페이지 이미지
[ocr errors][merged small]

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

Exclusion of cross-questions to state mine for facts beyond such opinion.--Ex parte
inspector held harmless error.-Id.

Priester, 102 So. 376.
1050(I) (Ala.) Error in admission of tes-

(K) Subsequent Appeals.
timony cured by subsequent admission without
objection.-Johnson-Brown Co. V. Dominey m1097(1) (Fla.) All points adjudicated be-
Produce Co., 102 So. 606.

come law of case and are no longer open for
On issue of buyer's right to recoup for sell consideration.-Fairlie v Scott, 102 So. 247.
er's nondelivery evidence of general market Om 1099(3) (Miss.) Holding on prior appeal
condition competent, though inconsequential. held law of case on subsequent appeal.-Mc-

Whorter v. Draughn, 102 So. 567.
Cani 1050 (1) (Ala.App.) Admission of evidence
held harmless, in view of other testimony as to


same facts admitted without objection.-Miller-
Brent Lumber Co. v. Ross, 102 So. 792.

(A) Decision in General.
Omo 1050(2) (Ala.) Admission of testimony re- 1123 (Fla.) On equal division of appellate
mote from issues held_harmless.-Johnson- court, without prospect of change, judgment
Brown Co. v. Dominey Produce Co., 102 So. should be affirmed.-Alderman v. State, 102 So.

1051(3) (Ala.) Admission of testimony as 1123 (Fla.) On equal division of appellate
to matter admitted in answer not prejudicial court without prospect of change, judgment of
to defendant.--Ex parte Woodward Iron Co., court below should be affirmed.-Stubblefield v.
102 So. 103.

Wilson, 102 So. 885.
w 1052(3) (Ala.) Testimony held rendered
admissible in view of further testimony.-

(B) Affirmance.
Blackwood v. Standridge, 102 So. 108.

Omo I 140(1) (Fla.) Remittitur permitted,
Om 1056(i) (Ala.) Exclusion of expert testi- where sustained judgment for personal inju-
mony of defendant's witness, on cross-examina- ries excessive; otherwise, new trial granted.-
tion, as to certain mine conditions, held barm- Teller v. Richter, 102 So. 250.
less error.-Williams v. Alabama Fuel & Iron eml140(1) (Fla.) If amount of verdict for
Co., 102 So. 136.

personal injuries is excessive, remittitur will
1056(1) (Ala.) Exclusion of receipts be permitted; otherwise, new trial will be
showing payments on mortgage debt held harm- granted.-Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Scott,
less error, in absence of showing of payment. 102 So. 828.
of mortgage debt in full.-Crabtree v. Price,'

(D) Reversal.
102 So. 605.
Om 1057 (3) (Ala.) Exclusion of evidence 1 171(2) (Ala.) Excessiveness of verdict
barmless in view of recitals in writings admit over amount claimed, though small, held to re-
ted in evidence.-Crabtree v. Price, 102 So. 605. quire remittitur in view of small recovery.-
Om 1058(2) (Ala.) Exclusion of testimony as Stinson v. M. F. Patterson & Son, 102 So. 912.
to whether defendant drove carefully held not

error in view of other testimony. --Feore v. (F) Mandate and Proceedings in

Trammel, 102 So. 529.

m1058(2) (Ala.) Error in excluding testi- Ow1 201 (2) (Miss.). Chancery court, after re-
mony substantially thereafter admitted harm- versal and remand, may allow amendments
less.—Johnson-Brown Co. v. Dominey Produce which it had power to allow before rendition of
Co., 102 So. 606.

decree.-People's Bank in Liquidation v. Pen-
Om 1060(1) (Ala.) Refusal to exclude argu- nington. 102 So. 386.
ment of counsel héld not reversible error in ab- ww I 203 (5) (Miss.) Complainants held entitled
sence of objection and prejudice.-- Drummond to dismiss bill after reversal and remand.-
v Drummond, 102 So. 112.

People's Bank in Liquidation v. Pennington,
em 1060(1) (Ala.) Reference in argument to 102 So. 386.
"insurance end of it," as explaining insurance Cmw 1203(6) (Fla.) Trial court has power to
agent's anger on witness stand, held not re- compel observance of accounting by fiduciary.-
versible error,

view of evidence.-Feore V. Brossier v. Brigbam Realty & Investment Co.,
Trammel, 102 So. 529.

