Page images

Parol evidence is competent to show that aft- | cise of special skill or knowledge.-Missouri er the giving of a note there was total failure Pac. Ry. Co. v. Fox (Neb.) 130. of consideration.-Warner v. Schulz (Minn.) 25.

Expert testimony is incompetent where the Parol evidence held admissible to show that subject is within the knowledge of men of bidding in trust property on foreclosure by the common education and experience.-Missouri trustee was for the use of the beneficiaries at Pac. Ry. Co. v. Fox (Neb.) 130. their procurement.-Mareck v.Minneapolis Trust Co. (Minn.) 428.

Expert may testify from personal investiga

tion as to a matter of scientific knowledge.In the absence of fraud or ambiguity, a writ- Green v. Ashland Water Co. (Wis.) 722. ten contract is the only competent evidence thereof.--State Bank of Ceresco v. Belk (Neb.) subject of scientific investigation, held inad

Opinion evidence, based on disputed facts not 58.

missible.-Green v. Ashland Water Co. (Wis.) As between original parties to note and those 722. not bona fide purchasers, it may be shown by parol that one signing in blank on the back 8 13. Weight and sufficiency. was accommodation indorser.-Drexel v. Pus

A judgment lacks evidence to support it ey (Neb.) 351.

when it rests solely on testimony irrelevant

under the issues.-Union Stock-Yards Co. F. That insured truthfully stated facts to agent Goodwin (Neb.) 357. of insurer, who misstated them in application, may be shown by parol.--German Ins. Co. v.

The words "testimony" and "evidence" are Frederick (Neb.) 1106.

not synonymous.-Woolworth v. Parker (Neb.)

1090. In an action by an indorsee of a check against his immediate indorser, defendant may

Whether a letter duly mailed reached its desshow by parol that the indorsement was made tination is a question of fact.-National Masonic solely to transfer title for collection, and that Acc. Ass'n v. Burr (Neb.) 1098. he was not to become liable.-Dickinson v. Finding as to deceased's whereabouts at time Burke (N. D.) 279.

of accident held not sustained by evidenceIn an action on a note, parol evidence is com- Rudiger v. Chicago, St. P., M. & o. Ry. Co. petent to show absence or failure of considera- (Wis.) 169. tion.--Remington v. Detroit Dental Mfg. Co. Courts are not bound to accept improbable (Wis.) 178.

testimony because there is no direct testimony Evidence of an oral agreement made at the contradicting it -Zimmerman v. Bannon (Wis.) time of the execution of a note, limiting the

735. maker's liability thereon. is inadmissible in an

EXAMINATION. action on the note.- Remington v. Detroit Dental Mfg. Co. (Wis.) 178.

Of expert witnesses, see "Evidence," $ 12. $ 12. Opinion evidence. A witness cannot give an opinion as to the

EXCEPTIONS. condition of repair of a house destroyed by fire through negligence, the criterion being its de- In deeds, see “Deeds," $ 3. scription in detail, from which the jury may determine its condition.--McMahon v. City of Dubuque (Iowa) 517.

EXCEPTIONS, BILL OF. On issue as to probable gain of cattle if Necessity for purpose of review, see "Appeal kept on good pasturage, testimony of experts and Error," $$ 3, 10. held admissible.-Ware Cattle Co. v. Anderson Taking exceptions at trial, see “Trial," § 2. (Iowa) 1026. In an action to recover for injuries to a locomo

§ 1. Form and contents in general. tive fireman by the derailing of the engineex- judge, held a sufficient bill of exceptions.-Sigler

Notes of official stenographer, certified by pert testimony as to what certain actions of the v. Murphy (Iowa) 577. engine, known to the engineer, indicated, is ad- ! missible.--Brownfield v. Chicago, R. I. & P. § 2. Settlement and signing. Ry. Co. (Iowa) 1038.

The use of the word "testimony" for "evi. Expert testimony whether a broken axle of dence," in the certificate of allowance of bill an engine might cause its derailment held ad- of exceptions, had not to render the instrument missible in an action to recover for injuries inoperative. Columbia Nat. Bank v. German through the derailing of such engine.-Brown- Nat. Bank (Neb.) 346. field v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. (Iowa) Under Code Civ. Proc. $ 311, a bill of excep1038.

tions, when settled. must be signed by the A medical expert cannot be asked a hypothet- judge with his certificate.-Woolworth v. Parical question which includes, as a part thereof,

ker (Neb.) 1090. his understanding of the testimony of another witness. - Detzur V. B. Stroh Brewing Co.


A witness cannot give an opinion as to the dan. See “Damages,” $ 3.
ger or safety of a broken window pane above a
sidewalk. - Detzur V. B. Stroh Brewing Co.

EXCISE. (Mich.) 948.

Conceding that opinion eridence as to the Regulation of traffic in intoxicating liquors, see danger to pedestrians of a broken window pane

"Intoxicating Liquors.”
above a sidewalk is competent, the witness need
have no special qualifications.-Detzur V. B.

Stroh Brewing Co. (Mich.) 918.
The question of competency of expert is one

See, also, "Attachment”; “Garnishment"; "Joexclusively for the court.-Martin v. Courtney

dicial Sales." (Minn.) 813.

Exemptions, see "Exemptions"; "Homestead." Evidence held not objectionable as being an

Of chattel mortgage, see “Chattel Mortgages," opinion.-Barr v. Post (Neb.) 123.

$ 1. A hypothetical question should not be per

In particular actions or proceedings mitted when it only in part calls for the exer- 'See “Replevin," § 6.


§ 1. Property subject to execution. erwards be recovered from one whose judgment

A judgment creditor may sell the equitable was wholly satisfied from the land.-Weaver v.
interest of the judgment debtor before it has Sheean (Iowa) 528.
been judicially determined.-Sheppard v. Mes-

Denial of motion to set aside sale of realty senger (Iowa) 515.

on execution held proper.-Cunningham v. WaUnder How. Ann. St. $ 7697 et seq., shares ter-Power Sandstone Co. (Minn.) 137. of stock belonging to the judgment debtor, but standing in the name of a third person on the ond lienor, filed 'a notice of intention to redeem

A person who, without authority from a secbooks of the corporation, are not subject to levy. from a first lien, held not a proper party to an -Feige v. Burt (Mich.) 928.

action by a third lienor to redeem without payWhere attached property is replevied, the ing the second lien.-Dunn v. Dewey (Minn.) property cannot be afterwards lawfully taken 793. by attachment or execution at the suit of the original attachment plaintiff.—Shull v. Barton out authority

from a second lienor held a neces

A person who redeemed from a first lien with(Neb.) 132.

sary party to an action by a third lienor to re$ 2. Issuance, form, and requisites of deem without paying the second lien.-Dunn writ.

v. Dewey (Minn.) 793. Execution issued to a county other than that

A complaint by a junior mortgagor to redeem in which judgment was rendered held valid, un- from a prior execution sale must allege that he der Comp. Laws, § 5114, where judgment was produced to the sheriff a certified copy of his docketed before the execution was delivered. | mortgage or an affidavit of the amount due -McDonald v. Fuller (S. D.) 581.

thereon.-Dunn v. Dewey (Minn.) 793. Apparent alteration in execution will be pre- Sheriff's deed executed after confirmation of sumed to have been innocently made before is- sale, and before supersedeas, and delivered after suance.- McDonald v. Fuller (S. D.) 581. judgment of affirmance and filing of mandate, is

Failure of execution, issued to a county other regular.-Green v. Morse (Neb.) 925. than that in which judgment is rendered, to $ 6. Supplementary proceedings. state that a transcript had been filed, held a mere irregularity.–McDonald v. Fuller (S. D.) | hed not to lie to subject to it realty conveyed

A bill in aid of execution against a husband 581.

to the wife, part of which only was homestead, § 3. Lien, levy or extent.

but was subject to incumbrance larger than Where levy on stock of goods is made at 8 the remaining portion.-Kozminski v. Kuzniak o'clock, when owner is absent, officer may take (Mich.) 242. possession of entire stock, and wait until next Order for examination of debtor in aid of exday to make inventory, and to allow owner to ecution under Code Civ. Proc. 88 534, 538, vamake selection of exemptions.—Vanosdall v. cated for insufficient affidavit.-Clarke v. NeHamilton (Mich.) 9.

braska Nat. Bank (Neb.) 805. Levy held valid. - Vanosdall v. Hamilton

Affidavit for an order for examination of (Mich.) 9.

judgment debtor should be set forth by positive The fact that building in which a stock of averments, and not on information and belief.goods is kept is also used as a dwelling does Clarke v. Nebraska Nat. Bank (Neb.) 805. not make levy on goods invalid.-Vanosdall v. Hamilton (Mich.) 9.

8 7. Execution against the person.

Person imprisoned on execution cannot be Whether an officer has waived his levy of ex. discharged until term of imprisonment, by ecution is for the jury.-Vanosdall v. Hamilton Sess. Laws 1847, Act No. 105, $ 2, has ex(Mich.) 9.

pired.-Funke v. Hurst (Mich.) 695. Under execution commanding officer to satisfy it out of property of A. and B., he may sell the separate property of either or the joint property EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS. of both. -West Duluth Land Co. v. Bradley (Minn.) 964.

See, also, “Descent and Distribution"; "Wills." Property levied on within 20 years from judg

Courts of probate, see "Courts," $ 5. 4220, may be sold after such time expires.- Testimony as to transactions with decedents, ment, as required by Rev. St. 1878, 88 2968, Personal liability of executor for corporate stock

of decedent, see “Corporations," $ 4. Brown v. Hopkins (Wis.) 899, 1118.

see "Witnesses," $ 2. 8 4. Claims by third parties.

Where third party claims property levied on, $ 1: Administration in general. he may prove that person through whom he

The citation or notice of hearing of an appliclaims had possession and control as evidence of cation for letters of administration cannot be ownership.-Rollofson v. Nash (Minn.) 934.

collaterally attacked by one not interested in

the estate.-Jackson v. Phillips (Neb.) 683. Evidence held to justify verdict on claim of third person to property seized.--Rollofson v. 8 2. Appointment and qualification. Nash (Minn.) 954.

Common-law rule that testator may delegate

power to choose executor is not abrogated by 5. Sale.

statute, there being no express enactment to The fact that by mistake a second entry of the that effect.-Brown v. Just (Mich.) 263. filing of a transcript of a justice court judgment was erroneously made does not invalidate the

Provision in will that "I make no selection of execution sale, the judgment being valid.

an executor of this will, but leave it for the Therme v. Bethenoid (Iowa) 497.

judge of probate

to make an appoint

ment of some suitable person,” gives judge of Holder of legal title held not to be entitled to probate power of appointment.-Brown v. Just redeem from an execution sale, where the prop- (Mich.) 263. erty was sold on a judgment against the holder of an equitable interest.--Sheppard v. Messen- administration to relative of deceased, does

2 How. Ann. St. § 5849, requiring letters of ger (Iowa) 515.

not apply where deceased left will delegating Mere inadequacy of price does not vitiate an power of selection and appointment to judge execution sale.-Sheppard v. Messenger (Iowa) of probate.-Brown v. Just (Mich.) 263.

Executor appointed by judge of probate unThe value of tax certificates wrongfully sold der delegated power may defend, in courts, his with plaintiff's land on judgment cannot aft- / authority to act.-Brown v. Just (Mich.) 263.


§ 3. Collection and management of es

FALSE IMPRISONMENT. tate. Where an executor procured corporate stock See, also, “Malicious Prosecution." which stood in his own name to be transferred to him as executor, held, that the estate thereby 8 1. Civil liability. became primarily liable to creditors, and he Constables arresting a witness for disobeying became secondarily liable. - Markell 7. Ray an invalid subpoena on warrants apparently regu. (Minn.) 788.

lar are not liable for false imprisonment.-Cham

bers v. Oehler (Iowa) 853. $ 4. Allowance and payment of claims. Executors of the maker of a note held not en

A justice of the peace who issued a subpæna titled to resist payment because of no consider- without authority, and, on its not being obeyed, ation.-Ricketts v. Scothorn (Neb.) 365.

arrested and fined the witness for contempt, is

liable for false imprisonment.-Chambers v. OebUnder Rev. St. 1898, § 3844, claims of non

ler (Iowa) 853. resident creditors against deceased persons, not presented within the required time in the administration of domestic or ancillary administra

FALSE PRETENSES. tion of foreign estates, are forever barred.-Win. ter v. Winter (Wis.) 883.

On trial for obtaining indorsement of draft $ 5. Distribution of estate.

by false representations, evidence that accused There can be no judicial determination that had by similar representations obtained inthere are no claims against an estate until the dorsements of another hed incompetent to expiration of the statutory time for filing claims. prove intent.-- Morgan v. State (Neb.) 64. -Seery v. Murray (Iowa) 1058.

On trial for obtaining indorsement of draft

by false representations, that accused had by § 6. Actions. The vested interest of a beneficiary in a tes from another held inadmissible as res geste.

similar representations obtained indorsements tamentary trust held not subject to attachment. Morgan v. State (Neb.) 64. -Merriam v. Wagener (Minn.) 44. Where the interest of a beneficiary not sub

FALSE SWEARING. ject to attachment is nevertheless seized, the trustees may have the levy set aside, if it is liable to embarrass them in the execution of

See "Perjury.” the trust.-Merriam v. Wagener (Minn.) 44. Under Comp. St. 1897, c. 23, § 337, a foreign

FEDERAL QUESTIONS. executor or administrator may sie in Nebraska.- Jackson v. Phillips (Neb.) 683.

Grounds for jurisdiction, see “Courts," 8 7. § 7. Accounting and settlement. Final account of executor should not be ap

FEES. proved until trust has been fully executed. Cowherd v. Kitchen (Neb.) 1107.

In particular actions or proceedings.

Probate proceedings, see "Wills," $ 3.

See, also, "Homestead.”
§ 1. Nature and extent.

See "Master and Servant," $ 5. Wife living with husband and their children on her farm held entitled, under Gen. St. 1894,

FENCES. $ 5459, subd. 7, to claim necessary provisions for farm products for one year as exempt from

One fencing his land with barb wire is not sale on execution against her. – Boelter v. liable for horses injured thereby.Godden v. Klossner (Minn.) 4.

Coonan (Iowa) 852. Const. art. 1, § 12, providing that exempted

Evidence that horses were injured by a barbproperty shall be liable to sale for work or materials furnished in its construction or im- wire fence around a pasture, a part of which provement, held to subject exempted property to

was put up by an adjoining owner, is insufficient sale for debts specified, as if no exemption law to sustain a recovery against such owner.-Godexisted.-Nickerson v. Crawford (Minn.) 292.

den v. Coonan (Iowa) 852. Where debt for materials furnished to erect

A landowner cannot complain that the fences dwelling on homestead is assigned, held, that the of an adjoining owner are incomplete, where his land remained subject to sale in favor of the own acts prevented the completion of the fence.

-Godden v. Coonan (Iowa) 852. assignee.-Nickerson y. Crawford (Minn.) 292. Under Rev. St. 1898. $ 2313, exempting tools, third person to build fence round unoccupied

Where defendant, for his principal, employed implements, and stock in trade of a mechanic of lands, and such person, in violation of instrucmerchant, a merchant may select "implements” tions, erected an unlawful fence across wellinstead of "stock.” – Cunningham v. Robdy defined trail, defendant is not liable for injuries (Wis.) 740.

resulting under Rev. Code, $ 7550.-Kuhnert v. EXHIBITS.

Angell (N. D.) 1015. Annexed to pleading, see “Pleading," $ 6.

Verdict for injuries to horses by collision with improperly constructed fence on well-defined

trail, under Rev. Code, $ 7550, must be supportEXPERT TESTIMONY.

ed by evidence connecting defendant with the In criminal prosecutions, see “Criminal Law," unlawful act.-Kuhnert v. Angell (N. D.) 1015. § 4.


Chattel mortgage, see "Chattel Mortgages," $ 2.
Retroactive operation of statutes, see "Stat. Pleading, see "Pleading," $ 7.
utes," § 4.

FINAL JUDGMENT. See “Principal and Agent."

Appealability, see "Appeal and Error," § 1.

[ocr errors]


FORMS OF ACTION. Review on appeal or writ of error, see "Ap- See "Action,” & 2; “Assumpsit, Action of"; peal and Error," 8 24.

"Ejectment”; “Replevin"; "Trover and ConSpecial findings by jury, see "Trial," $ 6.



See "Seduction," 1.
Machinery which may or may not become at-
tached to the freehold will retain character of

FRAUD. personalty under contract between vendor and vendee to that effect.-Arlington Mill & Eleva- See, also, “False Pretenses"; Fraudulent Contor Co. v. Yates (Neb.) 677.

veyances." Where engine is purchased for flouring mill, Effect on limitation, see “Limitation of Acand chattel mortgage given to secure price, the tions," $ 2. engine will be regarded as personalty, where in particular classes of conveyances, contracts, rights of innocent third parties are not prejudiced.-Edwards & Bradford Lumber Co. v.

or transuctions. Rank (Neb.) 765.

See Assignments for Benefit of Creditors,"

[ocr errors]



8 1. Actions.

Party alleging fraud must establish it by clear See "Trusts," $ 2.

and satisfactory evidence.-Hampton v. Web

ster (Neb.) 50. FOOD.

Statements by defendant to commercial agen

cies and their reports held admissible where reIn a prosecution under Pub. Acts 1897, No. lied on by plaintiff in making the loan.--Nation71, for selling an improper standard of vinegar, al Bank of Merrill v. Illinois & W. Lumber Co. the prosecution need not furnish accused with (Wis.) 185. a sample of the vinegar in question.-People v. On an issue of the truth of a statement that Worden Grocer Co. (Mich.) 315.

a corporation was making money in 1895 and Pub. Acts 1897, No. 71, is violated by a sale 1896, a voluntary assignment in 1897 held ad

missible.-National Bank of Merrill v. Illinois of vinegar of an improper standard though the seller did not know that it was not & W. Lumber Co. (Wis.) 185. of the required standard.-People v. Worden Grocer Co. (Mich.) 315.

FRAUDS, STATUTE OF. The question whether Pub. Acts 1897, No. & 1. Promises to answer for debt of an71, is void, because unreasonable, is not one

other. of fact to be determined from evidence.- Peo

Agreement for novation held not within statple v. Worden Grocer Co. (Mich.) 315.

ute.-Martin v. Curtis (Mich.) 690. Under Pub. Acts 1897, No. 71, $8 1, 2, cider

Promise to pay debt of another cannot be vinegar is required to have a stated per cent. enforced unless in writing signed by the party. of ash or pure mineral matter, the product of -Fisher v. Donovan (Neb.) 778. apples, as well as a stated per cent. of vinegar solids of apple.-People v. Worden Grocer Co. & 2.. Sales of goods. (Mich.) 315.

Evidence held sufficient to sustain a finding of delivery after sale sufficient to satisfy the statute

of frauds.- Ward v. Ward (Minn.) 965. FORCIBLE DEFILEMENT.

An oral agreement for the sale of goods See "Rape."

equaling $50 in value is not validated by a mere delivery of the goods. They must be ac

cepted as well.-Dinnie v. Johnson (N. D.) 612. FORCIBLE ENTRY AND DETAINER. Evidence held not to show an acceptance of

the goods.- Dinnie v. Johnson (N. D.) 612. 1. Civil liability.

Purchaser at judicial sale can bring forcible entry to recover possession, where judgment debt

FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES. or was in possession when judgment was ren. By insolvent, see "Insolvency,” $ 2. dered.-Green v. Morse (Neb.) 925.

8 1. Transfers and transactions invalid. FORECLOSURE.

Where conveyance from husband to wife is

not made to hinder or defraud subsequent Of lien, see "Mechanics' Liens," $ 4.

creditors, it will not be set aside in favor of Of mortgage, see “Chattel Mortgages," $ 8; such creditors although made without adequate "Mortgages," $ 8.

consideration.-King v. Wells (Iowa) 338.

Transaction between husband and wife exam

ined, and held not fraudulent.-Everist v. Pierce FOREIGN CORPORATIONS.

(Iowa) 508. See "Corporations," $ 6.

A payment by insolvent debtor of claim of one of his creditors is not void as to others,

where it is not part of general assignment. FORFEITURES.

First Nat. Bank v. Garretson (Iowa) 856; Beloit

State Bank v. Same, Id.; North Granville Nat. Of homestead, see “Homestead," § 3.

Bank v. Same, Id. Of insurance, see “Insurance," $ 16.

One purchasing mortgaged property from as

signee in insolvency cannot avoid mortgage as FORGERY.

fraudulent to insolvent's creditors.--Olson v.

Hanson (Winn.) 231. One forging a request for property held to Preferential mortgages given by insolvent, if have forged an order, within How. Ann. St. 8 free from fraud, are valid, except in insolvency. 9213.- People v. Phillips (Mich.) 245.

-Dyson v. Johnson (Minn.) 236. 77 N.W.-73

Verdict that a sale of personalty was made Evidence held to sustain finding that property with intent to defraud creditors, to the knowl- taken by garnishment was that of defendant. edge of the purchaser, held sustained by the evi-1 -Peterson v. Herber (Minn.) 418. dence.-Benson v. Nash (Minn.) 991.

§ 2. Proceedings to procure. To show want of good faith in purchaser of

Any number of parties may be included as personalty, it may be shown that he did not garnishees in the same summons.-Northwestsearch the record as to title, and that at time of ern Fuel Co. v. Kofod (Minn.) 206. purchase there was a chattel mortgage on the property, of which he claimed to have no knowl

Summons held to sufficiently designate the edge.-Benson v. Nash (Minn.) 991.

court or officer before whom it was returnable.

-Northwestern Fuel Co. v. Kofod (Minn.) 206. A creditor fairly collecting a debt justly due can dispose of the proceeds as he sees fit, $ 3. Lien of garnishment and liability without making himself trustee in his own

of garnishee. wrong for other creditors.-Solomon v. C. M. Where plaintiff elects to take money judgSchneider & Co. (Neb.) 65.

ment against garnishee, it discharges the propRev. St. 1878, $ 2320, avoids every fraudu- erty from equitable lien.-Maxwell v. Bank of

New Richmond (Wis.) 149. lent conveyance, whether made to hinder existing or subsequent creditors.-Zimmerman v. A reversal on appeal of a judgment discharBannon (Wis.) 735.

ging garnishee does not revive equitable lien of A conveyance made in fraud of creditors, against garnishee. - Maxwell v. Bank of New

garnishment, or entitle plaintiff to judgment with the grantee's knowledge, is none the less Richmond (Wis.) 149. void because given to secure a valid debt.Zimmerman v. Bannon (Wis.) 735.

8 4. Proceedings to support or enforce. Facts held sufficient to show that a mortgage

Garnishee held not bound by its first disclosure. was given with intent to hinder and delay the --Dunn v. Swan (Mich.) 6. mortgagor's creditors, and was therefore void.- Disclosure of garnishee may be amended aftZimmerman v. Bannon (Wis.) 735.

er submission of issues, but before judgment, to

show claim by mortgilgee, so as to permit inter§ 2. Remedies of creditors.

vention.-Dunn v. Swan (Mich.) 6. Petition to set aside mortgage as fraudulent should show the debtor's property is not suffi

Judgment in favor of garnishee extinguishes cient above the mortgage to pay his debts.-Hill lien, and protects garnishee and those dealing v. Denneny (Iowa) 472.

with him pending appeal.-Maxwell v. Bank

of New Richmond (Wis.) 149. Evidence held not to show that conveyance from debtor to creditor of company was fraudu- $ 5. Claims by third persons. lent.--First Nat. Bank v. Garretson (Iowa) 836; A court held, under 2 How. Ann. St. & 8085, Beloit State Bank v. Same, Id.; North Gran: to have properly made an order in a garnishee ville Nat. Bank v. Same, Id.

proceeding interpleading defendant and anothParol evidence held admissible to prove oral plaintiff and garnishee.-Marx v. Grove (Mich.)

er, as co-partners, and framed an issue between waiver of performance of contract to sell land

449, by extending time of payment.-Scheerschmidt v. Smith (Minn.) 34.

An order made under 2 How. Ann. St. & 8085, Gift of property used in going concern, where a party claiming a fund in the garnishee's pos

on plaintiff's ex parte application to interplead donor continues in possession, cannot be chal. session, held not void if irregular, and not sublenged by one who has not parted with property ject to vacation, except for a meritorious reaon the faith of appearance of ownership, or son.-Marx v. Grove (Mich.) 449. prejudiced except by incurring costs in action.Frei v. McMurdo (Wis.) 915.

Where evidence at disclosure shows a third party had asserted ownership, held proper to

proceed, under Gen. St. 1894, § 5318, to comFREIGHT.

pel claimant to appear and maintain his rights.

-King v. Carroll-Porter Boiler & Tank Co. See "Carriers," 8 1.

(Minn.) 409.

Plaintiff in garnishment held entitled to perGAMING.

sonal judgment against garnishee, or injunction

to restrain him from parting with the property, § 1. Gambling contracts and transac- and a right to follow the property as against tions.

purchasers from garnishee with notice.-MaxA party to a wager held not entitled to recover

well v. Bank of New Richmond (Wis.) 149. where he had not revoked the transaction und 8 6. Operation and effect of garnishnotified the stakeholder before payment of the

ment. money.--Trenery v. Goudie (Iowa) 467.

ervice of process creates equitable lien on § 2. Criminal responsibility.

property of defendant in hands of garnishee as Complaint held to sufficiently charge defend against purchaser from garnishee with notice. ants with keeping a gambling house, contrary

- Maxwell v. Bank of New Richmond (Wis.)

149. to city ordinance.--State v. Grimes (Minn.) 4. Evidence held to sustain conviction for keep

GIFTS. ing a gambling house. - State Grimes

$ 1. Causa mortis. (Minn.) 4.

Evidence held to show no such delivery at the Where defendant was indicted for keeping time of the donation as to constitute a gist gaming tables, he cannot be convicted on evi- causa mortis.-Allen v. Allen (Minn.) 567. dence that he aided and a betted another in so doing.--Oerter v. State (Neb.) 367.


Of purchaser, see “Bills and Notes," § 4; "Ven

dor and Purchaser," $ 3. 1. Persons and property subject to garnishment.

GRAND JURY. An administrator is not subject to garnishment

a judgment against himself. – Casady v. Action of grand jury in bringing accused beGrimmelman (Iowa) 1067.

fore it held not error, he being fully apprised of

[ocr errors]


« PreviousContinue »