Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

BAILMENT.

money in lieu of bail for his appearance, held | A subscriber to the stock of a bank must use
not to render the attempted surrender invalid.— the utmost good faith to see that what he gives
Campbell v. Board of Com’rs of Reno County, in exchange is equal to the par value of the
154 P. 257.

stock.-Id.
That neither the sheriff nor his deputy ac Under L. 0. L. 8 4571, held, that an attempt-
knowledged in writing, under Cr. Code, $ 150 ed payment for bank stock in realty was unau-
(Gen. St. 1909, $ 6726), the surrender of ac- thorized and amounted to no payment, except
cused by a person who had deposited money in to the extent that the proceeds of the attempted
lieu of bail for the appearance of accused held payment swelled the bank's assets.-Id.
not to make the surrender invalid where it was A release of a purchaser of bank stock from
accepted and custody of accused taken by the liability, when executed by the manager and
deputy sheriff, to whom he was surrendered. cashier of the bank without authority of the
-Id.

board of directors or stockholders, held void.
-Id.

(C) Stockholders.
See Embezzlement; Larceny, Em15.

Cu 47 (Or.) In a suit by the superintendent of
em 14 (Wash.) An inexperienced person, a banks held, that the fact that defendant's stock
prospective purchaser of an automobile, learn- | represented reissued stock unlawfully bought by
ing to drive it in the presence of and under the the bank, did not render defendant any the less
tuition of an experienced man, cannot be held a subscriber liable for whatever he had not paid
liable to the owner for injury to it, unless there on the stock.-Sargent v. American Bank &
is positive negligence.-Bertrand v. Hunt, 154 | Trust Co. v. Portland. 154 P. 759.
P. 804.

Om48 (Or.) A transfer of bank stock to an-
BALLOTS.

other by defendant who had given practically

worthless property therefor, held not to protect
See Elections, 186, 194.

defendant from liability in a suit by the super-

intendent of banks for the value of the stock,
BANKRUPTCY.

where it appeared that the transaction was in
See Assignments for Benefit of Creditors.

fact a retransfer to the bank.--Sargent v. Amer.

ican Bank & Trust Co. of Portland, 154 P. 759.
1. CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATU-

49 (Cal.) St. 1909, p. 87, entitled "An act
TORY PROVISIONS.

to define and regulate the business of banking,"
9 (Or.) The national Bankruptcy Act sus-

by section 136, gives the superintendent of
pended state laws concerning assignments for

banks no authority to enforce the liability of a
the benefit of creditors, leaving such assign-

stockholder to a creditor fixed by Const. art. 12,

" T$ 3, and made available to the creditor by Civ.
ments to be governed by the common law.-Sa-
bin v. Chrisman, 154 P. 908.

Code, $ 322.-Williams v. Carver, 154 P. 472.

St. 1909, pp. 87, 115, § 136, providing that
III. ASSIGNMENT, ADMINISTRATION,

the superintendent of banks may enforce the in-
AND DISTRIBUTION OF BANK.

dividual liability of the stockholders, only au-
RUPT'S ESTATE.

thorizes the superintendent to enforce against

stockholders their liability due the bank, arising
(C) Preferences and Transfers by Bank-

upon assessments or nonpayment of subscrip-
rupt, and Attachments and
Other Liens.

tions to the corporate capital.-Id.
Omw 207 (Cal. App.) Under Bankr. Act, $8 67b,

O 49 (Or.) Under L. O. L. $ 4586, as amend-
67c, and 67f, held, that judgment within four | ed

ed by Laws 1911, p. 244, held, that the superin-
months of bankruptcy was dissolved as a pref. tendent of banks, liquidating its affairs, could
erential lien in favor of creditor and recognized sue defendant for the value of stock transferred

1 to him for a worthless title to realty, and for
and preserved as a lien for the benefit of all th
creditors.-Wills v. E. K. Wood Lumber & the value of other stock converted by him.-
Mill Co., 154 P. 613.

Sargent v. American Bank & Trust Co. of Port-
Order on petition of trustee in bankruptcy, au-

land, 154 P. 759.
thorizing judgment creditor whose lien had been

Fraudulent and unauthorized acts of bank
dissolved in the name of the trustee and for the

the held not a defense.--Id.
benefit of the estate to proceed to annul bank-

In a suit by the superintendent of banks for
rupt's convevance to plaintiff. his wife, held to the value of stock for which defendant had give
authorize creditor to proceed as it might deem

en practically worthless property, it was no

defense that defendant bad caused part of the
best, or in the name of the trustee.-Id.

stock to be issued to a third person.-Id.

Where it appeared that the transaction was
V. RIGHTS, REMEDIES, AND DIS-

fraudulent, and that defendant thereafter, as
CHARGE OF BANKRUPT.

president of the bank, represented it to be sol-
433 (Cal.App.) A bankrupt's discharge re- vent, he could say in defense that the bank
leases him from personal liability only, and not stock was as worthless as his title to the realty.
from the liens existing against his property, | -Id.
which might be enforced after his discharge.

| Defendant could not be heard to say by way
Wills v. È, K, Wood Lumber & Mill Co., 154 P. of defense that he had given certain property
613.

for the stock, where it appeared that after be-
BANKS AND BANKING.

coming president of the bank he converted such

property to his own use.-Id.
See Constitutional Law, On 296; Escheat, em

Where, in a suit by the superintendent of
2, 3, 8; Statutes, Om 107.

banks for the unlawful conversion of bank stock,

it appeared that defendant had restored the
II. BANKING CORPORATIONS AND

equivalent of that which he had unlawfully re-
ASSOCIATIONS.

ceived, and that the bank had not lost by the

transaction, plaintiff was not entitled to recov-
(B) Capital, Stock, and Dividends.

er for such conversion.-Id.
39 (Or.) Under L. O. L. $ 4569, held, that That the books of an insolvent bank showed an
an attempted surrender of bank stock by a apparently regular sale of stock for its reason-
stockholder, who had given the worthless assets able value when in fact the property exchanged
of another bank in exchange therefor, did not therefor was worthless, and that defendant had
give the bank title to the stock or authorize it secured an apparently regular release of liabil-
to reissue same.--Sargent v. American Bank & ity which in fact was unauthorized and fraudu-
Trust Co. of Portland, 154 P. 759.

| lent, held to authorize a suit in equity by the

un interest on

superintendent of banks; there being no ade-

BILLS AND NOTES.
quate remedy at law.-Id.

In a suit by the superintendent of banks See Evidence, 441; Insurance, 187;
against a stockholder of an insolvent bank for Novation, 4.
the value of stock issued to him in exchange for
practically worthless property, a bond signed by IV. NEGOTIABILITY AND TRANSFER.
another stockholder and the bank, indemnifying
defendant against liability to stockholders of the

(A) Instruments Negotiable.
bank, constituted no defense.--Id.

om 165 (Ariz.) The negotiability of a note held
It was not necessary to make all the stock- not affected under Civ. Code 1913, pars, 4146,
holders parties.-Id.

4148, by the addition of a notation for payment
It was no defense that other stockholders had under contract of even date.-Slaughter v. Bank
failed to pay in full for their stock.-Id.

of Bisbee, 154 P. 1040.
A plea in abatement alleging that plaintiff

en 171 (Okl.) A special indorsement retaining
was suing another party for a subscription for
the same stock, was not available, though such an interest on the payment of the note nerd to
fact might be considered as evidence of an ad

anade destroy the negotiability of the note transfer-
mission by plaintiff that such other party, and

| red.--Keisel v. Baldock, 154 P. 1194.
not defendant, was the person liable.--Id.

| V. RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES ON IN.
(E) Insolvency and Dissolution.

DORSEMENT OR TRANSFER.
77 (Okl.) A suit to collect a note taken over

(D) Bona Fide Purchasers.
by the bank commissioner as part of an insol- 1 335 (Okl.) Under Rev. Laws 1910. & 4102.
vent bank's assets should be brought in the the buyer of a note takes subject to defenses
name of the state on relation of the commissions arising from infirmities of which he has notice
er.--Bailey v. Lankford, 154 P. 672.

when he buys.-Keisel v. Baldock, 154 P. 1194.
After an insolvent bank has been taken over

342 (Okl.) The indorsee of a note bearing
by the bank commissioner, a debtor of the bank

on its face such marks of infirmity as would
cannot acquire by assignment the claims of de-

I put an ordinarily prudent person on inquiry
positors and plead them as a set-off against his

takes subject to defenses arising from such in-
own debt.-Id.

firmities.-Keisel v. Baldock, 154 P. 1194.

