Spurious Interpretation

Front Cover
Columbia Law Review, 1907 - 386 pages

From inside the book

What people are saying - Write a review

We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.

Selected pages

Other editions - View all

Common terms and phrases

Popular passages

Page 433 - An accommodation party is one who has signed the instrument as maker, drawer, acceptor, or indorser, without receiving value therefor, and for the purpose of lending his name to' some other person. Such a person is liable on the instrument to a holder for value, notwithstanding such holder at the time of taking the instrument knew him to be only an accommodation party.
Page 390 - Upon any indictment for embezzlement, it is a sufficient defense that the property was appropriated openly and avowedly, and under a claim of title preferred in good faith, even though such claim is untenable.
Page 413 - ... access to the navigable part of the river from the front of his lot; the right to make a landing, wharf, or pier for his own use, or for the use of the public, subject to such general rules and regulations as the legislature may see proper to impose for the protection of the rights of the public, whatever those may be.
Page 388 - April, 1906. possession, appropriates the same to his own use, or that of any other person other than the true owner or person entitled to the benefit thereof; Steals such property, and is guilty of larceny.
Page 403 - ... undisposed of, and no valid direction for their accumulation is given, such rents and profits shall belong to the persons presumptively entitled to the next eventual estate.
Page 394 - The fact that the defendant intended to restore the property stolen or embezzled, is no ground of defense, or of mitigation of punishment, if it has not been restored before complaint to a magistrate, charging the commission of the crime.
Page 388 - A person who, with the intent to deprive or defraud the true owner of his property...
Page 393 - It is agreed upon all sides that the crime of larceny may not be committed unintentionally, unconsciously, or by mistake, but that, in order to accomplish it, the perpetrator must have the intent referred to. It may be difficult at all times exactly and satisfactorily to define this intent, but the requirement for it as applicable to this case means that, when the relator took part in the appropriation of the moneys in question, he must have had in some degree that same conscious, unlawful, and wicked...

Bibliographic information