Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

BOARDS.

cm 63 (Cal.App.) Where defendant agreed to

take a loan of $26,000 from any party, if ne-
See Insurance, em 3, 4.

gotiated, and to pay plaintiff loan broker a

commission of 712 per cent. on the amount, and
BONA FIDE PURCHASERS. defendant either accepted and received the loan

and then refused to pay the commission, or re-
See Bills and Notes, em 335–373; Vendor and fused to accept and receive the loan when pro-
Purchaser, Cm 231-245.

cured by plaintiff broker, defendant broke its

contract.-Hughes v. Chung Sun Tung Co., 154
BONDS.

P. 299.
See Bail; Justices of the Peace, em 159; Me- Ow65 (Kan.) An agent held not entitled to a
chanics' Liens, em227, 229; Municipal Cor-commission for procuring a contract for the ex-
porations, w917, 918; Principal and Sure- change of certain properties where it appeared
ty; Replevin, em 130-135; Sheriffs and Con- that the contract had been fraudulently altered
stables, 157–168; States, m101; Ven- by the agent.-Yan Horn v. Wetterhold, 154 P.
dor and Purchaser, 54, 273, 285.

274.
I. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY. V. ACTIONS FOR COMPENSATION.

35 (Cal.) A bond given solely to comply w86 (Kan.) Evidence in an action for com-
with a statute which is itself void, or which mission on sale of realty held to show that an
does not require the bond as supposed, is with oral contract superseding the written one be-
out binding force.-Roystone Co. v. Darling, tween the parties did not bind plaintiffs to sell
154 P. 15.

the property at $3,500 to be entitled to a com-
BOUNDARIES.

mission.-Rance v. Robinson Inv. Co., 154 P.

224.
II. EVIDENCE, ASCERTAINMENT, AND Om88 (Wash.) Evidence held sufficient to jus-
ESTABLISHMENT.

tify submission to the jury of the issue whether
en 54 (Wyo.) Under Comp. St. 1910, $ 1292, a broker's contract to sell real estate for a com-
the surveyor's certificate is sufficient to warrant mission was subsequently altered to waive the
a finding of the court in favor of one claiming commission in case of sale for cash.–Payzant v.
under it.-Pool v. Baker, 154 P. 328.

Caudill, 154 P. 170.
BRIEFS.

BUILDING AND LOAN ASSOCIA-
See Appeal and Error, Om768, 773; Criminal

TIONS.
Law, 1130.

On 26 (Okl.) Under Laws Colo. 1897, p. 125, 8
BROKERS.

6, a Colorado building and loan association may

loan its accumulations to members on plan of
See Trial, em 252.

repayment provided for in its by-laws, and may

contract for and recover a premium on plan as
II. EMPLOYMENT AND AUTHORITY. may be provided for in the by-laws or note or
em? (Or.) Where realty brokers, replying to other evidence of debt, which notes shall be in
a response to their advertisement, stated that form nonnegotiable. -Legg v. Midland Savings
the owner of the places they advertised could & Loan Co., 154 P. 682.
not consider the property of the person who Omar 27 (Okl.) A contract between a Colorado
answered, and then made a counter offer, no building and loan association and one of its
contract of employment of the brokers by the members made in Oklahoma territory, to be per-
party resulted. —Lueddemann v. Rudolf, 154 P. formed in Colorado, is governed by the law of
116.

Colorado, and, if valid there and not violative

of the public policy of such territory, is enforce-
IV. COMPENSATION AND LIEN. able in Oklahoma.---Legg v. Midland Savings &
Om43 (Or.) By direct provision of L. O. L., & Loan Co., 154 P. 682.
808, an agreement authorizing or employing an On28 (Okl.) A Colorado building and loan as-
agent or broker to sell or purchase real estate sociation may without competitive bidding loan
for compensation or commission must be in its accumulations where its by-laws so provide.
writing. ---Lueddemann v. Rudolf, 154 P. 116. --Legg v. Midland Sayings & Loan Co., 154 P.
m50 (Cal.App.) An option to sell realty given 682.
to brokers, providing that it should remain in

BUILDING CONTRACTS.
force for 90 days, and that, if the owner sold,
within 90 days after expiration, to one whom See Principal and Surety, enn 82.
the agents had recommended the property, the
owner would pay a 5 per cent. commission, lim-

BUILDINGS.
ited to 90 days the time during which the
agents' authority to sell or negotiate a sale See Adjoining Landowners, em4; Contracts,
should exist.-Elsea v. Fassler, 154 P. 1067. ww198; Master and Servant, 316, 318,
An option to sell realty given brokers, pro-

320, 330.
viding it should remain in force for 90 days,

BURGLARY.
and that, if the owner sold within 90 days after
expiration to one to whom the land was recom- See Criminal Law, 414; Insurance, em84.
mended by the brokers, the owner should pay
a commission, was an agreement to pay the II. PROSECUTION AND PUNISHMENT.
brokers a commission if the land was sold m41 (Nev.) Evidence held to justify convic-
within 90 days after expiration of the option to tion.-State v. Whitaker, 154 P. 927.
one to whom it was recommended by the bro-
kers during the 90 days of the option's life.

Evidence held to justify finding that the mill
--Id.

was broken into in the nighttime between sun-
54 (Kan.) An agent held not entitled to a 6634.-10.

set and sunrise, as defined by Rev. Laws, &
commission for procuring a contract for the ex-
change of certain properties, where it appeared CANCELLATION OF INSTRUMENTS.
that the contract had been fraudulently altered
by the agent, and that the person procured was See Exchange of Property, ww5; Quieting Ti.
not able, ready, and willing to perform.-Van tle; Reformation of Instruments; Venue,
Horn v. 'Wetterbold, 154 P. 274.

40.
For cases in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER

CAPITAL.

ally to be apprehended.McGilchrist v. Port.

land, E. & E. Ry. Co., 154 P. 419.
See Corporations, On 62.

Om 303 (Wash.) A street car conductor's an-

nouncement of a stopping place is not of itself
CARNAL KNOWLEDGE.

an invitation to a passenger to alight before the
See Rape.

car comes to a full stop, and does not show that

the conductor intended or had any reason to be-
CARRIERS.

lieve that the passenger would alight before the
See Courts, em 489; Railroads, w218; Re- çar stopped.--Sumner v. Grays Harbor Ry. &
lease, w21; Sales, Em161; Trial, On 260. Light Co., 154 P. 126.

Where a passenger, on announcement of her
I. CONTROL AND REGULATION OF stopping place went to the platform, stood ir
COMMON CARRIERS.

the doorway, and stepped from the car while it

was slowly coming to a stop, the conductor's
(A) In General.

failure to warn her that the car was in motion
Om 12. (Kan.) Before a special privilege to stop was not negligence.--Id.
cattle in transit to test the market can be grant-m316 (Mont.) Derailment of a car, injuring a
ed, it is necessary that the tariffs pertaining passenger, raises a presumption of negligence.
thereto be filed with the Public Utilities Com - Freeman v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 154
mission, and be open to all shippers on equal | P. 912.
terms. --Mollohan v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. m318 (Kan.) Evidence in an action for the
Co., 154 P. 248.

death of an alleged passenger from slipping on
w 13 (Kan.) Where cattle were shipped from B. ice and falling beneath the train, held not to
to P. at the regularly published and filed rates, show that defendant failed to perform any duty
held that a special contract, giving privilege owed deceased, or that his death was the proxi.
of stoppage in transit to test the market, was mate result of defendant's negligence.-Rodgers
preferential and discriminatory, and violative v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 154 P. 1027.
of Gen. St. 1909, $8 7174, 7178, 7181, 7214, em 318 (Mont.) Evidence in a passenger's ac-
7223, and Public Utilities Act. --Mollohan v. tion for personal injury when his train was de-
Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 154 P. 248.

railed held to show a causal connection between

the derailment and his wrist-drop and minor in-
II. CARRIAGE OF GOODS.

juries and to establish liability for the damages.
(A) Delivery to Carrier.

-Freeman v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry, Co., 154
Omw40 (Kan.) The words "actual cost of the P. 912,
same” in a tariff provision relating to repair w318 (Wash.) Evidence in a passenger's ac-
of cars by the shipper, include the cost of the tion for personal injury while alighting from
necessary material and labor, but not the cost defendant's street car, apart from any negli-
of inspecting or cleaning cars or attaching grain gence of the conductor in failing to warn her
doors.-Rock Milling & Elevator Co. v. Atchi- that the car was still in motion, held not to
son, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 154 P. 254.

show any negligence on the part of the defend-

ant.-Sumner v. Grays Harbor Ry. & Light
(J) Charges and Liens.

Co., 154 P. 126.
@mw 19642 (Kan.) In a shipper's action against Om3!8 (Wash.) Evidence, in action for person-
a railroad for furnishing grain doors, plaintiff al injury from negligence of defendant when its
could not recover by showing merely the total outbound car, approaching at full speed, with-
cost of all doors furnished by him including an out warning, or any attempt to stop, struck
unascertained number of items for which no plaintiff, as he was boarding an inbound car,
charge could be made under the rulings of the held to sustain verdict for plaintiff.-Bemiss v.
Interstate Commerce Commission because they Puget Sound Traction Light & Power Co., 154
accrued in interstate shipments.-Stockton Ele- P. 171.
vator & Shipping Ass'n v. Missouri Pac. Ry. On 320 (Mont.) Where the evidence produced
Co., 154 P. 1126.

by a carrier tends to rebut the presumption of

negligence arising from a derailment, its utmost
III. CARRIAGE OF LIVE STOCK.

effect, in view of Rev. Codes, $ 8028, subd. 2, is
207 (Kan.) Where the tariffs filed with the to raise a question for the jury.-Freeman' v.
Public Utilities Commission specified the points Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 154 P. 912.
at which live stock might be stopped in transit
to test the market, any special contract enlarg- (E) Contributory Negligence of Person
ing on that privilege, which is not specified in

Injured.
the_tariffs, is void.-Mollohan v. Atchison, T. m333 (Kan.) An attempt by a street car pas-
S. F. Ry. Co., 154 P. 248.

senger to alight a short distance from the usual
emo 227 (Okl.) In an action for damages to a stopping place held not contributory negligence
shipment of cattle, held, that the admission of if she believed the car had come to a stop in
evidence on the issue of a waiver of terms of response to her signal.-Christian v. Union
the shipment contract was error, where such Traction Co., 154 P. 271.
issue was not raised by the pleadings.-Atchi-m347 (Kan.) A passenger who alighted while
son, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Lynn & Hudson, 154 the car was in motion and before it reached the
P. 657.

place for discharge of passengers, and passed

around the rear end of the car, and was struck
IV. CARRIAGE OF PASSENGERS. by a car moving on a parallel 'track in a direc-
(C) Performance of Contract of Transpor- tion opposite to that of the car from which he

alighted, held guilty of contributory negligence
Eww 271 (Okl.) An intending passenger should Interurban Ry. Co., 154 P. 238.

as a matter of law.-Galloway v. Hutchinson
inform himself whether the train on which he
takes passage will, under the carrier's regula-C347 (Or.) It cannot be said as matter of
tions, stop at his destination.-Chicago, R. I. & law that it is negligent to alight from a moving
P. Ry. Co. v. Sheets, 154 P. 550.

car, but the circumstances and the speed of the

car make it a question for the jury.--McGil-
(D) Personal Injuries.

christ v. Portland, E. & E. Ry. Co., 154 P. 419.
280 (Or.) A common carrier owes to its cm347 (Wash.) In passenger's action for in-
passengers the highest degree of care, prudence, jury when struck by defendant's outbound car
and foresight consistent with the practical op as he was about to board its inbound car, held
eration of its road or the utmost skill and care that his contributory negligence was a question
consistent with its business, in view of the in- for the jury.-Bemiss v. Puget Sound Traction
strumentalities employed and the danger natur Light & Power Co., 154 P. 171.

tation.

348 (Or.) In action for personal injury

CHARACTER.
when thrown from car by its sudden jerk as
plaintiff was alighting, instruction that, if it See Witnesses, w342.
was so dark as to make it obviously dangerous
to alight there while the car was moving, plain-

CHARGE.
tiff was guilty of contributory negligence, held
not objectionable in view of the evidence.—MC- By carrier, see Carriers, ww12, 1964.
Gilchrist v. Portland, E. & E. Ry. Co., 154 P. By telephone companies, see Telegraphs and
419.

Telephones, m33.

To jury, see Trial, Omw194–295.
(F) Ejection of Passengers and Intruders.
Om 383 (Okl.) Under the evidence in a passen-

CHARITIES.
ger's action for being forcibly ejected from a 1. CREATION, EXISTENCE, AND VA-
train, held, that whether plaintiff was misin-

LIDITY.
formed or misled by the carrier's servants as to
the regular stopping place of the train and

20 (Or.) Under will devising realty to es-
whether he was thereby induced to believe that tablish home for wayward girls, with reversion
the train would stop at his destination, were

to Churches of Christ Scientist, it was not in-
questions for the jury. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. tended that there should be any legal connection
Co. v. Sheets, 154 P. 550.

between the churches and the Mother Church,

and not necessary that such relation appear in
CASE-MADE.

their articles of incorporation, if otherwise

shown.-Carson v. Schulderman, 154 P. 903.
See Appeal and Error, em 562–568.

CHARTER.
CAUSE OF ACTION.

See Municipal Corporations, m47, 958.
See Action.

CHATTEL MORTGAGES.
CAVEAT EMPTOR.

See Evidence, cm 441.
See Vendor and Purchaser, em 37.

I. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY.
CERTAINTY.

(A) Nature and Essentials of Transfers of
See Contracts, w9; Criminal Law, Om 875.

Chattels as Security.

en 5 (Kan.) An assignment of the proceeds of
CERTIFICATE.

a contract due and to become due for furnish-
See Acknowledgment; Appeal and Error, en

ing materials and labor to a building contractor
612, 614; Corporations, w99; Municipal tion to be valid against a garnisheeing creditor.

held not a chattel mortgage requiring registra-
Corporations, m577.

- Hall v. Kansas City Terra Cotta Co., 154 P.

210.
CERTIFICATION,

Om6 (Idaho) Whether the instrument sued on
See Appeal and Error, em 612, 614.

was a conditional sale note or a chattel mort-

gage, and whether plaintiff mistook his remedy
CERTIORARI.

in seeking to have it decreed to be a chattel

mortgage and foreclosed, depended on the agree.
See Appeal and Error, em 660; Eminent Do- ment of the contracting parties and their in.

main, 264; Physicians and Surgeons, me tent as shown by the facts and circumstances.
11; Taxation, 299.

-Keane v. Kibble, 154 P. 972.
I. NATURE AND GROUNDS.

38 (Idaho) Under Rev. Codes, $ 3392, held,

that the fact that a transfer was made subject
m5 (Wash.) Where attorneys for original re- to a defeasance on condition could be proven in
ceiver had obtained a judgment, and after sub- order to show the transfer to be a mortgage,
stitution of new receiver and attorney the first though the fact did not appear from the instru-
attorneys filed a lien on the judgment to which ment.-Keane v. Kibble, 154 P. 972.
the new receiver filed motion to strike, certiorari
was proper procedure to review ruling of court III. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERA-
in overruling motion as made at improper time,

TION.
but without passing on validity of lien.-State

(D) Lien and Priority.
v. Superior Court for King County, 154 P. 603 cm 136 (Wash.) The lien of mortgage on crop

un 24 (Cal.) Under Code Civ. Proc. $8_1068,
1074, relating to writs of review, and Public was not lost when mortgagee sought judgment
Utilities Acts, $60, 67, held, that petition for ing in a deficiency judgment, and the mortgagee

on its debt and obtained a foreclosure, result-
writ of review on Railroad Commission's ruling might proceed against one who had converted
on demurrer, before final determination of ques- part of crop.-German-American State Bank v.
tion involved. was premature, and would be Seattle Grain Co., 154 P. 443.
dismissed.—Holabird v. Railroad Commission
of State of California, 154 P. 831.

