« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »
reform the contract to make it express the in- 1 statement unless it was supported by evidence.
VI. TAKING CASE OR QUESTION
(A) Questions of Law or of Fact in Gen-
On 139 (Okl.) A verdict should be directed only
gether with all inferences reasonably deducible
therefrom, could not authorize a verdict for
such party.-Case v. Posey, 154 P. 1165.
Om 139 (Wash.) The weight of the testimony is
for the jury.--Donaldson v. Great Northern Ry.
Co., 154 P. 133.
140 (Mont.) Where a witness on cross-ex-
amination changed his testimony as to a state-
statement in an affidavit wherein it should have
been mentioned, and there was no other evidence
as to the statement having been made, held,
that the question of the witness' credibility was
for the jury.--Alexander v. Great Northern Ry.
Co., 154 P. 914.
140 (Wash.) The credibility of witnesses is
for the jury.-Donaldson v. Great Northern Ry.
eview OL runns al trial, see appeal and Co.. 154 P. 133.
em 143 (Kan.) Refusal to direct a verdict for
| a street car passenger injured in attempting to
alight held not error, where the evidence was
conflicting as to negligence and contributory
negligence.-Christian v. Union Traction Co.,
R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Brown, 154 P. 1161.
(B) Demurrer to Evidence.
On 156 (Okl.) A demurrer to the evidence ad-
mits all facts which the evidence tends to prove
and all inferences reasonably deducible there-
from.-Rose v. Woldert Grocery Co., 154 P. 531.
(D) Direction of Verdict.
ferences reasonably deducible therefrom, is in-
(A) Province of Court and Jury in Gen.
Cum 194 (Wash.) As to defendants, charged only
with negligence in the manner of maintenance
de of a manhole into which plaintiff fell, an in-
struction that there was no evidence of fault
in construction is not objectionable as a com-
200 (Okl.) The court should instruct as to
the law applicable to the issues of fact raised by
the evidence.-Missouri, 0, & G. Ry. Co. v. Da-
242 (Wash.) Instructions in an action for
breach of contract held not erroneous as preclud-
ing the jury from finding separately upon each
cause of action.-Auwarter v. Kroll, 154 P. 438.
(D) Applicability to Plendings and Evi.
was based on the theory of last clear chance;
to establish defendant's liability under the doc-
(A) General Verdict.
em 337 (Colo.) In suit for malicious prosecu-
tion, defended on ground of advice of counsel,
re held, that a verdict for plaintiff would not be
set aside as in disregard of an instruction as to
the facts necessary to constitute such defense.
Mullen v. Griffin, 154 P. 90.
Cu339 (N.M.) After a verdict has been receiv-
ed and entered, and the jury dismissed, they
cannot reassemble and alter their verdict.-
Murry v. Belmore, 154 P. 705.
em 345 (N.M.) Error could not be predicated
on the court's action in permitting the jury to
without objection permitted the reassembling of
girl the jury and correction of the verdict.-Murry
v. Belmore, 154 P. 705.
On 348 (Okl.) Under Const. art. 7, § 21, a de-
as v. fendant is not entitled to have special inter-
rogatories submitted to the jury in addition to
of the general verdict.-St. Louis & S. F, Ry. Co.
|v. Clampitt, 154 P. 40.
X. TRIAL BY COURT.
not entitled to a jury trial as a matter of right,
the court may submit to the jury a part only of
the questions of fact.-Parker v. Hamilton, 154
introduced as explained by the view.-Molalla
-McKune v. Continental Casualty Co., 154 P.
judgment being tested by the agreed statement
pleadings raised the question whether deceased
was guilty of contributory negligence proximate-
ly causing death, the failure of the court, the
Tucker v. United Railroads of San Francisco,
have been made and filed, and judgment entered,
mm 295 (Wash.) An instruction will not be iso- ror for the court, on motion for new trial and of
Ô and in relation to the other instructions. without granting a new trial.-Id.
Om 404 (Kan.) A general finding for a party
finds for him every issuable fact on which the
Liudgment might rest. Brady Y. Harmers' Co-
Op. Creamery & Supply Co., 154 P. 220.
XI. WAIVER AND CORRECTION OF
IRREGULARITIES AND ERRORS.
Court of Second Judicial Dist. in and for Sil- , but to arise by implication of law from acts
and conduct consistent, in honesty and fair deal-
ing, only with a trust.-O'Donnell v. McCool,
154 P. 1090.
om 79 (Wash.) Trust held not to have resulted
in favor of plaintiff in whole of land in defend-
ant's name, defendant having paid part of pur-
chase price, but to have resulted as to interest,
which, without injustice, might be concluded to
be a half interest.--O'Donnell v. McCool, 154
Trust held to result in favor of party furnish-
ing aliquot part of money for purchase of land
for common account of himself and another,
83 (Kan.) A parol agreement between an
optionee and another that the latter would buy
the land, taking title in his own name, and on
resale pay the optionee one-half the profit, held
(C) Constructive Trusts.
mm 95 (Cal. App.) Where, by fraud, defendant
obtained money from plaintiff and therewith
paid part of the purchase price of an automobile
for a contract of sale to him on the installment
plan, plaintiff could impress a constructive
trust, arising from defendant's fraud, upon such
contract. --Carter v. Holt, 154 P. 37.
om 100 (Mont.) An agreement by a bank to lend
money to a wife and to buy in property of her
husband, which was to be sold on mortgage fore-
closure, raises, under Rev. Codes, $ 4538, a re-
sulting trust in favor of the wife, where the
vey it to the wife. - Marcellus v. Wright, 154
II. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERA-
(B) Estate or Interest of Trustee and of
Cestui Que Trust.
erty for benefit of trustor during life and on
her death to nominees in her will, or to her
heirs. held not a dry trust, but an active trust,
name and on rea Code, 8 863, took the whole legal title.-Gray v.
San Francisco, 154 P. 306.
TION, AND TENURE OF
em 160 (Or.) If, there were no Churches of
Christ Scientist in Portland qualified to take
the reversion of the stock of a corporation as
provided by will of the donor, the courts would
not allow the trust to fail for want of a trustee.
-Carson v. Schulderman, 154 P. 903.
IV. MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSAL
OF TRUST PROPERTY.
may be such purchaser, and a sale to him is not
a sale by the trustee, so that there is nothing
For cases in Dec. Dig & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER
VII. ESTABLISHMENT AND EN- I. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY OF
option to purchase land involving assumption
e tinn Free from
Kies, 154 P. 757.
On 16 (Utah) Where defendants agreed to sell
had a right to rely on the vendors' representa-
spective purchaser struck out the reservation
tion was ratified by the seller.-Moon v. Boll-
winkel, 164 P. 939.
TION OF CONTRACT.
54 (Or.) A bond for deed transfers equita-
ble title, leaving in vendor the legal title as se-
curity.-Lyons v. Chaffee, 154 P. 688.
58 (Or.) Where a contract for the sale of
pay installments under penalty of forfeiture,
and an abstract showing good title, the obliga-
tions are correlative, and neither party, having
failed in performance, can complain that the
other has failed.-Decker v. Jordan, 154 P. 431.
upon deferred payments held to obligate the
vendors to execute a warranty deed and deposit
it in escrow with an abstract showing good title
in themselves before maturity of deferred pay.
ments.-Decker v. Jordan, 154 P. 431.
down payment on property was deposited,
though not authorized or ratified by vendor, held
evidence of purchaser's understanding as to am-
only quitclaim deed to 112 feet thereof.-Id.
III. MODIFICATION OR RESCISSION
(C) Rescission by Purchaser.
Om 112 (Or.) Where plaintiff failed to specify
in writing portion of land he desired to purchase
sion of main contract on ground of defendant's that a default in any of the terms should work
session of the property necessarily involved
(B) Actions for Parchase Money.
and reserved the right to sue for foreclosure of
the agreement and of the purchaser's equity of
pursuant to the contract, could maintain a per-
sonal action for the unpaid balance of the price.
-Southern Pac. Co. v. Miller, 154 P. 929.
lem 303 (Nev.) In an action by the agreed ven-
31 dor of realty for the unpaid balance of the price,
the averment in the complaint that plaintiff was
and had been ready to convey, as agreed, upon
performance of the contract by defendants, with
an offer to deliver conveyance into court, was a
sufficient tender.-Southern Pac. Co. v. Miller,
154 P. 929.
em334 (Utah) If purchaser understood ambig.
uous contract as agreement to convey 55 feet
by warranty deed, held, that there was no meet-
ing of the minds, and down payment could be
recovered.-Tyng v, Constant-Loraine Inv. Co.,
154 P. 767.
em 341 (Colo.) Allegations in purchaser's ac-
tion held to state a cause of action to recover
from defendant the amount paid to defendant on
a contract to convey land.-Jones v. Ceres Inv.
Co., 154 P. 745.
341 (Utah) Evidence held not so conclusive
in action to recover down payment that pur-
chaser understood ambiguous contract in dif-
ferent sense from vendor to justify direction
of verdict.-Tyng v. Constant-Loraine Inv, Co.,
154 P. 767.
1. NATURE OR SUBJECT OF ACTION.
em 5 (Cal. App.) An action will not be consid-
ered a real action for the purpose of determina
Farms Co., 154 P. 476. .
Though plaintiff joined with a personal action
an action involving title to real property, which,
under Code Civ. Proc., $ 392, should be tried in
the county where it was located, such joinder
does not deprive defendant of its right to have
the personal action tried in the county of its
III. CHANGE OF VENUE OR PLACE
on default.-Terry v. Rivergarden Farms Co.,
principal relief sought was return of the pur-
lief sought being a money judgment, such de-