Page images
PDF
EPUB

VII. JURISDICTION OF APPELLATE COURT

Appropriation.
AFTER REMANDING CASE.

See "States and State Officers," 8.
Modifying judgment.

105. The supreme court, having inadvertently
entered too large a judgment against the sure-

Approval.
ties on the supersedeas bond, has jurisdiction to Of statutes, see "Statutes," 1
recall its remittitur, and correct the judgment.
Bell v. Waudby, (Wash.) 34 P. 917, followed.
-Sears v. Seattle Consolidated St. Ry. Co., ARBITRATION AND AWARD.
(Wash.) 34 P. 918.

106. When the supreme court has entered Ratification of award,
judgment and allowed plaintiff his costs in both
courts against all the defendants as prima facie to arbitration implies a promise to 'pa 24

1. A submission of mutual modes des
parties to the record, the supreme court will va: award, and the effect of such payment us :
cate the judgment as to persons who, though ratification cannot be avoided on the grea:
entitled defendants, have never been served that it was made in pursuance, not of the su
with process or appeared, and will recall its mission, but of a contemporaneous oral
remittitur, and correct its judgment accordingly. ment.-Wilson v. Wilson, (Colo. Sup.) 34 P. 17
-Bell v. Waudby, (Wash.) 34 P. 917.

Setting aside award.
VIII. LIABILITY ON APPEAL BONDS.

2. A petition by the successful party too

award, made in view of the other parti
In general.

threats against one of the arbitrators, od:
107. Judgment cannot be entered against the fear of trouble, requesting a judge to order to
sureties on a supersedeas bond for a larger sum parties to present their claims for adjudias
than the penalty named therein, though such is no ground for setting aside the award-Wi-
penalty was smaller than the statute required son v. Wilson, (Colo. Sup.) 34 P. 175.
to effect the supersedeas.-Sears v. Seattle Con 3. Under Sess. Laws íssi, p. 60, $1,7
solidated St. Ry. Co., (Wash.) 34 P. 918. viding that a matter arbitrated under aii
Notice to sureties before entering judg- shall be held adjudicated, and not open to ne

view, it is error to set aside an award, fi
ment on bond.

mistaken conclusion of fact by the arbitraan
108. The supreme court will not set aside a under a submission of the mutual, us robu
judgment entered on a supersedeas bond mere- claims of two brothers, extending ore !
ly because the sureties, as such, were not prop- years, to be adjudged “in a peaceful and gas
erly notified of the motion for judgment there- manner, as becomes and is just between a
on, no ground for substantial relief being shown. and man, brother and brother, and, abore 2
- Sears v. Seattle Consolidated St. Ry. Co., to avoid strife, technicality, and litigativa."-
(Wash.) 34 P. 918.

Wilson v. Wilson, (Colo. Sup.) 34 P. 173.

APPEARANCE.

Argument of Counsel
General appearance.

See "Criminal Law," 22-24; “Trial," & 2.
1. Where defendant appears, and asks re-
lief which can be granted only on the hypothe-

ARSON.
sis that the court has jurisdiction, the appear-
ance is general, and he submits to the juris- Information.
diction, but it is otherwise if the granting of An information for arson of a drai:
the relief would be consistent with

a want of house which specifically describes it by its sure
jurisdiction; and therefore an appearance by number, and alleges that it was occupied by
defendants in attachment, who have not been fendant, sufficiently identifies the property, **
served with process, to move to discharge the out giving the owner's name; and the sam
attachment for want of jurisdiction, on the ment of such name in the information does
ground that the action was brought in the necessitate its proof on the trial, since it is part
wrong county, is not a waiver of process.-Bel- ly an addition to a description which is full
knap v. Charlton, (Or.) 34 P. 758.

complete without it.- People v. Handles, (C2
2. Code, $ 530, declaring that a defendant 34 P. 853.
appears in an action when he answers, demurs,
or gives plaintiff written notice of his appear.
ance, and until he does so appear he shall not ASSAULT AND BATTERY.
be entitled to be heard, or to be served with
notice of subsequent proceedings, etc., is only Civil action-Instructions.
to define what shall constitute an appearance
to entitle defendant to be heard, etc., and does trespassing when assaulted, plaintiff tests

1. In an action for assault by one who T
not define what shall constitute a voluntary that defendant said to him. “You get oft
appearance under section 62, making a volun- here, or I will pound your head with a bas.
tary appearance equivalent to service, and a

mer.
waiver of defects in process.---Belknap v. Charl. defendant would have been authorized to be

The jury was instructed that, bet
ton, (Or.) 34 P. 758.

force to remove plaintiff, *
Effect as waiver of objections.

have requested plaintiff to depart." Hd,
3. A suit dismissed because the complaint the instruction was misleading, as it gare te
was not filed in the 10 days allowed by law jury to understand that the language 1
was reinstated on plaintiff's motion. Held, that defendant did not constitute a "revnet »
defendant waived irregularities by appearing leave.-Townsend v. Briggs, (Cal.) 34 P. 91
generally and answering, instead of appearing 2. Defendant removed plaintiff from bs
specially:--Cole v. Thornburg, (Colo. App.) 34 shop as a trespasser for injuriously handlin:
P. 1013.

machines, and, in an action for the assait
Application.

jury was instructed that "if

at the time of the injury complained of. T9
Of payment, see “Payment," 2, 3.

not trying to injure defendant or his prop

then any force used against plaintiff
Appraisement.

was wrongful." Held error, as it was inst

terial that plaintiff was not handling the
By administrator, see "Executors and Admin- chines at the moment the force was bied-
istrators,” 46.

| Townsend v. Briggs, (Cal.) 34 P. 116.

be sb:

plati

Assessment

starting point, and told him to survey from

that. Held, that the court did not err in char-
Of benefits for public improvements, see “Mu- ging that, if they believed plaintiff's testimony,
nicipal Corporations," 37-41.

he had a right to rely on defendant's represen-

tations as to the starting point, but, if they did
Assignment.

not believe it, then they must determine wheth-

er the survey was correctly made.-Graves v.
See “Assignment for Benefit of Creditors." Smith, (Wash.) 34 P. 213.
Of errors, see "Appeal," 23, 24.
Of land contract, see "Vendor and Purchas Assumption of Risks.

er," 4.
Of note, see “Negotiable Instruments," 10.

See “Master and Servant," 20–26.

ASSIGNMENT FOR BENEFIT

ATTACHMENT.
OF CREDITORS.

See, also, "Execution;" “Garnishment;"

“Writs."
See, also, “Insolvency."

Effect of appointing receiver, see "Receivers," 3.
Fraud in making preferences.

Malicious, see “Malicious Prosecution," 1.
1. An assignment by an insolvent merchant, Property subject to, see "Chattel Mortgages," 7.
who has been doing business solely on capital Pre-emptioner's interest in public lands.
borrowed from his relatives, who knew of his

1. Under Rev. St. U. S. § 2263, relating to
insolvency, in which such relatives are pre-pre-emption of public lands, and providing that
ferred, is 'fraudulent in fact as to his other all assignments and transfers of the right here
creditors, who were ignorant of the circum- by secured, prior to the issuing of the patent,
stances.' Webb v. Armistead, 26. F. 70; fül- 1 shall be null and void," the interest of a pre
lowed.-Smith v. Sipperly, (Utah) 34 P. 54.

emptioner, before final entry, is not subject to
Effect of fraudulent preference.

attachment, though Gen. St. 1883, § 2676, pro-
2. An assignment for the benefit of credit-vides that the owner of every claim or improve
ors which contains a preference which is fraud- ment on land has a transferable interest there-
ulent in fact, is void in toto. Crawford v. Neal, in, which may be sold on execution or other-
12 S. Ct. 759, 144 U. S. 598, followed.-Smith wise.-McMillen v. Leonard, (Colo. Sup.) 34 P.
v. Sipperly, (Utah,) 34 P. 54.

681.

Levy and lien.
Associations.

2. Code Civil Proc. $ 181, which provides
See "Corporations."

for the attachment of the property of defendant
"as security for the satisfaction of any judg.

ment that may be recovered in the action, un-
ASSUMPSIT.

less defendant give good and sufficient security

to secure the payment of said judgment," does
Contract illegal, action for money had and re not require the writ of attachment to be served
ceived, see “Contracts," 17.

on defendant, and an opportunity to be given

him to give a bond or make a deposit of money,
When lies.

prior to the levy on his property.-Hoffman v.
1. Where the sheriff collects liquor license Imes, (Mont.) 34 P. 728.
fees, for which he is not entitled to compensa 3. An officer attempted to levy an attach-
tion, and turns a portion thereof over to the ment on a number of acres of standing corn,
board of education, to whom they belong un- which had ceased to grow, but was not suffi-
der the statute, he acts as the agent of such ciently dry to crib, and caused the same to be
board in the collection thereof, and is liable in appraised. He notified the attachment. debtor
assumpsit to such board for any money retained of the levy, but neither authorized the debtor
by him as his commission.-Board of Education to hold possession of the corn for him, nor
of Socorro v. Robinson, (N. M.) 34 P. 295.

He did
2. The fact that by mistake the licenses placed it in charge of any one else.

not post any notice that he claimed possession
are issued by the probate clerk, who has no under the attempted levy, and no control or do-
authority to do so, does not affect the liability minion over the property was exercised by the
of the sheriff.-Board of Education of Socorro officer until about two months later, when he
v. Robinson, (N. M.) 34 P. 295.
3. In an action for services rendered by returned, and posted notice of a proposed sale

Held, that the attempted levy was
plaintiff in surveying land for defendant, it ap- void as against a mortgagee who filed his mort-
peared that it was a greed between the parties
that plaintiff should, in payment therefor, take gage for record four days after the attempted
4. portion of the land when it was surveyed. levy:-Throop v. Maiden, (Kan.) 34 P. 801.
it also appeared that the land was community fore final entry, is not subject to attachment,

4. As the interest of a pre-emptioner, be-
property, of which plaintiff was ignorant, and

an attachment levied on such interest does not
that defendant's wife refused to execute a
deed to plaintiff. Held, that plaintiff could re-

create a lien thereon by the subsequent final
cover the money value of his services, as spe- entry: -McMillen v. Leonard, (Colo. Sup.) 34
cific performance of his contract with defend. P. 681.
ant was not enforceable, because defendant's 5. Property was attached at the instance
wife was not bound thereby.-Graves v. Smith, of several creditors, two of whom were con-
(Wash.) 34 P. 213.

tending for priority. Under an order of the
Evidence.

court the attached property was sold, and the
4. In an action for services rendered, in hands of the clerk to await its further order.

proceeds brought into court, and placed in the
order that a witness may testify as to the value After the levies were made, one of the con-
of such services, their rendition need not be testing creditors, whose levy was first in point
conclusively shown, but it is sufficient if there of time, voluntarily dismissed his action, and
is evidence tending to establish the claim. began another, in which he sought to garnish
St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Kirkpatrick, (Kan.) the funds in the hands of the clerk. Prior to
34 P. 400.

this time, and to the dismissal of the former
Instructions.

action, the debtor assigned all his right and
5. In an action for services rendered as a interest in the funds in the hands of the clerk
surveyor, it was alleged as a defense that the to the other contesting creditor. Held that, as
survey made by plaintiff was correct. the assignment was made in good faith, it be-
Plaintiff testified that defeudant gave him the came effective as against the first attaching

not

creditor on the dismissal of his action, and, as to the terms under which he will surrende
gave to the second attaching creditor the su- his interest in the land to the railroad ecopar
perior right to the funds in the hands of the for its right of way.-Haynes v. Tacone. .
clerk.–Tootle v. Miner, (Kan.) 34 P. 401. & G. H. Ř. Co., (Wash.) 34 P. 922
Bond for release of property.

Liability for negligence.
6. In an action on a bond given to secure 2. In an action by an attorney to recte
release of attached property, conditioned for for professional services, defendant en
liability in case judgment was rendered against damages for incompetency and negligence, p.
defendant in attachment, a finding that a judg. there was evidence that he employed pleri
ment was not rendered is not warranted where, to prosecute certain actions to judgment fr :
in the record of the attachment suit subsequent fixed sum in each case, and that plaiotik u
to a judgment of nonsuit, appears a judgment discharged before judgment for negligenæ E:
for plaintiff therein, as to the legality of which incompetency, in failing to file lis pender
there is no evidence, there being a presumption two foreclosure suits. Held, that evidence the
in its favor.--Moore v. Mott, (Cal.) 34 P. 315. plaintiff explained to defendant the effect

7. The lien of an attachment is not de- filing and failure to file such notices, and to
stroyed by the delivery of the property to the probable expense, and that defendant sa be
owner on his furnishing a delivery bond, and did not want to spend the money for tu
if the officer, after surrendering it, seizes it un them, was admissible.-Hinckley v. Krug, tad
der other attachments, it is subject to disposi- 34 P. 118.
tion under the lien of the first attachment, and 3. In such case it is not error to exelnde es.
the sureties on the delivery bond are relieved idence that part of the property covered by *
from liability thereon by such resumption of of the m ages plaintiff was employed to com
possession by the officer - Schneider v. Walling- close was conveyed by the mortga zor before
ford, (Colo. App.) 31 P. 1103.

but the deeds were not recorded until after the
Judgment and findings.

foreclosure suit was commenced, where it 15
8. As Code 1887, c. 6, authorizing an ac- pears, that the remaining property sold for
tion aided by attachment on a debt not due in enough to satisfy defendant's judgment.-H: N
certain cases, permits defendant to traverse the ley v. Krug, (Cal.) 34 P. 118.
affidavit, and provides that, if plaintiff fails to damages on account of negligence, in the ab

4. A client cannot recover of his attoo
substantiate the cause alleged, the attachment
shall be dissolved, and the action dismissed, a such negligence. Hinckley v. Krug, Cad) 34

sence of any injury to the client caused
judgment for plaintiff on a trial by the court,
where the affidavit has been traversed, cannot

P. 118.
be sustained unless there is a finding on the Misconduct.
facts alleged as ground for the attachment. 5. It is not unprofessional conduct for a
Woods v. Tanquary, (Colo. App.) 34 P. 737. attorney to sue a just claim against a Door-
Claim of preferred lien by laborers

dent, and serre summons by publiration, en
Dismissal by plaintiff.

employed to do so, with the hope that possit

the defendant therein will pay the judge:
9. An attaching creditor may dismiss his obtained, on its being sent to the place bet
action and release the attachment before sale he resides, though such attorney knows sh
without being liable to laborers who have served action cannot be maintained, for want of jeris
labor claim notices therein, under 1 Hill's Code, diction.-Hinckley v. Krug, (Cal.) 34 P. 118
§ 3124, allowing laborers, in all cases of attach-
ment, execution, and similar writs, having Compensation of attorney.
claims against defendant, to give notice thereof 6. Where an attorney advised his ciest.
at any time before actual sale of the property, in an action against a nonresident, that serTiQ
declaring them preferred claims, and providing by publication was good, and a valid judzer
that the officer shall pay them out of the pro- could be obtained, such attorney cannot reuta
ceeds of the sale, and providing, further, in for services rendered therein. — Hinckley 1.
case the claims are disputed, for actions, in Krug, (Cal.) 34 P. 118.
which case the officer is required to retain suffi 7. In an action by an attorney to recove
cient of the proceeds to await their determina- for professional services. where part of te
tion.- Wells v. Columbia Nat. Bank, (Wash.) services for which plaintiff seeks to recorer 10-
34 P. 160.

sisted in examining the title to a lot, it is er
Intervention.

ror to exclude evidence that, through the ad
10. Code 1881, c. 33, directs that, when rice of plaintiff that the title was clear, de
property, attached on a writ issued in another compelled to redeem it from a prior tas lien-

fendant purchased the lot, and was afterwarde
county is claimed by a third person, he shall
file his affidavit and bond with the sheriff, who Hinckley v. Krug, (Cal.) 34 P. 118.
shall return them to the clerk of the county
where the property was seized, and said clerk Autrefois Acquit and Convict.
shall docket the claim as a cause for trial.
old, that the sheriff's failure to return the af: See “Criminal Law,” 9–11.
fidavit could not deprive the proper court of
jurisdiction, nor the attaching creditors of their

Award.
right to an adjudication. - State v. Superior See “Arbitration and Award."
Court of Mason County, (Wash.) 34 P. 151.

ATTORNEY AND CLIENT.

BAIL.
Argument of counsel, see "Criminal Law,” 22- In criminal cases-Bond on appeal.
24; “Trial," 8, 9.

1. The supreme court has no authority to
Attorney's fees, liability of state, see “States reduce as excessive the amount of the apa
and State Officers," 3, 4.

bond fixed by the trial court in a prosecution
on foreclosure, see "Mortgages." 8.

for manslaughter.-State v. Gile, (Wash.) 31 P.
provision in note, see “Negotiable Instru- 151.
ments," 1.

Liability on bond.
Authority of attorney.

2. It is no defense for the sureties op
1. An attorney, employed by a railroad bail bond that the information was insuffici it:
company to represent it on the trial of a partic. ly verified, or that the arrest of the pricu
ular cause for the condeinnation of a right of on a warrant issued on such information si
way, has no authority to enter into any contract illegal.--State v. Sureties of Krohne, (W50.) 34
with a third person, not a party to the action, P. 3.

8. The sureties on a criminal recognizance | National banks—Contracts.
for the appearance of a defendant, and to 5. A national bank has power to take an
abide the judgment of the

court, and not depart assignment of a mortgage on land to secure a
without leave, are discharged from further lia- loan made at the time of the assignment.-
bility when the defendant has duly appeared, First Nat. Bank v. Andrews, (Wash.) 34 P.
and received sentence, and thereafter

has of: 913; Young v. Same, Id.
fered and submitted himself to the sheriff, to
be taken into custody under the sentence im-

Best and Secondary Evidence.
posed by the court.-Jackson v. State, (Kan.) 34
P. 744.

See "Evidence," 3, 4.
Bailment.
See "Banks and Banking;” “Carriers;" "De

Bills and Notes.
posit in Court;” “Innkeepers;" "Pledge."

See "Negotiable Instruments.”
Liability for moners lost by failure of bank,
see "Office and Officer," 8.

Blanks.
Ballots.

In bond, filling, see “Bonds."
See "Elections and Voters," 7.

In deeds, filling, see “Deed."
Bankruptcy.

Board.
See "Assignment for Benefit of Creditors;" "In. Of county commissioners, see "Counties," 4.
solvency."

Of trade, see "Inspection."
BANKS AND BANKING.

Bona Fide Purchasers.
Authority of president and cashier.

Of negotiable paper, see "Negotiable Instru-
1. The president and cashier of a bank

ments," 3-5.
have no authority, by virtue of their office, to
sell property belonging to the bank.--Greena-

BONDS.
walt v. Wilson, (Kan.) 34 P. 403.

See, also, “Principal and Surety."
Special remedy provided for winding For release of property attached, see “Attach-
up affairs-Bank commissioners.

ment," 6, 7,
2. Bank Commissioners' Act March 30, Injunction bond, see "Injunction," 11, 12.
1878, provides for the examination of all banks of contractor, see "Mechanics' Liens," 30.
by commissioners appointed therefor. Section On appeal, see "Appeal," 15-17, 107, 108.
11 of such act, as amended by St. 1887, p. 90, - in criminal cases, see “Bail."
provides that if the bank commissioners find
that any such corporation has violated its char- Authority of obligee to fill in blanks.
ter, or is conducting business in an unsafe 1. The attorney for an attachment debtor
manner, and refuses to discontinue its illegal presented to defendants for signature as sure-
practices, the attorney general may bring suit ties a redelivery bond, blank as to the specific
in the proper court to prohibit the transaction description of the property attached and its
of further business, and to wind up its affairs. value. Defendants signed the bond and justi-
Section 21 provides that all acts are repealed fication annexed, and gave the paper to the at-
in so far as they are inconsistent with the act. torney, who signed the jurat as notary. He
Insolvent Act 1880, 8 8, provides that an ad- thereafter filled in the blanks, and delivered
judication of insolvency may be made for the bond. Held, that defendants had made
causes enumerated therein on the petition of

him their agent to fill the blanks, and were
five or more creditors whose demands amount estopped to deny his authority. – Palacios v.
in the aggregate to not less than $500; and Brasher, (Colo. Sup.) 34 P. 251.
section 25 requires the assignee, “as speedily which is blank as to the penalty, and permit it

2. When sureties . sign an official bond,
as possible, to convert the estate, real and per: to pass from their hands in that condition, they
sonal, into money.'
act is superseded by the bank commissioners are estopped to claim that it was afterwards
act as far as banking corporations are concern-

filled up without their authority. - Rose V.
ed, and that an adjudication of insolvency Douglass Tp., (Kan.) 34 P. 1016.
against a banking corporation, and the appoint-
ment of a receiver therefor, would not lie on
the petition of creditors therefor.--People v.

BOUNDARIES.
Superior Court, (Cal.) 34 P. 492.

3. A contention that the sole object of the Conflict between field notes and monu-
bank commissioners' act is visitation and a re ments.
port to the attorney general by the commission 1. While the corners of a survey as actual.
ers, and that there is no suggestion therein for ly established and marked on the ground by the
the sequestration of assets, is untenable; sec. United States government surveyors control the
tion 11 of such act further providing that if the designation of such corners in the plats or field
court shall consider it usafe for the corpora- notes, yet the presumption is that the corners
tion to continue to transact business, and that have been established at the places indicated by
it is insolvent, an injunction shall be issued, such field notes; and the proof that the actual
and thereupon such proceedings shall be taken establishment was different must be clear and
against the corporation "as may be decided up-, convincing, where the actual location as claimed
on by its creditors," and sections 18 and 19 does not accord with the section lines in ad.
authorizing the commissioners to maintain ac- joining sections, and will establish the claim in
tions in the name of the people, under the an irregular shape.-Cadeau v. Elliott, (Wash.)
court's direction. - People v. Superior Court, 34 P. 916.
(Cal.) 34 P. 492.

Location of corner
4. The remedies provided by the two acts

Following sur-
are not cumulative, nor the powers conferred veyor's footsteps.
by the bank commissioners' act auxiliary to 2. In order to locate an intermediate post
those conferred by the insolvent act, the object in a survey of land, which was run also by
of the bank commissioners' act beins to provide courses and distances, the footsteps of the sur.
an entirely different scheme for winding up the veyor should be followed, instead of taking a
business of a banking corporation.-People v. reverse course. --Blackburn v. Nelson, (Cal.) 34
Superior Court, (Cal.) 34 P. 492.

P. 775.

1

[ocr errors]

Lake-Meander line.

The pipe was put in evidence, but there yun
3. In an action to recover possession of testimony as to where it was found. He the
land it appeared that plaintiffs owned land the evidence did not justify an instruction
bounded by the meander line of a lake as first to the effect of possession of property recen's
surveyed by the government in 1855; that the stolen.-People v. Abbott, (Cal.) 31 P. 500
waters of the lake receded, and left the land 4. It is error to charge that the posses
in dispute lying between the present and orig- of stolen property soon after the taking,
inal meander line of the lake; and that de not sufficient to justify a conviction, is a
fendant took possession of and built a house ty circumstance," and that defendant
on the land in 1879, and has ever since resided bound to explain the possession in order to
there. Defendant claimed, and witnesses tes move its effect, as this invades the provis
tified, that the land first settled on by him was the jury.-People v. Abbott, (Cal.) 34 P. 5
an island, separated from plaintiffs' land by
water several feet deep, and was part of the
public domain. Several witnesses supported

Cancellation.
plaintiffs' claim that no such island ever ex-
isted, and the plat of the original survey of the Of contracts, see “Equity,” 5-9.
township showed none. Held, that the evidence
was sufficient to justify a verdict for defend-

CARRIERS.
ant as to the facts in issue.-Moore v. Brown-
field, (Wash.) 34 P. 199.

See, also, “Railroad Companies."
Evidence.
4. Under a deed purporting to convey a

Limiting liability.
certain number of feet along a street commen-

1 A railroad cannot, in consideration of 1
cing at a certain point, only that number of reduced rate, exempt itself from all liatus
feet passed by the deed, and therefore evidence of a carrier of live stock, not resulting tre
that the grantor, in measuring off the land defective trucks, wheels, or axles.-Cajon Pee
granted, measured more than that number of Ry. Co. v. Rainey, (Colo. Sup.) 34 P.
feet, is incompetent to show that more than

Live-stock shipments
the number of feet stated passed by the deed.

Negligence of
-Hogins v. Boggs, (Cal.) 34 P. 653.

shipper.
5. On the question of the location of a 2. The defect in a car furnished to trans
point called for in a patent and survey, the port horses, that the side slats are so far aper
court may consider the field notes and descrip- as to allow horses to get their feet throw
tion in the patent of an adjoining tract, the them, is not so apparent to the shipper inae
boundaries of the two tracts being coincident ing his horses on the car as to conviet bin
for a distance of several miles, and both hav- negligence. - Union Pac. Ry. Co. F. Raine,
ing been surveyed by the same surveyor at (Colo. Sup.) 34 P. 986.
about the same time.-Adair v. White, (Cal.)
34 P. 338.

Carriage of passengers

Who are pas
Brokers.

sengers.

3. Where 4 person, believing he has !
See "Factors and Brokers."

right to do so, rides on a freight train with the

consent of the conductor in charge, and, te
Burden of Proof.

so riding, is injured through the negligence en

the trainmen, the company is liable to him as
See “Evidence," 2.

a passenger, though such train be one bist.
by the rules of the company, was not allora

to carry passengers.--Everett v. Oregon SL
BURGLARY.

& U. N. Ry. Co., (Utah,) 34 P. 289.
What constitutes offense.

Injuries to passengers.
1. A buggy house "in which goods, wares, 4. In an action by a passenger against !
merchandise, and other valuable things are kept stage company for personal injuries receite!
and deposited” is a "building" in which burglary from the upsetting, of a stage in coming de
may be committed, within the meaning of Gen. a mountain road, it appeared that one of the
St. 1889, c. 31, 8 68.-State v. Garrison, (Kan.) | horses had been inclined to run away; that the
34 P. 751.

road was muddy and slippery; that the bordes
Proof of corpus delicti.

were going at "a slow jog," when they set
2. In a burglary case it appeared that one yards before the driver regained control; tbui

frightened by a landslide; that they ran 10,
evening a storekeeper had in his safe in the flying mud and slush made it hard for the dis-
store certain money; that when he and his
clerks left for the night, no one was there, and and that the horses were going in a trot, bet

er to see, and tended to frighten the bord
the doors were locked and windows closed; they were so frightened by another slide to:
that neither of them returned until the next the driver lost control, and they ran away. 2.
morning; that the storekeeper bad not author: upset the stage. Held, that there was erit.
ized any one to enter the store during the night, for the jury as to whether defendant failed to
and it could not be entered except through the
doors or windows; and that in the morning the Pacific Coast Stage Co., (Cal.) 34 P. Sais

provide suitable horses and driver.-Ko'gh: t.
money was gone from the safe, and apparently

5. In an action against a cable-car o
a window had been raised during the night.
Held, that the corpus delicti was established.- pany for injuries received in alighting from

car alleged to have been prematurely started.
State v. Munson, (Wash.) 34 P. 932.

after instructing the jury that common carriers
Instructions.

of passengers must use such vigilance and fore
3. In a burglary case it appeared that a sight as they can, under the circumstances, in
Chinaman's trunk and pipe were stolen from view of the character and mode of converande
the burglarized building. There was evidence adopted, to prevent accidents, it was dot
that two persons carried a “China trunk” from proper to instruct that "it was the defendant's
the lot on which the building was situated business to know, before starting up the car.
about the time the crime was committed; that whether passengers getting off or on the 4:
defendant and others were seen with such a were in a position to be injured, and it fee:
trunk about that time; and that such China- be negligence to start the car suddenly, under
man's trunk was found open two days after- such circumstances, without exercising etes
wards, a considerable distance from the build- precaution for the safety of those who riebt
ing. There was no evidence that a “China be getting off or on.”—Tobin v. Omnibus Cadde
trunk” is any different from any other trunk. Co., (Cal.) 34 P. 124.

« PreviousContinue »