Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

tra

VERDICT.

ed to use the waters for 29 years, the failure for

such time of a junior appropriator to sue for a
See Appeal and Error, em 1001-1005, 1070;

judicial decree of abandonment was not laches,
Criminal Law, 875–893, 1159, 1160; Li-

barring such a suit, which need not be brought
bel and Slander, 160; Master and Serv- until some one again claims the abandoned wa-
ant, em 297; New Trial,' Om74, 143; Trial, ter right under the decree.--Id.
169, 337–348.

In an action by a junior appropriator of ir-

rigating waters against senior appropriators to
VERIFICATION.

decree an abandonment of their rights under a

former decree whereby they were entitled to
See Pleading, em 290–304.

16.70 customary inches, an amount in excess of

the 16.70 cubic feet per second, which the ref-
VESTED REMAINDERS.

eree concluded was all they had not abandoned,
See Remainders.

it was unnecessary for him to determine the ex-

act amount in cubic feet of the original decree.
VESTED RIGHTS.

-Id.

In an action by a junior appropriator of irri-
See Constitutional Law, ew106.

gating waters against senior appropriators to

decree an abandonment, evidence that the wa-
VIEW,

ter was at times run in sections did not over-

come the evidence of intent to abandon in the
See Trial, Cw375.

fact of nonuser by the seniors for many years

of water in excess of the carrying capacity of
VOTERS.

the ditch, less than their adjudged rights.-Id.
See Elections

w 152 (Utah) In suit to quiet title to the use
WAIVER.

of water, which plaintiff claimed he had de-

veloped, while defendants claimed that it was
See Appeal and Error, em 22; Appearance, part of a natural stream, general affirmative

m24; Chattel Mortgages, w 136; Con judgment for defendants was not too sweeping
tracts, m 305; Equity, m42; Estoppel;

42: Estoppel; 1 in that it denied plaintiff the right to use any
Exceptions, Bill of, cm 42; Executors and water at any time, even for culinary or other
Administrators, em 185, 186; Insurance, em domestic purposes, though all the water was
371-400, 664; Jury, Om 110; Justices of the not used by defendants.—Mountain Lake Min-
Peace
161: Limitation of Actions.

lino co v Midwav Trn
15; Pleading,' w 420; Process,
Trial, Om 419; Witnesses, Omw 305.

VII. CONVEYANCES AND CON.

TRACTS.
WARRANTY.

Om 156 (Colo.) Where defendant knew of the
See Covenants, 100, 102; Principal and maintenance of an irrigation ditch over lands
Agent, m104; Sales, cm 261, 285, 428 442. which he purchased, but erroneously deemed

that the license was revocable, he took the land
WATERS AND WATER COURSES. subject to the burden of the ditch.-Graybill v.

Corlett, 154 P. 730.
See Drains; Judgment, w518; Navigable 157 (Colo.) License to maintain irrigation
Waters; Negligence, mm 39.

ditch held irrevocable, it having been maintain-
V. SURFACE WATERS.

ed with the consent of the owner of the land and

his predecessors for over 16 years.-Graybill v.
119 (Wash.) Where a railroad company con- Corlett, 154 P. 730.
structed a trestle in place of a solid roadbed to
allow flood waters to escape through bed of a VIII. ARTIFICIAL PONDS, RESER-
creek which was ordinarily dry, it was not liable VOIRS, AND CHANNELS, DAMS,
to adjacent landowners whose property was in-

AND FLOWAGE.
jured by such waters, when the waters were not
deflected.-Bonthuis v. Great Northern Ry. Co.,

Om 179 (Nev.) That persons not parties to the
154 P. 789.

action contributed to the damage done to plain-
A landowner may hurry the outflow of surface

tiff's lands, held not to render erroneous for

want of necessary parties, a decree enjoining
waters from his property.--Id.

defendant from permitting waste water to flow
Om 124 Nev.) That waste water from defend-

from his land upon that of plaintiff.-Ramelli
ant's land flowed without interruption across -

v. Sorgi, 154 P. 73.
the land of a third person to reach plaintiff's
land, did not deprive plaintiff of his right to

IX. PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY.
enjoin defendant from flowing such waste wa-
ter upon his lands.-Ramelli v. Sorgi, 154 P. 73. (B) Irrigation and Other Agricultural
em 126 (Wash.) Evidence held insufficient to

Purposes.
show that a railroad company left saplings and 216 (Or.) L. O. L. 6186, relating to the
débris at a place where they could accumulate assessment of taxes for the payment of bonds
and dam a creek or that any such dam was form- issued for the construction of irrigation works,
ed causing flood waters to inundate plaintiff's is constitutional.--Cannon v. Hood River Irr.
property.-Bonthuis v. Great Northern Ry. Co., | Dist., 154 P. 397.
154 P. 789.

lem231 (Or.) A complaint seeking to restrain
Where an adjacent landowner claimed that a the collection of an irrigation tax under L. O.
railroad company unfairly turned surface waters L, $ 6186, held insufficient as not particulariz-
off of its premises onto his own, he has the bur- | ing the grounds upon which payment is resist-
den of proving such unfair diversion.-Id.

ed.-Cannon v. Hood River Irr. Dist., 154 P.

397.
VI. APPROPRIATION AND PRE-

Though an irrigation district, at the time
SCRIPTION.

that its boundaries were fixed, included land
em 152 (Colo.) In an action by a junior appro the title to which was in the United States, an
priator of irrigating waters for an adjudication assessment of an irrigation tax on such land
of priority, alleging abandonment of their prior after the title had passed to an individual is
rights by defendants, the owners of all junior valid.-Id.
priorities in the water district were not, in the In a suit to restrain the collection of an ir-
absence of statute, necessary parties.-Affolter rigation tax, legality of the organization of the
v. Rough & Ready Irrigating Ditch Co., 154 P. irrigation district will be presumed, in the ab-
738.

sence of any charge to the contrary.-Id.
Where senior appropriators of irrigating wa- Where land is not susceptible of irrigation,
ters, holding under decree, abandoned and fail. I the owner must petition the district board to

WEAPONS.

set it apart from the district, before equity will since it affects no vested rights.-Barber V.
restrain the collection of a tax thereon.-Id. Brown, 154 P. 1156.

254 (Wash.) Where an irrigation company's em 25 (Okl.) A Chickasaw freedman's will
deed to lands clearly agreed to supply them with made August 4, 1904, and conveying her allot-
water, but fixed no time within which it was to ment, held to legally devise her property, where
be furnished, the company was under duty to she died in September, 1906, after she was given
furnish water within a reasonable time, con- authority by Act Co

a reasonable time. con- l authority by Act Cong. approved April 26. 1906.
sidering the facts contemplated by the parties to devise her allotment.-Barber v. Brown, 154
when the contract was made.-Huschke vAr-|P. 1156.
cadia Orchards Co., 154 P. 800.
On 263 (Wash.) In an action for failure to fur.

V. PROBATE, ESTABLISHMENT,
nish water by the grantee of one whose lands

AND ANNULMENT.
defendant had contracted to supply, where the

(H) Evidence.
injury was destruction of and damage to fruit lem 302 (Wash.) That an alleged forged signa-
trees, the measure of damages was the difference ture is

ture is a fac simile of an admittedly genuine

fac simile
betwen the value of the trees had water been signature, is strong and well-nigh conclusive
furnished as agreed and their value without evidence of forgery.-In re Connolly's Estate,
water.--Huschke v. Arcadia Orchards Co., 154 154 P. 155.
P. 800.
WAYS.

(1) Hearing or Trial.

318 (Okl.) The verdict of the jury to which
See Easements; Highways.

the superior court submits issues involved on
appeal in a will contest is merely advisory.-

Parker v. Hamilton, 154 P. 65.
em 17 (Okl.Cr.App.) Where the evidence in a

VI. CONSTRUCTION.
prosecution for pointing a pistol tended to show
self-defense and defense of habitation, it was

(A) General Rules.
error to refuse a requested instruction thereon. 437 (Okl.) A will must be construed by the
-Doud v. State, 154 P. 1008.

laws existing at testator's death, rather than
Omw 18 (Or.) Where the complaint of one who by the laws in force at execution of the will.---
claimed he was negligently shot averred that de Barber V. Brown, 154 P. 1156.
fendant carelessly cocked a shotgun in his low487 (Cal.) In construing a will. a former
hands, defendant is entitled to rebut such claim will which was revoked cannot be consider

lered.
by testimony that when he received the gun in re Vanderhurst's Estate, 154 P. 5.
it was already cocked.Gibson v. Payne, 154 P.
422.
In an action for damages for injuries re-

VII. RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF
ceived when he was struck by shot from gun

DEVISEES AND LEGATEES.
discharged by defendant, the question of defend-(A) Nature of Title and Rights in Gen-
ant's negligence held for the jury.--Id.

eral.
Instructions, in an action for injuries receiv-w719 (Cal.) Opposition to a plea for distribu-
ed by plaintiff who was shot while out hunt- tion, on the ground that petitioners were not
ing, held not to impose upon plaintiff the bur- entitled to share under the will, held a proceed-
den of establishing his want of contributory ing for the construction of a will and not a
negligence.--Id.

contest precluding opponents from taking un-
Instruction that a loaded shotgun was a dan- der the will.--In re Vanderhurst's Estate, 154
gerous weapon, and that the law charges each | P. 5.
member of a hunting party with such knowl-
edge, and that it is the duty of each to use (C) Advancements, Ademption, Satisfac.
such degree of care as any reasonably prudent

tion, and Lapse.
man would use under the circumstances, cor- www759 (Cal.) Under Civ. Code, $8 1351, 1397,
rectly states law applicable to firearms.--Id. payments by testator of monthly allowances to

In an action by one shot while out hunting, his daughters, which were not evidenced by
the question whether he was contributorily neg- promissory notes, cannot be treated as advance-
ligent in preceding the hunting party into a ments, where the testator declared that advance-
field held under the evidence for the jury.-Id. ments to his children were evidenced by notes.

-In re Vanderhurst's Estate, 154 P. 5.
WEBB-KENYON ACT.

Advancements made before a will was execut-

ed cannot be considered in distributing the es-
See Commerce, w14.

tate, unless specified in the will.-Id.

Om761 (Cal.) Under a will held testator's books
WILLFUL MISCONDUCT. Lof account. showing payment of allowances to

his daughters to whom he gave credits, prac-
See Master and Servant, ew8742.

tically balancing their accounts, were not ad-

missible to charge the daughters with amount
WILLS.

of advances without credits.-In re Vander-
See Charities; Descent and Distribution; Ex-

hurst's Estate, 154 P. 5.
ecutors and Administrators; Jury, Em 19;

(D) Election.
Trusts; Vendor and Purchaser, ww231.

Om781 (Cal.) A will may be drawn so as to put
1. NATURE AND EXTENT OF TESTA. the widow to her election between taking the
MENTARY POWER.

* benefits given her by the testator and claiming

her right of family allowance.--In re Whitney's
Cum 6 (Cal.) A husband canot by his will dis Estate, 154 P. 855.
pose of the wife's right to one-half of the com-

782 (Cal.) To put the widow to an election
munity property should she survive him.-In re

between her legal estate and that granted by a
Whitney's Estate, 154 P. 855.

will, it must clearly and unequivocally appear

that the provision made by the will was in-
II. TESTAMENTARY CAPACITY.

tended to be in lieu of such rights as are given
m23 (Okl.) A statute, passed after the making by law.-In re Whitney's Estate, 154 P. 855.
of a will but before testatrix's death, by which! The mere fact that a legacy to the wife pro-
the law in force when the will was made was vides for payments at stated periods beginning
changed, will operate on the will; such con- from the testator's death does not deprive her
struction not making the statute retrospective,' of the right to a family allowance.-Id.

WORDS AND PHRASES.

WITNESSES.
See Appeal, and Error. 971, 1048; Attor- “Abandonment.”—Goldensmith v. Snowstorm

ney and Client, cm 88; Criminal Law, em Mining Co. (Idaho) 154 P. 968.
662, 742, 117012; Evidence; Indictment and "Accomplice.”—People v. Robbins (Cal.) 154 P.
Information, 34; Trial, 140.

317.
“Accord.”-Hargrave v. City of Colfax (Wash.)

154 P. 824.
III. EXAMINATION.

“Actionable negligence.”—Chicago, R. I. & P.
(B) Cross-Examination and Re-Examina Ry. Co. v. Holtz (Okl.) 154 P.'519.
tion.

“Adverse party."-Johnson v. Paulson (Or.) 154
277 (Wash.) Where accused testifies in his

P. 685.
own behalf, he is subject to cross-examination

“Adverse possession."--O'Donnell V. McCool
as other witnesses.--State v. Brooks, 154 P...

(Wash.) 154 P. 1090.
795.

“Agency."-Brutinel v. Nygren (Ariz.) 154 P.

1042.
286 (Nev.) Where previously convicted joint |“Appearance."-Leach v. Sargent (Okl.) 154 P.
principal while testifying in murder trial was 1143.
asked on cross-examination whether he had con- "Appropriation."-Epperson v. Howell (Idaho)
ferred with district attorney, allowing redirect | 154 P. 621.
question by state whether offers of clemency "As good work."-Gutenberg Mach. Co. v. Hu-
had been made, held proper exercise of court's sonian Pub. Co. (Okl.) 104 P. 346.
discretion.-State v. Tranmer, 154 P. 80. "As in other cases."--Perkins v. Perkins (Cal.

App.) 154 P. 483.
(C) Privilege of witness.

"Beverage."-Chas. L. Joy & Co. v. Carlson
Om 300 (Cal.App.) Without positive evidence (Idaho) 154 P. 640.
connecting defendant with a homicide charged, “Boil.”—Midland Casualty Co. v. Mason (Okl.)
except an alleged confession and his failure154 ? 1171.
to testify for himself, an instruction that de "Bring.”-Sturgeon v. State (Ariz.) 164 P. 1050.
fendant does not deny the killing, but justifies

“Certificate of stock.”-Bank of Bakersfield v.
it in self-defense, violates Const. art. 1, § 13, | Conner (Cal. App.) 154 P. 869.
and Pen. Code, 1323, which secure a defend-

"Chief officer.”-Insurance Co. of North Ameri-
ant from being a witness against himself. ca v. Welch (Okl.) 154 P. 48.

“Chiropractic"_Board of Medical Examiners of
People v. Andrade, 154 P. 283.
Om 300 (Idaho) While a proceeding under Rev. "City." --City of Golden v. Western Lumber &

State of Utah v. Freenor (Utah) 154 P. 941.
Codes, $ 7459, to remove an officer is in form

Pole Co. (Colo.) 154 P. 95.
a civil action, it is in substance a criminal
prosecution within Const. art. 1, § 13, providing

“Civil action."-State v. Flannelly (Kan.) 154

P 235,-
that no person shall be compelled in a criminal

"Claim and delivery.”-Reed v. Mills (Or.) 154
case to be a witness against himself.-Daugher-

P. 113.
ty V. Nagel, 154 P. 375.
Sess. Laws 1909, p. 334, § 1, held not to com-

"Compensatory rate."-Emporia Telephone Co.

1 v. "Public Utilities Commission of Kansas
pel a defendant to become a witness against
himself in an action by a private citizen for

(Kan.) 154 P. 262.

“Conditional sale."-Keane v. Kibble (Idaho)
defendant's removal from office, and to obtain

154 P. 972.
a judgment for $500 as a penalty for the in- "Contest."-In re Vanderhurst's Estate (Cal.)
former.-Id.

154 P. 5.
O 301 (Wash.) In a prosecution for grand “Contract for sale of realty."-Smith v. Imhoff
larceny, the question to defendant on cross-ex-
amination whether she had ever suffered convic- "Contract in writing.”-Rock Milling & Eleva-
tion before, to which she answered she had, was tor Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co.
not an invasion of any constitutional right. (Kan.) 154 P. 254.
State v. Brownlow, 154 P. 1099.

"Conversion."-J. I. Case Threshing Mach. Co.
305 (Wash.) In a prosecution for grand lar- v. Barney (Okl.) 154 P. 674; McCracken v.
ceny, where defendant did not object to the

Cline, Id. 1174.
question to her on cross-examination whether

"Corporation."-In re Dexter-Greenfield Drain-
she had ever suffered conviction before, she ac-

age Dist. (N. M.) 154 P. 382.
quiesced therein.-State v. Brownlow, 154 P.

"Counterclaim."-Drovers' State Bank v. El-
1099.

liott (Kan.) 154 P. 255.
“Creditor."-Union Coal Co. v. Wooley (Okl.)

154 P. 62.
IV. CREDIBILITY, IMPEACHMENT,
CONTRADICTION, AND COR-

"Criminal case.”—Daugherty v. Nagel (Idaho)

154 P. 375.
ROBORATION.

“Criminal conspiracy:"--Grayson v. State (Okl.
(B) Character and Conduct of Witness. Cr. App.) 154 P. 334.
337 (Okl.Cr.App.) Where accused voluntari-|

"Cross-demand."-Drovers' State Bank 1. El-
ly becomes a witness in his own behalf, he may

L liott (Kan.) 154 P. 255.
be cross-examined, and thereby discredited and

"De facto officer."-City of Ardmore v. Sayre
impeached.-Richards v. State, 154 P. 72.

(Okl.) 154 P. 356.
Testimony of general reputation of accused

“Delivery.”_Wiley B. Allen Co. v. Edwards
for being a bootlegger, held incompetent to im-

(Cal. App.) 154 P. 1066; Hall v. Kansas
peach his credibility as a witness or for any

City Terra Cotta Co. (Kan.) 154 P. 210.
other purpose.--Id.

"Departure."-Thayer v. Denver & R. G. R.

Co. (N. M.) 154 P. 691.
342 (Okl.Cr.App.) Where the purpose of “Deputy."-Peterson v. Lewis (Or.) 154 P. 101.
testimony is to impeach a witness for truth and "Diagnose.”_Board of Medical Examiners of
veracity, the inquiry must be as to his general State of Utah v. Freenor (Utah) 154 P. 941.
character or reputation for truth and veracity "Dry trust."-Gray v. Union Trust Co. of San
in the community in which he resides.--Richards Francisco (Cal.) 154 P. 306.
v. State, 154 P. 72.

"Due process of law."-White . Powers
em 359 (Okl.) Where evidence of a witness' (Wash.) 154 P. 820.
conviction in a foreign state has been admitted, “Duplicity."-State v. Sanford (Wash.) 154 P.
it is not error to exclude facts relating to the 1114.
conviction, but offered to contradict the wit “Embezzlement.”—People v. Dye (Cal. App.)
ness' testimony as to the facts on which the 154 P. 875.

nviction was had.-Parker v. Hamilton. 154 | “Etc."-Stansbery v. First Methodist Episcopal

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

“Exemption."-In re Gross Production Tax of, "Manslaughter."-Ivey v. State (Wyo.) 154 P.
Wolverine Oil Co. (Okl.) 154 P. 362.

589.
"Extramural." --State v. Port of Astoria (Or.) | “Market value.”—Lund v. Lachman (Cal. App.)
154 P. 399.

154 P. 295.
“Extreme cruelty.”—Perkins v. Perkins (Cal. "Materialmen.”-Hihn-Hammond Lumber Co. v.

App.) 154 P. 483; Clark v Clark (Okl.) 154 Elsom (Cal.) 154 P. 12.
P. 1142.

"May."-Arizona Corp. Commission v. Heralds
“Extreme low tide."-State V. Scott (Wash.) of Liberty (Ariz.) 154 P. 202; In re Clark
154 P. 165.

(Or.) 154 P. 748.
“Faithful performance."-Hensley v. School | “Mean lower low tide."-State v. Scott (Wash.)

Dist. No. 87 of Anderson County (Kan.) 151 154 P. 165.
P. 253.

"Mean low tide.”-State v. Scott (Wash.) 154
“Fictitious name.”—Bolen v. Ligett (Okl.) 154 P. 165.
P. 547.

“Merchandise.”-Sabin v. Chrisman (Or.) 154
"Final judgment."-Commins v. Guaranty Oil P. 908.
Co. (Cal. App.) 154 P. 882.

“Misfeasance.” –Wells v. Hansen (Kan.) 154
"Final order."--Navajo-Apache Bank & Trust P. 1033.
Co. v. Desmont (Ariz.) 154 P. 206.

"Mortgage."-Keane v. Kibble (Idaho) 154 P.
“Former conviction."-State v. Marks (Kan.) | 972; Johnson v. McKenzie (Or.) 154 P.
154 P. 261.

885; Union Machinery & Supply Co. v. Dar-
"General agency.”—Brutinel v. Nygren (Ariz.) nell' (Wash.) 154 P. 183.
154 P. 1042.

“Municipal corporation."-State v. Port of As-
“General appearance.”—McMillan V. Forsythe toria (Or.) 154 P. 399.
(Utah) 154 P. 959,

"Murder in second degree.”—Ivey v. State
“General law."-Young Men's Christian Ass'n „(Wyo.) 154 P. 589.

of Seattle v. Parish (Wash.) 154 P. 785. “Nation."-State v. Towessnute (Wash.) 154
“Governmental duty.”—Humphry v. City of

P. 805.
Portland (Or.) 154 P. 897.

“Negative testimony."-Gaston V. Avansino
“Grading and opening.”- Washington Water (Nev.) 154 P. 85.
Power Co. v. City of Spokane (Wash.) 154 P.

Spokane wash) 154 P. "Negligence."-Tbayer y. Denver & R. G. R.
329.

Co. (N. M.) 154 P. 691 ; Chicago, R. I. &
“Grant, bargain, and sell." -Jones v. Gallagher

P. Ry. Co. v. Nagle (Okl.) 154 P. 667; Chi-
(Okl.) 154 P. 552.

cago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Palmer (Okl.)
"Gross earnings arising from operation."-In re

154 P. 1163
Gross Production Tax of Wolverine Oil Co.

“Nominal damages."-Lund v. Lachman (Cal.
(Okl.) 154 P. 362.

... App.) 154 P. 295.
“Harmonic plane."-State v. Scott (Wash.) 154

"Nontaxable as a homestead in perpetuity."--
P. 165.

Rogers v. Herndon (Okl.) 154 P. 1185.
“Holder in due course.”—Keisel v. Baldock

"Notice.”-McDonald v. Cobb (Okl.) 154 P. 345.
(Okl.) 154 P. 1194.

| “Novation.”-First Nat. Bank of Missoula v.
"Implied trust.”—Grantham V. Conner (Kan.) | “Nuisance per se."-Hardin v. Olympic Port-

Cottonwood Land Co. (Mont.) 154 P. 582.
154 P. 246.
“Improvement.”_Washington Water Power Co.

land Cement Co. (Wash.) 154 P. 450.

"Oath."--State v. Jones (Idaho) 154 P. 378.
v. City of Spokane (Wash.) 154 P. 329.

"Obiter dictum."-Lausten v. Lausten (Okl.) 154
"Incurable disease."--Freeman v. State Board
of Medical Examiners (Okl.) 154 P. 56.

P. 1182.

"Officer of the law.”—Reclamation Dist. No.
“Indemnity insurance."-Davies v. Maryland
Casualty Co. (Wash.) 154 P. 1116.

1500 v. Superior Court in and for Sutter

County (Cal.) 154 P. 845.
“In front of."-State v. Scott (Wasb.) 154 P. “Official act."- Meek v. Tilghman (Okl.) 154 P.

165.
“Injury from negligence.”—Thayer v. Denver & "on the merits." -Duncan y. Deming Iny. Co.

1190.
R. G. R. Co. (N. M.) -154 P. 691..

(Okl.) 154 P. 651.
"Interstate commerce."-Stockton Elevator & "Ordinary probate proceeding."-In re Murphy's

Shipping Ass'n v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co.
(Kan.) 154 P. 1126; Alexander v. Great

Estate (Cal.) 154 P. 839.

"Original contractor.".-Hihn-Hammond Lum-
Northern Ry, Co. (Mont.) 154 P. 914; Anest

ber Co. v. Elsom (Cal.) 154 P. 12.
v. Columbia & P. S. R. Co. (Wash.) 154 P. "Owner." -Smith v. Čraver (Wash.) 154 P. 156.
1100

“Partnership.”—Grantham v. Conner (Kan.) 154
"Intoxicating liquors."-Chas. L. Joy & Co. v.

P. 246.
Carlson (Idaho) 154 P. 640.

"Penalty.”-National Life Ins. Co. v. Hale
"Intramural."-State v. Port of Astoria (Or.)

(Okl.) 154 P. 536.
154 P. 399.

“Persons interested."-Peterson v. Lewis (Or.)
"Introduce."--Sturgeon 7. State (Ariz.) 154 | 154 P. 101.
P. 1050.

“Plea of contributory negligence.”—Thayer V.
“Judgment or order."-Rollow v. Frost & Sad-

Denver & R. G. R. Co. (N. M.) 154 P. 691.
dler (Okl.) 154 P. 542.

"Power of taxation."-In re Dexter-Greenfield
"Judicial power.”-Marin Water & Power Co.

Drainage Dist. (N. M.) 154 P. 382.
v. Railroad Commission of State of Cali “Practicing medicine."-Board of Medical Ex-
fornia (Cal.) 154 P. 864.

aminers of State of Utah v. Freenor (Utah)
"Laborers.”-Hihn-Hammond Lumber Co. v.

154 P. 941.
Elsom (Cal.) 154 P. 12.

“Preponderance of evidence.”—People v. Miller
"Larceny."-People v. Dye (Cal. App.) 154 P.

L (Cal.) 154 P. 468.
875; State v. Ketterman (Wash.) 154 P. “Principal.”—Cudjoe v. State (Okl. Cr. App.)

182.
"Liability created by law."-Whitten v. Dabney “Prior to issuing patent.”-Ruddy Y. Rossi

154 P. 500.
(Cal.) 154 P. 312.

(Idaho) 154 P. 977.
“Liability created by statute.”—Dietrich v. Cope-| "Private profit.”-Hardin v. Rock Springs
land Lumber Co. (Idaho) 154 P. 626.

Lodge No. 12, A. F. & A. M. (Wyo.) 154 P.
“Liability insurance.”—Davies v, Maryland Cas 323.
ualty Co. (Wash.) 154 P. 1116.

"Proceeding."- Arizona Corp. Commission V.
"Libel.”—People v. Turner (Cal. App.) 154 P. Heralds of Liberty (Ariz.) 154 P. 202.

Promissory "warranty."-North British & Mer-
"Manifestly incurable."-Freeman v. State cantile Ins. Co, v. Wright (Okl.) 154 P. 654.

Board of Medical Examiners (Okl.) 154 P., "Proper proceeding."-Arizona Corp. Commis-
56.

sion v. Heralds of Liberty (Ariz.) 154 P. 202.

34.

667.

“Property tax."-In re Gross Production Tax of, "Tideland.”-State v. Scott (Wash.) 154 P. 165.
Wolverine Oil Co. (Okl.) 154 P. 362.

1 "Timely notice."-Stockgrowers' Bank of Wheat-
“Proximate cause."-Simon v. Missouri & Kan land v. Gray (Wyo.) 154 P. 593.

sas Telephone Co. (Kan.) 154 P. 242; Chi- "Transacting business.”-Hollister V. National
cago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Nagle (Okl.) 154 Cash Register Co. (Okl.) 154 P. 1157.

“Trespasser ab initio."-Murry v. Belmore (N.
"Public corporation."-In re Dexter-Greenfield M.) 154 P. 705.
Drainage Dist. (N. M.) 154 P. 382.

“Unclaimed property."-State v. Security Sav.
“Railroad property."-In re Gross Production Bank (Cal. App.) 154 P. 1070.

_Tax of Wolverine Oil Co. (Okl.) 154 P. 362. "Unmarried female."-State v. Wallace (Or.)
"Rate."-State v. Spokane & I. E. R. Co. 154 P. 430.
(Wash.) 154 P. 1110.

"Waiver."-State V. District Court of Second
"Ratification.”-Frazier V. Missouri Pac. Ry. Judicial Dist. in and for Silver Bow Coun-
Co. (Kan.) 154 P. 1022.

ty (Mont.) 154 P. 200.
"Reasonable doubt."--People v. Miller (Cal.) "Warranty." -Coats v. Hord (Cal. App.) 154
154 P. 468.

P. 491; St. Louis Cordage Mills v. Western
“Redemptioner.”—Hamilton v. Hamilton (Mont.) Supply Co. (Okl.) 154 P. 646.
154 P. 717.

“Williul injury.”—Thayer v. Denver & R. G.
"Refused or neglected to perform official du | R. Co. (N. M.) 154 P. 691.

ties.”—Daugherty V. Nagel (Idaho) 154 P. "Workshop.”—Remsnider y. Union Savings &
375.

Trust Co. (Wash.) 154 P. 135.
“Remainder.”-Gray v. Union Trust Co. of San "Wrist-drop."--Freeman v. Chicago, M. & St.
Francisco (Cal.) 154 P. 306.

P. Ry. Co. (Mont.) 154 P. 912.
"Res gestae."--Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v.

Foltz (Okl.) 154 P. 519.
“Resulting trust."-O'Donnell v. McCool (Wash.)

WORK AND LABOR.
154 P. 1090.

See Mechanics' Liens.
"Scientific purpose."-Chas. L. Joy & Co. v
Carlson (Idaho) 154 P. 640.

22 (Ariz.) Where a complaint stated a good
“Seminole citizen."-Wadsworth v. Crump cause of action in quantum meruit for services,
(Okl.) 154 P. 60..

and quantum valebant for supplies furnished, a
“Set-off."-Drovers' State Bank V. Elliott general demurrer must be overruled.--Crane v.
(Kan.) 154 P. 255.

Franklin, 154 P. 1036.
“Share."-Film Producers v. Jordan (Cal.) 154

P. 605.
"Sold or conveyed."-State v. Scott (Wash.)
154 P. 165.

See Constitutional Law, Cm 80, 313, 328; In-
"Special law.”_Young Men's Christian Ass'n

junction, 28; Master and Servant,
of Seattle v. Parish (Wash.) 154 P. 785.

1642, 8742, 25034; States, w1681% ; Stat.
“Spirituous liquors."-Chas. L. Joy & Co. v. utes, 114.

Carlson (Idaho) 154 P. 640.
"Subcontractors."—Hihn-Hammond Lumber Co.

WRITS.
v. Elsom (Cal.) 154 P. 12.
“Successor in interest." _Hamilton v. Hamilton | See Attachment; Certiorari; Execution; Ha-
(Mont.) 154 P. 717.

beas Corpus; Injunction; Mandamus; Pro-
"Summary proceeding.”—Billings Hotel Co. v.

cess; Prohibition; Replevin.
City of Enid (Okl.) 154 P. 557.

Of error, see Appeal and Error.
"Ten days.”—Tilton v. Decker (Cal.) 154 P.
860.

WRONGFUL DEATH.
"Three consecutive weeks."-Hartzler V. City
of Goodland (Kan.) 154 P. 265.

See Death.
For cases in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER

| WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACTS.

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »