« PreviousContinue »
1. A statute authorizing the election
TAXES AND TAXATION.
See MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS.
2. A tenant in common occupying
without agreement to pay rent, is
not liable, on partition, to account
power of appointing clerks of jus- be by a firm of which the tenant in
is liable to pay interest on the sums
so received, without a previous de-
5. If one tenant in common, to whom
one or more co-tenants is or are in-
See ASSESSMENTS, 1, 7, 18.
6. Whether, in the case of a voluntary
partition, between tenants in com-
question is raised in regard to the TENANCY BY THE CURTESY.
435 1. One entitled in remainder, as co-
tenant, during the life estate, by per-
mission of, and agreement with, the
life tenant, erected buildings on the
common property, and received rents
for the same, before and after the
termination of the life estate. HU
that on partition he could not hold
the buildings, or their value, and
must account for the rents received
after the death of the life tenant.
estate, been fully reimbursed for all
maindermen, erected buildings on
tenant for life, the remainderman
premium thus paid.
Songs and duets, sung by persons in
against R. M. having been enforced, matic, theatrical or operatic enter-
See INJUNCTION, 1.
TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES. Held that his subsequent death, with-
out ever assuming the trust or claim-
this State, and the original trustee, disclaimer, and vested all the estate
See AGREEMENT, 8.
USE AND OCCUPATION.
was not divested of jurisdiction by 1. To enable a party to maintain an
action for use and occupation, under
the provision of the Revised Stat-
utes authorizing such an action to
whether by deed or parol, the con-
tenant must exist. Thompson v.
ise or obligation to pay for use and
ment to purchase, he is not a ten-
ant, but a vendee, and the relation
that of vendor and vendee, and in
no conventional sense that of land-
lord and tenant.
tenant did not exist, and there had
of a parol agreement with the plain-
tiffs to purchase, and had been will-
ing to pay substantially according
the premises because the plaintiff's
agreement, or to accept performance
on his part; Held that the plaintiffs
could not recover for the use of the
premises ; whether the action was
claimed acting as trustee, by an and occupation, or an action for
6. Held, also, that it was erroneous for only to relieve a borrower, under &
the judge to charge the jury that usurious contract, from the obliga-
6. The former rule of courts of equity.
requiring a complainant who sought
relief in that court against a usuri-
ous contract, obligation or security,
issory note, the single question to with interest, as a condition of
an usurious agreement by the statute of 1837 only in behalf
equity, according to the practice of
the court, the omission to make such
offer, now goes only to the question
trivance on the part of the plaintiff, his equitable rights, has been com-
peal, he is entitled to his costs, ib
See Mortgage, 3.
VENDOR AND PURCHASER.
1. Of real estate.
ib the vendor, to recover damages for
fraudulent representations of the
mortgage has been determined in, land, the evidence showed that dur.
617 sented that he “had good title, and
the best kind of title" to the lands
tions void for usury, notwithstand- lected as choice lands, many years
ib tunities of locating choice lands,
and that such person had conveyed
signed to require a court of equity him, to his brother, and the latter
judge charged the jury that there an action to recover back the pur-
2. Of personal property.
quantity of wool, sold the same to
A., F. & W. on a credit of four
15 months, upon their notes. A., F. &
W. were insolvent, at the time, and
the wool was purchased by A., one
of the members of the firm, with
sacks of the wool were delivered to
the purchasers, and on the next day
twenty-one sacks more were deliver-
ed. On the 19th of October the plain-
tiff refused to deliver the remainder;
and on that day A., F. & W. made
ib an assignment of all their personal
estate, including the wool which had
liabilities of the assignors to them,
The wool delivered was immediately
ib and at the time the assignment was
made, the ten sacks delivered on the
made between the plaintiff and the twenty-one sacks delivered on the
gave them no title to it. 2. That
found that the writing was not a void as against the plaintiff. 3. That