Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

EQUITY-Continued.

been illegally paid by plaintiff, when paid, and what for,
are not in dispute, and the ultimate object of the suit
is to recover from defendant said money, and defendant's
answer states distinctly that it has no claim against the
city except certain items for water furnished and a judg.
ment obtained by it against plaintiff previously, there can
be no occasion to invoke the jurisdiction of equity for
an accounting. City of Iron Mountain v. Iron Mountain

Waterworks, 537.
2. That the construction of a contract, or statute, or other

serious questions of law or fact are involved, affords no

ground for equitable interference. Id. 538.
3. Where plaintiff's suit by bill in chancery amounted to a

demand for a money judgment, for which it has an ade-
quate remedy at law, the decree entered will be set aside
and the case remanded to the trial court for transfer to
the law side of the court, under authority of 3 Comp.

Laws 1915, § 12351. Id.
4. A court of equity in proper cases may afford relief from

judgments at law, where the facts are such as to invoke

its jurisdiction. Becker v. Welch, 613.
5. A court of equity may not, in the exercise of its juris-

diction, entertain a bill to set aside a judgment at law
on the ground that false testimony was given upon the

trial of the issue on the law side of the court. Id.
6. That plaintiff was not familiar with the practice in this

State, although he had reputable attorneys employed who
were, is not so extraordinary as to invoke equity juris-

diction. Id.
7. In equity, that kind of relief will be granted which is

best adapted to the situation at the time it is applied for.

American Forging & Socket Co. v. Wiley, 664.
See CANCELLATION OF INSTRUMENTS (5); CORPORATIONS (8);

SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE (2, 4).
ESSENCE OF CONTRACT-See SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE (3).
ESTABLISHING CLAIM-See MASTER AND SERVANT (22).
ESTATES OF DECEDENTS–See EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRA:

TORS (2); WILLS (5-7).
ESTOPPEL-See CONTRACTS 12); WILLS (3).
EVIDENCE.

1. In an action for personal injuries, where the declaration

alleged that said injuries caused a prolapsus of the uterus
necessitating an abdominal operation, testimony that in
the operation one of plaintiff's ovaries was removed, was
admissible, it not being open to the objection that the
declaration alleged one injury while plaintiff was per-
mitted to prove another. Church v. Larned, 77.

EVIDENCE—Continued.

2. In proceedings by a law firm to establish a lien on the

proceeds of a judgment for services rendered in said case
in pursuance of an oral agreement between said firm and
client's brother, acting as her attorney, a memorandum
of the agreement, made by one of the members of said
firm, was inadmissible in evidence for the purpose of

proving the terms of said contract. Boyle v. Waters, 515.
See ADVERSE POSSESSION (5); APPEAL AND ERROR (3); AT-

TORNEY AND CLIENT; CANCELLATION OF INSTRUMENTS (2-5);
CONTRACTS (7); CRIMINAL LAW (1, 3, 5, 9-11, 13, 18, 28,
32, 38-40, 42); DIVORCE (3); EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRA-
TORS (2); FRAUD (3); GUARDIAN AND WARD; MASTER AND
SERVANT (34, 41); NEGLIGENCE (1, 9); SPECIFIC PERFORM-
ANCE (5); STREET RAILWAYS (3); WATERS AND WATER-

COURSES (1).
EVIDENCE BEFORE EXAMINING MAGISTRATE–See CRIMI-

NAL LAW (35, 36).
EVIDENCE OF INDEBTEDNESS-See CORPORATIONS (3).

EXCEPTION-See MASTER AND SERVANT (2).
EXCESSIVE AWARDSee MASTER AND SERVANT (11).
EXCESSIVE VERDICT—See New TRIAL,

EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY-See FRAUD (5).
EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS.

1. Section 14117, 3 Comp. Laws 1915, fixing the compensation

of administrators, does not apply to special administra-
tors whose compensation should be determined by the
probate court, considering the services actually rendered;
and the amount thereof must be left to the sound dis-

cretion of that court. In re Klein's Estate, 243.
2. Testimony by the mother that plaintiff, a son, stayed at

home under an agreement to work the farm on shares,
but, because they were in debt, his share was applied on
the debt with the understanding with the father that he
would be compensated later, was admissible for the pur-
pose of showing that plaintiff rendered services with the
expectation that he would be compensated therefor, in

a claim against his father's estate. Fishell v. Fishell, 308.
EXEMPTIONS.

1. Under 3 Comp. Laws 1915, § 12858, exempting to each

householder two cows, and providing that “any chattel
mortgage, bill of sale, or other lien created

* shall
be void, unless such mortgage, bill of sale, or lien shall
be signed by the wife," etc., the right of the husband to
make an absolute sale of such property is not interfered
with; his right to convey as security only being removed.
Parsons v. Kimmel, 676.

[ocr errors]

EXEMPTIONS—Continued.

2. Where a heifer 14 months old had been bred at the time

of the sale, and was the only cow owned by defendant,
the court below should have instructed the jury that, as
a matter of law, she was a cow within the meaning of

the exemption statute. Id.

See HOMESTEAD (2).
EXPUNGED FROM RECORDS-See APPEAL AND ERROR (1).
EXTREME CRUELTY-See DIVORCE (3).

EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE-See CONTRACTS (8).

FAILURE OF CONTRACT–See CONTRACTS (10).

FAILURE OF SALE-See BROKERS (1).

FAILURE TO CONSUMMATE SALE-See SALES (2).
FALSE PRETENSES–See CRIMINAL LAW (37, 38).
FALSE REPRESENTATIONS-See FRAUD (5); FRAUDS, STATUTE

OF (1).

FALSE REPRESENTATIONS IN DOCUMENT ON FILE IN

PUBLIC OFFICE-See FRAUD (1).
FALSE TESTIMONY IN SUIT AT LAW INSUFFICIENT TO

INVOKE JURISDICTION—See EQUITY (5).

FEDERAL CONTROL-See TELEGRAPHS AND TELEPHONES.

FEDERAL STATUTES-See TELEGRAPHS AND TELEPHONES.

FEED FOR STOCK-See LANDLORD AND TENANT (1).

FELLOW SERVANT-See MASTER AND SERVANT (36).

FELON-See MASTER AND SERVANT (8).
FICTITIOUS NAMES-See CONTRACTS (1); CRIMINAL LAW (32).
FIDUCIARY RELATIONS–See CORPORATIONS (8, 9).
FINAL ORDER-See APPEAL AND ERROR (12).
FINDING BY INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT BOARD-See MASTER

AND SERVANT (7, 9, 35, 38, 41, 42).
FINDINGS OF COURT-See APPEAL AND ERROR (2, 3); FRAUD

(4).
FIRE INSURANCE-See CRIMINAL LAW (32, 33); INSURANCE

(2).
FIRES–See LANDLORD AND TENANT (2).
FLOWING LANDS-See WATERS AND WATERCOURSES (1).
FORECLOSURE-See CORPORATIONS (6).

FORECLOSURE, STOCKHOLDER'S SUIT TO SET ASIDE—See

CORPORATIONS (7).
FORGERY-See BANKS AND BANKING.
FRAUD.

1. The right of the public to rely upon the statements in the

articles of incorporation on file in a public office or in
the annual report of a corporation to the secretary of
State is not affected by the fact that the question arises
in an action at law rather than in a proceeding in chan-

cery. Ver Wys v. Vander Mey, 500.
2. In an action against one of the original incorporators of

a corporation for fraud and deceit based upon false state-
ments in the articles of incorporation on file in a public
office, and signed by defendant, where the record con-
clusively shows that there was not actually paid in in
cash the amount set forth in said articles, and that the
corporation was not possessed of property worth the
amount therein set forth, which facts were known to
defendant, held, sufficient to establish the fraud relied

upon. Id.
3. Evidence, held, sufficient to warrant the finding of the

court below that plaintiff relied upon said statements. Id.
4. Held, that the findings of the court below were not against

the great weight of the evidence. Id.
5. On a bill to reform a contract for an exchange of real

property on the ground of fraud, if the representations
were actually made and were false it is unnecessary to
determine whether they were made in good faith, Hillier

v. Carpenter, 594.
6. No duty to discover the fraud is imposed upon the in-

jured party. Id.
7. Where plaintiff had no knowledge as to the value of the

property he was to receive, he had a right to rely on the

representations of defendant in regard thereto. Id.
8. Where the record contains propositions of settlement

from counsel for both parties based upon a rescission of
the contract, in view of these offers and the opinion of
this court that plaintiff was defrauded and that rescission
is the appropriate relief, the pleadings will be amended
and rescission decreed in lieu of the relief granted plain-

tiff by the court below. Id.
See CANCELLATION OF INSTRUMENTS (2); CORPORATIONS (2);

FRAUDS, STATUTE OF (1, 2); HOMESTEADS (2); RES JUDI-

CATA,
FRAUDS, STATUTE OF.

1. Under 3 Comp. Laws 1915, § 11983, where a false repre-

sentation is made by one who does not derive any per-
sonal benefit from the resulting transaction, the repre-
sentation, to be actionable, must be in writing over his
signature. Ver Wys v. Vander Mey, 499.

FRAUDS, STATUTE OF— Continued.

2. Representations as to the credit of a corporation are

within this statute; but if the action is brought against
the corporation itself for fraud, verbal representations by

its officers and agents may be shown. Id. 500.
3. Statements in the articles of incorporation of a corpo-

ration, being represented by the signers thereof as true,
and being in writing and signed by them, held, to fulfill
the requirements of this statute authorizing a suit against
the signers individually, by any one relying upon the
representations and extending credit to the corporation,

if damaged thereby. Id.
4. A contract for the sale of land described as "All that certain

piece or parcel of land situate in the township of Byron,
in the county of Kent and State of Michigan, described
as follows, viz.: The east half of the southeast quarter
and the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter, less
one acre (E. 12 S. E. 14 and S. E. 144 of N. E. 44, less 1 A)
of township 5 north of range 12 west, containing 119 acres
of land, more or less, according to the government survey
thereof,” was defective under the statute of frauds (3
Comp. Laws 1915, § 11977) for omitting the section, and
an action for the breach thereof could not be maintained.
Droppers v. Marshall, 560.

GARNISHMENT.

Where an affidavit in garnishment failed to state that it

was made by plaintiff, his agent or attorney, as required
by the statute (3 Comp. Laws 1915, § 14361), it was ab
solutely void, and conferred no jurisdiction upon the jus-
tice. Carter v. Babcock, 169.

GENERAL ELECTION”-See JUSTICES OF THE PEACE (3).

GOOD CHARACTER–See CRIMINAL LAW (6, 7).

GOOD FAITH-See FRAUD (5).

GUARANTY-See CONTRACTS (10).

GUARDIAN AND WARD.

In proceedings to have plaintiff's guardian discharged, and

to have plaintiff declared mentally competent to have the
care, custody, and management of his estate, evidence
examined, and held, sufficient to support the finding of
the jury that plaintiff was mentally incompetent. Hen-

derson v. Henderson, 36.
HABEAS CORPUS.'

Where, in an action for the conversion of goods, the court

acquired jurisdiction of both the subject-matter and the
parties, and a writ of capias ad satisfaciendum was issued
out of said court following a judgment against defendant
by default, said judgment is not open to collateral attack

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »