Divorce.] Where the husband dies pending the wife's action for divorce, his
executor may not be substituted in order to compel him to pay an order,
made during the husband's life, for the wife's counsel fees. McCurley
McCurley (Md.), 717.
Parol release of judgment.] A parol release of a judgment for less than the
amount due is invalid although indorsed on the execution. Weber v. Couch
(Mass.), 274.
For arrest of servant.] See Master and Servant, 639.
To recover tax paid.] See TAXATION, 476.
See CRIMINAL CONVERSATION, 307; NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT, 353.
ADVANCEMENT.
See EVIDENCE, 88
ADVERSE POSSESSION.
See CROPS, 664; TRESPASS, 703.
1. Broker-commissions.] One employed to procure a loan for a commission
is entitled to his commission on finding a person able and willing to make
the loan, although the principal declines to take it. Vinton v. Baldwin
(Ind.), 447.
2. Contract in name of agent-recovery against known principal.] A writ-
ten contract, not under seal, purported to be made by A., and was signed,
"A., agent." A. was in fact contracting for his wife, and the plaintiff
knew it. Held, that the plaintiff might recover against the wife. Bying
ton v. Simpson (Mass.), 314.
1. Duty of confining dangerous.] A farmer who keeps a young stallion in a
field near a highway is bound to fence with regard to its propensities, and
it is not enough that his fence is such as other farmers usually maintain.
Mellouine v. Lantz (Penn.), 400.
2. Negligence- contributory.] One who keeps a vicious bull tethered on
his own land, knowing his viciousness, but within reach of a road which
the public had been accustomed to use although not a highway, is liable
for an injury by the bull to a passer on the road.
(Neb.), 98.
Fraudulent.] See MARRIAGE, 75.
Striking horse.] It may be an assault to strike a horse which another is driv.
ing. Clark v. Downing (Vt.), 612.
1. What justifies attorney's abandonment of suit.] When the client employs
counsel with whom his attorney cannot cordially co-operate, the attorney
may withdraw from the suit, and recover for his services already ren-
dered. Tenney v. Berger (N. Y.), 263.
2. Power to compromise.] An attorney has no implied authority to compro-
mise an award obtained by his client against a township for road dam-
ages. Township of North Whitehall v. Keller (Penn.), 361.
3. Privileged communication.] The privilege to exclude evidence of com-
munications between attorney and client is personal to the client, and he
may waive it. Passmore v. Passmore's Estate (Mich.), 62.
See CHAMPERTY AND MAINTENANCE, 82.
Gratuitous—liability for larceny.] The plaintiff deposited with the defend-
ant, a merchant, a sum of money for safe-keeping, without reward, and
with permission to use it, of which he never availed himself. His book-
keeper, by the acquiescence of both parties, occasionally temporarily took
small amounts to make change. It was kept separate, and was stolen
without defendant's fault. Held, that defendant was not liable. Cald-
well v. Hall (Miss.), 410.
Duty as to special deposit.] The plaintiff delivered bonds to the defendant,
a country bank, without its solicitation, and with no agreement for re-
ward, and took a receipt specifying that they were received for safe-
keeping as a special deposit." The bonds were deposited in defendant's
safe, with the valuables of the defendant, and it was claimed that they
were taken therefrom by robbery. The safe was left open during the
transaction of business, there was no gate in the passage-way from the
rear of the banking-room behind the counter, and only one person was
left in charge about noon each day. Held, (1) that defendant was liable
only for gross negligence; (2) that there was no evidence of gross negli-
gence; (3) that it was error to take into account any profit to the bank by
sale of the coupons, for none was allowed by the contract.
First National Bank of Brattleboro (Vt.), 598.
Discharge - foreign creditor.] A debt contracted by a resident of Vermont
to a resident of Canada, and payable in Canada, is not barred by a dis-
charge under the United States Bankrupt Act, where the creditor was not
a party to and had no personal notice of the proceedings. McDougall v.
Page (Vt.), 602.
BILLS, NOTES AND CHECKS.
See NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT.
See MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, 383.
1. Connnecting line — stipulation for exemption.] A stipulation in a bill of
lading, given by one of an association of connecting carriers, that if loss
or damage of goods occurs the company in whose custody they were
at the time shall alone be answerable, is valid, and binds the shipper
accepting it, whether he reads it or not. Phifer v. Carolina Central
Railway Company (N. C.), 687.
2. Contract for exemption — burden of proof.] When goods in transportation
by a common carrier under a contract limiting his liability as insurer are
lost, he must show, to avoid liability, that the loss resulted from an ex-
cepted cause, and that he was not guilty of negligence. Chicago, St.
Louis and New Orleans Railroad Company v. Moss (Miss.), 428.
3. "Owner's risk ❞— delay and theft.] Plaintiff delivered goods to the de-
fendant, a common carrier, for transportation, at owner's risk." There
was evidence of negligent and unusual delay, and of the theft of part of
the goods while in the carrier's possession. The court charged that there
could be no recovery unless the loss was attributable to the delay.
Canfield v. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company (N. Y.), 268.
4. Passenger-connecting line - baggage.] Where a passenger with a
through ticket over a connecting line of railroads checks his baggage at
the starting point through to his destination, and upon arriving it is dam
aged or has been broken open and robbed, he may sue the company which
issued the check, or the company delivering the baggage in bad order.
Wolff v. Central Railroad Company (Ga.), 501.
wrongful ejection.] A passenger bought & round trip railroad
ticket, and surrendered it to a brakeman who came around and demanded
it (the conductor being in hiding on the engine), and who tore it in two,
keeping one part and giving back the other, supposing one-half was good
for either way.
On his return the passenger offered the said portion of
the ticket, but the conductor refused it, and notwithstanding the passen-
ger's explanation, ejected him for refusing to pay fare. Held, that the
passenger could recover damages of the company. Lake Erie and Western
Railway Company v. Fix (Ind.), 464.
6. Railroad passenger ticket purchased from unauthorized agent — conflict
of laws.] One who purchased a railroad ticket from New York to Phila-
delphia from a person who was not an authorized agent of the company,
may maintain an action against the company for refusal to carry him,
the sale being legal in New York but forbidden under penalty in Pennsyl-
vania, but there being no authority in the statute for refusal to carry on
tickets purchased from unauthorized agents. Sleeper v. Pennsylvania
Railroad Company (Penn), 380.
at reduced fare-damages.]
A railway company may lawfully
issue tickets at reduced rates and impose the condition of non-trans-
ferability but has no right to take up the tickets and exclude the
transferee from the train under the condition that it may refuse to accept
it. The measure of damages is the value of such a ticket. Post v. Chi
cago and Northwestern Railroad Company (Neb.), 100.
CHAMPERTY AND MAINTENANCE.
Agreement between attorney and client.] An agreement by which a defend-
ant in attachment assigns to his attorney the property attached, in consid-
eration of his services in the suit, and in prosecuting a contemplated
action of damages on account of the attachment, stipulating for his own
diligence in the attachment suit, and giving the attorney the entire man-
agement and control, is not void for champerty or maintenance. Ware's
Administrators v. Russell (Ala.), 82.
COMMISSIONS.
See EXECUTOR, 725.
Of doubtful claim —— consideration.] An agreement by beneficiaries under a
will with an heir at law, who is cut off by the will and threatens to con-
test it on the ground of undue influence, to pay him money, in considera-
tion of his desisting, is valid if the heir at law honestly thought he had
reasonable ground for setting up that claim. Bellows v. Soroles (Vt.), 621.
See ATTORNEY AND CLIENT, 361.
For sectarian education.] See WILL, 765.
CONFLICT OF LAWS.
Bee CARRIER, 380; USURY, 796.
CONSIDERATION.
See COMPROMISE, 621.
1 Act imposing attorney's fees on county.] An act of the legislature im-
posing on a county the payment of attorney's services rendered to private
individuals, in a successful proceeding to reduce the tax levy, is unconsti-
tutional. Board of Supervisors v. Cowan (Miss.), 424..
2. Orime near border of county-venue.] Where the Constitution provides
that crimes shall be tried in the counties where committed, the legisla-
ture may not make an exception in case of crimes committed within
one hundred yards of the county boundary. State v. Lowe (W. Va.),
3. Equality of taxation.] A statute taxing some railroad companies upon
gross receipts and others upon capital stock is unconstitutional for in-
equality. Worth v. Wilmington and Weldon Railroad Company (N. C.),
679.
4. Ex post facto.] A statute enabled any person indicted for murder to avoid
all risk of a capital sentence by pleading guilty. A subsequent statute
took away that privilege. Held, ex post facto as to offenses committed
while the former statute was in force. Garvey v. People (Col.), 531.
6. "Office or place of trust or profit" — what is not.] A night watchman of
a Federal post-office building, appointed by the Federal treasury depart-
ment, does not "hold an office of trust or profit under the United States."
Doyle v. Aldermen of Raleigh (N. C.), 677.
6. Limitation of municipal indebtedness.] Where the Constitution forbids
any municipal corporation ever to become indebted beyond a certain
amount, "in any manner or for any purpose," that amount may not be
exceeded even for necessary current expenses. Sackett v. City of Now
Albany (Ind.), 467.
9. Regulation of foreign insurance companies.] A statute requiring the
agents of insurers, doing business in the city of New York but not incor.
porated under the laws of New York, to pay a percentage upon the gross
|