IV. DISQUALIFICATION TO ACT. 51(1) (Wash.) State has right to object to judge or proceedings thereon.-State v. Superior Court of Washington for King County, 1097. VII. ENTRY, RECORD, AND DOCKETING. 51(1) (Wash.) Defendant sheriff in habeas 271 (Cal.) Discretion as to entering judgcorpus proceedings has right to change of judgement against some defendants must be exerin case of prejudice. State v. Superior Court cised by court and not by clerk.—Trans-Pacific of Washington for King County, 1099. Trading Co. v. Patsy Frock & Romper Co., 357. 51(2)(Wash.) State has right which may be exercised at time of arraignment to change of judges in case of prejudice.-State v. Superior Court of Washington for King County, 1097. 51(4) (Cal.) Judge may pass on his bias or prejudice.-Grinbaum v. Superior Court of City and County of San Francisco, 1005. Late-filed counter affidavit as to bias and prejudice considered.-Id. 51(4) (Wash.) Right to change of judge because of prejudice held an absolute right, and prejudice not inquired into.-State v. Superior Court of Washington for King County, 1099. See Execution. JUDGMENT. VIII. AMENDMENT, CORRECTION, AND REVIEW IN SAME COURT. 306 (Mont.) Clerical error correctible within reasonable time.-State Bank of New Salem v. Schultze, 599. 326 (Mont.) Clerical error concerning land descriptions may be corrected.-State Bank of New Salem v. Schultze, 599. IX. OPENING OR VACATING. 394 (Cal.) Court may vacate judgment inconsistent with findings, but cannot on motion to vacate change findings of fact.-Akley v. Bassett, 576. For judgments in particular actions or pro-395 (Cal.App.) Order setting aside judgceedings, see also the various specific topics.ment against one defendant does not affect For review of judgments, see Appeal and another defendant where interests are distinct. -Bishop v. Superior Court in and for Los Angeles County, 1012. Error. I. NATURE AND ESSENTIALS IN GENERAL. X. EQUITABLE RELIEF. (A) Nature of Remedy and Grounds. 18(2) (Cal.) Not void if court has jurisdiction and complaint apprises defendant of na-443(1) (Okl.) Fraud on court or its proture of demand.-Trans-Pacific Trading Co. v. cess, and not in cause, ordinarily ground for Patsy Frock & Romper Co., 357. setting aside judgment.-Stutsman v. Williams, 406. 27 (Okl.) Clearly violative of statutes or Constitution unenforceable to extent of violation.-City of Norman v. Van Camp, 925. III. ON CONSENT, OFFER, OR ADMISSION. 72 (Colo.) Court held justified in entering consent decree over later objection of defendant.-Garf v. Weitzman, 809. IV. BY DEFAULT. (A) Requisites and Validity, XI. COLLATERAL ATTACK. (A) Judgments Impeachable Collaterally. 485 (Cal.) Collateral attack proper, where admitted facts show judgment void.-Akley v. Bassett, 576. (B) Grounds. 486(1) (Wash.) Void order or judgment may be attacked at any time.-State v. Bayles, 20. 98 (Cal.) When all defendants served, clerk490(3) (Ariz.) Failure of plaintiff's affimay enter one's default, but cannot enter judg- davit for publication of summons to state that ment.-Trans-Pacific Trading Co. V. Patsy defendant is nonresident held not to avoid Frock & Romper Co.. 357. 106(1) (Mont.) Allegations in complaint in intervention not denied, deemed admitted, and default judgment may be taken.-State Bank of New Salem v. Schultze, 599. 107 (Or.) Demurrer, though not well taken, sufficient to prevent judgment for want of answer.-McCann v. Oregon Scenic Trips, 483; Smith v. Same, 486. 109 (Wash.) Court may render default judgment enjoining personally served defendant from engaging in certain business without notice of application and hearing.-State v. McCoy, 1112. VI. ON TRIAL OF ISSUES. (A) Rendition, Form, and Requisites in General. 199(1) (Okl.) Judgment for defendant notwithstanding verdict held error.-First Nat. Bank of Ball, 322. 199(3) (Wash.) Where evidence sustains verdict, judgment non obstante veredicto refused.-Rieper v. General Cigar Co., 819. judgment when collaterally attacked.-Noonan v. Montgomery, 302. Publication of copy of summons held not to render judgment void on collateral attack.-Id. 491 (Ariz.) Failure to make return of service by publication held not to invalidate judgment when attacked collaterally.-Noonan v. Montgomery, 302. XIII. MERGER AND BAR OF CAUSES OF ACTION AND DEFENSES. (A) Judgments Operative as Bar. 542 (Okl.) Judgment of superior court in dissolution and accounting bar to suit between same parties involving same matters in district court.-Cromwell v. Hamilton, 395. (B) Causes of Action and Defenses Merged, Barred, or Concluded. 592 (Okl.) Single cause of action cannot be divided to be made subject of different actions for different parties.-Brisley v. Mahaffey, 920. For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER XIV. CONCLUSIVENESS OF ADJUDICATION. ] which he was a juror held disqualified.-People v. Wismer, 259. (C) Matters Concluded. ton, 395. 713(2) (Okl.) Judgment in former suit for 99(2) (Colo.) Juror held not disqualified by opinion expressed prior to trial.-Baker v. dissolution between same parties involving People, 791. same matters conclusive.-Cromwell v. Hamil-100 (Okl.Cr.App.) Opinion formed from reading newspaper should not disqualify a juror; a juror's settled impression from reading a newspaper or current rumor does not render him incompetent.-Littrell v. State, 184. 103(3) (Okl.Cr.App.) Ordinarily, a juror is qualified where he believes he can and the court finds he could render an impartial verdict.-Littrell v. State, 184. 713(2) (Okl.) Conclusive while in force as to matters litigated or which might have been raised.-Stutsman v. Williams, 406. 713(2) (Okl.) Conclusive in second suit as to every question which was or might have been presented in first suit.-Brisley v. Mahaffey, 920. 713(3) (Wash.) Judgment in action for separate maintenance held not res judicata in subsequent action for same relief, where other parties are joined.-Buttnick v. Buttnick, 6. 103(14). (Okl.Cr.App.) Opinion of juror based on newspaper report, which opinion will yield to evidence does not disqualify.-Tuggle v. State, 187. ac-110(5) (Cal.App.) Failure to peremptorily excuse juror held not a waiver of disqualification.-People v. Wismer, 259. 714(1) (Cal.) Conclusive in subsequent tion involving same question, though different subject-matter.-Whittier v. Visscher, 23. 720 (Okl.) On questions actually at issue in former suit res adjudicata.-Brisley v. Mahaffey, 920. 729 (Utah) Where damage issue deferred in injunction action, judgment not res judicata as to damages.-Utah Oil Refining Co. v. District Court of Salt Lake County, 624. 742 (Wash.) Judgment in suit for separate maintenance held conclusive on the issue of marriage.-Buttnick v. Buttnick, 6. XVII. FOREIGN JUDGMENTS. 831 (Wash.) Foreign judgment against principal not bar to recovery of special damages by guarantors for breach of contract to extend credit to principal.-Merchants' Bank of Canada v. Sims, 1113. JUDICIAL POWER. See Constitutional Law, 70-75. JURY. See Criminal Law, 855. II. RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY. 12(3) (Okl.) Issues of law must be tried by court, and issues of fact by jury.-Thomas v. Westheimer & Daube, 327. 13(14) (Okl.) In action on secured notes involving amount due, defendant entitled to jury trial.-Thomas v. Westheimer & Daube, 327. 13(18) (Wash.) Defendants not entitled to a trial by jury where by cross-complaint they converted action into an equitable one.-Thiel v. Miller, 1081. 25(1) (Okl.) Defendant demanding jury trial held entitled to it.-Thomas v. Westheimer & Daube, 327. 28(1) (Okl.) Methods by which jury trial may be waived stated.-Thomas v. Westheimer & Daube, 327. 33 (2) (Okl.Cr.App.) "Impartial juror" as used in Constitution does not preclude Legislature defining the term.-Littrell v. State, 184. 37 (Or.) Re-examination of question of fact forbidden.-Derrick v. Portland Eye, Ear, Nose & Throat Hospital, 344. IV. SUMMONING, ATTENDANCE, DIS- 16 (Okl.Cr.App.) Panel held vulnerable to challenge on ground of bias of sheriff selecting jurors.-Lyde v. State, 226. 131 (10) (Okl.Cr.App.) Trial court should be satisfied that juror examined is indeed impartial.-Littrell v. State, 184. 133 (Or.) Court in passing on challenge for cause for bias not bound by juror's answers.-State v. Brumfield, 120. JUSTICES OF THE PEACE. V. REVIEW OF PROCEEDINGS. 141 (5) (Cal.App.) Service of notice of appeal jurisdictional, and cannot be waived by parties.-Harpold v. Superior Court in and for City and County of San Francisco, 219. (D) Termination. 72(6) (Okl.Cr.App.) Sheriff, material witness for state in criminal prosecution, disqual-95 (Cal.App.) Lessee held not entitled to ified to summon talesmen for special venire in second trial.-Lyde v. State, 226. V. COMPETENCY OF JURORS, CHALLENG- 85 (Or.) Challenge of juror for bias addressed to discretion of court.-State v. Brumfield, 120. Refusal to discharge juror on challenge for actual bias held not abuse of discretion.-Id. 97(4) (Cal.App.) Juror who expressed opinion based on evidence in similar trial in stipulated amount from lessor on voluntary termination.-Armas v. Armas, 256. VII. PREMISES AND ENJOYMENT AND 157(11) (Wash.) Arbitration not condition precedent to court's award at termination of lease as to value of fish wheel.-Enquist v. P. J. McGowan & Sons, 1091. 161(1) (Wash.) Tenant cannot assert title to improvements on premises occupied under successive owners by contract with first.Ziv v. Knight, 685. VIII. RENT AND ADVANCES. (C) Lien. 7(9) (Or.) Fee presumed reasonable.-Camas Stage Co. v. Kozer, 95. 182 [New, vol. 12A Key-No. Series] (Cal.) Interests in trust and mining options held "securities," which could not be sold without permit from commissioner of corporations.-Agnew v. Daugherty, 34. Commissioner can impose only such conditions on sale of securities as are necessary to safety and security.-Id. 182 [New, vol. 12A Key-No. Series] 241 (Ariz.) Statute, giving landlord a lien (Cal.) Subscriptions to stock held not on crops of tenant, liberally construed.-Scotts- to comply with permit of corporation commissioner under Blue Sky Law.-Domenigoni v. dale Ginning Co. v. Longan, 876. Imperial Live Stock & Mortgage Co., 36. ~251(4) (Ariz.) Landlord may replevy crops of tenant from one having possession.-present clear case.-Camas Stage Co. v. Ko35 (Or.) Party claiming exemption must Scottsdale Ginning Co. v. Longan, 876. zer, 95. 258 (Ariz.) Landlord may take possession of crops of tenant to enforce lien for rent.37 (Utah) Scottsdale Ginning Co. v. Longan, 876. IX. RE-ENTRY AND RECOVERY OF SESSION BY LANDLORD. Upon "transfer" of ownership of automobile registration expires.-Bleon v. Emery, 627. POS-39 (Cal.) Neither party to illegal transaction in violation of Blue Sky Law entitled to Mortgage Co., 36. relief.-Domenigoni, Imperial Live Stock & 291(7) (Kan.) Tenant ceasing to perform services as consideration for lease cannot plead limitations against landlord.-Jenness v. Jenness, 822. LARCENY. See Receiving Stolen Goods. II. PROSECUTION AND PUNISHMENT. (B) Evidence. 55 (Idaho) Charge as to prima facie evidence erroneous.-State v. Miller, 892. 42(4) (Or.) Evidence of actual sales admissible under Blue Sky Law, and evidence that sales were not made at profit inadmissible.State v. Fraser, 467. LIENS. See Mechanics' Liens. 12 (Wash.) General lien does not destroy prior lien.-First Nat. Bank v. White-Dulany Co., 861. LIFE ESTATES. 55 (Kan.) Evidence held to constitute lar-22 (Or.) Complaint to enforce must allege ceny and not embezzlement.-State v. Mall, 820. facts on which validity depends.-Duby v. 55 (Wash.) Evidence held to show partici- Hicks, 156. pation in grand larceny.-State v. Guy, 673. 55 (Wash.) Evidence held sufficient to sustain conviction of theft of hides.-State v. Jew-8 (Cal.) Life tenant cannot make his own ett, 1076. dermen during life estate.-Akley v. Bassett, or his grantee's possession adverse to remain576. 58 (Idaho) Evidence held insufficient to sustain conviction of grand larceny.-State v. Hurst, 724. LIMITATION OF ACTIONS. 64 (7) (Okl.Cr.App.) Evidence held sufficient to sustain conviction.-Chrisman v. State, See Adverse Possession. 656. 1. STATUTES OF LIMITATION. 65 (Kan.) Value of goods to determine degree of larceny sufficiently proved by retail selling price in community of theft.-State v. (B) Limitations Applicable to Particular Mall, 820. Actions. Conviction of petit larceny under count sup-41 (Wash.) Cross-complaint for fraud barported by proof that article stolen worth more red three years from time fraud was discovered. than $20 not error.-Id. -Pruitt v. Stritehoff, 675. LEASE. See Landlord and Tenant. LEGISLATIVE POWER. See Constitutional Law, 56–62. LICENSES. 1. FOR OCCUPATIONS AND PRIVILEGES. (Kan.) Tax levied on occupations employing vehicles may be graded according to number of vehicles employed without becoming vehicle tax-Wichita Produce Co. v. City of Wichita, 667. 7(1) (Or.) Statute imposing privilege tax and exempting property from ad valorem tax valid.-Camas Stage Co. v. Kozer, 95. 7(1) (Utah) That Automobile License Law is both a regulatory and revenue measure does not affect its validity.-Bleon v. Emery, 627. 7(2) (Or.) Graduate fee for operating automobiles on highway held valid.-Camas State Co. v. Kozer, 95. 7(2) (Utah) Automobile License Law not discriminatory.-Bleon v. Emery, 627. II. COMPUTATION OF PERIOD OF LIMI- (A) Accrual of Right of Action or De- 44(1) (Okl.) Limitations to begin suit for recovery of lands held not to run until after right to maintain action accrued.-Foreman v. Marks, 1040. (C) Personal Disabilities and Privileges. 77 (Cal.) Time within which disseized minor must bring action stated.-Akley v. Bassett, 576. (F) Ignorance, Mistake, Trust, Fraud, and Concealment of Cause of Action. 95(1) (Kan.) Limitations did not run while beneficiary did not know insured dead.Green v. Bankers' Life Ins. Co. of Nebraska, 670. 100(7) (Cal.App.) Statute begins to run only from discovery of fraud.-Gaver v. Early, 390. 100(12) (Cal.) Facts held not to amount to notice of fraud starting statute running.7(4) (Kan.) Ordinance levying occupation Prewitt v. Sunnymead Orchard Co., 995. tax held not invalid for arbitrariness of classi-100(12) (Wash.) Fraud barring cross-acfication or unlawful discrimination.-Wichita tion held within defendant's knowledge.-Pruitt Produce Co. v. City of Wichita, 667. v. Stritehoff, 675. For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER 102(9) (Or.) Trust ex maleficio not impressed on estate of decedent who in good faith cut and took logs from plaintiff's lands.-Lee v. Gram, 474. (H) Commencement of Action or Other Proceeding. 127(1) (Okl.) Pleading filed before bar of limitation stating cause of action may be amended after period of limitation.-Johnson v. Potts, 734. 129 (Cal.) Running against counterclaim stopped by commencement of main action. Whittier v. Visscher, 23. IV. OPERATION AND EFFECT OF BAR 167(2) (Wash.) Statute of limitations in actions on debts not evidenced by writing applies to foreclosure of mortgage in form of absolute deed to secure debts not evidenced by writing.-Pratt v. Pratt, 535. V. PLEADING, EVIDENCE, TRIAL, AND V. ACTIONS. 48 (Or.) Complaint held not to show commencement of proceedings for search warrant. -Nally v. Richmond, 871. MANDAMUS. I. NATURE AND GROUNDS IN GENERAL. 3(2) (Or.) Not issued where adequate remedy at law.-State v. Funk, 113. 10 (Or.) Issued only where duty is legally defined.-State v. Funk, 113. 13 (Cal.App.) Will not lie to compel judge to entertain appeal, where notice thereof was not given.-Harpold v. Superior Court in and for City and County of San Francisco, 219. II. SUBJECTS AND PURPOSES OF (A) Acts and Proceedings of Courts, 31 (Okl.) Will lie to compel prejudiced judge to certify disqualifications.-Robertson v. Bozarth, 742. III. JURISDICTION, PROCEEDINGS, RELIEF. AND 179(3) (Kan.) Petition setting out indorsement showing a payment within five years after maturity sufficient as against demurrer.-Ber-163 (Cal.App.) Demurrer to petition, adnard v. Davidson, 668. mitting its allegations, held improperly sustained.-Pavilion Ice Rink v. Bryant, 76. LIQUOR SELLING. See Intoxicating Liquors. LIVERY STABLE AND GARAGE 42 (Colo.) Building not a "public garage," though renting storage place for 24 automobiles.-Pratt v. City and County of Denver, 508. 168 (2) (Cal.App.) Dismissal by appellate court for want of jurisdiction presumed regular. -Harpold v. Superior Court in and for City and County of San Francisco, 219. 176 (Cal.App.) Judgment creditor of municipality cannot compel levy of tax sufficient Hotel Co. of San Francisco v. Board of Sup'rs to pay judgments other than his own.-Palace of City and County of San Francisco, 256. MANSLAUGHTER. 8(1) (Or.) Notice failing to show debt in amount for which lien claimed invalid.-Duby See Homicide. v. Hicks, 156. MARRIAGE. 8(4) (Or.) Complaint failing to allege that lien notice contained every statement which See Divorce; Husband and Wife. by statute must appear upon face did not state good cause of suit.-Duby v. Hicks, 156.5 (Wash.) Common-law rule as to age of Where defects of complaint to enforce lien not supplied by defendant's pleadings, no cause of suit stated.-Id. 8(4) (Or.) No personal decree against defendant when there was no personal obligation for the debt.-McCann v. Oregon Scenic Trips, 483; Smith v. Same, 486. Complaint to enforce lien insufficient when it does not appear labor, skill, and materials supplied within county or state.-Id. LOGS AND LOGGING. consent not changed.-Tisdale v. Tisdale, 8. 58(1) (Wash.) Female 17 years of age held not entitled to the annulment of marriage contracted by her.-Tisdale v. Tisdale, 8. Absence of sexual intercourse not element in determining whether marriage shall be annul led.-Id. MASTER AND SERVANT. III. MASTER'S LIABILITY FOR INJURIES (E) Fellow Servants. 202 (Wash.) Foreman assaulting em 3(1) (Wash.) Contracts granting unlimited time for removal of timber are valid.-Hend-ployee to stop dispute with another held within rickson v. Lyons, 1095. 3(11) (Wash.) Eight years held not per se an unreasonable time within which to remove timber.-Hendrickson v. Lyons, 1095. 26(1) (Wash.) No lien for scaling logs; "performing labor thereon."-Puget Sound Log Scaling & Grading Bureau v. Danaher Lumber Co., 530. MALICIOUS MISCHIEF. scope of employment.-Perry v. Beverage, 1102. (G) Contributory Negligence of Servant. 243(1) (Ariz.) Electric lineman, violating rules, held negligent.-Arizona Power Co. v. Hayes, 280. 243 (4) (Ariz.) Electric lineman's violation of rules not excused.-Arizona Power Co. v. Hayes, 280. (H) Actions. (Okl.Cr.App.) Law creating offense in-264(2) (Or.) Admission of evidence as to tended to protect owner of property and not conditions not alleged held not error.-Eckproperty itself.-Thissen v. State, 224. hardt v. Jones' Market, 470. Malice toward owner of property necessary265(14) (Ariz.) Burden of issue of coningredient of offense.-Id. MALICIOUS PROSECUTION. I. NATURE AND COMMENCEMENT OF PROSECUTION. 8 (Or.) Commencement of a criminal proceeding essential.-Nally v. Richmond, 871. 209 P.-73 tributory negligence on plaintiff.-Arizona Power Co. v. Hayes, 280. 265(14) (Ariz.) Burden of issue of contributory negligence on plaintiff.-Calumet & Arizona Mining Co. v. Winters, 298. 286 (27) (Or.) Evidence of negligence in blocking passage held for jury.-Eckhardt v. Jones' Market, 470. 289 (39) (Ariz.) Contributory negligence for jury.-Calumet & Arizona Mining Co. v. Winters, 298. Contributory negligence of electrician held for jury.-Id. IV. LIABILITIES FOR INJURIES TO (A) Acts or Omissions of Servant. 301 (1) (Cal.) Doctrine of respondeat superior only applies when relation exists.-Billig v. Southern Pac. Co., 241. 301(1) (Wash.) Automobile owner liable for son's negligence.-Allison v. Bartelt, 863. 301 (4) (Cal.) Servant may be transferred to another's service.-Billig v. Southern Pac. Co., 241. Doctrine of respondeat superior depends on power of control.-Id. General employer may be liable for acts of employé hired out to third person.-Id. Truck driver, not controlled by third person, held truck owner's agent.-Id. 302 (2) (Wash.) Master not relieved of liability for salesman's negligence because use of automobile not directed.-Dishman v. Whitney, 12. Compensation Act, reviewable in collateral proceeding.-State v. Bayles, 20. Correctness of labor department's order, declaring work extrahazardous within Compensation Act, not reviewable in collateral proceeding.-Id. Labor department empowered to declare work extrahazardous within Compensation Act.-Id. 361 (Wash.) Injury to employee while being paid after notice of intention to quit held compensable.-Perry v. Beverage, 1102. 367 (Okl.) "Independent contractor" defined.-Producers' Lumber Co. v. Butler. 738. 373 (Kan.) Death of overheated workman drinking ice water held compensable as "arising out of and in course of employment."-Gilliland v. Edgar Zine Co., 658. 373 (Okl.) Jar causing hemorrhage resulting in loss of eye held "accidental personal injury" within Compensation Law.-Winona Oil Co. v. Smithson, 398. 376 (2) (Wash.) Rupture of diseased appendix held "injury" within compensation laws. Shadbolt v. Department of Labor and Industries of Washington, 683. (B) Compensation, 302(6) (Cal.App.) Master not liable for 385(114) (Okl.) Injury to eye compensaservant's negligence in lighting cigarette.-ble, irrespective of ability to work.-Winona Oil Feeney v. Standard Oil Co., 85. Co. v. Smithson, 398. 305 (Cal.App.) Violation of instructions no defense to action for servant's negligence.Feeney v. Standard Oil Co., 85. (B) Work of Independent Contractor. 316(1) (Wash.) One soliciting orders on salary and commission not an independent contractor.-Dishman v. Whitney, 12. 318(1) (Wash.) Control of work one test for determining relation.-Dishman v. Whitney, 12. (C) Actions. man's death payable one-half to widow and re386(5) (Kan.) Compensation for workmainder to children's guardian.