ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

Compelling Issuance of Stock.

15. CORPORATION-Suit to Compel Issuance of Stock to Share-
holder.-Equity has Jurisdiction in the matter of a suit brought
by a stockholder against a corporation to compel it to issue a
certificate for the shares of stock owned by him in such corpora-
tio, and for the accounting for dividends to which he is entitled
on his stock; and if there is any valid reason why this relief can-
not be given, equity will grant alternative relief by way of dam-
ages. (W. Va.) Snyder v. Charleston etc. Bridge Co., 947.

16. CORPORATION—Suit to Compel Issuance of Stock to Share-
holder. At a stockholders' meeting held for the purpose of organiz-
ing in pursuance of the certificate of incorporation, at which meet-
ing all the stock is properly represented, one
of the persons,
appearing from the certificate of incorporation to be a stockholder,
is elected director. Held, the corporation is thereby estopped from
denying that such person so elected is a legally constituted and
bona fide stockholder. (W. Va.) Snyder v. Charleston etc. Bridge
Co., 947.

17. CORPORATION-Suit to Compel Issuance of Stock-Laches.
A stockholder may lose his right to invoke the aid of equity to
compel the corporation to issue him a certificate for the shares of
stock owned by him, by a delay of six years, knowing for five years
of that time that he is not recognized as one of the stockholders.
(W. Va.) Snyder v. Charleston etc. Bridge Co., 947.

Foreign Corporations.

18. FOREIGN CORPORATION — Failure to Comply with Law-
Effect on Contracts.-The contracts inhibited by subdivision 10 of
section 1 of chapter 506, Wisconsin Laws of 1905, are not limited
to those made by a foreign corporation doing business in the state,
within the meaning of subdivision 2. (Wis.) Southwestern Slate Co.
v. Stephens, 1074.

19. FOREIGN CORPORATION — Failure to Comply with Law-
Stock Subscription.-A contract to sell unsubscribed stock by a for-
eign corporation which has not complied with section 1770b Wisconsin
Statutes of 1898, as amended by chapter 506 of the Laws of 1905,
is unenforceable against the subscriber. (Wis.) Southwestern Slate
Co. v. Stephens, 1074.

20. FOREIGN CORPORATION-Failure to Comply with Law.—A
Single Contract falls within the ban of the Wisconsin statute which
declares contracts unenforceable when made by a foreign corporation
that has not complied with the law of the state. (Wis.) South-
western Slate Co. v. Stephens, 1074.

21. FOREIGN CORPORATION - Service of Process and Return
Thereof. For the purpose of serving process in suits against it in
this state, a railroad corporation doing business here, though chartered by
another state or territory, will be treated as a domestic corporation,
and the return of the officer need not show that the place of ser-
vice was the place of residence of the person served. (W. Va.)
Stout v. Baltimore etc. R. R. Co., 940.

22. UNLICENSED CORPORATION -Validity of Contract.-A
Conditional Sale of property, made by a resident agent of an un-
licensed foreign corporation, followed by a change of possession and
part payment, is void in behalf of the corporation but enforceable
against it; and the corporation cannot assert that no contract exists,

and recover the goods in replevin without tendering what has been
received. (Wis.) Duluth Music Co. v. Clancy, 1051.

See Bills and Notes, 10-13; Embezzlement; Intervention, 2-4.
Note.

Corporations, admissions of agents of, 311, 312, 316, 321, 334, 336, 338.
COTENANTS.

[blocks in formation]

1. STARE DECISIS.-The decision of a court settling the right
of descent and the ownership of property becomes a rule of property,
and after standing many years, will be followed, even if deemed
erroneous. (Ala.) Brown v. Finley, 68.

Jurisdiction.

2. JURISDICTION Over Officers and Agents of the United States
Holding Possession of Lands Without Right.-If an officer or agent
of the United States holds possession of lands after title of the
United States thereto has been forfeited by a breach of condition
subsequent in the conveyance, a state court has jurisdiction to enter-
tain an action to recover such land. It is not sufficient that the of-
ficer was acting as a representative of the United States unless the
right of the United States is such as to justify his action. (Mass.)
Fay v. Locke, 402.

3. JURISDICTION of State Court Over Lands Conveyed to the
United States for a Public Use. By the statutes of Massachusetts,
the courts of that state have concurrent jurisdiction with the courts
of the United States over tracts of land conveyed to the United
States for a public use, and exclusive jurisdiction over any such
tract if it ceases to be used by the United States for such public
use. (Mass.) Fay v. Locke, 402.

In General.

CRIMINAL LAW.

1. CRIMINAL LAW-Principal or Accomplice.-One who uses an
innocent person to consummate a crime is a principal, whether present
or absent. (Tex. Cr.) Farris v. State, 824.

2. CRIMINAL LAW.-The Word "Willful" in a Penal Statute
Means more then it does in common parlance; it means with evil
intent or legal malice, or without reasonable ground for believing
the act to be lawful. (Tex. Cr.) Caldwell v. State, 809.

3. CRIMINAL LAW-Place Where Crime may be Prosecuted.-
Under the constitution and laws of this state a crime can be pros-
ecuted and punished only in the state and county where the alleged
offense was committed. (W. Va.) State v. McAllister, 955.

4. CRIMINAL LAW-Defense that Accused Represents Corpora-
tion. In a criminal prosecution the accused cannot be heard to say
in justification that he committed the offense in his official capacity
as officer of a corporation, nor can he assert that acts in form cor-
porate were not his acts merely because carried out by him through
the instrumentality of a corporation which he controlled and dominated
and which he employed for that purpose. (Wis.) Milbrath v. State,
1012.

Former Jeopardy.

5. FORMER JEOPARDY—Acquittal-Effect of Procuring New
Trial After a Conviction for the Lesser Offense. When a person has
been indicted for murder and convicted of voluntary manslaughter,

if he voluntarily seeks and obtains a new trial, he is subject to
another trial generally for the offense charged in the indictment, and
upon such trial he cannot successfully interpose a plea of former
acquittal of the crime of murder, or former jeopardy in regard
thereto. This ruling is in accord with article 1, section 1, paragraph
8, of the constitution of the state (Civil Code of 1895, section 5705),
which provides that "No person shall be put in jeopardy of life, or
liberty, more than once for the same offense, save on his or her own
motion for a new trial after conviction, or in case of mistrial." (Ga.)
Brantley v. State, 218.

6.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-National Constitution, When does
not Affect State Tribunals.-The fifth amendment of the constitution
of the United States, including the statement, "Nor shall any person
be subjected for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life
or limb, .. nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without
due process of law," was a limitation upon the power of the federal
government, and not upon the individual states. (Ga.) Brantley
v. State, 218.

[ocr errors]

Due Process and Equal Protection.

7.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-The Fourteenth Amendment has
the Effect of Securing a New Trial After the Conviction of a Lesser
Offense. If one has been indicted for murder and convicted of man-
slaughter, and, under a provision of the state constitution to the effect
that if a new trial is granted to a convicted person on his own motion
it shall be another trial generally for the offense charged in the in-
dictment, moves for a new trial and obtains it, thus voluntarily
causing the verdict to be set aside, the clause of the fourteenth
amendment of the constitution of the United States, prohibiting any
state from depriving a person of life, liberty or property without due
process of law or denying to any person the equal protection of the
laws, does not prevent him from being again tried for murder. (Ga.)
Brantley v. State, 218.

Trial-Evidence and Instructions.

8. CRIMINAL LAW-Omission of Instruction not Requested.—
Where, on the trial of a criminal charge, the court presents in its
instructions to the jury the principal questions involved, the defend-
ant cannot predicate error upon an omission to give a special in-
struction which was not requested. (Kan.) State v. Shaw, 298.

9. EVIDENCE.-When There is Serious Doubt as to the Admis-
sibility of evidence in a criminal case, the doubt should be solved in
favor of the accused. (Miss.) Gambrell v. State, 549.

10. CRIMINAL TRIAL-Evidence of Former Offense.-On the
cross-examination of the defendant in a prosecution for aggravated
assault, it is improper, for the purpose of affecting his credibility, to
inquire into crimes committed by him fifteen years before; they are
too remote for this purpose. (Tex. Cr.) Bogus v. State, 804.

11. CRIMINAL LAW-Reference to Prior Crime in Instruction
and Argument.-Where, in a prosecution for aggravated assault, the
state has erroneously been permitted to inquire into other crimes com-
mitted by the accused fifteen years before, and the court singles
out his prior conviction in charging the jury, and the state's at-
torney refers to it in severe terms, reversible error is committed.
(Tex. Cr.) Bogus v. State, 804.

12. CRIMINAL TRIAL-Instruction Outside the Evidence.-Trial
courts in giving charges in regard to the law of the case should con-
fine their instructions to the case developed by the facts; there is no
necessity for going beyond the facts and putting into the instruc-
tions matters not called for by the evidence. (Tex. Cr.) Blocker v.
State, 772.

Verdict and Sentence.

13. CRIMINAL LAW-Verdict for Misdemeanor or Felony.-A
verdict finding the "defendant guilty of assault and battery with in-
tent to commit manslaughter" is a conviction of assault and battery
merely, the words "with intent to commit manslaughter" being sur-
plusage. (Miss.) Ex parte Burden, 511.

14. CRIMINAL LAW-Jurisdiction to Impose Sentence.-Although
the court may have jurisdiction over the subject matter and over
the person, it is without jurisdiction to impose a sentence not ap-
propriate to the kind and nature of the offense. The court, to have
power to render the particular judgment, must impose a punishment
of the character authorized by law. (Miss.) Ex parte Burden, 511.

15. CRIMINAL LAW-Irregular or Void Sentence.-A sentence
of a different character from that authorized by law to be imposed
for the crime of which the accused has been found guilty is void,
while a sentence which imposes the statutory kind of punishment,
although excessive, is not void. (Miss.) Ex parte Burden, 511.

16. CRIMINAL LAW.-A Sentence as for a Felony in Case of a
Conviction of a Misdemeanor is void absolutely. (Miss.) Ex parte
Burden, 511.

Note.

See Attorney and Client; Banks and Banking.

Criminal Law. See Confessions and Admissions of Third Persons in
Criminal Cases; Offenses Continuing Throughout One Day.

CROPS.

1. CROPS Judicial Sale.-Annual crops growing on lands do not
pass to the purchaser at a judicial sale. (Neb.) Estate of Ander-
sen, 613.

2. CROPS - Conveyances and Devises.-Unless reserved crops
standing upon the ground, matured or not, pass to the grantee named
in a deed of conveyance, or to a party to whom the land is devised.
(Neb.) Estate of Andersen, 613.

Note.

See Taxation, 5, 6.

Crops, agreement to convey lands, whether includes, 620.

conveyance of lands by escrow, when passes title, 620.

conveyance of lands, operation by relation and its effect upon,

620.

conveyance of lands, passes unless reserved, 619.

conveyance of lands passes grantor's interest in as landlord, 620.
death of owner, in whom vests after, 623-625.

definitions of, 617, 618.

devise of lands, when includes, 625.

dowress, right of to as against executors and administrators, 623.
emblements, distinction between and, 618.

evidence, parol, of the grantor's reservation of, 621.
execution or foreclosure sale of land, when pass by, 622.

executors and administrators, statutes affecting right of to, 624.
executors and administrators, when become entitled to, 623, 624.
fructus industriales and fructus naturales are included within, 618.
grantor's interest in, extent of, 620.

grass, when regarded as, 619–621.

heirs, when become entitled to, 625, 626.
incidents of possession of, 620.

life tenant, to whom go on death of, 625.
ordinary agricultural, what are, 618.

Crops, personalty, when and for what purposes regarded as, 623.

realty, when a part of, 619.

reservation of from a conveyance, parol evidence of, 621.
sale of, when effects a severance from the lands, 621.
severance of from the land by sale, 621.

what included within, 618.

when severed become personalty and do not pass by deed of land,
620.

CURTESY.

1. CURTESY.-A Decree of Divorce from Bed and Board, with
perpetual separation, in the terms provided by section 12, chapter
64 of the Code, does not bar the curtesy of the husband, against
whom such decree is pronounced, in lands belonging to the wife at
the time of the decree; but upon lands thereafter acquired by her
it operates like an absolute divorce, thus, as to such property, bar-
ring claim to curtesy. (W. Va.) Hartigan v. Hartigan, 973.

2. CURTESY-Barring by Special Order in Divorce Decree.—
Quaere: May not the court, by virtue of section 11, chapter 64 of
the Code, in granting such divorce, bar, by a special order in the
decree, the right of curtesy or dower in the existing real estate of
the parties, or either of them. (W. Va.) Hartigan v. Hartigan,

973.

3. CURTESY-Divorce.-The Word "Interests" in a decree of di-
vorce which reserves "for future order the question of the interests
of each of the said parties in the said property," includes the hus-
band's estate by the curtesy. (W. Va.) Hartigan v. Hartigan,
973.

CUSTOM.
See Evidence, 2.

DAMAGES.

1. PLEADING-Damages, Allegation Respecting, When will not
be Struck Out.-Allegations in the declaration of the plaintiff's loss
or damage may not be so wholly irrelevant as to be amenable to a
motion to strike, and yet subject to compulsory amendment under
the statute. (Fla.) Williams v. Atlantic Coast Line Ry. Co., 169.

2. DAMAGES, NOMINAL, When Recoverable.-When the alle-
gations of the declaration show the legal right of the plaintiff has
been invaded, he may recover at least nominal damages, and a de-
murrer thereto should be overruled. (Fla.) Williams v. Atlantic
Coast Line Ry. Co., 169.

3. NEGLIGENCE, Damages, What Recoverable for.-Only such
damages may be recovered as were contemplated or might reason-
ably be supposed to have entered into the contemplation of the par-
ties to the contract of carriage. If the owner of the goods would
charge the carrier with any special damages, he must have com-
municated to the carrier all the facts and circumstances of the case
which do not ordinarily attend the carriage or the peculiar charac-
ter and value of the property carried, for otherwise such peculiar
circumstances cannot be contemplated by the carrier. (Fla.) Will-
iams v. Atlantic Coast Line Ry. Co., 169.

4. NEGLIGENCE, Damages for Enforced Idleness of Plaintiff's
Employés, When not Recoverable.-In an action against a railroad
company for damages caused by the failure of the company to de-
liver within a reasonable time orange boxes intrusted to the de-
fendant to transport for hire, the plaintiff cannot recover the loss
and damage in the enforced idleness of persons employed to pack
and ship his oranges on his orange groves, where the defendant was

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »