Telegraph and Telephone Companies-Trusts.
TELEGRAPH, ETC.-Continued.
When a telegraph or telephone company proceeds to construct its line and erect poles upon the high- way during the pendency of an action to enjoin them from so doing against the objection of the owner and with- out first acquiring the right to do so by contract with the owner or other- wise, a court of equity will order the same removed. Ib.
Injunction is the proper remedy for the abutting owner on a highway or against a telegraph or telephone company, which attempts to con- struct its line on the highway with- out obtaining his consent or other- wise acquiring the right to do so, and the abutting owner's right there- to is not defeated by a right of ac- tion to sue for the amount claimed as damages. Ib.
Section 3461, Rev. Stat., relating to telegraph companies, and by sec. 3471, Rev. Stat., extended to apply to telephone companies, authorizing the probate court, upon failure of the municipal corporation and the com- pany to agree, "to direct the mode in which such lines shall be construct- ed along the streets, alleys or pub- lic ways, so as not to incommode the public." attempts to confer legisla tive functions upon probate courts and is, therefore, unconstitutional and invalid. Zanesville Tel. and Tel. Co. v. Zanesville. 134 Determining and fixing of the mode of use of streets and alleys of a municipality by a telephone com- pany, so as not to incommode the public in the use of the same, is a legislative function or duty.
In the absence of defendant's admission that he has no defense, or where there remains a scintilla of proof in his favor, the court can- not strike the answer from the files as sham or frivolous, and thus de- prive the party of trial by jury on the merits. Wentzel v. Zinn. 97
In an action brought under the provisions of the Valentine-Stewart anti-trust law, for attempting to "freeze" the plaintiff out of business, the main gravamen of the complaint is the attempted destruction of plain- tiff's business, sought to be accom- plished by various means, which, by
When two parties acquire prop- erty through an illegal business the title to which is taken in the name of one of them, the husband of such party who succeeds to such property by inheritance will be held to hold the other party's share in trust for his benefit. The fact that the prop- erty was acquired in an illegal busi- ness, is not, as between such par- ties, material and will not defeat an action to establish the trust. Brue- ger v. Molique. 731
A trustee of an express trust or a person in whose name a contract has been made for the benefit of an- other, may be joined with his bene- ficiaries as a party plaintiff in a suit to protect the rights under such con- tract, although by sec. 4995, Rev. Stat., he may sue without joining his beneficiaries. Kuhn v. Woolson Spice Co. 292
The Valentine anti-trust law, 93 O. L.. 143, providing that "a combi- nation of capital, skill or acts by two or more persons, firms, partnerships, corporations, or associations of per- sons, or any two or more of them, to create or carry out restrictions in trade or commerce, are illegal;" and that "violation of either or all of the provisions of this act shall be and is hereby declared a conspiracy against trade," is not unconstitu tional or invalid.. State v. Jacobs. 252
The law in question declares that "any combination of capital, skill, or acts by two or more persons, firms, partnerships, corporations or associations of persons, or of any two or more of them, for either any or all of the following purposes, shall constitute a trust." The first purpose
named is to "create or carry on re- strictions in trade or commerce." Therefore, any combination or con- federation among two or more per- sons in restraint of trade or com- merce comes within the cxpress let- ter of this act. Ih.
A combination by two or more persons for the purpose of boycotting a third person is a violation of the provisions of said act and is a con- spiracy against trade within said act. Ib.
In a prosecution for boycotting under this act it is sufficient to prove that a combination as defined therein existed and that the defendant be- longed to or acted for or in connec- tion with it, without proving all the members belonging to it, or proving or producing any article of agree- ment or any written instrument on which it may have been based, or that it was evidenced by any written instrument at all. The character of the combination alleged may be es- tablished by proof of its general reputation as such.
Where several persons are prov- ed to have combined together for the same illegal purpose, any act done by one of them in pursuance of the original concerted plan and with reference to the common object, is, in the contemplation of the law, the act of the whole party, and therefore proof of such act is competent evi- dence against any of those who were engaged in the conspiracy; and any declaration made by one of the par- ties during the pendency of the il- legal enterprise, is evidence against himself and all the other conspira- tors, who, when the combination is proved, are as much responsible for such declaration and the acts to which it relates as if made and committed by themselves. This rule applies to the declaration of a co-con- spirator, although he may not him- self be under prosecution.
A Union Depot Company has the right to give to a transfer company the exclusive use of depot grounds, for standing its vehicles and solicit- ing customers thereon, and to ex- clude therefrom all others engaged in a like business, excepting only for the purpose of delivering passengers or of calling for persons who have previously engaged them, notwith-
standing the provisions of the anti- trust law. (Adopted as law laid down in Snyder v. L on Depot Co., 10 C. D., 000.) State Brown. 28
Admissions made by pleadings, proof taken by deposition, and the admission of the execution of the contract, are sufficient to cure a de- fect in the verdict caused by the failure of the jury to find that plain- tiff was a corporation. Grand Rapids Furniture Co. v. Robinson. 93
A will bequeathing testator's es- tate to her husband and providing that "should any child or children (we have now only one, George Ga- briel) be born to me hereafter, it shall in no wise change,alter or revoke this will and testament" is contrary to sec. 5961, Rev. Stat., and while sec. 5959, Rev. Stat., controls as to the child mentioned in the will and he takes nothing, a child born after the execution of the will takes the same share he would have taken had his mother died intestate. The provi- sion of sec. 5959, Rev. Stat., relating to where a party has no children and executes his will and makes plain his intention to disinherit after-born children, cannot be read into sec. 5961, Rev. Stat., or allowed to defeat the claim of such after-born child. German Mut. Ins. Co.
Section 5959, Rev. Stat., does not expressly, or by implication, repeal sec. 5691, Rev. Stat. The two sec- tions should be construed separately as each was enacted to cover a par- ticular case and neither is in con- flict with the other. Ib.
Where, by the terms of a will, it is plainly shown to be the intention of the testator to bar his widow of the first year's support, and provi- sion is made for her in lieu thereof, if she elects to take under the will, she is not entitled to such allowance. Witner, In re Est. of.
The rule in Shelley's case as ap- plied to wills was abrogated by stat- ute in Ohio, in 1840, cannot, there- fore, be appealed to assist in ascer- taining the intention of the testator in the construction of a will. Kiersted v. Smith. 279
Unles some positive rule of law or enactments of statutes should re- quire it, a will should be construed
so as to follow former constructions by courts and interested parties in the administration of the estate. Ib.
Heirs presumptive or apparent who have not a vested estate in trust property have a right to object to the termination of a trust created by a will, which will cut them out of the rights accruing to them should the trust be continued according to the terms of the will. Ib.
A trust created by a will in prop- erty cannot be terminated with the consent of the beneficiaries, if such termination will destroy the rights other parties would eventually have inthe trust property, should the trust be continued under the terms of the will. Ib.
In the construction of a will, the rules that "the intention of the tes- tator must control;" "words should be used in their ordinary and usual signification;" "the whole will should be construed as a whole;" "equitable words should be given their tech- nical meaning;" "the law favors the vesting of estates;" are subject to the application of the broader rule that the clear meaning of the will, showing the clear intent of the tes- tator must not be negatived or set aside. Ib.
The rule that such a construc- tion will be favored as will contrib- ute to the immediate vesting of an es- tate will not be applied so as to de- feat the intention of the testator. Ib.
A will devising property to a trustec to be held in trust for the benefit of testator's two daughters, to be "set off" to them or either of them by the trustees on their arrival at age, but to be still held in trust to their arrival at age, "and said parti- tion between them," the rents and profits only to be paid to them or either of them, according to their respective shares, during their lives, with the fee simple to the heirs of said daughters "to be divided equally as above," gives to the daughter a life estate only and not a fee simple. Ib.
