ages on failing to furnish the car as promised. The authority to make
the contract is implied, as within such agent's employment. (N. Y.)
Clark v. Ulster etc. R. R. Co., 848.
Ownership of Consigned Property.
12. CARRIERS-Ownership of Property Consigned-Right to Sue.
If a shipper delivers his property to a carrier, marked and addressed
to another person as consignee, and gives the carrier no other or
further notice than that to be presumed and inferred from the act
of consignment, the law will presume the contract for transportation
to have been made for and on behalf of the consignee, and that he
is the owner of the property and entitled to its possession and to
sue therefor. (Idaho) Pratt v. Northern Pac. Ex. Co., 268.
13. CARRIERS Ownership of Goods Consigned.-If a shipper de-
livers his property to a carrier without special instructions as to its
ownership or its delivery on any condition, the consignee becomes
immediately entitled to the possession of the property, and may de-
mand and lawfully receive it forthwith from the carrier, and the
latter is justified in delivering it to the consignee at any point on its
line of transportation. (Idaho) Pratt v. Northern Pacific Exp.
Co., 268.
14. CARRIERS—Express Companies Ownership of Property Con-
signed-Right to Sue.-If a consignor intrusts money to an express
company with general directions to deliver it to a consignee named,
he thereby vests the right to the possession of the money in the
consignee, and in the absence of any different or contrary instruc-
tions, or any demand for the money, prior to the consignee's de-
mand therefor, the latter is entitled to recover it, upon the failure
and refusal of the express company to deliver the money to him.
(Idaho) Pratt v. Northern Pacific Exp. Co., 268.
CARRIERS-Ownership of Property Consigned.-If property
is received by a carrier on an unconditional and unrestricted consign-
ment, the carrier not only may, but must, treat the consignee as the
absolute owner until it receives notice to the contrary. (Idaho)
Pratt v. Northern Pac. Exp. Co., 268.
Loss of Goods-Act of God.
16. NEGLIGENCE, Loss Resulting Partly from and Partly from
Other Causes.-If a carrier is guilty of negligence not in itself harm-
ful, but wrongful only because of injurious consequences which may
follow, and a new cause intervenes between such negligence and the
injury complained of, which new cause is not a consequence of the
original negligence, which reasonable prudence on the part of the
original wrongdoer could not have anticipated, and but for which
the injury could not have happened, the new cause is the proximate
cause, and the original negligence is disregarded as not affecting
the result. (Kan.) Rodgers v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 416.
17. CARRIERS do not Assume the Risk of Loss Caused by the Act
of God. (Kan.) Rodgers v. Missouri Pacific Ry. Co., 416.
18. CARRIER'S NEGLECT, Liability for When Followed by an
Act of God. If a carrier negligently delays the transportation of
goods, so that they are subsequently exposed to, and destroyed or
injured by, an act of God, such as storm or flood, to which they
would not have been exposed had they been transported with reason-
able diligence, the proximate cause of the injury is the act of God
and not the negligence, and the carrier is not answerable for damages.
(Kan.) Rodgers v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 416.
Adjustment of Claims for Loss.
19. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-Railroads Adjustment of Claims
for Loss to Freight.-A statute providing that common carriers shall
adjust freight charges and claims for loss or damage to freight within
a named time, and that if this is not done they shall be liable to a
penalty, is not unconstitutional as violative of the equality clause of
the fourteenth amendment to the United States constitution, or of
a similar provision in a state constitution. (S. C.) Seegers Brothers
v. Seaboard Air Line Ry., 921.
20. APPELLATE PRACTICE.-Findings of a Magistrate as to the
amount of damages by loss to freight caused by a common carrier,
if affirmed by the circuit court, cannot be reviewed by the supreme
court if there is any evidence to support them. (S. C.) Seegers
Brothers v. Seaboard Air Line Ry., 921.
CODICIL.
See Wills, 8, 9.
1. PLEADING What not Sufficient to Charge Defendant with
Knowledge. An averment that the defendant's servants were guilty
of negligence in failing to stop the paddle-wheels to prevent the
creation of a succession of large waves when a small boat with occu-
pants was plainly visible to such servants is defective, in not further
stating that such boat and its contents were actually seen by them.
(Ala.) Daniels v. Carney, 34.
2. PLEADING-Necessity of Averring Knowledge of Danger.—A
complaint charging negligence in not stopping the revolutions of a
propeller or paddle-wheel of a steamboat when a small boat and its
occupants were seen by the defendant's servants is defective, in not
showing that the peril of such occupants was an obvious one, or was
known to the servants. (Ala.) Daniels v. Carney, 34.