-Gilliland v. Edgar Zinc Co., 658. 387 (Okl.) Compensation allowable for disfigurement of hand in addition to compensation for temporary disability.-Branham v. Carter Oil Co., 400. 387 (Okl.) Compensation allowable for permanent disfigurement to one compensated for temporary disability.-Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. State Industrial Commission, 330(1) (Cal.) General employer's control 775. inferred, in absence of contrary evidence.-388 (Utah) Divorced wife of deceased emBillig v. Southern Pac. Co., 241. 330(1) (Wash.) Burden of issue of independent contractor on party asserting relation. -Dishman v. Whitney, 12. 332(1) (Wash.) Family use of automobile held for jury.-Allison v. Bartelt, 863. 332(2) (Wash.) Salesman's scope of employment question of fact.-Dishman v. Whitney, 12. 332(3) (Wash.) Relation may be question of law. Dishman v. Whitney, 12. VI. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACTS. (A) Nature and Grounds of Master's Liability. 347 (Wash.) Compensation Act provision, authorizing labor department to declare pation extrahazardous, valid.-State v. Bayles, 20. ployee held not "dependent" within Compensation Act.-Wesley v. Industrial Commission of Utah, 337. 3932 (Okl.) State Commission without jurisdiction under Compensation Act to enforce physician's claim against employer of injured employee.-Integrity Mut. Casualty Co. v. State Industrial Commission, 653. (C) Proceedings. 403 (Wash.) Burden on employee suing for intentional injury to show compensation received or receivable.-Perry v. Beverage, 1102. 405 (4) (Utah) Evidence held to warrant denial of compensation for hernia.-Staker v. Industrial Commission, 880. occu-405 (6) (Wash.) Evidence held to warrant finding of assault with deliberate intention to injure within Compensation Act.-Perry v. Beverage, 1102. 348 (Okl.) Compensation Law liberally construed.-Winona Oil Co. v. Smithson, 398; Branham v. Carter Oil Co., 400. 354 (Wash.) Employee's right to sue foreman for assault not affected by Compensation Act.-Perry v. Beverage, 1102. 414 (Cal.) Service of application for compensation before hearing held waived.-Pruitt v. Industrial Accident Commission of California, 31. Rehearing in compensation proceedings may be limited to hearing of additional testimony. 361 (Cal.) One hiring truck and driver to another not liable for compensation, if exercis-Id. ing no control over the driver.-Pruitt v. Indus-417(1) (Cal.) Person aggrieved by want of trial Accident Commission of California, 31. 361 (Okl.) Principal stockholder and executive of corporation not prevented from claiming as "employee" within Compensation Law. Southern Surety Co. v. Childers, 927. Corporate officer injured in performance of duties as workman entitled to recover as "employee" within Compensation Law.--Id. 361 (Or.) Meat market business held "hazardous" within Compensation Act precluding common-law defenses.-Eckhardt v. Jones' Market, 470. 361 (Wash.) Validity of labor department's order, declaring work extrahazardous within service in compensation proceeding must apply to commission for relief.-Pruitt v. Industrial Accident Commission of California, 31. 417 (5) (Okl.) Compensation for permanent disfigurement presumed made in accordance with law.-Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. State Industrial Commission, 775. 417(5) (Utah) Industrial Commission's rules presumed reasonable and lawful.-Staker v. Industrial Commission, 880. 417 (7) (Cal.) Commission's findings in compensation proceeding binding on reviewing court, if supported by evidence.-Pruitt v. Industrial Accident Commission of California, 31. |