Page images
PDF
EPUB

entered

Appeal Bonds.

judgment accordingly..

denied an application for rear-

Attorney and Client.

ATTORNEY AND CLIENT.

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.

See DISTRICT COURTS.

APPEAL BONDS.

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-

[blocks in formation]

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

Bills and Notes.

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

Bills and Notes.

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,

[blocks in formation]

(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,

577

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

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

strictly so called, necessary to 6. Regulations for the protection
fix the endorser's liability.

Ib.

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.

BOARD OF HEALTH.

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.

case.

See BOROUGHS.

BOOKS OF ACCOUNT.
See EVIDENCE, 5.

BOROUGHS.

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,

218

[blocks in formation]

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

[blocks in formation]

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,

193

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,

634

See MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS, 1.

BOUNDARIES.

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'

437

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.

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

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.

CARRIERS.

Ib.

[blocks in formation]

act.

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-

[blocks in formation]
« PreviousContinue »