102 So. 634.
1061 (4) (Miss.) Erroneous direction of C 1210(1) (Miss.) Remanding of case gen-
yerdict for codefendant in action for death erally, is for trial de novo.- People's Bank in
held cause for reversal as to remaining defend- Liquidation v. Pennington, 102 So. 386.
ant as being equivalent to directing verdict
against it.-Gulf & S. I. R. Co. v. Carlson, 102

So. 168.
Om 1064(1) (Ala.) Misleading charge as

Com 19(4) (La.) Nonresident defendants filing

burden of proof held harmless error.--Williams plea of reconvention held subject to jurisdic-
V. Alabama Fuel & Iron Co., 102 So. 136.

tion of court.-Stringfellow v. Nowlin Bros.,

102 So. 869.
emo 1064 (1) (Ala.App.) Charge, in action for
injuries to horse hitched near track, held not

reversible error though argumentative.-New-
some v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 102 So. 61.

See Criminal Law, 699-730; Trial,
Cm 1064(1) (Fla.) Erroneous charge pertain-

ing to buyer's duty to notify of rejection of ar-

ticle, held cured by evidence showing buyer's

liability.-Curtiss-Bright Ranch Co. v. Čam-
eron & Barkley, 102 So. 495.

068 (La.) One merely notified to appear be.
Em 1064(4) (Ala.) Giving of charge using fore magistrate not under “arrest."--Berry
words "proximate cause" where "proximate re-

Bass, 102 So. 76.
sult” was meant held not reversible error.-
Thierry v. Oswell. 102 So. 903.

Om 1066 (Ala.) Erroneous instruction that See Criminal Law, w971,
plaintiff could not recover for injuries from any
mining, unless done “since August" in year of

defendant's corporate organization, held harm-
less under evidence.-Earnest v. Corona Coal Com 3 (Fla.) Intent to injure insurer must be
Co., 102 So. 445.

alleged and proved in prosecution for burning

with such intent.--Latham v. State, 102 So. 551.
(J) Decisions of Intermediate Courts.
Cw1089(3) (Ala.) Supreme Court in review-

ing opinion of Court of Appeals cannot look I See Homicide.

[ocr errors]




(B) Actions.

cm3 (Ala.) Statutes giving extra compensa-
31 (Ala.) Testimony of opprobrious words tion for added duties held valid.-Tayloe v. Da-
held competent to explain assault.—Metropoli- vis, 102 So. 433.
tan Life Ins. Co. v. Carter, 102 So. 130.

Om43(5) (Ala.) Refused charge held mislead-
ing.-Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Carter, 102

So. 130.

49 (Ala.App.) One indicted for murder

properly admitted to bail, though circumstanc-

es pointed to guilt.-State v. Gilbert, 102 So.
See Taxation, Ow309_421.



See Pledges.
See Insurance, Om728–777.

en 18(3), (La.) One supplying watchman for

property in possession of another not entitled

to privilege.- Boylan's Detective Agency & Pro-
See Work and Labor.

tection Police v. Arthur A. Brown & Co., 102

So. 417.

Statutory privilege granted only to one in pos-
See Master and Servant, em 204.

session and incurring expense for preservation

of property.-Id.

32" (Miss.) Measure of damages for delay

in preparing and delivering property to owner
See Garnishment.

to be put on market, stated; showing necessary

by one suing for special damages for delay

in preparing and delivering personal property
(B) Grounds of Attachment.

to be put on market, stated.--Attala Ware-
On 28 (Miss.) Party absent from state with house & Compress Co. v. J. N. Alexander Mer-
no definite intention of returning liable to at-cantile Co., 102 So. 779.
tachment for debt; "removed himself out of
state."--American Oil Co. v. H. Booth Lum-

ber Co., 102 So. 262.





418(3) (Ala.App.) Referee's order рег-

mitting creditor to sue in state court on pror.
On 353 (Fla.) Statute relating to judgment on
forthcoming bond held to relate to attachment bankruptcy.- Lauderdale v. Granger, 102 So.

able debt superseded by final discharge in
at law.-Alford v. Leonard, 102 So. 885.


431 (La.) Discharge in bankruptcy in pro-

ceedings begun after liability of surety on ap-
See Criminal Law, em 699–730; Trial, em peal bond was fixed, and transcript filed in ap-

pellate court, held not ground for plea in abate-

ment.-Wertham Bag Co. v. Roanoke Mercan-

Om 123(1) (Fla.) Courts will enforce utmost

good faith and fair dealing by attorney toward

client; attorney dealing with client sui juris

and on terms of equality is entitled to fruits of w12 (La.) Tax collector held authorized to
open dealings in business matters.Pilkington proceed summarily against bank to collect li.
v. Rose, 102 So. 751.
126 (2) (Ala.) Plea of set-off available to rendered by bank when paying tax.-David .

cense tax without traversing sworn statement
attorney in client's summary proceeding.- Guaranty Bank & Trust Co., 102 So. 505.
Bush v. Bumgardner, 102 So. 629.

Failure to state specifically amount of bank's
Plea of payment and satisfaction available capital, surplus, and undivided profits in pro-
under general issue to attorney in client's sum- ceeding to collect tax held immaterial.-Id.
mary proceeding.-Id.

Tax on banks and trust companies based on
In summary proceeding against attorney, actual sum of capital, surplus, and undivided
technical precision and accuracy in pleading not profits.-Id.

Oma 15 (Miss.) Liquidating agent of bank
Evidence held to warrant finding attorney which had paid depositors in full and all as.
owed client nothing on account of money col- sessments could recover from state treasurer

bonds or money deposited under statutes.- Mis-
Attorney held properly permitted to show le- sissippi Banking Department v. Adams, 102 So.
gal services rendered to decedent and their val- | 70.

Cm 15 (Miss.) Depositor who received bonus
Attorney held properly permitted to testify as from third party for depositing funds, evidenc-
to nature of transaction with client.-Id.

ed by certificates of deposit bearing 4 per

cent. interest, held within protection of Guar-

anty Law:-Pitts v. People's Bank of Baldwin,

102 So. 279.
(A) Fees and Other Remuneration.

Receipt of interest in excess of 4 per cent.
Om 140 (Ala.) Instruction that legal services on surrendered certificates of deposit, held not
rendered on request entitled attorney to rea-

to deprive funds evidenced by new certificate
sonable compensation held not erroneous.- of protection of State Guaranty Law.-Id.
Bush v. Bumgardner, 102 So. 629.

(B) Lien.

On 175 (Ala.) Attorney's lien held not to arise

(C) Stockholders.
în proceeding for sale of lands for division.- Om 47 (1) (Fla.) Acquisition of bank stock im.
Ex parte McLendon, 102 So. 696.

plies assent of owner to statutory conditions
192(1) (Ala.) Common-law statutory as to liability of stockholders for obligation of
right of attorney to enforce lien against client's bank under which corporation is organized.-
share of estate does not require intervention of Chavous v. Gornto, 102 So. 754.
equity.--Ex parte McLendon, 102 So. 696. Order of state comptroller, acting within an-




For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER
thority, directing assessment against stockhold- ! tation may be shown.-Guy v. State, 102 So.
ers of insolvent banking company, is conclu- | 243.
sive of necessity thereof.-Id.

When sexual acts with another several years

previous may be shown stated.-Id.
(E) Insolvency and Dissolution.

Defendant may show prosecutrix's associa-
w 633 (Ala.) Assignee of assets of insolvent tion with another man on occasions affording
bank, through superintendent of banks, takes opportunity for illicit relations.-Id.
only property rights of old bank.-Blythe v. Want of chastity sufficiently proved by dec-
Enslen, 102 So. 621.

larations of prosecutrix.-Id.
Assignee of assets of insolvent bank cannot Proof that prosecutrix had another child not
enforce action against its directors for fraudu- admissible as tending to prove her a married
lent dividends.-Id.


Cross-examination of prosecutrix as to when
III. FUNCTIONS AND DEALINGS. she last saw one other than defendant held
(B) Representation of Bank by Officers properly excluded.-Id.
and Agents.

Immaterial who has had intercourse with
Cm 103 (La.) Statute regulating authority of prosecutrix after conception.-Id.
officers to borrow money and pledge assets of

Prosecutrix's intimacy with other men during
bank not unreasonable or arbitrary.-Thomas v. gestation properly shown.-Id.
Marine Bank & Trust Co., 102 So. 524.

Prosecutrix's attendance at churches and pics
Om 105(1/2) (La.) Directors' authority to of- nics, not showing intimacy with other men, held
ficers to borrow money from particular bank not admissible.--Id.
cannot be extended to validate loan made of Oma 59 (Ala.App.) Evidence prosecutrix asked
different bank in unauthorized amount.--Thomas witness to go into woods with boys held inad-
v. Marine Bank & Trust Co., 102 So. 524.

missible.-Bembo v. State, 102 So. 786.
Purported resolution not properly certified Sm 62. (Ala.App.) Testimony of prosecutrix
or countersigned held insufficient authority for as to intercourse with defendant held admissi-
making of pledges by officer.--Id.

ble.-Bembo v. State, 102 So. 786.

63 (Ala. App.) Profert of child to show re-

semblance to defendant, competent.-Bembo v.
Em 270(2) (Ala.) Cause of action for interest State. 102. So. 786.
paid national bank does not_accrue until ali mo 65 Ala.App.) Testimony of prosecutrix
payments exceed principal.—Jones v. Moore, held sufficient. - Bembo v. Statė. 102 So. 786.
102 So. 200.

Ow70 (Ala.App.) Evidence held sufficient for
C270 (4) (Ala.) Mere renewal of not not

submission of case to jury.-Bembo v. State,
payment cutting off defense of usury under Na- | 102 So. 786.
tional Banking Act.-Jones v. Moore, 102 So.

On 270(6), (Ala.) Remedy under federal stat. See Insurance, Om728-777.
ute exclusive.—Jones v. Moore, 102 So. 200.
m 270(8) (Ala.) Rule as to effect of part

payments on note including usurious interest,

as respects penalties under National Banking
Act, stated.-Jones v. Moore, 102 So. 200.

(E) Consideration.
@ 270(9) (Ala.) Penalties imposed on na90 (Fla.) Want or failure of consideration
tional bank for violating state usury law are

will defeat recovery.-Blackshear Mfg. Co. v.
forfeiture of interest and liability for twice Fralick, 102 So. 753.
amount of interest.-Jones v. Moore, 102 So.

C270 (10) (Ala.) Entire usurious contract

(A) Instruments Negotiable.
not void, but voidable as to interest only.-en 151 (La.) Nòtes pot nonnegotiable because
Jones v. Moore, 102 So. 200.

attached to lease.- First State Bank & Trust

Co. of Bogalusa v. Crain, 102 So. 513.

ww163 (La.) Mere statement in note of trans-
I. ILLEGITIMACY IN GENERAL. action giving rise thereto does not render it
Omar (Ala.) Child born out of wedlock is "bas- nonnegotiable.-Tyler v. Whitney-Central Trust
tard."-Ex parte Newsome, 102 So. 216.

& Savings Bank, 102 So. 325.
Omo 3 (Ala.) Blood relationship being shown,

That note shows on face that consideration
legitimacy is presumed, in support of which is executory does not render it nonnegotiable.
common-law marriage will be presumed when - Id.
filiation is shown.-Reichert v. Jerome H. Sheip, that value was to be received in rent.--Id.

Note held not made nonnegotiable by recital
Inc. 102 So. 440.

Pedigree being shown by common repute of Cw165 (La.) “As per contract,” so placed in
family, presumption of legitimacy obtains.-10. note as not to qualify promise to pay, does

not render it nonnegotiable.-Tyler v. White
II. CUSTODY, SUPPORT, AND PROTECTION. ney-Central Trust & Savings Bank, 102 So.

On 15 (Ala.App.) Father's primary right to

(B) Transfer by Indorsement.
custody of legitimate child, and that of mother
to custody of illegitimate child, limited by con-

Cu 188 (La.) Notes indorsed in blank payable
sideration of best interests of child.-Payne v.

to bearer.--Tyler v. Whitney-Central Trust &
Graham, 102 So. 729.

Savings Bank, 102 So. 325.
174/2 (Ala.) Father of illegitimate child not


liable for its support; "parent.”—Ex parte

Newsome, 102 So, 216.
Father of illegitimate child liable for is sup-

(C) Assignment or Sale.
port only in bastardy proceedings.-I.

Cum 315 (Ala.) Assignee of usurious nonnego-
Father of illegitimate child, charged with tiable paper takes subject to defenses.—Jones
nonsupport by warrant prior to taking effect v. Moore, 102 So. 200.
of statute making him liable, held not liable.-Id.

(D) Bona Fide Purchasers.

337 (La.) Requirements to constitute one

"holder in good faith" stated.-Tyler v. Whit-
m54 (Ala.App.) Burden of proof on state.- ney-Central Trust & Savings Bank, 102 So.
Bembo v. State, 102 So. 786.

Om59 (Ala.App.) Sexual acts with parties Cw343 (La.) Mere knowledge acquired out-
other than reputed father during period of ges- I side instrument that consideration executory

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

does not make indorsee holder not in due Survey not in agreement with former govern.
course.--Tyler v. Whitney-Central Trust & ment survey held incorrect.-Id.
Savings Bank, 102 So. 325.
“As per lease this date," following statement

that value was to be received in rent held not 11. REGULATION AND USE FOR TRAVEL.
to render notes nonnegotiable.--Id.

Recital that notes were given in considera-eww37. (Ala.) County, failing to take a guar-
tion of executory contract does not make hold- anty from builder of bridge assumes liability
er one not in due course.-Id.

of builder for defects therein.-Phillips v. Tus-
Om 343 (La.) Transferee of rent notes at- caloosa County, 102 So. 720.
tached to lease did not take them subject to em 41(1) Ala.) Absence of guard or barrier
terms of lease. - First State Bank & Trust Co. held "defect” in drawbridge for which county
of Bogalusa v. Crain, 102 So, 513.

liable.-Phillips v. Tuscaloosa County, 102 So.
Transferee of rent notes attached to lease 720.
could not take advantage of clause accelerating

County not liable for injuries for negligent

failure of employé to use barrier though no
Em357 (La.) Pledgee accepting negotiable guaranty taken from builder.-Id.
notes, indorsed in blank by maker, without
knowledge that bearer had no right to pledge

them, acquires legal right thereto.-Tyler v. III. DUTIES AND LIABILITIES TO
Whitney-Central Trust & Savings Bank, 102

So. 325.
Cm357 (La.) Pledgee of notes held holder in cipal's property to company organized by them,

E36 (La.) Brokers procuring sale of prin-
due course.-Steeg v. Codifer, 102 So. 407.
Em 362 (Ala.) Creditors negotiating loan by held not liable to principal for breach of trust

by mortgagee purchasing it on foreclosure,
bank on debtor's wife's lands not bona fide pur: or fiduciary relation.-Humphreys v. Butler,
chasers of mortgage from bank taking it in
good faith.–Smith v. D. Rothschild & Co., 102 102 So. 817.
So. 206.

Assignees with notice of infirmity from as-cm 61(1) (Ala.) Commission not payable for
signor without notice not holders in due course. production of purchaser, where contingent on
Cm 363 (La.) Pledgee held entitled to enforce consummation of sale.-Malone v. Dillard, 102

So. 705.
notes pledged to extent of advances only.-

Commissions held contingent on consummation
Steeg v. Codifer, 102 So. 407.

of sale in view of interpretation of brokers'

contract and contract of sale.--Id.
em 474 (La.) Answer held not to admit plain- kers' contract considered as bearing on whether

Stipulations in contract of sale and in bro-
tiff was holder in due course before maturity commission was contingent on consummation
and for value.-Steeg v. Codifer, 102 So. 407.
ww489(7) (Ala.) Complaint alleging promis-

of sale.--Id.
sory note supported by proof of promissory V. ACTIONS FOR COMPENSATION.
note under seal.-Ex parte First Nat. Bank,
102 So. 371.

82(4) (Fla.) Plaintiff alleging compliance
ww489(7) (Ala.App.) Instrument under seal with contract, denied by defendant, must prove
containing promise to pay, and also conveyance every element of contract.—Merrick v. Martens,
of property, etc., not negotiable promissory 102 So: 747.
note.-Caton v. First Nat. Bank, 102 So. 369. 88(3) (Fla.) On failure of testimony to
ww497 (2) (La.) Burden on pledgee of notes

show contract relied on by plaintiff was com-
to which pledgor had no title to show that it plied with, verdict should be directed.-Mer.
was holder in due course. -Tyler v. Whitney- rick v. Martens, 102 So. 747.
Central Trust & Savings Bank, 102 So. 325.
Cum 497 (5) (La.) When burden on plaintiff to

prove good faith in taking note and want of 1. OFFENSES AND RESPONSIBILITY
krrowledge of equities between maker and payee,
stated.-Steeg v. Codifer, 102 So. 407.
C517 (Ala.) Delivery of notes solely on con- warehouse."-State v. Gibson, 102 So. 192.

Om4 (La.) Storeroom of theater held

dition contended by defendant, held not shown.
-Robertson v. Castellano, 102 So. 893.
m525 (La.) Notes and other evidence held

insufficient to show that pledgee acted in bad 1. CONTROL AND REGULATION OF
faith.-Tyler v. Whitney-Central Trust & Sav-

ings Bank, 102 So. 325.

(A) In General.
529 (La.) Judgment rendered on all rent
notes, in absence of plea of prematurity of suit m 4 (La.) Question of who is a common car-
as to notes which had not matured. ---First State rier vel non primarily to be determined by Pub-
Bank & Trust Co. of Bogalusa v. Crain, 102 Lumber Co. v. Louisiana Public Service Com-

lic Service Cominission.-Crowell & Spencer
So. 513.

mission, 102 So. 866.

em 10 (La.) Public Service Commission held
II. EVIDENCE, ASCERTAINMENT, AND vested with jurisdiction to determine prelim-

inarily whether railroads were common carri-
37(3) (La.) That point considered as cor- ers.-Crowell & Spencer Lumber Co. v. Loui.
ner common to sections checked with half-mile siana Public Service Commission, 102 So. 806.
post in another township held insufficient to

Proceedings of Public Service Commission
establish such point as common corner.-Smith set aside where railroads did not appear or
V. Almond, 102 So. 330.

made only perfunctory defense because of in-
53 (La.) Surveys made at instance of in- junction.-Id.
terested party not accepted to establish dis- Cmos 18(1) (La.) Reasonableness of storage
puted boundary.-Smith v. Almond, 102 So. charge is not question for courts; quantum

being fixed by Railroad Commission.- Aleman
Paw 54(4) (La.) Survey departing from field Planting & Mfg. Co. v. Hines, 102 Sb. 813.
notes of former surveys by government survey-
ors held erroneous.-Smith v. Almond, 102 So.


(B) Bills of Lading, Shipping Receipts,
Surveyor has duty to reproduce lines as orig-

and Special Contracts.
inally run as closely and accurately as possible. Cm 56 (La.) Railroad could deal with indorsee

of bills of lading as absolute owner of syrup


[merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Sories & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER
and notice to it was sufficient.-Aleman Plant- 1 ered to defendant in foreclosure proceedings.-
ing & Mfg. Co. v. Hines, 102 So. 815.

Alford v. Leonard, 102 So. 885.
58 (La.) Consignee's buyer, who unloaded Statutory provision for restoration of prop-
goods without being required to surrender bills erty to defendant in foreclosure proceedings
of lading, liable to holder of bills of lading for upon giving bond is applicable to chancery pro-
conversion of goods.--First Nat. Bank v. Hen- ceedings.-Id.
derson Cotton Oil Co., 102 So. 501.

Property retaken by defendant held to re-
59 (La.) Evidence held to prove indorsee quire no order from court for restoration;
of bills of lading, suing for conversion of goods, sureties on bond to have property restored to
a holder in due course.-First Nat. Bank v. defendant in foreclosure proceedings render
Henderson Cotton Oil Co., 102 So. 501.

themselves liable to decree for amount of debt.

(1) Transportation and Delivery or cm 283 (Fla.) Judgment in foreclosure held

final decree.--Alford v, Leonard, 102 So. 885.
ww83 (La.) Carrier has no right to surrender
goods without surrender of bills of lading.-

First Nat. Bank v. Henderson Cotton Oil Co., 300 (Fla.) General demurrer to bill to re-
102 So. 501.

deem from alleged mortgage in form of con-

tract of sale held improperly sustained.-Rags-

dale v. Miami Cadillac Co., 102 So. 494.
(C) Performance of Contract of Transpor-

em 271 (Miss.) Railroad bound by representa-
tions of ticket agent that train will stop at cer- See Infants; Parent and Child.
tain station and must permit passenger to dis-
embark there.-Louisville & N. R. Čo. v. Mc-

Arthur, 102 So, 842.

See Municipal Corporations.
Om 277 (1) (Miss.) Railroad company held not
liable for damages to passenger because of au-

tomobile trip taken by him when wrongfully
caused to disembark from train.-Louisville & See Constitutional Law, em 82.
N. R. Co. v. McArthur, 102 So, 842.

(D) Personal Injuries.
Em 280(I) (Miss.) Carrier of passengers is See Constitutional Law, w 227–249.
not insurer of their safety; carrier of passen-
ger only liable for injuries caused by negligence

in failing to exercise high degree of care.-Lou- em 5 (Ala.) Decree not invalid for want of
isville & N. R. Co. v. Compiretto, 102 So. 837. authority of acting register not duly appointed
Om 300 (Miss.) Bus driver, who tried to cross

--Conner v. State, 102 So, 809.
track in front of approaching train, held grossly
negligent.-Gulf & S. I. R. Co. v. Carlson, 102

So. 168.
Cw321 (14) (Miss.) Instructing that by sale of mo? (Fla.) Mere' mistake of judgment of
ticket carrier contracted to safely transport school officer in suspending or expelling student
passenger and furnish safe means of alighting does not render him liable in absence of wan-
from train, is error.-Louisville & N. R. Co. v. ton, willful or malicious action.-John B. Stet-
Compiretto, 102 So. 837.

son University v. Hunt, 102 So. 637.

Ow9 (Fla.) Private institution of learning

may prescribe requirements for admission and

rules for conduct of its students; persons en-
Pwe!? (La.) Application could be made for tering institution as students impliedly agree to
certiorari and mandamus to compel district exceptions of such rule stated.—John B. Stet-

conform to rules of governinent of institution;
judge to set aside order for suspensive appeal son University v. Hunt, 102 So. 637.
prior to date for hearing on rule to show cause.

College authorities stand in loco parentis,
-Succession of Pavelka, 102 So. 579.

and may make regulation which courts will not
II. PROCEEDINGS AND DETERMINATION. ) interfere with, if not violative of divine or hu-

man law.-Id.
Cm 47 (La.) Preliminary writs held not to va-

Courts will not annul or revise regulations
cate injunction, but to preserve existing status, or rules not unauthorized against common
-Crowell & Spencer Lumber Co. v. Louisiana right or palpably unreasonable; courts will not
Public Service Commission, 102 So. 866.

afford relief against enforcement of regulations

unless arbitrary and for fraudulent purpose.

Om7(1) (Fla.) Deed by one to land in adverse

Relation between student and private institu-
possession of another void as against adverse tion of learning receiving no public aid is con-
claimant.-Watkins v. Emmerson, 102 So. 10.

tractual in character; student accepted im-

pliedly agrees to conform to rules and regula-

tions for breach of which he may suffer suspen-
See Equity.

sion or expulsion.-Id.

Pupils owe duty of obedience, subordination,

civil deportment, respect for right of other pu-

pils, and fidelity to duty.-Id.

Court will not interfere with exercise by
ww279 (Fla.) Attachment by mortgagee against president or superintendent of delegated au-
property mortgaged is under control of chan-thority to enforce discipline.-Id.
court foreclosing mortgage.-Alford v.

Private institution of learning held not re-
Leonard, 102 So. 885.

quired to prescribe charges and prove them at
Attachments in aid of foreclosure are not trial before dismissing student permanently or
subject to attack as are writs of attachment temporarily.-1d.
at law; proceedings for discharge of attach-wio (Fla.) In action for malicious expulsion,
ments in aid of foreclosure must be taken un- court indulges every presumption to extent of
der rules of chancery practice.--Id.

good faith of school authorities: recovery for
On280 (Fla.) No statute specifically authoriz- expulsion must be based on malicious action.-
es entry of judgment against sureties on forth- John B. Stetson University v. Hunt, 102 So.
coming bond when property has been redeliv- | 637.




« 이전계속 »