judgment accordingly..
denied an application for rear-
gument, which was based in part 1. The rule laid down in the
upon the ground that as the record in the Supreme Court was defective in the respect indi- cated, a review of the meritori- ous question in this court would be impossible without an amend- ment of the record. Held, such denial, being plainly a matter of discretion, was not reviewable in this court. Ib.
English cases relating to actions by attorney against client for the recovery of fees, charges and disbursements. that if part of the items in the attorney's bill as served are taxable at the in- stance of the party chargeable under the statutes relating to taxation of such bills, the re- maining items cannot be sepa- rated from them in a suit to re- cover the amount of the served bill, is not applicable to cases arising under our Practice act of 1903 section 9 (in force in this state since 1799), which re- quires taxation of the bill before service thereof. Brown v. Har- riot, 484
An appeal bond. not given for an illegal purpose, complying sub- stantially with the statute, vol- untarily entered into. will be 2. In a suit for recovery of an at-
death, it may not issue against BENEFICIAL ASSOCIATIONS. his non-resident devisee for a
debt of the deceased. Jordan v. 1. Where a member of a benefit so- Moore, 118 ciety confessed in writing to the
society the truth of the charge 3. In an preferred against him, which re- sulted in his suspension and the imposition of a fine, which he paid, he will not be heard upon a claim for sick benefits to chal- lenge the validity of the by-law under which he was suspended upon the ground that it made no provision for a hearing and that in fact he obtained no hear- ing. Volpicelli v. Societa Vol- lastese, 374
action against the en- dorsers of a promissory note made in the State of California and payable there, and endorsed for value before maturity to the plaintiff's testatrix in the State of New Jersey-Held, that the question whether the note was negotiable according to the law of New Jersey was material be- cause of its effect upon the con- tract of endorsement, and that unless the instrument was ne- gotiable the action could not be maintained. Ib.
2. Forfeitures in beneficiary certi- ficates, dealing with property rights, are not favored, and con- 4. The Negotiable Instruments act structions of written instruments of that character against such result will be preferred if the instrument will bear it, rather than the adoption of an inter- pretation giving the opposite effect. Johnson v. Grand Lodge,
(Pamph. L. 1902, p. 583) was approved April 4th and took ef- fect (under Gen. Stat., p. 3195, pl. 37) on July 4th in the same year. By section 195 thereof it is. however, expressly declared that "The provisions of this act do not apply to negotiable in- struments made and delivered prior to the passage hereof." Held, that this section manifests the intent of the legislature to leave entirely unaffected by the act all negotiable instruments that were made and delivered as between the original parties prior to the passage of the act, and the question of the negotia- bility of a promissory note made and delivered before the act was passed, but falling due after the act went into effect, must be decided as the law stood prior to the act of 1902. Ib.
123 5. Under the "Act concerning prom-
2. In an action against the en- dorsers of a promissory note made in the State of California and payable there, and indorsed for value before maturity to the plaintiff's testatrix in the State of New Jersey-Held, that the liability of the defendants upon the note depends upon the legal effect of their act as determined by the law of this state, where the transfer of the note was made. Mackintosh. v. Gibbs,
issory notes," &c.. approved March 27th, 1874 (Gen. Stat., p. 2604), a promissory note made payable two years after its date, with interest payable semi- annually, and containing a clause that upon any default in payment of the interest the whole of the principal and in- terest should become immedi- ately due and payable at the op- tion of the holder, and an addi- tional stipulation that should suit be commenced or attorney be employed to enforce payment
strictly so called, necessary to 6. Regulations for the protection fix the endorser's liability.
7. Prior to the act of 1902 (Pamph. L., p. 583), the established rule in this state was that notice of dishonor of a promissory note,, when sent by mail. might be placed in the post-office on the day after dishonor, allowing a sufficient time after the com- mencement of business hours on that day for the preparation of the notice. Ib.
1. Boards of health are empowered by the act of 1897 (Pamph. L.,. p. 270), and by the Pure Food- law of 1907 (Pamph. L., p. 485),
of the public health are within the police power of the state and are not an illegal interference with interstate commerce if they have a real substantial relation to a public object which govern- ment can accomplish. and are not arbitrary and unreasonable and beyond the necessities of the Ib.
BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. See EVIDENCE, 5.
taken in conjunction with the 1. Where it appears that lands
act of 1887 (Pamph. L., p. SO).\. to prohibit the sale of milk from diseased cows. Borden's Milk Co. v. Board of Health,
sought to be assessed by a bor- ough government for benefits on account of municipal improve- ments lie wholly below high- water mark, and for which no riparian grant has been made by the state; that no notice pursuant to the Borough act (Pamph. L. 1897, p. 285) has been given to the prosecutor in certiorari, and that the prosecu- tor's name does not appear in the assessment proceedings- Held, that no attempt had been made to levy any assessment against the prosecutor or his lands and that the writ of cer- tiorari should be dismissed. Un- dercliff Co. v. Edgewater, 351
2. Where a borough proposes to construct water works and issue
does not escape paying the agreed commission by the mere fact that he had conveyed the land before the commission was earned. Payne v. Twitchell,
bonds therefor. and the case is one to which the act of 1909 (Pamph. L., p. 457), requiring the approval of the state board of health, and the act of 1910 (Pamph. L., p. 551), requiring the approval of the state water- supply commission, are appli- 2. Where a written contract pro- cable, the approval of those boards must be secured in ad- vance of the election to author-' ize the construction of the works and the issue of the bonds to pay therefor. Wilson v. Collings- wood,
See MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS, 1.
vides that an agent engaged by the owner to sell a farm shall be entitled to his commission upon the sale of the farm by the agent, the owner or any other person, the agent is en- titled to receive the stipulated compensation upon the sale of the farm by the owner. Dresser v. Gilbert, 358
3. Section 10 of the statute of frauds (Gen. Stat., p. 1604), requires a memorandum only in the case of a broker or real es- tate agent selling or exchanging land for or on account of the owner. Feist v. Jerolamon,
1. The doctrine of practical loca- tion regarding boundary lines is equitable in its nature, and applies only where some dis- agreement or uncertainty exists between adjoining owners as to the true line, which results in their agreement or acquiescence 4. It is not necessary in order that
upon a boundary line, which, un- der the doctrine of estoppel in pais, cannot subsequently be controverted without working a fraud. Alt v. Butz, 156
2. Where the true boundary line is understood and conceded, and'
a real estate broker should re- cover his compensation that he should disclose the name or es- tablish the pecuniary ability of his customer where such dis- closure would be futile owing to the conduct of the vendor. Ib.
the adjoining owners are not in 5. Whether a real estate broker is dispute concerning it, mere per- mission by one to the other to build up to an existing building considerably over the line is not in legal effect a practical loca- tion of the boundary, nor can it. under the statute of frauds, op- erate as a conveyance of the land in controversy. Ib.
precluded from recovering com- pensation from the proposed vendor by reason of his relations with the proposed vendee, de- pends upon the facts of the case. A distinction is to be made be- tween the case of an agent for the vendor and a mere middle- man who acts only to bring the vendor and vendee together.
construction of the act by a state subsequently adopting it. but such construction is not a ju- dicial construction which is to be read into the act er-necessitate, under the well recognized rule of statutory construction by the state subsequently adopting the Ib.
7. The defendant employed brokers|| to sell stock; the order was either to "sell at 50% or stop at 50," or to "sell at 50%1⁄2 or but not below 50, stop at 50." There was testimony on the part of the plaintiff that in the trade! such an order as the former authorized a sale at a price below fifty. Held, that it was a jury question (1) what the 6. In construing an act the spirit
actual contract was; (2) whether the words meant what the plaintiff claimed.
and intent of the legislature as manifested by the entire scope of the legislation and its lan- guage must continue. Ib.
7. Whether a common carrier ful- filled its contract of carriage within a reasonable time, and whether its non-fulfillment was excused by the conduct of the plaintiffs, and the situation cre- ated by them at defendant's ter- minal, were fact questions for the jury. Carr v. D., L. & W. R. R. Co., 532
2. Where there is evidence in the S. Where the plaintiff, in attempt-
« PreviousContinue » |