페이지 이미지

ing its own logs. Mullen v. Penobscot Log-I Restrictions on marriage being exceptional, the
Driving Co. (Me.) 557.
burden is on him who claims that a case falls

The charter of a logging company construed, within an exception to show such to be the fact.
and held, that it was not obliged to drive plain--State v. Shattuck (Vt.) 81.
tiff's logs, and also that it had no right to drive Evidence held sufficient to establish a common-
them without plaintiff's consent.-Mullen v. Pe- law marriage.-Stevens v. Stevens (N. J. Ch.)
nobscot Log-Driving Co. (Me.) 557.

[blocks in formation]


Building and loan association holding mortgage
on property and member's stock as collateral held
bound to charge itself with withdrawal value of
stock, as against second mortgagee, secured only

Liability of employer for defects, see "Master by the property.-Merchantville Building & Loan
and Servant."

See "Post Office."



On discharge from custody on examination,
the prosecution is terminated, so that the ac-
cused may sue for malicious prosecution.-Rider
v. Kite (N. J. Sup.) 754.


Against supervisors of election, see "Elections."

Propriety of granting a mandamus requiring
the trustees of a beneficial association to rein-
state a member.-Vannatta v. Smith (N. J. Sup.)

Mandamus lies to compel a city which had
agreed to keep up and maintain a bridge, as long
as the public way over it was continued, to per-
form such duty.-Inhabitants of Brunswick v.
City of Bath (Me.) 532.

Mandamus will not lie to compel one judge of
a circuit to join the other judges thereof in the
approval of the accounts of the state's attorney
of such circuit.-Goldsborough v. Lloyd (Md.)



See "Homicide."


See, also, "Breach of Marriage Promise."

Evidence of reputation and general surround-
ings indicating probability of marriage held suf-
ficient to establish the fact.-Durning v. Hast-
ings (Pa.) 627.

The mere fact that a man marries under con-
straint of criminal or civil proceedings based
on unlawful connection with the woman he

marries is not of itself ground for annulling the
marriage, although he misconceives the length
of the term of imprisonment to which he may
be sentenced.-Ingle v. Ingle (N. J. Ch.) 953.
Where plaintiff was married while under ar-
rest for seducing the woman, he could not
avoid the marriage on the ground that he was
not lawfully under arrest, unless he should
show that the woman knew that the prosecu-
tion was without foundation.-Ingle v. Ingle (N.
J. Ch.) 953.

A marriage of parties under no disability by
international law is valid everywhere, if valid
where performed, though the parties were away
from the state of their domicile to avoid a law.
-State v. Shattuck (Vt.) 81.

38 A.-72

Ass'n v. Zane (N. J. Ch.) 420.


City employés, see "Municipal Corporations."

Evidence held to show breach of contract of em-
ployment that the employé will not, for a year aft-
er conclusion of services, solicit insurance held
by the employer from any party.-Borley v.
McDonald (Vt.) 60.

Where the defense to a suit for wages is the
incompetency of plaintiff, rebutting proof need
not be limited to work done for defendant.-
Continental Match Co. v. Swett (N. J. Sup.) 969.
Master's liability for injuries to serv-

An employer held not liable for injuries caused
by negligence of a superintendent in matters not
a part of his duties.-Fawley v. Sheldon (R. I.)

Where an injury arises to a servant by the
united negligence of a master and a fellow serv-
ant, the master is liable for the injuries.-Belle-
ville Stone Co. of New Jersey v. Mooney (N. J.
Sup.) 835.

Where a master intrusts to his agent the su-
perintendency of a business, the master is liable
for the negligent acts of such agent.-Belleville
Stone Co. of New Jersey v. Mooney (N. J. Sup.)

Count showing a neglect by defendant master
of a legal duty to plaintiff states a cause of ac-
tion for negligence.-Laporte v. Cook (R. I.) 700.

The failure to furnish lights held the proxi-
mate cause of a servant's injury.-Sawyer v.
Rumford Falls Paper Co. (Me.) 318.

Machinery and appliances.
machine by reason of defects in which the
Where the proprietor of a factory used a
lights were frequently extinguished, held, that
he was guilty of negligence as to his servants.-
Sawyer v. Rumford Falls Paper Co. (Me.) 318.

The question whether a master exercised or-

dinary care in selecting appliances for servants
does not depend alone on the custom of similar
employers in that regard.-Sawyer v. J. M.
Arnold Shoe Co. (Me.) 333.

Sufficiency of inspection of machinery before
use determined.-Burns v. New York, P. & B.
R. Co. (R. I.) 926.

Where a telephone company and an electric
railroad company used the same poles, the tele-
phone company, as between it and its linemen,
was not required to test guy wires and circuit
breakers.-Bergin v. Southern New England Tel.
Co. (Conn.) 888.

Warning and instructing servant.
Where spikes were removed from the end of
a ladder used by the servant, and, as a result,


the ladder slipped while the servant was upon
it, and he was injured, held, that the master was
liable because of the failure to notify the servant Of alteration of written instrument, see "Alter-
of the removal of the spikes.-O'Donnell v. Sar-
gent (Conn.) 216.

In cases of youth, inexperience, ignorance, or
want of capacity, the master must instruct the
servant as to patent defects and dangers.-Col-
lins v. Laconia Car Co. (N. H.) 1047.

The master is not bound to warn a servant of
ordinary intelligence of patent defects and dan-
gers where the servant has knowledge thereof.-
Collins v. Laconia Car Co. (N. H.) 1047.

Master and servant of ordinary intelligence
stand on common ground as to patent dangers
and defects in machinery.-Collins v. Laconia
Car Co. (N. H.) 1047.

A servant is presumed to have sufficient intelli-
gence to comprehend patent defects and dangers,
in the absence of evidence to the contrary.-
Collins v. Laconia Car Co. (N. H.) 1047.

Fellow servants.

One having charge of the blasting of rock is
not a fellow servant of an ordinary workman.-
Belleville Stone Co. of New Jersey v. Mooney
(N. J. Sup.) 835.

The negligent use of or failure to use proper
appliances held that of a fellow servant, not ren-
dering the master liable.-McLaughlin v. Cam-
den Iron Works (N. J. Err. & App.) 677.

A declaration of a servant against a master
for negligence, alleging, in effect, that the negli-
gence was that of a fellow servant, is demurra-
ble.-Laporte v. Cook (R. I.) 700.

Risks assumed by servant.

A lineman in the employ of a telephone com-
pany held to assume the risk of the fall of a
pole on which he was at work.-McGorty v.
Southern New England Tel. Co. (Conn.) 359.

A servant held to assume the risk by which he
was injured. McLaughlin v. Camden Iron
Works (N. J. Err. & App.) 677.

[ocr errors]

A servant injured by a dangerous machine,
not properly protected, held not entitled to re-
cover damages when it is shown that the danger
was evident, and he had full knowledge thereof.
-Collins v. Laconia Car Co. (N. H.) 1047.

Contributory negligence of servant.
An employé in a paper mill, who was injured
in attempting to clean out a machine, held not
guilty of contributory negligence, since he was
justified in believing that he was required sim-
ply to render an ordinary service, that he had
before safely performed.-Sawyer v. Rumford
Falls Paper Co. (Me.) 318.

[blocks in formation]

ation of Instruments."

[blocks in formation]

Failure of one that has given notice of his in-
tention to claim a lien to submit a monthly ac-
count, as required by statute, to the owner, did
not preclude the assertion of a lien for work per-
formed and material furnished after the time
when such account should have been submitted.
-Lawson v. Kimball (N. H.) 380.

Suit to enforce liens given by Act March 30,
1892, must be brought in chancery.-Delafield
Const. Co. v. Sayre (N. J. Err. & App.) 666.
properly denied.-Thomas v. O'Donnell (Pa.)
Judgment for want of affidavit of defense held


A lien cannot be enforced where there is

nothing to show when the work was completed.
1081; Appeal of Smythe, Id.
-Cowan v. Pennsylvania Plate-Glass Co. (Pa.)

A mechanic's lien for construction of a sep-
arate building held to cover only such building,
vania Plate-Glass Co. (Pa.) 1081; Appeal of
and not the entire plant.-Cowan v. Pennsyl-
Smythe, Id.

Provision in contract between owner and con-

tractor, that no lien shall be filed, held binding
on subcontractors.-Morris v. Ross (Pa.) 1084.

