Page images
PDF
EPUB

STATUTE OF FRAUDS.

3. Promise to pay debt of another must be in writing which shows the
terms of the contract, without resort to parol evidence. Hall vs. Soule, 695
4. Parol promise is not a legal consideration for subsequent one in
writing. Id.

STREAM.

1. Owner of land on a natural stream has a right to reasonable use of
water without regard to the effect on lower owners. Springfield vs. Harris, 380

STREETS.

See MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS, 5, 10.

ROADS, 6.

1. The fee of streets in a city resides in the city corporation in trust.
People et al. vs. Kerr et al.,

SUBTERRANEAN WATERS,

SUIT.

1. Action against a foreign corporation under New York Code is a
"suit." Note to Barney vs. Globe Bank,

SUNDAY.

[ocr errors]

1. Contract for advertisement in Sunday newspaper void. Smith et al.
vs. Wilcox et al.,

· 377

65

221

59

2. An act done on Sunday, but not in the ordinary calling of the parties,
not void under the statute of Rhode Island. Allen vs. Gardiner,

442

SURETY.

See EXECUTOR, 1.

1. Where a party executes a bond as surety with another, whose name
appears to the bond, but which name has been forged, he will not be
liable. Seely vs. The People,

[ocr errors]

344
2. Surety has the same equitable defence against an assignee for
bencfit of creditors as he has against the assignor. Reed vs. Sands, 185
3. Variation of contract without his knowledge releases him. Bagley
vs. Clark,

[blocks in formation]

. 567

[blocks in formation]

1. Insertion of an improper item makes the warrant void only for the
excess. Colton vs. Beardsley,

[ocr errors]

TENANT IN COMMON.

See EASEMENT, 3

TRESPASS, 1.

TIME.

See COURTS, 15.

560

TORT.

See ASSUMPSIT, 2.

1. In action for tort after failure of proof that the taking was wrongful,
plaintiff should be nonsuited-he cannot amend by changing the action
to assumpsit. Ransom vs Wetmore,

TOWN.

See MUNICIPAL CORPORATION.

TRESPASS.

1. Cannot be maintained by tenant in common against his co-tenant,
unless in case of unequivocal ouster. Filbert vs. Hoff,

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

. 765

502

2. Will lie for erection of a bay-window over land of adjoining owner,
although it is used as a highway. Codman et al. vs. Evans,
699
3. In action for trespass on land plaintiff must show actual possession
in himself or a judgment awarding it to him. Cowenhoven vs. Brooklyn, 506

TRIAL.

See STATUTE OF FRAUDS, 2.

1. Where a judge, at the circuit, on ex parte application, irregularly
refers a cause to a referee to try the whole issue, and the party who has
a right to object proceeds with the trial of the action, produces evidence,
and submits the case to the referee without objection, the question of the
irregularity of the reference cannot be raised upon an appeal. Claflin
vs. Farmers', &c., Bank,

2. Judge at trial may state to the jury his recollection of what has
been testified to. Eddy vs. Gray,

3. Judge may inquire of jury the ground of their verdict.
Earle,

4. Answer of Court to prayer for instruction to the jury.
Durst,

[ocr errors]

92

253

[ocr errors][merged small]

445

Schilling vs.

447

697

765

5. It was error to allow counsel to read books of reports to the jury
and comment upon them.

6. Charge to jury as to

TROVER.

See CONFLICT OF LAWS, 2.

Phoenix Ins. Co. vs. Allen,

effect of verdict. Waffle vs. Dillenbeck,

1. For one of four billiard-tables sustained, though the particular one
to which plaintiff had title was not proved. Clark vs. Griffith et al.,
2. Lies for goods stolen, after the prosecution for larceny but inde-
pendently of it. Hutchinson vs. Merchants' and Mechanics' Bank,
3. The Statute of Limitations does not begin to run against plaintiff in
trover till the termination of the prosecution. Id.

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

1. SALES AND TITLES UNDER DEEDS OF TRUST,
2. One sui juris cannot, as against creditors, settle his property in
trust for his own use for life and over to his appointees by will. Macka-
son's Appeal,

[ocr errors][merged small]

3. Devise in trust for support of school of certain kind held valid.
Tainter et al. vs. Clark,

[merged small][ocr errors]

4. Does not become extinguished by failure of trustee to accomplish
its purpose.

Id.

5. What may be considered income and what principal where a special
partnership of testator is continued by trustees. Kinmouth vs. Brigham
et al.,

6. Presumption of conveyance and surrender to cestui que trust. Brown
vs. Combs et al.,

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

UNITED STATES LOANS AND STOCKS.

See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, II.

USURY.

1. Conveyance of land subject to usurious mortgage.
rison et al.,

Hartley vs. Har-

57

2. If note is purchased for less than its face from an agent of the
maker it will be usurious, though the purchaser does not know that the
seller is acting only as agent. Sylvester vs. Swan,

3. Is a personal defence. Sellers vs. Botsford,

VENDOR AND VENDEE.

See CONTRACT, 1.
JUDGMENT, 2

I. Of Real Estate.

1. Deed-Escrow-Death of Vendor. Teneick vs. Flagg,

557

570

52

2. Nature of their respective interests after entry of vendee on land
under contract for purchase. Smith vs. Gage,

438

3. Vendee's possession under such contract is notice to all persons of
his rights under the contract.

Id.

4. Of land under executory contract-stipulation to "improve the pre-
mises," is void for indefiniteness. Morris vs. Hoyt,

5. Evidence of intention of vendor to rescind. Id

[ocr errors]

6. When vendee in default asks specific performance in payment of in-
stalments, compound interest will be required. Id.

II. Of Personalty.

7. Sale-fraud-purchase with design not to pay. Hennequin et al. vs.
Naylor,

[ocr errors]

8. Rescission of sale--vendee becoming insolvent placed goods in
warehouse subject to vendor's order and notified him-vendor's assent
subsequently related back to that time and made his title good against
intermediate attaching creditor. Sturtevant vs. Orser et al.

9. Misrepresentations in conditions of sale. Allen vs. Robbins,
10. If purchaser expressly relies on assertion of seller as to value, he
may have action for fraudulent representations, whether the contract is
in writing or not. Picard vs. McCormick,

11. Bill of sale will not exclude parol evidence. Id.

569

58

318

442

695

12. In action for deceit in sale of property, other representations made
by defendant at the same time as those set forth in the declaration are
admissible in evidence. Pedrick vs. Porter,

13. But an action will not lie for false representations as to future pro-
fits that may be made. Id.

VOLUNTARY CONVEYANCE.
See TRUST, 2.

WARRANTY.

767

See INSURANCE, 7.

1. Cardinal rule in construction of, is "to read the writing." Deblois
vs. Earle,

441

2. Assignor of a note and collateral security, with warranty of collec-
tion, not liable until failure of assignee to recover on both note and col-
lateral. Barman vs. Carhartt,

[blocks in formation]

3. Guaranty of collection of a note implies that it is collectable by due
course of law. Cady et al. vs. Sheldon et al.,

439

4. Resort to legal proceedings is not indispensable if it appears that
they would be ineffectual. Id.

ΠΑΣ.

See ROADS.

1. Right to erect gates. Stevens vs. Allen,

2. Presumption of grant from user. Pierce vs. Cloud,

WHARFINGER.

1. Has no power to sell goods deposited on his wharf, for unpaid
wharfage. Kusenburg vs. Browne,

WILD ANIMALS.

1. Keeper is bound to exercise such care as will prevent injuries tc
other persons through such vicious acts as the animals are naturally
inclined to commit. Scribner vs. Kelly,

WILL.

See DECEDENTS' ESTATES, 2-3.

[ocr errors]

1. Need not be read to or by the testator. Hess's Appeal,

2. A mark is a signing of the name within the meaning of the statute.
Morris et al. vs. Kniffin,

[ocr errors]

3. Undue influence over testator-presumption from unlawful relations
of parties. Dean et ux. vs. Negley et al.

4. Evidence-exemplification under New York statutes.
Crockford,

55

446

.

503

559

633

816

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

5. Acceptance of a devise subject to an annuity creates a personal lia-
bility for the annuity. Gridley vs. Gridley,

6. Sale directed by, "so that it be within one year," is valid if made
afterwards. Shalter & Ebling's Appeal,

7. Devise to one by name given to another by description.
Appeal,

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

8. Bequest of money, "both principal and interest (if she needs it)
during her lifetime."

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

1. Privilege to decline answering-right of parties to object to ques-
tion to witness. Newcomb vs. Griswold,

[ocr errors]

2. Impeaching or sustaining witness-what knowledge he must have
to make him competent to testify concerning other witnesses' character.
Curtis vs. Fay,

3. Opinions of witnesses, to be competent evidence, must be such as
amount in some degree to knowledge of existing facts. Harpending vs.
Shoemaker,

[ocr errors]

4. Interest, to disqualify, must be direct, certain, and immediate, in
the result of the suit. Scull vs. Mason et al.

121

634

. 634

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

248.

. 635

5. Vendor who had no title is not competent witness for vendee in ac-
tion by the real owner. Kusenburg vs. Browne,

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]
« PreviousContinue »