Imagens das páginas

investigation, and that the charges were | LIBERTY.
true and that the report was taken up and See FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
considered by the body, at which time pe-
titioners had an opportunity to be heard LIBERTY OF SPEECH OR PRESS.
in their own behalf.


As Limitation on Exercise of Right to

Privacy, see PRIVACY, 2.

Legislature: powers and privileges of; Of Attorney; Revocation, see

right to expel member; exercise of power

NEYS, 2.
beyond control of judiciary.

557 Authority of Municipality as to see


Necessity of Ophthalmologist Procur-
What property exempt.

ing, see PHYSICIANS.
1. The deposit by the beneficiary of the 1. A license is a personal privilege to do
proceeds of a life-insurance policy, which certain acts upon the lands of another, but
are exempt from execution for her debts, creates no estate therein, is revocable at
in a bank, does not destroy the exemption. will, and may rest in parol; while an ease-
Holmes v. Marshall (Cal.)

67 ment is an estate in real property, and its
2. The exemption from execution of the grant falls within the statute of frauds.

proceeds of insurance policies is not limited Howes v. Barmon (Id.)
to claims against the insured, but extends 2. Unless the evidence be clearly to the
to those against the beneficiary, under a contrary, a court will presume that a parol
statute providing that all moneys, benefits, agreement to impress real property with a
privileges, or immunities aceruing, or in servitude was made with a knowledge of
any manner growing out of, life insurance, the provisions of the statute of frauds, and
are exempt from execution; and the same was therefore intended as a license only,
rule applies where the policy is payable and not as an easement.

to the estate of the assured, and, being ex-

3. A license, revocable by the licensor,
empt from his debts, the proceeds are dis- and not an easement, is created by oral per-
tributed to his widow under the statute as

mission to use a stairway on the outside
his next of kin.


of a building to reach the second story of
Setting aside levy.

an adjoining building, in consideration that
3. The court may set aside the levy of those to whom such permission is given
an attachment upon exempt property. Id. will allow the owner of the stairway to

erect a porch at the back end of his build-

ing, on a strip of vacant land owned by
the other parties.

Levy and seizure; of growing crops. 827


1. Words which are harmless in them. License; upon private property; defi-
selves may be libelous in the light of extrin- nition of; revocation.

sic facts. Pavesich v. New England L. Ins.
Co. (Ga.)

101 LIENS.
2. A publication of an advertisement of Remedy for Enforcing, see ACTION OR
an insurance company, containing a per-

Suit, 1.
son's picture and a statement that the per-

has policies of insurance with the LIFE TENANTS.
company and is pleased with his invest-

1. The life estates created by statute,
ment, when in fact he has no such policies, giving a surviving husband or wife one-
is libelous as having a tendency to create third interest for life in the real estate of
the impression among those who know the the other, are subject to the incidents of
facts that the person whose picture is re-

common-law life estates, although they are
produced has told a wilful falsehood, either not the same as the common-law estates;
gratuitously or for a consideration. Id.

and the life tenant is therefore impeach-

able for waste. Swayne v. Lone Acre Oil
Co. (Tex.)


2. One entitled to an undivided life es-
Libel and slander: in charging one with tate under a statute giving a surviving hus-
doing what the law authorizes to be done; band or wife a one-third interest in the
definition of libel: innnendo to change real estate of the other cannot demand
natural meaning of words.

102 | absolutely any part of the production of




oil wells subsequently opened upon the fore, and will be stayed after, the time
property by the remainder-men, but is en fixed by the analogous statute of limita-
titled only to the income upon one third tions at law; but, if unusual conditions
of the oil produced.

Id. make it inequitable to allow the prosecu-
Right to dividends.

tion of a suit after a briefer, or to forbid
3. The rule that cash dividends on cor-

its maintenance after a longer, period than
porate stock go to life tenants, and stock that fixed by the statute, the chancellor
dividends to the remainder-men, will not will not be bound by the statute, but will
yield whenever an investigation might ap-

determine the extraordinary case in ac-
pear to indicate its failure in a given case cordance with the equities which condition
to accomplish what might be conceived to it. Williams v. Neely (C. C. App. 8th C.)
be exact justice, upon the basis of some

theoretical view of the ultimate rights of Equitable remedies; laches.
persons asserting conflicting successive 2. It is not culpable laches for one who
stock interests. Smith v. Dana (Conn.) 76 has an equitable defense or reduction to a

4. Withdrawal from certain incidental promissory note which has been and is the
branches of business which a corporation subject of pending litigation in another
has been carrying on does not make the court, and which, if available at law, would
distribution of the money invested in them survive as long as the cause of action upon
as dividends a partial liquidation which the note existed, to wait until an affirma-
will carry the dividends to the remainder- tive action at law upon the subject of the

as against life tenants, where the defense is barred, and until the equitable
capital stock is not impaired, and its value defense is rejected in an action at law upon
remains above par, and practically the

the note, before invoking the aid of a court
same after the dividends as before. Id.

of equity to enjoin the prosecution of the

latter action until his equitable defense is
5. Cash dividends upon corporate stock allowed.

belong to the life tenants notwithstanding
they were derived from the sale of perma- Effect of bar of other claim or remedy.

3. The defense of reduction or recoup-
nent property in which profits had been in-


ment, which arises out of the same trans-
6. Investment of the profits of a corpora vives as long as

action as a promissory note or claim, sur-

cause of action upon
tion in permanent works does not capital. the promissory note or claim exists, al-
ize them, so that upon the sale of the works though an affirmative action upon the sub-
the directors cannot distribute them as a ject of the defense may be barred by the
cash dividend, which will belong to life

statute of limitations,

tenants, and not to remainder-men, of the


4. A note given for interest on another

note which is secured by mortgage is itself

so secured, and the mortgage may be fore-

closed to satisfy it, although the prior note
Life tenants; respective rights of life is barred by the statute of limitations.
tenants and remainder-men in stock divi- Kleis v. McGrath (Iowa)


76 When statute runs.
Interest of life tenant in mines under 5. Under a stipulation in a mortgage
land; where life tenant is widow whose securing a series of notes due at intervals
estate is created by statute; right to oil of one year, that nonpayment of any one of
produced from wells drilled by remainder- them, together with nonpayment of taxes
men; to what life estates doctrine of waste due on the mortgaged premises, shall ma-
applies; what constitutes waste. 986 ture the entire debt; failure to pay the first

note at its maturity and taxes due at that

time, which default continues until all the
Municipal Liability for Falling over notes are due, starts the running of the

Horse Block from Lack of, see statute of limitations in favor of the

whole debt. Snyder v. Miller (Kan.) 250

Removal of bar.

6. Giving a note for interest upon a
Estoppel to Plead, see ESTOPPEL, 7.
Invalidity of Short Limitation for larger note already barred by the statute
Suit on Policy, see INSURANCE, 8.

of limitations, which does not mention or
Time for Filing Bill of Review, see

in any way refer to the earlier note, does

not revive it under a statute providing that

causes of action founded on contract are
1. Under ordinary circumstances a suit revived by an admission in writing, signed
in equity will not be stayed for laches be. I by the party to be charged, that the debt

is unpaid, or by a like new promise to pay | MAIL.
the same. Kleis v. McGrath (Iowa) 260 Contract by, see CONFLICT OF LAWS, 2.
7. Payment of the taxes due on mort-

gaged premises by one who purchased the
property subject to the mortgage, but did

not assume its payment, does not suspend
the running of limitations against the
right to foreclose the mortgage, which had with trial; where party is in contempt. 312

Mandamus; to compel court to proceed
been started by failure of the mortgagor

To compel courts and judges to approve
to pay at maturity the first of a series of
notes secured by the mortgage and taxes and accept bonds; to compel performance
due at that time, the mortgage providing

of act by officer who pleads authority of un-
that nonpayment of any one of the notes, constitutional act for nonperformance. 428
together with nonpayment of taxes due on

To restore to membership one expelled
the premises, should mature the entire from state legislature; mandamus from one
debt. Snyder v. Miller (Kan.)

250 branch to co-ordinate branch; not issued

when not effectual or beneficial; to control

discretion of lawmaking branch of govern-

Limitation of actions; running of,
against defense arising out of same trans-

action as claim sued on.


Provision in mortgage that whole debt

shall become due upon failure to pay in-

Law Governing, see CONFLICT OF LAWS,
terest and taxes; suspension of operation

3, 4.
of statute by subsequent payment of taxes ;

As Consideration for Contract, see CON-
where payment is made by subsequent

grantee of land.

Giving note to secure interest accrued on MASTER AND SERVANT.
note previously given as acknowledgment

Liability for Maliciously Procuring
of continued indebtedness

upon latter;

Breach of Contract of Employment,
statement in writing by debtor that specific

see CASE.
amount is due aş admission of balance of Damages for Breach of Contract of Em-
claim over such amount.


ployment, see DAMAGES, 5.
Question for Jury as to Contributory

Negligence of Brakeman, see TRIAL,


Master's duty as to appliances.

Proximate Cause of Injury to Servant
Liability as Carrier, see CARRIERS, 1, 2.

by Fall of Derrick, see PROXIMATE


See also TRIAL, 20.
Right to Maintain Replevin for, see

1. There is no distinction between the

construction of the appliances furnished for

the use of a servant and their maintenance,

so far as the right of the master is concerned
The fact that each member is entitled to absolve himself from liability for injuries
to trade out of the amount he has paid in by furnishing suitable materials to a com-
whenever he chooses to withdraw from the petent person, to be used for that purpose.
club does not prevent'a suit club, which is a

Rincicotti v. John J. O'Brien Contracting
scheme by which a certain number of per-

Co. (Conn.)

sons pay a small sum per week, and choose 2. Failure of an engineer to observe a
by lot each weck one of the number who custom of the road, when cars are being
shall receive a suit of clothes worth much coupled together, to stop his engine imme-
more than such weekly payment, upon re- diately when the cars come together and hold
ceipt of which he ceases to be a member of it stationary until signaled by the brake-
the club, from being a lottery. People v.

inen making the coupling to move it again,
McPhee (Mich.)

505 is negligence rendering the company liable

for injury to a brakeman in consequence

thereof. Schus Powers-Simpson Co.

Lottery; what constitutes.

506 3. An employer without the necessary


technical knowledge to enable him to deter- | mand relative to the handling of the cars.
mine whether or not a boiler furnished by Dill v. Marmon (Ind.)

him is safe may rely upon the statement of

11. After a master has exercised due care
the official city boiler inspector, so far as his in the selection of servants, the danger aris-
duty towards his employees is concerned. ing from the negligence of a fellow servant
Service r. Sioneman (Pa.)

792 is one which is voluntarily assumed by a.
4. Negligence by an employer in furnish- person going into the service of the master;
ing an unsafe boiler is rebutted, so as to al. it being a risk for which satisfactory com-
solve him from liability for injuries to em pensation is presumed to have been rendered
ployees by its explosion, where, before its by the larger wages he can earn in such
purchase, he made extended inquiries as to service than in other employments. Louis-
which boiler was best, and purchased the one ville & N. R. (o. v. Dillard (Tenn.) 7 46
recommended after its superiority was point- 12. A direction by a foreman to an em-
ed out, paying a larger price than was asked ployee assisting in shifting cars to be loaded
for others; and it had been used in his es.

at a mill, to push a car put in motion by
tablishment three years before the accident the impact of another before it has lost its
without complaint, and was exclusively used momentum, is not such a change in his work,
and favored by the owners.


although he has never done that particular
5. That a boiler furnished by an employer act before, as to authorize him to proceed at
for the use of his employees contains an the master's risk. Dill v. Marmon (Ind.)
unsafe device will not render him liable for

injuries to them by reason of such defect, if 13. A railroad engineer who obeys, al-
he procured it in the exercise of business though reluctantly, an order to take his.
prudence, and it was one in ordinary use. Id. train through a mountainous region on its

6. The failure to box or otherwise pro regular trip at a time of heavy rains, when
tect a rapidly revolving upright shaft coming land slides are anticipated, assumes the risk
up through the floor in an alley or passage of such slides, and cannot hold the company
way where an inexperienced girl is required responsible in case his train is carried from
to sweep, and who is not warned of the dan. the track by a slide which comes upon it so
ger, may be found by the jury to constitute suddenly that there is no time to escape,
negligence which will render the employer and the danger of which was not observed
liable for injuries to her when her clothing by a track inspector, who had passed the
is caught and wound upon the shaft. Ameri. spot just before the train reached there;
can Tobacco Co. v. Strickling (Md.) 909 since it must be regarded as pure accident.
7. Mere knowledge of an employee of a

Kinze! v. Atlanta, K. & N. R. Co. (C. (..
contractor for the setting of the stone work App. 6th C.)

of a building, of a custom that the scatfold. Fellow servants.
ing shall be furnished by the brick contrac- Imputing er's Neg nce to ('on-
tors, does not amount to a waiver of his right

ductor, see NEGLIGENCE, 8.
to hold his employer responsible for the Receiver's Liability for Injury by Fei-
safety of a scatfold furnished for him to

low Servant’s Negligence, see RE-
work upon. McBeath y. Rawle (111.) 697
Master's duty to be present.

Sufliciency of Title of Statute as to, see
8. The mere fact that a place where a

servant is working is rendered temporarily Special Legislation as to, see STATUTES,
unsafe in the execution of the details of the

service does not, alone, make it the duty of See also COMMERCE, 2; CONSTITUTIONAL
the master to be present in person, or by

LAW, 5, 6.
rapresentative, to protect the servant from 14. A master is not liable to a servant for
harm. Dill v. Marmon (Ind.)

163 injuries caused by negligence of a foreman in
Duty to inspect.

directing work where the master has other-
9. The master is bound to make reason wise performed his duty. Dill v. Marmon
able inspection of appliances used to aid his (Ind.)

servants in their work, and he cannot re-

15. An employer is not liable to an em-
lieve himself from the consequences of his ployee for injuries caused by negligence in
failure to do so by delegating the duty to the handling of a bojler upon the premises
competent employees. Rincicotti v. Jolin J. by a coemployee, an engineer who is conceded
O'Brien ('ontracting Co. (Conn.) 936 to have been competent. Service v. Shone-
Assumption of risk.

man (la.)

10. A servant engaged in assisting in shift. 16. The conductor of a passenger train
ing cars to be loaded at a mill assumes the cannot be regarded as in a separate depart-
risk of the foreman giving a negligent com- ment of service from brakeman of a



freight train, so as to render the railroad | same dangers and risks as are employees of
company liable for injury to the latter by railroad corporations engaged in the busi-
his negligence. Louisville & N. R. Co. v. ness of a common carrier. Schus v. Pow-
Dillard (Tenn.)
746 ers-Simpson Co. (Minn.)

17. A servant employed to assist in shift-

23. A statute making void a contract by
ing cars to be loaded at a mill cannot hold

a corporation for the release or relief from
the master liable for an injury caused by liability to an employee for negligence of a
the negligence of the foreman in charge of fellow servant is not unconstitutional.
the two or three men engaged in such work, Pittsburgh, C. C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Montgom-
but who is not at the head of a department ery (Ind.)

of the work, in directing him to push a car

24. An agreement by a railroad employee
after it has been set in motion by the mo-

that the acceptance of benefits from a relief
mentum of another car, or in failing to

fund shall operate as a release of all claims
stop the latter after the servant, in attempt-
ing to obey the order, has slipped and fallen against the railroad company is void, un-

der the employer's liability act of 1893, al-
in such a way that he will be injured in case

it is not stopped. Dill v. Marmon (Ind.) though the release is only conditional.

163 Liability to third persons for sery-
18. The doctrine of fellow service will not

ant's acts.
defeat the liability of a steamship company

To guest at Hotel, see INNKEEPERS,

for death of a member of the crew through

25. The relation of master and servant
the sinking of the vessel, although the cause
of the accident was the negligence of the does not render the master liable for the
master and pilot, where the loss of life was

torts of the servant, unless connected with
due to inability to launch the boats because his duties as such servant or within the
of insufficiency of the crew in that they scope of his employment. Clancy v. Barker


could not understand the language of the

officers, and had not been drilled in lowering

See also IX. KEEPERS.
the boats. Re Pacific Mail S. S. Co. (C. C.
App. 9th ('.)

71 Master and servant; liability for induc-
19. An employee injured by the negli- ing servant to break contract of employ-
gence of another while both are acting in ment.

the line of duty as employees of a corpora Assumption of risk; duty to furnish safe
tion has a right of action against the com- place to work; safe railroad bed and track;
pany, under the Indiana employer's liabil contributory negligence of servant; in ab-
ity act of 1893. Pittsburgh, C. C. & St. L. sence of full knowledge of danger. 757
R. Co. v. Montgomery (Ind.)


Assumption by brakeman of risk of coup-
20. Negligence of a superior servant of a ling cars; action to recover; necessity of
railroad company, causing injury to an em- proving what particular precaution defend-
ployee under his control, renders the em ant should have taken, but did not; negli-
ployer liable under Ohio act April 2, 1890, gence of engineer in failing to keep engine
although the negligence was in respect of stationary until coupling is made; contribu-
the performance of work of the kind done by tory negligence of brakeman; abrogation of
the injured person, and not in the perform- fellow servant doctrine as to railroads;
ance of any duty imposed by law on the what is a “railroad."

master personally. Peirce v. Van Dusen

Duty to furnish safe appliances; measure
(C. C. App. 6th C.)


of care; furnishing appliance in ordinary
21. An action against a receiver of a use; where there are safer appliances; lia-
railroad corporation is within the provisions bility for error in judgment in selecting ap-
of Ohio act April 2, 1890, making railroad pliances; right to rely on inspection of ap-
companies liable in certain cases for the neg. pliances by public officials.

ligence of fellow servants or employees who

Defective appliances; when servant may
have power or authority to direct or control

recover for injury caused by; duty of in-
the one injured.


spection; negligent construction of scaffold;
22. A corporation operating a "logging where scaffold erected by independent con-
railroad," not as common carrier, but ex tractor; liability of master for safety of
clusively for its own private business, is machinery and appliances furnished and
subject to the provisions of a statute mak- built by other contractor; duty to furnish
ing railroad corporations liable for injuries safe place to work; delegation of duty of
to servants caused by the negligence of fel. inspection; choice of methods of doing work
low servants, since its employees engaged in by employee; employee's knowledge of dan-
the operation of the road are exposed to the



« AnteriorContinuar »