Filing of an account with notice of intent to
claim lien held not a commencement of legal
process, within Gen. Laws, c. 206, §§ 7, 9.-
Birtwell v. Hosmer (R. I.) 946.

One taking a mortgage on a building in the
course of construction held chargeable with no-
tice of contract under which material entitled
to a lien has been furnished.-Graton & Knight
Manuf'g Co. v. Woodworth-Mason Co. (N. H.)

Under Pub. St. c. 141, §§ 10, 16, one who, un-
der contract, furnishes belting which becomes a
fixture, has a lien from the time it is furnished.
-Graton & Knight Manuf'g Co. v. Woodworth-
Mason Co. (N. H.) 790.


Required by statute of frauds, see "Frauds,
Statute of."


Whether a master has exercised reasonable
care in providing for the safety of his servants is
a question for the jury.-Belleville Stone Co. of Of contract, see "Contracts."
New Jersey v. Mooney (N. J. Sup.) 835.

Whether the injury to a servant arose from in-
cidental dangers, or from his own want of care,
is a question for the jury.-Belleville Stone Co.
of New Jersey v. Mooney (N. J. Sup.) 835.

Whether defect in machinery causing injury
could have been remedied by a well-known ap-
pliance held a question for the jury.-Bonner v.
Pittsburgh Bridge Co. (Pa.) 896.

A count by a servant, setting up neglect of the
master to furnish him proper safeguards, and
neglect to give him suitable instructions, and neg-
lect to provide proper persons to take charge of
the work, is bad for duplicity.-Laporte v. Cook
(R. I.) 700.


Mining lease construed, and held, that lessee
must comply with condition requiring payment
of royalty at the end of each quarter, or the
lease would be forfeited.-Boys v. Robinson (N.
J. Sup.) 813.

Where ore sold and delivered by lessees can
only be ascertained by their books, acceptance of
part of the royalty by one of two lessees, without
knowledge that a greater sum was due and un-
paid, held not a waiver of a forfeiture by non-
payment of the full amount due.-Boys v. Robin
son (N. J. Sup.) 813.

The parties to a coal lease held to have contem-
plated payment for only such coal as should be
marketed, and hence the lessee was not liable
for royalty on coal consumed under the boilers
used in mining.-Wright v. Warrior Run Coal
Co. (Pa.) 491.

Lessee of land under an oil lease held not to
forfeit his rights where he enters in good faith,
and commences to drill a well on the last day
in which it was permitted.-Henderson v. Fer-
rell (Pa.) 1018.

Gas lease construed, and held, that the lessee
must drill a well or pay the rent.-Jackson v.
O'Hara (Pa.) 624.

Evidence held sufficient to show an abandon-
ment by lessee of oil gas lease.-Stage v. Boyer
(Pa.) 1035.

An assignment of an undivided one-half of a
lessee's interest in an oil lease held to make the
assignee jointly liable with the original lessee.-
Jackson v. O'Hara (Pa.) 624.

Where forfeiture under a mining lease occurs,
the lessor or the grantee in possession may
bring ejectment to recover possession without de-
mand for rent or royalty.-Boys v. Robinson
(N. J. Sup.) 813.

The lessee in a coal iease held to have waived
his right to royalty for the increased proportion
of coal by accepting payment at the old rates.-
Wright v. Warrior Run Coal Co. (Pa.) 491.

His legal representatives, however, could re-
cover royalties at the new rate, though they ac-
cepted payments at the same rate as deceased,
where they had no knowledge of the facts.
Wright v. Warrior Run Coal Co. (Pa.) 491.

Though the parties to a coal lease did not con-
template payment of royalty on the sizes of coal
marketed smaller than chestnut, the lessee was
held liable for royalty on the increased propor-
tion of pea coal produced, and for an increased
royalty on the increased proportion of chestnut.
-Wright v. Warrior Run Coal Co. (Pa.) 491.

In an action by one of two named lessors for
share of royalty under mining lease, defendant
can show circumstances not to deny landlord's
title, but existence of such relationship.-Swint
v. McCalmont Oil Co. (Pa.) 1021.

Under a joint lease, payment to a lessor held
a bar to action by the other joint lessor to re-
cover his interest.-Swint v. McCalmont Oil Co.
(Pa.) 1021.


See "Infants"; "Parent and Child."


Of parties, see "Parties."


By insured, see "Insurance."


In tax deed, see."Taxation."



Of personal property, see "Chattel Mortgages."
The provision of the statute against entering
a judgment on a mortgage bond before foreclosure
bond containing a warrant to confess judgment.
held not waived by the giving of a subsequent
Van Aken v. Tice (N. J. Sup.) 20.

Nor was such provision waived by the fact that
the mortgagee tore the seals from the mortgage
judgment.-Van Aken v. Tice (N. J. Sup.) 20.
for the purpose of canceling it before entering the

An offer to pay one of the bonds which was
held by complainant, and costs of the pending
foreclosure to date, accompanied by a demand
for an assignment of the bond, held not such
a tender as would stop the running of interest
or the accruing of costs, where the person
making the offer did not disclose an equitable
right to stand in the place of the holder of the
bond.-Whittaker v. Belvidere Roller-Mill Co.
(N. J. Ch.) 289.

A demand for the assignment of a mortgage
bond by a person paying the same pending fore-
closure can be made only in behalf of a person
having an equitable right to stand in the place
of the holder of the bond.-Whittaker v. Belvi-
dere Roller-Mill Co. (N. J. Ch.) 289.

Such demand must be made upon the holder,
or some person authorized to make the assign-
ment.-Whittaker v. Belvidere Roller-Mill Co.
(N. J. Ch.) 289.

In a suit for the construction of a will devising
testator's interest in land of which he was the
mortgagee, the validity of the mortgage cannot
be inquired into.-Crosgrove v. Crosgrove (Conn.)

Validity, construction, and operation.
A mortgage to secure future advances is, as
against a subsequent judgment, valid for all ad-
Vances made before notice of such judgment.-
Schmidt v. Hedden (N. J. Ch.) 843.

debt held an equitable mortgage, which could be
A contract in writing to secure a duly-specified
foreclosed on breach of conditions.-Cummings
V. Jackson (N. J. Err. & App.) 763.

A lender who claims an equitable right to
share in the security of a mortgage to a third
person must show that all persons interested as
mortgagors and mortgagees agreed, either before
the loan was made, or at the time thereof, that
he should be so secured.-Boney v. Williams
(N. J. Ch.) 189.

A promise to a lender, after he has advanced
money, that he may share in the security of a
mortgage to another, is without consideration.-
Boney v. Williams (N. J. Ch.) 189.

Where a mortgage is made subject to a sub-
sequent lease, provided certain payments are
made on the mortgage, the failure to make such
payments restores the priority of the mortgage.
-Cummings v. Jackson (N. J. Err. & App.) 763.

A verbal communication of the fact of a judg-
ment is sufficient to charge the mortgagee in a
mortgage to secure advances with notice there-
of.-Schmidt v. Hedden (N. J. Ch.) 843.

Fixtures annexed to the realty after execution
of a mortgage of real estate become a part of the
security.-Ekstrom v. Hall (Me.) 106.

A mortgage given by the purchaser to secure
the price conveys title superior to the interest ac-

Of judgment on appeal, see "Appeal and Error." quired through previous mortgages given by the


Where insured is entitled to a return of the
equitable value of a life policy on its forfeiture,
he may recover it in an action for money re-
ceived.-McDonald v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.
(N. H.) 500.

purchaser, and covering after-acquired property.
-Daly v. New York & G. L. Ry. Co. (N. J. Ch.)

Such superiority is not lost by neglect to record
the purchase money mortgage, since the registry
statute is for the protection of only subsequent
mortgagees.-Daly v. New York & G. L. Ry.
Co. (N. J. Ch.) 202.

Where by stipulation in two mortgages each [
was to be paid proportionately out of any pro-
'ceeds from sale, judicial or otherwise, of the
premises, it did not require the several debts to
be equally paid from sources other than the mort-
gaged property. - McInnes v. McInnes Brick
Manuf'g Co. (N. J. Ch.) 182.

