Gornell Law School Library
TTT
A TREATISE ,

ON

GENERAL PRACTICE

CONTAINING

RULES AND SUGGESTIONS

FOR THE

WORK OF THE ADVOCATE

IN THE

PREPARATION FOR TRIAL, CONDUCT OF THE TRIAL
AND PREPARATION FOR APPEAL

BY.
BYRON K. ELLIOTT

AND

WILLIAM F. ELLIOTT

Authors of a Treatise on the Law of Roads and Streets and of a
Treatise on Appellate Procedure

au Pwo Volumes

VOLUME |

INDIANAPOLIS AND KANSAS CITY
THE BOWEN-MERRILL COMPANY

1894
Ayn

CopyricutT 1894
BY

THE BOWEN-MERRILL co.

!

PRESS OF
-CARLON & HOLLENBECK,
INDIANAPOLIS.
PREFACE.

Tus treatise is founded on the book of the authors called
“The Work of the Advocate.’’ That book has been out of
_ print for more than five years. Yielding to the request of
many of our brethren who kindly received our book, we
have enlarged it into a treatise on general practice. In do-
ing this we have carried our work far beyond the scope
of the former title, and for that reason have adopted a
more comprehensive one.

Our book, as it is now enlarged, covers the entire work of
the advocate in the preparation and trial of causes. It be-
gins with the first steps in gathering the facts, and follows
the proceedings through the preparation for trial, the con-
duct of the trial and the preparation for appeal. Although
we have enlarged the plan of the work, we have not departed
from our original purpose to treat of matters not usually
discussed in books, and our book covers many subjects not
touched by other authors. We have, however, necessarily
treated some of the subjects considered by Judge Thompson
in his admirable treatise on trials. This we have done be-
cause the scope of our work required it, and not with any
hope or thought of improving upon Judge Thompson’s ex-
cellent work, although we have collected very many later
cases, and have, also, presented some of the topics in a dif-
ferent light as well as from a different point of' view.

The preface to “The Work of the Advocate” we retain,
for while the changes made in the book are many, and
carry it far beyond the limits there defined, yet so much of

(iii)
iv "PREFACE.

the earlier book remains that the preface is not irrelevant
or inappropriate. To what was said in that preface little
need be added. We have endeavored to state principles,
and to illustrate their practical application by copious refer-
ances to the adjudged cases. We have not given attention
to local rules nor dwelt upon statutory provisions. We
have dealt with general principles which prevail, with rare
exceptions, throughout the whole country, and have gath-
ered cases from all the courts. We have found conflict
among the cases, and have freely expressed our own con-
victions wherever we haye found diversity of judicial opin-
ion, and, in some instances, have ventured to oppose the
numerical weight of cases, holding ourselves bound to abide
by principles rather than precedents.
Byron K. Exuiorr.

Wiviram F. Evviorr.
Indianapolis, September 1, 1894.
PREFACE

= TO

THE WORK OF THE ADVOCATE.

Many years ago the elder of the authors, impressed by a
remark of Mr. Chitty, became a close observer of the dif-
ferent methods pursued by advocates in the trial of causes.
The scrutiny, as the investigation progressed, went beyond
the facts open to the observer’s unaided perception, and led
to an inquiry into the habits of thought of jurymen. The
position of the inquirer, at the time—that of trial judge—
was such as to enable him to freely converse with the jur-
ors and draw from them their opinion of. the methods of
the different advocates who came before them. The result
of the investigation, both as to the method of examining
- witnesses and as to the course of argument by which jurors
are influenced, are given in the pages which follow. It
may, therefore, be justly said that as to these subjects, at
least, this book is founded mainly on experience, although
many books have been consulted in its preparation.

Tt has been the intention and the hope of the authors to
give to the profession a book that shall be of service to the
advocate in the actual work which he must do. It has
been our purpose to treat of matters not usually discussed
in\works on pleading and practice. We have, as we be-
lieve, treated more of the things that abide in the unwrit-
ten practice than of those which are found in books. We

hope that the young advocate will find suggestions of sub-
(v)
vi PREFACE. '

stantial value, and we even venture to hope that, while the
advocate of experience may not find much in our pages
that is new or instructive, he may, at least, find something
‘of interest.

In collecting authorities we have regarded quality rather
than numbers, and have referred to such cases as seemed
best to illustrate the points upon which they are cited.
We have examined many reports, and from the great num-
ber of cases have selected the latest and the most instruc-
tive. We have endeavored to make the book one that will
be serviceable in actual practice—one to which the advocate
may turn for instruction and information in the hurry and
pressure of actual work. To that end we have made such
suggestions, stated such rules'and collected such authorities
as bear ‘upon the questions that most frequently arise in the
preparation and trial of causes.

It is not without fear of censure that, in this day of many
books, we submit our work to our brethren. We bespeak
their charitable judgment, and, in mitigation of such errors
as we may have fallen into, we plead that, for the most
part, our path is one not much traveled by book-makers,
and that it lies through fields of difficulty. If the book
shall be of help to the young advocate we shall not regret
the labor we have given it, nor greatly suffer from the
censure its faults may bring upon us. We are bold enough
to hope that the gratitude of the young advocate, whom it
has been our leading purpose to help, will outweigh the
censure of those who may think that we have added to the
number of books without adding anything of value to legal
literature. Byron K. Ex.iorr.

Wituiam F. Ex.iortt.
Indianapolis, Indiana, August, 1888.
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Book |
THE ADVOCATE’S WORK OUT OF COURT

PREPARATION FOR TRIAL

Book II
THE ADVOCATE’S WORK IN COURT

TRIAL PRACTICE

VOLUME |

CHAPTER I.
LEARNING AND PREPARING THE FACTS.

PAGE.

$1. Value of preparation...................... RNIN Ads keane aa ceees 2
2. GENIUS OF SUCCESS ix sss cncnwinnnmcicn ag eon the vee ee damledee ess 3
3. Study of the case.......,...........05 Leateainain any Rigareanamnewes yer 4
4, Mastering the facts, juigcncs ead joai. athe saticharncd e eestni sua mulein sce 4
5. Examining the witnesses ...... 0.0... cece ccc eee tenner ones 6
6. Object of preliminary examination. ............ 0... cece eee ences 6.
Go Dhings SeOlsccavusd aaweter ess scutes san exea anes se peneewmeee. 7
8. Maps, plans and photographs ......... 0... cee cece eee cence eeeeees 8
9. Suggestions to witnesses. ........ cece cece eee een e tenes 8
viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS—VOL. I.

PAGE.
§10. Evils of coaching Witnesses ....... 0... cece eee tence nee teen e et enes 9
1s. “CHIH S Ad VACE anes Hone A aaa SIA oD aneOneueee ees 10
12. Harm caused by a bad witness, ...... 0... ccc ener eee eens 10
13... Cautioninge witnesses! ss os46sa4shvehreate eee nny ooy ess soe eae 11
14. Duty of advocate in consultation with witnesses.................++- 12
15. Inspection of written instruments..........0. 00. cece cence teens 12
16. Copies should not be depended upon............. cece nee eee eens 14
17. Client’s statement of contents not to be trusted............... eee 16
18. Circumstances aid work of construction ........... ccc c cece eee ees 16
19. Circumstances may create probability........... 00. e ccc eee eee 17
20. Influence of probability............ eG MAD EERSERG Ou DAM POEM RE Keele 18
21s. IHLOreNn COS s,m gies dag Honea AKAN SA aed Soran aU ORE TAG RRO VEIT 19
22. Groundwork of inference .......... evilarnl cia Bada Senet aalsenaarcae ams 20
23. Difference between facts and evidence.............. eee eee eee eee 21
24: Mark SOP tH iS 5 so cccccaanpiene cane quest svens anes eaves etlalgie Gualgne ean wlan SO Me 22
25. ‘‘Fact’”’ not synonymous with “‘truth.” 2.0.0.0... cece eee eee 22
26. Chief object of preparatory investigation ............. 0. cece eee eee 23
27. Rules of induction to be observed .......... 0... cece cece ees 23
28. Witness should be allowed to tell his own story...... iwisanucuten et Beare 24
29. Securing knowledge of unfavorable evidence.................0.000- 25
30. Meeting unfavorable evidence............ 0... cece ees 25
31. Difference between gathering materials and presenting casein court. 26
32. Committing evidence to MeMOry......... 0.0 eee ee eee 26
88. Nature-of evidenG@. sanciissaugaiisa ens asehar se paraeieta ave yung 27
34. Use of crude materials... ............00ccceee cs eceeeeceeeneeee ees 27
35. Means of making facts evident to jury...........- 0c cece eee eee ee 28
86. Ascertaining reputation of witnesses ............. cece ence eee ees 28
87. Identification of persons. ............ cece eee ee eee teen eee e ees 29
88. Means of identifying persons............... cc cece eee eee teen eee 30
89. Identity of animals. ........... 0... rusia ae Bema 32
40. Identity of inanimate personal property.............. cc eee e eee ees 33
41. Identifying real property ...... 0. oe eee nee ene ene 34
42. Identifying documents....... 0... cc ee eee een e eee enaes 35
48. Examination of-clienet 2:3 ccieocauueuey yee yshwee eee odunitled woe Red ees 35
44. Control of the case. j.sso.eengessisdenevasagga enuneas ease ee ace es 36
45. Tendency of clients to exaggerate. ...... 0. ice cece eee eee eee 36
46. Written statements no substitute for personal examination......... 86
47. Information as to client’s business ............. 2. see e cece e eens 387
48. Prejadicesf JUPOLSs ci.) nadia nk atts hd Pa ORDeewsAw awe Game 37
49. Object of procuring knowledge of client’s standing................. 38
50. Necessity of consultation with witnesses................ cee cece eee 38
51. Reasons for promptly examining witnesses..............000000. 005 39
52. Fastening the facts in the mind............. 00... cece cence eee eee 39
53. Assumption that the client does not know the law..:.............. 40

. Taking client’s opinion ........ 0... ccc cece eee eee eee ees 40
TABLE OF CONTENTS—VOL. I. 1x

CHAPTER II.

ASCERTAINING AND PREPARING THE LAW OF THE CASE.

PAGE
$55. What is to be assumed at the outset....:....... 0.00 cece cece eee ee 42
56. Provisional hypothesis............ 00... cece eee eee eee eee eee 43
57. Use of the provisional hypothesis ..... SRSA ck tee as 44
58. Object of the search for the law.......... 0.0. cece cece ee eee e anes 44
59. Rudimentary principles, ........0 0... c ccc cece ence een ee nenees 45
GO. The search: fof thé: la Wises ecco cetgary eee d aes oe Regen GS dae 46
61. Cases and principles. ?.......0. 0.00006 cece cece cence cence een eeees 46
62. Text-books...... SOY RSG NS oe SRE E SE yROSE ES MAME ee Ee ee oe 47
63. ‘General: principles, «ice cices vee edad ca. 04. 0ae Fs animebadn dees 18444 48
64. Determining weight and influence of decided cases ....... .....60 48
65. How a decision should be considered...... ........ 00sec ee ee eee 50
66. Considerations which affect weight of decisions........... yeeneea we 50
67. Judicial decisions not the law itseli—When authority PURE eotindsecees 51
68. Obtaining principles—Analogical reasoning .........0...-2..000 008 52
69. How to search text-books—Tables of cases................ 0000 eee ee 53
70. Effect of increase in number of reported cases. ................00 54
‘71. Generalization Of CASES. ...... 0. ccc cece cece ene eee eee 55
‘02s. Case lawyers: esc ngwaneee + oeaws sy Hew ebey 22 6e es ORS hate sgean gn 56
73. Exceptions to general rules............0. 000. c cece cence cece e eens 56
74; DIBETIMMIMA LION: ¢.5.4 windvd 2.05 <5 NMOL eae Gad aia don iia RRA Bonu) 57
75. Contention is usually as to applicability of general rules...... ..... 59
76. Law periodicals—Leading articles......... Sof ie ABS Oe Cpa eM OE 60
W(s. BUALULOLy Mawes excuse Ga yew en ahauAe Ov 2224 ao Makleitals slags Meats 61
78. Construction of statutes... 0.2... cece cece ence ete eee 61
79. Making law of the case available...........0.00 cece cece een eee e es 62
80. Referring to general principles................ cee Sfalndiresectraticoe waned . 62
81. Mind must act quickly ............... cee eee eee ahiges oie whan wnsatatrens _ 68
82. Practical use of knowledge...... pire Cia a Aid lea co asa eme eget 64
83. Fixing legal principles in memory........... .. orientale neha ve. 65
84. Knowledge needed by the advocate .......... 0... cee cece eee eee 66
$5. Business work.............0cccceeceeseeeen eens ahs oeea ayers ciated 67
86. Written MOLES: 6 iced. oso abthaee ness pa heen eee aad Sasa 67
CHAPTER III.
THE THEORY OF THE CASE.
87. Definite theory must be adopted.............. 0. ese e cece een cerns 70
88. Cases lost because of a wrong theory... ......... 0. cece eee eee ees 71
89. Cases gained on a Sound theory... 00... cece cece cee ene 71
90. Other illustrative cases...... 00... c eee eee eee tenes 72
OE.. Necessity ofa theOryi.ecicces cbc sien ee ds Lewin # andie ace ss 4 FaaaMS Bd 73
92. Contests of forum likened to battles.............. 00.00 c cece eee eee 73
98. Definition of theory of the ca8e............... 0.2 eee ee eta 74
§ 94.
95.
96.
97.
98.
99.

100.
101.
102.

103.

104.

105.

106.

107.

108.

109.

110.

111.

112.
113.
114.
115.
116.
117.
118.
119.

120.

121.

122.

123.

124.

125.

126.

127.

128.
129,

130.

131.

132.

133.

134.

135.

136.

137.
138.

139.

140.

141.

TABLE OF CONTENTS—VOL I.

PAGE.
Different uses of word ‘‘theory”... 0.0.0... cece eee eee ete e eens 75
Meaning of word ‘‘theory’’.......... cece cece eee eee etn eee e eens 76
‘«Theory ’’? means more than “ hypothesis”................00 ee eeeee 7
Difference between theory and hypothesis................ cee e ewes 78
Hypothesis—Deduction........ 0... ccc cence erect ent teees 78
Great lawyers skillful in constructing hypotheses.................. 79
Hypothesis must be probable... 1.0... 0. cece cee cee eee ees 80
Fanciful. hypotheses ico. oii ccnsanadadiacisaes ciswenad eye wad ean 81
Definition of hypothesis—Common use..............eec eee ee eens 81
Examples of hypotheses......... 2.00... cece cece ee eee GGEMEES oe eee 82
Value of. hypotheses.............. Seay ee Edens 6 aGietee yess reese eae 83
Hypotheses necessary in communicating facts and ideas............ 83
Use of imagination in forming theory..................0..0eee eens 84
Imagination aids in forming hypotheses.................. cs ceeeee 85
Effective work of advocate in constructing hypotheses.............. 86
Working hypotheses... ........ 0.0... cece eee eee e ee seeeeenee 87
Verification of provisional hypothesis. .............. cc cee eeeeen eee 87
Importance of provisional hypothesis in investigating law.......... 88
Search for signs casi evecare caivemarenaaseees reeawaameaniadres’ 89
Untenable hypotheses impair strength of theory.................-- 90
Improbable hypotheses impair force of theory..................00% 91
Arrangement of facts in theory..... ........... Ese een Rae ae eles 91
Theory should show natural relation of facts.................0ee0es 92
Subsidiary: facts geo. eas om clguabhhotieae ta senwx aa maemo on es 92
Principal facts supported by minor factS........... 00. c cee e cee eee 93
Theory must inspire belief............ cece ccc eee eee e ence nee 94
How to secure belief... 00... cee cece cence cena eeeenens ee 95
Tlustrative theGriess. oi. 6.i0 sncaeene aigwdlad Aas aineeuwy san Gaeeasecasss 95 ~
Consequences to which theory leads to be considered.............. 97
Theory should be consistent with experience ..................00. 98.
Appeal to experience.......... cece eee eee eee Loin ned nee 84 99
Theory should be clear and logical...... budlexnuatenens See Hand 100
Matters of law and matters of fact should be kept separate........ 101
PresuMptOnSsaswneaey cade sa 54 24 4 A RAER EEA Soh vee ba cuunsmadias 4 101
Use and avoidance of presumptions............... 0... ccecee eevee 101
Presumptions of fact. ...0. 0.06 cisrececeneab ee neeesedesapaneeeeaues 102
Importance of presumptions...................0005 pew a F Aten ee 103
DEleCtive: theOTIS iasss cise ray gic damadalnd Henny 246 49 Haan eas 103
Theory should be invulnerable. ........... 0... sce eees eee eeeecee ees 105
Contests of forum likened to naval engagements................... 105
Nature of work in constructing theory. .......... 0... ccc cu eaeeee 105
Preparation and arrangement of details................ ccc. ceeeeee 106
Verification of theory. ....... 0... cece ccc cece cece eee e ca enaeens 107
Fallacies to be guarded against ...... 0... cee cece cece ceesees 107
Inconsistent hypotheses to be avoided................0. cc cue eee aee 108
Importance of verification of theory.......... 0... cc cce cee eee eee 109
Trial court theory prevails on appeal..................0.c cece eee 110

Limits of the rule that trial court theories continue effective on appeal.112
§ 142.
143.
144,
145.
146.
147.
148.
149.
150.
151.
152.
153.
154.
155.
156.
157.
158.
159.
160.
161.
162.
163. .
164,
165.
166.
167.
168.
169.
170.
171.
172.
173.
174.
175.
176.
177.
178,
179.
180.
181.
182.
183.
184.

TABLE OF CONTENTS—VOL. I. xi

‘

CHAPTER IV
COURTS.

PAGE,
Courts the repository of judicial power................c0ce eee eeees 115
COUFtS—D CHD ION 5 sas dare view Suuien winanteanae woat's ses eeu anurans 116
Source of judicial power........ eres a Austr Raa e BILE ¥ asbsbsetaeysoptednciaiebee s 118
Power to create COUrtS...... 2... cece een eet cece eee eee eens 118
Courts created by the Constitution. ...........0.... ccc cece cece 119
Creation of courts—Constitutional limitations...................0. 120
Legislative judgment—Collateral attacks...............0ceeece0.. 121
Appellate tribunals..... Bote ee SNS ire tele gS Raed eee Suh eeVate ey Pet sae 123
Classes of courts—Generally .....0..0. 00. c cece cee c ee ee eee e eens 125
Courts of superior and inferior jurisdiction....................065 127
Courts of superior general jurisdiction............. 00.0000 cee ee eee 130°
Courts of limited jurisdiction............... 000. c cece eee cence eee 132
The test for determining the rank of a court .......... was waded > 133
Legislative courts—Influence of fundamental principles........... 135
Inherent and implied powers of courts..............00cceeeeeeeras 136
Court can not divest itself of jurisdiction.....................0055 137
Term— When it begins...... fp ante sweeskeades fied erehsteeadiemes 138
Duration Of terms snc saw rcisiiedsveecuaciaugaucs se ee cee Lady apenas’ 188
The common law fiction that the term is as one day............... 139
TEFMS— BUSINESS 6 wists croaiciarsinnisa vig yy ae tee Savers Ae Osan wanmueaienbals 8% 139
Terms of court—Time of holding.. ............ 0... cece een eee ees 140
Terms of court—Holding at improper time.................00e0e es 142
WOTACTO LEVIS 9 2.5 asses vasanasapheantigiena ns dae aumninherhaaneiea wana a 143
Place of holding court............. Shiota ene edema 145
Adjourned terms—General doctrine. .............. cece eee eeeeeees 147
Adjourned terms—Errors and irregularities..................2000- 148
Order for adjourned term........ inp aes Rie src vee aa mintaes 148
Notice of adjourned term....... reacts ade hy voessoaticive Mia oan eitusaasiastt a 151
Adjourned term—Waiver of objections............. 00.0 cece eee ee 151
‘Adjourned term regarded as continuance of regular term.......... 152
Temporary adjournments.......... 0.00: cece cece eee cee eee e tees 153
Unauthorized adjournment...................00. tts epasnceh elspa 154
The interim created by adjournments in term—Vacation.......... 155
Continuous SeSSION... 0.2... 6. cece cette eee tee eee e teens ...156
Special terms—Generally.... 0.0... cece cece cece teen eee eee einen 157
Special terms—Authority to order. ...... ccc cece eee cece cee 159
Special terms—Constitutional questionS...................0000-05 159
Business of special terms ........... fesse eer ee eee eee eee eneeee 161
Adjournment—Reasons for need not be assigned....,............ 161
Adjourned and special terms—Discretionary power to order...... 162.
Terms of court—Judicia! notice ...... 6... eee ee ee ee eee 163

Judgment of the court as to the regularity of its session—Effect of. .164
Presumption as to regularity of organization..................¢..169
xii

§ 185

186,
187.
188.
189.
190.
191.
192.
193.
194.
195.
196.
197.
198.
199.
200.
201.
202.

208.
204.
205.
206.
207.
208.
209.
210.
211.
212.
213.
214,
216.
216.
217.
218.
219.
220.
221.
222.
223.
224.
225.
226.
227.
228.

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS—VOL. I.

: PAGE
Relation of courts to other governmental departments...........- 169
Rules—Definition . ........ cess eecc cern ence reste a naeencanee 171
Rules—Power to frame...........c cece eee eee eee eee eee e eee eeee 173
Rules—Notice of by other courts....... Ganiog SEM aE 175
Discretionary powers—Nature and extent of............eeeeee eee 175
RECOPS s 5 6ci0 ctemiieaamctee shale esd qaelob eels See eae TAMRON Ye 179
Control Of TECOrd 8... ewes yaw stein s Core hadhad Wee ea TD Te 184
Nune pro tune entrieS.. 0.6... cee ene eee eee ene 186
Control of process—Interference of other courts................+: 192
Control of property... ccc. eccucseaine need Fes cea TEREST Coe Bee 193
Property in custodia legis... 0... ccc e eee eet eee n eee tenn tee 196
Ministers of the courts........ 00 cece cece cece eee eee teen eens 199
Officers-Of COUT; pi5.4 eiisularsces tng aap ame Adie attra NR Ama 201
Officers of court—Power to appoint............ ec cece eee eee eee 203
Officers of court—Control of........ LOH BY LR PARRA ure MeO aSE AS 204
Control of court-houses and appurtenances............0eee cence 205
Allowances out of public funds............ cece eee eee eens 205 .
Agreements and stipulations of parties............ 0 ccc eee ee cease 206

CHAPTER V.
JUDGES AND JUDICIAL OFFICERS.

Detinitionye sense haw s oe datgstneelainn nue nade GR ewes wu ce eae ey 208
Duties of a judge—Generally........... 00... c eee ee eee | bea giaenaectiang 209
Judicial duties and functions. ............ 00... eee cece ee eee 211
Only judicial duties can be imposed on judges..................-- 212
Duties of a judge can not be delegated..................... 0000s 213
De facto judges—Generally... 2.0.00... cece cece ee cece eee eens 214
What constitutes a judge de facto......... cece cee ee eee 215
No man shall be a judge in his own cause...................0004, 218
Disqualification of judges by interest.................... eee eued 219
The degree of interest that disqualifies....................00000- “290
Collateral attacks on the right of a judge to hear and decide a case .221
Questioning on appeal the right of a judge to act................. 222
Attack by appeal not collateral........0 2... cece cece eee eee 223
Disqualification because of relationship.................e eee eee 223
Various statutory disqualifications ....... ccc cece eee eee neces 224
Necessity may compel disqualified judge to act.................06- 225
Change OF (WAC is ac. nciccastinnebnd sdadas Ed) Smmehagan Leeds Rane 225
Power to appoint special judges—Generally..................00 225
Special jOd GES : occ y Gavpnday aad acon wb anvuaat aun a eee aa unapaecatene 227
Who appoints judges pro tempore...... 0... cc cece ccc ence eee 229
Determination of necessity of appointing special judge. ......... 229
Mode of appointing special judges. ................0. 0... cece eee 230
Procedure respecting appointment of special judges.............. 231
Objections to special judges......... ec ec ceeceeeee eee 232
Presumption of regularity in appointment....................008. 234

Authority of special judges........ aves ttdseauab et thay oreo aia neliadeatae ee 235
‘

§ 229.
230.
231.
232.
233.
284.
235.
236.

" 937.
238.
239.
240.

241.
242,
243.
244,
245.
246.
247,
248.
249,
250.

"251.
252.
258.
254.
255.
256.
257.
258.
259.

260.
261.
262.
263.
264,
265.
266.
267.
268.

TABLE OF CONTENTS—VOL. I. xiii

CHAPTER VI.

JURISDICTION.

PAGE
Determining the court in which to sue.............ccee cece ee eeees 238.
Jurisdiction of courts—Definition ....... 2... ccc cece eee ee eee 240:
Elements of jurisdiction .......... 00... cece eee cee ee ee 2.243
Source of jurisdiction over legal controversies. ..............0000. 247
Exercise of jurisdiction—Instrumentalities ....................0.. 248
Classification. .3.3 ssc64 cadsaueee sere wade Seu Oatea eee wate eae ake 252
Appellate jurisdiction......... 0.00. icc ete e eee ete ene es 252°
Original jurisdiction.......0 0... cece ce een eee e nee e eens 256.
Exclusive jurisdiction—Concurrent jurisdiction................... 257
Jurisdiction of the general subject........0 0.00 .0.0 cc ceeeeeeeeee 259:
Jurisdiction of the particular subject ...............0226 2. cece ee 260
Distinction between jurisdiction of a general subject and jurisdic-

tion of a particular subject....... 0.0... cece eee cee eee eee 262:
Equity jurisdiction . 2.1.0.0... 0c ccc eee eee eee eee ene 267
Law, JOP ISAICH OD si. ccc 4 ctecs nace nea een Gahdeweanm Ae eee ane oe 270:
JUPISAICHON CCM wits vom Pas ducer ss eae ge ene oh ae ake TRS 270:
Jurisdiction in personam 0.0... ccc cece eect cette ee ennes 278.
Status of persons—Authority to determine ..................00005 285
Status of children—Authority to adjudge.................0000005 290
Incidental jurisdiction................00..0 cece e ccc cee cece eee 296.
Acquisition of jurisdiction—Conflict of authority..... ped tate t ee 299:
Retaining jurisdiction once acquired........................00000. 300°
Authority of sovereignty over property within its territory........ 301
Territorial jurisdiction of courts........... ccc cece cece eee e ees 302°
Toeal actions oi. 0 ccisciPaeaden etea She aieidauier vod 4 aonwommmdareeeewee 304
Transitory actions................ tiheashetSestnodtr fic Ses ei acaitnades ey eeds 309
Domicile as affecting jurisdiction.......... 00... cc cecceceeeccceces 311
Presumption of jurisdiction—Superior courts...................... 315-
Presumption of jurisdiction—Inferior tribunals................... 316.
Averment of jurisdictional facts....... HK radiouuhd Soeeaany age eae 318.
Judgment by default—Presumption......... La) stehg aonstrana atavagir, elnA bs 319
Effect of assuming jurisdiction—Implied decision asserting juris-

CTL OM as ese Ad Sasha. Gycbican coud ees Vial a casera cieealtade StS eoctactk ag IGS 322,
Decision that jurisdictional facts exist—Conclusiveness of......... 323°
Recitals of jurisdictional facts or matters................ Pi geM Ae aca 825
Collateral proceedings........... 0... ccc cece cece cence ene Ae ee OBO!
Judicial proceedings are void, voidable and regular.............. 831
Objections to jurisdiction ............ cece cece cence eee ees 332
Loss of jurisdiction\s sis: i2 2144. Saweereeeved Qedsadeae ena eteawua os 334
Exceeding jurisdiction... 000.00... ccc cece cece ene e eee ev eens enes 338
Estoppel to deny jurisdiction... ............ccc cece eeececceeneeeas 342
Transfer of jurisdiction........... 0... c cc ee ese eee cee eecucuces 347
xiv

PAGE
§ 269. Election to try by court or jury .......... cece eee eee eee eee 349
270. Effect of mistake in choice of remedy ........... 1. +. se eeeeeeeeeee 350
271. Facts differently pleaded may bring different result. os aa oases exe 351
272. Election to sue in tort or on implied contract.............00.ee eee 351
273. Nature of relief may determine choice of remedy ...........+....- 352
274. Election of remedy in case of fraudulent purchase ................ 353
275. Election as against trustee...... 0... cee cece eter ee eeeee 354
276. General rule—Election bars inconsistent remedy ..............--- 354
277... Right to jury trial...ic.s cs.cnncvs teaeeeatad e's os 534 va neato se » 805
278. When to try by jury—Sympathy............ ccs ce eee ee eee eens 355
279. When to try by court.......:..ccnsncrcrecessscceeseseteceeeess *, B55
280. Considerations which determine whether to try by court or jury. .356
281. Jury will generally award liberal damages................. ee 356
282. Instructions where trial is by jury...... 2.0.6... cece eee eee eee 357
283. Judgment of jurors on facts often better than that of judge........ 357
284. Delay and partiality of judge......... 0. cece cece et eee ee ences 358
CHAPTER VIII.
TIME OF BRINGING THE ACTION.
285. Effect of lapse of time to be considered before bringing action... ..359
286. When cause of action accrues—General rules.............0 .....0. 359
QB1: ACCOUNTS si.2 sails pr kag. MEN ea eden ee Ne TEATS Hae ORS ed oe 361
288. Agents and fiduciaries........ 0c. eee e eee eee ee eee eee eee ennee 362 -
289. Contracts generally. .......cccccceeeee erence eetenenee oe rag edo 363
290., Contributions. ssye5eeeess ap Rana kew ee eeu wae MtedaG 22684 364
291. Conversion... 0520004 s45 BewduMeane chads s ces eaK SAORE AS EY te SKS 364
292. Corporations............ ee CO re a ere eR Cae ee are ,866
293. Fraud—Concealment......... SR ON ee ey Re re een we 366
204 JUASMENUB as mie gi demanaca iedenstamauuss abae asi awed namie eahealen We 368
2955 NOB SEN COs in. cds peer bs edna Memes ang Danes dhe iem ete aca 368
296. NUISANCE ic coin cneertes ae eoaroninn shila Salt tasg aeration isina sage ety 369
297. Real property: wie srenese's cwge eee Paaiwearey cae sis seawaRN ess 1084 370
298. Trusts wand ie age desma sgamagaledonme tes 5a waeke Bromma Sitea es 372
299. What: law gOVerns’: «<4 ss vs scuieeeusaues cents bases Wheeeowe eee cea 373
300. Election of remedy og BARR Ae eed a es esGn Sa ee ade AE a ecew 874
B01. SetOb sas. Gilera e ce cinta daead tee eet acaiaiibnenadauds sadaales 875
302.. Hquity Laces... ccc. hie nied eee reve seewnene hee ee ewaowas 376
303. When action is begun........... cece eee ee ea eeeees pivbeine eae ar 377
304, Computation of HMC... cuesiner desea. ous eereendeaeeoene sees ace 379
805. Effect of disability... 2.2.00... c ice e eee ee eee eect eee en ences 380
306. New promise or acknowledgment ............. cece eee eee eee eee es 381
807. Special limitations........ 0.0... 0. ccc cece eee igeeus ean aes 384
308.

TABLE OF CONTENTS—VOL I.

CHAPTER VII.

CHOOSING THE FORUM, REMEDY AND MODE OF TRIAL.

Presumptions .............. aaah Rae Meader easements », 885
§ 309.
310.
sil.
312.
313,
314.
315.
316.
317.
318.
319.
320.
321.
322,
323,
324.

_ 825.

. 826.
327.
328.
329,
330.
331,

832,
333.
334,
835.

836,
337.
338.
339.

340.
341.
- 842.
343.
344,
345.
346,

TABLE OF CONTENTS—VOL. I. XV

CHAPTER IX.

PRECAUTIONARY STEPS AND INCIDENTAL MATTERS.

PAGE.
Cause of action must be complete........... Gaumeew ede AS Ace ttenta ren 387
Requisites of a complete cause of action.............06-0.eeee eee 388
Damages essential to a complete cause of action.................. 390
Exceptions to the rule that damages must be shown........... /...891
Demand—When necessary.............. aiegezwnaneunes eae Saisie 892
Demand—How made .......... cece eect ec nent eee nee enennes 395
Admissions in demand............. 00s c eee e cence eect nee eeeees 396
Demand—When waived or excused............ 52... cece eeneee ees 397
Tender—When necessary. ...... ccc ces ce cee cece cece e ca eeeenneens 398
Implied admissions by tender............ SvachGyaminenneyeseaceaaisel dak aes 398
Tender—How made..................000. chap nikengaeiala gins a Iseaistannys 399
Téender—Eieet of «coe ecg s Aatilneg walks dy etdy dudanegecteneeeeeeas 401
Tender to be kept good..... 02... ccc cece ec cece teen teen teenies 402
Equitable tender ...300:0v.0265 sida dads sees ta ss atidagea ds wera ensia 403
Waiver of tender sc. 2d. cami ananaas ee ease Rhaanswaen aad OY 404
Offér tO Perform ,,..)..c044ceivus d ratwnias ere eke a dee Levee oes 405
Architects’ certificate—Engineer’s estimates...................-5. 405
Taking possession—Completing evidence of title or right......... 409
Notice. .srevicas seweee exceed Aupaares Bik Sh wal cutis Adenine waa'ee ene 411
Notice for inspection of documents.......................-200 eee 413
Effect of neglecting to take precautionary measures............... 414
Arrangements for trial—Depositions.........................0005 414
Witnesses and ‘subpeenas............. ag Me's os pecldlefemmne § eexaeees 415
Ascertaining particulars of claim.................006 cee cie eee 415
Setting forth particulars of claim............ eee, 416
Final consultation with client......... 0.0... ccc ee cece cee eee ALT
Notes of evidence..............cce eee nee Leuignate Dey ana uamenn a eek s 418
Trial briefs. ..... Ce ee Races VASE TA MUtagiEae ee oes 418
Development of the theory ........... 0. cece cece eee eee eee eens 419
Witnesses should be present—Depositions........ Pacditierdhent sents ee 420
Care required in taking precautionary measures..............-... 421

CHAPTER X.
: BRINGING THE ACTION-——PROCESS.

The ancient practice.......... Dio caoontan caciehcnah Riemer ata NataoD
The: Modern; Practiees views wen ve evs ps bee eke ea aes Seas 423
Necessity for notice—Due process of law........... sea aeRes on 428
Writ or notice must be authorized by law...... is Bi nao eed ese tobe 424
Power of legislature to prescribe what the notice shall be......... 425
Defective proceS8.. 0... 6... cece cece cece eee e een eee e eee sae ake bet ap 426

Direct and collateral attacks...........0 0c cc ccc cuccee cease eeeaes 426
Xvi

§ 347.
348.
349.
350.
351.
352.
353.
354.
355.
356.
397.
358.
359.
360.
361.
362.
363.
364.
365.
366.
367.
368.
369.
370.
371.
3872.
378.
3874,
375.
376.

377.
378.
379.
380.
381.
382.
383.
384.
385.
386.
387.
388.
389.

TABLE OF CONTETNTS—VOL I.

PAGE
How action is brought: ;.: . access ssegeceearseeaeenenteccuegeees 428
Style: of processes os cic adiieadlans Ci oeros ieee eaedesiedse an med 428
Name and title of court .......... 0 cece ee cee eee cence eens 429
Nome.Of Plant, cscaccuwadenmele Gavnerg cae awina dean dean es 429
Name: Of defendant: ccu.5s cea cain 205 bossa a Gece Raa ae 430
Nature and extent of plaintiff’s claim.................-..0- 0.00 4381
Date of summons and return.......... 06... cece eee eee eee 482
Signature and: seals. :4c.cyackdewsd inns Bee e247 as HeeRENe Bx EE EES 433
AIMONGMENIUS): 2 2.02 cago4 42348 aacidemersare DORR Gas d adhien Aicarek es eaaE 36 434
Bervice=—=By WHOM, ..:..:614 6.4 eboreahwreiee trade anowaainaraenaea re 436
Person SCTVICOs i .04422¢ecaraned Gare anngs tare aLeununnd rund ese 437
Service by leaving copy at place of residence.................... 437
Service on corporations.... ............. CLaeia ta aidiein waa eseRe 440
Serviceon partners: ss. secures achowrang eee esud sit nacquenpescge ag 442
Serviceon infants s .s¢24e4eexcneseecuersasessbaxesese pode Ns ea 3 443
Service by publication........... Nichinjaste S Bated 9.50 She AranaSaucuscilichs cn soo tee 444
Statute must be strictly followed. ........... TEL uG ubdauulandicounus tee eecand 445
Affidavit for publication 2.0.0.0... ec e eee een 446
Orderiand NOUCE: sce caeak qin, wedar Ge Dacia Sos ahdeumnn 4 base 447
Requisites as to newspaper in which publication is made.......... 448
Timé: Of publication. ..2..g.5 ce eo gcnweaie gavecowsduamenpmeaaeerad 449
Proof of publication ....... Seda ae RARER A Na ee eee a eee cian 451
Mailing and‘posting notice........ 0... 0. e cece e ccc c eee teen eee 452
Objections sais cama sete 5253 dcr aude wteninecy Oh 24 ahaha qhidiaibios Held hae 453
Wialvenicr: ateda viace seca sci a gte-y duals aae hh nada ademuceeee te 454
Return and proof of service. .... 0.0.6 2c ccc cece eee eee eens 455
Privilege—Exemption from service of process..................05 457
Capias ad respondendum. . 2.0.0.0 00 cece ce eneeenaas 458
Process on cross-bill and supplemental complaint......... ....... 458
Alias and pluries Writs... 00.0000 c cc ccc ee cece cece eee ennee 459

CHAPTER XI. .
AUXILIARY PROCEEDINGS.

Kinds and purpose ........ 0.0.0 ccc cece cece ees ce ee eeeeeseeuuees 461
Attachment—Generally.. 2.0... 0... cc cece c cence eee ceeenaenaves 462
When attachment will lie........ 2... ccc cece cece e ees 463
Grounds of attachment ....... 0... ccc ee cece cece eee e ee enee eee 464
Procedure in attachment.......... 0.0.0. cece cece cee ee ec en sees ences 465
Filing under attachment. .........0 0... 0c cece cece cence eee a ea ees 466
Property subject to attachment................00 cece eee eee eee 467
Lien of attachment. i 05.5.056 us coe dase manienans eb oeesewiea awaken byes 468
Dissolution of attachment.... 2.02.0... eee eee neces 469
Garnishment—Generally . 0.0.0.0... cc ccc cece cece cece eeeeeeeeees 470
Procedure in garnishment................0 ccc cs esecceeceeeeeeuce 472
Duty and liability of garnishee.........0.......00.00000 cece eee, 474
NG €k00b ss naswed wasae se taavg & 5 Aut AcE fdas diverantne meen oe wane 476
§ 390.
391.
392.
393.
394,
395.
396,
397.
398.
399.

400.
401.
402.
403.
404.
405.
406.
407.
408.
409.
410.
411.
412.
413.
414.
415.
416.
417.
418.
419.
420.
421,
422.

423,
494.
425.
426.
427,

TABLE OF CONTENTS—VOL. I. xvii

PAGE

Injunction—Generally........... 00. ce cseu ce ec ce esecceecaeveunees 477
When injunction lies .......... 0... c ccc cece e cutee cceeeeuees 480
Injunction—Procedure............ 0.00. cc cee e cece cece cecnceneuaes 486
Receivers—Generally....... 0.0... cecceccccec ee eeecusaesetenicnes 493
Wena PPO bed : scias iuva sy oenane a eaiaenevebeNonhe beats Hh imum aeen nee OK Be 494
Procedure in obtaining receiver............... 0 cece e cece ec eee nee 495
Lis pendens—Notice............. sea ees i a Hi a RATE Med orca 498
NOtCO—Statutory si cicais cB sccas aidasmeiedace a eiees 4s natginewiedoes Gna sees 499
Doctrine of relation... 2.0.0... ccc cece cece cnet e eee ee een eenees 500
Continuance of notice ....... 00. cece cence eee eee eens eeneees 500

CHAPTER XII.
THE INSTRUMENTS OF EVIDENCE.
Proper instruments must be selected ...........c0ccsceeeeeeneeees 501
General suggestions .............. Pees bee <4 eHaGORERRNR LEMS Te 502
Primary and secondary evidence...............c0ceeeeeeeeeeeeees 502
General rule—Best evidence must be produced ..... iecbechaachs eetavereet 503
Exceptions to rule—When secondary evidence is admissible ...... 503
Laying the foundation for secondary evidence.................... 505
Notice to produce documents.............scseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeneneee 505
Depositions ss occ scanners $4 sation de ceaeet VeameWNRNaE TS 507°
Rules governing the taking of depositions .............. ......05. 507
Certificate—W hat it should Show .............. cece eeee ee eee eeeee 510:
Return and publications: sccc0se ss eceswrseres es ereatenneus gees 510
Motion, to SUppress :« cacceawes ce s3 a0 tamiawaee es cases ae omwewenmE Ss 511
Use of depositions. 00.0... .0.. cece e cece cece eeeeeeeeeeeeeeneeecs 511
Waiver of objections......... 0... cece eee cece eee eee eneneee 513
Discovery—Examination of party before trial..................0.. 514
Choice of instruments of evidence........... 0... cece cece e eee reese 515
Competency should be ascertained before trial..................05 515
Tendency of modern legislation............. ccc cece cece eee tenes 516
Competency to be determined by court—How.................... 516
Objections to competency......... 0. cece cee eee eee e tenancies 517
Incompetency—Grounds of objection. ...........0..cceeeeeeeeeeee 518
Notice to witness—Subpcena—Attachment............cceeeeeeeees 521
Real ONIG ON CO ses tic. tiv. ens maracdaiit wt: bes enaidac adariund’s vate Sinaeadeet 522
CHAPTER XIII.
QUESTIONS OF LAW AND FACT.

Province of court and jULY......... 00sec ec cece cece eee eeeees 524
Mixed questions of law and fact............. cece cece eee eee e eee 525
Conclusions of law........... 0.0 cece eee eee aiebieeialetas alate arecmnetay 526
PP ONC 5 iissicsce sce avtedindne dak aad da ENNS A PETS Aa ARORD 04 FEES 531
Alteration of written instruments............ceceecueeeees ee ceiceend 532
XVill
§ 428.
429.
430.
431.
. 482,
433.
434.
435.
436.
437.
438.
439.
440.
441.
442.
443.

TABLE OF CONTENTS—VOL. I.

PAGE
Boundary and location .......isiscdsesaccaviseseveesewenea oe eeans 533
Caus6and CHECEs cssciztesaric svat, ausuachersaianerela nde aston es Dalai dea vanes 533
Confidential and other relations.............. 0.0... c eee eee ees 535
Construction of written instruments............... 00.00 e ee eee 536
Construction of unwritten contracts and language................. 539
Fraud and good faiths csc gisccasenie seve ve de egete ese ennwees seen 540
Identitys: da. sicsaceracesvaceaots ntaesis steresenee ee een 541
TiC th GCG 5 siceitasraustenecgue Seed savorde es sesenp ston teceavaasieetsnateaduasvie dane eee 542
Laws and Ordinances. ......... 0c cece ccc eee ene et ene ees 545
NG@B1ISONCO ocd tadaguseenedhincnse esi diensueenny desreumagese ge 546
Notice and knowledge...................- ig leinidieee acceler denen ear 548
PayMentweacias onevewsnss pa eeee sewn ce Peewee see Ae RE RRR EET 550
Possession and ownership ............. ah aie Bigg 9 <i SH eho WORD OS 551
PrGDAable CAUSE: si sisiecscgesinracssese weshuseavardsanae aie dueodeqegrararsiaie eeceodnaeems anton 552
ReaSOna De tine... 5 gece ante elven sped ntvesdeeon nna tects nn Whcesegaieasiablauneleald 553
Waiver and abandonment .................0ceeceseeseueeceereeees 556
Miscellaneous questions ..............0.. ccc cece eee ene eee eeeee 558

CHAPTER XIV.

SETTLING CONTROVERSIES OUT OF COURT BY COMPROMISE.

445. Advising a compromise..............0 0. cece eee eee eee 561
446. Matters to be considered in advising a compromise. sl eoaneaphencieoudaeei at? 562
447. Authority to compromise..............c0.ccececeteeeeeseeeee ees 564
448, ‘Offer LO: COMPYOMIBC s 9 cs:05 genres edd sees ee enSzeoe RS 565
449. ‘Considerationseues atx rtecsscdsion saanieecswe Ws axeanwaeurerasese sy 566 -
450. Negotiating a compromise............. cece cece eee eee eee ences 568
451. Effect of a compromise... ......... 0... cece eee ee ene ence enneeee 569
452. Abandonment and rescission... ............. cece eee e cece eens 570
CHAPTER XV.
ARBITRATION AND AWARD.
453. Definition....... LswiassenLaiaiaiate Randa Aeon Laas Goeaeetnon 572
454. Classes of submission......... 0. ci eee eee eee e cece teen eee e as 573
455. Importance of discriminating between a general and a partial sub-
MISSION, sivcrwn sw sha ve peacummanionen tama arena eaumande weed 574
456. Statutory and common law submissions.......................000. 575
457. When arbitration is advisable............... 0.0... cece cece cence eee 577
458. When arbitration is inexpedient................... 0000. cece eee ee 579
559. Who may submit....... 00... cece ccc cece ete eee tee eeeeeneens 581
460. What may be submitted............ 0. cece ccc eee cece cree ees 583
461. Revocation of Submission.............. 0000 cece cece eee ee cence 585
462. Ratification of submission................. 0. c cece eee e eee eeees 586
463. Specific performance of agreement to submit...................... 587
464. Effect of agreement upon right to sue........... 0... ccc cea 588
465. Who may be arbitrators.............0. cece cece Haleaengaw aterm 590
§ 466.
467.
468.
469.
470.
471.

472.
473.
474,
475.
476.
477,
478.

479,
480.
481.
482.
483.
484.

485.

486.
487.

488.

489, |

490.
491.

TABLE OF CONTENTS—VOL. II. xix

PAGE
Arbitrators must act together.............. cece eee eee eee O91
PrOCOdULe cele udunniininneeue te auminiee eg hi snare nonaee GuudaeeGaushen 592
RG GWAR) osc 4oi4 ative as eoeawadin anemia Gee se lomo uke seas: 594
Effect of award................. apis oruresie iM wrays Sues intra as annie ed 597
Enforcement of award.......... 0.6. e ccc cece tence nee ee eeens 598
Impeaching and setting aside the award...............:e cece eens 599
VOLUME II.
CHAPTER XVI.
APPEARANCE.

Definition—What CONSHLULES vaginas Ries ee eee eee odes eae bee 603
Authority to appears nv ps0 tt cceaads patos aaa bea de woeewads 604
General appearance... . kc cee eee renee eee e tenn e eens 607
Effect of a general appearance.............c cece eee cece eee eee eee 609:
Special. appearance... oc cower a caieuee ss y das vaaeeeeeead se vee ean 612
Effect of special appearance.............. ce cee eee cree eee teen ee aee 613
Withdrawal of appearance........... 0c ccc cece eee e eee eens 614

CHAPTER XVII.

CONTINUANCE.

‘When continuance is advisable....... asian Ceduy eyes ks waeeiem eae es 616
Bad policy to ask many continuances.................e eee seen 617 |
Continuance discretionary with court...............0ccceeeeeeeees 617
Causes for continuance.......... Hic ai vest aentans day tee Ga ena din ary 618
Time for making application—Rules of court...................04 621
Application—How made—Affidavits.......... 0... cece een cece ees 621
Admissions may justify denial of application ...............,...623
Conditions—Payment of costs......... sa wvem dis Wincemin te emer areas 624
Error in refusing continuance—How saved or cured...........4.. 625

CHAPTER XVIII.

CHANGE OF VENUE.
OaTRES LOR. soci sar dash caine Hansulaia ante bolas erga raelahou'ys 626
Who may have................ -2 Heo eee eeu mieeGee pe canbe 628
Number of changes allowed. ..............- ce seeeeecee creer eeeeee 629

Duty of Court to: gratts.. occ cede cece ees a keane See eae eens 629
xx

§ 492

493.
494,
495.
496.
497.
498,
499.
500.
501.
502.
503.

504.
505.
506.
507.
508.
509.
510.
611.
512.
513.
514,
515.
516.
517.
518.
519.
520.
521.
522,
523,
524.
525.
526.
527,
528,
529.
530.
531,
532.

TABLE OF CONTENTS—VOL. II.

To WhatGOUNty.scccnencees coke os arene SES REDE Gh WORE Exe 630
When application must be MAAS. drsicndisesionaeion sha aia aumteis S5F 631
Rules of court as affecting time of making application.........., .632
Excuses for not making application in time.................--5055 633
The application—Affidavits....... 00.06. cece cece eee eee eee eee 634
Notice of application ........... 0 cece eee enn ene eres 635
Objections—Waiver.......... cece cee eee nett e eect ere eeees 636
Order granting change............. 0.0 e cee cutee eee ene ene eens 637
Perfecting the change—Costs—Transcript ...........---20.- eee ees 637
Effect of change—Jurisdiction............... cece reece eee renee 638
Change Of (0dg6:. :.. n20cccecacaaunnsasan tae bes lade eS owe eens 639
Saving questions for appeal............ cc cece eee e cece eee ee neee 641
CHAPTER XIX.
IMPANELING THE JURY.
Right toqury trials. 0203 6.645 van eantelagan Sess eae es gaiedegee eee 642
Numbér Of JUrOrS << once venice eewsnuked Kind os Ga nerseen SEE SeS 643
Waiver of right tO [Uni 22 oss cneintinsaed soe Kees aye hed meee ee nes 644
Right toidmpartial juryee.sccecaneeneasgavsierecesa cvulownes sence 645
Qualifications Of jULOTS.:. o.4 644 pyidwen deen Sie Dawes PWR Bees 645
Selecting the jurors—Generally ............ 02sec ce eee cence ee 646
Manner of questioning jurors ............ 00.0 ceeecceeeeeeeeeaeees 647
Purpose of examination............ 0... ccc cece eset eee eee ereeeees 648
Objects to be kept in view............ 0. ccc cece eee eee eee eeeeeees 649
Peremptory challenges—Right to be carefully exercised........... 650
Examination to discover reason for peremptory challenge......... 650
Prejudice—Examination with reference to particular case......... 651
Challenging the array... ceccdsciec esto en sores tena slomanaa ieee bees 652
Principal grounds of challenge for cause.................- eee ee eee 653
Disqualification on account of interest.................0. eee eee », 653
Lack of statutory qualifications... ............ 0.0... ccc eee eee ee 655
Disqualification because of relationship....................-..4008 655
Disqualification because of personal hostility or bias.............. 656
Disqualification because of pending lawsuit...................0006 658
Disqualification because of dependence on party.................. 658
Disqualification on account of opinion............. 0.00 eee eee eee 659
Trying grounds of challenge........... 0c. c cece cece e een eee 661
Examination of juror on voir dire... 0... cece ce cee eee eee 662
Peremptory challenges—Number............ 0.0... cece cece eee ance 663
When right to challenge must be exercised....................00. 664
Waiver of objections to jurors..... vod sti dal Bea usan ae eed hac hua .... 665
Grounds of challenge must be specific......................00eeee 666
BXCUSING JULOTS. gewviesaniim-oes a. etaulewy sae Ce ne bee ees AMMeR ES 667
Saving questions for appeal........ 0... cece ee cece cece e ees 667
TABLE OF CONTENTS—VOL. II. axl

CHAPTER XX.

THE RIGHT TO OPEN AND CLOSE.

PAGE
§ 533. Importance of the right to open and close.............0eeee eee ees 669
534. Its advantages and disadvantages ............ ccc cece e eee eee e ee 670
535. When defendant should assume the burden....................05- 671
536. Dangers in assuming burden. ............ 20... c cece eee eee eens 673
537. Right and duty correlative.............. 02. cece ccc ees .. 674
538. Who has the right to open and close—General rule............... 675
539. When the rule applies—Damages................. 0.00 ccc eee ees 675
540. Right where several issues or defendants....................00-04- 676
541, How defendant may acquire the right—Admissions..... ert 676
542. How plaintiff may prevent defendant from acquiring the right ... .677
543. Effect of failure to offer evidence—Waiver......................55 678
544. Special proceedings. .............. 0.2 cece eect e eee e eee en nee 678
CHAPTER XXI.
THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE.
545. Importance of opening statement... ......... 0. cece eee eee eee 681
546. Of what it should consist............ 0... cece eee eee e eee eee 682
547, Its leading purpose.ssco si as cvagiateried ined s 2a Sees ne Pawerk end ceeee eee 684
548. Anticipating the defense......... 0.0.0. ccc cece reece cee eee 685
549. Repetitiotic. <i: va scecaie dos big Sakae Hd SE TE Sead BEES a aa 685
550. Arguing t0O SOON........... ese e eect eee ene nee n eee enn nas 687
551. Perspicuity and clearness................000ccec seven ee eeecneeees 687
552. How to secure clearness... ........... cee cece cece ete erent een ees -.688
553. Virtue of plain statement................... adhd Se eeemse sede ends 688
554. Attention of jury must be aroused................. cece eee eee eee 689
555. Suggestive statement... 00.0. cece cence eee neees 690
556. Evidence should not be overstated................ 0. c cece cece e eee 691
557. Presenting a tenable theory............ 0.0 cece cee cee eee ees 691
558. Keeping statement within proper limits—Discretion of court...... 692
559, Exceeding proper limits—Saving and curing error................ 692
CHAPTER XXII.
SEPARATING AND LIMITING NUMBER OF WITNESSES.
560. When advisable to ask for a separation of witnesses.............. 694
561. Discretion of court to order separation...................0.2..0065 694
562. To whom the order applies.........0.. 0c c cee eee cee eet eee eens 695
568. Effect of disobedience of order by witness......................5. 696
564. Right to limit the number of witnesses... ..................0.000005 697
XXil

Ҥ 565

566.
567.

568.
569.
570.
571.
572.
573.
574,
575.
576.

577.
578.
579.
580.
581.
582.
583.
584.
585.
586.
587.
588.
589.
590.
591.
592.
593.
594.
595.

596.
597.
598.
599.
. Witness should be permitted to testify in his own way............ 726

TABLE OF CONTENTS—VOL. II.

PAGE.

Constitutionality and effect of statutes prescribing number of wit-
TESSE8 sos tonic cu aie eaig eed Agee MG Marrmedee Gunes Atala Baling asa amos 698
Limitation must be reasonable—Right of parties to testify........ 698
Objections and exceptions—Waiver...............+-2 see eeeeeees 699

CHAPTER XXIII.
DELIVERY OF THE EVIDENCE.

Importance of good impression in beginning.................25065 700
Orderly arrangement of evidence... .... 0... cece cece eee 701
Natural order should be adopted......... 2... ccc cece eee eee eee 702
Attention to details............. 0... 2. eee eee abajshnwldle ‘p'ute glatabonae whee 703
Discretion as to order of introducing evidence.... ............... 704
Proper order of introducing evidence—Departure from.............704
Evidence in anticipation of defemse............... 0... e eee eee 705
Evidence in rebuttal... 2... ccc cee eect e cece ee neene 705

Evidence irrelevant at time introduced upon promise to make
POlVEN Gia. b6 deeiee awa aden ge epee Hand Re PAE oneal 706
Evidence should not be introduced piecemeal....................- 706
Re-opening the: cases. vs veers ve usadaseuseaceedsschanaseeve ea es 707
Keeping incompetent evidence from jury................0ce eee eee 707
Objections should be made only to harmful evidence.............. 708
Objections should be supported ............ 0.02. cece cece eee eee eee 709
Written objections: «25 c2c05 csicscediwag is acne dd ssoumauaaewei ees 709
Objections to leading questionS................ 0 cc cee ces nec eeeeees 710
Objections must be specific... 0.2.0... 2. cece eee eee 711
Objection where question is proper but answer incompetent....... 713
Objections where there are several parties....................0005 713
Offer of evidence after objection................... 0.00.0 ccc cee 713
Trial of competency of witnesses—Preliminary examination...... 715
Extent and method of preliminary examination................ +.716
Interposing questions to determine competency,of evidence...... 717
Exception to ruling on objection....... 0.0.0... cc cc ccc 718
Effect of irrelevant evidence—Opening door for adversary........ 719
Withdrawing evidence........... eee c eee cece ee eee ee cence ees 719
Striking Out Evidence syacwiyss sev es'e cae wes s vemvawee vs os okdaenawucoas 720
Quantity of evidence....... 0... ec eee e eee ee eens 722

CHAPTER XXIV
THE EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF.

The oath or affirmation ............... 00. c ccc cece e ccc eee ees 723
Inspiring witness with confidence................... 0... ec ee eee 724
Introductory questions... 0.0.0... cece cece cece eee eeeeeees 725
Manner of asking questions.,.................. 0. cc cece eeneeeee 726

.
§ 601.
602.
603.
604.
605.
606.
607.
608.
609.
610.
611.
612.
613.
614.
615.
616.
617.
618.
619.

620.
621.
622.
623.
624.
625.
626.
627.
628.
629.
630.
631.
632.
633.
634.
635.
636.
637.
638.
639.
640..
641.
642.
643.

TABLE OF CONTENTS—VOL. II. Xxill

PAGE
Leave to ask leading questions................00 ccc eeueeeeeeees 727 |
Calling attention to omisSIONS............ 00.00 cece cece e cece e eee 728
ReDUEING A Wit OSS 'sc:i4cucwaciahicanieeennsnwialounivad ne cune xan sewer 728
EPPORS tO: DO: AVOIDED s sc5descinwuedwas esis oe dnewreeeeeoeyszeatnes 729
Repetition cass ay sxe as needs dead aoe ses HRETSRR RGR REO e EAs dose 730
Cross-examining one’s own witnesS..............0-.. cece ce ee eee 730
Pixie ateSss. arcs nsas-a a annuauanacinnancas s pb alcamman Mose ape access 730
Witnesses who prove too much. ..............0 cece cence cece nee 732
Hostile witnesses... 0.0... cece ccc ee cet e cee e ee ee ee etenesneeues 733
Unfavorable answer—How to avoid its effect...............-..04. 735
Questions should be pertinent and relevant..................0000. 735
Compound questions........... 0.0 cece eee e cee c eee e ee teneecteneees 736
Leading questionS)......... 0... cece cece eee ee nee e eter ec eneeneees 736
ASSUMING TACtS 5.002: acess waminnctiweide ny vars Seda ermine earner sa ercce 737
Examination should be confined to known facts—Memoranda.. ...737
Matters’ Of Opinioninss..ccivaxsensncsewseaes one 4 Heavanoueenedanese 738
Examination of experts.......... 00.0.0 cece cece ee eee teeeee teens 739
Examination of deaf and dumb witnesses......... BS aunsditaeussiasouscs Seace 741
PMter pre bers ess tic.isc. seniad: p50: dysncivacdeciacareraiea ce Artin tcdgot eee AEA RG Mana 741
CHAPTER XXV.
THE CROSS-EXAMINATION.
Object of cross-examination........... 0.0. ccc ee cece eee e ee eer eens 743
Cross-examiner’s position............. cece cece eee ete cree e eens 744
Actual and apparent cross-examination ..............-.00. sees eee 744
When apparent cross-examination is advisable ................... 745
When advisable not to cross-examine ............... ee eee eee ee eee 746
Purposeless cross-examination............ec eee ee eee cece eeeees 748
Timid witness—How to cross-examine ................-00..00-08 749
Bold and unscrupulous witness—How to cross-examine........... 750
How to distinguish untruthful witness.................0.-.e eee eee 750
Course where testimony is false..............0ccceeeeeeeeeeneeees 752
Good temper must be preserved...........-eccceeeeece cn eeeeenees 752
Order of cross-examination ......... 0c cece cece eet e eee e eee eee 758
Coloring testimony? ¢enceue ncaa se teobingsnnees os 1S EG EER NEA Sess 755
Perils of cross-examination ............ 0c cece cece eee eee e eee eaes 756
Reluctant witness—How to treat........... 2. ccc cece eee ee eee 758
Adverse witness—How to cross-examine ........ 0... e cece e eens 758
Explanations—When to cross-examine for ...............eeeeeee 759
Detection of falsehood—Keeping knowledge from witness.........760
How to show that testimony is false................ ese eee eee ee 760
Cross-examination as to time and place............. 6c cee e ec ee eee 761
Witness who does not remember—How to treat...............0005 762
Cross-examination as to motive ............. cece eee e eee eee 763
Facts should be separated from inferences...............0eeeeeeee 764

Interested and prejudiced witnesses—How to treat ............... 766
xxiv

§ 644.
645.
646.
647.

648.

649.
650.

651.

652.

653.
654.
655.

656.

657.
658.
659,

660.
661.
662.

663.
664.
665.
666.
667.
668.
669.
670.

671.
672.
673.
674.
675.

676.
677.
678.
679.
680.

TABLE OF CONTENTS—VOL, II.

PAGE
Assumption that witness is mistaken............. 0.00 cece eee eeeee 766
Sources of errors i eccee pce skasa oatacsee ecto bees Svmratataguiaenie ees 767
Error in perception—Cross-examination to discover .............. 767
Error in memory—Cross-examination to discover...............45 769
Error as toidentity-. 5.4 cea seca dale ohnt eee saad eee s Cae es 770
Hypothesis—Cross-examiner should form...............eeeeeeeee 772
Danger in asking too many questions ............. cee cece eee eee 774
Expert witnesses—Classes of.......0 2... cece eee cece eee ee eens 775
Cross-examination of professional experts...............eceee eee 776
Duty of opposing counsel....... eS oP Natal Me eat aoe ena aoa Asner 778
Leading questions. ......... 0c cece cee cece eee e eee eneneeeee 779
Untair assumptions soccer ye iecweana 1 oeacasede eee eaeee ea eee aes 779
Questions calling for criminating answer ............. 20. cece ee eee 780
Compound questions. ............ 0.60. cece eect e renee eee 781
Extent of cross-examination—Latitude allowed.................65 782
Objections—When to be made................ 0c eens Siena ne 784

CHAPTER XXVI.
THE RE-EXAMINATION.
Object of re-examination...........00. cece c cece eee eee eee 785
Clearing away obscurities........... 0. ce cece cece eee cent eneees 785
Restoring confidence................. Shute a gee ha dye a eienioeamlaadd 786
Asking for explanations . 22.0.2... 1. ccc cece cee nent e een eeee 787
Sustaining corrupt or impeachable witness...................00005 788
Bringing out entire transaction..............0..00.00 cece eee ees 788
Treatment of favorable new matter developed on cross-examination.789
Explaining discrepancies ........ 0... 0... eee e eee eee eee eee ees 790
Eliciting new matter.« se os sius vey 4 ea eww es a oe dees ada GROWN Se ek 790
Recalling witnesses for re-examination................0ceeeeeeeee 791
Objections—Use and abuse of. ..... 2... c ccc e eee ee eee eee 792
CHAPTER XXVII.
IMPEACHMENT OF WITNESSES.

Impeachment of party’s own witness—General rule............... 794
Exceptions to the rule. 20.2.0... 00. cece cence een eeeeennnes 795
Right to impeach witness of adverse party...............-.0 cee eee 797

Impeachment by proof of contradictory or inconsistent statements. 798 ,
Laying the foundation for impeachment by contradictory state-

MOD jujcncincanerags ee ceka cnn nee ymin adie WEN daa dE Rian SARIS ala Sees 800
Impeachment by evidence of character or reputation ............. 802
Specific acts of immorality.......... 0.0... e ek eee cence eens 804
Laying the foundation for proof of bad character ................. 804
Cross-examination of impeaching witness..................0..0005 805

Corroborating and sustaining witnesses................0c.0 cece eee 806
§ 681.
* 682,
683.
684,
685.
686.
687.
688.
689.
690.

691.
692.
693.
694,
695.
696.
697.
698.
699.
700.
701.
702.
703.
704.
705.
706.
707.
708.
709.
710.
711.
712.
718.
714.
715.
716.
717.
718.
719.

TABLE OF CONTENTS—VOL. II. xXXV

CHAPTER XXVIII.

INSPECTION AND VIEW.

PAGE
Inspection of person—In what caseS..............0 cc cence eee 808
Inspection and physical examination in criminal cases............. 809
Physical examination of plaintiff in personal injury cases........ 809
Order for inspection of person—How enforced.................... 810
Inspection of chattels............... Baie gate situuncmnnr ash Bauemeeduind 811
Experiments and practical test8.......... ccc cece cece nee e eee ence 811
View by jury—Discretion of court............. ccc cece cece eens 813
Object of the view .............. Aauisa PIER tears sau eee ge y 313
Manner of proceeding—Irregularities...............cccecee eee eee 814
Photographs and diagrams............... ccc cceeeeeecceeeceeeenes 816

CHAPTER XXIX.
THE ADDRESS TO THE JURY.

Right to be heard in argument............... 0. cee ce cece eee e anes 818
Number of speakers and order and time of argument....... ore 819
To what argument should be confined—Misconduct of counsel..... 819
Reading from books in argument... ...0...... 0. cece cece eee eee . 822:
Misconduct of counsel—How taken advantage of................ . 823
Purpose of the address......... ........0.. a ANON eein Neccuecsiirs dios - 824
Argument must be adapted to the case............ ccc cee tence ence 824
Earnestness and determination are essential................000005 825
Diction—Ornament and embellishment.................00 cee ee ees 826
Making the cause speak.......... 0. ccc cece cece ec eee eee ee eens 829
Illustrative anecdotes......... 0... cece eee cence nen eee eee nee 829
Making jurors think they could have presented the case equally well.830
Advocates in the Beecher-Tilton case. ............ ccc cece ee ee eee 831
Advocate must be sincere and straightforward...................5 831
Sacrifice Of:self ccs uesdss yeseg deeeeeae yoeee se eNSeNee enti tes Heese 832
Influence and effect of vanity......... 0... eee eee eee ee eee eee 832
POWER IM? WOMS oi a. easiness aor granaiecsiel dae tora aynadgine anther maces ans 833
Examples of the power of Word8.......... ccc eee e eee eect e eee 835
Art:of putting: things, ...640 os eewldy astemiseing's'eee ainda ane eo eaten 836
Tactiand sapacity.. .scodsceaschees tieeed ec oarded saepennee beds Se 838
Elements and virtues of the art of putting things.................. 840
Method—What determines..... 02.0.0... 0.0 cece cece cece eee ees 841
Facts are the principal materials of the address................... 841
Arrangement and treatment of the facts............... 0.0 eee eee ee 842
Other elements of the address. ........ 0... c cece eee e ence neces 843
Hume’s method that of the advocate... 00... 6... cee eee eee es 843
Mere assertions of no value.......... cee eee cee eee ene 844
Overstating confidence in case........... .. Ss af CERCA eS 845

Danger in exaggeration—Arousing hostility...................... 845
Xxvi

§ 720."

721,
722.
723.
724,
725.
726.
727.
728.
729,
730.
731.
732.
733.
734.
735.
736.
737.
738.
739.
740.
741,
742.
743.
744,
745.
746.
747.
748.
749,
750.
751.
752.
7538.

754.
755.
756.
757.
758.
759.
760.
761.
762.
763.
764.
765.

766.

TABLE OF CONTENTS—VOL. II.

PAGE
Argument should seem intrinsically strong................00000 ees 846
Explanation—Nature and use Of... 0.0.0... c cece ence e ee eee eee 847
Explanation in civil cases... .....0 0... e cece cece eee eee nen ees 850
Comparison as an aid to explanation..............seee eee e eee e ee 850
Explanation by examples. ........... 0c cece cece eee eee eee eeeas 851
Refutation of explanation.......... 6... c cece eee ence neers eines 853
Examples that appear to explain, but do not.................055 - 856
Partial explanation given as complete............ces eee senor eee 857
Description as an element of the address..............-seeeeee eee 859
Narrative part of the address............ 00sec ese e cece erences 862
Masters of narrative......... ccc eee cece een eee eens bate evento 864
Essentials of narrative... 0.0.0... ccc cece cece renee ene eeeeees 865
Effect of theory on narrative........ cc. cece cece eee eee eee eens 866
Ultimate purpose of narrative............. cc cece tee eee eee tenet 868
Tracing effect tO Canse..... icc ccc ce eid ndiasuawe ved eons emnnemena eee 868
Rhetorical invention. .......... 0... cece cece e eect ee ee ene ence eens 870
Use of circumstances. ......... 0... c cece cee cee ee neces eee een nena 871
Groundwork and materials of invention ...............eeeeeeeeeee 872
Molding the materials into form.......... Lumet: Dheedtaalnmead as 875
Probability is essential... 0.0.0... cece cece ee cece teen eran cena ees 876
Appeal to experience. ...... 0... cece cence cece e eee e ne eteeeteees 877
Natural acts—Motives......... 0.0... cece cece eee n eee een ee eee ees 880
Unnatural acts—Reasons for......... 06. sce e cece eee tree nee ee -... 880°
Acts apparently unnatural must be made to appear natural........ 881
Probability established by assigning adequate cause.............. 882
Importance of probability. ....0 0... cece eee ences 883
Order of narrating facts............. eel deh tiaaneaeaehioone ah eaeasnennes aS 884
Dealing with the parties and witnesses.................0...2 000s 886
Making too many points............. ccc eeee eee eeee scans tndbaeauaye nes 887
Repetition—How far an element of strength...............0.00eee 889
Extent and manner of refutation ........... 00... c cece eee ee eeeee 890
Attacking adverse hypothesis ........... 0... ccc cece ecee scene ences 892
Use of analysis in refutation..........0. 0.0.00 cece ccc cere eee eens 893
Advocate should present his own case before refuting opponent’s
aTouUMeNts srscwawssiseses Vs a4 $a REARS 6 ox SORA EER EE 893
Indirect attack..................... MSAD Sith id Bsa eS Mesirastoe tend ede’ 894
Suggestive method......... 0... cece cece cece ese te eee eeeeeetennes 895
Stratagem of attacking few points............... 0c ccc cece eens 896
Admissions—When advisable........... 00: cece cece cence tees cence 897
Commenting on testimony and witnesses............... cece eves 897
Conflict in testimony—How treated..... 01... eee ccc e ee eee eee 899
Mistakes of witnesses—How caused and treated...............0.. 900
Commenting on testimony of admissions....................0000- 903
Course where witness is discredited ............ cc ceceeee eee evens 904
Showing the motive of corrupt witness.............. 0... 0e cece eee 905
Other matters to be shown where witness has sworn falsely....... 908
Discussing credibility of witnesses—Opportunity to know......... 908

Imperfect recollection of WitnesS............ cece cece eecee eens ees 910
§ 767.
768.
769,
770.
771.
772.
773,
774,
775.
776.

777.
778.
779.
780.
781.

782.
783.
784.
785.
786.
787.
788.
789.
790.
791.
792.
793.
794,
795.
796.
797.
798.
799.
800.
801.
802.
803.
804.
805.
806.
807.

TABLE OF CONTENTS—VOL. II. XXV1l1

PAGE
Silence and omission of important matters.....................4. 910
False witnesses deal in PENETAMMEB ci cianas! w tahedanee yy ere see 55 912
Behavior of witness on the stand—Comments on................. 912
Tnterest: Of swithesSiecy oid x45 suncwun £20 o94 Os AL Ree ee oh eed 913
Meaning and use of the maxim, ‘‘false in one false in all.”’...... 914
Use of incidental matters to support witness ..................... 916
Number of witnesses—Effect of .......... 2.00.0 c cece eee 916
Immaterial inconsistencies ........... 0. cece cece ee eee beeen ees 917
Relative force and value of positive and negative testimony....... 918

Commenting on inconsistencies or differences in statements made
at different times.......... wh ha naeelte ed Subente coast nestireed! hn Soave Sie 920
Use of presumptions. .......... 0... e eee e cece nee eens Bie has 4 OHM 921
Applying the law to the facts ......... 0.0... c cece eee nent eens 923
Consequences—Argument from ........... 0. ccc cece eee cee 924
Persuasion—Appeal to passions............ 00. c cece eee e eee eens 926
Pathos—Use and abuse Of...... 02.0.0... ccc cece eee eee eee ees 926

CHAPTER XXX.
ARGUMENT OF QUESTIONS OF LAW.

Importance and nature of argument............. 0... eee eee eee 929
Preparation of argument............... cece eee eee eens 930
Matter and “style? olsciigincccngas sinter ee e ta awuguicinnlaalydctta ten Oe 930
Elementary principles............... 0... cee e eee eee eens 931
Stale Ry oa cscecitraa ces as ana mutatis sia ca atembioee cevesines oem 933
Superiority of oral arguments........... 0. ccc cence eee ee tenes 934
Prolixity to be avoided .......... coc e ccc eect eee en eee ees 935
Reason and eloquence........... 0... cece eee ee eee ee eee eee ees 936
Considering the nature of the cause............... cece cece eee 938
Statement: Olfacts esses sa ene Aap bisaaedleewe sea debeuwues seer ews 939
Statement of questions involved............cc eee e eee teen eee 940
Method—Division of argument............660eseee eee e eee eee eee 940
Referring to authorities... 0.0.06. .0 0. coc cece ence e eee eee 942
Points in the case..... (ean sieew anne ane eee eiwisls Kaew: Heeeeeee ead 943
Discussion of judicial decisions—Principle.................0... 005 944
Precedent—Stare decisis ..... 0. ccc ccc eect e eee eens 948
Attacking judicial decisions. .......0 6.0... ccc cece eee ee eee ees 951
Applying legal principle to particular case.....................00 955
Use and abuse of maxims............. ee Coe geet nctiweegaee 956
Effect of harsh operation of general rule in particular instance... .958
Showing case to be within exception to general rule .............. 960
Course where no precedent is found......... 0.00 c cece eee eee 962
Extending precedents to new CAaS@S............0 0. cece ete eee eee 963
Consideration of consequences............. cece cece ene e eee 965

Discrimination—Denying application of rule to particular case. .. .966
Arguing for the application of the rule ....................eeee ees 967
XXVIli TABLE OF CONTENTS—VOL. II.

§ 808.

809.
810.
811.
812.
813.
814.
815.
816.
817.
818.
819.
820.
821.
822.
823.
824.
825.
826.
827.
828.
829.
830.
831.
832.
833.
834.
835.
836.
837.
838.
839.
840.
841.
842.
843.
844.
845.
846.
847.
848.
849.
850.
851.

CHAPTER XXXI.

FALLACIES AND ARTIFICES.

PAGE
Fallacy—Definition... 00.0.0... 00. cece ec e eee ne ence eens 969
Weak argument should be avoided............ 0. ese ee ence eens _.. 970
How to expose fallacies... ........ 0... cece eee ee nett e ene eee 972
Finding the fallacy.........- 0... e sees cece cnet eee cence eens 974
Principal classes of fallacies............. cece cece eee eee eens 975
Illicit assumption... 26.06. eee eee eee ee cneee 975
Illicit assamption in analogical reasoning ...........--..20eeeees 977
Fallacy of examples....... Ridin ENE UA ES eae Uae as 978
Fallacy of confusion............-++.-++- Lie aes eee NaS 978
Incomplete discrimination. ............60e se eee eee eens 979
NON CAUSA PPO COUSA.. 6. cece cece cnc een c ener et ene et tnees 983
Verbal fallacies ... 2.0... cece ce teen etna enn necenees « 984
Fallacy of equivocation............ 06. c cree eee eee tne een eee 987
Begging the question—Vicious circle. ..........-..-:ee seen eee 988
Fallacy of experience... 0.0.6... ccc nee ete eee eens 991
POUGCiG ACcidentlis:: ooo seas Hake w aKa Case a aso TR EONE SE eH ees 994
Incomplete division ........... ccc nett eens 995
DiUlEMMASs hisoseacier gig sar ypaweasae caresses or enaued as eee 997
Incomplete enumeration............ 0c cece eens 998
Incomplete induction or imperfect generalization................ 999
NON S€QUILUM caso oo oo Shades oh EAeee Seeds were Rate eee e 1001
Mistaking the point in dispute................... da peaniwe ee ey eae 1002
Objections to proposition may not overturn it.................00- 1003
Artifice of stating some facts and suppressing others............. 1003
Suppressing a material factor ........ 0... cece cece cee eee eee 1004
Artifice of covert assumption......... 0... cc cece eee eee cee eee 1005
Asserting deduction as a fact ........ 00... cece nee eee eee eens 1006
Artifice of referring to authorities not in point................... 1006
Artifice of stating objections to one’s own argument............. 1007
Artifice of stating propositions of adversary and then refuting them.1007
Dissecting and refuting probabilities separately.................. 1008
Artifice of repeating same argument in different forms........... 1009
Shifting Cround so. cicvescasesadess codes deiudrekehumsenes cexega te 1009
Artifice Of evasion... 40aceemses eer ees ih. seed owndeew te yetass eae 1010
Artifice of praising opposing counsel ............ 20... cece eee eee 1012
Mingling false propositions with true........ ..... 0. eee 1012
Artifice of insinuation ...... 0... cece cece eee eee nent e ees 1013
SUppPOsed! CASES). cis sias aavndsrwa die ceded wens aaietealona a's bine ¢ Sneha 1015
Insinuating disavowals .......... 600. c cece ec cect eee e eee eeteaes 1015
Unprotessional trick@iw sissies i/o nese edie odie ieew wee bs age x ROT RES 1016
Forensic tactics 4.250) ateesa aause teases oe ebm bees ceed sas 1017
Consultation with jurors ...... 0... cc cece cece eee eee 1018
Fairly stating and refuting objections in advance................ 1018
Artifice is seldom successful.......... 0... cece cece ete eee ees 1018
§ 852.
853.
854.
855.
856.
857.
858.
859.
860.

861.
862.
863.
864.
865.
866.

867.
868.
869.
870.
871.
872.
873.
874,
875.

876.
877.
878.
879.
880.
881.
882.
883.
884,
885.
886.
887.
888.
889.
890.

TABLE OF CONTENTS—VOL. II. XxX1xX

CHAPTER XXXII.

WITHDRAWING THE CASE FROM THE JURY.

PAGE
Right to withdraw the case from the jury.............c.eeeee eens 1020
Determining the line of action.............cceceeeeeceeeeeeerees 1022
Cases that may be taken from the jury .............ceeeeeeeeeees 1023
Demurrer to the evidence.......... cick cece cece eee e eee e eens 1024
Nature of a demurrer to the evidence.............cccceeeeseee eee 1025
Intendments against the party who demurs..................---5 1026
What the demurrer admits......... 0... cece eee ence ee ee eeees 1027
What the demurrer waives... 0.0.2... 6... c cece cece eee eee es 1029
Party upon whom the burden of proof rests can not demur to the
EQVIGENCE 52.27 sek lel eeepiaie wes oaabiel aes saakos Hqetnabma cris 1029
Demurrer withdraws favorable evidence................e scene ees 1030
Demurrer where presumption makes a prima facie case........... 1030
What the demurrer must contain............ 0 cee cece eee een eee 1031
Waiver of the right to demur............. cece cece eee e eee eee 1031
Effect of demurrer on the right to subsequently introduce evidence . 1032
Cross-examination of adverse witness not a waiver of the right to
GeMUP yw hoouernspalexn'vaure 1 uligkbees sek eeang lames en cered 1033
Withdrawal of the demurrer.............. cece cece eee ener eee 1034
Joinder In: demurrers, ..:25 4a vedeadac deb aawhag aidanwnw seed oes 1034
Assessment of damages......... 00.0. c cect eee eee te tee en ene 1034 -
Judgment on demurrer........... ccc cece cece n ete ene eens 1035°
Saving the questions........... 0... cc cece cece cece eee eee eee ees 1035
Risk in demurring to the evidence............. 2.22... cee eeeeees 1036
Reasons making a demurrer expedient..................0. 000 eee 1036
Reluctance of judges to disturb verdicts...................0202005 1037
Cautious cross-examination necessary where a demurrer to the
evidence is resolved UPOD........ 0.00 cc cece cece eect e neces . 1088
Compulsory nonsuit....... 0... ccc ccc eee eee eae 1039
Nonsuit where there are several parties.................00000ceee 1040
Test for determining when motion for nonsuit should be sustained. 1041
When motion must be made........... ccc cee ee eee tent e nena 1042
Motion must specify grounds......... 0... 0. cece cece cence eee eeee 1042
Introducing evidence after motion for nonsuit—Waiver.......... 1043
Error in ruling on motion—How saved and reviewed .......... 1048
Voluntary nonsuit or dismissal........ 0... cc cece eee ee eee 1046
Time of taking NONSUibe.. ca. ces og neues caw ea gee ees ee ses whe 1048
Voluntary nonsuit not appealable............cc cece eee eee eee 1049
Withdrawing @ fUror..... 0... cee cece ce cere eect ene eer eneeies 1050
Directing a verdict—Effect.......... 0... c cece cece neers 1050
When instruction directing verdict must be requested—Waiver.. .1051
When verdict will be directed........ 00... ccc cee ccc c cece een e eee 1053
When not-directe des iccc ct ies 21d teense eb ae ose ear dteon ate he aye iabrdonions 1055
Xxx

§ 891

892.
893.
894,
895.
896.
897.
898.
899.
900.
901.
902.
903.
904.
905.
906.
907.
908.

909.
910.
911.
912.
913.
914.
915.
916.
917.
918.
919.
920.
921.
922.
923.
924.

925.
926.
927.

TABLE OF CONTENTS—VOL. II.

CHAPTER XXXIII.

INSTRUCTING THE JURY. PAGE.
Province of court and jury... 0.1.0... cece cece eee ee eee eee e eens 1058
English rule in Federal courts...........0.0 ce csee eee e renee ees 1059
What may be considered as a part of the charge...............6. 1060
Written instructions... 6604s cedee esesiawaee oe eb ween a ends 1060
Preparing the instructions ............. 0... cence eee Siecblath Paras 1061
Requesting instructions............0 0c e cece cece ee ene ees 1063
Compliance with request—Modification of instructions requested . 1065
Essential elements and limits of charge........... 0.0. cece ee eee 1065
Instructions must be pertinent... ........ 0... eee cece eee eee eee 1066
Disputed facts should not be assumed .............. cece eee eee ees 1068
Instructions as to weight or credibility of evidence............... 1069
Giving undue prominence to particular evidence................- 1071
Cautionary instructionS.............. ccc cece e ce ence eee ence er ens 1072
Construing instructions. ........... 0... cece eee eee een eee nes 1075
Withdrawing and correcting instructions,..............002.ee eee 1076
Additional instructions—Recalling jury ............... cece eee eee 1077
Excepting to instructions ....... 0... cece cee eee eee ee eee ee L078
When erroneous instruction is not fatal............. 0c. cece eee es 1081

CHAPTER XXXIV.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES.

Practice and object of submitting interrogatories to jury.......... 1083
When advisable—Caution to be observed..............--00.e eee 1084
When a matter of right—Discretion of court...................0. 1087
Form and manner of submitting............... 0c. cece eee ea Rares 1088
Must be requested in due time ....... 0... ieee eee eee ee 1088
Request must be conditional upon return of general verdict... .. - 1089
Interrogatories must be material and call for facts............... 1090
When refusal is not available error............. cece eee c eee eee ees 1090
When interrogatories may be withdrawn ............... 0. eee ee 1091
Interrogatories must be fully and fairly answered................ 1092
Objections to interrogatories .......... 0... cca cece eee eee eee 1093
Remedy where answers are uncertain or evasive................. 1094
Answers must be signed by foreman.................. cece ee eeees 1095
When they control the general verdict ..................0ecee ees 1095
Presumptions and intendments..:.............. 0... ccc eee wees 1097
Motion for judgment on special finding—New trial............... 1097

CHAPTER XXXV.

SPECIAL VERDICTS.

Definition and nature..... Na edie (aust eat enuneeanipraa ede ae rans or atas ian ted hes 1099
Right to special verdict.............0cccceeeeeeeueeus eekcigasee ee 1100
When advisable. iicaiessecesecs essaivianaeede ev eedo as scien aaah oes 1100
§ 928.
929.
930.
931.
932.
933.
934,
935.

936.
937.
938.
939.
940.
941.
942.
943.
944,
945.
946.
947.
948.
949,

950.
951.
952.
953.
954.
955.
956.
957.
958.
959.
960.

961.
962.
963.
964.

TABLE OF CONTENTS—VOL. II. XXxXi

PAGE,
When not advisable........ Rea aata eg aration saehsite aca has 1101
May prevent defeat where judge is unfavorable.................. 1102
Preparation of special verdict............ 0. cee cee cece e eee ee aes 1102
Special verdict must find the ultimate facts..................000: 1103
Construction—Presumptions and intendments................... 1106
What it must find to support judgment......................0055 1106
Motion for judgment—Exceptions............. 0... cece cece eee eee 1107
Remedy where verdict is defective— Venire de novo—New trial... .1108
CHAPTER XXXVI.
THE VERDICT AND ITS INCIDENTS.
Receiving the verdict........... 0.2 e cece eee c eee eee eee eeeeenee 1110
Recording the verdict........ 0.0.00. ce cece cece eee e eee neeeeeues 1111
Polling the: JWT: <2 ccd snc wow gaa aes aaa ee Pes ew eguwea eos paws 1112
Horm off the Verdict juni. sceelen sqamdtiesas bene ve dosenee divers de 1113
Construction of verdict.......... 2.2 .e cece cece eee eee eee eeees 1115
Presumptions in aid of verdict........ 2... ccc cece ee eee eee eens 1115
Verdict must conform to issues.... 1.0.2... cece cece e eee e ences 1116
Sealed Verdittin.s sciaicicd wei dei uransacgeecacecaua ie geuobiee sees 1116
Chance ‘verdict: 2 chuuse vis sacs andoechue acs 244 Ga saetereawn sees. 1118
Compromise or quotient verdict.......... ccc cece e cece teen nee ee 1119
Objections to verdict. ......... ccc cece cece eee eee eee ee eeeeees 1120
Amending the verdict....... 0... ccc cece c cece eens ence eeee eens 1121
Discharge of jury—Coercion...............- Pi guviealy sanaguies VS 1122
Attacking and sustaining verdict..............eceeeceeeeeececees 1124
CHAPTER XXXVII.
TRIAL AND FINDINGS BY THE COURT.
Legislative power to provide for trial by the court ..... i shetintessee tb aes 1126
Trial by thescourts.. ic ...04-vagnawd iia teahaanode wees iuee ca daananents 1127
Request for trial by the court .......... 0... eee eee eee 1129
Request where case partly for court and partly for the jury....... 1130
Waiver of right to trial in a particular mode..................... 1131
Conduct of trial by court................ agit MMMM CARS x oem 1132
Trial by court—Admission of incompetent evidence.............. 1132
Misconduct of the court..........0....0 (occ ccc e ee ene eee es 1133
Case agreed or special case..... 0... eee cence 1134
Statement of facts in a case agreed or special case................ 1135
Statements of facts in special case or agreed case different from
statements of evidence... 6.0... ieee cece nett eee eens 1185
APTOCd CASE. cece cnc ane ee boy ane Aba daa poise Paes Natoaes 1186
The principal elements of an agreed caS€.............. cece e eee ee 1137
Fictitious Case8 ys 26 s6ncgacde ced osama NTs IG aM Re TENET ol 1187
Jurisdiction in agreed cases. ............ cece ee eeceeeees Wy arav oni 1137
XXXii

§ 965.
966.
967.
968.
969.
970.
971.
972.
973.
974.
975.
976.
977.
978.
979.
980.
981.
982.
983.

984.
985.
986.
987.
988.
989.
990.
991.
992.
993.
994,
995.
996.
997.
998.

“ 999
1000
1001
1002

TABLE OF CONTENTS—VOL II.

PAGE
The office of the statement of facts in an agreed case...... ilies Se 1138
Effect of making and submitting an agreed case...............05. 1140
Judgment in an agreed case......... 26... eee ee eee ee LIAO
General HNGING cscs SA Was wmrctcenmrneh a de deele yt Qewdew Ween 1140
Special finding of facts and conclusions of law..................,. 1141
Duty of the court to make special finding.....................065 1142
Request for special finding. ............ 0. cece eee eee eens 1143
Time at which special finding must be requested................. 1144
Construction of the finding............. 6. ccc c eee eee eee eeeee 1145
Requisites of the statement of facts. ........ cece cece eee es 1145
Silence on a material point—Effect of... 0.0.0.2... ccc eee eee eee 1146
The conclusions of law....... 0... ccc cece eee eee eee e eee e ene ees 1147
Finding outside of the issues. ........... 0... cece cece eee 1148
Defects in form of special finding—Mode of objecting............ 1148
Challenging the finding of facts... ....... 0... ccc cece ee eee ee eee 1149
Objections to the findings by motion for a new trial.............. 1149
Exceptions to the conclusions of law.............0. eee eee eee es 1150
Right to change special finding after filing....................--5 1151

Remedy where the judgment does not conform to the finding... ..1152

CHAPTER XXXVIII.

PROCEEDINGS AFTER VERDICT OR FINDING.

Proceedings open to unsuccessful party. ...... 00... cee cee eee eee 1153
Ventre Gé NOVO, 2. ..c008 Save eR iea DEORE SESE RWERE TEE ERE Osea ERD Oe 1154
Repleadere.ccciiis c.cda vis eee dgucendtine tes g ose sea wap wae Tae SAE SACS 1155
Motion for new trial—Nature and office of.............00. ee eee 1156
Grounds: for NEW IIA) eee cesck eens nhesmmemeded oeade seaman 1157
Who may move for new trial......... 0... ccc cece eee eee eee eee 1161
When motion must be made—Time................ cece eee eee 1162
Form and contents of motion for new trial................00ce eee 1164
Joint and several MOtionS........ 0... eee eee cence eee ees 1167
Amending motion for new trial...........0... 0. ccc cece eee eee ene 1167
Ruling on the motion—Excepting to ruling and preparing for appeal.1168
Waiver of right to move for new trial..................000eeee eee 1169
Motion in arrest of judgment. .......... ccc cece cece cee ee eee 1170
Motion for judgment non obstante.............6 hovad A eneivenméc ies 1171
Motion for judgment on special findings.................c000000 1173

CHAPTER XXXIX.

JUDGMENTS AND DECREES.

. Judgments and decrees generally............... a asiretier eeeoee 1174
. Nature of a judgment..... 20... ee cece eect eee ee eee ee ee eee ene 1175
. Determination of the issue............. ccc ccc ccc cece ee eenaeees 1176
§ 1003.
1004.
1005.
1006.
1007.
1008.
1009.
1010.
1011
1012.
1013.
1014.
1015.
1016.
1017.
1018.
1019.
1020.
1021.
1022.
1023.
1024.
1025.
1026.
1027.
1028.
1029.
1030.
1031.
1032.
1033.
1034.
1035.

1036.
1037.
1038.
1039.

1040. .

1041.
1042.

1043.

TABLE OF CONTENTS—VOL. II. XXX11i

PAGE.
Fina] judgments........ 0... cece ee ec ee eee ene teen teen en eens 1177
Form of judgment does not determine its character.............. 1180
Final judgments—Exceptional cases—Independent issues....... 1181
Interlocutory judgments. .............. 00. e eee eee ee ees 1182
Interlocutory judgments—lIllustrative cases..................... 1183
Decrees. wishshiendake deca s PaReRE wEes gee Re eae ak ed 1185
Form and contents of decrees. .......... cece eee eee eee eee 1186
Requisites of decrees.......... 0... cece eee eee ee eee Sil Bieta aad A 1186
ClASSES OL ‘CECKEES fivscieina craig yee avaanine QS WS hiner yeaa ans 1186
Interlocutory decrees... 2.0.0.0... 2c ee enn e en eee 1187
Judgment upon issues of law presented by demurrer............ 1187
Judgment on dilatory pleas or answers............... PHENO recs 1188
Entry of judgment—General doctrine ................c cece eee 1188
Judgment should be entered in book designated by law......... 1189
Time of entering judgments... ........ 0.0... . cece eee eee eee 1190
Form and contents of judgments ............ cc cece eee e eens 1191
Construction of judgments and entries...................ee0e oe 1192
Verdict or finding not conclusive.................c ce cece een e eee 1193
Judgment must follow the verdict or finding..........5......4.. 1193
Joint and severel judgments .......... 0.0... cece eee eee eee eeees 1194
Judgment where pleas or answers in bar are filed............... 1195
Judgment by default... 0.0... ce cece ence e eee ees 1196
Default admits facts pleaded, but not their legal sufficiency ..... 1196
Jurisdiction must exist to authorize judgment by default........ 1196
What constitutes a default......0 06.0. eee eee 1197
Time to plead—Computation of... 2... 0.. 0... e bcc eee ee eee 1198 '
Default—Amended pleadings—Rule to answer or reply ......... 1198
Effect of failure to formally enter default....................... 1199
Default does not admit amount of damages..................0.. 1199
Relief from judgments by default............... ccc cece eee ee eee 1200
Entries nunc pro tune.... 6... ccc nce cece eee nueeeeeeeeens 1201
Objections to judgments .. 0.26... kee ceece eee eee 1202

Time when the right to appeal from a judgment begifis to run. . .1202

CHAPTER XL.

PREPARATION FOR APPEAL.

Laying the foundation........ 0.0.0... cece cece eee ences 1205 -
Putting questions in form for review on appeal................. 1205.
A decision must be secured or there must be a refusal to decide. 1207
Demurrers—Aider by verdict............ 00... c cece cece cece 1208
MOtONS accsvaiactain ies canarias tek Bk ce Rtane wae ney ReMi ab dtan'n cece ata 1210:
Objections......... Peete er Tre rrr eee rire tee eee eee 1213.
Cases constituting exceptions to the rule that objections must be
made in trial court. ..................04. Act Siac Ae RASA SERS 1214
An objection must not be too broad........................ 00... 1215.
PAGE.
§1044. Objections to questions to witnesses insufficient where question is
PROVE? she ce sno g44 dng eapaans Ree’ veins edie ge DS GHA EET een 1215
1045. Objections must be interposed by the proper party.............. 1216
1046. Exceptions—Nature Of......... 00... cece eee nee nee eens 1217
1047. Necessity for exceptions... ........... cece cee eee eee ee 1218
1048. Time of taking exceptions .. 0.2.00... cece eee ene eee 1218
1049. Exceptions can not be taken in advance of the ruling........... 1219
1050. Exceptions must immediately follow the ruling or decision..... 1219
1051. Exceptions must be addressed to specific rulings............-..-. 1220
1052. Exception available only to party who reserves it............-.. 1220
1053. Exceptions not effective unless valid as to all who join......... 1220
1054. Reducing exceptions to writing........ 0.0... esc eee eee eee eee 122]
1055. Bill of exceptions—Origin and nature of ............... 0. ee ees 1221
1056. Bill of exceptions—Office of..... 0.2... cece tenes 1222
1057. When a bill of exceptions is required—Generally............... 1223
1058. Requisites of bill—General doctrine................. 0. cece eee 1223
1059. Construction of the bill 2.00... cnet 1225
1060. Concerning the rule that the bill brings up points of law........ 1225
1061. Stating the exceptions.............0..0 0000. c cece cee eee e eee 1226
1062. Duty of settling bills of exceptions is judicial................... 1227
1063. Preparation of bill—Adoption by the court ....................- 1227
1064. Horm Of the DIN: 22.154 oaretcethacsuaailesncae Gow gid een arlene 2d awa ators 1227
1065. The bill imports absolute verity.......0..0.00 00... c cece eee eee eee 1228
1066. Conflict between the bill and other record entries............... 1228
1067. Recitals of the clerk not sufficient....................00..0..0005 1228
1068. Stating the evidence....... 0... cece eee nee eens 1229
1069. What matters should be brought in by a bill—Illustrative cases. .1230
1070. Making available error manifest..................0 000.0 cece eee 1231
LO7L; Separate DUIS. ncaauee eae scdee Medien se vlewe ek MASlgeRe ene hae ec *.1232
1072. Collateral motions not part of record proper...................- 1233
1073. Statements and exhibits of direct motions...................... 1233
1074. Rejected pleadings and instruments......................0... * £1233
1075. Bill should be complete before it is signed....................., 1234
1076. Making written instruments part of the bill by reference.........1235
LOPS Oral, CESUIMODY e555) Skis edanesgyecnmuele bos Sede Baguehate veace te 1235
1078. Stenographer’s report of the evidence..................ccc cee eee 1236
1079. Allowance of bill—Time.... 2.20... ccc cece eee ace 1236
1080. Extension of time to file bill... 0... occ eee eee 1237
1081. Order extending time—How shown.................0.0c0cce eee 1237
1082, “Huhibiting the filing... cicunncsscivacweassgeanenwcceesea., 1287
1083. When considered filed...... 00.00.0000 0 ccc cceceee eee 1288
1084; “Hiling essential. i: .cs0.244.44-quatncceway ee ad 4 dane xbaruies venues 1238
1085. AUTHENTICANO Ms 51:3 vasa stoi enweuiely wed eon hes koa aanauibae Gen 1238
1086. By whom the bill should be Boned, Pais oxnan isco Manian Caos ky 1239
1087. Compelling judge to sign bill—Mandamus...................... 1241
1088. Amendment of bills of exception.............0................. 1243
1089. Application for the order to amend............................. 1248
1090. The order directing the amendment............................ 1244

TABLE OF CONTENTS—VOL. II.
TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. I, pp. 603-1244.]

Aaron v. State, 37 Ala. 113, 646
Abat v. Songy, 7 Mart.(La.) 274, 248
Abbe v. Marr, 14 Cal. 210, 322, 1196
Abbett v. Chicago, etc., R. R. Co.,

30 Minn. 482, 548
Abbey v. Mace, 19 N.Y.Supp. 375, 1081
Abbey Homestead Assn. v. Wil-

lard, 48 Cal. 614,

Abbot v. Abbot, 51 Me. 575,
Abbott v. Abbott, 51 Me. 575,
Abbott v. Chaffee, 83 Mich. 256,

S.C. 47 N. W. R. 216, 7
Abbott v. Coburn, 28 Vt. 663, S.C.

67 Am. Dec. 735,

Abbott v. Dutton, 44 Vt. 546, S.C.

8 Am. R. 394, 605

314

‘Abbott v. Keith, 11 Vt. 525, 586
Abbott v. L’Hommedieu, 10 W.
Va. 677, 176
Abbott v. "Sheppard, 44 Mo. 273, 463
Abbott v. Zeigler, 9 Ind. 511, 1183
Abdil v. Abdil, 26 Ind. 287, 443, 610
Abel v. Opel, 24 Ind. 250, 899
Abell v. Simpson, 49 Md. 318, 474

Abels v. Glover, 15 La. Ann. 247, 397
Abendroth v. Van Dolsen, 131 ag

S. 66,
Abiiene, City of, v. Hendricks, 36
Kan. 196, 8. C. 13 Pac. R. 121, 1067
Able v. Chandler, 12 Texas 88, 8.
C. 62 Am. Dec. 578, 1195
Ableman v. Booth, 21 How. (U.

8.) 506, 303
Ables v. Miller, 12 Texas 109, 512
Abney v. Kingsland, 10 Ala. 355,

8 é. 44 Am. Dec. 491, 706

Abrahams v. Myers, 40 Md. 499, 384
Abram v. State, 31 Tex. Cr. App.
449, 8. C. 208. W. R. 987, 235
Abshire v. State, 52 Ind. 99, 1158
Accident Ins. Co. v Crandall, 120
U.S. 527, 8. C. 7 Sup. Ct. Rep.
685, 1033, 1048
Acer v. Hotchkiss, 97 N. Y. 395, 353

 

Acheson v. Sutliff, 18 one pe 1231

2, 665, 668
Achey v. State, 64 Ind. 56.
ae Ta Andrews (Me.), 12 Atl.

171
Acklen v. Hickman, 63 Ala. 494, 738
Acker v. Acker, 81 N. Y. 148, 381
Acker v. White, 25 Wend. 614, 196
Ackley’s Case, 4 Abb. Pr. R. 35, 203
Ackley v. Dygert, 33 Barb. 176, 318

Ackley v.Finch, 7 Cow. (N.Y. )290, 591
Acock v. Halsey, 90 Cal. 215, 8. C.

27 Pac. R. 193, 1046
A’Court v. Cross, 3 Bing. 329, 382
Adam v. State (Tex.), 208. W.R.

548, 1136
Adams v. Abram, 38 Mich. 302, 438
Adams v. Andross, 77 Cal. 483, S.

C. 24 Pac. R. 852,

Adams v. Cameron (Ala.), 10 So.

R. 506, 382
Adams v. Cohoes, 58 Hun 260, All
Adams v. Couch, 1 Okla. 17, S. C.

26 Pac. R. 1009, 170
Adams y. Cowles, 95 Mo. 501, 8.

C. 6 Am. St. R. "74,

245, "O75, 316, 328, 452
Adams v. Crittenden, 17 Fed. R.

42, 491
Adams v. Davis, 16 Ala. 748, 539
Adams v. Gowan, 89 Ind. 358, , 226
Adams v. Great North, etec., Co.;

H. of L. Cases, 1891, "A.C. 31, 574

Adams v. Greenwich Ins. Co., 70

N. Y. 166, 803, 806
Adams v. Harrington, 114 Ind.66, 322
Adams v. Haskell, 7 Wis. 287, 196
Adams v. Helm, 55 Mo. 468, 404
Adams v. Hickman, 43 Mo. 168, 1200
Adams v. Higgins, 23 Fla. 13, S.

C.1So. R. 321, 188
Adams v. Holmes, 48 Ind. 299, 1089
Adams v. Jeffries, 12 Ohio 253, S.

C. 40 Am. Dec. 477, 316

(xxxv)
XXXvVi TABLE

OF

CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 608-1244.]

Adams v. Jones, 12 Peters 207, 413
Adams y. Lockwood, 30 Kan. 373, 1206
Adams v. Main, 3 Ind. App. 233,
8. C. 29 N. E. R. 792, 162
Adams v. Missouri Pacific R. R.
Co., 100 Mo. 555, 8. C. 13 S. W.
' R. 509,
Adams. v. Ohio Falls Co., 131 Ind.

534

Aitna Ins. Co. v. Boon, 95 U.S.

117,
AXtna Life Ins. Co. v. Deming, 123
Ind. 384, 514
AKtna Life Ins. Co. v. Hesser, 77
‘Ta. 381, 8. C. 14 Am. St. R. 297, 368
Aitna Life Ins. Co. v. Ward, 140
U. 8. 76, S. C. 11 Sup. Ct. R.

189

375, 8. C. 31 N. E. R. 57, 483} 720, 1075
Adams y. Olive, 57 Ala. 249, 346 | African Church v. Conover, 12 C.
Adams v. Raigner, 69 Mo. 363, 512 E. Green, 157, 487
Adams v. ReQua, 22 Fla. 250, 8. C. Agate v. Morrison, 84 .N. Y. 672,

1 Am. St. R. 191, 187, 191 179, 705
Adamsy. Robinson, 1 Pick. (Mass.} Agens v. Agens (N. J.), 25 Atl.

461, 436] R. 707, 376
Adams v. Ringo, 79 Ky. 211, 578 Agricultural Co. v. Barnard, 96 N.
Adams v. Russell, 85 Il. 284, 512 Y. 531, 128
Adams v. Sage, 28 N. Y. 108, 351 | Agry v. Betts, 12 Me. 415, aoe 323
Adams y. Saratoga, etc., Co., 10 Ah Lee, In re, 6 Sawy. (U.S. C.

N.Y. 328, 266; ©.) 410, 214
Adams v. Secor, 6 Kan. 542, 1214 | Ah Lee, In re, 5 Fed. R. 899, 216
Adams v. Staley, 2 Show. 61, 595 | Ahlhauser v. Butler, 50 Fed. R.
Adams v. State, 28 Fla. 511, 8. C. . 705, 608

10 So. R. 106, 783, 1069 | Aiken v. Stewart, 63 Pa. St. 30, 792
Adams y. State (Tex.), 20 8. W. Aikin v. State, 35 Ala. 399, 629

R. 548, 1071 | Akely v. Akely, 16 Vt. 450, 572
Adams v. Town, 3 Cal. 247, 118 | Akers v. Demond, 103 Mass. 318, 514
Adams yv. Wadleigh, 10 Gray Akin v. Davis, 14 Kan. 143, 489

(Mass.), 360, 514 | Akridge v. Atlantic, etc., R. R.Co.,
Adams v. Wheeler, 97 Mass. 67, 794] 90 Ga. 232,8.C.16S8.E.R. 81, 1067
Adams v. Whitcomb, 46 Vt. 708, 477 | Alabama v. Burr, 115 U.S. 413, 8
Adams v. Wood, 51 Mich. 411, 394] C.6 Sup. Ct. R. 81, ” 526
Adams County v. Hunter, 78 Ia. Alabama, etc., Co. v. Burkett, 42

328, 8.C. 43 N.W. R. 208, 110, 1130] Ala. 83, 226, 236, 739, 1241

Adams Express v. Pollock, 12 Ohio
St. 618,
Adams Express Co. v. St. John,
17 Ohio St. 641,
Adams, etc.,Co. v.Cook, 16 Bradw.
(I11.)161, 538
Adamson v. Rose, 30 Ind. 380, 1158
Addington v. Allen, 11 Wend. 374, 1209
Addington v. Wilson, 5 Ind. 137, 138
Addison v. State, 48 Ala. 478, 737, 1073
Addleman v. Erwin, 6 Ind. 494, 1164
Adicks v. Allison, 218. Car. 245, 153
Adkins v. Fry, 38 W. Va. 545, 8
C. 188. E. R. 737, 1027
Adkins v. Stephens, "38 W.Va. 557,
S.C.188S. E. R. 740, 1027
Adler, ete., Co. v. Hatchcock, 55
Ark. 579, 8. C. 18 8.W. R. 1048, 1078
Adler v. Metropolitan, etc., Co.,
138 N. Y. 173, 8. C.33 N. E. R.

935,

Adm’r of Whitcomb v. Cook, 39
Vt. 585,

Advisory Opinion Matter of Im-
peachment, 14 Fla. 289,

1100
441

1090
433
122

 

Alabama, G.8. RB. R. Co. v. Hill,
90 Ala. 71,8.C.9L. R. A. 442) 810
Alabama, ete., Co. v. Nichols, 109

U.S. 332, 185
Alabama, etc., R. R. Co. v. Sum-

mers, 68 Miss. 566, S. C. 10 So.

R. 63, 546
Albee v. Hayden, 25 Minn. 267, 1134
Albert v. Clarendon Land, etc.,

Co. (N. J.), 23 Atl. B. 8, 608, 609
Alberti v. N. Y., ete., R. R. Co.,

118 N. Y. 77,8. 0.6L. R. A.

765, 816
Albin v. State, 63 Ind. 598, 1073
Albion, etc., Co. v. Richmond,

etc., Co., 19 Nev. 225, 177, "1134
Albion, Town of, v. Hetrick, 90

Ind. 545,
ae v. McTighe, 49 Fed. R.
Albuquerque v. Zegler (N.M.), a

Pac. R. 515,

Alcorn vy. Morgan, ‘77 Ind. 184, 39
Alderman v. Montcalm, 41 Mich.
550, 180, 1159
TABLE

OF

CASES. XXXVIi

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-G02, Vol. II, pp. G03-1244.]

Alderson v. Marshall, 7 Mont. 288,

8. C. 16 Pace. R. 576, 445
Aldige v. Knox, 16 La. Ann. 180, 453
Aldrich, Appellant, 110 Mass. 189, 224
Aldrich’ v. Hawkins, 6 Blackf. 125, 258
Aldrich v. Jessiman, 8 N. H. 516, 600
Aldridge v. Mardoff, 32 Tex. 204, 1163
Alexander v. Bennett, 60 N. Y.

204, 118, 119, 138
Alexander v. Chicago, etc., R.R.
. Co., oe ban, 519, 8. C. 43 N.

W.R. 4 5384
Pons v. Cunningham, 111

Til. 511, 592
Alexander v. Esten, 1 Caines,152, 1210
Alexander v. Fitzpatrick, 4 Port.

(Ala.) 405, 1034
Alexander v. Gill, 120 Ind. 485,

8. C. 30 N. E. R. 525,

126, 133, 134, 165, 324
Alexander v. Humber, 86 Ky.565, 1168
Alexander v. Machan, 147 U.S.72, 1220
Alexander v. Penna. Co., 48 Ohio

St. 623,

Alexander v. Stewart, 23 Ark. 18,
190, 1195
Alexander v. Town of New Castle,
115 Ind. 51, 8. C. 17 N. E. R.

545

200, 984
Alexandria Canal Co. v. Swann,
' 5 How. (U.S.) 83, 581

Alexandria, Village of, v. Stabler,
. 4C.C. A. 324, 8. C. 50 Fed. R.
689, 1032, 1033
Alfred v. Kankakee, etc., R. R.
Co., 92 Tl. 609, 595
Alhambra, etc., Co. v. Richard-
son, 72 Cal. 598, 1103
Allison, In re, 18 Col. 525, 8. C.
16 Am. St. R. 224, 145, 146
Allard v. Smith, 2 Mete. 297, 1119
Alleorn v. Rafferty, 4 J.J. Marsh.

(Ky.) 220, 620
Allegre v. Maryland Ins. Co., 14

Am. Dec. 296, 588
Alleman v. Stepp, 52 Ia. 626, 797

Allemania Fire Ins. Co. v. Peck,
133 Ill. 220, 8S. C. 24 N. E. R.
5388, S.C. 2 Lewis’ Am. R. R.

& Corp. R. 488, 385
Allen v. Allen, 80 Ala. 154, 253, 492
Allen v. Bankston, 33 Ark. 740, 445
Allen v. Berndt, 133 Ind. 355, = 1281
Allen v. Bradford, 3 Ala. 281, 191
Allen v. Buchanan (Ala.), 11 So.

R. 777, 485, 486
Allen v. Central R. R. Co., 42 Ia.

683, . 498

Allen v. Chadsey, 1 Ind. 399, 428

 

Allen v. Cheever,61 N. H. 82, 402
Allen vy. Collier, 70 Mo. 138, S.C.
385 Am. R. 416, 383

Allen v. Dallas, ete., R. R. Co., 3

Woods, 316, 496
Allen v. Davison, 16 Ind. 416, 1088
Allen v. De Groodt, a Mo. 159, 8.

C. 14 Am. St. R. 6 361
Allen v. Duffie, 43 Mh. 1, 545

Allen v. Dunlap (Ore.), 33 Pac. R.
675, 485
Allen vy. Ferguson, 18 Wall. (U.
8.) 1, 1105
Allen v. Galpin, 9 Barb. (N. Y.)

246, 586
Allen v. Hanks, 136 U.S. 300, 478
Allen v. Hawley, 63 Am. Dec.

198, 495
Allen v. Lee, 6 Wis. 478, 613
Allen v. Mandaville, 26 Miss. 397, 499
Allen v. Miles, 4 Harr. (Del.) 234, 600
Allen v. Mann, 1 Chip. (Vt.) 94, 377
Allen v. Pike, 3 Cush. 238, 411
Allen v. Pullman, etc., Co., 189 U.

S. 658, 483
Allen v. Nussbaum, 87 Ga. 470, S.

C. 138. E. R. 635, 180

Allen v. Ray, 96 Mo. 542, 8. C. 10

S. W. R. 153, 448
Allen v. Skiff, 2 Ia. 433, 631
Allen v. State, 79 Ala. 34, 1121
Allen v. State, 74 Ind. 216, 1156

Allen v. State, 85 Wis. 22, 8. C. 54
N. W. R. 999, 1122

Allen y. State, 21 Ga. 217, S.C.
715

68 Am. Dec. 457,
Allen v. State, 73 Am. Dec. 763,
801, 808, 804, 805

Allen vy. State, 54 Ind. 461, 643, 644
Allen v. Strickland, 100 N. Car.
225, 8. C.68. E. R. 780, 412

Allen v. Watson, 16 Johns. (N.
Y..) 205

Allen v. Webster, 15 Wend. (N.
Y.) 284,

Alley v. Limbert, 35 Ill. App. 592,

1230, "1233
Alley v. Nott, 111 U. 8. 472, 1179
Alley v. State, 76 Ind. 94, 668, 1228
Allgood v. Williams, 92 Ala. 551, :
8. C. 8 So. R. 722, 312
Allie v. Schmitz, 17 Wis. 169, 245
Allin v. Connecticut, etc., Co., 150
Mass. 560, 8. C. 6 L. R.A. 416, 806
Alling v. Munson, 2 Conn. 691,. 582
Allis v. Day, 14 Minn. 516, 201
Allis v. Leonard, 58 N. Y. 288, 1059
Allis v. Meadow Springs, etc., Co.,
67 Wis. 16, 8. C. 29 N.W.R. 543,
632, 638

586
382
XXXVI

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.]

Allison v. Thomas, 72 Cal. 562, S.
C.1 Am. St. R. 89
Alloway v. Nashville, 88 Tenn. 510,
8.C.8L. R.A. 123,
Allsmiller v. Freutchenicht, 86
Ky. 198, 8. C.5 S. W. R. 746,
292, 443
Allyn v. Boston & Albany R. R.
Co., 105 Mass. 77, 1054
1044

435
680

Alpers v. Hunt, 86 Cal. 78, 8. C.
21 Am. St. R. 17,

Alrecht v. Walker, 73 Til. 69,

Alston v. Clay, 2 Hayw. (N. Car.)
171, 198

Alston v. Alston, 34 Ala. 15, 363

Alt v. Chicago, ete. . Ry. Co. (8.
Dak.), 57 N. W. R. 1126, 1080, 1165

Altemus’ Estate, 32 La. ‘Ann. 364, 314

Althen v. Tarbox, 48 Minn. 1, s.
C. 50 N. W.R. 828, 1

Alton, ete., Co. v. Northcott, 15
Ill. 49, 408

Amee y. Wilson, 22 Me. 116, 394

American Bank Note Co. v. N.Y.

_ Elevated R. R.Co ,129N.Y. 252, 372

American Co. v. Bradford, 27 Cal.
360, 1088

American, ee Co. v. Middleton,
80 N. Y. 4

American, ee ., Co. v. Spellman,
90 Ill. 455,

American, etc., Co. v. Southern,
etc., 34 Fed. R. 803,

American Express Co. v. Spell-
man, 90 Ill. 455,

American Ins. Co. v. Yearick, 78
Ind. 202,

American Mut. Aid Soc. v. Hel-
burn, 85 Ky. 1,8. C.7 Am. St.

488

R. 571, 527
American White Bronze Co. v.
Clark, 123 Ind. 230, 1163

Ammerman v. Crosby, 26 Ind.,

451, 1233
Ames v. Boland, 1 Minn. 365, 255
Ames v. Hager, 36 Fed. R.129, 308
Ames v. Kansas, 111 U. 8S. 449, 119
Ames v. Lake Superior, etc., Co.,

21 Minn. 241, 1129

Ames v. Port Huron, ete., Co., 11
Mich. 139,

Amesv. The Port Huron, etc., Co.,
11 Mich. 149,

Ames v. Webbers, 10 Wend. (N.
Y.).575,

Oe v. Winsor, 19 Pick. (Mass. )
24

Ames Iron Works v. Warren, 76
Ind. 512, 8. C. 40 Am. R. 258,

136
224
624.

302

 

Amidon vy. Gaff, 24 Ind. 128, 1096
Amidon v. Hosley, 54 Vt. 225, 804
Amis yv. Myers, 16 How. (U. 8.)

492, 262, 345, 1130
Amonett. v. Montague, 63° Mo.

201, 1080, 1220
Amory v. Amory, 26 Wis. 152, 1180
Amory v. Amory, 95 U.S. 186, 319
Amory v. Reilly, 9 Ind. 490, 184
Amos, Ex parte, 51 Ala. 57, 226.

Amos’ v. Sinnot, 4 Scam. (Ill.)
440,

Amos v. State, 96 Ala. 120, 8. C.
11 So. R. 424,

Amrick v. Brubaker, 101 Mo. 478,
S.C. 148. W. R. 627,

Amy v. City of Watertown, 130
Beep enue enue eg
537, 878, 379

Amy v. Watertown, 130 U.S. 301,
8. C.9 Sup. Ct. R. 530,

Anacosta Tribe v. Murback, 13
Md. 91, 588.

Andenried v. Philadelphia, etc.,
Co., 68 Pa. St. 370, 480

Anderson v. Ames, 6Ta. 486, 1224, 1232

Anderson v. Anderson, 129 Ind.
578, S. C. 28 Am. St. Rep. 211, 59

Anderson v. Anderson, 42 Vt. 350, 312

Anderson yv. Anderson, 65 Ind.

392
646.
411

440

196, 599
Anderson vy. Arnette, 27 La. Ann.

237, 442
Anderson v. Brown, 9 Mo. 646, 428

Anderson v. Brown, 16 Tex. 554, 430
Anderson vy. Burchett, 48 Kan.
781, S. C. 80 Pac. R. 174,
Anderson v. Burchett, 48 Kan,
153, S. C. 29 Pac. R. 315, 601
Anderson v. Caldwell, 91 Ind. 451,
8. C. 46 Am. R. 613, 648, 1129
Anderson v. Claman, 123 Ind.
471, 144, 164
Anderson v. Dunn, 6 Wheat. 204° 136.
Anderson v. Goff, 72 Cal. 65, . &

603.

1 Am. &t. R. 34, » 458.
Anderson v. Gray, 134 TN. 560. -
C. 25 N. E. R. 848, 154, 320:

Anderson v. Hancock, 61 Cal. 88, 34
Anderson v. Hawhe, 115 Tl. 33, 428.
Anderson v. Keller, 67 Ga. 58, 553.
oye .Layton, 3 Bush. (Ky. )

381

Anderson v. Levely, 58 Md. 192, 298
oe v. McPike, 41 Mo. App.
Anderson v. Meredith (Ky.),9S.

W. R. 407, 116:
Anderson v. Miller, 4 Blackf. 417, 428
TABLE OF CASES.

XXxXix

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244]

Anderson v. Mitchell, 58 Ind. 592, 368
Anderson vy. North, ete. +, Co., 21

Ore. 281, S.C. 28 Pac. R. 5, 546, 1056
Anderson v. Oliver, 138 Pa.St. 156,

'§. C. 20 Atl. R. 981, 1044
Anderson vy. Rome, etc., R. R. Co.,

54 N. Y. 334, 719, 721
Anderson v. Spence, 72 Ind. 315, 89
Anderson v. State, 34 Ark. 257, 798
Anderson v. State, 5 Ark. 444, 646
Anderson v. State, 28 Ind. 22, 630
Anderson v. State, 104 Ind. ‘467,

S.C.4N.E.R. 68, 692, 821, 1068
Anderson v. Washabaugh, 43 Pa.

St. 115, 363
Anderson yv. Watt, 138 U. S. 694, 312
Anderson Bridge Co.v. Applegate,

13 Ind. 339, 414,
Anderson Co. Commrs. v. Beal,

113 U.S. 227,

Aneals v. People, 134 Il. 401,
Anding v. Levy, 60 Miss. 487, 597
Andis v. Richie, 120 Ind. 138, 1167
Andrewes v. Elliott, 6 E.& B. 338, 262
Andrews v. Avory, 14 Gratt. 229,

8S. C. 73 Am. Dec. 355, 814
Andrews v. Beck, 23 Tex.455, 217, 218
Andrews v. Bernhardi, 87 111.365, 451
Andrews v. Birmingham, etc., Co.

(Ala.), 12 So. R. 432, 557
Andrews v. Frye, 104 Mass. 234, 392
Andrews v. Hammond, 8 Blackf.

540, 1025, 1035

Andrews v. Key, 77 Tex. 35, S.C.
13S. W. R. 640 1132
457

"1051
799, 802

?

Andrews v. Lembeck, 46 Ohio St.

88, S.C. 18 N. E. R. 483,,
Andrews vy. Linton, 2 Ld. Ray-

mond 884, 232
Andrews v. McLeod, 66 Miss.348, 478
Andrews v. Mundy, 36 W. Va. 22,

8. C. 148. E. R. 414, 611, 1091
Andrews v. Powell, 27 Ind. 303,

474, 487

Andrews v. Pratt, 44 Cal. 309, 202
Andrews v. School Dist., 35 Minn.

70, 8S. C. 27 N. W. R. 303, 1180

Andrews v. Smithwick, 34 Tex. siti

544,
Andrews v. Wheaton, 23 Conn.

112, 115, 248, 454
Andrews v. Youmans, 82 Wis. 81,

S. C. 52 N. W. Rep. 23, 813
Androvette v. Bowne, 4 "Abb. Pr.

(N. Y.) 440, 487, 488
Angel v. Smith, 9 Ves. Jr. 335, 196
Angell v. Angell, 14R. 1.541, 128, 444
Angell v. Robbins, 4R.1. 498, 165, 323
Angell v. Steere, 16 R. I. 200, S.

.C. 14 Atl. R. 81, 214

 

dveley Enya Z Neb. 595, 8. C.
41N.W.R

Angle v. oe 34 "Ind. 488,

Anglo- as etc., Co. v. Cannon,

31 Fed. R . 313, 414, 508, 505
Ankeny v. Clark, 148 U. 8. 345,

S. C.13 Sup. Ct. R. 617, "1208
Anness v. Providence, 13 R. 1.17, 297
Annis v. People, 13 Mich. 511, 805
Anonymous, 89 Ala. 291, 8. C.7

551
190

L. RB. A. 425, 808, 810
Anonymous, 35 Ala. 226, 808, 810
Anonymous, 59 N. Y. 313, 177
Anonymous, 1 Gal. 22, 278

Ansley v. Robinson, 16 Ala. 798, 1179
Anson v. Dwight, 18 Ta. 241, 688
Anthony v. Boyd, 15 R. 1.495, 567,570
Anthony v. Dunlap, 8 Cal. 26, 300.
Anthony v.Jones,39 Kan. 529, 800, 801
Anthony v. Kasey, 83 Va. 388, S.

C.5 Am. St. R. 277, 129, 340:
Anthony v. Smith, 4 Bos. 508, 697
Anthony v. Sturgis, 86 Ind. 479, 484
Anthony v. Taylor, 68 Tex. 403,

8.0.48. W. R. 531, 1190
Antbony v. Wheeler, 130 Il. 128,

8. C. 17 Am. St. R. 281, "1051
Apel v. Kelsey, 52 Ark. 341, 8. C.

20 Am. St. R. 183,

Appeal of Backus, 58 Pa. St. 186,
Appeal of Baldwin, 44 Conn. 37,
Appeal of Barclay, 64 Pa. St. 69,
Appeal of Bentley, 99 Pa. St. 504,
Appeal of Bridgham, 82 Me. 323,
Appeal of Briggs, 93 Pa. St. 485,
Appeal of Clark, 62 Pa. St. 447,
Appeal of Culver, 48 Conn. 165,
Appeal of Dicks, 106 Pa. St. 589, 337
Appeal of Finkbone, 86 Pa. St.

368, 360
Appeal of Gesell, 84 Pa. St. 238, 1179
Appeal of Gibson, 154 Mass. 378,

128
201
822
382
385
513
886
201
314

8. C. 28.N. E. R. 296, 294
Appeal of Gilroy, 100 Pa. St. 5,
486, 489
Appeal of Hartranft, 85 Pa. St.
433, 170, 251
Appeal of Hays, 123 Pa. St. 110,
8. C. 16 Atl. R. 300, 305

Appeal of Hegarty, 75 Pa. St. 508, 263

Appeal of Heils, 40 Pa, St. 453, 8.
C. 80 Am. Dec. 590,

Appeal of Kirk, 78 Pa. St. 248, 8.
C. 30 Am. R. 357,

Appeal of Lex, 97 Pa. St. 289,

Appeal of Mahorning Bank, a
Pa. St. 158, 1175

Appeal of Mannig, 82 Pa. St. 373, 350

Appeal of Morgan, 110 Pa. St. 271,
S.C. 4 Atl. B. 506, 188, 599

207
128
xl

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. I, pp. GO8-1244.]

Appeal of Moss, 83 Pa. St. 264, S.

C. 24 Am. R. 164, 955
Appeal of Murray, 101 Pa. St. 421, 520
Appeal of Musselman, 65 Pa. St.

480, 128
Appeal of Norris, 71 Pa. St. 106, 363
Appeal of Olmstead, 43 Conn. 110, 314
Appeal of Palairet,67 Pa. St. 479,

8.0.5 Am. R. 450, 97
Appeal of Phillip, 68 Pa. St. 130, 201
Appeal of Ridgway, 15 Pa. St. 177,

8. C. 53 Am. Dec. 586, 1190
Appeal of Smith, 52 Mich. 415, 550
Appeal of Sproull, 71 Pa. St. 1387, 201
Appeal of Zerfass, 135 Pa. St. 522,

S.C. 19 Atl. 1056, 287
Appel v. Buffalo, etc., R. R. Co.,

111 N. Y. 550, §.C.19N. E.R.

93, 549, 550
Appleton v. Ames, 150 Mass. 34,

S.C. 22 N. E. R. 69, 411
Appleton v. Barrett, 29 Wis. 221, 396

Appleton v. Donaldson, 3 Pa. St.
381, 401
Application of Judges, In re, 64
Pa. St. 33, 232, 234
Apthorp v. ‘Comstock, 2 Paige Ch.
482, 1128
8.C.168. W. R. 436, "1284
Arapahoe Village v. "Albee, 24
Arbuckle v. Bowman, 6 lowa 70, 1195
Archer v. Long, 36 So. Car. 602,
1135
Archer v. Mosse, 2 Vern. 8,
Archer v. State, 106 Ind. 426, 808
G. (Md.) 62, 596
Arctic Fire Ins. Co. v. Austin, 69
Ard v. State, 114 Ind. 542, 148, 604
Arden v. Arden, 1 Johns. Ch.314, 363
Argent v. Darrell, 2 Salk. 648, 655
Argo v. Barthand, 80 Ind. 63, 202, 324
Argyle v. Dwinel, 29 Me. 29, 467
Arizona v. Mix, 1 Ariz. 52, 258
Ark. 517, S.C. 13 S.W. R. 280, 1089
Armacost v. Lindley, 116 Ind.295, 365
Armstrong v. Burrows, 6 Watts.
(Pa.) 266, * 538
aeons v. Easton, 1 B. Mon.
(Ky 436
209, 303

Arambulav. Sullivan, 80 Tex. 615,
Neb. 242, 8.C. 8 Am. St. R. 202, 366
8. 0.148. E. R. 24,

274

Archer v. Williamson, 2 Har. &

N. Y. 470, S. C. 25 Am. R. 221, 587
Arey v. De Loriea, 55 Fed. R. 323, 822
Argotsinger v. Vines, 82 N.Y.308, 551
Arkansas, etc., Co. v. Canman, 52
Armistead v. Philpot, 1 Doug.231, 198
Armstrong v. Clark, 17 Ohio 495, 1224

-) 66
Armstrong v. Ettlesohn, 36 Fed.

 

Armstrong v. Keith,3 J.J. Marsh.
1

2

Armstrong v. Levan, 109 Pa. St.

177, 383
Armstrong v. Marshall, 4 Dowl.
593, 580

Armstrong v. Masten, 11 Johns.

189, 574
Armstrong v. Mock, 17 Ill. 166, 1236
Armstrong v. Sanford,7 Minn. 49, 488
Armstrong v. Stone, 9 Gratt.102, 290
Arnault v. St. Julien, 21 La. Ann.

438

630,
Arndt v. Griggs, 135 U.S. 316, S.

C. 10 Sup. Ct. R. 557, 271, 275, 444
Arneson v. Spawn (8. Dak.), 49

N. W. R. 1066, ° 529
Arnett v. Bailey, 60 Ala. 435, 450
Arnett v. Finney, 41 N.J.Eq.147, 376
Arnold v. Angell, 62 N.Y. 508, 1148
Arnold v. Arnold, 62 Ga. 627, 262
Arnold v. Blabon, 147 Pa. St. 372,

S. C. 23 Atl. R. 575, 363
Arnold v. Chapman, 13 R. 1.586, 423
Arnold v. Commonwealth, 80 Ky.

800, S. C. 44 Am. R. 480, 187
Arnold v. Linaweaver, 3 Head.

(Tenn.) 51, = 475
Arnold v. Norton, 42 Ind. 248, 236
Arnold v. Palmer, 23 Mo. 411, —-1197
Arnold v. Slaughter, 36 W.Va.

589, 8S. C. 15 S. E. R. 250, 200

Arnold v. State, 9 Tex. Apy 435, 661
Arnold v. United States, 9 d Cranch
104, 360, 379
Arnot v. McClure, 4 Denio 41, — 1225
Arras, Ex parte, 78 Cal. 304, S.C.
20 Pac. R. 683,
Arrington v. Arrington, 102 N.

Car. 491, 8.C.98. E.R. 200, 287
Arroyo Ditch Co. v. Superior

Court, 92 Cal. 47,8. C. 27 Am.

St. R. 91, 137
Arthur v. Isreal, a Col. 147, 8. C.

22 Am. St. R. 381 344
Arthur v. Roberts, "60 Barb. (N.

Y.) 580, 538
Arthur v. Wallace, 8 Kan. 267, 1094
Arthurs v. Hart, 17 How. 6, 1133
Artisans’ Bank v. Treadwell, 34

Barb. 553, 196
Artman v. West Point, etc., Co.,

16 Neb. 572, 1182
Asay v. Ha , 89 Pa. St. 77, 706
Asbury v. air, 111 N, Car. 251, 1150
Asbury Life Ins. Co. vy. Warren,

66 Me. 523, 8S. C. 22 Am. R.

590, 661

Ashby v. Bates, 15 Mees & W.

589, 669
TABLE OF

CASES. xli

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.]

Ashcroft v. Bertles, 6 T. R. 652, 393

Ashley v. Cunningham, 16 Ark.
168, 500

Ashley v. Laird, 14 Ind. 222, 1191

Ashman y. Flint & P. M. R. R.
Co., 90 Mich. 567, S.C. 51 N.W.
R. 645,

Ashmead v. Reynolds, 134 Ind.
139, S. C. 33 N. E. R. 763,

Ashton v. ay of Rochester, 133

547
1205

N. Y. 187, 8. C. 28 Am. St. RB.

619, 1147
Ashton v. Dashaway Association,

84 Cal. 61, 394

Ashton v. State, 31 Texas Crim.
App. 482, 8. C. 218. W. R. 47, 661

Ashton v.Touhey, 131 Mass. 26, 1115

Ashworth v. Kittridge, 12 Cush.

193, 707
Ashworth v. Kittridge, 59 Am. ~
Dec. 180, 822
Askew v. Hooper, 28 Ala. 634, 376
Askew v. Kennedy, 1 Baily (S.
Car.) 46, 579
Aspinwall v. Sabin, 22 Neb. 73, 8.
C.3 Am. St. R. 258, 328

Assessors v. Osbornes, 9 Wall.
567

Astley v. Capron, 89 Ind. 167,

Aszman v. State, 123 Ind. 347, 8.
C.8 L. R. A. 33, 1073

338
1068

Atchison v. Rose, 43 Kan. 605, 783
Atchison v. State, 13 Lea (Tenn. ,
275, 1071
Atchison, ete. ‘f Co. v. Feehan,
(Il.), 36 N. E. R. 1036, 919
Atchison, etc., Co. v. Ferry, 28
Kan. 686, 1142
Atchison, ete., Co. v. Fletcher, 35
Kan. 236, 488
Atchison, City of, v. Jansen, 21
Kan. 560, 1060

Atchison, ’ete., Co. v. Long, 46
Kan. 701 478

Atchison, ete., Co. v. Wagner, 19
Kan. 335, 1235

Atchison, Tt. & 8. F.B.R. Co. v.
Cone, 15 Pac. R. 499, S. C. 37
Kan. 567,

Atchison, etc., R. R. Co. v. Frank-
lin, 23 Kan. 74,

Atchison & Neb. R. R. Co. v.
Loree, 4 Neb. 446, 1051

Atchison,etc.,R.R. Co. v. Plunkett,
25 Kan. 188, 1088, 1090

Atchison, Topeka, etc., R. R. Co.
Vv. Thul, 29 Kan. 466, 8. C. 44
Am. R. ‘659,

Atchison, ete., R. R. Co. v. Thul,
82 Kan. 255, S.C. 49 Am. R. 484, 1070

1092
667

816

 

Aten v. “Hrawn, 14 Ill. App. 451, 1194
Athens Mfg. Co. v. Rucker, 80
Ga. 291, 370
Atherton yv. Williams, 19 Ind.
105, 360
L. R. 25 Q. B. Div. 377, 360
Atkinson v. Daily, 107 Ind. 117,
584, 1064
Atkinson v. Railroad, 81 Mo. 50, 191
Atkinson v. Taylor, 2 Wils. 117, 482
Atkins v. Atkins, 9 Neb. 191, 445, 446
Atkins v. Kinnan, 20 Wend. 241,
8. C. 32 Am. Dee. 534,

Atkins v. Wabash, etc., Co., 29
Fed. R. 161, 194, 304

.| Atkinson v. Bradford, etc., Soc.,

267

Atkisson v. Martin, 39 Ind. 242, 1202
Atlantic Bank v. Harris, 118 Mass.
147, 367

Atlantic, etc., Co. v. Maryland
Coal Co., 64 Md. 302,
Atlantic Ins. Co. v. McLoon, 48

639

Barb. (N. Y.) 27, 463
Atlanta R. R. v. Johnson, 66 Ga.
259, 919

Atlas Mining Co. v. Johnston, 23
Mich. 37,
Atlas Bank v. Nahant Bank, 23

667

Pick. 480, 467
Attorney Gen. Vv. Possorn, 1 Wis.
277, 256

Attorney Gen. v. Cambridge Gas
Co., 4 Ch. App. Cases, 71,

Attorney Gen. v. City of Eau
Claire, 37 Wis. 400,

Attorney Gen. v. Delaware, etc.,
Co., 27 N. J. Eq. 631,

Attorney Gen. v. Fadden, 1 Price
408, 808

Attorney Gen. v. Great North,
etc., Co., 4 De’Ge. & S. 75,

Attorney Gen. v. Haberdasher’s

Society, 2 Jur. 915,

Attorney Gen. v. Hunter, 1 Dev.
Eq. (N. C.) 12,

Attorney Gen. v. Lum, 2 Wis.
507,

Attorney Gen. v. Purmort, 5 Paige

482
256
482

482
498
482

633

(N. Y.) 620, 376
Attorney Gen. v. Sillem, 10 H. L.

Cases, 704, 296
Attorney Gen. v. Steward, 21 N.

J. Eq. 340, 487
Attorney Gen. v. Tarr, 148 Mass.

809, S.C. 2 Lawy. R. Anno. 87,

19 N. E. R. 358, 392

Attorney Gen. v. The Railroads,
35 Wis. 425,. 482
Attwood v. Fricot, 17 Cal. 37,8.
C. 76 Am. Dee. 567, 508, 1232
xlii

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. IT, pp. 603-1244.]

Attrill v. Rockaway Beach Imp.

Co., 25 Hun (N. Y.) 376,
Atwood vy. Cobb, 16 Pick. (Mass.)

227, S. C. 26 Am. Dee. 697,
Atwood v. Frost, 51 Mich. 360, 8.

C.16N. W.R. 685, 341
Atwood v. Welton, 7 Conn. 66, 796
Atwood v. Welton, 57 Conn. 514,

8. C. 18 Atl. R. 322, 527, 1146
Aubel v. Ealer, 2 Binn. 582, 602
Auchampaugh v. Schmidt, 77 Ia.

13, 519
Auditor v. Atchison, etc., Co.,6

Kan. 500, 123, 212
Auffmordt v. Hedden, 137 U. 8.

310, 1129
Augus v. Foster, 42 Ill. App. 19, 1082
Augusta Ry. Co. v. Andrews, 89

Ga. 653, 8. C. 168. E. R. 203,

1212, 1217
Augusta, etc., Co. v. Randall, 85

Ga. 297, 8. C. 118. E. R. 706, 823
Augusta & S. R. Co. v. Randall,

79 Ga. 304,8.C.48. E. R. 674, 1067
Augusta Savings Bank v. Stelling,

81 So. Car. 360, 444
Augur Steel, etc., Co. v. Whittier,

117 Mass. "451, 507
Aulger v. Clay, "109 Ill. 487, 402
Aultman v. Falkum, 47 "Minn. *

414, 8. C.50 N.W. B. 471, 546, 669
Aultman v. McLean, 27 Ia. 129, 327
Aultman, etc., Co. v. Shelton,

1090

(Ia.), 57 N. W. R. 857,

Aultman v. Steinan, 8 Neb. 109,
833, 454, 612, 613

Aultman M. & Co. v. Timm, 93

498
502

Ind. 158, 31
Aurora v. Bitner, 100 Ind. 396, 549
Aurora v. Cobb, 21 Ind. 492, 677

Austin v. Bodley, 4..T. B. Mon.
434, 280

Austin v. Bostwick, 9 Conn. 496, 382

Austin v. Cameron, 83 Tex. 351,
8. C.18 8. W. R. 437,

Austin v. Charlestown, 8 Met.
(Mass.) 196, 8S. C. 41 Am. Dec.

310

497, 341
Austin 'v. Cox, 60 Ga. 520, 653
Austin v. Earhart, 88 Ind. 182, 1108
Austin v. Jordan, 5 Texas 130, 435
Austin v. People, 102 Ill. 261, 820
Austin v. Ricker, 61 N. H.97,. 556

Austin v. Rutland R. R. Co., 45
Vt. 215,
Austin v. Snow’s Lessee, 2 Dall.

372

157, 572
Austin v. Soule, 36 Vt. 645, 453
Austin v. Townes, 10 Tex. "4, 1049
Aveline’s Est., 53 Cal. 259, 1161

 

Avera v. Tool, 74 Ga. 398, 1122

Averell v. Perrott, 74 Mich. 296,

8. C. 41 N. W. R. 929, 337
Averhill v. Tucker, 2 Cranch C.

C. 544, 471
Avery v. Clemons, 18 Conn. 306, 558.
Avery v. Foley, 4 Hun 415, 1146.
Avery v. Slack, 17 Wend. (N. Y.)

85, 612
Avery v. Scott, 5 H. L. Cas. 811, 589
Avinger v. South Car. Ry. Co., 29

8. Car. 265, 8. C. 13 Am. St. R.

716, 1041
Awde v. Dixon, 6 Exch. 869, 532°
Aycrigg’s Exrs. v. N.Y. & E.R. R.

Co., 30 N. J. L. 460, 1041

Aydelotte v. Brittain, 29 Kan. 98, 191

Ayer v. Brown, 77 Me. 195, 471
Ayer v. Weeks, 65 N. H. 248, 8.

C. 23 Am. 8t. R. 37, 312
Ayers v. Adams, 82 Ind. 109, 1147
Ayers v. Richards, 12 Il. 146, 382
Ayers v. State, 88 ‘Ind. 275, 107+
Ayers v. Watson, 1138 U.S. 594, 533
Ayres v. Carver, 17 How. 591, 1178.
Ayres v. Hill, 82 Ala. 401, 454
Ayres v. Hubbard, 88 Mich. 155,

8. 0.50 N. W.R. 11, 665

Ayres v. Lawrence, 63 Barb. 454,
165, 324
Aymar v. Beers, 7 Cow. (N. Y.)
705, 8. C. 17 Am. Dec. 538,
553, 554, 555:

Aymar v. Roff, 3 Johns. Ch. 49, 290:
Ayrault v. Chamberlain, 33 Barb.
229, , 682, 692
B
4
Baasen v. Baehr, 7 Wis. 516, 407
Babb v. Missouri University, 40

Mo. App. 173, 712
Babbage v. Coulbourn, L. R., 9

Q. B. Div. 235, 589°
Babcock v. Brige s, 52 Cal. 502, 463.
Babcock v. Old Colony R. R. Co.,

150 Mass. 467, 8. C. 23 N. E. R.

325, 536.
Babcock v. People, 13 Col. 515, S.

C. 22 Pac. R. 817, 634, 667, 795:
Babcock v. Wolf, 70 Towa 676, 217
Baber v. Rickhart, 52 Ind. 594, 510:
Babbitt v. Doe, 4 Ind. 3855, 274

Bacas v. Smith, 38 La. Ann. 139, 332
Bachelder v. Putnam, 54N.H. 84,
8. C. 20 Am. R. 115, 470:
Bachman v. Roller, 9 Baxt. (Tenn.)
409, 383
Bachmann vy. Milwaukee, 47 Wis.

435, 630:
TABLE OF CASES.

xliii

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.]

‘Backhouse v. Bonomi, 9 H. of L.

Cas. 503, 868
Backus’ Appeal, 58 Pa. St. 186, 201,
Backus v. Coyne, 35 Mich. 5, 583

Backus v. Le anon, 11 N. H. 19, 1129
Bacon v. Harris, 15 R. I. 599, 8.

C. 10 Atl. R. 647, 553
Bacon v. Jones, 4 M.&C. 433, 491
Bacon v. Kennedy, 56 Mich. 329, 450

Bacon y. Rives, 106 U. 8.99, . 373
Bacon v. Smith, 2 La. Ann. 441,

8. C. 46 Am. Dec. 549, 401
Bacon vy. Spottiswoode, 1 Beav..

382, 491
Bacon v. State, 22 Fla. 46, 237
Bacon v. Western, etc., "Gas 53

Ind. 229, 395 |
Bacon Academy Vv. Dewelf, 26

Conn. 602, 470
Badders v. Davis, 88 Ala. 367, 8.

C. 6 So. R. 834, 598, 1215

Badger v. Daniel, 77 N. Car. 251, 500
Badger v. Kerber, 61 Ill. 328, 407
‘Badger v. Wagstaff, 11 How. Pr.

562, eu 489
Baggalay v. Borthwick, 10 C. B

N.S. 61, ” 600
Baggs v. Smith, 53 Cal. 88, 253

- Bagley v. Cleveland Rolling Mill

Co., 21 Fed. R. 159, 1053
Bagley v. White, 4 Pick. 895, 198
Bailey v. tna Ins. Co., 77 Wis.

336, S. C. 46 N. W. R. 440, 589

Bailey v. Albany, etc., Co., 112
N. Y. 20,8. 0. 19 N. E. R.508, 406

Bailey v. Atlantic, Obes, Co., 1
Cent. L. J. 418,

Bailey v. Bailey’ (Ga. ‘ 16 8. E.
R. 90,

Bailey v. Beck, 21 Kan. 462,
Bailey v. Dillworth, 10 Smed. &
M. 404, S. C. 48 ‘Am. Dec. 760, 582
Bailey v. Ferguson, 39 Il. App.
91,

536
Bailey |v. Glover, 21 Wall. 342,
366, 368
Bailey v. Kimbrough, 37 Mo. 182, 639
Bailey v. Ryder, 10 N. Y. 363, 280
Bailey v. Schnitzins, 45 N. J. "Eq.
. 178,
Bailey v. Smith, 14 Ohio St. 396,
S.-C. 84 Am. Dec. 385, | 1231
Bailey v. Stewart, 3 Watts. & 8.
(Pa.) 560, S. C. 39 Am. Dec. 50, 586
Bailey v. Sundberg, 43 Fed. R.
81, 1177
Bailey v. Taylor, 11 Conn. 531,
Bailey v. Trumbull, 31 Conn. 581,

654, 656
Bailey v. Trafe, 29 Cal. 422,

403

1119

176

486 |.

478

 

Bailey v. Williams, 6 Ore. 71,
ee Ex parte, 2 Cow. (N. oS

423

539

Baily v. Schrader, 34 Ind. 260, 613

Baily v. Taylor, 1R.& M. 73, 491
Bain v. Bain, 106 N. Car. 239, 8.

C. 118. E. RB. 827, 1044
Bain v. Globe Ins. Co., 9 How.

Pr. (N. Y.) 448, 441

Bain vy. Whitehaven, etc., Co., 3

H. L. Cas. 1, 1133
Bainbrigge yv. Blair, 3 Beav. 421, 498
Baird v. Daly, 68 N. Y. 547, 744

Baird v. Mayor, 74 N. Y. 382,
152, 201, 590, 1131
Baird v. Peall, 92 Cal. 235° 8. fon

28 Pac. R. 285, 1226
Baird v. Wolfe, 4 McLean 549, 520
Baisley v. Baisley, 113 Mo. 544,

8. C. 218. W. R. 29, 608, 609
Baisley v. Baisley, 15 Ore. 183, 8.

C. 13 Pac. R. 888, 226
Baizerv. Lasch, 28 Wis. 268, 158, 342
Bakeman vy. Pooler, 15 Wend.

(N. Y.) 687, 401
Baker’s Case, 5 Coke 104, 1025
Baker v. Baker, 51 Wis. 538, 182

Baker v. Backus, 32 Ill. 79,
195, 493, 495

Baker v. Barelift, 76 Ala, 414, 361
Baker v. Chisholm, 8 Tex. 157, 248
Baker v. Corey, 19 Pick. 496, 520
Baker v. Dessauer, 49. Ind. 28, 1132

Baker v. Dumaresque, 2 Atk. 66, 477

Baker ¥v. Eglin, 11 Ore. 333, ~ 475
Baker v. Fireman’s Fund, 73 Cal.

182, 8. C. 14 Pac. R. 686, 304, 639
Baker v. Frellsen, 32 La, Ann.

822,. 1179
Baker v. Gordon, 23 Ind. 204, 642
Baker v. Holmes, 27 Me. 153, 433
Baker v. Horsey, 21 Ind. 246, 1202
Baker v. Joseph, 16 Cal. 173, 800
Baker v. Kellogg, 29 Ohio St.

663, 413

Baker v. Kenworthy, 41 N. Y.
215, 196

Baker v. Kirk, 83 Ind. 517, 204
Baker v. Lancashire Ins. Co., 52
Wis. 193, 476
Baker v. Lothro , 155 Mass. 376,
8. C. 29 N. E. F
Baker vy. Lovett, 6 Mass. 78, 8. C.
4 Am. Dec. 88, 581

Baker v. Maginniss, 22 Ind. 257, 1226
Baker v. Mair, 12 Mass. 121, 889
Baker v. ee 84 Ga. 186, 8. C.

108. E. R. 737 1202
Baker v. Simmons, 40 Ind. 442, 641
Baker v. Smiley, 84 Ind. 212, 1143
xliv

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.}

Baker v. State, 90 Ga. 153, S. C.

15S. E. R. 788,

Baker vy. State, 80 Wis, 416, S. C.

50 N. W. R. 518,

Baker v. State, 30 Fla. 41,8.C. 11

So. R. 492, 741
Baker v. State, 3 Ark. 491, 1191
Baker v. State, 69 Wis. 32, S. C.

33 N. W. R. 52, 217, 685, 800, 821
Baker v. Swift, 87 Ala. 530, S. C.

6 So. R. 158, 182
Baker v. Taylor, 2 Blatch. 82, 485
Baker v. Thompson, 89 Ga. 486,

S.C. 1558. E. R. 644, "12
Baker vy. Tillman, 84 Ga. 401, 8.

C.118. E.R. 355, 387, 388
Baker v. Wales, 45 How. Pr. (N.

Y.) 187, 458
Baker v. Wambaug, 99 Ind. 312,
Balbo v. People, 19 Hun (N. Y.)

424, 660
Balch v. Shaw, 7 Cush. 282, 186, 191
Baldwin’s Appeal, 44 Conn. 37, 822
Baldwin v. Bricker, 86 Ind. 221, 823
Baldwin v. Burrows, 95 Ind. 81, 178
Baldwin v. Calkins,10 Wend.167, 218
Baldwin v. Foss, 14 Neb. 455, 1184
Baldwin v. Hale, 1 Wall. 223, 284
Baldwin v. Marygold, 2 Wis.419, 636
Baldwin v. McArthur, 17 Barb.

414,

Baldwin v. McCrea, 38 Ga. 650,
Baldridge v. Penland, 68 Tex. 441,

8.C.45. W.R. 565,

Baldwin vy. St. Louis, etc., Co., 75
Ta. 297, 8. C.9 Am. St. R. 479,
Baldwin v. Shannon, 43 N. J. L.

596,

Baldwin v. Wright, 3 Gill. 241, 1183
Bales v. Brown, 57 Ind. 282, 190
Bales v. Commonwealth (Ky.), 11

&. W. R. 470, 1111
Bales v. State, 63 Ala. 30, 659, 662
Ball v. Balfe, ‘41 Ind. 221, 1165
Ball v. City of El Paso, 5 Tex.Civ.

App. 221, 8. C. 23 8.W. R. 835, 1072
Ball v. Kehl, 95 Cal. 606, S. C. 30

Pac. R. 780, 1144
Ball v. Larkin, 3 E. D. Smith (N.

Y.) 555, 395
Ball v. Loomis, 29 N. Y. 412, 410
Ball v.United States, 140 U.S.118, 214
Ball v. Lastinger, 71 Ga. 678, 297
Ballance v. Underhill, 3 Scam.

(IIl.) 453, 459, 723
Ballard v. Eckman, 20 Fla. 661, 486
Ballard v. Noaks, 2 Pike (Ark.)

45, 1168
Ballard v. State, 31 Fla. 266, 8. C.

12 So. R. 865, 619, 1074

1133
214

209
269

320
173
1053

 

1129
536 ©
675

Ballard v. Thomas, 19 Gratt. 14,
134, 168, 322
Ballard v. Whitlock, 18 Gratt.

(Va.) 235, 636
Ballentine v. State, 48 Ark. 45, 8.

C.28. W. R. 340, 1229
Ballinger v. Tarbell, 16 Ta. 491, 8.

C. 85 Am. Dec. 527, : 320, 427, 450
Ballou v. O’Brien, 20° Mich. 304, 394
Ballston Bank v. Marine Bank, 16

Wis. 125, 623
Baltes v. Bass Foundry, etc., 129

Ind. 185, S. C. 28N.E. R. 319, 597
Baltimore, etc., Co. v. Barnum, 79

Ind. 261, 1235
Baltimore, etc., Co. v. Canton Co.;

70 Md. 405, S.C. 17 Atl. R. 894,

590, 599
Baltimore, etc., R. R. Co. v. Galla-
hue, 12 Gratt. 655, 8. C. 65 Am.

Dec. 254, 471, 473
Baltimore, etc., Co. v. Grant, 98

U.S. 398, 338
Baltimore, etc., R. R. Co. v. Kane,

69 Md. 11,8. C.13- Atl. R. 387, 1072
Baltimore, etc., Co. v. Ketring,

122 Ind. 5, 8.C. 23 N.E.R. 527,
Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. v.

McKenzie, 81 Va. 71,

Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. v.

McWhinney, 36 Ind. 436,
Baltimore, etc., R. R. Co. v. Pitts-

burgh, etc., R. R.Co., 17 W Va.

812, 654, 679
Baltimore, etc., R. R. Co. v. Polly,

14 Gratt. (Va. ) 447, 602
Baltimore, etc., Co. v. Resley, 14

Md. 424, 1236
Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. v.

Stricker, 51 Md. 47, 1051
Baltimore, etc., R. R. Co. v. State,

36 Md. 366,

Baltimore, etc., Co. v. Taylor, 81

Ind. 24, 474, 476
Baltimore, etc., R. R. Co. v. Wal-

born, 127 Ind. 142, 546
Baltimore, etc., Railroad vy. Wil-

son, 31 Ohio St. 555, 527
Baltimore, etc., Co. v. Wilson, 2

W. Va. 528, 298
Balue v. Richardson, 124 Ind.

480, 1210
Balue v. Taylor (Ind.), 36 N. E.

R. 299,

Bamford v. sshiet etc., Co., 33

Fed. R. 677, 1215
Bancroft v. Andrews, 6 Cush.
(Mass.) 498, 377

Bancroft v. Sheehanm, 21 Hun,
550,
TABLE

OF CASES.

xlv

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. IT, pp. 603-1244.]

Bancroft v. Wilson, 2 Cow. (N.Y.)
495, 1040
Bander v. Snyder, 5 Barb. (N.Y.)

63, 386
Bane v. Ward, 77 Ind. 153, 1168
Banfill v. Leigh, 8 T. R. 571, 582
Bank v. Bachelder, 39 Am. Dec.

601, 468

Bank v. Beale, 34 N Y. 473, 358, 354

Bank v. Carter, 88 Tenn. 279, 444
Bank v. Daniel, 12 Pet. 32, 364
Bank y. Dandridge, 12 Wheat.

64, 157, 324
Bank v. Fitzpatrick, 4 Humph.

(Tenn.) 311, 466
Bank v. Fordyce, 5 ig St. 275, S.

C. 49 Am. Dec. 5 783
Bank v. Cufechice 14 Pet. 19, 1025
Bank v. Hitchcock, 20 Neb. 315, 1169
Bank v. Pac. Nat. Bank, 89 N.Y.

397, 450
Bank y. Widner, 11 Paige (N.Y.)

529, S. C. 43 Am. Dec. 768, 585
Bank v. Wheeler, 28 Conn. 433,

8. C. 73 Am. Dec. 683, 1178
Poe v. Wister, 2 Peters (U.8.)

318, 897
Bank of Attica v. Ballou, 49 N.Y.

155, 382
Bank of Benson v. Hove, 45 Minn.

40, 8. C. 47 N. W. R. 449, 401
Bank of B. N. A. v. Merchants*

Nat. Bank, 91 N. Y. 106, 360
Bank of Columbia v. Lawrence, 1

Pet. (U. 8.) 578, 554

Bank of Commerce y. Chambers,
14 Mo. App. 152,
Bank of Genesee v. Spencer, 15
How. Pr. 412, 299
Bank of Middlebury v. Rutland,
83 Vt. 414,. Z
Bank of Mississippi v. Duncan, ,
52 Miss. 740, 493
Bank of Monroe v. Widner, 11

Paige 529, 298
Bank of Newburg v. Seymour, 14
Johns. 219, 190

Bank of North America v. Fitz-
simons, 2 Binn. (Pa.) 454, 220, 225

Bank of Northern Liberties v.
Davis, 6 Watts & 8S. (Pa.) 285,
. 795, 796

Bank of Old Dominion v. Mc-

Veigh, 32 Gratt. 530, 183
Bank of So. Carolina v. Knotts,
10 Rich. 548, 363

Bank of United oe v. Bever-
ley, 1 How. 134 1185
Bank of U.S. v. Lyles, 10 Gill Bg
J. 326,

 

Bank of Utica v. Mersereau, 3 :

Barb. Ch. 528, 262, 1130:
Bank of the Valley v. Bank of

Berkeley, 3 W. Va. 386, 333
Banks vy. Adams, 23 Me. 359, 595
Bangs v. Brewster, 111 Mags. 382, 312
Bangs v. Duckinfield, 18 N. Y,

592, 329:
Bankes v. Fowler, 3 Litt. Bt
Bannen v. Kokomo, ete., Co., us

Ind. 115,

Banner Tobacco Co. v. Jenison,

48 Mich. 459,

Banning v. Banning, 12 Ohio St.

437, 679
Bannister v. Jett, 83 Ind. 129, 675
Banta v. Reynolds, 3 B. Mon. 80, 243
Banta v. Wood, 32 Iowa 469, 463
Banton v. Campbell, 2 Dana 421, 1179:
Barber v. Barber, 21 How. (U.S.)

582, 811
Barber v. Brisco, 9 Mont. 341, 8.

C. 28 Pac. R. 726, 187

293
158

525.

Barber v. Graves, 18 Vt. 290,
Barber v. Kennedy, 18 Minn. 216,
Barber v. Morris, 37 Minn. 194,

8. C.5 Am. St. R. 836, 451
Barber v. State, 13 Fla. 675, 153
Barber v. Winslow, 12 Wend. 102, 329:
Barber v. Wood, 2 Moo. & R.172, 521
Barbour v. Newkirk, 83 Ky. 529, 609
Barclay’s Appeal, 64 Pa. St. 69, 382
Barclift v. Treece, 77 Ala. 528, 313
Bard v. Bingham, 54 Ala. 463, 495

Bard v. Kleeb, 1 Wash. 370, 8. C.

25 Pac. R. 467, 1146
Barden v. Briscoe, 36 Mich. 254, 692
Bardonski v. Bardonski, 144 IIl.

284, 1200
Bardsley v. Hines, 33 Ia. 157,

446, 447
Bardwell v. Collins, 44 Minn. 97,

S. C. 20 Am. St. R. 547,

273, 276, 444
Barefield v. Bryan, 8 Ga. 463, 1189
Barger v. Buckland, 28 Gratt. 850, 281
Barhyte v. Summers, 68 Mich,

841, 8. C. 36 N. W. R. 98, 697
Baring Brothers & Co., In re, 61

L. J. Q. B. 704, 590:
Barker v. Belknap, 39 Vt. 168, 573
Barker v. Blount, 63 Ga. 423, 783
Barker v. Hine, 54 Ind. 542, 655

Barker v. Justice, 41 Miss. 240, 1208
Barker v. Livingston Co. Bank,

30 Ill. App. 591, 1081
Barker v. State, 48 Ind. 163, 524, 1072
Barker v. Town of Perry, 67 Ia.

146, S. C. 25 N. W. R. 100, 810:
xlvi

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to. Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp..603-1244.]

Barker v. White, 58 N. Y. 204, 1170
Barkley v. Hanlan, 55 Miss. 606, 1159
Barklow v. Sanger, 47 Wis. 500, 1094
Barley v. Dunn, 85 Ind. 338, 1230
Barlow v. Brock, 25 Iowa 308, 111
Barlow v. Stanford, 82 I11. 298, 435
Barlow v. State, 2 Blackf. 114, 1220
Barnaby v. Barnaby, 1 Pick.

(Mass.) 221, 581
Barnacoat v. ‘Gunpowder, 1 Met.

230, 278
Barnard v. Bartholomew, 22 Pick.

291, 894
Barnard v. Flinn, 8 Ind. 204, 514
Barnard v. Heydrick, 49 Barb.

(N. Y.) 62 433
Baath es Treadgill, 5 Ired. Eq.

86, 337
Barner v. Bayless, 134 Ind. 600,

S.C. 33 N.E.R. 907, 1150, 1151, 1219
Barnhardt v. Smith, 86 N. Car.

473,
Barnhart v. Davis, 30 Kan. 520,
Barnes v. Badger, 41 Barb. 98,
Barnes v. Bates, 28 Ind. 15, 403
Barnes v. Blackiston, 2 Harr. &

J. (Md.) 376, 1229
Barnes v. Brown, 69 N. Car.

439, 544, 550
Barnes v. Chicago, etc., Co., 122
U. 1186

wd;
Barnes v. Ingalls, 39 Ala. 193,

Je 713, 1215
Barnes v. Lee, 1 Cr. (U.S C. C.)
430, 182
Barnes v. Mayor, 19 Ala. 707,
Barnes v. McMullins, 78 Mo. 260,
204, 230
Barnes v. Michigan, etc., Co., 54
Mich. 243 1192
Barnes v. Mowry, 129 Ind. 568,
Barnes v. Racine, 4 Wis. 454,
Barnes v. Scott, 29 Fla. 285, 8. ©.
11 So. R. 48,
Barnes v. Sission, 44 Ill. App.
327,
Barnes v. Treat, 7 Mass. 271,
Barnes v. Williams, 11 Wheat.
(U. 8.) 415, 1103, 1105
Barnett v Chicago, ete., R. R.
Co., 4 a (N. Y.) 114, 440
Barnett v. State, 100 Ind. 171, 1081
Barnett v. Tayler, 30 Tex. 458, 430
Barnett v. Watson, 1 Wash. (Va. )
872, 1116
Barney v. Bliss, 1 D. Chip. (Vt.)
399, S. C. 12 Am. Dec. 696, 401, 402
Barney v. Flower, 27 Minn. ‘403, 576
Barney v. Fuller, 15 N. Y. Supp.
694, 778

513
134
154

620

 

Barney v. Giles, 120 Ill. 154, 406
Barney v. Hartford, 73 Wis. ‘5, 8.

C. 40 N. W. R. 581, 1212
Barnum y. Barnum, 42 Md. 251, 292
Barnum v. Ins. Co., 97 N.Y. 188, 385
Barr v. Hannibal, etc., Co., 30 Mo.

App. 248, 111
Barreda v. Silsbee, 21 How. (U.
S.) 146, 537, 539
Barrell v. Tilton, 119 U. S. 637,
185, 1187
Barrett v. Am. Tel., etc., Co. (N.
Y.), 84 N. E.R. 289, 442
Barrett v. Garragan, 16 Ia. 47, 1192
Barrett v. Chitwood, 2 Bibb. 431, 298
Barrett v. Crane, 16 Vt. 246, 317
Barrett, v. Fisch, 76 Ta. 553, S.C.
41 N. W. R. 310, 16, 111, 1130
Barrett v. Long, 3 House of L.
Cas. 395, 645
Barrett v. ‘State, 1 Wis. 175, 138
Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Pet. 248, 642
Barron v. Frink, 30 Cal. 486, 1196
Barron v. Peter, 18 Vt. 385, 509

Barrow v. Hill, 13 How. (U.8.)54, 618
Barrow v. Robichaux, 15 La.Ann.

70, 1046
Barrows v. Sweet, 143 Mass. 316,. 600
Barry v. Foyles, 1 "Pet. (U.S.) 311, 469
Barry v. Johnson, 3 Mo. 372, 1200
Barry v. Randolph, 3 Binn. (Pa.)

277, 173
Barstow v. Sprague, 40 N.H.27, 1087
Bartelott v. International Bank,

119 Tl. 259, 513, 1052
Bartelson v. Bower, 81 Ind. 512, 1170
Barth v. Green, 78 Tex. 678, S. ve,

158. W. R. 112,

Bartholomew v. "People, 104 m1.

601, 798
Bartholomew v. Pierson, 112 Ind.
430, 1105

Bartholomew v. Stephens, 8 C. &

P, 728, 504
Bartle v. Plane, 68 Ia. 227, 8. C.

26 N. W.R. 88, 1191
Bartlett v. Adams, 43 Ind. 447, 397
Bartlett v. Pittsburgh, C. & St. L. Ry.

Co., 94 Ind. 281, 1097
Bartlett v. Smith, ll M. & W.

483, 517, 524, 715
Bartlett v. Spicer, 75 N. Y. ay

0, 444

Bartlett v. Wilson, 59 Vt. 23, s° ren
424

8 Atl. R. 321

Bartley v. Phillips, 114 Ind. 189,
1121, 1150, 1154

Bartley v. State, 111 Ind. 358, 1237

Barton v. Barbour, 104 U.S. 126,
410, 493
TABLE OF CASES.

‘

xvii

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1 244)

Barton vy. Erickson, 14 Neb. 164, 654
Barton v. Kane, 17 Wis. 38, 8. C.

84 Am. Dec. 728, 043
Barton v. McKay (Neb.), 54 Ne

W. R. 968
Barton v. St. gon etc., R. R.

Co., 52 Mo. 2
Barton v. Sone. 47 Wis. 500,
Barton v. Saunders, 16 Ore. 51, 8.

C.8 Am. St. R. 261, S.C. 16 Pac.

R. 921, 800, 445
Barton v. Trent, 3 Head. (Tenn. i

167,

Bascom v. Feazler, 2 How. pee

16, 1200
Bascom v. Toner, 5 Zi App. 229,

8. C. 31.N. E. R. 856 505
Basey v. Gallegher, 20 Wall. 670, 1127
Bash v. Christian, 77 Ind. 290,

586, 590, 601
Bash v. Christian, 84 Ind. 180, 586
Baskerville v. Harris, 41 Miss. he

Bash v. Van Osdol, 75 Ind. 186, 1199
Bass v. Bass, 6: Pick. 362, 361
Bass v, Bass, 8 Pick. (Mass. ) 187, 385
Bass vy. City of Ft. Wayne, 121
Ind. 312, 8. C. 23 N. E. R. 148,

548

269, 478
Bass v. Comstock, 38 N Y.21, 1214
Bass v. Irvin, 49 Ga) 438, 1111
Bass v. Smith, 60 Ind. 40, 1200
Bass v. The State, 17 Fla. 685, 153

Bass, etc., Works v. Board, 115
Ind. 234,
Bass Foundry Co. v. The Board,
115 Ind. 234,
Basse v. Gallegger, 7 Wis. 442,
Bassenger v. Spangler, 9 Colo.
175, 1050
Bassham v. State, 38 Texas 622, :
732, 791
Bassenhorst v. IES: 45 Ohio St. is

555
1241

411

318

Bassenhorst v. _ Sweeney, 77 Wis.
55, 8. C. 45 N. W. R. 938, .

Bassett, ex parte, 2 Cowen’ 458,

Bassett v. City, 53 Mo. 290, S. 1.
14 Am. R. 446,

Bassett v. Cunningham, 9 Gratt.

(Pa.) 684, 579, 594
Bassett v. Govenor, 11 Ga. 207,
225, 654

Bassett v. Marshall, 9 Mass. 312, 503
Bassett v. Shares, 63 Conn. 389, 8.
C. 27 Atl. R. 421, 737
Bassett v. United States, 9 Wall. eh
: 1

38
Bate v. McDowell, 48 N. Y. Supr.
~ Ct. 219, 466

\

- 1094 |

 

Bates v. Barber, 4 Cush.107, 518, 805
Bates v. Bates, 1 Miss. 401, 8. C.
12 Am. Dec. 572, 401
Bates v. Curtis, 21 Pick. (Mass. )
247, 598
Bates v. Gage, 40 Cal. 183, 142, 155
Bates v. McConnell, 32 Kan. 1, 8.

C. 3 Pac. R. 515, 336
Bateman v. Miller, sae Ind. 345,

8. C. 21 N. E. R. 2 336
Bates v. Pricket, 5 ind. 22, 101, 108
Bates v. Sabin, "64 Vt. 511, 8. C.

24 Atl. R. 1013, 234
Bates v. State Bank, 7 Ark. 394,

8. C. 46 Am. Dec. 293, 413, 430

Bates v. Taylor, 87 Tenn. 319, 8.
C. 28 Am. Law Reg. 341, 49, 170, 251

Bates v. Willard, 10 Metc. Mass.)
; 435

62
Bates v. William, 43 Ill. 494, 346

Bathgate v. Haskin, 59 N.Y. 533, 362
Batre v. Auze, 5 Ala. 173, 452
Battell v. Lowry, 46 Ia. 49, 1191
Batten v. State, 80 Ind. 394, 142

Batterbury v.Vyse, 2H. &C.42, 32

L. J. Exch. 177,
Batterson v. State, 63 Ind. 531, 1120
Battey v. Button, 13 Johns. (N. Y, )

187, 592
Batten v. Taggert, 17 How (U.8.)

74, » B42
Battishill v. Humphrey, 64 Mich.

494, 8. C. 31 N. W. R. 894, 682
Battle v. Davis, 66N.Car.252, 194, 409
Battle v. McArthur, 49 Fed. R. .

715, 874, 566, 570
Battle v. Plane, 68 Iowa, 227, S.

C. 26N. W. R. 88, 1193
Bauer v. Sampson Lodge, 102 Ind.

262 S. C.1N. E. R. 571, 408, 588
Baughman v. Calveras, "72 Cal.”

512, 255
Baum v. Burns, 66 Miss. 124, 8. C.

5 So. R. 697, 627
Bauman v. Grubbs, 26 Ind. 419, 381

619

538

407

Baumberger v. Arff, 96 Cal. 261,
S. C. 81 Pac. R. 53,

Baumgarten v. Magone, 50 Fed.
R. 69,

Baumgartner ve Guessfield, 38

Mo. 36, 443
Baxter v. Abbott, 7 Gray 71, 1168
Baxter v. McKinlay, 16 Cal. 76, 397
Baxter v. Payne, 1 Pinn. 501, 508
Baxter v. People, 3 Gilm. 368, 1064
Baxter v. People, 7 Ill. 578, 631

Bayard v. McLane, 3 Harr. (Del. he
139,

Bayless v. Glenn, 72 Ind. 5, 1165

Bayne v. Morris, 1 Wall. (U.S.)97, 598
xviii TABLE

OF

CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.]

Bays v. Hunt, 60 Ia. 251,
Beach v. Atkinson, 87 Ga..288, S.

C. 138. E. R. 591, 243
Beach v. Leahy, 11 Kan. 23, 121,171
Beach v. Netherland (Ga.), 18

8. E. R. 525, 1066, 1067
Beach v. Packard, 10 Vt. 96, 8. C.

33 Am. Dec. 185, 1232
Beadel v. Perry, L. R.,3 Eq. 465, 478
Beakes v. Du Cunha, 126 N, Y.

293, 413
Beal v. Blair, 33 Ia. 318, 451
Beal v. Chase, 31 Mich. 490, 255

518

697

Beall v. Lynn, 6 Harr. & Johns.
(Ma.) 336,
Beal vy. Nichols, 2 Gray (Mass.),

262, 783, 790
Beal v. State, 15 Ind. 378, 308
Beal v. Stone, 22 Ta. 447, 1165

Beall v. Bullock (Miss.), 11 So. R.

720, 1068
Beall v. Sinquefield, 73 Ga. 48, 218
Beals v. Beals, 27 Ind. 77, 1159
Beam v. Bridges, 111 N. Car. 269,

S$. C.168. E. R. 391, 1202
Beam v. Macomber, 33 Mich. 127, 602
Bean v. Bean, 25 W. Va. 604, 595
Bean v. Farnam, 6 Pick. (Mass.)

269, 581, 602
Bean v. Pearsall, 12 Ala. 592, 520
Bean v. Thompson, 19 N. H. 290, 436
Bean v. Tonnele, 94 N. Y. 381, 885
Bean v. Wendell, 22 N. H. 582,

591, 599
Beans v. Emanuelli, 36 Cal. 117, 1164
Bear v. Cohen, 65 N. Car. 511,

226, 227
Beard, Ex parte, 41 Tex. 234, 189
Beard v. Beard, 21 Ind. 321, 276, 289
Beard v. First Nat. Bank, 41

Minn. 153, 8. C.43 N. W. R. 7, 718
Beard v. Hand, 88 Ind. 183, 1230
Beard v. Smith, 9 Ia. 50, 604
Beard v. State, 54 Ind. 418, 1230
Beardslee v. French, 7 Conn. 125, 366
Beasley v. Bray, 98 N. Car. 266,

8. C. 3 So. R. 497, 541, 542
ae es _ Downey, 10 Ired. (N.
Car.) 2 513

Beattie v. *tyilliard, 55 N. H. 428, 590
Beattie v. Wilkinson, 36 Fed. R.
646, 451
Bau v. Beatty (Ky.), 5 8. W.
71

‘ 1179
Beaty v. State, 82 Ind. 228, 1114
Beaubien v. Cicotte, 8 Mich. 9, 679
Beauchamp y. State, 6 Blackf.

(Ind.) 299, 544
Beaulien v. Parsons, 2 Minn. 37,
179, 707, 791

 

Beaupre v. Brigham, 79 Wis. 436,
8. é 48 N. W. R. 596, 447, 453
Beauregard v. New Orleans, 18

How. 497, 275
Beavens v. Goodrich, 98 N. Car.

217,8.C.38. E. R. 516, 1129
Beaver v. Taylor, 93 U.S. 46, 1079

Beavers v. State, 58 Ind. 520, "30, 1228
Bebb v. Preston, 1 Ia. 460, 473
Bechdolt v. Grand Rapids & I.

Ry. Co., 113 Ind. 343, S. C. 15

N. E. R. 686, 1097
Beck v. Williams, 5 Blackf. (Ind.)

374,
Becker v. Becker, 45 Ia. 239, 1069
Becker v. Boon, 61 N. Y. 317, 402
Becker v. Hecker, 9 Ind. 497, 559

Becker v. Koch, 104 N.Y.394, 794, 795
Becker v. Lamont, 13 How. Pr.
614

(N. Y.), 23,
Becker v. Simons, 33 Neb. 680, S.

CG. 50 N. W. R. 1129, 187
Becker v. Vandercook, 54 Mich.

114, 394
Becker v. Van Valkenburgh, 29

Barb. (N. Y.) 319, 380
Becker v. Walworth, 45 Ohio St.

169,

Beckett v. Bledsoe, 4 Ind. 256,
Beckett v. Cuenin, 15 Colo. 281, S.

C. 22 Am. St. R. 399, 445, 446
Beckett v. Selover, 7 Cal. 215, S.

C. 68 Am. Dec. 237, 314
Beckford v. Wade, 17 Ves. 87, 373,380
Beckmann v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 49

Mo. App. 604, 1162
Becknell v. Becknell, 110 Ind. 42, 1215
Beckwith v. Baxter, 3N. H. 67, 199
Beckwith v. Bean, 98 U.S. 266; 1079
Beckwith v. Philby, 6 Barn. &

Cres. 635, 553
Bedard v. Bonville, 57 Wis. 270, 537
Beddow v. Beddow, L. R., 9 Ch.

Diy. 89, 591

536
820

854
397

Bedford v. Flowers, 11 Humph.
(Tenn.) 242,

Bedford v. Penny, 58 Mich. 424,

Bedford v. Penney, 65 Mich. 667,

Bedford, ete., R. R. Co. v. Rain-
bolt, 99 Ind. 551, 1094

Bedgood v. State, 115 Ind. 275,

712, 781

Bedwell v. Jones, 9 Lea (Tenn.)

168, 337

a v. Bull, 12 Wend. (N. Y.)
104. 712
Beebe v. Doster, 36 Kan. 666, S.

C. 14 Pac. R. 150, 75
Beebe v. Russell, 19 How. 283, 1187
Beebe v. Scheidt, 13 Ohio St. 406, 158
TABLE OF CASES.

xlix

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-GO2, Vol. IT, pp. 603-1244.

Beech v. Abbott, 6 Vt. 586,
Beech v. Rich, 13 Vt. 595,
Beecher v. Stephens, 25 Minn.

321
221

146, 449
Beedy v. Macomber, 47 Me. 451, 542
Beekman v. Saratoga, etc.,Co., 3

Paige 45, 1129
Beekman v. Satterlee, 5 Cow. (N.

Y.) 519, 377

Beeler v. ‘Hantsch, 5 Blacké. 594, 149
Beers v. Beers, 4 Conn. 535, 8. GC.

10 Am. Dec. 186, 643
Beers v. Bottsford, 13 Conn. 146, 1186
Beers v. Payment, 95 Mich. 261,

S.C. 54N. W. R. 886, 789
Beers v. Place, 36 Conn. 578, 467
Beers v. Shannon, 73 N. Y. 292, 1192
Beeson v. Howard, 44 Ind. 413, 1158
Begg v. Begg, 56 Wis. 534, 541
Begg v. Forbes, 30 Eng. L. & Eq.

508, 537
Behaly v. Hatch, Walker (Miss.)

369, S.C. 12 Am. Dec.570, 400, 401
Behlow v. Shorb, 91 Cal. 141, 8.

C. 27 Pac. R. 546, 431
Beivens v. McCance,. 106 Ind.

330,

Bebrensmeyer vy. Kreitz, 135 Tl.

591, 8. C. 26 N. E. R. 704, 812
Behymer v. Nordloh, 12 Col. 352, 158
Beiler v. Dovoll, 40 Mo.App. 251, 411

Beisiegel v. N.Y. Cent. R. R. Co.,

40 N. Y.9, 548
Beitman v. Hopkins, 109 Ind.177, 1239
Belb v. Davis, 1 Cal. 134, 1182
Belbee v. Belbee, 6 Mad. 26, 1216
Belcher v. Linn, 24 How. (U.S.)

508, 251
Belek v. Belck, 97 Ind. 73, 618
Belcher v. Chambers, 53 Cal. 642,

117, 247, 277, 444
Belew v. Jones, 56 Miss. 592, 297
Belfast Nat. Bank v. Harriman, 68

Me. 522,

Belk v. Meagher, 104 U. 8. 279,
Belknap v. Gibbens, 13 Metc.

(Mass.) 471,

Belknap v. Godfrey, 22 Vt. 288,
Bell’s Appeal, 115 Pa. St. 88, S.C

2 Am. St. R. 532,

Bell v. Austin, 13 Pick. (Mass. DS

90,
‘Bell v. Brewster, 44 Ohio St. 690, =
Bell v. Brumstead, 14 N.Y. Supp.

697, 120
Bell v. Coffin, 51 Kan. 684, 8. C.

33 Pac. R. 296, 122:
Bell v. Corbin (Ind.); 36 N. E.R.

2 1151

532
1128

471
558

378

’
D

 

Bell v. Craig, 52 Ala. 215, 259
Bell v. Fludd, 28 8. Car. 313, 343
Bell v. Gamble, 9 Humph. (Tenn.)

117, 486
Bell v. Gardner, 77 Ill. 319, 1048
Bell v. haa (N, Mex.), 27 Pae.

R. 494 499
Bell v. Good, 19 N.Y. Supp. 698, 604
Bell v. Hudson, 73 Cal. 285, 8. ic

2 Am. St. R. 791, 376
Bell v. Jamison, 102 Mo. 71, 514, 704
Bell v. Keefe, 12 La. Ann. 340, 714
Bell v. Keepers, 37 Kan. 64, 537
Bell v. Kendall, 93 Ala. 489, S.C.

8 So. R. 492, 1215
Bell v. Mansfield, 13 S.W.R. 838, 1202
Bell v. Massey, 14 La. Ann. 831, 1192
Bell v. Matthews, 37 Kan. 686, 552
Bell v. Morrison, 1 Pet.(U.S .) 361,

382, 384
Bell v. Prewitt, 62 Tll. 261, 783
Bell v. Raymond, 18 Conn. 91, 317
Bell v. Rinker, 29 Ind. 267, 1231
Bell v. Rinner, 16 Ohio St. R. 45, 797
Bell v. Vernooy, 18 Hun (N. Y.),

125, 590
Bell v. Wash., etc., Co.,'8 Wash.

—, 8. C. 35 Pac. R. 405, 1080
Bell v. Woodward, 46 N. H. 315,

537, 539
Bellamy v. Bellamy, 4 Ala. 342, 1187

Bellamy v. Guhl, 62 How: Pr.

460, 443
Bellandes’ Succession, 42 La. Ann.

241, 346
Bellas v. McCarty, 10 Watts 13, 116
Belleau v. Thompson, 33 Cal. 495, °376
Bellefontaine Ry. Co. v. Hunter,

33 Ind. 335,

Bellinger v. Kitts, 6 Barb. (N. Y.)

273, 404
Bellows v. Shannon, 2-Hill (N.

Y.) 86, 1156
Bellows v. Sowles, 55 Vt. 391, S.

C. 45 Am. R. 621, 566
Belmont v. Cornen, 82 N.Y. 256, 445

548

Belmore v. Caldwell, 2 Bibb. 76, 1158
Beloit, etc., Bank v. Merrill, etc.,

Works, 81 Wis. 142, 8. C. 50 N.

W. RB. 505 381
Belt v. Davis, 1 Cal. 134, 1044
Belt v. Goode, 31 Mo. 128, 1066
Belvin v. Richmond, 85 Va. 574, 137
Belz v. Bird, 31 Kan. 139, 898

Bement v. May (Ind.), 34 N. E.

R. 327, 566, 633, 634, 1232, 1241
Bemis v. Woodworth, 49 Ia. 340, 1051
Benaway v. Bond, 2’ Pin. ( Wis.)

449, 8. C. 54 ‘Am. Dec. 147, 183
1. TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-C02,

Bender v. Bean, 52 Ark. 182, 8.C.
128. W. R. 141, 399

Bendy v. Boyce, 37 Tex. 448, 430, 456

Benedict v. Bray, 2 Cal. 251, 8. C.

56 Am. Dec. 332, 346
Benedict v. State, 44 Ohio St. 679, 189
Benefield v. Albert, 132 Ill. 665, 327

Benesch v. Wagener, 12 Col. 534, 803
Benford v. Daniels, 20 Ala. 445, 255
Benge v. Com., 92 Ky. 1, 8. C.17

S. W.R. 146, 623
Benham v. Rowe, 2 Cal. 387,8.C.
56 Am. Dec. 342, 669, 675

Benjamin v. Dubois, 118 U.S. 46, 1187

Benjamin v. Zell, 100 Pa. St. 33, 397
Bennac v. People, 4 Barb. 31, 133
Benneson v. Bill, 62 Ill. 408, 194

Bennethum v. Bowers, 133 Pa. St.

332, 8. C. 19 Atl. R. 361, 455
Bennett, Ex parte, 44 Cal. 84,

139, 155, 242
Bennett v. Avant, 2Sneed (Tenn. t

152,
Bennett v Bennett, 37 W. Va.

396, 8. C. 168. E. R. 638, 508
Bennett v. Carey, 57 Ia. 221, 636, 640
Bennett v. Cobb, 45 N. Y. 268, = 364
Bennett v. Davis, 1 N. H. 19, 362
Bennett v. Ford, 47 Ind. 264, 174, 633
Bennett v. Gibbons, 55 Conn. 450,

S.C. 12 Atl. R. 99, 712
Bennett v. Hetherington, 41 Ia.
142, 450
Bennett v. LeRoy, 5 Abb. Pr. R.
: 192
Bennett v. Lyconing, etc., Ins.
Co., 67 N. Y. 274, 553

Bennett v. McIntire, 121 Ind. 231, 304
Bennett v. Meehan, 83 Ind. 566, 739
Bennett v. O’Byrne, 23 Ind. 604, 801
Benninghoff v. Oswell, 37 How.

Pr. (N. Y.) 235, 458
Bennac v. People, 4 Barb. 31, 126
Bennett v. State, 3 Ind. 167, 637
Bennett v. State, 86 Ga. 401, 820
Bensell v. Chancellor, 3 Whart.

(Pa.) 371, 380

Bensinger Self Adding, etc., Co.

v. Cain (Tex.), 18 8. W. Rep.
136, 353
Benson v. Adams, 69 Ind. 353, 3879
Benson v. Baldwin, 108 Ind. 106, 1237
Benson v. Berry, 55 Barb. 620, 198

Benson v. Campbell, 6 Port. (Ala.)
464

455,
Benson v. Christian, 129 Ind. 535,

123, 254

Benson v. Cilley, 8 Ohio St. 604, 274
Benson v. Fish, 6 Greenl. (Me.)

141, 1077

 

Voi. ID, pp. 608-1244.)
Benson v. McFadden, 50 Ind. 431,
Benson y. Stewart, 30 Miss.49,
Bentley’s Appeal, 99 Pa. St. 504,
Bentley v. Davidson, 74 Wis. 420,
Bentley v- Shrieve, 4 Md. Ch,
Dec. 412,
Bentley v. "Wright, 3 Ala. 607, 191
Bent v. Graves, 3 McCord 280, 8.
C. 15 Am. Dee. 632, 248, 342
Bent v. Maupin, 86 Ky. 271, 8. Cc.
58. W. R. 425, 636, 1207
Bent v. Maxwell, etc., Co., 3 New
Mex. 158, 8. C. 3 Pac. R. 721,°
Bent v. Philbrick, 16 Kan. 190,
Benton v. Lindell, 10 Mo. 557,
475, 1156
402
815

550
604
505

1199

620
371
385
406

198

304
1087

Benton y. Shreve, 4 Ind. 66,
Benton v. State, 30 Ark. 328,
Benton v. Toler, 109 N. Car. 238,
S.C. 138. E. R. 763, é
Bentz v. Eubanks, 32 Kan. 321,
Berdel v. Egan, 125 Ill. 298,
Berghoff v. McDonald, 87 Ind.
549,
Bergman, Ex parte, 3 Wyo. 396,
S. C. 26 Pac. R. 914,
Berkey, etc., Co. v. Hascall, 123
Ind. 502, 1202
Berkley Peerage Case, 4 Campb.
401,
Berkley v. Kobes, 18 Mo. App.
502,
Berkowitz v. Lester, 121 Ill. 99,
Berks Co. v. Jones, 21 Pa. St.
413, 1134
Berks Co. v. Pile, 18 Pa. St. 493, 1134
Berkshire Woolen Co. v. Proctor,
7 Cush. (Mass.) 417, 548
Berlin v. Oglesbee, 65 Ind. 308,
641, 1233
Berlin Iron Bridge Co. v. Norton,
51 N. J. L. 442, 8. C. 17 Atl. R.
1079,
Bernal v. Lynch, 36 Cal. 135, 318
Berney v. Mitchell, 34 N. J. L.
337, 512
Bernhamer v. State, 123 Ind. 577,
174, 621, 633, 634
Bernstein v. Hobelman, 70 Md.

1233

441

29,8. C.16 Atl. R. 374, 841
Berry v. American, etc., Ins. Co.,
132 N.Y. 49, 570

Berry v. Anderson, 2 How.( Miss.)

649, 1191
Berry v. Borden, 7 BIkf. 384, 1172
Berry v. Carter, 19 Kan. 135, 589
Berry v. Chamberlain, 53 N.J.L.

463, S. C. 23 Atl. R. 115, 644
Berry v. Makepeace, 3 Ind. 154, 341

Berry v. Metzler, 7 Cal. 418, 620
TABLE OF

CASES. li

[References are to Sayan Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.)

Berry v. Seitz, 15 Ind. 69, 1200
Berrian v. Rogers, 43 Fed. R. 467, 450
Berry v. Wilkinson, 2 Ill. 164, 636
Berthold v. Fox, 21 Minn. 51,
190, 1244
Bertholf v. O’Reilly, 74 N. Y. 59, 424
Bertrand v. Taylor, 32 Ark. 470, 676
Besson v. Southard, 10 N. Y. 236, 552
Bessette v. State, 101 Ind. 85, 803, 820
Best v. Best (Ky.), 11 S. W.R.
810 : 558

Best v. Hoppie, 3 Col. 137, 1180
Best v. Johnson, 12 Am. St. R. 41, 466
Best v. Vanhook (Ky.), 138. W.

R. 119, 386

Bestor v. Sardo, 2 Cranch C. C.
260, 624

; Bethea v. McLennon, 1 Ired. L.
523 289

Bethell ye Bethell, L. R., 34 Ch.
Div. 561 382
 Bethell v. "Bethel, 92 Ind. 318, 281
Bethell v. Matthews, 13 Wall.1, 1146
Bethune v. Dozier, 10 Ga. 235, 413
Bethune v. Hale, 45 Ala. 522, 163 |
Betterbee v. Davis, 3 Camp. 70, 400
Betts v. Bagley, 12 Pick. 572, 323
Betts v. Baxter, 58 Miss. 334, 427
Betts v. Baxter, 58 Miss. 329, 320
Betts v. Boyd, 31 Neb. 815, 456
Betts v. Dimon, 3 Conn. 107, 115, 212
Betts v. State, 66 Ga. 508, 696

Bettys v. Railway. Co.,37 Wis. 323, 307
Betzoldt v. American Ins. Co., 47
Fed. R. 705, 313, 609
Beunavista, ete., Co. v. Chatta-
nooga, etc., Co., 87 Ga. 689, S.
C. 1858. E. R. 684,
Beutell v. ge 89 Ga. 246, S.C.
158. E.R - 436
Bevan v. Huy ten, 13 Ia. 122, 1064
Bevans v. Rees, 5M. & W. 306,
400, 401
Beverly v. Burke, 9 Ga. 440, S. C.
54 Am. Dec. 351, 259, 1071
Beverly v. Stephens, 17 Ala. 701, 582

180

Bevier v. Kahn, 111 Ind. 200, 459
Bevington v. Buck, 18 Ind. 414, 1191
Bevins v. Smith, 42, Kan. 250, "8.

C. 21 Pac. R. 1064, 1096

Bevot v. Marx, 19 La. Ann. 491, 1160
Bibb v. Allen; 149 U. S. 481, 8. C.

13 Sup. Ct. R. 950, 511
Bibb v. PReid, 3 Ala. 88, 178
Bickel v. Dutcher, 35 Neb. 761, 8.

C. 53 N. W. R. 663, 1225
Bickel v. McAleer, 35 Neb. 515, S.

C. 53 N. W. R. 374, 1140
Bickford v. Menier, 86 Hun (N.

Y.) 446, 531

 

Biddel v. Brizzolara, 64 Cal.354, 383
Biddle v. Black, 99 Pa. St. 880, 465
Biddleson v.Whitel, 1 W.BI.507, 1178
Bidinger v. Bishop, 76 (nd. 244,

544, 738
Bierly’s Estate, 81 Pa. St. 419, 519
Bigelow v. Forrest, 9 Wall. 339, 339
Bigelow v. Maynard, 4 Cush.
(Mass.) 317, | 600
Bigelow v. Newell, 10 Pick. 348, 578
Bigelow v. Sickles, 80 Wis. 98, 8.
C.49N. W.R. 106, — 718,721, 1215
Bigelow v. Sprague, 140 Mass. 425, 656
Bigelow v. Wilson, 1 Pick. (Mass.)

485, 379
Bigelow v. Young, 30 Ga. 121, 792
Biggs, Ex parte, 64 N. Car. 202, 137
Biggs v. McBride, 17 Ore. 640, S.

C.-21 Pac. R. 878, 203

Bilby v. Townsend, 29 Neb. 220,
8. C. 45 N. W. R. 619, 1133

Bill v. New Albany, ete., Co., 2
Biss. 390, 195

Billing v. Gilmer, 60 Fed. R. 332, 1176
Billings v. Kothe, 49 Ia. 34, 277
Billings v. McCoy, 5 Neb. 187, 1063
C. 43 N. W. R. 1181,
Billings v. Russell, 23 Pa. St. 191,
158
Billings v. State, 52 Ark. 303, 799
Billis v. State, 2 McCord (So. Car.)
Bills v. Ottumwa, 35Ia. 107, _—-1078
Billups v. Brander, 56 Miss. 495, 443
Bingham v. Cabot, 3 Dall.19, 1225
Bingham v. Guthrie, 19 Pa. St. 418, 582
1080, 1143, 1220
Bingham v. Stumph, 48 Ind. 97, 1231

Billings v. Billings, 110 Mass. 225, 593
Billings v. Noble, 75 Wis. 325, 8.
635

S. C. 62 Am. Dee. 330,

12 » 654
Billups v. Sears, 5 Gratt. 31, 301
Bingham v. Stage, 123 Ind. 281,
Binsse v. Wood, 37 N.Y. 526, 591, 1042

Birch v. Frantz, 77 Ind. 199, 1201
Birchard v. Booth, 4 Wis. 67, 1119
Bird v. Appleton, 1 East 11, 1103
Bird v. Heath, 6 Hare, 236, 1202
Bird v. Lanius, 7 Ind. 615, 1089, 1100

Bird v. Norquist, 46 Minn. 318, 8.
C. 48 N. W. R. 1132, 433, 446
Bird v. State, 107 Ind. 154, 1074
Birdsall v. Russell, 29 N. Y. 220, 549
Birdsall v. Phillips, 17 Wend. 464, 323
Birdsall v. Russell, 29N. Y. 220, 1190
Birkbeck v. Tucker, 2 Hall (N.Y.)
121, 507
Birmingham, etc., v. City of Bes-
semer (Ala.), 13 So. R. 487, 480
Birmingham, etc., R’y Co. v.
Hale, 24 Am. St. Rep. 752, 519
Bisson v. Curry, 35 Iowa 72,

lit

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. I, pp. 603-1244.]

Birmingham, etc., Ins. Co. v. Pul-

ver, 126 Ill. 829, 589
Birney v. Haim, ? Litt. (Ky.) 268, 310
Birtwhistle v. Vardill, 2 Clark &

F. 571, 292
Bish v. VanCannon, 94 Ind. 263, 1029
Bishplinghoff v. Bauer, 52 Ind.

519, 865
Bishop v. Agricultural Ins. Co.,

130 N. Y. 488, 8. C.29N. E.R.

844,

Bishop v. Carter, 29 Iowa 165,
Bishop v. Cook, 13 Barb. 326,
Bishop v. Empire, etc., Co., 5 J

& 8. 12

557
111
1238

1146

Bishop v. Moorman, 98 Ind. 1,

479, 481, 484, 485, 1176
Bishop v. Nelson, 83111. 601, 115, 228
Bishop v. Mugler, 33 Kan. 145,
1111, 1112, 1121
Bishop v. Silver Lake, etc., Co.,
62 N. H. 455,
Bishop v. State, 9 Ga. 121,
Bishop v. Village of Goshen, 120
N. Y. 387, 8. C. 24 N.E. R. 720,
149, 234, 1147
Bissell v. Briggs, 9 Mass. 462,
242, 302, 424, 428
Bissell v. Jeffersonville, 24 How.

611
623

(U.S.) 287, 324
Bissell v. Morgan, 56 Barb. (N.
Y.) 369, 600

Bissell v. Spring Valley, etc., 124
U-S. 225, 8. C. 8 Sup. Ct. R. 495, 1178
Bissell v. Strong, 9 Pick. 562, 472

195
Bing. 432, 167
Bitting v. Ten Eyck, 85 Ind. 357,

494, 496
Bivens v. Harper, 59 Il. 21, 198
Bixbe vy. State, 6 Ohio 86, 664
Bixbie v. Wood, 24 N. Y. 607, 851
Bixby v. Carskaddon, 70 Ia. 726,
S. C. 29 N. W. R. 626,
Bixby v. Smith, 49 How. Pr. (N.
Y.) 50,
Bizer v. Ottumwa, etc., Co., 70 Ia.
145,
Blachford v. Dod, 2 B. & Ad. 179,
Blachlock v. Stewart, 2 Bay (S.
Car.) 363,
Black v. Black, 38 Ala. 111,
Black v. Brisbin, 3 Minn. 360, 8.

Bittain v. Kinnaird, 1 Brod. &

446

369
552

246
910

C. 74 Am. Dec. 762, 470
Black v. Coan, 48 Ind. 385, 390
Black v. Epperson, 40 Tex. 162, 315
Black v. Foster, 28 Barb. 387, 718
Black v. Peters, 64 Ga. 628, 1203

Black v. Pratt, etc.,Co., 85Ala. 504, 385

 

565, 587
455

Black v. Rogers, 75 Mo. 441,
Black v. Shreve, 2 Beas. (N- J.)5
Black v. Thomson, 107 Ind. 162, 177
Black v. Ward, 27 Mich. 191, 8.

C.15 Am. RB. 162, 957
Black v. Washington, 65 Miss. 60,

8. C. 3 So. R. 140, lil
Black River Lumber Co: v. Warn-

er, 98 Mo. 374, 8. C.68. W. R.

210, 531
Blackburn v. Beall, 21 Md. 208, 721
Blackburn v. Jepson, 3 Swanst.

182, 1128

Blackburn v. Minter, 22 Ala. 613, 1048

Blackburn v. State, 3 Head. 690,
214, 216, 235

Blackett v. Bates, L. R., 1 Ch. sa

117,
Blackington v. Sumner, 69 Me.
136, : 1069
Blackledge v. Pine, 28 Ind. 466,
669, 676
Blackledge v. Simpson, 2 Hayw.
(N. Car.) 30,8. C. 2 Am. Dec.
614, 596, 600
Blackman v. Bainton, 15 C. B.
(N. 8.) 482, 628
Blackman v. ” Nearing, 43 Conn.
56, 379
Blackman v. Welsch, 44 Mo. 41, 551
Blackmar v. Van Inwagen, 5

How. Pr. 367, 262
Blackmore v. Bank of the State,

3 Ark. 309, 235
Blackwell v. Bragg, 78 Va. 529, 381

Blackwell v. Goss, 116 Mass. 394, 595
Blackwell v. Smith, 8 Mo. App.

43, 112
Blackwell v. State, 80 Tex. App.

416, S.C. 15 §. W. R. 597, 666
Blackwell v. Willard, 65 N. Car.

555, 336
Blage v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 3

Wash. (U.S.C. C.) 5, 620

Blain v. Foster, 33 Ill. App. 297, 402

Blair v. Blair, 131 Ind. 194, 8. C.
30 N. E. R. 1076,

ae v. Cantey, 2 Spear (§. C.)

1151

4, 197
Blair v. Chicago, etc., Co., 89 Mo.

383, 1176
Blair v. ee ealth (Ky.), 20

S.W.R 12:
Blair v. Habe, 139 Pa. St. 96, S.

C. 21 Atl. R. 210, 173
Blair v. Lynch, 105 N.Y 636, 8.
C. 11 N. E. R. 947, 587, 550

Blair v. Pelham, 118 Mass. 420,
; 8, 30, 816
Blair v. Wallace, 21 Cal. 317, 584
TABLE OF CASES.

liii

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.]

Blair v. Wolf, ie ete 246, 8. C.
33 N. W. RB. 6

Blaisdell v. Biaiedell, 14 N. H. 78,

Blaisdell v. Harris, 52 N. H. 191,

Blake v. Broughton, 107 N. Car.
220, 8. C.12 8. E. R. 127,

Blake v. Davis, 20 Ohio 231,

eure Vv. Everett, 1 Allen (Mass. 5

248,
Blake v. Gale, L. R., 31 Ch. Div.

196, 3876
Blake v. Jones, 7 Mass. 28, 613
Blake v. People, 73 N. Y. 586, 738
Blake v. Powell, 26 Kan. 320, _ -

179, 704, 783
Blake v. Stewart, 29 Ind. 318, 1200
Blake v. Stump, 73 Md. 160, 8. C.

10 L. R. A. 103, ~ ’1067, 1075
Blakeley v. Frazier, 118.Car.122, 1158
Blakely v. Frazier, 11S. Car. 122,

594, 632
Blakeman vy. Blakeman, 31 Minn. 46
5

396,
Blakemore yv. Glamorganshire
Canal Co., 1 Mylne & K. 154, 482
Blakeney v. "Dufaur, 15 Beayv. 40, 496
Blanc v. Klumpke, 29 Cal. 156, 560
Blanc v. Paymaster Mining Co. %
95 Cal. 524, 8. C. 29 Am. Si ee

149,
Blanchard v. Bissell, 11 Ohic Bi.

96,
Blanchard v. Burrell, 13 Mass. 4,
8. C. 7 Am. Dec, 106, 281
Blanchard v. Jones, 101 Ind.542, 1081
Blanchard v. Lake Shore, etc.,Ry.
Co., 126 Ill. 416, §.C. 18 N. E
R. 799, 378
Blanchard v. Murray, 15 Vt. 548, 598
Blanchard v. Richly, 7 Johns. (N. -

Y.) 1
Pita vy. Russell, 13 Mass. 1,

S.C. 7 Am. Dec. 106, 281
Blanchard v. Young, 11 Cush.

(Mass.) 341, . 604
Blanding v. Sargent, 33.N.H. 239, 533
Blank’s Admr.v.Foushee, 4 Munf.

61, 1104
Blankman v. Vallejo, 15 Cal.638, 917
Blanton v. Dold (Mo.), 18 S. Ww

R. 1149, 546
Blauvelt v. Ackerman, 20 N. J.

200
1128

Eq. 141,
477

431
586
189

719
1103

, 1140
202

Bleare v. Garlington, 92 U.S. 1,
Bleyer v. Blum, 70 Ga. 558,
Blight’s Heirs v: Banks, 6 T. B.
Mon. (Ky.) 192, 8. C. 17 Am.
Dec. 136, 446
Bliley v. Taylor, 86 Ga. 163, 8. C.
138. E. R. 283, 125, 1213

 

Blin v. Hay, 2 es (Vt.) 304,
8. C. 4 Am. Dec. 738, 591
Blish v. Collins, 13 West, R. 546,
Bliss, In re, 39 Hun (N. Y.) 594,
Bliss v. Smith, 34 Beav. 508,
Bliss v. Thompson, 4 Mass. ‘488,
Blize v. Castlio, 8 Mo. App. 296,
Blizzard v. Blizzard, 40 Ta 344, 192
Blizzard v. Hays, 46 Ind. 166, 1224
Blizzard v. Phebus, 35 Ind. 284, 1231
Block v. Darling, 140 U.S. 234, ’s.

C. 11 Sup. Ct. R. 832,

Block v. Ebner, 54 Ind. 544,
Block v. Henderson, 82 Ga. 28,

8. C. 8 8. E.R. 877, S. C. 14

Am. St. R. 138, 145, 259, 342, 343
Block v. State, 100 Ind. 357,

645, 658, 663
Blodget v. Morris, 14 N. Y. 482, 1194
Blodgett v. Prince, 109 Mass. 44, 593
Blodgett v. Schaffer, 94 Mo. 652,

78. W. R. 436, 328, 435
Blondheim v. Moore, 11 Md. 365, 195
Blood v. Bates, 31 Vt. 147, 143
Blood v. Fairbanks, 50 Cal. 420, 518
Bloodheim vy. Moore, 12 Md. 365, 488
Bloom y. Burdick, 1 Hill 130, 293
ee oe Sherman, 5 Paige (N.

586

Y.) 5
Blocmtela v. Ketcham, 5 N. Y.
Civ. Proc. 407, 8.C.95 N.Y. 657, 1138
Bloomfield R. R. Co. v. Burress,

982
590
407
520
191

1080
1210

82 Ind. 83, 430
Bloomington v. Osterle, 139 Il.
120, S. C. 29 N.E. R. 1068, 794

Blossom v. Barrett, 37 N. Y. 434, 719
Blount v. State, 30 Fla. 287, 8. C.

11 So. R. 547, 646, 656
Blue v. Commonwealth, 2 J. J.
Marsh. (Ky ) 26, 455

Blue v. Kibby, 1 T. B. Mon. 195,
8. C. 15 Am. Dec. 95, 782, 802, 1168
Blue v. McCabe, 5 Wash. 125, 8.

C. 31 Pac. R. 431, 1114
Blum v. Jones (Tex.), 23 S. W.

R. 844, 720
Blunt v. State, 9 Tex. App. 234, 781

Bluntzer v. Dewees, 79 Texas
272,8.C. 158. W. R. 29, 405
Blydenburgh v. Cotheal, 4 N. Y.
418, 379
Blythe v Richards, 10 Serg. & R. -
260, 8. C. 13 Am. Dec. 672, 327
Board v. Bacon, 96 Ind. 31, 1096
Board v. Benson, 88 Ind. 469,
641, 1230
Board v. Brown, 4 Ind. App. 288,
8. 0. 30 N. E. R. 925, 619
Board v. Courtney, 105 Ind. 311,
206, 2382, 640
liv

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 608-1244.]

Board v. Embree, 7 Blackf. 461, 1235
Board v. Gray, 54 Ind. 91, 675
Board v. Gruver, 115 Ind. 224, 8.
_C.17N. E. R. 290, 528
Board v. Henneberry, 41 Ill. 179, 403
Board v. Huffman, 134 Ind.1, 1238
Board v. Leggett, 115 Ind. 544, 318
Board v. Locke, 2 Col. App. 508,

8. C. 31 Pac. R. 351, 1208
Board v. Louisville, etc., Co., 109
U.S. 221 1138

Board v. Markle, 46 Ind. 96, 242, 317
Board v. Montgomery, 106 Ind.
517,
Board v. Montgomery, 109 Ind.
69 181, 1212, 1223, 1234
Newman, 35 Ind. 10,
123, 248, 255, 1205

202

Board Vv.

Board v. Pearson, 120 Ind. 426, 1108
Board v. Reynolds, 44 Ind. 509, 1143
Board v. Shipley, 77 Ind. 553, 363
Board v. Slatter, 52 Ind. 171, 182
Board v. Small, 61 Ind. 318, 1233
Board y. State, 61 Ind. 75, 151
Board v. Thompson, 7 Ind. 265, 205
Board v. Wood, 35 Ind. 70, 205

Board, etc.,v. Bunting, 111 Ind.
143, 202
Board, etc.,v. Mineral Point, etc.,
Co., 24 Wis. 93, 245, 342
Board of Children’s Guardians v.
Shutter (Ind.), 34N. E.R. 665, 294
Board of Comm’rs Shelby County
v. Castetter, 6 Ind. App. 579, 8.
C. 83 N. E. R. 986, 813
Board of Comm’rs v. Loeb, 68
Ind. 29, 654
Board of Comm’rs vy. Pearson, 120
Ind. 426,S. C. 16 Am. St. R. 325, 368
Board of Supervisors v. Pabst, 64
Wis. 244, 1203
Boardman v. Beckwith, 18 Ia. 292, 1163
Boardman v. Bickford, 2 Aik.
(Vt.) 345, 464
Boardman v. Griffin, 52 Ind. 101,
104, 1148
Boardman v. Westchester, etc.,
Co., 54 Wis. 364, 815
Boardman vy. Woodman, 47 N. H.
120, © 679, 740, 807
Boatmen’s Savings Bank v. Mc-
Menamy, 35 Mo. App. 198, 388
Bobb v. Woodward, 42 Mo. 482, 444
Boddie v. State, 52 Ala. 395, 1068
Bode v. Investment Co., 6 Dak.
183
121, 183
Bodkin v. Merit, 102 Ind. 298,

499,
Bodev. Investment Co.,1N. Dak.
528, 1132

 

Bodwell Granite Co. v. Lane, 83

Me. 168, S. C. 21 Atl. R. 829, 411
Bogand v. Sprott, 37 S. Car. 605,

S.C. 168. E. Bk. 35, 1140
Bogart, In re, 2 Sawyer 396, 241

Bogart v. Brown, 5 Pick. (Mass.)

18, 506
Boggs v. Near, 20 Ind. 395, 255
Boggs v. Smith, 53 Cal. 88, 492
Bogk v. Gassert, 149 U.8.17, 8.

C.13Sup.Ct.R. 738, 1048, 1079, 1220
Bogle v. Gordon, 39 Kan. 31, 8.C.

17 Pac. R. 857, 390
Bogle v. Kreitzer, 46 Pa. 8. 465,

803, —
1

435

Bogue vy. Bigelow, 29 Vt. 179,
Bogue v. Prentis, 47 Mich. 124,
Bohanan v. State, 15 Neb. 209, 1157
Bohart v. Republic, etc., Co., 49
Kan. 94, 8. C. 30 Pac. R. 180, 313
Boker vy. Bronson, 5 Blatchf. 5,
183, 1203
Boker v. Chapline, 12 Ia. 204, 315
Boker v. Stonebraker, 36 Mo. 338, 385

Bolard v. Mason, 66 Pa. St. 138, 456
Boldt v. State, 72 Wis. 7,8. C. 35

N. W. R. 935, 8. C. 38 N. W.R.

177, 654
Bole v. Newberger, 81 Ind. 274, 188
Boles v. State, 46 Ala. 204, 804
Bolin vy. Francis, 72 Ia. 619, 451
Bolin v. Simmons, 81 Ind. 92, 1168
Bolgiano v. Gilbert Lock Co., 73

Md. 132, 8. C. 20 Atl. R. 788, 8.

C. 25 Am. St. RB. 582, 457, 458
Boller v. Mayer, 8 Jones & Spencer

(N. Y.) 523, 154
Bolles v. Da 564 Barb. 215, 194
Bolles v. Stearns, 11 Cush. 590, ° 393
Bolling v. Mayor, 3 Rand. (Va.)

563, 1107

‘Bolling v. Pace(Ala.),12S0. R.796, 558
Bollinger v. Manning, 79 Cal. 7,

8. C. 21 Pac. R. 375, 412
Bollman, Ex parte, 4 ‘Cranch 75, 307.
Bollong v. Schuyler Nat. Bank,

26 Neb. 281, 8.0.3 L. R. Anno.

142, 345
Bolster v. Catterlin, 10 Ind. 117, 350.

Bolton v. Brewster, 32 Barb. 389, 314
Bolton v. Jacks, 29'N. Y. Sup. Ct.
166, 314
Bomar v. aes pe Tex. 485,8.
C.48.W.R.5 1178
Bonahan v. Nes. 125 U. 8.
692, 8. C. 8 Sup. Ct. R. 1890, 1216
Bond, In re, 98. Car. 80, S. C. 30
Am, R. 20, 248, 341
Bond v. Citizens’ Nat. Bank, 65
Md. 498, 8.C. + Atl. R. 893, 183, 1199
TABLE OF CASES.

lv

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 608-1244.]

Bond v. Dustin, 112 U. S. 604, 8.

C. 5 Sup. Ct. R. 296,
Bond v. Epley, 48 Iowa 600,
Bond v. Marx, 53 Ala. 177,
Bond v. Nave, 62 Ind. 505,
Bond v. Ward, 7 Mass. 1238,
Bond v. Whitfield, 28 Ga. 537,
Bond v. Wilson, 8 Kan. 228, 455
Bondz v. Penna. Co., 138 Pa. St.

153, 8. C. 20 Atl. R. 871, 1044
Bona v. Bonewitz (Ohio), 34

N. E. 644
Hanes Wygant, 75 Ind. 41, 1155
Bonham v. Iowa, etc., Co., 25

Iowa 328, 1097
Bonham v. Mills, 39 Ohio St. 534, 668
Bonic v. Maught, 76 Md. 440, 8S.

C. 25 Atl. R. 423, 1066
Bonknight v. Brown, 16 So. Car.

1170
429
1187
718, 1216
467
437

155, 112
Bonnell v. Allen, 53 Ind. 130, 1176
Bonnell v. Holt, 89 Ill. 71, 448, 610
Bonner v. Beard, 48 La. Ann.

1036, S. C. 10 So. R. 373, 566
Bonner v. Glenn, 79 Tex. 531, S.

C.158. W. R. 572 824

Bonner v. Hodges, 11 N. Car. 66,
8. C.158. E. R. 881, 1070

Bonner v. State, 7 Ga. 473, 170
Bonner y. Whitcomb, 80 Tex. 178,
_ §.C. 158. W. R. 890, 1230
Bonney v. Morrill, 57 Me. 368, 564
Bonomi v. Backhouse, 27 L. J. N.

8S. 378, 957, 980
Bonsack vy. Roanoke Co., 75 Va.

585 1156

Bonsall v. Isett, 14 Iowa 309,
165, 320, 323, 423, 439

Bonsell v. Zigler, 19 Ohio 362, 491
Bonton v. Lyford, 87 N. H. 512,
S. C. 75 Am. Dec. 144, 606

Boody v. Watson, 64 N. H. 162,
S.C. 9 Atl. R. 794,

Booher vy. Goldsborough, 44 Ind.
490

559

i 1211
Booker v. State, 76 Ala. 22, 1076
Boomer v. French, 40 Iowa 601, 367
Boon vy. Boon, 8 Sm. & Mar. 318, 192
Boon vy. State, 1 Ga. 631, 660
Boonv. Weathered, 23 Texas, 675, 808
Boone v. Purnell, 38 Md. 607, s.
C. 92 Am. Dec. "718,
Booth vy. {frmatrong, 2 Wash.
(Va.) 30 1114
Booth v. Clark, 17 How. (U. 8.)
821, 192, 303
Booth v. Cottingham, 126 Ind.
431, 8. C. 26N. E. R. 84, 111, 1138
Booth v. Farmers’ Bank, 4 Lans.
301, 1189

720

Boren vy. State, 23 Tex. App. 38,

 

Booth v. Lord Warrington, 1

Brown’s Parl. Cas. 445, 367
Boothe v. Estes, 16 Ark. ‘104, 465
Boots vy. Canine, 58 Ind. 450, 576
Boots v. Canine, 94 Ind. 408, 576
Boots v. Ferguson, 46 Hun 129,

354, 375
Borchus v. Huntington, etc., Co.,

97 Ind. 180, . 1230
Borden v. Borden, 63 Wis. 374, 437
Borden v. Delaware, etc., R. R.

Co., 131 N. Y. 671, S. C. 30 N.

E. R. 586, 548
Borden vy. Fitch, 15 Johns. 121, 329

Borden v. State, 6 Eng. (Ark. )
519, 820, 327°
Borders v. Barber, 81 Mo. 636, 513
33
368
270

596

Borer v. Chapman, 119 U. 8. 587,

8. C. 7 Sup. Ct. R. 342,

a v. Haven, 37 Fed. R.
94
Borrets y. Patterson, Taylor (N.

Car.) 37, 8. C.1 Am. Dec. 576,
Bors v. Preston, 111 U.S. 252, 119
Bos v. Helsham,L.R. 2 Exch. 72, 573
Bosley v. National, etc., Co., 123

N.Y. 550, 1216, 1221
Boss v. Northern Pac. R. R. Co. Ky

2N. Dak. 128, 8. C. 33 Am. St.

R. 756,

Bosseel v. Jarvis, 15 Wis. 571,
Bosseker,v. Cramer, 18 Ind. 44,
Bostic v. State, 94 Ala. 45, S.C.

10 So. R. 602, 780
Bostoc vy. State, 61 Ga. 635, 815
Boston v. Baldwin, 139 Mass. 315, 654
Boston vy. Tileston, 11 Mass. 468, 1140
Boston, etc.,Corp. v. Nashua, etc.,

Corp., 139 Mass. 463, S. C. 31 N.

E. R. 751,
Boston Water Power Co. v. Gray,

6 Mete: (Mass.) 131, 579, 600, 601
Bostwick v. Beach, 18 Ala. 80, 473
Bostwick v. Dickson, 65 Wis.593, 372
Bostwick v. Lewis, 1 Day’s Cases

33, 508
Bostwick v. Skinner, 80 Ill. 147, 314
Boswell v. Blackman, 12 Ga. 591, 804
Boswell v. Boswell, 117 Ind. 599, 1386
Boswell v. Jones, 1 Wash. (Va.)

822, 1161
Boswell’s Lessee v. Otis, 9 How.

336, 275, 280, 289
Boswell’s Lessee v. Sharp, 15 Ohio

447, 299
Botna Valley State Bank v. Silver

Oily Bank 1a oe Meee 438
Botsford y. O’Connor, 57 Ill. 72, 456
Bottles v. Miller, 112 Ind. 584, 384

1078
412
1160

XN

585, 595°
lvi

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. I, pp. 603-1244.]

Boughton v. Frere, 3 ia 29, 480

Bouknight v. Brown, 16 8 . Car.
155,

1220
Bouldin v. Ewart, 63 Mo. 330,
146, 164, 325
Bound vy. Lathrop, 4 Conn. 336, 384
Bourke v. James, 4 Mich. 336, 560
Bourne v. Hocher, 11 B. Mon.
(Ky.) 23, 466
Bourreseau v. Detroit Evening
News, 63 Mich. 425, 8. C. 30 N.
W.R. 376, 540
Bowden v. Crow, 2 Tex. Civ. App.
691, 8. C. 218. W. R. 612, 584, 602
Bowden v. Hatcher, 83 Ga. i, 8.
C.958. E. R. 724, 140
Bowden v. Schatzell, Bailey Eq.
(S. Car.) 360,
Bowden v. Wilson, 21 Fla. 165,
Bowe v. Hyland, 44 Minn. 88, 8.
C. 46 N. W. R. 142, 536
Bowen v. Bowen, 74 Ind. 470, 1112
Bowen v. Bragunier, 88 Ind. 558, 1200
Bowen vy. Clark, 46 Ind. 405, 400
Bowen v. Fox, ‘99 N. Car. 127, 8.
C.58. E. R. "437, 182
Bowen v. Holle, 38 Vt. 574, 401

Bowen vy. Mandeville, 95 N.Y.237, 353
Bowen vy. Preston, 48 Ind. 367, 234
Bowen v. Spears, 20 Ind. 146, 676
Bowen v. Steere, 6 R. I. 251, 590

Bowen v. Swander, 121 Ind. 164,

8. C. 22 N. E. R. 725,

234, 871, 640, 1148
Bowers v. Mayo, 32 Minn. 241, 179
Bowers v. People, 74 Ill. 418, 516
Bowers v. Schuler (Minn.), 55 N.

W. R. 817, 520
Bowers v. Smith, 111 Mo. 45,8. C.

208. W. R. 101, 527
Bowery Bank v. "Mayor, etc., 63

N. Y. 336, 408
Bowie v. Bowie (Md.), 26 Atl. R.

405, 518
Bowie v. Brahe, 3 Duer(N.Y.) 35, 551
Bowie v. City ‘of Kansas, 51 Mo.

454, 1180
Bowlby v. Thunder, 105 Pa. St.

317

178,
Bowles v. Elmore, 7 Gratt. (Va.)

385, 360
Bowley v. Angire, 49 Vt. 41, 469
Bowlus v. Brier, 87 Ind. 391, 1240

‘Bowman v. Ash, 143 Ill. 649, 8. C.

82. N. E. R. 486, 794
Bowman v. Bell, 14 Simons, 392, 496
Bowman v. Sheldon, 5 Sandf. 657,

1210, 1211
Bowman v. State, 19 Neb. 523, 1158
Bowman v. State, 41 Tex. 417, 666

 

Box v. Bennett, 1 H. Black 432,
1044, 1180

Boyce v. Aubuchon, 34 Mo. App.
315, 1159

Boyce vy. California Stage Co., 25
Cal. 460, 1065
Boyce v. Graham, 91 Ind. 420, 1210
Boyce v. Lake, 17 8. Car. 481, 675
Boyce’s Ex. v. Gundy, 3 Pet. 210, 478
Boyd v. Anderson, 102 Ind. 217 1167

Boyd v. Bank, 25 Ta. 255. 737
Boyd v. Baynham, 5 Humph. 385,

8. C. 42 Am. Dec. 438, 1192
Boyd v. Blaisdell, 15 Ind. 73, 191
Boyd v. Brotherson, 10 Wend.

(N. Y.) 93, 539
Boyd v. Chesapeake Canal Co., 17

Md. 195, 471
Boyd v. Clark, 8 Fed. R. 849, 8. C.

24 Alb. L. J. 508, 374
Boyd vy. Fitch, 71 Ind. 306, 484, 459
Boyd v. Glass, 34 Ga. 253, 8. C. 89

Am. Dec. 252, 314
Boyd v. Lowry, 53 Miss. 352, 297
Boyd v. Magruder, 2 Rob. (Va.)

» 761, 583
Boyd’ v. McFarlin, 58 Ga. 208, 450
Boyd v. Mexico So. Bank, 67 Mo.

537, 556
Boyd v. Olvey, 82 Ind. 294, 400
Boyd v. State, 14 Lea (Tenn.) |

161, 812
Boyd v. State, 17 Ga. 194, 720
Boyd v. Swing, 38 Miss. 182, 835
Boyd v. United States, 116 "U.S.

616, 8. C. 6 Sup. Ct. R. 524, 515

Boyd v. Vanderbilt Ins. Co., 5
Lewis’ Am. R. R. & Corp. R. 6, 588
Boyd v. Weaver (Ind.), 83 N. E.
R. 1027, 485

Boyd’s Admr. v. City Savings

Bank, 15 Gratt. 501, 103
Boyd’s Estate, 25 Cal. 511, 173
Boyden v. Burke, 14 How. (U.S8.)

575, 396
Boyden v. Lamb, 152 Mass. 416,

S.C. 25 N. E. RB. 609, 589
Boyden v. Moore, 5 Mass. 365, 1160
Boyer v. Berryman, 123 Ind. 451,

S. 0. 24.N. E.R. 249, 336
Boyer v. Moore, 42 Ia. 544, 304, 333
Boyer v. Teague, 106 N. Car. 576,

8. C.19 Am. St. R. 547, 652, 738
Boykin v. Edwards, 21 Ala. nk 436
Boa v. ppstein, 87 Ga. 25,8

138. E 15, " 486
Boyland v. Meee 4 Dutch. (N.
J.) 274, 518
Boyle, In re, 9 Wis. 264, 214
Boyle v. Guysinger, 12 Ind. 278, 398
TABLE OF CASES.

lvii

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. I, pp. 603-1244.)

Boyle v. People, 4 Col. 176, 8. C.
34 Am. R. 76 5, 663

Boyle v. State, 105 Ind. 469, S. C.
5N.E. R. 203, 783
Boyle v. Zacharie, 6 Pet. 648, 1128

Boyles v. Boyles, 37 Iowa 592,

243, 274

Boynton v. Foster, 7 Metc. 415,
253, 347, 492

Boynton v. Moulton (Mass. \, 34

N. E. R. 361, 383
Boynton v. Trumbull, 45 N. H.
408, 1120

Boynton v. Warren, 99 Mass. 172, 468

Boys v. Simmons, 72 Ind. 593, 832
Bozeman v. Browning, 31 Ark.
364, 381

Brace v. Evens (Pa.),3 R. R. &
Corp. L. J. 561 483

Brackart v. Nikirk, 20T11. App.525, 513

Bracken v. McAlvey, 421, S. Cc.

49 N. W. R. 1022, 377
Brackett v. Cunningham, 44 Minn.

498, S. C. 47 N. W. R. 157, 1129
Brackett v. Evans, 1 Cush. 79, 892

Brackett v. Norton, 4 Conn. 517, 545
Bradbury v. Cony, 62 Me: 223, 8.

C. 16 Am. R. 449, 662
Bradbury v. Dougherty, 7 Blackf.
(Ind.) 467, 618

Braddick v. Thompson, 8 East 344, 593
Braden v. Lemmon, 127 Ind. 9, S.
C. 26 N. E. R. 476
aa Vv. McCormick, 8 Blackf.
892
Braiford v. Andrews, 20 Ohio St.
208, 378
Bradford v. Barclay, 39 Ala. 33,
Bradford v. Buchanan (S. Car.), |
178. E. R. 501, 1137
Bradford v. Cooper, 1 La. Ann.
825, 510
Bradford _v. _ Gillespie, 8 Dana ©
(Ky.) 67, - 467
Bradford v. Hamilton, 7 Tex. 55, 1046
Bradford v. 8. Car. R. R. Co., "y
Rich. L. 201, + 587
Bradley v. Aldrich, 40 N. Y. 504, 1131
Bradley v. Bradley, 45 Ind. 67, 1094
Bradley v. Clark, 1 Cush. (Mass.) :
293, 675, 677

Bradley v. Farrington, 4 Ark. 532,°393
Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. U.S.

335, 424, 428
Bradley v. Geiselman, 17 Ill. 571, 512
Bradley v. Jamison, 46 Ia. 68, 298
Bradley v. Mo. Pac. R. R. Co., 91

Mo. 493, 361
Bradiey v. Palen, 78 Ia. 126, S. C.

42 N. W. R. 623, 719

 

Bradley v. Poole, 98 Mass. 169, 1033
Bradley v. West, 60 Mo. 33, 370
Bradshaw v. Davis, 12 Texas 836, 402
Bradshaw v. Hubbard, 1 Gilm,

(Il1.) 390, 659
Bradshaw v. Slate, a Neb. 147, 8.
C. 22 N. W.R. 3 823

Bradshaw v. VanWinkle, 133 Ind.

134, 1133
Bradstreet, Ex parte, 4Pet.102, 1242
Bradstreet v. Erkine, 50 Me. 407, 592
Bradstreet v. The Neptune Co., 3

Sumn. 600, 276
Bradstreet Co. v. Gill, 72 Tex. 115,

98. W. RB. 7538, 8.C.2L. B.A.

405, 531
Bradway v. Waddell, 95 Ind. 170,

1060, 1227
Bradwell v. Pittsburg, ete., Co.,

139 Pa. St. 404, 8. C. 20 Atl. R.

1046, 152, 1213
Brady v. Burke, 90 Cal. 1, 347
Brady v. Feisil, 54 Cal. 180, 1161
Brady v. Malone, 4 Iowa 146, 622
Brady v. Mayor, 1 Barb. (N. Y.)

581

584,
Braid v. Crutchfield, 6 Humph.
‘(Tenn.) 171, 602
Brainard v. Simmons, 58 Ia. 464,
472, 1223
Brakken v. Minneapolis, etc., R.
R. Co., 29 Minn. 41,
Braly v. Breese, 51 Cal. 447,
Braly v. Seaman, 30 Cal. 610,
Bramblett v. Pickett, 2A.K. Mar.
10, 8. C.12 Am. Dec. 350, 187, 188
Brannenberg v. Indianapolis, etc.,
13 Ind. 103,
Branchardiere v. Elvery, 4 Exch.
380, 8. C.18 L. J. E. 381, 1138
Branch y. Planters, etc., Bank, 75
Ga. 342, 365
Branch Bank v. Moseley, 19 Ala.
222, 1235
Brand y. State, 3 Ind. App. 469,
8. C. 28 N. E. R. 1030, 1211
Brand v. Longstreet,4N. J. L. 325, 719

813
128
447

801

Brandon v. Planters, ete., Bank,

1 Stew. 320, 1034
Brandt v. McDowell, 52 Ia. 230, 619
Brandt v. R. R. Co., 26 Ia. 114, 400

Branford v. Erant, 1 N. Mex. 579, 1184
Branger v. Buttrick, 28 Wis. 450, 1166
Branham v. Brown, 1 Bailey (8.

Car.) 262, 1046
Branner v. Chapman, 11 Kan.118, 436
Brannon v. May, 42 ‘Ind. i 1098
Branson v. Studabaker, 133 Ind.

147, 8. C. 33 N. E. R. 98,

117, 119, 124, 254, 348, 1106, 1108, 1115
lili

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.]

Branwell v. Penneck, 7 B. & C.
536, 322
Brasen v. Seattle, etc., Ry. Co., 4
Wash. 754, 8. C. 31 Pac. R. 34, 1082
cu v. Mason, 6 How. (U.
2
Brashear v. West, 7 Pet. (U.S.)

261

608, 470
Brashier v. Tolleth, 31 Neb. 622,

8. C. 48 N. W. R. "398,
Brauns v. Stearns, 1 Ore. 367, 178
Bray v. Doheny, 39 Minn. 355, 1169

Bray v. English, 1 Conn. 498, 586, 593
Bray v. Laird, 44 Ala. 295, 1183
Braydon v. Goulman, 1 T. B. Mon.

(Ky.) 115, 705
Brayton v. Freese, 1 Ind. 121, 557
Brazier v. State, 44 Ala. 387, 643
Brazil, etc., Co. v. Hoodlet, 129
, Ind. 327, 1106
Brazil v. Isham, 12 N. Y. 9, 597
Brazil v. Peterson, 44 Minn. 212,

S.C. 46 N. W. R. 331,

Brazil Block Coal Co. v. Gaffney,
119 Ind. 455, 8. C. 12 Am. St.
R. 422, 1211

Breckenridge v. Churchill, 3 J. J.
Marsh. (Ky.) 11, °- 876

Breed v. Hurd, 6 Pick. (Mass.)356, 401

Breedlove v. Bundy, 96 Ind. 319, 707

Breese v. State, 12 Ohio St. 146, 1067

Breeze v. Trenton Horse Co., 52
N.J.L. 250, 8.0.19 Atl.R. 204, 527

Breitenbach v.Turner,18 Wis.140, 403

Bremmer v. Green Bay, etc., Co.,
61 Wis. 114, 821

Bremmermanv.Jennings,101 Ind.

253, 71
Brenan v. Wallace, 25 Cal. 108, 5438
Brenner v. Bigelow, 8 Kan. 496,

104, 1148

Brenner v. Moyer, 98 Pa. St. 274, 469

Brenner v. Quick, 88 Ind. 546, 361

Brent v. Heard, 40 Miss. 370,

Brentlinger v. Hutchinson, 1
Watts. (Pa.) 46,

Brenzer v. Wightman, 7 Watts.
& §. (Pa.) 264, 555

Bressler v. People, 117 Ill. 422, 1071

Bressler v. Baum, 42 Il. App. 190, 518

Brewer v. Fleming, 51 Pa. St.102, 404

Brewer v. Porch, 2 Harr. (N.J.)
377, 796

Dreyer v. Railroad Co., 113 Mass. ie

1161

544

0:

Brewer v. State, 74Tenn.198, 143, 164

Brewer v. State, 32 Tex. Crim.

App. 74, 8. C. 22 S.W.R. 41, 1165
Brewington v. Lowe, 1 Ind. D1,

248, ai

624 |

 

Brewster v. Hobart, 15 Pick.
(Mass.) 302, 360

Brewster v. Ludekins, 19 Cal. 162, 429

Briarfield, etc., Co. v. Foster, 54

Ala. 622, 195
Brice v. Bauer, 108 N. Y. 428, S.
C. 2 Am. St. R. 464, 569

Bricker v. Missouri Pac. R. R. Co.,

83 Mo. 391, 1
Brickey v. Irwin, 122 Ind. 51,8. C.

23 N. E. R. 694, 387
Brickley v. Edwards, 131 Ind. 3,

S. C. 30 N. E. R. 708, 1212
Brickley v.Weghorn, 71 Ind. 497, 1154.
Bridge v. Gray, 14 Pick. (Mass. rs

55,

Bridgeport Bank v. NewYork,etc.,

Co., 30 Conn. 231, 395
Bridgeport Savings’ Bank v. Eld-

redge, 28 Cona. 556, S. C. 73

Am. Dec. 688, 266
Bridger v. ‘Asheville R. R. Co., 25

8. Car. 24, 1069
Bridges, Ex parte, 2 Woods, 428, 308
Bridges v. Armour, 5 How. (U.

8.) 91, 520
Bridges v. Arnold, 37 Ia, 221, 456
Bridges v. Clay County Supervi-

sors, 57 Miss. 252, 340
Bridges Vv. Shallcross, 6 W. Va.

562, 203
Bridges v. Smyth, 8 Bing. 29, 189
Bridgewater Gas Co. v. Home,

etc., Co., 59 Fed. R. 40, 1081
Bridgham’s Appeal, 82 Me. 323, 513
Briggs’ Appeal, 93 Pa. St. 485, 386
Briggs v. Davis, 34 Me. 158, 604
Briggs v. Finn, 10 Ia. 590, 453
Briggs v. French, 2 Sumn. 251, * 311
Briggs v. Hilton, 99 N. Y. 517,

1115, 1120
Briggs v. Hogdon, 78 Me. 514, 435
Briggs v. Holmes, 118 Pa. St. 283,

S.C. 4 Am. St. R. 597, 550
Briggs v. Minneapolis. Street Ry.

Co., 52 Minn. 36, 8.C.53 N. W.

R, 1019, 740
Briggs v. Morgan, 3 Phillmore,

325, 8. C. 1 Eng. Ecce. 408, 808
Briggs v. Sholes, 14 N. H. 262, 1195

Briggs v. Sneghan, 45 Ind. 14,
432, 454, "1199
Briggs v. Taylor, 35 Vt. 57, 800
Briggs v. Waldron, 83 N. Y, 582, 1051
Brigham v. Fayerweather, 140

Mass. 413, 271
Bright 2 Hutton, 12 Law and Eq.
Rep. 954

Brightwell v. McLane, 11 Ind.

210, 1217
TABLE OF CASES.

lix

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. IT, pp. 603-1244.)

Brine v. Ins. Co., 96 U. 8. 627,

270, 284
Brink v. Reid, 122 Ind. 257, 110
Brinkley v. Brinkley, 47 N. Y.
40, 1216
Briscoe v. Branough, 1 Tex. 326, 498
Briscoe v. Southern, etc., Co., 40

Fed. R. 273, 312
Bristor v. Galvin, 62 Ind. 352, 1200
Britt v. Bradshaw, 18 Ark. 5380, 478
Brittain v. Allen, 2 Dev. L. (N.

Car.) 120, 654, 656
Brittain v. Kinnaird, 1 Brod. &

Bing. 4382, 323, 325

Britton v. Fox, 39 Ind. 369, 214, 1111
Britton v. Larson, 23 Neb. 806, 8.

C. 37 N. W. BR. 681, 445, 452
Britton v. Williams, 6 Munf.

(Va.) 453, 581
Brock v. Garrett, 16 Ga. 487, 1160
Brock v. King, 3 Jones (N. Car.

L.) 45, 547
Brock v. South & N. Ala. R. R.

Co., 65 Ala. 79, 619
Brockbank v. Anderson, 7 Scott

N.R. 813, 8. C.13 L. J. C. P.

102, 1139
Brockbank y. Anderson, 7 Man.

& Gr. 295, 517
Brockett v. Brockett, 3 How. (U.

8.) 691, 1205
Brockett v. Steamboat Co., 18

Fed. R. 156, 720
Brockley v. Brockley, 122 Pa. St.

1, 565
Brockway v. Patterson, 72 Mich.

122, 8. C. 1 L. R. A. 708, 657, 661
Broderick’s Will, 21 Wall. 503, 263

Bronenberg v. Board, 41 Ind. 502, 487
Bronnenburg v. Coburn, 110 Ind.

169, S. C. 11 N. E. R.29, 1064, 1068
Bronson vy. La Crosse, etc., Co., 1

Wall. 405, _ 254, 492
Bronson v. Rodes, 7 Wall. 229, 1192
Brookbanks v. State, 55 Ind. 169, 806
Brooke v. Chicago, etc., Ry. Co.,

81 Ia. 504, 812
Brooker v. Weber, 41 Ind. 426, 1093
Brookes v. Tichborne, 2 Eng. L.

& Eq. 874, 85
Brooklyn v. Breslin, 57 N. Y.591, 545
Brooklyn v. Insurance Co., 99 U.

8. 362, 284

. Brooklyn v. Mayor, 25 Hun 612, 119
Brooklyn Bank v. DeGrauw, 23 |

Wend. (N. Y.) 342, S. C. 35

Am. Dec. 569, 402
Brooks vy. Boswell, 34 Mo. 474, 173
Brooks v. Bruyn, 36 Ill. 392, 655
Brooks v. Cook, 8 Mass, 246, 198, 471

 

Brooks v. Duckworth, 59 Mo. 48, 314
Brooks v. Dutcher, 22 Neb. 644, 8.

C. 36 N. W. R. 128, 1079
Brooks y. Hall, 36 Kan. 697, 566
Brooks v. Hubbard, 8 Conn. 58, 389
Brooks v. New Durham, 55 N. H.

559, 582

Brooks vy. O’Hara, 8 Fed. R. 529, 486
Brooks v. Perry, 23 Ark. 82, 178, 179
Brooks v. Standard, ete., Co., 11

Mo. App. 349, 1160
Brooks v. State, 90 Ind. 428, 1072
Brooks v. Stephens, 100 N. Car.

297, 8. C.658. E. R. 81, 187

Brooks vy. Tarbell, 103 Mass. 496, 1128
Brooks v. Weeks, 121 Mass. 433, 794
Brophy v. Bartlett, 108 N. Y. 632,

S.C. 15 N. E. R. 368, 535
Brophy v. Brunswick, etc., Co.,

2 Wyo. Ter. 86, 1201
Broughton v. Bradley, 34 Ala. 694,

8. C. 73 Am. Dec. 474, 335
Brouillette v. Judge, 45 La. Ann.

248, S.C. 12 So. R. 134, 630
Brotherline v. Hammond, 69 Pa.

St. 128, 31
Brothers v. Higgins, 5 J. J. Mar.

658, 1180
Brouwer v. Hill, 1 Sandf. (N. Y.)

629, 544
Brow v. Levy, 3 Ind. App. Ct. 464, 629

Brow v. State, 103 Ind. 133, 820
Broward v. Doggett, 2 Fla. 49, 539
Browder v. State, 30 Tex. App.
614, 698
Brower v. Edson, 47 Mich. 91, 548

Brower v. Osterhout, 7 Watts. &
S. (Pa.) 344,

Brown v. Ashbough, 40 How. Pr.
(N. Y.) 260,

Brown y. Atchison, etc., Co., 31
Kan. 1, “1025

Brown vy. Atlanta, etc., R.Co., 19
S. Car. 39,

Brown v. Aurora, 109 Ill. 165,

Brown v. Bellows, 4 Pick. (Mass.)

582 -
464

19
526

179, 591, 795
Brown y. Board, etc., 50 Miss.

468, 424
Brown v. Brown, 53 Wis. 29, 185
Brown vy. Brown, 86 Tenn. 277, 274
Brown v. Buck, 75 Mich. 274, S.

C. 13 Am. St. R. 438, 348, 1241

Brown v. Burkenmeyer, 9 Dana

(Ky.) 159, S.C. 33 Am.Dec. 541, 598
Brown v. Buckingham, 11 Abb.

Pr. (N.Y.) 387, 529
Brown v. Burrus, 8 Mo. 26, 1161
Brown v. Buzan, 24 Ind. 194, 226, 234
Brown v. Byrne, Walker’s Ch. 453, 200
lx

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 6038-1244.]

Brown v. Calumet River Ry. Co.,

125 Tl. 600, 800
Brown v. Caraway, 47 Miss. 668, 297
Brown v. Cent. Pac. R. R. Co., 72

Cal. 523, 8. C. 12 Pac. R. 512, 1094
Brown vy. City of Denver, 7 Col.

305, 121, 425
Brown v. Clarke, 4 How. 4,

196, 1224, 1236
Brown v. Clay, 31 Me. 518, 578

Brown v. Cocking, L. R., 3 Q. B.
672, 267
Brown y. Cody, 115 Ind. 484, S.
Brown v. ‘Cole, 45 Ta. 601, 1124
Brown v. Commonwealth, 144 U.
1170
Brown v. Commonwealth, 76 Pa.
St. 319,
C. 42 N. W. R. 481, 446
Brown v. Darrah, 95 Ind. 86, 1178
R. 487,
Brown vy. Denver, 7 Col. 305, 170
Brown v. Dysinger, 1 Rawle (Pa. +)
408, 399

C.18N. E.R. 9, 1161
8.573, S.C. 12 Sup.Ct.R. 757,
30
Brown v. Corbin, 40 Minn. 508, S.
Brown v. Deere, etc., Co., 6 Fed.
Brown v.Desmond, 100 Mass.267, 286
Brown v. Eastern R. R. Co., 11

Cush. (Mass.) 97, 548
Brown v. Eaton, 98 ‘Ind. 691, 183, 714
Brown v. Edgerton, 14 Neb. 453, 1181

Brown v. Ferguson, 4 Leigh (Va.)

37, 1107
Brown v. Fleming, 3 Ark. 284, 217
Brown v. Foster (8. Car.), 19 8.

E. R. 299, 1079
Brown v. Gilmore, 8 Greenl.(Me.)

107, S. C.22 Am. Dec. 223, 400, 401
Brown v. Goble, 97 Ind. 86, 342, 426
Brown v. Goodyear, 29 Neb. 376,

8. C. 45 N. W. BR. 618, 454
Brown v. Goolsby, 34 Miss. 437, 378
Brown v. Green, 7 Conn. 536, 600

Brown v. Grove, 116 Ind. 84,8. C.

9 Am. St. R. 823, 1160, 1161
Brown v. Haff, 5 Paige 235, 8. C.

28 Am. Dec. 425, 478
Brown v. Haines, 12 Ohio 1, 300, 345
Brown v. Hall, 85 Va. 146, 8. C. 7

8. E. R. 182, 1224, 1232
Brown v. Hannibal, etc., R. R.

Co., 66 Mo. 588, 1074
Brown v. Harris, 2 G. Greene 505,

S. C. 52 Am. Dee. 535, 469
Brown v. Hendersons, 4 Munf.

1116
1160

(Va.) 292,’

Brown v. Hickie, 68 Ia. 330,

Brown v. Hillegas, 2 Hill (So.:
Car.) 447, 1108,:1154

491, 492 |.

 

Brown v. Sones Bank, 5
Mo. App 110, 1130

Brown v. Pes oward, 4 Moore 508, 369

Brown v. Kalamazoo, etc., 15
Mich, 274, 1127

Brown v. Keyser, 53 Ind. 85, 1182

Brown v. Kincaid, Wright (Ohio)
87, 576

Brown v. Kirkbridge, 19 Kan.
1178

588
Brown v. Leavitt, 26 Me. 251,
585, 586, 590, 593

Brown v. Lunt, 37 Me. 423, 214, 215
Brown v. Mahan, 4 J. J. Marsh.
(Ky.) 59, 452

Brown v. Mass. Life Ins. Co., 59
N. H. 298, S. C.13 Ins. L. Jour.
208, 1041, 1042
Brown v. McCollum, 76 Iowa 479,
8. C.41 N. W. R. 197,
a v. McCormick, 23 Mo. App.
181
Brown. McGrau, 14 Pet. (U. Ne
Brown v. Metz, 33 Ill. 339,
Brown vy. Minneapolis, ete., 25
Minn. 461,

Brown v. Mitchell, 102 N. Car.
847, S.C. 11 Am. St. R. 748,
ee v. Moores, 6 Gray (Mass.)

451,
Brown v. Mott, 22 O. St. 149,
eee Vv. Newby, 6 Yerg. (Tenn. a

Brown v. Nichols, 42 N. Y. 26,

Brown v. O’ Connell, 36 Conn.
432,

Brown v. Ohio & M. Ry.
(Ind.), 85 N. E. R. 508,

Brown v. People, 8 Hun (N. Y.)
562,

Brown v. Peters, 94 Ala. 459, 8.
C.10 So. R. 261, 344

Brown v. Railroad Co., 18 N. Y.
495, 1199

Bre v. Ralston, 4 Rand. (Va.)
04,

Brown v. Rauch, 1 Wash. 498, 8.
C. 20 Pac. R. 785, 410

Brown v. Rhodes, i Kan. 359, 1236

Brown v. Buse = Neb. 236, 8.0.
46N. W.R 613

Brown v. Ree 61 Ind. 449, 1189

Brown v. Searle, 104 Ind. 218, 8.
C.3N. E. R. 871, 1173

Brown v. Shields, 6 Leigh 440, 1172

ae v. Simpson, 3 Stew. (Ala.)

31
Brown v. Speyers, 20 Gratt. 296, 1161
Brown v. Stark, 83 Cal. 636, 544

541

3
112
540

1139

605
216
©1095
781
TABLE OF. CASES.

xi

[References are to Pages, Vol.'I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.)

Brown v. State, 24 Ark. 620, 518
Brown v. State (Tex.), 208. W.R.
924, 780

Brown v. State, 60 Miss. 447, 668
Brown v. State, 29 Fla. 494, S.C.

10 So. R. 736, 1228
Brown vy. State, 70 Ind. 576, 666
Brown v. State, 71 Ind. 470, 524
Brown v. State, 57 Miss. 424, 8.C.

10 Cent. L. Jour. 376, 646, 666
Brown v. State, 18 Ohio St. 496, 629
Brown v. State, 72 Md. 468, 800
Brown vy. State, 89 Ga. 340, 8. C.

158. E. R. 462, 644
Brown v. State, 79 Ala. 61, 802

Brown v. State, 2 Tex. ‘App. 115, 1071
Brown y. Stoerkel, 74 Mich. 269,

8. 0.3L. R. A..430, 1096
Brown v. Swineford, 44 Wis. 272,

S.C. 28 Am. R. 583, S.C. 7 Cent.

L. Jour. 208, 678, 820, 823
Brown v. Thomson, 318. Car, 436,

8.C. 108. E. R. 95, 681
Brown v. Tucker, 7 Col. 80, 298
Brown v. Union Tel. Co., 6 Utah

219, 8. C. 21 Pac. R. 988, 559
Brown v. United States, 14 Am.

L. Reg. (N. 8S.) 566, 308
Brown v. United States, etc., As-

sociation, 13 S.W. R. 1085, 186,610
Brown yv. Walker (Miss.), 11 So.
R. 724, 1066
Brown v. Warren, 17 Nev. 417, S.

C. 80 Pac. R. 1078, 625
Brown v. Webber, 6 Cush. (Mass.)

560, 454, 612
Brown v. Welcker, 1 Cold. 197, 586
Brown v. Wentworth, 46 N. H.

490, 8. C. 88 Am. Dec. 228, 1040
Brown v. West, 65 N. H. 187, 8.

C. 18 Atl. 233, 192
Brown v. Wheeler, 18 Conn. 199, 659

Brown v. Wheeler, 17 Conn. 345

S. C. 44 Am. Dec. 550, 584.
Brown v. Wheelock, 75 Tex. 385,

8. C. 128. W. RB. ill, 295 |
Brown v. Will, 108 Ind. 71, 1148
Brown v. Willey, 42 Pa. St. 205, 533
Brown v. Williams, 31 Me. 403, 468

Brown v. Winans, 11 N.J. Eq. 267, 490:

Brown v. Wood, 19 Mo. 475, 794
Brown v. Woodman, 6C. & P. 206, 502
Brown v.Woody, 64 Mo. 547, 245, 328
Browne v. Hickie, 68 Iowa, ae 544
Browne v. Murray, 21 Eng. C. L ae

745,
Brownell v. Greenwich, 114N. Y.
518, 1187
Brownfield v. Brownfield, 151 Pa.
St. 565, S.C. 25 Atl. R. 92, 1212, 1218

 

Brownfield v. Dyer, 7 Bush. (Ky.

505, 433, 446
Brownfield v. Weicht, 9 Ind. 394,
259, 315, 318
Browning v. Hight, 78 Ind. 257,
1068, "1115

Browning v. Roane, 9 Ark. 354,
8. C. 50 Am. Dec. "218, 1200
Browning v. Wheeler, 04 Wend.
(N.Y.)258, 8. C.35 Am. Dec. 617, 592
Brownlee v. Board, 101 Ind. 401, 191
Brownlee v. Davidson, 28 Neb.
785, 8. C. 45 N. W. R. 51, 187
Brownlee v. Hare, 64 Ind. 311,
1148, 1171

-Brownsville v. Basse, 43 Tex. 440, 241

Brubaker v. Okeson, 36 Pa. St.519, 539
Bruce v. Cloutman, 45 N. H. 37, 463
Bruce v. Conyers, 54 Ga. 678, 469
Bruce v. Doolittle, 81 Ill. 108, 155
Bruce v. Holden, 21 Pick. (Mass.)
187, 455
Bruce v. Schuyler, 4 Gilm. (Ill.)
221, 202

‘| Bruce y. Tilson, 25 N. Y. 194, 360,403

2 E. D.
1225

443
640

Bruce v. Westervelt,
Smith, 440,

Bruen v. Bokee, 4 Denio:56, S. C.
47 Am. Dec. 239,

Bruen y. Bruen, 43 Ill. 408,

Bruil v. Northwestern, etc., Co.,
72 Wis. 430, 8. C. 39 N. W.R.
529, 313

Bruker v. Kelsey, 72 Ind. 51, 1169

Brumble v.Brown, 71 N. Car. 518, 875

Brumley v. State, 20 Ark. 78,

116, 142, 145

Brumskill v. James, 11 N. Y. 294, 509

Brunker v. Cummins, 133 Ind. 448, 738

Brunswig v. es 0 Texas 504,
8.C.88. W. R. 8 559

Brush v. Fisher, 70 ‘Nlich. 469,8. |
C. 14 Am. St. 'R. 510, 578, 594, 599

Brush Electric Light Co. v. Elec-
tric Imp. Co.,51 Fed. R. 557, 1187

Brusie v. Peck, 62 Hun 248, 8. C.
16.N. Y. Supl. 645, 185

Bryan v. Austin, 10 La. Ann. 612, 224

Bryan v. Berry, 8 Cal. 180, 253, 492

Bryan v. Chicago, etc., R. R. Co.,

63 Ta. 464, 1068
Bryan v. Dean, 63 Ga. 317, 474
Bryan v. Faucett, 65 N. C. 650, 33

Bryan v. Jeffreys, 104 N. Car. 242,

8. C. 10S. E. R. 167, 574
Bryan v. State, 4 Iowa 349, 644
Bryan v. Walton, 14 Ga. 185, 801
Bryan v. Watson, 20 Ga. 480, 706
Bryan & B. Shoe Co. v. Block, 52

Ark, 458, 353
Ixii

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.)

Bryant v. Ballance, 66 1]. 188,
Bryant v. Crosby, 40 Me. 9,
eee v. McClure, 44 Mo. App.
Bryant v. Moore, 26 Me. 84, 532
Bryant v. People, 71 Il. 32, 256
Bryant v. Tidgewell, 183 Mass. 86, 807
Bryden v. Bryden, 11 Johns. (N.

134
1064

313

Y.) 187, 555
Brydolf v. Wolf, 32 Iowa 509, 437
Bryorly v. Clark, 48 Tex. 345, 1167

Buchanan v. Berkshire Life Ins.

Co., 96 Ind. 510, 412
Buchanan yv. Chicago, etc., Ry.
Co., 75 Iowa 393, 739

Buchanan v. Comstock, 57 Barb.

(N. Y.) 568,

Buchanan vy. Curry, 19 Johns. (N.’

Y.) 187, S. C. 10 Am. Dee. 200,
Buchanan v. Howland, 5 Blatchf.

151, 485
Buchanan v. Milligan, 108 Ind.

433, 1107, 1147
Buchanan v. Port, 5 Ind. 264, 638
Buchanan v. Roy, 2 Ohio St. 251,

430, 431

496
Buchanan v. Townsend, 80 Tex.

534, 8. C. 16S. W. R. 315, 1155
Buchanan r Wise (Neb.), 52 N.

-W. R. 163 505
Buck v. Beekly, 45 Tl. 100, 161
Buck v. City of Eureka, 97 Cal.

637, 8. C. 31 Pac. R. 845, 634
Buck v. Dowley, 16 Gray 555, 297
Buck v. Little, 24 Miss. 463, 1193
Buck v.Wadsworth, 1 Hill (N.Y.),

821, 596
Buckeye Township v. Clark, 90

Mich. 482, 8.C.51 N.W.R.528, 352
Buckingham v. Davis, 9 Md. 324, 220
Buckinghouse’ v. Gregg, 19 Ind.

401, 163
Buckland v. Conway, 16 Mass.

396, 581, 582
Buckley v. Artcher, 21 Barb. (N.

Y.) 585, 540
Buckley v. Buckley, 12 Nev. 423, 783
Buckley v. Garrett, 47 Pa. St. 204, 557
Bucklin v. Ford, 5 Barb. (N. Y.)

393, 380
Bucklin v. State, 20 Ohio 18, 804
Bucklin v. Strickler, 32 Neb. 602,

8.C.49 N. W. R.371, 607, 612, 613
Buckmaster v. Cool, 12 Tll. 74, 1229
Buckminster v. Perry, 4 Mass.

593, 679
Buckner v. Com., 14 Bush. ae

603,

Buckwalter v. Russell, 119 Pa. St.

495, 586, 599

583.

 

Budd v. State, 3 Humph. 483, 121
Buel v. Pumphrey, 2 Md. 261, 8.

C. 56 Am. Dee. 714, 396
Buell v. Dodge, 57 Cal. 645, 628
Buell v. State, 72 Ind. 523, 164
Buetzier v. Jones, 85 Ia. —,8. OC.

51 N. W. R. 242, 1092

Buffalo v. Holloway, 7 N. Y. 493, 527

Buffalo, etc., Co. v. Delaware,
ete., Co., 130 N. Y. 152, 8. C. 29
N. E. R. 121, 262, 1130

Buffalo, etc., Co. v. Ferris, 26 Tex.

588, 1129
Buffalo, ete., Co. v. Phillips, 67
Wis. 129,8.C.30 N.W.R.295, 1220

Buffalo, ete., Co. v. Standard Oil

Co., 106, N. Y. 669, 483
Buffington v. Cook, 35 Ala. 312, 1070
Buffum v. Buffum, 11 N. H. 451, 400
Buford v. Keokuk, etc., Co.,3 Mo.

App. 159, 499

Buford v. McGetchie, 60 Iowa
298, 1073
Buford v. Shannon, 95 Ala. 205,
8. C. 10 So. R. 263, 721
Buice v. Lowman, ’ete. ., Co., 64

Ga. 769 245
Buist v. Guice (Ala.), 11 So. R.

280, 681
Buker v. Bowden, 83 Me. 67, S.

©, 21 Atl. R. 748, 594
Bulger v. Roche, 11 Pick. (Mass. )

36, S. C. 22 Am. Dec. 359, 373
Bulger v. Rosa, 119 N. Y. 459, | 540
Bulkeley v. Butler, 2 Barn. & C.

434, 1028

Bulkeley v. Smith, 2 Duer (N. Y.)
261, 552

Bulkley v. Eckert, 3 Pa. St. 368, 197

Bulkley v. Morgan, 46 Conn. 393, 353

Bull v. Coe, 77 Cal. 54, 110
Bull v. Com., 14 Gratt. 618, 1218
Bull v. Conroe, 13 Wis. 260, 121
Bull v. Valley Falls, 8R. 1.42, 483
Bullard v. Boston, etc., R. BR. Co. is
64.N. H. 27, 8. C. 10 Am. St.
Rep. 367, 820, 823

Bullard ¥. Hicks, 17 Vt. 198, 475
Bullard v. Lambert, 40 Ala. 204, 805
Bullard vy. Pearsall, "53 N.Y. 230, 794
Bullard v. Spoor, 2 Cow. (N. Y.)
668

430,
Bullard’s Estate, Re (Cal.), 31
Pac. R. 1119 1141, 1142
Bullene v. Smith, 73 Mo. 151, 465
Buller yv. Linzee, 100 Mo. 95, 8.0.
13.8. W. R. 344, 1179
179, 696, 821

Bulliner v. People, 95 Ill. 394,
Bullis v. Drake, 20 Neb. 167, 820
TABLE OF CASES.

lxili

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.]

Bulliss v. Chicago, etc., Ry. Co.,

76 Iowa, 680, 782
Bullman v. North British, ete.,
~ Co., 18 Mass. 118, 8. C. 34N.E.

R. 169 590
Bullock v. Bullock, 122 Mass. 8, 292
Bullock v. Campbell, 9 Gill 182, 364

Bullock v. Dean, 12 Metc. (Mass. )
15, 378

Bullock v. Koon, 9 Cow. (N. Y.)
0

5 724
Bullock v. Narrott, 49 Ill. 62, 5387
Bulson v. Lohnes, 29 N. Y. 291,
576, 592
Bulwer, etc., Co. v. Standard, etc.,
Co., 83 Cal. 613, 639
Bulwinkle v. Cramer, 30 So. Car.
153, 8. C. 8 8. E. R. 689, 712
Bumpass v. Webb, 4 Port. (Ala.)
65, S. C. 29 Am. Dec. 274, 600
Bumstead v. Read, 31 Barb. 661,
165, 314
Bunbury v. Fuller, 9 Exch. 11], 322
Bunce v. Wolcott, 2 Conn. 27, 380, 381

Bunch vy. Grave, 111 Ind. 351, 355

Bunch v. Hart (Ind.), 87 N. E. R.
537, 1108

Bundy v. Hyde, 50 N. H. 116, 737

Bundy v. Maginess, 76 Cal. "582,
8. C. 18 Pac. R. 668, 1190
Bundy v. McClarnon, 118 Ind.
165,
Bunker v. Gilmore, 40 Me. 88,
Bunker v. Inhabitants of Goulds-
boro, 81 Me. 188, 8.C. 16 Atl. R.
548, 1044
Bunker y. Shed, 8 Metc. (Mass.)
377
1078

1150
518

150,

Bunn v. Croul, 10 Johns. (N. Y.)

239,

Bunnell v. Bunnell, 93 Ind. 595,
1121, 1154
Bunnell v. Hay, 73 Ind. 452, - 646
Buntin v. Lagow, 1 Blackf. 373, 362
Buntin v. Rose, 16 Ind. 209, 1083, 1092
Bunting’s Case, 4 Coke 29, 274
Bunting v. Hogsett, 139 Pa. St.

863, 8. C. 12 L. R. A. 268, 534
Bunton v. Lyford, 37 N. H. 512, S.

C. 75 Am. Dee. 144, 605
Burch v. Newbury, 10 N. Y. 374, 117
Burchell v. Marsh, 17 How. (U.S.)

344, 578, 593, 599
Burethalter v. Coward, 16 8. Car.

435, 677
Burdett v. Hunt, 25 Me. 419, 33
Burdett v. Silsbee, 15 Tex. 604, 314
Burdick v. Hunt, 43 Ind. 381, 1235
Burdine v. Grand Lodge, 37 "Ala.

478, 654

 

Burge ¥, Shirk, 10 Ind. 396, 184

Burgess v. Aultman, 80 Wis. 292, 441

Burgess v. Kirby, 04 N. Car. 575, 293
Burgess v. O’Donoghue, 90 Mo.

299, 8. C.28. W. RB. 308, 253
Burgett v. Burgett, 43 Ind. 78, 1064
Burgoyne v. Supervisors, 5 Cal. 9, 212
Buriss v. Wise, 2 Ark. 33, 618
Burk v. Andis, 98 Ind. 59, 179, 697, 1208
Burk v. Barnard, 4 Johns. (N. Y.)

432

309,
Burk v. Com., 5 J.J. Mar. (Ky.)
675, 1111, 1122
Burke, In e ice Wis. 357, 8.C. 45
N. W. R. 2 214, 235
Burke v. cake 80 Mo. 504, 8.C.
50 Am. R. 510, 525, 560
Burke v. Lee, 76 Va. 386, 536

8. C. 33 Pac. R. 49, 1087
Burke v. State, 71 Ala. 3877, 543
Burke vy. Witherbee, 98 N.Y. 562, 1055
Burkett v. Holman, 104 Ind. 6,

174, 230, 629, 640
Burkhalter v. Edwards, 16 Ga.

‘| Burke v. McDonald, 2 Idaho 646,

593, 8. C. 60 Am. Dec. 744, 794
Burkhart v. Gladdish, 123 Ind.

337, 1215
Burkhart v. Merry, 88 Ind. 438, 619

Burlen v. Shannon, 115 Mass. 438, 288
Burlen v. Shannon, 99 Mass. 200,

8. C. 96 Am. Dec. 733, 287, 288
Burleson v.Burleson,28 Tex. 383, 1088
Burley v. German, etc., Bank, 111

U. 8. 216, 1213
Burling v. Goodman, 1 Nev. 314, 1192
Burlingame v. Central R. R. Co.,

23 Fed. R. 706, 1121
Burlington v.R.R.Co.,41 Ia. 134,
Burlington, etc., Co., v. March-

and, 5 Iowa 468, 172, 173
Burlington Ins. Co. v. Miller, 60

Fed. R. 254, 1206
Burlington Ins. Co. v. Ross, 48

Kan. 228, S. C. 29 Pac. R. 469, 1025
Burlington, etc., Co. v. Sater, 1 Ta.

421, 1047
Burlington, etc., Co. v. Simmons,

123 U. 8.52, 1184, 1187
Burlington, etc., Co. v. Stewart,

39 Ia. 267, 343
Burlington, etc., Co. v. Thomp-

son, 31 Kan. 180, 473
Burlock v. Cross, 16 Col. 162, 8.

C. 26 Pac. R. 142 401

Burnecker v. Miller, 44 Mo. 102, 443
Burnell vy. N. Y. Cent. R. R. Co.,

45 N. Y. 184, 554
Burnett v. Meadows, 7 B. Mon.
277, 8. C. 46 Am. Dec. 517, 314
lxiv

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602,

Burnett v. Sullivan, 58 Texas 535, 442
Burney v. Boyett, 1 How. ( Miss.) i
1

39,
Burnham v. Allen, 1 Gray (Mass. Dp
496,
Burnham vy. Commonwealth, -
Duy. 210, - 276
Burnham v. Hatfield, 5 Blacki. 21, 636
Burnham vy. Morrissey, 14 Gray
(Mass.) 226,
Burnham v.N. Y., ete., R. R. Co.,
17 R. 1. 544,8. C. 23 Atl. R. 638, 1172
Burnley v. Cook, 13 Tex. 586,58.

522

C. 65 Am. Dec. 79, 259
Burnley’s Representative v.Duke,

2 Rob. (Va.) 102, 264
Burnley v. Stevenson, 24 Ohio St.

474, 8.C. 15 Am. R. 621, 272
Burnly v. State (Tex.), 14 8. W.

Rep. 1008, 618
Burns v. Barenfield, 84 Ind. 48, 740

Burns v. Burns, 4 Serg. & R. (Pa.)
295, 543

Burns v. Harris, 66 Ind. 536, 704

Burns v. Headerick, 85 Tenn. 102, 361

Burns y. Hendrix, 54 Ala. 78, 596

Burns v. Nash, 32 Ill. App. 552, 248

Burns v. Reiglesberger, 70 Ind.
522,

Burns vy. State, 89 Ga. 527, 8. C.
15 8S. E. R. 748, 656

Burns v. Stewart Mnfg. Co., 31
Hun (N. Y.) 195,

Burns v. Wesner (Ind. ), 84N. E.
R. 10,

Burns v. Wilson, 1 Mo. Ap

Burnside vy. Ennis, 43 Tra,

498

486
179, 1077
411, —
191, 1244
Burnside v. Whitney, 24 Barb.(N.
Y.) 632, 8. C. 21 N.Y.148, 576, 598
Burntrager v. McDonald, 34 Ind.
277, 181, 1223
Burr vy. Burr, 10 Paige 166, 492
Burr v. Des Moines, etc., Co., 1
Wall. 99, 1138
Burr v. Seymour, 43 Minn. 401, 8.

C. 45 N. W. R. 715, 452
Burrall v.Vanderbilt,1 Bosw.637, 492
Burrell v. State, 129 Ind. 290, 8.

C. 28 N. E. R. 699, 611
Burrell v. State, 18 Tex. 713, | 807
Burrichter vy. Cline, 3 Wash. 135,

S. C. 28 Pac. R. 367, 458

Burrill v. Letson, 2 Spear (S. Car.)
378, 197
Burrill v. Watertown Bank, 51
Barb. (N.Y.) 105, 556
Burritt v. Villenuve, 92 Mich. 282,
8. C. 52 N. W. R. 614, 539
Burrough v. Hill, 15 R. 1.190, 1163

 

TABLE OF CASKS.

Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.]

Burrough v.Skinner, 5 Burr.2639, 399
Burroughs y. David, 7 Ia. 154, 577, 599
Burroughs v. Ploof, 73 Mich. 607,

8.C.41N. W. R. 704,
Burroughs v. Wright, 16 Vt. 619,
Burrows v. Dickinson, 35 Hun (N.

Y.) 492,

Burrows v. State (Ind.), 37 N. E.
27,
Burson v. Mahoney, 6 Baxter,

304, 178
Burtstall v. Homer, 7 Term Rep.

368, 403
Burt v. Decker, 64 Ia. 106, 529
Burt v. Panjaud, 99 U.S. 180,

178, 662, 666
Burt v. Rynex, 48 Mo. 309, 1127
Burt v. Scranton, 1 Cal. 416, 1198
Burt vy. Winona, ete., Co., 31

Minn. 472, 8. C.18 N. W. R.

285, 120, 143
Burton v. Brashes ar, 3A.K.Marsh.

1034

276,
Burton vy. Buckeye Ins. Co., 26
Ohio St. 467, 878, 430
Burton v. Driggs, 20 Wall. 125,
504, 1128, 1206

541
198

601
1069

Burton v. Johnson, 2 Ind. 339, 1175
Burton v. Marrow, 133 Ind. 221,
8. C. 32 N. E. R. 921, 1141

Burton v. West Jersey Co., 114 U.

8. 474, 1079
Buscher v. Scully, 107 Ind. 246, 823
Buse v. Page, 32 Minn. 111, 803

Bush y. Bush, 46 Ind. 70, 605, 609

Bush v. Doy, 1 Kan. 86,

Bush vy. Lisle, 86 Ky. 504, 8. C. 6
8. W. R. 330, 225, 237

Bush y. Steinman, 1 B. & P. 404,* 980

Bush v. Stowell, 71 Pa. St. 208, 384
Bushey v. Raths, 45 Mich. 181, 608
Bushnell v. Kennedy, 9 Wall.
387, . 345
Bushnell v. Bushnell, 77 Wis. 435,
8.C.9L. R.A. 411, 364

Buskett, In re, ra Mo. 602, 8. C.

141. R. A. 407 781
Bussey v. Leavitt, 12 Me. 378, 451
Busted Vv. Parsons, 54 Ala. ’393,

8. C. 25 Am. R. 688, 128
Butcher vy. Bank, 2 Kan. 70, 316
Butcher y. Taylor, 18 Kan. 558, 1183
Butcher’s Co. v. Jones, 1 Esp.

160, 505
Butler, In re, 101 N. Y. 307, 1046
Butler's Estate, In re, 18 Ir. Ch.

R. 456, 196
Butler v. Austin, 64 Cal. 3, 394
Butler v. Chicago, ete., R. R. Co. 5

(Towa), 54 N. W. Rep. 208, 783
TABLE OF CASES.

lxv

tiparenenene are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. ae 602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.)

Butler v. Church, 14 Bush 540,
1211, 1218
Butler v. Duncomb, 1 P. W. 452. 950
Butler v. Farnsworth, 4 Wash.
Cc. C. 101,
Fe v. Flanders, 12 Jones & S.
Butler v. Hildreth, 5 Met. (Mass.)

49,
Butler v. Horwitz, 7 Wall. 258, 1192
Butler v. Howe, 13 Me. 397, 380, 381
Butler v. Mayor, 7-Hill (N. Y.)

329, 594
Butler v. State, 97 Ind. 378,

635, 642, 657, 658, 660, 697, 698, 1073
Butler v. Truslow, 55 Barb. (N

806

Y.) 293,
Butler v. Tucker, 24 Wend. 447,

406, 408
Butler v. Wendell, 57 Mich. 62, 8.

C. 58 Am, R. 329, 302
Butler v. Wright, 20 Johns. 367, 364
Butterfield v. Gilchrist, 63 Mich.

155, 739
Butterfield y. Town of Ontario,

44 Fed. R. 171, 1177

311

Butts v. Screws, 95 N. Car. 215, 454
Buxton v.Baughan,6 C.& P.674, 395
Buxton v. Howard, 38 Ind. 109, 592

Buzard v. Houston, 119 U.S. 347, 478
Buzzell v. Snell, 25 N. H. 474, 676
Byam v. Robbins, 6 Allen (Mass. )

63, 594

Byard v. Harkrider, 198 Ind. 376,
576, 591

Byars v. Thompson, 12 Leigh
a, ) 550, S.C.87 Am.Dec. 680, 595
Byers v. Butterfield, 33 Mo. 376, 1181

Byers v. Orensstein, 42 Minn. 386,
44.N. W. R. 129, 512
Byers v.Van Deusen, 5 Wend. 268, 573
Byler v. Jones, 22 Mo. App. 623, 458

. Byne vy. Smith, 76 Ga. 101, 1i7
Bynum v. Burke County, 101 N.
"Car, 412,85. C.88. E.R. 136, 388

Byram v. Galbraith, 75 Ind. 134, 1158
Byram v. McDowell, 83 Tenn. 581, 221
Byrd v. Hudson, 113 N. Car. 203,

8. 0.188. E. RB. 209, 823
Byrd v. Odem, 9 Ala. "756, 576
Byrd v. Tucker, 3 Ark. 451, 1236
Byrne v. Clark, 31 Ill. App. 651,

1227, 1236
Byrne v. Minneapolis, etc., Co. _

29 Minn. 200, 1156
Byrnes v. Byrnes, 102 N.Y. 4, 801
Byrnes v. Sampson, 74 Tex. 79, 445
ee v. Low, 109 N.Y. 291, 407

 

C

Cabarga v. Seeger, 17 Pa. St. 514, 538
Cabell v. Vaughan, 1 Saund. 291, 1194
Cable v. Alvord, 27 Ohio St. ee.

6, 477
a State, 8 Blachf. (ind
667
cay v. Norton, 14 Pick. (Mass.)
723
Cadwallader v. Brodie (Pa.), 13
Atl. R. 483, 721
Cadwallader v. Louisville, N. A.,
etc., Co., 128 Ind. 518, B.C, 27
N. E. R. 161, 1095
Caffrey v. Dudgeon, 38 Ind. 512,
S.C. 10 Am. R. 126, 346
Caffrey v. Groome, 10 Ta. 548, 1160
Cage, Ex parte, 45 Cal. 248, 178

Cagger v. Lansing, 64 N. y. 417, 1053
Cahill, In re, 110 Pa. St. 167, 8. G.

20 Atl. R. 414, , 118, 119
Cahill v. Dawson, 1 Frost. & F.

291, 620
Cahen y. Continental Life Ins.

Co., 69 N. Y. 300, 504
Cahoon v. Coe, 57 N. H. 556, 453
Cain v. Goda, 84 Ind. 209, 142, 342
Cain vy. Guthrie, 8 Blackf. 409, 398

Cain v. Ingham, 7 Cow. (N. Y.)
478, 656

Cairns v. O’Bleness, 40 Wis. 469, 632

Cairo, etc., Co. v. Easterly, 89 Ill.

156, 1210, 1231
Cairo, etc., R. R. Co. v. Parks, 32

Ark. 131, 364
Cake x Pottsville Bank, 116 Pa.

St. 2 544

Caldwell. Bennett, 22 So. Car. 1, 552
Caldwell v. Boyd, 109 Ind. 447, 1146
Caldwell v. Carrington, 9 Pet. 86, 280
Caldwell v. Dickinson, 13 Gray

(Mass.) 365, 594
Caldwell v. Haley, 8 Texas 317, 462
Caldwell v. New Jersey, etc., Co. %

47 N. Y. 282, 179

Caldwell v. Murphy, 11 N.Y.416, 1079
Caldwell v. Sanderson, 69 Wis. 52,

S.C. 28N. W.R. 232, 559
Caldwell v. Stileman, 1 Rawle

(Pa.) 212, 1034
Caley v. Morgan, 114 Ind, 350, 321
Calhoun v. pees etc., Co., 64

How. Pr. 291 324

Calhoun v. Millard, 121 N.Y. 69, 376
Calhoun v. Thompson, 56 Ala. 166,
8. C. 28 Am. R. 754, 781
lxvi

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.]

Calhoun v. Webster, 2 Scam. (Ill.)
221, 432

California, etc., Co. v. Gowen,
48 Fed. R. 771,

Call v. Ballard, 65 Wis. 187,

Call v. Hagar, 69 Me. 521,

Callaghan vy. Grenet’s Est., 66
Tex. 236, 1142

Callaghan v. Myers, 128 U. 8.
617, 1128

Callahan v. Caffarata, 39 Mo.136, 553

Callahan v. Jennings, 16° Col.

471, S. C. 27 Pac. Rep. 1055, 613
Callahan v. Judd, 23 Wis. 343, 837
Callan v. May, 2 Black 541, 1187
Callan vy. Wilson, 127 U.S. 540, 644
Callanan v. Gilman, 107 N.

360, 8. C.1 Am. St. R. 831, wee
Callanan v. Shaw, 19 Iowa 183, 496
Callanan v. Shaw, 24 Ia. 441, 915

' Callaway v. Harrold, 61 Ga. 10, 436
Callen v. Ellison, 13 Ohio St. 446,
8. C. 82 Am. Dec. 448, 820, 327

Callender v. Painesville, etc., Co.,

11 Ohio St. 520, 1210
Callinan v. Port Huron, etc., Ry.’
Co., 61 Mich. 15, S.C. 27 N. W.

R. 718, 589
Callis v. Waddy, 2 Munf. (Va.)

611, 368
Calloway v. Cooley (Kan.), 32

Pac. R. 372, 263
Calvert v. Calvert, 15 Col. 390, 8.

C. 24 Pac. R. 1043, 450
Calvert v. Gray, 2 Cooper’s Ch.

171, 486
Cambridge, etc., Bank v. Lynch,

76 N. Y. 514, 1188
Camden v. Allen, 26 N. J. L. 398, 258
Camden v. Doremus, 3 How. (U.

8.) 515, 712, 1128, 1206
Camden v. Mulford, 26N.J.L.49, 324
Camden v. Plain, 91 Mo. 117, 8.

C.48. W. R. 86, 128, 188, 318
Camden, etc., Co. v. Belknap, 21

“Wend. (N. Y.) 354, 1079
Cameron v. Cameron, 15 Wis. 1,

518, 514

Cameron y. Castleberry, 29 Ga. ie

495,
Cameron v. Hodges, 127 U. S.
322, 113, 332
Cameron v. White, 74 Wis. 425,
8. C. 43 N. W. R. 155, 719
Camp v. Bostwick, 20 Ohio St.

337, 364
Camp v. Brown, 48 Ind.575, 675,676
Camp v. Morse, 5 Denio 161, 389
Camp v. Rogers, 44 Conn. 291, 424

Camp v. Simon, 34 Ala. 126, 401

 

Camp v. gong 91 Ga. 8, 8. C. 16
8. E. R. 379

Camp v. Tompkins, 9 Conn. 545,

Camp v. Woods, 10 Watts (Pa.)
118,

Campbell v. Allen, 61 Mo. 581, 1147

Campbell v. Beckett, 8 Ohio St.
210,

1077
Campbell v. Board, 118 Ind. 119,
115, 213
pe tae v. Brown, 86 N.
4, 386

384
Carnrbell v. Campbell, 22 Ill. 664,
256, 257
Campbell v. Campbell, 63 Ill. 462, 424
Campbell v. Chandler, 37 Tex. 32, ~
142, 155
Campbell v. Commonwealth, 96
Pa. St. 344, ~ 214, 235
Campbell v. Conover, 26 Ill. 64, 1162
Campbellv. Dwiggins, 83 Ind. 473,
424, 425

Campbell v. Dutch, 36 Ind. 504,
1097, 1098

Campbell v. Floyd, 153 Pa. St. 84,

8. C. 25 Atl. R. 1033, 1195
Campbell v. Garton, 29 Mo. 348, 1200
Campbell v. Holland, 22 Neb. 587,

S. C. 35 N. W. Rep. 871, 1075
Campbell v. Jones, 38 Cal. 507, 393
Campbell v. Maher, 105 Ind. 383, 820
Campbell v. Meseir, 4 Johns. Ch.

335, 8. C. 8 Am. Dec. 570, 189
Campbell v. Morrison,7 Paige 157, 488
Campbell v. New England, etc.,

Co., 98 Mass. 381, 919
Campbell v. Roberts, 66 Ga. he 677
Campbell v. Roe, 32 Neb. 345, 8 is

64.

C. 49 N. W. R. 452,
Campbell v. State, 23 Ala. 44,
519, 784, 796, 798, 803
Campbell v. Stakes, 2 Wend. 137, 351
Campbell v. Swasey, 12 Ind. 70,
454, 613
Campbell v. The Board, 118 Ind.

1202
1236

158

119, 117
Campbell v. Thompson, 4 Greene
(Iowa) 415, 638

Campbell v. Twemlow, 1 Price 81, 580

Campbell v. Upton, 113 Mass. 67, 582

Campbell v. Vining, 23 Ill. 525, 367
Campbell v. West, 86 Cal. 197, S.

C. 24 Pac. R. 1000, 164, 412
Campbell v.Western, 3 Paige 124,

579, 591, 593

Campbell v. Wheeler, 69 Ia. 588, 453

Campbell v. Wilson, 6 Tex. 379, 333

Campe v. Lassen, 67 Cal. 139, 318

Canadian Pace. R. R. Co. v. Robin-
son, 19 Can. S. C. 292, 1172
TABLE OF CASES.

lxvii

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.]

Canajoharie Nat. Bank v. Deifen-
dorf, 123 N. Y. 191, 1057
Canal Bank v. Newberry, 71a.4, 1195

Cancemi v. People, 18 N. Y. 128,
643, 644

Candler v. Hammond, 23 Ga. 493,
1163, 1169

Canfield v. Watertown Ins. Co.,

55 Wis. 419, 597
Canning v. Davis, 4 Burr. 2417, 423
Cannon vy. Cannon; 66 Tex. 682, 164
Cannon v. Hemphill, 7 Tex. 184, 182

Cannon v. Lindsey, 85 Ala. 198,

S.C. 7 Am. St. R. 38,

Cannon v. McNab, 48 Ala. 99,
Canton, etc., Co. v. Potts, 69 Miss.

3, 8. C. 10 So. R. 448,

Cantwell v. People, 138 Ill. 602,

§. C. 28 N. E. RB. 964,

Capehart v. Cunningham, 12 W.

Va. 750, 428, 436
Caperton v. Caperton, 36 W. Va.

635, 8. C. 15 8. E. R. 149, 569.
Caperton v. Nickel, 4 W.Va.173, 652
Capital Bank v. Armstrong, 62

Mo. 59, 110, 1066
Capital City, etc., Co. v. Cole, etc.,

‘0., 51 Mo. App. 228, 626
Capital City Oil Works v. Black,
70 Miss. 8, 8. C. 12 So. R. 26,
Cappeau v. Middleton, 1 Har. &

G. 154,

Capper v. Sibley, 65 Ia. 754, 8. C.

23 N. W. R. 153,

Capron v. Van Noorden, 2 Cranch

126, 342
Carbrey v. Willis, 7 Allen (Mass.)

~ 364, 551
Card v. Foot, 57 Conn. 427, 798
Carder v. Carden, 107 N. Car. 214,

S. C. 22 Am. St. R. 876, 464
Carder v. Primm, 52 Mo.App. 102, 800
Carew v. Howard, 1 Root (Conn.)

323,

Carey v. Butler, 11 Ind. 391,
Carey v. Chicago, etc., Co., 61
Wis. 71,
Carey v. Wilcox, 6 N. H. 177,
Cargar y. Fee, 119 Ind. 536,
226, 234, 236
Cargen v. People, 39 Mich. 549, 661
Cargo of Schooner North Carolina,
277

1211
132

483
630

1054
508
145

656
432

1063
572

15 Pet. 40,

Carico v. West Va., etc., R. R.

Co., 35 W. Va. 389, S.C. 14 8.

E. R. 12, 1065
Carleton v.’Darcy, 75 N.Y. 375, 1047
Carleton v. People, 10 Mich. 250,

217, 545
Carleton v. Rugg, 149 Mass. 550, 1127

 

Carleton v. Townsend, 28 Cal. 219, 31
Carli v. Rhener, 27 Minn. 292, S.
217

C.7N. W. R. 139,
Carlin v. Brackett, 38 Minn. 307,

8. C. 37 N. W. R. 342, 1178
Carlisle v. Cooper, 21 N. J. Eq.

576, 301
Carlisle v. Cowan, 85 Tenn. 165,

S.C. 28. W. RB. 26, 310, 313
Carlisle v. Gaar, 18 Ind. 177, 163
Carlisle v. State, 32 Ind. 55, 309
Carlisle v. Tuttle, 30 Ala. 613, 508
Carlisle v. Wilson, 13 Ves. 276, 301

Carlton v. Commonwealth (Ky.),
18S. W. BR. 535,
Carlton v. Miller, 2 Tex. Civ.
App. 619, 8. C. 21S. W.R. 697, 1047
Carlyle, etc., Co. v. City of Car-
lyle, 31 Ill. App. 325, 1145
Carman v. Pultz, 21 N. Y. 547, 149
Carmichael vy. Adams, 91 Ind. 526, 643
Carmien v. Whitaker, 36 Ind.
509, 1194
Carmikle y. Cox, 58 Ind. 183, 1048
Carmody v. State, 105 Ind. 546, 163
Carnahan v. Chenoweth, 1 Ind.
App. 178, 1167
Carnal v. People, 1 Park. Cr. (N.
Y.) 272 667
199

Carney v. Dewing, 10 Cush. 498,
Carnochan v. Christie, 11 Wheat.

(U. 8.) 446, 595, 600
Carolan v. Carolan, 4 Ark. 511, 336
Carpenter’s Case, 14 Pa. St. 486, 298
Carpenter v. Ambroson, 20 Ill.

170, 737
Carpenter v. Bristol, 21 Pick. 258, 162
Carpenter v. Butterfield, 3 Johns.

Cas. (N. Y.) 145, 377
Carpenter v. Dame, 10 Ind. 125,

502, 646

Carpenter v. First Nat. Bank, 119

Ill. 352, : 669
Carpenter v. Ginder, 1 Wis. 248, 518
Carpenter v. Joliet Bank, 119 Il.

352, 1070
Carpenterv. Lockhart, 1 Ind.434, 394
Carpenter v. People, 8 Col. 116,

121, 170

Carpenter v. Reynolds, 58 Wis.

666, 1184
Carpenter v. Sherfy, 71 Tl. 427, 1191
Carpenter v. State, 43 Ind. 371, 1067
Carpenter v. Strange, 141U. 8.87, 271
Carpenter v. Ward, 30 N. Y. 248, 721
Carpenter v. Welch, 40 Vt. 251, 402
Carpenter v. Willey, 65 Vt. 168,

8. C. 26 Atl. R. 488,
Carpenter v. Wood,

(Mass.) 409,

1 Mete.
592

c

1124, 1218
Ixvill

TABLE OF. CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.]

Carpentier v. Mendenhall, 28 Cal.

484, 551
Carr’s Adm’r v. Carr (Ky.), 188.

W. R. 453, 445
Carr v. Boone, 108 Ind. 241, 713, 1216
Carr v. Fife, 44 Fed. R. 713, 224
Carr v. Haskett, 110 Ind. 152, 1130
Carr v. Lewis, 15 Mo. App. 551, 499
Carr v. Lewis, 96 Mo. 149, 8S. W.

R. 907,

Carr v. Lewis, etc., Co., 96 Mo.

149, 8. C.9 Am. St. R. 328,

1139, 1145
Carr v. Schaefer, 15 Col. 48, S. C.

24 Pac. R. 873, 533
Carr v. State, 127 Ind. 204, 120
vane Sullivan, 68 Hun (N. Y.)
Carr v. Thomas, 34 Ind. 292,
Carrico v. McGee, 1 Dana (Ky.)

524

6,

Carrico v. Tarwater, 103 Ind. 86, 445

Carrico v. West Virginia, etc.,
R’y Co., 35 W. Va. 389, 8. C.
148. E. R.12,

Carrigan v. Drake, 36 So. Car.
354, 8. C. 15 S. E. R. 339,

Carrington v. Andrews, 12 Abb.
Pr. R. 348, 209, 224

Carrington v. Hancock, 23 Mo.
App. 299,

Carrol v. Upton, 3 N. Y. 272,

Carroll County Savings Bank v.
Strother, 28 So. Car. 504, S.C.
68. E. R. 318,

Carroll v. Bancker, 43 La. Ann,
1195, S.C. 10 So. R. 187,

Carroll vy. Interstate, etc., Co.,
107 Mo. 653, 8. C.17 8. W. R.

499

721
344

1163
555

413
610

889, 1051
Carroll v. eee 18 N. Y. Supl.
290, 8. C. 63 Hun 380, 804

Carroll v. Lee, 3 Gill & J. (Md.)
504, 8. C. 22, Am. Dec. 350,
Carroll a Lessee, 16 How. (U.
S.) 275
Carroll v. Little, 73 Wis. 52, S. C.
40 N. W.R. 582,
Carroll v. McCullough, 63 N. H.
95,
Carroll v. State, 5 Neb. 31,
Carroll vy. Williston, 44 Minn.
287, S. C. 46 N. W. R. 352,
Carrothers v. Carrothers, 107 Ind.
530, ~ 1048, 1226, 1233
Carrow y. People, 113 Ill. 550, 639
’ Carskadden vy. Poorman, 10 Watts
(Pa.) 82, 8. C. 56 Am. Dee. 145, 714
Carsley v. Lindsay, 14 Cal. 390, 599

609

1220

290
815

1079

 

Carson v. Commissioners, 64 N.
Car. 566, 338

Carson v. Dunham, 149 Mass. 52, 486

Carson v. Earlywine, 14 Ind. 256,

576, 594
Carson v. Sheldon, 51 Mo. 436, 429
Carter’s Heirs v. Cutting, 8 Cranch

251, 264
Carter v. Deals, 44 N. H. 408, 1168
Carter v. Bennett, 6 Fla. 214, 524, 715
Carter v. Bennett, 15 How. "354, 1170
Carter v. Camden, etc., 49 N. dhs

L. 600, S. C. 10 Atl. R. 108, 1129
Carter v. Carter, 82 Va. 624, 409
Carter v. Carter, 109 Mass. 806, 599
Carter v. Humbolt Ins. Co., 12 Ia.

287, 385
Carter v. Oliver Oil Co., 34 8. Car.

211, 8. C. 27 Am. St. R. 815, 1056
Carter v. Penn, 79 Ga. 747, 454
Carter v. State, 86 Neb. 481, 8. C.

54.N. W. Rep. 853, 799
Carter v. State, 56 Ga. 463, 652
Carter v. State, 22 Fla. 553, 543
Carter v. State, 42 La. Ann. 927,

8. C. 8 So. R. 836, 171
Carter v. Tallant (Kan.), 32 Pac.

R. 1108, 607

Carter v. Van Zandt Co., 75 Tex.
286, 1163

Carter Tages ae v. Clay (Tex. Mg
108. W. R. 2

Carthage Co. 7 Andrews, go”
Ind. 138, 621, 739

Cartier v. Troy Lumber Co., 35
Ill. App. 449;

Cartier v. Troy Lumber Co., 138
Tll. 533, 8. C. 14 L. R. A. 470, , 1069

821

Cartledge v. Cutliff, 21 Ga. 1, 586
Cartright v. Bamberger, 90 Ala.
405, 8. C. 8 So. R. 264, 529
Cartright v. Clopton, 25 Ga. 85,
678, 818
Cartwell v. Meniffe, 2 Ark. 356, ” 605
Caruth v. Grigsby, 57 Tex. 259, 1068
Carver v. Carver, 64 Ind. 194, 610
Carver v. Carver, 83 Ind. 368, 1155
Carver y. Carver, 97 Ind. 497,
110, "1050
Carver v. Corrs 7 Robt. (N. Y,
Sup. Ct.) 286 601
Carver v. Louthain, 88 Ind. 530, 420
Carver v. Williams, 10-Ind. 267, 1197
Cary v. Bancroft, 14 Pick. (Mass. )
315, 8. C. 25 Am. Dec. 393, 401
Cary v. Cary, 39 N. J. Eq. 20, 477
Cary v. Herrin, 62 Me. 16, 200
Casco Nat. Bank v. Shaw, 79 Me.
376, 8. C. 1 Am. St. R. 319, 621
TABLE OF CASES.

lxix

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1 244,]

Case of Clore, 8 Gratt. 606, 660

-Case of Coleman, 2 City H. Rec.

89,
Case of Emery, 107 Mass. 172,
Case of Hardy, 24 How. State Tr.
755,
Case of the Marshelsea, 10 Coke

76,
Ce of Murdock, 2 Bland. Ch.
ae ’etc., Co. v. Miracle. 54 Wis.
?
Case Threshing Machine Co. v.
Haven, 65 Ia. 359,
Case v. Ins. Co., 83 ‘Cal. 473, 8. C.
23 Pac. R. 534, 385
Case v. Moore, 31 Ala. 758, 473
Case v. Plato, 54 Iowa 64, 8. C. 6
N. W. RB. 128, 182, 1198, 1203
Case v. State, 5 Ind. 1, 214, 216
Casebolt v. Ackerman, 46 N.J.L.
384

169,
1208

657
781

779
214

471
390

Coenen v. Ringgold, 28 Cal.
2

Caséy v. Adams, 102 U. S. 66,
Casey v. Cincinnati, etc., Co., 45

Fed. R. 185, 8. C. 12 Lawy. R.

Anno. 193,

Casey v. State, 20 Neb. 138, S. C.

29'N. W. R. 264,

Casey v. Tama Co., 75 Iowa, 655,

8. C. 37 N. W. R. 138, 543
Casily v. State, 32 Ind. 62, 159, 161
Caskey v. City of Greensburgh,

78 Ind. 233, 232
Cason v. Cason, 31 Miss. 578,
Caspar v. O’Brien, 15 Abb. Pr.

(N. Y.) N.S. 402,

482
1114

738

Cass v. Higenbotam, 100 N.Y. 248, 400

Cass v. Krimbill, 39 Ind. 357, 161, 234
Cass v. New York, etc., R. R. Co.,
1E. D. Smith (N. Y.) 522, 395
Cass v. Williams, 46 Ind. 253, 469
Cassel v. Case, 14 Ind. 393, 190
Cassiday v. Conway, 25 Pa. St. 244, 34
Cassidy v. Woodward, 77 Towa 354, 445
Castle v. Bullard, 23 How. (U. 8.)
172,
Castle v. Burditt, 3 T. R. 623,
Castleton v. Sherry, 42 Tex. 59,
Castner v. Richardson, 18 Col.
496, S. C. 33 Pac. R. 163, 1140
Castner v. Sliker, 33 N. J. L. 95, 740
Castrique v. Imrie, L. R., 4 H. L.
414, 302
Caswell v. Bunch, 77 Ga..504, 313
Cates v. Knight, 3 T. R. 442, 337
Cates v. Loftus, 3 A. K. Marsh.
(Ky.) 204, 31

480 |

 

Cates v. Mayes (Tex.), 12 8. W.
R. 51,

621
Cates v. Thayer, 93 Ind. 156, 514
Cates v. Winter, 3 Term R. 306, 506
Catham Furnace Co. v. Moffait,

147 Mass. 403, "4145
Cathcart v. Peck, 11 Minn. 45, 183
Catlett v. Dougherty, 114 Ill. 568, 602
Catlett v. McDonald, 18 La. 44, 488
Catlin v. Gladding, 4 Mason 308, 311
Catlin v. Green, 120 N. Y. 441, 376
Catlin v. Wheeler, 49 Wis. 507, 337
Catlin v. Wilcox, 123 Ind. 477, 409

Catlin, ete., Co. v. Valentine, 9
Paige 575, S.C. 38 Am. Dec. 567, 483
Cattell v. Dispatch Pub. Co., 88
Mo. 356, 1121
Cattell v. Simons, 6 Beav. 304, 1216

Cauldwell v. Curry, 93 Ind. 363,
165, 325
Caulfield v. Hudson, 3 Cal. 390, 256

Caughey v. Northern, etc., Co., 51
Minn.324, 8.C.53 N.W.R.545, 1200
Cavanaugh v. Fuller, 9 Kan. 238, 1199
Cavanaugh v. Smith, 84 Ind. 380, 318

Cave y. State, 41 Tex. 182, 1074
Caviel v. Coleman, 72 Tex. 550, 213
Cecconi v. Rodden, 147 Mass. 164,
S.C. 16 N.E. R. 749, 718, 1232
Cecil v. Cecil, 19 Md. 72, S. C. 81
‘Am. Dec. 626, 274

Cedar Lake, etc., Co., v. Cedar
Lake, etc., Co., 79 Wis. 297, S.

C. 48 N. W. R. 371, 1176 ~
Cefret v. Burch, 1 Blackf. 400, 508
Celluloid Mfg. Co. v. Arlington,

etc., Co., 47 Fed. R. 4, 509

Center v. McQuesten, 24 Kan. 480, 475
Center v. Spring, 2 Ia. 393, 544
Center Tp. v. Board, 110 Ind. 579,
639, 1200
Central Bank v.Gibson, 11 Ga.453, 248
Central Baptist Church v. Man-
chester, 17 R. I. 492, 8. C. 23
Atl. R. 30,
Central, ete. ., Co. v. Placer, 48

528

Cal. 365, 241.
Central, etc., Co. v. Standard,etc.,

Co., 83 N. J. Eq. 372, 492
Central, etc., Co. v. State, 110 Ind.

208, 484
Central, etc., R. R. Co. v. OralEs

59 Ga. 185,
Central Iowa, etc., Co. v. eG

65 Ia. 498, 8. 0. 22 N.W.R. 648, | 154

Central R. R. Co. v. Mitchell, 63

Ga. 178, 658
Central R. R. Co. v. Moore, 24 N.
J. L. 824, 1041, 1045
lxx

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.}

Central Transp. Co. v. Pullman
Palace Car , 1389 U.S. 24, 8.
C. 11 Sup. Ct. e 478,
1039, 1044, 1049, 1051
Central Trust Co. v. St. Louis, ete. 5
R. R. Co., 41 Fed. R. 551,
Central Union, etc., Co. v. "State,
110 Ind. 203, 492, 1230
Central Vt. R. R. Co. v. Soper, 59
Fed. R. 879, 1079
Centralia, etc, R. R.Co.v. Brake,
125 Il. 393, S.C. 17 N.E.R. 820, 559
Cerro Gordo County v. Wright
County, 59 Ia. 485, 255
582
706

497

Chadbourn v. Chadbourn, 9 Allen
(Mass.) 178,

Chadbourn v. Franklin, 5 Gray
312,

Chadbourne v. Sumner, 16 N. H.
129, S.C. 41 Am. Dec. 720, 455, 468

Chadron School District v. Foster,

81 Neb. 501,8.C.48 N.W. R. 267, 559:
‘Chadwick v. Chadwick, 52 Mich.

545, 919
Chafee v. Postal Tel., etc., Co., 35

8.Car. 372, S.C.14S8. E.R. 764, 610
Chaffee v. Hooper,54 Vt.513, 245, 341
Chaffee v. Old Colony, etc., R. R.

Co., 17 R. I. 658, S. C. 24 Atl.

R. 141, 548
Chaffee v. Quidnick Co., 13 R. I.

442, 282

Challen v. Cincinnati, 40 Ohio St.

1138, 1170
Chalmers v. Melville, 1 E.D.Smith

(N.Y.) 502, 521
Chamberlain v.Bittersohn,48 Fed.

R. 42, 435
Chamberlain v. Gaillard, 26 Ala.

504, 675
Chamberlain v. Lincoln,129 Mass.

70, 589
Chamberlain v. Sands,27 Me.458, 794
Chamberlin v. Blodgett, 96 Mo.

482, S.C. 108. W. R. 44, 448
Chamberlin v. Chamberlin, 116

Ill. 480, 8S. C.6 N. E. R. 444, — 1067
Chamberlin v. Fuller, 59 Vt. 247,

S.C. 9 Atl. R. 832, 553
Chambers, Ex parte, 10 Mo. App.

240, 630
Chambers v. Butcher, 82 Ind.508,

Chambers v. Cooks, 42 Ala. 171,
S. C. 94 Am. Dec. 637,
Chambers v. Hodges, 23 Tex. 104,
218, 224
Chambers v. Hunt, 22N.J.L.552, 509
Chambers v. Hunt, 3 Harr. (N.
J.) 354, 2]

602

 

Chambers v. Jones, 72 Ill. 275, 293
Chambers v. Lane, 5 Mo. 289, 620
Chambers v. People, 105 Ill. 409,
1069, 1074
Chamble v. Tarbox, 2 Tex. 189, 32
Chamble v. Tribble, 23 So. Car. 70, 112
Chamnéss y. Ghamness, 53 Ind.

801, 1069
Champv. Kendrick, 130 Ind. 549, 479
Champion v. Doughty, 18 N.J.L.

3 306

Chance v. Branch, 58 Tex. 490, 370
Chandler v. Beal, 132 Ind. 596, 8.

C. 35 N. E. Rep. 597,

Chandler Vv. Colcord. 1 Okl. 260,

8. C. 32 Pac. R. 330, 623
Chandler v. Hanna, 73 Ala. 390, 258
Chandler v. Horne, 2 M. & Rob.

423, 696
Chandler v. Hough, 7 La. Ann.

440, 909
Chandler v. Jost, 96 Ala. 596, S.

C. 11 So. R. 636, 535, 1071
Chandler v. Nash, 5 Mich. 409, 115
Chandler v. Shehan, 7 Ala. 251, 29
Chandler v. Thompson, 30 Fed.

823

R. 38,

Chandler v. Von Roeder, 24 How.
524, 715

287

(U.S8.) 224,
Chaney v. Bryan, 15 Lea 589,
Channon v. Kerber, 44 Ill. App.

269, 1068
Channon y. Parkhouse, 13 C. B.

(N. S.) 341, 628
Chapin v. James, 11 R.T. 86,8. C.

23 Am. R. 412, 299
Chapin v. Siger, 4 McLean C. C.

378, , 894
Chaplin v. Rogers, 1 East 192, * 560
Chaplin v. Sullivan, 128 Ind. 50, 1109
Chapman v. Armistead, 4 Munt.

(Va.) 382, 1104
Chepmen v. Barney, 129 U. S.

832, 1214
Gh aaney Chicago, etc., Co. , 26

Wis. 295, 8. C.7 Am. R. 81, 1077
Chapman v. City Council, 28 8.

Car. 373, 8. C. 13 Am. St. R.

681, 1211
Chapman v. Colby, 47 Mich. 46, 557
Chapman v. Cooley, 12 Rich. i.

(S. Car.) 654, 807
Chapman v. Goodrich, 55 Vt. 354, 377
Chapman vy. Loomis, 36 Conn.

459, 781
Chapman v. Mayor, 55 Ga. 566, 549
Chapman v. McCormick, 86 N. e

479, 526, 1063
Chapman v. Morgan, 2 Greene
(Iowa) 374, 248, 304
TABLE OF CASES,

lxxi

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 608-1244.)

Chapman v. Morgan, 2G. Greene
(Ia.) 544, 333
Chapman v.Seccomb, 36 Me. 102, 586
Chapman v. State, 5 Blekf. 111, 143
Chapman v. Wilkinson, 22 Iowa,
541, 180
Chappell v. Allen, 38 Mo. 213,
525, 1071

Chappell v. Funk, 57 Md. 465, ° 1178
Chardon v. Oliphant, 6 Am. Dec.

572, 384
Charles v. Amos, 10 Col. 272, 604
Charles v. Morrow, 99 Mo. 638, 8.

C. 128. W. R. 903, 445
Charles River Bridge v. Warren

Bridge, 11 Peters, 420, 98
Charleston School Tp. v. Hay, 74

Ind. 127, 377
Charlotte v. Choteau, 33 Me. 194, 545
Charnock v. Dewings, 3 Car. &

K. 378, 695
Chase, Ex parte, 43 Ala. 303, 630
Chase’s Case, 17 Am. Dec. 277, 495
Chase’s Case, 1 Bland Ch. (Md.)

206, S C.17 Am. Dec. 277, 194
Chase v. Blodgett, 10 N. H. 22, 307
Chase v. Cartright, 53 Ark. 353;

S. C. 22 Am. St. RB. 207, 373
Chase v. Christianson, 41Cal. 258, 245
Chase vy. Flagg, 48 Me. 182, 284
Chase v. Hathway, 14 Mass. 222, 289
Chase v. Horton, 143 Mass. 118, 1068
Chase v. Kaynor, 78 Iowa 449, 8.

C. 43 N. W. Rep. 269, 446
Chase y. Lee, 59 Mich. 237, 8. C.

26 N. W. R. 483, & 704
Chase v. Searles, 45 N. H. 511,. 498
Chase v. Springvale Mills, 75 Me.

156, 512
Chase v. Weston, 75 Iowa, 159, S.

C. 39 N. W. R. 246,

Chateaugay, etc., Co. v. Blake,

144 U. 8. 476, 179
Chateaugay, etc., Co. v. Petition-

er, 128 U. §. 544, 1222, 1237
Chatfield v. Williams, 85 Cal.518, 389
Chattanooga, etc., R. R. Co. v.

Jackson, 86 Ga. 676, 620
Chattanooga, etc., R. R. Co. v.

Palmer, 89 Ga. 161, 8S. C. 1558.

E. RB. 34, ; 1114
Chealey v. Brewer, 7 Mass. 259, 197
Cheatam v. Whitman, 86 Ky.614, 331
Cheatham y. Brien, 40 Tenn. 552, 146
Cheathant v. Wilber,, 1 Dak. 335,

8. C. 46 N. W. R. 580, 1078
Cheathman, Ex parte, 1 Eng.

(Ark.)531, §.C. 44 Am. Dec. 525, 430
Cheathman v.Morrison, 37 S.Car.
187, 8. C. 15.8. E. R. 924, 608

218 |.

 

Cheek v.City, 92 Ind. 107, 366
Cheek vy. Merchants’ Bank, etc.,

9 Heisk. 489, 148, 146
Cheely v. Clayton, 110 U.S. 701,

8. C. 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 328, 288
Cheethman vy. Lewis, 3 Johns (N.

Y.) 42, 377
Cheever v. Wilson, 9 Wall. 108, 288
Cheg Gong v. Stearns, 16 Ore. 219,

17 Pac. R. 871, 1242
Chemical Nat. Bank y. Kissane,

82 Fed. R. 429, 379

.Chemical Works v. Hecker, 11

Blatché. (U. 8.) 552, 30
Chenery v. Fitchburg R. R. Co.

-(Mass.), 85 N. E. R. 554, _ 1079
Cheney v. Harding, 21 Neb. 68,

454, 457

Cheney v. Martin, 127 Mass. 304, 591

Cheney v. Smith, 42 Ga. 50, 624
Chenoweth v. Lessee of Haskell,

3 Pet. 92, 1025
Cherokee, etc., Co. v. Wilson, 47
Kan. 460, S. C. 28 Pac. R. 178,
Cherry v. Mississippi Ins. Co., 16

Lea (Tenn.) 292,
Cherry Creek v. Becker, 123 N.
Y. 161, 8. C. 25 N. E. R. 369,
165, 324
Chesapeake, etc., Co. v. Hickey
(Ky.), 22'S. W. R. 441, "1200
Chesapeake, etc., Co. v. Macken-
zie,74 Md. 36,8.C. 21 Atl.R. 690, 345
Chesapeake, etc., Co. vy. Patton, 5

620
459

W. Va. 234, 488
Chesapeake & O. 8. W. R. R. Co.

v. Barlow, 86 Tenn. 537, 1123
Chesapeake, etc., R. R. Co. v.

Heath, 87 Ky. 651, 613
Chesapeake, etc., Ry. Co. v. Pat-

ton, 9 W. Va. 648, 1118

Chesapeake Ins. Co. v. Stark, 6
Cranch. (U. 8.) 268, 1105
Chesley v. Chesley, 10 N.H.327, 579
Chesley v. Chesley, 37 N. H.229, 800
Chesney v. Meadows, 90 Ill. 430, 1071
Chess v. Chess, 1 Pen. & W. 32,

8. C. 21 Am. Dec. 340, 803
Chess v. State, 1 Blackf. 198, 308
Chester v. Bower, 55 Cal. 46, 179
Chester v. Wilhelm, 111 N. Car.

314, S. C. 16 S. E. R. 229, 795
Chester & T. Coal & R. R. Co. v.

Lickiss, 72 Ill. 521, 431
. Chestnutt v. Pollard, 77 Tex. 86,

8. C. 138. W. R. 852, 149, 1147
Chews v. Driver, 1 N. J. L. 166, 1124

Chicago v. McCarthy, 75 111.602, 549
Chicago v. Moore, 139 Ill. 201, 8.
C. 28 N. E. R. 1071, 546
lxxii

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.]

Chicago v. Rogers, 61 Il. 188,
Chicago, Anderson, etc., Co. v.
Reinneiger, 140 Ill. 334, S. C.
29 N. E. R. 1106,
Chicago, B. & Q. R. R. Co. v. An-
derson (Neb.),56 N.W.R. 794, 1081
Chicago, B. & Q.R. R. Co. v. Fitz-
gerald, 40 Ill. App. 476,
Chicago, B. & Q. R. R. Co. v.
Goracke, 32 Neb. 90, S. C. 48 N.
W. R. 879, 705
Chicago, B. & Q. R. R. Co. v.
Landauer, 36 Neb. 642, S. C. 54
N. W. R. 976, 548, 1053
Chicago, B. & Q. R. R. Co. v.
Manning, 23 Neb. 552, S. C. 37
N. W. R. 462, 441
Chicago oe R. R. Co. v. Wilcox
(Ill.), we pe R. 419, 8. C. 8:
L. R. A. 4 1076
Chicago City Ry . Co. v.Van Vleck,
143 111.480,S. C. 32 N.E. R. 262,
1043, 1052
Chicago Dock & Canal Co. v. Kin-
zie, 93 Ill. 415, 432
Chicago, etc.,v. Jones,103 Ind.386, 178
Chicago, etc., Co. v. Bills, 104 Ind.
18, 70
Chicago, etc., Co., a. Bragonier,
13 Bradw. (Ill.) 4
Chicago, etc., Co. . Burlington,
etc., Co., 34 Fed. R. 481, 487
Chicago, ete., Co. v. Carson, 183
Ind. 49, S. C. 32 N. E. R. 827, 195
Chicago, etc., Co. v. Chamberlain,
84 Il. 333, 165, 317, 324
Chicago, etc., Co. v. Dey, 76 Ia.
279, S.C. 41 N. W. RB. 17, 1187
Chicago, etc., Co. v. Dimick, 96
Thi. 4 1170
Gees etc., Co. v. Estes, 71 Ia.
608, 8. C. 33 N. W. R. 124, 490
152

1110

1091

536

Chicago, etc., Co. v. Greiney, 137
Ill. 628, 8. C. 25 N. E. R. 798,
Chicago, etc., Co. v. Harper, 128

Til. 384, 1235
Chicago, ‘ete., Co. v. Johnson, 34

Ill. App _ 351, 1239
Chicago, Fie, Co. v. Moss, 60 Miss.

641 120

’
Chicago, etc., Co. v. Robinson, 16
Ill. App. 229, 800
Chicago, etc., Co. v. Snyder, 128
Tll. 655, S. C. 25 N. E. R. 520, 1061
Chicago, etc., Co. v. Stewart, 47
Kan. 704, 8. C.28 Pac. R.1017, 778
Chicago, etc., Co. v. Stewart, 19
Fed. R. 5, 572
Chicago, etc., Co. v. St. Jo, ete.,
Co., 38 Fed. R. 58, 478

 

Chicago, etc., Co. v. Summers, 113

Ind. 10, 8. C. 3 Am. St. R.616, 218
Chicago, etce., Co. v. Sutton, 130

Ind. 405, S. C. 30 N. E. R. 291,

126, 133, 168, 240, 260

Chicago, etc.,Co. v. United States,

etc., Co., 57 Pa. St. 83, 195
Chicago, ete., Co. v. Williams, 131

Ind. 30, 1025
Chicago, ete., Co. v. Yando, 127

Ill. 214, 182
Chicago, etc., R.R. Co. v. Adler,

56 Il. 344, 658
Chicago, etc., R. R. Co. v. Avery,

109 Ill. 314,
Chicago, etc., R. R. Co. v. Bills,

118 Ind. 221, 378
Chicago, etc., R. R. Co. v. Boyce,

73 Il. 510,
Chicago, ete., R. R. Co. v. Brown,

44 Kan. 384, 8. C. 24 Pac. R. 497,
Chicago, etc., R. R. Co. v. Bur-

ger, 124 Ind. 275, 8. C. 24.N. E.

R. 981, 526
Chicago, etc., R. R. Co. v. Fisher,

141 Il. 614, 8. C. 31 N. E.R.

406, 658, 663
Chicago, etc., R. R. Co. v. Goy-

ette, 32 Ill. App. 574, 620
Chicago, etc., R.R. Co. v. Hughes,

28 Mich. 186, 591
Chicago, etc., R. R. Co. v. Lam-

bert, 119 Ill. 255, S.C. 10 N. E.

Rep. 219, 740
Chicago, etc., R. R. Co. v. Lewis,

109 Hl. 120, 1055
Chicago, etc., R. R. Co. v. Mason,

512

11 Ill. App. 525, 473
Chicago, ete., R. R. Co. v. McAu-

ley, 121 Ill. 160, 369
Chicago, ete., R. R. Co. v. McLal-

len, 84 Il]. 109, 545.
Chicago, ete., R. R. Co. v. Ohle,

117 U. 8. 123, 543
Chicago, etc., R. R. Co. v. Pen-

nell, 110 Ill. 435, 534
Chicago, etc., R. R. Co. v. Shenk,

131 Il. 283, 742

Chicago, etc., R. R. Co., v. Ra
der, 128 Til. 655, 8. C. Ol N E.
R. 520,

Chicago, etc., R’y

e a Ill. 126,
icago, etc., Ry. Co. v. Hay, 119
Ill. 493, 7 ye 873

Chicago, etc., Ry. Co. v. Loeb, 118
TI]. 208 369

Chicago, K. & W. RB. R. Co. as
Parsons, 51 Kan. 408, 8. C.
Pac. R. 1083,

1081
Co. v. Bryan,
677

* 082
TABLE OF CASES.

lxxili

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. HI, ) pp. GO8-1244.]

Chicago Lumber Co. v. Merri-
mack, etc., Bank (Kan.), 34
Pac. R. 1045, 1024

Chicago Packing, ete., Co. v. Til-
ton, 87 Ili. 547, 560

Chicago, P. & St. L. Ry. Co. v.
Lean, 41 Ill. App. 584; 813

Chicago, P. & St. L. R. R. Co. v.
Lewis, 145 Tl. 67, 8. C. 83 N. E.
R. 960,

Chicago, St. P. & M. O. R. R.
Co. v. Gilbert, 53 Fed. R. 711, 1075

Chicago, St. L. "& P. R’y Co. ¥.
Burger, 124 Ind. 275,

"530, 1104, 1107

Chicago, St. L. & P. R. R. Co. v.
Champion, 36 Cent. L. Jour.

280 812.

Chicago, St. L. & P. R. R. Co. v.
Champion (Ind.), 36 N. E.R.
221, 812

Chicago, St. L.& P. R. R. Co. v.
Fenn, een App. 250, 8. C. 29
N. E. R.7

Chicago, St. ve & P.R. R: Co. v.
Fry, 181 Ind. 319,

Chicago, St. L. & P. R. BR. Co.yv.
_Spilker, 134 Ind. 380,

Chicago & A.R. R. v. Fisher, 141
Ill. 614, 8. C. 31 N.E. R. 406,
Chicago & A. R. R. Co. v. Adler,

56 Ill. 344,

Chicago & A. R. R. Co. ¥. Kelly,
127 Ill. 637, 8. C. 21 N. E. R.
208,

Chicago & A. R. R. Co. v. Rag-

534
1103
1076
1069

663

536
land, 84 Ill. 375, 474
Chicago & A. RB. B.Co. v. Shenk,
131 Ill. 283, 742
Chicago & A. R. R. Co. v. Smith,
78 Ill. 96, 437
Chicago & Eastern Ill. R. R. Co.
v. Boggs, 101 Ind. 522, 8. C. 51
Am. R. 761,
Chicago & Eastern Ill. R. R. Co.
y. Ostrander, 116 Ind. 259,
525, 546, 1095
Chicago & I. Coal Ry. Co. v. Mc-

547

Daniel, 134 Ind. 166, 1118, 1119
Chicago & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Ash-

ling, 34 Ill. App. 99, 549
Chichester v. Cande, 3 Cowen 50,

8. C. 15 Am. Dec. 238, 187
Chilcote v. Conley, 86 Ohio St.

545, 475
Child v. Jackson, 93 Mich. 508, S..

C. 53 N. W.R. ’629, 1141
Childs v. McChesney, 20 Ia. 431,

8. C. 89 Am. Dec. 545, 182
Childs v. Smith, 55 Barb. 45, 298

1075 |

 

Childs v. State, 76 Ala. 93, 1074
Childress v. Dickins, 8 Yerg.

(Tenn.) 113, 473
Chiles v.Conley,2 Dana (Ky.) 21, 549
Chilton v.Campbell, 20 Beay. 531, 480
Ching v. Ching, 6 Vesey 282, 572
Chinn vy. Bretches, 42 Kan. 316,

8. C. 22 Pac. R. 426, 404, "1047
Chipman y. Waterbury, 59 Conn.

496, 8. C. 22 Atl. R. 289,
Chippendale v. Masson, 4 Camp.

115

704
Chippewa Lumber Co. v. Phoenix

Ins. Co., 80 Mich. 116, 589
Chism v. Schipper, 61 N. J. L.1,
8. C.2L. R. A. 544, 601

Chissom v. Barbour, 100 Ind. 1,
186, 192, 630
Chittenden v. Hobbs, 9 Ia. 417, 438
Chittenden v. Methodist, etc., Ch.,
8 How. Pr. 327, i178, 1182
Chivington v. Colorado, etc., Co. 5
9 Col. 597, 1195
Choen v. State, 35 Ind. 209, 823
Chollar, etc., ‘Co. v. Wilson, 66.

Cal. 374, 298
Cholmondeley v. Clinton, 2 Jac.

& W.1, 370, 376
Choteau v. Thompson, 3 Ohio St.

424, 518
Chouteau v. Jupiter Iron Works,

83 Mo. 73, 558
Chouteau v. Rice, 1 Minn. 24, 1178

Chouteau v. Searcy, 8 Mo. 738, 516,524
Chouteau v. Sherman, 11 Mo. 385, 465
Chrisman vy. Chrisman, 16 Ore.

127, 8. C. 18 Pac. R. 6, 558
Christal v. Kelly, 88 N.Y. 285, 609
Christein, Matter of, 11 J. &S.(N.

Y.) 523, 180

Christian v. State, 86 Ga. 430, S.

C.128. E. R. 645, 712
Christian v.Williams,111 Mo. 429,

8. C. 208. W. R. 96, 457, 458
Christian Jensen Co., Re, 128 N.

Y. 550, 493
Christian Union v. Yount, 101 U.

S. 352, 275

Christie v. “Barnes, 33 Kan. 317,
8. OC. 6 Pac. R. 599, "1027

Christie v. Bogardus, 1 Barb. Ch.
167, 488

Christin v. Erwin, 125 Ill. 619, 8.
C.17N. E. R. 707, 559

Chany v. Garrity (Ky. ), 22 SW.
R. 158, 607

Christy v. Horne, 24 Mo. 242, 413

Chrysler v. Renois, 43 N.Y. 209, 1192

Chubbuck v. Cleveland, 37 Minn.
466, S. C.5 Am. §St. R. 864, 458, 613
lxxiv

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.]

Chuck vy. Cremer, 1 Cooper’s Ch.
205, 12
Church vy. Chicago,
(Mo.), 23 S. W. R. 1056,
Church v. City of Milwaukee, 31
Wis. 512,
Church vy. Crossman, 41 Iowa, 373,
83, 1192
Church v. Holyoke Mutual Fire
Ins. Co., 158 Mass. 475, S. C. 33
N. E. R. 572, 740
Church v. Milwaukee, 31 Wis. 512, 8
Church v. Rhodes,6 How. Pr. 281, 338
Churchill v. Welsh, 47 Wis. 39, 177
Churchman v. City of Indianapo--
lis, 110 Ind. 259°
Churchman v. Kansas City, 49
Mo. App. 366, 1231
Chute v. State, 19 Minn. 271, 813
Cicero v. Williamson, 91 Ind. 541, 202
Cicero Tp. v. Picken,122 Ind. 260,
1105, 1146
Cicero Tp. v. The Chicago Nat.
Bank, 127 Ind. 79, 430
Cincinnati v. Bickett, 26 Ohio St.
449
366

371

367

49,

Cincinnati v. Evans, 5 Ohio St.
594,

Cincinnati v. White, 6 Pet. 431,

Cincinnati, etc., Co. v. Belle Cen-
tre, 48 Ohio St. 273, S. C. 27 N.
E. R. 464,

Cincinnati, etc., Co. v. Carper,
112 Ind. 26,

Cincinnati, etc., Co. v. Case, 122
Ind. 310, 1163, 1169

Cincinnati, ete., Co. v. Clifford,
113 Ind. 460,

Cincinnati, etc., Co. v. Gaines,
104 Ind. 526,

Cincinnati, ete., Co. v. Rowe, 17
Ind. 568, 237

608

Cincinnati, ete. Co. v. Smith, 49
Kan. 793, 8. C.31 Pac. R. 664, 1136
Cincinnati, ete., Co. v. Smith, 127
Ind. 461, 491
Cincinnati, etc., R. R. Co.v. Lev-
iston, 97 Ind. 488, 641
Cincinnati, H. & D. R. R. Co.
v. Street, 50 Ind. 225, 454
Cincinnati, I. & St. L. Ry. Co. v.
Smock, 133 Ind. 411, 1064
Cincinnati, I., St. L. & C. R. R.
Co. v. Cooper, 120 Ind. 469, S.
C.6L. R. A. 241, 1064
Cincinnati, I. St. L. & C. R. R.
Co. v. Howard, 124 Ind. 280, S.
C.8L. R. A. 598, 106
Circuit Court, In re, 1 New Zea-
land Court of App. 329,

148

 

Cire v. Rightor, 11 La. 140,
Cissell v. Pulaski Co., 10 Fed. R.

1124

891, 447
Cissell v. Pulaski Co., 3 McCrary
(U. 8.) 446, 451

Citizens’ Bk. v. Bellocq, 19 La.
Ann. 376, 116

Citizens’ Bank v. Bolen, 121 Ind.
301,

Citizens’ Bank v. Brooks, 23 Fed.

1149

R. 21, 189
Citizens’ Bank v. Jorda’s Heirs,

45 La. Ann. 184, 8. C. 11 So. R.

867, 570
Citizens’ Bank v. Payne, 21 La.

Ann. 380, 472
Citizens’ Bank v. Rhutasel, 67 Ia.

316 : 512

Citizens’, ete., Co. v. Harris. 108
Ind. 392, 1231
Citizens’, etc., Co. v. Shenango,
etc., Co., 188 Pa. St. 22, S. C.
20 Atl. R. 947, 121
Citizens’, etc., Co. v. Short, 62
Ind. 316, 798
Citizens’ Ins. Co. v. Harris, 108
Ind. 392, 8. C. 9 N. E. R. 299,
207, 1139
Citizens’ State Bank v. Council
Bluffs, ete., Co. (Ia.), 57 N. W.
R. 444, 1090
Citizens’ Street Ry. Co. v. Wil-
loeby, 134 Ind. 568, 8. C. 83 N.
E. R. 627

City v. Nagle, 113 Ind. 425, 1003
City v. Hardy, 98 Ind. 577, 781
City v. Hudnut, 112 Ind. 542,

91, 712 884
City v. The Mayor, 25 Hun 612, ' 119
City Bank v. Kent, 7 Ga. 283,

784, 1071
City Bank v. Walden, 1 La. Ann.

1066

46, 1178

City Bank v. Young, 43 N. H.457, 508

City Council v. O’Donnell, 29 8.
Car, 355, 8. C.1L. R. A. 632,

City Council of Montgomery v.
Wright, 72 Ala. 411, 8.C.5 Am.
& Eng. Corp. Cas. 642,

City Ins. Co. v. Commercial Bank,
68 Ill. 348,

City of Abilene v. Hendricks, 36
Kan. 196, S.C. 13 Pac. R. 121,
City of Atchison v. Jansen, 21

Kan. 560,
City of Aurora v. Bitner, 100 Ind.
396, 549
City of Aurora v.Cobb,21 Ind. 492, 677
City of Buffalo v. Holloway, 7 N.
Y. 493,

643

1050
281
1067

527
TABLE OF

CASES. lxxv

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.]

way a Camden v. Mulford, 26 N.
City of Chicago v. McCarthy, 75
Til. 602, 549
City of Cincinnati v. Evans, 5
Ohio St. 594, 366
City of Cincinnati v. White, 6
Pet. 431, 371
City of Columbus v. Bidlingmeier,
7 Ohio Cire. Ct. R. 136,
City of Columbus v. Strassner
nd.) 34. N. E.R. 5, 633
City of Delphi v. Lowery, 74 Ind.
52 712, 1206
City of Delphi v. Startzman, 104
Ind. 443, 484
City of Denver v. Brown, 11 Col.

324

337, S. C. 18 Pac. R. 214, 472
City of Des Moines v. Layman, 21
Ta. 153, 1129

a of Elgin v. Goff, 38 Ill. App.
6:

25
City of F Evansville v. Blend, 118
In
City of jhyansville v. Martin, 103
Ind. 2 1162, 1163
City of Evansville v. State, 118
Ind. 426, 121
City of Franklin v. Harter, 127
Ind. 446 525
384
366

365
258

City of Ft. "Scott v. Hickman, 112
U.S. 150, 8.C. 5 Sup.Ct.R. 56,
City of Ft. Smith v. McKibbin,

41 Ark. 45,
City of Ft. Wayne vy. Coombs, 107 .
Ind. 75, 516, 524, 716, 740
City of Ft. Wayne v. Patterson, 3
Ind. App. 34, 8.C. 29N.E.R.671, 549
City of Ft. Worth v. Johnson, 84
Tex. 1387, 8. C. 19S. W.R. 361, 549
City of Galveston v. Menard, 23
Tex. 349, 366
City of Grand Rapids v. Perkins,
78 Mich. 98, S. C. 43 N. W. R.
1037, 1081
City of Harrisburg v. Forster, 8
Watts. 12, 367
City of Houston v. Jankowskie,
76 Texas 368, 8. C. 13 S. W. R.
269, 383, 384
City of Indianapolis v. Gilmore,
80 Ind. 414, 398
City of yaeienapols v. Huffer, 30
Ind. 235
City of Indianapolis < v. Merapebany
101 Ind. 200,
City of Indianapolis Vv. ieee
38 Ind. 348, 1036, 1091
‘City of Indianapolis v. McAvoy,
86 Ind. 587, 533

739

 

City of Indianapolis v. Patterson,
83 Ind. 157, 1241
City of Indianapolis v. Patterson,
112 Ind. 344,
City of ene v. Scott, 72
Ind. 196,
ae of Kansas v. Allen, 28 Mo.
p. 133,
city of Kansas v. Knotts, 78 Mo.
56, 214, 219
City ‘of. Lafayette v. Nagle, 113
Ind. 425, 870
City of Lake View v. Tate, 130
Til. 247,58. C.6L. R. A. 268, 545
City of Logansport v. La Rose, 99
Ind. 117, 484
City of Logansport v. Uhl, 99 Ind.
631, 71
City of Logansport v. Wright, 25
Ind. 512, 1151, 1158
sar a. Los Angeles v. Mellus, 58
a
City of “Louievilte v. Sav. Bank,
104 U. S. 469, 379
City of Mattoon v. Fallin, 113 Ill.
249, 1052
City ‘of New Albany v. Ray, 3
Ind. App. 321, 8. C. 29 N.E. R.
611, 1056
City of New Albany v. White, 100
Ind. 206, 484, 1212

City ob. ator vy. Funk, 15 Ohio
St. 4 472

815
1237

‘City oF Noblesville v. Lake Erie

€ Western R. R. Co., 130 Ind.

59
city of North Vernon v. Voegler,
103 Ind. 314, 368, 370, 390
City of Ottumwa v. Schaub, 52
Towa, 515, 134
City of Peru v. Bearss, 55 Ind.
_ 576, 246
City of Philadelphia v. Miller, 49
Pa. St. 440, 245
City of Philadelphia v. Wetherby
15 Phila. 403, 289

City of Plattsmouth v. Boeck, 32
Neb. 297,8.C.49 N.W. R. 167, 1238
City of Richmond v. Davis, 103
Ind. 449, 163
City of Richmond v. Poe, 24 Gratt.
149, 366
371

City of eo Francisco v. Fulde, 37
Cal. 3:
City of Seymour vy. Cummins, 119
Ind. 1 1232
City of oT aac, Baker, re
Til. 563,
City of Somerville v. ie
127 Mass. 272, !
Ixxvi

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.]

City of South Bend v. Hardie, 98
Ind. 577,
City of South Bend v. University
of Notre Dame, 69 Ind. 344,
City of Springfield v. Dalby, 139
Ill. 34, 8. C. 29 N. E. R. 860,
790, 791, 814
City of Springfieldv. Sleeper, 115
Mass. 587, 179
City of St. Joseph v. Farrell, 106
Mo. 487, 170
City of St. Joseph v. Farrell (Mo.),
178. W. R. 497, 170
City of St. Louis v. Missouri Pac.
Ry. Co., 114 Mo. 13, 8. C. 218.
W.R. 202, 1026
City of St. Louis v. Shields, 62
Mo. 247, . 144
City of Topeka v. Boutwell
(Kan.), 35 Pac. R. 819, 1087
City of Topeka v. Heitman, 47
Kan. 739, S.C. 28 Pac.R.1096, 1080
City of Visalia v. Jacob, 65 Cal.
434,8.C.6 Am. & Eng. Corp.
Cases 115,
City of Warsaw v. Dunlap, 112
Ind. 576, 49, 554
City of Westminster v. Shi pley,
68 Md. 610, 8.0.13 Atl. R. 365, 1237
City of # Wheeling v. Campbell, 12
W. Va. 36, 366, 376
City of Wyandotte v. Gibson, 25
Kan. 236, 1093
City of Wyandotte v. White, 13

781
403

366

Kan. 191, 1091, 1097
Clackner vy. State, 33 Ind. 412, 806
Claffin v. Briant, 58.Ga. 414, 413

Claflin v. Houseman, 93 U.S. 130, 337
Clancey v. Losey, 65 Hun (N.Y.)

625, 570
Clancy v. Reis, 5 Wash. 371, S. rs

81 Pac. R. 981,

Clancy v. Stephens, 92 Ala. 57,

8. C.9So. R. 522, 824
Clanton vy. Price, 90 N. Car. 96, 594
Clanton y. Ruffner, 78 Cal. 268, 8S.

C. 20 Pac. R. 676, 628
Clapp v. Beardsley, 1 Vt. 151, 314
Clapp v. Bell, 4 Mass. 99, 469
Clapp v. Bowman, 22 Neb. 198, S.

C. 34.N. W. R. 162, 163
Clapp v. Fullerton, 34 NY. 190, 739
Clapp v. Hawley, 97 N.Y. 610, 182

Clapp v. Martin, 33 Ill. App. 438, 1155

Clapp v. Thaxter, 7 Gray 384, 1186

Clapp v. Thomas, 5 Allen (Mass. F
1040

158,
Clapp v. Wilson, 5 Denio (N. Y.)

285, 801
Claremont v. Carlton, 2 N. H. 369, 533

 

Clarion, etc., Co., v. Hamilton,
127 Pa. St. 1, 8. C. 17 Atl. R.
752, 1199

Clarion Nat. Bank v. Breneman,

114 Pa. St. 315, §. C. 5 Cent. R.

478,. 186
Clark v. Adams, 33 Mich. 159, 453
Clark v. Averhill, 31 Vt. 512, 8. C.

76 Am. Dee. 131, 474
Clark v. Bever, 139 U. S. 96, 803
Clark v. Bigelow, 16 Me. 246, 737
Clark v. Boggs, 6 Ala. 809, 198
Clark v. Bond, 29 Ind. 555, 807
Clark v. Brown, 70 Ind. 405, 1114
Clark v. Bryan, 16 Md. 171, - 604
Clark v. Clough, 62 N. H. 693, 621
Clark v. Commonwealth, 2 Pa.

St. 129, 216

Clark vy. ’Crego, 47 Barb. (N. Y.)
599, 551
Clark v. Dayton, 6 Neb. 192, 528
Clark v. DePew, 25 Pa. St. 509, S.
C. 64 Am. Dec. 717, 181, 1223
Clark v. Deutsch, 101 Ind. 491, 1148
Clark v. Donaldson, 49 How. Pr.

63, 1148, 1207
Clark y. Easton, 146 Mass. 43, 215
Clark v. Fitch, 32 Neb. 511, 8. C.

49N. W.R. 374, 1183
Clark vy. Flint, 22 Pick. 231, 152
Clark v. Gilmer, 28 Ala. 265, 430
Clark v. Hall, 7 Paige, 382, 1202

Clark vy. Hammerle, 27 Mo. 55,
aS 1072
Clark v. Hannibal, etc., R. R. Co.

86 Mo. 202,

Clark v. Hodges, 65 Vt. 273, 8. C.

26 Atl. R. 726, 1219
Clark v. Hogle, 52 I. 427, 582
Clark v. Iowa City, 20 Wall. 583, 366
Clark v. Jeffersonville, ete., Co.,

44 Ind. 248, 481
Clark v. Lamb, 8 Pick. 415, 8. C.

19 Am. Dec. 332, 192
Clark v. Lamb, 2 Allen, 396, 235
Clark v. Lawrence, 6 Jones’ Eq.

(N. Car.) 8 487
Clark v. Liiebridge, 45 Kan. 567,

S. C. 26 Pac. R. 43, 610
Clark v. Lovering, 37 Minn. 120,

S.C. 33 N. W. R. 776, 1216
Clark v. McCrary, 80 Ala. 110, 1227
Clark v. Melton, 19 S. Car. 498,

183, 1192
Clark v. Miller, 89 Pa. St. 242, 873
Clark v. Missouri, etc., Ry. Co 0.,

35 Kan. 350, 1095
Clark v. Moody, 17 Mass. 145, 362
Clark v. Mullenix, 11 Ind. 582, 402
Clark v. Patterson, 58 Vt. 676, 436
TABLE OF CASES.

lxxvii

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.)

Clark v. People, 2 Ill. 117,
Clark v. Pope, 29 Fla. 238, 8.C
10 So. R. 586, 565
Clark v. Rals, 71 Ia. 189, 8. C. 32
N. W. R. 327, 1089
Clark v. Randall, 76 Am. Dec. 252, 564
Clark v. Regelow, 16 Maine, 246, 738
Clark v. Reiniger, 66 Ia. 507, 799
Clark v. Ridgely, 1 Md. Ch. 70,

630

195, 496
Clark v. Roberts, 1 Ill. 285, 469
Clark v. Rugg, 20 Fla. 861, 226,227

Clark v. Sidway, 142 U. S. 682, S.

C. 12 Sup. Ct. R. 327, 1117, 1122
Clark v. Smith, 13 Pet. 195, 270, 275
Clark v. State, ‘4 Ind. 156, 738
Clark v. State, 12 Ohio 483, 8. C.

40 Am. Dec. 481, 778
Clark v. State, 23 Tex. App. 260, 820
Clark v. State, 125 Ind. 1,

185, 1109, ie 1236
Clark v. Tarbell, 58 N.H.8 302
Clark v. Thompson, 47 Til. 35, 8.

C. 95 Am. Dec. 457, 443
Clark v. Trail, 1 Mete. (Ky.) 35, 380
Clark v. Vorce, 15 Wend. (N. Y.)

193, 515
Clark v. Wise, 46 N. Y. 612, 1139
Clark v. Wise, 39 How. Pr. 97,8

C. 46 N. Y. 612,

Clark Civil Tp. v. Brookshire, 114

Ind. 437, 739
‘Clark Co. v. Brod, 3 Ind. App.

585, S. C. 29 N. E. R. 430, 527
Clarke v. Dutcher, 9 Cow. 674, 364

Clarke v. Kane, 37 Mo. App. 258, 182
Clarke v. Mathewson, 15 Pet. 164, 336
Clarke v. Saffery, Ry. & M. 126,
S. C. 21 Eng. Com. L. 715, 737
Clarke v. Warson, 18C. B. N.S.
278, 407
Clarke v. Western Assurance Co. es
146 Pa. St. 561, S. C. 28 Am. St.
R. 821,
Clark’s Appeal, 62 Pa. St. 447,
Clarkson v. Meyer, 14.N. Y. Supp.
144,
Clarkson v. Ryan, 17 Can. Sup.
Ct. 251 170
Clary v. Hoagland, 6 Cal. 685, 322
Clawson v. Lowry, 7 Blackf. 140, 704
Claxton v. Adams, 1 McArthur,

669

496, 514
ed v. City Council of Montgom-

ry (Ala.), 14 So. R. 646, 1159

Olay ¥. Clark, 76 Ind. 161, 1229

Clay v. Clay, 7 Bush 95, 872

Clay v. Hildebrand, 34 Kan. 694, 1192

Clay v. Ransome, 1 Munf. (Va.)
454, 1109

Clement v. Foster, 99 N. Car. 255,

 

Clay v. Smith, 3 Pet. 411, 285
Clay Co. v. Simonsen, 1 Dak. 403,

21, 1103
Clayes v. Ferris, 10 Vt. 112, 706

Claypool v. Houston, 12 Kan. 824, 446
Clayton v. Chicago, etc., Co., 67
Ia. 238,
Clayton v. Clayton, 4 Col. 410,
Clayton v. Mitchell, 1 Del. Co. 32,
Clayton v. State, 31 Tex. Crim.
App. 489, S.C. 22 8.W. Rep. 404,
Cleage v. Hyden, 6 Heisk. (Tenn. )
73, 658, 654
Cleaveland v. Dixon, 4 J. i
Marsh.(Ky.) 226, 599
Clegg v. Fithian, 32 Ind. 90, 1198
Clegg v. Waterbury, 88 Ind. 21,
1087, 1209
Cleland v. Hedley,5 R.1I.163, 592
Cleland v. Wallbridge, 78 Cal.
858, S. C. 20 Pace. R. 730, 1231
Clelland v. People, 4 Col. 244, 149
Clem vy. State, 31 Ind. 480, 1076
Clem v. State, 33 Ind. 418, 121
660

813
280
477

798

Clem v. State, 42 Ind. 420, S. C.
13 Am. R. 369,

Clemans v. Buffenbarger, 106 Ind.
16, ’ 1048

Clemens vy. Comfort, 26 La. Ann.
269, 314

8. C.68. E. R. 186,
Clement v. Hadlock, 138 N. H.
185,
Clementine v. State, 14 Mo. 112,
Clements v. La. Electric Light
Co., 44 La. Ann. 692, S. C. 16
L. R. A. 43, 547
Clements v. Moore, 6 Wall. 299, 1128
Clements v. State, "21 Tex. App.

585
800

258, 31
Cleneay wv. Junction R. R. Co., 26

Ind. 375 475
Cleveland, In re (N. J.), 8. C.17

Atl. 772, 118

Cleveland v. Burrill, 25 Barb. 532, 281

Cleveland a Chamberlain, 1 Black
(U.S.) 4 248, 1137

Cleveland : * pollard, 37 Ala. 556, 434

Cleveland, C. C. & I. Ry. Co. v.
Asbury, 120 Ind. 289, 8. C. 22
N. E. R. 140,

Cleveland, C. OC. & St. L. Ry. Co.
Ke Baddeley (Ill), 86 N. E. R.

965, 1076
Cleveland, Cc. C. & St. L. Ry. Co.
v. Doert, 41 Ill. App. 580, 1092
Cleveland, C. C. & St. L. Ry. Co.
v. Grames, 135 Ind. 44, 8. C. 34
N. E. R. 714,

1092

1105
lxxvili

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. I, pp. 603-1244.]

Cleveland, C. C. & St. L. Ry. Co.

y. Johnson, 7 Ind. App. 441, S.

C. 33 N. E. R. 1004, 1096, 1097
Cleveland, C. C. & St. L. Ry. Co.

v. Monaghan, 140 Ill. 474. 8. C.

30 N. E. R. 869, 816, 1117
Cleveland, etc., Co. v. Closser, 126
Ind. 348, §.C. 22 Am. St. BR. 593,
1145, 1184
Cleveland, etc., Co. v. Johnson,

10 Ohio St. 591,

Cleveland, etc., Co. v. Mara, 26

Ohio St. 185, 604
Cleveland, ete., R.R.Co.v.Newell,

104 Ind. 264, 101
Cleveland,ete.,R.R.Go.v.Wynant,

100 Ind. 160, 71, 529
Cleveland, ete., R.R.Co.v. Jewett,

37 Ohio Bt. 649, 496
Cleveland, ete., R. R.Co. v.Terry,

8 Ohio St. 570, 546
Cleveland, etc., Ry. Co. v. Gra-

nier (Ind. ), 84.N. E. R. 714, 548
Cleveland, etc., Ry. Co. v. Wy-

nant, 119 Ind. 539, 1211
Cleveland Paper Co. v. Banks, 15

Neb. 20, 8. C. 48 Am. Rep. 334, 820
Clevenger v. Hansen, 44 Kan. 182,

S. C. 24 Pac. R. 61, 187
Clews v. Bank, 105 N. Y. 398, 8.

C. 11 N. E. R. 814, 692
Clifiton v. Granger (Iowa), 53 N.

W. Rep. 316, 780, 1090
Clift v. Moses, 112 N. Y. 426, 789
Clift v. Shockley, 77 Ind. 297, 518
Clifton v. United States, 4 How.

242, 503
Clifton vy. Wynne, 81 N. C.160, 139
Cline v. State, 51 Ark. 140, 803

Cline v. a ete., Co., 41 Ill.
App. 516 1239
Clingman v. Irvine,40Il].App.606, 736
Clink v. Gunn, 90 Mich. 135, 8. C
51 N. W. RB. 198, 365
Clinton v. Englebrecht, 13 Wall.
665
799

434,
Clinton v. State, 33 Ohio St. 27,
Clodfelter v. Hulett, 72 Ind. 137, 528
Clodfelter v. Hulett, 92 Ind. 428,
676, 1210
Cloherty, In re, 2 Wash. 187, 8.

C. 27 Pac. R. 1064, 119
Clore’s Case, 8 Gratt. 606, 660
Close v. Gillespey, 3 Johns. 526, 187
Close v. Samm, 27 Ia. 508, 813

Cloud v. Holden (Mo.), 20 8. W.
R. 695,
Cloud v. Inhabitants, 86 Mo. 357,
Clough v. State, 7 Neb. 320,
665, 668, 707, 1121, 1129

566
328

 

Clouser v. Ruckman, 104 Ind.588,
1169, 1233

Clouston v. Gray, 48 Kan. 31, S.
C. 28 Pac. Rep. 983, 622

Clow v. Brown (Ind.), 31 N. E.R.
861, 503

Clowes yv. Dickenson, 8 Cowen,
328, 254, 1178

Clowes v. Staffordshire, etc., Co.,

L. R. 8 Ch. App. 125, 487
Cloyd v. Trotter, 118 Ill. 391, 275, 444
Cluverius v. Com., 81 Va. 787, 653
Clymer v. Willis, 3 Cal. 363, 197

Clymore v. Williams, 77 Ill. 618, 463
Coad v. Coad, 41 Wis. 28, 333, 608
Coan v. Clow, 83 Ind. 417, 451
Coan v.Grimes,63 Ind.21, 1217, 1219
Coates v. Coates, 1 Duer 664, 1180
Coates v. Sangston, 5 Md. 121, 1064

Coates v. Wilkes, 92 N. Car. 376, 1149
Cobb v. Com., 3. B. Monr. 891, 1223
Cobb v. Dolphin Mig. Co., 108

N. Y. 463, 593
Cobb v. Dottch, 52 Ga. 548, 600
Cobb v. Griffith, etc., Co., 87 Mo.

90, 545
Cobb v. Judge, 43 Mich. 289, 605
Cobb v. Kurtz, 40 Ind. 323, 1081
Cobb v. People, 84 111.511, 115, 228
Cobb v. ‘Rice, 130 Mass. 231, 812
Cobb v. State, 78 Ga. 801, © 1163
Cobb v. Thompson, 1 A. K. Marsh.

(Ky) 507, 373
Cobbey v. went ee Neb. 274,85. .

C.45 N. W. 313
Coble v. Coble, . © Car. 589, S.

C. 28 Am. R. 338, 820

Coble vy. Eltzroth, 125 Ind. 429, S.
C. 25 N. E. R. 544, 823, 1075
Coble v. Nonemaker, 78 Pa. St. 501, 471

Coble v. State, 31 Ohio St. 100, 798
Coburn v. ‘Ames, 57 Cal. 201, 498
Coburn v. Murray, 2 Me. 336, 1227
Coburn v. Smart, 53 Cal. 742, 1184
Cocheco R. R. v. Farrington, 26

N. H. 428, 627
Cochran v. ‘Ammon, 16 Tl. 816, 1161
Cochran y. Bartle, 91 Mo. 636, 600
Cochran v. Loring, 17 Ohio 409, 173

Cochran v. O’Keefe, 34 Cal. 554, 1128
Cochran vy. Toher, 14 Minn. 385;
553, 554

Cochran v. Young, 104 Pa. St.

833, 384
Cochrane yv. Boston, 4 Allen

(Mass.) 177,
Cocke v. Halsey, 16 Pet. 71,
Cocker v. Franklin, ete., Co., 3

Sumn. (U. S.) 580,
Cockey v. Leister, 12 Md. 124,

555
198
TABLE OF CASES.

Ixxix

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 608-1244]

Cockey v. Milne, 16 Md. 200, 468
Cockredge v. Fanshaw, 1 Doug. :

(K. B.) 119, 1025
Codman v. Rogers, 10 Pick. 112, 360
Cody v. Hough, 20 Ill. 48, 506
Codding v. Wood, 112 Pa. St. 371,

539, 1055

Coe v. Louisville, etc., Co., 3 Fed.

R. 775, 478
Coey v. Lehman, 79 IIl. 173, 406
.Cofer v. Schening (Ala.), 13 So.

R. 123,
Coffee v. wit a Col. 184, S. C.

10 L. R.A. 570
Coffee v. oe "OB Ark. 48, 486, 456
Coffee v. Groover, 20 Fla. 64, 1121

Coffelt v. State, 19 Tex. App. 436, 803
Coffey v. Proctor, etc., Co., 20 8.
W. R. 286,
Coffey v. Wilkerson, 1 Metc. 101,
Coffey v. Wilson, 2 Ala. 701,
Coffin v. Coffin, 4 Mass. 1,
Coffin v. Cottle, 9 Pick. 287, 217
Coffin v. Kemp, 4 G. Gr. (la. ,
119, 1195
Coffin v. Knott, 2 Greene 582, 8.
©. 52 Am. Dec. 587, 1178
Coffinbury v. Horrill. 5 Cal. 498, 140
Coffman v. Brandhoefer, 33 Neb.
279, 8. C. 50 N. W. R. 6,
318, 604, 608, 613
Coffman vy. Chicago, etc., Ry. Co.
(Iowa), 57 N. W.'R. 955, 1095
Cofrode v. Gartner, 79 Mich. 332,
8. C. 30 Cent. Law Jour. 434, 7
L. R.A. 511, 454, 610
Cogan v. Ebden, 1 Burr. 383, 1124
Coggs v. Bernard, 2 Ld. Raym.
911, 963
Coghill v. Boring, 15 Cal. 213, 520
Coghill v. Hord, 1 Dana (Ky. )
595
476

293
B65
342
526

850, S. C. 25 ‘Am. Dec. 148,
Coglar v. Coglar, 1 Ves. Jr. 94,
Cogshall v. Spurry, 47 Kan. 448,

8. C. 28 Pac. R. 154, 1168
Cogswell v. Dolliver, 2 Mass. 217, 361
Cogswell v. Schley, 50 Ga. 481, 150
Cohee v. Baer, 134 Ind. 375, S. C.

32 N. E. BR. 920, 293
Cohen, In re, 5 Cal. 494, 195
Cohen v. Hamill, 8 Kan. 621, 1199
Cohens v. State of Virginia, 6

Wheat. (U. 8.) 399, 49, 202, 256
Cohn _v. Brownstone, 93 Cal. 362,

8. C. 28 Pac. R. 958, 619
Cohn v. Heimbauch, 86 Wis. 176,

8. C. 56 N. W. R. 638, 801
Cohn v. Rumely, 74 Ind. 120,

Cohn vy. Scheuer, 115 Pa. St. 178,
1112, 1122

1048,

 

Coit v. Elliott, 28 Ark. 294, 630
Coit v. Haven, 30 Conn, 190, 8.C.

79 Am. Dec. 244, 127, 319, 327
Colby v. Coates, 6 Cush. 558, 198
Colby y. Reed, 99 U. 8. 560, 396
Colchen vy. Ninde, 120 Ind. ’g8, 1162
Colcord vy. Fletcher, 50 Me. 398, 595
Cole v. Cheshire, 1 ‘Gray 441, 312
Cole vy. Cunningham, 133 U. 8.

107, 8. C..10 Sup. Ct. R. 269,

282, 486

Cole v. Curtis, 16 Minn. 182, 552
Cole v. Driskill, 1 Blackf. 16, 1025
ons v. Hebb, 7 Gill & J. (Md.) ;
1055

Cale v. Hocha, 21 La. Ann. 618, 4389
Cole v. Jessup, 10 N. Y. 96, 738

Cole v. Lake Shore, etc. Ry. Co.,

95 Mich. 77,8.C. 54N. W.R.638, 800
Cole v. McGlathry, 9 Me. 131, 367
Cole v. McKey, 66 Wis. 500, 8. C.

67 Am. R. 298, 89
Cole y. Parker, 7 Ia. 167, 8. C. 71

Am, Dec. 489, 469
Cole v. Peniwell, 5 Blackf.175, 423
Cole v. Swan, 4 G. Greene 32, 1128

Cole vy. Western Union (Tel. Co. 3

83 Minn. 227, 412
Cole v. Wooster, 2 i; 208, 197
Cole v. Wright, 70 Ind. 179, 360

Cole County v. Dallmeyer, 101

Mo. 57, S. C. 138 8. W. R. 687,
152, 153
Colee v. State, 75 Ind. 511

625, 1212, 1230
Colegrove iF al York, etc., Co.,
20 N. Y. 4!
Coleman vy. a 33 Ind. 98,
Coleman v. Bell, 4.N. Mex. 46, s.
C. 12 Pac. R. 657,
Coleman v. Coleman (Ind.), 31
N. E. R. 75, 349
Coleman v. Coleman, 3 Dana 398,
8. C. 28 Am. Dec. 86, 292, 448
Coleman v. Commonwealth, 25
Gratt. (Va.) 865, 519
Coleman v. Drane, 116 Mo. 387,
8. C. 228. W. R. 801, 1064
Coleman v. Floyd, 131 Ind. 330,
168, 240, 266, 1131
Coleman v. Grubb, 23 Pa. St. 393, 585
Coleman vy. Henderson, 12 Am.
Dec. 290, 1111
Coleman v. Holmes, 44 Ala. 124, 382
Coleman v. Ormond, 60 Ala. 328, 198
Coleman v. St. Paul, etc., Co., 38
Minn. 260, 8. C. 36 N. W. R.
638, 1090, 1107
Coleman y. State, 111 Ind. 563,
665, 824, 1171, 1207

1024
192
lxxx

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.]

ae v. Thurmond, 56 Tex.
Coleman vy. Wade, 6 N. Y. 44,
Coleman vy. Whitney, 62 Vt. 123,
8. C. 9 Lawy. R. Anno. 517,
395, 570
Coleman’s Case, 2 City H. Rec.
657

89,
Coles v. Peck, 96 Ind. 333, 588
Colglazier v. Colglazier, 124 Ind.

366
597

196, 1232
Collar v. Collar, 86 Mich. 507, 8.

C.13 L. R. A. 621, 505
College Corner, etc., Co. v. Moss,
77 Ind. 139, 487

Colley v. Westbrook, 57 Me. 181,

8. C.2 Am. R. 30, 549
Collier v. Falk, 66 Ala. 223, 613
Collier v. Nokes, 2C.& K. 1012, 32
Collier v. White, 67 Miss. 133, S.

C. 6 So. R. 618, 400
Collier v. White (Ala.), 12 So. R.

385, 597
Collinge v. Haywood, 1 P. & D.

502, 363
Collins v. Bennett, 46 N. Y. 490, 165
Collins v. Brown, 45 Minn. 186,

S.C. 47 N. W. R. 719, 313
Collins v. Burns, 16 Col. 7, 8. C.

26 Pac. R. 145, 661
Collins v. Collins, 100 Ind. 266, 1230
Collins v. Collins, 28 L. J. Ch. 184,

8. C. 26 Beay. 306, 573

Collins v. Douglass, 1 Gray 167, 1140
Collins v. Dresslar, 133 Ind. 290,

8. C.32 N. E. R. 882, 1145
Collins v. Duffy, 7 La. Ann. 39, 470
Collins v. Freas, 77 Pa. St. 498,

598, 600

Collins v. Friend, 21 La. Ann. 7, 473
Collins v. Gibbs, 2 Burr. 899,

322, 1196

Collins v. Houston, 188 Pa. St. 481, 539

Collins v. Hydon, 58 Hun 605, 8.

C.12 N. Y. 8. 581,

Collins v. Levelle, 44 Vt. 230,
Collins y. Loyal, 56 Ala. 403,
Collins v. Mack, 31 Ark. 684,
Collins v. Makepiece, 13 Ind. 448, 1113
Collins v. Maghee, 32 Ind. 268, 1165
Collins v. McCarty, 68 Tex. 150,

8. C.2 Am. St. R. 475, 373
Collins v. North British, etc., Ins.

Co., 91 Tenn. 482, 8. C. 19 8. W.

RB. 525, 378
Collins v. Powell, 19S8.W.R.578, 314
Collins y. State, 8 Ind. 344, 203
Collins v. Thayer, 74 Ill. 138, 364
Collins v. United States, etc., Co.,

27 Ind. 11, 1147

 

Collins v. Walling, 6 La. Ann. 702, 456
Collinson vy. Teal, 4 Sawy. 241, 280
Collinson’s Case, 18 Ves. Jr.353, 477
Colliss v. Hector, L. R. 19 Eq. 334, 287
Coloma v. Eaves, 92 U. 8. 484,
165, 324, 427
Colorado Central R.R.Co.v.Allen,
13 Col. 229, S.C. 22 Pac. R.605, 680
Colorado Central R.R.Co.v.Hum-
phreys, 16 Col. 34, 8. C. 26 Pac.
R. 165, 646
Colorado, etc., Co. v. Godding, 2
Col. App. 1, 8.C. 29 Pac. R. 529, 1229
Colrick v. Swinburne, 105 N. Y.

503, 8. C. 12 N. E. R. 427, 370, 559
Colt v. Colt, 48 Fed B. 385, 266
Colt v. Owens, 90 N. Y. 368, 553

Colt v. Sixth Ave. R. R. Co., 49 N.
Y. 671,

Coltart v. Allen, 40 Ala. 155, 313.

Coltart v. Laughinghouse, 38 Ala.

190, 520
Colton v. Beardsley, 38 Barb. 29, 133
Colton v. Onderdonk, 69 Cal. 155, 301
Colton vy. Rupert, 60 Mich. 318, 8.

C. 27 N. W. R. 520,

Columbia County v.Branch,31 Fla.
62, S. C. 12 So. R. 650,

Columbia, etc., Co. v. Nat. Bank,
etc., 52 Minn. 224, 8. C.53 N.W.
R. 1061, 1220

Columbia, etc., R. R. v. Gibbes,

28 S. Car. 60, 120:
Columbia, etc., R.R. Co. v. Haw-

thorne, 144 U. 8. 202, 8. 0. 12

Sup. Ct. R. 591,

Columbia Ins. Co. v. Lawrence, 2
Pet. 25,

Columbia Mill Co. v. Nat. Bank,
52 Minn, 224, 8. C.53 N. W. R.
1061, 1080

Columbus v. Bidlingmeier, 7 Ohio
Cire. Ct. R. 136, 813

Columbus vy. Goetchius, 7 Ga.189, 654

Columbus v. Strassner (Ind.), 34

1041

1228

1052
715

N. E.R. 5, 633
Columbus, ete., Co. v. The Board,

ete., 65 Ind. 427, 115
Columbus & W.R.R.Co.v. Ludden,

89 Ala. 612, 8. C.7 So. R. 471,

S. G. 31 Cent, L. J. 89, 554
Colvin, In re, 3 Md. Ch. 278, 497

Colvin v. Buckle, 8 M. & W. 680, 363
Colvin v. Reed, 55 Pa.St.375, 287, 289
Colwell v. Brower, 75 Ill. 516, 669
Colwell v. Garfield Nat. Bank, 119

N. Y. 408, 494
Combination, etc., Co. v. Morgan,

95 Cal. 548, S. C. 30 Pac. R.

1102, 1224
TABLE OF CASES.

lxxxi

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. I, pp. 603-1244.)

Combs v. State, 75 Ind. 215,
Combs v. Wyckoff, 1 Caines (N.
Y.) 147,
Comer v. "Hart, 79 Ala. 389,
a v. ‘State, 23 Ohio St.
99
Comet Consolidated Mining
v. Frost, 15 Col. 310, 8. C.
Pac. R. 506, 198, 441
Commerce Bank v. Rutland, etc.,
R. RB. Co., 10 How. Pr. (N.Y.) 1, 441
310
516

821

590
503

624

Commercial Bank v. Davidson, 18
Ore. 57, 8. C. 22 Pac. R. 517,
Commercial Bank v. Hughes, 17

Wend. (N.Y.) 94,
Commercial Bank vy. Union Bank,
11 N. Y. 2038, 511
Commercial Bank v. Whitehead,

4 Ala. 637, 512
Commercial Ins. Co. v. Mehlman,
48 Ill. 318, 628

Commercial Union, etc., Co.
Hocking, 2 Am. St. R. 562, 588, 589
Commissioners v. Bolles, 94 U.S.

104, 134, 165, 324
Commissioners v. Bond, 3 Col.
411, 472
Commissioners v. Clark, 94 U. 8.
278, 1041, 1055
Comuuissioners v. Hall, 7 Watts.
(Pa.) 290, 205, 206

Commissioners v. Miller, 7 Kan.
479, 8. C. 12 Am. R. 425, 108, 1002
Commissioners v. Young, 18 Kan.
440, 529
Commissioners v. Younger, 29
Cal. 147, 8. C. 87 Am. Dec. 164,
Commissioners Court v. Thomp-
son, 18 Ala. 694,
Commissioners of Knox County
v. Aspinwall, 21 How. (U.S8.)
539, 134, 165, 315, 324
Commonwealth v. Andrews, 97
Mass. 543, 1217
Commonwealth v. Armstrong, 158

605
3382

Mass. 78, 8. C.82 N. E. R.1032, 789
Commonwealth v. Austin, 7 Gray

(Mass.) 51, 822
Commonwealth v. Barry,116 Mass.

1, 308
Commonwealth y. Barry, 9 Allen

(Mass.) 276, 1069, 1071
Commonwealth v. Billings, 97

Mass. 405, 803
Commonwealth v. Brown, 121

Mass. 69, 809

Commonwealth v. Brown, 147
Mass. 585, 8. C. 9 Am. St. R.
736, 225, 654, 656, 663

F

 

Commonwealth v. Buccieri, 153
Pa.St. 535,8. C. 26 Atl. R. 228, 819
Commonwealth y. Buckley, 147
Mass. 581, 8.C. 18 N. E. R. 571, 542
Commonwealth v. Buzzell,16 Pick.
(Mass.) 153, 661, 663
Commonwealth v. Call, 21 Pick.
(Mass.) 509, 8. C. 32 Am. Dec.
284, 1106, 1107, 1171
Commonwealth v. Caponi, 155
Mass. 534, S. C. 30 N. E.R.82, 541
Commonwealth v. Carpenter, 100
Mass. 204, 808
Commonwealth y. Carrington, 116
Mass. 37, 11
Commonwealth v. Coe, 115 Mass.
481,
Commonwealth y. Commissioners,
37 Pa. St. 237,
Commonwealth v. Conyngham, 66
Pa. St. 99, 298
Commonwealth v. Cortley, 118
Mass. 1, 1
Commonwealth v. Costello, 120
Mass. 358, 1, 32
Commonwealth vy. Costello, 128”
Mass. 88, 1
Commonwealth v. Costley, 118
Mass. 16,
Commonwealth v. Cunningham,
104 Mass. 545, 29, 541
Commonwealth v. Dandridge, 2
Va. Cases, 408, 137
626

337

308

Commonwealth v. Davidson, 91
Ky. 162, 8. C. 15 §. W. R. 53,
Commonwealth v. Dooly, 6 Gray

(Mass.) 360, 1107
Commonwealth v. Durfee, 100
Mass. 146, 1118

Commonwealth v. Eastman, 1
Cush. 189, 8.C.48 Am. Dec. 596, 707
Commonwealth v. Edwards, 12

Cush. 187, x 1170
Commonwealth y. Felton, 101
Mass. 204, 308

Commonwealth v. Flannigan, 187
Mass. 5 1
See v. Fletcher, 157
Mass. 14, 8. C. 31 N. E. BR. 687, 220
Commonwealth v. Follansbee, 155
Mass. 274, S.C. 29N.E. R. 471, 695
Commonwealth v. Goldstein, 114
507

Mass. 272,
Commonwealth v. Gordon, 159
Mass. 8, 8. C. 833 N. E. R. 709, 1136
Commonwealth v. Gorham, 99
Mass. 420, 798
Commonwealth v. Gould, 158

Mass. 499, S. C. 33 N.E.R. 656, 780

*
lxxxii

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. I, pp. 603-1244.]

Commonwealth v. Graves, 18 B.

Mon. (Ky.), 34, 159
Commonwealth v. "Green, 17 Mass.
515, 307, 1159

Commonwealth v. Greene, 13 AL
len 251,

Commonwealth v. Grimes, 116 Pa.
St. 450, S. C. 9 Atl. R. 665,

Commonwealth v. Hatton,3 Gratt.

1140
1106

Commonwealth v. Hayes, 138
Mass. 185,

Commonwealth v. Heller, 5 Phila.
(Pa.) 128, 1116

Commonwealth v. Hersey, 2 Al-
len (Mass.) 173,

Commonwealth vy. Hill, 14 Mass.
207,

Commonwealth v. Holder, 9 Gray
7

542

308
1189
716

Commonwealth v. Howard, 149
Pa. St. 302, 8.0.24 Atl. R. 308,
Commonwealth v. Howe, 9 Gray

110,
Commonwealth v. Hudson, 11

Gray 64, 837, 796
Commonwealth v. Hussey, 13
Mass. 221, 653
Commonwealth y. Ingraham, 7
Gray (Mass.) 46, 806
Commonwealth v. Jackson, 1
Leigh. 485, 346

Pnmcalie v. James, 99 Mass.

438,

Commonwealth v. Jenkins, 10
Gray (Mass.) 485,

Commonwealth vy. Keck, 148 Pa.
St. 639, S. C. 24 Atl. R. 161,

Commonwealth v. Kirkbride, 7
Phila. 8,

Commonwealth v. Knapp, 9 Pick.
(Mass.) 496, 8. C. 20 Am. Dec.
491,

Commonwealth v. Lane, 118 Mass.
458, 8. C. 18 Am. R. 509,

Commonwealth v. Lawler, 12 Al-
len (Mass.) 585,

Commonwealth v. Livermore, 4
Gray (Mass.) 18,

Commonwealth v. Marrow, 3
Brewst. (Pa.) 402, 796, 1111

Commonwealth v. McClosky, 2
Rawle (Pa.) 369, 337

oo v. McCombs, 56
Pa. St. 436, 145, 217

Commonwealth v. McManus, 143
Pa, St. 64, 8. C. 14 L. R. A. 89,

1065, 1081

Commonwealth v. McMillan, 144

Pa. St.610, 8. C. 22 Atl. R. 1029,

179
806
723
289

695
292
805
655

660

 

Commonwealth v. Mead, 12 Gray
(Mass.) 167, 800
Commonwealth v. Mead, 153
Mass. 284,8.C.26 N. E.R. 855, 1206
Commonwealth v. Montgomery,
11 Metcf. (Mass.) 534,
Commonwealth v. Mooney, 110
Mass. 99,
Commonwealth v. Moore, 143
Mass. 136, S.C.58 Am. R.128, 655
Commonwealth v. Moore, 3 Pick.
(Mass.) 194, 804
Commonwealth v. Moorehead, 118
Pa. St. 344, §.C. 4:Am. St. R.599, 366
Commonwealth v. Murphy, 10
Gray (Mass.) 1, 822
Commonwealth v. Nichols, 114
Mass. 285, 8. C. 19 Am. R.346, 780
Commonwealth v. Parr,5 W. &

799

8. (Pa.) 345, 1025
Commonwealth v. Pease, 137
Mass. 576, 1074

Commonwealth v. Pepjepscut Pro-

prietors, 7 Mass. 399, 597, 600
Commonwealth v. Piper, 120
Mass. 185, 812

Commonwealth v. Poisson, 157
Mass. 510, 8. C. 32 N. E. R.906, 657

Commonwealth v. Porter, 10 Metc.
(Mass.) 263,

Commonwealth v. Powers, 109

1058

Mass. 353, 179
Commonwealth v. Reed, 1 Gray
472, 224, 654
Commonwealth v. Richetson, 5
Metcf. (Mass.) 412, 179
Commonwealth vy. Riggs, 14 Gray
(Mass.) 376, 538

Commonwealth v. Ryan, 5 Mass.

90, 224, 225, 654
Commonwealth v. Scott, 123 Mass.

239, 8. C. 25 Am. R. 87, 30, 820
Commonwealth y. Smith, 4 Bin-

ney 117, 256
Commonwealth y. Snelling, 15

Pick. (Mass.) 321,
Commonwealth v. ‘Standard Oil

Co., 101 Pa. St. 119, 338
Commonwealth v. Sturtivant, 117

Mass. 122, 8. C.19 Am. R.401, 739
Commonwealth v.Sullivan (Mass. ),

36 N. E. R. 583, 798, 1064
Comeummeatti. -Taber,123 Mass.
Commonwealth v. Tenney, 97

Mass. 50,

Commonwealth yv. Thompson,

(Mass.), 33 N. E. R. 1111,
Commonwealth v. Thrasher, 11

Gray (Mass.) 55,

216
308
663
655
TABLE OF CASES.

lxxxiii

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 608-1244. ]

Commonwealth v.Tobin, 125 Mass.
203, S. C. 28 Am. R. 220, 1110, 1117
Commonwealth v. Townsend, 5
Allen 216, 1118
Commonwealth v. Trider,143Mass.

eT
a v. Tuck, 20 Pick.
Commonwealth v. Twitchell, 1
Brewst. (Pa.) 551, 809, 81
Commonwealth v. Upton, 6 Gray
473, 369 |
Commonwealth vy. VanTuyl, 1
Metc. 1, 8. C. 71 Am. Dec. 455, 1160
Gommonwealth v. Vose, 17 L. R.
A. 813, 742
Commonwealth y. Walsh, 124
652

Mass. 32,
Commonwealth v. Webster,5Cush.
295, 30, 542, 658, 815, 1073, 1074
Commonwealth v. White, 123 Mass.
430, 308
Commonwealth v. Whitney, 108
Mass. 5, 642, 645
Commonwealth v. Williams, 105
Mass. 62, 30
Commonwealth v. Wilson, 1 Gray-
(Mass.) 387, 785
Commonwealth v. Worcester, 3 Bas
4,

Pick. (Mass.) 462,
Commonwealth v. Zappe, 153 Pa.

 

St. 498, S. C. 26 Atl. R. 16, 1075 55 Mass. 559, 679
Commonwealth Vv. Zimmerman, 1 Connell v. Chambers, 22 Neb. 302,
Cranch C. C., 47, 821) S.C. 34N. W.R. 636, 411
Commonwealth, etc., Insurance Connelly v. Leslie, 28 Mo. App.
Co. v. Brown, 11 Pa. Co. Ct. R. | 561, 1289 °
542, 609 Connelly v. Dickson, 76 Ind. 440,
Comparet v. Hedges, 6 Blackf. 495, 496
416, 1218 | Connelly v._ Shamrock, etc., So-
Compton v. Crone, 58 Ind. 106, 467] ciety, 43 Mo. App. 283, 152, 1213
Compton v. Jones, 65 Ind. 117, 1114 | Connelly v. State, 60 Ala. 89, 8.C.
Compton v., State, 89 Ind. 338, 1233) 31 Am. R. 34, 645
Compton v. Wilder, 40 Ohio St. ~ Conner v. Citizens’ St. Ry. Co.,
130, 458} 105 Ind. 62, 525, 548, 1104
Comstock v. Cavanach, 17 R. I. Conner v. Gaston, 10 Ta. 512, 1144
233, S. C. 21 Atl. R. 498, 411 | Conner v. Higginson, 1 Mason
Comstock v. Crawford,3 Wall. 396, 317} 323, 411
Comstock v. Hadlyme Eccles. Conner v. State, 29 Fla. 455, 8. C.
Soc., 8 Conn. 254, 8. C. 20 Am. 10 So. R. 891, 307
Dec. 100, 679 | Conner v.: Town of Marion, 112
Comstock v. ‘Tracey, 46 Fed. R. Ind. 517, © 1182; 1143
162, 120 | Connihan v: Thompson, 111 Mass.
Conant v. Roseborough, 30 Ill. 270, 854
App. 498, 1184 Conolly v. Taylor, 2 Pet. 556, 336
Condee v. Barton, 62 Cal.1, -~. 868 |Connolly v. Waltham, 156 Mass.
Cone v. Dunham, 59 Conn. 145,S. 868, 8. C. 31 N. E. R. 302, 547
C.8 L. R. A. 647, 372 Connoly v. Railroad, 29 Ala. 373,
Cones v. Ryman, 9 Ind: 277, 1168 319, 1196
Coney v. State, 90 Ga. 140, "8. ©. Connor v. Giles, 76 Me. 182,
.15 8. E. R. 746, 1073 ‘1041, 1055

Conger v. Cotton, 37 Ark. 286, 510
Conger v. Dean, 3 3 Clarke (Iowa)
463, 576
Conlan v. Grace, 36 Minn. 276, 526
Conley v. Chedic, 7 Nev. 336, 627
0 | Conley v. Meeker, 85 N.Y. 618, 3
Conley v. People, 83 N.Y. 464, 8
9 | Conlon v. Oregon, ete., R. R. Co. ity
23 Ore. 499, 8. C. 32 Pac. R.
2| 397, 1065

Conkey v. Kingman, 24 Pick. 115, 289
Conkey v. Northern Bank, 6 Wis.

447, 667
Conklin v. City of Keokuk, 73 Ia.

3438, 655
Conklin v. Hines, 16 Minn. 457, 1162
Conklin v. New . York, etc., Co. 5

13 N. Y. Supl. 782, 186
Conklin v. Plant, 34 Il. App. 264, 110
Conkling v. Ridgely, 112 it 36, 155
Conn v. Coburn, 7 N. H. 368, 8.

C. 26 Am. Dec. 746, 364

Connah y. Sedgwick, 1 Barb. 10, 410
Connally v. Spragins, 66 Ala. 258, 33
Connecticut Mut. Life Ins. Co. v.

Ellis, 89 Ill. 616, 778
Connecticut Mut. Life Ins. Co. v.
Lathrop, 111 U. 8. 612, 739

Connecticut Mut. Life Ins. Co. v.
Union Trust Co., 112 U.S. 250, 1079
Connecticut R. RB. Co. v. Clapp,
Ixxxiv

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.]

Connor v. Routh, 7 How. (Miss.)

176, 538
Connor v. Saunders, 81 Tex. 633,

8. C.175. W. R. 236, 528
Connor y. Simpson, 104 Pa. St.
_ 440, 8. C. 7 Atl. R. 161, 590
Connors v. Gory, 32 Wis. 518, 337
Connors v. Prudential Ins. Co., 11

Pa. Co. Ct. 50, 441
Conover vy. Inhabitants of Mid-

dletown, 42 N. J. L. 382, 539

Conover v. Ruckman, 33 N.J. Eq.
303, 468, 490
Conover v. Wright, 6 N. J. Eq.
613, 880
Conrad v. Druids Grand Grove,
63 Wis. 258, 400
Conrad v. Griffey, 16 How. (U.
38, 801, 806
Conrad v. Johnson, 20 Ind. 421, 149
Conrad v. Massasoit Ins. Co., 4

Allen (Mass.) 20, 592
Conrow v. Little, 115 N. Y. 387,
§.C.5 L. R. A. 693, 354

Conrow v. Schloss, 55 Pa. St. 28, 1242
Conrow v. Stroud (Pa.), 6 Am. L.

Reg. 298, 1221
Conroy v. Oregon, etc., Co., 23
Fed. R.71 1211

Consaul v. Lidell, 7 Mo. 250, 1240
Consaul v. Sheldon, 35 Neb. 247,

8. C.52 N. W.R. 1061, 1104
Conselyea v. Swift, 1083 N. Y.604, 676
Consolidated, etc., Co. v. O’Neil,

25 Ill. App. 3138, 171, 172
Consolidated,etc., Co. v. Schaefer,

135 Ill. 210,8. C. 25 N. E.R.

788, 1160
Consolidated, etc., Co. v. Yung,

24 Til. App. 255, 1171
Consolidates Ice Co. v. Keifer,

134 Ill. 481, 8.C. 10 L. R. A.

696, 518, 713
Consolidated Ice, etc., Co. v.

Trenton, etc. Co.,57 Fed. R.

898, 1119
Constance v. Brain, 2 Jur. N. 8.

1145, 695
Continental, etc., v. Rhoads, 119

U.S. 287, 819
Continental Ins. Co. v. Yung, 113

nd. 159,
Continental Life Ins, Co. v. Kess-

ler, 84 Ind. 310, 115
Converse v. McArthur, 17 Barb.

410.

; 218
Conway v. Armington, 11 R. I.
16, 199, 471
Conway y. Clinton, 1 Utah 215, 788
Conway v. Day, 79 Ind. 318, 192

8 |Cook v. State, 60 Ala. 39, 8. C. 31
31,

 

Conway v. State, 118 Ind. 482,
718, 721, 1215
Conwell v. Buchanan, 7 Blackf.

537, 382
Conwell y. Claypool,8 Blackf.124, 403
Conwell v. Emrie, 4 Ind. 209, 1082
Conwell v. Kuykendall, 29 Kan,

707, 184, 1188
Conyers v. Kirk, 78 Ga. 480, 8.'C.

358. E. R. 442, 1112
Conyers v. Mericles, 75 Ind. 448, 190
Coogler v. Rogers, 25 Fla. 853, 8.

C. 7 So. R. 391, 371
Cook v. Beatrice, 32 Neb. 80, 8. C.

48 N. W. R. 828, 483
Cook v. Berrott, 21 N. Y. Supp.

358,

Cook y. Carpenter, 34 Vt. 121, 8.

C. 80 Am. Dec. 670, 594
Cook v. Cole, 55 Ia. 70, 196
Cook y. Cook, 56 Wis. 195, S. C.

43 Am. R. 706, S.C. 14 N. W.

R. 33, 287
Cook v. Curtis, 6 Harr. & J.(Md.)

93, 806
Cook v. Darling, 18 Pick. 393,
320, ” 327, 427

Cook v. Dickerson, 1 Duer, 678, 492
Cook vy. Farren, 34 Barb. (N. Y.)

95, 444
Cook v. Gardner, 130 Mass. 313, 597

Cook v. Garza, 9’Tex. 358, 632
Cook v. Gerrard, 1Sannd. 170, 1099
Cook v. Hall, 1 Gil. (IU.) 575, 1238
Cook v. Howe, 77 Ind. 442, 1097
Cook v. Hunt, 24 Ill. 535, 804, 805
Cook v. Larson, 47 Kan. "70, 8. C.

27 Pac. R. 113, 618
Cook v. McNaughton, 128 Ind.

410, 1106
Cook’y. Mix, 11 Conn. 432, 516

Cook v. N. Y. Cent. R. R. Co., 1

Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 482, 1042

Cook v. Nethercote, 6 C. &P. 741, 696
Cook v. Orne, 37 Tl. 186, 413
Cook y. Pendergast, 61 Cal. 72, 628

Cook v. Rice, 91 Cal. 664, S. C. 27

Pac. R. 1081, 1177
Cook v. Rives, 138. & M. 328, 869
Cook v. Skelton, 20 Ill. 107, 169
Cook v. Smith, 58 Ja. 607, 1169
Cook v. State, 30 Tex. App. 607,

8. C. 18S. W. R. 412, 179

Am. R 1110
Cook v. eee 41 Ill. App. 642, 556
Cook v. United States, 188 U. 8.

157, 8. C. 118. Ct. R. 268, 309
Cook’ v. Wood, 24 Ill. 295, 190, 1244
Cooke v. Bangs, 31 Fed. R. 640, 129
TABLE OF CASES.

Ixxxv

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.]

454
496

108

Cooke vy. Gibbs, 3 Mass. 193,
Cooke v. Gwyn, 3 Atk. 689,
Cooke v. Millard, 65 N.Y. "352, 8.

C. 22 Am. R. 619,

Cooke vy. Odd Fellows, etc., Union,
49 Hun 23, 8. C.17'N. Y Y. 8. Rs
490,

Cookingham v. Dusa, 41 Kan. 229,
8. C. 21 Pac. R. 95, 553, 554, 556

Cook’s Case, 13 How. St. Tr. 311, 653

Cook’s Estate, 77 Cal. 220, 8. é.

11 Am. St. R. 267, 184, 191, 1189.
Cook’s Heirs v. Bay, 4 How.

(Miss.) 485,
eo v. Richardson, 69 Ill.

137
Coolbroth v. Purington, 29 Me. |

469, 539
Cooley v. Scarlett, 38 Ill. 316, S.

C. 87 Am. Dec. 298, ~ 271, 281
Cooley v. State, 38 Texas, 636, 665
Coolidge vy. Allen, 82 Me. 23, 8S.

C. 19 Atl. R. 89, 289
Coolidge v. Brigham, 1 Allen, 333, 217
Coolman v. Fleming, 82 Ind.117, 318
Coon v. Allen, 156 Mass. 113, S.

C. 30 N. E. R. 83, 585
Coon vy. Fry, 6 Mich. 506, 274
Coon v. Grand Lodge, 76 Cal. 354,

8. C. 18 Pac. R. 384, 868, 1203
Coon v. Welborn, 83 Ind. 230, 606
Cooney v. Furlong, 66 Cal. 520, 1169
Coonrod v. Benson, 2 Greene(Ia. )

179, 111
Cooper, In re, 22 N. Y. 67, 115
Cooper, In re, 98 N. Y. 507, 152, 333
_ Cooper, Matter of, 22 N. Y. 67, 160

Cooper v. American, etc., Co., 3

Col. 318, 140
ae v. Arctic Ditchers, 56 Ind.

233,

Cooper v. Board, 64 Ind. 520,

Cooper v. Brewster, 1 Minn. 94,

Cooper v. City of Big Rapids, 67
Mich. 607, 111

Cooper v. Cooper, 61 Miss. 676, 372

Cooper v. Detroit, 42 Mich. 584, 366

Cooper v. Metzger, 74 Ind. 544,

466, 1175

Cooper v. Morris, 48N.J.L. 607,
S.C. 7 Atl. R. ‘427, 1

Cooper v. ‘Omohundro, 19 ME
65,

Cooper v. People, 13 Col. 373, S. gi
6 L. R. A. 480, 1129
Cooper v. Railway Co., 66 Mich.
261,.8. C. 88 N. W. R. 306, 1072
Cooper v. Reynolds, 10 Wall. 308,
245, 272, 273, 274, 463
444) 463

638
1210.
225

’ Cooper v. Smith, 25 Ta. 269,

574

513)

 

Cooper v. State, 16 Ohio St. 328, 660

Cooper v. State, 79 Ind. 206, 1114

Cooper v. State, 120 Ind. 377, 1160
Cooper v. Sunderland, 3 Ia. 114,

242, 427

Cooper v. Waldron, 50 Me. 80, 1052
Coopwood vy. Morgan, 34 Miss.

368, 435

Coosoe, etc., Co.v. South Carolina,
144 U. 8S. 550, 483
‘Copas v. Anglo-Am. Provision Co.

(Mich.), 14 N. W. R. 690, 542
Copeland v. New England, etc.,

Co., 22 Pick. 135, 1025
Copeland vy. Hall, 29 Me. 93, 539
Copeland v. State, 126 Ind. 51, S.

C. 25 N. E. R. 866, 1211, 1213
Copeland v. Weld, 8 Me. 411, 199
Coplinger v. Steamboat, 14 Ind.

480, 604
Copp v. Hanniker, 55 N. H. 179,

S. C. 20 Am. R. 194, 290, 643
Coppel v. Smith, 4 T. R. 312, 197
Copper v. Wells, 1 N.J. Eq. 10, 587
Copper Hill, etc., Co. v. Spencer,

25 Cal. 11, 497
Coppins v. N. Y. Central, etc., R.

R. Co., 43 Hun (N.Y.) 26, 546

Coquillard v. French, 19 Ind. ‘274, 1211
Corbalis v. Newberry Tp., 182 Pa.

St. 9, 8. C. 19 Am. St. R. 588, 1042
Corbett v. Swift, 6 Nev. 194,. 1169
Corbin v. Adams, 76 Va. 58, 587
Corbin v. Berry, 83 N. Car. b7, 237

Corbin v. Goddard, 94 Ind. 419,
472, 473

Corby v. Haas, 36 Mo. 194, 435

Corbyn v. Bollman, 4W.&S8. 342, 198

Cordell v. State, 22 Ind. 1, 151
Corey v. Long, 43 How. Pr. 492, 194
Corfield v. Coryell, 4 Wash. C. G.
871; 307
Corgan yv. Anderson, 30 Ill. 95. 514
Corly v. Bean, 44 Mo. 379, 301
Corn v. Sims, 3 Met. (Ky. ) 391, 514

Corn Exchange Bank v. Blye, 119
N. Y. 414, S.C. 23 N. E.R. 805, 187
Cornelius v. Giberson, 25 N. J. Te
81, 551
712 .
469

Bs
Cornell v. Barnes, 26 Wis. 473,
Cornell v. Dakin, 38 N.Y. 253,
Cornell v. Green, 10 Serg. & R.

(Pa.) 14, 400, 402
Cornell v. "Masten, 35 Barb. (N.

Y.) 157, 569
Cornell v. Moulton, 3 Denio (N.

Y.) 12, 379
Cornell v. Payne, 115 Ill. 63, 472
Cornett v. Williams, 20 Wall. 226,

248, 340, 502
lxxxvi

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.]

Corning v. Corning, 6N. Y.97, 408
Corning v. Dreyfur, 20 Fed. R.
426, 467
Corning v. Troy, etc., Factory, 6
How. Pr. 89, 488
ne v. Troy Iron Factory, 44
N.Y. 577, 1041
Corning v. ’Woodin, 46 Mich. 44,
1143, 1207
Cornish v. Graff, 36 Hun (N. Y.)
1077

160,
Corman y. E. C. R. Co., 4 H. &

N. 781, 1041
Cornogg’ v. Abraham,1 Yeates, 18, 620
Cornwall v. Davis,38 Fed. R. 878, 347
Cornwall v. Sachs’ 23 N.Y.S. 500, 480
Corpenny v. City of Sedalia, 57

Mo. 88, 230, 636
Corporation of Carlisle v. Wilson,

13 Ves. 276, 301
Corrigan v.. Jones, 14 Col. 311, 8.

C. 23 Pac. R. 913, 314
Corsar v. Reed, 17 Q. B. 540, 1049
Cortleyen v. Hathaway, 64 Am.

Dec. 482, 495
Cortelyou v. Hiatt, 36 Neb. 582, S.

C.54N. W. R. 964 675
Cortelyou v. McCarthy, 87 Neb.

742, 8. C. 56 N. W. R. 620, 1120
Cortes v. Jacobus, 136 U. 8. ’380, 126
Corwin v. Thomas, 83 Ind. 110, 192
Corwithe v. Griffing, 21 Barb. 9. 342
Cory v. ae 93 Ala. 440, S. C.

9S8o. R. 3 320
Cory v. cheat 5 Ind. 370, 685, 1111
Coryell v. Linthecum (Tex. )s, 11

8S. W. R. 1092, 304
Cosgrove v. Cosby, 86 Ind. 511, 1235
Costello v. Crowell, 133 Mass. 352, 738
Coster v. Bank, 24 Ala. 37, 452
Coster v. Murray, 5 Johns. Ch.

522, 361, 377
Cota v. Ross, 66 Me. 161, 474
Cothran v. Knox, 13 8. Car. 496, 584
Cothran v. State, 39 Miss. 541,

1066, 1067
Cotton v. Ellis, 7 Jones (N. Car.)

545, 170
Cotton v. New York, etc., R. R.

Co., 20 N. Y. Supp. "347, 667
Cotton v. Ross, 2 Paige 396, 8. C.

22 Am. Dec. 648, 274
Cotton States, etc.,Co.v. Edwards,

74 Ga. 220,

Cotton v. Ulmer, 45 Ala. 378, 8.

C.6 Am. R. 703,

Cottle, Appellant, ’5 Pick. 483,
Cottrell v. tna Ins. Co., 97 Ind.

311, 71

Cottrell v. Den, 15 N. J. L. 345, 248

 

Cottrell v. Cottrell, 81 Ind. 87, | 696
Cottrell v. Cottrell, 126 Ind. 181,

8. C. 25 N. E. R. 905, 537, 552
Cottrell v. Nixon, 109 Ind. 378, 1149
Cottrell v. Thompson, 15 N. J. 344,

239, 454
Coughlin vy. People, 18 Ill. 266, 919
Coughlin v. People, 144 Ill. 140,

8. C.19 L. R. A. 57, 660, 661
Coughran v.Gutcheus, 18 Il]. 390, 191
Coulter v. American, 'ete., Co., 56

N. Y. 585, 796
Coulter v. Coulter, 81 Ind. 542, 596
Coulter v.Routt County ,9 Col. 258, 147
Counsell vy. Hall, 5 New Eng. R.

463, 8. C. 145 Mass. 468, 962
Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U~.

8. 547, 781
County of Jackson v. Hall, 53 Til.
440, 626

County of San Mateo v. Southern
Pacific Co., 8 Am. & Eng. R. R.
Cases, 1, 424

County of Warren v. Marcy, 97 U.

8. 96, 498

Coupland v. Housatonic R. R. Co.,

61 Conn. 531, 8. C. 15 L. R. A.

534, S. C. 28 Atl. R. 870, 537
Courser v. Powers, 34 Vt. 517, 216
Coursin v. Penna. Ins. Co., 46 Pa.

St. 323, 557

Courtney v. ee 5 Ind. App.356,

8. C. 32 N. E. R. 335, 1141
Courtright v. Strickler, ’37 Ia. 382, 653
Cousins v. Alworth, 10 L. RB. A.

504, 463, 464
Covell v. Marks, 1Scam. ‘(IU ) 525, 620
Covell v. Treasurer, 36 Mich. 332,

118) 119
Cover v. Myers, 75' Md. 406, 8. C.

32 Am. St. R. 394, 1072
Cowall v. Altchul, 40 Ark. 172,

237, 1239, 1241

Cowan vy. Kinney, 33 Ohio St. 422,
713, 1216

Cowan vy. Wheeler, 25 Me. 267, S.

C. 43 Am. Dec. 283, 269
Cowden y. Reynolds, 12 Serg. &

R. (Pa.) 281, 800
Cowdrey v. Galveston, etc., R. R.

Co., 93 U.S. 352, 495
Cowen v.Eartherly Hardware Co.,

95 Ala. 324,8.C.1180.R.195, 1082
Cowers v. State, 87 Ind. 144, 1238

Cowgill v. Wooden, 2 Blackf. 332, 652
Cowles v. Cowles, 3 Gilm. 485, 290
Cowles v. Curry, 96 N. Car. 331, 185
Cowles v. Shaw, 2 Ta. 496, 484
Cowley v. People, 83 N. Y. 464,8.

C. 38 Am. Rep. 464, 30, 741, 816
TABLE OF CASES.

lxxxvii

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.)

Cowper v. Cowper, 2 P. Wms.

720, 132
Cowperthwaite v. Jones, 2 Dall.

(U. S.) 55, 1118
Cox v. Baker, 113 Ind. 62, 1164
Cox v. Brain, 3 Taunt. 95, 403
Cox v. Capron, 10 Mo. 691, 1195
Cox v. Cox, 19 Ohio St. 502, 287
Cox v. Eayres, 55 Vt. 24, S. C. 45

Am. R. 583, 795
Cox v. Fay, 54 Vt. 446, 581
Cox v. Gress, 51 Ark, 224, 8. C.

118. W. R. 416, 124
Cox v. Jagger, 2 Cow. (N.Y.) 638,

S.C. 14Am. Dec. 522, 572, 584, 596
Cox v. James, 45 N. Y. 557,

239, 261, 1130
Cox v. Little Rock, etc., Co., 55

Ark. 454, S.C. 188. W.R. 630, 304
Cox v. North Wisconsin Lumber

Co., 82 Wis. 141, S. C. 51 N. W.

R. 1130,

Cox v. Palmer, 1 McCrary (U.S.)

431, 532

450

Cox v. Parry, 1 Term Rep. 464, 399
Cox y. Potts, 67 Ga. 521, 608
Cox v. Prater, 67 Ga. 588, 796
Cox vy. Ratcliffe, 105 Ind. "374, 1098
Cox v. Russell, 44 Iowa, 556,
Cox y. State, 30 Kan. 202, 227, 236
Cox v. Story, 80 Ky. 64, 443
Cox v. Thomas, 9 Gratt. 323, 827
Coxe v. Wolcott, 27 Pa. St. 154, 542
Coyle v. Commonwealth, 104 Pa.

St. 117, 120
Coyner v. Boyd, 55 Ind. 166, 813 |

Coyote, etc., Co. v. Ruble, 9 Ore.
121, 172
Cozine v. Hatch, 17 Neb. 694, 158
Cozzens v. Higgins, 33 How. Pr.
436, 8,
Crabb v. Orth, 133 Ind. 11, S. C. 32

N. E. R. 711, 333
Crabtree v. Clark, 20 Me. 337, 532
Crabtree v. Hagenbaugh, 23° Ill.

49, 1077
Craddock v. Craddock, 3 Litt.78, 1234
Craddock v. Dwight, 85 Mich. 587,

S. C.48 N. W. R. 644, 550

Craddock v. Edwards, "81 Texas
609, S. C.17 8. W. R. 228, 543
Craft’v. Thompson, 51 N. H. 536, 602
Crafton v. Mitchell, 134 Ind. 320,
8. C. 33 N. E. R. 1032, "1049
Crafts v. Dexter, 8 Ala. 767, 8.C.

42 Am. Dec. 666, 327
Crafts v. Union, étc., Co., 36 N.

H..44, 1159
Cragin v. Lovell, 88 N. Y. 258, 806
Cragin v. Powell, 128 U.S. 691, 251

475 | ~

 

Craig v. Craig, 5 Rawle 91, 806
Craig v. Fanning, 6 How. Pr.

336, 1159
Craig v. ag aE, 127 Ind. 286, S.

C. 26 N. E. R. 842, 1076, 1207
Craig v. Grant, 6 Mich. 447, 796
Craig v. Miss. Mills, 12 Mo. App.

- 680, 1169
Craig v. State, pls Tex. App. 619,

8. C. 18S. W. R. 297,

Craig v. ae 49 Ohio’ St. 415, 8.

C.30N. E. R. 1120, 645
Craig v. State, 5 Ohio St. 605, 803
Craig, Admr., v. Noblesville, ’ete.,

G. R. Co., 98 Ind. 109, 741

Craighead v. Wilson, 18 How.
199, 1178
Crain v. McGoon, 86 Ill. 481, 8.

C. 29 Am. Rep. 37, ‘ 401
Cralle v. Cralle, Pal Va. 773, 255
Cramer v. Oppenstein, 16 Col.

504, §. C. 27 Pac. R. ais 1212
Crammer v. Crawley, 1 N. J. L.

652
Crampton v. Valido Marble Co.,

60 Vt. 291, 8. C. 1 Lawy. R.

Anno. 120, 394
Crandall, Petition of, 34 Wis.

177, 341
Crandall v. Bacon, 20 Wis. 671, 8.

C. 91 Am. Dec. 451, 154
Crane, Ex parte, 5 Pet. 190, 1242
Crane v. Blum, 56 Texas 325, 434
Crane v. Bunnell, 10 Paige 333, 801
Crane v. Camp, 12 Conn. 463,

115, 212
Crane v. Chicago, etc., Co., 74 Ta.

330, 8. C. 7 Am. St. B. 479, 1160
Crane vy. Farmer, 14 Col. 294, 8.

C. 23 Pac. R. 455, 123, 248
Crane vy. Freese, 1 Har. (N. J. y

805, / 197
Crane v. Larsen, 15 Ore. 345, 8. C,

15 Pac. R. 326, 526 °
Crane v. Meginnis, 1 Gill & J.

463, 8S. C. 19 Am. Dec. 237, 289

Crane v: Nelson, 37 Ill. ‘App. 597, 605
Crane v. Reeder, 25 Mich. 303,
1090, 1092
Crane v. Schloss, 14 N. Y. Supp.
886
Crane v. Thayer, 18 Vt. 162,
Crane Lumber Co. v. Otter Creek,
etc., Co., 79 Mich. 807, 8. C. 44
N. W. RB. 788,
Crank v. Flowers, 4 Heisk. 629,
Cranor v. School District, 18 Mo.

1079

1121
320

App. 397, 1240
Crary v. Barber, 1 Col. 172, 613
1045

Cravens v. Dewey, 18 Cal. 40,
lxxxviii

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. I, pp. 603-1244.]

Craver v. Christian, 34 Minn. 397,
8. C. 26 N. W. R. 3,
Crawell v. Littlefield, 2 Rich. (S.
Car.) 17, 192
Crawford v. Anderson, 129 Ind.
117, 1147
Crawford v. Carothers, 66 Tex.
199, 8. C. 18S. W. R. 500, 332
Crawford v. Childress, 1 Ala. 482, 383
Crawford v. Eagleton, 39 Fed. R. 5
117

523,
Crawford y. Orr, 84 N. Car. 246,

55, 596
Crawford v. Powell, 101 Ind.421, 1150
Crawford v. Ross, 39 Ga. 44, 480, 487
Crawford v. Wetherbee, 77 Wis.

419, S. C. 46 N. W. R. 545, 1206
Creager v. Blank, 32 Ill. App.615, 678
Creager v.’Langford, 87 Ind.177, 1217
Creasser v. Young, 31 Ohio St.57, 463
Credit-Co. v. Arkansas, etc., Co.,

128 U. S. 258, 868, 1203
Credit, etc., v. Rogers, 10 Neb. 184,

8.0. 4N_W. R. 1012,”

Creely v. Bay State, ete., Co., 103

Mass. 514, 262, 1130
Creighton, In re, 12 Neb. 280, 337
Creighton v. Kerr, 20 Wall.(U.8.)

8, 613, 615
Creighton v. Piper, 14 Ind. 182, 216
Creighton v. Vincent, 10 Ore. 56, 382
Crenshaw v. J ackson, 6 Ga. 509,

320

S. C. 50 Am. Dec. 361, 716
Cresswell v. McCaig, 11 Neb. 222, 437
Crews v. Brewer, 19 Wall. 70, 1146

Crim v. Kessing, 89 Cal. 478,

182, 183, 184, 320, 368, 1189
Crippen v. Hope, 38 Mich. 344, 1163
Crippen v. Morss, 49 N. Y. 63, 112
Crisman v. Swisher, 28 N.J.L. 149, 456
Criss v. Criss, 28 W.Va. 388, 385
Crissfield v.Murdock,127N.Y.315, 345
a v. Grosslight, 79 Mich.380,

. C. 44 N.W. R. 621, 692
Crittenden v. Com., 82 Ky. 164, 799
Crittenden v. Field, 8 Gray 621, 1128
Croasdale v. Tantum, 6 Houst. :

(Del.) 218, 1124
Crocker v. Baker, 3 Abb. Pr. (N. |

Y.) 182, 488
Crocker vy. Crane, 21 Wend. (N.

Y.) 211, 592
Crocker v. Currier, 65 Wis. 652,

S. C. 27 N. W. R. 825, 1220

Crocker v. Dunkin, 6 Blackf. 535, 432
Crocker v. Hoffman, 48 Ind. 207, 1115

Crocker vy. Pierce, 31 Me. 177, 467
Crockett v. Mitchell, 88 Ga. 166,
8.C. 14S. E. R. 118, 382

 

Crofoot v. Allen, 2 Wend. (N.

Y.) 494, 586, 592
Croft v. Ferrell, 21 Ala. 351, 1236
Croft v. Rains, 10 Tex. 520, 509
Crole v. Thomas, 17 Mo. 329, 1066

Croman v. Stull, 119 Pa. St. 91, 383
Croman’s Case, 11 Pa. Co. Ct. R.

44, 198
Cromer v. Boinest, 27 8. Car. 436,

8. C.3 8S. E. R. 849, 214
Crompton v. Beach, 62 Conn.25, S.

C.18L. R. A. 187, 354
Cromwell v. Sac Co., 94 U. 8.

351, 1176
Croninger v. Crocker, 62 N. Y.

151, 401
Cronk v. Chicago, etc., Ry. Co.

(S. Dak.), 52 N. W. R. 420, 1095
Crook v. Chambers, 40 Ala. 239, 599
Crook v. Findley, 60 How. Pr.

(N. Y.) 375, 497

Crooker v. Appleton, 25 Me. 131, 532

Crookshank v. Kellogg, 8 Blackf.
(Ind.) 256, 1051
608

Cropsey v. Wiggenhorn, 3 Neb.
108,

Crosby v. Hungerford, 59 Ia. 712, 1089

Crosby v. Joroloman, 37 Ind.

264, 1177
Crosby v. Wyatt, 23 Me. 156, 364
Cross v. Allen, 141 U. S. 528, 8.

C. 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 67, 384
Cross v. Armstrong, 44 Ohio St.

618, 271
Cross v. Barnett, 65 Wis. 431, 542, 544
Cross v. Cross, 108 N. Y. 628, 8.

C.15N. E.R. 333, 287, 796
Cross v. Everts, 28 Tex. 523, 312
Cross v. Levy, 57 Miss. 634, 346
Cross v. Martin, 46 Vt. 14, 32

Cross v. Mayor, 18 N.J. Eq. 805, 369

Cross v. State, 55 Wis. 261, 1166
Cross v. Wilson, 52 Ark. 312, S.C.

128. W. R. 576, 432, 452
Crossman v. Crossman, 21 Pick.

21, 472, 475
Crossman vy. Lindsley, 42 How.

Pr. (N. Y.) 107, 463
Crosswell v. Allis, 25 Conn. 301, 34
Crotty v. Wyatt, 2 Brad. (Ill.

App.) 388, 174, 175, 178
Croudson v. Leonard, 4 Cranch,

434, 328

Crone Martin, 3 Blackf. (Ind.)
Biante, Ex parte, 4 Whart. (Pa.)

294
Crow, In re, 60 Wis. 349, 336
Crow v. Edwards, Hob. 5b, 262
TABLE OF CASES.

Ixxxix

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. Il, pp. 603-1244. J

Crow v. Jordan, a Ohio 8t. 655,8.
50,

C, 32 N. E. R.7 808
Crow v. Lemon, etc., Co., 69 Miss.
799, 11 So. R. 110, 465
Crow v. Meyersieck, 88 Mo. 411, 328
Crow v. Wood, 13 Beav. 271, 497
Crowder v. Moone, o2 Ala. 221,
195, 494, 496
Crowe vy. People, 92 Ill. 231, 1025
Crowe vy. Peters, 63 Mo. 429, 179

Crowell vy. Bank, 3 Ohio St. 406, 509
Crowell v. Galloway, 3 Neb. 219, 431

Crowell v. Johnson, 2 Neb. 146, 465
Crowell y. Kirk, 3 Dev. (N. Car.)
355, 795

Crowley v. Page, 7 Car. & P. 789, 802
Croxton v. Renner, 103 Ind. 228,

-§. C.2N. E. R. 601, 835
Croy v. State, 32 Ind. 384, 665
Crozier v. Goodwin, 1 Lea 125, 218

Crugar v. Douglass, 2N. Y. 571, 1182
Cruikshank v. Comyns, 24 Ill.

602, 394
Crumley v.Hickman,92 Ind. 388, 1233
Crump v. Com. (Ky.), 20 8. W.

Rep. 390, 798
Crutchfield v. Richmond, etc., R.

R. Co., 76 N. Car. 320, 106
Cruzan v. Smith, 41 Ind. 288,

1182, 1151
Cuddy, Ex parte, 131 U. S. 280, 8.
C. 9 Sup. Ct. R. 703,

132, 318, 528
Cuff v. Newark, etc., Co., 35 N. J.

Law 17, 8. C.10 Am. R.205, 108
Culley v. Doe, 11 A. & E. 1008, 371
Culbane v. N. Y. Cent. R. R. Co.,

60 N. Y. 133, 918
Cullum v. Batre, 2 Ala. 415, 452
Cullum v. Branch Bank, 23 Ala.

797, 452
Cully v. os 131 Ind. 76, 8. C.

31 Am. St. R. 414, 30 N. E. R.

882, 829, 455
Culver v. Chigege, etc., Ry. Co.,

88 Mo. App. 180, 370
Culver v. Marks, 122 Ind. 554, 504
Culver v. Woodruff, etc., Co. 4 Od

Dill. (U. 8.) 392, 336
Culverhouse v. Marx, 39 La. Ann.

809, 565
Culver’s Appeal, 48 Conn. 165," 314
Cumberland v. North Yarmouth,

4 Greenl. (Me.) 459, 586, 592
Cumberland, etc. Co. v. Hoffman,

etc., Co., 39 Barb. 16, 346
Cumming v. Mayor, 11 Paige, 596,

262, 1130
Cummings v. Armstrong, 34 W.

Va. 1,8. C. 11 8. E. R. 742, 1242

Cummings v. McKinney, 5 Tl. 57, 506

 

Cummings v. National Bank, 101
U.S. 158 270

Cummings v. Pruden, 11 Mass. 206,

1046

Cummings v.Wyman, 10 Mass.464, 551

Cummins v. Little, 16 N.J.Eq.48, 453

Cumpston v. McNair, 1 Wend. (N.
Y.) 457,

Cunard, ete., Co. v. Voorhis, 104
N.Y. 52 Dy

Cunningham v. Cambridge Sav.
Bank, 138 Mass. 480,

Cunningham Vv. Cochran, 18 Ala.
479, 8. C. 52 Am. Dec. 230,

Cunningham v. Gallagher, 61 Wis.

535
1138
639
711

70, 675
Cunningham v.Jacobs,120 Ind.306, 346
Cunningham v. Magoun, 18 Pick.

13, 1160
Cunningham v.McKindley,22 Ind.

149, 362
Curley v. Dean, 4 Conn. 259, 8. C.

10 Am. Dec. 140, 597
Curme, Dunn & Co. v. Rauch, 100

Ind. 247, 707
Curran vy. Board, 47 Minn. 313, 8.

C. 50 N. W. R. 237, 449
Curran v. Excelsior Coal Co., 63

Ia. 94, 1
Currier v. ‘Bank, 5 Coldw. (Tenn.)
- 460, 715
Currier v. Bilger, 149 Pa. St. 109,

S. C. 24 Atl. R. 168, 569
Currier v. Lockwood, 40 Conn. 349, 382
Currier v. Lowell, 16 Pick. 170, 189
Curry v. City of Spokane Falls, 2
Wash. 541, 8. C. 27 Pac. R. 477, 181

Curry v. Curry, 114 Pa. St. 867, 525
Curry v. Lacky, 35 Mo. 389, 573
Curry v. Miller, 42 Ind. 320, 242
Curry v. State, 7 Tex. App. 267, 30
Curry v. Woodward, 53 Ala. 371, 472

Curtis, Ex parte, 3 Minn.274, 635, 639
Curtis v. Daniel, 23 Ark. 362, 372
Curtis v. Leavitt, 1 Abb. Pr. 274, 194
Curtis v. Martz, 14 Mich. 506, 538
Curtis v. Sacramento, 64 Cal. 102, 593
Curtis v. Sacramento, 70 Cal. 412, 382
Curtis v. State, 36 Ark. 284, 822

Curtis v. Wheeler, etc., Co., 141
N.Y. 511, 1052

Curtis v. Williamson, L. R. 10 Q.
354

B.57
Curtis v. Wilcox, 74 Mich. 69, 8.
C. 41 N. W. RB. 863, 224, 639
Cushenberry v. McMurray, 27

Kan. 328, 623
Cushing v. Cable, 54 Minn. —,
S. C. 55 N. W. R. 736, "1142

Cushman v. Flanagan 50 Tex. 389, 668
xc

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.]

Cushman v. Somers, 60 Vt. 613 S.

C. 15 Atl. R. 315, 406
Custy v. Donlan (Mass.),34N. E.

R. 360, 382
Cutler v. Hurlburt, 29 Wis. 152, 1052
Cutler v. Thomas, 24 Vt. 647, 821
Cutsinger v. Nebeker, 58 Ind.

401, 1163
Cutter v. Copeland, 18 Me. 127,
Cutter v. Gumberts, 3 Eng. (Ark.) |

449, 1183
Cutts’ v. Haskins, 9 Mass. 548, 314
Curd v. Wallace, 7 Dana (Ky.)

190, S. C..32 Am. Dec. 85, 595
Cutter v. Carter, 29 Vt. 72, 601
Cuyler v. Ferrill, 1 Abb. (U. 8.)

169, 336
Cuyler v. Vanderwerk, 1 Johns.

Gas. (N. Y.) 247, 1048
Cyphert v. McClune, 22 Pa. St.

195, 605
Cypress, etc., Co. v. Hooper, 2

Met. (Ky.) 350, 136
Cyr v. Dufour, 62 Me. 20, 126
Cyra v. Stewart, 79 Wis. 72, S. C.

48 N. W. R. 50, 626

D
Debaty v. Hudson, 68 Miss. 292,
S.C. 8 So. R. 545, 217
Dabney v. Shelton, "82 Va. 349, 368
Daby v. Ericsson, 45 N. Y. 786, 386

Dacey v. People, 116 Il. 555, 8. C.
6N.E. R. 165, 622
Dacosta v. Guieu, 78. & R. 462, 1134
Daft v. Drew, 40 Ill. App. 266, 1113
Daggett v. Tallman, 8 Conn. 168, 797
Daggitt v. Mensch, 141 Il]. 395, 31
N.E. R. 153, 528
Daggy v. Cronnelly, 20 Ind. 474, 592
Dahl v. Milwaukee City R. R. Co. i
62 Wis. 652, 548
Dahlman v. Hammel, 45 Wis.466, 676
Dahlstrom y. St. Louis, etc., R. R.
Co. (Mo.), 18S. W. R. 919, 537
Dahms v. Alston, 72 Ia. 411, 8. C.
446
509

384.N. W. R. 182,
Dailey v. Green, 15 Pa. St. 118,

Daily v. Kennedy, 64 Mich. 208, 613
Dakota County v. Glidden, 113 U.

9. 222, 1138
Dale v. Copple, 53 Mo. 321, 254
Dale v. Mottram, 2 Barn. 291, 598
Dale v. Radcliffe, 25 Barb.(N.Y.)

333, 558
Dale Tile Co. v. Hyatt, 125 U.S. si

Da ae Blackburn, 11 Kan.190, 801

 

Daley v. Cunningham, 3 La. Ann.

198
Dalismple v. Williams, 63 N. Y.

1124
Dalton v. Libby, 9 Nev. 192, 140

Daly v. Bernstein (N. Mex. ), 28
Pac. R. 764,

Daly v. Maguire, 6 Blatch. (C. C.) ‘
1387, 8
Daly 3 Vv. State, 28 Ind. 285, 806
Damouth v. Klock, 28 Mich. 163, 1179

Damp v. Dane, 29 Wis. 419,
1138, 248, 332, 1214
Damron y. Ferguson, 32 W. Va.
33, 8. C.98. E. R. 39, 1181
Damron vy. Penn. Co., 99 Ind.478, 360

505

Dana vy. Adams, 13 III. 691, 614
Dana v. Tucker, 4 Johns. 487, 1119
Dana y. Underwood, 19 Pick.
(Mass.) 99, 512
Dane v. Treat, 35 Me. 198, 705

Danforth v. Carter, 41a.230, 469,544
Danehauerv. Devine, 51 Tex. 480, 478
Daniel v. Day, 51 Ala. 431, 380
Daniel v. ie Ry. Co., 6
L. Rep. C. P. 6 872
Daniell v. East Boston Ferry Co.,
157 Mass. 46, 8. C.31 N. E.R. .
711, 377
Daniels v. City of Lowell, 139
Mass. 56, S. C. 29 N. E. R. 229, 665
Daniels v. City of New London, 58
Conn. 156, 8. C.7 L. R.A. 563, 582
Daniels v. McGinnis, 97 Ind. 549,
1106, "1115
Daniels v.Tearney, 102 U.S.415, 343
Danley v. Scanlon, 116 Ind. 8, 620-
Dennefelser v. Weigel, 27 Mo. 45, 509
Dano v. Sessions, 65 Vt. 79, 8. Ou
26 Atl. R. 585, 1205
Danube & Black Sea Ry. Co. v.
Xenos, 13 Com. B. (N.S.) 825, 362
Danville Bank v. Waddill,27 Gratt.
(Va.) 448, 1116
Darby v. Ouseley, 36 Eng. L. &
Eq. 518, 692
D’ aes v. Ketchum, 11 How. (U.
8.) 165, 1194
Darland v. Rosencrans, 56 Ia.122, 179

Darley v. Thomas, 41 Ga. 524, 619
Darling v. Dodge, 36 Me. 370, 537
Darling v. March, 22 Me. 184, 521
Darling v. N. Y., ete., Co., 17 R.

I. 708, 8. C. 16 L. R.A. 643, 1123
Darling v. Pierce, 15 Hun 543, 224
Darling v. Westmoreland, 52 N.

H. 401, §. C. 13 Am. R. 55, 101
Darnall vy. Adams, 13 B. Mon.

(Ky.) 278, 380
Darnell v. State, 15Tex.App.70, 1165
TABLE OF CASES.

xcl

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. I, pp. 603-1244.

Darrance v. Preston, 18 Ia. 396,
' Darrow v. Pierce, 91 Mich. 63, S.

424
1231

1163
C. 51 N. W. R. 818, 505
D’Arusment v. Jones, 4 Lea 251,

8. C. 40 Am. R. 12, 325
Darwin vy. Keigher, 45 Minn. 64, 519
Dash v. Van Kleeck, 7 Johns. 477, 117
Dasher v. Dasher, 47 Ga. 320, 455
Dassler v. Wisley, 82 Mo. 498, 1068
Daughdrill v. Sweeney, 41 Ala.

310, 403
Daugherty v. Wheeler, 125 Ind.

421, 360
Davenport v. Fulkerson, 70 Mo.

417, 584
Davenport v. Lacon,17 Conn.278, 468
Davenport v. Ladd, 38 Minn. 545,

8. C. 38 N. W. R. 622, 390
Davenport v. Ogg, 15 Kan. 363, 697
Davenport v. Tilton, 10 Metc.

(Mass.) 320, 470
Davenport, ete. , Asso. v. Schmidt,

_ 15 Ia. 218, 245, 342

Daveyac v. Seiler (Ky.), 208. Ww.

- R. 875, 1141

David v. Ztna Ins. Co., 9 Ia. 45,
171, 172

Davidson v. Floyd, 15 Fla. 667, 484

Davidson v. Morrison, 86 Ky. 397,

8. C. 58S. W. R. 871, 8. C. 9

Am. St. R. 295, 110, 1130, 1149
Davidson v. Murphy, 13 Conn.

218, 180, 183, 1203
ee v. New Orleans, 96 U.

97
Davidson v. Peck, 4 Mo. 438,
Davidson v. Wheeler, 1 Morr.

(Ia.) 238, ‘627
Davie v. Davie, 52 Ark. 224, 8. C.

128. W. R. 538, 8. C. 20 Am.

St. R. 170, 254, 1179
Davie v. Terrill, 63 Tex. 105, 731
Davies v. Humphreys, 6M. & W.

153, 364
Davies v. McKnight, 146 Pa. St.

610, S. C. 23 Atl. R. 320, 534
Davies v. Pratt, 17 Com. B. 183, 594
Davies v. Ridge, 3 Esp. 101, 582
Davies v. Smith, 4 Esp. 36, 882
Daviess v. Arbuckle, 1 Dana

(Ky.) 525, 678
Davis, Ex parte, 95 Ala. 9, S. C.:

11 So. R.' 308, 829
Davis v. Allen, li Pick. (Mass.)

‘466, S. C. 22 Am. Dec. 386, 653

536
1210

Davis v. Badders, 95 Ala. 348, 8.

C. 10 So. R. 422,
Davis v. Barrett, 7 Beav. 171,
Davis v. Berger, 54 Mich. 652,
’ 576, 583

 

Davis v. Binford, 58 Ind. 457,

641, 1231
Davis v. Burt, 7 Iowa 56, 438
Davis v. Byrd, 94 Ind. 525,
179, 696, 697
Davis v. Calvert, 5 Gill & J,
(Md.) 269, 8. G. 25 Am. mo
282,
Davis v. Capper, 10 B. & C. 28,
Davis v. Charles River, etc., "Re
Co., 11 Cush. 506,
Davis v. Coburn, 128 Mass. 377,
Davis v. Commonwealth, 13 Bush

318, 287
Davis v. Creamery Co., 128 Ind.

222,8. C.27N. E.R. 494, 493
Davis v. Davis, 119 Ind. 511, 1211
Davis v. Doherty, 69 Ind. i 892
Davis v. Donner, 82 Cal. 35, S. C.

22 Pac. R. 879, 1184
Davis v. Drew, 6 N. H. 399, 199

Davis v. Duke of “Marlborough, 2
Swanst. 113, 194, 498

Davis v. Dyer, 62 N. H. 231, ‘1129

Davis’s Estate, In re, 11 Mont. 1,

8. C. 27 Pac. R. 342, 254
Davis v. Fall River, 155 Mass. 96,

8. C. 29 N. E. R. 202, 1041
Davis v. Field, 56 Vt. 426, 738
Davis v. Field, 43 Vt. 221, 1192
Davis v. Finney, 37 Kan. 165, 8.

C. 14 Pac. R. 460, 152

Davis v. Fish, 1 G. Greene (Ia.),

406; S. C. 48 Am. Dec. 387,

148, 1538, 155, 1077, 1111

Day Foreman (Tex.), 208. W.
2

. 62, 623
Davis v. Forshee, 34 Ala. 107, 590
Davis vy. Franke, 33 Gratt. (Va.),

418, 802

Davis v. Gaines, 48 Ark. 370, 121, 171
Davis v. Getchell, 32 Neb. 792, 8.

C. 49 N. W.R. 776, 1064
Davis v. Gorton, 16 N. Y. 255, 363
Davis v. Gray, 16 Wall. 208, 410, 493
Davis v. Gurney, 38 IIl. App. 520, 570
Davis v.Havard,15 Serg. & R.(Pa. )

165, 8. C. 16 Am. Dec. 537, 584, 598
Davis v. Headly, 22 N. J. Eq. 115,

271, 281, 283, 284
Davis v. Henry, 121 Mass. 150, 599
Davis v. Hopkins, 18 Col. 153, S.

C. 82 Pac. Rep. 70, 721
Davis v. Hudson, 29 Minn. 27,
116, 316
Davis v. Hunter, 7 Ala. 135, 657
Davis v. Kan. City Belt R. R.
Co., 46 Mo. App. 180, 546, 1081
Davis v. Keyes, 112 Mass. 436, 719
Davis v. Kline, 96 Mo. 401, 1228
x¢cli TABLE

OF

CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244,]

Davis v. Knapp, 8 Mo. 657, 473
Davis v. Lake Shore, etc., R’y
Co., 114 Ind. 364, 528

Davis vy. Lamb (Cal.), 35 Pac. R.
306, 1168

Davis v. Leo, 6 Ves. 784, 486
Davis v. Luark, 34 Ind. 403, 619
Davis v. Mason, 4 Pick. (Mass.)
156, 669, 1158
Davis v. Maxwell, 27 Ga. 368, 585
Davis v. Mayor, 1 Duer 461, 163
Davis v. McArthur, 78 N. Car.
357, 372

Davis v. Megros (N. J.), 26 Atl.
R. 1009, 607

Davis v. Melvin, 1 Ind. 136, 723
Davis v. Menasha, 20 Wis. 194, 1240
Davis v. Meredith, 48 Mo. 263, 474

Davis v. Messenger, 17 Ohio St.
231, 138
Davis v. peep ieee (Wis.), a
N. W. RB. 160,
Davis v. Montgomery, 123 Ind.

587, 1156
Davis v. Moore, 13 Me. 424, 559
Davis v. Packard, 7 Pet. 275, 119
Davis v. Parker, 14 Allen 94, 280
Davis v. Patrick, 122 U. 8. 188, 1237
Davis v. Peveler, 65 Mo. 189, 1069
Davis v. Pool, 67 Ind. 425, 1157
Davis v. Rainsford, 17 Mass. 207, 35
Davis v. Reaves, 75 Tenn. 585, 449
Davis v. Reed, 14 Md. 152, 488
Davis v. Robinson, 70 Tex. 394, 450
Davis v. St. Louis, etc., R. R. Co.,

53 Ark.117,8.C.7 L.R.A. 283, 1065
Davis v. Shaver, 1 Phil. (N. Car.)

18, 8. C. 91 Am. Dec. 92, 184
Davis v. Shuah (Ind.),.386 N.E. R.

122, 1113
Davis v. State, 44 Tex. 523, 220
Davis v. State, 35 Ind. 496, 516, 778
Davis v. State, 15 Tex. App. 594, 30
Davis v. State, 15 Ohio 72, 177
Davis v. State (Tex.), 20S. W. R. -

923, 799
Davis v. State, 119 Ind. 555, 137
Davis v. Steiner, 14 Pa. St. 275, 8.

C. 58 Am. Dec. 547, 1027, 1030
Davis v. Stout, 126 Ind. 12, 566
Davis v. Wilson, 65 Ill. 525, 640
Davis v. You, 43 Ala. 691, 1180

| Davis v. Young, 36 La. Ann. 374, 370

Davis, etc., Co. v. Riverside, etc.,
Co., 84 Wis. 262, 8. C. 54 N. W.
R. 506,

Davy v. Gronow, 141. J. (N.S.)
Ch. 134,

Dawson v. Baum, 3 Wash. Ter.
464, S. C. 19 Pac. R. 46,

618
498
1165

 

Dawson vy. Dawson, 29 Mo. App.
521, 218, 237
Dawson v. Fitzgerald, L. R., 1 Ex.
Div. 257, 8. C. 3 Cent. L. Jour.
477,
Dawson y. Hemphill, 50 Ind.422,
Dawson v. Holcombe, 1 Ohio 275,
Dawson vy. Shirk, 102 Ind. 184, 1130
Dawson v. State, 62 Miss. 241, 1073
Dawson v. State Bank, 3 Ark.505, 456
Dawson v. Vaughan, 42 Ind. 395,

637, 1211
Dawson v. Wells, 3 Ind. 398, 218
Day v. Argus, etce., Co., 47 N. J.
Eq. 594, S. C. 22 Atl. R. 1056,
185, 1202
Day v. Bonnin, 3 Bing. a Cases)
219,
Day v. Day, 100 Ind. 460, 1138, 1139
Day v. goodman (Tex.), 178. W.
R 1167

Day v. ea ianinaats 57 N.Y. 479, 8.

589
624
197

C.15 Am. R. 522, 592
Day v. Henry, 104 Ind. 824, 8. C.

4N.E. R. 44, 712, 1180
Day v. Mayo, 154 Mass. 472, 8. C.

28.N. E. R. 898, 382
Day v. Pickett, 4 Munf. 104, 1156
Day v. Savadge, Hob. 87, 220
Day v. Sharp, 4 Whart. 339, S. C.

34 Am. Dec. 509, 715
Day v. State, 63 Ga. 667, 809
Day v. Stetson, 8 Me. 365, 122

Dayton v. Mintzer, 22 Minn. 898, 128
Deaderick v. Oulds, 86 Tenn. 14,

8. C.6 Am. St. R. 812, 1149
Deadrick v. Watkins, 8 Humph.
(Tenn.) 520, 224

Dean v. Applegarth, 65 Cal. 391,° 412
Dean v. Corbett, 51 N. Y. Super.

Ct. 103, 1043
Dean v. Gridley, 10 Wend. 254, 1225
Dean v. Metropolitan, ete., Co.,

119 N. Y. 540, 8. C. 23 N. E.R. -

1054, 388
Dean v. Nelson, 10 Wall. 158,
0, 336
Dean v. Hae = Ta. 57, .
C.48N. W.R. 9: 412
Dean y. Smith, 23 Wis. 483, S.C.
99 Am. Dec. "198, 477
Dean vy. Thatcher, 3 Vroom (N.
J.) 470, 321
Dean v. Toppin, 180 Mass. 517, 550

Dean v. Wilcoxon, 25 Fla. 980, "8.
C. 7 So. R. 1638,
Dearing v. Bank, 5 Ga. 497, 8. C.
48 Am. Dec. 300, 280, 285, 303,
a v. Newhall, 63 N. H.
2

528
444
1121
TABLE OF CASES.

xclii

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. I, pp. 603-1244.]

Dearing v. Rucker, 18 Gratt. 426, 1138
De Armond v. Adams, 25 Ind.

455, 435
Dearmond v. Dearmond, 10 Ind.
191, 560, 656
Death v. Bank of Pittsburgh, 1
Ia. 382, 489
Deaton, In re, 105 N. Car. 59, 8S.
C.1158. E. R. 244, 1129
Deatty v. Shirley, 83 Ind. 218, 1121
Debell v. Foxworthy, 9 B. Mon.
Ky.) 228, 500

Debs v. Dalton (Ind.), 34 N. E.

R. 236, 474
DeCamp v. Eveland, 19 Barb. 81,, 122
DeCastro v. Richardson, 25 Cal.

185

49,
Decatur v. Paulding, 14 Peters

497, 117, 251, 1241
Decker v. Armstrong, 87 Mo. 316, 455
Decker v. Bryant, 7 Barb. (N.Y. ’)

182, 720
Decuir v. Lejeune, 15 La. Ann.

569, 605
Deere v. Bagely. | 80 Ia. 197, S. C.

45 N. W. R. 557 626
Deerfield v. Arms, ” 20 Pick. 480, S.

C. 32 Am. Dec. 298, 576
Deerfield v. Conn. River R. — Co.,

144 Mass. 325, 8. C. 11 N.E ie

105, 551
Deering v. Johnson,33 Minn. 97, 1162
Deering v. Saco, 68 Me. 822, 601
De Farges v. Ryland, 24 Am. St.

Rep. 659, 519
aloe ¥: Deford, 116 Ind. 523, 600
De France v. De France, 34 Pa. St.

385, 524

De Freest v.Warner, 98 N.Y.217, 383
De Graffenried v. Brunswick, etc.,

Co., 57 Ga. 22, 410, 493
De Graw v. Prior, 60 Mo. 56,

De Haven v. DeHaven, 77 Ind.

236,

Deig v. Moorehead, 110 Ind. 451,
Deihl v. Evans, 18. &R. (Pa.)

367, 1113
De La Croix v. Villers, 11 La. Ann.

39 485
Delafield v. Brady, 108 N.Y.524, 341
Delafield v. Parrish, 25 N.Y.9, | 679
De La Hunt v. Holderbaugh, 58

Ind. 285, 443
Deland y. ‘Hiett, 27 Cal. 611, 8. C.

87 Am. Dec. 102, 566
De Lane v. Moore, 14 How. (U.S8.)

253, 504
Delaney v. Brett, 51 N. Y. 78, 111

320, 327, 427

728
1129

Delaney v. Gault, 30 Pa. St. 63,

561 |

 

Delaney v. Mulligan, 148 Pa. St.

157, 8. C. 23 Atl. R. 1056, 707
Delap v. Hunter, 1 Sneed 100, 1178
Delaplain v. Armstrong, 21 W.Va.

211; 466
Delano v. Goodwin, 48 N.H.208, 544
Delevene v. Parker, 9 Dowl. Pr. C.

245, 985

Delaware, L. & W. R. R. Co. v.
Converse, 139 U. S. 469, 8. C.11
Sup. Ct..R. 569, 8. C. 4 Lewis’
Am. R. R. & Corp. Cas. 434,

547, 799

Delaware & H. Canal Co. v. Gold-
stein, 125 Pa. St. 246, S.C. 17
Atl. R. 442, °

Delaware, ete. ., Co. v. Pennsyl-
vania, etc., Co., 50 N. Y. 250,

407, 589

Delaware, etc., R. R. Co. v. Shel-
ton (N. J.), 26 Atl. R. 937, 1056

De Leon v.Barrett,228.Car.412, 153

Delisle v. McGilivary,24 Mo. App.

514

680,

Delk v.State, 3 Head. (Tenn.) 79, 918
Dell v. Oppenheimer, 9 Neb. 454, 915
De Long v. Giles, 11 Ill. App. 33, 1069
De Long v. Stanton, 9 Johns. 38, 573
De Lorme v. Pease, 19 Ga. 220, 174
De Louis v. Meek, 2 G. Greene 55,

S. C. 50 Am. Dec. 491, 206
Delphi v. Lowery, 74 Ind. 520,

712, 1206
Delvee v. Boardman, 20 Ia. 446, 1157
Delphi v. Startzman, 104 Ind. 443, 484
Demarest v. Wynkoop, 3 Johns.

Ch. (N. Y.) 129, 880, 381
De Meli v. De Meli, 120 N.Y. 485,

8. C. 17 Am. St. R. 652,

287,312, 428
Deming v. Foster, 42 N. H. 165,
172, 539
Demens y. Poyntz, 25 Fla. 654, 8.

C. 6 So. R. 261, 1191
Demoss v. Brewster, 12 Miss. 661, 442
De Moss v. Newton, 31 Ind. 219, 380
Dempsey v. Harrison, 4 Mo. 267, 1197
Dempsey v. Mayor, 10 Daly 417, 1087
Dempsey v. State, 3 Tex. App.

429, 828
De Manneville v. De Manneville,

10 Ves. Jr. 52, 290
Den y. Graham, 1 Dev. & Batt. 76,

558

S. C. 27 Am. Dec. 226, 1232
Den v. Tomlin, 18 N. J. L. 14, 8.

C. 85 Am. Dec. 525, 189
Dench v. Walker, 14 Mass. 500, 365

Denegre v. Denegre, 33 La. Ann.
689, 301
Denegrev. Milne,10 La. Ann. 324, 462

¢
XCiV

[References are to Pages, Vol.

Denman v. Bayless, 22 Ill. 300,
oi Vv. McGuire, 101 N. ¥.
Denn y. Tatem,1N. J. L. 164,
Dennett v. Dow, 17 Me. 19,
Dennett v. Petitioner, 32 Me. 508,
ni v. Railroad Co., 103 U.
Denning v. Norris, 2 Lev. 248, 232
Dennis v. Ford, 7 ee Ths 200, 627
Dennis v. Maxfield, 10 Allen
(Mass.) 138, \ 108
Dennison v. Grove, 62 N. J. L.
144, S. OC. 19 Atl. Rep. 186,
Dennison v. Taylor, 142 Ill. 45, 8.

596
427
224
795
170

374

540

C. 31 N.E. R. 148, 320
Denny v. Ashley, 12 Col. 165, 444
Dent v. Bryce, 16S. Car, 1, 1160
Dent v. Dunn, 3 Camp. 296, 402

Dent v. Powell, 80 Ia. 456, S.C. 45
N. W.R. 772,

Denton vy. Denton, 1 Johns. Ch.
(N. Y.) 364,

Denton v. Noyes, 6 Johns. 296, S.

555
476

C. 5 Am. Dec. 237, 606
Denver v. Brown, ul R. I. 537, 472
Denver v. Dean, 10 Col. 375, gC.

16 Pac. R. 30, 531
Denver v. J acobson, 17 Col. 497,

8. C. 30 Pac. R. 246, 180

Denver v. Lobenstein, 3 Col. 216, 269
Denver, etc., v. Cowgill, 44 Kan.
325, S. C. 24 Pac. RB. 475,
Denver, etc., Ry. Co.'v. Hender-
son, 10 Col. 1, 1043
Denver, etc., Water Co. v. Mid-
daugh, 12 Col. 434, S.C. 13 Am.
St. R. 234, 344
Denver, etc., Co. v. Moynahan, 8
Col. 56, 824
Denver, ete., R. BR. Co. v. Olsen, 4
Col. 239, 545
Denver, T. & G.R. RB. Co. v. Rob-
bins, 2 Col. Ct. of App. 318, 8.
C. 30 Pac. R. 261, 585

Depauw v. Bank, 126 Ind. 553, 393

De Pauw v. Kaiser, 77 Ga. 176, 8.
C.38. E. R. 25, 1163

DePew v. Robinson, 95 Ind. 109, 178

Depew v. Wheelan, 6 Blackf. 485, 1194
Deppe v. Chicago, etc., R. R. Co.,

38 Ia. 592, 1120
oe v. Betts, 4 Harr. WDel.)

DePuy v. Quinn, 61 Hun 237, 8.
C. 16 N. Y. Supp. 708, 657
Dequindre v. Williams, 81 Ind.
444, 242, 314, 327
Derham v. Holeman, 26 Ga. 182,
8. C. 71 Am. Dec. 198, 381

1232°

 

TABLE OF CASES.

I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.]

DeRidder v. McKnight, 13 Johns.

(N. Y.) 294, 560
Derosia v. Winona, etc., R. R. Co.,
18 Minn. 133, 553

Des Artes v. Leggett, 16N.Y.582, 402
Deshler v. Foster, 1 Morr. (Ia.)
403, 613
Des Moines v.Layman,?21 Ia.153, 1129
Des Moines Navigation Co. v.
Iowa, etc., Co., 123 U. S. 552,
DeSobry v. DeLaistre, 2 Har. &
J. (Md.) 191, 801
DeSouchett v. Dutcher, 113 Ind.
249, 1064, 1079
De Tar v. Boone Co., 34 Ia. 488, 4382
DeTreville v. Ellis, 1 Bailey Eq.
(S. Car.) 35, S. C. 21 Am. Dec.
518, 201
Detro v. State, 4 Ind. 200, 177
Detroit v. Detroit City Ry. Co., 55
Fed. R. 569, 1046
Detroit v.J ackson, 1 Doug. (Mich. -
106,
Detroit, etc., R. R. Co. v. Van”
Steinburg, 17 Mich. 99, 546, 1056
Detroit First Nat. Bank v. Burch,
76 Mich. 608, 8. C. 43 N. W. R.
~453, 454
Detroit Free Press Co. v. Bagg, 78
Mich. 650, 8. C. 44 N.W.R. 149, 456
Deutmann v. Kilpatrick, 46 Mo.
App. 624, 538, 566

315

Devacht v. Newsam, 3 Ohio 57, 371
DeVay v. Dunlap, 7 Ind. App.
690, S. O. 35 N. E.R. 195, 1080

Devecmon v. Shaw, 70 Md. 219,
S.C. 16 Atl. R. 645, 111
Devenhash v. Devenbagh, 5 Bae
Cc

Devenbaugh v. Nifer, 3 Ind. App.
379, 8. C. 29 N. E. R. 923,
Devendorf v. Dickinson, 21 How.
Pr. (N. Y.) 275, 198, 498
De Verser v. Blackstone, 6 Blatchf.
235, 196
Devlin v. Commonwealth, 101 Pa.
St. 273, 8. C. 47 Am. R. 710, 325
1149

206

Devlin v. Quigg, 44 Minn. 534, 8.
C. 20 Am. St. R. 592,
Devoe vy. Ithaca, ete., Co., 5 Paige

521, 195
De Wald v. Kansas City, etc., Co.,
44 Kan. 586. §. C. 24 Pac. R.
“1101, 1025, 1030
De Walt v. Hartzell, 7 Col. 601,
635, 640
De Wein v. Osborn, 12 Col. 407, 8.
C. 21 Pac. R. 1 189, 628

Dewey v. Greene, 4 Denio (N.Y.)
93, 612
TABLE OF CASES.

xXCV

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.]

Dewey v. Humphrey, 5 Pick. 187, 1172
Dewey v. Lewis, 12 Neb. 306, 1197
Dewey v. Washburn, 12 Vt. 580, 402
Dewing v. Perdicaries, 96 U. 8.
?
Dewing v. Sears, 11 Wall. 379,
Dewing v. Wentworth, 11 Cush.
499, 198
De Witt v. Burnett, 3 Barb. 89, 303
De Witt v. Prescott, 51 Mich. 298, 506
De Wolf v. Murphy, 11 B.I. 630, 467
De Worms y. Mellier, L. R. 16
_ Equ. 554, 406
Dexter v. Arnold, 5 Mason 303, 1186
Dexter v. Ohlander, 95 Ala. 467,
S. C. 10 So. R. 527, 480
Dexter v. Young, 40° N. H. 130, 586
574
189

115
1192

Dhrew v. Altoona, 121 Pa. St. 401,
8. C. 15 Atl. R. 636,
Dial v. Holter, 6 Ohio St. 228,
Dial v. Valley "Mut. Life ‘Assn., 29
S. Car. 560, 618
Diamond v. Lawrence Co., 37 Pa.
St. 353, 8.C. 78 Am. Dec. 429, 498
Dick v. Mullins, 128 Ind. 365,

1227, 1236
Dick v.. Wilson, 10 Ore. 490, 316
Dickenson v. Codwise, 11 Paige
189, 1187
Dickenson v.Dickey,76N.Y.602, 1139
Dickerson v. Burlington, etc., R.
R. Co., 43 Kan. 702, S.C. 23 Pac.
R. 936, 440, 612
Dickerson v. Dickerson, 50 Mich.
37, 1091
Dickerson vy. Hays, 4 Blackf.
(Ind. 592, 598
Dickerson ‘v. Tyner, 4 Blackf.
(Ind.) 253, 598
Dickey v. Schreider, 358. & R.
(Pa.) 413, 1027
Dickey v. Vann, 81 Ala. 425, 8. C.
8 So. R. 195, 263
Dickinson, Ex parte, 29 S. Car.
458, S. C. 18 Am. St. R. 749, 302
Dickinson v. Hoomes,8 Gratt. 353, 281
Dickison v. Palmer, 2 Rich. Eq.
(S. Car.) 407,
' Dickison v. Railroad Co. s7 W. Va.

390, 601
Dick’s Appeal, 106 Pa. St. 589, 337
Dicks v. Hatch, 10 Ia. 380,

248, 255, 454
Dickson, Ex aby 64 Ala. 188, 178
Dickson v. Hoff, 3 How. (Miss.)
165,
Dickson v. Rose, 87 Ind. 103,
1151, 1217, 1219
Didier v. Penna. Co., 146 Pa. St.
582, 8. C. 23 Atl. R. 801,

197

 

1071 |

Diebold v. Penna., etc., Co., 50 N.

J. L. 478, 368
Diedrichs v. Northwestern, etc.,

Co., 33 Wis. 219, 488
Diedrick v. Richley, 2 Hill 271, 576

Diefenback v. Stark? 56 Wis. 462, 539
Dieffenbach v. Roch, 112 N. Y

621, 368
Dieffenderfer v. Scott, 5 Ind. App.
243, 8. C. 32 N. E. Rep. 87, 795

Diehl v. Ihrie, 3 Whart. T Pa. 148,
1134, 1136
Dignan v.Gilbert,43 Ill. App.536, 1228

Dikeman v. Struck, 76 Wis. 332,
8. C. 45 N. W. R. 118, 609, 612

Dilks v. Hammond, 86 Ind. 563,

584, 585

Dillard v. Central Va. Iron Co.,
82 Va. 734,58. C.18. E.R.124, 441

Dillard v. Krise, 86 Va. 410, S. C.
108. E. R. 480, 450
Dillard v. Noel, 2 Ark. 449, 337
Dille v. Lovell, 87 Ohio St. 415, 675

Dille v. State, 34 Ohio St. 617, 8.
C. 32 Am. R. 395, 178, 819

Dillebar v. Home Ins. Co., 87 N.
Y. 79. 778

Dillin v. People, 8 Mich. 357,721
Dillingham vy. Russell, 73 Tex. 47,
8.C.3L. RB. A. 634, 720

Dillingham vy. Snow, 5 Mass. 547,
1160

Dillon v. Cockroft, 90 N. Y. 649,
1045, 1050
Dillon v. Heller, 39 Kan. 599, 8.

C. 18 Pac. R. 693, 275, 444
Dillon v. Rand, 15 Col. 372, 605
Dimes v. Grand Junction, etc.,

Co., 16 Eng. Law & Eq. 63,
Dimes v. Grand Junction Canal,

218

3 H. L. Cases 759, 209
Dimes v. Grand Canal, etc., Co.,
3 H. L. Cases, 794, 214

Dimick v. Downs, 82 Ill. 570,
705, 803, 804
Dimmitt v. Robbins, 74 Texas 441,
8. C. 128. W. R. 94, 637
Dinsmore v. Livingston County,
60 Mo. 241,
Dinsmore v. Neresheimer, 32 Hun

204, 282
Dinwiddie v. Jacobs,82 Mo. 195, 1238
Dinwiddie v. State, 103 Ind.101, 719
Disborough v. Vanness, 3 Hal-

stead (N. J. L.) 231, 411
Diss Debar, In re, 3 N. Y. Supl.,

667, 294
District of Columbia v. Armes,

107 U.S. 519, 8. C. 2 Sup. Ct.

R. 840, 519
xcvi

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.]

District of Columbia v. Hutton,

143 U.S. 18, 170
District of Columbia v. Washing-

ton & G. R. R. Co., 1 Mackey

361, 866

District Township v. Independent
District, 69 Ia. 88, 8. C. 28 N.
W. R. 449, 343
District Township v. Rankin, 70
Ia. 65, 8. C. 29 N. W. R. 806, 581
Ditmars v. Com., 47 Pa. St. 335, 1059
Ditson v. Ditson, 4 R. I. 87, 287
Diveny v. Elmira, 51 N.Y. 506,
645, 654, 662
Dix v. Town, 19 Vt. 262, 581, 582
Dixon v. Caldwell, 15 Ohio St. 50
2

412,
Dixon v. Clark, 5 Com. B. 365,
400, 401
Dixon v. Duke, 85 Ind. 434, 526,
530, 586, 1104, 1106, 1107, 1108, 1115
Dixon v. Judge, etc., 26 La. Ann.
119, 155
Dixon vy. Parks, 1 Ves. Jr. 402,
Dixon vy. Pluns (Cal.), 31 Pac. R.
931,
Dixon v. State, 86 Ga. 754,

1119
794, 797

Doane v. Glenn, 21 Wall. 33, 514
Doane v. Glenn, 1 Col. 417, 192
Doane v. Lockwood, 115 J]. 490, 1050

Doane College v. Lanham, 26

Neb. 421, 8.C. 42 N. W.R. 405,
Dobbins’ Distillery, 96 U.S. 395,
Dobbins v. McNamara, 113 Ind.

54,8. C.14.N. E. R. 887,
Dobbins v. Oswalt, 20 Ark. 619,
Dobbins v. State, 14 Ohio St. 493,
Dobson v. Cothran, 34 §. Car. 518,

§.C.138.E.R.679, 177, 179, 1079
Dobson a gle 8 Jones L. (N.

Car.) 4
ico "Hutson, 125 Ind. 102,

557, 1092, 1094
Doctor v. Hartman, 74 Ind. 221,

332, 609, 1214
Dodd v. McGraw, 8 Ark. 83, 8. C.

46 Am. Dec. 301, 541
Dodd v. Moore, 91 Ind. 522, 516
Dodds v. Vannoy, 61 Ind. 89, 362

574, 600

Dodds v. Hakes, 114 N. Y. 260, 8.
Dodge v. Brennan, 59 N. H. 138, 592

574
277

455
178
177

539

C. 21 N. E. R. 398,

Dodge v. Colby, 108 N. Y. 445, 306
Dodge v. Cole, 97 Ill. 338, 8. C.

37 Am. R. 111, 289
Dodge v. Dunham, 41 Ind. 186, 705
Dodge v. Israel, 4 Wash. C. C.

323,- 509
Dodge v. Janvrin, 59N.H.16, 539
Dodge v. People, 4 Neb. 220, 667

 

Dodge v. Phelan, 2 Tex. Civil
App. 441, 8. C. 218. W. R. 309, 607
Dodge v. Pope, 93 Ind. 480,
1156, 1170
Dodson v. Scroggs, 47 Mo. 285,
+ 214, 239, 248, 258
Doe v. Anderson, 5 Ind. 33, 274
Doe v. Bowen, 8 Ind. 197, 274
Doe v. Brown, 8 Blackf. 443, 508, 513

Doe v. Considine, 6 Wall. 458, 119
Doe v. Davies, L. R.10Q.B.315, 524
Doe v. Harvey, 5 Blkf. 487, 274

Doe v. Litherberry, 4 McLean

442, 314
Doe v. Makepeace, 8 Blackf. 575,
1224, 1235
Doe v. Rosser, 3 East 15, 598
Doe v. Smith, 1 Ind. 451,
128, 322, 1228
Doe v. Snowdon, 2 W. Bl. 1224, 558
Doe v. Spence, 6 East 120, 553
Doe v. State Bank, 4 McLean (U.

8. C. C.) 339, 266-
Doe v. Wandlars, 7T. R. 117, 392
Doe v. Whitaker, 5B. & Ad. 409, 145
Doherty vy. Doherty, 148 Mass.

867, S. C. 19 N. E. R. 352, 591
Dohms v. Mann, 76 Ja. 723, 443
Dogan v. Brown, 44 Miss. 235, 451
Dogge v. Northwestern, ete., Co.,

49 Wis. 501, 595
Doggett v. Jordan, 2 Fla. 541, 535
Dolan v. Church, 1 Wyo. 187, 233
Dolan v. Court of Good Samari-

tan, 128 Mass. 437, 588
Dolan v. Merrett, 18 Hun 27, 1146
Dolan v. People, 64 N. Y. 485,. 652

Dolan v. State, 122 Ind. 141,
557, 665%1154
Dolby v. Mullins, 3 Hump. (Tenn. )
437, 8. C. 89 Am. Dec. 180, 198

Dole v. Johnson, 50 N. H. 452,
524, 740
Dole v. Wooldredge, 135 Mass.

140, 8. C.2 N. E. R. 680, 1127
Dole v. Wooldredge, 142 Mass.

161, 8.C.7N. E. R. 832, 788
Doll v. State, 45 Ohio St. 445, S.

C.15 N. E. R. 298, 659
Dollman v. Munson, 90 Mo. 85, S.

C.28. W. R. 134, 1160, 1171
Dollner v. Lintz, 84 N.Y. 669, 803
Dolson vy. Arnold, 10 How. Pr. (N.

Y.) 528, 567
Doly v. Gillett, 43 Mich. 202, 111
Domingues v. Domingues, 4 Cal.

186, ~ 142, 155
Dominguez v. Mascotti, 74 Cal.
269, 1163
Dominick v. Eacker, 3 Barb. 17, 484
TABLE OF CASES.

xevii

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.]

Donahoe v. New York, etc., Co.

(Mass.), 34 N. E. R. 87, 740
Donahoe v. Rich, 2 sae App. 540,

S.C. 28N.E. R.1 001, 675
Donahue v. Roberts,19 Fed.R. 863, 510
Donald v. St. Louis, etc., Co., 52

Ta. 411,

Donald v. Nelson, 94 Ala. 111, 8.

C. 10 So. R. 317, 178
Donelson v. Taylor, 8 Pick.(Mass.)

390,

Donlin vy. Hettinger, 57 II]. 348,
Donnell v. Jones, 13 Ala. ‘490, Ss.

C.48 Am. Dec.59, 180, 509, 737, 738
Donnell v. Jones, 17 Ala. 689, 8.

C. 52 Am. Dee. 194, 465
Donnelly v. Burkett, 75 Ia. 613, 1149
Donnelly v. Corbett, 7 N. Y.500, 285
Donnelly v. Daggett, 145 Mass.

314, 8. C. 14 N. E. R. 161, 552
Donnelly v. Woolsey, 59 Hun 618, 313
Donoghue v.Indiana, etc., Ry.Co.,

87 Mich. 18, 8.C.49 N.W.R.

512, 1112

51
443

Donohue, In re,52 How. Pr. 251, 294
Donohue v. Woodbury, 6 Cush.

148, S.C. 52 Am. Dec. 777, 566
Donovan v. Clark, 188 N. Y. 631,

S. C. 33 N. E. iz. 1066, 1212, "1218
Donovan v. People, 139 Il. 412, 8.

C. 28 N. E. R. 964, 650
Doogood v. Rose, 9 O. B. 132, 1156
Dooley v. Barker, 2 Mo. App.

“325, 176, 178
Dooleyv. eg 2Tex. Civil App.

132, 8. C. 21 S. W. R. 157, 800
Dooley v. State, 28 Ind. 239, 1120
Dooley Block v. Salt Lake, ete.,

Co., 9 Utah 31, S. C. 33 Pac. R.

229, 1141
Doolittle v. Broome, 18N.Y.155, 483
Doolittle v. Holton, 28 Vt. 819, S.

C. 67 Am. Dec. 745, 128
Doran v. Mullen, 78 Il. 342, 728
Doran v. Ryan, 81 Wis. 63, S. C.

51 N. W. R. 259, 1115
Doran v. Shaw, 3 T. B. Mon. 411,

1125, 1234
Dore v. Billings, 26 Maine 56, 550
Doremus v. Walker, 8 Ala. 194, 196
Dorland v. Dorland, 66 Cal. 189, 360
Dorman v. State, 56 Ind. 454, 163
Dorman y. State, 34 Ala. 216, 176
Dormsy v. Knower, 55 Iowa 722, 593
Dornick v. Reichenback, 108. &
R. 84, 1118

Dorr v. ’ Fenno, 12 Pick. (Mass.)
621, 1120
Dorr v. Gibbony, 3 Hughes 382, "336
@

 

Dorr v. Rohr, 82 Va. 359, 8. C. 3

Am. St. R. 106, 111, 279, 336, 339
Dorr v. Tremont Bank, 128 Mass.

349, 675
Dorsch v.Rosenthall 89 Ind. 209, 1165
Dorsey v. McGee, 30 Neb. 657, 8.

C. 46 N. W. R. 1018, 1167
Dorsheimer v. Rorback, 24 N. J.

q. 33, 120
Doss v. Birks, 11 Humph. (Tenn. Ig
30,

Dotron v. Bailey, 76 Ind. 434, 550
Dotson v. State, 62 Ala. 141, 652
Doty v. Mich. Cent. R. R. Co., 8

Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 427, 441

Doty v. State, 6 Blackf. 529, 637
Dougherty v. Jones, 37 Ga. 348, 498
Dougherty v. McWhorter, 7 Yerg.
(Tenn.) 239, 590
Doughty v. Doughty, 27 N. J. Eq.
315, 287
Doughty v. Elliott, 8 »Blackf.
(Ind.) 405, 1048
Waneney 3 v. Somerville, etc., 33 N.
| J. Eq. 1 484
Doughty y. Somerville, etc., Co.,
7N. J. Eq. 629, 492
Douglas v. Dakin, 46 Cal. 49, 31
Douglas v. Elkins, 28 N. H. 26, 367
Douglas v. Hill, 29 Kan. 527, 818
Douglas v. Patrick, 3 Term. Rep.
683, 400, 401
Douglass v. County of Baker, 23
Fla. 419, 8. C. 2 So. R. 776, 202

Douglass v. Mitchell, 35 Pa. St.440, 21
Douglass v. Neguelona, 88 Tenn.

769, 8. C. 148. W. R. 283, 832
Douglass v. Todd, 96 Cal. 638, S.
C. 31 Am. St. R. 247, 1200

Douthit v. Douthit, 1383 Ind. 26, 1147

Douthit v. Mohr, 116 Ind. 482, 529
Dove v. Royal Ins. Co., 98 Mich.
—,8. 0.57 N. W. RB. 30, 739

Dover Stamping Co. v. Noyes, 151
Mass. 342, S.C.24N. E.R. 58, 413
Dow v. Merrill, 65 N. H. 107, 8.

C. 18 Atl. R. 317, 1148
Dowdell v. Wilcox, 64 Ia. 721,

821, 823

Dowden v. State, 106 Ind. 157, 305

Dowdy v. Com., 9 Gratt. (Va.)
727, 666
Dowell yv. Lahr, 97 Ind. 146, 445, 451
Dowell v. Richardson, 10’ Ind.
573, 1118
Dowell v. Tucker, 46 Ark. 438,

‘Dowling v. Allen, 88 Mo. 298,

: "630, 636
Dowling v. Polack, 18 Cal. 625, 1180
X¢Vill

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.)

Downard v. Hadley, 116 Ind. 131,
_§. C. 18 N. E. R. 457, 111
Downer v. Baxter, 30 Vt. 467,
Downer v. Dana, 19 Vt. 338,
Downer v. Rowell, 24 Vt. 348, 738
Downey v. Day, 4 Ind. 531, 675
Downey v. O’Donnell, 86 Ill. 49, 406
Downey v. Smith, 18 Ill. 671, 188
Downey v. State, 77 Ind. 87, 1143
Downey v. Washburn, 79 Ind.
242, 1139
Downin v. Sprecher, 35 Md. 474, 290
Downs v. Allen, 10 Lea (Tenn.)
562, 881
Downs v. Cooper, 2. Q. B. 256, 572
Dows v. Rush, 28 Barb. (N. Y. )
1078
654

157,
Doyal v. State, 70 Ga. 134,

529
411

1124
800

Doyle v. Pheenix Ins. Co., 44 Cal.
264,

Doyle v. Teas, 5 Il. 202,

Doyle v. Union Pac. Ry. Co., 147
413, 8. C. 13 Sup. Ct. R.

Doyle v. Wade, 23 Fla. 90, 8. C.
11 Am. St. R. 334,

Doyn v. Ebbesen, 72 Wis. 284, 8.
C. 389 N. W. R. 535,

Draghicevich v. Vulicevich, 76 Cal.
878, S. C. 18 Pac. R. 406,

Drainage Commissioners v. Giffin,
134 Ill. 330, S. C. 25 N. E. Rep.
995,

DrainageCommissioners v. Waeltz,
41 Ill. App. 575,

Drake a Cockroft, 4E. D. Smith’
(N. Y.) 34,

Drake v. Cockroft, 10 How. Pr.
(N. Y.) 877,

Drake v. Duvenick, 45 Cal. 455,

Drake v. Farmers’, etc., Co.,
Grant Cas. (Pa.) 395,

Drake v. Hale, 38 Mo. 346,

Drake v. Hanshaw, 47 Ia. 291,

Drake v. State, 75 Ga. 413,

Drake v. State, 53 N. J. L. 23, S.

1071
380
406
589

637

528
ae

° se7
447
293
809

C. 20 Atl. R. 747, 666
Drane v. McGavock, 7 Hump. 132, 197
Draper v. Arnold, 12 Mass. 449, 198
Draper v. Draper, 68 Ill. 17, 520

Draper v. Jones, 11 Barb. (N. Y.)

263,

Draughan v. Bank, 1 Stew. 66, S.

C. 18 Am. Dec. 38, 191
Dravo v. Fabel, 25 Fed. R. 116, 8.

C. 1382 U.S. 487, 796
Drawdy v. Littlefield, 75 Ga. 215, 230
Drebert v. Trier, 106 Ind. 510, 1129
Dresser v. Van Pelt, 15 How. Pr.

19, 299

560

 

Drew v. Towle, 30 N. H. 531, 536
Drew v. Wood, 26N. H. 363, 796

Drexel vy. Berney, 122 U.S. 241,
814, 315

Drexel v. Man, 6 W. & S. (Pa.)
386, S. C. 40 Am. Dec. 573, 1242
Drexel v. Miller, 49 Pa. St. 246, 423

Drexel v. Pease, 129 N. Y. 96, S.
C. 29 N. E. R. 241, 180

Drey v. Doyle, 28 Mo. App. 249, 411
Drey v. Doyle, 99 Mo. 459, 549
Dreyfous v. Hart, 36 La. Ann. 929, 593
Dreyfus v. Mayer, 69 Miss. 282, 8.

C. 12 So. R. 267, 297
Driggs v. Abbott, OT Vt. 580, 8. C.

65 Am. Dec. 214 4, 314
Driggs v. Burton, 44 Vt. 124, 552
Driggs v. Dwight, 17 Wend. 71, 1225
Driggs v. Phillips, 103 N. Y. 77, 366
Drinkhouse v. Spring Valley, etc.,

Co., 80 Cal. 308, 8. OC. 22 Pac.

R. 252, 304
Drunningberg v. Indianapolis,

etc., Co., 13 Ind. 103, 117
Druscott v. King, 6 N. Y. 147, 239

Druse v. Wheeler, 26 Mich. 189, 554
Dryden v. Britton, 19 Wis. 31, 1053
Dryer v. Brown, 52 Hun (N. Y.)
321, 811
Drysdale v. Biloxi Canning Co.,

67 Miss. 534, S.C. 780.R.541, 445
Duane v. Simmons, 4 Yeates(Pa.)

441, 1115
Duanesburg v. Jenkins, 40 Barb.

574, 824
Dube v. Lewiston, 83 Me. 211, S.

C. 22 Atl. B. 112, 536

Dubois v. Campau, 28 Mich. 304, .1090
Dubois v. Turner, 4 Yeates (Pa.)

361, 173
Du Breuil v. Pennsylvania Co.,
- 130 Ind. 187, 306

Dubuque v. Miller, 11 Iowa 583, 400
Ducker v. Whitson, 112 N. Car.
51, 8. C. 298. E.R. 221, 593, 601
610,
485
Dudley y. Mayhew, 3N. Y.9,
599
Duerhagen vy. Ins. Co., 28. & R.

Ducie v. Ford, 8 Mont. 238, S. C.
19 Pac. R. 414, 528
44,8. C. 168. E. R. 854, 736
Duckworth v. Digsles, 139 Mass.
Dudley Vv. Hons, 79 Ala. 187, ‘Lis4
Dudley v. Frankfort, 12 B. Mon.
366
Dudley v. Hurst, 67 Md. 44, 8. C.
1 Am. St. R. 368, ,
485
Duer v. Boyd, 1 Serg. & R. (Pa.)
203,
(Pa.) 185, 103
Duerison v. ’Bellows, 1 Blackf. 217, 184
TABLE OF CASES.

xcix

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.]

8.C.17N. E. R. 624, 1091
Duff v. Duff(Cal.), 35 Pac. R. 487, 1166
Duff v. Wynkoop, 74 Pa. St. 300, 344
Duffield v. Rosenzweig, 144 Pa.
350
Duffin v. People, 107 Ill. 113, S.
C. 47 Am. Rep. 431,
Duffy v. Hickey, 68 Wis. 380, S.
C. 32 N. W. R. 54,
379
Dufour v. Lang, 54 Fed. R. 913 1187
Dufresne v. Weise, 46 Wis. 290
567,
S.C. 11 Am. R. 509, 362
Dugan v. Follett, “100 Ill. 581,
Dugan v. State, 125 Ind. 130, 8S.
C.9L. R. Anno. 321, 809
C.9 Atl. R. 354, 408
Duggins v. Watson, 15 Ark. 118,
Duigenan v. Claus, 46 Kan. 275,
S. C. 26 Pac. R. 699,
Duke v. Strickland, 43 Ind. 494,
33, 34
28N. E. R. 441
Dukes v. Rowley, 24 Til. 210, 235
Car.) 290, 558
Du Laurans v. St. Paul, etc., R
R. Co., 15 Minn. 49, 554
Knowlton, 42 Minn. 229, 8. C.
44N. W. R. 2,
656
Dumn y. Rothermel, 112 Pa. St.
272, 536, 537, 542
110, 130
Duncan v. Forgey, 25 Mo. App.

Duesterberg v. State, 116 Ind. 144,
Duff v. Duff, 71 Cal. 513, 1163
St. 520, 8S. C. 23 Atl. R. 4,
8, 35
Duffitt v. Tuhan, 28 Kan. 292,
632
Duffy v. Ogden, 64 Pa. St. 240,
805, 806
Dugan v. Anderson, 39 Md.
361, 871
Dugan v. Thomas, 79 Me. 221, 8.
S. C. 60 Am. Dec. 560, 1067
Duke v. State, 57 Miss. 229,
Dukes v. Cole, 129 Ind. 137, 8. C.
1208
Dula v. Cowles, 7 Jones L. (N.
Dulany v. Elford, 22 8. Car. 304, 535
Duluth Chamber of Commerce v.
1052
Dumas v. State, 62 Ga. 56,
Dunbar v. Locke, 62 N. H. 442,
310, 254, 1183

Duncan v. Gerdine, 59 Miss. 550,
; | 428, 455
Duncan v. Tufts, 52 Ark. 404, 638
Duncan v. Welty, 20 Ind. 44, 516
Duncan v. Wickliffe, 4 Metc.
(Ky.) 118, 604
Duncombe v. Daniell, 8 Carr. &
P. 222,
Dunham, etc., Co. v. Dandelin, 143
dil. 409, 8.'C. 32 N. E. R. 258,
1043, "1052

692

 

Dunham v. Schindler, 17 Ore. 256,

S. C. 20 Pac. R. 326, 313
Dunkle v. Elston, 71 Ind. 585, 438
Dunlap v. Berry, 39 Am. Dec. 413, 738
Dunlap v. Fox( Miss.), 2 So. R.169, 819
Dunlap v. Robinson, 12 Ohio St.

530, 1193
Dunlap v. Steere, 92 Cal. 344, S. C.

16 L. R. Anno. 361, 59
Dunlop v. Patterson, 74. N.Y. 145, 197
Dunlop v. Peter, 1 Cranch C.C.

(U. 8.) 403, 679
Dunn v. Bell, 85 Tenn. 581, 375
Dunn v. Crocker, 22 Ind. 324, 465, 469

Dunn v. Dunnaker, 87 Mo. 597, 794
Dunn v. Gibson, 9 Neb. 513, 1216
Dunn v. Hall, 8 BIkf.(Ind.) 32, 1119
Dunn v. People, 29 N. Y. 523, 705
Dunn v. Pipes, 20 La. Ann. 276, 792
Dunn v. State, 7Tex. App. 600, 655

Dunn v. State, 2 Ark. 229, 8. C. 35
Am. Dec. 54, 142

Dunning v. Galloway, 47 Ind. 182, 1048

Dunns v. Batchelor, 3 Dev. & B.

52, 1191
Dunsworth v. Walter A.Wood Ma-
chine Co., 29 Ill. App. 23, 389

Dupont v. Staring, 42 Mich. 492, 1093
Dupoyster v. Gagani, 84 Ky. 403, 29
Durant v. Essex Co.,7 Wall.107, 1177
DuRaut v. DuRaut, 36 S. Car. 49,

S.C. 14S. E. R. 929, 720
Durfee v. Abbott, 61 Mich. 471, 8.

C. 28 N. W. R. 521, 541
Durfee v. Abbott, 50 Mich. 479, 1083

Durham v. Shannon, 116 Ind. 403, 519
Durham v. Smith, 120 Ind. 463, 679
Durham v. State, 117 Ind. 477,
136, 487. 309
Duringer v. Moschino, 93 Ind. "495, 458
Durkee v. City of J anesville, 28
Wis. 464, 121
Durkee v. Leland, 4 Vt.612, 505, 506
Durkee v. Mayo, 1 Aik. (Vt. )129, 1178
Durnell v. Sowden, 5 Utah 216, 8.

C. 14 Pac. R. 334, 555
Durr v. Hervey, 44 Ark, 301, 8. C.

51 Am. R. 594, 465
Dusey v. Prudon, 95 Cal. 640, 8. C.

30 Pac. R. 798, 1200
Dusing v. Nelson, 7 Col. 184, 1182
Duson y. Dupre, 32 La. Ann. 896, 314

Dutcher v. Dutcher, 39 Wis. 651, 287
Dutcher v. Hill, 29 Mo. 271, 289

Dutton v. Seevers (Ia.), 56 N. W.
R. 398, 1167
Dutton v. Shaw, 35 Mich. 431,
801, 1177

Dutton v. Solmonson, 3 Bos. & P.
582, 890
c TABLE OF

CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.,]

Duvall v. Craig, 2 Wheat. 45, 428, 454
Duval v. Wellman, 124 N. Y. 156,
8. C. 26 N. E. R. 343, 541
Dwiggins v. Cook, 71 Ind. 579,
819, 436
Dwight v. Germania Life Ins. Co.,
103 N. Y. 341, 8. C. 57 Am. R.
729, 1053
Dwight v. Merritt, 18 Blatch. (U.
S.) 305, 423, 433
Dwinelle v. New York, etc., R. BR.
Co., 120 N. Y. 117, S. C. 24 N.
E. R. 319, 8. 0.8 L. R. A. 224, 535
Dwyer v. St. Louis, ete., Co., 52
Fed. R. 87, 1055
Dyas v.Hanson, 14 Mo. App. 363, 555
Dyckman vy. Mayor, 5 N. Y.434, 323
Dyer v. McHenry, 13 Iowa, 527, 475

Dyer v. Morris, 4 Mo. 214, 696
Dyer v. Taylor, 50 Ark. 314, 8. C.
78. W. R. 258, 1092

Dyson vy. West, 1 Harr. & J. 567, 298

E

Eachus v. Trustees, 17 Tll. 534, 806
Eager v. Commonwealth, 4 Mass.

182, 380
Eagle & P. Mfg. Co. v. Belcher,

89 Ga. 218, 8. C.158. E. R. 482, 556
Eames v. Kaiser, 142 U. S. 488,

8. C. 12 Sup. Ct. R. 302, 783
Earbee v. Ware, 9 Port. (Ala.)

291, 454

Earl v. Camp, 16 Wend. (N. Y.)
562, 465

Earl Vv. Hurd, 5 Blackf. (Ind.)
248,

Earl v. Matheney, 60 Ind. 202, 474
Earle v. Earle, 91 Ind. 27, 146
Earle v. McVeigh, 91 U. 8. 503,

280, 339, 438
Earll v. People, 73 Ill. 329, 1074

Earls v. Earls, 27 Kan. 538,
142, 155, 156, 1164
Early v. Hamilton, 75 Ind. 376, 1140

Early v. Moore, 4 Muni. 262, 1191
Earnhart v. Lebanon, 5 Ohio C.
C. 578, 1238

Earthman v. Jones, 2 Yerg. 484, 297

Eason y. Miller, 18S. Car. 381, 1163

Eason v. State, 6 Baxt. 466, 661
East Dallas v. Barksdale, 83 Tex.

117, 8. C. 188. W. R. 329, 625
East Line R. R. Co. v. Brinker,

658

. Scott,

68 Texas 500,
East Line, etc., R. R. Co. v
72 Texas 70, S. C. 18 ia, St.
R. 758, 564, 565, 1066

 

East Rome Town vy. Cothran, 81

Ga. 359, 224
East Tennessee, etc., Co. v. Fleet-

wood, 90 Ga. 28,. 8. C0. 15 8. E.

R. 778, 623
East Tennessee, etc., Co. v. Ma-

honey, 89 Tenn. 811, 8. C. 158.

W. RB. 652, 314
East Tennessee, etc., Co. v. Sud-

deth, 86 Ga. 388, 8. C. 128. E.

R. 682, 610, 637
East Tennessee, etc., Co. v. Turva-

ville (Ala.), 12 So. R. 63, 721

East Tennessee, etc., Co. v. Whit-
lock, 75 Ga. 77, 1162

East Tennessee, ‘ete., R. R. Co. v.
Bayliss, 74 Ala. 150, 8. C. 19
Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 480,

East Tennessee, ete., R. R. Co. v.
Winters. 85 Tenn. 240, 8. C.1

547

8. W. RB. 790, 1119
Easterbrook v. Easterbrook, 64
Barb. (N. Y.) 421, 446

Easterly v. Goodwin, 35 Conn.

279, 8. C. 95 Am. Dec. 237,
Eastern, etc., v. Robertson, 6

Man. & G.3
Eastham v. Sallis, 60 Tex. 576,
Eastis v. Montgomery, 93 Ala. 298,

8.0.9 So. R. 311, 5385
Eastland v. Fogo, 58 Wis. 274, 543
Eastman v. Burleigh, 2N.H. 484,

583, 587
Eastman v. Concord, 64N. <7 263, 156
Eastman v. Dearborn, 63 N. H.

364, 463
Eastman v. Harteau, 12 Wis. 267, 183
Eastman v. Linn, 26 Minn. 215, 446
Eastman v. Premo, 49 Vt. 355, 3.

C. 24 Am. R. 142, , 956
Eastman v. State, 109 Ind. 278,
Eastman vy. Wadleigh, 65 Me. 251,

8. C. 20 Am. Rep. 695, 462
Eastman v. Waterman,26 Vt.494, 327

285

580
183

Eastman Co. v. Reichenback, 20
N. Y.S. 110, 485
Eastwood v. Buel, 1 Ind. 434, 218

Eastwood v. Kennedy,44 Md.563, 385
Eastwood v. Kennedy,44 Md. 563, 374
Eaton v. Badger, 33 N. H. 228,
259, 280
Eaton v. Barnhill, 68 Miss. 305,
8. C. 8 So. R. 84 9, "1168
Eaton v. Boston, etc., Co., 51 H.
N. 504, 8. C. 12 Am. R. 147,
108, 1006
Eaton v. Caldwell, 3 Minn. 134, 1202
Eaton v. Gentle, 1 Chand. (Wis. )
10,

Eaton v. J acobs, 52 Me. 445, 551
TABLE OF CASES.

ci

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.)

Eaton v. Knowles, 61 Mich. 625,

Eaton y. Lincoln, 13 Mass. 424,

mi yv. Smith, 20 Pick. (Mass.)
1

564
567

538
Eaton v. Strong, 7 Mass. 312, 1156
Ebberle v. Mayer, 51 Ind. 235, 383
Eberhardt v. Sanger, 51 Wis. 72, 1097
Ebert v. Ebert, 5 Md. 353, 600

Eborn vy. Zimpelman, 47 Tex. 503,

' _§. C. 26 Am. R. 315, 8, 35
Eckel v. Walker, 48 Ta. 225, 1163
Ecker v. McAllister, 45 Ma. 290, 801
Eckert v. Binkley, 134 Ind. 614, 8.

C. 33. N. E. R. 619, 558, 1163, 1169
Eckman v. Eckman, 68 Pa. St. 460; 518
Eckstein v. Downing, 64N.H. 248, 290
Eddleman v. McGlathery, 74 Tex.

280,8.C.115.W.R.1100, 1047, 1180
Eddy v. Caldwell, 7 Minn. 225,. 33
Eddy v. Chace, 140 Mass. 471,
Eddy v. Davis, 116 N. Y. 247, 8.C.

22 N. E. R. 362, 405
Eddy v. Evans, 58 Fed. R. 151, 1057
Eddy v. Lafayette, 49 Fed. R. 807,

441, 612
Eddy v. Moore, 23 Kan. 113, 469
Edel v. McCone, 31 N.Y. 558, 344
Edelen vy. Edelen, 6 Md. 288, 679
Edelen-v. Thompson, 2 Har. & G.

(Md.) 31, 1121
Edelman v. Yeakel, 27 Pa. St. 26, 538
Edgington, In re, 10 Nev. 215, 304
Edgington v. Fitzmaurice, 55 Law

Jour. Rep. (Ch.) 650, 544
Edmonds v. State, 34 Ark. 720, 1165
Edmondson y. Barrell, 2 Cranch

C. C. 228, 513
Edmondston v. Drake, 5 Peters,

624, 413
Edmunds v. Griffin, 41 N. H. 529, 372
Edmunds v. Herbrandson,2 N.Dak.

270, 8. C. 14 L. R. A. 725, 50 N.

“W. R. 970, 121, 171
Hanasion v. League, 1 Texas 64, 594

Edsall v. Ayers, 15 Ind. 286, 180, 1159
Edson v. Sprout, 33 Vt. 77, 475
Educational Ass’n v. Hitchcock,

4 Kan. 36,

Edwards, In re, 35 Kan. 99, S. C.

10 Pac. R. 539, 154
Edwards v.Crenshaw, 30 Mo. App.

510 794

Edwardsv.Goldsmith,16 Pa. St.48, 537

Edwards v. Hushing, 81 Ill. App.
223, 678
Edwards v. Kearzey, 96 U. 8. 595, 348
Edwards v. Russell, 21 Wend. a i ong
Edwards v. Smith, 16 Col. 509, 2
C. 27 Pac. R. 809, 1079

536 |.

 

awards v. Smith, 63 Mo. 119,
36, 538
Stevens, 3 Allen

595

Edwards y. State, 25 Ark. 444, 632
Edwards v. Tracy, 62 Pa. St. 374,

713, 1216

a v. Vandemack, 13 ul.

Edwards vy.
(Mass.) 315,

296
Edwards v. Watkins, 17 Mo. 278, 1200
Efner v. Shaw, 2 Wend. 567, 573
Egan v. Menard, 32 Minn. 278, 112
Egbert v. Citizens’ Ins. Co., 7
Fed. R. 4 511
Egerton v. Hart, 8 Vt. 207, 336
Egery v. Power, 5 Tex. 501, 1046
Egolf v. Bryant, 63: Ind. 365, 1046
Ehle v. Deitz, 32 Ill. App. 547, 393
Ehrmantrout v. McMahon, 78
Wis. 138, 8. C. 47 N. W. R.
305 1045

Eickman v. Troll, 29 Minn. 124, 605

Eidt v. Cutter, 127 Mass. 522, 812
Eisenlord v. Clum, 126 N.Y.
552, 519

Eisenmeyer v. Sauter, 77 Ill. 515,
576, 602
Eitel v. Foote, 39 Cal. 439, 266
Ela vy. Cockshott, 119 Mass. 416, 1063
Ela v. Ela (Mass.).32 N. E. R. .
6

957,
Ela v. McConihe, 35 N. H. 279,
148, 300, 345
Ela v. Smith, 5 Gray 121, 8. C. 66
Am. Dec. 356, 165, 324, 427
Elam vy. State, 25 Ala. 53, 805
Elbert v. Hoby, 73 Ind. 111, 1230
Elderkin v. Fellows, 60 Wis. 339, 400
Eldred v. Bank, 17 Wall. (U. 8S.)

| 645, 615
Eldred v. Becker, 60 Wis. 48, 632
Eldredge v. Bell, 64 Ia. 125, 1160
Eldridge v. Folwell, 3 Blackf.

(Ind.) 207, 609
Eldridge v. 'State, 12 Tex. App.

208, 1224
Electric Imp. Co. v. San Jose,

etc., Co. (Cal.) 31 Pac. R.455, 1115
Elee v. Wait, 28 Ill. 70, 447, 448

Elgin v. Beckwith, 119 Ill. 367, 10

N. E. RB. 558, 543
Elgin v. Goff, 38 Ill. App. 362, 365
Elgin v. Hill, 27 Cal. 372, 520

Elgin, ete., Co. v. Raymond, 148

111.241,8.C. 85 N.E.R.729, 1072, 1094
Elgin Lumber Co. v. Langman,

93 Ill. App. 250, 253, 492
Eliot v. Lawton, 7 Allen 274, 362
Eliot v. McCormack, 144 Mass.

10, 428, 463
cil

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602,

Eller v. Richardson, 89 Tenn. 575,

8. C. 15 8. W. R. 650, 314, 510
Ellicott v. Warford, 4 Md. 80, 194
Elligood v. Cannon, 4 Harr. 176,

319, 1196
Ellingham v. Mount, 43 N. J. Ls
298

470,
Elliott, Adams, 8 Blackf. (Ind.)
1038,
Elliott v. Callow, 2 Salk. 597,
Elliott v. Chicago, etc., R. R. Co.
150 U.S. 245, 8. C. 14 Sup. Ct.
R. 85, 1054
Elliott v. Frakes, 71 Ind. 412, 340
Elliott v. Jordan, 7 Baxt. 376, "183, 1192
Elliott v. Leak, 4 Mo. 540, 1195
Elliott v. Lawhead, 48 Ohio St.

403

171,8.C.1N. E. R. 577,
333, 454, 612
Elliott v. Mills, 10 Ind. 368, 1124
Elliott v. Pell, 1 Paige 253, 1185

Elliott v. Piersol, 1 Pet. 328, 168, 240
Elliott v. Reynolds, 38 Kan. 274,

8. C. 16 Pac. 698, 1090
Elliott v. State, 73 Ind. 10, 657
Elliott v. Sinclair, Jacob, 545, 477
Elliott v. Woodward, 18 Ind. 183, 5

1079

Ellis v. Boston, etc., Co., 107
Mass. 1, 194
Ellis v. Davis, 109 U.S. 485, 270
Ellis v. Dunn, 3 Ala. 632, 1192
Ellis v. Ewbank, 3 Scam. 190, 187
Ellis v. Goodnow, 40 Vt. 237, 475
Ellis v. Jones, 6 How. Pr. 296, 1200
Ellis v. Keller, 82 Ind. 524, 192
Ellis v. Kelso, 18 B. Mon. 296,
368, 369
Ellis v. Martin, 60 Ala. 394, 83

Ellis v. Northern, etc., Co., 80

Wis. 459, S. C. 50 N. W. R. 397,
1177

Ellis v. Ohio Life and Trust Co., 4
Ohio St. 628, 1054

Ellis v. Paige, 1 Pick. (Mass.)

43, 553
Ellis v. Smith, 42 Ala. te 220
Ellis v. ae 25 Fla. 702, 8. C. 6

So. R. 7 662, 667
Ellis v. Ward (Il.), 25 N. E. R.

530, 872
Ellison v. Bernstein, 60 How. Pr.

(N. Y.) 145, 465
Ellison v. Nickols, 1 Ind.477, 1195
Ellison v. Tuttle, 26 Tex. 283, 473

Ellithorpe v. Buck, 17 Ohio St.
Zi

72, 1
een § Campbell, 31 Barb.

(N. Y.) 134, 605
Ellsworth v. Learned, 21 Vt. 535, 183

 

TABLE OF CASES.

Vol. IT, pp. 603-1244.)
Ellsworth v. Moore, 5 Ia. 486,
29, 31, 163, 218
Ellsworth v. Potter, 41 Vt. 685, 797
Elmendorf v. Harris, 23 Wend.
(N. Y.) 628, S. C. 35 Am. Dec.
587,
Elmendorf v. Taylor, 10 Wheat.
(U. 8.) 152, 376
Elmore v. Grymes, 1 Pet. 469,
1039, 1044
Elmore v. Overton, 104 Ind. 548,
8. C. 54 Am. R. 348, 212
Elster v. Springfield, "49 Ohio St.
82, 8. C. 30 N. E. R. 274, 1081
Elston v. Castor, 101 Ind. "426,
982, 1105, 1149
Elston & W. G. Road Co. v. Peo-
ple, 96 Ill. 584, 1069
Eltzroth v. Voris, 74 Ind. 459, :
319, 1196
Elwell y. Fosdick, 134 U.S. 500, 1137
Elwell v. Johnson, 74 N. Y. 80, 1188
Elwood v. Western Union Tel.
Co., 45 N. Y. 549, 917
Elwell v. Chamberlain, 31 N. Y.
669, 676, 685
Ely v. Board of Commissioners,

611,
112 Ind. 361, 8. 0.14 N. E.R.

593

236, 168, 241, 324
Ely v. Forward, 7 Mass. 25, 520
‘Ely v. James, 123 Mass. 36, 545
Ely v. N. Mex., ete., Co., 129U. 8.

291, 1176
Ely v. Peck, 7 Conn. 239, 308
Ely v. Tallman, 14 Wis. 28, 316
Emach v. Kane, 34 Fed. R. 46, 483
Emanuel v. Bridger, L. R., 9 Q.

B. 286, 470
Emanuel v. Smith, 38 Ga. 602, + 473

Embury v. Connor, 3 N. Y. 511
8.0.53 Am. Dec. 325, 333, 348, 1185
Emeric v. Alvarado, 90 Cal. 44, §

C. 27 Pac. R. 356, 178
Emerick v. Chesrown, 90 Ind. 47, 360
Emerson v. Bacon, 58 Mich. 526, 467
Emerson v. Atwater, 12 Mich.

314, © 200
Emerson v. Auburn, 138 Hun (N.

Y.) 150, 442
Emerson v. Clark, 2 Scam. Ill.

489, 1227
Emerson v. Udald, 19 Vt. 477, S.

C. 37 Am. Dec. 604, | 602
Emery v. Owings, 7 Gill (Md.)

488, 8. C. 48 Am. Dec. 580, 593
Emery v. Royal, 117 Ind. 299, 8.

C. 20 N. E. R. 150, 474

Emery v. Whitwell, 6 Mich. 486,
181, 191, 1223
Emery’s Case, 107 Mass. 172, 781
TABLE OF

CASES. cili

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.]

Enmison v. Shepard, 121 Ind. 184, 1162
Emlaw v. Emlaw, 20 Mich. 11, 512
Emmel v. Hayes, 102 Mo. 186, S.

C. 22 Am. St. R. 769, 518
Emmerich vy. Hefferan, 83 Hun
1169
Emmerson v. Weeks, 58 Cal..382, 1042
Emmitt v.Yeigh, 12 Ohio St. 335, 465
Emory v. Owings, 3 Md. 178, 518
Empire v. Darlington, 101 U.S.

529, - 284
Empire, aes. Co. v. Blanchard,

31 0. 8t. 6 114
Empire, o Co. v. Engley, 14,

Col. 289, 8. C. 23 Pac. R. 452,

234, 640
opine, etc., Co. v. Macey, 115.

Ill. 390 ‘474

Empire State Type Co. v. Grant,

1144 N.Y.40,8.C. 21 N.E.R.

49, 551
Empire Transp. Co. v. Wamsutta

Oil Co., 63 Pa. St. 14, 547
Emry v. aes etc., ee 109

N. Car. 589, 8. C. 14 8S. E. R.

352, 548

Endicott, Petitioner, 24 Pick.339, 1221
Endsley v. State, 76 Ind. 467, 1235
Enfield v. Jordan, 119 U. 8.680, 1177
England v. Garner, 90 N. Car.
197, 606
Engle v. State, 50 N. J. L. 272,
1059, 1071
Engleman v. State, 2 Ind. 91, -
879, 1238
English v. Carney, 25 Mich. 178, 412
English v. Devarro, 5 BIkf. 588, 1180
English v. Savage, 5 Ore. 518, 293
English v. Smock, 34 Ind. 115, 481
English v. State, 31 Fla. 340, 8. C.
- 12 So. Rep. 689, 660
English v.Woodman, 40 Kan. 412,
8. C. 20 Pac. R. 262, 451
English v. Wordman, 40 Kan.
752, 8. C. 21 Pace. R. 283, 322
Engmann y. Estate of Immel, 59
Wis. 249, 382
Eno v. Metropolitan, etc., Co., 8
N. Y.S. 197, 491
Enos v. St. Paul, ete., Co. (8.
Dak.), 57 N. W. R. 919, “1087
Ennis v. Smith, 14 How. 400, 274, 545
Enright v. Montauk Fire Ins. Co.,
61 Hun (N. Y.) 625, 584
Ensminger v. Powers, 108 U.S.
292, 258, 492
Ensign v. Harney, 15 Neb. 330,
8. C. 48 Am. R. 344, 645, 662
Enterprise, etc., Co. v. Bradley,
17 Ill. App. 509, 1194

‘

 

Entaler +, Shope, 43 Pa. St. 110, 595

ee v. Chambers, 11 Kan.

Epes v. Williams (Va.), 17 S. E.
R. 285

Eppert v. Hall, 183 Ind. 417,
Equator, etc., Go. v. Hall, 166 U. °
S. 86, 1157
Equitable, etc., Ass’n v. Stout,
(Ind.) 33 N, iB, R. 623, 1116, "1155
Erben v. Lorillard, 19 N. Y. 299, 720
Erdmann, Ex parte, 88 Cal. 579,

8. C. 26 Pac. R. 372, 342

| Erickson v. Milwaukee, ete., Ry.

Co., 93 Mich. 414, 8.C.53 N. W.
Rep. 393,
Erie v. Knapp, 29 Pa. St. 173,
Erie, etc., Co. v. Miller, 52 Conn.
444, §.C. 52 Am. R. 607, 728
Erie R. Co. v. Ramsey, 45 N. Y.
637, 282
Erlanger v. Avego, 24La. Ann. 77, 1191
Errissman v. Errissman, 25 Ill.

790
471

136, 695
Erwin v. Bulla, 29 Ind. 95, 818, 815
Erwin v. Fulk, 94 Ind. 235, 479, 484
Erwin v. Hamilton, 50 How. Pr.

82, 1123
Erwin v. Heath, 50 Miss. 795, 462
Erwin v. Lowry, 7 How. (U. 8.)

172, 315
Erwin v. Scotten, 40 Ind. 389, 1194

Erwin v. Voorhees, 26 Barb. 127, 541
Eschbach v. Hurtt, 47 Md. 61, 714
Eschbach v. Pitts, 6 Md. 71, 366
Eshelman v. Chicago, B. & O. R.
R. Co., 67 Ia. 296, 8. C. 25 N.
W.R. 251, 855, 642
Eshelman v. Snyder, 82 Ind. 498, 4
1199

Eskridge v. Jones, 1 Smed. & M.
(Miss.) 595, 494, 428
Eslava v. Lepretre, 21 Ala. 504,

8. C. 56 Am. Dec. 266, 289
Eslinger v. East, 100 Ind. 434,
619, 623
Eslow v. Mitchell, 26 Mich. 500, 502
Essenwine v. Pennsylvania Co.,
25 Weekly Law Bulletin 396, 310
Essex v. McPherson, 64 Il]. 349, 653

Essig v. Lower, 120 Ind. 239, 8. C,
21N.E. R. 1090, 275,
299, 331, 426, 433, 444, 445, 450

Estate of ‘Aveline, 53 Cal. 259, 1161
Estate of Bierly, 81 Pa. St. 419, 519
Estate of Boyd, 25 Cal. 511, 178
Estate of Cook, 77 Cal. 220, 8. C.
11 Am. St. R. 267, 184, 191, 1189
|| Estate of Griffith, 84 Cal. 107, 8.
C. 28 Pac. R. 528, 314
civ

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.]

Estate of Jarrett, 42 Ohio St. 199,

189
Estate of Jones, 27 Pa. St. 336, 1190
Estate of McCausland, 52 Cal. 568, '

51

Estate of Newman,75 Cal.213,8. C.
7Am.8t.R.146, 184,287,444,452,1188
Estate of Page, 50 Cal. 40, 189, 718
Estate of Paige, 57 Cal. 38, 1224
Estate of Phillips, 48 Phila. Leg.
Inst. 232, 574
Estate of Robinson, 6 Mich. 137, 456
Estate of Schaeffner, 45 Wis. 614, 636
Estate of Toomes, 54 Cal. 509, 1133
Estate of Wardell, 57 Cal. 484, 291
Estate of White, 37 Cal. 190, 218
Estep v. Armstrong, 69 Cal. 536, 638
Estep v. Larsh, 16 Ind. 82, 576

Estes v. Boothe, 20 Ark. 583, 539
Estes v. Mitchell, 14 Allen 156, 148
Estill v. New York, etc., R. R.Co.,

41 Fed. R. 849, 534

Eswin v. St. Louis, etc., Co., 96
Mo. 260, 1149
Etheridge v. Woodley, 83 N. Car.
11, 378, 609
Etherige v. Hobbs, 77 Ga. 531, 696
Etting v.Bank,11 Wheat. (U.S. \59, 5387
Eudaly v. Eudaly, 37 Ind. 440, 1090
Eudel v. Leibrock,33 Ohio 8t.254, 465

Eureka Co. v. Bass, 81 Ala. 200, 546

Evans, In re, 22 L. T. 501, 573

Evans vy. Adams, 3 Green’ (N. J.)
373, 342

Evans v. Adams Express Co., 122

Ind. 362, 546
Evans v. Bolling, 5 Ala. 550, 618
Evans v. Cheek, 3 Hayw.(Tenn.)

42, 586

Evans v. Cleveland, 72 N.Y. 486, 378

Evans v. Cogan, 2P. Wms. 450, 581
Evans v. De Lay, 81 Cal. 103, 782
Evans v. Eaton, 7 Wheat. (U. 8.)
356, 520
— yv. Evans, 2 Cold. eau ae
43
Evans v. Evans, 1 Ves. Jr. 96, 477
Evans v. Galloway, 20 Ind. 479, 877

Evans v. Hettich, 7 Wheat. (U.S.)

453, 518, 519, 520
Evans v. Iles, 7 Ohio St. 233, 604, 615
Evans vy. Ives, 15 Phila. (Pa.) ee) 590
Evans v. Lake Shore, etc., R.

Co., 88 Mich. 442, "1058
Evans v. Phillips, 4 Wheat. (U.S. i
738, 1049

Evans v. Saul, 8 Mart. N. §.(La.)
247, 464
Evans v. Stettnisch, 149 U.S. 605,
8. C. 13 Sup. Ct. R. 931, 1169, "1212

 

Evans v. Smith,5T.B. Mon. (Ky.)

368, 8. C. 17 Am. Dec. 74, 804
Evans yv. State, 56 Ind. 459, 232
Evans vy. State, 58 Ind. 587, 1158

Evans v. State, 67 Ind. 68, 1164,1165'
Evans y. St. Paul, etc., Co., 63 Ia.
1158 [

204,
Evans vy. Town of Trenton, 112

Mo. 390, 8S. C.20 S.W.Rep. 614, 820 |
Evans v. Young, 10 Col. 316, S.C. |

3 Am. St. BR. 583, 319, 327
Evans v. Yongue, 8 Rich. 113, 375
Evans v. White, 53 Ind. 1, 1211
Evanston v. Gunn, 99 U. 8. 660,

557, 712, 1128
Evansville v. Blend, 118 Ind. 426, 258
Evansville v. Martin, 103 Ind.

206, 1162, 1163
Evansville v. Wilter, 86 Ind. 414, 822
Evansville, etc. v. State, 118 Ind.

426,8.C.4L. B.A. 98, 121, 170
Evansville, ete. v. City of Evans-

- ville, 15Ind.395, 134, 165,323, 427
Evansville, etc., Co. v. Frank, 3

Ind. App. 96, S. C. 29N. E. R. *

419, 1224
Evansville, etc., Co. v. Hawkins,

111 Ind. 549,

Evansville, ete., Co. v. Maddux,

134 Ind. 571, 8. C. 383 N. E. R.

345, 1162
Evansville, etc., R.R.Co. v. Mont-

gomery, 85 Ind. 494, 801
Evansville, etc., Co. v. Page, 23

Ind. 525,

Evansville & Richmond R. R. Co.

v. Fettig, 130 Ind. 61,
Evansville & T. H. R. R. Co. v.

Crist, 116 Ind. 446, 8. C. 2 L.R.

A. 450, 1063
Evansville & T. H. R. R. Co. v.

Taft, 2 Ind. App. 237, 530
Evarts v. Middlebury, 53 Vt.626, 811

712

Eve v. St. Louis, 91 Ind. 457, 376
Everdell v. Sheyboygan, etc., Co.
41 Wis. 395, 475

Everett v. Union Pac. R. R. Co.,
59 Ta. 248, 69
Everett v. Tidball (Neb.); 52 N.
W. R. 816,
Evison v. Chicago, St. Paul, Pits
8. C.

R. R. Co., 45 Minn, 370,

11L. R. A. 434, 545
Ewing v. Cook, 85 Tenn. 382, 8.

C. 4 Am. St. R. 765, 354

Ewing v. Duncan, 81 Tex. 280, 8.
C.168. W.R. 1000, 487
Ewing v. Orr Ewing, L.B.9 App.
Cas. 34, S.C. Brett’s L. C.in Eq.
234, 283
TABLE OF CASES,

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. IT, pp. 603-1244.)

Ewing v. Filley, 43 Pa. St. 384, 491

Ewing v. French, 1 Blackf. 170, 620
Ewing v. North Versailles Tp.,

146 Pa. St. 309, S. C. 23 Atl. R.

338, 534 |.
Ewing v. Peck, 26 Ala. 413, 550
Ewing v. White, 8 Utah 250, S.C.

30 Pac. R. 984, 518
Ex parte Amos, 51 Ala. 57, 226
Ex parte Arras, 78 Cal. 304, 8. C.

20 Pac. R. 683 342

Ex parte Baily, 2 Cow.(N.Y.) 479, 539
Ex parte Bassett, 2Cowen 458, 1241
Ex parte Beard, "41 Tex. 234, 189
Ex parte Bennett, 44 Cal. 84,

139, 155, 242
Ex parte Bergman, 3 Wyo. 396, 8.

C. 26 Pac. R. 914, 221

Ex parte Biggs, 64 N.C. 202, 137
Ex parte Bollman,4 Cranch 75, 307
Ex parte Bond, 98. Car. 80, 8. C.

30 Am. R. 20, 341
Ex parte Bradstreet, 4 Pet. 102, 1242
Ex parte Bridges, 2 Woods 428, 308
Ex parte Cage, 45 Cal. 248, 178

Ex parte Chambers, 10 Mo. App.
240,
Ex parte Chase, 43 Ala. 303,
Ex parte Cheatham, 1 Eng. (Ark.)
531, 8. C. 44 Am. Dec. 525, 430
Ex parte Crane, 5 Pet. 190, 1242
Ex parte Crouse, 4 Whart. (Pa.) 9, 294
Ex parte Cuddy, 131 U.S. 280, S.
C. 9 Sup. Ct. R. 703, 318, 528
Ex parte Curtis, 3 Minn. 274, 635, 639
Ex parte Davis, 95 Ala.9,8. C. 11

630
630

So. R. 308, 329
Ex parte Dickinson, 29S. Car. 453,

8. C. 13 Am. St. R. 749, 302
Ex parte Dickson, 64 Ala. 188, 178
Ex parte Edgington, 10 Nev. 215, 304
Ex parte Erdmann, 88 Cal. 579, 8.

C. 26 Pac. R. 372, 342

Ex parte Farmers’ Loan, etc., Co.,
129 U.S. 206, 176
Ex parte Fisk, 113 U. S. 713, 256
Ex parte Foster, 2 Story 131, 468
Ex parte Gans, 17 Fed. R. 471, 212
Ex parte Gibson, 89 Ala. 174,8.C.

7 So. R. 833, 304

Ex parte Ginnochio, 30 Tex. App.
584, 8. C. 188. W. R. 82,
Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Metcf. 168,
Ex parte Gordan, 92 Cal. 478, 8S.
C. 27 Am. St. R. 154,
Ex parte Griffiths, 118 Ind. ia
19,
Ex parte Harker, 49 Cal. 469,
Ex parte Henderson, 6 Fla. 279,
124, 178, 187, 607, 1242

119
116

243

212
118

 

cv
Ex parte Hodges, 59 Ala. 305, 631
Ex parte Ireland, 38 Tex. 344, 155
Ex parte Jaynes, 70 Cal. 638, 414
Ex parte Johnson, 15 Neb. 512, s.
C.19N. W.R. 594, 214
Ex parte Jones, 8 Cow. 123, 1225
Ex parte Jones, 61 Ala. 399, 189
Ex parte Juneman, 28 Tex. App
486, S. C. 13S. W. R. 783, "154

Ex parte Landsdown, 5 East 88, 393
Ex parte Lange, 18 Wall. 163,

118, 248, 255, "280, 340
Ex parte Logan Branch, 'ete. A

Bank, 1 Ohio St. 432, 256
Ex parte Maney, 38 Tex. 344, 142
Ex parte Martin, L. R. 4 Q. B.

Div. 212, 298
Ex parte Martin, 46 Fed. R. 482, 342
Ex parte McCardle, 7 Wall. 506, 258
Ex parte McGehan, 22 Ohio St.

442, 154
Ex parte McGill, 6 Tex. App. 498, 341
Ex parte McGrew, 40 Tex. 472, 304
Ex parte Miller, 82 Cal. 454, S. C.

22 Pac. R. 1113, 126
Ex parte Mountfort, 15 Ves. 445, 495
Ex parte Nelson, 62 Ala. 376, 1239
Ex parte Page, 49 Mo. 291, 248, 342
Ex parte Parker, 181 U.S. 221, 257
Ex parte Parks, 93 U. S. 18, 256
Ex parte Phillips, 57 Miss. 357, 336
Ex parte Randolph, 2 Brock. (U.

8. C. C.) 447, 115
Ex parte Raye, 63 Cal. 491, 184
Ex parte Redd, 73 Ala. 548, 1241

Ex parte Richardson (Ala. ), 11

S. R. 316, 177
Ex parte Roberts, 9 Nev. 44, 142,155
Ex parte Robinson, 19 Wall. 505,

136, 505
Ex parte Sibbald, 12 Pet. 488, 347
Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 871, 256
Ex parte Sims, 44 Ala. 248, 1182
Ex parte Slocomb, Richards, etc.,

9 Ark. (4 Eng.) 375, 183
Ex parte Stone,3 Cow.(N.Y.)380, 1048
Ex parte Story, 12 Pet. 339,

1128, 1242
Ex parte Stout, 5 Col. 509, 145
Ex parte Strahl, 16 Iowa 369, 214
Ex parte Strang, 21 Ohio St.610, 216

Ex parte Strong, 20 Pick. 484, 162

Ex parte Terry, 128 U. 8. 289,
, 186, 255

Ex parte Vermilyea, 6 Cow. (N.

Y.) 555, 662
Ex parte Walker, 25 Ala. 81, 494
Ex parte Walls, 73 Ind. 95, 1108

Ex parte Watkins, 3 Pet. 193,
127, 132, 323
evi

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.]

Ex parte Whitfield, 2 Atk. 315,

Ex parte Williams, 4 Yerg. 579,

Ex parte Wreford, 40 Ala. 378,

ene Yarbrough, 120 U. 8.
651,

Exley v. Berryhill, 36 Minn. 117,
8. C. 30. N. W. R. 136, 1203

Express Co. y. Railroad Co., 99
U.S. 191,

Eyer v. Beck, 70 Mich. 179,

Eyre’s Executor v. Fennimore, 2
Penning 932,

Eyser v. Weissgerber, 2’Ia. 463,

495
214
138

243

F

Faerber v.:T. B. Scott Lumber

Co. (Wis.), 56 N. W. Rep. 745, 821
Faber v. Bruner, 13 Mo. 541, 176
Fager v. State, 22 Neb. 332, 8. C.

385 N. W. R. 195, 219
Fagg v. Clements, 16 Cal. 389, 158
Fagundes v. Cent. Pac. R. R. Co.,

97 Cal. 97,8.C.3 L. R.A. 824,

1042, 1043
Fahnestock v. Gilham, 77 Ill.

637, 346
Fahnestock v. State, 23 Ind. 231, 657
Fahs v. Darling, 82 Ill. 142, 299
Fain v. Goodwin, 35 Ark. 109, 1118
Fain v. Headerick, 4 Coldw.

(Tenn.), 327, 600
Fairbanks v. Amoskeag Nat.

Bank, 32 Fed. R. 572, 1189
Fairbanks v. Kerr, 70 Pa. St. 86,

8. C. 10 Am. R. 664, 534

676

Fairbanks v. Irwin, 15 Col. 366,
Fairbanks v. Wood, 17 Wend.

(N. Y.) 329, 379
Fairbanks v. "Woodhouse, 6 Cal.
433, 545
Fairbanks, etc., Co. v. Cincinnati,
‘  ete., Co., 54 Fed. R. 420, 613
Fairchild v. Bascomb, 35 Vt. 398,
795, 797
Fairfax Forest, etc., Co. vy.
Chambers, 75 "Md. 604, 8. C. 23
Atl. R. 1024, 610

Fairfield v. Irvine, 2 Russ. 149,

Fales v. Goodhue, 25 Me. 423,

Fall v. Hazelrigg, 45 Ind. 576, 8.
C. 15 Am. Rep. 278,

Falley v. Gribling, 128 Ind. 110,

Fallin v. State, 86 Ala 13, S. C.5
So. R. 423,

Falls Wire Mig. Co. v. Broderick,
12 Mo. App. 878,

Faloon y. Simshauser, 130 Ill.
649,

496
154

403
1211

634
559
371

 

Falvey v. Jones, 80 Ga. 130, 423
Fancher v. Stearns, 61 Vt. 616, 8.
C. 18 Atl. R. 455, 235

Fanning v. Fly, 2 Cold. (Tenn.)

486 1
Fanning v. Krapfl, 61 Ia. 417, 430
Fannon v. Plummer, 30 Mo. App.

25, 152, 153
Fanshawe v. Tracy, 4 Biss, 490, 480
Fant v. Miller, 17 Gratt. (Va.)

187, 514
Faris v. Hoberg, 134 Ind. 269, 8.

C. 33. N. E. R. 1028, 548, 1053
Farland v. Wood, 35 W. Va. 458,

S.C. 148. E. R. 140, 488
Farley v. Cammann, 43 Mo. App.

168, 187
Farley v. State, 57 Ind. 331, 798, 1077

Farman v. Lauman, 73 Ind. 568, 820
Farmer vy. National, etc., Assn.

188 N. Y. 265, 608
Farmers’ Bank v. Bayliss, 41 Mo.

274, 1170
Farmers’ Bank v. Beaston, 7 Gill.

& J. 421, 197, 198
Farmers’ Bank v. Butterfield, 100

Ind. 229, 110, 1130
Farmers’ Bank v. Cowan, 2 Abb.

Ct. App. Dec. 88, 721

Farmers’ Bank v. King, 57 Pa. St.
202,

32
Farmers’ Bank v. Troy City Bank, —

1 Doug. (Mich.) 457,
Farmers’, etc., Bank v. Berchard,
32 Neb. 785, 8. C. 49 N. W. R.

762, 622

Farmers’, etc., Bank v. Lonergan,

21 Mo. 46, 14, 506

Farmers’, etc., Bank v. Young, 36
Ja. 44, 812

Farmers’, etc., Co. v. Groff, 87 Pa.

St. 124, 80, 738

Farmers’, etc., Co. v. Kennedy,
etc., Co., 127 Ind. 250, 1146

Farmers’ "High Line ‘Canal v.
Southworth, 13 Col. 111, 8S. C.

21 Pac. R. 1028, 8.C.4 L.R.A.

767, / 528
Farmer’s Loan, etc.,Co., Ex parte,

129 U. S. 206,

Farmers’ Loan, etc., Co. v. Peti-
tioner, 129 U. S. 206,

Farmers’ Loan, etc., Co. v. Postal
Tel. Co., a Conn. 334, S. C. 3
Am. St. R. 53, 281

Farmers’ Nat. Bank y. Fonda, 65
Mich. 533,

Farnam v. Brooks, 9 Pick. 212, 367

Farnham v. Campbell, 10 Paige,
598, 499
TABLE OF CASES.

evii

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 608-1244.)

Farnham vy. Pierce, 141 Mass. 208, 294
Farnsworth v. Coots, 46 Mich.
117, 1087
Farnum y. Ewell, 59 Vt. 327, S.C.
10 Atl. R. 527, 551
Farnum v. Phenix Ins. Co., 83
Cal. 246, S. C. 2 Lewis’ Am. R.

R. & Corp. R. 72,: 589
Farwell v. Chambers, 62 Mich. ,

316, 472
Farwell v. Fox, 18 Mich. 166, 33
Farwell v. Myers, 59 Mich. 179, 354
Farwell v. Tillson, 76 Me. 227, 538
Farr v. Cate, 58 N. H. 367, 1048
Farr v. Ladd, 37 Vt. 156, 158
Farr v. Newman, 4 T. R. 621, 197
Farrand v. Bentley, 6 Mich. 280, 1138
~ Farrar v. Farrar, 75 Ia. 125, 290
Farrell v. Brennan, 32 Mo. 328, 669
Farrell v. Friedlander, 63 Hun (N.

Y.) 254, ° 552
‘Farrell v. "State, 7 Ind. 345, 254, 1064
Farrell v. Waterbury, etc., Co.,60 -

Conn. 239, 1106

Farrelly v. Woodfolk, 19 How.288, 1187
Farrington v. Hodgdon, 119 Mass.

4538, 567
Farris v. Walter, 2 Col. App. 450,

8. C. 31 Pac. R. 231, 319

Fassinow v. State, 89 Ind. 235,

229, 234

Fasnacht v. Stehn, 53 Barb. 650, 3

1181

Fathman v. Tumilty,34 Mo. App.

236, 1121
Fatt v. Fatt, 78 Wis. 633, S. C. 48

.  N.W.R. 52, 637, 639, 640, 1241

Faught v. Faught, 98 Ind. 470, 269
Faulkner v. Bailey, 123 Mass.

588, 384

Faulkner v. Territory (N. Mex. >

621

30 Pac. R. 905, , 623
Faulks v. Heard, 81 Ala. 516, ” 478
Faurote v. State, 123 Ind. 6, 1141

Faust v. City of Huntington, 91
Ind. 493,

Faust v. Faust, 31 8. Car. 576,

Faville v. Shehan, 68 Ia. 241, 8.
C. 26 N. W. R. 131,

Favis v. Fish, 1 Greene (Iowa)
406,

Faweett v. State, 71 Ind. 590,

232, 638, 639

Fay v. Wenzell, 8 Cush. 315, 191

Fayette City Borough v. Hug-
gins, 112 Pa. St. 1, 8. C.4 Atl.
R. 927,

Fearey v. Cummings, 41 Mich.
376,

Fearing v. Erwin, 55 N. Y. 486,

892
443

665

1172

473
1189

fr

 

Fearl v. Hanna, 129 Pa. St. 588,
8. C. 18 Atl. R. 556,

Fears v. Albea, 69 Tex. 487, 8. C.
5 Am. St. R. 78,

Se DeCamp, 159. &R. (Pa. hn

Fechheimer _v. Washington, 7
Ind. 366,

Feder y. Field, 117 Ind. 386,

71, 110, 254, 301, 478
Fee v. Big Sand Iron Co., 18 Ohio

555
1161

St. 563, 604
Fee v.. Moore, 74 Ind. 319,

198, 467, 468

Feeley’s Case, 12 Cush. 598, 842

Feeney v. Mazelin, 87 Ind. 226, 1161

Feeter v. Heath, 11 Wend. 479, 394
Feibleman v. Edmonds, 69 Tex.

334, 8S. C.68. W. R. 417, 454

Feighley v. Feighley, 7 Md. 537, 498

Fehring v. Swineford, 33 Wis.
550, 1203
Felch v. Bugbee, 48 Me. 9; 284
Felix v. Patrick, 145 U. 8. "317, 373
Felix v. Scharnweber, 125 U. 8.
54, 304, 820
‘Fell v. Bennett, 110 Pa. St. 181, 370

Fellenzer v. Van Valzah, 95 Ind.

128 1229
Feller v. Clark, 36 Ba 3838, S.

C. 31 N. W. R. 175 448
Fellows v. Heermans, 1 Abb. Pr.

N.S. (N. Y-) 7 494
Fellows v. Heermans, 13 Abb. Pr.

(N. 8.) 1 195, 492
Fellows v. Miller, 8 Blackf. (Ind. y

231, 466
Fellows v. Tait, 14 Wis. 156, 1240
Fels v. Raymond, 139 Mass. 98, 514
Felt v. Cleghorn, 2 Col. App. 4, S.

C. 29 Pac. R. 813, 179
Fenderson v. Owen, 54 Me. 372, 538
Fenelon v. Butts, 49 Wis. 342, S.

C.5 N.W. R. 784, 235
Fenton v. Alsip, 79 ‘Cal. 402, 8.C.

21 Pac. R. 839, 390
Fenton v. Emblers, 8 Burr. 1278, 360
Fenton v. Harred, 17 Pa. St. 158, 346
Fenton v. Livingstone, 3 Macqu.

497, 292
Fennimore y. Childs, 1 Halst. fe

J.) 88 579, 594
Fern v. West Jersey Ferry Co., 143

Pa. St. 122, 8. C. 13 L.R.A.366, 518
Ferguson v. Chastant, 35 La. ‘Ann.

485, 183
Fergtison v. Clifford, 37 N.H. 86, 545

Ferguson v. Crittenden County, 6
Ark. 479,

Ferguson v. Davis Co., 51 Ia. 220, 636
eviil

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.]

Ferguson v. Crawford, 70 N. Y.

253, 266, 326, 606
Ferguson v. Dunn,.28 Ind. 58, 362
Ferguson vy. Fisk, 28 Conn. 501, 485
Ferguson v. Hubbell, 97 N.Y. 507,

738, 739
Ferguson v. Hosier, 58 Ind. 438, 1068
Ferguson v. Kays, 21 N.J. ee 173
Ferguson vy.Landram, 1 Bush.548, 343
Ferguson v. Mahon, 11 Ad. & Ell.

179, 242
Ferguson v. Rafferty,6L.R.A.33, 502
Ferguson v. Rutherford, 7 Nev.

385, 179, 783
Ferguson v. State, 49 Ind. 33, 820
Ferguson v. State, 90 Ind. 38, 392
Ferguson v. Teel, 82 Va. 690, 318

Ferrall v. Bradford, 2 Fla. 508, 8. 2
C. 50 Am. Dec. 293, 1195

Ferren v. Old Colony, etc., R. R.
Co., 143 Mass. 197, S.C. aN, E.

R. 608, 547
Ferrier, ‘In re, 103 Jll..367, 8. C.

42 Am. R. 10, 294
Ferris v. Coover, 10 Cal. 589, 533
Ferris v. Ferris, 25 Vt. 100, 463, 470

Ferris v. Walter, 2 Col. App. 450,

S. C. 31 Pac. R. 231,

Ferry v. Bank, 15 How. Pr. (N.Y.)

445, 497
Fertich v. Michener, 111 Ind. 472,

8. C. 11 N. E. R. 605, 545
Fetes v. Volmer, 8 N. Y.Supp.294, 447
Fetters v. Bank, 34 Ind. 251, 675
Feustman v. Gott, 65 Mich. 592, 452
Fick v. Mulholland, 48 Wis. 413, 1094
Finance Co. of Pa. v. Charleston,

etc., Co., 45 Fed. R. 436, 194
Fidelity, etc., Co. v. Gill, etc., Co.,

25 Fed. R. 737, 837
Fidelity, etc., Co. v. Hammock,

(Ark.), 15 S$. W.R. 360, 1231, 1233
Field, Matter of, 131 N. Y..184, 447
Field v. Bland, 81 N. Y. 239, 354
Field v. Chicago, etc., Co., 21 Mo.

App. 600, 1135, 1139
Field v. Crawford, 34 N. E.R. 481, 531
Fieldv. Holland,6Cranch 8, 201, 1128
Field v. Holzman, 93 Ind. 205, 478, 1176
Field v. Malone, 102 Ind. 251, 299, 473

Field v. McVickar, 9 Johns. 130, 314
Field v. Nickerson, 13 Mass. 131, 553
Field v. People, 2 Scam. 79, 203

Field v.Proprietors,1 Cush. (Mass. )
ll,

Field v. Ripley, 20 How.Pr.(N.Y.)
26

605

496
Field v. United States, 9 Pet.182, 1133
Fielden v. People, 128 Ill. 595, 8.

©. 21 N. E. R. 584, 1239

 

Fieldhouse v. Croft, 4 East. 510, 198

Fields v. Baum, 35 Mo. APR. 511, 389
Fields v. Wabash, etc., R. R. Co.,

80 Mo. 203, 1068
Fields v. Walker, 23 Ala. 155,

248, 454, 609

Fifteenth Av., In re, 54 Cal. 179, 1208
Fifth Avenue Bank v. Webber, b7

Abb. N.C. 1, 1218
Fifthmongers v. East India Co., 1

Dickens 163, 482
Filby v. Miller, 25 Pa. St. 264, 565
Filley v. Cody, 4 Col. 109, 155
Filley v. Fassett, 44 Mo. 68, 8. C.

8 Am. L. Reg. (N.8.) 402, 485.
Fillion v. State, 5 Neb. 351, 668
Fillmore v. Union Pac. R. R. Co.,

2 Wyom. Ter. 94, 795
Finch v. Bergins,89 Ind.360, 1070

Finch v. Chicago, etc., Ry. Co., 46
Minn. 250, 8. C.48 N. W.R.915, 716
Finch vy. Galligher, 12 N. Y. Sup.
487,
Findly v. Ray, 5 Jones, 125,
Fineux v. Hovenden, Cro. Eliz.
664, 262
Fink v. Bruihl,47 Mo. 173, 1046, 1048
Fink y. Fink, 8 Ia. 313, 576
Finkbone’s Appeal, 86 Pa. St. 368, 360
Finley v. Funk, 35 Kan. 668, S. C.

457°

12 Pac. Rep. 15, 572
Finley v. Hunt, 56 Miss. 221, 915
ee v. Manchester, 12 Ia.

521, 1192
Finnéll v. So. Kan. R. R. Co., 33”

Fed. R. 427, 873
Finneran v. Leonard, 7 Allen 54,

320, 827

Finney v. Gleason, 5 Wend. 393% 389

Fire Ins. Ass’n v. Wickham, 141
i 8. 564, S. C. 12 Sup. Ct. Rep.
4,

Firebaugh v. Stone, 36 Mo. 111,

Firestone v. Firestone, 78 Ind.
534, 1195

Firestone v. Hershberger, 121 Ind.

567
475

201, 640
Firgel v. State, 85 Ind. 580, 229
First Congregational Society v.

Trustees, 23 Pick. 148, 152

First Mass. Turnp. Co. v. Field,
3 Mass. 201,8.C. 3 Am.Dec.124, 367
First Nat. Bank v. Armstrong, 101

Ind. 244, 470
First National Bank v. Baleom,
85 Conn. 351, 314

First National Bank v. Bartlett, 8
Neb. 319,

First National Bank v. Colter, 61
Ind. 153, 116
TABLE OF CASES.

cix

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244. ]

First panes Bank v. Dana, 79
N. Y. 108 587

First National Bank v. Daly, 34
Ill. App. 178, 155

First National Bank v. Dwight, 85
Mich. 509,

First National Bank v. Oars 79
Tl]. 207, 195, 495

First National Bank v. Gary, 14
So. Car. 571, 1203

First National Bank v. Geneseo,
etc., Co.(Kan.), 32 Pac. R.902, 319

First National Bank v. Hurford,

29 Ia. 579, 1067

First National Bank v. Lowery, 36
Neb. 290, 8. C. 54 N. W. R. 568,

1070, 1076

First eee Bank v. Peck,
Kan. 6

First Notional Bank v. Railroad
Co., 45 Ia. 120, 471

Fields v. Walker, 23 Ala. 155, 454

First National Bank v. Redick,110
U.S. 224,8. C. 3 Sup. Ct. R.
640,

First National Bank v. Rogers, ts
Minn. 407,

First National Bank v. Scott, ai
Neb. 607, S.C. 54 N. W. R.
987, 1081

First National Bank v. Smith, 36
Neb. 199, S.C. 54 N.W.R. 254, 1211

First National Bank v. Western
Union, etc., Co., 30 Ohio St.
555, 1199

First National Bank v. Williams,

126 Ind. 423, 1166, 1167

First National Bank of Oakland v.
Wolff, 79 Cal. 69, S. C. 21 Pac.
R. 551,

First Street, In re, 58 Mich. 641,
8. C. 26 N. W. RB. 159,

First Unitarian Society v. Faulk-
ner, 91 U.S. 415, 706

Fischer v. Coons, 26 Neb. 400, 8.
°C. 42 N. W. R. "417, 1212

Fischer v. Holmes, 123 Ind. 525, 427

Fischer v. Neil, 6 Fed. R. 89,

1128, 1206
Fischli v. Fischli, 1 Blackf. 360,
8. 0.12 Am. Dec. 251, — 1176, 1185
Fish v. Emerson, 44 N. Y. 376,
183, 184, 1189
Fish y. Smith, 12 Ind. 563, 1077
Fish v. Weatherwax, 2 Johns.
Cases 215, 257
Fisher v. Ballard, cs Car. 574,
8.0.13 8. E. RB. 7 307
Fisher v. Barmenoft 1 Ill. 426,
S. 0. 13 N. E. R. 150, 541

1189

1190
652

 

Fisher v. Bassett, 9 Leigh. 119, S.
C. 33 Am. Dec. 227, 264, 314
Fisher v. Cambridge, 133 N. Y.
527, 547
Fisher v. Cockerell, 5 Pet. 248, 1222
Fisher v. Collins, 25. Ark. 97, 434
Fisher v. Conway, 21 Kan. 18, 8.
_ ©. 30 Am. R. 419, 698
Fisher v. Fisher, 131 Ind. 462, 1228
Fisher v. Fredericks, 33 Mo. 612, 456

Fisher v. Hayes, 22 Blatchf. 505, 200
Fisher v. Hervey, 6 Col. 16, 470
Fisher v. McGin, 1 Gray 1, 278
Fisher v. National Bank of Com-
merce, 73 Ill. 34, 174
Fisher v. philadelphia, 4 Brews.
(Pa.) 3) 646
Fisher v. Dataue, 48 Ind. 323, 1139

Fisher v. State, 30 Tex. App. ’502,
8.C. 188. W. R. 90, 558

Fisher v. Stevens, 16 II. 397, 532
Fisher v. Towner, 14 Conn. 26, 590
Fisher v. United States, 1 Okla.
252, S. C. 31 Pac. R. 195, 182
Fisher v. Willard, 13 Mass. 379, 517
| Fishmongers Co. v. Robertson, 3
Com. B. 970, 189
Fisk v. Baker, 47 Ind. 534, 1199
Fisk v. Chicago, etc., Co., 74 Ia.
424, 8. C. 46 N. W. R. 998,
152, 1213
Fisk, Ex parte, 113 U. 8. 713, 256:

14 Ore. 29,
1170, 1194, "1205
Fisk v. Norvel, 9 Tex. 13, 8. G.

Fisk v. Henarie,

58 Am. Dec. 128, 335
Fisk v. Stone, 6 Dak. 35, 413
Fisk v. Tank, 12 Wis. 276, 8. C. .

78 Am. Dec. 737, 509

Fitch v. Constantine Hydraulic
Co., 44 Mich. 74, 584

Fitch v. Devlin, 15 Barb. 47, 832
Fitch v. Creighton, 24 How. (U.

S.) 159, 270
Fitch v. Pinckard, 5 Ill. 69, 452
Fitch v. Woodruff Iron Works, 29

Conn. 82, 556
Fitchburg, etc., Co. v. Grand

Junction, etc., Co., 1 Allen 552,

214
Fithian v. Monks, 43 Mo. 502, 841
Fitzgerald v. Beers, 31 Mo. App.

356, 680
Fitzgerald v. Cross, 30 Ohio St.

444, 333
Fitzgerald v. Evans, 58 Tex. 461, 332
Fitzgerald v. Goff, 99 Ind. 28, 807
Fitzgerald v. Gray, 59 Ind. 254, 477
Fitzgerald v. Hart (Tex.), 23 So.

W. RB. 933, 1056

?
cx

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602,

Fitzgerald v. Hayward, 50 Mo.

516, 178
Fitzgerald v. Salentine, 10 Met.

(Mass.) 436, 431
Fitzgerald v. Williams, 148 Mass.

462, 799
Fitzgerald & Mallory Const. Co.

v. Fitzgerald, 137 U.S. 98, S.C.

11 Sup. Ct. R.36, 442, 454, 458, 610
Fitzhugh v. Custer, 4 Tex. 391, 8.

C.51 Am. Dec. 728, 235, 326
Fitzhugh v. Texas, etc., Co., 81

Tex. 306, 8. C.168. W. R. 1078,

1142, 1151
Fitepatrick v. New Orleans, 27 La.

Ann. 457, 423
Fitzpatrick vy. Papa, 89 Ind. 17, 707
Fitspatrick v. Phelan’s Estate, 58

Wis. 250, 362
Flack v. Andrew, 86 Ala. 395,

183, 1192
Flack v. Holm, 1J. & W. 405, 477
Fladland v. Delaplaine, 19 Wis.

459, 449
Flagg v. Puterbaugh, 98 Cal. 134,

S. C. 32 Pac. R. 863, 1236
Flagg v. Sloan, 16 Ind. 482, 488
Flagg v. Worcester,8 Cush. (Mass) 2

65;

69,
Flagley v. Hubbard, 22 Cal. 34, 630
Flake v. Carson, 33 I]. 518, 613
Flanagan v. Elton, 34 Neb. 355, 8.

C. 51N. W. RB. 967, 1047
Flanagan v. Kilcome, 58 N. H.

443, 566
Flanagan v. Wilmington,4 Houst.

(Dela.) 548, 1055
Flanagan v. Wood, 33 Vt. 332, 471
Flanagin v. State, 25 Ark. 92, 520
Flanders v. Colby, 28 N. H. 34, 1059

Plaga v. Lampman, 12 Mich.
S. C.3 Am. L. Reg. (N. 8.)
ain 718

Flatter v. McDermitt, 25 Ind. 326, 601
Fleece v. Russell, 13 Til. 31, 459
Fleenor v. Driskill, 97 Ind.” 27,
1179, 1192
Fleeson v. Savage, etc., Co.,3 Nev.
157,
Fleetwood v. Dorsey Machine Co.,
95 Ind. 491,
Fleischner v. Kubli, 20 Ore. 328,
S. C. 25 Pac. R. 1086, - 556
Fleming v. Burnham, 100N.Y.1, 361
Fleming v. Collins, 2 Del. Ch. 230, 485
Fleming v. State, 11 Ind. 234,
623, 645, 653
Flemming v. L. D. Latham & Co.,
48 Kan, 773, S. C. 30 Pac. R.
166,

654

1079

 

TABLE OF CASES.

Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.)
Fletcher v. Crosbie, 2 M. & Rob.
417, 704
Fletcher v. Gillan, 62 Miss. 8, 882
Fletcher v. Holmes, 25 Ind. 458,
245, 342, 459

Fletcher v. Martin, 126 Ind. 55, 1147
Fletcher v. Pullen, 70 Md. 205, S.
C. 16 Atl. R. 887, 535

Fletcher v. Spaulding, 9 Minn. 64, 373
Fletcher v. State, 49 Ind. 124, 820
Fletcher v. State, 90 Ga. 468, 8.C.
178. E.R. 101, 1072
Fletcher v. Warring (Ind.), 36 N.
E. R. 896, 1217
Flint River Steamboat Co v. Foster,
5 Ga. 194,S.C.48 Am. Dec. 248,
444, 644
Flint River Steamboat Co. v. Rob-
erts, 2 Fla. 102, S. C. 48 Am.
Dec. 178, 355, 642, 644

Flinn y. State, 24 Ind. 286, 542
Flippin v. Knafile, 2 Tenn. Ch.

243, 480
Flood v. J oyner, 96 Ind. 459, 1167
Flood v. McClure (Idaho), 32 Pac.

R. 254, 1119

Flood v.Van Wormer,24N.Y.460, 484
Floral Springs, etc., Co. v. Rives,

14 Nev. 431, 178
Florez v. Uhrig, 35 Mo. 517, 1200
Florence Machine Co. v. Daggett,

135 Mass. 582, 1088, 1091
Florentine v. Barton, 2 Wall. 210,

322, 324
Flourney v. Healy, 31 Tex. 590, 1192

Flourney v. Marx, 33 Tex. 786, 622
Flournoy v. City of Jeffersonville,

17 Ind. 169, 212
R. 1006,
424
Floyd County v. Cheney, 57 Ia.
160,
Floyd County, a Ass’n v. Tomp-
605

Flournoy v. Lyon, 70 Ala. 308, 377
Flowers v. Flowers (Ga.),18 S. E.
1072
Flowers v. Foreman, 23 How. (U.
8.) 132,
217
Floyd v. Thomas, 108 N. Car. 93,
79 9, 802
kins, 23 Ind. 3
Flyffe v. Beers, 8 Ta. 4, 543
Flynn vy. Central, etc., Co., 27 Abb.

N. Cas. 3 310
Flynn v. Daugherty, 91 Cal. 669,

8.C.14L. R 230,
Flynn v. Haden t River R. RB. Co.,

6 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 308, 441
Flynt v. Bodenhamer, 80 'N. Car.

205, 524

Focke v. Blum, a oo 436, 8. C.
178. W.R.7
TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.]

Eagarty Vv. a ee 80 Ga. 450, 8. C.
58. E 179
Fogg v. Gibbs 8 Baxt. 464, 319, 320
Foley v. Connelly, 9 Ia. 240, 453
Foley v. People, ‘Breese (Ill.) 57, 239
Folger v. Columbian Ins. Co., 99

Mass. 267, S. C. 96 Am. Dec.

747, 471
Folland v. Lamotte, 10 Sim. 486, 1210

Follett v. Hall, 16 Ohio 111, 8. C.

47 Am. Dec.’ 365, 138
Folsom v. Evans, 5 Minn. 418, 493
Folsom v. Plumer, 43N. H. 469, 539
Folsom vy. Winch, 63 Ia. 477, 376
Foltz v. St. Louis, ete., Co., 60

Fed. R. 316, 1177
Fontaine v. Hudson, 93 Mo. 62,

8. C.3 Am. St. R. 515, 182
Fontaine v. Houston, 58 Ind. 316, 446

Fonville v. State, 91 Ala. 39,8. C.

8 So. R. 688, 1215
Foot v. Bentley, 44 N. Y. 166, 503
Foot v. Glover, 4 Blackf. 313, 1192
Foot v. Morgan, 1 Hill 654, 209, 224

Foot v. Stevens, 17 Wend. 483,
128, 329
Foote v. Lawrence, 1 Stew. (Ala.)
483, 643
Foote v. Richmond, 42 Cal. 439, 333
Foram v. Howard Ben. Ass’n, 4
Pa. St. 519, 588
Forbes y. Bringe, 32 Neb. 757, 8.
C. 49 N. W. R. 720, 456
Forbes v. Darling, 94 Mich. 621,

8. C. 54 N. W. R. 385, | 429
Forbes v. Halsey, 26 N. Y. 53, 243
Forbes v. Howard, 4R. I. 364, 1120
Forbes v. Hyde, 31 Cal. 342, 446

Forbes v. Porter, 23 Fla. 47, S. C.

1 So. R. 336, 254, 1183
Forbes v. Tuckerman, 115 Mass.
115, 1187

437

1139
597

Ford v. Adams, 54 Ark. 1387,
Ford v. Buchannan, 111 Pa. St.

31,
Ford v. Burleigh, 60 N. H. 278,
Pod v. Cameron, 19 Mo. App.
1135, 1138, 11389
Ford’ v. Delta, etc., Co., 43 Fed.
R.1 439

181,

Ford v. Detroit, etc., M. Co., 50
Mich. 358,

Ford v. Easley (Ia.), 55 N. W.R.
336

Ford v. Holmes, 61 Ga. 419,

a v. Jones, 62 Barb. (N. Y.)

4

Ford v. Potts, 6 N. J. L. 388,

Ford v. Tirrell, 9 Gray 401, S. C.
69 Am. Dec. 297,

470

1231
1167

804
592

394

 

cxi
Randyesve Neal, 40 Mich. 705, 33
Foreman v. Carter, 9 Kan. 674, 435
Forester v. Guard, Breese 74, S. C.

12 Am. Dec. 141, 1161
Forgay v. Conrad, 6 How. 201, 1187
Forqueron v. Van Meter, 9 Ind.

270, 576
Forrest v. Union Pac. R. R. Co.,

47 Fed. R. 1, 455
Forristal v. Milwaukee, 57 Wis.

628, 407

Forsaith, etc., Co. v. Hope Mills
Co., 109 N. Car. 576, 8. C. 13 8.
E. R. 869,

Forster v. Capewell, 1 Hilt.(N-Y. 5
47,

1200
Forster v. Forster, 129 Mass.559, 117
Forsyth v. Cothran, 61 Ga. 278, 823
Forsyth v. Doolittle, 120 U.S. 73,

8. C. 7 Sup. Ct. R. 408, 1074
Forsyth v. Warren, 62 Til. 68, 450
Forsyth v. Wheeling, 19 W. Va.

318, 366
Forsythe v. Kreuter, 100 Ind. 27, 427
Fort v. Allen, 110 N. Car. 183, 8.

C.148. E. R. 685, 584

Fort v. Battle, 13 'Smedes & M.

133, 582
Fort v. Groves, 29 Md. 188, 487
Fort v. Milligan, 21 N. Y.8.145, 433
Fort Dodge v. Minneapolis, ete. 7

Co. (Ia.), 54 N. W. R, 243, 1220
Fort Scott, W. & W. Ry. Co. v.

Fortney, 51 Kan. 287, 8. C. 32

Pac. R. 904, 1081
Fort Scott v. Hickman, 112 U.S.
150, §. C. 5 Sup. Ct. R. 56, 384

Fort Scott, etc., Co. v. Holman, 45
Kan. 167, 8S. C. 25 Pac. R. 585, 396
Fort Scott, etc., Co. v. Sweeney,
15 Kan. 244,
Fort Smith v. "McKibbin, 41 Ark.

45,
Fort Wayne v. Coombs, 107 Ind.

75, 516, 716, 741
Fort Wayne, etc., Co. v. Mellett,
197

92 Ind. 535,
Fort Wayne v. Patterson, 3 Ind.
App. 34, 8. C. 29 N. E. R. 167, 549
Fort Worth v. Johnson, 84 Tex.
137, 8. C. 19S. W. R. 361, 549
Fortune v. oa (Tex.), 21

366

S.W.R.9 581
Fortune v. es 19 N.Y. Supp.
598, 657

Forward v. Harris,30 Barb.(N.Y.)

338, 506
Foster’s Case, 2 Story 131, 470
Foster v. Abbott, 1 Mass. 234, 619
Foster v. Berg, 104 Pa. St. 324, 537
exii

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 608-1244.]

Foster vy. Berry, 14 R. I. 601, 456
Foster v. Brown, 65 Ind. 234, 410
Foster v. Charles, 7 Bing. 105, 407

Foster v. Dickerson, 64 Vt. 233, S.

C. 24 Atl. R. 253, 778
Foster, Ex parte, 2 Story 131, 468
Foster v. Fraser, 6 Montreal Law

R. (Q. B.) 405, 402
Foss v. Foss, 58 N. H. 283, 543
Foster v. Haynes, 88 Ga. 240, 8. C.

148, E. R.570, 1161

Foster v. Markland, 37 Kan. 32, 8.

C. 14 Pac. R. 452, 454
Fossett v. McMahan, 74 Tex. 546, 334
Foster v. Metts, 55 Miss. 77, 8. C.

30 Am. R. 504, 567
Foster v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co.,

115 Mo. 165, S.C. 21 8. W. R.

916 1091

Fosdick v. Schall, 99 U. S. 235, 1181
Foster v. Smith, 52 Conn. 449, 382
Foster v. State, 70 Miss. 755, 8. C.

12 So. R. 822, 815
Foster v. State, 41 Mo. 61, 256
Foster v. Wells, 4 Tex. 101, 1040
Foster’s Will, 34 Mich. 21, 35

Foster v. Worthing, 146 Mass. 607, 801

Fouche v. Harrison, 78 Ga. 359, 301
Fouhy v. Penna. R. R. Co. (Pa.),

2 Atl. R. 536, 1053
Fountain v. Ware, 56 Ala. 558, 512

Fourth Nat. Bank v. Heuschen, 52
Mo. 207,
Foust v. Commonwealth, 33 Pa. St.
338, 652
Foust v. Hastings, 66 Ia. 522, 576
Fowle vy. Alexandria, 11 Wheat.
320, 1025, 1108
Fowle v. Bigelow, 10 Mass. 379, 538
Fowler v. Baltimore, ete., Co.,18 °*
W. Va. 579, 1024
Fowler v. Bebee, 9 Mass. 231, 436, 508
Fowler v. Bowery Sav. Bank, 113
N. Y. 450, 8.0.4 L. R. A. 145,
S.C. 10 Am. St. R. 479, 354, 1206
Fowler v. Brooks, 64 N. H. 423, 8.

525

C.10 Am. St. R. 425, 218
Fowler v. Byers, 16 Ark. 196, 224
Fowler v. City of Superior (Wis.),

54.N. W. R. 800, 483
Fowler v. Deakman, 84 II]. 180, 407
Fowler v. Doyle, 16 Ia. 534, 1192

Fowler v. Eddy, 10 Pa. St. 117, 8.
C. 1 Atl. R. 789, 113, 1
Fowler v. Fowler, 42 N. J. Eq. 152,
8. C. 7 Atl. R. 669, 287
Fowler v. Jackson, 86 Ga. 337, S.
C.128.E.R.811, 574, 584, 601
Fowler v. Lewis, 36 W. Va. 112,
8. C. 1458. E. R. 447, 428

 

Fowler v. McClelland, 5 Ark. 188, 198
Fowler v. McComb, 2 Root 388, 1035
Fowler v. Simpson, 79 Tex. 611, 452
Fowler v. Smith, 1 Rob. (La.), 448,
1

198
Fowler v. Trust Co., 12 Sup. Ct. R.
1,8. C. 141 U.S. 408, 188
Fowler v. Wallace, 131 Ind. 347,8.
C. 31 N. E. R. 53,
Fowler v. Whiteman, 2 Ohio St.
270, 827, 451
Fox v. Conway Fire Ins. Co., 53
Me. 107, 173
Fox v. Hazelton, 10 Pick. (Mass.)
275, 590
Fox v. Hoyt, 12 Conn. 491, 8. C.
31 Am. Dec. 760, 158

Fox v. Meacham, 6 Neb. 530, 1162, 1163
Fox v. Minor, 32 Cal. 111, 344
Fox v. Spring Lake Iron Co., 89
Mich. 387, 8. C.50 N. W.R. 872,
1056, 1208
Fox v. State, 9 Ga. 378, 618
Fox v. State, 5 How. 410, 308
Fox v. Young, 22 Mo. App. 386, 1165
France v. Lucy, Ry. & M. 341, 506
Francis v. Ames, 14 Ind. 251, 576,596
Francis v. Deming, 59 Conn. 108,

8. C. 21 Atl. R. 1006, 402
Francis v. Edwards, 77 N. Car

271, 1046
Francis v. Hall, 13 Tex. 193, 335

Francis v. Kansas City, etc., R.

R. Co., 110 Mo. 387, S. C. 19 S.

W. R. 935, 548, 549
Francis v. Ocean Ins. Co.,6 Cow.

(N. Y.) 404, 545
Francis v. Wells, 4 Col. 274, 155
Franco, etc., Co. v. Chaptive

(Tex.), 3S. W. R. 31, 1237
Francois v. State, 20 Ala. 83, 1171
Frank v. Manny, 2 Daly (N. Y.)

92, 506
Frank v. Traylor, 130 Ind. 145, 8.

C.16 L. R. Anno. 115,

Frankel v. Wolf, 27 N. Y. Supp.

328, 7 Misc. R. 190,

Frakes v. Elliott, 102 Ind. 47,
Baer stanth v. Anderson, 61 Wis.
Franklin Bank v. Bachelder, 23
Me. 60, 8. C. 39 Am. Dee. 601,
; 468, 470
Franklin v. Dutton, 79 Cal. 605,

8. C. 21 Pac. R. 964, 305
Franklin v. Harter, 127 Ind. 446, 525
Franklin Ins. Co. v. McCrea, 4

Greene (Ia.) 229, 301
Franklin, ete., Co. v. Pratt, 101

Mass. 359, 591

1045

320
TABLE OF CASES.

exili

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.]

Mranklin y, pp eentela (Del.), 19
Atl. R. 898, 259
Franklin Ins. Co. v. Updegraff, 43
Pa. St. 350, 557
Franklin . Underhill, 2 Johns.
(N. Y.) 3 635
Franklin Bie Ins. Co. v. West,

8 Watts & S. (Pa.) 350, 468.
Franklin v. Wiesing, 88 Ga. 169,
8. 0.148. E. R. 120, 1117

Frankoviz v. Smith, 34 Minn. 403, 361
Frantz v. Brown, 7 Serg. & R.
(Pa.) 287, 49
Fraser v. Freelon, 58 Cal. 644, 144
Fraser v. Jennison, 42 Mich. 206, 664
Fraser v. Willey, 2 Fla. 116, 153
Frazee v. Beattie, 26S. Car. 348,
1129
Frazee v. McChord, 1 Ind. 224,
861, 392, 393
Frazer v. Boss, 66 Ind. 1, 1097
Frazier v. Fortenberry, 4 Ark. 162, 638
Frazier v. Miles, 10 Neb. 109, 8.
C.4N. W. R. 930, : 446
Frazier v. Swain, 36 N.J.Eq.156, 201
Frazier v. Williams, 15 Minn.

288, 529
Fredenheim v. Rohr, 87 Va. 764,
S.C. 138. E. R. 193, 195, 496
Frederick v. Kinzer, 17 Neb.
366, 1066
Fredericks v. Judah, 73 Cal. 604,
. 823, 1124
Frederickton Boom Co. v. Mc-
Pherson, 2 Hann. 8, 658

Fredlander v. Pugh, 43 Miss.

111, 1158
Freedom v. Norris, 128 Ind. 377,

1097, 1106, 1147
Freel v. Market 8t., etc., Co., 97

Cal. 40, 8. C. 31 Pac. R. 730, 800
Freeland v. Stillman (Kan.), 30

Pac. R. 235, - 1219
Freeman y. ‘Alderson, 119 U. 8.

185, 271, 428
Freeman vy. Boland, 14 R. 1.39, 365
Freeman v. Brehm (Ind.), 31 N.

E. R. 545, 565
Freeman v. "Dempsey, 41 Ml. App.

554, 820
Freeman v. Gaither, 76 Ga. 741, 142
Freeman v. Hawkins, 77 Tex.

498, 8. C. 14 S. W.R. 364,
eee cn v. Howe, 24 How. (U.

S.) 450,
Freeman v. Karr, 34 Ill. App.

646,

Freeman v. Loftus, 6 Jones Law

(N. Car.) 524; 31

H

448
196
1439

 

Freeman y. Paul, 105 Ind. 451, 431

Freeman z People, 4 Denio (N.

' Y¥.) 9, 8. C. 47 Am. Dec. 216,
656, 667

Freeman v. Thomson, 50 Hun
340, 804

Freeman v. Tranah, 12 Com. B.

406, 189
Freeman v. Warren, 3 Barb. Ch.
635, 1200

Freeman vy. Weeks, 45 Mich. 335, 347
Freeman vy. Wilson, 16 R. I. 524,

8. C.17 Atl. R. 921, 411
Freeney v. Mazelin, 87 Ind. 226, 1167
Freer v. White, 91 Mich. 74,8. C

51 N. W. R. 807, 612
Freese v. Swayze, 26 N. J. Eq.

487, 1216

Freeson v., Bissell, 63 N. Y. 168, 403
Freligh v. Ames, 31 Mo. 253, 178
Freleigh v. State, 8 Mo. 606, 630
Fremont v. Fulton, 103 Ind. 393, 465

Fremont, etc., Co. v. Marley, 13
Am. St. R. 482,

French v. Cresswell, 13 Ore. 418,
S.C. 11 Pac. R. 62, ~ 1113

French v. Gifford, 30 Ia. 148, 195, 496

French v. Hall, 119 U.S. 152, S.

738

C. 7 Sup. Ct. R. 170, 704
French v. Hanchett, 12 Pick.

(Mass.) 15, 1116
French v. Hay, 22 Wall. 231, 302
French v. Hoyt, 6 N. H. 370, 274
French. v. Maguire, 55 How. Pr,

471, 487
French v. Merrill, 6N. H. 465, 807
French v. Miller, '2 Ohio St. 44, 804
French v. Moseley, 1 Litt. (Ky.)

247, 592
French v. Pease, 10 Kan. 51, * 183
French v. Sale, 63 Miss. 386, 695

French v. Smith, 24 Am. Dec. 622,
1039
French v. Stanley, 21 Me. 512, 1044
French v. Venneman, 14 Ind. 282, ‘
15
French v. Wilkinson, 93 Mich.
322, 8. C.53 N. W. R. 530, 810
Freshour v. Logansport, etc., Co.,
104 Ind. 463, 181, 1210, 1223
Frets v. Frets, 1 Cow. (N. Y.)
335, 585, 586

Fretz v. Stover, 22 Wall. 198, 1128
Frevert v. Swift, 19 Nev. 363, 8.

C. 11 Pac. R. 273, 217
Friar v. State, 3 How. (Miss.) |
422,
Frick v. Algeier, 87 Ind. 255, 550
Fricker v. Peters, 21 Fla. 254, 195
cCxiv

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.]

Fridge v. State, 3 Gill. & J. (Md.)
103, 8. C. 20 Am. Dec. 463,

Frieder v. B. Goodman Co. (Ala.),
13 So. R. 420,

Friedlander v. Pollock, 5 Coldw.

400

(Tenn.) 490, 465
Friedman v. Myers, 14 N. Y.

Supp. 142, 697
Friend v. Friend, 64 Md. 321, 536

1172

Friendly v. Lee, 20 Ore. 202, 8. C.
25 Pac. R. 396,
Frier v. Jackson, 8 Johns. 495,
1225, 1226
Frierson v. Travis, 39 Ala. 150, 443
Friery v. People, 2 Keyes (N. Y. )

424, 666
Fries v. Brugler, 7 Halst. (N. J.)

79, S. C. 21 Am. Dee. 52, 780
Fries v. Fries, 34 Ill. App. 142, 344
Frink v. Coe, 4 G. Greene. (Ia.)

555, S. C. 61 Am. Dec. 141, 399
Frink v. Frink, 43 N. H. 508, S.

C. 80 Am. Dec. 189, 191
Frink v. Stewart, 94 N. Car. 484,

350, 484
Fripp v. Chard, etc., Co., 21 Eng.

Law and Eq. 53, 194
Frisk v. Reigelman, 75 Wis. 499,

§.C.43 N.W.R. 1117, 447, 449, 452
Fritts v. Camp, 94 Cal. 393, 8. C.

29 Pac. R. 867, 804
Fritz v. Barnes, 6 Neb. 435, 1213
Fritz v. Clark, 80 Ind. 591, 1030
Fritz v. Muck, 62 How. Pr. (N.

Y.) 70,

Froid v. ‘Mayfield, 31 Tex. 366,
' Froman v. Patterson, 10 Mont.

107, 8. C. 24 Pac. R. 692,

Frost v. Angier, 127 Mass. 212,
Frost v. Beekman, 1 Johns. Ch.

285,

Frost v. Brisbin, 19 Wend. 11, S.

C. 32 Am. Dee. 423, 312
Frost v. Gibson, 59 Ga. 600, 1042
Frost v. Lawler, 34 Mich. 235, 605
Frost v. Paine, 12 Me. 111, 434
Frost v. Smith, 7 Bosw. 108, 389
Frost v. Spaulding, 19 Pick. 445, 35
Fry v. Bennett, 3 Bosw. 200, S.

C. 28.N. Y. 324, "225, 823
Fry v. State, 81 Ga. 645, S.C. 858.

E. R. 308, 111
Frye v. Bank, 11 Ill. 367, 803
Frye v. Calhoun County, 14 Ii.

132, 605
Fudge v. St. Louis, ete., R. R.

Co., 31 Kan. 146, 1163
Fudichar v. Guardian, etc., Co.,

62 N. Y. 392, 408, 593
Fuel Co. v. Tuck, 53 Cal. 304, 463

 

Fugate v. Carter, 6 Mo. 267, 632
Fugua v. Carriel, 1 Miner 170, 8.
C.12 Am. Dec. 46, 191
Fulford v. Converse, 54 N. H.
548, 1046
Fullen v. Coss, 82 Ind. 548, 1068

Fuller v. Bean, 34N. H. 290, 559, 560

Fuller v. Bryan, 20 Pa. St. 144, 464
Fuller v. City of Jackson, 92

Mich. 197, 8. C. 52 N. W. R.

1075, 740
Fuller v. Fox, 9 Am. St. R. 27, 740
Fulham v. Howe, 62 Vt. 386, 8. C.

20 Atl. Rep. 101, 543
Fuller v. Nelson, 35 Minn. 2138, 8.

C. 28 N. W. R. 511, 1190
Fuller v. Ry. Co., 31 Ia. 211, 1118
Fuller v. Ruby, 10 Gray 285, 1229

Fuller v. State,19 Tex. App. 380, 1074

Fuller v. State, 97 Ala. 27,8. C

12 So. R.:.392, 1063
Fuller v. Stebbin, 49 Ia. 376, 186
Fuller v. Trevor, 8S. & R. 520, 1136
Fuller v.Wheelock, 10 Pick. 1385, 579

Fullerton v. Bank of the United
States, 1 Pet. 604,

Fullerton v. Kelliher, 48 Mo.
542, 1191

Fulmore v. McGeorge, 91 Cal. 611,

178 |

S. C..28 Pac. Rep. 92, 584
Fulton v. Cummings, 132 Ind. 453,

8. C. 30 N. E. R. 949, 656
Fulton County v. Amorous, 89 Ga.

614, 8S. C. 168. E. R. 201, 652
Fulton County v. Phillips, 91 Ga.

65, S.C. 16 S. E. R. 260, 1124
Fultz v. Wycoff, 25 Ind. 321, 1211

Fulweilerv. St. Louis, 61 Mo. 479, 654
Fulwider v. Ingels, 87 Ind. 414,

1069, "1070
Funk v. Ely, 45 Pa. St. 444, 656
Funk v. Rentchler (Ind.),383 N. E.

R. 364, 528
Funke v. Cone, 65 Mich. 581,
Funsten v. Fox, 51 Kan. 682, S.C.

33 Pac. R. 306, 1136
Furber v. Chamberlain, 29 N. H.

405, ; 587
Furbish v. Hall, 8 Greenl. (Me.)

315, 582, 595
Furgeson v. Jones, 17 Ore. 204, S.

C.11 Am. St. R. 808, 291
Furlong v. Garrett, 44 Wis. 411, 1091
Furnival v. Bogle, 4 Russ. Rep.

142, 614
Furnival v. Stringer, 1 Bing. N.C.

68, 262
Furrer v. Ferris, 145 U. S. 182, 201
Furst v. Second Ave. R. R. Co.,

72 N. Y. 542, 720, 782 »
TABLE OF CASES.

CXV

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.]

G
Gabe v. McGinnis, 68 Ind. 538,’ 540
Gadwin v. Monds, 106 N. Car. 448,

8. C. 1058. E. R. 1044, 455
Gaff v. Green, 88 Ind. 122, 718
Gaff v. Hutchinson, 38 Ind. 341, 1155

Gage v. Arndt, 121 Ill, 491, 201
Gage vy. Clark, 22 Ind. 163, 248
Gage v. Eich, 56 Ill. 297, 1188

Gage v. Gates, 62 Mo. 412,
1135, 1189, 1145
Gage v. Goudy, 141 Ill. 215, 1186
Gage v. Parker, 25 Barb, (N. Y.)
141, 541
Gager v. Doe, 29 Ala. 341, 639
Gager v. Edwards, 26 Ill. App. 487, 636
Gaines v. Fuentis, 92 U. 8. 10,

270, 274
Gaines v. Harvin, 19 Ala. 491, 220
Gaines v. Hot Springs Co., 39 Ark.

262, 366
Gaines v. Saunders, 87 Mo. 557, 551
Gaines v. White, 1 8. Dak. 434, 8.

C.47N. W. R. 524, 540, 1159, 1206
Gains v. Barr, 60 Tex. 676, 220
Gaither v. Ballew,4 Jones (N.Car.)

488, S.C. 69 Am. Dec. 763, 198,471
Gaither v. Wilmer, 71 Md. 361, S.

C.5 L. R. A. 756, 1113
Galbraith v. Littiech, 73 111.209, 158

Galbraith v. Sidener, 28 Ind. 142,
188, 1203
Galdolfo v. Appleton, 40 N.Y.533,. 799
Gale v. als (Dak.), 29 N. W.
R. 661 718
Galena & S. W. R. R. Co. v. Has-
lam, 73 Ill. 494, : 663
Galena, etc., R. R. Oo. v. Jacobs,
20 Ill. 478,-
Gall v. Gall, 114 N. Y. 109, S. C.
21N. E. R. 106, 541
Gallagher vy. Bell, 82 Ia. 722, 8.C.
A7N. W. R. 897 112
Gallagher v. Southwood, 1 Kan.
143, 1218, 1236
Gallagher v. Williamson, 23 Cai.
331,

Gallatian v.Cunningham,8 Cowan

361, 317
Gallatin Turnpike Co. v. State, 16
Lea (Tenn.) 36, 545

Galliano v. Kilfoy, 94 ,Cal. 86, S.
C. 29 Pac. R. 416, ; 1199
Galligher v. Connell, 35 Neb. oth,
8. C.53 N. W. R. 383,
Galligher v. Hullingsworth, 3 H
& McH. (Md.) 122, ; 383

}Galusha v. Butterfield, 2

1071}.

 

Galliher v. People, 82 Ill. 145, 915
Gallimore v. Blankenship, 99 Ind.
390, 1212

Galloway v. Gibson, 51 Mich.185, 577

| Galloway v. McKeithen, 5 Ired.

12,8. C. 42 Am. Dec. 153, 188, 192
Galloway v. State,29 Ind. 442, 174, 633
Galloway v. Webb, Hardin (Ry. “3

318, 590
Gallup v. Smith, 59 Conn. 354, S.

C.12 L. R. A. 353, 8. C. 22 Atl.

R. 334, 214, 235
Galpin v. Fishburne, 3 McCord

22, S. C. 15 Am. Dec. 614, 190
Galpin v. Hard, 3 McCord (S.Car.)

894, 8S. C. 15 ‘Am. Dec. 640, 393
Galpin v. Page, 18 Wall. 350,

132, 280, 292, 315, 443
Scam.

(IIl.) 227, 142, 148, 155
Galveston v. Menard, 23 Tex.349, 366
Galveston City R. R. Co. v. Hook,

41 Il, App. 547, 442
Calveston, etc., R. R. Co. v. Ma-
tula, 79 Tex. 577, 8. C.158. W.

R. 573, 510
Galveston, etc., Co. v. Templeton,

6 Tex. C. App. —, 8. C. 25 §.

W. R. 135, 1027

Galveston, etc., Ry. Co. v. Thorns-

berry (Tex.), 178. W. R. 521, 667
Galvin v. Bacon, 11 Me. 28, S. C.

25 Am. Dec. 258, 394
Galvin v. State, 56 Ind. 51, 1222
Galway v. State, 93 Ind. 161, 642

Gamble yv. Central, etc., Co., 80
Ga. 595, S.C. 12 Am. St. R. 276,
Gammell vy. Skinner, 2 Gall. (U.
S.) 45,

Gandolfo v. State, 11 Ohio St.114,

Gandy v. Jolly, 35 Neb. 711, 8. C.
52 N. W. R. 376,

Gans, Ex parte, 17 Fed. R. 471,

Garbutt v. Hanff, 15 Abb. Pr. (N.
Y.) 189,

Gardenhire v. Hinds, 1 Head 402,

Gardiner v. Collector, 6 Wall. (U.
8.) 499,

Gardiner v. Schmaelzle, 47 Cal.
588, °

Gardiner v. Thomas, 14 Johns.

317

394
177

313
212

469
290

545
1042

134, 310
Gardiner v. Tisdale, 2 Wis. 153, 543
Gardner v. Case, 111 Ind. 494, 1150
Gardner v. Haynie, 42 Ill. 291, 1231

Gardner v. Lanning, 3 N. J. L.
231,

Gardner y. Michigan Cent. R. R.
Co., 150 U. 8. 346, 8. C. 14 Sup.
Ct. R. 140, 1056

653
exvi

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.]

Gardner v. Minea, 47 Minn. 295,

8. C.50N. WLR. 199, 1124, "1125
Gardner v. Newburgh, 2 Johns.

_ Ch. 161, 8. C. 7 Am. Dec. 526, 483
Gardner v. Ogden, 22 N.Y. 332,
Gardner v. Oliver Lee Bank, 11

Barb. 558, 284
Gardner v. Peckman, 13 R.I. 102, 498
Gardner v. People, 3 Scam. 83, 1171
Gardner vy. State, 55 N. J. L. 17,8.

C. 26 Atl. R. 30,

Gardner v. State, 4 Ind. 633,
Gardner v. State, 96 Ala. 12, S.C.

11 So. R. 402,

Gardner vy. Stroever, 81 Cal. 148,

8. C. 6 Lawy. R. Anno. 90,
a Vv. Vidal, 6 Rand. (Va)

106
Gardner v. Walker, 3 Aust. 935,
Gardner v. Webber, 17 Pick. (Mass. 1,

407, 377
Gardom y. Woodw ard, 44 Kan.

758, S. C. 21 Am. St. R. 310, 739
Garland v. Wholebau, 20 Ia. 271, 111
Garland Co.v.Gaines,47 Ark.558, 381
Garlick v.City of Pella,53 Ia. 646, 620
Garlick v. Dunn, 42 Ala. 404, 142, 155
Garlit z. v. State,71 Md. 298, S. C.

4L.R. A. 601, 660
Garman v. State, 66 Miss. 196, 696
Garner v. Bridges, 38 Ala. 276, 520
Garner v. Carroll, 7 Yerg. (Tenn. Vs

365,

Garner vy. Gordon, 41 Ind. 92,
Garner v. Hannibal, etc., RR

Co., 34 Mo. 235,

Garner v. Lansford, 12 Smed. &

M. (Miss.) 558,

Garnet v. Rodgers, 52 Mo. 145, 346
Garnier v. Renner, 51 Ind. 372, 386
Garr v. Gomez, 9 Wend. 649, 573,584
Garrard v. Henry, 6 Rand. (Va. L

110,

Garrard County Court v. Niet,

11 Bush (Ky.) 234,

Garred v. Macey, 10 Mo. 161,
Garrett v. Bicklin, 78 Ia. 115,8. C.

42 N. W. R. 621,

Garrett v. Garrett, 12 Ind. 407,
Garrigan v. Dickey, 1 Ind. App.

421,

Gerrish v. Train, 3 Pick. 124, 1156
Garrison v. People, 6 Neb. 274, 188
Garrity v. Hamburger, 139 Tl. 499,

S. C. 28 N. E. R. 7438, 1225, "1280
Garrow v. Nicolai (Ore. ), 32 Pac.

R. 1036 594, 597
Garsed v. Beall, 92 U. S. 684, 1127
Garton v. Union City Nat. Bank,

34 Mich. 279, 1078

1065
697

1075
478

"430

290
529
537

139
573

640
618

206

280-

 

Gartside Coal Co. v. Maxwell, 20

Fed. R. 187, 508, 510
Gartside Coal Co. v. Turk, 147 Il.

120, 8. C. 35 N. E. R. 467, 1056
Garver v. Kent, 70 Ind. 428, 409, 493
Garver v. Lynde, 7 Mont. 108, 8.

C. 14 Pace. R. 697,

Garvin vy. Daussman, 114 Ind. 429,

425
Garvin v. Luttrell, 10 Humph.

(Tenn.) 16, 514
Gas Co. v. Wheeling, 8 W. Va.

320, 592,.1066
Gasper v. Heimbach (Minn.), 55

N. W. R. 559, 722
Gass v. Mason, 4 Sneed 497, 1128
Gassett v. Grout, 4 Metcf. 486, 199
Gates v. Bennett, 33 Ark. 475, 272
Gates v. Bloom, 149 Pa. St. 107, 8.

C. 24 Atl. R. 184, 458
Gates v. Bushnell, 9 Conn. 530, 468
Gates v. Hamilton, 12 Ia. 50, 619
Gates v. Hughes, 44 Wis. 336, 21
Gates v. People, 14 Il. 433, 807
Gates v. Salmon, 28 Cal. 320, 1179
Gates v. Scott, 123 Ind. 459, 718, 1096
Gates v. Treat, 25 Conn. 71, 1161
Gates v. Wagner, 46 Ia. 355, 804
Gatling v. Boone, 101 N. Car. 61,

S.C. 78. E. R. 477,

Gatling v. Newell, 9 Ind. 572,
525, 556
Gatton v. Walker, 4 Eng. (Ark.)

199, 1197
Gavin v. Lowry, 78. & M. 24, 1160
Gawtry v. Doane, 51 N. Y. 84, 721
Gay v. Grant, 101 N. Car. 206, 443
Gay v. Hebert, 44 La. Ann. 301)

S.C. 10 So. R. 775, 187, 1202
Gay v. Minot, 3 Cush. 352, 217
Gay v. Waltman, 89 Pa. St. 453, 594
Gaylord v. Gallagher, 20 N. Y.8.

682, 1043
Gaylord v. Karst, 13 N. Y. Supp.

589, 819

Gaylord v. Norton, 130 Mass.
74, 599
Gaynor v. Railroad Co., 100 Mass.
208
Gazzam y. Phillips, 20 How. (U.

8.) 372, 251
Gee v. Pritchard, 2 Swanst. 402, 182
Gee vy. Vulver, 12 Ore. 228, 544

Gee v. Warrick, 2 Hay. (N. Car.)
354, 198
Geisen v. Heiderich, 104 Ill. 537, 381
Geiser v. Kershner, 4 Gill. & J.
305, S. C. 23 Am. Dec. 566, 566
Geiser v. Northampton Co. (Pa. )s
11 Atl. R. 507, 531
TABLE OF CASES.

exvii

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-G02, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244. ]

Geiss v. Franklin Co., 123 Ind.
172, 1163
Geller v. Hoyt, 7 How. Pr. 265, 262

Genella v. Relyea, 32 Cal. 159,
368, 1203

-Generes v. Campbell, 11 Wall.
1239

198,
Genevo v. Cole. 61 Ill. 397, 144
320, 443

Genobles v. West, 23 S. Car. 154,

Gentil v. Arnand, 38 How. Pr. 94, 489
Gentile v. State, 29 Ind. 409, 121, 170
Gentry Co. v. Black, 32 Mo. 542, 1049

George v. Johnson, 45 N. H. 456, 598
George v. Lousley, 8 East. 13, 594
George v. Nichols, 32 Me. 179, 508
George v. Norris, 23 Ark. 121, 736
George v. Pilcher, 28 Gratt. (Va.)

299, 707, 806
George v. Taylor, 55 Tex. 97, 1163
Georgia v. Gates, 62 Mo. 412, 1139
Georgia, etc., Ass’n v. McGowan,

59 Ga. 811, 248

Bees etc. , Co. v. Luther, 90
Ga. 249 1224
Georgia Lumber Co. v. Bissell, 9
Paige (N. Y.) 225, 477
Georgia R. R. v. Hart, 60Ga.550, 656
Gerard v. Gerard (Ind.), 34 N. E.
R. 442, 1163
Gere v. Council Bluffs Ins. Co.,

67 Ia. 272, 589
Gere v. New York, etc., Co., 38

Hun 231, 490
Gerhardt v. Swaty, 57 Wis. 24, 1093
Gerity v. Haley, 29 W. Va. 98, 1031

Gerke v. California, ete., Co., 9
Cal. 251,8.C. 70 Am. Dec. 650, 547
German Am. Ins. Co. Lv. Ether-
ton, 25 Neb. 505, 588
German Bank vy. Am. Fire Ins.
Co., 88 Ia. 491, S. C.50 N. W.
R. 53, 8. C. 32’Am. St. R. 316,
471, 609, 611
German Ins. Co. v. Fairbank
(Neb.),5 Lewis’ Am. R. R. &

Corp. Cases 90, 385
German Ins. Co. v. Gray, 2 Lewis’
Am. R. R. & Corp. Cases 459, 589

German Ins. Co. v. Frederick, 58
Fed. R. 144, 1032, 1033, 1172, 1206
German Ins. Co. v. Landram, 88
Ky. 433, 8. C. 118. W. R. 367, 230
German Ins. Co. v. Smelker, 38
Kan. 285, 8. C. 16 Pac. R. 735, 1096
German Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v.
Decker, 74 Wis. 556,85. C. 43 N.
"Vv. R. 500, 457
Germania Fire Ins. Co. v. Hick,
125 111.361,8.C. 8Am.St. R. 3884, 1147

 

Germania Fire Ins. Co. v. Hlewen,
129 Ill. 599, 8. C. 22 N. E.
489,

Germania Ins. Co. v. Davenport
(Pa.), 9 Atl. R. 517,

Germond v. Central V. R. R. Co.,
65 Vt. 126, S. C. 26 Atl. R. 401,

1117, 1122

Germond v. People, 1 Hill 343, 139

Sane v. Boecaline, 2 Wash. C.

C. 130 477
Gerrish v. Black, 109 Mass. 474, 1187
Gertz v. Fitchburg, ete., Co., 137

Mass. 77, 807
Gesell’s Appeal, 84 Pe, St. 238, 1179
Getchell v. Chase, 124 Mass. 366, 475
Gettys v. Gettys, 3 Lea 260, S. G.

531
550

31 Am. R. 687, 287
Gholston v. Gholston, 31 Ga. 625, 1123
Gibbens v. Pickett, 31 Fla. 147, = *

C. 12 So. R. 17, 456

Gibbon v. Bryan, 3 Ill. App. 298, 470
Gibbons v. Farwell, 63 Mich. 344, 1056
Gibbons v. Potter, 30 N. J. Eq.

204, 910
Gibbons v. Surber, 4 Blackf. 155, 1194
Gibbons v. Wisconsin Valley R

R. Co., 62 Wis. 546, 1068
Gibbs v. Dickson, 33 Ark. 107,

181, 1223
Gibbs v. Shaw, 17 Wis. 197, 274
Gibney v. Crawford, 51 Ark. 84, 452
Gibson’s Appeal, 154 Mass. 378,

S. C. 28 N. E. R. 296, 294
Gibson, Ex parte, 89 Ala, 174,8.

C. 7 So. R. 833, 304
Gibson v. Bailey, 9 N. H. 168,
Gibson v. Carreker, 82 Ga. 46, S.

C.98. E. R. 124, 8
Gibson v. Chouteau, 13 Wall. 92, 139
Gibson v. Chouteau, 45 Mo. 171,

8. C. 100 Am. Dec. 366, 191
Gibson v.Fristoe,1 Call.(Va.) 62, 1104
Gibson v. Hatchett, 24 Ala. 201, 721
Gibson v. Hunter, 2 H. Bl.. 187,

1024, 1225
Gibson v. Keyes, 112 Ind. 568, = 379
Gibson v. Lacy, 87 Ind. 202, 719
Gibson v. Manufacturers, etc:,Co.,

144 Mass. 81, 440, 545
Gibson v. Powell, 138 Miss. 712, 596
Gibson v. Roll, 30 Ill. 172, 450
Gibson v. State, 16 Fla. 291, 643
Gibson v. Wyandotte, 20 Kan.

156, 654
Gibson v. Zeibig, 24 Mo. App.65, 820
Giddings v. Giddings, 70 Ia. 486, 192
Giddings v. Steele, 28 Tex. 732, S.

C. 91 Am. Dec. 336, 314, 335
Gidley v. Gidley, 65 N.Y. 169, 596

1157
CXVill

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-G02

Giger vy. Chicago & N. W. R. R.
pee Cae Ne ee 534
Gilberson a, Miller, ete., Co.,

Utah, 46, 8. C. 5 Pac. R. 699, —
Gilbert v. Gharry, 57 Ga. 128, 721
Gilbert v. Colt, Hopk. Ch. (N.Y.)

562, 477
Gilbert v. Gilbert, 22 Ala. 529, S.

C. 58 Am. Dec. 268, 705

Gilbert v. Hall, 115 Ind. 549, S. C.

18 N. E. R. 28, 603, 607, 1143, 1207
Gilbert v. Morrison, 53 Hun 442,

8. C.6N. Y. Supp. 491, 1129
Gilbert v. Sage, 5 Lans. 287, 785,790
Gilbert v. Shortsville, etc., Co., 15

N.Y. 8S. 316, 635
Gilbert v. York, 111 N. Y. 544, 317
Gilbertson v. Fuller, 40 Minn. 413,

8. C. 42 N. W. Rep. 203, 552
Gilbreath v. Bunce, 65 Mo. 350, 303
Gilchrist, etc., v. ‘Gough, 63 Ind.

570,
Gilchrist v. Williams, 1 B. tee

133, 262
Giles v. Baremoer, 5 Johns. Ch.

(N. Y.) 545, 386
Giles v. Caines, 3 Caines (N. Y.)

107, 152, 1131
Giles v. Cornfoot, 2C. & K. 653, 31
Giles v. Merritt, 59 N. H. 325, 365
Giles v. State, 6 Ga. 276, 1165
Gilhooly v. New York, etc., Navi-

gation. Co., 1 Daly (N.Y.) 197, 553
Giliam v. Reddick, + Ired. 368, 144
Gill v. Caldwell, 1 Il. 53, 724
Gill v. Jones, 57 Miss. 367, _ 1180
Gill v. Rodgers, 37 Tex. 628, 1162
Gill v. Young, 88 N. Car. 58, 1208

Gillanwaters v. Scott, 62 Tex. 670, 318
Gilleland v. Schuyler, 9 Kan. 569, 338
Gilleland v. State, 44 Tex. 356, 1124
Gillespie v. See, 72 Ia. 345, 8. C.

33 N. W. R. 676, 147
Gillespie v. Thomas, 23 Kan. 138, 275
Gillet v. Maynard, 5 Johns. 85, 389
Gillett v. Roberts, 57 N.Y. 28, 394
Gillett v. Wiley, 126 Ill. 310,8. C.

9 Am. St. R. 587, 367
Gilliland v. Sellars, 2 Ohio St. 223,

163, 259
Gillingham v. Gillingham, 17 Pa.
St. 302, 383

Gillis v. Penna. Co.,59 Pa. St.129, 369 |

Gillitt v. Truax, 27 Minn. 528, 341

Gillooley v. State, 58 Ind. 182, 693

Gilly v. Breckenridge, 2 Blackf.
'TInd.) 100, 466

Gilpatrick v. Biddeford, 51 Me.182, 531
Gilpatrick v. Glidden, 82 Me. 201,

S.C. 19 Atl. R. 166, 1183

 

TABLE OF CASES.

, Vol. I, pp. 603-1244.]
Gilman vy. Gilman, 52 Me. 165, S.
C. 83 Am. Dec. 502,
Gilman v. Gilman, 126 Mass. 26,
S. C. 30 Am. R. 646,
Gilman v. Hamilton, 16 Ill. 225, 500
Gilman v. Lockwood, 4 Wall. 409, 285
Gilman v. Rives,10 Pet. 298, 1179, 1194
Gilman v. Stetson, 16 Me. 124, 436
Gilman vy. Williams, 7 Wis. 287, 196
Gilman, etc. v. Foote, 22 Ia. 560, 301
Gilmer v. Bird, 15 Fla. 410, 423
Gilmer v. Grand Rapids, etc., 16
Fed. R. 708,
Gilmer v. Higley, 110 U. 8S. 47,
Gilmore v. Ham, 15 N. Y. 391,
Gilmore v. Newton, 9 Allen 171,
Gilmore y. Pittsburgh, etc., R. R.
Co., 104 Pa. St. 275,
Gilmore y. Sapp, 100 Ill. 297,
Gilmour v. Ford (Tex.), 198. W.
R. 442,
Gilpins v. Consequa, Pet. C. C.85,
Gilroy’s Appeal, 100 Pa. St. 5,
486
Gimbel v. Hufford, 46 Ind. 125, ”
Ginn v. Collins, 43 Ind. 271,
Ginn v. New England, etc. Co.,
92 Ala. 1385, S. C. 8 So. R. 388,
Ginn yv. Rogers, 4 Gilm. (Ill.)
131, 255
Ginnochio, Ex parte, 30 Tex.
App. 584, S.C. 18S. W. R. 82,
Ginsberg v. Pohl, 35 Md. 505,
Girard v. Gettig, 2 Binn. (Pa. )
234,
Girard Bank v. Bank of Penn
Tp., 39 Pa. St. 92 360
Girault  v. ‘Adams, 61 Md. 1,
179, 707, 791
Girdler v. Carter, 47 N. H. 305,
597, 598
Gisborn v. Charter Oak Life Ins.
Co., 142 U.S. 326, S. C. 12 Sup.
Ct. R. hk, 302, 372
Gish v. Gish, 7 Ind. App. 104, §.
C. 34.N. E. R. 305, 1230
aoe Drakely, 2’ Gill. (Md. )

312
606

336
783
1183
394

720
450

459
512

489
509
704

112

119
467

1044

173
Gist v. Loring, 60 Mo. 487, 1066, 1067
Given y. Simpson, 5 Me. 303, 297
Givens v. Bradley, 3 Bibb. 192, 1243
Gladden v. Elkins, 2 Tyler (Vt. )
218, 239
Gladhill, Ex parte, 8 Metc. 168, 116
Gladwin v. Chilcote, 9 Dowl. 550, 601
Glantz Ms ony of South Bend, 106

Ind. 3 1108
Gua v. Brandon, 35 W. Va.

84,8. C. 12S. E. R. 1102, 1046
Glasgow v. Hobbs, 52 Ind. "239, 1088
TABLE OF CASES.

cxix

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 6038-1 244.]

Glasgow v. Owen, 69 Tex. 167, S.
C.6 8. W. R: 527, 544, 552
Glaspell v. Northern, ete., Co., 43
Fed. R. 900, 1159
Glaspie v. Keator, 56 Fed. Rep.
203, 1208
560

145
1145
1041

364

287
807

606

Glass v. Gelvin, 80 Mo. 297,
oT v. The Sloop Betsey, 3 Dal-
as 6
Glass. Wiles (Tex.), 14 S. W.
3,

Glasscock v. Cent. Pac. R. R.
Co., 73 Cal. 187,
Glasscock v. Rosengrant, 55 Ark.
376, 8. C. 188. W. R. 379,
Glaude v. Peat, 43 La. Ann. 161,
8. C. 8 So. R. 884,
Glaze v. Whitley, 5 Ore. 164,
eae v. Dodd, 4 Metc. (Mass.)
?
Glen v. Hodges, 9 Johns. 67, 310
Glencoe v. People, 78 Ill. 382, 456
Glenn vy. Clore, 42 Ind. 60,
514, 720, 798
Glenn v. Dodge (Dist. of Col. Sy 3
Cent. R. 283,
Glenn v. Gill, 2 Md. 1, an
Glenn v. Gleason, 61 Ia. 28, 784
Glenn v. Hunt (Mo.), 258. W. R.
181, 1078
Glenn v. Fant, 134 U. S. 398, 1188
Glenn v. State, 46 Ind. 368, 236
Glenn v. Williams, 60 Md. 93, 374
Glidden v. Philbrick, 56 Me. 222, 435
Glidewell v. Daggy, 21 Ind. 95, 1182
Globe Works v. Wright, 106 Mass. 6
5.

207,
Glover v. Holman, 3 Heisk. oS

, 1198
1025, * 033

Gluck v. Cox, 90 Ala. 331, 8. t's

So. R. 161,
Goar v. Maranda, 57 Ind. 339, 316
Godbold v. Bass, 12 Rich. (8. Car.)

202, 199
Goddard v. Bolster, 6 Me. 427, S.

C. 20 Am. Dec. 320, 189
Goddard v. Coffin, Davis (U. §

Dist. C.) 381,
Goddard v. Foster, 17 Wall. (U.

8.) 123, 559
Goddard’ v. Grand Trunk R. R.,

57 Me. 202, 8. C.2 Am. R. 39, 956
Goddard v. King, 40 Minn. 164, 599

Goddard v. Ordway, 94 U.S. 672, 255
Goddard v. Ordway, 101 U.S. 745,

185

Goddard v. Parr, 24 L. J. R. Ch.
783, 780
Goddard v. State, 12 Conn. 448, 648

Godfrey v. Knodle,44 Ill. App.638, 591

 

Godfrey v.Valentine,39 Minn.336, 452

Godfrey v. Wade, 6 Moore 488, 581
Godfrey v. Wilson, 70 Ind. 50, 1188
Goff v. McGee, 128 Ind. 394, SC,

27 N. E.R. 754, 484
Goff v. Pawtucket, 13 R. 1.471, 368
Goff v. Pope, 83.N. C. 123, 33
Goff v. Rogers, 71 Ind. 459, 540
Goggs v. Huntingtower, 12’ Mees.

& W. 503, 437
Goings v. Chapman, 18Ind.194, 1167
Goins v. Chicago, etc., R. R. Co.,

47 Mo. App. 173, 740
Gold v. Vermont Central R. Co.,

19 Vt. 478, 116
Gold Hunter, etc., Co. v. Holle-

man, 2 Idaho 839, 8. C. 27 Pac.

R. 413, 195, 494
Goldberg v. Dougherty, 7 J. & 8.

(N. Y.) 189, 354
Goldberry v. Utley, 60 N.Y.427, 1214

Golden v. Knowles, 120 Mass. 336, e
"f

Golden Gate, etc., Co. v. Joshua
Hendy Machine Works, 82 Cal.
184, S. C. 23 Pac. R. 45,

Goldenberg v. Blake, 145 Mass.

1114

354, S. C. 14 N. E. R. 171, 556
Goldman v. State, 75 Md. 621, S.
C. 23 Atl. R. 1097,
Goldmark v. Rosenteld, 69 Wis.
469,
Goldsberry v. Stuteville, 3 Bibb.
(Ky.) 345, 669

Goldsby v. Robertson, 1 Blackf.
(Ind.) 247, 1083, 1104, 1106, 1107

Goldsby v. State, 18 Ind. 147, 639, 640

Goldsmith v. State (Tex.), 22 8.

W. R. 405, 723
Goldstein v. Stern, 9 N. Y. Supp.

274, 402
Goldtree v. McAllister, 68 Cal.

93, 8. C. 23 Pac. R. 207, 2638
Goltschalk Co. v. Distilling, etc.,

Co., 50 Fed. R. 681, 441

Gomer v. Chaffe, 5 Col. 383,

1162, 1163
Gonder v. Esterbrook, 33 Pa. 374, 381
Gooch v. McKnight, 10 Humph. 568

(Tenn.) 229,
Good v. Norley, 28 Ia. 188,
243, 274, 293
Goodall v. Cooley, 29 N. H. 48, 593
Goodbread v. Wells, 4 Dev. & ’B.
(N. Car.) 271, 1182
Goodburn v.Bowman,9 Bing.532, 1155
Goode v. Gaines, 145 U. 8. 141,8. on

C. 12 Sup. Ct. R. 839,
Goodell v. Bluff City, etc., Co., 57
Ark. 203, 8. C. 21 S.W. R. 104, 1076
cxx

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. I, pp. 608-1244.]

Goodell v. Raymond, 27 Vt. 241, 594

Goodell v. Starr, 127 Ind. 198, 299
Goodenow v. Snyder, 3 Greene
(Ta.) 599, 3874

Goodfellow v. Landis, 36 Mo.168, 513
Goodheart v. Bowen, 2 Brad.
(Ill. App.) 578,
Goodhue v. Churchman, 1 Barb.
Ch. 596, 1200
Goodhue v. People, 94 Ill. 37, 638
.Goodlett v. R. R. Co., 122 U.S.
391, 8S. C. 7 Sup. Ct. R. 1254,
1050, 1054
Goodman v. Kennedy, 10 Neb.
270, 179, 791
Goodman v. State, 1 Meigs (Tenn. i
195,
Goodman v. Walker, 30 Ala. 482,
8. C. 68 Am. Dec. 134, 713
Goodman v. Whitcomb, 1 J.& W.
591, 496
Goodman y. Winter, 64 Ala. 410,
241, 259, 269, 290
360

677

196

Goodnow v. Stryker, 62 ‘Ta. 221,
Goodpaster v. Vorris, 8 Ia. 334,S.
C. 74 Am. Dec. 313,

Goodrich v. Burdick, 26 Mich. 39, 667-

Goodrich v. Detroit, 12 Mich.
279, 1138
Goodrich v. Friedersdorff, 27 Ind.

308, 675
Goodrich v. Hanson, 33 I]. 498, 512
Goodrich v. Hulbert, 123 Mass.

190, 8. C. 25 Am. BR. 60, 590
Goodrich v. Vanderbilt, 7 How.

Pr. (N. Y.) 467, 628
Goodrich v. Weston, 102 Mass.

362, 8.C.3 Am. R. 469, 502, 508
Goodridge v. Dustin, 5 Metce.

363, 598
Goodsell v. Seeley, 46 Mich. 623,

S. C. 41 Am. R. 183,

Goodsell v. Taylor, 41 Minn. 207,

S. C. 42 N. W. R. 873, "1076
Goodtitle v. Otway, 7 Durn. & E.

419, 950
Goodwin v. Inhabitants, 12 Me.

271, 325
Goodwin v. Miller, 2 Munf. 42, 1187
Goodwin v. Morris, 9 Ore. 322, 373
Goodwin v. Sims, 86 Ala. 102, S.

C. 11 Am. St. R. 21,

165, 323, 324, 329, 427
Goodwin v. Smith, 72 Ind. 113,
680, 1221, 1232
Goodwin v. State, 96 Ind. 550,
52, 741, 1064, 1070, 1074
Goodwin v. Wertheimer, 99 N. Y.

149, 395

Goodwine v. Crane, 41 Ind. 335, 1230

 

Goodwine v. Miller, 32 Ind. 419,
585, 1212
Goodwyn v. Goodwyn, 16 Ga. ‘
114, 383
Goodwyn v. Goodwyn, 20Ga. 600, 797
Goodwyn v. Lloyd, 8 Port. (Ala.)

237, 512
Goodyear v. Day, 2 Wall. Jr. (U.

S.) 283, 485
Goodyear v. Vosburg, 41 How.

Pre (iN. ¥,) 421, 511
Gordan, Ex parte, 92 Cal. 478, 8.

C. 27 Am. St. R. 154, 243
Gordon v. Board, 44 Ind. 475, 206

Gordon vy. Jenney, 16 Mass. 465, 468
Gorham y. Kansas City, etc., Co.,
113 Mo. 408, 8.C. 208. W.R
1060,
Gordon v. Pitt, 3 Ia. 385,
Gordon v. Reynolds, 114 Ill. 118,
8. C. 28 N. E. R. 455, 162
Gordon v. Richmond, 83 Va. 436, 1064
Gordon v. Small, 53 Md. 550, 372
Gordon v. Spencer, 2 Blackf. 286, 177
Gordon v. State, 48 N. J. L. 611, ©
8. 0.7 Atl. R. 476, 505
Gordon v. Stockdale, 89 Ind. 240,
365, 1103
Gorham v. Summers, 25 Minn.
81, 1238
re v. McFarland, 13 Tex.
237,
Gormley v. Clark, 184 U. 8S. 338,
S.C. 10Sup. Ct. R.554, 478, 481, 1129
Gorrill v. Whittier, 3N. H. 268, 218
Gorrisson’s Succession,15 La.Ann.
314

164

1218
1161

27,

Gorry, In re, 48 Hun 29, S. C. 15
N.Y. St. B. 315,

ae v. Hadsell, '9 Cush. (Mass.)
08

Gorwyn v. Anable, 48 Mo. App
297, i219, "1218

Goshen v. England, 119 Ind. 368,

8.0.5 LR. A. 253, 654, 655
Goss v. Bowen, 104 Ind. 207, 402
Goss v. Cardell, 53 Vt. 447, 453
Goss v. Turner, 21 Vt. 487, 704
Goss v. Withers, 2 Burr. 683, 1115

Goszler v. Georgetown, 6 Wheat.

593, 163
Gott v. Brigham, 45 Mich. 424, 261
Gottbehuet v. Hubachek, 36 Wis.

515, 540
Goudy vy. Hall, 30 Ill. 109, 266
Goudy v. Hall, 36 Ill. 313, 8. C.

87 Am. Dec. 217, 429
Goudy v. Werbe, 117 Ind. 154, 737

Gould v. Banks, '8 Wend. (N. Y.)

562, 8. C. 24 Am. Dec. 90, 404
TABLE OF CASES.

CXxi

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 608-1244.]

Gould v. Crow, 57 Mo. 200, ‘287, 289
Gould v. Day, 94 U. S. 405

713, 721, 1215
Gould v. Elgin City Banking Co. x

36 Ill. App. 390, 619
Gould v. Evansville, etc., Co., 91
U.S. 526, 1178, 1179

Gould v. Hayes, 19 Ala. 438, 299, 337
Gould v. Howe, 127 Ill. 251, 182
Gould v. James, 6 Cow. (N. Y.)
369, 520
Gould v. Loughran, 19 Neb. 392,
8. C. 27 N. W. R. 397 154
Gould v. Norfolk Lead Co. ,9 Cush.
es ,») 838, S. C. 57 Am. Dec.

Gould v. Raymond, 59 N. H. 260,
ie v. Spencer, 5 Paige, (N. Y. )
41
Gould v. Stafford, 91 Cal. 146,
Gould v. Torrance, 19 How. Pr.
560,
Goulding v. Clark, 34 N. H. 148,
Goulding v. Swett, 13 Gray, 517,
Govenor v. Lassiter, 83 N.Car. 38,
Gowdy v. Sanders, 88 Ky. 346, S.
C. 11S. W. R. 82,
Gower v. Howe, 20 Ind. 396,
Gower v. Stevens, 19 Maine 92,
Grabill v. Barr, 5 Pa. St. 441, S.
C. 47 Am. Dec. 418, 679
Grable v. State, 2 Greene (Ia.)
559, 139, 148
Grace v. McArthur, 76 Wis. 641, 1160
Grace v. Mitchell, 31 Wis. 533, 154
Grace v. Teague, 81 Me. 559, S. C.
18 Atl. R. 289, 215
Gracie v. Palmer, 8 Wheat 699,
333, 507
Gradle v. Hoffman, 105 Ill. 147, 660
Gradle v. Warner, 140 Il. 128, 29
N.E. R. 1118, 404
Graduates, Matter of, 11 Abb. Pr.
301, 295

Grady y. Cassidy, 104 N. Y. 147, 536
Gragg v. Hull, 41 Vt. 217, 396
Graham, In re, 74 Wis. 450, 8. C.

43 N. W. R. 148, 341
Graham v. Bayne, 18 How. (U.

S.) 60, 526, 1106
Graham vy. Camman, 2 Caines,

168, 1225

Graham v. Dahlonega, etc., Co.,

71 Ga. 296, 484
Graham v. Gautier, 21 Tex. 111, 676
Graham v. Graham, 9 Pa. St. 254,

8. C. 49 Am. Dec. 557, 593

Graham vy. Graham, 12 Pa. St.128, 601
Graham v. King, 50 Mo. 22, 8. C.
11 Am. R. 401, 449

 

Gedamn 5 Linn, 4 B. Mon. 17,8.

C. 39 Am. Dee. 493, 190
Graham v. McReynolds, 90 Tenn.

673, S. C. 18S. W. R. 272, 790, 806
Graham v. Nowlin, 54 Ind. 389, 110
Graham v. People, 111 Ill. 2538, 639
Graham v. Pinckney, 7 Rob. N.

Y. 147, 1210

Graham vy. aes 4 Jones’ Eq.

(N. C.) 9 1134
oo Vv. ued 14 Fed. R.
Graham Button Co. v. Spielmann

(N. J.), 24 Atl. R. 571,

Graham y. State, 66 Ind. 386, 1108

Graham y. State, 50 Ark. 161, 624

Graham v. Stucken, 4 Blackt. 50, 476

Graham y. Tate, 77 N.C. 120, 1048

Graham vy. Woodall, 86 Ala. 313,

S. C. 5 So. R. 687, 592, 601
Gram v. Northern Pacific R. R.

Co., 1 N. Dak. 252, 8. C. 46 N.

W.R. 972, 534
Gram v. Sampson, 4 Ohio Cir. Ct.

490, 664
Grand Rapids v. Perkins, 78 Mich. ~

93, 8. C. 43 N. W. R. 1037, 1081
Grand Rapids v. Whittlesey, 32

Mich. 192, 113
Grand Rapids, etc., Co. v. Diller,

10 Ind. 223,

Grand Rapids & I. R. R. Co. v.
Ellison, 117 Ind. 234,S. C. 20
N. E. R. 135,

Grand Rapids, etc., Co. v. Gray,
38 Mich. 461, 261

Grand Rapids, "ete., Co. v. Jarvis,

30 Mich. 308, 178
Grand Rapids & I. R. R. Co. v.

McAnnally, 98 Ind. 412, 1095

643
1052

614
494

736

526

Grand Rapids, etc., R. R. Co. v.
Sparrow, 1 L. R. A. 480,

Grand Trunk Ry. Co. v. Cum-
mings, 106 U. 8. 700,

Grand Trunk, etc., R. R. Co. v.
Ives, 144 U.S. 408, S. C. 12 Sup.
Ct. R. 679, 8. C. 6 Lewis’ Am.
R. RB. & Corp. Cas. 130, 547, 548, 1072

Grand Trunk R. R. Co. v. Nichol,
18 Mich. 170,

Grandin v. LaBar, 2 N. Dak. 206,
8. C. 50 N. W. R. 151, 195

Grandin v. Le Roy, 2 Paige, 509,

239, 261, 1130

Granger v. Batchelder, 54 Vt. 248,
S.C. 41 Am. R. 846, 206, 207, 564

Granger v. Judge, 44 Mich. 384, 298

Granger’s Admr. v. Granger, 6
Ohio 35,

Granite Bank v. Treat, 18 Me. 340, 317
exxli

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. IT, pp. 603-1244.]

Granite Mountain, etc., Co.v. Dur-

fee, 11 Mont. 222, 8. C. 27 Pac.

R. 919, 226, 229
Grant v. Baker, 12 Ore. 329, 1042
Grant v. Campbell, 6 Dow 239, 412
Grant v. Edwards, 90 N. Car. 31, 488
Grant v. Grant, 109 N. Car. 710, S.

C.148. E. R. 90, 180
Grant v. Grant, 3 Russ. 598, 477
Grant v. Grant, 12 S. Car. 29, S.C.

32 Am. R. 506, 838
Grant v. Holmes, 75 Mo. 109,

232, 233
Grant v. Levan, 4 Pa. St. 393, 518
Grant v. Moore, 29 Cal. 644, 552
Grant v. Pheenix, ete., Co., 121 U.

S. 105, 495
Grant v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 106 U.

8. 429, 1179, 1184, 1187
Grant v. Quick, 5 Sandf. 612, 192
Grant v. Reese, 82 N. Car. 72, 201

Grant v. State, 89 Ga. 396, S.C. 15
8. E. R. 488, 696
Grant v. Westfall, 57 Ind. 121, 1168
Grantham v. Canaan, 38 N. H. 268, 550
Grantier v. Rosecrance, 27 Wis.
488, 436
Granville Co.Board v.State Board,
106 N. Car. 81,8. C. 108. E. R.
1002, 611, 637
Gratiot v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co.,
116 Mo. 450,8. C. 16 L. R. A.
189, 546, 547, 1106
Gravais v. Falgoust, 34 La. Ann.
391, 490
Graves v. Battlecreek, 95 Mich.
266, 8. C. 54N. W.R. 757, 8. C.
19 L. R. A. 641, 810
Graves v. Colwell, 90 Ill. 612, 82
Graves v. Davenport, 50 Fed. R.
881, 794, 796
Graves v. Maguire, 6 Paige 379, 492
Graves v. Pemberton, 3 Ind. App.
71, 8.C. 29 N. E. R. 177, 363
Graves v. United States, 150 U. 8.
118, 8. C. 37 Cent. L. Jour. 458, 820
Graves v. White, 87 N. Y. 463, 350
Gray v. Berry, 9 N. H. 473, 598
Gray v. Brignardello, 1 Wall. 627,
188, 189
Gray v. Crockett, 35 Kan. 686, S.
C. 12 Pac. R. 129, 639
Gray v. Douglass, 81 Me. 427, 8.

C. 17 Atl. R. 320, 434
Gray v. Garnsey, 32 Me. 180, 192
Gray v. Gray, 3 Litt. (Ky.) "465, 720
Gray v. Hawes, 8 Cal. 562, 614

Gray v. Jackson, 51N.H.9,8. C.
12 Am. R. 1,

Gray v. Kimball, 42 Me. 299, 276

 

Gray v. Larimore, 2 Abb. (U. S.)
542, 298
Gray v. Murray, 4 Johns. Ch. (N.
Y.) 412, 792
Gray v. Palmer, 28 Cal. 416, 368, 1203

Gray v. Palmer, 9 Cal. 616, 1182

Gray v. Reed, 65 Vt. 178, 8. C. 26
Atl. R. 526, 598
Gray v. Robinson, 90 Ind. 527, 190
Gray v. St. John, 35 Ill. 222, 697
Gray v. Stuart, 33 Gratt. 351, 1194

Gray v. Thomas, 18 La. Ann. 412,
1232

Gray v. Thomas, 83 Texas 246, 8.
C. 18S. W. R. 721, 505

Graydon v. Gaddis, 20 Ind. 515, 514

Greason v. Keteltas, 17 N. Y. 491,
585, 587

Great Western Tp. Co. v. Loomis,

32 N. Y. 127, 781
Great West, etc., Co. v. Woodmas,

etc., Min. Co., 12 Col. 46, 8. C.

20 Pac. R. 771, 8. C. 13 Am. St.

R. 204, 320, 440, 442
Greely v. Weaver (Me.), 13 Atl.

R. 575, 533
Green v. Akers, 55 Ga. 159, 739
Green v. Bulkley, 23 Kan. 130, 1181
Green v. City of Indianapolis, 22

Ind. 192, 5
Green vy. Cochran, 43 Ia. 544,

553, 1173
Green y. Collins, 6 Ired. 139, 248
Green vy. Disbrow, 79 N. Y. 1, 361
Green v. Fisk, 103 U. 8S. 518,
1179, 1187
Green v. Ford, 17 Ark. 586, 572,596
Green v. Goodloe, 7 Mo. 25, 1200
Green v. Gould, 3 Allen (Mass.)
465, 806
Green v. Green, 42 Kan. 654, S.
C. 22 Pac. Rep. 730, 612, 614
Green v. ae 9 Pa. St. 53, 1197
Green v. Judith, 5 Rand. (Va. )

I,
Green v. Kindy, 43 Mich. 279, °
Green v. King, 17 Fla. 452, 623
Green v. Louthain, 49 Ind. 139, 393
Green y. Milbank, 8 Abb. (N. C.)
138, 239, 261
Green v. Miller, 6 Johns. (N. Y. y

1034

39, 8. C.5 Am. Dec. 184, 591
Green y. Palmer, 15 Cal. "411, 8.

C. 76 Am. Dec. "492, 526
Green v. Pittsburgh, etc., Co. 11

W. Va. 685, 185
Green v. Richmond, 155 Mass.

188, S. C. 29 N.E. R. 770, 201
Green v. Rick, 121 Pa. St. 130, Ss.

C.6 Am. St. R. 760, 498
TABLE OF CASES.

['Raroetve are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602

Green vy. State, 96 Ala. 29, S.C.
12 So. R. 416, :

Green v. State, 66 Ala. 40, §. C.
41 Am. R. 744,

Green v. State, 17 Fla, 669,

Green v. State. 56 Wis. 583,

Green vy. Talfair, 11 How. Pr.
260,

Green v. Tower, 49 Kan. 302, Pe,

' _ C. 80 Pac. R. 468,

821

308
522
437

1128

Green v. Van Buskirk, 7 Wall.

139, 302
Green v. White, 18 Ind. 317,

149, 151, 152
Green v. Winter, 1 Johns. Ch. 60,
; 409, 493
Green v. Wright, 36 Mo. App.

298, 554
Green County v. Wilhite, 35 Mo.

App. 39, - 180
Greenberg v. Hoff, 80 Cal. 81, 8.

C. 22 Pac. R. 69, 1095
Greene v. Couse, 13 L. R. A. 206, 371
Greene v. Dingley, 24 Me. 181, 553
Greene v. Greene, 145 Ill. 264, 8.

C. 83 N. E. R. 941, 1081
Greene v. Mumford, 4B. I. 318,
Greenfield Gas. Co. v. People’s

'Co., 131 Ind. 599, 8. C. 31 N

E. R. 61, 489
Greenough v. Greenough, 11 Pa.

» St. 489 115, 117, 170
Greenough v. Rolfe, 4 N. H. 357,
: 578, 598, 600

Greenup v. Crooks, 50 Ind. 410, 236
Greenup v. Stoker, 3 Gilm. 202, 1160
Greenwald v. Appell, 17 Fed. R.

140, 382
Greenwood vy. Bradford, 128

Mass. 296, 116
Greenwood v. Curtis, 6 Mass. 358,
'§.C.4 Am. Dec. 145, 292
Greenwood v. State, 116 Ind. 485,

8. C. 19 N. E. R. 333, — 233
Greer v. Higgins, 20 Kan. 420, 801
Greer v. State, 53 Ind. 420, 739
Greer v. ae 120 Ill. 184,8. C.

11 N. E. R. 167, 454, 457
Gregg v. Cooke, 1 Peck (Tenn.)

82, 148, 155
Gregg v. State, 3 W.Va.705, 696, 697
Gregg Township v. Jamison, 55

Pa. St. 468, 802
Gregory v. Bovier, 77 Cal. 121, S.

C. 19 Pac. R. 233, 146, 157
Gregory v. Choenell, 55 Ind. 101, 1158
Gregory v. Cleveland, etc., Co., 4.

Ohio St.°675, 220
Gregory v.. Commonwealth, 121

Pa. St. 611, 885, 386

 

exxiii

, Vol. II, pp. 608-1244.]

cepa v. Dodge, 14 Wend. (N.

Y.) 893, 514, 1219
ea v. Frothingham, 1 Nev.

03,
Gregory v.Gregory, 76 Me. 535, 8.

C. 57 Am. R. 792 287
Gregory v. Kenyon, ie Neb. 640,

8. C..52 N. W.R.6 "1177
Gregory v. Ohio River R.R. Co.,

37 W. Va. 606, 8. C. 168. E.R.

819, 822
Gregory v. Pierce, 4 Metc. 478, 1139
Gregory v. Purdue, 29 Ind. 66, 192
Gregory v. State 94 Ind. 384, 115
Grenfell v. Dean, 2 Beav. 544, 497
Gresham v. Ewell, 84 Va. 784, 8.
_C.68. E.R. 700, 217

Gresham v. Peterson, 25 Ark. 377, 476

Grewell v. Henderson, 5 Cal.

465, 449
Gridley v. College, etc., 187 N. Y.

327, 8. C. 33 N. E. R. 321, ae
Gridley v. Globe Tobacco, Co. ey

Mich. 528, 8.C. 39 N.W.R. aa 556
Griel v. Lomax, 86 Ala. 182, S. ron

5 So: R. 325, 540
Grier v. Grier, 1 Dall. (U.8.) 178, 596
Griesel v. Schmal, 55 Ind. 475, 410
Griffee v. Mann, 62 Md. 248, 254
Griffin’s Case, Chase’s Dec. 361, 235

Griffin, Matter of, 25 Tex. (Supp. )
623, 235
Griffin v. Auburn, 58 N. H.121, 547
Griffin v. Cunningham, 20 Gratt.
31, 118
Griffin v. Larned, 111 Ill. 482,
1112, 1117
Griffin v.State (Ala.),8S0.R. 670, 657
Griffin v. State, 119 Ind. 520, 212
Griffith v. Frazier, 8 Cranch, 9, 335
Griffith v. Hilliard, 64 Vt. 643,85.
C. 25 Atl. R. 427, 484
Griffith v. Kansas, etc., Co., 46

Mo. App. 539, 1143
Griffith v. State, 37 Ark. 324, 801
Griffith v. State, 90 Ala. 583, 797

Griffiths, Ex parte, 118 Ind. 83, 119, 212
Griffith’s Estate, 84 Cal. 107, 5. C.

23 Pac. R. 528, 814
Griffith’s Lessee v. Wright, 18Ga,

178, 314
Grigg y. Banks, 59 Ala. 311, 468
Griggs v. Seeley, 8 Ind. 264, 1081

Grignon’s Lessee v. Astor, 2 How.
(U. 8.) 319,
116, 241, 271, 274, 315, 325, 427
Grigsby v. May (Tex.), 19 S. W.
R. 3438, 220
Grigsby v. Schwarz, 82 Cal. 278,
S.C. 22 Pac. R. 1041, 177
CXXiV

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 608-1244,]

Grimes vy. Chamberlain, 27 Neb.
605, 8. C. 43 N. W. R. 395,

1044, 1047, 1183
Grimes v. Duzan, 32 Ind. 361, 1151
Grimes v. Fall, 15 Cal. 63, 414, 506
Grimes v. Martin, 10 Ia. 347, 696, 697
Grimes v. State, 63 Ala. 166, 1069
Grimm v. Hamel, 2 Hilt. (N. Y.)

434, 506
Grimmett v. Askew, 48 Ark. 151,

8.C.2S.W.R. 707, 142, 154, 454
Grinde v. Milwaukee & St. Paul

R. R. Co., 42 Ia. 376, 529
Grindley vy. Barker, 1 Bos. & P.

229, 592

Grinstead v. Buckley,32 Miss.148, 226
Grissom v. Moore, 106 Ind. 296, 618
Griswold v. Burroughs, 15 N. ¥.
Supp. 314, 8. C. 67 Hun 558, 393
Griswold v. N. Y.,etc., R. R. Co.,
12 Am. St. R. 775, 740
Griswold v. North Stonington, 5
Conn. 367,
Griswold v. Sharpe,2 Cal.17, 463, 1224
Griswold v. Sheldon, 4 N.Y.580, 341

Griswold v.Wright, 61 Wis. 195, 566
Groat v. Pracht, 31 Kan. 656, 597
Groenvelt v. Burwell, 1 Ld. Raym.

454, 241, 260
Groh v. Bassett, 7 Minn. 325, 1164
Gronfier v. Puymirol, 19 Cal. 629,

293, 443
Gronour v.Daniels,7 Blackf.108, 1076
Groome v. Lewis, 23 Md. 137, 199
Groscop v. Ranier, 111 Ind.361, 1092

Groshom v. Thomas, 20 Md. 234, 517
Gross v. Shaffer, 29 Kan. 442, 1071
Grosse v. State, 11 Tex. App. 364,
801, 820
Grosvenor v. Magill, 37 Ill. 239, 379
Grotenkemper v. Carver, 4 ae

875,

Grotton v. Glidden, 84 Me. 589, 8.

C. 24 Atl. RB. 1008,

Grove v. Brien, 1 Md. 438,
Grover v. Coon, 1 N. Y. 536,
Grover, etc.,Co.v. Barnes, 49 Ind.

136, 1132
Groves v. Richmond, 53 Ia. 570, 255
Grubb v. McDonald, 91 Pa. St. 236, 679
Grubb v. State, 117 Ind. 277, 8. C.

20 N. E. R. 257, 824
Grubbs v. Morris, 103 Ind. 166, 1224
Grube v. Missouri Pac. R. R. Co.,

98 Mo. 330, 8. C.4 L. R.A. 776,

1121
1068
296

1050, 1053
Grube v. Nichols, 36 Ill. 92, 1071
Gruble v. Ryus, 23 Kan. 195, 1162

Grusenmeyer v. City of Logans-
port, 76 Ind. 549, 164, 533

 

Guaranty Trust, etc., Co. v. Bud-

dington, 27 Fla. 215,8.C. 12 L.

R. A. 770, 449, 450
Guaranty Trust, etc., Co. v.

Green Cove Spring, etc., Co.,

139 U. 8. 187, 8. C. 11 Sup. Ct.

R. 512, 450
Guard v. Risk, 11 Ind. 156, 1119
Guardians’, ete. ., Bank v. Reilly,

8 Mo. App. 544,

Gudtner vy. Kilpatrick, 14 Neb.

347, 346
Guendar, In re, 69 Cal. 88, 220
Guerin v. Hunt, 6 Minn. 375, 503
er Vv. Carver, 8 Wend. 492,

S. C. 24 Am. Dec. 60, 801, 1177
Guernsey v. Wood, 130 Mass.

508, 284
Guerra v. Burton, 23 Cal. 592, 224
Guess v. Stone Mountain, ete. “4

Co., 72 Ga. 320, 678
Guest v. Reynolds, 68 Ill. 478, 484
Guetig v. State, 66 Ind. 94, S.C.

32 Am. R. 99, 659, 1074
Guffee v. Mann, 62 Md. 248, 1188
Guffin v. Leslie, 20 Md. 15, 311
Guffin v. Seymour, 15 Ia. 30, 1179
Guilbeau v. Cormier, 32 La. Ann.

930, 226

Guild v. Richardson, 6 Pick. 364, 454

Guilford v. Love, 49 Tex. 715, 316
Guimond v. Nast, 44 Tex. 114, 443
Guirl v. Gillett, 124 Ind. 501, 1238
Gulf, C. & 8. F. Ry. Co. v. Coon,
69 Tex. 730, 799
Gulf, C. & St. F. Ry. Co. v. Hath-
away, a ae 557, 8. C.12 8.
W.R. 9 1113
Gul CO. a Se he Be Oo
James, 4U. 8. oe 19, 434
Gulf, O. & S. F. R. R. Co. v.
James, 48 Fed. R. 148, 481
Gulf, C. &S. FRR. Co. v. Wash-
ington, 49 Fed. R. 347, 529, 1229
Gulf, C. & 8. F. Ry. Co. v. Witte,
68 Texas 295,8. C.48.W. Rep.
490, 821
Gulf, 'ete., R. R. Co. v. Blohn, 73
Tex. 637, 8.C.4L. R.A. 764, 1066
Gulf, ete., Ry. Co. v. Calhoun
(Tex.), 248. W. Rep. 362, 739
Gulf, ete., Co. v.Evansich, 61 Tex.
3, 508
Gulf, ee Co. v. Jones, 73 Tex.
232, Ss. 0. 118 W. R. 185, 1243
Gulf, Bre.. Co. v. Settegast, 79
Texas 256, S. C. 15 S. W. R.
228, 388

Gulick v. Turnpike Co., 14 N. J.
L. 545, 375
TABLE OF CASES.

