19. RAILROADS-Passengers-Ticket as Fare.-A purchase of a
ticket by a passenger is not the payment of his fare. When the ticket
is accepted by the train conductor it becomes a fare, but not before.
(N. J. L.) Shelton v. Erie R. R. Co., 704.
20. RAILROADS-Expulsion of Passengers for Failure to Present
Proper Ticket, Though He Paid Therefor.-A person on a railroad
train who refuses to pay fare other than to tender to the conductor
a limited ticket which on its face shows that it has expired, may
be lawfully expelled from the train, although he has paid for such
ticket the full rate asked by the railroad company for an unlimited
ticket. (N. J. L.) Shelton v. Erie R. R. Co., 704.
21. RAILROADS Expulsion of Passenger-Failure to Pay Fare.
The expulsion from a railroad train by a conductor of a passenger
who neither pays his fare nor tenders a ticket that evinces his right
to carriage is, in the absence of unnecessary force, not actionable.
(N. J. L.) Shelton v. Erie R. R. Co., 704.
22. CARRIERS Expulsion of Passenger-Damages for Humilia-
tion. When a passenger voluntarily suffers or seeks his expulsion
from a train in order to lay the foundation of a damage suit, he is
not entitled to recover for his humiliation in being expelled. (Ark.)
Brenner v. Jonesboro etc. R. R. Co., 56.
23. RAILROADS-Passengers-Negligence-Proximate Cause.-If
a conductor, in pushing his way through a crowded car, presses a
standing passenger against a seated passenger, who gives the standing
passenger such a push as to throw him from the car, to his great in-
jury, the proximate cause thereof is the action of the seated passenger,
and the railroad company is not liable therefor. (Colo.) Snyder v.
Colorado Springs etc. Ry. Co., 110.
Passengers on Street Railway.
24. STREET RAILWAYS-Conductor must be Controlled by the
Face of Transfers.-A transfer ticket is the only evidence of the right
of the passenger which the conductor can properly accept, and if
such ticket does not appear to be for the conductor's line, the passen-
ger has no right to ride thereon, though the reading of the ticket is
due to the mistake of a prior conductor, for which the passenger is
not at fault. (Conn.) Norton v. Consolidated Ry. Co., 132.
25. STREET RAILWAYS.-Though a Conductor Gives a Pas-
senger a Transfer Different from that for Which He Asks, the remedy
is not by refusing to pay fare and resisting expulsion from a car, but
by leaving the car, or paying a new fare, and commencing an action
against the railway company for its breach of contract to give a
proper transfer. (Conn.) Norton v. Consolidated Ry. Co., 132.
26. STREET RAILWAYS-Right of the Person to Whom an Er-
roneous Transfer has been Given.-Though a passenger on a street
railway demands a proper transfer, and by the mistake or carelessness
of the conductor is given one for another line, such passenger has no
right to resist expulsion if he enters a car of a line over which his
transfer does not entitle him to ride, though he explains the mistake
to the conductor. (Conn.) Norton v. Consolidated Ry. Co., 132.
27. STREET RAILWAYS.-It is not the Duty of the Conductor to
Accept a Statement by a Passenger that, a Mistake in His Transfer is
the Fault of a Prior Conductor.-As between the passenger and the
conductor to whom the transfer is presented, it is conclusive. (Conn.)
Norton v. Consolidated Ry. Co., 132.
28. A STREET RAILWAY CORPORATION is not Liable to a
Passenger in an Open Car injured by being struck by the wadding
of a cannon fired with a blank cartridge by a citizen, who, with and
by the firing of such cannon, was, and during the day preceding had
been, celebrating the Fourth of July, though the car was not stopped
on approaching the place where the cannon was being discharged,
nor were any precautions taken to guard the passengers against in-
jurious consequences. (Mass.) Ormandroyd v. Fitchburg etc. Ry.
Co., 457.
29. A STREET RAILWAY COMPANY is not Responsible for the
Condition of a Street, nor answerable to passengers injured by its
want of safety. (Mass.) Thompson v. Gardner etc. Ry. Co., 459.
30. A STREET RAILWAY COMPANY is not Under Any Duty
to Caution Passengers in alighting from cars against stepping into
a gutter or defect in the street for the existence of which the cor-
poration is not blamable, and a passenger injured by so stepping can-
not recover. (Mass.) Thompson v. Gardner etc. Ry. Co., 459.
31. CARRIERS, Liability of for Baggage.-When a carrier does
not take full possession of baggage and it remains under the control
of the passenger, the former does not, in the absence of a special
agreement, assume the common carrier's liability of an insurer, but
becomes responsible only when it is shown to have failed in the
exercise of reasonable care to protect from loss or injury such bag-
gage or property as the passenger has the right to bring with him
into the car. (Conn.) Sperry v. Consolidated Ry. Co., 169.
32. STREET RAILWAYS, Rules of Respecting Baggage.-Street
railway companies may make reasonable regulations concerning the
kind and size of baggage and packages which may be brought into
cars by passengers. (Conn.) Sperry v. Consolidated Ry. Co., 169.
33. STREET RAILWAYS, When do not Assume the Custody of
Baggage. A conductor of a street railway who takes the baggage of
a passenger when handed to him and places it within the sight and
control of such passenger does not thereby assume the custody of
the baggage so as to make his employer answerable therefor. (Conn.)
Sperry v. Consolidated Ry. Co., 169.
34. STREET RAILWAYS-Negligence Respecting Baggage, When
not Shown. If the conductor of a street railway car, in assisting a
passenger, takes his baggage and places it on the car in the sight
of the passenger, the conductor does not assume the care or control
thereof, and if a second conductor, not knowing to whom the baggage
belongs, sees it taken away by a man who had been sitting near it,
and makes no attempt to reclaim it, the street railway company is
not guilty of any negligence respecting such baggage and is not
answerable for its loss. (Conn.) Sperry v. Consolidated Ry. Co., 169.
See Railroads.
CERTIFIED CHECK.
See Bills and Notes, 4-8.
1. PUBLIC CHARITIES, What are.-A gift for the sole purpose
of affording education and maintenance for destitute boys, without
compensation, creates a valid public charity. (Mass.) Farrigan v.
Pevear, 484.
2. PUBLIC CHARITIES, if Incorporated, are exempt from actions
founded on the negligence of attendants or servants. (Mass.) Far-
rigan v. Pevear, 484.
3. PUBLIC CHARITIES, Nonliability of Trustees of Unincorpo-
rated. The trustees of an unincorporated public charity are not lia-
ble for injuries due to the negligence of attendants or servants in
whose selection reasonable care was used. (Mass.) Farrigan v. Pev-
ear, 484.
1. CHATTEL MORTGAGES—Oral Agreement.-If a father loans
his son money with which to purchase a stock of goods and estab-
lish a business, the son orally agreeing that his father shall be se-
cured by the goods for the original and future loans, such agree-
ment constitutes a valid chattel mortgage as between the parties.
(Vt.) Mower v. McCarthy, 942.
2. CHATTEL MORTGAGES-Oral Agreement.-A verbal mort-
gage of chattels to be subsequently acquired is valid as between the
parties. (Vt.) Mower v. McCarthy, 942.
3. CHATTEL MORTGAGES - Possession - -After-acquired Prop-
erty. If it is stipulated that a chattel mortgagor may sell portions
of the mortgaged property from time to time, in the ordinary course
of business, and replace that sold with other property of similar
kind and value, such after-acquired property on the mortgagee's tak-
ing possession of it becomes subject to the lien of the mortgage as
of the date thereof. (Vt.) Mower v. McCarthy, 942.
CHATTEL MORTGAGES-Bankruptcy-After-acquired Prop-
erty. A chattel mortgage on after-acquired property, under which
the mortgagee has taken possession with the mortgagee's consent, is
valid as against the mortgagor's trustee in bankruptcy in the ab-
sence of an express finding that such possession was taken for the
purpose of affording a preference, though possession was 80 ac-
quired within four months prior to the date of the mortgagor's peti-
tion in bankruptcy, and with knowledge that the mortgagor was in-
solvent and contemplating bankruptcy proceedings. (Vt.) Mower v.
McCarthy, 942.
5. CHATTEL MORTGAGES-After-acquired Property.-A chat-
tel mortgage on a stock of goods may be made to cover goods sub-
sequently acquired to replenish the stock. (Vt.) Mower v. McCar-
thy, 942.
6. CHATTEL MORTGAGES-Bankruptcy-Liens.-The national
bankruptcy act providing that where a preference consists of a
transfer, the period of four months shall not expire until four
months after the date of the recording or registering of the transfer
is required, does not apply to a lien given by an oral chattel mort-
gage. (Vt.) Mower v. McCarthy, 942.
7. CHATTEL MORTGAGES-Right to Possession.-If a father
loans money to his son to enable the latter to go into business, and
takes an oral chattel mortgage on the stock to be purchased to se-
cure such loan, on the son's failure to repay it, the mortgagee is
entitled, as against the mortgagor's creditors, to take possession of
the goods, and such possession relates to the time of the execu-
tion of the mortgage. (Vt.) Mower v. McCarthy, 942.
8. CHATTEL MORTGAGES-Innocent Purchaser.-A purchaser
of grain from the mortgagor is not protected as an innocent pur-
chaser by the mere fact that the mortgagee allowed the mortgagor
to thresh and sell the grain, when such purchaser had constructive
notice by the record of the existence of such mortgage. (Minn.)
Endreson v. Larson, 631.
