For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER
Exclusion of cross-questions to state mine inspector held harmless error.-Id.
1050(1) (Ala.) Error in admission of tes- timony cured by subsequent admission without objection.-Johnson-Brown Co. V. Dominey Produce Co., 102 So. 606.
for facts beyond such opinion.-Ex parte Priester, 102 So. 376.
(K) Subsequent Appeals. 1097(1) (Fla.) All points adjudicated be- 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 condition competent, though inconsequential. --Id.
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.
1050 (2) (Ala.) Admission of testimony re- mote from issues held harmless.-Johnson- Brown Co. v. Dominey Produce Co., 102 So.
1099 (3) (Miss.) Holding on prior appeal held law of case on subsequent appeal.-Mc- Whorter v. Draughn, 102 So. 567.
XVII. DETERMINATION AND DISPOSI- TION OF CAUSE.
(A) Decision in General. 1123 (Fla.) On equal division of appellate court, without prospect of change, judgment 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.
1052 (3) (Ala.) Testimony held rendered admissible in view of further testimony.- Blackwood v. Standridge, 102 So. 108.
1140(1) (Fla.) Remittitur permitted, where sustained judgment for personal inju- ries excessive; otherwise, new trial granted.— Teller v. Richter, 102 So. 250.
1056 (1) (Ala.) Exclusion of expert testi- mony of defendant's witness, on cross-examina- tion, as to certain mine conditions, held harm- less error.-Williams v. Alabama Fuel & Iron 1140(1) (Fla.) If amount of verdict for Co., 102 So. 136. personal injuries is excessive, remittitur will be permitted; otherwise, new trial will be granted.-Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Scott, 102 So. 828.
~ 1056 (1) (Ala.) Exclusion of receipts showing payments on mortgage debt held harm- less error, in absence of showing of payment of mortgage debt in full.-Crabtree v. Price,' 102 So. 605.
1057 (3) (Ala.) Exclusion of evidence harmless in view of recitals in writings admit- ted in evidence.-Crabtree v. Price, 102 So. 605. 1058 (2) (Ala.) Exclusion of testimony as to whether defendant drove carefully held not error in view of other testimony.-Feore v. Trammel, 102 So. 529.
1058(2) (Ala.) Error in excluding testi- mony substantially thereafter admitted harm- less.-Johnson-Brown Co. v. Dominey Produce Co., 102 So. 606.
1201 (2) (Miss.) Chancery court, after re- versal and remand, may allow amendments which it had power to allow before rendition of decree.-People's Bank in Liquidation v. Pen- nington. 102 So. 386.
1060 (1) (Ala.) Refusal to exclude argu- ment of counsel held not reversible error in ab-1203 (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, 102 So. 386.
1060 (1) (Ala.) Reference in argument to "insurance end of it," as explaining insurance agent's anger on witness stand, held not re- versible error, in view of evidence.-Feore v. Trammel, 102 So. 529.
1061 (4) (Miss.) Erroneous direction of verdict for codefendant in action for death held cause for reversal as to remaining defend- ant as being equivalent to directing verdict against it.-Gulf & S. I. R. Co. v. Carlson, 102 So. 168.
1064 (1) (Ala.) Misleading charge as to burden of proof held harmless error.-Williams v. Alabama Fuel & Iron Co., 102 So. 136.
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.
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. Cam- eron & Barkley. 102 So. 495.
1064 (4) (Ala.) Giving of charge using words "proximate cause" where "proximate re- sult" was meant held not reversible error.- Thierry v. Oswell, 102 So. 903.
1203 (6) (Fla.) Trial court has power to compel observance of accounting by fiduciary.— Brossier v. Brigham Realty & Investment Co., 102 So. 634.
1210(1) (Miss.) Remanding of case gen- erally is for trial de novo.-People's Bank in Liquidation v. Pennington, 102 So. 386.
1066 (Ala.) Erroneous instruction that See Criminal Law, 971. 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 Co., 102 So. 445.
(J) Decisions of Intermediate Courts.
3 (Fla.) Intent to injure insurer must be alleged and proved in prosecution for burning with such intent.-Latham v. State, 102 So. 551. ASSAULT AND BATTERY.
1089 (3) (Ala.) Supreme Court in review- ing opinion of Court of Appeals cannot look See Homicide.
I. CIVIL LIABILITY.
(B) Actions.
31 (Ala.) Testimony of opprobrious words held competent to explain assault.-Metropoli- tan Life Ins. Co. v. Carter, 102 So. 130.
43 (5) (Ala.) Refused charge held mislead- ing. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Carter, 102 So. 130.
18(3) (La.) One supplying watchman for property in possession of another not entitled to privilege.-Boylan's Detective Agency & Pro- tection Police v. Arthur A. Brown & Co., 102 So. 417.
Statutory privilege granted only to one in pos- session and incurring expense for preservation of property.—Id.
32 (Miss.) Measure of damages for delay in preparing and delivering property to owner to be put on market, stated; showing necessary by one suing for special damages for delay in preparing and delivering personal property to be put on market, stated.-Attala Ware- house & Compress Co. v. J. N. Alexander Mer- cantile Co., 102 So. 779.
V. RIGHTS, REMEDIES, AND DISCHARGE
order 418(3) (Ala.App.) Referee's per- mitting creditor to sue in state court on prov- bankruptcy.-Lauderdale v. Granger, 102 So. able debt superseded by final discharge in 148.
431 (La.) Discharge in bankruptcy in pro- ceedings begun after liability of surety on ap- 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- tile Co., 102 So. 412.
BANKS AND BANKING.
I. CONTROL AND REGULATION IN GENERAL.
12 (La.) Tax collector held authorized to proceed summarily against bank to collect li- cense tax without traversing sworn statement rendered by bank when paying tax.-David v. Guaranty Bank & Trust Co., 102 So. 505.
Failure to state specifically amount of bank's capital, surplus, and undivided profits in pro- sum-ceeding to collect tax held immaterial.—Id.
Plea of payment and satisfaction available under general issue to attorney in client's mary proceeding.-Id.
In summary proceeding against attorney, technical precision and accuracy in pleading not required. Id.
Evidence held to warrant finding attorney owed client nothing on account of money col- lected.-Id.
Attorney held properly permitted to show le- gal services rendered to decedent and their val- ue.-Id.
Attorney held properly permitted to testify as to nature of transaction with client.-Id.
IV. COMPENSATION AND LIEN OF
(A) Fees and Other Remuneration. 140 (Ala.) Instruction that legal services rendered on request entitled attorney to rea- sonable compensation held not erroneous.- Bush v. Bumgardner, 102 So. 629.
175 (Ala.) Attorney's lien held not to arise fn proceeding for sale of lands for division. Ex parte McLendon, 102 So. 696.
192(1) (Ala.) Common-law or statutory right of attorney to enforce lien against client's share of estate does not require intervention of
Tax on banks and trust companies based on actual sum of capital, surplus, and undivided profits.-Id.
15 (Miss.) Liquidating agent of bank which had paid depositors in full and all as- sessments could recover from state treasurer bonds or money deposited under statutes.-Mis- sissippi Banking Department v. Adams, 102 So. 70.
15 (Miss.) Depositor who received bonus from third party for depositing funds, evidenc 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.
Receipt of interest in excess of 4 per cent. on surrendered certificates of deposit, held not to deprive funds evidenced by new certificate of protection of State Guaranty Law.-Id. II. BANKING CORPORATIONS AND
ASSOCIATIONS.
(C) Stockholders.
47(1) (Fla.) Acquisition of bank stock im- plies assent of owner to statutory conditions as to liability of stockholders for obligation of bank under which corporation is organized.- Chavous v. Gornto, 102 So. 754.
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- sive of necessity thereof.-Id.
(E) Insolvency and Dissolution. 631⁄2 (Ala.) Assignee of assets of insolvent bank, through superintendent of banks, takes only property rights of old bank.-Blythe v. Enslen, 102 So. 621.
Assignee of assets of insolvent bank cannot enforce action against its directors for fraudu- lent dividends.-Id.
III. FUNCTIONS AND DEALINGS. (B) Representation of Bank by Officers and Agents,
103 (La.) Statute regulating authority of officers to borrow money and pledge assets of bank not unreasonable or arbitrary. Thomas v. Marine Bank & Trust Co., 102 So. 524.
When sexual acts with another several years previous may be shown stated.-Id.
Defendant may show prosecutrix's associa- tion with another man on occasions affording opportunity for illicit relations.-Id.
Want of chastity sufficiently proved by dec- larations of prosecutrix.-Id.
Proof that prosecutrix had another child not admissible as tending to prove her a married woman.-Id.
Cross-examination of prosecutrix as to when she last saw one other than defendant held properly excluded.-Id.
Immaterial who has had intercourse with prosecutrix after conception.-Id.
Prosecutrix's intimacy with other men during gestation properly shown.-Id.
Prosecutrix's attendance at churches and pic- nics, not showing intimacy with other men, held not admissible.-Id.
105(2) (La.) Directors' authority to of- ficers to borrow money from particular bank cannot be extended to validate loan made of different bank in unauthorized amount.-Thomas v. Marine Bank & Trust Co., 102 So. 524. Purported resolution not properly certified 62 (Ala.App.) Testimony or countersigned held insufficient authority for making of pledges by officer.-Id.
59 (Ala.App.) Evidence prosecutrix asked witness to go into woods with boys held inad- missible.-Bembo v. State, 102 So. 786. of prosecutrix as to intercourse with defendant held admissi- ble.-Bembo v. State, 102 So. 786.
63 (Ala.App.) Profert of child to show re- semblance to defendant, competent.-Bembo v. State, 102 So. 786.
65 (Ala.App.) Testimony of prosecutrix held sufficient.-Bembo v. State, 102 So. 786.
70 (Ala.App.) Evidence held sufficient for submission of case to jury.-Bembo v. State, 102 So. 786.
BENEFICIAL ASSOCIATIONS.
270(6) (Ala.) Remedy under federal stat- See Insurance, 728-777. ute exclusive.-Jones v. Moore, 102 So. 200.
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.
270 (9) (Ala.) Penalties imposed on tional bank for violating state usury law are forfeiture of interest and liability for twice amount of interest.-Jones v. Moore, 102 So. 200.
BILLS AND NOTES.
1. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY. (E) Consideration.
90 (Fla.) Want or failure of consideration will defeat recovery.-Blackshear Mfg. Co. v. Fralick, 102 So. 753.
IV. NEGOTIABILITY AND TRANSFER. (A) Instruments Negotiable.
270(10) (Ala.) Entire usurious contract not void, but voidable as to interest only.-151 (La.) Notes not nonnegotiable because Jones v. Moore, 102 So. 200.
I. ILLEGITIMACY IN GENERAL.
(Ala.) Child born out of wedlock is "bas- tard."-Ex parte Newsome, 102 So. 216.
3 (Ala.) Blood relationship being shown, legitimacy is presumed, in support of which common-law marriage will be presumed when filiation is shown.-Reichert v. Jerome H. Sheip,
Pedigree being shown by common repute of family, presumption of legitimacy obtains.-Id. II. CUSTODY, SUPPORT, AND PROTECTION. 15 (Ala.App.) Father's primary right to custody of legitimate child, and that of mother to custody of illegitimate child, limited by con- sideration of best interests of child.-Payne v. Graham, 102 So. 729.
172 (Ala.) Father of illegitimate child not liable for its support; "parent."-Ex parte Newsome, 102 So. 216.
Father of illegitimate child liable for its sup- port only in bastardy proceedings.-Id
Father of illegitimate child, charged with nonsupport by warrant prior to taking effect of statute making him liable, held not liable.-Id. III. PROCEEDINGS UNDER BASTARDY
54 (Ala.App.) Burden of proof on state.- Bembo v. State, 102 So. 786.
59 (Ala.App.) Sexual acts with parties other than reputed father during period of ges-
attached to lease.-First State Bank & Trust Co. of Bogalusa v. Crain, 102 So. 513.
163 (La.) Mere statement in note of trans- action giving rise thereto does not render it nonnegotiable.-Tyler v. Whitney-Central Trust & Savings Bank, 102 So. 325.
That note shows on face that consideration
is executory does not render it nonnegotiable.
that value was to be received in rent.-Id. Note held not made nonnegotiable by recital
165 (La.) "As per contract," so placed in note as not to qualify promise to pay, does not render it nonnegotiable.-Tyler v. Whit- ney-Central Trust & Savings Bank, 102 So. 325.
(B) Transfer by Indorsement.
188 (La.) Notes indorsed in blank payable to bearer. Tyler v. Whitney-Central Trust & Savings Bank, 102 So. 325.
V. RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES ON IN- DORSEMENT OR TRANSFER.
(C) Assignment or Sale.
315 (Ala.) Assignee of usurious nonnego- tiable paper takes subject to defenses.-Jones Moore, 102 So. 200.
(D) Bona Fide Purchasers.
337 (La.) Requirements to constitute one "holder in good faith" stated.-Tyler v. Whit- ney-Central Trust & Savings Bank, 102 So. 325.
343 (La.) Mere knowledge acquired out- side instrument that consideration executory
does not make indorsee holder not in due course.-Tyler V. Whitney-Central Trust & Savings Bank, 102 So. 325.
Survey not in agreement with former govern- ment survey held incorrect.-Id.
II. REGULATION AND USE FOR TRAVEL.
"As per lease this date," following statement that value was to be received in rent held not to render notes nonnegotiable.-Id. Recital that notes were given in considera-37 (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- caloosa County, 102 So. 720.
343 (La.) Transferee of rent notes at- tached to lease did not take them subject to 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 maturity. Id.
357 (La.) Pledgee accepting negotiable notes, indorsed in blank by maker, without knowledge that bearer had no right to pledge them, acquires legal right thereto.-Tyler v. Whitney-Central Trust & Savings Bank, 102 So. 325.
357 (La.) Pledgee of notes held holder in due course.-Steeg v. Codifer, 102 So. 407. 362 (Ala.) Creditors negotiating loan by bank on debtor's wife's lands not bona fide pur- chasers of mortgage from bank taking it in good faith.-Smith v. D. Rothschild & Co., 102 So. 206.
failure of employé to use barrier though no County not liable for injuries for negligent guaranty taken from builder.-Id.
III. DUTIES AND LIABILITIES TO PRINCIPAL.
cipal's property to company organized by them, 36 (La.) Brokers procuring sale of prin- held not liable to principal for breach of trust by mortgagee purchasing it on foreclosure, 102 So. 817. or fiduciary relation.-Humphreys v. Butler,
IV. COMPENSATION AND LIEN.
Assignees with notice of infirmity from as-61(1) (Ala.) Commission not payable for signor without notice not holders in due course. production of purchaser, where contingent on consummation of sale.-Malone v. Dillard, 102
363 (La.) Pledgee held entitled to enforce notes pledged to extent of advances only.- Steeg v. Codifer, 102 So. 407.
474 (La.) Answer held not to admit plain- tiff was holder in due course before maturity and for value.-Steeg v. Codifer, 102 So. 407.
489(7) (Ala.) Complaint alleging promis- sory note supported by proof of promissory note under seal.-Ex parte First Nat. Bank, 102 So. 371.
489 (7) (Ala.App.) Instrument under seal containing promise to pay, and also conveyance of property, etc., not negotiable promissory note.-Caton v. First Nat. Bank, 102 So. 369. 497 (2) (La.) Burden on pledgee of notes to which pledgor had no title to show that it was holder in due course. Tyler v. Whitney- Central Trust & Savings Bank, 102 So. 325.
497(5) (La.) When burden on plaintiff to prove good faith in taking note and want of knowledge of equities between maker and payee, stated. Steeg v. Codifer, 102 So. 407.
517 (Ala.) Delivery of notes solely on con- dition contended by defendant, held not shown. -Robertson v. Castellano, 102 So. 893.
525 (La.) Notes and other evidence held insufficient to show that pledgee acted in bad faith.-Tyler v. Whitney-Central Trust & Sav- ings Bank, 102 So. 325.
529 (La.) Judgment rendered on all rent4 (La.) Question of who is a common car- notes, in absence of plea of prematurity of suit rier vel non primarily to be determined by Pub- as to notes which had not matured.-First State lic Service Commission.-Crowell & Spencer Bank & Trust Co. of Bogalusa v. Crain, 102 Lumber Co. v. Louisiana Public Service Com- mission, 102 So. 866.
II. EVIDENCE, ASCERTAINMENT, AND
37 (3) (La.) That point considered as cor- ner common to sections checked with half-mile post in another township held insufficient to establish such point as common corner.-Smith v. Almond, 102 So. 330.
10 (La.) Public Service Commission held vested with jurisdiction to determine prelim- inarily whether railroads were common carri- ers.-Crowell & Spencer Lumber Co. v. Loui- siana Public Service Commission, 102 So. 866.
Proceedings of Public Service Commission set aside where railroads did not appear or made only perfunctory defense because of in- junction.-Id.
53 (La.) Surveys made at instance of in- terested party not accepted to establish dis-18(1) (La.) Reasonableness of storage puted boundary.-Smith v. Almond, 102 So. charge is not question for courts; quantum 330. being fixed by Railroad Commission.-Aleman Planting & Mfg. Co. v. Hines, 102 Sb. 815.
54(4) (La.) Survey departing from field notes of former surveys by government survey- ors held erroneous.-Smith v. Almond, 102 So. 330.
Surveyor has duty to reproduce lines as orig- inally run as closely and accurately as possible.
II. CARRIAGE OF GOODS.
(B) Bills of Lading, Shipping Receipts, and Special Contracts.
56 (La.) Railroad could deal with indorsee
For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER
and notice to it was sufficient.-Aleman Plant- ing & Mfg. Co. v. Hines, 102 So. 815.
58 (La.) Consignee's buyer, who unloaded goods without being required to surrender bills of lading, liable to holder of bills of lading for conversion of goods.-First Nat. Bank v. Hen- derson Cotton Oil Co., 102 So. 501.
59 (La.) Evidence held to prove indorsee of bills of lading, suing for conversion of goods, a holder in due course.-First Nat. Bank v. Henderson Cotton Oil Co., 102 So. 501.
(D) Transportation and Delivery be
ered to defendant in foreclosure proceedings.- Alford v. Leonard, 102 So. 885.
Statutory provision for restoration of prop- erty to defendant in foreclosure proceedings upon giving bond is applicable to chancery pro- ceedings.-Id.
Property retaken by defendant held to re- quire no order from court for restoration; sureties on bond to have property restored to defendant in foreclosure proceedings render themselves liable to decree for amount of debt. -Id.
283 (Fla.) Judgment in foreclosure held final decree.-Alford v. Leonard, 102 So. 885.
300 (Fla.) General demurrer to bill to re- deem from alleged mortgage in form of con- tract of sale held improperly sustained.-Rags- dale v. Miami Cadillac Co., 102 So. 494.
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. Co. v. Mc- Arthur, 102 So. 842.
See Municipal Corporations.
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, 82. N. R. Co. v. McArthur, 102 So. 842.
280(1) (Miss.) Carrier of passengers is See Constitutional Law, 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-5 (Ala.) Decree not invalid for want of isville & N. R. Co. v. Compiretto, 102 So. 837. authority of acting register not duly appointed 300 (Miss.) Bus driver, who tried to cross
track in front of approaching train, held grossly-Conner v. State, 102 So. 809. negligent.-Gulf & S. I, R. Co. v. Carlson, 102 So. 168.
COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES.
321(14) (Miss.) Instructing that by sale of 7 (Fla.) Mere mistake of judgment of ticket carrier contracted to safely transport passenger and furnish safe means of alighting from train, is error.-Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Compiretto, 102 So. 837.
CERTIORARI.
1. NATURE AND GROUNDS.
17 (La.) Application could be made for certiorari and mandamus to compel district judge to set aside order for suspensive appeal prior to date for hearing on rule to show cause. -Succession of Pavelka, 102 So. 579.
II. PROCEEDINGS AND DETERMINATION.
47 (La.) Preliminary writs held not to va- cate injunction, but to preserve existing status. -Crowell & Spencer Lumber Co. v. Louisiana Public Service Commission, 102 So. 866.
CHAMPERTY AND MAINTENANCE. 7(1) (Fla.) Deed by one to land in adverse possession of another void as against adverse claimant.-Watkins v. Emmerson, 102 So. 10. CHANCERY.
CHATTEL MORTGAGES.
IX. FORECLOSURE.
279 (Fla.) Attachment by mortgagee against property mortgaged is under control of chan- cery court foreclosing mortgage.-Alford v. Leonard, 102 So. 885.
school officer in suspending or expelling student does not render him liable in absence of wan- ton, willful or malicious action.-John B. Stet- son University v. Hunt, 102 So. 637.
9 (Fla.) Private institution of learning may prescribe requirements for admission and rules for conduct of its students; persons en- tering institution as students impliedly agree to conform to rules of government of institution; exceptions of such rule stated.-John B. Stet- son University v. Hunt, 102 So. 637.
College authorities stand in loco parentis, and may make regulation which courts will not interfere with, if not violative of divine or hu- man law. Id.
Courts will not annul or revise regulations or rules not unauthorized against common right or palpably unreasonable; courts will not afford relief against enforcement of regulations unless arbitrary and for fraudulent purpose. -Id.
Relation between student and private institu- tion of learning receiving no public aid is con- tractual in character; student accepted im- pliedly agrees to conform to rules and regula- tions for breach of which he may suffer suspen- 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 president or superintendent of delegated au- thority to enforce discipline.-Id.
Private institution of learning held not re- quired to prescribe charges and prove them at trial before dismissing student permanently or temporarily.-Id.
Attachments in aid of foreclosure are not subject to attack as are writs of attachment at law; proceedings for discharge of attach-10 (Fla.) In action for malicious expulsion, ments in aid of foreclosure must be taken un- der rules of chancery practice.-Id.
280 (Fla.) No statute specifically authoriz- es entry of judgment against sureties on forth- coming bond when property has been redeliv-
court indulges every presumption to extent of good faith of school authorities; recovery for expulsion must be based on malicious action.- John B. Stetson University v. Hunt, 102 So. 637.
« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó » |