« PreviousContinue »
IMPAIRMENT OF OBLIGATIONS-INDICTMENT, INFORMATION, ETC.
L.R.A.1915D, 847, 174 S. W. 384, Mo., INDICTMENT, INFORMATION, AND
COMPLAINT. Wife's liabilities.
First objecting to sufficiency of indict. 2. A married woman who personally ap
ment for arson on appeal, see Ap. plies to a tradesman for the purchase of
peal and Error, 15. groceries, stating that she wishes to open Of woman transported in violation of an account in her own name, and directs the
white slave act for conspiracy to tradesman to charge the goods to her, is
violate laws of United States, see personally liable therefor, where, in pur
Criminal Law, 1. suance of this arrangement, the goods are delivered at her home and charged to her, manslaughter under a statute detining man.
1. An indictment of a physician for notwithstanding the legal obligation of the husband to support his wife and the fact slaughter in the second degree as homicide that the groceries are such as would be a "by any act, procurement, or culpable neg
committed without design to effect death, proper support to be provided by the hus ligence not constituting a higher crime, band for the family. Bell v. Rosingnol, need not allege knowledge on the defendant's L.R.A.1915D, 1184, 84 S. E. 542, - Ga.
part of probability of consequences from the
(Annotated) act or omission charged; nor is it necessary Conveyances to third persons.
to charge his duty in the premises, or set 3. Failure to name the wife in a contract apparently made by the husband alone, up a specific standard of duties, nor to to convey their joint property, does not, it allege "culpable” or any other degree of the instrument is properly executed by her, acts in any other than general terms and as
negligence eo nomine, nor set out defendant's prevent its binding her interest. Agar v.
ultimate facts. State v. Lester, L.R.A. Streeter, L.R.A.1915D, 196, 150 N. W. 160, 1915D, 201, 149 N. W. 297, 127 Minn, 282. Mich.
2. The failure of a complaint under a Actions by husband.
statute making the use of a false weight, 4. A father who is supporting the fami- measure, balance, or measuring device a ly may maintain an action for loss of the misdemeanor, to negative a proviso in the service of a minor child without joining the statute that a slight variation from the mother as a party plaintiff. Ackeret v.
stated weight, measure, or quantity for inMinneapolis, L.R.A.1915D, 1111, 151 N. W. dividual packages is permissible, provided 976, 129 Minn. 190.
the variation is as often above as below the 5. A man cannot, since the passage of weight, measure, or quantity stated, does the married woman's act, recover damages not render the complaint defective.
State against one who has negligently injured his
v. Belle Springs Creamery Co. L.R.A.1915D, wife, for loss of consortium. Blair v: Seit 515, 111 Pac. 474, 83 Kan. 389. ner Dry Goods Co. L.R.A.1915D, 524, 151 N.
3. A count in an indictment for vioW. 724, Mich.
lation of a statute against the use of false 6. A man cannot, because of his curtesy weights and measures, which charges that initiate, sue, without joining his wife in the accused did unlawfully "expose for the action, to recover possession of her real sale and sell and deliver” certain goods in estate, and to recover damages for timber violation of the statute, is not bad for du. cut therefrom, and rents and profits, where plicity. State v. Belle Springs Creamery she has conveyed the property without his Co. L.R.A.1915D, 515, 111 Pac. 474, 83 Kan. joining in the conveyance. Bryant v. Free
389. man, L.R.A.1915D, 996, 173 S. W. 863, 131
4. A count of an indictment under a Tenn. 87.
statute providing punishment for one who,
in attempting to effect a robbery, puts the IMPAIRMENT OF OBLIGATIONS. life of the custodian of the property in See Constitutional Law, 20. jeopardy by the use of a deadly weapon,
not duplicitous in charging an attempt to INCOMPETENT PERSONS.
commit robbery and the putting of the life Presumption and burden of proof, as to of the custodian of the property in jeopardy
sanity, see Evidence, 8, 9. As to married women, see Husband of the attempt.
by the use of a deadly weapon in the course
Price v. United States, and Wife. Negligence toward, see Trial, 5.
L.R.A.1915D, 1070, 218 Fed. 149, 131 C. C.
5. A complaint in an action for the vio. INDEBTEDNESS.
lation of a statute prescribing the weight Of city or town, see Municipal Corpo
for a “print or package” of butter, which rations, 13, 14.
charges the accused with having sold a
"print and package” of butter, is not inINDEFINITENESS.
definite and uncertain on the theory that Of indictment, see Indictment, etc., 5. it does not inform the accused whether it Of demand for autopsy by insurance was a print or package, where the legislacompany, see Insurance, 18.
ture used the words "print” and “package”
synonymously. State Belle Springs INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS, Creamery Co. L.R.A.1915D, 515, 111 Pac.
Who are, see Master and Servant, 10.474, 83 Kan. 389.
INSURANCE. Of bill or note, see Bills and Notes, 2, Parol evidence to show misdescription 3.
of land in insurance policy, see
Evidence, 23. INFANTS.
Sufficiency of proof in action on policy Action by father for loss of services of
against loss by theft, see Evidence, minor child, see Husband and Wife,
Sufficiency of evidence in insurance acNegligence towards, see Municipal Cor
tions, see Evidence, 47. porations, 15, 16; Negligence, 2-4.
Right and manner of doing business.
1. A contract by an individual engaged INFLAMMABLE SUBSTANCES. Effect of use of, on insurance, see In- burial in consideration of payment of inter
in the undertaking business, to furnish surance, 11, 14.
est during life on notes of varying amounts Storage of, in garage, see Municipal Corporations, 11.
according to age and service to be rendered,
is within the operation of the statute gove INHERITANCE TAX.
erning the transaction of insurance business. See Taxes, 4-6.
Renschler v. State ex rel. Hogan, L.R.A. 1915D, 501, 107 N. E. 758, Ohio St.
2. The fact that a life insurance comINITIALS. Mistake in middle initial of name, see
pany collected money to meet its obligaAbstracts.
tions by so-called annual dues, instead of Signature of will by, see Wills, 3.
by premiums, does not conclusively make it
a mutual association or a fraternal benefit INJUNCTION.
association, and not an old line life insurPrivate action to restrain obstruction L.R.A.1915D, 130, 137 Pac. 793, 91 Kan. 220.
ance company. Filley v. Illinois L. Ins. Co. of highway, see Highways, 1.
Constitution, rules, and by-laws. Right to jury trial, see Jury, 2. Joinder of parties plaintiff, see Parties, contract between a fraternal beneficiary as
3. Under a provision in an insurance 8.
sociation and its members that the insured 1. While equity will not ordinarily en- shall be bound by the laws of the order then join a criminal prosecution, yet, where re- in force or thereafter enacted, a provision peated prosecutions are threatened under a that if the insured commits suicide, sane or void municipal ordinance, and the effect of insane, within two years, the association such prosecutions would tend to injure or should be liable for only one fifth the destroy the property of the person so pros- amount of the benefit certificate, may be ecuted, or deprive him of the legitimate changed so as to render the suicide provision enjoyment of his property, equity will enter effective for a period of five years, and such tain a suit to inquire into the validity of provision so changed is binding upon a the ordinance, and enjoin its enforcement. member who commits suicide while sane, Carey v. Atlanta, L.R.A.1915D, 684, 84 S. and upon those claiming under his benefit E. 456, Ga.
certificate. Ledy v. National Council of K. 2. Ordinarily a court will not enjoin & L. of S. L.R.A.1915D, 1095, 151 N. W. the prosecution of a criminal proceeding, 905, 129 Minn. 137.
(Annotated) but the remedy of injunction may be ein- Reformation. ployed to protect personal and property Reformation of policy and enforcement rights, although it may operate incidentally
thereof in one action, see Action to restrain a prosecution under an invalid
or Suit, 3. ordinance. Brown v. Nichols, L.R.A.1915D,
4. It is not necessary for an insured to 327, 145 Pac. 561, 93 Kan. 737.
3. Admission that Greek letter fraterni- bring a suit in equity to reform a policy ties are moral agents will not sustain an
containing a misdescription of land
which crops insured against hail are growinjunction against trustees of a state in ing, where such misdescription is due solely stitution to prevent their exclusion there
to the error of the agent of the insurance from, if their existence is prohibited by statute. University of Mississippi v. Waugh, such insurance, but the insured may, by
company in preparing the application for L.R.A.1915D, 588, 62 So. 827, 105 Miss. 623. setting forth the facts relating to the mis
4. Injunction lies to prevent the de- take in his complaint, bring an action at struction of buildings under a void munici- law thereon in the first instance. French v. pal ordinance. Hays v. Poplar Bluff, L.R.A. State Farmers' Hail Ins. Co. L.R.A.1915D, 1915D, 595, 173 S. W. 676, Mo.
766, 151 N. W. 7, 29 N. D. 426.
Cancelation; paid-up policy.
5. A provision in a life insurance policy
that should the insured reach a certain age INSPECTION.
and so desire he could then surrender such Of books of corporation, see Corpo- policy and receive back his payments with rations, 7, 7a, 24.
interest is a condition subsequent not im
pairing the vested interest of the beneficiary INSTRUCTIONS.
unless and until the insured reaches the In general, see Trial, 9-13.
designated age and chooses to surrender the
policy. Filley v. Illinois L. Ins. Co., mobile from one garage, where it was in. L.R.A.1915D, 130, 137 Pac. 793, 91 Kan. sured, to another, is not such an imma220.
terial breach of warranty that the policy Construction of policy generally.
will not be avoided thereby. Lummus v. 6. A policy of insurance on a farm barn Firemen's Fund Ins. Co. L.R.A.1915D, 239, will be held, in the absence of express lan- | 83 S. E. 688, 167 N. C. 654. guage to the contrary, to cover it during 14. The use by a farmer of a gasolene the ordinary uses to which it is put, such engine in his barn as part of an outfit for as the annual threshing of the grain gath-threshing his grain is not within the operaered into it in the customary way. Bouch- tion of a provision in a policy of insurance ard v. Dirigo Vut. F. Ins. Co. L.R.A.1915D, on the property making it void if burning 187, 92 Atl. 899, Me.
fluids are kept or used by the insured on 7. If an accident insurance policy is so the premises. Bouchard v. Dirigo Mut. F. drawn as to require interpretation, and to Ins. Co. L.R.A.1915D, 187, 92 Atl. 899, be fairly susceptible of two different con
Me. structions, the one will be adopted that is 15. A policy insuring for a single premost favorable to the insured. Union Acci- mium specified sums on the dwellings on a dent Co. v. Willis, L.R.A.1915D, 358, 145 farm and its barns, sheds, furniture, prod. Pac. 812, Okla.
ucts, equipment on the premises, and live Warranties; representations; condi- stock anywhere in certain specified counties, tions.
is divisible, and the insurance on the per8. A bill of sale of chattels to secure sonalty is not avoided by breach of war. money advanced to pay the purchase price ranty as to condition of chimneys on the is not a violation of a condition in an in- dwellings and the placing of an surance poliey on the property that it shall brance on the realty without authority, exbe void if the interest of the insured is cept so far as it is contained in the buildother than unconditional and sole owner- ings as to which the risk is increased. ship. Petello v. Teutonia F. Ins. Co. L.R.A. Benham v. Farmers' Mut. F. Ins. Co. L.R.A. 1915D, 812, 93 Atl. 137, 89 Conn. 175. 1915D, 736, 131 N. W. 87, 165 Mich. 406.
(Annotated) 16. Where a policy of accident insurance 9. A bill of sale of chattels to secure gives to the insurer the right, in case of money advanced to pay for them is not, death, to an autopsy by a medical adviser, although recorded, within the operation of and the policy holder suffers death claimed a provision in an insurance policy rendering to be accidental, his widow, who is sole it void if the property becomes encumbered beneficiary, is the proper person upon whom by a chattel mortgage. Petello v. Teutonia to make a demand for an autopsy. JohnF. Ins. Co. L.R.A.1915D, 812, 93 Atl. 137, son v. Bankers' Mutual Casualty Ins. Co. 89 Conn. 175.
L.R.A.1915D1199, 151 N. W. 413, 129 10. The inclusion in a deed of trust of Minn. 18. personal property, of an automobile insured 17. It is not necessary that a demand by a policy providing that it shall become for an autopsy to which an accident insurvoid if the property becomes encumbered, ance company is entitled under the terms will not prevent recovery on the policy if of its policy in case of death of the insured the deed of trust is only temporary, and is be made upon the proper person in person, satisfied and canceled before the loss, and so long as it is communicated to him. is not material to the risk, or fraudulent. Johnson v. Bankers' Mut. Casualty Ins. Co. Cottingham 1. Maryland Motor Car Ins. L.R.A.1915D, 1199, 151 N. W. 413, 129 Co. L.R.A.1915D, 344, 84 S. E. 274, – X. Vinn. 18. C.
18. A demand for an autopsy under the 11. The mere temporary use in an in terms of an accident insurance policy, to be sured barn of a gasolene engine to thresh effective, must be made within a reasonable grain is not within a provision in the policy time after death, and at a reasonable time making it void if the situation or circum- and upon a proper occasion, and when made stances affecting the risk shall be so altered upon the widow of the insured between his as to cause an increase of the risk. Bouch | death and burial, the language should leave ard v. Dirigo Mut. F. Ins. Co. L.R.A.1915D, nothing to intendment, but should be free 187, 92 Atl. 899, Me. (Annotated) from doubt and ambiguity. Johnson v.
12. A policy on an automobile to be kept | Bankers' Mut. Casualty Ins. Co. L.R.A. in a specified private garage with the privi- | 1915D, 1199, 151 N. W. 413, 129 Minn. 18. lege of operating the car and housing it
(Annotated) temporarily in other places while en route 19. A demand for an autopsy as proor being cleaned or repaired, which has vided in an accident insurance policy was been suspended by the permanent removal not made at a reasonable time or upon a of the car to another state, is not restored proper occasion, and its refusal does not by temporarily placing the car in a repair defeat the right of action under the policy, shop without returning it to the place speci- where the demand was made by the claim fied in the policy, so as to render the in auditor of the company about three hours surer liable for its destruction while in such before the time set for the funeral of the shop. Lummus v. Firemen's Fund Ins. Co. insured, and when friends were beginning to L.R.A.1915D, 239, 83 S. E. 688, 167 N. C. arrive from a distance and the body was 654.
( Annotated) being prepared for burial, and when the 13. The permanent removal of an auto-' demand was a present demand calling for
present compliance or refusal, and the med- / ing the removal of all the bones of the ical adviser whom the auditor had in mind fingers at the wrist, leaving only flesh to perform the autopsy was many miles enough to protect the bones remaining and away, so that compliance with the demand the thumb in a stiffened and useless conwould have caused a delay in the funeral, dition. Moore v. Ætna L. Ins. Co. L.R.A. the extent of which cannot be determined, 1915D, 264, 146 Pac. 151, - Or. and when the laim auditor had been within
(Annotated) 2 miles of the place of demand investigating Interest in proceeds. the cause and death since the day before. 25. The rights of a beneficiary in an Johnson v. Bankers' Mut. Casualty Ins. Co. ordinary life insurance policy become vested L.R.A.1915D, 1199, 151 N. W. 413, 129 upon the issuance of the policy, and can Minn, 18.
thereafter during the life of the beneficiary Waiver or estoppel.
be defeated only as provided by the terms Waiver as question for jury, see Trial, of the policy. Filley v. Illinois L. Ins. Co. 7.
