Only in case of wilful violation of contract will rule be applied that passenger while being put off for non-payment of fare cannot acquire right of passage by tendering same. Louisville, N. &. Gt. S. R. Co. v. Harris, xvi. 374.
When passenger is expelled for non-payment of fare before he has time to borrow amount from fellow-passenger, he cannot recover exemplary damages in the absence of malice on conductor's part in ejecting him. Curl v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., xvi. 379.
Where drunken passenger is put off for non-payment of fare, the company bound to eject him in such place as will not, on account of his condition, endanger his life and health. Louisville, C. &. St. L. R. Co. v. Sullivan, xvi. 390.
May recover for insolence and abuse of servants. If there is any justification, the burden is on the company to prove it. Bryan v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., xvi. 335.
Company is liable for unwarrantable assaults by servants on passengers. International & Gt. Northern R. Co. v. Kentle, xvi. 337.
Where passenger is injured while travelling for pleasure in street car on Sunday he may recover. Knowlton v. Milwaukee City R. Co., xvi. 330.
When jury report in special findings damage to passenger from sudden start- ing of train to be $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.
Sleeping-car companies must use reasonable diligence to guard clothes and valuables of sleeping passengers. In action for loss of watch and money, where porter on watch had left guard for short time, question of negligence was for jury. Evidence was admissible that another passenger had watch stolen same night in same car. Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Gardner, xvi. 324.
Passenger by accident dropped valuable parcel out of open window. Con- ductor, though asked, refused to stop train until next station was reached. The parcel was never found. Held that the company was not liable. Henderson v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., xvi. 397.
Execution issued by passenger on judgment for personal injuries will not be enjoined on application of creditors of partnership of which company defendant is a member. Lamoille V. R. R. Co. et al. v. Bixby & M. & St. J. R. R. Co., xvi. 474.
May be imposed to prevent excessive freight charges and discriminations as to railroads wholly within the State, but not as to those without. Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Railroad Com., xvi. 1.
Law imposing penalties on railroad companies for unjust discrimination and excessive charges is void as an unfair discrimination against railroad com- panies. Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Railroad Com., xvi. 1.
State act fixing maximum rates for transportation of freight and passengers is unconstitutional as regulation of inter-State commerce so far as it relates to shipments on inter-State lines. Kaeiser v. Illinois Central R. Co., xvi. 40.
Crown cannot be made liable in proceeding in nature of petition of right for injury to passengers on railways owned and operated by Dominion of Canada. Queen v. McLeod, xvi. 301.
As to particularity necessary in statements of complaint. Ayres et al. v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., xvi. 171; Richardson v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co.,
Answer may contain different inconsistent pleas, but each plea must be consistent with itself. International & Gt. Northern R. Co. v. Kentle, xvi. 337.
It is error to strike special defences out of pleadings, though evidence as to them is admitted under general denial. International & Gt. Northern R. Co. v. Kentle, xvi. 337.
Objection that company sued is not corporation should be taken by answer and not by demurrer. Stanly v. Richmond & D. R. Co., xvi. 545.
See AMENDMENT; APPEALS; COSTS; DAMAGES; EQUITY; EVIDENCE; GARNISH- MENT; INTEREST; JURISDICTION: PLEADING; REMOVAL OF CAUSES; SER- VICE OF PROCESS; UNITED STATES COURts; Venue.
Trial will not be continued because party fails to obey subpoena duces tecum, when same was not served until day before trial. Matters of this sort are largely within discretion of trial court. Texas Express Co. v. Scott, xvi. 111. Instruction submitting question of law to court sitting as jury is properly re- fused. St. Louis, K. C. & N. R. Co. v. Cleary, xvi. 122.
Instruction which is under pleadings and evidence a mere abstraction is properly refused. St. Louis, K. C. & Ñ. R. Co. v. Cleary, xvi. 122.
Charge to jury should be in reference to tendencies of testimony and should be construed in light thereof. South & North Ala. R. Co. v. Wood, xvi. 267. Court cannot require the jury to determine the issue from the pleadings. Bryan v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., xvi. 335.
It is fatal error to submit to the jury a question not raised by pleadings. Ely v. St. Louis, K. C. & N. R. Co., xvi. 342.
In this case the answers to special questions were held so evasive and unsatis- factory as to warrant belief that the railroad company had not had fair trial and therefore to warrant reversal. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Harvey, xvi. 352.
Plaintiff announced that he had no challenges to make. Defendant then challenged two jurors. Plaintiff could not afterwards demand a right of chal- lenge. Ward v. Charleston City R. Co., xvi. 356.
Allegations by trustee presenting for trial same issues raised and tried between principal parties will be dismissed on motion. Chaffee v. Rutland R. R. Co., xvi. 408.
Court had power in this case to authorize action to determine rights of parties, instead of determining them upon a motion. Woodruff v. Erie R. Co. et al., xvi. 501.
Jury must determine all disputed questions of fact. Sacalaris v. Eureka & P. R. Co., xvi. 580.
Preferred stockholder seeking to have conveyance of road set aside, held, estopped by adjudication on point in former suit to which he was a party. Emerson v. New York & N. E. R. R. Co., xvi. 404.
Preferred stockholder is not a creditor and is not entitled to guaranteed
PREFERRED STOCK-Continued.
dividend until debts are paid and then only out of net earnings applicable to dividend. Chaffee v. Rutland R. R. Co., xvi. 408.
Holder of certificates of scrip issued by company as dividend on preferred stock and convertible into bonds may maintain suit thereon where nearly all the other certificates issued have been recognized and converted into bonds, and this though company was in debt when scrip dividends were issued, and net earnings were insufficient to pay them. Chaffee v. Rutland R. R. Co., xvi. 408.
Fact that plaintiff was stockholder did not make him so far party to issue of scrip as to prevent his recovery thereon. Chaffee v. Rutland R. R. Co., xvi. 408.
The certificates ran to holder, went on market and were purchased by plaintiff. He was always treated as original holder, and certificates as running to bearer. Held, he could sustain action thereon in his own name. Chaffee v. Rutland R. R. Co., xvi. 408.
The acts of directors recognizing validity of corporate action in issuing scrip and authorizing issue of bonds to take it up. Held, a ratification of its validity. Chaffee v. Rutland R. R. Co., xvi. 408.
Last issue of the scrip certificates did not recite convertibility; but officers at time of issue assured plaintiff they were convertible into bonds. Held, that they should be treated same as other certificates. Chaffee v. Rutland R. R. Co., xvi.
Pooling agent is trustee and is accountable as such in court of equity. Nashua & L. R. Co. v. Boston & L. R. Co., xvi. 488.
When pooling contract is once executed, corporation entering into it is es- topped to deny validity of contract in defence of an action for its infraction brought by the other party. Still less can agents of party set up such defence. Nashua & L. R. Co. v. Boston & L. R. Co., xvi. 488.
Information in nature of quo warranto is in effect a civil proceeding. v. Kansas ex rel., xvi. 522.
Where statute abolishes information in nature of quo warranto and substi- tutes action to same effect, cause may be removed to U. S. courts when other circumstances warrant removal. Ames v. Kansas ex rel., xvi. 522.
Suit by State against one of its corporations for relinquishing powers to another corporation with which it has been consolidated under laws of U. S., and proceedings against directors of consolidated company for usurping powers of State corporation, are suits arising under laws of U. S. and may be removed to U. S. courts. Ames v. Kansas ex rel., xvi. 522.
Before entering judgment of ouster, regard will be had to honor of State. Attorney-Gen'l v. Joy, xvi. 643.
Judgment of ouster will not be entered on ground that original act authoriz ing change of name and purchase of property and franchises of another company was void because not passed by constitutional majority, when long time has elapsed, acts have been done on faith of validity of original statute and divers other statutes have been passed recognizing validity of statute above named. Attorney-Gen'l v. Joy, xvi. 643.
Failure of company to run trains to terminus fixed in original charter is not ground for forfeiture of franchises when discontinuance is caused by act of Tessee in adopting another through route and public at large are not injured. Att'y-Gen'l v. Erie & Kalamazoo R. Co., xvi. 652.
See COMMISSIONS; CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
Where parties have not appealed from orders appointing receiver and defining powers, they cannot dispute or question powers. Woodruff . Erie R. Co. et al., xvi. 501.
Court may direct how property shall be managed while in hands of receiver. Woodruff v. Erie R. Co. et al, xvi. 501.
Liabilities created by receivership must be fully paid before any other claims can be made against the property Woodruff v. Erie R. Co. et al., xvi. 501 By taking possession of leased road affirms the lease and incurs liability to pay rent according to its terms. Woodruff v. Erie R. Co. et al., xvi. 501
Stock book containing party's name as stockholder may go in evidence in sult for call to show that he was a subscriber. Pittsburgh, W. & K R R. Co o. Applegate & Son, xvi. 440.
Contract will not be reformed when preponderance of evidence is with party contesting reformation. Hutchinson et al. v. New Sharon, E. V & E. R Co., xvi. 617.
From lessor to lessee held by its terms to cover any claim of lessee against lessor for money paid to take up coupons on lessor's bonds in pursuance of terms of lease. Stewart et al. v. Hoyt's Exr's, xvL 513
See JURISDICTION; UNITED STATES COURTS.
Where there are two plaintiffs and two defendants and one of plaintiffs and one of defendants are citizens of same State, case cannot be removed to United States courts. Walser et al v. Memphis, C. & N. W. R. Co., xvi 449
When cause is once removed to United States court, no change of pleadings or in relationship of parties by amendment can confer jurisdiction not disclosed by original proceedings in State court Walser et al. v. Memphis, C. & N W R. Co., xvi. 449.
Bill was filed by stockholders to set aside lease as void. Defendants moved to remove to U. S. court on ground that lease was authorized by State statute which complainants averred to be in violation of original charter contract. Held, that as contention was not raised by pleadings, mere possibility that it might arise did not warrant removal Mills et al. v. Central R. R. of Ñ. J., xvi 491. When main controversy is between citizens of same State and there is no controversy wholly between citizens of different States which can be fully determined between them, cause cannot be removed to United States court. Mills et al. v. Central R. R. of N. J., xvi. 491.
When statute abolishes quo warranto proceedings and substitutes action to same effect, such action may be removed to U S. circuit court when other circumstances warrant removal. Ames v. Kansas ex rel., xvi. 522
Suft by State against one of its corporations for relinquishing powers to an- other corporation with which it has become consolidated under laws of U. S., and proceedings against directors of consolidated company for usurping powers of State corporation are suits arising under U S. laws, and may be removed to to U. S. Court. Ames v. Kansas ex rel., xvi. 522.
The court declines to decide that Congress may not confer on inferior courts jurisdiction in cases where by constitution Supreme Court of the United States has original jurisdiction. Ames v. Kansas ex rel., xvi. 522.
Suits cognizable in U. S. courts on account of nature of controversy, and not required to be brought originally in U. S Supreme Court may be removed to US Circuit Courts irrespective of character of parties. Ames Kansas ex
Act enabling creditors to buy in at foreclosure sale and reorganize is not ob- noxious because it creates new corporation with old chartered powers. Attor- ney-General v. Joy, xvi. 643.
Stockholder cannot have ultra vires transactions of directors set aside unless he held his interest at time of transactions complained of nor unless he has ex- hausted his legal remedies. Dimpfel v Ohio & M. R. Co., xvi. 461.
When trustee by misrepresenting material facts obtains conveyance of sub- jects of trust for inadequate consideration, rule requiring rescission of contract immediately upon discovery of fraud does not apply. Cook et al. v. Sherman et al, xvi 561.
Contract can only be rescinded by acts or assent of both parties. It is not rescinded by insolvency of one of parties New England Iron Co. v. Gilbert Elevated R. Co., xvi. 609.
Directors may employ solicitor and fix his salary. Shareholders cannot undo arrangement in respect of past services. Falkiner v. Grand Junction R Co, XVL 591.
Statutory duty of agent of carrier proceeding to sell unclaimed prckages The sale in this case held tainted by fraud Nathan Bros. v. Shivers, xvi 276.
Property purchased from private railroad corporation in good faith is not affected with trust in hands of purchaser for unpaid debts of corporation, though purchaser had notice of their existence Branson Oregonian Ry Co xvi
Owner of personalty is not estopped to set up his right thereto as against pur- chaser from ostensible owner when purchaser knew who really had title. Saca laris Eureka & P. R. Co., xvi. 580
Company issuing scrip convertible into bonds as dividend on preferred stock, and recognizing greater part of said scrip as valid by issuing bonds to take up same, is estopped to deny validity of rest of scrip though it was in debt when scrip was issued and net earnings were insufficient to pay same Chaffee v. Rutland R R. Co, xvi. 408.
Fact that plaintiff was stockholder did not make him party to issue of scrip so as to defeat recovery thereon. Chaffee v. Rutland R. R. Co., xvi. 408.
Ran to holder and went into market where it was bought up by plaintiff Company always recognized him as original holder and considered certificates as running to bearer. Held, that he could sue thereon in his own name. Chaffee v. Rutland R. R. Co., xvi. 408.
When certificates of scrip did not contain recitals of convertibility into bonds, company was held bound by representations of officers at time of issue that such was the case. Chaffee v. Rutland R. R. Co., xvi. 408.
Contract reciting that seal is properly annexed accompanied with evidence tending to show that same is affixed by competent authority, is valid and bind- ing New England Iron Co. v. Gilbert Elevated R. Co., xvi. 609
« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια » |