INDEX.

(809)

INDEX.

ABSTRACT OF TITLE. See Municipal Corporations, 4.

ACCOUNT. See Statute of Limitations.

ACCOUNT-BOOKS. See Evidence, 1, 2.

ADULTERY. See Criminal Law, 7, 8

ADVERSE POSSESSION.

1. POSSESSION AND PAYMENT OF TAXES-TIME.-Where a claim of title
to real property is based upon adverse possession, it is necessary for
the claimant to show that he has been in the continuous and uninter-
rupted possession of the property for a period of five years preced-
ing the commencement of an action to quiet his title thereto, and
that he has paid the taxes thereon for such period. (Van Calbergh
v. Easton, 796.)

2. PAYMENT OF TAXES - DOUBLE PAYMENT UNAUTHORIZED.-Under
section 325 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is an indispensable
prerequisite that the adverse claimant shall have paid all taxes levied
and assessed within the period of his occupancy, and if they have
been paid prior to the time he offers payment, the tax debt for
that year has been satisfied, and the double payment amounts to
naught. (Id.)

AGENCY.

-

1. AUTHORITY TO SELL REAL PROPERTY EXECUTION OF CONTRACT OF
SALE UNAUTHORIZED.-A writing authorizing a real estate broker
to sell real property at the price and on the terms mentioned in
the instrument, and to receive and receipt for any deposit made on
the purchase price thereof, does not authorize the broker to enter
into a contract for the sale of the property on behalf of the owner,
but only extends to the finding of a purchaser. (Thompson v.
Scholl, 4.)

2. AUTHORITY OF LOCAL MANAGER OF PIANO COMPANY.-A local man-
ager of a piano company who has authority in making sales of pianos
to accept second-hand pianos in part payment and to receive money
for the company from its patrons and to execute and deliver receipts
therefor in its name, has not the implied authority to satisfy an in-
debtedness of a purchaser of a piano to the company by assuming
himself personal liability for such indebtedness, in consideration of
the settlement of his own personal indebtedness to such purchaser.
(Wiley B. Allen Co. v. Wood, 76.)

(811)

AGENCY (Continued).

3. UNDISCLOSED PRINCIPAL.-The fact that a principal's connection in a transaction is not disclosed will not relieve him from obligation thereon, where such obligation was created for and on behalf of himself and the person acting as his agent. (Colquhoun v. Pack, 97.) 4. ACTION FOR GOODS SOLD JOINT INDEBTEDNESS - EVIDENCE-DECLARATIONS OF DEFENDANT TO ASSOCIATE-PREVIOUS PROOF OF AGENCY NOT REQUIRED.-In an action for goods sold, it is not error to permit one jointly liable with the defendant to testify as to conversations had with the defendant concerning the transaction without first showing the existence between them of the relationship of principal and agent. (Id.)

5. COST OF STREET IMPROVEMENT-JOINT LIABILITY OF DEFENDANTS— EVIDENCE-UNSUPPORTED FINDING.-In an action to recover upon & common count for labor performed and materials furnished in improving a street which the defendants had opened through a tract of land owned by them in severalty, a finding in favor of the plaintiffs against the defendants jointly for the full value of the work done, is unwarranted, where the only evidence in support of the finding, and upon which to base any authority in the defendants who ordered the work to bind their codefendant, was the fact that he owned part of the land fronting on the street, was interested in and wished to have it improved, and upon leaving for the East, stated that he would leave the improvement of the street to them. (Tryon v. Clinch, 150.)

6. LETTER AUTHORIZING WORK - SIGNATURE AFTER COMPLETION - UNAUTHORIZED FINDING OF LIABILITY FOR FULL COST. — In such an action, the defendant who did not order the performance of the work, cannot be held liable for the entire cost by reason of his having attached his signature to a letter written by the plaintiffs to the defendants who actually ordered the work and which formed the contract under which the work was done, where such signature was not attached until after all the work sued for had been performed.

(Id.)

7. ACTION TO ENFORCE TRANSFER OF LEASE-PAROL AGENCY-REPUDIATION OF TRUST-WANT OF CONSIDERATION-ACTION NOT MAINTAINABLE.-Where a party employs another person by parol to secure a lease of certain real property for him, with the understanding that if the lease cannot be procured to be made directly to him, the agent shall, if possible, secure it in his own name and then transfer it to his principal, and the agent secures the lease to be made to himself and denies the trust, the principal cannot compel the agent to transfer the lease to him, where he has parted with no consideration. (Bauman v. Wuest, 217.)

8. PAROL AGENCY-Trust-WHEN NOT ENFORCEABLE.-An agency attempted to be created by parol, in violation of the provisions of the

AGENCY (Continued).

statute of frauds, is not sufficient to impose a trust in a case where the principal who seeks its enforcement has parted with no consideration. (Id.)

9. ARCHITECTS' SERVICES AUTHORITY OF PERSON CONTRACTING FOR OWNERS-SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE.-In an action to recover a sum of money alleged to be due as architects' fees for the drawing of plans and specifications for a building to be erected upon the premises of the defendants, and for taking bids upon the same, the agency of the person who acted for the defendants in contracting for such services is sufficiently proven by evidence that such person was the agent of the defendants to get tenants for the building to be constructed on the premises, and that one of the defendants recognized the plaintiffs as his architects, and assured them that the erection of the building would be proceeded with in a short time. (Paff v. Ottinger, 439.)

See Broker; Corporation, 1-5; Insurance, 2.

ALIMONY. See Divorce, 4.

APPEAL.

1. ALTERNATIVE METHOD FAILURE TO PRESENT BRIEF SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE-REVIEW NOT REQUIRED.-On an appeal taken from a judgment under the alternative method, no duty devolves upon the court to search the record for evidence to support the findings, where no brief is presented by the respondent or appearance made at the hearing had upon the appeal. (Mullia v. Ye Planry Building Company, 6.)

2. APPEAL FOR PURPOSES OF DELAY-DAMAGES ADDED FOR DELAY.-The appeal is frivolous, and apparently made for purposes of delay. Respondent allowed fifty dollars damages on account of the delay caused by the appeal. (Gunter v. Sackett, 21.)

3. ORDER DENYING NEW TRIAL EFFECT OF CODE AMENDMENT-NONAPPEALABLE ORDER.-Under the amendment of 1915 to section 956 of the Code of Civil Procedure, no appeal lies from an order denying a motion for a new trial, but the points made before the trial court in support of the motion may be reviewed on an appeal from the judgment. (Wiley B. Allen Company v. Wood, 76.)

4. JURISDICTION OF DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL AMOUNT LESS THAN THREE HUNDRED DOLLARS.-In an action against a corporation and certain of its stockholders, the latter being sued on their stockholders' liability, the district court of appeal has no jurisdiction of an appeal from an order setting aside a judgment against one of the stockholders in an amount less than three hundred dollars. (Wagner v. Cardinet Fountain Brush Company, 493.)