Boundaries. See COUNTIES.

Breach of Contract. See CONTRACTS. VENDOR AND

VENDEE, 3.

Breach of Covenant. See COVENANT OF WARRANTY.

Breach of Warranty. See WARRANTY.

Briefs. See REVIEW, 25.

Brokers. See REAL ESTATE BROKERS.

Builder's Bonds. See BONDS. PRINCIPAL AND SURETY,
1, 4, 6, 7.

Builder's Contracts. See DAMAGES, 2.

Burden of Proof. See ATTACHMENT, 13. ELECTIONS, 4
EVIDENCE 20. USURY.

Cancellation. See INSURANCE, 8, 10.

Capital Stock. See CORPORATIONS.
Carriers.

1. In an action of replevin against a railroad company a bill
of lading made with authority to bind connecting lines is
admissible in evidence where its genuineness is not de-
nied, and posssession of the goods is admitted by the com-
pany. C., B. & Q. R. Co. v. Gustin...........

.... 92
2. Where several common carriers unite to form a line for
the transportation of goods and give a through bill of lad-
ing, each becomes the agent of the other, and damages for
negligence may be recovered from the carrier committing
the injury or from the one that undertook to transport the
goods. M. P. R. Co. v. Twiss..........

267

3. The party guilty of the wrong is ultimately liable for the
damages. Id...........................................

270

4. When a party ultimately liable knows that an action is
pending against the carrier who undertook to transport
the goods, it is his duty to defend the action. Id............ 271
5. The measure of damages is the amount of the judgment,
interest, and costs. Id.........
.......267, 272

Certification. See ELECTIONS, 1, 2.

Cestui Que Trust. See TRUSTS.

Challenge. See JURY, 1.

Chattel Mortgages. See ATTACHMENT, 14. REPLEVIN, 4, 6.
1. A mortgagee, after due notice, may sell a sufficient amount
of the mortgaged property to satisfy the mortgage debt;

but if he sell more than sufficient to satisfy the same and
costs, he will be liable for conversion of such excess.
Omaha Auction & Storage Co. v. Rogers

2. A chattel mortgage given to obtain money to pay a pur-
chase note for a horse owned by two partners, is valid
when signed by one partner with the assent of the other.
Clay v. Greenwood..............

3. Under a chattel mortgage which provides that the mort-
gagee may take immediate possession in case of default,
or an attempt to dispose of, or remove the goods from the
county, or in case he feels unsafe or insecure, the mort-
gagor must be in default or be about to do or have done
some act which tends to impair the security, to authorize
the mortgagee to take possession before maturity of the
notes the mortgage was given to secure. Rector-Wilhelmy

Co. v. Nissen.........

Checks. See NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS, 1.

Circumstantial Evidence. See CRIMINAL Law, 2.

Cities. See ESTOPPEL, 1. METROPOLITAN CITIES.

MUNICI-

Collateral Attack. See ATTACHMENT, 6, 12. JUDGMENTS,
7, 8.

Commission. See REAL ESTATE BROKERS.

Commissioner of Health. See METROPOLITAN CITIES, 5.
The mayor has power to remove, in metropolitan cities,
without making charges. State v. Somers.

Common Carriers. See CARRIERS.

Condemnation Proceedings. See EMINENT DOMAIN.

Conditional Sale. See BAILMENT.

Confirmation. See JUDICIAL SALES, 1-4. MORTGAGES, 6.
REVIEW, 30.

Connecting Carriers. See CARRIERS.

Connecting Lines. See CARRIERS.

Conspiracy. See FALSE IMPRISONMENT, 3.

Constitutional Law.

61

736

716

323

1. The constitution does not prohibit the conferring upon
the county court of equity jurisdiction except as to the
subjects enumerated in sec. 16, art. 6. Wilson v. Coburn... 530

2. The provision of sec. 12, art. 5, of the constitution, empow-
ering the governor to remove all officers appointed by him,
applies only to officers mentioned in the constitution.
State v. Smith............

..... 14

3. The legislature has authority, under the constitution, to
determine what purposes are matters of public concern, so
as to render taxation therefor admissible. State v. Robinson 402
4. The provision that "no bill shall contain more than one
subject, and the same shall be clearly expressed in its
title," has no application to laws in force at the time of the
adoption of the constitution. Id................ ........ 401

5. The provision of sec. 12, ch. 2, Comp. Stats., for paying
agricultural societies a sum equal to three cents for each
inhabitant from the county general fund, does not conflict
with the provisions of sec. 15, art. 3, of the constitution. Id., 402
6. The proviso clause of sec. 1, art. 4, ch. 77, Comp. Stats.,
restricting the foreclosure of tax liens by counties to cases
where the amount due on the tax certificate exceeds the
sum of $200, is inimical to the provisions of sec. 4, art. 9, of
the constitution, and is void. Lancaster County v. Rush... 120

Construction of Deeds. See DEEDS, 4, 9, 10.

Constructive Notice. See DEEDS, 8, 9.

Contempt. See INJUNCTIONS.

Contest. See ELECTIONS, 3, 4.

Continuance.

A motion for continuance based upon an affidavit that a wit-
ness was absent and his whereabouts unknown; that he
possessed important papers and that it would be unsafe to
proceed to trial without him, but failed to state what
papers he possessed, or what was to be proven by him, or
any reason for the failure to take his deposition, was prop-
erly overruled. German Insurance Co. v. Penrod............ 273
Contracts. See BAILMENT. DAMAGES, 2. EJECTMENT, 11.
GUARANTY. PLEADING, 5. PRINCIPAL AND SURETY,
6, 7. SCHOOLS, 3. VENDOR AND VENDEE, 3.

1. An action upon an attachment undertaking is one arising
upon contract. Withers v. Brittain.

2. In an action for breach of a contract to open and maintain
a public road, damages which necessarily result from the
breach may be recovered without any special statement of
the same, and a motion to make the petition more definite
and certain was properly overruled. Kingsley v. Butter-
field..........

436

228

3. It is no defense to such an action that a railroad was
located on the proposed route and prevented the opening
of the public highway. ld................. ...............228, 231

Contractors' Bonds. See BONDS. PRINCIPAL AND SURETY.

Contribution.

1. In determining whether one joint-wrong-doer is entitled
to contribution from another the test is, whether the
former knew, at the time of the commission of the act for
which he has been compelled to respond, that such act
was wrongful. Johnson v. Torpy........

2. When a saloon-keeper sells liquor to a person known to be
a common drunkard, he is presumed to know that he is
doing an unlawful act, and when judgment is rendered
againt him on his bond for the injury resulting therefrom,
he cannot enforce contribution against another saloon-
keeper who also sold liquor to the drunkard. Id.

Contributory Negligence. See NEGLIGENCE, 4.
1. In action for damages against a railroad company for
wrongfully causing the death of plaintiff's intestate,
and the plaintiff proves his case without disclosing any
negligence on the part of the intestate, contributory neg-
ligence is a matter of defense, and the burden of estab-
lishing it is on the defendant. Anderson v. C., B. & Q.
R. Co.............

...........................................................................

2. In such a case the judgment will not be reversed because
the court gave an erroneous instruction on question of
contributory negligence, its giving being error without
prejudice. Id.

Conversion. See CHATTEL MORTGAGES, 1.

1. When a mortgagee, in foreclosing a chattel mortgage, sells
more property than is sufficient to satisfy the debt and costs,
he will be liable for conversion of such excess. Omaha
Auction & Storage Co. v. Rogers....

2. The owner of converted goods does not bar his right of
action for the original wrongful taking by receiving back
the goods or a portion thereof, or accepting the proceeds
arising from their sale, but such facts may be shown in
mitigation of damages. Watson v. Coburn

3. In an action for conversion it is no defense to show that
the property has been taken from the wrong-doer by a
third party, by legal process or otherwise, unless the origi-
nal owner has received, or had the benefit of the proceeds
thereof, where the same has been sold. Id.

4. In an action by a mortgagee for conversion against a sheriff
who has levied on the property at the suit of a creditor of
the mortgagor, the plaintiff is entitled to receive as dam-
ages the actual market value of the property at the time
of the conversion, with interest from that date, less the
market value of that portion of the property subsequently
recovered or the proceeds of which plaintiff has had the
benefit, and not exceeding the amount remaining unpaid
on the mortgage. Id.

5. In an action by a chattel mortgagor against the mortgagee
for conversion of the property, where the defendant justi-
fies under a provision in the mortgage authorizing him to
take immediate possession when he felt insecure, he may
prove any facts tending to show the conduct of the mort-
gagors in regard to the chattels, but cannot prove mere
rumors or reports. Rector-Wilhelmy Co. v. Nissen............ 716
6. In such a case it is proper to instruct the jury, if they
find for plaintiff, to disregard the evidence of what the
goods sold for at forced sale, in arriving at the value of
the property. Id

7. Instruction on measure of damages set out in opinion ap-
proved. Id.

Conveyances. See DEEDS. VENDOR AND Vendee.

Conveyances to Relative. See FRAUDULENT CONVEY-

ANCES.

Corporations.

1. Unless otherwise provided, the whole amount of capital
fixed by a subscription contract must be fully secured by
a bona fide subscription before an action will lie upon the
personal contract of a subscriber to recover an assessment
on the several shares. Hards v. Platte Valley Improvement
Co..............

.... 263

2. In an action upon a contract of subscription to stock, where
there is testimony tending to show that defendant waived
the conditions in respect to amount of stock to be sub-
scribed before entering upon the main purposes of the
corporation, it should be submitted to the jury. Id.
3. In an action to recover a subscription to capital stock the
defendant will not be released because the board of di-
rectors passed a resolution to drop from the list of stock-
holders the names of delinquent subscribers, where the
evidence shows that such action was not taken, that de-
fendant was not excluded from participating in the man-
agement of the corporation, and that he subsequently