Where a will provided that the residue of testator's estate should be held in trust for his daughters, to be "set off" to them by trustees on their arrival at age, but to be still held in trust after their arrival at age and "partition" between them, the words "set off" and "partition,"
as against the provisions referred to in a preceding paragraph, are not to be construed to mean a division of a fee simple or inheritable estate. Ib.
Section 5970, Rev. Stat., provid- ing that every devise of lands, etc., in any will hereafter made, shall be construed to convey all the estate of the devisor therein which he could lawfully devise, unless it shall clear- ly appear by the will that the de- visor intended to convey a less es- tate, does not necessarily mean that the whole estate must be devised to the first taken, unless the intention of the testator is clearly shown, nor does it require each item of the will to show the testator's intention, if the intention as to the several items can be devised from the whole will. Ib.
Where the language of a will clearly indicates the intention of the testator to give a life estate to his daughters, and the fee simple in re- mainder to their heirs, such inten- tion cannot be defeated by a con- struction as to the sense in which the word "heir" is used. The ex- pressed intent of the testator, not the mere implication should fix the meaning of the word "heir.” Ib.
Where, by the provisions of a will certain sums are set aside and invested and the proceeds are to be paid to certain persons during their lives, such persons are legatees and not annuitants. Krigbaum v. Ir vine. 226
Where an executor in carrying out the provisions of a will sets aside and invests certain sums, the income of which is to be paid to a certain pcrson during her lifetime, he ceases to act as executor and as to that property becomes a trustee. Ib.
Where a testator makes the same provision in his will for his widow that she would be entitled to by the terms of an ante-nuptial contract, and stipulates that it shall be in lieu of dower and in lieu of her rights under the ante-nuptial contract, the widow by electing to take under the will waives her right to dower and her rights under the ante-nuptial afterwards contract, and cannot claim either.
Where a testatrix residing in West Virginia made a will and con- tinued a resident of that state until her death, the original probating of her will in Ohio is void and passes
The question of the constitution- ality of a statute requiring witnesses to appear and answer questions, can- not be raised by one who is not a formal party to a case, criminal in its nature, when it appears that, in his own opinion, the answer would not tend to criminate him. Steuer v. McConnell. 573
The legislature of Ohio has con- stitutional power to vest a city coun- cil, or a committee thereof, with au- thority to commit to jail a witness who may refuse, except under the privilege as to incriminating testi- mony, to answer pertinent questions put in the course of an investigation which is confined within the proper limits of its lawful functions; and so far as an investigation is confined to finding out whether or not corrupt methods have been used, or attempt- ed to be used, in procuring a public contract, it is legitimate.
council, or any committee thereof, to compel the attendance of wit- nesses, and provides that no witness shall be excused from testifying, but that the testimony shall not be used in criminal prosecution, except for perjury, gives no power to a commit- tee of the council, to commit for con- tempt, it does not in terms, or by im- plication, repeal or prevent the ope- ration, as conflicting or inconsistent, of sec. 1687, Rev. Stat., which pro- vides that in all cases in which at- tendance of witnesses may be com- pelled, etc., the council or a commit- tee thereof, shall have the power to compel the giving of testimony con- ferred upon courts of justice.
Where, in an action for wrong- ful death, caused by failure of a rail- road company to fill or block a guard rail, as required by statute, it ap- pears that plaintiff's decedent had worked about the place, as a brake- man, for ten years; that the un- blocked rail was an obvious condi- tion; that he had had abundant op- portunity to observe that the rail was unblocked; that he made no com- plaint; in such case decedent must be held to have assumed the danger and cannot recover on the ground of the failure of the company to block the guard rail. Johns V. Railway Cc. 348
The words "personal representa- tives" as used in secs. 6134 and 6135, Rev. Stat., relating to actions for wrongul death, mean executors and administrators. Therefore an action under the statute in question may be brought by the executor of the per- son so deceased. Wittman's Extrx. v. Railroad Co. 563
« 이전계속 » |