페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

LETTERS PATENT.
See PATENT FOR INVENTION.

LEGAL MAXIMS.

See FRAUD, 3.

LEX LOCI.
See MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, 3.

LIEN.
1. The doctrine that a vendor not taking security for the price of real

estate sold by him holds in equity a lien upon the property for such
price has no application to this case. Thompson v. White Water Valley

Railroad Co., 68.
2. In Indiana, a person who contracts with a telegraph corporation to do

the specified work of putting up certain lines of wire on poles, is not
an “employé” of the corporation, within the meaning of the act of
the legislature of Indiana, approved March 13, 1877, (Laws of Indiana
1877, Special Session, 27, c. 8; also, Rev. Stats. Indiana, S$ 5286–5291,)
giving a first and prior lien on the corporate property and earnings of
a corporation to its employés, for all work and labor done and per-
formed by them for the corporation, from the date of their employ-

ment by the corporation. Vane v. Newcombe, 220.
3. Such a lien is not given to him by virtue of the mechanics' lien act of

Indiana, of March 6, 1883, (Laws of 1883, 140; Elliott's Supplement of
1889, SS 1688 and 1690,) unless he complies with that act in regard to
describing, in his notice of lien, the lot or land on which the structure

stands on which he claims a lien. 16.
4. By perfecting a claim to his lien under the act of 1877, he waived the

right, if any, which he had to a common law lien, as to the personal

property and earnings of the corporation. 16.
5. The poles and wires were real estate on which he could have no lien at

common law. 1b.
6. Moreover he gave up any right he had to a common law lien, as to the

wires, by giving up possession of them. 1b.

LIMITATION, STATUTES OF.
1. This court expresses no opinion upon the question whether, when the

right of property in highways and public places is vested in a munici-
pality, an assertion of that right against purprestures or public nui-
sances is subject to the law of limitations. Metropolitan Railroad Co.

v. District of Columbia, 1.
2. An action by a municipal corporation to recover from a street railroad

company the cost of maintaining pavements in a street, which the
company is, by its charter, bound to maintain, is not an action upon

the statute, but one in assumpsit, liable to be barred by a statute of
limitation. 16.
See BANKRUPTCY, 1, 2, 7, 8, 9; LOCAL LAW, 17;
DEED;

Public LAND, 1.

LOCAL LAW.
1. The defendant in a possessory action in the nature of ejectment, brought

in a court of Washington Territory where the laws permitted a min-
gling of common law and equity jurisdictions, pleaded the general issue,
and also set up four defences, one of which was the statute of limita-
tions, and one of which was an equitable defence. The plaintiff filed
a general demurrer to the second, third and fourth defences. The de
murrer being overruled, the plaintiff elected to stand upon it, and the
case was thereupon dismissed; Held, that the final judgment was one
dismissing the action at law, and was not a judgment in the exercise

of chancery jurisdiction. Brown v. Rank, 216.
2. In Louisiana, as in the States in which the English system of equitable

jurisprudence prevails, a creditor who has received from his debtor the
legal title to real estate, may institute other proceedings against the
debtor in relation to the same property, in order to strengthen his title
or establish his lien, if he deems it his interest to do so. Bradley v.

Claflin, 379.
3. In Louisiana a married woman, who has received from her husband a

conveyance of real estate as a dation en paiement of a debt against him
arising out of her paraphernal property which came into his control,
may cause a mortgage of the same property to secure the same debt
to be recorded in the manner provided by law, and the mortgage may

become valid if the title under the conveyance fails. Ib.
4. In Louisiana a mortgage or lien on real estate of the husband in favor

of the wife is created by Art. 3319 [3287] of the code when the hus-
band receives her dotal or paraphernal property, which mortgage
though not registered, is not merged in a simulated and fraudulent
title conveyed to her by her husband as a dation en paiement, and its
registry by the wife makes it valid against creditors of the husband

asserting title under liens subsequent thereto. 16.
5. A judgment in Texas against a partnership, and against one member

of it upon whom process has been served, no process having been
served upon another member who is non-resident and absent, binds
the firm assets so far as the latter is concerned, but not his individual

property. Sugg v. Thornton, 524.
6. In Texas an equitable claim of title to real estate is equally available

with a legal one. Miller v. Teras and Pacific Railway, 662.
7. In Texas, the holder of a head-right-certificate could locate it upon a

tract of public land, and then abandon the location and locate it upon
another tract, and, in such case the abandoned tract became thereby
again public land, subject to location by other parties. Ib.

8. From the evidence it would appear that the Rutledge certificate which

is in controversy in this case was in the land office in Texas on or be-
fore August 1, 1857, in compliance with the requirements of the act
of the Legislature of Texas of August 1, 1856. 1 Paschal's Digest,

701, art. 4210. 1b.
9. By the act of the legislature of Texas of April 25, 1871, 2 Paschal's

Digest, 1453, arts. 7096–7099, it was provided that a certificate of loca-
tion and survey of public lands, not on file at the passage of that act,
and not withdrawn for locating an unlocated balance, should be re-
turned to and filed in the office within eight months thereafter, or the
location and survey should be void; Held, that in the absence of clear
proof that a valid located certificate was not on file there within the
statutory time, the court would not raise such a presumption in favor
of another title, superimposed upon the land at a time when the cer-

tificate was valid and possession was enjoyed under it. Ib.
10. The practice of locating land certificates upon prior rightful locations

is not favored by the laws of Texas. Ib.
11. The failure of the holder of a head-right-certificate in Texas to com-

plete his title, by complying with statutory provisions in regard to the

filing of his certificate, enures to the benefit of the State alone. 16.
12. In Texas the rights of a subsequent locator, having actual notice of a

prior location, are postponed to the superior rights of the prior locator,

although the subsequent location may have passed into a patent. 16.
13. The provisions in the constitution and laws of Texas respecting the

location of land certificate, reviewed. 16.
14. In Texas land certificates are chattels, and may be sold by parol agree-

ment and delivery, the purchaser and grantee thereby acquiring the
right to locate a certificate and to take out a patent in his own name

and to his own use. Ib.
15. The failure in the certificate of acknowledgment of a deed of the sep-

arate property of a married woman in Texas, to state that she was
examined apart from her husband, cannot be supplied by proof that

such was the fact. Ib.
16. In Texas an habendum to a deed running “to have and to hold to

him the said” grantee, “his heirs and assigns forever, free from the
just claim or claims of any and all persons whomsoever, claiming or
to claim the same,” imports a general warranty and estops the grantor

and his heirs from setting up an adverse title against the grantee. Ib.
17. On the facts as stated in the opinion the court holds that the statute

of limitations of Texas is a complete bar to the claims set up by the
complainants, both in the original bill and in the cross-bills. Ib.

Alabama.
California.
Colorado.
Indiana.

See ConstiTUTIONAL LAW, 9.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 7.
See CORPORATION.
See LIEN, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.

Iowa.
Michigan.

Ohio.
Pennsylvania.

See INSURANCE.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 6.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, 9.
See MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, 4, 5.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, A, 2.

EVIDENCE, 6, 7.
See AssIGNMENT FOR BENEFIT OF CRED-

ITORS, 2, 3, 4.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, A, 1, 10.

MOTION TO DISMISS OR AFFIRM, 2.
See ConstiTUTIONAL LAW, A, 11.

Texas.

Utah.

MANDAMUS.
A judgment for damages and costs was recovered in a Circuit Court of the

United States, on bonds and coupons issued by a municipal corporation.
In answer to an alternative writ of mandamus issued three and one-
half years afterwards, for the levy of a tax to satisfy the judgment, it
was set up, in bar, that the original judgment was void because the
Circuit Court had no jurisdiction of the subject matter of the action
on the ground that the bonds were not payable to order or bearer. A
peremptory writ was granted by a judgment to review which a writ of
error was taken. A motion to dismiss the writ was made, united with
a motion to affirm; Held, (1) Although there was no ground for con-
tending that this court had no jurisdiction, yet the reasons assigned
for taking the writ of error were frivolous, and it was taken for
delay only; (2) The principal of the bonds was payable to bearer;
(3) The judgment ought to be affirmed; (4) The proceeding by man-
damus being in the nature of execution, if the prosecution of writs of
error to the execution of process to enforce judgments were permitted
when no real ground existed therefor, such interference might become
intolerable, and this court in the exercise of its inherent power and
duty to administer justice, ought, independently of subdivision 5 of
rule 6, to reach the mischief by affirming the action below; (5) No
different interpretation is put on that subdivision from that which
his hitherto prevailed. Chanute City v. Trader, 210.

MASTER AND SERVANT.
A person employed by a corporation under a written contract to sell sewing-

machines, and to be paid for his services by commissions on sales and
collections; the company furnishing a wagon, and he furnishing a
horse and harness, to be used exclusively in canvassing for such sales
and in the general prosecution of the business; and he agreeing to
give his whole time and best energies to the business, and to employ
himself under the direction of the company and under such rules and
instructions as it or its manager shall prescribe; is a servant of the
company, and the company is responsible to third persons injured by

his negligence in the course of his employment. Singer Manufacturing
Co. v. Rahn, 518.

MECHANICS' LIEN.
See EQUITY, 2;

LIEN, 2, 3, 4.

MICHIGAN.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, A, 6.

MINERAL LAND.
1. An applicant for a placer patent, who has complied with all the pro-

ceedings essential for the issue of a patent for his location, but whose
patent has not issued, may maintain an action to quiet title against a
person asserting title to a portion of the placer location under a subse-

quent location of a lode claim. Dahl v. Raunheim, 260.
2. If on the trial of such an action the court instruct the jury that if they

believe that the premises were located by the grantors and predecessors
in interest of the plaintiff as a placer mining claim in accordance with
law and they continued to hold the premises until conveyed to the
plaintiff, and the plaintiff continued to hold them up to the time of
the application of a patent therefor, and at the time of the application
there was no known lode or vein within the boundaries of the premises
claimed, and there is a general verdict for the plaintiff, the jury must
be deemed to have found that the lode claimed by the defendant did

not exist when the plaintiff's application for a patent was filed. 15.
3. When a person applies for a placer patent in the manner prescribed

by law, and all the proceedings in regard to publication and otherwise
are had thereunder which are required by the statutes of the United
States, and no adverse claims are filed or set up, and it appears that
the ground has been surveyed and returned by the Surveyor General
to the local land office as mineral land, the question whether it is pla-
cer ground is conclusively established and is not open to litigation by
private parties seeking to avoid the effect of the proceedings. Ib.

See EVIDENCE, 8, 9;

JURISDICTION, A, 1, 4.

MISTAKE OF FACT.

See Post-OFFICE DEPARTMENT, 3.

MORTGAGE.
A mortgage by a railroad company, which covers its entire property and

also all property appertaining to its road which it might afterwards
acquire, is valid as to such after-acquired property; and the bonds
issued under it are a prior encumbrance on a part of the chartered line
constructed, after the funds realized from the mortgage bonds had

« 이전계속 »