Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

facts from which damages flowed, and praying Defendants' demurrer to the complaint that it
general equitable relief, held good in the absence was "uncertain and ambiguous". was defective,
of demurrer or motion for specific statement in that it did not specifically point out the un-
in spite of Rem. & Bal. Code, $ 258, subd. 3, re- certainty and ambiguity.-Id.
quiring a statement of amount of damages in ew208 (Mont.) As Rev. Codes, $ 6535, requires
suit for money or damages.-Loutzenhiser v.

a demurrer on the ground that plaintiff has not
Peck, 154 P. 814.

the legal capacity to sue, enumerated in section

6534, subd. 2, to point out specifically the par-
IV. REPLICATION OR REPLY AND ticular defect relied upon, a demurrer not point-
SUBSEQUENT PLEADINGS.

ing out such defect is insufficient.–Marcellus v.

Wright, 154 P. 714.
Om 165 (Mont.) An affirmative denial of the al-
legations of the complaint, based on the last VI. AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTAL
clear chance doctrine, needs no reply, under PLEADINGS AND REPLEADER.
Rev. Codes, 8 6560.-Doichinoff v. Chicago, M. Em 236 (Idaho) Permitting a pleading to be
& St. P. Ry. Co., 154 P. 924.
166 (Okl.) Rev. Laws 1910, § 4779, does not cretion, and not error in the absence of an abuse

amended is largely within the trial court's dis-
require a reply to new matter pot constituting of discretion depriving a party of some substan-
a defense.-Owens v. Farmers' & Merchants' tial right,-Cady v. Keller, 154 P. 629.
Bank of Duke, 154 P. 355.

Cm 236 (Or.) The allowance of an amendment
Om 180 (N.M.) Neither willful injury, nor last to the petition is within the discretion of the
clear chance can be pleaded in a reply to con- trial court.-Kimball v. Horticultural Fire Re-
fess and avoid an answer setting up contributory lief of Oregon, 154 P. 578.
negligence as a defense to a complaint based on am 238 (Cal.App.) That defendants had but one
simple negligence.-Thayer v. Denver & R. G. day's notice of the allowance of a formal amend-
R. Co., 154 P. 691.
A party must recover on the cause of action cause, which amendment was otherwise proper,

ment to the complaint after submission of the
stated in his complaint, rather than on a cause
stated in his reply.-Id.

was of no consequence.-Sweet v. Richvale Land

Co., 154 P. 608.
A "departure” in the reply consists in leaving am 238 (Okl.) Where the filing of an amended
the case made in the complaint or petition in petition is an abandonment of the original pe-
respect to some material matter which is incon-tition and sets out a new cause of action, and
sistent with it or does not support it.-Id.

seeks relief not prayed for in the original peti-
Whether a reply constitutes a departure from tion, notice to defendant or his attorney is es-
the complaint is determined by a negative an- sential to give the court jurisdiction to render
swer to whether evidence of facts alleged in the judgment thereon.–Lausten v. Lausten, 154 P.
reply is admissible under the complaint.-Id.

1182.
Om 180 (Or.) Before a party can enforce an Cm 243 (Kan.) A petition which fails to state a
executory contract relating to the sale of land, cause of action may be amended, though some
he must plead and prove performance or waiver, of the defendants reside outside the county and
and it is insufficient to allege in the complaint are attacking the court's jurisdiction.-Wells v.
a general performance, and, when that is dis- Hansen, 154 P. 1033.
puted, to set up a waiver in the reply.-Deckerem

248 (Cal.App.) In an action by a loan
V. Jordan, 154 P. 431.

broker for a commission, allowance of an amend-

ed complaint, alleging that defendant refused
V. DEMURRER OR EXCEPTION.

to accept the loan, whereas the original had
em 187 (Colo.) Under Rev. Code, &$ 53, 55, de alleged that the defendant had accepted but not
fendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings paid the agreed commission, was not improper
in an action for dama for breach of a con- as introducing a new cause of action.-Hughes
tract to convey land held improperly granted, v. Chung Sun Tung Co., 154 P. 299.
where the pleadings did not show affirmatively cw248 (Cal.App.) In ejectment by the vendor
that plaintiff was without right; the remedy of realty against the assignee of the buyer and
being by general demurrer.-Jones v. Ceres Inv. others upon a default in payment, the allow-
Co., 154 P. 745.

ance of amendment of the complaint, after sub-
192 (Mont.) As the objection of defect of mission of the cause, by adding the allegation
parties to be ground of demurrer must appear that the contract provided for a forfeiture in
on the face of the complaint, under Rev. Codes, I the event of failure to comply with its terms,
$ 6538, a complaint by a widow as heir of her held not erroneous as stating a new cause of
husband does not show a defect of parties, there action.-Sweet v. Richvale Land Co., 154 P.
being nothing to show that there were other 608.
heirs.--Marcellus v. Wright, 154 P. 714.

Om 248 (Wash.) In an action for breach of a
en 193 (Mont.) Under Rev. Codes, $ 6534, ob contract to remove rocks, a proposed amendment
jection that causes of action were not separate counting on defendant's prior breach, and not
ly stated, cannot be made by demurrer.-Mar- justifying plaintiff's delay, as did the original
cellus v. Wright, 154 P. 714.

count, held to state an entirely new cause of ac-
Eww194 (N.M.), Where all the allegations of the tion:--Smith Sand & Gravel Co. v. Corbin, 154
complaint are denied, either specifically or gen-

1252 (Okl.) The filing, under Rev. Laws
erally, by the answer, it is error to sustain a
demurrer to the answer.-McMillin v. Boat-

1910, $ 4787, of a complete amended petition
right, 154 P. 704.

after service or attempted service and before
w207 (Mont.) Complaint in action for inju- petition.-Lausten v. Lausten, 154 P. 1182.

answer, held an abandonment of the original
ries to servant, charging discovery of peril or
duty to discover it in the alternative, held suffi- VII. SIGNATURE AND VERIFI-
cient, in the absence of a special demurrer.-

CATION.
Doichinoff v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 154 290 (Okl.) Under Rev. Laws 1910, $ 4759,
P. 924.
Em 208 (Cal.App.) Where defendants demurred failure to deny under oath allegations of the
to the complaint on the ground that it did not appointment or authority of a public officer is
"state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of an admission of the title of the officer to the
action". against them, and that the complaint office as alleged and of his power and authori-
joined "several causes of action,” the demurrer ty to perform the duties and functions thereof.
was insufficient as failing to specifically point

-City of Ardmore v. Sayre, 154 P. 356.
out the misjoinder of causes of action or of par- w 304 (Okl.) On verified denial of the peti-
ties.-- Sweet v. Richvale Land Co., 154 P. 608. tion, a sworn itemized statement on which plain-

tiff relies is inadmissible over objection.-Walker

POLICE.
v. West Pub. Co., 154 P. 1189.

See Municipal Corporations, ww185.
VIII. PROFERT, OYER, AND EX-
HIBITS.

POLICE POWER.
C310 (Cal.App.) Recitals in a chattel mort-See Constitutional Law, Om81; Fish, m8;
gage incorporated in the complaint in an action Municipal Corporations, Om623.
to recover possession of the property as to its
value will not supply the want of averments as

POLICY.
to value in the complaint.-Keiser v. Levering,
154 P. 281.

See Insurance, 136-665.
XI. MOTIONS.

POLITICAL RIGHTS.
Om 343. (Colo.) Under Rev. Code, &$ 53, 55, de-
fendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings See Elections.
in an action for damages for breach of a con-

PONDS.
tract to convey land held improperly granted.-
Jones v. Ceres Inv. Co., 154 P. 745.

See Negligence, w39.
On pleadings in action for damages for breach
of contract to convey land, held, that sufficiency

PORTS.
of replication should have been tested by de- See Municipal Corporations, wl, 47.
murrer, so that, if bad, plaintiff would have an
opportunity to amend, which was denied by
sustaining the motion for judgment on the plead-

POSSESSION.
ings.-Id.

See Adverse Possession ; Replevin, Ew8, 10.
343 (Okl.) An allegation in the answer that
plaintiff, assignee of the note sued on, paid

POWER COMPANIES.
nothing for the note, held not to state a de-
fense, and not to call for a reply so as to per-

See Electricity, Ow4.
mit judgment on the pleadings for want of
reply.--Owens v. Farmers' & Merchants' Bank

PRACTICE.
of Duke, 154 P. 355.

