« 이전계속 »
Mines and Minerals
V. ASSIGNMENT OF LIEN OR CLAIM.
to have sufficient interest to entitle him to file
C281 (2) (Cal.App.) Evidence sustained find-
En 281 (4) (Cal.App.) Evidence sustained find-
On 290(5) (Cal.App.) Findings of two differ-
ants could file liens not inconsistent.--Heber-
417 (7) (Okl.) Finding of compensable
MINES AND MINERALS.
I. PUBLIC MINERAL LANDS.
417(9) (Colo.) Remanding, compensation ww23(5) (Ariz.) Notice of intent to hold
work.-Hatch v. Leighton, 300.
27(1) (Ariz.) Lessee's employee could file
location notice adverse to lessor.-Hatch V.
adverse to lessor, though he formerly filed no-
--Tom Reed Gold Mines Co. v. United East-
ern Mining Co., 283.
m31 (3) (Ariz.) Vein to which extralateral
right attaches must be identical with vein ly-
ing within boundaries of claim.-Tom Reed
Gold Mines Co. v. United Eastern Mining Co.,
Om38(2), (Mont.) Excluded cotenant's rights
of who is in possession.-O'Hanlon v. Ruby
Gulch Mining Co., 1062.
w38(5) (Mont.) Rule against laches applied
O'Hanlon v. Ruby Gulch Mining Co., 1062.
74 (Colo.) May arise out of oral contract properly considered.-Id.
characterize an action as an adverse suit for
m38(18) (Ariz.) Evidence held to support
judgment awarding bisected apex of side line
em 38(28) (Ariz.) 'Plaintiff, in suit to quiet
Reed Gold Mines Co. v. United Eastern Mining
may be ww44 (Ariz.) One claiming rights anterior to
ed by patent, but entitled to show his prior dis-
II. TITLE, CONVEYANCES, AND CON-
(C) Leases, Licenses, and Contracts.
III. OPERATION OF MINES, QUARRIES, MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS.
See Counties; School and School Districts;
(C) Amendment, Repeal, or Forfeiture of
Charter, and Dissolution.
of City of Los Angeles, 64.
ceding next session of Legislature, or before
II. GOVERNMENTAL POWERS AND FUNC-
TIONS IN GENERAL.
ww58 (Or.) City charter is a grant, not lim.
itation of power.-State v. Funk, 113.
nuisances applicable to case considered.-Ex
parte Mathews, 220.
Om63(2) (Okl.Cr.App.) Appellate court can.
not declare ordinance regulating automobiles on
streets unreasonable unless it clearly appears
so.-McGuire v. Wilkerson, 445.
IV. PROCEEDINGS OF COUNCIL OR
OTHER GOVERNING BODY.
(B) Ordinances and By-Laws in General.
nance for court.-McGuire v. Wilkerson, 445.
a 122(2) (Okl.Cr. App.) Municipal ordinance
presumed valid.-McGuire v. Wilkerson, 445.
V. OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYÉS.
(A) Municipal Officers in General.
Om 142 (Cal.) Charter forbidding person hold-
gibility of chief of fire department to appoint-
ment as battalion chief.- Whitehead v. Davie,
Mayor not authorized to jnvestigate bill ap-
Mayor not authorized to issue subpæna to in-
Cm 196 (Cal.) Chief of fire department may be
appointed without reference to civil service
rules and classifications.-Whitehead v. Davie,
m200 (Cal.) Charter providing retirement
and pension for members of fire department ret-
Period member of fire department acted as
Fireman pension computed on basis of salary
one year before retirement.-Id.
(C) Agents and Employés.
commission in dismissal of employee.-Ryan v.
civil service commission are joined as codefend-
m218(9) (Wash.) Court's review of munici-
rate Powers in General.
for negligence, though selling the garbage.-
Other Public Ways.
Om819(2) (Mont.) Evidence held to show icy
Can819(6) (Mont.) Evidence held to show icy
condition of sidewalk where plaintiff fell, and
constructive notice thereof to city.-Reilly V.
XIII. FISCAL MANAGEMENT, PUBLIC
878 (Or.) City of Portland has no author-
(B) Administration in General, Appropri-
ations, Warrants and Payment,
self that money is_legally due before drawing
Om918 (2) (Ariz.) Bonds held not invalidated,
(D) Taxes and Other Revenne, and Appli-
ation in first-class city.--Salt Lake City v. Salt
Lance allowing claim.-State v. Funk, 113.
PLACES, PROPERTY, AND WORKS.
MUTUAL BENEFIT INSURANCE.
I. RIGHTS OF PUBLIC.
un 22 (1) (Wash.) Federal permit for dam
II. LANDS UNDER WATER.
mark.-Miller v. Lewiston-Clarkston Canning
m37(4) (Idaho) Adjacent land under navi-
pal Corporations, C729-819; Railroads,
307-447; Street Railroads, em 85–99.
III. CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE.
(A) Persons Injured in General.
See Dismissal and Nonsuit.
See Bills and Notes.
Trust Co. v. Wallace, 78.
See Constitutional Law, 121–169.
See Judges; Justices of the Peace; Public
Service Commissions; Sheriffs and Con-
III. RIGHTS, POWERS, DUTIES, AND
board held to increase compensation of assess-
pot immune from collateral attack.–Miller y.
Lewiston-Clarkston Canning Co., 194.
PARENT AND CHILD.
See Guardian and Ward; Infants.
8 (Or.) Father, suing as trustee of son's
vanced to defendant without proof of an ex-
v. Om 17 (2) (Okl.Cr.App.) Omission of parent to
provide for child held to mean such failure to
furnish food, clothing, shelter, and medical at-
-People v. Driscoll, 869.
Properly granted in death action, where loss For parties on appeal and review of rulings as
to parties, see Appeal and Error.
For parties to particular proceedings or in-
struments, also the various specific
er parties.-Utah Oil Refining Co. v. District
Om47 (Mont.) Intervener must accept pending
action as found, but thereafter has same rights
as other parties.-State Bank of New Salem v.
standing their original answer partially tra-
Intervention adverse to both plaintiff and de-
ute to complaint in intervention.-Id.
Tor cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig, Key-No.Serles & Indexes see samo topic and KEY-NUMBER
revoke license for unprofessional conduct.-
real Jacobs v. Board of Dental Examiners of Cal-
cusation filed by its agent.-Jacobs v. Board
em 18(8) (Okl.) Not error to direct verdict for
plaintiff, where evidence insufficient to support
verdict for defendant. -Eves Tall Chief v.
24 (4) (Okl.) Instruction on sole question
of fact submitted held not error.-Eves Tall
Chief v. Aaron, 915.
see Appeal and Error.
I. FORM AND ALLEGATIONS IN GENERAL.
8(5) (Idaho) Denial of debt, without denial
of facts pleaded, insufficient as a conclusion.-
without denying facts alleged held a conclusion.
-Underwood v. Purcell Wholesale Grocery Co.,
pleadings in record.-Bank of Buchannan Coun-
could prove unfit condition at time of receiving
for shipment.–Mitchell v. Southern Pac. Co.,
III. PLEA OR ANSWER, CROSS-COM-
PLAINT, AND AFFIDAVIT
value of produce held to admit value to be any
sum less than averred.-Mitchell y. Southern
Pac. Co., 718.
ecution is admission of regular return.-Hutch-
(D) Matter in Avoidance,
132 (Nev.) Answer sufficient, if setting up
affirmative matter which in law defeats the
cause of action.-State y. Streshley, 712.
must be in accord with pleading based on defi-
nite theory.-J. Crouch & Son y. Huber, 764.
IV. REPLICATION OR REPLY AND SUBSE-
Om 177 (Wash.) Reply held not to admit dis-
V. DEMURRER OR EXCEPTION.
em212 (Or.) General demurrer never waived.
PLEADINGS AND REPLEADER.
236(6) (Wash.) Amendment of petition al-
leging merger of corporations to allege assump-
delivery of goods to third party, held not en-