Page images
PDF
EPUB

on his contract, paid the material man more i enjoin defendant from collecting tolls thereon,
than the value of his materials, for which pay an averment in the complaint that "for more
mend the material man gave him credit on his i than six months last past defendant has had
general account against such contractor, the no franchise or right to deinand or take toll,"
material man not knowing whence the money is not an admission of the existence of such
came, and neither the owner nor the contractor franchise or right previous to that period. -
giving any directions as to the application of People v. Volcano Canyon Toll-Road Co., (Cal.)
the payment.--First Presbyterian Church of 31 Ø. 522.
Hutchinson F. Santy, (Kan.) 34 P. 974.

Petition or complaint.
Debt contracted in foreign country.

4. Under Rev. St. § 2447, providing that a
4. A debt contracted in a foreign country petition must contain a statement of the facts
is payable in the currency of that country, and constituting a cause of action in ordinary lan-
therefore, where the creditor sues in the United guage, an exhibit attached to a petition, and
States, he is entitled to recover such sum in therein referred to as a part thereof, is not a
money of the United States as equals the debt part of the petition, and cannot be referred to
in the foreign country where it was payable.- to determine the sufficiency, or to supply alle-
Grunwald P. Freese, (Cal.) 34 P. 73.

gations omitted therefrom.—Hartford Fire Ins.

Co. v. Kahn, (Wyo.) 34 P. 895.
Penalties.

5. Where a complaint alleges that defend-

ant is a corporation organized for the purpose
For usury, see "Usury."

of paying its members periodical installment en-

dowments; that plaintiff became a member, and
Personal Injuries.

received a certificate entitling her to rights of

membership, and participation in the endow-
See "Damages;" "Negligence."

ment fund to the extent of $6,000, to be paid

at 10 stated periods, etc.; that defendant there-
Petition.

upon executed a certain contract in writing,

whereby it promised and agreed to pay plain-
See "Pleading," 4-6.

tiff, on a certain date, $600, and that no part
For formation of sanitary district, see “Munic- of said sum has been paid,-a demurrer on the
ipal Corporations," 1, 2.

ground of ambiguity is properly overruled, as
it is clear that the cause of action is based on

the written contract to pay, and the previous
Physicians and Surgeons.

allegations are but inducements to the contract.
Appeal from board of medical examiners, see .-Henke . Eureka Endowment Ass'n of Cal-
"Appeal,” 6.

ifornia, (Cal.) 34 P. 1089.
Contest of will, testimony of physician, see

6. In an action by an execution debtor.
"Witness," 3.

against a sheriff to recover damages for selling
land without notice, the complaint need not

allege that the sheriff's return, that he has
PLEADING.

given notice, is false.-Raker v. Bucher, (Cal.)

34 P. 819.
See, also, “Damages,” 9, 10; "Fraudulent Con; Demurrer.

veyances," 16-18; “Limitation of Actions."
17, 18; “Master and Servant," 9; "Negotiable

7. A joint demurrer by several defendants
Instruments," 12; "Set-Off and Counter- must be overruled if the complaint is good as
claim," 2.

to either of them.-Asevado v. Orr, (Cal.) 34 P.

777.
Action against sureties, see “Principal and

8. Under Civil Code, § 222, providing that
Surety," 8.

the judgment may, when justice requires it, de
for libel, see “Libel and Slander," 6.

termine the ultimate rights of the parties on
on contract, see “Contracts," 18–20.

each side, as between themselves, where the
on policy, see "Insurance," 10.
Alleging estoppel, see “Estoppel." 14, 15.

answer shows that one of the plaintiffs had be-

come jointly liable with defendant on the con-
· release, see "Release and Discharge," 4.

tract in suit, a general demurrer to such an-
Averment as to city's corporate existence, see siver should he overruled. - Joues v. Perot,
"Municipal Corporations," 48.

(Colo. Sup.) 34 P. 728.
Demurrer, see "Municipal Corporations,” 33. 9. A demurrer to a complaint containing
Effect of demurrer as admission, review on two counts cannot be sustained if either count

appeal, see “Appeal," 56.
Joinder of causes, see "Action."

is good.—Asevado v. Orr, (Cal.) 34 P. 777.
Pleading and proof, see "Insurance," 13. Answer.
of corporate existence,

"Corpora. 10. An answer wherein defendants "say''
tions,” 4, 5.

that they deny each and every allegation in the

complaint, while not commendable, is a denial,
General principle of construction.

and will be sustained, unless objected to at the
1. Under Rev. St. § 4207, providing that in proper time.-Town of Denver v. City of Spo
the construction of a pleading its allegations kane Falls, (Wash.) 34 P. 926.
must be liberally construed with a view to sub il In an action on a note, an allegation in
stantial justice, a pleading is not to be con- the complaint that it has not been paid is ma-
strued most strongly against the pleader. terial, and, when the complaint is unverified,
Cantwell v. McPherson, (Idaho) 34 P. 1095. the issue of nonpayment is raised by a general
Alleging conclusions of law.

denial, so that the answer cannot be stricken

out as sham.-Bank of Shasta v. Boyd, (Cal.)
2. A complaint in an action on an

34 P. 337.
count, which alleges, generally, "unreasonable
and vexatious delay" in making payment, and

12. Where it appears from the copies of a
asks interest thereon, is sufficient, in the ab- note and mortgage sued on, and which are set
sence of any objection thereto, to admit proof put in the complaint, that the action is not
of the facts constituting such delay;

barred, an unverified answer setting up the

and
where judgment is rendered by default against statute of limitations, since it admits the due
defendant, for the interest claimed, it will be execution of the note and mortgage, is properly

stricken out as sham.-Bank of Shasta v. Boyd,
presumed that such proof was offered.--Keys v.
Morrison, (Colo. App.) 34 P. 259.

(Cal.) 34 P. 337.

13. In an action to foreclose a mortgage
Negative pregnant.

made by a corporation on its brewery plant, a
3. In an action in the nature of a quo denial in his answer, by its assignee for the
warranto, brought by the attorney general, to benefit of creditors, on information and belief,
b&ve a certain road declared a highway, and to that certain appliances connected with property

see

ac-

described in the mortgage were attached to the amendment will not be allowed, after trial, sa realty and were fixtures, was insufficient, since as to count or plaintiffs' rights, as beirs of B. he must be presumed to be in possession and to whose estate had not been administered sa o have knowledge as to such fact.-Gribble v. Co- distributed, to sue for conversion of bruin lumbus Brewing Co., (Cal.) 34 P. 527.

of which they had never been in possessica 14. Plaintiff's motion for judgment because and which defendant had received under a ou the answer is evasive is properly denied, where tract to which plaintiffs were not parties, as plaintiff's objection to the answer may be over- such amendment would raise new issues, which come by the correction of an evident clerical would probably require a new trial.-Bradley t. error which the context shows to be the use of Parker, (Cal.) 31 P. 234. "when” for “where."-Raker v. Bucher, (Cal.) Pleading and proof. 34 P. 654.

24. Where an action on a contract for con 15. An answer alleging that defendant "de structing a building foundation, less an allar nies any knowledge or information sufficient to ance for deviation from the requirements of the form a belief" as to the allegations of the com- contract, is tried on the theory that a know plaint is defective, as it does not show that he edge by defendant at the time of defective concould not have obtained such information. ' struction, without objection, might preclude be Jones v. Perot, (Colo. Sup.) 34 P. 728.

from insisting on plaintiffs' failure to perfona Answer-Inconsistent defenses.

their contract, it is error to exclude evidezce 16. In an action for breach of contract, the the work, was her agent, on the ground that

that defendant's husband, who was overseeing answer denied the breach alleged, and affirma- such agency was not alleged by

plaintiffs.tively alleged that defendants continued to per- Dermott v. Grimm, (Colo. App.) 34 P. 909. form the work provided for by the contract until directed by plaintiffs to desist from so do

25. Under an answer denying that plaintif ing. Held, that such defenses were not neces- show that a deed to plaintiff absolute in for

ever owned the land in dispute, defendant Day sarily inconsistent, and that the court properly refused to strike out the answer for alleged was a mortgage.-Wenzel v. Schultz, (Cal) 34

P. 696. inconsistency in the defense.-Brown v. Porter,

26. Evidence only tending to establish par: (Wash.) 34 P. 1105.

of an answer which has been stricken out is Failure to answer cross complaint. properly excluded.- City of Santa Ana . Har.

17. In an action for partnership accounting, lin, (Cal.) 34 P. 224. defendant filed a “cross complaint” which re

27. In an action to condemn land for a lated to the partnership transaction set forth street, evidence of irregularities in the pas in the complaint, alleged the partnership con- ceedings to open the street is properly escotract in somewhat different terms, and con- ed where irregularities are not alleged in the tained only matters in avoidance, or constitut- answer.-City of Santa Ana v. Harlin, (Cal ing a defense or counterclaim. Held, the aver

34 P. 224. ments of the cross complaint were not adınitted Variance. by failure of plaintiff to answer, as the cross 28. Where a complaint alleges an express complaint was really an answer to the com- contract between plaintiff and defendant, ibert plaint, and therefore its averments were deem-can be no recovery on proof of a contract be ed controverted, under Code Civil Proc. § 462.-tween defendant and a third person for plaisHaight v. Tryon, (Cal.) 34 P. 712.

tiff's benefit.-Haynes v. Tacoma, O. & G. H. Motion to compel election.

R. Co., (Wash.) 34 P. 922. 18. A cause of action may be stated in dif- of land sold by plaintiff to defendant, plainte

29. In an action on notes given for the prirë ferent counts in order to meet any possible cannot escape the effect of baving failed to per phase of the evidence, and the pleader will not be required to elect on which count he will form by tendering a deed, on the ground ths:

it would have been useless, where he has 50 proceed.--Remy v. Olds, (Cal.) 34 P. 216.

alleged such excuse. - Underwood v. Ter, Amendment.

(Wash.) 34 P. 1100. 19. Where a defendant, under leave of court, 30. Nor, in the absence of proper allegations. filed a supplemental answer, another judge can plaintiff show that he has always been could not order it stricken from the files be ready, willing, and able to perform.-Coder cause not filed in apt tiine, nor because the case wood v. Tew, (Wash.) 34 P. 1100. was set for trial before the leave was granted

31. In an action by real-estate agents to reand the answer filed. Godding v. Colora lo cover commissions, where the original contract Springs Live-Stock Co., (Colo. App.) 34 P. 912. which was set out in the petition recited tha:

20. In an action by a mortgagee for conver a part of the consideration for the land was sion of the mortgaged chattels, there is no to be paid in cash, the admission of evidence abuse of discretion in allowing defendant, at that the owner subsequently agreed to accept the trial, to amend his answer, and to aver that as cash a secured note offered by the proposed the mortgage was released before defendant purchaser does not constitute a material ran took the property.--Irwin v. McDowell, (Cal.) ance.-Davis v. Lawrence, (Kan.) 31 P. 1051. 34 P. 708.

32. An action on contract will be dismis 21. Under Sess. Laws 1889, p. 73, provid- where defendant shows illegality of the mo ing that, when facts occurring subsequent to tract by proper cross-examination of plainti: the commencement of an action render it prop- witnesses, though defendant did not specials er, they may, by leave of court, be presented plead such illegality:-Ah Doon F. Smith, Or. by supplemental pleadings, and issue taken 34 P. 1093. thereon as in case of original pleadings, it was 33. In an action to restrain a chattel mort. not error for the court to refuse to allow facts gagee from foreclosing his mortgage, where the occurring subsequent to the commencement of complaint proceeds on the theory that the mos the action to be pleaded as an amendment to gagee had accepted a deed of the mortgacor's the original auswer, but to require them to be land in full satisfaction of his debt, and bad set out in a supplemental pleading.-Sylvester promised to discharge the mortgage, the mariav. Jerome, (Colo. Sup.) 34 P. 760.

gor is not entitled to an accounting by the mort22. It is in the discretion of the trial court gagee as to the value of the land, or the prin to refuse to allow an amendment of the com- ceeds realized by him from its sale, since this plaint by striking out certain admissions there is not within the issues presented by his cute in, after the report of the referee in the case plaint.-Davis v. Hinchliffe, (Wash.) 34 P. 915. has been made.-Buno v. Gomer, (Colo. App.) Failure to deny execution of instru. 34 P. 256.

28. Where the complaint in an action for ment under oath. conversion describes plaintiffs as heirs of one 34. In an action for money had and receivel. B., which is merely matter of inducement, an the complaint alleged that defendant had on

[ocr errors]

an

July 2, 1884. executed a written instrument cer- / construction of certain deeds, in connection
tifying that he held $655 until certain disputes with other evidence, to get exact knowledge of
should be settled between two named claimants the meaning of such allegatious. The answer
of the fund, and that both of the claimants denied actual occupation by plaintiff of such
had three years later assigned the certificate to fractional piece previous to the later survey,
plaintiff. The answer alleged that the dispute alleging that it did not lie between the lots
was settled on July 8, 1884, six days after the purchased by plaintiff, and that hence the pos-
date of the certificate, and that both the claim. session of those lots purchased by plaintiff
ants had on that day executed to defendant a could not have included possession of the
written release of all their rights to the money, ground in controversy. Teld, that plaintiff
a copy of which was set out in the answer. was not entitled to judgment on the pleadings.
Held, that plaintiff's failure to deny the execu- De Witt, J., dissenting, on the ground that the
tion of the release by affidavit filed with the pleadirgs, construed in connection with
clerk of court, as required by Code Civil Proc. agreement between the parties, were sufficient
$448, admitted the genuineness and due execu to justify a judgment thereon.-Horsky v. Mo
tion of the release, and it must be taken to be ran, (Mont.) 34 P. 360.
what it appears to be on its face.-Petersen v. 42. The court, by erroneously overruling a
Taylor, (Cal.) 34 P. 724.

demurrer to the reply, is not precluded from
35. A petition for damages for stock killed correctly deciding a motion for judgment on
by cars alleged that, before suit commenced, de- the pleadings.--Sherburne v. Strawn, (Kan.)
fendant A. Co., by some arrangement, whose 34 P. 405.
date and exact nature were to plaintiff un-
known, assumed control of the line of defend-

PLEDGE.
ant S. Co., and by written contract agreed to Necessity of delivery of property, see "Chattel
and did become liable for the killing of plain-
tiff's stock to the same effect that the S. Co. Title of pledgee of corporate stock, see "Corpo

Mortgages," 5.
was liable; that plaintiff could uot set out a

rations," 24.
copy of said written agreement, because it was
not, nor ever had been, in his control. Defend- | What constitutes.
ant A. Co. filed a general denial, not veritied. 1. An instrument termed a “bill of sale,"
Held, that said answer admitted the written executed by C., authorizing I. to take and sell
agreement and its purport as pleaded.--Atchi- the articles therein specified till C.'s debt to I.
son, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Bell, (Kan.) 34 P. is satisfied, when the residue shall be returned
350.

to C., and reciting that it is given as security
Waiver of objections and aider by ver- for the debt, is a contract for a pledge, within
dict.

Civil Code, $ 2987, providing that every contract
36. Defendant does not waive his demurrer transferred as security, only, is a pledge.-Irwin

by which the possession of personal property is
for misjoinder of causes by answering the com-
plaint, and going to trial on the merits, after v. McDowell, (Cal.) 34 P. 708.
the demurrer has been improperly overruled.- Remedies of pledgee.
Thelin v. Stewart, (Cal.) 34 P. 861.

2. The remedy of a pledgee, and the dis-
37. Error in striking out parts of a com- position to be made of a pledge of commercial
plaint is waived by the subsequent filing of an paper on default or other contingency, may be
amended complaint.-Collins v. Scott, (Cal.) 34 regulated by the agreement of the parties, when
P. 1085,

such agreeinent is not fraudulent, or against
38. In an action on an account which was public policy.-Hunter v. Hamilton, (Kan.) 34
commenced before a justice of the peace, where P. 782.
the bill of particulars did not ask for interest, Liability of pledgee for conversion.
though plaintiff was entitled to it, and on ap-
peal the court charged that the action was for transferred to him a note of a corporation as

3. Plaintiff gave his note to defendant, and
a certain sum, with interest, and no objection

collateral. After the secured note had become
was made at the time, the case will be treated due, it being still unpaid, defendant, without
as though an amendment had been made to notice to plaintiff, transferred both notes to
the pleadings. Gas Co. v. Schliefer, 22 Kan. the president of the corporation, knowing his
468, followed.-Union Pac. Ry, Co. v. Winter-

connection with the corporation. Held a con-
botham, (Kan.) 31 P. 1052,
39. Code Civil Proc. $ 55, provides that, E. F. Hallack Lumber & Manuf'g Co. v. Gray,

version of the collateral note by defendant.--
where misjoinder of causes of action appears
on the face of the complaint, advantage there. (Colo. Sup.) 34 P. 1000.
of must be taken by demurrer. Sections 59, Conditions precedent to enforcing.
60, restrict the right to raise the question of 4. In an action by the pledgor of a note
misjoinder to answer, if the fact does not ap as collateral, against the pledgee, for conver-
pear in the complaint, and provide that, in case sion thereof, plaintiff need not tender the debt
of a failure to take advantage of the defect in for which the collateral was pledged, where
either one of these two ways, it will be deemed the full amount thereof has been realized by
waived. Held, that a judgment by default, in defendant.--E. F. Hallack Lumber & Manufg
an action in which there was no appearance by Co. v. Gray, (Colo. Sup.) 31 P. 1000.
defendant, will not be reversed because there
was a misjoinder of causes of action.-Keys v.

Police Power.
Morrison, (Colo. App.) 34 P. 259.
Motion for judgment on pleadings.

See "Constitutional Law," 22.
40. In an action by the administrator of a

Possession.
deceased landlord's estate for the possession of
leased premises for nonpayment of rent, where See “Adverse Possession.”
the tenant's answer admits having leased the

Change,

“Fraudulent Conveyances;"
premises from decedent, and also default in

*Sale," 1.
the payment of rent, judgment on the plead-
ings for plaintiff is justitied.--State v. Votaw,
(Mont.) 34 P. 315.

PRACTICE IN CIVIL CASES.
41. Plaintiff became the purchaser in 1874
of lots which, by the survey under which he See, also, “Appeal;" “Appearance;” “Certio-
purchased, were contiguous.

"Courts;" “Deposition;":
On a survey in

rari;" "Costs;"
1885 it was found that there was ground be.

"Equity;" “Evidence;" "Judgment;" "Jury;"
tween these lots, for which piece plaintiff

"New Trial;" "Pleading;" "Review, Writ of;"
brought suit. IIe alleged adverse possession

“Trial;" "Venue in Civil Cases;" "Witness;"

"Writs."
of such piece from the time of his purchase,
but in such an obscure way as to require a Stipulations, see "Appeal,” 95.

see

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

Evidence of agency-Declarations of al- Notice to sureties before entering judgment on

- before reviewing judgment, self

Nonsuit.

not accepted or approved by the alleged piste
1. On a nonsuit, that which the evidence pal.-Leu r. Mayer, (Kan.) 34 P.
tends to prove will be considered as proved. Powers of agent.
State v. Benton, (Mont.) 34 P. 301.
Motions.

3. A division superintendent of s malimas

has authority to employ physiciass and se
2. The objection that the statement of the geons to attend employes injured in the entire
case prepared for settlement on which to move of the company.-Unjon Pac. Ry. Co T. TT
for a new trial, and the proofs in support of terbotham, (Kan.) 34 P. 1052.
the objection, should be made when the pro-
posed statement is presented for settlement by Authority of railroad contractor.
the court, rather than at the hearing of the 4. A contractor for work in the constracom
motion.-Cole v. Wilcox, (Cal.) 34 P. 114. of a railroad has, under a direction of the main
Orders.

division superintendent to order of pietra
3. Since there is no provision requiring or- stone to be furnished to the railroad once
ders of the superior court to be entered at power to bind the company by a parikste e
length on its minutes, it is sufficient if an or such stone from plaintiff.–Union Pac, D.AG
be filed with the clerk.-Von Schmidt v. Wid- Ratification.
der dispensing with an undertaking on appeal Ry. Co. v. McCarty, (Colo. App.) 31 P. 11
ber, (Cal.) 34 P. 109.

5. An unauthorized contract entered in
Transfer from one judge to another. between the agent of a railroad company .

4. Under Code Proc. $ 651, providing that the owner of a logging road crossed by de
if at the time of hearing the petition the court company's tracks, whereby it agrees to mi
or judge shall be satisfied that the property the logging road, and put in a crossing and pa
sought to be appropriated is necessary for the the owner as damages $50 per day for ears di
purposes of the enterprise, he shall make an bis road is blocked, is not ratified by the per
order for a jury, it is not error for the judge formance of the work by the railroad more
hearing the application on the question of neces- unless it has knowledge of the proposirin us :
sity, to send the jury trial to another judge, the damages.--Haynes v. Tacoma, (). & G. E
though the better practice is for the same judge R. Co., (Wash.) 31 P. 922.
to hear the entire matter.-Seattle & M. Ry.

6. The acceptance of the services of #
Co. v. State, (Wash.) 34 P. 551.

torneys, and the receipt of the avails there

operate as a ratification, and cure any fui d'
Preferences.

authority in the agent who employed the-

Ehrsam v. Mahan, (Kan.) 34 P. S.
Of creditors, see “Assignment for Benefit of

7. Evidence that defendants took present
Creditors."

of property according to an arrangement for a

purchase, made by one of them as the map
Prescription.

sentative of all, shows a ratification of the sea

-Duzan v. Meserve, (Or.) 34 P. 548.
See “Adverse Possession;" "Highways," 1;
"Limitation of Actions."

Rights and liabilities inter se.

8. A railroad company, as autboris:d
Presumption.

act of congress, appointed an agent to ens

upon public domain, and take 20.000
On appeal, see "Appeal,” 72–75.

ties necessary for the railroad, and the areal

was to receive for his services à certain mo
Price.

for each accepted tie. Held, that the agent but

no interest in the ties which could be the c
Action for, see “Sale,” 9-11.

ject of a sale or pledge, as the title to the most

passed directly from the United States to tu
Principal and Accessory.

railroad company. - Falke v. Fassett

, like

App.) 34 P. 1005.
See “Criminal Law," 6-8.

As to third persons.

9. A brakeman who was injured desired!
PRINCIPAL AND AGENT. certain physician, and the division superintend

ent telegraphed to the station agent, diretto
See, also, "Attorney and Client;" "Factors and him to notify the physician, which the green
Brokers;" "Master and Servant."

did, telling the physician that he was called!
Authority of bank officer, see “Banks and Bank- the instance of the division superintendent and
ing," 1.

after furnishing him with medicines and se
to fill in blanks in bond, see "Bonds," 1. gical appliances from the company's medias
Insurance agents, see "Insurance," 8.

chest, took him to the injured emploge Bs.
When notice to agent imputed to principal, see in an action by the physician
"Insurance," 8.

ices, that there was evidence to shov a
When relation exists—Employment of. Winterbotham, (Kan.) 34 P. 1952

ployment by the company.–Union Pac. Ry

, la
subagents.

10. The fact that goods ordered by
1. It appeared that defendant authorized agent of a corporation for it were paid for me
trustees to whom he had conveyed land to sell it will not estop it to deny the authority of
out of the proceeds.' They then authorized ter order, where the form of the bill presentes
tain brokers to sell, and the latter negotiated a corporation is not showa, and there is
title being found defective, defendant directo it paid the bill knew that the seller believe
through such brokers by the amount necessary ing Co. v. Ham, (Colo. App.) 34 P. 84
to perfect the title, which they did. Held, that
the brokers were the agents, not of the trustees,
but of defendant.--Corcoran V. Hinkel, (Cal.)
34 P. 1031.

See, also, "Bonds."
leged agent.

bond, see "Appeal," 108.
2. The fact of agency cannot be established
by the declarations or acts of the alleged agent,

ment,". 29.

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

his ser

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

PRINCIPAL AND SURETY.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

TEXPAND SHE "Witness," 24.

Suretyship generally.

Probate.
1. Since an indemnifying bond in attach-

".”
Foren E the signature of the principal whte procures hand of wili, see Wills," 3-6.
11 delivers it, and the sureties' recourse against
- him is in no wise impaired by his failure to

Process.
Die "sign, they cannot defend a suit on such bond, See "Writs."

as having signed it on condition that he should
sign before delivery, and never intended nor
consented that it should be delivered without PROHIBITION, WRIT OF.
his signature.-Woodman v. Calkins, (Mont.) 34
P. 187.

When granted.
2. The liability of a surety is not to be

A writ of prohibition will not issue
extended by implication.-Coughran . Bige against the taking possession by a receiver of
low, (Utah,) 34 P. 51.

a debtor's property, on the ground that relator,
Release and discharge of surety.

a creditor, desires to attach it, and that the
3. It is not a defense to an action on the proceeding appointing the receiver was void;
bond of a township treasurer that he deposited as, if the proceedings were void, the property

the township money in a bank with the knowl- . can be attached in the hands of the receiver.
Berbec edge and consent of the township board; that State - Superior Court of Snohomish County,
din the bank suspended; that the clerk of the town-

(Wash.) 34 P. 430.
ship filed a claim with the assignee of the bank
for the township money, and received a certifi-

Promissory Notes.
cate therefor; and that subsequently, the town. See "Negotiable Instruments."
ship accepted a dividend for part of the claim,-
Rose v. Douglass Tp., (Kan.) 34 P. 1046.

4. A note coming into the hands of the Proximate and Remote Cause.
maker after payment cannot be reissued by
him, SO

as to bind a surety thereon, in the See “Damages," 1.
hands of one taking it with knowledge of the
suretyship. — First Nat. Bank Harris,

Public Administration.
(Wash.) 34 P. 466.

5. One who gives his note as collateral to See “Executors and Administrators,” 3

a note made by a corporation and indorsed by
over 13 another person is a surety, as renards both

Publication.
maker and indorser; and, when the owner of
the principal note has taken judgment on it Power of court to forbid publication of testi-
against the maker and indorser, w releasing Service of process by, -see “Writs,” 1.
the latter he releases the surety.-Montgomery
v. Sayre, (Cal.) 34 P. 646.

6. A creditor who has a judgment lien on Public Improvements.
10:13 land of the principal debtor which is fairly

worth in the market enough to pay the whole See "Municipal Corporations," 27-45.
debt, if he combine with the owner in selling
it at private sale for less than it is worth, re-

PUBLIC LANDS.
leases the surety on the debt.-Montgomery v.
Sayre, (Cal.) 34 P. 646.

Attachment of pre-emptioner's interest, see “At-
7. Where the holder of a note takes from tachment," 1.
by the principal obligor a new note for the debt, Construction of railroad across, see "Railroad
how falling due after the maturity of the first note, Companies." 1.

a surety on the first note is, in the absence of Sale of school lands, see “States and State Offi.
special circumstances, released from liability

2.
thereon.-First Nat. Bank v. Harris, (Wash.) Subject to condemnation, see "Eminent Do
34 P. 466.

main." 3.
AT & Action against-Pleading.

Taking for public use, right of pre-emptor, see
8. A complaint alleged that defendant M., Taxable persons, see “Taxation,” 1.

"Eminent Domain,” 4.
as principal, and the other defendants as sure-
11 ties, executed the official bond of defendant M. Constitutional regulations.

as sheriff, by which defendants became bound 1. The provision in Act April 17, 1893,
for the faithful performance by M. of his du- providing for payment of materials and labor
ties as sheriff, and then proceeded to state the in the completion of a state cana? by certifi-
act of M. as sheriff for which damages were cates of indebtedness to be issued by the state
sought. Held, that the complaint stated a cause auditor, that the certificates may be accepted by
of action against the sureties.-Sam Yuen v.

the state in payment of lands, not being lim-
VIcMann, (Cal.) 34 P. 80.

ited to lands which might be used for canal
Conditions precedent to action against purposes, violates Const, art. 9, § 10, providing
surety.

that the lands shall be held in trust for the ob-
9. Gen. St. 1883, § 2072, provides that when ---In re Canal Certificates, (Colo. Sup.) 34 P.

jects for which they were granted to the state.
judgment shall be rendered against a constable

274.
"and his securities on his official bond, execu-
tion may issue against all of them,” but shall board of control for the canal to act with the

2. The provision of the act authorizing, a
not be levied on the property of the securities state board of land commissioners in the sale
if sufficient property of the principal can be of certain state lands is not a regulation with-
found to satisfy the same. Held, that the in, but vjolates, Const. art. 9, § 9, lodging in
sureties may be joined with the principal in an the land commissioners "control and disposition
action on a constable's bond without first de- of the public lands under such regulations as
termining the amount of the principal's liability. may be prescribed by law."-In re Canal Cer-
- Newman v. People, (Colo. App.) 34 P. 1006.

tificates, (Colo. Sup.) 34 P. 274.

Grants in aid of railroad.
Privileged Communications.

3. Under Act Cong. March 3, 1875, $ 4,
providing that "any railroad company desiring

to secure the benefits of this act shall, within
Probable Cause.

twelve months after the location of any section

of twenty miles of its road, if the same be upon
See “Malicious Prosecution,” 2.

surveyed lands, and, if upon unsurveyed lands,

cers,

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »