Page images
PDF
EPUB

necessity of making it part of the record by -American Tin Plate Co. v. Williams (Ind. bill of exceptions.-Midland Ry. Co. v. Trissal App.) 304. (Ind. App.) 543.

Taking the original manuscript of the evidence from the bill of exceptions and putting it into the transcript held not to bring the evidence into the_record.-South Chicago City Ry. Co. v. Zerler (Ind. App.) 599.

§ 9.

Scope and contents of record. The opinion of the appellate court is no part of the record on appeal to the supreme court, and it can look only to the final judgment to determine the findings of fact.-Aachen & Munich Fire Ins. Co. v. Crawford (Ill.) 134.

A bill of exceptions, not signed before filing, cannot be considered. - Hershberger v. Kerr (Ind. Sup.) 4.

A bill of exceptions, not filed within the time allowed after the term, cannot be considered.Hershberger v. Kerr (Ind. Sup.) 4.

Where a bill of exceptions could not be regarded as a part of the record, because not filed at the term at which the motion for a new trial was overruled, or within the time then granted to file the same, the sufficiency of evidence cannot be reviewed.-City of Elwood v. Laughlin (Ind. App.) 18.

§ 10.

Making, form, and requisites of transcript or return. Where the bill of exceptions fails to show certain motions, or the rulings thereon, they were not made a part of the record, so as to be reviewable on appeal, by being included in the transcript by the clerk.-Deiterman v. Ruppel (Ill.) 707.

Laws 1887, p. 182, held not to authorize parties to incorporate in the transcript of the record on appeal, by stipulation, the original master's report, containing the evidence taken before the master and original exhibits offered in evidence.-Beth Hammidrash Hagodol Ub'Nay Jacob Congregation v. Oakwoods Cemetery Ass'n (Ill.) 1078.

Under Burns' Rev. St. 1901, § 661, a clerk has no authority to certify the original bill of exceptions, where the præcipe directed him to certify a "transcript."-Drew v. Town of Geneva (Ind. Sup.) 9.

Bill of exceptions following clerk's certificate to transcript held not subject to consideration. -Butt v. Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co. (Ind. Sup.) 529.

Where there is no index attached to the transcript, as required by rule 3 of the supreme and appellate courts (27 N. E. iv), the appeal will be dismissed.-Peterson v. Union Trust Co. (Ind. Sup.) 1025.

Under Burns' Rev. St. 1901, § 662, where an appeal is taken from an interlocutory order, the order must be shown by an entry of record transcribed and certified by the clerk.-Mikesell v. South Bend Electric Co. (Ind. App.) 11. § 11.

Questions presented for

view.

Te

A bill of exceptions to review on the evidence, as reserved question, the constitutionality of the statute, held insufficient, for failure to show that it contained all the evidence, or sufficient thereof to enable a court to apprehend the particular question involved.-Standish V. Bridgewater (Ind. Sup.) 189.

Overruling a motion to strike out parts of a complaint cannot be reviewed, where the motion and ruling are not made a part of the record by bill of exceptions or order of court. Chicago & S. E. Ry. Co. v. Woodard (Ind. Sup.) 577.

A special bill of exceptions seeking to review admission of certain evidence, held insufficient.

Where the evidence is not in the record, grounds for a new trial depending on the evidence cannot be reviewed.-American Tin Plate Co. v. Williams (Ind. App.) 304.

The question whether the verdict is contrary to law and the evidence cannot be considered, where the record does not affirmativeof Greenfield v. Johnson (Ind. App.) 542. ly show that it contains all the evidence.-City

Although a bill of exceptions states that it contains all the evidence, if it shows on its face that it does not, the court will not considGreenfield v. Johnson (Ind. App.) 542. er any question as to the evidence.-City of

Action of the court in re-reading to the jury up by bill of exceptions, cannot be reviewed.a portion of the instructions, not being brought South Chicago City Ry. Co. v. Zerler (Ind. App.) 599.

That a ruling requiring a question to show certain facts may be reviewed, it should be shown what was expected to be proved, or that the ruling was harmful. - O'Malley v. Commonwealth (Mass.) 30.

The exclusion of evidence will not be reviewed on appeal, where the bill of exceptions does not show what the answers to the questions excluded would have been.-P. P. Emory Mfg. Co. v. Rood (Mass.) 58.

The findings of fact in a master's report cannot be revised without the evidence.-Henderson v. Foster (Mass.) 810.

[blocks in formation]

Where the record on its face does not disclose any error, held essential to the review of a cause tried without a jury that an exception to the findings and judgment of the court be preserved in the bill of exceptions.-People v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. (II.) 675.

Where the record of a certain trial in evidence below was not before the court on appeal, defendant's objection that the record showed no reason for a default judgment therein must be overruled.-Spiers Fish Co. v. Robbins (Mass.) 25; Woodruff v. Same, Id. § 13. Assignment of errors.

A general statement by appellant that refused instructions embodied principles of law applicable to the case and not covered by other instructions given was insufficient.-Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Jernigan (Ill.) 88.

Assignments of error held sufficient to authorize the appellate court to review certain findings of fact.-Coverdale v. Royal Arcanum (Ill.)

345.

certain instruction was not assigned as error Where the refusal of the trial court to give a in either the appellate or supreme court, the argument in appellant's brief that such ruling

was error cannot be considered.-D. Sinclair Co. v. Waddill (Ill.) 437.

It is not error for the appellate court to refuse leave to assign additional errors seven days after the court has rendered judgment in the cause.-Off v. Finkelstein (Ill.) 439.

Mere statement of reasons for a new trial are not proper as independent assignments of error on appeal.-Standish v. Bridgewater (Ind. Sup.)

189.

An assignment of error that Acts 1899, p. 193 (Burns' Rev. St. 1901, § 7059), requiring weekly payments to employés in lawful money of the United States, is unconstitutional, is improper, and presents no question for review.-Standish v. Bridgewater (Ind. Sup.) 189.

An assignment that the court erred in overruling appellant's motion for a new trial is

sufficient in form. (Ind. Sup.) 189.

Standish v. Bridgewater will be found in his favor.-Hoffman House v.
Foote (N. Y.) 169.

Assignment of error to overruling demurrers to paragraphs in complaint held insufficient to present more than question of complaint's sufficiency as a whole.-Chicago & S. E. Ry. Co. v. Woodard (Ind. Sup.) 577.

Where a complaint was in two paragraphs, and defendant demurred to each separately, both demurrers being sustained, and on appeal the only assignment was that "the court erred in sustaining the demurrer," there must be an affirmance, unless both demurrers were improperly sustained.-Hague v. First Nat. Bank (Ind. Sup.) 907.

A joint assignment of error, not good as to some joining in it, held not available.-Bush v. McBride (Ind. Sup.) 1026.

An assignment of error as to several instructions is of no avail if any are correct.-City of Greenfield v. Johnson (Ind. App.) 542.

To a single ruling sustaining separate demurrers to separate paragraphs a single exception is sufficient, but separate assignments of error are proper. Farmers' Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Yetter (Ind. App.) 762.

Assignment of error to striking out of plaintiff's amended petition held to so insufficiently specify the pleading as not to present a question for review. -Guthrie v. Howland (Ind. App.) 1040.

Where there was only one defendant sued, a recital that "defendants" excepted held a clerical error, and insufficient to support au objection that the exception was joint.-Ohio Farmers' Ins. Co. v. Vogel (Ind. App.) 1056. §14. Briefs.

Under 3 Starr & C. Ann. St. c. 110, p. 3136, $ 89, and supreme court rule 15 (47 N. E. vii), appellate court briefs, refiled in supreme court, held not open to consideration.-Daum v. Cooper (Ill.) 1071.

Where an appeal was properly taken, and transcript and brief filed, and 200 days elapsed without any brief being filed by appellee, the errors alleged will be treated as confessed, and the cause reversed, without prejudice.-People's Nat. Bank v. State (Ind. Sup.) 6.

Appellant's recital of portions of record in its brief held conclusive on supreme court under rules 22 and 23, in absence of brief by appellee. -McElwaine-Richards Co. v. Wall (Ind. Sup.)

753.

§ 15. Dismissal, withdrawal, or abandonment.

An affidavit cannot be received in an appellate court as to the amount in controversy, for the purpose of determining appellate jurisdiction.-Smith v. American Crystal Monument Co. (Ind. Sup.) 524.

Under Rev. Laws, c. 173, § 109, an appeal taken from a judgment and award of execution notwithstanding exceptions, and which presents no other question than the exceptions, will be dismissed.-Williams v. Clarke (Mass.) 419. § 16. Hearing and rehearing.

Supreme court held to have no power to extend the time for filing a petition for a rehearing beyond that fixed by Burns' Rev. St. 1901, § 674. -Dudgeon v. Bronson (Ind. Sup.) 752.

§ 17. Review-Scope and extent in general.

Under Burns' Rev. St. 1901, §§ 249. 412, a trial in equity held to be before the court, so that its ruling on items in the master's report is but a special finding, which, when made without request, is a general finding.-Terre Haute & I. R. Co. v. State (Ind. Sup.) 401.

On appeal from nonsuit entered at close of plaintiff's opening address, every material fact

§ 18.

[ocr errors]

Parties entitled to allege error. An appellant will not be heard in respect to the assignments of error in which he has no concern.-French V. Commercial Nat. Bank (III.) 252.

Drainage commissioners having requested a charge that their proceedings were prima facie evidence of jurisdictional facts could not on appeal object that they were not regarded as conclusive evidence.-Bishop v. People (il 421.

Defendant held precluded from objecting to defect in plaintiff's instruction by similar defect in its own.-Springfield Consol. Ry. Co. v. Pun tenney (Ill.) 442.

Parties to a condemnation proceeding held estopped to deny petitioner's power to acquire the property by condemnation.-Sexton v. Union Stockyard & Transit Co. (Ill.) 638.

Where the court uses a certain form of expression in an instruction at the request of a party, he is estopped to object to the same expression being used in other instructions.-Slack v. Harris (Ill.) 669.

Where a party had requested and obtained an erroneous instruction, he cannot complain of another instruction embodying the same error. -Sibley Warehouse & Storage Co. v. Durand & Kasper Co. (Ill.) 676.

A defendant held precluded from objecting to any error in the giving of an instruction at the request of plaintiff by instructions containing the same error given at its request.-West Chicago St. R. Co. v. Buckley (Ill.) 708.

Right to have motion for directed verdict considered held waived by introducing evidenceCity of Greenfield v. Johnson (Ind. App.) 542.

Defendant, having had evidence of price at time of demand excluded on the ground that the contract called for price at time of contract, may not contend to the contrary on appeal.-Hagey v. Schroeder (Ind. App.) 598.

Evidence introduced by plaintiffs, and the theory of the trial, held to be inconsistent with the theory that negligence should be imputed to a street railway company by the mere fact of the derailment of its car.-Galligan v. Old Colony St. Ry. Co. (Mass.) 48.

$ 19.

Presumptions.

Where, on appeal from a judgment enjoining opening of a highway, under Burns' Rev. St. court might have found that the statute was 1901, § 4408, there is evidence from which the not complied with, it is to be presumed that the court so found.-Town of Montgomery v. Baltimore & O. S. W. R. Co. (Ind. App.) 217.

instructions given, the refusal of instructions
Where a bill of exceptions does not set forth
will not be reviewed on appeal.-Corey v. Have-
ner (Mass.) 69; Same v. Adams, Id.
$ 20.

Questions of fact, verdicts, and findings.

A decree will not be reversed for error in findings of fact, unless such error is clear and palpable.-Vinson v. Scott (Ill.) 76.

Findings in a chancery case will not be reversed, unless there is a palpable error.--Arnold v. Northwestern Tel. Co. (Ill.) 224.

On appeal, the supreme court will not determine the weight of evidence, but whether there was evidence to support the verdict.-Chicago Terminal Transfer Co. v. Kotoski (Ill.) 350.

In chancery, where the evidence is conflicting, the error in finding as to fact should be clear and palpable to authorize a reversalGarden City Sand Co. v. Gettins (Ill.) 664.

Where there is nothing in the record to induce An improper instruction as to the effect of in-
the belief that the jury in a personal injury toxication as bearing on the question of con-
case were actuated by prejudice or improper tributory negligence was harmless, where the
considerations, or misunderstood or misapplied evidence would not justify a finding that plain-
the evidence, the judgment will not be revers- tiff was intoxicated at the time of the accident.
ed on the ground that the verdict is excessive.--South Chicago City Ry. Co. v. Dufresne
Cincinnati, H. & I. R. Co. v. Worthington (Ind. (Ill.) 1075.
App.) 557.

The court on appeal will not reweigh con-
flicting evidence. Kirkham v. Moore (Ind.
App.) 1042.

The fact that the supreme court has not ob-
served plaintiff's stupid appearance held not
to conclude it from holding that the court
should have instructed that he had assumed the
risk of an obvious danger.-Chmiel v. Thorn-
dike Co. (Mass.) 47.

Verdict directed in mandamus, and affirmed
by the appellate division, held to settle the facts
in favor of relator.-People v. Scannell (N. Y.)
165.

§ 21.

Harmless error.

On appeal from a chancellor's finding of fact,
alleged error in the admission of evidence is
not cause for reversal, where there is sufficient
competent evidence to support the finding.
Vinson v. Scott (Ill.) 76.

Where the jury could have rendered no other
verdict under the evidence properly admitted,
the judgment will not be reversed because of
the admission of irrelevant evidence or instruc-
tions.-Vinson v. Scott (Ill.) 78.

An instruction requiring too much of com-
plainants in a suit to set aside a will for un-
due influence is harmless, they furnishing no
evidence.-Swearingen v. Inman (Ill.) 80.

An erroneous instruction held harmless, as
being on an immaterial issue.-Etna Life Ins.
Co. v. Sanford (Ill.) 661.

In an action against a warehouseman for
negligently allowing flour to become injured, in-
struction as to measure of damages held not
prejudicial to defendant.-Sibley Warehouse &
Storage Co. v. Durand & Kasper Co. (Ill.) 676.

A chancery decree will not be reversed for er-
rors in the admission of evidence, unless such
decree cannot be sustained, except on the in-
competent testimony.-Van Vleet v. De Witt
(Ill.) 677.

On a will contest, an instruction that testa-
trix had sufficient capacity to make a will, if
she understood "what she was doing," held not
prejudicial to complainant.-Waugh v. Moan
(Ill.) 713.

Rulings on a demurrer in appellant's favor
cannot be reviewed on his appeal.-Hersh-
berger v. Kerr (Ind. Sup.) 4.

Conduct of trial court in recalling jury,
though irregular, under Burns' Rev. St. 1901, §§
550, 553, held, under section 670, not reversible
error, in view of correct result.-Cox v. Peltier
(Ind. Sup.) 6.

Where, under the facts disclosed in a record,
plaintiff could not have recovered in any event,
the fact that instructions given were erroneous
is immaterial.-Baxter v. Lusher (Ind. Sup.)
211.

In an action by the state against a railroad
company created by Loc. Laws 1847, p. 77,
for a recovery of money due as surplus profits,
the question as to on what account certain tax-
es were paid held, under the findings and evi-
dence, immaterial.-Terre Haute & I. R. Co. v.
State (Ind. Sup.) 401.

Denial of a motion to strike out parts of a
complaint does not constitute reversible error.
Chicago & S. E. Ry. Co. v. Woodard (Ind.
Sup.) 577.

Error in sustaining a demurrer to a cross-
complaint is prejudicial, even admitting that
the cross-complainant may prove the facts un-
der his general denial.-Metropolitan Life Ins.
Co. v. Brown (Ind. Sup.) 908.

Error in overruling a demurrer to an answer
attacking the record collaterally was harmless
where the same facts were admissible under a
cross-complaint attacking the record in direct
proceedings.-State v. Hindman (Ind. Sup.) 911.

In an action for goods sold and delivered, the
admission of certain telegrams held nonpreju-
dicial.-Haller v. Gibson (Ind. App.) 293.

Where, in an action for goods sold, a witness
testified that he delivered the goods on defend-
ant's order, subsequent testimony that he would
not have delivered the goods without the order
was harmless.-Haller v. Gibson (Ind. App.)
293.

Where, in an action for injuries from driving
over an obstruction in a street, an offer to
prove by a witness that one defendant directed
another defendant to place the obstruction there
Modifications by the court of the employe's re-tified as to all he knew concerning such sub-
was rejected, and the witness afterwards tes-
quested instructions in a personal injury case
held not prejudicial to defendant.-Illinois Steel
Co. v. Ryska (Ill.) 734.

Error of the court in sustaining objections to
proper questions is rendered harmless by the
subsequent admission of the testimony.-Illinois
Steel Co. v. Ryska (Ill.) 734.

Action of a court in modifying an instruction
requested by a party, by repeating the state-
ment of the law stated therein, is not reversi-
ble error, though the modification was unneces-
sary.-Illinois Steel Co. v. Ryska (Ill.) 734.
A ruling as to whether a cause of action set
up in additional counts was barred by limita-
tions held harmless.-Iroquois Furnace Co. v.
Elphicke (III.) 784.

Error in allowing witnesses to testify from
memoranda in a case tried without a jury held
harmless. - Iroquois Furnace Co. v. Elphicke
(III.) 784.

In an action against a street railroad for per-
sonal injuries admission of evidence as to cus-
tom of boarding the cars while in motion he'd
harmless. South Chicago City Ry. Co. v. Du-
fresue (Ill.) 1075.

ject, there was no harmful error in such ruling.
-Black v. City of Mishawaka (Ind. App.) 538.

Where, in an action against a city, the lot
owner, and a contractor, for injuries sustained
by collision with lumber piled in the street by
the latter, the jury find that the contractor was
direction of a verdict in favor of the city and
not liable, plaintiff was not prejudiced by the
lot owner.-Black v. City of Mishawaka (Ind.
App.) 538.

Refusal to strike conclusions of law from the
report of a master commissioner held harmless.
-Midland Ry. Co. v. Trissal (Ind. App.) 543.

The giving and refusing of instructions held
harmless in view of the findings of the jury.-
Chicago, I. & E. Ry. Co. v. Linn (Ind. App.)

552.

In action under Burns' Rev. St. 1901. § 7083
(Horner's Rev. St. 1901, § 5206). for injuries to
a servant, the trial court's action in holding a
paragraph of a reply sufficient held harmless.-
Jarvis v. Hitch (Ind. App.) 608.

Where a demurrer to the first paragraph of
the complaint was erroneously overruled, and it

did not affirmatively appear on which para-
graph a judgment for plaintiff was based, the
judgment will be reversed, though the second
paragraph of the complaint was good.-Ohio
Farmers' Ins. Co. v. Vogel (Ind. App.) 1056.

In an action for the contract price of a pas-
senger elevator, the verdict of the jury in favor
of plaintiff held to render immaterial rejected
testimony as to damages sustained by his al-
leged breach of contract.-Morse, Williams &
Co. v. Puffer (Mass.) 804.

[blocks in formation]

A failure to discuss errors relied on held a
waiver. City of Greenfield v. Johnson (Ind.
App.) 542; Carroll v. New York, N. H. & H.
R. R. (Mass.) 69.

An objection to evidence held waived on appeal,
where the part of the record containing the objec-
tion thereto is not pointed out and the objection
is not argued.-Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Daeg-
ling (Ind. App.) 761.

An exception to the admission of evidence,
which is not argued, is deemed waived.-Bar-
rett v. Bruffee (Mass.) 44.

Exceptions not argued before the supreme
judicial court will be treated as waived.-Dolan
v. Mutual Reserve Fund Life Ass'n (Mass.)
798.

§ 23. - Decisions of intermediate

courts.

Where defendant submitted no propositions of
law to the trial court, and assigned no cross-
errors in the appellate court, no questions of
law are before the supreme court on appeal by
defendant to it.-Aachen & Munich Fire Ins.
Co. v. Crawford (Ill.) 134.

Where the appellate court reverses a judg-
ment on the facts, and recites its findings, they
are conclusive on the supreme court on appeal.
-Aachen & Munich Fire Ins. Co. v. Crawford
(Ill.) 134.

The appellate court's finding of fact is con-
clusive on the supreme court.-Union El. R. Co.
v. Nixon (Ill.) 314.

Findings of fact held to have been concerning
matters in controversy, so as to come under the
statute authorizing the appellate court to make
such findings.-Coverdale v. Royal Arcanum
(III.) 345.

Findings by the appellate court on a mixed
question of law and fact held binding on the
supreme court.-Coverdale v. Royal Arcanum
(Ill.) 345.

Whether a verdict is excessive is a question
of fact, as to which the parties are concluded
by the action of the trial and appellate courts.
-D. Sinclair Co. v. Waddill (Ill.) 437.

held entitled to review of prejudicial rulings be
low, though he assigned no error.-Iroquois
Furnace Co. v. Elphicke (Ill.) 784.

Judgment of modification by appellate divi-
sion, which is in effect a reversal, held to re-
quire a grant of a new trial.-Van Siclen v.
City of New York (N. Y.) 257.

Conclusions of law, found in support of de
able in court of appeals.-In re Killan's Estate
cree settling an intestate's estate, held review-
(N. Y.) 561.

Appeal to court of appeals dismissed when
questions of fact might be involved in decision
on the merits.-India Wharf Brewing Co. v.
Brooklyn Wharf & Warehouse Co. (N. Y.) 985.
§ 24. Subsequent appeals.

Decision on facts on first appeal held con-
clusive on second appeal; the evidence being in
legal effect the same.-Travers v. McElvain
(Ill.) 623.

§ 25. Determination and disposition of

cause.

Where the appellate court reversed a decree
vacating a former decree, as without jurisdic-
tion, it was not necessary that the cause be re-
manded.-Ernst Tosetti Brewing Co. v. Koeh-
ler (Ill.) 636.

Action of appellate court in rendering judg-
ment for plaintiff on reversal of judgment for
defendant held proper.-Iroquois Furnace Co.
v. Elphicke (Ill.) 784.

Where a case is appealed to the supreme
court on an objection to the constitutionality of
a statute, and the case is transferred to the ap-
pellate court, it will be presumed that the su-
preme court held the act constitutional.-Frank
Bird Transfer Co. v. Krug (Ind. App.) 309.

Instruction, though binding on jury, held not
binding on appellate court. Jarvis v. Hitch
(Ind. App.) 608.

APPLIANCES.

Liability of employer for defects, see "Master
and Servant," § 4.

APPOINTMENT.

Of executor or administrator, see "Executors
and Administrators," § 1.

ARBITRATION AND AWARD.

See "Reference."

ARCHITECTS.

Certificates as to performance of building con-
tract, see "Contracts," § 5.

ARGUMENT OF COUNSEL.

In an action on a life insurance policy, a find-
ing by the appellate court that there was a
waiver by defendant of a provision that default
in payment determined the policy by an agree-
ment that time of payment should be extended In civil actions, see "Trial," § 3.

is binding on the supreme court.-Etna Life In criminal prosecutions, see "Criminal Law," §
Ins. Co. v. Sanford (Ill.) 661.

[blocks in formation]

5.

[blocks in formation]

ARREST OF JUDGMENT.

In civil actions, see "Judgment," § 1.

ASSAULT AND BATTERY.

1. Civil liability.

Under the evidence in an action for personal
injuries, refusal to charge to find for defendant
on counts of the declaration charging an as-
sault held error.-Gilmore v. Fuller (Ill.) 84.

ASSESSMENT.

tained release of the corporation from their
claims.-Graves v. Morgan (Mass.) 50.

ASSISTANCE, WRIT OF.

In a suit to set aside a power of attorney and
a deed executed pursuant thereto, the court
cannot award to plaintiff a writ of assistance.-
Clay v. Hammond (Ill.) 352.

ASSOCIATIONS.

See "Building and Loan Associations."

Actions of an organization in amending its

of its rules, requiring a year's notice and a
report of a committee on any change in its
constitution. - Goulding v. Standish (Mass.)

Of compensation for property taken for public constitution held in compliance with article 30
use, see "Eminent Domain," § 3.
Of damages, see "Damages," § 3.
Of expenses of public improvements,
"Highways," § 3; "Municipal Corporations,"
$ 8.

Of loss on insured, see "Insurance," § 12.
Of tax, see "Taxation," § 4.

ASSETS.

see

803.

ASSUMPSIT, ACTION OF.

See "Use and Occupation."

Complaint in assumpsit on undertaker's bill
held to sufficiently allege implied promise to

Of estate of decedent, see "Executors and Ad- pay.-Cox v. Peltier (Ind. Sup.) 6.
ministrators," § 2.

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

Statutes relating to assignments of miners'
wages as class legislation, see "Constitutional
Law," 8 8.

Transfers of particular species of property,
rights, or instruments.

See "Judgment," § 7; "Mortgages," § 2.
Admeasurement or assignment of dower, see
"Dower," § 1.

Corporate shares, see "Corporations," § 3.
Insurance policy, see "Insurance," § 3.
§ 1. Actions.

Under Voluntary Assignment Act, §§ 1, 11,

12, 15, trausferee of claim belonging to estate
of assignor for benefit of creditors held entitled
to sue in assignor's name, on settlement of es-
tate.-Congress Const. Co. v. Farson & Libbey
Co. (Ill.) 357.

ASSIGNMENTS FOR BENEFIT OF
CREDITORS.

§ 1. Requisites and validity.
A deed from a grantor to a corporation, with-
held from record until the day he filed an as-
signment for the benefit of creditors, held void
as a preference.-Taylor v. Seiter (Ill.) 433.

§ 2. Administration of assigned estate.
Under the general assignment act (Laws
1877, c. 466), the court held to have had the
power on a summary application to set aside a
sale by the assignee of certain of the assigned
property. In re Sheldon (N. Y.) 1096.

ASSUMPTION.

Of risk by employé, see "Master and Servant,"
§ 8.

ATTACHMENT.

See "Execution."
Exemptions, see "Homestead."

1. Levy, lien, and custody and dis-
position of property.

Under Pub. St. c. 161, § 42, and chapter 199,
§ 6, held that an officer cannot recover for keep-
er's fees in attachment for a period beyond 10
days on an oral agreement with defendant to
pay the fees, in the absence of the written
agreement specified in the statute or an order of
court.-Leach v. Eastman (Mass.) 60; East-
man v. Leach, Id.

ATTORNEY AND CLIENT.

Argument and conduct of counsel at trial in
civil actions, see "Trial," § 3.

5.

Argument and conduct of counsel at trial in
criminal prosecutions, see "Criminal Law," §
Attorneys in fact, see "Principal and Agent."
Representation of corporation by attorney, see
"Corporations," § 5.

1. Compensation and lien of attor-

ney.

In an action to recover a retainer fee, at-
torneys held not required to prove that the
amount contracted to be paid was reasonable
and fair.-Union Surety & Guaranty Co. v.
Tenney (Ill.) 688.

A contract of complainant with its attorneys
as to fees held not to give them an interest pre-
venting its dismissing the suit without their
consent.-Cameron v. Boeger (Ill.) 690.

Contract with attorney as to percentage on an
award for land taken held to entitle him to a
percentage on the interest on such award.-
Bassford v. Johnson (N. Y.) 260.

AUTHORITY.

§ 3. Rights and remedies of creditors.
Creditors of a corporation held to have been
induced by fraud of their trustee to release the Of agent, see "Principal and Agent," §§ 1, 2.
debtor from claims, so that the release can be
rescinded.-Graves v. Morgan (Mass.) 50.

Bringing of petition to be admitted as plain-
tiffs to suit to enforce against the officers of a
-corporation their liability for its debts held suf-
ficient rescission of petitioners' fraudulently ob-

BAIL.

1. In criminal prosecutions.
In an action on a recognizance, a cross-com-
plaint, setting up the fact that the forfeiture

« PreviousContinue »