Page images
PDF
EPUB

Contempt of Court-Conversion.

mitting warrants for arrest to be is-
sued by the clerk of the police court,
is not unconstitutional, for the act is
a ministerial not a judicial one. ID.

13. License of vehicles re-
quired to be paid by all using them
in the streets can be enforced against
non-residents transporting their
commodities between this and an-
other state. Bogart v. State. 365

14. Such license fees being
intended by the statute for the re-
pair of the streets, their enforced
payment must be regarded as com-
pensation for the advantages and
facilities afforded to such transpor-
tation; and the requirement of li-
cense is not a restraint or other
form of regulation of interstate com-
Ib.
are

merce.

15. Constitutional courts
possessed of an inherent power at
common law to punish summarily
persons guilty of direct or construct-
ive contempts of court.
State v.
Steube.
199

16. Section 5639, R. S., is de-
claratory of the common law on the
subject of contempts, and under its
provisions, this court has the right
to summarily punish the respondent
for contempt of which he stands
charged, whether it is direct or con-
structive.

CONTEMPT OF COURT-

Ib.

I. An article or letter libel-
ing, defaming, the judge, clerk of
court and prosecuting attorney con-
cerning their official conduct in a
case then on trial and the same be-
ing published in a newspaper, and
circulated in the county, city and
court room where the trial is in pro-
gress is a flagrant contempt of
court, suinmarily punishable, be-
cause it tends to embarrass, obstruct
and impede the administration of
law and justice in such court. State
v. Myers.
238

2. The author of such a let-
ter or article is as guilty of con-
tempt as if he had been the editor
and publisher of the newspaper. Ib.

3. The common pleas court
is a constitutional court, because it
was established, created, by the con-
stitution, and it is not, therefore,
constitutionally competent for the
legislature to destroy or abridge the
inherent power of the court to pun-
ish summarily persons for contempt.
Ib.
CONTRACTS-

1. If cne party notifies the
other of his intention not to comply
with the contract, the other may

[blocks in formation]

2. If such party does not rely
on such notice as a breach, etc., he
can not sue at once without per-
forming his own conditions preced-
ent in the contract.
Ib.

3. A contract to make cer-
tain improvements and then give a
lease is entire and not to be com-
pensated by damages, but is preced-
ent to any liability of the lessee for
refusal to take.

Ib.

4. Technical, unimportant

and inadvertent omissions and de-
fects in making the promised im-
provements will not defeat the right
of the future lessor to recover foi a
breach, but the other party may re-
coup for the same in damages. Ib.
5. Where the word "satis-
factory" is used to describe the re-
quired condition of such improve-
ments, in connection with other
words descriptive of the degree of
excellence, the rule is that if such
improvements come up to the de-
scribed standard, the party to be
satisfied must be satisfied, and can
not base dissatisfaction on a mere
whim.
Ib.
6. The breach of a contract
by which defendant agreed to em-
ploy and pay plaintiff for certain
work is not excused by the fact that
a third person prevented defend.:nt
from doing the work. Ross Road
Machine Co. v. Forbus.

725

7. In a contract signed by
more than two parties containing a
variety of conditions and covenants,
the question whether any one party
is bound by any particular covenant
is to be determired from the lan-
guage of the whole contract read in
the light of surrounding circum-
stances. Smith v. Smith.
494

8. Where two persons had
drawn a prize in a lottery, and by
agreement it was paid to one, the di-
vision to be made when they reached
home, the illegality of the source of
the fund, or the illegality of the
original partnership between them,
is no defense to the subsequent con-
tract to divide. Glock v. Hartde-
gan.
760
9. Construction of a contract
for the sale of bonds, as provided
for and in accordance with, an act of
the general assembly authorizing
the same. State v. Metter.
309

CONVERSION-

Where a party obtains posses-

CONVERSION-Continued.

Corporation.

[blocks in formation]

2. The directors of
poration are its agents, and their re-
lation to it is generally one of con
fidence and trust.

Ib.

3. The law does not permit
them to purchase for it, their own
property, or property in which they
are largely interested.
Ib.

4. When the directors of a
railroad company have purchased.
from themselves and others, the ene
tire capital stock of a mining cor-
poration and paid for the same with
the corporate funds, the contract is
void, and an action lies against them
in favor of the company, to account
for the funds so received by them.
Ib.

5. The company is not estop-
ped from maintaining the action by
the fact that at the time of the pur-
chase of the stock and use of the
funds, the directors owned all its
capital stock, and as stockholders
unanimously ratified what they, as
directors, had done.

Ib.
having,

directors
6. The
from the proceeds of the bonds, dis-
charged a private indebtedness due
from them to a third party who held
their stock in the plaintiff company
as collateral thereto, the company
may follow the funds so used into
the stock and claim an equity in it.

lb.

7. Such collateral stock, af-
ter redemption, was held by derend-
ants as trustees for plaintiff, and the
latter, though not empowered to
traffic in its own stock, may, as ces-
tui que trust, have an equity therein.
lb.

8. The validity of the elec-
tion of the directors of a railroad
cannot be inquired into collaterally

[blocks in formation]

9. Sales, by the directors, of
stock in a railroad which had been
purchased with the funds of the road
and are held in trust for it, will not
be enjoined, where the sales are to
be at public auction and to the high-
est bidder. Loomis v. Dexter. 287
10. The presumption of
validity, attached to a paper purport-
ing to be a certificate of stock issued
by an incorporated company, and
bearing the genuine signatures of its
president and secretary and the cor-
porate seal, is very strong, but it
may be overcome by clear and satis-
factory evidence showing the cer-
tificate to be spurious. Perin v.
Railroad Co.

113

II. A valid certificate of
stock can only be issued to an orig-
inal subscriber, or in lieu of a cer-
tificate or certificates for an equal
number of shares surrendered in
consideration of its issue.
Ib.

12. Such certificate, duly
signed and sealed, is presumed to be
genuine until it has been shown by
clear and satisfactory evidence, that
it could have been issued neither as
an original certificate, nor in lieu of
a certificate or certificates surrend-
ered for that purpose.
Ib.

13. Where a certificate is
shown to have been invalid when is-
sued, and it is claimed that it was
rendered valid by a subsequent sur-
render for that purpose, the burden
of proving such subsequent surren-
der rests upon the party asserting it.
Ib.

14. Stockholders, in an ac-
tion upon their statutory liability,
can plead any defenses to judgment
claims that are personal and peculiar
to stockholders, and which the com-
Hardman v.
pany could not plead.
Railroad Co.
67

15. In an action to assess the
stockholders' liability, creditors can
except to the allowance of any other
claim upon the ground that it is not
of such a nature that stockholders
are liable upon it.

Ib.

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

24. Where a corporation has
disposed of all its property for the
purpose of defrauding a stockholder
the latter may maintain an action to
annul such transaction.
Ib.

25. A corporation "formed
for the purpose of manufacturing,
operating, selling or renting dyna-
mos, motors and other electrical ap-
pliances for furnishing light and
power, and for other purposes,' has
no power to carry on the business of
electrical illumination. Brush El.

L. Co. v. Jones Bros. El. Co. 767
26. The knowledge of the
president of a corporation of out-
standing equities affecting the title
of property he was selling to the
corporation, which knowledge was
not acquired by him in his official
capacity nor while transacting the
business of the corporation, cannot
be held to show that the corporation
had notice of such equities.
Weber.

Alt v.
371

27. A corporation may be

estopped to deny its obligation to
pay securities issued by its agents,
which it is not authorized by law to
thus issue, when the objection is,
not that there was a want of power,
but that the power was exercised
without due formality. Shoemaker's
Exr's v. Railroad Co.

252

28. Where various persons,
holding certificates purporting to
represent a large number of shares
of stock of a corporation, all claim
to derive title through certain gen-
uine certificates such company may
join all holders of such certificates
as defendants in one action for the
purpose of determining which of the
certificates are valid. Railroad Co.
v. Bank.

CREDITOR'S BILL-

614

Denial of interest or owner-
ship by the judgment debtor in the
choses in action sought to be sub-
jected raises no issues and it is er-
ror to so find. Krebs v. Forbriger.
506

COVENANTS-

I. Where a person sold a lot
which would be needed to widen a
street, covenanting not to use the
strip so as to cut off grantee's access
to the street, and covenanting that
grantee should have the benefit of
grantor's interest on condemnation,
such covenant runs with the land,
and the city having appropriated the
strip to widen the street, the gran-
tee's heirs who inherited the lot are
entitled to the entire condemnation
money. Cincinnati v. Springer. 745

2. A stipulation contained in
a deed, whereby the grantee has
permission to enter upon land ad-
jacent to that conveyed and make
certain improvements there, on con-
dition that such grantee make good,
"by retaining wall or otherwise,"
any damage thereby occasioned to
buildings of grantor, does not con-
stitute a covenant running with the
land. Steible v. Railroad Co.
COURTS-

47

[blocks in formation]

Deeds-Devise.

DAMAGES-Continued.

2. In an action for damages
for libel if the publication be icund
true, that fact would ordinarily de-
feat a claim to exemplary damages
in toto, but it may also mitigate the
claim to compensatory damages to
such an extent as to leave the plain-
tiff only the right to a nominal sum.
the right to a nominal sum. Com-
mercial Gazette Co. v. Headly. 415
DEEDS-

A deed, unaccepted by the
grantee, derives no force as a deed
from being recorded. Pierce v.
White.
552

DEPOSITIONS-

A party to an action through
a resident of the county in which the
action is pending and not intending
to depart therefrom nor unable to at-
tend court by reason of sickness or
infirmity, and who expects and in-
tends to be present at the trial, may
be compelled by the adverse party
to give her deposition, and, in case
of refusal, may be imprisoned for
contempt. State v. Cost.

DEVISE-

619

I. A devise of land, part of
which is valuable timber land, and
which was bequeathed to H. R., and
the heirs of her body, can not be en-
joined by her daughter from cutting
more timber than is needed to repair.
Halt v. Rohr.
690

2. The old doctrine of waste
is not in force in Ohio, and the de-
visee as the first donee in tail can
cut and sell.
Ib.

3. The general rule is, that in
the absence of testamentary rec-
tion, a general legacy is payable one
year after testato 's death, and will
bear interest thereafter until paid.
Krigbaum v. Southard.
803

4. And the general rule is,
that in absence of testamentary di-
rection, a bequest in trust, the in-
come to be paid to a legatee for life,
with gift of principal over at his
death, entitles the legatee for life to
interest from testator's death.

Ib.

5. But where such bequest in
trust is in fulfillment of an antenup-
tial contract, and both contract and
bequest by their terms contemplate
the lapse of "a reasonable time," to
enable the trustee to raise, out of the
estate, such interest bearing fund:
Held, the legatee for life is entitled
to interest on the principal sum after
one year from testator's death. not-
withstanding a diligent and faithful

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

7. It is not a variation of the
terms of the will but it is a prema-
ture compliance with them.
Ib.

8. It is obviously a contra-
diction in terms to speak of an act
done before a will is inade, as a com-
pliance with its provisions.
Ib.

9. No matter what the inten-
tion of a testator in making an ad-
vance to one of his children before
executing his will, it can not justify
a deduction of the advance from the
child's share under the will, unless
the will provides that such deduction
be made.
Ib.

10. The doctrine of ademp-
tion can never apply to an advance
before the will.
Ib.

II. No declarations made
subsequent to the will of the testa-
tor with respect to advances made
prior to it, can make such advances
ademptions.
Ib.

12. An attempt to avoid the
effect of a will by an executory con-
tract, such as in this case, is a viola-
tion of the statute of wills.

Ib.

13. No estoppel arises from
the inducement to the testator not to
change his will by a promise from
the legatee that the same result will
follow without such change.
Ib.

14. When a testator states in
his will, that ademptions of legacies
will be made in a certain way, he is
merely furnishing for the use of his
executors convenient evidence, be-
fore the fact, of his future intert, not
in making his will, but in paying
money or conferring other bounty
during his life time.
Ib.

15. The sole question of im-
portance in determining whether a
benefit conferred by a testator in his
life time satisfies or adeems a legacy
in his will, is whether or not, he in-
tended such satisfaction at the time.
Ib.

16. A legacy is adeemed only
when the bounty conferred was in-
tended at the time of the gift as a
satisfaction of the legacy.
Ib.

17. Where a testator be-
queaths money legacies to certain
children and all his personal and real
property to his children in equal share,
and the personal property being in-
sufficient to pay these legacies; Held,
that the real estate so devised could
not be charged with the payment of

Divorce and Alimony-Embezzlement.

[blocks in formation]

I. A decree in a divorce suit,
allowing the wife alimony in gross
and making the same a charge upon
the husband's lands, if not kept alive
by issuing executions at proper
times, becomes dormant like an ordi-
nary judgment at law and ceases to
be a lien. Mullane v. Folger. 485

2. The court in a county
where suit was brought, had no juris-
diction to declare a lien for alimony
upon, and issue an order of sale of
real estate situated in another county,
to the sheriff of such other county,
and a sale made by such sheriff un-
der such order is void for that rea-
son. Wilmot v. Cole.
777

3. Where a wife leaves her
husband and goes into another
county and files a petition for ali-
mony, and the husband, his place of
residence not having changed, an-
swers asking for a divorce, the court
is without jurisdiction to grant it,
the cross-petition and evidence fail-
ing to show that the cause of action
arose in the county where the case
was pending. Neese v. Neese.
DOWER-

II

[blocks in formation]

testant also received votes of per-
sons not eligible to vote, although
contestee has not served notice of
intention to contest or question con-
testant's votes. Newman v. Mc-
Manis.
730

3. The justices taking depo-
sitions in such contest have no right
to appoint a witness to open and ex-
amine the ballots and attach those
claimed to be marked or illegal to
their depositions, and such tickets
having been handled by many will
not be considered by the court, and
such depositions will fall with the
ballots.
Ib.

4. Under sec. 2926e, R. S.,
providing that the election officers
shall be appointed on or before Sept.
I, and shall not be of the same politi-
cal party, the Union Labor Party
having shown that it is entitled to
recognition as a party, must be rec-
ognized by a fairly proportionate
representation in the appointments of
election officers. State v. Ehrman.

36

5. Appointments made in
good faith in the preceding May or
June can not be ordered to be re-
called.
Ib.
6. The law will not restore
what has been lost by the delay of
the relator.
Ib.
7. The relator is entitled to
mandamus, but only to secure a fair
representation in future

ments.

EMBEZZLEMENT—

appoint-

Ib.

I. The use by a guardian of
his ward's money in his own busi-
ness and its loss thereby, to consti-
tute embezzlement, must be with a
fraudulent
the
purpose although
statute is silent as to intent. State
v. Meyer.
746
2. An expectation to repay,
or an attempt at reparation, does not
avoid the criminalty.
Ib.

3. The test of criminality is
whether the primary object of such
use of the money was to benefit him-
self irrespective of the ward's inter-
ests, and such intent is a question for
the jury to be determined from con-
duct and circumstances.

EMINENT DOMAIN-

Ib.

[blocks in formation]
« PreviousContinue »