« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »
IV. JURISDICTION, PROCEEDINGS, w 184 (Cal.App.) In a husband's action for
divorce, where both had been persistently at-
tempting to secure divorce, a ruling sustaining
defendant's objection to plaintiff's question to
Cm91 (Cal.) Allegation in complaint for di- her as to whether she was willing to go back
vorce that plaintiff had resided in a certain city and live with plaintiff was harmless, if er..
and county in the state for more than four years roneous.-Benson v. Benson, 154 P. 285.
next immediately preceding commencement of
action, held sufficient compliance with residence V. ALIMONY, ALLOWANCES, AND
requirement of Civ. Code, $ 128, without allega- DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY.
tion as to good faith.- Flynn v. Flynn, 154 P.m240 (Cal.App.) In a wife's suit for divorce,
the decree, awarding her $75 a month alimony,
made in accordance with the terms of a contract
m 1 16 (Cal. App.) Plaintiff in divorce may tes- settling the property rights of the parties,
tify as to specific acts of cruelty, though there whereby the husband agreed to make the pay-
can be no corroboration thereof.-Perkins v. ment, and pursuant to the prayer of the com-
Perkins, 154 P. 483.
plaint, held not improper as a double award, in
em 125 (Cal.) Granting divorce on defendant's that plaintiff had a remedy both under the de-
admission of plaintiff's residence alone without cree and the agreement.-Newell v. Newell, 154
independent proof thereof, as required by Civ. P. 32.
Code, s 130, held error requiring reversal.- 243 (Or.) Under L. O. L. & 53, reference in
Flynn v. Flynn, 154 P. 837.
summons in suit for divorce to the relief sought
Cam 127 (Cal. App.) The physicians of plaintiff held to give the court jurisdiction to enter a
in divorce for extreme cruelty may, as corrob-
money judgment for permanent alimony for
oration, testify generally to the subject to which plaintiff.-Jacobs v. Jacobs, 154 P. 749.
she ascribed her condition when she consulted On 245 (Utah) Under Comp. Laws 1907, 8 1212,
them.--Perkins v. Perkins, 154 P. 483.
amended by Laws 1909, c. 109, a wife, who was
Under Civ. Code, $ 130, requiring corrobora- granted no alimony when a decree of divorce
tion of the parties for divorce, all the facts tes was rendered in her favor, cannot thereafter be
tified to need not be corroborated.-Id.
granted alimony on subsequent petition to the
court.-Cody v. Cody, 154 P. 952.
(E) Dismissal, Trial or Hearing, and Newm255 (Cal.App.) Defendant, in a suit for di-
vorce in which plaintiff demanded that he be re-
em 150 (Cal. App.) Finding in a divorce suit, quired to pay her $75 a month, as alimony, pur-
that the evidence does not prove extreme cruela suant to their contract settling their property
țy and is insufficient to warrant a divorce, is rights, could not attack the decree awarding $75
insufficient as a finding of facts.--Perkins v.
a month for plaintiff's support, on the ground
Perkins, 154 P. 483.
that it was without the issues tendered.-New-
Findings of facts in a divorce suit held requir. ell v. Newell
, 154 P. 32.
ed under Civ. Code, $ 131, though there is a de-Cm 280 (Utah) An appeal will lie from an order
fault, and divorce is denied.-Id.
of the trial court denying the petition of a wife
who secured a divorce for an award of alimony
(F) Judgment or Decree.
filed long after the rendition of the decree.---
Em 168 (Cal.) Express findings on the essential Cody v. Cody, 154 P. 952.
fact of residence or on other essential facts are am 286 (Cal.) Only a clear abuse of discretion
not necessary to validity of decree of divorce as of the trial court given by Civ. Code, 137, in
against collateral attack.-Flynn v. Flynn, 154 granting or refusing temporary alimony will be
reviewed by the Supreme Court.-Newlands v.
170 (Cal.App.) Under Civ. Code, 88 131. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 154 P.
