will leave them as they are, and will not permit the plaintiff to recover
the possession. Kirkpatrick v. Clark, 531.

See ABATEMENT; BANKS AND BANKING, 16; CARRIERS, 27-34; Insurance
1-4; STATES, 1-4; USAGE, 1; WILLS, 2.

CONTRACTS OF SALE.

Bee SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, 1, 2, 4; VENDOR AND PURCHASER, 1-14.

CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE.
See NEGLIGENCE, 6.

-

CORPORATIONS.

1. DECLARATION NEED NOT ALLEGE THAT CORPORATION KNOWS WHAT IT HAS
OR HAS NOT DONE. Since all accountable persons know what they do or
do not do, it is no more necessary to allege in a declaration that a corpora-
tion knows what it has done or has not done, than it is to allege the same
thing with regard to an individual; for the acts or non-acts of the ser-
vants of a corporation, within the sphere of their duty, are its acts or
non-acts. And therefore, in an action against a railway company to
recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been received by
one of its servants from its failure to fill in the spaces between the ties
of its road with cinders or other substance, it is sufficient for the decla-
ration to allege that it was the duty of the company to have filled such
spaces, and it is not necessary to allege that the defendant knew of
such defects in the construction of its track, switches, etc. Chicago etc.
R. R. Co. v. Hines, 515.

2 DIRECTOR OR STOCKHOLDER OF CORPORATION NOT CHARGEABLE WITH
KNOWLEDGE OF ITS TRANSACTIONS. A director or stockholder of a
corporation is not chargeable with actual knowledge of its business
transactions merely because he is such director or stockholder. Rudd v.
Robinson, 816.

-

& BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF CORPORATION NOT OF THEMSELVES COMPETENT EVI-
DENCE TO ESTABLISH LIABILITY OF DIRECTor to CorporaTION. — In an
action brought in behalf of a corporation against one of its directors to
establish an account or claim against him, the books of account of the
corporation are not competent evidence, of themselves, to establish his
liability. A corporation seeking to enforce a claim against one of its
directors or stockholders must establish it by the application of the same
rules of evidence that are applied in an action brought by an individual
to enforce a claim against any defendant. Id.

4 LIABILITY OF CORPORATE OFFICERS FOR INCURRING DEBTS IN EXCESS OF
CAPITAL STOCK ATTACHES WHEN. The creditors of a corporation
whose officers have incurred indebtedness in excess of its capital stock
cannot proceed against such officers until such creditors have first ob
tained judgment against the corporation. The liability of such officers
is, like that of a surety, stricti juris, and does not attach so long as the
debts can be made out of the corporation, and no action can be main-
tained against them until the corporation is in default. Woolverton v..
Taylor, 521.

SUIT TO ENFORCE INDIVIDUAL LIABILITY of Officers OF CORPORATION NOT
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF PENALTY. - A suit brought to enforce the indi-
vidual liability of the officers of a corporation, imposed by section 16 of

chapter 32 of the Revised Statutes of Illinois, is not a suit for the re
covery of a penalty, within the meaning of section 14 of the Illinois
statute of limitations. Id.

CREDITOR OF CORPORATION MAY FILE BILL AGAINST OFFICERS FOR INCUR
RING EXCESSIVE INDEBTEDNESS, THOUGH ALL DEBTS NOT DUE. — It
does not follow that because a creditor of a corporation who files bis
bill against the officers of the corporation to enforce their individual
liability for a debt incurred by them in excess of its capital stock must
allege and prove the corporation in default as to his debt, he cannot
maintain the bill until all debts against the corporation are due. On a
proper bill filed by a single creditor, the court has power to bring before
it the corporation, all its officers who assented to the excessive indebt-
edness, as well as all its creditors, and ascertain the excess of the in-
debtedness over the capital stock, the amount of this to which each
officer may have assented, and the extent to which the funds of the cor-
poration may be resorted to for the payment of the debts, and also the
number and names of the creditors, the amount of their several debts,
to determine the sum to be recovered of the officers and apportioned
among the creditors. Id.

-

7. CORPORATE INDEBTEDNESS EXCEEDING CAPITAL STOCK, LIABILITY OF OFF
CERS CONTRACTING. In the absence of statutory prohibition, it is not
unlawful for the officers of a corporation to contract debts in excess of
its capital stock, but it may, like individuals, contract debts to the fu'l
extent of its credit. The Illinois statute making the officers of corpo-
rations individually liable for contracting debts beyond a prescribed
limit does not prohibit them from contracting indebtedness beyond
the amount of their capital stock, nor does it inflict a penalty upon the
officers for so doing. It simply gives to the creditors of corporations a
new right of civil action against such officers. Id.

-

8. FOREIGN CORPORATION - WHAT CONSTITUTES DOING BUSINESS IN THE
STATE. A purchase of machinery by a foreign corporation in one state,
to be transported and set up in another, is not within the provisions of a
statute that foreign corporations shall not do business within a state
until they have filed with the secretary of state a certificate designating
their principal place of business therein and an agent upon whom proces■
may be served. Colorado Iron Works v. Sierra Grande Min. Co., 433.
9. FOREIGN CORPORATION DOING BUSINESS IN THE STATE.
- No legislative

permission is necessary to allow a foreign corporation to contract for and
buy machinery and supplies in one state necessary to the transaction of
its business in the state of its domicile, nor is it necessary, in order to
allow a foreign corporation to sell its wares or manufactures to the citi
zens of another state. If in either case a debt is contracted, it may be
collected in the courts of such state. Id.
10. FOREIGN CORPORATION - JURISDICTION IN SUIT AGAINST. - A foreign
corporation may buy of a domestic corporation the same as of a natural
person, and contract a debt for the articles so purchased. Such debt may
be collected in the state where contracted, when the foreign corporation
is brought within the jurisdiction by proper service of process. Id.
11. FOREIGN CORPORATION - PRESUMPTION. - Persons, including corpora
tions, by contracting debts in a foreign jurisdiction will be presumed to
have assented to its laws in regard to the collection of the debts, and it in
not of controlling importance where or when the original contract out
of which the indebtedness grew was perfected or became operative.

Id.

12. FOREIGN CORPORATION - JURISDICTION IN SUITS AGAINST.

-

Where a

corporation makes a contract in a state other than that in which it was
chartered, it thereby submits itself to the jurisdiction of such foreign
state, so far as to be liable to suit therein, in regard to that contract,
when summoned according to the laws of that state. Id.
13. FOREIGN CORPORATION SERVICE OF PROCESS UPON.

A stockholder in
a foreign corporation who gratuitously transfers his stock to unknown
trustees, for an unknown and undefined purpose, remains a stockholder
so that a service of process on a foreign corporation, by delivery of the
writ to a stockholder, when it has no agent or officer within the state,
as provided by statute, may be made upon such corporation by delivery
of the writ to him. Id.

-

14. DOMESTIC CORPORATION ENTITLED TO BENEFIT OF RESTRICTION UPON
AMOUNT OF DAMAGES RECOVERABLE AGAINST IT. Where a plaintiff
sues in New York a corporation formed under the laws of that state, to
recover damages for the death of her husband, resulting from injuries
received in Pennsylvania, the defendant is entitled to the benefit of the
restriction upon the amount of the damages recoverable under the New
York law, although the Pennsylvania statute contains no such restric-
tion. A domestic corporation has the right to be protected by the
remedial limitations of its jurisdiction. Wooden v. Western etc. R. R.
Co., 803.

See BANKS AND BANKING; GAS COMPANIES.

COSTS.

THE MERE TAXATION OF COSTS IS A MINISTERIAL ACT, where there is no
question of the amount to be taxed. State v. Engle, 655.

See EXECUTIONS, 6, 7; JUDGMENTS, 5.

CO-TENANCY.

-

DEEDS - JOINT OWNERS-INTEREST OF, How DETERMINED. The interests
of joint owners of land, in the absence of some other controlling fact, is to
be determined by the proportion which the amount of purchase-money
paid by each bears to the entire sum which was the consideration for
the deed. Huffman v. Mulkey, 71.

COURTS.

PROBATE COURT-JURISDICTION TO TRY TITLE. The probate court is
without jurisdiction to try the title to property as between the repre-
sentative of an estate and the husband of the deceased party claiming
adversely thereto. Stewart v. Lohr, 150.

See JUDICIAL SALE, 1.

COVENANTS.

See ABATEMENT.

CRIMINAL LAW.

1. CRIME COMMITTED PRIOR TO ADMISSION OF STATE-PROSECUTION BY

INFORMATION.

-

A party charged with grand larceny, committed prior

to the admission of a state into the Union, is entitled to the United
States constitutional guaranty of presentment by indictment by a grand

jury, and cannot be prosecuted therefor under an information authorized
by the state constitution and statutes. McCarty v. State, 152.

2. THOUGH IT IS THE DUTY of a justice, on the conviction of the defendant, if
he does not immediately pay the fine imposed, to commit him to jail,
still the failure to commit him at once does not deprive the justice of the
power to commit him at a subsequent time. McLaughlin v. Etchison,
658.

3. CHARACTER-PRESUMPTION IN ABSENCE OF PROOF. — An accused is not
bound to put his character in issue. His omission to do so, or to show
good character, does not justify a presumption that his character is bad,
from which an inference of guilt can be drawn. Bennett v. State, 465.
4. CHARACTER PRESUMPTION. - The character of a party accused of crime
is presumed to be good, until the contrary is proved. Id.

-

CHARACTER. - GUILT OF ACCUSED must be proved beyond a reasonable
doubt, whether his character is good or bad. Id.

-

-

6. CHARACTER - COMMENTS OF COUNSEL. It is reversible error to allow
counsel for the prosecution to argue, against objection, that want of
testimony as to the character of the accused authorizes the jury to infer
that his character is bad, although his counsel, in argument as to his
good character, has gone outside the evidence. Id.

7. FUGITIVE FROM JUSTICE, RIGHT OF, TO BE HEARD ON APPEAL - In
courts of appeal, where none but questions of law can be reviewed,
and in the absence of any statute specifically regulating the prac
tice, if there is satisfactory evidence that a defendant, whose appeal is
founded upon exceptions entered on the trial below, has been regularly
called for hearing, has escaped, and is not in custody, it is clearly within
the sound discretion of the court, in the absence of defendant and his
counsel, to determine whether the exceptions shall be passed upon, the
appeal dismissed, or the hearing postponed until the recapture of the
defendant. Any judgment pronounced by such court in such case will
not be void. Even when the court may review the facts, a defendant
who escapes pending his appeal is deemed to have waived his right to be
present on the final hearing. State v. Jacobs, 912.
8. PRESENCE OF PRISONER ON APPEAL. -The constitutional right of a party
Icharged with crime to be present at his trial, to be informed of the
charge against him, to introduce evidence, and to be represented by
counsel extends only to the trial court, and does not apply to the ap-
pellate court, having jurisdiction to review only errors of law. Id.
1. PRESENCE OF ACCUSED ON APPEAL. — In a criminal case on appeal, the ap-
pellate court, having only jurisdiction to review questions of law, may
proceed to hear and determine the case, and to enter judgment, whether
the accused is charged with a misdemeanor or a capital felony, and
whether he is or is not at the time of the hearing under bond for his ap-
pearance, in prison, or has escaped and is at large. Id.

-

10. BURGLARY WITH INTENT TO COMMIT RAPE on Woman ASLEEP. — A man
who burglariously enters a house with intent to have sexual intercourse
with a woman while she is asleep is guilty of burglary. Harvey v. State,
229.

-

11. HOUSE OF ILL-FAME EVIDENCE. To prove the charge of keeping
a bawdy-house or house of ill-fame, it must be shown that it was a
common resort of people of both sexes for the purpose of prostitu-
tion, and proof of acts of illicit intercourse on the part of the occupants,
without proof that it was kept for the convenience of people who visited

920.

it to indulge in lewdness, will not sustain the charge. State v. Webber,
12. LARCENY-SUFFICIENCY OF INFORMATION. — An indictment or informa-
tion charging grand larceny, in taking "ninety-three railroad tickets,"
of an aggregate value, without alleging the value of each ticket taken,
or that they were stamped, dated, signed, and genuine, is insufficient, as
not stating facts sufficient to constitute the crime. McCarty v. State,
152.

See HABEAS CORPUS.

CURTESY.

See HUSBAND AND WIFE, 1.

-

DAMAGES.

1. MEASURE OF DAMAGES-LOSS OF PROFITS. IF AN ESTABLISHED BUSI
XESS is wrongfully injured or destroyed, its owner can recover damages
sustained thereby, and in an action for their recovery evidence of the
profits he was actually making is admissible. Hence in an action against
a lessor by his lessees for depriving them of the benefit of their lease,
they may show the amount of business done by them before and after
his alleged wrongful acts. Hawthorne v. Siegel, 291.
2 MEASURE OF DAMAGES. DAMAGES WHICH ACCRUE SUBSEQUENTLY to a
tort, and of which it is the primary cause, are not separate causes of action,
but are parts of the tort itself, for which a cause of action is given. Id.
& NEGLIGENCE-INJURY TO CHILD-UNLOCKED TURN-TABLE. - In an ac-
tion against a railway company for negligently causing the death of a
child in leaving a turn-table unfastened, the measure of damage is the
loss occasioned by the death; and his health, mental and physical con-
dition, and expectancy of life are proper subjects to be submitted to
the jury for their consideration in estimating the damage sustained.
Ilwaco R'y & Nav. Co. v. Hedrick, 169.

-

-

4. EXCESSIVE VERDICT, WHEN SET ASIDE. -The supreme court will set
aside a verdict as excessive in exceptional cases, and when satisfied that
the evidence does not support the assessment of damages, as in other in-
stances of failure of proof. Furnish v. Missouri P. R'y Co., 781.
Bee APPEAL AND ERROR, 8; ASSAULT; CARRIERS, 11, 21-26, 40; CORPORA-
TIONS, 14; NEGLIGENCE, 11-13; EMINENT DOMAIN, 2-4; FRAud, 7; In-
JUNCTIONS, 2; Joint Liability; LIBEL AND SLander, 6, 7; TrESPASS,
1-3, 5; VENDOR AND PURCHASER, 12–14.

DEATH.

See EXECUTIONS, 4.

DEBTOR AND CREDITOR.

Bee ATTACHMENT AND GARNishment, 6; BaNKS AND BANxing, 1, 2; Com-
porations; InsANE PERSONS; Payments, 2; States, 5.

DECLARATION.
See PLEADING, 4.

DECLARATIONS.

See AGENCY, 8; BOUNDARIES, 5; EVIDENCE, 4.