218 (Pa.) Action upon note maintainable 528 (Pa.) Defendant terre-tenants in fore-
without realizing on collateral.-Harper v. Lu- closure precluded from setting up defense.-
kens. 636.
Roush v. Herbick, 136.
Holder of note need not plead or prove agree-529 (6) (Md.) Inadequacy of price not of
ment concerning collateral.-Id.
itself sufficient to vacate foreclosure sale.-
Shirk v. Oak Street Permanent Building &
Loan Ass'n of Baltimore City, 808.
Notes may sustain action without proof of
contract.-Id.
Note without mortgage held to make prima 529(10) (Md.) Evidence held insufficient
facie case.-Id.
VI. TRANSFER OF PROPERTY MORT-
GAGED OR OF EQUITY OF
REDEMPTION.
278 (Pa.) Purchaser assumed liability both
for principal and interest of mortgage substi-
tuted for dower interest.-Miller v. Griffith, 52.
OR PERFORMANCE
OF CONDITION, RELEASE,
AND SATISFACTION.
to justify setting aside foreclosure sale for in-
adequacy of price.-Shirk v. Oak Street Per-
manent Building & Loan Ass'n of Baltimore
City, 808.
542 (Pa.) Purchaser at foreclosure sale
held not guilty of fraud because he knew of
lessees' right of possession.-Roush v. Herbick,
136.
As mortgagee could have ousted tenants, pur-
chaser at foreclosure sale had same rights.
-Id.
(L) Disposition of Proceeds and Surplus.
318 (Pa.) Lessee company could pay into 566 (Pa.) Different assignees of fractional
court amount of foreclosure judgment, to be
paid out on its assignment to it.-Dollar Sav.
Bank v. Duff, 23.
VIII. FORECLOSURE BY ENTRY,
POSSESSION. AND NOTICE.
321 (Me.) Statute requiring affidavit pend-
ing foreclosure held applicable to foreclosure of
pre-existing mortgages.-Barton v. Conley, 670
326 (Me.) Mortgagee must prove continued
possession for one year for purpose of fore-
closure.-Barton v. Conley, 670.
326 (N.H.) Foreclosure not stayed by bill
by second mortgagee, where it was abandoned.
-Cate v. Cate, 826.
Retention of foreclosing possession question
of fact.-Id.
Possession, once taken, continues until there
is an entry in opposition thereto.-Id.
Retention of foreclosing possession may be
found on proof of entry under process.-Id.
Presumption of continuity of possession.-Id.
Presumption of continuity of possession of
mortgagee not rebutted.-Id.
Admissions of want of title warrant finding
of foreclosure.-Id.
parts of mortgage debt take pro rata.-In re
Barkley's Assigned Estate, 113.
596, 597 (Me.) Mortgagor held not estop-
v. Conley, 670.
ped from maintaining suit to redeem.-Barton
616 (Me.) Bill for redemption must show
that tender was made or prevented.-Barton v.
Conley, 670.
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS.
See Schools and School Districts; Street Rail-
roads; Towns.
I. CREATION, ALTERATION, EXIST-
ENCE, AND DISSOLUTION.
(A) Incorporation and Incidents of Ex-
istence.
in statute authorizing governing body to re-
42 (N.J.Sup.) City must bring itself with-
strict location of buildings.-George E. Blakes-
lee, Inc., v. Jersey City, 593.
(C) Amendment, Repeal, or Forfeiture of
Charter, and Dissolution.
X. FORECLOSURE BY ACTION.
46 (Me.) Grant of pier site district char-
(G) Injunction and Receiver.
ter not presumed to alter charter of city in
473 (N.J.Ch.) Lien of judgment creditor same territory.-Hamilton v. Portland State
of mortgagor not impaired by receiver's pos-49 (Me.) Grant of pier site district char-
Pier Site Dist., 836.
session. Myers v. Brown, 844.
Receiver entitled only to rents accruing aft-
er appointment.-Id.
Funds in hands of receiver, consisting of
mortgagor's rents, go to her judgment credi-
tor.-Id.
Rents accrued prior to possession in mort-
gagee applied to judgment creditor's lien in
preference to taxes.-Id.
(I) Judgment or Decree and Execution.
494 (Pa.) Foreclosure decree must find
amount due and give time for redemption.
Northampton Trust Co. v. Northampton Trac-
tion Co., 871.
ter not presumed to repeal charter of city in
same territory.-Hamilton v. Portland State
Pier Site Dist., 836.
III. LEGISLATIVE CONTROL OF MU-
NICIPAL ACTS, RIGHTS, AND
LIABILITIES.
78 (Me.) Subordinate body cannot dis-
pense with or waive procedure required by
Legislature.-Hamilton v. Portland State Pier
Site Dist., 836.
IV. PROCEEDINGS OF COUNCIL OR
OTHER GOVERNING BODY.
(A) Meetings, Rules, and Proceedings in
497(1) (N.J.) Mortgagor failing to claim at
foreclosure right to credit of insurance paid
mortgagee cannot subsequently do so.-Murray 85 (N.J.) Municipal proceedings cannot be
v. Pearce, 314.
instituted by resolution where charter requires
ordinance.-Public Service Ry. Co. v. City of
Camden, 421.
516 (Pa.) Purchase on foreclosure by ad-
ministrator of holder of mortgage merely void-(B) Ordinances and By-Laws in General.
able. Herbert v. Northern Trust Co., 471.
520 (Md.) Account stated between pur-111(3) (Pa.) Ordinance cannot be im-
chaser and trustee held not to be given effect peached by court.-Ellwood Lumber Co. v. City
of discharge of defaulting purchaser.-Shirk of Pittsburgh, 19.
v. Oak Street Permanent Building & Loan
Ass'n of Baltimore City, 808.
522 (Md.) Court, in default of foreclosure
sale payments by purchasing mortgagor, had
authority to decree resale.-Shirk v. Oak Street
Permanent Building & Loan Ass'n of Balti-
V. OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EM-
(C) Agents and Employés.
214(3) (N.J.Sup.) May not confide city
case to other than city counsel.-Byrne v. City
For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER
VII. CONTRACTS IN GENERAL.
(F) Enforcement of Assessments and Spe-
cial Taxes,
231(1) (N.J.) Contract not rendered ille-
gal by contractor's purchase of material from 568 () (Pa.) Borough enforcing lien for
member of council.-Fredericks v. Borough of improvement of avenue must show it a highway.
Wanaque, 309.
-Borough of Swissvale v. Dickson Heirs, 120.
247 (Me.) One contracting with a mu-
nicipality must ascertain officers' authority.
Merrill v. Inhabitants of Town of Harpswell,
834.
247 (N.J.) Councilman, contracting in vio-
lation of Crimes Act, commits misdemeanor,
and contract is void.-Fredericks v. Borough of
Wanaque, 309..
IX. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS.
(A) Power to Make Improvements or
Grant Aid Therefor.
269 (1) (Pa.) A city is vested with su-
preme control over its streets.-Ellwood Lum-
ber Co. v. City of Pittsburgh, 19.
as- XI. USE AND REGULATION OF PUB-
LIC PLACES, PROPERTY,
AND WORKS.
374(1) (Pa.) Suit by contractor or
signee held not to prevent surety from litigat-
ing demand.-Wells v. City of Philadelphia,
867.
Surety for building contractor which com-
pleted work entitled to retained fund and un-
paid contract price.-Id.
(A) Streets and Other Public Ways.
661(1) (Pa.) State may forbid or regulate
use of streets for public meetings, or delegate
right to so do to city.-City of Duquesne v.
Fincke. 130.
374(4) (Pa.) Evidence as to cost of com-
pletion of construction work by plaintiff sure-
ty proper.-Wells v. City of Philadelphia, 867.689(1) (N.J.Ch.) Street railroad without
standing to enjoin unauthorized operation of
jitneys.-Public Service Ry. Co. v. Reinhardt,
850.
385 (3) (Pa.) Rule of damages, on city's
adoption of grade, stated.-Ellwood Lumber 692 (Pa.) Mayor must grant or refuse
Co. v. City of Pittsburgh, 19.
proper application for permit to hold public
meeting in street.-City of Duquesne v. Fincke,
130.
(E) Assessments for Benefits, and Special
405 (Pa.) Duty of paving on municipality,
obligation of abutting owner being statutory.-
Borough of Sharpsville v. Randall, 112.
408 (1) (N.J.) Sewer improvements con-
templated when Home Rule Act took effect
Refusal of permit to hold public meetings in
street held proper.-Id.
City of third class has right to limit use of
streets for public meetings.-Id.
~703(1) (N.J.Sup.) Jitney owner's bond
covering two municipalities held not a compli-
ance with statute.-Fischer v. Pollitt, 305.
not undertaken under prior statute.-705 (2) (Conn.) Statute giving right of way
Breakenridge & Tichenor v. City of Newark, at street crossing explained.-Neuman v. Ap-
ter, 350.
857.
Benefits may be assessed under Home Rule
Act for sewer constructed under prior ordi-
nances.-Id.
408(2) (N.J.) Completion of sewer under
existing laws does not affect assessment of
benefits.-Breakenridge & Tichenor v. City of
Newark, 857.
"Intersection of street or public highway"
means space common to both streets.-Ïd.
Driver has right to assume that another driv-
er approaching intersection will not increase
speed.-Id.
705 (2) (Conn.) "Intersection" of streets
includes all space within lines of both.-Bet-
413(3) (Pa.) Owner liable for paving not- tilyon v. C. E. Smith & Son, 649.
withstanding ordinance requiring street rail-705 (2) (Pa.) Driver of truck which in
road to pave.-City of Philadelphia v. Clark, turning struck pedestrian not negligent.-Bar-
ton v. Craighill, 96.
Owner liable for original street paving though
ordinance required paving of street railroad
tracks.-Id.
417(1) (N.J.) Statute postponing collec-
tion of sewer assessment where there is no
tapping does not apply to storm sewers.-
Breakenridge & Tichenor v. City of Newark,
857.
454 (N.J.) Assessment of benefits sepa-
rate proceedings from construction of sewer.
-Breakenridge & Tichenor v. City of New-
ark. 857.
455 (N.J.) City council must hear evidence
from objectors to sewer assessments.-Break-
enridge & Tichenor v. City of Newark, 857.
458 (Pa.) Amount paid by street railway
to be deducted from assessment.-Borough of
Sharpsville v. Randall, 112.
508 (8) (N.J.) 10-day limitation does not
apply to assessment for sewer benefits.
Breakenridge & Tichenor v. City of Newark,
705 (10) (Pa.) Pedestrian must exercise
vigilance in crossing street, but when or where
he should look depends on conditions.-Mackin
v. Patterson, 738.
Pedestrian not bound to anticipate negligence
of automobilist.-Id.
706 (3) (N.J.) Burden of proof in action
by bicyclist struck by jitney having right of way
at cross street stated.-Nolan v. Davis, 188.
706 (3) (Pa.) Pedestrian presumed to use
due care.-Mackin v. Patterson, 738.
706 (5) (Conn.) Evidence held to show ar-
riving at intersection at approximately same
instant.-Bettilyon v. C. E. Smith & Son, 649.
706(6) (Pa.) Negligence of taxicab driver
held for jury.-Schweitzer v. Quaker City Cab
Co., 442.
706(6) (Pa.) Whether automobile driver
was negligent held for jury.-Howarth v.
Adams Express Co., 536.
Whether negligence of automobile driver was
proximate cause of injuries held for jury.-Id.
706(6) (Pa.) Whether automobile driver | (B) Administration
attempted to pass street car at excessive speed
held for jury-Joyce v. Smith, 549.
706 (6) (Pa.) Negligence of chauffeur at
street intersection for jury.--Mackin v. Pat-
terson, 738.
706 (7) (N.J.) Nonsuit proper where bicy-
clist attempted to cross ahead of jitney that
had right of way.-Nolan v. Davis, 188.
priations, Warrants and Payment.
890 (Me.) Acceptance of Pier Site Dis-
trict Act not an "appropriation or expenditure
of money."-Hamilton v. Portland State Pier
Site Dist., 836.
(D) Taxes and Other Revenue, and Appli-
706 (7) (N.J.) Failure to obey traffic_reg- 966 (7) (N.H.) Power plant held not
ulations not negligence as matter of law.-Bak-"property used by railroad in its ordinary
er v. Fogg & Hires Co., 406.
business," and assessment by city was valid.-
Boston & M. R. R. v. City of Portsmouth, 394.
706 (7) (Pa.) Contributory negligence of
pedestrian held for jury.-Schweitzer v. Qua-
ker City Cab Co., 342.
706 (7) (Pa.) Whether pedestrian was con-
tributorily negligent held for jury.-Joyce v. See Homicide.
Smith, 549.
706 (7) (Pa.) Pedestrian's contributory neg-
ligence in not looking when crossing street
held for jury.-Mackin v. Patterson, 738.
706 (8) (Conn.) Whether plaintiff was jus-
tified in attempting to cross ahead of defendant
held properly submitted.-Neuman v. Apter,
350.
707 (Me.) Statute denouncing fleeing from
scene of accident by one "causing" injury con-
strued; "cause."-State v. Verrill, 673.
"Making himself known," in statute denounc-
ing fleeing from scene of accident, construed.
-Id.
(A) Exercise of Governmental and Corpo-
rate Powers in General.
MUTUAL BENEFIT INSURANCE.
See Insurance, 697–726.
NAMES.
18 (Pa.) Presumption of identity of per-
son from identity of names.-Herbert v. North-
ern Trust Co., 471.
734 (Md.) Not liable for negligence in
maintenance of school building.-Gold v. Mayor See Wharves.
and City Council of Baltimore, 588.
(C) Defects or Obstructions in Streets
and Other Public Ways.
806 (4) (Pa.) Pedestrian, who should have
avoided ice ridge on which he fell, negligent.
-Gryning v. City of Philadelphia, 448.
821 (22) (Conn.) Whether automobilist
should have seen obstruction held for jury.-
Baldwin v. City of Norwalk, 660.
I. RIGHTS OF PUBLIC.
20 (2) (Me.) Town must follow legislative
authority strictly in contracting for building
bridge across tidewaters. Merrill v. Inhabi-
tants of Town of Harpswell, 834.
Legislative authority to construct a bridge
across navigable water held properly pursued
by town officers; "way."-Id.
20(8) (Md.) Automobilist, crossing draw-
bridge after gate began to close, guilty of con-
tributory negligence.-Mason v. City of Balti-
more, 818.
(D) Defects or Obstructions in Sewers,
Drains, and Water Courses.
835 (Pa.) One borough not responsible for
conditions in adjoining borough interfering
with drainage of surface water.-Borough of 37(4) (Pa.) Grantee acquires title merely
Bridgewater v. Borough of Beaver, 232. to low-water mark.-Leaf v. Pennsylvania Co.,
243.
846 (Pa.) One borough may not restrain
another from making changes in streets in-
creasing quantity and velocity of surface wa-
ter.-Borough of Bridgewater v. Borough of
Beaver, 232.
(E) Condition or Use of Public Buildings
and Other Property.
Act declaring stream navigable inapplicable
to rights of grantee under previous grant.-Id.
See Master and Servant, 89-332; Munici-
pal Corporations, 734-849; Railroads,
278-469; Street Railroads, 81–117.
849 (Md.) Pier not public "highway,"
merely because owned by city, when not used
by public.-City of Baltimore v. De Palma, 277. I. ACTS OR OMISSIONS CONSTITUT-
Liability for negligence in respect to pier
limited to those rightfully there.--Id.
Plaintiff held not impliedly invited to go on
city pier devoted to use of merchants.-Id.
XIII. FISCAL MANAGEMENT, PUB-
LIC DEBT, SECURITIES, AND
TAXATION.
(A) Power to Incur Indebtedness and Ex-
864(3) (Me.) Bonds of pier site district
not a "debt" of city within meaning of limi-
tation.--Hamilton v. Portland State Pier Site
Dist., 836.
871 (Del.) Act ratifying extra payment to
assessors for extra work held valid, as being
for a "public purpose."-City of Wilmington
v. Wolcott, 703.
Act ratifying extra compensation to asses-
sors held not invalid, as unsupported by a mor-
(B) Dangerous Substances, Machinery,
and Other Instrumentalities.
21 (N.J.) Kindling fire near playground
held negligent as to child.-Piraccini v. Direc-
tor General of Railroads, 311.
(C) Condition and Use of Land, Buildings,
and Other Structures.
32(1) (Pa.) Customer required to keep
premises reasonably safe for deliverer.-Robb
v. Niles-Bement-Pond Co., 459.
39 (Md.) Attractive nuisance doctrine held
inapplicable to injury to boy prohibited from
going on municipal pier.-City of Baltimore v.
De Palma, 277.
II. PROXIMATE CAUSE OF INJURY.
61 (2) (Pa.) Joint negligence no defense.
-Thomas v. Southern Pennsylvania Traction
For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER
III. CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE. | 108 (2) (Vt.) Newly discovered evidence
(A) Persons Injured in General.
held to raise a reasonable probability_of dif-
Hannah,
67 (Pa.) Reasonable care required of de-ferent result on new trial.-Hannah v.
liverer of ice on defendant's premises.-Robb
v. Niles-Bement-Pond Co., 459.
82 (Conn.) Plaintiff materially contribut-
ing to injury cannot recover.-Andrews
Dougherty, 700.
III. PROCEEDINGS TO PROCURE
NEW TRIAL.
V.162(1) (Pa.) Grant of new trial unless ex-
cessive portion of damages remitted held prop-
(B) Children and Others Under Disability. er.-Robb v. Niles-Bement-Pond Co., 459.
168 (Me.) Not warranted where verdict is
85 (3) (Pa.) Contributory negligence not supported by evidence unless jury were im-
imputable to boy of eight.-Thomas v. South-properly influenced.-Bradbury v. Rhode Is-
ern Pennsylvania Traction Co., 918.
land Ins. Co., 714.
Verdict of jury on conflicting evidence con-
clusive.-Id.
Instructions presumed correct in absence of
exceptions.-Id.
92 (Pa.) Negligence of bus driver not im-
putable to passenger.-Wolf v. Sweeney, 869).
93(1) (Md.) Automobile driver's negli-168 (Me.) Verdict on conflicting evidence
gence not imputable to guest.-Chiswell v. not disturbed.-Grant v. Fegan, 905.
Nichols, 363.
IV. ACTIONS.
(B) Evidence.
121(1) (N.J.) Not presumed.-McCombe v.
Public Service Ry. Co., 255.
168 (Me.) Verdict which does not award
inordinate damages not disturbed.-Pine Spring
Sanitarium Co. v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 905.
NONSUIT.
121(2)(N.J.) "Res ipsa loquitur" doc- See Dismissal and Nonsuit.
trine stated.-Adriance v. Schenck Bros., 408.
122(1) (Pa.) Due care presumed.-Robb v.
Niles-Bement-Pond Co., 459.
competency inadmissible to disprove negli- (A) Nature of Injury, and Liability There-
gence.-Gannon v. Sisk, 697.
(Pa.) "Public nuisance" distinguished
from "private nuisance."-Phillips v. Donald-
son, 236.
(C) Trial, Judgment, and Review.
136(5) (N.J.) No question for jury, where
no proof of defendant's conduct.-Adriance v.3(11) (Pa.) Garage not nuisance per se.-
Schenck Bros., 408.
Phillips v. Donaldson, 236.
136(15) (Pa.) Customer's negligence as to
one delivering ice held question for jury.-Robb
v. Niles-Bement-Pond Co., 459.
136 (26) (N.J.) Contributory
not ground for taking case from jury.-Baker
v. Fogg & Hires Co., 406.
Public garage nuisance in residential district.
8 (Pa.) Public_garage not a nuisance in
business district.-Phillips v. Donaldson, 236.
II. PUBLIC NUISANCES.
136 (27) (Pa.) Contributory negligence of (A) Nature of Injury, and Liability There-
deliverer of ice held for jury.-Robb v. Niles-
Bement-Pond Co., 459.
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS.
See Bills and Notes.
NEW TRIAL.
See Criminal Law, 958.
(F) Verdict or Findings Contrary to Law
or Evidence.
71 (Conn.) Refusal to grant proper where
conflicting evidence supports verdict.-Neuman
v. Apter, 350.
71 (Conn.) Motion to set aside verdict as
against evidence properly denied where evidence
conflicting.-Freidler v. Hekeler, 651.
71 (Conn.) Refusal to set aside verdict rea-
sonable on the conflicting evidence not error.—
Lynch v. Buchanan, 665.
71 (Pa.) Denial, where evidence was con-
tradictory, is not an abuse of discretion.
Harmer v. American Ry. Express Co., 449.
72 (Pa.) Award to defendant on ground
verdict for plaintiff against evidence discretion-
ary.-Osterling v. Third United Presbyterian
Congregation of Pittsburgh, 48.
(H) Newly Discovered Evidence.
102 (3) (Vt.) Party held not in fault in not
discovering evidence before trial.-Hannah v.
Hannah, 201.
102(4) (Pa.) No abuse of discretion in de-
nying motion based on alleged newly discovered
evidence.-Williams v. Kaufmann & Baer Co.,
104(3) (Vt.) Newly discovered evidence
59 (Pa.) Public nuisance distinguished
from "private nuisance."-Phillips v. Donald-
son, 236.
OBLIGATION OF CONTRACTS.
See Constitutional Law, 169.
See Justices of the Peace; Public Service
Commissions; Receivers; Sheriffs and Con-
stables.
PARENT AND CHILD.
See Adoption; Infants.
3(1) (N.J.Ch.) Parent may transfer custo-
dy, but not duty to support child.-Ex parte
Hoines, 613.
For parties on appeal and review of rulings as
to parties, see Appeal and Error.
For parties to particular proceedings or in-
struments, see also the various specific top-
ics.
III. NEW PARTIES AND CHANGE of
40 (2) (Pa.) Only persons having property
right may intervene.-Andrews v. New Bethle
hem Window Glass Co., 90.
47 (Pa.) Intervener must take suit as he
finds it.-Northampton Trust Co. v. Northamp-
ton Traction Co., 871.
V. DEFECTS, OBJECTIONS, AND
88(1) (Pa.) Insertion of defendant's name
as a plaintiff waived by trial on the merits.-
95(7) (Pa.) Amendment in name of de-18(6) (Md.) Want of skill or negligence
fendant after judgment proper.-Fuel City Mfg. must be affirmatively proven.-Angulo v. Hal-
Co. v. Waynesburg Products Corporation, 145. lar, 179.
Amendment as to name of defendant after
judgment does not necessitate opening of de-
fault.-Id.
II. ACTIONS FOR PARTITION.
(A) Right of Action and Defenses.
30 (Pa.) Of all of ancestor's lands should
be sought by one bill.-Gilpin v. Brown, 124.
(B) Proceedings and Relief.
40 (Pa.) Proceedings in court of common
pleas similar to proceedings in orphans' court.
-Gilpin v. Brown, 124.
PARTNERSHIP.
I. THE RELATION.
(A) Creation and Requisites.
5 (Pa.) Partnership between cotenants not
implied from sharing of expenses and income.
-Laughner v. Wally, 105.
VII. DISSOLUTION, SETTLEMENT,
AND ACCOUNTING.
(C) Distribution and Settlement Between
Partners and Their Representatives.
311(2) (Pa.) Improvidence of contract of
dissolution and settlement no ground for set-
ting aside.-Guenther v. Kutz, 919.
18(9) (Md.) Evidence of negligence in ex-
tracting tooth held insufficient to go to jury.-
Angulo v. Hallar, 179.
8(11) (Pa.) Allegation that vendor could
not convey on day stipulated is conclusion.-Mc-
Kuen v. Serody, 460.
8(11) (Pa.) General denial of ownership
by party redeeming is conclusion.-City of
Philadelphia v. Schaefer, 864.
32 (Pa.) Pleading place of record is suffi-
cient.-City of Philadelphia v. Schaefer, 864.
34(5) (Md.) Allegation of duty to furnish
materials "when required" held intended to
mean "when needed."-Fisher v. Vandevanter,
296.
36(3) (Pa.) Parol agreement held incom-
petent in view of admission in affidavit of de-
fense.-Allegro v. Rural Valley Mut. Fire Ins.
Co., 140.
II. DECLARATION, COMPLAINT, PE-
TITION, OR STATEMENT.
(D) Actions for Dissolution and Account-45 (Del.) Naming county in caption held
a sufficient setting forth of venue.-Purnell v.
348 (Pa.) Burden to prove dissolution in- Pennsylvania R. Co., 527.
valid for fraud on complaining partner.-Guen-53(1) (Me.) Count not stating form of ac-
ther v. Kutz, 919.
IV. PLEADING, EVIDENCE, TRIAL
AND REVIEW.
63(1) (Pa.) Evidence of matter not ap-
pearing in pleadings inadmissible.-Stonecipher
v. Keane, 233.
4(1) (Pa.) Time for vesting cannot extend
beyond 21 years.-Wise v. Rupp, 548.
4(6) (Pa.) Provision of will held void for
violation of rule against perpetuities.-Wise v.
Rupp. 548.
4(12) (N.J.) Postponement of distribution
until payment of debts held not to create a
perpetuity.-Canda v. Canda, 727.
8 (8) (Pa.) Accumulation held not for
maintenance of cemetery.-Wise v. Rupp, 548.
9(1) (Pa.) Provision of will held void for
violation of rule against accumulations.-Wise
v. Rupp, 548.
Accumulation beyond 21 years invalid.-Id.
PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS.
4 (Vt.) Isolated treatments do not make
"practice" of veterinary science.-Sanborn v.
Weir, 228.
Educational qualifications of existing veter-
inarian cannot be considered.-Id.
5(2) (Vt.) Affidavit of existing practice by
veterinarian not conclusive.-Sanborn v. Weir,
228.
Veterinarian must prove to state board the
fact of previous practice.-Id.
Evidence held not to establish clear right to
registration as veterinarian.-Id.
Nonresidence of applicant may be considered
in determining right to registration.-Id.
14(1) (Md.) Liable for failure to exercise
reasonable care, skill, and diligence.-Angulo
v. Hallar, 179.
tion is sufficient.-Clark v. Boyd, 345.
53 (2) (Me.) Two counts may be joined in
same declaration.-Clark v. Boyd, 345.
64 (2) (R.1.) Count for delay in repair-
ing after fire held not duplicitous.-Letendre v.
Automobile Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn., 783.
74 (R.1.) Writ in trespass supports count
in trespass on the case.-Ilczy szyn v. Mostecki,
75 (Del.Super.) Judgment for want of af-
fidavit of defense denied.-Goodfriend v. Hen-
ry Bodenheimer Real Estate, Light & Power
Co., 831.
III. PLEA OR ANSWER, CROSS-COM-
PLAINT, AND AFFIDAVIT
OF DEFENSE.
(C) Traverses or Denials and Admissions.
129(1) (Pa.) Facts pleaded, but
swered after notice, treated as proved.-Mc-
Cully v. McCrary, 755.
(F) Affidavit of Defense or of Merits.
154 (Pa.) Affidavit of defense may be filed
after time unless default has been entered.-
Fuel City Mfg. Co. v. Waynesburg Products
Corporation, 145.
155 (Pa.) Duty of defendant to institute
inquiries to gain information for affidavit of
defense.-Buehler v. U. S. Fashion Plate Co.,
157 (Pa.) Allegation of nonwaiver held
mere conclusion.-Chatham & Phenix Nat.
Bank v. Tull, 744.
160 (Pa.) Simple disavowal of knowledge
in affidavit of defense amounts to an admis-
sion.-Buehler v. U. S. Fashion Plate Co., 632.
V. DEMURRER OR EXCEPTION.
216(1) (Conn.) Want of consideration dis-
closed by application of doctrine of judicial
notice.-Masline v. New York, N. H. & H. R.
Co., 639.
218(3) (Me.) Demurrer having been filed
at second term, judgment overruling it should
be final at next term.-Clark v. Boyd, 345.
|