132, final decree of divorce was properly vacated
when entered within a week after the actual en- VI. CUSTODY AND SUPPORT OF
try of an interlocutory decree entered nunc pro
tunc as of the day when the case was submitted
for decision a year before.- Nolte v. Nolte, 154 Whom a divorce was awarded, was a carpenter
308 (Cal.App.) Where the husband, against
and building contractor, making good wages and
Om 171 (Cal.App.) Where a wife sued for di- usually employed, an allowance to the wife,
vorce, charging cruelty and desertion, and judg- solely for the support and maintenance of the
ment was for the husband, who thereafter com- three minor children, of $15 per month each,
mitted acts of cruelty and desertion, the judg: was proper.-Benson v. Benson, 154 P. 285.
ment was not conclusive upon the wife's right
to maintain a cross-bill, based on such acts, in summons in suit for divorce to the relief sought
m308 (Or.) Under L. O. L. 53, reference in
a subsequent action for divorce by the husband. held to give the court jurisdiction to enter a
--Benson v. Benson, 154 P. 285.
money judgment for the maintenance and educa-
em 172 (Cal.App.) The judgment in a wife's tion of the minor children.-Jacobs v. Jacobs,
prior action for divorce was not conclusive up- 154 P. 749.
on her right to maintain a cross-bill, charging
cruelty and desertion, in the husband's later
VII. OPERATION AND EFFECT OF
action, where such former judgment was not
DIVORCE, AND RIGHTS OF
pleaded by the husband, and no proof thereof
was offered under the wife's plea of estoppel - 323 (Kan.) The responsibility of the father
Benson y. Benson, 154 P. 285.
for maintenance and education of minor children
is not canceled by a divorce decree not pro-
viding for the children, though divorce be grant-
w182 (Cal.) Denial of alimony under Civ.ed for fault of the mother.-Rowell v. Rowell,
Code, $ 137, pending wife's appeal from a decree 154 P. 243.
for her husband held proper, it appearing that Where the father, after securing a divorce
he was entitled to divorce.- Newlands v. Supe- decree making po provision for maintenance of
rior Court of Los Angeles County, 154 P. 829. minor children, leaves that burden to the mother,
Pending an appeal from a decree of divorce she may recover from him a reasonable amount
in favor of her husband, held, that the court for expenditures made by her for their support.
might properly deny fees to her attorneys, the -Id.
husband having consented that they might be Where, after divorce, the father neglects to
fixed upon determination of the appeal.-Id. provide for support of minor children, and such
support is provided by the mother, the proper
remedy available to her is to open the decree,
that an allowance may be made in the divorce See Dedication; Evidence, 461.
suit for past as well as future support of the
I. CREATION, EXISTENCE, AND TER-
em 2 (Cal.App.) The time of prescription to es-
See Physicians and Surgeons.
tablish a right of way cannot commence to run
while title to the land is in the United States
or the state.-Lapique v. Morrison, 154 P. 881.
On7 (Cal.App.) If a way to which a right is
See Criminal Law, Ow430; Evidence, On370, claimed by prescription is plowed by the owner
of the land and obstructed by him for his farm
purposes during the time of prescription, the
claim cannot be supported.-Lapique v. Morri-
son, 154 P. 881.
Om8 (Cal. App.) A claim to a right of way by
prescription cannot be supported where the way
See Constitutional Law, Om61, 67, 74; Emi- has been allowed as a matter of accommodation,
nent Domain, m2, 31; Statutes, Om123; and claimant's use of it has not been such as to
Waters and Water Courses, Em119.
give the landowner notice of an adverse user.-
Lapique v. Morrison, 154 P. 881.
I. ESTABLISHMENT AND MAIN-
Pun 18 (Cal. App.) A claim to a particular right
of way over another's land because it is necessa-
em 2 (Cal.) Act creating reclamation district ry to the reasonable use of the claimant's prop-
(St. 1913, p. 130) held not objectionable for erty cannot be supported, where the claimant
specifying location of levee instead of leaving lo- has another, though less convenient, way of ac-
Code, & 3454.–Reclamation Dist. No. 1500 v. Cum 36 (Cal.App.) The claimant of a right of
cation to board of trustees as provided by Pol. cess.-Lapique v. Morrison, 154 P. 881.
