the, 11-591
Amendment, 4-97; 8-1146; 10-346
Indictment for failure to do road
work, 11-142
Informations in civil cases, 12-715
In general, 12-542, 555
New plea and arraignment on, 2-
865, 877
Animals, shipping infected, 1-962, 963,
965
Driving from tange, 1-975
KUling, 1-969-974
Marks and brands, 1-983
On regulation for slaughtering, 1-
985
Stock laws, 1-975
Apprentices, under statutes against
enticing, 2-587
Arraignment and plea, reading in-
dictment, 2-861
Arrest of judgment, 2-979
Arson, 3-4
Assault with intent to kill, 11-596,
598
Automobiles, for illegal operation of,
11-258, 259
Banks and banking, against officials,
4-38-45
Bastardy proceedings, 4-78
n
INDEX
INDICTMENT AND INFORMATION,
contd.
Battery, averment of. in assault with
intent to kill, 11-599
Bigamy, 4-92
Bills of particulars, allowed when,
4-386
What required, 4-400
Blasphemy, 4-493
Breach of the peace, 4-560
Bribery, 4-568
Caption, 12-167
• Bridges, for failure to build or re-
pair, 11-272
Tor destroying, 11-274
Burglary, 4-592
Certainty in pleading, 4-855; 12-294
As compared with affidavit, 12-135
Change of venue, second not re-
quired, 4-999
Chattel mortgages, for selling prop-
erty, 5-75
Children, for cruelty to, 12-882
Circumstances attending the hom-
icide, averments as to, 11-624
Civil rights, violation of, 5-128
Common law, at, highways, 11-116
Homicide, 11-578
Complaining witness, must be com-
petent against accused, 4-91; 1-
591
Compounding crime, 5-190
Concealing birth and death, 12-885
Conclusion of, 11-122, 638
Conspiracy, 5-282
Conviction of lesser offense, 11-634,
678
Copyright proceedings, use of copy-
right notice, 5-509
Coroner's inquest, based on, 12-117
Corporations, 5-576, 681
Officers and agents, 5-685
Counterfeiting, 6-6-17
Courts martial, chatge and specifica-
tions, 6-114
Cruelty to animals, complaint, 6-315
Cruelty to children, 12-882
Customs duties, conspiracy, 6-359
Forfeitures, 6-356
Death, recovery of damages for, 6-457
Averments as to, 11-587, 628
Means of death, 11-587
Time of death, 11-581
Degree of homicide, necessity of
averring, 11-633
Delay in finding indictment, 12-94
Deliberation and premeditation, in
homicide, 11-621
Demurrer to, 12-148
Disorderly conduct^ 7-695
Disorderly house, 7-701
INDICTMENT AND INFOBMATIOH,
contd.
Disturbing public assembly, 7-715
Duplicity in indictment, 12-499, 510
Against highway officers, 11-144
Continuando, as rendering pleading
duplicitous, 12-504
Homicide, 11-629
Violation of road laws, 11-258
Elections, offenses, 8-142
Betting, 8-147
Bribery, 8-145
False registration, 8-150
Illegal voting, 8-152
Intimidation, 8-144
Official misconduct, 8-159
Electricity, stealing, 8-197
Embezzlement, 8-208-243
Embracery, 8-254
Error, assignment of, failure to state
crime, 8-567
Estrays, taking and using, 8-717
Extortion, 8-828-833
Extradition, foreign, 8-838
State, or affidavit showing crime,
8-848
False imprisonment, 8-971
False personation, 8-973
"Feloniously," assault with intent
to murder, 11-613
File mark, on information, effect of,
12-145
Finding and return, 10-656
Following language of statute, 4-857.
See specific offenses.
Assault and battery, 3-34
Breach of peace, 4-562
Civil rights, for violation of, 5-130
Conspiracy, 5-296
Counterfeiting, 6-16
Cruelty to animals, 6-316
Disturbing public assembly, 7-716
Elections, offenses, 8-155
Embezzlement, 8-220
Estrays, 8-179
Extortion, 8-829
False personation, 8-973
Gaming, 10-343, 348, 353
Homicide, 11-576
Incest, 12-4
Forcible entry and detainer, deserip-
tion of premises, 8-1119
Forfeitures, to enforce (1-458; 6-356).
See Penai/ties, Fo&feitdbes and
Fines.
Forgery, 8-1143-1180
Form of, failure to do road work, 11-
140
Statutes providing for, 12-299
Fornication, charging incest by, 12-6
78
INDEX
INDICTMENT AND INFOBMATION,
contd.
Fraudulent conveyances, penal stat-
utes, 10-211
Game and fish, criminal proceedings,
10-309
Gaming, 10-336
Grand jury, powers and duties, 10-655
Habeas corpus, irregularity not con-
^sidered, 10-944
Has'tening death, for, 11-591
Hawkers and peddlers, form and con-
tents, 10-970
Health, for, violating regulations, 10-
982
Administering poison, 10-997. See
Homicide.
Against druggists without license,
10-990-993
Highways, against highway officers,
11-143
Description of, in indictment, 11-
106 ,
For failure to open, 11-104
To do road work, 11-140
To repair, 11-116
Homicide, 11-570, 601
Immoral publi^^ation, for exhibiting,
12-885
• Incest, 12-4
Joinder of parties, 12-2
Indorsement, see Indorsement.
Insufficient preliminary complaint,
effect, 12-139
Intent, averment of, in assault with
intent to murder, 11-614
Intoxicating liquors, for 'selling to In-
dians, 12-52
Joinder, of offenses, 11-576, 605
Of parties defendant, highways, 11-
142
Juvenile acts, 12-880
Knowledge, averments as to, in hom-
icide, 11-624
In incest, 12-10
Libel of information, in admiralty, 1-
458
Malice, averments as to, in homicide,
11-618
Manslaughter, for, 11-578
Conviction of assault on, 11-678
Marriage, allegations of, in incest
126
Master of vessel, against, for violat
ing immigration a[cts, 11-927
Means of abortion, averments as to
homicide, 11-604
Miscarriage, for murder by produc
ing, 11-617
Murder, for, conviction of man
slaughter, 11-678
INDICTMENT AND INFOBMATION.
eontd.
Negativing exceptions and provisos,
1-108; 11-104, 605, 637, 882, 927
Nunc pro tunc recitals, of findingj
12102
Officer, for murder of, 11-609
Order resubmitting indictment, 12-
147
Penalty, for, concurrent with civil
action,' 11-160
Physicians, against, for criminal
negligence, 11-602
Place of death, averments as to, 11-
586
Poisoning, homicide by, 11-602
Principals, averments as to, hom-
icide, 11-636
Province of judge and jury, 11-639
Quashing, grounds for, 12-605, 612
Record, finding of indictment, shown
by, 12-101
Relationship, averments of, in in-
cest, 12-8
Repugnancy, 11-629
Resubmission of, 12-146
Road laws, for violation of, 11-256,
258
Sanity, averments as to, homicide,
11-629
Setting aside indictment, 12-605
Several counts, in, 12-519
In homicide, 11-576
"Shooting," meaning of, 11-599
Surplusage, in homicide, 11-632
Technical words, in averring malice,
11-619
Technical objections to, 11-573
''Then and there," use of, 11-582,
586
Time, averring, 12-608
In homicide, 11-579
Of finding the indictment, 12-93
''Unlawfully," assault with intent to
murder, 11-612
. Variance, 11-593, 599; 606
In description of wounds, homicide,
11-627
Venue, homicide, 11-584
Victim, describing the, in homicide,
11-606
Weapons, averments as to, homicide,
11-589, 592
"Willfully," use of in indictment,
11-617
Wounds, describing, in homi«ide, 11-
625
INDORSEMENTS, see Bills and Notes;
Filing; Indictment and Infor-
mation; Process; Returns.
73
INDEX
INDORSEMENTS, contd.
On indictment, amendment of, 12-
565
After return, 12-98
By stranger, 1298
By the clerk, 12-98
Demurrer, where wanting, 12-651
Effect of errors in, 1299, 624
Finding evidenced by, 12-102
Of prosecutor, 12-625
Prior to return, 12-95
Beturn of indictment shown by,
12-106
Verdict, aider by, 12-701
Waiver of homestead, of, on summons,
judgment or execution, 11-438
Witnesses, of, on criminal complaint,
12-293
INDTTOBMENT — Consult analysis of
this articlCy 12-718. See Indictment
AND Information; Libel and Slan-
der.
Answers, denial with, 2-21
Case, the action on the, as determin-
ing form of action, 4-651
Criminal aspect of charge, to ex-
plain, 12-343
Declaration and complaint, 6-668
On contract, generally, 11-989
Denials, not traversed, 7-34
Not in issue by general, 7-70
Duplicity, as bearing on, 12-511
Duplicity, does not cause, 7-943
Highways, alleging duty to repair,
11-213 . '
Participles, use of in, 1*2-325
Becital, stating matters by way of,
12-323
INDUSTRIAL SCHOOL, see Beform-
ATORIES.
INEBBIATES, see Incompetents.
INFAKTS — Consult analysis of this ar-
ticle, 12-727. See Abduction; Ap-
prentices; Bastardy Proceedings;
Guardian ad Litem; Guardian and
Ward; Judicial Sales; Kidnaping;
Limitation op Actions; Parent
AND Child ; Reformatories ; Schools
and School Districts.
Admiralty, actions by, 1-427
Appeals, orders for adoption, 2-183
•Limitation of time for, 2-308
Appearance of, 2-518; 6-810; 8-476
Non-resident, by guardian, 6-810
Arraignment and plea, may plead
guilty, 2-893
"As relators, 12-714
Assumpsit, incapacity under general
issue, 3-189
Attachment, when against, 3-263
INFAKTS, contd,
• Bankruptcy proceedings, time for
claims, 3-904
Bastardy proceedings, as complain-
ant, 4-61
Release by, 4-72
Bills in equity, prayer for process
against, 4-147
Bills to impea(;h judgments and de-
crees, as parties to, 4-484 •
Continuance to protect, 11-19
Costs, liability when, 5-825. See
Guardian and Ward.
Custody and support, in divorce suit,
7-852
Default, not by, 6-806, 819
Relief against, 6-834
Demurrer, want of capacity to sue,
6-894
Denials, no admission by failure, 7-
114
Discovery, examination before trial,
7-551
Dismissal and nonsuit, one party un-
der disability, 7-668
Ejectment, disaffirmance of deeds, 7-
1000
Eminent domain, parties, 8-270
Gaming, may recover loss, 10-319
AUowing minor to gamble, indict-
ment, 10-357
Garnishment liable to, 10-406
Guardian ad litem, 10-706-773
After publication of summons, 6-
812
Authority- expires at majority, 10-
773
In divorce suit, 7-749, 750
Sale of real estate, 10-714
Guardian and ward, 10-774
Actions by or against, 10-856
Habeas corpus, allegations in petition,
10-922
Adjudication, how far conclusive,
10-952
Joinder of infant defendant, joint
obligations, 11-979
Judgment against adult when joined
with infant, 6-162
Misnomer, of, as affecting judgment,
12-783
Plea of infancy, 11-1032
Process, service on, see Service or
Process and Papers.
In equity, 8-465, 476
IN FORMA PAUPERIS, see Paupers.
INFORMATION, see Indictment and
Information.
In civil cases, see ADMiRAi/rY; Cus-
toms Duties; Indictment and
Information; Internal Revi-
74
iNDtl^
INFORMATION, cmtd.
In civil cases, contd,
NUE ; Penalties, Porpeitubbs
AND Fines; Quo Warranto.
INFORMATION' AND BEUEF — Con-
sult atialysis of this article^ 12-888
Admiralty, pleading in, 1-463
Affidavits of merits, on, 1-674, 685
Belief in defense, 1-680, 685
Affidavits on, to support motion to
quash, 12-638
Answer, in equity, 4-172
. Arrest in civil cases, affidavits on, 2-
936, 939-941
Attachments, affidavits on, 3-412-414,
428
Bills of particulars, as to grounds of
belief, 4-390
Criminal complaint on, 12-126, 290
Declaration and complaint, 6-694
Denials, 7-37, 44-45
Of execution on, 11-1017
Discovery, examination of party, affi-
davit on, 7-567
Extradition, foreign, complaint, 8-838
Fraudulent conveyances, allegations
in action on, 10-172
Frivolous and sham pleading, state-
ments on, when frivolous, 10-269,
270
6ham, matter in pleader's knowl-
edge, 10-272
Habeas corpus, verification of peti-
tion, 10-924
Verification on, of criminal complaint,
12-290
INFOBMEB, see Indictment and In-
formation ; Penalties, Forfeit-
ures AND Fines.
Criminal proceedings begun by, 12-
87
Indorsement of, on indictment, 12-87
INFBINGEMENT, see Copyright Pro-
ceedings; Injunctions; Patents;
Trade-Marks and Trade Names.
INHERITANCE — Consult analysis of
this article, 12-912. See Curtesy;
Decedents' Estates; Dower, Pro-
ceedings To Recover; Lands and
Land Transfers; Taxation; Title.
Alien's right, how questioned, 1-810
Appeals, heirs as parties in, 2-225, 227
Attachments, not against heirs, 3-265
. Of distributive share, 3-297
Conclusions of law, ''heirs," 5-224
Covenant, action of, by heirs on real
covenants, 6-136
Curtesy, action for injury, 6-326
Decrees, unknown heirs, 6-748
Detinue, by heirs, property severed
from freehold, 7-480
INHEBITAKOE, eonicL
Dower, 7-863
Improvements by heirs, 7-887 .
Eminent ^domain, heirs as parties, 8-
269
Escheat, for want of heirs, 8-661-677
Recovery by heirs, 8-676
Executors and administrators, de son
tort, not liable to heirs, 8-778
Forcible entry and detainer, by heirs,
8-1101
Against heirs, 8-1106*
Fraudulent conveyances, heirs of
grantor, 10-105
Guardian ad litem for unknown
heirs, 10-715
INITIALS, see Abbreviations ; Certain-
ty in Pleading; Indictment and
Information,
Names of parties, 6-650. See Names.
INITIATIVE, see Statutes.
IKJUNCTION'S — Consult analysis of
this article, 12-991. See also spe-
cific titles.
Adjoining landowners, lateral sup-
port, 1-318
Blasting, 1-326
Fences, l-32d
Trees, 1-333
Admiralty, in, 1-421, 422
Adulteration, enjpining of, 1-590
Affidavits in, 12-898
Alienage, cannot be raised on motion
for, 1-806
Alienating affections, against, 1-785
Answer, highway proceedings, 11-111
Sale of homestead, 11-413
Appeals, from interlocutory, 2-176
Highway, enjoining the opening of,
IMll
Power to grant when suspended by,
2-328
Becord must contain evidence, 2-
356
Appearance waives notice, 2-547
Apprentices, against enticing, 2-586
Arbitration, of inequitable use of
judgment on, 2-661
Assignment for creditors, against
sale, 3-61
Attachment, in aid of, 3-746
Bankruptcy proceedings, 3-932
Banks and banking, in dissolution, 4-
49
Bills in equity, preliminary specially
prayed for, 4-142
In prayer for process, 4-145
Restraining vacation of highway,
11-270
To protect homestead, 11-412
Verification, 4-148
76
INDEX
INJTTNOTIOKS, emtd.
Bills to impeach judgments and de-
crees, injunction collateral to, 4-
490, 491
Chattel mortgages, against taking pos-
session, 5-56
Against disposing or destroying, 5-
58
Commerce court, against commis-
sion, 5-157
Against carriers, 5-157
Complaint, to restrain change in
highway, 11-139
To restrain opening of highway,
11-110
Contempt, procedure on disobedience,
5-393
Copyright proceedings, 5-507, 517
Costs, against collecting improper, 5-
789
Creditors* suits, 6-227
Discovery, order for production, not
to obtain, 7-636
Dii^orderly house, against keeping, 7-
699
Divorce, 7-752
Alimony, transferring, 7-820
To secure alimony^ 7-837*
Easement, against improper use of,
7-955
To prevent obstruction of, 7-959
AUegations of bill, 7-967
Ejectment from homestead, to re-
strain, 11-381
Elections, in contests, 8-51
To prevent striking from registra-
tion, 8-136
Eminent domain, 8-361, 370
Equity jurisdiction, 8-434
Error, assignment of, granting pre-
liminary, 8-556
Execution on infant's property, en-
joining, 12-792
Factors and brokers, against factor,
8-871
Forthcoming bond, on enjoining ex-
ecution sale, 10-6
Non-delivery not breach where sale
enjoined, 10-19
Fraudulent conveyances, to prevent,
10-99, 100
Game and fish, protecting oyster
beds, 10-308
Gaming, to prevent payment by stake-
holder, 10-325
To prevent enforcement of law, 10-
364
To suppress, 10-364
Garnishment of exempt wage%
against, 10-469
IKJUNt^TIOKS, contd.
Guardian, against, pending removal,
10-808, 814
Health, only where abuse in regula-
tions, 10-988
Highways, alteration of, 11-138
Closing of, 11-269
Obstruction of, 11-56
Opening of, 11-107
Restoration of, compelling, 11-124
Bestraining improvement of, 11-
126
Homesteads, by grantee of, against
execution creditor, 11-375
Bestraining impairment of, 11-334
Bestraining sale of, 11-380, 410
Where adequate remedy at law,
11-412
Informations in nature of, 12-706
Judicial sale, restraining, 12-792
Legal remedy, absence of, see Lioal
Bemedt.
Legal remedy adequate, 11-269, 412
Parties, restraining closing of high-
way, 11-269
Bestoration of highway, 11-124
Bestraining opening of highway,
11-109
Sale of homestead, restraining, 11-
418
Schools, enforcing law as to separate,
5-128
Settlement rights, to protect, 11-820
Statutory remedy excludes, 11-108
Trial, in highway proceedings, 11-111
Tribe, by, to restrain interference
with, 12-44
Venue, highway proceedings, 11-109
IKJUBIES TO PEBSONS AXD FBOP-
EBTT — Consult analysis of thU ar-
ticle when published. See Aniicaus;
ASSAtTLT AND BaTTERT; CaSK (THI
AcnON OF TSESPASS ON THE) ; CiVIL
Bights; Collision; Death bt
Wrongful Act; Freight Carriebs;
Highways, Streets and Bridges;
Husband and Wife; Joinder or
Actions; Lands and Land Trans-
fers; Master and Servant; Mikes
AND Minerals; Motor Vehiclss;
Negligence; Notice; Parent and
Child; Parties; Passengers; Per-
sonal Actions; Personal Pkop-
ERTY; BaILROADS; BeAL AND MiXED
Actions; Bemission of Damages;
Seamen; Shifs and Shifpino;
Street Bailroads; Telbgbaprs and
Telephones ; Trespass ; Trotkb
AND CoNvsRSiON; Wharves; and
other specific titles. See also Pam-
ages, supra, this index.
76
INDEX
IKJUBIES TO PEBS0K8 AND PBOP-
EBT7, conid.
Actions between husband and wife,
for, 11-713
Admiralty, jurisdiction of, 1-396
Animals, 1-946
Answers, injuries from highways, 11-
229
Automobiles, from, 11-254
Bridges, from defective, 11-274
Child to, action by parent, 11-208
Choice and election of remedies, 6-
100
Complaint, injuries from highways,
11-212, 252
Contributory negligence, negativing,
11-216
Damages, pleading, highway injuries,
11-226
Death by wrongful act, 6-361
Electricity, injuries from, 8-166
Highways, alleging character of de-
fect, 11-221
Describing the highway, 11-218
Findings, 11-244
From defective highways, 11-198
Judgment, 11-247
Jurisdiction, 11-198
Limitations, notice as bar to, 11-
200
Negligent use of, 11-251
Prerequisites to action, 11-199
Venue, 11-198
Husband, to, actions for, 11-723
Naming and describing person and
property in preliminary affidavit,
12-138
Negligence, pleading, 11-210
Notice of injuries, as prerequisite to
action, 11-199
Who may give, 11-201
Parties, injuries from highways, 11*
207 208
Pleading, 11-226, 229
Alleging character of defect in
highway, 11-221
Describing the highway, 11-218
Negligence, 11 #234
Province of judge and jury, high-
ways, 11-234
Bail roads, by, see Bailroads; Street
Bailboads.
Variance, injuries from highways, 11-
232, 253
Verdict, highway injuries, 11-244
Wife, injuries to, 11-717
Action by husband, 11-208
Injuries to property of, action for,
11-726, 727
When she may sue alone, 11-838
INNOCENT PTTBCHASERS, see Bills
AND Notes.; Fraudulent Convey-
ances; Notice; Vendor and Pur-
chaser.
INNS AND INNKEEPEB8 — CofwtiZt
analysis of this article when pub-
lished. See Civil Bights; Per-
sonal Property; Use and Occu-
pation.
Burglary, allegation of ownership, 4-
602
Denial of accommodations, see Civil
Bights.
Embezzlement by clerk of guests'
property, 8-237
Gaming, permitting, variance, 10-360
Garnishment of guest for debt due
innkeeper, 10-466
INNUENDO, see Libel and Slander.
IN PABI DELICTO, see Gaming; Il-
legality, How Pleaded; Suits and
Actions.
IN PEBSONAM, see Personal Ac-
tions; Proceedings in Beh; Sxtits
AND Actions.
INQUEST, see Coroner's Inquest; Es-
cheat; Inquiry, Writ of; Insane
Persons.
IKQUIBY, WBIT OF — Consult analysis
of this article when published. See
Default.
Damages for non-production of
books or documents, 7-647
Dower, to set off, 7-879
IN BEm, see Admiralty; Proceedings
IN Bem; Suits and Actions.
INaANE PERSONS — ConwU analysis
of this article when published. See
•Guardian ad Litem; Guardian and
Ward; Incompetents; Limitation
OF Actions; Wills; Writ of Er-
ror.
Admiralty, suits by, 1-427
Appeals, limitations of time for, 2-
309
Appearance of, 2-518; 8-476
As relators, 12-714
Assumpsit, incapacity under general
issue, 3-189
Attachment, when against, 3-263
Averment as to sanity, in indictment
for homicide, 11-629
Bankruptcy proceedings, claims by,
3-904
May be discharged, 3-920
Not abated by insanity, 3-990
Confinement for, as affecting aban-
donment of homestead, 11-448
Default, relief, 6-834
Denials, no admission by failure, 7-
114
T7
tNDS^
nrSANtS PfiESOKS, contd.
Didcovery, examination of party, 7-
551
Dismissal and nonsuit, one party un-'
der disability, 7-668
Divorce, 7-749, 750
Insanity, abatement, 7-810
Ejectment to disaffirm deed, 7-1000
Embezzlement, instructions as to in-
sanity, 8-248
Equity, service of process on, 8-465
Appearance by, 8-476
Guardian ad litem, 10-706
Suits by non compos mentis, 10-716
Guardian and ward, jurisdiction of
courts, 10-779
Actions by or against, 10-856
Notice of application for, 10-789,
792
Petition for appointment, 10-786
Wishes of relatives as to guardian,
10-799
Habeas corpus to secure release, 10-
923
Questions considered, 10-947
Plea of, 2219
Process, service on, see Ssbvige of
Process and Papers.
In equity, 8-465
Question of fact, homicide, 11-650
INSOLVENCY — Consult analysis of
this article when published. See As-
signment FOR THE Benefit of Cred-
itors ; Bankruptcy Proceedings ;
Creditors' Suits; Fraudulent Con-
veyances; Paupers; Eeceivers.
Aliens, resident, 1-795
Attachment, as ground for, 3-351,
395
As showing fraud, 3-365, 395
Dissolved by, where, 3-809
Bankruptcy act, effect on insolvency
laws, 3-895
Banks and banking, dissolution for,
4-47
Corporations, capacity to sue and be
sued, 5-553
Does not dissolve, 5-716
Decedents' estates, proceedings on, 6-
579
Deposit in court, because of, 7-151
Fraudulent conveyances by insolvent,
10-124
Allegation of insolvency, 10-165
Necessity for execution before ac-
tion, 10-136
Question of fact, 10-192
Garnishment, trustees and assignees
in, 10-456
Homestead petition, alleging yi, 12-
320
78
INSPECTION, see DiscovtftY; Mines
and Minerals; Physical Exami-
nation; View.
Of books and documents, 7-605
IKSTBTTOTIONB — Consult aniMiysis of
this article when published. See Er-
rors, ASSIONMENT OP; JURIES AND
Jurors; New Trial; Objections
AND Exceptions; Special Intebbog-
ATORiES TO Juries; Verdict; and
specific titles.
Abduction, 1-87
Abortion, as to, 1-115
Acceptance of work done, as to, 11-
1073
Accessories, on trial of, 1-157
For abortion, 1-119
Accounts stated, 1-260
Adulteration, 1-589
Adverse possession, 1-637
Affray, self-defense, 1-729
Alteration of instruments, 1-842
Amendment after, 1-880
Appeals, exceptions below, 2-261, 280,
281
Evidenx^e relating to must be in rec-
ord, 2-355
Harmless error, 2-469
Must be viewed in toto, 1-115
Presumption against error, 2-424
Becord, as part of, 2-339, 358; 4-316
Arguments, after change of, 2-730
Inferences corrected, 2-752
In regard to, 2-828 .
Beading in, 2-817
Arrest of judgment, as grounds foT,
2-999
Attachment, intervention, issues, 3-
668
Bastardy proceedings, 4-73
Bigamy, 4-99
Bills of exceptions, incorporated in,
4-316
Assigning errors, 8-587
Breach of the peace, 4-565
Bribery, 4-573
Briefs, setting out erroneous, 4-581
Burglary, 4-607- '
Case on appeal, must appear if re-
viewed, 4-775
Character evidence, 1-119
Conforming to evidence and plead-
ings, 11-1070
Construction of contract, as to, 11-
1067
Corporations, that rights same as
persons, 5-665
Criminal conversation, 6-257
Cruelty to animals, 6-319
Customs and usages, 6-335, 336
Customs duties, forfeitures, 6-357
INDEX
IKSTfiUCnoifS, conid.
Damages, as to, contracts, 11-1073
Death by wrongful act, 6-443
Degree of crime, as to, homicide, 11-
664
Detinue, 7-485
Dismissal and nonsuit, after adverse,
7-665
Disorderly conduct, 7-696
Disorderly house, 7-708
Disturbing public assembly, 7-725
Divorce, jury trial, 7-790
Dower, to commissioners, 7-881
Election of counts, equivalent to an,
12-686
Elections, must not assume facts, 8-
147
Illegal voting, 8-162 *
Electricity, 8-180
Embezzlement, 8-247
Embracery, 8-255 '
Eminent domain, 8-320
Errors, assignment of, 8-587
Estoppel, 8-705-708
Estrays, in trial for recovery, 8-724
Execution of contract, as to, 11-1066
Following statute, 1-116
Forcible entry and detainer, 8-1122
Forgery, 8-1183
Fraud and deceit, 10-63
Fraud or duress, in contracts, 11-1067
Frauds, statute of, 10-83
Freight carriers, 10-258
Gaming on actions to recover, 10-323
Oiminal trial, 10-362
Gifts, 10-605
Grand jury, charge of court to, 10-
646
Harmless error, in, highways, 11-249
Highways, prosecution for failure to
do road work, 11-142
Prosecution for illegal use of, 11-
260
Homesteads, proceedings involving,
11-431
Homicide, in, 11-654
Indictment, raising objections to, 12-
660
Innocence, as to presumption of, 11-
678
Issues to support, homicide, 11-655,
656
Juvenile proceedings, 12-883
Malice, as to, 11-659
Motive, in homicide, 11-658
Performance, as to what constitutes,
11-1072
Time for presenting, court rule, 6-62
Verdict, form of, 11-682
INSUIiT, see Breach or the Peace;
Disorderly Conduct.
IKSTTBAKOE — Con»uU analysis of this
article when published. See Bene-
ficial Associations ; Guaranty ;
Implied and Express Agreements;
Indemnity; Principal and Surety;
Reformation; Rescission and Can-
cellation.
Admiralty, jurisdiction of marine, 1-
389
Intervention by insurer, 1-621
Affidavit of defense, 1-665
Arson, with intent to defraud, 3-19-21
Attachment, of interest in life policy,
• 3-297
How levied, 3-526
Contract, nature of, 12-24
Debt, action on, 6-473
Garnishment, unpaid loss, conditions,
10-435
Indemnity, distinguished from, 12-24
INSURRECTION, see Courts Martial;
Habeas Corpus; Martul Law;
Navy and Army; Treason; War.
INTENT, see Indictment and Infor-
mation ; Instructions ; Mental
State; Province of Judge and
Jury; Torts; and specific titles.
Abandon homestead, to, question of
fact, 11-465
As affecting, 11-449
Abortion, allegation of intent, 1-^01
Allegations of contract actions, 11-
989
In indictment, 12-650
For aggravated assault, 11-614
Attachment, allegation of in affidavit,
3-432
Fraud and deceit, pleading, 10-56
In indictment, 12-298
Instructions concerning, 10-64
Fraudulent conveyances, allegations
of, 10-159
In homicide, question of fact, 11-643
Instructions as to, 11-655
Juvenile acts, prosecution for violat-
ing, 12-884
Murder, to, assault with, 11-592
Presumptions as to, homicide,' 11-657
DTTEBEST — Consult analysis of this
article when published.
Appeals as part of, jurisdictional
amount, 2-192
Arrest in civil cases, averments of
right to, 2-952
Assumpsit for, 3-203
Bills and notes, allegations in dec-
laration, 4-257
Bonds, in judgments on, 4-538
Costs, offer of judgment, in comput-
ing, 5-867
Amount of judgment, 5-874
79
INDEX
DTTEBEST, contd.
Creditors' suits, on judgmentSy 6-241
Decrees, 6-776
Fraudulent conveyance, allowance,
10-209
Of party, see Parties.
Usurious, see Usuby.
INTEBLINEATION, see Amendments
AND Jeofails.
INTERLOCUTOBY, see Appeals; De-
crees; Equity Jusisdiction and
Pboceduke; Judgments; Writ or
Error.
INTEBNAL BEVEinTE — Constdt an-
alysis of this article when pub-
lished. See Customs Duties; Pen-
Ai/riEs, Forfeitures and Fines;
Search and Seizure; Taxation.
INTEBPLEADEB — Consult analysis of
this article when published. See
Bills and Answers ; Equity Juris-
diction AND Procedure; Interven-
tion; Parties. See also Third
Party Claims,
Admiralty, recognized in, 1-42^
Costs, out of fund, 5-903
Equity jurisdiction and procedure,
jurisdiction, 8-440
Garnishment bringing in claimants,
10-564
INTEBPBETEB, see 7 Ency. of Ev.
* 650, and cross-reference index.
INTEBBOGATOEIES, see Admiralty;
Bills and Answers; Depositions;
Discovery; Issues in Pleading
AND Practice; Special Interrog-
atories TO JXTRIES.
ZMTEBSTATE OOMBOSBOE — Consult
analysis of this article when pub-
lished,. See Commerce Court; Bail-
roads.
Case or question certified from com-
merce court, 4-682
Commerce court, may appear in, 5-171
Courts, enforcement of commission's
orders, 5-161
Jurisdiction of injunction against,
5-156
Setting aside orders, grounds, 5-
161
Freight carriers, liability of connect-
ing carrier, 10-241
INTEBVENTION' — Consult analysis of
this article when published. See
also specific titles.
Admiralty, 1-514, 519
Appeals, intervenors made parties, 2-
224
By interveners, 2-195, 197
Assignment for creditors, by assignee,
3-80
INTEBVENTION, eontd.
Assignment for creditors, eontd.
By creditor, 3-66
Attachment, 3-656, 662
Third person not bound to inter-
vene, 3-648
Vacating by intervenors, 3-769
Commerce court, parties by, 5-168
Corporation, by receivers, 5-719
Costs, liability of intervenors, 5-826
Creditors' suits, 6-202
Cross-complaint, by plaintiff to, 6-
298
Customs duties, forfeitures, 6-357
Ejectment, 7-1021
Elections, contests, 8-55
Eminent domain, 8-271
Equity in, 8-487
Escheat, 8-670
Executors and administrators, S-755
Garnishment, claims by third per-
sons, 10-550
Guardian and ward, in proceedings
for accounting, 10-837
In proceedings to transfer to for-
eign guardian, 10-906
Homestead, enforcing judgment
against wife as intervenor, 11-
342
Infant, by, on attaining majority, 12-
804
INTOXIOATINa LIQTTOBS — ConsuU
analysis of this article when pub-
lished. See AuuLTERAiioN ; Cus-
toms Duties; Disorderly Conduct;
Incompetents; Indians; Internal
Bevenue ; Licenses ; Nuisance ;
Penalties, Forfeitures and Fines;
Public Drunkenness; Pure Food
Law3; Search and Seizure; Sun-
day AND Holidays. See also Crim-
inal Procedure.
Attachment of, 3-279
Divorce, habitual drunkenness, 7-767
Person to whom sold, allegations as
to, 12298
Selling to Indians, 12-50
Indictment for, 12-52
INTOXICATION, see Incompetents;
Intoxicating Liquors ; Mental
State; Public Drunkenness.
INTRUSIONS, see Indictment and In-
formation.
INVENTION, see Patents.
INVENTOBY, attachment, of proper^
seized, 3-529
Decedents' estates, 6-543
Guardian, by, 10-817
Inventory of exemption, see Schedule,
IBBELEVANCY, see Surplusage and
Scandal,
80
INDEX
IRRIGATION, see Waters and WAffEB-
GOUBSSS.
ISSUES IN PLEADINO Ain> PBAC
TICE — Consult analysis of this at'
Ucle when published. See Abate-
icBNT, Pleas of; Answers; Ab-
BAIONMENT AND PLEA; BILLS AND
Answers; Demxtrbeb; Denuls; Eb-
BOBS, Assignment of; Indictment
AND INFOBMATION; PLEADING; PlEA
IN Equity; Pleas; Peioceedings in
Rem; Bepleadeb; Bepucation and
Reply; Sevebal Counts; Supple-
mental Pleading; Yabiange and
Failubb op Peoof.
Agreed casei none in, 1-761
Alienage, jurisdiction, 1-803
Amendments allowed after, 1-873 •
Amendments changing, 1-882. See
New Cause of Action ob De-
fense.
Answers, object of, 2-9
New mattetr must present, 2-47
Should present issue, 2-66
Appeal, issues raised below, 11-432
Arrest of judgment, omission of sim-
iliter, 2-1004
Assignments, issue on beneficial in-
terest of assignee, 3-91
Attachment, on claim by thir,d per-
son, 3-662
In abatement of, 3-804
On motions to vacate, 3-783
Bankruptcy proceedings, for jury, 3-
1001
Bastardy proceedings, 4-70
Bills of exceptions, before issue, 4-
392
Bills of review, joinder of issue, 4-
453
Calendar, cause on before, 6-50
Consolidation of actions, effect, is-
sues involved, 5-272
Construction and theory of pleadings,
after issue, 5-353
Corporations, of incorporation, 5-645,
655
Counterclaim, reply to, 11-15
Cross-bill, facts after issue, 6-285
Decrees, final not before issue, 6-760
Pro confesso, not while any issues
pending, 6-765
Default, not enlarged by amendment,
6-825
Demurrer, joinder in, 6-937
Issues of law raised, 6-942
No final judgment where other
issues, 6-993
Demurrer to evidence, issue of law,
7-4
Joinder, 7-17
ISStTES IK PLBABIKa AND FBACL
TIOE, contd.
Denials, issues under, 7-107
General denial, 7-88
General issue, 7-66
Special .traverse, taking issue, 7-
lor
Departure, destroys, 7-118
Depositions, not until joining, 7-211
Excluded after new issues by
amendment, 7-400
Disclaimer, no issue by, 7-494
Discovery, examination of party be*
fore issues, 7-555
Entitling affidavit, form before ia-
sue, 7-567
Inspection before issue, 7'419
Discretion of court, as to form of
issue, 11-523
Dismissal, nonsuit where not joined,
7-675
Dower, issues to jury, 7-879
Duplicity, at common law, 7-932
Equity, leigned issue, 8-494
Errors, assignment of, joinder in er-
ror, 8-650
Exemption, contest, in, 11-520, 523
Findings and conclusions, necessary
only where material issues, 8-996
Must be responsive, 8-1034
Must cover all, 8-1038
Ultimate and controlling facts
found, 8-1048
Fraud, of, proof of homestead on,
11-422
Garnishment on answer of garnishee,
10-543, 546, 548
On claims of third persons, 10-556
General issue and general denial, see
Denials.
In contract, 11-1012
Hearing, as affecting term of, 11-15
Necessity of issue, 11-4
Homestead, contest of, 11-333, 395
Information and belief, mere allega-
tions of, 12-902
Non est factum, issues on, 11-1014
- Not guilty, on plea of, 11-911
Schedule of exemption, completeness
of, 11-511
Setting for trial, not before, 6-53
Similiter in criminal case, 2-911
Arrest of judgment for omissibn
of, 2-1004
JEOPABDY — Consult analysis of this
article when published.
Arrest of judgment, not for former,
2-1012
Bastardy proceedings, 4-71
Certainty in pleading, as affecting,
12-296
61
INDEX
nOiBAXDY, conid.
Contempt, not bar to criminal prose-
cution, 5-421
Courts martial, 6-128
Deportation cases, in, 11-908
Disorderly house, other offenses or
times, 7-701
Disturbing public assembly, 7-715
Forgery, not as to uttering, 8-1180
JOINDEB AND SPLITTING OP AC-
TIONS, see Joinder of Actions;
Successive Suits.
JOINDEB OF AOnONS — CanauU
analysis of this article when pub-
lished. See Amendments and Jeo-
fails; Assumpsit; Consolidation
of Actions ; Demurbee ; Duplicity ;
Issues in Pleading jlnd Practice;
Multifariousness; Set-Off, Coun-
ter-Claim and Recoupment; Sev-
eral Counts; Severance; Suc-
cessive Suits; Trespass.
Admiralty, 1-437
Oosts on failure to join, 1-576
Alienating affections and criminal
conversation, 1-781
Animals, for injuries by, 1-954
Arbitration, on award and contract,
2-648
Arrest in civil cases, sufficiency of
affidavit as to same, 2-946
Arrest of judgment, not for misjoin-
der, 2-1017
Assumpsit, joinder of counts, 3-206
Bills and notes, 4-246
Breach of promise, not with fraud
and deceit, 4-548
Bridges, injuries from defective, 11-
276
Case, action on the, joinder of
counts, 4-657
With assumpsit, 4-658
With trespass, 4-658
With trover, 4-657
Certiorari, not of separate proceed-
ings, 4-928
Consolidation of actions, when proper
for joinder, 5-262
Conspiracy, civil, 5-331
Contract and tort, 10-50, 254
Copyright proceedings, 5-514
- Costs, recovery of amount in one, 5-
874
Improper severance, 5-898
Counterfeiting, of offenses, 6-17
Courts martial, of offenses, 6-115
Cruelty to animals, with malicious
mischief, 6-314
Death by wrongful act, with other
damages, 6-431
JOUNDEB OF A0n0N8» eontd.
Decedents' estates to set aside sale
and waste, 6-576
Declaration* and complaint, several
counts, 6-701
Demurrer for misjoinder, 6-901
Proceedings on sustaining, 6-992
Detinue, misjoinder of counts, 7-482
Divorce, distinct causes for, 7-768
Other causes of action, 7-769
Ejectment, count for mesne profits,
7-1023
Elections, in contests, 8-73 .
Embezzlement, 8-241
With larceny, 8-243
Embracery, 8-255
Eminent domain, 8-278
Separate trials, 8-301
Escheat, misjoinder, 8-672
Executors and administrators, in ac-
tions against, 8-756
In actions by, 8-736
False imprisonment, 8-966
Same transaction, code, 8-967
Forcible entry and detainer, 8-1102
Not joined, 8-1106
For penalty and for removing high-
way obstruction, 11-164
Fraud and deceit, 10-50
Fraudulent conveyances, to set aside,
10-177
Freight carriers, 10-254
Oaming, to recover losses, 10-323
Indictments, 10-336
Guaranty, 10-694
Guardian and ward, not individual
and representative, 10-870
Of action on bond, 10-890
Indebtitatus asumpsit and action on
express contract, 11-941
Information and bill in equity, 12-705
Injuries to wife, for, 11-721
Legal and equitable, effect on com-
mon injunction, 12-1007
Several counts, 6-701. See Sevekal
Counts.
Splitting of actions, see Successive
Suits.
JOINDEB OF ISSUES, see Issues in
PI.EADINO AND PRACTICE.
JOINDEB OF OFFENSES, see In-
dictment AND iNFOaiCATION.
Adultery and fornication, 12-536
Assault with intent to rob and rob-
bery, 12-535
Carnal knowledge and rape, 12-534
Embezzlement and larceny, 12-534
Felonies, of, 12-524, 681
Felonies and misdemeanors, 12-501,
522
88
INDEX
JOINDEB OP OFFENSES, eontd.
Forgery and uttering forged instru-
mental 12-535
Fornication and rape, 12-536
Homicide with other offenses, 11-576,
605
Incest and rape, 12-3, 535
In information, 12-521
In same count, 12-499
Larceny and burglary, 12-533
Misdemeanors, 12-526, 683
Felonies and misdemeanors, 12-501
Misjoinder, cured by election, 12-687
Manner of objecting to misjoinder,
12-684
Obtaining money by false pretenses
and larceny, 12-534
Offenses of the same nature, 12-531
Perjury and subornation of perjury,
12-535
Beceiving stolen goods and burglary,
12535
Joinder with larceny, 12-534
Bobbery and larceny, 12-534
Transaction, offenses arising out of
the same, 12-528
JOINDER OF PARTIES, see Indict-
ment AND InFOBMATION; PaBIIES.
JOINT ADVENTURES, see Paetnkr-
SHIP.
JOINT DEBTORS, see Implied and
Express Agreements ; Parties ;
Partnership ; Process.
JOINT STOCK COMPANIES — Cwisult
analysis of this article when pub-
lished. See Associations; Corpora-
tions ; Partnership.
JOINT TENANTS — Consult analysis
of this article when published. See
Lands and Land Transfers;
Parties; Partition; Tenants in
Common ; Title.
Accounts of in equity, 1-274
Attachment, of interest, 3-322
Of property, 3-498
Service on one, 3-678
Costs, 5-838
Disclaimer by one, 7-494
Eminent domain, parties, 8-269
Forcible entry and detainer, writ of
restitution against one, 8-1128
Garnishment, not of joint property on
debt of t)ne, 10-412
Joinder in contract actions, 11-969
JUDGES, see Judicial Officers. See
also Courts; Justices of the
Peace; Trial.
Appointment of, setting forth in cap-
tion, 12-178
Arrest in civil cases, may discharge,
2-m
JOINT TENANTS, contd.
As purchasers, sale of infant's prop-
erty, 12-834
Assistance, writ of, issuance by, 3-153
Attachment, may dissolve at cham-
bers, where, 3-750
Injunction, in absence of, 12-1014
By special judge, 12-1011
Name of, need not appear in caption,
12-177
JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS,
see Judgments; Motions.
JUDGMENT BEOOBDS — Co?wiiZ«
analysis of this article when pub-
lished. See Appeals; Arrest of
Judgment; Bills op Exceptions;
Certiorari; Demurrer; Dismissal,
Discontinuance and Nonsuit; Er-
rors, Assignment op ;_ Judgments;
Jurisdiction; Justices op the
Peace; Mandate; Nul Tiel Rec-
ord; Orders; Pleading.; Process;
Records; Bes Judicata; Returns;
Sentence and Judgment; Verdict;
Writ of Error.
Abatement, pleas of, defects, crim-
inal record, 1-30
Admiralty, entry and enrollment, 1-
549
Affidavits based on, 12-895
Allegations of matters of, 12-901
Amendment, 8-250
Infants, making parties, 12-803
In indictment, 12-110
Appearances, conclusiveness, 2-515
Bills of review, necessity for enroll-.
ment, 4-416
Certiorari, on, basis of review, 11-98
Confirmation of sale, shown on record,
12-840
Decedents' estates, entry of decree^
6-633
Decrees, 6-775
Entry, 6-780*
Recording, 6-782
Default, entry, 6-819, 823
Emancipation proceedings of, 12-807
Forcible entry and detainer, 8-1126
Grand jury, appointment of foreman,
12-101 ,
Organization of, generally, 12-99
Return of, 12-103
Witnesses before, 12-109
Guardian ad litem, appointment of,
10-752
Guardian, appointment, 10-801
Hearing, order for, as part of, 11-10
Indictment, finding of, 12-101, 102
How spread on the record, 12-110
Identifying, on the record, 12-109
83
INDEX
JTTDGMENT BECOSDS, contd.
Indictment, finding of, contd.
Presumptions, where destroyed, 12-
■ 106
Beturn of, shown by, 12-99
Showing organization of the court,
12-108
Juvenile proceedings, 12-872
Pleading matters of, 12-909
Presentment, showiog finding of, 12-
103
Sale of infant's property shows, on
record, 12-844
Suggestion on, of majority of infant,
12-803
Verdict, of, amendment before enter-
ing, 11-690
JUDGMENTS — Conmlt analysis of this
article when published. See Audita
Querela; A&rbbt of Judgmennt;
Bills To Impeach Judgments and
Decrees; Certiorari; Decrees;
Default; Demurrer; Dismissal,
Discontinuance and Nonsuit; In-
quiry, Writ of; Judgment Rec-
ords; Judgments and Decrees, En-
forcement OF; Judgments and
Decrees, Revival of; Judgments,
Satisfaction of; Jurisdiction;
Justices of the Peace; Law of
THE Case; Motions; New Trial;
NuL TiEL Record; Orders; Res
Judicata; Scire Facias; Succes-
sive Suits; Writ of Error;' and
specific titles.
Abatement, judgment on plea of, 1-
70
Accord and satisfaction, in, 1-192
Account stated, 1-262
Accounts, 1-232
Adverse possession, 1-641
Affidavits of defense, partial, 1-716,
717
On failure to file, 1-717
Affidavits of merits, on failure to
file, 1-714
Agreed case, 1-756, 757, 764
Alienating affections, 1-785
Amicable actions, 1-934
Annuities, 1-992
Appeals, see Appeals.
Effect on judgment, 2-325. See
Supersedeas and Stay of Pro-
ceedings.
From final judgment, 11-432
Harmless error, 2-470
Judgment by appellate court, 2-478
Highway proceedings, 11-13-88,
116, 131
Immigration proceedings, 11-904
Infant's appeal, 12-798
JTTDOMENTS^ eanid.
Appeals, contd.
Presumption against error, 2-426
Reversal of judgment, 2-479
Disposition of cause on revem]
2-478, 481
Appearance, after, 2-549
By unauthorized attorney, 2-559
None by agreement without appear-
ance, 2-563
Arbitration, summary in, 2-634
Enforcing award as judgment, 8-
661
Form and amount, 2-639
Review, 2-641
What court may enter, 2-637
When entered, 2-638
Arrest of judgment, not entered for
other party, 2-982
Where complaint incorrectly en-
titled, 12-736
Assignment for creditors, setting
aside, 3-62
Assumpsit, judgment in, 3-214
On foreign judgment, 3-193
Special will not lie, 3-177
Attachment, judgment debts, 3-295
Claim of exemption before, 11-493
f!or transfer by fraudulent judg-
ment, 3-393
In main action, 3-724
Dissolves attachment, 3-813
Vacating, 3-737
In proceedings to abate, or qunshy
3-808
Judgment by confession subject to
attack on, 3-614
Priorities, judgment on relates
back, 3-635
Third party claim, on, 3-669
Attorneys, setting aside disbarment,
3-871
Bastardy proceedings, 4-75
Bonds, form of judgment on, 4-532
Case and question certified, reserved
or reported. Conn., 4-688
Motion for judgment subject to
opinion, 4-741
New York, entry not suspended,
4-736
In appellate division, 4-739
Certiorari, in court of review, 4-948
In highway alteratibn proceedings,
11-137
Commerce court, 5-172
Confession of, by wife against sep-
arate estate, 11-832
By husband to wife, 11-710
Consent, by, against infant, 12-768
Consolidation of actions, but one ren-
dered, 5-276
84
INDEX
JUDGMENTS, conid.
Construction and theory of pleadings,
in support of, 5-357 '
Contempt, in proceedings, 5-410
Statute limiting punishment, 5-416
Contribution, by subrogation to
rights under, 5-500
Not to exceed demand, 5-504
Copyright proceedings, 5-517
Corporations, may confess, 5-549
Form and entry of, 5-668
In general, 5-665
Not against dissolved, 5-669
Correction of, 5-920; 6-837
Costs, 5-788, 917
Correction of, 5-920
Criminal cases, 5-766
Collateral attack on, 5-766
Lien, 5-767
Not before final, 5-906
Offer of judgment, 5-850-873
Entry on, 5-869
On appeal, 5-1014
Court, permission of, to attack judg-
ment against infant, 12-787
Courts martial, sentence, 6-119
Approval of sentence, 6-123
Covenant, action of, 6-162
Creditors* suits, 6-236
As basis of, 6-172
Criminal cases, in, see Sentence and
Judgment.
Cross-bills, on demurrer, 6-290
On bill, 6-293
Customs duties, on appeal, 6-350
Forfeitures, 6-358
Death by wrongful act, 6-456
Debt, action of on judgment, 6-475
Declaration, 6-483
Plea, nil debet, 6-487
Nul tiel record, 6-489
In action of, 6-492
Decedents' estates, claims, orders on
6-533
Decree of distribution, 6-587, 632
On accounting, 6-609
On appeal, 6-539
Sales, order, for, 6-562
Confirmation of, 6-571
Decrees, 6-741
Default, application for, 6-820
Corrected after term, 6-837
Entry, 6-823
In excess of demand, or allegation,
6-833
Void set aside, 6-838
Demurrer, on sustaining, 6-988; 12-
656
On overruling, 6-991; 12-657
Demurrer to evidence, 7-22-24
Departure, when rendered on, 7-143
JT7D0MSNTS, conid.
Deportation, of, findings in,. 11-912
Depositions, not after, 7-214
Detinue, 7-488
Disclaimer, 7-493
Discovery, not after, 7-534
Dismissal, of, 7-654
Final, in highway alteration pro-
ceedings, 11-131
Neglecting to enter, 7-677
Nonsuit, 7-651
Divorce, on report of referee, 7-789
Custody and support of children, 7-
854
Decrees, 7-794
Dower, assignment, 7-883
Damages found before entry, 7-889
Due process of law, criminal sen-
tence, 7-925
Easements, 7-957, 970
Ejectment, 7-1048
Default entered, 7-1035
Elections, in contests, 8-98
On appeal, 8-121
Eminent domain, on setting aside re-
port, 8-316
Final order, 8-325-327
In action for damages, 8-357
Entering, in favor of infant, 12-766
Errors, assignment of, to defects of
form, 8-612
Where not supported, 8-616
Evidence, as, in suits to reimburse
municipal corporation, 11-250
Executors and administrators, 8-747
See supra. Decedents' estates.
Against as defendants, 8-765
De son tort, 8-781
In what capacity, 8-765-772
On bonds, 8-791
Factors and brokers, not several
where joint employment, 8-905
Filing of appelate court decision, 11-
89, 135
Final, where demurrer to indictment
sustained, 12-657
Findings and conclusions, embodied
in, 8-1019
Findings must support, 8-1032, 1064
Where no exceptions, 8-1077
In deportation proceedings, 11-912
Presumption of in support of judg-
ment, 8-1076
Forcible entry and detainer, 8-1123-
1126
Forthcoming bonds, necessity of judg-
ment to sustain, 10-7
Effect of breach, on lien, 10-20
On judgment, 10-21
Summary judgment, 10-25
Fraud and deceit, 10-66
68
Wi
INDEX
JUDGMENTS, eonid.
Frtiudulent conveyancesi judgment is
basis of acUon against, 10-126-
127
Allegation of judgment, 10-171
Attack on judgment, 10-182
Federal judgment as foundation
of action, 10-129
Judgment of other states as
foundation of action, 10-129
Judgment in action to set aside,
10-197
Fl^ight carriers, 10-258
Frivolous and sham pleading, judg-
ment on frivolous, 10-281, 283
Motion for, 10-286
Judgment on sham, 10-291
Qaming, in actions to recover, 10-324
By state, 10-328
For destruction of devices, 10-
334
Oamishment, against garnishee, 10-
567, 697
Based on judgment, 10-385, 471,
668
Of judgment, 10-426
On claims of third persons, 10-559
Guaranty, sepatate judgment against
principal, 10-699
Several against joint guarantors,
10-699
Guardian ad litem, erroneous against
infant, 10-726
Beversible for irregularities in ap-
pointment, 10-745
Vacated by infd.nt, where none, 10-
731
Guardian and ward, of removal of
guardian, 10-813
Adjudication on account, 10-840-
841
Against ward, when, 10-873
In action on bond, 10-898
Habeas corpus, not for excessive sen-
tence, 10-945
On appeal, 10-960
On hearing, 10-948
Health, in summary proceeding for
penalty, 10-985
Heirship proceedings, in, 12-924
Highway tribunal, of, appeal from,
11-88
Collateral attack of, 11-113
Vacated by appeal, 11-60
When reviewable, 11-67
Homesteads, allotting, 11-321, 324
Attacking, 11-392
tn contest of, 11-333, 395
In proceedings to protect, 11-432
Vacating, 11-399
How alleged, 10-171
JUDGlffSNTS^ eontd.
Indian allotment suits, 12-49
Infants, tfgainst, 11-771, 782, 784, 787,
791
Attacking, 12-787
In favor of, when joint, 12-766
Misnomer of infant, effect on judg-
ment, 12-783
Presumptions, as to, 12-771
Vacating, 12-782
Where infant not in esse, 12-774
Injuries from highways, 11-247
Invalidity, averment of a legal con-
clusion, 5-218
Irregular, bona fide purchaser pro-
tected, 12-781
Juvenile proceedings, 12-874, 882
Lien, does not attach to homestead,
11-300
Number of judges, 6-77
Offer of, effect on costs, 5-850
Penalties, in action for, 11-165
Pleadings, judgment on, in indem-
nity, 11-32
Must support the judgment, 11-432
Presumptions, as to allotment of
homestead, 11-324
Sale of infant's property, for, 12-855
Scope of, limited to averments of
complaint, 6-715; 6-833
Striking out, demurrer after, 12-654
Tribal courts, of, nature or, 12-42
Impeaching, 12-42
Vacating, against infants, 12-779
Verdict, conforming to, 11-432
On verdict of guilty, where good
and bad counts, 12-702
Waived of homestead, endorsement
of, on, 11-438
Wife's separate property, 11-832
JODGMEKTB AKB DEOBEES, EV-
FOBOEMEinf OT-— Consult anaiy-
8i8 of this article wJien pvhlith^
See Appeal Bonds; Abbxst in
Civil Cases; Assistance, Writs
OF; Attachment; Audita Qusbela;
Bills To Enk»bcb Degbebs; Con-
tempt; Cbeditobs' Suits; "Ft^Tn}-
ULENT Conveyances; Garnish-
ment; Homesteads and Exemp-
tions; Judicial Sales; Justices
OF THE Peace; Mandamus; Ne
Exeat; Process; Rescue; &e-
TUKNs; Sequestration; Sheriffs,
Constables and Marshals; Sufkbt
SEDEAS. AND StAT OF PROCEEDINGS;
SUPPLe'mBNTABT PB0CEEDIN6S.
Admiralty, of foreign, 1-406
In general, 1-549
Affidavit of defense, 1-666
Annuities, 1-092
86
INDEX
JX7DOMSNTS AND DEOBEES, EK-
FOBGEMENT OF, contd.
Appeals, from orders concerning exe-
cutions, 2-181
Action on judgment pending ap-
peal, 2-326
Appellate court decision, enforce-
ment of, 11-89
Waiver of right by enforcing, 2-
212
Arbitration, award enforced, 2-633,
644
Execution of judgments on, 2-643
Assignment for creditors, execution
against property asigned, 3-51
Belief against unlawful levy, 3-
73
Assistance, writ of, 3-140
How executed, 3-154
Assumpsit, special will not lie on
judgment, 3-177
Attachment, see Attachment.
Execution on attached property, 3-
738
In actions on judgments, 3-343
Intervention by judgment cred-
itors, 3-658
Of property under levy, 3-283
Priority over execution, 3-635-637
Attorneys, authority after judgment,
3-858
Bills of review, necessity of perform-
ance of decree, 4-417
Errors not reviewable, 4-440
Bills to enforce decrees, 4-460
Breach of promise, 4-557
Commerce court, enforcement of com-
mission's orders, 8-161
Copyright proceedings, 5-519
Destruction of means of infringe-
ment, 5-509
Corporations, executions against, 5-
67«
Foreign corporations, 5-744
Order directing stockholders to pay
assessment, 4-25
Costs, civil cases, 5-973, 1022
Criminal cases, 5-768, 790
Against prosecutor, 5-786
Against state, 5-778
Creditors' suits, execution a prerequi-
site, 6-177
Distribution under judgment, 6-248
Supplementary proceedings, as sub-
stitute, 6-185
Decedents' estates, of decree for ac-
counting, 6-611
Of decree of distribution, 6-634
Decrees, 6-786; 8-497
Controlled by court, 6-795
Execution under statutes, 6-787
JXn>OMEKTS AND DE0BEE8, EK-
FOBCEMENT OF, contd.
Decrees, contd.
For custody and support of chil"
dren, 7-856
Deposit in court, of proceeds of exe-
cution sale, 7-150
Detinue, execution, 7^89
Divorce, of alimony, 7-828-841
Dower, assignment, 7-890
Ejectment, writ of possession, 7-1050
Eminent domain, 8-327
Errors, assignment of, on awarding
execution, 8-627
Executors and administrators, of
judgments against, 8-770
De son tort, not against land of
decedent, 8-781
On bonds, 8-792
Forcible entry and detainer, costs
and damages, 8-1128
Writ of restitution, 8-1126
Forthcoming bonds, 10-4, 23
Action on bond, 10-27
Summary execution, 10-26
Fraudulent conveyances, 10-198, 203
Execution in disregard, 10-95
Exhausting legal remedies, 10-122
Necessity for execution before
action, 10-133, 215
Garnishment, issuance and return of
execution, 10-386
Where execution may be taken out,
10-428
Guardian and ward, of decree on ac-
counting, 10-842
Judgment against ward, 10-874
Homesteads, against, 11-343
Injunction to restrain, 11-375
Levy, as prerequisite, 11-352
Sale of homestead, 11-371
Wife as intervener, 11-342
Immigra'tion officers, of penalty im-
posed by, 11-927
Injunction to restrain enforcement
against homestead, 11-89
JUDGMENTS AND DBOBEES, B£-
VrVAL OF — Consult analysis of
thin arttcle when published. See
Bevtvor; Scire Facias.
JXmaMENTS, SATISFACTION OF —
Consult analysis of this article when
published.
Admiralty, 1-550
Attachment, dissolved by, 3-813
Bastardy proceedings, 4-76
Choice of remedies, only one aatlB-
faction, 6-84
Costs, in criminal cases, 5-770
Effect on appeal, 2-209
87
INDEX
JUDGMENTS, SATISFACTION OF,
contd.
Forcible entry and detainer, 8-1129
Guardian ad litem, cannot receive, 10-
736
JUDICIAL DISCRETION, see Judicial
Officers.
Amendment, as to, 1-866, 876, 877,
896, 897, 915
Bail to Chinaman, in granting, 11-213
Of immigration officers, 11-922
JUDICflAL NOTICE — Consult analysis
of this article when published. See
7 Ency. of Ev. 869.
Admiralty, matter in pleadings, 1-
449
Affray, highway public place, 1-727
Charging matters of, criminal plead-
ing, 12-347
Contempt, in presence of court, 5-388,
408
Of court's action, 5-408
Corporations, corporate existence, 5-
642
Court, rules, of, 6-74
Customs and usages, of general, 6-
329
Demurrer, at hearing of, 6-985
Government and its administration,
of, 12-348
Highways, of duty to repair, 11-213
Of nature of, 12-348
Indian reservation, of, 12-40
Pleading facts noticed, 4-120, 169;
6-680
Public statutes, of, 11-892; 12-348
JUDICIAL OFFICEBS — Consult analy-
sis of this article when published.
See also Judges,
Commissioner, insolvent estates, 6-
583
Dower, 7-881
Master in chancery, power to grant
injunction, 12-1009
JUDICIAL SALES — Consult analysis
of this article wheyi published. See
Admiralty ; Creditors ' Suits ;
Decedents ' Estates ; Infants ;
Judgments and Decrees, Enforce-
ment OF; Mortgages; Partition;
Returns ; Sequestration ; and
other specific titles.
Admiralty, 1-551
Appeals from orders, 2-182
Appearance by unauthorized attor*
ney, 2-560
Assistance, writs of, to purchase, 3-
144
Attachment, 3-575
JUDICIAL SALES, contd.
Attachment, contd.
Judgment to direct when, 3-731
Of unliquidated claims, 3-745
Bond of guardian, necessity of, 12-
825
Conclusiveness, 12-847
Collateral attack, infant's prop-
erty, 12-855
Creditors' suits, decree for, 6-242-248
Decedents' estates, 6-543
Disposition of proceeds, sale of in-
fant's property, 12-843
Dower, in assignment, 7-886
Equitable estate of, 12-810
Exemption, assertion of, before, 11-
488
Fraud in, 12-848
Fraudulent conveyances, by judicial
sale, 10-95
Attack on by purchaser, 10-113
Guardian as purchaser at, 12-832
Where sale is without authority,
12-850
Homesteads, application for, as af-
fecting sale, 11-320
Enjoining, 11-410
Exhausting other property, 11-335
Necessity of appraisal, 11-348
Setting aside, 11-414
Indian lands, of, 12-49
Infants' property, conduct of, 12-828
Confirmation of, 12-835
Enjoining, 12-792
Jurisdiction of equity to order, 12-
807
Notice of, 12-827
Purchaser, who may be, 12-832
Setting aside, 12-848
Time and place of, 12-823
Who may attack, 12-851
Who may petition for, 12-815
^Injunction against, 11-381; 12-792
Jurisdiction, of equity to order, sale
of infants' property, 12-807
Of parties and subject matter, 12-
84?
Mortgage foreclosure, on, exemption
claim on, 11-494
Next friend, as purchaser at, 12-833
Notice of, sale of infants' property,
12-827
Parties, jurisdiction of, necessary,
12-847
Proceeds, application of, homesteads,
11-345
Setting aside, by infant, 12-845
Sale of homestead, 11-338
Supersedeas to suspend, 11-331
Wife's separate property, of, 11-832
JURAT, certainty in, 12-291
88
INDEX
JXTBXES AKB J XT B O B S — Consult
ctnalysis of this article when pub-
lished. See Coroner's Inquest;
Grand Jury; Inquiry, Writ or;
Instructions; Issues in PiiEADiNO
and Practice; New Trial; Ob-
jections AND Exceptions; Pro-
vince op Judge and Jury; Special
Interrogatories to Juries; Trial;
Venire de Novo; Verdict; View.
Accounts, right to jury trial, 1-230,
239
Stated trial by, 1-259
Admiralty, jury trial, when, 1-538
Alien, not entitled to, in deportation
proceedings, 11-906
Appeals, conduct, objections below,
2-260
Errors in obtaining, must appear,
2-349
Harmless error, 2-460
Presumption, against error, 2-421
Becord must show duly sworn, 2-
348
Against misconduct, 2-426
Arbitration, waiver of jury not, 2-
594
Submission of issues to, at common
law, 2-663
Arguments before, see Arguments.
Arraignment before empaneling, 2-
868
Arrest of judgment, not for irreg-
ularities or disqualifications, 2-
1024
Insufiicient number, 2-1025
Not for misconduct of, 2-1026
Not for separation, 2-1026
Void venire, 2-1025
Assault and battery, trial by, 3-37, 38
Attachment, trial of claim of third
person, 3-663
Bankruptcy proceedings, jury trial,
3-1001
Bastardy proceedings, trial, 4-73
Challenge, service in previous trial,
1-151
Change of venue, attempt to empanel
before, 4-984
Prejudice in county, 5-12
Consolidation of actions, effect on
challenge, 5-275
Contempt* trial by, 5-403
Contribution, trial by jury, 5-503
Coroner's inquest, 5-527
Corporations, right of jury trial, 5-
664
Related to stockholders, 5-686
Costs, jury no power as to, 5-915
Jurors' fees, 5-938
Court rules, time of demand, 6-61
JUBIES AXTD JTTBOBSv contd.
Courts martial, no right to jury, 6-
116
Cruelty to animals, jury trial in ac-
tion for penalty, 6-321
Default, assessment of damages, no
constitutional right, 6-822
Degree of murder, to ascertain, on
plea of guilty, 11-688
Deportation of Chinaman, on, 11-911
Depositions, use on issue to jury, 7-
399
Dismissal and nonsuit, nonsuit before
submission to, 7-660
Disorderly conduct, trial by, 7-695
Divorce, trial by, 7-789-791
Due process of law, state may abol-
ish, 7-921
Elections, contests, jury trial, 8-59
Embezzlement, number of jury, 8-243
Eminent domain, right to jury trial^
8-299
Trial by jury, 8-317
Equity jurisdiction and procedure,
trial by, 8-496
Errors, assignment of irregularities
as to, 8-573
Executors and administrators, action
on bonds, 8-791
Federal Constitution, under 6th
amendment to, 12-76
Findings and conclusions, not neces-
sary where jury trial, 8-999
Forcible entry and detainer, trial by,
8-1122
Fraudulent conveyances, trial, 10-190
Guardian and ward, trial by at ac-
counting, 10-839
Trial on appeal from accounting,
10-850
Health, no trial by in summary pro-
- ceedings, 10-985
Homesteads, to ascertain value of,
11-369
Incompetents, examination of, 12-16
Juveniles, in prosecutions against,
12-873, 880
Motion to quash indictment, before
swearing jury, 12-635
New indictment on disagreement of,
12-150
Penalty, discretion to fix, in homicide,
11-689
Police juries, authority over high-
ways, 11-58
Polling jury, on verdict, 11-692
Proceedings to exclude Chinese, 11*
909
Waiver of jury, 12-874
89
INDEX
JXJBISBICTIOK — Consult analysis of
this article when published. See
Admiealty; Appearances; Arraign-
ment AND Plea; Certiorari; De-
fault; Due Process op Law;
Equity Jurisdiction and Peo-
cedl^e ; Garnishment ; Habeas
Corpus; Justices of the Peace;
Probate Courts ; Prohibition ;
Privilege; Process; Service of
Process and Papers; Transfer of
Causes; United States Courts;
Venue; and other specific titles.
Abatement, plea of, prayer, 1-44
Time for, 1-52
Transitory action, 1-52
Abortion, jurisdiction where pre-
scription given, 1-95
Drugs sent to another state, 1-96
Accessories, in pla,pe where he acts,
1-133, 135
Statutory provisions, 1-134, 136
Accounts/ jurisdictional amount, 1-
239
Concurrent of, 1-278
In equity, 1-265
Admiralty, 1-350
Appellate, 1-554
Not by amendment, 1-478
Exceptions for want of, 1-470
Facts of averred, 1-453
Possession of res essential, 1-418
Process within, 1-497
Treaties, limiting, 1-382
Adulteration, 1-582
Affray, facts in, 1-726
Agreed case, 1-738
Aliens, 1-791, 801
Actions, against, 1-796, 801
Between, 1-789, 801
By, 1-789, 801
Consul, foreign, 1-802
Crimes of, 1-807, 808
Mandamus to compel, 1-799
Prostitutes, to deport, 11-929
Eaised by demurrer, 1-802
Alleging, Indian depredation suits,
12-49
Amendment, of plea to, 1-850
Jurisdictional facts supplied by, 1-
905; 4-194
Amount, as affected by, highways,
11-142
Animals, offense of driving from
range, 1-975
Another action pending, none in first
1-1003
In different jurisdiction, 1-1003
Appeals, appellate court, 2-145, 154,
330
JUBISDICnONB, contd.
Appeals, contd, ^
Amount in controversy, 2-185
Guardian's accounting, 10-849
Bemission of damages, 2-187
Appearance, aa affected by, 11-63,
73
When attaches, 2-331
Federal questions, to review state
decision, 2-244
From intermediate appellate court,
2-473
In injunction, 12-1011
Lower court must have, 2-138
None to dismiss, 2-386
Partial, appeal, effect, 2-330
Suspended by, 2-324
Notice essential, 2-318
On dismissal of, 2-392
Perfected improperly, highways,
11-71
Presumption, 2-417
Question not raised below, 2-248
Becord must show, 2-345, 346
Beversal for want, 2-479
Time for, statute limiting, 2-303
Appearance, by, 2-491, 522, 527
Unauthorized attorney, 2-559
Mere presence in court, 2-498
Necessary at common law, 2-525
None of subject-matter by, 2-529
Proceedings in rem, appearance
gives no personal jarisdietion,
6-825
Special, 2-505, 521
To object, 2-561
Withdrawal of, 2-565
Apprentices, of actions to release, 2-
579
Arrest in civil eases, pleas of, to af-
fidavit for, 2970
Arrest of judgment, for want, 2-989-
993
Failure to allege, 2-1004
Assault and battery, 3-33
Transitory action, 3-38
Assignment for creditors, pending
action, 3-49
Assumpsit, specially pleaded, 3-190
Attachment, non-residents, no per-
sonal judgment, 3-679-681
Officer's authority, jurisdictional
limits, 3-490
Property within, 3-688
Publication as prescribed, 3-682-691
Service and return of writ, 3-542,
758
Service of process in main action,
3-672, 758
Time of motion to vacate, 3-775
90
INDEX
nJBISBIOTIOK, Cimid.
Attorneys, inherent in courts to dis-
bar, 3-864
Audita querela, to issue, 3-879
Bankruptcy proceedings, 3-940
By filing petition, 3-942
Domicil or place of business, 3-945
Facts stated, 3-962
Suits by trustees, 3-943, 957
Banks and banking, state courts, of
national banks, 4-7
In connection with receivers, 4-26
Offenses against national banks, 4-
42
Of liability over subscription, 4-24
Bigamy, 4-90
Bills and answers, facts in bill, 4-118
Amendments to cure defective, 4-
.194
Jurisdiction clause useless, 4-133
Bills to enforce decrees, 4-462
Bills to impeach judgments and de-
crees, 4-478
Averments, 4-487
Bribery, 4-568
Caption showing, 12-173
Carriers, see Freight Cabsiebs; In-
terstate GoHMERGE; Passen-
gers.
Case and question certified, reserved
or reported, in federal courts,
4-674
Georgia, 4-691
Maine, 4-712
New Hampshire, 4-726
Case, the action on the, in what
courts, 4-639
Certiorari, to grant, 4-900
Inquiring as to jurisdiction of in-
ferior courts, 4-915
Collision, common law, 5-152
Commerce court, 5-155
Commissioner's court, of, 11-139
Commitment of juvenile order must
show, 12-875
Concurrent, injunction where, 12-1016
Consent, by, of accused, 12-77
Contempt, in court where committed,
5-370
Contract labor law, penalties to en-
force, 11-928
Contributing to delinquency of juv-
eniles, 12-880
Contribution, concurrent law and
equity, 5-498
Copyright proceedings, 5-510
Coroner's inquest, none unless death,
5-523
Corporations, conditions precedent, 5-
555
Of actions, 5-576
JUSISDIOnON, conid.
Corporations, contd.
Of foreign, 5-731
Stockholders' suits, in federal
courts, 5-700
Costs, on dismissal for want of jur*
isdiction, 5-846
In appellate court, 6-994, 996
Counterfeiting, federal and state, 6*
2-6
Court of claims, of, over Indian de-
predations, 12-39
Courts, holding within territorial lim-
its, 6-23
Courts martial, 6-98, 101, 106
Habeas corpus, 6-131
Covenant, action of, 6-144
Creditors' bill, exhausting legal reme-
dy, 6-185
Demurrer for want, 6-218
Cross-bill, may supply, 6-269
Cross-complaint, amount involved, 6-
301
Cruelty to animals, 6-314
Action for penalty, 6-321
Customs duties, of general board of
appraisers, 6-339
Action for drawback, in court of
claims, 6-351
Court of customs appeals, 6-345
Forfeitures, 6-356
Protest on appeal jurisdictional, 6-
342
To recover back duties and penal-
ties, 6-352, 353
Death by wrongful act, 6-376
Decedents' estates, appointment of
personal representative, 6-502
Collateral attack, 6-510
Accounts, to set aside, 6-617
Distribution, 6-625
Collateral attack, 6-636
Sales, order for, 6-543, 565
Declaration and complaint, necessary,
6-642
Allegation of facts, 6-674
Decrees, of court to render, 6-745-750
Not supported by pleading, void,
6-751, 756
Default, necessary to proceeding, 6-
806
Divorce of status and of person,
6-814
Service of process beyond effect, 6-
• 819
Demurrer, for want of, 6-892, 936
Specifying grounds, 6-880
Denials, not challenged under gen-
eral, 7-74, 92
Deportation proceedings, of, 11-905.
910
•1
tIfDEX
^XmiSDICTIOlf, eonta.
Deposit in court, to maintain, 7-150
Discovery, equity, 7-516
Examination of party before trial,
7-548
Further relief, 7-520
Of motion to answer interrog-
atories, 7-576
Production of documents, 7-616
Dismissal and nonsuit, for lack of,
7-669
Lost by dismissal, 7-683
Beinstated within term, 7-689
Disorderly conduct, of offense, 7-694
Disorderly house, 7-700
Divorce, of subject-matter and par-
ties, 7-739
Affidavits with pleading, 7-785
Cross-bill, 7-782
Custody and support of children, 7-
853
Setting aside for defects, 7-801
To divide property, 7-850
To grant alimony, 7-817
Dower, 7-866-868
Facts in petition for, 7-875
Easements, 7-955
Statutory, 7-962
Elections, congressional, offenses,
concurrent state and federal, 8-
151, 159
Contests, 8-13
To review, 8-106
Nomination, contests, 8-125
Refusing vote, of action for, 8-138
Begistration, of equity to compel,
8-134
Emancipation proceedings, of, record
must show, 12-807
Embezzlement, 8-209
Eminent domain, in federal courts,
8-264
Equity, 8-387
Conferred by statutes, 8-446
Further legal relief where juris-
diction dependent on discovery,
7-520
Of informations, 12-708
Personal, 8-447
Territorial, 8-448
To allot homestead, 11-388
Error, assignment of unnecessary, 8-
526
Escheat, 8-665
Estoppel, jurisdiction to declare, 8-
680
Executors and administrators, ac-
tions against foreign, 8-775-777
Actions on bonds of, 8-781
De son tort^ of actions, 8-779
JXTBISDIOnOlT, contd.
Extortion, 8-825
Criminal, 8-828
Federal courts, of, over Indians, 12-37
Negativing in' criminal pleading,
12351
Forcible entry and detainer, 8-llOS
Forgery, in what state, 8-1139
In what courts, 8-1139
Fraud and deceit, in equity, 10-44
Fraudulent conveyances, federal and
state, 10-148
Averments, 10-152
Freight carriers, 10-226. See Ikteb-
STATE COMMEBCE.
Allegations in special proceedings,
10-249
Gaming, of action for recovery, law
and equity, 10-321
Destruction of devices, 10-333
Of offenses, statutory, 10-335
Garnishment, 10-471
How questioned, 10-595
Bight of garnishee to question jur-
isdiction, 10-528
Guaranty, of actions on, 1-669
Guardian ad litem, to appoint, 10-719
Guardian and ward, jurisdiction of
guardianship proceedings, 10-779
Accounting, 10-822
Appeal, amount in controversy,
10-849
Collateral attack on appointment,
10-802
Habeas corpus by guardian, 10-818
Notice jurisdictional, of account-
ing, 10-834
Of application for appointment,
10-793
Of action, relating to guardianship,
10-856
Against foreign guardian, 10-903
On bonds, 10-879
Bemoval of guardian, 10-809
Habeas corpus, of restraining party
only, 10-912
Of federal courts,10-914
Of state courts, 10-918
To determine questions of juris-
diction, 10-940
Health of summary proceeding for
penalty, 10-985
Heirs, to determine, 12-918
Highway proceedings, certiorari for
want of jurisdiction, 11-99
Collateral atUck, 11-59, 129
Not affected by appeal, 11-115
Homestead, allotting, 11-320, 323, 353,
387
Contest of allotment, 11-395
92
INDEX
TOKXSDWnoV, oontd.
Immigration officers of, 11-902
Incompetents, estates of, 12-14
Indians, of federal courts over, 12-37
Of state courts over, 12-39
Indictment, quashing for want of
12-633
Information, necessity of filing, 12
117
Equity, jurisdiction of informa
tions, 12-706
Injunction, as depending on amount
12-1019
In general, 12-1009
Justice of peace, actions for penal
ties, 11-142
Over freehold, 11-161
Prosecutions for failure to do road
work, 11-139
Juvenile court, 12-863, 881
Mortgage infant's property, to, 12-857
Municipal officers, over incompetent's
estate, 12-15
Notice of sale of infant's property,
as affecting, 12^27
Objections to, 12-659
Order sale, to, of infant's property,
12-847
Orphans' court, over Incompetent's
estate, 12-15
Penalties, of actions for, highways,
11-161, 168
Personal injury suits, defective high-
ways, 11-198
Pleading jurisdictional facts, in af-
fidavit and information, 12-138
Pleas to, criminal case, 2-888
Not guilty, 2-911
On assumpsit, 3-190
Probate courts, allotting homestead,
11-388, 389, 397
Incompetents' estates, 12-15
Separate estate of wife, 11-827
Settlement contracts, 11-819
Becitals of in default judgment, 6-
840
Betum of indictment, as necessary to,
12-96
Ships, of foreign, 1-792, 797, 800
State courts, over Indian tribes, 12-
39
Territorial courts, in Indian matters,
12-41
Tribal courts, 12-41
As affected by naturalization of
Indian 12-42
How attacked, 12-42
Tribal laws, jurisdiction to construe,
12-42
United States commissioner, in de-
portation proceedings, 11-910
JUBISDIonoir, eontd.
Venue laid within, homicide, 11-585
Violation of immigration laws, 11>
926
Waiver of objections to, 11-161
Warrant, of magistrate to issue, 12-
124
JURY, see Juries and Jurors.
JUSTICES OF THE PEACE — Consult
analysis of this article when pub-
lished. See Indictment and In-
formation ; Preliminary Exam-
ination; Process; Security To
Keep the Peace; Service or Pro-
cess and Papers; Threats; War-
rants'
Appeals from highway proceedings,
11-132
Commitment by, prior to information,
12-612
Coroner, as, 5-525
No presumption of jurisdiction, 5-
535
Costs, action in superior court, 5-877
Creditors' suits, not on judgment
until docketed, 6-184
Criminal complaints, see Indictment.
AND Information.
Administering oath, 12-129, 290
Witnesses, indorsement of, on com-
plaint, 12-293
Extortion, common law jurisdiction,
8-828
Fraudulent conveyances, judgments
as foundation of action, 10-131
Garnishment, property in custody, of,
10-453
Health, jurisdiction of penal actions,
10-993
Jurisdiction, actions for penalties, 11-
142, 161, 168
Prosecutions for failure to do road
work, 11-139
Where freehold involved, 11-161
Warrant, power to issue, 12-124
JU8TIFICATI0M' — Consult analysis of
this artOcle when published. See
Pleas; Undertakings.
Anticipating matters of, 12-350
Appearing on indictment, demurrer
where, 12-648
Motion to quash where, 12-632
Assault and battery, 3-38, 45
Attachment, of sureties on bonds, 3-
459
Druggist, by, 10-992, 993
False imprisonment, 8-968
Forthcoming bond, of failure to de-
liver property, 10-17
Instructions as to, homicide, 11-654
Negativing in verdiet, 11-681
93
INDEX
JT7STIFI0ATI0K, eonid.
Question for jury, 11-650
Shown in affidavit, ground for quash-
ing, 12-632
JUVENlXiE ACTS, see Infants; Bb-
FOBMATOREBS. .
Nature of, 12-863
Prosecutions under, 12-880
JUVENILE COURTS, chancery powers
assumed by, 12-862
Commitment by, 12-862
Jurisdiction, over offense of con-
tributing to delinquency, 12-880
Statutory, 12-863
KIDNAPING — Consult analysis of this
article when published. See Ab-
duction; False Imprisonment.
KNOWLEDGE, see Information and
Belief; Lis Pendens; Mental
State; Notice.
Averment of, in indictment, 11-625;
12-10; 12-11
LABELS, see Copyright Proceedings;
Pure Food Laws; Trade-Marks
AND Trade Names.
LABOB UNIONS — Consult analysis of
this article when published. See
Conspiracy; Monopolies.
Misuse of union label, see Trade-
Marks AND Trade Names.
IaAOHES — Consult analysis of this ar-
ticle when published. See Default;
Limitation op Actions; Waiver.
Accounting, as defense in, 1-294
Account stated, impeachment of, de-
fense, 1-255
Admiralty, in demanding security for
cross-libel, 1-487
In bringing* action, 1-534
Must be pleaded, 1-537
Amendment, right affected by, 1-865,
878; 4-198
Appeals, dismissal for, 2-389, 393, 396
Arbitration, in action for specific per-
formance, 2-661
Assignment for creditors, in claim-
ing benefit, 2-62
In attack, 3-65
Assistance, writs of, in applying for,
3-142
Attachment, may estop, 3-396
Agreement to stay, priorities, 3-607
Belease of, 3-644
Bankruptcy proceedings, in applica-
tion for re-opening, 3-912
Bevocation of discharge, applica-
tion for, 3-931
Bills and answers, in amending, 4-
198
Bills of particulars, in application
for, 4-391
LAOHEB^ CMid.
Bills of review, how available, 4-454
After discovery of new matter, 4-
442
Bills to impeach judgments and de-
crees, in seeking relief, 4-4S9
Certiorari, fefused for, 4-894
In applying for, 4-912
In prosecution of writ, 4-935
•Change of venue, in application, 4-
984; 5-19
Continuance, in applying for, 5-482
Oopvright proceedings, equitable re-
lief, 5-511
Corporations, not imputable to state,
5-598
Stockholders' suits, 5-711
Decedents' estates, setting aside ac-
counts, 6-614
Default, applying for relief, 6-836
Demurrer, in equity, 6-920
Discovery, waiver of right to inspec-
tion, 7-623
DismisssJ, want of prosecution, 7-677-
679
Divorce, in enforcement of alimony,
7-841
As defense, 7-775
Negativing in petition, 7-771
Easements, injunction denied, 7-959
Eminent domain, in seeking equitable
relief, 8-368
Error, assignment of, when noticed
without, 8-531
Praud end deceit, as bar to action
for damages, 10-41
Fraudulent conveyances, allegation of
time of discovery, 10-164
Defense, 10-184
Guaranty, pleading diligence, 10-690,
691, 693
Diligence, question of law or fact,
10-697
When diligence is question between
co-guarantors, 10-702
Highway proceedings, in enjoining,
11-56
Indictment, in quashing, 12-636
Infant, of, in impeaching judgment,
12-789
Setting aside guardian's sale, 12-853
Tribal Indian, of, 12-47
United States, of, as guardian of In-
dian, 12-47
LANDLOBD AMD TEN ANT ~ Cofwitt
analysis of this article when pub-
lished. See EJEorinsNT; Forcible
Entry and Detainer; Implied and
Express Agreements; Lands and
Land Transfers; BdiNis and Min-
erals; NoncE; Public Lands^ Bi-
94
INLBX
IiAKBLOSD AND TEKANT, conid.
LEASE; Replevin; Title; Use and
Occupation; Waste; Writ op En-
try.
Attachment of leasehold interest, 3-
319, 499
Burglary, allegations of ownership, 4-
602
Case, the action on the, by lessor,
obstruction of easement, 4-640
Debt, declaration for rent, 6-482
Disorderly house, joinder of defend-
ants, 7-705
Dower, tenant as defendant, 7-872
Easements, actions concerning, 7-964
Ejectment, intervention by landlord,
7-1021
Eminent domain, parties, 8-268
Porcible entry and detainer, landlord
against intruder, 8-1093
Against tenant holding over, 8-1103
Garnishment of lessee, 10-465
Guardian, lease by, 12-859
Lease of homestead, effect, 11-460
Nil debet j in debt for rent due, 11-
1013
Wife's property, action for rent of,
11-725
LAND OFFICE, see Public Lands.
LANDS AND LAND TBAN8FEBS —
Consult analysis of this article when
published. See Adjoining Land-
owners; Assistance, Writs of
Attachment; Curtesy; Dower
Proceedings To Recover; Ease
MENTS ; Ejectment ; Frauds
Statute op; Indians; Joint Ten
ants ; Judgments and Decrees, En
forcement OF; Landlord and Ten
ANT; Mechanics' Liens; Mines
and Minerals; Mortgages; Parti-
tion; PuBuc Lands; Taxation;
Tenants in Common; Trespass;
Trespass To Try Title; Use and
Occupation; Vendor and Pur-
chaser; Waste; Waters and
Watercourses; Writ op Entry.
Fences, between adjoining landown-
ers, 1-329
Guardian's deed, 12-841
Homestead, cancellation of deed to,
11-381
Incumbrances, nature of agreement
to pay, 12-25
Indians, of, sale of, 12-49
Infant's property, sale of, 12-807
Life estates and remainders, attach-
ment of vested remainders, 3-300
Creditors' suits, parties, 6-200
Ejectment, right of possession, 7-
998-1000
LANDS AND LAND TEAN8FEBS,
contd.
Life estates and remainders, eontd.
Eminent domain, parties, 8-269
Beversions, attachment of vested in-
terest, 3-300
Attachment of vested interest, 3-
300
Case, action on the, injuries to, 4-
630
Allegations of title, 4-647
Easements, holder of reversion as
party to action for obstruction
of, 7-964
Ejectment, as remedy for right of
re-entry, 7-1000
LAB0EN7 — Consult analysis of this
arti^'le when published. See also
Criminal Procedure.
Burglary, joinder with, 12-533, 534
Conclusions of law, charging the of-
fense by name, 12-344, 349
Embezzlement, distinguished, 8-203
Compellixvg election, 12-675
Joinder with, 12-534
From mails, see Post Office.
Housebreaking, joinder with, 12-675
Obtaining money under false pre-
tenses, joinder with, 12-534
Compelling election, 12-675
Becovering stolen goods, joinder with,
12-534
Compelling election, 12-675
Bobbery, joinder with, 12-534
Variance as to, in indictment, 12-593
LAW, see Due Process of Law; Stat-
utes.
LAW AND PACT, QUESTIONS OP,
see Province of Judge and Jury.
LAW OF THE CASE — Consult analy-
sis of this article when published.
See Bes Judicata.
Appeals, subsequent, 2-482, 483
Case and question certified, not te-
examined on writ of error, Conn.,
4-688
Judgment in appellate court, N. Y.,
4-739
Meaning of, 2-140
LAWYEB AND CLIENT — Consult
analysis of this article when pub-
lished. See also Attorneys; Sub-
stitution OF Attorneys.
liEASE, see Landlord and Tenant;
Mines and Minerals ; Publio
Lands.
LEGACIES, see Wills. .
Legality, of contract, when for jury,
11-1056
LEGAL NOTICE, see Notice.
95
INDEX
IiBG^AIa RTSMTiPY — Consult analysis
of this article when published. See
Gbeditors ' Suits ; Fraudulent
€k)NVEYANCBS ; INJUNCTIONS; BeME-
DY; Suits and Actions.
Habeas corpns, other adequate relief,
10-944
Highway obstructions, to remove, 11-
172
Homestead, to protect, 11-414
Information, legal remedy adequate,
12-709
Injunction, legal remedy adequate,
11-269
Mandamus, legal temedy adequate,
12-272
LEGATEES AND DISTEIBUTEES, see
Decedents' Estates; Inheritance.
LEGISLATIVE ACT, see Statutes;
United States.
LEGITIMATION, see Parent and
Child.
LETTERS, see Personal Property;
Post-Office.
LETTERS ROGATOEY, see Deposi-
tions.
LEVEES, see Waters and Water-
. OOUBSES.
LEVY, see Attachkbnt; Garnish-
ment; Judgments and Decrees,
Enforcement of; Justices of the
Peace; Process; Service of Pro-
cess AND Papers.
LEWDNESS — Consult analysis of this
article when published. See Adul-
tery; Disorderly Conduct; Dis-
orderly House; Incest; Obscen-
ity; Post-Oficb; Prostitution.
See also Criminal Procedure,
LEX FOBI, see Remedy.
Amendment controlled by, 1-853
Fraudulent conveyances, what law
controls, 10-91
UBBL AND SLANDEB — Consult
analysis of this article when pub-
lished. See Case (the Action of
Trespass on the) ; Inducement ;
Justification; Privilege.
Bills of particulars, 4-398
Case, the action on the, 4-638
Corporations, liable for libel, 5-562
Of wife, action for, 11-722
Variance, in indictment for, 12-595
LIBEL IN ADMIRALTY, see Admiral-
ty.
LIBEBUM TENEMENTUM, see Tres-
pass.
LICENSEES, see Licenses; Negli-
GEMGB; BAILBOADS.
LICENSES — Consult analysts of this
article when published. See Hawk-
ers AND Peddlers ; Indictment and
Information ; Intoxicating Li-
quors; Internal Revenue; Lands
AND Land Transfers; Municipal
Corporations; Pawnbrokers; Pen-
alties, Forfeitures and Pinik;
Physicians and Surgeons; Tax-
ation; Theatres and Shows.
Automobile, indictment for hanling
without license, 11-259
Druggists, carrying on business with-
out, 10-990
Eminent domain, defense to action
for damages, 8-355
Factors and brokers, want of alleged
as defense, 8-898
Garnishment of money paid for in-
valid license, 10-466
Hawkers and peddlers, allegations in
indictment, 10-973
LIENS — Consult oTMlysis of this ar-
ticle when published. See Admiral-
ty; Architects and Builders;
Inns and Innkeepers; Judgmskts;
Justices of the Peace; Landlord
and Tenant; Marshaling Assets;
ma.ster and servant; mechanics'
Liens ; Pawnbrokers ; Personal
Property ; Pledges ; Proceedings
In Bem; Bailroads; Sales; Sea-
men; Sequestration; Ships and
Shipping; Subrogation; Taxation;
Trover and Conversion; Vendor
AND Purchaser; Warehousemen.
Admiralty, jurisdiction of maritime,
1398
Decree in personam, 1-550
Enforcement in rem, 1-414, 415
Intervention by lienholder, 1-520
Animals, complaint for agistment. 1-
977
Appeals, effect on judgment, 2-326
Attachment, acquired by, 3-589
Appeal, effect of, 3-844
In suits to enforce, 3-347
Lien of judgment delates back to,
3-725
Of lien, 3-279
Priorities, 3-604
Bestoration, 3-647
Vacating by holders of subse-
quent, 3-767
Waiver, 3-639
Case, action on by lienor for in-
juries, 4-631
Conclusions of law, general aver-
ments of, 5-218
Consolidation of actions, foreclosures,
5-268
96
INDEX
LIEKS, conid.
Costs, lien of judgment for in crim-
inal cases, 5-766
■Creditors ' suits, lienholders as parties,
6-198, 199
Judicial sale subject to, 6-243
Deposit in court, to release, 7-147
Divorce, of judgment for alimony, 7-
836
Ejectment, mere lien holder, 7-1017
Eminent domain, by judgment, 8-329
Equity jurisdiction, 8-405
Vendors, parties, 4-458
Exemption contest, effect on, 11-521
Factors and brokers, against goods,
8-867, 868
Forthcoming bonds, paramount liens
on property, 10-18
Effect of breach, 10-20
Liability where other liens, 10-23
Fraudulent conveyance, no action by
lien holder, 10-113
.. Allegation of lien, 10-169
Ascertaining, 10-202
Caming, lien on premises of judgment
for loss, 10-327
Garnishment, debt secured by, 1-424
Lien of, 10-500
Perfected by judgment, 10-582
Priorities, 10-516
Subsequent liens, 10-518
When attaches, 10-508
Of property subject to, 10-443
Guardian ad litem, for services, 10-
768
Homestead allotment, effect on liens,
11-402
Infant's property, on, ascertaining
before sale, 12-822
Judgment, costs in criminal case, 5-
766
Alimony, 7-836 *
Eminent domain, 8-326
On homestead, 11-300
Vendor's lien, homesteads, 11-457
LIFE ESTATES AND REMAINDERS,
see Lands and Land Transfers.
See also Curtesy ; Dower, Proceed-
ings To Recover; Ejectment; In-
heritance ; Parties ; Partition ;
Title ; Waste ; Wills.
LIFE INSURANCE, see Insurance.
LIGHT AND AIR, soo Adjoining Land-
owners.
UMITATION OP AGTlO^l^ — Consult
analysis of this article when ptib-
lished. See Adverse Possession;
Dismissal, Discontinuance and
Nonsuit; Lacues.
Abortion, 1-96
UMITATIOK OF ACTIOire^ cantd.
Account, action on, 1-228
In equity, 1-296
Stated, 1-248
Admiralty, filing libel is commeAee-
ment of action, 1-424
Amended pleading relates back, 1-
928, 929. See New Cause of
Action or Detense.
Amendment of information, 12-557
Annuities, 1-991
Appeals, time of taking, 2-301
Appearance, effect of withdrawal of,
2-565
Architects and builders, 2-708
Assignment for creditors, enforce-
ment of trust, 2-65
To set aside prior conveyance, 3-71
Assumpsit, special plea of, 3-190, 213
Attachment, on forthcoming bond, 3-
671
Attorneys, in disbarment, 3-870
Bankruptcy proceedings, time for
claims, 3-903
Actions by or against trustees, 3-
940
Outlawed debts scheduled, 3-974
Banks and banking, actions for de-
posits, 4-9
Liability of officers, 4-38
On liability over subscription, 4-32
On subscriptions, 4-31
Breach of promise, 4-549
Case, the action on the, 4-662
Charging matters in avoidance, crim-
inal pleading, 12-352
Commencement of suit, in admiralty,
1-424
Burden of proving in action for
death, 6-448
Contempt, 5-379
Copyright proceedings, criminal, 5-511
Corporations, apply to, 5-594
Foreign corporations, 5-735
For mismanagement, 5-696
On stock subscriptions, 5-196
Stockholders' suits, 5-704
Courts martial, 6-127
Covenant, action of, 6-159
Customs duties, for forfeiture, 6-356
Offenses, 6-358
Death by wrongful act, commence-
ment within the time, averment
of, 6-416
Burden of proving, 6-448
Decedents' estates, opening account
in equity, 6-614
Demurrer, 6-918
General or special, 6-926, 931
Particular section of statute, 6-B81
To indictment, 12-652
97
INDEX
LIMITATIOK OF AOTIOKS, contd.
Denials, not- under general, 7-97
Departure, continuing trespass in
reply, 7-139
Dismissal, extended by dismissed ac-
tion, 7-688
Divorce defense, 7-775
Allegations as to required when,
7-771.
Easements, prescription, 7-968
Elections, jurisdictional in contests,
8-62
Eminent domain, actions for dam-
ages, 8-355
Errors, assignment of, plea to assign-
ment, 8-653
Escheat, 8-677
Fraudulent conveyances, allegation of
time of discovery, 10-164
Whether statute applicable, 10-185
Gaming, action to recover money, 10-
325
From owner of premises, 10-326
Actions for penalties, 10-329
Garnishment, cease to run after gar-
nishee process, 10-513
Indictment, as ground for quashing,
12-632
Joinder of defendants, as affecting,
11-979
Notice as bar to, injuries from high-
ways, 11-200
Plea of, criminal case, 2-917
A personal plea, 11-1032
Conclusion of law, 5-224
In assumpsit, 3-190, 213
Not confession and avoidance, 5-
230
Setting aside guardian's sale, 12-853
LIQUORS, see Intoxicating Liquors.
LIS PENDENS — Consult analysis of
this article when published. See
Notice.
Attachment, 3-631, 633
LIST OF EXE^fPTIONS, see Schedule.
LITERARY PROPERTY, see Personal
Property.
LIVEBY STASLB8 — Consult analysis
of this article when published.
LIVE STOCK, see Animals; Freight
Carriers ; Insurance.
LOAN, see Interest; Monet Counts;
Money Had and Received; Pawn-
brokers ; Usury.
LOAN ASSOCIATIONS — Consult
analysis of this article when pub-
lished. See Associations.
LOCAL ACTIONS, see Venus.
LOCAL IMPROVEMENTS, see High-
ways, Streets and Bridges; Mu-
nicipal Corporations; Special As-
sessment; Taxation; Waters and
Watercourses.
LOCAL PREJUDICE, see Changs op
Venue.
LOCATION, see Mines and Minerals;
Public Lands.
LODGING HOUSE KEEPERS, see
Inns and Innkeepers; Landlord
AND Tenant.
LOaS AND LOQQINO — Consult analy-
sis of this article when published.
See Liens; TVork and Labor.
LORD CAMPBELL'S ACT, see Deato
BY Wrongful Act.
LOST GOODS, see Personal Property.
LOST INSTBJnSENTB — Consult analy-
sis of this article wlien published.
See Records.
Account stated may not be im-
peached where, 1-255
Affidavits of merits, lost, 1-710
Arraignment and plea, rearraign-
ment on filing certified copy of
indictment, 2-866
Assistance, writs of, 3-145
Bankruptcy proceedings, proof, 3-901
Indictment, rearraignment on certi-
fied copy, 2-866; 12-150
Pleadings and other records, see
Records.
LOTTEBHiS — Consult analysis of this
article when published. See Gam-
ing ; Post-Opfice.
LUMBER, see Logs and IvOQging.
LUNATICS, see Insane Persons.
MAGISTRATE, see Justices op the
Peace; Preliminary Examination.
MAIL, see Post Office.
MAINTENANCE, see Bastardy Pro-
ceedings ; Champerty ; Husband
AND Wife; Parent and Child.
Champerty, aggravated species, 4-959
Embracery, is form of, 8-252
MALFEASANCE IN OFFICE, see Of-
ficers.
MALICE, see Homicide; Indtotmknt
AND Information; Injuries to
Persons and Property; Malicious
Prosecution; Mental State; Pro-
cess.
Abortion, allegation of malice, 1-102
Homicide in attempting, 11-604
Alienating affections, 1-783
Case, the action on the^ allegations,
4-648
Causp of action for, not where act
lawful, 4-Sl 5-818
Os
INDEX
MALICE, emtd.
False imprisonment, not essential, 8-
916, 965
Special plea of want, 8-970
Homicide, averring malice, 11-618,
620
Instructions as to, 11-659
Where malice implied, 11-620
Malpractice, as element in, 11-621
Question of fact, 11-644
MALIOIOUS MI80HIEF — Con«it»
analysis of this article when pub-
lished. See Tbespabs, See also
Criminal Procedure.
Variance, in indictment for, 12-595
BlALIdOUB PBOSEOUTION — Consult
cmalysis of this article when pub-
lished. See False Imprisonment.
Abuse of process, see Process.
Bankruptcy proceedings, for institut-
ing, 3-1028
Case, the action on the, allegations,
4-655
False imprisonment, distinguished,
8-917
Not joined at common law, 8-967
Of wife, actions for, 11-723
MAXiPRACTICE, see Physicians and
SURflEONS.
Malice, as element in, 11-621
Of lawyer, see Lawyer and Clibnt.
liANBAMUB — Consult analysis of this
article when published. See In-
junctions; Process; Taxation.
Admiralty, use in, 1-423
Affidavits in, 12-898
Another action pending, 1-999
Appeals, to compel allowance of, 2-
298
From decision in, 4-951; 11-107
To compel reinstatement of, 2-397
Where appeal available, 11-106
Arbitration, to compel entry of judg-
ment. 2-638
Attorneys, against disbarment, 3-871
Bankruptcy proceedings, for certio-
rari, 3-1028
Banks and banking, to collect sub-
scriptions, 4-17
Bills of exceptions, to compel exten-
sion of time of settlement, 4-343
To compel amendment, 4-369
To compel settlement, 4-344-348
Bridges, repairing, 11-271
Oase and question certified, to com-
pel, Ga., 4-691
Missouri, 4-726
Texas, 4-752, 755
Oase on appeal, compelling settle-
ment, 4-796
Certiorari, to compel return to, 4-940
MAMDAMTTS^ contd.
Civil rights, schools, 5-127
Commerce court, jurisdiction to issue,
5-158
Common law writ, 12-1008
Complaint for, restoration of high-
way, 11-125
Contempt, to review, 5-430
Costs, against public officer made de-
fendant, 5-825
In highway proceedings, 11-107
Not to compel award, 5-921
Damages, for, highways, 11-112
Decrees, not altered by, 6-795
Demurrer, 6-857, 960
Discretion, not to control, 11-271
Easements, to protect, 7-962
Elections, 8-40, 60
Against voting machines, 8-134
To compel placing on ballot, 8-133
To compel receipt of vote, 8-138
To compel registration, 8-135
To compel review of contest, 8-109
Eminent domain, by owner to compel
condemnation, 8-360
Forfeiture, where, also a remedy, 12-
123
Quardian and ward, by infant to com-
pel appointment of nominee, 10-
805
To court to compel settlement of
account, 10-830
Habeas corpus, to compel hearing but
not issuance, 10-962
Health, to compel board to act, 10-
987
Highways, opening of, 11-90, 105
Bemoving encroachments from, 11-
170
Repair of, 11-123
Restoration of, 11-124
Indictment, also a remedy, 12-123
Information, also a remedy, 12-123
Officers, to compel surrender of
books to successor, 7-474
To obtain commission, 7-474
BCANDATE — Consult analysis of this
article when published. See Ap-
peals; Writ op Error.
Bastardy proceedings, 4-82
Case and question certified, remand,
Wyo., 4763
Enforcement of rescript, Mass., 4-
721
Certiorari, on appeal from court of
review, 4-945
By United States Supreme Court,
4-958
Customs duties, on appeal, 6-349, 351
Detinue, judgment of reviewing
court, 7-^0
99
INDEX
MANDATE, contd.
Highway proceedings, 11-89
Jurisdiction to issue, as affecting in-
junction, 12-1011
Legal remedy adequate, bridges, 11-
272
Mandatory injunction, distinguished
from. 12-1007
Municipal corporations, against, 11-
123
Parties, bridges, erection, improve-
ment and repair of, 11-272
Highways, compelling opening, 11-
106
Compelling repair of, 11-123
Compelling restoration of^ 11-124
Bemoval of obstructions from, 11-
171
Petition for, bridges, repair of, 11-
272
Highways, to compel opening of,
11-106
Bepair of, 11-123
To compel payment of damages
from, 11-113
To remove obstructions from, 11-
172
Beturn to alternative writ, 11-124
Supersedeas, to obtain, 11-331
Where another remedy available, 11-
106
MANSLAUGHTEB, see Homicide.
MABINE INSUBANCE, see Insurance.
MARITIME JTJBISDICTION, see Ad-
MIKALTT.
MABITIME LAW, see Admiralty; Col-
lision ; Insurance ; Navigable
Waters; Piracy; Salvage; Sea-
men; Ships and Shipping.
MABITIME LIENS, see Admiralty;
Liens. See also Maritime Law.
MABKS AND BBANDS, see Animals;
Logs and Logging.
ISABSXAQiE — Consult analysis of this
article when published. See Bigamy;
Breach of Promise; Divorce;
Husband and Wife; Miscegena-
tion.
Fornication, negativing marriage in
charging, 12-351
Incest, allegations in, as to mar-
riage, 12-351
MARSHALING ASSETS — Cofutilt
analysis of this article when pub-
lished. See Equity Jurisdiction
AND Procedure; Mortgages; Sub-
rogation; Wills.
Admiralty, jurisdiction of, 1-401
Bankruptcy proceedings, 3-994
Equity jurisdiction, 8-411
Homesteads, creditors suits, 11-338
MABSHALS, see -MxTKiciPAL Cobpoba-
TioNs; Sheriffs, Constables and
Marshals.
ICABTIAL IiAW — Consult analysis of
this article when published. See
Courts Martial; Jurisdiction.
MASTEB, see Admiralty; Ships and
Shipping.
MASTEB AND SEBVANT — CofiMtt
analysis of this article when pub-
lished. See Apprentices; Case (thb
Action of Trespass on the) ; In-
juries to Persons and Pbopebty;
Labor Unions; Negligence; Par-
ent AND Child; Principal and
Agent; Seamen; Seduction; Work
AND liABOIt,
Burglary, ownership of premises, 4-
603
Case, when for wrongs by serrant,
4-627
Death by wrongful act, allegation of
negligence by servant, 6-421
MASTEB IN CHANCEBY, see JuDicuL
Officers ; Beferences.
MAXIMS — Consult analysis of this ar*
tide when published.
Equity jurisdiction, 8-388
MAYHEM — Consult analysis of this
article when published. See also
Criminal Procedure.
Variance, in indictment for, 12-595
MEASLHtES, see Weights and Meas-
ures.
MECHANICS' LIENS — Consult aiuzly-
sis of this article when published.
See Liens; Mines and Minerals;
Proceedings in Bem; Work and
Labor.
Corporations, may file, 5-564
Homestead, against, 11-342
MENTAL STATE — Consult analysis of
this article when published. See Con-
clusions OF Law; Duress; Felacd
AND Deceit; Homicide; Incompe-
tents; Indictment and Informa-
tion; Injuries to Persons and
Property. See also Intent; Malice.
MENTAL SUFTEBING, see Injltues
TO Persons and Propertt.
MEBITS, see Affidavits of Merits and
Defense.
MESNE PBOFITS — Consult oTialysis
of this article when published. See
Use and Occupation; Writ of En-
try.
Accounting for profits, 1-277
In ejectment, 7-1034
MILITABY LAW, see Courts Martial;
Martial Law; War.
100
INDEX
MILITIA, see Courts Martial; Navy
AND Aricy.
MILK, see Adulteration; Health;
Purs Food Laws.
MINES AND MINEBAIiS — Consult
analysis of this article when pub-
lished. See Grand Jury; Ease-
msnts; Landlord and Tenant;
Lands and Land Transfers; Me-
chanics' Liens; Neoligenoe; Pus-
Lic Lands; Waste; Waters and
Watercourses; Work and Labor.
Discovery, inspection, 7-528
Ejectment, rights, 7-993
MINOB, see Infants.
MINUTES, see Judgment Beoords;
New Trial; Orders; Beoords.
Of court, name of accused entered on
suggestion, 12-550
Order for amendment spread upon,
12-549
MISOEOENATION --Consult analysis
of this article when published. See
also Criminal Procedure,
MISDEMEANOB, see Compounding
Crime; Indictment and Informa-
tion; Juries and Jurors; Process;
Warrants.
Affidavit, prosecution by, 12-86
Charging by name, not sufficient, 12-
344
Complaint for, 12-86
Election of counts, 12-677
Indictment for, 12-74, 80
At common law, 12-74
Demurrer to, 12-657
Joinder in, see infra, Joinder.
Information for, at common law, 12-
84
Joinder of, distinct misdemeanors,
12-526
In indictment, 12-683
With felony, 12-501, 522
Prosecuted by affidavit, 12-86
Bepugnancy in charging, 12-342
MISJOINDER, see Indictment and In-
formation; Joinder of Actions;
Multifariouness ; Parties ; Waiv-
er.
Indictment, in, as ground for quash-
ing, 12-630
Demurrer, 12-651
Of counts in, demurrer, 12-650
Quashing where no election made,
12-633
Information, in, demurrer for, 12-
651
Of offenses, requiring election, 12-681
Verdict, cured by, 12-701
MISNOMEB, see Abatement, Pijsas of;
Certainty in Pleading; Indict-
ment AND Information; Parties.
Abatement, plea of, 1-33
Must give true name, 1-51
Of accused in indictment, 12-627
Plea in abatement where, 12-627
Quash, as ground for motion to, 12-
627
Of infant, as affecting judgment, 12*
783
MISPBISION, see Compounding Crime.
Does not make accessory, 1-131
MISTAKE — Consult analysis of this
article when published. See Amend-
ments AND Jeofails; Equity Jur-
isdiction AND Procedure; Reforma-
tion; RESaSSION AND CANCELLA-
TION.
Account stated impeached for, 1-250,
252, 254
Affidavit of merits to relieve from,
1-659
Allegation of, 4-127; 4-475; 5-215; 5-
200
Alteration of instruments to correct,
1-824
Appearance by, withdrawal, 2-564
Arrest in civil cases, in affidavits, 2-
943, 961
Assumpsit for money paid under, 3-
202
Bigamy, mistake of law no defease,
4-98
Bill in equity, allegations of, 4-127
Bills and notes, allegations, 4-277
Bills of exceptions, resettlement, 4-
355
Bills to impeach judgments and de-
crees, for mistake, 4-475
Compromise and settlement, allega-
tions in bill to set aside, 5-200
Conclusions of law, allegations of mis-
take, 5-21^
Construction and theory of pleading,
5-341
Continuance, as ground for, 5-468
Default, as ground for relief, 6-826
Demurrer, for mistake of remedy, 6-
910
Depositions, in notice, 7-285
Correcting, in commission or re-
turn, 7-384
Returns, 7-369
Equity jurisdiction, 8-418; 11-109
Express contract, in, 11-955
(Garnishment, payment by garnishee
under mistake, 10-520
Recovery back, 10-589
Grammar, in, effect on pleading, 12-
311
H
101
INDEX
IflSTASE^ eonid.
Grand jury, juror summoned by, 10-
610
Guardian and ward, correction of in-
ventory, 10-817
Homestead allotment, impeaching for
mistake, 11-365
Judicial sale, as affecting, 12-848
Name of court, effect on indictment,
12-608
Of offense charged, effect on plead-
ing, 12-345, 346
Boad, correcting mistake in, 11-109
Schedule, of exempt property, as
ground for amendment, 11-511
Setting aside indictment for, 12-608
Settlement contracts, as ground for
reformation of, 11-820
Spelling, in criminal pleading, 12-311
Vacating judgment against infant, as
ground for, 12-782
MISTKrAL, see New TrIal.
MITTIMUS, see Commitment,
MIXED ACTIONS, see Forms of Ac-
tion; Beal and Mixed Actions.
MOB, see Ajtray; Conspiracy; Biot;
UNLAwrxjL Assembly.
MODIFICATION OF CONTBACT, com-
mon counts on, 11-951
Instructions as to, 11-1070
Pleading, 11-994
MONET COUNTS — Consult analysis of
this article when published. See Ac-
count AND ACCOUNTINO; ASSUMP-
SIT; Money Had and Begeived.
MONET HAD AND BECEIVED —
Consult analysis of this article when
published. See Assumpsit; Money
Counts.
MONEY LENT, see Money Counts.
MONEY PAID, see Money Counts.
MONEY PAID INTO COUBT, see De-
posit in Court.
MONOPOLIES — Consult analysis of
this article when published. See
Labor Unions; Bestraint of
Trade.
Conspiracy, civil, treble damages, 5-
323
MOBTQAQES — Consult analysis of this
article when published. See Chat-
tel Mortoaoes; Implied and Ex-
press Agreements; Liens; Bail-
roads.
Admiralty, no jurisdiction, 1-391
Assistance, writ of, on foreclosure
sale, 3-144
Attachment, of interest under, 3-314
Debt secured by, 3-324
For fraudulent conveyance by, 3-
9S5, 386, 391
MOBTOAOE8, eontd.
Attachment, contd.
Intervention, 3-658
Notice of claim of mortgagee, S-
655
Priority over, 3-627
Children as parties, foreclomire on
homestead, 11-378
Confirmation of guardian's mortgage,
12-859
Consolidation of actions, foreclosnrefl^
• 5-268
Contribution, action accrues from re-
demption, 5-501
Corporation, parties in foreclosore,
5-613
Costs, in redemption suits, 5-829
Offer -of judgment, 5-853
Creditors suits, assignments, parties,
6-200
Decedents ' estates, application to sell,
mortgagee as party, 6-548
Ejectment, by mortgagee of home-
stead, 11-376
Eminent domain, parties, 8-268
Equity jurisdiction, 8-403
Parties, 8-458
To order mortgage of infant's prop-
erty, 12-807
Exemption claim, interposing, on fore-
closure, 11-420, 494
Bight of mortgagee to assert, 11-
479
Forcible entry and detainer, mort-
gagees as parties, 8-1100
Foreclosure, claiming exemption on,
11-420, 494
On homestead premises, 11-376
Defense of homestead exemption,
11-420
Exhausting other property, 11-
337
Parties, 11-377, 379
Pleading, 11-379, 419
Beceiver pending, 11-376
Fraudulent conveyances, mortgagee aa
party to action on, 10-147
Setting out incumbrances, 10-171
Garnishment, allowed in foreelosore,
10-383
Of secured debt, 10-424
Of surplus, 10-445
On incompetent's estate, 12-19
Guardian, by, order of court, 12-859
Homesteads, 11-337, 374
Foreclosure, 11-337, 376, 379, 419
Bemedy by mortgagee, 11-375
Who may question, 11-376
Incompetent's estates of, 12-19
Infant's property, of, jurisdiction to
order, 12-807, 857
m
INDEX
MOBTaAGES, eontd.
Order of court, on, 12-807, 857
Personal property of ward, of, 12-861
Receiver, pending foreclosure, 11-376
Sale of homestead, enjoining, 11-381
Waiver of homestead, in, 11-436
MOTIONS — Consult analysis of this
article when published. See Coubts;
Filing ; Judgments ; Objections
AND Exceptions; Orders; Peti-
tions; Striking Out and With-
drawal.
Abatement by, 1-38
Admiralty, 1-489
For dismissal, 1-530
Of appeal, 1-562
To enter satisfaction of deereB, 1-
550
Affidavit of merits, to strike out, 1-
707
Affidavits to support, motion to
quash indictment, 12-638
Aliens, to remand cause removed, 1-
805
Ambiguity, to correct, 6-906
Amendments, for leave to make, 1-
890
Amicus curiae, by, 1-937
Appeals, as part of record, 2-885, 337
For appeals, 2293
For dismissal of, 2-391
For rehearing, 2-406
For reinstatement of, 2-396
Appearance by, 2-493
Arbitration, to vacate awards, 2-628,
639
Arrest in civil cases, for relief, 2-971
Arrest of judgment, 2-1030
Amending indictment before, 12-547
For alterations in indictment, 12-
321
For substantial defects in indict-
ment, 12-698
Assistance, writ of, to restrain exe-
cution, 3-157
To set aside, 3-157
Attachments, to dissolve or vacate,
3-747, 771
Of homestead, 11-414
To quash for want of affidavit, 3-
398
Audita querela, by motion instead,
3-877
Bankruptcy proceedings, for adjudi-
cation on pleadings, 3-983
Bills and answers, to amend bill, 4-
204
To amend answer, 4-213
Bills of exceptions, collateral mo-
tions, 4-303
MOTIONB^ contd.
Bills of exceptions, contd.
Not incorporated by reference in,
4-316
To amend, 4-366
To strike out, 4-370
Bills of particulars, to obtain, 4-390
Case and question certified for judg-
ment subject to opinion, N. Y.,
4-741
Case on appeal, time to serve, 4-784
Discretion of judge, 4-790
Certain, motion to make, 4-859; 5-
227; 6-906
Averment of representative ca-
pacity, 8-741; 10-870
Injuries from highways, 11-229
Certificate of probable cause, motion
papers, 4-877
Certiorari, to dismiss, 4-933
Change of venue, 4-972; 5-1
Commerce court, reduced to writing,
5-171
Conclusions of law, to make certain,
5-227
Consolidation of actions, 5-269
Continuance, 5-473
Hearing, 4-489
Contribution, enforced by motion, 5-
500
Corporations, to quash return of serv-
ice of process, 5-630
Costs, for taxation, 5-925
To correct judgment, 5-920
To retax, 5-957
Criminal case, 5-766, 788
In appellate court, 5-1020
To stay until payment in former
action, 5-972
Courts, equal division, denied, 6-81
Creditors' suits, to dismiss, 6-186
Cross-bill, to strike out, 6-290
Decrees, to set aside pro confesso, 6-
768
To alter, 6-796
Default, for relief, 6-834. See also
Affidavits of Merits and De^
FENSE.
Demurrer, distinguished, 6-851
With motion to strike, 6-868
Demurrer to evidence, motions equiv-
alent, 7-26
Denials, notice of defense, remedy
for insufficient, 7-84
To strike out specific, 7-106
Departure, to strike out, 7-141
Deposit in court, to require, 7-153,
154
For distribution or withdrawal, 7-
171
103
INDEX
MOTIONS, contd.
DepoBitionSy application to take, 7-
219
To suppress, 7-441
Discovery, examination of party, to
limit, 7-573
For inspection of documents, 7-607
Hearing of motion for, 7-578
To answer interrogatories, 7-576
To make answers definite and cer-
tain, 7-603
To produce documents, 7-607, 613
Renewal, 7-642
To strike out interrogatories filed,
7-595
Dismissal, for, 7-680
Appeal, of, infant's appeal, 12-796
In highway proceedings, 11-62,
132n, 133, 265
Bill, for want of prosecution, 11-6
Complaint, because incorrectly en-
titled, 12-736
Divorce, to set aside, 7-800
Application for alimony, 7-831
Duplicity, as remedy for, 7-946
Quashing indictment for, 12-629
Election, between counts to compel,
12-671
Of offenses, to require, 12-684
Embezzlement, to quash, 8-243
Equity, dismissal of bill, 8-479
In interlocutory proceedings, 8-491
To take answer from files, 8-485
To vacate, pro confesso, 8-472
Errors, assignment of, for new trial,
8-618-626
For directing verdict, 8-626
Exhibit, on failure to file, 8-805
Findings and conclusions, requests
for, 8-1001-1009
For additional, 8-1069
Forcible entry and detainer, to dis-
miss for misjoinder, 8-1106
To quash complaint, 8-1118
Formal defects, 6-891
Frivolous and sham pleading, motions
as, 10-276
Notice required to strike out, 10-
282
To strike out, frivolous, 10-284-286
Sham, 10-292-300
Garnishment, for judgment on an-
swer of garnishee, 10-574
On defects in procedure, 10-596,
597
Grand jury, to correct record, 10-664
Guardian ad litem, to vacate judg-
ment for failure to appoint, 10-
731
To appoint, 10-733
Stating consent of, 10-744
MOTIONS^ contd.
Guardian and ward, to make specific
representative capacity, 10-870
Habeas corpus, to quash writ, 10-92
On return of writ, 10-932
Process, to quash return on, 5-630
Specific, to make, see supra. Certain.
Homestead, to confirm sale of, 11-414
To vacate orders allotting, 11-399
Indictment, to quash, resubmission
after, 12-146
Affidavits to support, 12-638
After withdrawal of plea, 12-636
Answer to, 12-636
Appeal from decision on, 12-644
Argument on, 12-637
Basis of, 12-612, 637
Another accusation pending, 12-
631
Bar of limitations, 12-632
Constitutional grounds, on, 12-
631
Date, incorrect, 12-628
Description of defendant erron-
eous, 12-627
Drawn by unauthorized attorney,
12-614
Duplicity, for, 12-629
Evidence before grand jury, for,
12-620, 624
For defects on face of record,
12-627, 632
For erroneous charge to grand
jury, 12-627
Improper filing, 11-624
Incorrect list of grand jurors, 12-
631
Indorsement, incorrect, 12-624
Irregularities in grand jury, 12-
614, 620
Justification shown in charge, 12-
632
Misjoinder, /or, 12-630, 681, 685
Misnomer of accused, 12-627
No offense stated, 12-628
Return, for improper, 12-626
Statement of prosecuting attor-
ney, errors in, 12-618
Unauthorized person before jury,
12-618
Uncertainty for, 12-628, 633
Variance, for, 12-630
Witnesses before grand jury, un-
authorized examination of,
12-619
Discretion of court as to, 12-636,
640
Quashing sua sponte, 12-633
Form of, 12-633
Befusal, as ground for new trial,
12-643
104
INDEX
MOTIONS, contd,
Befusal, contd.
Eesub mission, on ctustaimng mo-
tion, 12-146
Review of decision on, 12-643
Scope of, 12-605
Time for making, 12-634
To what court addressed, 12-633
To what directed, 12-643
Where one good count, 12-642
Information, to quash, grounds for,
12-637
Another accusation pending, 12-631
Defects apparent on record, 12-627
Duplicity, 12-629
Filed too late, 12-626
Or without leave, 12-614
Lack of signature, 12-630
Uncertainty, for, 12-628
Variance, because of, 12-630
Verification, where wanting, 12-630
Instructions as to, homicide, 11-658
New trial, for, as ratification of pro-
ceedings against infant, 12-781
Demurrer, because of overruling,
12-658
In indictment, 12-661
Quash levy, to, of execution on
homestead, 11-414
Receiver to appoint, exemption as-
serted pending hearing of, 11-495
Record made complete, to have, 12-
845
Set aside judgment, to, against in-
fant, 12-785
Indictment, to set aside, 12-605
Stay levy, to, on homestead, 11-414
Strike out, see Striking Out and
Withdrawal.
To compel election between counts,
12659
MOTOB VilHlOLES — Consult analysis
of this article when published. See
Highways, Streets and Bridges;
Injuries to Persons and Proper-
ty; Negligence; Railroads.
Indictment, for illegal operation of,
11-258
For speeding, 11-259
For want of license, 11-259
Injuries from, complaint for, 11-254
ISXJJjTIFABlOVSNEa^— Consult analy-
sis of this article when published.
See Bills and Answers; Dupli-
ity; Equity Jurisdiction and Pro-
cedure.
Accounting, 1-290
Bills and answers, amendments after
demurrer sustained, 4-198
Certiorari, in writ of, highway pro-
ceedings, 11-97
UnTLTIFABIOTTSNESS, contd.
Corporations, stockholders' suits, 5-
715
Creditors' suits, 6-217
Demurrer, 6-904, 936
Fraudulent conveyances, in action to
set aside, 10-174
Injunction and cancellation, 11-384
MULTIPLICITY OF SVITS — Consult
analysis of this article when pub-
lijihed.
MXTNICIPAL OOBPOBATIONS — Con-
svlt analysis of this article when
published. See Highways, Streets
and Bridges; Injunctions; In-
juries to Persons and Property;
Judgments and Decrees, Enforce-
icENT OF; Mandamus; Neguoence;
Officers; Pensions and Bounties;
Public Service Corporations ;
Schools and School Districts;
Special Assessment; States and
Territories; Taxation.
Amendments by favored, 1-864
Animals, indemnity for sheep, 1-957
Action on indemnity paid, 1-958
Appeal bonds, exemption, 2-78
Appeal by, injuries from highways,
11-247
Appearance of, 2-519
Bridges, liability for injuries from,
11-276
Indictment against for failure to
repair, 11-272
Case and question certified, not on
ordinances, Ga., 4-690
On ordinances in 111., 4-692
Change of venue, actions local, 5-9
Corporations, power as, 5-550
Service of process, 5-626
Costs, in criminal case, when liable,
5-772
Amount recovered against, 5-882
Creditors' suits, 6-195
Ejectment, for streets, 7-988
Elections, contest of decisions, 8-23
Electricity, liability when furnishing,
8-171
False imprisonment, not liable, 8-958
Forcible entry and detainer action
against, 8-1105
Garnishment, not liable, exceptions,
10-399
Public funds, 10-452
Highways, collecting for improve-
ments in, 11-125
Liability for injuries from, 11-210
Mandamus to compel repair of, 11-
123
Prosecution for failure to repair,
11-116
105
INDEX
MUNICIPAL OOBPOBATIONS, contd.
Indictment against, 11-272
Informations, against municipal offi-
cers, 12-709
Judicial notice of, 5-642. See 7
Ency. of Ev. 1020.
Reimbursement of, for damages paid
for highway injuries, 11-249
MITRDER, see Homicide.
MUSEUM, see Theatres and Shows.
MUSICAL COMPOSITIONS, see Per-
sonal Property.
MUTUAL AID SOCIETIES, see Bene-
FECIAL ASSOCIATIONS.
MUTUAL- BENEFIT INSURANCE, see
Insurance.
NAMES — Consult analysis of this ar-
• ticle when published. See Abate-
ment, PtEAS OF; Abbreviations;
Bills and Answers; Certainty in
Pleading; Declaration and Com-
plaint; Indictment and Informa-
tion; Variance and Failure op
Proof.
Amendment as to, in information,
12-561
Indictment, in, dispensing with al-
legations of, 12-298
Judge of, setting forth in caption,
12-177
Misspelling, in indictment or infor-
mation, 12-315
Mistake in, generally, in indictment,
12-317
Of accused, alteration in, as ground
for arrest of judgment, 12-321
Of court, mistake in, effect on in-
dictment, 12-608
Offense, of, necessity of charging,
12344
Repugnancy, in charging as to, 12-
341
NATIONAL BANK, see Banks and
Banking.
NATIONAL GOVERNMENT, see
United States.
NATURALIZATIOK — Consult analysis
of this article when published. See
Immigration.
Of Indian, effect on jurisdiction of
tribal court, 12-42
KAViaABLE WATBBS — Consult
analysis of this article when pub-
lished. See Admiralty; Colusion,
Seamen; Ships and Shipping;
Waters and Watercourses.
Offense committed on, pleading venue,
11-589
NAVIGATION, see Navigable Watebs.
See also Admiralty; Collision;
Freight Carriers ; Interstate Com-
merce; Liens; Passengers; Sea-
men; Ships and Shipping.
NAVY AND ABXT — Consult analysis
of this article when published. See
Courts Martial; Martial Law;
Pensions and Bounties; War.
Apprentice's release by habeas cor-
pus, 2-585
NE EXEAT — Consult analysis of this
article when published. See Bills
and Answers; Judgments and De-
crees, Enforcement of; Prayer;
Process.
Affidavits to obtain, 12-899
Bill in equity, prayer for, 4-142, 145
Verification of, 4-148
Divorce, 7-752
Alimony, 7-819
Jurisdiction, 8-444
NEGATIVE PREGNANT, 2-56; 7-41
NEGATIVING EXCEPTIONS, see In-
dictment AND Information; In-
toxicating Liquors.
NE0LIOENCB — ConstUt analysis of
this artiele when published. See
Adjoining Land Owners; Ani-
mals; Case (the Action op Tres-
pass ON THE); COLLISION; DSATH
BY Wrongful Act; Freight Car-
riers; Highways, Streets and
Bridges; Injunctions; Injttiies
TO Persons and Property; Land-
lord AND Tenant; piaster and
Servant; Mines and Minerals;
Municipal Corporations; Passen-
gers; Physical Examination;
Physicians and Surgeons; Rail-
roads ; Ships and Shipping ; Street
Railroads; View; Warehousemen;
and other specific titles.
Account stated, impeachment denied
for gross, 1-255
Adjoining land owners, lateral sup-
port, 1-320, 322, 324
Blasting, 1-325
Contributory, 1-324
Admiralty, contributory not absolute
defense, 1-537
Pleading, 1-456
Altered instrument, blank spaceSy 1-
828
Animals, contributory, negativing by
injured, 1-951, 952
By keeper, 1-951,. 953, 957
Infection of, contributory, 1-961
Bailee, of, see Personal Property.
Bills of particulars, 4-398
Case, proper remedy, 4-615
106
mmi
Case, contd.
Contributory under general iBsne,
4-661 *
For indirect injuries, 4-634
Necessity of allegation, 4-649
Cause of action for, 4-814, 819
Conclusions of law, general allegation,
5-221
Contributory, adjoining landowners,
1-324
Admiralty, in, 1-537
Animals, 1-951, 961
Certainty in pleading, 4-850
Death by wrongful act, 6-418, 437
Electricity, 8-189
General denial, proof under, 7-95
General issue, under, 7-73
Negativing, in implied indemnity,
12-32
Injuries from highways, 11-216,
280
Criminal, see Homicide; Indictment
AND Information.
Homicide by, 11-601
Question of fact, 11-640
Death by wrongful act, allegation of,
6-419
Contributory, burden of proof, 6-
448
Instructions, 6-446
Plea of, 6-437
In another state, 6-378
Electricity, allegations, 8-171
Children, 8-194
Contributory, 8-178, 189
Instructions, 8-181
What is, 8-186
Freight carriers, no allegation neces-
sary, when, 10-246
Negativing in defense, 10-254
Question for jury, 10-257
Health, action for negligence by
druggist, 10-995
Highways, injuries from, negativing
contributory negligence, 11-216,
280
Pleading, 11-214
Homicide by, 11-601
Implied indemnity, in, 12-32
Pleading, injuries from bridges, 11-
278
Injuries from highways, 11-214
Manner of, 11-216
Province of judge and jury, 11-238,
241, 282
Several acts, separate statement, 7-940
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS, see
Bills and Notes.
NEGROES, see Civil Bights; Mis-
cegenation.
NETTTBALITT LAWS — Con«wit analy-
sis of this article when publish^.
See War.
Admiralty, no release where viola-
tion of, 1-509
NEW CAUSE OF ACTION OB DE-
FENSE— Consult analysis of this
article when published. See Amend-
ments AND Jeofails; Cause of Ac-
tion; Parties; Striking Out and
Withdrawal.
NEWLY DISCOVERED EVTDBNCE,
see Bills of Review; New Trial.
NEW MATTER, see Confession and
Avoidance; Denials.
Answer containing, 2-37
Information and belief, alleging on,
12-905
NEWSPAPERS — Consult analysis of
this article when published. See
Post-office; Service of Process
AND Papers.
NEW TBIAL — Consult analysis of this
article when published. See Ap-
peals; Instructions; Juries and
Jurors; Justices of the Peace;
Motions; Orders; Perjury; State-
ment AND Abstract of Case;
Venire de Novo; Writ of Error.
Abortion, verdict contrary to evi-
dence, 1-121
Newly discovered evidence, 1-121
Admiralty, 1-555
Agreed case, motion for, appeal, 1-
767
Amendment of information after, 12-
557
Amendment of motion for, 1-849
Appeals, from orders concerning, 2-
181
Discretion, review on, 2-454
Limitation extended by motion,
where, 2-305
Motions, as part of Record, 2-339,
340
Necessity for, 2-288; 3-844; 4-
699; 11-403
Power to grant when suspended by,
2-328
Rulings based on evidence, 2-447
Appearance, special for, 2-561
Arbitration, motion for after judg-
ment on award, 2-641
Arguments, for improper reference to
failure of accused to testify, 2-
783, 851
Arraignment and plea, unnecessary,
2-867
Bastardy proceedings, 4-78
Bigamy, 4-100
107
INDSl
KiEW TBIAL, conid»
Bills of exceptions, motion extends
time for settlement, 4-339
Case and question certified, motion
for, necessary in Ind., 4-699
Exceptions heard on motion for,
N. Y., 4-737
Not on undisputed facts, N. Y.
4-740
Change of venue, after new trial
granted, 5-22
Conspiracy, to one jointly convicted,
5-321
Criminal conversation, newly discov-
ered evidence, 6-257
Death by wrongful act, 6-456
Default, at trial, 6-839
Demurrer, for overruling, to indict-
ment, 12-658
Demurrer to evidence, may be granted
on sustaining, 7-24
Depositions, on application, use, 7-398
Objections at second trial, 7-451
Used in second, 7-400
Disclaimer, 7-496
Divorce, 7-792
Easements, 7-971
Election between counts, motion to
compel, for ruling on, 12-672
Elections, in contests, 8-101
Embezzlement, 8-250
Eminent domain, 8-322
Error, assignment of, 8-618
Findings and conclusions, for errors
in, 8-1066
Forcible entry and detainer, 8-1126
Frauds, statute of, question raised at
new trial, 10-81
Fraudulent conveyances, in action to
set aside, 10-197
Homestead, of order allotting, 11-399
Indian depredation claims on, 12-50
Indictment, based on insufficiency of,
12-61
Befusal to quash, 12-643
Infants, in actions concerning, 12-
792
Motion, before or after motion in
arrest, 2-1032
By infant at majority, 12-781
Failure to move for, as waiver, 12-
781
Newly discovered evidence, 1-121; 6-
257
NEXT FRIEND, see Guardian ad
Litem.
Bond by, on execution sale, 12-792
NIGHT-WALKER, see Prostitution.
NIL DEBET, 7-63 . See Assumpsit;
Debt; Pleas.
In debt on simple contract, 11-1013
NOLLE CONTENDERE, 2-905
NOLLE PROSEQUI — Con^tiU analpsiif
of this article when published. See
Dismissal, Disoontinuance akd
Nonsuit; Indictment and Intob-
mation.
Indictment, 12-150
As to some counts in, 12-546, 642,
687
Misjoinder, to cure, 12-498
NOMINATIONS, see Elections.
NON ASSUMPSIT, 7-62. See Assump-
sit.
NON CEPTT, see Replevin.
NON COMPOS MENTIS, see Insans
Persons.
Non damnificatus, indemnity, pica in,
12-31
NON DETTNET, 7-64, see Detinue.
NON EST FACTUM, see Covenant, Ac-
tion OF; Debt; Denials.
NON JOINDER, see Parties; Succi»-
sive Suits.
NON-JUDICIAL DAY, see Sunday and
Holidays.
NONMAILABLE MATTER, see Post-
Office
NON OBSTANTE VEREDICTO, see
Judgments ; Trial ; Verdict.
NON-RESIDENTS, see Jurisdiction;
Removal of Causes; Security for
Costs; Service of Process ani>
Papers; Venue.
Attachment, bond when against, 3-
445
Cause of action against, 3-346
Non-residence ground for, 3-351
Not absconding debtors, 3-369
Garnishment of, 10-473
NONSUIT, see Dismissal, Discontik-
UANCE AND NONSUIT.
NOTABIES — Consult analysis of this
article when published. See Bonds;
Depositions; Officers.
Affidavits before, 12-131
Attachment, powers to issue writs, 3-
466
Criminal proceedings, administering
oaths in, 12-129, 290
NOT GUILTY, see Arraignment and
Plea ; Denials.
NOTICE — Consult analysis of this ar-
ticle when published. See Lis Pen-
dens; Motions; Newspapers; Pro-
cess; Service of Process and
Papers; Suits and Actions. See
also Demand,
Accounting, by master, 1-309
Account stated, knowledge of error,
1-254
108
INDEX
KOTICS, 6onid»
Adjoining landowners, intention to
excavate, 1-322
Admiralty, of intervention, 1-523
Of appeal, 1-564
Of hearing on reference, 1-544
Of judicial sale, 1-552
Agent, by, of injuries from highways,
11-201
Allegations of, 11-223
Amendment, right affected by pre-
vious knowledge, 1-865
Of motion for, 1-894
Informations, 12-559
Animals, vicious propensities of^ 1-
946
Allegation of scienter, 1-950, 953,
957
Appeal bonds, allegation in action
on, 2-101
Implied of propensities of wild, 1-
946
Of sale of impounded, 1-982
Appeals, of, 2-293
Chinese exclusion proceedings, 11-
915
Contents of notice of, 2-314
Decedents' estates, 6-537, 5^6
Infants, in actions respecting, 12-
796
In highway proceedings, 11-72, 132
Jurisdictional, 11-73
Of application for rehearing, 2-408
Proof of filing, 11-73
Sufficiency of filing, 11-74
To limit time for, 2-306
Appearance, by, 2-493
Entitles te, 2-551
Of proceedings after, implied, 2-
520
Of retainer and, 2-497
Appraisement, of, exemptions, 11-515
Apprentices, to parents of, 2-575
Arbitration of adjourned meetings,
2-611, 612, 613
Of consultation, 2-611
Of filing award, 2-635
Of hearing, 2-609, 612, 613
To arbitrators, 2-599
Umpire, appointment of, 2-622
Arrest in civil cases, of application,
2-926
Of motion to discharge, 2-972
Assignments, pleading, 3-128
Defense, injury by want of, 3-134
Effect of notice, 3-629
Assistance, writ of, of application, 3-
149
Attachment, of appearance, 3-699
Of application to amend return, 3-
548
NOTICE, contd.
Attachment, conid.
Of levy, 3-532, 541
By publication, 3-541
Of motion to vacate, 3-776
Of sale, 3-580.
Publication of process in main ac-
tion, 5-690
Third party claims, 3-651
Bankruptcy proceedings, composi-
tion, 3-915
Application for discharge, 3-919
Of examination of bankrupt, 3-985
To discharge from arrest, 3-989
Bills and notes, plea not bona fide
holder, 4-280
Denial of notice, 4-281
Bills of exceptions, of settlement, 4-
334
Application to extend time to set-
tle, 4-342
Of application to amend, 4-367
Bills of particulars, demand for, 4-390
Bridges, of defects in, as prerequisite
to action, 11-274
Case and question certified, of argu-
ment in supreme court, Texas,
4-755
To court, Ind., 4-696
Case on appeal, of settlement, 4-767,
789
Not of motion to extend time, 4-
785
Certificate of probable cause, of ap-
plication for, 4-871, 872, 874
Certificate of reasonable doubt, to va-
cate, 4-879
Certiorari, issuance without notice, 4-
929
Change of venue, of application for,
civil cases, 5-24
Criminal cases, 4-988
Chattel mortgages, demand of pos-
session, 5-62
Of sale, 5-71
Commitment of juvenile, before, 12-
875
Conclusion of law, allegation of "as
required by law," 5-222
Contribution, none required, 5-502
Corporations, stockholders' suits, de-
mand for action, 5-705
Costs, offer of judgment, 5-863
Of rejection, 5-864
Of motion to retax, 5-960
Of taxation, 5-925
Criminal case ,5-766
On appeal, 5-1016
Prior demand affecting, 5-841 •
Creditors' suits, of hearing before
master, 6-224
109
INDEX
KO^riOfi, eonid.
Creditors' suits, eovtd.
Of application for receiver, 6-323
Creditors, to, of application for home-
stead, 11-320
Of entry of homestead, 11-319
Customs duties, to recover back, 6-
352
Damages, of claim for, injuries from
highways, 11-205
Death by wrongful act, preliminary
to suit, allegation, 6-409
Decedents' estates, of appeal, 6-537,
586
Of application, for administration,
6-504
For confirmation, 6-571
For distribution, 6-629
For revocation of letters, 6-515
To require additional security, 6-
508
To sell, 6-554
To set aside distribution, 6-634
Of petition for account, 6-593
To creditors, 6-526
To personal representative of
claims, 6-532
Decree establishing proof of, 12-921
Decrees, pro confesso, of application
for, 6-766
Of application to alter, 6-796
Default, attachment, notice necessary
to jurisdiction, 6-811
Publication, 6-^42-
To party appearing, 6-820
Demurrer for failure to allege, 11-229
Deportation hearing, of, to immi-
grant, 11-906
Depositions, of taking without ap-
plication, 7-219
By party or attorney, 7-287
Objections, notice of, 7-443
To notice, 7-427
Of application, 7-229
Of filing, 7-379
Interrogatories, 7-250
Of publication, 7-380
Of taking, 7-266-286
Beturns must show, 7-346
To use in other actions, 7-406
Waiver, 7-457
Detinue, demand, 7-478
Pleading demand, T-482
Discovery, demanding before action,
7-534
Examination of party, 7-571
For inspection, 7-630, 632
Of filing interrogatories, 7-589
To produce document, 7-612
Dismissal, on failure to prosecute, 7-
679
NOTICEi contd.
Divorce, to state's attorney, 7-751
Alimony, application for aa notice
to purchaser, 7-840
Of modification, 7-844
To pav. 7-831
Setting aside, actual estops, 7-804
Of application, 7-800
Dower, demand, 7-864-866
Due process of law, proceedings with-
out, 7-907
Subsequent to judgment, 7-908
Easements, to owner, 7-962
Elections, of contests, 8-64, 83, 85
By officer to board or court, 8-83
Of appeal in contests, 8-113
Electricity, knowledge of defects, 8-
188, 189
Emancipation proceedings, of, 12-806
Eminent domain, of proceedings, 8-
271-276
Of appeal, 8-336
Of filing report, 8-312
To quit before ejectment, 8-359
Estrays, by owner of claim, 8-716
Exceptions, of, to homestead appraise-
ment, 11-367
Execution plaintiff, to, of exemption,
11-502
Exemption, contest of, 11-522
In proceeds of homesteads sale,
11-372
Time of, 11-501
To debtor, 11-474
Exhibit claims to heirship proceed-
ings, 12-921
Extortion, not necessary to recover
back, 8-825
Factors and brokers, demand for pro-
ceeds, 8-871
Demand of pledged goods by prin-
cipal, 8^77
Filing, of injuries from highways, 11-
206
Findings and conclusions, of filing, 8-
1019
Forcible entry and detainer, 8-1093
Allegations of notice, 8-1116
Degree of accuracy, 8-1096
Time for giving, 8-1097
Fraud, waiver, knowledge essential
to, 10-41
Fraudulent conveyances, bona ilde
purchaser, 10-121
Denial by grantee, 10-181
Freight carriers, of claim, 10-225
Frivolous and sham pleading, notice
of motion to strike, 10-281
Gaming, to stakeholder not to pay, 10-
325
110
INDEX
KOnofi, conid.
Gaming, contd,
Allngation in recovery from stake-
holder, 10-326
To owners of devices before de-
struction, 10-333
Garnishment, to principal defendant,
10-498
As affecting claim of exemption,
11-494
Payment before notice of service,
10-520
General issue, accompanying the, 11-
896
Grand jury, of drawing, 10-613
Guaranty, pleading notice, 10-688
Question for jury, 10-697
Guardian ad litem, of application for,
10-736
Of appointment, 10-754
Guardian and ward, of application
for, 10-789
Bond, as prerequisite to action on,
10-882, 894
Of accounting, 10-833-835
Of claim against ward's estate, 10-
854
Of proceeding to remove, 10-810
Of proceeding to transfer to for-
eign guardian, 10-906
Habeas corpus, to persons interested,
10-927
Hearing, of, in equity, 11-13
Of appeal, highways, 11-78
Of application for homestead, 11-
355
Of appraiser's report, 11-363
Waiver of irregularities in, 11-14
Heirs, of proceedings to determine,
12-921
Highways, establishing, notice juris-
dictional, 11-56
Of injuries from, in general, 11-199
Requisites, 11-204
Who may give, 11-201
Prosecution for failure to do rood
work, 11-139
To remove obstructions from, 11-
161, 167
Waiver of insufficiency of notice,
11-70
Homestead, appraisers, by, to par-
ties, 11-359
As affecting order allotting, 11-401
Of application for, 11-320, 393
Of claim of, 11-326, 329, 464
Of contest of, 11-332, 395
Of proceedings to reassign, 11-369
Of right to, by. levying officer, 11-
360
lU
NOTIOE,«confd.
Husband, to, in actions against
wife's separate property, 11-830
Incompet.ents, of appointment of
guardian for, 12-15, 17
Indemnity, in, as prerequisite to ac-
tion, sufficiency of, 12-27
To indemnitor, 12-26 \
Injury from highways, of nature of,
11-202
Juvenile proceedings, 12-869, 879
Levy, of, as affecting assertion of
exemption, 11-487
Liability, of, in indemnity, 12-26
Limitations, as bar to, 11-200
Married women, by, injuries from
. highways, 11-201
Personal representative, by, of in-
juries, 11-201
Petition, for leave to file notice, in-
juries from highways, 11-206
Of petition to become sole trader,
11-817
Plea, criminal case, of time for, '2-
881
Pleading, notice in contract actions,
11-995
Notice of homestead claim, 11-428
Notice of injuries from bridges, 11-
281
Notice of injuries from highways,
11227
Province of judge and jury, highway
obstruction, 11-237
Publication, by, of homestead ap-
plication, 11-320
Restoration of estate of incompetent,
12-20
Rules of court, 6-63
Sale of infant's property, of, 12-827
Of petition for, 12-821
Service of, highways, 11-206, 207
Stay, of application for, by cross-
complainant, 11-20
Time and place, injuries from high-
ways, 11-203
To wards, of application for mort-
gage, 12-859
Waiver of, injuries from bridges, 11-
274
Injuries from highways, 11-200
NOTICE OF DEFENSE, 7-78
Frivolous, striking out as, 10-279
NOVATION, see Implied and Express
Agreements. See also Accord and
Satisfaction ; Composition With
Creditors ; Compromise and Settle-
ment.
Accord and satisfaction may be, 1-165
Instructing as to, 11-1070
INDEX
NOVATION, Gontd.
Pleading, as defense, specially, 11-
1032
In complaint, 11-994
KUIHANOE — Consult analysis of this
article when published. See Ad-
joining Landowners; Case (the
Action of Trespass on the) ; Dis-
orderly House; Health; Injxtnc-
TiONs; Intoxicating Liquors; Ma-
licious Mischief.
Adjoining landowners, 1-334
Adultery at common law, 1-593
Cruelty to animals, at common law,
6-312
Disorderly house, abatement of, 7-700
Easements, abatement of obstruc-
tions, 7-961
Ejectment, distinguished from ac-
tions to restrain, 7-984
Electricity, ' ' attractive nuisance, ' *
children, 8-195
Information to abate, 12-707
Proceeding to prevent, 10-981
Province of judge and jury, 11-236
NUT^ TIEL COEPOBATION, plea of,
5-647; 7-76
NUIi TIEL BEOOED — Consult analysis
of this article when published.
Plea of, 4-515; 7-64, 76
In debt on judgment, 6-489
NUNC PRO TUNC, entry on record,
sale of ward's property, 12-840, 845
Filing of information, 12-121
Indorsement of file mark on prelim-
inary complaint, 12-145
OATH AND AFFIBMATION — Consult
analysis of this article when pub
lished. See Blasphemy; Deposi-
tions; Juries and Jurors; Per-
jury ; Profanity ; Verification ;
Witnesses. See also Affidavits.
Appraisers of, on exemption claim,
11-508
Arbitration, allegation of taking, 2-
651
Attachment, in affidavit, 3-408
Of appraisers, 3-531
Bankruptcy proceedings, 3-1003
Schedule, 3-974
Bills and answers, waiving oath, 4-
161
Answer under commission, 4-178
Coroner's inquest, swearing jury, 5-
528
Courts martial, 6-117
Criminal complaint, to, 12-124, 129,
289
Who may take, 12-290
Decedents' estates, before sale, 6-569
OATH AND AFFntMAnOK, conid.
Depositions, of officer, 7-263
Power to administer, 7-266
Beturns must show taking, 7-349
Beturns, of officer, 7-342
To witnesses, 7-328-330
Discovery, production, conclusiveness
of, 7-636
Eminent domain, of commissioners,
8-304
To jury, 8-3-19
Grand jury, of jurors, 10-627-629
No disclosure on challenge against,
10-643
Bemedy for failure to give, 12-615
To witnesses before, 12-624
Guardian ad litem, of guardian, 10-
750
Guardian, of, on sale of property, 12-
827
Homestead, of application for ap-
praisement, 11-354
Of appraisers of, 11-354, 358
Information based upon, 12-122
Jurat, certainty in, 12-292
Jury, demurrer before swearing, 12-
653
OBJECTIONS AND EXCEPTIONS —
Consult analysis of this article when
published. See Appeals; BrLLS op
Exceptions ; Demxtbrer ; Deposi-
tions; Ebrors, Assignment op;
Findings and Conclusions; In-
dictment and Information; In-
quiry, Writ op; Instructions;
Juries and Jurors ; Motions ; New
Trial; Orders; Parties; Plead-
ing; Process; Becognizances and
Bail; Time to Plead; Trial;
Venue; Verdict; Waiver; Writ op
Error.
Accounts, objections to, 1-225
Auditor's report, 1-239
Master's reports, 1-3-12, 313
Admiralty, 1-468, 481
Competency of party to sue, 1-428
Defects in pleading, 1-449
Misjoinder of causes, 1-444
Non-joinder and misjoinder of par-
ties, 1-436
To answer in, 1-464
To claims, 1-504
To cross libel, when, 1-486
To jurisdiction, 1-225
To report on reference, 1-545, 546
To verification, 1-448
Agreed case, action fictitious, 1-742
Aider by verdict j as affecting, 12-703
Alteration of pleading, to, 12-320
Amendments, not to conform to proof
where, 1-916
m
INDEX
OBJECTIONS AND EXCEPTIONS,
contd.
Amendments, contd.
Indictment, to amendment of, 12-
555
Amicus curiae, not by, 1-939
Appeals, objections below, 2-247
Appeal bond, to highwfiy proceed-
ings, 11-70
Method of objecting, 11-75
To substitute appeal bond, 11-76
Indictment, to, no offense stated,
12-633
Must appear in record, 2-350
Not raised first on, 2-429
Not required to review questions
of law on record, 2-409
Where trial de novo, 2-409
Arbitration, to awards and judg-
ments, 2-627, 629, 663
To entry of judgment, 2-638
Arguments, regarding, 2-829
Assignments for creditors, not first
on appeal, 3-62
Attachment, affidavit, 3-442, 751
Appeal, not raised below, 3-837.
Irregularity must be corrected by,
3-483
To bonds, 3-460
To notice by third person, 3-539
Bankruptcy proceedings, claims, 3-
905
Composition, to, 3-915
Discharge, to, 3-922
Examination of bankrupt, at, 3-987
Bastardy proceedings, 4-81
To preliminary examination, 4-68
Bigamy, 4-97
Bills and answers, exceptions to bill,
4-150
Exceptions to answers, 4-179
Bills of exceptions, 4-292. See Bills
OP Exceptions.
Bills of particulars, time to object, 4-
403
€ase and question certified, excep-
tions reserved, N. Y., 4-735
Definite and certain, R. I., 4-750
Case on appeal, must contain, 4-776
Certiorari, to return, 4-939
In court of review, 4-953
Change of venue, in original court, 4-
1001
To order, 5-44
Consolidation of actions, necessary to
review, 5-278
Construction and theory of pleadings,
on objection to evidence, 5-355
Costs, in court below, as to, 5-921
Appeals, on failure to raise below,
5-984
OBJECTIONS AND SZOEFTIONflt
contd.
Costs, contd.
Appeals, contd.
To items, 5-1019
To items in bill, 5-929
To items of taxation, 5-965
Customs and usages, amendmentfl
where admitted without, 6-333
Decedents' estates, to accounts, 6-
600
To report of referee on accounts,
6-607
'Decision, to, on motion, to quash, 12-
646
Demurrer, to evidence after overrul-
ing, 6-994
Depositions, 7-423
Appeals, taken below, 7-451
Discovery, at examination of party,
7-573
On motion, to interrogatories, 7-
679
To order to produce, 7-634
To report, 7-882
Due process of. law, raised in state
court, 7-902
Election offenses, to refusal to re-
quire, 12-684
Elections, in contests, 8-117
Embezzlement, 8-246
Eminent domain, no attempt to agree,
8-289
To appointment of commissioners,
8-304, 306
To report, 8-313
Errors, assignment of, reference in,
8-552
Instructions, 8-601, 602
Evidence, to, indictment, 12-659
Exemption, to, by creditor,' 11-522
Exhibits, to variance, when, 8-813
Findings and conclusions, 8-1076 '
Befusal to find, to, 8-1012
Time for, 8-1067
To inconsistency, 8-1059
Forcible entry and detainer, taken be-
low, 8-1130
Frauds, statute of, at trial, 10-79
Garnishment, 10-595
Grand jury, challenges and objec-
tions, 10-633
Guardian and ward, in proceedings
for removal, 10-815
To accounts, 10-835
Habeas corpus, to return, how raised,
10-932
Hearing, to, presumption where no
objections on record, 11-19
Waiver of objection to, 11-19
113
INDEX
OBJECTIONS AND EXCZSPTI0N8,
contd.
Highway proceedings, 11-70
Alteration proceedings, 11-132
Discontinuance of highway, 11-264
Injuries from highways, in actions
for, 11-247
To appeal bond, 11-70
Homestead, appraisers of, to, 11-358
In contest of allotment, 11-396
Survey, to, 11-324
To appraisement, 11-368
Indictment, 12-697
Alteration of, to, 12-320
For misjoinder, 12-685
Technical objections disregarded,
11-573
To form of, 12-555
Juvenile proceedings, to complaint
in, 12-867
Preliminary complaint, to defects in,
12-636
OBLIGATION, see Implied and Ex-
press Agreements.
OBSCENITY — Consult analysis of this
article when published. See Adult-
ery; Disorderly Conduct; Dis-
orderly House; Lewdness; Post-
Office ; Profanity ; Prostitution.
See also Criminal Procedure.
Pleading, necessity of setting out ob-
scene matters in, 12-296
Bill of particulars, to inform ac-
cused of matters not pleaded,
12-296
Sending obscene matter through the
mail, 12-349
OBSTBUCTING JUSTICE — Consult
analysis of this article when pub-
lished. See Bribery; Conspiracy;
Contempt; Embracery; Judgments
AND Decrees, Enforcement op;
Juries and Jurors; Officers;
Prisons and Prisoners; Rescue;
Service op Process and Papers;
Sheriffs, Constables and Mar-
shals.
False imprisonment, arrest not, 8-932
OBTAINING PBOPEBTY BY FALSE
PRETENSES — Consult analysis of
this article when published. Sec
False Personation ; Fraud and De-
ceit.
Larceny, .ioinder with, 12-534
OCCUPANCY', see Adverse Possession.
OCCUPATION, see Use and Occupa-
tion.
OFFER, see Tender.
OFFER OF JUDGMENT, see Costs;
Judgments; Justices op the
Peace,
OFFEB OF PROOF — Consult awiZyHs
of this article when published. See
also 9 Ency. of Ev. 151.
On hearing of motion to set aside in-
dictment, 12-637
OFFICE, see Elections; Opficxrs.
OFFICE, FOUND, see Escheat.
OFFICERS — Consult analysis of this
article when published. See Em-
bezzlement ; Extortion ; False
Imprisonment; False Persona-
tion; Judicial Officers; Justices
of the Peace; Mandamus; Muni-
cipal Corporations ; Notaries ; Ob-
structing Justice; Prisons and
Prisoners; Prohibition; Quo Wab-
ranto; Rescue; Service op Pro-
cess and Papers; Sheriffs, Con-
stables AND Marshals; States
AND Territories; Taxation; Uni-
ted States.
Abbreviations of official designatioDs,
1-75
Accounts of in equity, 1-275
Admiralty, fees of, 1-570-579
Agreed case, as parties, 1-745
Alienage, questions of, 1-812
Appeals by, 2-195
Arrest in civil cases, affidavit in be-
half of public, 2-931
Attorney general, power to file in-
formations, 12-704, 709
Attorneys, of court, 3-849
May be disbarred for official acts,
3-863
Bribery, official character, 4-569
Certiorari, special interest in review
of acts, 4-905
Judicial acts reviewed, 4-919-924
Not to try title to office, 4-927
Change of venue, actions against lo-
cal, 5-9
Conspiracy, joinder with private of-
fenders, 5-316
Contempt, subject to, 6-381
Costs, fees of, 5-934
Liability of public' officers, 5-824
Out of public funds, 5-903
State entitled in action by its offi-
cer, 5-906
Detinue, may maintain, when, 7-4 SO
Due process of law, raised by, 7-899
Remedies against, 7-927, 928
Elections, right on ballot determined
by, 8-134
Indictments, misconduct in, 8-159
Extortion, 8-824
False personation, indictment, 8-975
Garnishment, not liable, 10-398
Disclosure to officer, 10-538
114
INDEX
OFFIOEBS, conid*
Garnishment, contd.
Of property in possessioiL of^ 10-
450
Salaries of, 10-431
Joinder with private individnalSy in
indictment, 12-497
Municipal officers, informations in
equity against, 12-709
Prothonotary, replication filed by,
guardianship proceedings, 12-16
Seal of, to jurat of preliminary com-
plaint, 12-143
OFFSET, see Judgments and Decrees,
Enforcement op; Set-Opp, Coun-
terclaim AND BECOUPMENT.
OIL, see Mines and Minerals.
OLEOMARGARINE, see Adultera-
tion; Pure Food Laws.
OPEKING AND CLOSINQ — Consult
analysis of this article when pub-
lished. See Arguments; Trial.
Arguments, allowing reply, 2-730, 731
Order of, 2-737
Assault and battery, 3-45
Attachment, on motion to vacate, 3-
787
Directing verdict on opening state-
ment, see Trial.
In action of forcible entry or de-
tainer, 8-1122
Eminent domain, 8-301
Escheat, 8-673
OPENING JUDGMENTS, see Afpidav-
iTS OF Merits and Defense; Bills
TO Impeach Judgments and De-
crees; Decrees; Default; Judq-
ments.
OPERATION, see Abortion; Physi-
cians AND Surgeons.
OPINION OF COURT, 6-82. See Ap^
peals; Mandate.
Appeal, on, 2-476; 6-82
Arguments, respectful criticism, 2-
726
Reading in, 2-812
Case or question certified, of supreme
court, N. J., 4-728, 729
Motion for judgment subject to, N.
Y., 4-741
Texas conflict of opinions, 4-751
Certificate of dissent, 4-753
Effect, 4-753
Errors, assignment of, none on opin-
ion, 8-543
Record, as part of, 6-91
OPIUM, see Health.
ORDER OF ARREST, see Arrest in
Civil Cases; Process; Warrants.
OBDEB OF PBOOF — Consult analysis
of this article when published. See
Trial.
Abortion, 1-114
Accessories, tried with principal, 1-
157
ORDER OF SALE, see Judicul Sales.
0BDEB8 — Consult analysis of this ar-
ticle when published. See Appeals;
Case and Question Certified, Re-
served OR Reported ; Decrees ; Fil-
ing; Judgments; Motions; Ob-
jections AND Exceptions; Peti-
tions.
Account, to make certain, 1-224
Admiralty, order of release, 1-511
Appealability of, 1-554
Consolidating actions, 1-526
Amendments, granting leave, 1-894
Indictments, for amendment of,
12-543, 548
Orders operating' as, 1-902
Appealable, 2-147, 156
Bankruptcy in, 3-1025
Vacating attachment, 3-824
Appeals, final in, 2-165
Allowing, 2-299
Declaring abandonment of, 2-394
Exceptions below, 2-277
Extending time for, 2-309
Interlocutory orders, 2-169, 415
Effect, 2-330
New trials, ruling presumed cor-
rect, 2-427
Apprentices, binding out, 2-576
Revocation of letters, 2-577
Arrest in civil cases, order of, 2-965-
969
Arrest of judgment, effect of order,
2-982, 983
Assistance, writ of, preliminary to,
2-148
Setting aside, 3-156
Attachment, for sale of property, 3-
575
For payment of proceeds, 3-587
Vacating, 3-794
Appealable when, 3-824, 831
Bankruptcy proceedings, discharge,'
3-923
Appeals, 3-1010, 1025
Bills of exceptions, extending time
of settlement, 4-340
Striking out, effect, 4-370
Bills of particulars, 4-405
Further particulars, 4-402
Calendar, striking from, 6-54
Case on appeal, extending time, 4-786
Certificate of probable cause, order
for bail, 4-873
115
INDEX
OBDEBS, contd.
Certiorari, review of interlocutory
by, 4956
Change of venue, 4-993; 5-40
Consolidation of actions, 5-269, 275
Continuances, when not necessary for,
5-443
Imposing terms, 5-491
Setting aside order for, 5-493
Creditors' suits, resale, 6-247
Cross-complaint, necessary to bring
in new parties, 6-303
Decedents' estates, appointment, of
administrator, 6-508
Of commissioners, 6-581
Account, for, 6-594
On report of referee on, 6-608
Claims, on, 6-533
Setting aside allowance of, 6-534
Declaring insolvency, 6-580
Distribution, insolvent estates, 6-
588
Bemoving administrator, 6-517
Sale, order for, 6-562
Confirmation of, 6-571
To deliver assets, 6-522
Demurrer, on decision, 6-987
Setting aside ruling, 6-995
Deposit in court, 7-154, 155
Distribution or withdrawal, 7-171
Investment, 7-164
Summary order for return, 7-159
To put in bank, 7-161
Depositions, on application, 7-232
For publication, 7-380
For retaking, 7-387
Discovery, for disclosure, 7-540
For examination of party before
trial, 7-569
Vacating, 7-573
Production, for, 7-636
Vacating, 7-641
Be-examination of party, 7-574
Dismissal, necessary to, 7-654
For failure to comply, 7-671
Divorce, commitment for nonpayment
of alimony, 7-833
For publication, 7-757
Elections, in contest, recount, 8-97
Eminent domain, final order, 8-325
Equity, on hearing demurrer, 8-482
Directing action at law, 8-494
Findings as basis of, 8-1001
Grand jury, for panel, 10-617
Dissolved by where terms abol-
ished, 10-645
For special, 10-661
To complete jury, 10-624
Guardian ad litem, order appointing,
10-750, 752
OBDEBS, conid»
Guardian and ward, of appointment,
10-799
For maintenance, 10-820
Of removal of guardian, 10-813
On account, 10-840, 841
Habeas corpus, on hearing, 10-940
What reviewable, 10-955
Indictment, amendment of, 12-543
Quashing, review of, 12-643
Resubmitting, 12-147
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, see Mo-
tions; Orders.
ORDINANCES, see Municipal Cob-
PORATIONS; STATUTES.
ORDINARY CARE, see Neguoence.
ORDINARY COURTS OF, see Juris-
diction; Probate Courts.
ORIGINAL WRIT, see Process.
ORPHANS' COURT, see Probate
Colhts.
OUSTER, see Assistance, Writs of;
Ejectment; Trespass to Try
Title; Writ of Entry.
OWNERSHIP, see Title.
OTEB AND VEOVERT — Consult an-
alysis of this article token pub-
lished. See Exhibits; Impubd
AND Express Agreements.
Abatement, demand in plea, 1-52
Attachment, in proceedings to vacate,
3-893
Bonds, 4-498
Covenant, action of, necessity, 6-146
Debt, 6-482
Demurrer, failure to make profert, 6-
935
Demurrer, instrument considered, 6-
985
Executors and administrators, of let-
ters, 8-742
Exhibits, not attached at common
law, 8-794
OYSTER, see Game and Fish.
PAPER BOOK, see Appeals; Writ of
Error.
PAPERS, see Discovery; Pilino;
Newspapers; Service of Process
AND Papers.
Paraphernalia, of wife, 11-728
PARDON — Consult analysis of this
article when published. See Sen-
tence AND Judgment.
Accessories, when discharged by, 1-
154
Contempt, 5-423
Costs, imprisonment for, after, 5-770
Courts martial, 6-126
Plea of, 2-916
Stay of proceedings on application
for, 2-928
116
INDEX
PABSNT AND CmXiD — Consult an-
aly$i8 of this article when published.
See Apprentices; Bastardy Pro-
ceedings; Death by Wrongful
Act; Divorce; Habeas Corpus;
Infants; Kidnaping; Master and
Servant^ Negligence; Seduction.
Abandonment, pleading, in juvenile
proceedings, 12-867
Abduction, complaint for by one in
loco parentis, 1-88
Case, action on the, seduction or as-
sault, 4-627
Civil rights, schools, father as rela-
tor, 5-127
Custody and support, in divorce ac-
tion, 7-852
Death by wrongful act, action by
parents, 6-388
Action by children, 6-391
Pecuniary loss, burden of proof, 6-
451
Divorce, notice to state where chil-
dren of tender years, 7-751
Duress of other, 7-949
Exemption claim, assertion of, by
children, 11-482
Foreclosure on homestead, joinder of
children, 11-378
Guardian ad litem, emancipation does
not dispense with, 10-711
Application for by father, 10-736
Father when proper, 10-739
Bight to be next friend, when, 10-
740
Guardian and ward, notice to parent
of application for, 10-788, 792
Wishes of parents as to guardian,
10-797, 798
Highways, injuries to children from,
by parent, 11-208
Juvenile proceedings, notice of, to
parent, 12-869
Service upon parent, for child, 12-744
PARTICULABS, see Bills or Particu-
lars.
TAJBLTTBS — Consult analysis of this
article when published. See ACGXS-
sories and Accomplices ; Answers ;
Appeals; Assignments,' Death by
Wrongful Act; Default; Demur-
rer; Bjectmsnt; Equity Juris-
diction and Procedure; Executors
AND Administrators; Guardian ad
Litem; Guardian and Ward; Hus-
band AND Wife; Indictment and
Information; Infants; Insane
Persons; Interpleader; Interven-
tion; Joint Tenants; Judgments
AND Decrees, Enforcement of;
Judgments and Degrees, Bevival
PABTIE8, eonid*
OF; Motions; Officers; Orders;
Partnership; Petitions; Proceed-
ings in Bem; Beceivers; Bemoval
of Causes; Bevivor; Scire Facias;
Service of Process and Papers;
Tenants in Common.
Abatement, by one defendant, 1-34
Plea of, must give better writ, 1-52
Prayer in plea on death, l«i^4
Accounts, 1-216, 282
In action of book, 1-236
In stated, 1-240, 242
Si^ated, in impeachment, death con-
sidered, 1-255
Administrator, party to foreclosure,
11379
Admiralty, 1-426
Amendments, 1-436, 437, 473
Bailee or master, 1-428
Costs on bringing in, 1-577'
Cross suits against United States,
1-432
Joinder, 1-433
Suits for penalties, 1-432
Suits in name of another, 1-432,
437
To appeal, 1-566
To claims, 1-503
Affidavit by, 1-893
Misnomer, 1-907
Striking out, 1-910
Substitution, 1-907, 910
Admiralty, in, 1-437
Affidavits of merits and defense, re-
quired of what, 1-668, 669
By whom made, 1-670, 673, 685, 715
Affray, one party not convicted, 1-730
Aggrieved or interested, highway
alteration proceedings, 11-130
Agreed case, 1-743
Alienating affections, joinder, 1-781
Allotments to Indians, in actions con-
cerning, 12-48
Amendments, changing, 1-882
Adding, 1-909
Admiralty, in, 1-436, 437, 473
Homestead claim, 11-429
Of biU to bring in, 11-18
Where infant attains majority, 12-
803
Amicable actions, 1-933
Animals, one who harbors, 1-948
Action for injuries by, 1-954
By agistor, 1-978
Action for injuries from diseased,
1-959
Liens, for agistment, 1-977
Annuities, action for, 1-990
Another action pending, 1-1013
Appeal bonds, in action on, 2-94
117
mDEX
PilRTIES, conid.
Appeals, 2-194
Amicus curiae, 11-64
Appealable interest, 2-198
Averment, in petition, 2-296
In highway proceedings, 11-64
Presumption of, 2-418
Death, before appeal, 2-229
Pending appeal, 2-475
Designation, 2-215
Dismissal for' want of, 11-78
Highways, alteration of, 11-130
Discontinuance of, 11-262
Improvement ofy 11-114
Infants, in actions concerning, 12'
994
In rehearing, 2-406
Joinder in, 2-217; 11-68
New parties in, 2-226
Nonjoinder and misjoinder, 2-234
Objections below to defects, 2-252
Penalties, in actions for, 11-170
Proper and necessary in, 2-215, 222
Quashing indictment, from order,
12-645
Becord must show jurisdiction, 2-
346
Reversal as to some, 2-481
8tate as party, sustaining demurrer
to indictment, 12-659
Substitution on, 2-228
Appearance, in person, 2-516
As amicus curiae, 2-566
Of necessary parties cures defect
in, 2-545
Apprentices, master on review, 2-577
Actions to release, 2-579
To action against master, 2-580
Arbitration, death, 2-636
To bill for relief from, 2-631
Arguments, on conduct of, 2-755
Appeals to prejudice against, 2-796
Failure to testify, 2-773
Of accused, 2-776, 783, 785
Beference to condition, 2-793 .
Arraignment and plea, identity fixed,
2-864
Arrest of judgment, misjoinder and
nonjoinder, 2-1021
Not for misnomer, 2-1022
Not proper on death of, 2-1022
Assignment for creditors, in action
to set aside, 3-58
Actions by and against assignee, 3:
75, 79
Actions to enforce trust, 3-65
Assignments, see Assignments.
Assistance, writs of, who may have,
3-143
Only against parties and privies,
3-145
PABTISS, eonid.
Associations, 3-160
Assumpsit, joinder in, 3-180, 207
Nonjoinder, of defendant, speeiallj
pleaded, 3-190
Under general issue, 3-212
Attachment, amendment, of affidavit
as to, 3-438
Of writ, 3-487
Description, in bond, 3-449
In writ, 3-475
Intervention, substitution of par-
ties, 3-664
Names in publication, 3-691
Of homestead, 11-342
To claim by third persons, 3-664
Variance in affidavit, 3-440
In declaration or complaint, 3-
701
Wife as party, 11-342
Audita querela, to writ, 3-878
Bankruptcy proceedings, 3-898
Bringing in and substituting, 3-911
In appeals, 3-1012
Joinder of bankrupt, as defendant,
11-979
Beceivers, 3-910
To revocation of discharge, 3-930
To set aside composition, 3-917
Banks and banking, in actions on col-
lections, 4-10
In actions for deposits, 4-10
In actions on liability over sub-
scriptions, 4-26
To collect subscriptions, 4*17
Bastardy proceedings, 4-60
Appeals, 4-80
Beneficial associations, 4-85
Bills and answers, in bills, 4-110
Amendments of defects, 4-189
Confederacy clause unnecessary for
new, 4-131
Joint and separate answer, 4-175
Bills and notes, 4-229
Bills of exceptions, must be joined
in, 4-324
Settlement after death, 4-338
To motion to amend, 4-367
Bills of review, 4-229
Supplemental bill to add new par-
ties, 4-456
Bills to enforce decrees, 4-464
Bills to impeach judgments and de-
crees, 4-482
Bonds, in action on, 4-497
Appeal bonds, 2-94
Breach of promise, 4-548
Bridges, injuries from, 11-275
Injury to, 11-273
Case or question certified, new in sa-
preme court, B. I., 4-749
118
INDEX
PABTIE8, eonid.
Case, the action on the, 4-640
Certiorari, interest, 4-903, 907
Bringing in omitted parties, 4-925
Highway proceedings, 11-94, 267
Homestead allotment, to review,
11-405
Joinder in, 11-94
Chattel mortgages, senior and junior
mortgagees, conversion, 5-65
Foreclosure, 5-67
Children as parties, enjoining home-
stead sale, 11-418
Choice and election of remedy, with
reference to, 5-122
Collision, 5-133
Commerce courts, 5-166
How designated, 5-171
Community property, to actions re-
specting, 11-834
Conclusions of law, in pleadings, 5-
209
Consolidation of actions, between
same, 5-257
Effect ot on consolidation, 5-260
Conspiracy, civil, defendants, 5-332
Criminal joinder of defendants, 5-
332
Contempt, 5-279
To appeal, 5-247
Continuance to bring in, in equity,
11-18
Continuances, absence or illness of,
5-449
Contribution, 5-501
Copyright proceedings, 5-511
Corporations, actions against, 5-603
Actions by, 5-598
Actions for dividends, 5-694
Actions for mismanagement, 5-695
Actions for subscriptions, 5-686-687
Actions on statutory liability, 5-
689
Joinder of, in indictment, 12-497
Stockholders' suits, 1-284; 5-697,
708, 711
Costs, offer of judgment, joint and
several, 5-858
To motion to retax, 5-960
Witness fees of parties, 5-950
Counterfeiting, joinder of defendants,
6-17
Covenant, action of, 6-136
Joinder, 6-143
Creditors' suits, 6-187
Joinder of creditors, 6-193
Joinder of defendants, 6-201
Cross-bill, 6-271
Bringing in, where, 6-276
No dismissal for defect, 6-292
PABTIKS, contd.
Cross-bill, contd.
Only against parties before court,
6-270
Cross-complaints, 6-302
Customs duties, appeal, 6-348
Offenses, joinder of defendants, 6-
358
Death by wrongful act, 6-385
Amendments, 6-435
Joinder of defendants, 6-402
Debt, 6-491
Decedents' estates, accounting, for
assets, 6-591
In equity, 1-284; 6-596
Objections to accounts, 6-601
Setting aside accounts, in equity,
6-615
In probate, 6-620
Appeal on claims, 6-536
Application for distribution, 6-627,
628
Discovery of assets, 6-520
Sales, application for order, 6-546
Objections, 6-557
Declaration and complaint, named
and described, 6-648.
In names of individuals, 6-653
Kepresentative capacity, title, 6-
651
Signature, 6-719
Decrees, 6-745
Default by one, 6-772
Designated by name, 6-776
Belief among, 6-758
Setting aside, who may, 7-799
To applications to amend or va
cate, 6-791 '
Default, who may be in, 6-805, 806
Answer by part, 6-815, 819
Defendant, in contract actions, 11-
972
Injuries from highways, 11-208
Demurrer to evidence, who may in-
terpose, 7-11
Demurrer, who may demur, 6-855
Answer by part, 6-865
By one, 6-939
For defect, of, 6-886, 897, 936; 7-72
Going to whole bill, 6-969
For misjoinder, 6-897, 936; 7-72
Joint, 6-975
Departure, changing allegations as to,
r-134
Changing from representative to
individual capacity and vice
versa, 6-435
Dismissal when, 7-143
Depositions, of, 7-205-208
Detinue, 7-479
Misjoinder, 7-480
119
INDEX
PARTIES, emtd.
Discovery, see DiSGOTSRY.
Dismissal and nonsuit, amendment
omitting, 7-654
Dismissal for defect of parties, 7-
670
Highway proceedings, 11-18
Nonsuit as to part, 7-668
Divorce, 7-749
Appeals, 7-811
Proceedings to divide property, 7-
850
Dower, 7-868
Due process of law, who may raise
question, 7-899
Duress, who may plead, 7-949
Basements, action for enforcement,
7-956
Action for obstruction or invasion,
7-963
Ejectment, 7-1008
New by amendment, 7-1043
Elections, contests, 8-53
Defect of in contests, 8-91
Joinder of officials in indictments,
distinct duties, 8-159
Electricity, concurrent negligence,
joinder', 8-170
Emancipation proceedings, 12-805
Eminent domain, 8-265
Actions for compensation, 8-849
In injunction suit, 8-861
On appeal, 8-383
To certiorari, 8-342
Equity, in, 8-451; 11-962
Continuance to bring in, 11-18
Formal, 8-455
Hearing, objections to parties at
11-23
Informations in chancery, to, 12
713
Necessary, and indispensable, 8
456, 457
Wife's separate estate, suits con
cerning, 11-724
Error, assignment of, absence of nee
essary parties, 8-530
By one of several, 8-633
Cross-errors, 8-642-648
Jointly or severally, 8-633
To assignment, 8-535
Waiving, 8-532
Escheat, ^-668
Estrays, in civil actions, 8-720'
Examination before trial, 7-547
Exception to homestead appraisement,
to, 11-368
Executors and administrators, actions
by and against, 8-733, 754, 778
Foreign, actions by and against, 8-
748, 777
PABTZE8, conid.
Executors and administrators, eontd.
To actions on bonds, 8-786-788
Exemption claim, to assert, 11-478
Extortion, civil action, 8-825
Joinder in indictment, 8-833
Factors and brokers, actions against
factors. 8-872, 876, 879
Actions for commissions, 8-885
Factor against third persons, 8-878
False imprisonment, defendants, 8-
945
Forcible entry and detainer, 8-1098
Allegations concerning, 8-1113
Foreclosure upon homestead, 11-377,
379
Forgery, joinder, 8-1177
Forthcoming bonds, action on, 10-28
Fraud and deceit, 10-46
Fraudulent conveyances, actions to
set aside, 10-140
Conveyance to defeat alimony,
7-841
To appeal, 10-216
Freight carriers, 10-227
Connecting carriers, 10-239
Game and fish, actions concerning,
10-309-311
Gaming, action to recover loss, 10-322
Action to recover from stakeholder,
10-326
Becovery by state for defendants,
10-328
Garnishment, to whom available, 10-
381
Non-joinder of persons jointly li-
able, 10-597
Plaintiff as garnishee, 10-403
Guaranty, to action, 10-673
Action by guarantor against prin-
cipal, 10-701
Guardian ad litem, application for ap-
pointment, 10-734
Guardian and ward, aecountingi 10-
835
Appeal from, 10-849
Bill to review account, 10-847
Actions by and against, 10-858, 863,
864
Appeals, 10-^76
Foreign guardian, 10-901
Appointment, in petition for, 10-
786
On appeal from, 10-805
Bond, action on, 10-883
Claim against estate, 10-854
Bemoval, proceedings for, 10-811
Appeal, 10-815
Bepresentative capacity, descrip-
tion, 4-810; 6-651; 8-740
120
INDEX
^AftVifilS, eanii.
Guardian and ward, Mnid,
Substitution on terminatioii of
guardianship, 10-906
Habeas corpus, -who may appljy 10-
919
% Who may appeal, 10-957
Hawkers and peddlers, in action for
penalties, 10-975
Health, in action for penalty, 10-984,
993
In equity proeeedingi under stat-
ute, 10-986
In summary proceeding for pen-
alty, 10-985
Hearing, objections to parties at, 11-
23
Heirs, procedings to determine, 12-
918
Highways, appeal in highway pro-
ceedings, 11-64, 66, 114, 180, 262
Collecting for improrements to,
11-126
Injuries from, 11-207
Obstructions, abating, 11-172
Homesteads, contesting claim of, 11-
895
Ejectment to recoTer, 11-340
Foreclosure on, 11-377, 879
Petition for, widow as party, 11-
894
Proceedings to protect, 11-416
Writ of assistance, 11-342
Husband and wife,' setting aside con-
veyance of homestead, 11-381
Separate estate of wife, actions
concerning, 11-724
Incest, joinder in indictment for, 12-2
Incompetent, as party defendant, 12-
18
In proceedings to appoint guard-
ian for, 12-15
Indebitatus assumpsit, to, 11-957
Indemnity, in action on, 12-29
Indictment, joinder in, 12-495
Incest, in indictment for, 12-2
Misjoinder, remedies for, 12-498
Demurrer, 12-656
Motion to quash, 12-630
Infants, actions by and against, gen-
erally, 12-735
Joinder of, as defendants, 11-979
Information, in civil suits, 12-713
Injunction, against foreclosure on
homestead, 11-383
In highway proceedings, 11-109,
124, 269
Interested or aggrieved, highways,
11'130, 262
PABTIS8, 6onid.
Joinder, actions on contract, 11-972
Indebitatus assumpsit, 11-958, 963
Joint contracts, 11-965
Corporations, of, in indictment, 12-
497
Husband and wife, actions for in-
juries to wife, 11-717
Wife's earnings, 11-716
After divorce, 11-715
Injuries, to husband, 11-723
To wife's property, 11-726
Petition to become sole trader,
11-817
Proceedings to protect home-
stead, 11-417 V
Suits on wife's contracts, 11-714
Antenuptial contracts, 11-714
Waiver of homestead, 11-484
In appeal, 2-217; 11-66
Indemnity, in action on) 12-30
In indictment, 10-992; 12-495
For failure to do road work, 11
142
For incest, 12-2
For violation of road laws, 11-
258
Husband and wife, of, 12-497
In general, 12-495
Misjoinder, remedies for, 12-498,
630, 656
Of corporations, 12-497
Injuries to person and property,
from defective bridges, 11-276
From highwaysi 11-210
Joint tenants, 11-969
Statute of limitations, as affect-
ing joinder, 11-97?
Joint contracts, actions on, 11-965
Joint tenants, joinder of, 11-969
Judgments against infants, proceed-
ings to attack, 12-779, 789
Jurisdiction of, necessary to judicial
sale, 12-847
Legal interest, as affecting parties
plaintiff, 11-958
Mandamus, in highway proceedings,
laying out, 11-106
Removing obstructions, 11-171
Bepairing, 11-123, 124
Kepairing bridges, 11-272
Mechanic's lien, enforcing against
homestead, 11-342
Minor children, foreclosure on home-
stead, 11-378
Misjoinder of, in equity, 11-23
Names, see NaMBS.
Certainty in pleading, 4^39
Non-resident obligors, omitted, 11-979
Objections to, at hearing, 11-23
On release of joint obligor, 11-979
121
INDEX
PABTIES, conid.
Partition, wife as party to, home-
steads, 11-341
Partnership dissolution, where home-
stead involved, 11-841
Penalties, failure to do road work,
11-143
For obstructing highways, 11-162
Under contract labor law, 11-928
Personal representatives of joint
obligor, 11-978
Petition for homestead, 11-394
Fop sale of infant's property, 12-
815
Beal parties, in interest, plaintiffs
under code, 11-962
Representatives of joint -obligor, 11-
981
Sale of infant's property, petition
for, 12-815, 816
Setting aside, 12-852
Separate property of wife, to pro-
ceedings against, 11-829
Separation agreement, enforcement
of, 11-823
Settlement agreements, actions to
protect, 11-821
Sheriff, to proceedings to enjoin sale
of homestead, 11-418
Statutes of limitations, as affecting
joinder of defendants, 11-979
Stay, to cross-complainant's applica-
tion for, 11-21
Substitution of, on infant's attain-
ing majority, 12-802
Survivors, on joint obligation, 11-981
Tenants in common, joinder in con-
tract actions, 11-969
Torts upon wife, action for, 11-839
Trustee of express trust, party plain-
tiff, 11-963
United States, party to actions for
Indian depredations, 12-47
Variance, as to parties, 11-1048
Waiver of homestead, 11-434
Wife as party, 11-340, 342, 417, 434,
817
Joinder with husband, in indict-
ment, 12-497
Writ ot assistance, homesteads, 11-
342
PABTITION — Consult analysis of this
article wlien published.
Admiralty, jurisdiction of licitation,
1-401
Belease in, 1-509
Consolidation oi actions, 5-269
Curtesy, by tenant in, 6-324
Decrees, description, 6-776
Dower, to recover where, 7-890
PABTITION, contd.
Equity, jurisdiction, 8-437
Parties, 8-459
Exemption out of proceeds of sale
under, 11-496 .
Guardian ad litem, necessary, 10-715
Homesteads, assignment of in parti-
tion, 11-391
By grantee of homestead, 11-375
Of homestead premises, 11-406, 409
Parties, 11-341
Husband and wife, between, 11-712
PABTNEBSHIP — CofWttIt analysis of
this article when published. See
Associations ; Declabation and
Complaint; Eqihty Jurisdiction
AND Pbocedube; Joint Stock Com-
panies.
Accounts, of in equity, 1-276
Parties in accounting, 1-285
Appearance of, 2-519
Attachment, affidavit by member, 3-
400
Bonds for, 3-448
Attorneys, firm may act, 3-854
Bankruptcy proceedings, as to, 3-991
Jurisdiction, 3-955
Petition against, 3-966
Verification by partner, 3-924
Voluntary by, 3-960
Contract, must be proved when
pleaded, 11-1050
Default, publication in name of, 6-
831
Dissolution of, parties, where home-
stead involved, 11-341
Embezzlement, allegation of owner*
ship, 8-236
Equity jurisdiction, 8-437
Fraudulent conveyances, individual
and partnership creditors, 10-112
Parties in action, 10-146
Garnishment, 10-413, 486
Husband as member of, suits by wife
against, 11-710
PABT PEBPOBMANCE, see Frauds,
Statute of; Specific Pebfobmance.
PABTY WALLS — Consult analysis of
this article when published.
Covenant, concerning, action on, 6-142
PASSENGEBS — Consult analysis of
this article when published. See
Death by Wbonoful Act; Freight
Carbiebs; Injuries to Persons and
Pbopebtt; Neouqencb; Ships and
Shippino.
Admiralty, jurisdiction, contracts. 1-
385
PASTUBE^ see Aniicals; Liens.
128
INDEX
^A4nBl¥T8 — ComuXt analysis of this
article when published. Seo Copy-
eight Pbocebdinos; Discovery; In-
junctions ; Trade - Mares and
Trade Names.
Bills of particulars, 4-399
For lands, see Public Lands.
PATERNITY, see Bastardy Proceed-
ings; Parent and Child.
PATTPEBS — Consult analysis of this
article when published. See Arrest
in Civil Cases; Judgments and
Decrees, Enforcement of; Secur-
ity for Costs.
Admiralty, stipulations for costs, 1-
506, 507
Appeals, in forma pauperis, 1-560
Appeal bonds, statutory exemption, 2-
78
Attachment, in forma pauperis, 3-445
Attorneys, assigned to by court, 3-
861
Equity, action by, 8-451; 12801
Infants, suits by, in forma pauperis,
12-801
PAWN, see Pledges; Pawnbrokers.
PAWVBBOKEBS — CaMult analysis of
this article when published. See
Chattel Mortgages ; Liens ;
PiiEDGES; Usury*
PATlffENT — Consult analysis of this
article when published. See Bills
AND .Notes; Deposit in Court;
Tender.
Acceptance by, building contracts, 2-
687
Accounts, effect on limitations, 1-229
Stated, considered in • impeachment
of, 1-255
Affidavits of merits and defense,
averred directly in, 1-699
Assignment, plea disallowed after
notice of, 8-88
Pleading non-payment, 3-130
Assumpsit, under general issue, 3-
188, 212
Bills and notes, allegations concern-
ing, 4-248
Specially pleaded, 4-283
Bonds, non-payment alleged, 4-503
Plea, 4-518
Contribution, action accrues from, 5-
601
Costs, amount of claim reduced by, 5-
892
Payment as condition to another ac-
tion, 5-967
Decrees, for payment, 6-776
Denials, proof under general, 7-95
Under general issue, 7-73
PAtTMENT, cmtd.
Equity jurisdiction, apportionment, 8-
440
Factors and brokers, non-payment of
commission, 8-894
Allegations, 8-908
Question for jury, 8-904
Filing fees, where necessary, 8-982
Forthcoming bonds, in lieu of deliv-
ery, 10-17
Frauds, statute of, pleading part, 10-
73
Freight carriers, allegation as to, 10-
244
Garnishment, payment to principal
defendant after process, 10-519
Defendant may show before gar-
nishment, 10-531
Discharge by, to officer, 10-565
To plaintiff, 10-566
Judgment not discharge against
defendant, 10-584
Of judgment discharges against de-
fendant, when, 10-585
To officer holding execution, 10-577
General issue, proof under, 3-188,
212; 7-73
Guardian and ward, allegation of non-
X^yment in action on bond, 10-
893
Kequiring payment over to foreign
guardian, 10-904
Homestead, of value of, 11-371, 405
Of contract, medium of, as affecting
remedy, 11-953
Pleading, non-payment, 11-1006, 1008
PAYMENT INTO COUBT, see Deposit
IN Court.
PEACE, see Breach op the Peace;
Security to Keep the Peace.
PEDDLERS, see Hawkers and Ped-
dlers
PENALTIES, FOBFEITOBES AND
FINES — Consult analysis of this
article when published. See Judg-
ments AND Decrees, Enforcement
OP; Municipal Corporations;
Search and Seizure; Summary
Proceedings ; Taxation ; Tele-
graphs AND Telephones; Usury.
Admiralty, proceedings in rem, 1-420
Appeals by either party, 1-555
Libel of information, 1-458
Release of rem, 1-509
Venue, 1-425
Affidavit of defense, necessity, 1-664
Affidavits for 12-898
Animals, for rescuing from pound, 1-
982
Another action pending, 1-1014
Answer subjecting to, 4-159
128
INDEX
PSKALTIE8, FOBFSrrUBES AND
FINBB^ cantd.
Appeals, in actions for, 11-166, 169
Apprenticesi penalty for enticing, 2-
585
Attachment for statutory penalties,
3-346
Chanee of venue, actions for pen-
alties local, 5-9
Civil action for, 11-160, 167
Complaint for penalty, collision on
highway, 11-253
Failure to repair highway, 11-123
Obstructing highway, 11-163, 168
Contempt, disposition of fine, 5-420
Copyright, forfeiture of infringing ar-
ticles, 5-517
Corporations, crimes, punishment by
fine, 5-683
Forfeiture of delinquent stock, 5-
688
Costs, in action for, 11-167, 170
Courts martial, fines, 6-121
Cruelty to animals, action for pen-
alty, 6-321
Customs duties, actions for forfeiture,
6-355
Death by wrongful act, must sue for
full penalty, 6-431
Debt, to recover, 6-474
Allegations in action on statute, 6-
483
For obstructing highway, 11-162
Departure, trespass and penalty, 7-121
Discovery, not to subject to, 7-533,
565, 578, 588
Flections, actions for penalties, 8-164
Embracery, actions for penalties, 8-
254
Equity jurisdiction for relief, 8-405
Extortion, 8-825
Forthcoming bond, penalty of bond,
10-10
Belief in equity, 10-19
Fraudulent conveyances, action for
penalty, 10-98
Freight carriers, actions for, 10-224,
226
Allegations in, 10-250
Game and fish, recovering statutory
penalties, 10-308
Gaming, action for, 10-328
Becovery of loss notwithstand-
ing, 10-321
Forfeiture of devices, 10-331
Hawkers and peddlers, actions for,
10-974
Health, action for penalty, 10-984
Druggist without license, 10-993
Highways, collision on, 11-253
Failure to do road work, 11-142
PSKALTIfiS, FOSnarUBM AMD
FINES, oontd.
Highways, contd.
Failure to repair, 11-122
For obstructing, 11-160
Injuries from, 11-196
Immigration laws, for violatiom of.
11-926
Indictment to recover, 12-82
Information, at common law, 12-704
Judgment for, highway obstmctionsy
11-165
Jurisdiction to enforce, encroachment
on highway, 11-168
Violation of immigration laws, 11*
926
Jury, penalty fixed by, 11-689
Parties, encroachment on highways,
11-162
Failure to do road work, 11-143
To appeal, highways, 11-170
Pleading, 11-169
Prerequisites to action, 11-161
Prior conviction, as affecting, 12-354
Province of judge and jury, 11-165
Bemedies to recover, 10-328; 11-160,
167; 12-82
Summons, in action to recover, 11-
}63
Variance, action for penalty, high-
ways, 11-165
Venue, penalty for failure to do road
work, 11-142
Verdict, penalty for obstructing high-
way, 11-165
Warrant to collect, ipeeifying
amount, 11-142
PENDENCY OF ACTION, see Anotheb
AcnoN PsNDiNO; Lis Pendbns.
PENITENTIABY, see Prisons and
Peisonebs.
PSM8I0KB AHD BOJnnnSB ^ Con-
sult analysis of this article when
published*
PEONAGE, see Masub akd Sbbtakt.
PBBCOLATING WATEBS, see Watbbs
AND WaTBBCOUBSBS.
PEBFOBMANCE, see Implied and Ex-
FBESS AOKEEMEKTS. See also &P^
CIFIC PSRFOBMANCB.
Appeal bonds, allegations in actions
on, 2-104
Arbitration, allegations concerning, 2-
649, 652
Plea of, 2-657, 666
Architects and builders, substantial,
2-687
Demand necessary iQ quaBtnm
memiti 2-692
184
INDEX
PERPOBMANCE, eanid.
Assumpsity of conditions, 3-186
Failure to allege cared by ver-
dict, 3-186
Effect of performance and non-per-
formance, 3-196
Malperformance under general is-
' sue, 3-213
Beadiness to perform, under gen-
eral issue, 3-189
Bonds, of conditions preeedent, al-
. legations, 4-499
Burden of proof, 4-529
Plea, 4-516, 516
Breach of promise, allegations of
readinesj9, 4-552
Composition with creditors, of con-
ditions, 5-177, 179
Conclusions of law, general allega-
tions of, 5-222
Conditions precedent, of, pleading,
11-998
Contract of, as affecting the remedy,
11-948
Prevented by act of God, 11-950
When for jury, 11-1064
Covenant, action of, conditions prece-
dent, allegations, 6-146
Non-performance, plea, 6-160
Plea, 6159
Debt, allegations, 6-480
Decrees, time, 6-776
Departure, excuse after plea of, 7-
129
Equity jurisdiction, 8-410
Factors and brokers, averments of, 8-
888, 895 ■
Question for jury, 8-903
Forthcoming bonds, effect of perform-
ance, 10-20
Fraud and deceit, unnecessary to ac-
tion, 10-42
Frauds, statute of, pleading part, 10-
72
Guaranty, pleading, 10-685, 693
Guardian and ward, plea in action
on bond, 10-896
Instructions as to what constitutes,
11-1072
Partial performance, alleging, 11-
1004
Time of, pleading, 11-1004
Waiver, averments as to, 11-1005
Of conditions in express contract,
11-950
TBRJURY — Consult analysis of this ar-
ticle when published. See also
Criminal Procedure.
Bankruptcy proceedings, as objection
to discharge, 3-927
PfiBJXJBY, eontd.
Bills to impeach judgments and de
crees, for perjury, 4-476
Information and belief, in state
ments made on. 12-910^
Subornation of perjury, joinder with
12-535
PERPETUATION OP TESTIMONY
depositions, 7-201
Discovery, distinguished, 7-508
Elections, in contests before con
gress, 8-88
Equity jurisdiction, 8-442
PXB80KAL ACnOTSf B — Consult analy-
sis of this article when published.
See FoBMS of Action; Suits and
Actions.
Admiralty, in, see Adiciralty.
Aliens, against, 1-798
Appearance, judgment in personam,
2-521
Creditors' suits, personal judgment,
6-236
Decrees in, 1-548
Default, divorce, alimony, 6-815
Effect, res judicata, 6-824
Divorce, in part in nature of, 7-739
Ejectment, mixed personal and pos-
sessory, 7-982
PERSONAL INJURIES, see Injtjeibs
TO Pbksons and Pbopertt.
PBBSONAL TBOTISBTT ^ Consult
analysis of this article when pub-
lished.
Bailments, agistment, 1-976
Attachment of bailed property, 3-
309
Garnishment of bailee, 10-408
PETITIONS — Consult analysis of this
article when published. See Declara-
tion AND Complaint; Verifica-
tion.
Admiralty, 1-489
For appeal, 1-559
For intervention, 1-521, 525
Amendment, 1-849
For appeal, highways, 11-72
For homestead allotment, 11-393
Appeals, for, 2-293
For rehearing, 2-407, 408
In highway proceedings, 11-72
Appraisement of minor's property,
petition prior to, 12-824
Apprentices, to bind out, 2-574
Attachment, of claim of third per-
son, 3-663
Attorneys, to reinstate disbarred, 3-
873
Audita querela, as a iub0titat« for,
3-877
125
INDEX
PETITIONS, conid.
Bankruptcy, see Bankruptcy Pro-
ceedings.
Bills and answers, to amend bill, 4-
204
Bills of exceptions, for mandamus to
compel settlement, 4-348
Bills of review, for leave to file, 4-
422
For supplemental in nature of, 4-
457
Certiorari, applications by, 4-906, 958
In highway proceedings, 11-96, 267
To review homestead allotment, 11-
404
Change of venue, for, 4-985
Contests of application, 5-22
Commerce court, 5-169
Contempt, procedure on civil, 5-394
Decedents' estates, for letters of ad-
ministration, 6-503
Accounting, for, 6-592
To set aside account, 6-621
Bond, for additional, 6-507
Discovery of assets, 6-521
Distribution, for, 6-627
Inventory, to compel, 6-524
Order for sale, for, 6-544, 549-554
Bemoval of administrator, for, 6-
516
Decrees, to set aside pro confesso, 6-
768
To alter, 6-796, 797
Depositions, to take, 7-223
Discovery, for inspection, 7-630
For production of documents, 7-614
Statutory action, 7-546
Divorce, to set aside, 7-800
To modify alimony, 7-844
Dower, for assignment, 7-873
Elections, for contests, 8-64
For recount, 8-106
Emancipation, for, 12-805
Eminent domain, for condemnation,
8-279-290
Equity, in interlocutory proceedings,
8-490
Guardian ad litem, application for in
writing, 10-733
Guardian and ward, for appointment,
10-784
By guardian for habeas corpus, 10-
818
For ancillary guardianship, 10-907
For guardianship of incompetent,
12-15
Averments in, 12-16
For removal of guardian, 10-812
For transfer to foreign guardian,
10-905
PETITIO]SrS» contd.
Guardian and ward, c(mid.
Presenting claim against ward's
estates, 10-854
Habeas corpus, application for writ,
10-920
By aUen, 11-922
Heirs, to determine, 12-919
Highways, appeal from dismissal of
petition, 11-69
Second petition to establish, 11*58
Homesteads, for allotment, generally,
11-319, 354
Amendment of, 11-332
By widow and children, 11-385, 390,
392
Conte:its of petition, 11-320
Notice of, 11-393
Ownership, setting out, 11-322
• Proceedings upon, 11-323
Reassignment, 11-369
Signing and verifying, 11-322
The schedule, 11-322
Juvenile proceedings, in, 12-864
Verification of, 12-867
Mandamus, for, bridges, to compel
opening and repair of, 11-272
Highways, to compel payment of
damages, 11-113
To compel opening of, 11-106
To compel repair of, 11-123
To compel restoration of, 11-125
To remove obstructions from, 11-
172
Mortgage, infant's property, to, 12-
858
Notice, for leave to file, of injuries
from highways, 11-206
Of petition for sale of infant's
property, 12-821
Of petition to become sole trader,
11-817
Beview decree, to, against infant,
12-785
Sole trader, to become, 11-817, 818
To sell property of infant, 12-815, 818
Parties, 11-815, 816
Time for making, 12-818
Verification of, 12-820
To set aside judicial sale, 12-851, 85S
Verification of petition, for allot-
ment of homestead, 11-393
For emancipation, 12-806
To sell infant's property, 12-820
PETITORY ACTIONS, see Real and
Mixed Actions; Title.
In admiralty, 1-402
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, see States
AND Territories.
PHOTOGRAPHS, PROPERTY IN, see
Personal Propebtt.
126
INDEX
PR7SICAL lUtAimrATlON — CortBult
analysis of thifi article when pub-
lished. See 9 Ency. op Ev. 783.
Bills of particulars, distinctions, 4-
'375'
Discovery, analogous to, 7-528
Divorce, 7-752
PHYSICIANS AKD SXTBaEONS —
Consult analysis of this article when
published. See Health; Licenses;
Negligence ; Physical Examina-
tion; Witnesses; Work and
Labok.
Abortion, advice of physician, 1-109
Homicide, by criminal negligence, 11-
602
Malpractice, information for murder
caused by, 11-621
PICKETING, see Labor Unions.
PICTURES, see Obscenity; Post Of-
fice.
