Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Cited in footnotes to Laugel v. Bushnell, 58 L. R. A. 266, which sustains ordinance declaring places where hop ale, hop and malt mead and cider sold, nuisances; Landry v. New Iberia, 56 L. R. A. 285, which denies city's power to arbitrarily declare particular licensed saloon a nuisance.

Evidence of prejudice on motion for removal.

Cited in State v. Rodway, 1 S. D. 576, 47 N. W. 1061, holding bare statement of judge's prejudice in affidavit on application for removal, insufficient to make same appear to "satisfaction of court;" Cox v. United States, 5 Okla. 708, 50 Pac. 175, holding statement of facts and circumstances showing prejudice essential to sufficiency of affidavit.

Cited in note (11 L. R. A. 571) on affidavit for removal of cause for prejudice or local influence.

10 L. R. A. 439, KOHN v. MILCHER, 43 Fed. 641.

State regulation of sales in original packages.

Cited in footnotes to Re Gooch, 10 L. R. A. 830, which holds state cannot prohibit sale of oleomargarine as imported from other state; Com. v. Zelt, 11 L. R. A. 602, which holds state may make sale of liquor in original packages to intemperate person, a criminal offense.

Cited in note (12 L. R. A. 624) on imports in original package subject to state police power.

Conflict of laws.

Cited in note (61 L. R. A. 432) on conflict of laws as to sales of intoxicating liquors.

10 L. R. A. 442, COM. v. GAGNE, 153 Mass. 205, 26 N. E. 449.

Construction of statutes.

Cited in People ex rel. Akin v. Butler Street Foundry & I. Co. 201 Ill. 249, 66 N. E. 349, construing anti-trust act to refer only to combines, etc., formed within state; State v. Smiley, 65 Kan. 248, 69 Pac. 199, upholding anti-trust statute so general in terms as to be capable of unreasonable construction; Com. v. Petranich, 183 Mass. 220, 66 N. E. 807, holding invalidity of part of statute not affect balance as to sale of liquor without license.

Distinguished in White v. Gove, 183 Mass. 338, 67 N. E. 359, declaring void, Stat. 1892, c. 402, providing for sewer assessments in Boston.

Regulating commerce.

Cited in State v. Rocky Mountain Bell Teleph. Co. 27 Mont. 402, 71 Pac. 311, upholding statute imposing license on company "doing business in state," as taxing only those engaged in business within state; Com. v. Huntley, 156 Mass. 252, 15 L. R. A. 847, 30 N. E. 1127 (dissenting opinion) majority sustaining statute prohibiting sale of oleomargarine in imitation of butter though in original package.

"Original package."

Cited in Carstairs v. O'Donnell, 154 Mass. 358, 28 N. E. 271, holding nonresident unlicensed vendor of liquor entitled to recover contract price from vendee,

330

L. R. A. CASES AS AUTHORITIES.

[10 L. R. A. where delivered in original package; State v. Lord, 66 N. H. 480, 29 Atl. 556, holding re-enactment of state statute after passage of Wilson bill unnecessary to bring "original packages" within its scope.

Cited in footnote to Com. v. Zelt, 11 L. R. A. 602, which holds state may make sale of liquor in original packages to intemperate person, a criminal offense. Form of indictment.

Cited in Com. v. Gay, 153 Mass. 214, 26 N. E. 571, upholding complaint charging generally maintenance of place for illegal sale of liquor; Com. v. Rozen, 176 Mass. 132, 57 N. E. 223, upholding conviction where evidence in rebuttal of possible defense not offered in establishment of prima facie case.

10 L. R. A. 444, Re RAHRER, 43 Fed. 556.

Effect of Wilson law on prior legislation.

Cited in footnotes to Re Spickler, 10 L. R. A. 446, and Re Van Vliet, 10 L. R. A. 451, which holds it unnecessary to re-enact state prohibitory law after passage of Wilson bill.

Cited in note (10 L. R. A. 617) on legislative remedy as to importations of intoxicating liquors.