Superior Court in and for Sutter County, 154 P. way by prescription must prove a five years' con-
tinuous and uninterrupted use and enjoyment of
m2 (N.M.) Laws 1912, c. 84. (Code 1915, 88 the way.-Lapique v. Morrison, 154 P. 881.
1877–1958), providing for organization of drain-
II. EXTENT OF RIGHT, USE, AND
age districts tlrrough the courts, held valid.-
In re Dexter-Greenfield Drainage Dist., 154 P.
em 61 (Or.) Upon proper application a court
Laws 1912, c. 84 (Code 1915, $8 1877–1958), of equity will enjoin interference with an own-
providing for organization of drainage districts er's easement, when the injury complained of
through the courts, held not violative of Const. is irreparable, the intermeddling continuous, or
art. 11, § 6, requiring that domestic corpora- the remedy at law for damages inadequate.-
tions be organized by and through the state Nicholas v. Title & Trust Co., 154 P. 391.
corporation commission; drainage districts be.
ing public corporations not comprehended by
em 6 (Cal.) Building of levee by reclamation
See Carriers, 383.
district officers as directed by creative act (St.
1913, p. 130), must be deemed for public benefit.
-Reclamation Dist. No. 1500 v. Superior Court See Costs, m47; Vendor and Purchaser,
in and for Sutter County, 154 P. 845.
Om 17 (Cal.) Imposition on reclamation district
No. 1500 of duty of building levee by its creative
III. PLEADING AND EVIDENCE.
act (St. 1913, p. 130) is an imposition of such a 64 (Or.) A description of realty in the pe
duty on its directing officers.--Reclamation Dist. tition in an ejectment suit as “real property sit-
No. 1500 v. Superior Court in and for Sutter uate in the county of M., state of 0., to wit,
County, 154 P. 845.
lot eight (8), block seven (7), in Central Albina,
36. (N.M.) Laws 1912, c. 84, § 35 (Code an addition to the city of P., M. county, O.," fa-
1915, § 1911), relative to drainage districts, held miliarly known as a certain number and street,
to give right of appeal to the Supreme Court is sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the coun-
from findings of the district court as to the ty court of that county.-Wettersten v. Fisher,
required signatures of the petition for organiza-154 P. 534.
tion of the district within thirty days after
same are filed, and to cut off the right thereafter
to question such findings.- In re Dexter-Green- See Criminal Law, Om 678; Pleading, -369;
field Drainage Dist., 154 P. 382.
Wills, 781, 782.
ELECTION OF REMEDIES.
See Intoxicating Liquors.
Oml (Wash.) The doctrine of election of reme-
dies applies only to cases where plaintiff has a
choice of remedies arising out of the same state
of facts.-O'Donnell v. McCool, 154 P. 1090.
See Intoxicating Liquors, 49, 97.
Om7 (Wash.) Appearance by plaintiff in de-
fendant contractor's surety's federal court suit
to restrain numerous state court actions by
DUE PROCESS OF LAW.
claimants under the bond and proof of such
claim in such suit held election of remedies by
See Constitutional Law, 276–313.
plaintiff whereunder statute of limitations ran
as to defeat right to maintain subsequent
state court action on claim after its dismissal by
federal court.-Marshall-Wells Hardware Co. v.
See Indictment and Information, Om 125. Title Guaranty & Surety Co., 154 P. 801.
7 (Wash.) Where, pending entry of decree
of affirmance, one surety on a supersedeas bond
died, and the judgment creditor presented a con-
See Homicide, O 203.
tingent claim to the representatives of his es-
tate, and on its rejection brought action thereon ( power, cannot compel specific performance of
in the superior court, such action was not an the contract as against the public right.-State
election of remedy, and did not bar his right to v. Spokane & I. E. R. Co., 154 P. 1110.
summary judgment in the Supreme Court.-01- Under the Public Service Commission Law,
son v. Seldovia Salmon Co., 154 P. 1107. the commission cannot compel a traction com-
Cell (Colo.) Where plaintiff, deeming that his pany to disclose its contracts for the sale of its
license to maintain an irrigation ditch over de surplus power to private buyers.-Id.
fendant's land was revocable, instituted condem-
nation proceedings, but dismissed them on dis-
covering his mistake, there was no election of
remedies, precluding the assertion of the irre- See Master and Servant, Cm8712.
vocable character of the license.-Graybill v.
Corlett, 154 P. 730.
Omw 14 (Cal. App.) Where defendant procured m4 (Cal.App.) "Embezzlemento consists in the
plaintiff's land by fraud for which she obtained fraudulent appropriation of property possession
judgment in action for damages, plaintiff was of which was lawfully acquired.--People v. Dye,
estopped from proceeding in equity to have dec-154 P. 875.
laration of homestead by defendant, on land pur-
chased with proceeds of land procured from
plaintiff, annulled.--Hilborn v. Bonney, 154 P.
See Appeal and Error, em 200; Injunction,
Om7; Statutes, 123.
See Municipal Corporations, Cm 918; Witness- I. NATURE, EXTENT, AND DELEGA-
es, m 300.
TION OF POWER.
2 (N.M.) Laws 1912, c. 84 (Code 1915, 88
1877-1958), providing for organization of drain-
186 (Cal.) As under Pol. Code, $ 1211, age districts through the courts, held not viola-
subd. 1, à cross is not essential in the case of a tive of Const. art. 2, § 20, prohibiting the
name written on a ballot, the fact that a voter, taking of private property for public use with-
after writing in a name, placed a cross oppo- out compensation.-In re Dexter-Greenfield
site it, will not warrant the rejection of the Drainage Dist., 154 P. 382,
ballot.–Turner v. Wilson, 154 P. 2.
31 (Cal.) Act creating reclamation district
Because a voter wrote in the words "Yes" (St. 1913, p. 130), held not violative of Const.
or "No" in the voting squares opposite a bond art. 1, § 14, prohibiting taking of private prop-
proposition, instead of stamping such squares erty without compensation, in that levee provid-
with the appropriate cross, will not warrant the ed for by act will destroy or damage county
rejection of the entire ballot.-Id.
roads, bridges, and buildings.- Reclamation Dist.
Om 194 (Cal.) Under Pol. Code, $ 1211, subd. No. 1500 v. Superior Court in and for Sutter
4, which was added in 1903, held, that ballots County, 154 P. 845.
would not be rejected because the voter, after
making pencil crosses, used the stamp contain-
ing the cross, nor because he placed crosses in (A) Necessity and sufficiency in General.
improper voting squares.-Turner v. Wilson, 154
71 (Cal.) Under Const. art. 1, $ 14, and ar-
ticle 12, 88 22, 23, and section 23a (adopted No-
Oma 305 (Cal.) Where the finding that the con- amended (St. 1913, p. 684), authorizing Rail-
vember 3, 1914), Public Utilities Act, $ 47, as
testee received the highest number of votes was road Commission to fix compensation in emi-
correct, it will not be disturbed because the vent domain proceeding by municipal water dis-
finding' as to the number of votes received by trict, etc., held valid.-Marin Water & Power
each candidate was incorrect.-Turner v. Wil Co. v. Railroad Commission of State of Califor-
son, 154 P. 2.
nia, 154 P. 864,
III. PROCEEDINGS TO TAKE PROP-
Om4 (Wash.) Companies furnishing electrical
ERTY AND ASSESS COM-
energy may or may not be public service corpo-
rations, depending on whether the sale of power em 203 (Or.) Evidence in a suit to restrain
is a sale to the public generally or only an in- ejectment for land taken by plaintiff in the in-
cident to the business in which the company is junction suit as a right of way for a water
engaged.-State v. Spokane & I. E. R. Co., 154 power ditch under a parol license, and to assess
damages, held to sustain a finding of damages in
The sale of electrical power for traction pur- the sum of $300.–Molalla Electric Co. v. Wheel-
poses, light, manufacturing, etc., is not a public er, 154 P. 686.
use, and the sale by a public service traction Cm 231 (Cal.) In proceeding before Railroad
company of the difference between its ordinary Commission by municipal water district to fix
requirements and its peak load is only an in- compensation for land, etc., of water company
cident to the public employment, of which the taken by eminent domain, brought before Rail-
law will take no notice.-Id.
road Commission under Public Utilities Act, s
Public Service Commission Law has not ex- 47, as amended (St. 1913, p. 684), held, that com-
tended the jurisdiction of the Commission over mission was judicial tribunal, with power to
a traction company, selling its surplus of power call and examine witnesses against will of ei-
between ordinary requirements and peak load to ther party.-Marin Water & Power Co. v. Rail-
various private buyers, so far as such branch road Commission of State of California, 154 P.
of the business is concerned.-Id.
If the state, at any time, acting through its In proceeding by municipal water district to
accredited agency, puts a burden upon a public have compensation for land and rights of water
service corporation which requires the use of its company taken by eminent domain fixed by Rail-
surplus power, it must devote such power to the road Commission under Public Utilities Act,
public use and abandon any private contracts it $ 47, as amended (St. 1913, p. 684), commission
may hold for the sale thereof.-Id.
held not to have exceeded its authority in con-
Coll (Wash.) Where the state requires a pub-sidering testimony of witness on questions of
lic service corporation to devote its surplus use and value.--Id.
power to the public use, a private contractor In proceeding by municipal water district to
with the corporation, who has been buying such fix compensation for property taken by emi-
nent domain, brought under Public Utilities
Act, $ 47, as amended (St. 1913, p. 684), fail-
ure of witness to state items of value separate - See Highways, m96; Mandamus, 10; Mu-
ly and of Railroad Commission to award such nicipal Corporations, Om 147.
value separately held not to deprive commis-
sion of jurisdiction, or to make its award inval- ENROLLMENT RECORDS.
In proceeding before Railroad Commission by See Indians, Ow13.
municipal water district to fix compensation to
be paid for rights of a water and power compa-
ny, held, that commission was not limited to tes-
timony of witnesses offered by parties, but See Judgment, ww273; Public Lands, 35.
might take testimony evidence at the hearing by
witness called by it.-Id.
EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS.
Under Public Utility Act, $ 47, as amended
(St. 1913, p. 684), and section 10, failure of See Constitutional Law, em229, 240.
Railroad Commission in fixing value of proper-
ty of water company taken by municipal water
district to find separately the value of each sep-
arate parcel held not to cause a loss of juris. See Judgment, en 621.
diction or to make the proceeding void.--Id.
234 (Cal.) In proceeding by municipal wa-
ter district before Railroad Commission to fix See Estoppel, 55–117.
compensation for land, rights, etc., taken by it
by eminent domain, contention that commission
erred allowing nothing for possibility of increas-
ing the amount of water stored by dams held See Account; Appeal and Error, em974, 1009,
not sustained, where commission allowed there-
1175; Assignments, Om48, 100; Costs,
for by another method.-Marin Water & Power
13; Estoppel, 56, 62; Fraudulent Convey-
Co. v. Railroad Commission of State of Cali-
ances; Injunction; Jury, Oma13; Nuisance,
fornia, 154 P. 864.
w83; Quieting Title; Reformation of In-
Ow262 (Cal.) Under Public Utilities Act, $ 47, struments; Set-Off and Counterclaim, 8;
as amended (St. 1913, p. 684), and section 70, Specific Performance; Trusts.
confirmed by Const. art. 12,' $ 23a (adopted
November 3, 1914), held that on facts appear- 1. JURISDICTION, PRINCIPLES, AND
ing on review instituted under section 47 as
amended the Supreme Court would consider the
case on theory that Railroad Commission had (A) Nature, Grounds, Subjects, and Extent
lawful authority to entertain proceeding to fix
of Jurisdiction in General.
compensation for land taken by water district. Cm42 (Or.) Where defendant fails to demur
-Marin Water & Power Co. v. Railroad Com- for lack of equitable jurisdiction of the subject-
mission of State of California, 154 P. 864. matter to a complaint to protect an easement,
Cm 262 (Colo.) An order in a condemnation and also joins in an application for equitable
proceeding for the jury's view of the premises, relief, any objection on that ground is waived. -
without requiring respondent to advance the ex- Nicholas v. Title & Trust Co., 154 P. 391.
pense, to which the petitioner saved an
ception, but did not state any ground of ob- VIII. HEARING, SUBMISSION OF IS-
jection, was not reviewable.-East Denver Mu- SUES TO JURY, AND REHEARING.
nicipal' Irr. Dist. v. Altura Farms Co., 154 P. 377 (Mont.) The judge in the trial of a
cause in equity may call a jury to decide issues
264 (Cal.) Under Const. art. 6, § 4, and of fact, and, if he does so, he may submit such
Code Civ. Proc. & 1068, Public Utilities Act, s issues as he chooses.-Yellowstone Nat. Bank
47, as amended (St. 1913, p. 684), and section 67, v. McCullough, 154 P. 919.
Supreme Court held to have jurisdiction in cer-
tiorari to review conclusions of Railroad Com-
mission in condemnation proceedings, based on
EQUITY OF REDEMPTION.
uncontradicted evidence.-Marin Water & Pow-
er Co. v. Railroad Commission of State of Cali-
See Execution, m38.
fornia, 154 P. 864.
ERROR. WRIT OF.
V. TITLE OR RIGHTS ACQUIRED.
See Appeal and Error.
m318 (Wash.) Where land is taken for a rail.
road right of way, the railroad company is en-
titled to make all the use of the land which the
necessities and convenience of the public mayam 2 (Cal. App.) Bank Act, $ 15, as amended
require; the original compensation being pre; in 1913 (St. 1913, p. 145, § 16), as to payment
sumed to cover such added use. - Tacoma Mill into state treasury of unclaimed bank deposits,
Co. y. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 154 P. 173.
held valid.-State v. Security Sav. Bank, 154
EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYÉS. Om 3 (Cal.App.) State held entitled to assume
control of property unclaimed for such a period
See Master and Servant.
as to indicate abandonment and danger of loss,
or to make it the proper subject of escheat, in-
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACTS. cluding unclaimed savings bank deposits.-State
v. Security Sav. Bank, 154 P. 1070.
See Commerce, em 27.
Possible detriment to owner of unclaimed bank
deposit through loss of interest, held not defense
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY INSUR-
available to proceeding to require bank to pay
unclaimed deposit into state treasury.--Id.
See Insurance, Om212.
See Deeds, em 124, 128; Descent and Distribu-
tion; Executors and Administrators; Life Es-
tates; Remainders; Tenancy in Common;
See Constitutional Law, 55, 70-80.
interest in the mother.-Leslie v. Harrison Nat.
Bank, 154 P. 209.
See Appeal and Error, 154, 882; Dedica- Cm93 (Wash.) Where a landowner had ac-
tion, m39; Insurance, 141, 400, 664, quiesced in the construction of a system of wa-
755; Landlord and Tenant, Om61 ; Limita- terworks necessitating the taking of water from
tion of Actions, em 13.
a stream which flowed through her land, held,
that she and her lessee were estopped from en-
II. BY DEED.
joining the city from a further diversion of the
(B) Estates and Rights Subsequently Ac- water.-Domrese v. City of Roslyn, 154 P. 140.
On 94 (Mont.) A grantee who sued to foreclose
Oma 37 (Or.) Where a land claimant under pro- a deed as a mortgage was not estopped to claim
visional constitution orally agreed to convey a lien by the fact that he permitted his grantor,
land before passage of Donation Act Cong. Sept. after the conveyance to him, to convey by war-
27, 1850, $ 4, evidenced by void quitclaim deed ranty deed to the defendant, where his deed
made after passage of act, such agreement was on record prior to the transaction with de-
though enforceable, did not vest title in the pro fendant; . that being the only notice which he
posed grantee upon issuance of donation cer- was required in law to give.-Yellowstone Nat.
tificate or patent thereunder to grantor.-Stans- Bank v. McCullough, 154 P. 919.
bery v. First Methodist Episcopal Church, 154
(E) Pleading, Evidence, Trial, and
III. EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL.
Om 117 (Mont.) Where the grantee sued to fore-
close his deed as a mortgage, and the defense
(A) Nature and Essentials in General.
was that he permitted a subsequent grantee of
m55 (Okl.) It is only where the conduct of the same grantor to purchase, although he knew
one who has kept silent when he should have of the transaction, it was not error to exclude,
spoken has misled or prejudicially affected an- as immaterial, evidence that the grantor was re-
other's conduct that the latter may successfully sponsible financially at the time of the transac-
plead estoppel in pais against the former.-Ma- tion with the defendant, and that he later be-
dill State Bank v. Weaver, 154 P. 478. came irresponsible; the rights of the parties
m56 (Ariz.) In an action to recover for sell-being concluded on the date of the transac-
ing defendant's property under an employment tion by the fact that the plaintiff's deed had
by defendant's special agent, the plaintiff could been recorded. -Yellowstone Nat. Bank v. Mc-
pot recover on the ground of estoppel, where Cullough, 154 P. 919.
he had not changed his situation to his detri-
Where the grantee sued to foreclose his deed
ment in reliance upon the principal's conduct. as a mortgage, evidence that the defendant had
- Brutinel v. Nygren, 154 P. 1042.
made inquiry of the county clerk to ascertain
whether his immediate grantor could give title
Om62 (Wash.) A city which accepted land and and that the clerk informed him that his title
constructed a street thereon, held estopped to was good was inadmissible.-Id.
deny its power to make the refund of special as-
sessments which it agreed to make as considera-
tion for the land.- Washington Water Power
Co. v. City of Spokane, 154 P. 329.
Although a city cannot be estopped to deny its
See Covenants, 102.
power to perform an act absolutely void because
ultra vires, it may be estopped where the act
was authorized, though the method of doing it
was not specifically authorized.--Id.
See Criminal Law, 369-561; Witnesses.
For evidence as to particular facts or issues or
(B) Grounds of Estoppel.
in particular actions or proceedings, see also
em 70 (Or.) Where the grantee accepted a deed For review of rulings relating to evidence, see
the various specific topics.
with knowledge that it did not contain a cove-
nant in his favor which he claimed was omitted
Appeal and Error.
through fraud, and held possession for several Reception at trial, see Criminal Law, w 662,
years, he cannot seek to reform the deed on that
678; Trial, m48-105.
ground.—Jakel v. Seeck, 154 P. 424,
ww75 (Okl.) Where the owner of a chattel has
I. JUDICIAL NOTICE.
given the seller express power to sell and he em 20 (N.M.) The proper method of operating
sells clothed with the indicia of ownership, the a locomotive, not being a matter of common or
buyer takes title.-A. L. Jepson Mfg. Co. v. general knowledge, cannot be judicially known.
Shank, 154 P. 516.
- Thayer v. Denver & R. G. R. Co., 154 P. 691.
78 (Kan.) Heirs by entering into a family em32 (Cal.) Generally a court of record does
agreement held estopped from clainting estate by not take judicial notice of municipal ordinances,
inheritance, where their conduct induced dece- and such ordinances must, where a necessary
dent's widow not to probate the will for more part of the case, be proven; but judicial notice
than three years.-Freeman v. Peter, 154 P. presupposes an absence of evidence, and the
rule does not apply where a prima facie case
Om83 (Okl.) In a lessee's action to recover is made.-Tilton v. Decker, 154 P. 860.
realty from a subsequent lessee in possession,
held, that statements of plaintiff to defendant Ones47 (Or.) Where rules of the civil service
that he was going to throw up his lease consti- commission of a city were not pleaded below or
tuted no defense, where he did not know that brought before the Supreme Court by bill of
defendant intended to procure a lease and the exceptions, such court cannot consider them,
statements were not made to lead defendant to as, like ordinances of cities, they are not sub!
rely or act upon them.-Hart v. Williams, 154 jects of judicial notice.-Kay v. City of Port-
land, 154 P. 750.
90 (Kan.) Where a settler on public land
willed all his property to his wife for life with
remainder to their children, and .she enjoyed Om82 (Cal.App.) In the absence of showing of
the rents and profits of the land, which was abuse of authority by the court in appointing a
patented to the heirs, she and the children sup- receiver, the presumption, on appeal in another
posing that title passed under the will, no es suit where the point material, is that the ap-
toppel thereby arose so as to vest an equitable pointment was proper in all respects.---Borges
title to the fee in the children subject to a life v. Hillman, 154 P. 1075.