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 III. DEFECTS, OBJECTIONS, AND AMENDMENT. 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. PROFITS. See Partnership, Om 86. PROHIBITION. 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 P. 200. 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- PROMISSORY NOTES. See Bills and Notes. PROOF. 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- 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- | 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. PUBLIC PROPERTY. · PUBLIC SCHOOLS. * See Schools and School Districts, Ow63-100. See Electricity, Cw4, 11; Mandamus, 3. Railroads; Street Railroads ; Telegraphs and Telephones. o PUBLIC USE. 35 (Wyo.) One who has a homestead entry See Dedication; Eminent Domain. PUNISHMENT. See Contempt, w72; Criminal Law, em884, 1206. QUANTUM MERUIT. QUESTIONS OF LAW AND FACT. QUIETING TITLE. 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 RAILROAD COMMISSION. į See Constitutional Law, Om62. RAILROADS. | 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. 1023. 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 Tracks. 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 P. 1086. 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 P. 1098. REHEARING. See Appeal and Error, Omw 832, 835; New Trial. REINSTATEMENT. Nonsuit, 43. RELEASE. 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. AND REVIEW. 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- ury 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- poses.-Id. 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. REMAINDERS. See Life Estates. On 14 (Cal.) Remainder in trust, whether vest- ed or contingent, held alienable.-Gray v. Union REMOVAL. See Municipal Corporations, m155; Officers, ww7, 74. RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES. t 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- -Id. REPLY. REPUTATION. 8 (Or.) If entitled to possession of a chat. See Witnesses, On 342. plaintiff can recover it in, an action of claim REQUESTS. See Trial, em 260, RESALE. RESCISSION. panange or Property, Em5; Vendor and RES GESTÆ. See Evidence, ww123. RES JUDICATA. 63 (Or.) Where defendant questioned the RESTRAINT OF TRADE. RESULTING TRUSTS. See Trusts, eww6334-83. REVENUE. See Taxation. REVIEW, REVIVAL. Under Code Civ. Proc. $ 667, held, that a See Abatement and Revival, em 47. REVOCATION. UNDERTAKINGS. RIPARIAN RIGHTS. RISKS. ROADS. RIGHT OF WAY. |