L.R.A.1915D, 130, 137 Pac. 793, 91 Kan. 20. Error of an insurance agent in mak- 220. ing out an application, notwithstanding the 26. Whether a policy of life insurance facts are truthfully stated to him by the or a benefit policy issued to one for the applicant for insurance, is chargeable to the benefit of another vests a present interest insurer, and not to the insured. French v. in the beneficiary depends, not upon the State Farmers' Hail Ins. Co. L.R.A.1915D, name or nature of the company, but on the 766, 151 N. W. 7, 29 N. D. 426.
terms of the policy, the existing statutes, 21. Failure to give notice of claim within and the by-laws, if any, by which such the time stipulated in the policy is waived, company and its policy holders are bound; where, in response to the notice, the com- and when such policy is issued to a member pany denies liability wholly on another for the benefit of a proper beneficiary, then, ground. Johnson v. Bankers' Mut. Casualty in the absence of some statute, bv-law, Ins. Co. L.R.A.1915D, 1199, 151 N. W. 413, or contract to the contrary, the beneficiary 129 Minn. 18.
thereby becomes vested with an interest Risks and causes of loss, injury, or which cannot be destroyed at the wi" of death.
the insured. Filley v. Illinois L. Ins. Co. Presumption as to cause of death of L.R.A.1915D, 130, 137 Pac. 793, 91 Kan. insured, see Evidence, 12.
220. 22. A policy of insurance which pro- 27. The benefit aceruing from a policy of vides that indemnity shall not be payable life insurance in an old line company, upon for injuries, fatal or otherwise, intentionally the life of a married man payable upon inflicted upon
the insured by himself or his death to his wife, naming her, is paysome other person, does not exclude a re able to the surviving beneficiary named, covery where the insured dies from a frac.j although she may have several years thereture of the skull caused by a fall on a hard after secured a divorce from her husband pavement, the result of a blow in the face and he was thereafter married to another, struck by the fist of another, where the who sustained the relation of wife to him blow, but not the fatal result, was inten- at the time of his death, where the intionally inflicted. Union Accident Co. v. sured continued to pay all sums required Willis, L.R.A.1915D, 358, 145 Pac. 812, by the terms of the policy after the diOkla.
vorce and remarriage up to his death with 23. One insured against accident as "pro- no attempt to change the policy or the prietor" of a trucking business, “no manual beneficiary, and where there is nothing to labor," does not, by undertaking to operate indicate that the insured at the time the an elevator after working hours when the policy was taken out contemplated a diregular operator has gone home, in order vorce from his then wife, or that he was to upload some trucks engaged in moving contemplating any protection to anyone his business from one location to another, who might thereafter become his wife and bring himself, as matter of law, within a maintain that relation at the uncertain clause in the policy making the amount re- time of his death. Filley v. Illinois L. Ins. coverable in case of injury while insured is Co. L.R.A.1915D, 130, 137 Pac. 793, 91 Kan. doing any act or thing pertaining to any 220.
(Annotated) more hazardous occupation such portion of
INTENT. the face of the policy as could be pur
Presumption and burden of proof as to, chased by the premium paid at the rate
see Evidence, 10. fixed for such occupaton, although the oc
Evidence as to, generally, see Evicupation of elevator operator is classed as
dence, 33. more hazardous than the proprietorship of such business, but the question of the
Question for jury as to, see Trial, 3. casual or habitual character of the act is INTENTIONAL INJURY. for the jury. Gotfredson v. German Com
To insured, see Insurance, 22. mercial Acci. Co. L.R.A.1915D, 312, 218 Fed. 582, C. C. A.
(Annotated) INTEREST. Extent of injury or loss.
Effect of uncertainty as rate of 24. A policy providing compensation for
interest on negotiability of note, accidental loss of hand by removal at or
see Bills and Notes, 1. above the wrist covers an accident requir- Usurious interest, see Usury.
davit was not filed within the time speci. Consideration of, on appeal, see Appeal fied by statute. Dibbert v. Metropolitan and Error, 8.
Invest. Co. L.R.A.1915D, 305, 147 N. W. 3,
158 Wis. 69. INTOXICATING LIQUORS. Prohibition and regulation.
JUDGMENT. Equal protection and privileges as to, On appeal, see Appeal and Error, 27see Constitutional Law, 6.
29. Due process in, see Constitutional Law, Waiver of error by motion for judg. 15.
ment notwithstanding verdict, see Title of statute, see Statutes, 5.
Appeal and Error, 17. 1. A statute making it unlawful to In contempt proceeding, see Contempt, keep, store, or possess any intoxicating
7. liquors in any place other than a private validity; effect and conclusiveness. residence will not be limited to a keeping for sale, where other provisions relate to a
Conclusiveness of act of administrator keeping for such purpose.
Com. v. Smith,
in allowing or rejecting claim, see
Executors and Administrators, 3. L.R.A.1915D, 172, 173 S. W. 340, - Ky.
1. A voluntary nonsuit is not res judiUnlawful sales; offenses and proceed
cata. Starling v. Selma Cotton Mills, ings. Search of premises for intoxicating
L.R.A.19150, 850, 84 S. E. 388, 168 N. C.
229. liquors, see Appeal and Error, 13.
2. The usurious character of a debt 2. One having possession of intoxicat. ing liquor to be delivered to carriers for secured by a mortgage which had been foreshipment to other states upon receipt of closed and sale held cannot be raised in the price is within the operation of a stat. against a subsequent mortgagee who, with
an action by the mortgagors to quiet title ute providing for punishment of one who out knowledge of the usury, redeemed from has such liquors in possession for purpose the prior mortgagees, who had purchased of sale. Frogg v. Com. L.R.A.1915D, 330, 173 S. W. 383, Ку.
at their foreclosure sale, and received a
sheriff's deed to the premises. Heitsch v IRRIGATION.
Minneapolis Threshing Mach. Co. L.R.A. Liability of irrigation company for fail- 1915D, 349, 150 N. W. 457, 29 N. D. 94. ure to deliver water to stockholder,
Foreign judgments. see Corporations, 13. Damages for injury to crop by failure
3. A decree in one state distributing to furnish water for, see Damages, ciled in another state, and discharging the
the estate of the decedent who died domi6. Who may maintain action for negligent
administrator after finding that all claims failure to maintain irrigation
which had been presented against the estate ditch, see Parties, 2.
had been paid, is not conclusive that all Jurisdiction of Railway Commission existing elaims were presented so that,
over question of ownership of ir- under the full faith and credit clause of the rigation canal, see Public Service Federal Constitution, claims for inheritance Commissions, 1.
taxes upon the estate so distributed cannot Use of water for, generally, see Waters, be allowed against the executor by the 2, 3.
courts of testator's domicil, where, under Regulation of rates of irrigation com
the law of the former state, inheritance pany, see Waters, 4-6.
taxes are not expenses of administration or charges upon the general estate, although
the administrator is permitted to retain JERK. Injury to passenger by, see Carriers,
sufficient funds to pay the local inheritance 2-4.
People v. Union Trust Co. L.R.A. 1915D, 450, 99 N. E. 377, 255 Ill. 168.
Relief against. JOINDER.
As to new trial, see New Trial. Of causes of action, see Action or Suit,
4. The remedy of one against whom a 3. Of parties plaintiff, see Parties, 8.
judgment has been entered by a justice of
the peace without service of summons is by JOINT DEPOSIT.
motion before the justice to set aside the In bank, see Banks, 2.
judgment. S. Lowman & Co. v. Ballard,
L.R.A.1915D, 427, 84 S. E. 21, N. C. JOLT.
JUDICIAL EXAMINATION. Injury to passenger by, see Carriers,
Of statute, see Statutes, 3, 4. 2-4.
JUDICIAL NOTICE. JUDGES.
See Evidence, 1-3. There is no error in one of several judges of a trial court having co-ordinate JUDICIAL SALE. jurisdiction calling in another judge to try Sale of decedent's land for debts, see case after an affidavit of prejudice had
Executors and Administrators, 8been filed against himself, although the affi