PILOTS, see Ships and Shipping.
PntACnr — consult analysis of this ar-
ticle when published. See also
Criminal Procedure.
PLACE, see Certainty in Pleading;
Indictment and Information ;
Pleading.
Allegations of, criminal prosecutions^
12137, 297
Amending as to, indictment, 12-552
Information, 12-561
Certainty in pleading, 12-296
Proof of, in contract actions, 11-1047
Statutes dispensing with allegations
of, 12-297
Street, included in term, 11-46
PLACE OF TRIAL, see Change of
Venue; Transfer of Causes;
Venue.
PLAINTIFFS, see Parties.
PLATTING, homestead, 11-318, 323
PLEA, see Arraignment and Plea;
Pleas.
PIiEADING — Consult analysis of this
article when publislied. See Abate-
ment, Pleas op; Account and Ac-
counting; Affidavits of Merits
AND Defense; Answers; Arraign-
ment AND Plea; Assumpsit; Bills
AND Answers; Bills of Partic-
ulars; Bills To Enforce De-
crees; Bills To Impeach Judg-
ments AND Decrees; Case (the
Action of Trespass on the) ;
Cause of Action; Certainty in
Pleading; Choice Xnd Election op
Remedies; Conclusions op Law;
Construction and Theory of
Pleadings; Covenant, Action of;
Cross - Bill ; Cross • Complaint ;
PLEADING, contd.
Debt ; Declaration and Complaint ;
Demurrer ; Denials ; Departure ;
Detinue; Disclaimer; Duplicity;
Ejectment ; Equity Jurisdiction
AND Procedure; Exhibits; Friv-
olous AND Sham Pleadings; Il-
legality, How Pleaded; Indict-
ment AND Information; Induce-
ment; Information and Belief;
Interpleader; Issues in Pleading
AND Practice ; Joinder of Actions ;
Judicial Notice ; Jurisdiction ;
Justices of the Peace; Limita-
tion OF Actions; Mental State;
Multifariousness ; Negligence ;
NuL TiEL Record; Oyer and Pro-
pert; Plea in Equity; Pleas;
Prayer; Probate Courts; Puis
Darrein Continuance, Pleas op;
Becords ; Repleader ; Replevin ;
Replication and Reply; Repug-
nancy ; Set-Opf, Counterclaim and
Recoupment; Several Counts;
Statement or Affidavit of Claim;
Striking Out and Withdrawal;
Successive Suits ; Supplemental
Pleading; Surplusage and Scan-
dal; Time To Plead; Trespass;
Trover and Conversion; Venue;
Verification; Waiver; Writ of
Entry; and many other titles
where the rules of pleading are ap-
plied to specific cases.
Abandonment of homestead, 11-468
Abbreviations, 1-73
Admiralty, 1-445
Claim, 1-502
Formal parts, 1-446, 448, 450, 461
New in appellate court, 1-566
Adverse parties determined by, 12-
919
Alternative pleading, 2-51; 6-694; 11-
117
In indictment, as ground for de-
murrer, 12-649
Amendment, see Amendments and
Jeofails; New Cause of Action
OR Defense; Parties.
Answers, see Answers; Confession
AND Avoidance; Denl/ils; Pleas.
Appeals, see Appeals.
Argumentative pleading, 2-49
Arguments, comments on, 2-757
Reading in, 2-815, 816
Arrest of judgment, for matters not
pleaded, 2-1011
Assignments, 3-121
Assignments for creditors, 3-60, 67,
70, 81
Assumpsit, 3-206
127
INDSX
PLEABINGy contd.
Attorneys, on disbarment, 3-866, 870
Bankruptcy, discharge in, 11-979
Bills of particulars, whether plead-
ings, 4-377
To explain, 4-378
Bills to enforce decrees, 4-465-469
Bills to impeach judgments and de-
crees, 4-480
Bonds, 4-496
Breach of promise, 4-549
Briefs, statement of errors, 4-579
Cause of action, see Cause of Action.
Certainty of pleading, 4-833
Chattel mortgages, ac.tions iot pos-
session, 5-50
Foreclosure, 5-69
Collision, 5-133
Colloquium, use of, in indictment,
12-343
Commerce court, 5-169
Conclusions of law, 5-205
In criminal pleading, generally, 12-
344
Indictment not rendered double by,
12-503
Confession and avoidance, 5-228
Conjunction, failure to use, cured by
verdict, 12-700
Consent, to maintain obstruction on
highway, 11-230
Consideration, partial failure of, 11-
1023
Consolidation of actions, effect on
pleadings, 5-275
Constitutional provisions as to ac-
cusation, not rules of pleading,
12-295
Construction and theory of, 5-335.
See Construction and Thboey or
Pleadinos.
After issue joined, 5*353
After trial, 5-353
Code rule, 5-346
Common law rule, 5-343
Homestead claim, 11-429
Contribution, 5-502
Contributory negligence, negativing,
in action on implied indemnity,
12-32
Injuries from highways, 11-280
Copyright proceedings, 5-512
Corporations, actions by, 5-638
Actions against, 5-652
Averments of Ineorpofation, 5-640
Foreign, 6-742
Statutory liability of stockholders,
5-693
Stockholders' suits, 5-718
Court rules, 6-61
Courts martial, 6-114
Creditors' suits, 6-208
Customs and usages, when required,
6-329
Averments of, 6-332
Customs duties, actions for for-
feitures, 6-356
Dates, in indictment, 12-609, 650
Death by wrongful act, 6-404
Decedents' estates, accounting in
equity, 6-597
In proceedings for, 6-592
Setting aside account, 6-616
Claims, objections to, 6-533
tHstrlbution, application for, 0-62S
In appellate court, 6-586
Objections to account, 6-600
Beference, on, 6-542
Sales, application for, 6-558
Setting aside, 6-576
Decrees, supported by pleadings and
evidence,. 6-750
Becitals, 6-777
Default, failure to plead, 6-804
Demurrer, 6-849. See DemubxbIl
After, 6-940
After overruling, 6-1001-1005
After sustaining, 6-996-1001
Form of, 12-654
Matter on face of, 6-888
Must Identify, 6-872
To indictment, time for, 12-653
To part, 6-867-860
What may be demurred, 6-856
Demurrer to evidence, defects not
waived by, 7-5
Denials, see Denials.
Departure, 7-117. See Depabttbe.
Deportation proceedings, 11-905, 911
Discovery, interrogatories as part of
pleadings, 7-581
Disjunctive, in the, 12^334, 650
Divorce, see DrvoECB.
Dower, 7-873
Due process of law, prescribing rales,
7-912
Duplicity, 7-932. See Dupuoitt.
In indictment, for failure to repair
highway, 11-117
For homicide, 11-629
Verdict, cured by, 12-701
Easements, 7-966
Elections, in contests, 8-64
Eminent domain, 6-278
English language, pleading must be
in, 12-308
Errors, to assignment of, 8-648
Escheat, 8-671
Estoppel, nature, 8-680
Necessity for, 8-682
128
INDEX
PLEADZNG, eonid.
Executors and administrators^ ac-
tions against, 8-757
Actions by, 8-738
Bonds, actions on, 8-788
Foreign, actions against, 8-778
Actions by, 8-751
Exemption, 11-488
Claimed in pleading, as affecting
appraisement, 11-513
Exhibits, 8-794
Not a part of at common law, 8-794
Part of in equity, 8-814
Factors and brokers, 8-868, 879, 885,
905
Forcible entry and detainer, 8-1109
Fraud and deceit, 10-49
Frauds, statute of, 10-68
Frivolous and sham, 10-260
Game and fish, 10-311
Gaming, civil recoveries, 10-323
Forfeitures, 10-334
General issue, in trespass, 11-125
Guaranty, 10-682
Habeas corpus on return or writ, 10-
933
Haec verba, in, 11-989
Homestead, 11-356, 419, 422, 429
Hypothetical pleading, 2-49
Illegality, see Illegality, How
Pleaded.
Inconsistent defenses, 11-1029 *
Indemnity contract, 12-31, 32
Indians, in actions concerning, 12-48
Indictment, in, see Ceetaintt in
Pleading; Indictment and In-
formation.
Inducement, see title Inducement.
Informations, 12-294
Filed before pleading, 12-119
In civil cases, 12-714
Injunction, complaint for, 11-110
Innuendo, use of, 12-843
Intent, to defraud, in indictment, 12-
298
Intoxicating liquors, alleging person
to whom sold, 12-298
Judgment on pleadings, indemnity,
12-32
Jurisdictional facts, Indian depreda-
tion suits, 12-49
In affidavit and information, 12-
138
Justice court, in, see Justices of
the Peace.
Legal effect, according to, 11-989
Lost or destroyed, see Records.
Mandamus, in, highway proceeaings,
11-106
Matters of aggravation, 12-354
Misjoinder in, see Misjoinder,
TlXAS>13S[(kt eonid.
Names, abbreviation of^ in pleading,
12311
Negativing defenses, in criminal
pleading, 12-360
Negativing provisos and exceptions,
homestead claims, 11-428
In indictment, 11-637
Aider by verdict, 12-699
Negligence, injuries from defective
highways, 11-278
Non-payment, 11-1008
Notice, of homestead claim, 11-428
Of injury and claim, 11-281
Numbers, in indictment, 12-608
Objections to, upon hearing, 11-23
Omission of words in, effect, 12-318
Place, defect in cured by verdict,
12-700
In indictment, 12-296
In preliminary complaint, 18-137
Preliminary complaint, form of> 12-
132
Becital, by way of, see Obrtaintt
in Pleading.
Beplication, waiver of, by hearing,
11-4 '
Bepugnaney, indietment for hom-
icide, 11-629
Special injury to public, 12-716
Statute of limitations, matters in
avoidance of, 12-352
Submission on the, in equity, 11-11
Surplusage in the indictment, 11-627,
632
Theory of pleadings, see Construc-
tion AND Theory of Pleadings.
Time, in indictment, 12-296
Value, 12-609
Yenue, in information of intrusion,
12-715
Vulgarisms, to be avoided, 12-308
Waiver of homestead, 11-438
PLEADING IN EQUITY, see Bills and
Answers ; Equity Jurisdiction and
Procedure f Pleading; Plea in
Equity.
PLEADING OYEB, after demurrer, 6-
996.
To indictment, 12-657
After plea in abatement, 1-72
PLEADINGS, see Pleading; Pleas;
Service of Process and Papers;
Striking Out and Withdrawal.
PLEADING UNDER THE CODES, see
Answers; Declaration and Com-
plaint; Replication and Beplt;
Set-Off, Counterclaim and Be-
coupment.
129
INDEX
PLEA IN EQUITY — Consult analysis
of this article when published. See
Equity Jurisdiction and Peo-
CEDUKE.
Acconnt stated, 1-291, 296
Another action pending, 1-1034
Answer in support of plea, 4-151
Bills of review, plea to, 4-452
Bills to enforce decrees, plea to, 4-
469
Creditors' suits, 6-218
Cross-bills, plea to, 6-290
Decedents' estates, accounting, 6-598
Demurrer to, 6-856
With plea, 6-866
Duplicity, 7-932, 937
Equity, 8-483
"PLEAS — Consult analysis of this ar-
ticle when published*
Abatement and bar distinguished, 1-
28
Abatement, requirement of pleas in,
1-41
Accord and satisfaction, a special
plea, 1-171
Allegations, 1-182, 183, 184, 186
Joinder, 1-187
May be pleaded puis darrein con-
tinuance, 1-174
Pleading of, waived by not object-
ing, 1-174
Account, see Account and Account-
ing.
In action on book, 1-236, 237, 238
Account stated, in action on, 1-247
As defense to action of account, 1-
230, 252
Admiralty, none, exceptions instead,
1-460
Adverse possession, 1-621
Affidavits of defense, not sufficient
as, 1-712
Aliens, jurisdiction, 1-803
Alienage, in real actions, 1-809
How pleaded, 1-812
Alien's right questioned by, 1-811,
812
Amendments, additional pleas, 1-883
Of information, before, 12-558
Another action pending, see An-
other Action Pending.
Answer, incorporated in, 11-23
Arbitration, in actions on awards, 2-
653
Of award, 2-664
Arraignment and plea, see Arraign-
ment and Plea.
Arrest in civil cases, to affidavit for,
2-970
Assumpsit, 2-187-190, 212-214
FLEAS, contd.
Attachment in main action, 3-718
In proceedings to vacate, 3-796
Attorneys, by unauthorized, 3-354
Audita querela, to writ, 3-880
Banks and banking, to negligence is
collecting, 4-12
Bastardy proceedings, 4-70
Bigamy, 4-97
Bills and notes, 4-271-285
Bonds, 4-509-522
Breach of promise, 4-554
Case, the action on the, 4-658
Certainty in pleading, time, 4-843
Chinaman, by, in deportation pro-
ceedings, 11-911
Composition with creditors, 5-177-180
Compromise and settlement, 5-196
Impeaching, 5-199
Confession and avoidance, 5-228-248
Color, 5-231, 232
Construction and theory of pleading,
5-335-362
Contempt, former jeopardy, 5-421
Contracts, actions on, 11-1010
Corporations, corporate existence, 5-
645-648
Actions against, 5-654-658
Foreign actions against, 5-744
Foreign, in action by, non-compli-
ance, 5-743
Covenant, action of, 6-158-161
Covenants performed, scope of, 11-
1021
Criminal cases, in, see Abatement,
Pleas of; Arraignicent and
Plea; Jeopardy; Pardon; Pleas.
Death by wrongful act, 6-436
Debt, 6-486
Decedents' estates, action against
purchaser at sale, 6-578
Demurrer, distinguished, 6-850
To plea, 6-913
As amounting to general iasae,
6-909
To part of, 6-857
To whole where good in part, 6-
970
Denials, 7-32
As plea in bar, 7-32
Conclusions, 7-37
Notice of defense instead of special
pleas, 7-79
Special traverse, 7-100
• Detinue, non detinet, 7-482
Disclaimer, 7-491
Dower, in proceedings for, 7-870
Duplicity, 7-936. See Dupucity.
Duress, specially pleaded, 7-951
Ejectment, 7-1036
130
INDEX
PLEAS, conid.
Eminent domain, objections as, 8-295
Errors, to assignment of, 8-648
Estoppel, nature of, 8-679
Necessity for, 8-682
Setting up, 8-693
Executors and Administrators, deny-
ing capacity, 8-744-762
In actions against foreign, 8-778
In actions by foreign, 8-751
Actions on bonds, 8-790
In action de son tort, 8-780
Extortion, civil actions, 8-828
Factors and brokers, 8-868, 874, 896,
906
Failure of consideration, when avail-
able, 11-1021
False imprisonment, 8-968
Forcible entry and detainer, 8-1119
Fraud and deceit, general issue, 10-58
Frauds, statute of, 10-71
Freight carriers, 10-252
Frivolous and sham pleading, remedy,
10-276
Oarnishment, defenses by garnishee,
10521
Guaranty, 10-692
Guardian and ward, by guardian for
ward, 10-870
Highways, injuries from, 11-229
Homesteads, objections to applica-
tion for, 11-320
Plea of exemption, in ejectment,
11-419
Illegal evidence, requiring, 11-1029
Indemnity, in, 12-31
Indian tribe, by attorney general,
for, 12-48
Indictment, to, 12-659
After motion to quash, 12-643
Withdrawal of plea, 12-636
Infancy, as affecting default, 12-767
Information and belief, on, 12-904
Joint and several, nature of, 11-1032
Never indebted, improper on simple
contract, 11-1013
Nil debet, when proper, 11-1013
Non-assumpsit, denies execution, 11-
1016
Hlegality shown undet, 11-895
In assumpsit, 11-1013
Non damnificatus, in indemnity, 12-31
Non est factum, 11-1032
Denies execution of instrument, 11-
1016
Joined with want of consideration,
11-1025
On specialty, 11-1013
Not guilty, improper in contract, 11-
1014
Penalty, actions for, 11-169
PLEAS, eonid.
Statute of limitations, 11-1032
Verified plea, execution denied by,
11-1017
PLEAS IN CRIMINAL CASES, see
Abatement, Pleas of; Arraign-
ment AND Plea; Jeopardy; Par-
don; Pleas.
PLEDGES — Consult analysis of this ar-
ticle when published. See Chattel
Mortgages ; Liens ; Pawnbrokers.
Attachment, for debts of pledgor, 3-
308
For fraudulent conveyance, 3-391
Subject to pledge, 3-603
Corporate stock, who may sue, 5-709
Equity, jurisdiction, 8-402
Factors and brokers, of principal's
goods, 8-877
Garnishment, for balance due, 10-443
Payment by plaintiff, 10-445
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES, see
Briefs. •
POISONS, see Health; Homictde; In-
dictment and Information; Cer-
tainty IN Pleading.
POLICE COUBT, see Justices of the
Peace; Munictpal Corporations.
Statutory forms, use of in prosecution
by affidavit or complaint, 12-303
POLICEMEN, see Municipal Corpora-
tions; Sheriffs, Constables and
1^ ARS HALS
POLICE REGULATIONS, affidavit for
violation of, 12-86
Complaint for violation of, 12-86
POLYGAMY, see Bigamy.
POOL, see Gaming.
POOR LAWS, see Paupers.
POOR PERSONS, see Paupers.
PORT, see Navigable Waters; Ships
AND Shipping.
PORTO RICO, see States and Terri-
tories.
POSSESSION, see Adverse Possession ;
Assistance, Writs op; Ejectment;
Forcible Entrt and Detainer;
Judgments and Decrees, Enforce-
ment of; Use and Occupation;
Writ of Entrt.
POSSESSORY WARRANT, see Sum-
mart Proceedings.
POSTEA, see Records.
POST OFFIOE — Consult analysis of
this article when published. See
NoncE; Obscenitt; Service of
Process and Papers. See also
Criminal Procedure,
Abortion, sending means of by mail,
1-100
Embezzlement, of letters, 8-234
181
INDEX
POST OFFICE, contd.
Sending obscene matter through mail,
charging offense of, 12-349
Using mails to defraud, indictment
for, 12-323
POSTPONEMENT, see Continuances;
Judgments and Decrees, Enforce-
ment OP J Judicial Sales.
POUNDS AND POUND KEEPERS, 1-
981
POVERTY, see Paupers; Security for
Costs.
POWERS — Consult analysis of this ar-
ticle when published. See Principal
and Agent.
PBAOTIOE — Consult analysis of this
article when published. See Ad-
miralty; Affidavits of Merits and
Defense; Agreed Case; Amend-
ments AND Jeofails ; Amicable Ac-
tions; Amicus Curiae; Appeal
Bonds ; Appeals ; ^ Appearances ;
Arguments ; Arraignment and
Plea; Arrest of Judgment; As-
sistance, Writs of; Attachment;
Attorneys; Audita Querela; Bills
OF Exceptions; Bills of Partic-
ulars; Bonds; Briefs; Case and
Question Certified, Reserved or
Reported; Case on Appeal; Cer-
tificate OF Probable Cause and
OF Reasonable Doubt; Certiorari;
Change of Venue; Choice and
Election of Remedies; Consouda-
tion of Actions; Contempt; Con-
tin uANCEs ; Coroner 's Inquest ;
Costs; Courts Martial; Deced-
ents ' Estates ; Decrees ; Default ;
Demurrer to Evidence; Deposit, in
Court; Depositions; Discovery;
Dismissal, Discontinuance and
Nonsuit; Due Process of Law;
Ejectment ; Eminent Domain ;
Equity Jurisdiction and Proced-
ure; Errors, Assignment of; Ex-
hibits ; Extradition ; Piuno ;
Forthcoming Bonds ; Frivolous
AND Sham Pleadings; Garnish-
ment; Grand Jury; Habeas Cor-
pus ; Homesteads and Exemptions ;
Injunctions; Inquiry, Writ op;
Interstate Commerce ; Interven-
tion; Joinder op Actions; Judg-
ment Records; Judgments; Judg-
ments AND Decrees, Enforcement
OF; Judgments, Satisfaction op;
Judicial Sales; Justices of the
Peace ; Laches ; Lis Pendens ; Lost
Instruments; Mandamus; Man-
date; Motions; Ne Exeat; New
Trial; Nolle Prosequi; Oath and
PBACTIOE, eontd.
Affirmation; Objections and Ex-
ceptions; Offer of Proof; Open-
ing AND Closing; Order op Proof;
Orders; Oyer and Profebt; Par-
ties; Partition; Paupers; Pm-
TioNS; Physical Examination;
Preliminary Examination; Priv-
ilege; Probate Courts; Proceed-
ings in Rem; Prohibitiok; Pro-
cess; Quu Timet; Recoonizancsb
AND Bail; References; Shearing;
Release; Remission of Dakaob;
Removal of Causes; IIbplkader;
Replevin ; Returns ; Revivor ;
Scire Fahas; Search and Seizure;
Security for Costs; Separate
Trials; Sequestration; Service of
Process and Papers; Sevxrak<b;
Spectal Interrogatories to Jubiib;
Stipulations; Stribinq Out akd
Withdrawal; Subpoena; Subroga-
tion; Substitution of Attorney;
Summary Prooeedinqs; Supple-
mentary Proceedings ; Subplcs-
AGE AND Scandal; Tender;
Threats; Time To Pisad; Trans-
fer OF CAUSES; Trial; Variance
AND Failure of Pboof; Venirs be
Novo; Venue; Verdict; Verifica-
tion; View; Waiver; Witnesses;
Writ of Error. See also Criminal
Procedure; and many other titles
where the rules of practice are ap-
plied to specific oases.
PBAJBOIPB — Consult analysis of this
article when published. Sea Pbo-
CESS.
Attachment, not required for writ, 3-
471
PRATEB — Consult awilysis of this ar-
ticle when published.
Abatement, prayer in plea of» 1-43
None under codes, 1-45
Accounts, general suiBeienty 1-290
Admiralty, 1-461
Amendments of, 1-927
Appeal bonds, in action on, 2-102
Appeals, in petitions for, 2-296
Assignment for oreditors, alternative
on fraudulent conveyance, 3-71
Attachment, in main action, 3-702
Bills and answers, 4-136
Amendments, 4-195
Bills of review, 4-451
Bills to impeach judgments and de-
crees, 4-488
Cause of action, relief distinguished,
4-808
Necessary to support, 4-802
132
INDEX
eonid.
Constraction of pleadings, theory
from prayer, 5-361
Creditors' suits, 6-217
Judgment or decree under general
prayer, 6-24Q
Crossbill, 6-280
Decedents' estates, petition to sell, 6-
553
Declaration and complaint, 6-712
Decrees, affected, 6-754
Demurrer, when, 6-912
Not germane to suit, 6-935
Discovery, bill, 7-537
Divorce, alimony, 7-823
Custody and support of children, 7-
853
Equity, 8-462
Errors, assignment of, want of, 8-537
Forcible entry and detainer, for
punitive damages, 8-1116
For process, in information, 12-715
Fraudulent conveyances, relief under
prayer, 10-172
Homesteads, relief under general
prayer, 11-432
Informations in civil suits, in, 12-715
Wife's separate estate, for relief
against, 11-831
PREJUDICE, see Change of Venue;
Juansa and Jusoas; Teansisb or
Causes
PBELIMINABY AFFIDAVIT, immate-
rial errors in, 12-136
Identifying statute, violated, 12-139
Indictment, quashing for want of, 12-
612
Naming person or property injured,
12-138
Negativing exceptionq, 12-138
Several counts in, 12-138
Statutory forms, not applicable, 12-
303
PRELIMINARY COMPLAINT, affiant 's
signature to. 12-140
Amendment o/, 12-567
Certainty in pleading, in, as compared
with indictment, 12-135
Describing accused, 12-139
Filing, 12-144
Following language of statute, 12-134
Form of, 12-132
Entitling, 12-131
Signing and verifying, 12-141
Statutory forms, use of, 12-303
Immaterial errors in, 12-136
Naming affiant, 12-140
Objections to, 12-636
Officer who took complaint, describ-
ing, 12-140
Several counts in, 12-138
PRELIMINARY COMPLAINT, conid.
Statement of offense, 12-132, 133
Statute violated, identifying, 12-139
Variance, between, and indictment,
12-630
Warrant based upon, 12-122
Where insufficient, effect on informa-
tion, 12-139
Witnesses, setting out, 12-140
PBELIMINABY EXAJtflKATION —
Consult analysis of this article when
published.
Abatement, pleas in for lack of, 1-130
Adultery, on prosecution for, 1-599
Amendment of information to charge
offense not shown at, 12-557
Bastardy proceedings, 4-66
Corporations, of, 5-681
Elections, offenses, 8-144
Extradition, 8-842
Habeas corpus, before or after, 10-
922, 936
Immigrant, of, 11-902
Indictment, prior to, 12-87, 90, 122,
881
Finding indictment pending, 12-92
Quashing for want of, 12-612
Information, as basis of, 12-87, 113,
122
Amendment of, to charge offense
not shown at, 12-557
Not affected by defective com-
plaint, 12-139
Juvenile acts, under, 12-881
Waiver of, 12-91
PBEMATUBE ACTIONS, see Suits and
Actions.
In admiralty, 1-424
PRESCRIPTION, see Easbkents; Lim-
itation OP Actions; Title.
PRESENTMENT, see Indictment and
Information.
Definition of, 12-73
PRESUMPTION, see Ency. of Ev. See
also Judgments; Jurisdiction; Re-
view; Writ of Ebbor.
Appeals, against error, 2-416
In highway proceedings, 11-86
In juvenile proceedings, 12-878
Charging matters of, criminal plead-
ing, 12-347
Courtsy as to proceedings of, 12-106
Decrees, appointing guardian, 12-17
Emancipation, to avoid order of, 12-
807
Grand jury, as to regularity of, 12-
99, 100, 101
Hearing, where no objections to on
record, 11-19
Homestead, judgments allotting, 11-
824
M
188
INDEX
PRESUMPTION, contd.
Indictment, as to, 12-102, 106
In aid of averments in, 12-638
On return of, 12639
Recording of, 12-106
That amendments were made, 12-
549
Information, as to filing of, 12-638
Intent, of instructions as to, hom-
icide, 11-657
Judgments, favoring, against infants,
12-771
Allotting homestead, 11-324
Official duty, as to performance of,
11-361
Of innocence, as affecting the return
of indictment, 12-105
Instructions as to, 11-678
Probate court, decrees of, 11-398
Replication, as to filing of, 11-5
Sale of infant's property, 12-823
Service on infants, 12-751
That facts within pleader's knowl-
edge, as affecting denial, 12-908
Verdict, in aid of, 12-246, 698, 704
PRESUMPTION FROM FAILURE TO
PRODUCE EVIDENCE, see 9
Ency. op Ev. 958.
PRETENSE, see Obtaining Property
BY False Pretenses.
PREVIOUS JUDGMENT, see Res Judi-
cata.
PRICE, see Value.
PRIMARIES, see EuscTiONb.
PBINOIPAL AND AXStEST — Consult
analysis of this article when pub-
lished. See Attorneys; Embezzle-
ment ; Factors and Brokers ; Law-
yer AND Client; Master and
Servant; Officers; Partnership;
Trusts and Trustees.
Accounts, 1-272
Acts of agent, how pleaded, 12-900
Affidavit of merits or defense, by
agent, 1-672, 674
Affidavits, by agent, generally, 12-
896
Appearance, by agent, 2-519, 560
Arrest in civil cases, affidavit by
agent, 2-929, 942
Assault and battery, alleged to be in
principal's business, 3-39
Attachment, affidavit by agent, 3-399,
401, 427
Bond by in name of principal, 3-447
Signature and authority, 3-455
Conveyance by agent beyond
authority not grounds for, 3-
388
Of property in agent's hands, 3-312
PBINOIPAL AKD AGEMT, contd.
Attorneys, capacity that of agent, 3-
849
Authority not implied, 3-857
Implied power of, 3-855
Not for adverse interests, 3-859
Bankruptcy proceedings, proof of
claim by agent, 3-900
Verification, by agent, 3-973
Choice and flection of remedies,
against undisclosed principal, 5-
122
Corporations — agent cannot sue in be-
half, 5-602
Agents not proper parties, 5-605
Allegation of authority, 5-658
Criminal liability for acts of
agents, 5-678
Criminal liability of agents, 5-684
Costs, liability on disobe^ence, 5-817
Creditors' suits, verification by agent,
6-218
Depositions, notice to agent, 7-291
Dower, demand by, 7-865
Easement, enforcement by agent, 7-
964
Factors and brokers, 8-864
Agency, for jury, 8-902
Brokers and agents distinguished,
8-866
False imprisonment, by acts of agent,
8-951, 962
Forcible entry and detainer, against
agent, 8-1105
Fraud and deceit, joinder of parties,
10-48, 49
Frauds, statute of, pleading author-
ity, 10-70
Gaming, principal may recover loss
by agent, 10-319
Garnishment, agent liable, 10-407
Answer by agent, 10-535
Grand jury, ground of challenge, 10-
640
Variance, as to, contract actions, 11-
1051
PRINCIPAL AND BITSLETY — Consult
analysis of this article when pub-
lished. See Bonds; Contribution;
Equity Jurisdiction and Procki>-
URE; Guaranty; Indemnity; Rec-
ognizances AND Bail; Subbooa-
TiON; Undertakings.
Admiralty, surety companies, 1-515
Amendment, not release of, 1-518
Architects and builders, release of, 2-
687
Attachment, by surety against prin-
cipal, 3-335
Intervention by surety where fraud,
3-659
134
INDEX
"PBXSOTBAJm AVD SUBETY, eonid.
Attachment, contd.
Sureties on bonds, 3-458
Attorneys, disqualified as surety, 3-
852
Bonds, judgments for interest against
surety, 4-538
Appeal bond, surety on, highways,
11-76
Bail bond, indemnifying surety on,
12-25
Contract of suretyship, nature of,
12-24
Contribution, 5-498
Equity jurisdiction, 8-415
Covenant, action of, parties, joinder,
6-143
Duress, of principal, set up by surety,
7-950
Equity jurisdiction, 8-438
Contribution, 8-4l5
Exoneration, subrogation and con-
tribution, 8-441
Forthcoming bonds, how executed by,
10-9
Estoppel to deny judgment and
execution, 10-29
Sureties, release, 10-30
Bights and liabilities of, 10-30
Fraudulent conveyances, action by
surety, 10-112, 126
Guaranty, distinguished from surety-
ship, 10-667
Joinder of principal and guarantor
as defendants, 10-677
Guardian and ward, notice to surety
of accounting, 10-834
Costs against surety, 10-899
Sale of property, surety of guard-
ian on, 12-845
Surety as party to accounting, 10-
836, 888
Surety as party to action on bond,
10-887
Indemnity, distinguished from surety-
ship, 12-24
PBINTING, see Appeals; Brieps;
Costs; Newspapers; Notice; Ob-
scenity; Service op Process and
Papers.
PRIOB ADJUDICATION, see Res Judi-
cata.
PBI80NS AND TBJBONEBS — Consult
analysis of this article when pub-
ished. See Infants; Recogniz-
ances AND Bail; Reformatories;
Rescue; Warrants.
Habeas corpus, see Habeas Corpus.
Ad testificandum, 3-986
PBIVATE AND TOLL BOADS — Con-
sult analysis of this article when
published. See Easements; High-
ways, Streets and Bridges.
PBIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW,
see Remedy.
PRIVATE PROSECUTOR, see Grand
Jury; Indictment and Informa-
tion.
— Consult analysis of this
article when published. See Arrest
IN CrviL Cases; Attorneys; Bills
AND Answers ; Husband and Wife ;
Juries and Jurors; Libel and
Slander; Parties; Penalties, For-
feitures AND Fines; Service op
Process and Papers; Witnesshs.
Admiralty, from answering, 1-463, 467
Answer in equity, as to matters of,
4-159
Arrest in civil cases, plea of, to affi-
davit for, 2-970
Attorneys, from arrest, 3-851
Continuances, party in public service,
5-450
Discovery, as to criminal matter, 7-
532, 565, 578, 587
Document to incriminate, 7-629
Inspection, privileged communica-
tion, 7-630
PBIVITY, see Impued and Express
Agreements; Parties; Bes Judi-
cata; Title.
Appeals, 2-196, 217
Assumpsit, in action of, 3-178, 195
Covenant, in action on, 6-136
Indemnity, applied to actions on, 12-
29
PBIZE, see Admiralty; War.
PBIZE FIOUTING — Consult analysis
of this article when published. - See
also Criminal Procedure.
PROBABLE CAUSE, see Certificate op
Probable Cause and of Reasonable
Doubt; False Imprisonment; Ma-
ucious Prosecution.
PBOBATE OOUBTS — Consult analysis
of this article when published. See
Decedents ' Estates ; Executors
AND Administrators; Wills.
Citation in, 6-521, 593
Heirs, jurisdiction to determine, 12-
918
Proceedings to determine, 12-914
Homestead, allotment of, 11-388
Incompetents, jurisdiction over es-
tates of, 12-15
Indians, jurisdiction over estates of,
12-41
Juveniles, custody of, 12-862
185
INDEX
PROBATE C0UBT8, conid.
Presumptions as to decrees of, 11-
398
Sale of infant's property, 12-812
PROBATE OF WILLS, see Dbckdents'
Estates; Probate Courts; Wills.
PROBATE PROCEEDINGS, see Pro-
bate Counts.
PROBATION, see Sentence and Judg-
ment.
PROCEDENDO, see Mandate.
PBOGEEDIKQB IK BEM — C(m8ult
amalysis of this article when pub-
lished. See Adioraltt; Attach-
ment; Default; Divorce; Service
or Process and Papers; Ships and
Shipping; Suits and Actions.
Admiralty, 1-413
Appeal, in name of person, 1-557
Changed to personam, 1-420, 477
Cross-libel in, 1-485
Decrees in, 1-548
Joinder with personam, 1-438
Lien necessary, 1-414, 423
Not an action or suit, 1-413
Process in, 1-494
Release of rem, 1-508, 509
Another action pending, 1-1006
Rem and personam, 1-1026
Attachment, before personal service
or appearance, not strictly; 3-239
Judgment in rem, 3-728
Void for failure of legal service,
3-673
Collision, may be in rem, 5-133
Decree in personam, 8-466
Default, failure to plead, 6-804
Jurisdiction, by arrest of rem, 6-
810
By appearance, 6-810, 825
Pro confesso taken, 6-815
Proof of facts, when, 8-821
Record of proof, 6-823
Divorce, in part, 7-739
Elections, contests of, 8-12
Eminent domain, in nature of rem, 8-
261
Garnishment, quasi in rem, 10-375
Appearance changes to personam,
10-475
In personal actions only, 10-385
Res in jurisdiction, 10-473-480
Guardian ad litem unnecessary, when,
10-710
Guardian and ward, special proceed-
ing ir rem, 10-784
Heirs, proceedings to determine, 12-
916
Informations in rem, 12-704
Wife's separate estate, proceedings
against, 11-828
PROCEEDINGS 8UPPLEMENTABY
TO EXECUTION, see Supplbmkn-
tart Procsedinos.
PBQ0E8S — Canault analysis of this ar-
ticle when published. See AJOMiRAlr
ty; Assistance, Writs of; Attach-
ment; Audita Querela; Certio-
rari; Due Process or Law; Gar-
nishment; Habeas Corpus; In-
junctions; Inquiry, Writ of;
Judgments and Decrees, £nf(»cb-
MSNT OF; MANDAMUS; NB EXBAT;
Privilege; Prohibition; Quo War-
ranto; Beflevin; Returns; Sgebb
Facias; Sequestration; Service of
Process and Papers; Subpoena;
Sunday and Holidays; Vendee db
Novo; Writ of Entry; Writ of
Error.
Abatement, plea of defective exeea-
tion and service, 1-49, 52
Abuse of, action on the case for, 6-
626
Admiralty, mesne, 1-490
Citation on appeal, 1-561
On intervention, 1-525
Allotment of homestead, sammonfl iB|
11-358
Amicable actions, none in, 1-933
Another action pending, void process,
1-1002
Appeals, objections below to defects,
2-253
From orders concerning, 2-172
Necessary to jurisdiction of, 2-310,
311, 318
Part of record on, 2-333, 334
Presumption of regularity, 2-418
Appearance waives, 2-532
Arrest in civil cases, 2-965
Prerequisites to, 2-928
Arrest of judgment, for defects, in
civil, 2-990
Criminal case, 2-993
Assistance, writ of, 3-140
Attachment, 3-464
Amendment of writ, 3-4S5
Form of writ, 3-472
Issuance, what is, 3-464
Levy or execution of, 3-488, 501
Beturn, 3-541
Amendment, 3-546
Seal on writ, 3-473
Signature of writ, 3-472
Writ quashed for defects, 3-756
Audita querela, writ of, 3-875
Bankruptcy proceedings, subpoena of
bankrupt, 3-979
Citation on appeal, 3-1008
Bastardy proceedings, warrant, 4-65
Bills of review, 4-452
lae
INDEX
PBO0B88, contd.
Breach of promise, summons, 4-556
Case, action on the for abuse of, 6-
626
Certiorari, definition^ 4-867
An extraordinary remedy, 4-887
Grounds for, 4-915
Commerce court, 5-189
Authority to issue writs, 5-172
Subpoena ad respondendum, 5-171
Commitment, see Warrants.
Disorderly persons, 7-696
On contempt, 5-422
Construction and theory of pleading
from summons, 5-361
Contempt, see Contbmpt.
Continuance, right to process, absent
witnesses, 5-441
l>uty to procure process, 5-457
Copyright proceedings, writ for
seizure,. 5-516
Coroner's inquest jury how sum-
moned, 5-528
Corporations, in actions against, 5-
614-617
Criminal liability, for, 5-681
Distringas on default, 5-632
Foreign corporations, 5-737
Summons in garnishment, 5-637
Courts martial, 6-117, 118
Customs duties, form of writs, 6-347,
348
Action for forfeiture, 6-356
Declaration and complaint, an ampli-
cation of original writ, 6-641
Must conform to, 6-668
Discovery, summons or subpoena, 7-
602
Dismissal, for defect, 7-671
Delay in serving, 7-677
Divorce, 7-753
Notice of alimony, 7-820
Dower, writ of, 7-863, 877
Writ of possession, 7-890
Due process of law, 7-894
Ejectment, writ of possession, 7-1050
Elections, in contests, 8-82
Alias, 8-84
Eminent domain, 8-271
Equity, subpoena, to answer, 8-463
Escheat, citation on notice, 8-667
Extortion, civil actions, 8-826
Extradition, see Extradition.
False imprisonment, arrest, under
warrant, 8-924
Without warrant, 8-927
Fair on face, 8-954
Not by abuse of, 8-921
Process unnecessary, 8-916
Pursuit beyond state, 8-937
Besistance to unlawful arrest, 8-940
PROCESS, contd.
False imprisonment, contd.
Use of force. 8-937-940
Filing, of declaration before issue
when, 8-978
Return of, see Beturns.
Forcible entry and detainer, 8-1121
By wrongful process, 8-1101
Writ of restitution, 8-1126
Forthcoming bonds, held part of final,
10-5
Gaming, warrant for seizure of de*
vices, 10-330
Garnishment, 10-493
Affidavit for, 10-448
Objections to taken, 10-596
Guardian ad litem for plaintiff be-
fore, 10-720
Habeas corpus, see Habeas Corpus.
Enforcement of writ, 10-934
Form of writ, 10-926
Health, in summary proceedings for
penalty, 10-985
Infants, on, appearance by guardian
as waiver, 12739
Penalty, ih action to recover, 11-163
Prayer for, see Prayer,
Bill in equity, 4-144
Informations in civil suits, 12-715
Libel in admiralty, 1-451
Beturn of, see Beturns.
Service of, see Service of Process
AND Papers.
Waiver of homestead, endorsement
of, on summons, 11-438
PBOCHETN AMI, see Guardian ad
Litem.
PBO CONFESSO, see Default.
PBODFCTION OF BOOKS AND DOC-
UMENTS, 7-605
PHOPANITY — Consult analysis of this
article when published. See
Blasphemy; Disorderly Conduct;
Obscenity ; and Crimin^il Procedure.
PBOFEBT, see Oyer and Profert.
PBOHlBmON — Consult analysis of
this article when published.
Appeal, where adequate, 12-643
Contempt, on proceedings in, 5-431
Courts martial, when issued, 6-131
Indictment, to prevent trial of, 12-
643
Injunctions, distinguished from, 12-
1008
Juvenile proceedings, to review, 12-
878, 882
Of liquor drinking and selling, see
Intoxicating Liquors.
PBOMISE, allegation of, complaint on
contract, 11-985
187
IffDEX
PROMISE, conid.
In indemnity, distinguished from a
promise to assume, 12-25
Nature of, 12-24
When implied, 12-22
PROPERTY, see Due Process op Law;
Embezzlement; Injuries to Per-
sons AND Property; Lands and
Land Transfers; Larceny; Ob-
taining Property by False Pre-
tenses; Personal Property; Pro-
ceedings IN Rem; Title.
Arson, averments in, as to the prem-
ises, 12-387
Describing realty, in criminal plead-
ing, 12-387
Money, allegations as to, in indict-
ment, 12-388
Notes, describing, 12-390
Ownership, alleging, in indictment,
12393
Personal property, setting out, in
pleading, 12-387
Value of, averment of, 12-388, 392
PROSECUTING ATTORNEY, see Grand
Jury; Indictment and Informa-
tion; Oppicers.
PROTHONOTARY, see Oppicers.
Testimony of, to prove indictment
found without legal evidence, 12-
639
PROSECUTORS, see Indictment and
Information.
Criminal proceedings begun by, 12-87
Indorsement on indictment, 12-87,
625
Who are, 12-87
PBOSTITU TION — Consult analysis of
this article when published. See
Disorderly House ; Lewdness ;
Vagrancy. See also Criminal Pro-
cedure.
Alien prostitutes, deportation of, 11-
929
PBOVINOE OP JX7DGE AND JTJBY —
Consult analysis of this article when
published.
Abandonment, of attack, 11-653
Of contract, 11-1063
Of homestead, 11-430, 465
Abortion, questions for jury, 1-115
Accord and satisfaction, 1-191
Account stated, 1-260
Adverse possession, 1-632
Alteration of instruments, 1-839
Animals, questions as to, 1-953, 963,
979
Arms, justification for using, 11-652
Arrest, homicide, while making, 11-
651
PROVINCE OF JUDGE AND JUBT,
contd.
Assignments, 2-137
Bonds. 4-530
Breach of peace, 4-656
Bridges, injuries from defective, 11-
282
Prosecution for destroying, 11-274
Prosecution for failure to main-
tain, 11-273
Scope of term, question of fact, 11-
48
Cancellation of contract, 11-1063
Character of place of bomieide, 11-
660
Collision on highway, 11-254
Committee of incompetent, as to set-
tlement of, 12-19
Composition with creditors, 5-188
Compromise and settlement, 5-199
Concealing birth, in prosecution for,
12-886
Construction of contract, 11-1057
Contributory negligence, injuries
from highways, 11-241
Cooling time, as to, homicide, 11-6^
Corporations, 5-665
Corpus delicti, 11-639
Criminal conversation, 6-257
Criminal negligence, 11-640
Cruelty to animals, wilfulness, 6-320
Customs and usages, 6-333; 8-909
Death by wrongful act, 6-439
Degree of crime, homicide, 11-645
Disorderly house, 7-708
Instructions invading jury's prov-
ince, 7-709
Disturbing public assembly, 7-725
Dower^ 7-879
Druggist, negligence of, 10-996
Duress, 7-953
In contract, 11-1056
Easements, 7-969
Elections, guilty knowledge, 8-151,
158, 164
Electricity, 8-185
Eminent domain, 8-317
Estoppel, to claim homestead, 11-430
Estrays, 8-724
•Exemption, time for asserting, 11-487
•Existence of contract, 11-1054
Extortion, civil action, 8-828
Criminal case, 8-834
Factors and brokers, 8-869, 901, 909
Forcible entry and detainer, 8-1122
•Forgery, 8-1182
Fraud and deceit, 10-61
Fraud in contract, 11-1056
Frauds, statute of, 10-81
I Fraudulent conveyances, 10-216
188
IlfDEX
taOVINOE OF JUDGE AND JUBY,
contd.
Freight carriers, 10-256
Gaming, 10-326, 361
Gifts, 10-604
Guaranty, 10-695
Guardian and ward, 10-872
Action on bond, 10-898
Guilt or innocence, 11-639
Highway proceedings, 11-87
Actions for injuries from, 11-234
Contractors' actions for improve-
ments in, 11-126
Injunctions in, 11-111
Homestead, as to claim of, 11-429
Identity, of assailant in homicide, 11-
639
Of deceased in homicide, 11-645
Injunction, 11-111
Injuries, nature and cause of, 11-238
Insanity, 11-660
Intent, existence of, homicide, 11-643
Judicial sales, setting aside, 12-855
Justification, in homicide, 11-650
Legality of contract, 11-1056
Malice, homicide, 11-644
Means of committing homicide, 11-
640
Modification of contract, 11-1062
Negligence, as to, injuries from high-
ways, 11-288, 254
Notice by agent of injuries from
highways, 11-201
Of highway obstruction, 11-237
Nuisance, street obstruction, 11-236
Penalties, actions for obstructing
highways, 11-165
Performance of contract, 11-1064
Premeditation, in homicide, 11-644
Probable cause, to arrest, 11-651
Provocation, in homicide, 11-647
Bescission of contract, 11-1063
Self 'defense, homicide, 11-652
Spring-guns, necessity of using, 11-
651
Suicide or homicide, whether, 11-639
Venue of crime, 11-649
Weapons, character of, in homicide,
11-640
PROVISOS AND EXCEPTIONS, see
Indictment and Information.
PUBLIC ASSEMBLY, see Disturb-
ing Public Assembly; Unlawful
Assembly.
PUBLICATION, see Newspapers; Not-
ice; Service of Process and Pa-
pers.
FUBIJO OHABITIES — Consult analy-
sis of this article when published.
See also Trusts and Trustees.
FUBIJO OHABITIES, contd.
Informations in equity, by recipients
of public charity, 12-705, 706
PtTBIJO DBUNKENNESS — Consult
analysis of this article when pub-
lished. See Disorderly Conduct;
Intoxicating Liquors. See also
Criminal Procedure.
PT7BLI0 LANDS — Consult analysis of
this article when published. See Es-
cheat; Indians; United States.
PUBLIC OFFICERS, see Officers.
PUBLIC POLICY, express contract
void as against, common counts
on, 11-956
PUBLIC SCHOOL, see Schools and
School Districts.
FUBIJO 8EBVI0B OOBPOBATIOKS
Consult analysis of this article when
published. See Eminent Domain;
Highways, Streets and Bridges;
Mandamus ; Monopolies ; Munici-
pal Corporations; Quo Warranto;
Bailroads; Ships and Shipping;
Street Bailroads; Telegraphs and
Telephones.
Choice and election of remedies, 5-116
Information, to prevent usurpation
of franchises, 12-708
PUBLIC UTILITIES, see Public Serv-
ice Corporations.
PUIS DABBEIN OONTINT7AN0E,
PLEAS OF — Consult analysis of
this article when published. See
Pleas; Supplemental Pleading;
Time To Plead.
Abatement, pleadable in, 1-61
Accord and satisfaction may be
pleaded, 1-174
Answers, new matter since pleading,
2-43
Arbitration, submission in pending ac-
tion, 2-665
Compromise and settlement, pendente
lite, 5-197
Costs, effect on, 5-893
Cross-bill, facts after issue, 6-285
Detinue, title acquired, 7-483
Divorce, amendments instead, 7-783
Executors and administrators, revoca-
tion of letters pendente lite, 8-
764
PUNISHMENT, see Pardon; Sentence
AND Judgment.
PUBCHASEB WITHOUT NOTICE, see
Fraudulent Conveyances; Notice.
FUBE FOOD LAWS — Consult analysis
of this article when published.
PUBPBESTUBE, see Navigable Wat-
ers; Public Lands; Wharves.
130
INDEX
QUANTUM MEEUIT, see Assumpsit;
Choice and Election of Remedies;
Debt; Implied and Express Agbeb-
MENTS; Joinder op Actions; Mas-
tee AND Servant; Work and La-
bor.
Abandonment of express contraeti on,
11-953
By builder, 2-692-718
On implied, 3-198, 206
On rescission of express contract, 11-
953
QUANTUM VALEBANT, see As-
sumpsit; Choice and Election of
Remedies; Sales.
By builder, 2-693
QUASHING, see Motions.
Appeal, in prosecutions for failure
to do road work, 11-139
Certiorari, issued too late, 11-97
Highway proceedings, 11-137
Indictment, in general, 12-605
Charging offense, for defects in, 12-
627
Discretion of court, 12-630
Duplicity, for, 12-629
Grand jury, objections bearing on,
12-614
For errors in organization of, 12-
614
Accused in jail, when jury im-
paneled, 12-616
Challenge, no opportunity to,
12-616
Commissioner, of jury, related
to deceased, 12-615
Excessive number of names
drawn, 12-607
Exemption, of juror, 12-607,
614
Judge, disqualification of> 12-
608
Lists of grand jurors, failure
to certify, 12-615
Negroea, exclusion of, 12-615
Oath by jury commissioners,
failure to take, 12-607
Process, jury summoned with-
out, 12-616
Statutory grounds, exclusive,
12-614
Substantial rights must be af-
fected, 12-615
Taxes, not paid by juror, 12-
607
Trial jurors, summoned as
grand jurors, 12-615
Variance in name of grand
juror, 12-607
Venire facias, defective, 12-
616
QUASHING, ewiid.
Indictment, contd.
Grand ju^y, objections bearing on,
contd.
For irregularities in proeeedings
before, 12-618
Attorney as stenographer, 12-
619
Bailiff, presence of, 12-618
Charge, defects in the, 12-(S27
Conduct of juror improper, 12-
619
Constitutional right of aeeiued
must have been violated,
12-621
Evidence, errors as to, 12-620,
621, 622, 624
Judge, presence of, 12-619
Juror, presence of unauthor-
ized, 12-618
Oath, administered by un-
authorized person, 12-624
Presence, of unauthorized per-
sons, 12-618, 619
Statement of prosecuting at-
torney, errors in, 12-618
Statutory grounds, only on, 12-
623
Wife of defendant, a witness,
12-622
Witnesses, errors relating to,
12-619, 621, 622
In federal courts, 12-606
Informalities in preparation of, for,
12-168
Misjoinder, for, 12-630
Murder, quashing indictment for,
11-581
Nolle prosequi, equivalent to, 12-
546
Of first count in, does not affect
caption, 12-173
Preliminary affidavit or complaint,
for want of, 12-612
Becords, errors in, 12-632
Statutory grounds for, 12-607, 610,
614, 623
Informations, 12-612
Afidavit, want of preliminary, 12-
612
Variance, between, and informa-
tion, 12-630
Filing, without leave, 12-614
Belated filing, 12-626
Preliminary examination, for want
of, 12-612
Signature, for want of, 12-630
Statutory grounds, otdy for, 12-614
Variants, for, 12-630
Verificatiofii improper, 12-630
140
INDEX
QUASHINGi eonid.
Becital, facts stated by way of, 12-
323
QUESTION CBRTITIED, RESERVED
OB REPORTED, see Cabs and
QtTlSTION CBBTIFISD, BBSBRVXD OB
RXPOBTED.
QUESTIONS OF LAW AND TACT, see
Province op Judqb and Juby.
QUI TAM ACTION, see Penaltibs, Pob-
mruBBS and Iines.
QXTIA TIMET — Con9uU analysis of this
article when published.
Homestead, remedy of wife as claim-
ant to, 11-380
Qt^tfiTIlTG TlTLB — Consult analysis
of this article when published. See
Ejbotmbnt; Tbespass To Tby
Title-
To homestead land, 11-410
QTJO WABBAKTO — Consult analysis of
this article when published.
Informations in nature of, 12-704
BAIZAOADS — Consult analysis of
this article when published. See
coicicbbge coubt; cobfobations ;
Death bt Wbonoful Act; Emi-
nent Domain; FasidHT Cabbiebs;
Injubieb to Pebsons and Prop-
ebtt; Interstate Commerce; Mas-
teb and Sebvant; Negligence;
NoncB; Passenqbbs; Public Sebv-
ICB COBFOBATIONB ; STREET RAIL-
ROADS; Taxation.
Attachment of rolling stock, 8-279
Ejectment for right of way, 7-989
Embezsslement, of tickets, 8-238
Forcible entry and detainer, for right
of way, 8-1103
Oarnishment, ears of another road,
10-410
— Consult analysis of this article
when published. See Assaui^ and
Batteby. See also Criminal Pro-
cedure.
Capacity to commit, averment of, 12-
351
Carnal knowledge of female, Joinder
with, 12-534
Charging in different ways, 12-538
Fornication, joinder with, 12-536
Incest, joinder with, 12-3, 535
Indian, by, jurisdiction over, 12-40
RATE REGULATION, see Intebstate
Commebcb; Pubuc Service Cobpor-
ATIONS.
RATIFICATION, see Contracts.
Infant's contracts, of, when defend-
ant must plead, 12-766
RATIFICATION, contd.
Proceedings against infant, of, by
affirmative steps at majority, 12-
781
REAL ACTIONS, see Real and Mixed
Actions.
BBAL AKD BOXED A0TION8 — Oon-
Bult analysis of this article when pub-
lished. See DowEB, Pbocbsdinos To
Reooveb; Ejectment; Fobmb of
Action; Tbespass To Tby Title;
Wbit of Entbt.
Aliens, suits against, 1-798
Plea of alienage, 1-809
Corporations, 6-562
Costs, liability for, 5-894
Eiectment, mixed action, 7-981
REAL ESTATE, see Factobs and Bbdk-
EBS; Injubies to Pebsons and
Pbopebtt; Lands and Land Tbans-
FEBS; Real and Mixed Actions.
REAL PARTY IN INTEREST, see Pab-
TIES.
REASONABLE DOUBT, see Cbbtifi-
CATE OF PBOBABLE CAUSB AND OF
Reasonable Doubt.
REBUTTAL, see Ency. of Ev.
REBUTTER, see Joindeb and Sub-
sequent Pleadinos.
RECAPTION, see Tbbspass; Tbovbb
AND CONVEBSION.
BBUJIl VEB8 — Consult analysis of this
article when published. See Bank-
BUPTCT PbOOEBDINOS ) COBPOBA-
TioNs; Judgments and Decbees,
Enpobcement OF; Judicial Offi-
CEBS ; Moetoages ; Pabtnebship ;
Railboads; Sequestbation ; Wind-
ing Up Cobpobations.
Accounts of, in equity, 1-277
Action of account stated against,
1-213
Findings upon settlement of, 8-
1001
Agreed case, as parties in, 1-745
Appeals, from orders concerning, 2-
177
All evidence relating to must ap-
pear, 2-356
As parties, 2-225, 227
Assignment for creditors, of assigned
property, 3-61, 67
Attachment, intervention by, 3-659
Motion to vacate by, 3-766
Bankruptcy proceedings, 3-907
For liability over subscription, 4-22
Banks and banking, suits by receiver,
4-26, 28
Of national banks, 4-50
On dissolution, 4-48, 40
141
INDEX
ItEOEIVEKS, conid.
Banks and banking, saits by receiver,
contd.
On forfeiture of charter, 4-50
Bills in equity, special prayer, 4-143
Chattel mortgages, before default^ 5-
59
Corporations, action by receiver of, 5-
602
Insolvency, 5-718
Stockholders' suits, refusal by re-
ceiver, 6-704
Costs, 5-823
Payment out of fund, 5-903
Beceiver's fees, 5-937
Creditors' .suits, 6-229
Detinue, may maintain, 7-479
Divorce, to enforce alimony, 7-837
Factors and brokers, against factor,
8-871
Findings on settlement of accounts,
8-1001
Foreclosure on homesteadi pending,
11-376
Forcible entry and detainer, by, 8-
1103
Forthcoming bonds, rights under, 10-
14
Fraudulent conveyances, appointed to
prevent, 10-99
Action by receiver to set aside, 10-
117
Garnishment, not subject to, 10-457
Non-residents, 10-484
Indians, in creditors' suits against,
12-49
Mortgaged property, for, petition for,
11-495
BEOEIVINO STOLEN OOODS— Con-
sult analysis of this article when
published. See Accessories and
Accomplices; Larceny; and Crim-
inal Procedure,
Accessories, not made by, 1-131
Burglary, joinder with, 12-535
Larceny, joinder with, 12-534
BECITALS, see Inducement; Plead-
ing.
Indictment, nunc pro tunc recitals of
finding, 12-102
BECOONIZANCES AlO) BAIL— C^-
sult analysis of this article when pub-
lished. See Appeal Bonds; Bonds;
Forthcoming Bonds; Justices or
THE Peace; Security por Costs;
Security to Keep the Peace; Wit-
nesses.
Admiralty, bail increased or reduced,
1-511
Alien, bail by, deportation proceed-
ings, 11-906
BECOONIZANOES AND BAIL, conid.
Bail bond, suits on, pleading, 12-31
Bastardy proceedings, 4-67
Certificate of, probable cause, bail
after, 4-872, 873, 875
Reasonable doubt, bail on granting,
4-879
Chinaman, right to bail, deportation
proceedings, 11-916
Bebt, will lie on, 6-469
Extradition, foreign, arrest and bail,
8-841
State, bail, 8-861
Habeas corpus, allegations in petition
for baU, 10-923
By immigrant, bail pending, 11-924
Judgment as to bail, 10-949
Questions of bail, 10-947
Juvenile, right to bail, 12-872
Surety on bail bond, indemnifying,
12-25
Verification of information, as waiv-
er of recognizance, 12-670
BEOOBD, amending election contest, 8-
101
On appeal, 2-380, 385; 4-361, 369; 4-
787, 799; 8-537
Calendars and dockets, 6-48
Certiorari, transcript with petition, 4-
910
Keturn of, 4-935-940
Conclusiveness, 4-939
Change of venue, transcript, 4-995
Commerce courts, to be printed, 5-172
Filing, 8-977
Grand jury, as to organization, 10-663
As to summoning, 12-616
Homestead exemption shown by, 11-
344
Indictment, consent to amendment of,
showing, 12-548
Motion to quash, showing, 12-646
Based upon record, 12-637
Setting aside for defects in, 12-
632
Information, amending, where record
improperly described, 12-663
Of appearance, 2-515, 552
Of issuance of writ of attachment, 3-
471
Of plea, 2^72, 887
On appeal, see Appeals ; Bills of Ex-
ceptions;' Case and Question
Certified, Reserved or Reported;
Case on Appeal; Statement and
Abstract op Case; Writ op Er-
ror.
Amendment, see supra, Amending.
Arraignment, record must show, 2-
872
Bankruptcy proceedings, 3-1007
142
INDEX
RECORD, conid.
On appeal, contd.
Contents of, 2-332; 4-299
Customs duties, 6-349
Digest of in brief, 4-578
Elections, contests, 8-118
Error apparent on, 2-247; 8-527
Porm of, 2-363
From attachment, 3-843
Guardian, showing appointment, 10-
731
Allowance of account, 10-850
Indictment, motion to quash, 12-
646
Judgment, order or decree as part
of, 2-336
Jurisdictional amount, must show
2-191
Meaning of, 2-331
Motion in arrest, 2-1031
Opinion no part of, 6-91
Plea, in criminal case, record must
show, 2-887, 915
Proceedings after judgment, 2-362
Review limited to, 2-41Q
Similiter, record should show, 2-912
Transcript, 2-363
In election contests, 8-118
On motion in arrest, 2-987
Opinion as part of, 6-91
Particulars, bill of, as part of record,
4-376
RECORDARI, see Justices op the
Peace.
To review allotment of homestead,
11-368
RECORDS — Consult analysis of this
article when published. See Judg-
ment Records; Nul Tiel Record;
Title.
Of exemption, attacking, 11-519
Schedule oif exemption, 11-505
Of homestead, 11-324, 385
Abandonment of homestead, 11-463
Appraiser's return, of, 11-362
Declaration, 11-315, 317
Waiver of, 11-437
RECOUPMBXT, see Set-Opp, Counter-
claim AND Recoupment.
REDELIVERY BOND, see Attach-
ment ; Bonds ; Forthcoming
Bonds; Replevin.
REDEMPTION, see Mortgages;
Pledges.
Wife's separate property, of, pro-
vision in decree for, 11-832
REDUNDANCY, see Striking Out and
Withdrawal; Surplusage and
Scandal.
REFERENCES — Consult analysis of
this artcle when puhlshed. See
Bankruptcy Proceedings; Equity
Jurisdiction and Procedure; Ju-
dicial Officers; Objections and
Exceptions.
Accounting in equity, 1-307
Account stated, 1-259
Admiralty, on intervention, 1-524
At hearing, 1-542
Of consolidated actions, 1-527
Amendment of pleading, allowance by
referee, 1-851, 852
Allowed by referee at trial, 1-914
Appeals, from orders on, 2-178
Evidence regarding must appear, 2-
356
Exceptions to report below, 2-262,
283
Reference on, highway proceed-
ings, 11-80, 134, 266
Reports of referee not of record oa,
2-338
Review of findings of referee, 2-449
Assignment for creditors, enforce-
ment, 3-67
Attachment, discovery before referee,
3-741
Dissolved by, when, 3-811
Attorneys, in proceedings to disbar,
3-870
Bankruptcy, referee in, see Bank-
ruptcy Proceedings.
Bills in equity, amendment of after,
4-201
Collision, 5-151
Contempt, to report evidence of, 5-
404
Costs, power of referee, 5-915
Auditors and masters' fees, 5-935
Referee's fees, 5-938
Creditors' suits, 6-223, 226
Decedents' estates, on claim, 6-541
Accounts, on, 6-607
Commissioners on distribution, 6-
630
Insolvent estates, 6-583
Default, on, defendant may cross-ex-
amine, 6-770
Depositions, not after report, 7-214
To settle interrogatories, 7-251
Used on hearing, 7-399
Discovery, reference to examine books
or documents, 7-639
Divorce, 7-788
Equity, to master, 8-496
Incompetent, as to condition of, 12-
20
Error, assignment of, on. report of
referee, 8-607
143
INDEX
^ conid.
Fraudulent conveyances, reference to
state account, 10-197, fiOS
Guardian and ward on accounting, 10-
Highway proceedings, on appeal in,
11-80, 184, 266
To master, as to incompetent's con-
dition, 12-20
BEFEBENDUM, see Statutes.
BJSFOBBiATION — C(ni«ii{i analysis of
this article when published. See
Equity Jubibdiction and Pboged-
UBB ; MiSTAKs ; Bbsgission and Oan-
CBLLATION.
Choice and election of remedies, 5-119
Equity, jurisdiction, 8-432
Of settlement contracts, 11-B20
REFOBMATION OF iNSTBimEKTS,
see Bbfobmakon.
BSF0BACAT0BIE8 — Consvli analysis
of this article when published. See
Infants; Pbisons anp Pbibonbbs.
REFBESHING MEMOBY, see Ekct. of
Ev.
BEGISTEB OF DEEDS, see Beoqbds.
REGISTBATION, see Elections.
Of title under Torrens Act, see Title.
BBHEABDrO — Consult analysis of this
article when published. See Ap-
peals; HbABINO; iMMIttBATION;
New Tbial; Beyiew.
Admiralty, 1^50
On appeals, 1-669
Amicus curiae, not to apply for, 1-940
Appeals, 2-402
Arbitration, 2-625
Attachment, of motion to vacate, 3-
796
Bankruptcy proceedings, of claims, 3-
905
Bills of review, distinguished from,
4-414
Case or question certified, applica-
tion in appellate court, 4-701
Necessity of before certification,
.4-708
In Massachusetts, 4-721
Beasons for stated at, Texas, 4-752
Certiorari, on record, 4-948
Customs duties, by general board, 6-
344
Decrees, 6-799
Equity, 8-498
BEIMBUBSEMENT, of municipal cor-
poration, for damages p&id, 11-
249
BEJOINDEB AMD BUBflSQUBm
FlaEADINaB — Consult analysis of
this article when published. See
Confession and Avoidance; Db-
NiALs; Issues in Pleadikq and
Pbactice; Pleading.
Bonds, 4-508
Equity, by amended bUl, 8-489
BELATIONSHIP, averments as to, ia
incest, 12-8, 10
BELATOB, see Indictmbnt and In-
FdBMATION.
BELEASE — Consult analysis of this
article when published. See Accobd
AND SATISFACnOlf ; COMPOSITION
With CbBditobs; Compbomisb and
Settlement; Judgments, Satisfac-
tion OF; Payment; Besgission akd
Cancellation.
Admiralty, of sureties^ 1-517, 518
Appeals, of errors^ 2-214, 434; 8-654
By infant, 10-749
Assumpsit, proof under general iasne
in, 3-188
Attachment, 3-642
Bastardy proceedings, 4-71
Bills and notes, how pleaded* 4-284
By assignor after assignment, 3-88
Composition with creditors, effect, 5-
175
Conclusions of law, general allega-
tion, 5-224
Errors, assignment of, plea to assign-
ment, 8-654
General issue, proof under, 3-188; 7-73
Guaranty, question for jury, 10-698
Ouardian ad litem, release of error hj
infant on majority, 10-749
Cftnnot surrender infant's rights,
10-755
Of joint obligor, parties defendant
on, 11-979
BELIEF, see Choice and Election op
Bemedies; Pbaybb; Bemedy; Suits
AND AcnoKs.
BELIQION, see Blasphemy; Sunday
AND Holidays; Oath and Apfibm-
ATION; BeUOIOXTS SOCIETIBS.
BELIGIOITS SOCJiSTifiS — Consult an-
alysis of this article when published.
See Associations ; Corfobations ;
DisTUBBiNO Public Assembly; Sun-
day AND Holidays.
Ejectment, 7-987
Forcible entry and detainer, 8-1193
BEM, see ADkiBAi/nr; Pbocbedinos ik
Bbm.
BEMAINDEBS, see Lands and Land
Tbansfbbs.
144
INDEX
SEMEDT — Consult analysis of ikia
article when published. See Choice
AND Election of Bshedies; Legal
Bemedy; Suits and Actions; Sum-
3f ABY PB0GEE0IN08. See alflo Spe-
cial Proceedings.
Qkange in statute governing, 2-135,
302; 3-249, 817
Lex fori governs, an^enclmenta to
pleadings, 1-853
Attachment, 3*-251
Necessity of exhausting extrajudicial
remedy, see Suits and Actions.
BEMIS8I0N OF J>A3SAQIiB — Coneuli
analysis of this article when pub-
lished.
On appeal, 2-187, 477
BEMITTITTJB, see Apfeals; Mandate.
Costs, appeals, 5-999
Of damages, see Bemission or Daic-
AOES.
BEMOVAIi OP 0AU8ES — Consult an-
alysis of this article when published.
See Change or Venue; TsANsrEB
or Causes; United States Coubts.
AHenSj 1-798, 800
Motion to remand, 1-805
Traverse of petition, 1-805
Appeals, from order of, 2-179
Appearances, by petitions for, 2-511
iBy motion to remove, 2-528
What appearance waives right to
removal, 2-546
Attachment, 8-606
Depositions, used after, 7-399
Dismissal and nonsuit, no discontinu-
ance by, erroneous, 7-687
From county to circuit court, on ar-
raignment, 2-881
Guardian ad litem, state jurisdiction
lost by removal, 10-720
Justice's court, from, when title to
realty involved, 11-162
Provisions in federal statutes, mean-
ing of << hearing'' in, 11-3
Bestraining proceedings in state
courts, after removal to federal
court, 12-1018
BEMOVAL OF CLOUD, see Quieting
Title.
BENT, see Forcible Entbt and De-
tainee; Landlobd and Tenant;
Lands and Land TBANsrsBS; Use
AND Occupation.
BEPUSAPBB — Consult analysis of this
article when published. See Issues
in Pleading and Pbactige; Mo-
tions; Obdebs; Pleading.
BEPXJESynr — Consult analysis of fhis
article when published. See Bonds;
Fobthooming Bonds; Tboveb 4MT>
convebsion.
Admiralty, jurisdiction of petitory
suits, 1-402
Affidavit of defense, 1-702
Affidavits in, 12-899
Animals, agisted, payment or tender,
1-978
Assignment for creditors, by assignee,
3-74
Attached goods, returned under bond,
8-286
By thir4 person, 3-648
Carriers, see infra, freight carriers.
Chattel mortgages, by mortgagee, 5-
56, 60
By mortgagor, 5-47
Choice of remedies, replevin or tres-
pass, 5-100
Conversion or replevin, 5-111-113
Beplevin or assumpsit, 5-114
Corporations, 5-562, 572
Denials, general issue, 7-64
Detinue, distinguished, 7-471
Estrays, 8-722
Exemption, to try question of, 11-620
Factors and brokers, by factors, 8-878
Freight carriers, 10-224
Gifts, for ineffectual, 10-602
Husband and wife, between, 11-708
BEFLIOATIOir AMD BSPLY — Con-
sult analysis of this article when
published. See OoNrESSiON and
Avoidance; Denials; Issues in
Pleading and Pbactice; Pleading.
Abatement, replication to plea of, 1-
65
Accord and satisfaction, to plea of,
1-187, 188
Accounts, necessary to .plea, 1-230
Accounting, in equity, 1-301
When necessary in (code), 1-302
Account stated; to plea of, 1-252
Admiralty, 1-464
Adverse possession, 1-632
Altered instrument, avoiding effect
of, 1-827
Arbitration, in action on award, 2-
667
Assault and battery, de injuria, 3-44
Assumpsit, 3-191-214
Bankruptcy proceedings, to objections
to discharge, 2-929
To answer, 3-981
Bill in equity, charging part as spe-
cial replication, 4-132
To new matter by amending bill,
4-192
145
INDEX
BEPLIOATION AND BEPLY, contd.
Bills and notes, 4-285
Bills to impeach judgments and de-
crees, 4-488
Bonds, 4-508
Compromise and settlement, 5-198
Construction and theory of pleading,
5-335
Counterclaim, to, as affecting term
of hearing, 11-15
Creditors' suits, 6-221
Criminal case, in, 2-885
Cross-bill, reply as, 6-287
To answer taken as, 6-291
De injuria, in contract actions, 11-
1033
Demurrer, 6-916
Departure, 7-117
In contract actions, 11-1034
In reply under codes, 7-118
On face, 7-142
Detinue, 7-484
Discretionary with court to allow,
11-9
Divorce, 7-780
Dower, in proceedings, 7-877
Duplicity, 7-939
Elections, in contests, 8-77
Eminent domain, 8-296
Equity, 8-488. See supra, bill in
equity.
Errors, assignment of, to plea of re-
lease of error, 8-658
Estrays, 8-723
False imprisonment, to justification,
8-971
Federal practice as to, 11-8
Frauds, statute of, pleading, 10-71, 76
Frivolous and sham pleading, remedy,
when applied, 10-279
Garnishment, traverse of answer, 10-
543
Guardian and ward to release, 10-895
For guardian of incompetent, 12-16
Information and belief, on, 12-910
Plea in criminal case, to, 2-885
Presumption as to filing, 11-5
Prothonotary, by, 12-16
Rule for, effect on hearing, 11-9
Waiver of, 11-4
As waiver, 11-9
"Withdrawal, to set for hearing on
bill and answer, 11-8
REPLY, see Replication and Reply.
REPORTER, see Stenographees.
BEPUaKAKCY — Consult analysis of
this article when published. See In-
dictment and Information.
Accord and satisfaction, in plea of, 1-
186
Amendments, in, 1-912
BEPTTaKAKOT, eontd.
Answers, inconsistent defenses, 2-26
Election between, 2-27
Demurrer, 6-907
Embezzlement, in charging, 12-339
Forgery, in pleading, 12-339
In indictment, generally, 12-339, 508
As ground for quashing, 12-609
For homicide, 12-629
Statutory provisions, 12-341
Wounds, charging description of, 12-
341
REPURCHASE, agent's agreement to,
distinguished from indemnity, 12-
25
Tender, in contract of, 12-26
BE80I8SI0K Ain> OAKCEUJLTIOH
Consult analysis of this article when
published. See Equity Jurisdiction
AND Procedure; Fraud and Deceit;
Mistake ; Reformation ; Sales ;
Vendor and Purchaser.
Composition with creditors, of, 5-181.
187
Duress, for, 7-948*
Equity jurisdiction, 8-432
Fraudulent conveyances, 10-92
After execution, 10-96
Of conveyances by Indian, 12-44n
Of deed, to homestead, 11-381
Province of judge and jury, 11-1063
Quantum meruit, where contract can-
celled, 11-945, 953
Specially pleaded, 11-1012
BESOXTE — Consult analysis of this ar-
ticle when published. See Obstruc-
iNG Justice; Prisons and Prison-
ers; Sheriffs, Constables and
Marshals. See also Criminal Pro-
cedure.
False imprisonment, 8-944
Of animals, 1-982
RESIDENCE, see Jurisdiction; No-
tice; Service of Process and
Papers; Venue.
Accused, of, charging in indictment,
12-302, 609
Change of, as affecting homestead,
11450
Jurisdictional, in emancipation, 12-
807
Of juvenile, shown in order of com-
mitment, 12-875
Omitting non-resident obligors, 11-
979
RESISTANCE TO OFFICERS, see Ob-
structing Justice,
146
INDEX
JUDICATA — Consult analysis of
this article when published. See Ab-
HAIGNMENT AND PLEA; DEFAULT;
Jeopaedy; Jurisdiction; Law of
THE Case.
Admiralty, 1-533
Alien, judgment excluding, 11-904
Appeal, successive, 2-140
Assumpsit, proof of under general is-
sue, 3-188
Under general denial, 3-212
Bankruptcy proceedings^ adjudication,
3-984
Bastardy proceedings, 4-71
Case, recovery in action on as bar to
other form, 4-661
Confession and avoidance, effect as
res judicata, 5-234
Coroner 's inquest, number of inquests,
5-526
Creditor's suits, parties bound, 6-241
Criminal conversation, alienating af-
fections not bar, 6-253
Cross-bill, dismissal as, 6-293
Death by wrongful act, recovery by
deceased, 6-369
Becovery by one beneficiary, 6-371
Decisions of juvenile court, 12-878,
882
Decrees, 6-784
By consent, 6-762
Default, as to what matters, 6-824
Demurrer, ruling on as, 6-868, 994
Former adjudication appearing, 6-
917
Demurrer to evidence, same objection
to pleadings, 7-5
Deportation proceedings, 11-908, 912,
917
Dismissal and nonsuit as, 7-684, 687
Cross-bill, 6-293
Divorce, 7-777
Dower, assignment, 7-887
Beassignment, 7-891
Elections, contests, 8*36
Eminent domain, 8-294
Ejectment not bar to condemnation,
8-359
In actions for damages, 8-360
Estoppel, distinguished, 8-682
Extradition, foreign, rehearing after
discharge, 8-843 '
State, rearrest, 8-861
Fraudulent conveyances, conclusive-
ness of judgment, 10-200
Garnishment, conclusiveness of judg-
ment, 3-607; 10-583
Judgments on claims of third per-
sons, 10-561
General denial, proof under, 3-212
BBS JXJDIOATA, contd.
General issue, proof under, 3-188
Guardian and ward, as to custody of
infant, 10-819
Accounting, decree on, 10-843
Judgment for or against guardian
or ward, 10-874
Action on bond, 10-898
Habeas corpus, adjudication how far
conclusive, 10-950
Heirs, judgment determining, 12-925
Highways, alteration of, 11-128
Establishing, 11-56
Injuries from, 11-250
Homestead exemption, failure to as-
sert, 11-420
Immigration officers, decisions of, 11-
908, 912, 917, 919
Infants, judgments against, 12-771,
774, 777
RESPONDEAT OUSTEB, see Judg-
ments. See also Pleading Over,
BESPONDEAT SUPERIOR, see Mas-
ter AND Servant; Negligence;
Principal and Agent.
RESTAURANT, discrimination by, see
Civil Rights.
RESTITUTION, 8-1126. See Process;
Tender.
Restoration, of incompetents' estates,
12-20
Restraining order, distinguished from
temporary injunction, 12-996
SESTBAINT OF TRADE — - Consult
analysis of this article when pub-
lished. See Monopolies.
RETRAXIT, see Dismissal, Discon-
tinuance AND Nonsuit.
RETROACTIVE LAW, see Remedy;
Statutes.
RETUKNB — Consult analysis of this
article when published. See- Judg-
ment Records; Judicial Sales;
Process; Service of Process and
Papers; Subpoena; Warrants.
Admiralty, to process, 1-497
Amendments, in admiralty, 1-498
Of appraiser's return, 11-363, .518
On attachment process, 3-546
Appeals, to process, part of record on,
2-333
Appearance before, 2-561
Appraisers, of homestead, 11-361
On exemption claim, 11-518
Assistance, writ of, liability for false
return, 3-155
Attachment, 3-481, 541
Amendments, 3-546
Of directions for return, 3-487
First writ; before alias, 3-155
• w
INDEX
BETT7BKS, contd.
Attachment, contd.
Of process ^^not found "as ground,
3-369
Of sale, 3-582
Publication, as basis for, 3-687
Belease by nulla bona, 3-647
Bills of exceptions, of service, 4-361
Certiorari, to writ, 4-935, 958
In highway proceedings, 11-98, 136
Constable, of, indictment based on,
12-98
Contempt, of attachment, 6-898
Copyright proceedings, of writ for
seizure, 5-516
Corporations, of process against, 5-
628
Of process against foreign, 5-740
Customs duties, of writs ou appeal,
time, 6-349
Decedents' estates, of order for sale,
6-669
Default, of service of process, 6-817
Collateral attack, 6-840
Depositions, 7-334
Equity, of process, proof, 8-467
Exemption contest, of process on,
11-522
Forthcoming bonds, 10-14
Of forfeited bond, 10-23
Fraudulent conveyances, of execution
before action, 10-136
Garnishment, of process, 10-497
Grand jury, of venire, 10-620
Of indictment, indorsement, 10-656
Record must show, 12-103
Habeas corpus, directions in writ, 10-
927
Of writ, 10-929
Immigration proceedings, 11-923
Production of prisoner at return,
10-931
Homestead appraisers, 11-361
Mandamus, of writ to compel settle-
ment of exceptions, 4-348
In highway proceedings, 11-124
Of indictment, 12-95
Demurrer for improper return, 12-
651
Entry, at what term, 12-107
Failure to enter, 12-98
Jurisdictional, 12-96
Mode and effect, 12-96
Presumptions as to, 12-106, 639
Quashing where return improper,
12-626
Shown by clerk's minutes, 12-105
Time of, 12-98
Of magistrate, manner of stating the
offense, 12-91
^EVEKUE, see Custqxs Dimss; Ik-
TEBNAL BEVENUS; TAXATION.
BEVEBSI0N8, see Lands and Land
Transtebs.
BEVXKW — Consult analf/sii of ihi$ or*
tide when published. See Afpeaia;
Bills or Review; Cebtioeabi; Jus-
tices OF THE Peace; Wbtt op Bb-
BOS.
REVIVAL OP JUDGMENTS AND DE-
CREES, see JUDOMSNTB AND DE-
CBEES, Revival of.
BEVIVOB — Consult atialifHs of thU
article when published. See Judg-
ments AND Degrees, Beviyai^ op;
SuBTiv^ See also Abatement,
Admiralty, motion on snggestion of
death, 1-528
Substitution on death of party, 1-
688
Appeals, of, 2-E30
Customs duties, actions lor forfeiture.
6-366
Death by wrongful set, in actiOB of,
6-372
Decedents' estates, claim nevd not be
presented on, 6-628
Decrees, death of defendant, 6-788
Depositions, use after, 7-899
Dower, death of widow, rents and
profits, 7-890
Elections, in contests, 8-89
Fraudulent conveyances, neoessity to
action after debtor's death, 10-
181
Garnishment, against executor or gar-
nishee, 10-487
Guardian ad litem, for infant defend-
fint in revivor, 10-716
REVOCATION, of leave to file informa-
tion, 12-113
BEWABD8 — Consult analysis of this
article when published. See Im-
plied AND E^FSESS ACSEEXENTS.
RIGHT OP ACTION, see Cause of Ac-
tion; Remedy; Suits and Actions.
RIGHT OF PROPERTY, TRIAL OP,
see INTEEFLEADBS; Intebv^tion;
Refisvin; Tbespass To Tst Ttelb.
To attached property, 3-688
To garnished property, 10-550
Where execution is levied, see Juao-
MENTS AUD DBCSEES, ENPOBGB-
ment pr.
RIGHT OF WA¥, see Easements;
Pbivate anp Tpuj RO4O0.
RIGHT, WRIT OF, see BSAL AMD MiZID
AonoNS«
lis
INDEX
BIOT — Consult analysis of this article
when published. See Affray;
Breach of the Peace; Disorderly
Conduct; Unlawful Assembly.
See also Criminal Procedure.
Bobbery, joinder with, 12-535
BIPABIAN BIQHTS, see Navigable
Waters; Waters and Water-
courses; Wharves.
BIVEBS, see Admiralty; Navigable
Waters; Ships and Shipping;
Waters and Watercourses.
BOADS, see Highways, Streets and
Bridges; Private and Toll Boads.
Distinguished from streets, 11-45
Meaning of, 11-44
Synonymous with highways, 11-45
BOBBEBY — Consult analysis of this
article when published. See also
Criminal Procedure.
Joinder with other offenses, 12-534
Assault with intent to rob ,12-535
Burglary, 12-534
Larceny, 12-534
Biot; 12-535
Legal conclusion, charging the of-
fense by name, 12-344
BULE, see Motions; Orders.
BULES or COUBT (see Courts), 6-54
Abatement, plea of, time for limited,
1-58
Admiralty, supreme court rules regu-
late, 1-410
Amendment on appeal, 1-479, 480
Courts may make consistent with
supreme, 1-411
Pleading to conform to, 1-446, 447,
461
Appeals, discretion in interpretation,
2-450
Appearances, concerning, 2-496
Arguments, time for fixed, 2-743
Bills and answers, U. S. rules as to
answer, 4-157
Case or question certified, 4-685
In Georgia, 4-690
Commerce court, 5-169
Copyright proceedings, what rules ap-
ply, 5-514
Discovery, power to order production
without, 7-607
Equity, new IT. S. rules, 8-500
Power of chancery court to make,
8-497
Errors, assignment, filing, 8-627
Piling, in regard to, 8-982
Findings and conclusions, requiring,
8-994
SABBATH, see Sunday and Holidays.
SAID, see Certainty m Pleading; In-
dictment AND Information.
SALABY, see Garnishment; Man-
damus.
SALES — Consult analysis of this article
when published. See Factors and
Brokers; Fraud and Deceit;
Fralt)s, Statute of; Guaranty;
Impued and Express Agreements;
Infants; Judicial Sales; Rescis-
sion AND Cancellation; Vendor
AND Purchaser.
Assumpsit, for goods sold and deliv-
ered, 3-205
Attachment, after Contract of sale, 3-
304, 625
After consignment, 3-311
After levy of, 3-629
As ground for, 3-384
Sale of attached property, 3-575
Vacating by purchaser, 3-766
Bulk sales acts, 10-213
Chattel mortgages, foreclosure by'
sale, 5-69
Decedents' estates, by personal repre-
sentatives, 6-579
Druggists, indictment for unlawful,
1-992
Factors and brokers, averments of by
brokers, 8-889
Goods sold and delivered, action
for, 8-870
Fraud and deceit, return of property
unnecessary, 10-42
Frauds, statute of, see Frauds, Stat-
ute OF.
Fraudulent conveyances, merchandise
in bulk, 10-213
Hawkers and peddlers, allegation of
in indictment, 10-972
Of homestead, 11-370
As abandonment thereof, 11-456
Decree for, 11-371
SALOONS, see Intoxicating Liquors.
SALVAGE — Consult analysis of this
article when published. See Admir-
alty; Seamen; Ships and Ship-
ping.
Admiralty, jurisdiction of, 1-402
Intervention by salvors, 1-520
Parties, 1-434
Stipulation for costs, 1-507
SANITATION, see Health.
SATISFACTION, see Accord and Sat-
isfaction ; Judgments, Satisfac-
tion of; Payment; Eelease.
SAW-MIIjL, see Logs and Logging.
SCANDAL, see Surplusage and Scan-
dal,
6T
149
INDEX
SCHEDULE, amendment of, of debt-
or's property, 11-323, 511
Of exemption, 11-484
Accompanying claim, 11-502
Amending, 11-511
Attacking, 11-519
By whom made, 11-503
raing, 11-499
Form and contents, 11-506
Subscribing and verifying, 11-509
Of homestead, 11-304
Accompanying claim of, 11-330, 332
By widow, 11-391
80HOOLS AND SCHOOL DISTBICTS
Consult analysis of this article when
puhlished. See Municipal Gobpoba-
TIONS; BsrOBMATOBIES.
Forcible entry and detainer, for
school property, 8-1103
Gumishment, districts not liable, ex-
ceptions, 10-399-402
Bemedies to enforce rights as to, 5-
• 127
Separate schools for negroes, 5-127-
128
SODEilOET — Consult analysis of this
article when published. See In-
dictment AND INFOBMATION.
Bepugnancy in matter laid after, 12-
342
80IBE FACIAS' — Consult analysis of
this article when published. See
Judgments and Decbees, Bevival
OF.
Affidavit of defense, to, 1-666
Banks, to dissolve, 4-47
Corporations, for dissolution of, 5-
575
Divorce, for alimony, 7-836
Executors and administrators, on
judgments against, 8-773
Fraudulent conveyances^ dormant
judgments as foundation, 10-131
Garnishment, on conditional judg-
ment on default, 10-573
To compel garnishee to pay over,
10-577 I
SEAL, see Covenant, Action of; t*BO-
cess.
Attachment, to bonds, 3-456
On writ of, 3-473
Contracts under, action on, 11-951
Parties plaintiff, 11-965
To jurat, of preliminary complaint,
12-143, 292
SEAMEN — Consult analysis of this ar-
ticle when published. See Admibaltt;
Liens ; Pibact; Salvage; Ships
AND Shipping.
SEABCBN, contd.
Admiralty, stipulation for costs, when,
1-507
Foreign, libel by, 1-381, 382
Joinder of actions, 1-443
Jurisdiction of contracts for wages,
1-384
SEABOH AND SEIZUBE — Consult an-
alysis of this article when published.
Ses Customs Duties; Intebkal
Bevenue; Intoxicating Liquobs;
Penalties, Fobfeitubes and Fines;
Shebiffs, Constables and 3Cab-
SHALS; Wabbants.
Affidavits to obtain warrant, 12-899
Customs duties, 6-353
Gaming, gambling devices, 10-330, 333
SEABCH WABBANTS, see Seabgh and
Seizube; Wabbants.
Affidavits for, 12-899
SECXJBITIE8, see Mabshalino Assets.
SEOTJBITT FOE COSTS — Consult
analysis of this article when pub-
lished. See Appeal Bonds; Bonds;
Costs ; Undebtakings.
Abatement, failure to give as gronnd
for, 1-29
Admiralty, stipulations for, 1-505
Increasing, 1-507
Affidavits of merits or defense as
prerequisite, 1-652
By next friend, 12-800
Continuances, failure to give, 5-470
Criminal cases, 5-784
Elections, in contests, 8-103
Equity on bringing suit, 8-450
Guardian ad litem, 10-770
In actions against infants, 12-800
8ECT7BITY' TO KEEP THE PEACE —
Consult oTMlysis of this article when
published,
SEDUCTION — Consult analysis of this
article when published. See Abduc-
tion; Adulteby; Bastabdy Pbo-
geedings; Bbeach op Pbomisb;
Cbiminal Convebsation ; Lewd-
ness; Pbostitdtion. See also Criv^
inal Procedure.
Breach of promise, allegation as a^
gravation, 4-553
Case, action on the for, 6-627
SEIZIN, •see Covenant, Action op;
Lands and Land Tbanspebs; Wbit
OP Entby.
SEIZUBE, see Seabch and Seizube.
SENTENCE AND JUDaiCENT — Con-
sult analysis of this article when
published. See Pabdon.
Alternative sentence, 12-876
Arrest of judgment, 2-979
150
INDEX
SEKTENOE AND JUDOMENT, contd.
Assault and battery, several defend-
ants, 3-45
Conspiracy, 5-320
Costs, 5-766, 767
Court martial, 6-119, 623
Cruelty to animals, 6-320
Due process of law, 7-925
Embezzlement, cumulative punish-
ment, 8-250
Forgery, 8-1184
Gaming, 10-363
Habeas corpus for excessive, 10-945
Of juvenile delinquents, 12-874
Suspended sentence, 12-876
On failure to plead, after demurrer
to indictment sustained, 12-659
Time of, 2-904
SEPARATE ESTATE, OP WIFE, at-
tachment of, 11-827
Distinguished from equitable estate,
11-831
Proceedings against, 11-824, 828
SEPARATE MAINTENANCE, see Hus-
band AND Wife.
SEPARATE STATEMENT OF CAUSES
OF ACTION, see Several Counts.
SEPABATE TBIALS — Consult analysis
of this article when published. See
Accessories and Accomplices ; Con-
solidation OF Actions; Joinder of
Actions; Successive Suits; Trial.
Abatement, pleas of, separate from
merits, 1-68
Arraignment, joint, where, 2-863
Conspiracy, criminal, 5-318
Costs, criminal cases, 5-764
Eminent domain, 8-301
Highways, change of grade of, 11-138
SEPARATION, see Divorce; Husband
AND Wife; Marriage.
SEQUESTRATION — Consult analysis
of this article when published. See
Judgments and Decrees, Enforce-
UENT OF; Receivers; Service of
Process and Papers.
Decrees, enforcement of, 6-788
Divorce, for alimony, 7-836
Garnishment, not affected by statutes,
10-472
Guardian and ward, to enforce decree
of accounting, 10-843
SERVANT, see Apprentices; Master
AND Servant.
SEBVICE OF PBOCESS AND PAPERS
Consult analysis of this article
when published. See Attachment;
Default ; False Imprisonment ;
Garnishment; Judgments and De-
crees, Enforcement of; Motions;
SEBVIOE OF PBOOESS AMD PAFEBS,
contd.
Notice; Orders; Privilege; .Pro-
cess; Returns; Sheriffs, Con-
stables AND Marshals; Subpoena;
Sunday and Houdays.
Abatement, plea of for improper
service, 1-49
Affidavit of merits or defense, service
of, 1-702
Aliens, process, how served, 1-798
Amendments, proposed, 1-894
Amended pleadings, 1-900
Another action pending, service in
first, 1-1008
Appeals, citation or notice, 2-311
Record, service of, 2-379, 380
Appearance, admission of service
when, 2-^00
Arrest in civil cases, of affidavit for,
2-960
Attachment, avoidance of as ground
for, 3369, 370
Affidavit, 3-405
Assertion of exemption, on, 11-
492
Effect of defective or fraudulent,
3-758
Of notice of claim of third per-
son, 3-653
Of process in main action, 3-672
Of writ, 3-480, 501, 532
Copy of or notice, 3-536
Proof extrinsic to return, 3-560
Return as evidence, 3-560. See
Returns.
Attorneys, not exempt from, 3-851
Cannot accept original, 3-857
Bankruptcy proceedings, service on
co-partners, 3-960
Subpoena of bankrupt, 3-979
Banks, on, 4-7
Beneficial associations, 4-85
Bills and notes, failure to serve some
defendants, 4-239
Bills of exceptions, 4-359
Bills of particulars, 4-404
Service of order, 4-406
Briefs, 4-587
Case on appeal, 4-767, 779
Acknowledgment and proof of, 4-
786
Certiorari, of writ and notice, 4-930
Commerce courts, process, 5-169
Corporations, in actions against, 5-617
Garnishment, summons in, 5-637
On unauthorized persons void, 5*665
Process against foreign, 5-737
Costs, offer of judgment, 5-861
Pees for serving, 5-940
Of notice of taxation, 5-925
151
INDEX
SEBVIOE OF PBOOESS AND PAFEBS,
conid.
Costs, contd.
Several processes, mileage for, 5-
955
Courts martial, of charge, 6-113
Creditors' suits, 6-207
Cross-bill, 6-287
Cross-complaint and process, 6-308
Customs duties, of protest on appeal,
6-343
Declaration and complaint, need not
show, 6-673
Of pleading, 6-721
Decrees, on publication process, 6-747
Proof required, 6-771
Becitals of service, 6-778
Extrinsic evidence contradicting,
6-840
Default, after substituted service, 6-
805
Irregularities in service, 6-829
Personal service for personal judg-
ment, 6-806
Proof of service, 6-816
Substituted service, 6-812
Demurrer, 6-936
Copy considered at hearing, 6-983
Denials, admission by failure to de-
ny where constructive service, 7-
114
Depositions, of interrogatories, 7-249
Of notice of taking, 7-291
Discovery, of notice of examination
of party, 7-570
Of interrogatories on notice, 7-589
Of notice to produce, 7-632
Of order to answer interrogatories,
7-579
Dismissal, as to parties not served,
7-666
Failure to serve as ground for, 7-
677
Divorce, 7-752, 758
Dower, of writ, 7-863
Ejectment, on real defendant, 7-1034
Elections, of answers in contests, 8-76
Of notice of contest, 8-85
Eminent domain, process or notice, 8-
275
Equity, of subpoena to answer, 8-464-
466
On infants, 8-465, 476
Errors, assignment of, cross-errors, 8-
647
As to service, 8-561
Exceptions to homejitead appraise-
ment, 11-367
Forcible entry and detainer, of notice,
8-1097
Of summons, 8-1121
SEBVIOE OF PBO0E88 Ain> PAPEB8.
contd.
Fraudulent conveyances, constructive
on non-resident grantee, 10-139
Garnishment, jurisdiction of principal
action by constructive, 10-472
On non-resident debtor and gar-
nishee, 10-483
Persons temporarily in state, 10-484
Service of process, 10-495
Defects in, how questioned, 10-
596
Exemption asserted on, 11-492
Grand jury, summoning, 10-619
Guardian ad litem, for defendant
only after service of process, 10-
722
Guardian and ward, of application
for appointment, 10-792
Number of copies, 12-746
On claim against wards' estate, 10-
854
Habeas corpus, of writ, original
served, 10-927
Hearing, of notice, 11-14
Homicide, in indictment for, 11-576
Indian depredations, in actions for,
12-47
Infants, on, in equity, 8-465, 476
Generally, 12-739, 741
Juvenile proceedings, in, 12-868
Levy of execution, notice of exemp-
tion to debtor, 11-475
Notice, of appeal, in actions respect-
ing infants, 12-796
Of exemption, 11-502
Of heirship proceedings, 12*921
Of injuries from highways, 11-206,
207
Number of copies, upon parent or
guardian, 12-746
Parent, upon, for infant, 12-746
Publication, see Jurisdiction; Pro-
ceedings IK Rem.
In actions against infants, 12-741,
746
In attachment, 3-682
In divorce, 7-754
Becitals, decree, 6-778
Extrinsic evidence contradicting,
6-840
Return of officer, amendment of, 12-
751
Verification of, 12-751
Where exemption contest filed, 11-
522
"Wages, exemption of, 11-501
Wife's separate property, in actions
against, 11-830
152
INDEX
SERVICES, see Assumpsit; Master
AND Servant; Work and Labor;
and specific titles.
SET-OFF, OOUNTEBOLA.IM AND BE-
C0X7PMENT — CoMuU analysis of
this article when published. See
Answers; Bills and Answers;
Cross-Bill; Cross-Complaint; Dec-
laration AND Complaint; Plead-
ing; Pleas; and other particular
titles.
Admiralty, against United States in,
1-432
On equitable principles only, 1-482
Affidavits of merits and defense, aver-
ment of, 1-700, 702
Admitted by failure to file, 1-715
Allotment to Indians, 12-49
Another action pending, 1-1030
Appeals, jurisdictional amount, 2-189
Architects and builders, for breach of
contract, 2-704
Assignment, for creditors, by assignee,
3-76
Set-off disallowed after notice of,
3-8S
Assumpsit, set-off specially pleaded,
3-190, 213
Attachment, affidavit negativing set-
off, 3-426, 427
Bills of particulars, of defense, 4-383
Certainty in pleading, affirmative de-
fense, 4-849
Choice of remedies, for purpose of
counterclaim, 5-118
Corporations, in action for dividends,
5-695
Costs, effect of interposing after
offer of judgment, 5-868
Where judgment reduced by, 5-890
Where separate suit instead of
counterclaim or set-off, 5-899
Covenant, action of, 6-161
Decedents' estates, action against
purchaser, 5-579
Demurrer to, 6-913, 961
Form of, 6-884
Misjoinder of counterclaim, 6-904
Want of capacity to recover, 6-895
Departure, counterclaim, 7-128
Counterclaim against counterclaim,
7-139
Detinue, no counterclaim, 7-483
Dismissal and nonsuit, plaintiff's
right where counterclaim, 7-657
Dower, counterclaim not in proceed-
ings for, 7-877
Ejectment, 7-1045
Equity, jurisdiction, 8-439
Fraud and deceit, recoupment for, 10-
39
SET-OFF, OOTTKTEBOLAIM AKD BS-
OOTXPMENT, contd.
Fraudulent conveyances, set-off plead-
ed, 10-180
Frivolous and sham pleadings, remedy
when applied, 10-279
Garnishment, defenses by garnishee,
10-522-526
General issue, proof under, 7-71
Guardian ad litem, infant parties to
counterclaim, 10-716
Guardian and ward, set-off in action
on bond, 10-896
Indians, allotment suits, in, 12-49
Depredation claims, 12-49
Infants, against, 12-768
SETTING ASIDE INDICTMENT, 12-
605
SETTING ASIDE JUDGMENTS, see
Affidavits op Merits and Defense ;
Bills to Impeach Judgments and
Decrees ; Judgments ; Motions.
SETTLEMENT, see Accord and Satis-
faction; Account and Account-
ing; Compromise and Settlement;
XvELEASE.
Of guardian of incompetent, 12-19
On married women, actions as to, 11-
818
SEVERAL COUNTS — Consult analysis
of this article when pttblished. See
Assumpsit; Declaration and Com-
plaint ; Duplicity ; Indictment and
Information; Joinder op Actions;
Variance and Failure op Proof.
Abduction, distinct offenses not
joined, 1-85
Abortion, 1-99, 113
Accessory, as principal and accesBOty,
1-149, 150
Before and after, 1-150, 151
Adultery, 1-604
Affray, 1-728
Aider by verdict, of misjoinder, 12-
701
Arbitration, on award and contract,
2-648
Arrest of judgment, on one of sev-
eral, 2-983, 1009
Not for misjoinder in indictment,
2-1019
Arson, joinder, 3-5, 22
Assault and battery, joinder of of-
fenses, 3-36
Assumpsit, 3-181
Allegation of breach in each, 3-187
Joinder of special and common
counts, 3-207
Money counts, classification, 3-202
Quantum meruit and valebant, 3-
206
153
INDEX
8BVEEAL COUNTS, eonid.
Burglary, 4-604
Caption, applicable to each count, 12-
172 ,
Charging misdemeanors, 12-677
Distinct misdemeanors, 12-683
Conspiracy, indictments, 5-310
Costs, criminal, 5-763
Civil cases, 5-808
Covenant, action of, several breaches,
6-149
Death by wrongful act, 6-433
Debt, 6-486
Declaration and complaint, in, 6-701
Prayer for relief, 6-714
Demurrer, where some counts good,
12-656
Appeal from sustaining, 12-659
Dismissal, of one count, 7-655
Disorderly house, 7-705
Duplicity, .7-934
Ejectment, count for mesne profits,
7-1023
Election between, 12-671, 673, 677
Time for, 12-680 '
Elections, offenses against, 8-152, 160
Exhibits, reference in each, 8-800
Extortion, civil actions, joinder, 8-827
Factors and brokers, joinder in ac-
tions for commission, 8-894
Felonies, charging distinct, 12-681
Porcible entry and detainer, seldom
necessary, 8-1117
Forgery, 8-1173, 1178
Incest, 12-3
In criminal complaint, 12-128
In indictment, 12-519, 671
Charging same offense, 12-536
Charging distinct f elonies, 12-524
In information, 12-521, 671
Joinder in general, 6-701. See Join-
deb OP Actions.
Misjoinder, aider by verdict, 12-701
Motion to quash for, 12-685
Preliminary complaint, in, 12-138
Bape, in indictment for, 12-538
To charge murder, 12-538
Venue, laying different, 12-539
SEVEBAKOE — Consult analysis of this
article when published. See Ad-
miralty; Consolidation of Ac-
tions; Separate Trials; Several
Counts; Successive Suits.
SEWEES, see Municipal Corporations ;
Special Assessment; Waters and
Watercoxtrses.
SEXUAL INTERCOURSE, see Abduc-
tion; Adultery; Criminal Conver-
sation; Incest; Lewdness; Pros-
titution; Rape; Seduction.
Averment of, in incest, 12-5
SEXUAL INTERCOURSE, contd.
Gist of incest, 12-7
SHAM PLEADINGS, see Frivolous akd
Sham Pleadings.
SHERIFFS, CONSTABLES AND ICAS-
SHALS — Consult analysis of this
article when published. See Falsis
Imprisonment; Inquiry, Writ op;
Judgments. AND Degrees, Eniorcs-
MENT OF; JUDICIAL SALES; OB-
STRUCTING Justice; Officers; Pris-
ons AND Prisoners; Process;
Recognizances and Bail; Rescue;
Returns; Search and Seizure;
Service of Process and Papers;
Summary Proceedings; Warrants.
Attachment, no power to issue writ,
3-466
Accountability for property, 3-564
Actions by attaching officer, 3-587
For possession, 3-744
To collect, 3-742
Execution of by constable, 3-490
Expense of care and sale, 3-567
Special property by, 3-591
Costs, fees in bill, 5-928
To sheriff's fees, 5-936
Deposit in court, of funds in hands
of, 7-148
Sheriff custodian, where, 7-157
Dower, setting off, 7-880
Forthcoming bonds, for benefit of,
10-5
Approval by officer, responsibility,
10-14
Effect on liability of officers, 10-15
Execution for failure to pay over,
10-6
When payable to, 10-9
Garnishment of, 10-454
Grand jury, selection by sheriff, 10-
611
Challenge, improper act of sheriff,
10-639, 640, 642
SHERIFF'S SALE, see Judgments and
Decrees, Enforcement of; Judicial
Sales.
SHIPS AND SmPPINO —Consult
analysis of this article when pub-
lished. See Admiralty; Collision;
Customs Duties; Freight Car-
riers; Insurance; Liens; Navig-
able Waters; Passengers; Pen-
alties, Forfeitures and Fines;
Piracy; Salvage; Seamen; United
States Courts; Wharves.
Admiralty, jurisdiction of, 1-379
Contracts to build, 1-393
Release of prize, when, 1-509
Aliens, jurisdiction of foreign, 1*792,
800
IM
mDBi
SHIPS AND smPPIKO, eonid.
Attachment, of, 3-279
Death by wrongful act, jurisdiction,
6-383
SIDEWALK, included in term street,
11-46
SIGNATURE, see Bills and Answers;
Declaration and Complaint; Find-
ings AND Conclusions; Indictment
AND Information ; Judgments ;
Pleading; Process; and specific
titles.
Affidavit, forgery of signature to,
12-129
Exemption claim, to, 11-484
To appraisement on, 11-518
Jurat, of officer to, 12-143, 292
Preliminary complaint, to, 12-140, 141
To information, 12-630
Waiver of homestead, to, 11-437
SIMILITER, see Issues in Pleading
AND Practice.
SLANDER, see Libel and Slander.
SLEEPING CARS, see Passengers.
SMUGGLING, see Customs Duties;
Immigration; Penalties, £!orfeit-
UREs AND Fines.
SOCIETIES, see Associations; Bene-
ficial Associations; Religious So-
cieties.
SODOIO' — Consult andlym of this ar-
ticle when published. See also
Criminal Procedure,
SOLDIERS, see Courts Martial; Navy
AND Army; Pensions and Boun-
ties; War.
SOLE TRADER, see Husband and Wife,
proceedings to become, 11-817
SOLICITATION, see also Accessories
AND Accomplices; Indictment and
Information; and specific titles.
SOLICITORS, see Attorneys; Lawyer
AND Client.
SPEOIAL ABBEB^-MSST— Consult
analysis of this article when pub-
lished. See Highways, Streets and
Bridges; Municipal Corporations;
Taxation.
Appeals, 2-183
SPECIAL ASSUMPSIT, see Assumpsit.
SPECIAL FINDINGS, see Findings
AND Conclusions ; Issues in Plead-
ing AND Practice; Special Inter-
rogatories TO Juries; Verdict.
SPECIAL INTEBBOGATOBIES TO
JURIES — Consult analysis of this
article when published. See In-
structions; Issues in Pleading
AND Practice; Juries and Jurors;
Verdict.
SPECIAL DTFEEBdOATOBIES tO
JUBIES, contd.
Arguments, advising as to answer, 2-
763
Reading in, 2-818
Highways, injuries from, 11-246
SPECIAL ISSUES, see Issues in Plead-
ing AND Practice; Special Inter-
rogatories TO Juries.
SPECIAL PLEAS, see Conpjsssion and
Avoidance; Denials; Pleas.
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS, see Surra
AND Actions.
Appeals from, 1-167
Habeas corpus as, 10-912
SPECIAL TERM, see Courts,
SPECIAL TRAVERSE, 7-100
SPECIALTY, see Bonds; Covenant,
Action op.
Pleas in actions on, nil debet im-
proper, 11-1013
Non assumpsit, improper, 11-1013
Non est factum, 11-1013
SPECIAL VERDICT, see Special In-
terrogatories to Juries; Verdict.
SPECIFIO TUSTOBiNLANOE — Consult
analysis of this article when pub'
Ushed, See Eqihty Juiubdiction
AND Procedure; Frauds, Statute
OP; Legal Remedy; Prayer; Ven-
dor AND PXTRCHASER.
Agreed case, awarded in, 1-764
Apprentices, not of agreement to
bind, 2-580
Arbitration, of award, 2-658-661
Choice and election of remedies, 5-119
Composition with creditors, of, 5-187
Contract to makef a will, see Wills.
Corporations, against,' 5-572
Covenant, for further assurance, 6-
141
Decedents' estates, of administration
sale, 6-577
Easements, establishment, 7-955
Equity jurisdiction, 8-430-432
Homestead, of sale of, 11-374
Remedy against judgment of, 11-
380
Husband and wife, as remedy be-
tween, 11-712
Indemnity contract, of, 12-29
Possession or part performance, plead-
ing, 10-72
Settlement, contract of, 11-819
Wife's separate property, of sale of,
11-825
SPEEDING, see Indictment and In-
roRMATioN; Motor Vehicles.
SPELLING, see Certainty in Plead-
ing; Indictment and Information;
Names.
1S5
INDEX
SPELLING, eonid.
Pleading, not vitiated by bad spoil-
ing, 12-311
SPENDTHRIFTS, see Incompetents;
Trusts and Trustees.
SPLITTING ACTION, see Separate
Trials; Severance; Successive
Suits.
STALE DEMAND, see Laches; Lim-
itation OP Actions.
STATED ACCOUNT, see Account and
Accounting.
STARE DECISIS, see Law op the
Case'; Res Judicata.
STATEMENT Ain> ABSTRACT OF
CASE — Consult analysis of this
article when published. See Appeals ;
Bills op Exceptions; Case on Ap-
peal; Stenographers.
STATEMENT BY AOOUBBD — Con-
sult analysis of this article when
p^ihlished,
STATEMENT OP FACTS, see Agreed
Case; Statement and Abstract op
Case; Stipulations.
Appeal from judgment on, 2-158
STATEMENT OB AFFIDAVIT OF
CLAIM — Consult analysis of this
article when published. See Appi-
davits op Merits and Defense.
Prerequisite to affidavit of defense^
1-667
STATES AND TEBBITOBIES — Con-
sult analysis of this ctrticle when
published. See Eminent Domain;
Escheat; Highways, Streets and
Bridges; Laches; Limitation op
Actions; Municipal Corporations;
Opficers; Parties; Public Lands;
Quo Warranto; Removal op
Causes; Taxation; United States ;
Waters and Watercourses.
'Abbreviation of the state, amending
criminal complaint as to, 12-566
Affidavit of defense, action by, 1-666
Agreed case, as party in, 1-744
Appeals by, 2-195
Advancement on calendar, 2-399
Corporation, as a, 5-549
Costs, criminal cases, statutory liabil-
ity, 5-772
Appeals, liability, 5-983
In civil cases, 5-828
Default, 6-806
Proof of facts required, 6-821
Divorce, as party, 7-751
Due process of law, remedies against,
7-927
Garnishment, not liable to, 10-398
Philippines, Bill of Rights, privilege
of accused under, 12-295
STATUTE OP PRATTDS, see Fbaudb,
Statute op.
STATUTES — Consult analysis of thi*
article when published. See Indict-
ment AND Information ; Municipai<
Corporations; Remedy.
Accused, power to dispense with con-
stitutional rights of, 12-296, 297
Action, abolishing forms of, 11-704
Admiralty, state statute, eifect on
procedure, 1-409
Enforces rights under, 1-422
Federal statutes based on admiralty
clause, 1-410
Affidavits, authorizing proaeention
by, 12-86
Agreed case, construction, 1-738
Amendments and jeofails, 1-829^ 852,
854, 856, 885, 887, 896
Of indictment, providing for, 12-
544
Construction of, 12-546
Appeals, derived from, 2-134
Construction of statutes, 2-136, 185
Demurrer, from orders on, 12-d58
I^medial and subject to change, 2-
135, 302
Statutory method exclusive, 2-134,
655
What governs, 2-136
Appearances, concerning, 2-496
Apprentices, strict construction, 3-574
Arbitration, common law not super-
seded, 2-595
Relief from awards, 2-626
Arguments, reading in, 2-812
Arrest in civil cases, construction, 2-
926
Following words of in affidavit, 2-
955
{Foreign law, stating in affidavit,
2-943
Process must comply with, 2-966
Arrest of judgment, constitutionality,
2-992
Failure to fix punishment, 2-992
Repeal, 2-992, 1009
Arson, extending offense, 3-3
Charging in language of, 3-5, 11, 12
Merely prescribing punishment, 3-3
Assault And battery, offense in lan-
guage of, 3-34
Assignments, as to parties, 3-96
Assignments for creditors, suits by
assignee, 3-68
Attachment, statutory proceedings, 3-
239
Affidavits in language of, 3-410,
429-431
Change in statutes, effect, 3-245,
817
15e
INDEX
STATTTFES, conid.
Attachment, contd.
Prospective or retrofll>ective oper-
ation, 3-249 •
Construction, 3-246
As to property subject, 3-270
"Perishable" construed, 3-579
Attorneys, admission regulated by, 3-
850
Bankruptcy proceedings, act liberally
construed, 3-897
Appeals, 3-1014
Banks and banking, liability over
subscriptions, 4-18
Bills of exceptions, originated by, 4-
292
Bills to impeach judgments and de-
crees, statutory equivalents, 4-
478
Case on appeal, settlement as pre-
scribed, 4-792
Case or question certified, constitu-
tionality, Georgia, 4-689
Case, the action on the, new remedy
when exclusive, 4-638
Allegations on statutory rights, 4-
655
Cause of action, used in restricted
sense, 4-804
Not from acts authorized, 4-820
Certainty in pleading, in actions un-
der, 4-852; 6-679, 696, 729
In criminal cases in language of,
see infra, Indictment.
Claim of exemption, following lan-
guage of statute, 11-496
Conforming to, in emancipation pro-
ceedings, 12-805
Consolidation of actions, provisions
for, 5-255
Conspiracy, to commit statutory of-
fense, 5-294
In language of, 5-296
Under statute, 5-306
Constitutionality of, litigation of,
enjoined, 12-1018
Construction of, exemption laws, 11-
470
Contempt, taking away power of
courts, 5-373
Corporations, service of process reg-
ulated, 5-619
Foreign, must comply with condi-
tions, 5-727
Correction of indictment, providing
for, 12-321
Costs, civil cases, origin, 5-792
Appeals, compliance with, items, 5-
1000
Construction, 5-795
Ab to offer of judgment, 5-851
STATUTES, conid.
Costs, contd.
Construction, contd*
Liability of state, 5-776
Power to award statutory, 5-914
Criminal cases, 5-758
Courts martial, created by, 6-101
Procedure regulated by, 6-112
Crime, creating new, general prin-
ciples of criminal law applicable,
1-126
Criminal accusations, as to, 12-294
Degree of certainty required, 12-
306
Criminal complaint, as to amendment
of, 12-565
Cruelty to animals, origin of criminal
offense, 6-313
In language of, 6-316
Death by wrongful act, liability cre-
ated, 6-364
Allegations in language of, 6-422
Pleading foreign, 6-405
Declaration, based on statute, see in-
fra, Pollowing statute in plead-
ing.
Decrees, "judgments" construed to
include, 6-741
Effect of judgments under, 6-786
Demurrer, language followed, 6-882
Denials, statutory form of, 12-906
Designating time for, 12-653
Departure, statutory and common law
liability, 7-121
Deposition y in law courts, 7-189
As to form of return, directory, 7-
337
De bene esse, 7-195
Detinue, under, 7-470
Discovery, statutory remedies as sub-
stitute, 7-508, 542
Construction of statutes, 7-598
Inspection of documents, 7-606,
609
Disorderly house, indictment in lan-
guage, 7-703
Disturbing public assembly, common
law offense not abrogated, 7-714
Following language, 7-716
Divorce, origin, 7-739
Alimony purely statutory, 7-815
Grounds in language of, 7-761
Elections, contest purely statutory, 8-
10
Contests strictly follow, 8-62
Indictments in words of, 8-155
Method of review, followed, 8-110
Embezzlement, defining, 8-203
Indictment in words of, 8-220
157
INDEX
STATITTEd, conid.
Eminent domain, strict compliance, 8-
263
English language, tequire pleading
in the, 12-308
Estrays, charging offense in language,
8-719
Exemptions as to, in general, 11-469
No extra territorial force, 11-473
Remedial, 11-470, 473
When statutory method of assert-
ing claim exclusive, 11-486
Exhibits, attachment and reference
provided, 8-795
Extortion, construction, 8-824
Following language, 8-829
False personation, following lan-
guage, 8-973
File mark on indictment^ requiring,
12-98
Findings and conclusions, not neces-
sary in absence of, 8-994
Following statute in pleading, 4-852,
857; 6-679, 696, 729, 882
Homicide, 11-576
In complaint on contract, 11-983
In indictment, see infra, Indict-
ment.
Instructions, defining crime in the,
11-654
Limitations, in pleading matters in
bar of, 12-353
Forcible entry and detainer, strict
compliance, 8-1093
Forgery, effect of, 8-1158, 1167
Forthcoming bonds, strict compliance,
10-8
Conditions fixed, 10-12
Fraudulent conveyances, liberal con-
struction, 10-90
Game and fish, procedure largely
statutory, 10-306
Gaming, recovery of loss, statutory,
10-318
Construction, following, 10-320
Criminal statutes, 10-337
Offense in language of, 10-343,
348, 353
Garnishment, statutory, 10-378
Construction of statutes, 10-380
For bond, 10-562
Strict compliance, 10-470
Grand jury, construction, 10-608, 621
Guardian and ward, strictly followed
in appointing, 10-784
For transfer to foreign guardian
mandatory, 10-905
Heirship proceedings, statatory, 12-
917, 923
STATUTES, conid.
Highways, defining, 11-42
For repair of, character of stat-
utes, 11-113
Statutes 88 to, constitutional, 11 -5«^
Homesteads, relating to, allotment of,
statutes governing, 11-323, 352,
390
Construction of, 11-296
Creditors' suits, 11-335
Homesteads, of statutory ozigiHy 11-
294
Provisions mandatory, 11-314
Statutory provisions exclusive, 11-
298
Husband and wife, as to actions be-
tween, 11-702, 704
Incompetents, as to, 12-14
Identifying, in preliminary affidavit
or complaint, 12-139
Indictment, 12-75. See generally In-
dictment ANp Information.
Amendments of, 12-546, 548, 559
As to degree of certainty in, gen-
erally, 12-294
Based on unconstitutional statute,
12-649
As ground for quashing, 12-632
Charging in language of, 4-857; 12-
649
Assault and battery, 3-34
Breach of peace, 4-562
Civil rights, for violation. of« 5-
130
Conspiracy, 5-296
Counterfeiting, 6-16
Cruelty to animals, 6-316
Disorderly house, 7-703
Disturbing public assembly, 7-716
Elections, offenses, 8-155
Embezzlement, 8-220
Estrays, 8-179
Extortion, 8-829
False personation, 8-973
Gaming, 10-343, 348, 353
Correction of, provisions for, 12-321
Demurrer to, enumerating grounds,
12-647
Dispensing with, in misdemeanor
cases, 12-86
English language, requiring the, 12-
308
Homicide, 11-576
Legislature, power to dispense with
indictment, 12-77
Dispensing with certainty in, 12-
297
Negativing exceptions, as to, 18-
299
Prescribing objections to, 12-607
158
INDEX
STATtTTES, conid.
Amendments, e^nid.
Repugnancy, statutes as to, 12-341
Statutory forms of, 12-299, 302
Time, dispensing with allegations
of, 12-297
Under repealed law, 12-632
Words, as to omission of, 12-319
Information, 12-85. See generally
Indictment and Information.
Amendment of, 12-557
In absence of statute, 12-555
Provisions as to indictments ap-
plicable, 12-559
Certainty in, as to, see supra, In-
dictment.
In civil cases, 12-704
Joinder of offejse in, 12-521
Judicial notice, charging matters of,
12-348
Juvenile acts, 12-683
Name of offense, requiring to be
pleaded, 12-345
Presumptions, statutes relative to
charging matters of, 12-348
Provisos and exceptions, pleading, 11-
104
Negativing exceptions, dispensing
with necessity of, 12-299
Record of former conviction, as to
charging, 12-355
Remedy, authorized by, as excluding
equitable relief, 11-108
Change in statute governing, 2-135,
302; 3-249, 817
Lex fori governs, amendments to
pleadings, 1-853
Restraining order, authorizing, 12-998
Retroactive, requiring filing of in-
dictment, 11-307
Sale of infants' estate, authorizing,
12-813
Statutory forms, criminal pleading,
12-299
Tribal laws, jurisdiction to construe,
12-42
Wife's separate property, as to, 11-
724
Words, as to omission of, in plead-
ing, 12-319
STATUTORY ACTIONS, see Statutes ;
Summary Proceedings.
Exemption contest, 11-520
Pleading under, 4-852, 857; 6-679, 696,
729. See Indictment and In-
formation.
STATUTORY OFFENSES, indictment
for, 12-81
STATUTORY ORDER, injunction as
substitute for, 12-994
STAY OF PROCEEDINGS, see Super-
sedeas AND Stay of Proceedings.
In criminal case, see Certificate of
Probable Cause and of Reason-
able Doubt.
STEAM, see Injuries to Persons and
Property; Public Service Cor-
porations.
STEAMBOAT, see Ships and Shipping.
STENOOBAPHEBS — Consult analysis
of this article when published.
Depositions, taking by, 7-324
Fees as costs, 5-938
In admiralty, 1-574
Motion to set aside information in
chancery, stenographer at hear-
ing of, 12-637
BTTPTTImATIOKS — Consult analysis of
this article when published. See
Agreed Case.
Abatement, pleas of, waived by,
when, 1-63
Admiralty, changing rem to per-
sonam, 1-420
In general, 1-505
Affidavits of merits, concerning, 1-
704
Agreed case, for judgment, 1-756
Appeal, objections and exceptions
not waived below, 2-276
No amendment of record by, 2-383;
4-368
Not of record on, 2-338
Stipulations as to record on, 2-345
Transmitting of record, no avail, 2-
379
Appearance, constitutes, 2-495
Arraignment and plea, withdrawn
plea to be reinstated, 2-877
Bills of exceptions, not substitute
for, 4-304
Extending time of settlement, 4-
340
Not amended by, 4-368
Case or question certified, for judg-
ment absolute, N. Y., 4-732
Change of venue, by consent, 5-33
Consolidation of actions, 5-270
Continuance, affecting, 5-465
Courts, hearing in vacation, 6-47
Depositions, agreements to adjourn,
7-300
Consent to open, 7-380
Returns, sufficiency, 7-335
Dismissal and nonsuit, by consent, 7-
683
Elections, in contests, 8-95
Ghuardian ad litem, to expedite trial,
10-756, 759
Rule requiring written, 6-61
159
INDEX
STOCK AND 8T0CKH0LDEBS — Cm-
suit analysis of this article when
published. See Cobporations.
Stockholders' suits, 5-558, 697
Accounts and accounting, corpora-
tion necessary party, 1-284
Banks and banking, 4-33-38
STOCK LAWS, see Railroads.
Animals running at large, 1-979, 980
STOPPAGE IN TRANSIT, see Sales.
STREET BAILBOADS — Consult an-
alysis of this article when published.
See Corporations; Death by
Wrongful Act; Eminent Domain ;
Highways, Streets and Bridges;
Injuries to Persons and Prop-
erty; Master and Servant; Mu-
nicipal Corporations; Negligence;
Notice; Passengers; Public Serv-
ice Corporations.
STREETS, see Highways, Streets and
Bridges.
Defined, 11-45
What included in term, 11-44, 46
STRIKES, see Injunctions; Labor
Unions; Monopolies.
stbikhtg out and with-
drawal — Consult analysis of
this article when published. See Mo-
tions; Surplusage and Scandal.
Abatement, motion on plea of, 1-66
Admiralty; parties, 1-436
Interrogatories, 1-466
Affidavit of merits, to resist, 1-660
Failure to file, 1-714
Questioned by motion to, 1-707
Allegations on information and belief,
12-900
Amended pleading, for departure (1-
141), see New Cause of Action
OR Defense.
Appeals, from transcript, 2-383
Motion to strike not part of record,
2-335
Pleadings struck out not part of
record on, 2-335
Bills and answers^ impertinence and
scandal, 4-150
Striking out answer, 4-179
Bills of exceptions, 4-369
Briefs, for improprieties, 4-588
Case on appeal unnecessary matter,
4-777
Certiorari, matters not part of Return,
4-938
Conclusions of law, 5-226
Crossbill, 6-290
Cross-complaint, 6-310
(Demurrer, distinguished from motion,
6-851
STBIKINa 0T7T AKD WITH-
DRAWAL, contd.
Demurrer, contd.
Not with motion, 6-868
Denials, special amounting to general
issue, 7-106
Departure, 7-141
Discovery, interrogatories filed, 7-595
Pleadings for refusal to answer, 7-
596
Duplicity, as remedy for, 7-947
Ejectment, lessor's name, 7-1010
Elections, of matter in contests, S-82
Equity, taking answer from files, 8-
485
Error, assignment of, 8-659
Files, withdrawal of, see Filino.
Frivolous and sham pleading, strik-
ing, 10-274, 282
Motion, frivolous, 10-284
Pleas and answers, 10-276
Sham, 10-291
Indictment, portion of count in, 12-
546
Information and belief, allegations
on, 12-900
Information, of portion of, 12-560
Parties, next friend, on infant's be-
coming of age, 12-803
Plea in criminal case, 2-885, 886, 896
Withdrawal, see infra. Withdrawal
of pleading.
Property from schedule of exemp-
tions, 11-511
Surplusage, in criminal pleading, 12-
659
Withdrawal of pleading, admiralty,
of claims, 1-504
Amendments withdrawn, effect, 1-
930
Appearance, by withdrawal of, 2-
565
Arraignment and plea, no rear-
raignment after plea with-
drawn, 2-866
New plea necessary after with-
drawal, 2-876
Of nolo contendere, 2-906
Of not guilty, 2-913, 915
Plea of guilty, 2-900
Plea of insanity, 2-920
Right to withdraw, 2-885
Bills and answers, of answer, 4-179
Of reply to amend bill, 4-200
Bills of particulars, withdrawal of,
4-405
Declaration and complaint, of
counts, 6-710
Demurrer, by subsequent, 6-939
To evidence, 7-22
To indictment, 12-655
160
INDEX
STBnmTG- OUT AKD WITH-
DRAWAL, conid.
Withdrawal of pleading, contd.
Prom files, 8-989
Joinder of issue on assignment of
errors, 8-651
STBUCK OR SPECIAL JUBY, see
Juries and Jukors.
SUBJECT OF ACTION, see Joinpee of
Actions ; Set-Off, Counterclaim
AND BeCOUPMENT; SUITS AND AC-
TIONS.
Distinguished from cause of action,
4-806
SUBMISSION OF CONTBOVERSY, see
Agreed Case; Stipulations.
As affecting hearing, ll-5n
As waiver, 11-4
On the pleadings, in equity, 11-11
SUBPOENA — Consult analysis of this
article when published. See Depo-
sitions; Process; Beturns; Serv-
ice OF Process and Papers; Wit-
nesses.
Contempt, procedure, 5-390
Continuance, diligence in issuing, 5-
457
To hear judgment. 11-13
SUBPOENA DUCS TECUM, seee Sub-
POENA.
8X7BBOOATION — Consult analysis of
this article when published. See
Contribution ; Eqottt Jurisdic-
tion AND Procedure; Insurance;
Mortgages; Principal and Surety.
Admiralty, parties, 1-431, 434
Of sureties on stipulations, 1-517
Bankruptcy proceedings, 3-903
Forthcoming bonds, 10-31
Of widow and children, liomestead
proceedings, 11-391
SUBSGBIPTIONS — Consult analysis of
this article when published. See
IiiPLiED AND Express Agreements.
Banks and banking, liabilities of
stockholders, 4-13
Liability over, 4-18-33
Corporations, statutes of limitations,
5-596
Actions to enforce subscription, 5-
610, 686, 689
Beceivers, collection by, 5-721
Statutory liability, 5-723
Stockholders' suits, when by sub-
pc fibers, 5-709
SUBSTITUTED SERVICE, see Pro-
cess; Service of Process and
Papers.
SUBSTITUTION, see Amendments and
Jeofails; Interpleader; New
Cause of Action or Defense.
SUBSTITUTIOIT OF ATT0BNB7 —
Consult analysis of this article when
published. See Attorneys; Jxtdg-
MENT BECORDS.
SUBSTITUTION OF PABTIES, see
Parties.
SUCCESSION, see Decedents' Es-
tates; Executors and Adminis-
trators ; Inheritance ; Probate
Courts; Wills.
SUCCESSIVE SXHTS — Consult an-
alysis of this article when published.
See Joinder of Actions.
Accounts, splitting, 1-240
Admiralty, cross-demand subject of,
1-486
Alienating affections, criminal con-
versation a bar, 1-771
Another action pending, for part, 1-
1020, 1021
Detinue, several chattels, 7-470
Eminent domain, in actions for dam-
ages, 8-360
Factors and brokers, for commis-
sions, 8-884
Garnishment, successive garnish-
ments allowed, 10-468
Guaranty, splitting cause of action,
10-672
Injunction to restrain, 12-1014
Venue, restraining actions at law, 12-
1022
SXTTTS AND AOTIOIfS — Consult an^
alysis of this article when published.
Premature commencement, abate-
ment, 1-29
Admiralty, 1-424
Arrest of judgment, 2-989
SUMMABT TTLOOEEDlNaB-- Consult
analysis of this article when pub-
lished. See Forcible Entry and
Detainer; Judgments ant> De-
crees,'Enforcement OF; Municipal
Corporations ; Nuisance ; Penal-
ties, Forfeiture^ and Fines; Hec-
ognizances and bail; taxation.
Affidavit of merits or defense to pre-
vent, 1-661, 689, 691
Appeal bonds, against sureties, 2-83-
87 ,
Arbitration, judgment in, 2-634
Assistance, writs of, 3-140
Committee of incompetent, against,
12-19
Forthcoming bonds, to enforce, 10-24
Garnishment, on bond by statute, does
not prevent action, 10-563
Guardian and ward for accounting,
10-822
Health, to enforce regulations, 10-
981
161
INDEX
8TJMMABY PBOOEEDINas, contd.
Health, contd.
For penalty, 10-985
Highways, to remove encroachments
from, 11-167
Indictment not applicable to, 12-80
Officers against, see Sheriffs, Con-
stables AND Marshals.
SUMMONS, see Process; Service of
Process and Papers; Suits and
Actions.
SUNDAY AND HOUDATS — Consult
analysis of this article when pub-
lished. See Illegality, How
Pleaded; Impued and Express
Agreements ; Intoxicating Li-
quors; Service of Process and
Papers.
Attachment, issue on, 3-469
Dissolved when, 3-757
Service begun before, 3-502
Bills of exceptions, settlement on, 4-
338
SUPERSEDEAS AND STAT OF PRO-
CEEDINOS — Consult analysis of
this article when published. See
Judgments and Decrees, Enforce-
ment OF.
Admiralty, by court, 1-529
Bond to marshal, 1-511
On filing cross-libel, 1-486
Writ or order of, 1-511
Application for by cross-complaint,
granted when, 11-21
Attachment before due, 3-334
Bankruptcy proceedings, against
bankrupt, 3-938
Not by appeal, 3-1009
Case or question certified, E. I., 4-749
In criminal cases, Wis., 4-761
Certificate of probable cause, tempor-
ary stay, 4-870, 872, 874
To prepare bill of exceptions,
Mont., 4-872
Certificate of reasonable doubt, 4-875,
877
Certiorari, suspends proceedings be-
low, 4-932
Operates as, 11-61
Chinese exclusion proceedings, 11-914
Commerce court, of commission's
order, 5-172
Supersedeas on appeal, when, ^-173
Contempt, against party in contempt,
5-419
Pending appeal, 5-431
. Costs, of execution, 5-977
Until payment in former dismissed
action, 5-972
SUPEBSEDEAS AND STAT OF FBO-
CEEDINOS, contd.
Cross-bill, pending hearing, 6-291
Effect of filing, 11-20
Deportation, stay of, 11-903
Discovery, until made, 7-538
Pending production, 7-634
Until interrogatories on motion
are answered, 7-279
Elections, pending review of contest,
8-111
Suspension of execution, 8-101
Exemption claim, on, to stay execu-
tion, 11-499
Forcible entry and detainer, 8-1131
Forthcoming bond, on stay of sale,
10-6
Delivery of property excnsed by,
10-19
Fraudulent conveyance, for motion to
set aside judgment, 10-183
Frivolous and sham pleading, becauae
of, 10-274
Garnishment, effect as, 10-425
Guardian, appeal, from order ap-
pointing, 10-808
From order removing, 10-815
Habeas corpus, by service of writ,
10-928
• Not by appeal, 10-956
Highway proceedings, 11-60, 61
Homestead, in judicial sale of, 11-
331
Injunction, distinguished from, 12-
1008
Pardon, on application for, 2-921
Be vocation of, by clerk, 11-500
Where many cases involving same is-
sues, 5-251
SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADING — Con-
sult analysis of this article vhen
published. See Puis Darkeik Con-
tinuance, Pleas of; Time To
Plead.
Admiralty, 1-481
Where original prematurely filed, 1-
425
Assignments, in equity, 3-121
Bills and answers, amendment of an-
swer by, 4-216
Bills of review, supplemental in nat-
ure of, 4-456-458
Bonds, 4-509
Copyright proceedings, subsequent
infringements, 5-514
Corporations, 5-576
Creditors' suits, 6-221
Supplying jurisdictional facts, 6-
185
! Cross-complaint, cause of action not
I supplied, 6-310
16^
INDEX
BUTTUBMEJSfTAJi PLEADINO, contd.
Demurrer, not separate, 6-860
Divorce, 7-783
Ejectment, 7-1045
Elections, in contests, 8-77
Fraudulent conveyances^ 10-174
Garnishment, supplemental answers,
10-537
Guardian and ward, permitted for
ward, 10-872
8XTPPLEMENTABT PBOOEEDINaS—
Consult analysis of this article when
published. See Creditobs' Suits;
Judgments and Degrees, Enfobce-
MBNT or.
SUPPORT, see Divorce; Husband and
Wins; Parent and Child.
SUPREME COURT, see Appeals ; Argu-
ments; Bbiefs; Courts; Juris-
diction; Law of the Case; Man-
date; Remission of Damages;
United States Courts; Writ op
Error.
SURETYSHIP, see Principal and Sure-
ty.
SURETY TO KEEP THE PEACE, see
Security To Keep the Peace.
SURGEONS, see Physicians and Sur-
geons.
3tTBPLXJ8AOE Ain> 80 AITOAL '-Con-
sult analysis of this article when
published. See Indictment and
Information."
Abortion, surplusage, 1-98
Admiralty, 1-449, 464
Adulteration, 1-584
Adultery, surplusage, 1-611
Averments on information and belief,
12-892
Bills and answers, 4-120
Bills and answers, in answer, 4-167
Exceptions and motion to strike,
4-150, 180
Need not answer, 4-158
• Briefs, in, effect, 5-1006
Oase, the action on the, vi et armis,
4-648
Conclusions of law, surplusage, 5-205
Demurrer, for surplusage, 6-908
Departure, in material matters, 7-122
Duplicity, 7-944
To indictment, 12-650
In affidavit, 12-892
In caption, as to description of
court, 12-177
In indictment, 12-502, 510, 555
For failure to repair highway, 11-
119
For homicide; 11-592, 632
SimPLUSAOE AND 80ANDAL, contd.
In indictment, contd.
Wounds, description of, 11-627
Quashing, for surplusage, 12-609
Repugnant allegations, rejection as
surplusage, 12-341
Striking out surplusage, 12-561, 659
Verdict, in, homicide, 11-684
SURPRISE, see Amendments and Jeo-
fails; Continuances; Mistake;
New Trial.
Vacating judgment against infant, as
ground for, 12-782
SURREJOINDER AND SURREBUT-
TER, see Rejoinder and Subse-
quent Pleadings.
SURROGATE'S COURT, see Probate
Courts.
SURVEY, see View.
Of homestead, 11-318
Necessity of, 11-323
SUKVlVAIi — Consult analysts of this
article when published. See Abate-
ment, Pleas of; Revivor. See also
Abatement.
Death, effect, 1-527; 6-372
On appeal, 2-230
Ex delicto actions, 11-198
Fraud and deceit, action at common
law and by statute, 10-42
Injuries from highways, actions for,
11-198
SWEARING, see Blasphemy; Disorder-
ly Conduct; Oath and Affirma-
tion; Obscenity; Profanity;
Verification.
SYMBOLS, see Indictment and In-
formation; Pleading.
TAXATION — Consult analysis of this
article when published. See Customs
Duties; Internal Revenue; Li-
censes ; Special Assessment ;
Title; Waste.
Taxes on lands of Indian allottee, 12
44n
TAXATION OF COSTS, see Costs.
TECHNICAL WORDS, see Indictment
AND Information ; Instructions ;
Pleading.
Common law, in charging offenses, at,
12-308
Homicide, to charge, 11-573
In indictment or information, 12-308
Malice, to allege, 11-573
Sand-packing, not a technical word,
12-308
163
INDEX
TELEGRAPHS AND TELEPHONES —
Consult analysis of this article when
published. See Injuries to Persons
AND Property; Penalties, For-
feitures AND Fines ; Process ; Pub-
lic Service Corporations; Service
of Process and Papers.
Affidavits on facts received by phone,
12-895
TENANTS IN COMMON — Consult
analysis of this article when pub-
lished. See Joint Tenants; Lands
AND Land Transfers; Parties;
Party Walls.
As homestead claimants, pleading,
11-428
Attachment, of interests, 3-322
Forcible entry and detainer, 8-1102
Joinder of, in appeal, highways, 11-
66
In contract actions, 11-969
TENDER — Consult analysis of this ar-
ticle when published. See Deposit
in Court; Payment.
Accord and satisfaction, tender or
delivery, 1-182, 183
Admiralty, effect on costs, 1-530, 577
Animals, of compensation for injury
to, 1-969
Assumpsit, specially pleaded, 3-190-
213
Bonds, plea, 4-518
Costs, offer of judgment, 5-850, 854
Distinguished from tender, 5-851
Keeping good, 5-863
Covenant, action of, alleging tender
of performance, 6-147
Detinue, 7-479
Duress, of benefit by defendant, 7-951
Eminent domain, of payment, 8-355
Estrays, by owner claiming, 8-716
Factors and brokers, refusal by prin-
cipal waives, 8-884
In action by principal, 8-908
Forthcoming bonds, breach by failure
to, 10-16, 17
Freight carrier, no allegation re-
quired, 10-244
In repurchase agreement, 12-26
TERMS OF COUBT, 6-27
Costs, term fees, 5-942
Indictment, finding of, 12-93
In equity, 11-14
Information, filing of, 12-119
Lapse of term, 6-34
Recess where no terms, 6-43
Sessions distinguished, 6-27
Simultaneous sessions, 6-35
Special terms, 6-36-38
Vacation, 6-44
TERMS OF COUBT, conid.
Vacation, contd.
Hearing in, 11-3
Indictment, finding of, during, 12-
94
Information filed In, 12-120
Power of court in, 6-44
TERRITORIES, see States and Tkrbi-
tories; United States.
Courts of the, see Courts.
THEATEB8 AND SHOWB — CoiwtiK
analysis of this article when pub-
lished. See CrviL Bights; Injuries
TO Persons and Property; Li-
censes; Municipal Corporations.
THEORY OF ACTION, see Construc-
tion AND Theory of Pleadings.
THIRD PARTY CLAIMS, see Attach-
ment; Garnishment; Judgments
AND Decrees, Enforcement of; In-
TERATENTION.
TBSEATB-^ Consult analysis of this
article when published. See also
Criminal Procedure.
Attachment, for threats to dispose of
property, 3-380
Costs on peace bonds, 5-764
Of injury, see Injunctions; Quia
Timet; Security to Keep the
Peace.
Threatening matter in mail, see PosT-
Opfice.
TIMBER, see Logs and Logging; Pub-
lic Lands; Waste.
TIME, see Certainty in Pleading; In-
dictment AND Information.
Alleging, action for highway injuries,
ll-2?7
Breach of contract, 11-1008
In indictment or information, 12-
608
Amending as to, 12-551, 554
Certainty in, 12-296
In caption, alleging time of find-
ing indictment, 12-178
Statutes dispensing with allega-
tions of, 12-297
Performance of contract, 11-1004
Preliminary complaint, in, 12-136
Verdict, aider by, of defective al-
legation, 12-700
Allotting homestead, for, to de-
ceased's family, 11-386
Appeal, for taking, 2-301
Highway proceedings, 11-62, 129
Infants, actions concerning, 12-795
Appraisement, for, minor's property,
12-824
On exemption claim, 11-515
164
INDEX
TIME, conid.
Attacking judgment, for, against in-
fant, 12-787
Breach of contract, pleading time,
11-1008
Claim of homestead, for asserting,
11-327
Confirmation of sale of infant's prop-
erty, 12-837
Cooling time, when question of fact.
homicide, 11-649
Criminal complaint, to make, 12-130
Death, of, variance in indictment, 11-
583
Debt, of accrual of, exemption, 11-
497
Election, for, of counts, 12-680
Of offenses, 12-686
Exemption, for assertion of, 11-487,
488
For contesting, 11-520
Hearing, of, in equity, 11-14, 16
Heirs, for instituting proceedings to
determine, 12-917
Homestead, declaration of, filing, 11-
307, 316
For asserting claim of, 11-327, 420
For contesting right to, 11-332, 395
Of occupancy of, 11-302
Homicide, averring time in the in-
dictment, 11-579
Indictment, pleading In, demurrer to,
12-653
For homicide, 11-579
For violation of juvenile acts, 12-
884
Information, for filing, 12-119
Making contract, of, necessity of
proving, 11-1046
Mortgagor, for, to assert exemption,
11-494
Motion, to quash, for hearing, 12-637
To compel election of counts, 12-
685
Notice, for, of exemption, 11-501
Partition, for making, of homestead
premises, 11-409
Performance, of, averring, 11-1004
Variance as to, 11-1054
Petition for sale of Infant's prop-
erty, 12-818
Preliminary complaint, of filing, 12-
144
Sale of infant's property, 12-823, 831
To amend, 1-869
Caption, to criminal pleading, 12-
564
Indictment in, 12-548
Information, 12-556, 561
Verdict, by jury, 11-690
TIME TO PIiSAD — Consult analysis
of this article when published.
Abatement, plea of, time for, 1-52
Extending time, 1-59
Ignorance no excuse for later plea
of, 1-60
In criminal actions, 1-57
Account, not furnished in time, 1-225
Admiralty, answer not filed, default,
1-463
Claims, 1-503
Exceptions when taken, 1-469
Affidavit of merits to extend, 1-654
Answers, time for, 2-13
Appearance, effect of, 2-520, 521
Arraignment and plea, 2-879
Plea of, insanity, 2-920
Pardon, 2-917
Attachment, in proceedings to va-
cate, 3-798
Commerce court, answer, 5-169
Cross-bill, 6-280-285
Demurrer, 6-861
To indictment, 12-653
Dower, essoign, 7-863
Elections, to answer in contests, 8-76
Filing, courts may extend time, 8-979
Garnishment, traverse to answer of
garnishee, 10-544
Motion, to quash indictment, 12-
634
To compel election of offenses,
12-685
Plea in criminal case, 2-879
TITLE — Consult analysis of this ar-
ticle when published. See Joint
Tenants; Lands and Land Trans-
fers; Parties; Quieting Title;
Real and Mixed Actions; Sales;
Tenants in Common; Trespass to
Try Title; Vendor and Purohas-
ER; Writ of Entry.
Accused, of, misstating in indictment,
12-609
Adverse possession, color of, 1-629
Amendment as to, information, 12-
563
Assistance, writs of, not tried by, 3-
142
Assumpsit, want of under general is-
sue, 3-189
General, not to try, 3-194
Averments as to, in homestead peti-
tion, 11-321
Bills and answers, allegations in bill,
4-130
Need not disclose own title, 4-160
Bills and notes, allegations of facts,
4-263
Denial of title, 4-277
W
^.i
leg
INDEX
TTTLEf eantd. '
Caption, of action in, 12-175
Case, the action on the, pleading,
4-645
Conclnsions of law, 'Mb heir at law,"
where, 5-224
Confirmation of judicial sale, as af-
fecting, 12-839
Costs, leg&i and equitable owner, 5-
905
Covenants, see Covenant, Action of.
Cross-cojnplaint, in actions involving,
6-300
Customs and usages, introduced to
prove, 6-331
Decrees, relating to, 6-786
Denials, under general, 7-96
Departure, different, 7-135
Deposit in court, owner not com-
pelled, 7-149
Detinue, in plaintiff, general or spe-
cial, 7-474
In stranger, no defense, 7-483
Pleading, 7-481
Disclaimer, 7-491
Discovery, not of other party, 7-531
Easements, allegation of, 7-968
Ejectment, to settle, 7-976
Eminent domain, allegations, 8-281
Forcible entry and detainer, not to
try, 8-1091
Exhibiting, 8-1093
Not tried, 8-1108
Forthcoming bonds, paramount title
to property, 10-18
Fraudulent conveyances, allegations
of ownership, 10-170
Homesteads, in proceedings to allot,
11-389, 395
Eemoving cloud from, 11-410
Injunction to prevent cloud on, 11-411
Jurat, of officer in, 12-292
Of action, in criminal complaint, 12-
131
Quieting, to homestead lands, 11-410
Receiver, upon appointment of in
creditor's suit, 6-232
"Recorded title, entry of homestead
on, 11-318
Slander of, see Libel and Slander.
Venue, as affecting, 12-1024
TITLE INSURANCE, see Insurance.
TOLL ROADS, see Private and Toll
Roads.
TOBTS — Consult analysis of this ar-
ticle when published. See Alienat-
ing Affections; Animals; Arrest
IN Civil Cases; Assault and Bat-
tery; Assumpsit; Case (the Ac-
tion OF Trespass on the) ; Col-
lision; Conspiracy; Criminal Con-
TOBTS, contd,
versation; Death bt Wbongful
Act; Detinue; False Imprison-
ment; Forcible Entry and De-
tainer; Fraud and Deceit; High-
ways, Streets and Bridges; Hus-
band AND Wife; Injuries to Per-
sons AND Property; Inquiry, Writ
of; Judgments and Decrees, En-
forcement OF ; Libel and Slander ;
Malicious Prosecution ; Mastek
AND Servant; Monopolies; Negli-
gence; Nuisance; Parent and
Child; Personal Actions; Per-
sonal Property; Physical Ex-
amination; Physicians and Sur-
geons; Principal and Aoekt;
Process; Railroads; Release; Re-
plevin; Rescue; Riot; Seduction;
Several Counts; Street Rail-
roads; Survival; Trade-Marks
AND Trade Names; Trespass;
Trover and Conversion; View;
Waste; Writ of Entry.
Based on contract, see Choick and
Election of Remedies.
Between husband and wife, actiona
for, 11-705
TOWAGE, see Admiralty; Ships and
Shipping.
TOWNS — Consult analysis of this ar-
ticle when published. See Municipai*
Corporations.
TBADE-MABK8 AKD TBADE
NAMES — Consult aneUysis of this
article when published. See Copy-
right Proceedings; Injunctions;
United States.
TRADERS, see Hawkers and Peddlers ;
Licenses.
TRADE UNIONS, see Labor Unions.
TRANSACTIONS, see Joinder of Ac-
tions; Set-Off, Counterclaim and
Recoupment.
TRANSCRIPT, see Appeals; Judg-
ments; Justices of the Peace;
Stenographers.
Hearing on, in Chinese exclusion pro-
ceedings, 11-915
Highway proceedings, 11-77, 133
Homestead, in. contest of, 11-333
TBANSFEB OF CATTSES — Consult
analysis of this article when pub-
lished. See Change of Venue; Re-
moval OF Causes.
Before plea, 2-881
Merits, affidavit of, 1-653
TRANSITORY ACTIONS, see Jurisdic-
tion; Venue.
TRAVERSE, see Denials.
166
INDEX
TBBASON — Consult analysis of this or-
tide when published. See Courts
Martial; Navy and Army; War.
See also Criminal Procedure.
Accessory, how charged, 1-138
Indictable at common law, 12-74
TREATIES, see United States.
TREES, adjoining landowners, 1-333
TBESPASS — Consult analysis of this
article when published. See Ani-
mals; Game and Fish; Trespass
To Try Title.
Apprentices, for forcing away, 2-585
Attachment, by third person, 3-649
Case, action of trespass on the, 4-610
Distinguished, 4-614
Chattel mortgages, by mortgagor,
5-52
By mortgagee after default, 5-66
Choice and election of remedies, or
case, 5-100
Or assumpsit, 5-115
Corporations, 5-562, 570
Costs, separate actions for joint, 5-838
Curtesy, damages, 6-325
Damages for, establishing highway,
11-112
Declaration in, by owner of fee in
highway, 11-125
Departure, trespass and penalty, 7-121
Easements, not for obstructing, 7-957
Ejectment, distinguished, 7-984
Estrays, action, 8-721
General issue in, highways, 11-125
Highways, by owner of fee in, 11-125
Homestead, against officer for levy-
ing on, 11-415 .
Indian lands, upon, remedy for, 12-
44n
Negligence, for, 4-634
Seduction, for, 4-628
Void process, acts under, 4-626
TRESPASSERS, INJURIES TO, see
Injuries to Persons and Proper-
ty; Railroads; Street Railroads.
TRESPASSING ANIMALS, see Ani-
mals; Estrays; Railroads.
TRESPASS ON THE CASE, see Case
(the Action of Triispass on the).
TBESPASS TO TBT TITIaE — Consult
analysis of this article when pub-
lished. See Ejectment; Title.
Curtesy, to fecover, 3-324
Ejectment, substitute for, 7-978
TBIAL — Consult analysis of this ar-
ti<:le when published. See Amend-
ments AND Jeofails ; Appearances ;
Arrest of Judgment; Continu-
ances; Courts; Default; Demur-
rer to Evidence; Dismissal, Dis-
TBIAL, contd,
continuance and Nonsuit; Find-
ings AND Conclusions; Hearing;
Infants; Inquiry, Writ of; In-
sane Persons ; Instructions ; Judg-
ment Records; Judgments; Judi-
cial Notice ; Juries and Jurors;
Justices of the Peace; New
Trial; Objections and Excep-
tions; Offer of Proof; Opening
AND Closing; Order of Proof;
Probate Courts; Proceedings in
Rem; Protincb of Judge and Jury ;
References; Repleader; Separate
Trials; Statement by Accused;
Stenographers ; Snpu l a t i o n s ;
Striking Out and With-
drawal ; Summary Proceedings ;
Transfer of Causes; Variance
AND Failure of Proof; Verdict;
View; Withdrawal of Juror; Wit-
nesses.
Abatement, plea of, 1-67
How tried, 1-69
Abortion, defendant sitting with
counsel, 1-114
.Opening statements, criminal eases,
1-114
Accessories, of, 1-150, 155
Death of principal, 1-154, 155
May dispute convicted principal's
guilt, 1-160
Of what convicted, 1-158
Principal acquitted, 1-153, 154, 155
Punishment, 1-159
With principal, when, 1-156
Admiralty, 1-537
Cros8*libel, with original or sep-
arately, 1-488
De novo on appeal^ 1*563
'Evidence in appellate court, 1-566
Of consolidated actions, 1-526
Adultery, joint or separate, 1-612
Election of offense, 1-613
Advancement of cause, affidavit of
merits, 1-653
Affray, 1-729
Agreed case, 1-761-764
Alienating affections, 1-783
Aliens, burden of proof of alienage,
1-803
Alteration of instruments, burden of
proof, 1-835
Amendments on eve of, 1-873
At trial, 1-874, 877, 879, 913, 916
Of indictment, 12-548
Of information, 12-556, 558
To conform t« pTO«f, 1-912, 913
Verification, to supply, 12-565
Arguments, 2-726. See Arouhsnts,
167
INDEX
TBIAL, contd.
Arrest of judgment, not for irreg-
ularities, 2-997
Assault and battery, joint trial, 3-38
Burden of proof, 3-45
Justification, 3-38
Assignment for benefit of creditors,
of fraud, 3-61
Assignments, burden of proof, 3-137
Attachment, intervention, 3-665
Of main action, 3-720
Of motion to vacate, 3-781
Of plea in abatement or traverse
of, 3-805
Of third party claim, 3-662
Attorneys, disbarment, 3-871
Audita querela, 3-880
Bankruptcy proceedings, on petition,
3-982
Bastardy proceedings, 4-73
Beneficial associations, 4-87
Bills of exceptions, settlement at
trial, where, 4-334
Bills of particulars, not granted at
exception, 4-394
Bonds, 4-522
Breach of the peace, 4-563
Bridges, action for injuries from, 11-
281
Prosecution for destroying, 11-274
Prosecution for failure to repair,
11-273
Calendar or docket, 6-48
Case or question reserved at trial,
Ind., 4-695
•Champerty, objection to evidence, 4-
970
Burden of proof, 4-971
Change of venue, too late at trial, 5-
19-22
Civil rights, burden of proof, 5-126
•Commerce court, evidence, how tak-
en, 5-170
Composition with creditors, burden of
proof, 5-188
Compounding crime, may precede
principal crime, 5-193
Compromise and settlement, burden
of proof, 5-197, 201
Contempt, 5-401
Contribution, adjudication in main
action, 5-499
Burden of proof, 5-503
Coroner's inquest, procedure at in-
quest, 5-528
Corporations, in actions by or
against, 5-664
Criminal cases, proof of existence,
5-683
Costs, trial fees, 5-942
TBIAZi^ etmtd.
Courts, (calendars and dockets, 6^8
Judges, equal division, 6-80
Quo rum y 6-74
Bules of as to, 6-61
Regulating giving of evidence,
6-62
Courts martial, time, 6-115
Challenges, 6-116
Manner of voting, 6-118
Need not be public, 6-116
Presence of accused, 6-117
Creditors' suits, 6-223
Cross-complaint, first disposed of, 6-
311
Cruelty to animals, burden of proof,
6-320
Customs duties, forfeitures, burden
of proof, 6-357
Death by wrongful act, burden of
proof, 6-446
Decedents' estates, de novo in ap-
pellate court, 6-538
On exceptions to account, 6-604
Default, non-appearance at trial, 6-
805, 816
Assessment of damages, 6-822, 823
Proof of facts, when, 6-820
Demurrer, hearing on, 6-978
Assessing damages after, 6-995
Demurrer to evidence, 7-1
Denials, issues on, see Denials.
De novo, see Justices of the Peacs;
Review.
Deportation of Chinaman, 11-911
Deposit in court, order during trial,
7-154
Depositions, see DEPOsmoNS.
Detinue, burden of proof, 7-484
Disagreement of jury, new indiet-
ment on, 12-150
Discovery, to aid in preparing, 7-556,
583
Examination of party for use on,
7-556
Objections reserved, 7-573
Inspection before trial, 7-620
Dismissal and nonsuit, see Dism;i88ai«,
Discontinuance and Nonsuit.
Divorce, 7-786
Alimony, 7-824
Custody and support of ehildren,
7-854
Docket, 6-48
Dower, assignment, 7-878
Due process of law, question on
merits only, 7-906
Conduct of, 7-914
Criminal, 7-921
Presence of accused, 7-922
Bules of evidence, 7-912
168
INDEX
TRIAIm, conid.
Election, of counts, effect on second
trial, 12-687
Of offenses, 12-685
Elections, de novo on review of con-
tests, where, 8-115
Electricity, burden of proof, negli-
gence, 8-175
Embezzlement, 8-243
Eminent domain, 8-297-324
De novo on appeal, 8-338
Exemption contest, 11-523
Escheat, 8-673
Estoppel, 8-704
Effect of failure to plead, 8-702
Estrays, burden of proof, 8-723
Factors and brokers, burden of proof,
8-869, 874, 877, 898, 901, 906
Findings and conclusions, 8-993
Forcible entry and detainer, 8-1121
Forgery, 8-1180, 1185
Frauds, statute of, objection at trial,
10-79
Trial of issue of, 10-81
Fraudulent conveyances, action to set
aside, 10-189
Gaming, criminal, 10-361
Garnishment, of isBues on answer, 10-
548
Of claims of third parties, 10-558
Guaranty, 6-694
Guardian ad litem, see Guabdiait ad
Litem.
Guardian and ward, misconduct of
guardian during, 10-873
Action on bond, 10-897
Habeas corpus, hearing on return, 10-
934
Hawkers and peddlers, proof in ac-
tion for penalty, 10-975
Hearing, distinguished from, 11-3
Highways, alteration of, 11-133
Prosecution for failure to repair,
11-122
Prosecution for illegal use of, 11-
259
Homestead, actions to protect, 11-429
Of contest of, 11-333, 395
Incest, of, variance, 12-11
Injunction, application for, in high-
way proceedings, 11-111
Juveniles, of, 12-872
On appeal, see Appeals.
TBIBAL COURT, see Courts.
TRIBE, see Indians.
TBOVEB Ain> OOMVEBSION — Con-
sttlt analysis of this article when
published.
Assignment f o* creditors, by assignee,
3'»74
TBOVEB AKD 00KVEB8I0N, cantd.
Attachment, in action for, 3-343
By third person, 3-649
Between husband and wife, 11-708
Chattel mortgages, by mortgagor, 5-
50-52
By mortgagee, 5-58
After default, 5-65
Choice of remedies, conversion or con-
tract, 5-106
Conversion or assumpsit, 5-115
Conversion or replevin, 5-111
Foreclosure or trover, 5-121
Conclusions of law, "conversion"
not, 5-211
Corporations, 5-562, 572
Detinue, distinguished, 7-473
Estrays, 8-722
Factors and brokers, against factors,
8-870, 875
By factor, 8-878
Freight carriers, 10-223
Allegations of, 10-249
Gifts, for ineffectual, 10-602
Incompetent, trover for property of,
12-17n
TRUST, see Monopolibs.
TRUSTEE PROCESS, see Garnish-
ment.
Exemption claim, the hearing of in,
11-524
TRUSTEES, see Trusts and Trustees.
TBXT8TS AM) TBT78TEES — Cansvlt
analysis of this article when pub'
lished. See Equity Jurisdiction
AND Procedure.
Accounts and accounting, in equity,
1-278
Limitation of actions, 1-296
Parties in, 1-285
Aliens, land held by, suit by state
to enforce trust, 1-810
Appeals, parties in, 2-225, 227
Arrest in civil cases, averments for,
2-947
Assignment for creditors, enforce-
ment of trust, 3-64
In action to set aside, 3-61, 62
Assignments, trustee of express trust,
3-114
Attachment, against trustee, 3-262
As property of trustee, 3-289, 291
Intervention by beneficiary, 3-659
Support of cestui que trust, 3-299
Bankruptcy, trustee in, see Bank-
ruptcy Proceedings.
Beneficiary, when party plaintiff, 11-
' 963
Costs, 5-823
Payment out of fund, 5-901
169
INDEX
TBXTSTS AND T&T78TBE8, contd,
CreditoPB' suite, see Creditors' Suits.
Declaration and compUiint, naming
beneficiary, 6-652
Detinue, trustee may maintain, 7-480
Dower, trustee as defendant, 7-872
Embezzlement, alleging fiduciary re-
lations, 8-226
Eminent domain, parties, 8-270
Equity, jurisdiction, 8-394
Parties, 8-459
Escheat, bill by state against aliens
to enforce trust, 1-810
Express trust, trustee of, party, 3-114
Factors and brokers, enforced against
factors, 8-S71
Forcible entry and detainer, trustees
as parties, 8-1100
Frandaleat conveyances, trustee as
party, 10-145
Garnishment, trustee subject, when,
10-458
Incompetents, trustee for estate of,
12-16
Joinder of beneficiary, as party plain-
tiff, 11-964
Public, enforced by information, 12-
707
Sale ot infant *s property, order neces-
sary, 12-814
Separate estate of wife, trustee not
necessary to, 11-821
Trustee proper party plaintiff, 11-963
TURNPIKES AND TOLL ROADS, see
Privatb and Toll Roads; Public
Service Corporations.
As highways, 11-44
UBl JUS TBI REMEDIUM, see Cause
OF Action; Maxims; Remedy.
ULTRA VIBES — Consult analysis of
this article when puMished, See Il-
legality, How Pleaded.
In actions against corporation, 5-658
Stockholders' suit, 5-715
UNCERTAINTY, see Certainty in
Pleading.
UKDEBTAKINaS — Consult analysis of
this article when published. See
Bonds; Implied and Express
Agreements ; Justification ; Recog-
nizances AND Bail.
UNDUE INFLUEKCE — Consult analy-
sis of this article when published.
See Rescission and Cancellation;
Wills.
UNFAIR TRADE, see Trade-Marks
AND Trade Names.
UNION, see Labor Unions.
UNITED STATES — Consult analysis
of this article when published. See
A1.1ENS; Indians; Naturalization;
Post Office; Pubuc I^ands;
United States Courts.
Appeals by, 2-195
Customs duties, 6-337
Garnishment of, 10-398
Immigration, see Immigration.
Internal revenue, see Internal Seve*
NUE,
Intervention in admiralty by foreign
consul, 1-521
Suits by, concerning reservation
lands, I2-48n
Treaty, effect on jurisdiction of ad-
miralty, 1-382
With Indian tribe, enforcement,
12-46
UNITED STATES COMMISSIONERS,
see Judicial Officers.
UNITED STATES C0UBT8 — Consult
analysis of this article when pub-
lished. See Commerce Court; In-
terstate Commerce ; United
States.
Abatement, plea of, with plea in bar,
1-41
Admiralty, jurisdiction of, 1-371
Appellate jurisdiction, 5-569, 570
Aliens, may sue in, 1-794, 799
Crimes of, 1-807
Another action pending, in state
court, 1-1005
Appeal bonds, summary proceedings
under state statutes, 2-86
Appeals from state courts, federal
questions, 2-44
Arrest in civil cases, practice in, 2-
926
Attachment, proceedings supple-
mental to, 3-739
Case or question certified in, 4-674
Certificate « of probable cause, in
habeas corpus cases, 4-868
Certiorari in, 4-954
Corporations, ultra vires contracts^
liability in, 5-565
Process against, 5-615
Service of, 5-617
Eeceivers, suits against, 5-721
Costs, amount in controversy, 5-880
Depositions, see Depositions.
Divorce, no jurisdiction, 7-740
Dower, jurisdiction in bankruptcy, 7-
868
Elections, contest in state cases, 8-19
Eminent domain, jurisdiction, 8-264
Equity jurisdiction and procedure, 8-
383
170
INDBX
tTNITED STATES C0UBT8, contd.
Indians, suits by and against, 12-37,
39, 45
Injunction to stay proceedings in, 12-
1017
Negativing jurisdiction of, in crim-
inal pleading, 12-351
Bern oval of causes to, injunction on,
12-1018
UNITED STATES MARSHALS, see
Sheriffs, Constables and Mar-
shals.
UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY— Con^t^Zf
analysis of this article when pub-
lished. See Affray; Disorderly
Conduct; Riot.
UNLAWFUL DETAINER, see Forcible
Entry and Detainer.
UNLAWFULLY, see Indictment and
Information; Pleading.
Amending, to supply, 12-561
Omissions in , description of offense,
cannot supply, 12-344
Use of, in criminal pleading, 12-650
USB AND OCCUPATION — Consult
analysis of this article when pub-
lished.
Assumpsit for, 3-205
Debt, will lie for, 6-473
XTSUBT — Consult analysis of this ar-
ticle when published. Bee Illegal-
ity, How Pleaded; Interest; Pen-
AI/riES, FORFEITXTRES AND FINES.
Assignment for creditors, suit by as-
signee, 3-74
Bills in equity, allegations in, 4-127
Conclusion of law, general allegation,
5225
Factors and brokers, question for
jury, 8-905
VACATING, appraisement, 11519
Attachment, of exempt property, 11-
520
Highways, 11-260
Homestead allotment, 11-365
VACATING JUDGMENTS, see De-
grees; Judgments.
VACATION, see Terms of Court.
VAQBANCY — Consult analysis of this
article when published. See Juries
AND, Jurors; Prostitution. See also
Criminal Procedure.
VALUE, see Indictment and Infor-
mation; Jurisdiction; Justices of
THE Peace; Pleading.
Of homestead, determining, 11-397
Pleading, in indictment, 12-609
171
VABIAKCE AND FATLUKB OP
PBOOF — Consult analysis of this
article when published. See Indict-
ment and Information; and spe-
cific titles.
Abortion, 1-109
Homicide in attempt to commit,
11-606
Absolute contract, not provable
where alternative contract plead-
ed, 11-1044
Accessories, under statutes, 1-160
Accord and satisfaction, 1-192
Accounting, 1-304
Accounts, 1-231
Account stated, 1-258
Admiralty, amendments to conform
with proof, 1-473
Substantial proof sufficient, 1-540,
541
Waived, 1-542
Adulteration, 1-588
Adultery, 1-604, 614
Adverse possession, 1-632
Affidavit, between, and information,
12-630
Alternative contract, not provable
where absolute contract pleaded,
11-1044
Amendments, writ and pleading, 1-906
To avoid, 1-912, 913, 914, 919
In equity, 4-193
In indictment, 12-552, 549
In information, 12-562
Animals, infectious diseases of, 1-961
Driving from range, 1-976
Injury to, 1-967, 973
Marks and brands, indictments, 1-
985
Arbitration, from submission, 2-656
Arrest of judgment, 2-1020
Arson, 3-23
Assault and battery, between affi-
davit and information, 3-35
Assignments, 3-136
Assumpsit, 3-181, 208
Attachment, affidavits and other
papers ih action, 3-440
Between papers, dismissal of, 3-759
Automobiles, actions for injuries
from, 12-254
Bills and answers, amendments to
cure, 4-193
Amount claimed, 4-258
Bills of particulars, 4-402
Bonds, 4-522
Breach of promise, 4-554
Bribery, 4-572
Bridges, indictment for failure to re-
pair, 11-273
Injuries from defective, 11-282
llfDEX
Variance and failube of
PROOF, contd.
Burglary, 4-605, 608
Case, the action on the, 4-659
Consideration, as to, 11-1047
Contract actions, generally, 11-1036
Corporations, in actions on contracts
of, 11-1052
Cross-complaint, 6-312
Death, as to time of, 11-583
Debt, special contract, 6-462
Demurrer, process and pleading, 6-
910
Departure, test of, 7-119
Descriptive matters, in indictment,
12549
Indictment for homicide, 11-610
Detinue, none by fictions, 7-485
Disorderly house, 7-708
Disturbing public assembly, 7-723
Divorce, 7-786
Elections, in contests, 8-95
Betting on, 8-149
False registration, 8-151
Illegal voting, 8-158
Offenses by officers, copy of cer-
tificate, 8-164
Electricity, materiality, 8-179
Embezzlement, proof in substantial
compliance, 8-243
Embracery, 8-255
Eminent domain, 8-297
Exhibits, between pleading and, 8-
812, 822
Express contract, proof of where im-
plied contract pleaded, 11-1041
Extortion, civil action, 8-828
Criminal cases, 8-833
Factors and brokers, as to time to
sell, 8-877
In actions for commissions, 8-894
False personation, 8-975
Forgery, 8-1156, 1181
Forthcoming bond, description of
execution, 10-12
Fraud and deceit, 10-59
Freight carriers, 10-255
Gaming, in action to recover, 1-324
Criminal trial, 10-257
Gifts, from allegations of, 10-604
Guaranty, 10-694
Hawkers and peddlers, common law
and statutory offense, 10-974
Highways, in actions respecting, for
change in grade of, 11-138
For injuries from, 11-232
Prosecution for failure to repair,
11-122
Prosecution for illegal use of, 11-
253, 259
VARIANCE AND tAlLTTBSR Ot
PROOF, contcL
Homicide, in indictment for, 11-593,
599, 606
Implied contract, proof of, where ex-
press contract pleaded, 11-1041
Incest, in, 12-11
Indictment, amendable defects, 12-
549
Between original and copy, 12-651
Description of property in, as to,
12-553
Quashing, as ground for, 12-630
Joint contract, proof of, where sev-
eral contract pleaded, 11-1049
Judgment, between judgment and
execution, 12-791
Modified contract, proof of, where
original pleaded, 11-1045
Name, in, in indictment, 12-552
For homicide, 11-610
Notice of injury, between, and com-
plaint, 11-223
Oral contract, proof of, where writ-
ten contract pleaded, 11-1039
Ownership, in indictment, 12-553
Parties, as to, contract actions, 11-
1048
Partnership contract, proof of, where
individual contract pleaded, 11-
1050
Penalties, action for, obstructing
highway, 11-165
Performance, as to time of, 11-1054
Place, as to,< in contract actions, 11-
1047
Preliminary complaint, as to signa-
ture, 12-141
Between indictment and com-
plaint, 12-630
Princii>al and agent, in actions re-
specting, 11-1051
Principals, as to, in indictment for
homicide, 11-637
Several contract, proof of, where
joint contract pleaded, 11-1049
Time of making contract, as to, 11-
1046
Wounds, in description of, 11-627
VENDITIONI EXPONAS, see Judo-
MENTS AND DEGREES, ENFQKGEICSKV
OF.
VENDOR AND PURCHASER— Con-
sult analysis of this artidle when
published. See Assiokicents;
Guabanty; Implied and Ezpasss
Agreements; Judicial Sales;
Lands and Land Transfers;
Liens; Rescission and Gakgklla-
tion; Sales.
172
INDEX
VSKDOft AMD PtTBOHASEB, eonid.
Attaehmenty of interest under con-
tract, 3-303
Sale after levy, 3-629
Where sale without notice, 3-313
Business homestead, conveyance as
abandonment of, 11-468
Choice and election of remedies, by
vendor, 5-99
By purchaser, 5-100
Covenant, action of, parties, 6-136
Eviction, allegations, 6-151
Creditors' suits, 6-199
Decedents' estates, action against
purchasers, 6-577
Decrees, purchaser pendente lite bound
by, 6-750
Dower, purchaser party to proceed-
ings, 7-871
Improvements by alienee, 7-886
Eminent domain, parties, 8-269
Forcible entry and detainer, for-
feiture of contract, 8-1093
Against vendee in default, where,
8-1106
Grantees as parties, 8-1099
Kot against grantor, 8-1104
Fraud and deceit, rescission unneces-
sary, 10-42
Joinder of parties, 10-47
Pleading in avoidance of statute,
10-71
Fraudulent conveyances, action for
value against grantee, 10-102
Allegation of transfer, 10-171
Defense by grantee, 10-181, 184
Grantee necessary party, 10-145
Judgment against grantee, 10-207
Personal liability of grantee, 10-202
Garnishment, vendee not subject un-
til completion, 10-465
Guardian, action by, for purchase
money, 12-843
Homestead, conveyance of, 11-374
As affecting abandonment, 11-456,
468
Fraudulent conveyance of, 11-457
Bemedies of grantee, 11-375
Who may question, 11-376
Husband and wife, conveyances be-
tween, 11-460
Injunction by grantee of homestead,
11-375
Partition by grantee, 11-375
Vendee, assertion of exemption claim
by, 11-479
Bemedies of, where homestead in-
volved, 11-375
Wife's separate property, enforcing
conveyance of, 11-825
VENDOB'S LIEN, see Liens; Vendob
AND Purchaser.
VENIBE, see Grand Jury; Juries and
Jurors.
Defects in, as ground for motion to
quash indictment, 12-616
VENIRE DE KOVO — Consult analysis
of this article when published. See
Verdict.
In civil case, 8-1072
VENUE — Consult analysis of this ar-
ticle when published. See Change
OF Venue; Jurisdiction; and spe-
cific titles.
Abatement, plea of, for defective,
1-31
Accounting, 1-303
Admiralty, in personam where served,
1-425
Change of districts, 1-426
In rem where arrested, 1-425
To limit liability, where ship is
situated, 1-425
Aliens, of actions against, 1-791, 799
Appearance, waives objection to, 2-
542
Arrest of judgment, not appearing in
record, 2-993
Assault and battery, how charged,
3-34
Attachment, in affidavit, 3-441
Case removed to proper, 3-606
Bastardy proceedings, 4-59
Beneficial associations, 4-85
Bills to enforce decrees, 4-463
Breach of the peace, must be proved,
4-565
Case, the action on the, 4-639
Change of venue, civil cases, 5-1
Criminal cases, 4-973
Copyright proceedings, 5-511
Coroner's inquest, where held, 5-525
Corporation, actions by and against,
5-585
Foreign, actions against, 5-735
Crime, of, question of fact, 11-649
Customs duties, action for forfeiture,
6-356
Declaration and complaint, named in,
6-647
Must be laid, 6-674
Detinue, 7-479
Divorce, 7-748
Ejectment, 7-1023
Embezzlement, 8-210
Eminent domain, 8-265
Equity, of actions real Jind personal,
8-451
Estrays, criminal actions, 8-719
173
lUDEl
VSKtJfi, conid.
Executors and administrators, actions
on bonds, 8-782
Factors and brokers, snit to enforce
lien, 8-868
Forgery, 8-1140
Fraud and deceit, 10-46
Fraudulent conveyances, 10-150
Freight carriers, 10-226
Gaming, actions to recover, 10-826
Actions for penalty, 10-329
Of offenses, 10-336
Oarnishment, depends on statutes, 10-
485
Habeas corpus, local territorial limits,
10-913
In state courts, 10-918
Heirs, of proceedings to determine,
12-918
Highways, actions for injuries to, 11-
198
Enforcing road work, 11-139
Homicide, 11-584
Immigration, prosecutions for violat-
ing laws of, 11-927
Incompetents, estates of, 12-14
Indictment, defective venue; as af-
fecting. 12-608
Information of intrusion, in, 12-715
Injunction, in general. 12-1021
In highway proceedings, 11-109
Juvenile proceedings, 12-863
Penalties, in actions for, highways,
11-142
Sale of infant's property, 12-815
Title involved, 12-1024
Transitory actions, injuries from
highways, 11-198
Verdict, finding in, as to venue, 11-
681
VEBDICT — Consult analysig of this ar-
Ucle when published. See Dismissal,
Discontinuance and Nonsuit ;
Findings and Conclusions; Issues
IN Pleading and Practice; Judg-
ment Becokds; New Trial; Re-
mission or Damages; Special In-
terrogatories TO Juries; Trial;
and specific titles.
Abatement, verdict on plea of, 1-70
Abortion, 1-120
Defect in indictment when cured,
1-99
Accord and satisfaction, in, 1-192
Accounts, 1-232
Account stated, 1-262
Acquittal, of, under one count, 11-681
Adverse possession, 1-641
Aider by verdict, see Indictment and
Information; Pleading; Waiver.
VSEBIOT, eanid.
Aider by verdict, contd.
' Absence of allegations cared, 2-
103; 3-186
Defective allegations of place, 12-
700
Name and description of ae-
cused, 12-700
Of time, 12-700
Duplicity, of. 12701
Failure, to file exhibits, 8-806
To negative exceptions, 12-699
Lack of certainty, 4-864
Objections, effect of, 12-703
Alienating affections, 1-785
Ambiguous, in homicide, 11-683
Amendment after, 1-884, 917; 7-1045
Amendment of, by jury, 11-690
Of information, 12-556, 657
Animals, on prosecution, for injury
to, 1-974
For marking or branding, 1-985
Appeal bond, defects in allegation
cured, 2-103
Appeals, amount of recovery, 2^442
Harmless error, 2-460
In highway proceedings, establish-
ing highway, 11-88
Improvement of highway, 11-115
Vacating highway, 11-266
Objections below, 2-262, 281
To sufficiency of evidence below,
2-279
Presumed justified, 2-425
Properly directed, 2-423
Record, as part of, 2-336
Errors must appear in record, 2-
360
Sustained if any evidence, 2-438
Arbitration, in action on award, 2-658
Arrest of judgment, not for defects
cured by, 2-989, 1017
For defects not cured, 2-1021
For defects of, 21027, 1029
Arson, 3-29, 30
Assumpsit, cures failure to allege per-
formance, 3-186
Verdict in, 3-214
Attachment, on intervention, 3-669
In main action, 3-721-724
On abatement or traverse, 3-807
Bastardy proceedings, 4-75
Bonds, in actions on, 4-531
Breach of promise, 4-556
Case on appeal, turning into special
verdict, 4-799
Case, the action on the, 4-662
Certainty in pleading, want of cored,
4-864
174
INDEX
VBBDICT, conid.
Concealment of birth, in prosecution
for, 12-887
Conclusiveness of, *in highway pro-
ceedings, ll-134n
Consolidation of actions, one verdict,
6-276
Conspiracy, criminal, 5-319
Construction of pleadings, after ver-
dict, 5-357
Construed to accord with jury's in-
tention, 11-692
Conviction, of offense other than the
one directly charged, 12-658^
Corporation, against any or all de-
fendants, 5-665
Costs, criminal, lesser offense, 5-760
Counterfeiting, 6-18
Courts martial, conviction of lesser
offense, 6-119
Covenant, action of, several breaches,
6-162
Customs duties, forfeiture, 6-357
Death by wrongful act, 6-453
Debt, 6-492
Decrees, reference to, 6-778
Definition of offense, nnneceesary in,
11-682
Degree of homicide, finding as to,
11-685
Demurrer to evidence, motion to di-
rect not equivalent, 7-25
Detinue, 7-485-488
Directing, see TaiAL.
Embracery, 8-254
For demurrant, 6-994
Indictment, as means of objecting
to, 12-660
Injuries from highways, 11-246
Nonsuit, voluntary after, 7-665
Opening statement, on, 8-1122
Discovery, not after, 7-534
Dismissal and nonsuit, after verdict,
7-662
Before verdict, 7-662
Nonsuit and directing compared, 7-
674
Divorce, jury trial, 7-791
Dower, proceedings on failure to find,
7-879
Ejectment, 7-1045
Amendment after, 7-1045
Electricity, damages, 8-195
Embezzlement, 8-248
Embracery, directing, 8-254
Eminent domain, 8-320-323
Error, assignment of, 8-602
Estoppel, 8-708
Exhibits, failure to file cured, 8-806
VEIt2>I0T, contd.
Findings, have same effect as, 8-993,
1062
In homicide, 11-683
Verdict inconsistent with special
findings, 11-246
Forcible entry and detainer, 8-1123
Directing on opening statements, 8-
1122
Forgery, 8-1184
Form and requidtes of, homicide, 11-
681
Fraud and deceit, 10-65
As ground for vacating, 11-266
Fraudulent conveyances, action to set
aside, 10-193
Game and fish, 10-813
Gaming, in action to recover, 10-324
Criminal trial, 10-363
General verdict, in homicide, 11-680,
687, 688
Where good and bad counts, 12-
702
Guilty, of, as bearing on degree of
homicide, 11-686
Highways, action for penalties, 11-
165
Collisions on, 11-256
Damages for obstructing, 11-191
Injuries from, 11-244, 256
Presumptions favoring, 11-246
Prosecution for obstructing, 11-159
Homesteads, in actions to protect, 11-
431
Homicide, 11-678, 687
Identifying guilty party, 11-680
Immaterial errors in, 11-685
Jurat, amendment of, after, 12-566
Justification, negativing in verdict,
11-681
Manslaughter, of, need not state
degree, 11-688
On indictment for murder, 11-679
Negativing counts, necessity of, 11-
680
Not guilty, election equivalent to,
12-687
Penalties, in action for, 11-165
Polling jury on, in homicide, 11-692
Presumptions in favor of, 11-246; 12-
698, 704
Where good and bad counts, 12-703
Punishment, affixing the, 11-689
Beconsideration of, 11-691
Special, based on good counts, 12-
704
Surplusage in, homicide, 11-684
Venue, finding as to, 11-681
175
INDEX
•VEBIFIOATIOK — CoMult analysis of
this article when published.
Abatement, of plea of, 1-45
Another action pending, 1-1039
Absence of demurrer for, 6-909
Striking out as sham, 10-280
Accord and satisfaction, plea of, 1-
187
Accounts, necessity, 1-226
Effect, 1-226, 227
Admiralty, of pleadings, 1-446, 448
Answer, 1-467
Irregularity of in attachment, 1-
492
Of claims, 1-504
Aiftdavit of merits or defense, neces-
sity of to require, 1-667
Verified answer or plea as, 1-658,
669, 688
Amendment, added by, 1-884, 905
To information, 12-565
Verification, after amendment, 12-
566
Another action pending, of plea of, 1-
1039
Answers, 2-75
Contract actions, 11-1033
Appeals, of petition, 2-296
Appraisement, of, on claim of ex-
emption, 11-518
Arbitration, of plea in action on
award, 2-658
Assault and battery, information, 3-
36
Attachment, of returns, 3-559
Of motion to vacate, 3-779
Of pleading in main action, 3-703
Attorneys, of charges for disbarment,
3-869
Bankruptcy proceedings, of objections
to discharge, 3-923-924
Of petition, 3-972
Amended petition, 3-1001
For injunction, 3-933
To discharge, 3-921
To set aside composition, 3-917
Bills and answers, bills, when veri-
fied, 4-148
Amendment of sworn pleading, 4-
217, 218
Of answer, 4-176
Bills of exceptions, 4-394
Bills of particulars, of motion for,
4-392
Bills of review, 4-449
Bills to impeach judgments and de-
crees, 4-488
Bonds, of plea, 4-521
Certificate of probable cause, of peti-
tion for, Mont.^ 4-872
VEBIFIOATIOK, contd.
Certiorari, of petition for, 4-908
Change of venue, of application, 3-24
Contempt, of information, 5-101
Copyright proceedings, of bill, 5-514
Corporations, by officer, 5-651
Costs, of bill, 5-928
Creditors' suits, of bill, 6-218
Criminal complaint, 12-289
On amendment, 12-566
Cross-bill, 6-280
To procure a stay, ll-21n
Decedents' estates, of petition for
administration, 6-504
Of accounts, 6-600
Of claims, 6-530
Against insolvent estate, 6-582
Petition for account, 6-592
To sell, 6-554
Demurrer, for want of, 6-909
Improper verification, 12-651
Denials, 7-55
Discovery, of bill, 7-537
Of answer to interrogatories, 7-594
Divorce, of pleadings, 7-785
Elections, petitions in contests, 8-74
Of answer in contests, 8-77
Emancipation petition, 12-806
Eminent domain, of petition, 8-289
Equity, of answer, 8-485
Exemption claim, 11-485
Exhibits, 8-814
Forcible entry end detainer, of com-
plaint, 8-1117
Fraudulent conveyance, 10-173
Frivolous and sham pleadings, lack
of verification, 10-280
General issue, of, as putting in issue
the execution of the contract, 11-
1017
Habeas corpus, of return of writ, 10-
931
Of petition, 10-924
Homesteads, declaration of, 11-309
Of petition for, 11-322, 354, 393
Information, of, 12-262
Quashing for want of, 12-630
Waiver of, by recognizance, 12-
670
Juvenile proceedings, of petition in,
12-867
Petition, for emancipation, 12-806
For homestead, 11-322, 354, 393
To mortgage infant's property, 12-
858
To sell infant's property, 12-820
Plea, execution denied by, 11-1017
Preliminary complaint, of, 12-141
Beturn of process, 12-751
Beverification, after amendment, 18-
566
176
INDEX
VEEiriOATIOK, contd.
Schedule of exemptions, 11-509
Waiver of verification, by recogniz-
ance, 12-670
VESSELS, seee Admiralty; Colusion;
Ships and Shipping,
VIDELICET, see Scilicet.
VI ET ARMIS, see Indictment and
Information; Pleading.
VIEW — Consult analysis of this article
when published. See Discovery;
Physical 'Examination.
Eminent domain, 8-323
WAGES, SCO Garnishment ; Judgments
AND Decrees, Enforcement op;
Master and Servant; Seamen;
Work and Labor.
Appraisement where garnished, 11-513
Exemption of, 11-501
WAIVER — Cansult analysis of this ar-
ticle when published. See Appear-
ances; Estoppel; Indictment and
Information; Notice; Objections
AND Exceptions.
Abatement, plea of form of, 1-45
Plea of waived, 1-53
By filing aflidavit of defense, 1-
711 •
Account, of right to, 1-223
Admiralty, to premature commence-
ment, by pleading, 1-424
Defects of process, 1-498
By release, 1-512
Of place of trial, 1-426
Of variance, 1-542
AflSdavit of defense, effect as, 1-711
Of want of, 1-719
Alienage, by not pleading in abate-
ment, 1-811
Amendment, of right to amend as of
course, 1-859
Error in sustaining demurrer
waived by, 1-928
Of objections to, 12-555
Animals, of defect in indictment by
pleading, 1-963
Answer, of defects in, by replication,
ll-9n.
Appeals, right to, 2-204
Appeal bonds, of defects in, ll-75n
By failure to take, 12-781
Defect of parties, 2-235
Error on, 2-472
In highway proceedings, 11-77
None of time to take, 2-304
Of notice by appearance, 2-319
Of what defects on, 2-383
Appearance, of irregularities by, 2-
531, 536, 538, 542, 547, 549
Of incompetent, 12-16n
WAIVEB» contd.
Appearance, contd.
When compulsory, 2-531
Of misnomer by, 2-544
Of objections to jurisdiction, 11-
63n, lein, 163n
Of objections to venue by, 2-543
Of variance between process and
pleading by, 2-545
Arbitration, of right to hearing, 2-604
Before all arbitrators, 2-598
Before umpire, 2-605
Of irregularities, 2-621
Of notice meeting, 2-615
To objections to judgment, 2-638
Architects and builders, of conditions
of contract filed, 2-687
Arguments, may be waived, 2-731
Presence of judge, 2-745
Arraignment and plea, of arraign-
ment, 2-870
By plea, of guilty, 2-897
Of nolo contendere, 2-907
Of plea, confilct of decisions, 2-873
Plea of not guilty, 2-914
Arrest in civil cases, of irregularities,
2-976
Assistance, writ of, irregularities, 3-
154
Attachment, of defects of affidavit
for, 3-443
By appearance, on void writ, 3-483
Of defects, in notice, 3-534
In return, 3-546
In writ, by appearance, 3-483
By motion to set aside on other
grounds, 3-757, 780
Of liens, 3-639
Bigamy, of defects, 4-97
Bills and answers, of penalties for
discovery, 4-144
Of irregularities, 4-150
Of oath, effect, 4-161
Of prayer for process, 4-146
Bills of exceptions, of bill, 4-371
Bills of review, of filing without
leave, 4-423
Of irregularities, 4-454
By accused, of right to demand na-
ture of accusation, 12-295
Case, action on the, of improper form
by pleading, 4-661
Certainty in pleading, by pleading
over, 4-864
Certiorari, of right to, 4-928
Change of venue, of notice, 4-988
By going to trial, 4-1001
Indictments, of defects in, 12-670
In injunction, 12-1024
Of irregularities, 5-41
177
INDEX
WAIVES, contd.
Change of venue, contd.
Of right in civil ease, 5-7
Of want of notice, bj resisting,
5-26
Conclusions of law, genenU allega-
tion, 5-223
Conditions, common counts where
waived, 11-950
Defense of non-performance of con-
ditions, waived, 11-1019
Continuance, absent witness obtain-
able, 5-464
Indictment, defects in, 12-670
Contract, in, special plea of, 11-1012
Costs, admiralty, security for, 1-508
Of right to, 5-904, 966
Of right to payment of costs in
former action, 5-973
Courts martial, none of jurisdiction,
6-112
Of statutes of limitation, 6-128
Cross-bill, of propriety of by an-
swering, 6-267, 273
Decedents' estates, of notice of ap-
plication to sell, 6-555
Declaration and complaint, of de-
fects in, 12-736, 867
Demurrer, of right to, by pleading,
6-862
Of pleadings by subsequent demur-
rer, 6-939
Of ruling on, 6-1005
Waiver by amending after demur-
rer sustained, 1-928; 6-1009
Departure, 7-132, 140
Depositions, of commission or order
by agreement, 7-237
Of notice of taking, 7-294
Of objections, 7-453
By consent to opening, 7-382
Discovery, of answer under oath, 7-
537
Of refusal to answer, 7-595
Of right to, 7-601
Of right to inspection, 7-623
Dismissal and nonsuit, of motion for,
by supplying proof, 7-673
Beinstatement, of error in, 7-690
Divorce, no jurisdiction by, 7-747
Of process, 7-758
Due process of law, none of jury in
criminal cases, 7-921
Duplicity, of defect of, 7-947, 948
Election of remedies, by, see Choice
AND Election of ^medies.
Eminent domain, of jury trial, 8-300
Of objections to commissioners, 8-
306
Of right of appeal, 8-333
WAIVES, conid.
Errors, assignment of, not Uling, 8-
633
By joining in error, 8-651
Not agreed or briefed, 8-639
Executors and administrators, of al-
legations of capacity, 8-741
Objections to authority of foreign,
8-752
Of failure to file claims, 8-762
Extortion, defects in indictment, 8-
834
Findings and conclusions, 8-1075
Forcible entry and detainer, notice
not waived by appearance, 8-1096
Objections to complaint, 8-1118
Fraud and deceit, election of reme>
dies, 10-38
Of right of action for, 10-39
Plaintiff need not negative, 10-51
Question for jury, 10-63
Frauds, statute of, of defense, 10-78
Garnishment, of lien by, 10-502
Of objections to proceedings, what,
10-598
Of payment to defendant, 10-521
Grand jury, of objections, 10-634; 12-
614
Guardian ad litem, by adverse party
of failure to appoint, 10-748
None by, 10-760
Guardian and ward, of notice of ap-
plication for, 10-79
Notice of accounting, where, 10-
834
Habeas corpus, waiver of jurisdiction
by appearance, 10-913
Of objections to writ, 10-928
Hearing, of objection to, 11-19
Homestead, of, 11-433
By consenting to levy, 11-438
Form of, 11-435, 437
In mortgage, 11-436
Of defense of homestead exemp-
tion, 11-420
Parties to, 11-434
Upon levy, waiver of homestead
claim, 11-326
Indictment, of demurrer to, 12-669
Of objections to, generally, 12-555.
669
Continuance, by, 12-670
Venue, 4s affected by change in,
12-670
Information, of defects in, 12-670
Judgment against infant, of right to
attack, 12-788
Jurisdiction, of objection to, ll-63n,
161n, 163n
178
INDEX
WAIVEB» contd.
Jury trial, of, see Jitbies and Jcbobs.
Eminent domain, 8-300
In criminal case, 7-921
Juvenile proceedings, 12-874
Misjoinder, 6-710
Of offenses, 12-685
New trial, by failure to move for,
12-781
Nonsuit, by supplying proof, 6-673
Notice, of appeal, by appearance, 11*
73n
Of defective bridge, cannot be
waived, 11-275
Of hearing, of irregularities in, 11-
14n
Of injuries from highways, 11-200
Performance, of, alleging, 11-1005
Petition for guardian, of defects in,
12-16n ,
Plea in abatement, of, by demurrer,
12670
Preliminary examination, of, 12-91^
115
Proof, ot, by guardian, 12-769
Becognizance, entering into a, as
waiver of verification, 12-670
Beplication, by replication, of defects
in answer, ll-9n
Of replication, by proceeding to
hearing, 11-4
Tort, of, 11-969
Trial out of order, 6-54
Venue, of objections to, in injunction,
12-1024
WANTONLY, see Injtjries to Peesons
AND Property; Negligence.
WAB — Consult analysis of this article
when published. See Courts Mar-
tial; Martial Law; Navy and
Army; Neutrality Laws; Pen-
sions and Bounties.
WABEHOUSEMEN — Consult analysis
of this article when published. See
Injuries to Persons and Proper-
ty; Liens.
Garnishment of property in closed
receptacles, 10-437
WABBANT OP ATTOBNEY, see Judg-
ments.
Authority to appear, 2-560
WARBLANTB-— Consult analysis of this
article when pviblished. See Pro-
cess; Beturns; Search and Seiz-
X7RE; Service of Pro^ss and
Papers; Summary Proceedings.
Alien, for arrest and deportation of,
11-905, 910, 925
Amendment of, failure to do road
work, 11-143
WABBANT8, eontd.
Arrest with, 8-924
On defective warrant, effeet on in<
formation, 12-613
Without, 8-927
Complaint, issued on, 12-124
Criminal prosecution, as beginning,
12-853
Fine, to collect, specifying amount,
11-142
Highways, for failure to do road
work, 11-140
Juvenile proceedings, in, 12-869
On probable cause only, 12-122
Penalty, to recover, 11-143
Under federal constitution, 12-75
WABBANTY, see Fraud and Deceit;
Guaranty; Sales; Ships and Ship-
ping; Vendor and Purchaser.
Affidavit of defense, allegation of, 1-
702
Covenant of, see Covenant, Action
OP; Lands and Land Transfers.
WA8TE — Consult analysis of this ar-
ticle when published. See Land-
lord AND Tenant; Lands and Land
Transfers; Mines and Miiteral.
WATEB COMPANIES, see PuBUc
Service Corporations.
wateb8 and wateboottbses —
Consult analysis of this article when
published. See Admiralty; Navig-
able Waters; Public Service Cor-
porations; Ships and Shipping.
Admiralty, jurisdiction of, 1-377
Case, the action on the, diversion or
pollution, 4-637
Ejectment, when and where, 7-994
WEAPOKS — Consult analysis of this
article when published. See also
Criminal Procedure,
Character of, when question of fact,
homicide, 11-640
Indictment, describing in the, 11-589,
592
Instructions as to, homicide, 11-655
WEIGHTS AND MEASXTBE8 — Consult
analysis of this article when pub-
lished,
WHARVES — Consult analysis of this
article when published. See Navig-
able Waters; Ships and Shipping.
Jurisdiction of contracts, 1-387
WHOBE, see Disorderly House; Pros-
titution.
WILFTJLIlrfY, see Indictment and In-
formation,
179
INDEX
WnJiS — Consult analysis of this article ^
when published. See Decedents' Es-
tates; Executors and Adminis-
trators; Inheritance; Probate
Courts.
Equity jurisdiction, legacies, 8-401
Bequests to infants, 12-809
Legacies to wife, actions for, 11-728
Probate of, in heirship proceedings,
12-924
WINDING UP OOBPOBATIONS —
Consult analysis of this article when
published. See Bankruptct Pro-
ceedings; Corporations.
WITHDRAWAL OF EVIDENCE, see
Striking Out and Withdrawal.
WITHDRAWAL OF TUROU — Consult
analysis of this article when pub-
lished. See Trial.
WITHDRAWAL OF PLEADINGS, see
Striking Out and Withdrawal.
WITNESSES — Consult analysis of this
article when published. See Con-
tempt; Depositions; Subpoena.
Abortion, separation and exclusion,
1-113
Accounts, parties to book, 1-239
Admiralty, fees, 1-573
Amending, as to signature of prose-
cuting witness, 12-567
Arbitration, attendance not com-
pelled, 2-617
Arrest in civil cases, affiant to have
capacity of, 2-929, 936
Attachment, declarations in presence
of by officer, 3-503
Bigamy, complaining, 4-91
Case or question certified, compe-
tency, Ind., 4-698
Change of venue, convenience of, 4-
976; 5-13, 28
Complaining witness, see Indictment
AND Information.
Contempt, examination in proceed*
ings, 5-410
Continuances, absence of, 5-450
Beliance on promise, 5-461
Subpoena by adverse party,* 5-461
Costs, fees and mileage, 5-944
Criminal case, 5-787
Statement in bill of costs, 5-927
On appeal, highway proceedings, 11-
103n
Criminal complaint, indorsement on,
12-293
Depositions, 7-186
Discovery, examination of party, as
to his witnesses, 7-563
Compelling attendance, 7-571
WITNESSES, eontd.
Grand jury, challenge because juror
is witness, 10-639
Accused no right to question wit-
nesses, 10-659
Disclosure of evidence, 10-655
Examination of, by unauthorized
person, 12-619
Foreman to keep list, 10-656
Incompetency of, as ground for
quashing indictment, 12-622
Indorsement of, on indictment, 12-
625, 640, 651
Amending, 12-565
Verdict, aider by, 12-701
Presence of witnesses, 10-652
Becord, showing as to, 12-109
Habeas corpus, ad testificandum,
form, 3-986
Persons detained to testify, 10-917
Indorsement of names oh indictment,
see Indictment and Informa-
tion.
Preliminary complaint, naming in,
12-140*
Waiver of homestead, to, 11-437
WOODS, see Logs and Logoino; Public
Lands.
WOUNDS, see Indictment and Infob-
MATION.
Description of in indictment, 11-625,
627
WOBE AND LASOB — Consult analy-
sis of this article when published.
See Assumpsit; Implied and Ex-
press Abgeements; Lawyer and
Client; Master and Servant; Pht-
- siciANS AND Surgeons. See also
Quantum Meruit; Quantum Vale-
bant,
Admiralty, jurisdiction of contraeta,
1-383-389
Assumpsit, for, 3-195, 205
Quantum meruit or valebant, 3-198
Where express contract modified,
11-951
Where express contract void or
unenforcible, 11-954
Builder, see Architects and Build-
ers.
Garnishment of salary or wages, 10-
429-432
WEECK, see Salvage; Ships and Ship-
PING.
WBIT, see Jurisdiction; JusTidfes op
THE Peace; Mandamus; Process:
Service op Process and Papers;
Returns; Suits and Actions; Sun-
day AND Holidays; Warrants.
URO
INDEX
WBIT OF ASSISTANCE, see Assist-
ANOK, Weits of.
WBIT OF COMMITMENT, see Commit-
ment,
wBIT OF ENTBT — Consult analysis
of this article when published. See
Ejectment.
Arbitration, not granted on unfair
award, 2-661
Easement, not for, 7-957
Ejectment, substitute for, 7-978
WBIT OF EBBOB — Consult analysis
of this article when published. Bee
Appeals; Bills of Exceptions;
Case on Appeal; Cebtiokari; Er-
rors, Assignment of; Judgment
Begords; Law of the Case; Man-
date; Objections and Exceptions;
Statement and Absisact of Case;
Stenographers.
Appeals, 2-289, 290
Appeals, allowance of writ, 2-299
Bankruptcy proceedings, cumulative
with appeal, 3-1013
After jury trial, 3-1013
Contempt, to review, 5-427
Certiorari, not granted when, 4-895
In highway proceedings, where writ
of error, 11-55
Not in place of, 4-925
Chinese, not to review exclusion of,-
11915
Coram nobis, 12-784
Coram vobis, 12-784
Disclaimer, not after, 7-496
Discovery, on order for production,
7-643
Divorce, 7-810
Due process of law, to state court,
7-902
Embezzlement, 8-251
Eminent domain, 8-332
Equity, 8-499
Error, assignment of, 8-518, 659
Filed before writ, 8-629
TVBIT OF EBBOB^ contd.
Final judgihents, from, highways, 11-
66, 131
Garnishment, effect of writ of error^
10-386
Habeas corpus, from proceedings,
where, 10-953
Highway proceedings, to review, 11-
53, 59
Alteration of highways, 11-128
Establishing highway, 11-53, 59
Parties entitled to, 11-64, 130
Indictment, to review quashal of, 12-
645
Infants, to review judgments against,
12-784, 792
Parties to, 12-794
Parties to, 11-130; 12-794
WBIT OF INQUIBY, see Inquiry, Writ
OF.
WBIT OF POSSESSION, decrees en-
forcing by, 6-788
Dower, 7-890
Ejectment, 7-1050
WBIT OF PBOHIBITION, see Pro-
hibition.
WBIT OF ]6tESTITUTI0N, 8-1126
Damages, for failure to award, 11-93
Discretion of court in granting, 11-92
In highway proceedings, 11-54, 91
Technical errors, not to review, 11-92
WBIT OF BEVIEW, see Beview.
WBIT OF BIGHT, see Beal and Mixed
Actions
WBIT OF SEQUESTBATION, see Sb-
QT7E8TRATION.
WBIT OF WASTE, joinder in, 11727
WRITTEN INSTBUMENTS, see Dec-
laration AND Complaint; Denials;
Exhibits; Implied and Express
Agreements; Oyer and Profert;
Pleading; and specific titles.
Exemption claim, 11-485
Homestead waiver, necessity of writ-
ing, 11-435
B»
181
3 bios 0b3 355 75b
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11