Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

Principal and Agent

154 PACIFIC REPORTER

1280

Prietpai and Agent

PRIORITIES.

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
em 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 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, 159; Sheriffs and Constables, em

Jacobs' v, Jacobs, 154 P. 749.
157-168; States, 101.

PROFITS.
I. CREATION AND EXISTENCE OF
RELATION.

See Partnership, Om 86.
(B) Surety Companies.

PROHIBITION.
57 (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-cm3 (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.

Om 5 (Okl.) Where a husband brought suit for

divorce, and his wife brought a like suit in an-
82 (Kan.) A building contractor's bond held

other county, and there was no intolerable con-
ver loss resulting, from the contractor's flict of jurisdiction for which there was no ade-
abandonment of the building before its comple-
tion, though the original agreement called for hibition should not issue to prevent the latter

quate remedy at law, held, that a writ of pro-
a bond according to statute (Gen. St. 1909, 8

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.-

On 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.

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

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

cisco, 154 P. 8.

C 9 (Cal.) Writ of probibition will issue only
See Nuisance, Cw350.

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.

Cum 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, Omw 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, ew148.

154 P. 845.
PROBABLE CAUSE.

Om 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, 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, em 200, 201.

Om 15 (Cal.) Where a mortgage was foreclosed
and a deficiency decree rendered against ser-
eral successive purchasers who had assumed the

mortgage, and one of the defendants secured a
See Counties, ww63.

new trial, another defendant was not beneficial-
ly interested, and was not entitled to maintain
prohibition to prevent a new trial.-Robson v.

Superior Court in and for City and County of
See Appeal and Error, Cum 430; Appearance; San Francisco. 154 P. 8.

Attachment, Em 209;. Execution; Garnish-
ment; Injunction; Mandamus; Prohibition,
m10; Replevin; Taxation, w708.

PROMISSORY NOTES.
II. SERVICE.

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

PROOF.
cm 120 (Mont.) Where a resident of another

PROBATION OFFICERS.

PROCESS.

PROXIMATE CAUSE.

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

8 4551), held that for a debt contracted after is-
See Negligence, em59.

suance of final certificate of entry to the debtor,

| but prior to his obtaining a patent, the land
PUBLIC BUILDINGS.

could be taken in satisfaction.-Id.

III. DISPOSAL OF LANDS OF THE
See Counties, em 124; Mechanics' Liens, 13.

STATES.
PUBLIC LANDS.

185 (Wash.) Where a railroad purchased

tidelands on installments, and thereafter be-
See Adverse Possession, ew 7.

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-

| mained in the railroad company at the time of
Om 19 (Wyo.) One who was lawfully entitled to

| an execution sale of its property thereafter
the possession of a portion of the public domain,

made.-Ritchie v. Trumbull, 154 P. 816.
who erected a fence including a portion of the
public land to which he was not entitled, ac-

PUBLIC NUISANCE.
quired no rights in such portion inelosed; his
entry being unauthorized.--Pool V. Baker, 154 | See Nuisance, O 72-83.
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, m426.
maintaining his lawful possession.---Id.

· PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
II. SURVEY AND DISPOSAL OF LANDS
OF UNITED STATES.

* See Schools and School Districts, Ow63-100.
(B) Entries, Sales, and Possessory Rights. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.
Cum 35 (Idaho) In a suit to quiet title to an
unsurveyed tract of public land claimed under

See Electricity, Cw4, 11; Mandamus, 3.
Rev. Codes, $$ 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;
same was surveyed, where plan

Railroads;
same was surveved where plaintiffs' right to "

Street Railroads ;

Telegraphs and Telephones.
have possession quieted against defendant ac-

o
crued prior to the survey.-Goldensmith y. 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
thereof.—Pool v. Baker, 154 P. 328.

See Contempt, w72; Criminal Law, em884,

1206.
Omm 40 (Idaho) What constitutes an abandon-
ment of a homestead selected under Rev. Codes,

QUANTUM MERUIT.
$$ 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, Cm139–143.
der Rev. Codes, $8 4552-4555, does not of it-
self show "abandonment" of the homestead.-Id.

QUIETING TITLE.
Om41 (Idaho) Where a person has gone into

See Judgment, en 251, 256; Pleading, C 369;
possession of unsurveyed government land and
fully complied with Rev. Codes, 88 4552-4555,

Waters and Water Courses, m 152.
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
em 54 (Kan.) While Laws 1913, c. 295, were those named in the assignment, since a trustee
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- 35 (Cal.) Where the validity of defendant's
fore such act took effect. ---Means y. Kennedy, mortgage depended on title acquired by the
154 P. 245.

mortgagor through a street opening proceeding
(I) Proceedings in Land 0mce.

by a city, which divested plaintiff's title, a gen-

eral averment of the title in the mortgagor is
cu 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 39 (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-

fective merely to prevent plaintiff from dis-
tions.

missing it before trial without the consent of

defendant.-Larkin v. Superior Court of Shasta
140 (Idaho) Land acquired as a homestead County, 154 P. 811.
under Rev. St. $ 2296 (U. S. Comp. St. 1913,
$ 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.

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

RAILROADS.

| able only when the company has created a con-

dition of apparent safety.-Id.
See Carriers ; Commerce, O 27; Evidence, em 330 (Kan.) An attempt of an automobile

20; Master and Servant, 111, 112; driver to cross a track at a grade crossing with-
Street Railroads; Taxation, Cw299.

out looking or listening for an approaching

train, held contributory negligence barring re-
V. RIGHT OF WAY AND OTHER IN covery, though an electric bell maintained at
TERESTS IN LAND.

the crossing was not ringing.-Jacobs v, Atchi-
en 73 (Wash.) Plaintiff, who granted defend-

son, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 151 P. 1023.
ant a right of way by an instrument restoring om 335

T 335 (Colo.) The contributory negligence of
an old contract for a right of way, held not en- one

not en- one killed at a crossing in going upon the track
titled to enjoin defendant from running addi- | without looking and listening barred recovery
tional trains, the branch of which the right of for his death, though the automatic bell required
way was a part having been extended.-Tacoma by ordinance to be maintained there failed to
Mill Co. v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co.. 154 P. 173. ring, and the train was traveling at a speed
82 (Wash.) Under a right of way deed

excessive_under ordinance.-Ileadley v. Denver

& R. G. R. Co., 154 P. 731.
for an electric railroad, held, that forfeiture

339 (Kan.) Failure to ring the bell or sound
could not be declared because the constructions
was not completed and the road bad not been

the whistle for a grade crossing in a small city,
electrified at the expiration of two years from

held not wantonness avoiding contributory neg-
the date of the deed.-Oechsli v. Washington

ligence, though the train was going at 45 miles
Electric Ry. Co., 154 P. 1079.

per hour, where the trainmen cut off the steam
Though right of way deed for electric road

and applied the air, and supposed that an elec-
provided for forfeiture in case of abandonment,

Itric warning bell at the crossing was ringing.--
unreasonable delay in electrifying the road held

3 Jacobs v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 154 P.

1023.
not to operate as a forfeiture.--Id.

A railroad company which enters under fran-'em 350 (Colo.) The question whether decedent,
chise to construct an electric railroad does not killed at a railroad crossing, was guilty of con-
lose its right of way by unreasonable delay in tributory negligence, is for the jury, where the
electrifying the road, and its operation cannot facts are such that different conclusions may
be enjoined, nor can it be ejected.-Id.

fairly be drawn therefrom.--Headley v. Denver

& R. G. R. Co., 154 P. 731.
X. OPERATION.

(G) Injuries to Persons on or near
(A) Duty to Operate.

Tracks.
218 (Okl.) A carrier may ordinarily adopt On357 (Wash.) The degree of care to be ex-
reasonable regulations prescribing that certain ercised by a locomotive fireman in watching the
passenger trains shall stop only at designated

track is the most reasonable care under exist-
stations.-Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Sheets,

ing circumstances, taking into consideration his

other duties.--Anest y. Columbia & P. S. R.
154 P. 550.

Co., 154 P. 1100.
(F) Accidents at Crossings.

mm 358 (Wash.) A railroad owes no duty to li-
307 (Colo.) Where the automatic bell, which

censees, using double-tracked right of way for

path, to refrain from operating trains on a par-
a railroad required by ordinance at a crossing

ticular track in a direction contrary to its usual
failed to ring on approach of a train, traveling

custom.-Imler v. Northern Pác. Ry. Co., 154
at an excessive rate of speed, the road was De

P. 1086.
guilty of negligence sufficient to sustain a ver-

Railroad owes duty of strict accountability to
dict for death of one killed at the crossing.--

O persons crossing tracks at points fixed therefor,
Headley v. Denver & R. G. R. Co., 154 P. 731.

1: whether established by railroad or implied by
m327 (Colo.) Decedent, killed at a railroad license.--Id.
crossing when he attempted to cross the tracks 365 (Wash.) Duty of railroads to persons
on his bicycle immediately after the passage of using right of war in citie

using right of way in cities for footpath is high-
one train, was under duty to look and listen er

er than in country districts.--Imler v. Northern
for any other approaching train before attempt-

Pac. Ry. Co., 154 P. 1086.
ing to cross the tracks, two switch and two
main line.-Headley v. Denver & R. G. R. Co.,

w 369 (Wash.) Defendant railroad's duty to
154 P. 731.

decedent licensee walking on right of way held
Where one attempting to cross railroad tracks,

to require reasonable lookout to discover pres.
two switch and two main line, reached the

ence and reasonable care to avoid injury after
middle space between the main line tracks, be-

discovering presence.--Imler v. Northern Pac.
fore going on the second of them he was under | Ry. Co., 154 P. 1086.
duty to look and listen for an approaching train.

pproaching train. I am 377 (Wash.) In action for death of licensee
-Id.

walking on defendant railroad's right of way,
Cum 328 (Colo.) Decedent, attempting to cross

engineer held not bound to anticipate that de-
railroad tracks with knowledge that a train, his cedent would step in front of train.--Imler V.
view of which was temporarily cut off by an- / Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 154 P. 1086.
other, and would be until he reached a middle On 401 (Utah) Instruction as to right of train
space between the tracks, was approaching, was operators to assume that person near trací.
under duty to look for the approaching train would not go on or dangerously near it held not
as soon as he could see to ascertain if he could erroneous; it not authorizing such assumption
cross before it.-Headley v. Denver & R. G. R. regardless of circumstances.---Thomas v. Oregon
Co., 154 P. 731.

Short Line R. Co., 154 P. 777.
C 330 (Colo.) An ordinance requiring electric (H) Injuries to Animals on or near Tracks.
warning bells at railroad crossings could not be

Om 425 (Wash.) Under Rem. & Bal. Code, s
so narrowly construed that decedent, attempt-
ing to cross after the passage of a train, during

8730, as railroad company was not required to
which the bell had not rung, could be held not

fence depot and side track, held, that absence
chargeable with notice that the bell was out

of cattle guards was not proximate cause of in-
of order.-Headley y. Denver & R. G. R. Co..

jury to live stock.–Benn v. Chicago, M. & St.
154 P. 731.

P. Ry. Co., 154 P. 1082
Though one approaching a railroad crossing! 441 (Wash.) Railroad company failing to
can assume that the road will give the required comply with statute as to fences and cattle
signals, and that the crossing may be made safeguards held merely required to meet a prima
ly when he can neither see nor hear signs of a facie case, or presumption of negligence respect
train, he is not relieved from the duty to use his ing killing of stock.-Benn v. Chicago, M. & St.
m 443 (Wash.) In action for value of colts | REFORMATION OF INSTRUMENTS.
struck by train, evidence held insufficient to
support trial judge's finding that the trainmen II. PROCEEDINGS AND RELIEF.
expected the horses to run off the track.-Benn

Om 45 (Wash.) Where a party before signing a
v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 154 P. 1082.

contract read a portion and objected to the rate
Om 446 (Wash.) Court held to have erred in of interest, though he alleged and the other de-
holding as matter of law that freight train of nied that he was told it was only a form, and
16 cars fairly light, running 28 or 30 miles an the other party testified that the whole contract
hour could have been stopped within 600 or 650 | was read, he could not h

600 or 600 was read, he could not have reformation on the
feet.-Benn v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., ground of fraud in omitting warranties in the
154 P. 1082.

absence of clear and substantial evidence of
RAPE.

fraud.—Northwest Motor Co. v. Braund, 154

P. 1098.
See Criminal Law, Ow369, 678, 783, 814, 1172,

REHEARING.
1186.
II. PROSECUTION AND PUNISHMENT.

See Appeal and Error, Omw 832, 835; New Trial.
(B) Evidence.

REINSTATEMENT.
Om51 (Kan.) Proof that accused and the wo See Appeal and Error, Om 807; Dismissal and
man were not husband and wife, is not essential

Nonsuit,
to a prima facie case of rape.-State v. Van

43.
Sickle, 154 P. 1015.

RELEASE.
RATE.

See Accord and Satisfaction; Banks and Bank-
See Interest.

ing, 39; Compositions with Creditors ;
RATIFICATION.

Compromise and Settlement; Mortgages, no

309, 312; Payment.
See Contracts, Om97; Corporations, @mw 426 ;

Principal and Agent, w163, 166; Release, I. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY.
On 21.

17 (Colo.) A grossly inadequate considera-
REAL ACTIONS.

tion for the release of valuable rights may of

itself be an evidence of fraud.-Weber v. Head
See Quieting Title.

Camp, Pacific Jurisdiction, Woodmen of the

World, 154 P. 728.
REASONABLE DOUBT.

em 21 (Kan.) A letter stating that the injured
See Criminal Law, 561, 789.

passenger "would like some kind of position

with your company, as I settled fairly* obe *
REBATES.

and without any trouble," when voluntarily

written after recovery, and with full knowledge
See Intoxicating Liquors, en 97.

of all circumstances, was a "ratification" of a

settlement made under influence of anæsthetics.
RECEIVERS.

-Frazier v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 154 P. 1022.
See Appeal and Error, Omw 544, 874, 920; Chat-' III. PLEADING, EVIDENCE, TRIAL,
tel Mortgages, em 281; Evidence, Cm. 82.

AND REVIEW.

58 (Kan.) Evidence that plaintiff, at sug-
RECEIVING STOLEN GOODS. gestion of defendant's agent, wrote a letter
em? (Wash.) Under Rem. & Bal. Code, & 2601, ma

601 claimed to be a ratification of a settlement
defining and providing the penalty for "ar-

made by plaintiff under the influence of anæs-
ceny," where subdivision 5 thereof makes one re-

thetics, held not to authorize submitting to the
ceiving goods "so appropriated" guilty of lar-

of lanjury the question of fraud in procuring the let-

ury

ter to be written.-Frazier v. Missouri Pac. Ry.
ceny, an information is not defective for fail-
ing, in charging an offense under subdivision 5 | Co., 104

5 Co., 154 P. 1022.
to charge the original taking under subdivision
4.–State v. Ketterman, 154 P. 182.

In charging the offense of receiving, stolen om 17 (Or.) For deed to create perpetual trust
goods, it is not necessary to allege the facts of for purpose of a parsonage, church, etc., it must
the original unlawful taking.-Id.

specify exclusive purpose, and by appropriate

language express or import perpetual use of
RECLAMATION DISTRICTS,

land therefor, as by use of words “only," "for-

ever," or "for no other purpose."-Stansbery v.
See Drains, Cm2, 6, 17.

First Methodist Episcopal Church, 154 P. 887.

Deed reciting that land was conveyed for the
RECOGNIZANCES.

purpose of a parsonage, church, etc., held mere-
See Bail.

ly to express motive of grantor or intention of
RECORDS.

grantee, and not to create trust for such pur-

poses.-Id.
See Appeal and Error, E544–715; Criminal mw 18 (Or.) Where a deed recited that land

Law, 1086–1121 ; Indians, C 13; Judg- was conveyed for use as a church and such use
ment, um 606; Negligence, Onn 33; Vendor was partial consideration, 60 years' user held
and Purchaser, Cu231.

to discharge such obligation.-Stansbery v. First

Methodist Episcopal Church, 154 P. 887.
RECOUPMENT.

REMAINDERS.
See Set-Off and Counterclaim.

See Life Estates.
REDEMPTION.

On 14 (Cal.) Remainder in trust, whether vest-

ed or contingent, held alienable.-Gray v. Union
See Execution, em 291-297; Mortgages, On Trust Co. of San Francisco, 154 P. 306.
591-624; Taxation, em 708.

REMOVAL.
REFERENDUM.

See Municipal Corporations, m155; Officers,
See Municipal Corporations, C918.

ww7, 74.

RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES.

t

REMOVAL OF CAUSES. | mortgagor of the property seized by the sheriff

under attachment and held under a redelivery
I. POWER TO REMOVE AND RIGHT bond given in replevin brought by the mortga-

OF REMOVAL IN GENERAL. gor, stated that he would pay such damages as
Paw 4 (Kan.) An original proceeding in manda-

the judge and jury might determine did not
mus is not removable from a state to a federalnak

Federal make the tender insufficient.-Id.
court; it not being a "civil action' within the w 134 (Kan.) Evidence held to sustain a find-
Removal Acts o

ngress. --State v. Flannelly, / ing that the sheriff, holding property under a
154 P. 235.

redelivery bond, had made a sufficient tender of
5 (Kan.) A suit, ancillary and supplemen-

a return of the property.--Kansas Nat. Drill &
tal to a prior suit and substantially a continu-

| Mfg. Co. v. Redd, 154 P. 250.
ation thereof. cannot be removed to a United On 135 (Kan.) Under the evidence on the issue
States District Court unless the original suit

less the original suit whether, shortly after the giving of a redelivery
has been previously or may be simultaneously bond in replevin, defendant tendered back the
removed.-State v. Flannelly, 154 P. 235. property to plaintiff, held that the court prop-

erly refused to peremptorily instruct that no
REPEAL.

tender was made.-Kansas Nat. Drill & Mfg.

Co. v. Redd, 154 P. 250.
See Statutes, em 150_161.

Instructions as to what would constitute a

sufficient tender to plaintiff of the property in
REPLEVIN.

controversy and as to the effect of plaintiff's

refusal to accept such a tender held to suffi-
I. RIGHT OF ACTION AND DEFENSES. ciently state the law to protect plaintiff's rights.
ml (Or.) Action of claim and delivery pro-

-Id.
vided for by L. O. L. $ 283 et seq., is strictly

REPLY.
possessory action based on wrongful detention | See Pleading, 165, 180,
of property with plaintiff's right to immediate
possession at time action begins.-Reed v. Mills,

REPUTATION.
154 P. 113.

8 (Or.) If entitled to possession of a chat. See Witnesses, On 342.

plaintiff can recover it in, an action of claim
and delivery, regardless of his indebtedness to

REQUESTS.
defendant.-Reed v. Mills, 154 P. 113.

See Trial, em 260,
Om 10 (Or.) Where plaintiff's reply in action
for possession of bond under L. O. L. & 283 et

RESALE.
seq., regulating claim and delivery actions,
showed that bond had been fraudulently assign- See Sales, em 334, 339.
ed to third person without consideration, non-
suit at close of plaintiff's evidence held prop-

RESCISSION.
erly refused, since the action would lie if de-
fendant had constructive possession.-Reed v. See Exchange or Property, Pm5; Vendor and
Mills, 154 P. 113.

panange or Property, Em5; Vendor and
On 12 (Or.) Where plaintiff in claim and de-
livery action recovered money judgment be-

RES GESTÆ.
cause chattel could not be delivered, defendants
was not entitled to set off debts owing him bye

See Evidence, ww123.
plaintiff.-Reed v. Mills, 154 P. 113.

RES JUDICATA.
IV. PLEADING AND EVIDENCE. See Judgment, 569-621, 642, 739.

63 (Or.) Where defendant questioned the
validity of an assignment for benefit of creditors

RESTRAINT OF TRADE.
under which plaintiff in replevin claimed on the
ground of fraud, such fraud must be set up in See Contracts, Ow117; Injunction, www61.
the answer.-Sabin v. Chrisman, 154 P. 908.

RESULTING TRUSTS.
VI. TRIAL, JUDGMENT, ENFORCE-
MENT OF JUDGMENT, AND

See Trusts, eww6334-83.
REVIEW.

REVENUE.
Om 107 (Cal. App.) Under Code Civ. Proc. $
667, declaring that in an action to recover pos-

See Taxation.
session of personal property judgment shall

REVIEW,
be for possession of the property or the val-
ue thereof, a judgment not in the alterna- See Appeal and Error; Certiorari.
tive is not necessarily void, and may, under
particular circumstances, be upheld.--Keiser v.

REVIVAL.
Levering, 154 P. 281.

Under Code Civ. Proc. $ 667, held, that a See Abatement and Revival, em 47.
judgment for personal property or in the alter-
native for a sum of money, cannot stand where

REVOCATION.
the sum was in excess of the amount of the debt
secured by one chattel mortgage, and the value See Physicians and Surgeons, 11; Trusts,
of the property embraced in another was not
stated.-Id.
VII. LIABILITIES ON BONDS AND See Easements; Railroads, w73, 82.

UNDERTAKINGS.
Om 130 (Kan.) In an action in which a redeliv-

RIPARIAN RIGHTS.
ery bond was given for unwieldy well-drilling See Navigable Waters, cm 40.
property seized under attachment, evidence held
to show a sufficient tender of return of the

RISKS.
property, where the sheriff's representative said
to plaintiff's agent, “If they are your machines, See Insurance, 419-454.
take them."-Kansas Nat. Drill & Mfg. Co. v.
Redd, 154 P. 250.
That the representative of the sheriff and the

ROADS.

RIGHT OF WAY.

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »