CORPORATION-Continued.

nor as conferring special privileges. Wells, Fargo & Co. v. Oregon R. & N. Co.,
xvi. 71.

Description of party defendant as Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., giving name of president,
does not raise presumption of incorporation and is insufficient. Mo. Pac. Ry.
Co. v. Douglass & Sons, xvi. 98.

Company whose purpose is as stated in articles of incorporation to build
union depot and build and maintain roads to said depot to accommodate differ-
ent companies will not be considered a regular railroad company. People ex
rel. v. Cheeseman et al., xvi. 400.

When statute provides that corporation shall not exist more than twenty years
and articles of incorporation provide for fifty years' existence, corporation may
exist for twenty years. People ex rel. v. Cheeseman et al., xvi. 400.

Is necessary party to bill to enforce judgment against it by compelling contri-
bution from stockholders. Walser et al. v. Memphis, C. & N. W. R. Co., xvi.
449.

Company may be sued by name without averring corporate character. If this
is denied the objection should be set up by answer. Stanly v. Richmond & D.
R. Co., xvi. 545.

Filing by it of certificate that it is nominal organization only for liquida
tion, being wholly insolvent, is not conclusive upon it as to question whether it
can perform its contracts. New England Iron Co. v. Gilbert Elevated R, Co.,
xvi. 609.

COSTS.

When several defendents demur separately in equity, appearing by one solicitor
and counsel, but one bill of costs will be allowed, but this will embrace special
costs in each demurrer. Terhune v. Midland R. R. Co. of N. J., xvi. 665.

CRIMINAL LAW.

Law making agent guilty of misdemeanor in exacting excessive freight
charges does not take away common-law right to recover back money paid in
excess of reasonable compensation. Protest prior to payment need not be
shown. Heiserman v. Burlington, C. R. & N. R. Co., xvi. 46.

CROSSING.

Person injured at station while crossing track as public commonly did, by
train run contrary to rules of company of which party was cognizant, held,
guilty of contributory negligence in failing to look out. Wheelwright o. Boston
& Albany R. Co., xvi. 315.

CUSTOM.

Custom cannot change or modify provisions of statute to effect that railroad
company shall not be liable as a carrier for goods left on its platform for trans-
portation until it gives a bill of lading. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Douglass & Sons,
xvi. 98.

DAMAGES.

When horses are insured by carrier while in transit, damages may be meas-
ured by proof of their value in market of neighboring State. Evidence of their
depreciation in value at point of destination is not indispensable. Louisville &
N. R. Co. v. Mason, xvi. 241.

Where person is disabled by injury for several weeks, verdict of $400 is not
excessive. Knowlton v. Milwaukee City R. Co., xvi. 330.

Elements of damage in action by passenger against railroad company to re-
cover for assault by servants. Character of passenger cannot be considered in
estimating damages. International & Gt. Northern R. Co. v. Kentle, xvi. 337.

DAMAGES-Continued.

When jury in special findings return that actual damage done to passenger
from sudden starting of train is $300, a general verdict of $700 will be set aside,
if plaintiff is not entitled to exemplary damages. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co.
v. Harvey, xvi. 352.

When passenger is expelled for non-payment of fare before he has time to
borrow amount from fellow-passenger, he cannot recover exemplary damages
where there was no malice on conductor's part in ejecting him. Curl v. Chicago,
R. I. & P. R. Co., xvi. 379.

When railroad company had broken its contract in failing to transport cattle
to and from the plaintiff's stock-yards, evidence of number of car-loads taken to
and from other yards was admissible to fix the damages. Terre Haute & G. R.
Co. v. Struble, xvi. 597.

DEATH.

Cause of action for death arises where death occurred and not at place of ap-
pointment of administrator. Lung Chung, Adm'r, v. Northern Pac. R. Co.,

xvi. 548.

DEBTOR AND CREDITOR.

Where all property of private railroad corporation is purchased in good faith,
same is not subject to claims of creditors of corporation, though purchaser had
notice of existence of debts. Branson v. Oregonian R. Co., xvi. 517.

DECLARATIONS.

Of superintendent as to acceptance or non-acceptance of wood by him on
behalf of company are admissible in evidence. Sacalaris v. Eureka & P. R. Co.,

xvi. 580.

Of agent made subsequent to negotiations culminating in contract are inad-
missible as to alleged misrepresentations. Phelps & Co. v. George's Creek & C.
R. Co., xvi. 600.

May be restrained by appropriate penalties, but law must be confined in its
operation to railroads wholly within State. Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Railroad
Comm., xvi. 1.

Law preventing discrimination as applied to railroads out of State is void as
regulation of inter-State commerce. Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Railroad Comm.,
xvi. 1.

Constitutional provision prohibiting discrimination in charges or transporta-
tion facilities not construed to require a company which has made a business
connection with another line to extend same facilities to a rival line connecting
with it at a different point. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Denver & N. O. R.
Co., xvi. 57.

Constitutional prohibition against discrimination is not violated by refusing
to give to one connecting road same arrangement as to through rates given to
another, unless conditions of service are substantially alike. Atchison, T. & S.
F. R. Co. v. Denver & N. O. R. Co., xvi. 57.

Railroad company must afford same facilities to one express company as to
another at same rate, and must use reasonable diligence to see that one com-
pany is not obtaining lower rates than the other. Wells, Fargo & Co. v. Oregon
R. & N. Co., xvi. 87.

Ferriage on railway ferry if furnished to one express company must be fur-
nished to another. Wells, Fargo & Co. v. Oregon R. & N. Co., xvi. 87.

DIVIDENDS.

Preferred stockholder is not a creditor and is only entitled to dividends out of
net earnings. When, however, scrip certificates are issued as dividends con-
vertible into bonds and most of thein are recognized, holder may sue thereon,
though debts were not paid and net earnings at time of issue were insufficient to
pay scrip dividend. Chaffee v. Rutland R. R. Co., xvi. 408.

Fact that plaintiff was stockholder did not make him party to act of issuing
certificates of scrip so as to prevent his recovery thereon. Chaffee v. Rutland
R. R. Co., xvi. 408.

See INJUNCTION; Reformation; SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE.
Where plaintiff has remedy at law, bill in equity will not lie against several
defendants simply because plaintiff would be obliged at law to sue each for a
proportional part of the amount due to him. Scott v. Erie R. Co., xvi. 51.

Exceptions to bill for impertinence not allowed unless it is clear matters ex-
cepted to cannot be essential to case, Recent adjudications of courts and facts
of which courts take judicial notice may sometimes be properly averred in bill.
Wells, Fargo & Co. v. Oregon R. & N. Co., xvi. 71.

Objection to bill that it is not brought in good faith but collusively, goes to
jurisdiction of court and should be raised by plea in abatement and not by
answer. Dinsmore v. N. J. Central R. Co., xvi. 450.

Bill to restrain corporation from employing assets in excess of corporate
powers held, insufficient on demurrer as too vague. Leo v. Union Pac. R. Co.,
xvi. 450.

When one of several defendants has filed
is entered to protect his rights, complainant
party filing cross bill of benefit of decree.
Rolling Mill Co., xvi. 626.

cross bill and interlocutory decree
cannot dismiss his bill and deprive
Chicago & Alton R. Co. v. Union

When one defendant pleads to jurisdiction and another answers setting up
independent rights and no notice is taken of former plea but decree is entered
to protect rights set up in answer, complainant cannot have his bill dismissed
for failure to reply to plea, especially when appeal has been taken to which
defendant filing plea is not a party. Chicago & Alton R. Co. v. Union Rolling
Mill Co., xvi. 626.

When bill is filed to obtain surrender of stocks and bonds fraudulently issued
to company defendant, officers of latter are proper parties with view to dis-
covery. Terhune v. Midland R. R. of N. J., xvi. 665.

When several defendants demur separately, appearing by one solicitor and
counsel, but one bill of costs will be allowed, but this will embrace special costs
in each demurrer. Terhune v. Midland R. R. of N. J., xvi. 665.

Under circumstances company was held estopped to show that two delivery
orders both issued by it were for same consignment of grain, party having made
advances on both. Coventry & Co. v. Great Eastern R. Co., xvi. 292.

Preferred stockholder filing bill to have portion of rental on lease of road ap
plied as dividend on preferred stock, held, bound to show first that a certain
conveyance of the road was void which he was held estopped to do because of
adjudication on point in former suit to which he was a party. Emerson v. New
York & N. E. R. R. Co., xvi. 404.

When company issued scrip convertible into bonds as dividend on preferred
stock and recognized most of scrip by exchanging it for bonds, company is

ESTOPPEL-Continued.

estopped to refuse to recognize certain of the scrip as valid on ground that when
it was issued company was in debt and net earnings were insufficient to pay for
scrip. Chaffee v. Rutland R. R. Co., xvi. 408.

Compary and its agents entering into executed pooling contract are estopped
to deny its validity in suit for its infraction. Nashau & L. R. Co. v. Boston &
L. R. Co., xvi. 488.

When company leases road without express authority, lessee is estopped in
action for rent to deny validity of lease. Woodruff v. Erie R. Co. et al., xvi.

501.

Owner of personalty is not estopped to set up his right thereto as against pur.
chaser from ostensible owner when such purchaser had knowledge of true state
of title. Sacalaris v. Eureka & P. R. Co., xvi. 580.

EVIDENCE.

See BILL OF LADING; DECLARATIONS; EXPERT.

Declarations made in private by shipper of goods to his clerk as to agreement
by him with express company as to carriage are inadmissible in suit against
company for loss of goods. Adams Express Co. v. Boskowitz, xvi. 102.

In suit against express company for loss of goods, clerk of defendant may be
asked whether plaintiff usually put weight on receipts, to contradict a state-
ment to that effect made by clerk of plaintiff. Adams Express Co. v. Boskowitz,
xvi. 102.

Written contract as to carriage of live-stock containing conditions limiting
liability is, in absence of fraud or mistake, sole evidence of agreement, though
signed by shipper in a hurry and with previous verbal understanding as to
terms of shipment. St. L., K. C. & N. R. Co. v. Cleary, xvi. 122.

When bill of lading contained no provision for rebates, prior parol agreement
to pay such rebates was not admissible in evidence. Hopkins v. St. Louis & S.
F. R. Co., xvi. 126.

Evidence is competent to show that a bill of lading does not embody true
contract of transportation and that same lies partly in parol. Mobile & M. R.
Co. v. Jurey, xvi. 132.

Letters of president admitting liability of company for loss of goods by fire are
not admissible in evidence against the company. Piedmont M'f'g Co. v. Colum-
bia & S. R. Co., xvi. 194.

Party may testify why shelled corn is of less value than ear corn for seed,
though he states reasons usually given by farmers. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v.
Nevin, xvi. 252.

Court may properly refuse to permit jury to witness experiments with cars on
track outside of court-room, as bearing on question of practicability of alleged
collision. Smith v. St. Paul City R. Čo., xvi. 310.

In action against sleeping car company to recover for watch and money stolen
during sleep of passenger, evidence that another passenger was robbed the same
night in same car was held admissible to show negligence. Pullman Palace Car
Co. v. Gardner, xvi. 324.

Preponderance of evidence means merely greater weight of evidence and not
testimony which is convincing. Bryan v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., xvi. 335.
When injury was occasioned by washing away of embankment, evidence that
it was altered in reconstruction is admissible to show defect in original plan.
Ely v. St. Louis, K. C. & N. R. Co., xvi. 342.

Witness who saw lady thrown down by street-car after alighting may state his
opinion as to whether she had time to get clear of car before it moved off. Ward
v. Charleston City R. Co., xvi. 356.

Stock book containing party's name as stockholder may go in evidence in suit
for call to show that he was a subscriber. Pittsburgh, W. & K. R. R. Co. v.
Applegate & Son, xvi. 440.

Parol evidence is admissible to show that agreement duly executed but never
delivered was intended to be a mere form and not binding on parties. Branson
v. Oregonian R. Co., xvi. 517.

EVIDENCE-Continued.

Declarations of superintendent as to acceptance or non-acceptance by him of
wood furnished to company are admissible in evidence. Sacalaris v. Eureka &
P. R. Co., xvi. 580.

Station agent is officer examinable under Rev. Stat. of Ontario, ch. 50, sec.
156, as to matters in question in action brought against company. Ramsay v.
Midland Ry. Co., xvi. 594.

Declarations of agent made after conclusion of contract are inadmissible as to
alleged misrepresentations in negotiations. Phelps & Co. v. George's Creek &
C. R. Co., xvi. 600.

President and chief engineer may testify that their representations and esti-
mates in entering into construction contract were made bona fide. Phelps &
Co. v. George's Creek & C. R. Co., xvi. 600.

Letter held admissible in evidence under circumstances to show position of
parties. Receipt of same might be inferred from subsequent conduct and rela
tion of parties. Phelps & Co. v. George's Creek & C. B. R. Co., xvi. 600.

EXCESSIVE FREIGHT CHARGES.

EXECUTION.

See CARRIERS; DISCRIMINATION.

See EXEMPTION.

When judgment was obtained by passenger against railroad for personal in-
juries and execution was levied on engine, execution will not be enjoined on
application of creditors of partnership of which railroad was member where
equities are equal and it does not appear that partnership indebtedness existed
when property was taken in execution. Lamoille V. R. R. Co. et al. v. Bixby
& M. & St. J. R. R. Co., xvi. 474.

Validity of sale cannot be passed upon when purchaser is not a party to pro-
ceedings. Lamoille V. R. R. Co. et al. v. Bixby & M. & St. J. R. R. Co., xvi. 474.
Held to be properly awarded in favor of mechanics' lien claimant against rail-
road company. Chicago & Alton R. Co. v. Union Rolling Mill Co., xvi. 626.

EXECUTORS.

EXEMPTION.

See ADMINISTRATORS AND EXECUTORS.

Exemption laws have no extra-territorial force. In garnishee proceedings it
is no defence that debt of garnishee to defendant is by laws of State where both
reside exempt from seizure under execution process. Burlington & M. R. R.
Co. v. Thompson, xvi. 480.

EXPERT.

Expert evidence is inadmissible that cattle-guard was necessary at certain
point. Amstein v. Gardner, xvi. 585.

EXPRESS COMPANIES.

Railroad companies are bound to furnish to express companies all usual ex-
press facilities. Wells, Fargo & Co. v. Oregon R. & N. Co., xvi. 71.

Court in ordering provisionally railroad company to furnish express facilities
at reasonable rates will assume that rates paid in the past were reasonable.
Wells, Fargo & Co. v. Oregon R. & N. Co., xvi. 71.

Railroad must afford same facilities to one express company as to another at
the same rates, and must use reasonable diligence to see that one company is not
obtaining rates lower than the other. Wells, Fargo & Co. v. Oregon R. & N.
Co., xvi. 87.

Ferriage on railway ferry, if not express facility, if furnished to one ex-