Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

TABLE OF CASES.

REPORTED, NOTED, ABSTRACTED AND DIGESTED.

Page.

297

50

193 76

93

177

257

[ocr errors]

208

74

357

416

Adarson v. Paterson..... Alexander. NicNear..... Allen v. O'Donald ... Anglo Californa Bank v. Ames .. Application of Thirty-fourth street Ry: Co., In re Archer v. State .... Arniel y, Chicago, Arnold v. Greene.... Aronson F. 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. C 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 y. 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 Wringe 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 y, Mausur. Brown y. Mansus...... Brown v. Spaulding... Brown y Weaver ... Brock v. Dole.......... Brundage v. Village of Portchester... Bullard v. Boston and Maine Railroad Buttz v. Northern Pacific R, Co. Bunch v. Great Western Ry. Co Burchett v. Commonwealth.... Burns v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co.. Burt v. De La Vergne.... Burton v Burton .........

[ocr errors]

316

298

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

$16

Page. ... 373

Cogswell v. New York, New Haven and Hartford Ry. Co .. 471
Cole v. McKay.....

.
XD

.......

. ....... 404 Collins v. South Boston R. Co .....

.......... 293 Cominissioners of Excise v. Merchant..

395 Commissioners of State Reservation at Niagara, etc., In re... 195 Commonwealth v. Briant .....

.-. 440 517 Commonwealth v. Hall.

439 258 Commonwealth v. Kostenbauder..

277 Commonwealth v. Richardson..

18 Conselyea y, Blanchard..

415 Converse y, Hobbs .....

375
Cook v. Prentice..
Corse v, Peck.......
Corson, Appeal ...
County of Howard v. Kyte........
Crandall v. Grow......
Crawford v, Rambo..
Crisp v. Crisp.....
Cummock v. Institution for Savings in Newburypor
Cushing's Will, Matter of.
Daniels v. Watertown Township ...

56
Darley Main Colliery Co. v. Mitchell..
Davey v. Kelley...
Davis v. Gay .....

59
354
Davis v. Wabash, St. L. & P. R. Co...

293 138 Dawson v. Buford.

479 178 Day v. New England Mut. Life Ins. Co.

117 17 Deimer v. Franz.

155 239

Dickinson v. State .... 138

Marston v. Marston.. 417 Dixon v. Allen..

57 519 Donk v. Alexander ..... ..431 Driggs v. Phillips..

415 317 Drovers Nat. Band of Union Stock Yards, 111., v. Anglo15 American Packing and Provision Co.

. 106 ... 455 Dunlap v. Thoinas..

... 58 507 Dupoyster v. Gagoni .. 237 Dwinelle v. Edey...

... .. 37 76

Eliot Five-cent Savings Bank v. Commercial Union Ass. Co. 118
Elliot v. Small....

... 277
Emerson y. Cochran...
Engle v. Fischer.....
Eno v. Diefendorf ...

195 Ensign, In re ....

425 269 Equitable Co-operative Foundry Co. v. Hersee

Evans v. Mason....

Everett v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. CO
55 Exhaust Ventilator Co, v. Chicago M. & St. P. Ry. Co....

77
138
Fanning v. D. M. Osborne & Co..........

Co.........................
Farnham v. Pierce .........
Farrall v. Farnan......

D

. ...........
Felton v. Chicago, etc
Fergus v. Wilmaith .....
Fields v. Hartford, etc., Horse R. Co.

Fifth Nat. Bank v. New York Elevated R. Co
73 Fisher v. National Bank of New Jersey...
219

Fitzsimmons v. City of Brooklyn.

Fletcher v. People...........
120 Folds v. Allardt ......
120 Follman v. City of Mankato.

Formwalt v. Hylton.
75 Flagg v. Town of Hudson....
518 Freeman y. Easlev

French v. Creswell..... .... 31 Fuller v. Connelly...

198 • 337 | Fuller v. Lumbert.... 349

Gadsden v. Woodward

Gage v. Parry .
515 Gallaher v. Herbert........
57 Gannon v. Wilson ....

Gates v. Nellis......

Geismer v. Lake Shore and Michigan Southern R. Co. 138 | Gibbons v. Farwell.

53 Gille v. Hunt .... ... 220 | Gould v. Eastern R. Co........

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

Cady v. Walker .... Camp v. Crocker ... Canning v. Farquhar Carbee v, Mason ... Carney v. Carney .... Carpenter v. Osborne. Cave v. 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

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

Page.

116

272

Page. Grand Lodge of the Independent Order of Good Templars of the State of California v. Farnham.........

. .............. 279 Granger v. Parker .....

218 Green Bay and Mississippi Canai Co

352 Griffin v. Long Island R. Co.....

137 Griswold v. New York and N. E. R. Co....

36

21 Saith

F. lns, and I or Marquett

lcd Varor - Delaware & DUIT, Burbagh

Sex York, ST. Els ....

[ocr errors]

13

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

Massey v. Mutual Relief Soc. of Rochester, N. Y.
Maught v. Getzendanner.
Mayor, etc., of New York v. Eden Musee....
Mayor, etc., v. Second Avenue R. Co..
Memphis Bell Telephone Co. v. Hunt ....
Menacho y. Ward .....
Merchants' Union Barbed Wire Co. v. Rice .....
Messenger's Appeal............
Metropolitan Trust Co. v. Tonawanda Valley, etc., R.
Micklethewait v. Newlay Bridge Company, limited
Miller v. Chapel ....
Millett v. People.......
Miner v. Markham...
Morgan v. City of Binghamton...
Moore v. Lambeth Water Works Company.
Moore v. Phenix Fire Insurance Co.
Moores v. Tomshend.....
Morrison v. Morrison.
Morrison v. Porter.....
Morey v. Sohier .....
Morrill v. Phillips ..
Moyer, Appeal of....
Muhlenbrinck v. Pooler ...
Mulcairns v. City of Jaynesville.
Mulligan v. Commonwealth
Munson v. Syracuse, Geneva & Corning R. Co...
Murchie v. Gates .......................
Murray v. Beard ...
Murtfeldt v. New York, W. S. & B. Ry. Co.
Mutual Fire Ins. Co. of Montgomery Co. v. Dehaven .....

[ocr errors]

328 369 95

233

[ocr errors]

Hackney v. Welch.

335 Haley y. Case....

191 Hall v. Westcott....

227 Hall v. Whitehall Water Power Co.

54
Hamilton v. State....
Hamilton v. Thames and Mersey Marine Ins. Co....
Harbeck v. Harbeck....
Harden Star Hand Grenade Fire Extinguisher, Limited Co.
Re......

213 Harper v. Shoppell...

374 Harper v. Young ..

376 Hart v. Chicago & N.

417 Hastings v. Weber

200 Haynes v. Rudd...... Hecksher v. Trotter..

279 Henning v. Raymond...

336 Hendricks v. Bd. of Co. Com’rs of Chautauqua Count 232 Hess v. Muir ...

280 Hewlett v. Elmer....

393 Hewlett v. Western Un

260 Hickey v. Morrell......

68 Highland v. Dresser ......

200 Hinchliffe v. Shea... Hoar v. Merritt...

156 House v. Eisenlord.

73 Houson & T. C. Ry. Co. v. Carson.

219 Hoyt v. Ketcham .......

298 Hutchinson v. Parker... Hutkoff v. Demorest....

54

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

ly.

[ocr errors]

356

356

130

[ocr errors]

95

397

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

377

Nason v. West
Neslie v. Second and Third streets Pass. Ry. Co

ets P
Nevin v. Spieckeman .....
New England Mortgage Securiety Co. v. Vader.
New Haven Horseshoe Nail Company v. Linden Spring Co.
Newman v. Jones...
Nickerson v. English ..
Noel's Ex'r. v. Gill....
Norris v. Atkinson....
Norcross v. Griffiths ......
North v. State ...
North Hudson Co. R. Co. v. May ..
Norton v. Cowell.....
Nugent v. Jacobs....
Nuit v. Norton ..

[merged small][ocr errors]

Ikerd v. Beavers.....
Jacksonville, P. and M. R. Co. v. United States.........
James v. City of Newton...
Jefferson, Matter of.....
Tewell v, Gilbert.......
Jochem v. Robinson ..
Johnson, In re, Petition of
Johnson v. Barnes..
Jonas v. Hunt ....
Jones v. Farris.....
Jones v. Low....
Jordan v. Westerman.........

496 325 119 131 457 394

374 155

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

451

[blocks in formation]

198

454

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

Kalbfleisch v. Long Island R. Co. ...
Kalis v. Shattuck
Kauffman v. Breckenridge.......
Kent v. Dunham....
Kessinger v. Vanatta ..
Kidd v. Horry.....
Kiff v. Weaver ..
Kinnick v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co ...
L. & N., & G. S. R. Co. v. Katzenberger ...
Lakin v. Willamette Valley R. Co........
Landis v. Saxton...
Lane's Appeal .......
Lang v. Straus....
Langley v. Hill..
Larned v. Briscoe...
Laughlin y. Street Ry, of Grand Rapids
Lavender v. Atkins.
Lawrence v. Warwick..-.-.
Leeper v. Neagle.......
Lennig v. Ocean City Association....
Leonard v. Commonwealth .............
Lewis V. Adams.....
Lewiston Steam Mill Co. v. Androscoggin Water Power
Lichtenberg v. Herdfelder......
Liddy v. Long Island City.
Liminerland v. St. Paul, etc.
Lindroth v. Litchfield...
Linnard, Appeal of .....
Little v. Giles...
Lombard v. Batchelder...
Long v. Stafford...
Long v. Straus.....
Lorillard v. Pride...
Lyon v. Hersey........

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

259
Olive v. Whitney Marble Company ...

415 Ottoman Cahvey Co. v. City of Philadelphia ......

Owen v. Weston..
116
Paddock v. Kircham.....

333 Page v. Hodge .....

Paige v. Warning..
155

Pandorf v. Hamilton.....
371
Pardee v. Markee..

140
Peck v. Clerk.....
Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Sanderson.

509 People v. Anderson....

156 People v. Arensberg... People v. Chapman....

125 People v. Clark.....

237 People v. Com'rs. of Fire 152

People v. Com. of Police. 440

People v. Cromwell ......

People v. Cruger..
199
134

People v. Druse ...
416

People v. Gage
09

People v. Gardner
People v. Jaehne

.... 372
99
People v. Laidlow....

... 177, 195 People v. Loew.

... 53 375 People v. McCarthy.

... 236 57

People v. McClave....
People v. Mondon.....

People's Passenger Ry. Co. v. Lauderbach. -... 237

People v. Rome, Watertown, etc., R. Co...,
People v. Townsend...

64
316
Perrine, Alleged Lunacy of, In re....

295 479

Perry v. Mount Hope Iron Co..
Petition of the N. Y., L. E. & W.R. Co., etc., v. Bennett,
In re.....

... 116
Phonix Ins. Co. v. Frissel.....
Phænix Ins. Co. of Brooklyn, N. Y., Ex parte.
Phonix Ins. Co. of Brooklyn v. Lamar.....
Pierce v. Harrington...

298 Place v. Norwich & New York Transp. Co...

24 Plum y. Studebaker....

190
Poertner v. Poertner...
259

Pope v. Porter.......
Post v. Kreischer ...

355 Potter v. Douglas County..

234 Potter v. Gronbeck.. 415

Powers v. Canada .....

Priest v. White .. 239

Providence Coad Co. v. Providence, etc., k. So.. 480

Pullen v. Pullen ....
373

Pynchon v. Day....
35
240 | Queenan v. Palmer.......

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

M'Fadden v. Ross...
McGinn v. Tobey....
McGraw v. Whitson.
McKee v. Cofhn.....
McLeod v. Conn. & Pass.
McLewee v. Hall....
Madeira, Appeal of ..
Maguire v. Selden....
Mahin v. Pfeiffer ...
Mansfield Machine Works v. Lowell Common Council.
Marion v. State .....

D a te ...........................
Mark v. Hudson River Bridge Co.......
Market Nat. Bank v. Pacific Nat. Bank.
Martin v. Carver's Adm'r....

118

[blocks in formation]

74

179

278 157 334

300

227

Raub v. Smith ..
Reading F. Ins. and Trust Co.'s Appeal.
Redinger v. Marquette & W. R. Co....
Reg. v. Lord Mayor of London......
Reilly v. Delaware & Hudson Canal Co..
Reinhardt v. Borough of South Easton..
Rembe v. New York, O. & W. R. Co.
Revnolds v. Ellis .....
Reynolds v. Hussey ..
Rich v. Crandall....
Roberts v. Smith.....
Robinson v. Bair.
Robinson v. Fire Ass'n of Philadelphia
Robinson v. Konawha Valley Bank.
Rodgers v. Highland ...
Rogers Halden ........
Root v. Merriam..
Rozell v. Andrews...

119

454

[blocks in formation]

Teal v. Fissel.....
Temple v. Whitier..
Territory v. Blomberg ...,
The Oakland...........
The Xantho..
Thielen v. Richardson ..
Thomas v. Quartermaine
Thomas v. Joslyn......
Thompson v. Libby.....
Thompson v. Minneapolis and St. L. Ry. Co.
Town of New Hartford v. Town of Canaan.
Town of Oregon v. Jennings ....
Towne v. Goldberg.....
Traders and Mechanics'
Trounstine v. Sellers....
Tucker v. People .......

397 196

307 ... 417 · 337

317 267 515 99

echanics’ Ins. Co. v. Bra

356

196

18

[blocks in formation]

418 394

Saginaw Gas-light Co. v. City of Saginaw...
Sampson v. Freedman...
Sanders v. Bromley..
Sanders v. Wheeburg ....
Seive v. Stein reide.
Selliger v. Bastian.....
Sensenig v. Perry...
Schwartz v. Weber ...
Schwenck v. Naylor..
Schulz v. Sweeny.
Shamburg v. Abbott...,
Shattuck v. Bill ...
Sheeley v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. Co..
Shenfield v. Nashawannuck Manuf. C
Shultz v. Mayor, etc., of New York
Siegrist v. Schmoltz.....
Smith's Appeal....
Smith v. Memphis & A. C. Packet Co....
Smith v. Sherwood ..
Smith v. Smith...
Smith v. State....
Smith v. Swan...
Snyder, Matter of...
Somerset Mutual Fire In
Sonneborn v. Libbey ..
Springer Transp. Co. v. Smith ....
Spinning v. Spinning...
Stanchfield v. City of Newton ....
Stanhope y, Stanh
State v. Archer ..
State v. Beaudet.
Suate v. Clark....
State v. Clarke...
State v. Davis.
State v. Hughes.
State v. Jones...
State v. McDermott..
State y. Smith....
Staten Island, etc.. R. Co. to Acquire Lands, Applicatio
Stevens v. Castel
Stevens v. Citizens' Ins. Co.......
Stephens y. State.....
Stevens v, State......
Stewart v. Garrett..
Stewart v, Long Island
Stewart v. Schall...
Stone v. Tupper .....
Stowe v. Phinney....
Stratton v. Putney...

172

192

378

Van Aernam v. Blustein

117 157 Vanderzee v. Haswell ..........

356 16 178 Van Horn v. Litchfield.....

457 Van Poucks v. Netherland St. Vincent De Pauls

455 119 Vicksburg and M. R. Co, V. Putnam.

477 415 Vicksburgh & M. R. Co. v. O'Brien ..

496 455 Vogel v. State..

377 497 199 119 Wabash, St. Louis and Pacific Ry. Co. v. People of the State 156 of Illinois ....

.........406, 427 453 Wagner v. State ...

.... 197 Wait v. Oxford......

452 Wallace v. Wallace....

454 277 Warren Glass Works Co. v. Keystone Coal Co.

220 Wasson v. First Nat. Bank....

311 Watt's Appeal ...

155 Weatherhead v. Stoddard.. 157 Wheeler v, Lawson......

373 230 White y. Western Assur.

455 374 Whitney v. Butler ....

444 Wilcox v. St. Paul and N. P. Ry. Co. Wilds v. St. Louis, A. and T. H. R. Co...

54 Willett v. Rich.. 424 Williams v. Flood.

494 Wilierding v. McKesson

476 Wilson, Matter of Will or.. Winchell v. Coney.......

210 Winchester v, Capron.... Wing v. Ansonia Clock Co.

116 454 Wistar v. City of Philadelphi

139 454

Wiswell y. Wiswell......
Witcomb v. Starkey ...

.. 75 Witherell v. Stewart ..

.. 373 56, 279 Wood v. State ....

334 333 Wright v. Boston and Albany R. Co.......

200 Young v. Collett.

... 455 238 | Zimmerman v. Township of Conemaugh........

... 119

[blocks in formation]

THE ALBANY LAW JOURNAL:

A WEEKLY RECORD

F THE LAW AND THE LAWYERS.

The Albany Law Journal.

ALBANY, JULY 3, 1886.

tracts from it. They sum up the chief causes in the following words: Complex procedure, inadequate judiciary, procrastination, retrial, unreasonable appeals, 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 JUDGE SEYMOUR D. THOMPSON, of St. Louis, the Times people are to be ranked among the "code J as secretary of a committee of the American Bar | 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 Lar 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 "encourage cordial 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 should 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 ex- be prohibited. Ninth, that requests to charge

VOL. 34 - No. 1.

« AnteriorContinuar »