« PreviousContinue »
Limiting rights sought and reducing damages, see EMINENT DOMAIN,
Corporate stock, see CORPORATIONS, 1-3.
Of corporations, see CORPORATIONS, 1-3.
Action by passenger for wrongful ejection, see CARRIERS, 5-10.
Imputed negligence of driver of vehicle in collision with street car,
see NEGLIGENCE, 5.
STREET RAILWAYS-COLLISION WITH VEHICLE-NEGLIGENCE QUES-
TION FOR JURY. The negligence of a motorman on a street car in
failing to avoid a collision with an ice wagon is for the jury, where
it appears that the horses became frightened and could not be
kept from crowding onto the car track while the street car was a
block away, that the motorman could have observed the team,
brought his car under control, and avoided the injury, and the
driver of the team, an experienced man, did all he could to avoid it.
Cathey v. Seattle Electric Co.......
To corporate stock, see CORPORATIONS, 1-3.
Foreclosure of tax lien, see TAXATION, 2.
Of statute on reversal of judgment, see LIMITATION OF ACTIONS.
For inspection of grain shipped, see INSPECTION.
Validity of license tax on sale of goods by automatic device, see
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 3.
Liquor licenses, see INTOXICATING LIQUORS, 4.
Assessments for municipal improvements, see MUNICIPAL CORPORA-
TIONS, 5, 9-11.
Levy for municipal plans commission fund, see MUNICIPAL COR-
Service of process in action to vacate default judgment, see PROCESS.
Inheritance tax and rights of aliens, see TREATIES.
TAXATION-RIGHTS OF MORTGAGEE-REMEDIES
TABLE LIEN. Rem. & Bal. Code, § 9234, prescribing a remedy for the
collection of taxes paid by a mortgagee for the purpose of protecting
his lien was not intended as an exclusive remedy; and his equitable
right of subrogation does not expire with the lien of his mortgage,
the statute providing that the lien for taxes shall continue until the
taxes are paid. Childs v. Smith ...
A tax foreclosure
judgment is void where it was entered upon the service of a summons
by publication which required the defendants to appear within sixty
days after the service of the summons, instead of sixty days after
the first publication. Thompson v. Schoner
TAXATION-TAX DEED-ACTION TO SET ASIDE EVIDENCE OF TITLE.
A nonresident plaintiff in an action to set aside a tax deed is suf-
ficiently identified as the grantee in a recorded deed from the con-
ceded holder of the title, where he testified that he purchased the
lot from such holder, paid for it, and produced tax receipts showing
payment by him of taxes thereon, and that he lived in the state
given as the residence of the grantee in the deed. Pillsbury v.
SAME CONDITION PRECEDENT-TENDER OF TAX. A tender of taxes
as a condition precedent to an action to set aside a tax deed is ex-
cused where it appears that the defendants claimed title to the land
and plainly indicated that any tender would be refused. Pillsbury
TAXATION-TAX DEED-CANCELLATION-EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO
PAY TAXES. The negligence of the county treasurer prevented the
payment of taxes and a county tax deed is void, where the owner
attempted in good faith to pay taxes upon platted property, and on
furnishing a list was informed by the county treasurer that all de-
linquent taxes were paid; and it is immaterial whether the lists
furnished described the property by government subdivision as
assessed at one time, or as it has been platted and assessed later.
Blinn v. Grindle
SAME-ACTIONS TO CANCEL DEED-LIMITATIONS-LACHES. An ac-
tion to cancel a tax deed commenced within the time limited by
Rem. & Bal. Code, § 162, is not barred by laches where there was
nothing in the record upon which to predicate laches. Blinn v.
TELEGRAPHS AND TELEPHONES:
1. TELEGRAPHS AND TELEPHONES—WRONGFUL OPENING OF TELEGRAM-
EVIDENCE-SUFFICIENCY. The evidence is sufficient to show that de-
fendant opened a telegram making plaintiff a cash offer for land,
where it appears that it was delivered to defendant upon his offer-
ing to deliver it to the plaintiff, that he did not deliver it, but on
the next day defendant closed a trade with the plaintiff for the
land, which trade he had just previously refused to make, and after
the trade attempted to dispose of the land to the party who had
made the offer in the telegram. Deighton v. Hover
2. SAME-MEASURE OF DAMAGES. Under Rem. & Bal. Code, $ 2977,
giving treble damages for all loss and damages sustained by the
wrongful opening of a telegram, where defendant, by wrongfully
opening a telegram making plaintiff a cash offer for land, induced
plaintiff to trade the land to the defendant for less than was
offered, the measure of damages is the difference between the value
of the land given and the value of that received, irrespective of the
tentative offer, where it was probable plaintiff could have sold for
its full value. Deighton v. Hover
Damages, inadequate or excessive, see DAMAGES, 4.
Damages for causing death, see DEATH.
Injuries from explosives, see EXPLOSIVE.
Liability of community property for tort of spouses, see HUSBAND
AND WIFE, 4.
Proper or necessary parties in actions for, see PARTIES.
Negligent operation of railroads, see RAILROADS, 1.
Setting off damages for torts, see SET-OFF AND COUNTERCLAIM.
Injuries caused by operation of street cars, see STREET RAILROADS.
Wrongful opening of telegram, see TELEGRAPHS AND TELEPHONES.
Diversion of natural water courses, see WATERS AND WATER COURSES,
Regulation and control of liquor traffic, see INTOXICATING LIQUORS,
Rights of passenger upon refusal to obey rules of company, see
1. TREATIES-STATE LAWS-CONFLICT OF Laws. State laws in con-
flict with treaties between the United States and foreign countries
are held in abeyance during the existence of the treaty.
2. TREATIES-ALIEXS-DISABILITIES. The removal of disabilities of
aliens as to the acquisition of property in the several states is a
proper subject of treaty between the United States and foreign
countries. In re Stixrud's Estate
3. TREATIES—CONSTRUCTION—"RESPECTIVE." A treaty providing that
the subjects of the contracting parties “in the respective states" may
freely dispose of their property, means that the subject may freely
dispose of his property within the country of his citizenship; "re-
spective” meaning “pertaining or relating severally to each of those
under consideration." In re Stixrud's Estate
4. SAME-ALIENS--DESCENT AND DISTRIBUTION-SUCCESSION UNDER
TREATY-CONSTRUCTION. The treaty between Norway and Sweden
and the United States, providing that the subjects of the contract-
ing parties in the respective states may freely dispose of their goods
and effects by testament or otherwise and that their heirs in what-
ever place they shall reside shall recive the succession, etc., entitles
aliens residing in Sweden to take property devised to them by a
naturalized citizen of the United States; especially in view of the
rule of liberal construction applicable to treaty rights. In re Stix-
SAME INHERITANCE TAX-RIGHTS OF ALIENS-STATUTES-VALID-
ITY. Rem. & Bal. Code, § 9183, providing for an inheritance tax of
twenty-five per cent on all sums passing to collateral relatives who
are aliens not residing in the United States, which exceeds the tax
upon relatives who are citizens of the United States, violates the
treaty between Norway and Sweden and the United States, which
provides that the subjects of the contracting parties may freely dis-
pose of their goods and effects by testament and that their heirs in
whatever place they shall reside shall receive the succession, exempt
from all duty called "droit de detraction" on the part of the govern-
ment of the two states respectively; since an inheritance tax is an
impost or excise on the right to pass the estate and not a tax upon
the property, and the treaty was intended to secure to aliens the
right to succeed to property upon the same terms provided by gen-
eral laws for our own citizens. In re Stixrud's Estate....... 339
TREATIES-CONSTRUCTION-"GOODS AND EFFECTS." A treaty secur-
ing to aliens the right to succeed to "goods and effects" embraces
real property. In re Stixrud's Estate....
The treaty between Norway
and Sweden and the United States, securing to alien "heirs" the
right to "receive the succession" to property, covers the right of
succession by testament as well as by operation of law. In re Stix-