« 이전계속 »
2. Parol EVIDENCE IS ADMISSIBLE to show the legatee where the descrip-
tion in the will applies to several. u.
sovereign as derelict. I.
date, conditioned to hold “one half of the personal property which he
the debts or contracts of the legatee, he being of full age and competent
ors' act. II.
life, and then to the latter's son, if he have one living at his death,
is contingent. Dayton v. Grimke, 419.
legacy as maintenance, before it becomes vested, in such a case. la.
BENEFICIARIES.–A devise of a pecuniary legacy to be distributed among
beneficial interest was intended, could not, independent of the statute
lished by a court of equity in this state. Id.
who is to take under it; and it is equally necessary, in order to establish
Per Tucker, President. Id.
of the prerogative of the crown, and not a part of the ordinary powers of
it this branch of the prerogative. Per Tucker, President. Id.
of government. Per Tucker, President. Id.
15. TESTATOR'A INTENTION TO CREATE DIFFERENT GRADES in his benefac-
tions is clearly shown by his creating a residuum upon a residuum. Id.
of the same class bequeathed by the will. Id.
by a direction in the will to pay a legacy as soon as possible, because the
to pay such legatees as, in their judgment, are most in need. I
proportion of the whole fund, where such executors innocently, but im-
all the legatees. Id.
legatees to refund, if the executors are solvent. Id.
out fault on their part, the assets prove insufficient to pay all the lega-
See TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES, 6.
letter in the handwriting of the defendant, containing the libel, was
See CO-TENANCY, 1.
exist whenever there is an antecedent contract inconsistent with the ex.
Ilutchins v. Olcutt, 634.
for labor bestowed on any article, is a waiver of any lien which he may
have had on the articles for labor. Id.
at a future time, and whether negotiable or not. Id.
and can not follow it into the hands of any one. Id.
extended beyond its proper limits, and ought not to be anrlied where it
is evident that the parties never intended to apply it. Per Carr, J.
Moore v. Holcombe, 683.
ties, and so long as it is confined to the parties and to those claiming un.
ble incumbrance. Per Cabell, J. Id.
money exists on lands which the grantee conveys to another, who is ig.
the assignees, and not to the original vendor. Id.
vendor to subject such lands to sale under the equitable lien claimed by
guilty of maliciously killing the beast of another, under act of 1803, c. 9.
See MalicioUS PROSECUTION; MURDER; SLANDER, 2, 10.
tained by the person prosecuted, against him who procured such prosecu
tion to be instituted. Mowry v. Jiller, 680.
out probable cause; but such allegation has reference to the state of fact
See PROBABLE CAUSE.
ises as against the mortgagee, under a lease subsequent to the mortgage.
Lane v. King, 105.
against such lessee for taking such crops. Id.
constitutes a mortgage, or a sale with a right to repurchase, and such
intent is to be ascertained from the circumstances of each case. Bennd
v. Holt, 455.
paid is about the value of the land conveyed, and the vendor is not bound
See COVENANTS IN DEEds; RECORDING, 2; TENDER, 3.
See NUISANCES, 6, 7, 9.
is done, and both must be proved to the satisfaction of the jury; and if
See WARRANT OF ARREST, 2.
at maturity, it shall bear interest from date, is not usurious, nor against
sound policy. McNairy v. Bell, 454.
at that place in order to hold the maker liable. Id.
vided therein, and a continuance to be ready, is a matter of plea in a suit
covery of interest and costs. Id.
mand, in order to charge the indorser for non-payment. Principal en.
forced where the note was payable in grain. Eastman v. Polter, 609.
a foreign bill. Brown v. Ferguson, 707.
notice to the party next before him. Id.
diligence of another. Id.
cuse delay in giving notice, if any such existed. Id.
drawees, to enable them to take up his bill, has not the effect of a waiver
of notice to such drawer. Id.
bill will be dishonored, does not excuse notice of protest for non-paymente
NEW TRIALS. 1. NEW TRIAL WILL BE GRANTED only where injustice has been done, and there is a probability that justice will be done on retrial. Hinton v.
315. 2. EQUITY WILL DECREE A New Trial on the ground of surprise, where
a verdict is obtained against the plaintiff by the production of a receipt signed by his agent, of which he was not notified, and probably had no knowledge, and which he had no reason to expect would be produced, where it is shown by evidence obtained too late to be available at law, that the receipt was in reality given for certain money belonging to the plaintiff, which had been sent to his agent by a third person, by the
hands of the defendant. Burnes v. Milne, 422. 3. EQUITY WILL RELIEVE AGAINST A VERDICT, by compelling the parties to
subinit to a new trial where one aving a legal defense was prevented from making it by fraud or accident, without any fault or negligence of his own.
Id. 4. AFFIDAVITS OF JURORS who tried a criminal case will be received upon a
motion for a new trial, to prove facts which will vitiate their verdict.
Crawford v. State, 467. 6. New Trial WILL BE GRANTED to a person found guilty of murder with
a recommendation to mercy, when it appears from affidavits of some of the jurors that they were not satisfied of the prisoner's guilt, and assented to the verdict only, because they believed that the recommendation to
mercy would be effectual. Id. 6. THE FORMATION AND EXPRESSION OF AN OPINION by a juror previous to
the trial, on the merits of the cause, and in favor of the successful party,
is ground for granting a new trial. French v. Smith, 616. 7. VENIRE De Novo will be awarded if the verdict is so ambiguous and un.
certain that the court can not say for which party judgment ought to be given; but if the defect of the verdict be due merely to the failure of the party to make a case, no venire de novo will be granted. Brown v. Ferguson, 707.
NONSUIT. PLAINTIFF WILL NOT BE COMPELLED TO BECOME NONSUITED on the trial for
the insufficiency of his evidence. French v. Smith, 616.
NUISANCE. 1. ONE SUFFERING SPECIAL AND PECULIAR INJURY irom a public nuisance,
occasioned by the maintenance of a dam rendering the adjacent country
unhealthy, may have an action therefor. Mills v. Hall, 160. 2. CONTINUANCE OF A NUISANCE FOR TWENTY YEARS gives no prescriptive
right to maintain it. Id. 3. INDIVIDUAL HAS NO RIGHT TO Moor A FLOATING WAREHOUSE permanently
in a public basin or part of a public river within the jurisdiction of a municipal corporation, in violation of a municipal ordinance, even though it be moored opposite his own lot on the pier. Hart v. Mayor of Albany, 165.