« AnteriorContinuar »
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to treat the contract as rescinded, and sue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as rescinded at any time before the time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.
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-
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
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
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.
BILL OF REVIEW.
See also REVIEW.
Bill of review; limitation of time for
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,
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,
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
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
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
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
Bonds; when equity will go above penal
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.
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.
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.
Necessity of instruction as to law on cir-
cumstantial evidence on prosecution for
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
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.)
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,
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.
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.
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.
Duty of One Mining to Leave Surface
Support, see MINES.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.)
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.