paying out a deposit to one not authorized | in a mutual benefit society, adhered to for to receive it. two years and five months, is not subject to change, so as to permit a certificate holder to treat the contract as rescinded, and sue for assessments paid. Supreme Council A. L. of H. v. Lippincott (C. C. App. 3d C.)
2. Breach of the contract of a mutual benefit society by arbitrary reduction of the amounts of outstanding certificates is not a continuing one, so as to entitle a cer- tificate holder to elect to treat the contract as rescinded at any time before the time set for performance. Id.
Playing Pool as, see GAMING.
Banks; liability of savings banks for payments to fraudulent claimants:-(I.) General rule requiring reasonable care by the bank; (II.) the application of the rule of reasonable care as affected by the bank's by-laws: (a) in general; (b) by-law pro- viding for payment to the depositor's repre- sentative after his death; (III.) the bind- ing effect of the by-laws upon the deposit- or: (a) assent by the depositor; (b) what is a reasonable by-law; (IV.) limits of the application of the rule requiring reasonable care: (a) in general; (b) payment upon fraudulent claim of identity merely; (c) payment upon impersonation of the de- positor, combined with forgery; (d) pay- ment upon forged orders alone: (e) pay- ment without either impersonation or for- BICYCLES. gery; (f) payment after the death of the depositor; (g) the obligation to compare the signatures; (V.) contributory negli- gence of the depositor: (a) in general; (b) failure to give notice to the bank; (c) fail- ure to keep pass book safely; (VI.) mat- ters of evidence.
Duty to take notice of depositor's death; payment of deposit to impostor; right to recover back money paid to person present- ing pass book of dead depositor; where bank has no knowledge of death; care re- 321 quired of bank in paying deposit.
Payment of deposit on presentation of pass book; liability where payment made to impostor; regulation relieving bank from liability for fraud in withdrawing money; effect of negligence of depositor in care of pass book; presumption that bank- ers know signatures of depositors; measure of care required of bank in paying deposit; duty to keep signatures of depositors on file 329 for comparison.
Rule that, if depositor does not present book personally, order properly signed and witnessed must accompany book; liability for payment contrary to rule; by-law re- lieving bank from liability for wrong pay- ment when depositor has failed to give no- tice of loss of pass book; what vigilance required of bank in detecting fraud; rule that payment to person presenting book shall be binding on depositor; negligence of bank in making payment question for jury.
BENEVOLENT SOCIETIES.
1. An election to treat the original contract as still in force, upon notification of reduction in the amounts of certificates
Reading of, in School, see SCHOOLS, 3.
Placed Near Edge of Street; Municipal Liability for Injury by Fall of, see MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS, 7.
BILL OF ATTAINDER. ATTA See ATTAINDER.
BILL OF REVIEW. See also REVIEW.
Bill of review; limitation of time for 397 filing.
BILLS AND NOTES.
Enforcing Note for Principal and for Interest in Same Action, see Ac- TION OR SUIT, 2.
Law Governing Married Woman's Lia- bility on, see CONFLICT OF LAWS, 5, 6.
For Purchase Money, Stay of Action on, see INJUNCTION, 5. Right of Set-Off in Action on, see SET- OFF AND COUNTERCLAIM.
1. The execution of a renewal note in consideration of the surrender of one upon which the signer was liable as surety will bind him as principal, as between himself and the payee. Garrigue v. Keller (Ind.)
Laches as, see LIMITATION OF ACTIONS, 2.
Availability of Defense of Recoupment though Affirmative Action Barred, see LIMITATION OF ACTIONS, 3. Removal of Bar of Limitations, see LIMITATION OF ACTIONS, 6.
2. One who purchases for value, of a creditor, the obligation of his debtor and obtains the latter's promissory note, pay- able to himself, as evidence of his obliga- tion, with full knowledge of the considera- tion thereof, and of the facts which con- dition the inception of the original obliga- | tion, takes the note subject to all the defenses which existed against it in the hands of the original creditor. Williams v. Neely (C. C. App. 8th C.)
Master's Liability for Injury to Serv- ant by Explosion of, see MASTER AND SERVANT, 3-5.
Estoppel of Corporation to Claim Pay- ment of, see ESTOPPEL, 6.
Of Corporation, Conclusiveness against Corporation of Judgment as to, see JUDGMENT, 4.
A statute requiring that all bonds for the faithful performance of official or fiduciary duties, or the faithful keeping, applying, or accounting for funds or property, with cer- tain exceptions, must be executed by a surety company or companies, is invalid as an inva- sion of the liberty to contract guaranteed by the Constitution. State ex rel. McKell 427
232 3. A partial failure of consideration, v. Robins (Ohio) which results from a defect of title, is a good defense pro tanto to an action by the vendor upon a promissory note given for the purchase price of land which he has conveyed with covenants of warranty and against encumbrances. Id.
4. A sound reason, inhering in the same transaction from which a promissory note springs, why the holder ought not, in equity and good conscience, to recover its face value, is a good equitable defense to it, al- though this defense constitutes neither an offset nor a counterclaim, nor an affirmative cause of action against the holder of the note.
Bonds; when equity will go above penal sum of. 234 Action on; impossibility of performance of condition as defense; where impossibility arises through act of obligor.
Statute requiring all surety bonds to be signed by surety company. 428
Condemnation of Land for, see EMINENT DOMAIN, 4, 5.
Sufficiency of Title of Statute as to, see STATUTES, 4
rate of interest,"-is not in conflict with | nished by him depends upon whether it was Ohio Const. art. 2, § 26, requiring all laws to discoverable by the exercise of such care as háve a uniform operation, or art. 1, § 2, for- is usually exercised by persons of ordinary bidding the grant of special privileges or im- prudence in the conduct of such business. munities. Cramer v. Southern Ohio L. & T. Id. Co. (Ohio) 415 Premiums.
3. A carrier cannot delegate to another the duty of seeing that the means of egress from its terminal grounds are reasonably safe. Cotant v. Boone Suburban R. Co. (Iowa)
License to Use Stairway on Outside of, upon a through ticket to transport the pas-
BURDEN OF PROOF.
See EVIDENCE, 4-7.
By One Apparently Assisted by Detec- tive, see CRIMINAL LAW, 1-3.
Burglary; criminal liability when insti- gated by private detective with approval of proprietor of place burglarized. 406 Necessity of instruction as to law on cir- cumstantial evidence on prosecution for 197, 207
Business; what constitutes.
7. A steamship company is not entitled to a limitation of its liability for loss of pas- sengers and baggage through the sinking of its vessel, where its crew could not under- stand the language of its officers, and were not drilled in the launching of the boats, so that after the accident but one boat was suc- cessfully launched, although there was time enough to launch them all had proper orders been given and obeyed, and the statute pro-
vides that no steamer carrying passengers shall depart from any port unless she shall have in her service a full complement of licensed officers, and a full crew sufficient at all times to manage the vessel. Re Pacific Mail S. S. Co. (C. C. App. 9th C.) 599 Duty and liability as to freight. Proximate Cause of Loss, see PROXI- MATE CAUSE, 1.
Duty and liability as to passengers.
8. It is the duty of a common carrier to Questions for Jury as to Safety of Exit, whom goods are delivered for transporta-
1. Livery-stable keepers are not within the rule that common carriers of passengers are bound to exercise extraordinary care for the safety of their passengers. Stanley v. Steele (Conn.) 561
tion, to forward them promptly, and with- out unreasonable delay, to their destina- tion. Bibb Broom Corn Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. (Minn.) 509 9. A carrier who negligently and carelessly delays a shipment is liable for the loss, where 2. Whether or not a livery-stable keeper is the goods are overtaken in transit and dam- liable to a patron for an injury due to a aged by an act of God which would not have defect in the neck yoke of the carriage fur-caused the damage had there been no delay,
![[blocks in formation]](https://books.google.pt/books/content?id=Or8KAAAAYAAJ&hl=pt-PT&output=html_text&pg=PA1018&img=1&zoom=3&q=%22under+any+agreement+or+understanding+that+his+vote,+opinion,+judgment,+or+action+shall+be%22&cds=1&sig=ACfU3U3cN-c5Z0mLb1Ip6SIXVWvLoDeaKA&edge=0&edge=stretch&ci=100,113,419,133)
10. A carrier may at any time change its policy as to furnishing shippers of a certain commodity privileges which, under the law, it is not bound to extend to them. Central of Ga. R. Co. v. Augusta Brokerage Co. (Ga.) 119
11. That a discrimination by a carrier against a particular commodity is dictated by the business interests of the carrier, and really affects but a single shipper, does not make it unlawful. Id.
12. Discrimination against shippers only, and not against commodities, is forbidden by the rule promulgated by the railroad com- mission of Georgia that carriers, "in the conduct of their intrastate business, shall afford to all persons equal facilities in the transportation and delivery of freight." Id.
13. Unjust discrimination against ship- pers engaged in interstate commerce, as to the matter of issuing through bills of lading or furnishing reshipping facilities at terminal points within the state of Georgia, does not constitute a violation of rule 36 of the Georgia railroad commission that car- riers in their intrastate business shall afford to all persons equal facilities in the trans- portation and delivery of freight.
Duty to keep stile used as exit from ground safe; where carrier did not erect stile, and it is on land of other party; care of passenger in using exit. 983
Duty of One Mining to Leave Surface Support, see MINES.
COMBINATIONS.
Injunction against, see INJUNCTION, 2. See also CONSPIRACY.
Combinations; illegal combination to con- trol prices and restrict competition; at- tempt to injure person by inducing em- ployees to break their contracts with him; right of party to protection where he was a former member of the combination; right to enforce illegal rules and regulations against former member.
COMMERCE.
See also CARRIERS, 13.
1. A statute requiring merchants licensed to sell grain on commission to render a true statement to the consignor within twenty-four hours of making a sale, showing the grain sold, price received, name and ad- dress of purchaser, and the date, hour, and minute when sold, with vouchers for charges, and expenses, is not unconstitu-
tional as an interference with interstate | As to marriage.
commerce, though applying to shipments 3. The marriage of a ward, solemnized in from beyond as well as from within the a sister state where it is valid, is not void state. State v. Edwards (Minn.) 667 because no license was procured with the 2. Railroad companies engaged in inter- consent of the guardian, as required by the state commerce are subject to a state statute laws of his domicil, nor because such laws making railroad companies liable for in- render void all his contracts. Ex parte juries to employees on account of the negli- Chace (R. I.) gence of others having control or direction of them, so long as Congress does not deal with that subject. Peirce v. Van Dusen (C. C. App. 6th C.)
Commerce; interstate; statute regulating sales of grain by commission merchants as interference with; what constitutes inter- state commerce; right to require license for conducting in state business originating
4. The marriage of a ward, valid where made in a sister state, must be regarded as valid at his domicil, although it would not have been so had it been solemnized there because of statutory limitation of his right to contract. Id.
As to married woman's liability.
5. That a note for the payment of which a married woman becomes surety is made pay- able in a state where such contract is invalid will not, although the suit is brought in that state, defeat her liability if the contract was valid at her domicil, where it was executed. Garrigue v. Keller (Ind.) 870
6. A contract of suretyship against a mar- ried woman, which is valid in the state where made, is not unenforceable in another
Rule in Shelley's Case as Part of, see state, as violative of its public policy, merely REAL PROPERTY, 1.
![[blocks in formation]](https://books.google.pt/books/content?id=Or8KAAAAYAAJ&hl=pt-PT&output=html_text&pg=PA1019&img=1&zoom=3&q=%22under+any+agreement+or+understanding+that+his+vote,+opinion,+judgment,+or+action+shall+be%22&cds=1&sig=ACfU3U1kiG1U5H2GTsRtH9DbbYLlJ1i7MA&edge=0&edge=stretch&ci=86,719,415,399)
CONFLICT OF LAWS.
1. The validity and interpretation of the contract, as well as the rule measuring the damages arising upon its breach and the company's liability therefor, are to be deter- mined by the laws of the state where a tele- gram is filed for transmission in case the points of inception and termination are in
different states. Hancock v. Western U. Teleg. Co. (N. C.) 403
2. Delivery of notes into the mail, to be forwarded to another state in accordance with the understanding between maker and payee, completes the delivery so as to make the contract one to be governed by the laws of the state where the postoffice is located. Garrigue v. Keller (Ind.)
because its statutes forbid her to bind her- self by such a contract.
« AnteriorContinuar » |