Liquor Selling.
See "Intoxicating Liquors."
Local and Special Laws.
See "Constitutional Law."
Magistrate.
See "Justices of the Peace."
An averment that the aldermen, after hear- ing, announced that the charge of larceny was not sustained, and that plaintiff was discharged from arrest, sufficiently shows that the pro- ceeding ended before suit was brought.-Men- tel v. Hippely (Pa.) 1021.
An offer of testimony that, after statement to a magistrate of the facts on which a charge of larceny was based, he issued the warrant, is insufficient, as not showing that the prosecution was instituted on the advice of the magistrate. -Mentel v. Hippely (Pa.) 1021.
Mandamus will lie to compel a private cor- poration to allow a stockholder to examine its books for reasonable purposes.-State v. Swift (Del. Super.) 781.
Mandamus will lie on refusal of county com- missioners to turn over the books and papers of their office and of the county treasurer aft- er demand.-Commissioners of Cecil County v. Banks (Md.) 919.
Statements that an alleged husband never told witness he was married are not admissible. -Jackson v. Jackson (Md.) 752.
It is for the jury to decide whether, from the evidence, the marriage ought to be inferred.- Jackson v. Jackson (Md.) 752.
Individual opinion that parties were married is not admissible.-Jackson v. Jackson (Md.) 752.
Instructions in an action to determine the fact of a marriage examined, and held errone ous.-Jackson v. Jackson (Md.) 752.
MASTER AND SERVANT.
See, also, "Principal and Agent."
before the end of the term of employment, an In an action for wrongful discharge brought instruction that plaintiff's recovery must be limited to what was due at the commencement of the suit, less the amount he could have earned ever since his discharge, is properly re- fused.-Wilke v. Harrison (Pa.) 1125.
A master must provide suitable instruments and an appropriate place for the servant to work.-Mundle v. Hill Manuf'g Co. (Me.) 16.
Right of one who has an interest in the per- formance of certain work, and who assists the servants of another in doing such work, to re- cover for injuries caused by the carelessness of such servants.-Welch v. Maine Cent. R. Co. (Me.) 116.
The driver of a delivery wagon used in deliv- ering wool to customers is not the servant of the latter while attaching the articles to be de- livered to such customers' hoisting apparatus.-- Fuhrmeister v. Wilson (Pa.) 150.
In mandamus against county commissioners Where a brakeman was injured by coming in to turn over books and papers to one appointed contact with a bridge, the question of negli- treasurer, a return that another was in posses-gence was for the jury.-New York, S. & W. R. sion, whom they could not displace, is demurra- Co. v. Marion (N. J. Sup.) 316. ble where the incumbent could only hold by the appointment of such commissioners.-Commis- sioners of Cecil County v. Banks (Md.) 919. Where a road supervisor is illegally removed from office by a county commissioner, manda- mus is the proper remedy.-Miles v. Stevenson (Md.) 646.
An application for a writ to compel the coun- cil to try relator dismissed from the police force of a city will be refused after two years' delay. -Taylor v. Board of Councilmen of City of Bayonne (N. J. Sup.) 431.
Mandamus will not lie where the questions to be determined will necessarily be considered on appeal. - Commonwealth v. Thomas (Pa.) 206.
A railroad company must take ordinary care- to furnish its freight cars with such safeguards as are in ordinary use.-Dooner v. Delaware & H. Canal Co. (Pa.) 269.
ity for using a car with defective appliances, by A railroad company is not relieved from liabil- the constitutional provision that it shall re- ceive and transport cars of a connecting road without delay.-Dooner v. Delaware & H. Ca- nal Co. (Pa.) 269.
Where, in an action by a servant for personal injuries, there is no evidence of negligence on the part of the master, the court should order a nonsuit.-Elwell v. Hacker (Me.) 64.
Propriety of excluding, in an action for in- juries to an employé received in a collision, evi- dence as to whether it would have been better railroading if an order had been sent to each
See, also, "Divorce"; "Dower"; "Husband and of the two trains to look out for the other.- Wife."
What law governs, see "Conflict of Laws."
A marriage contract may be established by any legal evidence.-Clark v. Clark (N. J. Ch.) 81.
In New York where a man and woman capa- ble of marriage exchange promises, they be- come husband and wife.-Clark v. Clark (N. J. Ch.) 81.
A marriage valid under the laws of a foreign state is valid in Maryland.-Jackson v. Jack son (Md.) 752.
In order to prove marriage by reputation, the reputation should be general, and not divided. -Jackson v. Jackson (Md.) 752.
Marriage can be proved by facts justifying the inference that a religious ceremony has been performed.--Jackson v. Jackson (Md.) 752.
Kennelty v. Baltimore & O. R. Co. (Pa.) 1014. Evidence showing that a collision between two trains running in the same direction was caused by the negligence of the trainmen on the hindermost train, and not by an unsafe sched- ule or defective rules.-Kennelty v. Baltimore- & O. R. Co. (Pa.) 1014.
A yard conductor taking care of a switch in the absence of a switchman is a fellow servant of a fireman.-Parker v. New York & N. E. R. Co. (R. I.) 849.
A railroad company, which has provided a competent switchman, is not, so far as its em- ployés are concerned, required to see that he remains at his post.-Parker v. New York & N. E. R. Co. (R. I.) 849.
A master is not liable for injuries caused by the negligence of a fellow servant.-Wheatley
v. Philadelphia, W. & B. R. Co. (Del. Super.) | 660.
A brakeman signaling a following train is the fellow servant of the fireman of the train signaled.-Wheatley v. Philadelphia, W. & B. R. Co. (Del. Super.) 660.
Where the negligence relied on is the selection of incompetent fellow servants by the master, the declaration must aver such fact.-Elwell v. Hacker (Me.) 64.
Where a servant, having full knowledge of the danger, consents to work in the manner in which the business is conducted, he assumes the risk, even if reasonable precautions have been neglected by the master.-Mundle v. Hill Man- uf'g Co. (Me.) 16.
Material Men.
See "Mechanics' Liens."
A master is not liable for injuries to a serv- ant because he harshly ordered a fellow servant to immediately do certain work, when the lat- See "Damages." ter's negligence in obeying caused the injuries. -Griffin v. Glen Manuf'g Co. (N. H.) 344.
A master is not liable for injuries to an em- ployé caused by the negligence of his fellow servants.-Rehm v. Pennsylvania R. Co. (Pa.)
Where an employé was injured by the negli-
gence of another servant, whose unfitness for his position was known to defendant, the lia- bility of the latter is for the jury.-Hughes v. Baltimore & O. R. Co. (Pa.) 383.
Plaintiff, an employé of an iron company, who was injured while unloading cars, is not a fellow servant of a shifting crew in the employ of the railroad company.-Noll v. Philadelphia & R. R. Co. (Pa.) 157.
Independent contractor.
A person owing a duty to the public in the execution of any work cannot relieve himself from liability for the breach of such duty by committing the work to an independent con- tractor.-City & Suburban Ry. Co. v. Moores (Md.) 643.
Liability of turnpike company, lawfully per- mitting an independent contractor to run an engine on the turnpike, for injuries resulting from the negligent running of such engine.- City & Suburban Ry. Co. v. Moores (Md.) 643. One having work done for him by an inde pendent contractor is not liable for injuries to others resulting from the negligence of the serv- ants of the contractor in doing the work.- Knowlton v. Hoit (N. H.) 346.
Contributory negligence.
MECHANICS' LIENS.
Where a building was erected on land of the wife, with her knowledge, and without objection, her interest is liable.-Jobe v. Hunter (Pa.) 452.
After execution and sale under a mechanic's lien, it cannot be objected that the lien failed to apportion the claim between the two separate houses on which it was filed. - Reece v. Hay- maker (Pa.) 404.
A lien stating that the labor was done and material furnished in improving the separate real estate of a married woman is sufficient to charge the property.-Reece v. Haymaker (Pa.) 404.
A mechanic's lien stating the name of the owner of the building as "the estate of M. R., deceased," is sufficient. Reece v. Haymaker (Pa.) 404.
terials furnished for a house apparently owned A subcontractor is entitled to a lien for ma- by the contractor. McCollum v. Riale (Pa.) 282.
Where a life tenant under a will receives the remainder by the death of her child, the life es- tate merges in the fee. - Harrison v. Moore (Conn.) 55
See "Guardian and Ward"; "Infancy"; "Par- ent and Child."
Whether a workman repairing a car was neg- ligent in standing on the roof, whereby he was injured by a wire over the track, is for the jury. -Stoltenburg v. Pittsburgh & L. E. R. Co. (Pa.) See "Deceit"; "Fraud."
Where the evidence of absence of contributory negligence is supported only by inference, is con-
trary to probabilities, and impossible if the un- Compelling removal, see "Injunction." contradicted testimony is true, a verdict against defendant will be set aside.-Burnham v. New York P. & B. R. Co. (R. I.) 468.
Case in which a brakeman, killed, while rid- ing in front of an engine, by a collision with a wagon, resulting from failure to maintain gates or signals at a crossing, was held to have as- sumed the risk of such accident.-Bancroft v. Boston & M. R. R. (N. H.) 409.
It is not contributory negligence to make a fly- ing switch when required by the nature of the servant's employment.-Dooner v. Delaware & H. Canal Co. (Pa.) 269.
Question of contributory negligence, by use of defective appliances, is for the jury.-Dooner v. Delaware & H. Canal Co. (Pa.) 269.
It is for the jury to determine whether plain- tiff was guilty of contributory negligence in failing to exercise due care.-Noll v. Philadel- phia & R. R. Co. (Pa.) 157.
A servant does not assume a risk, where he merely knows there is some danger, without ap- preciating it.-Mundle v. Hill Manuf'g Co. (Me.) 16.
See, also, "Chattel Mortgages"; "Fixtures"; "Fraudulent Conveyances.'
Proof of claim against decedent's estate, see "Executors and Administrators." Redemption, see "Homestead."
A married woman who joins in the mortgage releasing her dower and homestead is entitled to redeem on foreclosure.-Smith v. Hall (N. H.) 409.
A mortgage given by a father for money em- bezzled by his son, and at his request, on a promise to suspend the action against the son till maturity of the note, is for a sufficient con- sideration.-Saalfield v. Manrow (Pa.) 823.
Machinery set up subsequent to, and not men- tioned in, the mortgage of realty, is not subject thereto, under Rev. St. § 1980. - Kendall v. Hathaway (Vt.) 859.
A mortgage to secure bonds to be issued will take precedence over liens accruing after the
date of its record.-Central Trust Co. of New York v. Bartlett (N. J. Sup.) 583.
Sufficiency of a mortgage given to secure a Surety on a note as regards the description of the note.-Whitney v. Hale (N. H.) 417; Chen- v. Peterborough Sav. Bank, Id.; Vail v. Hudson Nat. Bank, Id.
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS.
See, also, "Bridges"; "Counties"; " Highways";
"Poor and Poor Laws"; "Schools and School Districts."
Excavation in street, see "Limitation of Ac- tions."
The validity of a mortgage made to secure Question whether there was sufficient notice. the signer of a note from loss thereon does not given to the inhabitants of a borough of the ap depend upon the mortgagee's knowledge of the pointment of a commission to consider the pro- extent of his rights thereunder, or his knowl-priety of dividing the borough into wards.- edge of its existence.-Whitney v. Hale (N. H.) In re Borough of Columbia (Pa.) 6; Appeal of 417; Cheney v. Peterborough Sav. Bank, Id.; Lancaster County, Id. Vail v. Hudson Nat. Bank, Id.
An assignee of a mortgage takes it subject to an order by the mortgagee on the mortgagor, ac- cepted before the assignment, though without knowledge thereof.-In re Geiger (Pa.) 262; Ap- peal of Rumbaugh, Id.
Evidence bearing on question whether a mort- gage was given to secure only the first six months' rent of a building, or as a continuing security for any rent that might become due. - Horn v. Hutchinson (Pa.) 152.
Where several of a series of notes secured by mortgage are assigned, a proportionate interest in the mortgage passes with the notes.-Bartlett v. Wade (Vt.) 4.
Where one gives a mortgagor money to pur- chase one of a series of mortgage notes of the mortgagee, and he conceals his agency, and ten- ders the money as payment, the purchaser can- not enforce the note as against the mortgagee. Bartlett v. Wade (Vt.) 4.
Release and satisfaction.
Where the executor of an estate lent part of a fund to one having an interest in remainder therein, the mortgage securing such loan was extinguished by the amount of the mortgagor's distributive share upon the ending of the life estate.--Henderson v. Stryker (Pa.) 386.
A part of the mortgaged property first sold by the mortgagor may be relieved from the lien by a release of a part last sold, the mortgagee hav- ing knowledge of the previous sale.-Turner v. Sharpneck (Pa.) 486.
Testimony showing that payments have been made on a mortgage, and that a certain amount remains due, is a competent reply to the pre- sumption of payment of said mortgage by the lapse of time.-Turner v. Sharpneck (Pa.) 486. Where assignees of mortgages consent to, and receive the proceeds of, the sale by the mortga- gors of timber on the mortgaged land, they can- not afterwards appropriate the timber, on the mortgages. Fredonia Nat. Bank v. Borden (Pa.) 975; Appeal of Collins, Id.
Foreclosure and sale.
Where one buys land under a contract, the title to the crops to remain in the vendor until the installment of the price for that year is paid, it is a common-law mortgage of the crops, and it cannot be foreclosed separately from the mortgage on the land.-Whitney v. Adams (Vt.)
A terre tenant not a party to foreclosure may intervene.-Packer v. Owens (Pa.) 314.
Where necessary for the administration of an estate, the court will order surplus money aris- ing on foreclosure to be paid to personal rep- resentative of the owner of the equity.-Salaun v. Hartshorne (N. J. Ch.) 181.
In a proceeding by scire facias sur mortgage, the fact that the sheriff returned on the first writ, "non est," renders the judgment voida- ble merely.-Brundred v. Egbert (l'a.) 503.
A mortgage containing a power of sale, and authorizing payment of all expenses out of the proceeds, does not entitle the mortgagee to commissions on the sale. -Johnson v. Glenn (Md.) 993.
Under a city charter providing that the coun- cil shall designate two official newspapers by ballot, no member to vote for more than one, and three papers receive the same number of votes, there is a tie requiring the mayor to vote for two of the papers.-Wooster v. Mullins (Conn.) 144.
A borough on which is imposed the duty of making regulations necessary for the health and cleanliness of the borough may be indicted for permitting its sewers to become a public nuisance.-Commonwealth v. Bredin (Pa.) 921.
A city does not hold property, acquired for the purpose of furnishing water to its inhabit- ants, as a private corporation, so that the leg- islature cannot modify the management thereof at will.-Coyle v. Gray (Del. Err. & App.) 728.
A municipal corporation being merely an agency of the state, the legislature may change its internal government at pleasure.-Coyle v. Gray (Del. Err. & App.) 728.
Ordinances and resolutions.
Where no particular mode has been prescribed by the legislature, any authorized municipal ac- tion may be taken by resolution as effectively as by ordinance.-Brady v. City of Bayonne (N. J. Sup.) 968.
The city of Baltimore has power, by ordi- nances, to prohibit the sale of impure milk.- Deems v. Mayor and City Council of Balti- more (Md.) 648.
The misrecital in a city ordinance of the source of the power by which the ordinance is passed does not invalidate it.-City of Baltimore v. Ulman (Md.) 43.
The board of police commissioners, under city charter of Bridgeport (section 58), can remove a captain of police, after trial, for disobedience of order.-State v. Rusling (Conn.) 758.
Liability of borough officers, after their with- drawal from office, for costs of their prosecu- tion for maintaining a public nuisance.-Com- monwealth v. Bredin (Pa.) 921.
An indictment against B., burgess, and K. and others, councilmen, of the borough of L., held to be an indictment against them in their official capacity.-Commonwealth v. Bredin (Pa.) 921.
A street commissioner, in the construction of a public sewer, at the expense of the city, act- ing under the orders of the mayor, is not the agent of the city, so as to render it liable for any trespass committed by him.-Gilpatrick v. City of Biddeford (Me.) 99.
By electing municipal officers to superintend construction of public drain, a town incurs no liability for damages by their misconduct.-Gil- patrick v. City of Biddeford (Me.) 99. Contracts.
Under Pub. Laws 1888, p. 366, the board of councilmen of the city of Bayonne is empowered to contract for a further water supply.-Brady V. City of Bayonne (N. J. Sup.) 968.
A provision in a city contract for a water plant that certain facts shall be indorsed on the bonds issued by the contractors, and that the payment of rentals shall be made to the trus-
tees for the bondholders, does not involve a loaning of credit by the city, or its becoming security for any person.-Brady v. City of Bay- onne (N. J. Sup.) 968.
Applicability of Pub. Laws 1894, p. 280, pro- viding for bids or proposals to be asked for by the board of councilmen, to the making of a con- tract for a water supply.-Brady v. City of Bay- onne (N. J. Sup.) 968.
A contract by a city for a water supply, which was silent as to the source of supply, is not in- valid because there is a possibility of the direct- ors bringing the supply from outside the state, in which case the city might be unable to exer- cise its option of the contract.-Brady v. City of Bayonne (N. J. Sup.) 968.
It is within the discretion of council to con- tract for lighting the streets of a borough to promote the comfort and convenience of its citizens.-Wade v. Borough of Oakmont (Pa.)
Act May 23, 1874, vests discretionary, and not merely ministerial, powers in municipal offi- cers in regard to the awarding of contracts. Interstate Vitrified Brick & Paving Co. v. City of Philadelphia (Pa.) 383.
Liability for torts and negligence.
No action will lie against a town where the highway surveyor, by cleaning out the culverts, caused the surface water to flow on plaintiff's land more freely than before.-Gardiner v. In- habitants of Camden (Me.) 13.
A city has not constructive notice of defects in a sidewalk not observable by persons passing over it.-Lohr v. Borough of Philipsburg (Pa.)
No right of action exists against a city for injuries through the unrepaired condition of a street, under Act March 23, 1859, § 20.-Carter v. City of Rahway (N. J. Err. & App.) 863. Whether the plaintiff injured by the defective sidewalk was guilty of contributory negligence is for the jury.-Biggs v. Borough of West Newton (Pa.) 204.
Evidence of the condition of a sidewalk two days after an accident thereon is admissible where there has been no change.-Lohr v. Bor- ough of Philipsburg (Pa.) 822.
Public improvements.
Under Act May 16, 1891, § 9, authorizing the opening of streets by ordinance, the petition must be signed by a majority in interest and number of owners of property abutting on the parts to be opened.-Speer v. City of Pittsburgh (Pa.) 1013.
Right of city, after having received assess- ments for improvements levied under unconsti- tutional statute, to demand payment of another assessment, levied under a subsequent statute. -City of Pittsburgh v. Logan (Pa.) 1017.
The question whether property in a special assessment is urban, and subject to the front- foot rule, or rural, is one of fact for the jury. -City of McKeesport v. Soles (Pa.) 1019.
Where an unauthorized change of grade is made by the agents of a city, it may ratify the work, and recover the expense of the abutting owners. In re Grading of Shiloh Street (Pa.) 986; Appeal of McCormick, Id.
Where a judgment in favor of an abutting owner against a city by the proposed change of grade is reversed, and the city repeals the or- dinance, proceedings will be quashed on pay- ment of plaintiff's costs.-In re Grade of San- dusky Street (Pa.) 983; Appeal of City of Alle- gheny, Id.
A city is not liable to an abutting owner for damages for change of grade of a way which it by mistake assumed to be a public street. - Huckestein v. City of Allegheny (Pa.) 982. v.30 A.-74
Where a city erroneously assumes that a cer- tain way is a public street, an abutting owner can recover of the city the expense incurred in showing that it has no rights in such way.- Huckestein v. City of Allegheny (Pa.) 982.
Property which does not abut on the line of a public improvement is not subject to assess- ment.-In re Fifty-Fourth Street (Pa.) 503; Ap- peal of City of Pittsburgh, Id.
Construction of acts providing for the im- provement of streets, as to the necessity of no- tice previous to the passage of an ordinance for such improvements.-City of Baltimore v. Ul- man (Md.) 43.
Right of collector to sell property assessed for street improvements under Acts 1892, c. 284.- City of Baltimore v. Ulman (Md.) 43.
Right of legislature, after the making of a street improvement under an invalid ordinance, to authorize the collection of the cost from the property benefited.-City of Baltimore v. Ulman (Md.) 43.
Validity of Acts 1892, c. 284, authorizing cities to provide for the levy of a special tax for pub- lic improvements on property benefited when the original assessment was void.-City of Balti- more v. Ulman (Md.) 43.
Validity of statute providing for street im- provements which does not provide for a hear- ing as to the aggregate amount of expense.- City of Baltimore v. Ulman (Md.) 43.
When a majority of abutting owners petition for the paving of a street, a publication of a no- tice of the improvement is not necessary to an order providing therefor.-Oil City v. Lay (Pa.) 289.
Proceedings to assess damages to abutting property caused by the opening of a street are not admissible to affect a claim for damages to the same property caused by the subsequent widening of another street.-Markle v. City of Philadelphia (Pa.) 149.
The repair of a street at the expense of the city is not an original paving, such as will pre- ting owners.-City of Philadelphia v. Hill (Pa.) vent a future paving at the expense of the abut-
The valuation referred to in Const. art. 9, § 8, and Act April 20, 1874, relating to city in- debtedness, is the valuation fixed by the city authorities as a basis of taxation for city pur- poses, and not the valuation by county officers for county purposes.-Bruce v. City of Pitts- burgh (Pa.) 831.
The increase of indebtedness under Acts April 20, 1874, and June 9, 1891, must be pre- ceded by the levy of a tax equal to at least 8 per cent. of such increased indebtedness before the issue of bonds or certificates for such in- debtedness.-Bruce v. City of Pittsburgh (Pa.)
It is in the discretion of the city council whether the loans made under Acts April 20, 1874, and June 9, 1891. are matured in 10, 20, or 30 years.-Bruce v. City of Pittsburgh (Pa.) 831.
An annual sum to be paid monthly for light- ing streets for a limited term is not the incur- ring of a new indebtedness, within the meaning of Const. art. 9, § 8, and Act 1874, limiting municipal indebtedness.-Wade v. Borough of Oakmont (Pa.) 959.
Liability of officers of a borough, or of the borough itself, to an action by taxpayers on account of its payment of part of the debts of the borough from which it was formed, with- out a decree to that effect.-Wade v. Borough of Oakmont (Pa.) 959.
A new borough, formed by detaching part of the territory of another, cannot levy a special
Of railroad company, see "Railroad Compa- nies.'
Of street railroad, see "Horse and Street Rail- roads."
It is actionable negligence for one while ad- justing the hammer of a loaded revolver to hold it so that an accidental discharge would injure another.-Judd v. Ballard (Vt.) 96.
A contractor is not liable for injuries caused by the bursting of a sewer, where he had com- pleted the work, and the city had assumed the control. First Presbyterian Congregation V. Smith (Pa.) 279. ·
A contractor is not liable for injuries caused by the bursting of a sewer completed under di- rection of the city in a manner claimed to be negligent.-First Presbyterian Congregation v. Smith (Pa.) 279.
Evidence examined, and held not to show neg- ligence of defendant in furnishing a defective car.-Rehm v. Pennsylvania R. Co. (Pa.) 356. Sufficiency of evidence to show negligence on the part of an electric light company in suspend- ing a lamp so insecurely that it fell, and in- jured one thereunder.-Excelsior Electric Co. v. Sweet (N. J. Sup.) 553.
Liability of street contractor for injuries re- ceived by plaintiff from the piling of bricks on plaintiff's sidewalk by the contractor without sufficient lights thereon.-Mayor v. Everson (R. I.) 626.
Where a gas company pays judgments for damages by explosions caused by a traction company excavating about the main so as to al- low it to settle and leak, the traction company is liable over.-Philadelphia Co. v. Central Trac- tion Co. (Pa.) 934.
Evidence examined, and held, that the speed of a grip car, and not the negligence of a third person, was the proximate cause of the injury to plaintiff.-Thatcher v. Central Traction Co. (Pa.) 1048.
Where horses on a ferry-boat are frightened by the whistle of a steamer, and a horse jumps against and breaks a defective rail, and is thrown into the water and drowned, the defec- tive rail is the proximate cause thereof.-Stur- gis v. Kountz (Pa.) 976.
Question whether one who drove into an ex- cavation in a street was warned thereof by the presence of fresh dirt, stones, and tools in the neighborhood of the excavation. - Rowell v. Stamford St. R. Co. (Conn.) 131.
The question of the negligence of defendant, and the contributory negligence of plaintiff, where the evidence is conflicting, is for the jury. -Gray v. Floersheim (Pa.) 397.
Where the testimony renders the questions of negligence and contributory negligence ques- tions of fact, the case should not be withdrawn from the jury. - Kilkeary v. Thackery (Pa.) 1013.
Where a driver failed to use care to relieve his horse, who was entangled in a harness, whereby he ran away, the disposition of the horse was immaterial on the question of negli- gence. Whissler v. Walsh (Pa.) 981.
In an action by an assignee of a note, plaintiff need not prove title because of an allegation of want of consideration, by reason of a de- fect in the article for which the note was given. -Second Nat. Bank of Clarion v. Morgan (Pa.) 957.
75 per cent. of its face value is inconsistent with An allegation that plaintiff paid for a note an allegation that it was not obtained for value. Second Nat. Bank of Clarion v. Morgan (Pa.) 957.
An affidavit of defense, in an action by an indorsee on a note, that it was obtained with knowledge of fraud, is insufficient, if it does not allege the facts on which to found the be- lief of the maker.-Second Nat. Bank of Clarion v. Morgan (Pa.) 957.
A bona fide holder can recover, though he took the note under circumstances which ought to have excited his suspicion that the payee obtained it by fraud.-Second Nat. Bank of Clarion v. Morgan (Pa.) 957.
One who signs on the back of a note, before delivery, a waiver of demand and notice, and a guaranty of the full payment, is a joint maker. -Jackson Bank v. Irons (R. I.) 420.
Where a note provided for payments in truck- ing monthly, in 24 months, the payments are to be made in consecutive months following the date of the note, and an action may be main- tained for such payments before the expiration of 24 months.-Hobbs v. Moore (Me.) 110.
NEW TRIAL.
In criminal cases, see "Criminal Law."
A new trial will not be granted where its re- sult, on the admitted facts of the case, will not be different from that of the former trial.-Gil- bert v. Walker (Conn.) 132.
A new trial will be denied where the newly- discovered evidence is unimportant and cumu- lative.-Dodge v. Dodge (Me.) 14; Dodge V. Page, Id.
Sufficiency of evidence to show that defend- See "Judgment." ant negligently left heavy bags suspended from a hoisting apparatus on their building so as to fall on plaintiff while passing below.-Fuhr- meister v. Wilson (Pa.) 150.
See "Practice in Civil Cases."
« 이전계속 » |