VIII. ACTIONS. 460 (N.Y.Sup.) The maker and the indorser may at the holder's election be proceeded upon in separate actions, or joined in one action.Carnegie Trust Co. v. Kistler, 152 N. Y. S. 240. 480 (N.Y.Sup.) A separate defense in an action on a note held not to present the defense that plaintiff was not the real party in interest. Ferber v. Third Street Realty Co., 152 N. Y. S. 352. opposing an adjudication of competency.-Law- 84 (N.Y.Sup.) A pledge of bonds by pla tiff, subject to its contract whereby defender was to repurchase the bonds at specified dzies held not to show that the bonds were not le at all times for the defendant, so that it w not released on its contract.-Brooklyn Br in the City of New York v. Borough Bank Brooklyn, 152 N. Y. S. 338. BOUNDARIES. 489 (N.Y.Sup.) In suit by holder of check against maker, who had stopped payment, in which payee's employer was impleaded, and in which all parties claimed title to fund paid into court by maker. held that employer's testimony as to payee's embezzlement of money 8 (N.Y.Sup.) A deed of a vacant lot, bound represented by check was within the issues.-ed along the line of a building and including Oliner v. Goldenberg, 152 N. Y. S. 235. 497 (N.Y.Sup.) Under Negotiable Instruments Law, § 98, a holder, obtaining a note from an indorser having a defective title, has the burden of showing that he acquired the note in due course.-Ecks v. Montanara, 152 N. Y. S. 1010. 516 (N.Y.) Under Negotiable Instruments Law, § 204, evidence held to show that the cancellation of a note and the substitution of other instruments was not authorized.-Union Bank of Brooklyn v. Sullivan, 108 N. E. 558, 214 N. Y. 332. 537 (N.Y.Sup.) Financial interest of plaintiff, her son, and defendant in a corporation, whose note the parties indorsed as officers and as individuals, held to make it a question of fact whether they intended to become jointly liable as sureties, and not successively in the order of their indorsements.-Strasburger v. Myer Strasburger & Co., 152 N. Y. S. 757. I. DESCRIPTION. one-half of the wall thereof, held to cobres to II. EVIDENCE, ASCERTAINMENT, AND ESTABLISHMENT. 48 (N.Y.Sup.) Where barn encroaching adjoining lot and fence connected therewit were accepted for many years as the divis). line, held, that the line by acquiescence and practical location became located there.-Lane v. Jacobs, 152 N. Y. S. 605. Where fence accepted as division line was Lt straight, court held to have erred in adje eating that the boundary was a straight from the point where the fence commenceId. Where fence on the rear of a lot had beet a cepted as dividing line, line dividing the fret portions of the lots held to be run from the of the fence, and not from an angle there -Id. 537 (N.Y.Sup.) Whether an indorser of a note had title thereto at the time of the trans-49 (N.Y.Sup.) Division line between 15 fer held for the jury.-Ecks v. Montanara, 152 N. Y. S. 1010. I. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY. 27 (N.Y.Sup.) Premium paid by plaintiff to a surety company held sufficient consideration for bonds given by plaintiff, as principal, and surety company, as surety, to secure annual payments to plaintiff's children.-Lawrence v. Morris, 152 N. Y. S. 777. held not practically located by the positiva the curb line, of a driveway, and of a sma namental tree.-Lane v. Jacobs, 152 N. Y. S. 605. 56 (N.Y.Sup.) Brokers held not entitled t recover commissions for leasing property, WLS the lease had been brought about by the ant and defendant.-Weinberg v. Smith, 12 X Y. S. 1030. 41 (N.Y.Sup.) Bonds given by plaintiff, who had been adjudged incompetent, to support her64 (N.Y.Sup.) A receipt for a small p children, held not executed under duress, though ment on the purchase of a business held not given to prevent the children's guardian from contract, obligating the seller to pay brokerage fees, though the purchaser did not perform.— Ruth v. Neiheiser, 152 N. Y. S. 998. II. CARRIAGE OF GOODS. (D) Transportation and Delivery by Carrier. V. ACTIONS FOR COMPENSATION. 86 (N.Y.Sup.) In action by a broker to re-89 (N.Y.Sup.) Under Carmack amendment cover commissions, evidence held insufficient to show that defendant, the seller, was guilty of any act which prevented consummation of the transaction.-Ruth v. Neiheiser, 152 N. Y. S. 998. VI. RIGHTS, POWERS, AND LIABILITIES AS TO THIRD PERSONS. 102 (N.Y.Sup.) A purchaser of property from a broker could not defeat the broker's right of action on a check of the purchaser turned over to him by the owner of the proper ty sold, because the broker made false representations as to what the owner would sell for.Aronowitz v. Woollard, 152 N. Y. S. 11. 106 (N.Y.Sup.) In an action for deceit in inducing an exchange of land, evidence held insufficient to show authority of a real estate agent to make representations for defendant.Mecum v. Becker, 152 N. Y. S. 385. BY-LAWS. See Insurance, 719. CALENDARS. See Trial, 12. CANALS. See States, 191. I. ESTABLISHMENT, CONSTRUCTION, AND MAINTENANCE. 17 (N.Y.Sup.) Under the Barge Canal Act, the canal board, in restoring a bridge partly taken, need not conform it, in elevation, style, construction, etc., with the portion remaining. -Town of Easton v. Canal Board, 152 N. Y. S. 56. CANCELLATION OF INSTRUMENTS. See Bills and Notes, 256, 516; Reformation of Instruments; Wills, 191. CARRIERS. See Commerce, 8. I. CONTROL AND REGULATION OF COMMON CARRIERS. (B) Interstate and International Trans portation. 30 (N.Y.Sup.) Under Interstate Commerce Act, § 1, as amended, all common carriers must establish just and reasonable freight classifications and just and reasonable regulations affecting rates and bills of lading.-A. C. Cheney Piano Action Co. v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 152 N. Y. S. 285. (H) Limitation of Liability. 159 (N.Y.Sup.) Common carrier of goods in interstate commerce held entitled to waive the stipulation in its bill of lading limiting time for presentation of claims for loss of shipment.A. C. Cheney Piano Action Co. v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 152 N. Y. S. 285. Carrier, who corresponded with shipper on the basis of a subsisting claim against it for loss of a shipment, held to have waived stipulation in bill of lading limiting time for filing formal claim.-Id. (I) Connecting Carriers. 175 (N.Y.Sup.) Neither under common law nor under Interstate Commerce Act is final carrier bound to notify consignor of consignee's refusal to accept goods.-Wien v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 152 N. Y. S. 154. 177 (N.Y.Sup.) Under Carmack amendment to Interstate Commerce Act, initial carrier is liable, not only for negligence of its own servants, but for those of connecting carriers resulting in any loss or damage to goods en route. -Wien v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 152 N. Y. S. 154. Under Carmack amendment to Interstate Commerce Act, initial carrier is liable for loss or damage from final carrier's failure to notify consignee of arrival, or failure, on consignee's refusal to accept them, to store for account of consignor.-Id. Initial carrier held not liable for loss or injury from final carrier's failure to perform its fusal to accept: such damage or injury not beagreement with consignor after consignee's reing within Interstate Commerce Act, §§ 1, 20. -Id. 177 (N.Y.Sup.) A common carrier of interstate shipments of goods by federal law is liable for loss of or damage to goods after they have For cases in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER left its line.-A. C. Cheney Piano Action Co. v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 152 N. Y. S, 285. 321 (N.Y.) Under the evidence as to proximate cause, held, defendant was entitled to an instruction that neglect of duty of its servants to a sick passenger after a certain time could not be considered on actionable negligence.Middleton v. Whitridge, 108 N. E. 192, 213 N. Y. 499. IV. CARRIAGE OF PASSENGERS. (B) Fares, Tickets, and Special Contracts. 252 (N.Y.Sup.) That Laws 1907, c. 185, and Laws 1908, c. 479, requiring that persons selling (E) Contributory Negligence of Person tickets and receiving money on deposit give Injured. bond, were included in the schedule of laws re-346 (N.Y.Sup.) In an action for injuries to pealed in 1909, did not, in view of Laws 1909, c. 596, and their incorporation in General Business Law, §§ 150-154, repeal them.-Sciaballa v. Illinois Surety Co., 152 N. Y. S. 760; Cohen v. Same, Id. 763. A waiver of the benefit of a bond given pursuant to Laws 1907, c. 185, and Laws 1908, c. 479, held not a condition precedent to a depositor's right to resort to additional security given pursuant to Laws 1910, c. 348, art. 3a.-Id. (D) Personal Injuries. 281 (N.Y.) The carrier owes a duty of reasonable attention to a passenger becoming sick; its servants having knowledge or notice thereof. -Middleton v. Whitridge, 108 N. E. 192, 213 N. Y. 499. one attempting to board a subway train, the See Acknowledgment, 33, 36; Intoxicating I. NATURE AND GROUNDS. 287 (N.Y.Sup.) A railroad company held a (N.Y.Sup.) The common-law writ of cernegligent in running its train in a city subway tiorari is within the judicial discretion of the at a high rate of speed, in the reverse way of court.-People ex rel. Importers' & Traders' the track, without warning, past a platform Nat. Bank v. Purdy, 152 N. Y. S. 275. crowded with passengers.-D'Arcy v. Inter-25 (N.Y.Sup.) Where a statute makes no borough Rapid Transit Co., 152 N. Y. S. 500. 316 (N.Y.Sup.) To rebut the inference of negligence from the fact that its elevator fell, defendant innkeeper did not need to show the exact cause of the accident, but was required to show freedom from negligence as to all probable cause.-Gage v. Waldorf Astoria Hotel Co., 152 N. Y. S. 1019. provision for a hearing, but confers power to remove officers on filing written statement of reasons therefor, the removal is an executive act, not reviewable by certiorari.-People ex Loevin v. Griffing, 152 N. Y. S. 113. An elevator not being normally a dangerous See Equity. instrumentality, the presumption is that failure to control it was due either to the negligence of operator or his employer.-Id. CHANCERY. CHANGE OF VENUE. See Venue, 52. CHARGE. rel. 318 (N.Y.) Evidence held to warrant a finding of negligence of employés on a street car in continuing in the assumption that a passenger was drunk, and not sick and in need of medical To jury, see Criminal Law, ~824; Trial, attention. Middleton v. Whitridge, 108 N. E. 192, 213 N. Y. 499. 318 (N.Y.Sup.) In action for injuries received in the fall of an elevator, to justify a judgment of dismissal, evidence should have shown care so conclusively that the only fair inference was that the accident was one that could not have been guarded against by ordinary care.-Gage v. Waldorf Astoria Hotel Co., 152 N. Y. S. 1019. Evidence held insufficient to rebut the infer ence of defendant's negligence arising from the occurrence of the accident.-Id. 251. CHARITIES. 7 (N.Y.Sup.) To determine the status of a corporation as charitable, recourse must be bad to its charter.-In re Loeb, 152 N. Y. S. 879. 30 (N.Y.Sup.) The installation of kindergarten departments in three-quarters of the public schools of a locality held to show general adop 320 (N.Y.) Evidence held sufficient to go tion, within an agreement giving defendant use to the jury on the issue of omission of a car- of a building until that event.-Brooklyn Church rier's duty to a sick passenger on its street car Society of Methodist Episcopal Church v. Brookbeing the proximate cause of his death.-Middle-lyn Free Kindergarten Society, 152 N. Y. S. ton v. Whitridge, 108 N. E. 192, 213 N. Y. 499. 41. 320 (N.Y.Sup.) In an action for the death of a waiting passenger, struck by a train in a subway, the question of contributory negligence was for the jury.-D'Arcy v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 152 N. Y. S. 500. II. CONSTRUCTION, ADMINISTRA- 36 (N.Y.Sup.) Under will bequeathing a sum in trust to a religious society incorporated CIVIL SERVICE. under Laws 1801, c. 79, and having the powers 48 (N.Y.Sup.) An agreement regulating the use and disposition of property granted for charitable purposes construed.-Brooklyn Church Society of Methodist Episcopal Church Brooklyn Free Kindergarten Society, 152 N. Y. S. 41. CLAIMS. See Assignments for Benefit of Creditors, 221-283; States, 184. COLLECTION. 50 (N.Y.Sup.) Plaintiff, a charitable corpo- See Banks and Banking, 175. ration, whose property had been withheld by another charitable concern, held entitled to recover only nominal damages for the withhold COMITY. ing. Brooklyn Church Society of Methodist See Courts, 512. CHATTEL MORTGAGES. See Injunction, 161, 175; Replevin, 8. 8 (N.Y.) An assignment by a debtor of its interest in described chattels to its creditor as collateral for a loan is not a pledge but is a mortgage.-Gandy v. Collins, 108 N. E. 415, 214 N. Y. 293. COMMERCE. See Carriers, 30. I. POWER TO REGULATE IN GEN- 8 (N.Y.Sup.) Federal statutes and decisions held controlling in an action in state court against a carrier for loss of an interstate shipment of goods.-A. C. Cheney Piano Action Co. v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 152 N. Y. S. 285. II. SUBJECTS OF REGULATION. 18 (N.Y.Sup.) Congress has power over nav II. FILING, RECORDING, AND REG- igable waters within the state, but the state ISTRATION. (A) Original. 242 (N.Y.) Acceptance by chattel gagee of a subsequent note in form appropriate has jurisdiction until Congress exercises its repair 27 (N.Y.) Mechanic employed in shop of defendant railroad, which was engaged in interstate and intrastate commerce, injured by wheels of heavy traveling crane, held not engaged in interstate commerce, and hence not entitled to recover under the federal Employers' Liability Act.-Shanks v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co., 108 N. E. 644, 214 N. Y. 413. COMMERCIAL PAPER. to collateral held in pledge does not affect the See Bills and Notes. not transfer title.-Gandy v. Collins, 108 N. E. COMMISSION AND COMMISSIONERS. 415, 214 N. Y. 293. IX. FORECLOSURE. 256 (N.Y.Sup.) Where a chattel mortgagee has the right to foreclose under a power of sale, the validity of the mortgage can be tested only by action to have it adjudged void or paid, in which the mortgagee may ask foreclosure and be restrained from enforcing the power of sale pendente lite.-Haywood v. Lockwood, 152 N. Y. S. 483. CHECKS. See Banks and Banking, 139, 140: Bills and Notes, 198. See Constitutional Law, 62; Counties, COMMISSIONS. See Assignments for Benefit of Creditors, 391; Brokers, 52-86; Discovery, Master and Servant, 80; Usury, COMMITTEE. See Insane Persons, 41, 42.` For cases in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER 41; 53. COMMON LAW. See Evidence, 81. COMPENSATION. See Assignments for Benefit of Creditors, COMPETENCY. See Witnesses, 140-206. COMPLAINT. See Pleading, 193, 218, 238-253. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. See Appeal, 120; Corporations, 71: II. CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION, 42 (N.Y.) A contractor for public work who is charged with employing aliens in violation of Labor Law, § 14, may attack the validity of the statute.-People v. Crane, 108 N. E. 427, 214 N. Y. 154. 45 (N.Y.) Unless a statute is clearly unconstitutional, the courts, in determining its COMPOSITIONS WITH CREDITORS. validity, may not ignore the concurrence of opinion of validity by Congress and the Legis latures of various states.-People v. Crane, 108 N. E. 427, 214 N. Y. 154. 20 (N.Y.CityCt.) A debtor held not entitled to set off, against a claim made under a composition agreement, amounts which he had been forced to pay in excess of the agreed 40 per 45 (N.Y.) A statute enacted within the pocent. to assignees of such creditor, whose signatures he failed to procure to the compromise agreement, though he knew of the assignments. -Gross v. Louis Metzger & Co., 152 N. Y. S. 462. COMPOUND INTEREST. See Interest, 60. COMPROMISE AND SETTLEMENT. See Compositions with Creditors; Release. CONCLUSIVENESS. See Judgment, 642-735. CONDEMNATION. See Eminent Domain. CONDITIONAL SALES. See Sales, 456-481. CONFESSION. See Criminal Law, 523. CONFLICT OF LAWS. See Contracts, 2, 144, 276; Trusts, 672. CONNECTING CARRIERS. See Carriers, 175, 177. CONSIDERATION. See Bills and Notes, 92; Bonds, CONSTABLES. See Sheriffs and Constables. lice power, showing on its face to be reasonable, will not be adjudged unconstitutional, though the court should doubt its wisdom.People v. Charles Schweinler Press, 108 N. E. 639, 214 N. Y. 395; People ex rel. Krohn v. Warden and Keeper of City Prison, 152 N. Y. S. 1136. 48 (N.Y.) Where doubt exists whether a statute is unconstitutional, the statute prevails. -People v. Crane, 108 N. E. 427, 214 N. Y. 154. 48 (N.Y.Sup.) In construing a statute, its operation will be confined to cases that will not render it offensive to the Constitution.-Rattigan v. Board of Sup'rs of Cayuga County, 152 N. Y. S. 402. 48 (N.Y.Sup.) Every intendment and presumption is in favor of the constitutionality of a statute.-People v. Finkelstein, 152 N. Y. S. 875. III. DISTRIBUTION OF GOVERN- (A) Legislative Powers and Delegation 62 (N.Y.) Laws 1914, c. 396, exempting from the operation of Laws 1913, c. 740. § Sa, certain employés, if the commissioner of labor in his discretion approves, held an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power.People v. C. Klinck Packing Co., 108 N. E. 278, 214 N. Y. 121. The Legislature may confer upon an adminis trative board or official the duty to determine whether conditions exist upon which an exemp tion from Laws 1913, c. 740, § Sa, giving laborers in factories and mercantile establish27; ments one day of rest in seven, is based.-Id. (B) Judicial Powers and Functions. 67 (N.Y.Sup.) The court cannot decide a case in accordance with its individual views of public policy upon ethical principles, without |