« PreviousContinue »
Schoppe, Jersey City v. (N. J.).
Schuldice v. Pittsburg (Pa.).
.1125 Stickles, Town of Wolcott v. (Conn.) 572
rady (Del. Ch.).
24 Sullivan v. John R. White & Son (R. I.).. 724
Shannon & Co. v. Lancaster (Pa.)
Short, State_v. (Del. O. & T.).
Tavares v. Dewing (R. I.)....
Simpson, In re (N. J. Sup.).
Smpson, Douglass-Whisler Brick Co. v.
Taylor v. Woodlen (Del. Super.).
Simpson, Douglass-Whisler Brick Co. v.
Thomas, Day v. (Del. Super.)
Slaughter v. Moore (Del. Ch.)
245 Thompson's Estate, In re (Pa.). .1108
Sailier, St. Clair Borough v. (Pa.). .1099 Tiffany, Houghton v. (Md.).
Tillinghast v. Johnson (R. I.)..
Stafford v. Burns (Me.)..
. 1014 Town of Bridgewater, Town of Roxbury v.
State, Anderson v. (Del. Gen. Sess.) 539 Town of Orange, Forbes v. (Conn.) 559
302 Town of Roxbury v. Bridgewater (Conn.) 193
524 Town of Southbury, Cassidy v. (Conn.). 198
304 Town of West Hoboken, Dietrich v.' (N.
State v. Fitzsimmons (Del. Gen. Sess.) 598 Townsend v. Crow Md.
533 Township of Rayburn, Kammerdiener v.
State y. Jackson (Del. Gen. Sess.)
824 Township of West Milford, Ringwood Co.
State v. Jankowski (N. J. Sup.).
311 Travelers' Ins. Co., Richardson v. (Me.)...1005
State v. Keen (Del. Gen. Sess.).
600 Trustees of Ministerial Fund in First Par-
13 ish in Gorham in Cumberland County,
Plate v. Jetzger (N. J.)....
330 Turner v. Turner (R. I.).....
Page Unger v. Pankuch (N. J.)..., 874 Weston v. Benecke (N. J.)....
878 Union R, Co., Winn v. (R. I.).
81 Weston Electrical Instrument Co. v. BenUnited Drug Co., William B. Riker & Son ecke (N. J.).....
878 Co. v. (N. J.).
930 West Shore R. Co., Board of Trustees of United States Cast Iron Pipe & Foundry Village of Ridgefield Park v. (N. J. Ch.) 319 Co. v. Cavanagh (N. J. Sup.).
507 West Shore R. Co., West View Boat Club United States Health & Accident Ins. Co., v. (N. J. Ch.)....
319 Mellen v. (Vt.)..
4 | West View Boat Club v. West Shore R. United & Globe Rubber Mfg. Cos. of Tren
Co. (N. J. Ch.)...
319 ton v. Conard (N. J.)....
860 West Windsor Tp., Mercer County, South Usilton v. Bramble (Md.). 661 v. (N. J. Sup.)...
Wetherell, First Baptist Soc. v. (R. I.)...1061 Vadnais v. Vadnais (R. I.).. 262 Weymouth v. Dunn (Me.)
.1134 Valerii v. Breakwater Co. (Del. Super.).. 597 White v. Almy (R. I.)..
260 Vanderveer, National Metal Edge Box Co. White V. Almy (R. I.)....
397, 722 v. (Vt.). 837 White v. Almy (R. I.)....
994 Vandiver, Hisor v. (N. J. Sup.) 526 White, Reilly v. (Pa.).
.1107 Veano v. Crafts (Me.)....
293 White v. Young's Pier & Hotel Co. (N. J.) 912 Viscidi v. Koch (N. J.).... 929 White & Son, Sullivan v. (R. I.)..
724 Whitehouse v. Durrell (Me.)..
.1134 Wachsmith v. Baltimore & 0. R. Co. (Pa.) 755 Whittington v. Hall (Md.)
163 Wadsworth v. Baldwin (N. J. Ch.).. 326 W. H. & F. W. Cane, Murphy v. (N. J.) 854 Wahle, State v. (N. J. Sup.)...
300 Wieneke, Washington County v. (Pa...... 759 Wakefield v. Chevalier (Conn.)
973 Wilcox v. Central Acc. Ins. Co. of PittsWaldron, New York, P. & N. R. Co. v. burg (Pa.)..
709 | Wilderness Poultry Farm, Wilson v. (N. J. Waldstein, Wolcott v. (N. J. Ch.). ..1135 Sup.)
517 Walker V. Board of Chosen Freeholders William B. Riker & Son Co. v. United of Essex County (N. J. Sup.). 422 Drug Co. (N. J.)..
930 Walker, Kates v. (N. J. Sup.). 301 Williams, Jacobs v. (Conn.).
202 Walker, Ridgley v. (N. J. Sup.).
861 Willis v. Pittsburg Rys, Co. (Pa.). .1117 Walker' v. Walker (R. I.).
385 Wilmington Sash & Door Co. v. Taylor Walnut v. Newton (N. J. Sup.) 317 (Del. Super.).
86 Walter v. Peninsula Cut Stone Co. (Del. Wilmington & P. Traction Co., Culbert v. Ch.)
961 (Del. Super.). Walters v. American Bridge Co. (Pa.)...1103 Wilson, In re (Del. Ch.)
695 Walworth, Batchelder v. (Vt.).
7 Wilson v. Wilderness Poultry Farm (N. W. A. Manda v. Orange (N. J.).
517 Ware v. Mulford (N. J. Ch.). 48 Wimsatt, McSherry v. (Md.).
451 Ware, Mulford's Ex'rs v. (Ń. J. Ch.). 48 Wingert v. Brewer (Md.).
157 Warfield v. State (Md.). .1053 Winn v. Union R. Co. (Á. I.).
81 Warren v. Superior Court (R. I.). 129 Winter, Brown v. (N. J.)..
934 Washington County v. Cunningham (Pa.) 759 Wittmer's Estate, în re (Pa.)
.1023 Washington County v. Marquis (Pa.) 756 Wolcott v. Waldstein (N. J. Ch.). . 1135 Washington County v. Scott (Pa.).. 759 Wolfe v. Limestone Council No. 373. OrWashington County v. Wieneke (Pa.).. 759 der of Independent Americans (Pa.)... 499 Washington County Water Co. v. Hagers Wood v. Montpelier (Vt.).
671 town (Ma.)
826 Wood, Standard Accident & Life Ins. Co. Watson v. Alfred Farley & Co. (Conn.).. 189 of Detroit, Mich., v. (Md.).
702 Watson, Commonwealth v. (Pa.). 255 Woodlen. Taylor v. (Del. Super.).
85 Watson, State v. (Del. T.)
.1086 Woodsville Guaranty Sav. Bank v. Ricker W. B. Saunders Co. v. Ducker (Md.) 154 (Vt.)
2 Webster, Ainger v. (Vt.).
666 Worcester Loan Co. v. Chambers (R. I.) 495 Wehner, Schier v. (Md.).
976 | Workingman's Loan & Building Ass'n of Weinschenk v. Western Allegheny R. Co. Altoona v. Heaton (Pa.).
78 (Pa.) 750 | Worth v. Worth (R. I.):
85 Welch v. Portland Lighting & Power Co. Wynema Council, No. 10, Daughters of (Me.)
.1134 Pocahontas, Improved Order of Red Men .Wells v. Joslin Mfg. Co. (R. I.)
258 of Delaware, King v. (Del. Super.).....1076 Welsh, Gerhard v. (N. J.).
871 Welsh v. Kerr Coal Co. (Pa.).
495 | Yaehing v. Baltimore & O. R. Co. (Pa.).. 756 Western Allegheny R. Co., Petition of Yates v. Philadelphia, B. & W. R. Co. (Pa.) 687 (Del. Super.)..
27 Western Allegheny R. Co., Weinschenk v. Young's Pier & Hotel Co., White v. (N. (Pa.) 750 J.)
See End of Index for Tables of Atlantic Cases in State Reports
said: “Yes; when I saw her falling off, I MURRAY V. RHODE ISLAND CO. realized the car was going.” There was (Supreme Court of Rhode Island. Feb. 2, no further corroboration of the plaintiff's 1912.)
statement that the car was still when she CARRIERS ($ 346*)-INJURIES TO PASSENGERS stood up to get off. -NEGLIGENCE-ÉVIDENCE. In an action for injuries to a street car
The trial judge, in denying the defendant's passenger while attempting to alight, evidence motion for a new trial, said: “The testimony held not to support a finding that the car slowed strongly preponderates to the effect that she down and was coming to a stop when the pas- left the car while it was in motion. If her senger started to alight and was thrown from right to recover turned upon her leaving the the car by a sudden jerk.