A special indorsement retaining an interest,
III. FUNCTIONS AND DEALINGS.

held to put a purchaser of the note transferred
(C) Deposits.

on inquiry as to the indorser's interest and
Om 134 (Okl.) A bank may charge to a de- prevent the purchaser from being a bona fide
positor's account a third person's checks, not bolder

| holder in due course within Rev. Laws 1910,
purporting to be drawn for such depositor or

$ 4102.-Id.
against such account, only on actual direction Ow346 (Okl.) A purchaser of a note containing
of the depositor.--Madill State Bank v. Weaver,

a special indorsement giving him notice of an
154 P. 478.

| interest retained by the indorser held liable to

the indorser for the amount of such interest.-
IV. NATIONAL BANKS.

Keisel v. Baldock, 154 P. 1194.
270 (Okl.) An action against a national

C.373 (Or.) Where a note was procured
bank for double the usurious interest paid, be-

through fraud, the payee's transferee cannot re-
ing governed by Rev. St. U. S. $ 5198 (U. S.

cover unless a purchaser in good faith with-
Comp. St. 1913, § 9759), not by Rev. Laws

out notice.-Sink v. Allen, 154 P. 415.
1910, $ 1005, it is not necessary to allege and
prove demand for return of the usury claimed.

VIII. ACTIONS,
-Pauls Valley Nat. Bank v. Mitchell, 154 P. 496 (Okl.) One in possession of a note pay.

able to his order is presumed to be the owner
280 (Okl.) A petition by a creditor, alleging and holder of same for value.-Ringer v. Wil-
that a national bank as principal creditor of son, 154 P. 1145.
an insolvent merchant had taken over the mer.

1 497 (Or.) Where it is shown that the origin-
chant's stock and agreed to pay all creditors | al payee procured a note through fraud. the
subject to a condition which had been fulfilled. I holder has the burden of showing that

that he ac-
held to state a cause of action against the bank.

quired it in good faith for value and without
-Parker Gordon Cigar Co. y. First Nat. Bank

notice.—Sink v. Allen, 154 P. 415.
of Claremore, 154 P. 1153.

520 (Or.) Evidence held to show that the

note was procured by fraud.--Sink v. Allen, 154
BAR.

P. 415.
See Divorce, Om171; Judgment, Om569-621.

525 (Kan.) Evidence, in an action on a note
given real estate agents for a commission, held

to sustain a finding that plaintiff was not a
BATTERY.

holder in due course without notice of infirm.
See Assault and Battery.

ities, where it appeared that he had acted as

attorney for payees in a conference in which
BENEFICIAL ASSOCIATIONS.

the maker's attorney claimed want of considera-

tion and fraud of payees.-Brice v. Hawk, 154
See Building and Loan Associations; Insur P. 273.
ance, Cm755-825; Taxation, E 241.

525 (Or.) In an action on a note procured

through fraud, evidence held to show that the
BENEFITS.

'holder was not a bona fide purchaser for value

without notice.-Sink v. Allen, 154 P. 415.
See Insurance, 788, 825.

mm 537 (Utah) In an action by a bank, holder

of a note given for the price of a piano, evidence
BEQUESTS.

held insufficient to support a nonsuit on the

grounds that the payee of the note made false
See Wills.

and fraudulent representations that he was the

owner of the piano. that he had no authority to
BEST AND SECONDARY EVIDENCE.

take the note in his own name or to sell or in-
See Criminal Law, CW403; Ewdence, ww159

dorse it, etc.--Utah Banking Co. v. Oler, 154 P.
183.
BILL OF EXCEPTIONS.

BLANKS.

1188.

781.

BOARDS.

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

take a loan of $26,000 from any party, if ne-
See Insurance, 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, 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, 159; Me- 65 (Kan.) An agent held not entitled to a
chanics' Liens, 227, 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, 130-135; Sheriffs and Con-

that the contract had been fraudulently altered
stables, Om 157-168; States, 101; Ven- by the agent.–Van Horn v. Wetterhold, 154 P.
dor and Purchaser, 54, 273, 285.

I. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY. V. ACTIONS FOR COMPENSATION.
em 35 (Cal.) A bond given solely to comply om 86 (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-

mission.-Rance y. Robinson Inv. Co., 154 P.
BOUNDARIES.

224.
II. EVIDENCE, ASCERTAINMENT, AND 88 (Wash.) Evidence held sufficient to jus-
ESTABLISHMENT.

tify submission to the jury of the issue whether
mm 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.

Cu 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
7 (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 On 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 violati

of the public policy of such territory, is enforce-
IV. COMPENSATION AND LIEN. able in Oklahoma.--Legg v. Midland Savings &

43 (Or.) By direct provision of L. O. L., & Loan Co., 154 P. 682.
808, an agreement authorizing or employing an 28 (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.

50 (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, Em 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, m4; Contracts,
should exist.-Elsea v. Fassler, 154 P. 1067.

198; Master and Servant, mw 316, 318,
An option to sell realty given brokers, pro-

|

520, 350.

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, Cw414; Insurance, Omw84.
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 41 (Ney.) Evidence held to justify convic-
within 90 days after expiration of the option to tion.-State y. Whitaker, 154 P. 927.
one to whom it was recommended by the bro-| Evidence held to justify finding that the mill
kers during the 90 days of the option's life.

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

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, 5; Quieting Ti-
not able, ready, and willing to perform.-Vantle; Reformation of Instruments; Venue,
Horn v. Wetterbold, 154 P. 274.

1 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, Om62.

Omw 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. 489: Railroads. 218; Re- car stopped.-Sumner V. Grays Harbor Ry. &
lease, 21; Sales, m 161; 'Trial, em 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
em 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 tariff's 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. 318 (Kan.) Evidence in an action for the
Co., 154 P. 248.

death of an alleged passenger from slipping on
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, 88 7174, 7178, 7181, 7214,

318 (Mont.) Evidence in a passenger's ac-
7223, and Public Utilities Act.-Mollohan v.
Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 154 P. 248.

tion for personal injury when his train was de-

railed held to show a causal connection between
II. CARRIAGE OF GOODS.

the derailment and his wrist-drop and minor in-

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

-Freeman v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry, Co., 154
40 (Kan.) The words "actual cost of the F. 912.
same” in a tariff provision relating to repair Ons 318 (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., 151 P. 126.
em 1961/2 (Kan.) In a shipper's action against Om 318 (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. 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. 333 (Kan.) An attempt by a street car pas-
S. F. Ry. Co., 154 P. 248.

senger to alight a short distance from the usual
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-C 347 (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
tation.

l alighted, held guilty of contributory negligence
271 (Okl.) An intending passenger should i in

as a matter of law.-Galloway v. Hutchinson

Interurban Ry. Co., 154 P. 238.
inform himself whether the train on which he
takes passage will, under the carrier's regula-

347 (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 Injaries.

christ v. Portland, E. & E. Ry. Co., 154 P. 419.
Om 280 (Or.) A common carrier owes to its 347 (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

the

regular S

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, 342.
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.--Me-

By carrier, see Carriers, 12, 19612.
Gilchrist v. Portland, E. & E. Ry. Co., 154 P.

By telephone companies, see Telegraphs and
419.

Telephones, 33.

To jury, see Trial, em 194–295.
(F) Election of Passengers and Intruders.
im 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

m20 (Or.) Under will devising realty to es-

in and
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, 47, 958.
See Action.

CHATTEL MORTGAGES.
CAVEAT EMPTOR.

See Evidence, Cw441.
See Vendor and Purchaser, em 37.

I. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY.
CERTAINTY.

(A) Nature and Essentials of Transfers of
See Contracts, em 9; Criminal Law, m875.

Chattels as Security.

mw 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, 99; Municipal

held not a chattel mortgage requiring registra-

tion to be valid against a garnisheeing creditor.
Corporations, m577.

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

210.

6 (Idaho) Whether the instrument sued on
See Appeal and Error, Om612, 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, 660; Eminent Do-

ment of the contracting parties and their in-
main, cm 264; Physicians and Surgeons, en tent as shown by the facts and circumstances.
11; Taxation, ww299.

-Keane v. Kibble, 154 P. 972.

38 (Idaho) Under Rev. Codes, $ 3392, held,
1. NATURE AND GROUNDS.

that the fact that a transfer was made subject
5 (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.

Om 136 (Wash.) The lien of mortgage on crop
Om 24 (Cal.) Under Code Civ. Proc. $8 1068,

was not lost when mortgagee sought judgment
1074, relating to writs of review, and Public

on its debt and obtained a foreclosure, result-
Utilities Acts, $8 60, 67, held, that petition for i ;

Fling in a deficiency judgment, and the mortgagee
writ of review on Railroad Commission's ruling

18 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

The judgment for the debt did not operate as
of State of California, 154 P. 831.

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
On7 (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.-

German-American State Bank v. Seattle Grain
a person in adverse possession.-Sutton v. Den Co., 154 P. 443.
ton, 154 P. 1193.

138 (Wash.) Under Rem. & Bal. Code, $8

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.

the year was void as between the grantee and

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »