ABORTION.
See CRIMINAL LAW, 427.
Mutual] See LIMITATION OF ACTION, 496.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT.
See LIMITATION OF ACTION, 416.
For conversion of shares of stock] An action lies for conversion of “shares
of stock," rather than for the certificate. Payne v. Elliot (Cal.), 80.
See FRAUD, 511; NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT, 220, 226.
ADULTERY.
See CRIMINAL LAW, 258.
ADVERSE POSSESSION.
See TRUST, 517.
1. Bank receiving draft for collection at a distance — action for negligence
of sub-agent.] A bank receiving, for collection, a draft payable at a dis-
tant place, and transmitting the same to a reputable agent at that place,
is not liable for loss incurred by the negligence of the latter, and having
voluntarily paid the claim of the payee, cannot maintain an action for
such negligence against such agent. Bank of Louisville v. First National
Bank of Knoxville (Baxt.), 691.
2. To draw bill- strictly construed estoppel.] An agent authorized to
draw a bill of exchange in his own name cannot draw in the name of his
principal, and the principal is not estopped from refusing payment by his
previous payment of a similar bill. Bank of Deer Lodge v. Hope Mining
Company (Mont.), 458.
See BILL OF LADING, 488; CARRIER, 444.
See NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT, 293, 493.
Lien on increase of.] See CONTRACT, 323; SUNDAY, 402.
See MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, 793.
1. Rent to be settled by.] An agreement, in a written lease, for the renewal
thereof, and to pay as rent for such renewal term a certain percentage
upon the cash value of the premises, to be fixed by appraisers, is not
an arbitration, and the parties are not entitled to notice of hearing, and
the appraisal is conclusive, unless fraudulent Norton v. Gale (III.), 173.
Of lease.] See LANDLORD and Tenant, 373.
See NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT, 280.
1. Assigned to defend pauper criminal — compensation.] In the absence of
statutory regulation, an attorney assigned by the court to defend a pauper
criminal has no claim upon the public for fees or expenses. Wayne
County v. Waller (Penn. St.), 636.
2. Public policy.] An agreement by an attorney to turn over to another attor-
ney notes which he holds for collection is invalid. Smalley v. Greene
(Iowa), 267.
3. Restraint of trade.] An agreement not to practice law in a particular
town is valid. Id.
4. Statute of frauds-time of performance.] The provision of the statute
of frauds respecting contracts not to be performed within a year applies
only to those not to be so performed on either side. Id.
Execution of deed by.] See DEED, 404.
BAGGAGE.
See CARRIER, 126, 620.
Principal imprisoned in another State.] A surety in a recognizance is not
released by the inability of the principal to fulfill the condition, by rea-
son of his conviction and imprisonment in another State. State v. Horn
(Mo.), 437.
Discharge — fiduciary debt—merger in judgment.] A debt created while
acting in a fiduciary character is not discharged in bankruptcy, although
merged in a judgment. Wade v. Clark (Iowa), 262.
1. By agent-estoppel of principal by.] A railroad company is estopped as
against a bona fide purchaser to deny a bill of lading issued by its author-
ized agent, although the goods were not received by the company. Sious
City and Pacific Railroad Co. v. First National Bank of Fremont (Neb.),
488.
2. Transfer as collateral.] The transfer of a bill of lading as mere collate-
ral security for pre-existing debt does not make the transferee a pur-
chaser for value. Loeb v. Peters (Ala.), 17.
What embraced in.] See CARRIER, 327.
Evidence to contradict.] See CARRIER, 327.
BURDEN OF PROOF.
See NEGLIGENCE, 263.
BURGLARY.
Bee CRIMINAL LAW, 1, 9.
CANAL COMPANY.
See NEGLIGENCE, 659.
1. Baggage-merchandise — warehouseman.] A carrier of passengers does
not insure the safety of samples of merchandise, delivered by a travelling
salesman to him as baggage, yet by receiving, carrying, and putting them
into his warehouse for safe-keeping, he becomes bound to ordinary pru-
dence in their care. Pennsylvania Co. v. Miller (Ohio St.), 620.
2 Bill of lading—what embraced.] Owners of a vessel are responsible
only for goods described in the bill of lading and delivered into the cus.
tody of the master, at the accustomed place of receipt, and evidence is
incompetent to show that the bill was intended to or did include goods
elsewhere. Witzler v. Collins (Me.), 327.
3. Evidence to contradict.] As between the parties to a bill of lading, evi.
dence is competent on the part of the carrier to contradict the admission
in the bill that the goods are received for shipment in good order and con-
dition. Id.
◆ Common — liability for goods beyond his terminus.] A common carrier,
receiving goods for transportation which are consigned to a point beyond
his terminus, is liable for non-delivery at the destination, in the absence
of any express agreement. Mobile and Girard Railroad Co. v. Copeland
(Ala.), 13.
6. Connecting line-action for personal injury.] A passenger by railway,
purchasing a ticket over the line of the seller and connecting lines, and
injured by the negligence of one of such connecting lines, cannot maintain
an action therefor against the seller. Nashville and Chattanooga Railroad
Co. v. Sprayberry (Baxt.), 705.
baggage.] A passenger purchased of the A. & G. Railroad Com-
pany, at Savannah, a through ticket for Jacksonville, and had his
trunk checked by a check marked “A. & G. Railroad.” That rail-
road was only the first of three connecting railroads between those
points. The trunk was delivered by that railroad to the second, the pas
senger retaining the check, and was afterward lost. Held, that the pas
senger could recover therefor of the A. & G. Railroad Company. Hawley
v. Screven (Ga.), 126.
7. Contract beyond terminus-station agent.] A common carrier is not
bound by a contract by a station agent for transportation of goods to a
point beyond his own line, unless such agent has express authority, or
authority may be implied from previous dealings of the parties, or the
carrier holds himself out as a common carrier to such point. Grover &
Baker Sewing Machine Co. v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co. (Mo.), 444.
8. Drover's pass-special contract.] A common carrier, transporting cattle
for hire, and the shipper on a free pass for the purpose of taking care of
the cattle, is a common carrier as to both, and cannot by special contract
exempt himself from liability for his own negligence or that of his ser
vants. Maslin v. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Co. (W. Va.), 748.
9. Exemption-"articles of great intrinsic value”. - portrait- -measure of
damages.] A family portrait is not an article of "great and intrinsic
value," when coupled in an exemption clause in a carrier's receipt, with
"specie, drafts, and bank bills;" but the measure of damages for its loss
is the value to the owner and not the market value, and so evidence that
it was the only one extant would be competent. Green v. Boston and
Lowell Railroad Co. (Mass.), 370.
10. Expulsion for non-payment of fare-retaining part fare-offer of bal
ance after stopping and before expulsion.] A passenger may be expelled
from a railway train for non-payment of the whole legal fare, although
the conductor retains the portion paid, and although after the stopping of
the train to expel him and before expulsion the passenger offers the
|