Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

cinnati & H. Spring Co. v. Brown (Ind. App.) | Opening or vacating judgment, see "Judgment,"
197.

In a personal injury case, the averment that
defendant's negligence caused decedent's death
is a sufficient allegation of proximate cause.-
Chicago & E. I. R. Co. v. Stephenson (Ind.
App.) 270.

Under the express provisions of Burns' Rev.
St. 1901, § 359a, it is not necessary, in a com-
plaint for negligently occasioning the death of
plaintiff's intestate, to negative his_contribu-
tory negligence.-Chicago & E. I. R. Co. v.
Stephenson (Ind. App.) 270.

In determining the issue of contributory neg-
ligence, the jury are not limited to the con-
sideration of defendant's evidence alone.-Chi-
cago & E. I. R. Co. v. Stephenson (Ind. App.)

270.

Instruction, in action for death of railroad
fireman, as to evidence to be considered on is-
sue of contributory negligence, held not er-
roneous. Chicago & E. I. R. Co. v. Stephen-
son (Ind. App.) 270.

The presumption that one suing for injuries
alleged to be due to defendant's negligence is
overcome by specific averments of facts showing
that plaintiff knew or might have known of the
danger, and, knowing, did not use commensu-
rate care.-City of Lafayette v. Fitch (Ind.
App.) 414.

Where a complaint shows that plaintiff was
guilty of contributory negligence, notwithstand-
ing that defendant was guilty of negligence, it
is insufficient as against a demurrer.-City of
Lafayette v. Fitch (Ind. App.) 414.

The adoption of additional precautions for
safety by a defendant after an accident cannot
be proved as tending to show negligence in the
method used at the time of the accident.-
Stevens v. Boston Elevated Ry. Co. (Mass.)
338.

In an action for injuries against an elevated
railroad, evidence that defendant had adopted
a rule relating to the sounding of a gong,
which its servants violated, and which was one
of the causes of the accident, held admissible,
-Stevens v. Boston Elevated Ry. Co. (Mass.)
338.

Where the controlling facts as to the proxi-
mate cause of an injury are conceded or found,
it is a question of law for the court.-Lake
Shore & M. S. Ry. Co. v. Liidtke (Ohio) 653.

NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS.

See "Bills and Notes."

NEWLY-DISCOVERED EVIDENCE.
Ground for new trial in civil actions, see "New
Trial," § 2.

NEW PROMISE.

Within statute of limitations, see "Limitation
of Actions," § 2.

NEWSPAPERS.

Liability for libel, see "Libel and Slander," § 3.

NEW TRIAL.

Necessity of exception to decision on motion
for new trial for purpose of review in crim-
inal prosecution, see "Criminal Law," § 6.
Necessity of motion for purpose of review, see
"Appeal and Error," § 7.

§ 4.

Remand by appellate court for new trial, see
"Appeal and Error," § 25.

§ 1. Nature and scope of remedy.

Under Prac. Act, § 56 (3 Starr & C. Ann.
St. 1896, c. 110, par. 57), a party held not to
have waived his right to insist on a motion for
a new trial and on the reasons therefor.-Landt
V. McCullough (Ill.) 107.

Where defendants' excluded testimony bore
upon their liability to only two of several plain-
tiffs, defendants' motion that an adverse ver-
dict be set aside as to all the plaintiffs on that
account is properly overruled.-Board of Com'rs
of Clay County v. Redifer (Ind. App.) 305.
§ 2. Grounds.

Newly discovered evidence held not cumula-
tive, within the rule as to new trials.-Union
Cent. Life Ins. Co. v. Loughmiller (Ind. App.)
264.

Diligence, authorizing a new trial for newly
discovered evidence, held not shown.-Union
Cent. Life Ins. Co. v. Loughmiller (Ind. App.)
264.

Under Burns' Rev. St. 1901, § 568, providing
that a new trial may be granted for newly dis-
covered evidence, an affidavit held sufficient.-
Chicago & E. I. R. Co. v. Syster (Ind. App.)

476.

Facts held not to show sufficient diligence to
entitle a party to a new trial for newly discov
ered evidence.-Bertram v. State (Ind. App.)
479.

An application for a new trial for newly dis-
covered evidence is to be regarded with dis-
trust.-Bertram v. State (Ind. App.) 479.

Fact that plaintiff's counsel did not know of a
certain action of trial judge till after expira-
tion of time limited for exception held no ground
for exception to court's action in denying new
trial.-Goodrum v. Grimes (Mass.) 1053.

3. Proceedings to procure new trial.
Motion for new trial held not defective, be-
cause regular judge resumed jurisdiction for the
purpose of making the record show the filing
of the motion on the last day of the term, in
cause.-Chicago, I. & L. Ry. Co. v. Cunning-
the absence of the special judge who tried the
ham (Ind. App.) 304.

To entitle a party to a new trial for newly
discovered evidence, it is insufficient to aver or
seek to show diligence by general allegations;
but the facts constituting the diligence must be
set forth particularly.-Bertram v. State (Ind.
App.) 479.

Complaint for newly discovered evidence,
averring that the evidence was not known to
one applicant, but failing to show that it was
not known to the others, joint parties with
him, held insufficient.-Bertram v. State (Ind.
App.) 479.

Action of trial judge in charging jury after
retirement held a ruling made during trial,
within rule 44, and new trial should have been
moved for within 30 days.-Goodrum v. Grimes
(Mass.) 1053.

NEXT OF KIN.

See "Descent and Distribution."

NONRESIDENCE.

Affecting jurisdiction of courts in general, see
"Courts," § 1.

NONSUIT.

Waiver of exception to denial of motion for,
see "Trial," § 12.

NOTES.

Promissory notes, see "Bills and Notes."

NOTICE.

Of particular faets, acts, or proceedings.
See "Elections," § 1; "Mechanics' Liens," § 1.
Acceptance of guaranty, see "Guaranty," § 1.
Allotment of work in drainage proceedings, see
"Drains," § 1.

Appeal, see "Appeal and Error," § 9.

Defects in sidewalks, see "Municipal Corpora-
tions," § 12.

Increase of tax assessment, see "Taxation,"
§ 3.

Meeting of city council, see "Municipal Corpo-
rations," § 9.

Tax sale, see "Taxation," § 5.

To particular classes of parties.
See "Principal and Agent," § 2.
Bank officers, see "Banks and Banking," § 1.
Guarantor, see "Guaranty," § 3.

Purchaser, see "Vendor and Purchaser," § 3.

One having knowledge of facts sufficient to
put him on inquiry is chargeable with knowledge
of the facts.-Webb v. John Hancock Mut. Life
Ins. Co. (Ind. Sup.) 1006.

Whatever puts a party on inquiry amounts in
law to notice.-Blair v. Whitaker (Ind. App.)
182.

NOVATION.

Complainant held not discharged from liabil-
ity for the payment of his debts by reason of
contract of third person to pay them.-Ellis v.
Conrad Seipp Brewing Co. (Ill.) 808.

To establish novation, discharge of original
parties from liability to each other, and sub-
stitution of reciprocal obligations between sub-
stituted parties, must be shown.-Stowell v.
Gram (Mass.) 342.

In an action by one of the parties to a con-
tract against the assignee of the other, evidence
examined, and held insufficient to show a nova-
tion.-Stowell v. Gram (Mass.) 342.

NUISANCE.

Joinder of causes, see "Action," § 1.
Liquor nuisance, see "Intoxicating Liquors,"
§ 2.

1. Private nuisances.

Hospital conducted next door to plaintiff's
house held a private nuisance.-Deaconess Home
& Hospital v. Bontjes (Ill.) 748.

Equity will restrain a nuisance, disturbing the
peace and injuriously affecting health, without
waiting for determination of question of nui-
sance in an action at law.-Deaconess Home &
Hospital v. Bontjes (Ill.) 748.

That the trustees of a hospital did not know
the offensive manner in which it was conducted
was no answer to suit to enjoin its maintenance.
-Deaconess Home & Hospital v. Bontjes (Ill.)
748.

Decree in injunction suit held not inconsistent
with prayer.-Deaconess Home & Hospital v.
Bontjes (11.) 748.

2. Public nuisances.

Erection of fence 10 or 12 feet high, shutting
off the view of the public, and the view, light,
and air of a neighbor, held not a public nui-
sance, within the definition in Burns' Rev. St.
1901, § 290, nor an infraction of section 2153
(Horner's Rev. St. 1901, § 2065), imposing a
penalty for maintaining a nuisance.-Russell
v. State (Ind. App.) 482.

A license, obtained during the period defend-
ant was charged with maintaining a nuisance
by storing naphtha on premises, held, under St.
1894, p. 446, c. 399, admissible in evidence.-
Commonwealth v. Packard (Mass.) 1067.

OBJECTIONS.

For purpose of review, see "Appeal and Er-
ror," § 5.

Mode of making objection to pleading, see
"Pleading," § 4.

To evidence, see "Trial," § 2.
To jury, see "Jury," § 2.

OBLIGATION OF CONTRACT.

Laws impairing, see "Constitutional Law," § 4.
OBSTRUCTIONS.

Of highways, see "Highways," § 4.
Of water course, see "Waters and Water
Courses," 1.

OFFER.

Of reward, see "Rewards."

OFFICERS.

Injunctions affecting, see "Injunction," § 1.
Quo warranto, see "Quo Warranto."

Particular classes of officers.

See "Clerks of Courts"; "Judges"; "Justices
of the Peace"; "Receivers"; "Sheriffs and
Constables."

Bank officers, see "Banks and Banking," § 1.
Corporate officers, see "Corporations," § 2.
County officers, see "Counties," $1.
Election officers, see "Elections," § 2.
Health officers, see "Health," § 1.
Municipal officers, see "Municipal Corpora-
tions," § 4.

Town officers, see "Towns," § 1.

§ 1. Appointment, qualification,

tenure.

and

Disqualification to hold office, imposed by
Burns' Rev. St. 1901, § 2327, as a penalty for
bribery at primary elections, held not available
to opposing candidate until after conviction
thereof.-Gray v. Seitz (Ind. Sup.) 456.

Agreement to give promissory note in consid-
eration of withdrawal of opposing candidate,
etc., held to fall within Burns' Rev. St. 1901,
§ 2327, punishing bribery at primary elections
by disqualification to hold office.-Gray v.
Seitz (Ind. Sup.) 456.

Const. art. 2, § 6, relative to disqualification
to hold office, consequent upon bribery to se-
cure election, held not to apply to bribery at
primary elections.-Gray v. Seitz (Ind. Sup.)
456.

Where the appointment of an officer is a nul-
lity, because he is by statute ineligible, a legal
appointment may be made without first oust-
ing such first appointee by quo warranto.-
State v. Craig (Ohio) 228.

A board of health, having appointed a new
health officer, thereby indicated its pleasure
that the former health officer should no longer
serve, within Rev. St. 1890, § 2115.-State v.
Craig (Ohio) 228.

OILS.

See "Mines and Minerals," § 1.

OPENING.

Judgment, see "Judgment," § 4.

OPINION EVIDENCE.

In civil actions, see "Evidence," § 9.

OPINIONS.

Of courts, see "Courts," § 2.

OPTICIANS.

See "Physicians and Surgeons."

OPTIONS.

To buy land, see "Vendor and Purchaser," § 1.
To renew lease, see "Landlord and Tenant," § 3.

ORDERS.

Review of appealable orders, see "Appeal and
Error."

ORDINANCES.

Documentary evidence, see "Evidence," § 7.
Judicial notice of, see "Evidence," § 1.
Municipal ordinances, see "Municipal Corpora-
tions," §§ 1, 3, 6, 7, 13.

Regulation of railroads, see "Railroads." § 2.
Regulation of water supply, see "Waters and
Water Courses," § 3.

ORPHAN ASYLUM.

See "Asylums."

PARENT AND CHILD.

See "Bastards"; "Guardian and Ward"; "In-
fants."

ing from a final decree made on issues subse-
quently joined between the parties, defendant
waived its right to complain of such amead-
ment.-Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co. v. City of
Elyria (Ohio) 738.

PARTITION.

Parol or extrinsic evidence to explain descrip-
tion in indenture of partition, see "Evidence,"
§ 8.

§ 1. Actions for partition.

In action by two remaindermen for partition
railroad right of way, the railroad claiming un-
of land, a portion of which was occupied by
der deceased life tenant, decree requiring raii-
road to surrender possession to the remainder-
men held erroneous. Chicago, P. & St. L. Ry.
Co. v. Vaughn (Ill.) 113.

In action by remainderman for partition of
land occupied in part by railroad track, the rail-
road claiming under a deceased life tenant,
held, that railroad should be entitled to reason-
able time to effectuate condemnation.-Chicago,
P. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Vaughn (Ill.) 113.

Decree in partition suit holding eight-ninths
of property subject to homestead held prejudi-
cial to complainant holding title to remaining
| ninth-Kloss v. Wylezalek (Ill.) 863.

It is only when land held in common cannot
be partitioned that a sale may be ordered.-
Kloss v. Wylezalek (Ill.) 863.

Where plaintiff in a suit for partition sought
to set aside a tax deed as a cloud on title, the
burden of proof was on her to establish the
invalidity of the deed.-Glos v. Carlin (III)
928.

In a suit for partition and to remove a tax
deed as a cloud on title, a finding held to amount
Effect of naturalization of father, see "Aliens," to a finding that the deed constituted a cloud
§ 1.

PAROL EVIDENCE.

In civil actions, see "Evidence," § 8.

on title.-Glos v. Carlin (Ill.) 928.

Under Partition Act, § 39 (3 Starr & C. Ann.
St. 1896 [2d Ed.] p. 2925), the court in a bill
for partition heid entitled to examine separate

To lay foundation for collateral attack on judg- titles arising from sources independent of those
ment, see "Judgment," § 6.

PARTIES.

Defects ground for abatement, see "Abatement
and Revival," § 1.

under which the tenants in common claimed.
for the purpose of removing such claims as
clouds on the title sought to be partitioned.-
Glos v. Carlin (Ill.) 928.

Complainant in partition suit must show own-
ership of an undivided interest in the property
sought to be partitioned.-Owen v. Village of

Interpleading, see "Interpleader.”
Persons concluded by judgment, see "Judg- Brookport (Ill.) 952.
ment," § 7.

In particular actions or proceedings.
See "Equity," § 2; "Partition," § 1.
For causing death, see "Death," § 1.
Foreclosure, see "Mortgages,' § 5.

On appeal or writ of error, see "Appeal and
Error," §§ 3, 8, 17.

To recover money for taxes illegally diverted,
see "Taxation," § 8.

To particular classes of conveyances, contracts,
or transactions.

See "Contracts," § 2.

§ 1. New parties and change of parties.
Where a solicitor of a city brought mandamus
in his own name as such and as a taxpayer,
but in behalf of the city, held, that the court,
under Rev. St. § 5114, could allow an amend-
ment by striking the name of the solicitor and
taxpayer, and adding in lieu thereof the name of
the city as plaintiff.-Lake Shore & M. S. Ry.
Co. v. City of Elyria (Ohio) 738.

§ 2. Defects, objections, and amend-
ment.

Where the court allowed an amendment chan-
ging the name of the party plaintiff, by appeal-

Under Rev. Laws, c. 184, §§ 8, 9, 19, held
that, in partition, it was proper to deny motion
for a ruling that respondents had no interest
in the premises, within section 19.-In re Butt-
rick (Mass.) 1044.

Recital in auditor's report held not to raise
presumption that he made all the evidence a
part of his report.-In re Buttrick (Mass.) 1044.

In proceedings in partition, under Rev. Laws,
c. 181, §§ 8, 9, held an impropriety for the audi-
tor to make all the evidence a part of his re-
port. In re Buttrick (Mass.) 1044.

Title held not unmarketable for failure to
make person having no interest therein defend-
ant.-Dresser v. Travis (N. Y.) 734; In re Koss,
Id.

Will construed, and held, that granddaughter
of testatrix had no interest in the estate, and
was not a necessary party in partition thereof.
-Dresser v. Travis (N. Y.) 734; In re Koss,

Id.

Lease of land sold under partition held not
such a cloud on the title as to render it unmar
ketable.-Dresser v. Travis (N. Y.) 736; In re
Coogan, Id.

PARTNERSHIP.

PAVEMENT.

1. Dissolution, settlement, and ac- In cities, see "Municipal Corporations," §§ 6, 7.
counting.

In a suit for dissolution of a partnership, the
master to whom the case was referred held to

have properly stated the account between the
parties.-Ernst v. Schmitz (Ill.) 923.

PARTY WALLS.

Suit to restrain violation of party wall agree
ment held not barred by laches.-Springer v.
Darlington (Ill.) 946.

A party to a party wall agreement is entitled
to injunction to restrain its violation by the oth-
er party's replacing the original wall by one
in which numerous openings occur.-Springer v.
Darlington (Ill.) 946.

An injunction restraining a party to a party
wall agreement from maintaining openings in
the wall as reconstructed by him, and from in-
terfering with complainant in closing them up,
is a proper remedy.-Springer v. Darlington
(Ill.) 946.

A purchaser at foreclosure sale is not estop-
ped to sue an adjoining owner for violation of
a party wall agreement, by the fact that as
mortgagee, and while the adjoining owner also
held the equity in the mortgaged premises, he
knew of the violation.-Springer v. Darlington
(Ill.) 946.

Party reconstructing party wall with openings
therein held not entitled to insist on reimburse-
ment for half the expense of reconstruction be-
fore closing openings.-Springer v. Darlington
(Ill.) 946.

Party to party wall agreement held not enti-
tled to resist suit to compel solid wall by plead-
ing that other party did not intend to use his
property for building purposes.-Springer v.
Darlington (Ill.) 946.

Decree in an injunction suit to restrain viola-
tion of a party wall agreement held not objec-
tionable as wrongly depriving the defendant of
the possession of his property.-Springer v. Dar-
lington (Ill.) 946.

To replace a party wall by a wall in which
numerous openings occur is a violation of the
party wall agreement.-Springer v. Darlington
(Ill.) 946.

PASSENGERS.

See "Carriers," § 3.

PATENTS.

Expert testimony as to sufficiency of patent
license, see "Evidence," § 9.
Harmless error in admission of evidence in ac-
tion to recover balance due on sale of patent-
ed articles, see "Appeal and Error," § 21.
Violation of injunction restraining manufacture
and use of patented articles, see "Injunc-
tion," § 4.

Warranty against infringement in contract for
sale of patented article, see "Contracts," § 2.

PAUPERS.

§ 1. Settlement and removal.

Married woman, abandoned by husband, may
maintain residence apart from him to acquire
a settlement.-Bradford v. City of Worcester
(Mass.) 310.

Under Pub. St. 1882, c. 83, § 1, cls. 1, 6, 7,
a married woman, whose second husband has
no settlement, may acquire one by five years'
residence in a place, though she has acquired
another one through her first husband.-Brad-
ford v. City of Worcester (Mass.) 310.

PAYMENT.

See "Compromise and Settlement"; "Teuder."
By garnishee, see "Garnishment," § 2.
Of consideration for conveyance to another as
creating trust, see "Trusts," § 2.

Of particular classes of obligations or liabilities.
See "Judgment," § 8.

Claims against estate of decedent, see "Execu-
tors and Administrators," § 4.
Price of land sold, see "Vendor and Purchaser,"
§ 2.

PENALTIES.

In oil and gas leases, see "Mines and Minerals,"
§ 1.
Obstruction of highway, see "Highways," § 4.
§ 1. Actions and other proceedings.
In action for penalty for violating Laws 1899,
p. 273, relating to practice of medicine, where
Appellate Court reverses judgment without re-
mand, it should incorporate statement of facts
in judgment.-People v. Smith (Ill.) 810.

PENITENTIARIES.

Subject and title of statute relating to, see
"Statutes," § 3.

PERPETUITIES.

Testamentary trust held void as suspending
power of alienation.-Brown v. Quintard (N. Y.)
225.

A direction to hold certain property in trust
for 26 years renders the trust void, as being
measured by years, and not by lives.-Brown v.
Quintard (Ñ. Y.) 225.

Will construed, and codicil decreeing legacy
to one of testator's daughters in the event of
her marriage held void as a suspension of the
power of alienation.-Herzog v. Title Guarantee
& Trust Co. (N. Y.) 283.

Where it is apparent from a will and a codicil
that testator intended that the provision for
his daughter under the codicil should be in-
alienable during her life, the rule that annui-
ties do not suspend the power of alienation is
inapplicable. Herzog v. Title Guarantee &
Trust Co. (N. Y.) 283.

[ocr errors]

PERSONAL INJURIES.

See "Negligence."

Bar of action by limitations, see "Limitation of
Actions," § 1.

Caused by defective construction of railroad,
see "Railroads," § 1.

Caused by dog, see "Animals."
Caused by operation of street railroad, see
"Street Railroads," § 2.

Conclusion in pleading in action for, see "Plead-
ing," § 1.

Damages resulting from proximate or remote
Evidence and
cause, see "Damages," § 1.

assessment of damages, see
"Damages," § 2.
Examination of witnesses in action for, see
"Witnesses," § 2.

Expert testimony as to probable consequences,
see "Evidence," § 9.

Harmless error in exclusion of evidence in ac-
tion for, see "Appeal and Error," § 21.
Inconsistent statements by witness in action
for, see "Witnesses," § 3.

[blocks in formation]

In particular actions or proceedings.
See "Equity," § 3; "Injunction," § 2; "Libel
and Slander," § 3; "Mandamus," § 3; "Neg
ligence," § 2; "Quo Warranto," § 1; "Torts";
"Trover and Conversion," § 1.

Election contest, see "Elections," § 5.
For breach of contract, see "Contracts," § 4.
Foreclosure, see "Building and Loan Associa
tions"; "Mortgages," § 5.

For injuries to live stock, see "Carriers," 2
For injuries from gas, see "Gas."
For personal injuries, see "Master and Serv-
ant," § 9; "Street Railroads," § 2.
For rent, see "Landlord and Tenant," § 4.
For reward, see "Rewards."

For wrongful death of employé, see "Master
and Servant," § 9.

Indictment or criminal information or com-
plaint, see "Indictment and Information."
On insurance policy, see "Insurance," § 9.
On note, see "Bills and Notes," § 4.
Pleas in criminal prosecutions, see "Criminal
Law," § 3.

enforce trust, see "Trusts," § 7.
Probate proceedings, see "Wills," § 4.

As evidence in criminal prosecution, see "Crim-To
inal Law," § 4.

Of criminals as public records, see "Records."

PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS.

Compensation for services of physician as ele-
ment of damages, see "Damages," § 2.
Penalty for practicing medicine without license,
see "Penalties," § 1.

Traveling optician held not to violate Laws
1899, p. 275, §§ 7, 8, relating to practice of
medicine.-People v. Smith (Ill.) 810.

PLATS.

To establish mechanic's lien, see "Mechanics'
Liens," § 2.

To restrain cutting of timber, see "Injunction,"
§ 2.

To review judgment, see "Judgment," § 3.
To vacate judgment, see "Judgment," § 5.
§ 1. Form and allegations in general.

Where a petition sought relief against a judg
ment on a contract on the ground of fraud, it
will be inferred against the pleader that he
purposely omitted the defense of fraud in the
action on the contract.-Cannon v. Castleman
(Ind. Sup.) 455.

Allegations in complaint by servant against
his master for damages for personal injuries
held to be mere conclusion of the pleader.-
As evidence of dedication, see "Dedication," § 1. Indianapolis & G. Rapid Transit Co. v. Fore-

PLEA.

man (Ind. Sup.) 669.

In action by employé for personal injuries,
under Acts 1899, p. 234, c. 142, § 9 (Burns'
Rev. St. 1901, § 7087i; Horner's Rev. St. 1901.

In criminal prosecutions, see "Criminal Law," § 5169k), making it the duty of manufacturing
§ 3.

PLEADING.

Applicability of instructions to pleadings, see
Trial," § 7.

Assignment of errors as to rulings on pleadings,
see "Appeal and Error," § 13.
Estoppel by, see "Estoppel," § 1.
Harmless error as to rulings on pleadings, see
"Appeal and Error," § 21.

Judgment on default in pleading, see "Judg-
ment," § 1.

Objections for purpose of review, see "Appeal
and Error," § 5.

Pleas in abatement, see "Abatement and Re-
vival," § 1.

Pleas in quo warranto proceedings, see "Quo
Warranto," § 1.

Review of objections dependent on presentation
of grounds of review in record, see "Appeal
and Error," § 12.

Weight and sufficiency of pleadings of other
party as evidence, see "Evidence," § 11.

establishments to properly guard machines, com-
plaint held not to plead a conclusion.-Blanch-
ard-Hamilton Furniture Co. v. Colvin (Ind.
App.) 1032.

§ 2. Declaration, complaint, petition, or

[blocks in formation]

Allegations as to particular facts, acts, or Sup.) 680.
transactions.

4.

See "Estoppel," § 3; "Judgment," § 9.
Delivery of deed, see "Deeds," § 4.
Statute of frauds, see "Frands, Statute of," §
In actions by or against particular classes of
parties.

§ 4. Demurrer or exception.

In proceedings to compel the insurance super-
intendent to issue a certificate to an insurance
company, the question whether the state has
waived the right to declare a forfeiture of the
company held not to arise in view of the answer
demurred to by the petitioner.-Yates v. People

See "Carriers," § 2; "Executors and Adminis-
trators," § 6; "Master and Servant," § 9;|(Ill.) 775.
"Street Railroads," § 2.

It is sufficient to decide a case on the plead
Telephone company, see "Telegraphs and Tele-ings after the court has sustained a demurrer
phones," § 1.
to the answer, and it is not necessary to allow

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »