ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

jured person was assisting to perform this work. Id.

(E) Fellow Servants.

177 (Mo.App.) Master held not liable for servant's acts, unless done in the course of the employment and in furtherance of the master's business.-Hellriegel v. Dunham, 179 S. W. 763.

118 (Ky.) The master operating a coal mine must not only inspect the roof of the mine in the exercise of ordinary care to provide a safe place for his servants to work, but also support the roof in a proper manner.-Carter Coal Co. 185 (Tenn.) Rule as to furnishing safe place v. Prichard's Adm'r, 179 S. W. 1038. to work held not to comprehend negligent acts of fellow servants, rendering the place_dangerous temporarily.-Standard Knitting Mills v. Hickman, 179 S. W. 385.

118 (Tenn.) Laws 1903, c. 237, § 28, requiring structures inside mine shafts to protect employés, held to apply to a mine which had completed a shaft for conducting air used by 189 (Ky.) No recovery may be had from a employés in going to and returning from their work.-American Zinc Co. v. Graham, 179 S. W.

138.

A master's violation of the terms of a statute requiring structures to secure safety in mine shafts was negligence per se, and made him responsible for all injuries suffered as a direct consequence thereof.-Id.

master for an injury to a servant not causing death resulting from the ordinary negligence of a superior servant having immediate control of the injured servant.-Consolidated Coal Co. v. Baldridge, 179 S. W. 18.

190 (Ky.) Assurance of safety given one assisting contractor in mine by agent selected by coal company to cross-timber the rooms held, in effect, an assurance by the coal company.Carter Coal Co. v. Hill, 179 S. W. 2.

124 (Ky.) The master operating a coal mine must inspect the roof of the mine in the exercise of ordinary care, to provide a safe place for 190 (Ky.) Railway company held liable for his servants to work.-Carter Coal Co. v. Prich- gross negligence of its foreman, in failing to ard's Adm'r, 179 S. W. 1038. observe torpedo placed on track before running over it with a hand car.-Gordon v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co., 179 S. W. 210.

A master bound to inspect cannot avoid liability for injuries to his servant, unless the serv ant is also under the duty of inspection or the danger is obvious, nor is a showing of inspection conclusive on the exercise of the required degree of care.-Id.

125 (Ky.) A master is liable to a servant for injury from a defective appliance only when he knows of such defect, or should have known of it by the exercise of ordinary care.-Phillips v. Corbin & Fannin, 179 S. W. 586.

129 (Ky.) The act of a servant while hauling logs into a sawmill in striking a log on the skidway, moving it out of place, was not the proximate cause of the sawyer's death while attempting to replace it.-Lucas Land & Lumber Co. v. Cook's Adm'r, 179 S. W. 582.

190 (Tenn.) Foreman of crew digging a ditch held authorized to bind his employer by assurances as to the safety of the ditch.-City of Chattanooga v. Powell, 179 S. W. 808.

198 (Ky.) The negligence of a conductor and engineer who left a car on the siding so close to the end that it endangered a fireman who took the engineer's place temporarily held that of the superior servants.-Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. Shamblen, 179 S. W. 837.

198. (Mo.App.) Under Rev. St. 1909, §§ 5434, 5439, that shop employés engaged in bending railway rails were fellow servants, held not to affect employer's liability for negligence; the rails being intended for a railroad already in operation.-Hellriegel v. Dunham, 179 S. W. 763.

199 (Ky.) Brakeman on coal mine motor train and motorman held not fellow servants.Consolidated Coal Co. v. Baldridge, 179 S. W. 18.

(C) Methods of Work, Rules, and Orders. 137 (Ky.) Defendant railroad held under the circumstances, not within the rule requiring it to keep a lookout and give warning of the approach of trains for the protection of its em-202 (Ky.) For a fireman to recover for inployés on the track.-Cumberland R. Co. v. Wal- juries caused by the negligence of the engineer ton, 179 S. W. 245. and the conductor on the same train, who were his superiors, their negligence must be gross. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. Shamblen, 179 S. W. 837.

As to railroad employé using its track in defendant's business, where their presence should have been reasonably anticipated, the railroad was required to keep a lookout and to give warn-202 (Mo.App.) Employer held liable for eming.-Id.

Where employé of defendant railroad, while a trespasser on its track, stepped in front of an approaching engine and was not discovered in time to prevent collision, defendant was not negligent.-Id.

ployé's recklessness, injuring another employé, though he was actuated by malice against the foreman and intended to injure the foreman.Hellriegel v. Dunham, 179 S, W. 763.

a servant as

(F) Risks Assumed by Servant. 203 (Tex. Civ.App.) Where sumes a risk, it will defeat recovery for injuries caused thereby in any sum.-Pecos & N. T. Ry. Co. v. Winkler, 179 S. W. 691.

137 (Tex.) Engine crew not in possession of facts from which ordinarily prudent man would have foreseen that a car inspector on a "kicked" car might alight and be injured by the engine upon a parallel track held under no 204 (Ky.) A railroad company held not duty to ring bell or blow whistle.-International & G. N. R. Co. v. Walters, 179 S. W. 854.

(D) Warning and Instructing Servant.

155 (Tenn.) Danger of employé slipping, where scrub-woman was mopping the floor, as she stepped back from the machine at which she was working, held so obvious that no warning was required.-Standard Knitting Mills v. Hickman, 179 S. W. 385.

157 (Ky.) Employé in mine warned by cross-timberer of dangerous condition of roof held bound to heed such warning, and not entitled to recover for injuries if he disregarded it. -Carter Coal Co. v. Hill, 179 S. W. 2.

negligently using a defective appliance on a water tower, which would, under federal Employers' Liability Act, deprive it of advantage of defense of assumption of risk in an action by plaintiff, who slipped on the spout he knew was wet.-Davis v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co., 179 S. W. 422.

204 (Tenn.) Miner, knowing that employer had failed to comply with Laws 1903, c. 237, § 28, requiring protection on inside shaft, held not to have assumed the risk of injury while ascending the shaft.-American Zinc Co. v. Graham, 179 S. W. 138.

205 (Ky.) Where the master's electrician repaired its coal-punching machine and assured a servant that it was all right, the servant

For cases in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER

might rely thereon and continue its use, un-1240 (Mo.App.) A switchman held not negless the danger was so obvious that an ordi- ligent in kicking aside the coupler on an engine narily prudent person would refuse to work. on which he was riding, whereby his foot was Stearns Coal & Lumber Co. v. Calhoun, 179 S. crushed, where the engineer failed to heed his W. 590. signals to stop.-Trowbridge v. Kansas City & W. B. Ry. Co., 179 S. W. 777.

206 (Ky.) The dangers which a servant assumes when he undertakes his work are those inherent in the work and growing out of it.Phillips v. Corbin & Fannin, 179 S. W. 586.

210 (Ky.) Employé of railway company assumes all risks ordinarily incident to his employment, including risk of injury by explosion of signal torpedoes placed on track.-Gordon v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co., 179 S. W. 210.

213 (Ky.) A railroad employé held to assume the risk of injury in the mode of descent from a water tower adopted by him.-Davis v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co., 179 S. W. 422.

(H) Actions.

252 (Tex.Civ.App.) Taking written written statement of plaintiff's claim by agent of defendant employer waives a stipulation in the contract of employment barring the employé's action, unless written notice is given within 30 days.Pecos & N. T. Ry. Co. v. Winkler, 179 S. W. 691.

Under Rev. St. 1911, art. 5714, a contract of employment of the plaintiff switchman for defendant railway requiring notice to be given in 30 days after injury is void, and will not defeat the plaintiff's action in spite of failure to give notice.-Id.

216 (Ky.) A servant does not assume the risk arising from want of sufficient and skillful fellow servants, unless the incompetence was such that an ordinary man would not have con-258 (Tenn.) Dismissal of tinued work.-Lack Singletree Co. v. Cherry,

179 S. W. 1071.

While a servant assumes the risk of ordinary negligence of fellow servants, the master is bound to engage reasonably competent fellow

servants.-Id.

217 (Ky.) A servant never assumes risks arising from the use of defective tools and appliances, unless he knows of the defect, or it is obvious and he continues without ordinary care to save himself from injury.-Phillips v. Corbin & Fannin, 179 S. W. 586.

action against

master for death of plaintiff's intestate for fail-
ure to make declaration more specific, and to
designate the names of the vice principals al-
leged to have been careless and the particular
rule violated by defendant, held erroneous.
Lowry v. Southern Ry. Co., 179 S. W. 125.
for injury brought against a railroad and its con-
264 (Ky.) On pleadings in a servant's action
tractor, held, that the issue raised by the plead-
ings was whether the work was done by an in-
dependent contractor.-Mason & Hurst Co. v.
Feltner, 179 S. W. 222.

uated by malice towards the foreman, held
264 (Mo.App.) Act of employé, though act-
negligent as to another employé injured there-
by; and, the petition having alleged the char-
acter of the act in relation to the injured em-
Dunham, 179 S. W. 763.
ployé, there was no variance.-Hellriegel v.

217 (Ky.) To prevent a servant's recovery for injury on the ground of his assumption of risk from a defective machine, it must be shown risk from a defective machine, it must be shown that the danger therefrom was known or clearly observable and appreciated by him.-Stearns Coal & Lumber Co. v. Calhoun, 179 S. W. 590. 217 (Ky.) Plaintiff coal miner, engaged in 265 (Ky.) In a servant's action for injury, "robbing" pillars, who knew that the roof was held, that the burden was on the defendant railunsafe and was injured, could not recover, hav-road to show that the work on its tunnel was ing assumed the risk.-Imperial Jellico Coal Co. v. Fox, 179 S. W. 1032.

219 (Ky.) A master will not be exonerated from liability for injuries sustained by a servant hurt when a bucket used to carry concrete

broke, on the theory that it was a simple tool. Thomas v. National Concrete Const. Co., 179 S.

W. 439.

220 (Ky.) Where a master assures a servant there is no danger from the incompetence of a fellow servant, and the servant is injured from that cause, the master is liable, unless the danger was so obvious that an ordinarily prudent person would not have continued in the work.-Lack Singletree Co. v. Cherry, 179 S. W. 1071.

done by an independent contractor.-Mason &
Hurst Co. v. Feltner, 179 S. W. 222.
An explosion of a boiler does not give rise to
a presumption of negligence. Id.

265 (Ky.) In an action for injuries to a servant, negligence will not be presumed from the fact that the servant had been injured.— Southern Mining Co. v. Lewis' Adm'r, 179 S. W. 1067.

270 (Mo.App.) In a switchman's action for injuries under the federal Employers' Liability Act, evidence that the couplers, whereby plaintiff was injured, would not meet because they were broken held admissible, although the action was not based on the Safety Appliance Act.-Trowbridge v. Kansas City & W. B. Ry. Co., 179 S. W. 777.

222 (Ky.) A laborer directed by his foreman to remove a wooden horse from its position 274 (Tex.Civ.App.) In the absence of a speacross a freshly cut ditch assumed the obvious cific rule forbidding employés to make couplings risk of its caving in from his placing his weight by going between the cars, evidence of the custoo close to the edge.-White v. Louisville Gas tom of employés in that regard is admissible to & Electric Co., 179 S. W. 418. rebut contributory negligence.-Pecos & N. T. Ry. Co. v. Winkler, 179 S. W. 691.

222 (Ky.) Plaintiff, who was bound to keep a railroad water tower in repair, held not to be acting under the direct orders of his superior, so as to render the employer liable for injuries occasioned by a slip on the wet spout.-Davis v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co., 179 S. W. 422.

278 (Ky.) Evidence held to show that duty of propping roof of mine was but that under contract this duty devolved upon a contractor whom plaintiff was assisting in the work of removing coal.-Carter Coal Co. v. Hill, 179 S. W. 2.

224 (Tex.Civ.App.) Where the servant is in-278 (Ky.) In action by an employé of a dejured while at work, but in doing an unneces-278 (Ky.) In action by an employé of a desary act of his own volition he assumes the risk, fendant railroad for injury upon its tracks while and the master is not liable.-Pecos & N. T. a trespasser, evidence held to show that defendRy. Co. v. Winkler, 179 S. W. 691. ant could not have prevented the injury by the exercise of ordinary care after discovering his peril.-Cumberland R. Co. v. Walton, 179 S. W.

(G) Contributory Negligence of Servant. 231 (Tenn.) A laborer digging a ditch held not negligent in accepting the assurances of the foreman that the ditch was not dangerous and continuing work there.-City of Chatta

245.

278 (Ky.) A prima facie case of negligence on the part of the master is not made out by proof of the breaking of a new bucket used to carry concrete, without showing the cause of the

Thomas v. National Concrete Const. Co., 179 | assumption of risk.-Pecos & N. T. Ry. Co. v.
S. W. 439.
Winkler, 179 S. W. 691.

278 (Tenn.) Proof of conformity by employer to customary usage, though making a prima facie case of nonliability, held not conclusive, but rebuttable.-Sanford-Day Iron Works v. Moore, 179 S. W. 373.

278 (Tex.Civ.App.) Evidence held sufficient to sustain finding that defendant negligently failed to provide a reasonably safe place for plaintiff to work.-Pecos & N. T. Ry. Co. v. Winkler, 179 S. W. 691.

281 (Ky.) Evidence, in a car repairer's action against a railroad for injury on its track, held to show contributory negligence.-Cumberland R. Co. v. Walton, 179 S. W. 245.

281 (Ky.) In an action by a fireman, hurt when his head came in contact with a car on a siding as he leared from the engine, his testimony held not to show that he knew of the presence of the car.-Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. Shamblen, 179 S. W. 837.

IV. LIABILITIES FOR INJURIES TO
THIRD PERSONS.

(A) Acts or Omissions of Servant.
let another person invited to ride with him,
301 (Mo.App.) Where defendant's chauffeur
take the wheel, such other person's acts were
the acts of the servant for which the defendant
was liable.-Slothower v. Clark, 179 S. W. 55.

302 (Mo.App.) The driver of defendant's automobile held within the scope of his employment when plaintiff was injured.-Slothower v. Clark, 179 S. W. 55.

302 (Mo.App.) If a servant is doing the work for which he is employed, the master is liable to a third person for an injury caused by either the manner or the mode of performance. Hellriegel v. Dunham, 179 S. W. 763.

A master is liable for the willful or malicious acts of his servant, where they are done in the course of the employment and within its scope.

281 (Tex. Civ.App.) Evidence held to sustain finding that plaintiff was not guilty of contribu--Id. tory negligence.--Pecos & N. T. Ry. Co. v. Winkler, 179 S. W. 691.

285 (Ky.) On evidence in an action for personal injury while cutting coal with a punching machine, held, that whether the machine's defective condition was the proximate cause of the injury was for the jury.-Stearns Coal & Lumber Co. v. Calhoun, 179 S. W. 590.

305 (Mo.App.) Mere orders held not to absolve the master from liability for servant's acts.-Slothower v. Clark, 179 Š. W. 55.

305 (Mo.App.) If the act of a servant is within the scope of his employment, the master will be liable, though the servant does not obey his orders as to the manner of its performance.-Hellriegel v. Dunham, 179 S. W.

763.

(C) Actions.

286 (Ark.) In action by employé injured as result of sham battle between other employés during the noon hour, employer's negligence held a question for the jury.-Barrentine v. Henry 333 (Ky.) In an action against the owner Wrape Co., 179 S. W. 328. of an automobile for damages in collision, ver286 (Ky.) In an action for the death of a in the car, exonerating the chauffeur who had dict for plaintiff against the owner, who was not miner struck by a wild empty mine car travel-driven the car, through whose negligence alone ing downgrade outside the mine, the question driven the car, through whose negligence alone of the mine company's negligence held for the the owner was liable, could not be complained of jury.-Southern Mining Co. v. Lewis' Adm'r, by such owner.-Weil v. Hagan, 179 S. W. 835.

179 S. W. 1067.

286 (Mo.App.) In an action by a switch

MATERIALITY.

man whose foot was crushed between the cou- See Evidence, 143.
plers of a car which he was attempting to cou-
ple, evidence held sufficient to submit to the
jury the negligence of the engineer in failing to

MEASURE OF DAMAGES.

stop the engine on signal.-Trowbridge v. Kan- See Damages, 108, 113. sas City & W. B. Ry. Co., 179 S. W. 777.

286 (Tex.) Where an engine crew has information giving notice that a car inspector

MECHANICS' LIENS.

II. RIGHT TO LIEN.

may leave the car on which he rides parallel See Jury, 13.
with the engine's track and put himself in posi-
tion to be struck by the engine, whether the
crew should foresee he would do so was a ques-
tion of fact for the jury.-International & G. N.
R. Co. v. Walters, 179 S. W. 854.

In an action by car inspector for injuries received in leaving a "kicked" car and running across a parallel track, where he was struck by an engine, whether its crew had notice that he might do so held for the jury under the evidence.-Id.

(D) Persons Entitled in General.

93 (Tex. Civ.App.) Person contracting to install heating and plumbing in building and abandoning contract upon owner's refusal to pay an estimate held entitled to a lien under Rev. St. 1911, art. 5621.-King v. Collins, 179 S. W. 899.

VIII. INDEMNITY AGAINST LIENS. 288 (Ky.) On evidence in a servant's action for injury while running a coal-punching ma-313 (Tex.Civ.App.) Stipulation in building chine, held, that whether he assumed the risk was for the jury.-Stearns Coal & Lumber Co. v. Calhoun, 179 S. W. 590.

289 (Ky.) The question, whether the deceased employé of a mine killed by falling stone exercised ordinary care for his own safety, held on the evidence for the jury.-Carter Coal Co. v. Prichard's Adm'r, 179 S. W. 1038.

a

contractor's bond for withholding of payment to contractor until claimants are paid held not to authorize owner to pay claims, whether there vas any liability or not.-Texas Fidelity & Bonding Co. v. Brown, 179 S. W. 1125.

MENTAL CAPACITY.

See Criminal Law, 452.

MENTAL SUFFERING.

289 (Tex.Civ.App.) Question whether coupler could have been operated from the side of the car so as to make plaintiff switchman guilty of contributory negligence in going be- See Telegraphs and Telephones, 68.

tween the cars is for the jury.-Pecos & N. T.

Ry. Co. v. Winkler, 179 S. W. 691.

291 (Tex.Civ.App.) Instruction in switch

MINES AND MINERALS.

man's action for injuries held erroneous for at- See Master and Servant, 118, 124, 157, tempting to combine contributory negligence and 199, 204, 217.

III. OPERATION OF MINES, QUAR-
RIES, AND WELLS.

13 (Ky.) As a general rule, a mortgage of property to be acquired in futuro is void as against mortgagors, creditors, or purchasers for value.-Yellow Chief Coal Co.'s Trustee V. Johnson, 179 S. W. 599; Same v. Preston, Id. 602.

(B) Mining Partnerships and Companies. 105 (Tex.Civ.App.) Rev. St. 1911, tit. 25, c. 2, art. 1121, subd. 16, as amended by Acts 34th Leg. c. 144, held not to authorize a produc-34 (Tex.Civ.App.) Where a deed, absolute ing oil company organized in a foreign state in form, was a mortgage at its inception, no to own and operate a railroad. Continental subsequent parol agreement could change its Trust Co. v. Brown, 179 S. W. 939. character.-McLemore v. Bickerstaff, 179 S. W.

[blocks in formation]

See Criminal Law, 834.

MONEY RECEIVED.

9 (Ark.) Money which has been misappropriated or obtained by fraud and afterwards paid to an innocent party cannot be recovered. -Oklahoma State Bank v. Bank of Central Arkansas, 179 S. W. 509.

536.

37 (Ky.) Parol evidence is admissible to show that a deed absolute on its face was intended as a mortgage.-Turner v. Newberry, 179 S. W. 23.

The true consideration of an absolute deed conveying property on an oral trust for the payment of debts, and providing for the accounting of proceeds, held provable by parol testimony, although fraud or mistake was not alleged.-Id.

(C) Execution and Delivery.

73 (Ky.) Where a mortgagor agreed to take a new mortgage which should not be effective until the interest on the first mortgage had been paid or settled, a recordation by the mortgagee of the new mortgage without payment of interest constituted an acceptance thereof.-Gray v. Gilliam, 179 S. W. 22.

(D) Validity.

86 (Ark.) In suit to cancel a deed of trust, evidence held insufficient to sustain allegations that plaintiff agreed to purchase the land for which notes and the deed were given only if his sister also signed the notes and executed the deed.-Davis v. Hall, 179 S. W. 323.

III. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERA

TION.

18 (Ky.) In an action against an alleged joint borrower evidence held to show that defendant's only agreement was to turn over to plaintiff, in return for latter's loan to defendant's subcontractor, all money received by de- (C) Property Mortgaged, and Estates of fendant for government work.-Citizens' Trust & Guaranty Co. v. Farmers' Bank of Estill County, 179 S. W. 29.

MONOPOLIES.

See Constitutional Law, 30, 240, 296; Statutes, 143.

Parties Therein.

139 (Tex. Civ.App.) A mortgagee, in a mortgage evidenced by a deed absolute on its face, holds only a right to have recourse to the property for satisfaction of his debt in case of default.-McLemore v. Bickerstaff, 179 S. W.

536.

One obtaining a conveyance from a grantee II. TRUSTS AND OTHER COMBINA- mortgage, acquires no title unless he is a purin a deed, absolute in form, but in fact a

TIONS IN RESTRAINT

OF TRADE.

10 (Ky.) Ky. St. §§ 3915-3921, prohibiting combines or pools to regulate or fix prices of any kind of commodity held valid.-Gay v. Brent, 179 S. W. 1051.

Ky. St. § 3941a, authorizing combinations to pool crops of wheat and tobacco held unconstitutional.-Id.

17 (Tex.Civ.App.) A contract requiring defendant to buy of plaintiff all beers which he might need, held in violation of the monopoly statute (Vernon's Sayles' Ann. Civ. St. 1914, arts. 7798, 7799, and 7807), and an action thereon could not be maintained.-Carroll v. Evansville Brewing Ass'n, 179 S. W. 1099.

MORTGAGES.

See Chattel Mortgages; Corporations, 4802, 482; Receivers, 155; Usury, 34.

I. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY. (A) Nature and Essentials of Conveyances as Security.

chaser for value and without notice that the
deed was a mortgage.-Id.

VI. TRANSFER OF PROPERTY MORT-
GAGED OR OF EQUITY OF
REDEMPTION.

274 (Tex.Civ.App.) Purchasers of land un-
der a deed of trust, who placed improvements in
good faith upon the property with a belief in the
sufficiency of the title, which they deraigned
through the mortgagor,
the mortgagor, cannot recover,
against a prior mortgage, the value of such im-
provements.-Memphis Cotton Oil Co. v. Gist,
179 S. W. 1090.

as

283 (Ky.) A vendee of real estate who assumes payment of the mortgage debt thereon is liable as principal therefor.-Gray v. Gilliam, 179 S. W. 22.

VII. PAYMENT OR PERFORMANCE
OF CONDITION, RELEASE,

AND SATISFACTION.

309 (Ky.) Where a mortgage given to release another mortgage on other property recited that the first mortgage would be released as soon as the second one was accepted and re12 (Ky.) Under Ky. St. § 2341, holder of corded, the act of recording the mortgage ipso option to purchase land held to have estate facto released the lien of the previous mortwhich could be mortgaged, and legal title sub-gage.-Gray v. Gilliam, 179 S. Ŵ. 22. sequently acquired inured to the benefit of the mortgagee.-Yellow Chief Coal Co.'s Trustee v. Johnson, 179 S. W. 599; Same v. Preston, Id.

[blocks in formation]

of the evidence.-Eureka Stone Co. v. Roach, 243 (Tex.Civ.App.) An oral contract by a 179 S. W. 499. city to furnish electricity held binding on it, Rev. St. 1911, arts. 769-771, not specifying IX. FORECLOSURE BY EXERCISE OF how such a contract shall be made.-City of Brownsville v. Tumlinson, 179 S. W. 1107.

POWER OF SALE.

356 (Tex. Civ.App.) A trustee's sale cannot be set aside because the trustee did not select the public places where notice should be posted; it appearing that, though another selected them, notices were duly posted.-Titterington v. Deutsch, 179 S. W. 279.

X. FORECLOSURE BY ACTION.

(J) Sale.

247 (Ky.) A municipality is not bound by contracts of its officers which they have no power to make, and the law does not raise any promise by the city to pay for benefits received thereunder.-City of Princeton v. Princeton Electric Light & Power Co., 179 S. W. 1074.

IX. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. (A) Power to Make Improvements Grant Aid Therefor.

or

269 (Ark.) "Street" defined as including al: parts of the way, roadway, gutters, and sidewalks.-Eickhoff v. City of Argenta, 179 S. W.

522 (Ky.) Notwithstanding resale for twothirds of the appraised value precluded redemp-265 (Ark.) Improvement districts held to tion under Ky. St. § 1684, held that a mortgag- have only powers and liabilities conferred by or could not complain that the commissioner re- statutes.-Eickhoff v. City of Argenta, 179 S. sold the property after it was knocked down at W. 367. the first sale to the mortgagee for one-fourth of its value.-Bethurum v. Baker, 179 S. W. 436. (K) Deficiency and Personal Liability. 559 (Ky.) In action to recover on notes to which wife was not a party and to foreclose 282 (Ky.) Under Ky. St. §§ 3567, 3572, mortgage executed by her, personal judgment council of city of fourth class may, in its disagainst her held erroneous. Chappell v. Frick cretion, improve only part of the width of a street, which discretion, if abused, may be corCo., 179 S. W. 203. rected.-City of Maysville v. Davis, 179 S. W. 463.

MOTIONS.

367.

and Ordi

nances or Resolutions.

See Appeal and Error, 185-242, 282-301: (B) Preliminary Proceedings
Criminal Law, 922-957; Indictment and
Information,
369.

MOTIVE.

133-147; Pleading, 355-289 (Ky.) Assessment warrants against abutting property owners for cost of reconstructing curbing and guttering under single ordinance for reconstruction of carriageway, curbing, and guttering, were not invalid under Ky. St. §§ 3565, 3566.-Weber v. Knepfle, 179 S. W. 19.

See Homicide, 166, 233.

MOTOR VEHICLES.

See Constitutional Law, 88; Homicide, 68; Licenses, 1, 512, 7, 29; Master and Servant, 301, 302; Municipal Corporations, 591.

MULTIPLICITY OF SUITS.

See Infants, 58.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS. See Counties; Electricity, 4; Evidence, 32; Highways; Intoxicating Liquors; Licenses, 52; Negligence, 23; Schools and School Districts; Street Railroads; Trial, 194.

302 (Ky.) Under Ky. St. §§ 3487, 3567, relating to cities of the fourth class, an ordinance for the original construction of a street is not valid without publication.-City of Maysville v. Davis, 179 S. W. 463.

(C) Contracts.

352 (Ark.) Under contract, paving district held not required to give contractors quantity of work stated in proposal for bids, but bound to permit them to do all work required while the contract was in force.-Burke v. Board of Improvement Paving Dist. No. 5, 179 S. W. 654.

354 (Ky.) Contract for a public improvement held to be subject to modification, either by council by valid ordinance, or by act of engineer and paving committee, if duly approved IV. PROCEEDINGS OF COUNCIL OR by the council.-City of Maysville v. Davis, 179 S. W. 463.

[blocks in formation]

362 (Ark.) Finding that paving district was not entitled to damages for delay in completing paving held warranted, where both parties had recognized that the work could not be completed within the specified time.-Burke v. Board of Improvement Paving Dist. No. 5, 179 S. W. 654.

365 (Ky.) In the absence of fraud or collusion between the council and contractors, the acceptance of an improvement by the council after having been completed in accordance with the ordinance and contract is conclusive on property owners.-City of Maysville v. Davis, 179 S. W. 463.

Where a jitney owner charged with violating an ordinance by operating a jitney without a license complains that requirements of the or-366 (Ark.) Paving district in paving streets dinance that he pay a license fee and give bond amount to a prohibition, the burden is on him to establish his contention.-Id.

held to have exercised option to do this at contractors' expense, and the contractors were entitled to the difference between the contract price and the cost to the district.-Burke v. Board of Improvement Paving Dist. No. 5, 179 S. W. 654.

VII. CONTRACTS IN GENERAL. 226 (Ky.) One contracting with a municipality must at his peril know the rights and pow-366 (Ky.) The provision of a town's charers of the officers to make contracts.-City of ter that contracts involving expenditure of more Princeton v. Princeton Electric Light & Power than $100 shall not be made by it except through Co., 179 S. W. 1074. competitive bidding does not prevent it itself

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »