For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER

158 (Okl.) Amendment attaching itemized 154(2) (Okl.) Mortgagee of property, where
statement and verification of claim should be buildings in course of construction, held to ac-
allowed.-Key v. Hill, 308.
quire rights with notice of mechanics' lien
claims.-Key v. Hill, 308.

55(2) (Okl.) Grantee in deed held strictly Remedy of summary sale under mortgage or
bound by royalty reservations.-Dunlap v. Jack-trust deed not precluded because invoking par-
son, 314.
ty might have proceeded under laws after state-
hood.-Id.

74 (Okl.) Recorded assignment of oil and 107.
gas lease held not constructive notice to sub-415(3) (Okl.) Facts held not sufficient to
sequent incumbrancers that it was intended as
mortgage.-Pierson v. McCrory, 641.

581(1) (Wash.) Payee or mortgagee, enti-
33 (3) (Cal.) Deed executed contemporane- tled to recover attorney's fee, may not make
ously with agreement to reassign held mort-profit thereon.-Cook v. Strelau, 846.
gage.-First Federal Trust Co. v. Sanders, 440.581 (2) (Colo.) Trustee may sell to satisfy

151 (2) (Wash.) Advances under first 13 (Okl.) In open court may be made oral-
mortgage held superior to subsequent mortgage ly.-Van Curon v. King, 337.
attaching before advances made.-Eltopia Fi-58 (Okl.) Clerical mistakes in orders and
nance Co. v. Colley, 24.
judgments may be corrected at any time when

79 (Okl.) Constitutional provision held to
reserve to state general legislative control of
cities of more than 2,000 inhabitants.-City of
Sapulpa v. Land, 117.

IV. PROCEEDINGS OF COUNCIL OR
OTHER GOVERNING BODY.

Whether automobile driver exceeded speed
limit in approaching intersection held for jury.

-Id.

706 (8) (Okl.) Instructions stating rule
tory negligence proper-Laws v. Rogers, 324.
equally applicable to negligence and contribu-
XIII. FISCAL MANAGEMENT, PUBLIC
DEBT, SECURITIES, AND TAXATION.
(C) Bonds and Other Securities, and Sink-
ing Funds,

918(1) '(Cal.) Where several bond issues
are voted on, two-thirds of all votes at election
necessary for any issue.-City of Pasadena v.
Chamberlain, 965.

(D) Taxes and Other Revenue, and Appli-

cation Thereof.

957(1) (Okl.) Constitutional provision by
which Legislature may authorize assessment
and collection of municipal taxes excludes other
methods.--City of Sapulpa v. Land, 117.

(E) Rights and Remedies of Taxpayers.
998 (Okl.) Motion of taxpayers to be made
parties to suit on unauthorized contract should
(B) Ordinances and By-Laws in General.
be granted.-Threadgill v. Peterson, 389.
120 (Cal.App.) Repeal of municipal ordi-1000 (5) (Okl.) Taxpayer's petition to en-
nance bar to prosecution.-People v. De Fer- join issuance of warrants in excess of legal
rari, 1048.
estimate for expenditures, held demurrable.-
Tobin v. City of Shawnee, 896.

122 (2) (Mont.) Finding of council that
certain industries require special police regu-
lation presumed correct. State v. Police Court
of City of Bozeman, 810.

IX. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS.
(B) Preliminary Proceedings and Ordi-
nances or Resolutions.

312 (Cal.App.) Ordinance held not repealed
by amendment to charter.-Gallagher v. Bar-
stow, 1014.

Immaterial that ordinance may have author-
ized procedure inconsistent with charter amend-
ment, where proceedings are consistent there-
with.-Id.

XI. USE AND REGULATION OF PUBLIC
PLACES, PROPERTY, AND WORKS.
(A) Streets and Other Public Ways.
705 (1) (Colo.) Error of judgment in going
to wrong side of road in emergency not negli-
gence. Larson v. Long, 1066.

706(5) (Cal.App.) Finding defendant's neg
ligence was proximate cause of collision held
supported by evidence.-Dillon v. Qualls, 754.

706 (6) (Okl.) Evidence of negligence in
collision sufficient to take case to jury.-Phil-
lips v. Classen, 708.

See Homicide.

MURDER.

MUTUAL BENEFIT INSURANCE.
See Insurance, ~755.

NATIONAL BANKS.
See Banks and Banking, 238.
NAVIGABLE WATERS.

See Ferries.

II. LANDS UNDER WATER.
36(3) (Or.) “Tideland" defined. Hardy v.
California Trojan Powder Co., 197.

37(1) (Or.) State's deed to tideland must
describe it with certainty.-Hardy v. California
Trojan Powder Co., 197.

37(4) (Or.) One claiming tidelands must
show existence of land to which state's deed
applied. Hardy v. California Trojan Powder
Co., 197.
Title to tidelands established.-Id.

III. RIPARIAN AND LITTORAL RIGHTS.
39(1) (Idaho) License held not to confer
riparian rights.-Bowman v. McGoldrick Lum-
ber Co., 1063.

NEGLIGENCE.
See Master and Servant, 101, 102-333;
Railroads, 320–327; Street Railroads,
81-114.

II. PROXIMATE CAUSE OF INJURY.
56(1) (Okl.) "Proximate cause" defined.-
706(7) (Cal.App.) Whether automobile Cushing Gasoline Co. v. Hutchins, 408.
driver exercised proper vigilance in approach-59 (Okl.) Rule as to responsibility for con-
ing intersection held for jury.-Dillon v. Qualls, sequences of negligence stated.-Cushing Gaso-
754.
line Co. v. Hutchins, 408.

1167

For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER
III. CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE.

(A) Persons Injured in General.
65 (Okl.) Primary negligence of defend-
ant element of contributory negligence.-Phil-
lips v. Classen, 708.

81 (Okl.) Sufficiency of evidence not re-
viewable by motion for new trial, where suffi-
ciency not legally attacked.-Worrell v. Allen,
367.

III. PROCEEDINGS TO PROCURE NEW
TRIAL.

119 (Okl.) Law requiring motion for new
trial filed within three days after verdict man-
datory.-Hendon v. Consolidated School Dist.
No. 5, Pottawatomie County, 291.

5 (Okl.) "Constructive notice" and "im-
plied notice" distinguished.-Gay v. Williams,
906.

NUISANCE.

II. PUBLIC NUISANCES.

(C) Abatement and Injunction.
84 (Kan.) Evidence held to sustain finding
of common nuisance.-State v. Harper, 266.
86 (Kan.) Evidence held to sustain convic-
tion for violation of injunction.-State v. Harp-
er, 266.

Bond conditioned to secure obedience to in-
junction may be required.-Id.

OBLIGATION OF CONTRACTS.
See Constitutional Law, 170.

For parties on appeal and review of rulings as
to parties, see Appeal and Error.
For parties to particular proceedings or in-
struments, see also the various specific top-
ics.
1. PLAINTIFFS.

(A) Persons Who may or must Sue.

(Okl.) “Proper party" plaintiff one
interested in subject-matter and relief.-Reyn-
olds v. Schmidt, 405.

140(3) (Okl.) Motion for new trial pred-6(2)
icated on misconduct of prevailing party ad-
dressed to court's discretion.-Stekoll v. Le-
bow. 899.

143(1) (Okl.) Jurors may not impeach
their verdict.-Stekoll v. Lebow, 899.

143 (2) (Wash.) Affidavits of jurors consid-
ered only as to misconduct.-Hafner v. U. S.
Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 16.

153 (Wash.) Consideration of affidavits
filed in support of motion for new trial, though
not timely served upon opposing counsel, held
not error.-Woodruff v. Ewald, 851.

162(1) (Cal.) That jury found same
amount of damages previously held excessive
held not to deprive court of jurisdiction to re-
quire remittitur.-Morris v. Standard Oil Co.,
998.

One having no interest in subject-matter of
action or relief demanded not proper party
plaintiff.-Id.

III. NEW PARTIES AND CHANGE OF

PARTIES.

51(1) (Okl.) Persons necessary to deter-
mination of actions must be made parties on
defendant's motion therefor.-Nix v. Green,
380.

PARTITION.

II. ACTIONS FOR PARTITION.

(B) Proceedings and Relief.
83 (Wash.) Complaint as to previous parti-
tion from which no appeal taken cannot be
heard.-Murray v. Chamberlain, 8.

163(1)(Idaho) Entry denying new trial
made by clerk at direction of judge held an or-
der, though minutes not signed. Spivey v. Dis-89 (Wash.) Oral testimony as to cost of
trict Court of Third Judicial Dist. in and for fence held not belied by physical facts.-Murray
Ada County, 203.
V. Chamberlain, 8.

165 (Idaho) Order denying new trial final,
and precludes rehearing. Spivey v. District
Court of Third Judicial Dist. in and for Ada
County, 203.

NONSUIT.

Claim arising out of partition of land dis-
allowed.-Id.

340 (Okl.) Where partnership not indebt-8(6) (Okl.) Conclusions of pleader unsup-
ed, its realty may be divided among partners
without sale and division of profit.-Nix v.
Green, 380.

8(2) (Okl.) Contract providing for "court" 36 (7) (Colo.) Admissions in amended au-
extending "entire length of wall" construed.-swer not eliminated by allegations of second
amended answer.-Cripple Creek State Bank v.
Smith v. Martin, 312.
Russell, 212.

(C) Traverses or Denials and Admissions.
121 (2) (Coló.) Denial of liability for at-
33(8) (Kan.) May be established by cir-torney's fees may be on lack of knowledge, in-
formation, or belief.-Jones v. First Nat. Bank,
cumstantial evidence.-State v. Wilhelm, 510. 780.
33 (9) (Kan.) Evidence held to sustain con-
viction of subornation of perjury.-State v.
Wilhelm, 510.

Evidence held to sustain conviction of subor-172 (Okl.) Filing of reply out of time with-
nation of perjury.-Id.
34(1)(Kan.) Testimony of single credible in discretion of trial court.-Wallace v. Mer-
witness sufficient to establish subornation of feld, 702.
183 (Colo.) New matter in replication
perjury.-State v. Wilhelm, 510.
deemed denied.-Alamosa Industrial Stores Co.
v. Hill, 210.

PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS.
5(1) (Cal.App.) Practice of medicine and
surgery and of naturopathy distinct systems.-214(4) (Okl.) Demurrer to petition admits
Millsap v. Alderson, 469.
only truth of facts pleaded and inferences au-

For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER
thorized thereby.-Matthews v. Oklahoma, Pub. [398 (Okl.) Variance immaterial unless ad-
Co., 947.
verse party misled.-Throm v. Hollister, 115.

VI. AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTAL
PLEADINGS AND REPLEADER.

232 (Colo.) Complaint amendable to con-
form to proof offered by adverse party.-Doyle
v. Miles, 1068.

XIII. DEFECTS AND OBJECTIONS, WAIV-
ER, AND AIDER BY VERDICT
OR JUDGMENT.

403 (2) (Or.) Allegations filed by plaintiff
to be answered by garnishee held aided by an-
236 (6) (Kan.) Permitting amendment of swer of garnishee. Overturff v. Carroll, 1081.
plaintiff's reply to meet defensive averments in 406(5) (Or.) Allegations of complaint held
answer held not abuse of discretion.-Hudson sufficient in absence of challenge at a proper
V. Riley, 499.
time.-Castleman v. Stryker, 1084.

252 (2) (Okl.) Original pleading supersed-406 (9) (Colo.) Failure to plead waiver of
ed by amendment cannot be considered, unless defects in deed held aided by defendant's tes-
introduced in evidence.-Cushing Gasoline Co. timony.-Doyle v. Miles, 1068.
v. Hutchins, 408.

258(3) (Mont.) Refusal to permit trial
amendment of answer two years after service
of complaint held not abuse of discretion.-May-
ger v. St. Louis Min. & Mill. Co. of Mon-
tana, 1102.

263 (Colo.) Court held justified in refusing
leave to file amended answer.-Cripple Creek
State Bank v. Russell, 212.

411 (Wash.) Evidence of increase in mar-
ket value because of improvements held to jus-
tify recovery therefor, although not pleaded.-
Crawford v. Smith, 855.

~433(1) (Kan.) Whether petition technically
good becomes less material after full trial on
merits.-Brooks v. Weik, 528.

433 (8) (Cal.App.) Complaint held suffi-
cient though payment of balance of purchase
price not alleged.-Foster v. Gorham, 476.

PLEDGES.

VII. SIGNATURE AND VERIFICATION.
290(3) (Okl.) Express averment of agency
not necessary to require denial under oath, if
facts constituting agency set forth in answer; (Okl.) Delivery contemporaneously with
to require denial of agency under oath, facts execution of pledge not necessary.-Farmers'
averred must be such that agency follows as Nat. Bank of Ponca City v. Cravens, 138.
legal conclusion. Reed v. Fichencord, 937.

VIII. PROFERT, OYER, AND EXHIBITS.

308 (Okl.) In action for debt and foreclo-
sure of mortgage, note and mortgage must be
made a part of petition by attachment or
otherwise. Mason v. Slonecker, 357.

24 (Wash.) Bank taking assignment of land
contract, on its face showing it to be security,
chargeable with knowledge of first assignee's
rights.--Willett v. Central Yakima Ranches Co.,

20.

Assignee of land contract, given to secure
note, takes subject to defenses, when note not
indorsed.-Id.

312 (Okl.) Attached exhibits control when 29 (Okl.) Rights of pledgee selling proper-
variance between them and petition.-Mason v.ty of estate held as collateral stated.-Farmers'
Slonecker, 357.
Nat. Bank of Ponca City v. Craven, 138.
42 (Cal.) Pledgee may not pledge bonds to
another as collateral for larger personal obli-

XI. MOTIONS.

341 (Okl.) Motion for judgment on plead-gation.-People v. Tambara, 745.
ing on ground that no reply filed properly over- 56(1) (Colo.) Pledgee not relieved of lia-
ruled when reply filed with permission of court.bility to pledgor for surplus on sale by transfer
-Wallace v. Merfeld, 702.
not constituting a sale.-Cripple Creek State
Bank v. Russell, 212.

345(1) (Okl.) Demand to enforce collec-
tion at maturity and unauthorized extension
held good defense to suit against surety on
note.-Hollis v. Parks, 110.

POISONS.

345 (2) (Okl.) Error to render judgment on 9 (Cal.App.) Evidence held to support con-
pleadings raising issue of fact.-Hollis v. Parks, viction for possessing and offering to sell
110.
morphine.-People v. Fong Wot, 481.

345 (2) (Okl.) Where petition bases recov-9 (Okl.Cr.App.) General reputation of house
ery on void tax deed, and defendant answers where found not element of offense.-Hurst v.
by general denial, judgment for defendant on State, 151.
plaintiff's motion on the pleadings justified.-
Dixon v. Bowlegs, 665.

POLICE POWER.

349 (Colo.) Where plaintiff declared note, See Municipal Corporations, 592.
and defendant pleaded two defenses, which
plaintiff denied, and neither party offered evi-
dence, plaintiff entitled to judgment on plead-
ings.-Alamosa Industrial Stores Co. v. Hill,

210.

350 (3) (Okl.) Allegations of opposite par-
ty admitted as true on motion for judgment on
pleadings.-Hill v. Bucy, 124.

PRACTICE.

For practice in particular actions and proceed-
ings, see the various specific topics.

PRESCRIPTION.

See Adverse Possession; Limitation of Ac-
tions.

PRINCIPAL AND AGENT.

369(1) (Kan.) Refusal to require plaintiff See Attorney and Client; Brokers.
to elect between damages for conversion and
foreclosure in action for value of interest in
automobile held not erroneous.-Graves v. Ne-
gy, 286.

369(1) (Wash.) Refusal of court to require
election of remedies held not error.-Jacobs v.
Teachout, 38.

1. THE RELATION.

(A) Creation and Existence.
20(1) (Okl.) Parol agency, how proved.-
Seran v. Rose, 940.

21 (Okl.) Parol agency provable by testi-
mony of agent.-Seran v. Rose, 940.

XII. ISSUES, PROOF, AND VARIANCE.
391 (Okl.) Time usually immaterial, and court.-Stacy v. Browne, 336.

24 (Okl.) Question of agency held for the

need not be proved as pleaded.-Davis v. Kel-24 (Okl.) Agency question for jury.-Ste-
ley, 923.

koll v. Lebow, 899.