Disapproved in State ex rel. Bartlett v. Fraser, 1 N. D. 432, 3 Inters. Com. Rep. 581, 48 N. W. 343, holding all sales of intoxicating liquor in violation of local statutes unlawful.

State regulation of liquor traffic.

Cited in footnote to Com. v. Zelt, 11 L. R. A. 602, which holds state may make sale of liquor in original packages to intemperate person, a criminal offense.

10 L. R. A. 446, Re SPICKLER, 43 Fed. 653.

Effect of Wilson bill on state police laws.

Cited in State v. Rhodes, 90 Iowa, 501, 24 L. R. A. 246, 58 N. W. 887, holding liquor in original packages subject to state police legislation on arrival within jurisdiction; State ex rel. Bartlett v. Fraser, 1 N. D. 433, 3 Inters. Com. Rep. 581, 48 N. W. 343, holding sales of liquor in original package, violation of state law.

Cited in footnotes to Re Rahrer, 10 L. R. A. 444, which holds that void state prohibitory law is not made effective by Wilson bill; Re Van Vliet, 10 L. R. A. 451, which holds it unnecessary to re-enact state prohibitory law after passage of Wilson bill; Com v. Zelt, 11 L. R. A. 602, which holds that state may make sale of liquor in original packages to intemperate persons, a criminal offense. Cited in notes (10 L. R. A. 616) on legislative remedy for importations of intoxicating liquors; (12 L. R. A. 624) on imports in original package subject to state police power.

Habeas corpus.

Cited in Re Flinn, 57 Fed. 500, and Re May, 82 Fed. 427, refusing habeas corpus where constitutionality of law under which conviction found not finally determined by regular procedure.

Cited in notes (10 L. R. A. 617) on jurisdiction of United States courts; by habeas corpus; (39 L. R. A. 455) on conviction for violating unconstitutional statute or ordinance.

10 L. R. A. 451 Re VAN VLIET, 43 Fed. 761.

Effect of Wilson Bill on police laws.

Cited in State v. Rhodes, 90 Iowa, 501, 24 L. R. A. 246, 58 N. W. 887, holding liquor in original packages subject to state police legislation on arrival within jurisdiction; Ex parte Jervey, 66 Fed. 961, holding liquors brought into port, but not unloaded, not subject to state police laws; Re Langford, 4 Inters. Com. Rep. 439, 57 Fed. 572, holding South Carolina dispensary act unconstitutional for discrimination against employees of certain class of common carriers in removal of liquor from cars.

Cited in footnotes to Re Spickler, 10 L. R. A. 446, which holds it unnecessary to re-enact state prohibitory law after passage of Wilson bill; Re Rahrer, 10 L. R. A. 444, which holds void state prohibitory law not made effective by Wilson bill; Burrows v. Delta Transp. Co. 29 L. R. A. 468, which sustains validity of state statute requiring fire screens on vessels burning wood.

Cited in notes (10 L. R. A. 616) on interstate commerce importations of intoxicating liquors; sale by importer; (12 L. R. A. 624) on imports in original package subject to state police power.

“Original packages."

Cited in footnote to Com. v. Zelt, 11 L. R. A. 602, which holds state may make sale of liquor in original packages to intemperate person, a criminal offense.

10 L. R. A. 454, BEEKMAN v. HAMLIN, 19 Or. 383, 20 Am. St. Rep. 827, 24 Pac. 195.

10 L. R. A. 459, BANKS v. FLINT, 54 Ark. 40, 14 S. W. 769, 16 S. W. 477. Usury.

Cited in Brown v. Archer, 62 Mo. App. 288, holding loan usurious where obtained by lender's manager receiving salary through commissions, though lender not aware of their amount; Payne v. Henderson, 106 Ky. 138, 50 S. W. 34, holding loan at 7 per cent, broker who effects loan receiving amount in excess of legal rate, usurious; Lanier v. Union Mortg. & T. Co. 64 Ark. 58, 40 S. W. 466 (dissenting opinion) on point that transaction is usurious where one who is really the lender's agent retains 20 per cent of amount of loan for his services though contract signed recites that he is borrower's agent.

Cited in footnote to Clarke v. Havard, 51 L. R. A. 499, which holds usurious, commission paid by borrower to lender's agent.

Cited in note (41 L. R. A. 711) on effect of preferring usurious debt in assignment for creditors.

Distinguished in Holt v. Kirby, 57 Ark. 255, 21 S. W. 432, holding loan not rendered usurious by commission paid to broker acting as borrower's agent, though title examined, papers prepared, and loan advised to lender, by him; May v. Flint, 54 Ark. 574, 16 S. W. 575, upholding mortgage where commission, relied upon to defeat validity, exacted by broker from borrower without cooperation of lender; Sherwood v. Haney, 63 Ark. 250, 38 S. W. 15, upholding

332

L. R. A. CASES AS AUTHORITIES.

[10 L. R. A. mortgage loan in absence of proof of excessive interest to lender or bonus to agent with his knowledge and consent; Scruggs v. Scottish Mortg. Co. 54 Ark. 569, 16 S. W. 563, upholding loan at highest rate, where additional commission to subagent charged without lender's knowledge; Sherwood v. Wilkins, 65 Ark. 315, 45 S. W. 988, holding commission of 20 per cent paid by borrower to agent without lender's knowledge or consent does not render loan usurious; Ellenbogen v. Griffey, 55 Ark. 272, 18 S. W. 126, holding agreement for sale with deferred payment of purchase price with interest and fees, not affected with usury.

Determination of relationship of parties.

Cited in McLean v. Ficke, 94 Iowa, 290, 62 N. W. 753, holding declaration of written application that agent acted for borrower ineffective to establish relation where circumstances show contrary.

10 L. R. A. 464, CHASE v. WESTERN U. TELEG. CO. 44 Fed. 554. Damages for mental pain and anguish.

Cited in Crawson v. Western U. Teleg. Co. 47 Fed. 546; Kester v. Western U. Teleg Co. 55 Fed. 604; Western U. Teleg. Co. v. Wood, 21 L. R. A. 712, 6 C. C. A. 435, 13 U. S. App. 317, 57 Fed. 478; Chapman v. Western U. Teleg. Co. $8 Ga. 767, 17 L. R. A. 431, 30 Am. St. Rep. 183, 15 S. E. 901; Western U. Teleg. Co. v. Ferguson, 157 Ind. 76, 54 L. R. A. 850, 60 N. E. 674; Newman v. Western U. Teleg. Co. 54 Mo. App. 443; Butner v. Western U. Teleg. Co. 2 Okla. 238, 4 Inters. Com. Rep. 771, 37 Pac. 1087; Lewis v. Western U. Teleg. Co. 57 S. C. 330, 35 S. E. 556; Connelly v. Western U. Teleg. Co. 100 Va. 59, 56 L. R. A. 667, 93 Am. St. Rep. 919, 40 S. E. 618; Peay v. Western U. Teleg. Co. 64 Ark. 546, 39 L. R. A. 467, 43 S. W. 965; Western U. Teleg. Co. v. Sklar, 61 C. C. A. 283, 126 Fed. 297,- disallowing same where caused by negligent delay in transmission of telegram; International Ocean Teleg. Co. v. Saunders, 32 Fla. 447, 21 L. R. A. 815, 14 So. 148, allowing only nominal damages for mental suffering due to failure to promptly send telegram; Connell v. Western U. Teleg. Co. 116 Mo. 50, 20 L. R. A. 178, 38 Am. St. Rep. 575, 22 S. W. 345, refusing to allow same for negligent delay in transmission of message, though result apparent from contents.

10 L. R. A. 465, GETTY v. PETERS, 82 Mich. 661, 46 N. W. 1036. Forfeitures.

Cited in notes (12 L. R. A. 240) on effect of forfeiture clause in contract on right to specific performance; (30 L. R. A. 62) on right to rescind or abandon contract because of other party's fault.

10 L. R. A. 468, TASKER v. STANLEY, 153 Mass. 148, 26 N. E. 417. Liability for act causing injury.

Cited in Niven v. Boland, 177 Mass. 14, 52 L. R. A. 788, 58 N. E. 282, holding examining physicians not liable for injury caused by their good-faith statutory certificate to party's inebriacy; Graves v. Johnson, 156 Mass. 213, 15 L. R. A. 838, 32 Am. St. Rep. 446, 30 N. E. 818, holding vendor of liquor with knowledge of vendee's intention to effect unlawful resale, cannot recover purchase price; Hayes v. Hyde Park, 153 Mass. 516, 12 L. R. A. 250, 27 N. E. 522, holding city

liable for injury caused by wire negligently hanging in highway, though it would not have occurred but for unintentional act of driver of another wagon; Corey v. Eastman, 166 Mass. 287, 55 Am. St. Rep. 401, 44 N. E. 217, holding architect liable for negligent over-estimates of work by builder where employer bases payments thereon; Passaic Print Works v. Ely & W. Dry Goods Co. 62 L. R. A. 699, 44 C. C. A. 433, 105 Fed. 171 (dissenting opinion) majority denying merchant's liability to manufacturer by sending circulars to retail trade offering what he has of product at cut rate prices.

Action for injury caused by persuasion.

Cited in Plant v. Woods, 176 Mass. 500, 51 L. R. A. 343, 79 Am. St. Rep. 330, 57 N. E. 1011, enjoining labor union from persuasion, accompanied by threats of injury to business, in regard to employment of nonunion labor; Vegelahn v. Guntner, 167 Mass. 105, 35 L. R. A. 726, 57 Am. St. Rep. 443, 44 N. E. 1077 (dissenting opinion), majority enjoining maintainance of patrol interfering with business by persuasion, even where unaccompanied by threats of personal injury; Moran v. Dunphy, 177 Mass. 487, 52 L. R. A. 116, 83 Am. St. Rep. 289, 59 N. E. 125, sustaining action for maliciously and without justifiable cause persuading another to end his employment; Gernerd v. Gernerd, 185 Pa. 237, 40 L. R. A. 550, 64 Am. St. Rep. 646, 39 Atl. 884, sustaining judgment by wife against husband's father for maliciously persuading him to leave her; Oakman v. Belden, 94 Me. 283, 80 Am. St. Rep. 396, 47 Atl. 553, holding parents not liable to husband for inducing separation of wife where arguments were based upon reasonable though mistaken grounds of belief; Mey v. Wood, 172 Mass. 15, 51 N. E. 191 (dissenting opinion), majority holding statements alleged to be false and malicious must be set out in action for damages for inducing party to discharge

servant.

Cited in footnotes to Houghton v. Rice, 47 L. R. A. 311, which denies right of action against other woman for alienating husband's affections, unaccompanied by adultery; Tucker v. Tucker, 32 L. R. A. 623, which holds parent not liable for advising son to separate from wife.

Cited in note (11 L. R. A. 548) as to when inducements to violate obligations are not actionable.

10 L. R. A. 469, DARLING v. BUTLER, 45 Fed. 332.

Validity of transfer by oral agreement.

Cited in Tynan v. Warren, 53 N. J. Eq. 320, 31 Atl. 596, holding title to trust interest not acquired by holder of legal title, through oral agreement of relinquishment.

Delivery in escrow.

Cited in Dyer v. Skadan, 128 Mich. 354, 93 Am. St. Rep. 461, 87 N. W. 277, upholding conveyance by wife to husband by deed delivered to him for record only in case of his survivorship, where no control over instrument reserved.

Cited in footnotes to Martin v. Flaharty, 19 L. R. A. 243, which holds manual delivery of deed not essential; Carter v. Moulton, 20 L. R. A. 309, which holds delivery of note to one joint maker not an escrow.

Cited in note (12 L. R. A. 175) on delivery of deed in escrow.

« AnteriorContinuar »