« AnteriorContinuar »
REPORTED, NOTED, ABSTRACTED AND DIGESTED.
Adarson v. Paterson.. Alexander y. McNear. Allen v. O'Donald Anglo Californa Bank v. Ames Application of Thirty-fourth street Ry, Co., In re. Archer v. State Arniel v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. Arnold v. Greene.. Aronson v. Fleckenstein. Atkins v. Sherbine.. Avery v. Creigh... Bains v. Syracuse, etc., R. C... Ballis v. Drake.. Baltimore & Y. Turnpike Co. v. Leonhardt. Bank for Savings in the City of New York v. Grace. Bank of America v. Shaw. Barber v. Abendroth.. Barnett v. Mayor, etc., of Paterson Barth v. Lines Bartholomew v. New York Cent. R. Co. Beadleston v. Beadleston Beardsley v. Selectmen of Bridgeport Beason y. Kurz. Beckett, In re Will of. Belden v. State Belleville Savings Bank v. Boruman Belter v. Lyon. Bentley v. Lamb. Best v. Flint.. Biddle v. Hestonville, In. & F. P. Ry. Co Bigelow Wire Works v. Sonel Binzel v. Grogan Blackburne v. Vigors.. Blair v. Chicago & A. Ry. Co. Blake v. Baldwin Bomberger v. Union Mutual Aid Society Borough of Carlisle v. Brisbane. Boston Rubber Co. v. Peerless Wringer Co. Bowen v. Webber Boyd v. Meigham. Brennan v. Merchants and Manufacturer's Bank Bridge v. City of Oshkosh. Bristol v. Bristol. Bristol Manf'g. Co. v. Barnes Bromley, Re. Bronson v. Estate of Phelps.. Brown v. Mausur. Brown v. Mansus. Brown v. Spaulding Brown v. Weaver Brock v. Dole. Brundage v. Village of Portchester. Bullard v. Boston and Maine Railroad. Butiz v. Northern Pacific R. Co.. Bunch v. Great Western Ry. Co. Burchett v. Commonwealth. Burns v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co Burr v. De La Vergne.. Burton v. Burton
Page. 373 Cogswell v. New York, New Haven and Hartford Ry. Co .. 471 297 Cole v. McKay..
404 299 Collins v. South Boston R. Co
293 92 Cominissioners of Excise v. Merchant.
Commissioners of State Reservation at Niagara, etc., In re... 195 50 Commonwealth v. Briant
440 517 Commonwealth v. Hall
439 Commonwealth v. Kostenbauder
277 193 Commonwealth v. Richardson.
18 76 Conselyea v. Blanchard. Converse v. Hobbs
415 Cook v. Prentice.
93 439 Corse v, Peck.
177 Corson, Appeal
464 257 County of Howard v. Kyte.
57 54 Crandall v. Grow
197 219 Crawford v. Rambo
86 73 Crisp v. Crisp...
299 456 Cummock v. Institution for Savings in Newburyport
208 139 Cushing's Will, Matter of..
56 39 Darley Main Colliery Co. v. Mitchell
247 374 Davey v. Kelley.
357 416 Davis v. Gay
59 354 Davis v. Wabash, St. L. & P. R. Co..
293 138 Dawson v. Buford 178 Day v. New England Mut. Life Ins. Co.
117 17 Deimer v. Franz.
155 239 Dickinson v. State
316 138 Marston v. Marston 417 Dixon v. Allen.
57 519 Donk v. Alexander
137 431 Driggs v. Phillips.
415 317 Drovers Nat. Band of Union Stock Yards, III., v. AngloAmerican Packing and Provision Co..
106 Dunlap v. Thomas 507 Dupoyster v. Gagoni 237 Dwinelle v. Edey..
37 76 98 Eliot Five-cent Savings Bank v. Commercial Union Ass. Co. 118 140 Elliot v. Small
277 454 Emerson v. Cochran.
139 Engle v. Fischer
36 Eno v. Diefendorf
195 Ensign, In re
425 269 Equitable Co-operative Foundry Co. v. Hersee..
354 297 Evans v. Mason.
374 375 Everett v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co.
77 55 Exhaust Ventilator Co. v. Chicago M. & St. P. Ry. Co 138
77 37 Fanning v. D. M. Osborne & Co.
55 74 Farnham v. Pierce 386 Farrall v. Farnan.
297 515 Felton v. Chicago, etc.,Ry. Co Fergus v. Wilmaith
119 357 Fields v. Hartford, etc., Horse R. Co.. 518 Fifth Nat. Bank v. New York Elevated R. Co
238 73 Fisher v. National Bank of New Jersey.
79 219 Fitzsimmons v. City of Brooklyn.. Fletcher v. People.
96 I 20 Folds v. Allardt
17 Follman v. City of Mankato.
358 148 Formwalt v. Hylton..
336 75 Flagg v. Town of Hudson. 518 Freeman y. Easley
279 178 French v. Creswell.
38 31 Fuller v. Connelly.
198 337 Fuller v. Lumbert
Gadsden v. Woodward 38 Gage v. Parry
397 515 Gallaher v. Herbert.
98 57 Gannon v. Wilson 219, 239 Gates v. Nellis.
238 158 Geismer v. Lake Shore and Michigan Southern R. Co. 138 Gibbons v. Farwell..
497 53 Gille v. Hunt
158 220 Gould v. Eastern R. Co..
378 233 376
Cady v. Walker Camp v. Crocker Canning v. Farquhar Carbee v. Mason Carney v. Carney Carpenter v. Osborne. Caves, Torre Chapin v, Freeland. Chapin v. Wright. Cheney v. Dunlap. Chicago R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Londergan. Choctaw Nation v. United States Christopher v. Christopher.. Churchill v. Bradley Clark v. Sargeant Cleaver v. Bullock. Clute v. Knies.. Coburn v. Middlesex Co.
450 356 356 130 95 97 138
Page. Grand Lodge of the Independent Order of Good Templars of Massey v. Mutual Relief Soc. of Rochester, N. Y.
116 the State of California v. Farnham.
279 Maught v. Getzendanner Granger v. Parker
272 218 Mayor, etc., of New York v. Eden Musee. Green Bay and Mississippi Canai Co. v. Hewitt..
Mayor, etc., v. Second Avenue R. Co.. Griffin v: Long Island R. Co..
137 Memphis Bell Telephone Co. v. Hunt Griswold v. New York and N. E. R. Co..
239 13 Menacho v. Ward
44 Merchants' Union Barbed Wire Co. v. Rice
452 Hackney v. Welch. 335 Messenger's Appeal..
79 Haley v. Case.
191 Metropolitan Trust Co. v. Tonawanda Valley, etc., R. Co 439 Hall v. Westcott.. 227 Micklethewait v. Newlay Bridge Company, limited.
466 Hall v. Whitehall Water Power Co..
154 Hamilton v. State.
128 Hamilton v. Thames and Mersey Marine Ins. Co..
109 Miner v. Markham. Harbeck v. Harbeck.
304 97 Morgan v. City of Binghamton.
91 Harden Star Hand Grenade Fire Extinguisher, Limited Co., Moore v. Lambeth Water Works Company Re..
328 213 Moore v. Phænix Fire Insurance Co
369 Harper v. Shoppell...
233 Hart v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co.
417 Morrison v. Porter. Hastings v. Weber.
197 Morey v. Sohier
39 Haynes v. Rudd. 54 Morrill v. Phillips
220 Hecksher v. Trotter.. 279 Moyer, Appeal of.
316 Henning v. Raymond.. 336 Muhlenbrinck v. Pooler
47 Hendricks v. Bd. of Co. Com’rs of Chautauqua County. 232 Mulcairns v. City of Jaynesville. Hess v. Muir
280 Mulligan v. Commonwealth Hewlett v. Elmer.
Munson v. Syracuse, Geneva & Corning R. Co. Hewlett v. Western Union Tel. Co
260 Murchie v. Gates Hickey v. Morrell.
68 Murray v. Beard Highland v. Dresser
Murtfeldt v. New York, W. S. & B. Ry. Co. Hinchliffe v. Shea.
397 Mutual Fire Ins. Co. of Montgomery Co. v. Dehaven Hoar v. Merritt.
156 House v. Eisenlord
73 Houson & T. C. Ry. Co. v. Carson
Nason v. West
38 219 Hoyt v. Ketcham
Neslie v. Second and Third streets Pass. Ry. Co 298
417 Hutchinson v. Parker.
Nevin v. Spieckeman.
56 377 Hutkoff v. Demorest.
New England Mortgage Securiety Co. v. Vader.
New Haven Horseshoe Nail Company v. Linden Spring Co. 175 Ikerd v. Beavers...
Newman v. Jones..
277 Jacksonville, P. and M. R. Co. v. United States.
Noel's Ex'r, v. Gill
496 James v. City of Newton..
Norris v. Atkinson. 325
334 Jefferson, Matter of..
Norcross v. Griffiths 119
North v. State Jewell v. Gilbert.. 131
374 Jochem v. Robinson
North Hudson Co. R. Co. v. May
155 Johnson, In re, Petition of
Norton v. Cowell..
58 394 Johnson v. Barnes
Nugent v. Jacobs.. 451
Nutt v. Norton Jonas v. Hunt 198
139 Jones v. Farris.
454 Jones v. Low
415 Jordan v. Westerman.
Ottoman Cahvey Co. v. City of Philadelphia
Owen v. Weston Kalbfleisch v. Long Island R. Co.
116 Kalis v. Shattuck
Paddock v. Kircham.
333 Kauffman v. Breckenridge.
75 Kent v. Dunham.
Paige v. Warning. Kessinger v. Vanatta
Pandorf v. Hamilton.
155 Kidd v. Horry..
Pardee v. Markee. Kiff v. Weaver
Peck v. Clerk
People v. Anderson. L. & N., & G. S. R. Co. v. Katzenberger
People v. Arensberg -
125 Landis v. Saxton..
People v. Clark 70
237 Lane's Appeal
People v. Com'rs. of Fire Department. 377
475 Lang v. Straus.
195 Langley v. Hill.
88 Larned v. Briscoe.
95 Laughlin v. Street Ry, of Grand Rapids
470 Lavender v. Atkins
People v. Gage
99 Lawrence v. Warwick.
155 Leeper v. Neagle..
People v. Jaehne
372 Lennig v. Ocean City Association.
People v. Laidlow Leonard v. Commonwealth
177, 195 People v. Loew
53 Lewis v. Adams
People v. McCarthy Lewiston Steam Mill Co. v. Androscoggin Water Power Co., 57 People v. McClave
73 Lichtenberg v. Herdíelder.
People v. Mondon. Liddy v. Long Island City.
People's Passenger Ry. Co. v. Lauderbach. Limmerland v. St. Paul, etc., R. Co.
People v. Rome, Watertown, etc., R. Co Lindroth v. Litchfield.
372 People v. Townsend.
64 Linnard, Appeal of
Perrine, Alleged Lunacy of, In re.
298 Lombard v. Batchelder.
Petition of the N. Y., L. E. & W.R. Co., etc., v. Bennett, Long v. Stafford.
415 Long v. Straus.
Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Frissel.
71 Lorillard v. Pride.
Phenix Ins. Co. of Brooklyn, N. Y., Ex parte. Lyon v. Hersey
Phenix Ins. Co. of Brooklyn v. Lamar.
Pierce v. Harrington..
24 McGinn v. Tobey
Plum v. Studebaker.. McGraw v. Whitson.
Poertner v. Poertner McKee v. Coffin..
259 Pope v. Porter McLeod v. Conn. & Pass. R. Co.
35 384 Post v. Kreischer McLewee v. Hall.
Potter v. Douglas County. Madeira, Appeal of
Potter v. Gronbeck Maguire v. Selden
Powers v. Canada Mahin v. Pfeiffer
Priest v. White Mansheld Machine Works v. Lowell Common Council 239
Providence Coad Co. v. Providence, etc., k. Co. Marion v. State
Pullen v. Pullen Mark v. Hudson River Bridge Co.
337 373 Pynchon v. Day. Market Nat. Bank v. Pacitic Nat. Bank.
35 Martin v. Carver's Adm'r. 240 Queenan v. Palmer..
393 488 140 498
78 456 119 127 74 76 179 396 237 119 76
Raub v. Smith
Teal v. Fissel
77 389 454 307 417 337 317 267 515 99
454 450 397 196
356 196 18
Saginaw Gas-light Co. v. City of Saginaw.
412 Sampson v. Freedman..
35 Sanders v. Bromley.
379 Sanders v. Wheeburg.
107 Seive v. Stein reide.
480 Selliger v. Bastian.
335 Sensenig v. Perry
138 Schwartz v. Weber
477 Schwenck v. Naylor.
137 Schulz v. Sweeny.
120 Shamburg v. Abbott.
157 Shattuck v. Bill
16 Sheeley v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. Co.
178 Shenfield v. Nashawannuck Manuf. Co.
119 Shultz v. Mayor, etc., of New York
415 Siegrist v. Schmoltz.
455 Smith's Appeal.
497 Smith v. Memphis & A. C. Packet Co.
199 Smith v. Sherwood
119 Smith v. Smith.
156 Smith v. State.
453 Smith v. Swan Snyder, Matter of
394 Somerset Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Usaw
277 Sonneborn v. Libbey
177 Springer Transp. Co. v. Smith
258 Spinning v. Spinning
192 Stanchfield v. City of Newton
157 Stanhope v. Stanhope. State v. Archer
374 State v. Beaudet
7 Suate v. Clark
297 State v. Clarke
56 State v. Davis
424 State v. Hughes
439 State v. Jones.
317 State v. McDermott. State y. Smith. Staten Island, etc., R. Co. to Acquire Lands, Application of.: 415 Stevens v. Castel
454 Stevens v. Citizens' Ins. Co.
454 Stephens y. State.
228 Stevens y, State
37 Stewart v. Garrett. Stewart v. Long Island R. Co.
333 Stewart v. Schall.
Wabash, St. Louis and Pacific Ry. Co. v. People of the State of Illinois
-406, 427 Wagner v. State
197 Wait v. Oxford.
452 Wallace v. Wallace.
454 Warren Glass Works Co. v. Keystone Coal Co.. Wasson v. First Nat. Bank.
311 Watt's Appeal.
155 Weatherhead v. Stoddard
280, 378 Wheeler v. Lawson.
373 White y. Western Assur, Co.
455 Whitney v. Butler
444 Wilcox v. St. Paul and N. P. Ry. Co
316 Wilds v. St. Louis, A. and T. H. R. Co..
54 Willett v. Rich.
240 Williams v. Flood.
494 Wilmerding v. McKesson. Wilson, Matter of Will of. Winchell v. Coney. Winchester v. Capron... Wing v. Ansonia Clock Co Wistar v. City of Philadelphia.
139 Wiswell v. Wiswell..
357 Witcomb v. Starkey
75 Witherell v. Stewart
373 Wood v. State
334 Wright v. Boston and Albany R. Co..
Zimmerman v. Township of Conemaugh.
THE ALBANY LAW JOURNAL:
A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE LAW AND THE LAWYERS.
Albany Law Journal.
tracts from it. They sum up the chief causes in the following words: Complex procedure, inadequate
judiciary, procrastination, retrial, unreasonable apALBANY, JULY 3, 1886.
peals, uncertain law. The latter they propose to remedy by codification, which, curiously enough,
met with strenuous opposition among the members CURRENT TOPICS.
of the association, so much so that its discussion
was postponed to the present year." We fear that UDGE SEYMOUR D. THOMPSON, of St. Louis, the Times people are to be ranked among the "code
fellows." The New York City Bar Association Association, has addressed a circular to the members, ought to appoint and send a committee over to corasking their opinion on the following subjects: Codi- rect them. fication; trial by jury; relief of appellate courts; delays and uncertainties in administration of criminal In an article of the last number of the American law; legal education; the selection of judges; Law Review entitled “Hints about Trials,” Judge champertous engagements by attorneys. Many Brown of Detroit laments the prolixity of jury trials specific questions are asked under each head. in this country and contrasts it with the rapidity of Among the most interesting is the question whether them in England. He says very truly that " a case the State ought not to have the right to put the that ought to be finished in a day or two is dragged prisoner on the witness stand and interrogate him, on for a week.” Hours are wasted in taking testibut without the power of compelling answers; mony upon immaterial points, or in the unnecessary whether the prosecuting attorney ought not to be multiplication of witnesses to the same fact. Days allowed to comment on the prisoner's failure to tes- are consumed in examining plaintiff's witnesses tify where he has the right; whether judges should only to find that he has made no case
a fact be elected or appointed; for what term; and whether which ought to have been discovered when he made they should be re-eligible; whether the “contin- his opening to the jury. And finally, if the trial be gent fee business" is injurious to justice, and closely contested, the chances are that the jury will whether the defendant should be allowed to show disagree, or the verdict be set aside because an insuch an agreement if it exists. This circular is an- advertent question was asked, or a word was misticipatory of a report to the association at the next spelled in the indictment. The consequence of all meeting
this is that the judicial force of the country is out of
all proportion to the amount of work done, and the The London Law Times takes notice of the report cost to the public for jury fees and other court exof the eighth annual meeting of the American Bar penses is something enormous." He admits that Association; after stating that one of the professed the English celerity is somewhat offset by the diffiobjects of the association is to “
culty of getting a case at issue there. He makes intercourse among the members of the American several suggestions for improvement. First, that Bar,” it observes: “It is with the latter, among after the plaintiff has opened, the defendant should other objects, we presume, that a 'collation,' fig- be required to state his case, so as to see if the ures in the programme of the meeting." It com- cause cannot be disposed of as a question of law, mends the style of the discussions, and particularly Second, that cumulative testimony should be exof Mr. Biddle's paper on the Proper mode of Trial. cluded. Third, that counsel should be required to It also observes: "Facile princeps, however, is the re- stand in examining witnesses. Fourth, that questions port of the special committee upon the delay of judi- of admission of testimony slıould not be discussed cial administration, bearing the honored names of much. Fifth, that counsel should be limited in David Dudley Field and John F. Dillon. It is in every time for argument. Eighth, that personalties should way excellent, but space forbids any copious cr- be prohibited. Ninth, that requests to charge
Vol. 34 No. 1.