Mortgage construed, and held not to show a
claim in favor of one not mentioned in the mort-
gage, so as to bar a bona fide purchaser of the
premises.-Schaeffer v. Schaeffer (Pa.) 474.
Where a mortgage due in a certain number
of years provides that the principal sum shall
become due if taxes remain unpaid for 90 days
after maturity, on the unexcused failure to pay
taxes as required, foreclosure may be had.-
Arkenburgh v. Lakeside Residence Ass'n (N.
J. Ch.) 297.

Rights and liabilities of parties.

A mortgagor of realty cannot, without con-
sent of mortgagee, give a third party authority
to erect buildings on mortgaged premises, and
hold them against the mortgagee.-Ekstrom v.
Hall (Me.) 106.

A mortgagee in possession held not chargeable
with depreciation in the value of the property due
to want of repairs before she took possession.-
Oakman v. Walker (Vt.) 63.

Assignment of mortgage or debt.

A transfer of a mortgage by delivery, pursuant
to order of court, held sufficient as an assign-
ment, without formal assignment being made.-
Daly v. New York & G. L. Ry. Co. (N. J. Ch.)


Payment of mortgage debt by purchaser of
equity of redemption on execution held to operate
as assignment, and not extinguishment, of the
mortgage, though accompanied by a release from
mortgagee.-Felker v. Mowry (N. H.) 726.

Transfer of property mortgaged or eq-
uity of redemption.

A purchaser of lands, assuming payment of
the mortgage thereon, held precluded from as-
sailing its validity.-Cummings v. Jackson (N.
J. Err. & App.) 763.

A grantee held to take possession subject to the
right of redemption of a prior grantee, whose deed
was conditioned on the payment of a note remain-
ing unpaid at the time of the second conveyance.
-Oakman v. Walker (Vt.) 63.

Defendant, grantee of a mortgagor, allowed to
make tender after bil! filed to foreclose, to pro-
cure partial release.-Hall v. Home Building Co.
(N. J. Ch.) 447.

Release and satisfaction.

A payment by a third person of part of the
mortgage held not a partial satisfaction in favor
either of the mortgagor or of a subsequent mort-
gagee, neither of whom contributed to make the
payment.-McInnes v. McInnes Brick Manuf'g
Co. (N. J. Ch.) 182.

Where an owner purchases a mortgage on her
land, and takes a transfer to herself, it is in-
sufficient to overcome presumption that she in-
tended to extinguish it.-Bradford v. Burgess (R.
I.) 975.

Twenty years' possession by mortgagor, with-
out recognition by him of mortgage as an exist-
ing obligation, held to raise presumption of satis-
faction.-Staples v. Staples (R. I.) 498.

The release by a mortgagee, for a part of the
debt, of one of several lots embraced in the
mortgage, to a purchaser thereof, without the
consent of purchasers of other lots, held not a
foreclosure and satisfaction of the entire debt.-
Brooks v. Benham (Conn.) 908.

Where several lots covered by the same mort-
gage were conveyed at the same time to different
purchasers, and the mortgagee released one pur-
chaser, without the consent of the others, for
less than his lot's proportional part of the debt,
the mortgagee was chargeable with the differ-
ence, as against the others.-Brooks v. Benham
(Conn.) 908.

of the equities of redemption in several lots cov-
An oral offer, made by a mortgagee at a sale
ered by one mortgage, to release each lot for a
certain sum, held not an apportionment of the in-
debtedness.-Brooks v. Benham (Conn.) 908.

On foreclosure of a purchase-money mortgage,
the mortgagor may reduce the demand by dam-
ages because of breach of covenant against in-
cumbrances.-Kuhnen v. Parker (N. J. Ch.) 641.

Breach of covenant in a deed against incum-
brances or for good title held no defense on fore-
closure of purchase-money mortgage, unless
there has been eviction, or action is pending to
try title, or actual fraud is shown.-Frenche v.
McConnell (N. J. Err. & App.) 687.

Amount paid for publishing a notice of fore-
closure, and the fee for recording the same, held
proper expenses of foreclosure, payable by the
redeeming mortgagor.-Whitcomb v. Harris (Me.)


The amount paid an attorney for services in
the matter, however, held not a necessary ex-
pense, payable by the mortgagor.-Whitcomb v.
Harris (Me.) 138.

In a writ of entry to foreclose a mortgage the
question whether the former cancellation thereof
would be discharged and the mortgage re-estab-
lished must be determined only after full con-
sideration of the evidence.-Stebbins v. Robbins
(N. H.) 15.

Motion to open decree on foreclosure by one
in possession, but having no interest in the prop-
erty at time mortgage was executed, denied.-
Graham v. Donohue (N. J. Ch.) 857.

chaser at tax sale a party defendant, and enforce
A mortgagee on foreclosure may make pur-
collection of redemption money in connection
with the proceedings.-Burgin v. Rutherford (N.
J. Ch.) 854.

On foreclosure of a mortgage against the
widow and the devisee of the mortgagor, where
the widow was entitled to dower which had not

been assigned, the mode of ascertaining the pro-
defendant was stated.-Merselis v. Van Riper (N.
portion of the mortgage debt to be borne by each
defendant was stated.-Merselis v. Van Riper (N.
J. Ch.) 196.

Where bill to foreclose is against the owner of
equity of redemption, he is the proper person to
tender the amount due.-Neldon v. Roof (N. J.
Ch.) 429.

A second mortgagee, or a purchaser on fore-
closure of the second mortgage, has an abso-
lute right, as against the mortgagor or his vol-
untary fraudulent grantee, to have the mort-
gage securities marshaled.-Whittaker v. Bel-
videre Roller-Mill Co. (N. J. Ch.) 289.

Where the equities of redemption in certain of
several lots covered by one mortgage were con-
veyed to the mortgagee by purchasers thereof,
without the consent of the purchasers of the
other lots, the lier of the mortgage was thereby-Felker v. Mowry (N. H.) 726.
extinguished, as to them, and the mortgagee
was chargeable with their market value, as
against said other purchasers.-Brooks v. Ben-
ham (Conn.) 908.

tion to expire through misapprehension and mis-
Where mortgagor had allowed time of redemp-
take, the status of the parties remaining unchan-
ged, held, that he was entitled to equitable relief.

One seeking to redeem against an equitable
mortgagee in possession must pay the debt, though
limitations have run against it.-Oakman v. Walk-
er (Vt.) 63.

A widow of a mortgagor in possession as dow-
ress under her right of quarantine held entitled
to redeem to protect her estate.-Merselis v. Van
Riper (N. J. Ch.) 196.

A dowress, in redeeming from a mortgage to
protect her estate, should, as between herself and
the devisee of the fee, pay a proportionate amount
of the mortgage debt.-Merselis v. Van Riper (N.
J. Ch.) 196.


See "Creditors' Suit."


Jurisdiction of equity to avoid, see "Equity."


See, also, "Towns."

Mandamus to, see "Mandamus."
Street railroads, see "Street Railroads."
Water supply, see "Waters and Water Cours-

A statute imposing on a borough a proportion-
ate part of the liabilities of a town from which it
has been set off, and assigning assets, held valid
though passed after formation of borough.-In-
habitants of Orvil Tp. v. Borough of Woodcliff
(N. J. Sup.) 685.

The city of Somersworth held authorized by
Laws 1895, c. 179, to elect the water commis-
sioners of the city.-State v. Wimpfheimer (N.
H.) 786.

The city of Somersworth held authorized, un-
der Laws 1891, c. 143, and Laws 1893, c. 171,
to appoint water commissioners for the term of
three years.-State v. Wimpfheimer (N. H.) 786.
Municipalities created boroughs by Act April
21, 1896, are properly characterized as boroughs
organized under Act April 5, 1878.-Kennedy v.
Borough of Belmar (N. J. Sup.) 756.

Boroughs created by Act April 21, 1896, may
hold an election to determine whether to adopt
the provisions of Act March 14, 1893.-Kennedy
v. Borough of Belmar (N. J. Sup.) 756.

Act approved April 21, 1896, relating to bor-
oughs and borough commissions, is constitution-
al.-Kennedy v. Borough of Belmar (N. J. Sup.)

A municipal government invested with ordi-
nary power to regulate streets is a trustee for
the public, and its control is restricted to acts in
furtherance of public rights. - Inhabitants of
City of Burlington v. Pennsylvania R. Co. (N.
J. Ch.) 849.