[Ed. Note.- For other cases, see Carriers, car while it was in motion, the verdict could Dec Dig. & 346.*]
not be sustained.” He said, however: "The Exceptions from Superior Court, Provi- place where her key was picked up in the dence and Bristol Counties; George T. Brown, morning indicates pretty well where she Judge.
went off the car. As she sat about middle Action by Margaret Murray against the of the car, the rear end of the car, when she Rhode Island Company. There was a ver- went off, must have been about at the white dict for plaintiff for $1,500. The trial court post, corner of Whitmarsh street, where she refused a new trial, and defendant brings ex- desired to alight. According to the conceptions. Sustained.
ductor's testimony, the car was then 'merely Washington R. Prescott and Edward H. crawling' and 'coming to a stop.' The jury Ziegler, for plaintiff.
was warranted from the evidence in finding Joseph C. Sweeney
that she went off the car at that point. It and G. Frederick Frost, for defendant.
cannot be said as a matter of law that she PER CURIAM. The plaintiff testified as guilty of negligence in leaving the car
in these circumstances. that she stood up when the car started from
She testified that Peace street, and signaled to the conductor the car started with a sudden jerk just as
The to let her off at Whitmarsh street; that she she was stepping onto the sidewalk. sat down until the car came to a full stop, conductor testified that at this white post, when she arose, and, stepping out by two after the two men left the car, he struck the people who were seated at her right, was bell to go ahead. If the car had slowed stepping on the running board, just in the down to a mere crawl, and was coming to a act of stepping onto the sidewalk, when the stop, and two passengers had left it, before tar started with a sudden jerk and threw the conductor gave the signal to go ahead, ber onto the sidewalk. Her sister, who was he should have ascertained whether some with her, but who, not having reached her other passenger was also in the act of leavdestination, remained on the car, corrobo- | ing the car before signaling for the car to go rated the plaintiff as to the signal and her ahead. This he did not do. It is probable sitting down again. As to the plaintiff's from the evidence that the plaintiff, atleaving the car, this witness testified: “I tempting to alight before the car stopped, was sure the car stopped, and she stood up was thrown by the sudden starting up of the to get out." She said that she took no notice car upon the conductor's signal, and the jury of her getting out past two people in the was warranted in so finding." Leat; that then she did not see her until The theory that the car had slowed down she saw her falling off to the sidewalk; that to a mere crawl and was coming to a stop she did not hear any signal given to start when the plaintiff started to alight is not after the car stopped for the plaintiff to get supported by the testimony of any of the off'; that, when she saw her falling off, the witnesses for the plaintiff. Upon an examcar was going. In answer to a question she ination of the testimony of the other witPor other cases soo samo topic and section NUMBER 10 Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep'r Indexes
nesses, we find a general agreement that PER CURIAM. We think that justice rethe car was not slowing down when the quires a revision of this case. The prayer plaintiff arose to get off ; that the slowing of the petitioners for leave to appeal, in ordown had taken place before; and that the der to contest, not only the residence of the car was not only in motion at that time, testator at the time of his decease, but also but that it was proceeding at a considerable his testamentary capacity and freedom from rate of speed. Witnesses testify variously improper influence at the time of the executhat it was going quite fast; that it was tion of his will, supported by the affidavits going at a moderate speed; that it was pro- | filed with the petition, makes it evident that ceeding at not a very quick rate of speed, there are bona fide issues for determination but was under quite a little headway; that between the parties interested. We are of it was in fairly rapid motion, and gaining the opinion that the petitioners had no opin speed. We do not, therefore, find in the portunity to appeal from the decree of the evidence, either of witnesses for the plaintifr probate court admitting said will to probate or for the defendant, any support for the through lack of knowledge of the existence theory that the plaintiff was thrown by of said decree, and upon due consideration the sudden starting up of the car while it of the circumstances we find that they were was merely crawling and coming to a stop. prevented by mistake from filing their claim
We think that the evidence as to the of appeal in due time. place where the plaintiff's key was found the The petition is granted, on condition that next morning cannot avail to overcome the a claim of appeal shall be filed in the proevidence that the plaintiff fell off the car bate court within 20 days, and that the further along toward Princeton avenue. The same shall be prosecuted according to law. key might well bound somewhat from the place where it struck in falling, and might easily have been moved from the place where it fell by contact with the feet of travelers WOODSVILLE GUARANTY SAVINGS upon the sidewalk. The finding of the key
BANK v. RICKER et al. near the place where the plaintiff said she (Supreme Court of Vermont. Caledonia. Jan. fell from the car was an incident to be con
8, 1912.) sidered, but we do not think it can be re LIMITATION OF ACTIONS (8 148*)—ACKNOWLgarded as conclusive. In our opinion the EDGMENT-SUFFICIENCY. verdict failed to do justice between the par: demands for payment, wrote that the bank
Where a surety on a note in response to ties. The motion for a new trial should ruptcy case of one of the principals had not yet have been granted.
been settled, and for him to get all he could out The defendant's exception to the decision of them, and that he, the surety, would be home of the superior court denying its motion for letters were a sufficient acknowledgment of the
in two weeks, and then see the payee, the a new trial is sustained. The defendant debt to stop the running of the limitations. takes nothing by its other exceptions.
(Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Limitation of The case is remitted to the superior court Actions, Cent. Dig. 88 597-603; Dec. Dig. $
148.*) for a new trial.
Exceptions from Caledonia County Court; Fred M. Butler, Judge.
Action by the Woodsville Guaranty SavTURNER et al v. TURNER.
ings Bank against B. M. Ricker and another. (Supreme Court of Rhode Island. Jan. 22, There was a verdict for plaintiff, and the 1912.)
first-named defendant excepted. Afirmed. APPEAL AND ERROR (8 357*)-REQUISITES AND This action is assumpsit on the promissory
PROCEEDINGS FOR TRANSFER — RELIEF IN note hereinafter described. Pleas, general CASE OF FAILURE TO PROCEED IN TIME.
An appeal from a decree of a probate issue, and that the cause of action did not court admitting a will to probate will be grant- accrue within six years before the bringing ed, where a showing is made that petitioners of the suit. Replication, that the cause of were prevented from appealing in time through action did accrue within six years. Defendlack of knowledge of the existence of the de: ant Blanchard also pleaded the statute of cree, and affidavits filed with petition show that bona fide issues which may be raised exist. limitations, and during the progress of the
[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Appeal and trial, on motion of plaintiff, the suit was orError, Cent. Dig. Sis 1928–1931; Dec. Dig. $ dered discontinued as to this defendant, to 357.*]
which no exception was taken. Defendant Petition by George Turner and others to Ricker testified that he signed the note. The
note was dated August 21, 1901, for $1,000, file a claim of appeal. Granted.
payable 12 months after date to the order of Gardner, Pirce & Thornley (William W. the Woodsville National Bank, and signed by Moss, of counsel), for petitioners. Sheffield, B. F. Ricker, J. W. Blanchard, and the defendLevy & Harvey and Charles H. Koehne, Jr., ant B. M. Ricker. It appeared that defendfor respondent.
ant Ricker had none of the proceeds of the
note, and as between the signers was in fact, cy suit is not settled yet. I want you to a surety. About December, 1904, or January, get all you can out of the other two. They 1905, B. F. Ricker failed and went into bank. had the money. Shall be at home in two ruptcy. On the back of the note appeared weeks and will see you then. Yours, etc., five indorsements of interest paid, the first B. M. Ricker." on October 2, 1902, and the last on Septem On May 13, 1909, Fred Wright, the plainber 24, 1904, it being the interest to October tiff's attorney, wrote a letter to the defend1, 1904. There was also an indorsement un ant as follows: "Woodsville, N. H. May 13, der date of January 26, 1909, “Rec'd $10.25 1909. Mr. B. M. Ricker, Groton, Vt.-Dear from trustee in bankruptcy, 1%." And under Sir: At the request of the Woodsville Bank date of June 3, 1909, there appeared in. I am writing you in relation to a note held dorsed, from the trustee in bankruptcy, by that bank signed by you together with B. $25.63. Between the last two indorsements F. Ricker and J. W. Blanchard. The note there appeared upon the note, “Without re- is given for $1,000 and there has been no course to Woodsville National Bank, by H. interest paid since Oct. 1, 1904, and no pay. W. Allen, Cashier." None of the indorse- ment on the note except a dividend from the ments were in the handwriting of defendant bankrupt estate of B. F. Ricker of $10.25 reRicker, and there was no evidence that he ceived Jan. 26, 1909. The bank desires this ever made or authorized any of those pay- note paid at once. Please give this matter ments, unless it appears from the letters, your immediate attention and let me hear bereinafter referred to by inference, that from you. Truly yours, Fred S. Wright.” the payments made by the trustee of B. F. To this letter the defendant replied: "GroRicker's bankruptcy estate were so made. ton, Vermont, May 15, 1909. Mr. Fred S. In consequence of a letter from defendant Wright-Dear Sir: Yours received. I am Ricker to H. W. Allen, cashier, in February, sorry to say that I cannot do anything for 1906, and by the latter shown to the plaintiff's the bank now. I have lost my money and attorney, the note was proved by the plain- have no funds to pay with. They know all tiff against said bankrupt estate. This letter about it. I got a notice from J. C. Sherwas offered in evidence, but excluded. The burne the referee in Benjamin F. Ricker in Frit bears date September 27, 1909. There bankruptcy to meet at Randolph May 21, was evidence that soon after the note was 1909, and there are $419.45 in hands to be given it was sold and transferred by the distributed. I suppose the bank got one too. Woodsville National Bank to the plaintiff Yours, etc., B. M. Ricker." bank.
Upon the foregoing evidence, unexplained On the date named therein, Jerry Abbott, or varied, respecting an acknowledgement then treasurer of the plaintiff, wrote and or new promise, the plaintiff rested his case. mailed the following notice:
Defendant Ricker then moved for a verdict, "Woodsville Guaranty Savings Bank, which was refused. Thereupon, this defendWoodsville, N. H. March 12, 1908. The in- ant not wishing to go to the jury upon any terest on your note for one thousand dol- question of fact, and electing to stand on lars to April, 1, 1908, will be $226.20, and you his motion, on motion of the plaintiff, a verare requested to pay the same on or before dict was ordered for the plaintiff to recover that date. Respectfully, J. Abbott, Treasur. the amount due upon the note, and judgment er. To B. F. Ricker: Please present this no- rendered thereon. Defendant Ricker excepttice when making payment.” On a separate ed to the overruling of his motion, to the sheet was written: “We must have the in- direction of a verdict for the plaintiff, and to terest at least, cannot wait any longer." the judgment. No question was made as to
The envelope in which the evidence tend the amount due on the note, nor as to the ed to show this letter was inclosed was ad amount of the verdict. dressed to the defendant B. M. Ricker, and Argued before ROWELL, C. J., and MUNbe replied thereto as follows: "Groton, Ver- SON, WATSON, HASELTON, and POWERS, mont, March 16, 1908. Mr. J. Abbott, Treas. JJ. - Dear Sir: Yours received. Send me the Smith & Smith and Fred S. Wright, for date of that note when it was given and the plaintiff. Elisha May, for defendant Ricker. dates of the payments that have been made a it. Frank's bankruptcy (case) has not WATSON, J. The suit having been disbeen settled yet. You get all you can out of continued as to Blanchard, the case is here the other parties. He and John Blanchard against B. M. Ricker alone, and we shall had the money. Yours, etc., B. M. Ricker." refer to him as the defendant. The defend
Later Jerry Abbott, treasurer, again wrote ant not wishing to go to the jury upon any defendant Ricker as to the $1,000 note, but question of fact, the sole question before us the original letter was lost, and the plaintiff is, Did the evidence show such an acknowlhad no copy. To this letter defendant Rick-edgment of the promissory note in question er replied as follows: "Coventry Center, R. I., by him that a verdict for the plaintiff could September 17, 1908. Mr. Abbott-Dear Sir: reasonably and properly be based thereon ?