For practice in particular actions and proceed-
Oma 354 (Okl.) Where the answer fails to state ings, see the various specific topics.
a defense to the action or any part thereof, a
motion to strike the answer should be sustained.

PREFERENCES.
-National Life Ins. Co. v. Hale, 154 P. 536.
Om 355 (Okl.) An objection to a departure in

See Carriers, Cw13; Corporations, 545;

Mechanics' Liens, em 196.
the pleadings should be raised by motion to
strike, not by motion for judgment on the plead-
ings.-Wilson v. Jones, 154 P. 663.

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION.
367 (Mont.) Under Rev. Codes, 8 6534, ob- See Injunction, Ow186.
jection that causes of action were not separately
stated, must be made by motion to make more

PREMATURITY.
definite and certain.-Marcellus v. Wright, 154 See Appeal and Error.
P. 714.
a 367 (Mont.) A complaint in action for inju-

PREMIUMS.
ries to servant, charging discovery of peril or the
duty to discover it in the alternative, held suffi- See Insurance, ew187.
cient, though indefinite, in absence of seasonable
attack by motion.--Doichinoff v. Chicago, M. &

PRESCRIPTION.
St. P. Ry. Co., 154 P. 924.

See Adverse Possession; Easements, 7, 8;
Om367 (Okl.) Where a motion to make more

Limitation of Actions.
definite and certain does not point out the de-
fects in the pleading, it is properly overruled. -
Union Coal Co. v. Wooley, 154 P. 62.

PRESUMPTIONS.
Cm369 (Wash.) Motion to require plaintiff su- See Appeal and Error, w907-935; Evidence,
ing to quiet title and enjoin foreclosure sale to 82.
elect between theory of adverse possession and

PRICE.
that of a resulting trust held properly denied.-
O'Donnell v. McCool, 154 P. 1090.

See Sales, m 359; Vendor and Purchaser,

302, 303.
XIII. DEFECTS AND OBJECTIONS,
WAIVER, AND AIDER BY VER-

PRINCIPAL AND AGENT.
DICT OR JUDGMENT.

See Attorney and Client; Brokers; Counties,
Om 418 (Okl.) Where plaintiff amends after Om63; Evidence, Cu244; Insurance,
the sustaining of a demurrer, the error, if any, 84, 375; Sales, 161.
in ruling on the demurrer, is waived.-Camp-
bell v. Thornburgh, 154 P. 574.

I. THE RELATION.
420 (N.M.) An objection to an amendment

(A) Creation and Existence.
should be made when leave to amend is asked.-ul (Ariz.) Agency has its conception in some
Thayer v. Denver & R. G. R. Co., 154 P. 691.
By pleading after amendment and going to gation by such person to another of the power

thing lawful that a person may do, and a dele-
triai or by otherwise recognizing the amended lawfully to do that thing.–Brutinel v. Nygren,
pleading, à party waives his right to object to 154 P. 1042.
the amendment.-Id.

en 14 (Wash.) Estate of prospective purchaser
Cow426 (N.M.) Where defendant fails to call of plaintiff's automobile held not liable for dam-
the court's attention to his motion to strike out ages to the car while driving it under tuition of
a bill of particulars and six months thereafter dealer who had interested himself in the sale,
files an answer, it will be presumed that he in-he being plaintiff's agent.--Bertrand v. Hunt,
tended to waive his motion.--Stalick v. Wilson, 154 P. 801.
154 P. 708.

Agency may be implied from all the attend-
PLEDGES.

ing circumstances, or in other words a person

may so use his property with relation to others
See Corporations, Cm123.

that he will be estopped to deny an agency.-Id.

On 24 (Okl.). Where, in a guardian's action on hibit contracts as to after-acquired property,
a note, purchasers thereof from a third person defendant cannot, as against a stranger, testify
to whom the note had been entrusted for sale that the power of attorney was not intended to
intervened, claiming to own the note, and the be applicable to after-acquired property.-Au-
evidence was conflicting, held, that whether warter v. Kroll, 154 P. 438.
such third person was agent of plaintiff or of om 122 (Wash.) A principal cannot be bound by
the interveners was for the jury.-Case v. Pos- his agent's declarations as to the existence of
ey, 154 P. 1165.

the agency, but the agent's declarations are ad-

missible, there being independent evidence of
II. MUTUAL RIGHTS, DUTIES, AND agency to show that the agent had contracted.
LIABILITIES.