City of Hartford can require under its charter
that policemen should report defects in streets.-
Cummings v. City of Hartford (Conn.) 916.

When the bounds of a street cannot be made
certain, and a fence has existed in the same
place for more than 40 years, it is deemed the
true bounds of the street, under Rev. St. c. 18, §
95.-Bradford v. Hume (Me.) 143.

Ordinances and resolutions.

A city ordinance, passed under legislative pow-
er, which is granted in definite and precise terms,
will not be set aside as unreasonable.-Raffetto
v. Mott (N. J. Sup.) 857.

An ordinance regulating the running of elec-
tric wires in a certain township held a valid ex-
ercise of the police power, under P. L. 1867, p.
124, and P. L. 1873, p. 324.-Consolidated Trac-
tion Co. v. Township of East Orange (N. J.
Sup.) 803; Slockhower v. Same, Id.; Holland
v. Same, Íd.

A city ordinance void as to one provision is
wholly void when it is apparent that it would not

have been enacted without that provision.-At-
torney General v. Lowell (N. H.) 270.

Under Pub. St. c. 115, it is the duty of city
councils to elect fire engineers, and hence an or
dinance delegating that duty to other municipal
officers is void.-Attorney General v. Lowell (N.
H.) 270.

Under the borough act of 1878 an ordinance
must be the same in substance as that submitted
in writing at a previous meeting.-Cowen v. Bor-
ough of Wildwood (N. J. Sup.) 22; Simmerman
v. Same, Id.

Under the supplement to the general borough
act, where a resolution of the city council as to
the issue of bonds tended to obligate the borough
the resolution must be presented to the mayor
for approval.-Mittag v. Borough of Park Ridge
(N. J. Sup.) 750.

Officers and employés.

A city fireman held entitled to compensation
for services, though the manner of his appoint-
ment was defective, in the absence of objection
to his service by the city.-Cousins v. City of
Manchester (N. H.) 724.

A committee of aldermen held entitled to recov-
er from the city for their personal expenses in
committee work.-Rider v. City of Portsmouth
(N. H.) 385.

A member of the city council cannot lawfully
puted claim against the city, in which claim he
Vote on the question of the allowance of a dis-
has a direct personal and pecuniary interest.—
Rider v. City of Portsmouth (N. H.) 385.

two members, the action of both is necessary in
When a committee of the council consists of
order that expenses incurred in committee work
may bind the city.-Rider v. City of Portsmouth
(N. H.) 385.

Sureties on the bond of tax collector for a cer-

tain year held liable for moneys collected on the
duplicate of that year and paid in settlement of
the duplicate of the preceding year.-Common-
wealth v. Coover (Pa.) 13.

An officer of the city may recover for services
rendered it outside of his official employment un-
der a contract between him and the city itself.—
Klemm v. City of Newark (N. J. Sup.) 692.
Contracts in general.

A contract by a city for the erection at pub-
lic expense of a building on land not owned or
possessed by the city is illegal.-Knight v. City
of Cape May (N. J. Sup.) 752.

Where a bid for public work was accepted, held
that the public officers could not afterwards re-
ject it, without giving the bidder a hearing.-
Stanley v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of Pas-
saic County (N. J. Sup.) 181.

Borough Act 1897, § 92, held inapplicable to the
case where the contract was awarded before the
ordinance went into effect.-Cowen v. Borough
of Wildwood (N. J. Sup.) 22; Simmerman v.
Same, Id.

Charter construed, and held, that person seek-
ing contract with city must not only be the low-
est bidder, but must satisfy the authorities as to
his ability.-Wilson v. Inhabitants of City of
Trenton (N. J. Sup.) 635.

Contract to lay pavement with guaranty for
repairs by contractor held valid.-Wilson v. In-
habitants of City of Trenton (N. J. Sup.) 635.

Refusal of city to let contract because of in-
ability of the other person to perform, held not
reviewable by court.-Wilson v. Inhabitants of
City of Trenton (N. J. Sup.) 635.
Public improvements.

ed because of failure to assess all the property
An assessment for benefits will not be disturb-
benefited, unless the failure has injured the par-
ty complaining.-Humphreys v. City of Bayonne
(N. J. Sup.) 761.

« 이전계속 »