See "Dedication"; "Highways"; "Municipal Hamlin (Me.) 76. Corporations."
Right of one indebted on a note, after having paid to the state treasurer a tax of 1 per cent. for five years, to have the board of relief de- duct the amount of the note from his tax list.
Of insurer to judgment recovered by insured, Tallcott v. Town of Glastonbury (Conn.) 764. see "Insurance."
The excess only of the value of bank stock over a debt for which it is pledged is taxable against a nonresident.-Town of Farmington v. Downing (N. H.) 345.
A collector and his sureties are liable for all the taxes collected on the duplicate delivered to them, either during the term for which the bond was given or afterwards. - Commonwealth v. Stambaugh (Pa.) 293.
Effect, on liability of principal and sureties on tax collector's bond for a balance due the school district, of the failure of the directors of the dis- trict to deliver to the tax collector their war- rant with the tax duplicate.-Commonwealth v. Stambaugh (Pa.) 293.
Assessment and levy.
A finding by a court on appeal from the valu- ation of capital stock of a corporation by the auditor and state treasurer for taxation will not be disturbed.-Commonwealth v. Delaware, S. & S. R. Co. (Pa.) 522.
Where the assessors intentionally omit prop- erty of a corporation liable to taxation, the as- sessment is illegal.-McTwiggan v. Hunter (R. I.) 962.
Where notice of an assessment is not given as required by Pub. St. c. 43, § 6, the assessment is invalid.-McTwiggan v. Hunter (R. I.) 962.
Equity will take jurisdiction of a suit by a taxpayer, where the illegality of the assessment extends to the whole tax.-McTwiggan v. Hunt- er (R. I.) 962.
Where the state board increases the valuation of a taxing district under Act March 19, 1891, § 8, it should add the increased valuation to the valuations of the other taxing districts, and ap- portion a tax to be raised among such districts in the proportion of the valuation of each to the total valuations.-Township of East Brunswick v. City of New Brunswick (N. J. Err. & App.) 684.
Mode of assessment of mortgage given to an administrator, and belonging to a fund in which a certain person had a life interest.- Dilts v. Taylor (N. J. Sup.) 599.
In determining the value of the capital stock of a corporation under St. June 8, 1891, the value of the franchise owned by the corporation should be considered.-Commonwealth v. Dela- ware, S. & S. R. Co. (Pa.) 522.
It is in the discretion of the court, after judg- ment on appeal from the valuation of capital stock, to consider a loss affecting its valuation which accrued after the hearing. Common- wealth v. Delaware, S. & S. R. Co. (Pa.) 522.
returned to the appeal tax court shows that per- Where a copy of the inventory of a decedent the assessment roll for the current year, it may sonal property of decedent was omitted from be added to the roll, though the inventory was not returned until May.-Hopkins v. Van Wyck (Md.) 556.
Method of fixing the value of the capital stock of a corporation under the act of 1891.-Com- monwealth v. Edgerton Coal Co. (Pa.) 125.
The remedy for an overassessment is by ap- peal, and not by a defense to suit to collect the tax.-Town of Farmington v. Downing (N. H.)
In debt to recover state, county, and city tax- es assessed in sclido, it is no defense to the state and county taxes that the city tax is invalid.- City of Rockland v. Farnsworth (Me.) 68.
Where a deed was duly presented for registry, and was registered in the name of "H. et al.," instead of in the name of all the defendants. a sale for taxes without designating the names of the owners, and without service on them, is void. Fryer v. Magill (Pa.) 191.
In a sale for nonpayment, a want of copy of the record of the state treasurer's doings, a failure to show for what years the taxes were assessed, and whether assessed by the county commissioners or by the legislature, and a fail- ure to prove publication and notice of sale, are fatal.-Skowhegan Sav. Bank v. Parsons (Me.)
The following description: "9,098 acres in 2 R. 2 W. K. R. Highland," is defective. Skowhegan Sav. Bank v. Parsons (Me.) 110.
A treasurer's deed of land sold for taxes is invalid, and passes no title without acknowledg- ment in open court.-Lee v. Newland (Pa.) 258.
Contradictory entries on the treasurer's sales book as to whether or not there were adjourned sales in January, 1859, are insufficient to im- peach the recitals of a treasurer's deed that such adjourned sales were held.-Lee v. New- land (Pa.) 258.
Liability for injury from surface water, see "Surface Water."
support of paupers, see "Poor and Poor Laws."
An act annexing "all the inhabitants of South Hampton and their estates" to another town did not convey uninhabited land in the former town.-Seabrook v. Fowler (N. H.) 414.
Effect of Act June 26, 1822, providing that all lands east of a certain line shall belong to the town of Seabrook for the purpose of taxa- tion, and for other legal purposes, as regards the title to land within such limits previously vested in another town.-Seabrook v. Fowler (N. H.) 414.
A corporation engaged in an illegal business cannot enjoin another corporation from using a similar name.-Portsmouth Brewing Co. v. Portsmouth Brewing & Bottling Co. (N. H.) 346.
Sufficiency of proof of acknowledgment of treasurer's deed, the certificate reciting that it was made in open court, but the minute docket containing no report thereof.-Lee v. Newland See "Injunction." (Pa.) 258.
Sufficiency of treasurer's deed as prima facie evidence of the facts recited, it containing a re- ceipt for the purchase money not signed by the treasurer, and a faint ring in the usual place for the seal of the court.-Lee v. Newland (Pa.) 258.
TENANCY IN COMMON.
See, also, "Partition."
The possession of the common property by one tenant for 29 years does not constitute an ac tual ouster of his cotenants.-Milbourn v. David (Del. Super.) 971.
The purchase, by a tenant in common, of a life estate in the property, does not extinguish the life estate, nor inure to the benefit of all the cotenants. - McLaughlin v. McLaughlin (Md.) 607.
A tenant in common, who alone occupies the common property, is not liable to his coten- ants for rent unless their actual ouster by him is proved.-McLaughlin v. McLaughlin (Md.)
Evidence of, see "Homicide."
License to cut, see "License."
Of acts, see "Statutes."
To maintain ejectment, see "Ejectment." trespass, see "Trespass."
See "Death by by Wrongful Act"; "Deceit"; "Fraud"; "Libel and Slander"; "Malicious Prosecution"; "Negligence"; "Nuisance"; "Trespass"; "Trover and Conversion." Liability of municipal corporations, see "Munic ipal Corporations."
Final judgment, stay, see "Abatement and Re- vival."
Sufficiency of plea, in an action for trespass to land by cattle, it alleging that plaintiff, having maintained a gate in the fence between their closes for 15 years, tore it down, and so allowed the cattle to enter his close.-Carpenter v. Cook (Vt.) 998.
Measure of damages in an action against a sheriff for his wrongful seizure of property on execution. Kirkley v. Lacey (Del. Super.) 994.
the land in suit, adjoining land conveyed to Sufficiency of evidence of plaintiff's title to him, which was somewhat less than called for by his deed, the land in suit never having be- longed to his grantors.-Dubuque v. Coman (Conn.) 777.
possession, though it was not properly execut- Admissibility of deed to plaintiff to define his ed under a power in a will.-Dubuque v. Coman (Conn.) 777.
In an action for an unlawful ouster by a pur- chaser at sheriff's sale, the question as to wheth- er defendant's entry was peaceable, or with overpowering numbers and a strong hand, was for the jury.-Frick v. Fiscus (Pa.) 515.
The measure of damages for cutting timber is its value when cut and hauled to market.-Whit- ney v. Adams (Vt.) 32.
Where a mortgagee willfully despoils the mort- gagor's premises. to prevent him from raising the money necessary to redeem from the mort- gage, it constitutes trespass.-Whitney v. Ad- ams (Vt.) 32.
An equitable title is sufficient on which to maintain trespass against a mere wrongdoer.- Irvin v. Patchin (Pa.) 436.
The owner of unimproved and unoccupied land will be deemed in possession for the pur- pose of maintaining trespass.-Irvin v. Patchin (Pa.) 436.
Right of recovery of damages for possible profits which plaintiff might have made by the cultivation of land from which he was evicted. and which he thought of planting with tobacco. -Irwin v. Nolde (Pa.) 246.
Trespass lies for an injury caused by an ac- cidental shot from a revolver carelessly held by another.-Judd v. Ballard (Vt.) 96.
See, also, "Appeal"; "Certiorari"; "Evidence"; "Judgment"; "Jury"; "New Trial": "Plead ing"; "Practice in Civil Cases"; "Witness." Continuance, see "Justices of the Peace." In criminal cases, see "Criminal Law."
It is a question for the court whether clauses in the description of land are repugnant.-Rath- bun v. Geer (Conn.) 60.
The materiality of evidence must be shown in the trial court.-Dunham v. Boyd (Conn.) 62.
Where a party requests submission of a ques- tion to the jury, he cannot complain that there was no evidence to warrant a submission. Means v. Gridley (Pa.) 390.
Remarks of counsel.
Where, upon objections to the remarks of counsel, the court ordered the jury to disregard them, exceptions will not lie, and the only rem- edy is by a motion addressed to the discretion of the court. Sherman v. Maine Cent. R. Co. (Me.) 69.
Where unwarranted remarks of counsel are retracted, and the jury are not influenced there- by, the verdict will not be disturbed.-Furnald v. Burbank (N. H.) 409.
A remark by counsel to the jury in a person- al injury case, that "when people get $1,200 or $1,500 for a fracture, is $3,000 too much in this case?" is improper.-Noble v. City of Ports- mouth (N. H.) 419.
Error in isolating portions of a charge is not ground for reversal where the charge, taken as a whole, could not have been injurious to appel- lant.-Whitmire v. Montgomery (Pa.) 1016. Instructions, in effect directing a verdict by belittling defendant's evidence, are erroneous. Heydrick v. Hutchinson (Pa.) 819.
A charge submitting to the jury a question of law is properly refused.-Caledonian Ins. Co. of Scotland v. Traub (Md.) 904.
for plaintiff if the jury believe his testimony.- White v. Blanchard (Pa.) 204. Special verdict.
A special finding, which is signed neither by the foreman nor the jury, nor read to them by the clerk, cannot be entered as a verdict after the jury's discharge.-Rose v. Harvey (R. I.) 459.
Mandamus will not lie to compel a court to re- ceive a special verdict until the jury has found on all the special issues.-Rose v. Harvey (R. I.) 459.
Right of wife, paying part of purchase mon- A charge presenting a hypothesis of fact not ey for land deeded to her husband, to a re- supported by the evidence is properly refused.-sulting trust in her favor, though she does not Caledonian Ins. Co. of Scotland v. Traub (Md.) pay the money all at once.-Gilchrist v. Brown (Pa.) 839.
Effect of instructions as curing erroneous rul- ings throughout the trial, up to the delivery of the charge to the jury.-Bergen Neck Ry. Co. v. Point Breeze Ferry & Imp. Co. (N. J. Err. & App.) 584.
Requests which assume controverted facts are properly refused.-Means v. Gridley (Pa.) 390.
An instruction is improper when there is no evidence on which to base it.-Dooner v. Dela- ware & H. Canal Co. (Pa.) 269.
Where the court in his charge groups the im- portant testimony of the plaintiff, but makes no mention of the circumstances corroborative of defendant's claim, the judgment for plaintiff will be reversed.-Young v. Merkel (Pa.) 196.
Instructions which assume the existence of facts not proved, or which are not applicable to any evidence in the case, are properly refused. -Markle v. City of Philadelphia (Pa.) 149. Taking case from jury.
Though the testimony tending to sustain the defense is slight, it is proper to refuse to di- rect a verdict for plaintiff.-Shoninger v. Lati- mer (Pa.) 985.
Where defendants offer no testimony, and plaintiff testifies that a certain amount is due him for work, it justifies an instruction to find
Where a wife paid part of the purchase price of land, she is entitled to be repaid, and to interest after the husband sold the land, and treated the proceeds as his own. - Moore v. Moore (Pa.) 932.
ing trust is that proportion which the amount The interest held by a beneficiary of a result- of the purchase price paid by him bears to the whole price.-Collins v. Corson (N. J. Ch.) 862. Trustees.
Trustees with a discretionary power to sell cannot delegate the discretion, but, having de- termined to sell, and fixed a price, they may authorize an agent to contract on their terms.- Keim v. Lindley (N. J. Ch.) 1063; Same v. Griffith, Id.
Sufficiency of evidence in support of a petition for the removal of testamentary trustees unless they give bond.-Black v. Herring (Md.) 917; Herring v. Black, Id.
A trustee who has actually received the funds of the estate cannot discharge himself from lia- bility therefor by showing that they were lost by his own neglect.-Lindsley v. Dodd (N. J. Ch.) 896.
A trustee investing the trust funds in personal securities does so at his own peril.-Hunt v. Gontrum (Md.) 620.
Liability of a testamentary trustee, who ac- cepted from the executor, in payment of the legacy, unsecured notes in lieu of money, and failed to collect them for 10 years.-Hunt v. Gontrum (Md.) 620.
Question whether the beneficiary of a trust acquiesced in the failure of the trustee to col- lect certain notes by stating that he presumed they could be collected at any time.-Hunt v. Gontrum (Md.) 620.
The amount paid by a trustee to his bonds- men for becoming his sureties is not chargeable against the estate. In re Eby's Estate (Pa.) 124.
TURNPIKES AND TOLL ROADS.
A turnpike company is not relieved from lia- bility for an accident on a bridge belonging to it by the fact that it used ordinary care to re- pair the bridge.-Washington, C. & A. Turnpike v. Case (Md.) 71.
Liability of turnpike company for accident oc- curring on its bridge through the accidental displacement of a single plank, which it could not, with reasonable diligence, have known.- Washington, C. & A. Turnpike v. Case (Md.)
VENDOR AND PURCHASER
See, also, "Covenants"; "Deed"; "Fraudu- lent Conveyances"; "Sale"; "Specific Per- formance."
where the evidence was conflicting as to the In an action to recover the price of land, sale, it was a question for the jury.-Reed v. Klaus (Pa.) 1005.
stipulating for liquidated damages in case of A provision in a contract for the sale of land breach by the vendor held not to apply to a willful breach, but only to failure to make title
after a bona fide effort to do so.-O'Connor v. Tyrrell (N. J. Ch.) 1061.
Where a vendor contracts to sell certain land, "being the same property described in a deed from" a certain bank in fee simple, clear of in- cumbrances, he complies with such contract where he follows the language of the deed from the bank, though it shows the land subject to a private way.-Heppenstall v. O'Donnell (Pa.) 1003.
A provision in a lease that the lessee may buy the land at the option of the parties means that the lessee may buy at his own option.-Mack v. Dailey (Vt.) 686.
Question whether a title under the foreclo- The right of one to recover for injuries re- sure of a mechanic's lien was a marketable title. ceived on a bridge belonging to a turnpike com--Reece v. Haymaker (Pa.) 404. pany is independent of the question whether he had paid his toll.-Washington, C. & A. Turn- pike v. Case (Md.) 571.
A bridge constructed by a private corporation is a part of a highway, subject to the right of the corporation to exact reasonable tolls.-Pitts- burgh & W. E. Pass. Ry. Co. v. Point Bridge Co. (Pa.) 511.
Townships are not obliged to work an aban- doned turnpike unless it was originally a high- way.-Zimmermann v. Township Committees of Bergen and Boiling Springs (N. J. Sup.) 180.
See "Corporations."
Sale of property, see "Associations."
Construction of certain reservations in sales of land as to timber rights thereon, as to wheth- er they were merely to enforce a reservation by a predecessor in title as to the merchantable timber on the land at the time of the latter reservation.-Irvin v. Patchin (Pa.) 436. Bona fide purchaser.
Sufficiency of evidence of possibility of a suit being brought to set aside the deed made to the plaintiff's grantor to justify defendant in re- fusing to file his contract of purchase, it ap- pearing that plaintiff was a bona fide purchaser. -Levy v. Iroquois Bldg. Co. of Baltimore City (Md.) 707.
Where a deed of land acknowledges receipt of the purchase price, though notes are given for a part thereof, the grantor cannot, as against a subsequent purchaser without notice that all the price is not paid, claim a vendor's lien. Maryland Land & Permanent Home- stead Ass'n of Baltimore County v. Moore (Md.) 605.
Venue in Criminal Cases.
Where a lessor breaks a covenant of the lease, Of offense, see "Criminal Law." and the benefit received by the lessee from his use of the premises is more than the damage from the breach of covenant, the excess may be
recovered in an action for use and occupation. See "Trial.” Meredith Mechanic Ass'n v. American Twist- Drill Co. (N. H.) 1119.
See, also, "Building and Loan Associations."
Act Cong. June 3, 1864, § 30, relating to usury by national banks, does not apply to the discounting for the payee of a note given in payment of an article, and stipulating for legal interest. Second Nat. Bank of Clarion v. Mor- gan (Pa.) 957.
See "Master and Servant."
See "Municipal Corporations."
Voluntary Payment.
Money paid on usurious contract in excess of the principal and legal interest may be recov- See "Elections and Voters." ered.-Taylor v. Hintze (N. J. Sup.) 551.
Where an upper landowner, by pumping, in- creases the quantity of water, and changes it to salt, thereby injuring a lower landowner, he is liable if he could prevent the injury by rea- sonable care and expenditure. - Pfeiffer v. Brown (Pa.) 844.
See, also, "Easements"; "Highways."
probate to a will, the prerogative court will pass de novo upon the right to probate, and will review the entire evidence, and, if neces- sary, take additional proofs.-Sanderson v. San- derson (N. J. Prerog.) 326.
Sufficiency of evidence to entitle the pro- ponent of a will which could not be found after testator's death to an issue as to whether the will had been revoked.-In re Gardner's Estate (Pa.) 300.
Propriety of admitting to probate a will pre- sented 13 years after the death of the maker, and after litigation in the courts of another state over another will purporting to be his last will.-Gordon v. Old (N. J. Err. & App.) 19.
In the contest of a will, where the testator is not alleged to have been generally insane, but to have been governed by peculiar religious views, the question to be determined is: "Was the testator the victim of delusions which ren- der him insensible to his parental obligations, so as to cause him to give his estate to certain right-In re Trich's Will (Pa.) 1053; Appeal of Tay institutions, instead of to his own children?" of lor, Id.
One who, in a deed of land, reserves a of way, cannot build a fence on the right way.-Moffitt v. Lytle (Pa.) 922.
See "Dower"; "Executors and Administrators"; "Homestead."
See, also, "Descent and Distribution"; "Exec- utors and Administrators."
Alteration of record, see "Register of Wills." Charitable devise, see "Charities." Deed or will, see "Deed."
Devise in lieu of dower, see "Dower." Testamentary powers, see "Powers."
All the lands included in a residuary devise, including those which descend in consequence of the death of one of the residuary devisees, are equally liable to the discharge of debts, costs, and expenses.-Hattersley v. Bissett (N. J. Ch.) 86.
A devise of land by one holding as devisee of one indebted is not such a transfer of title as will divest a lien of creditors of the devisor.- Salaun v. Hartshorne (N. J. Ch.) 181.
Evidence considered, and held, there was no such violation of the conditions of the will as to cause the revocation of a devise. In re White's Estate (Pa.) 192.
Paper giving certain land, dated three weeks before signer's suicide, and found in his room after death, addressed to grantee, is a will.- Tozer v. Jackson (Pa.) 400.
The fact that a will executed by a single woman, which was revoked by her subsequent marriage, was admitted to probate, does not prevent an after-born child from claiming its distributive share, in opposition to the will.- In re Craft's Estate (Pa.) 493; Appeal of Mar- tin, Id.
The validity of the execution of a will is de- termined by the law in force at testator's death, -Langley v. Langley (R. 1.) 465.
A will will not be construed when the inter- est of the party applying therefor is contingent and uncertain.-Wahl v. Brewer (Md.) 654.
Where a person exercised the power of dis- position of certain property by a will, an exer- cise of the power by a written instrument subse- quently making a different disposition of the fund revoked the will.-Paine v. Forsaith (Me.)
On appeal from a decree of an orphans' court, based on the verdict of a jury which denies v.3) A.-75
Where the evidence does not show that the testator's mind was so controlled by his peculiar views as to prevent his exercising a rational judgment in the disposition of his property, the will should be sustained, however absurd the peculiar views of the testator may have been.- In re Trich's Will (Pa.) 1053; Appeal of Tay- lor, Id.
In determining the capacity of a testator who was alleged to be guided by insane delusions, the question to be determined was not the soundness of the views entertained by him, but whether they so impressed his mind as to con- trol his judgment in the disposition of his prop- erty, so as to prevent his appreciating the duty he owed to his family.-In re Trich's Will (Pa.) 1053; Appeal of Taylor, Id.
The filing of a caveat before an order ad- mitting the will to probate arrests all further proceedings until it is disposed of.-Keene v. Corse (Md.) 569.
A convict may contest the validity of his wife's will, though he cannot administer on her per- sonalty.-Kenyor v. Saunders (R. I.) 470.
On a will contest, if the verdict of the jury is against the weight of the evidence, the court should set aside the verdict, and not render a judgment non obstante veredicto.-Butts v. Ar- mor's Estate (Pa.) 357.
Sufficiency of evidence to justify a finding that a testator lacked testamentary capacity, and that the will was the product of undue in- fluence.-Sanderson v. Sanderson (N. J. Prerog.)
When, after probate, an issue devisavit vel non was tried in common pleas, which held that the maker intended paper as a gift, but there was no final decree in orphans' court annulling probate, judgment of the common pleas on is- sue is of no effect in ejectment.-Tozer v. Jack- son (Pa.) 400.
Where, on contest, a compromise is effected, it will be presumed that the amount received was to be equally divided among the contest- ants. In re Seip's Estate (Pa.) 226; Appeal of Probst, Id.
Where testatrix has only a life estate, a de- vise of the land to one heir, and money to the other in lieu thereof, conveys no title.-Mans- field Coal & Coke Co. v. Boice (Pa.) 502.
A devise to a married daughter construed, and held to create a coverture trust.-In re Wil- bert's Estate (Pa.) 1022; Appeal of Berg, Id.
Where a devise was to a daughter for her separate use during her natural life, and, at
« 이전계속 » |