« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »
Principal and Agent
154 PACIFIC REPORTER
Prietpai and Agent
ed to properly repair as agreed, held to state a state only to attend court as a witness, such
III. DEFECTS, OBJECTIONS, AND
trict attorney's appearance for the state held to
show a waiver of service of summons and com-
$ 1020, as amended by Laws 1911, p. 127.-
Jacobs' v, Jacobs, 154 P. 749.
See Partnership, Om 86.
I. NATURE AND GROUNDS.
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.
Om 5 (Okl.) Where a husband brought suit for
divorce, and his wife brought a like suit in an-
other county, and there was no intolerable con-
quate remedy at law, held, that a writ of pro-
court from exercising jurisdiction.-Drummond
v. Drummond, 154 P. 514.
On 9 (Cal.) Though a defendant was not enti-
tled to prohibition to prevent a new trial of the
issue as between plaintiff and a codefendant,
try the issues as to all the defendants, the writ
the issues to be retried.--Robson v. Superior
Court in and for City and County of San Fran-
cisco, 154 P. 8.
C 9 (Cal.) Writ of probibition 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.
Cum 10 (Cal.) Where, in an action to enjoin con-
struction of levee by officers of reclamation dis-
trict, superior court, in excess of jurisdiction,
trial, writ of prohibition will issue against fur-
v. Superior Court in and for Sutter County,
154 P. 845.
Om 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
Om 15 (Cal.) Where a mortgage was foreclosed
mortgage, and one of the defendants secured a
new trial, another defendant was not beneficial-
Superior Court in and for City and County of
Attachment, Em 209;. Execution; Garnish-
See Bills and Notes.
1 Under Rev. St. & 2296 (U. S. Comp. St. 1913,
8 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
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-
| mained in the railroad company at the time of
| an execution sale of its property thereafter
made.-Ritchie v. Trumbull, 154 P. 816.
· PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
* See Schools and School Districts, Ow63-100.
See Electricity, Cw4, 11; Mandamus, 3.
Street Railroads ;
Telegraphs and Telephones.
35 (Wyo.) One who has a homestead entry See Dedication; Eminent Domain.
See Contempt, w72; Criminal Law, em884,
QUESTIONS OF LAW AND FACT.
See Judgment, en 251, 256; Pleading, C 369;
Waters and Water Courses, m 152.
II. PROCEEDINGS AND RELIEF.
Om 30 (Wash.) Where a railroad company 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
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
ing that title be adjudged in defendant is ef-
fective merely to prevent plaintiff from dis-
missing it before trial without the consent of
defendant.-Larkin v. Superior Court of Shasta
į See Constitutional Law, Om62.
| able only when the company has created a con-
dition of apparent safety.-Id.
20; Master and Servant, 111, 112; driver to cross a track at a grade crossing with-
out looking or listening for an approaching
train, held contributory negligence barring re-
the crossing was not ringing.-Jacobs v, Atchi-
son, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 151 P. 1023.
T 335 (Colo.) The contributory negligence of
not en- one killed at a crossing in going upon the track
excessive_under ordinance.-Ileadley v. Denver
& R. G. R. Co., 154 P. 731.
339 (Kan.) Failure to ring the bell or sound
the whistle for a grade crossing in a small city,
held not wantonness avoiding contributory neg-
ligence, though the train was going at 45 miles
per hour, where the trainmen cut off the steam
and applied the air, and supposed that an elec-
Itric warning bell at the crossing was ringing.--
3 Jacobs v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 154 P.
A railroad company which enters under fran-'em 350 (Colo.) The question whether decedent,
fairly be drawn therefrom.--Headley v. Denver
& R. G. R. Co., 154 P. 731.
(G) Injuries to Persons on or near
track is the most reasonable care under exist-
ing circumstances, taking into consideration his
other duties.--Anest y. Columbia & P. S. R.
Co., 154 P. 1100.
mm 358 (Wash.) A railroad owes no duty to li-
censees, using double-tracked right of way for
path, to refrain from operating trains on a par-
ticular track in a direction contrary to its usual
custom.-Imler v. Northern Pác. Ry. Co., 154
Railroad owes duty of strict accountability to
O persons crossing tracks at points fixed therefor,
1: whether established by railroad or implied by
using right of way in cities for footpath is high-
er than in country districts.--Imler v. Northern
Pac. Ry. Co., 154 P. 1086.
w 369 (Wash.) Defendant railroad's duty to
decedent licensee walking on right of way held
to require reasonable lookout to discover pres.
ence and reasonable care to avoid injury after
discovering presence.--Imler v. Northern Pac.
pproaching train. I am 377 (Wash.) In action for death of licensee
walking on defendant railroad's right of way,
engineer held not bound to anticipate that de-
Short Line R. Co., 154 P. 777.
Om 425 (Wash.) Under Rem. & Bal. Code, s
8730, as railroad company was not required to
fence depot and side track, held, that absence
of cattle guards was not proximate cause of in-
jury to live stock.–Benn v. Chicago, M. & St.
P. Ry. Co., 154 P. 1082
Om 45 (Wash.) Where a party before signing a
contract read a portion and objected to the rate
600 or 600 was read, he could not have reformation on the
absence of clear and substantial evidence of
fraud.—Northwest Motor Co. v. Braund, 154
See Appeal and Error, Omw 832, 835; New Trial.
See Accord and Satisfaction; Banks and Bank-
ing, 39; Compositions with Creditors ;
Compromise and Settlement; Mortgages, no
309, 312; Payment.
Principal and Agent, w163, 166; Release, I. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY.
17 (Colo.) A grossly inadequate considera-
tion for the release of valuable rights may of
itself be an evidence of fraud.-Weber v. Head
Camp, Pacific Jurisdiction, Woodmen of the
World, 154 P. 728.
em 21 (Kan.) A letter stating that the injured
passenger "would like some kind of position
with your company, as I settled fairly* obe *
and without any trouble," when voluntarily
written after recovery, and with full knowledge
of all circumstances, was a "ratification" of a
settlement made under influence of anæsthetics.
-Frazier v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 154 P. 1022.
58 (Kan.) Evidence that plaintiff, at sug-
601 claimed to be a ratification of a settlement
made by plaintiff under the influence of anæs-
thetics, held not to authorize submitting to the
of lanjury the question of fraud in procuring the let-
ter to be written.-Frazier v. Missouri Pac. Ry.
5 Co., 154 P. 1022.
In charging the offense of receiving, stolen om 17 (Or.) For deed to create perpetual trust
specify exclusive purpose, and by appropriate
language express or import perpetual use of
land therefor, as by use of words “only," "for-
ever," or "for no other purpose."-Stansbery v.
First Methodist Episcopal Church, 154 P. 887.
Deed reciting that land was conveyed for the
purpose of a parsonage, church, etc., held mere-
ly to express motive of grantor or intention of
grantee, and not to create trust for such pur-
Law, 1086–1121 ; Indians, C 13; Judg- was conveyed for use as a church and such use
to discharge such obligation.-Stansbery v. First
Methodist Episcopal Church, 154 P. 887.
See Life Estates.
On 14 (Cal.) Remainder in trust, whether vest-
ed or contingent, held alienable.-Gray v. Union
See Municipal Corporations, m155; Officers,
REMOVAL OF CAUSES. | mortgagor of the property seized by the sheriff
under attachment and held under a redelivery
OF REMOVAL IN GENERAL. gor, stated that he would pay such damages as
the judge and jury might determine did not
Federal make the tender insufficient.-Id.
ngress. --State v. Flannelly, / ing that the sheriff, holding property under a
redelivery bond, had made a sufficient tender of
a return of the property.--Kansas Nat. Drill &
| Mfg. Co. v. Redd, 154 P. 250.
less the original suit whether, shortly after the giving of a redelivery
erly refused to peremptorily instruct that no
tender was made.-Kansas Nat. Drill & Mfg.
Co. v. Redd, 154 P. 250.
Instructions as to what would constitute a
sufficient tender to plaintiff of the property in
controversy and as to the effect of plaintiff's
refusal to accept such a tender held to suffi-
8 (Or.) If entitled to possession of a chat. See Witnesses, On 342.
plaintiff can recover it in, an action of claim
See Trial, em 260,
panange or Property, Em5; Vendor and
See Evidence, ww123.
63 (Or.) Where defendant questioned the
RESTRAINT OF TRADE.
See Trusts, eww6334-83.
Under Code Civ. Proc. $ 667, held, that a See Abatement and Revival, em 47.
RIGHT OF WAY.