The judgment for the debt did not operate as

a waiver or a release of the security.-Id.
CHAMPERTY AND MAINTENANCE.

em 138 (Wash.) The rights of the holder of a

chattel mortgage on a crop were superior to any
7 (Okl.) Under Rev. Laws 1910, $ 2260, equities in one who had received a part of the
held, that a deed executed by a grantor not in crop in payment of an indebtedness for sacks
possession or enjoyment of the premises within furnished the mortgagor the previous year.-
the year was void as between the grantee and German-American State Bank v. Seattle Grain
a person in adverse possession.-Sutton v. Den- Co., 154 P. 443.
ton, 154 P. 1193.

@mw 138 (Wash.) Under Rem. & Bal. Code, 88

1188, 1190, 1190a, 1181, giving farm laborer
CHANCERY.

lien on crops produced, plaintiff, having an ad-
See Equity.

judicated lien, held entitled to damages against

defendant, the mortgagee of the crop, who had
CHANGE OF VENUE.

received the crop, commingled it in nine ware-

houses, and sold it by negotiable warehouse re-
See Venue.

ceipts.-Hubbard v. Johnson, 154 P. 457.

mm 138 (Wash.) A purchaser of leased land up-

IX. FORECLOSURE.
on which there were growing crops held to have em 275 (Wash.) In an action to foreclose chat-
acquired title to the growing crops, which he tel mortgage on wheat crop, grain company, to
harvested, and neither he nor the lessor to be whom mortgagor had delivered part of crop
liable to the lessee's mortgagee for any deficien- in payment of a previous indebtedness, and
cy; the other personalty included in the mort- whose possession was known to the mortgagee
gage not being enough to discharge it.-Woody v. prior to the commencement of the action, while
Wagner, 154 P. 819.

a proper, was not a necessary, party thereto.-
em 141 (Okl.) A mortgagee's consent to the German-American State Bank v. Seattle Grain
furnishing of feed and pasturage for mortgaged Co., 154 P. 443.
cattle may be implied from facts and circum-m 278 (Okl.) Where a receiver sold mortgaged
stances so as to give a lien therefor preference chattels pursuant to the court's order, it was er.
over his prior recorded mortgage.-Cather v.

ror, on trial of the foreclosure suit, to exclude
Spencer, 154 P. 1130.

evidence of mortgagor's purchase of the prop-
A lien for feed and pasturage furnished cattle erty at the receiver's sale.-J. I. Case Threshing
with consent of the mortgagee will take prece- Mach. Co. v. Barney, 154 P. 674.
dence over a prior recorded chattel mortgage. Cw281 (Idaho) The right to have a receiver ap;
-Id.

pointed in proceedings to foreclose a chattel
C 157 (Wyo.) In an action by a chattel mort, mortgage is purely statutory, depending on Rev.
gagee against defendant, whom he claimed had | Codes, & 4329, as amended by Sess. Laws 1909,
taken possession of mortgaged cattle, defendant p. 26.-Keane v. Kibble, 154 P. 972.
has the burden of proving that the lien he, as-emm 281 (Okl.) Where a receiver sold mortgaged
serted is superior.-Reynolds v. Morton, 154 P. chattels pursuant to the court's order, it was er-
325.

ror, on trial of the foreclosure suit, to peremp-

torily discharge the receiver and set aside his
IV. RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF acts.-J. I. Case Threshing Mach. Co. v. Bar-
PARTIES.

ney, 154 P. 674.
em 162 (Okl.) On default in making payments, 282 (Okl.) In an action to foreclose a chat-
held that the mortgagee under an express provi- tel mortgage on a threshing outfit, held that it
sion of the mortgage could take a peaceable

was error to instruct that the defendant mort-

pos-
session of the mortgaged personalty, though he gagors were entitled to recover the value of the
could not use force.-J. 1. Case Threshing Mach, property, when plaintiff took possession under
Co. v. Barney, 154 P. 674.

its mortgage, authorizing it to do so on the

mortgagors' default, where the taking did not
em 168 (Okl.) Refusal of the mortgagor to con- constitute a conversion.-J. I. Case Threshing
sent to the mortgagee's taking possession of the Mach. Co. v. Barney, 154 P. 674.
mortgaged chattels, pursuant to the mortgage
on default in making payments, held not a con-

CHEAT.
version.-J. I. Case Threshing Mach. Co. v. Bar-
ney, 154 P. 674.

See False Pretenses; Fraud.
Om 169 (Okl.) That plaintiff waited several
months after taking the property before proceed-

CHECKS.
ing to foreclose its mortgage held not a conver- See Banks and Banking, em 134; Garnish-
sion, where it appeared that after the property ment, w51, 123, 232.
was taken over there were negotiations toward
effecting a settlement.-J. 1. Case Threshing

CHILDREN.
Mach. Co. v. Barney, 154 P. 674
em 170 (Wash.) Where chattel mortgage upon

See Divorce, 308, 323; Infants; Negligence,
a wheat crop gave the mortgagee a lien of which

Om39, 85; Parent and Child.
defendant bad notice through the public records,
defendant's taking of part of the crop and

CHIROPRACTORS.
commingling it with its own wheat was an act See Physicians and Surgeons, Emo 6.
of conversion.-German-American State Bank v.
Seattle Grain Co., 154 P. 443.

CHOSE IN ACTION.
em 177 (Wyo.) A chattel mortgagee entitled to See Assignments.
possession may maintain an action against one
who deprives him of the property by which the
debt is secured.-Reynolds v. Morton, 154 P.

CHURCHES.
325.

See Religious Societies.

VII. REMOVAL OR TRANSFER OF

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
PROPERTY BY MORTGAGOR.
(A) Rights and Liabilities of Parties.

See Negligence, em 134.
em 229 (Wyo.) Where mortgaged chattels are

CITIES.
taken by purchaser, the mortgagee, though not
entitled to possession, the debt not being due, See Municipal Corporations.
may at once maintain an action for damages to
his reversionary interest.-Reynolds v. Morton,

CITY ENGINEER.
154 P. 325.
Where a copy of the mortgage attached to the

See Municipal Corporations, m147.
complaint of the mortgagee showed that he was
entitled to immediate possession of the cattle,

CIVIL SERVICE.
the value of which he sought to recover from a See Evidence, Ow47.
purchaser from the mortgagor, the complaint
ħeld sufficient, in the absence of demurrer, to
state a cause of action, though not averring

CLAIM AND DELIVERY.
the mortgagee's right to possession.-Id.

See Replevin.
Where a chattel mortgage provided that the

CLAIMS.
mortgagee should become entitled to possession
on sale or removal, or attempt to sell or re. See Garnishment, am 219, 225; States, w 181.
move any of the property, the mortgagee's right
to possession is immediate upon sale or removal,

CLASS LEGISLATION.
in which case he can at once maintain an ac-
tion against the purchaser.-Id.

See Constitutional Law, em 208.

CLOUD ON TITLE.

in the federal Employers' Liability Act.-Anest

v. Columbia & P. S. R. Co., 154 P. 1100.
See Quieting Title.

em 33 (Kan.) A shipment consigned to a point

in another state constitutes "interstate com-
COLLATERAL AGREEMENT. merce," though actual delivery is made before

crossing the state line.-Stockton Elevator &
See Evidence, 441-443.

Shipping Ass'n v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 154

P. 1126.
COLLATERAL ATTACK.
See Divorce, Om 168; Judgment, Om518.

COMMERCIAL PAPER.

See Bills and Notes.
COLLECTION.
See Taxation, Om608-610.

COMMISSION AND COMMISSIONERS.

See Certiorari, en 24; Constitutional Law,
COLLISION.

62; Drains, w17; Electricity, Ow4, 11;

Eminent Domain, em 231, 234; Injunction,
III. STEAM VESSELS MEETING OR 85; Mandamus, cm3, 87.

CROSSING.
Omw 42 (Wash.) In action for collision, where

COMMISSIONS.
plaintiffs' and defendants' steam vessels met evi-
dence held sufficient to support finding of de- See Brokers, 43–88; Principal and Agent,
fendants' vessel's negligence.- Angeles Brewing

Om 82-89.
& Malting Co. v. Carter, 154 P. 601.

COMMON CARRIERS.
XII. SUITS FOR DAMAGES.

See Carriers.
(C) Evidence.
em 124 (Wash.) In action for collision, ship-

COMMON SCHOOLS.
pers' invoices held admissible to show damages
to freight in absence of showing that shippers' See Schools and School Districts, Om63-100.
claims were fraudulent or invoice prices were
in excess of actual value of freight.-Angeles COMMUNITY PROPERTY.
Brewing & Malting Co. v. Carter, 154 P. 601.

See Husband and Wife, em 257-270.
(D) Damages.
Om 130 (Wash.) In action for collision, inter.

COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE.
est on sums paid out on repairs and freight See Negligence, m97, 98.
claims held improperly computed from date ves-
sel resumed run.-Angeles Brewing & Malting
Co. v. Carter, 154 P. 601.

COMPENSATION.

See Attorney and, Client, 130–167; Bro-
COLOR OF TITLE.

kers, m43–88; Contracts, 229; Eminent

Domain, W71-264; Insurance, 84; Mas-
See Adverse Possession.

ter and Servant, www8712, 25034; Municipal

Corporations, om 220; Officers, 95; Prin-
COMBINATIONS.

cipal and Agent, Omn 82-89; Sheriffs and Con-

stables, m 71.
See Conspiracy, 41.
COMMERCE.

COMPETENCY.
See Carriers; Courts, 489.

See Jury, 110.
I. POWER TO REGULATE IN GEN-

COMPLAINT.
ERAL.

See Pleading, 52, 72.
C 14 (Ariz.) As the Webb-Kenyon Act divested
intoxicating liquors of their interstate character,
troduction into the state of intoxicating liquors, See Compromise and Settlement.
Const. art. 23, $ 1, prohibiting disposal or in: COMPOSITIONS WITH CREDITORS.
is not an interference with interstate commerce.
-Sturgeon v. State, 154 P. 1050.

Om2 (Okl.) To constitute a valid composition,

there must be a mutuality of contract between
II. SUBJECTS OF REGULATION. the debtor and creditor; a mere unilateral
Omw27 (Mont.). Proof that decedent was employ agreement purporting to bind the debtor not be-
ed and the railroad company engaged in inter- ing enforceable against the creditor until ac-
state commerce at the time of the accident held cepted by him.-C. D. Osborne & Co. v. White,
indispensable to the right to recover under the 154 P. 653.
federal Employers' Liability Act.-Alexander v.
Great Northern Ry. Co., 154 P. 914.

COMPROMISE AND SETTLEMENT.
Where a railroad conductor was killed from
derailment of car on a branch line wholly with. SeeAccord and Satisfaction; Attorney and
in the state, while he was taking cars loaded

Client, Cm101; Compositions with Creditors;
with ties to a siding from which they would

Payment; Release.
later be taken to a point within the state to be cm 5 (Ariz.) Plaintiff, who entered upon land
treated, after which they would be used with- under an invalid oral agreement for a lease,
in or without the state, he was not employed held not to have completed an agreement to ac-
in interstate commerce, and hence the action cept a division of crops in payment and hence
was not sustainable under the federal Employ- that he might recover the value of his services.
ers' Liability Act.-Id.

-Crape v. Franklin, 154 P. 1036.
w 27 (Wash.) One inspecting the main track
of a railroad engaged in intra and inter state

COMPUTATION.
commerce is engaged in "interstate commerce,'
and an action for his death or injury falls with. See Limitation of Actions, Om51, 58; Time.

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »