4. A court will not set aside a contract for inadequacy of consideration
alone. Kidder v. Chamberlin, 502.
5. In restraint of trade in particular locality is valid. McClurg's Appeal,
6. A contract to pay dollars made between citizens of any state maintain-
ing its constitutional relations with the National Government, is a contract to
pay lawful money of the United States, and cannot be modified or explained
by parol evidence. Thorington v. Smith, 739.
7. But the word dollars if used in a contract between citizens of a foreign
state could be shown by parol evidence to mean dollars of a different kind
from United States dollars, and the same rule must apply to a contract
between citizens of the Confederate States. Id.
8. A party entitled to be paid in Confederate notes, can only recover their
actual value at the time and place of the contract in lawful money of the
United States. Id.
CONTRIBUTION.
THE LAW OF CONTRIBUTION, 449.
1. The term "dramatic composition" in the copyright acts includes all
manner of compositions in which the story is represented by dialogue or action
instead of narrative, and a scene or composition in which the author's ideas
are conveyed by action alone, is within the term. Daly v. Palmer, 286.
2. Stage directions, and the order of representation of events in accordance
therewith, are the subject of copyright. Id.
3. A dramatic scene or incident in which the ideas are expressed by action
Id.
alone, or by action and dialogue combined, is within the acts.
4. Where two dramatic scenes are substantially alike, and the charge of
plagiarism is made in a bill by the author of one to restrain infringement of
copyright, and not denied by defendant's answer, the validity of the copy-
right is not impaired by showing that the incidents of which the scene was
composed were all known and in common use before the complainant's play
was composed, and that a story had been previously published in which the
incidents had been related in similar order. Id.
5. The representation of a part of a play is an infringement of copyright.
Id.
6. The sale, with a view to public representation, of a play which infringes
the copyright of another, makes the seller a participant in causing the play to
be publicly represented, and an injunction will be granted against the sale.
Id.
CORPORATION. See AGENT, 1.
1. The judgment of another state decreeing the dissolution of a corporation,
will not prevent an action in this state begun prior to such dissolution from
proceeding to judgment. Hunt v. Columbian Ins., Co, 183.
2. The directors of a corporation are its chosen representatives and consti-
tute the corporation, to all purposes of dealing with others. Maynard v. Fire-
man's Fund Ins. Co. 186.
3. A corporation has the capacity to compose and publish a libel, and is
liable to an action for damages therefor. Id.
4. Has no legal existence out of the boundaries of the sovereignty which
B. & 0.
created it, and unlike natural persons cannot change its domicil.
Railroad Co. v. Glenn, 247.
5. A deed, made by a corporation created by the laws of Virginia, must be
determined by the laws of Virginia. Id.
6. In a suit to recover a dividend, declared "payable in dollars," evidence is
inadmissible that the corporation received its earnings in property other than
Scott v. The Central Railroad & Banking Co. of Georgia, 310.
7. Insolvency does not extinguish the legal existence of a corporation.
Parsons v. Eureka Powder Works, 439.
8. An act of the legislature of California making each stockholder of a cor-
poration liable for his share of all its debts contracted while he is a stock-
holder, is sufficient to answer the requirements of the Constitution. Larabee
v. Baldwin, 503.
9. Insolvency and suspension of business being admitted, in answer to a bill
praying for dissolution of corporation, no excuse is admissible for the for-
feiture. People v. Northern Railroad, 631.
10. A corporation chartered to carry on a specified business in a city, is
not exempt from liability to municipal regulations. Frankford Passenger
Railway v. Philadelphia, 631.
11. A corporation chartered by one state, and accepting a charter from
another, does not throw off its original obligation, nor shelter itself from any
violation of duty to the first state. Commonwealth of Penna. v. Pittsburgh
and Connellsville Railroad, 631.
12. Acceptance of second charter no ground of forfeiture of first. Id.
13. The Maryland Hospital has no power under its charter, to make a con-
tract for the support of a lunatic, during life, in consideration of a certain sum
of money. Hospital v. Foreman, 755.
14. Money paid on such a contract may be recovered back, less the cost of
keeping the patient. Id.
COSTS. See BANKRUPTCY, XI.
COUPONS. See INTEREST, 3.
COURTS. See CONFEDERATE STATES, 1; CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 15; INTER-
NATIONAL LAW, 1.
THE ENGLISH JUDICIAL SYSTEM, 65.
1. A state court of Georgia, during the late war, had no jurisdiction to de-
cree partition of lands in that state while one of the joint owners was a citizen
and resident in one of the other states adhering to the Union. Cuyler v. Fer-
rill, 100.
2. The United States courts, therefore, will take cognisance of a bill for
partition of such lands and disregard the previous judgment. Id.
3. It is not essential that the jurisdiction of a superior court should affirma-
tively appear in the judgment roll; if it does not, and the contrary does not
therein affirmatively appear, jurisdiction will be conclusively presumed. Hahn
v. Kelley & Morse, 122.
4. Where the judgment recites the fact that the defendant has been duly
served with process, it is a direct adjudication by the court upon the point, and
is as conclusive on the parties as any other fact decided in the canse, provided
it does not affirmatively appear from other portions of the record, consisting
of the judgment-roll, that the recital is untrue. Id.
5. After a state court has made an order under the Act of Congress for the
removal of a cause to a United States court, any further proceedings in the
state court or in any other state court by appeal or other process, are void.
Akerly v. Vilas, 229.
6. A state court making an order for the removal of a cause to a United
States court, has no jurisdiction to allow an appeal from such order and to
enjoin its clerk from certifying the record pending the appeal. Id.
7. Where the clerk refuses under such an order to certify the record to the
United States court, the latter will, on motion, allow the record and proceed-
ings to be supplied by copies or affidavits, and the cause to proceed as if the
record had been duly certified.
8. Where a court has given judgment which has been reversed by the
Supreme Court of the state, and judgment entered in effect ordering a venire
de novo, the cause has not reached final hearing or trial, and a motion to
remove to a United States court is in time. Id.
9. Where special powers are given by statute to a court, all the requisites
of the statute must be strictly complied with to render the proceedings valid.
Cockey v. Cole, 248.
10. THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM OF SCOTLAND, 257.
11. The judgment of the Criminal Court of Baltimore on an appeal from the
commissioners for opening streets is final and conclusive. Rundle v. Balti-
more, 313.
12. In legal contemplation the jurisdiction of the courts of Pennsylvania
is foreign to the jurisdiction of those of Maryland. Seevers v. Clement, 314.
13. At the common law the rule is well established, that the pendency of
a prior suit in personam in a foreign court, between the same parties, for the
same cause of action, is no sufficient cause for stay or bar of a suit instituted
in one of our own courts. It is only the definitive judgment on the merits
that will be considered conclusive. Id.
14. FORENSIC AND LEGISLATIVE DEBATE IN AMERICA AS COMPARED
WITH ENGLAND AND FRANCE, 385.
15. The Act of February 28th 1839 providing for the transfer of cases
from one circuit court to another is not repealed by the Act of March 3d
1863. Supervisors v. Rogers, 439.
16. A county court has the power within certain limits, to revise its judg-
ments. Smith v. Howard, 507.
17. An order of an inferior state court under the Act of Congress for the
removal of a cause to a United States court, is reviewable by the Supreme
Court of the state, and an appeal to such Supreme Court suspends the vesting
of jurisdiction of the case in the United States court until the determination
of the appeal. Akerly v. Vilas, 558.
18. The Act of Congress provides for the removal of a cause before trial
if an action at law, or before final hearing if a suit in equity, and after a
judgment in the inferior court it is too late to remove the cause, although the
judgment may be reversed by the Supreme Court of the state, and a new trial
or hearing ordered. Id.
19. A state court has no jurisdiction to grant a mandamus, to compel a
judge of a district court, to try an action which has been transferred to the
Circuit Court of the United States. Francisco v. Manhattan Ins. Co., 698.
20. THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM OF FRANCE, 705.
COVENANT. See LAND LORD AND TENANT, 11; VENDOR AND PURCHASER, 19;
WARRANTY.
CRIMINAL LAW. See EVIDENCE, 6; WITNESS, 2.
1. The statement of a prisoner accused of robbery, that he buried the money
in a certain place, admissible in evidence against him, though not voluntarily
made. People v. Hoy, 183.
2. Where the jury return a verdict of guilty of " involuntary manslaughter,"
a motion in arrest of judgment on the ground of there being two grades of
"involuntary manslaughter," should be sustained. Thomas v. State, 310.
3. Where a statute authorizes but does not compel a party indicted to
become a witness in his own behalf, it is improper for the prosecution to com-
ment to the jury on the prisoner's refusal to offer himself as a witness, and
the court should when requested charge that no inference was to be drawn
against the prisoner from his refusal. People v. Tyler, 430.
4. An accomplice who has given testimony criminating himself as well as
his co-defendant, on whose trial he testifies, cannot refuse to answer fully on
cross-examination concerning the entire transaction of which he has under-
taken to give an account, and in which he had shown himself guilty. Foster
v. People, 494.
5. No consequences follow a conviction of felony, except such as are de-*
clared by statute. Estate of Nerac, 506.
6. It is sufficient if the words used by the defendant, are set out in an in-
dictment for false pretences. State v. Call, 570.
7. Maliciously disturbing a meeting of school directors is indictable at com-
mon law. Campbell v. Commonwealth, 736.
8. On the trial of an indictment for burglary, parol proof of possession of
the premises under a written lease is sufficient. Houston v. State, 311.
9. Where the defendant was acquitted of an assault with intent to murder,
and afterwards indicted for the same act, under the charge of an assault of an
"aggravated nature," the plea of autrefois acquit, held good. Holt v. State,
10. Evidence that defendant was at a card table, with a faro box and cards
in his hands, warrants a conviction for gambling. Missouri v. Andrews, 379.
CURTESY. See HUSBAND AND WIFE, II.
DAM. See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 2.
DAMAGES. See TRESPASS, 7-8.
1. A verdict for substantial damages, for barring a minister out of his
church on a Sunday, should not be disturbed. Lynd v. Menzies, 94.
2. In an action for causing wrongful death, funeral expenses are not reco-
verable as damages. Gay v. Winter, 183.
3. The measure of damages in an action for diverting a stream, is the de-
preciation in the value of plaintiff's premises. Easterbrook v. Erie Railroad
Co., 188.
4. The damages ordinarily recoverable for breach of contract, are those
necessarily following the breach. Coal Co. v. Foster, 368.
5. The failure of an engine builder to furnish at a fixed time, according to
contract, to a coal company a suitable engine for transporting their coal,
entitles them to damages for their expenses in such transportation, with the
means they had, or the best they could procure during the period of delay,
beyond what they would have incurred with the engine. Id.
6. But they cannot claim also for the profits in the transportation by engine
of the extra quantity of coal they might have transported by it in the same
period. Id.
7. The value of the property destroyed, is the measure of damages in an
action against an agent for not procuring full insurance. Beardesley v. Davis,
8. Exemplary are only to be given in case of fraud, malice, gross negli
gence, or oppression. Cram v. Hadley, 439.
9. For breach of contract to make lumber, is the difference between the
cost of making and contract price. Hale v. Trout, 503.
10. Rule for, on breach of contract to sell real estate, is the difference be-
contract price and the value of the premises. Pringle v. Spaulding, 570.
DEBT. See CONFLICT OF LAWS.
DEBTOR AND CREDITOR. See DECEDENT'S ESTATE, 1; EQUITY, 1,
FRAUD, 5; INTERNATIONAL LAW, 10.
I. Sale or Conveyance fraudulent as to Creditors.
1. A conveyance made in consideration of the grantees assuming the mort-
gages on the property, void as to creditors, to the extent of the value of the
property above the mortgages. Mead v. Combs, 120.
2. A judgment-creditor purchasing at sheriff's sale, under his judgment, is
entitled to have a mortgage upon the property, given by the defendant in exe-
cution in embarrassed circumstances, set aside and declared void. King v.
Storey, 120.
3. By the Act of March 7th 1850 to prevent fraudulent trusts and assign-
ments, a creditor upon a return of an execution nulla bona, has a lien upon
the choses in action of his debtor. Green v. Tantum, 120.
4. The sale of a railroad with its franchises and rolling-stock, under a decree
of foreclosure, for a price far below its value, will be set aside as a fraud on
creditors. Drury v. Cross, 248.
5. Subsequent creditors of a grantor cannot attack a conveyance valid when
made. Baker v. Gelman, 311.
6. A creditor who trusts his debtor after being informed that the latter has
conveyed away his property, cannot impeach such conveyance as fraudulent.
Id.
7. A creditor who attaches and sells his debtor's goods, cannot prove his
claim under an assignment. Valentine v. Decker, 378.
8. To render a sale void as to creditors, the vendee as well as the vendor
must participate in the intent to delay. Leach v. Francis, 504.
II. Insolvency of Debtor.
9. State insolvent laws have no extra-territorial operation: and a creditor
cannot be compelled by a state of which he is not a citizen or resident to
become a party to insolvent proceedings therein; and such proceedings can-
not discharge a debt due to a non-resident creditor, unless he voluntarily sub-
mits to the jurisdiction by becoming a party to the proceedings, or claiming
a dividend thereunder. Hawley v. Hunt, 546.
10. A non-resident and non-assenting creditor is not bound by a debtor's
discharge under state insolvent laws, no matter where the debt originated, or
is made payable: citizenship of the parties governs, and not the place where
the contract was made or where it is to be performed. Id.
11. The history of the Federal and state adjudications on the subject of the
effect of discharges under state insolvent laws, examined by DILLON, C. J.
Id.
12. An express promise by a debtor, after his discharge under the insolvent
laws, to pay a prior debt, waives the discharge. Knight v. House, 695.
III. Tender and Payment.
13. A creditor's agreement to receive the note of a third person, in payment
of his claim, with actual transfer, extinguishes the claim. Roberts v. Fisher,
638.
14. A debtor has the right in the first instance to make the appropriation
of payment. Neidig, Adm. of Neidig, v. Whiteford, 695.
DECEDENT'S ESTATE. See EXECUTOR AND ADMINISTRATOR, 6.
1. A creditor of a decedent cannot be prejudiced by the failure of the com-
missioners of the Probate Court to present his claim for allowance. Dickey
v. Corliss, 504.
2. Probate Court has no jurisdiction over trustee appointed by will.
Hayes v. Hayes, 575.
See CORPORATION, 5; TRUST AND TRUSTEE, 1.
1. A deed altered by consent of the parties and redelivered by them is
good. Bassett v. Bassett, 183.
2. The omission to read a deed to an illiterate marksman renders the
acknowledgement of no value. Suffern v. Butler, 183.
3. Conveying premises, "subject to a mortgage executed by the parties of
the first part in the year 1856," sufficiently describes the mortgage. Johnson
v. Zink, 439.
DITCH. See WATERS AND WATERCOURSES, 2-3.
DIVIDEND. See CORPORATION, 6; TENANT FOR LIFE, 2.
DIVORCE. See HUSBAND AND WIFE, I.
DOLLARS. See CONTRACT, 6-7.
DOWER. See HUSBAND AND WIFE, II.
1. A minister of the Protestant Episcopal Church has either the possession
of the church edifice or a right in the nature of an easement to enter therein,
on all occasions set apart in the parish for divine services, and a substantial
interference with such right will lay the ground for an action at law. Lynd
v. Menzies, 94.
2. The English ecclesiastical law forms the basis of the law regulating the
affairs of this denomination of Christians. Id.
3. In order to vest the pastor with the ordinary rights in the temporalities
pertaining to his office it is not necessary for the congregation to be incor-
porated nor that the title to the church should be lodged in such congregation.
Id.
|