« PreviousContinue »
Page Robinson v. Thompson (N. Y). 1115 Smith, People v. (I11.)...
649 Roby v. South Park Com’rs (11l.). 225 Snow v. Revere Rubber Co. (Mass.)
618 Rochester R. Co., Maynard v. (N. Y.). ....1109 Solari v. Italian Soc. of Columbus (Mass.) 765 Rochester R. Co., Moore v. (N. Y.). 714 Sondheim, Shubert v. (N. Y.).
.1116 Rockland-Rockport Lime Co. v. Leary Sotek v. Sotek (Ill.).
656 (N. Y.) 43 Souers, Robbins v. (Ind.).
530 Rockland-Rockport Lime Co. v. Leary (N. South Park Com'rs, Roby v. (Ill.).
.1115 Southern Indiana Gas Co. v. Tyner (Ind. Rodgers v. New York, two cases (N. Y.)..1115 App.)
580 Rodisch v. Moore (Ill.). 654 Spencer v. Adams (Mass.).
743 Roemler v. Dice (Ind. App.)..
364 Spiegel, Evansville & S. Traction Co. v. Rogers, Blake v. (Mass.).
949 Romona Oölitic Stone Co. v. Weaver (Ind. Spinney v. Hall (Ind. App.).
441 Springfield St. R. Co., Lemay v., two cases Roots Co., Wainwright v. (Ind.). 8 (Mass.)
636 Rosenbush v. Bernheimer (Mass.)
984 Springfield St. R. Co., Ratelle v. (Mass.).. 636 Rosenthal, Commonwealth_v. (Mass.). 609 Spring, Lake Drainage and Levee Dist., Rothschild, Knight v. (N. Y.). .1107 People v. (11.).
. 1042 Rothschild v. Title Guarantee & Trust Spry, Warrick v. (Ind. App.).
361 Co. (N. Y.)...
879 Squires v. Conners Bros. Const. Co. (N. Routt v. Newman (Ill.). 208 Y.)
.1116 Royal Neighbors of America, Johnson v. Standard Marine Ins. Co. of Liverpool, Ca. (ill.) ...1084 hill v. (N. Y.).
486 Ruby y. Ewing (Ind. App.).
798 Starr Piano Co., Hallet & Davis Piano Co. Runkle v. Pullin (Ind. App.).
377 Rutschke, Weigand v. (Ill.). 641 State, Barnett v. (Ind.).
530 Ryan, In re (N. Y.).. . 1115 State v. Boone (Ohio).
State v. Central States Bridge Co. (Ind. Sangamon and Drummer Drainage Dist., App.)
803 People v. (111.)..
667 State, Cleveland Terminal & V. R. Co. v. Sanitary Dist. of Chicago, Jones v. (111.). . 210 (Ohio)
967 Schaack, Clary v. (111.). ..1070 State, Corn v. (Ind.),
421 Schaffner v. New York, N. H. & B. R. Co. State, Craven v. (Ind. App.).
.1021 (N. Y.). . 1115 State v. Creamer (Ohio),
602 Schenck v. Ballou (Ill.). 704 State v. Ensley (Ind.).
113 Scherr v. Pioneer Iron Works (N. Y.)....1115 State, Gilmore v. (Ind.).
422 Schilling v. Indianapolis & C. Traction Co. State, Holthouse v. (Ind. App.). .
130 (Ind. App.)..
124 State, Kinser Const. Co. v. (N. Y.) 871 Schlager, Farwell v. (N. Y.). ..1104 State, Leach v. (Ind.).
792 Schlauder v. Chicago & Southern Traction State, Lee V. (Ind.).
785 Co. (111.) 233 State v. Phillips (Ohio)
976 Schmidt v. Anderson (Ill.). 291 State, Robinson v. (Ind.).
929 Schmidt v. Simpson (N. Y.). 966 State v. Thornburg (Ind.)
534 Schnaier, Strelitzer v. (N. Y.). . .1117 State v. Troy (Ind. App.)
552 Schneer's Son & Co., McMahon v. (N. State, Tyrrel v. (Ind.).
14 Y.) ..1108 State, Volker v. _(Ind.).
422 Schradsky, Taylor v. (Ind.).
790 State Board of Tax Com’rs, People ex rel. Scott v. International Paper Co. (N. Y.).. 413 Brooklyn Heights R. Co. v. (N. Y.). Scott, Walling v. (Ind. App.). 388 Steeves v. Bowen (Mass.).
744 Seaman, Hope v. (N. Y.). .1106 Stein v. Meyers (Ill.).
295 Searfoss, Cole v. (Ind. App.). 345 Stickney, Shattuck v. (Mass.).
774 Security Mut. Life Ins. Co., Bartholomew Stiegelmeyer v. Stiegelmeyer (Ind. App.)1023 v. (N. Y.)....
869 Stiles v. International R. Co. (N. Y.).....1116 Segal, Cohen v. (Ill.).
222 Stone v. Boston Elevated R. Co. (Mass.).. 747 Shafer v. Finan (N. Y.). . 1116 Strelitzer v. Schnaier (N. Y.)..
. 1117 Shattuck v. Guardian Trust Co. of New Stults v. Nelson, Cheesman & Co. (Ind. York (N. Y.)... 517 App.)
21 Shattuck v. Stickney (Mass.) 774 Stumpf, Gick v. (N. Y.).
865 Shaw v. Lockport (N. Y.)...
. .1116 Sundstrom & Stratton Co., Henry Hall Shaw, People v. (Ill.). .1090 Sons' Co. v. (N. Y.).
1106 Shawmut Commercial Paper Co. v. Brig- Supreme Lodge K. P. V. Graham (Ind. ham (Mass.).. 636 App.)
806 Shelley v. Westchester Lighting Co. (N. Surprise, Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. (Ind. Y.) ..1116 App.)
357 Shellhouse v. Field (Ind. App.).
940 Sutphin v. New York Times Co. (N. Y.). .1117 Sherman v. Warren (Mass.). 892 Suydam, People v (N. Y.).
858 Short, Wells & Nellegar Co. v. (Ind. App.) 183 Swain & Son v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. Shubert v. Sondheim (N. Y.)... 1116 (ill.)
247 Sidders, People v. (N. Y.).. .1112 Swartz, Price v. (Ind. App.).
938 Sigma Chi Chapter House of De Pauw Sweetser v. Jordan (Mass.).
768 University, Foster Lumber Co. v. (Ind. Swenton, People v. (N. Y.).
801 Silsbee v. Silsbee (Mass.). 758 Taft, Desmarais v. (Mass.).
96 Simmons v. Fish (Mass.). 102 Taylor, In re (N. Y.)...
502 Simons v. McGuire (N. Y.). 526 Taylor, In re (N. Y.)
. 1117 Simpson, Schmidt v. (N. Y.).
966 Taylor v. Auburn Light, Heat & Power Slater, Bartlett v. (Mass.). 991 Co. (N. Y.)..
1117 Slick v. Brooks (Ill.). 250 Taylor, Commonwealth v. (Mass.).
94 Smith, Cleveland, C., C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Taylor, Gately v. Mass.).
613 (Ind.) 164 Taylor, Moore v. (N. Y.).
.1109 Smith v. Jordan, two cases (Mass.) 761 Taylor v. Schradsky (Ind.).
790 Smith v. McDonald (Ind. App.).
556 Templer v. Muncie Lodge, I. 0. 0. F. Smith v. Miller (N. Y.)... 1116 (Ind. App.).....
Page Tenement House Department of City of Waldo, O'Brien V. (N. Y.).
.1110 New York, Grimmer v. '(N. Y.)..
884 Walker, Louisville & S. '1. Traction Co. Terre Haute, I. & E. Traction Co. v. Green v. (Ind.).
151 (Ind. App.). 343 | Wallace v. Thompson (Ind. App.).
26 Terre Haute, I. & E. Traction Co. v. Phil. Walling v. Scott (Ind. App.).
388 lips (Ind. App.). ..1014 Walsh, In re (N. Y.)..
715 Terwilliger, City of Chicago v. (I11.). 694 Walsh v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co. Thompson, East Hill Cemetery Co. of (N. Y.).
408 Rushville v. (Ind. App.).
.1036 Warner-Quinlan Asphalt Co., Fox v. (N. Thompson v. Luciano (Mass.). 892 Y.)
497 Thompson, Robinson v. (N. Y.)..... ..1115 Warren, Sherman v. (Mass.).
892 Thompson, Wallace v. (Ind. App.). 26 Warrick v. Spry (Ind. App.);
361 Thornburg, State v. (Ind.).
534 Warth v. Moore Blind Stitcher & OverThorne v. Jung (Ill.). .1073 seamer Co. (N. Y.)...
.1118 Ticonderoga R. Co. v. Delaware & Hudson Washburn v. Gray (Ind. App.)..
190 Co. (N. Y.). .
475 Wassall Clay Co., Ætna Indemnity Co. of Timmermann v. Cohn (N. Y.) 589 Hartford, Conn., v. (Ind. App.)..
562 Tincher Motor Car Co., Board of Com'rs Watson, Wetmore v. (Ill.)....
237 of St. Joseph County v. (Ind. App.)... 22 Weatherhead, People v. (I11.).
287 Title Guarantee & Trust Co., Rothschild v. Weaver, Romona Öölitic Stone Co. v. (Ind. (N. Y.) 879 App.)
441 Todd, Foote v. (N. Y.)...
.1104 Webber v Benbow (
758 Tolman, Gorton-Pew Fisheries Co. V. Webber v. Old Colony St. R. Co., two cases (Mass.) 54 (Mass.)
74 Too.ney, Wright v. (N. Y.). .1118 Weed's Will, In re (N. Y.).
1118 Topp, Neat v. (Ind. App.).
578 Weeks-Thorne Paper Co. Glenside Torrey, Bowker v. (Mass.).
1118 Tower 'v. Miller (Mass.)
748 Weeks-Thorne Paper Co. v. Syracuse (N. Town of Blackstone, Blackstone Mfg., Co.
.1118 V. (Mass.).
58 Webmeier v. Mercantile Banking Co. (Ind. Town of Cicero v. Lake Erie & W. R. Co. App.)
558 (Ind. App.), 389 Weigand v Rutschke (III.).
641 Town of Irondequoit v. Costich (N. Y.)...1117 | Weinberg, Turansky v. (Mass.).
755 Town of Watertown, Barron v. (Mass.). 622 Welborn, Reed v. (Ill.).
669 Trinity M. E. Church of Chicago, Marie M. Welch v. Boston (Mass.)
893 E. Church of Chicago v. (111.). 262 Wellington v. Reynolds (Ind.).
155 Trippeer v. Clifton (Ind.).
791 Wells & Nellegar Co. v. Short (Ind. App.) 183 Troy, State v. (Ind. App.)..
552 West 134th St. in City of New York, In re Trustees of Leake & Watts Orphan House (N. Y.)...
862 in City of New York, Westchester Coun- West 212th St. in City of New York, In ty v. (N. Y.)...
re (N. Y.). Turansky v. Weinberg (Mass.).
755 Westchester County y. Trustees of Leake Turley, Cullen-Friestedt Co. v. (Ind. App.) 946 & Watts Orphan House in City of New Turner v. Hartman (Ind. App.). 19 York (N. Y.).
.1118 Tyner, Southern Indiana Gas Co. v. (Ind. Westchester Lighting Co., Shelley v. (N. App.)
.1116 Tyrrel v. State (Ind.).
14 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Biggerstaff (Ind.)
531 Umbenhower v. Labus (Ohio)....
832 Union Bank of Brooklyn, In re (N. Y.;:: 737 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Chicago, L. S. United States Frame & Picture Co. v.
& S. B. R. Co. (Ind. App.). Horowitz (N. Y.)..
West Virginia Pulp & Paper Co., Gadlow.1117 ski v. (N. Y.)..
.1105 United States Health & Accident Ins. Co.
92 v. Batt (Ind. App.).
Wetmore, Karrick v. (Mass.). United States Lace Curtain Mills, Murphy 195 Wetmore v. Watson (ì11.).
237 Wheaton v. Batcheller (Mass.)
924 V. (N. Y.)...
1110 Whitehead Bros. Co., Albany, Schoharie United States Wood Preserving Co. v.
& Rensselaerville Plank Road Co. v. (N. New York, two cases (N. Y.).
. 1101 University Park Bldg. Co., Hablich v. Whiting Mfg. Co., Bulkley v. (N. Y.) (Ind.) 539
724 Utess v. Erie R. Co. (N. Y.).
Whitney, Quinn v. (N. Y.).
722 Uthe, Village of Glencoe v. (Ill.)...
Whitridge, People v. (N. Y.).
.1112 . 1057 Whittemore, People v. (111.).
Whittenton Mfg. Co., Page v. (Mass.). ..1006 Vail, Hixon v. (Ohio).. 981 Willey, Lines V. (Ill.).
843 Vance, American Car & Foundry Co. v. Williams, Kraemer v. (N. Y.)..
.1107 (Ind.) 327 Williams' v. Lowe (Ind. App.)
809 Vandalia Coal Co. v. Price (Ind.)
429 Wills v. Mooney-Mueller Drug Co. (Ind. Vandalia R. Co. v. Baker (Ind. App.) 16 App.)...
449 Van Laningham, Cleveland, C., C. & St. Wimbush v. Wimbush (Ill.).
701 L. R. Co. v. (Ind. App.).. 573 Wimpie, Lowenfeld v. (N. Y.).
.1108 Vaughan v. Troy (N. Y.).
.1117 Wisner, City of Park Ridge v. (I11.). 677 Verdun v. Barr (Ill.).
239 Wisner, City of Park Ridge v. (11.). Village of Glencoe, Langguth v. (111.). ...1052 Witz, Matchett v. (N. Y.).
.1109 Village of Glencoe v. Uthe (Ill.). ..1057 | Woburn Nat. Bank, Reade v. (Mass.). 773 Village of Haverstraw v. Eckerson (N. Y.)1118 Wolford, Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Village of Ottawa, Ohio Electric R. Co.
444 V. (Ohio). 835 Wolter, People v. (N. Y.)...
30 Village of Port Chester, Dupont v. (N. Y.) 735 Wood, Bailey v., three cases (Mass.). 902 Village of Rockport v. Cleveland, C., C. & Wood, Macy v. (Ind. App.).. St. L. R. Co. (Ohio).
553 133 Woodbury v. Hayden (Mass.)
776 Volker v. State (Ind.).
422 Woodbury, People ex rel. New York, O. & W. R. Co. v. (N. Y.)...
.1114 *Wainwright v. P. H. & F. M. Roots Co. Wright v. Toomey (N. Y.)...
. 1118 (Ind.)
Page Wulforst, People v. (N. Y.).
1113 | Young v, New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co. Wyckoff, Church & Partridge v. Riverside (N. Y.).....
...1119 Bank (N. Y.).....
272 Young v. Canada, A. & P. S. S. Co. (Mass.)1098 Zollman, Hoffman v. (Ind. App.). .1015
(177 Ind. 1)
taking possession of such merchandise or pay, HIRTH-KRAUSE CO. et al. v. COHEN et al. ing therefor shall notify personally or by mail
every creditor stated in the list or known to (No. 21,934.)
him of the proposed sale, and the price and (Supreme Court of Indiana. Jan. 12, 1912.) conditions thereof, does not violate Const. art. 1. STATUTES (8226*)-CONSTRUCTION-STAT- 1, 23, providing that the Legislature shali UTE ADOPTED FROM ANOTHER STATE.
not grant to any citizen or class of citizens Where a statute is a substantial copy of privileges and immunities which upon the same the law of another state, and is adopted here terms shall not equally belong to all citizens. after it had been construed by the Supreme (Ed. Note.-For_other cases, see ConstituCourt of that state, the Legislature is presum- tional Law, Cent. Dig. 88 591–624; Dec. Dig. 8 ed to have adopted that construction as to the 205;* Fraudulent Conveyances, Cent. Dig. $ 5; legislative intent and purpose of the act, and Dec. Dig. § 3.*] as to the evils against which the legislation is 5. FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES (8 3*)-PROaimed.
TECTION OF CREDITORS-BULK SALES Act. (Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Statutes, Acts 1909, c. 49, § 1, making a sale of Cent. Dig. 88 256, 307; Dec. Dig. $ 226.*] goods or merchandise in bulk void, unless in 2. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (8 81*) - POLICE inventory be made before the sale showing the
the ordinary course of trade, and unless an POWER
The state, under its police power, has the quantity of the goods, and the cost of each arright to regulate any and all kinds of business ticle, and unless the purchaser demand and to protect the public health, morals, and wel- receive from the seller a written list of names fare, subject to the restrictions of reasonable and addresses of the seller's creditors, with classification.
the amount of indebtedness, and unless the
purchaser before taking possession shall notify [Ed. Note. For other cases, see Constitu- personally the creditors named in the list, or tional Law, Cent. Dig. § 148; Dec. Dig. 8 | known to him, of the proposed sale, and the 81.*]
price and conditions thereof, is a proper exer3. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW ($ 205*) — PRIVI- cise of the state's police power. LEGES AND IMMUNITIES-CLASSIFICATION. [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Fraudulent
A classification of the subjects of legisla- Conveyances, Cent. Dig. Š 5; Dec. Dig. $ 3.*] tion must have some reasonable basis on which 6. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (8 70*)—DISTRIBUto stand, and must operate equally on all with
OF POWERS-JUDICIAL POWERS-ENin the class, and the reason for the classification must be inherent in the subject-matter,
CROACHMENT ON LEGISLATURE.
It is for the Legislature, not the judiciary, and must be natural and substantial, and a proper classification must also embrace all law, if in other respects it has the constitu
to judge of the policy and expediency of the within the class to which it naturally belongs. tional power to enact it. [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see_Constitu
(Ed. Note.--For other cases, see Constitutional Law, Cent. Dig. 88 591-624 ; Dec. Dig. 8tional Law, Cent. Dig. 88 129–132; Dec. Dig. 8 205.*]
70.*] 4. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (S 205*)-FRAUDU - 7. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (8 89*)-PERSONS
LENT CONVEYANCES ($ 3*)-PRIVILEGES AND AND PERSONAL RIGHTS-LIBERTY TO CONIMMUNITIES CLASS LEGISLATION – BULK
TRACT. SALES Act.
Acts 1909, c. 49, prohibiting sales of merActs 1909, c. 49, relating to sales of merchandise or goods in bulk without compliance chandise or goods in bulk, which provides by with certain prescribed conditions as to insection 1 that the transfer in bulk of any part ventory and notice to creditors, does not vioor the whole of a stock of merchandise or mer- late Const. art. 1, § 1, forbidding the restricchandise and fixtures pertaining to the conduct tion of the liberty to contract; that rig'it not of a business otherwise than in the ordinary being entirely beyond the legislative control. course of trade shall be void as against the creditors of the seller, unless the seller and
[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Constitupurchaser shall at least five days before the tional Law, Cent. Dig. $ 157; Dec. Dig. $ 89.*] sale make an inventory showing the quantity 8._STATUTES ($_76*)-GENERAL OR SPECIAL of goods, and the cost of each article, and un- LAWS-BULK SALES LAW. less the purchaser demands and receives from Acts 1909, c. 49, making bulk sales of the seller a written list of names and addresses goods and merchandise void if made without of the seller's creditors with the indebtedness compliance with certain conditions as to into each, certified by the seller under oath, and ventory and notice to creditors, is not in viounless the purchaser at least five days before 'lation of Const. art. 4, § 23, providing that, For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep'r Indexes
where a general law can be made applicable, to require discussion. As pointed out by all laws shall be general and of uniform opera- Vann, J., in a dissenting opinion delivered by tion throughout the state, since the law op him in Wright v. Hart, 182 N. Y. 350 (75 N. erated in all parts of the state in the same way under the same circumstances and con- E. 404, 2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 338), the subject ditions.
has been, with great unanimity, considered, [Ed. Note. For other cases, see Statutes, not only to be within the police power, but Cent. Dig. $$ 7742-7842; Dec. Dig. $ 76.*]
as requiring an exertion of such power." Appeal from Circuit Court, St. Joseph In its opinion in Spurr v. Travis, supra, County; Walter A. Funk, Judge.
the Supreme Court of Michigan said: “It is Action by the Hirth-Krause Company and contended that the act is class legislation others against Phillip Cohen and others. for two reasons: First, because it limits its Judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs ap- operation to merchants and does not include peal. Reversed, with instructions to over-farmers, manufacturers, etc.; and, second, rule defendants' demurrer to the complaint. that it does not relate to merchants who owe
Newberger, Richards, Simon & Davis, and no debts. A sufficient reason for not includThad. M. Talcott, Jr., for appellants. Stuart ing within its provisions merchants who owe MacKibbin and F. J. Lewis Meyer, for ap- the act, which is to protect creditors.
no debts is found in the apparent purpose of
there be no creditor, there is no one requirMORRIS, C. J. Suit by appellants against ing protection. It would be a novel appliappellees under the bulk sales act of 1909. cation of the doctrine which forbids class Acts 1909, p. 122. The circuit court sustain- legislation to hold that creditors of such ed a demurrer to the complaint, and appel- merchants as have creditors may not be lants declined to plead further. From the protected by regulation of transfers by such judgment rendered this appeal is prosecuted. merchants because the provisions cannot The only error assigned here is the sustain- properly be made applicable to others having ing of the demurrer to the complaint. no creditors. Nor is it class legislation with
The lower court's action was based on the in the 'meaning of this term as used to ex. theory that the above act is unconstitution press an unconstitutional exercise of power al. Only the one question is involved in the to limit the application of the act to a par appeal. If the act is constitutional, the ticular calling or relation. People v. Bellet, judgment should be reversed; otherwise it 99 Mich. 151, 57 N. W. 1094, 22 L. R. A. should be affirmed. The act in question is 696, 41 Am. St. Rep. 589. In Cooley on Cona substantial copy of an act passed by the stitutional Limitations (7th Ed.) p. 554, it is Legislature of the state of Michigan in 1905. said: 'Laws public in their objects may, unMich. Public Acts 1905, p. 322.
less, express constitutional provision forbids, In Spurr v. Travis, 145 Mich. 721, 108 N. be either general or local in their application. W. 1090, 116 Am. St. Rep. 330, decided in They may embrace many subjects or one, 1906, the Supreme Court of Michigan held and they may extend to all citizens, or be that the act did not violate the Constitution confined to particular classes, as minors, or of that state. In Musselman Grocery Co. v. married women, bankers, or traders, and Kidd, 151 Mich. 478, 115 N. W. 409, decided the like.
If the laws are otherwise in March, 1908, the same court held that unobjectionable, all that can be required in the act was not in conflict with any of the these cases is that they are general in their provisions of the Michigan Constitution, or application to the class or locality to which of section 1 of the fourteenth amendment of they apply; and they are then public in charthe Constitution of the United States. The acter, and of their propriety and policy the plaintiffs in error there carried that case, to Legislature must judge.' See, also, McDanthe Supreme Court of the United States, iels v. Connelly Shoe Co., 30 Wash. 549, 71 which, in 1910, held that the Michigan law Pac. 37, 60 L. R. A. 947, 94 Am. St. Rep. 889. was based on a proper and reasonable classi- It is easy to discover reasons for apprefication, and did not violate the fourteenth hending and guarding against fraudulent disamendment to the federal Constitution. Kidd position of stocks or merchandise by debtor v. Musselman, 217 U. S. 461, 30 Sup. Ct. 606, owners which would not relate to other spe54 L. Ed. 839. In thus holding the court cies of property. As was said in the case followed its previous ruling, made January cited above, “it is well known that the busi4, 1909, in the case of Lemieux v. Young, 211 ness of retailing goods, wares, and merchanU. S. 489, 29 Sup. Ct. 174, 53 L. Ed. 293, dise is conducted largely upon credit, and which involved the same question with ref- furnishes an opportunity for the commission erence to a similar statute of Connecticut. of frauds upon creditors not usual in other In the latter case, it is said in the opinion: classes of business.' The act is not class "That the court below was right in holding legislation.
Does the act conflict that the subject with which the statute dealt with section 32 of article 6 of the Constituwas within the lawful scope of the police tion? It may be conceded that an act which authority of the state we think is too clear I would prohibit the sale of property of any