9. SEED GRAIN NOTE-Second Mortgage-Priorities-Evidence.
A lien attaching to a crop to be grown by virtue of a seed grain
note has priority over a lien upon the same crop acquired by means
of a previously executed and filed chattel mortgage, and the pur-
chaser of such grain from the mortgagor is entitled, as against the
claim of the chattel mortgagee, to pay off such seed grain note.
In such case the note and evidence of its payment are admissible in
evidence. (Minn.) Endreson v. Larson, 631.
10. MORTGAGE to Secure Seed Grain Note, Necessity for Pre-
ceding Delivery of the Grain.—A seed grain note is not void for the
reason that the grain was not delivered at or before the execution of
the note, if the note was made pursuant to a contract by which the
payee was to furnish the seed and it was delivered to the maker
shortly thereafter. (Minn.) Endreson v. Larson, 631.
11. MORTGAGE OF CHATTELS-Misapplication of Proceeds of
Sale of Another Mortgage to Secure the Same Debt.-Where a real
estate mortgage is given to secure two notes, one of which is also
secured by a chattel mortgage, and the former mortgage is foreclosed
and a sale made thereunder, after which the chattel mortgage is
foreclosed and a sale made under it, the title of the purchaser can-
not be avoided by a third person on the ground that under section
4465, Revised Laws of Minnesota, the proceeds of the sale under the
real estate mortgage ought to have been first applied to the satisfac-
tion of the note secured by the chattel mortgage. (Minn.) Endreson
v. Larson, 631.
See Banks and Banking; Bills and Notes.
Children, adopted are included in a devise to heirs, 685.
adopted are included within the term "issue," 685.
adopted are not included in the term "bodily heirs," 684.
adopted, inheritance of both as children and as grandchildren,
687.
adopted, inheritance of from first and second adopting parents,
687.
adopted, inheritance of from kindred of adopting parents, 687,
adopted, inheritance of from natural parents, 687.
adopted, inheritance of from the adopting parent, 686.
adopted, inheritance through, 688.
adopted, whether included within the term "lawful issue," 684,
adopted take as pretermitted heirs, 685.
adopted take under a life insurance as children, 685.
adopted, whether included within the term "lawful issue,'' 684,
adopted, who may inherit from, 688.
adoption of, ancient recognition of, 684.
adoption of, at the common law was unknown, 684.
adoption of, by one spouse only, 687.
adoption of, extraterritorial effect of, 685.
adoption of, is dependent on statutes, 684.
adoption of, retrospective operation of statutes authorizing, 685,
Children, adoption of, revokes pre-existing will, 685.
adoption of, statutes authorizing, attitude of the courts toward,
grand, effect of adoption of by grandparents, 687.
CLOUD ON TITLE.
See Quieting Title.
CONDITIONS SUBSEQUENT.
See Deeds, 8-12.
CONFLICT OF LAWS.
See Contracts, 7, 8; Limitation of Actions.
1. CONSPIRACY-Evidence-Declarations of Conspirator.-When
a conspiracy has been shown, the acts and declarations of one con-
spirator in furtherance of the common design may be shown as evi-
dence against his associates. (Ark.) Butt v. State, 42.
2. CONSPIRACY-When Inferred.-If the Acts of two or more
persons are aimed toward the accomplishment of some unlawful object,
each doing a part, so that their acts, though apparently independent,
are in fact connected, indicating a closeness of association and a con-
currence of sentiment, a conspiracy may be inferred, although no
actual meeting among them to concert means is proved. (Ark.)
Butt v. State, 42.
3. CONSPIRACY-Order of Proof.-It is Immaterial whether the
evidence showing a conspiracy is introduced before or after the acts
of the conspirators are received in evidence, if upon the whole case
a conspiracy is shown. (Ark.) Butt v. State, 42.
4. CONSPIRACY, Special Action for.-When an injury to an em-
ployé by causing his discharge results from a conspiracy, it is the
wrongful act done in carrying out a concerted plan, and not the con-
spiracy itself, which furnishes the real ground for the special action.
(Conn.) Wyeman v. Deady, 152.
5. CONSPIRACY.-Threats Coupled with Damage necessarily
flowing therefrom in the prosecution of a conspiracy to do an un-
lawful act are sufficient to constitute a good cause of action. (Md.)
Klingel's Pharmacy v. Sharp, 399.
6. EVIDENCE-Conspiracy - Declarations. If an attempt is
made to show a conspiracy, a foundation must first be laid by proof
sufficient to establish prima facie the fact of the conspiracy, before
the admissions of an alleged conspirator can be admitted. (Vt.)
Mower v. McCarthy, 942.
1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-Privileges of Citizens.-A constitu-
tional guaranty that the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all
privileges and immunities of the citizens in the several states does
not guarantee to the citizens of another state, while resident there,
all the privileges in a sister state that they would enjoy if resident
therein. (N. J. Eq.) McCarter v. Hudson County Water Co., 754.
|