facts from which damages flowed, and praying
general equitable relief, held good in the absence
of demurrer or motion for specific statement
in spite of Rem. & Bal. Code, § 258, subd. 3, re-
quiring a statement of amount of damages in
suit for money or damages.-Loutzenhiser v.
Peck, 154 P. 814.
IV. REPLICATION OR REPLY AND
SUBSEQUENT PLEADINGS.
165 (Mont.) An affirmative denial of the al-
legations of the complaint, based on the last
clear chance doctrine, needs no reply, under
Rev. Codes, § 6560.-Doichinoff v. Chicago, M.
& St. P. Ry. Co., 154 P. 924.
166 (Okl.) Rev. Laws 1910, § 4779, does not
require a reply to new matter not constituting
a defense.-Owens v. Farmers' & Merchants'
Bank of Duke, 154 P. 355.
180 (N.M.) Neither willful injury nor last
clear chance can be pleaded in a reply to con-
fess and avoid an answer setting up contributory
negligence as a defense to a complaint based on
simple negligence.-Thayer v. Denver & R. G.
R. Co., 154 P. 691.
A party must recover on the cause of action
stated in his complaint, rather than on a cause
stated in his reply.-Id.
Defendants' demurrer to the complaint that it
was "uncertain and ambiguous" was defective,
in that it did not specifically point out the un-
certainty and ambiguity.-Id.
208 (Mont.) As Rev. Codes, § 6535, requires
a demurrer on the ground that plaintiff has not
the legal capacity to sue, enumerated in section
6534, subd. 2, to point out specifically the par-
ticular defect relied upon, a demurrer not point-
ing out such defect is insufficient.-Marcellus v.
Wright, 154 P. 714.
VI. AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTAL
PLEADINGS AND REPLEADER.
236 (Idaho) Permitting a pleading to be
amended is largely within the trial court's dis-
cretion, and not error in the absence of an abuse
of discretion depriving a party of some substan-
tial right,-Cady v. Keller, 154 P. 629.
236 (Or.) The allowance of an amendment
to the petition is within the discretion of the
trial court.-Kimball v. Horticultural Fire Re-
lief of Oregon, 154 P. 578.
238 (Cal.App.) That defendants had but one
day's notice of the allowance of a formal amend-
ment to the complaint after submission of the
cause, which amendment was otherwise proper,
was of no consequence.-Sweet v. Richvale Land
Co., 154 P. 608.
A "departure" in the reply consists in leaving238 (Okl.) Where the filing of an amended
the case made in the complaint or petition in
respect to some material matter which is incon-
sistent with it or does not support it.-Id.
Whether a reply constitutes a departure from
the complaint is determined by a negative an-
swer to whether evidence of facts alleged in the
reply is admissible under the complaint.--Id.
180 (Or.) Before a party can enforce an
executory contract relating to the sale of land,
he must plead and prove performance or waiver,
and it is insufficient to allege in the complaint
a general performance, and, when that is dis-
puted, to set up a waiver in the reply.-Decker
v. Jordan, 154 P. 431.
V. DEMURRER OR EXCEPTION.
petition is an abandonment of the original pe-
tition and sets out a new cause of action, and
seeks relief not prayed for in the original peti-
tion, notice to defendant or his attorney is es-
sential to give the court jurisdiction to render
judgment thereon.-Lausten v. Lausten, 154 P.
1182.
243 (Kan.) A petition which fails to state a
cause of action may be amended, though some
of the defendants reside outside the county and
are attacking the court's jurisdiction.-Wells v.
Hansen, 154 P. 1033.
248 (Cal.App.) In an action by a
broker for a commission, allowance of an amend-
ed complaint, alleging that defendant refused
to accept the loan, whereas the original had
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 damages 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 248 (Cal.App.) In ejectment by the vendor
that plaintiff was without right; the remedy
being by general demurrer.-Jones v. Ceres Inv.
Co., 154 P. 745.
192 (Mont.) As the objection of defect of
parties to be ground of demurrer must appear
on the face of the complaint, under Rev. Codes,
$6538, a complaint by a widow as heir of her
husband does not show a defect of parties, there
being nothing to show that there were other
heirs. Marcellus v. Wright, 154 P. 714.
193 (Mont.) Under Rev. Codes, § 6534, ob-
jection that causes of action were not separate-
ly stated, cannot be made by demurrer.-Mar-
cellus v. Wright, 154 P. 714.
194 (N.M.) Where all the allegations of the
complaint are denied, either specifically or gen-
erally, by the answer, it is error to sustain a
demurrer to the answer.-McMillin v. Boat-
right, 154 P. 704.
207 (Mont.) Complaint in action for inju-
ries to servant, charging discovery of peril or
duty to discover it in the alternative, held suffi-
cient, in the absence of a special demurrer.-
of realty against the assignee of the buyer and
others upon a default in payment, the allow-
ance of amendment of the complaint, after sub-
mission of the cause, by adding the allegation
that the contract provided for a forfeiture in
the event of failure to comply with its terms,
held not erroneous as stating a new cause of
action.-Sweet v. Richvale Land Co., 154 P.
608.
248 (Wash.) In an action for breach of a
contract to remove rocks, a proposed amendment
counting on defendant's prior breach, and not
justifying plaintiff's delay, as did the original
count, held to state an entirely new cause of ac-
tion.-Smith Sand & Gravel Co. v. Corbin, 154
P. 150.
252 (Okl.) The filing, under Rev. Laws
1910, § 4787, of a complete amended petition
after service or attempted service and before
answer, held an abandonment of the original
petition.-Lausten v. Lausten, 154 P. 1182.
VII. SIGNATURE AND VERIFI-
Doichinoff v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 154290 (Okl.) Under Rev. Laws 1910, § 4759,
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-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-
On pleadings in action for damages for breach
of contract to convey land, held, that sufficiency
of replication should have been tested by de- See Municipal Corporations, 1, 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-
ings.-Id.
343 (Okl.) An allegation in the answer that
plaintiff, assignee of the note sued on, paid
nothing for the note, held not to state a de-
fense, and not to call for a reply so as to per-
mit judgment on the pleadings for want of
reply.-Owens v. Farmers' & Merchants' Bank
of Duke, 154 P. 355.
354 (Okl.) Where the answer fails to state
a defense to the action or any part thereof, a
motion to strike the answer should be sustained.
-National Life Ins. Co. v. Hale, 154 P. 536.
355 (Okl.) An objection to a departure in
the pleadings should be raised by motion to
strike, not by motion for judgment on the plead-
ings. Wilson v. Jones, 154 P. 663.
See Adverse Possession; Replevin, 8, 10.
POWER COMPANIES.
For practice in particular actions and proceed-
ings, see the various specific topics.
See Carriers, 13; Corporations, 545;
Mechanics' Liens, 196.
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION.
See Injunction, 186.
367 (Mont.) Under Rev. Codes, § 6534, ob-
jection that causes of action were not separately
stated, must be made by motion to make more
definite and certain.-Marcellus v. Wright, 154 See Appeal and Error.
367 (Mont.) A complaint in action for inju-
ries to servant, charging discovery of peril or the
duty to discover it in the alternative, held suffi- See Insurance, 187.
cient, though indefinite, in absence of seasonable
attack by motion.-Doichinoff v. Chicago, M. &
St. P. Ry. Co., 154 P. 924.
367 (Okl.) Where a motion to make more
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.
See Adverse Possession; Easements, 7, 8;
Limitation of Actions.
369 (Wash.) Motion to require plaintiff su- See Appeal and Error, 907-935; Evidence,
ing to quiet title and enjoin foreclosure sale to
elect between theory of adverse possession and
that of a resulting trust held properly denied.-
O'Donnell v. McCool, 154 P. 1090.
XIII. DEFECTS AND OBJECTIONS,
WAIVER, AND AIDER BY VER-
DICT OR JUDGMENT.
418 (Okl.) Where plaintiff amends after
the sustaining of a demurrer, the error, if any,
in ruling on the demurrer, is waived.-Camp-
bell v. Thornburgh, 154 P. 574.
420 (N.M.) An objection to an amendment
should be made when leave to amend is asked.
Thayer v. Denver & R. G. R. Co., 154 P. 691.
By pleading after amendment and going to
trial or by otherwise recognizing the amended
pleading, a party waives his right to object to
the amendment.-Id.
426 (N.M.) Where defendant fails to call
the court's attention to his motion to strike out
a bill of particulars and six months thereafter
files an answer, it will be presumed that he in-
tended to waive his motion.-Stalick v. Wilson,
154 P. 708.
I. THE RELATION.
(A) Creation and Existence.
(Ariz.) Agency has its conception in some-
thing lawful that a person may do, and a dele-
gation by such person to another of the power
lawfully to do that thing.-Brutinel v. Nygren,
154 P. 1042.
14 (Wash.) Estate of prospective purchaser
of plaintiff's automobile held not liable for dam-
ages to the car while driving it under tuition of
dealer who had interested himself in the sale,
he being plaintiff's agent.-Bertrand v. Hunt,
154 P. 804.
Agency may be implied from all the attend-
ing circumstances, or in other words a person
may so use his property with relation to others
that he will be estopped to deny an agency.-Id.
defendant cannot, as against a stranger, testify
that the power of attorney was not intended to
be applicable to after-acquired property.-Au-
warter v. Kroll, 154 P. 438.
~~24 (Okl.) Where, in a guardian's action on | hibit contracts as to after-acquired property,
a note, purchasers thereof from a third person
to whom the note had been entrusted for sale
intervened, claiming to own the note, and the
evidence was conflicting, held, that whether
such third person was agent of plaintiff or of
the interveners was for the jury.-Case v. Pos-
ey, 154 P. 1165.
II. MUTUAL RIGHTS, DUTIES, AND
LIABILITIES.
(B) Compensation and Lien of Agent.
82 (Kan.) Under contracts of employment,
entitling an agent to commissions for buying
cream based on tests on the amount of cream
received at O., held that the agent was not en-
titled to commission on cream lost in transit
between D. and O.-Brady v. Farmers' Co-Op.
Creamery & Supply Co., 154 P. 220.
89 (Kan.) Under the evidence in an action
for commissions on shipments of cream, wherein
defendant pleaded payment in full, held that
the case was for the jury.-Brady v. Farmers'
Co-Op. Creamery & Supply Co., 154 P. 220.
III. RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES AS TO
THIRD PERSONS.
(A) Powers of Agent.
122 (Wash.) A principal cannot be bound by
his agent's declarations as to the existence of
the agency, but the agent's declarations are ad-
missible, there being independent evidence of
agency to show that the agent had contracted.
-Auwarter v. Kroll, 154 P. 438.
123 (Ariz.) The extent of an agent's author-
ity must ultimately be established by tracing
it to its source in some word or act of the al-
leged principal, as the agent cannot confer au-
thority upon himself, or make himself agent,
merely by acting as such, or saying that he is
an agent.-Brutinel v. Nygren, 154 P. 1042.
123 (Or.) In suit to determine an adverse
interest in realty, evidence held sufficient to
show that the owner of land knowingly permit
ted intending purchasers to believe that the
printed plat thereof shown to them by his agent
had been duly recorded, and also that he held
out such agent as his general agent in negoti
ating sales.-Nicholas v. Title & Trust Co., 154
P. 391.
124 (Ariz.) In action for selling defendant's
property, where the inferences to be reasonably
drawn from the undisputed facts were such
that men might not reasonably differ concerning
them, the question was one of law for the court.
93 (Ariz.) A general agency does not confer
universal or unlimited authority, or make the
agent alter ego; but his authority is limited
to that expressly conferred, broadened by the-Brutinel v. Nygren, 154 P. 1042.
apparent authority, upon which third persons 124 (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.
94 (Ariz.) The authority to do a single 132 (Kan.) Where the borrowing bank's
thing, perhaps in a specific way, is a special
agency, ordinarily much more restricted than
a general agency, though the principal's liabil-
ity for acts within the agent's power is the
same; the difference being merely in the actual
measure of the agent's power.-Brutinel v. Ny-
gren, 154 P. 1042.
cashier for reasons advantageous to the borrow-
er gave his individual note for the borrowed
money, held, that the borrower was bound to
repay the money, though there was nothing on
the note to indicate its relation to the transac
tion.-Stockyards State Bank v. Merchants'
State Bank, 154 P. 240.
(B) Undisclosed Agency.
99 (Or.) An agent's authority to bind his
principal by contract is measured, not only by
the express power delegated to him, but that 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.
102 (Ariz.) An agent to manage a drug store,147 (Ariz.) One dealing with an agent, if
specially authorized to offer it for sale, had no
implied authority to employ a subagent to sell
the store, good will, and fixtures at the expense
of the principal.-Brutinel v. Nygren, 154 P.
103 (Okl.) Where an alleged principal
agrees that the agent may sell or trade the prop-
erty as he pleases and pay him an agreed price
for it, the agent becomes a buyer and a resale
by him is made on his own account though to
his creditor.--A. L. Jepson Mfg. Co. v. Shank,
154 P. 516.
104 (Okl.) An agent's general authority to
sell personalty carries with it the power to war-
rant the quality of such personalty.-St. Louis
Cordage Mills v. Western Supply Co., 154 P.
646.
116 (Wash.) Secret instructions to an agent
with a general power of attorney are not bind-
ing as against persons who contracted with him
without knowledge.-Auwarter v. Kroll, 154 P.
438.
119 (Ariz.) Where either the nature or the
extent of the agent's authority is controverted,
the burden is on the third party dealing with
him to establish it.-Brutinel v. Nygren, 154
P. 1042.
120 (Wash.) Where defendant gave his son
a general power of attorney which did not pro-
(C) Unauthorized and Wrongful Acts.
he would bind the principal, must ascertain, not
only the fact of the agency, but the nature and
extent of the authority.-Brutinel v. Nygren,
155 (Ariz.) A principal is not responsible
for contracts which he has neither directly nor
indirectly authorized.-Brutinel v. Nygren, 154
P. 1042.
1602 (Okl.) An agent cannot sell his prin-
cipal's property in payment of his own debt.-
A. L. Jepson Mfg. Co. v. Shank, 154 P. 516.
163 (Okl.) The rule as to "ratification" held
not to apply where the act alleged to have been
ratified did not purport to have been done as
plaintiff's agent or representative.-Madill State
Bank v. Weaver, 154 P. 478.
166 (Ariz.) A principal, ignorant of his spe-
cial agent's act in employing a subagent to sell
his property, could not be bound by the doctrine
of ratification, as that rests upon knowledge
of the facts.-Brutinel v. Nygren, 154 P. 1042.
189 (Kan.) Petition, in an action by ten-
ant's wife against rental agent for injuries
from a defective walk which the agent had fail-
ed to properly repair as agreed, held to state a
cause of action.-Wells v. Hansen, 154 P. 1033.
194 (Ariz.) Where plaintiff sued for com-
pensation for selling defendant's store, claiming
he was employed by defendant's special agent
to sell, the court should have instructed that
plaintiff could not recover, unless the special
agent was authorized to employ him, or, if not
so authorized, unless the sale was ratified by the
principal.-Brutinel v. Nygren, 154 P. 1042.
PRINCIPAL AND SURETY.
See Bail; Bonds; Indemnity; Justices of the
Peace, 159; Sheriffs and Constables,
157-168; States, 101.
I. CREATION AND EXISTENCE OF
RELATION.
(B) Surety Companies.
57 (Kan.) A surety company held liable on
state only to attend court as a witness, such
service was void.-State v. District Court of
Second Judicial Dist. in and for Silver Bow
County, 154 P. 200.
III. DEFECTS, OBJECTIONS, AND
166 (Or.) In action for divorce, findings
of fact and conclusion of law reciting the dis-
trict attorney's appearance for the state held to
show a waiver of service of summons and com-
plaint upon the district attorney under L. O. L.
1020, as amended by Laws 1911, p. 127.-
Jacobs v. Jacobs, 154 P. 749.
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-
pensation received by a surety company for ex-3 (Cal.) Prohibition will not issue to re-
ecuting the bond being sufficient consideration
for its guaranty.-Hensley v. School Dist. No.
87 of Anderson County, 154 P. 253.
II. NATURE AND EXTENT OF LIA-
BILITY OF SURETY.
strain act in excess of trial court's jurisdiction,
where there is adequate remedy at law.-Recla-
mation Dist. No. 1500 v. Superior Court in and
for Sutter County, 154 P. 845.
5 (Okl.) Where a husband brought suit for
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, § court from exercising jurisdiction.-Drummond
6256; Code Civ. Proc. § 661), which requires v. Drummond, 154 P. 514.
merely that the bond be conditioned that the
contractor shall pay for labor and material.-9 (Cal.) Though a defendant was not enti-
Hensley v. School Dist. No. 87 of Anderson tled 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
alleged that the court was proceeding to again
try the issues as to all the defendants, the writ
See Chattel Mortgages, 138-157; Mechan- would be granted in order to properly restrict
ics' Liens, 196.
(D) Privileges and Exemptions.
120 (Mont.) Where a resident of another
the issues to be retried.-Robson v. Superior
Court in and for City and County of San Fran-
cisco, 154 P. 8.
9 (Cal.) Writ of prohibition will issue only
to prevent acts in excess of trial court's juris-
diction, and not to restrain mere errors.-
Reclamation Dist. No. 1500 v. Superior Court
in and for Sutter County, 154 P. 845.
10 (Cal.) Where, in an action to enjoin con-
struction of levee by officers of reclamation dis-
trict, superior court, in excess of jurisdiction,
issued temporary injunction and set cause for
trial, writ of prohibition will issue against fur-
ther proceedings.-Reclamation Dist. No. 1500
v. Superior Court in and for Sutter County,
154 P. 845.
10 (Mont.) Under Rev. Codes, § 7228, pro-
viding that prohibition may issue where there
is no adequate remedy at law, the writ will
issue to restrain the district court from pro-
ceeding with an action against a nonresident
served with process while attending court as a
witness.-State v. District Court of Second Ju-
dicial Dist. in and for Silver Bow County, 154
P. 200.
15 (Cal.) Where a mortgage was foreclosed
and a deficiency decree rendered against sev-
eral successive purchasers who had assumed the
mortgage, and one of the defendants secured a
new trial, another defendant was not beneficial-
ly interested, and was not entitled to maintain
prohibition to prevent a new trial.-Robson v.
San Francisco, 154 P. 8.
Superior Court in and for City and County of
PROMISSORY NOTES.
See Bills and Notes.
state was served with summons while in the See Insurance, 552.
PROXIMATE CAUSE.
See Negligence, 59.
PUBLIC BUILDINGS.
See Counties, 124; Mechanics' Liens, 13.
PUBLIC LANDS.
See Adverse Possession, 7.
Under Rev. St. § 2296 (U. S. Comp. St. 1913,
§ 4551), held that for a debt contracted after is-
suance of final certificate of entry to the debtor,
but prior to his obtaining a patent, the land
could be taken in satisfaction.-Id.
III. DISPOSAL OF LANDS OF THE
STATES.
185 (Wash.) Where a railroad purchased
tidelands on installments, and thereafter be-
came insolvent and assigned its interest to one
of its officers as trustee for other officers, evi-
dence held not to show that any interest re-
mained in the railroad company at the time of
an execution sale of its property thereafter
made.-Ritchie v. Trumbull, 154 P. 816.
PUBLIC NUISANCE.
I. GOVERNMENT OWNERSHIP.
19 (Wyo.) One who was lawfully entitled to
the possession of a portion of the public domain,
who erected a fence including a portion of the
public land to which he was not entitled, ac-
quired no rights in such portion inclosed; his
entry being unauthorized.-Pool v. Baker, 154 See Nuisance, 72–83.
Where one unlawfully incloses a portion of
the public domain with his own land, he cannot
in equity enjoin a rightful holder thereof from See Municipal Corporations, 426.
maintaining his lawful possession.-Id.
II. SURVEY AND DISPOSAL OF LANDS
OF UNITED STATES.
(B) Entries, Sales, and Possessory Rights.
35 (Idaho) In a suit to quiet title to an
unsurveyed tract of public land claimed under
Rev. Codes, 88 4552-4555, held, that defendant
could not complain of plaintiffs' failure to apply
to the local land office to enter the land after
same was surveyed, where plaintiffs' right to
have possession quieted against defendant ac-
crued prior to the survey.-Goldensmith v. Snow-
storm Mining Co., 154 P. 968.
PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
See Schools and School Districts, 63-100.
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.
See Electricity, 4, 11; Mandamus, 3.
PUBLIC SERVICE CORPORATIONS.
See Carriers; Railroads; Street Railroads;
Telegraphs and Telephones.
PUBLIC USE.
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
Land Department, is entitled to possession See Contempt, 72; Criminal Law, ➡884,
thereof.-Pool v. Baker, 154 P. 328.
40 (Idaho) What constitutes an abandon-
ment of a homestead selected under Rev. Codes,
§§ 4552-4555, is a question of intent to be
gathered from the facts.-Goldensmith v. Snow-
storm Mining Co., 154 P. 968.
The temporary absence of a person for any
legitimate reason from a homestead selected un-
der Rev. Codes, §§ 4552-4555, does not of it-
self show "abandonment" of the homestead.-Id.
See Judgment, 251, 256; Pleading, 369;
Waters and Water Courses, 152.
41 (Idaho) Where a person has gone into
possession of unsurveyed government land and
fully complied with Rev. Codes, §§ 4552-4555,
abandonment thereof must be conclusively
shown by one relying on it to defeat the claim-
ant's right to have his possession quieted.30 (Wash.) Where a railroad company as-
Goldensmith v. Snowstorm Mining Co., 154 P.
968.
II. PROCEEDINGS AND RELIEF.
signed to plaintiff's predecessor in interest as
trustee its interest in lands sold by the state it
was immaterial whether the beneficiaries, at
the time of suit to quiet title, were the same as
those named in the assignment, since a trustee
of an express trust may sue in his own name.
-Ritchie v. Trumbull, 154 P. 816.
(E) School and University Lands.
54 (Kan.) While Laws 1913, c. 295, were
in force, there were no means provided for sell-
ing as school lands islands surveyed and entered
under federal authority more than 20 years be-35 (Cal.) Where the validity of defendant's
fore such act took effect.-Means v. Kennedy,
154 P. 245.
mortgage depended on title acquired by the
mortgagor through a street opening proceeding
by a city, which divested plaintiff's title, a gen-
eral averment of the title in the mortgagor is
sufficient without pleading the source.-Tilton v.
Decker, 154 P. 860.
(I) Proceedings in Land Office.
106 (Nev.) The determination by the fed-
eral Land Department of the character of pub-
lic lands is conclusive, except in certain direct 39 (Cal.) In a suit to quiet title, judgment
proceedings, to set aside a patent for fraud,
imposition, mistake, or the like.-Earl v. Mor-
rison, 154 P. 75.
in defendant's favor protects him against any
of plaintiff's claims, so a cross-complaint pray-
ing that title be adjudged in defendant is ef-
missing it before trial without the consent of
fective merely to prevent plaintiff from dis-
defendant.-Larkin v. Superior Court of Shasta
County, 154 P. 841.
RAILROAD COMMISSION.
See Constitutional Law,
For cases in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER
|