3. NAVIGABLE WATERS -Respective Rights of Large and
Small Boats.-The exercise of the right of navigation is as much
guaranteed to small craft as to a great steamer. Each owes the other
the duty of observance of due care so as to avoid inflicting wrong and
injury upon the other. The injury resulting from a violation of this
duty, whether intentional or through negligence, carries with it the
legal responsibility of answering in damages. (Ala.) Daniels v.
Carney, 34.
4. NAVIGABLE WATERS-Duty of Steamers to Stop the Revo-
lution of Paddle-wheels to Prevent Injury to Occupants of Small
Boats. If a steamer and a small boat are being navigated in a river,
and the small boat is in such a position that the continued revolution
of the steamer's paddle-wheel or propeller will create large waves
sufficient to capsize or swamp the small boat in passing, thereby en-
dangering the lives of its occupants, the steamer and its owners owe
the duty to such occupants of avoiding the danger by ceasing the
normal operation of the steamer and stopping the revolution of its
wheels or propeller until the small boat has passed without the zone
of danger of waves from the larger boat, and if, by failing to do so,
any of such occupants loses his life, such owners are answerable.
(Ala.) Daniels v. Carney, 34.
5. NAVIGABLE WATERS-Contributory Negligence Occupants
of Small Boats, When not Presumed Guilty of.-Where persons in a
small boat in a navigable stream are safe in the absence of an
unusual disturbance in the water, and the water at the time the
steamer approaches is smooth, they cannot be adjudged guilty of con-
tributory negligence when the boat is capsized by waves due to the
continuous revolution of the propeller or wheels of the steamer. Such
persons had the right to assume that the navigators of large crafts
would observe their duty under the law toward a small boat to avoid
the infliction of injury. (Ala.) Daniels v. Carney, 34.
6. MASTER AND SERVANT-Steamboat, Failure to Allege that
Persons Operating Were Acting in the Line of Their Authority.-In
an action against the owners of a steamboat to recover for the death
of a human being averred to have occurred from the negligence of
servants who were operating such boat in failing to discontinue such
operation and to stop the propeller or wheels of such steamer, and
thereby prevent large waves by which the small boat was capsized,
the complaint must allege that such servants acted at the time in the
scope and line of their authority. (Ala.) Daniels v. Carney, 34.
1. INTERSTATE COMMERCE.-A license may be exacted from
a person selling beer by the barrel, half barrel, or quarter barrel,
though he purchases it in another state, whence it is shipped to him
into this state and it remains in the kegs in which he receives it.
(Ala.) City of Mobile v. Phillips, 17.
2. INTERSTATE COMMERCE, Business Which is not.-The
business of brokers of making contracts to buy and sell future cot-
ton for customers is not interstate commerce. Such contracts are not
articles of commerce. (Ala.) Ware v. Mobile County, 21.
3. INTERSTATE COMMERCE License Exacted for Dealing in
Futures.-A license exacted of brokers who are engaged in buying
and selling grain and cotton for future delivery, taking orders in
Alabama, to be executed on the exchanges in New York or New
Orleans, is not imposed on interstate commerce, where the contracts.
in which brokers deal do not contain any stipulation requiring the
seller to ship the cotton or grain to any point without the state,
though, as a matter of fact, such shipments are sometimes made by
the seller. The subsequent shipment cannot become interstate com-
merce until the articles commence to be transported. (Ala.) Ware
v. Mobile County, 21.
4. INTERSTATE COMMERCE-Termination of Interstate Trans-
portation-Taxing Power of State. If goods consisting of small
packages are packed in one large box and shipped from one state,
consigned to the shippers in another, and there received by them
from the carrier at their destination, where the large box is broken
open, and the small packages are delivered to purchasers in accordance
with previous orders, the goods, after the large box is broken open
and delivery begins, cease to be the subject of interstate transporta-
tion, and become a part and parcel of the property of the state, sub-
ject to taxation under its revenue laws. (Idaho) Parks Bros. & Co.
v. Nez Perce, 261.
5. INTERSTATE COMMERCE--End of Interstate Transporta-
tion-Original Package-Taxing Power.-If goods consisting of small
packages are packed in one large box and consigned to the shipper
in another state, the original package is the large box in which the
goods imported are shipped, and when such box is opened at the
point of destination for the sale and delivery of the separate parcels
contained in it, each parcel of the goods loses its distinctive charac-
ter as an import or subject of interstate commerce, and becomes.
property subject to taxation by the state as other like property situ
ated within its limits. (Idaho) Parks Bros. & Co. v. Nez Perce, 261.
6. INTERSTATE COMMERCE-End of Interstate Transporta-
tion-Original Package-Taxing Power.-If goods consisting of small
packages are packed in one large box consigned to the shipper in
another state, the original package is the large box in which the
imported goods are shipped, and after it is received by the owners
at its destination and opened and the smaller packages removed
therefrom for delivery to customers it ceases to be an article of in-
terstate commerce, and is subject to the taxing power of the state
where found. (Idaho) Parks Bros. & Co. v. Nez Perce, 261.
1. COMMON LAW-Adoption of.-By statute so much of the com-
mon law as is applicable to our conditions and not inconsistent with
the constitution of the United States, or of the state, is in force in
Nebraska. (Neb.) Kinkead v. Turgeon, 740.
2. COMMON LAW, Adoption of, in the United States.-The
principles and rules of the common law, so far as applicable to our
conditions, became and continue in force unless abrogated or modified
by express statutory or constitutional enactments. (N. Y.) Waters
& Co. v. Gerard, 886.
3. COMMON LAW, Construction of Statutes and Constitutions
by. Constitutions and statutes should be construed with reference
to the doctrines of the common law, and the constitutional and stat-
utory provisions providing that a person shall not be deprived of
life, liberty, or property without due process of law should not be
held to have been intended to forbid or affect the right to a lien
which had been recognized and sustained by the common law. (N.
Y.) Waters & Co. v. Gerard, 886.
4. COMMON LAW, Evidence of. Where the recognized printed
reports of the English courts prior to 1775 show that the common law
on any particular subject was by such cases established and deter-
mined as therein stated, such reports are the best and highest evi-
dence of such common law. (N. Y.) Waters & Co. v. Gerard, 886.
CONCEALED WEAPONS.
See Weapons.
CONFESSIONS.
See Criminal Law, 6.
CONFLICT OF LAWS-Transfer of Title.-The transfer of
title to real estate within the limits of a state is entirely subject to
the laws of that state, and no interference with it can be permitted
by other states. (Neb.) Fall v. Fall, 767.
See Sunday; Telegraphs and Telephones, 2.
CONSIGNED GOODS.
See Carriers, 12-15.
Construction of Constitution.
1. CONSTITUTIONS.-One of the Aids in Constitutional Con-
struction is an examination of the proceedings of the constitutional
convention. (Ga.) Butts County v. Jackson Banking Co., 244.
Constitutionality of Statutes in General.
2. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.-To Authorize the Court to Declare
a Statute Unconstitutional, it must be found obnoxious to the ex-
press provisions or necessary implication of some article of the con-
stitution, and the court will not declare a statute unconstitutional
because it is opposed to the spirit supposed to pervade the constitution,
or is contrary to the principles of right. (Ala.) Ex parte Owens,
67.
3. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-Constitutionality of Statute, How
Raised.—A general suggestion that the provisions of a statute are un-
constitutional and void is permissible as a way of presenting the con-
stitutionality of the state. (Ala.) Beauvoir Club v. State, 82.
Statute Void in Part.
4. STATUTE VOID IN PART-When Void in Toto.-When por-
tions of a statute, rejected as in themselves unconstitutional, are not
so merely incidental and subordinate that they can be stricken out
without in any sense impairing the efficiency of the act, and are so
numerous that it cannot be said that the legislature would have
passed the act with these left out, the whole act must fall. (Tenn.)
Malone v. Williams, 1002.
5. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-Invalid Provision of Statute, When
may not be Disregarded and the Remainder Enforced. Where a
statute in effect authorizing a judicial proceeding to determine the
title to office of candidates at a preceding election for mayor pur-
ports to deprive the parties in interest of the right to a trial by
jury, the courts will not disregard this provision as unconstitutional
and declare the remainder of the statute valid. (N. Y.) Matter of
Metz v. Maddox, 909.
Equal Protection of Laws.
6. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-Equal Protection of Laws.-A con-
stitutional provision that the legislature shall pass no local or special
law granting to any corporation, association or individual, any special
or exclusive immunity or privilege, is a guaranty that all valid enact-
ments of the legislature shall be uniform in their operation upon per-
sons and property, and by it all citizens are assured the equal pro-
tection of the laws. (Ill.) Jones v. Chicago etc. Ry. Co., 313.
7. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-Equal Protection of Laws.-Every
citizen has an equal right with every other to resort to the courts of
justice for the settlement and enforcement of his rights, and a statute
that makes a discrimination between different classes of litigants
which is merely arbitrary in its nature is a denial of that right and
of the equal protection of the law. (Ill.) Jones v. Chicago etc. Ry.
Co., 313.
8. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-Equal Protection of Law-Rights
on Appeal.-As to cases at law in which judgment has been rendered
and the right of appeal exists, a statute thereafter enacted which
purports to confer a right upon the appellee which it is not possible
for the appellant to enjoy, and to place a burden upon the appellant
to which it is not possible that the appellee can be subjected, namely,
Am. St. Rep., Vol. 121-69
|