-Auwarter v. Kroll, 154 P. 438.
(B) Compensation and Lien of Agent. Cu 123 (Ariz.) The extent of an agent's author-
m. 82 (Kan.) Under contracts of employment, ity must ultimately be established by tracing
entitling an agent to commissions for buying it to its source in some word or act of the al-
cream based on tests on the amount of cream leged principal, as the agent cannot confer au.
received at 0., held that the agent was not en- thority upon himself, or make himself agent,
titled to commission on cream lost in transit merely by acting as such, or saying that he is
between D. and 0.–Brady v. Farmers' Co-Op. an agent.--Brutinel v. Nygren, 154 P. 1042.
Creamery & Supply Co., 154 P. 220.

em 123 (Or.) In suit to determine an adverse
ww89 (Kan.) Under the evidence in an action interest in realty, evidence held sufficient to
for commissions on shipments of cream, wherein show that the owner of land knowingly permit
defendant pleaded payment in full, held that ted intending purchasers to believe that the
the case was for the jury.–Brady v. Farmers' printed plat thereof shown to them by his agent
Co-Op. Creamery & Supply Co., 154 P. 220.

had been duly recorded, and also that he held

out such agent as his general agent in negoti.
III. RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES AS TO ating sales.- Nicholas v. Title & Trust"Co., 154

P. 391.
THIRD PERSONS.

Om 124 (Ariz.) In action for selling defendant's
(A) Powers of Agent.

property, where the inferences to be reasonably
em93 (Ariz.) A general agency does not confer drawn from the undisputed facts were such
universal or unlimited authority, or make the that men might not reasonably differ concerning
agent alter ego; but his authority is limited them, the question was one of law for the court.
to that expressly conferred, broadened by the -Brutinel v. Nygren, 154 P. 1042.
apparent authority, upon which third persons ww124 (Okl.) The apparent authority of an
exercising due care may rely, to do acts within agent is for the jury under all the facts and
the ordinary and usual scope of the agency. circumstances shown.-St. Louis Cordage Mills
Brutinel v. Nygren, 154 P. 1042.

v. Western Supply Co., 154 P. 646.
C94 (Ariz.) The authority to do a single en 132 (Kan.) Where the borrowing bank's
thing, perhaps in a specific way, is a special cashier for reasons advantageous to the borrow-
agency, ordinarily much more restricted than er gave his individual note for the borrowed
a general agency, though the principal's liabil- money, held, that the borrower was bound to
ity for acts within the agent's power is the repay the money, though there was nothing on
same; the difference being merely in the actual the note to indicate its relation to the transac.
measure of the agent's power.-Brutinel v. Ny- tion. - Stockyards State Bank v. Merchants'
gren, 154 P. 1042.

State Bank, 154 P. 240.
On 99 (Or.) An agent's authority to bind his
principal by contract is measured, not only by

(B) Undisclosed Agency.
the express power delegated to him, but that am 141 (Okl.) A sheriff's return showing per-
which he is held out by the owner as possessing, sonal service of summons, though not conclu-
provided the party contracted with has reason sive, is prima facie evidence of its truthfulness,
to believe and does believe the agent acts within and requires clear and convincing proof to
his authority, and would sustain a loss if the overcome it.-Jones v. Jones, 154 P. 1136.
contract was not regarded as that of the princi-
pal.-Nicholas v. Title & Trust Co., 154 P. 391.

(C) Unauthorized and Wrongful Acts.
Om 102 (Ariz.) An agent to manage a drug store,
specially authorized to offer

it for sale, had now 147 (Ariz.) One dealing with an agent, if
implied authority to employ a subagent to sell he would bind the principal, must ascertain, not
the store, good will, and fixtures at the expense only the fact of the agency, but the nature and
of the principal.-Brutinel v. Nygren, 164 P. extent of the authority.--Brutinel v. Nygren,
1042.

154 P. 1042.
Om 103 (Okl.) Where alleged principal

Om 155 (Ariz.) A principal is not responsible
agrees that the agent may sell or trade the

prop- for contracts which he has neither directly nor
erty as he pleases and pay him an agreed price indirectly authorized.-Brutinel v. Nygren, 154
for it, the agent becomes a buyer and a resale P. 1042.
by him is made on his own account though to w 1601/2 (Okl.), An agent cannot sell his prin-
his creditor.--A. L. Jepson Mfg. Co. v. Shank, cipal's property in payment of his own debt.-
154 P. 516.

A. L. Jepson Mfg. Co. v. Shank, 154 P. 516.
Om 104 (Okl.) An agent's general authority to
sell personalty carries with it the power to war-

(D) Ratification.
rant the quality of such personalty.--St. Louis 163 (Okl.) The rule as to “ratification" held
Cordage Mills v. Western Supply Co., 154 P. not to apply where the act alleged to have been
646.

ratified did not purport to have been done as
em 1 16 (Wash.) Secret instructions to an agent plaintiff's agent or representative.—Madill State
with a general power of attorney are not bind- | Bank v. Weaver, 154 P. 478.
ing as against persons who contracted with him ouw 166 (Ariz.) A principal, ignorant of his spe-
without knowledge.-Auwarter v. Kroll, 154 P. cial agent's act in employing a subagent to sell
438.

his property, could not be bound by the doctrine
C 119 (Ariz.) Where either the nature or the of ratification, as that rests upon knowledge
extent of the agent's authority is controverted, of the facts.-Brutinel v. Nygren, 154 P. 1042.
the burden is on the third party dealing with
him to establish it.-Brutinel v. Nygren, 154

(F) Actions.
P. 1042.

w 189 (Kan.) Petition, in an action by ten-
em 120 (Wash.) Where defendant gave his son ant's wife against rental agent for injuries
à general power of attorney which did not pro- from a defective walk which the agent had fail-

an

ed to properly repair as agreed, held to state a state only to attend court as a witness, such
cause of action.- Wells v. Hansen, 154 P. 1033. service was void.--State v. District Court of
Om 194 (Ariz.) Where plaintiff sued for com- Second Judicial Dist. in and for Silver Bow
pensation for selling defendant's store, claiming County, 154 P. 200.
he was employed by defendant's special agent
to sell, the court should have instructed that III. DEFECTS, OBJECTIONS, AND
plaintiff could not recover, unless the special

AMENDMENT.
agent was authorized to employ him, or, if not om 166 (Or.) In action for divorce, findings
so authorized, unless the sale was ratified by the of fact and conclusion of law reciting the dis-
principal.-Brutinel v. Nygren, 154 P. 1042.

trict attorney's appearance for the state held to

show a waiver of service of summons and com-
PRINCIPAL AND SURETY. plaint upon the district attorney under L. O. L.
See Bail; Bonds; Indemnity; Justices of the 1020, as amended by Laws 1911, p. 127.-

Peace, Em159;' Sheriffs and Constables, com Jacobs v. Jacobs, 154 Þ. 749.
157–168; States, ew101.

PROFITS.
I. CREATION AND EXISTENCE OF
RELATION.

See Partnership, Ow86.
(B) Surety Companies.

PROHIBITION.
ww57 (Kan.) A surety company held liable on
a contractor's bond executed by it after the See Intoxicating Liquors, 17, 205.
signing of the original contract, though the
bond was not provided for therein; the com-

I. NATURE AND GROUNDS.
pensation received by a surety company for ex-em3 (Cal.) Prohibition will not issue to re-
ecuting the bond being sufficient consideration strain act in excess of trial court's jurisdiction,
for its guaranty.-Hensley v. School Dist. No. where there is adequate remedy at law.-- Recla-
87 of Anderson County, 154 P. 253.

mation Dist. No. 1500 v. Superior Court in and
II. NATURE AND EXTENT OF LIA-

for Sutter County, 154 P. 845.
BILITY OF SURETY.

m5 (Okl.) Where a husband brought suit for
Om 82 (Kan.) A building contractor's bond held other county, and there was no intolerable con-

divorce, and his wife brought a like suit in an-
to cover loss resulting from the contractor's flict of jurisdiction for which there was no ade-
abandonment of the building before its comple- quate remedy at law, held, that a writ of pro-
tion, though the original agreement called for hibition should not issue to prevent the latter
a bond according to statute (Gen. St. 1909, $
6256; Code Civ. Proc. $ 661), which requires v. Drummond, 154 P. 514.

court from exercising jurisdiction.-Drummond
merely that the bond be conditioned that the
contractor shall pay for labor and material. m. 9 (Cal.) Though a defendant was not enti-
Hensley v: School Dist. No. 87 of Anderson țled to prohibition to prevent a new trial of the
County, 154 P. 253.

issue as between plaintiff and a codefendant,

where an allegation in the petition for the writ
PRIORITIES.

alleged that the court was proceeding to again

try the issues as to all the defendants, the writ
See Chattel Mortgages, @w 138–157; Mechan-would be granted in order to properly restrict
ics' Liens, en 196.

the issues to be retried.--Robson v. Superior

Court in and for City and County of San Fran-
PRIVATE NUISANCE,

cisco, 154 P. 8.

On 9 (Cal.) Writ of prohibition will issue only
See Nuisance, 3–50.

to prevent acts in excess of trial court's juris-

diction, and not to restrain mere errors.-
PRIVATE ROADS.

Reclamation Dist. No. 1500 v. Superior Court
See Easements.

in and for Sutter County, 154 P. 845.

OM 10 (Cal.). Where, in an action to enjoin con-
PRIVILEGE.

struction of levee by officers of reclamation dis-

trict, superior court, in excess of jurisdiction,
See Process, m.120; Witnesses, em 300_305. issued temporary injunction and set cause for

trial, writ of prohibition will issue against fur-
PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS. ther proceedings.-Reclamation Dist. No. 1500

v. Superior Court in and for Sutter County,
See Libel and Slander, Omw148.

154 P. 845.
PROBABLE CAUSE.

e 10 (Mont.) Under Rev. Codes, § 7228, pro-

viding that prohibition may issue where there
See Malicious Prosecution.

is no adequate remedy at law, the writ will

issue to restrain the district court from pro-
PROBATE.

ceeding with an action against a nonresident

served with process while attending court as a
See Wills, em 302–318.

witness.--State v. District Court of Second Ju-

dicial Dist. in and for Silver Bow County, 154
PROBATE COURTS.

P. 200.
See Courts, C200, 201.

w 15 (Cal.) Where a mortgage was foreclosed

and a deficiency decree rendered against sev-
PROBATION OFFICERS.

eral successive purchasers who had assumed the

mortgage, and one of the defendants secured a
See Counties, Om63.

new trial, another defendant was not beneficial-

ly interested, and was not entitled to maintain
PROCESS.

prohibition to prevent a new trial.-Robson v.
See Appeal and Error, Omw 430; Appearance; San Francisco, 154 P. 8.

Superior Court in and for City and County of
Attachment, C209; Execution ; Garnish-
ment; Injunction; Mandamus; Prohibition,
em 10; Replevin; Taxation, on 708.

PROMISSORY NOTES.
II. SERVICE.

See Bills and Notes.
(D) Privileges and Exemptions.

PROOF,
120 (Mont.) Where a resident of another
state was served with summons while in the See Insurance, 552.

PROXIMATE CAUSE.

Under Rev. St. & 2296 (U, S. Comp. St. 1913,

8 4551), held that for a debt contracted after is-
See Negligence, On 59.

suance of final certificate of entry to the debtor,
but prior to his obtaining a patent, the land

could be taken in satisfaction.-Id.
PUBLIC BUILDINGS.
See Counties, em 124; Mechanics' Liens, 13. III. DISPOSAL OF LANDS OF THE

STATES.
PUBLIC LANDS.

Om 185 (Wash.) Where a railroad purchased

tidelands on installments, and thereafter be-
See Adverse Possession, Om7.

came insolvent and assigned its interest to one

of its officers as trustee for other officers, evi-
I. GOVERNMENT OWNERSHIP. dence held not to show that any interest re-
w 19 (Wyo.) One who was lawfully entitled to mained in the railroad company at the time of
the possession of a portion of the public domain, an execution sale of its property thereafter
who erected a fence including a portion of the made.-Ritchie v. Trumbull, 154 P. 816.
public land to which he was not entitled, ac-

PUBLIC NUISANCE.
quired no rights in such portion inclosed; his
entry being unauthorized.-Pool v. Baker, 154 See Nuisance, m72-83.
P. 328.
Where one unlawfully incloses a portion of

PUBLIC PROPERTY.
the public domain with his own land, he cannot
in equity enjoin a rightful holder thereof from See Municipal Corporations, w426.
maintaining his lawful possession.-Id.

PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
II. SURVEY AND DISPOSAL OF LANDS See Schools and School Districts, wa63-100.

OF UNITED STATES.
(B) Entries, Sales, and Possessory Rights.

PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.
35 (Idaho) In a suit to quiet title to an
unsurveyed tract of public land claimed under See Electricity, em4, 11; Mandamus, Em3.
Rev. Codes, S8 4552-4555, held, that defendant
could not complain of plaintiffs' failure to apply

PUBLIC SERVICE CORPORATIONS.
to the local land office to enter the land after See Carriers; Railroads; Street Railroads;
same was surveyed, where plaintiffs' right to

Telegraphs and Telephones.
have possession quieted against defendant ac-
crued prior to the survey.--Goldensmith v. Snow-

PUBLIC USE.
storm Mining Co., 154 P. 968.
35 (Wyo.) One who has a homestead entry See Dedication; Eminent Domain.
upon public lands of the United States, on com.
pliance with the laws and regulations of the

PUNISHMENT.
Land Department, is entitled to possession See Contempt, w72; Criminal Law, em884,
thereof.-Pool v. Baker, 154 P. 328.

1206.
mw40 (Idaho) What constitutes an abandon-
ment of a homestead selected under Rev. Codes,

QUANTUM MERUIT.
88 4552–4555, is a question of intent to be See Work and Labor.
gathered from the facts.-Goldensmith v. Snow-
storm Mining Co., 154 P. 968.

QUESTIONS OF LAW AND FACT.
The temporary absence of a person for any
legitimate reason from a homestead selected un- See Criminal Law, Ow742; Trial, Eww139–143.
der Rev. Codes, $$ 4552-4555, does not of it-
self show "abandonment” of the homestead.-Id.

QUIETING TITLE.
On 41 (Idaho) Where a person has gone into
possession of unsurveyed government land and See Judgment, Omw 251, 256; Pleading, em 369;
fully complied with Rev. Codes, S8 4552-4555,

Waters and Water Courses, m152.
abandonment thereof must be conclusively

II. PROCEEDINGS AND RELIEF.
shown by one relying on it to defeat the claim-
ant's right to have his possession quieted.-om 30 (Wash.) Where a railroad company as-
Goldensmith v. Snowstorm Mining Co., 154 P. signed to plaintiff's predecessor in interest as
968.

trustee its interest in lands sold by the state it

was immaterial whether the beneficiaries, at
(E) School and University Lands.

the time of suit to quiet title, were the same as
On54 (Kan.) While Laws 1913, c. 295, were those named in the assignment, since a rustee
in force, there were no means provided for sell- of an express trust may sue in his own name.
ing as school lands islands surveyed and entered - Ritchie v. Trumbull, 154 P. 816.
under federal authority more than 20 years be- C35 (Cal.) Where the validity of defendant's
fore such act took effect.--Means v. Kennedy, mortgage depended on title acquired by the
154 P. 245.

mortgagor through a street opening proceeding

by a city, which divested plaintiff's title, a gen-
(1) Proceedings in Land Office.

eral averment of the title in the mortgagor is
C 106 (Nev.) The determination by the fed- sufficient without pleading the source.-Tilton v.
eral Land Department of the character of pub- Decker, 154 P. 860.
lic lands is conclusive, except in certain direct e39 (Cal.) In a suit to quiet title, judgment
proceedings, to set aside a patent for fraud, in defendant's favor protects him against any
imposition, mistake, or the like.-Earl v. Mor- of plaintiff's claims, so a cross-complaint pray-
rison, 154 P. 75.

ing that title be adjudged in defendant is ef-
(M) Conveyances, Contracts, and Exemp- missing it before trial without the consent of

fective merely to prevent plaintiff from dis-
cm 140_(Idaho) Land acquired as a homestead County, 154 P. 811.

defendant.-Larkin v. Superior Court of Shasta
under Rev. St. $ 2296 (L. S. Comp. St. 1913,
8 4551), is not liable for a debt contracted prior RAILROAD COMMISSION.
to making of final proof and receiving final cer-
tificate.-Ruddy v. "Rossi, 154 P. 977.

| See Constitutional Law, Om62.
For cases in Dec, Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »