Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

V. RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF PARTIES.

(C) Bona Fide Purchasers. 220 (Okl.) Where an instrument clothing another with the indicia of title to real estate is used by him, the equities of innocent purchasers are protected.-Noe v. Smith, 169 P. 1108.

231 (1) (Okl.) Where a purchaser in good faith and without notice has changed his position for the worse, he is a purchaser for value, and is entitled to the protection of the recording acts.-Noe v. Smith, 169 P. 1108.

237 (Okl.) A complete satisfaction of a pre-existing debt to a partnership is a valuable consideration for conveyance of realty to member of firm, as the proportion of the sum credited on the account owned by other members is cast on the grantee.-Noe v. Smith, 169 P. 1108. 239(9) (Wash.) Where mistake in acknowledging payment of part of price was that of vendor, held, reformation would not be granted against vendee's bona fide assignees.-Morris v. Hillman Inv. Co., 169 P. 837.

VI. REMEDIES OF VENDOR. (B) Actions for Purchase Money, 314(1) (Cal.App.) In action to recover intermediate installment or sale of realty by plaintiff to defendant, complaint setting forth contract and showing $6,000 and interest was due on it prior to action, and that same was unpaid, was sufficient to constitute cause of action, though not alleging tender of deed.-Almond City Land & Development Co. v. Patterson, 169 P. 258.

[blocks in formation]

50 (Cal.App.) It is not reasonable conclusion that fair trial cannot be had by plaintiff foreign corporation in defendants' county, from facts that plaintiff is unacquainted in county sparsely settled, that defendant has served as assessor, and that defendants are widely and favorably known.-J. I. Case Threshing Mach. Co. v. Copren Bros., 169 P. 443.

That jury on first trial hesitated to render verdict for plaintiff, as directed, furnished no ground to assume plaintiff foreign corporation could not have impartial trial as against individuals widely known and influential in county.-Id.

72 (Cal.App.) Burden was on plaintiff, moving to change place of trial from county of defendants' residence to another, to establish that a fair trial could not be had in such county.-J. I. Case Threshing Mach. Co. v. Copren Bros., 169 P. 443.

VERDICT.

See Appeal and Error, 930, 1001–1004; New Trial, 59, 70, 73, 143'; Trial, 315-355, 374.

VERIFICATION.

See Pleading, 290, 422.

VII. REMEDIES OF PURCHASER. (A) Recovery of Purchase Money Paid. 339 (Kan.) Where grantee has good defense to an action for balance due on price based upon grantor's fraud and misrepresentation, and rescinds contract of purchase, no formal offer See Railroads, 328. to reconvey property is required.-Harbor Business Blocks Co. v. Gregory, 169 P. 191.

VIEW.

VINDICTIVE DAMAGES.

VITAL STATISTICS ACT.

341(2) (Cal.) It is sufficient if purchaser, See Damages, 87, 91. seeking, after vendor's breach, to recover payments made by him, alleges offer to perform by paying balance of purchase money, demand for deed, and refusal by vendor to accept and execute deed. Lynn v. Knob Hill Improvement Co., 169 P. 1009.

(B) Actions for Breach of Contract.

349 (Cal.) Under Civ. Code, § 3306, purchaser's complaint, alleging only that land had increased in value $200 since breach, time of which was not alleged, held insufficient to entitle purchaser to judgment for alleged increase. -Lynn v. Knob Hill Improvement Co., 169 P. 1009.

Under Civ. Code, § 3306, in purchaser's action for breach of contract to convey, to entitle him to expenses in preparing to enter, complaint must allege they were properly made.-Id.

See Criminal Law, 406.

See Elections.

VOTERS.

WAIVER.

See Appeal and Error, 1078; Appearance; Contracts, 305; Estoppel; Exemptions; Fraudulent Conveyances, 225; Indictment and Information, 196; Insurance, 388, 755; Judgment, 746; Jury. 28; Landlord and Tenant, 112; Mechanics' Liens, 208; Pleading, 406, 422; Witnesses, 219.

WARDS.

350 (Kan.) In suit on bond to quiet title under which obligor had tendered quitclaim deed, held, that sustaining of demurrer to plain- See Guardian and Ward. tiff's evidence was not error.-Snodgrass Snodgrass, 169 P. 1147.

VENUE.

See Appeal and Error, 912; Insurance, 618.

V.

1. NATURE OR SUBJECT OF ACTION. 14 (Cal.) Code Civ. Proc. § 395, does not give a person against whom an alleged libel is published in a newspaper the right to maintain his action in any county wherein the newspaper

WAREHOUSEMEN.

34(4) (Cal.) Defendant warehouseman's advertisements regarding its fireproof building held properly admitted in action for burning of goods, where advertisement raised inference that warehouse belonged to defendant, and no motion to strike was made after contrary evidence was introduced.-Laux v. Bekins Van & Storage Co., 169 P. 1012.

34 (9) (Cal.) Evidence that defendant warehouseman advertised and represented its storage facilities to be fireproof, that plaintiff

held to sustain denial of nonsuit.-Laux v. Be- | travene Const. art. 11, § 19, empowering any kins Van & Storage Co., 169 P. 1012.

[blocks in formation]

1. APPROPRIATION OF RIGHTS IN PUBLIC LANDS.

3 (Or.) State has jurisdiction over nonnavigable waters within its boundaries.-Byers v. Wa-wa-ne, 169 P. 121.

II. NATURAL WATER COURSES.
(E) Bed and Banks of Stream.

89 (Cal.) The "wash" of a stream is that part of its cone, formed where a mountain stream debouches onto the level lands, which has remained desert.-Haack v. San Fernando Mission Land Co., 169 P. 1021.

Call of deed, "Center line of said P. creek or wash," is for center line of creek channel where creek had a defined channel, or if it did not exist, for center line of wash.-Id.

VII. CONVEYANCES AND CON

TRACTS.

156 (8) (Cal.) Where servitude imposed on defendant's land by grant was for carrying of water only for lot No. 5, right to have ditch conveying water enlarged would arise only when more water was needed for lot No. 5, in view of Civ. Code, § 806.-C. F. Lott Land Co. v. Hegan, 169 P. 1035.

Increasing capacity of ditch would be within purview of grant giving right to transport over defendant's land such water as might be necessary for use on lot specified.-Id.

156(8) (Or.) Act Cong. March 3, 1885, considered with Indian treaty of June 9, 1855, ratified March 8, 1859, and permit of Indian agent in 1870 to divert water from Umatilla river, held to confirm or grant existing right to water to grantee's successor.-Byers v. Wa-wane, 169 P. 121.

VIII. ARTIFICIAL PONDS, RESERVOIRS, AND CHANNELS, DAMS, AND FLOWAGE.

163 (Wash.) Rem. Code 1915, § 6828, authorizing state land commissioners to grant right to flood state lands for power purposes, irrigation, mining, or other public use, does not violate Const. art. 1, § 16, making question of public use a judicial question, since such provision is inapplicable to state's disposal of its own lands. State v. Superior Court for Mason County, 169 P. 994.

municipality to establish and maintain public waterworks. Henshaw v. Foster, 169 P. 82.

St. 1911, p. 1290, as amended by St. 1911 (Ex. Sess.) p. 92, authorizing the people of several municipalities of a county to form a municipal water district whose directors may tax for its purposes, held not invalid.-Id.

203(15) (Wash.) Party suing to recover overpayment for water, if entitled to allowance for waste, held to have the burden of showing an excess charge and the amount of such excess.-Morck v. City of Aberdeen, 169 P. 466.

See Highways.

WAYS.

WILLS.

See Appeal and Error, 151; Charities; Clerks of Courts, 66; Descent and Distribution; Executors and Administrators; Taxation, 861-900; Wills, ~10.

I. NATURE AND EXTENT OF TESTAMENTARY POWER.

10 (Cal.) Since under Civ. Code, § 1275, a testamentary disposition may be made only to any person capable by law of taking, a gift by will to one who is dead at the date of the making of the will is void.-In re Matthews' Estate, 169 P. 233.

IV. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY. (G) Revocation and Revival.

202 (Cal.) Where testatrix bequeathed money to a daughter, who predeceased her, and after the daughter's decease made a codicil reaffirming the will, Civ. Code, § 1310, did not have the effect of making an immediate substitution of the legatee's only child operative during the life of testatrix, since such statute relates to the time of the death of testatrix, and not to that of the death of the legatee, and hence the republication was not in effect the making of a legacy to such child so as to preclude him from claiming as a pretermitted heir under section 1307.In re Matthews' Estate, 169 P. 233.

V. PROBATE, ESTABLISHMENT,
AND ANNULMENT.

(H) Evidence.

300 (Cal.) Evidence held to sustain decree that a nephew was the sole heir of testatrix, who devised all her property to her family.--In re Marshall's Estate, 169 P. 672.

(I) Hearing or Trial.

334 (Okl.) Findings of fact and conclusions of law made in a will contest held too general to meet requirements of R. L. 1910, § 5017.Çoleman v. James, 169 P. 1064.

(M) Operation and Effect.

423 (Cal.) The probate of a will is a proceeding in rem, binding on all persons interested, who, being constructively notified to appear at the probate, might have come in, and who, had they come in, would have been heard for or against the will.-In re Allen's Estate, 169 P. 364.

427 (Cal.) A party interested in a will who had legal notice of contest on the ground of unsoundness of mind is bound by a decree admitting the will to probate, and cannot later contest the will on that ground.-In re Allen's Estate, 169 P. 364.

IX. PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY. (A) Domestic and Municipal Purposes. 182 (Cal.) St. 1911, p. 1290, as amended by St. 1911 (Ex. Sess.) p. 92, empowering the people of several municipalities of a county, with or without unincorporated territory, to organ-439 (Colo.) Will is to be construed with due ize a municipal water district, held not to con- regard to its directions and the testator's intent

VI. CONSTRUCTION. (A) General Rules.

and meaning derived therefrom, and given ef-
fect if not contrary to law or public policy.
Haggin v. International Trust Co., 169 P. 138.
487 (3) (Kan.) In action involving the con-
struction of a will, statements by testatrix to
the scrivener that she wanted each of devisees
over to share equally with the others was prop-
erly excluded.-Neil v. Stuart, 169 P. 1138.
(B) Designation of Devisees, and Lega-
tees and Their Respective Shares.

501 (Cal.) Where testatrix devised all her property "to my own family who I think are all in Mexico," the husband's heirs, who were not in Mexico, were not entitled to participate: Civ. Code, § 1334, as to construction of the word "family," and section 1386, subd. 8, as to intestate community property, having no application. In re Marshall's Estate, 169 P.

tween her and husband's executor, held compe-
tent to testify to husband's declarations con-
cerning delivery of notes and certificates of
stock pledged for their payment.-Savings Union
Bank & Trust Co. v. Crowley, 169 P. 67.
(C) Testimony of Parties or Persons In-
terested, for or against Representa-
tives, Survivors, or Successors in Ti-
tle or Interest of Persons Deceased
or Incompetent.

133 (Cal.) In action by stockholder's execu

tor for dividends, in which stockholder's widow was substituted as defendant and claimed dividends under a pledge of the stock, the widow held not incompetent as a witness, under Code Civ. Proc. § 1880, subd. 3.-Savings Union Bank & Trust Co. v. Crowley, 169 P. 67. 672.159(2) (Cal.App.) In action for balance due on note, it was proper on cross-examination to ask plaintiff from whom he received check claimed to have been made to plaintiff for the payee, since deceased, in part payment, although such check was made prior to time when plaintiff became owner of note.-Bailey v. Moshier, 169 P. 913.

531(4) (Kan.) Under a will devising prop erty to a husband for life and over for sale and division among testatrix's brothers' and sisters' children and three others equally, the last three took equally with each of the nephews and nieces per capita.-Neil v. Stuart, 169 P. 1138. (F) Vested or Contingent Estates and Interests.

634(7) (Kan.) Where testator bequeaths life estate in his property to his widow and undivided remainder to his sons, they acquire a vested remainder and may sell and dispose of their undivided interests, subject to widow's life estate. Stevenson v. Stevenson, 169 P.

552.

[blocks in formation]

201 (1) (Cal.) In suit by attorney for services, attorney who employed plaintiff for defendants could testify as to declarations made by defendants concerning employment of plaintiff. -Henshall v. Coburn, 169 P. 1014.

634(9) (Kan.) Where life tenancy and remainders are devised by will, and remaindermen are in esse definitely ascertained, and nothing but their death during life tenancy can defeat their title, they take a vested remainder. Stevenson v. Stevenson, 169 P. 552. 634(16) (Kan.) Where testator bequeaths209 (Idaho) It is immaterial to application life estate to widow and undivided remainder to his sons, subsequent provision that if any son died during life estate his share should go to his descendants did not imply that sons might not absolutely dispose of undivided interests vested by will.-Stevenson v. Stevenson, 169 P. 552.

(G) Conditions and Restrictions.

665 (Cal.) One who applied in Michigan fer letters of administration on ground that deceased died intestate, but that there was an instrument in a probate court in California, alleged to be a will, and later objected to jurisdiction of the California court, but alleged such opposition was not a contest or an attempt to contest, did not forfeit her rights under the will, which provided that the rights of any one contesting or attempting to contest should be forfeited. In re Hill's Estate, 169 P. 371.

[blocks in formation]

37(3) (Utah) That witness is not absolutely certain defendant was the person with whom he had conversation does not warrant exclusion of his testimony in respect thereto, but merely goes to its weight.-Schramm-Johnson Drugs v. Kleeb, 169 P. 161.

37(4) (Cal.App.) Testimony as to deceased's bad reputation for peace and quietude held properly excluded, where it was not based on what community generally had said, but on personal observation on particular occasions. Marks v. Reissinger, 169 P. 243.

59 (Cal.) Under Code Civ. Proc. § 1881, subd. 1, and Civ. Code, § 158, wife, in action be

of Rev. Codes, § 5958, subsec. 4, forbidding examination of physician as to information acquired in attending patient, that physician was hired by patient's employer, and not by patient. -Brayman v. Russell & Pugh Lumber Co., 169 P. 932.

211(1) (Idaho) Under Rev. Codes, § 5958, subsec. 4, all statements by patient to physician while in attendance to determine patient's contient's treatment or determination of his injuIdition are privileged, though not relating to paries.-Brayman v. Russell & Pugh Lumber Co.,

169 P. 932.

219(5) (Idaho) A patient does not waive the privilege provided by Rev. Codes, § 5958. subsec. 4, by testifying that in caring for his injuries he followed physician's advice.-Brayman v. Russell & Pugh Lumber Co., 169 P. 932.

III. EXAMINATION.

(A) Taking Testimony in General. 240(2) (Cal.) It is largely within the discretion of the trial court to allow leading questions.-Bruce v. Western Pipe & Steel Co., 169 P. 660.

240(2) (Cal.App.) The court may in its discretion allow leading question to be addressed to a witness, but the privilege should not be arbitrarily granted to one side and denied to the other.-People v. Ah Wing, 169 P. 402.

240 (2) (Idaho) Permission to counsel for state to ask leading questions of witnesses, aside from cases provided for by statute, rests largely in trial court's discretion.-State v. Nolan, 169 P. 295.

240 (4) (Cal.App.) Questions asked defendant as to whether he hit or attempted to strike deceased until deceased swung at him, and whether he or deceased made the first hostile demonstration, held properly excluded as leading.-Marks v. Reissinger, 169 P. 243.

245 (Cal.) In action against warehouseman for burning of goods, sustaining objection to question whether defendant's employé had any

conversation with plaintiff agreeing to furnish fireproof storage is proper, where witness previously testified that he had had no conversation with plaintiff.-Laux v. Bekins Van & Storage Co., 169 P. 1012.

one required without warning to testify against another like offender, held not to apply where one is called on preliminary hearing of another without suspicion that he was implicated.-Id. IV. CREDIBILITY, IMPEACHMENT, CONTRADICTION, AND COR

ROBORATION.

245 (Mont.) Where objections are sustained to county attorney's questions on ground that they are improper in form, form may be varied and questions repeated; but, when objections are sustained on ground evidence is inadmissible, there is no justification for repeating them.330(3) (Kan.) In an action for malicious -State v. Kanakaris, 169 P. 42.

248(2) (Cal.App.) Where defendant was asked whether first time he shot deceased he intended to kill, his answer, "I was protecting my own life; I was afraid," was not a direct answer, and court was not in error in striking it out as unresponsive.-People v. Ah Wing,

169 P. 402.

255(7) (Wash.) Witness is not entitled to refresh his recollection by book entries without proof that he knows such entries to be correct. -City of Seattle v. Erickson, 169 P. 985.

Book entries may be used only for stimulating witness' memory, and not to allow him to detail information therein of which he has no recollection.-Id.

(B) Cross-examination and Re-examina

tion.

268 (1) (Cal.) Where street railway contended plaintiff attempted to bring injuries on herself, court should have been liberal in lowing it to cross-examine her with respect to actions during hours following departure from home on day of accident before accident itself.-Tower v. Humboldt Transit Co., 169 P.

227.

(A) In General.

prosecution and false imprisonment, defendants were entitled to cross-examine the plaintiff as to supposed violation of prohibitory law in order to impair his credibility.-Tersina v. Liverpool & London & Globe Ins. Co., 169 P. 559.

(B) Character and Conduct of Witness.

337 (1) (Cal.App.) In prosecution for embezzlement, wherein defendant testified that he intended to steal horse and rig when he hired it, which, if believed, would have required an acquittal, it was proper for prosecuting attorney to impeach defendant.-People v. Bojorquez, 169 P. 922.

(D) Inconsistent Statements by Witness.

379(1) (Kan.) Credibility of witness may be impeached on cross-examination by showing that he has previously made statements inconsistent with or contradictory to his evidence given on trial.-State v. King, 169 P. 557. al-379(7) (Cal.) Where machinist, in action against employer for injuries, in his last amended complaint and in his testimony stated that the accident happened in a manner different from that alleged in his previous complaints, such prior pleadings were admissible in his cross-examination to show prior inconsistent statements.-Schuh v. R. H. Herron Co., 169 P. 682.

268(3) (Cal.) In action for injuries when street car struck surrey in which plaintiff was riding, where a witness said that another had said he would "bawl defendant out," it was proper on cross-examination to ask whether the other had said he would tell the condition of the cars and in that manner bawl them out. -Grossetti v. Sweasey, 169 P. 687.

Where one filing and verifying a pleading subsequently amended is a witness, he may, on cross-examination, be questioned concerning the portions of his original pleadings which are inconsistent with the pleading upon which trial is had, to show inconsistent statements.-Id.

270(2) (Wash.) In prosecution for having unlawful possession of intoxicating liquors at a drug store, cross-examination to show whether he noticed a certificate of registration in another's name at the drug store was immaterial, See Criminal Law, having nothing to do with the charge.-State v. Billingsley, 169 P. 845.

WOMEN.
m9251⁄2.

WOODS AND FORESTS.

In prosecution for having unlawful possession of liquors, cross-examination as to whether wit-8 (Or.) Under Act of Cong. June 4, 1897, ness had ever heard of any sales of liquor at the location involved was immaterial.-Id.

275(6) (Or.) Plaintiff held entitled to considerable latitude in cross-examining defendant respecting a conversation testified to by defendant, though of little relevancy.-Richey v. Robertson, 169 P. 99.

287(1) (Cal.App.) In view of Code Civ. Proc. § 2052, witness' explanation on redirect as to an apparent contradiction between his testimony and his testimony at the preliminary examination held proper.-People v. Ah Wing, 169 P. 402.

on

(C) Privilege of Witness. 296 (Mont.) Questions to defendant cross-examination having no other object than to impeach or degrade him in estimation of jury are forbidden by Rev. Codes. § 8024, relating to impeachment, and section 8031, relative to right of witnesses to protection.-State v. Kanakaris, 169 P. 42.

304(4) (Cal.App.) Under Pen. Code, § 1324, relative to requiring one to testify against another, he is not immune from prosecution for the same offense, where this testimony, so given. did not incriminate himself.-People v. Cavala, 169 P. 420.

Peu. Code, 1324, providing immunity for

c. 2, title to land within forest reservation relinquished as basis for lieu land selections passes when, and only when, the deed is accepted and the selection approved by the General Land Office.-State v. Hyde, 169 P. 757.

Powers of attorney authorizing selection of lands in lieu of land within forest reservation held powers with an interest and irrevocable during the lifetime of the grantors.-Id.

WORDS AND PHRASES. "Abandonment."-German State Bank of Elk City v. Ptachek (Okl.) 169 P. 1094. "Accidental means."-Kendall V. Travelers' Protective Ass'n of America (Or.) 169 P. 751.

"Accomplice."-Williams v. State (Okl. Cr. App.) 169 P. 655.

"Accruing."-Board of Com'rs of Lea County v. Board of Com'rs of Chaves County (N. M.) 169 P. 306.

"Actionable fraud."-Dieterle v. Harris (Okl.) 169 P. 873.

"Action upon contract."-Pendry v. Brennan (Idaho) 169 P. 174.

"Adequate consideration."-In re Felton's Estate (Cal.) 169 P. 392.

"Adverse party."-De Foe v. De Foe (Or.) 169 P. 128.

dustrial Acc. Commission (Cal. App.) 169 P. 260.

"Agent."-Ryan v. Walker (Cal. App.) 169 P., "Employé."-City of Los Angeles v. State In417; State v. Campbell (Wash.) 169 P. 968. "Alteration."-Edwards v. Thompson (Wash.) 169 P. 327.

[blocks in formation]

"Arising out of and in course of employment."Boggess v. Industrial Accident Commission (Cal.) 169 P. 75; Casualty Co. of America v. Industrial Accident Commission, Id. 76; San Bernardino County v. Industrial Acc. Commission of State of California (Cal. App.) 169 P. 255; Industrial Commission of State of Colorado v. Anderson (Colo.) 169 P. 135. "Assessment."-Great Northern Ry. Co. Fiske (Mont.) 169 P. 44. "Assignment."-Guaranteed

V.

of

State Bank Durant v. D'Yarmett (Okl.) 169 P. 639. "Assumption of risk."-Schuh v. R. H. Herron Co. (Cal.) 169 P. 682. "Attempt to contest."-In (Cal.) 169 P. 371.

re

Hill's Estate

"Enacting clause."-City of Astoria v. Malone (Or.) 169 P. 749. "Equitable

State

assignment."-Guaranteed Bank of Durant v. D'Yarmett (Okl.) 169 P. 639.

"Eviction."-Black v. Knight (Cal.) 169 P.

382.

169 P. 710.

"Execution."-White v. Hendley (Cal. App.) "Existing right."-Byers v. Wa-wa-ne (Or.) 169 P. 121.

P. 377.

"Express trust."-Ware v. Quigley (Cal.) 169 "Failure to make delivery."-Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. McElreath (Okl.) 169 P. 628. "False pretense."-State v. Pettviel (Wash.)

169 P. 977.

"Fellow servant."-Brayman v. Russell & Pugh Lumber Co. (Idaho) 169 P. 932. "Filed."-Pendrey v. Brennan (Idaho) 169 P. 174.

"Franchise."-Wells Fargo & Co. v. Harrington (Mont.) 169 P. 463.

"Fraud."-Henry v. Collier (Okl.) 169 P. 636; Dieterle v. Harris, Id. 873.

"Attractive nuisance."-Giannini v. Campodoni-
co (Cal.) 169 P. 80.
"Augmentation or betterment of estate."-Rus-
sell v. Bank of Nampa (Idaho) 169 P. 180. 169 P. 231.
"Bank."-Wrathall v. Miller (Utah) 169

946.

V.

"Fraudulent misrepresentation."-Henry Collier (Okl.) 169 P. 636. "General confectioner."-Shean v. Weeks (Cal.) P."Grand larceny."-People v. Lepori (Cal. App.) "Gratuity."-O'Dea v. Cook (Cal.) 169 P. 366. "Greek cross."-Hunt v. Campbell (Ariz.) 169

"Bill in the nature of bill of interpleader." Guaranteed State Bank of Durant v. D'Yarmett (Okl.) 169 P. 639. "Bill of attainder."-People v. Casa Co. (Cal.

App.) 169 P. 454. "Boycott."-Hall v. Johnson (Or.) 169 P. 515. "Certain."-Union Nat. Bank v. Mayfield (Okl.)

169 P. 626.

[blocks in formation]

"Confirmation."-Byers v. Wa-wa-ne (Or.) 169 "Consideration."-Bowers v. Missouri State Life Ins. Co. (Okl.) 169 P. 633; Noe v. Smith, Id. 1108; Brown v. Brew (Wash.) 169 P. 992. "Conspiracy to injure trade, business, or commerce.' -Hall v. Johnson (Or.) 169 P. 515. "Contest."-In re Hill's Estate (Cal.) 169 P.

[blocks in formation]

(Wash.) 169 P. 331. "Deceit."-Hooker v. Wilson (Okl.) 169 P. 1097. "Decision."-Kelley & Lysle Milling Co. v. Schreiber (Kan.) 169 P. 222.

"Delaying or hindering creditors."-Meakim v. Ludwig (Wash.) 169 P. 24. "Delivery."-Pierce Arrow Sales Co. v. Irwin (Or.) 169 P. 129; Walter v. Kressman (Wyo.) 169 P. 3. "Desertion."-Roberson v. Roberson (Nev.) 169 P. 333.

Designate."-Santa Barbara County v. Janssens (Cal.) 169 P. 1025. "Direct proceedings."-Leslie

[blocks in formation]

169 P. 692.

P. 596.

1017.

"Handwriting."-Wolf v. Gal (Cal.) 169 P. "Immediately."-McVitty v. Flentge (Cal.) 169 "Indictment."-City of Astoria v. Malone (Or.)

P. 666.

169 P. 749.

[blocks in formation]

"Location."-Mountain Timber Co. v. Lumber Ins. Co. of New York (Wash.) 169 P. 591. "May."-Snelling v. National Travelers' Benefit Ass'n (Kan.) 169 P. 1144.

"Member of body."-State v. Sheldon (Mont.) 169 P. 37.

"Middleman."-Ryan v. Walker (Cal. App.) 169 P. 417.

"Mine."-Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. Musselshell County (Mont.) 169 P. 53.

"Mining partnership."-Harper v. Sloan (Cal.) 169 P. 1043.

"Mob."-Harvey v. City of Bonner Springs (Kan.) 169 P. 563.

"Mortgage."-Purdy v. Underwood (Or.) 169

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »