Page images
PDF
EPUB

***R exceeded its jurisdiction, and there is no ap-

INDEX.

1133
Carriage of passengers — Contributory | perior court has no jurisdiction to review such
negligence of passengers.

proceedings on certiorari, though the time lim-
6. In an action against a street-car.com.brought.-Gregory v.

ited for appeal has expired before certiorari is

Dixon, (Wash.) 34 P. 212.
bany for personal injuries, plaintiff claimed,

3. The supreme court of Montana can re-
ind the evidence tended to prove, that a car view contempt proceedings on certiorari.--State
was started while she was alighting therefrom,

v. Fourth Judicial District Court, (Mont.) 34
while defendant claimed, and gave evidence P. 39.
co show, that the car was started before plain-

4. An order for payment of temporary ali-
Image riff left her seat, and that she tried to get off

while the car was in motion. Held, that an in- mony being appealable, and such appeal, with
struction making the defense of contributory the enforcement of the order, certiorari will not

stay bond, furnishing a complete remedy against
jegligence dependent on whether defendant

lie to review the action of the court in commit-
would have guarded against such negligence was ting defendant for contempt in disobeying the

hat the verdict must be for the defendant if order; the provision of Const. art. 8, § 3, that
he injuries were caused either solely by plain writs of certiorari in proceedings for contempt

the justices of the supreme court may issue
iff's negligence, or, jointly and concurrently, by in the district court, not being intended to ap-
the negligence of plaintiff and defendant or its ply where there is remedy by appeal. – In re

servants, and that if plaintiff, knowing the car Finkelstein, (Mont.) 34 P. 847.
Set, was in motion, chose to run her chances, and

get off by stepping directly out from the car,
Liaituz-she must abide the risks she took. Tobin v.

Challenge.
Omnibus Cable Co., (Cal.) 34 P. 124.

See "Jury," 9.
pedometer zLiability for passengers' effects.
7. In an action against a sleeping-car com-

Change of Possession.
mpany for loss by a passenger of his coat while See "Fraudulent Conveyances;” “Sale," L.
bes, lai tie in bis berth at night, the presumption of neg-

ligence on the part of defendant arising from
LITE-Gesuch loss is rebutted by the uncontradicted evi-

Change of Venue.
dence of the car porter that he was on duty, See “Venue in Civil Cases,” 3.

and engaged in watching the car, through the
an night, till after the loss.-Pullman Palace Car
Co. v. Freudenstein, (Colo. App.) 34 P. 578.

Character.
8. A railroad company is not bound, as a Evidence of, see "Criminal Law," 41.
part of its contract to transport a passenger,
who is employed as a traveling salesman, to
carry as his personal baggage a case of sam. CHATTEL MORTGAGES.

ple merchandise belonging to his employers; and
Carriage sal where it receives and checks such case without See, also, "Fraudulent Conveyances."

knowledge of its ownership or contents, a part Liability, of sheriff, see “Sheriffs and Consta-
of which is afterwards stolen from its baggage bles," 8.
I room without negligence on its part, it is not
** liable to the owners. -Southern Kan. Ry. Co. Validity.
v. Clark, (Kan.) 31 P. 1054.

1. A mortgage of a stock of goods was
filed as

as made, and the mortgagees'
CARRYING WEAPONS.

agents, who occupied the other side of the same

building as the mortgagor, took possession, and
By officers.

put in charge a man who hired the mortgagor
Sheriffs and constables have not the ab- and all moneys received, after payment of run-

to help him, as clerk, New books were opened,
solute right, because of their office, to carry ning expenses, were applied on the mortgage
--- la cresta weapons ate ath times, since Act, 1887, c. 30, debt. The mortgagor's name on the window
er officers "may carry weapons in the legal dis- of possession, as against subsequently attach-

was not erased. Held, that there was a change
charge of the duties of their respective offices, ing creditors. In re Fisher, (Or.) 34 P. 1024;
when the same may be necessary, but it shall Koehler v. McCamant, Id.
be for the court or jury to decide from the evi-
dence whether such carrying of weapons was

2. Under Code, 8 776, subd. 40, providing
necessary or not, and for an improper carrying ble of immediate delivery which is not filed or

that every mortgage of personal property capa-
or using deadly weapons by an officer, he shall
be punished as other persons are punished.”- recorded shall be presumptively fraudulent as to
Guyse v. Territory, (N. M.) 34 P. 293.

the mortgagor's creditors unless accompanied by
immediate delivery and followed by an imme-

diate change of possession of the mortgaged
CERTIORARI.

property, the possession of the mortgagee, where

his mortgage is not recorded, must be exclusive,
TUK Review on, see “Contempt," 2.

and accompanied with such outward acts of
When lies.

ownership as to apprise the public that the
1. Code Civil Proc. § 323, provides for a

property has changed hands; and a joint pos-
writ of certiorari when an inferior court has session with the mortgagor is not sufficient.-

Peirce y. Kelly, (Or.) 34 P. 963.
nor any remedy. Const, art. 6,

3. A mortgage of merchandise, permitting
23, provides that a writ of error shall lie in the usual course of business, paying the pro-

the mortgagor to remain in possession and sell
from the supreme court to every final judgment ceeds to the mortgagee till the debt is extin-
of the county court.
tiorari should not issue for the review by a disa guished, is rendered void against creditors by
trict court of a judgment rendered by a county tain from the proceeds a small allowance for

a parol agreement that the mortgagor may re-
court within its jurisdiction, and from which the support of his family. – Wile v. Butler,
there was no appeal to the district court, un- (Colo. App.) 34 P. 1110.
der Gen. St. $8 500, 501, since there was an
adequate remedy by writ of error from the su- Description of property.
preme court.-Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Bowler, 4. The return of the mortgagor's assignee,
(Colo. App.) 34 P. 910.

to whom the stock of mortgaged goods was turn-
2. Since Gen. St. $ 784, provides that the ed over by consent, showing that he sold inore
proceedings of the county superintendent of articles of some kinds than were described in
schools organizing school districts may be ap- the mortgage, does not show that the descrip-
pealed to the county commissioners, the su tion in the mortgage was inadequate as against

[ocr errors]

soon

subsequently attaching creditors, there being

Collateral Security.
no averment or proof that the mortgagor had
any goods other than those described in the See "Pledge."
mortgage. — In re Fisher, (Or.) 34 P. 1024;
Koehler v. McCamant, Id.

Collection.
Release--Substitution of other security. Of taxes, see "Taxation," 9-14.

5. Though a contract for a pledge, by recit-
ing that it is given in lien of a certain chattel

COLLEGES AND UNIVERSI-
mortgage, shows an intention that it shall take
the place of the chattel mortgage, it does not,

TIES.
in the absence of the delivery of the articles
thereby agreed to be pledged, release the chat- State university-Board of regents.
tel mortgage; Civil Code, & 2988, providing that Const. art. 11, & 7, requires the members
no pledge is valid till the property is delivered of board of regents of the state university Dee
to the pledgee.-Irwin v. McDowell, (Cal.) 34 "elected," and Act March 19, 1891. proriis
P. 708.

that "the board shall consist of three elecure
Seizure by mortgagee Liability to

members, as nuw provided by law, and of the

governor and attorney general, who shall be
mortgagor.

officio members of the board." Held, that the
6. Where the holder of a chattel mortgage, act does not inaugurate a new system of to
under his mortgage, takes possession of a part ernment for the university, but merely increasi
of the personal property mortgaged, but makes the number of regents, and that the attarde
no sale or disposition thereof, as prescribed by general in office at the time of the passaza e
the statute, he is liable to the mortgagor for the act is not entitled to act as a memte?
the actual value of the same, at the time and the board ex officio, since the act does not s
place of taking possession thereof.-Miller v. the existence of an emergency at the time of ::
McElwain, (Kan.) 34 P. 396.

passage which requires the induction of the is
Title of mortgagee after default.

creased number into office prior to their electo

by the people. State v. Irwin, 5 Ver. 121. od
7. Possession by a chattel mortgagee after State v. Arrington, 4 P. 735, 18 Nev. 412. fot
the maturity of his debt does not vest in him a lowed.-State v. Torreyson, (Nev.) 34 P. SIL
legal title which is subject to attachment.-
Voorbies v. Hennessy, (Wash.) 34 P. 931.

Collusion,
Cherokee Nation.

In obtaining decree of divorce, see "Divorce,"

3-5.
See “Indians."

Color of Title.
Children.

See “Adverse Possession," 4; "Public Landa.*

15.
See "Guardian and Ward."

Commissioner.
City.

Bank commissioners, see "Banks and Bani.

ing," 2-4.
See "Municipal Corporations."

Common Carrier.
Civil Law.

See "Carriers."
Verbal land contract, see "Vendor and Pur-
chaser," 1.

Community Property.
Claim and Delivery.

See "Husband and Wife," 6-9.
See “Replevin."

Compensation.
Claims.

Of attorney, see "Attorney and Client," 6, 7.
Against decedent's estate, see "Executors and

Complaint.
Administrators," 7-9.

See "Pleading," 46.

[ocr errors]

1

CLERK OF COURT.

COMPROMISE.
Certificate by deputy to affidavit, see "Affida- See, also, “Payment;" "Release and Dis
vit."

charge.
Judicial power, see “Constitutional Law," 5.

Effect of offer as admissions, see "Evidence," &
Liability for money lost by failure of bank, see
"Office and Officer," 8.

Compromise as consideration.
Powers-To adjourn court.

The compromise by a wife of a suit for

divorce against her husband, and her abaudos
When the judge is not present at the ment of her alleged right of homestead in Lia
time fixed by law for the holding of a term of property, is a valid consideration for a bort
court, the clerk of the court cannot, in the ab- gage executed by the husband in her faror te
sence of statutory authority, adjourn the court secure a note.-McClure v. McClure, (Cai.) 34
to a future day.-In re Terrill, (Kan.) 34 P. P. 822.
457; In re McClaskey, Id. 459.

Conclusion of Law.
Cloud on Title.

See "Pleading," 2.
See "Quieting Title."

Condemnation Proceedings.
Collateral Attack.

See "Eminent Domain."
See "Judgment,” 25–27.

Condition.
Effect of decision of secretary of interior, see
"Public Lands," 18.

In policy, see "Insurance," 1, 2

[ocr errors]

an

"Pr'. Billings, (Wash.) 34 P. 936.

cooards of supervisors of the respective counties rendered before the passage of the act directing
Ctration as it shall deem expedient. Sess. Laws have property assessed in a particular Wily.-
Per on petition of certain land owners, to order the
Cordemes point road commissioners who shall superin-
: "
El cost among the landowners within half a mile the special verdicts are inconsistent with the

Confession.

ers on the road commissioners, who were not a

"tribunal transacting_county business." John-
Is evidence, see “Criminal Law," 84, 85. ston, J., dissenting.-Board Com’rs Wyandotte

County v. Abbott, (Kan.) 34 P. 416.
Conflict of Laws.

Judicial powers.
Offense against United States, by what law Facation, to take bail, and fix its amount, is

5. A law permitting the clerk of court, in
CLICZ, governed, see "Courts," &

not unconstitutional, as conferring on said
Payment of debt contracted in foreign country,

clerk judicial power.-State v. Sureties of
see "Payment,” 4.

Krohne, (Wyo.) 34 P. 3.
Consideration.

Control by courts of executive depart-

ment.
Compromise as consideration, see “Compro-

6. The execution of orders given by the
mise."

president of the United States for the removal
Of contract, see “Contracts,” 5.

of intruders from government land will not be
Of conveyance, see "Fraudulent Conveyances,'

interfered with by injunction, the courts having
12.

no jurisdiction over the executire department
Consolidation.

of the government.-Guthrie v. Hall, 34 P. 380,

1 Okl. 406.
Of prosecutions, see "Criminal Law," 15.

Local and special laws.
Constable.

7. The term "township” in Const. art. 5,

$ 25, forbidding special laws regulating county
see "Sheriffs and Constables."

or “township” affairs, refers to an involuntary
corporation, or quasi corporation, and not to a

Foluntary municipal corporation, such as
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. incorporated town; and special' legislation is

not forbidden in respect to incorporated towns
Admiralty jurisdiction of state courts, see "Ad-or cities, except in cases where a general law
miralty.”

can be made applicable.-Town of Valverde v.
**$2 Innexation by cities of other towns, see “Mu- Shattuck, (Colo. Sup.) 34 P. 947.
nicipal Corporations,” 3.

9. Act March 27, 1890, (Laws 1889-90, p.
{mposition of license tax, see “Licenses." 131,) giving certain communities, which had pre-

•bligation of contracts, power congress to viously undertaken to incorporate as municipal
A forfeit land grant, see “Public kinds," 6. corporations under an invalid law, the right to

Qualification of voters, see "Elections and Vot- reincorporate under the statute without refer-
ers," 1.

ence to population, but solely by reason of their
Regulations as to public lands, see, also, "Public peculiar condition, is a special law, and void.
Lands," 1, 2.

under Const. art. 2, § 28, which prohibits the
Right of accused to confront witnesses, see legislature from passing special laws "for grant-
"Criminal Law," 33.

ing corporate powers and privileges," and ar-
OBSubmission of questions to courts by governor ticle 11, § 10, which provides that "corporations
and legislature, see "Courts;” 1.

shall not be created by
Titles of acts, see “Statutes," 5, 6.

special laws."

Spokane Falls, (IV: 3+ P. 926.
Construction.

9. The provision of the act of 1889 which
1. To warrant a state court in declaring makes a street assessment prima facie evidence
void a provision of the state constitution as in of the regularity of the proceeding is not a spe-
conflict with the federal constitution, the con- cial or local law, within the constitutional pro-
lict must be very clear. —- Romine v. State, vision that the legislature shall not pass special
Wash.) 34 P. 924.

or local laws regulating the practice of courts
2. Const. art. 1, § 16, authorizing the tak- of justice.- McDonald v. Conniff, (Cal.) 34 P.
ng of lands for private ways of necessity, is not 71.

self-executing, and before a person can main 10. The bank commissioners' act of March
Ostain a proceeding to have land of a person, not 30, 1878, providing for the examination, and, in

nis grantor, condemned for a private way of ne certain cases, the winding up, of banks by com-
cessity, the legislature must define what are to missioners appointed for the purpose, is not a

be private ways of necessity, authorize persons contravention of Const. art. 4, 825, providing
Bon apply for them, and prescribe the method by that the legislature shall not pass local or spe-
which the necessary land is to be taken.-Long cial laws granting to any corporation any spe-

cial or exclusive right, privilege, or immunity.
Delegation of legislative power.

-People v. Superior. Court, (Cal.) 34 P. 492.
3. The legislature has power to provide, Retrospective laws.

n an act establishing law libraries, (Act March 11. Laws 1893, c. 109, concerning the sale
ne else *** 31, 1891.) that counties shall come within or and redemption of real estate, does not change

emain without the provision of the act, as the or nullify any of the terms of a judgment duly

nay determine.--Board of Law Library Trus. the sale of an interest in land for the purpose
promise ees ; Bourd Sup’rs Orange County, (Cal.) 31 stated in said judgment; Greenwood v. But-
P. 244.

ler, (Kan.) 34 P. 967; Moore v. Barstow, Id.
To tribunals transacting county

969.
business.

Vested rights.
4. Const. art. 2, § 21, provides that the

12. It is within the power of the legislature
legislature may confer upon tribunals transact- to prescribe the mode of assessing property for
ing the county business of the several counties taxation in a city of the third class, as neither
such powers of local legislation and adminis. the city nor the citizen has a vested right to
1887, c. 214, requires the county commissioners, Heilig v. City Council of Puyallup, (Wash.) 34

P. 161.
improvement of any county road, and to ap Jury trial.

13. Act N. M. T. 1889, $81, 2, authoriz
tend such improvement, and shall apportion the ing special verdicts, and declaring that when
of the improvement. Held, that this act was general verdict the former shall control, is not
unconstitutional in conferring legislative pow-l in conflict with Const. Amend. U. S. art. 7.

for municipal, purposes sof Denver v. City of

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

ule of prices, and provide for the fixing of the unlawful interference with the proceedings of
make the company absolutely liable, are un- | tiorari, where it appears that the publicatin
at under them a railroad could not possibly have had that effect.-In

3. A judge of the circuit court has por
certain property of plaintiff, and was ordered

4. Where defendant was adjudged to hure

to appear on a certain day in the same tera
21. A statute permitting informations to be and restore it, but failed to do so, sod afte
ever the prosecuting attorney is satisfied that tempt, the court still had jurisdiction over tže
a crime or offense has been committed in his case, for the purpose of punishing defendant-

Of election, see "Elections and Voters," &

which provides that the right of trial by jury police power of the legislature.- Woodward :
shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury Fruitvale Sanitary Dist., (Cal.) 34 P. 239.
shall be otherwise re examined in any court of Taxation-Exemption.
the United States than according to the rules
of the common law, since such provision applies Wash. 1883, p. 64,) known as the "Gross Para

23. Act Wash. T. Nov. 28, 1883, (Lan
to powers exercised by the government of the ings Law," which provided (section 1) for the
United States, and not to those of states and taxation of the gross earnings of railroad our
territories. -Walker v. New Mexico & S. P. R. porations, and exempted them from all other
Co., (N. M.) 34 P. 43.
"14. Const. U. S. Amend. 7, providing that in Wash. T., (Rev. St. U. S. & 1924,) which pro

taxes, was not in conflict with Organie de
suits at common law involving more than $20 vided that "all taxes shall be equal and o
the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, ap form, and no distinction shall be made in the
plies to territorial courts.-Bradford v. Terri-

assessments between different kinds of
tory, (Okl.) 34 P. 66.

erty, but the assessments shall be according a
15.1 proceeding by information in the na-
ture of quo warranto is a suit at common law, the value of the property,” since such provide
within the meaning of Const. U. S. Amend. 7, did not prohibit the legislature from esempizz
providing for the right of trial by jury in such the property of any person or corporation from

taxation.-Columbia & P. S. R. Co. v. Chibet
suits.-Bradford v. Territory, Okl.) 34 P. 66.
16. St. Okl. c. 70, art. 18, § 22, providing

(Wash.) 34 P. 163.
that nine jurors may return a verdict, is in-

Assessments for local imprope
valid, as in violation of Const. U. S. Amend. 7, ments.
providing for the preservation of the right of

24. The provision in Sess. Laws 1887, <
trial by jury.-Bradford v. Territory, (Okl.) 34 214, that the cost of improving a county me
P. 66.

thereunder shall be apportioned among the se**
Due process of law.

eral tracts of land within half a mile of the
17. Act March 11, 1893, § 11, (Sess. Laws real and personal property ... derived fra

improvement, “according to the benefits to the
1893, p. 284.) prohibiting the recording of a deed such improvement," is unconstitutional in it
unless accompanied by a certificate of the treas- cluding personal property for purposes of su
urer that all taxes levied, and which have be-

sessment.
come a charge on the property according to the Com’rs Wyandotte County v. Abbott, (Kan.)

Johnston, J., dissenting. – Bear
books and records of his office, have been paid, P. 416.
is unconstitution:ul, as interfering with the
right to acquire and dispose of property, and as

Construction
taking property without due process or compen-
sation. --State v. Moore, (Wash.) 34 P. 461. Of statutes, see "Statutes," 7, &

18. A city charter giving power to improve
streets at the expense of adjoining property is

Constructive Trusts.
not unconstitutional, as depriving persons of
property without due process of law, because See "Trusts," 7, 8.
it does not expressly provide for notice to the
property owners at any stage of the proceed-
ings.— Wilson v. City of Salem, (Or.) 34 P. 9;

CONTEMPT.
Id. 691.
19. Gen. St. c. 93, $$ 13, 14, as amended by

See, also, “Certiorari," 3, 4.
Sess. Laws 1885, p. 304, and Sess. Laws 1891, Violation of injunction, see “Injunction," 10

.
p. 281, (known “Railroad Stock-Killing Procedure.
Acts,") making railroad companies absolutely
liable for
stock killed, and arbitrarily fixing the in disobeying an order requiring the

1. A commitment for contempt of cours
amount to be paid, contravene the constitutional committed to restore to the administrator na
provisions for equal protection and due process estate ie process of settlement money tubig na
of law. Railway Co. v. Vaughn, (Colo. App.) had obtained as attorney for such administre
34 P. 264, followed.Rio Grande W. Ry. Co.
v. (App)

tor by false pretenses, is void, where the judo
26. Genr St. C. 93, 88° 13, 14, as amended by sheant that he was in fact such attorneg.-os
Sess. Laws 1885, p. 304, and Sess. Laws 1891,
p. 281, (known
as "Railroad Stock-Killing

parte Carroll, (Cal.) 34 P. 518.
Acts,") which fix the amount to be paid for Review on certiorari.
certain kinds of animals by an arbitrary sched-

The that
allowing proof of actual value, and which fining contempts, is not conclusive
constitutional
company may be denied the equal protection of Shortridge, (Cal.) 34 P. 227.
the laws, and deprived of its property without Power to punish.
due process of law. Wadsworth v. Railway

.) 33 P. 515, and Railway Co. v.
Rio Grande Western Ry. Co. v. Vaughn, -In re Wolf, (Kan.) 34 P. 1048.
(Colo. App.) 34 P. 261.

Deprivation of liberty.
county, is not invalid as an infringement of In re Wolf, (Kan.) 34 P. 1048.
"due process of law.”--State v. Sureties of
Krohne, (Wyo.) 34 P. 3.

Contest.
Police power.

22. Act March 31, 1891, (St. 1891, p. 223,) Of wills, see “Wills," 69.
authorizing the organization and creation of
sanitary districts throughout the state, and em-

Continuance.
wonstruction of suwers and drains, is within the Discretion of trial court, see “Appeal," 72

as

an

CONTRACTS.

Consideration.

5. The assignment of an insurance policy
2, also, “Arbitration and Award;" "Assign: constitutes no consideration for an agreement
nent for Benefit of Creditors;' "Bonds;' then made by the assignee, where a mortgage

'Carriers;" "Chattel Mortgages;" “Deed;" theretofore given by the assignor to the assignee
2. Factors and Brokers;" “Frauds, Statute of;. had provided for the obtaining of the policy on

Fraudulent Conveyances;” "Insurance;" the mortgaged property, and the assignment
list: 'Interest;" "Landlord nd Tenant;" “Master thereof as further security.-Lewis v. McReavy,

ind Servant;" “Mortgages;” “Negotiable In- (Wash.) 34 P. 832.
truments;". "Partnership;" "Pledge;": "Prin-
ipal and Agent;" "Principal and Surety;"

Public policy.
"Sale;" “Specific Performance;" “Vendor and 6. An agreement to stifle a prosecution, or
Purchaser."

to withhold testimony therein, is absolutely
mpromise as consideration, see “Compro- void, and no recovery can be had on a promis-
nise.

sory note given in consideration of such an
mages for breach, see “Damages,” 4, 5.

agreement.-Friend v. Miller, (Kan.) 34 P.

397.
lling blanks in deeds, see "Deed."
r erecting building, see "Mechanics' Liens," Interpretation.

7. C. and S., who were interested in a
r public improvements, see "Municipal Cor- mining company, executed contracts whereby,
Jorations,” 34, 35.

in consideration of $16,750 given by S. to C.,
banks, see “Banks and Banking," 5.

it was provided that they should be equal own-
cities, see "Municipal Corporations," 19. ers in the stock and bonds. It was also agreed
corporations, see “Corporations," 8-19. that S. should be equally liable with c. on
counties, see "Counties,” 7, 8.

an agreement entered into with bondholders of
wer of receiver to make, see "Receivers,” 5. the company, and for expenses in conducting
***2formation, see "Equity,” 3, 4.

the company; and it was further agreed that
X scission, see "Vendor and Purchaser," 9-11. so much of the stock of another company owned
**- in equity, see "Equity,” 5-9.

by them should be sold as would amount to
Arbal land contract under civil law, see "Ven- the price paid for the mining property by C.,
lor and Purchaser," 1.

together with the cash outlays by S.; that this

should be turned over to S., and from it he
Itire and severable contracts.

should pay to C. $3,000 paid by him on the
1. Though, under. Civil Code, § 1624, a price, and pay two notes of $5,000 each, exe
lirol contract employing a broker to sell land cuted by C. and indorsed by S., for the bal.

invalid, a broker employed to sell or exchange ance of the price of the property. $1 750 was
Dit marad, and the personalty thereon, under to be retained by S. as repayment to him of

reement for a commission of 5 per cent. on moneys advanced to C., and, in case money
Cesta price, may, on bringing about an exchange, was not obtained from the stock to pay the

over 5 per cent. on a separate valuation $3,000 to C. and the notes, S. should be releas-
Tran" uced on the personalty by the principal, though ed from payment of the $3,000, and S. and C.

the exchange, as between the parties thereto, should be jointly liable for the notes. Held,
pere may have been no division of the consid- that C. was not personally liable for repayment
Wation, as the contract, in such case, is divis- of the $16,750.-Jones v. Sutton, (Colo. Sup.)

e, and that part as to the land is not un- 34 P. 989.
e le te vful, but merely incapable of enforcement. 8. Plaintiffs agreed to clear, plat, and sell
orter v. Fisher, (Cal.) 34 P. 700.

land for defendants, delivering to them all re-
2. It is immaterial whether the separate ceipts on sales, except $10 commission on each
luation was placed on the personal property lot sold, with a stipulation that, when a cer-
the principal before or after the exchange, tain amount of cash was collected from sales,
to whom he made the statement as to the the land then unsold and the notes unpaid
luation, since it is an admission that the per- should be transferred to plaintiffs, and that if

nal property was exchanged at such valua- defendants did not receive $2,000 in six months
1,8min, so that its price can be separated from they might annul the contract, in which case

gross sum involved in the exchange.- the $10 commission on each lot should be full
orter v. Fisher, (Cal.) 34 P. 700.

compensation for plaintiffs' services. It was
3. A contract for the sale of lands by the further agreed that if defendants should be
ite recited that, in consideration of $1.25 evicted, as a result of a suit then pending, they
r. acre, the state agreed to convey certain de should pay plaintiffs $40 per acre for clearing
ribed lands consisting of 160 acres, in dif- the land, and the contract should be void. Held,
rent tracts, which were separately describ- that on the eviction of defendants, as a result

and that, in consideration thereof, the of such pending suit, plaintiffs could not re-

rty of the second part, having theretofore cover moneys expended by them in surveying
: id 25 cents per acre, agreed to pay in 25 the land.-Bartholomew v. Aumack, (Or.) 34 P.

ars the balance of one dollar per acre, i. e. 817.

sum of $160," with interest thereon. 9. Plaintiffs were, however, in such case,
ild, that the contrart was a divisible entitled to recover $510, which they paid in or-

e, so as to allow the purchaser to pay the der to complete the amount of $2,000 necessary
lance due on some of the tracts, and so ac to prevent the forfeiture of the contract at the
lire title thereto, and to refuse to pay on and end of six months.-Bartholomew y. Aumack,
rfeit the others.--State v. Jones, " (Nev.) 34 (Or.) 34 P. 817.
450.

10. Plaintiff and defendant, two water com-
4. A contract to repair an old building and panies,-the latter owning a water supply con-
uild an addition, the old part to be turned ducted to the limits of a city; the former own-
und, stipulated a certain sum for the whole ing a system of pipes for conducting it through
ork, to be paid as follows: “Old part placed in the city,-made a contract by which defend-
sition, $200; foundation in and frame up, ant's water was to be distributed through plain-
500; inclosed, and roof on, chimneys up, and tiff's pipes; the proceeds, after deducting oper-
e building completed according to agreement ating expenses, including necessary extensions
id specifications, $300.Held that, the work of the pipes, to be divided between them; the

the new part not being in condition to en question of what were necessary operating ex-
le the contractor to the third installment, penses to be determined by the presidents of
hen the building was destroyed by fire, no re the companies, who were to be trustees of the
very on such installment could be had for properties. Held that, under this contract,
ork on the old part, though that was substan- plaintiff had no right to lease its property, and
ully completed, the contract being an entirety. sell to the lessee a certain amount of defend-
Clark v. Collier, (Cal.) 34 P. 677.

ant's water for a gross sum, with provision
V.34P.-72

[ocr errors]

e

not

« PreviousContinue »