CXXV

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. U, pp. 603-1244. ]

Gull, etc., Co. v. School Dist., 1
fe 500, 8. C. 48 N. W. R.
Gull River Lumber Co. v. Keefe,
6 Dak. 160, 41 N. W. R. 743, 528
Gulley v. Macy, 89 N. Car. 343, 594
Gummer vy. Omro Trustees, 50
Wis. 247, 1040
Gundlin v. Hamburg, etc., Co.,

1146

28 N. Y. Supp. 572 1216
Gunn vy. Durkee, 41 Kan. 144, 1159
‘Gunn y. Howell, 85 Ala. 144, 8.

C. 73 Am. Dec. "484, 474

Gunn v. Ohio River, 'etc., Co., 37
W.Va. 421,8. C. 16S. E. R, 628, 813

Gunn v. Plant, 94 U.S. 664, 182
Gunn v. Tackett, 67 Ga. 725, 182
Gunter v. Granitville, etc., Co.,
18S. Car. 263, 658
Gunther v. Liverpool, etc., Co.,
-1384 U. 8. 110, “1053

Gunzberg v. Miller, 39 Mich. 80, 442
Gurley v. Park (Ind.), 35N. E.R.

279, 729
Gurley v. Tomkins, 17 Col. 487, 8.

C. 30 Pac. Rep. 344, 552
Gurnea v. Seeley, 66 I. 500, 1193
Gustin v. Jefferson County, 15 Ta.

158, 369
Gutch v. Fosdick, 48 N. J. Eq.

358, S. C. 22 Atl. R. 590, 360
Guthman v. Kearn, 8 N: eb. 502, 401
Guthrie v. Guthrie, 71 Ia. 744, 8.

C. 30 N. W. R. 779, 217
Guthrie v. Olson, 44 Minn. 404, S.

C. 46 N. W. R. 853, 894

Gutteridge v. Smith, 2 H. B. 374,
Gutterson v. Morse, 58 N. H.

165,

Guy v. Doak, 47 Kan. 236, 8. C.
27 Pac. BR. 968,

oe v. Cox, 1 Overt. (Tenn.)

399
797
195

184, 622
Gyford v.Woodgate, 11 East 297, 455

H

Haas v. Taylor, 80 Ala. 459, 394
Habersham vy. Wetter, 59 Ga.11, 1170
Hablichtel v. Yambert, 75 Ia. 539,

8. C. 39 N. W. R. 877, 1212
Hacker v. Horlemus, 69 Wis. 280,

8. C. 34. N. W. R. 125, 551
Hackett v. Baiss, L. R. 20 Eq. 494,

483
Hackett v. Lathrop, 36 Kan. 661,
S. C. 14 Pac. R. 220, 452
Hackett v. State, 113 ‘Ind. 532, 8S.
C.15N. E.R. 799, 427

‘Hail v. Spencer, 1B. I. 17,

 

Hacktord v. N. Y. Cent., etc., R.
R. Co., 53 N. Y. 654, 1088
ggklenian v. Board, 94 Ind.

363
Hackley’ v. Muskegon Cir. J., 58

Mich. 454, 1169
Hadaway v. Kelly, 78 Ill. 286, 597
“Hadden vy. Sprader, 20 Johns. 554,

499
Hadduck v. Murray, 1 N. H. 140,

8. C. 8 Am. Dec. 43, 555
Hadley v. Gutridge, 58 Ind. 302, 454
Hadley v. Hadley, 82 Ind. 75,

1089, 1210, 1230 |
Hadley v. Heywood, 121’ Mass.

236, 1114, 1121
Hafern v. Davis, 10 Wis. 501, 448
Hafner v. Irwin, 4 Ired. L. 529, 433
Hagaman v. Commissioners, ‘19

Kan. 394, 403
Hagan v. Blindell, 54 Fed. R. 40,

8. C. 56 Fed. R. 696, 478, 480, 482
Hagan v. Lucas, 10 Pet. 400, 196, 467
Hagar v. Mounts, 3 Blackf. 57, 1211
Hageman v. Moreland, 33 Mo. 86,

1047

Hagenbuck v. McClaskey, 81 Ind.
577, | 1030
Hagerman v. Empire State Co.,
97 Pa. St. 534,
Hagerman v. Ohio Building, etc.,

Ass’n, 25 Ohio St. 186, 450
Hagerty v. Mann, 56 Md. 522, 877
Hagerty’s Ex’rs v. Scott, 10 Tex.

525, 619
Haggard v. Hays’ Admr., 13 B.

Mon (Ky.) 175, 529
Haggart v. Morgan, 5 N. Y. 422,

8. C. 55 Am. Dec. 350, 464

469, 587, 588, 597

Haggarty v. Juday, 58 Ind. 154, 1146-
Hagger v. Baker, 14M. & W.9, 580
Hagner v. Musgrove, 1 Dall. (U. eas

8.) 83,
Hahn v. Kelly, 34 Cal. 391,
116, 126, 180, 299
Hahn y. Kelly, 94 Am. Dec. 762,
331, 425
Haight v. Cornell, 15 Conn. 74, 540
Haight v.'Hoyt, 50 Conn. 583,
1119, 1120
377
Hain v. Northwest Gravel Road
Co., 41 Ind. 196, 527
Haines v. Bottorff, 17 Ind. 348, 484
Haines v. Carpenter, 1 Woods 262,

495

Haines v. Kent, 11 Ind. 126, 669
Haines v. McLaughlin, 135 'U. 8.

504, S. C. 10 Sup. Ct. R. 876, 1076
exxvl

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.]

Haines v. Saviers, 93 Mich. 440,
8. C.53 N. W. R. 531, 1141, 1218
Hairgrove v. Millington, 8 em
480,
Haish v. Munday,12 Bradw. (Ill. i
539,

Hakanson v. Brodke, 36 ‘Neb. 42,

S. C. 53 N. W. R, 1033, ae
Hake v. Buell, 50 Mich. 89, 894
Halbert v. Stinson, 6 BIkf. 398, 470

Haldeman v. Berry, 74 Mich. 424,
S.C. 42 N. W. R. 57, 559
Haldeman v. Starrett, 23 Il]. 393, 1197
Haldeman v. United States, 91 U.
S. 584,
Halderman v. Halderman, Hemp.
407,
Hale v. Continental Life Ins. Co.,
20 Blatchf. (U. 8.) 515,
Hale v. Cummings, 3 Ala. 398,
Hale v. Handy, 26 N. H. 206,
Hale v. Haselton, 21 Wis. 320,
Hale yv. Lawrence, 21 N. J. L.
714,
Hale v. Point Pleasant, etc., Co.,
Hales v. Petit, 1 Plowden 253,
23 W. Va. 454,
Haley v. Elliott, 16 Col. 159, 8. C.
26 Pac. R. 559,
Haley v. Jump River, ete., Co., 81
Wis. 412, 8. C. SIN. W. R. 321,
228, "1090
Haley v. State, 63 Ala. 89, 539, 807
Hall v. Armstrong, 65 Vt. 421, 8.
C. 20 L. R. A. 366, 112
Hall v. Armstrong (Vt.), 26 Atl.
R. 592, 642, 643
ae v. Barton, 25 Barb. (N. Y.) i
11

Hil v. Bennett (N. Y.), 16 J. &
~ §. 302 407

Hall v. Bray, 51 Mo. 288, 121, 171
Hall v. Brown; 30 Conn. 551, 798
Hall v. Brown, 59 N. H. 198, 190
= v. Bumstead, 20 Pick. (Mass. )

380

Hall v. Cartes 74 Ia. 364, 8. C. 37

N.W.R.9 1100
Hall v. Giseuad, etc., Co., 65 Ia.

258, 668
Hall v. Com., 22 W. N. C. 25, S.

C. 12 Atl. R. 163, 6
Hall v. Commonwealth (Va.), 15

8. E. R.5
Hall v. Giaig, 125 Ind. 523, 8. C.

25 N. E. R. 538, 609, 611
Hall v. Durham, 109 Ind. 434, 1051
Hall v. Farmers’, etc., Bank, 55 Ia. Si

612
Hall y. Felton, 105 Mass. 516, 360

1046
1210
469

» 684
1240
610

954
487

1230

 

Hall v. Filter Mig. Co., 10 Phila.

(Pa.), 370, 471
Hall v. Flockton, 16 Ad. & El. (N.

8.) 1039, 550
Hall v. Hinds, 2M. & G. 847, 600

Hall v. Hudson, 20 Ala. 284,
181, 183, 1189, 1203
Hall v. Kimmer, 61 Mich. 269, S

C.1 Am. St. R. 575, 572, 584
Hall v. King, 29 Ind. 205, 1113
Hall v. Marks, 34 Il]. 360, 116, 118

Hall v. Merrill, 47 Minn. 260, 8S.
C. 49 N. W. R. 280, 185

Hall v. Mount, 3 Cold. (Tenn.)
395, 161
Hall v. Nees, 27 11]. 410, 1168, 1169

Hall v. Norwalk Ins. Co.,57 Conn.
105, 8. C. 17 Atl. R. 356, 404, 599
Hall v. Posey, 79 Ala. 84, 1056
Hall v. Renfro, 3 Mete. (Ky. ) 51, aa
Hall v. State, 3 Ga. 18, 1171
Hall v. State, 3 Lea (Tenn. ) 552, 161
Hall v. Thayer, 12 Mete. 130, 363
Hall v. Thayer, 105 Mass. 219, 1386, 218

Hall v. Wadsworth, 30 W. Va.55,
118, 332, 1214

Hall v. Weare, 92 U. S. 728, 677
Hall v. Whittier, 10R.1. 530, 401, 404
Hall v. Wolff, 61 Ia. 559, 819, 823
Hall v. Wood, 9 Gray 60, 363
Hallack v. March, 25 Ill. 48, 583
Halleck v. Mixer, 16 Cal. 574, 875
Halley v. Folsom, 1 N. Dak. "325,

8. C. 48 N. W. R.219, 714
Hallinger v. Davis, 146 U. 8.314, 1127
Hallock v. Dominy, 69 N.Y. 238, 165
Hallock v. Jaudin, 34 Cal. 167, 1196

Hallstead v. Coleman, 148 Pa. St.
352, 8.C. 22 Atl. R. 977, S. C.18
L. R. A. 370,

Halpin v. Phenix Ins. Co., 118 N.
Y. 165,

a v.McLean,12 Allen(Mass. Ye

Halsey v. Stewart, 4N.J. L. 366, ay

535
402

Halstead y. Brown, 17 Ind. 202, 1239
Halstead v. Manhattan, etc., Ry.
Co., 58 N. Y. Sup. Ct. 270, 660

Halstead v. Seaman, 82 N, ¥, 27,

593, 601
1166
262

1149
29

111

Ham v. Carroll, 17 Ind. 442,

Ham v. Rogers, 6 Blackf. 559,
Hamblan v.- McManus, 100 "Mo.
124, §. C.18 Am. St. R. 533,

Hamby v. State, 36 Tex. 523,

Hamilton v. Ames, 74 Mich. 298,
S.C. 41 N. W.R. 930,

Hamilton % Armstrong (Mo.), Oa
S.W.R.1

Hamilton v. Browning.94Tna, 242, 1304
TABLE OF CASES.

exxvii

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.

‘Hamilton v. Burch, 28 Ind. 2338, 192
Hamilton vy. Buxton, 5 Ark. 400, 255
Hamilton v. Buchanan, 112 N.

Car. 463, 8. C. 17 S. E. R. 159,

1088, 1091
Hamilton v. Byram, 122 Ind. 283,
1148, 1149, 1151
Hamilton v. Conyers, 28 Ga. 276, 807
Hamilton v. Cummings, 1 Johns.

Ch. 517, 801
Hamilton v. Hamilton, 27 111.158, 576
Hamilton v. Hart, 125 Pa. St. 142,

S.C. 17 Atl. R. ‘226, 595
ae o Home Ins. Co., 137

U.S. 3 575, 588, 589
Hanilion v. Iowa Bank, 40 Ta.

307, 1142
Hamilton v. Miller, 46 Kan. 486,

8. C. 26 Pac. R. 10380, 791
Hamilton v. Moore, 4 W. & S.

(Pa.) 570,

Hamilton v. Pease, 38 Conn.

115,

Hamilton v. Pearson, 1 Ind. 540,

S. C. 50 Am. Dec. 480, 711
Hamilton v. People, 29 Mich.173, 803
Hamilton v. Shoaff, 99 Ind. 63, 1097
Hamilton v. Southern, etc., Co.,

83 Fed. R. 562,

Hamilton v. Summers, 12 B. Mon.

1229

1128

(Ky.) 11, §.C. 54 Am. Dec. 509, 706
Hamilton vy. Territory, 1 Wyo.
Ter. 131, 230

Hamilton v. Williford, 90 Ga.
210, §. C. 15 8. E. RB. 753, 1224
Hamilton v. Wright, 37 N.Y.502, 605
Hamlett v. Simms, 44 Ark. 141, 1184

Hamlin v. Kassafer, 15 Ore. 458,
215, 217
Hamlyn vy. Nesbit, 87 Ind. 284, 675

Hammer v. Garfield, etc., Co. a
130 U. 8. 291, 1127
Hammett v. Brown, 60 Ala. 498, 392
Hammil v. State, 90 Ala. 577, 660
Hammond v. Hopkins, 143 U. 8. es

924,
Hammond y. Johnston, 93 Mo.
198, 8. C.6 S. W. R. 83, 504
Hammond v. Olive, 44 Miss.548, 439
Hammond v. Schiff, 100 N. Car.
161,8.C.68. E. R. 758, 712, 1215
Hammond vy. Stuart, 1 Str. 510, 521
Hammond v. Wallace, 85 Cal.
522, S. C. 20 Am. St. R. 239, 1044
Hamner vy. Smith, 22 Ala. 433, 33
Hampson v. Weare, 66 Am. Dec.
116 441
1035

Hampton vy. Windham, 2 Root,
199,
Hanchett v. Finch, 47 Cal. 192,

 

Hancock y. Colyer, 99 Mass. 187,
8. C. 96 Am. Dec. 730, 471
Hancock v. Cook, 18 Pick. (Mass.)

30, 386
Hancock v. Elam, 3 Baxt. 33, 1123
Hancock y. Harper, 86 Ill. 445, 376
Hancock vy. Ritchie, 11 Ind. 48, 377
Hancock v. Titus, 39 Miss. 224, 198

Hancock v. Town of Worcester, 62
Vt. 106, S.C. 18 Atl. R. 1041,
164, 1240, 1246
Hancock v.Yaden, 121 Ind. 366,

120, 308
Hancock’s Will, 91 N. Y. 284, 220
Hand v. Kennedy, 83 N.Y. 149, 1131
Handley v. Pfister 39 Cal. 283, 8.
C. 2 Am. R. 449,
Handy v. Cleveland, etc., R. R.
Co., 31 Fed. R. 689,

467
497

! Handy v. Cobb, 44 Miss. 699, 581, 597

Handy v. Dobbin, 12 Johns. "220, 197
Handy v. Hopkins, 59 Md. 157, 298
Hanes v. Worthington, 14 Ind. 320,
159, 234
Haney v. Caldwell, 59 Ark. 156, 5387
a a  Hachemeister, 11 Am.
St. RB. 6 739
a en “Abbott, 6 Wall. (U.S.)
532
Hankey v. Downey, 3 an App.
825, 8. C. 29 N. E. R. 6
526, i103, 104, 1106
Hanks v. ptoberts, 3 J. J. Marsh.
(Ky.) 298, 1051
Wanis vy. Van Garder, 59 Ia.179, 514
Hanna v. Bry, 5 La. Ann. 651, 198
Hanna v. Curtis, 1 Barb.Ch. 263, 1210

Hanna v. Maas, 122 U.S. 24, 1243
Hanna v. McKenzie, 5 B. Mon.
814, S. C. 43 Am. Dec. 122, 346

Hanna v. Mills, 21 Wend. (N.Y.)

90, 8. C. 34 Am. Dec. 216, 1116

Hanna v. Morrow, 43 Ark. 107, 316
Hanna v. People, 86 II]. 243, 629
Hanna v. Phelps, 7 Ind. 21, 159
Hanna v. Phillips, 1 Grant Cas.
(Pa.) 253, 540
Hanna v. Russell, 12 Minn. 80, 423

Hannah v. Dorrell, 73 Ind. 465,
192, 1243
Hannah v. Swarner, 8 Watts (Pa.)

9, S. C. 34 Am. Dec. 442, 560
Hannahan v. Nichols, 17 Ga. 77, 476
Hannahs v. Felt, 15 Ta. 141, 468
Hannibal, etc., R. Rv. Crane, 102

Til. 249, 440, 470, 476
Hannon v. Hilliard,101 Ind. 310, 71
Hannum v. Belchertown, 19 Pick.

311, 1160, 1162
Hannum vy. State, 38 Ind. 32, 1139
CXXvili

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. I, pp. 603-1244.]

Hannum vy. Wallace, 9 Humph. —
582

(Tenn.) 129,
Hanover, etc., Co. v. Germania,
etc., Co., 33 Hun 539, 194

Hanover, etc., Co. v. Lewis, 22

Fla. 568, 1
Hanover, etc., Co. v. Lewis, 23

Fla. 193, 8. OC. 1 So. R. 863, 1025
Hanrahan v. People, 91 Ind. 142, 1068
Hansbrough v. Thom, 3 Leigh

(Va.) 147, 1034

_Hanscom v. Hinman, 30 Mich.

419, 898
Hansen v. Bergquist, 9 Neb. 269, 153
Hansen v. Butler, 48 Me. 81, 199,471
Hansen v. Miller, 145 Ill. 538, §.

C. 32 N. E. Rep. 548, 783, 789
Hansen v. Schlesinger, 125 II. 230, 184
Hansford v. Hansford, 34 Mo.

App. 262, 429
Hanson vy. Armstrong, 22 Ill. 442, 503
Hanson v. Butler, 48 Me. 81, 476
Hanson v. Crawley, 51 Ga. 528, 1051
Hanson v. Graham, 82 Cal. 631,

8.C.7L. R. A. 127, 464
Hanson v. W. A. Hunter, etc.,

Co. (Ia.), 34 Am. & Eng. Corp.

Cases 83, 8. C.48 N. W. R.

1005,

Hanson v. Webber, 40 Me. 194,

594, 596
Hanvey v. State, 68 Ga. 612, 179
Happy v. Mosher, 48 N. Y. 313,
276, 424
Harbaugh v. Albertson, 102 Ind.
346

69,
Harback v. Des Moines, etc., Ry.
Co., 80 Ia. 593, 370
Harbin v. Bell, 54 Ala. 389, 300, 345
Harbison v. McCartney, 1 Grant

483

172, 198
Harbor v.Morgan,4Ind.158, 31, 721
Hard v. Shipman, 6 Barb. 621, 154

Hardaway v. Semmes, 88 Ala.
657

Hardee v. Williams, 30 Ga. 921,

Harden vy. Fisher, 1 Wheat. (U.
S.) 300, 1108, 1154

302
915

Harden y. Hays, 9 Pa. St.151, 795
Hardenburgh v. Kidd, 10 Cal.
402, 212
Hardin v. Branner, 25 Ia. 364, 1105
Hardin v. Helton, 50 Ind. 319, 1065
Hardin v. Ho-Yo-Po-Nubby, 27
Miss. 567, 605
ee Vv. Eee 17 Johns.
(N. Y.) 293, 506
Hardin v. Lee, 51 Mo. 241, 465

Hardin v. Trimier, 32 8. Car. 600,
8.0.98. E. R. 342, 118, 332, 1214

 

Harding v. Alden, 9 Greenl. 146,

8. C. 23 Am. Dec. 549, 287
Harding v. Coburn, 12 Metcf.

(Mass.) 333, 33
Harding v. Fuller, 141 Ill. 308, S.

C. 30 N. E. R. 1053, 1129
Harding v. Jasper, 14 Cal. 642, 548

Hardman yv. Belhouse, 9 Mees. &

W. 596, 550
Hards v. ‘Burton, 79 Ill. 504, 213
Hardy’s Case, 24 How. State Tr.

755, 779

Hardy v. Beaty, 84 Tex. 562, S.C.
31 Am.S8t.R.80, 329,428 445, 447,451

Hardy v. Keeler, 56 Ill. 152, "304
Hardy v. McClellan, 58 Miss. 507,

195, 495
Hardy v. Merrill, 56 N. H. 227, 8.

C. 22 Am. R. 441, 679
Hardy v. Miller, 11 Neb. 395, 1197
Hardy v. Ryle, 9 Barn. & Cres.

603, 879
Hardy v. Simpson, 13 Ired. L.(N.

Car.) 182, 540
Hardy v. Sprowle, 32 Me. 310, 656

Hare v. Niblo, 4 Leigh.(Va.) 359, 432
Hargadine v. Van Horn, 72 Mo.
465

370,

Hargrave v. Vaughn, 82 Texas
664

118

347, 8. C. 188. W. R. 695,
Harker, Ex parte, 49 Cal. 469,
Harker v. Brink, 24 N. J. L. 333, 442
Harker v. State, 8 Blackf. 540, 705
Harkness v. Hyde, 98 U. S. 476,

333, 611, 618
Harless v. Petty, 98 Ind. 53, 1048
Harlow v. Dehon, 111 Mass. 195, 372
Harmon v. Birchard, 8 Black,

474

(Ind.) 418,
Harmon vy. Chandler, 8 Ta. 150, 1235

Harmon v. James, 7 Sm. & M.
(Miss.) 111, 551
Harmon vy. Moore, 112 Ind. 221,
221, 337, 330

Harmon v. Stuthers, 48 Fed. R.
260, 1187
Harner v. Batdorf, 35 O. St.118, 1148
Harness v. State,57Ind.1, 712, 784
Harnett v. Harnett, 59 Ia. 401, 1167
Harnish y. Bramer, 71 Cal. 155,
S.C. 11 Pac. R. 888, 266
Harpending v. Meyer, 55 Cal.
555, 365
C. 8 Atl. 1198

Harper v. ce oo St. 594, 8.

Harper v. Ey 58 lH. 179, 412
Harper v. Harper, 57 Ind. 547, 361
Harper v. Jacobs, 51 Mo. 296,

226, 233, 234
Harper v. Minor, 27 Cal. 107, 1134
TABLE OF CASES.

cxxix

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.)

Harper v. State, 101 Ind. 109,
1071, 1074, 1161, 1165
Harper v. State, 42 Ind. 405, 159,161
Harrell v. Americus Refrigerator
Co. (Ga.), 17 S. E. R. 628, 480
Harrell v. Kelly, 2 McCord 426, 368
Harrelson v. Sarvis (S. Car.),178.
E. R. 368, © 1041, 1048
Harres v. Commonwealth, 35 Pa.
St. 416, 178
Harriman v. Egbert, 36 Iowa 270,
413
Harriman v. Queen Ins. Co., 49
Wis. 71, 1088, 1092
Harrington v. Brown, 9 Allen 579,
572, 584
Harrington v. Heath, 15 Ohio 483, as

Harrington v. Latta, 23 Neb. 84, .
S. C. 36 N. W. R. 364, 1156
Harrington v. Loomis, 10 Minn.
366, 44
Harrington v. State, 76 Ind.112, 1166
Harrington v. Workingmen’s Ben.
Ass’n, 70 Ga. 340, 589
Harris v. Bank, 22 Fla. 501, 8. C.
1 Am. St. R. 201, 518
Harris v. Beam, 46 Ia.118, 1048, 1049
Harris v. Central R. R. Co., 78 Ga.
525, 8. 0.38. E. R. 355,
Harris v. Claflin, 36 Kan. 543, S.
C. 13 Pac. R. 830,
Harris v. ei 1 Serg. & R.
(Pa.) 236
Harrisv. Doe, 4 Blackf. (Ind.)369,
Harris v. Gest, 4 Ohio St. 469,
Harris v. Hannibal & St. J. R.

445

377
545
153

Co., 37 Mo. 307, - 71
Harris v. Hardy, 3 Hill (N.' Y.)

393, 477
Harris v. Harris, 71 N. Car. 174, she
Harris v. Harris, 61 Ind. 117, 263
Harris v. Hauser, 26 W. Va. 595,

; 1184

Harris v. Hill, 7 Ark. 462, 508

Harris v. Hull, 70 Ga. 831, 85

Harris v. Kennedy, 48 Wis. 500, 33

Harris v. Lester, 80 Ill. 307, 445
Harris v. McClanahan, 79 Tenn.

181, 266

Harris v. pena 72 Tex. 18, 8.
C.958.W.R 237

Harris v. Nirekinghm; etc., Co., 4
Blackf. 267, 8. C. 29 Am. Dec.
372, 1195

Harris v. Newell, 42 Wis. 687, 413

Harris vy. Phoenix Ins. Co., 35
Conn. 310, 473

I

783

 

Harris v. Ray, 15 B. Mon. 628, 1162
Harris v. Rosenberg, 43 Conn.
227, 731
Harris v. Ross, 112 Ind. 314, 528
Harris v. Schaffer, 92 N.Car.30, 201
Harris v. Social Mnfg. Co.,9 R.
I. 99, 8. C. 11 Am. R. 224, 595

Harris v. Tomlinson, 130 Ind. 426,
192, 1243
Harris v. Vandeveer, 21 N.J. Eq.

424, 118
Harris v.Wall, 7 How.(U.S.) 692, 513
Harris v. Woody, 9 Mo. 113,

1051, 1055
Harris v.Woodford, 98 Mich. —,

8. C.57 N. W. R. 96, 1067, "1068
Harris v. Wright, 123 Ind. 272, 1214
Harrisburg v. Forster, 8 Watts 12, 367
Harrod v. Burgess, 5 Rob. (La.)

449, 464

Harrison v. Beard, 30 Kan. 532, 445
Harrison v. Cachelin, 27 Mo. 26, 1067
Harrison v. Haas, 25 Ind. 281, 403

Harrison v. Hall, 8 Mo.App.167, 362
Harrison v. Harrison, 48 Kan.443,

8. C. 29 Pac. R. 572, 1133
Harrison v. Harrison, 19 Ala.499, 287
Harrison v. Farnsworth, 1 Heisk.

751, 1178 |
Harrison v. Farrington, 35 N. J.
Eq. 4, 438

Harrison v. Gibson, 23 Gratt. &
377
Harrison v. Kramer, 3 Ia. 543,
Harrison v. Middleton, 11 Gratt.
738
Harrison v. Nixon, 9 Pet. 483,
Harrison v. Park, 1 J. J. Marsh.
818
Harrison v. Rowan, 3 Wash. (U.
8.) 580, 779, 783
857,
Harrison v. State, 17 Tex, App.

2, 1074
Harrison v.Thurston,11 Fla.307, 1183
Harrison v. Trader, 29 Ark. 85,
Harrison v. Union Bank, 12 Neb.

499, 373
679
Harshey v. Blackmarr, 20 Ia. 161,
Harshman v. Armstrong, 43 Ind.
126, 877
312, 894, 397, 398
Hart’ v. Adams, 7 Gray (Mass.) ine

(Va.) 212,
1197
(Va.) 527,
1128.
170,
Harrison v. Sparrow, 7 Eng. Ece.
810
255, 468
Harrison v. Young, 9 Ga. 359,
605, 606
Harshman v. Mitchell, 117 Ind.
581,
CAXX

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602,

Hart v. Burch, 31 Ill. App. 22, &

C. 130 Il. 426, 8. C. 22 N.

R. 831,

Hart v. Burnett, 15 Cal. 530,
Hart v. Foley, 67 Ia. 407,
Hart v. Gould. 62 Mich. 262, 8.C.

28 N. W.R. 881, | 571
Hart v. Gray, 3 "Sumn. (U. 8.)

339, 437
Hart v. Kennedy, 47 N. J. Eq. 51,

8. C. 20 Atl. R. 29, 598, 602
Hart v. Recto., 7 Mo. 531, 1049
Hart v. Sansom, 110 U. S. 151,

275, 444
Hart v. State, 49 Am. R.188, 809, 812
Hart v. State, 14 Neb. 572, 178, 646
Hart v. Storey, 1 Johns. (N. Y.)

143, 1048
Hart v. Walker, 77 Ind. 331, 1212
Hartford v. State, 96 Ind. 461, 1074
Hartford, etc., Co. v. Love, 125
Hartford City Fire Ins. Co. v.

Carrugi, 41 Ga. 660,

Ind. 275,

Hartford, etc., Ins. Co. v. Unsell,

" 332
954
1233

440
1034

407
534
344

144 U.S. 439, 8. C. 12 Sup. Ct.

R. 671, 1052
Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Bonner,

, ete., Co., 44 Fed. R.151, 576, 601
Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Green,

52 Miss. 332, 1044, 1180
Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Owen,

30 Mich. 441, 298
Hartle v. Long, 5 Pa. St. 491, 198
Hartley v. Boynton, 17 Fed. R.

878, 445
Hartley v. Chidester, 36 Kan.

363, S. C. 18 Pac. R. 578, 1166
Hartlep v. Cole, 120 Ind. 247,

1148, 1144
Hartlepp v. Whitely et al., 131

Ind. 543, 185, 1151
Hartman v. Aveline, 63 Ind. 344, 1151
Hartman v. The Cincinnati, etc.,

Co., 4 Ind. App. 3870, 8. C. 30

N. E. R. 930, 1029
Hartman v. Young, 17 Ore. 150,

8. C.2L. R. A. 596, 503
Hartranft’s Appeal, 85 Pa. St.

433, 170, 251
Hartshorne v. Cuttrell, 2 N. J.

Eq. 297, 599
Hariseck, v. Mort, 76 Md. 281, 8.

C. 25 Atl. 303,

Hartupee v. Pittsburgh, etc., Co.,

97 Pa. St. 107,

Hartvig v. N. P. Lumber Co., 19

Ore. 522, 8S. C. 25 Pac. R. 358,
Hartwell v. Mutual, etc., Co., 50
Hun 497,

 

TABLE OF CASES.

Vol. I, pp. 608-1244.]
Hartz v. Commonwealth, 1 Grant

Cas. (Pa.) 359, 558
Harvard College v. Gore, 5 Pick.

370, 312
Harvey, In re, 16 Ill. 127, 188
Harvey v. Ball, 32 Ind. 98, 292
Harvey v. Coffin, 5 Blackf. 566, 619
Harvey v. Cummings, 68 Tex. 599,

8.C.58. W. R. 513, 587
Harvey v. Dodge, 73 Me. 316, 1068

Harvey v. Ellithorpe, 26 Ill. 418, 676
Harvey v. ae L. R. 8 App.
Cas. 43, 288
Harvey v. Fink, ‘111 Ind. 249, 1182
ae Jones, ,3 Humph. (Tenn. 1
15

‘Harvey v. Osborn, 55 Ind. 535,

508, 718, 728
Harvey v. Pollock, 148 Pa. St. 534,

8. C. 23 Atl. R. 1127, "1044
Harvey v. Rickett, 15 Johns. (N.

Y.) 87, 1120
Harvey v. Shelton, 7 Beay. 455, 591
Harvey v. Sinker, '35 Ind. 341, 12381
Harvey v.Skipwith,16 Gratt. (Va.)

410, 608
Harvey v. State, 123 Ind. 260, 1236
Harvey v. State, 80 Ind. 142, 1114
Harvey v. Tyler, 2 Wall. 328,

128, 130, 316, 1224

Harwell v. Steel, 17 Ala. 372, 3875
Hasbrouck v. City of Milwaukee,
0

21 Wis. 217, 1060
Haskel v. Jones, 86 Pa. St. 178, 302
Haskell v. Brewer, 11 Me. 258, 404

Haskell v. Haven, 3 Pick. (Mass.)
404, 433
Haskell v. Starbird, 152 Mass. 117
8. C. 25 N. E. R. 14, ‘1076
Haskell v. Whitney, 12 Mass. 47, 586
Haskins v. People, 14 Ill. ‘App.
198, 632
Hasselman vy. Allen, 42 Ind. 257,
1132, "1148
Hasselman Printing Co. v. Fry,
(Ind.) 35 N. E. R. 1045, 1052
Hasselman vy. Japanese, etc., Co.,
2 Ind. App. 180, 8. C. 27 N. E.
R. 718, 413
Hasson v. eres (Ky.),
118. W. R. 2
Hastings vy. ict ies: 15 Gray

(Mass.) 10, 800
Hastings v. Northern Pac. R. R.
Co., 53 Fed. R. 224, 1163

Hatch, In re, 43 N.Y. ‘Sup. Ct. 89, 424
Hat Sweat Mnfg. Co. v. Waring,

46 Fed. R. 47, 1046
Hatch v. ‘Arnault, 8 La. Ann, 482, 1203
Hatch v. Brown, 63 Me. 410, 512
TABLE OF CASES.

exxxi

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 608-1244.]

Hatch v. Peet, 23 Barb. (N. Y.)

575, 527
Hatch v. State, 8 Tex. App. 416,

8. C. 34 Am. Rep . 751, 820
Hatcher v. Bowen 74 Ga. 840, 569
Hatcher v. State, 18 Ga. 460, 821
Hatchcock v. State, 88 Ga. 91, 8.

C.138. E. R. 959, 1114

Hatcher v. Rochelaeu, 18N.Y.87, 31
Hatfield v. Lockwood, 18 Ia.
296, 1090

Hatfield v. St. Paul, ete., R. R.
- Co., 33 Minn. 130, 810
Hathaway v. East Tenn. R. R.

Co., 29 Fed. R. 489, 548, 1053, 1055
Hathaway Vv. Helmer, 25 Barb.

(N. Y.) 29, 659
Haugen v. Chicago, etce., R. R.

Co. (S. Dak.), 53 N. Ww. Rep.

769, 660, 1056
Haun v. Wilson, 28 Ind. 296, 512
Hauser v. Roth, 37 Ind. 89,

181, 668, 1210
Haussman v. Burnham, 59 Conn.

117, S. C. 22 Atl. R. 1065, 609, 610

Haven v. Foster, 9 Pick. (Mass.)

112, 545
Haven v. Markstrum, 67 Wis.

493, 1070
Haven v. Neal, 43 Minn. 315, S.

C. 45 N. W. B. 612, 540

Havens v. Bush, 2’ Johns. (N,

Y.) 387, 1156
Havens v. Drake, 43 Kan. 484, S,

C. 23 Pac. R. 621, 450
Havens v. Lawton, 49 Mo. App.

1,

Heer qreereell, 12 Abb.
Pr. (N. 8.) 3

Haver v. Sebwyhart, 48 Mo. App.

515

___ 60, 1076
‘Hayerly, pis Co. v. Howcutt, 6

Col. 5 227, 228
ae Otark, 84 Cal. 272, 619
Hawes v. Coombs, 34 Ind. 455,

397, 455, 576
Hawes v. Hathaway 14 Mass.

233, 154
Hawes v. Orr, 10 Bush (Ky.) 431, 300
Hawes v. People, 129 Ill. 123, 8.

C. 21. N. E. R.- 777, 1237
Hawes v. People, 124 Il. 560,
Hawes v. Sie 88 Ala. 37, 8. C.

7 So. R. 8 630, 667
Hawkins v. WP eel 50 Miss. 735, 202
Hawkins v. Glenn, 131 U. S. 315, 360
Hawkins v. Grimes, 13 B. Mon. fe

6

(Ky.) 257,
Hawkins v. "Hawkins, 28 Ind. 66,
381, 451

 

Hawkins v. Hughes, 87 N. Car.

248, 454
Hawkins v. Massie, 62 Mo. 552, 254
Hawkins v. New Orleans, ete.,

Co., 29 La. Ann. 134, 1124
Hawkins v. Nye, 59 Texas 97, 533
Hawkins v. State, 9 Ala. 137, 8.

C. 44 Am. Dec. 431, 664
Hawkins v. State, 125 Ind. 570,

118, 137, 492
Hawkins v. The Governor, 1 ‘Ark.

570, 115, 170, 251
Hawks v. Baker, 6 Me. 72, 723
Hawks v. Crofton, 2 Burr. 698, 1106
Hawks vy. Truesdell, 99 Mass.

557, 1
Hawley v. Dawson, 16 Ore. 344, S.

C. 18 Pac. R. 592, 1027
Hawley v. Heyman, 28 La. Ann.

347 428
Hawley v. Hodge, 7 Vt. 237, 586
Hawley v. Hunt, 27 Ia. 303, 8. 0.

1 Am. R. 273, 284
Hawley v. James, 7 Paige 213, 280
Haws v. Clark, 37 Ia. 355, 142, 155
Hawse v. Burgmire, 4 Col. 813, 373
Hawthorn v. St. Louis, 11 Mo. 59,

8. C. 47 Am. Dec. 141, 472
Haxton v. McClaren, 132 Ind. 235,

8. 0. 31. N. E. R. 48, 1081
Hayburn’s Case, 2 Dallas 409, 212
Hayden v. Bucklin, 9 Paige (N.

Y.) 512, 499
Hayden v. Thrasher, 28 Fla. 162,

9 So. R. 855, 499

Hayden v. Woods, 16 Neb. 306,
1161, 1167
Hayden vy. Yale, 45 La. Ann. —.
S.C. 12 So. R. 633, 281
Hayes v. Caldwell, 5 Gilm. 33, 1188
Hayes v. Cheatham, 6 Lea(Tenn. I
1,

Hayes v. Goodwin, 4 Metc.(Ky. _
80,

Hayes v. Kenyon, 7K. I. 531, 1166
Hayes v. Leton, 5 Fed. R. 521, 491
Hayes v. Mass. Mutual Life Ins.

Co., 1 L. R. A. 303, 526
Hayes v. Michigan Central R. R.

Co., 111 U. 8. 228, 5385
Hayes v. Shattuck, 21 Cal. 51, 603
Hayes v. Solomon, 90 Ala, 520, 8.

C. 7 So. R. 921, “1078
Hayes v. Sykes, 120 Ind. 180, 233
Hayes v. The Massachusetts, etc.,

Co., 125 Til. 626, 8. C. 1 Lawy.

R. Anno. 303, 394
Haynes v. Aultman, etc., Co.,

‘(Neb.) 54N. W. R. 511, 485

375°
| Hayes v. Hayes, 8 La. Ann. 468, 230
exxxli

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. I, pp. 608-1244.]

Haynes v. Backman (Cal.),31 Pac.
; 184
se ie v. Boardman, 119 Mass.
Haynes v. Cape May, 52N. J. L.

80, 1134
Haynes v. Haynes, 33 Ohio St.

598, 532
Haynes v. Hazelrigg, 1 Tenn. 242, 480
Haynes v. Schwartz Co., 5 Wash.

433, 8. C. 32 Pac. R. 220, 1136
Haynes v. Thom, 28N. H. ee ae
' Haynes vy. Union, etc., Co.,

Neb. 766, S.C. 53 N.W.R. a9 485
Haynie v. Johnson, 71 Ind. 394, 1148
Hays’s Appeal, 123 Pa. St. 110, 8.

371

C. 16 Atl. 300, 305
Hays v. Anderson, 57 Ala. 374, 472
Haysv. Farwell (Kan.) 35 Pac. R.

19) 1075
Hays v. Hays, 64 N. Car. 59, 200
Hays v. Hays, 1 Humph. (Tenn.)

402, 539
Hays v. Hynds, 28 Ind. 531, 511
Hays v. Hostetter, 125 Ind. 60, 8.

C. 25 N. E. R. 134, 1108
Hays v. May, 1J.J. Marsh. 497, 1187
Hays v. McNealy, 16 Fla. 409, 337
Hays v. Miller, 1 Wash. Ter. 163, 190
Hays v. Morgan, 87 Ind. 231, 174, 633
Hays v. Walker, 90 Ind. 105, 1168
Hayward v. Calhoun, 2 Ohio St.

164, 657
Hayward v. Knapp, 22 Minn. 5, 815
Hayward v. Munger, 14 Ia. 516, 403
Hayward v. Ormsbee, 7 Wis. 111,

1160
Haywood v. Collins, 60 Ill. 328, 452

Haywood v. Reed, 4 Gray (Mass. a

574,
Haywood v. Russell, 44 Mo. 252, 50
Hazard v. Durant, 14 RB. I. 25, 190
Hazard v.Loring, 10 Cush. (Mass.)

267, 401, 404
Hazard v. Wason, 152 Mass. 268,

8. C. 25 N. E. R. 465,

609, 610, 637, 638, 639

Hazeltine v. Case, 46 Wis. 391, 559.
Hazeltine v. Smith, 3 Vt. 535, 593
Hazen v. Emerson, 9 Pick. 144, 475
Hazewell v. Coursen, 81 N. Y. 630,
1148, 1207
Hazlehurst v. Morris, 28 Md. 67, 1182
Heacock v. Lubukee, 108 Ill. 641, 32
Head v. Merrill, 34 Me. 586, 473
Heady v. Vevay, Mt. 8S. & V. Tp.
Co., 52 Ind. 117, 813

Healey. In re, 53 Vt. 694, 8. C. 38
Am. R. 713,
Heap v. Parrish, 104 Ind. 36,

457
544

 

Heard v. Lodge, 20 Pick. 53, 8. C.

32 Am. Dec. 197, 396, 397
Heard v. Ritchey, 112 Mo. 516, 8.

C. 208. W. R. 799, 102
Hearn v. City of Greensburgh, 51

Ind. 119, 654

Hearn y. Crutcher, 4 Yerg. 461, 197°
Hearne vy. Erhard, 33 Tex. 60, 1192
Heath v. Erie Ry. Co., 9 Blatchf.

(U. S.) 316, 459
Heath v. Kent, etc., 37 Mich.372, 118
Heath’s Will, In re, 83 Ia. 215, 8.

C. 48 N. W. R. 1087, 206

Heaton v. Peterson, 6 Ind.App.1,
S.C. 8L.N. E. R. 1133, 1200
Hecht v.Colquhoun, 57 Md. 563, « 1178
Heckman v. O’Neal, 10 Cal. 292, 241
Heddens v. Younglove, 46 Ind. 869

212
Hedderich v. State, 101 Ind. 564, 120
800

Hedge v. Clapp, 22 Conn. 262,
Hedges v. Dam, 72 Cal. 520, S. C.

14 Pac. R. 133, 528
Hedges v. Hudson River R.R. Co.,

49 N. Y. 2238, 553
Hedrick v. Judy, 23 Ind. 548, 594
Hedrick v. D. M. Osborne Co., 99

Ind. 143, 20
Heffner v. Moist,40 Ohio St. 112, . 1161
Hefter v. Cahn, 73 Il. 296, 567
Hegarty’s Appeal, 75 Pa.St. 503, 263

‘Hegler v. Faulkner, 127 U.S.482, 332

Heighway v. Pendleton, 15 Ohio
735, 434
Heilman v. Shanklin, 60 Ind.424, 675
Heil’s Appeal, 40 Pa. St. 453, 8.
C. 80 Am. Dec. 590, 1190
Heiman v. Western Union Tel. *
Co., 57 Wis. 562, 412
Hekla Ins. Co: v. Schroeder, 9 Ill.
App. 472, 377
Helena v. Albertose, 8 Mont.499, 712
Helm v. Boone, 6 J. "J. Marsh 351,
254, 492
877

S. C. 22 Am. Dec. 75,
Helm v. Yerger, 61 Miss. 44,
Helms v. Chadbourne, 45 Wis. 60, 610
Helms v. Green, 105 'N. Car. 251,
8. C.18 Am. St. R. 893, 515, 796
Helms v. Wagner, 102 Ind. 385,
1151, 1219
Helphrey v. Railroad Co., 29 Ta.
400
Heltzell v. Chicago, etc., R.R.Co.,
77 Mo. 815,
Hemmer v. Wolfer, 124 Ill. 435, S.
C.11N. E.R. 885, 436, 439
Hemminway v. Davis, 24 Ohio St.
138
Hemphill v. Morrison, 112 N.Car.
756, 8. C. 17S. E. R. 535, 1219
TABLE OF CASES.

Cxxxiii

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. G08-1244.]

Henderson, Ex parte, 6 Fla. 279,

3 124, 178
Henderson, Ex parte, 84 Ala. 36,
8. C. 4 So. R. 284, 187, 1242

Henderson v. Beaton, 52 Tex. 29, 116
Henderson y. Carbondale, etc.,
Co., 140 U. S. 25, S. C. 11 Sup.
Ct. R. 691, 611

Henderson v. Cass Co., 107 Mo.

50, S. C. 18 8. W. RB. 992, 400

Henderson v. Dickey, 76 Ind.
264, 1104

Henderson y. Henderson, 3 Hare
100, 1176

Henderson v. Pope, 39' Ga. 361,

Henderson v. Moss, 82 Tex. 69,
8. C. 188. W. R. 555, 1177

Henderson v. Staniford, 105 Mass.

504, 276

Henderson v. State, 1 Tex. App.
432,

Henderson v. Three Hundred
Tons of Iron Ore, 38 Fed. R.
36,

Henderson vy. Underwriters Ass’n,

388

65 L. T. (N. S.)-732, 571
Hendrick v. Whittemore, 105
Mass. 23, 158, 427

Hendricks v. State, 26 Ind. 493, 31
Henlein v. Graham, 32 S. Car.
303, S. C.10 8. E. R. 1012, 192
Henline v. People, 81 Ill. 269, 324
Hennessy v. Bacon, 137 U. 8. 78, 566
Henney, etc., Co. v. Patt, 73 Ia.
485, 4T4
Henning v. State, 106 Ind. 386,
544,'1218
Hennies v. Vogel, 87 Ill. 242, S.
C. 7 Cent. L. Jour. 18, : 820
Henning v. Western Union, etc.,

Co., 41 Fed. R. 864, 1162

Henri v. Grand Lodge, etc., 59
Mo. 581, 1135, 1138
Henry v. Patterson, 57 Pa. St. 346, 567

Henry v. Root, 33 N. Y. 526, 882
Henry vy. St. Louis, etc., R. R.
Co., 76 Mo. 288, 534

Henry v. Sioux City, etc, Ry.
Co., 70 Ia. 233,
Hensley v. Morgan, 47 Cal. 622,
Hensley v. Rose, 76 Ala. 373, ~
Hensley’s Adm’rs v. Lytle, 5 Tex.
497, 8. C. 55 Am. Dec. 741,
Hentig v. Page, 102 U. 8. 219,
Hentig v. Redden, 46 Kan. 231,
S. C. 26 Am. R. 91, 300, 1176
Hepburn v. Citizens’ Bank, 2 La.
Ann. 1007, 918
546

820
470
455

622
1187

Hepfel v. St. Paul, etc., R. R. Co.,
49 Minn. 263, 51 N. W.R. 1049,

801

 

Herbst v. Hagenaers, 137 N. Y.
290, 8. C. 33 N. E. R. 315, 594, 600
Herkimer v. McGregor, 126 Ind.
247, 8. C. 26 N. E. R. 44,
: : 1162, 1164
Herman vy. Dunbar, 23 Beav. 312, 498
Hermann vy. Orcutt, 152 Mass. 405,

S. C. 25 N. E, R. 735, _ 570
Hermannes v. Simons, 2 Cal. 464, 256
Herndon v. Hawkins, 65 Mo. 265, 155
Heroman v. Louisiana Inst. 34 La.

Ann. 805, 294
Herpel v: Malone, 56 Mich. 199, 533
Herrick v. Butler, 30 Minn. 156,

S.C. 14.N. W. R, 794, 819, 320
Herrick v. Morrill, 87 Minn. 250,

8. C.5 Am. State R. 841, 433
Herrick v. Swomley, 56 Ind. 439, 783
Herrington v. McCollum, 73 Ill.

476, ' 500
Herron v. Dibrell, 87 Va. 289, 8.

C. 1258. E. R. 674, 544
Hernsheim y. Levy, 32 La. Ann.

340, 465
Hershman v. Hershman, 63 Ind.

451, “1155
Herver v. Rhode. Island, etc.,

Works, 93 U.S. 664, 302
Hess v. Dean, 66 Tex. 663, 234
Hess v. Hess, 119 Ind. 66, 1170
Hess v. Lowrey, 122 Ind. 225, 8.C.

7L. RB. A. 90, 810

Hess v. Powell, 29 Mo. App. 411, 413
Hess v. White, 9 Utah 61, S. C.

83 Pac. R. 248, 1127
Hesse v. Mann, 40 Wis. 560, 1189
Heshion v. Pressley, 80 Ind. 490, 640
Hester v. Chambers, Judge, 84

Mich. 562, 8.C. 48N.W.R.152, 661

Hestres v.Clements, 21 Cal. 425, 1197
‘Hewes v.- Andrews, 12 Col. 161, 621
Hewett v. Dean, 91 Cal. 5, 8. C.

27 Pac. R. 423, 412
Hewitt v. Furman, 16 Serg. & R.

(Pa.) 135, 3 597
Hewitt v. Steele, 118 Mo. —, 8.

C. 248. W. R. 440, 1067

Hewitt v. Weatherby, 57 Mo. 276, 438
Hewlett v. George, 68 Miss. 703,

8. C. 18 L. R. A. 682, 512
Hewlett v. Wood. 55 N. Y. 634, 739
Hey v. Commonwealth, 52 Gratt.

(Va.) 946, 695, 697
Heydenfeldt v. Towns, 27 Ala.

423 217

Heyl v. State, 109 Ind. 589, 821, 1076
Heyne v. Blair, 62 N. Y. 19, 553
Hevneman v. Blake, 19 Cal.579, 1129
Heacock v. Lubuke, 107 Ill. 396, 668
Heacock v. State, 18Tex. App.97, 655
CXXXiv

[References are to aes) Vol. I, pp. 1-602

Head v. Bridges, 67 Ga. 227, 1064

Head v. Langworthy, 15 in. 235, 1061
Healey v. Simpson, 118 Mo. 340,

S.C. 20S. W. R. 881, 1027
Healey v. Isaacs, 73 Ind. 226,

576, 599

Hearn v. State, 62 Ala. 218, 321
Heath’s Will, In re, 88 Ia. 215, 8.

C. 48 N. W. R. 1037, 565
Heath v. Conway, 1 Bibb. 398, 1119
Heath y. Hall, 60 Ill. 344, 412

Heath v. Missouri, etc., Co., 83
Mo. 617,
Heath v. State, 101 Ind. 512,
Heathcote v. Wing, 11 Exch. 355,
Heddles v. Chicago, etc., Ry. Co.,
77 Wis. 228, S.C. 20 Am. St.

R. 106,
Heddles’ v. Chicago, etc., Co., 74
Wis. 239, 802
Hedrick v. Hedrick, 28 Ind. 291, 1239
Heffron v. State, 8 Fla. 73, 669

410
1217
189

799

Hegeler v. Henckell, 27 Cal.491, 191
Heine v. Levee Commissioners,
19 Wall. 655,
Heinlen v. Cross, 63 Cal. 44, 492
. Heinsen v. Lamb, 117 Ill. 549, = 1051
Helm v. Gilroy, 20 Ore. 517, 8.
C. 26 Pac. R. 851, 480
Helm’s Exec. v. Rogers, 81 Ky.
568 373

Helms v. Chadbourne, 45 Wis.

60, 44
Heltonville Mfg. Co. v. Fields °
(Ind.), 36 N. E. R. 529, 1096
Hemingway v. Burnham, 90
Mich. 227, 8. C. 51 N. W. R.
276,
Hemmens v. Bentley, 32 Mich.

1090

89, 148, 790

Hemmens v. Nelson, 138 N. Y.
517, 8. C. 20 L. R. A. 440,
Hemmer v. Wolfer, 124 Ill. 435,

1041

8. C.11 N. E. R. 885, 440
Henderson, Ex parte, 84 Ala. 36,
8. C. 4 So. R. 284, 607
Henderson v. Brown, 1 Caines
(N. Y.) 92, 427
Henderson v. Buckley, 14 B.
Mon. (Ky.) 292, 592
Henderson v. Griffin, 5 Pet. 151,
371, "1048
Henderson v. Henderson, 3g
Hare’s Ch. 100, 300
Henderson v. Jones, 10 Serg. &
R. (Pa.) 322, 806
Henderson v. Mears, 1 Frost. &
F. 636,
Henderson v. Pope, 39 Ga. 361,
226, 1241

 

TABLE OF CASES.

, Vol. I, pp. 608-1244.]
Henderson v. Thornton, 37 Miss.
448, S. C. 75 Am. Dec. 70, 464
Hendrick v. Clonts, 91 Ga. 196, 8.
C.178. E.R. 119, 1040
Whittemore, 105
320

Hendrix vy. Cawthorn, 71 Ga.
742, 457, 462
Hendry v. Hendry, 32 Ind. 349,
1211, 1214
Henley v. Arbuckle, 13 Mo. 209, 1103
Henley v. Sofer, 8 Barn. & C. 16, 581

Hendrick vy.
Mass. 23,

Henlinev. People, 81 Ill. 269, 134, 165,

Hennies v. Vogel, 87 Ill. 243, 692
Henning v. State, 24 Tex. App.

315, 8. C.68. W. R. 187, » 1224
Henning v. State, 106 Ind. 386, 8.

C. 55 Am. R. 756, 284, 1220
Henry v. Bassett, 75 Mo. 89, 558
Henry v. Carson, 96 Ind. 412,

129, 336, 339
Henry v. Central. R. R. Co. a 89

Ga. 815, 8S. C. 15 8. E. R. 757, 1043
Henry v. Dean, 6 Dak. 78, 712
Henry v. Harbison, 23 Ark. 25, 396

Henslie v. State, 3 Heisk.(Tenn.)

202, 164
Henthorn vy. Doe, 1 Blackf. 157, 508
Hepburn vy. Griswold, 8 Wall.

604, 1192
Hepburn v. Jones, 4 Col. 98, 592
Herbert v. Butler, 97 U.S. 319, 1041
Herbert v. Dufur, 23 Ore. 462, 8.

C. 382 Pac. R. 302, 1042
Herbster v. State, 80 Ind. 484, 228
Herd v. Cist (Ky. ), 20 8. W. R.

1035, 607
Herdic v. Bilger, 47 Pa. St. 60, 1067
Herff v. Griggs, 121 Ind. 471, 8.

C. 23 N. E. R. 279, 281
Herman v. Jeffries, 4 Mont. 513, 1227
Hernandez v. James, 23 La. Ann.

483, 155
Herndon v. Wood, 2 A. K. Mar.

(Ky.) 44, 371

Hering v.Chambers,103 Pa.St.172, 450
Herr v. Denver, etc., Co., 13 Col.
406, S.C. 6 L. R. Anno. 641, 34

Herrick v. Belknap, 27 Vt. 673, 201
Herring v. State, 1 Ia. 205, 1233
Hersom v. Henderson, 23 N. H.
498, 781
Herver v. Champion, 11 Humph.
(Tenn.) 569, 468
EY Vv. Edens, 69 Tex. 420, S.
C.68. W. R. 306, 504
Hervey vy. Edmunds, 68 N. Car.
243, 155

Heshion v. Pressley, 80 Ind. 490,
230, 629

e
TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp.
Hess v. Cole, 23 N. J. L. 116, 189
Hess v. Frankenfield, 106 Pa. St.

440, 550
Hess v. Lowrey, 122 Ind. 225, 8.

C.7L.R A. 90, 518, 778
eas Va Heitkamp, 9 Mo. App.

i

346
Hessing v. Wilmington, etc.,

R. Co., 10 Ired. L. 402, 8. C.5

Am. Dee. 395, ” 507
Hester v. Com., 85 Pa. St. 139, 807
Hesties v. Brennan, 50 Cal. 210, 1205
Hewett v. Cobb, 40 Miss. 61, 1197
Hewett v. Fenstamaker, 128 Ind.

315, 403
Hewitt v. Brown, 21 Minn. 163, 1213
Hewitt v. Powers, 84 Ind. 295,

300, 998, 1212
Hewitt v. Steele, 118 Mo. —,S.

C. 248. W.R. 440, 1066
Hewlett v. Schenck, 82. N.Car. 234, 382
Hexter v. Schneider, 14 Ore. 184, 178
Hiawatha Tp. v. Schooleraft Cir.

Judge, a Mich. 270, S. C. 51 N.

W. R. 282
Hibberd v. Smith, 67 Cal. 547,
Hibernia Bank v. ‘Lacombe, 84 N.

1202
560

Y. 367, S. C. 38 Am. R. 518, 802
Hibernia Fire, etc., Co. v. Com-
monwealth, 93 Pa. St. 264, 546

Hibernia, etc., Soc. v. Moore, 68
Cal. 156, 169
Hibler v. Shipp, 78 Ky. 64, 1180
Hickenbotham v. Blackledge, 54
Ill. 316, 443
Hickenbottom v. Delaware, etc.,

Co., 122 N. ¥. 91, 112, 1075
Hickey v. Forristal, 49 Ill. 255, 436
Hickey v. Ryan, 15 Mo. 62, 525
Hicklin v. McClear, 18 Ore. 126,

S. C. 22 Pac. R. 1057, 1142
Hickman y. City of Fort Scott,

141 U.S. 415, 188, 1202
Hickman v. Cruise, 72 Ia. 528, 1056
Hickman v. Jones, 9 Wall. 197, 115
Hicks v. Blanchard, 60 Vt. 673, 379
Hicks v. Davis, 4 Cal. 67, 34
Hicks v. Hicks, 3 East 16, 375
Hicks v. Michael, 15 Cal. 107, 257
Hicks v. State (Ala.), 13 So. Rep.

375, 798
Hidden v. Jordan, 28 Cal. 301, 1144
Hidell v. Dwinell, 89 Ga. 532, 8.

C.168. E. R. 79, 520

Higbe v. Leonoard, 1 Denio 186, 224
Higby v. Ayres, 14 Kan. 331, 235
Higdon v. Higdon, 6 J.J. Mar.
48, 1128
Higgins y. Armstrong, 9 Col. 39,
S. C.10 Pac. R. 232, 112

 

CXXXV

1-602, Vol. I, pp. 603-1244.)
Higgins v. Beckwith, 102 Mo. 456,
S.C.148. W. R. 931,
320, 604, 618, 614

Higgins v. Carlton, 28 Md. 115, 800

Higgins v. Commonwealth (Ky. Ms
218. W. R. 231,

Higgins v. Kendall, 73 Ind. 522, te?

Higgins v. McCrea, 116 U. Ss. 671, 536
Higgins v. Minaghan, 78 Wis. 603,

S.C. 11 LB, a. 186, 663
Higgins v. Peltzer, 49 Mo. 152, 245
Higgins v. Ransdall, 13 Mo. 205, 152
Higgins v. Reed, 8 Ia. 298, 502
Higgins v. Reed, 48 Kan. 272, 8.

C. 29 Pac. R. 389, 263
Higgins v. State, 87 Ind. 282, 393
High v. Bank, 95 Cal. 386, S. C.

30 Pac. R. 556, 28
High v. Board, 92 Ind. 580, 360, 392
Highfill v. Monk, 81 Ind. 2038, 1207
Highley v. Lant, 3 Mich. 612, 558
Highley v. Pollock(Nev.), 27 Pac.

R. 895, 431

Hildreth v. Aldrich, 15 R. I. 163, 795
Hildreth v. City of Troy, 101 N.

Y. 234, 654
Hildreth v. Hough, 20 111. 331, 432
Hildreth’s Heirs v. McIntires De-

visee, 1J. J. Marsh. 206, 8. C.

19 Am. Dec. 61, 116, 120
Hileman v. Hileman, 85Ind.1, 372
Hilgenberg v. Northup, 134 Ind.

92, 1109, 1151
Hilly. Barney, 18 N. H. 607, 173
Hill v. Canfield, 56 Pa. St. 454, 1066
Hill v. Chipman, 59 Wis. 211, 1208
Hill v. Clark, 51 Ga. 122, 619
Hill v. Coreoran, 15 Col. 270, 8.

C. 25 Pac. R. 171 658

,
Hill v. Covell, 1 N. Y. 522, 526, 1103
Hill v. Cunningham, 25 Tex. 25, 436
Hill v. Denslinger, 61 Ia. 240, 1159
Hill v. Faison, 27 Tex. 428, 449
Hill v. Goode, 18 Ind. 207, 796
Hill v. Gust, 55 Ind. 45, 800
Hill v. Hagaman, 84 Ind. 287, 1227
Hill v. Harding, 93 Il. 77, 469
Hill v. Holloway, 52 Ja. 678, 1235

Hill v. Hoover, 5 Wis. 386,
190, 452, 1244

Hill, In re, 6 Ct. of Cl. 83, 736
Hill v. Jamieson, 16 Ind. 125, 1233
Hill v. La Crosse, etc.,Co., 14 Wis.

291, 197
Hilly. Mason, 7Jones (N.C.) 551, 34
Hill v. Mendenhall, 21 Wall. (U.

S$.) 453, 605
Hill v. Newman, 47 Ind. 187, 1210
Hill v: Nichols, 50 Ala. 336, 1071
Hill v. Nisbet, 100 Ind. 341, 514
CXXXVi

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. I, pp. 608-1244.]

Hill v. People, 20 N. Y. 363, 644
Hill v. People, 16 Mich. 451, 643
Hill v. Perry, 82 Ind. 28, 680
Hill v. Phillips, 14 R. I. 98, 382
Hill v. Probst, 120 Ind. 528, 184
Hill v. Railroad Co., 14 Wis. 291,

S.C. 80 Am. Dec. 783, 471
Hill v. Roach, 72 Ind. 57, 1166, 1182
Hill v. Rucker, 14 Ark. 706, 1051
Hill v. Shalter, 73 Ind. 459, 409
Hill v. State, 17 Wis. 697, 33
Hill v. State, 64 Ga. 453, 1112
Hill v. Taylor, 50 Mich. 549, 8.C.

15 N. W. R. 899, 804
Hill v. Taylor, 15 Wis. 190, 592

Hill v. Wells, 6 Pick. 104, 220

Hill v. Weisler, 49 Cal. 146, 1164, 1165

Hill v. West End Street R. R. Co. -
a Mass. 458, 8. C. 33 N. E. R.

82,

Hill v. Whitney, 16 Vt. 461,

Hiller v. English, 4 Strobh. L. (8.
Car.) 486,

Hilliard v. Beattie, 59 N. H. 462,

Hilliard v. Binford, 10 Ala. 977,

Hilliard v. Carr, 6 Ala. 557,

Hilliard v. Connelly,.7 Ga. 172,

Hilliard v. Wilson, 76 Tex. 180, 8.
C.138. W. R. 25,

Hillistaid v. Hostetter, 46 Minn.
393, 8. C. 49 N. W. R. 192,

sy v. Ludwig, 46 Ohio St. 373,

8. C. 24. N. E. R. 596,

Hills v. Home Ins. Co., 129 Mass.
345,

Hills v. Moore, 40 Mich. 210,

Hills v. New York Exchange Bank, |
105 U. 8. 319,

Hills v. Parker, 111 Mass. 508,

Hills v. Place, 48 N.Y. 520,

Himmelman v. Henry, 84 Cal.
104,

Hinchman vy. Lincoln, 124 U.S.
38

a

Hinckley v.Gilman, 94 U.S. 467,
Hinckley v. Horazdowski, 133 Tl.

359, 8. C.8 L. R. A. 490,
Hinds v. Harbou, 58 Ind. 121,
Hindrey v. Williams, 9 Col. 371,

S. C..12 Pac. R. 436, 11
Hine v. Bowe, 114 N. Y. 350,8.C. ~
21 N.E. R. 733, 542

795
470

1111
697
263
605
117
313
720

1079
591
469
410
402

1147

559
1181

1060
1068

Hine v. Hussey, 45 Ala. 496, 218
Hine v. Stephens, 33 Conn. 497,
S. C. 89 Am. Dec. 217, 582
Hineman v. Matthews, 138 Pa. St.
204, 8. C. 10 L. R. A. 233, 1041
Hines v. Driver, 100 Ind. 315,
622, 1160, 1182
Hines v. Mullins, 25 Ga.696, 300, 345

 

Hinkle, In re, 31 Kan. 712, 217
Hinkle v. Margerum, 50 Ind.240, 1164
Hinkley v. Walters, 8 Watts (Pa. )

260, 375
Hinson v. Adrian, 91 N.Car.372, 255
Hinson v. Catoe, 10 S. Car. 311, 1162
Hinton v. Cream City Co., "65

Wis. 323, — 824
Hinton v. Whittaker, 101 Ind.344, 718
Hintrager v. Mahoney, 78 Ia. 537,

8. C. 43 N.W. R. 522, S.C. 6 L.

R. A. 50, 1137
Hintz v. Graupner, 138 Il]. 158, 8.

C. 27 N. E. R. 935 704 4, 705
Hinzie v. Kempner, 82 Tex. 617,

S.C. 18S. W. R. 659, 1202
Hipes v. Cochran, 13 Ind. 175, 508
Hipes v. State, 73 Ind. 39, 164
Hipp v. Babin, 19 How. 271, 262
Hipp v. Ingram, 3 Tex. 17, 1169
Hirsh v. Clawson, 106 Ind. 329, 1195

Hirsh v. Whitehead,65 N.Car.516, 488

Hitchcock v. Burgett, 38 Mich.
501, 740

Hitchcock v. Moore, 70 Mich.112,
S.C. 14 Am. St. R. 474, 782

Hite v. Hunton, 20 Mo. 286, 1208
Hite v. Wilson, 2 H. & M. (Va.)

268, 1116, 1154
Hittson v. Davenport, 4Col.169, 1192
Hix v. Drury, 5 Pick. 296, 1124
Hixon v. Oneida Co., 82 Wis. 515,

; S. C. 52 N. W. BR. 445, 484
Hoadley v. San Francisco, 50 Cal.

265, 366
Hoag v. Hoag, 55 N. H. 172, 471
Hoag v. Lake Shore, etc., R. R.

Co., 85 Pa. St. 293, 547

Hoagland v. Creed,. 81 Il. 506, *
115, 517, 226

Hoagland yv. aah: _ Neb. 387, 8.
1201

C.53N.W.R
Higbee v. pow 38. Gratt. ag
Hobart v. Conn. Turnp. Co., 6
Conn. 145, 361
Hobart v. Hobart, 45 Ta.501, 116, 242
Hobart College v. Fitzhugh, 27 N.

Y. 180, 1137
Hobbs v. Campbell, o Tex. 360, 8.

C. 15 8. W. 224
‘Hobbs v. aa 138 ind, 404, 8. C.

82 N. E. R. 1019, S.C. 18 L. R.

A. 774, 806
Hobby v. Bunch, 83 Ga. 1,8. C.

20 Am. St. R. 301, 439, 452
Hoberg v. State, 3 Minn. 262, 1077
Hobson y. Ewan, 62 Ill. 146, 427

Hobson v, Peake, 44 La. Ann. 383,

S.C. 10 So. R. 762, 320
TABLE OF CASES.

CXxxvii

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. IT, pp. 603-1244.]

Hocklander v. Hocklander, 73 Ill.

618, 432, 456
Hodde v. Susan, 58 Tex. 389,
Hodgden v. Commissioners, 10

Kan. 637,

Hodge v. First Nat. Bank, 22

Gratt. 51, 1138
Hodge v. Giese;43 N. J. Eq. 342, 478
Hodge v. Ludlum, 45 Minn. 290,

8. 0. 47 N. W. R. 805, 1106
Hodge v. State, 26 Fla. 11, 8. C.7

So. R. 593, 662
Hodge v. State, 85 Ind. 561, 1059
Hodges, Ex parte, 59 Ala. 305, 631
Hodges v. Bales, 102 Ind. 494, 806
Hodges v. Brett, 4 Green (Ia.)

345, 456
Hodges v. Bullock, 15 R. I. 592, 354
Hodges v. Cooper, "43 N.Y. 216, 1064
Hodges v. Kowing, 58 Conn. 12, 481
Hodges v. State, 22 Tex. App. 415,

8. C.3 S. W. R. 789,58. C. 9

Crim. L. Mag. 603, 1075
Hodges v. Taylor (Ark. ), B 8.

W. R. 129,

Hodges v. Ward, 1 Tex. 244, Ee
Hodgkins v. Mead, 119 N. Y. 166,

S. C. 23 N. E. R. 559, 1122, "1124
Hodgkins v. Mead, 5 N.Y. Supp.

433,

Hodgkins v. State, 89 Ga. 761, S.

C. 158. E. Rep. 695, 820
Hodgson v. Bowerbank, 5 Cranch

3

256
Hoeflinger v. Stafford, 38 Wis.

391, 1041, 1055
Hoen v. Atlantic, etc., R. R. Co.

64 Mo. 561,

Hoey v. Coleman, 46 Fed. R. 221,
Hoey v. Natick, 153 Mass. 528, 8.

C. 27 N. E. R. 595,

Hoey v. Pierron, 67 Wis. 262,
Hoffield v. Board, 33 Kan. 644,

8. C. 7 Pac. R. 216, 430
Hoffman v. Bosch, 18 Nev. 360, 1160
Hoffman v. Harrington, 28 Mich.

90, 243
Hoffman v. Hoffman, 26 N. J. L.

175, 591, 598
Hoffman v. Hoffman, 46 N.Y.30, 287
Hofferbert v. Klinkhardt, 56 Ill.

450, | 1192
Hoffman v. Sparling, 12 Hun. (N.

Y.) 83, 632
Hoffman v. Van Dieman, 62 Wis.

362, 402
Hogan v. Kurtz, 94U.8.773, 371, 380
Hogan v. Northfield 56 Vt. 721, 719
Hogan v. Shuart, 11 Mont. 498,

S. C. 28 Pac. R. 969, "1068

 

Hogele v. Wilson, 5 Wash. St.
160, 8. C. 31 Pac. R. 469,

Hogg v. Jackson (Md.), 26 Atl.
R. 869,

Hogg v. Kirby, 8 Vesey 215,
Hogg v. State, 7 Ind. 551,
Hoghtaling x Osborn, 15 Johns.
(N. Y.) 119 1111
Hogle v. Bei, 62 Vt. 255, 8. C. 22
Am.8. . 106, 444
Hoguet v. Wallacd, 28 N. J. L.
523, 311, 1198
Hohorst v. Hamburg-American

1041

1081
485
1077

Packet Co., 38 Fed. Rep. 2738, 618
Holbert v. State, 9 Tex. App. 219,
8. C. 35 Am. R. 738, 805

a eee Burt, 22 Pick. (Mass.)
Holbrook v. Connelly, 6 Ohio St.
199, 1199

Holbrook v. Holbrook, 15 Me.9, 395
Holbrook v. McBride 4 Gray 215, 705
S.C. 39 N. W. RB. 74,
Holbrook v. Waters, 19 Pick. 354, 476
Holcomb v. Holcomb, 95 N. Y.
518
Holden v. Haserodt, 2 8. Dak.
—, 8. 0.49 N. W. R. 97,
Holden v. James, 11 Mass. 396, 121
Ind. 112,8.C.5N. E.R. 175, 341
Holdridge v. Lee (S. Dak.), 52 N.
W. Rep. 265, 783
360, 8. C. 40 N. W. R. 259,
Holdsworth v. Tucker, 147 Mass.
572, : 1168, 1181
Holker v. Parker, 7 Cranch. 436,
206, 207, 565, 582
270, 275
Holland v. Hatch, 15 Ohio St.
464, 1046
629
Holland v. Leslie, 2 Harr. (Del.)
306,
Holland v. West End St. Ry. Co.,

Holbrook v. Sims, 39 Minn. 122,
529
316
228
Holderman v. Thompson, 105
Hoaldsodee v. "Stowell, 39 Minn.
576
Holland v. Challen, 110 U.S. 15,
Holland vy, Johnson, 80 Mo. 34,
471
155 Mass. 387, 8. C. 29 N. E. R.

622, 548
Hollenbeck v. Rowley, 8 Allen

(Mass.) 478, 816
Holliday v. Brown, 50 N. W. R.

1042, 437
Holliday v. Cohen, 34 Ark. 707, 803
Holliday v. Cooper, 3 Mo. 286, 432
Holliday v: Elliott, 3 Ore. 340, 178

Holliday v. Harvey, 89 Tex. 670, 503
Holliday v. Henderson, 67 Ind.
103, 1241
CXXXVili

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.]

Holliday v. Mansker, 44 Mo. App.
465, 237
Holliday v. Swailes,1 Seam.(IIl.) .
515, 424, 428
Holliday v. Ward, 19 Pa. St. 485, 274
Hollingsworth v.Barbour, 4 Peters

(U. 8.) 466, 425, 428, 276
Hollingsworth v. Leiper, 1 Dall.
(U. 8.) 161, 592, 593, 579

Hollingsworth v. State, 79 Ga. 605,
8. C.48. E. R. 560,

Hollingsworth v. State, 111 Ind.
289

791
429

; 838
Hollingsworth v. Willis, 64 Miss.
1230, 1233
H. L.

365
625

Hollingsworth v. Virginia, 3 Dall.
378 :

Hollins v. Fowler, L. R.7
757,
Hollis v. State, 9 Tex. App. 643,
Hollister v. Giddings, 24 Mich.501,
182, 183
Hollister v. Hollister, 6 Pa. St. 449, 509
Hollister v. The Judges, 8 Ohio St.
201, 8. C. 70 Am. Dec. 100,
Hollister v. York, 59 Vt. 1,
Holloway v. Galliac, 47 Cal. 474,
Holloway v. Holloway, 103 Mo.
274, 8. C. 118. W. R. 233,
Holly v. Carson, 39 Ala. 345, 226
Holman v. Bachus, 73 Mo. 49, 513
Holman v.Chevaillier, 14 Tex.437, 1238
Holman v. Chicago,etc., R.R. Co.,
62 Mo. 562, 534
Holman vy. Crane, 16 Ala. 570, 537
545

192
384
34

1179

Holman v. King, 7 Metc. (Mass.)
384,
Holmead v. Corcoran, 2 Cranch

C. C. 119, 1124
Holmes v. Anderson, 18 Barb. (N.
Y.) 420, 799

Holmes v. Braidwood, 82 Mo.610, 1081
Holmes v. Campbell, 12 Minn.221, 316
Holmes v. Carley, 31 N. Y. 289, 311
Holmes v. Corbin, 50 Minn. 209,
8. C. 52 N. W. R. 531, 622
Holmes v. Davenport, 27 Abb. N.
Cases 75, 480
Holmes v. Dobbins, 19 Ga. 630, 620
Holmes vy. Eason, 76 Tenn. 754,
216, 235
Holmes v. French, 68 Me. 525, 338
Holmes v. Gayle, 1 Ala. 517,
738, 1232
Holmes v. Hinkle, 63 Ind. 518, 705
Holmes v. Holmes, 9 N. Y. 525, 404
Holmes vy. Holmes, 12 Barb. (N.
Y.) 137, 401
Holmes vy. Holmes, 57 Barb. 305, 287
Holmes v. Holmes, 4 Lane. 388, 287

 

Holmes, etc., Co. v. Holmes, etc.,

53 Hun 52, _ 88
Holmes vy. Oregon, etc., Co., 7

Saw. 380, 241
Holmes v. Oregon,etc.,Co., 9 Fed.

R. 229, 314

Holmes v. Pheenix, etc., Co., 49

Ind. 356, 1034
Holmes v. Railroad Co., 9 Fed.

R. 229,

Holmes v. Roper, 10 N. Y. Supp.

284,

Holmes v. Ricket, 56 Cal. 307, S.

C. 38 Am. R. 54,

Holmes v. Russell, 9 Dowl. 487,
Holmes vy. Turner’s Falls Co., 150

Mass. 535, 8. C. 23 N. E. Rep.

805, 712, 1215
Holmes vy. Tutton,5 El.& B. 65, 470
Holohan y. Mix, 134 Pa. St. 88,8.

C. 19 Atl. R. 496, 536
Holsinger v. Dunham, 11 Ind. 346, 456
Holst v. State, 23 Tex. App. 1, 8.

C. 59 Am. R. 770,

Holt v. Gage, 60 N. H. 536,
Holt v. Spokane, ete., Co., 3 Ida.

589
331

+520
382

—, 8. C. 35 Pac. R. 39, 1066
Holt v. State, 9 Tex. App. 571, 668
Holt v. State, 11 Ohio St. 691, 177
Holton vy. Kemp, 81 Mo. 661, 532

Holyoke vy. Haskins, 5 Pick. 20,

8. C. 16 Am. Dec. 372, 314
Holzman v. Hibben, 100 Ind.338, 1216
Homans v. Corning, 60 N. H. 418, 739
Home B. & L. Ass’n v.. Kilpat-

rick, 140 Pa. St. 405, S. C. 21

Atl. R. 397,

Home Benefit Ass’n v. Sargent,
142 U.S. 691, S. C. 12 Sup. Ct:
R. 332,

Home for Inebriates v. Kaplan,
84 Cal. 486, S.C. 24 Pac.R. 119, 254

Home Ins. Co. v. Duke, 75 Ind.

1209

535,
571

537
783
Home Ins. Co. v. Howard, 111

Ind. 544, 8. C.13N. E. RB. 103,
Home Ins. Co. v. Morse, 20 Wall.

(U. 8.) 445, 588
Home Ins. Co. v. Baltimore, etc.,
Co., 93 U. 8. 527, 504

Home Ins. Co. of New York v.
Stanchfield, 1 Dill.(U.8.) 425, 602

Homer v. Brown, 16 How. (U.S.)
1046

354,
Hon v. Hon, 70 Ind. 135, 892
741

Hone vy. State (Ala.), 13 So. R.
329,

Hony v. Hony, 1 Sim. & Stu. 568, 375

Hood v. Hartshorn, 100 Mass.
119, 8. C. 1 Am. St. R. 89, 589
TABLE OF CASES.

CXxXxix

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.]

Hood v. Hood, 110 Mass. 463,
Hood vy. State, 56 Ind. 263, S.C.
26 Am. R. 21,
Hoodless v. Reid, 112 Ill. 105,
Hoogs v. Morse, 31 Cal. 128,
Hooker v. State, 7 Blackf. 272,
Hooks vy. Mores, 8 Ired. L. 88, 336
Hooks vy. York, 4 Ind. 636, 198
Hooper v. Hooper, 29 W.Va.276, 1184
Hooper v. Moore, 3 Jones L. 428, 801
Hooper v. Moore, 5 Jones L. (N.
Car.) 180, . 545
Hooper v. State, 30 Texas 412, S.
C.168. W. R. 655, 1224
Hooper v.Taylor, 89 Me. 224, 579,594
Hooper v. Urmston, 24 Ill. 353, 194
Hooper v. Vernon, 74 Md. 136, S.
. ©. 21 Atl. R. 556, 552
Hoose v. Sherrill, 16 Wend. (N.
Y.) 33 433

274

287
412
601
1081

Hoosier Stone Co. v. McCain, 133

Ind. 231, 8. C. 831N. E. R. 956,

; 526, 1108
Hoover v. Carey (Ia.), 53 N. W.

R. 415, 799, 1075
Hoover v. Kinsey, etc., Co., 55

Ia. 668, 293
Hoover v. Tibbitts, 13 Wis. 79,
Hoover v. York, 33 La. Ann.652, 332
Hop Bitters, etc., Co. v. Warner,

28 Fed. R. 577, 1202
Hope v. Beadon, 17 Q. B. 509,
Hope v. Blair, 105 Mo. 85, S. C.

24 Am. St. R. 366,

Hope v. Board, 42 La. Ann. 647,

8. C. 7 So. R. 706, 170
Hopes v. Alder, 6 East 16, 555
Hopkins v. Bowers, 111 N.C.175,

S.C. 16N. E. R. 323, 1025, 1027
Hopkins v. Bishop, 91 Mich. 328,

S. C. 30 Am. St. R. 380, 1078
Hopkins v. Commonwealth, 3

Met. (Mass.) 460, 242
Hopkins v. Dowd, 11 Ark. 627, 1229
Hopkins v. Gilman, 22 Wis. 476, 587
Hopkins v. Meir, 19 Atl. R. 264, 262
Hopkins v. Orr, 124 U. 8. 510, 8. 18

C. 8 Sup. Ct. R. 590,
Hopkins v. Stanley, 43 Ind. 553,
1089, 1100, 1102
Hopkinson v. Steel, 12 Vt. 582, 180
Hopper, In re, 2 L. R. Q. B. 367, 573
Hopper y.Commonwealth,6 Gratt. a

684,
Hopper v. Fisher, 2 Head (Tenn.)

244

253, 315, 610
Hopper v. Lucas, 86 Ind.43, 183, 1191
. Hopper v. Moore, 42 Ia. 563, 1091

Hopson v. Brunwankel, 24 Tex.

607, 587

531;

 

Hopson v. Doolittle, 13 Conn. 236, 597
Hopt v.People,104 U.S.631, 1060, 1085
Hopt v. United States, 104 U.S.

631, 1143
Hopt v. Utah, 120 U.S. 480, 178
Hopt v. People, 110 U. 8. 574, 8.

C. 7 Sup. Ct. R. 614, 666
Horat v. Jackel, 59 Il]. 139, 474
Hord v. Elliott, 33 Ind. 220, 134
Horman v.Hartmetz, 128 Ind. 353,

8. C. 27 N. E. R. 731, 1218, 1238
Horn v. Baltimore, etc., R.R. Co.,

54 Fed. R. 301, 1054
Horn v. Eberhart, 17 Ind.118, 1158
Horn vy. Indianapolis Nat. Bank,

125 Ind. 381, 8. C.9 L. R. A.

676 451

?
Horn v. Lockhart, 17 Wall. 570, 116
Horn v. State (Ala.), 13 So. R. —
829, 1069
Hornady v. Shields, 119 Ind. 201, 1214
Hornby v. Cramer, 12 How. Pr.

(N. Y¥.) 490, 399
Horne v. Buffalo, etc., Co., 49 Hun
76 804

Hornek v. People, 134 Ill. 139, S.

C.8 L. R. A. 837, 1
Horner v. Doe, 1 Ind. 130,8.C. 48

Am. Dec. 355,

Horner v. Horner, 145 Pa. St. 258,

8. C. 23 Atl. 441, 173
Hornsby v. South Carolina, etc.,

Co., 26 8. Car. 187, 8. C.18. E.

R. 594, 179
Horshaw v. Cook, 16 Ga. 526, 619
Hort v. Jones, 2 Bay. (S. Car) 440, 620
Horton v. Howard, 79 Mich. 642,

S.C. 19 Am. St. R. 198, 218, 224
Horton v. Miller, 38 Pa. St. 270, 138
Horton v.Sawyer,59 Ind.587, 248, 255
Horton v. Williams,21 Minn.187, 1065
Horton v. Wilson,25 Ind.316, 641, 1158
Hoskin v. Fisher, 125 U.S. 217.
Hoskins v. Duperoy, 9 East. 498, 390

443, 559
Hosmer vy. Teller,27 Ill. App. 488, 1051
Hostetter v: Vowinkle, 1 Dill. 329, 485
Hotchkiss v. Cutting, 14 Minn.

113
428

537, 327
Hotchkiss v. Germania Fire Ins.
Co., 5 Hun (N. Y.) 90, 807

Hotchkiss v. Jones, 4 Ind. 260,
248, 1137
Hotchkiss v. Mosher, 48 N.Y. 478, 505
Hottenstein v. Conrad, 9 Kan.
438, 195, 1496
Houck v. Gue, 80 Neb. 113, 8. C.

46 N. W. R. 280, 818
Houck v. Lasher, 17 How. Pr.
(N. Y.) 520, 627
exl

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. I, pp. 608-1244.]

Houdlette v. Tallman, 14 Me.400, 560
Hough v. Canby, 8 ’Blackt. 301,

443, 610
Hough v. Chaffin, 4 Sneed
(Tenn.) 238, 485
Houghton v. Burroughs, 18 N. H.
499, 594, 596
Houghton v. Watertown Fire Ins.
Co., 131 Mass. 300, 538

Houk’ v. Allen, 126 Ind. 568,
1118, 1119, 1120

Houk y. Barthold, 73 Ind. 21, 81

House v. Alexander, 105 Ind. 109,

8. C. 55 Am. R. 189, 47, 404
House v. Mullin, 22 Wall. 42, 1176
House of Refuge v. Ryan, 37 Ohio

St. 197,

House v. Wright, 22 Ind. 383,
aes 1182

Houseman y. Roberts, 5 C. & P ” 8
6

394,
Houser v. Beam, 111 N. Car. 501,

8. C. 168. E. R. 335, 819
Houser v. McKennon, 60 Tenn.

294

287, 341
Houser v. Roth, 37 Ind. 89, 201
Housh v. People, 66 Il]. 178, , 315
Houston v. Bruner, 39 Ind.376, 1182
Houston v. Culver, 88 Ga. 34, 8.

C. 138. E. R. 958, 548
Houston v. Jankowskie, 76 Tex.

368, S. C. 13 S. W. R. 269,

883, 364

Houston v. Ladies’, etc., Assn.,

87 Ga. 208, S.C. 13'8.E. RB. 634, "1118
Houston v. Moore, 5 Wheat.1, 247
Houston’ vy. Pollard, 9 Mete.

(Mass.) 164, 595
Houston v. Starr, 12 Tex. 424,

1181, 1182
Houston, etc., R. R. Co. v. Ter-

rell, 69 Tex. 650, 656, 663
Houston vy. Timmerman, 17 Ore.

499, S.C. 11 Am. St. R. 848, S.

C.4L. R. A. 716, 498, 499
Houston v. Vicksburg, etc., Co.,

39 La. Ann. 796, 8. C. 2 So. R.

562,

Houston v. Walcott, 7 Ia. 173,
Houston v. Walcott, 1 Ia. 86,
Houseworth v. Bloomhuff, 54

Ind. 487, 1107
“Hout v. Wise, 27 Minn. 68, 1194
Hovenden vy. Annesley, 2 Sch. & ©

Lef. 607, 367, 376
Hovey v. Barker, 45 Kan. 699, S.

310
475
181

C. 26 Pac. R. 591, 824
Hovey v. Carson, 119 Ind. 395, 208
Hovey v. Foster, 118 Ind. 502, 8

C. 21 N. E. R. 39, 170

 

Hovey v. McDonald, 109 U. 8. 150,

1202
Hovey v. State, 127 Ind. 588, 170, 251
Hovey v. State, 119 Ind.386, 202, 203
How v. Field, 5 Mass. 390, 472
How v. Hall, 14 East 273, 506
Howard v. Barbee, 21 Ind. 221, 688
Howard v. Daly, 61 N. Y. 362, 8.
C.19 Am. R. 285, 862
Howard vy. Freeman, 3 Abb. Pr.
N.S. (N. Y.) 292, 625
Howard v. Gosset, 10 Q. B. 359, 316

Howard v. Lowell Machine Works,

75 Ga. 325, 498
Howard v. McDonough, 77 N. Y.
592, 738
Howard v. Moore, 2 Mich. 226, 274
Howard v. Pensacola, etc., R. R.
Co., 24 Fla. 560, 8. C.5 So. R.
356, 590
Howard v. Ross, 3 Wash. 292, S.
C. 28 Pac. R. 526, 1227
Howard v. Sexton, "4.N.Y. 157,
576, 592
Howard vy. Thornton, 50 Mo. 291, 328
Howard Ex. Co. v. Wile, 64 Pa.
St. 201, 1160
Howbert v. Heyle, 47 Kan. 58, S.
C. 27 Pac. R. 116, 263
Howe v. Bass, 2 Mass. 280, 35
Howe v. Coldren, 4 Nev. 171, 1200

Howe vy. Huntington, 15 Me. 350, 553
Howe v. Hyde, 88 Mich. 91,8. C.

50 N. W. R. 102, 1075
Howe v. Jones, 57 Ia. 180, 8. C. 8

N. W. R. 461, 195
Howe Machine Co. v. Pettibone,

74.N. Y. 68, 445
Howe, etc., Co. v. Rosine, 87 Ill.

105, 720
Howe v, Russell, 36 Me. 115, 200
Howel v. Commonwealth, 5 Gratt.

(Va.) 664, 819
oo Sn 2 Cromp. Mees.

&R.6 299
Howell v. ease, 91 Cal. 342, 8. C.

27 Pac. R. 747, 218
Howell v. Leavitt, 90 N. Y. 238, 1161
Howell v. Mills, 53 N. Y.322, 162,177
Howell v. Pugh, 25 Kan. 96, 1160

Howell v. Reynolds, 12 Ala. 128, 801
Howell v. Shepard, 48 Mich. 472, 377
Howell v. State. 4 Ind. App. 148,

8. C. 30 N. E. R. 714, 660
Howell v. State, 10 Tex. App.
298, 1171

Howell v. Stetfeldt Furnace Co.,

69 Cal. 153, S.C. 10 Pac. R. 390, 632
Howell v. Young, 5 B. & C. 259, 369
Hower v. Weiss, 55 Fed. R. 356, 478
TABLE OF CASES.

exli

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 608-1244.]

Howerter v. Kelly, 23 Mich. 887, 483
Howes v. Austin, 35 Ill. 396, 1040
Howett v. Monical, 25 Til. 122, 597
Howland v. Rooke, 158 Mass. 590,

8. C. 33 N. E. R.'652, 569
Howland’s Will, 4 Am. Law Rev.

625, 35
Howley v. Whipple, 48 N. H. 487, 503
Howrie v. Rea, 75 N. Car. 326, 738
Hoxie v. Home Ins. Co., 33 Conn.

471, 820
Hoxie v. Tiams, 26 Neb. 616, S.C.

42 N. W. R. 711, 554
Hoxie v. Payne, 41 Conn. 539, 432
Hoy v. Rogers, 4 Monr. 225, 346
Hoyt v. Byrnes, 11 Me. 475, 400
Hoyt v. Christie, 51 Vt. 48, 471
Hoyt v. Davis, 30 Mo. App. 309, 31
Hoyt v. People, 140 Ill. 588, 8. C.

380 N. E. R. 315, 8. C. 16 L. R.

A. 239, 623, 624, 635
Hoyt v. Williams, 41 Mo. 270,

1224, 1232

Hubbard v. Gale, 105 Mass. 511, 668
Hubbard v. Hubbard, 7 Ore. 42,

179, 697

Hubbard v. Hubbard, 61 Ill. 228, 593

Hubbard, Matter of, 82 N. Ys. 90, 290

Hubbard v. Nat., gett ne Co., 11

How. Pr. (N. Y 632
Hubbard v. Rutledge, 57 Miss. ty

658, 666

Hubbard v. State, 7 Ind. 160, 630

Hubbel v. Patterson, 1 Mo. 392, 1112

Hubbell v. Woolf, 15 Ind. 204, 1194
Hubbell v. Hubbell,3 Wis. 662, 8.

C. 62 Am. Dec. 702, 287

Hubbell v. McCourt, 44 Wis. 584, 124

Hubbell v. Medbury, 53 N.Y. 98, 372

Hubble v. Osborn, 31 Ind. 249, 697

Huber v. Beck, 6 ie App. 484,
S.C. 33 N. E. R.9 85,

Huber v. State, 57 Ind. 841, 8. C.
26 Am. R. 57,

Huber v. Zimmerman, 21 Ala.
488, S. C. 56 Am. Dec. 255,

Huckell v. McCoy, 38 Kan. 53,

Huckins v. Kapf; 4 Tex. Ct. of
App. Civil Cases 37, 8.C. 1458.
W. R. 1016,

Huckvale v. Kendal, 3 Barn. &
Ald. 187, 1198

Hudson v. Allison, 54 Ind. 215, 206

Hudson v. Breeding, 7 Ark. 445,

319, 1196

Hudson y. Charleston, etc., Co. ae

_ 55 Fed. R. 272; 1224

Hudson v. Bishop, 35 Fed. R. 820, 385

Hudson v. Bishop, 32 Fed. BR.
519, 385

820

581
820

706

 

Hndgon v. Guestier, 6 Cranch
281, 829
Hudson v. Hanson, 75 Ill. oe
2, 634

Hudson v. Seer 87 Ga. 678. S
C.13S. E. RB. 5 180
Hudson v. tea 20 Ala. 364,

8. C. 56 Am. Dec. 200, 191
Hudson v. Hudson, 90 Ga. 581,

S.C. 168. E. BR. 349, 822
Hudson v. Jordon, 108 N. Car. 10,

S.C. 128. E. R. 1029, 823
Hudson v. Maze, 3 Scam. 578, 410

Hudson v. McCartney, 33 Wis.

331 407
Hudson v. Railroad, 53 Mo. 525, 663
Hudson v. State, 1 Blackt. 817,

"178, 662
Hudson v. State, 54 Ind. 378, 393

Car. 3, 676
Hudson v. Wheeler, 34 Tex. 356, 367
Hudspeth v. Allen, 26 Ind.165, 792
Hudspeth v. Herston, 64 Ind. :

656

133, ;
ae v. State, 55 Ark. 323, '
8. . 18 8. W. BR. 183, 146, 206
Huerzeler v. Central, etc., Co., 20
N. Y. Supp. 676,
Huff v. Bennett, 6 N. Y. 337,
Huff v. Brantley, 66 Ga. 599,
Huff v. Freeman, 15 La. Ann.
240, 618, 621
Bore Gilbert, 4 Blackf. (Ind.)
1116, 1235
Hui v. Hutchinson, 14 How. 586,
132, "1171
Huffman v. Cauble, 86 Ind. 591, 1068
Huffman v. State, 28 Tex. App.

Hudson vy. Wetherington, 79 N.

174, 8. C. 12S. W. R. 588, 1110
Hugg v. Collins, 18 N. J. L. 294, 598
Huggins Cracker, etc., Co. v. El-

lis, 45 Mo. App. 585, 541

Huggins v. ‘Watford (8. Car.), 17

S. E. R. 363, 1041
Hughes v. Beggs, 114 Ind. 427, 738
Hughes v. City of Cairo, 92 Tl.

339, 661
Hughes v. Commonwealth, 89 Ky.

227, 8S. 0.128. W. R. 269, 232

Hughes v. Cummings, 7 Col. 208,
S. C. 2 Pac. R. 289, 221

Hughes v. Detroit, ete. R’y Co.,
65 Mich. 10,

Hughes v. Dundee Mortgage, etc.,
Co., 140 U. 8. 98, 8. C. 11 Sup.
Ct. R. 727,

Hughes v. Edward, 9 Wheat. (U.
S.) 489,

Hughes v. Feeter, 18 Ia. 142,

537

386
1213
exlii

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. I, pp. 608-1244.]

Hughes v. Graves, 39 Vt. 359, 371
Hughes vy. Hinds, 69 Ind. 93, 190
Hughes v. Hughes, 54 Pa. St. 240, 386
Hughes v. Jackson, 12 Md. 450, 172
Hughes v. Jones, 26 Beay. 24, 1202
Hughes v. McGee, 1 A. K. Mar.

28, 1167
Hughes v. Monty, 24 Ia. 499, 475, 1168
Hughes v. Moore,17 Mo. App. 148,

1185, 1139
Hughes v. Oregonian Ry. Co., 11

Ore. 158, 471
Hughes v. Osborn, 42 Ind. 450,
429, 605
Hughes v. People, 116 Ill. 330, 8.
C.6N. E.R. 55, 1165
Hughes v. People, 5 Col. 436, 640
Hughes v. Pipkin, Phill. L. (N.
Car.) 4, 558
Hughes v. Robertson, 1T. B. Mon-

roe (Ky.), 215, 8. C. 15 Am. Dec.

104, 1219, 1221
Hughes vy. Shreve, 3 Mete. (Ky.)

547,

Hughes v. Westmoreland Coal Co.,

104 Pa. St. 207, 782
Hulce v.Thompson,8 How. Pr.475, 488
Huling v. Railway Co., 130 U. S.

559, S. C. 9 Sup. Ct. R. 603, 275
Hull v. Chicago, etc., R. R. Co., 21

Neb. 371, 8. C. 32,N.W.R.162, 449
Hull v. Hull, 35 W. Va. 155, S. C.

29 Am. St. R. 800, 335, 445
Hull v. Hull, 2 Strob. Eq. 174, 287
Hull v. Louth, 109 Ind. 315,

1149, 1150, 1217, 1219
Humboldt County v. Dinsmore, 75

Cal. 406, S. C.17 Pac. R. 710, 322
Hume v. Conduitt, 76 Ind. 598,

126, 183, 426
Hume v. A 38 A. K. Marsh

(Ky.) 26 802
Humes v. Deni Land, etc., Co.

(Ala.), 13 So. R. 368, 778
Humphreys v. Borough of Woods-

town, 48 N. J. L.588, 8. C. 7 Atl. é

1066

R. 301,
Humphrey vy. Chamberlain, 11 N. sain

,
Humphrey v. pial, - Wis. 569,

8. C.47N. W. 705
Humphreys v, en 11 Johns.

(N. Y.) 61, 598
Humphreysv. Klick,49 Ind.189, 1160
Humphreys v. Mattoon, 43 Ta. 556, 528
Humphries v. Brogden, 12 Q. B.

739, 484
Humphries v. Davis, 100 Ind. 274, 61
Humphries vy. Marshall, 12 Ind.

609, 1166

 

Humphries v. Mayor, etc., 48 N.
J. L. 588, 8. C. 7 Atl. R. 301, 1122
Humpbries v. Parker, 52 Me. 502,
544, 552
Hundley v. Yonge, 69 Ala. 89, ‘1162
Hungerford v.Cushing,8 Wis.320, 254
Hungerford v. O’Brien, 37 Minn.
306, S. C. 34 N. W. R. 161, 413
Hunnel v. State, 86 Ind. 481, 632
Hunnicut v.Peyton,102 U.8.333, 1218
Hunsinger v. Hofer, 110 Ind. 390,
512, 787
533

Adams, 6 Mass. 519,
Bailey, 4 Ind. 630, 511
Bloomer, 138 N.Y. 341, 1184
Brennan, 1 Hun (N. Y.)

614
168, 241, 288

Hunt, 72 N. Y. 217,

Hunt v. Jennings, 5 Blackf. 195, 338
Hunt v. Norris, 4 Mart. (La.) 517, 468
Hunt v. Order of Chosen Friends,

64 Mich. 671, 8. C. 31 N. W. R.

576, 504
Hunt vy. Salem, 121 Mass. 294, 546
Hunt v. Shackleford, 56 Miss. 397, 33

Hunt v.
Hunt v.
Hunt v.
Hunt v.
213,
Hunt v.

Hunt v. State, 49 Ga. 255, 178, 819
Hunt v. Stevens, 3 Ired. 365, 198
Hunt v. Stewart, 7 Ala.(N.S. ) 525, 82
Hunt v. Terril, 7J.J. Marsh. 67, 1179
Hunt v. Tinkham, 21 Ill. 639, 636
Hunter’s Estate, In re, 84 Ia. 388,

8. C. 51 N. W. BR. 20, 150, 158
Hunter v. Bales, 24 Ind. 299, 408
Hunter vy. Bryant, 98 Cal. 247, 8.

C. 33 Pac. R. 51, 605
Hunter v. Burnsville Turnp. Co.,

56 Ind. 218, 4, 459
Hunter v. Case, 20 Vt. 195, 472
Hunter v. Ferguson, 13 Kan. 462,

217, 226
a v. Fitzmaurice, 102 Ind.

44
Hunter v. Frost, 47 Minn. 1, 8.C.

49 N. W. R. 327 411
Hunter v. Hatfield, 68 Ind. 416,

1156, 1210
Hunter v. Hatton, 4 Gill 115, 8.

C. 45 Am. Dec. 117, 325
Hunter v. Hubbard, 26 Tex.537, 373
Hunter v. Hunter, 100 Ill. 519,

1182, 1184
Hunter vy. Minor, 18 How. (U.S. ,

286, 1025
Hunter v. Rice, 15 East 100, 572, 1508
Hunter v. Soward, 15 Neb. 215, 465
Hunter v. Spotswood, 1 Wash.

(Va.) 145, 451
Hunter v. State, 8 Tex. App. 75,

11 18, 1120
TABLE OF CASES.

exliii

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 608-1244.]

Hunter v. Trustees, etc., 6 Hill

407, 1225
Hunter v. Wetsell, 84 N. Y. 549,

S. C. 38 Am. R. 544, 795, 797
Huntington v. Charlotte, 15 Vt.

46, 815
Huntington v. Clark,39 Conn. 540, 567
Huntington v. Conkey, 83 Barb.

-(N. Y.) 218, 669 676
Huntington v. Drake, 24 Ind.

347, 1182
Huntington v. Risdon, 43 Ia. 517, 475
Huntsman y. Nichols, 116 Mass.

521, 599
Hurd vy. Trust Co., 63 How. Pr.

(N. Y.) 314, 471
Hurdle v. Leath, 63 N. Car. 366, 201
Hurdle v. Stalling, 109 N. Car. 6,

S.C. 13S. E. R. 720, 601

Hurlburt v. Bellows, 50N.H.105, 796
Hurlburt v. Hicks 17 Vt. 193, 8.

C. 44 Am. Dec. 329, 471
Hurlburt v. Wheeler, 40 N. H. 73,

525, 560

. Hurlbut v. Thomas, 55 Conn. 181,

S. C. 3 Am. St. R. 43. 276
Hurley v. Bevens (Ark.),22 S.W.

R. 172, 637
Hurley v. State, 46 Ohio St. 320,

8.C.4L. R. A. 161, 797
Hurley v. State, 29 Ark. 17, 667

Hurry v. Cline (Ky.), 20 3. W.
R. 277, 518
Hursen v. Lehman, 35 Il. ED
489,
Hurst v. Dippo, 1 Dall. 20, 1035
Hurst'v. Home Ins. Co., 81 Ala.
174, 473
Hurst v. Litchfield, 39 N. Y. 877, 575
Hurst v. Parker, 1 B. & Ald. 92, 383
Hurt v. State, 26 Ind. 106, 638
Hurth v. Bower, 30 Hun 151, 337
“ v. Townes, 6 Leigh (Va. os

Hae v. Den (Cal.), 30 Pac. R.
104, 1231
Husky v. Maples, 2 Coldw. (Tenn.)

25, 8. C. 88 Am. Dec. 588, 386
Huson v. Dale, 19 Mich. 17, 8. C.
2 Am. R. 66, 958

Hussey v. Freeman, 10 Mass. 84, 554
Hussey v. Norfolk, etc., R.R. Co. by
98 N. Car. 34, S. C.2 Am. St. RB.

312, 535
Hussey vy. State, 87 Ala. 121, 8. C.
6 So. R. 420, 635, 799

Hust v. Conn, 12 Ind. 257, 453
Huston v. Plato, 3 Col. 402, 532
Huston v. Roots, 80 Ind. 461, 509
Hutchings v. Buck, 32 Me. 277, 1047

 

oo es v. Scott, 4Hals. (N.J.)
Hutehing v. Hutchins, 98 N. Y.

Hutchins v. Latimer, 5 Ind. 67,
Hutchinson vy. Bowker, 5 Mees. &
W. 535, 538
Hutchinson v. Green, 6 Fed. R.
833, 196
Hutchinson v. Johnson, 12 Conn.
376, S. C. 830 Am. Dec. 622, 582
Hutchinson v. Lemcke, 107 Ind.
340
etc.,

119
1067

121,8.C.8N.E. R. 71,
Ass’n (Mass.), 10 L. R. A. 558, 589
329,
Hutchinson v. State, 62 Ind. 556, 309
Hutchison v. Chicago, etc., Co.,
41 Wis. 541, 1090
377, 118, 119
Hutson v. Townsend, 6 Rich. Eq.
290
Hutson v. Woodbridge, etc., 79
Cal. 90, §. C. 16 Pac. R. 549,
34
Hutts v. Hutts, 62 Ind. 214,
289, 629, 805
Hutts v. Shoaf, 88 Ind. 395, 622
Huy v. Brown, 12 Wend. (N. Y.)
598
Hyatt v. Clements, 65 Ind. 12,
Hyatt v. Johnston, 91 Pa. St. 196,
1051, "1053
26 Pac. R. 1092,
Hyde v. Curling, 10 Mo. 359,
620, 623, 624, 625, 657
Hyde Park, etc., Co. v. Kerber, 5
Hyeronimus v. Allison, 52 Mo.
102,
Ind. 335, 1238
Hyland v. Milner, 99 Ind. 308, is »784

Hutchinson v. Liverpool,
Hutchinson v. Reid, 3 Campb.
390
Hutchinson v. State, 19 Neb. 262, 657
Hutkof v. Demorest, 103 N. Y.
249,
424
Hutton v. Arnett, 51 Il. 198,
Hutts v. Hutts, 51 Ind. 581, 234; 236
591,
675, 1094
Hyde v. Boyle, 89 Cal. 590, 8. C.
1243
Hyde v. State, 67 Am. Dec. 630,
Ill. App. 132,
601
Hyland v. Brazil, etc., Co., 128
Hyland y. Sherman, 2 E.

Smith (N. Y.) 234, 1043
Hyllis v. State, 45 Ark. 478, 217,228
Hynds v. Hays, 25 Ind. 31, 1051
Hynds v. Imboden, 5 Ark. "385, 235
Hynes v. McDermott, 82 N.Y. 41,

8. C. 37 Am. R. 538,

Hynson v. Taylor, 3 ‘Ark. 552, 463

Hyslop v. Hoppock, 5 Ben. (U. 8)
44

’

438
exliv

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.]

I

Ickes v. Kelley, 21 Ind. 72, 682
Idaho, etc., Co. v. Bradbury, 132
U.S. 509, 1127
Iddings v. Iddings, 134 Ind. 322,
8. C. 33 N. E. R. 1101, "1234
Ide v. Churchill, 14 Ohio St.
372, 1231

Thinger v. State, 53 Ind. 251, 808
Ikerd v. Bevers, 106 Ind. 483,

110, 1130, 1163

Tlett v. Collins, 102 Ill. 402, 622

Tliff v. Arnott, 31 Kan. 672, 156
Illinois Cent. R.R. Co. v. Boehms,

70 Miss. 11, §.C. 1280. R. 23, 1056
Illinois Cent. R. R. Co. v. Turner

(Miss.), 14 So. R. 450, 1056
Illinois, etc., Co. v. Able, 59 Tl.

131,

ae etc., Co. v. Fix, 53 Ill.
131,

Illinois, etc., Co. v. Slatton, 54
Ill. 133,

Illinois, ete. Co. v. Swearingen,

33 Il 289,” 310
Illinois Land, etc., Co. v. Bon-

ner, 75 Ill. 315, 502
Tllstead v. Anderson, 2N. Dak.

167, 8. C. 49 N. W. R. 659, 1043
lisley v. Harris, 10 Wis. 95, 429
Imley v. Beard, 6 Cal. 666, 1049
Imperial, etc., Co. v. Kiernan, 83

Ky. 468, 116
Independent, etc., Co. v. Thomas,

104 Mass. 192,

Indiana, B. & W. R. RB. Co. v.

Cook, 102 Ind. 133, 679
Indiana Car Co. v. Parker, 100

Ind. 181, 546, 810, 981
Indiana Central Ry. Co. v. Ga-

pen, 10 Ind. 292, 120
Indiana, etc., R. R. Co. v. Adams,

12 Ind. 802, 8. C. 14 N. E.R.

565, 1228
i, ete., Co. v. Bird, 116

Ind. 217, 8. C. 18 N. E. R. "887, 234
Indiana, etc., Co. v. Bradly, z

Ind. 49, 573
Indiana, etc., Co. v. East, etc.,

Co., 28 Fla. 387, 8. C. 10 So. R.

480, 487
Indiana, etc., Co. v. Finnell, 116

Ind. 414, 1150
Indiana, ete., Co. v. Foster, 107

Ind. 480,

Indiana, ete. ., v. Koons, 105 Ind.

507,

305
300

 

Indiana, etc., Co. v. McBroom,

103 Ind. 310,

Indiana, etce., R. R. Co. v. Oakes,

20 Ind. 9
Indiana, etc., Co. v. Williams, 22

Ind. 198,

Indiana Farmers’, etc., Co.v. Byr-

kett (Ind.), 36 N. E. R. 779,
1068, 1069
Indianapolis v. Gilmore, 30 Ind.

414, 398
Indianapolis v. Huffer,30 Ind.235, 739
Indianapolis v. Kingsbury, 101 °

Ind. 200, 529
Indianapolis v. McAvoy, 86 Ind.

587, 533
Indianapolis v. Patterson,112 Ind.

> 381
Indianapolis v. Patterson, 33 Ind.

157, 1241
Indianapolis v. Scott, 72 Ind.196, 815
Indianapolis, City of, v. Lawyer,

38 Ind. 348 1036, 1091
iatonapotis ‘Cabinet Go. v. Herr-

mann (Ind. App.), 34 N. E. R.

579, 696
Indianapolis, etc., Co. v. Bank, 33

Ind. 3 1169
inte cbs: etc., Co. v. City of

192

Indianapolis, 29 Ind. 245, 484
Indianapolis, etc., Co. v. City of
Lawrenceburgh, 87 Ind. 489, 491

Indianapolis, P. & C. Ry. Co. v.
Bush, 101 Ind. 582, -
527, 530, 720, 1069, 1102, 1104, 1106
Indianapolis, P. & C. RR. Co. v.
Keely, 23 Ind. 133, 529
Indianapolis, etc., Co. v. Hood,
130 Ind. 594, 1200
Indianapolis, etc., R. R. Co. v.
Horst, 93 U.S. 291, 1064, 1087, 1159
Indianapolis, etc., Co. v. Kinney,
8 Ind. 402,
Indianapolis & V. R. R. Co.
McCaffrey, 62 Ind. 552, 1098, "1170
Indianapolis & V. R. R. Co. v
McCaffrey, 72 Ind. 294, "1209
Indianapolis, ete., Co. v. McLin,
82 Ind. 435,
Indianapolis, etc., Co. v. Pitzer,
109 Ind. 179,
Indianapolis, ete. Co. v. Ruther-
ford, 29 Ind. 8 1
Indianapolis, an -R .Co.v. Sands,
133 Ind. 433, 8. C. 32 N. E.R.
722, 342, 557, 612
Indianapolis, etc., Co.v. Solomon,

23 Ind. 534, 261
Indianapolis, etc., R. R. Co. v.
Smythe, 45 Ind. 322, 638
TABLE OF CASES.

exlv

‘[Reerenses are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. IT, pp. 603-1244.]

Indianapolis, etc., R. R. Co. v.
Stout, 53 Ind. 143, 512, 1068, 1095
Indianapolis & St. L. R "Co. v.
Watson, 114 Ind. 20, 526, 548
Indigo . v. Ogilvy, L. R. (1891)
2 Ch. 3 434, 614
Ingals v. “Aten, 144 Tll. 535, S. C.
33 N. E.R 208,

Inge v. Murphy, 10 Ala. 897, 545
Ingel v. Scott, 86 Ind. 518, 1230
Ingerman v. ‘Moore, 90 Gal. 410,

8. C. 25 Am. St. R. 138, 549

Ingersoll v.Ingersoll,42 Miss. 155, 448
Ingersoll v. Mangam, 84N. Y. 622,
292, 443
Inglebright v. Hammond, 19 Ohio
337, 517

Ingraham v. Hall, 11Serg. & R. 78, 301
Ingraham v.Whitmore, 75 Ill. 24, 595
Inhabitants of Boston v. Brazer,
11 Mass. 447, 574
Inhabitants of Dennis v. Inhab-
itants of Brewster, 7 Gray 351, 31
Inhabitants of Limerick, Petition-
ers, In re, 18 Me. 183, 188
Inhabitants of New Salem v.Eagle
Mill Co., 138 Mass. 8, 370
Inhabitants of Sutton v. Inhab-
itants of Dana, 1 Metc. (Mass.) :
1116

383,

In re Ah Lee, 5 Fed. R. 899, 216
In re Ah Lee, 6 Sawy. (U.S. C.

C.) 410, 214
In re Allison, 18 Col. 525, S. C. i

16 Am. St. R. 224, 145,146
In re Apyneaion ‘of Judges, 64

Pa. St. 232, 234
In re ae L. R. 20 Q. B. Div.

258, 239
In re eee ae & Co., 61

L. J. Q. B. 590
In re Bliss, 30 Tan (N. Y.) 594, 590
In re Bogart, 2 Sawyer 396, 241
In re Bond, 9 8. Car. 80, 8. C. 30

Am. R. 20, 243
In re Boyle, 9 Wis. 264, 214
In re Burke, 76 Wis. 357, S. C. 45

N. W. R. 24, 214, 235
In re Buskett, 106 Mo. 602, 8. C.

144 L. RB. A. 407, 781
In re Butler, 101 N.Y. 307, 1046
In re Butler’s Estate, 13 Ir. Ch.

R. 456, 196
In re Cahill, 110 Pa. St. 167, S. C.

20 Atl. R. 414, 118, 119
In re Circuit Court, 1 New Zea-

land Court of Appeals, 329, 143

In re Cleveland (N.J.), 17 Atl.
R. 772, 118
J

 

In re Cloherty, 2 Wash. 187, S. C.

27 Pac. R. 1064; 119
‘In re Cohen, 5 Cal. 494, 195
In re Colvin, 3 Md. Ch. 278, 497
In re Cooper, 22.N. Y. 67, 115
In re Cooper, 93 N. Y. 507, 333
In re Creighten, 12 Neb. 280, 337
In re Crow, 60 Wis. 349, 336
In re Davis’ Estate, a Mont. 1,

8. C. 27 Pac. R. 342, 254
In re Diss Debar, 3N. Y. Supl. 667, 294
In re Donohue, 52 How. Pr. 251, 294
In re Edwards, 385 Kan. 99, S. ¢.

10 Pac. R. 539, 154
In re Election of Executive Offi-

cers, 31 Neb. 262, S.C. 10 L. R.

A. 803, 296
In re Evans, 22 L. T. 501, 573

In re Ferrier, 103 Ill. 367, S. C. 42
Am. R. 10, 294
In re Fifteenth Avenue, 54 Cal.
179, 1208
In re First Street, 58 Mich. 641, .
S. C. 26 N. W. Rep. 159, 652
In re Gorry, 48 Hun 29,8. C. 15

N. Y. St. R. 315, 164
In re Graham, 74 Wis. 450, 8. C.

43 N. W.R. 148 341
In re Guendar, 69 Cal. 88, 220
In re Harvey, 16 Til. 127, 188

In re Hatch, 43 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 89, 424
In re Healey, 53 Vt. 694, S.C. 38

Am. R. 718, 457
In re Heath’s Will, 83 Ia. 215, S.

C. 48 N. W. R. 10387, . 206, 565
In re Hill, 6 Ct. of Cl. 83, ‘736
In re Hinkle, 31 Kan. 712, 217
In re Hopper, 2L. RB. Q. B. 367, 573
In re Hunter’s Estate, 84 Ia. 388,

S. C. 51. N. W. R. 20, 150
In re Inhabitants of Limerick,

Petitioners, 18 Me. 183, 188
In re Janitor, 35 Wis. 410, 204
In re Johnson, 12 Kan. 102, 213
In re Kaine, 14 How.(U.8.) 103, 256
In re Kamaha,2 Hawaiian R. 444, 304
In re Kaminsky, 70 Mich. 653, 8.

C. 38 N. W. R. 659. 841
In re Kelly, 46 Fed. R. 653, 308

In re Kipp, 63 Mich. 79, 8. 0. 29

N. W. R. 517, 1055
In re Kreiss (Cal.), 8. C. 28 Pac.

R. 808, 576

In re Lady Hastings, L. R. 35 Ch.
Div. 9

In re ae s Estate, 95 Cal. 397,
S. C. 30 Pac. R. 568,

In re Lasak’s Will, 131 N.Y. 624,

8. O. 30 N. E. R. 112, 720
exlvi

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 608-1244.]

In re Lloyd, L. R. 12 Ch. Div.

447,

In re Loney, 134 U. 8. 372,
In re Long Branch, etc., R.R.Co.,

24.N. J. Eq. 398,

In 2) Lower "Chathar; 385 N. J. L.

49
In re Lynch, 9 Abb. N. C. 69, 232
In re MacKnight, 11 Mont. 126, 736
In re Manning, 76 Wis. 365, 8. C.

45 N. W. R. 26, 214, 235
In re Manning, 189 U. S. 504, 235
In re Marston, 79 Me. 25, 8. C. 3

N. E. R. 601, 224
In re Matter of the Will of War-

field, 22 Cal. 51, S. C. 83 Am.

Dec. 49,

In re Maunder, 49 L. T. R. 535,
In re Merchants’ Ins. Co., 3 Biss.

(U.S. C. C.) 162,

In re Merritt, 5 Paige, 125
In re Metger, 5 How.(U.S.) 176, 256
In re Mills, 185 U. 8. 268, 8. C.10

Sup. Ct. R. 762, 840
Inre Millington,24 Kan.214, 142, 227
In re Ree 39 Fed. R. 833,8. C.

135 U.S 137, 298
In re Rossle 14 Foe (U.S.C. C. ;

232, 8. C.5 L. R. A. 78, 137
Inre Newcomb, 18N.Y. Supp .16, 642
In re Newman’s Estate,75 Cal, 213,

8. C. 16 Pac. R. 887, 450
In re Norwegian St., 81 Pa. St.349, 298
In re Noyes’ Will, 61 Vt. 14,8. C.

17 Atl. R. 748, 540
In re Ohm’s Estate, 82 Cal. 160, S.

C. 22 Pac. R. 927, 254, 1184
In rig a Ry. Company, 32 Fed.

241

117, 119, 170
In re Parks, 3 Mont. 426, 214
In re Pease Furnace Co., 59 Hun

(N. Y.) 626, 628
In re Permstick, 3 Wash. 672, S.

C. 28 Am. St. R. 80, 840
In re Petty, 22 Kan. 477, 341
In re Peyton, 12 Kan. 398, 639
In re Pierce, 44 Wis. 411, 243, 336
In re Price, 6 New South Wales

140, 342
In, re Radde,9 N. Y. Supl. 812, 8.

C. 2 Connoly 298, 248
In re Rafferty, 1 Wash. 382, 840
In re Reyder’s Estate, 38 N. Y. St.

R. 29, 8. C. 59 Hun 618, 110
In re Road McCandless Tp., 110

Pa. St. 605,8.C. 1 Atl. R.594, 173, 594
In re Saline County, 45 Mo. 52, 115
In re Schen, 74 N. Car. 607, 341

In re School Law Manual, 63 N. H.
574, 119

194
303

497
1129

263
601

196
409

 

In re Shoenberger’s Est., 139 Pa.
St. 132, 8. C. 20 Atl. R. 1050, 263

In re Snelling’s Will, 186 N. Y.
515, 8.C. 32 N.E. RB. 1006, 741, 799

In re Soule, 46 Hun (N. Y.) 661, 434
In re Spencer’s Estate, 96 Cal. 448,

S. C. 31 Pac. R. 453, 1081
In re Studdard, 30 Minn. 553, 1180
In re Twenty-eighth Street, 102.

Pa. St. 140, 337
In re Vanvabry, 88 Tenn. 334, 1242
In re Waite, 99 N. Y. 433, 284

In re Walker, 1 Lowell’s Dec. 237, 312
In re Washington Street, 132 Pa.
St. 257,8.C.7 L. R. A. 193, 8. C.

19 Atl. R. 219, 170
In re Wells, 36 Kan. 341, 149
In re Westerfield’s Estate, 96 Cal.

118, S. C. 80 Pac. R. 1104, 783
In re raion, 89 Mo. 58, 8. C. 1

S. W. R. 125 628
In re Wright, 134 U. 8. 136,

188, ae 1248
In re Wrigley, 8 Wend. (N.

134, Me
Inslee v. Flagg, 26 N. J. L. 368, 8.

C. 69 Am. Dec. 580, 592
Insurance Co. v. Bangs, 103 U.S.

435, 284, 293, 443
Insurance Co.v. Comstock, 16Wall.

258, 1181

Insurance Co. v. Folsom, 18 Wall.

237, 1051, 1141, 1146
Insurance Co. v. Hall, 12 Mich.

202, 385
Insurance Co. v. Hanna, 81 Tex.

487, 8. C.178. W. R. 35, 614
Insurance Co. v. Howell, 24 N. J.

Eq. 238, 299
Insurance Co. v. Morse, 20 Wall.

445, 408
Insurance Co. v. Myer, 93111.271, 385
Insurance Co. v. Price, 1 Hopk.

Ch. 2, 214, 219
Insurance Co.'of N. America v.

Swineford, 28 Wis. 257, 603

Insurance Co. v. University, 6
Fed. R. 448,
a? aa Co. v. Whitehill, 25 Tl.

Interliea v. Whaley, 7 N. Y. Supp.

385

74, 2

International, ete., R. R. Co. v.
Dyer, 76 Tex. 156, 744, 783, 797

International, etc., ’R. R. Co. v.
Kernan, 78 Tex. 294, 8. C.9 L.
R. A. 708,

International Fair, etc., Ass’n v.
ae 88 Mich. 62, 8S. C. 49.
N. W. R. 1086,

1064

557
TABLE OF

CASES. exlvii

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.]

International & G. N. R. Co. v.
Kuehn, 2 Tex. Civ. App. 210, S.
C.218. W.R. 58, 1071

International & G. N. R. R. Co.
v. ee 81 Tex. 503, 8. C. 17
'§. W. R. 4 10

fever cance: Tooth Co. v. Mills,
22 Fed. R. 659, 488

In the Matter of the Application
of the Senate, 10 Minn. 78, 118

In the Matter of Cooper, 22N. Y.

67, 160
In the Matter of the Senate, 9

Col. 623, 118
Intoxicating Liquor Cases, 25

Kan. 751, 218
Irby v. Wilson, 1 Dev. & Bat. Eq.

568, 287,
Ireland, Ex parte, 38 Tex. 344, 155
Irey v. Mater (Ind.), 81 N. E. R.

69, 871
Irions v. Keystone Mfg. Co., 61 Ia.

406, 432
Iron Mountain Bank vy. Murdock,

62 Mo. 70, 582
Irvine v. Leyh, 102 Mo. 200, 59
Irwinv. Anthony, 8 Ind.-470, 1168

Irwin v. Dixion,9 How.(U.S.) 10, 483

Irwin v. Lewis, 50 Miss. 363, 481
Irwin v. Scriber, 18 Cal. 499, 313
Irwin v. Smith, 72 Ind. 482, ‘1157, 1235
Irwin v. Towne, 42 Cal. 326, 85

Isaacs v. Beth Hamedash Soe., 1
Hilt. 469, 582, 587
Isaacs v. Price, 2 Dill. (C. C.) 347,

_ 878, 427
Isham v. Downer, 8 Conn. 282, 467
Islay v. ea 4 Dev. & B. (N.

Car.) 1 539
Isler v. neve, 75 N. Car. 466, 797
Isler v. Dewey, 71 N. Car. 14, 804
Isler v. Haddock, 72 N. C. 119, 1240
Israel v. Arthur, 7 Col. 5, 117
Israel v. Benjamin, 3 Campb. 40, 399
Israel v. Brooks, 23 Ill. 526, 552
Ives v. Ashelby, 26 Ill. App. 244, 574
Ives v. Curtiss, 2 Root 133, 464
Ives v. Leonard, 50 Mich. 296, 740
Ivey v. Owens, 28 Ala. 641, 275
Ivey v. Williams, 78 Tex. ‘685, s.

C. 15S. W. R. 163, 551
Ivory v. Delore, 26 Mo. 505, 1179
Izard v. Bodine, 9 N.J. Eq. 309, 201

J
Jacks v. Moore, 33 Ark. 31, 239, 609
Jackson v. Ambler, 14 Johns. (N.
Y.) 96, 595, 596

 

Jackson ¥. Brooks, 14 Wend. (N.

Y.) 649, 377
Jackson v. Buchanan, 59 Ind.

390, 367
Jackson vy. Burtis, 14 Johns. (N.

Y.) 391, 505

Jackson v. Caldwell, 1 Cow. 622, 1225

Jackson y. Clark, 7 Johns. 217, 450
Jackson v. Commonwealth, 23
,Gratt. (Va.) 919, 660
Jackson v. Crafts, 18 Johns. (N.
Y.) 110, 400
Jackson v. Crawfords, 12 Wend.
242, 267

Jackson v. Dickenson, 15 Johns.
124

J a v. Dieffendorf, 3 Johns.

269, 371
Jackson v. Delaplaine, 6 Hous.

(Del.) 358, 676
Jackson v. "Evans, 73 N. Car.

128, 790
Jackson v. Farlow, 75Ind. 118, 526
Jackson v. Gager, 5 Cow. (N.Y.)

383, 591, 598
Jackson vy. Hartwell, 8 J ohns.

422, 202
Jackson v. Hesketh, 2 Stark R.

454, 676
Jackson v. Hodges, 24 Md. 468, 567

Jackson v. Jackson, 1 Johns.424, 289
Jackson v. Jackson, 16 Ohio St.
163, 1049
Jackson v. J. ackson, 28 Mass. 674,
S. C. 64 Am. Dec. 114, "1232
Jackson v. Jackson, 5 Cow.(N.Y.)

173, 517
Jackson v. King, 5 Cow. 237, 82
Jackson v. Leggett, 7 Wend. (N.

Y.) 377, 1043

Jackson v. Loomis, 12 Wend. 27, 918
Jackson v. McVey, 18 Johns. 330, 910
Jackson v. Moore, 13 Johns. (N.

Y.) 513, 8. C. 7 Am. Dee. 398, 381
Jackson v. Myers, 120 Ind. 504, 1179
Jackson v. Ohio, etc., R. R. Co.,

15 Ind. 192, 435
Jackson v. Olitz, 8 Wend. 440, 371
Jackson v. Pell, 19 Johns. (N. Y.)

270, 624

Jackson v. Pittsford,8 Blackf. 194, 676
Jackson v. Pool, 91 Tenn, 448, 8.C.

“198. W. BR. 324, 811

Jackson v. Ramsey, 15 Am. Dec.
242, 468

Jackson v. Reeve, 44 Ark. 496, 335

oan v. Rice,. 3 Wend. (N. ¥, ) as
180,
Jackson v. Rightmyre, 16 Johns.
314, 371
exlvili

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602,' Vol. I, pp. 603-1244.]

Jackson v. Robinson, 4 Wend. 436,
242, 267
Jackson v.Sandman,18 N.Y. Supp.
894, 655
Jackson School Tp.v.Shera (Ind.),
35 N. E. R. 842, 1
Jackson v. Shearman, 6 Johns.(N.
Y.) 19, 506
Jackson v. Smith, 120 Ind. 520,
126, 133, 240, 360, 403

Jackson y. State, 54 Ark. 243, 634

Jackson v. State, 14 Ind. 327, 697

Jackson v. State, 104 Ind. 516, 8.
C.3N. E.R. 863, 322

Jackson v. State, 6 Blackt. (Ind.)

461, 643
Jackson v. State, 104 Ind. 516, S.

C.3N. E.R. 863, 426, 450
Jackson v. Stiles, 1 Cowen 134, 1210
Jackson v. Tozer, 154 Pa. St. 223,

S. C. 26 Atl. 226, 1122
Jackson v.Wakeman, 2 Cow. 578, 619
Jackson v. Williamson, 2 T. R.

281. 1122
Jackson v. Woodruff, 57 Ark. 599,

8. C. 22S. W. R. 566, 1200
Jacksonville, T. & K. W. Ry. Co..

v. Peninsular, ete., Co., 27 Fla.

Dee

So. R. 6 515, 705, 1064
Jacobs v. “adlard, 42 Vt. 303, 483
Jacobs v. Burgwin, 63 N. Car. 193, 191
Jacobs v. Figard, 25 Pa. St. 45, 544
Jacobs v. Layborn, 11 M. & W.

685, 517
Jacobs v. Louisville, etc., Co., 10

158
2 Col. App.

Bush. 263,
Jacobs v. Mitchell,
456, S. C. 81 Pac. R. 235, 1079
Jacobson v. Allen, 12 Fed. R.
454, 493
Jacobson v. Metzger, 35 Mich. 108, 783
Jacques v. Com., 10 Gratt. (Va.) _

690, 656
Jacquay v. Hartzell, 1 Ind. App.

500, 1098
James v. Belding, 33 Ark. 536, 337
James v. Gillen. 3 Ind. App. 472,

C. 30 N. E. R. 7, 8. C. 34 Cent.

L. Jour. 389, 535
James v. Kiser, 65 Ga. 515, 680
James v. McKernon, 6 Johns.

543, 1185

James v. McWilliams, 6 Munf.
301 1184
James v. Schroeder, 61 Mich. 28,
S.C. 27 N. W. R. 850, 593
James v. State to use of Doss, 55
Miss. 57, S. C. 30 Am. R. 496, 1112
James v. Stokes, 77 Va. 225, 248

 

Jameson v. Androscoggin R. R,
Co., 52 Me. 412, 668

Jameson y.Grimsham,26 I]. 468, 1195

Jameson v. Hudson, 82 Va. 279, 214

Jameson y. Jameson, 72 Mo. 640, 360

Jamieson v. Indiana Natural Gas
Co., 128 Ind., 555,

Jan’s Succession, 43 La. Ann. 924,

120

8. C. 10S0. R. 6, 220
Janesville v. Carpenter, 77 Wis.

288, 8 Law. R. Anno. 805, 8. C.

46 N. W. R. 128, 390
Janeway v. Holston, 19 Ore.97, 1236
Janitor, In re, 35 Wis. 410, 204
Jansen v. Acker, 23 Wend. N. Y.

480, 1042
January v. Duncan, 3 McLean C.

C. 19, 393

Jaqua v. Cordesman, etc.,Co., 106
Ind. 141,

Jaques v. Bridgeport, etc., Co., 43
Conn. 34, 153

Jaquett v. Palmer, 2 Harr. (Del.)
144,

197
Jarboe v. Severein, 112 Ind. 572,
: 110, 1177
Jarrard v. State, 116 Ind. 98, 294
Jarrett’s Estate, 42 Ohio St. 199, 189
Jarrett v. Jarrett, 11 W. Va.

529

584, 1128
Jarrett v. Stevens, 36 W. Va. 445,
S.C. 158. E.R. 177, 871, 372

Jarvis v. Banta, 83 Ind. 528,
1142, 1156, 1210, 1223

Jarvis v. Barrett, 14 Wis. 591, 444
Jarvis v. Mitchell, 99 Mass. 530, 476
| Jasper v. Schlesinger, 2 22 Til. ‘App.
637, 15g, 156
J asper County v. Wadlow, 82 Mo.
172, 446
Jaynes, Ex parte, 70 Cal. 638, 414

Jefferson County v. Milwaukee
County, 20 Wis. 139, 639

Jefferson County v. Savory, 2
Greene (Ta.) 238,

Jefferson Ins. Co. v. Cotheal, 7
Wend. 72, S. C. 22 Am. Dec.
567, 738

Jeffersonville, etc., R. R. Co. v.
Avery, 31 Ind. 277, 633

Jeffersonville, etc., Co. v. Bowen,

49 Ind. 154,

Jeffersonville, M. & I. R. R. Co.

v. Dunlap, 29 Ind. 426,

Jeffersonville, etc., Co. v. Hen-
dricks, 41.Ind. 48, 174, 633

Jeffersonville, ete., Co. v. Mounts,

7 Ind. 669,

Jeffersonville, etc., Co. v. Riley,

89 Ind. 568, 798
TABLE OF CASES.

exhix

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, bp. 1-602, Vol. I, pp. 608-1244.)

Jeffersonville R. R. Co. v. Swift,
26 Ind. 459,
Jeffersonville R. R. v. White, 6
- Bush. 251, 365
Jefford v. Ringgold, 6 Ala. 544, 506
Jeffries v. McNamara, 49 Ind. 142, 183
Jefiries v. New York, etc., Co.,
110 U. S. 305, 564
Jeffries v. Rudloff, 78 Ta. 60, 8. C.
435, 436
1197

1067

5 Am. St. R. 654
Jelley v. Gaff, 56 Ind. 331,
Jelley v. Roberts, 50 Ind. 1,
1227, "1242
Jellison v. Goodwin, 43 Me. 287,
8. C. 69 Am. Dec. 2,
Jenison v. Roxbury, 9 Gray 32,
Jenkins v. Anderson ere ‘
Atl. R. 558, 510
Jenkins v. Betham, 15 C.B. 168, 573
Jenkins v. California Stage Co. a
22 Cal. 537, 626
Jenkins v. Crevier, 50 N.J.L. 151,
‘Jenkins v. Davis, ‘141 Pa. St. 266,
8. C. 21 Atl. R. 592,
Jenkins v. Gillespie, 10 Smed. &
M. (Miss.) 31, 8. C. 48 Am.

187

Dec. 732, 582

Jenkins v. Jenkins, 1 Paige (N.
Y.) 248, 495
Jenkins v. Long, 23 Ind. 460, .
186, 191, 192

Jenkins v. McCully, Morris (Ia. :

447, 1195
Jenkins v. Meagher, 46 Miss. 84, 599
Jenkins v. Nolan, 79 Ga. 295, 301
Jenkins v. Parkhill, 25 Ind. 478,

1154, 1170
Jenkine v. Richardson, 6 J.- ba

Marsh. (Ky.) 441, 8. C. 22 Am.

Dec. 82, 1116
Jenkins v. State, 82 Ala. 25, S.

C. 2 So. R. 150, 544
Jenkins v. State, 31 Fla. 196, 8.

C. 12 So. R. 677, 662, 663
Jenkins v. Tobin, "31 Ark. 306, ” 510
Jenkins v. Wheeler, 4 Robt. N.

YY. Supr. 575, 980
Tentine: v. Wilmington, etc., R.

R. Co., 110 N. Car. 438, S. C.

158. E.R. 193, - 813
Jenks v. Osceola.Township, 45 Ia.

554, 472
Jenks v. School Dist., 18 Kan. 356,

397, 1212
Jenks v. State, 39 Ind. 1, 1232
Jenks v. Stebbins, 11 Johns. 224, 329
Jenne v. Burt, 121 Ind. 275, 178, 1208
Jenners v. Spraker, 2 Ind. App.

100, S. C. 27 N. FE. R. 117, 389
Jennerson v. Garvin, 7 Kan. 186, 154

 

Sermesa v. Berry, 17 N. H. 549, 539
Jennings v. Ashley, 5 Pike (Ark. )
128, 190

Jennings v. Bank, 13 Col. 417, 112
Jennings vy. Durham, 101 Ind.
391, 1230
J ennings v. First Nat.Bank,13 Col.
417, S. C. 16 Am. St. R. >10, 1043
Jennings v. Greenwald, 20 Ind.
408, 1201

Jennings v. Jennings, 56 Ia.288, 1143
Jennings v. Mendenhall, 7 Ohio

St. 257, 404
Jennings v. Prentice, 39 Mich. 421, 718

Jennings v. Wood, 20 Ohio, 261, 34
Jernigan v. State, ‘17 Fla. 690, 153
Jersey City v. State, 30 N. yl

521, ° 366
Jesse v. Cater, 28 Ala. 475, 598
Jesse v. State, 20 Ga. 156, 668
Jessiman v. Haverhill, etc., Co.,

1N. H. 68, 574
Jessup’s Estate, Re, 81 Cal. 408,

8. C.6L, BR. A. 594, 816
Jessup v. Gragg, 12 Ga. 261, 436
Jett’s Case, 18 Gratt. 933, 308
Jett v. Hempstead, 25 Ark. 462, 362

Jewell v. Blandford, 7 ee co
Jewell v. Chicago, "ete. ., Co.,

Wis. 610, “dss, 1093
Jewell v. Commonwealth, 22 Pa.

St. 94, 668
Jewell v. Knight, 123 U.S. 426, 540
Jewell v. Parr, 13C.B.909, 524, 1055
Jewett v. Earle, 53 N. Y. Supr. Ct.

349, 400
J ewett v. Garrett, 47 Fed. R. 625,

433, 434
Jewett v. Greene, 8 Me. 447, 378
Jewett v. Miller, 12 Ia. 85, 224

Jewett v. Miller, 19 Tex. 290, 454, 457
Jewett v. Osborne, 33 Neb. 24, 8.

C. 49 N. W. R. 774, 1239
Jewett v. Perrette, 127 Ind. 97, 8.

C. 26 N. E. R. 685, 528
Jim v. State, 3 Mo. 147, 639
Jim v. State, 4 Humph. (Tenn.)

288, 812
Joannes v. Underwood, 6 Allen

241, 1236
Jobbins v. Gray, 34 Ill. App. 208, 707
Jocelyn v. Donnel, Peck 274, S.

C. 14 Am. Dec. 753, 593, 600
Joerns v. La Nicea, 75 Ia. 705, 635.
Johann v. Rufener, 32 Wis. 195, 475
Johannes v. Young, 42 Wis. 401,

1183, 1203

John v. State, 16 Fla. 554, 667

John Morris Co. v. Burgess, 44
Ill. App. 27, 796
el

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 608-1244.]

Johnsv. Davidson, 16 Pa. St.512, 533
Johns v. Hodges, 60 Md. 215, 8. C.
45 Am. R. 722, 666
Johns v. Johns, 23 Ga. 31,
195, 495, 496
Johnson, In re, 12 Kan. 102, 213
Johnson, Ex parte, 15 Neb. 512,
8S. C.19 N. W. R. 594, 214
Johnson v. Adleman, 35 Ill. 265, 1210

Johnson vy. Anderson, 76 Va. 766, 373
Johnson y. Ashland, etc., Co., 47 bess
1

Wis. 326,
Johnson v. Bailey, 59 Fed. R.
670, 1046
Johnson v. Beazley, 65 Mo. 250,
8. C. 27 Am. R. 276, 128, 314
Johnson vy. Boice, 40 La. Ann.
273, 8. C. 8 Am. St. Rep. 528, 519
Johnson vy. Brown, 51 Texas 65, 804
Johnson y. Chicago, etc., R. R.
Co., 58 Ia. 348, 801
Johnson v. Clark, 18 Kan. 157, 432
Johnson v. Clem, 82 Ky. 84, 695
Johnson v. Clendenin, 5 Gill &
J. 463, 476
Johnson v. Corpenning, 4 Ired.
Eq. 216, S. C. 44 Am. Dec. 106, 314
Johnson v. Crawfordsville, etc.,
Co., 11 Ind. 280,
Johnson v. Culver, 116 Ind. 278, —
738, 1107
Johnson v. Davenport, 3 J. J.
Marsh. 390,
Johnson v. Day, 17 Pick. (Mass.):
106, 435
Johnson y. Dinsmore, 11 Neb.
391, 1158
Johnson y. Donaldson, 17 R. I.
107, S. C. 20 Atl. R. 242,
Johnson v. Donnell, 15 Ill. 97,
Johnson v. Duncan, 90 Ga.1,8.C.
168. E. R. 88, 1202
Johnson vy. Everett, 9 Paige 636, 1182
Johnson v. Freeport, etc., Co., 11
Ill. 413, 1234
Johnson v. Gage, 57 Mo. 160, 446
Johnson yv. Glascock, 2 Ala.519, 1241
Johnson vy. Greim, 17 Neb. 447, 815
Johnson v. Grissard, 51 Ark. 410,
8.C.3L. R. A. 795, : 384
Johnson y. Harmon,94 U.S. 371, 1128
Johnson y. Hess, 126 Ind. 298, 1190
Johnson v. Holliday, 79 Ind. 151, 668
Johnson v.Hosford,110 Ind.572, 1149
Johnson v. Howe, 7 Ill. 342, 1112
Johnson v. Husband, 22 Kan. 227,
1118, 1119
Johnson v. Johnson, 80 Ga. 260, 380
Johnson vy. Johnson (Tex.), 23 S.
W. R. 1022, 821

1124

411
436

 

Johnson v. Johnson, 31 Fed. R.
700, 462

Johnson v. Jobnson,115 Ind.112, 1212
Johnson v. Johnson, 26 Ind. 441, 474
Johnson v. Johnson, 23 Fla. 413,

S. C. 2 So. R. 834, 456
Johnson vy. Joliet, 23 Til. 202, 424
Johnson v. Joliet, etc., R. R. Co.,

23 Ill. 124, 425
Johnson vy. Jones, 2 Neb. 126, 455
Johnson v. Josephs, 75 Me. 544, 675

Johnson v. Kilgore, 39 Ind. 147, 529
Johnson v. Kimbro, 3 Head. 551,

8. C. 75 Am. Dec. 781, 281
Johnson v. Labarge, 46 "Mo. App.

433, 1113
Johnson v. Little Horse, etc., Co.

(Wyo.), 83 Pac. R. 22, : 1220

Johnson v. Lough, 22 Minn. 203, 442
Johnson vy. Mason, 27 Mo. 511, 179
Johnson v. Maxwell, 87 N. Car. 18,

669, 676
Johnson v. Maxwell, 2 Wash. 482,

S. C. 27 Pac. R. 1071, 483
Johnson v. McCabe, 42 Miss. 255, 443
Johnson v. McCulloch, 89 Ind: 270,

11686, 1217, "1220
Johnson v. Merry Mount Granite

Co., 53 Fed. R. 569, 714
Johnson v: Miller, 82 Ia. 693, S.C.

47 N. W. R. 903, 552, 1097
Johnson v. Missouri Pac.R. R.Co.,
E ees 690, 8. C. 26 N. W. R.
wo v. Moffett, 19 Mo. App.

159,

Johnson v. Moss, 45 Cal. 515,
Johnson v. Nevill, 65 N. C. 677, ,
Johnson v. Noble, 13 N. H. 286,S.

C.38 Am. Dec. 485, 575,578, 584, 593
Johnson v. Northern, etc., Co., 39

Minn. 30,8. C. 38 N. WR. 804,

254, "1184
Johnson y. Northern Pac. R. R.

Co., 1 N. Dak. 354, 8. C. 48 N.

W.R. 227, 1082
Johnson v. Oakes, 80 Ga. 722, 8. C.

1056

68S. E. R. 2 1121
Johnson vy. Tee 34 Neb. 26,

S.C. 51 N. W. R. 290, "1124
Johnson vy. Pate, 90 N. Car. 834, 1178

Johnson v. Patterson, 59 Ind. 237, 434
Johnson v. ig 140 Ill. 350, 8.

29.N. E. R. 895, 1069
Johnson v. eed 54 Vt. 459, 508
Johnson v. Pittsburgh, etc., Co.,

47 Ohio St. 318, S.C. 24 N. E.

R. 493, 152, 153
Johnson v. Polk Co., 24 Fla. 28,

8. C. 3 So. R. 414, "1188
TABLE OF CASES.

eli

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, §§ 1-602, Vol. II, §§ 603-1244.]

Johnson v. Prine, 55 Ind. 351, 1202
Johnson v. Putnam, 95 Ind. 57, 1104
Johnson y. Richardson, 52 Tex.

481, 656
Johnson v. Bagot 84 Ia. 50, 8. C.

50 N. W.R.3 1121
Johnson v. Rutherford, 10 Pa. St.

455, 364
Johnson v. Schumacher, 72 Tex.

334, 8. C. 12S. W. R. 207, 380, 541
Johngon v. Scribner, 6 Conn. 185, 919
Johnson v. State, 63 Miss. 313, 820
Johnson v. State, 43 Ark. 391, 1164
Johnson v. State, 21 Tex. App. 368, 646
‘Johnson v. State, 10 Tex. App.

571, 696
Johnson v. State, 1 Tex.App.333, 33
Johnson v. State, 48 Ga. 116, 798
Johnson v. State, 59 Ga. 142, 822
Johnson v. State, 61 Ga. 305, 804
Johnson v. State, 14 Ga. 55,

179, 695, 918
Johnson vy. Swayze, 35 Neb. 117,

S. C. 52 N. W. R. 835, 162, 178
Johnson v. Taylor, 106 Ind. 89, 1129
Johnson v.The Board,107 Ind.15, 121
Johnson v. Turner (Md. ), 22 Atl.

R. 1103, 551
Johnson v.Weed, 9 Johns.(N. Y.)
~ 810, 8. C. 6 ‘Am. Dec. 279, 550
Johnson v. Whidden, 32 Me. 230, 919
Johnson v.Whitlock,13 N.Y.344, 1134
Johnson v. Whitman, etc., Co., 20

Mo. App. 100, 556
lsiason v. Van Velsor, 43 Mich.

412

247, 590
Johnston v. Hudlestone, 4 B. &

C. 922, 411
Johnston v. Jones, 1 Black we 2

209, 8, 704
Johnston y. McCain, 145 Pa. ee

531, 8. C. 22 Atl. R. 979, 362
Johnston v. San Francisco ‘Savings

Ass’n, 63 Cal. 554,

Johnston v. San Francisco, ete.,

Union, 75 Cal. 184, 8. C. 7 Am.

St. R. 129, 1146
Johnston v. Smith, 83 Ga. 779, S. ~

C.108S. E. R. 354,
Johnston v. State, 128 Ind. 16,

208,
Johnston v. Cheape, 5 Dow P. C.

136, 137
. Johnston v. Willey, 21 Ill. App.
354, 555:
Johnston Harvester Co.v. Bartley,
81 Ind. 406,
cs iaceail Beattie, 10 Cl. & Fin. $00

Sontuteirs yv. Sutton, 1 T. R.545, 552°

 

Joiner v. Ocean Steamship Co.,
86 Ga. 238,5.C.12 S. E. ia 361,
Joint School Dist. v. Kemen, 68

” 552

Wis. 246, 1183
Jolley v. Foltz, 34 Cal. 321, 158
ee etc., Co. v. Velie, 140 Tl.

S.C. 26 .N. E. R. 1086, 1025

J ae Steel Co. v: Shields, 32 Tl.
App. 598, 536, 1032, 1033, 1052

Jolly v. Terre Haute, éetc., Co., 9
Ind. 417 1217

Jonas v. Field, 83 Ala. 445, 8. C.

3 So. R. 893, 1067
Jones’ Estate, 27 Pa. St. 336, 1190
Jones, Ex parte, 8 Cow. 123, 1225
Jones, Ex parte, 61 Ala. 399, 189
Jones v. Acre, Minor 5, 1191
Jones v. Adams, 17 Nev. 84, 1165
Jones v. Alephsin, 16 Ves. 470, 476

Jones v. Alley, 4 Greene (Ia.) 181, 582

Jones v. Andrews, 10 Wall 327, 332
Jones v. Bailey, 5 Cal. 345, 583°
Jones v. Baird, 76 Ind. 164, 1108
Jones v. Bank, 10 Col. 464, . 494
Jones v. Beverly, 45 Ala. 162, 610
Jones v. Binns, 27 Miss. 373, 584
Jones v. Boston Mill Corporation,

4 Pick. 507, 8. C. 16 Am. Dec,

358, 598
Jones v.Boston Mill Corp., 6 Pick.

(Mass.) 148, 584
Jones v. Brouse, 32 W. Va. 444, 8.

C.98. E.R. 873, 410
Jones v. Butterworth, 38N. J. L.

345, 667
Jones v. Chicago, etc., R. R. Co.,

36 Ia. 68, 628, 630
Jones v. Christian, 24 Mo. App.

540, 1238

Jones v. Conoway, 4 Yeates 109, 367
Jones v. Craig, 127 U. 8. 213, 1178
Jones v. Davenport, 45 N. J. Eq.

77, 8. C. 17 Atl. R. 570, 245, 1185
Jonesv. Dewey, 17 N. H.596, 594, 596
Jones v. Deyer, 16 Ala. 221, 582
Jones v. Dipert, 123 Ind. 594, 633,634
Jones v. Driskill, 94 Mo. 190, 8

C.7S. W.R. 111, 299
Jones v. Fletcher, 42 Ark. 422, 271
Jones v. Freeman, 29 Md. 273, 1200
Jones v. Frost, 28 Cal. 245, 632

Jones v. Fruin, 26 Neb. 76, 8. C. 42°
N. W.R. 283,

Jones v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., oe
Me. 356,

Jones v. Gregg, 17 tnd, 84, 362, 309

Jones v. Harris, 59 Miss. 314, 585

Jones v. Hartford Ins. Co., 88 N.
Car. 499,

Jones v. Hathaw ay, 77 Ind. ‘14,

544

440
1211
elii

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. I, pp. 603-1244.)

Jones v. Hoar, 5 Pick. (Mass.)

285,

Jones v. Horsey, 4 Md. 306, S. C.

59 Am. Dec. 81,

Jones v. Jones, 3 Dev. Law 360, 341
Jones v. Jones, 18 Ala. 248, 373
Jones v. Jones, 1 Bland Ch. 443,

8. C. 18 Am. Dec. 327, 197, 198
Jones v. Jones, 62 N. H. 463, 534
Jones vy. Jones, 108 N. Y. 415,

287, 609, 611
Jones v. Julian, 12 Ind. 274, 1113
Jones v. Keen, 115 Mass. 170, 152
Jones v. Knauss, 31 N. J. Eq. 211, 457
Jones v. Lamar, 39 Fed. R. 585, 1128
Jones v. Layman, 123 Ind. 569, 8.

C. 24N. E. R. 363, 1165, 1230
Jones v. Lewis, 11 Tex. 359, 363
Jones v. Macon, etc., Co., 39 Ga. fie

138,

Jones v. Malvern Lumber Co.
799

411

582

(Ark.), 23S. W. R. 679,

Jones v. Marsh, 4 Term R. 464,
Jones v. McNarrin, 68 Me. 334, S.

C. 28 Am. R. 66, 498, 1190
Jones v. Minonge, 29 Ark. 637, 1192
Jones v. Mullinix, 25 Ia. 98, 400
Jones v. Null, 9 Neb. 57, 1198
Jones v. Old Dominion Cotton

Mills, 82 Va. 140, S. C. 3 Am.

St. R. 92, 1025, 1027,
Jones v. Osgood, 6 N. Y. 233, 1079
Jones vy. Parker, 20 N. H. 31, 31
Jones v. Pashby, 62 Mich. 614, S..

C. 29 N. W. R. 374, 1055
Jones v. Pemberton, 7 N. J. L.

310

350,
Jones v. People, 2 Col. 351,
661, 795, 802
Jones v. Phenix Bank, 8 N. Y.
228, 581
Jones v. Planters’ Bank,5 Humph.
(Tenn.) 619, 879
Jones v. Ransom, 3 Ind. 327, 206
Jones v. Reed, 3 Wash. 57, S. C.
27 Pac. R. 1067, 119

Jones v. Schall, 45 Mich. 379, 195, 496
Jones v. Smith, 64 Ga. 711, 1124
Jones v. Smith, 40 Fed. R. 314, 499
Jones v. Smith, 14 Mich. 334, 837
Jones yv. Smith, 64 N. Y. 180, 707
Jones v. Snodgrass, 54 Mo. 597, 254
Jones v. State, 112 Ind. 193, 1211
Jones v. State, 118 Ind. 39,
712, 718, 721, 1215
Jones v. State, 89 Ind. 82, 1124, 1159
Jones v. State, 3 Blackf. (Ind.)
37, 663
Jones v..State, 57 Miss. 684, 657

Jones v. State, 11 Ind. 357, 638

 

Jones v. ue. 90 Ga. 616, 8. C.16
S. E. R. 380,

Jones v. Talbot, 4 Mo. 279, 1076
Jones v. Temple, 87 Va. 210, 8. C.

12S. E. R. 404, 392
Jones v. The Church, etc., 15 Neb.

81, S.C. 17 N. W. RB. 362, 146, 164
Jones v. Trimble, 3 Rawle 381, 363
Jones v. Tucker, 41 N. H. 546, 740
Jones v. Turner, 81 Va. 709, 1047
Jones v. Turnour, 4C.&P. 204, 31
Jones v. United States, 137 U. 8. ™

9

202,
Jones v. Van Patten, 3 Ind. 107,
1168, 1219

Jones v.Vansandt,2 McLean611, 1122
Jones v. Walker, 5 Yerg. (Tenn. )

457, 120.
Jones v. Walker, 5 Tex. 427, 183
Jones v. Weathersbee,4 Strob. 50, 1042
Jones v. Welwood, 71 N. Y. 208, 595
Jones, etc., v. Case, 26 Kan. 299,

S.C. 40 Am. R. 310,
Jonsson v.Lindstrom, 114 Ind.152, enn
Joplin v. Postlethwaite, 61 L. T.

R. 629, 594

652

Jordan v. Faircloth, 34 Ga. 47, 1178
Jordan v. Giblin, 12 Cal. 100, 298
Jordan v. Petty, 5 Fla. 326, 190

Jordan v. St. Paul, etc., Co., 42

Minn. 172, §.C.6 L. RB. A. 573,
1097, 1149

Jordan vy. The Bank, 11 Neb.
499, 33
Jorgensen v.Griffin,14 Minn.464, 1190

2 a Com.(Ky.), 18.W. Rep.
618

Joseph v. Macowsky, 96 Cal. 518, 1141
Josephi v. Mady Clothing Co.

(Mont.), 33 Pac. R. 1, 1114
Josephine v. State, 39 Miss. 613, 662
Joslin v. Grand Rapids, etc., Co. e

53 Mich. 322, 698, 704
Joslin v. Wheeler, 62 N.H. 169, 621
Joss v. Mohn (N.J.), 26 Atl. R.

987, 518
Joy v. Devens 130 N. Y. 6,8.

C. 27 Am. St. R. 484, 1057
Joy v. Sears, 9 Pick. (Mass. ) 4,

Joy v. State, 14 Ind. 139, 800
Joyce v. Joyce, 5 Cal. 449,

319, 320, 1196
Joyce v. McAvoy, 31 Cal. 273, 8.

C. 89 Am. Dec. 172, 293
Joyce v. State, 7 Baxt. 273, 1119, 1120
Joyce v. Whitney, 57 Ind.550, 434, 640
Judah v. Dyott, 3 Blackf. 324, 8.

C. 25 Am. Dee. 112, 362, 395
Judah v. Vincennes University, 23

Ind. 272, 637, 639, 675
TABLE OF

CASES. eliii

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.]

Judd ome H.), 23 Atl.

R. 427, 661
Judge v. Everts, 64 Wis. 372, 360
Judge v. Leclaire, 31 Mo. 127, 539

a ees etc., v. People, 18 Wend.

, 176
Judy v. Gilbert, 77 Ind. 96, 8. C. 40

Am. Rep. 289, 71
Junction City v. Keefe, 40 Kan.
275, 604

Juneman, Ex parte, 28 Tex. App.

486, 8. 0. 13S. W. R. 783, 154
Jupitz v. People, 34 Ill. 516, 33
Justice v. Lang, 52 N. Y. 323, 101

K
Kahn y. Centra] Smelting Co., 2

Utah, 371, 535
Kahn vy. Cook, 22 Ill. App. 559, 888
Kahn v. Kuhn, 44 Ark. 404, 429
Kaime v. Trustees, 49 Wis. 371, 819
Kaine, In re, 14 How.(U.S.)108, 256

Kaiser v. Beemer (Pa.), 13 Atl.
R. 909 533

Kaiser vy. Keller, 21 Ia. 95, 194

Kaley v. Musgrave, 26 Ill. App.
509, 388

Kalk v. Fielding, 50 Wis. 339, 179

Kamaha, In re, 2 Hawaiian R.
444, 304

Kambieskey v. State, 26 Ind. 225,

182, 183

Kaminsky, In re, 70 Mich. 653, S.

C. 88 N. W. R. 659, 341
Kane v. Bloodgood, 7 Johns. Ch.

90 8. C. 11 Am. Dec. 417, 372, 877
Kane v. City of Brooklyn, 114 N.

Y. 586, _ 450
Kane v. Desmond, 63 Cal. 464, 317
Kane vy. Fond du Lac, 40 Wis. 495,

581, 591, 593

Kane v. McCown, 55 Mo. 181, 446

Kane v. Ry. Co., 128 U.S. 91, S.
C. 9Sup. Ct. R. 16,

Kane v. Vanderburgh, 1 Johns.
Ch. 11,

Kankakee Drainage Dist. v. Lake
Fork Spec. Drainage Dist., 29
Tli. App. 86, 454

Kansas v. Knotts, 78 Mo. 356, 214,219

Kansas, etc., R. W. Co. v. Little,

19 Kan. 267, 914
Kansas, etc., Co. v. Miller, 2 Col.

Ty. 442,

Kansas City v. Bradbury, 45 Kan.
381, S. C. 23 Am. St. R. 731, 1064

Kansas City, etc., Co. v. Cravens,

43 Kan. 650, 1027

1056
485

 

Kansas City, ete., R. R. Co. v.
Crocker, 95 Ala. 412, 8. C. 11
So. R. 262,

Kansas City, ete., R. R. Co. v.
Daughtry, 138 U. S. 298, 8. C.
11 Sup. Ct. BR. 306,

Kansas City, etc., R. R. Co. v.

_ Kirksey, 60 Fed. R. 999,

Kansas City, etc., Co.-v. Phillips,
a Ala. 159, 8. ©. 18 So. R.

Kansas City, ete., R. R. Co. v.
Ryan (Kan.), 30 Pac. R. 108,
Kansas City Transfer Co. v. Neis-

wanger, 27 Mo. App. 356,
Kansas Farmers’ Ins. Co. v. Haw-
ley, 46 Kan. 746, S. C. 27 Pac.
R. 176, 721, 1206
Kansas Pac. Ry. Co. v. Mihlman,
870

17 Kan. 224,

Kansas Pac. Ry. Co. v. Pointer,
1091, 1094, 1109

Kansas Pac. Ry. Co. v. Pointer,

1071

441
1056

1123
1070
399

14 Kan. 37,

9 Kan. 620, 712
Karcher v. Pearce, 14 Col. 557, S.

C. 24 Pac. R. 568, 639
Karle v. Kansas City, etc., R. R.

Co., 55 Mo. 476, 547
Karnes v. Alexander, 92 Mo. 660,

8.C.48. W.R.518, 317
Karr v. Chicago, ete., R. R. Co.

(Ia.), 54 N. W. R. 144, 1075
Karthaus v. Ferrer, 1 Pet. (U. 8.)

299. 583, 596
Kase v. Best, 15 Pa. St. 101, S. C.

53 Am. Dec. 578, 183, 1192

Kassebaum v. State, 44 Ind. 408, 655
Kauffman v. Kennedy, 25 Fed. R.

785, 457
Kauffman v. Wootters, 138 U.S.
285, S. C. 11 Sup. Ct. R. 298, 614

Kaufman v. Wilson, 29 Ind. 504, 413
Kaw Valley Life Ass’n v. Lemke,
40 Kan. 142,8. C. 19 Pac. R.

337, 607, 609
Kay v. Noll, 20 Neb. 380, 1092
Kay v. Watson, 17 Ohio 27, 451

Kayser v. Trustees of Breman, 16

Mo. 88, ; 144
‘Keagle v. Pessell, 91 Mich. 618,
S.C. 52 N. W. R. 58, 504

Kealing v. Spink, 3 Ohio St. 105, 276
Kealing v. Van Sickle, 74 Ind.
529, 1109, 1142

. Kean v. Colt, 5 N. J. Eq. 365, 496

Keane v. Waterford, 130 N. Y.
188, 8. C. 29 N. E. R. 130,

Kearney v. Case, 12 Wall. 275,

Kearney v. The Mayor, 92 N. Y.
617, 414, 504

534
1131
cliv

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.)

Kearney v. Snodgrass, 12 Ore.
311, S. C. 7 Pac. R. 309,

Keesey v. Old, 82 Tex. 22,8. C.
17S. W. R. 928,

Keater, etc., Co. v. St. Croix, etc.,

1181
539

Co., 7 Am. St. R. 837, 1041
Keaton v. Mulligan, 43 Ga. 308, 597
Keator v. People, 32 Mich. 484, 803

Keats v. Keats, 28 L. J. Mat.
Cases 169, ! 24

Keats v. Keats, 32 Law Times 321, 52

Keech v. Enriquez, 28 Fla. 597,

8. C. 10 So. R. 91, 381, 1076
Keedy v. Newcomer, 1 Md. 241, 714
Keegan v. Geraghty, 101 Tl. 26, 291
Keeler v. Frost, 22 Barb. (N. Y.)

400, 592
Keeler v. Harding, 23 Ark. 697, 597
Keeler v. Stead, 56 Conn. 501, 235

Keeline v. Council Bluffs, 62 Ia.
450,
Keen v. Breckenridge, 96 Ind. 69,

1139

410, 498
Keen v. Briggs, 46 Me. 467, 436
Keen v. Queen, 10 Q. B. 927, 152

Keen v. Schnedler, 92 Mo. 516, 641
Keene v. McDonough, 8 Pet. 308, 145
Keene v. Welch, 8 Mont. 305, 8.

C. 21 Pac. R. 25,

187 -
Keenerv. Goodson, 89 N. Car. 273, 183

Keener v. Union Pac. R. Co., 34
Fed. R. 871,
Keener v. Zartman, 144 Pa. St.
179, S. C. 22 Atl. R. 889, 882
Keeney v. Home Ins. Co.,71 N.
Y. 396, S.C. 27 Am. R. 60, 193
Keepfer v. Force, 86 Ind. 81,
190, 1182
Keerl v. Bridgers, 10 Sm. & M.
551

(Miss.) 612,
Keesling v. Doyle (Ind.), 35 N.

E. R. 126, 713
Keeton v..Keeton, 20 Mo. 530, 381
Kegg v. Welden, 10 Ind. 550, 603
Kehoe v. Blethen, 10 Ney. 445, 1203
Kehoe v. Burns, 84 Wis. 372, S.C.

54N. W.R. 731, 1140
Kehr v. Hall 117 Ind. 405, 409, 1147
Keith v. Edwards, 42 Ill. App. 250,
Keith v. Knoche, 43 Ill. App. 161,
Keith v. Sands, etc., Co., 88 Mich.

172, S.C. 50 N. W. R. 133, 5387
Keith v. State, 91 Ala. 2, S.C. 10

L. R. A. 430, S. C.8 So. R. 353,

152

Keith v. State, 49 Ark. 439, 236
Keith v. Wilson, 6 Mo. 435, S. C.

35 Am. Dec. 443, 179, 697

1162

 

Keithler v. Foster, 22 Ohio St. 27, 5
60
Kell v. Brillinger, 84 Pa. St. 276, 652
Kellam v. Toms, 38 Wis. 592, 431
Kellar v. Stanley, 86 Ky. 240, 8.
C.5 8. W. R. 477, 361, 431
Kellenberger v. Perrin, 46 Ind.
282, 1195, 1231
Keller v. Boatman, 49 Ind. 104,
529, 1104
Keller v. Gaskill (Ind.), 36 N. E.
R

. 303,
Keller v. Stevens, 66 Md. 132, S.
C. 6 Atl. R. 533, 1171
Kelley v. Adams, 120 Ind. 340, S.
C. 22 N. E. R. 317, 576, 594
Kelley v. Bennett, 132 Pa. St. 218,

8. C.19 Am. St. R. 594, 1044
Kelley v. Burns, 36 Ia. 507, 1146
Kelley v. Drury, 9 Allen 27, 284

Kelley v. Highfield, 15 Ore. 277, 804
Kelley v. Kelley (Ind.), 36 N. E.

R. 165,

Kelley v. Pelham, etc., Co.,67 Hun

650, 1041
Kelley v. Richardson, 69 Mich.

430, 8. C. 37 N. W. R. 514,
Kelley v. Stanberry, 13 Ohio 408,

1187
Kelley v. Weymouth, 68 Me.197, 473
Kelley v. Ryus, 48 Kan. 120,8. C.

29 Pac. R. 144, 1056
Kellogg v. Anderson, 40 Minn. 207, 33
Kellogg v. Carrico, 47 Mo. 157, 449
Kellogg v. Clyne, 54 Fed. R. 696,

1067
Kellogg v. Fancher, 23 Wis. 21,
8.C. 99 Am. Dec. 96, 498
Kellogg v. Freeman, 50 Miss. 127,"
478, 474
Kellogg v. Johnson, 38 Conn. 269, 325
Kellogg v. Nelson, 5 Wis. 125, 180, 783
Kellogg v. Stockton, 29 Pa. St. 460, 413

741

Kelly, In re, 46 Fed. R. 653, | 308
Kelly v. Bemis, 4 Gray 83, 8. C. 64
Am. Dee. 50, 145

ee Crawford, 5 Wall. (U. By

785,
Kelly v. Duffy (Pa.),11 Atl. R. 244, 8
Kelly v. Gilman, 29 N.H. 385, 8.

C. 61 Am. Dec. 648, 432
Kelly v. Harrison, 69 Miss. 856, S.

C. 12 So. R. 261, 434
Kelly v. Hockett, 10 Ind. 299, 639
Kelly v. Kelly, 3 "Barb. 419, 1225
Kelly v. Morse, 3 Neb. 224, 599
Kelly v. State, 1 Tex. App. 628, 33
Kelly v. State, 92 Ind. 236, 121

Kelly v. State, 31 Tex. Crim. R.

211, 8.C. 208. W. R. 357, 1081
TABLE OF CASES.

clv

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. I, pp. 608-1244.]

Kelsea v. Haines, 41 N. H. 246,
Kelsey v. Chicago, etc., Ry. Co.,
1S. Dak. 80,8. C. 45 N. W. R.
204, 1113
Kelsey v. Forsythe, 21 How. (U.
8.) 85; 255

Kelsey v. Layne, 28 Kan. 218, 801, 802
Kelsey v. Western, 2 N. Y. 500,

254, 1178
Kelsey v. Wiley, 10 Ga. 371, 315
Kelso v. Stigar, 75 Md. 876, S.C.

560

24 Atl. Rep. 18, 605
Kemmerer v. Edelman, 23 Pa. St.
143, 559

Kemnav. Brockhaus, 10 Biss. 128, 312
Kemp v. State, 13 Tex. App.561, 544
Kempe v.Crews, 1 Ld.Raym.167, 1155
Kempe vy. Kennedy, 5 Cranch 173,
128, 131
Kemper v. Campbell, 45 Kan. 529,
8. C. 26 Pac. R.53,
Kemper = Louisville, 14 Bush.
(Ky.) 8 654
Konda. Bates, 35 Me. 357, 582, 596
Kendall v. City "of Albia, 73, Ta.

243, S. C. 34 N. W.R. 838, 654
Kendall v. Hamilton, 4L. R. App.

Cases 504, 1195
Kendall v. Limberg, 69 Ill. 355, 510
Kendall v. Mather, 48 Tex. 585, 245

Kendall v. Post, 8 Ore. 141,

643, 1129
Kendall v. Powers, 4 Metef. 553, 342
Kendall v. United States, 12 Pet.

524, 241
Kendrick, Matter of, 107 N. Y.
104, 383
Kendrick v. Com., 78 Va. Te 781
Kennard v. Louisiana, 92 U. }
480, 8, 424
Kennedy y. Anderson, 98 Ind.
151, 1199
Kennedy v. Commonwealth, 78
Ky. 447, 228, 931, 631
Kennedy v.Cunningham, 2 Metef.
(Ky.) 538, 173

Kennedy v. Derrickson, 5 Wash.

289, S, C. 31 Pac. R. 766,

530, 637, 1136, 1146, 1150
Kennedy a Georgia ‘State Bank,

8 How. 5 128, 132
renee es “Gibbs, 15 Ill. 406, 553
Kennedy v. Giles, 25 Mich. 83,

214, 219
Kennedy v. Green, 3 Mylne & K.

699, 549
Kennedy v. cadianspeue, etc., Co.

3 Fed. R. 9 410
-Kennedy v. ‘Kennedy, 25 Kan.

151, 372

 

oo v. Kennedy, 18N. J. L.
Kennedy v. Mayor, 65 Md. 514,
Kennedy v. MeNichols, 29 “Mo.
App. il, 149, 234, 1147
Kennedy v. Merriam, 70 Ill. 228, 430
Kennedy v. People, 40 Ill. 488,
823, 824, 918
Ryall, 67 N. Y. 379, 544
State, 37 Ind. 355, 1231
State, 53 Ind..542, 232
Thorp, 51 N. Y. 174, 353
Sweeney, 14 R. I.
581, 1149
Kennedy v. Upshaw, 66 Tex. 442, 679
Kegg v. Welden, 10 Ind. 550, 607
Kenney v. Apgar, 93 N.Y. 539, 1181
Kenney v. Phillipy, 91 Ind. 511, 159
Kennon v. Gilmer, 131 U. 8. 22, 630
Kenn’s Case, 7 Coke 138, 274
Kenosha Stove Co. v. Shedd, 82
Ia. 540, S. C. 48 N. W. R. 983, 712
Kent v. Favor (N. Mex.),.5 Pac.
R. 470, 622
Kent v. French 76 Ia. 187, 8S. C.
40 N. W. R. 713,
Kent v. Lawson, 12 Ind. 675,
1158, 1169, 1212
Kent v. Lincoln, 32 Vt. 591, 706
Kent v. Mahaffy, 2 Ohio St. 498,

257, 486

Kent v. West, 50 Cal. 185, 608
Kent’s Admr. vy. Kent, 82 Va.

205, 1185

Kenton v. Spencer, 6 Ind. 321, 620
Kentucky, etc., v. Kenney, 82 Ky.

154, 233
Kentucky Eclectic Inst. v. Gaines

(Ky.), 18. W. R. 444, 459, 460
Kentucky, ete., Co. v. McKinney

1119

Kennedy v.
Kennedy v.
Kennedy v.
Kennedy v.
Kenney v.

591

(Ind.), 386 N. E. R. 448,- 1096
Kentucky, etc., Co. v. Smith, 93
Ky.-——, S. C.18 L. R. A. 63, 1166

Kentworthy v. Peftiat,4 B. & A.
288,
Kenyon v. Knights Templar, etc.,
Assn., 122 N. Y. 247, 538
Keokuk, etc., Co. v. Donnell, 77
Ta. 221, 8. C. 42 N. W. R. 176,
118, 332, 1214
Kerley v. West, 3 Litt. (Ky.) 362, 1054
Kerlick v. Meyer, 84 Tex. 158, 8.
C.19S. W. R. 379, 1069
Kermeyer v. Kansas, etc., Co., 18
Kan. 216,
Kern v. Bridwell, 119 Ind. 226,
Kern v. Wyatt (Va.),17 N. E. R.

432

1181

549, 558
Kern’ Valley Bank vy. Chester, 55
Cal. 49, 619
elvi

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.)

Kern Valley Water Co. v. McCord,

70 Cal. 646, 640
Kernodle v. Gibson, 114 Ind. 451, 1156
Kerr v. Bank, 4 N. J. L. 363, 626
Kerr y. Hitt, 75 Ill. 51, 449
Kerr v. Kerr, 41 N. Y. 272, 287
Kerr v. Lunsford, 31 W. Va. 660,

S. C. 2 L. RB. A. 668, 1064, 1069, 1087
Kerr v. McGuire, 28 N. Y. 446, 506
Kerr v. South Park, etc., 117 U.S.

379, 1128
Kerr v. Whitaker, 3 N. J. L. 106, 635

Kerrains v. People, 60 N. Y. 221,

544, 738
Kershaw v. Mathews, 1 Russ. 362, 496
Kershaw v. Wright,115 Mass.361, 1232
Ketcham’ a Brazil, etc., Co., 8

Ind. 515 1163
Ketcham v. Hill, 42 Ind. 64,

383, 518, 1240
Ketchin v. Landecker, 32 8. Car.

155, 462
Ketchman v. Brazil, ete., Co., 88

Ind. 515, 668
Ketchum v.White, 72 Ia. 198, 8. C.

83 N. W. R. 627, 245
Kettering v. City of Jacksonville,

50 Ill. 39, 144
Key v. Lynn, 4 Litt. (Ky.) 338, 738
Keybers v. McComber, 67 Cal.

395, 317
Keyes v. Fulton, 42 Vt. 159, 585
Keyes v. Grant, 118 U.8. 25, 8.C.

6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 974, 542
Keyes v. State, 122 Ind. 527,

30, 206, 780
Keyser v. Farr, 105 U. 8. 265, 255
Keyser v. Mitchell, 67 Pa. St. "473, 471
Keyser v. Renner, 87 Va. 249, 8.

C.128. E.R. 406, 409
Keyser v. Rice, 47 Md. 203, 282
Keystone Brewing Co. v. Walker

(Pa.), 11 Atl. R. 650, 559
Keystone, etc., Co. v. Martin, 132
U.S. 91, 1187

ats v. Benson, 17 Wall. (U.8.)
438

Kibler v. McIlwain, 16 So. Car.
550, 783

Kidd v. Brown, 2 How. Pr. 20, 443

Kidd v. Daugherty, 59 Mich. 240, 434

Kidd v. Harris, 30 Miss. 396, 1195
Kidwell v. Baltimore, etc., Co.,

11 Gratt. 676, 408
Kiefer v. Carrier, 53 Wis. 404, 896

Kiernan v. Railroad Co., 123 Tll.
188, S. C. 14.N. E. R. 18,

Kieth v. Sturges, 51 Ill. 142,

Kihlberg v. United States, 97 U.
8. 398,

814
395

407

 

Kilbourn v. Sunderland, 130 ae
S. 505, 268, 478
Kilbourn v. Woodworth, 5 Johns, m
2

Kiikourne vy. Thompson, 103 U.S.

168, 118
Kilburn v. Bennett, 3 Metcf.199, 312
Kilburn v. Deming, 21 Am. Dee. '

1

803, 804
Kile v. Town of Yellowhead, 80
Ill. 208, 344
Kille v. Reading Tron Works, 134
Pa. St. 225, S. C..19 Atl. R. 547,
a

543,
Kilburn v. Mullen, 22 Ia. 498,

183
511

1243
1192

Killian v. Augusta, etc., R. R. Co.,
78 Ga. 749, 8. C. 38. E.R. 621,
Killops v. Stephens, 74 Wis. 39,

S.C. 41 N. W. R. 790,
Killough v. Alford, 32 Tex. 457,
Kilmer v. St. Louis, etc., Ry. Co.,

87 Kan. 84,8. C. 14 Pac. E. ‘465, 622
Kilpatrick, etc., Co. v. Callender,

(Neb.) 52 N. W.R. 403, 467
Kilpatrick v. Strozier, 67 Ga. 247, 1179
Kilroy v. Mitchell, 2 Wash. 407,

S. C. 26 Pac. R. 865, "1186
Kimball v. Brown, 7 Wend. 822, 362
Kimball v. Cushman, 103 Mass.

194, 585
Kimball v. Davis, 19 Wend. (N.
Y.) 487, 509

Kimball v. Gilman, 60 N. H. 54, 586
Kimball v. Ives, 17 Vt. 430, 363
Kimball v. Kimball, 16 Mich. 211, 360
ans v. Parmerlee, 29 Minn.
1162
Kimball y. Thompson, 4 Cush. *
179

Kimber v. Schuylkill County, 20
Pa. St. 366, 258
Kimbereley v. Dick, L. R. 13 Eq.
1; 407

Kimberly v. Arms, 129U.8.512, 1128
Kimberly v. Arms, 40 Fed. R. 548,
258, 492
Kimble vy. Adair, 2 Blackf. 320, 675
Kime v. Polen (Pa.),8 Atl. R. 783,

533
Kimn v. Osgood, 19 Mo. 60, 379
Kincaid vy. Howe, 10 Mass. 208, 31
Kincaid v. Neall, 3 McCord 201, 158
Kincaid v. School District, 11 Me.
188, 399
Kincannon y. Carroll, 9 Yerg.
(Tenn.) 11, 539
King v. Adderley, Doug. 463, 379
King v. Baldwin, 2 Johns. Ch.
527, 132
TABLE OF CASES.

elvii

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1- 602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.]

King v. Beeston, 3 T. R. 592; 592
King v. Burnham, 129 Mass. 598, 190
King County v. Ferry, 5 Wash.

536, 1194
King’ v. Connolly, 44 Cal. 236, 411
King v. D’Eon, 1 W. Black. 510,

8. C. 3 Burr. 1513, 616 |
King v. Donahue, 110 Mass. 155, 30
King v. Faber, 51 Pa. St. 387, 1110
King v. Finch, 60 Ind. 420, 899
King v. Green, 2 Stew. 138, 8. C.

19 Am. Dec. ‘46, 155
King v. Howard, 27 Mo. 21, 587
King v. Hunter, 65 N. C. 608, S.

C. 6 Am. R. 754, 118
King v.: Inhabitants, 4T. R. 596, 164
King v. Jemison, 33 Ala. 499, 600
King v. King, 1 Rawle P. & W.

(Pa.) 15, 145
King v. Moore, 6 Ala. 160, 197

King v. N. Y. Cent. R. R. Co., 72
N: Y. 607,

King v. Nichols, etc.,Co.,53 Minn.
453, 8. C. 55 N. W. R. 604,

811
1211

King v. People, 28 Ala. 601, 565
King v. Poole, 36 Barb. 242, 249
King v. Rea, 13 Col. 69, 112
King y. Rocdale Land Co., 6 Eng.

L. & Eq. 241, 337

King v. Ruckman, 20 N. J. Eq.
816, 805

King y. Papp. 66 Tex. 519, 8. C. 2
S.W.R 242

King v. eek 8 Cush. ee
312,

King v. State, 90 Ala. 612, S. C. A
So. R. 856,
King v. ‘State, a Tenn. 617, S. C.
20S. W 169,
King v. bate, 15 Ind. 64,
King v. State, 3 L. R. A. "210,
King v. Vance, 46 Ind. 246,
King v. Wade, 1B. & Ad. 861,
King, etc., Co. v. City of St. Louis,
43 Fed. R. 768, S.C. 10 L. R.A.
826, 575, 594
King of Spain v. Oliver, 2 Wash.
(U.S. C. C.) 429, 204
Kingman v. Paulson, 126 Ind. 507, 321
Kingman, etc., Co. v. Quinn, 45
Kan. 477, 1134
Kingsbury v. Buchanan, 11 Ia. 387,
517, 520
Kingsbury v. Buckner, 134 U. 8.
650, S. C. 10 Sup. Ct. R. 638, 459
- Kingsford v. Hood, 105 Mass. 495, 1052
Kingsland v. Worsham, 15 Mo.

558

630
508
644
280, 463
1238

657, 464
Kingsley v. Bill, 9 Mass. 198, 596
Kingsley v. Wallis, 14 Me. 57, 556

 

Kingston v. Kincaid, 1 Wash. (U.

Kingston v. Towle, 48 N. H. 57,

Kinkade v. Myers, 17 Ore. 470, 8.
C. 21 Pac. R. 557,

Kinnaman v. Kinnaman, 71 Ind.

591
424

613

318
Kinney v. Baltimore, etc., Assn.,

35 W. Va. 885, S.C. 15 L. R.A,
587, 588, 589
Kinney v. Crocker, 18 Wis. 74, 493
Kinney v. Dodge, 101 Ind. 578, 677
Kinney v. Emery, 37 N.J.Eq. 339, 432

142,

Kinney v. Flynn, 2 Durfee (R. L )

319, 31
Kinney v. Lee, 10 Tex. 155, 377
Kinney vy. Miller, 25 Mo. 576, a
Kinning v. Buchanan, 8 C.

271, 242
Kinports v. Rawson, 29 W. Va. é

487, 155
Kinsman v. State, 77 Ind. 132, 797
Kipp, In ee e Mich. 79, 8. C. 29

N.W.R 1055
Kipp v. Gelling 33 Minn. 394, 451
Kipp v. Cook, 46 Minn. 585, 8.0.

49 N. W.R. 257, 304
Kipp v. Fernhold, 37 Minn. 132,

S. C. 33 N. W. R. 697, 448
Kipp v. Fullerton, 4 Minn. 473, 456
Kipp v. Wiles, 3 Sandf. (N. Y.)

585, 555
Kirby v. Bowland, 69 Ind. 290, 188
Kirby v. Holmes, 6 Ind. 33, 1195
Kirby v. State, 89 Ala..63, 8. C. 8

So. R. 110, 1080

Kirby v. Studebaker, 15 Ind. 45, 363

Kirchner v. Wood, 48 Mich. 199,
254, 1188

Kirk’s Appeal, 87 Pa. St. 243, S.

C. 30 Am. R. 357, 207
Kirk v. Bromly Union, 2 Phill.

640, 407
Kirk v. Grant, 67 Md. 418, 1169

Kirk v. Mowry, 24 Ohio St. 581, 1228
Kirk v. State, 14 Ohio 511, 1077
Kirkland v. Whately, 4 Allen

312

462,
Kirkpatrick v. Armstrong, 79 Ind.

38 675, 676
Kirkpatrick v. Holman, 25 Ind. fe
Kirkpatrick v. Reeves, 121 Ind.

280, 21, 1096, 1103
Kirkpatrick v. State, 5 Kan. 673, 213
Kirksey v. Fike, 27 Ala. 383, S.C.

62 Am. Dec. 768, 598
Kirkwood v. Reedy, 10 Kan. 453, 435
Kirland v. State, 43 Ind. 146, S.

C. 13 Am. R. 386, 1076
elviii

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 608-1244.]

Kirschbaum vy. Scott, 35 Neb. 199,

8. C. 52 N. W. R. 1112, 605
Kirschbon v. Bonsel, 67 Wis. 178,

8. C. 29 N. W. R. 907, 707
Kirten v. Spears, $4 Ark. 166, 598
Kirtland v. Moore, 40 N. J. Eq.

106, 407

Kirtley v. Deck, 3 H. & M. (Va.)
388, 115

Kisler v. Sanders, 40 Ind. 78, 383
Kistler v. Hereth, 75 Ind. 177, 380
Kistler v. Indianapolis, etc., Co.,

88 Ind. 460, 408, 588
Kitch v. Oatis, 79 Ind. 96, 1182
Kitchen v. Loudenback, 48 Ohio

St. 177, S. C. 29 Am. St. R.

540, 1231

Kitehen v. Reinsky, 42 Mo. 427, 435
Kitchen v. Williamson, 4 Wash.
Cc. C. 84, 333
Kitsmiller v. Kitchen, 24 Ia. 163,
429, 432
Kittredge v. Folsom, 8 N. H.98, 335
Kitts v. Wilson, 130 Ind. 492, S.

C. 29 N. E. R. 401, 551
Kitts v. Willson, 106 Ind. 147, 1129
Kitts v. Willson, 89 Ind. 95, 1048
Klackhoff v. Zoehrlaut, 43 Wis.

373, 1089
Klaine v. Catara, 2 Gall. 61, 575
Klanowski v. Grand Trunk Ry.

Co., 64 Mich. 279, S. C. 381 N.

W. R. 275, 812

Klatt v. Milwaukee, 53 Wis. 196, 549
Kleimann v. Geiselmann, 114 Mo.

437, 8. C. 218. W. R. 796, 1133
Kleinecke v. Woodward, 42 Tex.

311, 318
Kleinschmidt v. McAndrews, 117

U.S. 282, 718, 1217, 1219, 1227
Klepfer v. State, 121 Ind. ‘491, 8.

C. 23 N. E. R. 287, 1226
Klepsch v. Donald, 4 Wash. St.

436, S.C. 30 Pac. R. 991, 8. C. 31

Am. St. R. 936, 813, 1071
Kleyla v. Haskett, 112 Ind. 515, 8.

C. 14.N.E. R. 387, 426
Kleyla v. State, 112 Ind. 146, 1229
Kleiner v. Rochester, etc., Co. =

(Pa. St.), 19 Atl. R. 934, 1234
Kline v. Baker, 99 Mass. 253, 374
Kline v. Kline, 57 Ia. 386, 8. C.

10 N. W. R. 825, 289, 292
Kline v. Vogel, 90 Mo. 239, 376
Klock v. State, 60 Wis. 574, S.C.

19 N. W. R. 548, 736, 737
Klopp v. Creston City, ete., Co.

(Neb.), 52 N.W. R. 819, 442
Klosterman v. Olcott, 25 Neb. 382,

S. C. 41 N. W. R. 251, 413

 

Knapp v. Crosby, 1 Mass. 479, 293
Knapp v. Marshall, 26 Ill. 63, 1188
Knapp v. Roche, 82 N. Y. 366,
183, 1203
Knarr y. Conaway, 42 Ind. 260,
175, 641
Knathla v. Oregon, etc., Ry. Co.,

21 Ore. 186, S. C. 27 Pac. R.

Ol, 1087
Knaus v. Jenkins, 40 N. J. L. 288,

8. C. 29 Am. R. 287, 586
Kneeland v. State, 62 Ga. 395, 781
Knickerbocker Ins. Co. v. Tol- -

man, 80 Il. 106, 630
Knickerbocker Life Ins. Co. v.

Pendleton, 112 U. S. 696, 393
Knickerbocker, ete., Co. v. Smith,

147 Pa. St. 248, 8. C. 23 Atl. RB.

563, 574
Kniel v. Egleston, 22 Cent. L. J.

133, 71
Knight v. Bamberger, 19 Ind. 91, 161

Knight v. Burton, 6 Mod. 231, 572
ae v. Campbell, 62 Barb.

(N. Y.) 16, 643
Knight v. Clements, 45 Ala. 89, 384
Knight v. Clyde, 12 R. I. 119, 471

Knight v. Fisher, 15 Col. 176, 8.
C. 25 Pac. R. 78, 1119, 1155

Knight v. Freeport, 13 Mass. 218,
1124, 1159

Knight v. Holden, 104 N. Car. 107,
8. C.108. E. R. 90, 594

‘Knight v. Knight, 6 Ind. App.

268, S. C. 30 N. E. R. 421,
361, "1092, 1093

Knight v. Low, 15 Ind. 374, 603
Knight v. New England, etc., Co.,
2 Cush. (Mass.) 271, $42

Knight v. State, 70 Ind. 375,
Knight v. Vallentine, 35 Minn.
367, 1157
Knobloch v. Mueller, 123 Ill. 554,
8. C. 17 N. E. B. 696, 612
Knoche v. Railroad Co., 34 Fed.
R. 471,
Knode'v. Baldridge, 73 Ind. 54,
Knoth v. Barclay, 8 Col. 305, 8.
C. 7 Pac. R. 289,
Knott vy. Dubuque, ete., Co., 84 Ia.
462, 8. C. 51 N. W. R. 57, 813
Knowis v. Baker, 2 Carolina Law
Repository, 98, 632
Knowles v. Gaslight, ete., Co., 19
Wall. 58, 32 8, 455
Knowles v. People, 15 Mich.408, 1074
Knowles v. State, 27 Tex. App. 508,
8. C. 118. W. R. 522, 111
Knowles v. Summey, 52 Miss.377, 450
Knowlton v. Homer, 30 Me. 552, 596

152

84
379
112
TABLE OF CASES.

celix

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 608-1244.]

Knox County = eet 21
How. (U.8.) 5 15, 324
Knox County v. Nigth Nat. Bank,

13 Sup. Ct. R. 267, 157, 324
Knox vy. Beirne, 4 Ark. 460, 255
Knox v. Gregorious, 43 Kan. 26,

8. C. 22 Pac. R. 981, 1114
Knox. v. Lee, 12 Wall. (U. 8.)

457,

Knox v. Noble, 25 Kan. 449,
Knox v. Protection Ins. Co., 9

Conn. 480, 8. C. 25 Am. Dec. 33, 471
Knox ud Summers, 3 Cranch (U.

S.) 496 557
Koch v. Losch, 31 Neb. 625, S. C.

48 N. W. R. 471, 344
Koehler v. Buhl, 94 Mich. 496, S.

C.54N.W.R. 157, 800
Koehler v. Hill, 60 Ta. 543, 165, 324
Koerner v. State, 98 Ind. 7, 1068
Koger v. Franklin, 79 Ala. ’505,

217, 218
Kohn v. Lucas, 17 Mo. App. 29, 1233
Koon v. Insurance Co., 104 U. 8.
106,
Koon v.Pheenix Mut. Life Ins.Co.,

104 U. S. 106,

Koons v. Western Union Tel. Co.,

102 Pa. St. 164, 548
Koons v. Williamson,90 Ind,599, 1180
Kopelke v. Kopelke, 112 Ind.435,

1088, 1148, 1219
Korrady v. Lake Shore, etc., Co.,

181 Ind. 261, 8S. C. 29 N. E. R.

. — 1069, 1095, 1107
Kortjohn v. Seimers, 29 Mo. App.

271, 410
Kortright v. Cady, 21 N. Y. 348,

8. C. 78 Am. Dec. 145, 403
Koshkonong v. Burton, 104 U. 8.

668, 366
Kostendader v. Pierce, 37 Ia.645, 1199
Kottwitz v. Bagley, 16 Tex. 656, 909
Kraft v. Thomas, 123 Ind. 513,

360, 392
Krahmer vy. Heilman, 9 N. Y. 8.

633,

Kramer v. Rebman, 9 Ja. 114,
Kramer v. Winslow, 154 Pa. St.

_ 637, 8. C. 25 Atl. R. 766, 1081
Kraus v. Haas (Tex.), 25 8.W.R.

1025, 1076
Kraus v. Thompson, 30 Minn. 64, 528
Krausev. Dorrance, 10 Pa. St. 462,

8. C. 51 Am. Dec. 496, 362
Krauskoff v. Krauskoff, 82 Ia. 536,

S.C. 48 N. W. RB. 932, 1095
Krebs v. Olmstead, 137 Mass. 504, 382
Kreiss, In re (Cal.), 8. C. 28 Pac.

R. 5 " 576

1122 |:

 

Kreiss v. Hotaling, 96 Cal. 617, 8.
C. 31 Pac. R. 740,

Kreite v. Kreite, 93 Ind. 583,

Kreiter v. Bomberger, 82 Pa. St.
59, 802

Kreitline v ened 106 Ind. 359, 1179
Kremer v. Haynie, 67 Tex. 450, 292
Kreuziger v. Chicago, etc., R. R.
. Co., 73 Wis. 158, 534
Krider v. Milner, 99 Mo. 145, 1149
Krogg v. RB. R. Co., 77 Ga. 202 S.

C. 4 Am. St. R. 79, 373

Kronski v. Mo. Pac, R. R. Co., 77

Mo. 362,

Krueger v. Beckham, 35 Kan. 400,

8. C. 11 Pac. R. 158, 146
Krueger v. Grand Rapids, etc., R.

R. Co., 51 Mich. 142, 369
Krueger v. Krueger, 76 Tex. 178, 382
Krug v. Davis, 85 Ind. 309, 434
Krug v. Davis, 101 Ind. ‘75,

500, 1148
Kruse v. Wilson, 79 Ill. 233, 338
Krutz v. Craig, 53 Ind. 561,
394, 1186
Krutz v. Griffith, 68 Ind. 444,
174, 230, 633
Krutz v. Howard, 70 Ind. 174,
173, 629, 633, 635, 641, 1158
Kuhlman v. Medlinka, 29 Tex.

430

385, 1103
Kuhn y. Graves, 9 Ia. 303, 468
Kuhns y. Gates, 92 Ind. 66, 1096
Kuhuke v. Wright, 22 Kan.

464, 1198

Kullberg v. O’Donnell, 158 Mass.

405, S. C. 35 Am. St. R. 507,
es 1077, "1110

Kummel v. Germania Sav. Bank,

127N. Y. 488, S. C. isela. R. A.

786, 546
gia cae he pacnas 59 Mich.
355, §. C. 26 N. W. R. 634,
258, 653

Kungle v. Fasnacht, 29 Kan. 559, 324
Kunkel v. Chicago, 37 Ill. App. 325,

549
Kuns v. Young, 34 Pa. St. 60, 539
Kuntz v. Sumption, 117 Ind. 1, 424, -
Kunz v. City of Troy, 104 N.Y.
344, 549
Kurts v. St. Paul, etc., 48 Minn.
339, 51 N. W. R. 221, 294
Kyle v. Board of Commissioners,
94 Ind. 115, 392, 484
Kyle v. Frost, 29 Ind. 382, a

Kyle v. Kyle, 55 Ind. 387,
Kynaston v. Mayor, 2 Stra. MDT pe
elx

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol.,I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.]

L
Labar v. Koplin, 4 N. Y. 547, 1112
Labaree v. Wood, 54 Vt. 452, 519

Labatt v. Smith, 83 Ky. 599, 373
La Beau v. People, 34.N. Y. "903, 799
Labold y. Wilson, 4 Ohio Cir.
345, 1239
Labouisse v. Orleans, etc., Co., 43
La. Ann. 245, 582, S.C. 9 So.
Rep. 492, 619
Lacassagne v. Chapuis, 144 U. 8.
119, S.C. 12 Sup. Ct. R. 659, 329
Lackey v. Pearson, 101 N. Car.
651, 8. C.8 8. E. R. 121, 111
Lackey v. Seibert, 23 Mo. 85, 468
Lacy v. Wilson, 24 Mich. 479, 404
Lacompte v. Wash,8 Mo. 551, 1145
La Crosse, ete., Bank v. Wilson,
74 Wis. 391, 8. C. 43 N. W. R.
153, 1129
Ladd vy. Couzins, 35 Mo. 518, 492
Ladd v. Harvey, 21 N. H. 514, 496
Ladd vy. Hildebrant, 27 Wis. 135, 1169

Ladd v. Patten, 1 Cranch C.C. 263, 401
Ladnier v. Ladnier, 64 Miss. 368,

8. C. 180. R. 492, 1192
Lafayette v. Nagle, 113 Ind. 425, 370
Lafayette v. Neely, 21 Fed. R. 738, 528
La Fayette, etc., Bank v. Metcalf,

40 Mo. App. 494, 894
La Fayette, etc.,Co.v. Kleinhoffer,

40 Mo. App. 388, 110
La Fayette Ins. Co. v. French, 18

How. (U.58.) 404, 430, 440

Laffey v. Chapman, 9 Col. 304, 528
Laflin v. Harrington, 17 111.399, 1157
Laflin v. Railroad Co., 34 Fed. R.
859, 588
La Follett v. Akin, 36 Ind. 1, 493
La Follette v. Higgins, 129 Ind.
412, 1109
Lafond v. Deems, 81 N. Y. 508, 589

La Fontaine v.Southern,etc., Assn.,
83 N. Car. 182,
La Frombois y. Jackson, 8 Cow.
N. Y.589,S. C. 18 Am. Dec. 463,
370, 1103
LaGrange v. Ward, 11 Ohio 257, 155
Laidlaw v. Morrow, 44 Mich. 547,

781

473, 474

Laidley v. Kline, 21 W. Va. 21, 332
Laidley v. Rogers, 22 N. Y. Sup.
468, 509
Laird y. City of DeSoto, 32 Fed.
,R. 652, 1177
Laithe v. McDonald, 7 Kan. 254, 1146
Lake v. Bender, 18 Nev. 361, 1166

 

Lake v. Calhoun Co.,52 Ala.115, 1056
Lake v. Jones, 49Ind. 297, 1200, 1201
Lake v. King, 16 Nev. 215, 1182
Lake v. Sweet, 63 Hun 636, 8S. C.

18 N. Y. St. Rep. 342, 162
Lake v. Tolles, 8 Nev. 285, 849

Lake’s Petition, 15 R. I. 628, 8.
C. 10 Atl. R. 653,

Lake Erie, ete., Co. v. Acres, 108
Ind. 548,

Lake Erie & W. Ry. Co. v. Fish-
back, 5 Ind. App. 403, 8. C. 32
N. E. R. 346, 1097

Lake Erie, etc., Co.v. Fix, 88 Ind.
381, 1089

Lake Erie, etc., Ry. Co. v. Low-
der (Ind. App.), 34 N. E. R.
447,

Lake ‘Erie, etc., R. R. Co. v. Mid-
dleton, 142 Il. 550, S. C. 32 N.
E. BR. 453,

Lake Erie & Western Ry. Co. v.
Morain, 140 Ill. 117, 8. C. 29 N.
E. R. 869, 799, 1090

Lake Erie, etc., Co. v. Mugg, 132
Ind. 168, 8. C. 31 N. E. R. 564,

179, 812

Lake Erie, etc., Co. v. Parker, 94
Ind. 91, 712, 718, 1171

Lake Erie, etc., R. R. Co. v. Utz,

133 Ind. 265,
Lake Ontario Nat. Bank v. Jud-

110

609

536

son, 122 N. Y. 278, 677
Lake Shore, ete., Co. v. Cham-

bers, 89 Mich. 5, 8. C.50 N. W.

R. 741 1136

Lake Shore & Mich. So. Ry. Co.

v. Cin., W. & M. Ry. Co., 116

Ind. 578, 98
Lake Shore, etc., Co. v. Foster,

104 Ind. 293, 1
Lake Shore, ete., Ry. Co. v. Hunt,

39 Mich. 469, 440
Lake Shore, etc., Co. v. Perkins,

25 Mich. 329,

Lake Shore, etc., Co. v. Pinchin,

112 Ind. 592,
Lake Shore, ete., Co. v. Richards

(I.), 32 N. E. R. 402, 1076
Lake Shore, ete.,Co. v. Stupak, 123

Ind. 210, 11038, 1107
Lake View v. Tate, 130 Ill. 247,

8. C.6L. R. A. 268, 545
Lamar v. Gunter, 39 Ala. 324, 241
Lamar v. Nicholson, 7 Porter

576
820

(Ala.) 158,
Lamar v. State, 65 Miss. 93,
Lamb vy. Bush, "49 Mo. App. 337, 1186
Lamb v. Camden, 2 Daly (N ye )-
454, 554
TABLE OF CASES.

clxi

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.]

Lamb v. Clark, 5 Pick. (Mass.)
375

198,
Lamb v. Irwin, 69 Pa. St. 436, 531
519, 1129

Lamb v. Lamb, 105 Ind. 456,
Lamb v. Lathrop, 13 Wend. (N.

Y.) 95, S. C. 27 Am. Dec. 174, 402
Lamb v. McConkey, 76 Ia. 47, gs.
C. 40 N. W. R. 77, 1179

1200
338

Lamb v. Nelson, 34 "Mo. 501,
Lamb v. Schottler, 54 Cal. 319,
Lambert v. McFarland, 7 Nev.
159, 108:
Lambert v. Sample, 25 Ohio St.

336 438
Lamiedt v. Smith, 1 Cranch Cc. C.

347, 620
Lamkin v. Douglass, 27 Hints (N.

Y.) 517, 465
Lamon v. McKee, 7 Mackey 447, 254
Lampe v. Kennedy, 60 Wis. 110, 1071
Lampe v. Manning, 38 Wis. 673, 143
Lamphier v. State, 70 Ind. 317, 1158
Lamphire v. Cowan, 39 Vt. 420,

594, 595

Lamphrey v. Munch,21 Minn. 379,
783

Lampkin v. State, 87 Ga. 516, 8.

C. 138. E. R. 523, 665, 666, 668
Lamson v. Falls, 6 Ind. 309, 1238
Lampson v. Platt, 1 Ia. 556, 242
Lanagin v. Nowland, 44 Ark. 84, 1105
Lancashire v. Lancashire, 9 Beav.

120, . 1210
Lancaster v. Collins, 115 U.S, 222,

669, 1141
Lancaster v. State, 91 Tenn. 267,

8. C. 188. W. RB. 777, 308
Lancaster v. Waukegan, etc., Co.,

182 Ill. 492,8. C. 24 N. E. R. 629, ca
Lancaster Bank v. Woodward, 18

Pa. St. 357, 554

366

Lancaster County v. Brenthall, 29

Pa. St. 38,

Lance v. Donnell, 105 Pa. St. 46,
1163
Lance v. McCoy, 34 W. Va. 416, S.

C. 128. E. R. 728, 289
Landa v. Obert, 78 Tex. 33, 721
Landa vy. State, 26 Tex. App. 580,

S.C. 108. W. R. 218, 307
Landers v. Staten Island, etc., 14

Abb. Pr. (N. 8.) 346, 337
Landers v. Staten Island, etc.,

Co., 53 N. Y. 450,
Landes v. Globe, etc., Co., 73 Ga.

Lanatord Vv. Dunklin, 71 Ala. 594,
K 824

 

Landis v. Roth, 109 Pa. St. 621, S.

C. 58 Am. R. 747, 382
Landis v. Saxton, 105 Mo. 486, 8.

C, 24 Am. St. R. 403, 372
Landon v. Comet, 62 Mich. 80, S.

C. 28 N. W. R. 788, 235, 322, 610
Landon v. Townshend, 129 N. y.

166, 8. C.29 N. E. R71, 871

Landsdown, Ex parte, 5 East. 38, 393
Lanev. Bommelmann, 21111.148, 1191
Lane v. Borst, 5 Robt. “(N. Me) 609,

1146
Lane v. Cameron, 38 Wis. 603, 865
Lane v. Crosby, 42 Me. 327, 341
Lane v. Ellinger, 32 Tex. 369, 185
Lane vy. Innes, 43 Minn. 137,8.C.
45 N. W. R. 4, 446, 448, 452
Lane v. Nelson, 79 Pa. St. 407, 117
Lane v. Scoville, 16 Kan. 402, 665

Lane vy. State, 29 Tex. App. 310,

8. C.158. W. R. 827, 646
Laney v. Garbee, 105 Mo. 355, 8.

C. 168. W. R. 831, 438, 452, 456
Lanfear v. Mayor, 4 La. 97, 8. C.

23 Am. Dec. 477, 136, 224
Lanfear v. Sumner, 17 Mass. 110, 556
Lang v. Salliotte, 7 L. R. A.

720, 584
Lang’ Vi pies 16 Lea 433, 8. C.1

8. W.R.3 1058
Lange, Ex ate, 18 Wall. 163,

118, 248, 255, 280, 340
Lange v. Benedict, 723N.Y.1
“tes, 260
Lange v. Dammier, 119 Ind. 567,

8. C. 21 N. E. R. 749, 388
Langdon v. Bullock, 8 Ind. 341, 1197
Langdon v. Doud, 6 Allen 423, S.

C. 83 Am. Dec. 641, 312, 381
Langdon v. Goole, 3 Lev. 21, 538
Langdon yv. Vermont, etc., R. R.

Co., 53 Vt. 228, 497
Langenberg v. Decker, 131 Ind.

471, 8. C.16 L, R. A. 108, 31 N.

E. R. 190, 170

Langford v. Ottumwa, etc., Co.,

53 Ia. 415, 1197
Langford v. People, 134 Tll. 444, 8.

C. 25 N. E. R. 1009, 637
Langhome v. Com., 76 Va. 1012, 804
Langley v. Warner, 3 N. Y. 327,

526, 1108
Langsdale v. Woollen, 99 Ind. 575,

360, 362
Langworthy v.Green Tp.,95 Mich.

93, S. 0. 54 N. W. R. 697, 810
Lanier v. Alison, 31 Fed. R. 100, 485
cae cr Ervin, 12. Rich. (8. si

Car.) 3
Lants v. Mattatt, 102 Ind. 23, 321
elxii

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp.

Lapeer Ins. Co. v. Doyle, 30 Mich.

159,

LaPlante v. Lee, 83 Ind. 155, 164
LaPointe Supervisors v. O’ Malley,

47 Wis. 332, 202
LaPorte v. Organ, Bind. App. 369,

8. C. 30 N. E. R. 2 1219
Lapreese v. Falls, 7 Ind. 692, 1128
Lapsley v. Weaver, 44 Ala. 131, 1168
Large v. Orvis, 20 Wis. 696, 545
Larillian v. Lane, 8 Ark. 372, 643
Larimore v. Hornbaker, 21 Ind.

430, 401
Larkins v. Bullard, 88 N. Car. 35, 443
Larman v. Huey, 13 B. Mon. 436,

179, 1043
Larmore v. Iron Co., 101 N. Y. 391, 369
Larned yv. City of Dubuque (Ia.),

53 N. W. R. 105, 567
La Rose v. Logansport, etc., Bank,

102 Ind. 332, 1237
Larquie v. Wife, 40 La. Ann. 450, 312
Larsen v. Breene, 12 Col. 480, g.

C. 21 Pac. R. 498, 404
Larsen v. Johnson, 78 Wis. 300,

S. C. 23 Am. St. R. 404, 519
Larue v. Russell, 26 Ind. 886, 179, 695
Lasak’s Will, In re, 131 N. Y. 624,

S. C. 30 N. E. R. 112, 720
Laselle v.Wells, 17 Ind. 33, 633, 1063
Lasere v. Rochereau, 17 Wall.

437, 280, pe 339
Lash v. Warren (Tex.), 14 s.W

R. 6

1198
Lash v.Von Neida, 109 Pa. St. 207,
385

536

Lasseter % Simpson, 78 Ga. 61, 8.
C.358. E. R. 243, 1215
Lassiter v. State, 67 Ga. 739, 696
Latham v. Chafee, 7 Fed. R. 525,
194, 195, 496
Latham v. Hartford, 27 Kan. 249,

399, 400
Lathrop v. Bank, 8 Dana 114, 275
Lathrop v. Doty, 82 Ia. 272, 8. C.

47 N. W. RB. 1089, 344
Lathrop v. Page, 129 Mass. 19,
Lathrop v. Schnellbaker, 6 Ohio

St. 276,

Latta v. Griffith, 57 Ind. 329,
Lauer v. Bandow, 48 Wis. 638,
Laughlin v. Peckham, 66 Ia. 121,
Laughlin v. Santa Fe Co., 3. M.

264, 8. C. 5 Pac. R. 817,
Laughlin v. State, 18 Ohio 99, 8.

C. 51 Am. Dec. 444,

Laughlin v. Street Ry. Co., 80

Mich. 154, 8. C. 44 N. W. R.

1049,

369
191
1195
155
483

179

822

 

Lauman v. Young, 31 Pa. St. 306, 584

TABLE OF CASKS.

1-602, Vol. II, pp. G08-1244.]

Laumeier v. ae a 110 Mo. 122,
8. C.198. W. R. 8 1133

Launtz v. Heller. 41 iil, App. 528,
"1208

Lavender v. Lavender, Ir. Rep. 9

Eq. 593, 497
Laverty v. State, 109 Ind. 217, 1215
Laverty v. Woodward, 16 Ia. i 111

age Vv. ape 25 Fla. 1,8. C.6
So. R 1129

Lavin v. Pedole. 68 Ill. 303, 663

Law v. Duncan, 2 Brev. (S. Car.)
263, 1197

Law v..Henry, 39 Ind. 414,

Law v. Jackson, 8 Cow. 746,

Law v. Law, 83 Ala. 432, 8. C.3

394
1239

So. R. 752, 543
Law v. Nelson, 14 Col. 409, 8. C.

24 Pac. R. 2, 614
Lawhorn v. Carter, 11 Bush. (Ky. M

7,
Lawler v. White, 27 Tex. 250, 319
Lawlins v. Lackey, 6 Monr. (Ky.)

70, 452
Lawlor v. Linforth, 72 Cal. 205, 658

Lawrence v. Clark, 14 Mees. &
W. 250,
Lawrence v. Commonwealth, 86

506

Va. 573, 8. C. 10S. E. R. 840, = 718-
Lawrence v. Evarts, 7 Ohio St.
194, 383

Lawrence v. Farley, 73 N.Y. 187, 162
Lawrence v. Fast, 20 Ill. 338, 8.
C. 71 Am. Dec. 274, 1191
Lawrence v. Grambling, 13 So.
Car. 120, 112
Lawrence v. Greenwich, etc., -
1 Paige (N. Y.) 587,
Leen v. Jones, 15 Abb. Pr.
(N. Y.) 110, 453
Lawrence v. Miller, 86N. Y.181, 405
Lawrence v. Rokes, 61 Me. 38, 377
Lawrence v. State, 30 Ark. 719, 444
Lawrence v. Stearns,11 Pick.501, 1118
Lawrence v. Traner, 136 Ill. 474,
S.C. 27 N. E. R. 197, 483
Lawrence v. Wilcock, 11 Ad. &
El, 941, 239, 262, 609
Lawrence v. Wright, 2 Duer (N.
Y.) 673, 22
Lawson v. Buckley, 49 Hun 329, 413
Lawson v. Glass, 6 Col. 134, 180
Lawson v. Hilgenberg, 77 Ind.
221, 11382, 1143
Lawson v. Jeffries, 47 Miss. 686,
8. C.12 Am. R. 342,
Lawson v. Moore, 44 Ala. 274,
1181, 1182
Lawson v. Moorman, 85 Va. 880,
293, 445

117
TABLE OF CASES.

elxili

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, §§ 1-602, Vol. I, §§ 603-1244,]

Lawson v. State, 32 Ark. 220, 803
Lawton v. Lawton, 3 Atk. 16, 965
Lawton v. Maner, 9 Rich. ’(So.
Car.) 335, 413
Lawyer v. Smith, 8 Mich. 411, 543

Lawyers’ Tax Cases, 8 Heisk. 650, 116 |.

Layman v. Graybill, 14 Ind. 166,
184, "1124
Layne v. Ohio River R. Co., 35 W.

Va. 488, S.C. 1458S. E. R. "128, 612
Layton v. Riney, 33 Mo. 87, 1047
Lazzarone v. Oishei, 21 N. Y.

Supp. 267, 611
Lea v. Henry, 56 Ia. 662, 559
Lea vy. State, 64 Miss. 294, 8. C. 1

So. R. 244, 624
Lea v. Yates, 40 Ga. 56, 1191, 1193
Leach v. Blakely, 34 vt. 134, 1205
Leach v. Church, 10 Ohio St. 148,

1103, 1146
Leach v. Beant, 58 N. Y. 630, 874
Leach v. People, 122 Ill. 420, 216
Leach v. Pillsbury, 18 N. H. 525, 154
Leach v. Republic Ins. Co., 58 ‘N.

H. 245, 588
Leach v. Western, etc., R. R. Co.,

65 N. Car. 486, 627
Leach v. Wilbur, 9 Allen 212, 1123

Leache v. State, 22 Tex. App. 279,
Leak v. Covington, 95 N. Car. 193,

Leake v. Gallogly, 34 Neb. 857, S.
C. 52 N. W. R. 824, 604, 611

Learned v. Hall, 133 Mass. 417, 823
Learned vy. Vandenburgh, 8 How.

Pr. (N. Y.) 77, 468
Leary v. Ebert, 57 Ind. 415, 629
Leary v. Leary, 68 Wis. 662, 1162
Leasure v. Coburn, 57 Ind. 274, 540

Leather, etc., Bank v. Merchants’
Bank, a U.S. 26, 5.C.9 Raps
Ct. R23

Leatherman v. Times Co., 88 Ky.
291, S. C. 21 Am. St. R. "342,

Leathers v. Morris, 101 'N.
184,

Leathers v. Salvor Wrecking Co.,

2 Woods (C. C.) 680, 8

Leavenworth, etc., Co. v. Wilkins,

45 Kan. 674, S. C. 26 Pac. R. 16,

Leavitt v. Baker, 82 Me. 26, 8. C.

19 Atl. R. 86, 514
Leavitt v. Leavitt, 138 Mass. 355,

S. 0. 33 N. E. BR. 527, "1057
Leavitt v. Windsor Land, etc.,Co.,

54 Fed. R. 489, 591
Lebanon Bank v. Karmany, 98 Pa.

St. 42, 1209

364

378
Car.
431

 

Lebold v. Ottawa Bank, 51 Kan.
381, S. C. 32 Pac. R. 1103,
Leclair v. Patterson, 4 Blackt. 278,

1136

521
Le Coulteux De Caumont v. Mor-

gan (N. Y.),9 N. E.R. 861,58.

Cc. Matter of Morgan, 104 N. Y.

74, 720
Lee v. Basey, 85 Ind. 548, 1194
Lee v. Board, 3 Wyo. 52, 8. C. 31

Pac. R. 1045, 1224
Lee vy. Buckheit, 46 Wis. 246, 636
Lee vy. Burnham, 82 Wis. 209, 8.

C.52N. W.R. "055, 544
Lee v. Carrollton, ete., Assn., 58

Md. 301, 1189
Lee v. Clute, 10 Nev. 149, 1120
Lee v. Dolan, 39 N. J. Eq%193, 597
Lee v. Grimes, 4 Col. 185, 582
Lee v. Hassett, 39 Mo. App. 67, 557
Lee v. Macfee, 45 Minn. 33, 438

Lee v. Parry, 4 Denio (N.Y: 5 125, 592
Lee v. Quirk, 20 Tl]. 392, 1077
Lee v. State, 56 Ark. 4, $. C.19 $.

W.R. 16, 146
Lee v. State, 26 Ark. 260, 1124
Lee v. State, 88 Ind. 256, 200
Lee v. Stowe, 57 Tex. 444, 509
Lee v. Tillotson, 24 Wend. 337, 8.

C. 35 Am. Dee. 624, 333, 644
Lee v. Virginia, etc., Co., 18 W.

Va. 299, 1024
Lee, etc., Co. v. Englebach,18 Col.

106, 8. e 31 Pac. R. 771, 1162
Leech v. State, 78 Ind. 570, 257, 486
Lee Chuck v. Quan Wo Chong, or

Cal. 593, S. C. 28 Pac. R. 45 1151
Leeds v. Burrows, 12 East 1, 573
Leeds v. Cook, 4 Esp. 256, 506
Leeds v. Sayward, 6 N. H. 83, 199
Leeper v. Taylor, 111 Mo. 312, s.

C.19 8S. W. R. 955, 349
Leese v. Sherwood, 21 Cal. 151, 1180
Leet v. Wilson, 24 Cal. 398, 712
Leffel v. Obenchain, 90 Ind. 50, 1230
Lefferts v. State, 49N. J. L. 26, S.

C. 6 Atl. R. 521, 1243

Leffler v. Field, 33 How. Pr. 385,
1146

Lefler v. Field, 50 Barb. (N. Y.)
407,
Leforge vy. West, 2 Ind. 514,. 487
Leftwich v. Commonwealth, 20
Gratt. 716, 1216
Leftwich v. Day, 32 Minn. 512,
1106, 1112
Leftwitch v. Lecanu, 4 Wall. 187,
"1235
120
120

783

Legal Tender Cases,110 U.S. 421,
Legal Tender Cases, 15 Wall. 457,
elxiv

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 608-1244.]

Lego v. Shaw, 38 Wis. 401,

Le Guen vy. Gouverneur, 1 Johns
Cas. 436, 8. C.1 Am. Dec. 121,
Lehman v. Hildebrand (Pa.), 10

Lance. L. Rev. 249, 1120
Lehman v. Kellerman, 65 Pa. St.

489, 1041
Lehman y. Van Winkle, 92 Ala.

629
1185

443, 8. C. 8 So. R. 870, 353
Lehnen v. Dickson, 148 U.S. 71,
S. C. 13 Sup. Ct. R. 481, 1140, 1141

Leib v. Commonwealth, 9 Watts
(Pa.) 200,

Leiber v. Chicago, etc. gS Co.,84
Ta. 97, 8. C.50 N. W _ B. 547,

1070, 1078

Leicester, etc., Co. v. Front Royal,
etc., Co.,65 Fed. R. 190, 1205

Leidlein v. Meyer, 95 Mich. 586,
8.C.55 N. W. R. 367, 813, 1169

Leigh v. Alpaugh, 24.N. J. L. 629, 432

Leighton v. Orr, 44 Ia. 679, 1142

Leighton v. Sargent, 31 N. H. 119,
8. ©. 64 Am. Dec. 323, 1078

Leimer v. Pacific R. R., 26 Mo.
26,

Leitch v. Beaty, 23 Ill. 642,

152

1049
598

Leitch v. Wells, 48 N. Y. 585, 499
Leiter v. Jackson (Ind.), 35 N. E.

R. 289, 1057
Leith v. Leith, 39 N. H. 20, 287
Leitham v. Cusick, 1 Utah Ter.

242, 488
Leland v. Goodfellow, 84 Mich.

357, 8. C. 47 N. W. R. 591, 528
Lemar v. Williams, 39 Miss. 342, 1068
Lemke v. Chicago, etc., R. R. Co. bs

39 Wis. 449, 1098
Lemon v. Temple, 7 Ind. 556, 409
L’Engle v. Florida Cent. R. R.Co. “5

14 Fla. 266, 498
Lennox v. Knox, etc., Co., 62 Me.,

322, 1158, 1165
Lenoir v. Moore, 61 Miss. 400, 1194
Lent v. Tillson, 140 U. 8. 316, 170
Leo v. Union, ete., Co., 17 Fed.

R. 273, 489
Leominster v. Fitchburg, etc., R.

R. Co., 7 Allen (Mass.) 38, 590
Leonard v. Blair, 59 Ind. 510, 230
Leonard v. Broughton, 120 Ind.

536, S. C. 16 Am. St. R. 347, 190
Leonard v. House, 15 Ga. 473, 573
Leonard v. Mulry, 93 N. Y. 392, 590
Leonard v. Southern Pacific Co.,

21 Ore. 555, 8. C. 15 L. R.A.

221, 811, 812
Leonard v. Tyler, 60 Cal. 299, 412

Leonard v. Wading, etc., Co., 113

Mass. 235, 597

 

Leonard v. Warriner, 20 Wis. 41, 1227
Lerch v. Emmett, 44 Ind. 331,
237, 1240
Le Roy v. Clayton, 2 Sawy. 493, 241
Le Roy v.Cr owninshield, 2 Mason
(C. C.) 151, 382
Le Roy v. Platt, 4 Paige 77,
239, 261, 1130
Leroy, etc., R. R. Co. v. Ross, 40 :
Kan.598, 8.C.2L.R.A.217, 1064
Leslie v. Fischer, 62 Ill. 118, 604
Leslie v. Leslie (N.J.), 24 Atl. R.
319, 594, 596, 601
Leslie v. Leslie (N.J.), 24 ‘Atl. R.

1029, 575
Leslie v. Merrick, 99 Ind. 180, 1098
Leslie v. Merrill, 58 Ala. 322, 475

Lessee of Boswell v. Sharp, 15
Ohio St. 447,

Lessee of Fowler v. Whiteman, 2
Ohio St. 270, 827

oe of Griffith v. Wright, 18 Ga.
173,

Lessees of Grignon y.Astor,2 How.
(U. 8.) 319, 315, 325, 427

Lessee of Perry v. Braiard, 11
Ohio 442,

Lessee of Sheldon ,v. Newton, 3

299

314

293

Ohio St. 494, 293
Lessner v. Banks, 46 Ark. 482, 1235
Lester v. Berkowitz, 125 Ill. 307,

8.0.17 N. E.R. 706, 1184
Lester v. Callaway, 73 Ga. 730, 599
Lester v. Garland, 15 Ves. 248, 379
Lester v. State, 2 Tex. App. 4382,

646, 663
Lester v. Thompson, ee Mich.245,

8. C. 51 N. W.R. 8 "382
Lestrade v. Barth, 17 Ca. 285, 1208
Letney v. Marshall, 79 Tex. 518,

8. C. 15S. W. R. 586, 266
Letton v. Graves, 26 Mo. 250, 718
Letton v. Young, 2 Metc. 588, 1074
Leuder v. People, 6 Ill.App. 98, 1058
Leverett v.State,3 Tex.App. 213, 1120
Leverich v. Frank, 6 Ore. 212, 804
Levi v. Daniels, 22 Ohio St. 38, 1148

Levi v. Fred (Neb.), 57 N. W. R.
386, 1078

Levi v. Monroe, 11 Ia. 453, 1195
Levin v. Russell, 42 N.Y. 251, 720
Lewiston v. French, 45 N. H. 21, 512
Levy v. Brannan, 39 Cal. 485, 1118

Lew: Chittenden, 120 Ind. 37,
185, 1109, 1151, ieee
Levy v. Ferguson, ete., Co.,
Ark. 317, 8. C.118. WR Ses 317
Levy v. Gadsby, 3 Cranch (U.S.)
180, 537
Levy’ v. Karrick, 15 Ia. 444, 255
TABLE OF

CASES. - elxv

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 608-1244.)

Levy v. Rice, 5 L. R. C. P.119, 628
Levy v. State, 28 Tex. App. 203,

8. C. 19 Am. St. R. 826, 799, 802
Levy v. Stewart, 11 Wall. (U 8.)

244, 381
Lewark v. Carter, 117 Ind. 206, 1208
Lewellin v. Mackworth, 2 Atk. 40,

8. C. Barn. 445, 373
Lewin v. Dille, 17 Mo. 64, 161
Lewin v. Smith, 4 East 589, 430
Lewis v. Adams, 70 Cal. 403, 8.C.

_ 11 Pac. R. 833, 378
Lewis y. Allred, 57 Ala. 628, 298
Lewis v. Blue, 110 N. Car. 420, 8.

C..15 8. E. RB. 196, 206
Lewis v. Chapman, 16 N.Y. 369, 540
Lewis v. Christie, 99 Ind. 377,

1070, 1073
Lewis v. Dutton, 8 How. Pr. 99, ‘
314, 324
Lewis v. Ewing, 70 Ind. 282, ° 1230
Lewis v. Faul, 29 Ark. 470, 474
Lewis v. Godman, 129 Ind. 359, S.

C. 27 N. E. R. 563, 182
Lewis v. Grace, 44 Ala. 307, 430
Lewis v. Hoboken, 42N.J.1. 377, mm

1
Lewis v. Hodgdon, 17 Me. 267, 915

Lewis v. Lewis, 20 Mo. App. 546,
255
Lewis v. Lord Zouche, 5 Sim, 388,

497

Lewis v. Marshall, 5 Pet. (U. 8.)
469, 380
Lewis v. Masters, 8 Blackf. 244, 393
Lewis v. May, 22 Ia. 599, 182
Lewis v. Merritt, 98 N. Y. 206, 719

Lewis v. Morrow, 89 Mo. 174, S.
C.18. W. R. 93, 245
Lewis v. Morse, 20 Conn. 211, 517
Lewis v. Morton, 5 T. B. Mon. 1, -

Lewis v. New York, etc., 123 N.
Y. 496, 1220
Lewis v. "Owen, 64 Ind. 446, 190

. Lewis v. Railroad Co., 123'N. Y.
496, 1206
Lewis v. Shainwald, 7 Saw. 403,
S. C. 48 Fed. R. 492 477

Lewis v. State, 35 Ala. 380, 807
Lewis v. State, 90 Ga. 95, S. C. 16
S. E. R. 986, 800
Lewis v. United States, 146 U.S.
370, 1219
Lewis v. Watrus, 7 Neb. “47, 1192
Lewis v. Webb, 3 Me. 326, 117, 121

Lewis v. Webber, 116 Mass. 450, 469

Lewisburgh Bank v. Sheffey, M40
U.S. 445, 1187

Lewiston v. Proctor, 23 Ill. 483, 217

 

Lewiston, etc., Co.v.Franklin Co.,

54 Me. 402, 487
Lewless v. Detroit, etc., R. R. Co.,
62 Mich. 292, 571

Lexington, etc., Co. v. Ford Plate
‘Glass Co., 84 Ind. 516, 467
Lexington Ins. Co. v. Paver, 16
Ohio 324, 675
Lex’s Appeal, 97 Pa. St. 289, 128
Leyner v. State, 8 Ind. 490, 635, 1220
Libby v. Crossley, 40 Fed. R. 564,
1239
Liberty v. Burns, 114 Mo. 426, 8.
C. 218. W. R. 728, 114
License Cases, 5 How. (U. 8.
504, 120, 303
Liddle v. Old Lowell Nat. Bank

(Mass.), 32 N. E. R. 954, 799
Lieberman v. Hoffman, 102 Pa.

St. 590, 475
Lienburger v. State (Tex.), 21 8.

W. Rep. 603, 820
Lienow v. Ellis, 6 Mass. 331, 310

Life Ins. Co. v. Adams, 9 Pet.
578, 178, 1241
Life and Fire Ins. Co. v. Mechan-
ics’, etc., Co., 7 Wend. (N. Y.)

31

Lift Vv. Jones, 77 Ga. 181,

Ligan v. State, 3 Heisk. ea)
159,

Ligare v. California 8. R. R. ea
ct a 610, S. C. 18 Pac. Rep.
77

Liggett, etc., mee v. Collier Tash

6 N. W. RB. 917.

Light v. Richardson (Cal.), a

Pac. R. 1128, 618
Lightner v. Steinagel, 8311].510, 197
Lightsey v. Harris, 20 Ala. 409, 158
Likens v. McCormick, 39 Wis. 313,

445, 452
Liles v. Ratchford, 88 Ala. 397, 8.

C. 6 So. R. 914, : 527
Liliard’s Ex’r v. Liliard’s Ex’rs,

5 B. Mon. (Ky.) 340, 454
Lill v. Russell, 22 Wis. 178, 395
Lillard v. Brannin (Ky. Ae 16 S.

W. R. 349,

Lillie v. Trentman, 130 Ind. 16, 8.

C. 29N. E. R. 405,

Lilly v. Larkin, 66 Ala. 122,
Lilly v. N.Y. Cent., ete., R. BR. Co. es

107 N. Y. 566, 547
Lilly v. Tobbein (Mo.), 13 Ss. W.

Rep. 1 378
Limerick v. Murlatt, 43 Kan. 318, 220
Lincoln v. Battelle, 6 Wend. (N.

Y.) 475, 373
Lincoln v. Cook, 3 Ill. 61, 598

507
1071

433

228
191
elxvi

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.)

Lincoln v. Copper Mfg. Co., 9 Al-

len (Mass.) 181, 811
Lincoln vy. Gillilan, 18 Neb. 114, S.

C. 24 N. W.R. 444, 105
Lincoln vy. Hapgood, "11 Mass. 350,

1109, "1155
Lincoln v. Norton, 36 Vt. 679, 380
Lincoln v. Whittenton Mills, 12

Metc. (Mass.) 31, 595
Lincoln v. Wright, 4 Beavan 166, 728
Lincoln Rapid Transit Co. v. Run-

dle (Neb.), 52 N. W. R. 563,
Linde v. Republic, etc., Co., 18 J.

&S. (N. Y.) 362,

Linden Gravel Mining Co. v.Shep-

‘Jar, 53 Cal. 245, 613
Linderman v. Pomeroy, 142 Pa.

St. 168, S. C. 24 Am. St. R. 494, 382
Lindheim v. Manhattan Ry. Co.,

68 Hun (N. Y.) 122, 605
Lindley v. Groff, 37 Minn. 338, 361
Lindley v. Kelley, 42 Ind. 294,

1029, 1031, 1034
Lindley v. O’Reilly, 50 N. J. L.

636, 8. C. 7 Am. St. R. 802, 282
Lindley v. Sullivan, 133 Ind. 588,

S.C. 32 N. E. R. 738, 676, 1066
Lindsay v. Jaffray, 55 Tex. 626,

335, 336
Lindsay v. McClelland, 1 Bibb.

(Ky.) 262, 239
cue v. Morris (Ala.), 13 So.

R. 619, 473
Lindsay v. Wayne Circuit Judge,

63 Mich. 735,

Lindsay v. Williams, 17 Ala. 229, 163

499
592

Line v. State, 51 Ind. 172, 629, 1073
Line v. Taylor, 3 F. & F. 731, 811
Lines v. Benner, 52 Ind. 195, 1180

Lines v. Darden, 6 Fla. 37, 224
Lingen v. Lingen, 45 Ala. 410, 292
Lingenfelser v. Simon, 49 Ind. 82, 511
Lingo v. Binford (Mo.), 18 8. W.

R. 1081,

Lingood v. Eade, 2 Atk. 501,
Lininger v. Glenn, 33 Neb. 187, Ss.

C. 49 N. W. R. 1128,

Link v. Page, 72 Tex. 592, 8.C. oe

S. W. Rep. 699,

Link y. Sheldon, 136 N. Y. 1,8. C.

32 N. E.R. 696, 741
Linkauf v. Lombard, 137 N.Y. 417,

8. C.33 Am. St. R. 743, "1053
Links v.State,13 Lea(Tenn. ) 701, 1069
un, v. Kyle, 1 Walker (Miss. Ds

15,

Linn v. Wheeler,?21 N.J. Eq. 231, a8
Linsday v. People, 63 N.Y.148, 29, 30
Linsee v. State, 5 Blackt. (Ind.)

601, 520

266
591

542

 

Linville v. State, 130 Ind. 210, S.

C. 29 N. E. R. 1129, 407, 569
Lipes v. Hand, 104 Ind. 503, 1129
Lippincott v. "Ledyard, 8 Phila.

18, 1134
Lipscomb v. Lyons, 19 Neb. 511, 738
Lipscomb vy. Tanner, 31 S. Car. 49,

§.C.958. E.R. 738, 310
Lipscombe v. Holmes, 2 Campb.

441, 399
Liss v. Wileoxen, 2 Col. 85, 158
List v. Jockheck, 45 Kan. 349, S.

C. 27 Pac. R. 184, : 1183
List v. Kortepeter, 26 Ind. 27, 677
Lister v. Boker, 6 BIkf. 439, 1160
Litchfield Bank v.Church,29 Conn.

137, 146

Litowich v. Litowich,19 Kan. 451, 287
Little v. Bowers, 184 U.S. 547, 1187
Little v. Chambers, 27 Ia. 522, 445
Lithgow v. Com., 2 Va. Cas. 297, 666
Little v. Dusenberry, 46 N. J. L.

614, 8. C. 50 Am. R. 445, 410
Little v. Evans, 41 Kan. 578, - 840
Little v. Greenlief, 7 Mass. 236, 258
Little v. Lischkoff (Ala.), 12 So.

R. 429, 799
Little v. Newton, 9 Dowl. P. C. :

437, 591
Little v. Sinnett, 7 Ia. 324, 242, 317
Little v. State, 90 Ind. 338, 137

Little, etc., Co.v. Little, ete., Co.,
Lae 223, 8. C.7 Am. St. RB.
183, 1192
THC Aela Brooks, 50 Me. 475, 312
Little Miami, ete., R. R. Co. v.
Wetmore, 19 Ohio St. 110, 1066
Little Rock, ete., Co. v. Barker,
39 Ark. 491, 936
Little Rock, ete., Co. v. Caven-
esse, 48 Ark. 106, 820, 824
Little Rock, etc., Ry. Co. v. Chap-
man, 39 Ark. 463, 8. C. 43 Am.
R. 280, 369
Little Rock, ete., Co. v. Perry,
37 Ark. 164, 1054
Little Rock, ete., Co. v. Tankers-
ly, 54 Ark. 25, 8.0. 148. W.R.

1099, 719
Littleton v. Clayton, 77 Ala. 571, 506
Littleton v. Fritz, 65 Ia. 488, 8.

C. 54 Am. R. 19, 482

Littleton v. Smith, 119 Ind. 230,
8. C. 21N. E. R. 886, 214, 217, 235
Littrell v. Wilcox, 11 Mont. aT; 8.
C. 27 Pac. R. 394,
Livergood v. Rhoades, 20 Ind.
411, 1048
Livermore v. Brundage, 64 Cal.
299, 214, 219

224
TABLE OF CASES.

elxvii

\ :
[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. I, pp. 603-1 244.]

Livermore v. Campbell, 52 Cal.
: 92, 1161

Liverpool, ete., Co. v. Geohring,

99 Pa. St. 13,

Livesey v. Livesey, 30 Ind. 398, 1215
Livingston v. Coe, 4 Neb. 379, 429

Livingston v. Jefferson, 1 Brock.
310

203,
Livingston v. Mayor, 8 Wend. 85,
8. C. 22 Am. Dec. 622, 643, 1229
Livingston v. Ralli, 5 El. & Bl.
132, 587
Loyd, In re, L. R. 12 Ch. Div.
447, 194
Lloyd v. Adams, 4 K. & J. 467, 480

Lloyd v. Williams, 2 Blk. R. 722, 423
Lobdell v. Baldwin, 93 Mich.

569, 1141
Lobdell v. Horton, 71 Mich. 681,

8. C.40 N. W. R. 28, 551
Lock vy. Vulliamy, 5 B. & Ad. -

600, 594
Locke v. Caldwell, 91 Ill. 417, 377
Locke v. Merchants’ Nat. Bank,

66 Ind. 353, 526, 1108, 1104
Locke v. Rowell, 47 N. H. 46, 543
tages v.8., 0. & P. R. R., 46 Ia.

109,
Lockett v. Ft. Worth, etc., Co.,

78 Tex. 211, 8.C.14 8. W. R.

564, 1049
Lockhart v. Horn, 1 Woods 628, 116
Lockhart v. State, 92 Ind. 452, 662
Lockhart v. Wolf, 82 Ill.37, 618, 622
Lockwood v. Dills, 74 Ind. 56, — 1170
Lockwood v. Quackenbush, 83 N.

Y. 607, 71, 111
Lockwood v. Reese, 76 Wis. 404,

8. C. 45 N. W. R. 313, 528
Lockwood v. Rose, 125 Ind. 588,
179, 1159
Lockwood v. Thorne, 18 N. Y.
285, 556
Lockwood v. Thorne, 11 N. Y.
170, 553, 556
Lodge v. Barrett, 46 Pa. St. 477, 35
Lodor v. Baker, 39 N. J. L. 49, = 471
Lodor v. McGovern, 48 N. J. Eq.
275, 8. C. 22 Atl. R. 199, 484
Loeb v. Mathias, 37 Ind. 306, 262
Loeb v. Weis, 64 Ind. 285, 1064
Loew v. Stocker, 61 Pa. St.347, 1103
Lofton v. Moore, 83 Ind. 112, 1189

Logan v. Friedline (Pa.), 14 Atl.

R. 348, + 551
Logan v. Logan, 77 Ind. 558, 635
Logan vy. Pennsylvania Co., 132

Pa. St. 403, 8. C.19 Atl. R. 137,

254, 1184

‘Logan v. State, 50 Miss. 269, 660

8, 816 |

 

Logan v. United States, 144 U.S.
263, S. C. 12 Sup. Ct. R. 617,
Logan Branch, etc., Bank, Ex

parte, 1 Ohio St. 432,
hoe County v. Lincoln, 81 Ill.

657
256
372
1069

i 484:
Logansport v. Uhl, 99 Ind. 531, 71
Logansport v. Wright, 25 Ind. 512,
j 1151, 1158
Logsdon v. Roberts, 3 Monr. 255,
576, 597
Lohman v. People, 1 N. Y. 380, 781
Lomax v. Mitchell, 93 Il]. 579, 1231
Lombard vy. Hatch, 60 Wis.459, 398
Lomer v. Meeker, 25 Ind. 361, 1040
Loney, In re, 134 U. S. 372, 803
Loney v. Bailey, 43 Md. 10, 1197
Long v. British, etc., Ins. Co.,

187 Pa. St. 335, 799
Long v. Brookston, 79 Ind. 183, 1171
Long v. Duncan, 10 Kan. 294, 1094

1159

Logansport v. Justice, 74 Ind.
Logansport v. La Rosa, 99 Ind.
117

Long v. Gantly, 4 Dev. & B. (N.
Car.) 318,

Long v. Greville, 4 D. & R. 682,

Long v. Lamkin, 9 Cush. (Mass.)
361, 796, 798, 806

London, etc., Co. v. Lee, 66 Tex.

247, 1197
Long v. McDonald, 39 Ga. 186, 618
Long v. Morrison, 14 Ind. 595, 804.

Long v. North British, etc., Co.,
187 Pa. St. 335,

Long v. Stafford, 103 N. Y. 247,8.
C.8N.E. R. 522, 189, 191

Long v. State, 56 Ind. 182, S. O. 26

802

Am. R. 19, 820
Long v. State, 12 Ga, 293, 823
Long v. State, 46 Ind. 582, 625, 1230

Long v. State, 23 Neb. 33,8. C. 36

N. W. R. 310, 1069
Long v. State, 95 Ind. 481, 788, 1115
Long v. State, 12 Ga. 303, 179
Long v. Straus, 124 Ind. 84, 513
Long v. Valleau (Ia.), 55 N. W.

R. 31, 558
Long Branch, etc., R. R. Co., In

re, 24 N. J. Eq. 398, 497
Longworth v.TheCommonCouncil,

etc., 32 Ind. 322, 121
Lonkey v. Keyes Silver Mining

Co. (Nev.), 17 L. R. A. 351,
Lonsdale v. Moies, 2 Cliff. (U. S.

441

C. C.) 538, 200
Lonsdale y. Nelson, 2 Barn. &

Cress. 302, 393
Loomis v. Brown, 16 Barb. 325, 1180

‘
elxviii

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. IT, pp. 603-1244.]

Loomis v. N: Y., etc., R. R. Co.,
159 Mass. 39, 8.0.34 N. E.R.
82, S. C. 37 Cent. L. J. 150,

Loomis Institute v.Hurd,57 Conn.
435, S. C. 18 Atl. R. 669,

Looney v. Bush, Minor ey,

806
413

413, 1235
Loonie v. Tillman, 3Tex.Civ. App.

382, S. C. 22 8. W.R. 524, 631
‘Lord v. Allen, 34 Ia. 281, 470
Lord v. Brown, 5 Denio (N. Y.)

345, 653

Lord v. Chadbourne, 42 Me. 429,

8. C. 66 Am. Dec. 290, 271
Lord v. Hendrie, etc., Co., 13 Col.

893, S. C. 22 Pac. R, 782, 612
Lord v. Morris, 18 Cal. 482, 884
Lord vy. State, 16 N. H. 325, 1118
Lord v. Veazie, 8 How. 251, 248, 1137
Lord Byron v. Johnston, 2 Merv.

29, 486
Lord Portarlington v. Soulby, 3

Mylne & K. 104, 282
Lorie v. Adams, 51 Kan. 692, S.C.

83 Pac. R. 599, 1066
Loring v. Arnold, 15 R. I. 428, 8.

C. 8 Atl. R. 335, 26.
Loring v. Binney, 38 Hun 152, 8.

C. 101 N. Y. 633, 446, 447
Lorman v. “Clarke, 2 McLean (U.

8. C.C.) 568, 270
Los Angeles v. Mellus, 58 Cal.

1

16
- Los ” Angeles v. Mellus, 59 Cal.

; 1179
Los Angeles County Bank v. Ray-
nor, 61 Cal. 145, 184, 1189
Los Angeles Co. v. Reyes (Cal. \,
82 Pac. R. 233, 10!
Los Angeles Co. v. Superior Court,
93 Cal. 380, S. C. 28 Pac.R.1062, 205
Losey v. Bond, 94 Ind. 67, 1212
Lap Panes v. Birdsell, 90 Ind. -

466
Lothian v. Lothian (Ia.),55N. W.
. 465, 644
Lothrop v. Roberts, 16 Col. 250, ei

Loucheim v. Davies, 148 Pa. St.
581
C. 148. W. R. 205,
Loudon Sav. Fund Soc. v. Hagers-

S. C. 27 Pac. R. 698,
Lothrop v. Wightman, 41 Pa. St.
297, 1169
Lott v. State, 122 Ind. 393, 633
499, S.C. 24 Atl. R. 72,
Louder v. Schluter, 78 Tex. 103, 8. -
41
Loudon v. Coleman, 59 Ga. 653,
1161, 1162
town Savings Bank, 36 Pa. St.
498,

531

 

Loughborough v. MeNevin,74 Cal.
250, S. C.5 Am. St. R. 435,
Loughridge v. City of Huntington,
56 Ind. 253, 450
Louisiana v. New Orleans, 102 U.
S. 203, 348
Louisiana Bank v. Whitney, 121
U.S. 284, 118
Louisville, N. A. & C. Ry. Co. v.
Balch, 105 Ind. 93,8. C.4.N. E.
R. 288, 529, 1109
Louisville, E. & St. L., ete., R. R.
Co. v. Berry (Ind.), 35 N..E.
Rep. 565,
Louisville, N.O. & T. R. R. Co. v.
Caster (Miss.), 5 So. R. 388, 534
Louisville, N. A. & C. Ry. Co. v.
Cauley, 119 Ind. 142, 529
Louisville, etc., Co. v. Crunk, 116
Ind. 542, 1212
Louisville & N. R. R. Co.v. Dancy

400

740

97 Ala. 338, §. C.11 So. R. 796, 1055
Louisville, ete., R. R. Co. v. Don-
negan, 111 Ind. 179, 588

Louisville & N. R. R. Co. v. Earl

(Ky.), 22 8. W. R. 607, 1068
3 Louisville, N.A.& C. Ry. Co. v.
Eves, 1 Ind. App. 224, 548

Louisville, etc., R. R. Co. v. Fal-
vey, 104 Ind. 409,

712, 722, 740, 741, 778, 810, 1069

Louisville, N. A. & C. Ry. Co. v.
Frawley, 110 Ind.18,° 807, 1104

Louisville, N. A. & C. Ry. Co. v.
Green,120Ind.367, 1104, 1107, 1108

Louisville, N. A. & C. Ry. Co. v.
Grubb, 88 Ind. 85, 638

Louisville & N. R. RB. Co. v. Hall,

87 Ala. 708, 8. C.4 L. R.A. 710, ‘
8. C. 18 Am. St. R. 84, 1064, "1066

Louisville, ete., Co. v. Harrigan,

94 Ind. 245, 1237

Louisville, etc., Co. v. Hart, 119
Ind. 273, 8.C. 4 L. R. A. 549,

1108, 1147, 1148, 1156, 1168

Louisville, etc., Co. v. Hendicks,
128 Ind. 462, 8. C. 28 N. E.R.
58, 1158, 1165

Louisville, etc., Co. v. Hixon, 101
Ind. 337,

Louisville, etc., Co. v. sania.
116 Ind. 193,

Louisville, N. "A. & C. Ry. Co. Ps
Jones, 108 Ind. 551, 8. C.9 N.
E: R. ‘476,

Louisville, ete., Co.-v. Jordan, 16
L.R. A. 251, 8 8. C.11S0. R.111,
Louisville, ete., ‘Co. v. Kane, 130
Ind. 140, S. G. 22. NE. R. 80,

1089, 1100

711
171
TABLE OF CASES.

elxix

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.]

Louisville, ete., Co..v. Kendall
. (Ind.), 36 N. E. R. 415,
Louisville & N. R. R. Co. v. Ken-
ley, 92 Tenn. 207, 8. C.21 8. W.
R. 326,
Louisville, etc., Co. v. Lockridge,
93 Ind. 191,
Louisville, ete., Co. v. McCoy, 81
Ky. 403, 1165
Louisville, etc., R. R. Co. v. Me-
Kenna, 13 Lea (Tenn.) 280,
Louisville, N. 0. & T. R. R. Co. v.
Mask, 64 Miss. 738, 8S. C. 2 So.
R. 360, 559, G58
Louisville, N. A., ete., R. R. Co. v.
Nicholai, 4 Ind. App. 119, 8. C.
30 N. E. R. 424, 1081
Louisville, N. A. & C. Ry. Co. v.
Nicholson, 60 Ind. 158, 609
Louisville, N. A. & C. Ry. Co. v.
Nitsche, 126 Ind. 229,8. C. 9 L.
R. A. 750, 535, 957
Louisville, etc., Ry. Co. v. Orr,.94
Ala. 602, S. C. 10 So. R. 167, 502
Louisville & N. R. R. Co. v. Hurt
(Ala.), 13 So. Rep. 130, 823
811
1091

1244

1064

537

Louisville & N. R. R. Co. v. Pear-
son (Ala.), 12 So. R. 176,

Louisville, N. A. & C. Ry. Co. v.
Pedigo, 108 Ind. 481,

Louisville & N. R. R. Co. v. Phil-
yaw, 88 Ala. 264, 8. C.6 So R.
837,

Louisville, etc., Co. v. Power, 119
Ind. 269, S. C. 21 N. E. R. 751,

“148, 151

Louisville, etc., Co. v. Rush, 127

Ind. 545, S. C. 26 N. E. R. 1010,

371

152, 1168
Louisville v. Sav. Bank, 104 U.S.
469, 379
Louisville, etc., Co. v. Shanks, 132
Ind. 395, S. C. 31 N. E.1111, 182
Louisville, etc., Co. v. Snyder, 10
Am. St. R. 60, 740
Louisville, N. A. & C. Ry. Co. v.
Stommel, 126 Ind. 35, 1097
Louisville, E. & St. L., etc., Co. v.
Summers, 131 Ind. 241, S. C. 30
N. E. R. 873, 1096
Louisville, étc., Co. v. Thompson,
107 Ind. 442, 103, 108, 519, 1098
Louisville & N. R. RB. Co. v. Wat-
’ gon, 90 Ala. 68, 8. C.8So. R. 249, 549
Louisville, N. A. & C. Ry. Co. v.
Wood, 113. Ind. 544, 8. C. 14N.
E. R. 572, 110, 111, 622, 1096
Louisville, N. A. & 'C. Ry. Co. v.
Worley, 107 Ind. 820, S.C. 7 N.
E.R. 215, 1088, 1089, 1224

 

Lounsbury v. Catron, 8 Neb. 469, 345
Lae Saye (Ark.), 22 S. W.

; 644
Love v. Burns, 35 Ia. 150, 576
Love v. Dickerson, 85 N. Car. 5, 677
Love v. Fairfield, 10 Ill. 303, 466
Lovier eae Dana(Ky.)321, 469
Love v. Hall, 76 Ind. 328, 1181, 1195
Love v. Hoss, 62 Ind. 255, 362
Love v. Love, 55 Ala. 554, 373 °
Lovejoy v. Albee, 33 Me. 414,8. C.

54 Am. Dec. 630, 303
Lovejoy v. Lunt, 48 Me. 377, 444
Lovejoy v. United States, 128 U.

. 171, 1059
Lovelady v. Davis, 33 Miss. 577,
300, 345
Low v. Nolte, 16 Ill. 475, 577
Low v. Tandy, 70 Tex. 745, 505
Lowe v. Dore, 32 Me. 27, 165, 323
Lowe v. Hamilton, 132 Ind. 406,

8. C. 31 N. E. R. 1117, 1200
Lowe v. Ryan, 94 Ind. 450, 719
Lowenbein v. Fuldner, 21 N. Y.8.

615, ; 478

Lowenburg v. People, 27 N. Y.

336, 152, 661
Lowenstein v. Bew, 68 Miss. 265,

S. C. 24 Am. St. R. 269, 465
Lowenstein v. Gillespie, 6 Lea

(Tenn.) 641, 450
Lowenstein v. Glidewell, 5 Dill.

(U. 8.) 325, 459
Lowenstein v. McIntosh, 37 Barb.

(N. Y.) 251, 587
Lowenstein v. Phelan,17 Neb. 429, 96

4

1076
263,

805
Lower Catham, In re, 35 N. J. L.
497, 1129
Lowery v. Caldwell, 139 Mass. 88,
1140

Lowery v. State, 72 Ga. 649, 1074

Lowman v. Sheets, 124 Ind. 416, 1100

Lowndes v. Miller, 25 S. Car. 119,
; 1

Lower v. Franks, 115 Ind. 334,
Lower v. Winters, 7 Cow. (N. Y.)

184
Lowrey v. Richmond & D. R.R.

Co., 88 Ga. 504,108. E.R.123, 4382
Lowrey v. Robinson, 141 Pa. St.

189, S. C. 21 Atl. R. 779, 1044
Lowrie v. France, 7 Neb. 191, — 1165
Lowry v. Cady, 4 Vt..504, 8. C. 24

Am. Dec. 628, : 462
Lowry v. Erwin, 6 Rob. (La.) 192,

S. C. 39 Am. Dec. 556, 316
Lowry v. Lawrence, 1 Caines (N.

Y.) 69, 877
Loy v. Loy, 90 Ind. 404, 1237
elxx

TABLE OF CASKS.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. IT, pp. 603-1244.]

iy v. Petty, 3 Ind. App. 241, S.
. 29N. E. R. 788, 785, 790
Loyless v. Hodges, 44 Ga. 647, 475
Lucas v. Brooks, 18 Wall. (U. 58.)

436, 1064
Lucas v. Casady, 12 Ia. 567, 621
Lucas v. Hickman, 2 Stew. (Ala. )

11,8. C.19 Am. Dec. 44, 376
Luce v. Clarke, 49 Minn. 356, 8.

C. 51 N. W.R. 1162, 873
Luck v. State, 96 Ind. 16, 818, 815
Luckhart v. Ogden, 30 Cal. 547,

537, 504, 1105
Luckie v. Johnson, 89 Ga. 321, 8.

C.15 8. E.R. 459, 531
Luco vy. Commercial Bank, 70 Cal.

339, 128, 327
Luco v. De Toro, 91 Cal. 405, §. C.

27 Pac R. 1082, 372
Luco v. United "States, 23 How.

(U. 8.) 515, 35
Lucy v. Williams, 27 Mo. 280, 314
Ludlow v. Johnson, 3 Ohio 553, 8.

C.17 Am. Dec. 609, 191

Ludlow’s Heirs v. Kidd’s Exr., 3

Ohio 541, 500
Ludwig v. Gorsuch, 154 Pa. St. 418,

8. C. 26 Atl. R. 434, 531
Luft v. Lingane, 17 R. I. 420, 8. C.

22 Atl. R. 942, 1124
Luke v. Calhoun County, 52 Ala.

115, 30
Luke v. Johnnycake, 9 Kan. 511,
Lukens v. Ford, 87 Ga. 541, 8. C.

13 8. E. R. 949, 1064

Lundberg v. Single Men’s Assn.,
41 Minn. 508, 8. C. 43 N. W. R.
394, 1202

Lung v. Deal, 16 Ind. 349, 1065

Luntz v. Greve, 102 Ind. 178, 361

Lurton v. Carson, 2 Blackf. 464, 1229

Lusher v. Scites, 4 W. Va. 11, 122

Lusk v. Clayton, 70 N. Car. 184, 577

Lusk v. Ramsey, 3 Munf. 417, 196

Luther v. Medbury (R. I.), 26
Atl. R. 37, 594

Lutterell v. Reynell, 1 Mod. 286, 806

Luttrell v. Martin, 112 N. Car.

593, 8. C. 17S. E. RB. 573, 1220

Lutz v. Atlantic & Pacific R. R.
Co. (N. Mex.),16L. R.A. 819, 1053

Lutz v. City of Crawfordsville,

109 Ind. 466, 985
Lutz v. Com., 29 Pa. St. 441, 1171
Lutz v. Kelly, 47 Ia. 307, 280

Lutz v. Linthicum, 8 Pet. (U. 8.)
165, 592, 601
Lux v. Haggin (Cal.),13 Pac. R.
654, 640

 

Lydiard v. Chute, 45 Minn. 277,
Lyle v. Rodgers, 5 Wheat. (U. S.)
394, 595
Lyles v. Commonwealth, 88 Va.
396, S. C. 13 8. E. R. 802, 660
Lyles v. McClure, 1 Bailey (So.
1192

Car.) 7
Byles v. Roach, 30 So. Car. 291, 8.

444

C.9 8. E. R. 334, 551
Lyman v. Bank, 12 How. (U. 8.)
225, 550

Lyman v. Central, etc., R. R. Co.,
59 Vt. 167,
Lyman v. Fiske, 17 Pick. (Mass.)
231, 543
Lyman v. Gould, 47 Me. 159, 736
Lyman v. Milton, 44 Cal. 630,
608, 612, 613
Lyman yv. Philadelphia, 56 Pa. St.
488, 805

493

Lyman v. Wood, 42 Vt. 113, 471

Lynch, In. re, 9 Abb. N. Cases
69, 232

Lynch v. Baldwin, 69 Ill. 210, 544

Lynch v. Chicago, a oo R. Co. =
(Ind.), 36 N. E.R
Lynch y. Crary, 52 N. %. 181,
Lynch v. Grayson (N. Mex. ), 32
Pac. R. 149, 1133
Lynes v. Eldred, 47 Wis. 426,
Lynch v. Jennings, 43 Ind. 276,
360, 403
Lynch v. Met. Elev. R. Co., 129
N.Y, 274, S, G. 1b L, EB. A
287, 349
Lynch v. Mosher, 4 How. Pr. (N.

Y.) 86, 633
Lyne v. Santor, "82 Tex. 58, 8. C.
1229
Lyon v. Guild, 5 Heisk. (Tenn.)
531,
Lyon v. Sibley, 32 Me. 576, 1042

Lynch y. Sue 80 Ia. 422, 8. C.
‘46N. W.R 595
19S. W. R.9 329

Lyon v. Davis, th Ind. 384,

175, 550

Lyons v. Lawrence, 12 Ill. App.

1159

Lyon’ v. Manufacturing Co., 125
U.S. 698, 1177

Lyon v. Tallmadge, 14 Johns. (N,

Y.) 501 736°

Lyon v. Vanatta, 35 Ia. 521, 432
Lyons y. Cooledge, 89 Ill. 529, 321
Lyons v. Munson, 99 U. 8. 684, 134
Lyons v. Teal, 28 La. Ann.

592, 719
Lyons vy. Terre Haute, etc., Co.,

101 Ind. 419, 1037
Lytle v., Lytle, 48 Ind. 200, 288

Lytton v. Baird, 95 Ind. 349, 552
TABLE OF

CASES. elxxi

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. I, pp. 603-1244.]

M

McAdams v. Stilwell, 13 Pa. St.
594

90,

McAdory v. State, 62 Ala. 154, 1071
McAfee v. Reynolds, 130 Ind. 33, 481
McAfee v. State, 31 Ga. 411, 138
McAleer v. Clay Co., 38 Fed. R.

707, 383
MceAlees v. Supreme Sitting (Pa. ie

13 Atl. R. 755,

McAlister v. Olmstead, 1 Hae

(Tenn.) 210, 201
McAllister v. Ball, 24 Ill. 149, 1195
McAllister v. Conn. Mut., etc.,

Co., 78 Ky. 531, 1156
McAllister v. Detroit Free Press,

85 Mich. 453, 8. C. 48 N. W. R

612, 720
McAllister v. Engle, 52 Mich. 56, 1079
McAllister v. Willey, 60 Ind. 195,

1158
McAlpin v. Hedges, 21 Fed. R.

689, 367
McAlpine vy. Smith, 68 Me. 423, 482
McAlpine v. Sw eetser, 76 Ind. 78, 320
McAnear v. Epperson. 54 Tex.

220, 8. C. 38 Am. R. 625,

294, 318, 443
McArdle v. McArdle, 12 Minn.

122,

McArthur v. Dane, 61 Ala. 539, 347
McArthur v.Goddin,12 Bush(Ky.)

274, 373
McArthur vy. Leffler, 110 Ind. 526, 614
McAvoy v. Long, 13 Ill. 147, 537
McBean v. Fox, 1 IN. App. 177, 354
McBee v. Bowman, 89 Tenn. 132,

S.C. 148. W. R. 481, 679
McBride v. Hagan, 1 Wend. (N.

Y.) 326, 584
McBride +. Harn, 48 Ia. 151, 302

1044
177

1169

McBride v. Latham, 79 Ga. 661,
McBride v. Northern, etc., Co., 19
Ore. 64, S. C. 23 Pac. R. 814,
McBride v. Settles (Tex.), 16 8.

W. R. 422
McBride v. State, 180 Ind. 525, 8.

C. 30 N. E. R. 699, 293
McCabe v. Bank of Ireland, L. R.

14 App. Cas. 413, 1048
McCain v. Peart, 145 Pa. St. 516, 362
McCall v. Hitchcock, 7 Bos 1182
McCall v. McCall, 36 S. Car. 80,8

C. 158. E. R. 348, * 600
eee v. Peachy, "1 Call. RS

MeCall v. Seevers, 5 Ind. 187, 1180

 

McCalla v. Ely, 64 Pa. St. 254, 1192
McCalley v. Otey, 90 Ala. 302, 8.

C. 8 So. R. 157, 401
McCallion v. Hibernia, etc.,Assn.,

70 Cal. 163, 565
McCampbell’ v. McCampbell, 15

Am. Dec. 48, 8. C. 5 Litt. 92, 269

McCandless Township Road, In re,
110 Pa. St. 605, S.C. 1 Atl. R.594, 173
McCann v. Commissioners, 9 Neb.
581

324,
McCann v. People, 88 II]. 103,
34, 635

McCann v. Randall, 147 Mass. 81,

S.C. 9 Am. St. R. 666, 381
McCaop, Succession of, 10 La.

Ann. 224, 438
McCardle, Ex parte, 7 Wall. 506, 253
McCarn v. Cooley, 30 Neb. 552, 8.

C. 46 N. W.R. 715, 1231
McCarthy v. Cass Ave., etc., Co.,

92 Mo. 536, 657
McCarthy v. Garraughty, 10 Ohio

St. 438, 1214
McCarthy v. Peake, 18 How. Pr.

138,
McCartny v. Nebraska, 1 Neb.

121, 719
McCarty v. Tarr, 83 Ind. 444,
McCarver v. Nealey, 1 Greene (Ia.)

360, 509
McCauley v. Weller, 12 Cal. 500, 225
McClannahan v. West, 100 Mo.

309, 320
McClannahan’s Heirs v. Hender-

son, 1 T. B. Mon. 261, 347
McClaren v. Indianapolis, etc., R.

R. Co., 83 Ind. 319, 1051, 1112
McClarin v. Nesbit,2 Nott. & McC.

(S. Car.) 519, 400

McClaskey v. Barr, 47 Fed. R. 154, 508
McClaskey v. Barr, 48 Fed. R. 130, "1186
McClellan v. Binkley, 78 Ind. 503, 636

McClellan v. Hurd, 11 Col. 126, 1169
McClellan v. Pyeatt, ‘50 Fed. R.
686, 1079

McClelland v. Bond, 92 Ind. 424, 1143
McClelland v. Miller, 28 Ohio St.

488, 158
McClelland v. Ry.Co.,94 Ind. 276, 1048 :
McClendon v. Kemp, 18 La. Ann.

162, 577
McCleneghan y. Reid,34 Neb. 472,

8. C. 51 N. W. R. 1037, 179, 704
McClinch v. Sturgis, 72 Me. 288, 122
McClintock v. Curd, 32 Mo. 411,

512, 679
McClintock v. Theiss, 74 Ind. 200,

1121, "1154
McCloskey v. Barr, 38 Fed. R. 765, 529
elxxii

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.)

McCloskey v. Davis (Ind. nee »
35 N. E. R. 187, 7, 680
McCloskey v. McCloskey (Pa. 0
Atl. R. 30, 550
McCloskey v. Sweeney, 66 Cal. 53, 293
McClung’s Ex’rs v. Spottswood, 19
Ala. 165, 531
McClure y. Bruck, 43 Minn. 305,
S.C. 45 N. W. R. 438, 187
McClure v. McClurg, 53 Mo. 173, 145
McClure v. Sparta, 84 Wis. 269, 8.
C. 54 N. W. R. 287, 1076
McClure v. State, 77 Ind. 287,
214, 287, 1111
McColgin v. McKay, 25 Ga. 631, 1043
McCollem v. White, 23 Ind. 43, 466
Pe v. Eager, 2 How.(U.S.)
254, 1178
MeCollum v. Lougan, 29 Mo.451, 1197
McComb v. Turner, 14 Smed. & M.
119,
McCombs vy. Allen, 82 N. Y. 114, 469
McConihay v. Wright, 121 U. 8.

201 1128
McConkey v. McCraney, 71 Wis.
576, 438

McConnel v. Kibbe, 29 Ill. 483, 370
McConnell v. Huntington, 108 Ind.
405, 1169
McConnell v. Kitchens, 20 8. Car.
430, 8. C. 47 Am. R. 845, 676, 677
McConnell v. Osage, 80 Ia. 293,
‘1168, 1206
McConnell v. Osage, 80 Ia. 296, 699
McCool v. State, 7 Ind. 378, 142
McCord v. Cooper, 30 Ind. 9, 33, 34
McCorkle v. Rhea, 75 Ala. 218, 259
McCorkle v. State, 14 Ind. 39, 1111
McCormack v. First Nat. Bank, 53
Ind. 466, 457, 604
McCormick v. Gleim (Mont.), 34
Pac. R. 1016, 783
McCormick y. Miller, 19 Minn.
115

¥

McCormick v. Pennsylvania, etc.,

Co., 49 N. Y. 303, 2, 454
McCormick v. Railroad Co., 49 N.

Y. 303, 610
McCormick v. Sullivant,10 Wheat.

192, 132, 275
McCormick v. Walter A. Wood

Co., 72 Ind. 518, 206
McCormick v. Wheeler, 36 Tl. 114,

8. C. 85 Am. Dec. 388, 182, 190
McCormick, ete., Co. v. Gray, 100.

Ind. 285, 676
McCormick, etc., Co.v. Schneider,

36 Neb. 206, 8. C. 54 N. W. R.
257, 454, 611

582, 583 |

 

McCoy v. Able, 131 Ind. 417,
126, 133, 260, 407, 1227, 1236
McCoy v. Rives, 1 Smed. & M.
(Miss.) 592,
McCoy v. Trucks, 121 Ind. 292,
McCracken v. Clarke, 31 Pa. St.
498, 572, 584
McCracken v. Flanagan, 127 N.
Y. 493, S.C.24 Am. St.R.481, 446
McCracken v. West, 17 Ohio 16, 788
McCrae y. Robeson, 2 Murph.(N.
Car.) 127, 579
McCrary v. ‘Harrison, 36 Ala.577, 591
McCrary v. Pennsylvania, ete. ,Co. %
5 Fed. R. 367, 491
McCraw v. Williams, 83 Gratt.
510, 215
McCray v. Humes, 116 Ind. 103,
8. C118 N. E. R. 500, 234
McCreary v. Fike, 2 Blacké. 374,
1033, 1035
McCrillis v. Harrison County, 63
Ta. 592, S. C.19 N. W. R. 679, 245
McCrory v. Anderson, 103 Ind. 12,
163, 1076
McCue v. Wapello Co., 56 Ia. 698,
1144
McCulloch v. Dawson, 1 Ind.418, 398
McCulloch v. Dobson, 133 N. Y.:
114, §. C. 30 N. E. R. 641, 800, 811
McCulloch v. Dodge, 8 Kan. 476, 1181
McCulloch vy. Ellis, 28 Ill. App.
454

439
McCulloch v. State, 48 Ind.109, 30
McCullough v. a 108 Ind. 292,
8.C.9N.E. R. 276 712
McCullough v. McCullough, 12
Ind. 487, 595
McCullough v. McCullough, 14 Pa.”
374
599
169

1116
181

St. 295
McCullough v. Mitchell, 42 Ga.

495,

McCullough v. Moore, 9 Yerg.

(Tenn.) 305,

McCully v. Clarke, 40 Pa. St. 399,

S. C. 80 Am. Dec. 584, 547, 1105
McCune v. Norwich Gas Co., 30

Conn. 521, 8. C. 79 Am. Dec.

278, 527
McCurry v. Hooper, 12 Ala. 828,

8. C. 46 Am. Dec. 280, 289, 706
McCutchen v. Miller, 31 Miss. 65, 498
McDaniel v. Correll, 19 Ill. 226,

8. C. 68 Am. Dec. 587, 117, 443
McDaniel v. McLendon, 85 Ga.

614, §. C. 11,.8. E. R. 869, 1200
McDaniel v. Stokes, 19 S. Car.

60, 1220
McDaniel y. Will, 2 Bibb. 550, 1162
TABLE OF CASES.

elxxili

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.]

McDermott v. N. Y., etc., R. R.
Co., 18 N. Y. Supp. ’ 435, 549
McDermott v. State, 89 Ind. 187, 544

McDermott v. Thompson, 29 Fla.
299, 8. C. 10 So. R. 584, 443
McDonald v. Atlantic & Pacific
Bat Co. (Ariz.), 21 Pac. Rep.
McDonald v. Beall, 55 Ga. 288, 1068
McDonald v. Bunn, 3 Denio 45, 142
McDonald v. Cooper, 32 Kan. 58, 1163

McDonald v. Cooper, 32 Fed. R.
745, 446, 450

McDonald v. Dodge, 97 Cal. 333,
149

552

8. C. 31 Pac. R. 909,
568, 1201
McDonald v. Fourney (Ta.), 54 N.
W. R. 476, 1200
McDonald v. Geisendorff, 128
1210, 1233
McDonald v. Gillett, 69 Me. 271,
McDonald v. Holmes, 22 Ore. 212,
364
McDonald v. Hovey, 110 U.S.
619, 0, 381
514, 8. C. 49 N. W. R. 377,
McDonald v. Matney, 82 Mo. 358, 535
McDonald v. Mobile, etc., Co., 65
269
McDonald v. Mulbollan, 5 Watts
(Pa.) 178,
McDonald v. Ortman, 88 Mich.
1056
McDonald v. People, 126 Il. 150,
8. C. 9 Am.8&t. Rep. 547, 820, 821
McDonald v. State, 80 Ind. 820, 809
8. C. 50 N. W. R. 185,
McDonald v. Walter, 40 N. Y.
551, 1161
8.C. 42 N. W. R. 1114, 624
MeDonala vy. Wolff, 40 Mo. App.
302, 404
Eq. 249,
McDonough v. Nicholson, 46 Mo.
1181, 1182
388, 1232
McDowell y. Crawford, 11 Gratt.
877; 179
155
McDowell v. Preston, 26 Ga. 528, 797
‘McDowell v. Thomas, 4 Neb. 542, 596
McDowell v. Van Deusen, 12

McDonald v. Donahue, 30 Ia.
McDonald v. Elfes, 61 Ind. 279, 1229
Ind. 153,
471
8. C. 29 Pac. R. 735,
388
McDonald v. oe 32 Neb.
618
Ala. 358,
544
645, S. C. 50 N. W. R. 644,
McDonald v. State, 80 Wis. 407,
1238
McDonald vy. Weir, 76 Mich. 243,
McDonough y. Gaynor, 18 N. J.
35, '
McDougal vy. Fleming, 4 Ohio
McDowell v. Jones, 58 Ala. 25,
Johns. 356, 225

476.

 

McDuffie v. Clark, 39 Hun (N.Y.)

166, 541
McEliresh v. Guard, 32 Ind. 408, 1095
McElmoyle v. Cohen, 2 Am. L.

Cas. 529, 829
McElreath y. Middleton, 89 Ga.

83, 8. C. 148. E. R. 906, 581, 582
McEney v. Town of Sullivan, 125

Ind. 407, 134, 165, 324
McEwenv. Bigelow,40 Mich. 215, 524
McFadden v. Reynolds (Pa.), 10

Cent. R. 387, 781
McFadden v. Schill, 84Tex. 77,8.

C.19 8. W. R. 368,

McFadden v. Wallace, 38 Cal.

51, 663
McFaddin v. Preston, 54Tex.403, 220
ear v. Catron (Mo. ), 25 8.

W. RB. 506, 1074
McFarland v. Hall, 17 Tex. 676, 1179
McFarland vy. Mathis, 10 Ark. 560, 602
McFarlane v. Cushman, 21 Wis.

401, 585
McFarlin v. State, 41 Tex. 28, 799
McFee v. Harris, 25 Pa. St. 162, 255
McGarvey v. Ford (N. Mex.), oT

Pac. R. 415, 625
/ McGaughey v. wes 106 Ind.

380, 8. C.7N. E.R. 430

McGeagh v. Nordberg (Minn. te
55 N. W.. Re1l7
McGee v. Wells, 37 8. Car. 365, S.
C.1658. E. R. 29, 1069
McGeehen v. Duffield, 5 Pa. St.

497, 585
McGeban, Ex parte, 22 Ohio St.

442, 154
McGeorge v. Harrison, etc., Co.,

141 Pa. St. 575, 8. C.:21 Atl. R.

671, 455
McGhee v Poa ew 78 Ga.

790, S. C. 38. E.R 485
McGhee v. McGhee, 8 ‘Ge. 295, 8.

C. 52 Am. Dec. 407, 477
McGillin v. Claflin, 52 Fed. R.

657, 608, 611
MeGill, Ex parte, 6 Tex. App. a
Mec vy. Wallace, 22 Mo. App.

675, 111
McGinnis v. Gabe, 78 Ind. 457, 514

McGinnis v. Curry, 13 W. Va. 29, 582
McGinnis v. State, 9 Humph. 43,

S. C. 49 Am. Dec. 697, 343
McGinnis v. State, 24 Ind. 500, 163
McGinty v. Athol Reservoir Co. a

106 Mass. 183, 8. C. 29 N. E. R. 53

MeGlaughlin v. O’Rourke, 12 Ia.
4 255

9,
celxxiv

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 6038-1244.]

McGlawhorn v. Worthington, 98

N. Car. 199, S. 6.38. E. R. 633,
450

McGloin v. McGloin, 70 Tex. 634,
1163

ae v. Arthur, 27 Ohio St.
251, 1222
MeGoon v. Little, 7 Ill. 42, 639
McGoon v. Shirk, 54 Ill. 408, S.
C. 5 Am. R. 122, 400
McGough v. Jamison, 107 Pa. St.
336, 360
McGovern vy. Keokuk Lumber Co. a
61 Ia. 265, 628
McGowen y. Campbell, 28 Kan.
5, 179
McGowan v. State ,9 Yerg. PE
184,
McGrail v. Kalamazoo, 94 Mich.

52,8. C.53 N. W. R. 955, 811
McGregg v. State,4 Blackf.101, 1122
MeGregor v. Baylies, 19 Ia. 48, 170

McGregor v. Board, 107 N. Y. 511,
8. C. 14. E. R. 420, 559

McGregor v. Hubbs, 125 Ind. 487,
1215

McGregor v. Morrow, 40 Kan. 730,
8. C. 21 Pac. R. 157,

McGregor, etc., R. R. Co. v. Sioux
City, etc., R. R. Co., 49 Ia. 604, 595

322

McGrew, Ex parte, 40 Tex. 472, 304
McGuff v. State, 88 Ala. 147, 8. C.
16 Am. St. R. 25, 519

McGuffey v. McClain, 130 Ind. 327,
S. C. 30 N. E. R. 296, 1215
McGuire v. 6 Humph.
(Tenn.) 419, 1047
McGuire y. Lawrence, etc., Co.,
156 Mass. 324, 8S. C. 31 N. E. R.
3, 1068
McGuire v. State, 37 Miss. 369, 653
ueSoirs Vv. State, 10 Tex. App.

Hay,

MeCaliew Seallaess 109 Ind. 284,
8. C. 10 N. E.R. 111,
MeGuirl v. McGuirl, 12 Il. App.
624,
McHennry’s Lessee v. Wallen, 2
Yerg. (Tenn.) 441, 638
McHugh v. State, 38 Ohio St. 153, 660
Mellvain v. State, 80 Ind. 69, 1090
Mcellvaine v. Coxe, 4 Cranch 209,
277
McInerney v. City of Denver, 17
Col. 302, 8. C. 29 Pac. R. 516,
648, 1127
MclIniffe v. Wheelock, 1 Gray

154

(Mass.) 600, 400
McIntire v. Morris, 14 Wend. (N.
Y.) 90, 586

 

McIntosh y. Ensign, 28 N. Y. 169,

1040
McIver v. Kyger, 3 Wheat. 58, 370
McJilton v. Smizer,18 Mo. 111, 402

McJimsey v. Traverse, 1 Stew.
(Ala.) 244, S. C. 18 Am. Dec.

43, 597

McJunkins v. State, 10 Ind. 140,
1060, 1063
McKaughan v. Harrison, 25 Tex.

(Supp.) 461, 1195
McKay v. Lasher, 121 N. Y. 477,

812, 816
McKay v. Montana, etc., Co., 13

Mont. —, 8. C. 31 Pac. R. 999, 1223
McKay v. Riley, 185 II]. 586, 8. C.

26 N. E. R. 525, 718
McKean v.Jones,19 Can. 8.C.489, 1177
McKee v. McDonald, 17 Ind.518, 1182
McKee v. Metraw, 31 Minn. 429, 609
McKee v. People, 836 N. Y. 113, 1073.
McKee v. Perchement, 69 Pa. St.

544!

342,
McKeen v. Boord, 60 Ind. 280, 1239
595, 596.

McKeen y. Oliphant, 18 N. J. L.

442,

McKeen v. Porter, 134 Ind. 483, 1067
McKeever y. Ball, 71 Ind. 398, 318
McKellip v. Mcllhenny, 4 Watts

(Pa.)317,8.C.28 Am. Dec. 711, 507
McKelvey v. Chesapeake,etc., Ry.

Co., 35 W.Va. 500, 8. C. 14.8. E.

R. 261, 1076, 1092
McKenna v. Fisk, 1 How. (U.S. )

241, 306
McKenna v. Lyle, 155 Pa. St. 599,

8. C. 26 Atl. R. 777, 585
McKenna v. People, 81 N. Y. 360, 543
McKenzie v. Noble, 13 Rich. (8.

C.) 147, 198
McKenzie v. State, 24 Ark. 636, 1238
McKenzie v. Sykes, 47 Mich. 294, 536
McKeon v. See, 51 N. Y. 300, 1131
McKerras v. Gardner, 3 Johns.137, 369
McKethan v. Ray, 71 N.Car.165, 1138
McKey v. Cobb, 33 Miss. 533, 452
McKey v. Hyde Park, 134 U.8. 84, 543
McKim v. Doane, 137 Mass. 195, 289
McKinley v. First Nat. Bank, 118

Ind. 375, 1159
McKinney v. Jones, 57 Wis. 301, 347
McKinney v. Jones, 55 Wis. 39, 179
McKinney v. McKinney, 8 Ohio

St. 423, 1211, 1214
McKinney v. Monongahela, etc.,

Co., 14 Pa. St. 65, 1129
McKinney v. Neil, 1 McLean 540, 800
McKinney v.Page,32 Me. 513, 573, 593
McKinney v. People, 43 Am. Dec.

65, 1117
TABLE OF CASES.

clxxv

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. I, pp. 608-1244.]

McKinney v. Snider, 116 Ind. 160,

8. C. 18 N. E. R. 526, 528
ney v. Snyder, 78 Pa. St.

fy
McKinney v. Springer, 6 Ind.

' 453, 1169
McKinney v. Springer, 3 Ind. 59, 361
McKinney v. State, 3 Wyo. 719,

8.C.16L. R. A. 710, "1162
McKinney v. State, 101 Ind. 355, 1199
McKinnis v. Freeman, 38 Ia. 364, 576
McKinsey v. McKee, 109 Ind. 209,

8. C.9 N. E. R. 771, 622
. McKnight, In re, 11 Mont. 126, 736
McKnight v. Dunlop, 5 N.Y. 537,

8. C. 50 Am. Dec. 370, 718
McKnight v. Taylor, 1 How. (U.

8.) 161, 376, 377
MeKowen v. McDonald, 43 Pa. St.

1025
MeLachlan v. Wright, 3 ne

348,

McLain v. Duncan, 57 Ark. 49, 8.

C. 208. W. R. 597, 427
McLain v. State, 18 Neb. 154, §.C.

24. N. W. RB. 720 692, 693
McLane v. Elder (Tex, ), 238. Ww.

R. 757, 1063
McLane Vv. State, 4 Ga. 335, 1171
McLaran v. Wilhelm, 50 Mo. App.

658, 1195

McLaren v. Birdsong, 24 Ga. 265, 656
McLaren vy. Kehlor, 22 Wis. 297, 177
McLaughlin v. Bascom, 38 Ia. 660, 539
McLaughlin v. Cowley, 131 Mass.
70, 798
McLaughlin v. Dane, 40 Kan. 392,
8. C. 19 Pac. R. 853, 1178
McLaughlin v. Dunn, 45 Mo. App.
645,
McLaughlin yv. Etchison, 127 Ind.
474, 8. C. 27 N. E. R. 152,
McLaughlin v. Janney, 6 "Gratt.
609,
McLaughlin v. McCrory, 55 Ark.

442, 8.C.29 Am. St. R. 56,8. C.

18 8. W. RB. 762, 271, 304
McLaughlin vy. O’Rourke, 12 Ia.

459, 492

McLaughlin v. O’Toole, 20 N. Y.

8. 653, 1142
McLaughlin v. oo (S Dak. he

47N. W.R.8
_McLaughlin v. Wheeler (S. Dak. S

50 N. W. R. 834
McLaurin v. Baum (Miss.), 12 So.

R. 594, 557
McLaurine v. Monroe, 30 Mo. 462, 498
McLean v. Burbank, 12 Minn.

530, 1087

383, 1066 |°

 

Vee v. Copper, 8 Call. eed
McLean v. Equitable, etc. pus Co.,
100 Ind. 127, 8. C. 50 Am. R.
779, 1029, 1030
McLean v. Hugarin, 13 Johns.184, 344
McLean vy. Lafayette, 3 McLean

504, 1210
McLean v. Presley, 56 Ala. 211, 495
McLean v. State, 16 Ala. 672, 695
McLean v. State, 8 Heisk. 22, 189
McLean County Precinct vy. De-

posit Bank, 81 Ky. 254, 212
McLees v. Felt, 11 Ind. 318, 675
McLemore v. Scales, 68 Miss. 47,

8. C. 8 So. R. 844, 313

McLeod v. Bertschy, 33 Wis. 176,

8. C. 14 Am. R. 755, 1046
McLeran v. Benton, 73 Cal. 329, 380
McLimans v. City of Lancaster,

57 Wis. 297, 177
McLimans v. City of Lancaster,

63 Wis. 596,

McLean v. Humphreys, 104 Ill.

378, ; 294
McLennan y. Prentice, 79 Wis.

88, S. C. 48 N. W. R. 487, 1159
McLughan v. Bovard, 4 Watts

308, 1136, 1138
McMahon v. New York, etc., Co.,

20 N. Y. 463,. 408
McMahon v. O’Conner, 137 Mass.

1063
320

App. 103,
McManus v. Com., 91 Pa. St. 57,

822
McMeans v. Cameron, 51 Ja. 691,
304, 333

216

1159

McMasters v. West Chester, etc.,
Co., 25 Wend. 379,

McMechen v. McMechen, 17 W.
Va. 683, 741
140, 373

McMahon _y. Turney, 45 Mo.
1087
McMath vy. State, 55 Ga. 303,
McMerty v. Morrison, 62 Mo.
McMickeny. Amos, 4 Rand. (Va.)

134, 1108, 1106, 1134
McMicken v. Perin, 20 How.

133, 1187
McMillan v. Baxley, 112 N. Car.

578, S.C. 168. E. R. 845, 1068
McMillan v. James, 105 i, 194, 596
McMillan v. Nichols, 62 Ga. 36, 218
McMillan v. Richards, 12 Cal.

467, 847, 1203
McMinn v. Whelan, 27 Cal. 300, 1069
McMullen v. Rafferty, 89 N.Y.

456, 860, 384
McMullen vy. State, 105 Ind. 334,

8. C.4N. E. R. 903, 446
elxxvi

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. I, pp. 603-1244.]

ea s Appeal, 101 Pa. St.
421

MeMurrin y. Rigby (Ia.), 53 N
W. R. 1079,

McNab y. Bennett, 66 Il. 157,

McNabb v. Lockhart, 18 Ga. 495,

MeNair v. Craig, 34 8. Car. 9,

McNairy v. Castleberry, 6 .Tex.
286,

McNally v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 137
N. Y. 389, 8. C. 33 N. E. R.
475,

McNamara vy. Cabon, 21 Neb.
589,

McNamara v. Carr, 84 Me. 299,8.
C. 24 Atl. R. 856,

McNamara v. Dwyer, 7 Paige (N.
Y.) 239, 8. C. 32 Am. Dec. 627,

McNamara v. Logan (Ala.), 14 So.
R. 175,

605,

520
"785
613
821
1135

190

1042
183
606
477
740

MecNatt v. Harmon, 3 Wash. 482,
1134

S. C. 28 Pac. R. 748,

McNaught v. McAllister, 93 Ind.
114,

McNear v. Bailey, 18 Me. 251,

McNeil v. Magee, 5 Mason(U. 8.)
244,

MeNichol v. Pacific Express Co.,
12 Mo. App. 407,

McNichol v. United States Mer-
cantile Rep. Agency, 74 Mo.
457,

200
572

598
537

440

MeNiel v. Farneman, 37 Ind. 203,
1162

MeNitt v. Turner, 16 Wall. 352,
McNulty v. Batty, 10 How. 72,

296,

McNulty v. wake 64 Miss. 198,
8.C.180.R

McNutt v. MeNatt, 116 Ind. 545, 8.
C.2L.R ‘A. 372,

McPherson | v. Beatrice, 12 Neb.
202,

McPherson v. Cox, 86N. Y. 472,

McPherson y. Cunliff, 11S. & R.
(Pa.) 422,

McPherson’ v. Foster, 4 Wash.
(C. C.) 45,

324
338
552
504

320
581

274

35
McPherson v. Parker, 30 Cal. 455,
1186

S. C. 59 Am. Dec. 129,

McPherson v. Rathbone, 7 Wend.
(N. Y.) 216,

McPherson v. St. Louis, ete., Ry.
Co., 97 Mo. 253,

McPherson y. Snowden, 19 Md.
197,

McPike v. West, 71 Mo. 199,

McQueen v. Middletown Mfg. Co.,
16 Johns. (N. Y.) 5,

506
1033

199
484

440

 

McQueen v. State, 82 Ind. 72, 1075
McQueen v.Stewart,7 Ind.535, 1161
McQuerry v.Gilliland,89 Ky.434, 281

McQuigan v. Delaware, etc., R. R.
Co.,-129 N. Y. 50, 8. C. 29 N. E.

E. 23d, 810
McReady v.Rogers,1 Neb.124, 1193
McReynolds v. Burlington,etc., R.

R. Co., 106 Tl. 152, 679
McReynolds v. Jones, 30 Ala.

101, 1225
McShane vy. Gray, 13 Ia. 504, 601
McSherry v. Penna., etc., Co., 97

Cal. 637, 8. C. 32 Pac. R.711,

629, 634
McSorley v. Hughes, 58 Hun 360,
8. C.12N. Y. 8S. 179, "1138

McTaggart v. Harrison, 12 Kan.62, 213
McTyier v. State, 91 Ga. 254, 8. C.

188. E. R. 140, 1 802
McVeigh v. United States,11 Wall.

| 259, 118, 280
MeVichie v. Knight, 82 Wis. 137,

8. C. 51 N. W. R. 1094, 528
McVickar v. Greenleaf, 4 Rob.(N.

Y.) 657, 515
MeVicker v. Beedy, 31 Me. 314, S.

C. 50 Am. Dec. 666, 303

McWhirter v. ‘Allen, 1 Tex. Civ.'
App. 649,8. C.20 S.W.R.1007, 1065

Mabbett v. Vick, 53 Wis. 158, 429

Mabin v. Webster (Ind.), 35 N.

E. R. 194, 824
Mabry v. Baxter, 11 Heisk. 682, 115
Mack v. Brown, 73 III. 295, 439

Mack v. Leedle, 78 Ta. 164, 8. C.
42 N. W. R. 636,
Mack v. People, 82 N. Y. 235,
Mackall v. Casilear, 137 U.S. "556,
8. C. 11 Sup. Ct. R. 178,
wa eo v. Bloodgood, 9 Johns.
285,

1094
308

570

583
Mackereth v. Glasgow, etc., R. R.
Co., L. R. 8 Exch. 149, 441
Mackey v. Hyatt, 42 Mo. ‘App.443, 465
Mackinley v. McGregor, 3 Whart.
869, 8. C. 31 Am. Dec. 522,
1027, 1034
Macintosh v. Great Western, etc.,
Co., 2 Mac. & G. 74,

Macklot v.Davenport,17 Ia.379, 258
Mackubin v.Smith,5 Minn.367, 446
Macon v. Crump, 1 Call 575, 598
MacRitchie v. Johnson, 49 Kan.
821, 8S. C. 30 Pac. R. 477, 1054
Madden v. Koester, 52 Ia. 692,
781, 799

Maddox v. Pulliam, 5 Blackf.
205, 1195
TABLE OF CASES.

elxxvii

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 608-1244.]

Madison, etc., Co. v. Whiteneck,

8 Ind. 217, 120
Madison, I.& P. R. R. Co. v.

Whitesel, 11 Ind. 55, 510
Madison Ins. Co. v. Griffin, 3 Ind.

277, 581, 601
Magaw v. Clark, 6 Watts (Pa.)

528, 878
Magee v. Carmack, 13 Ill. 289, 554
Magee v. Com., 46 ’Pa. St. 358, 366
Magee v. Magee, 87 Miss. 138, 551

Magee v. North. Pac. R. R. Co.,

78 Cal. 480, S.C. 21 Pac. R.114, 550
Magee v. Scott, 9 Cush. 148, 8. C.

55 Am. Dec. 49, 394
Maggard v. Van Duyn, 36 Neb.

862, 8. C.55 N. W.R. 263, 1169
Maggart vy. Freeman, 27 Ind. 531, 511
Magoffin v. M. Pac. Ry. Co., 102

Mo. 540, S.C. 15 8. W. R. 76,
Magruder v. Augusta, 86 Ga. 220,

S.C. 128. E. R. 587, 483
Magruder v. Swann, 25 Md. 178, ° 237
Maguire v. Maguire, 7 Dana181, 290
Maguire v. Price, 155 Pa. St. 60,8.

C. 25 Atl. R. 828, 1041
Maguire Vv. Tyler, 40 Mo. 406,

269, "1185
Magwood v. Milne, 12 Rich. (8.

Car.) 474, 1042
Mahaffey v. Byers, 151 Pa. St. 92,

S. C. 25 Atl. R. 98, 1066
Mahoney v. Ashton, 4H.& M.

(Md.) 210, 1103, 1106
Mahoney v. Middleton, 41Cal.41, 318
Mahoney v. Robbins, 49 Ind. 146, 28
Mahorning Bank’s Appeal, 32 Pa.

St. 158, 1175
Major v. Major, 2 Kan. 337, 1142
Major v. State, 4 Sneed (Tenn. Yn

597,

Main v. Ginthert, 92 Ind. 180,

4195
Main v. Oien, 47 ‘Minn. 89, 8. C.
49 N. W.R. 523, ~ 1079
Maine Wharf v. Proprietors, 85
Me. 175, S. C. 27 Atl. R. 93, 483
Makepeace v. Lukens, 27 Ind.
435, 186
Malaney v. Hughes, 50 N. J. L.
546, 1192
Malby v. Osborne, 35 Minn. 387, 565
Mallett v. Uncle Sam, etc., Co., 1
Nev. 188, 216, 317
Mallory v. Dauber, 83 Ky. 239, 192
Malloy v. Walker Tp., 77 Mich.
448, 8. C.6 L. R. A. 695, 534
Maling vy. Crummey, 5 Wash. 222,
8. C. 31 Pac. R. 600, 1079, "1220
Malone v. Hopkins, 49 Ga. 221, 1167
L

 

.Maloney vy. Dewey, 127 Ill. 395, 8.

C. 19 N. E. R. 848,

Maloney v. Finnegan, 38 Minn.
70, S.C. 36 N. W. R. 723,

ay v. Hunt, 29 Mo. App.

9,

Malone v. Samuel, 3 A. K. Marsh.
(Ky.) 350, §. C. 13 Am. Dee.
172, 435

Maloney v. Traverse (Ia.), 54 N.

W. R. 155 619
300

341
488
171

Maltimore v. Maltimore , 40 Pa.

St. 151,

Maltus v. Shields, 2 Metc. (Ky.)

553, 545
Maman v. Smith, 8 R. I. 192, 251
Manchester v. Dodge, 57 Ind. 584,

; 1138
Manchester vy. Harrington, 10 N.

Y. 164, 139
Manclove v. Burger, 38 Ind. 211, 409
Mandel v. Peet, 18 Ark. 236, 464
Mandeville v. Mandeville, 35 Ga.

243, 300, 345
Mandeville v. Welch, 5 Wheat.

277, 362
Maner v. State, 8 Tex. App. 361,

Maney, Ex parte, 38 Tex. 344,
Manhattan Life Ins. Co. yv. Fran-
cisco, 17 Wall. 672, 1063

Manifold v. Jones, 117 Ind. 212,
8. C. 20 N. E. R. 124, 110

Mantepily Vv. Holmes, 1 Bailey
Eq. (8. Car.) 283, 1185

142

Manion v. Flynn, 39 Conn. 330, 665
‘Manitowoc County v. Sullivan, 51
Wis. 115, 156
Manley v. Manley, 4 Chandl. 96, 38
7
Manlove v. Thrift, 5 Munf. 498, 1184
Mann v. Blount, 65 N. Car. 99, 299
Mann y. Buford, 3 Ala. 312, 8. C.
87 Am. Dec. 691, 471
Mann v. Clifton, 3 Blkf. 304, 1166

Mann v. Glover, 14N. J. L. 195, 666
Mann vy. King, 18 Ves. 297, 1210
Mann v. Kelsey, 71 Tex. 609, 8.

C.128. W. R. 48, 199
Mann v. Martin, 14 Bush 763, 243
Mann vy. Palmer, 3 Abb. Dec. (N. ;

Y.), 162, 875
Mann y. Richardson, 66 Ill. 481, 582
Mann v. Scott, 32 Ark, 598, 678
Manning, In’re, 76 Wis. 365, 8.C.

45 N. W.R. 26, 214, 235, 365
Manning. In re, 139 U.S. 504, 235
Manning v. Burlington, ete., E

R. Co., 64 Ia. 240, S. C. 20 N

W. R. 169. "719
elxxvili

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.]

Manning v. Chesapeake, etc., Co.,

16 L. R. A. 271, 368
Manning v. Downing, 2 Johns.
(N. -Y.) 453, 635

Manning v. Heady, 64 Wis. 630,
8. 0.25 N. W. R. 1
Manning v. Goshen 27 Ind. 399,
508, 1090, 1097
Manning v. Jamesson, 1 branch

C. C. 285, 623
Manning v. Ins. Co., 100 U. 8.

693, 101
Manning v. Manning, 1 Johns.

Ch. 527,
Manning v. Weeks, 139 U. 8. 504,

8. C. 11 Sup. Ct. R. 624, 214
Mannion v. Broadway, etc., Co.,

13. N. Y. Supl. 759, 187

Mannix v. Sitio, 115 Ind. 245, 148, 636
Manny v. Griswold, 21 Minn. 506, 1093
Manny v. Harris, 2 Johns. (N. Y.)
24,8. C. 3 Am. Dec. 386, 401
Mansell v. Reg., 8 El. & B. 54, 667
Mansfield v. Corbin, 4 Cush. 213, 1059
Mansfield v. McIntyre, 10 Ohio

28, 287
Mansfield v. New England, etc.,

Co., 58 Me. 35, 470
Mansfield v.N. Y., etc., R.R. Co.,

114 N. Y. 331, 8. C. 21 N. E. R.

735, 559
Mansfield v. Shipp, 128 Ind. 55, S.
C. 27 N. E. R. 427, 454

17 Ohio 385,
Mansfield C. & L. M. RB
Swan, 111 U.S. 379, S. C. 4 Sup.
Ct. R. 510, 342, 609, 1214
Manson v. Lancey, 84 Me. 380, 8.

Mansfield & 8. R. Go. v. Veeder,
408

. Co. v.

C. 24 Atl. R. 880, 382
Mansue v. Churchman, 84 Ind.

573, 1168
Manufacturers’ Bank v. Kiersted,

6 Daly 160,
Manufacturers’ Bank v. Perry, 144

Mass. 313, 367
Manufacturers, etc., Co. v. Dor-

gan, 58 Fed. Rep. 945, 741
Manufacturing Co. v. Donahoe, 49

Ark. 318, 8. C.5 8. W. R. 342, 154
Manufacturing Co. v. Worster, 23

N. H. 462, 282
Manville v. Parks, 7 Col. 128,

1197, 1198

Manwell vy. Briggs, 17 Vt. 176, 1067
Mapes v. People, 60 Ill. 523, 299

Mapstrick v. Ramge, 9 Neb. 390, 153
Marble v. McKenney, 60 Me.

332, ;
Marble v. Mellen, 145 Mass. 342,

492
1056

 

.Marble v. Walters, 19 Mo. App.
134, 820
Marbough v. Smith, 11 Kan. 554, 1165
Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch
187, 123, 124, 248
March v. Allabough, 103 Pa. St.

335, 538
March v. Harrell, 1 Jones L. (N.

Car.) 329, 806
March vy. State, 44 Tex. 64, 251
Marchand vy. Coffee, 23 La. Ann.

442, 714
Marcum v. Powers (Ky.), 9 S.

W. R. 255, 304

Marcum v. Smith, 26 Mo. 200), :
460, 1023

Marey v. Barnes, 16 Gray 161, 8.
C. 77 Am. Dec. 405,

Maretzek v. Cauldwell, 2 Abb. Pr:
N. S. (N. Y.) 407,

Margar v. Emerich, 4 Cal. 508,

Mariani v. Dougherty, 46 Cal. 26,

657
1188

aes pera 13 Abb. N. C.

(N.Y 1211
Marine ene v. Fiske, 71 N.Y.

353, 396
Marine Bank v. International

Bank, 9 Wis. 57, 412
Marine, etc., Co. v. Herreshoff,

etc., Co., 82 Fed. R. 822, 1236, "1239
Marine Ins. Co. v. Hodgson, 6

Cranch 206, 162
Marine Ins. Co. v. Young, 5

Cranch 187,
Marion v. State, 20 Neb. 233, 8.C.

29 N. W. Rep. 911, 783, 803
Mark v. State, 101 Ind. 353, “1160
Markell v. Matthews, 3 Col. App.

49, S. C. 32 Pac. R. 176, 1133
Markham v. Howell, 33 Ga. 508, 485
Markland v. Albes, 81 Ala. 433,

8. C. 2 So. R. 128,
Markland v. McDaniel, 51 ieee

850, S. C. 20 L. R. A. 96, 1066
Markle v. Akron, 14 Ohio 509, 277
Markley v. Amos, 8 Rich L. (S.

Car.) 468, 582
Markover v. Krauss, 32 Ind. 294,

291, 294

Markson v. Haney, 47 Ind.31, 1158
Marks v. Boone, 24 Fla. 177, Ss” C.

4 So. R. 532, 555

Marks v. King, 64.N. Y. 628, 721

Marks v. Trustees, 37 Ind. 155, 121

Markward v. Doriat, 21 Ohio St.

637, 1162
Marley v. Hornaday, 69 Ind. 106,

1243

Marley v. Noblett, 42 Ind. 85, 1166
TABLE OF CASES...

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp.

Marnine v. Murphy, 8 Ind. 272, 466

Maronne v. N. » etc., Club, 63
Hun 630, 1211

Marqueze v. Sontheimer, 59 Miss.

’
Marr v. Johnson, 9 Yerg. 1, 1160
Marrero v. Nunez, 3 La. Ann. be 619
Marrow v. Brinkley, 85 Va. 55,8
C.658. E. R. 605,
Marsalis v. Patton; 83 Tex. 521, 8.
C.188. W. R. 1070,
Marseilles v. Kenton, 17 Pa. St.
2.

” 266

586
1200
644.

Marsh v. Bast, 41 Mo. 493,
Marsh v. Brown, 57 N. H. 178,
Marsh vy. Coppock, 9 Car. & P.

480, 659
Marsh v. Cramer, 16 Col. 331, 8.

C. 27 Pac. R. 169, 540
Marsh v. Curtis, 71 Ind. 377, 596
Marsh v. Hand, 35 Md. 123, 503
Marsh v. Hulbert, 4 McLean (U.

8. C. C.) 364, 620
Marsh v. Nichols, 140 U.S. 344, 304
Marsh v. Oliver, 14 N. J. Eq. 259, se

6
Marsh v. Packer, 20 Vt. 198, 585, 594
Marsh v. Pier, 4 Rawle 278, 8. C.

26 Am. Dec. 131, 301, 1177
Marsh v.Terrell,63 Ind. 368, 1164, 1165
Marshall v. American Express

Co., 7 Wis. 1, 669
Marshall v. Blackshire, 44 Ia. 475,

1088

Marshall v. Dalliber, 5 Conn. 480,

\ 382
Marshall v. Davies, 78 N. Y. 414,
704, 705
Marshall v. Harney Peak, etc.,
Co. (S. Dak.), 47 N. W. R. 290,
548, 558
Marshall v. Hubbard, 117 U. S..
415, 8. C. 6 Sup. Ct. R. 806,

; * 1050, 1053
Marshall v. Moore, 36 Ill. 321, 565
Marshall v. Ravisies, 22 Fla. 583, .

155

Marshall v. Schricker, 63 Mo. 308,
525
1237

706
485

Marshall v. State, 123 Ind. 128,
Marshall vy. State, 5 Tex. App.

273,

“Marshall v. Turnbull, 32 Fed. R.
124,

Marston, In re, 79 Me. 25, 8S. C. 3
N. E.R. 367,

Martin, ae parte, L. RB. 4 Q. B.
Div. 2

Martin, in parte, 46 Fed. R. 482,

Martin, Matter of, 2 Paine 348,

224

298
342
1131

 

elxxix

1-602, Vol. II, pp. 608-1244.]
Martin v. Aultman, 80 Wis. 150,

S. C. 49 N. W. R.'749, 456
Martin v. Bank, 20 Ark. 636,
191, 1244
Martin v. Burns, 80 Tex. 676, 8.
C.168. W. R. 1072, 829
Martin v. California, etc., R. R.
Co., 94 Cal. 3826, 8. C. 29 Pac.
R. 645, 657

Martin v. Cepia Ins. Co. (Ia.),
52N.W.R 206

‘| Martin v. ae CBN. J.L. 228, 324
Martin v. Central Iowa R. R. Co. 6

.59 Ta. 411, 1093

Martin v. Chauvin, 7 Mo. 277, . 393
Martin v. Elden, 32 Ohio St. 282,

712, 784

Martin v. Gray, 142 U. S. 236, 456

Martin v. Hall, 26 Mo. 386, 178

Martin v. Harrison, 50 Ind. 270,

1156, 1210
Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 304, 202
Martin v.Hunter’ sLessee, 1 Wheat.

304, 247
Martin v. Ingham, 38 Kan. 641, S.
C. 17 Pac. R. 162, 170

Martin v. Ins. Co.,44.N. J. L. 485, 385
Martin v. Lake, 3 Hill (N. Y.) 475,
1167

Martin v. Letty, 18 B. Mon. (Ky.)

73, 380
Martin v. Martin, 74 Ind. 207, 1182
Martin v. Martin, 118 Ind. 227, 378
Martin v. Morelock, 32 Ill. 485,

1159

Mott, 12 Wheat. 19,
165, 323
459

Martin v.

Martin v. Noble, 29 Ind. 216,

Martin v. Ohio River R. R. Co.,
37 W. Va. 349, S. 0.168. E.R.
589, 1115

Martin v. Raffin, 21 N. Y. S. 1043, ig

Martin v. St. Louis, etc., Co., 53

Ark 250, S.C. 138 8. W. R. 765,
188," 1243

Martin v. State, 63 Miss. 505, S.
C. 56 Am. R. 812,

Martin v. State, 79 Wis. 165, 8.C.
48 N. W.R. 119, 631, 640

Martin v. Suber (8. Car.), 188. E.
R. 125,

Martin v. Tarver, 43 Miss. 517,

Martin v. Thompson,3 Bibb (Ky.)
252,

Martin v. Thrasher, 40 Vt. 460,

Martin v. Tidwell, 36 Ga. 332, 301

Martin v. Whistler, 62 Ia. 416, 399

Martin v. Williams, 13 Johns.(N.
Y.) 264, 595, 598

820

676
195

466
i583
elxxx

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. I, pp. 603-1244.]

Martin v. Williams, 97 Am. Dec.
456, 505
Martin v. Windsor Hotel Co.; 70
N. Y.101, 162
Martindale v. Price, 14 Ind.115, 1172
Martineau v. Steele, 14 Wis. 295,
1160
Martinsburg, etc.,R.Co. v. March,

114 U. 8. 549, 407
Martinton v. Fairbanks, 112 U.

8.670,8. C. 5 Sup. Ct. R. 321, 1140
Martyr v. Lawrence, 2 De G. J.&

S. 261, 478
Marvel v. Huston, 2 Harr. (Del.)

340, 198

wos v. Hilsendegen, 46 Mich.
Marx v. Leinkauff, 93 Ala. 453, 8.

C. 9 So. R. 818, 806
Marx v. Schwartz, 14 Ore. 177, 8.

C. 12 Pac. R. 253, 1067
Marye v. Strouse, 6 Sawy. 204, 1236
Maryland Ins. Co. v. Ruden, 6

Cranch 338, 110:
Marysville v. Buchanan, 3 Cal.

212,

Mason v. Abbott, 83 Ill. 445,
Mason v. Anderson, 3 T. B. Mon.
(Ky.) 293,

347
1195

622

Mason y. Bridge, 14 Me. 468, 573
Mason v. Brown, 6 How. Pr. (N.
Y.) 481, 628

Mason v. Croom, 24 Ga. 211,

Mason v. Daly, 117 Mass. 403,

Mason & T.Drainage Dist. v. Grif-
fin, 134 Ill. 330, 8. C. 25 N. E.
R. 995

676
1186

, 609

Mason v. Eldred, 6 Wall. 231,
443, 1195

8. C.5 Barn. & Ad. 1,

Mason v. Johnson, 24 III. 159, 8.
3881

Mason v. Messenger, 17 Ia. 261,
425, 444

Mason vy. Palmerton, 2 Ind. 117,
1163, 1169

Mason v. Hill, 3 Barn. & Ad. 304,
892
C. 76 Am. Dec. 740,
Mason v. N.Y.,etc.,Co.,52 Me. 82, 200
Mason vy. Prendergrast, 120 N. Y.

536, 519
Mason v. State, 15 Tex. App.534, 658
Mason y. Stricker, 37 Ga. 262, 302

Mason vy. Weston, 29 Ind. 561, 515

Mason v. Woerner, 18 Mo. 566, 116

Massachusetts, etc., Bank v. Bul-
lock, 120 Mass. 86, 199

Massey v. Colville, 45 N.J.L. 119,
8. C. 46 Am. R. 754, 457
Massie v. Commonwealth, 90 Ky.

485, 8. C. 14S. W. R. 419, 308

 

Massie v. Watts, 6 Cranch 148,
281, 283, "1128
Masten vy. Devo, 2 Wend. (N.Y. )
424,
Masterson v. Kidwell, 2 Cranch
. C. 669, 586
Masterson Vv. Hever (Tex. ds,
2158. W. R. 1005, 1136
Masterton v. Matthews, 60 Ala.
260,
Mastin v. Branham, 86 Mo. 643,
Mastin v. Gray, 19 Kan. 458, 8.
C. 27 Am. R. 149, 326, 606
Mastin v. Halley, 61 Mo. 196, 478
Mastin v. Pac. BR. R. Co., 83 Mo.
634, 539
Masury v. Whiton, 111 N. Y. 679,
S.C. 18 N. E. R. 638, 574, 599
Matchett v. Cincinnati, etc., Ry.
Co., 182 Ind. 334, §.C.31 N. E
R. 792,
Mateer v. Brown, 1 Cal. 221,
041, 1042
Mateer v. Missouri Pac. R. R. Co.,
105 Mo. 320, S. C. 168. W. R.
839,
Mather v. Scoles, 35 Ind. 1,
Matherson v. Grant, 2 How. (U.
8.) 263,
Mathes v. Bennett, 21 N. H. 204,

552

144
382

1097

569
394

162

‘ 363
Matheson v. Grant, 2 How. (U.

8.) 263, 1120
Mathews’ Adm’r v. Forniss, 91
Ala. 157, 8. C. 8'So. Rep. 661,
Mathews v. Mathews, 1 Heisk.

(Tenn.) 669,
Mathews v. Miller, 25 W. Va. 817,
578, 595
Mathews v. Phelp, 61 Mich. 327,
S.C. 1 Am. St. R. 581,
Mathews v. Taffe, 44 Minn. 400,

679
602

413

046
Mathias vy. Sellers, 86 Pa. St. 486,
1209
Mathie v. McIntosh, 40 Wis. 120, 255
Mathis v. Clark, 2 Mill. (S. Car.)
456, S. C. 12 Am. Dec. 688, 473
Mathis v. Thomas, 101 Ind. 119, 404
Matilda v. Crenshaw, 4 Yerg.
(Tenn.) 299, 381
Matlock v. Fry, 15 Ind. 483, 637
Matson v. Trower, Ryan & M. 17, 594
Matter of Estate of Altemus,32 La.
Ann. 364, 314
Matter of Canal and Walker Sts.,
12 N. Y. 406, 298
Matter of Christein, ll Jones &
Spen. (N. Y.) 523, 180
Matter of Cooper, 93 N.Y. 507, 152
TABLE OF CASES,

celxxxi

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-GO02, Vol. I, pp. 603-1244.]

Matter of Field, 131 N. Y. 184, 447
Matter of the Graduates, 11 Abb.
Pr. 301, 295

Matter of Griffin, 25 Tex. (Supl. I
623,

Matter of Hubbard, 82 N. Y. 90, 580

Matter of Kendrick, 107 N.Y. 104, 883

Matter of Martin, 2 Paine 348, 1131

Matter of Morgan, 104 N. Y. 74, 8.
C.9N.E. R. 861, 720

Matter of Neilley, 95 N. Y. 290, 376

Matter of New York, etc., Co., 35
Hun 575, 332

Matter of Oath Before Justices, 12
Coke 130, 298

Matter of Richardson, 2 Sto. (U.
Ss. C. C.) 571, 379

Matter of Ryers, 72 N. Y. 1,8. C.
23 Am. R. 88, 225

Matter of the Village of Middle-
town, 82 N. Y. 196, 425

Matter of Washington Avenue,
69 Pa. St. 352,8. C. 8 Am. R.
255,

Matter of Welman, 20 Vt. 653,

Matter of Willof Warfield, In re,
22 Cal. 51,8. C. 83 Am. Dec.
49,

Matter of Williams, 4 Denio (N.
Y.) 194,

Matter of Campbell, 71 Ind. 512,

Matteson v. Noyes, 25 Ill. 591,
Matteson v. Smith, 37 Wis. 333,
Matthews v. Coalter, 9 Mo. 705,
Matthews v. Densmore, 48 Mich.
461, 465
Matthews v. Duryee, 4 Keyes (N.
¥.

in F 1150

Matthews v. Houghton, 11 Me.
377, 184, 1189

Matthews v. Lindsay, 20 Fla. 962, ae

Matthews v. Storey, 54 Ind. 417, 1068
Matthews v. Superior Court, 68

108
379

263
595

1178
503

438
532

Cal. 638, 237
Mattingly v. Corbit, 7 B. Mon.

376, 280
Mattingly v. Darwin, 23 Il]. 56, 161

Mattingly v. Moranville, 11 Mo.
604, 1236

Mattingly v. Paul, 88 Ind. 95, 668
Mattocks v. Baker, 2 Fed.
455, 315
Mattocks v. Chadwick, 71 Me.
313, 383

Mattocks ‘ pan 3 Johns. Ch.
(N. Y.) 7 476, 477
Mattoon, city of, v. Fallin,113 ml.
1

: 052

 

oe Horesson, 24 Ill. App.

Maughan v. ey 54 Vt. 316, 3.
C. 23 Atl. R. 5
Maund v. Loeb, oY Ala. 374, 8. C.

179

6 So. R. 376, 624
Maunder, In re, 49 L. T. R. 585, 601
Mauran v. Smith, 8 R. I. 192, 170

Maurice v. Worden, 54 Md. 238,
715, 716, 722
Maury v. Post, 55 Hun (N.Y 7
454, 598
Maus vy. Bome, 123 Ind. 522, S. C.
24.N. E. R. 345 529
Maus v. Montgomery, 118. &R.
(Pa.) 329, 1027
Maverick v. Maury, 79 Tex. 435,
8. C. 158. W. Rep. 686, 541
Mawhinney v.Doane,40 Kan. 676, 368
Maxam v. Wood, 4 Blackt. 297, 149

Maxwell’s Ex’rs v. Wilkinson,
113 U. S. 656, 8. C. 5 Sup. Ct.

R. 691, 738
Maxwell v. Atchison, etc., R. R.

Co., 34 Fed. R. 286, 441
Maxwell v. Boyne, 36 Ind. 120, 1092
Maxwell v. Campbell, 8 Ohio St.

265, 1199
May v. Baker, 15 Il. 89, 462
May v. Board, 30 Fed. R. 250, 318
May v. Breed, 7 Cush. 15, 8. C.

54 Am. Dec. 700, 285
‘May v. Hanson, 5 Cal. 360,. 1043
May v. Hoover, 112 Ind. 455, 664
May v. Marks, 74 Ala. 249, 324
May v. Miller, 59 Vt. 577, 600
May v. Printup, 59 Ga. 129, 196
May v. School Dist., 22 Neb. 205,

8. C. 3 Am. St. R. 266, 366
May v. Vann, 15 Fla. 553, 364
Mayberry v. Willoughby, 5 Neb.

368, 384
Mayer v. Appel, 18 Ill. App. 87, 801
Mayer v. Faulkrod, 4 Wash. C.

C. 503, 567
Mayes v. Goldsmith, 58 Ind. 94, 529
Mayfield v. Cotton, 37 Tex. 229, 822
Mayfield v. State, 40 Tex.289, 1181
Mayhew v. Durfee, 138 Mass.

548, 1139
Mayhew v. Snell, 33 Mich. 182, 183
Maynard v. Bond, 67 Mo. 315, 195

Maynard v. Frederick, 7 Cush.
247, 579, 591, 593, 601
Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 8.

. 8 Sup. Ct. R. 723, 288
Maynard v. Ponder, 75 Ga. 664, 1194
Maynard v. Shorb, 85 Ind.501, 707
Maynes v. Atwater, 88 Pa. St.

496, 1042
elxxxii

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.]

Maynes v. Moore, 16 Ind. 116, 212
Mayor v. Butler, 1 Barb. (N.Y.)

325, 594
Mayor v oes y. Clark, 3 Ad.

& EL. 5 1088
Mayor, a , Vv. Curtiss, 1 Clarke

336, 480
Mayor v. Bolton, 1 Bos. & P. 40, 430
Mayor vy. Butler, 1 Barb. (N. Y.)

825, 597
Mayo v. Gardner, 4 Jones 359, 584
Mayo y. Stoneum, 2 Ala. 390, 144
Mayor of Columbus v. Goetchius,

7 Ga. 139, 654
Mayor v. Horn, 26 Md. 194, 117

Mayor v. Horton, 88 N. J. L. 88, 472
Mayor, etc., v. Sands, 105 N.Y.
298

210,
Mayor, etc., vy. Schermerhorn, 1
N. Y. 423, 1181
Mayor v. State, 15 Md. 376, 208
Mayor of Hudson vy. Thorne, 7
Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 261, 545
Mays v. Dooley, 59 Ind. 287, 255
Mays v. Foster, 26 Kan. 518,
104, 1096, 1148
Mays v. Fritton, 20 Wall. 413, 1206
Mays v. Hassell, 4 Stew. & Port.
(Ala.) 222, 8. C. 24 Am. Dec.

750, 191
Mays v. Rose, 1 Freeman’s Ch.

(Miss.) 703, 194, 196
Meachamv Moore, 59 Miss.561, 707
Mead v. Altgeld, 136 Ill. 298, S.

C. 26 N.E. R. 388, 552
Mead v. Merritt, 2 Paige 402, 280

Mead v. Parker,’ 111 N.Y. 259,
554, 1105
Meadowcroft v. Agnew, 89 ul.

469, 473
Meagher v. Storey Co., 5 Nev.

244, 145, 216
Means v. Means, 42 Ill. 50, 190, 192
Meara v. Holbrook, 20 Ohio St.

187, 378
Meaux v. Meaux, 81 Ky. 475, 1165

Meaux v. Whitehall, 8 Bradw. 173, 663
Mechanics’ Bank v. Nat. Bank,
36 Md. 5, 531
Mechanics’ Bank v. Smith, 19
Johns. (N. Y.) 115, 662, 663
Mechanics’ Bank v. Withers, 6

Wheat. 106, 152
Mechanics’ Build. Assn. v. Whit-

acre, 92 Ind. 547, 373
Mechelke v. Bramer, 59 Wis. 57,

8. C.17 N. W. R. 682, 516, 706
Medler v. State, 26 Ind. 171, 1231

Medlock v. Cogburn, 1 Rich. Eq.

477, 289

 

Medway v. Needham,16 Mass.157, 292
Meehan v. Edwards, 92 Ky. 574,
8.C.18S. W. R. 519, © 304
Meeker v. Meeker, 74 Ia. 352, 8
C. 87 N. W. R. 773, 739, 741
Meeker v. Potter, 5N.J.L.586, 683
Meeker v. Shanks, 112Ind.207, 1147
Meeker v. Van Rensselaer, 15
Wend. 397, 183, 1203
Meeks v. State, 57 Ga. 329, 665
Meeks v. Vassault, 3 Saw. (C. C.)
206 380

Mehlin v. Ice, 56 Fed. R. 12,
Meier v. Kansas Pacific R. Co., 5

Dill. (U.S. C. C.) 476, 194
Meier v. Meier, 105 Mo. 411, 8.C.
16S. W. R. 223, 412

Meier v. Morgan, 82 Wis. 289, S.

C. 33 Am. St. R. 39, 8. C. 52. N.

W. R. 174, 697, 699, 1077, 1219
Meiners v. Loeb, 64 Wis. 343, 627, 630
Meinert v. Snow, 2 Idaho 851, 8.

C. 27 Pac. R. 677, 1239
Meinhard v. Youngblood, 37 8,

Car. 231, 8. C. 15 S. E. R. 950,

454, 610
Meixwell v. Kirkpatrick, 29 Kan.

679, 454
Mellen v. Iron. Works, 131 U. 8.

352, S. C. 9 Sup. Ct. R. 781,

268, 275, 444
Melendy v. Barbour, 78 Va. 544, 410
Mellish v. Rawdon, 9 Bing. 416, 555
Mellish v. Richardson, 7 B. & C.

819, 162
Melson v. Dickson, 63 Ga. 682, S.

C. 36 Am. R. 128, 645, 656, 662
Melville v. Brown, 15 Mass. 82, 365
Melvin v. Proprietors of Locks, 5

Met. (Mass.) 15, 371
Memphis v. Brown, 94 U.S. 715, 184
Memphis v.Laski,9 Heisk. (Tenn. )

511, S.C. 24 Am. R. 327, 471
Memphis, etc., R. R. Co. v. Chas-

tine, 54 Miss. 503, 1055
Memphis, etc., R. R. Co. v. Gra-

ham, 94 Ala. 545, 10 So. R. 288, 545
Memphis, etc., Co. v. Maples, 63

Ala. 601, 512, 514
Memphis, ete., Co. v. McCool, 83

Ind. 392, 803
Memphis, etc., R. R. Co. v. Ben-

son, 85 Tenn. 627, 8. C.4 Am.

St. R. 776,

Memphis, ete., Co. v. Scruggs, 50

502

Miss. 284, 578, 581, 587, 593
Menard v. Scudder, 7 La. Ann
385, * 413

Mendenhall v. Treadway, 44 Ind.
431,
TABLE OF CASES.

elxxxili

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.]

Menges v. Dentler, 9 Casey 495, 117
Menges v. Frick, 73 Pa. St. 137, 379
Mentz v. Armenia Ins. Co., 79 Pa.
St. 478, 5. C. 21 Am. R. 80, 589
Mentz v. Cook, 108 N. Y. 504, 8S.
C.15N.E. RB. 541, 289, 324, 1130
Mercantile, etc., Co. v. Missouri,
etc., Co., 1 L. R. A. 397, 495
Mercantile Trust Co. v. Railroad,
16 Blatchf. 324,
Mercer County v. Hacket, 1 Wall.

83, 165
Mereer v. Selden, 1 How. (U.S.)

380

i ag Whall, 5 Ad. & El. (N.

S.) 447, 669, 675
Merchants’ Bank v. First Nat.

Bank, 4 Hughes (U.8.C.C.)1, 364
Merchants’, etc., Bank v. Kent, 43

Mich. 292, 195
Merchants’ Bank v. Rawls, 7 Ga.

191, S. C. 50 Am. Dec. 394, 1048
Merchants’ Bank v. Schulenberg,

54 Mich. 49,
Merchants’ Bank v. Sehulenburg,

48 Mich. 102,8.C.19N. W.R

741, 1046
Merchants’ Bank v. State Bank,

10 Wall. 604, "1050
Merchants’, etc., Co. v. Joesting,

89 Tl. 152, 1210, 1231
Merchants’ Ins. Co., In re, 3 Biss.

(U.S. C. C.) 162, 196
Merchants’ Ins. Co. v. Ritchie, 5
Wall. 541, 338
Mercier v. Mercion, 43 Ga. 328,
1041, 1054

Menediith pavangs Bank v. Simp-

son, 22 Kan. 4 410
Mergentheim State, 107 Ind.

567, 8. C. 8 N. E. RB. 568, 697
Meridith v. Lackey, 14Ind. 529, 1143
Merkee v. City of Rochester, 13

Hun 157, 342
Mermory v. Niepert, 33 Ill. App.

131, 152
Meroney vy. Atlanta, etc., Assn.,

112 N. Car. 842, S.C. 178. E.R.

687, 480
Mersereau v. Pearsall, 6 How. Pr.

293, 1168
Mershon v. State, 44 Ind. 598, 640

Mersmier v. McCrary(Mo.), 21 8.
W. R. 17, 518
Meranda v. Spurlin, 100 Ind.‘380,
11

Merrell v. Campbell, 49 Wis. 535,
S. C. 35 Am, R. 785, 471
Merriam vy. Hassam, 14 Allen
516, 372

 

Merriam y. Lynch, 53 Wis. 82, 396
Merriam vy. State, 3 Lea (Tenn.)

393, 803
Merrill v. Hilliard, 59 N. H. 481,

j 541, 552

Merrill v. Lake, 16 Ohio 373, 256
Merrill v. Montgomery, 25 Mich.

73, 446
eal v. Nary, 10 Allen (Mass.)

16,

Merrill v. Petty, 16 Wall. 338,
Merriman v. Morgan, 7 Ore. 68,
Merritt, In re, 5 Paige, 125,
Merritt v. Cobb, 17 Ind. 314,

1212, 1223
Merritt v. Clow, 2 Tex. 582, 605
Merritt: v. Gibson, 129 Ind. 155, Ss.
C.15 L. R. A. 277, 496
Merritt v. Lyon, 16 Wend. 405,
93, 409

; 1

Merritt v. Merritt, 11 Ill. 565,
573, 596
Merritt v. Merritt, 16 Wend. (N.
493

Y.) 405,
Merritt v. Swimley. 82 Va. 433, S.
C.3 Am. St. R. 115, 290
Merritt v. Thompson, 27 N. Y.
225, 574, 599
Merritt v. White, 37 Miss. 438, 456
aan v. Bank, Dud. (8.
- Car.) 36 440
Mescall v. Tully, 91 Ind. 96, 71
Meserole v. Furman, 38 Hun (N.
1047

Y.) 355,
Meserve v. Andrews, 104 Mass.

360, 1139
Messenger v. Broom, 1 Pin. (Wis.)

630, . 160
Messenger v. Fourth Nat. Bank,

6 Daly (N. Y.) 190, S. C.48 How.

Pr, 542, 1050
Messenger v. Holmes, 12 Wend.

(N. Y.) 203, 627
Messenger v. Kintner, 4 Binn. 97, 319
Messervey v. Beckwith, 41 III.

452, 431, 434
Messick v. Midland R. Co., 128

Ind. 81, 112
Messner v. People, 45 N. Y. 1, 380

393 .

1077
255
126
409

Metcalf v. McLaughlin, 122 Mass.

84,
Metcalf v. Watertown, 128 U.S&..
586, 113, 609
Metger, In re, 5 How. (U. 8.) 176, 256
Metler v. Metler, 18 N. J. Eq. 270, 485
Metropolitan Nat. Bank v. Rogers,
3U. S. App. 406, 8. C. 53 Fed. R.

776, 1141
Metropolitan Ry. Co. v. Jackson,
L. B.3 App. Cas. 193, 546, 1053
celxxxiv

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-G02, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.)

Metropolitan, ete., Co. v. Johnson,

91 Ga. 466,58. C.168.E.R.49, 1064
Metropolitan St. R. R. Co. v. John-

* son, 90 Ga. 500, 8S. C.16 8. E. R.

49, 696
Mettler v. Moore,'1 Blackf. 342, 389
Metz v. State Bank, 7 Neb. 165, 1190

Metzger v. Herman, 12 N. Y.
Weekly Dig. 181, 1042
Metzler v. James, 12 Col. 322, S.

C. 19 Pac. R. 885, 16, 111, 1180
Meuly v. State, 26 Tex. App. 274,

8. C. 8 Am. St. R. 477, 630
Mexican Cent. Ry. Co. v. Pinkey,

149 U.S. 194, 8. C. 13 Sup. Ct.

R. 859, 614
Meyer v. Berlandi, 1 L. R. A. 777,

S.C. 40 N. W. R. 518, 170

Meyer v. Cullen, 54 N. Y. 392, 707
Meyer v. Houck, 85 Ia. 319, 8. C.
52 N. W. R. 235, 1053

Meyer v. Johnston, 53 Ala. 237, 495
Meyer v. Kalkmann, 6 Cal. 582, 337
Meyer v. Lewis, 43 Mo. App. 417, a
2
Meyer v. McLean, 1 Johns.509, 1157
Meyer v. Muscatine, 1 Wall. 384, 165
Meyer v. Sefton, 2 Starkie 244, 504
Meyer v. State, 19 Ark. 156, 660

Meyer, etc., Co. v. Smith, 3 Tex.

Civ. App. 37, 8. C. 21 8. W. R.

995, 610
Meyers v. Field, 37 Mo. 434, 269
Meyncke v. State, 68 Ind. 401,

802, 803, 805
Meysenberg v. Engelke, 18 Mo.

App. 346, 552

Mezchen v. More, 54 Wis. 214, 433

Michaels v. Hine, 3 Green (Ia.)
470,

Michan v. Wyatt, 21 Ala. 813, 381

Michelstetter v. Weiner, 82 Wis.
298, S. C. 52 N. W.R. 435, 540

Michen v. McCoy, 3 Watts & 8.
(Pa.) 501, 614, 615

Mich. Cent. R. R. Co. v. Chicago,

248

etc., R. R. Co., 1Ill. App.399, 471
Michigan Central R. R. Co. v.
Gougar, 55 Ill. 503, 581

Michigan, etc., Bank v. tS
143 U.S. 293,

Michigan, ete., Co. v. McDon-
ough, 21 Mich. 165, 8. C. 4 Am.
Rep. 466,

Michigan, etc., Co. v. Naugle, 130
Ind. 79, S.C. 29 N. BE. R. 393, 571

Michigan, etc., Co. v. North Indi-
ana, etc., Co., 3 Ind. 239, 145

Michigan, etc., Co.v. Whittemore,

12 Mich. 311, 1180

70

 

Michigan, etc., R. R. Oo. v.
Barnes, 40 Mich. 383, 654
Mich. Ins. Bank v. Eldred, 130U.
S. 698, 378

Michon v. Ayalla, 84 Texas 685,
S.C. 19 S. W. R. 878, 1116
Mickel v. Hicks, 19 Kan. 578, 8.
C. 27 Am. RB. 161, 318, 451

Mickey v. Ins. Co., 35 Ia. 174, 385
Mickles v. Colvin, 4 Barb. 304, 1185
Midberry v. Collins, 9 Johns.

345 1242
Middleton v. Ames, 7 Vt. 166, 654
Middleton v. Kansas City, etc., R.

R. Co., 62 Mo. 579, 532
Middletown v. Newport Hospital, |

16 R. I. 319, 8. C. 1 L. R.A.

191, 363
Middleton v. Quigley, 7 Halst.

(N. J.) 352, 108
Middleworth’ v. McDowell, 49

Ind. 386, 289

Middough’ v. St. Joseph, etc., R.
R. Co., 51 Mo. 520, 440
Midkiff v. Lusher, 27 W. Va. 439,
119
Milbank v. Dennistoun, 21 N. Y.
386
Milbank v. Jones, 22 N. Y. 8. 525,

Miles v. Berry, 1 Hill (8. Car.)
296, 368

Miles v. Boyden, 3 Pick. 213, 293
Miles v. Davis, 19 Mo. 408, 436
Miles v. Douglass, 34 Conn. 393,

; 1066
Miles v. Lefi, 60 Ia. 168, 499
Miles v. Loomis, 75 N. Y. 288, 8.

C. 31 Am. R. 470,

Miles v. Thorne, 38 Cal. 335, 8.

C. 99 Am. Dec. 384, 372
Miles v. Vanhorn, 17 ind. 245, 1226
Miles v. Williams, 9 Q. B. 47, 189
Millan v. Hood (Cal.), 30 Pac. R.

1107, 1165
Millar v. Taylor, 4 Burr. 2312, 963
Miller, Ex parte, 82 Cal. 454, 8.

C. 22 Pac. R. 1113, 126
Miller v. Adamson, 45 Minn. 99,

8. C.47 N. W.R. 452, 1161, 1167
Miller v. Baschore, 93 Pa. St.

356, 382
Miller v. Beal, 26 Ind. 234, 255, 565
Miller v. Beck, 68 Mich. 76, 8. C.

35 N. W. RB. 899, 551
Miller v. Brenham, 68 N. Y. 88, 480
Miller v. Brinkerhoff, 4 Denio

(N. Y.) 118, 8. C. 47 Am. Dec.

242, 165, 465
Miller v. Brown, 47 Mo. 504, 76

_
TABLE OF CASES.

elxxxv

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. I, pp. 603-1244.]

601
233
631

465

Miller v.Brumbaugh,7 Kan. 348,
Miller v. Burger, 2 Ind. 387,
Miller v. Cabell, 81 Ky. 178,
Miller v. Chandler, 29 La. Ann.

88,
Miller vy. Chicago, etc., Co., 41
Fed. R. 898, 1021, 1025
Miller v. City of Indianapolis,
123 Ind. 196, » 269, 349, 543
Miller v. Com., 88 Va. 618, 8. C.
14S. E. R. 161, 8. C. 15 L. R.

A. 441, 644
Miller v. Edmonston, 8 Blackf.
291, 206

Miller v. Ewing, 8Sm.&M.421, 462
Miller v. Finkle, 1 Park. Cr. R.
374, 341
Miller v. Foster, 76 Tex. 479, 274
Miller v. Gilleland, 19 Pa. St.119, 533

Miller v. Goodwine, 29 Ind. 46,

576, 594
Miller v. Hall, 1 Spears 1, 433
Miller v. Hicken, 92 Cal. 229, S.

C. 28 Pac. R. 339, 1148
Miller v. Horton, 152 Mass. 540,

8. C. 23 Am. St. R. 850, 170

Miller v. House, 63 Ia. 82, S. C. 4

“1042, 1051
1155

18 N. W. R. 708,
Miller v. Hower, 2 Rawle 53,
Miller v. Jones, 39 Ill. 54, 495
Miller v. Junction Canal Co., 53

Barb. (N. Y.) 590, 586
Miller v. Keokuk, etc., Ry. Co.,

_ _ 63 Ta. 680, 370, 1209
Miller v. Kolb, 47 Ind. 220, 190
Miller v. Lebanon Lodge, 88 Ind.
286, ~ 1165

Miller v. Lively, 1 Ind. App. 6, S.

C. 27 N. E. R. 487, 1148, 1144
Miller v. Mans, 28 Ind. 194, 1046
Miller v. Mariners’ Church, 7 Me.

51, 505
Miller v. Marks, 20 Mo. App. 369, 541

Miller v. McGehee, 60 Miss. 903, 402
Miller v. Miller, 7 Pick. (Mass.)
133, 360
Miller v. Miller, 41 Md. 623, 618
Miller v. Miller, 1 Bailey 242, 280
Miller v. Miller, 44 Pa. St.170, 258
Miller v. Miller, 1 N. J. Eq. 386, 477.

Miller v. Miller, 91 N. Y. 315, 8.
C. 43 Am. R. 669,
Miller v. Moore, 7 Serg. & R.(Pa.)
164, 583, 595
Miller v. Morgan, 143 Mass. 25, S.
C.8.N. E. R. 644, 1113, 1114
Miller v. Norfolk, etc., R. R. Co.,
41 Fed. R. 431, 441
Miller v. Pence, 132 Ill. 149, 8. C.
23 N. E. R. 1030,

292

636

 

Miller v. People, 39 Ill. 457, 1071, 1074
Miller v. Pine, etc., Co. (Idaho),

32 Pac. R. 207, 493
Miller v. Porter, 71 Ind. 521, 1029
Miller v. Railroad, 7 Neb. 227, 1188

Miller v. Royce, 60 Ind. 189, 190
Miller v.Shackelford,4 Dana(Ky.) *
264, 1102, 1106
Miller v. Sherry, 2 Wall. 237, 500
Miller v. Smith, 112 Mass. 470 783
Miller v. Southern Pac. R. R. Co.,
20 Ore. 285, 8. C. 4 Lewis’ Am.
R. R. & Corp. Cases 1, 536
Miller v. Stark, 148 Pa. St. 164, S.
C. 23 Atl. R. 1058, 532
Miller v. State, 29 Neb. 437, 8. C.

45 N. W. R. 451, 623
Miller v. State, 31 Tex. Crim. R.

609, S. C. 218. W. R. 925, 634
Miller v. State, 3 Wyo. 657, S. C.

29 Pac. R. 186, 1081
Miller v. State, 9 Ind. 340, 624
Miller v. State, 8 Ind. 325, 254
Miller v. State, 2 Kan. 174, , 213
Miller v. Steen, 30 Cal. 402, 1144
Miller v. Supervisors, 25 Cal. 93,

202
Miller v. Swan, 91 Ky. 36, S. C.

148. W. R. 964, 314
Miller v. Texas, etc., R. R. Co.,

132 U.S. 662, S. C. 10 Sup. Ct.

R. 206, 380

Miller v.Traphagen,6 N.J.Eq.200, 490
Miller v. United States, 11 Wall.
268, 128
Miller v. Vermurie, 7 Wash. 386
8. C. 34 Pac. R. 1108, 1076
Miller v. Voss, 40 Ind. 307, 1089
Miller v. Whitehead, 66 Ga. 283, i
609
Miller v. White River School Tp.,
101 Ind. 503, 1091
Miller v. Wildcat Gravel Road
Co., 52Ind. 51,
Miller v. Williams, 5 Esp. 19,
Miller v. Wilson, 12 Harris (Pa.)
114,
Miller v. Windsor Water Co., 148
Pa. St. 429, 8. C. 23 Atl. R. 1132, a
Miller v. Wolf, 63 Ia. 233, 182, 190
Millerd v. Thorn, 56 N. Y. 402,
669, 677
Millett v. Hayford, 1 Wis. 401, 1168
Milliken v. Mannheimer, 49 Minn.
521, 8. C. 52 N. W. R. 139, 179
Millikin v. Pratt, 125 Mass. 380,
S. C. 28 Am. R. 241,

Millington, In re, 24 Kan. 214,
142, 297

153

292
elxxxvi

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. I, pp. 603-1244.)

Millington v. Hill, 47 Ark. 301, 380
Million v. Board, 89 Ind. 5,

168, 241, 427
Millison v. Holmes, 1 Ind. 45, 635
Millner v. Eglin, 64 Ind. 197, S.

C. 31 Am. R. 121, 420, 1070
Mills, In re, 185 U. S. 263, S. C.

10 Sup. Ct. R. 762, 340
Mills v. Brown, 16 Peters 525, 113
Mills v. Buchanan, 36 Ind. 490,

1224, 1232
Mills v. Commonwealth, 13 Pa.

St. 627,

Mills v. Davis, 118 N. Y. 248, 8.

C.3L. RB. A. 394, 360, 518
Mills v. Duryea, 2 Am. L. Cas. 95

597,
Mills v. Howland, 2 N. Dak. 30,58.
C. 49 N. W. R. 413, 435
Mills v. Kansas, etc., Co., 26 Kan.
32
1179

574,

Mills v. Miller, 2 Neb. 299,

Mills v. Oddy, 6 C. & P. 728, 504

Mills v. Rice, 3 Neb. 76, 1211, 1213

Mills v. Simmonds, 10 Ind. 464,

1231, 1235
1166

1206
406

139

Mills v. State, 52 Ind. 187,

Mills v. Thursby, 11 How. Pr.
114,

Mills v. Weeks, 21 Ill. 568,

Mills v. Winter, 94 Ind. 329, 714
Milne v. Moreton, 6 Bin. 353, 302
Milne v. Walker, 59 Ia. 186, 1060
Milner v. Field, 5 Exch. 829, 407
Milner v. Noel, 43 Ind. 324, 594, 601
Milner v. Shipley, 94 Mo. 106, = 328
Milnes v. Gery, 14 Ves. Jr.400, 587
Milroy v. Quinn, 69 Ind. 406, 413
Miltenberger v. eS a

R. R. Co., 106 U.S. 286, S. C.1

Sup. Ct. R. 140, 496

Miltimore v. Miltimore, 40 Pa. St.
151,

Milton v. Rowland, 11 Ala. 732, 513

Milwaukee County Supervisors v.
Ehlers, 45 Wis. 281, 592

Milwaukee, etc., R. R. Co. v. Kel-
logg, 94 U.S. 469, 534, 547

Milwaukee R. R. Co. Soutter, 2

345

Wall. 510, 494
Milwaukee School, ete., v. Mil-
waukee, 40 Wis. 328 294

Mima Queen v.Hepburn,2 Cranch
GC. C. 3, 658
Mima Queen Co. v. Hepburn, 7
Cranch 290, 663
Mimms v. State, 16 Ohio St. 221, 666
Mims v. Lockett, 23 Ga. 237, 558
Mims v. West, 38 Ga. 18, S. C. 95
Am. Dec. 379, 498

 

ft

Miner vy. Baron, 131 N. Y. 677, 8.

C. 30 N. E. R. 481,

Minerv. Beekman, 50N.Y.337, 377
Miner v. Clark, 16 Wend. 425, 412
Miner v. Lorman, 66 Mich. 530, .

S. C. 33 N. W. R. 866, 821
Miner v. Lorman, 56 Mich. 212, 382
Miner v. State, 63 Ga. 318, 1069
Miner v. Vedder, 66 Mich. 101,

178

S.C. 33.N. W. R. 47 1090, 1091
Mineral Point R. R. Co. v. Bar- ©
ron, 83 Ill. 365, 474
Mineral Point R. R. Co. v. Keep,

22 111.9,S.C. 74 Am. Dec.124, 440
Minnesota, etc., R. R. Co. v. Do-

ran, 17 Minn. 188, 679
Minnesota Linseed Oil Co. v.

Montague, 59 Ia. 448, 556
Minnich v. Darling (Ind. App.),

36 N. E. R. 173, 1142, 1146
Minnig’s Appeal, 82 Pa. St.373, 350
Minnoch v. Eureka, etc., Co., 90

Mich. 236, 8. C. 51 N. W. R.

367, 162
Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, -

2
Minor v. Hill, 58 Ind. 176, 8. C. 26

Am. R. 71, 801, 1176
Minor v. Mead, 3 Conn. 289, 1156
Minor v. Mechanics’ Bank, 1 Pet.
(U. 8.) 46, 556, 1194

‘Minton v. Underwood, etce., Co.,

W. R.
719

1162
663

236

as 646, S. C. 48 N.
Missouri Co. v. Bailey, 51 Kan.
192, S. C. 82 Pac. R. 894,
Missouri, etc., Co. v. Munkers, ll
Kan. 223,
Missouri, etc., Co. v. Russell, 60
Fed. R. 501,
Missouri, etc., Co. v. Vandeven-
ter, 26 Neb. 222,
Missouri, K. &. T. Ry. Co. v. Kir-
schoffer (Tex.), 24 % W.R.577,
1079
Missouri Pac. R. R. Co. v. Car-
es 44 Kan. 257,S. C. 24 Pac.
Missouri Pac. R. R. Co. v. Collier,
62 Texas, a 441
Missouri Pac. R. R. Co. v. Good-
rich, 38 Kan. 224, 8. C. 16 Pac.
1169
230

531

R. 439,

Missouri Pac., etc., Co. v. Hays,
15 Neb. 224,”

Missouri Pac. R. B. Co. v. Holley,
30 Kan. 465,

Missouri Pac. R. R. Co. v. Platzer,
73 Tex. 117, 8S. C. 11 8S. W. R.
160, 8. C. 2 Ts R. A. 639, 558, 1067
TABLE

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp.
Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. Reynolds,
31 Kan. 132, 1091
Missouri iielepraph Co. v. First
Nat. Bank, 74 Ill. 217, 118, 247
Mississippi Cent. R. R. Co.v. Fort,
44 Miss. 423, 874
Mitchell v. Bunch, 2 Paige (N. Y.)
606, 8. C. 22 Am. Dec. 669,
281, 476, 477
Mitchell v. Beckman, 64 Cal. 117,
1133
Mitchell vy. Aten, 37 Kan. 33, 8.
C. 14 Pac. R. 497, 1198
Mitchell v. Barnes, 22 Hun (N.

Y.) 194, 495
Mitchell v. et 86 Ind. 529, 1113
Mitchell’s Claim, L. R. 6 Ch. App.

383

, 1147
Mitchell v. Com., 78 Ky. 219, 803
Mitchell v. Conley, 13 Ark. 414, 429
Mitchell v.Curran, 1 Mo. App.4538, 600
Meggett: Naas. 10 Wend. N. Y.
1118, 1119
Mitel Vv. "Friedley, 126 Ind. 545,
1049, "1148
Mitchell v. Geisendorff, 44 Ind.

358, 1193
Mitchell v. Huron Circuit J udge,

53 Mich. 541, 458
Mitchell v. Lincoln, 78 Ind. 531,
Mitchell v. Maxwell, 2 Fla. 594,

298, 522
ie ia v. McCorkle, 69 Ind.

120, 1198
Mitekell v. Merrill, 2 Blackf. 87,

8. C. 18 Am. Dec. 128, ' 402
Mitchell v. Mitchell, 1 Gill (Md.)

66, 174, 311
Mitchell v. Mitchell, 80 Tex. 101,

8. C. 19S. W. R. 477, 1047
Mitchell v. Overman, 103 U. S.

62, 187, 189
Mitchell v. Sawyer, 115 111.650, 794
Mitchell v. Schoonover, 16 Ore.

211, 8. C.8 Am. St. R. 282, 189
Mitchell v. Sellman, 5 Md. 376, 719
Mitchell v. St. John, 98 Ind. 598,

156, 1203
Mitchell v. State; 94 Ala. 68, S.C.

10 So. R. 518, 802, 809
Mitchell v. State, 22 Ga. 211, 8. C.

68 Am. Dec. 498, 625
Mitchell v. United States, 9 Pet.

711, 254, 492
Mitchell v. Welch, 17 Pa. St. 339,

§. C. 55 Am. Dec. 557, 783
Mitchell v. Woodson, 37 Miss.

567, 450

822 .
Mitchell v. Colglazier, 106 Ind.
464

191

 

or

CASES. elxxxvii

1-602, Vol. I, pp. 603-1244.]
Miteheson v. Foster, 3 Metcf.

(Ky.) $24, 297
Mitchum v. State, 11 Ga. 615, 819
Mix v. Chandler, 44 Ill. 174, 173
Mix v. People, 106 Ill. 425, 609
Moakler v. Willamette, ete., R.

R. Co., 18 Ore. 189, 8. C. 22 Pac.

R. 948, . 534
Mobile, etc., R. R. Co. v. Thomas,

42 Ala. 672, 531
Mobley v. Leophart, 51 Ala. 587,

509
Mobley v. State, 83 Ind. 92, 1168
Mobley v. Watts, 98 N. Car. 284,

1049
Moet v. Couston, 33 Beav. 578, 1210
Mogul, etc., Co. v. McGregor, L.

R. 23 Q. B. Div. 598, 483
Mohawk Bank v. Broderick, 10

Wend. (N. Y.) 304, 555
Mobr v. Manierre, 101 U. 8. 417,

824 .
Mohr v. Tulip, 40 Wis. 66, 449

Moller vy. Tuska, 87 N. Y. "166,
351, "354, 374
Moline, ete., Co. v. Webb, 141,
U.S. 616, "1223
Molyneux v. Seymour, 30 Ga. 440,
8. C. 76 Am. Dec. 662, 281, 302
Monell v. Dennison, VW "How. Pr. ‘
422, 814
Money v. Leach, 3 Burs 1692, 1221
Money v. State, 89 Ala. 110, 543
Monford v. Rowland, 11 Stew. (N.
J.) 181, 722
Monnell v. Weller, 2 Johns. (N.
Y.) 8, 1047
1129
281

Monnett v. Turpie, 133 Ind. 424,

Monnett v. Turpie, 132 Ind. 484,

Monongahela, etc., Co. v. Fenlon,
4 Watts & S. (Pa.) 205,

Monongahela Water Co. v. Stew-
artson, 96 Pa. St. 436,

Monroe v. Adams. Exp. Co., 65
Ind. 60,

Monroe v. British, etc., Co., 52

590
802
1098

Fed. R. 777, 1050
Monroe v. Chaldeck, 78 Ill. 429, 399
Monroe v. Fohl, 72 Cal. 568, 8. C.

14 Pac. R. 514, 412
Monroe vy. Snow, 131 Ill. 126, 8.

C. 33 Ill. App. 230, 8. C. 23 N.

E. R. 401, 1225

Montague v. eal 10
Gratt. (Va.) 7
Montague v. Mitchell, 28 Ill. 481,

658

502
Montana Ry. Co. v. Warren, 137
U.S. 348, 8. C. 12 Pac. R. "641,
152, 180, 1184, "9213
elxxxvili

TABLE OF CASES.

*
[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. I, pp. 608-1244.)

Montee v. Commonwealth, 3 J.J.
_ Marsh (Ky.) 182,
Montgomery vy. Heilman, 96 Pa.
St. 44,
Montgomery v. Samory, 99 U.S. 4
2, 28
Montgomery v. State, 11 Ohio 424,
1058

1058
346

Montgomery v. Swindler, 32 Ohio
St. 224, 669, 676
Montgomery v. Townsend, 84 Ala.
478, S.C. 2 So. R. 155, 8. C. 4
So. R. 780, 545, 559
Montgomery v. Trumh, 126 Ind.
331 403

Montgomery v. Tutt, 11 Cal. 307, 457
Montgomery v. Wabash R. R., 90
663

Mo. 446,
Montgomery v. Wasem, 116 Ind.
795, 8. C.
101, 134, 165, 432

343, 8. OC. 15 N. E. R.
19 N.E. R. 184,
Montgomery v. White (Ky.), 11
8. W. R. 10, 527
Montgomery v. Wilson, 58 Ind.
591, 622
Montgomery, etc., Co. v. Rock, 41
Ind. 263,
Montgomery Co. v. Carey, 1 Ohio

1143

St. 4 586
Mood v. Taylor, 12 Ia. 71, 431
Moody v. Butler, 63 Tex. ‘210,

112, 188
Moody vy. Deutsch, 85 Mo. 237, 544
Moody v. Griffin, 65 Ga. 304, 656
Moody v. Harper, 38 Miss. 599, 269
Moody v. Keener, 7 Porter Ala.

218, 1116
Moody v. Pomeroy, 4 Denio (N.

Y.) 115, 1077
Moody v. Rowell, 17 Pick. (Mass.)
490, S. C. 28 Am. Dec. 817, 180, 783
Mooers v. Bunker, 9 N. H. 420, 32
Moomey v. Maas, 22 Ta. 380, 821
Moon v. Jennings, 119 Ind. 130, 1166
Moon v. Martin, 122 Ind. 211, 567
Moon v. Wellford, 84 Va. 34, 8S.
C.458. E. R. 572, 176
Mooney v. Kinsey, 90 Ind. 33, 1224
Moore y. Allen, 5 Ind. 521,
"675, 679
Moore v. Armstrong, 36 Am. Dec.
63, 381
Moore v. Baker, 4 Ind. App. 115,
8. C. 30 N. E. R. 629 353
Moore v. Barnett, 17 Ind. 349,
’591, 599
Moore v. Bettis,11 Humph.(Tenn.)
67, S. C. 538 Am. Dec. 771, 800
Moore v. Carter, 146 Pa. St. 492, 8.
C. 23 Atl. R. 2438, 557

 

Moore v. Chicago, etc., R. R. Co.,

59 Miss. 243, 794, 796
Moore vy. Church, 70 Ia. 208, 8. C.

59 Am. R. 489, 302
Moore v. Clark, 40 N. J. Eq. 152, 382
Moore v. Dunn, 41 Ohio St. 62, 1179
Moore v. Estes, 79 Ky. 282, 1194
Moore v. Ewing, Coxe (N. J.) 144,

8S. C. 1 Am. Dec. 195, 591, 592
Moore v. Felkel, 7 Fla. 44, 138
Moore v. Fitz, 15 Ind. 48, 468

Moore v. Garner, 101 N. Car. 874,
8.C.78.E. R. 732, é 390

Moore v. Garner, 109 N. Car. 157,
S.C. 138. E. R. 768, 178, 1177

Moore v. Gherkin, Bush. L. (N.

Car.) 73, 595
Moore v. Goelitz, 27 Tl. 18, 622
Moore v. Graves, 3 N. H. 408, 198

Moore v.Green, 4 Humph. (Tenn. D
299,
Moore v. Green Co. Coms., 87 N.

Car. 209, 362
Moore v. Gwynn, 5 Ired. L. (N.
Car.) 187, 545
Moore v. Henry, 18 Mo. *DE 35,
1135, "1139

Moore v.Herndon,5 Blackf. (Ind. )
168, 1
Moore v. Holt, 10 Gratt. (Va. ) 284, 464
Moore v. Hudson, 6 Mad. 138, 477
Moore v. Jaeger, 3 MeArthur 465, 280

Moore v. Jeffers, 53 Ia. 202, 8. C.
4N. W. R. 1084, 318, 341
Moore v. Jordan, 65 Tex. 395, 255
Moore v. Luckess, 23 Gratt. (Va.)
160, 600
Moore v. Moore, 67 Tex. 293, 8. C. , .
3S. W. R. 284, 1116
Moore v. Murrell, 56 Ark. 375, 8.
C.19S. W. R. 978, 531
Moore v. Muse, 47 Tex. 210, 205:
Moore v. Neil, 39 Ill. 256, S. C. 89

Am. Dee. 3038, 446
Moore v. Norman, 43 Minn. 428, S.

C.19 Am. St. R. 247, 403
Moore v. Northern Pac., etc., Co.,

37 Minn. 147, S. C.33 N.W. Rep.

834, 552
Moore v. O’Barr, 87 Ga. 205, 8. C.

138. E. R. 464, 609

Moore v. Penn, 95 Ala. 200, S.C.

10 So. R. 348, 1235
Moore v. People, 14 How. 17, 308
Moore v. Philbrick, 32 Me. 102,8.

C. 52 Am. Dec. 642, 314
Moore v.Railroad Co. 438 Ta. 385, 475
Moore v. Sauborin, 43 Mo.470, 1197
Moore vy. Starks, 1 Ohio St. 369, 293
Moore vy. State, 79 Ga. 498, 520
TABLE OF CASES.

celxxxix

[References are to Pages, Vol. L pp. 1-602, Vol. I, pp. 608-1244.]

Moore v. State, 63 Ga. 165, 188
Moore vy. State, 68 Ala. 360, 516
Moore v. State, 55 Ind. 360, 393

Moore v. State, 21 Texas App. 666,
S.C. 28. W. Rep. 634, 615

Moore v. Tanner, 5 T. B. Mon.
42,8. C. 17 Am. Dec. 35,

a v. Taylor, 1 Idaho (N. 8S.)
630,

Moore v. Thayer, 10 Barb. (N.
Y.) 258,

Moore v. Trimier, 32 8. Car. 511,

Moore v. Ulm, 34 Ga. 565,

os v. United States, 91 U.S.

0,

Moore vy. Valda, 151 Mass. 363, 8.
C. 23.N. E. R. 1102, 8. C. 7 L.
R. A. 396, 477, 776

Moore v. Watkins, 1 Ark. 268, 428

Moore v. Watts (Ala.), 2 So. R.
278, 1068

Moore v. Westervelt, 21 N. Y.

103, 548
618
71

274
185

470
519
1167

740

Moore’s Admrs. v. Smith, 88 Ky.
151, §.C.108. W. R. 380,

Moorman v. Wood, 117 Ind. 144,

Moose v. Carson, 104 N. Car. 431,

8-C.17 Am. St. R. 681, 366
Moran v.Miami County, 2 Blackf.

(U.S.) 722, 165
More v. Massini, 32 Cal. 590, 301

Moreland v. Lawrence, 23 Minn.

84, 804
Moresi v. Swift, 15 Nev. 215, 465
Morey v. Homan, 10 Vt. 565, 1209

Morgan, Matter of, 104 N. Y. 74,

8.0.9 N. E. R. 861,

Morgan’s Appeal, 110 Pa. St. 271,

8. C.4 Atl. R. 506, 188, 599
Morgan v. Avery, 7 Barb. (N.Y.)

- 656, 464
Morgan v. Bell, 3 Wash. 554, 8. C.

16 L. RB. A. 614, 281
Morgan v. Birnie, 9 Bing. 672,

406, 590
Morgan v. Durfee, 69 Mo. 469 S.

C. 9 Cent. Law Jour. 12, 1051
Morgan v. Eggers, 127 U. 8.63, 185
Morgan v. Furst, 4 Mart. N. S.

(La.) 116, 8. C. 16 Am. Dec. 166,

469
Morgan v. Gaar, Scott & Co., 64

Ind. 213, 71
Morgan v. Gay, 19 Wall. 81, 1131
Morgan v. Gregg, 46 Barb. (N.

Y.) 183, 395
Morgan v. Hammett, 23 Wis. 30, 235
Morgan v. Hays, 91 Ind. 132, 1243
Morgan v. Hecker, 74 Cal. 540, 8.

C. 16 Pac. Rep. 317, 540

 

Morgan v. Hodges, 15 L. R. A.

438, 566
Morgan v. Jones, 24 Ga. 155, 506
Morgan v. Morgan, 10 Ga. 297, 459
Morgan v. Muldoon, 82 Ind. 347, 412
Morgan v. Nunes, 54 Miss. 308, 464
Morgan v. State, 12 Ind. 448, 163

Morgan vy. State, 48 Ohio St. 371,
8. C. 27 N. E. R. 710, 1072

Morgan v. Stevenson, 6 Ind. 169,
661

Morgan v. Tener, 83 Pa. St. 305,

Morgan v. Woods, 33 Ind. 23,
32, 446
Morgan, 2
336

412
394

Morgan’s Heirs v.
Wheat. 290,
Morgan, etc., Co. v. Texas, etc.,
Co., 187 U. 8. 171,
Moriarty v. Stofferan,89 111.528,
Morisey v. Swinson, 104 N. Car.
555, 8. C. 10S. E. R. 754,
149, 234, 1147
Morison v. Moat, 9 Hare 241, 485
Moritz v. Miller, 87 Ala. 331, 8. C.
6 So. R. 269, 195, 496
Morley v. Liverpool, etc., Ins. Co.,
85 Mich. 210,8.C.48N.W.R.
502, 589
Morn v. Kuzac, 21 La. Ann. 754, 248
Morningstar v. Musser, 129 Ind.

470, 1147, 1236
Morrell v. Frith, 3 M. & W. 403,

382, 538

Morrell v. Morrell, 17 Hun 324, 1131

Morrill v. Fitzgerald, 36 Tex. 275, 435
Morrill v. Morrill, 20 Ore. 96, 8. C.
23 Am. St. R. 95, :
829, 330, 335, 426, 427
Morrill v. Raymond, 28 Kan. 415,
8. C.42 Am. R. 167, 471
Morris v. Atlantic, etc., Co., 116
799
378

N. Y. 552,
Morris v. Ellis, 7 Jur. 413,
Morris v. Gilmer, 129 U.S. 315, 1214

Morris v. Grier, 76 N. Car. 410, 582
Morris v. Hoyt, 11 Mich. 9, 404
Morris v. Indianapolis, etc., Co.,
10 Ill. App. 389, 1025
Morris v. People, 3 Denio 381, 216
Morris v. Rexford, 18 N. Y. 552,
853, 354
Morris v. Stern, 80 Ind. 227, 1212
Morris v. Trustees, 15 Ill. 266, 435
Morris v. Wells, 7 N. Y. Sup. 61,
8. C. 54 Hun (N. Y.) 634, 718
Morris, etc., R. R. Co. v. Ayres,
29 N. J. L. 393, 545
Morris, etc., Co. v. Bartlett, 3 N.
J. Eq. 9, 490
cxe

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.]

Morrisey v. selninntlen, 18 Neb.
672, 1114

Morrison v. Alphin, 23 Ark. 136, 469

Morrison v. Austin, 14 Wis. 601,

1199

Morrison v. Berkey, 7 8S. & R.
(Pa.) 238, 1030

Morrison v. Burlington, etc., Ry.
Co., 84 Ia. 663, 8. C. 51 N. W.
R. 75,

Morrison v. Citizens’ Bank, 27 La.
Ann. 401,

Morrison v. Estate of Sessions, 70
Mich. 297, S.C. 14 Am. St. R.
500, 291

Morrison v. Faulkner, 80 Tex. 128,

8. C. 158. W.R. 797, 114

Morrison vy. Jacoby, 114 Ind. 84,

402, 403

Morrison y. Lehéw, 17 Mo. App.

1235

633,
741

Morrison v. Leonard, 3 Car. & P.
Morrison v. March, 4 Minn. 422, 4
cel

813
155

127,

Morrison y. McKinnon, 12 Fla.
552, 656, 668
Morrison v. Morrison, 4 Hare 590,

Morrison vy. State, 76 Ind. 335,
798, 821, 823
Morrison v. Underwood, 5 Cush. se
6
?
Morriss v. Virginia Ins. Co., 85
Va. 588, 8. C. 8S. E. R. 383, 236
Morrow v. Commissioners, 21
1083

Kan. 484,
Morrow v. Weed, 4 Ia. 77,
320, 321, 427
Morse v. Aldrich, 1 Metc.(Mass.)
544, 395
Morse v. Anderson, 14 Sup. Ct. R.

43, 1236
Morse v. Bishop, 55 Vt. 231, 597
Morse v. Mason, 103 Mass. 560, 11389

Morse v. Morse, 25 Ind. 156,

Morse v. Morse, 44 Vt. 84,

Morse v. Presby, 25 N. H. 299,

Morse v. Woodworth, 155 Mass.
233, 8. C. 29 N. E. R. 525, 8. C.
27 N. E. R. 1010, 504, 706, 1243

Mortimer v. McCallam, 6 M. & vote

W. 58,
Morton v. Beall, 2 Har. & G.(Md.)

136, 1069
Morton v. Chandler, 8 Me. 9, 875
Morton v. Coffin, 29 Ta. 235, 529
Morton v. Crane, 39 Mich. 526, 436
Morton v. Lee, 28 Kan. 286, 217
Morton v. State, 1 Kan. 468, 661

1088
481
297

 

Morton vy. White, 16 Me. 53,

Moschell v. State, 54 N. J. L. 390,
S.C. 22 Atl. Rep. 50, 8. C. 13
Crim. L. Mag. 742, 660, 664

Moses v. Central Park, etc., R. R.
Co., 3 Mise. R. 822, 8. C. 23 N.

503

Y. Supp. 23, - 1120
Moses v. Julian, 45 N.H.52, 8. C.

84 Am. Dec. 114, 218, 220, 233
Moses v. Risdon, 46 Ia. 251, 1213
Moses v. State, 58 Ala. 117, 1074

Mosher v. Lawrence,4 Denio419, 1225
Moshier v. Shear, 102 Ill. 169, S.C.

40 Am. R. 578,

Mosier v. Stoll, 119 Ind. 244, 8. C.

90 N. E. R. 752 539
Moss’ Appeal, 83 "Pa. St. 264, 8. C.

24 Am. R. 164, 955
Moss v. Johnson, 86 8S. Car. 551, 1136
Moss v. Priest, 19 Abb. Pr. 314, 1091
Mostyn v. Fabrigas, 1 Cowp. 161,

S.C. 1 Smith’s L. Cas. 652, 310
Hesider v. Kempff, 115 Ind. 459,

174, 621

Moulin v. Ins. Co., 24 N. J. L. 222, 440
Moulton v. de ma Carty, 6. Rob.

(N. Y. Sup.), 470, 430
Moulton v. Moulton, 47 Hun 606, -443
Mount vy. Derick, 5 Hill (N. Y.)

455, 895
Mt. Desert v. Tremont, 75 Me. 252, 597
Mountfort, Ex parte, 15 Ves. 445,

601

495
Mowry v. Blandin, 64N.H.3, 4651
Mowry v. Providence, 10R.1.52, 366
Mowry v. Wood, 12 Wis. 414, 557
Moye v. Petway, 76 N. Car. 327, 1172
Moyers v. Goiner, 22 Fla. 422, 195

Moynahan v. Moore, 9 Mich. 8, S.
C. 77 Am. Dec. 468, .
400, 401, 402, 404
Mudge v. Steinhart, 78 Gal. 34, 8.
C. 12 Am. St. R. 17,8. C.’ 20
Pac. R. 147, 452, 463
Mudge v. Yaples, aa 307, 8.

C. 25 N. W. R. 2 183
Mueller v. Rebhan, $4 Il. 142, 665
Mueller vy. State, 76 Ind. 310, 545
Muilman vy. D’ Eguino, 2H. BL.

565, 555

Muirhead vy. Muirhead, 16 Miss.
211, 1229

Malady v. McEnary, 30 Ind. 278,
1089

Muldrow v. Norris, 2 Cal. 74, 8.
C. 56 Am. Dec. 313, 248, 602

Muldrow v. Robinson, 58 Mo. 331,
548

Mulhado v. Brooklyn City R. R.
Co., 30 N. Y. 370, 810
TABLE OF

CASES. exci

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.)

Mulhearn v. Press Pub. Co.,53 N.
J. L. 150, S. C. 20 Atl. R. 760,
Mulhearn vy. Press Pub. Co., 53 N.
J. L. 153, S.C. 11 L. R. A. 101,

Mull’s Case, 8 Gratt. (Va.) 695,

Mull v. Jones, 33 Kan. 112, 474

Mull v. Martin, 85 N. Car. 406, 520

Mullen v. Doyle, 147 Pa. St. 512,

S. C. 23 Atl. R. 807, 872
Mullen v. St. Louis ee

Assn., 73 Mo. 242,

Mullen v. Torrance, 9 Wheat. 537, 5336

Mullen v. Wine, 9 Colo. 167, 1212

Muller v. Ehlers, 91 U.S. 249, 1236

Muller v. Hoyt, 14 Tex. 49, 506

Muller v. St. Louis Assn., 73 Mo.
242, 799

Mullery v. Hamilton, 71 Ga. 720, 30,31

Mullick v. Radakissen, 28 Eng. L.

& Eq. 86, 555
Walligen v. Smith, 59 Cal. 206, 824
Mullins v. Sparks, 43 Miss. 129, 439
Mumford v. Wardwell, 6 Wall.

423, 1099, 1102
Mumford y. Wilson, 15 Mo. 540, 1145
Muneey v. Joest, 74 Ind. 409, 426, 450
Muncie &t. Ry. Co. v. Maynard, 5

Ind. App. 372, 8. C. 32 N. E.R.

343, 1096
Munday v. Vail, 34 N. J. L. 418, 245
Munro v. Alaire, 2 Caines 320,

573, 584, 596

Monro v. Potter, 34 Barb. 358, 1164

Monroe v. Douglass, 5 N. Y. 447, 545

Monroe v. Luke, 19 Pick. (Mass. )
39, 467

Monroe v. Williams, 19 L. R. A.
665, -

Munshower v. Patton, 10 Serg. &
Rawle 334, 8. C. 18 Am. Dec.
678, 652

Munson v. Mayor, 19 Fed. R. 318, 492

Munson vy. Newson, 9 Tex. 109, 314

Munson v. Railroad Co., 120 Mass.

81, S. C. 21 Am. R. 499, 470
Munzesheimer v. Fairbanks, 82

Tex. 351, 8. C.18 S. W. R. 697,

153, 228
Murchie v. Gates, 78 Me. 300, 1071
Murchison v.White, 54 Tex. 78, 314
Murdock’s Case, 2 Bland Ch. 461,
8. C. 20 Am. Dec. 381, 478, 480
Murdock v. Cincinnati, etc., 44
Fed. R. 726, 484
Murdock v. Franklin Ins. Co., 33
W.Va. 407, 8.C. 108. E. R. 777,
8. C. 1 Lewis’ Am. R. R. &
Corp. Cases 24, 385
Murdock v. Ganahl, 47 Mo. 185, 1190
Murdock v. Hughes, 15 Miss. 219, 372

608

457
621

464

 

Murdock v. Little, 18 Ga. 719, 627
Murdock v. Martin, 132 Pa. St. 86,
8S. C.18 Atl. R. 1114, 1180

Murdy v. McCutcheon, 95 Pa. St.
435, 1194
Murfree .v. Carmack, 4 Yerg.

(Tenn.) 269, 180
Murphy vy. Barlow, 5 Ind. 230, 161
Murphy v. City of Peoria, 119 ln.

509, 8. C.9 N. E. B. 898, 557
Murphy v. Cobb, 5 Col. 281, 1051

Murphy v. Donlan, 5 Barn. &
Cress. 178, 1040

Murphy v. Creighton, 45 Ia. 179, 262

Murphy v. King, 6 Mont. 30, 8.

C. 9 Pac. R. 585, 1184
Murphy v. Loos, 104 Ill. 514, 437
Murphy v. ‘Murphy, 31 Mo. 322,

623, 624

Murphy v. People, 2 Cow. (N. Y. y
815,

642
Murphy v. State, 97 Ind. 579,
Murphy v. Stults, L Ni Js Eq. 560,
1128

Murphy v. State, 37 Ala. 142, 666
Murphy v. Tilly, 11 Ind. 511, 1231
Murphy v. Tomlan, 7 Dowl. & Ry.
619, 1040
Murphy v. United States, 104 U.
S. 464, 347
Murray v. Abbott, 61 Wis. 198, 1088

Murray v. Baker, 3 Wheat. (U. 8. )

641, 381
Murray v. Ballou, 1 Johns. Ch.

66, 498
Murray v. Burris, 6 Dak. 170, 8.

C. 42 N. W. R. 25, 1214
mae ee : East India Co., 5 B. &

Ald. 204, 361

Mey ae v. Feit 2 Johns. Ch.
498

iy 2 ‘Gibson, 2 La. Ann. oa
467, 468

Murray v. Lylburn, 2 Johns. Ch.
(N. Y.) 441, 498

Murray v. McDougall, 3N.J.L.
956, 1047
Murray v. Murray, 6 Ore. 17, 287

Murray v. N.J., ete., R. R. Co.,
23 N. J. L. 63, 626

Murray v. New York, etc., Co., 85
N. Y. 236, 676, 677
Murray v. New York,etc., Ry. Co.,

103 Pa. St. 37, 1071
Murray v. Phillips, 59 Ind. 56, 1098
Murray v. Scribner, 70 Wis. 228, 1183
Murray v. Silver, 10.8. 638, 8.

C.14L. J.C. P. 168, 1047
Murray v. Spencer, 88 N.Car. 357, 533
Murray v. State, 26 Ind. 141, 1078
excli

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.]

Murray v. Usher, 117 N.Y. 542, 1221
Murray v. Windley, 7 Ired. (N.
Car.) 201, 8. C. 47 oh ea, Dec.324, 402
Murrell vy. Johnson, 3 Hill (8.
Car.) 12, 198
Murry vy. Burris, 6 Dak. 170, 8. C.
42 N. W.R. 2 113, 332
Murtland v. Floyd, 153 Pa. St. 99,

8. C. 25 Atl. R. 1038, "1195
Muscott v. Hanna, 26 Kan. 770, 1134
Muscott v. Woodsworth, 14 How.

Pr. R. 477, 197
Musgrave v. State, 133 Ind. 297,

8. C. 32 N. E. R. 885, 1064, 1065
Musick v. People, 40 Ill. 268, 655

Musselbrook v. Dunkin, 9 Bing.
605, 580
Musselman’s Appeal, 65 Pa. St.
480, 128
Musselman v. Pratt, 44 Ind. 126,
629, 1160
Mussen v. Ausable Granite Works,
63 Hun 367,
Mussen v. Price, 4 East 147,

119
389

Musina v. Cavozos, 6 Wall.355, 1239
Mussey v. eine 22 Pick. 223, 418
Musson v. Lake, 4 How. (U. 8.)
262, 411
Mutual, ete., Co. v. Cannon, 48
Ind. 264, 1093

Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Hill-
mon, 145 U.S. 285, 8. C. 12 Sup.
Ct. R. 909,

Myatt v. Lockhart, 9 Ala. 91,

Myer v. Fegaly, 39 Pa. St. 429, 1190

Myer v. Liverpool Ins. Co., 40
Md. 595, 473

Myer v. Moon, 45 Kan. 580, 8. C.

26 Pac. R. 40, 1211, 1213
Myers v. Baltzell, 37 Pa. St.491, 475
Myers v. Bealer, 30 Neb. 280, 8.

C. 46 N. W. R. 479, 505
Myers v. Block, 120 U.S. 206, 490
Myers v. Cronk, 113 N. Y. 608, 8.

C. 21 N. E. R. 984, 111
Myers v. Davis, 47 Ia. 325, 293
Myers v. Easterwood, 60 Texas

577
493
465

107,
1167

664
473

Myers v. Estell, 48 Miss. 372,
Myers v. Farrell, 47 Miss. 281,
Myers v. Jarboe, 56 Ind. 57,
Myers. v. Landrum, 4 Wash. 762,
8. C. 31 Pac. R. 33,
Myers v. Lawyer, 99 Ind. 237,
Myers v. Mitchell, 1 8. Dak. 249,
8. C. 46 N. W. R. 245, 169, 234
Myers v. Murphy, 60 Ind. 282, 514
Myers v. Overton, 2 Abb. Pr. (N. '
Y.) 344, 436

 

Myers v. Schneider, 21 Mo. 77, 621
Myers v. Smith, 15 Ia. 181,

1142, 1146
Myers v. State, 9 Tex. App. 157, 1239
Myers v. State, 92 Ind. 390, 235
Myers v. York, etc., R. R. Co., 2

Curt. (U.S. G. C.) 28, 594
Mynning v. a ete. » R.R.

Co., 64 Mich. 98, 8. C. Am. St.

R. 804, 1051, 1053
Myric v. Adams, 4. Munf. (Va.)

366, 452

N
Nabers v. Meredith, 67 Ala. 333, 191
Nabors v. Lattimer, 30 8. Car.

607, 1135
Nabors v. State, 6 Ala. 200, 148
Nading v. McGregor, 121 Ind.

465, 8. C.6 L. R. A. 686, 413
Naffzieger v. Reed, 98 Mo. 87, 8.

C. 118. W. R. 315, 237
Naglee v. Spencer, 60 Cal. 10, 1169
Nail v. State, 70 Miss. 32, 8. C. 11

So. R. 793, 646
Nance v. Thompson, 1 Sneed

(Tenn.) 320, 600
Nangatuck R. R. Co. v. Waterbury,

etc., Co., 24 Conn. 468, 1039
Nanson v. Jacob, 93 Mo. 331, 354
Napper v. Noland, 9 Port. (Ala.)

218, 138
Nash v. Caywood, 39 Ind. 457,

1132, 1143
Nash v. Drisco, 51 Me. 417, 536
Nash v. State, 7 Ind. 666, 205

Nashua Savings Bank v. ‘Lovejoy, .
1 N. Dak. 211, 8. C.46N. W.R.
611

411.

Nashville v. Potomac Ins. Co.,58
Tenn. 296, 473

Nashville, etc., Co. v. Fourth Nat.
Bank, 91 Tenn. 336, 8. C. 15 L.
Rk. A. 710,

Nason v. Jordan, 62 Me. 480,

National Bank v. Isham, 48 Vt.

1137
502

590, 738
National Bank y. Kent, 43° Mich.

292, 494
National Bank v. Lake Shore, etc.,

R. R. Co., 21 Ohio St. 221, 473
National Bankv. Lemke(N. Dak. dy

54.N. W. R. 919, 1081

National Bank v. Lock, 182 Ind.
424, 1229

National Bank v. Mills, 99 N. Y.
656, 8S. C.2 N. E. R. 27,

eee Bank v. Price, 33 Md.
487,

516
. TABLE OF CASES.

excili

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 608-1 244.,]

cana Bank v. Rogers, 12 Minn.

National Banking, etc., Co. v.
Knaup, 55 Mo. 154,

National Bank of Commerce vy.
Huntington, 129 Mass. 444,

National Broadway Bank v. Leslie,
31 Fla. 56, S.C. 12 So. R. 525,

National Cash Register Co. v.
Blumenthal, 85 Mich. 464,

National Copper Co. v. Minnesota
Mining Co., 57 Mich. 83, S. C.
58 Am. R. 333, 8. C. 23 N. W.
R. 781, 390

National, etc., Co. v. Clarkin, 14
Cal. 544, 485

National ExchangeBank v. White,

30 Fed. R. 412, 1050

National Ins. Co. v. Chamber of
Commerce, 69 Ill. 22,

National Refining Co. v. Miller, 1
8. Dak. 548, 8S. C. 47 N. W.R.
962, 1091

National Union Bank v. Brainerd
(Vt.), 26 Atl. R. 723, 472

National Water Works Co.yv. Kan-
sas City School District, 23 Mo.
App. 227, 1040

Nations v. J ohnson, 24 How. 195, |

604

440

1048
812

435

276, 315
Naugle v. State, 101 Ind. 284, 718
Nave v. Lane, 12 Ind. 318, 635

1156
517
1229
609

Nave v. Nave, 12 Ind. 1,

Nave vy. Williams, 22 Ind. 368,

Nay v. Byers, 13 Ind. 412,

Naye v. Noezel, 50 N. J. L. 523,

Naylor v. Cox, 114 Mo. 232, S.C.
218. W. R. 589,

Naylor v. Moody, 2 Blackf. 247,

Nazro v. Cragin, 3 Dill. (U. 8. C.

1168
1238

C.) 474, 239
acne In re, 14 Saw. (U.S.C.
C.) 232, 8. C.5 L. R. A. 78; 137

Neagle, In re, 39 Fed. R. 833, 8.

C. 135 U. 8. 1, 137, 298
Neal v. Field, 68 Ga. 534, 347
Neal v. Mills, 5 BIkf. 208, 1155

Neal v.. Shinn, 49 Ark. 227, 8. C.
48. W. R. 771, 153
Nealis v. Dicks, 72 Ind. 374, 136, 290

Nealley v. Grenough, 25 N. H.
325, 506
Nealon v. People, 39 Ill. App. 481, 652

Nearhoff v. Addleman, 31 Pa. St.
279, 551
Nearing v. Bell, 5 Hill, 291, 692
Nebraska, etc., Co. v. Maxon, 23
Neb. 224, S.C. 36N.W.R.'492, 237
Needham v. Gillaspy, 49 Ind. 245,
M 184, 1191

254, 1188"

 

Needham v. Salt Lake, etc., 7
Utah 319, S. C. 26 Pac. ’R. 920, 318
Neel yv. McElhenny, 69 Pa. St.

300, 872
Neenan v. Donoghue, 50 Mo. 498, 406
Neff v. Beauchamp, 74 Ia. 92, 287
Neff v. Cincinnati, 32 Ohio St.

215, 679
Neff v. Reed, 98 Ind. 341, 814, 1158
Negley v. Farrow, 60 Md. 158, 8.

C. 45 Am. Rep. 715, 540, 544
Negley a pee 10 Serg. & R.

(Pa.) 20 594
Neib v. Hinderer, 42 Mich. 451, 596
Neider v. Reuff, ‘29 W. Va. 751, "Ss.

C. 6 Am. St. R. 676, 290

| Neidig v. Cole, 13 Neb. 39, 818
Neier v. Missouri Pac. R. R. Co.,

12 Mo. App. 25, 546
Neier v. Missouri Pac. R. R. Co., .

(Mo.), 18. W. R. 387, 1162
Neil v. Case, 25 Kan. 510, 8. C. 37

- Am. R. 259, 532
Neil v. Thorn, 88 N. Y. 270, 784
Neilley, Matter of, 95 N. Y. 390, 376
Neilson v. Chicago, etc., R. R.

Co., 58 Wis. 516, 814
Neilgon v. Commercial, etc., Co.,

3 Duer 455, 1189
Neilson v. Harford, 8 Mees. & W.

823, 536, 538

Neiser v. Thomas, 99 Mo. 224, 269, 478
Neisler v. Harris, 115 Ind. 560,

542, 1148
Neiswender v.James,41 Kan.463, 1134
Nelling v. Industrial, etc., Co., 78

Ga. 260, 1123
Nelms v. State; 138. & M. (Miss. ts

500,
Nelson, Ex parte, 62 Ala. 376, 1930
Nelson v. Boynton, 54 Ala. 368, 116
Nell v. Dayton, 47 Minn. 257, S.

C. 49 N. W. R. 981, 185

Nelson v. Dodge, 116 Mass. 367, 1077
Nelson v. Iverson, 24 Ala. 9, 8. C.

60 Am. Dec. 442, 801
Nelson v. Jenks, 51 Minn. 108, S.

.C. 52 N. W. BR. 1081, 605
Nelson v. Petersen, 82 Ia. 739, S.

C. 47 N. W. R. 1003, 1236
Nelson v. Plimpton Elevating Co.,

55 N. Y. 484, 405
Nelson v. Potter, 50 N. J. L. 324, 284
Nelson v. Ronntree, 23 Wis. 367, 445
Nelson v. State, 32 Fla. —, 8. C.

18, So. R. 361, 806

Nelsonv. Vorce, 56 Ind. 455, 516, 1070:

Nepean v. Doe, 2M. & W. "894, 871

Nephi, etc., Co. v. Jenkins, 8
Utah 369, 8. C. 31 Pac. R. 986, 1144
CXC1V

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.]

Neppach v. Jordan, 15 Ore. 308,

8. C. 14 Pac. R. 353, 536
Nesbit v. Donald, 86 Ga. 26, S. C.
128. E. R. 183, 112

Nesbit v. Kerr, 3 Yeates(Pa.) 194, 818
Nesbitt v. City of Greenville, 69
Miss. 22,8. C.30 Am. St. R. pals 549
Nesbitt v. Dallam, 7 Gill & J
(Md.) 494, 793
Netso v. Foss, 21 Fla. 148, 1194
Nettleton v. Gridley, 21 Conn. 531,
8.0.56 Am. Dec. 378, 588, 589, 591
Nettleton v. Mosier, 3 Fed. R. 387, 314
Neubacher v. Indianapolis, etc.,
R. R. Co., 184 Ind. 25, S. C. 33
N. E. R. 798,
Neuborn v. Bronson,13 N. Y. 587,
Neuer v. O’Fallon, 18 Mo. 277,58.
C. 59 Am. Dee. 318,
Neufeld v. Rediminski, 41 III.
App. 144, 1225
Neufelder v. German American
Ins. Co. (Wash.), 33 Pac. R.

1056

471
513
1219

870,
Nevan v. Roup, 8 Ia. 207,
Neven v. Burke, 82 Ind. 455,
Neves v. Scott, 13 How. (U. 8.)
268, 270, 1128
New v. Walker, 108Ind.365, 302,304
New Albany, City of,v. Ray, 3 Ind.
App. 321,8.C0.29N.E.R. 611, 1056
New Albany v. White, 100 Ind.
206, 484, 1212
New Albany, ete., Co. v. Combs,
13 Ind. 490, 614, 615
New oka etc., Co. v. Day, 117
Ind. 3 1168
New ies etc., Co. v. Huff, 19
Ind. 444, 262
New Albany & S. R. R. Co. v.
Grooms, 9 Ind. 248, 435, 486, 441
Newark v. Funk, 15 Ohio St. 462, 472
Newark v. Perry Co., 30 Ohio St.
120, 1137
Newark v. Stout, 52 N. J. L.35, 8.
C. 18 Atl. R. 948, 527
Newark, etc., Co. v. Mayor, 8 C.
FE. Green 515, 1128
Newark, etc., Co. v. Perry Co., 30
Ohio St. 120, 1189
Newbery v. Furnival, 56 N. Y.
638, me 1131
Newby v. Colt’s Pat., etc., Co.,
R. 7 Q. B. 293, "442
Newby v. Myers, 44 Kan. 477,
104, 1148
Newcomb, In re, 18 N. Y. Supp.
16, 642
Newcomb v. Griswold, 24 N. Y.
298, 798

 

Newcomb vy. Newcomb, 13 Bush
544, 8. C. 26 Am. R. 222,
221, 321, 330

Newcomb v. Wood, 97 U. 8. 581, 592
Newcome y. Light, 58 Tex. 141,8.
C. 44 Am. R. 604, 216, 218

Newcomb’s Lessee v. Smith, 5
Ohio, 447, 181

Newell v. Downs, 8 Blackt. Vail
523,

Newell v. Gatling, 7 Ind. 147,

Newell v. Giggey, 13 Col. 16, 8.
C. 21 Pac. R. 904,

Newell v. Meyendorff, 9 Mont.
254, S. C. 23 Pac. R. 333,

Newell v. Newell, 9 Paige (N. Y.)
25,

Newell v. Smith, 49 Vt. 255,

New Eng. Mfg. "Co. v. Starin, 60
Conn. 369, 8. C. 22 Atl. R. 953,
429, 611
Newhall v. Sanger, 92 U.S. 761, 189

New Haven v. Whitney, 36 Conn.
373, 258
197

1188
310
180

810
495

New Haven, etc., Co. v. Fowler,
28 Conn. 1038,

New Haven Wire ce Cases,
57 Conn. 852, 8.'C.5 L. R. A.
300, 194

New Home, etce., Co. v. Wray, 29
8. Car. 86, 3805

Newhouse v. Miller, 35 Ind. 463,

1215

New J eae oe Co. v. Suydam,
17N.J.L
New Jersey Lite Ins. Co. v. Baker,
94 U. 8. 610, 1068
New Jersey R. &T. Co. v. West,
83 N. J. L. 430, 1045
New Jersey Steamboat Co. v.

New York, 109 N. Y. 621, 525
Newlin’s Petition, 123 Pa. St. 541,
8. C. 16 Atl. R. 787, 630

Newlon v. Tyner, 128 ‘Ind. 466, S.
C. 27 N. E. RB. 168, 720, 1218; 1219
New London, etc., Co. v. Boston,

etc., Co., 102 Mass. 386, 338
Newlove v. Woodward, 9 Neb.
502, 1157

Newman’s Estate,75 Cal. 213,8.C.

7 Am. St. R. 146, S.C. 16 Pac: R.
887, 184, 287, 291, 444, 445, 450, 1188

Newman’s ‘Lessee Vv. Cincinnati,
18 Ohio 323, 448, 1189

Newman v. Chap pman, 2 Rand.

(Va.) 93, 8. C. 14 Am. Dec. 774,
498, 499

Newman v. Greeff, 101 N. Y. 663,
8. C.5.N. E. R. 335, 1063
Newman vy. Hazelrigg, 96 Ind. 73, 627
TABLE OF CASES.

CxCcv

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.]

Newman v. Manning, 89Ind. 422, 474
Newmany. McGregor, 5 Ohio 349, 3899
Newman v. Tiernan, 37 Barb.

159, 215
Newman v. Third Ave. R. R. Co.,

50 N. Y. Super. Ct. 412, 810
Newmarket Mfg. Co. v. Pender-
grast, 24 N. H. 54, 551

New Orleans v. Hemphill, 385
Miss. 17, 276
New Orleans v. Scalzo, 41 La Ann.
41, 332
New Orleans Ins. Assn. v. Mat-
thews, 65 Miss. 301, 8. C. 4 So.
R. 62,
New Orleans Water Works Co. cS
v. Louisiana Sugar, etc., Co.

557

Nise, etc., Co. v. Lee, 73 Tex.
41, _ 1162

Niblack v. Goodman, 67 Ind. 174,
377, 383

Mibayet v. Niboyet, L. R. 4 P. D.
295

Nichol v. Bridgeport, 27 Conn.

45

Nichols v. Hail, 4 Neb. 210,

Nichols v. Lee, 10 Mich. 526,

Nichols v. Nichols, 96 Ind. 433,

Nichols v. Patten, 18 Me. 231, S.
C. 36 Am. Dec. 713,

Nichols v. State, 28 Tex. App. 105,

_ 8. C. 128. W. R. 500,

Nichols v. Stewart, 20 Ala. 358,

Nichols, etc. Co. v. Metzger, "43

806

125 U. 8. 18, S. C. 8 Sup. Ct. Mo. App. 607, 230
Rep. 741, 1 michal v. Desobry, 14 La. Ann.
Newport v. Miller (Ky.), 18 S. 509
W. R. 835, 9 Nic Palbon se Erie, etc., Co., 41 N.
New Salem v. Eagle Mill Co., 138 Y. 525, 369
Mass. 8, 370 Nicholson v. Karpe, 58 Miss.34, 34
Newsom v. Board, 103 Ind. 526, 360] Nicholson v. Nicholson, 113 Ind.
Newton v. Boodle, 54 Eng. Com. 131, 1201
L. 795, 1240 Nicholson v. oe (Tex.),

Newton v. Bronson, 13 N. Y. 587, 280
Newton v. Porter, 69 N. Y. 1383, 514
Newton v. State, 21 Fla. 53, 820
Newton v. Whitney, 77 Wis. 515,

188. W. R. 326,
Nickelson v. Smith, 15 Ore. 200,
1111, 1117, 1121
Nickerson e' ig ene ete. +» Co.,

8. C. 46 N. W. RB. 882, 1158, 1165 30 Fed. R 1128
Newton Man. Co. v. White, 47 Ga. Nickerson - tap: 122 Mass.
400, 490 296, 471
New York Baptist Union v. At- Nickless v. Pearson, 126 Ind. 477,
‘well, 95 Mich. 339, S. C. 54 N S. C. 26 N. E. R, 478,
W. R. 760, 447 542, 1061, 1176
New York, etc., Co. v. Doane, 105 Nickum v. Gaston (Ore.), 35 Pac.
Ind. 92, 1156, 1181 .3l, 080
New York, etc.,Co.v.Fitch, 1 Paige Nicol v. Vaughan, 2 Dow. & C.
97, 480 420, ; 1128
New York,etc.,Co.v. Hyde,56 Fed. Niemeyer v. Brooks, 44 Ill. 77, 392
R. 188,. 1236 | Nietert v. Trentman, 104 Ind. 390,
New York, etc., Co. v. Jewett, 115 8. C.4N. E. BR. 306, 455
N. Y. 166 498 | Niland v. Murphy, 73 Wis. 326, 8.
New York, ’ete., Co. v. Rothery, C. 41 N. W. R. 335, 390
112 N. y. 592, 8. C. 20 N. E. R. Nimmon v. Worthington, 1 Ind.
546, 1243} 376, 620

New York, etc., Co. v. Schneider,
11I9N.Y. 475, ’S. C.24.N. E. Rep.
4, 574, 596, 597

New York, etc.,; Co. v. Schuyler,

17 N.Y. 592, 121

New York, ete. Co. v. Simon, 53
Fed. Rep. 1 608

New York, etc., Co. v. Wilson, 8
Pet. 291, 1240

New York & T. Land Co. v. Gard-
ner (Tex.), 25 S. W. R. 737,

Ney v. Rothe, 61 Tex. 374,

Ney v. Swinny, 36 Ind. 454,

1072
669
822

 

Nimocks v. Cape Fear, etc., Co.,
110 N. Car. 230, 8. C.148. E.R.

622, 180

Nims v. Nims, 20 Fla. 204, 201
6] Ninde v. Clarke, 62 Mich. 124, 8.

C. 4 Am. St. R. 823, 190
Nispel v. Laparle, 74 Ill. 306, 1178
Niswanger v. Saunders, 1 Wall.

424, 251

Nixon v. Beard, 111 Ind, 137, 179, 791
Nixon v. Downey, 42 Ia.78, 442, 1170
Nixon v. Town of Biloxi (Miss.),

5 So. R. 621, 543
exevl

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.]

Noaker v. Morey, 30 Ind. 103,

Noble v. Bellows, 53 Vt. 527,

ae v. Crandall, 49 Hun (N. Y.)
474

Noble v. Enos, 19 Ind. 72,

Noble v. Thompson Oil Co., 79 Pa,
St. 354, S. C. 21 Am. R. 66,

Nobles v. Hogg, 36 S. Car. 322, S.
C.158. E. R. 359,

Noblesville v. L. E. & W. B. Co. a
130 Ind. 1,

Noblesville, etc., Co. v. Gause,
76, Ind. 142, 179

Noblesville, etc., Co. v. Loehr,
124 Ind. 79, 1106, 1107

Nofsinger v. Ring. 4 Mo. App.
576, 531

Noke v. Ingham, 1 Wils. 89, 1194

Nolan v. N. Y., etc., R. R. Co., 58
Conn. 461, 8. C, 25 Am. & Eng.
R. R. Cas. 342,

Nolan v. State, 2 Head (Tenn.)
520,

Nollen v. Wisner, 11 Ia. 190, 1068

Nonce v. Richmond, etc., Co., 33
Fed. R. 429, 310, 373

Noodriff v. Stewart, 63 Ala. 206, 241

Nooe v. Higdon, 4 Blackf. (Ind.)

521

184,

Noonan v. Caledonia Gold, etc.,
1206

1128

1092
362

614
1087

473
372

546

Co., 121 U. 8. 393,
Noonan v. Lee, 2 Blackf. 499,
Noonan v. New York, etc., Co.,
68 Hun 887, 1048
Norberg v. Heineman, 59 Mich.
210, 605
Norberg’ s Case, 4 Mass. 81, 741, 799
Norbury v. Meade, 3 Bligh 261,
254, 1178
Norce v. Richmond, etc., Co., 33
Fed. R. 469, 304
Nordyke, ete., Co. v. Dickson, 76
Ind. 188, 1193
Nordyke, etc., Co. v. Van Sant,
99 Ind. 188, 1026, 1055
Norfolk, ete., Co. v. Postal, etc.,
Co., 88 Va. 920, 8.C. 14.8. E.

R. 689,
Norfolk, etc., R. R. Co. v. Ander-

304

son (Va.), 178. E. R. 757, 722
Norlinger v. De Mier, 54 Hun (N.

Y.) 276, 605
Norman v. Heist,5 W.&8.171, 117
Norman y. Morrell, 4 Ves. 769, 538

390
363

Norman v. Winch, 65 Ia. 263,
Norris’ Appeal, 71 Pa. St. 106,
Norris v. Chambers, 29 Beay. 246,

283
Norris v. Dodge, 28 Ind. 190, 1195
Norris v. Gawtry, Hob. R. 139, 379

 

Norris v. Jackson, 9 Wall. 125, 1138
Norris v. Milwaukee Dock Co., 21
Wis. 1380, 393
Norris v. Norris, 3 Ind. App. 500,
S.C. 28 N. E. R. 1014,
Norris v. Watson, 2 Foster (N.H.) .
364, 467
Norristown, etc., Co. v. Burket, 26 :
Ind. 58, 644
North v. James, 61 Miss. 761, 381
North v. McDonald, 1 Biss. 57, 464
North v. Moore, 8 Kan. 148, 428

North v. Mudge, 13 Ia. 496, S. C.
81 Am. Dec. 441, 1178
North v. Peters, 138 U. S. 271,58.
C. 11 Sup. Ct. R. 346, 1151
North Am., etc., Co. v. Dyett, 2
Edw. Ch. 115, 1210
Northampton v. Smith, 11 Met.

395, 219
Northampton Bank v. Bulliet, 8.

Watts & §. 311, 8. C. 42 Am.

Dec. 297, 721

Northampton, etc., Co. vy. Parnell,

15 C. B. 630, 8. C. 24 L. J.C. P.

60, . 407
North Bloomfield, etc.,Co.v. Key-

ser, 58 Cal. 315, 214, 219
North Car., ete., Co. v. Swasey,

23 Wall. 405, 1187
North Chicago St. Ry. Co. v. Wil-

liams, 140 Ill, 275, 8. C. 29N.E.

R. 672, - 857
Northcutt v. Buckles, 60 Ind. 577,

1182, 1143, 1163, 1184

Northeutt v. Lemery,' ’8 Ore. 316, 449
Northern, etc., Co. v. Ellis, 144 U.

S. 458, 1178
Northern, etc., Co. v. Scholl, 16

Md. 331,
Northern, ‘ete., R.R. Co. v. Mares,

123 U.S. 710, S. C. 8 Sup. Ct.

R. 321, 1052
Northern Pac.R.R.Co.v. Charless,

51 Fed. R. 562,

1039, 1045, 1052, 1224

Northern Pac. R.R. Co: v. Conger,

56 Fed. R. 20, 1055
North Hudson B. & L. Assn. v.

Childs, id Wis. 460, S. C. 52. N.

W.R. 6 349
Noriieoien v. State, 14 Lea

(Tenn.) 424, 821
North L. R. Co. v. McGrann, 33

Pa. St. 530, 408
North Penna. R. R. Co. v. Com-

mercial Bank, 123 U.S. 727, S.

C. 8 Sup. Ct. R. 266, 1053, 1055
North Vernon v. Voegler, 103 Ind.

314, 368, 370, 390
TABLE OF CASES.

exevii

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.)

Northwestern Benevolent, etc.,
oo v. Woods, 21 Ill. App.
72

Northwestern, etc., Ass
Primm, 124 Tl. 100, 8. C. "16 N.
E.R. 98,

Northwestern, etc., Packet Co. v.
McCue, 17 Wall. (U. 8.) 508,
Northwestern Life Ins. Co. v.
Muskegon Bank, 122 U.S. 501,

534

Northwestern Mut. Fire Ins. Co.

v. Blankenship, 94 Ind. 535, 1097

Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co.
v. Bank, 122 U. 8. 501, 8. C. 25
C. L. J. 300,

Norton y. Clark, 18 Nev. 247,

Norton v. Cook, 9 Conn. 314, 8S.
C. 23 Am. Dec. 342,

Norton v. Ellam, 2 M. & W. 461,

611

618
535

1064
471

285

360
Norton v. Hall, 41 Vt. 471, 364
Norton v. Heywood, 20 Me. 359, 507

Norton v. Larco, 30 Cal. 127,8. C.
89 Am. Dec. 70,

Norton v. Mascall, 2 Vern. 24, 598

Norton v. Norton, 5 Cush. 524, 274

Norton v. Norton, 43 Ohio St. 509,

471
Norton v. Sanders, 1 Dana 14, 370
Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.

S. 425, 116, 120, 214
Norton v. State, 98 Ind. 347, 1072
Norton v. State, 106 Ind. 163,

625, 1212
Northrop v. Hill, 61 Barb. 136, 369
Northrop v. Hill, 57 N. Y. 351, 369
Northrop v. Wright, 24 Wend. 221,

361

1158

Northrup v. People, 37 N. Y. 203,
147, 152
Norval v. Rice, 2 Wis. 22, 643

Norvell v. Deval, 50 Mo. 372, s.C.
11 Am. R. 413, 1117
Norvell v. Lessueur, 33 Gratt. 222,
274
Norwegian Street, In re, 81 Pa.
St. 349, 298
Norwich, etc., R. R. Co. v. Cahill,
18 Conn. 484, 1159
Norwood v. Gonzales Co., 79 Tex.
218,
Norwood v. Kenfield, 34 Cal. 329,
138, 139, 142, 155
Norwood v. Somerville, 159 Mass.
105, S. C. 33 N. E. R. 1108,
1064, 1065
aa pes Co. v. Clarkin, 14
Cal. 5 301
Noalingy. McIntosh, 89 Ind. 593, 352

381

 

Noyes v. Butler, 6 Barb. 613, 826
Noyes v. Clark, 7 Paige (N. Y.)
179, 8. C. 32 Am. Dec. 620, 404
Noyes v. Gould, 57 N. H. 20, 601
Noyes v. Marsh, 123 Mass. 286, 587
Noyes v. Newmarch, 1 Allen 51, 1191

Noyes v. Parker, 64 Vt. 379, S. C.
24 Atl. R. 12, 1070
Noyes’ Will, In re, 61 Vt. 14, 8.

C.17 Atl. RB. 743, 540
Nuckols v. Jones, 8 Gratt. 267, 1161
Nudd v. Burrows, 91 U. 8. 426, 1061
Nudd v. Hamblin, 8 Allen 130, 367
Nudd v. Wells, 11 Wis. 407, 554
Nueva Anna, 6 Wheat. 193, 116
Nugent v. Smith, L. R. 1 C.P. D.

428, 997
Nugent v. Stark, 34 La. Ann. 628,

204, 237

Nunan v. Valentine, 83 Cal. 588,
8. C. 23 Pac. R. 713, "113
Nunez v. Dautel, 19 Wall. (U. 8.)

560, 554
Nunn v. Home Ins. Co. 31 Neb.

39, 8S. C. 47 N. W. R. 467, 393
Nunn vy. Sturges, 22 Ark. 389, 315
Nunnery v. Day, 64 Miss. 457, 363
Nurney v. Firemen’s Ins. Co., 63

Mich. 633, 588
Nusbaum v. Stein, 12 Md. 315, 195
Nute v. Bryant, 31 Me. 553, 520
Nute v. Nute, 41 N.H.60, 549, 802
Nutter v. Railroad Co., 131 Mass.

231, 472
Nutter v. Houston, 42: Mo. App.

363, 173
Nutting Vv. Losance, 27 Ind. 37, 1230
Nyce v. Hamilton, 90 Ind. 417, 289
Nye v. Kellam, 18 Vt. 594, 183
Nye v. Lewis, 65 Ind. 326, 1237
Nyev. Liscombe, 21 Pick. ’(Mass.)

263, 613
Nye v. Manwell, 14 Vt. 14, 1115
Nye v. Me io Tex. 434, 8. C.

88. W.R 1190

O

Oakes v. Thornton, 28 N. H. 44, 1043
Oakley v. Anderson, 93 N. Car.
108, 591
Oakley v. Aspinwall,4.N.Y.514, 443
Oakley v. Aspinwall, 3 N.Y. 547, 218
Oakley v. Dunn, 63 Mich. 494, 8.

C. 30 N. W. R. 96, 638
Oakley v. Patterson’ Bank, 2N. J.

Eq. 173, 494
Oakwood, etc., Assn. v. Rath-

borne,‘65 Wis. 177, 407
exevili

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. I, pp. 608-1244.)

Oatman v. Andrew, 43 Vt. 466, 510
Oatman v. Walker, 33 Me. 67, 400
Obaugh v. Finn, 4 Ark. 110, S. C.

87 Am. Dec. 7738, 1035

Obear v. Gray, 68 Ga. 182,
1119, 1123, 1124
Obenchain v. Comegys, 15 Ind.
496, 185
Ober v. Indianapolis, etc., Co., 13

Mo. App. 81 1235
Oberfelder v. Kavanaugh, 29 Neb.

427, 8. C.45 N. W. R. 471, 1230
Obermann Brewing Co. v. Ohlerk-

ing, 33 Ill. App. 26, 413
Obernalte v. Edgar, 28 Neb. 70, 8.

C.44N. W. RB. 82, 180, 737
O’Brien y. Gaslin, 20 Neb. 347, 486
O’Brien v. Moss, 131 Ind. 99, 1387

O’Brien v. Norwich, etc., Co., 17
Conn. 372, 483
O’Brien v. People, 3 Abb. Pr. N.
S. 368, 8. C. 36 N. Y.276, 657, 662
O’Brien v. Sexton, 140 Ill. 517, 8.
C.30 N. E. R. 461, 363
O’Brien v. Shaw’s Flat, 10 Cal. 343, 440
O’Brien v. Vulcan Iron Works, 7
Mo. App. 257, 667
O’Bryan v. Allen, 95 Mo. 68, 697
O’Bryan v. Glenn, 91 Tenn. 106,
§. C. 30 Am. St. R. 862,
O’Callaghan v. Bode, 84 Cal. 489,
S. C. 24 Pac. R. 269, 1232

354

Ochus v. Sheldon, 12 Fla. .138, 218

O’Connell v. Gavett, 7 Col. 40, 640

O’Conner v. Huggins, 1138 N. Y.
511, 8. C. 21 N. E. R. 184, 262

O’Connor v. Guthrie, 11 Ia. 80, 1077
O’Connor v. Koch, 56 Mo. 253,
1157, 1211
O’Connor v. Le Roux, 78 Mich.
48,8. 0.43 N. W. R. 1084, 531
O’Connor v. Wilson, 57 Ill. 226,
435, 436
287

O’Dea v. O’Dea, 101 N. Y. 23,
Odell v. Campbell, 9 Ore. 298,

446, 447
Odell v. DeWitt, 53 N. Y. 648, 298
Odell v. Hart, 1 Moll. 492, 1216
Odeneal v. Henry, 70 Miss. 172,
S. C. 12 So. R. 154, 1071
Odiorne v. Colley, 2 N. H. 66, S.
C.9 Am. Dec. 39,
O’Donnell v. Atchison, T. & 8. R.
R. Co., 49 Fed. R. 689,
O’Donald v. Constant, 82 Ind.
212,
O’Donnell v. Segar, 25 Mich. 367,
Odum vy. Rutledge & J. R. R. Co.,
94 Ala, 488, S. *O. 10 So. R. 222,
400, 404

198
608

353
712

 

Oelrichs v. Spain, 15 Wall. 211,
Offord v. Davies, 12 C. B. N.S.
748, 412
Officer v. Young, 5 Yerg. 320, 121
O’Gara v. Eisenhowr, 38 N. Y.
296, 102
Ogden v. Forney, 33 Ia. 205, 592
Ogden v. Gibbons, 5 N. J. L. 518,

618
Ogden v. Kip, 6 John. Ch. 160, 480
Ogden v. Robertson, 15 N. J. L.
124, 172, 173
Ogden v. Saunders, 12 Wheat.213,
202, 285, 411
Ogden v. Walters, 12 Kan. 282,
341, 345, 445
Ogilvie v. Knox, etc., Co., 2 Black

539,
Ogle v. Dill, 61 Ind. 438,
1089, 1095, 1155
Ogle v. powers, 133 Ind. "358, 8.
C. 33 N. E. RB. 95, 633, 634
Ogle v. State, 33 Miss. 383, 661
O’Hagen v. O’Hagen, 14 Ia.
264,
oe v. Richardson, 46 Pa. St.
38
O’Hare v. Chicago, etc., R. R. Co.,
139 Ill. 151, 8. C. 28 N. E. R.
923, 663
Ohio v. Cowles, 5 Ohio St. 87, 1199
Ohio & Miss. Ry. Co. v. Collarn,
73 Ind. 261, 547
Ohio & M. Ry. Co. v. Buck, 130
Ind. 300, 8.C. 30 N.E.R.19, 1070
Ohio & M. Ry. Co. v. Craucher,
132 Ind. 275, 1075
Ohio & Miss. Ry. Co. v. McCart- ,
ney, 121 Ind. 385, 1080, 1165
Ohio & M. Ry. Co. v. Ramy, 139
Ill. 9, 8. C. 28 N. E.R. 1087, 1092
Ohio & M. Ry. Co. v. Selby, 47
Ind. 471, — 1098
Ohio & M. Ry. Co. v. Smith, 5
Ind. App. 560, 8. C. 32 N. E.R.
809, 1096, 1208
Ohio '& Miss. Ry. Co. v. Stans-
pong 132 Ind. 533, 8. C. 32 N.
218

Ohio & M. Ry. Co. v. Thillman,
143 Ill. 127, S.C. 82 N. E.R.
529,

Ohio & M. Ry. Co. v. Trapp 3
Ind. App. 69, 8. C. 30N. E. R.
812, 1090

Ohio’ & M. R. R. Oo. v. Trow-
bridge, 126 Ind. 391, 1097

Ohio & M. R. Co. v. Wachter, 123
Ill. 440, 8. C. 15 N. E. R. "279,

109, 110

301

1187

255
501

1090:

1068.
TABLE OF CASES.

f

excix

[References are-to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.)

Ohio & M. R. R. Co. v. Webb,
142 Ill. 404, 8. C. 32 N. E. R.
527,

Ohio, etc., R. R. Co. v. Davis, 23
Ind. 553,

Ohio, ees a v. Kuhn (Ky.), 5
S.W.R

Ohio, etc., oe v. Schultz, 31 Ind.

1066
495
1166

150, 317
Ohio, etc., R. R. Co. v. Palm, 18

Til. 22 620
Ohio, ete., R. R. Co. v. Walker,

118 Ind. 196, 712
Ohio River, etc., Co. v. Gibbens,

385 W. Va. 57,8. C. 12 8S. E. R.

1093, 115

Ohio Southern, etc., Co. v. Morey,

47 Ohio St. 207, 8.0.7 LR.

Anno. 701, ~ 333, 611
Ohm’s Estate, In re, 82 Cal. 160,

8. C. 22 Pac. R. 927, 254, 1184
Oil Co. v.Van Etten, 107 U.S. 325, 556
O’Kelly v. Territory, 1 Ore.51, 161
O’Keson v. Barclay, 2 Penr. &

584

W. 531,
Old v., Mohler, 122 Ind. 594,
321, 1196, 1209

Old Colony Co. v. Wilder, 137
Mass. 536, 1138, 1139

Old Dominion, etc., Co. v. Mc-

Kenna, 30 Fed. R. 48, 483
Old Hickory, etc., Co. v. Bleyet,

74 Ga. 201, 476
Oldenberg v. Devine, 40 Minn.

409, S. C. 42 N. W. R. 88 1202
Oldfield v. N. Y., etc., R. R. Co.,

14.N. Y. 310, 529
Oldham y. Scrivener, 3 B. Mon.

579, -198, 469
Olds v. State, 6 Blkf. 91, 846

Olds Wagon Co. v. Benedict, 25
Neb. 372, 8.C. 41 N.W.R. 254,
O’Leary v. Burns, 53 Miss. 171,
O’Leary v. Iskey, 12 Neb. 136,
Oliphant v. Atchison Co., 18 Kan.
386, 824, 1146
Oliphant v. Whitney, 34 Cal. 25, 1195

1231
361
112

Olive v. Olive, 95 N. Car. 485, 796
Olive v. State, 11 Neb. 1, 1074
Oliver v. Berry, 53 Me. 206, 381
Oliver v. Smith, 5 Mass. 183, 198
Oliver v. Town, 24 Wis. 512, 1240
Olivier v. Cunningham, 51 Minn.
232, 8S. C. 53N. W. R. 462, 626, 628

Ollam v. Shaw, 27 Ind. 388,
173, 189, 1088

Ollis v. Kirkpatrick, 2 Idaho 976,

S. C. 28 Pac. R. 435, 183
Olmstead  v. Koester, 14 Kan.
463, 489, 491

 

Olmstead v. Loomis, 9 N. Y. 423, 483
Olmstead v. Winsted Bank, 32

Conn. 278, 8. C. 85 Am. Dec.

260, 794
Olmstead’s Appeal, 43 Conn.110, 314
Olson v. Brown, 50 Minn. 353, S.

C.16L. R. A. 691,

Olvey v. Jackson, 106 Ind. 286,
382, 392
Omaha v. Ayer, 32 Neb. 375,S. C.

49 N. W. R. 445 547
Omaha v. Cane, 15 Neb. 657, 658
Omaha, etc., R. R. Co. v. ‘Cook

(Neb.), 55 N. W. R. 943,
Omaha, etc., a oh Fay (Neb. s

55 N. W.R
Omaha & F. 2 a T. Co. v. fia

sen, 32 Neb. 449, 8S. C.49N. W.

R. 456,

Omaha v. Olmstead, 5 Neb. 446,
Omaha, etc., Ry. Co. v. O'Neill,

81 Ia. 463, 8. C. 46 N. W. R.

1100, 632, 637
Omaha, etc., Co. v. Tabor, 13 Col.

41,8. C. 16 Am. St. R.185, 799, 802
Omaha S. R. Co. v. Beeson, 36

Neb. 361, 8. C. 54 N.W. R. 557,
O’Malley v. Missouri Pac. R. R.

Co., 113 Mo. 319, 8. C. 208. W.

R. 1079,

0’) Malley’ v. Reese, 1 Barb. 643,
O’Mahoney v. Belmont, 62 N.Y.

138,

O’Marav. Commonwealth, 75 Pa.

St. 424,

Omychund y. Barker, 1 Atk. 21,
724, 962
O’Neal v. Blessing, 34 Ohio St. 33, 333

1129

659

1080
654

816
1053
299
497
660

O’Neal v. State, 47 Ga. 229, 1160
O’Neil v. O’Neil, 54 Cal. 187, 627
O’Neil v. State, 48 Ga. 66, 1071
O’Neill v. James, 43 N. Y. 84, = 1045

O’Neil]l v. New York, etce., Co.,
115 N. Y. 579, 1206
Oney v. Clendenin, 28 W. Va.
34 1157

Onion v. Robinson, 15 Vt. 510, 595

Onstatt v. Ream, 30 Ind. 259, 8.

- ©. 95 Am. Dec. 695,

mare Vv. _ Thompson, 20 Johns.
(N. Y

Opdyke v. oe 28 N. J. L.
83,

1231
385

533

Ophir, etc., Co. v. Carpenter, 6
Nev. 393, 112

Orange Bank v. Brown, 3 Wend.

158, 980
Orcutt v. Hanson, 71 Ia. 514, 8.C.

32 N. W. R. 482, 304
Orcutt v. Ranney, 10 Cush. 183, 276
ce

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.]

Ord v. Ruspini, 2 Esp. 569,
Ordway v. Haynes, 50N. H. 159,

609
Oregon, etc., Bank v. American
Oregon, etc., R. R. Co. v. Barlow,
679
Oregonian, etc., Co. v. Oregon
QO’ ‘Reilly v. Kerns, 52 Pa. St. 214, 408
240,
134
Ormes v. Dauchy, 82 N. Y. 448,
Hopk. Ch. (N. Y.) 423, 494
Orr, etc., Shoe Co. v. Harris, 82
465
361
Ortman v. Dixon, 9 Cal. 23,
194

375
803

Ordway v. Remington, 12 R. I.
319, 8. C. 34 Am. R. 646, 472

Orear v. Clough, 52 Mo. 55,

Mortg. Co., 35 Fed. R. 22, 587

Oregon, etc., Co. v. Gates, 10 Ore. °

473
3 Ore. Sil,

Oregonian Ry. ,ete., ‘Co. v. Oregon
Ry. Co., 22 Fed. R. 245, 1211
etc., Co., 27 Fed. R. 277, 1178

OQ’ ie v. Campbell, 116 U. S.

1205

O’ Reilly v. Nicholson, 45 Mo.

160, 245, 342

Origet v. United States, 125 U.S.

1239

Orleans v. Platt, 99 U. 8S. 676,

Orman v. Mannix, 17 Col. 564, S.

C. 30 Pac. R. 1037, 1209
1045

Orne v. Sullivan, 3 How. (Miss.)
161, 8. C. 34 Am. Dee. 74, 587

Orphan Asylum v. McCartee, 1

O’Rourke y. O’Rourke, 43 Mich.

58, 915

Orr v. Worden, 10 Ind. 553, 1210
Tex. 273, 8. C. 18 8. W. R. 308,

Orthwein v. Thomas, 127 Ill. 554,
S.C. 11 Am. St. R. 159,

492

Orvis v. Powell, 98 U. 8. 176, 270

Osborn v. Bank, 9 Wheat. 738,

124, 605

1122

475

822

Osborn v. Heyer, 2 Paige 342,

Osborn Co. v. Morris, 21 Ore. 367,
S. C. 28 Pac. R. 70,

Osborn v. Schutt, 67 "Mo. 712,

Osborn v. Sutton, 108 Ind. 443,

Osborne v. Colvert, 86 N. Car. 170,

599
Osborne v. Detroit, 32 Fed. R. 36,
547, 812
Osborne v. Graham, 30 Ark. 67, 128
Osborne v. Kline, 18 Neb. 344, 3.
C. 25 N. W. R. 360, 674, 675
Osborne v. O’Reilly, "34.N. J. Eq.
60, 790

Osborne v. Prather, 83 Tex. 208,
8. C.188. W. R. 613, 1136
Osborne v. Wilkes, 108 N. Car.

651, 1323

 

Oscanyan v. Arms Co., 103 U. 8.
261, "692, 1051, 1054
Osceola Tribe v. Schmidt, 57 Md. ‘
88

98,
Osgood vy. Blackmore, 59 Ill. 261, 266
Osgood v. McConnell, 32 Ill. 74, 1122
Osgood v. Thurston, 28 Pick. 110, 255
O’Shea v. White Lead Co., 42 Mo.

397, S. C. 97 Am. Dec. 332, 567
O’Sheilds v. State, 55 Ga. 696, 1077
Oshoga v. State, 3 Chand. (Wis. ) ;

57, 159
Oshoga v. State, 3 Pin.( Wis.) 56, 159

Ostertag v. Galbraith, 23 Neb. 730, 432
Ostrander v. Hart, 130 N. Y. 406,

"1151

Oteiza v. Jacobus, 1836 U.S. 330, 133

Ottawa v. Walker, 21 Tl. 605, 258
Ottawa, etc., Co. v. McMath, 91

Ill. 104, 1165

Otter Creek Block Coal Co. v.
Raney, 34 Ind. 329, 1091
Otis v. De Boer, 116 Ind. 531, S.
C.19N.E.R.317, 133, 322, 448
Otisv. Epperson, 88 Mo. 131, 446, 448
Otis v. Hitchcock, 6 Wend. 433, 1172
Otis v. Rio Grande, 1 Woods, 279, 13838

Ott v. McHenry, 2 W. Va. 73, 626
Ott v. Oyer, 106 Pa. St. 6, 1069
Ott v. Schroeppel, 5 N. Y. 482, 594
Ott v. Schroeppel, 3 Barb. (N.Y.)

56, 597
Ott v. Soulard, 9 Mo. 581, 533
Ott v. Whitworth, 8 Humph.

(Tenn.) 494, 383
Otto v. Schlapkahl, 57 Ja. 226, 372
Otto v. Trump, 115 Pa. St. 425, 8S.

Cc. — Atl. R. 786, 504
Ottumwa v. Schaub, 52 Ta. 515, 134
oe v. Outhouse, 13 Hun

(N. Y.) 130, 875
Outhwite v. Porter, 13 Mich. 533, 428
Ouzts v. Seabrook, 47 Ga. 359, 469
Over v. Schiffling, 102 Ind. 191,

544, 714
Overby v. Chesapeake, etc., R. R.

Co., 87 W. Va. 524, 8. C.16 8. E.

R. 813, 1054
Overing v. Foote, 65 N. Y. 263, 425

Overly v. Overly, 1 Metc. (Ky.)
117, 576
Overny Vv. puceseke etc., Ry.
Co., 87 W. Va. 524, 8. 0. 16 8.
E.R. 813, 739
Overton v. Alpha, 13 La, Ann. 558, 592
Overton v. Hill, 1 Murph. (N. C.)
47, 197, 198
Overton v. Matthews, 35 Ark. 146, 533
Owen v. Bankhead, 82 Ala. 399, S.
C. 3 So. R. 97, 185
i

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.]

Owen v. Boerum, 23 Barb. (N. Y.)
187, - 594, 596
Owen v. Frink, 24 Cal.171, 1128
Owen v. Going, 7 Col. 85, 1181
Owen v. Homan, 4 H. L. Cases

997, 494
Owen v. Jones, 14 Ark. 502, 1158
Owen v. Owen, 22 Ta. 270, 1064
Owen v. Phillips, 73 Ind. 284, 1212
Owen v. Warburton, 4 Bos. & ’Pul.

326, 1118
Owens v. Mitchell, 33 Tex. 225, 1178
Owens y. Owens, Hard. (Ky.)

154, 636
Owens v. Ranstead, 22 Ill. 161, 173

Owens v. Starr, 2 Litt. (Ky.) 330,
62

Owens v. State, 32 Neb. 167, S.C.
49 N.W. R. 226,

‘Owings v. Gibson, 2 A. K. Marsh.
(Ky.) 517,

Oxford Iron Co. v. Spradley, 42
Ala. 24 440

Oystead v. Shed, 12 Mass. 506, 467

660
224

P

Pace v. Mealing, 21 Ga. 464, 1160
Pack v. Simpson, 74 Mich. 28, 8.
C. 41 N. W. R. 850, 636, 639
Pacific, ete:, Co. v. Malin, 132 U.
S. 531, 1226
Pacific, etec., Co. v. Seibert, 44
Fed. R. 310, 483
‘Pacific R. Co. v. Governor, 23 Mo.
353, 170, 251
Pacific Ry. Co., In re, 32 Fed. R.
241, 117, 119, 170
Packard v. Bergen, etc., Co., 54
N. J. L. 229, 8. C. 23 Atl. R.
722,
Packard v.- Packard, 34 Kan. 53,
Packard v. Smith, 9 Wis. 184,
Packard v. Van Schoick, 58 III.

1224
142
1161

79, 406
Packer v. Doray, 98 Cal. 315, 8.

C. 33 Pac. R. 118, 1167
Packet Co. v. Sickles, 19 Wall.

(U. 8.) 611, 641, 1231
Packet Co. v. Sickels, 5 Wall. (U.

S.) 580, 542
Haddock y. Ins. Co., 12 N. Y.

1188
Paddock vy. Matthews, 3 Mich.

18, 469
Padden v. Moore, 58 Ia. 703, 473
Paddock v. Somes, 102 Mo. 226,

8. C.10 L. R.A. 254, 1176
Page, Ex parte, 49 Mo. 291, 248, 342

 

pre v. Allen, 58 Pa. St. 338, 8.
98 Am. Dec. 272,

Page v. Contoocook, etc., R. R.
Co., 21 N. H. 488,

Page v. Cushing, 38 Me. 523, 544

Page v. Foster, 7 N. H.392, 572, 584

een v. Osgood, 2 Gray (Mass. .

258
654

677
Page v. Waring, 76 N. Y. 468,
500, 549
Page’s Estate, 50 Cal. 40, 189
Page’s Estate, 57 Cal. 238, 718, 1224
Paine v. Drew, 44 N. H. 306, 373
Paine v. Lake Erie, etc., Co., 31
Ind. 283, 1090
Paine v. Lester, 44 Conn. 196, S.
C. 26 Am. R. 442, 302

Paine v. Mooreland, 15 Ohio 435,
320, 321, 427

Paine v. Ringold, 43 Mich. 341, 538
Paine vy. Tilden, 20 Vt. 554, 807
Paine v. Woolley, 80 Ky. 568, 347

Palairet’s Appeal, 67 Pa.’ St. "479,
8. C.5 Am. R. 450, 97
Palatka, etc., R. R. Co. v. State,
23 Fla. 546, §.C.3S0. R. 158, 1162
Palmer v. Chicago, etc., Co., 112
Ind. 250, 1023, 1027, 1028, 1055
Palmer v. Crosby, 1 Blackf. 139, 1194
Palmer v. Davis, 28 N. Y. 342,
583, 1040
Palmer v. Dodge, 4 Ohio St. 21, 384
Palmer v. Kennedy, 7 J. J. oe
498,
Palmer v. Largent, 5 Neb. 223, 8.
C. 25 Am. R. 479, 532
Palmer v. Lawrence, 5 N. Y. 389,

220
Palmer v. McCormick, 28 Fed. R.
41, 444
ore v. McCormick, 30 Fed. R.
445, 449
Panes yi McMaster, 8 Mont. 186,

8. C. 19 Pac. R. 585, 449
Palmer v. McMaster, 10 Mont. 390,

S. C. 25 Pac. Rep. 1056, 714
Palmer v. Oakley, 2 Doug. (Mich.)

433, 8. C.47 Am. Dec. 41, 293, 316
Palmer v. Palmer, 36 Mich. 487,

8. C. 24 Am. Rep. 605, 360
Palmer v. People, 4 Neb. 68, 666
Palmer v. Poor, 121 Ind. 1385, 640
Palmer v. Rowan, 21 Neb. 452, S.

C. 59 Am. R. 844, 458
Palmer vy. Russell, 34 Mo. 476, 1200
Palmer v. Sanders (N. J.),17 Atl.

R. 1084, 454
Palmer v. Thayer, 28 Conn. 237, 436
Palmer v. Van Wyck (Tenn.), a1 ‘
S. W. R. 761, 594, 600
cecil

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.]

Pam v. Vilmar, 54 How. Pr. 235,
239, 261, 1130
Pana v. Bowler, 107 U. 8. 529, 8.

C. 2 Sup. Ct. R. 704, 284
Pangborn vy. Continental Ins. Co.,

67 Mich. 683, S. C. 35 N. W. R.

814, 571
Pangburn v. Bull, 1 Wend. (N.

Y.) 345, 552

Pancoast v. Curtis, 6 N. J. L. 415, 596
Panhorn vy. Continental Ins. Co.

(Mich.), 29 N. W. R. 475, 507
Panton v. Williams, 1G. & D.504, 552
Pape v. Wright, 116 Ind. 502, 803, 1215
Papineau v. Belgarde, 81 Ill. 61, 1119
Paramore v. Lindsey, 63 Mo. 63, 532
Pardridge v. Wing, 75 Ill. 236, 619
Parham v. Harney, 6 Smed. & M.

55, 1119, 1120
Park v. Franco-Am. Trading Co.,

120 N. Y. 51,8. C. 23 N. E. R.

996, 541
Park v. Piedmont Ins. Co., 51 Ga.

510. 539
Park v. Wiley, 67 Ala. 310, 402

Park v. Willis, 1 Cranch C. C. 357, 512
Parke v. Com. Ins. Co., 44 Pa. St.
441

422,
Parker, Ex parte, 1381 U.S. 221, 257
Parker v. Abrams, 50 Ala. 35,

1171, 1209
Parker v. Bates, 29 Kan. 597, 1160
Parker v. Chambers, 24 Ga, 518, 909
Parker v. Clayton, 72 Ind. 307, 1209
Parker v. Danforth, 16 Mass. 299, 442
Parker v. Eggleston, 5 Blackf.

(Ind.) 128, 595
Parker v. Enslow, 102 Ill. 272, 810
Parker v. Georgia, etc., Co., 83 Ga.

539, S. C. 10S. E. R. 233, 180, 737
Parker v. Hubble, 75 Ind.-580,

1109, 1149, 1155
Parker v. Ibbetson, 4 C. B. (N.S8.)

345, 536
Parker v. Jackson, 16 Barb. 33, 1194
Parker v. Jenkins, 3 Bush. (Ky.)

587, 1053
Parker v. Kett, 1 Ld. Raym. 658,
Parker v. Lake Shore, etc., Co.,

93 Mich. 607, 8. C.53 N. W.R

834, 1122
Parker v. Marco, 186 N. Y. 585, 457
Parker v. McLean, 134 N.Y.255, 1050
Parker v. Morrell, 2 Ph. Ch. 453,

254, 1178

Parker y. Morrill, 106 U. 8. 1, 332
Parker v. Nickerson, 137 Mass.

487, 201

Parker v. Overman, 18 How. 187, 275
Parker v. Page, 38 Cal. 522, 472

 

Parker v. Palmer, 4 Barn. & Ald.
3887, 556
Parker v. Parker, 12 N. J.Eq.105, 477

Parker v. Publishing Co., 69 Me.
173, 369

Peres v. Reddick, 65 Miss. 242,

S.C. 7 Am. St. R. 646, 555
Parker v. Remington, a5: R. I. 300,

S.C. 2 Am. St. R. 897, 383
Parker v. State, 34 Ga. 262, 655
Parker v. State, 55 Miss. 414, 665
Parker v. State, 67 Md. 329, S. C.

1 Am. St. R. 387, 179
Parker v. State, 88 Ala. 4, S.C. 7

So. R. 98, 541
Parker v. State (Ind.), 35 N. E.

Rep. 1105, 798
Parker v. State, 132 Ind. 419, 1205
Parker v. Steamboat Co., 109

Mass. 449, 739
Parker v. Urie, 21 Pa. St 305, 1134
Parker v. Wilson, 61 Vt. 116, 474
Parker v. Winnipiseogee Co., .2

Black 545, 262, 1130
Parkes v. Clift, 9 Lea 524, 1178
Parkhill v. Amlay, 15 Wend. 431, 556
Parkhurst v. Lowton, 1 Meriv.

390, 781
Parkin v. Moon, 7 Carr. & P.

408, 779
Parkins v. Dunham, 3 Strob. L.

(S. Car.) 224, 544, 558
Parks, In re, 3 Mont. 426, 214
Parks, Ex parte, 93 U. 8. 18, 256
Parks Vv. Boston, 15 Pick. (Mass. )

198, 814
Parks v. People’s Bank, 97 Mo.

130, 8S. C.10 Am. St. R. 295, 485
Parks v. Ross, 11 How. (U. 8.)

362, 1055

Parks v. Satterthwaite, 132 Ind.
411, S. C. 32 N. E. Rep. 82,
21, 372, 1103, 1146

Parks v. State, 4 Ohio St. 234, 665
Parks v. Turner, 12 How. (U. 8.)

39, 1122
Parler v. Johnson, 81 Ga. 254, 199
Parmalee v. Town of Bethlehem,

57 Conn. 270, 1047
Parmer v. Keith, 16 Neb. 91, 464
Parmiter yv. Coupland, 6 Mees. &

W. 105, 540
Peat v. Head, 33 Ill. App.

134, 552
Parnell v. Hahn, 61 Cal. 181,
301, 1171
Parrish v. McNeal, 36 Neb. 727,

8. C. 65 N. W. R. 222, 1114
Parroski v. Goldberg, 80 Wis.

339, 8. C. 50 N. W. R. 191, 1243
TABLE OF CASES.

eclil

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.]

Parrott v. Alabama, etc., Co., 5

Fed. R. 391, 280
Parry v. Woodson, 33 Mo. 347, 8.

8. 84 Am. Dec. 51, 430
Parsons vy. Aldrich, 6N.H. 264, 596
Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet. 433, 1131
Parsons v. Harper, 16 Gratt. 64, 1154
Parsons v. Hedges, 15 Ia. 119, _ 1081
Parsons v. Missouri Pac. R. R.

Co., 94 Mo. 286, 8. C.6 8. W.R.

464, 559
Parsons v. Robinson, 122 U. 8.

112, 1187
Parsons v. State, 22 Ala. 50, 667
Parsons vy. Stockbridge, 42 Ind.

121, 1166

Parsons v. Thorlume, etc., Co., 5
Cal. 44, 256
Partridge v. White, 59 Me. 564, 33
Paschal v. Cushman, 26 Tex. 74,
1106, 1108
Paschal v. Owen, 77 Tex. 583, S.

C. 148. W. RB. 203, 821
Pasley v. Freeman, 3 T. R. 51, 390
Pasour v. Lineberger, 90 N. Car.

255

159, .
Passenger, etc., Co. v. Birnbaum
(Pa.), 10 Atl. R. 138,
Laer, Moore, 1 Teds Marsh.

(Ky. 452
Paes : ’Pettit, 4 Dall. (U.S8.)

271, 592
Passwater v. Edwards, 44 Ind.

343, 1189
Pate v. Tait, 72 Ind. 450, 623
Patent Brick Co. v. Moore, 75 Cal.

205, 1168
Pattee v. Gilmore, 18 N. H. 460,

S. C. 45 Am. Dec. a 395
Patten v. Chicago, etc., R. R. Co.,

32 Wis. 524, 534
Patten v. Cunnington, 63 Tex. 666, ie

Patten v. Hazewell, 34 Barb. 421,
1195

Patten v. Pancoast, 109 N .Y. 625,

8S. C. 15 N. E. R. 893, 531, 559
Patrick v. Crowe, 15 Col. 543, S.

C. 25 Pac. R. 985, 220, 224
Patrick v. Graham, "132 U.S. 627,

1207
Patrick v. Petty, 83 Ala. 420,
Patrick, etc., Co. v. Skoman, 1

Col. App. 323, 8. C. 29 Pac. R.
1121

538
1063
488

1236

Patridge v. Patterson, 6 Ia. 514,

Patterson v. Ball, 19 Wis. 243,

Patterson v. Bangs, 9 Paige 627,

Patterson vy. Churchman, 122 Ind.
379,

 

Patterson v. Gaines, 6 How. (U.

8.) 550, 1127
Patterson vy. Indianapolis, etc.,
Co., 56 Ind. 20, 1065

Patterson v. Jack, 59 Ia. 682, 1162
Patterson y. Leavitt, 4 Conn. 50,
8. C. 10 Am. Dec. 98, 591, 592

Patterson v. Lord, 47 Ind. 208, 1158
Patterson v. Prior, 18 Ind. 440,

352, 374
Patterson v. State, 70 Ind. 341, 1069

Patterson v. State, 48N.J.L. 381,
659, 661, 662

Patterson v. Stephenson, 77 Mo.

329, 467
} Patterson v. United States, 2

Wheat. (U. 8.) 221, 1115, 1116
Patterson v. Wallace, 44 Pa. St.

88, 517
Patteson v. Ford, 2 Gratt. 18, 1159
Pattison v. Bacon, 12 Abb. Pr.

142, 1206

Patton v. Allison, 7 Humph. 320, 274
Patton v. Baird, 7 Ired. Eq. (N.

Car.) 255, 595
Patton v. Bragg, 113 Mo. 595, 8.
C. 35 Am. St. R. 730, 1025

Patton v: Goldsborough,98.&R.
47

5 34
Patton v. Hamilton, 12 Ind. 256, 390
Paul v. Davis, 100 Ind. 422,

46, 52, 954
Paul vy. Rogers, 5 Monr. 164, 1234
Paul v. State (Ala.), 14 So. R. 634,

1073

Paul v. Stone, 112 Mass. 27, 379
Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. (U. 8S.)

168, 440

Paul v. Ward, 21 Ind. 211, 458
Paul v. Willis, 69 Tex. 261, 8. C.

78. W. R. 357, 314

Paulling v. Creagh, 63 Ala. 398, 453

Paulman v. Claycomb, 75 Ind. 64, 820
Paulsen v. Manske, 24 Ill. App.

95, 586
Paulson v. Nunan, 54 Cal. 123, 1146
Paulson v. Nunan, 64 Cal. 290, S.

C. 30 Pac. R. 295, 1146
Pavey v. American Ins. Co., 56

Wis. 221, 1089

Pavey v. Pavey, 80 Ohio St. 600, 1218
Pavlooski v. Thornton, 89 Ga. 829, ;

S.C. 158. E. R. 822, 1075
Pawlingv.Speed,65 T. B. Mon.580, 314
Pawling v. The United States, 4

Cranch 219, 1028
Paxon v. Bailey, 17 Ga. 600, 551
Paxson v. Sweet, 13 N. J. L. 196, 545
Paxton v. Daniell, 1 Wash. 19, 8.

C. 23 Pac. R. 441, 614
ceciv

TABLE OF CASKS.

[References are to Pages, Vol. 1, pp. 1-602, Vol. I, pp. 603-1244.]

Pay v. Shanks, 56 Ind. 554, 395
Payne v. Baxter,2Tenn.Ch.517, 410
Payne v. Crawford, 97 Ala. 604, S.

. 10 So. R. 924, 8. C. 11 So. R.

725, 592, 594
Payne v. Dicus (Ia.), 55 N. W. R.

483, 1212, 1218
Payne v. Drewe, 4 East 523, 299
Payne v. Farmers’ , ete., Bank, 29

Conn. 415, 609
Payne v. Flourney, 29 Ark. 500, 1218
Payne v. Kansas, etc., Co., 46

Fed. R. 481, 487, 488
Payne v. oe aaa 1 Upper Can.

K.B.8 652
Payne v. Sriell, 3 Mo. 409, 469
Payne v. State, 60 Ala. 80, 802
Payne v. Young, 8N. Y. 158, 452
Payton v. Sherburne, 15 R. 1.218,

1044
Pea v. Pea, 35 Ind. 387, 1090
Peabody v. Norfolk, 98 Mass. 452, aes

Peabody Ins. Co. v. Wilson, 29
W. Va. 528, 8. C. 28. E. R. 888,
554, 1034
Peacock v. Bell, 1 Saunders 73,
816, 329
Peake v. Highfield, 11 Russ. 559,

- 1127
Peak v. People, 71 Ill. 278, 255
Pearce v. Atwood, 13 Mass. 324,
220, 304
Pearce v. McIntyre, 29 Mo. 423, 595
Pearce v. Watkins, 68 Md. 534, 528
Pearcy v. Michigan, etc., Co., 111
Ind. 59, 8. C. 60 Am. R. 673,
650, 662
Pearson v. Burditt, 26 Tex. 157, 8.
C. 80 Am. Dec. 649,
Pearson v. Hopkins, 2 N. J. L
192,
Pearson v. Manufacturing Co., 14
Neb. 211,
Pearson v. Post, 2 Dak. 220, 8. C.
9N. W. R. 684,
Pearson v. Wightman, 1 Mill (S.
Car.) 336,8. C. 12 Am. Dec. 636,

738
Pearson v. Zehr, 138 Ill. 48,'8. C.

29 N. E. R. 854, 1065
Pease v. Howard, 14 Johns. 479, 366
Pease v. Pease, 66 Ga. 277, 1162
Pease v. Smith, 61 N. Y. 477, 394
Pease Furnace Co., In re, 59 Hun

(N. Y.) 626, 628
Peck v. Andrews, 32 Barb. 445, 154
Peck v. Bank, 16 R. I. 710, S. C.

867
413

225
332
1193

19 Atl. R. 369,
Peck v. Barney, 13 Vt. 93,

 

Peck v. oe Freeholders,Spencer
(N. J.) 457 220
Peck v. Freeholders, 21 N. J. L.
656,
Peck v. Goodberlett, 109 N. Y.
_ 180, 8. C. 16 N. E. R. 350,
: 480, 719

Peck v. La Roche, 86 Ga. 314, 8.
C. 12S. E. R. 638, 460
Peck v. Louisville, etc., Co., 101
Ind. 366, 1229
Peck v. Strauss, 333 Cal. 678,
821, 436
Peck v. Vanderberg, 30 Cal. 11, 1178
Peck v. Yorks, 41 Barb. 547, 490

220

Peckham y. Tomlinson, 6 Barb.
342
(Mass.) 274,

253,
Peckman v. North Parish, 16 Pick.

440
Pedigo v. Grimes, 113 Ind. 148,
721, 736, 1129

Peebles v. Rand, 48 N. H. 337, 233
Peebles v. Root, 48 Ga. 592, 1048
Peebles v. Watts, 9 Dana 102, 335
Peed v. Brenneman, 89Ind. 252, 679

Peed v. Brenneman, 72 Ind. 288, 1154
Peetv. ee ons , Co. (8. Dak. De

47N. W.R
Pegg v. Warlord, °y Md. 582,
Peblman y. State, 115 Ind. 181,

1121, 1122

Peigh v. Huffman,6 Ind. App. 658,

8. C. 34 N. E. R. 32, 1155
Pejepscot Proprietors v. Nichols,

10 Me. 256, 1113

B18

Pekin v. Winkel, 77 Ill. 56, 1119
Pelham v. Rose, 9 Wall. 103, 129
Pella v. Scholte, 24 Ia. 283, 366
Pells v. Snell, 180 Tl. 379, 312
Pence v. Garrison, 93 Ind. 345, 1163
Pence v. Waugh (Ind.),34 N.E. R.
860, 800
Pencil v. Home Ins. Co., 3 Wash.
485, 8. C. 28 Pac. R. 1031, 1087
Pendleton v. Dalton, 64 N. Car.
329, 480, 487

Pendleton v. Empire, etc., Co., 19 .

N. Y. 13, 800
Pendleton v. Russell,144 U. 8. 640,
8. C. 12 Sup. Ct. R. 743, 493

Penhallow v. Kimball,61 N.H.596, 290
Penhryn Slate Co.v. Meyer,8 Daly

(N. Y.) 61, 669, 674
Peninsular Bank v. Hanmer, 14
Mich. 208, 532

Peninsular Land,etc.,Co.v.Frank-
lin Ins. Co., 35 W. Va. 666, 8. C.
148. E. R. 287, 1088, 1090, 1096
Peninsular R. R. v. Howard, 20

Mich. 18, 654
TABLE OF CASES.

ccv

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 608-1244.]

Peniston v. Somers, 15 La. Ann.
679

Penn vy. Lord Baltimore, 1 Ves.
Sr. 444, 8. C. 2 Leading C. in
Eq. 1808, 280, 282, 283, 569

Penn v. Pelan, 52 Ia. 535, 474

1192

Pennell v. Grubb, 13 Pa. St.552, 475
Pennie v. Visher, 94 Cal. 323, 634
Penniman v. Rodman, 18 Metc.
382, 572, 584
Penniman v. Ruggles, 6 Mass. .
166, 197
Pennington y. Gibson, 16 How.
- (U. 8.) 65, 815
Pennington v. Streight, 54 Ind.
376, 212
Pennock v. Dialogue, 2 Pet. (U.
8.) 1, 1059, 1229
Pennock v. McCormick, 120 Mass.
275, . 1232
Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714,
271,275 ,280,424,428, 444,445, 451,463
Pennsylvania Co. v. Conlan, 101
‘ 915
Pennsylvania Co. v. Dean, 92 Ind.
1211

459,
Pennsylvania Co. y. Frana, 13

Ill. App. 91, 545
Pennsylvania Uo. v. Long, 94

Ind. 250, 106
Pennsylvania Co. vy. McCormick,

131 Ind. 250, S. C. 30 N. E.R.

27, 1069

Pennsylvania Co.v. Myers (Ind.),
36 N. E. R. 32, 1095
Pennsylvania Co. v. Newmeyer,
129 Ind. 401, 8. C. 28 N. E.R.
860, 180, 810
Pennsylvania Co. v. Niblack, 99
' Ind. 149, E 207, 1139
Pennsylvania Co. v. Roney, 89
Ind. 453, 1081
Pennsylvania Co. v. Roy, 102 U.
8. 451, 720, 1069
Pennsylvania Co. v. Sloan, 125
Ill. 72, 378
Pennsylyania Co. v. Smith, 98
Ind. 42, 1098
Pennsylvania Co. v. Stegemeier,
118 Ind. 305, 8. C. 10 Am. St,
R. 136, 1025
Pennsylvania Co. v. Weddle, 100

Ind. 138, 552
Pennsylvania v. Ravenel, 21
How. (U.S.) 103, 543

‘Pennsylvania R. R. Co.’s Appeal,
. 125 Pa. St. 189, 376
Pennsylvania R. R.'Co. v. Bar-

nett, 59 Pa. St. 259, 547

 

Pennsylvania R. R. Co. vy. Con-
nell, 127 Tl. 419, 8. C. 20 N. E.
R. 89, 544, 740
Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v. Frana,
112 Hil. 398, 547
Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v. Hensil,
70 Ind. 569, 547
Pennsylvania R. R. Co.v. Peoples,
31 Ohio St. 537, 464
Pennsylvania R. R. Co.v. Righter, .
42 N. J. L. 180, 548, 1045
Pennywit v. Foote, 27 Ohio St.
600, 8. C. 22 Am. R. 340, 336, 606
Penobscot Boom Corp. v. Lamson,
16 Me. 224, 8. C. 33 Am. Dec.
656,
Penobscott, etc., Co. v. Weeks, 52
Me. 456, 827

605:

Penruddock’s Case, 5 Co. 101. 893.
Pensacola v. Reese, 20 Fla. 487, 298.
Pensacola, etc., Co. v. Spratt, 12
Fla. 26, 8. C. 91 Am. Dec. 747, 478
Penson v. Lee, 2B. & P. 330, 692
People v. Abbott, 97 Mich. 484, 8.
C. 56 N. W. R. 862, 803.

People v. Ah Lee Doon, 97 Cal.

171, S. C. 31 Pac. Rep. 933, 661, 663.
People v. Ab Ying, 42 Cal. 18, "152
People v. Albany, etc., Co., 55°.

Barb. 344, 195

People v. Albertson, 8 How. Pr.
863 216.

People v. Alpin, 86 Mich, 393, S.
C. 49 N. W. R. 148, 666

People v. Altgeld, 43 Tll. App. 460,
1242

807

436
822

People v. Amanacus, 50 Cal. 233,
People v. Ames, 35 N. Y. 482, S.
C. 91 Am. Dec. 64,
People v. Anderson, 44 Cal. 65,
People v. Anthony, 129 Il. 218,
: 1227, 1242
People v. Anthony, 25 Ill. App.
582, 1242
People v. Arceo, 32 Cal. 40, 178
People v. Arnold, 40 Mich. 710, 780
People v. Baker, 96 N. Y. 340, :
543, 738
People v. Baker, 3 Park. Crim. R.
(N. Y.) 181, 629:
People v. Baker, 76 N. Y. 78,
260, 272, 287

People v. Barnhart, 59 Cal. 402, 821
People v. Barton, 16 Col. 75, 26
Pac. R. 149, 476

People v. Batchelor, 22N. Y.128, 592
People v. Beach, 87 N. Y. 508, 789
People v. Beaver, 83 Cal. 419, 8.

C. 28 Pac. R. 321, 182

§
ecvi

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.)

People v. Benjamin, 9 How. Pr.

(N. Y.) 419, 505
People v. Bennett, 37 N. Y. 117, 654
People v. Bernal, 43 Cal. 385, 437
People v. Bissell, 19 Ill. 229, 170, 251
People v. Bloedel, 16 N.Y.S. 837, 164
People v. Board, 23 Ill. App.

386, 1232
People v. Board, 100 Ill. 495, 202
People v. Bodine, 1 Denio (N.Y:)

281,. 662, 666
People v. Bonney, 19 Cal. 426, 815
People v. Bonney, 98 Cal. 278, S.

C. 83 Pac. R. 98, 1074
People v. Boscovitch, 20 Cal. 436,

179, 697
People v. Briggs, 50 N. Y. 553, 298
People v. Brooks, 131 N. Y. 321,

8.C.30N. E.R. 189, 796, 797
People v. Brown, 49 Barb. 9, 120
People v. Brown, 8 Ill. 87, 1049
People v. Buddensieck, 103 N.Y.

487, 5S. C.9N. E. R. 44, 813, 816
People v. Bumberger, 45 Cal.

650, 1073
People v. Burns, 78 Cal. 645, S. C.

21 Pac. R. 540, 1137
People v. Bush, 71 Cal. 602, 8. C.

10 Pac. R. 169, 815
People v. Bush, "68 Cal. 623, 813
People v. Bushton, 80 Cal. 160, 800
People v. Carolin, 115 N.Y. 658, 636
People v. Carpenter, 24N.Y.86, 202
People v. Carpenter, 102 N. Y.

238, 657, 658

People v. Carrier, 46 Mich. 442, 667
People v. Carter, 29 Barb. 208, 217
People v. Cavanaugh, 2 Park. Cr.

R. 650, 341
People v. Center, 61 Cal. 191, 1166

People v. Central City Bank, 53
Barb. 412, 156
People v. Chapin, 105 N. Y. 309, 298

People v. Chew, 6 Cal. 636, 174
People v. Chew Sing Wing, 88 Cal.

268, S. C. 25 Pac. R. 1099, 1076
People v. Chicago, 53 Ill. 424, 301
People v. Christie, 2 Park. Crim.

Cas. 579, 663

People v. City of Rochester, 21
Barb. 656, 323
People v. City of St. Louis, 5
Gil. (Ill.) 351, 482
People v. City of Syracuse, 78 N.
56, 177
People v. Clark, 62 Hun(N.Y.)84, 656
People v. Clayton, 4 Utah 421, 8.

C. 11 Pac. R. 206, 527
People v. Coffman, 59 Mich. 573,
8. C. 26 N. W. R. 207, 652

 

People v. Coghill, 47 Cal. 361,
People v. Commissioners, 3 Hill

592

599, 298
People v. Comaresliniors; 11 How.

Pr. (N. Y.) 8 527
People v. ae lection, 54 N.

Y. 276, 526
People v. Commissioners, 7 Col.

190, 522
People v. Cook, 44 Cal. 638, 400
People v. Cook, 8N. Y. 67, 1051
People v. Copsey, 71 Cal. 548, 797

People v. Crowley, 102 N. Y. "934,

S.C.6N. E.R. 384, 661
People v. Cullom, 100 Ill. 472, 170
People v. Cummins, 47 Mich. 334,

798

People v. Cunningham, 1 Denio

524, 369
People v. Dane, 59 Mich. 550, 820
People v. Dawell, 25 Mich. 247,

S.C. 12 Am. R. ’260, 287
People v. De la Guerra, 24 Cal.78, 218
People v. Devine, 44 Cal. 452, 801
People v. Dewick, 2 Park. Cr. (N.

Y.) 230, 662
People v. Dimick, 107 N. Y. 18, 308
People v. Doe, 1 Mich. 451, 662
People v. Dolan, 96 Cal. 315, 8. C.

81 Pac. R. 107, 665
People v. Dowling, 84 N. Y. 478, 719
People v. Doyell, 48 Cal. 85, 806
People v. Durfee, 62 Mich. 487, 179
People v. Dye, 75 Cal. 108, 799
People v. Eastwood, 14 N.Y. 562, 739
People v. Edmonds, 15 Barb. 529,

220
People v. Elliott, 80 Cal. 296, 630
People v. Elster, 5 Crim. L. Mag. ‘

687, 798
People v. Evans, 72 Mich. 367, 820
People v. Everest, 4 Hill (N. Y.)

Tl; 376
People v. Falconer, 2 Sandf. 81, 346
People v. Fanshawe, 187, N. Y.

68, 8S. C. 32 N. E. R. 1102, 657
People v. Ferris, 35 N. Y. 125, 342
People v. Fick, 89 Cal. 144, 8. C.

26 Pac. R. 759, 541
People v. Flack, 125 N. Y. 324, S.

C. 26 N. E. R. 265, 8.C. 11 L. R.

A. 807, 548, 1076
People v. Foote, 93 Mich. 38, 8.

C.52N. W.R. 1036, 798
People v. French, 95 Cal. 871, S.

C. 30 Pac. R. 567, - 782
People v. Frisbie, 96 Cal. 135, UT.
People v. Gage, 62 Mich. 271, 8.

C. 28 N. W. R. 835, 660

People v. Gallagher, 75 Mich. 512, 226
TABLE OF CASES.

eevii

[Leferences are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. I, pp. G03-1244.]

663
298

1216

People v. Gar Soy, 57 Cal. 102,
People v. Gates, 57 Barb. 291,
People v. Genet, 59 N. Y. 80, S.
C. 17 Am. R. 315,
People v. Gonzales, 35 N. Y.49, 809
People v. Governor, 29 Mich. 320, 170
People v. Graham, 21 Cal. 261,
655, 737
People v. Gray, 5 Wend. (N. Y.)

289, 1064
People v. Gray, 7 N. Y. 378, 807
People v. Green, 53 Cal. 60, 815
People v. Greiger, 138 Ill. 401, 8.

C. 28 N. E. R: 812, 170
People v. Griffin, 77 Mich. 585, 8.
C. 43 N. W. R. 1061, 543

Peoplev. Hagadorn,104N.Y.516, 202
People v. Hagar, 52 Cal. 171,
165, 320, 323, 427

People v. Hall, 48 Mich. 482, 706
People v. Harris, 4 Denio (N. Y.)

_ 150, 626
People v. Harrison, 82 Ili. 84, 1195

People v. Harrison, 93 Mich. 594, 1075
People v. Harrison, 84 Cal. 607, 327
People v. Haughton, 41 Hun (N.

Y.) 558, 454
People v. Hawes,25 Ill. App. 326, 1242
People v. Hicks, 53 Cal. 354, 915
People v. Hicks, 15 Barb. 153, 298, 397
People v. Hite, 8 Utah 461, S.C.

33 Pac. R. 254, ; 797
People v. Holladay, 93 Cal. 241, 8.

C. 27 Am. St. R. 186, 387
People v. Hopt, 4 Utah 247, &. C.

9 Pac. R. 407, 667, 668
People v. Huber, 20 Cal. 81, 444
People v. Hughes, 137 N.Y. 29, S.

C. 32 N. E. R. 1105, 665
People v. Hunt, 41 Mich. 334, 118
People v. Hunt, 59 Cal. 430, 1124
People v. Hurlbut, 24 Mich. 44, 8.

C.9 Am. R. 103, 122, 203
People v. Jacobs, 49 Cal. 384, 794
People v. Judge, 38 Mich. 310, 437
People v. Judges of Washington,

1 Caines 511, . 12:
People v. Judge of Wayne Co.,

ete., 1 Mich. 359, 1241
People v. Judges of Westchester,

Col. & Caines (N. Y.) 135, 1242
People v. Justices, 74 N. Y.406, 643
People v. Keeler, 99 N. Y. 463, S.

C. 52 Am. R. 49, 117, 118
People v. Keenan, 13 Cal. 581, 178
People v. Kelly, 113 N. Y. 647, 548
People v. Kelly, 38 Cal. 145, 258, 307
People v. Kelly, 35 Hun 295, 1073
People v. Kelly, 94 N. Y. 526,

178, 1159, 1170

| People v. Kelly, 97 N. Y. 212, 842
People v. Kiernan, 101 N. Y. 618,

8. C.4N. E. RB. 130, 652
People v. King, 27 Cal. 507, S. C.

87 Am. Dec. 95, 1064
People v. Knapp, 42 Mich. 267, 799
People v. Lake, 12 N. Y. 358, 740
People v. Lampson, 70 Cal. 204,

8. C. 11 Pac. R. 593, 521
People v. Langdon, 8 Cal. 1, 203
People v. Lange, 90 Mich.-454, S.

C. 51 N. W. R. 534, 780
People v. Larubia, 69 Hun 197, S.

C. 23 N. Y. Supp. 579, 658
People v. Lee, 14 Cal. 510, 1242
People v. Lee, 5 Cal. 353, 626, 627

People v. Lee Ah Yute, 60 Cal. 95, 821
People v. Lee Chuck, 78 Cal. 317, 801
People v. Lee Gam, 69 Cal. 552, 1073
People v. Levine, 85 Cal. 39, 811
People v. Liscomb, 60 N. Y. 559,
S.C.19 Am. R.211, 126, 243, 340
People v. Lothrop, 3 Col. 428, 527
People v. Mahoney, 18 Cal. 180, 221
People v. Manning, 48 Cal. 335,
712, 781

People v. Mariposa Company, 39
Cal. 683, 605
People v. Martell, 138 N. Y. 595,
8. C.33 N. E. R. 838, 661

People v. Mather, 4 Wend. (N.
Y.) 229, 8. C. 21 Am. Dec. 122,
662, 707, 737, 780, 803, 805
People v. Maynard, 15 Mich. 463, 143
People v. Maynard, 14 Ill. 419, 118
People v. McCaffrey, 75 Mich. 115,
8. C. 42 N. W. R. 681, 603
People v. McCallam, 103 N.Y. 587, es
1
People v. McCauley, 1 Cal. 379, 660
People v. McClellan, 31 Cal. 101, 174 ©
People v. McClutchen, 40 Mich.
2

44. 191
People v. McCormick, 135 N. Y.

663, S. C. 82 N. E. Rep. 26, 798
People v. McCoy, 45 How. Pr. (N.

Y.) 216, ; 809
People v. McCoy, 71 Cal. 395, 1159
People v. McElvaine, 121 N. Y.

250, S.C. 18 Am. St. R. 820, 741

People v. McFadden, 81 Cal. 489, 170
People v. McGonegal, 136 N. Y.
62, S. C. 32 N. E. Rep. 616,
657, 658, 660
People v. McKinney, 10 Mich.
1171

54,
People v. McNamara, 94 Cal. 509,
S. C. 29 Pac. R. 953, 790, 791
People v. McRoberts, 100 I]. 458, 630
People v. Mellon, 40 Cal. 648, 214

 
eeviil

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. I, pp. 6038-1244.]

People v. Millard, 53 Mich. 68, 706
People v. Mills, 94 Mich. 630, S.

C. 54. N. W. R. 488, 785, 804
People v. Mitchell, 62 Cal. 411, 820
People v. Mitchell, 94 Cal. 550, 796
People v. Muller, 96 N. Y. 408, 1066
People v. Mullings, 17 Am. St. R.

223, 782
People v. Murray, 89 Mich. 276, 8.

C.14L. RB. A. 809,

People v. Nash, 111 N.Y. 310, 8.

C.7 Am. St. R. 747, 585
People v. Nelson, 85 Cal. 421, S.

C. 24 Pac. Rep. 1006, 712, 1206
Peoplev. Nevins, 1 Hill 154, 329, 423
People v. New York, 3 Abb. Pr.

(N. Y.) 181, 488
People v. Nichols, 79 N. Y. 582, 119
People v. Northern R. R. Co., 42

N. Y. 217, 495
People v. Northrup, 50 Barb. 147, 138
People v. Norton, 1 Paige 17, 195
People v. O’Brien, 111 N. Y. 1, 8.

C.2L.R. A. 255, 424
People v. O’Brien, 78 Cal. 41, S.

C. 20 Pac. R. 359, 182
People v. O’Brien, 96 Cal. 171, 1074

People v. O’ Laughlin, 3 Utah 133, 697

People v. Olcott, 2 Johns. Cas.
301, S. C. 1 Am. Dec. 168,

People v. O’Neil, 47 Cal. 109,

People v. Osborn, 57 Barb. 663,

People v. Oyer & Terminer, 83 N.
Y. 436,

People v. Parish, 4 Denio (N.Y. i
153,

People v. Parton, 49 Cal. 632,

People v. Pearson, 2 Scam. 189, 8.
C. 33 Am.. Dec. 445,

People v. People’s Ins. Exch., 126
Ill. 466, S. 0.2 L. R. A. 340,

1050, 1053, 1055
People v. Perry, 65 Cal. 568, 1071
Peoplev. Petheram, 64 Mich. 252, 452

1124
155
1241

782

1242

People v. Petty, 32 Hun 443, 226
People v. Quick, 92 II]. 580, 565
People v. Quincy, 8 Cal. 89, 623
People v. Ramirez, 56 Cal. 533, 8.

C. 38 Am. R. 73, 742

People v.Rathbun, '21 Wend. 509, 1225
People v. Recter, 19 Wend. (N. ¥, )
569, 806
People v. ees 55 Cal. 290, 8.
C. 36 Am. R. 3 1216

People v. Reed, 31 Cal. 70, 543
People v. Reeder, 25 N.Y. 302, 469
People v. Reyes, 5 Cal. 347,

655, 663
People v. Reynolds, 16 Cal. 128, 667

 

People v. Richmond, 16 Col. 274,
S. C. 26 Pac. R. 929, 118, 119
People v. Rodrigo, 69 Cal. 601, 8.

C. 8 Crim. L. Mag. 503, 798, 804
People v. Rolfe, 61 Cal. 540, 29
People v. Rose, 52 Hun 33, 1215

People v. Rouse, 15 N. Y. Supl.
414, 3809

People v. Royal, 1Scam.(Ill.)557, 255

People v. Safford, 5 Denio (N.Y.)
112,

People v. Sam Ling, 70 Cal. 515,

S.C. 11 Pac. R. 673, 695
People v. Samsels, 66 ‘Cal. 99, 1075
People v. Sanchez, 24 Cal. 17," 138
People v. Sanford, 48 Cal. 29, 1061

People v. San’ Francisco, 'ete.,
Union, 31 Cal. 132, 1191
People v. Schenectady, 35 Barb.
408,
People v. Scott, 56 Mich. 154,
People v. Sexton, 24 Cal. 78,
People v. Sharp, 107 N. Y. 427, 8.
C.1 Am. St. R. 851, 738, 781
People v. Sherman (Cal.), 32 Pac.
R. 879, 804, 1065
People v. St. Dominick, 34 Hun
463, 126, 133
Page v. Stephens, 51 How. Pr.
2.

1179
People v. Staton, 73 N. Car. 546,
8. C. 21 Am. R. 479, 214
People v. Stewart, 7 Cal. 140,
657, 666
People v. Stimer, 82 Mich. 17, 8.
C. 46 N. W. R. 28,
People v. Strong, 30 Cal. 161,
People v. Stubenvoll, 62 Mich.
829, 8. C. 8 Crim. L. "Mag. 265, 1141
People v. Sturtevant, 9 N. Y. 263,
165, 1216
People v. Sullivan, 24 N. Y. S.
Rep. 579, 153
22, 202

People v. Supervisors, 65 N. Y.
People v. Supervisors, 24 Hun (N.

Y.) 413, 582
People v.Supervisors, 27 Cal. 655, 527
People v. Superior Court,5 Wend...

114, 176
People v. Sweetman, 3 Parker C.

R. 358, 308
People v. Swenson, 49 Cal. 388,

1171, 1209

People v. Taylor, 36 Cal. 255, 1067
People v. Teague, 106 N. Car. 571, 1243
People v. Terry, 5 N.Y.St. R. 120, 120
119

1184

‘People v. The Supervisors, 49

Hun 476,
TABLE OF CASES.

ecix

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.]

People v. Thomson, 92 Cal. 506, S.
C. 28 Pac. R. 589,

People v. Tice, 15 L. R. A. 669,

People v. Toal, 85 Cal. 333, 8. C.
24 Pac. R. 603, S. C. 23 Pac. R.
203, 120, 1184

People v. Town of Nevada, 6 Cai.

783
782

143, 212
People'v. Trim, 37 Cal. 274, 1077
People v. Turner, 55 Ill. 280, 294
People v. Turner, 1 Cal. 143, 8. C.

52 Am. Dec. 295, 256
People v. Tweed, 50 How. Pr. (N.

Y.) 286, 651
People v. ‘Tyler, 36 Cal. 522, 820
People v. Urquidas, 96 Cal. 239, 1074

People v. Vermilyea, 7 Cow. (N.

Y.) 369, 624
People v. Vincent, 95 Cal. 425, 8.
C. 30 Pac. R. 581, 630, 652

665
660

People v. Voll, 43 Cal. 166,
People v. Wah Lee Mon, 59 Hun
(N. Y.) 626,
People v. Wallace, 91 Cal. 535,
People v. Wallace, 89 Cal. 158, S.
C. 26 Pac. R. 650, 720
People v. Walter, 68 N. Y. 403,
113, 382, 1214
People v. Wayne Circuit J udge,
41 Mich. 727,85. C. 49 N. W. R.
925, 162, 178
People v. Weil, 40 Cal. 268, 666
People v. Welch, 49 Cal. 174, 1069
People v. Wessell, 98 Cal. 352, 8s.

C. 33 Pac. R. 216, 790
People v. Wheeler, 65 Cal. 77, 1074
People v. ee (Mich.), 55 N.

W.R. 871 658

People v. White, 24 Wend. 520,

People v. White, 34 Cal. 183,

Heep v. Whitney’s Point, 102 N.
81,

People v.Wikes & Jones, 20Cal.51,

People v. Wilkinson, "4. N.Y.

Sa 827, S.C. 60 Hun (N. Y).

582) 713, 1215
Beupley. Williams, 24 Mich. 156,

S.C. 9 Am. R. 119, 308
People v. Williams, 24 Cal. 31, 225
People v. Williams, 29 Hun 520, 29
People v. Williamsburg, etc., Co.,

47 N. Y. 586, 1106, 1107
People v. Wilson, 64 TIl. 195, 137
People v. Wilson, 3 Park. Cr. (N.

Y.) 199, 657
People v. Winters, 93 Cal. 277, 8.

C. 28 Pac. R. 946, 543
People v. Wong Ah Bang, 3 West

Coast Rep. .58, 8. C. 65 Cal.

305, |

13

742

1187 |.

 

Perkins v. Giles, 50 N. Y. 228,

People v. Wong Ah Foo, 69 Cal.
180, 1078
oe v. Woodside, 72 Ill. 407,

640
People v. Wright, 89 Mich. 70, S.

C. 50 N. W. R. 792, 646, 809
People v. Yates, 40 Ill. 126, 170
People v. Yoakum, 53 Cal. 566, 630
People v. Young, 65 Cal. 225, 1071

People v. Yslas, 27. Cal. 630, 803, 804
People v. Zane, 105 Ill. 662, | 639
People, ex rel., v. Hall, 80 N.Y.

260

People’ s, etc., Assn. v. Spears,

115 Ind. 297, 1152, 1202
People’s Bank v. Wilcox, 15 R. I.

258, 314
People’s, etc., Co. v. Clark, 12

Gray 165 396
People’s Fire Ins. Co. v. Pulver,

127 Ill. 246, S.C. 20 N. E.R.

18, . 557
People’s Gas Co. v. Tyner, 131
Ind. 408, S. C. 31 N. E.R. 59, 489
People’s Saving Bank v. Bates,

120 U. 8.556, 8. C. 7 Sup. Ct.

R. 679, 1053, 1054
Peoria, ete., Co. v. Mitchell, 74

Ill. 394, 632
Peoria, D. & E. Ry. Co. v. Rice,

144 Ill. 227, S. C. 33 N. E.R.

951,

Peoria Gaslight,etc., Co. v. Peoria,
etc., Ry. Uo., 146 IIl. 372, 8. C.
34 N. E. R. 550,

Pepin v. Lachenmeyer, 45 N. Y.

215, 232

Pepoon v. Jenkins, 2 Johns. Cas.
119, 504

Pepper v.Gorham, 4 Moore 148, 601

Pepper v. Philadelphia, 114 Pa.St.

96, 1111
Pepper v. Zahnsinger, 94 Ind.88, 340
Percifull v. Platt, 36 Ark. 456, | 1157
Perea v. Colorado Nat. Bank (N.

Mex.), 27 Pac. R. 322, 1116
Perine v. Forbush, 97 Cal. 305, s.

810

814

C. 32 Pac. R. 226, 557
Perkins v. ‘Attaway, 14 Ga. 27, 317
Perkins v. Bakrow, 39 Mo. App.

331, 1239
Perkins v. Barnes, 3 Ney. 557, 894
Perkins v. Collins, 3 N. J. Eq.

482, 488
Perkins v. Compton, 69 Ga. 736, 381

Perkins v. Corbin, 45 Ala. 103,
117, 119, 170, 247

Perkins v. Dunlavy, 61 Tex. 241, 190
Perkins v. Ermel, 2 Kan. 325, 675
407
TABLE

OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.)

Perkins v. Guy, 55 Miss. 153, 378, 824
Perkins v. Hasbrouck, 155 Pa. St.

494, 8. C. 26 Atl. R. 695, 565
Perkins v. Hawkins, 9 Gratt.

(Va.) 649, 386
Perkins v. Hayward, 124 Ind. 445,

237, 719, 1148 1239
Perkins v. Haywood, 132 Ind. 95,

8, C. 31 N. E. R. 670,

133, 260, 612, 613
Perkins v. Hendryx, 40 Fed. R.

657, 608
Perkins v. Lockwood, 100 Mass.

249,

Perkins v. McDowell, 3 Wyo. 328,

8. C. 23 Pac. R. 71, 1157
Perkins v. Moore, 16 Ala. 17, 1178
Perkins v. Perkins, 39 N.H. 161, 679
Perkins v. Rogers, 35 Ind. 124, 381
Perkins v. Stickney, 132 Mass.

217,

Perkins v. Wakeham, = Cal. 580,

8. C. 21 Am. St. R.6
Perkins v. Wing, 10 H ohns. (N.

Y.) 148, 596
Permstick, In re, 3 Wash. 672, S.

740
444

C. 28 Am. St. R. 80, 340
Perrill v. Nichols, 89 Ind. 444, 362
Perrine v. Evans, 35N.J.L.221, 464

Perrine v. Farr, 2 Zabr. (N. J.)
356, 131, 317

Perry v. Beaupre, 6 Dak. 49, 110

Perry v. Dover, 12 Pick. (Mass.)
206,

Perry v. Dubuque, etc., R. Co., 36

Ia. 106, 27
Perry v. Meddowcroft, 10 Beav..
122, 274

Perry v. Moore, 2 E. D. Smith

(N. Y.) 32, 590
Perry v Morse, 57 Vt. 509, 242
Perry v. Mulligan, 58 Ga. 479,

587, 1110
Perry v. Parker, 1 Wood & M.

280, 480
Perry vy. Smith, 22 Vt. 301, 389
Perry v. Somerby, 57 Me. 552, 469
Perrin v. State, 8" Wis. 135, S.C.

50 N. W. R. 516, 502, 505, 634

Perriman v. Steggall,¥ Bing.679, 580

Perry v. Thornton, 7 R. I. 15, 199

Perry v. Wilson, 7 Mass. 393, 189

Perryman v. Greenville, 51 Ala.
507, 343

Perry’s Lessee v. Brainard, 11

Ohio 442, 293
Perteet v. People, 70 Ill. 171, 636
Peru v. Bearss, 55 Ind. 576, 246

Petefish v. Watkins, 124 Ill. 384,
1160

 

Peter v. State, 6 How.( Miss.) 326, 230
Peter v. Thickstun, 51 Mich.590, 556

Peters v. Ballistier, 3 Pick. ( Mass.)
495, 355

Peters v. Banta, 120 Ind. 416, S.

C. 22.N. E. R. 95,

621, 629, 1109, 1155

Peters v. Craig, 6 Dana (Ky.) 307,
585, 586

Peters v. Fogarty (N. J.), 26 Atl.
RB. 855, 1124

Peters v. Newkirk, 6 Cow. (N. Y.)
103, 593

Peters v. St. Louis, etc., R. R.

Co., 59 Mo. 406, 608
Petersilea v. Stone, 119 Mass.

467, 214
Peterson v. Gresham, 25 Ark.

380, 1161
Peterson y. Taylor, 15 Ga. 483, 1238
Peterson v. Toner, 80 Mich. 350,

8S. C. 45 N. W. R. 346, 1143
Peterson v. United States,2 Wash.

C.C. 36, 1104

' Petition of Crandall, 34 Wis.177, 341

Petition of Lake, 15 R. I. 628, 8.
C. 10 Atl. R. 653,

Petition of Newlin, 123 Pa. St. 541,
8. C. 16 Atl. R. 737,

Petri v. Commercial Nat. Bank,
142 U.S. 644,

Petri v. First National Bank, 84

436
630
312

Tex. 212,8.C.188.W.R.752, 644
Petrie v. Hannay, 3 T. R. 659, =: 1122
Petrie v. Lane, 58 Mich. 527, 1158

Petry v. Ambrosher, 100 Ind. 510, 484
Pettes v. Bingham, 10N. H.514, 1106
Pettibone v. Stevens, 15 Conn. 19,
8. C. 38 Am. Dec. 57, “B41
Pettigrew v. Barnum, 1 Md. 434,
8. C. 69 Am. Dec. 212,
511, 712, 1180, 1215

Pettis v. Johnson, 56 Ind. 189, 560
Pettis v. Kellogg, 7 Cush. 456, 33
Pettit v. State (Ind.), 34N. E. R. -
1118, 618, 623
Petty, In re, 22 Kan. 477, 341
Petty v. Frick Co., 86 Va. 501, S.
C.108. E. R. 886, 608, 612, 6138
Pettybone v. Phelps, 13 Conn. 445, ms
“ i
Peyton, In re, 12 Kan. 398, 639
Peyton v. Ayres, 2 Md. Ch. 64, 33
Pfantz v. Culver, 13 Ia. 312, 1197
Pharis v. Geer, 31 Hun 443, 408
Pharo v. Johnson, 15 Ia. 560, 1233
Pharr v. Bachelor, 3 Ala. 237, 1025
Phelan y. Ganebin, 5 Col. 14, 155

| Phelan v. Gardner, 43 Cal. 306,

301, 117€
TABLE OF CASES.

cexi

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. I, pp. 603-1244.]

Phelps v. Baker, 60 Barb. 107,
Phelps v. Borland, 103 N. Y. 406,
8. C. 57 Am. R. 755,
Phelps v. Brewer, 9 Cush. 390, S.
C. 57 Am. Dec. 56, 803
Phelps v. Dolan, 75 TH. 90, 594
Phelps v. Hail, 2 Tyler (Vt. ) 401,
653

Phelps v. Hartwell, 1 Mass. 71, 679
Phelps v. Jenkins, 4 Scam. Ill.
48, 1054

Phelps v. Mayer, 15 How. (U.S.)
160

Phelps v. McDonald, 99 U.S. 298,
282

Phelps v. Smith, 116 Ind. 387, S.
C.17 N. E. R. 602, 540, 982, 1149
Phelps v. Tilton, 17 Ind. 428, 1164

Phelps v. Winona, etc., Co., 5 Am.
St. R. 867, 739
Phelps v. Winona, etc., R. R. Co.,
37 Minn. 485, S. C. 35 N. W. R.
273, 1046

. Phenix v. Baldwin, 14 Wend. (N.
Y.) 62, 512

Philadelphia v. Miller, 49 Pa. St.
440, 425

Philadelphia v. Phila., etc., R. R.
Co., 58 Pa. 258, 366
Philadelphia, etc., Co. v. Harper,
29 Md. 330,
Philadelphia, etc., Co. v. Howard,
13 How. (U. 8S.) 307,
Philadelphia, etc., Co. v. Water-
man, 54 Pa. St. 337,
Philadelphia City Pass. Ry. Co.
v. Hassard, 75 Pa. St. 376,
Philadelphia, etc., R. R. Co. v.
Fronk, 67 Md. 339, 546
Philadelphia, etc., R. R. Co.
Stimpson, 14 Pet. 448, 707, 783
Philbrick v. Preble, 18 Me. 255, 8
C. 36 Am. Dec. 718, 594
Philibert v. Burch, 4 Mo. App.
470, 537

289
285

512
1184
547

Phillip v. Eyre, 6 Q. B.1, 218
Phillip v. Gallant, 62 N. Y. 256, 149
Phillip’s Appeal, 68 Pa. St. 130, 201

Phillips’ Estate, 48 Phila. Legal

Int. 232, 574
Phillips, Ex parte, 57 Miss. 357, 336
Phillips v. Beene, 38 Ala. 248, 1238

Phillips v. Bordman, 4 Allen 147, 484
Phillips v. Bossard, 35 Fed. R.
99, 1177
Phillips v. Digit 21 Ohio St. 466,
S.C. 8 Am. R. 6 1192
Phillips v. Evans, 64 Mo. 17, 434
Phillips v. Foxall, L. R., 7Q. B.
666, 407

 

Phillips v. Hopwood, 10 B. & C.
39, 338

Phillips v. Kent, 23 N. J. L.155, 3871
Phillips v. Kingfield, 19 Me. 375,

S. C. 36 Am. Dec. 760, 803, 805
Phillips v. Library Co., 141 Pa.

462, 8. C. 21 Atl. R. 640, 442
Phillips v. McGuire, 73 Ga. 517, 550
Phillips v. Preston, 5 How. 278, 1181
Phillips v. Pullen, 50 N. J.L. 439,

"1053

Phillips v. Smoot, 1 Mackey 478, 196
Phillips v. Thorn, 84 Ind. 84,

‘798, 806

Phillips v. Welch, 11 Nev. 187, 255

Phillipsburgh Bank v. Fulner, 31
N. J. L. 52, 1159

Philpot v. Taylor, 75 Ill. 309, 714
Philpott v. Brown, 16 Neb. 387, 8.
C. 20 N. W. R. 288 1180

Phinney v. Donahue, 67 Ia. 192, 432
ae v. Ingram, 3 Dowl. 669,
598, 601
Phipps v. Tompkins, 50 Ga. 641, 596
Pheenix Ins. Co. v. Allen, il
Mich. 501, 555, 822
Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Copeland, 86
Ala, 551, 783
Pheenix Ins. Co. v. Moog, 81 Ala.
335,
Pheenix Ins. Co. v. Munday, 5
Coldw. (Tenn.) 547,
Physioc v. Shea, 75 Ga. 466,
Piatt v. Vattier, 9 Pet. 405, 1128
Picard v. Collins, 23 Barb. "(N, Y)
444, 794
Pickard v. Bryant, 92 Mich. 430,
S. C. 52 N. W.R. 788, 783, 794
Pickel v. Isgrigg, 6 Fed. R. 676,
1025, 1029, 1034
Pickens v. Hobbs, 42 Ind. 270,
178, 662, 1158
Pickens v. Yarbrough, 30 Ala. 408, 259
Pickering v. Frink, 62 N. H. 342, 382
Pickering v. Lomax, 120 Ill. 289,

1123

§. C. 11 N. E. R. 175, 448
Pickering v. Mississippi, etc., Co.,
47 Mo. 457, 1209

Pickett v. Ferguson, 45 Ark.177, 282
Pickett v. Filer, etc., Co., 40 Fed.
R. 313,
Picquet v. Swan, 5 Mason 35,
Pieart v. Chicago, etc., Ry. Co.,
82 Ia. 148, S. C. 47 N. W. R.
1017, 1096
Piedmont Coal Co. v. Green, 3 W.
Va. 54, 8. C. 98 Am. Dec.799, 281
Piedmont, etc., Co. v. Buxton, 105
N.C. 74,8. C.11 8. E. R. 264,
254, 1048
eexli

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.)

Pielke v. Chicago, etc., R. R. Co.,

5 Dak. 444, S. C. 41 N. W. R.
669, 834
Pierce, In re, 44 Wis. 411, 248, 336

Pierce v. Bicknell, 11 Kan. 262, 1214
Pierce v. Carelton, 12 Ill. 358, "8.

C. 54 Am. Dec. 405, 197, 473, 474
Pierce v. Equitable, etc., Society,

145 Mass. 56, 8. C. 1 Am. St. R

433,

Pierce v. Faunce, 53 Me. 351,
Pierce v. Hasbrouck, 49 Ill. 23,
Pierce v. Kirby, 21 Wis. 124,
Pierce v. Langdon, 2 Idaho 878, 8.

C. 28 Pac. R. 401,

Pierce v. Life Ins. Co., 138 Mass.

151, 394
Pierce vy. McConnell, 7 Blackf.

170, 1216
Pierce v. O’Brien, 129 Mass. 413,

S. C. 37 Am. R. ’360,

Pierce v. Railroad Co., 386 Wis.

288, 474
Pierce v. Randolph, 12 Tex. 290, 537
Pierce v. Schaden, 62 Cal. 283, 1109
Pierce v. Seymour, 52 Wis. 272, 8.

C. 38 Am. R. 7387,' 383
Pierce v. Sheldon, 13 Johns. 491, 224
Pierce v. State, 13 N. H.536, 657, 667
Pierce v. Strickland, 2 Story 292, 435
Piercy v. Piercy, 5 W.Va. 199, 443
Pierse v. West, 29 Ind. 266, 1137
Piersol v. Neill, 63 Pa. St. 420, 1052
Pierson v. Finney, 37 IIl. 29, 627
Pierson v. McCahill, 22 Cal. 127, 628
Pierson v. McCahill, 23 Cal. 249, 492
Pierson v. People, 79 N. Y. 424,

S. C. 35 Am. R. 524, 653
Pierson v. State, 21 Tex. App. 14,

S. C.17S. W. R. 468, 630
Pierson v. State, 11 Ind. 341, 655
Pifher v. Lodge, 16 Serg.& R. (Pa. )

214, 659
Pigg v. State, 9 Ind. 363, 1184
Piggot v. Rush, 4 Ad. & El. 912, 381
Piggott v. Ramey, 1 Scam. (il. )

176
438
1161

145,
Piggott v. Snell, 59 Ill. 106,
Pike v. Evans, 15 Johns. 210,

Pike v. Gage, 9 Foster (N. H.) "461, 579
Pike v. Grand Trunk, etc., R. R.

Co., 39 Fed. R. 255,

Pike v. Megoun, 44 Mo. 491,
Pike v. Stallings, 71 Ga. 860,
Pike Co. v. The Griffin, etc., Co.,

610
201
1116
576

529

302

534
202
593

15 Ga. 39, 658
Pillsbury v. Sweet, 80 Me. 392, S.
C. 14 Atl. R. 742, 1060

Pillups v. Daggs,38 Mo. ep 367, 1076
Pim v. Grazebrook, 2 C. B. 429, 1172

 

Pimental v. San Francisco, 21 Cal.
351,
Pinckney v. Burrage, 31 N. J. L.

378

‘ 361
Pinckney v. Hagerman, 4 Lans.
374,
Pincus v. Dowd, 11 Mont. 88,8. C.
27 Pac. R. 393,
Pinder v. State, 27 Fla. 370, S. C.
8 So. R. 837,
Pingree y. Coffin, 12 Gray 288,
Pinkerton v. Ledoux,129 U.S. 346,
Pinney v. Cahill, 48 Mich. 584,
Pioneer, etc., Co. v. Phoenix, etc.,
Co., 110 N. Car. 176, 8. C. 14 8S.
E.R 731, 1092
Piper v. Hoard, 107 N.Y. 67,8. C.
1 Am. St. R. 785, 380

262
178

663
280
533
778

Piper v. White, 56 ’Pa. St. 90, 706.
Pipher v. Fordyce, 88 Ind. 486, 196
Pipkin v. Allen, 29 Mo. 229, 1179

Piqua Bank v. Knoup, 6 Ohio 842,
124, 253, "1205
Pitkin v. Noyes, 48 N. H. 294, 567
ae v. United States, 45 Fed.
R. 159 153
Pitney v. Glens Falls Ins. Co., 65
N. Y. 6, 537
Pitt v. Emmons, 92 Mich. 542, 8.
C.52N. W.R. 1004, 506.
Pittock v. O’Neill, 63 Pa. St. 253, 540
Pittman v. Wakefield, 90 Ky. il,
8. C. 138. W. R. 525,
Pitts v. Storage Co. (Tex. App.),
18S. W. R. 465, 1025.

Pittsburgh, ete. , Ry. Co.v. Adams,
105 Ind. 151, 8. C.5 N. E. R.

254

187, ; 526, 548, 1109:
Pittsburgh, etc., Co. v. Chicago,
53 Ill. 80, 1191

Pittsburgh, C.& St. L. Ry. Co. v.
Conway, 57 Ind. 52, 706
Pittsburgh, etc., R.R. Co.v. Evans,
53 Pa. St. 250, 530, "1106
Pittsburgh, C. & St. L. R. R. Co.
v. Hine, 25 Ohio St. 629, 374
Pittsburgh, etc., Ry. Co. v. Hixon,
110 Ind 225,
Pittsburgh, ete., Co. v. Probst, a
Ohio St. 104,
Pittsburgh, etc., Railway Co.
Ramsey, 22 Wall. 822,
Pittsburgh, ete. ., Co. v. Ruby, 38
Ind. 294, 1100
Pittsburgh, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v.
Spencer, 98 Ind. 186,
525, 530, 548, 1106
Pittsburgh, etc., R. R. Co. Vv. The-
obald, 51 Ind. 246, 514
Pittsburg v. Walter, 69 Pa. St. 365, 298

148
TABLE OF

CASES. eexili

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1- 602, Vol. II, pp. 608-1244.]

Pitzer v. Burns, 7 W. Va. 63, 377
Pitzer v. Indianapolis, etc., R.R.
Co., 80 Ind. 569, 1089, 1232
Place v. Manufacturing, etc., Co.,
28 Barb. 503,
Place v. Minster, 65 N. Y. 89,
Plainfield v. Plainfield, 67 Wis.
525, 248, 1138
Plano Mfg. Co. v. Rasey, 69 Wis.
609

. 246,
Plant v. Edwards, 85 Ind. 588, 1049
473

224
706

Planters’, etc., Bank v. Leavens,
4 Ala. 7538,

Planters’ Bank v. Neely, 7 How.
(Miss.) 80, S.C. 40 Am. Dec.
51, 254, 492

Planters’ Ins. Co. v. Cramer, 47
Miss. 200, 1238, 248, 297

Platner v. Platner, 78 N.Y. 90,
Vt. 166, S. C. 19 Atl. R. 637,
176
363, 594
346,
404
8. C. 49 N. W. R. 167,
Pleasant’ v. State, 15 Ark. 624,
1049, 1053
Plemmons v. Southern Imp. Co.,
Plews v. Middleton, 6 Q. B. 845, 592
559, 217, 218

112, 720
Platt v. Continental, etc., Co., 62
1282
Platt v. Monroe, 34 Barb. 291,
Platt v. Smith, 14 Johns. 368,.
Platt v. Stewart, 10 Mich. 260, 297
Platte County v. Marshall, 10 Mo.
182
Platter v. Board, 103 Ind. 360,
Plattsmouth v.. Boeck; 32 Neb. 297,
: 1233
Player v. Burlington, etc., Co., 62
Ja. 728 797
696,804
Pleasants v. Fant, 22 Wall. 116,
Pledger v. State, 77 Ga. 242, 8. C.

3S. E. R, 320, 1061

108 N. Car. 614, §. C. 13 S. E.

R. 188, 440
Plow Co. v. Deusch, 16 Neb. 384, 661
Plowman v. Henderson, 59 Ala.
Plumb v. Fluitt, 2 Anstr. 428, 549
Plumer v. The Board, 46 Wis. 163,

S.C. 50 N. W. R. 416, 170
Plumley v. State, 8 Tex. App.

529, 11138
Plummer vy. Dill, 156 Mass. 426,

S. C. 31 N. E. RB. 128, 369
Plummer v. Mold, 22 Minn. 15, 1213
Plummer v. Granite Mountain Co.,

55 Fed. R. 755, 1159
Plummer v. People, 74 Ill. 361, 661

Plummer v. Sanders, 55 N. H.23, 601
Plummer v. Waterville, 32 Me.
566, 322

 

Plunkett v. Black, 117 Ind. 14, 192
Plunkett v. Minneapolis. etc., Co.,

79 Wis. 222, 8.C.48 N. W. RB.

519, 1211, 1213
Plympton v. Sapp, 55 Ia. 195, 527
Poage v. State, 43 Tex. 454, 33
Poe v. Duck, 5 Md. 1, 285
Poertner v. Poertner, 66 Wis. 644,

8. C. 29 N. W. R. 386, 1071
Pogue v. Joyner, 7 Ark. 462, 669

Poindexter v.Burwell, 82 Va.507, 281

Polk v. State, 45 Ark. 165, 660

Polk County v. Hierb, 37 Ta. 361, 333

Polhemus v. Heiman, 50 Cal. 438, 1118

Police Jury v. United States, 60
Fed. R. 249,

Polin v. State, 14 Neb. 540,

Poling v. Ohio River R. R. Co.
38 W. Va. 645, 8. C. 188. E. R.
782,

Pollak v. Davidson, 87 Ala. 551,

Pollard v. Lively, 2 Gratt. (Va.)

1178
1220

1052
549

216, 512
Pollard v. Ross, 5 Mass. 319, 471
Pollard v. Rutter, 35 Ill. App.

370, 1243

Pollard v. Wagener, 13 Wis. 569,
266, 298, 455, 456
Polleys v. Black River, etc., Co.,

113 U.S. 81, 1208
Pollitz v. Schell, 30 Fed.’R. 421, 1193
Pollock v. Pollock, 71 N. Y.137, 794
Pollock v.Sutherlin,25 Gratt.( Va.)

78, 596
Pomeroy v. Bank of Indiana, 1

Wall. 592, 1238
Pomeroy v. Betts, 31 Mo. 419,

444, 447, 614
Pomroy v. Preston, 2 Caines 378, 1242
Ponca v. Crawford, 18 Neb. 551, S.

C.25N. W.R. 365, 704
Ponce v. Underwood, 55 Ga. 601, 259
Pond v. Griffin, 1 Ala. 678, 468
Pond v. Harris, 113 Mass. 114, 586
.Pond v. State, 55 Ala. 196, 910
Ponder v. Moseley, 2 Fla. 207, 8

C. 48 Am. Dec. 194, 609
Pontius v. People, 82 N. Y. 339, 720
Pool v. Devers, 30 Ala. 672, 624
Pool v. Gramling, 88 Ga. 653, S. C.

16 8. E. B. 52, 234
Pool v. Hennessy, 39 Ia. 192, S.

C. 18 Am. R. 44, 590
Pool v. Myers, 21 Miss. 466, 503, 521

Pool v. Webster, 3 Metc.(Ky.)278, 462

Poole v. McLeod, 1 Sm. & Mar.
391, 190
Poole v. Fleeger, 11 Pet. 185, 1224

Poole v. Mitchell, 1 Hill (8. Car.)
404,
CCX1V

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.)

Poor v. Merrill, 68 Ia. 436,
*oy v. Harrison, 16 Lea (Tenn. )
315

1050

Pope v. Kansas City, etc., Co., 99
Mo. 400, 1027

Pope v. Latham, 1 Ark. 66, 1170

Pope v. Pope, 4 Pick. 129, 1164

Pope v. State, 36 Miss. 121, 1124, 1159
Popfinger v. Yutte, 102 N. y, 88, 119
Popher v. Johnson, 108 Ind. 401, 197
Popper v. Scheider, 7 Abb. Pr. N.
8. (N. ¥.) 56, 497
Porter v. Chicago & N.W. R. Co.,
‘Neb. 14,
Porter v. Herman, 8 Cal. 619,
Porter v. Hilderbrand, 14 Pa. St.
129, 463
Porter v. Lyle, 66 Hun (N. Y.),
629, 626

556
468

1187

Porter v. Patterson, 15 Pa. St.
229,

Porter v. Pico, 55 Cal. 165,

Porter v. Pittsburg, etc., Co., 120
U. 8. 649,

Porter v. Purdy, 29 N. Y. 106, S.
C. 86 Am. Dec. 283,

134, 136, 324, 325

Porter v. Scott, 7 Cal. 312, 595, 600
Porter v. State, 2 Ind. 435, 169, 695
Porter v. State, 5 Mo. 538, 641
Porter v. Still, 63 Miss. 357, 674

Porter v. Throop, 47 Mich. ’318, 8.
C. 11 N. W. R. 174,
Porter v. Vandercook, 11 Wis. '70,

Porter v. Waltz, 108 Ind. 40,
Porter v. Western, etc., Co., O7 N.

692

Car. 66, 1099
Porter v. Williams. 9 N. Y. 142, 493
Portier v. Barclay, 15 Ala. 439, 504
Portland v. Baker, 8 Ore. 356, 488

Portland Bank v. Maine Bank, 11
Mass. 204,

Portsmouth v. Norfolk Co., 31
Gratt. (Va.) 727, 599

Posey v. Eaton, 9 Lea 500, 218

Poseyville, Town of, v. Lewis, en

nd. 7
Post v. Bird, 28 Fla. 1, 8. C. 9 So.
R. 888, 1079
Post v. Harper, 61 Mich. 484, 8.
C. 28 N. W. BR. 161, 183
Post v. Pearson, 108 U.S. 418, 8.

C. 2 Sup. Ct. R. 799, 1179
Post v. St peey wate 105 U.S.667, 545
Posthlewaite v. Ghiselin, 97 Mo.

420,S.C.108.W. R. 482, 1838, 239
Poteet v. County of Cabell, 30 W.

Va. 58, 8. C. 358. E. R. 97,

1227, 1242

 

Potier v. Barclay, 15 Ala. 439, 414
Potter v. Adams Ex., 24 Mo. 159,
300, 345
Potter v. Eaton, 26 Wis. 382, 188
Potter v. John Hutchinson Mfg.
Co., 87 Mich. 59, 8. C. 49 N. W.
R. 517,
Potter v. McCormack, 127 Ind.
439, 1154
Potter v. Mellin, 36 Minn. 122, 1048
Potter v. Merchants’ Bank, 28N.
Y. 641, 316, 329
Potter v. Parsons, 14 Ia. 286, 564
Potter v. Seale, 8 Cal. 217, 544, 552
Potter vy. Smith, 36 Ind. 231, 373
Potter v. State, 2 Ind. 435, 163
Potter v. Sterrett, 24 Pa. St. 411,
586, 591
1054
543

433

Potter v. Wooster, 10 Iowa 334,
Potts v. Davenport, 79 Til. 455,
Potts v. House, 6 Ga. 324, 8. C.50

Am. Dec. 329, 1069
Potts v. Plaisted, 380 Mich. 149, 401
Pouder v. Catterson, 127 Ind. 434,

8. C. 26 N. E. R. 66, 410, 493
Poullain v. Poullain, 72 Ga. 412, 381
Poullain v. Poullain, 76 Ga. 420,

S.C. 458. E. R. 92, 1079

| Poullain v. Poulain, 79 Ga. 11, 8.

C.458. E. 1165
Poulson v. Collier, 18 Mo. App.
583, 1103

Poultney v. Backman, 10 Abb. N..
Cas. (N. Y.) 252, 588
Poultney v. Glover, 23 Vt. 328, 1225
Pounds v. Hammer, 57 Ala. 342, 472
Powder Co. v. Oakdale, etc., Co.,
14 Phila. (Pa.) 166, 440
Powder River, etc., Co. v. Custer *
County, 9 Mont. 145, 8. C. 22
Pac. R. 383, 1157
Powe v. Powe, 42 Ala. 118, 401
Powell v. Augusta, etc., Co., 77
Ga. 192, 8. C. 38. E. R. 757,

712, 1215
Powell v. Chicago, ‘ete. -, Co., 22

Ill. App. 409, 413
Powell v. Chittick (Ia.), 56 N.W.

R. 652, 1093
Powell v. Clement, 78 Ill. 20, 1201
Powell v. Davis, 19 Tex. 380, 552
Powell v. Haley, 28 Tex. 52, 668
Powell v. Heisler, 45 Minn. 549, 111
Powell v. Howell, 21 Ga. 214, 1167

Powell 7 Jopling, 2 Jones L. (N.

C.) 400 177
Powell v. ’ Messer, 18 Tex. 401, 1071
Powell v. Murray,10 Paige (N. Y, )

256, 377

Powell v. North, 3 Ind. 392, 128
TABLE OF CASES.

CCxV

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.]

Powell v. Powell, 104 Ind. 18, S.
C.3.N. E. R. 639, 217, 232

Powell v. Riley, 15 Lea (Tenn.)
153, 601

Powell v. State, 13 Tex. App. 244, 695

Powell v. Stickney, 88 Ind. 310, 540
Powell v. Sutro, 80 Cal. 559, S. ’C.

22 Pac. R. 308, 636
Power v. Bowdle (N. Dak.), 54 N.

W. R.:404, 557
Power v. Gum, 6 Mont. 5, 529

Power v. Power,7 Watts(Pa. ) 205 585
Powers v. City Council, etc., 116

Mass. 84, 299
Powers v. Council Bluffs,45 Ia.652,
S. C. 24 Am. R. 792, 369

Powers v. Fletcher, 84 Ind. 154, 11382

Powers v. Leach, 26 Vt. 270, 799
Powers v. Mitchell, 77 Me. 361, 823
Powers vy. Presgroves, 38 Miss.

227, 667
Powers v. Provident, etc., Inst.,

122 Mass. 448, » 1189
Powers v. State, 87 Ind. 97, 1114
‘Powers v. State, 87 Ind. 144, ' 1059
Poyer v. Village of Desplaines,

124 Til. 310,8. C. 15 N. E.R.

768, 488
Prather v. Pritchard, 26 Ind. 65, 508
Prather v. Ross, 17 Ind. 495, 537
Prather v. Snead, 12 Kan. 447, 1060
Pratt v. Chase, 44 N. Y. 597, 284
Pratt v. Ogden, 34. N. Y. 20, 1068
Pratt v. Pond, 5 Allen 59, 132
Pratt v. Pratt, 157 Mass. 508, 8. C.

82 N. E. R. 747, 171

Pratt v. Rice, 7 Nev. 123,
181, 636, 1210, 1223
Pratt v. State, 56 Ind. 179, 1070
Pray v. Garcelon, 17 Me. 145, 1041
Preble v. Bates, 40 Fed. R. 745,
1286, 1238
Preble v. Bates, 37 Fed. R. 772, 1167
Prendible v. Connecticut River
Mfg.Co.(Mass.),35N.E.R.675, 740
Prentice v. Roberts, 49 Me. 127, | 806
Prentice v. Stefan, 72 Wis. 151,
8. C. 39 N. W..R. 364, 434
Prentice v. Zane, 8 How. (U. 8.)
470, 1108, 1105
Prentis v. Rice, 2 Doug. (Mich.)
296,
Prentiss v. Barton, 1 Brock 389,
Prentiss v. Blake, 34 Vt. 460,
Prentiss v. Bliss, 4 Vt. 513, 6.
24 Am. Dec. 631,
Prentiss v. Russ, 16 Me. 30,
Prentiss Tool Co. v. Schirmer, 45
N. Y. 8S. Rep. 20, 8. C. 17 N. Y.
Supp. 662,

"Bil
541

197
3874

541

 

Prescott Bank v. Caverly, 7 Gray

(Mass.) 217, 555
Prescott v. Everts, 4 Wis. ae 400
Prescott v. Fellows, 51 N. H. 9,8.

C. 77 Am. Dec. 752, 601

Prescott v.Ward, 10 Allen (Mass. )
203,

President y. Parks, 74 Md: 282, 8.
C. 22 Atl. R. 399,

President, etc., v. "Thompson, 20

792

Til. 197, 144
Preslar v. Stallworth, 37 Ala.

402, 364
Presley v. Anderson, 42 Miss.

274, 456
Pressly v. Harrison, 102 Ind.14, 494
Pressly v. Lamb, 105 Ind. 171, 494
Preston v. Bowers, 13 Ohio St. 1,

S. C. 82 Am. Dec. 430, 1077

Preston v. Dunn, 25 Ala. 507, 294, 443
Preston v. Hill, 50 Cal. 48, 8. C.

19 Am. R. 647, 206
Preston v. Luck, L. R., 27 Ch. Div.

497, 480
Preston v. Preston, 95 U.S. 200, 377
Preston v. Ricketts, 91 Mo. 820, 1176
Preston v. Sanford, 21 Ind. 156,

668, 1214
Preston v. Simons, 1 Rich. L. (S.

Car.) 262, * 558
Preston v. Walker, 26 Ia. 205, 669
Preswood vy. State, 3 Heisk.

(Tenn.) 468, 666
Prezinger v. Fording, 114 Ind. 599, :

S.C. 16 N. E. R. 499 145
Prezinger v. Harness, 114 Ind.

491, 8. C. 16 N. E. R. 495, 145

Price, In re, 6 New South Wales

140, 342
Price v. Brown, 98 N. Y. 388,

578, 598, 722

Price v. Byne, 57 Ga. 176, 576

Price v. Commissioners, 77 Va.

393, 693, 1114
Price v. Emerson, 16 La. Ann.95, 509
Price v. Hollis, 1 M. & S. 105, 572
Price v. Lambert,3 N.J.L.122, 1123
Price v. Mulford, 107 N. Y. 303, 372
Price v. Pankhurst, 58 Fed. 312, 1079
Price v. People, 131 Il. 223, 8. C.

23 N. E. R. 639, 623, 630.
Price v. Peters,15 Abb. Pr. R.197, 146
Price v. Powell, 3 N. Y. 322, 1225
Price v. Richmond, etc., Co. (S.

Car.), 178. E. R. 7B 2,
Price v. State, 8 Gill (Md. ) 295, 632
Price v. Thomas, 4 Md.'514,. 595
Pricev. Vanstone, 40 Mo. App. 207, 390
Priest v. Deaver, 22 Mo. App.

276, 1120

1041
eexvi

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. IT, pp. 603-1244.)

Prigg v. Adams, 2 Salk. 674,
Prilliman vy. Mendenhall, 120 Ind. :

279, S. C. 22 N. E.R. 247, 149, 1147

Prime v. Foote, 63 N. H. 52, 294
Primm vy. Haren, 27 Mo. 205, 539
Prince v.Gundaway,157 Mass. 147,
_§. C. 32 N. E. R. 653, 603
Prince v. Heenan, 5 Minn. 341, 472
Prince v. Lynch, 38 Cai. 528, 1151
Princeton v. Gebhart, 61 Ind. 187, 392
Prindle v. Campbell, 7 Mackey(D. .

C.) 598, 1226
Pringle v. Leverich, 97 N. Y.181, 720
Printz v. People, 42 Mich. 144, 739
Pritchard v. Bartholomew, 45 Ind.

219, 255
aa vy. Hennessey, 1 Gray
Proctor v’ De Camp, 83 Ind. 559,

821, 823
Proctor v. Lewis, 50 Mich. 329, 1194
Proctor v. Walker, 12Ind. 660, 486
Proprietary v. Ralston, 1 Dall.18,
1025, 10381
Proprietors v. Frye, 5 Greenl.
581

(Me.) 38,
Proprietors, etc., v. Proprietors,
85 Me. 175, 8. C. 27 Atl. R. 93, 478
Prosser v. Warner, 47 Vt. 667, 8.
C. 19 Am. R. 132,
Prothero v. Citizens’ St. R. Co.,
134 Ind. 431,
Prout v. People, 83 Ill. 154,
Providence, etc., Bank v. Phalen,
12 RK. 1. 4 1
Providence, etc., Co. v. Barney,
14 RB. 1. 18,
Providence Tool Co. v. Prader, 32
Cal. 634, i 1
Hox 0st v. McEncroe, 102 N. Y.
650,
Prussel v. Knowles, 5 Miss. 90,
Pryor v. Downey, 50 Cal. 388,
Public Works v. Columbia College,
17 Wall. 521, 284, 443
Puckett v. Graves, 6 Smed. & M.
384, 1223
Pudney v. Burkhart, 62 Ind. 179, 1213
Puetz v. Bransford, 32 Fed. R.
318,
Pugh vy. McCarty, 44 Ga. 383,
Pugh v. McCue, 86 Va. 475,
Pugh v. State, 2 Head (Tenn.)
227,
Pulaski v. Ward, 2 Rich. (So.

264

288

1072
451

1045
636
424

Car.) 119, 513
Pullan v. Kinsinger, 2 Abbott (U.

8. C. C.) 94, 241
Pullen v. Glidden, 68 Me. 559, 552
Pullen v. Monk, 82 Me. 412, © 312

 

Pulliam v. Pensoneau, 33 I11.375, 599
Pulling v. Supervisors, 3 Wis.

337, 558
Pullman y. Cincinnati, etc., Co.,

4 Biss. 35, 195
Pullman, etc., Co. v. Central, etc.,

Co., 189 U. S. 62, 110
Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Har-

kins, 55 Fed. R. 932, 789
Pullman’s Palace Car Co.v.Laack,

143 Ill. 242,8. C.32 N. E.R.

285, 8. C. 18 L. R. A. 215, 1056
Pulsifer v. Shepard, 36 Ill. 512, 401
Purcell v. English, 86 Ind. 34, S.

C. 44 Am. R. 255,

548, 1050, 1051, 1053
Purdon v. Seligman, 78 Mich. 132,

8. C. 43 N. W. R. 1045, 367
Purnell vy. Purnell, 89 N. Car. 42,

695, 697
Purple v. Horton, 13 Wend. (N.

Y.) 98. C. 27 Am. Dee. 167, 654
Purvis v. Coleman, 1 Bosw. 321, 546
Pusey v. Gardner, ‘o1 W.Va. 469, 377
Pursley v. Hayes, 22 Ia.11, 131, 317
Puterbaugh v.Puterbaugh,131 Ind.

288, S. C. 30 N. E. R. 519, 1129
Putman v. Lewis, 1 Fla. 455, 1179
Putnam v.Crombie, 34 Barb. 232, 1191
Putnam v. Man, 3 Wend. 202, S.

C. 20 A. Dec. 686, 326, 436
Putnam v. Putnam, 8 Pick. 433, 292

Q
Quadras v. Webster, 11 La. Ann.
208, 51
Quar! v. ober 102 Ind. 238, 8. *

C. 52 Am. R. 6
243, 272, 299, 426, 445
Quayle v. Missouri, ete. - Co., 63
Mo. 465, 165, 325
Quebec Bank v. Carroll, 18. Dak.
1, 8. C. 44. N. W. R. 723, 254, 1183
Quebec, etc., Co. v. Merchant, 133
U. 8. 375, §. C. 10 Sup. Ct. R.

397, 536
| Queen v. Brewster, 8 U. Can. C.
P. 208, 369
Queen v. Charlesworth, 1 B. & S.
460, 180

Queen Ins. Co. v. Studebaker, 117
Ind. 416, 1168
Queen v. Martin, L. R., 1 Cr. C.
R. 378,- 815
Queen v. Sadlers Co., 10 H. of L.

Cas. 404, 546
Queen’s Case, 2 Brod. & Bing.
284, 800
TABLE OF CASES.

eexvii

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. IT, pp. 603-1244.]

Quereau v. Brown, 63 Hun 175, S.

C. 17 N. Y. Supp. 644, 1199
Quick v. Sachsse, 31 Neb. 312, S.
C. 47 N. W. R. '935, 1240

Rualey v. Birdseye, 41 Mont. 439,
S. C. 28 Pac. R. 741,
Quill v. Gallivan, 108 Ind. 235,
1202, 1210
Quimby vy. Blackey, 63 N. H.77, 367

185

Quin v. Lloyd, 41 N. Y. 349, 720
Quinby v. Conlan, 104 U.S. 420, 1127
Quincy v. Young, 5 Daly 44, 1146

Quinebaug Bank v. Leavens, 20
Conn. 87, 8.C.50 Am. Dec. 272, 656
Quinlan v. Myers, 29 Ohio St. 500,
165, 324
Quinlan v. Welch, 141 N. Y. 158,
S. C. 86 N. E. R. 12, 1042
Quinn v. Fidelity Association,100
Pa. St. 382, 311
Quinn v. Higgins, 63 Wis. 664, S.
C. 24.N. W. RB. 482, 741
Quinn v. New York, etc., Co., 56
, Conn. 44, 8. C.7 Am. St. Rep.
“284, 799
Quinn v. ey 123 Ill. 333, 8 .C.
15 N. E. R. 4 109, 110
‘Quinn v. People (IIL), 34N. E.R.
148, 333

Quinn v. South Carolina R. RB. Co.,
29 8. Car. 381,8. C. 1 L. R.A.
682,

Quinn v. State, 123 Ind. 59,
Quinn v. State, 130 Ind. 340, 8. C.
380 N. E. R. 300, :
gor v. Stockbridge, 33 Wis.

505

1068
630

1111
527

1226
172

Quintana v. State, 29 Tex. App
401, S. C. 25 Am. St. R. 730,
Quynn v. Brooke, 22 Md. 288,

R
Raborg v. Hammond, 2 Harr. &
42

J. 314
Raby v. Cell, 85 Pa. St. 80, 1041
Racer v. Baker, 113 Ind. 177,
1156, 1158

Radabaugh v. Silvers (Ind.), 35

N. E. R. 694, 1232
Radcliff v. Radford 96 Ind. 482, 1036
Radclyffe v. Barton, 154 Mass.

157, S. C. 28 N. E. R. 148, 185
Radde, In re, 9 N.Y. Supl. 812, .

8: C. 2 Connoly 293, 248
Rader v. Adamson, 37 W. Va.

582, S.C. 16S. E. R. 808,
Radford v. Folsom, 123 U. 8S. 725,

BVO

455

 

Radford v. Fowlkes, 85 Va. 820,
8. C.8S8.E. R. 817,

Radford, etc., Co. v. "East Tenn.,
etc., Co. (Penn.), 21 8. W. R.
829, 233

Rafferty, In re, 1 Wash. 382, 340

Rahm v. Deig, 121 Ind. 283, 8. C.

23 N. E. R. 141, 675, 677

Railroad Co. v. Harris, 12 Wall.

(U. S.) 65, 440
1032

620

Railroad Co. v.Hawthorne, 144 U.

8. 202, 8. C. 12 Sup. Ct. B.591,
Railroad Co. v. Ketchum, 101 U.

S. 289, 512
Railroad Co. v. Koontz, 104 U.S.

5, 347
Railroad Co. v. Maugans, 61 Md.

53, 546
Railroad Co. v. Stout, 17 Wall.

(U. S.) 657, 547, 549
Railroad Co. v. Swasey, 23 Wall.
405, 1184
Railroad Co. v. Thompson, 31

Kan. 180, 8. C. 1 Pac. R. 622, 282
Railsback v. Walke, 81 Ind. 409, 1238
Railton v. Lauder, 26 Ill. App.

655, 449

Railway Co. v. Cox, 145 U.S. 593,

S. C. 12 Sup. Ct. R. 905, 1056
Railway Co. v. Dunleavy, 129 Ill.
132,58. C. 22 N. E. R. 16, 1090

Railway Co. v. Jewel, 37 Ohio St.

649, 195

Railway Co. v. cgrenbanm (Tex.),
1

168. W. R. 9.
Railway Co. v. ees 22 Wall.
322, 300, 345

Raimond v. Terrebonne Parish,
132 U. 8. 192, S. C. 10 Sup. Ct.
R. 57, 526, 1138
Rainer v. Cooper, 44 Kan. 762, 8.

C. 25 Pac. R. 186, 1025
Rainwater v. Elmore, 1 Heisk.

* (Tenn.) 363, 695
Ralph v. Lomer, 3 Wash. 401, S.

C. 28 Pac. R. 760, 429
Ralph v. R. R. Co., 32 Wis. 177, 918
Ration %, Lothian, 18 Ind. 303, 622
Ramsey v. Foy, 10 Ind. 493, 377
Ramsey v. Hommel, 68 Wis. 12, 452

Ramsey v. McCue, 21 Gratt. (Va.)
349, 532, 1134, 1135
Rand v. Pantagraph Stationery
Co., 1 Col. App. 270, 8. C. 28
Pac. R. 661,
Rand, Adm’r, v. Redington, 13 N.
H. 72, S. C. 38 Am. Dec. 475,
590, 602
Rand v. Vaughan, 1 Bing. N.C. __
767, 1171

433
cexviii

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.)

Randall v. Baltimore, etc., R. R.

Co., 109 U.S. 478, S. C. 3 Sup.

Ct. R. 322, 1053
Randall v. Chase, 133 Mass. 210, 816
Randall v. Circuit J eae 97 Mich.

623, 8. C.55 N. W. R. 666,
Randall v. Gill, 77 Tex. ‘351, ’s. i

148. W. R. 134,

Randall v. Venable, 17 Fed. R.

162, 508
Randall’s Adm’r vy. Randall, 64 Vt.

419, 8. C. 24 Atl. R. 1011
Randalls v. Wilson, 26 Mo. 76, 293
Randle v. Williams, 18 Ark. 380, 258
Randleman, etc., Co. v. Simmons,

97 N. Car. 89,8. C.1-8. E. R.

923,

Randolph, Ex parte, 2 Brock. (U.

8. C. 0.) 447, 115
Randolph v. Kinney, 3 Rand. .

(Va.) 394, 239
Randolph v. Lampkin, 90 Ky. 551,

S.C. 148. W. R. 538, "1120
Randolph v. Little, 62 Ala. 396, 476
nota County v. Ralls, 18 ill. 4

: 46

Raney v. McRea, 14 Ga. 589, 833
Rangel v. State, 22 Tex. App. 642,

8.0.35. W. R. 788, 736
Ranger v. Great Western, etc.,

Co., 5 H. L. Cases 72, 408
Rank v. Hill, 2 Watts & S. (Pa.)

56, S. C. 37 Am. Dec. 483, 598
Rank v. Shewey, 4 Watts (Pa.)

218, 656
Rankin v. Rothschild,78 Mich. 10,

8.C.43N.W.R. 1077, 313, 496, 497
Rankin v. Simmonds, 27 Il. 352, '1223
Rannells v. State, 18 Ind. 255, 621
Ranney v. Higby, 5 Wis. 62, 559
Ransom v. City of New York, 20

How. (U. 8.) 581, 558
Ransone v. Christian, 56 Ga. 351, 675
Rape v. Heaton, 9 Wis. 328, 8. CG. -

76 Am. Dec. 269, 606
Rapp v. Kester, 125 Ind. 79, 149
Rash v. State, 61 Ala. 89, 668
Ratcliffe v. Anderson, 31 Gratt.105,

8. C. 31 Am. R. 716, 118
Rathbun v. Ingals, 7 Wend. 320, 362
Rathbun v. Ross, 46 Barb. (N. Y.)

127, 803
Rathburn v. Acker, 18 Barb. 393, 437
Ratliff v. Stretch, 130 Ind. 282, 290
Ratliffe v. County Court, etc., 36

W.Va. 202,8.C. 148. E. R. 1004, 183
Raudebaugh v. Shelly, 6 Ohio St.

307, 679
Raver v. Webster, 3 Ia. 502, 463
Rawles v. State, 56 Ind. 433, 803

1198

332

 

Rawson y. Knight, 73 Me. 340, 506
Rawson v. Powell, 36 Ga. 255, 161
Ray v. Bell, 24 Il 444, 802
Ray v. Doughty, 4 BIkE. 115, 1128
Ray v. Northup, 55 Wis. 396, 177
Ray v. Roe, 2 Blackf.(Ind.) '258, 500
Ray v. Rowley, 1 Hun 614, 320
Ray v. Tubbs, 50 Vt. 688, 365
Raye, Ex parte, 63 Cal. 491, 184
Raymond v. Bearnard, 12 Johns.
(N. Y.) 274, 8. C. 7 Am. Dec.
317, 402
Raymond v. Butterworth, 139
Mass. 471, 336
Raymond v. Kresburg, 84 Wis.
302, 8.C. 19 L. R. A. 648, 1147
Raymond v. Longworth, 14 How.
; 34
Raymond v. Narragansett, etc.,
Co., 14 R. I. 310, 473
Raymond v. Simonson, 4 Blackf.
36

85,
Raymond v. Smith, 1 Metcf.(Ky.)
65, 8. C. 71 Am. Dec. 458, :
181, 183, 191, 1203
Rayne v. Taylor,10 La. Ann. 726, 464

Rayner v. Bryson, 29 Md. 473, 394
Raynor v. Mintzer, 72 Cal. 585, 369
Raynor v. Raynor, 94 N.Y. 248, 1134
Rea v. Gibbons, 7 Serg. & R.
(Pa.) 204, 595

Read v. Buffum, 79 Cal. 77, 21
Pac. R. 555, 388

Read v. Cambridge, 124 Mass.
567, S. C. 26 Am. R. 690,

_, 1078
Read v. City of Buffalo, 4 Abb.

App. Dec. 22, 217
Read v. French, 28 N.Y.285, 320, 437
Read v. Gooding, 20 Fla. 773, 1184
Read v. Howe, 39 Ia. 553, 318
Read v. Markle, 3 Johns. 523, 365
Read v. Nichols, 118 N. Y. 224,S8.

C.7L. R. A. 130, 1079, 1080
Reagan v. Mabry, 8 Baxt. 168, 802
Reagan v. Sheets, 130 Ind. 185, 8.

C. 29 N. E. R. 1065, 536
Real v. Hollister, 17 Neb. 661, 1168
Real del Monte, ete., Co. v. Pond,

,ete., Co., 23 Cal. 82, 488

Real Estate, etc., Inst. v. Collon-
ious, 63 Mo. 290,

Reams v. Kearns, 5 Cold. (Tenn.)
217, 136, 161, 218, 224

Reams v. McNail, 28 Tenn. 542, 146

Re Application of Pacific, etc.,
Commission, 32 Fed. 241, 170

Reardon v. Thompson, 149 Mass.
267, 369

Reaves v. Moody, 15 Rich. L. (S.
Car.) 312, 1124
TABLE OF CASES.

cex1x

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 6038-1 244.]

Re Christian Jensen Co., 128 N.

. 550, 493
Rebon’s Heirs v. Behrens, 5 La.

5 486
Re Bullard’s Estate (Cal.), 31 Pac.

R. 1119, 1141, 1142
Redd, Ex parte, 73 Ala. 548, 1241
Redden v. Spraunce, 4 Harr.

(Del.) 217, 738
Redden v. Teftt, 48 Kan. 302, 8.

C. 29 Pac. R. 127, 1081
Reddick v. Keesling, 129 Tad,

128, 1147
Reddick v. Smith, 3 Scam. 451, 197
Reddin v. Gates, 52 Ta. 210, 816
Reddington v. Hamilton, 8 Blackt.

62, 149
Re Deaton, 105 N. Car. 59, S. C.

1158. E. R. 244, 1129
Redgrave v. Jones, 1 Har. & M.

195, 310
Redhead vy. Baker (Ia.), 53 N. W.

R. 114, 1186
Redigan’ v. Boston, Be eee x 155

Mass. 44, S. C. . R.

1133, 369
Redinbo v. Fretz, 99 Ind. 458,

1098, 1210
Redman v. Gulnac, 5 Cal. 148, 1077
Redman vy. Peet ton, 65 Cal.

271, 412
Redman v. State, 28 ‘Ind. 205, 174, 633
Redmond v. Stepp, 100 N. Car.

212,85. C.68. E. R. 727, 533
Red River Bank v. Freeman, 1 N.

Dak. 196, S. C. 46 N. W. R. 36,

254, 1183
Redwine v. State, 15 Ind. 293, 138

Reed v. Armstrong, 18 Ind, 446, 403
Reed v. Axtell, 84 Va. 231, 410
Reed v. Bagley, 24 Neb. 332, 234
Reed v. Bott, 100 Mo. 62, 8. C. 12
S.W.R. 347, 528
Reed v. Boyd, ’g4 Ill. 66, 430
Reed v. Carpenter, 2 Ohio 79, 1049
Reed v. Curry, 35 Ill. 536, 1200
Reed v. Eldredge, 27 Cal. 346, 1192
Reed v. Gage, 33 Mich. 179, 31, 183

Reed v. Hubbard, 1G. Greene

153, 123.
Reed v. Inhabitants, 8 Allen

(Mass.) 522, 1052
Reed v. Insurance Co., 138 Mass.

572, 408
Reed v. Marshall, 90 Pa. St. 345, 375
Reed v. Mayor, 92 Ala. 339, 8. C.

33 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 469, 366
Reed v. McConnell, 101 N. Y. 270,

8.C.4N. E. Rep. 718, 738
Reed v. Miller, 1 Bibb. 142, 1167

 

Reed v. Newcomb, 62 Vt. 75, S.

C. 19 Atl. R. 367, 224
Reed? y. Proprietors, 8 How. (U.

8.) 274 119
Reed v. ‘Reed, 52 Mich. 117, 50

Am. R. 247 287
Reed vy. Spaulding, 42N.H.114, 806
Reed y. Spayde, 56 Ind. 394, 1198
Reed v. Spicer, 27 Cal. 57, 33
Reed v. Stapp, 52 Fed. R. "641, 1141
Reed v. State, 31 Tex. ee App.

35, S. C. 22’8. W. Rep. 660
Reed v. State, 11 Mo. ao. 636
Reed v. State, 108 N. Y. 407, 370
Reed v. State Bank, 5 Ark. 193, 1195
Reed v. Thayer, 9 Ind. 157, 1121
Reed v. Vaughan, 15 Mo. 187, s.

C. 55 Am. Dec. 183, 128, 316
Reed v. Worland, 64 ‘Ind. 216, 1239

Reeder v. Maranda, 66 Ind. 485, 491

Reeder v. Sayre, 70 N. Y. 180, 178
Reeder v. Workman, 37 S. Car.

413, S. C.168. E. R. 187,

1137, 1138

Reeks v. Robins, Barnes 337, 430
Reel v. Elder, 62 Pa. St. 308, 289
Rees v. Blackwell, 6 Ind. "App

506, S. C. 33 N. K. B. 988, P1080

Rees v.City of Watertown, 19 Wall.
107, 212
Rees v. Rees, 7 Ore. 78, 456

Reeves v. Corning, 51 Fed. R.774, 304

Reeves v. Grottendick, 131 Ind.
107, 8. C. 30 N. E.R. 889, 527, 1104

Reeves v. Harrington (Ia.), 52 N.

W.R. 517, 1079
Reeves v. Herr, 59 Ill. 81, 362
Reeves v. Plough, 41 Ind..204, 1165

Reeves v. Poindexter, 8 Jones

(Law.) N. C. 308, 919
Reeves v. White, 17 Q. B. 995, 337
Reformed Church v. Schooleraft,

65 N. Y. 134, 371

Reg. v. Aberdale Canal Co., 14
Ad. & El. (N. 8.) 854,

Reg: v. Baynton, 17 How. St. Tr.
589,

Reg. v. Bolton, 1 Ad. & El. (N.
S.) 66,

Ree v. "Cheverton, 2 Fost. & F.
833, 30

Reg. v. Dowling, 3 Cox C.C. 509, 662

Reg. v. Geach, 9 Car. & P. 499,

Reg. v. Hill, 5 Cox Crim. Cas. 259,

Reg. v. Moore, 61 L. J. Mag. Cas,
80, 8. C. 17 Cox’s C. C. 458,

Reg. v. Murphy, 8 Car. & P. 297,

Reg. v. Tolson, 4 Fost. & F. ee

Reg. v. Wycherley, 8 Carr. & P.
262,

209

519
724
695

30

808
cCxx

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.)

Rehm v. German Ins. Co., 125

Ind, 185, 8. C. 25N. E. R.173, 441
Reid v.City of Atlanta,73 Ga.523, 370
Reid v. Hawkins, 46 Ind. 222, 718
Reid v. Ladue, 66 Mich. 22, S. C.

11 Am. St. R. 462, 738
Reid v. Morton, 119 Il. 118, 8. C.

6 N.E. R. 424, 187
Reid v. Reid, 17 'N. J. Eq. 101, 803
Reid v. Spoon, 66 N. Car. 415, 318
Reid v. State, 53 Ala. 402, S. C.

25 Am. R. 627, 1111
Reichert v. Voss, 78 Ga. 54, 343
Reidelsheimer v. Miller, 107 Ind.

485, 1097
Reifsnider v. Am. Imp. Pub. Co.,

45 Fed. R. 483, 608
Reilly v. Bader, 46 Minn. 212, S.

C. 48 N. W. R.909, 1110

Reilly v. Chouquette, 18 Mo. 220, 361
Reilly v. Dodge, 131 N. Y. 153, 8.

C. 29 N. E. R. 1011, 553
Reilly v. Hannibal, etc., R. R. Co.,

94 Mo. 600, S.C. 7S.W.R. 407, 548
Reilly v. Lee, 16 N.Y. Supp. 313, 507
Reinders v. Koppelman, 94 Mo.

344, 291
Reinhart v. Lugo, 86 Cal. 395, 8.

C. 24 Pac. R. 1089, §.C. 21 Am.

St. R. 52, 435, 455, 456
Reinsv. People, 30TI1. 256, 1123, 1224
Reissner v. Oxley, 80 Ind. 580, 537
Reist v. Hellbrenner, 11 8S. & R.

(Pa.) 181, 173
Reiter v. Fruh, 150 Pa. St. 623,

S. C. 24 Atl. R. 347, 1208
Reitz v. State, 33 Ind. 187, 633
Reizenstein v. Marquardt, 75 Ia.

294, 8. C. 9 Am. St. R. 477, 360
Re Jessup’s Estate, 81 Cal. 408,

S.C.6L. R. A. 594, 816
Relvea v. Ramsay, 2 Wend. (N.

Y.) 602, 586
Rembaugh v. Phipps, 75 Mo. 422, 1113
Remington v. Harrison Co., 12

Bush. (Ky.) 148, 581
Remington, etc., Co. v. Cole, 62
Cal. 311, 629
Remlinger v. Young, 22 Wis. 426, 1043
Remy v. Municipality, 12 La.Ann.

500, 814
Remy v. Olds, 88 Cal. 537, S. C.
26 Pac. R. 355, 397

Renier v. Hurlbut, 81 Wis. 24, S.
C.14 L. R. Anno. 562, S. C. 29

Am. St. R. 850, 320, 428
Rennick v. Chandler, 59 Ind. 354,
375, 1148

Renninger v. Spatz, 128 Pa. St.

524, 8. C. 18 Atl. R. 405, 540

 

Repath v. Walker, 13 Col. 109, 1158
Replow v. Hodges, 3 H. L. Cases
79, 998
Repp v. Wiles, 3 Ind. App. 167,
8. C. 29 N. E.R. 441, 206, 564, 565
Republic Iron Co. v. Jones, 37
Fed. R. 721,
Republic, etc., Co. v. Swigert, 135

409

Ill. 150, 8. C. 12 L. R. A. 328, 494
Requa v. ‘City, 45 N. Y. 129, 411
Re Sanderson, 74 Cal. 199, 1129
Re Sloan (N. M. ), 25 Pac. R. 930, 478

Respublica v. Lacaze, 2 Dall. 118, 1169
Respublica v. Richards, 1 Yeates

(Pa.) 480, 654
Retzer v. Wood, 109 U. 8. 185, 1051
Reubel v. Preston, 5 East 291, 432
Revel v. State, 26 Ga. 275, 138

Revell v. Hussey, 2 Ball & Batty
286,

Re Vinich, 86 Cal. 70,8. C. 26 Pac.
R. 528, 458

Re Whitson’ 8 Estate, 89 Mo. 58, 639
Rex vy. Allen, 1 Moody C. C. 494,

307
Rex v. Allen, 7 Car. & P. 664, 807

Rex v. Bishop, 2 London Legal
Observer 39,

Rex v. Blandy, 18 St. Tr. 1117, 851
Rex v. Brook, 31 St. Tr. 1137, 30
Rex v. Brown, 10 Cox C. © 3. 453, 803
Rex v. Burke, Celebrated ’ Trials,

42, 851
Rex v. Carlile, 4 C. & P. 415, 235
Rex v. Chapman, 3 Anst. 81, 1194
Rex v. Clews, 4 Carr. & P. 221, 30,
Rex v. Cook, 13 How. St. Tr. 348, 179
Rex v. Cumberland, 6 Term Rep.

194, 627
Rex v. D’Eon, 3 Burr. 1518, 621
Rex v. Despard, 2 Man. & Ry. 406, 664

Rex v. Edmonds, 4 Barn. & Ald.

471, 667
Rex vy. Gisburn, 15 East 57, 505
Rex v. Hanes, 3 P. & F. 144, _ 3l

Rex v. Harrison, 12 St. Tr. 834,

30, 851

Rex v. Hucks, 1 Stark N. P. 424, 538
Rex v. Huggins, 2 Ld. Raymond,

1103

1574,

Rex v. Hunt, 3 B. & Ald. 566, 504
Rex v. Ji ohnson, 7 East 65, 504
Rex v. Justices, 3 Burr. 1456, 338
Rex v. King, 2 Chit. 217, 627

Rex v. Mayor of London, 9B. &

C. 1, 337
Rex v. Parker, 3 Doug. 242, 806
Rex v. Parkin, 1 Moody 45, 1111
Rex v. Robinson, 2 Burr. 799, 258
Rex v. Wilkes, 4 "Burr. 2527, 176
TABLE OF CASES.

cexxl

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. I, pp. 603-1244.]

Rex vy. Worsenham, 1 Ld. Raym.

705, 809
Rex v. Young, 1 Burr. 556, 176
Rex v. Young, 2 Anst. 448, 1194

Rexroth v. Coon, 15 R. I. 35, S.
C. 2 Am. St. R. 803, 1149
Behan v. Brackett, 2 Kan. 227,

8. C. 83 Am. Dec. 457, 466
Reyder’ s Estate, In re, 38 N. Y.
St. R. 29, S. C. 59 Hun 618, 110

Reynes v. Dumont, 130 U. 8. 354,
268, 1130
Reynolds v. Baldwin, 93 Ind. 57, 675

Reynolds v. Collins, 78 Ala. 94, 474
Reynolds v. Crawfordsville, etc.,
Bank, 112 U.S. 405, 270, 1228
Repoelie e Deitz (Neb.), 58 N.
W.R. 8 1227
Reynolds . ’ Fleming, 30 Kan. 106,
S. C. 46 Am. R. 86, 606
Reynolds v. Hennessey, 17 BR. I.
169, S. C. 23 Atl. R. 639, 350

Reynolds v. Howe, 51 Conn. 472, 294
Reynolds v. Lounsbury, 6 Hill

(N. Y.) 534, 516
Reynolds v. Milk Grove, etc., 134
Ill. 268, 8. C. 25 N. E. R. 516, 484

Reynolds v. Pettyjohn,79 Va. 327, 409
Reynolds v. Plummer, 19 Me. 22, 1047
Reynolds v. Richards, 14 Pa. St.
205, 539
Reynolds v. Robuck, 37 Ala. 408, 601
Reynolds v. Schaffer, 91 Mich.
494, 519
ale v. Schmidt, 20 Wis.
74,
Reynolds v. Stansberry, 20 Ohio
344, S. C. 55 Am. Dec. 459,
Reynolds v. Stockton, 43 N. J. Eq.
211, 8. C. 3 Am. St. R. 305,
194, 341, 342, 1185
Reynolds v. Stockton, 140 U. 8.

314
316

254, 246
Reynolds v. Summer, 126 Ill. 58,
S.C.1L.R. A. 327,8.C. 9 Am.
St. R. 523, 372, 376
Reynolds v. Tompkins, 23 W. Va.
229, 1124
Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.
S. 145, 542, 659
Rhea’s ‘Succession, 31 La. Ann.
323, 218
Rhea v. Riner, 21 Ill. 526, 560
Rheem v. Allison, 2 Serg. & R. 5
601

(Pa.) 113,
Rhett v. Poe, 2 How. (U.S.) 457, 1067
Rhine v. Morris, 95 Ind. 81, 1232
Rhines v. Baird, 41 Pa. St. 256, 548
Rhines v. Phelps, 3 Gilm. (IIl.)

455, 196

 

Rhoades v. Delaney, 50 Ind. 468,
604, 1197
Rhode Island y. Massachusetts, 12

Peters (U. 8.) 755,

Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 12

Peters 657, 115, 241
Rhodes v. Andrews (Ark.), 13 S.

W.R. 4 899
Rhodes v. co 6 Rand. (Va.)

188, S. C. 18 Am. Dec. 715, 476
Rhodes vy. Dunbar, 57 Pa. St. 274, 487
Rhodes v. Morgan,1 Baxt.(Tenn.)

360, 393
Rhodes v. Russell, 32 S. Car. 585,

S. C. 108. E. R. 828, 201, 332
Rhodes vy. Smethurst, 4 M. & W.

42, 360
Rhodes v. State, 128 Ind. 189, 8S.

C. 27 N. E. R. 866,

653, 667, 668, 794
Rhorer v. Brockhage, 15 Mo. App.

16, 1156
Ricard v. Smith, 37 Miss. 644, 298
Rice v. American National Bank

(Col.), 31 Pac. R. 1024, 433
Rice v. Austin, 19 Minn. 103, 170, 251
Rice v. Brown, 81 Me. 56, S. C. 16

614

Atl. 334, 318, 557
Rice v. City, 108 Ind. 7,
1097, 1101, 1107
Rice v. Derby, 7 Ind. 649, 514
Rice v. Manford, 110 Ind. 596, 1096
Rice v. Melendy, 36 Ia. 166, 619
Rice v. Pertuis, 40 Ark. 157, 465
Rice v. Rice; 6 Ind. 100, 1088
Rice v. Simpson, 9 Heisk. 809, 413
Rice v. State, 3 Kan. 141, 213
Rice v. Wright, 46 Miss. 679, 338

Rich v. City of Chicago, 59 Ill.

286, 1129
Richards v. Bestor, 90 Ala. 352, 8.

C. 8 So. R. 30, 1206
Richards v. Borowski (Neb.), 58

N. W. R. 277, 1081
Collins, 45 N. J. Eq.
14 Am. St. R. 726,
Des Moines, etc., R.
259,

Dyke, 3 Q. B. 256,
Greene, 78 Ill. 525,
Holt, 61 Ia. 529,
Nixon, 20 Pa. St. 19,
620, 678
Richards v. State, 82 Wis. 172, 8.

C. 51 N. W. R. 652, 809
Richards v. State, 91 Tenn. 723, 8.

C. 30 Am. St. R. 907, 696
Richards v. Tabb, 4 Cal. 522, 1113
Richardson, Ex parte (Ala.), 11

So. R. 316, W7

Richards v.

288, 8. C.
Richards v.

R., 18 Ia.
Richards v.
Richards v.
Richards v.
Richards v.

290

619
337
632
584
ecxxii

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.]

Richardson vy. Beldam, 18 Ill.
App. 527, ‘
Richardson v. Bricker, 7 Col. 58, 383

_ Richardson v. Coleman, 131 Ind.
210 1120
Richardson v. Green, 130 U. 8.
104, 189
Richardson v. Gregory, 126 Ill.
166, S. C. 18 N. E. R. 777, 376

Richardson v. Huggins, 23 'N. H.
106, 594, 596
Richardson v. Kelly, 85 Ill. 491, 800
Richardson v. Learned, 10 Pick.
261, 395
Richardson vy. Lenhard, 48 Kan.
629, 8. C. 29 Pac. R. 1076, 566
Richardson v. Lumber Co., 40
Mich. 203, 34
Richardson v. Milburn, 17 Md.
67, 502
Richardson v. Payne, 55 Ga.167, 600
Richardson v. Rogers, 37 Minn.
461, S. C. 35 N. W. R. 270,
1191, 1203
Richardson v. Snider, 72 Ind.
425, 409
Richardson yv. St. Joseph, etc.,
. Co., 5 Blackf. 146, 1207
Richardson v.Ward,6 ae 497
Richardson v. Weare, 62 N.
. 80, F005
Richardson v. White, 19 Ark.
472
Richardson v. Wilkins, 19 Barb.
(N. Y.) 510, 790
Richmond vy. Brookings, 48 Fed.

R. 241, 456
Richmond v. Chicago, ete., R. R.

Co., 87 Mich. 374, 8. C. 49 N.

W.R. 621, 550

Richmondv. Davis, 103 Ind. 449, 163
Richmond ‘v. Nicken, 25 Vt. 326, 21
Richmond v. Poe, 24 Gratt.149, 366

Richmond v. Richmond, 10 Yerg.
(Tenn.) 343, 794
Richmond v. State, 16 Neb. 388, 626

Richmond v. Sundberg, 77 Ia.
255, 801

Richmond v. Wardlaw, 36 Mo.
1162

313,

Richmond & D. R. R. Co. v. Ben-
son, 86 Ga. 203, 8. C. 12 S. E.
R. 357, 434

Richmond & D. R. R. Co. v.
Childress, 82 Ga.719, S. C. 3 L.
R, A. 808,

Richmond & D.R.R. Co. v. Jones,
92 Ala. 218, 8S. C. 9 So. R. 276,
Richmond & D. R. R. Co. v. His-

song (Ala.), 13 So. R. 209,

810
712
783

139:

 

Richmond & D. Railroad Co. v.
Powers, 149 U. S. 43, 8S. C. 18
Sup. Ct. 748,

Richmond & D. R. R. Co. v. Rudd,
88 Va. 648, S. C. 14 S. E. R.
361,

Richwine v. Presbyterian Church,
135 Ind. —, 8. C. 34 N. E.R. 737,

479, 1176

Rickabus v. Gott, 51 Mich. 227, 1158

Rickards v. Ladd, 4 Pac. C. L. J.

52, 435
Ricketson v.Compton, 23 Cal.637, 605
Ricketson v. Richardson, 26 Cal.

149, 298
Ricketts v. Chesapeake, etc., R.

R. Co., 33 W. Va. 483, S.C. 7

1056

460

L. R. A. 354, 822
Rickey v. Ford, 2 Ore. 251, 1134
Rico v. Ganltier, 3 Atk. 501, 477
Riddle v. Core, 21 W. Va..530, 1025
ee Ereinbiehl, 12 La. Ann.

375

Riddle. Varnum, 20 Pick. (Mass. ts
280,
Riddle v. Whitehill, 135 U. S. 621,

8. C. 10 Sup. Ct. R. 924, 372
Riddleabaneer v.Hartford Tns.Co.,

7 Wall. (U. 8.) 386, 385
Ridenhour yv. Kansas City, etc.,

Co., 102 Mo. 270, S. C. 14.8. W.

R. 760, 152, 1213
Ridenour v. Miller, 83 Ind. 208, 1155
Rider v. Bagley, 84 N. Y. 461, 495
Rider v. People, 110 Ill. 11, 1074
Ridgeway v. Dearinger, 42 Ind.

157, 1096
Ridgway’s Appeal, 15 Pa. St. 177,

S.C. 53 Am. Dec. 586, 1190
Rigby v. Lefevre, 58 Miss. 639, 327
Rigby v. Norwood, 34 Ala. 129, 1054
Rigden v. Martin, 6 Har. & J.

(Md.) 403, 594
Rigdon v. Conley, 141 Ill. 564, S.

C. 30 N. E. R. 1060, 782

Rigg v. Bias, 44 Kan. 148, 8. C. 24

Pac. R. 26, 1117—
Rigg v. Cook, 4 Gilm. 336, 8. C. 46
Am. Dec. 462, 1116, 1120

Riggenberg v.. Hartman, 102
Ind. 537, 8. C. 26 N. E. R. 91,

174, 628
Riggs v. Am. Tract Soc., 84 N. Y.

330, 599
Riggs v. Collins, 2 Biss. 268, 327
Riggs v. Commercial, etc., Ins.

Co., 125 N. Y. 7, 8. C. 21 Am.

St. R. 716, 207
Riggs v. Fenton, 3 Mo. 28, 618
Riggs v. Fuller, 54 Ala. 141, 3871
TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp.

Riggs v. Johnson County, 6 Wall.
166, 241, 258
Riggs v. Sterling, 2 ee 648, S.
C.1 Am. St. R. 5 697
Riggsbee v. oe Sn Ind. 167, 432

Rigler v. Morgan, 77 N. Y. 318, 405
Rigney v. soles, 6 Bosw. (N. Y
Supr.) 4 ” 154
Rigney v. inter 127 N. Y. 408,
8. C. 24 Am. St. R. 462, 459
. Riley v. Black, 20 N. Y. Supp. 695,
é 644
Riley v. Dickens, 19 Il. 29, 538
Riley v. McNamara, 83 Tex. 11,
8S. C.18S. W. Rep. 141, 402
Riley v. Melquist, 23 Neb. 474, 8.
C. 36 N. W. Rep. 657 540

Bily v. Nichols, t Heisk. (Tenn.)
447

Riley v. Riley, 36 Ala. 496, 537
Riley v. State, 88 Ala. 193, 8. C.
7 So. R. 149, 179, 791

Riley v. Waugh, 8 Cush. 220, 327, 427
Rine v. Chicago, etc., Co., 100 Mo.
1027

228,
Rines v. Boyd, 7 Wis. 155, 636

Ringgenberg v. Hartman, 102 Ind.
53

7, 634
Ringham v. Walk, 128Ind. 164, 1206
Ringle v. Weston, 23 Ind. 588, 183
Ringo v. Brooks, 26 Ark. 540,

383, 384
Ripley v. Aitna Ins. Co., 30 N.

Y. 186, 607
Rippen v. Schéen 92 Il. 229, 473
Rippey v. State, 29 Tex. App. 37,

S.C. 148. W. R. 448, 1206
Risewick v. Davis, 19 Md. 82, 297
Risher v. Morgan, 56 Ind. 172,

637, 1197
Risher v. Thomas, 2 Mo. 98,  ~—=——_:178
Risley v. Welles, 5 Conn. 431, 472

Risser v. Martin (Ia.), 53 N. W..
R. 270, 1201

Ritchie v. Davis, 11 Ia. 124, 544

Ritchie v. Holbrooke, 7 8. & R.
(Pa.) 458, 1124

Ritten v. Griffith, 16 Hun 454, 447

Rittenhouse v. Knoop (Ind. i 36
N. E. R. 384, 1096

Ritter v. Offutt, 40 Md. 207, ° 431
‘Riverside Co. v. Townshend, 120

Til. 9, 371
Rives v. Petit, 4 Ark. 582, 214
Rixford v. Nye, 20 Vt. 132, 594
‘Rizzolo v. Com., 126 Pa. St. 54, 682
Roach v. Blakely (Va.), 17 8. E.

R. 228, 644

Roach v. Hulings, 16 Pet. (U. a
319, 1067

 

cexxili

1-602, Vol. II, pp. 608-1244,]
secs in Hatfield Tp., 4 Yeates,
Road’ in McCandless Tp., In re,
oa, Pa. St. 605, 8. C.1 Atl. Rep.
4
Robb’ v. Brachman, 38 Ohio St.

338

633

423, 590
Robb v. Hackley, 23 Wend. (N.

Y.) 50, 806
Robb v. Trwin, 15 Ohio 689, 294, 443

Robb v. Starkey, 2 Car. & K. 143, 507
cae Alton, etc., Co., 12 Mo.
Robbins v. ae 54 Ill. 48, 8. C.
5 Am. R. 7. 108
Robbins v. Giark, 129 Mass. 145, 584
Robbins v. Clemmens, 41 Ohio St.
285, 456
Robbins v. Killebrew, 95 N. Car.
19, 593, 596
Robbins v. Otis, 1 Pick. (Mass.) 8
2

368
Robbins v. Robbins, 2 Ind. 74, 443
Robbins v. Spencer, 121 Ind. 594,

8. C. 22 N. E. R. 660, 537, 677, 805
Robbins v. Wolcott,19 Conn. 356, 1171
Roberson v. State, 87 Ga. 209, 8.

C. 138. E. R. 696, 1168
Robert E. Lee, etc., Co. v. Engle-

bach, 18 Col. 106, S. C. 31 Pac.

R. 771, 1162
Roberts, Ex parte, 9 Nev. 44, 142, 155
Roberts v. Barry, 42 Miss. 260, 472
Roberts v. Bonaparte, 73 Md. 191,

8..C. 10 L. R. A. 689, 539, 559
Roberts v. Burrell, 3 T. & C. (N.

Y.) 30, 181
Roberts v. Caldwell, 5 Dana 512, 266
Roberts v.. Corby, 86 Ill. 182, 1200
Roberts v. Dame, 11 N. H. 226, 1172
Roberts v. Dixon, 50 Kan. 436, S.

C. 31 Pac. R. 1083, ~ 506

1120

1159

Roberts v. Failis, 1 Cowen (N. Y.)
238,
Roberts v. gage 2 Neb. 508,
S. C. 32 N. W.R. 5
Roberts v. Higgins, 5 a. 542, 1078
Roberts v. Hughes, 7 W.
399, : 1124
Roberts v. Johnson, 37 N. Y.
Super. 157, 721
Roberts v. Landecker, 9Cal. 262, 472
Roberts v. Mazeppa Mill Co., 30
Minn. 418, 555
Roberts v. Lindley, 121 Ind.56, 1149
Roberts v. Norris, 67 Ind. 386, 393
Roberts v. Parrish, 17 Ore. 583, 8.

263

C. 22 Pac. R. 136, 1231
Roberts v. People iOal. ), 18 Pac.
R. 630 632, 634

?
ecx xiv

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. GO3-1244.]

Roberts v. People, 9 Col. 458, 632
Roberts v. Riddle, 79 Pa. St. 468, 363
Roberts v. Roberts, 85 N. Car. 9, 788
Roberts v. Smith, 34 Ind. 550, =: 1158

Roberts vy. State, 27 Fla. 244, 8. C.
9 So. R. 246, 230
Roberts v. State, 3 Tex. App.47, 1181
Roberts v. Treadwell, 50 Cal. 520, 529
Roberts v. Watkins, 14 C. B. N.

S. 592, 406
Robertson v. Beall, 10 Md. 125, 197
Robertson v. Davidson, 14 Minn.

554, 492
Robertson v. Garshwiler, 81 Ind.

463, 1167
Robertson v. McNeil, 12 Wend.

(N. Y.) 578, 585, 599
Robertson v Morgan, 38 Ill. BPs, .

137,

Robertson v. Oelschlaeger, 137 UL

8. 436, S.C. 11 Sup. Ct. R. 148, 542
Robertson v. Perkins, 129 U. §.

238, S. C. 9 Sup. Ct. R. 279, »

1052, 1207
Robertson v. Pickrell, 109 U.S.

608, 263
Robertson v. Smith, 129 Ind. 422, 346
Robertson v. Smith, 104 Ind. 79, 332
Robertson v. Solomon, 144 U. 8.

603, S. C. 12 Sup. Ct. R. 752, 542
Robertson v. State, 109 Ind. 79, 249
Robertson v. Winchester, 85 Tenn.
171, 8.C.18S. W. R. 781, 4380, 451
Robidoux v. Cassilegi, 10 Mo. App.

516, 551
Robin v. State, 40 Ala. 72, 1225
Robinius v. Lister, 30 Ind. 142, 514

Robinson, Ex parte, 19 Wall. 505,

136, 424
Robinson’s Estate, 6 Mich. 137, 456
Robinson v. Abell, 17 Ohio 36, 1043

Robinson v. Anderson, 106 Ind.

152, 1237
Robinson v. Atlantic, etc., Co., 66

Pa. St. 160, 196
Robinson v. Benson, 19 Nev. 331, 1163
Robinson v. Campbell, 3 Wheat.

323, 1128
Robinson vy. Commissioners, 12

Md. 132, 185
Robinson v. Cook, 6 Taunt. 336, 400
Robinson v. County Court, 32 Mo.

428, 1188
Robingon vy. Dauchy, 3 Barb. (N.

Y.) 20 545
Robinson v. Ensign, 6 Gray 300, 198
Robinson v. Epping, 24 Fla. 237,

S.C. 4 So. R. 812,

Robinson v. Ferguson, 78 Ill. 538,
142, 155

262

 

Robinson v. Ferry, 11 Conn. 460,
624, 715
Robinson v. George’s Ins. Co., 17

Me. 131, 8. C.35 Am. Dec. 239, 588
Robinson vy. Hitchcock, 8 Mete.
(Mass.) 64, 676

Robinson v. ‘Howard, 5 Cal. 428,
1178

Robinson v. Keith, 25 Iowa 321, 111
Robinson v. Keys, 9 Humph.

(Tenn.) 148, ~ 1198
Robinson v. Lake, 14 Ia. 421, 370, 371
Robinson v. Levi, 81 Ala. 134, S.

C. 1 So. R. 554, 1063
Robinson v. Louisville & N. R.

R. Co., 2 Lea (Tenn.) 594, 1041

Robinson v. Martel, 11 Tex. 149, 622
Robinson v. Merchants’, etc., Co.,
16 R. I. 217, S. C. 14 Atl. R.
360,
Robson v. Moore, 1 Tex. Civ.
App. 93, 8. C. 20 5.W. R. 994, 1093
Robinson v. Morse, 26 Vt. 392, 597
Robinson v. Murphy, 69 Ala.548, 564-
Robinson v. National Bank of
Newberne, 81 N. Y. 385, 272
332

1048

Robinson v. Oceanic, etc.,Co., 112
N.Y. 315,

Robinson Notion Co. v. Ormsby,
33 Neb. 655, 8S. C.50 N. W. R.
952, 465

Robinson v. Peru, etc.,Co., 1 Okla.
140, S. C. 31 Pac. R. 988, 790

Robinson v. Randall, 82 Ill. 521,

658, 666

Robinson v. Redman, 2 Duv.(Ky. )

82, 342

Robinson v. Robinson (N. H.), 23
Atl. R. 362, S. C. 15 LR. A.
121,

Robinson v. Rudkins, 28 Fed. R.

1

534

202
Robinson v. Satterlee, 3 Sawy.
134, 1210
Robinson v. Shanks, 118 Ind. 125, 601
Robinson v. Shatzley, 75 Ind. 461,
261, 394
Robinson v. Snyder, 74Ind.110, 1151
Robinson v. State, 16 Fla. 835, 805
Robinson v. Suter, 15 Mo. App.
599, 1233
Robinson v. Walton, 58 Mo. 380, 531
Robinson v. Ward, ’g Johns. (N.

Y.) 86,8. C. 5 Am. Dee. 327, 463
Robinson v. Weeks, 56 Me. 102, 47
Robinson v. White, 42 Me. 209, 533

Robinson v. Willoughby, 67 N.
Car. 84, 1208

Robinson, etc., Works v. Chand-
ler, 56 Ind. 575, 1160
TABLE OF CASES.

CCXXV

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.)

Robles v. State, 5 Tex. App. 346, 646

Roblinv. Yagey, 35 Ill. App. 587, 1243

Robostelli v. New York, etc., Co. a
1189

34 Fed. R. 719,
Robostelli v. New York, etc., Co.,

34 Fed. R. 507, 1193
Robson y. Mississippi, etc., Co.,

43 Fed. R. 364, 570
Roby v. Labuzan, 21 Ala. 60,8. C.
56 Am. Dec. 237, 467

Rochat v. North Hudson, etc.,

Co., 49 N. J. L. 445, 8. C. 9 Atl.

R. 688, 8. C. 10 Atl. R. 710,

1045, 1052
Rochester vy. Whitehouse, 15 N.

H. 468, 573
Rock Creek v. Strong, 96U.8. 271, 184
Rockford R. R. v. Hillmer, 72 Il.

919

235,
Rockland Water Co. v. Pillsbery,

60 Me. 425, 190, 1244
Rockwell y. J ones, 21 Ill. 279, 341
Rockwell v. Nearing, 85 N.Y. 302, 276
Rockwell v. Servant, 54 Il]. 251, 376
Rockwood v. Davenport, 37 Minn. .
5 18
Roddam v. Hetherington, 5 Ves.
477

91,
Roden v. Chicago, etc., Ry. Co.,
133 Il. 72, S. C. 23 Am. St. R.
Roderigas v. East River, etc., In-
stitution, 76 N. Y. 316, 8. C. 32
Am. R. 309, 324, 1189
Roderigas v. East River, etc., Co.,
63 N. Y. 460; S. C. 20 Am. R.
555, 134, 165, 166
Roderiquez v. State (Tex.), 22, Ss.

1051

W. R. 978, 809
Rodgers v. Bonner, 45 N.Y. 379, 468
Rodgers v. State, 50 Ala. 102, 163
Rodman v. Hedden, 10 Wend.

498, 363
Rodman y. Harcourt, 4 B. Mon.

224, 216
Rodman y. Kelly, 13 Ind. 377, 508

Rodman v. Musselman, 12 Bush

(Ky.) 354, 8. C.23 Am. R.724, 472 |

Rodman ¥. Reynolds, 114 Ind. 148,

8, C. 16 N.E. B. 516, 965, 1162
Rodman vy. Rodman, 54 Ind. 444, 163
Rodriguez v. Haynes, 76 Tex. 225,

8. C. 138. W. RB. 296, 1133
Roe v. Chitwood, 36 Ark. 210, 539
Roe v. Taylor, 45 Il. 485, 537
Roeder v. Studt, 12 Mo. App. 566, 823
Roehl v. Haumesser,114Ind.311, 504
Rogers v. Abbott, 37 Ind. 138, 190
Rogers v. Beard, 20 How Pr.

- 282, 1146

oO

 

i v. Beauchamp, 102 Ind.

Rogers v. ‘Burns, 27 Pa. St. 525,
oo Carrothers, 26 W. Va.
8
Rogers v. Chicago, etc., R. R. Co.,
117 Ill. 115, 526
Rogers v. Coit, 21N.J.L.704, 536
Rogers vy. Diamond, 13 Ark. 474, 679
Rogers v. Felker, 77 Ga. 46, 218
Rogers v. Goodwin, 2 Mass. "475, 202
Rogers v. Hoenig, 46 Wis. 361,
1161, "1166
Rogers v. Holden, 13 IIl. 293, 597
Rogers v. Jenkins, 1 Bos. & P.

230
315

596

383, 430
Rogers v. Lamb, 3 Blackf. (Ind.)

155, 653
Rogers y. Leyden, 127 Ind. 50, S.

‘C. 26N. E.R. 210, 525, 1064, 1097
Rogers v. Loop, 51 Iowa 41, 146, 164
Rogers v. Marshal, 1 Wall. 644, 1224
Rogers v. Moore, 10 Conn. 18, 807
Rogers v. Morton, 51 Iowa 709, 182
Rogers v. Murray, 3 Bosw. 357, 1160
Rogers v. New York, etc., Co.,

BAN. Y. 107, 8. C.82.NVE. RB

27,

Rogers v. Roberts, 88 Ga. 150, 5.

C. 13S. E. R. 962 1248,
Rogers v. Rogers, ‘18 N. J. Eq.

445, 453
Rogers v. Rogers, 14 Wend. (N.

Y.) 131 667

Rogers v. Hager, 78 Ga. 688, S.

C.38. E. R. 451, 1157
Rogers v. Russell, 11 Neb. 361,

S. C.9N. W. R.'547 1180
Rogers v. Sample, 28 Neb. 141, 8.

C. 44. N. W. R. 86, 1116, 1117
Rogers v. Smith, 17 Ind. 323, 1211
Rogers v. Stevens, 8 Ind. 464, 638
Rogers v. Tatum, 25 N.J.L. 281, 594
Rogers v. Van Hoesen, 12 Johns.

(N. Y.) 221, 506
Rogers v. Vosburgh, 87 N. Y. 228, ‘
32
Rogers v. Walker, 6 Pa. St. 371, 289
Roggencamp v. Dobbs, 15 Neb.
620, 1163
Rohn v. Harris, 31 i App. 26,
S. C. 22 N. E.R. 587
Rohr v. Davis, 9 Leigh (Va.) 30, 1034
Rohrback v. Germania Fire Ins.
Co., 62 N.Y. 47, 49:
Rolfe v. Rich (1L.), 35 N. E.R.
352, 1065.
Rolfe v. Rumford, 66 Me. 564, 820:
Roll v. Rea, 50 N. J. L. 264, 8. C.
560:

12 Atl. R. 905,
ecxxvi

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.]

Roller v. Roller, 8 Baxt. clean
207,
Roller v. Wooldridge, 46 Tex. 485, eB
Rolling Stock Co. v. Atlantic, etc.,
Co., 34 Ohio St. 450, 529
Rollins v. Ames, 9 Am. Dec. 79, 665
Rollins v. Coggshall, 29 Ia. 510, 1198
Rollins v. Henry, 84 N. Car. 569, 314
Rollins v. Henry, 78 N. Car. 342, 183
Rollins v. Nolting, 53 Minn. —,
8. C. 54 N. W. R. 1118, 1124
Rollins v. Taber, 25 Me. 144, 520
Rollins v.Townsend,118 Mass.224, 586

Roloson v. Carson, 8 Md. 208, 593
Rolseth v. Smith, 38 Minn. 14, S.

C. 35 N. W. R. 565, 529
Rome Exchange Bank v. Eames,

1 Keyes (N. Y.) 588, 1
Ronan v. Meyer, 84 Ind. 390, 1098

Rooby v. State, 4 Yerg. (Tenn.)
111, 668

Rooke’s Case, 5 Coke R. 100a, 176
Rooney v. Grant, 40 Ga. 191, 1165
Rooney v. Milwaukee, ete., Co., 65
Wis. 397, 720
Root v. Hamilton, 105 Mass. 22, 804

Root v. Johnson (Ala. ),10 So. R.

293, 404
Root v. Sherwood, 6 Johns. N. Y.

68 1111

Roots v. Beck, 109 Ind. 472, 371
Ropps v. Barker, 4 Pick. 239, 1122
Roquest v. Boutin, 14 La. Ann. 44, 721
Roquest v. Steamer, 13 La. Ann.

210, 472
Rose v. Brown, Kirby (Conn.)

293, S. C.1 Am. Dec. 22, 401, 402
Rose v. Brown, 11 W. Va. 122, 176
Rose v. Duncan, 49 Ind. 269, 400
Rose v. Duncan, 43 Ind. 512, 1151
Rose v. First Nat. Bank, 91 Mo.

399, S. C. 60 Am. R. 258, 782
Rose vy. Gibson, 71 Ala. 35, 1188

Rose v. Railroad Co., 47 Ia. 420, 4384
Rose v. Richmond, ete., Co., 17

Nev. 25, S.C. 27 Pac. R. 1105, 609
Rose v. State, 2 Wash. 310, 8. C.
26 Pac. R. 264, 660

Rose v. Whaley, 14 La. Ann. 374, 473
Rosenbaum v. Bauer, 7 Sup. Ct.

R. 633, 243
Rosenberg v. H. B. Claflin Co.,

10 So. R. 521, 608, 611
Rosenblat v. Perkins, 18 Ore. 156,

8. C. 22 Pac. R. 598, 411
Roseboom v. Jefferson, etc., gD

122 Ind. 377, S.C. 23 N. E.R.

796, 1234
Rosenfield _v. Howard, 15 Barb.

(N. Y.) 546, 465

 

Rosenthal v. Chisum, 1 N. Mex.
633, 12
Rosenthal v. Vernon, 79 Wis. 245,

S. C. 48 N. W. Rep. 485, 540
Rosenthal v. Wehe, 58 Wis. 621, 465
Rosquist v.Furniture Co.,50 Minn.

192, 8. C. 52 N. W. R. 385, 705
Ross v. Butler, 19 N. J. Eq. 294, 483
Ross vy. Clarke, 1 Dallas (Pa.) 354,

197, 198

Ross v. Crews, 33 Ind. 120, 486
Ross v. Eason, 4 Yeates (Pa. ), 54,

1025, "1027

Ross v. Fuller, 12 Vt. 265, 433

Ross v. Gill, 1 Wash. (Va.) 87, 1039

Ross v. Glass, 70 Ind. 391, 432
Ross v. Kansas City, 48 Mo. App.

440, 1218
Ross v. Lafayette, etc., R. R.Co.,

6 Ind. 297, 392
Ross v. Ross, 129 Mass. 243, 8. C.

37 Am. R. 321, 291
Ross v. State, 82 Ala. 65, 1056

Ross v. Thompson, 78 Ind. 90,
892, 483, 1068
Ross v. Titsworth, 37 N. J. Eq.
333,
Ross v. United States, 12 Ct. of

Cl. 565, 1104
Ross v. Watt, 16 Ill. 99, 596
Rosser v. Barnes, 16 Ind. 502,

1088, 1093
Rosser v. McColly, 9 Ind. 587, 1110
Rossett v. Gardner, 3 W. Va. 531, 619
Rossett v. State, 17 Ala. 496, 258

Rosum v. Hodges. 1S. Dak. 308,
8.C.9L. R. A. 817, 365
Roth v. Buffalo, ete., R. R. Co.,*

34 N. Y. 548, S. C. 90 Am. Dec.
736, 525, 553
Roth v. Colvin, 32 Vt. 125, 541

Roth v. House of Refuge, 31 Md.

329

Roth v. Miller, 15 Serg. & R. (Pa.)
100, 536

Roth y. Railroad Co., 34 N. Y.

294

548, 554
Roth v. Roth, 104 Tl. 35, 289
Rothchild v. Kohn (Ky.), 19 S.

W. R. 180, 499
Hetneiale v. United States, 6 Ct.

of Cl. 204, 116
Rothermel v. Marr, 98 Pa. St. 285, 472
Rothrock v.‘Perkinson, 61 Ind. 39, 677
Rouch v. Zehring, 59 Pa. St. 74, 740
Roulo v. Valeour, 58 N. H. 347, 545
Rounds vy. McCormick, 11 Bradw.

(T11.) 220, 737, 738
Roundtree v. Stuart, Breese (IIl.),

73, 618
TABLE OF CASES.

CCxxvii

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.]

Rount v. State, 14 Ind. 493,
Rous v. Walden, 82 Ind. 238, 363
Roush vy. Layton, 51 Ind. 106, 1163
Rout v. Ninde, 111 Ind. 597,

171, 175, 641, 1231
Rout v. Ninde, 118 Ind. 123, 8. C.

1231

20 N. E. R. 704, 626, 629
Rowan v. State, 30 Wis. 129, 424
Rowbotham v. Wilson, 8 H. L.

Cases 348, 484
Rowden y. Brown, 91’ Mo. 429, 128
Rowe v. Brenton, 3 Mann. & Ry.

133, ° 707
Rowe v. Canney, 139 Mass. 41, 8.

C. 29 N. E. R. 219, 1124
Rowe v. Godfrey, 16 Me. 128, 514
Rowe v. Palmer, 29 Kan.’337, 275
Rowell v. Klein, 44 Ind. 290, 409, 455
Rowher v. Hill, 60 Me. 172, 470
Rowland v. Murphy, 66 Tex. 534, 378
Rowland v. Shephard, 27 Neb. 497,

S.C. 43 N. W. Rep. 344, 621
Rowlett v. Lane, 43 Tex. 274, 473
Rowley v. Bartholemew, 387 Ia.

374, 33
Rowley v. Bigelow, 12 Pick. 307,

S. C. 23 Am. Dec. 607, 520
Rowley v. Howard, 23 Cal. 401,

317, 456
Rowley v.-Ray, 139 Mass. 241, 1114
Roy v. Horsley, 6 Ore. 382, 8. C.

25 Am. R. 537, 155, 342
Roy v. Goings, 112 Tll. 656, 1120
Roy v. Rowe, 90 Ind. 54, 293

Roy v. Union, etc., Co., 3 Wyo.
417, 8. C. 26 Pac. R. 571, 1224
Royal British Bank v. Turquand,
6 Ell. & Bl. 327, 165
Royal Ins. Co. v. Beatty, 119 Pa.
‘St. 6, 8. C. 12 Atl. R. 607,
Royal Ins. Co. v. Schwing, 87 Ky.
410,
Royal Society v. Campbell, 13 L.
R. A. 601,
Royer v. Fleming, 58 Mo. 438,
Royer v. Foster, 62 Ia. 321, 8. C.
17 N. W. R. 516, 446, 447
Rubber Co.'‘v. Goodyear, 6 Wall.
153, 1203
Rubey v. Shain, 51 Mo. 116, 254
Ruble v. Atkins, 39 Ia. 694, 1143
Ruble v. McDonald, 7 Ia. 90, 1120
Rubottom v. Shank, 5 Blackf.122, 636
Rubush v. State, 112 Ind. 107, 232
Ruby Chief, etc., Co. v. Gurley, 17
Col. 199, S. C. 29 Pac. R. 668, 612
Ruch v. Jones, 33 Mo. 393, 1195
Ruchman v. Decker, 28 N. J. E.5,
1186
799

559
669

569
475

Rucker v. Beaty, 3 Ind. 70,

 

Rucker v. Dailey, 66 Tex. 284, 378
Rucker v. Eddings, 7 Mo. 115, 1051
Rucker vy. Reid, 36 Kan. 468, 512
Rucker v. Steelman, 73 Ind. 396, 34
Rucker v. Wheeler, 127 U.S. 85, 1059
Ruckle v. Barbour, 48 Ind. 271, 403
Ruckman v. Ransom, 23 N. J. Eq.
118, 578, 594

Rudd v. Thompson, 22 Ark. 368, 436

Rudd v. Woolfolk, 4 Bush (Ky.)
555, 231, 232

Ruddell v. Tyner, 87 Ind. 529,

; 1036, 1169
Rude v. Mitchell, 97 Mo. 365, 406
a ia v. Landwerlen, 92 Ind.

820

4,

Rudolph v. Underwood, 88 Ga. 664,
S. C. 16S. E. R. 55, 1046

Rudsdill v. Slingerland, 18 Minn.

382, 803
Rudulph v. Wagner, 36 Ala. 698, 401
Ruff v. Ruff, 85 Ind. 431, 1030
Ruffin v. Ruffin, 112 N. Car. 102,

8. 0.168. E. R. 1021, 1137
Ruffing v. Tilton, 12 Ind. 259, 1100
Ruffner v. Love, 33 Ill. App.601, 413
Ruffner v. Mairs, 33 W. Va. 655,

195, 496

Rugg v. Parker, 7 Gray 172, 191
Rugles v. Keeler, 3 Johns. (N.

Y.) 263, 375
Ruhland v. Jones, 55 Wis. 673,

S.C. 13 N. W. R. 689, 154
Ruhland v. Supervisors, 55 Wis.

664, S.C. 13 N. W. R. 877, 154

Ruloff v. People, 45 N. Y. 213,

29, 30, 816

Rumfelt v. O’Brien, 57 Mo. 569, 266
Rummel v. State, 22 Texas App.

558, 8. C. 38. W. Rep. 763, 696
Rumph v. Hiott, 35 So. Car. 444,

S.C. 158. E. R. 235, 1090
Rumsey v. N. Y.& N. E. Ry. Co.,
183 N. Y.79, 8. C. 28 Am. St. R.

600, 52
Rumsey v. People, 19 N. Y. 41, 122
Runals v. Brown, 11 Wis. 185, 639
Rundell vy. La Fleur, 6 Allen

(Mass.) 480, 596
Runnels v. Kaylor et al., 95 Ind.

503, 190, 192
Runnels v. Moffat, 73 Mich. 188,

8. C. 41 N. W. R. 224, 1248
Runyon v. Farmers’, etc., Bank,

3 Green Ch. 480, 194

Rupp v. Swineford, 40 Wis. 28, 629

Rush vy. Coal Bluff Mining Co.,
181 Ind. 135, 548, 1041, 1050, 1051
Rush y. French, 1 Ariz. 99,
712, 718, 1206
CCXXVill

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. I, pp. 603-1244.)

Rush v. Magee, 36 Ind. 69, 679
Rush vy. Pedigo, 63 Ind. 479, 1094
Rushin v. Shields, 11 Ga. 636, 8.
C. 56 Am. Dec. 436, 1070
Rushing v. Thompson, 20 Fla.
583,
Rushton v. Aspinwall, 2 Dougl.
679, 1209
Rusling v. Bray, 37 N. J. Eq. 174, oT
Russelly. Branham, 8black?.27, 1206

1199

Russell v. Clark, 60 Wis. 284, 596
Russell v. Clark, 7 Cranch 69, 411
Russell v. Coffin, 8 Pick. 143, 738
Russell v. Davis, 51 Minn. 482, S.

C. 53 N. W. R. 766, 1220
Russell v. Dyer, 40 N. H. 173, 453
Russell v. Englehardt, 24 Mo.

App. 36, 389

Russell v. Gilson, 36 Minn. 366,
8. C. 31 N.W. R. 692, 446, 448, 449
Russell v. Glasser, 93 Mo. 358, 8.

C.68. W. R. 362,

Russell v. Gregg, 49 Ta. 89, S.C.
30 Pac. R. 185, 1090

» Russell v. Merrifield, 131 Ind. 148,
S.C. 30 N. E. RB. 957, 536
Russell v. Perry, 16 NH. 100, 220
Russell v. Post, 188 U.S. 425, 548, 544

Russell v. Quinn, 114 Mass. 103,
665, 668
Russell vy. Rosenbaum, 24 Neb.

769, S. C. 40 N. W. R. 287,
Russell v. Russell (Ky.), 12 8.W.
R. 709, 225
Russell v. Smyth, 9 M. & W. 810, 32
Russell v. State, 68 Ga. 785, 543

504

111

Russell v. Wheeler, Hempst. 8, 298
Russell v. Wilson, 18 La. 367, 465
Russell v. Work, 35 N. J. L.316, 465
Rust v. Shackleford, 47 Ga. 538, 656
Ruston v. State, 4 Tex. App. 432, 30
Rutherford v. Davenport, 4 Tex.

Ct. App. C. C. 417, 8. C. 16 8.

W. BR. 110, 456
Rutherford y. Fisher, 4 Dall. 22, 1178
Rutherford v. Geddes, 4 Wall.(U.

8.) 220, 513

Rutherford v. Metcalf, 5 Hayw.

58, 480
Rutter v. Tallis, 5 Sandf. (N. Y.)

610,. 196
Ryal v. Morris, 68 Ga. 834, 884
Ryan v. Begein, 79 Ind. 356, 1068

Ryan v. Burkam, 42 Ind.507, 466, 476
Ryan v. Couch, 66 Ala. 244,

179, 595, 596

Ryan v. Driscoll, 83 Ill. 415, 454

Ryan v. Jackson, 11 Tex. 391, ad
Ryan v. Rockford Ins. Co. 5

Wis. 611, 77 088

 

Ryan v. Varga, 37Ia.78, 184, 165, 324
Ryan v. Wilson, 87 N. Y. 471, 8.

C. 41 Am. RB. 384,
Ryder v. Twiss, 3 Scam. 4,
se v. Wombwell, L. R. 4 Exch.

Ryers, Matter of, 72 N. Y.1,8.C.

89
1201
1041

28 Am. R. 88, 225
Rynes v. Dumont, 136 U. 8. 354, 110
Ryno v. Ryno, 27 N. J. Eq. 522, 335
Ryors v. Prior, 31 Mo. App.555, 1114

Ryttenberg v. Keels (Boe Can ag
S. E. R. 441, 1218

S
Saar v. Fuller, 71 Ia. 425, 1055:
Sabin v. Angell, 44 Vt. 523, 578
Sac Co. v. Hobbs, 72 Ia. 69, 8. C.
383 N. W.R. 368, 527

Sacia v. DeGraaf, 1 Cow. (N. Y.)

356,
Sackett v. Ruder, 152 Mass. 397,58.
C. 9 L. R. A. 391, 25 N. E.R.

380

736, 665:
Saco v. Gurney, 34 Me. 14, 338
Sacramento Savings Bank v. Spen-

cer, 53 Cal. 737, 321
Sadgrove v. Kirby, 6 Durn & E.

488, 965:

Sadler v. Kennedy, 11 W. Va. 187, 386.
Sadler v. Niesz, 5 Wash. 182,8. C.

31 Pac. R. 630, 1136
Sage v. Brown, 34 Ind. 464, 1092, 1095.
Sage v. Evansville, etc., R. "R. Co.

134 Ind. 100, 1076, 1077
Sage v. Memphis, etc., R. R. Co.

18 Fed. R. 571, 8. C. 125 U. 8.

361, 497
Sage v. Railroad Co.,96 U.S. 712, 332
Sage v. State, 127 Ind. 15, 803

Sager v. Blain, 44. N. Y. 445, 71
Sailer v. Barnousky, 60 Wis. 169, 526
Sailly v. Hutton, 6 Wend. (N. Y.)

508, 629
Saint v. Guerrerio, 17 Col. 448, S.
C. 30 Pac. R. 335, 178, 1088

Salem v.Eastern,etc.,Co.,98 Mass.
431, 425
Saline County, In re, 45 Mo. 52, 115
Salisbury v. Howe, 87 N. Y. 128, 111
Salm v. State, 89 Ala. 56,8. C. 8
So. R. 66, 224
Salmon Falls Bank vy. Leyser, 116

Mo. 51, 8. C. 22S. W. R.504, 1208
Salomon v. Cress, 22 Ore. 172, 8.
C. 29 Pac. R. 439, 1079

Saloy v. Collins, 30 La. Ann. 63,
183, 1203
TABLE OF CASES.

ecxxix

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. I, pp. 603-1244.]

Salter v. Salter, 6 Bush.(Ky) 624, 232
Saltmarsh v. Bower, 22 Ala. 221, 548
Saltmarsh v. Tuthill, 12 How. (U.

8.) 387, 254, 492
Saltonstall v. Riley, 28 Ala. 164, 274
Samis v. King, 40 Conn. 298, 1186
Sampson v. Hunt, 1 Root 207, 1186
Sampson v. Welsh, 24 How.(U.S.)

207, 113
Samuel v. Agnew, 80 II]. 553, 473
Samuel v. Wiley, 50 N. H. 358, = 477
Samuels y. Blanchard,25 Wis.329, 111
Samuels v. Cooper, 2 A. & E. 752, 601
Sanborn v. Fellows, 22 N. H.478, 224
Sanborn v. Kittredge, 20 Vt. 632, 301
Sanborn v. Murphy (Tex.), 25 8.

W. R. 459, 1157
Sanchez v. People, 22 N. Y. 147, 662
Sandborn v. Cole, 63 Vt. 590, 8. C.

14 L. R. A. 208, 1082
Sander, etc., Co. v. Yesler’s Es-

tate, 2 Wash. 429, S. C. 27 Pac.

R. 269,

Sanderlin v. Sanderlin, 24 Ga.

583, :

Sanders v. Bagwell, 37S. Car. 145,

8. C.15 8. E. R. 714,

Sanders v. Bridges, 67 Tex. 93,
Sanders v. Bryer, 152 Mass. 141,

S.C. 9 Lawy. R. Anno. 255, 25

N. E. R. 86,
Sanders v. Farrell, 83 Ind. 28,
Sanders v.Hamilton,3 Dana(Ky.)

1183
737
1121
677

400
1235

550, 3875
Sanders v. Loy, 45 Ind. 229, 1182
Sanders v. Peck, 131 Ill. 407, 402
Sanders v. Rains, 10 Mo. 770, 432

361
1073

1096

Sanders v. Sanders, 48 Ind. 84,
Sanders v. State, 94 Ind. 147,
Sanders v. Weelburg, 107 Ind.
266,
‘Sanders v. Williams, 75 Ga. 283,
Sanderson vy. Aetna, etc., Co., 34
O. St. 442, 1142
Sanderson v. Caldwell, 45 N. Y.
398, 539
Sanderson v. Penna. Coal Co., 86
Pa. St. 401, 483
San Diego, etc., Co. v. Neale, 78
Cal. 63, 8. C.3 L. R. A. 83, 1166
Sandford v. Sinclair, 8 Paige (N.
Y.) 378,
Sandford v. White, 56 N. Y. 359,
Sandon v. Proctor, 7 B. & C. 800,
Sandry’s Succession, 11 La. Ann.

496
431
175
290
382

112

85,
Sands v. Gelston, 15 Johns. (N.
Y.) 511

Sandusky, etc., Co. v. Hooks, 83
. Ta. 305, 8. C. 49 N. W. R. 61,

 

Sandwich yv. Dolan, 141 Ill. 430,

31 N. E. R. 416, 179
Sanford v. Boring, 12 Cal. 539, 468
Sanford v. Bulkley, 30 Conn. 344, 400
Sanford v. Dick, 17 Conn. 213, 377
Sanford v. Gates, 38 Kan. 405, 8.

C. 16 Pac. R. 807, 624
Sanford vy. Sanford, 5 Day 353, 289
oa Francisco vy. Fulde, 37 Cal.

5 371
Sanger v. Craddock (Tex.), 2 S.

W. R. 196, 1063
Sanger v. Flow, 48 Fed. R. 152, 180
San Marcial Land Co. v. Staple-

ton, 4 N. Mex. 33, 8. C. 12 Pac.

R. 621, 112
Santa Clara v. So. Pac. R. R. Co.,

18 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 182, 425
Sargeant v. Clark, 108 Pa. St.588, 581
Sargeant v. State Bank, 12 How.

(U. 8.) 871, 451
Sargent v. Flaid, 90 Ind. 501, 608
Sargent v. Hampden, 32 Me. 78, 599
Sargent v. Roberts, 1 Pick. 337,58.

C. 11 Am. Dec. 185, © 1077, 1078
Sargent v. State, 96 Ind. 63, 1217

Sargent v. State, 11 Ohio 472,
© 1112, 1117, 1122
Sartorious v. State, 24 Miss. 602,

179, 695
Sartwell v. Horton, 28 Vt.370, 597
Sasse v. State, 68 Wis. 430, 820
Sasser v. Davis, 27 Tex. 656, 381
Sater v. State, 56 Ind. 378, 1073
Satterlee v. Bliss, 36 Cal. 489, 1128
Satterley v. Morgan, 83 La. Ann.
846, 377

Sauer v. Nevadaville, 14 Col. 54, 475_

Saulet v. Shephard, 4 Wall. 502, 1136

Sauls v. Freeman, 24 Fla. 209, 8.
C. 12 Am. St. R. 190, S. C.4 So.
R. 525,

Saunders v. Coffin, 16 Ala. :421,

Saunders v. Payne, 12 N. Y. S.
735, 395

Saussy v. South Florida R. R. Co.,

219
184

22 Fla. 327, 794
Savage v. Aldren, 2 Stark. 206, 360
Savage v. Carleton, 33 Ala. 443, 413
Savage v. State, 19 Fla. 561, 1202
Savage v. State, 18 Fla. 970, 379
Savannah, etc., R. R. Co. v. Dan-

jels, 90 Ga. 608, S.C. 10 L. R.

A. 416, 1064
Savannah, etc., R. Co. v. Lancas-

ter, 62 Ala. 555, 487
Savannah, etc., Co. v. Savannah,

etc., Co., 87 Ga. 261, 8. C. 13 8.

E. R. 512, 480
Savery v. Busick, 11 Ia. 487, 1160
CCXxxX

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. I, pp. 603-1244.)

Savings, etc., Society v. Horton,

63 Cal. 310,

Savings, etc.,Society v. Thompson,

82 Cal. 347,

Sawin v. Kenny, 93 U.S. 289, 1194
Sawyer v. Boston, 144 Mass. 470, 1170
Sawyer v. Chambers, 43 Barb. 622, 692
Sawyer v. Corse, 17 Gratt. 230,

1134, 1135
Sawyer v. Fellows, 6 N. H. 107, 8.

C. 25 Am. Dec. 452, 594
Sawyer v. Gill, 3 Wood & M.97, 489
Sawyer v. Hannibal, etc., R. R.

Co., 37 Mo. 240, 1071
Sawyer v. Harmon, 136 Mass. 414, 435
Sawyer v. Harrison, 43 Minn. 297,

8. C. 45 N. W. R. 434, 409
Sawyer v. McCaulay, 18 S. Car.
543 373

Sawyer v. Middlesborough Town
Co. (Ky.), 17 8. W. R. 444, 541

Sawyer v. Price, 6 Ala. 285, 436
Sawyer v. Robertson, 11 Mont.

416, S. C. 28 Pac. Rep. 456, 431
Sawyer v. State, 35 Ind. 80, 1073
Sax v. Davis, 71 Ia. 406, 32 N. W.

R. 403, 512
Saxton v. Bacon, 31 Vt. 540, 534
Saxton v. Smith, 50 Mo. 490, 192
Sayles v. Briggs, 4 Metcf.(Mass.)

421, 180
Sayles v. Davis, 20 Wis. 302, 456
Sayles v. Northwestern Ins. Co.,

2 Curtis 212, 345

Sayles v. Sims, 73 N. Y. 551, 1168
Saylor v. Hicks, 86 Pa. St. 392, 1193
Saylor v.. Mockbie, 9 Ia. 209, 495
Sayre v. Elyton, etc., Co., 73 Ala. a

85,

Sayward v. Carlson, 1 Wash. 29,
_ C. 23 Pa. R. 830, 610

Say ward v. Houghton, 82 Cal. 628, 627

Seagel v. Chicago, etc., Co., 83 Ia.

380, S. C. 49 N. W. R. 990,

1090, 1093
Scales v. Cockrill, 3 Head 432, 372
Scales v. Shackleford, 64Ga.170, 719
Scammon y. Chicago, 40 Ill. 146, 449
Scammon v. Scammon, 28 N. H.

419, 453
Scanlan v. O’Brien, 21 Minn. 434, 469
Scarborough v. Reynolds, 12 Ala.

252, ° 582
Scattergood v. Wood, 79 N. Y. 263,

8. C. 35 Am. R. 515, 719
Scearce v. Scearce, 7 Ind. 286, 598
Seawell v. Crawford, 55 Fed. R.

_ 729, 1198
Schaeffner’s Estate, 45 Wis. 614, 636
Schafer v. Weaver, 20 Kan. 294, 1048

 

Schaffner v. Kober, 2 Ind. App.
409, S. C. 28. N. E. R. 871, 1095

Schall v. Eisner, 59Ga.190, 362, 742

Scharble v. Life Ins. Co., 9 Phila.

136, 30
Schaser v. State, 36 Wis. 429, 790
Scheibel v. Fairbain, 1 Bos. &

Pul. 388, 553

Scheland v. Erpelding, 6 Ore. 258, 159
Schell v. Leland, 45 Mo. 289, 446, 614
Schellhouse v. Ball, 29 Cal. 605, 1159

Schen, In re, 74 N. Car. 607, 341
Schemerhorn v. L’Espenasse, 2
Dall. 360, 486

Schenectady & S. Plank Road Co.

v. Thatcher, 6 How. Pr. 226,

1190, 1203
Scherer v. Ingerman, 110 Ind.

428, 237, 636
Scheu v. Benedict, 116 N. Y. 510,

S. S. 22 N. E. R. 1073, 554
Schilling v. Durst, 42 Pa. St.126, 550
Schindell v. Gates, 46 Md. 604, 384
Schindler v. Smith, 18 La. Ann.

476, 470
Schissel v. Dickson, 129 Ind. 139,

S. C. 28 N. E. R. 540, 319, 448
Schlacker v. Ashland Iron Min.

Co., 89 Mich. 253, 8. C. 50 N.W.

R. 839, 534
Schlaff v. Louisville, etc., R. R.
Co. (Ala.), 14 So. R. 105, 740

Schlawig v. De Peyster, 83 Ia. 323,
8. C. 13 L. R. A. 785, 8. C. 49

N. W. R. 848, 438
Schlemmer v. Myerstein, 19 How.
Pr. 412, 1206

Schlitz v. Meyer, 61 Wis. 418,. 605
Schlitz Brewing Co. v. McCann, ,

118 Pa. St. 314, 8. C. 12 Atl. R.

445, 559
Schloss yv. Creditors, 31 Cal. 203, 27
Schloss v. Joslyn, 61 Mich. 267,8.

C. 28 N. W. R. 96, 313
Schloss v. White, 16 Cal. 65,

"319, 1196

Schlotter v. State, 127 Ind. 493, 820
Schlueter v. Raymond,7 Neb.281, 199
Schlungger v. State, 118 Ind. 295,
148, 233
Schmeiding v. Ewing, 57 Mo. 78, 361
Schmidt v. Bauer, 80 Cal. 565, 369
Schmidt. v. Chicago, ete., R. R.
Co., 83 Ill. 405, 664
Schmidt v. Colley, 29 Ind. 120,
467, 1233
Schmidt v. Glade, 126 Ill. 485, 599
Schmidt v. Mitchell, 84 Ill. 195, 629
Schimidt v. Schmidt, 47 Minn.
451, 8. C. 50 N. W. R. 598, 1129

oe
TABLE OF CASES.

cexxxi

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.

Schimdt v. Thomas, 33 Ill. App.

109, 320
Schmitt v. Schmitt, 32 Minn. 130, 1166
Schmohl v. Fusco, 16 N.Y. 8.862, 162
Schnabel v. Betts, 23 Fla. 178, 519
Schneider v. Haas, 14 Ore. 174, Ss.

C. 58 Am. R. 296, 179
Schneider vy. Hosier, 21 Obio St.

98 1067

Schneider v. Second Ave. R. R.
Co., 183 N. Y. 583,
-Schneider v. Tombling, 34 Neb.
661, S. G. 52 N. W. R. 283,
Schnier v. People, 23 Ill. 17,
Schnitzius v. Bailey: (N. J. ), 18
Atl. R. 192, 1183
Schuur v. Hickcox, 45 Wis. 200, 399
Schock v. Garrett, 69 Pa. St. 144, 363
Schoeffler v. State, 3 Wis. 823,
662, 666
Schoelkop v. Leonard, 8 Col. 159, 531
Schoener v. Lissauer, 107 N. Y.

547

1230
742

111, 377
Schofield v. Ferrers, 47 Pa. St.
194, 544

Schofield v. R. R. Co., 114 U.8.
615, S. C. 5 Sup. Ct. R. 1125,
Schofield v. Walrath, 35 Minn.

356,
Schoff v. Bloomfield, 8 Vt. 472,
School Law Manual, In re, 63 N.

1054

736
581

H. 574, 119
School Dist. v. Cooper, 29 Neb.
433, 8.C.45N.W.R.618, 254, 1184

School District v. Lynch, 33 Conn.

380, 537
School Town of Rochester v. Shaw,

100 Ind. 268, 21, 823
Schooner Bolina, etc., 1 Gal. (U.

8. C. C.) 75 276
Schooner Constitution v. Wood- .

worth, 1 Scam. 511, 296
Schooner Little Charles, 1 Brock.

354, 277
Schoonover v. Reed, 65 Ind. 313, 1237
Schrack v. Zubler, 34 Pa. St. 38, 371
Schrader v. Hoover (Ia.), 54 N.

W. R. 463 1067

. R. 463,
Schriber v. Richmond, 73 Wis. 5,
8. C. 40 N. W..R. 644, 1
Schrieber vy. Carey, 48 Wis. 208,
Schrier v. Milwaukee, etc., Co., 65

Wis. 457, 159
Schriver v. State, 9 Gill and J.

(Md.) 1 599
Schroder v. Schmidt,71 Cal. 399, 1203

Schroeder v. Chicago R. L.,ete., R.
R. Co., 47 Ia. 375, 810
Schroeder v. Merchants’ ,etc., Ins.
Co., 104 Ill. 71, 377

%

 

. Schroeder v. Schmidt,74 Cal. 459, 1044

Schrubbe v. Connell, 69 Wis. 476,
8. C. 34. N. W. R. 508,
Schuchardt v. Allens, 1 Wall. U.
S. 359,
Schuler v. Israel, 120 U. 8. 506,
Schultz v. Board, 95 Ind. 323,
Schultz v. Cremer, 59 Ia. 182,
Schultz v. Lempert, 55 Tex. 273,
Schultz v. McLean, 76 Cal. 608, 8.
C. 18 Pac. 775, 1178
Schultz v. Meiselbar, 144 Il]. 26, 1200
Schultz v. Moon, 33 Mo. App. 329, 621
Schultz v. Schultz, 10 Gratt. 358,
S. C. 60 Am. Dec. 335, 264, 274
Schultz v. Third Avenue, etc., Co.,
89 N. Y. 242, 408, 797
Schultze v. McLeary, 73 Tex. 92,
S.C. 118. W. R. 924, 224, 229
Schum v. Penna. R. R. Co., 107
Pa. St. 8, 547
705

1090

736
475
364
1089
598

Schumann yv. Pilcher, 36 Ill. App.

43,
Schuster v. Rader, 13 Col. 329,
184, 1189
Schuster v.Stout,30 Kan. 529, 180, 783
Schutt v. Large, 6 Barb. (N. Y.)
373, 549
Schuttler v. King, 12 Mont. 149,
30 Pac. R. 25, 431
Schuyler Nat. Bank v. Bollong,28
Neb. 684, 8. C.45 N.W.R. 164, 460
Schuyler v. Van Der Veer, 2 Caines
(N. Y.) 235, 595
Schuylkill County v. Boyer, 125
Pa. St. 226, 113, 332, 609
Schwab y. Mabley, 47 Mich. 512, 613
Schwab v. Owens, 11 Mont. 473, 8.
C. 29 Pac. 190, 1082

’ Schwabacker v. Reilly,2 Dill.127, 436

Schwarz v. Oppold,74N.Y.307, 1213
Schwass v. Hershey, 125 111.628, 502
Scobey v. Walker, 114 Ind. 254, 484
Scofield v. Whitelegge, 49 N. Y.
259, 528
Scogins v. Perry, 46 Tex. 111, 297
Scoland v. Scoland, 4 Wash. 118,
S.C. 29 Pac. R. 930, 179

Scorpion, etc., Co. v. ‘Marsano 10

Nev. 370, 298, 445, 452
Scott v. Allen, 1 Tex. 508, 1181
Scott v. Avery, 5 H. L. Cases 811, 408
Scott v. Barnes, 7 Pa. St. 134, 595
Scott v. Board, 101 Ind. 42, 1226, 1233
Scott v. Buchanan, 11 Humph.

(Tenn.) 468, 506
Scott v. Chope, 33 Neb. 41, 8. C.

49 N. W. R. 940, 655, 660, 1167
Scott v. Coxe, 20 Ala. 294, 524, 715
Scott v. Crews, 72 Mo. 261, 221
CCXxXxil

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. IT, pp. 603-1244.]

Scott v. Cromwell, Breese (Ill.)25, 620
Scott v. Doneghy,17 B. Mon. (Ky.)
321, 465

Scott v. Hull, 8 Conn. 296 669
Scott v. Hull, 14 Ind. 136, 6038, 604
Scott v. Jones, 4 Taunt. 865, 506

Scott v. Hunter, 46 Pa. St. 192,
Scott v. Key, 11 La. Ann. 232,
Scott v. Liverpool, etc., Co., 1 Giff.

216,.8. C. 27 L. J. Ch. 641. 406
Scott v. Liverpool, etc., Co., 3 De

G. & J. 334, 407
Scott v. Minneapolis, ete.,42 Minn.

179, 1202
Scott.v. Moore, 41 Vt. 205, 665
Scott v. Morse, 54 Ia. 732, 1160
Scott v. Nichols, 27 Miss. 94, 8.C.

61 Am. Dec. 503, 364
Scott v. Niles, 40 Vt. 573, 604
Scott v.Pentz,5Sandf.(N.Y.)572, 506
Scott v. People, 142 Ill. 291, 8. C.

33 N. E. R. 180,

Scott v. People, 141 I. 195, 8. C.

80 N. E. R. 329, 525,
Scott v. Scott, 110 Pa. St. 387, 8

534
292

557
1072

C. 2 Atl. R. 531, 1112
Scott v. Sheakly, 3 Watts (Pa.)50, 541
Scott v. State, 7 Lea (Tenn.) 232, 821
Scott v. State, 64 Ind. 400, 797

Scott v. Van Sandau, 6 Q. B. 287,

Scott v. Willis, 122 Ind. 1,

Scotland Co. vy. Hill, 112 U. 8.
183,

593
411

714

Scotten v. Divilbiss, 60 Ind..37, 1234
Scotton v. Mann, 89 Ind. 404, 1193
Screven v. Clark, 48 Ga. 41, 409
Scripps v. Reilly, 88 Mich. 10, 713

Scripps v. Reilly, 35 Mich. 371, 8.
C. 24 Am. Rep. 575,

698, 693, 819, 823°

Scriven vy. Hursh, 39 Mich. 98, 1180

Scroggs v. Stevenson, 100 N. Car.
304, 1148, 1207

Scruggs v. Scruggs, 46 Mo. 271, 435

Scudder v. Massengill, 88 Ga. 245,
S.C. 148. E. R. 571, 434

Scudder yv. Morris, 3 N. J. L. 18,
8. C. 4 Am. Dee. 382, 895

Scudder v. Trenton Co., 1 Saxton
Ch. (N. J.) 694, S. C. 23 Am.
Dec. 756,

Scudder v. VanAmburgh, 4 Edw.
Ch. 29,

Scuffletown, etc., Co. v. McAllis-
ter, 12 Bush. 312,

Seaboard Mfg. Co. v. Woodson
94 Ala. 143, 8. C.10 So. R. 87,
Seabury v. Bolles, 51 N. J. L. 108,
S. C21 Atl. B.'952, 8. €.1. G.
R, A. 136, 535

643
499
136
1069

 

Seal v. State, 13 Smed. & M.

(Miss.) 286, 668
Seale v. Mitchell, 5 Cal. 401, 119
Sealy v. California Lumber Co.,

19 Ore. 94,5. C. 24 Pac. R. 197, 612
Sealy v. State, 1 Ga. 213, 8. C. 44

Am. Dec. 641, 802
Seamster v. Blackstock, 83 Va.

232, 8. C. 5 Am. St. R. 262, 340
Searcy v. Hunter, $1 Tex. 644,58. —

C. 26 Am. St. R. 837, 554, 556
Sears v. Carrier, 4 Allen, 339, 354
Sears v. Starbird, 78 Cal. 225, 8. C.

20 Pac. R. 547, - 384, 454
Sears v. Terry, 26 Conn. 273, 314
Sears v. Vincent, 8 Allen (Mass.)

507, 598
Seaside Hotel Co. v. Hazelhuro

(N. J.), 25 Atl. R. 201, ‘ 485!
Seaton v. Swem, 58 Ia. 4, 653
Seavey v. Potter, 121 Mass. 297, 353
Seavey v.Seavey, 30I]].App.625, 1129
Sebree v. Dorr, 9 Wheat. (U. 8.)

558, 502, 504
Seckler v. Delfs, 25 Kan. 159, 1179
Secombe v. Kittelson, 29 Minn.

555, 144
Second Nat. Bank v. Wentzel, 151

Pa. St. 142, S.C. 24 Atl. R. 1087, 799
Secor v. Witter, 39 Ohio St. 218, 473

Security Co. v. Arbuckle, 123 Ind. ~
518, S. C. 24 N. E. R. 329, 450, 451
Sedgwick v. Mench, 6 Blatchf.

156, 195
Seebrock v. eee Sy Neb. 424,

8. C. 46 N. W. R. 6 679
Seeley v. Taylor, 17 Col, 70, 8. C.

28 Pac. R. 723, 319
Seely v. Howard, 13 Wis. 336,  -404
Seely v. Pelton, 63 Ill. 101,

585, 587, 597
Seem v. McLees, 24 Il. 192, 396
Seers v. Grandy, 1 Johns. (N.Y.)

514, 622
Segar v. Parrish, 20 Gratt. 672, 132
Segars v. Segars, 76 Me. 96, 457
Segee v. Thomas, 3 Blatchf. 11, 327
Segrist v. Crabtree, 131 U. S. 287,

8. C.9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 687, 550
Seibel v. Simeon, 62-Mo. 255, 299
Seibert v. Leonard, 21 Minn. 442,

1068
Seifert v. Brooks, 34 Wis. 448, 424
Seifrath v. State, 35 Ark..412,. 1156
Seig v. Long, 72 Ind. 18, 192
Seip v. Torch, 52 Pa. St. 210, 517
Seligman v. Rogers, 113 Mo. 642,

$C. 21S. W. BR. 94, "1057
Sellars v. Carpenter, 27 Me. 497, 173

Selleck v. French, 6 Am.Dec. 188, 394

 
TABLE OF CASES.

ccxxxiil

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.]

Selleck v. Phelps, 11 Wis. 380,
Seller v. Jenkins, 97 Ind. 430,

196

736, 799
Sellers v. Cheney, 70 Ga. 790, 142
Sellers v. Jones, 22 Pa. St. 423, 550

Sellers v. Myers, 7 Ind. App.

S. C. 34. N. E.R. 496,
Sellers v. People, 4 mu. 412, 668
Sellick v. Adams, 15 Johns. 197,

574, 596
Sells v. Hoare, 3 Brod. & Bing.

232, 723
Selover yi ae (Minn.), 21 L.

R. A. 4 796
Semple v. ‘Gochringer (Minn.), 54

N. W. R. 481, 592
Senft v. Manhattan, etc., Co., 14

N. Y. Sup. 876,

Senn vy. Southern R. RB. Co., 108
Mo. 142,8.C.18S. W.R. 1007,
Sennott’s Case, 146 Mass. 489, 'g.

C.16N. E.R. 448,
a. Co. v. Thompson, 38 Wis.
4
Sercomb v. Catlin, 128 Il]. 556,
Sergeant v. Dwyer, 44 Ivlinn. 309,
S.C. 46N. W. R. 444, .
ne v. Wells, 1 Cow. (N. Y.)
196,
Sarle v. Arnold, 7 R. I. 582,
Serles v. Cromer, 88 Va. 426, 8. C.
13S. E. R. 859,
Sermon v. Black. 79 Ala. 507, 318
Servatius v. Pickel, 30 Wis. 507, 639
Sessengut v. Posey, 67 Ind. 408, 1229
Sessions v. Johnson, 95 U. 8.
347, 1195
Settle v. Alison, 8 Ga. 201, 8. C.
52 Am. Dec. 393, 897, 1120
Settlemier v. Sullivan, 97 U.S. 444,

148,
1048

110
811
341
1214

5859

627
740

1177

438, 439, 452
Sevier v. Teal, 16 Tex. 371, 146
Seving v. Gale, 28 Ind. 486, 567

Sewall v. Glidden, 1 Ala. 52,

Sewall v. Ridlon, 5 Greenl. (Me.)
452,

Sewall v. Robbins, 139 Mass. 164,

Sewall v. Sewall, 122 Mass. 156,

Seward v. Arms, 145 Mass. 195,

Seward v. Hayden, 150 Mass. 158,
S. C. 22 N. E. R. 629,

Seward v. Jackson, 8 Cow. (N.Y.)
406, 1103

Seward v. Rochester, 109 N.Y. 164, 589

Sewell v. Gardner, 48 Md. 178, 795

C. 17 N. Y. Supp. 437, 185, 187
‘Sexton v. Pike, 18 Ark. 193, 262, 1130
Sexton v. Rhames, 13 Wis. 99, 444
Seymour v. Bailey, 76 Ga. 338, 677

1106

146
513
287
473

379

.,: Sexton v. Bennett, 63 Hun 624, Ss.

 

Seymour v. Board of Supervisors,
40 Wis. 62,

popeue v. Cummins, 119 Ind.
4

Seymour v. Delancy, 3 Cowan 445,

C. 14 Am. Dec. 552, 176
Seymour v. Ely, 37 Conn. 103, 1241
Seymour v. Judd, 2.N. Y. 464, 298
Seymour v. Hazard, 1 Johns. Ch,

(N. Y.) 1, 476
Seymour v. Phillips, etc., Co., 7

Biss. (C. C.) 460, 173
Seymour v. State, 15 Ind. 288, 138
Seymour, etc., Co. v. Brodhecker,

130 Ind. 389, 1227, 1235

Shackleford v. Bailey, 35 111.387, 551
Shackleford v. Levy, 63 Miss.125, 191
Shackleford v. Purket, 2 A. K.
Marsh. (Ky.) 435, 8. C. 12 Am.
Dee. 432, 584, 597
Shackleford v. State, 79 Ala. 26, 632
Shackelford’s Adm’r. v. Shackel-
ford, 32 Gratt. (Va.) 481, _ 497
Shackman v. Little, 87 Ind. 181, 434
Shadbourne v. Zilsdorf, 34 Minn. a
/1L

43,

Shaefer v. Gates, 2 B. Mon. (Ky.)
453, 8. C. 38 Am. Dec. 164, 428

Shaeffer v. Hoffman, 113 Pa. St. 1, 382

Shafer v. Munma, 17 Md. 331, 119
Shaffer v. Sandwall, 33 Ia. 579, 465
Shaffer v. State, 27 Ind. 131, 1124
Shaffer v. Trimble, 2 Greene (Ia.)

464, 604
Shafto v. Shafto, 28N. J. Eq. 34, 808
Shahan v. Swan, 48 Ohio St. 25, S.

C. 26 N. E. R. 222, 704
Shaifer v. Baker, 38 Ga. 135, 579
Shainwald y. Lewis, 6 Fed. R.

766, 487
Shainwald v. Lewis, 46 Fed. R.

839, 476
Shand v. Hanley, 71 N. Y. 319 187
Shane v. MeNeill, 76 Ia. 459, 8. C.

41 N. W. R. 166, 73
Shank y. Fleming, 9 Ind. 189, 675
Shank v. Shoemaker, 18N.Y.489, 569
Shanklin v. Sims, 110 Ind. 148, 484
Shannon v. Hanks, 88 Va. 338, 8.

C. 138. E. R. 487, 194, 496
Sharkey v. Mansfield, 90 N. Y.

227, 364
Sharman v. Morton, 31 Ga. 34, 619
Sharon v. Sharon, 79 Cal. 635, 804
Sharon v. Terry, 36 Fed. R. 337, 299
Sharon v. Tucker, 144 U. 8. 533,

S. C. 12 Sup. Ct. R. 720, 871
Sharp v. Brunnings, 35 Cal. 528, 320
Sharp v. Daugney, 33 Cal. 505, 451
Sharp v. Hall, 86 Ala. 110, 800, 801
CCXXXiV

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.]

Sharp v. Maguire, 19 Cal. 577,

Sharp v. Malia, 124 Ind. 407,

1108, 1150

-Sharp v. Mofiitt, 94 Ind. 240, 1200
Sharp v. Pike, 5 B. Mon. (Ky.)

161

155,
Sharp v. Sharp, 27 Ind. 507, 1138
516, 1069

Sharp v. State, 51 Ark. 147, S. C.
14 Am. St. R. 27,
Sharp v. Todd, 38 Nua Eq. ks 404
Sharpe v. oe Paulo, etc., Co.,
R. 8 Ch. 597 406
Shatto v. Crocker, 87 Cal. 629, S.
C. 25 Pac. R. 921,
ERs v. Allen, 4 Gray (Mass.)
40,
Shattuck v. Cassidy, 3 Ed. Ch. R.
152, 281
Shattuck v. Myers, 13 Ind. 46, 8.
C. 74 Am. Dec. 236, 629 , 781
Shattuck v. North British, ete.,
Co., 58 Fed. 609, 1113
Shaughessey v. St. Louis, etc.,
Co., 7 Mo. App. 591, 1233
Shaver v. Letherby, 73 Mich. 500,
8. 0.41 N. W. R. 677,

Shaver v. McCarthy, 110 Pa. St.
339,

Shaver v. White, 6 Munf. 110, 310
Shaw v. Beers, 25 Ala. 449, 354
Shaw vy. Bill, 95 U.S. 10, 459

Shaw v. Burney, 86 N. Car. 331,
Shaw v. Cade, 54 Tex. 307,

Shaw v. Chicago, etc., R. R. Co.,
82 Ia. 199, 47 N. W. R. 1004,
Shaw v. County Court, 30 W. Va.

488, 1025
Shaw v. Gould, L. R. 3 H. L.

s. 55, 292
Baw v. "Hamilton, 10 Ind. 182,
626, 632, 635

566

Shaw v. Lyford, 14N.H.121, 1048
Shaw v. McCombs, 2 Bay. (8S. .
Car.) 232, 1111
Shaw v. N. Y., ete., oe 150
Mass. 182, S. C. 22 N. ‘
884, 1148
Shaw v. Padley, 64 Mo. 519,
1135, 1139

Shaw v. Quincy Min. Co., 145 U.

8. 444, 8. C. 12 Sup. Ct. R. 935,
312, 613
Shaw v. Schoonover, 130 Ill. 448, 519
Shaw v. Williams, 87 Ind. 158,
S. C. 44 Am. R. 756, 449
Shaw v. Wood, 8 Ind. 518, 1122

Shawhan v. Loffer, 24 Ia. 217,
274, 427

Shawneetown v. Baker, 85 Ill.

563, 581

378.

 

Shay v. Richmond, 1 Bush. (Ky.)

108, 1042
Sheahan v. Barry, 27 Mich. 217, 1097
Shealy v. Edwards, 75 Ala. 4ll, 1070
Sheanon v. Pac. Mut. Ins. Co., 83

Wis. 507, 8. C. ae Ble We Ey,

878,

Shearer. Handy, 22 Pick. (Mass.
598

417,
Shearer v. Peele (Ind. App.), a
. E. R. 455,
sie N. Y., etc., Mills, nu
How. Pr. 269, 1180
Shearman v. State, 1 Tex. App.
215, S. C. 28 Am. R. 402, 143
Sheboygan vy. Sheboygan, etc.,
Co., 21 Wis. 667, 483
Shed v. Hawthorne, 3 Neb. 179, 483
Shedden v. Patrick, 1 Macqu.835, 292
Sheehan’s Case, 122 Mass. 445, 8.

C. 23 Am. R. 374, 216.
Sheehan, etc., Co. v. Sims, 36 Mo.
App. 224, 611, 1212

Sheehy v. "Mandeville, 6 Cranch

254, 1195.
Sheeks v. Fillion, 3 Ind. App. 262,

8. C.29N. E. R. 448, 257, 486
Sheeley v. Wiggs, 32 Mo. 398, 346
Sheets v. Bray, 125 Ind. 33, 668, 1182
Sheets v. Selden, 2 Wall. (U. 82)

177, 379
Sheffield v. Clark, 73 Ga. 92, 596
Sheffield v. Mullin, 28 Minn.251, 1163
Sheibley v. Hill, 57 Ga. 232, 519

Shelburn v. Robinson, 8 Ill. 597, 364
Shelby v. Commonwealth, 91 Ky.

563, S. C. 18S. W. R. 461, 664
Shelby v. Guy, 11 Wheat. (U.8.)

361, 373
Shelby v. State, 97 Ala. 87, S.C.

11 So. R. 727, 1064
Sheldon vy. Atlantic Fire, etc., Co.,

26 N. Y. 460, S. C. 84 Am. Dec.

218, 1045.

Sheldon v. Burry,39 Ill. App. 154, 514
Sheldon v. Newton, 3 Ohio St. 494,
242, 274, 293
Sheldon v. Stryker, 42 Barb. 284, ‘1164
Sheldon vy. Wright, 1 Seld. (N.Y.)
497, 242, 318, 320, 427
Shellenbarger v. Biser, 5Neb.195, 345
Shelton v. Alcox, 11 Conn. 240,
594, 598.
Shelton v. O’Brien, 76 Ga. 820, 1120
Shelton v.Tiffin,6 How.(U.S.)163, 312
Shenandoah Valley R. R. Co. v.
Ashby, 86 Va. 232, 8.C.19 Am.
St. R. 898, 435, 436
Shenners v. West Side, etc., Co., 78
Wis. 382,8.C.47N.W.R. 622, 1097
‘TABLE OF CASES.

CCXXXV

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.]

Shepard v. Giddings, 22 Conn. .
504, 507
Shepard v. Missouri Pac. R. R.
Co., 85 Mo. 629, S. C. 55 Am. R.

390, 810
‘Shepard v. New York, etc., Co.,

60 Hun 584, 8. C.15 N. Y. Supp.

175, 1215
Shepard v. Ryers, 15 Johns. (N.

Y.) 497 598

Shepard v. Wright, 113 N. Y.582, 312
Shephard v. Brenton, 20 Ia.41, 1190

Shephard v. City of Wheeling, 30
W. Va. 479, 8. C. 48. E. R. 635, 213
Shephard v. Rhodes, 60 Ill. 301, 335
Shepherd v. Cassiday, 20 Tex.24, 542

Shepherd v. Pepper, 133 U. 8.
1186

626,
Shepherd v. State, 64 Ind. 43, 1170
382, 383

ie Thompson, 122 U. 8.
231
Shepherd v. Ware, 46 Minn. 174;

8. C. 24 Am. St. R. 212, 444
Shepherd v. White, 11 Tex. 346, 536
Shepley v. Waterhotse,22 Me.497, 384
Sheppard v. Steele, 43 N. Y.52, 349
Sherfey v. Evansville, etc., Rail-

road Co., 121 Ind. 427, 1088, 1089
Sheridan v. Feu City, ete., R.

R. Co., 36 N. Y. 39, 534
Sheridan v. \J ackson, 72N, Y.170, 528
Sherin v. Brackett, 36 Minn. 152, 371
Sherley v. Billings, 8 Bush. (Ky.)

147, §. C. 8 Am. Rep. 451, 77
Sherman v. Barnard, 19 Barb. (N.

Y.) 291, 567
Sherman v. Bemis, 58 Wis. 343, 500
Sherman v: Clark, 4 Nev. 138, 481
Sherman v. Gundlach, 37 Minn.

118, ABT
Sherman v. Hogland, 73 Ind. 472, 514
Sherman v. McCarthy, 57 Cal.507, 34
Sherman vy. Nixon, 87 Ind. 153, 190
Sherman v. Sherman, 2 Bro. C.C.

(Perkins’ ed.) 370, 476
Sherry v. Picken, 16 Ind. 3875, 893
Sherry v. Sampsoa, 11 Kan. 611, 213
Sherwood v. Titman,55 Pa.St.-77, 719
Shewalter v. Bergman, 123 Ind.

155, 181, 315, 1130, 1238
Shew v. Hews, 126 Ind. 474, 695
Shewell v. Keen, 2 Whart. (Pa. Ny

832,

Shickle, etc., Iron Co. v. Wiley, |

etc., Co., 61 Mich. 226, 8. C.1

Am. St. R. 571, 442
Shiedley v. State, 23 Ohio St. 130, 738
Shiel v. Maffett, 17 Ind. 316, 159, 161

Shields v. Arnold, 1 Blackf. 109,
1025, 1034

 

Shields v. Cunningham, 1 Blackf.
780

86
Shields v. State, 95 Ind. 299, 657
Shields v. Taylor, 185.& M.127, 1188

Shiels v. Stark, 14 Ga. 429, 1071
Shifflet v. Morelle, 68 Tex. 382, 1099
Shillito v. Sampson, 61 Ia. 40, 714

Shimer v. Morris, etc., Co., 27 N.

J. Eq. 364
Shinnabarger v. Shelton, 41 Mo.

App. 147, 1081
Shipman v. Fletcher, 82 Va. 601,

593, 601
Shippen v. Kimball, 47 Kan. 173,

S. C. 27 Pac. R. 818, 445
Shircliff v. State, 96 Ind. 369, 169, 625
Shirk v. Wilson, 13 Ind. 129, 468
Shirley v. Byrnes, 34 Tex. 625, 469
Shirley v.Hagar,3 Blackf.225, 432,604

484

Shirley v. Wright, Salk. 700, 432
Shirts v. Irons, 28 Ind. 458, 159
Shirts v. Irons, 37 Ind. 98, 512
Shirts v. Irons, 47 Ind. 445, 637

Shivers v.Shivers,32 N.J.Eq.578, 478
Shivers v. Wilson, 5 Har. & J. 1380, 297
Shockey v. Glasford, 6 Dana(Ky.)
9, 593, 601
Shockley v. Bulloch, 18 Ga. 288, 465
Shockley v. Davis, 17 Ga. 177, 5.
C. 638 Am. Dec. 238, 466
Shoemaker v. Benedict, 11 N. Y.
176, 384
Shoemaker v. Brown,10 Kan. 383, 318
Shoemaker v. National Bank, 2
Abb. 416, 480
Shoemaker v. Smith, 74 Ind. 71,
174, 230, 633, 641, 1158
Shoenberger’s Estate, In re, 139
Pa. St. 1382, 8. C. 20 Atl. R.
1050, 263
Shoner v. Penna. Co., 130 Ind.
170, 8. C. 28 N. E.R. ‘616, 547, 1096

Shonk v. Brown, 61 Pa. St. 820, 117
Shook v. Blount, 67 Ala. 301, 537
Shook v. Pate, 50 Ala. 91, 816
Shook v. Thomas, 21 Tl. 86, * 618
Shore v. Taylor, 46 Ind. 245, 1157
Shores v. Bowen, 44 Mo. 396, 599
Short v. Pratt, 6 Mass. 496, 592
Short v. Stotts, 17 Am. L. Reg.

(N. S.) 587, 949
Bhovwsil v. Smith, 20 N. J. Eq. ise
Shoglte v. McPheeters, 79 Ind.

373, 115
Shover v. State, 10 Ark. 259, 542
Show v. Grace, 25 Ark. 570, 604
Showers v. Robinson, 43 "Mich.

502, 8. C.5 N. W. R.. 988, 318
Shownv. Hawkins, 85 Tenn. 214, 383
CCXXXVI

TABLE OF CASES.

(References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.]

ee v. Dulany, 1 Cranch (U.

3.) 499, 506
Shropshire v. State, 12 Ark. 190, 218
Shroyer v. Bash, 57 Ind. 349,

585, 586, 599
Shroyer v. Richmond, 16 Ohio St.

455, 128, 241
Shufelt vy. Barlass, 33 Neb. 785, 51

N. W. R. 134, 435
Shugart v. Miles, 125 Ind. 445,

118, 237, 1239
Shuk v. Wilson, 18 Ind. 129, 1193
Shular v. State, 105 Ind. 289, 815, 821
Shulenberg v. Farwell, 841]1.400, 469
Shumway v. Stillman, 6 Wend.

447, 242
Shumway v. Stillwell,4 Cow. 292, 329
Shurtleff v. Millard, 12 R. I. 272,

8. C. 384 Am. R. 640, 47
Shutte v.Thompson, 15 Wall. 151, 513
Sias v. Badger, 6 N. H. 393, 455
Sibbald, Ex parte, 12 Pet. 488,

269, 847, 1185
Sibby v. Crossley, 40 Fed. R. 564,
1236
Sibert v. Humphries, 4 Ind. 481, 198
Sibert v. Wilder, 16 Kan. 176, 8.

C. 22 Am. R. 380, 883
Sibley v. Ratliffe, 50 Ark. 477, 8.
c.88. W.R. 686, 525

Sibley v. Smith, 46 Ark, 875, S.C.
55 Am. R. 584,

Sibley v. Waffle, 16 N. Y. 180,

Sice v. Cunningham, 1 Cow. (N.

810
452

Y.) 397, 553
Sickman v. Abernathy, 14 Col.
174, 354

Sickman v. Wilhelm,130 Ind. 480, 1105
Sidelinger v. Bucklin, 64 Me. 371, 806
Sidener v. Davis, 87 Ind. 342,
181 641, 1210, 1230
Sides v. Brendlinger, 14 Neb. 491, 595
Sidney School Furniture Co. v.
Warsaw School Dist., 122 Pa. St.
494, 8. C. 9 Am. St. R. 124,
Sidney, ete., Co. v. Warsaw School
District, 130 Pa. St. 76, 8. C. 18
Atl. R. 604, 149, 234, 1147
ae Vv. Worthington Heirs, 8
» Dana (Ky.) 74, 451
Sieber v. Frink, 7 Col. 148, 156
Siebert vy. State, 95 Ind. 471, 641, 1230

1041

Siebold, Ex parte, 100 U. 8. 871, 256
Siedenbach v. Riley, 111 N. Y. 560,
S.C. 19 N. E. R. 275, 551
Sigafoos v. Minneapolis, etc., Ry.
Co., 39 Minn. 8, 783
Sigourney Vv. Sibley, 21 Pick. 101,
S. C. 382 Am. Dec. 248, 214, 217, 219
Sikes v. Ransom, 6 Johns. 279, 1242

 

Sillivant v. Reardon, 5 Ark. 140, 676
Silsbe v. Lucas, 36 Il]. 462, 246
Silsby v. Michigan Car Co., 95
Mich. 204, S. C. 54 N. W. R.
. 761, 1081
Silva v. Holland, 74 Cal. 530, 8.
C. 16 Pac. R. 385, 1042
Silverman v. Foreman, 3 E. D.

Smith (N. Y.) 322, 705
Silvia v. Garcia, 65 Cal. 591, 485
Simar v. Canaday, 53 N.Y. 298, 1040
Simcock vy. Bank, 14 Kan. 529,

608, 613

Simcoke vy. Frederick, 1 Ind. 54, 435
Simmons vy. Chicago R. R. Co., 110

Ill. 314, 1053

Simmons v. Gardiner, 6 R. I. 255, 437

Simmons v. Henderson, 1 Freem.
(Miss.) 493, 496

Simmons vy. Jacobs, 52 Me. 147, 200

Simmons v. McKay, 5 Bush. 25, 293

Simmons v. Saul, 138 U.S. 439, 8.

C. 11 Sup. Ct. R. 369, 824
Simmons v. State, 61 Miss. 248, 1073
Simmons v. United States, 142 U.

S. 148,S.C.12 Sup. Ct. R. 171, 1071
Simmons Hardware Co. v. Waible,

11 L. R. A. 267, 8. C. 47 N. W.

R. 814,

Simms v. South Carolina R. R.
Co., 27 S. Car. 268, 8. C. 30 Am.
& Eng. R. R. Cas. 571,

Simms v. Todd, 72 Mo. 288,

Simon y. Sevier Co., ete., Assn.
(Ark.), 148. W. R. 1101, 465

Simonds v. Harris, 92 Ind.505, 471

Simons vy. Mills, 80 Cal. 118,8. C.

22 Pac. R. 25, 574, 601
Simons vy. Vulean Oil Co., 61 Pa.

St, 202, 8. C. 100 Am. Dec. 628, 720
Simons v. Walter, 1 McCord (8.

Car.) 97, 394
Simonton y. Barrell, 21 Wend.

811
1068
366

494

547
163

362,
Simpkins y. Smith, 94 Ind. 470,
Simplot v. Chicago, ete., R. R.
Co., 16 Fed. R. 350,
Simpson v. Budd, 91 Cal. 488, S.
C. 27 Pac. R. 758,
Simpson v. Carleton, 1 Allen 109,
8. C. 79 Am. Dee. 707, 505, 510
Simpson v. Carson, 11 Ore. 361, 399
Simpson v. Dall, 3 Wall. (U. 3.)
460, 414, 505
Simpson v. Dismore, 9M.& W.46, 31
Simpson v. Dix, 131 Mass.179, 508
Simpson v. Kirehbaum, 43 Kan.
36,8.C. 22 Pac. R. 1018, 254, 1183
Simpson v. McMillion, 1 Nott &
McC. 192, 248
TABLE OF CASES.

CCXXXV1i

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 608-1244.]

Simpson y. Pegram, 112 N. Car.

541, 8.C. 178. E. R. 480, 538
Simpson v. Potter, 18 Ind. 429, 470
Simpson v. Rothschild, 43 Kan.

83, 8. C. 22 Pac. R. 1019, 1183
Sims, Ex parte, 44 Ala. 248, 1182
Sims v. Bardoner, 86 Ind. 87, 381
Sims v. Boynton, 32 Ala. 353, 537

Sims v. Chattanooga 2 Lea. 694, 366

Sims v. City of Frankfort, 79 Ind.
446, 366

Sims v. Everhardt, 102 U. 8. 300, 381

Sims v.Gay,109Ind.501, 128, 165, 319 | Skipper v. State, 59 Ga. 63, 795
Sims vy. Hundley, 6 How. (U. S.) Skyrme v. Occidental, etc., Co.,

1; 618| 8 Nev. 219, 861
Sims v. Sims, 75 N. Y. 466, 307 |Sladden v. Sergeant, 1 F. & F.
Sims v. State, 30 Tex. App. 605, 322, 802

8. C.188. W. R. 410, 6} Slagle v. Murdock, 65 Mo. 522, 1157
Sims v. State, 28 Tex. App. 447, Slagle v. Rodmer, 58 Ind. 465, 1188

8. C. 138. W. R. 653, 307 | Slater v. Mead, 53 How. Pr. 57, 1123
Sinclair v. Hollister, 16 N. Y.S. Slater v. Sherman, 5 Bush 206, 1164

529, 162 | Slattery v. Donnelly, 1 N. Dak.
Sinclair v. Washington, etc., Co., 264, 8. C. 47 N. W. R. 375, 551

4 McArthur (D. C.) 18, 1181 | Slaughter v. Gregory, 16 Ind. 250, 159
Singleton v. O’Blenis, 125 Ind. Slauter v. Hollowell, 90 Ind. 286, 603 .

151, 8. C. 25 N. E. R. 154, 318, 607 | Slauter v. Whitelock, 12 Ind. 338, 723
Singleton v. Pidgeon, 21 Ind. 118, 236 | Slaven v. Wheeler, 58 Tex. 23, 224
Singleton v.Townsend, 45 Mo.379, 364 | Slavonic, etc., Assn. v. Superior
Sinking Fund Cases, 99 U.S8.700, 115] Ct., 65 Cal. 500,

Sioux City R. R. Co. v. Stout, 17 Slaymaker v. Wilson, 1 R. P. &

Wall. 657, 1056 | W. (Pa.) 216, 365
Sioux City, etc., Co. v. United Sledge v. Blum, 63 N. Car. 374, 490
’ States, 34 Fed. R, 835, 170 | Sleeper v. Free Baptist Assn., 58
Sire v. Ellithorpe, etc., Co., 137 N. H. 27, 437

U. 8.579, 1229, 1239
Sir William Penn v. Lord Balti-

more, 1 Vessey, Sr., 444, 486
Sisk v. Garey, 27 Md. 401, 601
Sisson v. Barrett, 2.N. Y. 406, 1103
Sisson v. Conger, 1 Thomp. & C.

564, 796
Sites v. Eldredge, 45 N. J. Eq. 632,

S. C. 14 Am. St. R. 769, 293

Sites v. Miller, 120 Ind.19, 1210, 1233
Sithin v. The Board, 66 Ind. 109, 975
Sitler v. Gehr, 105 Pa. St. 577, 81
Sitting v. Birkestack, 38 Md. 158, 1076
Sixth Avenue, etc., Co. v. Gilbert,

71 N. Y. 480, 492
Sizemore v. State, 3 Head. 26, 308
Sizer v. Burt, 4 Denio (N.Y.) 426, 593
Sjoberg v. Nordin, 26 Minn. 501, 220
Skaggs v. Given, 29 Mo. App.612, 823
Skaggs v. State, 108 Ind. 53, 741, 1160
Skarp v. Clark, 2 Mass. 91, 197

Skelly v. Bank, 9 Ohio St. 616, 631
Sketchley v. Smith, 78 Ia. 542, 8.
C. 43 N. W. R. 524, 627

Skidaway, etc., Co. v. Brooks, 77

Ga. 136, 189

 

 

Skillen v. Jones, 44 Ind. 136, 394
Skillen v. Skillen, 41 Ind. 122, 1169
Skillings v. Coolidge, 14 Mass.

43 596

Skinner v. Bland, 87 N. Car. 168, 255
Skinner v. Conant, 2 Vt. 453, S.
C. 21 Am. Dec. 554, 201
Skinner v. Max'well, 68 N. Car.
400, 196, 495
Skinner v. Moore, 2 Dev. & Batt.
L. 188, 8. C. 80 Am. Dec. 155, 315
Skinnion v. Kelley, 18 N. Y. 355, 165

Slessman v. Crozier, 80 Ind. 487,
207, 1139
Slicer v. Bank of Pittsburgh, 16
How. (U. 8.) 570, . 820
Slingerland v. Morse,:8 Johns.
(N. Y.) 474, 401
Sloan, Re (N. M.), 24 Pac. R.930, 478
Sloan v. Cent. Ia. R. R. Co., 62 Ia.

728, 547
Sloan v. Coburn, 26 Neb. 607, 8.
C.4L. R. A. 470, 1066
Sloan v. Edwards, 61 Md. 89,
799, 806
Sloan v. Lick Creek, etc., Co., 6
Ind. App. 584, S. C. 83 N. E. R.
997, ‘ 1154
Sloan v. McKinstry, 18 Pa. St.
120, 320
Sloan v. New York, etc., R. R.
Co., 45 N.Y. 125, 801°
Sloan v. Smith, 3 Cal. 410, 635
Sloan v. Wittbank, 12 Ind. 444, 615
Slocomb, Richards, etc., Ex parte,
9 Ark. (4 Eng.) 375, 183
Slocum v. Providence, etc., Co., 10
R. I. 112, 315
eexxXviii

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 608-1244.

550
241
589
1048

: 338
Smith v. Arsenal Bank,104 Pa. St.

518, 1068, 1130

Smith vy. Arthur, 110 N. Car. 400,
S.C. 158. E. R. 197, 504
smith v. Baldwin, 85 Ta. 570, 8. oF

52 N. W. RB. 49 5,

Smith v. Barclay (Minn. ), 55 nN.

W. R. 827,

Smith v. Barker, 3 Day (Conn.)

280, 622
Smith v. Bartram,11 Ohio St. 690, 381
Smith v. Baugh, 39 Ind. 163, 1239
Smith v. Bean, 46 Minn. 138, 8.

C. 48 N. W. R. 687, 1206
Smith v. Bellows, 77 Pa. St.441, 1208
Smith vy. Bivens, 56 Fed. R. 352, 482
Smith v. Blair, 133 Ind. 367,8. C.

32 N. E. R. 1123, 367
Smith v. Blakeman, 8 Bush (Ky.)

476, 281
Smith v. Bossard, 2 McCord’s

Ch. (So. Car.) 406,

Smith v. Boston, ete., Co., 36N.

H. 458,

Smith v. Boston, etc., R. R. Co.,

120 Mass. 490,

Smith v. Bradstreet, 16 Pick.

(Mass.) 264,

Smith v. Brady, 17 N. Y. 173,
Smith v. Braggs, 3 Denio 73,
Smith v. Briscoe, 65 Md. 561,
Smith v. Brittenham, 98 I11. 188,
Smith v. Brown, 136 Mass. 416,
Smith v. Bryan, 74 Ind. 515,
Smith v. Burlingame, 4 Mason

121,

Slocum v. Slocum, 17 Wis. 150, 446
Slone v. Slone, 2 Met. (Ky.) 339, 232
Slowman v. Wiggins, 6 C. B. 276, 580
Small v. Lawrenceburgh, 128 Ind.

483
Small v. McChesney, 3 Cow. (N.

Y.) 19,

C.138. E.R. 589, 1078
Smalley v. Anderson, 2T.B. Mon.
Smalley v. Hendrickson, 29 N. J.

L. 371, 539

Church, 148 Mass. 261, 714

W. R. 8
Smith’s Hiden 52 Mich. 415,

Smith v. Alker, 102 N. Y. 87,
Smith v. Allen, 79 Me. 536,

Sloss v. DeToro, 77 Cal. 129, 305

231, 8. C. 27 N. E. R. 500,

379

Small v. Williams, 87 Ga. 681, 8.

(Ky.) 56, 8.C.15 Am. Dec. 121, 618
Smethurst v. Independent, etc.,
Smiley v. oe (Neb.), 44. N. 8
Smith v. Adams, 130 U.S. 167,
Smith v. Arrapahoe, etc., 4 Col.

235

644

573
545

468
408
408
797
1047
255
381

289

44 | Smith v. Cooley,

 

Smith v. Carrington, 4 Cranch (U.
8.) 62, 526
Smith v. Cassity, 9 B. Mon. (Ky.)
192, 379

Smith v. Chapin, 31 Conn.530, = 371
Smith v. Chicago, etc., R. R. bo. a

60 Ta. 512, 441
Smith v. City Council, etc., 19 Ga.

485

376

89,

Smith y. Clay, Ambler, 645,
Smith v. Collins, 94 Ala. 394, 8.C.

10 So. R. 334, 1069
Smith v. Com. ‘(Ky.), 178. W.R.

868, 622
Smith v. Com. Ins. Co., 49 Wis.

322, 8. C.5 N. W. R. 804, 692
Smith vy. Compton, 6 Cal.-24, 1048
5 Daly (N. Y.)

401, 601
Smith v. Corporation of Washing-

ton, 20 How. (U.S.) 135, 163
Smith v. Creason’s Ex’rs, 5 Dana

(Ky.) 298, 8. C. 80 Am. Dec.

688, 623, 624
Smith vy. Crichton, 33 Md. 103, 1060
Smith v. Cudworth, 24 Pick. 196, 1189
Smith v. Cushing, 18 Wis. 295, 1165
Smith vy. Cutler, 10 Wend. (N. Y.)

589, S. C. 25 Am. Dec. 580, 600

2|Smith v. Demarest, 8 N.J.L.195, 595

Smith v. Dennie, 6 Pick. (Mass.)

262, 560
Smith v. Derr, 34 Pa: St. 126, 8. C.

75 Am. Dec. 641, 292
Smith v. Dickson, 58 Ia. 444, 474
Smith v. Dubuque Co., 1 Ia. 492,

255, 450
Smith v. Eames, 3 Scam. 76, 8. C.

36 Am. Dec. 515, 660
Smith v. Easton, 54 Md. 1388, 503
Smith v. Eaton, 36 Me. 298, S. C.

58 Am. Dec. 746, 280

Smith v. Ellendale Co.,4 Ore. 70, 342
Smith v. Farra, 21 Ore. 395, 8. C.

20 L. R. A. 115, 566

ae Faulkner, 12 Gray (Mass. -

1
Smith v. Finley, 52 Ark. 373, i8
Smith v. Flack, "95 Ind. 116, 1232
Smith v. Floyd, 18 Barb. (N. Y.)

522, 663
Smith v. Gale, 144 U. 8. 509, S. C.

12 Sup. Ct. R. 674, 499
Smith v. Gardner, 12 Ore. 221, 8.

C. 53 Am. R. 342, 350
Snith v. Gillett, 50 Ill. 290, 1041
Smith v. Goodnight, 121 Ind. 312,

8. C. 23 N. E.R. 148, 269, 478

Smith v. Goodwin, 86 Ind. 300,
1109, 1142, 1155
TABLE OF CASES

cCxXxx1x

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. I, pp. 6038-1244.]

Smith v. Gorham, 119 Ind. 486, 714
Smith v. Gould, 6L Wis. 31, 178
Smith v. Grover, 74 Wis. 1h, 1158
Smith v. Hackley, 44 Mo. ‘App.
614, 454

Smith v. Hartley, 10 Com. B.800, 594

Smith v. Haworth, 53 Mo. 88, 226
Smith v. Hays, 23 Ill App . 244, 180
Smith v. Heller, 119 tad. Bie, 1097

Smith v. Henderson, 9 M.& W.798, 31
Smith v. Hess, 91 Ind. 424, 146
Smith v. Holcomb, 99 Mass. 552, 597
Smith v. Hood, 25 Pa. St. 218, 8.
C. 64 Am. Dee. 692, 188, 190
Smith v. James, 131 Ind. 131,
1149, 1210
Smith v. Jeffries, 25 Ind. 376,
636, 638, 1151
Smith v. Judge, 17 Cal. 547, 630
Smith v. Junction, etc., Co., 29
Ind. 546, 248, 1137
Smith v. Keen, 26 Me. 411, 246
Smith v. Kelly, 23 Miss. 167, 8.C.

Smith v. Myers, 5 Blackf. 223, 190

Smith v. Newland, 9 Hun 553, 149

Smith v. Niagara, ete. , Co., 60 Vt.
682, 714

Smith v.Osborn, 45 How. Pr. 351, 1131

Smith v. Paris, 70 Mo. 615, 600
Smith v. Pattison, 45 Miss. 619, 456
Smith v. People, 2 Col. Ct. App. .

99, 8. C. 29 Pac. R. 924, 630
Smith v. Pollock, 2 Cal. 92, 576
Smith v. Putney, 18 Me. 87, 1087
Smith v. Railroad Co., 16 Gray

(Mass.) 521, 600
Smith v. Rines, 2 Sumn. 338, 119
Smith v. Rock, 59 Vt. 232, 485
Smith v. Rollins, 25 Mo. 408, 456
Smith v. Rosenham, 19 Ind. 256, 515
Smith v. Sahler, 1 Neb. 310, 1182
Smith v. Schwed, 6 Fed. R. 455, 486
Smith v. Sherman, 52 Mich. 637, 1208
Smith v. Smith, L. R.20Eq.500, 483
Smith v. Smith, 2 Wend. 624, 1172
Smith v. Smith, 51 Wis. 665, 177, 1163

55 Am. Dec. 87, 292 | Smith v. Smith, 88 Cal. 572, 8. C.
Smith v. Kerr, 49 Hun (N.Y.) 29, 487] 26 Pac. R. 356, 313
Smith v. Kirkpatrick, 58 Ind. 254, Smith v. Smith, 43 La. Ann. 1140,

: 576, 582| §. C. 10 So. R. 248,
Smith v. Kyler, 74Ind.575, 1010, 1231 | Smith v. oy oe Mich. 7,8. 0.
Smith v. Leavitts, 2 Ala. 175, 410; 5IN. W.R. 6 360
Smith v. Little, 67 Ind. 549, 1163 | Smith v. Smith, 3 Til. 56, 591, 601
Smith v. Lockwood, 13 Barb.209, 258 | Smith v. Smith, 4 Rand. 95, 583
Smith v. Los Angeles, etc., Assn., Smith v. Smith, 19 Neb. 706, 287

78 Cal. 289,” 9) Smith v. Smith, 13 Gray 209, 274
Smith v. Mack, 24 N.Y. Supp. 131, Smith v. Smith, 106Ind.43, 641, 1230

S. C. 70 Hun 517, 626

Smith v. Smith, 17 Ind. 75, 152

Smith v. Mayor of Boston, 1 Gray Smith v. Smith, 77 Ind. 80, 641
72, 1180 | Smith v. Smith; 106 Ind. 43, 1215
Smith v. McCall, 2 Humph. 163, 370 | Smith v. Smith, 2 Johns. 235, 389
Smith v. McCarthy, 33 Il. ‘App. Smith v. St. Paul, etc., Co., 32
176, 712, 1097, 1206 Minn. 1, 813
Smith v. McCool, 16 Wall. 560, 1193 | Smith v. St. Louis, etc., Ry. Co.,
Smith v. McDonald, 42 Cal. 485, 293 | 31 Mo. App. 135, 634
Smith v. McKean, 99 Ind. 101, ' |Smith v. State, 132 Ind. 145, 8.
1150, 1219 C. 31 N. E. R. 807, 619, 623
Smith v. McLean, 24 Ia. 322, 83 | Smith v. State, 58 Miss. 867, 803
Smith v. McLean, 22 Ill.App.451, 526 | Smith v. State, 4 Neb. 277, 652
Smith v. Meldren, 107 Pa.St.348, 1121) Smith v. State, 42 Tex. 444, . 815
Smith v. Merchand, 7S.&R. (Pa. ) Smith v. State, 21 Tex. App. 278, 822
260, 1034 | Smith v. State, 2 Ohio St. 511, 812
Smith v. Miller, 8 N. J. L. 175, 8. Smith v. State, 88 Ala. 73, 804
C. 14 Am. Dec. 418, 1191 | Smith v. State, 4 Lea (Tenn.) 428,
Smith v. Minor, 1 N. Je By 16, 596 179, 695
Smith v. Moffatt, 1 Barb. 65, 311 | Smith v. State, 51 Wis. 615, S. C.
Smith v. Mohn, 87 Cal. 489, 8. C. 37 Am. R. 845, 1110
25 Pac. R. 696, 526 | Smith v. State, 1 Tex. App. 408, 189
Smith v. Morrill, 39 Kan. 665, S. Smith v. Steel, 81 Mo. 455, 1203
C. 18 Pac. Rep. 915, 712 | Smith v. Stevens, 10 Wall. 321, 258
Smith v. Myers, 109 Ind. 1 Smith v. Stewart, 41 Minn. 7, s.
113, 170, 248, 251, 609, 1214 C. 42 N. W.R. "595 540

=~

 

t
ecxl

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. I, pp. 603-1244.)

Smith v. Stewart, 5 Ind. 220, 598
Smith v. Strother, 68 Cal. 194,
119, 212

Smyth v. Sturges, 108 N. Y. 495, 359

Smith vy. eee 108 N.
Car. 284,8.C.128. E.R.997, 1213
Smith v. Sweeney, 35 N.Y. 291, 587

Smith v. Thomason, 26 8. Car.
607,

Smith v. Traders’ Nat. Bank, 82
Texas 368, 8. C. 17 8. W. R.

1184

779, 504, 785
Smith v. Trenton, etc., Co., 4 N.

J. Eq. 505, 498
Smith v. Trisbie, 7 Ia. 486, 228

Smith v. Troup, 7 Com. B. 757,

Smith v. Tupper, 4 Sm. & Mar.
261, 8. C. 48 Am. Dec. 483,

Smith v. Uhler, 99 Ind. 140,

1182, 1142

Smith v.United States,94U.S.97, 1217

Smith v. Warden, 35 N. J. L.
346,

Smith y. Warn, 93 Cal. 206, 8. C.

582
826

470

28 Pac. R. 944, 5387
Smith v. Wells, 69 N.Y. 600, 453
Smith v. Wells, 6 Johns. 286, 1197
Smith v. Wheeler, 58 Ia. 659, 376
Smith v. Whittier, 9 N. H. 464, 154
Smith v. Wilcox, 24 N. Y. 353, 449
Smith v. Wilson, 26 Ill. 186, 1212
Smith v. Wood, 42 N. J. Eq. 563, 376

Smith v. Woolfolk, 115 U. 8.148, 335
Smithson v. Dillon, 16 Ind. 169, 140
Smithwick v. Anderson, 2 Swan

(Tenn.) 573, 514
Smock v. Harrison, 74 Ind. 348, 1182
Smoot v. Eslava, 23 Ala. 659, 8.

C. 58 Am. Dec. 310, ‘712, 1215
Smull y. Jones, 6 Watts & 8. (Pa. )

122,

Smurr v. State, 105 Ind. 125, 8.

C.4N. E.R. 445,

105, 125, 142, 148, 164, 216, 233, 1076
Smythe v. Boswell, 117 Ind. 365,

136, 170

Snaderson, In re, 74 Cal. 199, 1129
Snavely v. Abbott Buggy Co., 36
Kan. 106, 8. C. 12 Pac. R. 522,

254, "1183

Snead v. Coleman, 7 Gratt. 300,

S. C. 56 Am. Dee. 112,

Snell v. Bangor, etc., Co., 30 Me.

337, 1120, 1122
Snell’ yv. Gregory, 87 Mich. 500, 794
Snelling’s Will, In re, 186 N. "Y.

515, 8. C. 32N. E.R. 1006, 741
Snelson v. State, 16 Ind. 29, 168, 240
Snider v. Burks, 84 Ala. 53, 8. C.

4 So. R. 225, ’ 535

187

 

Snoddy v. Howard, 51 Ind. 411,
Snodgrass v. Bank of Decatur, 25-
Ala. 161, 8. C. 60 Am. Dec.
505, 367
Snodgrass v. Com., 89 Va. 679, S.
C.178. E.R. 238, 791, 1073
Snodgrass v. Hunt, 15 Ind. 274,
664, 1159
Snodgrass v. Snodgrass, 32 Ind.
406, 350
Snook v. Snetzer, 25 Ohio St. 516, 282

308

Snow v. Carpenter, 54 Vt. 17, 189
Snow v. Conant, 8 Vt. 301, 1172
Snow v. Grace, 25 Ark. 570, 604

Snow v. Indiana, B.&W. Ry .Co.,
109 Ind. 422, S.C. 9N.E, RB 702, 71
Snowden v. Insurance Co., 3 Binn,
(Pa.) 457,
Snowden v. Preston, 73 Md. 261,

8. C. 20 Atl. R. 910, 185
Snowden v. State, 17 Fla. 886, 1171
Snowden v. Warder, 3 Rawle (Pa. ds

101,

Snydacker v. Brosse, 51 Ill. 357,

8. C. 99 Am. Dec. 551, 436
Snyder v. Andrews, 6 Barb. (N.

Y.): 48, 540
Snyder v. Bauchman, 8 8. &R.

(Pa.) 836, 173
Snyder v. Gorden, 46 Hun (N. Y.)

538, 548

Snyder v. Kelso, 3 Wash. 181, 8. ,
C. 28 Pac. R. 335, 1136

Snyder v. Kurtz, 61 Ia. 593,

Snyder vy. Nations, 5 Blackt.
(Ind.) 295,

Snyder v. Schram, 59 How. Pr.
(N. Y.) 404,

oe v. United States, 112 U.

216

434
1113

653 Snyder v. Viola, etc., Co., 2 Idaho

771, 8. C. 26 Pac. R. 127,
Snyder’s Admr. v. McComb, 39
Fed. R. 292, 1177
Sobernheimer v. Wheeler, 45 N.
J. Eq. 614,
Societe Francaise v. District Court,
53 Cal. 495
Sodousky v. McGee, 4 J.J.Marsh.
(Ky.) 267, 676, 818, 819
Soell v. Hadden, 85 Tex. 182, ‘98.
W. R. 1087, 404
John v. Marion, etc., Co., 73 Ind.
1232
587

77,
Solary v. Stultz, 22 Fla. 263,

413
192

1080

496
494

Sollee v. Meugy, 1 Bailey Law/(So.
Car.) 620,

Solomon v. Fuller, 14 Nev. 63,

Solomon v. onto Anz y) 11 Pac.
R. 108, 636, 637
TABLE OF CASES.

eexli

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.]

Solomon vy. Tupelo Compress Co.,
70 Miss. yee 5 . C. 1280. R. 850,
Solomon R. Co. v. Jones, 34
Kan. 443, s” C. 8 Pac. R. 730,
Sommereamp v. Catlow, 1 Idaho

603
1096

16, 627
Somerville v. Dickerman, 127
Mass. 272, 581

Somerville, ete, , Co. v. Doughty,

22N.J.L. 4 788
Soper v. Mannie, 158 Mass. 381,

8. C. 33 N. E. R. 516, 623, 1220
Soper v. Medberry, 24 Kan. 128, 1162
Sopris v. Truax, 1 Col. 89, 1070
Sorrelsv. Trantham, 48 Ark. 386, 361

Soule, In re, 46 Hun (N.Y. ) 661, 434
Soule v. Chase, 39 N. Y. 342, 285
Soule v. Chase, "L Rob. (N.Y. } 222, 449
ee Black (Ia.), 54 N LW.

R. 5 1219

South v. Steele, 3 T. B. Mon.
(Ky.) 435,
South Baltimore, etc.,Co. v. Muhl-

583

bach, 69 Md. 395, §. C.1 L. R.
A. 507, 519, 1072

South Bend v. Hardy, 98 Ind. 577,
81, 797

South Bend v.University of Notre
Dame, 69 Ind. 344, , 403
South Bend Toy Co.v.Dakota,ete.,
Co. (S. Dak.), 52 N. W.R. 866, 531
South Carolina v. Gaillard, 101 U.
S. 433, 338
Southern,etc.,Co.v. St. Louis, etc.,
. Co., 10 Fed. R. 210, 8. C. 10 Fed.
R. 289, 491
Southern Express Co. v. Todd, 56
~ Fed. R. 104, 610
Southern Kansas Co. v. Brown, 44
Kan. 681, 8. C. 24 Pac. R. 1100, 187
Southern Kan. Ry. Co. vy. Walsh,
45 Kan. 653, 8. C. 26 Pac. R. 45, 1088
Southern Pacific Co. v. Denton,
146 U. 8. 202, 8. C. 13 Sup. Ct.
R. 44, 614
Southern Pac. Co. v. Dufour, 95
Cal. 615, 1146
Southern Pacific Co. v. Rauh, 49
Fed. R. 696,
Southern Plank Road Co.v. Hixon,
5 Ind. 165, 486, 487
Southey v. Nash, 7 Car. & P. 632,
179, 695
South Haven,etc.,Co.v. Christian,
49 Kan. 229,S. C. 31 Pac. R. 154, 1236
South Omaha, etc., Bank v. Chase,
80 Neb. 444, 8.0.46 N. W. R.
513, 110, 112
South Ottawa v. Perkins, 94 U.S.
260, ~ 545

P

666

 

South Park Comm’rs vy. School

Trustees, 107 Ill. 489, 679
South Platte, etc., Co. v. Buffalo,

7 Neb. 253, 424
South West, ae Co. v. Smith,

85 W. Va. 306, S. C. 17 Am. St.

R. 59, 1025
Southwestern Mut. Ben. Assn. v.

Swenson, 49 Kan. 449, S. C. 30

Pac. R. 405, 441
Southworth yv. Smith, 7 Cush.

(Mass.) 391, 404
Sovern v. Yoran, 15 Ore. 644, S.

C. 13 Pac. R. 395, 551
Sowden v. Craig, 20 Ia. 477,, 1167
Sowders v.Edmunds, 76 Ind. 123, 444
Sowle v. Holdridge, 25 Ind. 119, 403
Spackman v.. Foster, 31 W. R.

548, 365
Spafford v. Richardson, 13 Vt.

224, 336
Spahr v. Tartt, 23 Ill. App. 420, 526
Spalding v. Congdon, 18 Wend.

548, 189
Spalding v. Kelly, 66 Mich. 693, 305

Spanagal v. Dillinger, 38 Cal.
278, 1163

Spanagel v. Dellinger, 34 Cal.
47 1244

Spangenberg v. Charles, 44 Ill.
1235

App. 526,
Spangler v. Kite, 47 Mo. App.
230,

660

| Spangler v. San Francisco, 84 Cal.
12,8. C. 18 Am. St. R. 158, 180

Spangler v. Spangler, 122 Pa. St.
358, 8. C. 9 Am. St. R. 114, 383
Spann v. Spann, 2 Hill’s Ch. 152, 299

Sparhawk v. Union, etc.,Co.,54 Pa.
St. 401, 483
Sparks v. Roberts, 65 Ga. 571, 380
Sparks v. State, 59 Ala. 82, 1170

Spaulding v. Farwell, 70 Me. 17, 377
Spaulding v. Hallenbeck, 39 Barb.

(N. Y.) 79, 557
Spaulding v. Homentend Assn.,

87 Cal. 40, 324, 427
Spaulding v. Mozier, 57 Ill. 148, 33
Spaulding v. Robbins, 42 Vt.90, 1087
Spaulding v. Strang, 38 N. Y. 9,

8. C. 37 N. Y. 135, 1150
Spaulding v. Wasson, 84 Cal. 141,

S. C. 24 Pac. R. 377, 527, 1146
Spear v. Carter, 1 Mich. 19, 317
Spear v. Hooper, 22 Pick. (Mass. )

144, 596
Spear v.Spencer, 1 G.Greene (Ia.)

534, 663
Spear v. Stacy, 26 Vt. 61, 578, 593

Spearman v. Wilson, 44 Ga. 473, 590
_ eexiti

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. G03-1244.]

520
1285
804
255

Spears v. Burton, 31 Miss. 547,
Spears v. Clark, 6 Blackf. 167,
Spears v. Forrest, 15 Vt. 435,
Spears v. Mathews, 66 N.Y. 127,
Spect v. Spect, 88 Cal. 487, S. C.
22 Am. St. RB. 314, 1147
Speer v. McChesney, 2 Watts & 8.
(Pa.) 233, 597
Speidel v. Henrici, 120 U. 8. 377,
S.C. 7 Sup. Ct. R. 610, 372, 376
Speight v. The People, 87 Ill. 595, 115
Speights v. Peters, 9 Gill (Md.)

472, 195
Spence v. Board, 117 Ind. 578, 536
Spence v. Eastern, etc., Co., 7

Dowl. 697, 574

Spence v. Mitchell, 9 Ala. 744,

Spence v. Scott, 97 Cal. 181, 8. C.
31 Pac. R. 939,

Spence v. Simmons, 16 Ala. 828,

Spence v. Smith, 18 N. H. 587,

Spence v. Tuggle, 10 Ala. 538,

Spenceley v. De Willott, 7 East

Spencer’s Estate, In re, 96 Cal.
448, S. C. 31 Pac. R. 453, 1081
Spenver v. Curtis, 57 Ind. 221,

163, 592
Spencer v. Deagle, 34 Mo. 455, = 465
Spencer v. Jennings, 114 Pa. "St.
618, 8. C. 8 Atl. R. 2,
Spencer v. Levering, 8 ‘Minn. 461,
112, 201
Spencer v. Morgan, 5 Ind. 146, 362
Spencer v. Robbins, 106 Ind. 580,
781,804, 1131
Spencer v. School District, 11 R.
I. 537, 472
Spencer v. St. Louis, etc., Co., 79
‘Mo. 500, 1227
Spencer v. Storrs, 38 Vt. 156, 395
Spencer v. Thistle, 13 Neb. 297, 1165
Spencer v. Williams, 160 Mass.
. ©. 35 N. E. R. 88, 1094
Spencer Greek, etc., Co. v. Val-

262

lejo, 48 Cal. 70, 118
Spengler v. Kaufman, 43 Mo.
App. 5, 112

Spensley v. alae Ins. Co.,

54 Wis. 433 1042
Sperry v. Dickinson, 82Ind. 132, 1161
Sperry v. Johnson, ‘11 Ohio 452, 389
Spicer v. Hoop, 51 "Ind. 365, 481, 489
Spicer v. United States, 5 Ct. of

Cl. 34, 1179
Spickerman v. McChesney, 111 N.

Y. 686, 8. C. 19 N. E. R. 266, = 111
Spies v. People, 122 Ill. 1, 8. C.3

Am. St. R. 320, 8. C. 12 N. E.

R. 865, 545, 657, 661, 668

an

 

Spies v. People, 123 U.S. 131, 8.
C. 8 Sup. Ct. R. 22, 661, 784
Spiers v. Halstead, 71 N. Car.

209, 446
Spinning v. oe etc., Co., 2 Dis-
ney (0.) 3 196
Splahn vy. Gitlespie, 48 Ind. 397, 455
Spohn v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. ey
116 Mo. 617, 8. C. 22 8. W. R.
690, 800

Spooner v. Handley, 151 Mass.
312, 8S. C. 23 N. E. R. 840, |

1078, 1218

Spoor v. Holland, 8 Wend. (N.
Y.) 445, 435

Spoors v. Coen, 44 Ohio St. 497, S.
C.9N. E. R. 182, 248, 246
235
423

Spradling v. State, ‘17 Ala. 440,
Sprague v. Birchard, 1 Wis. 457,
Sprague v. Child,16 Ohio St. 107, °1161

Sprague v. Heaps, 7 Til. App.
447, 623
Sprague v. Pritchard, 108 Ind.
491, 1130, 1212
Seen eee J. Marsh.
(Ky.) 33 603
Sprigg v. erg, 8 Fed. R. 207, 183
Spring v. 8. Car. Ins. Co., 6
Wheat. 519, 255

Springer v. Mendenhall, 3 Harr.
(Del.) 381, 619
Springer v. Peterson, 1 Blackf.
188, 1242
marge v. United States, 102 U.
5!

. 586, 424
Springfield v. Dalbey, 139 II. 134,
8. C. 29 N. E. R. 860,
180, 790, 791, 814
Springfield v. State (Ala, ); 1 So.”
R. 250, 516

Springficld City R. Co. v. De
Camp, 11 Brad. (Ill.) 475, 71
Springfield, etc., Ins. Co.v. White,
(Ariz.) 29 Pac. R. 1006, 1163
Springfield F. & M. Ins. Co. v.
Brown, 128 Pa. St. 392, S. C. 18
Atl. R. 396,
Springfield & M. R. R. Co. v.
Rhea, 44 Ark. 258, 679
Spring Garden, pe Ins. Co. v.
Evans, 9 Md. 1 557
ee y. Teutonia Bank, 84
N.Y. 4 134
Springs v. sy 6 Ired. L. 27, 335
Sprinkle v. Taylor, 1 Ind. App.
74, 548
Sprouce v. Commonwealth, 2 Va.

555

Cas. 375, 662
Sproull’s Appeal, 71 Pa. St. 187 201
Sproull v. Seay, 76 Ga. 27, 554
TABLE OF CASES.

cexlili

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.)

Sprowl v. Lawrence, 33 Ala. 674, 311
Spurck v. Crook, 19 Ill. 415, 602
Squires v. Chillicothe, 89 Mo. 226,

8S. C.18. W. R. 23, 636, 3t, 641
St. Albans v. Bush, 4 Vt. 58,8 c

23 Am. Dec. 246, 128, 606
St. pane v. Gerry, 2 Nott. &

McC. 4
St. Clair. . Caldwell, 72 Ala. 527,

St. Clair v. Cox, 106 U.S. 350 S.
C.1 Sup. Ct. R. 354, 280, 428, 442
St. Clair v. Missouri Pacific Ry.
Co., 29 Mo. App. 76, 1118, 1120
St. James Church v. Arrington, 36
Ala. 546, 48
St. John v. Coates, 63 Hun 460,
St. Johnsbury v. Thompson,59 Vt.
300, 1050
St. Johnsbury, etc., Co. v. Hunt,
59 Vt. 294, 8. C. 7 Atl. R. 277, 1178
St. Joseph v. Farrell, 106 Mo. 487,
S.C. 178. W. R. 497, 170
St. Joseph Mfg. Co. v. Daggett,
84 Ill. 556,
St. Louis v. Clemens, 36 Mo. 467, 1197
St. Louis v. Knapp, 104U. 8. 658, 488
St. Louis v. Goebel, 32 Mo. 295,” 437
St. Louis v. Meyer, 13 Mo. App.
367, 533
St. Louis v. Regenfuss, 28 Wis.
44,

1

St. Louis v. Shields, 62 Mo. 247,

St. Louis v. St. Louis Gas Co., 70
Mo. 69,

St. Louis v. State, 8 Neb. 405,

St. Louis v. West. Union, etc., Co. 7
148 U. S. 92, 1136

St. Louis, City of, v. Niasour? Pac:
Ry. Co., 114 Mo. 13, 8. C. 218.
W.R. 20 2,

248

364

1026

St. Louis, etc., Co. v. Southern
Ex. Co., 108 U. 8.24, 1179, 1187
St. Louis, fies Co. v. Stillwater
St. Ry. Co. (Minn.), 54 N. W.
R. 1064, 607, 612
St. Louis, Alton & T. H.R. R. Co.
v. Dorsey, 47 Ill. 288, 441
St. Louis, A. & T. R. Co. v. Whit-
ley, 77 Tex. 126, 613, 614
St. Louis, etc., Ry. Co. v. Biggs,
ee 240, 8. C.20 Am. St. R.
174,
St. Louis, etc., R. R. Co. v. Fow-

ler, 113 Mo. 458, 8. C. 208. W.
R. 1069 626, 628, 633, 635

666
675

370

71 St. Louis, etc., R. R. Co. v. Lux,

63 Ill. 523,
St. Louis, ete., R. R. Co. v. Taylor
(Ark.), 20S. W. R. 1083,
St. Louis Nat. Stock Yards v. Wig-
gins Ferry Co., 102 Il. 514, 596, 539
St. Louis & 8. F. RB. Co. v. Mc-
Bride, 141 U.S. 127, 8. C.11 Sup:
Ct. R. 982, 3138, 6 7, 609

498 | St. Louis & 8S. F. Ry. Co. v.. Tra-

week, 84 Tex. 65,5.C.198.W. R

370, 603, 611
St. Louis & 8. F. R. R. Co. v.

Weaver, 35 Kan. 412, 8. C. 57

Am. BR. 176, 797
St. Martin v. Desnoyer, 1 Minn.

41, 1120
St. Paul, ee ., Co. v. Brown, 9

Minn. 157 403
St. Paul Plow Works v. Starling, |

140 U. S. 184, S. C. 11 Sup. Ct.

R. 803, 704

Stabler v. Grund, 35 Neb. 658, 8.

C. 53 N. W. R. 570 1133
Stacer v. Hogan, 120 Ind. 207, 1158
Stackhouse v. Halsey, 3 Johns.

St. Louis Brokerage Co. v. Bag- Ch. 73, 450
“nell, 76 Mo. 554, 112 | Stackhouse v. Zuntz, 36 La. Ann.

St. Louis, etc., Co. v. Chapman, 529, 221
38 Kan. 307, 503 | Stadler v. Grieben, 61 Wis. 500, 370

St. Troula, etc., Co. v. Cohen, 9 Stadler v. Hertz, 13 Lea (Tenn.)
Mo. 421 471 315,

St. Louis, ‘ete. , Co. v. Deweese, 23 Stafford v. Bacon, 1 Hill (N. Y.)
Fed. 691 1210} 532, 8. C. 37 ‘Am. Dee. 366, 567

St. Louis, ‘ete., Co. v. Godby, 45 Stafford v. Nutt, 51 Ind. 535, 1194
Ark. 485, 1235 | Stagg v. State, 3 Humph. (Tenn.)

St. Louis, etc., Co. v. Hendricks, 372, 161

48 Ark. 177, 8. C. 3 Am. St. R.
220, 712, 1130, 1215
St. Louis, ete., Co. v. Henson, 58
Fed. R. 531, 1206
St. Louis, etc., Co. v. Henson, 58
Fed. 712,
St. Louis, ‘ete., Co. v. Morris, 35
Ark, 622, 36

 

Stagner v. State, 9 Tex. App.440, 662
Stahl v. Berger, 10 Serg. & R. (Pa)
170, 8. C. 13 Am. Dec. 666, ‘582
Stahl’ v. Webster, 11 Ill. 511, 185
Stair v. Richardson, 108 Ind. ‘429, 1280
Stalker zi; Gaunt, 12 N. Y. Leg.
Obs. 124 506

9 | Stamper v. ‘Griffin, 12 Ga.450, 801, 807
eexliv

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. I, pp. 608-1244.]

Stamphill v. Franklin County, 86
Ala. 392, 609
ae a Parker (Ky. ), 15 8S.
W.RS 123
Standard, ae Co. v. Friedenthall,
1 Col. ‘App. 5, 8. C. 27 Pac. R.

88,
Standard Oil Co. v. Bretz, 98 Ind.

231 1160
Standard Oil Co. v.Van Etten, oe

U.S. 325,
Staniford v. Barry, 1 Aik. 314, i?
Stanley v. Bank, 23 Ala. 652, 607
Stanley v. Barker, 25 Vt. 507, 336
Stanley v. Holliday, 130 Ind. 464,

30 N. E. R. 634, 529
Stanley v. Stanley, 47 Ohio St. 225,

S.C. 21 Am. St. R. 806, 881
Stanley v. State, 24 Ohio St. 166, |

8. C. 15 Am. R. 604, 309
Stanley v. Sutherland, 54 Ind. 339,

463, 1060, 1124

Stanly v. Morse, 26 Ia. 454, 263
Stanton v. Bannister, 2 Vt. 464, 1063
Stanton v. Henry, 11 Johns. (N.

Y.) 183, 595
Stanton v. Parker, 5 Rob. (La.),

198, S. C.39 Am. Dec. 528, 805
Stanton Co. v. Canfield, 10 Neb.

1132

389, S.C. 6N. W. R. 466, ' 712
Staple v. Heydon, 6 Mod. 1, 1156
Staples v. Fairchild, 3 N. y? 41,

165, 465

Staples v. Goodrich, 21 Barb. 317, 1177
Staples v. Staples, 4 Greenl. 532, 197
Stapp v. Davis, 78 Ind. 128,
1194, 1199
Starbird v. Moore, 21 Vt. 529, 293
Starbuck v. Murray, 5 Wend. 148,
8. C. 21 Am. Dec. 172,

266, 326, 606

Stark vy. Billings, 15 Fla. 318, 182
Stark v. Cannady, 3 Litt. (Ky.)

399, S. C. 14 Am. Dec. 76, 584

Stark v. Lancaster, 57 N. H.88, 534

Stark v. Ratcliff, 111 Ill. 75, 262

Starkey v. DeGraff, 22 Minn. 431, 408
Starkie v. Richmond, 155 Mass.

188, S. C. 29 N. E. R. 770, 201
Starks v. People, 5 Denio (N. Y.)

106, 806, 807
Starkweather v. Johngon, 66 Wis.

469, 638
Starnes v. Schofield, 5 Ind. App.

4,9. C. 31 N. E. BR. 480, 675, 677
Starns v. Hadnot, 42 La. Ann.

366, 327
Starr v. United States, 14 Sup. Ct.

R. 919, 1066, 1072
Starry v. Winning, 7 Ind. 311, 640

 

Startup v. Macdonald, 6 Mee

& G. 593, 401, 553
Staser v. Hogan, 120 Ind. 207, 8.

C. 21 N. E. R. 911,

237, 519, 1095, 1098, 1180, 1164, 1239
State v. ‘Abbott, 41 La. Ann, 1096,

S.C. 650. R. 805, 170
State v. Abrams, 11 Ore. 169, 823
State v. Acker, 52 N. J. L. 259, 8.

C. 19 Atl. R. 258, 182
State v. Adams, 4 Blackt. 146, 308
State v. Adams, 20 Kan. 311, 815
State v. Adams, 44 Mo. 570, 117

State v. Adamson, 43 Minn. 196, 798
State v. Ah Chuey, 14 Nev. 79, 8.

C. 33 Am. R. 530, 809
State v. Ah Lee, 8 Ore. 214, 815
State v. Alford, 31 Conn. 40, 1168
State v. Alling, 12 Ohio 16, 145
State vy. Anderson, 30 La. Ann.

557, 537

State v. Anderson, 248. Car. 109, 1122
State v. Angel, 7 Ired. L. (N. Car.)
27 : 1071

State v. Anone, 2 Nott & M.27, 144
State v. Anthony, 7 Ired. L. (N.

Car.) 234, 656
State v. Archer, 48 Ia. 310, 522
State v. Armington, 25 Minn. 29, 287

State v. Armstrong, 3 Sneed
(Tenn.) 634, 170
State v. Arnold, 12 Ia. 479, 663
State v. Austin, 108 N. Car. 780, 1111
State v. Avery, "113 Mo. 475, 8. C.

2158. W. R. 193, 1169
State v. Babb, 76 Mo. 501, 541
State v. Bacon, 107 Mo. 627, 8. C.

188. W. R. 19, * 230

State v. Bacon, 98 Am. Dec. 616, 738
State v. Bailey, 94 Mo. 311, 8. C.
78. W. R. 425, 623
State v. Baird, 18 N. J. Eq. 194, 290
State v. Baker, 63 N. Car. 276, 640
State v.Baker(Ia.),56N.W.R.425, 915
State v. Baker (Mo.), 19S. W. R.

222, 1069
State v. Baldwin, 10 Biss. C. C.
165, 466

State v. Baldwin, 80 N. Car. 390, 656
State v. Banister, 35 So. Car. 290,

8. C. 148. E. R. 678, 524, 800
State v. Banks, 40 La. Ann. 736, 8S.

C. 5 So. RB. 18, 915
State v. Bannock (Minn.), 55 N.

W. R. 558
State v. Barbour, 53 Conn. 76, 203
State v. Barker, 43 Kan. 262, 8. C.

23 Pac. Rep. 575, 714
State v. Barrels of Liquor, 47 N.
H. 369, 278
TABLE OF CASES.

ecexly

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.]

State v. Barrett, 40 ia 65, S.
C. 41 N. W. RB. 459
164, 177, 799, 804

State v. Barrett, 42 N. H. 466, Lig,
State v. Bartlett, 11-Vt. 650, 308
State v. Bartlett, 55 Me. 200, 82

State v. Bartley, 48 Kan. 421, 8.

C. 29 Pac. R. 701, 623
State v. Barton, 8 Mo. App. 15, 627
State v. Beal, 68 Ind. 345, 798

State v. Beattie, 38 La. Ann. 452, 230
State v. Beatty, 45 Kan. 492,8. C.
25 Pac. R. 899,

State v. Beem, 3 Blackf. (Ind.)
222,
State v.
State v.
State v.

660

1113
Bell, 5 Port. (Ala.) 365, 337
Bell, 70 Mo. 633, 1078
Benjamin, 7 La. Ann. 47, 522
State v. Benner, 64 Me. 267, 796,799
State v. Bennett, 75 Me. 590, 1232
State v. Burdetta, 73 Ind. 185, 369, 560

State v. Berkley, 92 Mo. 41, 624
State v. Bertin, 24 La. ‘Ann. 46, 815
State v. Billings, 77 Ia. 417, 627, 640
State v. Bishop, 73 N. C. 44, 33
State v. Bliss, 21 Minn, 458, 183
State v. Bloom, 17 Wis. 521, 214, 217
State v. Blossom, 19 Nev. 312, 216
State v. Board, 66 Ind. 216, 1139
State v. Board, 101 Ind. 69, 134
State v. Boardman, 64 Me. 523, 153

State v. Bogain, 12 La. Ann. 264, 1112

State v. Bohan, 19 Kan.28, 150, 1071
State v. Boles, 18 So. Car. 534, 1054
State v. Bonney, 34 Me. 223, 248
State v. Boone, 30 Ind. 225, 121
State v. Boone ‘County Ct., 50 Mo.

317, ; 128, 170
State v. Borabacher, 19 Ia. 154, 807
State v. Boswell, 2 Dev. L. R.

209, 802
State v. Bowden, 71 Me. 89, 665
State v. Boyd, 38 La. Ann. 374, 807
State v. Brady, 107 N. Car. 822,

8. C. 1258. E. R. 325, 666
State v. Branstetter, 65 Mo. 149, 1119
State v. Brant, 14 Ia. 180, 798, 806

State v. Brantley, 63 N. Car. 518, 1171
State v. Braswell, 82 N. Car. 698, 824
State v. Breaux, 32 La. Ann. 222, 667
State v. Breeden, 58 Mo. 507, 802
State v. Brennan (S. Dak.), 50 N.

W. R. 625, 1075
State v. Brette, 6 La. Ann. 652, 624
State v. Brookover, 22 W. Va.

214, 338
State v. Brooks, 4 Wash. 328, 8.

C 30 Pac. R. 147, 623
State v. Brooks, 92 Mo. 542, 1167
State v. Brookshire, 2 Ala. 303, 179

 

State v. Brown, 15 Kan. 400, 666
State v. Brown (Ia.), 53 N. W.

R. 92, 736
State v. Brown, 35 Kan. 167, 213
State v. Brown, 2 Ore. 221, 308

State v. Brown, 12 Minn. 490, 148, 544
‘| State v. Bruce, 24 Me. 71, 804
State v. Bryan, 40 Ia. 379, 665
State v. Bryan, 89 N. Car. 531, | 1171
State v. Burks, 82 Tex. 584, S. C.
18S. W. RB. 662, 224
State v. Burns, 85 Mo. 47, 657
State v. Burns, 66 Mo. 227, 1203
State v. Cadwell, 79 Ia. 473, 8. C.
44N. W. R. 711, 630
State v. Cahen, 28'La. Ann, 645, 251

State v. Cape Girardeau, etc., 73

Mo. 560,

State v. Cardelli, 19 Nev. 319, 8. C.

10 Pac. R. 433,

State v. Carr, 5 N. H. 367,
State v. Carroll, 38 Conn. 449, S.

C.9 Am, RB. 409, 143, 144, 214, 216
State v. Carter, 3 Dutch. 499, 307
State v. Cartright, 20 W. Va. 32, 1124
State v. Carver, 49 Me. 588, 8. C.

77 Am. Dec. 275, 1170
State v. Castle, 44 Wis. 670, 154
State v. Castleberry, 93 Ala. 85,

217, 630
1209

State v. Caudle, 63 N. Car. 30,
State v.Caulfield, 23 La. Ann. 148, 660
State v. Central, etc., Co., 17 Nev.
259, S. C. 30 Pac. R. 887, 1217
10 Nev. 47, 271
State v. Chambers, 45 La. Ann.
State v. Chandler, 3 Hawks 393, 307
State v. Chantlain, 42 La. Ann.

178

551
148

State v. Central Pac. R. R. Co.,
36, S. C. 11 So. R. 944, 632

718, 8. C. 7 So. R. 669, 230
State v. Chapman, 1 S. Dak. 414,

§. C. 10 L. R. A. 482, 8. C. 47

N. W. R. 411, 224, 663
State v. Chapman, 6 Nev. 320, 667
State v. Chase, 41 Ind. 356, 492
State v. Chee Gong, 17 Ore. 635,

S. C. 21 Pac. R. 882, 541, 781
State v. Cherry, 63 N. Car. 493,

798, 806
State v. Choute, 11 Ohio 511, 235
State v. City of Newark, 48 NJ.

L. 101, 163
State v. Clark, 18 Mo. 432, 192
State v. Clark, 33 La. Ann. 422, 255
State v. Clark, 42 Vt. 629, 660
State v. Clark, 30 Ia. 168, 1538
State v. Cleary, 40 Kan. 287, 800
State v. Clinton, 67 Mo. 380, 8.C.

29 Am. R. 506, 798, 802
ecxlvi

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.]

State v. Coella, 3 Wash. 99, 8. C.
28 Pac. Rep. 28, 658, 660
State v. Cohen, 13S. Car. 198,

454, 614
State v. Cole, 94 N. Car. 958, 740
State v. Coleman, 8 S. Car. 237, 662

State v. Coleman, 20S. Car.441, 667
State v. Collins, 70 N. Car. 241,
8. C. 16 Am. R. 771, 660, 819

State v. Collins, 72 N. Car.144, 178
State v. Collins, 5 Wis. 339, 224
State v. Commercial Bank, 6 8.

& M. 218, 8. C. 45. Am. Dee.

280, 1172
State v. Compton, 77 Wis. 460, S.

C. 46 N. W. R. 535, 637, 638
State v. Comstock, 20 Kan. 650, 821
State v. Connell, 49 Mo. 282, 1170
State v. Conoly, 6 Ired. 243, 158
State v. Cooper, 45 Mo. 64, 1061
State v. County Court of Boone,

50 Mo. 317, 121
State v. County Court of New

Madrid, 51 Mo. 82, 121
State v.Covington, 45 La Ann. —, 8.
C. 1380. R. 266, 660

State v. Cowan, 7 Ired. L. (N.C.)
239, 910, 1224, 1232
State v. ee 80 Me. 85, 8. C. 13
Atl. R. 129, 220
State v. Crane, 86 N.J.L. 394, 136, 224
State v. Crane, 110 N. Car. 530, 8.
C.158. E. BR. 231, 797
State v. Crawford, 28 Kan. 726, 482
State v. Crevier, 50 N. J. L. 351, 305
State v. Crittenden, 38 La. Ann.
448, 780
State v. Crow, 107 Mo. 341, 8. C.
178. W. R. 745, 809
State v. Cummings, 86 Mo. 268, 176
State v. Cummins, 76 Ia. 133, S.
C. 40 N. W. R. 124,
State v. Curtis, 9 Nev. 325,
State v. Danforth, 48 Ia. 43, 8. C.
30 Am. R. 387,
State v. Daniels, 66 Mo. 192,
State v. Danser, 3 Zabr. (N. J.)
552,
State v. Darling, 4 Nev. 413,
State v. Davenport, 38 8. Car. 348,

216

808
123

258
1134

8. 0.1758. E. R. 37, 1074
State v. Davis, 48 Kan. 1, 695
State v. Davis, 29 Mo. 391, 660
State v. Davis, 41 Ia. 311, 666
State v. Davis, 73 Ind. 359, 434
State v. Davis, 14 Nev. 439, 663

582, 533
652

1061

State v. Dean, 40 Mo. 465,
State v. Degonia, 69 Mo. 485,
State v. DeMosse, 98 Mo. 340, S.

C.118. W. R. 731,

720.

 

State v. Denis, 19 La. Ann. 119, 790
State v. Dennin, 32 Vt. 158, 807
State v. Denny, 118 Ind. 382, 136, 137
State v. Dent, 41 La. Ann. 1082,

S.C. 780. R. 694, 630
State v. Denton, 6 Cold. (Tenn.)

539,

State v. Depositor, 21 Neb. 107, S.

C. 25 Pac. R. 1000, 1111
State v. De Wolf, 8 ‘Conn. 93, 741
State v. Dickson, 6 Kan. 209, 667
State v. Dietz, 67 Ia. 220, 1074
State v. Dillon, 96 Mo. 56, 8. C.8

S. W. R. 781, 492
State v. Dixon, 75 N. Car. 275, 1071
State v. Drew, 17 Fla. 67, 170
State v. Dougherty, 70 Ia. 439, 185
State v. Douglass, 50 Mo. 593, 216
State v. Dove, 10 Ired. L.(N.Car.)

469, 667
State v. Downs, 91 Mo. 19,8. C.3

S. W. R. 219, 799
State v. Doyle, 40 Wis. 175, 212
State v. Doyle, 11 R. I. 574, 1171
State v. Duckworth, 85 Ia. 708, 8.

C. 50 N. W. R. 549, 1229
State v. Duffel, 41 La. Ann. 958,

253, 492
State v. Duffy, 39 La. Ann. 419, 8.

C. 2 So. Rep. 184, 621
State v. Dufour, 63 Ind. 567, 640
State v. Dumphey, 4 Minn. 438, 1124
State v. Duncan, 116 Mo. 288, 8.

C.228.W.Rep. 699, 750, 1169, 1219
State v. Dunlop, 65 N. Car. 288, 1067
State v. Durein, 29 Kan. 688, 8. C.

27 Pac. R. 148, 1129
State v. Dusenberry, 112 Mo. 277,

8. C. 20S. W. R. 461, 619

State v. Earl, 133 Ind. 389, 8. C.
32 N. E. R. 1126, 181
State v. Eckler, 106 Mo. 585, 8. C.

178. W. R. 814, 541
State v. Edwards, 2 Nott & McC.

13, 8. C. 10 Am. Dec. 557, 781
State v. Edwards, 110 N. Car. 511,

S.C. 148. E. R. 741, 172
State v. Efler, 85 N. Car. 585, 798

State v. Eighth Dist. Judge, 35.La.
Ann. 248, 1242
State v. Elwood, 17 R. I. 763, 8. -

C. 24 Atl. R. 782, 811
State v. Ellington, 7 Ired.(N.Car.)

61, 660, 662
State v. Elliott (Ohio Com. Pl. \,

25 Weekly Law Bull. 366, 627
State v. Elliott, 45 Ia. 486, 666
State v. Ellivin, 51 Kan. 784, 8. C.

33 Pac. R. 547, 619
State v. Ely, 11 Ind. 318, 1182
TABLE OF CASES.

eexl vii

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. I, pp. 603-1244.]

State v. Ennis, 74 Ind. 17,. 434
State v. Ensley, 10 Ia. 149, 173
State v. Euzebe, 42 La. ‘Ann. 727,

8. C. 7 So. R. 784, 153
State v. Ezell, 41 Tex. 35, 789

State v. Falconer (Ark.), 58. W.

R. 193,

State v. Farmer, 84 Me. 436, 8. C.

24 Atl. Rep. 985, 798
State v. Ferguson, 31 N. J. L. 283, 423
State v. Field, 87 Mo. App. 838, 1242
State v. Fisher, 33 L. Ann. 1344, 1159
State v. Fitzsimmons, 30 Mo. 236, 179
State v. Flack, 48 Kan. 146, S. é.

29 Pac. R. 571, 655, 697
State v. Fleak, 54 Ia. 429, 287
State v. Fleming, 11 Ind. 234, 653
State v. Flemons, 6 Ind. 279, 1228
State v. Fletcher (Ore.), 33 Pac.

R. 575,

State v. Fon du Lac, 42 Wis. 287,
State v. Ford, 37 La. Ann. 443,
State v. Foster, 115 Mo. 448, 8. C.

228. W. R. 468,

State v. Francis, 76 Mo. 681, 646
State v. French, 2 Pin. (Wis.)

181, 202

State v. Fritz, 27 La. Ann. 689, 226, 230

812
424
627

1168

State v. Fruge, 44 La. Ann. 165, 807
State v. Funck, 17 Ia. 365, 1155
‘State v. Furlong, 60 Miss. 839, 367
State v. Gamble, 108 Mo. 500, 8.

C. 188. W. R. 1111, 228, 232
State v.Gannaway,16 Lea (Tenn.)

124, 118
State v. Garland, 95 N. Car.671, 804
State v. Garrett, "71 N. Car. 85, 809
State v. Gates, 9 La. Ann. 94, 1171
State v. Gates, 20 Mo. 400, 919

State v. George, 8 Ired. L. 324, 8.
_C. 49 Am. Dec. 393, 1170
State v. Gibbs,10 Mont. 213, 8. C.

10 L. R. A. 749, 624
‘State v. Gill, 14 So. Car. 410, 666
State v. Gilmore, 110 Mo. 1, S. C.

19S. W. R. 218, 228, 229
State v. Glave, 51 Kan. 330, S. C.

- 83 Pac. Rep. 8, 820
State v. Gleason, 12 Fla. 190, 215
State v. Glidden, 55 Conn. 46, 483
State v. Glisson, 93 N. Car. 506, 799
State v. Godfrey, Brayt. (Vt.), 650

State v. Goodwin, 5 Ired. (N. C.)
401, 8. C. 44 Am. Dec. 42, 181, 1223
State v. Goold, 62 Me. 509, 540
State v. Gorley, 2 Ta. 52, 1199
State v. Governor, 5 Ohio St. 528, 170

State v. Governor, 25 N. J. L. 331,
170, 251
State v. Graham, 74 N. Car. 646, 809

 

State v. Grant, 79 Mo. 113, 806

State v. Gray, 37 N. J. L. 368, 842

State v. Gray, 19 Nev. 212, 667
State v. Green, 43 La. ‘Ann. 402, 8.

C.9 So. R. 42, 666

.| State v. Green, 95 N. Car. 611, 662

8 | State v. Greenwade, 72 Mo. 298, 233

State v. Greer, 22 W. Va. 800,
626, 627
State v. Gregory, 33 La. Ann. 787,
697, 789
State v. Gregory, 132 Ind. 387, 8.

C.31 N. E.R. 952, 1080
State v. Groome, 10 Ia. 308, 665
State v. Griffin, 87 Mo. 608, 821
State v. Grizzard, 89 N. Car.115, 1123
State v. Gurnee, 14 Kan. 111, 595
State v..Gut, 13 Minn. 341, 652
State v. Haines, 36 So. Car. 504,

S.C. 158. E. R. 555, 665
State v. Hall, 45 Mo. App. 298, 554
State v. Hall, 26 W. Va. 236, 1169
State v. Hamill, 6 La. Ann. 257, 255
State v. Hamilton, 27 La. Ann.

400, 662
State v. Hamilton, 55 Mo. 520, 819
State v. Hamilton, 42 La. Ann.

1204, 741
State v. Hammett, 7 Ark. 492, 163

State v. Hampton, 33 La. Ann.

1252, 801
State v. Hardin, 46 Ia. 623, 798
State v. Harkins, 100 Mo. "666, 8.

0.138: W. R. 830, 153
State v. Harmon, 31 Ohio St. 250, 204
State v. Harmon, 106 Mo. 635,

8. C. 18S. W. R. 128, 1114
State v. Harr, 38 W. Va. 58, S.C.

17:8. E. R. 794, 1226

State v. Harrington, 12 Nev. 125,
1068

State v. Harris, 39 La. Ann. 228, 1239
State v. Harrison, 5 Jones (N. Car.)

115, 1067
State v. Harrison, 36 W. Va. 729,

S. 0.18 L. R. A. 224, 618, 623
State v. Harrison, 113 Ind. 434, 203
State v. Hart, 67 Ia. 142, 8. C. 25

N. W. RB. 99, 8038
State v. Hatch, 91 Mo. 568, 8. C.

48. W. R. 502, 307
State v. Hawes, 43 Ohio St. 16, 1242
State v. Hawkins, 91 Tenn. 140,

8.0.18 8S. W. R. 114, 1239
State v. Haworth, 122 Ind. 462, 120
State v. Haws, 98 Mo. 188, S.C.

11S. W. R. 574, 638

State v. Hayes, 59 N.H. 450, 535, 536
State v. Helfrid, 2 Nott & McC.
238, 119
eexlvili

TABLE OF CASES. «

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.]

State v. Hendricks, 32 Kan. 559, 807
State v. Hinchman, O7 Pa. St. 479, 317
State v. Hing, 16 Nev. 307, 657
State v. Hitchcock, 1 Kan. 178, S.

C. 8] Am. Dec. 508, 121, 171
State v. Hobbs, 117 Mo. 620, 8. C.

23.8. W. RB. 1074, 914
State v. Hockett, 29 Ind. 302, 121
State v. Holmes, 56 Ia. 588, 150
State v. Holt, 90 N. C. 749, 8. C.

47 Am. R. 544, 644
State v. Hood, 6 Blackf. 260, 434
State v. Hosmer, 85 Mo. 553,

234, 640
State v. Houser, 28 Mo. 233, 639
State v. Houston, 35 La. Ann. 236, 255
State v. Howard, 9 N. H. 485, 805
State v. Howard, 31 Vt. 414, 307
State v. Howard (Mo.), 248. W.

R. 41, 741
State v. Howard, 35 S. Car. 197,

S.C. 148. E. R. 481, 179
State v. Howe, 64 Ind. 18, 1048
State v. Hoyt, 47 Conn. 518, 8. C.

36 Am. R. 89, 660, 666, 819, 1112
State v. Hoyt, 13 Minn. 132, 801
State v. Hoxsie, 15 R. I. 1, 8. C.

22 Atl. R. 1059, 655, 1065
State v. Huff, 76 Ia. 200, 8. C. 40

N. W. Rep. 720, 541
State v. Huff, 11 Nev. 17, 798
State v. Huffman, 16 Ore. 15, S.

C. 16 Pac. R. 640, 525, 1069
State v. Hull (R.1.), 20 L. R. A.

609, 820
State v. Hunsaker, 16 Ore. 497, 800
State v. Hyde, 121 Ind. 20, 204

State v. Ihrig, 106 Mo. 267, 8. C.
178. W. R. 300, 662
State v. Irwin, 5 Nev. 111, 203
State v. Jackson, 36 8. Car. 487,
S.C. 15S. E. R. 559, 1068
State v. Jackson, 27 Kan. 581, S.
C. 41 Am. R. 424, 646
State v. Jacobs, 5 Jones L. (N.

Car.) 259, 809
State v. James (8S. Car.), 12 8. E.
R. 657, 657, 660, 661

State v. Jefferson, 43 La. Ann.

995, S. C. 10 So. R. 199, 179
State v. Jefferson, 66 N. Car, 809, 214
State v. Jenkins, 84 N. Car. 812,

S. C. 37 Am. BR. 643, 1110
State v. Johnson, 40 Kan. 256, 805
State v. Johnson, 41 La.Ann. 574, 803
State v. Johnson, 35 La.Ann. 871, 801
State v. Johnson, 76 Mo. 121, 821
State v. Johnson, 105 Ind. 463, 212
State v. Jones, 44 La. Ann. 960, 8.

C. 11 So. R. 596, 800

 

State v. Jones, 64 Mo. 391, 656
State v. Jones, 78 Mo. 278, 1074
State v. Jones, 97 N. Car. 469, 666
State v. Jones, 80 N. Car. 415, 667
State v. Jordan, 110 N. Car. 491, 800
State v. Judge, 9 La. Ann. 62, 230
State v. Judge, 14 La.-Ann. 187, 118

State v. Judge, 21 La. Ann. 258,
248, 333
State v. Judge, 33 La. Ann. 1293, 2387
State v. Judge, 38 La. Ann.452, 229
State v. Judge, etc., 11 La. Ann.
159

66,
State v. Jumel, 30 La. Ann. 421, 183
State v. Justices, 58 Mo. 583, 1188
State v. Justus, 11 Ore. 178, S. C.
50 Am. R. 470, 812
State v. Kansas City Court, 97
257
Mo. 419, 8. C. 16S. W. R.415, 183
State v. Kansas City Court, 105

Mo. 331, 8. C. 10 8. W. R. 855,

State v. Kansas Ct. of App., 104
Mo. 299, 8. C.16 8. W.R. 415, 289

State v. Kaufman, 51 Ia. 578, 8.

C. 33 Am. R. 148, 644
State v. Kellerman, 14 Kan.

185, 1074
State v. Kelley, 57 N. H. 549, 797
State v. Kelly, 97 N. Car. 404, S.

C. 2 Am. St. R. 299, 696
State vy. Kelsoe, 76 Mo. 505, 798

State v. Kennon, 7 Ohio St. 546, 204
State v. Kepper, 65 Ia. 745, 30
State v. Ketchey, 70 N. Car. 621,

16! 60, 666
State v. Kincaid (Neb.), 37 N. W.

R. 612, 1241
State v. King, 5 Ired. 203, 192
State v. Kingsbury, 58 Me. 238, *

29, 660
State v. Kinney, 26 W. Va. 141, 801
State v. Kirkpatrick, 32 Ark.117, 308
State v. Knadler, 40 Kan. 359,

S. C. 19 Pac. R. 923, 635
State v. Knapp, 45 N. H. 148, 739
State v. Knapp, 40 Kan. 148, 8.

8. 19 Pac. R. 728, 307
State v. Knight, 43 Me. 11, 667
State v. Knight, 19 Ia. 94,

: 138, 148, 153
State v. Koener, 51 Mo. 174, 71

State v. Kolsem, 130 Ind. 434,
120, 121, 170, 254, "347, 492
State v. Kreichbaum, 81 Ta. 633,

8. 0. 47 N. W. R. 872, 308
State v. Kring, 64 Mo. 591, 820
State v. Lanier, 79 N. Car. 622, 8038
State v. La Page, S N. H. 245, S.

C. 24 Am. Rep. 955
State v. Teaenin, 78 Mo. BBB; 178
TABLE OF CASES.

eexlix

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244,]

State v. Lautenschlager, 22 Minn. State v. Molutyee, 53 Me. 214, 201
514, 542 | State v. McKinney, 111 N. Car.
State v. Lawhorn, 88 N. Car. 634, 798] 683, 8.C.16S8. E.R. 235, 806
State v. Lawlor, 28 Minn. 216, 816 | State’ v. McMartin, 42 Minn. 30,
State v. Lawrence, 38 Mo. 535, 256 8. 0.43 N. W. R.572 214
State v. Leabo, 89 Mo. 247, 657 | State v. McCormick, 84 Me. 566,
State v. Leaver, 62 Wis. 387, 8.C. . 8. C. 24 Atl. R. 938, 1115
22 N. W. R. 576, 1220 | State v. McPherson, 9 Ta. 53, 308
State v. Lehman, 28. Dak. —, 8. State v. Mace, 5 Md. 337, 337
C. 49 N. W.R. 8, 1206 | State v. Mackey, 12 Ore. 154, 797
State v. Leicht, 17 Ia. 28, 663 | State v. ese 74 Ia. 77, 8. ©. 37

518
799
714

State v. Levy, 5 La. Ann. 64,
State v. Lewis, 44 La. Ann. 958,

S. C. 11 So. R. 572,

State v. Lewis, 20 Nev. 333, 8. C.

22 Pac. R. 241,

State v. Lewis, 28 La. Ann. 84, 667
State v. Lewis, 22 N. J. L. 564, 316
State v. Lewis, 107 N. Car. 967, S.

C.11L. R. A. 105, 214, 226
State ¥ atten (Ta.), 54 N. W.

Rep. 1075, 812
State" v. hehe 69 N. Car. 214,

S. C. 12 Am. R. 645, . » 811
State v. Litch, 33 Vt. 67, 1171
Smelzer v. Lockhart, 97 Ind. 315, 639
State v. Lockwood,5 Blackf.(Ind.)

144, 504°
State v. Loe, 98 Mo. 609, 624
State v. Loehr, 93 Mo. 103, 798
State v. Lopez, 15 Nev. 407, 815
State v. Lubke, 29 Mo. App. 555, 633
State v. Ludwig, 70 Mo. 412, 663
State v. Lull, 37 Me. 246, 180
State v. Lusk, 18 Mo. 333, 203
State v. McArthur, 5 Kan. 280, 1185
State v. McArthur, 13 Wis. 407, .

630, 639
State v. McAfee, 64 N. Car. 339, 663
State v. McCartey, 17 Minn. 76, 799

State v. McCarthy, 44 La. Ann.

323, S. C. 10 So. R. 673,

State v. McClear, 11 Nev. 39,
State v. McCoy, 42 La. Ann. 228,

S. C. 7 So. R. 330, 3807
State v. McCurry, 63 N. Car. 38,- 652
State v. McDonald, 30 Minn. 98, 1242
State v. McDonald, 65 Me. 466, 800
State v. McDonnell, 18 La. Ann.

231, 1198
State v. McFarlain, 41 La. Ann.

686, 802
State v. McGahey (N. Dak.), 55
_N. W. R. 753, 785
State v. McGlynn, 20 Cal. 233, 8.

C. 81 Am. Dec. 118, 268, 274
State v. McGraw, 87 Mo. 161, 209
State v. McGuire, 53 Ia. 165, 150
State v. McGuire, 15 R. I. 23, 798
State v. McGuire, 87 Mo. 642, 31

666
643

 

N.W.R 177

State v. eee 16 Kan. 440, 213
State v. Mallon, 75 Mo. 355, 821
State v. Maloney, 113 Mo. 367, 8.
C.208. W. R. 1064, 149
State v. Mann, 83 Mo. 589, 178, 662
State v. Manley, 63 Ia. 344, 182
State v. Mansfield, 41 Mo. 470, 643

State v, Malone, 37 La. Amn. 266, 1170
State v. Marler, 2 Ala. 43, 8. C. "36

Am. Dec. 398, 800
State v. Marshall, 86 Mo. 400, 1157
State v. Martin,. 2 Ired. (N. C.)

101, 139, 629
State v. Martin, 52 Mo. App. 511, 797
State v. Matlock, 82 Mo. 455, 633
State v. Matthews 37 N. H. 450, 137
State v. Mayor, 12 Rich. (S. C.)

480, 119

State v. Meadows, 18 W.Va. 658, 803

State v. Melton, 8 Mo. 417, 435
State v. Merrihew, 47 Ta. 112, 627
State v. Metrassey, 47 Mo. 295, 1124
State v. Meyers, 99 Mo. 107, 1218
State v. Michael, 37 W. Va. 565,

8. C. 168. E. R. 803, 524
State v. Miller, 71 Mo. 91, 805
State v. Miller, 11 Mo. 542, 8. C.

208. W. R. 248, 1075, 1076
State v. Miller, 23 Wis. 634, 298 ©
State v. Miller, 111 Mo. 542, 8S. C.
208. W. R. 2438, 235
State v. Miller, 63 Ind. 475, 1183
State v. Miller, 107 Ind. 39, 206
State v. Mills, 91 N. Car. 581, 646
State v. Millsops, 39 La. Ann. 798,

8. C. 2 So. R. 595, 236

State v. Milwaukee Chamber of

Commerce, 47 Wis. 670, 628
State v. Mitchell, 31 Ohio St. 592, 343
State v. Mix, 15 Mo. 153, 915
State v. Moncla, 39 La. Ann. 868,

8. C. 2 So. R. 814, 667
State v. Moore, 26 N. H. 448, 8.C.

59 Am. Dec. 354, 309
State v. Moore, 19 "Ala. 514, 837
State v. Mooney, 65 Mo. 494, 393
State v. Mooney, 10 Ia. 506, 627
State v. Morrill, 16 Ark, 384, 187
ecl

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. I, pp. 603-1244.]

State v. Morris, 67 Me. 428, 803
State v. Moseley, 116 Mo. 545, 8.
C. 22S. W. R. 804, 123
State v. Mulholland, 16 La. Ann.
376, 800
State v. Munchrath, 78 Ia. 268, S.
C.43 N. W. R. 211, 668
State v. Murdock, 86 Ind. 124,
217, 226, 229, 1240
State v. Murdy, 81 Ia. 603, 8. C. 2
62

47 N. W. Rep. 867,
798
State v. Neiderer, 94 Mo. 79, 8. C.
10 L. R. A. 39, 1157, 1168, 1206
829, 8. C. 9 So. R. 648, 195, 496
State v. Nyman, 55 Conn. 17,8.
820
“State v. Oeder, 80 Ia. 72, 8. C. 45
823
287, 822

State v. Murphy, 45 La. Ann. —,
8. C. 13 So. R. 229,
State v. Murrell, 33 S. Car. 83, 8.
C.1158. E. R. 682, 1216
State v. Musick, 71 Mo. 401, 255

6S. W. RB. 708, - 624
State v. Nelson, 26 Ind. 366, 1118
State v. Nelson, 21 Neb. 572, 8. C.

32 N. W. R. 589, 824
State v. Nelson, 101 Mo. 477,8. C.
State v. Nelson, 58 Ia. 208, 657, 806
State vy. Newlin, 69 Ind. 108, 1214
State v. New Madrid, etc.,51 Mo.

82, 171
State v. New Orleans, 43 La. Ann.
State v. Noble, 118 Ind. 350,

117, 118, 136, 137, 160, 213
State v. Noiand, 29 Ind. 212, 1171
State v. Northern, etc., Co., 18 Md.

193, | 837

C. 10 Atl. R. 161, 819
State v. Ober, 52 N. H. 459, S. C.

13 Am. R. 88,

State v. O’Bryan, 102 Mo. 254, 8.

C. 148. W. Rep. 933 626

N. W. R. 548, 1160
State v. O’Kelley, 88 N. C. 609, 1240
State v. O’Neal, 7 Ired. L. (N.

Car.) 251,

State v. O’Neil (Kan.), 33 Pac. R.
State v. Ormiston, 66 Ia. 143, 1071
State v.Ormsby County,7 Nev.392, 202
State v. Overton, 24 N. J. L. 435,
545, 546
State v. Palmer, 65 N. H.9, 8. C.

17 Atl. R. 977,

State v. Parish, 83 Ind. 228,

State v. Parish Judge, 37 La.
Ann. 111,

State v. Parker, 96 Mo. 382,

State v. Parkinson, 5 Nev. 15,

State v. Patrick, 107 Mo. 147,8.C.
17S. W. R. 666,

1184
739
202

1065

 

State v. Patterson, 45 Vt. 308, 1077
State v. Pauley, 12 Wis.537, 308
State v. People, 85 N. Y. 390, 806
State v. Perkins, 66 N. Car. 126, 805

State v. Pertsdorf, 33 La. Ann.
1411, 217
State v. Peterson, 41 Vt. 504, 643
State v. Petrie, 25 La. Ann. 386, 652
State v. Petty, 21 Kan. 54, 806, 807
State v. Peyton, 32 Mo. App. 522, 146
State v. Phillips, 27 La. Ann.663, 230
State v. Pierce (Kan.), 32 Pac. R.
924, 486
State v. Pike, 65 Me. 111, 1124
State v. Plowman, 28 Kan. 569, 623
State v. Pollard, 14 Mo. App. 583, 823

State v. Porter, 1 Ala. 688, 144
State v. Posey, 17 La. Ann. 252,58.

C. 87 Am. Dec. 525, 140, 174
State v. Potts, 78 Ia. 656, 8. C. 5

L. R. A. 814, 1068
State v. Powell, 40 La. Ann. 241, 179
State v. Powers, 10 Ore. 145, 665
State v. ase 27 So. Car. 599, S.

C. 28. E. R. 108, 667

State v. Price, 111 N. Car. 703, 8.
C. 168. E. R. 414, 1072
State v. Primeaux, 39 La. Ann.

678, S. C. 2 So. R. 423, 621
State v. Pritchard, 15 Nev. 74, 657
State v. Probasco, 46 Kan. 310, 8.

C. 26 Pac. 649, 1218
State v. Quarles, 13 Ark. 307, 781
State v. Ragland, 75 N. Car. 12, 646

State v. Railroad Company, 16
Fed. R. 708, 334

State v. Rash, 12 Ired. Law 382,
8. C. 55 Am. Dec. 420,

State v. aaa ae Mo. 419, S. C.
228. W.R.3

State v. Rawls, : "Nott & McCord
(S. Car.) 831,

State v. Renfrow, 111 Mo. 589, 8.
C. 208. W. R. '299, 1074

State v. Rhea, 25 Kan. 576, 627

State v. Rhodes, 1 Houst. ’(Del.)
‘Crim. Cas. 476, 738

State v. Rich, 20 Mo. 393, 128, 144

State v. Richie, 28 La. Ann. 3827, 520

State v. Richmond, 6 Frost. (N.
H.) 282, 248

State v. Ricketts, 74 N. Car. 187, 1111

State v. Rider, 46 Kan. 332, S. .

802

26 Pac. R. 745, 307
State v. Rigg, 10 Nev. 284, 668
State v. Rising, 15 Nev. 164, 178

State v. Robbins (Me.), 13 AtLR.

584, 537
State * v. Roberts, 8 Nev. 239, 155
State v. Robey, 8 Ney. 239, 142
TABLE OF CASES.

ecli

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244. ]

State v. Robinson, 39 Me. 150,
State v. Robinson, 1 Kan. 188,
State v. Robinson, 35 S. Car. 340,
§.C.148. E. R! 766, 809
State v. eatyeys 13. Dak. 575, 8.

31
1241

C. 47 N. W. RB. 1061, ‘ 224
State v. Rogers, 108 Mo. 202,58. C.
188. W. R. 976, 804

State v. Rogers, 112 af Car. 874,
8.C.178. E. R. 2

State v. Rollius, 77 Me. 380,

State v. Rorabacher, 19 Ia. 154,

State v. Rose, 47 Minn. 47,58. 6.
49 N. W. R. 404, 1071

State v. Rowe, 98 ’N. Car. 629, S.

C.48. E. R. 506, 1063
State v. Ruhlman, 111 Ind.17, 1213
State v. Rush, 77 Mo. 519, 803
State v. Russell, 13 Mont. —, S.

C. 32 Pac. R. 854, 630
State v. Russell, 33 La. Ann. 135, 1074
State v. Ruth, 31 Kan. 583, 1211
State v. Ryan (Mo.), 22 8. W.R.

486, 1237
State v. Sachs, 3 Wash. 691, S. C.

29 Pac. R. 446, 218, 228, 233

644
697
482

202

228
812

1219
804
799

State v. Sackett, 39 Minn. 69,
State v. Salge, 2 Nev. 321,

State v. Saline Co., 51 Mo. 350,
prs v. Saline County, 18 Neb.

422,

State v. Sanders, 106 Mo. 188, S.

C.178. W. RB. 228,

State v. Sanders, 68 Mo. 202,

State v. Sansome, 116 Mo. 1, S.C.
22S. W. R. 617,

State v. Sater, 8 Ia. 420,

State v. Sargent, 32 Me. 429,

State v. Saunders, 66 N. H. 39, 8.

C.18L. R. A. 646, 290, 482, 1127
State v. Scheele, 57 Conn. 307 S.

C. 18 Atl. R. 256, 558
State v. Schumm, 47 Minn. 373, 8.

C. 50 N. W. R. 362, 652
State v. Schwin, 65 Wis. 207, 8.

C. 26N. W. R. 568, 543
State v. Scott, 80 N. Car. 365, 729, 736
State v. Scott, 113 Mo. 559, S. C.

20S. W. R. 1076, 1237
State v. Seay, 64 Mo. 89, 544, 558
State v. Severance, 2 New Eng.

R. 425, 220
State v. Severson, 78 Ia. 658, 520,742
State v. Shaw, 43 Ohio St. 324, 630
State v. Sheeley, 15 Iowa 404, 655

State v. Sheerin, 12 Mont. 539, 8.
C. 31 Pac. R. 548,

State v. Sheldon, 2 Kan. 322,

State v. Shelledy, 8 Ia. 477,

State v. Shelley, 11 Lea 594,

661
1242
1071

308

 

State v. Shields, 33 La. Ann.991, 657
State v. Shipman, 93 Mo. 147, 5.

C.68. W. R. 97, 224
State v. Simien, 30 La. Ann. 296, 623
State v. Sinegal, 45 La. Ann. 287,

8. C. 12 So. R. 351, 625
State v. Sipult, 17 Ia. 575, 1078
State v. Slave Bill, 15 La. Ann.

114, 663

State’ v. Smallwood, 75 N. Car.

104, 1070
State v. Smith, 49 Conn. 376,
State v. Smith, 54 Ia. 104, 8.0.6

N. W. R. 158, 808
State v. Smith, 5 Mo. App. 427, 204
State v. Smith, 75 N. Car. 306, 820
State v. Smith, 15 Mo. App. 412, 204
State v. Smith, 82 Mo. 51, 204
State v. Smith, 65 N. Car. 369, 247
State v. Smith, 93 N. Car. 516, 542
State v. Smith, 6 R. I. 33, 1077
State v. Sneed, 91 Mo. 552, 8. C.4

8. W.R. 411, 225, 237
State v. Sorter (Kan.), 34 Pac. R.

1036, 796
State v. Soper, 16 Me. 293, S. C.

33 Am. Dec. 665,’ 1024, 1034
State v. Sparrow, 3 Murph. (N.

Car.) 487, 179, 696
State v. Spencer, 92 Ind. 115, 1182

State v. Spencer, 64.N. Car. 316, 915
State v. Spooner, 41 La. Ann. 780,

S. C. 6'So. R. 879, 1075
State v. Stain, 82 Me. 472, 1160
State v. Steele, 33 La. Ann. 910, 312
State v. Steen, 115 Mo. 474, S. C.

22S. W. R. 461, 631
State v. Stewart, 74 Ia. 336, 627
State v. Stewart, 32 Mo. 379, 256
State v. Stickley, 41 Ia. 232, 740

State v. Stigall, 2 Zab.(N. J.) 286, 290

State v. Stonum, 62 Mo. 596, 1058
State v. Stoughton, 51 Vt. 362, 664
State v. Stout, 49 Ohio St. 270, Ss.
C. 30 N. E. R. 437, 698
State v. Stratton, 110 Mo. 426, 8.
C.19S. W. R. 808, 1161

State v. Sullivan, 120 Ind. 197, 409, 975
State v. Sullivan (S. Car.), 178. E.

R. 865, 634
State v. Summers, 36 S. Car. 479,

S.C. 1558. E. R. 369, 660
State v. Sutcliffe, 16 R. I. 410, 8.

C. 16 Atl. R. 710, 1129
State v. Sutterfield, 54 Mo. 391, 254
State v. Swartz, 9 Ind. 221, 1226

State v. Swayze, 30 La. ‘Ann. 1325, 543

State v. Swift, 11 Nev. 128, 203
State v. Tate, 109 Mo. 265, 8. C.
188. W. R. 1088, 185
eclii

TABLE OF

CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.]

State v. Taylor(La.),11 So. R. 182, 652
State v. Taylor, 98 Mo. 240, 798
State v. Taylor, 5 ae App. 29, S.

C. 31 N. E. RB. 548 659
State v. Templin, 122 Ind. 235, 1166
State v. Tennison, 42 Kan. 330, 8.

C. 22 Pac. R. 429, 823
State v. Thibeau, 30 Vt. 100, 1171
State v.Thistlethwaite, 83 Ind.317,

1189

eo v. Thomas, 3 Strob.(S. Car, Ng
State v. .Thomas, 111 Ind. 515, 8.
60 Am. R. 720, 179, 697
State v. Thompson, 21 W.Va. 741,
1071, 1074
State v. Thompson,45 La. Ann. —,
8. C. 13 So. R. 392, 1
State v. Thornton, 108 Mo. 640, 8.

C.188. W. R. 841, 667
State v. Tickel, 13 Nev. 502, 800
State v. Todd, 72 Mo. 288, 153
State v. Toland, 36 8. Car. 515, 8.

C. 15S. E. R. 599, 646
State v. Tolle, 71 Mo. 645, 213
State v. Tolleston, 53 Fed. R.18, 248
State v. Tom, 8 Ore. 177, 668
State v. Towler, 13 R. I. 661, 720
State v. Tucker, 46 Ind. 356, 121
State v. Tuller, 34 Conn. 280,

308, 665, 668
State v. Turner, 36 S. Car. 534, S.

C. 158. E. R. 602, 798, 1220
State v. Ulrich, 110 Mo. 350, S.C.

198. W.R.656,

State v. Underwood, 49 Me. 181,
State v. Underwood, 44 La. Ann.

1114, §.C.11 So. RB. 823, 622, 1121
State v. Upham, 38 Me. 261, 820
State v. Vail, 53 Mo. 97, 256
State v. Vansant, 80 Mo. 67,

1071, 1074, 1075
State v. Vittum, 9 N. H. 519, 31
State v. Voorhies, 41 La. Ann.

567, S. C.6 So. R. 826, 218, 233

State v. Walker, 26 Ind. 346,
180, 1124

State v. Wallace, 41 Ind. 445, 206

State v. Wallace, 3 Ired. L. (N.

Car.) 195, 1108
State v. Walters, 7 Wash. 246, S.

C. 34 Pac. R. 938, 801
State v. Waltham, 48 Mo. 55, 669
State v. Walton, 74 Mo. 270, 656
State v. Wanee, 4 Ind. App. 1, 8.

C. 30 N. E. R. 161, 183
State v. Ward, 9 Heisk. (Tenn.)_

100,

State v. Ward, 14 La. Ann. 673,
State v. Ward, 39 Vt. 225,

179
308

663
657

 

State v. Ward, 49 Conn. 429, 808
State v. Warmoth, 22 La. Ann.1, 170
State v. Washburn, 22 Wis. 99, 630.
State v. Watts, 10 Ired. L. (N.

Car.) 369, 1103
State v. Watts, "82 N. Car. 656, 1171
State v. Waupaca County Bank,

20 Wis. 640, 322
State v. Weare, 38 N. H. 314, 158

State v. Weatherby, 45 Mo.17, 144, 324°

State v. Webber, 22 Mo. 321, 724
State v. Weddington, 103 N. Car.
864, 8. C. 958. E. R. 577, 638
State v. Weiskittle, 61 Md. 48, 1227
State v. Weldon (So. Car.), 178.
E. R. 688, 741
State v. Wells, 46 Ia. 662, 623, 654

State v. Welsor (Mo.), 21 8. W.
R. 448, | 657
State v. Wentworth, 65 Me. 234,
S. C. 20 Am. Rep. 688, 780
State v. Westmoreland, 29 8. Car.
1,8. C.65S. E. R. 847, 1137
State v. Wetherford, 25 Mo. 439, 629
State v. Wheeler, 108 Mo. 658, S
C.18S. W. R. 924, 656
State v. Whit, 72 Am. Dec. 538,
1059, 1069
State v. White, 101 N. Car. 770, S.
C.758. E. R. 715, §. C.11 Crim.
L. Mag. 231,
State v. White, 27 Am. Rep. 187,
State v. Whitman, 14 Rich. L. (So.
Car.) 113, 667
State v. Whitney, 7 Ore. 386, 233
State v. Wilcox, 11 Mo. 569, 9. ©.
208. W.R. 314, ° 1076
State v. Wiley, 109 Mo. 439, S. C. ‘
19S. W. R. 197, 122
State v. Williams, 2 McCord (So.
Car.) 383, 627
State v. Williams, 14 W. Va. 851,
226, 231
State v. Williams.35 La. Ann, 742, 216
State v. Williams, 69 Ala. 311, 1241
State v. Williams, 30 Me. 484, "654, 667
State v. Williams, 48 Ark. 227, S.
C.28. W.R. 848, 158, 154
State v. Williams, 7 Jones (N. C.)

548
782

446, 380
State v. Williamson, 106 Mo. 162,
S.C. 17.8. W. Rep. 172, 661
State v. Williamson, 42 Conn.
261, 1074
State v. Wilner, 40 Wis. 304, 526
State v. Wilson, 40 La. Ann. 751,
S.C.1L. R. A. 795, 1113
State v. Wilson,44 Mo. App. 136, 1238

State v. Wilson, 8 Ia. 407, 655
State v. Wing, 32 Me. 581, 1171
TABLE OF CASES.

eclili

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. I, pp. 603-1244.)

State v. Wise, 7 Rich. 412, 1112
State v. Witham, 72 Me. 531, 789
State v. Woiever, 127 Ind. 306,
126, 133, 260

State v. Woodlief, 2 Cal. 241, 319
State v. Woodson, 41 Mo. 227, 297
State v. Woolery, 39 Mo. 525, 609
State v. Worden, 46 Conn. 349, S.

C. 33 Am. R. 27, 645
State v. Workman, 38 S. Car. 550,

S.C.178. E. R. 694, 821, 1075
State v. Worley, 11 Tred. L. (N.

Car.) 242, 434
State v. Wright, 16 R. I. 518, 8S.

C.17 Atl. 998, 164
State v. Wyse, 82 8. Car. 45, 1129
State v. Yancey, 121 Ind. 20, 258
State v. Young, 29 Minn. 474, 213
State v. Young, 3 Kan. 445, 119

State v. Zellers, 2 Halst. (N. J.)
220, 179, 695
State Bank v. Brown, 1 Scam.

106, 366
State’ Bank v. Cason, 5 Eng.

(Ark.) 479, 377
State Bank v. Cooper, 2 Yerg.

599, 121

State Bank v. Marsh, 10 Ark. 129, 456

State Bank v. Roddy, 15 Ark.
401, 1178

State, ex. rel., v. Beattie, 38 La.

Stebbins vy. Sackett, 5 Conn. 258, 517
Stedeker v. Bernard, 102 N. Y.

327, 1194
Stedman v. Vickery, 42 Me. 132, 472
Steed v. Knowles, 97 Ala. 573, 8.

C. 12 So. R. 75,

Steel v. Smelting Co., 106 U. S.

447, 251
Steele v. Bates, 2 Aik. (Vt.) 338,

8. C. 16 Am. Dec. 720, 458
Steele v.Grigsby,79 Ind. 184, 1182,1143
Steele v. Haynes; 20 Neb. 316, 1180
Steele v. People, 45 Ill. 152, 623
Steele vy. Renn, 50 Tex. 467, S. C.

32 Am. R. 605, 274
Steele v. Souder, 20 Kan. 39, 384
Steele v. Stugis, 5 Abb. Pr. R. 442, 196
Steele v. White, 2 Paige (N. Y.)

478,

Steelman v. Watson, 5 Gilm. (Ill. a

249,
Steen v. N orton, 45 Wis. 412, ee
Steere v. Brownell, 124 Ill. 27, 375
Steere v. Brownell, 113 Ill. 415, 585
Steerman v. State, 10 Mo. 503, 308
Steff v. Andrews, 2 Madd. 6, 572
Steffenson v. Chicago, etc., Ry.

Co., 51 Minn. 531, 8. 0.53 N.W.

R. 800, 1079

Steffy v. Carpenter, 37 Pa. St.41, 551
Steffy v. People, 130I1]. 98, S. C.

‘Ann. 452, 227| 22N. E.R. 861 718
State, ex. rel., Travelers’ Ins. Co., Stegall v. Huff, 54 Tex. 193, 445
Vv. Harris, 89 Ind. 363, 369 | Stein v. Bowman, 13 Peters (U. 8.)
State National Bank vy. Neel, 53 209, 508
Ark. 110,8.C. 22 Am. ee 155 | Stein v. Chicago, etc., Ry. Co., 41
State of R.I. v. Towler, 13 R. I Ill. App. 38, 1096, 1170
661, " 720 | Steinbach v. Leese, 27 Cal. 295, 452
State R. R. Tax Cases, 92 U. S. Steinman v. Magnus, 11 East
575, 403 | 390, 567
Stayner v. Joyce, 120 Ind. 99, 799 | Steinman v. Strauss, 18 N.Y.Supp.
Stead v. Salt, 3 Bing. 101, 583] 48, 439
Steagald v. State, ae Texas App. Stensgaard v. St. Paul, etc., Co.,
464, 8.0.35. Ww. Rep. 771, 660} 50.Minn. 429, 8. 0.52 N. W. R.
Steamboat Osprey v. Jenkins, 9 910, 178
Mo. 648, 1195 Stephens v. Brooks, 2 Bush. (Ky.)
Steamer St. Lawrence, 1 Black 137, 1056
(U. 8.) 522, 256 Stephens vy. Graham, 7 Serg. & R.
Steamship v. Tugman, 106 U. 8. 505, S. C. 10 Am. Dec. 485, 532
118, 347, S11 Stephens v. Koonce, 106 N. Car.
Stearn v. Barrett, 1 Mason 153, 1113 222, 8. 0.108. E. R. 996, 258, 492
Stearns v. Cope, 109 II]. 340, 595 Stephens = McCormick, 5 Bush
Stearns v. Gosselin, 58 Vt. 38, §44/ (Ky.) 1 381
Stearns v. Page, 7 "How. (U. §.) Seu ‘hot, ot Tex. 115,8.C.
819, 367 168. W. R.7 112
Stearns v. Stearns, 16 Mass. 167, 299 | Stephens v. Paste: 38 Mich. oe a

Stearns v. Wallace, 58 N. H.228, 443

Stearns v. Wright, 51 N. H. 600,
218, 238, 332

Stebbins v.Duncan,108 U.8.32, 32, 504

 

Stephens v. People, 19 N. ¥.549, 801
Stephens v. State, 20 Tex. App.
255, 820
ecliv

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.)

Stephens vy. State, 53 N. J. L. 245,
8. C. 21 Atl. R. 1038,
Stephenson v. Doe, 8 Blackt. 508,

661

S.C. 46 Am. Dec. 489, 381
Stephenson v. Duncan, 73 Wis.
404, S.C. 41 N. W. R. 337, 555

Stephenson v. Ins. Co., 54 Me.
70. 588

327
590

Stephenson v. Newcomb, 5 Harr.
(Del.) 150,

Stephenson v. Oatman, 8 Lea
(Tenn.) 462,

Stephenson v. Piscataqua, etc.,
Co., 54 Me. 55, 408

Stephenson v. Repp, 47 Ohio St.
551, 8. C. 25 N. E. RB. 803, 389

Stephenson v. State, 110 Ind.358, 177

Stephenson v. State, 40 Ga. 291, 1071

Stepherd v. People, 19 N. Y. 537, 522

Stepp v. National, etc., Ass’n, 37
S. Car 417, S. C. 16S. E.R. 134,
644, 1142

Stepp v. State, 31 Tex. Crim. R.
849, S. C. 20S. W. R. 753, 1113

Sterling v. Bock, 37 Minn. 29, 782

Sterling v. Callahan, 94 Mich. 536,

S. C.54.N. W. R. 495, 1076
Sterling, etc., Co. v. Early, 69 Ia.

94,85. C. 28 N. W. R. 458, 1190
Sterling v. Parish, 26 La. Ann.59, 202
Sterling v. Parsons, 9 Utah 81, S.

C. 83 Pac. R. 245, 1165
Sterling v. Winter, 80 Mo. 141, 373
Stern v. O’Connell, 35 N. Y. 104, 500
Stern v. Stern, 44 Ill. App. 107, 1194
Sterndale v. Hankinson, 1 Sim.

893, 376
Stetson v. Stetson, 80 Me. 483, 290
Stetson v. Stevens, 64 Vt. 649, S.

C. 25 Atl. BR. 429,

Steubing v. New York, etc., Co.,
138 N. Y. 658, $. C. 34 N. E.R.
369,

Stevens v. Beach, 12 Vt. 585, S. o.
386 Am. Dec. 359,

Stevens v. Beekman, 1 Johns. Ch.
318,

Stevens v. Burr, 61 Ind. 464,

Stevens v. Dillman, 86 Ill. 233,
Stevens v. Fuller, 136 U. S. 468,

484

744

484
640
475

126, 133
Stevens v. Fuller, 55 N. H. 448, 605
Stevens v. Griffith, 111 U. 8.48, 115

Stevens v. Logansport, 76 Ind. 498,
1096

Stevens v. Matthewson, 45 Kan.

594, S. C. 26 Pac. R. 38, 1096
Stevens v. Pierce, 151 Mass. 207, 353
Stevens v. Record, 56 Me. 488, 598

Stevens v.Solid,ete.,Co.,7 Col.86, 1180

 

Stevens v. State, 50 Kan. 712, S.
C. 32 Pac. R. 350,

Stevens Point, ete., Bank v. Kick-
bush, 78 Wis. 218, S. C. 47N.
Ww. R. 267,

Stevenson v. Miller. 2 Lit. (Ky.)
306, 8.C.13 Am. Dec. 271, 217, 346

Stevenson v. Sherwood, 22 Tl.
238, S. C. 74 Am. Dec. 140,

618, 622, 623, 1232

Stevenson v. Superior Court, 62
Cal. 60, 8. C. 47 Am. R. 465, 325

Stevenson v. Stiles,3 N. J. L.548, 667

407

780

392

Stevenson v. Watson, L. R. 4C.
P. D. 148,
Stevenson v. Yorke, 4 Term Rep.
10, 403
Stevison v. Earnest, 80 Il]. 513,
181, 1223
Stewart v. Anderson, 70 Tex. 588,
8.C. 88. W. R. 295, 446
Stewart v. Board, etc., 25 Miss.
479, 276
Stewart v. Fitch,31 N. J. L.17, 1122

Stewart v. Garrett, 65 Md. 392, 382
Stewart v. Good, 29 Ala. 476, 1197
Stewart v. Griswold, 134 Mass.
391, 455
Stewart v. Hamilton, 3 Robt. (N.
Y.) 672, 1042
Stewart v. Havens, 17 Neb. 211, 810

Stewart v. Huntington Bank, 11
S. & R. 267, 8. C. 14 Am. Dec.
628, 718, 1218, 1221
Stewart v. Jones, 9 Tex. 469, 1181
Stewart v. Montgomery, 23 Pa. St.

401, 301, 1176
Stewart v. Patrick, Bed: App. 50,
S.C. 30N. E.R. 8 "1095

Stewart v. People, 33 Mich, 63, 8.
C. 9 Am. R. 78, 807, 1112, 1117
Stewart v. Sonneborn, 98° U. 8.
187, 552
Stewart v. Spaulding, 72 Cal. 264, 373
Stewart v. Sprott, 37 §. Car. 605,

8. C. 16S. E. R. 35, "1140
Stewart v. State, 111 Ind. 526, 705
Stewart v. State, 13 Ark. 720, "662, 666

Stewart v. Stringer, 41 Mo. 400,
8. C.97 Am. Dec. 278, 254, 298, 492
Stewart v. Sutherlund, 93 Cal. 270,

8. C. 28 Pac. R. 947, 622
Stewart v. Taylor, 68 ‘Cal. 5, 255
Stewart v. Wyoming, ete., Co.,

128 U. 8. 383, S. OC. 9 Sup.

Ct. R. 101, 1212
Stickney v. Blair, 50 Barb. 341, 1211
Stiles v. Ford. 2 Col. 128, 1110
Stiles v. Steele, 37 Kan. 552, 1051

Stille v.Layton,2 Harr.(Del.)149, 509
TABLE OF

CASES. ecly -

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.]

Stillwell v. Bertrand, 22 Ark.375, 376
Stillwell v. Carpenter, 62 N.Y.

639, 187
Stillwell v. Farewell, 64 Vt. 286,

S. C. 24 Atl. R. 243, 79
Stilwell v. Kellogg, 14 Wis. 461, 349
Stimpson v. Poole, 141 Mass. 502, 567
Stimson v. Green. 13 Allen, 326,
Stimson v. Huggins, 9 How. Pr.

86, 181, 1222
Stinson v. State, 32 Ind. 124, 236
Stipp v. Washington Hall Co., 5

201

Black. (Ind.) 473, 597
Stiringer v. Toy, 33 W. Va. 86, S.
C. 108. E. R. 26, 592

) 384 565, 918, oe
Stitt v. State, 91 Ala. 10, S. C.

So. R. 669, 079
Stitwell v. Williams, 6 Madd. 38, 493
Stix v. Keith, 85 Ala. 465, 1070
Stix v. Sadler, 109 Ind. 254,

398, 1105, 1146
Stockdale v. Buckingham, 11 Ia.

45, 604, 608
Stockdale v. Johnson, 14 Ia. 178, 192
Stockley v. Goodwin, 78 Til. 127,

618, 619
Stock, ete., Co. v. Board of Trade,

44 Ill, App. 358, 122
Stock Quotation, etc., Co. v.

Board of Trade, 144 Ill. 370, 8.

C. 33 N. E. R. 42, 1052
Stockton v. Central, eic., Co., 50

N. J. Eq. 52,8. C.17L.R.A.97, 482
Stockton v. Demuth, 7 Watts 39,

S .C. 32 Am. Dec. 735, 517, 595
Stockton v. Graves, 10 Ind. 294, 512
Stockton v. Powell, 29 Fla. 1, 58.

C.15L.R. A. 42, 10 So. R. 688,

122, 171
Stockton v. Stockton, 73 Ind.

510, 1067
Stockton v. Stockton,40 Ind.225, 1097
Stockwell v. State, 101 Ind. 1,

1036, 1169
Stokes v. Geddes, 46 Cal. 17, 528
Stokes v. Kane, 5 Ill. 167, 521
Stokes v. People, 53 N. Y. 164, 661
Stokes v. State, 5 Baxt. (Tenn.)

619, 8S. C. 30 Am. R. 72, 809
Stolp v. Blair, 68 Ill. 541, 807
Stone, Ex parte, 3 Cow. (N. Y.)

ee Vv. Huidekopers, 17 Wall. (U.

 

Stone v. Hawkeye, etc., Co., 68
Ia. 736,
Stone v. ” Magruder, 10 Gill & J.

1170

883, S. C. 32 Am. Dec. 177, 474

7 | Stone v. Marion County, 78 Ta. 14,
8S. C. 42 N. W. R. 570, 218
Stone v. Miller, 16 Pa. St. 450, 550

Stone v. Penna. R. R. Co., 182 Pa.
St. 206 S.C. 19 Atl. R. 67, 536
Stone v. Robinson, 9 Ark. 469, 638
Stone v. Segur, 93 Mass. 568, 664

Stone v. State, 22 Tex. App. 185 820

Stone v. Taylor, 63 Ga. 309, 1163

Stonebreaker v. Short, 8 Pa. St.
155, 508

Stoner v. Ellis, 6 Ind. 152, 5382

Stoney v. Winterhalter (Pa.), 11
Atl. R. 611, 11

Stono v. Weiller, 128 N. Y. 655, S.
C. 28 N. E. R. ‘635, '

Stoots v. State, 108 Ind. 415,

PIG prenuage v. Zohrlaut, 21 Wis.
85,

349
658

1180

400
180

Storey v. Krewson, 55 Ind. 397, 8.
C. 23 Am. R. 668,

Stork v. Judge, etc., 41 Mich. 5,

Storm v. United States, 94 U.'S.
76, 784, 797

Storm v. Waddell,2 Sandf. Ch. 491, 195

1128, 1242

4 | Story, Ex parte, 12 Pet. 339,

Story v. State, 68 Miss. 609, 8. C.
663
Story v. State, 99 Ind. 413,
Stose v. Heissler, 120 Ill. 433, S.
584
Stott v. Smith, 70 Ind. 298,
1212, 1226, 1234

10 So. R. 47,
809
C. 60 Am. R. 563,
Stoudt v. Shepherd, 73 Mich. 578,

8.C. 41 N. W. R. 696, 790
Stouffer v. Niple, 40 Md. 477, 464
Stout, Ex parte, 5 Col. 509, 145
Stout v. Curry, 110 Ind. 514, 485
Stout v. LaFollette, 64 Ind. 365, 196

Stout v. Leonard, 37 N. J. L. 492, 464
Stout v. People, 4 Park. Cr. (N.

Y.) 132, 662
Stout v. State, 90Ind.1, 206, 661, 1074
Stout v. State, 96 Ind. 407, 822
Stout v. Turner, 102 Ind. 418, 1230
Stout v. Wood, 1 Blackf. 71, 517

Stout v. Woodward, 71 N. Y. 90, 584
Stovall v. Emerson, 20 Mo. App. 51

880, 1048 322,
Stone v. Atwood, 28 Il. 30, 600 ‘Stoveld v. Brewin, 2 Barn. & Ald.
Stone v. Carter, 13 Gray 575, 235 | 116, 399
Stone v. Crocker, 24 Pick. (Mass.) Stovey v. Brennan, 15 N.Y.524, 1067
81, 552 | Stow v. Russel, 36 Tl. 18, 402
Stone v. Geyser, etc., Co., 52 Cal. Stowe v. Querner, L ~R.5 Exch. vik

315 1069

155,
ceelvi

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.)

re v. Chamberlain, 3 Thomp.

. 374,
Stowell v. Fowler, 59 N. H. 585,
Stowell v. Read, 16N. H. 20, 8. C.

41 Am. Dec. 714,

Strader v. Goff, 6 W. Va. 257,
Strader v. Graham, 10 How. 82,
Strafford v. Welch, 59 N. H. 46,
Strahl, Ex parte, 16 Ia. 369, 214
Strain v. Pauley Jail, ete., Co., 80

Tex. 622, 8. C.168. W. R. 625, 556
Strait v. Strait, 3 McArthur, 415, 287
Strang, Ex parte, 21 Ohio St. 610, 216
Strange v. Tyler, 95 Ind. 396, 188
Strasburg, etc.,R. R. Co.v. Echter-

nacht, 21 Pa. St. 220, S. C. 60

Am. Dec. 49,

Stratton v. Ham, 8 Ind. 84,
Stratton v. Kennard, 74 Ind. 302,
Stratton v. People, 5 Col. 276,
Stratton v. State, 45 Ind. 468,
Straugh v. Gear, 48 Ind. 100, 1029
Straus v. Minzesheimer, 78 Ill.

492, 1067
Straw v. Truesdale, 59N.H.109, 593
Strawn v. Cogswell, 28 Ill. 457, 657
Street v. Chapman, 29 Ind. 142, 636
Street v. Francis, 3 Ohio 277, 296
Street v. Griffiths, 50 N.J. i 656,

S.C. 14 Atl. R. 898, 551
802

1179
382

402

287
400

565
199
1235
657
803

ae v. Insurance Co. ., 12 Rich.
(S. Car.) 18,
Streeter v. Penobscot Lumber,

1165 °

Stronach v. Bledsoe, 85 N. Car.
473
Stromburg v. Earick,6 B. Mon.

676

578, 183
Stromberg ¥ v. etry, 62 Wis. 632,

8. C. 22 N. W. R. 864, 154
Strong, Ex parte, 20 Pick. 484, 162
Strong v. Beroujon, 18 Ala. 168, 582
Strong v. Bradly, 13 Vt. 9, 183
Strong v. Catlin, 3 Pinney 121, 434
Strong v. Hollon, 39 Mich. 411, 476

Strong v. Strong, 9 Cush. (Mass. )
560, 590, 595, 596, 602
Strong v. Willey, 104 U. "8. 512,

201, 332
Stropes v. Board, 72 Ind. 42, ‘1107
Strosser v. City’ of Ft. Wayne,

100 Ind. 443, “129, 484
Strother v. Hutchinson, 4 Bing.

N. C. 83, 1238
Strouse v. "Drennan, 41 Mo. 289, 314
Strowger v. Sample, 44 Kan. 298,

8. C. 24 Pac. R. 425,

Stuart v. Allen, 16 Cal. 473, 8. C.

76 Am. Dec. 551, 336
Stuart v. Laird, 1 Oranch 299, 202
Stuart v. Lake, 33 Me. 87, 517
Stuart v. Mechanics, etc., Bank,

9 Johns. 496, 220

Stuart v. Palmer, 74N.Y.183, 424, 425
Stuart v. Simpson, 1 Wend. 376, 1041
Studdard, In re, 30 Minn. 553, 1180
Studebaker v. Johnson, 41 Kan.

etc., Co., 74 Mich. 123, 8. C. 41 826, S. C. 13 Am. St. R. 287, 455
N. W. R. 883, 448 | Stull v. Howard, 26 Ind. 456, 514
Streeter v. Streeter, 43 Ill. 155, 536 | Stumer v. Pitchman, 124 Il. 250,
Stref v. Hart, 1 N. Y. 20, 298) §.C.15N.E.R. 757, 521
Streyer v. Georgia, etc., R. RB. Co. 35 Stum v. Hummell, 39 Ia. 478, 658
a a 56, S.C. 15 Sky Rep. Stumore v. Shaw, 68 Md.11,8.C.
679 | 6 Am.St. R. 412, : 739
stribbling v. Bank, 5 Rand. (Va. 1 Stump v. Fraley, 7 Ind. 679, 1226
132, 103 | Sturch v. Young, 5 Beav. 557, 1210
Strickler v. Tinkham, 35 Ga. 176, Sturdevant v. Stanton, 47 Conn.
S.C. 89 Am. Dec. 280, ~ 302 ; 1186
Strickler v. Greer, 95 Ind. 596, 544 | Sturdevant v. Tuttle, 22 Ohio St.
Striker v. Kelly, 2 Denio 328, 160 111, 463, 465

Stringer v. Alabama, etc., R. R.

Co. (Ala.), 18 So. R. 75,
Stringer v. Davis, 30 Cal. 318,
Stringer v. Insurance Co., L. R.

4 Q. B. 676,

Stringer v. Young, 3 Pet. 320,
Striplin v. Ware, 36 Ala. 87, 290
Strobe v. Downer, 13 Wis. th, 246
Strock v. Commonwealth, 90 Pa.

St. 272, 322, 1196
Stroh v. Hinchman, 37 Mich. 490, 664
Strohn vy. Detroit, ete., R. R. Co.,

99 Am. Dec. 114,

1059, 1061, 1064, 1065, 1079

1067
176

302
719

 

Sturdivant vy. Raines, 1 Leigh.
(Va.) 481, 1116
Sturges v. Crowninshield,4 Wheat.

122, 348
Sturgis v. Fay, 16 Ind. 429, S. C.
79 Am. Dec. 440, 281, 438

Sturgis v. Preston, 134 Mass. 372,
364, 393

466

797

Sturgis v. Rogers, 26 Ind. 1,
Sturgis v. Robbins, 62 Me. 289,
Sturtevant v.Ballard, 9 Johns. (N.

Y.) 337, ae
Suarez v. Manhatten Ry. Co.,
Hun 584,8.C.15N.Y.Supp. 2,” 081
TABLE OF CASES.

eelvii

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol: II, pp. 608-1244.]

Sublett v. Hodges, 88 Ala. 491,
Succession of Gorrison,15 La.Ann.

378

, 314
Succession of Jan, 43 La. Ann.
924, S. C. 10 So. R. 6, 220
Succession of Landry, 11 La. Ann.
; 290
Succession of McCalop, 10 La.
Ann, 224, 438
Succession of Williamson, 3 La.
Ann. 261, 814
Suckley v. Rotchford, 12 Gratt.
(Va.) 60,8. C.65 Am. Dec. 240, 174
Sugg v. Thornton, 132 U. S. 524,
S. C. 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 163, 442
Suit v. State, = Tex. App. 319, 8.
U.178. W.B . 458,
Suiter v. Park Nat. Bank, 35 Neb.
372, 8. C. 53 N. W. R. 205, ;
Sullivan v. Biackwell, 28 Miss.
737, 610
Sullivan v. City of Helena, 10
Mont. 134, 8. C. 25 Pac. R. 94, 1162
Sullivan v. Com., 93 Pa. St. 284, 812
Sullivan v. Fosdick, 10 Hun 173, 262
Sullivan v. Graffert, 53 Ia. 531, 478
Sullivan v. McMillan, 26 Fla. 543,
S. C. 8 So. R. 450, 890
Sullivan v. New York, etc., Co.,
119 N. Y. 348, S. C. 23 N. E. R.
820, |
Sullivan v. Otis, 39 Ia. 328, -
Sullivan v. Portland, etc., R. R.
Co., 94 U.S. 807,
Sullivan v. Royer, 72 Cal, 248, S.
C.1 Am. St. R. 51,
Sullivan v. State, 66 Ala. 48,
Sullivan v. State, 46 N.J. L. 446,
Sullivan v. Susong, 30 So. Car. 305,
S.C.9S8. E. R. 156,
Sulter v. Brooks, 74 Ga. 401,
Summer v. Kelly, 38 S. Car. 507, 8.
C. 17'S. E. R. 364, 1042, 1048
Summers v. Greathouse, 87 Ind.
205, 1091, 1092
Summers v. State, 53 Ind. 201, 1076
Summers v.Tarney, 123 Ind. 560, 1089
Summerson v. Hicks, 134 Pa. St.
566, 400
Sumner v. Sessoms, 94 N. Car. 371, 293

660

822
820
178

406
476

Sumpter v. Murrell, 2 Bay. 450, 599
Sun v. Boone (Tex.), 18 8. W. R.
142, 483

Sun Fire Office Gg Ayerst (Neb.),
55 N. W. R. 635

Sun Mat. Ins. Co. v. Seeligson, 59
Tex. 3,

Supervisors of Elections,114 Mass.

47,

Q

212

676 |

 

Supervisors v. Horton, 75 1a.271, 449
Supervisors v. Schenck, 5: Wall.
772, 165
Supervisors v. South Ottawa, 12
Ill. 480, 202
Supreme Council v. Forsinger, 125
Ind. 52, 8. C. 21 Am. St. R. 196,
588, 589
Supreme Council, etc., v. Garri-
gus, 104 Ind. 183, 8. C. 54 Am.
R. 298, 408, 588
Surles v. State, 89 Ga. 167, S. C.

15 S. E. R. 38, 806
Sutherland v. Governor, 29 Mich.
820, 8. C. 18 Am. R. 89, 251

Sutherland v. Putnam (Ariz.), 24
Pac. R. 320, 182, 1134
Sutherland v. Standard, etc., Co.
(Ia.), 54 N. W. R. 458, 1092
Sutphen v. Fowler, 9 Paige 280,
280, 281
Suttle v. State, 6 Tex. App. 556, 666
Sutton v. Fox, 55 Wis. 531, 8. C
42 Am. R. 744, 667
Sutton v. N. Y., ete. , R. R. Co., 66

N. Y. 248, 546
Sutton v. Toad: 5 Blackf. (Ind).

217, 8. C. 33 Am. Dec. 466, 800
Sutton v. Tyrrell, 10 Vt. 91, 586

Suttrell v. Martin (N. Car.), 17
8. E. R. 573, 12.
Suydam v. Huggerford, 23 Pick.
(Mass.) 465, 469
Suydam v. Palmer, 63 Ga. 546, 243
Suydam v. Williamson, 24 How.
427, 275, 1025
Swafford v. Whipple, 3 G. Greene

: 261, 8. C. 54 Am. Dec. 498, 675
Swails v. Cissna, 61 Ia. 693, 1124
Swails v. Coverdill, 21 Ind. 271, 138
Swaim v. Swaim, 134 Ind. 596, 1082
Swain v. Cawood, 2 Scam. Ill.

505, 1229
Swan v. Bournes, 47 Ja. 501, 134
Swan vy. Clark, 80 Ind. 57,

1212, 1230
Swan v. Gray, 44 Miss. 393, 1241
Swan v. People, 98 Ill. 610, 915

Swan v. Tappan, 5 Cush. (Mass. )

104, 544
Swank v. Hufnagle, 111 Ind. 453,

108, 1003

Swank v. Nichols, 24 Ind. 199, 1067

Swann v- Lindsey, 70 Ala. 507, = 361

803 Oe. etc., Co. v. Brune, oil

(Md.) 4.

2| Swayne v. Waldo, 73 Ta. 749, 8. a

5 Am. St. R: 712, 1141
Swearingen v. Gulick, 67 Tl. 208, 319
eclvili

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. I, pp. 603-1244.]

Bee ee v. Leach, 7 B. Mon.

(Ky.) 285
Swearingen * v.Wilson, 2 Tex. Civ.

App. 187, 8. C0. 218. W. R. 74,

149, 182
Sweat v. Rogers, 6 Heisk. (Tenn.)

117, 706
Sweeney v. Baker, 13 W.Va. 158, 646
Sweeney v. Perney, 40 Kan. 102, Ke

2

715

8. C. 19 Pac. R. 328,
Sweeney v. State, 35 Ark. 585, 544
Sweeney v. United States, 109 U.

S. 618, 407
Sweeney v. Vaudry, 2 Mo. App.

352, 593
Sweesey v. Durnall, 23 Neb. 531,

S. C. 37 N. W. R. 459, 557
Sweet v. Myers (8. Dak.), 53 N

W.R. 187 1136
Sweet v. Morrison, 116 N. Y. 19,
8. C. 22 N. E. R. 276, 406, 600
Sweet v. Perkins, 24 Fed. R. 777, 1236
Sweetland v. Barrett, 4 Mont. 217, 393

T
Table Mt., etc., Co. v. Waller’s,

etc., Co., 4 Nev. 218, - 640
Tabler v. Hannibal, etc., R. R.

Co., 93 Mo. 79, 547
Tabor v. Judd, 62 N. H.288, 800, 801
Tabor v. Mackkee, 58 Ind. 290, 1046
Tabor v. Staniels, 2 Cal. 240, 715
Tacey v. Irwin, 18 Wall. 549, 404
Tackaberry v. City Nat. Bk., 85

Tex. 488, S. C. 22 S. W. R.

299, 1143
Tackett v. Vogler, 85 Mo. 480, 337
Tafits v. Manlove, 14 Cal. 47, 468
Taft v. Fiske, 140 Mass. 250, 8. C,

54 Am. R. 459, 819

Taft v. Stoddard, 142 Mass. 545,
S.C. 8N.E. R. 586, 394

Tagert v. Harkness, 1 Eng. alae
528,

Sweetser v. Smith, 22 Abb. N.C. Taggart v. Muse, 60 Miss. 870, art
819, 8. C.5 N. Y. Sup, 378, 305 | Tahoe v. Mining Co., 14 Fed. R.
Swem v. Green, 9 Col. 358, 566} 636, 463
Sweringen v. Eberius, 7 Mo. 421, Tainter v. Mayor, 19N.J. Eq. 46, 485
8. C. 38 Am. Dec. 463, 470 | Taintor v. Williams, 7 Conn. 271, 468
Swett v. Sprague, 55 Me. 190, 450 | Talbert v. Hopper, 42 Cal. 397, 150
Swett v. Stark, 31 Fed. R. 858, 412 | Talbott v. Padgett, 30 S. Car. 167,
Swicard v. Hooks, 85 Ga. 580, S. 8.C.858. E. R. 845, 528
C.1158.E. R. 863, 541 | Talcott v. Rozenberg, 3 Daly 203, 434
Swift v. Allen, 55 Ill. 303, 1244 | Taliaferro vy. Franklin, 1 Gratt.
Swift v. Brumfield, 76 Ind. 472, 489] 332, 1221
Swift v. Castle, 23 Ill. 209, 514 | Taliferro v. Bassett, 3 Ala. 670, 239
Swift v. Crumfield, 76 Ind. 472, 459 | Talkington v. Parish, 89 Ind. 202,
Swift v. Myers, 37 Fed. R. 37, 327 1025, 1030
Swift v. Ratliff, 74 Ind. 426, 791'| Tallmadge v. ae Pub. Co., 14 4
Swift v. Stark, 2 Ore. 97, 443) N.Y. Supp. 331, 675, 677
Swift v. Tyson, 16 Pet (0. 8.) 18, 51} Tallman v. Ely, 6 Wis. 244, 328
Swift v. Allen, 55 Ill. 303, 191 | Tallman v. McCarty, 11 Wis. 401,
Swiggart v. Harber, 4 Scam. (Ill.) 183, 339, 604

364, 8S. C. 39 Am. Dec. 418, 259, 341
Switzer v. Noffsinger, 82 Va. 518,

376, 382
Swope v. Hopkins, 119 Ind. 125,

S.C. 21. N. E. R. 462, 411
Swope v. Schafer (Ky.), 48. W.

R. 300, 1059
Sydnor y. Palmer, 32 Wis. 406, 117
Sylvester v. Jerome (Col.), 34

Pac. R. 760, 819
Syme v. Broughton, 85 N. Car.

367, 679
Synnott y. Shaughnessy, 130 U.S.

572, 1186
Syracuse v. Reed, 46 Kan. 520, 8S.
C. 26 Pac. R. 1043, 1025

Syracuse Bank v. "Tallman, 81

Barb. (N. Y.) 201, 495

 

Tallot v.Clark, 8 Pick.(Mass.) 51, 514
Talmadge v. Northrop, 1 Root
(Conn.) 454, 653
Tampa St. Ry. Co. v. Tampa, etc.,
Co., 30 Fla. 400 and 595, S. C.
11 So. R. 562, 8.0.17 L R. A.
681, 224, 235
Tankersley v. Pettis, 71 Ala.179, 1176
Tanner v. King, 11 La. R. 175, 312
Tanner v. Smart, 6 Barn. & Cres.
603, 382
Tant v. Wigfall, 65 Ga. 412, 314
Tapley v. Goodsell; 122 Mass. 176,
189, 368

Tapley v. Martin, 116 Mass. 275,
189, 336:

Tappan v. Beardsley, 10 Wall.(U.
5 427, 513
TABLE OF CASES.

f

eclix

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.]

Tappan v. Harrison, 2 Humph.
(Tenn.) 172,

ca ae Vv. Kimball, 380 N. H.
186

Tarbell v. Farmer’s, etc., Co., 44
Minn. 471, 8. C.47 N.W.R

467
384

Taylor v. pee Iron Co., 94
N. Car. 5: 385
Taylor v. ravall: 45 Md. 422, 679
Taylor v. Davis (Tex.), 13 S. W.
R. 642, 1230
Taylor v. Deverell, 43 Kan. 469,

152, 405 | S.C. 23 Pac. R. 628, 713, 1216
Tarbell v. Royal Exchange, etc., Taylor v. Dickinson, 15 Ia. 483, 1210
Co., 110 N. Y. 170, 8. C. 6 Am. Taylor v. Drane, 13 La. 62, 464

St. R. 350, 557 | Taylor v. Duesterberg, 109 Ind.
Tarble Cases, 13 Wall. 397, 303 | 165, 518
Tarbox v. Gotzian, 20 Minn. 139, 1094 Taylor v. Elliott, 51 Ind. 875, 467
Tarkington v. Purvis, 128 Ind. Taylor v. Fletcher, 15 Ind. 80, 1231
182, 109 | Taylor v. Flint, 35 Ga. 124, 1224, 1232

Tarpenning v. Cannon, 28 Kan. Taylor v. Ford, 92 Cal. 419, 8. GC.
5 7| 28 Pac. R. 441, 355

Tarwater v. Hannibal R. R. Co.,

42 Mo. 193, 546
Tasker v. Cilley, 59 N. H. 575, 533
Tassey v. Church, 4 Watts & 8S.

(Pa.) 141, 8. C. 39 Am. Dec. 65, 618
Tate v. Bell, 4 Yerg. 202, 121
Tate v. Booe, 9 Ind. 13, 390
Tate v. Clements, 16 Fla. 339, 384
ae v. Vance, 27 Gratt. (Va.)

592
Tau’. Winn, 5 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.)
437, 1048
Tax Gases, 92 U. S. 575, 403
Tay v. Hawley, 39 Cal. "93, 443
Tayloe v. Riggs, 1 Peters (U. 8.)
591, 502

Taylor v. ‘Atlantic & Pacific R. R.
Co., 68° Mo. 397, 608, 639

Taylor v. Bates, 5 Cow. 376, 862

Taylor v. Beck, 3 Rand. ive.) 816, 1194

Taylorv. Benham, 5 How. (U. 8.)
233, 354

Taylor v. Betsford, 13 Johns. (N.
Y.) 487,

re "Bosworth, 1 Ind. App.

Taylor v. Burk, 91 Ind. 252,

Taye Burlington, ete. , Co., 5
Ia. 1

rion Carryl, 24 Pa. St. 259,

471
467
Taylor v. Cayce, 97 Mo. 242, 8. C.
10S. W. R. 832 1132
Taylor v. Clendening, 4 Kan. 524, 803
Taylor v. Commonwealth, 44 Pa.
St. 131, 182
Taylor v. Commonwealth, 3 J. J.
Marsh. 401, 203
Taylor v.. Com. (Va.), 17 8. E. R.
812, 813
Taylor v. Coots, 32 Neb. 30, S. C.
29 Am. St. R. 426, S. C. 48'N, W.
R. 964, 241, 331, 449, 451
Taylor v. Coryell, 12 Serg. & R.
(Pa.) 243, 583

 

Taylor v. Granite, etc., Assn., 136
N. Y. 343, S.C. 32 N. E. R. 992,

441, 442
Taylor v. Henry, 2 Pick. 397, A423
Taylor v. Hill, 10 Leigh. (Va.)

457, 551
ae v. Hillyer, 3 Blackf. (Ind.)
Taylor v. Hodges, 105 N. ©. 344,

S.C. 11.8. E. R. 156, 889
Taylor v. Johnson, 113 Ind. 164, 1215
Taylor v. Jones, 2 Atk. 600, — 499
Taylor v. Jones, 2 Head. 565, 1123
Taylor v. Ketchum, 5 Robt. (N.

Y.) 507, 1091
Taylor v. Kilgore, 33 Ala. 214, 363
Taylor v. Kuhuke, 26 Kan. 132, 465

Taylor v. Life Assn., 3 Fed. R.465, 194

Taylor v. McClung, 2 Houston

(Del.) 24, 413
Taylor v. McNairy, 42 Miss. 276, 1195
Taylor v. McNutt, 58 Tex. 71, 538
Taylor v. Middleton, 67 Cal. 656,

544, 558
Taylor v. Morrison, 26 Ala. 728,

8. C. 62 Am. Dec. 747, 1067
Taylor v. Ohio River, etc., Co.,

35 W. Va. 328, 8. C. 1858. E.R.

1009, 320
Taylor v. Pees etc., Co.,

7 Fed. R. 381 194
Taylor v. Place, 4 RB. T. 324, 7
Taylor v. Pope, 106 N. Car. '267, 8.

¢. 19 Am. St. R. 530, 1149

Taylor v. Reed, 5 T. B. ’Monr. 36, 403
Taylor v. Reid, 103 Ill. 349, 451
Taylor v. Shouse, 73 Mo. 361, 413

Taylor v. Skrine, 3 Bre. (8. Gar. )
516, 214, 216

Taylor v. Smith, 4 Ga. 133, 236

Taylor vy. Smith, 93 Mich. "160, 8.
6.52 N. W. R. 1118, 583

Taylor v. Spivey, 11 Ired. (N.Car. Mg
427,
eelx

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.]

182

1168

603
145
1161

Taylor v. State, 180 Ind. 66, S. C.

29 N. E. R. 415, 697

Taylor v. Sutton, 6 La. Ann. 709, 565

Taylor v. Town of Monroe, 43
Conn. 36, 739

Taylor y. Webb, 54 Miss. 36, 439

Taylor v. Whitehead, 2 Doug.

745, 1156
Taylor Will Case, 10 Abb. Pr.

300, 35
Taylor v. Williams, 78 Va. 422, 337
Taylor v. Wilkinson, 22 Wis. 40, 154
Tays v. Carr, 87 Kan. 141, 8. C.

14 Pac. R. 456, 514
Teaff v. Hewitt, 1 Ohio St. 511, 8.

C. 59 Am. Dec. 634, 1182
Teal v. Bilby, 123 U. S. 572, 1207
Teese v. Huntingdon, 23 How.

(U. 8.) 2, 803
Tefft v. Sternberg, 40 Fed. R.2, 192
Telford v. Coggins, 76 Ga. 683, 434
Tempest v. Ord. 1 Madd. 59, 497
Temple v. Bank of England, 6

Ves. 770, 480, 487
Temple v. Brittan (Ky.), 12 S.

W. R. 306, 527
Temple v. Com., 14 Bush. (Ky.)

769, 8. C. 29 Am. R. 442, 1110
Templeman v. Steptoe, 1 Munf.

339, 1179
Templeton v. Giddings, 12 8. W.

R. 851 218
Tennessee v. Sneed, 96 U.S. 69, 348
Tennessee Co. v. Alabama Co. , 81

Ala. 94,

Tennessee River, etc., Co. v.
Kavanaugh (Ala.), 13 So. R.
283,

Tennison v. Tennison, 49 Mo.
110,

Tenny v. Filer, 8 Wend. 569,

Tenpenning v. Gallup, 8 Ia. 75,

Terre Haute v. Hudnut, 112 Ind.

542, 91
Terre Haute, etc., Co. v. Baker,

122 Ind. 433, 474
Terre Haute, etc., Co. v. Brunker,

128 Ind. 542,
Terre Haute, etc., R. R. Co.

Clark, 73 Ind. 168, 1097, 108 1178
Terre Haute, etc., R. R.

Harris, 126 Ind. 7, 8. C. & N.

E. R. 831, 574, 597
Terre Haute, etc., R. R. Co. v.

Jackson, 81 Ind. 19, 1123
Terre Haute & I. R. R. Co. v.

Voelker, 129 Ill. 540, 8. C.22 N.

E. R. 20, 546, 547
Terrell v. State, 68 Ind. 155, 1181
Terrell vy. Walker, 65 N. Car. 91, 404

 

Terrill v. Auchauer, 14 Ohio St.

80, 248
Territory v. Ah La 1 Wash. 156,

8.C.9L. R. A. 395 171
Territory v. Ah Wah, 4 Mont. 149,

8. C. 47 Am. R. 341, 644
Territory v. Baker (N. Mex.), 13

Pac. R. 30, 10
Territory v. Burgess, 8 Mont. 57,

S. C. 19 Pac. R. 588, "1081
Territory v. Judge, 5 Dak. 275, 805
Territory v. Kelly, 2.N. Mex. 292, 635
Territory v. Kinney, 9 West Coast

Rep. 268, 618
Territory v. Lannon, 9 Mont. 1, 453
Territory v. Trujillo (N. Mex. ds,

32 Pac. R. 154,

Terry, Ex parte, 128 U. 8. 289,

136, 255
Terry v Anderson, 95 U. 8. 628, 348
Terry v. Berry, 13 Nev.514, 183,1192
Terry v. Hammonds, 47 Cal. 32, 1178
Terry v. McNeil, 58 Barb. (N. Y.

241, 797
Terry v. Robins, 58. & M. 291, 1168
Terry v. Shively, 93 Ind. 413, 1091
Terry v. Shively, 64 Ind. 106, 539
Terry v. Wheeler, 25 N. Y. 520, 559
Terwilliger v. Brown, 44 N. Y

237, 243°
Tesney v. State, 77 Ala. 33, 919

Testard v. State, 26 Tex. App. 260,
8. 0.98. W. R. 888, 179

Tetz v. Butterfield, 54 Wis. 242, 407

Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700, 116

Texas, ‘etc., Co. v. Douglass, 69
Tex. 694, 8.0.78. W.R. 77, 230

Texas, etc., R’y. Co. v. Bagwell, ‘
3 Tex. Civ. App. 256, S. C. 22S,

W. R. 829, 620
Texas Land, etc., Co. v. Watson,

3 Tex. Civ. App. 233, 8. C. 228.

W. R. 873 1068
Texas Land Co. v. Williams, 48

Tex. 602, 174
ae & P. R’y. Co. v. Cox, 145

U. 8.598, Sv %. 12 Sup. Ct. R.

ee 609, 1229

Texas & Pac. R. R. Oo. v. McCoy,
3 Tex. Civ. App. 276, S. C. 228.
W. R. 926,

Texas & Pac, Ry. Co. v. Miller,
79 Texas 78, S. a 23 Am. St. R.
308, 8.C. 158 .W.R. 264, 1048, 1087

Texas Trunk, etc., Co. v. Hogg,
83Tex. 1,58. C. 18S. W.R.199, 180

Thain v. Rudisill, 126 Ind. 272, 8.

C. 26N. E.R. 46, 1186

Thames, etc., Co. v. Beville, 100

Ind. 309, 1155, 1228

1209
The King v. Catherine’s Hall, 4.

TABLE OF CASES.

ec] xi

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.)

Thatcher v. Humble, 67 Ind. 444, 481

Thatcher v. Miller, 13 Mass. 270, 436

Thatcher v. Phinney, 7 Allen
739

(Mass.) 146,
Thatcher v. Powell, 6 Wheat. 119,

297, 316
824

Thaw v. Ritchie, 186 U.S. 519,
Thayer v. Bacon, 3 Allen (Mass. )

584
581

163, S. C. 80 Am. Dec. 59,
Thayer. Boston, 19 Pick. (Mass.)

Thayer v. Bigot 100 Ind. 262, 1121
Thayer v. Dove, 8 Blackf. (Ind.)

567, 604
Thayer v. Gallup, 13 Wis. 539, 800
Thayer v. Marsh, 75 N. Y.340, 1042
Thayer v. Meeker, 86 Ill. 470, 404
Thayer vy. Richards, 44 IIl. App.

195, 1096
Thayer v. Society, 20.Pa. St. 60, 1103
Thayer v. Tyler, 5 Allen 94, 198
Thayer v. Tyler, 10 Gray 164, 474

The Betsey and Charlotte, 4
Cranch 446,
The Blanche Page, 16 Platchf. 1,
The Board v. Shipley, 77 Ind.
553, 976
The Brig Hiram, 23 Ct. of Cl. 431, 174
The C. T T. Ackerman, 14 Blatcht.
360, 277
The Charles Morgan, 115 U. 8.
69, 800, 801
The’ Chicago, etc., Co. v. Me-
Daniel, 134 Ind. 166, : 1230
The Confiscation Cases, 20 Wall.
92

2 129, 278
The Excelsior, 123 U. S. 40, 588
The Illinois, etc., Co. v. Fix, 53

278

Til. 131, 98
The Indianapolis, etc., Co. v.

Frawley, 110 Ind. 18, 1102
The Indianapolis, etc., Co. v.

Watson, 114 Ind. 20,8. C.14N.

E. R. 721, 962
The Indiana, etc., Co. v. Williams,
22 Ind. 198, 192

The Johnston Harvester Co. v.
Bartley, 81 Ind. 406, 71

The Josepha, etc., 10 Wheat. 312, 277

The J Hae ete. v. People, 18
Wend. 7 1241
Durn & E. 313, 965

The Site v. Commissioners, 3 M.
&

Thellusson v. Rendlesham, 7 H.
L. Cases 429,

The Louisville, etc., Co. v. Don-
negan, et.al., 111 Ind. 179, 8. C.
12 N. E. R, 153,

920

408

225 |

 

The Louisville, etc., Co. v. Thomp-
son, 107 Ind. 442, 103, 108

The Lottawanna, 21 Wall. 558, 256

The Marianna Flora, 11 Wheat. 1, 307

The Mary, 9 Cranch 126, 276
The Mary Blane v. Beehler, 12
Mo. 477, 379
The Northern Gas Light Co. v.
Parnell, 15 C. B. 630, 406
The Nueva Anna, 6 Wheat. 198, 116
The Palmyra, 12 Wheat. 1, 271, 277

The Queen’s Cases, 2 Brod. & B.
284, 789

The Rio Grande, 19 Wall. 178, 277
The Santissima Trinidad,7 Wheat.
283, 821
65 Ala. 198,
The Terre Haute, etc., R. R. Co. 6
870
The Weavers Co. v. Forrest, 2
Str. 1232, 423
Thieband v. Sebastian, 10 Ind.
454, 509, 510
R. 191,
Third Great Perr Cee, Co. v.

The South. R’y. Co. v. Morris,
120
v. Buck, 96 Ind. 346,
The Whiskey Cases, 99 U.S. 594, 277
Thiers v. Holmes (Tex.), 9S. W.
1025

Loomis, 32 N. Y. 127, 177
Thirsley v. Helbot, 3 Mod. 272, 595
Thom v. State (Tex.),22 S. W.R.

877, 1224
Thomas v. Austin, 4 Barb. 265, 1185
Thomas v. Black (Del.), 18 Atl. R.

771, 411

Thomas v. Brigstocke, 4 Russ 64, 497
Thomas v. Chapman, 45 Barb.

98, 1124
Thomas v. Churchill, 84 Me. 446,

8. C. 24 Atl. R. 899, 126
Thomas v. Croft, 2 Rich 118, 363
Thomas v. Dale, 86 Ind. 435,

71, 104, 1148

Thomas v. Desney, 57 Ia. 58, 8.
C. 10 N. W. R. 315,

Thomas v. England, 71 Cal. 456,

_ 8. C. 12 Pac. R. 491, 551

Thomas v. Fleury, 26 N. Y. 26, 408

Thomas v. Fogarty, 19 Cal. 644, 148

Thomas v. Griffin, 1 Ind. App. 457,
1210, 1218, 1232, "1233

Thomas v. Hunnicutt, 54 Ga.

337, 386
Thomas v. Ireland, 88 Ky. 581,

8. C. 21 Am. St. R. 356, 455
Thomas v. James, 32 Ala. 728, 484
Thomas v. Jones, 28 Gratt. 383, 1124
Thomas v. Joslin, 386 Minn. 1, 8.

C. 1 Am. St. R. 624, 800, 1176
Thomas v. Lawson, 21 How. 331, 1169
celxii

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.]

Thomas vy. Leach, 2 Mass. 152, .
Thomas v. McDaneld (Ia.), 55 N.

W. R. 499,

Thomas v. Merry, 113 Ind. 83, 372
Thomas v. Morris, 8 Utah 284, S.

C. 81 Pac. R. 446, 1162
Thomas v. Morrisett, 76 Ga. 384, 314
Thomas vy. People, 67 N. Y. 218, 661
Thomas v. People, 107 Ill. 517, 8.

C. 47 Am. R. 458, 825
Thomas vy. Pennrich, 28 Ohio St.

55, 333
Thomas v. Ruddell, 66 Ind. 326, 1029

582
795

Thomas v. Simmons, 103 Ind.
538, 484

Thomas v. Thomas, 15 B. Mon.
(Ky.) 178, 525, 536

Thomas v. Upper Marion Tp., 10
Pa. Co. Ct. 414,
Thomason v. Grose, 42 Ala. 431,
Thomason v. Odum, 31 Ala. 108,
S. C. 68 Am. Dec. 159, 1178
Thompson’s Case, 8 Gratt. 637, 1160
Thompson’s Case, 122 Mass. 428, 457
Thompson v.Assn., 52 Mich. 522, 610
Thompson v. Baker, 74 Me. 48, 468
Thompson v. Bickford, 19 Minn.
17, 1190
Thompson v. Blanchard, 4 N. Y.
303, 694, 795
Thompson v. Brannan, 76 Cal.
618, 8S. C. 18 Pac. R. 783, _ 452
Thompson v. Brandt (Cal.), 32

1121
1052

Pac. R. 890, 626
Thompson vy. Brown, 17 Pick.
462, 197

Thompson v. Charnock, 8 Term

R. 139,
Thompson v. Com., 8 Gratt. 637,
; 1

408

Thompson v. Grimes, 5 Ind. 385, 540
Thompson v. Diffendoffer, 1 Md.

Ch. 489, 195, 496
-Tnompson v. Doe, 8 Blackf. 336, 274
Thompson v. Douglass, 35 W. Va.

387, 8. C. 13 S.E.R.1015, 554, 659
Thompson vy. Drake, 32 Ala.99, 1225
Thompson v. Duff, 119 Ill. 226, S.

C. 10 N. E. R. 399, 1064
Thompson y. Hatch, 3 Pick.512, 172
Thompson vy. Hill, 3 Yerg. 167, 299
Thompson v. Howard, 31 Mich.

309, g 354
Thompson v. Ish, 17 Am. St. R.

565, 519
Thompson y. Kerr, 17 Ind. 288, 248
Thompson v. Lee, 19S. Car. 489, 1160
Thompson vy. Locke, 66 Tex. 383, 304
Thompson vy. Lumley, 50 How. Pr.
(N. Y.) 105, 8. C. 64N. Y.631, 1041

 

Thompson v. Lynch, 43 Cal. 482, 1166
Thompson v. Mississippi, etc.,Co.,

2 La. Ann. 228, S. C. 22 Am.

Dec. 129, 622
Thompson v. People (Ill.),33 Am.

L. Reg. 41, 1158
Thompson y. Pershing, 86 Ind.

303, 206
Thompson v. Powning, 15 Nev.

195, 539
Thompsom v. Reed, 75 Me. 404, 373

Thompson vy. Rickford, 19 Minn.
17, 183
Thompson v. Ridelsperger, 144

Pa. St. 416, S. C. 22 Atl. 826, 182
Thompson v. Rose, 16 Conn. 71,

S. C. 41 Am. Dec. 121, 397
Thompson v. Russell, 1 Okla. 225,

8. C. 32 Pac. R. 56,
Thompson v. School Dist., 71 Mo.

495, 378
Thompson v. Scott, 4 Dill, 508, 410

Thompson v. Shirley, 1 Esp. N. P.
31, 392
Thompson v. Silvers, 59 Ia. 670, 472
Thompson v. State, 3 Ind. App.
871, S. C. 28 N. E. R. 996, 528
Thompson v. State, 9 Tex. App.
301, 232
Thompson vy. Steamboat Morton,
2 Ohio St. 26, 276, 337
Thompson vy. Thompson, 9 Ind. |
323, 414
Thompson y. Thompson, 6 Hous.
(Del.) 225, 178
Thompson v. Thompson, 52 Cal.
154,
ay aus v. Thornton, 41 Cal.

6t9

9 | Thompson v. Tolmie, 2 Pet.16,293, 324

Thompson v. White, 18 Ind.373, 1233
Thompson v. Whitman, 18 Wall.

457, 314, 328, 329, 330
Thompson v. Wilson, 34 Ind. 94, 508
Thompson-Houston Electric Co.

v. Palmer (Minn.), 53N. W. R.

1187, 505
Thomson vy. Austen, 2 Dowl. &

R. 358, 569
Thomson v. Brothers,5 La. 277, 719
Thoms vy. Southard, 2 Dana 475, 499
Thorn v. Maurer, 85 Mich. 569, S.

C. 48 N. W. R. 640, 304
Thorn v. Moore, #1 Ia.285, 794, 795
Thorn v. Sweeney, 12 Nev. 251, 484
Thorn v. Woodruff, 5 Ark. 55, 198
Thornburgh v. Mastin, 93 N. Car. ;

258, 558
Thorne v. Mosher, 20 N. J. Eq.

257. 404
TABLE OF CASES.

eel xiii

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. I, pp. 603-1244.]

Thornton v. Adkins, 19 Ga. 464, 515

Thornton v. Am. Writing Mach.
Co., 83 Ga. 288, S. C. 20 Am. St.
R. 320,

Thornton v. Baker, 15 R. I. 553,
8. C. 2 Am. St. R. 925, S. C. 10

457

Atl. R. 617, 148, 300, 314, 322, 455
Thornton v. Bank, 3 Pet. 36, 1025
Thornton v. Boyd, 25 Miss. 598, 379

Thornton v. Gaar, 87 Va. 315,
Thornton v. Jett, 1 Wash. (Va.)
138, 1049
Thornton v. Lane, 11 Ga. 459, 1160
Thornton yv. McGrath, 1 Duy.

619

(Ky.) 349, 243
Thornton v. McCormick, 75 Ia.

285, 576
Thornton v. Roll, 118 Ill. 350, 484

Thornton v. Thornton, 39 Vt. 122,

791, 795

Thornton v. West Feliciana R. R.
Co., 29 Miss. 143, 678
Thorp v. Craig, 10 Ta. 461, 1054

Thorp v. Cole, 2 C. M. & R.
367, 591
Thorpe v. Starr, 17 Il. 199, 599
Thorwegan v. King, 110.8. 549, 1067
* Thrall v. Mead, 40 Vt. 540, 360
Thrasher v. Ballard, 33 W. Va.
285, S.C. 25 Am. St. R. 894, 1049
Thrasher v. Haynes, 2N.H. 429, 574
Thrasher v. Overby, 51 Ga. 91, 602
Three Tons of Coal, 6 Biss. 379, 277
Thurber-Whyland Co. v. Klittner,
16 N. Y. Supp. 828, 8. C. 42 N.
Y. 8. R. 157,
Thurman v. Bertram, 20 Alb. Law
Jour. 151,
Thurman vy. Cameron, 24 Wend.

434
811

87,
Thurman, v. Shelton, 10 Yerg.
(Tenn. ) 383, ° 38]
Thurston v. City, 51 Mo. 510, 8.
C..11 Am. R. 463, 957
Thurston yv. Kennett, 22N.H.151, [676
Thuston v. State, 18 Tex. App. —

414
575

26,
Thwaites v. Mackerson, 3 C:& P.
_ 841,
Thygerson v. Whitbeck, 5 Utah,
406, 8. C. 16 Pac. R. 408,
Tibbals v. Sargeant, 14 N. J. Eq.

8 | Tischler v. Hotheimer, 83 Va. 35,

 

Tidd v. Smith, 3 N. H. 178, 453
Tiernan v. Rescaniere, 10 G. & J.

(Md.) 217, 376
Tierney v. Union Lumbering Co.,

47 Wis. 248, 177
Tiffany v. Gilbert, 4 Barb. 320, 332
Tiffin v. Forester, 8 Mo. 642, 1212
Tift v. Jones, 52 Ga. 538, 179
Tignor v. Bradley, 32 Ark. 781, 464
Tilghman y. Proctor, 125 U. S.

136, 201
Tillam v. Copp, 4 C. B. 211, 593

Tiller v. Abernathy, 37 Mo. 196, 543
Tillinghast v. Champlin, 4 R. i.
178, 8. C.67 Am. Tee: 510, 410, 411
Tillinghast v. Gilmore, 17 R. a
413, S. C. 22 Atl. R. 942, 582
Tillinghast v. Nourse, 14 Ga. 641, 514
Tillotson v. Pritchard, 60 Vt. 94, 305

Tilton v. Kimball, 52 Me. 500, | 665
Tilton v. Vail, 117 N. Y. 520, 8: C.
23 N. E. B. 120, 1179

Tilus v. Relyea, 8 Abb. Pr. R.
177, 248

Timmons v. Timmons, 6Ind.8, 293
Tindal v. Brown, 1 T. R. 167, 555
Tindal v. Drake, 60 Ala. 170, 115
Tindall v. Wasson, 74 Ind. 495, 33
Tinkle v. Dunivant, 16 Lea
(Tenn.) 503, 1120
Tinly v. Martin, 80 Ky. 463, 1182
Tippack v. Bryant, 63 Mo. 580, 255
Tippin v. Coleman, 59 Miss. 641, 381
Tipping v. State, 14 Ga. 422, 308
Tipton v. Tipton, 87 Ky. 243, 312

Tipton v. State, 30 Tex. App.
530, 807

Tischler v. Apple, 30 Fla. 123, 8S.
C. 11 So. Rep. 278, 788
412

602
Titus v. Ash, 24 N. H. 319, 800
Titus v. Scantling, 4 Blackf. 89,
576, 584
Tobey v. Comey of Bristol, 3 Story
(U. S.) 585, 587
Tobin v. ae: 29 Ark. 151, 679
Tobin v. Missouri Pacific R. R. Co.
o.), 188. W. R. 996, 534
Tobler v. Stubblefield. 32 Tex. 188,
1200

8. C. 48. E. R. 370,
Tittenson v. Peat, 3 Atk. 529,

496 | Toby v. Oregon Pac. R. R. Co.
Tibbetts y. O’Connell, 66 Ind. . Toys, 33 Pac. R. 550, 509
171, 1158 rot v. Wick, 36 Ohio St. 3870, 302
Tibbetts v. Penley, 83 Me. 118, 8. Todd v. Badger, 134 Ind. 204, 8.0.
C. 21 Atl. R. 838,- 152, 1213 33 N. E. R. 963, 1096
Tichborne’s Case, 3 Wharton & Todd v. Barlow, 3 Johns. Ch. (N.
Stille Med. Juris. Sec. 623, 30 Y.) 551, 600
Tidd v. Rines, 26 Minn. 201, 1191 | Todd v. Buckman, 11 Me. 41, 199
ceclxiv

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.]

Todd v. Flournoy’s Heirs, 56 Ala.
99, 8. C. 28 Am. R. 758,

Todd v. Gray, 16 S. Car. 635,

Todd v. Jackson, 75 Ind. 272,

Todd v. State, 25 Ind. 212,

Todd v. Todd, 15 Ala. 743) 362

Toland v. Sprague, 12 Pet. (U. 8.)
300, 553

Tolbert v. Burke, 89 Mich. 132, S.

C. 50 N. W. R. 803, 72
Tolbert v. Horton, 33 Minn. 104,
Toledo, etc., R. R. Co. v. Dunlap,

47 Mich. 456,

Toledo, etc., Co. v. Detroit, etc.,
Go. 8 61 Mich. 9, 8. C. 27 N. W.

Toledo te Wabash Ry. Co.
Goddard, 25 Ind. 185, 525, 530, 546

ae ete. Co. v. Ingraham, a0

Ill. 3 1171
Toleds. te .. Ry. Co. v. Milligan

52 Ind. 505, 109
Toledo, W. &W. Ry. Co. v. Owen

43 Ind. 405,

Toledo, etc.,Co. v. Penna. Co., 54
Fed. R. 730, 8. C. 19 L. R. A.
387, 478, 482

Toledo, etc. Co. v. Rogers, 48 Ind.
427, 1227, 1240

Toledo, etc., R. R. Co. v. Stephen-
son, 131 Ind. 203, 8. C. 30 N. E.

318
656
1157
1159

34
814

488

441

Tompkins v. Henderson, 83 Ala.
3891, 33

Tompkins v. Hyatt, 19N.Y.534, 1182
Toney v. Toney, 73 Ind. 34, 397
Tooke v. Newman, 75 III. 215, 451

Tookerv. Thompson, 3 McLean 92, 509
Toomes’ Estate, 54 Cal. 509, "1133
Toomey Vv. London, etc., Co., 3 C.
B. (N.8.) 146, 1041, 1050
S.C. 10 Am. R. 732

1172
Topeka, City of, v. Boutwell,
(Kan.) 35 Pac. R. 819, ‘ 1087, 1088
Topeka, City of, v. Heitman, 47
Kan. 739, 8.C. 28 Pac. R. 1096, 1080
Topeka v, Martineau, 42 Kan. 387,
8.C.5L. R.A. 775, 814
Topeka, etc., Co. v. ‘Roberts, 45
Kan. 360, 8. C. 25 Pac. R. 854, 483
Topling v. Jones, 11 H. L. Cas.
290, 483
8. C. 13 Sup. Ct. R. 70, 712, 799
Torian v. McClure, 83 Ind. 310,
365, 395
Totten v. Bucy, 57 Md. 446, 503
Totten v. Burhans, 91 Mich. 495, .
8. C. 51 N. W. R. 1119, 1229°
Touchard v. Crow, 20 Cal. 150, 1224

Tourtelot v. Tourtelot, 4 Mass. 506, 620
Tourtelotte v. Brown, 1 Col. App.

0 | Tootle v. Clifton, 22 le St. 247,

7 | Toplitz v. Hedden, 146 U.S. 252,

R. 1082, 622| 408, S. C. 29 Pac. Rep. 130, 782
Tee os Works v. Works, 70 Tower v. Haslam, 84 Me. 86, 8.C.
Ind. 2 1211, 1213 | 24 Atl. R. 587, 1064
Toldo, ool Ry. Co. v. Wright, 68 Tower v. Lamb, 6 Mich. 362, 346
Ind. 586, 638 | Tower v. Moore, 52 Mo. 118, 333
Tolen v. Tolen, 2 Blackf. 407, 287 | Tower v. White, 10 Paige 395, 1185
Tolman v. Crane, 44 Ill. App. 237, Towle v. Leacox, 59 Ia. 42, 182
1140 | Town v. Green, 32 Kan. 148, 1048
Tolman v. Jones, 114111. 147, 245,342 | Town v. Waldo, 62 Vt. 118, 8. C.
Tome v. Parkersburg, etc., Co., 39 20 Atl. R. 325, 570, 571
Md. 36, S. C. 17 Am. R. 540, 35 | Town of Albion v. Hetrick, 90 Ind.
Tomer v. Densmore, 8 Neb. 384, 707 545, 1107
Tomlin v. Fordwitch, 5 Ad. & E. Town of Cherry Creek v. Becker,
147, 591| 123N. Y. 161, 8. C. 25 N. E. R.
Tomlin y. Hilyard, 48 Ill. 300, 738 | 369, 165, 324

Tomlinson v. Ellison, 104 Mo. 105,
8. C.16S. W. R. 201, 110
Tomlinson v. Hammond, 8Ja.40, 592
Tomlinson v. Harris, 130 Ind. 339, 192
Tomlinson v. Stiles, 4 Dutch. (N.

J.) 201, 468
Tomlinson v. Wallace,16 Wis. 224, 1079
Tompert v. Lithgow, 1 Bush (Ky. )

176, 316
Tompkins v. Augusta, etc., R. R.

Co., 33 S. Car. 216,8.C. 118. E.

R. 692,

Tompkins v. Batie, 11 Neb. 147,

8. C. 38 Am. R. 361,

527
402

 

Town of Cicero v. Williamson,
91 Ind. 541,
Town of Coloma v. Eaves, 92 U.
S. 484, 184, 165, 324
Town of Duanesburg v. J enkins,
40 Barb. 574,
Town of Enfield v. Jordan, ae
S. 680,
Town of Freedom v. Norris, 128.
Ind. 377, 1106, 1097, 1147
Town of Geneva v. Cole, 61 Ill.
397, 143
Town of Griswold v. North Ston-
ington, 5 Conn. 367, 582
TABLE OF

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp.

Town of Lewiston y. Proctor, 23
Ill. 483, 217
Town of Liberty v. Burns, 114
Mo. 426,8. 0.218. W. R. 728, 1144
Town of ‘Lyons v. Cooledge, "39
Ill. 529, 821
Town of Mentz v. Cook, 108 N.
Y. 504, 5. C.15 N. E. R. 541,
239, 324, 345, 1130
Town of Ottawav. Walker, 21 Hi.
605, 258
Town of Poseyville v. Lewis, 126
Ind. 80, 1097
Town of Springport v. Teutonia

Bank, 84 N. Y. 403, 134
Town of Whitehall:v. Keller, 100

Pa. St. 105, 8S. C.45 Am. R.361, 207
Townsend v. Briggs, 99 Cal. 481,

S. C. 32 Pac. R. 307, 810
Townsend vy. Brooks, 5 Cal. 58, 256
Townsend v. Griffin, 4 Harr. (Del.)

440, 289
Townsend v. Jemison, 9 How. (U.

8.) 407, 373
Townsend v. Little, 109 U. 8. 504,

8. C.3 Sup. Ct. R. 357, 549
Townsend v. Masterton, 15 N. Y.

587, 207
Townsend v. Smith, 47 Wis. 623,

S. C. 32 Am. R. 793, 458

Townsend v. State, 132 Ind. 315,
8. C. 31 N. E. R. 797, 1169

Townsend v. Tallant, 38 Cal. 45,
S.C. 91 Am. Dec. 617, 447, 448

Townsend v. Townsend, 7 Gill.

(Md.) 10, 675
Townsend v. Townsend, 60 Mo.
246, 255

Townshend vy. Wesson, 4 Duer,
342, 1

Township of Buckeye v. Clark,
90 Mich. 482, 8. C. 51 N. W. R.

"528,

Township of Hartford v. Bennett,
10 Ohio St. 441,

Township of Hiawatha v. School
Craft, etc., 90 Mich. 270, 8. C.
51 N. W. R. 282, 185, 187

Township of North Whitehall v.
Keller, 100 Pa. St. 105, ® C. 45

352

Am. Rep. 361, 564
Townsley, etc., Co. v. Fuller

(Ark.), 22 S. W. R. 564, 329
Tracy’s Case, 1 Paige 580, 289

Tracey v. Altmyer, 46 N. Y. 598,
149, 234, 1164
Traer v. Clews, 115 U. S. 528, s.
C. 6 Sup. Ct. R. 155, 367
Traer v. Whitman, 56 Ia. 443,
182, 318

 

CASES. eclxv
1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.)

Train v. Holland, etc., Co., 62 N.
Y. 598, 1045

Trammell v. Hudmon, 86 Ala.
505

472,
Trammell v. Mount, 68 Tex. 210,

8. C. 2 Am. St. R. 479, 723
Trapnell v. Red Oak J unction, 76

Ia. 744, 8. C. 39 N. W.R.884, 534
Trash v. White, 3 Brown’s Ch.
289, 386

Trask v. Key, 4 Greene (Ia.) 372, 453
Travelers’, etc., Co. v. Leeds, 38
Ind. 444,
Travers v. ‘Jennings (Ss. Car.), 17
S. E.R. 8 51
Trawick v. Mavi, etc., 74 Tex.
522, 8. C. 12S. W. R. 216,
Trawick v. Trawick, 67 Ala. 271,
Traynor v. Johnson, 1 Head.
(Tenn.) 51,
aes v. ” Andrews, 20 Conn.
84.
Treadway v.Eastburn,57 Tex.209,
Treadway v. Nicks, 3 "McCord (8.

1228
218

556

470
451

Car.) 195, 411
Treadwell v. Davis, 34 Cal. 601,

8. C. 94 Am. Dec. 770, "1134
Treasurer, etc., v. Martin (Ohio),

33 N. E. R. 1112,
Treat v. Hiles, 75 Wis. 265, 1183

Treat v. Hiles, 77 Wis. 475, S. C.
44 N. W. R. 1088,

Treat v. Lord, 42 Me. 552

Trebilcock v. Wilson, 12 Wall.

1187
1065

687, 1192
Treffert v. Chi & M. Ry. Co., 36

Ill. App.. 1096
Treftz v. Ptah (Ill. App.), 18 L.

R. A. 500, 453

9 | Treishel vy. McGill, 28 Ill. App.68, 173

Tremper v. Brooks, 40 Mich. 333, 471
268, 8. C.5 8. E. R. 721, 201, 332
Trenor v. Cent. Pac. R. R., 50 Cal. i
66.

Trenouth v. Farrington, 54 Cal:

273,

1132, 1144
1090
Trenton, etc., Co. v. Johnson, 24

N. J. L. 576,

206, 8. C. 66 Am. Dec. 198, 1160
Trew v. Gaskill, 10 Ind. 265, 1197
Trezevant v. Rains, 85 Tex. 329,

S.C. 19S. W. R. 567, 558

C.118 W. R. 1089, 378

Trenholm v. Morgan, 28 §. Car.
222,

368
Trentman v. Eldridge, 98 Ind. 525,
Trentman v. Wiley, 85 Ind. 33,

719
Tresca v. Maddox, 11 La. Ann.
Trexler v. Mewson, 88 N. Car. 13, 488
Tribby v. Wokee, 74 Tex. 142, 8S.

‘
eclxvi

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. I, pp. 603-1244.]

Trice vy. Hannibal, etc., Co., 35
Mo. 416, 178, 819

Trickey v. Schladder, 52 Ill. 78, 347

Trigg v. Conway, Hemp. (U. S.
711, 336

Trigg v. Taylor, 27 Mo. 245, 110
Trigg v. Trigg (Tex.), 188. ’W.R.
3138, 201

Triges v. Jones, 46 Minn. 277, 8.
1206

248
397
367

C. 48 N. W. RB. 1113,
Trimble v. Pollock, 77 ‘Ind. 576, 1030
Trimyer v. Pollard, 5 Gratt. (Va.) |

460, 3875
Triplett v. Micou, 1 Rand. (Va.)

269, 1116
Tripp v. Brownell, 2 Gray 402, 172
Tripp v. Cook, 26 Wend. 143, 176
Tripp v. Pulver, 2 Hun (N. Y.)

511, 394
Tritlipo v. Lacy, 55 Ind. 287,

1097, 1173
Trittipo v. Morgan, 99 Ind. 269, 1129
Trogdon v. State, 33 Ind. 1, 1076
Trope v. Kerns, 83 Cal. 553, 565
Trope v. Saratoga Assn., 58 Hun

(N. Y.) 611, 626
Trotter v. Neal, 50 Ark. 340, 8. C.

78. W. R. 384,

Troup v. Hulburt, 10 Barb. 354,
Troup v. Smith, 20 Johns. 33,
Trousdale v. Anderson, 9 Bush

(Ky.) 276, 383
Trout v. Emmons, 29 Ill. 433, 8.

C. 81 Am. Dec. 326, 581
Trout v. Small, 10 Ind. 380, 1231
Trout v. West, 29 Ind. 51,

1109, 1111, 1116, 1120
Trout v. Virginia, etc., Co., 2

Gratt. 619, 1025
Trow v. Vermont Cent. R. R. Co.,

24 Vt. 487, S. C. 58 Am. Dec.

191,

Trowbridge v. Holcomb, 4 Ohio

St. 38,

Trow City Directory Co. v. Curtin,

36 Fed. R. 829,

Troxel v. Vinton, 77 Ta. 90, 8. C.

41 N. W. R. 580,

Troy v. Cheshire R. R. Co., 23 N.

H. 83, 8. C. 55 Am. Dec. 177,

369, 1171, 1209
Troyer v. ee 96 Mo. 478, 8. C.

10S. W.R 43,

Truitt v. Baird, 12 Kan. 420,
Truitt v. Truitt, 38 Ind. 16,

174, 632, 633
Truitt v. Truitt, 37 Ind. 514, 1089
Trullenger v. Todd, 5 Ore. 36, 342, 438
Truman y. Seott, 72 Ind. 258, 514
Trumble v. Williams, 18 Neb. 144, 241

546
389
528
548

448
1214

 

Trumbo vy. City, ete., Co., 89 Va.
780, S.C. 178. E. R. 124, 1168
Truro vy. Atkins, 122 Mass. 418, 1046
Truscott v. King, 6 N. Y. 147,
261, 1130
Trussell v. Scarlett, 18 Fed. R.214, 715

Trustees v. Bailey, 10 Fla. 218, 220

Trustees v. Greenough, 105 U.S.
527, 1181

Trustees v. Kirk, 68 N. Y. 459, 1045

Trustees, etc., v. Odlin, 8 Ohio St.

293, 1211, 1218
Tscheider v. Biddle, 4 Dill. 55, 587, 588
Tube v. Eber, 19 Ind. 126, 1110
Tuchband v. Chicago, etc., R. R.

Co., 115 N. Y. 437, 441
Tucker v. Allen, 47 Mo. 488, 233, 592
Tucker v. Atkinson, 1 Humph. 300, 197
Tucker v. Bitting, 32 Pa. St. 428, 1034
Tucker v. Carpenter, Hempst. 440, 491
Tucker v. Harris, 13 Ga. 1, 8. C.

58 Am. Dec. 488, 316
Tucker v. Henniker, 41N. H. 317,

820, 821, 823
Tucker v. Jones, 8 Mont. 225, 8.

C. 19 Pac. R. 571,

Tucker v. Kenniston, 47 N. H. 267,

8. C. 938 Am. Dec. 425, 485
Tucker v. New Brunswick, etc.,

Co., L. R. 44 Ch. Div. 249, 187
Tucker v. Page, 69 Ill. 179, 599
Tucker v. Sandridge, 82 Va. 532, 1182

Tucker vy. Sellers, 130 Ind. 514, 8.
C.30N.E. R. 1085, 165, 240, 324, 484
Tucker v. Smith, 68 Tex. 473, 8. C.

38. W. R. 671, 1224
Tucker v. Welsh, 17 Mass. 160,
516, 800
Tucker v. White, 19 Ind. 253, 1203
Tudor v. Scovell, 20 N. H. 174, 595
Tuggle v. Minor, 76 Cal. 96, 382
Tuigg v. Treacy, 104 Pa. St. 493, 1106
Tully v. Bauer, 52 Cal. 487, 449

Tully v. Fitchburg R. R. Co., 184
Mass. 499, 1051

Tuomey v. O° Reilly, etc., Co., 22
N. Y. Supp. 930,

Turbervil v. Stamp, 2 Salk. 647,

Turgeau‘v. Brady, 24 La. Ann.
349, 195, 496

Turnbull v. Ellis, 35 Ind: 422, 1231

Aeobal Vv. Martin, 37 How. Pr. as

20,

Turnbull v. Richardson, 69 Mich.
400, 8. C. 37 N. W. R. 499, 741

Turnbull v. The Lumber Co., 55
Mich. 387, S. C. 21 N. W. R.
375, 195, 496

Turner vy. Althaus, 6 Neb. 54, 117, 170

Turner v. Baker, 64 Mo. 218, 551

721
1163
TABLE OF CASES.

eclxvii

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.]

Turner v. Billagram, 2 Cal. 520,
300, 345
Turner v. City of Newburgh, 109
. Y. 301 549, 553
Turner v.Commonwealth, 2 Metcf.
(Ky.) 619,
Turner v. Conkey, 132 Ind. 248,
126, 133, 134, 239, 242
Turner v. Cool, 23. Ind. 56, 677
Turner v. Davis, 1B. Mon. (Ky.) °
151, 521
Turner v. Eustis, 8 Ark. 119, 622
Turner v. Fendall,1Cr.117, 196,197
Turner v. First National Bank, 26
Ta. 562,

224

Turner v. 'Goulden, L.R.9C.P.57, 573
Turner v. Hall, 60 Mo. 271, 551
Turner v. Hitchcock, 20 Ia. 310, 639
Turner v. Jenkins, 79 Ill. 228, 315
Turner v. Malone, 248. Car. 398, 128
Turner v. Parry, 27 Ind. 163, 404
Turner v. People, 33 Mich. 363,
; 1206, 1220
Turner v. Plowden, 2 Gill & 7
455, 301
Turner v. Plowden, 5 Gill & J.
52,8. C. 23 Am. Dec. 596, 1177

Turner v. State, 4 Lea (Tenn.)

206, 820, 823, 1074
Turner v. Turner, 44 Ala. 437, 289
Turner v. White, 73 Cal. 299,S. .

C. 14 Pac. R. 794, 529
Turner v. Yates, 16 How. (U.S.)

14, 1218, 1224
Turney v. Dibrell, 3 Baxter,235, 214
Turney v. State, 8 Smedes &

Marsh (Miss.) 104, 8. C. 47 Am.

Dec. 74, 725, 736, 737
Turnley v. Hanna (Ala.), 280. R.
483, 513

Turnock v. Sartoris, L. R. 43 Ch.
D. 150, 574

Turnpike Co. v. Baily, 37 Ohio St.
104, 81

Turnpike Road Co. v.-Loomis, 88

Am. Dec. 311, 782
Turnpike Road v. Wilson, 3 Cai.
(N. Y.) 127, 627

Turnstall v. Hamilton, 8 Mo. 500, 620
Turpin v. Dennis, 139 Ill. 274, 8.

C. 28 N.E. R. 1065, 341
Tuskaloosa Bridge v. i emison, 33
Ala. 476, 581, 592
Tuskaloosa County v. Logan, 50
Ala. 503, 1235
Tuthill v. Morris, 81 N. Y. 94, M08
Tutt v. Price, 7 Mo. App. 194, 542
Tweed v. Davis, 4T.&C.1, 1242
Twenty- aoe Street, In re, 102
‘Pa, St. 1 337

255, 1213

 

Two Hundred Chests of Tea, 9

Wheat. 430, 277
Twombly v. Monroe, 1386 Mass.
464, 539

Twomey v. Linnehan (Mass.), 36
N. E. R. 590, 1122
Two Rivers, atts Co. v. Beyer, 74
Wis. 210, 8. C. 17 Am. St. R.
131, 336
Tyerman v. Smith, 6E,& B.719, 262
Tyler v. Chesapeake, etc., Co.,
88 Va. 389, 8S. C. 138 S. E. R.
975, 1069
Tyler v. Davis (Cal.), 31 Pac. R.
1125, 1145

Tyler v. Dyer, 13 Me. 41, 577
Tyler v. Peatt, 30 Mich. 583, 428
Tyler v. People, 8 Mich. 320, 308
Tyler v. Safford, 24 Kan. 580, 469

Tyler v. Waddingham, 58 Conn. »
875, 8. C.8 L. R. A. 657, 526, 1146

Tyler v. Wilkinson, 10 Ind. 58, 1217
Tylor v. Taintor, 16 Wall. 370, 299
Tynan v. Tate, 3 Neb. 388, 577

Tynery. Peoples’ Gas Co., 131 Ind.
277, 482
Tyng v. Gwinnell, 92 U. 8. 467, 1146
Tyre v. Morris, 5 Harr. (Del.) 3, 678
Tyrell v. Roundtree, 7 Pet. (U. i)
464, 468
Tyrrell v. Lockhart, 3 Blackf. 1386, 1112
Tysen v. Wabash R. R. Co., 8 Biss.
247, 494
Tyson vy. Robinson, 3 Ired. (N.
Car.) 333, 585, 586
Tyson v. Tyson, 100 N. Car. 360,
1143, 1207

U

Udall vy. School District, 48 Vt.

588, 473

0 Udderzook v. Com., 76 Pa. St. Oe

Ufford v. Spaulding, 156 Mass. 65,

30 N. R. 360, 545
Uhe v. Chicago, etc., Ry. Co. (8.

Dak.), 57 N. W. R. 484, 1078
Uhl v. Com., 6 Gratt. (Va. ) 706, 803
Uhl v. Harvey, 78 Ind. 26, 1090
Uhle v. Burnham, 44 Fed. Rep.

729, 514
Uhlfelder v. Levy, 9 Cal. 607, 299
Uline v.N. Y.C.& H.R. R Co.,

101 N. Y. 98, 370

Ulmer v. ‘Austill, 9 Port. (Ala.)

157, 508
Ulmer v. State, 14 Ind. 52, 153
Ulrich v. Hervey, 76 Ind. ‘107, 1210
eel xviii

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. G03-1244.]

Ulrich v. People, 39 Mich. 245,
660, 812
Unnitilla, etc., Co. v. Barnhart, 22

Ore. 389, S. C. 30 Pac. R. 87, 1136
Umlauf v. Umlauf, 128 Ill. 378, 290
Underhill v. Dennis, 9 Paige 202, 224

Underhill v. Mobile, etc., Co., 40
Ill. App. 21,
Underwood v. MeVeigh, 23 Gratt.

1168

409, 336
Unfried v. Baltimore, etc., Co.,

34 W. Va. 260, 8. C.128. E.

Rep. 512, 666

Unger v. Forty-second St. R. R.
Co., 51 N. Y. 497, 105

Union Bank v. Harrison, 12 Neb.
499,

Union Bank v. Heyward, 15 8.
Car. 296,

Union Bank v. Knapp, 3 Pick. 96,
8. C.15 Am. Dec. 181,

Union Bank v. Mott, 27 N.Y. 633,

Union Bank v. Munster, 57 L. J.
(N. 8.) 124,

Union Bank v. Stafford, 12 How.

373
536

362
352

47

(U. 8.) 827, 377
Union Bank v. Willis, 8 Mete.

(Mass.) 504, 8. C. 41 Am. Dec.

41, 393

Union Central Life Ins. Co. v.
Cheever, 36 Ohio St. 201, 8. C.

38 Am. R. 573, 820, 823
Union Central Life Ins. Co. v.
Curtis, 35 Ohio St. 357, 392

Union Central Life Ins. Co. v.
Schidler, 130 Ind. 214, 8. C. 15

Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. DeBusk,
12 Col. 294, 8. C. 13 Am. St. R.

221, 454, 604, 609
Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Fray, 35
Kan. 700, 1092

Union Pace. etc., Ry. Co. v. Hor- ©
ner, 5 Kan. 340, 1181
Union Pac. Ry. Co. y. Hutchin-
son, 40 Kan. 51, 1160
Union Pac. R. R. "Co. v. Jarvi, 53
Fed. R. 65,
Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Reese, 56
Fed. R.. 288, 799
Union Savings Bank v. Fife, 101
Pa. St. 388, ll
Union Stock Yards Co.v. Conoyer,
38 Neb. —, 8. C. 56 N. W. R.
1081, 1056
Unis v. Charlton, 12 Gratt. (Va. Pe
484,
United Lines, etc., Co. v. Grant,
137 N. Y. z 32 N. E. R. 1005, . 478
United States v. Alexander, 46
Fed. R. 728, 214, 235
United States v. American Bell

Telephone Co., 29 Fed. R. 17, 448
United States v. Arredondo, 6 Pet.

691, 241, 370
United States v. Babcock, 3 Dill.

C. Ct. 571, 503
United States v. Badeau, 31 Fed.

R. 697, 5382

United States v. Barrels of High
Wines, 8 Blatchf. 475,

United States v. Beebee, 17 Fed.
R. 36 376

785

L. R. A. 89, 353 | United States v. Bevans, 3 Wheat.
Union Coal Co. v. Edman, 16 Col. 336, 307
488, S. C. 27 Pac. R. 1060, 797 | United States v. Blaine, 139 U.S.
Union County v. Smith, 34 Ark. 306, 170
684, 1157 | United States v. Boisdore’s Heirs,
Union, etc., Co. v. Traube, 59 Mo. 8 How. 113, 296
: 7 | United States v. Borger, 7 Fed. R.
Union, etc., R. R. Co. v. Moore, 198, 655, 663

80 Ind. 458, 697
Union Gold, etce., Co. v. Rocky
Mountain, ete., Bank, 2 Col.
565, 662
Union Mut. Ins. Co. v. Buchanan,
100 Ind. 63, 20, 207, 565, 1075
Union Nat. Bank vy. Baldenwick,
45 Ill. 375, 556
Union Nat. Bank v. Kupper, 63
N. Y. 617, 1139
Union Pac. R. R. Co. v. Mertes,
35 Neb. 204, 8. C. 52 N. W. R.
1099,
Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Botsford,
141 U.S. 250, 8. C. 11 Sup. Ct.
R. 1000,

1048

810

 

United States v. Breitling, 20
How. (U. 8.) 252, 718, 1217
United States v. Brig Malek

Adhel, 2 How. 210, 271
United States v. Brown, 40 Fed.
R. 457, 798

United States v. Carey, 110 U. 8.
51, 1218, 1236
United States v. Coolidge, 2 Gall.
(U. 8. C. C.) 364, 723
ae States v. Cornell, 2 Mason

258
United States v. Cruikshank, 92
U.S. 542, 303
United States v. Dawson, 15 How.
(U. 8.) 467, 309, 336
TABLE OF CASES,

eclxix

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. IT, pp. 603-1244.)

United States v. Des Moines, etc.,
Co., 142 U.S. 510, 171
United States v. Dickinson, 2
McLean 325, 780
United States v. Duff, 6 Fed. Rep.
45, 506, 663
United States v. Duluth, 1 Dill.
469, ‘ - 480
United States v. Eighty-four Boxes
of Sugar, 7 Pet. 453, 277
United States v. Evans, 5 Cranch
1

(U. 8.) 280,
United States v. Farragut, 22

United States v. Jellico, ete., Co.,
46 Fed. R. 432, 8.C. 12 L. R. A.
753, 1127, 1129
United States v. Kirby, 7 Wall.
482, 965, 966
United States v. Labette County,
7 Fed. R. 318, 841
United States v. Lancaster, 44
Fed. R. 896, S. C. 10 L. R. A.
333, 1059
United States v. La Vengeance, 3
Dall. 297, 277, 278
United States v.Leffler,11 Pet.86, 1194

Wall. (U.S.) 40, . 212 | United States v. Lehman, 39 Fed.
United States v. Ferreira, 13 How. R. 49, ~ 164
(U. 8.) 406, 602 | United States v. Magill, 1 Wash.
United States v. Field, 16 Fed. R. C. C. 463, i 307
778, 308 | United States v. Marchant, 4 Ma-
United States v. Fox, 94 U. S. son 158, 664
t 315, 275 | United States v. McHenry, 6
United States v. Gale, 109 U. S. Blatchf. (U. 8.) 503, 662
65, 1171 | United States v. McMasters, 4
United States v. Gilbert, 2 Sumn. Wall. 680, 711, 1206
(U. 8S.) 19, 742 | United States v. Miles, 2 Utah 19,
United States v. Gomez, 1 Wall. 8. C. 103 U. S. 304, 654
690, 1203 | United States v. Nardello, 4
United States v.Gordon, 5 Blatchf. Mackey (D.C.) 508, 646

307
1078
307

18,

United States v. Gough, 8 Utah
428, S. C. 32 Pac. R. 695,

United States v. Grush, 5 Mason
290, 2

United States v. Gundy, 3 Cranch

337, 278
United States v. Guthrie, 17 How.
(U. 8.) 248, 251

United States vy. Hall, 44 Fed. R.
883, 8. C. 10 L. R. A. 323,
664, 795, 1059
United States v. Harding, Wall.
Jr. 127, 1240
United States v. Harminson, 3
Saw. (U.8. C. C,) 556, 185
United States v. Harper, 33 Fed.
R. 471, 542
United States v. Hawkins, 10 Pet.
125, 1154
United States v. Hood, 8 Mackey
(D. C.) 372, 8. C.19 Wash. Law
R. 21, 152, 153
United States v.Hoskins,5 Mackey

(D. C.) 478, 3809
United States v. Howland, 4
Wheat. 108, 1128

United States v. Huckabee, 16
Wall. 414, 249, 255, 342

United States v. Hudson, 7 Cr.
32, : 187
United States v. Jackalow, 1 Black
484, 309, 533

 

United States v. Neverson, 1
Mackey 152, 178
United States v. Noelke, 17 Blatchf.
554, 657
United States v. Pagliano, 53 Fed.
R. 1001, 800
United States v. Parrott, McAll
(U.S.) 447, 181, 1210, 1223
United States v. Perez, 9 Wheat.
579, 1124
United States v.Philadelphia,etc.,
R. R. Co., 123 U. S. 118, 8. C.8
Sup. Ct. R. 77, 1059
United States v. Phillips, 6 Pet.
76,
United States v. Pirates, 5 Wheat.

194,

United States v. Raum, 135 U.S.
200,

United States v. Reid, 42 Fed. R.
134

United States vy. Reyburn, 6 Pe-
ters 352,

United States v. Riley, 5 Blatchf.
204, 821

United States v. Robeson, 9 Peters

319, 406
United States v. Ross, 92 U. S.

281, 21, 101, 307
United States v. Seaman, 17 How.

(U. §.) 225, 251
United States v. Smith, 4 Day

(Conn.) 121, 781
eclxx

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. I, pp. 603-1244.]

United States v. Stevens, 4 Wash.

547, 307
United States v. Stone, 106 U.S.

525, 8. C. 1 Sup. Ct. R. 287, 1211
United States v. Thompson, 1

Sumn. 168, 307
United States v. Throckmorton,98

U.S. 61, 251
United States v. Train, 12 Fed. R.

852 ¥ 1061, 1222
United pie v. Turner, 50 Fed.

R. 7 431, 434
Unied ies v. Tynen, 11 Wall. ep

88,
United States v. Walker, 109 U.S.
258, S. C. 3 U.S. Sup. Ct. R. 277,
824, 338, 340
United ae v. White, 5 Cranch vai

C.C. 7.
United ae v. Wilder, 13 Wall.
(U. 8.) 254, 382
United States v. Williams, 1 Ware .
(U. 8. Dist. Ct.) 175, 1027
United States v. Wiltberger, 5
Wheat. 76, 3807
414, 504

United States v. Winchester, 2
McLean (U. 8.) 135,
United States v. Winchester, 99 U.

8. 372, 129
United States v. Wonson, 1 Galli-
son (U.S. C.C.) 5, 1205

United Sah v. Wood (Dak.), 33
N. W.R. 5 78
United States ° wyngall,5 Hill16, 298
United States v. Yates, 6 How. (U.
S.) 606, 332, 613, 614
United States Bank v. City Bank,
21 How. (U.8.) 356,
United States Bank v. Homestead,
18 N. Y. Supp. 758, 566
United States Bank vy. Moss, 6
How. 31, 132
United States Bank v. Smith, 11
Wheat. 171, 1025, 1029
United States, etc., v. Jordan, 21
Abb. N. Cas. 330, 186
United States, etc., Co. v. Vocke,
796
624

532

129 Ill. 557,

United States Life Ins. Co. v.
Wright, 33 Ohio St. 533,

United States Mnfg. Co. v. Hen-
derson, 111 Ind. 24,

United States Mut. ‘Acc. Assn. v.
Barry, 131 U.S. 100,

United States Tel., etc., v. Grant,
137 N. Y.7, 8. ©. 32 N. E. R.
1005,

United States Trust Co. v. New
York, etc., R. R. Go., 25 Fed.
R. 800,

567
534

484

497

 

Dey State Nat. Bank, 96

N. Car. 2 376
Unruhv. Beate, 105 Ind.117, 1073, 1074
Updegraff v. Palmer, 107 Ind. 181, 322
Updike v. Doyle, 7 H. & 446, 200
Upham v. Dodge, 11 R. I. 621, 470
Upper Miss. Transp. Co. v. Whit-

taker, 16 Wis. 220, 442, 608
Upshaw v. Hargrove, 14 Miss.286, 594
Upson v. Raiford, 29 Ala. 188, 541
Upton v. New Jersey, etc., Co.,

25 N. J. Eq. 372, 336
Upton v. Paxion, 72 Ia. 295, S.C.

33 N. W.R
Upton v. oo , 33 Eng. L. i

Eq. 212, 544
Urbanski v. Manns, 87 Ind. 585, 190
Urquhart v. Burleson, 6 Tex. 502, 508
Urton v. Woolsey, 87 Cal. 38, 8.

C. 25 Pac. R. 154, 304
Urtz v. Dale, 129 Ind. 120, 8. C.

27 N. E. R. 498, 1139
Utica Ins. Co. v.Caldwell,3 Wend.

(N. Y.) 296,
Utsey v. Charleston, etc., R. R.

Co. (S. Car.), 178. E. R. 141,

506
626

Vv

Vail v. Dinning, 44 Mo. 210, 256, 337
Vail v. Iglehart, 69 Ill. 332, 181, 1223

1 | Vail v. Owen, 19 Barb. (N. Y.) 22, 427

Vaise v. Delaval,1T.R.11,. 1118, 1124
Valderes v. Bird, 10 Rob. (La. j
396, 318
Valentine v. Valentine, 2 Barb.
Ch. (N. Y.) 480, 594
Valle v. Picton, 91 Mo. 207, 8. C.
3S. W. R. 860,
Valle v. Railroad Co., 37 Mo. 445,
594, 600

618

Valley, etc., Co. v. Hogan, 85 Wis.

366, 8. C. 55 N. W. R. 415, 1150
Valley Ry. Co. v. Franz, 43’ Ohio

St. 623, 370.
VanAernman v. Winslow,37 Minn.

514, \ 452
Van Alstyne v. Cook, 25N.Y.489, 495
Van Antwerp v. Stewart, 8 Johns.

(N. Y.) 125, 586
Vanauken’s Case, 2 Stock. (N. J.)
186, 289
Van ‘Benthuysen v. Crapser, 8
Johns. 257,
Van Bokelen v. Berdell, 180 N. Y.
141, 798
Van Brocklen v. Smeallie, 140 N.
Y. 70, 74, 980
Van Brown v. State, 34Tex.186, 622
TABLE OF CASES.

eclxxi

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.]

Van Buren v. Wells, 19 Wend. (N.

Y.) 203, 706
Vance v. Field, 89 Ky. 178, 8. C.
128. W.R. 190, 640

Vance v. State (Ark. ), 19 S. W.
Rep. 1066, 660

Vance vy. Vance, 108 U. 8.514, 379
Vance v. Wood, 22 Ore. 77, 8. C.

29 Pac. R. 73, 371
Van Cleaf v. Burns, 133 N.Y.

540, S. C. 830 N. E. R. 661, 289
Vancleave vy. Beam, 2 Dana (Ky.)

155, 679

Van Courtlandt v. Underhill, 17
Jobns, 405, 408, 601
Vandekarr v. State 51 Ind. 91, 182
Vandercook v. Williams, 106 Ind.
345, 213
Vanderheyden v. Young, 11
Johns. 150, 165, 323
Vanderkemp v. Shelton, 11 Paige
28 363

Vanderpoell v. Van Valkenburg,
6N. Y. 190, 274

Vanderslice v. Matthews, 79 Cal.
273,

Vandervecker v. Vermont Central

R. Co., 27 Vt. 130, 408
Vandeveer v. Holcomb, 17 N. J.

Eq. 547, 258
Vandever v. Vandever, 3 Met.

(Ky.) 187, 232
bie ia v. Pomeroy, 24 Ill.
Van Dresser v. Oregon, etc., Co.,

48 Fed. R. 202, 441
Vanduyn v. Hepner, 45 Ind.

389, 3871
Vandyke v. State, 22 Ala. 57, 152
Van Emanv. Stanchfield, 8 Minn.

518, 536

Van Epps v. Walsh, 1 Woods 598,
116, 336
Van Etten v. Butt, 32 Neb. 285, S.

C. 49 N. W. R. 365, 123
Van Fossen v. State, 37 Ohio St.

317, §. C.41 Am. R. 507,

Van Gorden v. Jackson, 5 Johns.

440, 1225
Van Gunden v. Virginia, etc., Co.,

52 Fed. R. 838, 1066
Van Hook vy. Walton, 28 Tex. 59, 548
Van Hook v. Whitlock, 26 Wend.

43, 843
Van Horn v. Great Western Mfg.

Co., 37 Kan. 523, 458
Van Horn v. Redmon, 67 Ja. Oy

287

Van Keuren v. Parmelee, 2 N.Y.

523, 384

 

Van Leuven v. Lyke, 1 N. Y.

515, 351
Vanmeter v. Vanmeter, 3 Gratt.
148, 1187

Vann v. Barnett, 2 Bro. Ch. 158, 496

0 | Van ’Swearengen Vv. Harris, 1

Watts & S. 356,
Van Syckels v. Perry, 3 Robt. (N.
Y. Supr.) 621,
Van Uxen v. Rose, 7 Ind. 222,
Vanvabry, In re, 88 Tenn. 334,
Van Vactor v. Walkup, 46 Cal.
124,
Vanveghten v. onan 12 Abb.
Pr. (N. S.) 461
Van Viiet v. Olin, 1 Nev. 495,
Van Vorhis v. Brintnall, 86 N.Y.
18, 8. C. 40 Am. R. 505,

Vannah vy. Carney, 69 Me. 221, 595
Vannatta v. Duffy, 4 Ind. App.

168, 8. C. 30 N. E. R. 807, 823
Vannerson v. Leverett, 31 Fed. R.

376, 1214
Van Ness v. Corkins, 12 Wis. 186, 1194
Vannoy v. Klein, 122 Ind. 416,

713, 1216
Van Orsdal v. Van Orsdal, 67 Ia.

85, S. C. 24 N. W. R. 579, 287, 292
Van Pelt v. Hurt (Ga.), 18 S. E.

R. 1016, 1047
Van Poucke v. Netherland, etc.,

Society (IMich.),29N.W. R. 863, 588
Van Rensselaer v. Douglas, 9

Wend. (N. Y.) 290, 639
Van Rensselear v. Emery, 9 How.

Pr. 135, 194
‘Van Rensselaer v. Jewett, 2 N.Y.

141, 395
Van Riper v. Baker, 44 Ia. 450,

1142, 1146
Van Sickle v. Belknap, 129 Ind.

558, 407
Vansittartv. Taylor,4E.&B.910, 262
Van Slyke v. Hyatt, 46N.Y.259, 1146
Van Slyke v. Tempeaea etc.,

Co., 39 Wis. 390, 8. C. 20 Am.

R. 50, 218, 216
Van Steenberg v. Bigelow, eWend:

42, 165, 325
Van’ Steenburgh v. Hoffman, 6

How. Pr. (N. Y.) 492, 1116
Van Stoach v. Griffin, 71 Pa. St.

240, 285
Van Stone v. Mnfg. Co., 142 U. 8.

‘128, 1222
Van Stone v. Stillwell, 142 U. S.

128, S. C. 12 Sup. Ct. R. 181, 1170

361

1050

1160

1242

539

489

1046
292

7 | Van Vranken v. Union News Co.,

78 Mich. 217, 8. C. 44 N. W. R.
337, 531, 582
eclxxii

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 608-1244.]

Van Walters v.Board of Children’s
Guardians, 182 Ind. 567, S. C.

.  82N.E. R. 56, 136, 187, 294
Vanwey v. State, 41 Tex. 639, 1078

Van Wormer vy. Mayor, 18 Wend.

(N. Y.) 169, 1044, 1049
Varick v. Jackson, 2 Wend. 166, S

C. 19 Am. Dec. 571, 517
Varner v. Radcliff, 59 Ga. 448, 610
Varney v. Brewster, 14.N.H. 49, 595
Varona v. Socarras, 8 Abb. Pr.

302, . 798, 802
Vasse v. Smith, 6 Cranch (U. 8.)

226, 374
Vass v. Com., 3 Leigh (Va.) 786,

8. C. 24 Am. Dec. 695, 1281
Vater v. Lewis, 36 Ind. 288, 8. C.

10 Am. R. 29, 1094, 1095
Vattier v. Hinde, 7 Peters (U. 8.)

252, 513
Vaughan v. Barclay, 6 Whart.392, 283
Vaughan v. Smith, 69 Ala. 92, 594
Vaughan y. State, 57 Ark.1, 8. C.

208. W. RB. 588, 8. C.32 Am. L.

Reg. 641,

Vaughn vy. California, etc., Ry.
Co., 83 Cal. 18, 8. C. 23 Pacific
R. 215,

Vaughn Vv. Congdon, 56 Vt. 111,

Vaughn vy. Ferrall, 57 Ind. 182,

1078, 1168

Vaughn v.O’Conner,12 Neb.478, 1162

Vaughn y. Porter, 16 Vt. 266, 1065

Vaughn v. State, 88 Ga. 731, 8. C.

1075

1095
242

16S. E. Rep. 641, 653
Vaught v. ae 86 Va. 669, S. C.

5 Am. St. R. 305, 618
Vawter v. Griffin, 40 Ind. 593, 34
Veach v. Rice, 131 U. 8. 293, 128

Veatch v. State, 56 Ind. 584, 8. ©.

26 Am. R. 44,

Veatch v. State, 60 Ind. 291,
Veats v. Danbury, 87 Conn. 412,
Vedder v. Fellows, 20 N. Y. 126,
Veeder v. Baker, 83 N. Y. 156,
Velsian v. Lewis, 15 Ore. 5389,
Venable v. Curd, 39 Tenn. 582,
Venable v. Dutch, 37 Kan. 515, 8.

C. 15 Pac. R. 520, 275
Venablev. White,2 Head. (Tenn.)

582, 164
Venice v. Murdock, 92 U. 8. 494, 324
Venneman v. McCurtain, 33 Neb.

648, 8. C. 50 N. W. R. 955, 1231
Vere v. Lewis, 3 Term R. 182, 1025
Vermillion v. Nelson,87 Ind.194, 1230
Vermilyea, Ex parte, 6 Cow. (N.

Y.) 555, 662

1212

1070
1115
338
546
627
365
143

Vermont Tp. v. Koons, 42 Iil.
App. 454,

 

Vernor v. Henry, 3 Watts (Pa.)

385, 537
bee v. Caines, 1 Johns. Ch.

(N. Y.) 57, 494
Verplanck v. Ins. Co., 2 Paige

438, 195

Vertrees v. Newport News, etc.,
R. R. Co. (Ky.), 25 8. W.R. 1, 1049
Vessel Owners’, etc., Co. v. Tay-
lor, 126 Ill. 250, 8. C, 18 N. E.
R. 663, 591, 601
Vickery v. Board of Commission-
ers, 134 Ind. 554, 8. C. 32 N. E.

R. 880, 343
Vickery v. Central, etc., Co., 89

Ga. 365, 8. C.15 8. E. R. 464, 180
Vickery v. Chase, 50 Ind. 461, 121
Vicksburg v. Marshall, 59 Miss.

563, 366

Vicksburg, etc., R. R. Co. v. Put-
nam, 118 U.S. 545, 1059
Vicksburg, etc., R. R. Co. v. Stock-
ing (Miss.), 10 So. R. 480, 620
Victor, etc., Co. v. The Justice,
etc., Co., 18 Nev. 21, 316
Victoria, ete., Co. v. Haws, 7
Utah 515, 8. C. 27 Pac. R. 695, 1133
Vidal v. Commagere, 13 La. Ann,
516, 291
Viele v. Germania Ins. Co. , 26 Ta.
9,8. C. 96 Am. Dee. 83, 669, 678
Vierheller v. Brutto, 6 ql. App.
95, 199
Village of Alexandria v. Stabler,
4C.C. A. 324, 8. C. 50 Fed. R.
689, 1032, 1033
Village of Middletown, Matter of,
82 N. Y. 196, 425
Village of Ponea y. Crawford, 18
Neb. 551, 8. C. 26N. W. R. 365, 704
Vincent v. Morrison, Breeze (Il. )
227, 1103
Vines v. State, 31 Tex. Crim. R.
31,8. C. 19 8. W. Rep. 545, S.
C.'14 Grim. L: Mag. 728,
Vinich, Re, 86 Cal. "0, 8. C. 26

678

Pac. R. 528, 458
Vinton v. Baldwin, 95 Ind. 433, 1107
Vinton v. Bradford, 13 Mass. 114,

8S. C. 7 Am. Dec. 119, 198, 467
Vinton v. Schwab, 32 Vt. 612, 1056
Visalia v. Jacob, 65 Cal. 434, 8...

6 Am. & Eng. ‘Corp. Cas. 115, 366
Visart v. Bush, 46 Ark. 153, 317

Vischer v. Talbotton, etc., Co., 34
Ga. 536,
Vitrified, ‘ete., Co. v. Edwards, 185

236

Mass. 59 ll; 668
Voelz v. Voelz, 2 oe 504, 8. C.
50 N. W. R. 3 448
TABLE OF CASES.

-

eclxxili

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 608-1244.]

Vogel v. Brown Tp., 112 Ind. 299,

430, 1199

Vogel v. State, 107 Ind. 374, 379
Voisin v. Commercial, etc., Co.,

123 N. Y. 120, 1134
Von Latham v. Libby, 38 Barb.

(N. Y.) 339, 544
in Roy v. Blackman, | 3 Woods

(U. 8.) 98, 439
Von Sachs v. Kretz, , 72 Ne Xe

548, 504

Voorhees v. Chicags, etc., R. R.

Co., 71 Ia. 735, 618
‘Voorhees v. Jackson, 10 Pet. 449,

168, 240
Voorhees v. Woodhull’s Exrs.,

33 N. J. L. 482, 1044
Voorman v. Voight, 46 Cal. 392, 712
Voce v. Cockcroft, 44 N.Y. 415, 111
Voce v. Morton, 4 Cush. 27, 8. C.

50 Am. Dec. 750, 128, 239, 609
Voce vy. Treat, 58 Me. 378, 565

 

Wade v, DeLeyer, 8 J. & S. (N.
Y.) 541,

Wade v. Hancock, 76 Va. 620,

Wade v. St. Mary, etc., School, 43

Md. 178, 338
Wade v. Thayer, 40 Cal. 578, 806
Wadhams v. Gay, 73 Il. 415, 564
Wadhams v. Page, 6 Wash. 103,

S. C. 32 Pac. R. 1068, 1136
Wadlington v.Newport News, etc.,

Co. (Ky.), 208. W. R. 783, 1052
Wadsworth v. Smith, 40 L. J. Q.

B. 118, L. R. 6 Q. B. 332, 573

Wafer v. Hamill, 44 Kan. 447, S.
C. 24 Pac. R. 950, 1

Wagers v. Dickey, 17 Ohio 439, 8.
C. 49 Am. Dec. 467,

Waggoner v. Alvord, "81 Tex. 365,
S.C. 16 8. W. R. 1083,

Waggoner v. Folgeman, 53 Ark.
181, 8. C. 13S. W. R. 729,

Wagner v. Eagleston, 49 Mich.

398
505
604

Vosler v. Brock, 84 Mo. 574, 322] 218, 539
Voss v. Eller, 109 Ind. 260, 1157 | Wagner vy. Tice, 36 Ia. 599, 636
Votaw v. Diehl, 62 Ia. 676, 736 | Wagoner v. Wilson, 108 Ind.
Vrooman v. Griffiths, 40 N. Y. 210, 1236
(1 Keyes) 53, 728 | Wagstaff v. Schippel,27 Kan. 450, 544
Vynior’s Case, 8 Coke 162, 585 | Wainright v. Burroughs, 1 Ind.
App. 393, 1155
Wait v. Maxwell, 5 Pick. 217, 8.
WwW C. 16 Am. Dec. 391, 289
Waite, In re, 99 N. Y. 433, 284
Waarich v. Winter, 33 Ill. App. Waite v. Barry, 12 Wend. (N. Y.)
36, 619] 377, 595
Wabash, etc., Co. v. Beers, 2 Waite v. Osborne, 11 Me. 185, 471
Black 448, 1186 | Wakefield v. Smithwick, 4 Jones
Wabash, ete., Canal v. Beers, 1 _L. (N. Car.) 327, 1067
Black 54, 1184 | Wakeman v. Jones, 1 Ind. 517, 206

Wabash, etc., Co. v. Dykeman,

133 Ind. 56, 8. C. 32 N. E. R. 823,
195, 1214

Wabash, etc., Co. v. People, 106
Til. 652, - 1232

Wabash, etc., Ry. Co. v. Morgan,

132 Ind. 480, 8. C. 32 N. E. R.
85, S.C. 31 N. E. R. 661, 515, 1075

Wabash, St. L. & Pac. Ry. Co. v.
Tretts, 96 Ind. 450, 1089

Wachstetter v. State, 99 Ind. 290, 783
Wachter v. Famachon, 62 Wis.
-117, 465
Waco v. Wheeler, 59 Tex. 554, 442
Waddingham v. Dickson, 17 Col.
__ 223, 8. C. 29 Pac. R. 177, 1113
Waddingham y. Hulett, 92 Mo.
528, 803
Wade's Case, 5 Coke 7 401
Wade v. Bryant (Ky. ), 78. W.
R. a 7, 1237

 

Wakeman v. Sherman,9N.Y.85, 383

Walcott v. Walcott, 32 Wis.63, 628
Walcott v. Wells, 21 Nev 47,8.C.
24 Pac. R. 367, 9L. R. A. 59,

120, 164, 214, 215

Walcott v. Wigton, 7 Ind. 44, 1175
Waldheir v. Hannibal & St. J.R

Co., 71 Mo. 514, 71, 1055
Waldron v. Alexander, 35 Ill.
App. 319, 365

Waldron v. Evans, 1 Dak. 11, 8.

C. 46 N. W. R. 607,
Waldron v. Marsh, 5 Cal. 119,
Waldron v. St. Paul, 33 Minn. 87,

518, 632

Wales v. Muscatine, 4 Ia. 302, 472
Walford v. Oakley, 1 Sheldon (N.

Y.) 261, 1182
Walkenhorst v. Lewis, 24 Kan.

420, 275
Walker, In re, 1 Lowell’s Dec. 237, 312

631
484
eclxxiv

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.]

Walker, Ex parte, 25 Ala. 81, ip
Walker v. Boston, etc., Co.,

Cush. 1, ® aos
Walker v. Bradley, 3 Pick. 261, 394
Walker v. City of Aurora, 140 il.

402, 8. C. 29 N. E. R. 741, 507
Walker v. City of Cincinnati, 21

Ohio St. 14, 204
Walker v. Clements, 15 Q. B. (N.

8.) 1046, 3876

Walker v. Collins, 50 Fed. R. 737, 656
Walker v. Cook, 129 Mass. 577, 471
Walker v. Crawford, 70 Ala. 567, 1187
Walker v. Dailey (Ia.), 54N. W.

R. 344, 1064, 1110
Walker v. Day, 8 Baxter 77, 277
Walker v. Devereaux, 4 Paige

487

229,
Walker v. Ducros, 18 La. Ann.

708, 172, 178, 298
Walker vy. Dunspaugh, 20 N. Y.

170, 737
Walker v. Emerson, 20 Tex. 706, 386
Walker v. Fields, 28 Ga. 237, 706
Walker y. Goldsmith, 14 Ore. 125,

8. C. 12 Pac. R. 537, 314, 499

Walker v. Goodrich, 16 Ill. 341, 362
Walker v. Hale, 16 Ala. 26, 1169
Walker vy. Heller, 56 Ind. 298, 1049

Walker v. Heller, 73 Ind. 46,
641, 1046, 1158
Walker y. Hill, 111 Ind. 223, 380
Walker v. House, 4 Md. Ch. 39,
195, 495
Walker v. Larkin, 127 Ind. 100, 1212
Walker v. Nettleton, 50 Minn. 305,

8. C. 52 N. W. Rep. 864, 630
Walker v. Owen, 79 Mo. 563, 110
Walker vy. Page, 21 Gratt. 636, 1192
Walker v. Popper, 2 Utah 96, 1216
Walkér v. Ray, 111 Tl. 315, 377
Walker v. Robinson, 186 Mass.

280, 386
Walker vy. Sanborn, 3 Greenl. 288, 575
Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 U. 8.90, 642
Walker v. Sawyer, 13 N.H.191, 1087
Walker v. Sharpe, 103 Mass. 154, 412
Walker v. Spencer, 86 N. Y.162, 254
Walker v. State, 7 Tex. App. 245, 809
Walker v. State, 35 Ark. 386, 1170
Walker v. State, 102 Ind. 502, 192
Walker v. State,9 Tex. App. 200, 1224
Walker v. State, 37 Tex. 366, 1073
Walker v. Steele, 121 Ind. 436,

519, 1212, 1234

Walker v. Supple, 54 Ga. 178, 1042
Walker v. Turner, 27 Neb. 103, 8.

612

C. 42 N. W. RB. 918,
Walker v. Walker, 14 Ga. 242,
179, 705, 790, 791

és

 

Walker v. Windsor Nat. Bank,
56 Fed. R. 76, 1052, 1222
Walkup v. Com. (Ky.), 20 8. W.
R. 221, 797
wey vy. Pratt, 5 Har. & J.(Md.) 4
9
Wall v. Wall, 2 Harr. &G. (Md.)

172
wail v. Wall, 123 Pa. St. 545, 8.

CG. 10 Am. St. R. 549, 317
Wall v. Williams, 11 Ala. 826, 738
Wallace v. Agry, 4 Mason (U. 8.)

336, 555
Wallace v. Barker, 8 Vt. 440, 467
Wallace v. Bond, 4 Hill (N. Y.)

536, 628
Wallace yv. Boston, 10 Mo. 660.

1224, 1229
Wallacey, Castle, 68 N. Y. 370, 464

Wallace v. Douglas, 105 N.Car. 42, 1184
Wallace v. Exchange Bank, 126
Ind. 265, 8. C. 26 N. E. R. 105,
1079, 1165
Wallahan v. Ingersoll, 117 Tl. 128,
8. C.7N. E.R. 519, 429
Wallace v. Harris, 32 Mich. 380,
110, 1130
Wallace v. Kirtley, 98 Ind. 485,
1132, 1148
Wallace v. Lawyer, 54 Ind. 501,
S. C. 23 Am. R. 661, 472
Wallace v. Loomis, 97 U. 8.146, 1205
479, 487, 488

Wallace v. McVey, 6 Ind. 300,
Wallace v. Small, 1 Moody & M.

446, 569
Wallace v. State, 9 Tex. App.

299, 1074
Wallace v. State, 28 Ark. 531, ‘790
Wallace v. Taunton, etc., Co. 119

Mass. 91, 180
Waller v. Bowling, 108 N. Car.

289, S.C.12L. A. R. 261, 865, 394
Waller v. Logan, 5 B. Mon. (Ky.)

515 636

Wallery. Shannon, 44 Conn. 480, 595
Walling v. Beers, 120 Mass. 548, 612
Walling v. Miller, 108 N.Y. 173,
8. C.2 Am. St. R. 400, 493
Wallingford v. Dunlap, 14 Pa. St.
31, 1102
Wallis v. Carpenter, 13 Allen
(Mass.) 19, 586, 590
Wallis v. Randall, 81 N. Y. 164,
712, 719, 1130, 1215
Wallis v. Thomas, 7 Vesey Jr.
295, 190, 1244
Walls, Ex parte, 73 Ind. 95, 1108

Walls v. Anderson, etc., Co., 60

Ind. 56, 1228
TABLE OF CASES.

eclxxv

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 6038-1244.]

’ Wally’s Heirs v. Kennedy,2 Yerg.
554 121

Ward vy. Albemarle, etc., R. R.
Co., 112 N. Car. 168, 8S. C.168.

ee
Walrath v. Viley, 1 Bush (Ky.) E.R. 921, 1063
266, 1234 | Ward v. Arredondo, 1 Hopk. Ch.
Walser v. Haley, 61 Mo. 445, 254} 218, 281
Walsh v. Camphell, 49 Kan. 104, Ward v. Bailey, 23 Me. 316, 1122
8. C. 30 Pac. R. 179, 1025 | Ward v. Berkshire Life Ins. Co.,
Walsh i Chicago, ete. ., Co., 42 108 Ind. 301, 1002
Wis. 2 955 | Ward v. Busack, 46 Wis. 407, 1088
Walch, “Kelly, 40N. Y. (1 Hand. L Ward v. Clay, 82 Cal. 502, 8. C.
550, 079] 23 Pac. R. 50, 527, 1146
Walsh v. Mayer, 111 U.S. 31, 373 Ward v. Davis, 3 Sandf. 502, 1185
Walsh v. Muller (Mont.), 35 Pac. Ward v. Dewey, 7 How. Pr.17, 488
R, 226, 1163 | Ward y. Dick, 45 Conn. 235, 8. C.
Walsh v. Porterfield, 87 Pa. St. 29 Am. R. 677, 697
376, 789 | Ward v. Funsten, 86 Va. 359, S.
Walsh v. St. re etc., Assn., C. 108. E. R. 415, 1187
101 Mo. 534, 8. C. 14 S. W. R. Ward v. Harvey, 111 Ind. 471, ;
722, 404 362, 372
Walsh v. Walsh, 114 Ill. 655, 1200 | Ward v. Hill, 4 Gray 593, 1128
bees v. Walsh, 11 Bradw. (Ill. Ward v. Jewett, 4 Robt. (N. Y.
692

p.) 199, 406

Walton v. Walston (Tex.), 24 a
J

W. R. 951, 1113
Walt v. Huse, 38 Mo. 210, 592
Walter v. People, 32 N. Y. 147, 658
Walter v. _ Walter, 117 Ind. 247,

640, 1202
Walters v. Anele-iien,, ete., Co.,
50 Fed. R. 316, 497

Walters v. Hutchins, 29 Ind.186, 574
Walters’ v. Junkins, 16 S. & R.

(Pa.) 414, 1122
Walters v. Kraft, 23 So. Car. 578, 384
Walters v. Philadelphia, etc., Co.

(Pa.), 28 Atl. R. 941, | 1071
Walters v. Tefft, 57 Mich. 390, S.

C. 24.N. W. R. 117, 149, 234, 1147
Walters v. Walters, 117 Ind. 247, 229
Walton v. Bethune, 37 Ga. 319, 236
Walton v. Develing, 61 Til. 201, 346
Walton v. State, 88 Ind. 9, 803
Walton v. United States, 9 Wheat.

651, 1236
Walton v. Wabash, etc., Co., 32

Mo. App. 634, 1025
Walter v. Walter, 117 Ind. 247, 1220
Walton v. Walton, 63 Vt. 518, 8.

_ _ CO, 22 Atl. R. 617, 513
Waltz v. Barroway, 25 Ind. 380, 319
Walworth v. Seaver, 30 Vt. 728, 548

Wamsley v. Robinson, 28 La.
Ann. 793,

Wann v. Pattengale, 14 Pa. St.
313,

Wannack v. Mayor, 53 Ga. aes

Wanser y. Atkinson, 43 N. J.
571, ” 668

Wanzer v. Howland, 10 Wis. 8,
165, 323

259

378
1071

 

 

Super.) 714,
Ward v. Lowndes, 96 N. Car. 367, 446
Ward v. McKenzie, 33 Tex. 297,

8. 0.7 Am. R. 261, 468
Ward v. Reeder, 2 H.& M. (Md.)

145, 363
Ward v. Thompson, 48 Ia. 588, a"
Ward v. Washington Ins. Co.,

Bosw. 229, ° a9

Ward v. Wilms, 16 Col. 86, 8. C.
27 Pac. R. 247, 712, "1206, 1226

Wardell’s Estate, 57 Cal. 484, 291
Warden v. Reser, 38 Kan. 86, 8.

C. 16 Pac. R. 60, 1091
Warder v. Thrilkeld, 52 Ia. 134, 464

| Ware v. Berlin, 43 La. Ann. 534,

Wardlaw v. Mayor, 187 N. Y.194, 558
S. C. 9 So. R. 490, 404
Ware v. Henderson, 25 So. Car.
385, 113, 332, 1214
Warev. Pennington,15 Ark. 226, 1191
Ware v. Percival, 61 Me. 391, 1176
Ware v. Regents ‘Canal Co., 3 De
Gex & J. 212, 482
Ware v. Richardson, 3 Md. 505, 8.
C. 56 Am. Dec. 762, 1182
Ware v. State, 74 Ind. 181, 364, 367
Ware v. Todd, 1 Ala. 199, 436

Ware v. Ware, 8 Me. 42,
667, 679, 1059

Warlick v. White, 76 N. Car. 175, 808
Warner v. Collins, 185 Mass. 26, 596
Warner v. Graves, 25 Ga. 369, 1047
Warnick v. Grosholz, 3 Grant Cas.

(Pa.) 234, 539
Warner v. Jaffray, 96 N. Y. 248, 302
Warner vy. N. Y. Cent. R. R. Co.

52 N. Y. 487, 8. C. 11 Am. R.

724, 1111, 1112, 1121
eclxxvi

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.]

Warner v. Norton, 20 How. (U.
S.) 448,
Warner vy. Railroad Co., 31 Ohio
St. 265, 648
Warner v. Robinson, 1 Root
(Conn.) 194,
Warner v. Thompson, 35 Kan.
21 536
Warner v. Tomlinson,1 Root 201, 1188
Warner v. United States Mut.
Acc. Assn., 8 Utah 431, 8. C. 32
Pac. R. 696,
Warner v. Warner, 11 Kan. 121, 1213
Warrander v. Warrander, 9 Bligh
89, 307
Warren v. Comings, 6 Cush. 103, 301
Warren v. Crane, 50 Mich. 300, 8.
C.15 N. W. R. 465, . 612
Warren v. Gabriel, 51 Ala. 235, 796
Warren v. Glynn, 37 N. H. 340,
235, 557
Warren v. Hearne, 82 Ala. 554, 381
Warren v. Litchfield, 7 Greenl. wid
1

63,
Warren v. Slade, 23 Mich. 1, 379
Warren vy. Tinsley, 53 Fed. R. 689, 593
Wapienea: Williams, 25 Mo. App.
186

540

1096

Warrick, etc., Assn. v. Houstand,,
90 Ind. 115.
Warriner v. Mitchell, 128 Pa. Bt.
153, S. C. 18 Atl. R. 337, 536
Warring v. Hill, 89 Ind. 497, 375
Warsaw v. Dunlap, 112 Ind. 576,
549, 554
Wartena v. State, 105 Ind. 445, 178
Washburn v. Allen, 77 Me. 344,
1046, 1048
Washburn v. Baldwin, 10 Phila.
472, 1138
Washburn v. Carmichael, 32 Ia.

487, 274
Washburn v. Chicago, etc., Ry.

Co., 81 Wis. 251, 8. C. 54 N. W.

Rep. 504, 784
Washburn v.Great West. setc.,Co.,

114 Mass. 175, 1176

Washburn v. Milwaukee, etc., R.
R. Co., 59 Wis. 364, 8. C. 18 N.
W. R. 328,

Washburn v. New York, etc., Co.,
41 Vt. 50, 473, 474

Washburn v. The Board, 104 Ind.
321, S. C. 54 Am. R. 332,

Washer v. Allensville, ete. ., Co.,
81 Ind. 78, 149, 1207

Washington v. State, 63 Ala. 135,
S. C. 35 Am. R.8,

Washington Ave., Matter of, 69
Pa. St. 352, S. C. 8 Am. R. 255,

814

1029

526
108

8 | Washington Ice Co. .v. Lay,

 

Washington, etc., Co. v. Alexan-
dria, etc., Co., 19 Gratt. 592, S.
C.10 Am. Dec. 710, 328

Washington, etc., Co. v. Bradleys,

10 Wall. 299, we
1

Ind. 48, 181, 1212, 1228
Washington Glass Co. v. "Benja-
min, 17 N. Y. Supp. 135, S. C.

62 Hun 622, 1046
Washington, etc., R. R. Co. v.

McDade, 135 U. S. 454, 546
Washington Street, In re, 182 Pa. «

St. 257,8.C.7 L. R. A. 193, 8.

C. 19 Atl. R. 219, 170
Waskern vy. Diamond, Hempst.

701, 620
Wassels v. State, 26 Ind. 30, 624
Wassum v. Feeney, 121 Mass. 93,

665, 666

Water, etc., Co. v. Gildersleeve,
4.N. Mex. 171,

ae a v. Graham, 4 Sand.
21

Waterhouse v. Cousins, 40 Me.
33, 165, 323

Waterman vy. Chicago, etc., R. R.
Co., 82 Wis. 613, 8. C.52 N. W.
R. 247, 720

434

9 | Waterman v. Dockray, 79 Me. 149,

8. C. 8 Atl. R. 685,
Waterman v. Johnson, 13 Pick.
261,
Waterman v. Lawrence, 19 Cal.
210, . 246, 842
Waterman a Sprague Mfg. Co.,
55 Conn. 554, 873
Waters v. Carroll, 9 Yerg.102, » 198
Waters v. Waters, 1 Mete. (Ky.)

519, 550
Watertown Bank v. Mix, 51 N.Y.
558, 1078, 1158
Watkins, Ex parte, 3 Pet. 193,
127, 132, 323
Watkins v. Gayle, 4 Ala. 153, 435
Watkins v. Holman, 16 Pet. 25,
280, 281, 303
Watkins v. Mason, 11 Ore. 72, 1178
Watkins v. Pinkney, 3 Edw. Ch.
533, 196

Watkins v. Specht, 7 Coldw. 585, 373
Watkins v. State, 37 Ark. 370,

237, 1239, 1241
Watkins v. State, 82 Ga. 231, 8. C.

14 Am. St. R. 155, 802, 803
Watkins v. Watkins, 125 Ind. 163, 287
one v. Weaver, 10 Johns. (N.

Y.) 107 665
Watson Ms et 1 Hard.

(Ky.) 45
TABLE OF CASES.

eelxxvii

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. IT, pp. GO3-1244.)

Watson v. Blaine, 12 Serg. & R.
(Pa.) 131, 537
Watson v. Blymer Mfg. Co.(Tex.),
28. W. R. 353, 622
Watson v. Chicago, etc., Co., 46
Minn. 321, 8. C. 48 N. W. R.
1129,
Watson v. Commonwealth, 85 Va.

1092

867, S. C.9 S. E. R. 418, 182
Watson v. Gilday, 11 Serg. & R.

(Pa.) 337, 544
Watson v. Hoag, 40 Ia. 148, 1142

Watson v. McCartney, 1 Neb. 1381, 4381
Watson y. Miller, 69 Tex. 175, S.

C.58. W. R. 680, 820
Watson y. Pierpoint, 7 Mart.
(La.) 413, 464
Watson v. State, 28 Tex. App. 34,
8.C.128. W. R. 404, 1218
Watson v. State, 63 Ind. 548, 667
Watson v. Stromberg, 46 Mo. App.
630, 539
Watson v. Sutherland, 5 Wall. 74,
478, 481
Watson v. Todd, 5 Mass. 271, 197
Watson v. Thoms, 42 Mich. 561, 435
Watson v. Ulbrich, 18 Neb. 186,
S.C. 24N. W. R. 732, 444
Watson v. Van Meter, 43 Ia. 76, 390

Watson v. Whitney, 23 Cal. 375,
350, 630, 662

Watt v. Brookover, 35 W. Va. 323,
S. C. 29 Am. St. R. 811, 206

Watt v. People, 126 Ill. 9, 8. C.1
L. R. A. 408, 807

Waymire v. Lank, 121 Ind. 1,
1107, 1108, 1130, 1147, 1215
Wayne v. Blun (Ga.), 17S. E. R.

1091
Wayne v. Caldwell, 1So. Dak. 483,

S. C. 47 N. W. R. 547, 115
Wayne x. Greene, 21 Me. 357, 312
Wayne Pike Co. v. Hammons, 129

Ind. 368, » 158
Wayne Pike Co. v. State, ex rel.,

eke (Ind.), 34 N. E. R.

; 493
Weadock v. Kennedy, 80 Wis. 449,

8. C. 50 N. W. R. 393, 783
Weare v. Williams, 69 Ia. 252, 629
Wearen vy. Smith, 80 Ky. 216, 1183
Wearne v. Haynes, 13 Nev. 108, 476
Weatherby v. Higgins, 6 Ind. 78, 1100
Weatherford v. Shegag, 28 Ga.

194, : 138
Weaver v. Brown, 87 Ala. 533, 318
Weaver v. Carpenter, 42 Ia. 348, 448
Weaver v. Cooledge, 15 Ia. 244, 148
Weaver v. Davis, 47 Ill. 235, 198
Weaver v. Jackson, 8 Blackf.5, 4384
Weaver v. Lapsley, 43 Ala. 224, 117
Weaver v. Nugent, 72 Tex. 272, S.

C.10S. W. Rep. 458, 540
Weaver v. Owens, 16 Ore. 301, S.

C. 18 Pac. R. 579, 540
Weaver v. Roberts, 84 N. Car. 498, 452
Weaver v. State, 24 Ohio St. 584, 178
Weaver v. Stone, 2 Grant Cas.
~ (Pa) 422, 604

Weaver v. Templin, 113 Ind. 298,

Watt v. Pittman, 125 Ind. 168, S. 163, 202
C. 25 N. E. R. 191, 392 | Webb v. Bidwell, 15 Minn. 479, 527
Watts v. Coxen, 52 Ind. 155, 1158 | Webb vy. State, 9 Tex. App. 490, 696
Watts v. Holland, 56Tex.54, 179,695 | Webb v. State, 29 Ohio St. 351, 807
Watts v. Overstreet, 78 Tex. 571, Webb v. Stevens, 14 Mo. 480, 1197
8. C. 148. W. R. 704, 180 | Webb v. The Portland Manf. Co.,
Watts v. Sawyer, 55 N. H. 38, 738 | 3 Sumn, (U.S. C. C.) 189, 391
Watts v. State, 22 Tex. App. 572, Webb vy. Zeller, 70 Ind. 408, 598
8. C.38. W. R. 769, 146 | Webber v. Hanke, 4 Mich. 198, 803
Watts v. Stoltz, 28 Ill. App.541, 637] Webber v. Houston, 6 Yerg.
Watts v. Waddle, 1 McLean 200, (Tenn.) 314, 558
S. C. 6 Pet. 389, 284, 302 | Webber v. Matthews, 101 Mass.
Waugh v. Waugh, 84 Pa. St. 350, 481, 411
S. C. 24 Am. Rep. 191, 955 | Weber v. Anderson, 73 Il]. 489, 371
Waugh v. Waugh, 47 Ind. 580 540 | Weber ¥. Illing, 66 Wis. 79, 541

Wausau Boom Co. v. Dunbar, 75
Wis. 133, 8. C. 43 N. W, R.
739

Way . Chicago, etc., Co., 73 Ia.
463

Way v. Illinois Cent. R. R. Co.,
35 Ia. 585, 1054

Way v. Langley, 15 Ohio St. 392, 567

Wayman v. Southard, 10 Wheat. sale

675

?

 

Weber v. Kansas City Cable Ry.
Co., 100 Mo. 194, §. OC. 18 Am.
St. BR. 541, 1026, 1038, 1052, 1080
Weber v. Merrill, 34 N. H. 202, 1111

0 | Weber v. Weitling,3 (C.E. Green)

N. J. Eq. 441, 465 °
Weberly v. Matthews, 91 N. Y.

648, 593
Webster v. Calden, 55 Me. 165,
800, 1224, 1232
eelxxviii

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. I, pp. 603-1244.]

597

Webster v. Lee, 5 Mass. 334,
Webster v. Reid, 11 How. 487,
389, 463
Webster v. Tibbits, 19 Wis. 438, 1216
Webster, etc., Co. v. St. Croix

Co., 63 Wis. 647, 1183
Weed y. Barney, 45 N. Y. 344, 554
Weed v. Bowman, 82 Ia, 762, S.

C. 48 N. W.R. 808, ; 485
Weed v. Ellis, 3 Caines (N. Y.)

258, 582
Weed v. Halladay, 1 How. Pr.

(N. Y.) 73, 628
Weed v. Lee, 50 Barb.(N.Y.) 354, 623
Weed vy. Weed, 25 Conn. 337,

190, 1244
Weed, etc., Co. v. Philbrick, 70

Mo. 646 178
Weeks v. Ellis, 2 Barb. 320, 232
Weeks v. Garibaldi, etc., Go. - 73

Cal. 599, S. C. 15 Pac. R. 802, 452
Weeks v. Hull, 19 Conn. 376, 8.

C. 50 Am. Dec. 249, 379, 805
Weeks v. State, 79 Ga. 36, 8. C.

88. E. R. 323,

Weeks v. State, "31 Miss. 490,
Weems v. Lathrop, 42 Tex. 307,
Weeping Water, etc.,Co. v.Halde-

man, 35 Neb. 139, 8. C.52 N.W.

Rep. 892,

Wegman v. Childs, 41 N. Y. 159,
Wehle v. Conner, 83 N Y. 231,
Wehringer v. Ahlemeyer, 23 Mo.

App. 277, 1160
Weiderkind v. Toulumne Water

Co., 65 Cal. 431, 1069
Weidner v. Conner, 9 Pa. St. 78, 509
Weight v. Liverpool, etc.,Ins. Co.,

30 La. Ann. 1186, 442
Weil v. Kume, 49 Mo. 158, 349
Weil v. Nevitt, 18 Colo. 10, 8. C.

31 Pac. Rep. 487, 112
Weil v. Schwartz, 21 Mo. App.
372, 537

Weil v. Silverstone, 6 Bush (Ky.)

698, 513
Weinecke v. State, 34 Neb. 14, 8.

C. 51 N. W. R. 307 177
Welmorpilie Vv. State, 7 Black.
_, 186, 1159
Weir v. Burlington, etc., Co., 19

Neb. 212, 1165
Weir v. State, 96 Ind. 311, 202
Weis v. City of Madison, "75 Ind.

241, S. C. 39 Am. R. 135, 1053
Weiss v. Hobbs, 84 Va. 489, 1027
Welborn v. Weaver, 17 Ga. 267,

S. C. 63 Am. Dec. 235, 1160
Welch v. Hull, 73 Mich. 47, 40 N.
W. R. 797, 430, 4384

 

Welch v. Sykes, 3 Gilm. 197, S.C.

44 Am. Dec. 689, 303
Welch v. Wetzell Co., 29 W. Va,
63, S.C. 18. E. R. 339, 177

Welch vy. Zerger, 29 Ill. App. 348, 550
Welcome v. Boswell, 54 Ind. 297, 619
Welcome v. Mitchell, 81 Wis. 566,

8. C. 51 N. W.R. 1080, 782, 1079
Weld v. Came, 98 Mass. 152, 560

Weldon v. Burch, 12 Ill. 374, 781
Wellborn v. People, 76 Ill. 516, 221
Weller v. Weyand, 2 Grant’s Cas.

108, 298
Welles v. Fish, 8 Pick. 74, 367
Wellesley v. The Duke of Beau- ‘

fort, 2 Russ. 1, 290
Wellesley. a Wellesley, 1 Dow.

(N. 8.) 1 290
Wells, In 36 Kan. 341, . 149
Wells v. Brackett, 30 Me. 61, 322
Wells v. Burlington, etc., Co., 56

Ta. 520, 1235

Wells v. J ackson, etc.; Co., 48 N.
H. 491, 503
Wells v. ‘Kavanagh, 74 Ta. 372, 8.

C. 37 N. W. R. 780, 704
Wells v. Lain, 15 Wend. 99, 576
Wells v. McGeoch, 71 Wis. 196,

8. C. 835 N. W. R. 769, 1143, 1207
Wells v. Missouri, etc., 110 Mo.

286, 8. C. 15 L. R. A. 847, 8. C.

19 S. W. R. 530, 170
Wells v. Moore, 49 Mo. 229, 1179
Wells v. Neff, 14 Ore. 66, 569, 571
Wells v. Peirce, 27 N. H. 508, 290
Wells v. People, 44 Ill. 40, 464
Wells v. Scott, 4 Mich. 347, 346
Wells v. State, 53 Ark. 21, 8. C.

13S. W. R. 737, 631
Wells v. Waterhouse, 22 Me.131, 316
Wells, Fargo, etc. , Co. v. Davis,

105 N. Y. 670, S. "C.12N.E.R.

42, 504
Welman, Matter of, 20 Vt. 653, 379
Welsh vy. Allen, 54 Cal. 211,- 1184

Welsh vy. Childs, 17 Ohio St. 319, 320
Wee v. Joy, 13 Pick. (Mass.)

Welsh v. State, 96 Ala. 92, 8. 0."

11 So. R. 450, 1073
Welsh v.State, 126Ind.71, 149, 309
Welty v. Campbell, 37 W. Va. 797,

1236

8.0.17 8. E. R. 312,
Wenman v. Mohawk Ins. Co., 18
Wend.267, §.C.28 Am.Dec.464, 360

Wente v. Young, 12 Hun 220, 337
Wentz v. Cook, 108 N. Y. 504, 8.
C. 15 N. E. R. 541, 345

Werborn v. Kahn, 93 Ala. 201, 8.
C. —-So. R. 729, 3
TABLE OF CASES.

eclxxix

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 608-1244.]

Werges v. St. Louis, etc., R. R.

Co., 35 La. Ann. 641, 370
Werner v. State, 44 Ark. 122,

665, 1156
Werner v. Tuch, 127 N. Y. 217, 8.

C. 24 Am. St. R. 443,8.C. 27'N.

E. R. 845, 402, 403
Wernwag v.Brown,3 Blackf. 457, 184
Werts v. May, 21 Pa. St. 274, 807
Wescott v. Archer, 12 Neb. 346,

8. C. 11 N. W. R. 491, 446, 448
Wesling v. Noonan, 3! Miss. 599, 404
Wesner v. Stein, 97 Pa. St. 322, 382
Wessels v. Beeman, 66 Mich. 348,

S. C. 33 N. W. R. 510, 1227, 1239
Wessels v. Beeman, 87 Mich. 481,

S. C. 49 N. W. R. 483,
Wesson v. Washburn, etc., Co.,

154 Mass. 514, S. C. 28 N. E. R.

679, 1076
West v. Bagby, 12 Tex. 34, 8. C.

62 Am. Dec. 512, 1044
West v. Burke, 60 Tex. 51, 202
West v.Cavins,74 Ind. 265,
West v. Chase, 3 Ind. 301,
West v. Chasten, 12 Fla. 315,
West Cambridge v: Lexington, 1

Pick. 506, S. C. 11 Am. Dec.

231, 292
West v. McMullen, 112 Mo. 405,

8. C. 20S. W. R. 628, 1047
West v. St. Paul, etc. Ry. Co., 40

Minn. 189, 8. C. 41 N. W. R.

1031,

West v. Platt, 116 Mass. 308,
West v. Smith, 101 U. S. 263,
West v. State, 1 Wis. 209,

West v. Walker, 6 Blackf. (Ind.)

420,

West v. Walker, 77 Wis. 557, 8.

C. 46 N. W. R. 819, 637
West v. White, 56 Mich. 126, 542
West v. Williamson, 1 Swan. 277,

321, 1198
West Mahanoy ae v. Watson,

112 Pa. St. 574, 8. C.3 Atl. R.

866,

Westbrook v. Aultman, etc., Co.,

8 Ind. App. 83, S. C. 28 N. E. R.

1011, :
Westbrook Mfg. Co. v. Grant, 60
Me. 88,
Westcott v. Eccles, 3 Utah 258,
Westerfield’s Estate, In re, 96
Cal. 113, 8. C. 30 Pac. R. 1104, 783
Western Assurance Co. v. Mayer,
64 Mo. 795, 8. C. 2 So. R. 173,
1025, 1034
Western, etc., Co. v. State, 69 Ga.
524, 255

397
497

449
475
539
522

477

534

784

379
1238

525, 1069 |

1095, 1158

 

Western, etc., Co. v. Virginia, etc.,

Co., 10 W. Va. 250, 269
Western Lunatic Asylum v. Mil-

ler, 29 W. Va. 326, 8. C. 6 Am.

St. R. 644, 366
Western Union Tel.Co.v. Buskirk,

107 Ind. 549, 179, 1176
Western Union Tel. Co.v. Collins,

45 Kan. 88, 8. C. 25 Pac. R. 187,

8.C.10L. R. A. 515, 504, 510
Western Union Tel. Co. v. Culber-

son, 79 Tex. 65,5. C.15 8S. W.

R. 219, 385
Western Union Tel. Co. v. Frank,

85 Ind. 480, 207, 1139, 1158
Western Union Tel. Co. v. Locke,

107 Ind. 9, 254, 1184
Western Union Tel. Co. v. Mc-
’ Kinny, 2 Tex. Ct. ADD: Civil

Cases 644, 412
Western Union Co. v. Meredith,

95 Ind. 93, 385
Western Union Tel. Co.y. Phillips,

218. W. R. 638, 299
Western Union Tel. Co. v. Scircle,

103 Ind. 227, 885, 1140
Western Union Tel. Co. v. Steven-

son, 128 Pa. St. 442,8.C.5L. R.

A.515,8.C.18 Atl: B.441, 544, 557
Western Union Tel. Co. v. Strate-

meier, 6 Ind. App. 125, S. C. 33

N. E. R. 871, 1141
Western Union, etc., Co.v. Taylor,
84 Ga. 408, S.C. 8 L.R.A. 189, 842

Western, etc., Co. v. Trissal, 98

Ind. 566, 1144, 1150
Western Union Tel. Co. v. Yopst,

118 Ind. 248, 387
Westervelt v. Gregg, 12N.Y. 202, 424
Westerwelt v. Lewis, 2 McLean

511, 327
Westfall v. Stark, 24 Ind. 377, 1209
Westfield v. Mayo, 122 Mass.100, 412
Westgate v. Aschenbrenner, 39

Ill. App. 263,

Westheimer v. Craig (Md.), 25

Atl. R. 419,

Westminster v. Shipley, 68 Md.

610, S. C. 13 Atl. R. 365, 1237
Weston v. City Council, 2 Pet.
449, 123

Weston v. Commonwealth, 111
Pa. St. 251, 8S. C.2 Atl. Rep.

191, 661
Weston v. Hodgkins, 136 Mass.
326, 882

Weston y. Johnson, 48 Ind. 1,
1182, 1148, 1165
Weston v. Stuart, 11 Me. 326,
582, 583
ceclxxx

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 608-1244.]

Wetherbee v. Dunn, 32 Cal. 106, 783
Wetherbee v. Norris, 113 Mass.
565, 805
Wethers v. Denmead, 22 Md.
148, 299
Wetzler v. Duffy, 78 Wis. 170, 8.
C.12 L. R. A. 178, 116
Weybright v. F leming, 40 Ohio St.
52, 1070

Weymouth v. Gorham,22 Me.385, 397
Whalen y. Chicago, etc., Co., 75
Ta. 563, 8. C.39 N. W. R. 894, 1091
Whalen v. Olmstead, 61 Conn.
263, S. 0. 15 L. R. A. 593, 294
Whalen vy. Sheridan, 18 Blatchf.
324, 1222
Whaley v. Charleston, 8 So. Car.
344, 255
Whaley v. Gleason, 40 Ind. 405, 1231
Whaley v. King, 92 Cal. 431, 8.C.
_ 28 Pac. R. 579, 622
‘Wheat v. Bower, 42 Ill. App. 600, 613
eaey Vv. Martin, 6 Leigh (Va. ) si

Wheaton v Cross, 2 Hayw. (N.
Car.) 15
Wieien Doolittle, 23 Wend.
377,
Wheeden v. Richmond,9 R. I. 128,
8. C. 98 Am. Dec. 373,
118, 248, 332, 1214
Wheelden v. Wilson, 44 Me. 11, 33
‘a Vv. Ahrenbeak, 54 Tex.

622
116

: 443
Wheeler v. American, etc., Co.,6

Mo. App. 235,

‘Wheeler Cobb, 75 N. Car. 21,
Wheeler v. Emerson, 45 N. H.

526,

Wheeler v. Goffe, 24 Tex. 660,
Wheeler v. Hawkins, 101 Ind.

486, 410
Wheeler v. Hollis, 19 Tex. 522, S.

C. 70 Am. Dec. 363, 1184
Wheeler v. Laird, 147 Mass. 421,

8. C. 18 N. E. R. 212,

Wheeler v. McGuire, 86 Ala. 398, .

8.C.2L. R. A. 808,

Wheeler v. Nichols, 32 Me. 233,
Wheeler v. Ruckman, 51 N. Y.

391, 1180
Wheeler v. Schroeder, 4 R. I.

383, 1055
Wheeler. Shields, 2 Scam. (II1.)

348, 510
Wheeler v. Smith, 11 Barb. 345, 197
Wheeler v. State, 24 Wis. 52, 239
Wheeler v. Sweet, 187 N. Y.485, 1078
597

110
464

475
190

551
548

Wheeler v. Van Houten, 12 Johns.
(N. Y.) 311,

8 | Wheeler & W. Mnfg.

 

Wheeler v. Wallace, 53 Mich.
355, 1158
Wheeler v. Wheeler, 76 Tex. 489,
8. C. 18S. W. R. 305, 147
Wheeler v. Wilkins, 19 Mich. 78,
439, 1184
Co. v: Me-
455

Laughlin, 28 N. Y- 8. R. 372,
Wheeling v. Campbell, 12 W. Va.

36, 366, 376
Wheeling Gas Co. v. City of

Wheeling, 5 W. Va. 448, 590
Wheelock v. Henshaw, 19 Pick.

1140

239, 609

341,
Wheelock v. Lee, 74 N. Y. 495,
Wheelock vy. Tanner, 39 N. Y. 481, 400
Whelan y.Reilly,61 Mo.565, 403, 404
Whelan v. United States, 7 Cranch

112, 278
Whereatt vy. Ellis, 68 Wis. 61, 894
Whetston vy. State, 31 Fla. 240, 8.

C. 12So. R. 661, 809
Whidby Land, etc., Co. v. Nye,

5 Wash. 301, S. C. 31 Pac. R.

752, 181

Whipple v. Earick (Ky.),8.C. 19

S. W. R. 237 871
Whipple v. Robbins, 97 Mass.107, 473
Whipple v. Stevens, 22 N. H. 219, 382
Whipple v. Whitman, 13R.1. 512,
*S. C. 43 Am. R. 42, 207, 564, 565
Whitaker v. Bramson, 2 Paine

209, 1193
Whitaker v. Gee, 61 Tex. 217, 1178
Whitaker v. Salisbury, 15 Pick.

(Mass.) 534, 795
Whitcher v. Whitcher, 49 N. H.
176, 8. C.6 Am. RB. 486, 595
Whitcomb v. Cook, 39 Vt. 585, 433
Whitcomb v. Whitcomb, 46 Ia.
437, 287
Whitcomb v. Whiting, Doug. 652, 384
White’s Estate, 37 Cal. 190, 218
White v. Bank of the United
States, 6 Ohio 529, 269

White v. Bailey, 14 Conn. 271,
1108, 1116, 1154
White v. Bradley, 66 Me. 254,
548, 1041
White v. Burnley, 20 How. (U.

S.) 235, 533
White v. Chicago, etc., Co., 122

Ind. 317, 1148
White v. Clawson, 79 Ind. 188, 380
White v. Commonwealth, 80 Ky.

480, 29
White v. Corlies, 46 N. Y. 467, 565
White v. Crow, 110 U. 8. 183, 8.

C. 4 Sup. Ct. R. 71, 1198
TABLE OF CASES.

eclxxxi

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 608-1244.]

 

White v. Fleming, 114 Ind. 560, Whiteford v. Burckmeyer, 1 Gill.
144, 164 (Md.) 127, 736
White v. Foote, 29 W. Va. 385, S. Whiteford v. Com., 18 Am. Dec.
C. 6 Am. St. R. 650, 331 771, 545
White v. Fox, 29 Conn. 570, 594 | Whiteford Tp. v. Probate Judge,
White v. Gregory, 126 Ind. 95, 53 Mich. 130, 424, 425
: 1143, 1207 | Whitehall v. Crawford, 37 Ind.
White v. Griggs, 54 Ia. 650, 495 | 147, 1140
White v. Hampton, 10 Ia. 238, 201 | Whitehall v. Keller, 100 Pa. St.
White v. Hart, 13 Wall. 646, 348 105, 8. C. 45 Am. R. 361, 207
White v. Harvey, 23 Ind. 55, Whitehall v. Lane, 61 Ind. 93, 624
‘1181 1182 | Whitehead v. Coleman, 31 Gratt.

White v. Hermann, 51 Ill. 243, (Va.) 784, 471
533, 697 | Whitehead v. Henderson, 4Smed.

White v. Hinton, 3 Wyo. 753, S. & M. (Miss.) 704, 474

C.17 L. R. A. 66, 455 | Whitehead v. Wells, 29 Ark. 99, 362
White v. Hoyt, 73 N. Y. 505, 566 | Whitehead v. Wooten, 43 Miss.
White v. Jenkins, 16 Mass. 62, 471] 523, 195, 496
White v. Kuntz, 107 N. Y. 518, 8. Whitehouse v. Fellowes, 9 C. B.

C. 1 Am. St. R. 886, 567 (N. 8.) 901, 368
White v. Mandeville, 72 Ga.705, 154 Wiishewes. Partridge, $Bwanst.
White v. Manhattan, etc., Co., 63 365, 476

Hun 634,8. C.18 N.Y.S8. 396, 1133 Whitenach v. Stryker, 2 N. J. Eq.
White v. Miller, 78 N. Y. 393, 894 679
White v. Milwaukee City Ry. Co., Wlitenack’s Case, 2 Green Ch.

61 Wis. 5386, S. C. 50 Am. R. 252, 289

154, 810 | Whitesidev. Adams; 26Ind.250, 1231
White v. Missouri Pac. R. R. Co., Whiteside v. Jackson, 1 Wend.

31 Kan. 280, 547 418, 1225
White v. Morris, 107 N. Car. 92,. Whitesides v. Barber, 24 S. Car.

8. C.12 S. E. R. 80, 611 373, 610
White v. Murtland, 71 Il. 250, Whitesides v. Russell, 8 W. &S.

632, 634| (Pa.) 44, 1134
White v. Old Dominion Co., 102 Whitewater, etc., Canal Co. v.

N. Y. 660, 569 | Henderson, 8 Ind. 3, 432
White v. People, 90 11. 117, 178, 819 | White Water Valley Co. v. Dow,
White v. Perkins, 16 Ind. 358, 1166 | 1 Ind.-141, 518
White v. Poorman, 24 Ia. 108, 180 | Whitfield, Ex parte, 2 Atk. 313, 495
White v. Primm, 36 Ill. 416, 438 Whitfield’ Vv. Westbrook, 40 Miss.
White v. Rankin, 90 Ala. 541, S. 811, 1066
’ ©. 8So. R. 118, 164 | Whitfield v. Whitfield, 8 Ired. L.
White v. Rayburn, 11 Ore. 450, 1158} (N. Car.) 163, S.C. 47 Am. Dec.
White v. Spreckles, 75 Cal. 610, S. 350, 586

C. 17 Pac. R. 715, 533 | Whitford v. County of Clark Oh
White v. State, 10 Tex. App.381, 796] §S.), 7 Sup. Ct. R. 306,

White v. State, 30 Tex. App. 652, Whitford v. Newbern, 111 N. Car.

§.C. 18S. W. R. 462, 666 272,8.C. 168. E. R. 327, 1065
White v. State, 52 Miss. 216, 667 Whiting v. Budd, 5 Mo. 443, 604
White v. Stoner, 18 Mo. App. 540, 738 | Whiting v. Fuller, 22 111. 33, 1222
White v. Tennant, 31 W. Va. 790, Whiting v. Mississippi, eters Co.,

S. C. 13 Am. St. R. 896, 312| 76 Wis. 592, 8. C. 45 N _W.R.
White v. Thompson, 1 Breese 672, 180, 737

(Ill.) 72, 1195 | Whitis v. Culver, 25 Ta. 30, 599
White v. Town of Portland Whitlock v. Heard, 13 ‘Ala. 776,

(Conn.), 26 Atl. R. 342, 618) S.C. 48 Am. Dee. 73, 394
White v. White, 380 Vt. 338, 471 | Whitlock v. Ledford, 82 Ky. 390, 593
White v. Wilson, 10 Tl. 21, 465 | Whitman v. Bolling, 47 Ga. 125, 531
White v. Wright, 16 Mo. App. 551, 558 | Whitman v. Foley, 125 N.Y.651, 711
Whitecar v. Michenor, 37 N. J. Whitman v. Morey, 63 N. H.

478| 448, 795

Eq. 6,
eelxxxii

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.]

Whitman v. Weller, 39 Ind. 515,
255, 414, 1205
Whitmore v. Shiverick, 3 Nev. ©

288, 443
Whitney v. Bigelow, 4 Pick. |
(Mass.) 110, 382

Whitney v. Blackburn, 17 Ore.

564, 8.C.11 Am.8t.R.857, 423, 433
Whitney v. Boston, 98 Mass. 312, 799
Whitney v. Butts (Ga.), 16 S. E.

Rep. 649, 799
Whitney v. Ferris, 10 Johns. (N.

Y.) 66, 713, 1216
Whitney v. Karner, 44 Wis. 563, 1162
Whitney v. Kelley, 67 Me. 377, 476
Whitney v. Nat. Masonic Acc.

Assn. (Minn.),54N. W.R.184, 588
Whitney v. New Haven, 58 Conn.

450, S. C. 20 Atl. R. 666, 527
Whitney v.Porter,23 I11.445, 293, 443
Whitney v. Stone, 23 Cal. 275, 598
Whitney v. Whiting, 35 N. H

457, 285
Whitney-Holmes Organ Co.., v.

Pettitt, 34 Mo. App. 536, 610
Whitsell v. Wells, ot Pick, (Mass. )

25, 395
Whitson, In ro 89 Mo. 58,8. C. 1

Ss. W. R. 125 628, 639
Whittaker v. Sigler, 44 Ta. 419, 511
Whittaker v. Voorhees, 38 Kan.

71, 8. C. 15 Pac. R. 874, 511
Whittaker v. West Boylston, 97

Mass. 273, 1181
Whittem v. State, 36 Ind. 196, 174
Whittemore v. Fisher, 132 Il]. 248,

8. C. 24. N. E. B. 636, - -'1180
Whittemore v. Gibbs, 24N.H. 484, 34
Whittemore v. Whittemore, 2 N.

H. 26, 597
Whittenton Mfg. Co. v. M. & O.

Packet Co., 21 Fed. R. 896, . 874
Whittier v. Collins, 15 R.I. 90, 8.

C. 2 Am. St. R. 879, 301, 353
Whittington v. Christian, 2 Rand.

(Va.) 353, 1034 |
Whitwell v. Emory, 3 Mich. 84, 8.

C. 59 Am. Dec. 220,

188, 368, 1175, 1191
Whizenant v. State, 71 Ala. 383, 739.
Whorley v. Memphis, etc., R. R.

Co., 72 Ala. 20, 474
Whyte v. Gibbes, 20 How. (U. 8.)

541, 454
Wiberly v. Matthews, 91N.Y. 648, 597
Wichita v. Burleigh, 36 Kan. 34, 170
Wichita, etc., Co. v. Fechheimer,

86 Kan. 45,

Wichita Valley, etc., Co. v. Hobbs

(Tex.), 23'S. W. R. 923,

820

 

Wick v. Weber, 64 Il. 167, 623
Wicker vy. Hume, 7 H. .L. Cases
124, 274

Wickersham v. Beers, 20 Tl. App.
243, 070
Wicks v. Ludwig, 9 Cal. 178,
139, 142, 155
Widner v. Walsh, 3 Col. 548, 393
Wieland v. White, 109 Mass. 392, 564
Wiest v. Luyendyk, 73 Mich. 661,
S.C. 41 N. W. R. 839,
Wiggin v. Phelps, 10 Hun (N. Y.)
187,

Wiggin v. Wiggin, 43 N. H. 561,

8. C. 80 Am. Dec. 192, 401
Wiggins v. Burkham, "10 Wall.

(U. 8.) 129, 553
Wiggins v. City of Chicago, . Til.

372, 1109, 1155
Wiggins v. Downer, 67 How. Pr.

65, 1123, 1124
Wiggins v. Holley, 11 Ind. 2, 551
Wiggins v. Holman, 5 Ind. 502, 797

1117
626

| Wiggins v. McCoy, 87 N.Car. 499, 1184

Wigglesworth v. Atkins, 5 Cush.
(Mass.) 212, 677
Wight, In re, 134 U. 8. 136, 191, 1248
Wight v. Wallbaum, 39 Ill. 554,
115, 138, 155, 314
Wight v. Warner, 1 Doug. (Mich.).

384, 317
Wightman v. Karsner, 20 Ala.
446, 116, 145
Wilbun v. McCally, 63 Ala. 436, 318
Wilbur v. Abbott, 60 N. H. 40, 343
Wilbur v. Gilmore, 21 Pick. 250, 1179
Wilburn v. St. Louis, etc., R. R
Co., 36 Mo. App. 208, ,b59
Wilcox v. Majors, 88 Ind. 203, 192
Wilcox v. Mitchell, 5 Miss. 272, 1236
Wilcox v. Moudy, 89 Ind. 232, 435
Wilcox v. Singletary, Wright
(Ohio) 420, 583
Wilcox v. Smith, 5 Wend. (N. Y.)
231, 503
Wilcox Stephenson, 30 Fla.
377,8. C 11 So. R. 659, 721

Wilcox v. Wheeler, 47 N. H. 488, 483
Wilcox v. Wilcox, 63 Vt. 187,58. C.

21 Alt. R. 423, 332
Wilcox v. Wilcox, 14.N. Y. 575, 290
Wilcox v. Williams, 5 Ney. 206, 383
Wilcoxen v. Bowles, 1 La. Ann.

230, 537
Wild 'v. Oregon, ete., Ry. Co., 21

Ore. 159, 8. C. 27 Pac. R. 954,” 1211
Wilde v. Trainor, 59 Pa. St. 439, 1172

7 | Wilder v. Bailey, 3 Mass. 289, 196
Wilder v. Sprague, 50 Me. 354) 555
Wildes v. Mairs, 6 N. J. L. 320, 632
TABLE OF CASES.

eelxxxili

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.)

‘Wildman v. Rider, 23 Conn. 172,
Wilds v. Blanchard, 7 Vt. 138,

342
803

Wiler v. Manley, 51 Ind. 169, 1226
Wiley v. Howard, 15 Ind. 169, 390
Wiley v. Pavey, 61 Ind. 457, 192
Wiley v. Pratt, 23 Ind. 628, 605,606
Wiley v. Platter, 17 Til. 538, 602
Wiley v. Wilson, 77 Ind. 596, 556

Wilhelm v. People, 72 Il. 468,
Wilhite v. Wilhite, 124 Ind. 226,
ve Vv. Broadbent, 1 Wils.
Wilkes v. Cotter, 28 Ark. 519,
Wilkerson v. Corrigan, etc., Co. iF

26 Mo. App. 144, 1027
Wilkerson v. Eilers, 114 Mo. 245,

8. C. 218. W. R. 514, 1068
Wilkerson v. Rust,57Ind.172, 1216
Wilkerson v. Schoonmaker, 77

Tex. 615, S.C. 19 Am. St. R. 803,

320, 427
Wilkins vy. Anderson, 11 Pa. St. .
39 819

9,
Wilkins v. Babbershall, 32 Me.
184, 800
Wilkins v. State, 113 Ind. 514,
‘o12, 213
Wilkinson v.Bayley,71 Wis.131, 439
Wilkinson v. Conaty, 65 Mich.
614, S. C. 32 N. W. R. 841, 451
997

652
293

1172

Wilkinson v. Fairrie, 2 Am. Law.
Reg. (N. 8.) 244,

Wilkinson vy. J ett, 7 Leigh (Va. i
115,

Wilkinson v. J obnston, 83 Tex.
392, S. C.18S. W. R. 746, 363

Wilkinson v. Leland, 2 Pet. 627, 274

Wilkinson v. Page, 1 Hare 276, 572

Wilkinson v. Parrott, 32 Cal. 102, 619

Wilkinson v. Rutherford, 49 N. J.

L. 241, 8. C. 8 Atl. R. 507, 410
Wilks v. Back, 2 East 142, 581
Wilks v. State, 27 Tex. App. 381,

8. C. 118. W. R. 415,

Willard v. = Seigel Gas. Co., 47

Mo. App 206, 536

Willard v. Paicktord, 39 N. H. 536, » 596
Willard v. Fralick, 31 Mich. 431, 298
Willard v. Germer, 1 Sandf. (N.

Y.) 50, B51
Willard v. Whitney, 49 Me.235, 182
Willcuts v. Northwestern, etc.,

Co., 81 Ind. 300, 1025, 1028, 1030

Willett v. Fister, 18 Wall. 91, 910°
Willett v. Porter, 42 Ind. 250,
1111, (1116

Willey v. Belfast, 61 Me. 569,
5 4, 1119

Willey v. Snyder, 34 Mich. 60, 33
Williams, Ex parte, 4 Yerg. 579, 214

 

Williams, Matter of, 4 Denio (N.

Y.) 194, 595
Williams v. Benet 35, So. Car. 150,

S.C. 14 L. R. A. 825, 148.E.R.

811, 226
Williams v. Brooklyn, ete., Co.,

126 N. Y. 96, 823
Williams vy. Burfty, 96 U.S. 176, 115
Williams v. Burgess, 12 Ad. &

El. 635, 879
Williams v. Burnett, 6 T. B. Mon.

822, 310
Williams v. Cammack, 27 Miss.

209, S. C. 61 Am. Dec. 508, 158
Williams v. Chicago, ete., R. R.

Co., 112 Mo. 463, 8.C. 208. W.

R. 631, 590

Williams v. City of Rochester, 2
Lans. 169, 1138, 1139
Williams v. Commonwealth, 82
Ky. 640, 179
Williams v. ‘Conroy, 52 Cal. 414,
Williams v. Danziger, 91 Pa. Bt.
232, , 585
Williams v. Dewitt, 12 Ind. 309, 705
Williams v. Dickenson, 28 Fla. 90,
S.C. 9 So. R. 847, 624, 780, 1070
Williams v. Doe, 158. & M. 559, 485
Williams v. Downes, 30 Tex. 51, 456:
Williams vy. Eikenberry, 22 Neb.
210, S. C. 84 N. W. R. 373, 1096
Williams v. Gilkerson-Sloss, etc.,
Co., 45 La. Ann. —, S.C. 1380.
R. 394,
Williams v. Grand Rapids, etc.,
Co., 53 Mich. 271, 655, 706, 813
Williams v. Guile, 117 N. Y. 348,
S.C.6L. R. A. 366, 1050
Williams v. Harrington, 11 Ired.
314
540

610

616,

Williams vy. Hartshorn, 30 Ala.
211,

Williams v. Hayes, 68 Wis. 248,

S.C. 32 N. W R. 44 187
Williams v. Hayes, 20'N. Y. 58,
593, 707
Williams v. Haynes, 77 Tex. 283,
§.C.19Am.St.R.752, 320, 329, 474
Williams v. Hubbard, 1 Mich.
446, 163

Williams v. Jenkins, 11 Ga. 595, 496
Williams v. Jones, 42 Miss. 270, 473
Williams v. Jones, 12 Ind. 561, 502
Williams v. Lord Bagot, 3B. &C.

772, 424, 428
Williams v. Lumber Co., 72 Wis.

487, 1145
Williams y. McNamee, 102 U.S.

572, 1206

Williams v.Morgan,111U.8.684, 1181
cclxxxiv

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.]

Williams v. Morgan, 1 Litt. (Ky.)

167,

Williams v. Moseley, 2 Fla. 304,
Williams v. Nashville, 89 Tenn.

487, 8. 0.158. W. R. 364
Williams v. Nolan, 58 Tex. 708,
Williams v. Paschall, 4 Dall. (U.

8.) 284, 599
Williams v. Port, 9 Ind. 551, 1039
Williams v. Reed, 29N.J. 1.385, 458
Williams v. Robinson, 42 Vt. 658,

8. C.1 Am. R. 359, 679
Williams v. Robles, 22 Fla. 95,
Williams v. Sacramento Co., 58

Cal. 237, 450
Williams v. Shelden, 61 Mich. 311, 411
Williams v. Smith, 6 Cow. (N. Y.)

153

171
565

166, 654
Williams v. Spencer, 15 Am. St. R.
206, 739

Williams v. State (Ala.), 13 So.
Rep. 333, 1071

Williams v. State, 27 Am. Rep.
819

412,
Williams v. State (Ark.), 16S. W.
R. 816, 638
Williams v. State (Fla.), 13 So. R.
_ 429, 1218
Williams v. State, 3 Ga. 453, 657
Williams v. State, 60 Ga. 367, 662
Williams v. State, 32 Miss. 389, 657
Williams v. State, 6 Neb. 334, 1113
Williams v. State, 30 Tex. App.

354, S.C. 17S. W. R. 408, 668
Williams v. Taunton,125 Mass. 34, 811
Williams v. Thomas, 3 New Mex.

824, 8 C.9 Pac. R. 356, 152
Williams v. Turner, 7 Ga. 348, 800
Williams v. Van Valkenburg, 16

How. Pr. (N. Y.) 144, 437
Williams v. Walton, 9 Cal. 142, 576
Williams v. Waters, 36 Ga. 454, 536
Williams v. West, 2 Ohio St. 82, 1199
Williams v. Williams, 125 Ind.

156, S.C. 25 N. E.R. 176, 446, 447
Williams v. Williams,130 N.Y.193, 287
Williams v. Woods, 16 Md. 220, 538
Williamson v. Berry, 8 How. 495, 290
Williamson vy. Carroll, 1 Harr.
(N. J.) 217, 724

Williamson 'v. Cummings, etc.,
Co., 95 Cal. 652, S. C. 30 Pac. R.
762,

Williamson v. McClure, 37 Pa. St.
402,

Williamson v. McCormick, 126
Pa. St. 274, 8.C.17 Atl. R. 591,
Williamson v. Newport News, etc.,
Co. 34 W. Va. 657, 8. C. 26 Am.

St. R. 927,

1200
537
613

1025

 

Williamson v. Ross, 33 Ala. 509, 259

158 | Williamson v. Wardlaw, 40 Ga.

702, 431
Williamson vy. Wilson, 1 Bland.
(Md.) 418, 194

Williamson v. Yingling, 80 Ind.
379, 1092
Williamson’s Succession, 3 La.

Ann. 261, 314
Willingham v. Harrell, 36 Ala.
583, 577

Willins v. Wheeler, 17 How. Pr.

93, 332
Willis v. Bayles, 105 Ind 363, 126
Willis v. Elam, 28 La. Ann. 858, 153
Willis v. Farley, 24 Cal. 491, 118
Willis v. Nichols, 5 Tex. Civil

App. 154. 8. C. 23 8. W. R.
1025,
Willis v. Russell, 100 U. 8. 621,
Willis v. State, 62 Ind. 391,
Williston v. "Morse, 10 Metc.
(Mass.) 17,
Willitts v. Schuyler, 3 Ind. App.
118, 8. C. 29 N. E. R. 278,
Will of Broderick, 21 Wall. 503,
Willoughby v. Irish, 35 Minn. 63,
Wills Point Bank v. "Bates, 76 Tex.
329, 8. C. 13S. W. R. 309,
Wilmarth v. Woodcock, 66 Mich.
331, S. C. 33 N. W. R. 400,
Wilmer v. Gaither, 68 Md. 342,
Wilmont v. Meserole, 8 J. & S.
821, 515
Wilmot v. Richardson, 2 Keyes
(N. Y.) 519, 351
Wilsey v. Louisville, ete., R. R.
Co., 83 Ky. 511, 1051, 1052
Wilton v. Edwards, 6C. & P. 677, 1
Wilton v. Girdlestone, 5B.& A.

696
783
1164

533
180
263
384
486

533
384

847, 365
Wilson v. Berryman, 5 Cal. 44,° 1119
Wilson v. Board, 68 Ind. 507, 144

Wilson v. Bucknam, 71 Me. 545, 453

Wilson v. Buell, 117 Ind. 315, — 1195

Wilson v. Campbell, 119 Ind. 286, ;
110.

Wilson v. Chicago, ete., 133 Tl.

443, 170
Wilson v. City of Trenton (N. J.),

16 L. R. A. 200, 437
Wilson v. City of Wheeling, 19

W. Va. 323, 1184
- Wilson v. Coles, 2 Blackf. 402, 1212
Wilson v. Cross, 7 Watts (Pa.)

495 586

Wilson v. Donaldson, 117 Ind. 356,
8.C.3L. R. A. 266, 457

Wilson v. Fowler, 3 Ark. 463, 604

Wilson v. Green, 49 Ia. 251, 872
TABLE OF CASES.

ecelxxxv

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.]

Wilson vy. oreo. i Wis. 530, S.
C.53 N.W. R. 9 1051
Wilson vy. Hamer, x M. & 8.120, 346
Wilson v. Hamilton, 75 Ind. 71, 1155
Wilson v. Hanson, 20N. H. 375, 551
Wilson v. Holt, 83 Ala. 528, S. C.

38 Am. St. R. 768, 386
Wilson y. Joseph, 107 Ind. 490, S.

C.8N.E. RB. 616, 282, 486
Wilson v. Kochnlein, 1 W. Va.

145, 618
Wilson v. Koontz, 7 Cranch 202, 1205
Wilson v. Ladd, 49 Me. 78, 444
Wilson v. Martin-Wilson,ete.,Co.,

149 Mass. 24, 441
Wilson v. Mason, 8 Ark. 494, 858
Wilson v. Myers, 4 Hawks 73, S.

C. 15 Am. Dec. 510, 189
Wilson v. People, 94 Ill. 299, 666
Wilson v.Piper, 77 Ind.437, 237, 1239
Wilson v. Ray, 24 Ind. 156, 1178
Wilson v. Riddle, 123 U.S. 608, 1128

Wilson v. Rodewald, 49 Miss.506, 627
Wilson v. Rodewald, 61 Miss. 228,

156, 1203

Wilson v.Seligman,36 Fed.R.154, 285
Wilson v. Shipman, 34 Neb. 573,

S. C. 52 N. W. R. 576, 455
Wilson v. St. Louis, etc., Ry. Co.,
108 Mo. 588, S. C. 32 Am. St.

Rep.624,8. C. 18.8.W.R.286, 285,423

Wilson v. ‘State, 57 Ind. 71, 522

Wilson v. State, 1 Smith (Wis.)
191, 974

Wilson v. State, 3 Wis. 698, 803

Wilson vy. Stolley, 4 McLean 272, 486
Wilson v. Taylor (Mo.), 258. W.

R. 199, 1157
Wilson v. Town of Canedea, 15

Hun 218, 324
Wilson v. Trenton (N. J.), 16 L.

R. A. 200, 437
Wilson v. Tucker, 3 Starkie N. P.

154, 16
Wilson v. United States, 149 U.S.

60, S.C. 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 765, 820
Wilson v. Vance, 55 Ind. 394, 1163
Wilson v. Welch, 157 Mass. 77, 31

N. E. R. 712, 493
Wilson v. Wilson, 36 Cal. 447, 881
Wilson v. Winter, 6 Fed. R.16, ~ 412

Wilson v. Y. & L. M. Ry. Co., 11
Gill. & J. 58,

Wilson v. Zook, 69 Miss. 694, S. C.
13 So. R. 351,

Wilstach v. Hawkins, 14Ind.541, 398

Wimberg v. Schwegeman, 97 Ind.
528, 390

Wimer v. Wimer, 82 Va. 890, 8.
C. 3 Am. St. R. 126, 281, 303

408
1081

 

Winchell v. Allen, 1 Conn. 385, 199
Winchell vy. Hicks, 18 N. Y. 558,
1045, 1078
Winchester v. Ayres, 4 Greene
104, 214, 226
Winchester v. Beardin,10 Humph.
247, S. C. 51 Am. Dec. 702, 1192
Winchester v. Cox, 3 Green (Ia.)
575, 488
io v. Hinsdale, 12 Conn.
224
Windisch v. Gusset. 80 Tex. 744, 1192
Windsor v. McVeigh, 93 U.S. 277,
118, 129, 138, 243, 280, 336, 338
Winfield Town Co. v. Maris, i
Kan. 128, 218
Wing v. Fairhaven, 8 Cush. 363,
480, 486
Wing v. Hurlburt, 15 Vt. 607, 402
Wing v. Thompson, 78 Wis. 256,
S. C. 47 N. W. R. 606, 556
Wingo v. Caldwell, 36 S. Car. 598,
S.C. 148. E. R. 827, 707
Winkler v. Barthel, 6 Bradw.
(UL) 111, 464
Winkler v. State, 32 Ark. 539, 822
Winn v. Shaw, 87 Cal. 631, S. C.
25 Pac. R. 968, 483
Winne v. McDonald, 39 N. Y.
233, 1059
Winnebago Co. v. Brones, 68 Ia.
682, 455
Winnesheik Ins. Co. v. Schueller,
60 IL1. 465, 656, 657
Winney v.Sandwich,ete.,Co. (Ta.),
50 N. W. R. 565, 441
Winslowv. Donnelly,119 Ind. 565, 263
Winslow v. Ins. Co., 4 Metc. 306, 33
Winslow v. Lambard, 57 Me. 356,
319, 1196
Winslow v. State, 92 Ala. 78, 8. C.

9 So. R. 728, 504
Winslow v. Staten Island, etc.,

Co., 21 N. Y. 8. R. 87, 441
Winsor v. The Queen, 6B. &S.

1438, 180
Winston v. McLendon, 48 Miss.

254, 610

Winston v. Mitchell, 93 Ala. 554,

S. C. 9 So. R. 551, 187
Winston v. Westfeldt, 22 Ala. 760,

S. C. 58 Am. Dec. 278, 498
Winter v. Kinney, 1 N. Y. 365, 469
Winter v. Landphere, 42 Ia. 471, 33
Winters v. Ethell, 182 U.8. 207, 1203
Winters v. Means, 25-Neb. 241, S.

C. 13 Am. St. R. 489, 442

Winton v. Meeker, 25 Conn. 456, 799
Winton v. Sherman, 20 Ia. 295, 404
Winton v. State, 4 Ind. 321, 197
eclxxxvi

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.]

Wireback v. First Nat. Bank of

Easton, 97 Pa. St. 543,

Wirtz v. Henry, 59 Ill. 109,
Wisconsin, etc., Co. v. Ashland

County, 81 Wis. 1, 8. C. 50 N.

W. RB. 987, 484, 1212
Wise v. Hyatt, 68 Miss. 714, S. G.

10 So. R. 37, 1043
Wise v. State, 34 Ga. 348, 151, 161
Wisecarver v. Braden, 146 Pa. St.

42, 8. C. 23 Atl. R. 393,
Wiseman v. Bruns, 36 Neb. 467, 8.

C. 54 N. W. R. 858, 655
Wiseman v. Wiseman, 73 Ind.

112, 519
Wisner v. Bardwell, 38 Mich. 278, aa

1

656
437

611

Wiswell v. Sampson, 14 How. (U.

8.) 52, 197, 410

Witham v. Lewis, 1 Wils. 48,
11038, 1121, 1154, 1155
Withers v. Fiscus, 40 Ind. 131, 1124
Withers v. Fuller, 30 Gratt. 547,
155, 473, 474
Withers v. Jack, 79 Cal. 297, 8. C.

21 Pac. R. 824, 111
Withers v. Patterson, 27 Tex. 491,

117, 247
Withers v. State, 30 Tex. App. 383,

S.C. 1758. W. R. 936, 658
Witherspoon v. Blewett, 47 Miss.

570, 394, 519
Witherspoon v.Dunlap,1l McCord,

346, 298
Withington v. Warren, 10 Metc.

(Mass.) 431, 600
Witkowski v. Hern, 82 Cal. 604,

S. C. 23 Pac. R. 132, 1044, 1183
Witten v. Robison, 31 Mo. App.

525,

Witter v. Dudley, 42 Ala. 616,
Witter v. Taylor, 7 Ind. 110,
Wittick v. Traum, 27 Ala. 562, 8.

C. 62 Am. Dec. 778,

Wittick v. Traun, 25 Ala. 317,
Witting v. St. Louis, ete., Co., 101

Mo. 631, 1025
Wittkowsky v. Wasson, 71 N. Car.

451, 1041, 1055
Witz v. Dale, 129 Ind. 120, 8. C.

27 N. E. R. 498, 207, 1138
Witz v. Spencer, 51 Ind. 253, 174
Wixson v. Devine, 80 Cal.385, 49,51
Wohlenberg v. Melchert, 35 Neb.

803, 8. C.53 N. W. R. 982, 1168
Wolcott v. Ely, 2 Allen 338, 1140

Wolcott v. Hendrick, 6 Tex. 406, 464
Wolcott v. Studebaker, 34 Fed. R.
1050

8,
Wolcott v. Yeager, 11 Ind. 84, 1115

189
183
635

301
1192

 

Wolf v. Arthur, 112 N. Car. 691,

8. C. 168. E. R. 848, 737
Wolf v. Bauereis, 72 Ma. 481, 8.
C, 19 Atl. R. 1045, 378

Wolf v. Campbell, 110 Mo. 114, 8.
C. 19S. W. R. 622, 1050
Wolf v. Kohr, 133 Pa. St. 13, S.

C. 19 Atl. R. 284, 540
Wolf v. Tappan, 5 Dana (Ky.)

361, 470
Wolf v. Washer, 32 Kan. 533, 1030
Wolf v. Western Union Tel. Co.,

62 Pa. St. 83, A12
Wolf v. Willits, 35 IIL. 88, 1071
Wolf v. Wolf (Pa.), 28 Atl. R.

164, 783

9 | Wolfe v. Kable, 107 Ind. 565, 1167

Wolfe v. McMillan, 117 Ind. 587, 1052
Wolfe v. Pugh, 101 Ind. 293, 1081
Wolfe v. Underwood (Ala.), 1280.
R. 234, 510
Wolff v. Shenandoah National
Bank (Ia.),50 N. W. R. 561, 438

Wolffe v. Minnis, 74 Ala. 386, 820
Wolfforth v. State, 31 Tex. Crim.

Rep. 387, 8. C. 20S. W. R. 741, 823
Wolmerstadt v. Jacobs, 61 Ia.

372, 185
Womack v. Shelton, 31 Tex. 592, 604
Wombough v. Cooper, 2 Hun (N.

Y.) 428, 1053
Wong v. Astoria, 13 Ore. 538, 643
Wood v. Auburn, etc., R. R. Co.,

8N. Y. 160, 581
Wood v. Babb, 16 So. Car. 427, 404
Wood v. Barber, 90 N. Car. 76, 384
Wood v. Beadell, 3 Sim. 273, 487

Wood v. Bissell, 108 Ind. 229, 373,377
Wood v. Bridgeport, 143 Pa. St.

167, S. C. 22 Atl. R. 752, 546
Wood v. Chicago, etc., R.R. Co.,
39 Fed. R. 52 602

Wood v. Chicago, etc., R. R. Co.,
59 Ia. 196, 531
Wood v. Franklin, 97 Ind. 117,
149, 159, 232, 234
Wood 'v. Guarantee, ete., Co., 128
U.S. 416, S. C.-9 Sup. Ct. Rep.

131, 550
Wood v. Helme, 14 R. I. 325, 593
Wood v. Hitchcock, 20 Wend.(N.

Y.) 47, 400
Wood vy. Humphrey, 114 Mass.

185, 588
Wood v. Hurd, 34.N. J. L. 87, 543
Wood v. Keyes, 6 Paige 478, 189
Wood vy. Knapp, 100 N. Y. 109, 452
Wood v. McGuire’s Children, 63

Am. Dec. 246, 1122
Wood v. McGuire, 17 Ga. 303, 791
TABLE OF CASES.

eclxxxvil

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.]

’ Wood v. Milwaukee, etc., Co., 32

Wis. 398, 980
Wood v. Nesbitt, 19 N. Y. S.

423, 1137
Wood v. Nortman, 85 Mo: 298,
1048, 1049
Wood v. Raymond, 42 Cal. 643, 1040
Wood v. Riker, 1 Paige Ch. _(N,

Y.) 616, 381
Wood v. Squires, 60 N. Y.191, 1189
Wood v. State, 31 Fla. 221, 8c.

12 So. R. 539, 1067
Wood v. Steele, 6 Wall.(U.S.) 80, 532
Wood v. Stoddard, 2 Johns. (N.

Y.) 194, 654
Wood v. Surrells, 89 Ill. 107, 393

_ Wood v. Sutcliffe, 2 Sim. (N. 8.)

163, 487
Wood v. Treleven, 74 Wis. 577, S.

C. 43 N. W. R. 488, 596
Wood v. Tunnicliff, 74N. Y. 38, 582
Wood v. Warner, 15N.J. Eq. 81, 283
Wood v. Watkinson, 17 Conn.

500, S. C. 44 Am. Dec. 562, 443
Wood v. Weimar, 104 U.S. 786, 1128
Wood v. Wilson, 4 Hous. (Del.)

94, 165
Wood v. Wood, 5 Paige 596, 290

Wood v. Wood, 52N. H. 422, 656
Wood v. Wood, 78 Ky. 624, 458
Wood v. Young, 38 Ia. 102, 608
Wood County v. Boreman, 34 W.

Va. 362, S. C. 128. E. R. 490, 483

Wood River Bank vy. Kelley, 29
Neb. 590,

Woodburn v.Chamberlin,17 Barb.
446, . 1040

Woodbury v. Maguire, 42 Ia. 339, 446

Woodcock v. Bennett, 1 Cow. 711, 919

Wooddridge v. Brown, 1 Tex.

\ 478, 1197

Wooden vy. Strew, 10 How. Pr.
(N. Y.) 4

Woodfill v. Patton, 76 Ind. 575,

Woodfolk v. State, 85 Ga. 69, S.
C. 118. E. R. 814,

Woodfolk v. Whitworth, 5 Coldw.
(Tenn.) 561,

eee vy. Fillbates, 77 Va.

Wrodlifie v. Connor, 45 Miss.
552,

Woodman v. Churchill, 51 Me.
112,

Woodman v. Smith, 37 Me. 21, .

Woodrow v. O’Conner, 28 Vt. 776,

Woodrow v.. Younger, 61 Mo. 395,

Woodruff v. Bowles, 104 N. Car.
197, §.C. 108. E. R. 482,

Woodruff v. Garner, 39 Ind. 246,

800

1103
224
474
320
456
804
433
592
632

540
512

1211

 

Woodruff v. Jabine (Ark.), 15S.

W. R. 830, 1211, 1218
Woodruff v. N. Y.: etc., R. R. Co.,

59 Conn. 63, 8, ©. 20 Atl. R.17, 527
Woodruff vy. Rose, 43 Ala. 382, 1183
Woodruff v. Trapnall, 12 Ark. 640, 402
Woods v. Dickinson, 7 Mackey

301, S. C. 18 Wash. L. R. 5, 606
Woods v. Freeman, 1 Wall. 398, 1191
Woods v. Montovallo, etc., Co., 84

Ala. 560,8.C.5 Am. St. R.398, 551
Woods v. Page, 37 Vt. 252, 574, 601
Woods v. Rowan, 5 Johns. (N.Y.)

133, 652
Woods v. State, 134 Ind. 35, S.C.

33 N. E. R. 901, 660
Woods v. State, 10 Mo. 698, 1171
Woodstock Iron Co. v. Fullen-

wider, 87 Ala. 584, 344
Woodward v. Blanchard, 16 Ill.

424, 551
Woodward vy. Davis, 127 Ind. 172,

8. C. 26 N. E.R. 687, . 396, 1115
Woodward v. Horst, 10 Ia. 120, 1166
Woodward v. Newhall, 1 Pick.

500, 1194

Woodward v. Purdy, 20 Ala. 379, 521
Woodward v. Wons, 18 Ind: 296, 434
Woodward v. Woodson, 6 Munf.
(Va.) 227, 1100
Woodward v. Woodward, 4 Halst.
(N. J.) 115, 199
Woodworth v. McGovern, 52 Vt.
318, 591
Woodworth v. Spring, 4 Allen
321, 292
Woody v. Pickard, 8 Blackf. (Ind. ds

Woclenslagle v. Runals, 76 Mich.
545, 8. C. 43 N. W. R. 454,
Woolery v. Grayson, 110 Ind.
149, 1199
Woolery v. Ry. Co., 107 Ind. 381, -
1082

540

Woelery, Admr., v. Louisville, N.
& C. Ry. Co., 107 Ind. 381, 546
Woollen ¥. Whitacre, 91 Ind. 502,
1089, 1090,-1100
Woollen v. Wire, 110 Ind. "O51, 8. ‘

C. 11 N. E. R. 236, 663
Woolley v. Newcombe, 58 How.
, Pr. (N. Y.) 480, 529
Woolley v. State, "8 Ind. 377, 1184
| Woolrine’s Admr. v. Chesapeake,
etc., Co., 86 W. Va. 329, S.
158. E. R. 81, a)
Woolsey v. Ellenville, 15 N. Y.
Supp. 647, 549
Wooster v. Glover, 37 Conn. 315,
190, 1244
eclxxxviii

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.]

Wooster v. Burr, 2 Wend. (N. Y.)
295,

Wooten v. Nall, 18 Ga. 609,

Wooters v. Kauffman, 67 Tex.

1046
520

488, 1194
Word v. Com., 3 Leigh (Va.) 748, 818
Word v. Word, 90 Ala. 81, 8. C. 7

So. R. 412, 195
Work v. State, 2 Ohio St. 296, S.

C. 59 Am. Dec. 671, 643
Works v. Stevens, 76 Ind. 181, 1070

Worley v. Moore, 97 Ind.15, 820, 1081
Wormeley v. Com.,10 Gratt. (Va.)
658,
Wormell v. Maine Cent. BR. BR. Co. =
79 Me. 397, 1055
Worrall v. Parmelee, 1N. Y. 519,
8. C. 49 Am. Dec. 350,
Worseley v. DeMattos, 1 Burr.
467,
Worsham.y. Goar, 4 Port. (Ala.)
441, 678
-Worsham v. Murchison, 66 Ga.
715, 232, 234
Worthington v. Cent. Vt. R. R.
Co., 64 Vt. 107, S. CO. 23 Atl. R.
590, 547
Te v. Mencer (Ala.), 11
So. R.7 51
Wray v. es 16 Col. 271, Pe
C. 27 Pac. R. 248,
Wray v. Hill, 85 Ind. 546,
185, 1109, 1151

718
540

Wray v. Tindall, 45 Ind. 517, 1169
Wretord, Ex parte, 40 Ala. 378, 188
Wright, In re, 134 U.S. 136, 188
Wright v. Abbott, 85 Ind. 154, 676

Wright v. Bank of Metropolis, 110
N. Y. 237, 8. C.6 Am. St. R.
356,

Wright v. Beckett, 1 Mood. & R.
414,

Wright v. Boon, 2 Greene (Ia.)
458, 228

Wright v. Bosworth, 7 N.H.590, 472

Wright v. Boynton, 40 N. H. 358, 1166

Wright v. Cabot, 89 N. Y. 570, 514

Wright v. Carpenter, 49 Cal. 607,

813, 814

117
318
183

720

553
796

Wright v. Defrees, 8 Ind. 298,
Wright v. Edwards, 10 Ore. 298,
Wright v. Fletcher, 12 Vt. 431,
Wee v. Gillespie, 43 Mo. App.

Wright v. Griffith, 121 Ind. 478, 8.
C.6L.R. A. 639,

Wright v. Huron County Clerk, 48
Mich. 642, 205

Wright v. J udge of Superior Ct.,
41 Mich. 726, 1240

413

800.

6| Wright v. Williams, 47 Vt. 222,

 

Wright v. Lothrop, 149 Mass. 385,
8. C. 21 N. E. R. 963, 541
Wright v. Malden, etc., R. R. Co.,
4 Allen (Mass.) 283, 546
Wright v. Manns, 111 Ind. 422,
196, 379
Wright v. Marsh, 2 Greene (Ia.)
820

94,
Wright v. McCampbell, 75 Tex.
644, S. C. 13 5. W. R. 293, 409
Wright v. Miller, 63 Ind. 220, 361
Wright v. Millikin, 152 Pa. St.
507, 8. C. 25 Atl. Rep. 756, 604, 610
Wright v. Pender, Aleyn 18, 1025
Wright v. Phillips, 2 G. Greene
(Ja.) 191, 1122
Wright v. Raddin, 100 Mass. 319, 576
Wright v. Rodgers, 26 Ind. 218, 1181
Wright v. State, 8 Blackf. (Ind.)
3885, 1116
Wright v. Strauss, 73 Ala. 227, 373
Wright v. Swanson, 46 Ala. 708, 472
Wright v. Tichenor, 104Ind. 185, 371

Wright v. Ware 50 Ala. 549, 241
Wright v. Warner, 1 Doug.
(Mich.) 384, 297

Wright v. Weisinger, 5 Sm. &
M. 210 327
740
Wright v. Young, 6 Wis. 127, S.
C.70 Am. Dec. 453, 402
Wright’s Admr. v. Northwestern

Mut. Life Ins. Co., 91 Ky. 208,

8. C. 158. W. R. 242, 675
Wrigley, In re, 8 Wend. (N. Y.)

134, 464
Wroe v. Greer, 2 Swan. 172, 218
Wroe v. State, 20 Ohio St. 460, 797

Wrolsen v. Anderson (Minn.), 55 *

N. W. R. 597, 610
Wunstel v. Landry, 39 La. Ann.
812, 8. C. 1 So. Rep. 893, 275, 444

Wyandotte, City of, v. Gibson, 25
Kan. 236, 1093

Wyandotte, City of, v. White, 13
Kan. 1097

Wyandotte etc., Co. v. Robinson.
34 Mich 428, 174
Wyatt v. Bailey, 1 Morr. (Ia.)
396, 393

Wyatt v. Benson, 23 Barb. N. Y.
327, 581, 584
Wyatt v. Leni ete., Co. Os
ae N. Car. 245, 8. C. 14 'S.E
p. 683, "574
wratt Vv. People, 16 Col. 252, S.C.
28 Pac. R. 961, 170
Wyatt v. Rambo, 29 Ala. 510, S.
C. 68 Am. Dee. 89, 165, 323
Wyatt v. Steele, 26 Ala. 639, 322, 536
TABLE OF CASES.

eclxxx1x

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. II, pp. 603-1244.,]

Wyers v. State, 21 Tex. App. 448, 232
Wyley v. Bull, 41 Kan. 206, S. é.

20 Pac. R. 855, 1112
Wyman v. Felker, 18 Col. 382, S.

C. 33 Pac. R. 157, 108:
Wyman v. Winslow, 11 Me. 398,

S. C. 26 Am. Dec. 542, 401
Wyngert v. Norton, 4 Mich. 286, 736
Wynkoop v. Cooch, 89 Pa. St.

‘Yingling v. Hesson, 16 Md. 112,
675,

Yentzer v. Thayer, 10 Col. 63, 8.
C. 3 Am. St. R. 563,

Yerkes v. Norris, 90 Mich. 234, S.
C. 51 N. W. R. 366,

320
550
1107, 1147

680
Yniestra v. Tarleton, 67 Ala. 126, 367

2| Yerks v. Sabin, 97 Ind. 141,

450, 349 | Yolo County v. Knight, 70 Cal.
Wynn v. Lee, 5 Ga. 217, 821} 431, . 457
Wynn v. Lord Neuborough, 3 Bro. Yoe vy. People, 49 Ill. 410, 820, 823

C. C. 88, 409 | Yore v. Murphy, 10 Mont. 304, 8.
Wynn v. ‘State, 1 Black. a C. 25 Pac. R. 1089, 627

28, York vy. Bright, 4 Humph. 312, 368
Wynn v. Troy, 109 Ind. 250, isi York v. Fortenbury, 15 Col. 139,
Wynn v. Wyatt’s Admx., il 8. C. 25 Pac. R. 163, 1229

Leigh (Va.) 584, 614
Wynne v. Cornelison, 52Ind,312, 367
Wynne v. State, 56 Ga. 118; 809

Y

Yaeger v. City of Henry, 39 IIl.
App. 609

Yancy v. Teter, 39Ind.305, 1200, 1201

Yanez v. State, 6 Tex. Ap pp. 429,

_ §. C. 32 Am. R. 591,

Yant v. Harvy, 55 Ta. 421,

Yaple v. Titus, 41 Pa. St. 195,

Yarborough v. Leggett, 14 Tex.
677, | 582

Yarbrough, Ex parte, 120 U. S.
651 243

,
Yarbrough v. State, 70 Miss. 598,

S. C. 12 So. R. 551, 820
Yard v. Ocean Beach Assn.,49 N.

J. Eq. 306, 8. C. 24 Atl. R. 729, 371
Yate v. Willan, 2 East 128, 399
Yater v. Mullen, 23 Ind. 562, 619
Yater v. State, 58 Ind. 299, 629, 636
Yates v. Kinney, 33 Neb. 853, 8.

C. 51 N. W. R. 230, 570
Yates v. Lancing, 5 Johns. 282,

240, 259

Yates v. McCullough Iron Co., 69
. Md. 370, 8. C. 16 Atl. R. 280, 536
813

Yates v. People, 38 Ill. 527,
Yates v. Russell, 17 Johns. (N.

York, etc., R. R. Co. v. Myers, 18

How. (U. 8.) 246, 599
York v. Pease, 2 Gray 282, 705
York v. State, 7: s. 15} 8. OC.

11 Sup. Ct. R.9 614
York v. - State, ie "Tex. 651, 8. C.

118. W.R. 8 444, 614
Yost v. ict a Ind. 464, 8. C.

47 Am. R. 156, 738, 739, 1233
Yost v. Grim, 116 Pa. St. 527, 382
Yost v. Minneapolis, etc., Works,

41 Ill. App. 556, 783
Young v. ‘Arntze, 86 Ala. 116, S.

C. 5 So. R. 253, 556
Young v. Bennett, 7 Bush (Ky. fs

474,
Young v. Berger, 132 Ind. 530, 8.

C. 32 N. E. R. 318, 1108, 1147
Young v. Black, 7 Cranch 565,

1024, 1030

Young v. Brady, 94 Cal. 128, 800

Young v. Bridges, 34 La, Ann.
333, 657
Young v. Buckingham, 5 Ohio

485, 182
Young v. co os ‘Wik. 438,
8. C. 50 N. W. R. 343, 556

Young v. Pon, ate: , Co., 79
Ta. 415, 8. C. 44N. W. R.693, = 1051
Young v. Campbell, 75 N.Y. 525, 491

Young v. Cooper, 12 Neb. 610, 465
Young v, Dickey, 63 Ind. 31, 614
Young v. Gundy, 6 Cranch 51, 1178

Y.) 461 591 | Young v. Johnson, 123 N. Y. 226, 660
Yavapai Go. v. O'Neil (Ariz.), 29 Young v. Kinney, 48 Vt. 22, 596

Pac. R. 430, 505 | Young v. Ledrick, 14 Kan. 92,
Ybarra v. Sylvany (Cal.), 31 Pac. "178, 213

R. 1114, 1145| Young v. Marine Ins. Co., 1
Yeager v. Groves, 78 Ky. 278, 429] Oranch C. C. 452, 656

Yeamans v. Yeamans, 99 Mass.
585, 595
Yeats v. Ballentine, 56 Mo. 530, 406

8

 

| Young v. Martin, 8 Wall. 354,

182, 1222

Young v. Nelson, 25 Ill. 565, 464

‘
cexe

TABLE OF CASES.

[References are to Pages, Vol. I, pp. 1-602, Vol. IL, pp. 603-1244.]

Young v. Reynolds, 4 Md. 375, 598
Young v. Rollins, 85 N. Car. 485,

8. C. 12 Am. & Eng. Ry. Cases
455,
Young v. Sellers, 106 Ind. 101, °
168, 241
1116

653

194

Young v. Seymour, 4 Neb. 86,
ee v. Slaughterford, 11 Mod.
Young v. State Bank, 4 Ind. 301,

8. C. 58 Am. Dec. 630, 117, "1197
Young v. Wells, 97 Ind. 410, 322, 427
Young v. Western Union Tel. Co.,

65 N. Y. 163, 412
Young v. Young, 91 N. Car. 359, 292
Youngblood v. Schamp, 15 N. J.

Eq. 42, 486
Youngman y. Elmira, etc., R. R.

Co., 65 Pa. St. 278, 427
Yuengeling vy. Johnson, 1 Hughes

607, 487
Yznaga Del Valle v. Harrison, 93

Us Ss 1 1203

Z

Zabel v. Nyenhbuis, 83 Ia. 766, S.

C. 49. N. W. RB. 999, 619
Zahradnicek v. Selby, 15 Neb. 579, 449
Zaleski v. Clark, 45 Conn. 397, 1156
Zell v. Johnston, 76 N. Car. 302, 593
Zell vy. McHenry, 51 Ia, 572, 643

 

Zeller vy. City of. Crawfordsville,
90 Ind. 262, 207, 1139
Zeller v. Martin, 84 Wis. 4, 8. C

54 N. W. R. 330, 629
Zenor v. Johnson, 107 Ind. 69, 1070
Zerfass’ Appeal, 135 Pa. St. 522, 8.

C. 19 Atl. R. 1056, 287
Ziegenhager v. Doe, 1 Ind. 296, 468
Ziegler v. South. & North. Ala. R.

R. Co., 58 Ala. 494, 424
Zimmer v. Matteson, 15 N. Y.S.

607, - 635
Zimmerman vy. Franke, 34 Kan.

650, S. C. 9 Pac. R. 747, 282
Zimmerman v. Kinkle, 108 N. Y.

282, 8S. C. 15 N. E. R. 407, 529
Zimmerman yv.Klingeman,31 Neb.

495, 8. C. 48 N. W. R. 268, 1234
Zitske v. Goldberg, 38 Wis. 216, 610

Zobieskie v. Bauder, 1 Cai.(N. Y, )
487, 627
Zodolski v. State, 82 Wis. 580, S.

C. 52 N. W. Rep. 778, 695
Zoller v. McDonald, 23 ‘Cal. 136, 1180
Zonker v. Cowan, 84 Ind. 395,

159, 229

Zopfi v. Postal Tel., etc., Co., 60
Fed. R. 987, 984, 1056
Zuber v. Geigar, 2 Yeates (Pa.)
522
Zucker v. Karples, 88 Mich. 413,
8. C.50 N. W. R. 3

_ 378, 1087
Zurcher v. Magee, 2 Ala. 253,
§1.
2.

3.
4, Mastering the facts.
5.
6.

10.
11.

12.

18.

14,

18.
19.

‘20.
21.
22.
23.

24,
25.

THE WORK OUT OF COURT.

CHAPTER I.

LEARNING AND PREPARING THE FACTS.

Value of preparation.
Genius of success.
Study of the case.

Examining the witnesses.
Object of preliminary examina-
tion.

7. Things seen.
8.
9. Suggestions to witnesses.

Maps, plans and photographs.

Evils of coaching witnesses.

Chitty’s advice.

Harm caused by a bad wines

Cautioning witnesses.

Duty of advocate in consultation
with witnesses.

. Inspection of written instru-

ments.

. Copies should not be depended

upon.

. Client’s statement of contents not

to be trusted.
* Circumstances aid work of con-

struction.

Circumstances may create prob-
ability.

Influence of probability.

Inferences.

Groundwork of inference.

Difference between facts and evi-
dence.

Marks of things.

“Fact”? not synonymous with
“truth.””

§ 26.

27.
28.

29.

30.
31.

32.
33.
34.
35.

36.

37.
38.
39.
40.

41.
42,
43.
44,
45.
46.
47.

48.

(1)

Chief object of preparatory in-
vestigation.

Rules of induction to be observed.

Witness should be allowed to tell
his own story.

Securing knowledge of unfavor-
able evidence:

Meeting unfavorable evidence.

Difference between gathering ma-
terials and presenting case in
court.

Committing evidence to memory.

Nature of evidence.

Use of crude materials.

Means of making facts evident to
jury.

Ascertaining reputation of wit-
nesses.

Identification of persons.

Means of identifying persons.

Identity of animals.

Identity of inanimate personal

property.

Identifying real property.

Identifying documents. .,

Examination of client.

Control of the case.

Tendency of clients to exagger-
ate.

Written statements no substitute
for personal examination.

Information as to client’s busi-
ness.

Prejudice of jurors.
2 THE WORK OUT OF COURT.

§1

$49. Object of procuring knowledge § 52. Fastening the facts in the mind.
of client’s standing. 58. Assumption that client does not
50. Necessity of consultation with know the law.
witnesses. 54, Taking client’s opinion.
51. Reasons for promptly examin-
ing witnesses.

§ 1. Value of preparation.—Preparation is the foundation
of success in advocacy. Neither genius nor talent, neither tact
nor cunning, can equip an advocate to try a cause as it is the
duty of advocates to try causes, without a foundation well laid
by thorough and complete preparation. The first step is to
acquire a knowledge of the facts.1. It is not enough to obtain
a knowledge of them in outline; they must be known in their
breadth and depth and in their relation to each other and to

the ruling principles of law.?

1“ Master your facts and act only
when you are cool, are the maxims of
Lord Justice Lindley for the young
practitioner.”? 23 Am. Law Review,
579.

2 Sir Charles Russell’s description of
his mode of working is interesting and
instructive. ‘‘If you ask me,” said
this accomplished advocate in answer
to a question addressed to him by a
reporter, ‘‘ to reduce the common habit
of my life to a formula, I will tell you
that I have only four ways of prepar-
ing my work. First. I do one thing
ata time, whether it is reading a brief
or eating oysters, concentrating what-
ever faculties I am endowed with upon
what Iam doing atthe moment. Sec-
ondly. When dealing with compli-
cated facts, to arrange the narrative of
events in the order of date—a simple
rule not always acted upon, but which
enables you to unravel the most com-
plicated story, and to see the relation
of one set of facts to another set of
facts. My third rule is never to
trouble about authorities or case law
supposed to bear on a particular ques-
tion until I have accurately and detin-

Cicero says:

‘““ What Socrates

itely ascertained the precise facts.
This last rule is one which the profes-
sional man will appreciate better, per-
haps, than the layman. It is not only
valuable—I may say this as I did not
invent it—but very interesting to
me, individually, as I got it from Lord
Westbury when a young man at the
bar and pleading before him. I was
plunging into a citation of cases, when
he very good-naturedly pulled me up
and said: ‘Mr. Russell, don’ttrouble
yourself with the authorities until we
have ascertained with precision the
facts, and then we shall probably find
that a number of the authorities which
seem to bear some relation to the case
have really nothing important to do
with it.’ My fourth rule is to try and
apply the judicial faculty to my own
case in order to determine what are its
strong and weak points, and in order
to settle in my own mind what is the
turning point in the case. This
method enables you to discard irrele-
vant topics and to mass your strength
on the point on which the case hinges.”
39 Alb. Law Journal, 304. ’
§2 LEARNING AND PREPARING THE FACTS. 3

used to say, that all men are sufficiently eloquent in that which
they understand, is very plausible but not true. It would have
been nearer the truth to say that no man can be eloquent on a
subject that he does not understand.’’! No man can be strong
where his knowledge of his subject is feeble. Preparation alone
supplies the knowledge which makes trial lawyers strong.’
Biographers of advocates, like biographers of military heroes,
sometimes take up the pen of the romancer, and, to magnify
the man of whom they write, invent pleasant fictions. It is to
this class of biographers that legal literature owes many stories
of verdicts won, as they say, ‘‘ by a flash of wit or a torrent of
eloquence.’’ There is more of rhetorical flourish than of sober
truth in these stories. For the most part, legal controversies
are not fields for display, but fields for hard work. The power
of the advocate does, indeed, often carry the verdict, but the
‘foundation of this power is preparation.

§ 2. Genius of success.—The genius of success in the con-
tests of the forum is the genius of hard work. The man who
goes into the contests of the forum without careful preparation,
relying on his wit or his eloquence, will go ‘‘sounding oa a
dim and perilous way.’’ ‘‘ Diligence,’’ Cicero maintains, ‘ is
capable of effecting almost everything,’’* and at no point in
advocacy is diligence more powerful than at the outset. Dili-
gence in preparation is, to borrow again from Cicero, the one
virtue ‘‘in which all other virtues are comprehended.’’!
Speeches that are lauded as remarkable examples of extempo-
raneous speaking are almost always found, when tue truth is
known, to be the result of careful and laborious preparation.
Webster’s reply to Hayne was not the result of a night’s delib-
eration, but, as he himself said, was the product of long years
of thought. If ever a man was gifted with genius great enough
to make him disdain the aid of preparation, it was Daniel Web-
ster, and yet he would not speak without preparation. The

1Orators and Oratory, Bk. I, xiv. thing as extemporaneous acquisition.”
2 Young man,’ said Daniel Web- = * Orators and Oratory, Bk. II, xxxv.
ster to the preacher, ‘“‘thereisnosuch  ‘ Orators and Oratory, Bk. II, xxxv.
4 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. §3

secret of his success is disclosed in the well-known anecdote
which represents him as saying to a friend: ‘‘If there be so
much weight in my words as you represent, it is because I do
not allow myself to speak on any subject until my mind is
thoroughly imbued with it.’’

§3. Study of the case.—Those consummate masters of for-
ensic oratory, Cicero and Quintilian, with strong words, often
repeated, impress upon the advocate the necessity of a thorough
study of the causes he undertakes.’ This study is even more
important now than when they wrote, for men in these days
look more to the words of the witnesses than to those of the ad-
vocates. In theory the truth comes from the witnesses, how-
ever it may be in fact, but in Rome this was scarcely so, even
in theory. The study of the facts is not so much for the sake
of the argument as these great authors teach, for it is essential
in other particulars even more important. Preparation is not
for the sake of the argument alone, but for the sake of the case,
although it gives a strength and power to the argument that
without it would be utterly wanting. Mr. Harris, employing.
the nomenclature of the turf, says: ‘‘In five cases out of six I
would back the advocate and not the case.’’? But this, we
venture to affirm, is not true of advocacy in America, whatever
may be said of it as applied to the English practice, where the
attorneys, and not the advocates, prepare the cases. The only
safe rule for an advocate is to be sure that he has constructed a
strong theory, and is provided with the essential principles of
law and the necessary facts to maintain it. Neither judges nor
jurors can be carried to a favorable conclusion by the mere work
of the advocate in court, although much may there be done to
turn the oftentimes doubtful fortunes of the contest.

§ 4. Mastering the facts.—Where the contest is not to be
fought solely upon questions of law the advocate must make

1“Our first precept,” says Cicero, a minute and thorough knowledge of
shall be: ‘‘That whatever causes he them.”
undertakes to plead, he must acquire 7 Tilustrations in Advocacy, Chap.
II, 1.
§4 LEARNING AND PREPARING THE FACTS. 5

himself a master of all the facts.!. It is not sufficient that he
gain a general knowledge of them; his duty is poorly done if
he does not obtain a complete mastery of all the details.? Little
things often decide big ones.’ A hole in the bottom of a ship,
even though it be not a large one, may work destruction as ef-
fectually as a great one; and a little hurt, though it be ‘‘not so
deep as a well nor so wide as a church door,’’ may cause death.
Quintilian’s advice is as valuable now as it was in the days
when the Roman lawyers aroused the applause of listening
multitudes in the Forum of Rome. The young advocate will
- be wise to study it with care, and even the veteran will find
profit in often recurring to it. The information gathered from
the client is the basis of the investigation of the facts, and the
counsel should draw from him all his knowledge of the facts
as well as his inferences and hypotheses. Where the matters
of which the client speaks are not susceptible of direct proof,
or where they are not physical facts, it is well enough to ascer-
tain the inferences and the hypotheses that the client has
framed; but these must not be accepted without having been
thoroughly examined and tested, for it is to be expected that
the interest of the client will so bias his mind that his mental
processes will neither be accurate nor just.

be industrious, but, to use an express-
ion of a learned friend of mine, ‘He

1 Mr. Besant, in ‘‘The Ivory Gate,”’
makes his solicitor, Mr. Dering, say,

“T think nothing; I want the facts.”
The advocate, in his consultation with
his client, should demand the facts,
and should be content with nothing
less.

21t has been said of Carlyle, that
one of the elements of his power was
‘his almost excessive love of details.”
Emerson, in one of his letters to Car-
lyle, says: “T think you see as pict-
ures every street, church, Parliament
House, barracks, baker’s-shop, mut-
ton-stall, forge, wharf and ship, and
whatever stands, creeps, rolls or
swims thereabout, and make all your
own.” ‘My man who is to succeed,”’
says Sir Arthur Helps, ‘‘ must not only

must havé an almost ignominious love
of details.’ ’”’

3“ Trifles,’’ said Michael Angelo,
‘“‘make perfection, and perfection is
no trifle.”’ ‘‘ Life,’’ says Oliver Wen-
dell Holmes, “‘is a great bundle of
little things.”

‘Quintilian’s Inst., 7, 8, 12, 18.
Cicero’s course was much like that
which Quintilian commends. Orators
and Oratory, II, xxiv. And Webster
said of Judge Parsons, ‘‘’Tis not
enough for him that he has learned
the leading points of a case, he must
know everything.” Harvey’s Rem-
iniscences of Webster, 82. ‘
6 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. §5

§5. Examining the witnesses.—The advocate’s duty is not
at an end when he has examined, no matter how exhaustively,
his client; he must see and talk with his witnesses. In this
respect the American lawyer has a great advantage over the
English barrister, for the strict rules of English practice pre-
vent the barrister from holding a personal interview with the
witnesses.1 Lord Tenterden said: ‘‘It is of the very greatest
importance, as regards the result of a trial, that the principal
attorney himself should, in due time, examine the witnesses
and take down the result in writing.’’ Mr. Chitty’s advice is
that, ‘‘ Hither the principal or a very experienced clerk, who
will afterward attend at the consultation and to the conduct of
the cause at the trial, and who will be above the suspicion of
tampering with the witnesses, should personally, and in the
absence of his client, see and examine each witness apart from
the other, so that one may not influence the other as to the ex-
act testimony he will give, and he should particularly inquire
whether he has any interest in the event of the action, or
whether there are any circumstances which might affect his
competency in the opinion of the judge or his credit in the es-
timation of the jury.’’?

§ 6. Object of preliminary examination.—The chief purpose
of the preliminary examination of the witnesses is, doubtless, to
obtain a knowledge of the information they possess; but an-
other purpose, scarcely less important, is to secure a knowledge
of each witness. Witnesses differ very greatly in their mental
characteristics and habits of thought, and one method of exam-
ination will not be successful with all. To successfully ex-
amine a witness the advocate should know the person with
whom he has to deal. He should mold his method of examina-
tion to the temperament and intelligence of each witness that
comes upon the stand. There will be the dull witness to be
drawn out with plain and homely questions slowly put, the

1See 5 Corp. & R’y Jour. 143. In sameas that of the American advocate.
this respect the French practice isthe Hist. French Advocates.
23 Chitty’s General Practice, 821.
§7 LEARNING AND PREPARING THE FACTS. 7

impulsive witness to be subdued and checked, the timid wit-
ness to be encouraged and supported, the swift witness to be
controlled and kept to the facts. The advocate who has seen
the witnesses face to face, and has formed his judgment of their
capacity and temperament, will be much better qualified to ex-
amine them on the trial than one who sees them for the first
time in the court-room. There is still another advantage to
be gained from a personal contact with the witness, and that
is this: the witness having once been examined by the advo-
cate feels confidence in himself, as he knows that he will not
be conducted over treacherous grounds nor led into dangerous
places.1 So, too, a personal interview with the witnesses en-
ables the advocate to determine whether it is best to fully
develop the testimony of the witness on the direct examination,
or trust to the cross-examination to bring out with more
strength and in fuller detail the facts within the knowledge of
the witness. It is sometimes expedient to leave much for the
cross-examination, for a material fact elicited on cross-exam-
ination strikes harder and cuts sharper than when brought
out on the direct examination; but as there is always a great
hazard in this course, it is only to be adopted when the way is
plain and clear.

§ 7. Things seen.— What is seen is more strongly grasped by
the mind and more firmly retained by the memory than what
is heard.?- Hooker says: ‘‘That which we drink in at our
ears doth not so piercingly enter as that which the mind doth
conceive by sight.’’ It is not easy for even the best trained
mind to get a clear conception of a place or of a physical thing
from a description given in words. The impression produced
upon the mind by an inspection of the place or thing involved
in a legal controversy is much more accurate and enduring
than that produced by a verbal description, no matter how ac-
curate and vivid the words employed.

‘An apt illustration of the statement “Reminiscences of Webster, ’’ 108.
of the text is supplied by Daniel Web- ?Ram on Facts, 87. ‘‘Things seen

ster’s handling of the witness Phelps are mightier than things heard.”
.in the “Smith will case.” Harvey’s Tennyson.
8 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. §8

§ 8. Maps, plans and photographs.—There is much force in
Mr. Chitty’s suggestion, that it is ‘‘very material to have
maps, plans, or even models of lands, water-courses and build-
ings carefully prepared and their correctness proved by the art-
ist; and many important cases have, for the want of the infor-
mation thereby given, failed on the trial.’’! The information
imparted by maps, plans, and the like, is necessary to give the
counsel, who is preparing his theory of the case, a full and
clear view of the evidence, as well as to assist him in getting
the jury to understand the evidence in its fullforce. Accuracy
and fidelity must be insisted upon in the preparation of maps
and plans, and the person who prepares them must be required
to make them clear and plain so that they can be readily un-
derstood by the jury. The art of photography may often be
made very useful, both in preparing and in presenting the
case.. Mr. Irving Browne has collected a number of cases in
which the art of the photographer rendered important assist-
ance in judicial investigations.’

§ 9. Suggestions to witnesses.—On the ground of prudence,
if on no other, it is better not to make suggestions to the wit-
nesses that may lead them to give false testimony, or corruptly
color their statements. The witness who feels that an advocate,
even though friendly to him, knows that he is testifying falsely,
has not and can not have that consciousness of safety that gives
strength to the testimony of a witness who feels that his wrong
is known only to himself; nor can such a witness so well with-
stand the fire of a cross-examination. A witness invited by the
demeanor of the counsel in the private examination to color his
testimony is not likely to maintain himself upon the stand, and
jurors and judges are quick to observe and distrust a witness

13 Chitty’s General Practice, 852. . C.), 680; Udderzook v. Com., 76 Pa.
2““Humorous Phases of The Law,” St. 340; Blair v. Pelham, 118 Mass.
413; Locke v. S., C. & P. R. R., 46 421; Cozzens v. Higgins, 33 How. Pr.
Iowa, 109; Conley v. People, 83N. Y. 436; Church v. Milwaukee, 31 Wis.
464; Ebron v. Zimpleman, 47 Texas, 512; Duffin v. People, 107 Lil. 113, 8.
503, S$. C. 26 Am. Rep. 315; Leathers C. 47 Am. Rep. 431.

v. Salvor Wrecking Co., 2 Woods (C.

\
Ԥ 10 LEARNING AND PREPARING THE FACTS. 9

who seems ill at ease. It is better to keep the witness on the
solid ground of truth, even though the question be viewed as
one of expediency merely, for when that ground is left the

witness is in danger, especially if he is aware that his turpitude
is known to another.

§ 10. Evils of coaching witnesses.—The ‘‘ coached ’’ witness
is almost always a bad one. But no advocate ought to be
guided by the mere dictates of prudence in such a matter ; his
sole guides should be honor and integrity. The client may
have a right to his talents and skill, but not to his conscience
and integrity. Nor will a departure from the path of honor
lead to good results, for no man that really possesses the char-
acter and talents requisite to a true advocate can justly and
ably present a cause where he knows that he has corruptly en-
gaged in the fabrication of testimony. A guilty conscience
weakens power, and the advocate who must praise a witness
can only do so with half a heart when he knows that he is in
league with him in a criminal scheme. Power and guilt are
seldom allies. If the advocate has been guilty of a criminal or
dishonorable act it will much impair his power, for, like the

thief who sees an officer “in every bush,”’’ little things will
terrify him, the fear of detection will unnerve him, and in the
effort to shield himself he will lose sight of the important
points of his cause. Nothing makes an advocate so powerful
as to feel that he is strong in his own integrity, and few things
weaken him more than the dread that a witness may, through
the pounding of the cross- -examination, or through an inad-
vertent remark, expose the guilty effort to fabricate testimony.
One great reason for the success of Rufus Choate was his deep
conviction that he was in the right, for in Ashton’s case he

said: ‘I care not how hard the case is—it may bristle with
difficulties—if I feel that I am on the right side, that case I
win.’’ Itis not difficult for the advocate who is himself up-

right and honest to reach the conclusion that the client is in
the right, for men naturally repose confidence in those who
come to them for counsel and assistance, and this feeling grows
10 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. §11

as the relationship continues. All men grow earnest in behalf
of the persons whose cause they espouse; they believe only
what is good of them, and reject the evil that is said of them.
This is exemplified in politics and in religion, for good men
will stand by their parties and their leaders, although strong
evidence tends to prove them corrupt. The advocate ought not
to weaken the confidence he will naturally have in the justice
of his client’s cause by any corrupt act of his own, for to the
extent that his confidence is weakened, to that extent is his real
power diminished.

§ 11. Chitty’s advice—Mr. Chitty, in speaking of the pre-
liminary examination of witnesses, gives this excellent advice:
‘‘Every honorable practitioner at all events will take care that
no part of his client’s intercourse with the witnesses can have
the least influence upon him to give his testimony otherwise
than strictly according to the truth, and without evincing the
slightest partiality to either party. Indeed, in prudence and
in policy this is of the utmost importance to the client’s in-
terests, because the least improper interference with a witness
might so disgust a jury as to induce them to find a verdict
against a client, although law and justice might, on the whole,
be in his favor.’’' If it appears to the jury that one witness
has been corruptly tampered with, a suspicion is engendered
against both client and counsel that it is very difficult to ré-
move, and, indeed, one that it is often impossible to displace.
The jurors reason that, if one witness has been corruptly in-
fluenced, others have also been probably tampered with, and a
feeling akin to anger is aroused which works infinite mischief,
for jurors, like other men, quickly become indignant if it ap-
pears to them that there has been an effort to impose upon
them.

§ 12. Harm caused by a bad witness—A bad witness does
more harm to a cause than many good ones can repair. A
good case may be irretrievably ruined by one bad witness, for

13 Chitty General Practice, 825.
§13 LEARNING AND PREPARING THE FAOTS. 11

men are apt to conclude, and not without reason, that a man
who has done one bad act will likely do many more. It is,
therefore, of great importance to prevent any suspicion that
the witnesses have been in any way corruptly influenced, as
well as to prevent any suspicion that they have had stories
made up for them, or that one witness has been prompted by
another. In order to prevent such a suspicion counsel and
client must be scrupulously careful and circumspect in their
intercourse with the witnesses.

§ 13. Cautioning witnesses.—It is as imprudent as it is dis-
honorable to ‘‘coach”’ or ‘‘tutor’’ a witness, but there are
matters about which he may honestly and with entire propriety
be cautioned. It is not improper to caution a quick-tempered
witness to be careful to keep his temper under control, nor is
it improper to direct him to be respectful to opposing counsel,
and to avoid flippant or ‘‘smart’’ remarks. It is good practice
to direct a witness to treat the judge with deference, to be de-
corous in his behavior, and to avoid boisterous conduct or un-
seemly levity. So, too, itis proper to admonish him that he
has a right to fairly understand all questions that are addressed
to him, and that, as itis his privilege to be allowed to fully com-
prehend the question, he may ask that it be repeated or made
plain; and so, too, it is proper to inform him that in giving a
conversation he should, as nearly as he can truthfully do so,
give the exact words ae Iti is also proper to direct him that
he should give responsive answers to the questions propounded
to him, and not wander to other matters. It is suggested by
Mr. Chitty—and few men were better qualified to give advice
than he—that, ‘‘It may be of considerable importance that
witnesses, especially females, unaccustomed to courts of justice,
should for a day or two, or at least a few hours, before the ex-
pected trial attend court, so that by the observance of the de-
meanor of others they may be better prepared to overcome the
sensation of alarm which would otherwise frequently incapac-
itate them from giving their evidence in a proper manner.’’!

13 Chitty General Practice, 825.
12 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 14

§ 14. Duty of advocate in consultation with witness.—It is
the duty of the advocate in the consultation with the witnesses
‘to draw from them all the facts of which they have knowledge.
He must keep in mind that it is the facts, and not the infer-
ences of the witnesses, that he seeks, and he must steadily,
and sometimes sternly, keep them to the facts. They must be
made to understand that they are to state the facts, and not
their theories or conclusions. When a fact is stated, and the ad-
vocate has no reason to suspect that the statement is untrue, then
he should lead the witness by fair and honest questions to re-
call all the little circumstances that fasten it in his memory,
and give it probability. A naked fact, however positively
stated, often seems improbable; but when surrounding circum-
stances are detailed its probability is firmly established. So,
too, it often appears highly improbable that a witness should
accurately remember a fact, yet when all the circumstances are
developed the reason for its having fastened itself in his mem-
ory will satisfactorily appear. Another advantage that this
method secures is that it strengthens the memory of the wit-
ness, for, upon the familiar doctrine of association, one thought ©
recalls another with which it was once associated, and so the
mention of one fact often recalls another which had almost en-
tirely faded from memory. It is prudent, as well as honest,
to admonish the witnesses in the private interview with them
that you expect of them a true statement of the facts of which
they have knowledge. This is prudent because it often hap-
pens that the witness will be asked on cross-examination to
whom he made the statement given by him on the witness
stand. To avoid unjust inferences arising from the probable
answer that it was made to the advocate, it is well enough to
be able to show that he was cautioned to tell the truth and give
only the actual facts within his knowledge, and it is honest
because it apprises the witness that you want to hear only the
truth.

§ 15. Inspection of written instruments.—In cases where
written instruments form important matters of evidence, the
13

§ 15 LEARNING AND PREPARING THE FACTS.

safe course is to always demand and secure an inspection of
them before trial. A close examination of written documents
may often lead to important results and supply material assist-
ance to the advocate, both by advising him of danger to be en-
countered and by enabling him to detect the fabrication of
evidence by the manufacture of false documents, or the altera-
tion of genuine ones. There are cases in the books where the
manufacturer’s imprint upon the paper showed that the docu-
ment purported to bear a date long anterior to that at which
the paper upon which it was written was manufactured.'
When there is serious doubt as to the authenticity of a docu-
ment it is prudent to investigate the character of the paper on
which it is written, and, if possible, ascertain when and where
it was made. One case has come under our observation where
it appeared that words of an important character were printed
by types not manufactured until some years after the date af-
fixed to the instrument. In another case given in the books
an instrument was produced purporting to have been executed
in a county which was not in existence until long after the

date which the instrument bore.”

1A member of the Kansas bar fur-
nishes us with the following instance:
‘‘A number of law books had recently
been stolen from several libraries, and
the thief had finally been secured. He
claimed to have purchased the books,
and all had his name in them, with
the date of purchase. There were no
distinctive features by which the own-
ers could identify the books. Finally,
looking in the volume of Cooley’s
Principles of Constitutional Law, we
found that the thief had written the
date ‘May, 1884,’ as the date of pur-
‘chase. The title page bore publication
date of 1880. But within the body of
the book is a note which contains ref-
erence to a national law passed in 1886,
and the edition was one of the year
1887. Upon the detection of this fact
the fellow wilted, and plead guilty.
He was aman of excellent reputation,

and all the other evidence would cer-
tainly not have availed to convict
him.”

? The importance of such matters is
further illustrated by the following
instance, for which we are indebted
to an eminent member of the Indian-
apolis bar:

‘‘Some years ago a brother lawyer
asked me to help him try a cause, and
said before the case came on for trial
he would have the facts all in hand.
Some weeks afterwards, I was sum-
moned to the forum by a telegram
that the case would be tried the next
day. It was a case of a contest for a
county office, and the question was
which candidate had received the
most votes at theelection. It appeared
upon the face of the returns that our
client had a majority of twelve; but
on a ‘recount’ of the votes, under the
14

THE WORK OUT OF COURT.

§ 16

§ 16. Copies should not be depended upon.—Where instru-

law, it appeared that our adversary
had a majority of twenty-seven. It
took but a short while to ascertain that
the variation was confined to two pre-
cincts. Under the law at that time all
the ballots were required to be re-
turned to the county clerk, sealed in
paper bags furnished by the State for
that purpose. I talked with the elec-
tion officers in each of these precincts,
and they all declared, without regard
to party affiliations, that they had
done their work carefully; that they
knew the race was close, and the peo-
ple deeply interested, and they had
taken every precaution to make no
mistakes, and would swear that they
returned the votes as cast. I then
sent for some of the members of the
recounting board, and they, with equal
frankness and confidence, affirmed
that they had counted the ballots with
precise care, and they would be com-
pelled to swear, without regard to
party affiliations, that their count was
correct. The burden of proof was
upon our client. I went over to the
court-house and asked the commis-
sioner’s court for permission to ex-
amine the bags. They ordered the
officer to bring them into open court
and display them on the table. On
examination, there were no holes or
apparent opportunity for having tam-
pered with the tickets while they were
in the bags. The bags were in the
form of large envelopes, and sealed
over the laps on the backs. Several
days had elapsed between the filing of
the bags in the clerk’s office and the
recount. '
“While at the court-house I noticed
that the transom over the clerk’s of-
fice was open, and large enough for a
man to climb over. But we had no
evidence that any person, in any man-

ner, had tampered with the tickets.
Indeed, it appeared impossible, be-
cause the recounting board had care-
fully opened the bags at the end, so as
not to disturb the wax thereon placed
by the election officers, and resealed
the bags upon the close of the re-
count.

“This had occupied the afternoon,
and we had aconsultation in the even-
ing. We called in the election officers
in the two precincts one by one, and
examined them again, without finding
any fact that would break the force of
the opposition. Finally, Isaid: ‘Have
you any friend in this town who is in
the habit of using sealing wax; if so,
send for him.’ He came, and, taking
an envelope from the table, I asked
him whether he could seal it with wax,
open it, and reseal it again, so as to
cover detection. He said he could,
and that often after having sealed a
package, wishing to recount the money,
or for some other purpose, he had done
it. I at once procured a stick of seal-
ing wax, and taking an envelope filled
it somewhat full, and asked him to do
it. He was careful not to wet the
mucilage, and drew the melted wax
over the line of the lap. After it had
cooled, he took out his pen-knife and
gently picked a line along the center
of the seal. Then, taking his fingers,
he broke it readily in the line of the
mark thus made. I saw how it could
be done.

“““Now,’ I said, ‘how do you reseal
it?’

“Taking the heated wax, he drew it
over the break, saying: ‘If I want to
perfectly conceal my work,,I cover
entirely the old wax, but otherwise I
simply lay the warm wax over the
break, and then it presents the ap-
§ 16

LEARNING AND PREPARING THE FACTS.

15

ments are important it is unsafe to depend upon copies, since

pearance, as you see, of one ridge
lying upon another.’

‘‘T had observed this peculiarity on
the election bags in the two townships,
but it had not impressed me suf-
ficiently at the time to arouse even a
suspicion; because, perhaps, I was
unfamiliar with the use of wax.

“In the morning the trial began.
The opposition were bold. I first in-
troduced the election returns, and
then, to the consternation of my ad-
versaries, put in evidence the returns
of the recounting board. Calling the
expert, whom I had subpcenaed in the
meantime, I proved his business, his
long experience in the use of sealing-
wax, and asked him to go to his office,
which was only a short way off, and
get a stick of wax and his lamp. As
he arose, I asked the clerk to give me
a large envelope. He handed me one
used for court files. Gathering up a
newspaper, I put itin and then my
adversary wanted to know what this
had to do with the case. I declined
to state the purpose, but assured the
court that I would make it competent.

‘The house was crowded and polit-
ical excitement ran high.

‘‘Upon the expert’s return, I asked
him to seal the envelope which I
handed him. He did by drawing the
wax down the line of the lap. I then
called for the bags for the two pre-
cincts wherein the variation was, and
invited the attention of the court to
the returns of both boards to show
that the question was narrowed to
these two precincts. By this time the
wax was cold. Turning to the expert,
who was still upon the witness stand,
I handed him the envelope just sealed
and asked him if he could open it and
reseal it so that it would not be dis-
covered. He answered, “yes.” I

then told him to open it. He went
through the process above described.
I then told him to reseal it and he did
it in the same manner as he had done
the night before, stating at the same
time that if he desired to entirely con-
ceal his work he would lay the wax
entirely over the old ridge, but ordi-
narilyhe drew the wax over the break,
and I asked him to do the same in this
case.

“Then laying this envelope along
side of the two bags in contest they be-
came silent witnesses in themselves.

‘Looking at the election officers in
these two precincts, my eye fell upon
a sturdy, white-haired, broad-shoul-
dered man who had told me the night
before that he had sealed his bag.
His eyes were gleaming with intelli-
gence. It would not do to hold a con-
ference in the presence of the court or
the by-standers. Besides, I had no
doubt as to his testimony. Putting
him in the witness chair he told how
carefully he and his associates had
counted the tickets; that when the
work was done it was late at night,
and that putting the tickets in the
bag the question arose as to whose
duty it was to seal the bag; thatit was
agreed that as he was the chief officer
it fell to him; that being a farmer he
was unfamiliar with the use of sealing-
wax, and the stick furnished by the
State being small, he had not used
one-half as much wax as now appeared
upon the bag.

“¢ His associate election officers con-
firmed him. Still the court and the
audience sat breathless and uncon-
vinced.

“ Going to the next precinct, I called
for the officer who had sealed the bag.
On handing the bag to him he testified
that he had sealed it, paused, took it
16 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. §17

it not unfrequently happens that the copyist has fallen into an
unintentional error, or has intentionally interpolated or omitted
important clauses.!

§ 17. Client’s statement of contents not to be trusted.—Few
things are more hazardous than to rely upon a client’s repre-
sentation of the contents of a written instrument, for, in the
great majority of cases, he gives, not the language of the in-
strument, but his own construction of it. The construction of
written instruments, whether wills, deeds, or agreements, is a
work of great difficulty, often perplexing the best lawyers and
most experienced judges, and no advocate does his duty unless
he himself carefully studies and cautiously weighs all the im-
portant words contained in a written instrument.’ In order to
do this successfully he must get into his mind clearly, fully,
and accurately the circumstances surrounding the parties at
the time of its execution.

§ 18. Circumstances aid work of construction—A dim and
indistinct view will not enable the advocate to give a writing
a construction satisfactory to himself, and unless there exists

up, examined it with care, took out
his pocket-knife and began picking at
the wax, no one knew for what pur-
pose.

“Question. ‘Is this wax and bag
in the condition in which it was the
night you sealed it, and as you brought
it and delivered it into the custody of
the county clerk?’

“Answer. ‘No; and I will tell you
why. I keep the railroad station in
my town. I am in the habit of using
sealing-wax every day, and I have no
recollection as to how I sealed the
bag, but I know I heated the wax over
an oil lamp because the election was
held in the depot, and the railroad
company furnished only that kind of
light, and any one can see tallow in
this wax’—holding it up to the in-
spection of the judges.

“Tnstantly there was a shout of re-
lief. When quiet was restored, I an-
nounced that I rested the case.

‘The finding was in our favor. My
client was declared elected. I re-
turned on the next train, feeling that
not only was necessity the mother of
invention, but was also the spur of
justice.’

1 Wilson v. Tucker, 3 Starkie N. P.
154.

?This is also necessary in order to
construct'a proper theory of the case,
for a party will be held on appeal to
the theory, and the construction adopt-
ed and contended for by him in the
trial court. Barrett v. Fisch, 76 Iowa,
553, S. C. 41 N. W. Rep. 310; Metzler.
v. James, 12 Colo. 322, 8. C. 19 Pac.
Rep. 885; Elliott’s App. Proc., §§ 490-
492.
§19 LEARNING AND PREPARING THE FACTS. 17

in his own mind a strong, clear, and decided conception he
will miserably fail in the effort to convey to a court or jury a
just idea of its force and meaning. Instruments would almost
always be obscure if it were not for the light which attendant
circumstances cast upon.them—in many cases, indeed, would
be utterly unintelligible but for that light. It often requires
close investigation to discover the circumstances which supply
the light, and when they are discovered the full benefit from
them can be obtained only by a skillful arrangement that will
pour their light upon the dark places.

§ 19. Circumstances may create probability—The circum-
stances of a case require the most careful scrutiny and the most
rigid analysis, for circumstances often create probability, and
probability is a prime factor in all forensic contests. Positive
testimony if inherently improbable will often be of little value,
and circumstances will frequently control cases as against pos-
itive testimony. In truth, it is the circumstances that give
color and character to all complicated cases. Circumstances
constitute the atmosphere of complex causes.? The task of an
advocate can not, therefore, be considered at an end when he '
has ascertained what direct evidence can be adduced. There
remains, in all complex cases, at least, the work of ascertain-

1 Words are often ambiguous, and
careful scrutiny is required in order
to determine in what sense they are
employed. Even in legislative enact-
ments, words are often so carelessly
employed as to leave the meaning in
doubt. Thus, the word ‘‘female”’ is
often used when girl or woman is
meant, and in the British Reform Act
of 1867, the word ‘‘ man” wasso used as
to render it impossible to tell whether
it was meant to include or exclude
women. So, the word ‘‘team,” in a
lease gave one of the English courts
much difficulty in attempting to de-
termine its true meaning, and the
same difficulty has been encountered
in construing the term ‘‘tools”’ or

“tools of trade,’’ as used in statutes
giving the right of exemption. See 7
Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law, 135-
137 and notes; Kilburn v. Demming,
21 Am. Dec. 548, and note.

? Masters of the art of advocacy have
often so used circumstances as to over-
throw positive and truthful testimony.
Against false testimony they are al-
ways strong instruments of attack;
but they have often been made use of
to overpower or hide the truth by
shrewd advocates, who employ them
as painters employ colors to hide de-
fects or deformities, so that, as was
said of old, ‘‘ painted error appears in
many things more probable than
truth.”
18 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 20

ing whether the direct evidence is, or is not, probable, even
though it may appear that direct testimony can be adduced
upon every material point. ‘‘ Probability,’’ says Dr. Campbell,
“Gs a light darted on an object from the proofs, which, for this
reason, are pertinently enough styled evidence.’’ It is this
light which must be obtained from the circumstances and cast
upon the testimony of the witnesses. There is much of truth
in what Aristotle puts into the mouth of the advocate who can
call no witnesses: ‘‘Let him also say that it is impossible to
lead probability astray on the score of money, and that proba-
bility is never detected bearing false testimony,’”! for it is true
that probability is one of the most difficult things for money
to secure or motive to create. In many cases circumstantial
evidence will be the only kind that can be obtained, but cir-
cumstantial evidence is often more satisfactory than direct
evidence can be. Whether the evidence be direct or circum-
stantial, it is necessary to prove such circumstances as make
the evidence probable, for circumstances create probability and |
probability secures verdicts. In searching for the circum-
stances of a transaction the minutest and closest attention to
details is requisite, for it is little things, carefully gathered to-
gether and skillfully grouped, that create probability.”

§ 20. Influence of probabilities—There are few things in
the abstract sciences,* or, for the matter of that, in any.of the
affairs of life, that can be proved with absolute certainty; the
highest certainty that can be attained falls far short of mathe-
matical demonstration. The contests of the forum are battles
of the probabilities. In the ordinary affairs of life, whether
in matters of commerce or mechanics, whether in matters of

1 Aristotle Rhet., Chap. xv.

2 The successful advocate is not the
one who deals in generalities, but the
one who goes into the specific matters
of law or fact of the particular case.
Sir James Mackintosh is a striking
example of the failure of a very great
man in advocacy. Coleridge said of
him, ‘“‘Sir James Mackintosh is the

king of men of talent, but he always
dealt too much in generalities for a
lawyer. He is deficient in power in
applying his principles to the points
in debate.”’

8 Mr. Sedgwick philosophically dis-
cusses this subject. Fallacies, 35, 225,
221.
§ 21 LEARNING AND PREPARING THE FACTS. 19

law or medicine, men can do no more than reach probable
truth. Dr. McCosh says: ‘‘It is in vain to expect demonstra-
tion in every line of inquiry. Demonstration is confined to a
limited class of objects, and these characterized by their simple
and abstract nature. In most of the sciences it is not avail-
able; it can not be had in chemistry, in natural history, in
psychology, in political economy. In the practical affairs of
life no man looks for it. If aman’s house is on fire he will
proceed to pour water upon it, though it can not be demon-
strated, in the technical sense of the term, that water will
quench the flame.’’’ The testimony upon which the advocate
relies must appear to be not merely possibly true, but probably
true, for there is a wide difference betwen probable and possi-
ble truth.2 The probability which carries conviction in courts
of justice is not the probability of poetry and romance, which
has been not inaptly denominated ‘‘the possible probable,’’ but
that probability which approaches as near as possible the real,
absolute truth.? That may be deemed probable which is con-
sistent with human knowledge and experience, and that may
be regarded as improbable which is against the experience and
knowledge of mankind. This, however, is a general rule to
which there are many and notable exceptions, but it is one upon
which it is safe to proceed in the very great majority of cases.
It is this sort of probability to which Mr. Harris refers when
he says: ‘‘Probabilities, therefore, are the mainstays of evi-
dence; are, in fact, the evidence.’’!

§ 21. Inferences.—Archbishop Whately says: ‘‘To infer,
then, is the business of the philosopher; to prove, of the ad-
vocate. The former from the great mass of known and ad-
mitted truths wishes to elicit any valuable additional truth,
whatever that has been hitherto unperceived, and, perhaps,
without knowing with certainty what will be the terms of his

1 Logic, 160. n. But proof is said to be a stronger
2 Wills on Circumstantial Evidence, term. Brown v. Atlanta, etc., R. Co.,
6-10; Ram on Facts, 116. 19 8. Car. 39.

8 Aristotle Rhet. (Bohn’s ed.), 425, ‘Illustrations in Advocacy, 95.
20 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 22

conclusion. The advocate, on the other hand, has a proposi-
tion put before him, which he is to maintain as well as he can.
His business, therefore, is to find middle terms (which is the
inventio of Cicero), the philosopher’s, to combine and select
known facts or principles suitably for gaining from them con-
clusions which, though implied in the premises, were before
unperceived. In other words, for making logical discover-
ies.’’! This is a narrower view of the duties of an advocate
than our American practice warrants, if not, indeed, narrower
than that warranted by the English practice. An advocate must
both infer and prove; from established facts he must infer
probable conclusions, and these he must prove to the jury. The
work of inferring must precede that of proving. Direct evi-
dence furnishes the advocate the materials out of which to con-
struct his inferences; from these materials he must infer con-
clusions, and these he must prove in argument. The conclusions
of fact essential to the maintenance of an issue must first be in-
ferred and firmly fixed in the mind of the advocate before he
can prove them to the triers of his case. So that the work of
inferring is quite as important to the advocate as to the philoso-
pher. There are many cases where this work is one of great
difficulty and importance, and where success depends upon the
care and skill with which it is done. There are, indeed, com-
paratively few contested cases where the work of inference is
not of prime importance, for, in almost all cases, the direct ev-
idence must be. supplemented by inferences resulting from it.
The necessity for securing a clear and accurate knowledge of
the facts from which the inferences are to be drawn, as well as
of conducting the process, is an imperious one, for if the facts
which constitute the premises are not correctly stated, the in-
ferences will be invalid.

§ 22. Groundwork of inferences.—While the process of in-
ference is a legitimate one, and while verdicts may be, and often
are, based upon inferences,’ it must be kept in mind that there

1 Logic, Book IV, Chap: iii, § 1. Ind. 63, p. 72; Hedrick v. D. M. Os-

21 Greenleaf’s Evidence, § 13; Un- borne Co., 99 Ind. 143; Ram on Facts,
ion Mutual Ins. Co. v. Buchanan, 100 283-300.
§ 23 LEARNING AND PREPARING THE FACTS. 21

must be evidence of the circumstances from which the infer.
ences are drawn. There can be no valid inference where there
is no evidence establishing the facts upon which the reasoning
proceeds.! This doctrine is admirably presented by the Supreme
Court of the United States in a recent case,” where it was said,
in speaking of inferences from unproved facts: ‘‘They are in-
ferences from inferences, presumptions resting. on the basis of
another presumption. Such a mode of arriving at a conclu-
sion of fact is generally, if not universally, inadmissible. No
inference of fact or of law is reliable drawn from premises
which are uncertain. Whatever circumstantial evidence is re-
lied upon to prove a fact, the circumstances must be proved,
and not themselves presumed. Starkie on Evidence, p. 80, lays
down the rule thus: ‘In the first place, as the very foundation
of indirect evidence is the establishment of one or more facts
from which the inference is sought to be made, the law requires
that the latter should be established by direct evidence, as if
they were the very facts in issue.’’’ It is, therefore, essential
that the advocate should search for and secure evidence of the
circumstances which he expects to make the basis of his infer-
ences. There must be a visible connection between the circum-
stances proved and the inferences sought to be drawn from
them. ‘‘The law requires an open and visible connection be-
tween the principal and evidentiary facts and the deductions
from them, and does not permit a decision to be made on re-
mote inferences.’’*

§ 23. Difference between facts and evidence.—There is an
essential difference between facts and evidence,‘ and it is neces-
sary to carefully discriminate between the evidence and the

1 Chambers v. Hunt, 3 Harr. (N. J.) Parks v. Satterthwaite (Ind.), 32 N.
354; Gates v. Hughes, 44 Wis. 336. E. Rep. 82. This distinction becomes
2 United States v. Ross, 92 U. 8.281. of the utmost importance in preparing
8 United States v. Ross, supra; Best special findings and special verdicts,
on Presumptive Evid. 95; Douglass v. as, in such cases, the facts only will be
Mitchell, 35 Pa. St. 440; Richmond v. ‘considered, and no attention will be
Nicken, 25 Vt. 326. paid to mere items of evidence. Kirk-
*Clay Co. v. Simonsen, 1 Dak. 403; patrick v. Reeves, 121 Ind. 280.
22 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 24

facts in preparing for trial, in drafting the pleadings, and in
arguing the cause. An advocate who should do nothing more
than rehearse the evidence delivered on the trial would make
poor progress toward securing a verdict, for, if he would carry
the jury, he must dig out from the mass of evidence the con-
trolling facts, skillfully array them, and clearly ’and strongly
place them before the jury. Evidence consists of the marks of
facts, and whether a fact is or is not established by evidence
depends upon the plainness and sufficiency of the marks which
the evidence impresses upon it.

§ 24. Marks of things.—One who looks below the surface of
things will find that the skillful advocate, in ascertaining the
facts from the evidence, proceeds upon the logical doctrine that
what has the marks of a thing is the thing itself. If the log-
ical rule were more often kept in mind and followed the con-
clusions of fact drawn from the evidence would more often be
accurate. A fact can only be recognized through signs or
marks, and the place to look for those marks or signs is in the
evidence. In strictness, the fact itself is never found, but only
the marks and signs, and it is for these that search must be
made.

§ 25. “Facet” not synonymous with “truth.”—The word
‘‘ fact,’’ as used in legal proceedings, is not synonymous with
‘‘truth,’’ for it means no more than an event, occurrence, cir-
cumstance, or mental state." An English author says, in sub-
stance, that ‘‘ fact is anything that is the subject of testimony;’”
but this is too vague a definition to be of practical value, and,
besides, it is too broad, for it includes matters of opinion. Mr.
Burrill says that, ‘‘ However paradoxical it may appear, there
may be such things as false facts,’’ and he proves the truth of

'Stephen Introduction to Indian Logic, 213; Drake v. Cockroft, 4 E.
Evid., Chap.ii; Stephen’s Digest Law D. Smith (N. Y.), 34; Lawrence ».
of Evidence, Art.I; G. C. Lewis, In- Wright, 2 Duer (N. Y.), 673.
fluence of Authority in Matters of |? Ram on Facts (3 Am.ed.), 17, and
Opinion, Chap. i; Burrill’s Cir. Evid., notes.

218; Austin’s Juris., §499; Wilson’s
§ 26 LEARNING AND PREPARING THE FACTS. 23

his statement by reference to cases where facts have been fabri-
cated.}

§ 26. Chief object of preparatory investigation.—The pre-
paratory investigation is prosecuted for the purpose of securing
the ruling facts of the case, and not merely for the purpose of
gathering a mass of evidence. Facts more potent than those
apparent from the positive testimony are secured by a process
of inference. The search, if properly conducted, will be for
the ultimate facts which rule the case, and to obtain these the
searcher must infer, from facts stated to him, his own con-
clusions. The inductive process is the primary one. A num-
ber of particulars are brought together, and from these infer-
ences are made. It is obvious that without a knowledge of the
particulars the facts can. not be known, and one who is igno-
rant of the facts, though he may know something of the evi-
dence, can not effectively take the first step in the preparation of
the theory of the case. The conclusions will be of little avail if
drawn only in shadowy outline, for the outlines must be bold,
and the foreground and background must be laid out in the
mental conception as in a picture. If no more than a dim, in-
distinct view of the facts is secured the advocate will make but
a lame and halting progress in determining upon the theory he
will adopt, and without a skillfully constructed theory he will
go stumbling through the contest.

§ 27. Rules of induction to be observed.—The rules of in-
duction must be carefully observed, and the particulars relied
on must be sufficient in number and character to supply a sub-
stantial foundation for the conclusions of fact. The famous
Tichborne case affords a striking illustration of the gathering
together of a multitude of particulars, and from them inferring
the conclusion that the claimant was the butcher, Arthur
Orton, and not the baronet, Roger Tichborne. Many of the

1 Burrill’s Circumstantial Evid.,219; was false.” See, also, as to the mean-
Swift used the word ‘‘fact’’ in the ing of the term “facts” in pleading,
same sense as the lawyers do, for he 7 Am. and Eng. Ency. of Law, 658.
says in one of his works, ‘‘The fact ;
24 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 28

sketches of Edgar A. Poe are wonderful exhibitions of the tal-
ent of inferring a conclusion of fact from circumstances, and
well deserve the study of the advocate. All the great thinkers
in physical philosophy were masters of the inductive process,
and few better illustrations of the practical application of the
principles of inductive reasoning can be found than those ex-
hibited in their works. The careful and keen discrimination
that discovers the material particulars which support the con-
clusion sought, and rejects, by elimination, the irrelevant ele-
ments, is as important to the lawyer as to the philosopher, and
material assistance may be obtained by the former from a study
of the works of the latter. The advocate who gathers a multi-
tude of particulars together, and does not infer conclusions of
fact from them, makes no more real progress than did the nat-
uralists of old, who never ascended above particulars to general
conclusions. Without careful and discriminating inductive
reasoning, generalization is impossible, and without logical
generalization it is not possible to ascertain to what class a case
belongs, or by what principles it is governed.

§ 28. Witness should be allowed to tell his own story.—The
witness should, as a general rule, be allowed to tell his own
story, kept, however, with a gentle but firm hand to the facts.
It is especially necessary to be vigilant in obtaining testimony
of oral conversations, for witnesses are prone to give their own
conclusions rather than the words actually used by the parties.
An eminent and experienced judge says: ‘‘ With reference to
all evidence of conversations, you must bear in mind this:
that where the evidence depends on the very words used there
is a possibility that the witness may be clothing in his own
language that which he thought was meant, when if you had
the very words which had been originally uttered, you might
come to the conclusion that something else was intended.’? A
witness who gives his own conclusions, and not the words,
does much injury to a case, for a cross-examination will dis-

1 Sir C. Cresswell in Keats v. Keats, 28 L. J. Mat. Cases, 169; 1 Pulling
on Attorneys, 193.
§ 29 LEARNING AND PREPARING THE FACTS. 25

close his error, and the jury will be very apt to look upon him
as a corrupt witness who has endeavored to supplant with his
own inferences the words used by the parties. The mischief
may extend further than the breaking down of the witness, be-
cause the inference of the jury will very likely be, that the
party by whom the witness was introduced ‘meant to impose
upon them by placing before them the testimony of an un-
truthful witness. Jurors are very sensitive, and warmly resent
any effort to deceive them, not only because it discredits their
intelligence, but also because they respect fair and open meas-
ures.

§ 29. Securing knowledge of unfavorable evidence.—It
is in obtaining evidence of oral conversations, more, perhaps,
than elsewhere, that the danger lies of bringing reproach upon
the advocate’s client and cause, for witnesses are almost al-
ways favorable to the party who calls them, and this feeling
induces them to conceal or color parts of a conversation; but,
as the adverse party is entitled to the whole conversation, it is
wrenched from the witness on cross-examination, and when
it comes in that manner it falls heavily upon the party by
whom the witness was called. It is better to know of the un-
favorable evidence in advance of the trial, since this will allow
time to secure explanatory or nullifying evidence, and will
prevent the discomfiture that a surprise often causes.

§ 30. Meeting unfavorable evidence.—It is safer to meet
unfavorable evidence boldly and openly than to attempt to
evade or conceal it, so that, even if the advocate proceeds on
no higher ground than that of policy, he should encounter the
adverse evidence in the open field. Boldness and frankness
will succeed where artifice and cunning will fail. For these
reasons, it is well to draw from the witness, in the preliminary
examination, all of the conversation, and not leave it to the
cross-examination to develop it in detail for the first time. If
the witness is reluctant to give it in full, he must be plied
with questions, such as a cross-examiner would employ, to
bring it out uncolored by his own impressions, and in full.
26 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 31

§ 31. Difference between gathering materials and present-
ing case in court.—There is an essential difference between the
work of gathering the materials and the work to be done in
developing and presenting the case in court. In prosecuting
the preliminary investigation the facts must be scrutinized
with almost microscopic power; not, however, so much for the
purpose of fastening details in the memory as for the purpose
of discovering and fixing in the mind the strong points of the
case. Lord Abinger’s practice, as he says in his memoirs,
was to hunt for and secure the strong points.! This is the
hunt every great advocate makes, and, although it may lead
into by-paths and out-of-the-way places, he never loses sight of
the object of his search. It is not of so much importance that
many points be discovered as it is that the strong ones be
brought out and placed before the jury in a light so great as to
exhibit their full force. Asop’s fable of the cat and the fox well
illustrates the case of an advocate with many points, while his
adversary has only one, but that a capital one.

§ 32. Committing evidence to memory.—The advocate who
merely commits the evidence to memory can not present the
facts with strength or force to a jury. They must be wrought
out and crystallized by thought, for an advocate whose mind
is choked with undigested materials will perceive but faintly
and dimly the strong points of his case, and will present them
feebly and obscurely. The facts must be fully and distinctly
in his own mind, and go to the jury clearly cut and sharply
defined. It is not by fastening the evidence in memory-that
success is assured, but by thinking and reasoning out the
strong points of the case. The case must be investigated for
a twofold purpose—for the facts, and for the means of placing
them before the triers; but the principle which governs in the
investigation is not the same as that which controls the de-
velopment and presentation of the facts. The work of extract-
ing the facts which give tone and color to the case must not be
left for the jury to do, but must be done by the advocate. In

1 Memoir of Lord Abinger, 61-62.
§ 33 LEARNING AND PREPARING THE FACTS. 27

doing this work he must of necessity push his way along
devious paths leading crookedly through many details; but he
must bring order out of confusion and make the path straight
and easily found.

§ 33. Nature of evidence.—The evidence exhibits the facts,
but the evidence is the means of proof, not the body of facts.’
The investigation is to be so made as to dig out the facts and
secure the means of exhibiting them, but not so as to choke the
mind with a mass of material. It is one thing to so conduct
the investigation of the case as to obtain a knowledge of the
facts, and quite another thing to convey that knowledge to the
minds of others. The effective advocate presents to the jury,
not the crude materials he has collected, but the results which
his work has produced from the materials he has gathered in
his investigation.

§ 34. Use of crude materials—The crude materials are
worked into new forms and shapes before they are laid before
the jury in argument. It may be necessary, and, indeed, al-
most always is necessary, to give much evidence to the jury,
but it should be evidence that has weight and force, for weak
evidence, like a weak argument, detracts from the force of the
strong. But until the materials are thoroughly examined what
is weak and what is strong can not be known, so that, while
all the details are not to be presented in argument, they must
be brought into a full light by the preliminary investigation.
The lives of great advocates, from the time of Cicero to the
present, afford abundant proof of the great power that springs
from the faculty of investigation industriously exercised. Take,
as one instance of many, that of Alexander Hamilton, of whom
Fisher Ames says: ‘‘It is rare that a man, who owes so much
to nature, descends to depend on industry as if nature had done
nothing for him. His habits of investigation were very re-
markable; his mind seemed to cling to his subject until he had
exhausted it.’’?

“ 1§chloss v. Creditors, 31 Cal. 203; ? Works of Fisher Ames, Vol. II, p.

Perry v. Dubuque, etc., R. Co., 36 200.
Iowa, 106; 1 Greenl. Ev., § 1.
28 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 35

§ 35. Means of making facts evident to jury.—It is not
enough to obtain information of the facts; this information
must be supplemented by a knowledge of the means of making
them evident to the triers of the case. The means of making
the facts evident are prescribed by law. Where the evidence
can be found, and what its character is, are matters almost as
important as a knowledge of the facts themselves; for it would
profit little if the means of making the facts evident were not
at command, however thorough the knowledge of the facts may
be. The information as to the means of establishing the facts
must be something more than the mere inference or judgment
of the client. It must be information of the evidence as it
actually exists. It may be that material facts can only be
proved by written evidence, or it may be that only a particular
kind of documentary evidence is competent; or, again, it may
be that only a particular class of witnesses will be permitted
to testify. Interest may disqualify, capacity may be wanting,
or lack of skill may constitute incompetency. Much, there-
fore, must often be ascertained in order to determine whether
the evidence will be received.

§ 36. Ascertaining reputation of witnesses.—It is often nec-
essary to ascertain the reputation of the witnesses, not for the
purpose of determining their competency, but for the purpose
of providing means of attacking or defending that reputation,
as the case may require.' It may happen that the character of
the witness is so bad that, although he may speak the truth, it

1A case mentioned by Mr. Mon-
tagu Williams illustrates the import-
ance of ascertaining information as to
the reputation and associates of ad-
verse witnesses. He says that the
case of a client represented by him-
self, Sergeant Parry and Mr. Straight,
depended entirely on the testimony
of a young and attractive girl; that
Sergeant Parry, a very great cross-
examiner, had endeavored to break
her down, but was unable to shake her

testimony. An accidental question,
addressed to her sister, who followed
her as a witness, elicited the answer:

“Yes, I do remember his coming
to our house and asking for my sister.
He asked for her by her nickname.”

“Nickname! What is her nick-
name?’’

The witness answered: ‘They call
her Cock Robin.”

“From that moment,’’ says Mr.
Williams, ‘‘the case was at an end.”

.
§ 37 LEARNING AND PREPARING THE FACTS. 29

will require a strong array of circumstances to fortify his tes-
timony, or that other testimony will be required to corroborate
it. The business of the principal witnesses should be known,
and, in many cases, their associations and surroundings, for
this information will be of great importance in selecting a jury,
since it is expedient to select jurors who are least likely to be
prejudiced against the witnesses. Nor is the investigation to
‘be confined to the witnesses of the client the advocate repre-
sents; the information as to the reputation, habits, life and
character of the adversary’s witnesses should be as thorough
as possible. This information will be of assistance, not only
in selecting the jury, but also in examining the witnesses on
the trial.

§ 37. Identification of persons.—It is also of importance in
many instances to secure competent evidence of the identity of
persons.' The reports contain many cases showing the im-
portance of securing competent and satisfactory evidence of the
identity of persons engaged as parties or as participants in
transactions which the litigation concerns? The adjudged
cases show, also, that there is much uncertainty in evidence of
identification, and that witnesses are often in error.’ There is
often great difficulty in satisfactorily identifying persons, by
indirect facts and attendant circumstances seemingly of no
great value, and much strength is frequently added to the di-
rect testimony of witnesses who testify as to personal identity,
so that it is necessary to search for and secure evidence of cir-
cumstances which corroborate and give strength to the direct

'The question of identity is one of bury, 58 Me. 238; Dupoyster v. Gag-
fact. Ellsworth v. Moore, 5 Iowa, 486; ani, 84 Ky. 403; Kansas, etc., Co. v.
Chandler v. Shehan, 7 Ala. 251; Peo- Miller, 2 Col. Ty. 442; Ruloff v. Peo-
ple v. Rolfe, 61 Cal. 540. ple, 45 N. Y. 213; Linsday v. People,

?People v. Williams, 29 Hun, 520; 63 N. Y. 143.

White v. Commonwealth, 80 Ky. 480; 5 Ram on Facts, 462; Harris’ Before
Hopper v. Commonwealth, 6 Gratt. and at the Trial (Am. ed.), 372; 1
684; Hamby v. State, 36 Texas, 523; Southern L. J. 392; Legal Puzzles, 183 ;
Commonwealth v. Cunningham, 104 Sergeant Ballentine’s Experiences,
Mass. 545; American, etc., Co. v. Chaps. xli, xlii; Wharton & Stille Med-
Spellman, 90 Ill. 455; State v. Kings- ical Juris., §§ 620, 626, 649.
30°

THE WORK OUT OF COURT.

§ 38

testimony that comes from the witnesses who testify upon that

question."

§ 38. Means of identifying persons.—There are many modes
and means of identifying a person.” It is held in some of the'
cases that a person may be identified by his voice,’ but this is
regarded as uncertain evidence of identification by some of the
law writers, except in cases where the voice of the person thus

identified is a peculiar one.°

1Photographs are often very valu-
able means of identifying persons and
things. Keyes v. State, 122 Ind. 527;
Cozzens v. Higgins, 3 Keyes (N. Y.),
206; Blair v. Pelham, 118 Mass. 420;
Udderzook v. Commonwealth, 76 Pa.
St. 340; Church v. City of Milwaukee,
81 Wis. 512; Commonwealth v. Coe,
115 Mass. 481; Ruloff v. People, 45 N.
Y. 213; Luke v. Calhoun County, 52
Ala. 115; Regina v. Tolson, 4 Fost. &
F. 103; Barnes v. Ingalls, 39 Ala. 193;
Scharble v. Life Ins. Co., 9 Phila.
136; Cowley v. People, 83 N. Y. 464;
Beavers v. State, 58 Ind. 530. Some
very interesting and instructive cases
showing the use of photography in
judicial matters will be found in the
books. It has been used to expose a
forgery. Wharton Or. Ev. (8th ed.),
544. To prove a signature genuine.
13 Alb. L. J. 407. To show the differ-
ence between bread made in different
ways. Chemical Works v. Hecker,
11 Blatch (U. 8. C.), 552.

? Burrill Circumstantial Evidence,
269; Wharton’s Crim. Evidence (8th
ed.), §808; Rex v. Brook, 31 St. Tr.
1137. The body of a dead person may
be identified by the teeth. The cele-
brated case of Commonwealth v. Web-
ster, 5 Cush. 295. See, also, State v.
Williams, 7 Jones (N. C.), 446. See,
generally, Linsday v. People, 63 N. Y.
143; Rex v. Clews, 4 Carr & P. 221;
McCulloch v. State, 48 Ind. 109; Rus-

Identification by the voice is a

ton v. State, 4 Tex. App. 432; Curry».
State, 7 Tex. App. 267; Mullery v.
Hamilton, 71 Ga. 720; Tichborne’s
Case, 3 Wharton & Stille Med. Juris.,
§ 623; State v. Kepper, 65 Iowa, 745.

5Davis v. State, 15 Tex. App. 594;
Commonwealth v. Hayes, 138 Mass.
185; Commonwealth v. Williams, 105
Mass. 62; Messner v. People, 45 N. Y.
1; Rex v. Harrison, 12 State Tr. 850;
Brown v. Commonwealth, 76 Pa. St.
319. See, generally, Commonwealth ‘
v. Scott, 123 Mass. 222; King v. Dona-
hue, 110 Mass. 155; Regina v. Chey-
erton, 2 Fost. & F. 833.

*1 Southern Law Review, 395.

5Mr. Walter Besant, in The Ivory
Gate, gives strong reasons in sup-
port of the theory that the voice is
satisfactory evidence of the identity of
aperson. We copy from his book the
following: ‘‘The voice of this dis-
tinguished person Checkley knew.
But the other voice—that he knew
well. And he could not remember
whose voice it was. Very well he re-
membered the sound of it. Some men
never forget a face; some men never
forget a shape or figure; some men
never forget a voice; some men never
forget a hand-writing. A voice is the
simplest thing, after all, to remember,
and the most unchanging. From
eighteen till eighty a man’s voice
changes not, save that in volume it
decreases during the last decade; the
§ 38

1

LEARNING AND PREPARING THE FACTS.

31

weak mode of identifying a person, unless the voice is one
marked by some distinctive peculiarity, or the witnesses from
whom the testimony comes are well acquainted with the voice

of the person whose identity is in question.

Voices may be

disguised by physical causes, or by the effort of the person
whose identity is in question, and so may features and other

physical parts of men.

The question of identity is one of fact

and notoflaw.1 As the question is one of fact, all evidence bear-
ing upon. the question must be submitted to the jury, and it is
for the jury to determine whether it is satisfactory and trust-

worthy.?

Circumstances may establish the identity of a person

and it is competent to give evidence of his family connections,

his associations, his home and the like.

There is a conflict in

the cases as to whether identity of persons can be assumed from
the identity of names,* but we incline to the opinion that from
the mere identity of names it can not be assumed that there is

identity of person, but such a

distinguishing quality of the voice re-
mains the same till the end.” The
Bible, as every one knows, furnishes
an instance where the sense of feeling
prevailed over the evidence of the hear-
ing—“‘ The voice is Jacob’s voice, but
the hands are the hands of Esau.
-And he discerned him not, because
his hands were hairy, as his brother
Esau’s hands; so he blessed him.’’
1Hendricks v. State, 26 Ind. 493;
State v. Robinson, 39 Me. 150; Carle-
ton v. Townsend, 28 Cal. 219; Free-
man v. Loftus, 6 Jones Law (N. C.),
524; Ellsworth v. Moore, 5 Clarke
(Iowa), 486. Where names are the
same, slight additional evidence will
establish identity. Bogue v. Bigelow,
29 Vt. 179. See, generally, Kincaid
v. Howe, 10 Mass. 2038 ; Jones v. Parker,
20 N. H. 31; Brotherline v. Ham-
mond, 69 Pa. St. 128.
7 Rex v. Hanes, 3 P. & F. 144; Tay-
lor Med. Juris., 403, 404. Where evi-
dence is competent it should go to the

fact supplemented by evidence

jury, although its weight may not seem
very great or important. Harbor v.
Morgan, 4 Ind. 158; Smith v. Hen-
derson, 9 M. & W. 798; Wilton v. Ed-
wards, 6 C. & P. 677.

3’ Mullery v. Hamilton, 71 Ga. 720.

*State v. McGuire, 87 Mo. 642; Sitler '
v. Gehr, 105 Pa. St. 577; Hoyt v,
Davis, 30 Mo. App. 309; Simpson v.
Dismore, 9 M. & W. 46; Common-
wealth v. Costello, 120 Mass. 358; Giles
v. Cornfoot, 2 C. & K. 653; Hatcher v.
Rochelaeu, 18 N. Y. 87; Kinney v.
Flynn, 2 Durfee (R. I.), 319; Bell v.
Brewster, 44 Ohio, 690. See Reed v.
Gage, 33 Mich. 179; Houk v. Barthold,
‘73 Ind. 21; Jones v. Turnour, 4 C. &
P. 204; Clements v. State, 21 Tex..
App. 258; State v. Vittum, 9 N. H.
519; Inhabitants of Dennis v. Inhab-
itants of Brewster, 7 Gray, 351; Cates
». Loftus, 3 A. K. Marsh (Ky.), 204;
Aultman, M. & Co. v. Timm, 93 Ind.
158; Douglas v. Dakin, 46 Cal. 49.
32 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 39

of relationship or any evidence leading to the inference of
identity of person will be sufficient.!

§ 39. Identity of animals.——Evidence as to the identity of
ordinary domestic animals is proverbially unsatisfactory.’
Where there are peculiar marks or some unusual natural con-
formation, or some distinguishing scar caused by accident or
some brand, there is not so much uncertainty.*? Where, however,
witnesses undertake to testify to the identity of a domestic ani-
mal there is almost invariably conflict and uncertainty. In
such cases witnesses simply express opinions, for where there is
no peculiar mark, brand or the like, there is really no founda-
tion for anything more than an opinion.® The necessity for
summoning other facts to the support of positive testimony in
such cases is so evident that only the careless thinker or the
blunderer will overlook the importance of summoning to the
support of such testimony all the facts and circumstances he

can command.!

1Collier v. Nokes, 2 C. & K. 1012;
Cross v. Martin, 46 Vt. 14; Chamble
». Tarbox, 27 Tex. 189; Heacock v.
Lubukee, 108 Ill. 641; Jackson v.
King, 5 Cow. 237; Graves v. Colwell,
90 Ill. 612; Commonwealth v. Cos-
tello, 120 Mass. 358; Russell v. Smyth,
9M. & W. 810; Brown v. Metz, 33
Ill. 339; Farmers’ Bank v. King, 57
Pa. St. 202; Hunt v. Stewart, 7 Ala.
(N. 8.) 525; State v. Bartlett, 55 Me.
200; Stebbins v. Duncan, 108 U. 8. 32;
Mooers v. Bunker, 9 N. H. 420; Berk-
ley Peerage Case, 4 Campb. 401.

? Where the dispute is as to the iden-
tity of ordinary domestic animals, the
advice of Polonious is valuable.
“ Beware of entrance to a quarrel.”

5 At bottom, testimony upon ques-
tions of identity, whether of person
or of animals, is simply the expression
of opinions, except, perhaps, where
there is some pecularity or distin-
guishing mark. Opinions upon such

questions are generally of the crudest
kind, and seldom have any substantial
foundation. We may safely apply to
them Cardinal Newman’s saying that:
“When we speak of a man’s opinions
what do we mean but the collection
of notions he happens to have?” In
many cases, it would hardly be ventur-
ing too much to, say, in most cases,
where the opinion concerns identity
of persons or animals the notions are
the result of bias or prejudice of some
sort, and not those of impartial judg-
ment. As this is true, the one who
presents such testimony needs be sure
that valid reasons support it, and that
it is fortified by circumstances.

‘It is the office of a description in
an instrument to furnish the means of
identifying the particular property to
which itrefers. Mills v. Kansas, etc.,
Co., 26 Kan. 574. If the instrument
supplies the means of identification it
will ordinarily be sufficient. If the
§ 40 LEARNING AND PREPARING THE FACTS. 338

§ 40. Identity of inanimate personal property.—There is
generally much less difficulty in establishing the identity of
personal property than in proving the identity of persons or
the identity of domestic animals. As a rule manufactured ar-
ticles of personal property are not so precisely similar as to
make it difficult to identify a particular article although there
may be a general resemblance’, but there is sometimes real dif-
ficulty.t. Where there are distinguishing marks, as numbers,
figures, brands, or the like, they are, as is sufficiently obvious,
the most satisfactory evidences of identity. A description in
an instrument of writing sufficiently identifies the property if
it supplies the means of identifying the particular property to
which it refers, and where there is such a description, extrinsic
evidence may be resorted to for the purpose of making the
identification complete;? but where the law requires the de-

instrument suggests proper inquiry’

and gives reasonable information as
to where to make such inquiry and
how to pursue it, the description will
as a general rule be deemed sufficient.
Yant v. Harvy, 55 Iowa, 421; Smith
v. McLean, 24 Iowa, 322; Tindall v.
Wasson, 74 Ind. 495; Duke v. Strick-
land, 48 Ind. 494; McCord v. Cooper,
30 Ind. 9; Ebberle v. Mayer, 51Ind.
235; Connally v. Spragins, 66 Ala.
258; Rowley v. Bartholemew, 37 Iowa,
874; Fordyce v. Neal, 40 Mich. 705;
Farwell v. Fox, 18 Mich. 166; Willey
v. Snyder, 34 Mich. 60; Harris v.
Kennedy, 48 Wis. 500. There must
of..course be some particular descrip-
tion, for it will not be sufficient to
identify an animal by employing a
generic term embracing all animals of
a kind, as a horse, one cow, or the
like. If part of a description is proper,
it is not vitiated by an error nor by sur-
plusage. Hamner v. Smith, 22 Ala.
483; Peyton v. Ayres, 2 Md. Ch. 64;
Reed v. Spicer, 27 Cal. 57; Collins v.
Lavelle, 44 Vt. 230.

41 Commonwealth v. Montgomery, 11

Metcf. (Mass.) 534; Burrill Cir. Ev.
658; Wills Cir. Ev. 127. See, gener-
ally, State v. Bishop, 73 N. C. 44;
American Express Co. v. Spellman,
90 Ill. 455; Boren v. State, 23 Texas
App. 28; Hill v. State, 17 Wis. 697;
Jupitz v. People, 34 Ill. 516; Kelly v.
State, 1 Texas App. 628; Johnson v.
State, 1 Texas App. 333 ; Poage v. State,
43 Texas, 454.

? Partridge v. White, 59 Me. 564;
Spaulding v. Mozier, 57 Ill. 148; Ellis
v. Martin, 60 Ala.394; Hunt v. Shack-
leford, 56 Miss. 397; Goff v. Pope, 83
N. C. 123; Bryan v. Faucett, 65 N.C.
650; Johnson v. Nevill, 65 N.C. 677;
Pettis v. Kellogg, 7 Cush. 456; Hard-
ing v. Coburn, 12 Metcf. (Mass.) 333;
Burdett v. Hunt, 25 Me. 419; Wheel-
den v. Wilson, 44 Me. 11; Goulding ».
Swett, 13 Gray, 517; Lawrence v. Ev-
arts, 7 Ohio St. 194; Eddy v. Caldwell,
7 Minn. 225; Winter v. Landphere, 42
Iowa, 471; Jordan v. The Bank, 11
Neb. 499; Winslow v. Insurance Co.,
4 Metc. 306; Tompkins v. Henderson,
83 Ala. 391. See, generally, Kellogg
v. Anderson, 40 Minn. 207; Tolbert v.
34 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 41

scription to be in the writing, its place can not be entirely sup-
plied by extrinsic evidence. Where the description is so gen-
eral, or so vague and indefinite as not to supply the means of
identifying the particular property, parol evidence can not sup-
ply the defect ;' for, where the writing is required to contain
the description, extrinsic evidence can only be resorted to be-
cause it is the means of completing the identification supplied
by the description in the instrument. It is evident from what
has been said that in ascertaining and preparing the facts it is
not always safe, by any means, to rely entirely upon the de-
scription contained in a written instrument as evidence of the
identity of personal property, for leave is often required to ob-
tain competent parol evidence to supplement the description
which the writing contains, and, on the other hand, it is not
always proper to conclude that the description in the writing,
although not specific or definite, is so defective as to be beyond
assistance from facts and circumstances.

' $41. Identifying real property.—In ascertaining the facts
and taking measures to procure evidence in cases where it be-
comes necessary to identify a tract or parcel of land, it is often
essential to obtain extrinsic evidence in order to identify the
land described in a deed or other instrument. It is not true in
every instance that the description in a writing so fully identi-
fies the particular tract or parcel.of land as to make it unnec-
essary to resort to parol evidence.” The office of a description
in a deed is to supply means of identification,’ and it is not

Horton, 33 Minn. 104; Johnson v.
Grissard, 51 Ark. 410, 8. C. 3 Law. R.
Anno. 795.

1 Herr v. Denver, etc., Co., 18 Colo.
406, S. C. 6 Law. R. Anno. 641; Rich-
ardson v. Lumber Co., 40 Mich. 203;
Nicholson v. Karpe, 58 Miss. 34; Cross-
well v. Allis, 25 Conn. 301; Duke v.
Strickland, 43 Ind. 494; McCord v.
Cooper, 30 Ind. 9; Frost v. Beekman,
1 Johns. Ch. 285; Jennings v. Wood,
20 Ohio, 261; Hutton v. Arnett, 51 TIl.
198. See, generally, Vawter v. Griffin,

‘40 Ind.593; Whittemore v. Gibbs, 24

N. H. 484,

? Patton v. Goldsborough, 9 S. & R.
47; Abbot v. Abbot, 51 Me. 575; Hicks
v. Davis, 4 Cal. 67; Hill». Mason, 7
Jones (N. C.), 551; Cassiday v. Con-
way, 25 Pa. St. 244; Raymond ».
Longworth, 14 How. 76; Waterman v.
Johnson, 13 Pick. 261.

5 Rucker v. Steelman, 73 Ind. 396;
Sherman v. McCarthy, 57 Cal. 507;
Anderson v. Hancock, 61 Cal. 88; Hol-
loway v. Galliac, 47 Cal. 474; Irwin

 
§ 42 LEARNING AND PREPARING THE FACTS. 35

necessary that the particular parcel or tract should be directly
and completely identified by the description. It is to be re-
membered that where the instrument is executed to convey
lands, or to provide for the conveyance, it must contain a de-
scription of the land or estate, for the statute requires such in-
struments to be in writing, and a description is an essential
part of the writing. Where there are specified monuments,
statements of courses and distances yield, for the theory of the
law is that deeds are made with reference to an actual view of
the premises by the parties to the contract,! so that it is of im-
portance in many instances to secure accurate knowledge of the
location of the monuments.

§ 42. Identifying documents.—It is often incumbent upon
the advocate in ascertaining the facts and taking steps to pro-
cure competent evidence to make the facts available, to provide
for the identification of written instruments. There are, of
course, many cases where it is not difficult to obtain satisfactory
evidence of identity; but there are cases where there is real
difficulty in securing the necessary evidence. It often occurs
that there is no direct evidence upon the question of identity,
and in such case resort must be had to circumstantial evidence.

§ 48. Examination of client.—An examination of the client
is not well conducted unless it reveals his weakness as well as
his strength. His peculiarities, when known, can be provided

Daly v. Maguire, 6 Blatch. (U. 8. C.)
187; Hynes v. McDermott, 82 N.Y. 41,

»v. Towne, 42 Cal. 326; Thompson v.
Thompson, 52 Cal. 154.

"Davis v. Rainsford, 17 Mass. 207
(210); Evansville, ete., Co. v. Page,
23 Ind. 525; Howe v. Bass, 2 Mass.
380; Frost v. Spaulding, 19 Pick. 445;
McPherson v. Foster, 4Wash.C.C. 45;
Lodge v. Barrett, 46 Pa. St. 477; Har-
ris v. Hull, 70 Ga. 831; Frost v. An-
gier, 127 Mass. 212.

? Photographic copies have been used
with advantage in identifying docu-
ments and proving handwriting. Luco
v. United States, 23 How. (U. 8.) 515;

8. C. 37 Am. R. 5388; Brookes v. Tich-
borne, 2 Eng. L. & Equ. 374; Marcy
v. Barnes, 16 Gray, 161. See, goner-
ally, Taylor Will Case, 10 Abb. Pr.
300; Duffin v. People, 107 Ill. 113, S.
C.47 Am. R. 431; Eborn v. Zimpel-
man, 47 Texas, 503, 8. C. 26 Am. R.
315; Tome v. Parkersburg, etc., Co.,
39 Md. 36, 8. C.17 Am. R. 540; Marcy
». Barnes, 16 Gray, 161, S. CO. 77 Am.
Dec. 405; Foster’s Will, 34 Mich. 21;
Howland’s Will, 4 Am. Law. Rev. 625.
36 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 44

against when they are such as to prejudice him, or their power
for good can be augumented when they are such as to bring
him favor. His judgment as to the materiality of testimony,
oral or written, can not be allowed to supplant that of the ad-
vocate. If there are any written instruments, contracts, notes,
receipts, letters or the like, within his reach, they must be
secured, and every scrap of them examined by the advocate,
and in no event should it be left to the client to determine
their materiality. If the consultation with him discloses a pro-
pensity to do much talking, he should be not only advised, but
commanded, to be silent. Oral admissions are often, as we have
said, tortured much beyond their meaning, and a talking client
will open the way for much prejudicial testimony.

§ 44. Control of the case.—All letters concerning the case
should be written or dictated by the advocate. All negotiations,
after the advocate has taken charge of the case, it is his duty
to conduct, and of this the client should be informed. It is
the right of the advocate to insist that his advice be strictly
followed, and in the outset he will do well to so inform his
client.

§ 45. Tendency of clients to exaggerate.—Clients stating
their own claims are prone to exaggerate them. The longer
they think over the matter the larger their claims grow. The
prudent advocate, bearing this in mind, will not be influenced
to press a claim so greatly magnified as to seem ridiculous. A
party who demands an unreasonable thing creates a bad im-
pression at the outset, which is likely to cling to the cause as
tightly as the Old Man of the Sea clung to Sinbad the Sailor.

§ 46. Written statements no substitute for personal exami-
nation.— Written statements, whether prepared by the client or
the witnesses, are not substitutes for personal examinations.
The reason for this is manifest; but, obvious as the reason is,
advocates often make costly mistakes in accepting written state-
ments and dispensing with personal examinations of the wit-
§ 47 _ LEARNING AND PREPARING THE FACTS. 37

nesses. Personal contact with the witnesses gives information
and confidence that written statements can not supply.

§ 47. Information as to client’s business.—Information as
to the character, business and associates of the client is import-
ant for more reasons than one. It is important in the work of
selecting the jury. Men carry their prejudices into the jury
box, and are often controlled by them; sometimes they wil-
lingly yield to them, and sometimes they are unconsciously
controlled by them. In passing through the minds of men
warped by prejudice facts are tortured and twisted from their
natural effect. A piece of white paper can no more pass through
a pail of ink without being discolored than can facts pass un-
colored through a mind filled with preconceived opinions and
prejudices. Such a mind is not unlike a vessel filled with
smoke—all that goes into it is darkened.

§ 48. Prejudice of jurors.—Jurors belonging to one class are
often so bitterly prejudiced against men of another class that
they will not award them justice if there is the baldest pretense
for evading duty. Indeed, in many instances, prejudice so dom-
inates duty that justice is denied without the semblance of an
excuse. Pursuits make men clannish, and except when envy
or rivalry exists, men engaged in like pursuits will stand to-
gether as if engaged in a common cause. The books contain
many instances where unjust verdicts have resulted from jurors
allowing their prejudices in favor of those engaged in like pur-
suits to control their judgment. A jury of landlords will be
very likely to deal unjustly with a tenant contesting a case with
his landlord, and a jury of tenants in a like case would be slow to
deal out justice to the landlord however strong his case. Farmers
are almost always on the side of farmers, and there is usually
an impression in their minds in favor of one of their own class,
which must be dislodged before the opposite side can secure a
fair hearing. A jury of physicians, unless of opposite schools,
would be a very dangerous one for the plaintiff in a case of mal-
practice. Railroad men on juries are almost always favorable
to a railroad company, and men who dislike great corporations,
38 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 49

or who are jealous of power, or who view with envy corpora-
tions that have acquired wealth and influence, are almost al-
ways unalterably set against a railroad company.

§ 49. Object of procuring knowledge of client’s standing.—
These hints, we know, are of things so plain that mention
seems unnecessary; and what we suggest is, we know, old—
old, at least, as the time of Plato’s pastry-cook—but, for all
that, these hints may serve a useful purpose in arousing at-
tention to plain considerations often forgotten or overlooked.
But passing toa somewhat different phase of the subject, we
shall find other reasons for acquiring a thorough knowledge of
the client. It is not always expedient to select jurors who are
acquainted with the client the advocate represents. Some men
fare better at the hands of strangers than of acquaintances. A
man whose reputation is not of the best is often safer in the
hands of strangers than in the hands of neighbors. Nor is it
always best to select acquaintances as triers even where there
is no infirmity in the client’s reputation, for peculiarities of
character may create adverse prejudices. But the better the
jurors know a thoroughly good man the safer his cause is in
their hands.

§ 50. Necessity of consultation with witnesses.—There, are
cases where steps must be taken without an instant’s delay,
and in such cases the advocate must act upon the information
given by his client; but where there is time for consultation
with the witnesses it should be held before the action or suit is
instituted. This is expedient not only for the reason that it
gives the advocate a firmer grasp of his case, but for the ad-
ditional reason that it often enables him to procure an un-
prejudiced history of the facts. Mr. Chitty says: ‘‘It will,
moreover, frequently occur that if a minute inquiry into the
facts and evidence be made in the first instance, before the de-
fendant has even heard of any intended litigation, the truth
will be better elicited than if the investigation were delayed
until after the defendant had cautioned neighbors and witnesses
§ 51 LEARNING AND PREPARING THE FACTS. 39

from making any communications that might be adverse to his
interests.’”}

§ 51. Reasons for promptly examining witnesses.—There
is still another reason for promptly examining witnesses. Time
dulls the perceptive faculties and quiets the interest and ardor
that the mind feels in an occurrence freshly brought before it.
Men are less affected by a thing long passed than by one of
recent date. If an advocate delays in investigating a case he
will do his work much less efficiently than he would with all
his faculties aroused by a matter fresh in his mind. It is the
experience of most advocates that on the second trial of a cause,
where no new facts are developed, the mind acts with much
less vigor and power than on the first trial. This is so because
the facts do not strike with the same force they do when the
mind is aroused by a thing heard as of recent occurrence, and
as affecting a matter upon which immediate action is to be
taken. What is true of the advocate is true, although in a less
degree of force, of a witness, for the lapse of time weakens his
memory and dulls his faculties. It is, therefore, prudent to
have the preliminary examination take place with the least
possible delay.

§ 52. Fastening the facts in the mind.—If the facts are
once thoroughly fixed in the mind of the advocate the excite-
ment of the actual contest will bring them out with undimin-
ished strength. Ifthe impression is made when the mind is.
warmed by the new matter which invokes and arouses its pow-
ers, the impression is not likely to fade, but if no impression
is made at the outset when the mind is in a condition to receive
and retain all that is presented, it is not probable that a strong
one can be made at any subsequent period. Mr. Chitty not
only recommends promptness in making a preliminary exam-
ination of the witnesses, but he also recommends that the
questions and answers of the principal ones be stated in writ-

13 Chitty Gen. Pr. 118.
40 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 53

ing.’ If there be reason to fear that the witnesses will change
their statements, either from defect of memory or through the
influence of corrupt practices, this course is expedient, but the
advocate should not trust to the written statement. It is his
duty to fasten the facts in his mind, for it is only by this
course that he can give them their just weight. The facts he
must know, not merely remember. In dealing with the facts
the advocate goes far beyond the witnesses, for he exercises
other faculties than that of memory. He must weigh, arrange
and mould the facts into a case, framed and constructed in his
mind. He must have a theory into which he can place his
facts. This he can do only by making the facts a part of his
thought-knowledge.

§ 53. Assumption that client does not know the law.—In
his investigation of the facts it is the duty of the advocate to
assume that his client has no knowledge of the law. This as-
sumption must control the interview with the client, and no
assistance can be expected from him upon what he will regard
as mere immaterial and formal matters. The investigation
must be so conducted as to bring these matters to the attention
of the client. If they are forgotten by the advocate they will
be entirely lost sight of. There are many things indispensably
essential to success, which to laymen seem unimportant, and
these things must be brought to the mind of the client by his
counsel. In many instances it is essential that a demand
should precede the action; in others, that a tender should be
made; in others, that a notice should be served. Of these and
like matters the counsel must inform his client, and give him
the necessary instructions.

§ 54. Taking client’s opinion.—Although the advocate must
assume that the client has no knowledge of the law, and should
not seek his opinions on law questions, yet it is always wise,
if the client be a person of intelligence, to secure his theory of
the justice of his case. It often happens that the client will

13 General Pr. 120.
§ 54 LEARNING AND PREPARING THE FACTS. 41

form strong opinions of his rights, and place them in a homely,
yet forcible, way on a foundation of natural justice. The judg-
ment of the client may thus often aid in presenting the case to
a jury, for jurors are more strongly influenced by what they
conceive to be natural justice than by that which they regard
as artificial law made by lawyers. The biographies of lawyers
contain many instances where the greatest advocates have won
their causes by adopting the statements of their clients. Ad-
vocates do often lose force by dwelling upon rules of law in-
stead of appealing to a sense of justice innate in every man,
and so, too, they often lose force by employing law terms when
‘more familiar ones would find a deeper lodgment in the minds
of jurors. The help they most need may sometimes be sup-
plied by the client’s theory of the justice and right of his case.’

1See Collins’ Cicero, 85.
CHAPTER II.

ASCERTAINING AND PREPARING THE LAW OF THE CASE.

§ 55. What is to be assumed at the § 70. Effect of increase in number of

outset. reported cases.
56. Provisional hypothesis. 71. Generalization of cases.
57. Use of the provisional hypoth- 72. Case lawyers.
esis. 73. Exceptions to general rules.
58. Object of the search for the law. 74, Discrimination.
59. Rudimentary principles. 75. Contention is usually as to ap-
60. The search for the law. plicability of general rules.
61. Cases and principles. 76. Law periodicals— Leading ar-
62. Text-books. ticles.
63. General principles. 77. Statutory law.
64. Determining weight and influ- 78. Construction of statutes.
ence of decided cases. 79. Making law of the case avail-
65. How a decision should be con- able.
sidered. 80. Referring to general principles.
66. Considerations which affect 81. Mind must act quickly.
weight of decisions. 82. Practical use of knowledge.
67. Judicial decisions not the law 83. Fixing legal principles in mem-
itseli—When authority. ory.
68. Obtaining principles— Analog- 84. Knowledge needed by the ad-
ical reasoning. vocate.
69. How to search text-books— 85. Business work.
Tables of cases. 86. Written notes. -

§ 55. What is to be assumed at the outset.—At the outset,
the searcher for the law of the case must assume that the case
for which he is to find the law belongs to a particular class,
and is governed by a settled principle. Before going to the
books the investigator must have a definite conception in his
own mind of what he goes there to find. This conception, if
clearly formed, will be a provisional hypothesis, which will give
direction and method to theinvestigation. Without a definite
hypothesis the investigation will be an aimless one, lacking
both direction and method. As well go into a forest to find a
tree without knowing what tree is wanted as to attempt to
: (42)
§ 56 THE LAW OF THE CASE. 43

search the books without having some definite idea of what is
to be found.! The wildest conjecture as to what is the law is
better than no conjecture. A provisional hypothesis, however
unsound, is infinitely better than an aimless and purposeless
search. Investigation, it is true, may prove the hypothesis to
be utterly unsupported, but if it does, the exposure of the error
will serve to reveal the truth. An error clearly observed nearly
always points an investigator to the true direction.?

§ 56. Provisional hypothesis.—The provisional hypothesis
is a mere working conjecture, not a fixed theory. The investi-
gation is not conducted for the simple purpose of proving the
soundness of the hypothesis, but for the purpose of testing it.
A case is submitted for investigation, and the advocate assumes
that it belongs to a designated class, and falls under a particu-
lar rule, and on this assumption begins his examination, not
for the purpose of establishing the assumption, but for the pur-
pose of ascertaining whether it can be made good. His as-
sumption gives direction to his work, for it places an object be-
fore him toward which his steps must be taken. Without such
an object before him there could be neither line to follow nor
method to control his work. There is, however, a danger
which is to be avoided. It is the nature of men to be fond
of their own creations, and to cling to them with unreasoning

1“For, as Plato says, a searcher sume to take this upon me; but of

must have some knowledge of the
thing he searches after, otherwise he
will not know when he has found it.”
Bacon.

“ All the greatest discoveries of the
human intellect in the various scien-
ces,’’ says Mazzini, ‘‘ have originated
in hypotheses, afterward verified by
study.’’

3 Littleton, in closing his great work
on Tenures, says: ‘‘ And know, my
son, that I would not have thee be-
lieve, that all which I have said in
these books is law, for I will not pre-

those things that are not law, inquire
and learn of my wise masters learned
in the law; notwithstanding albeit
that certain things which are moved
and specified in the said books are
not altogether law, yet such things
shall make thee more apt and able to
understand and apprehend the argu-
ments and the reasons of the law, etc.
For by the arguments and reasons in
the law, a man more sooner shall come
to the certainty and knowledge of the
law.” x
44 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 57

tenacity, and this influence sometimes leads advocates to sacri-
fice a cause to a favorite hypothesis.

§ 57. Use of the provisional hypothesis.—In the search for
the law of the case the advocate proceeds much as a philos-
opher who seeks to discover scientific truths. His provisional
lypothesis is a means to an end. Itis not a position to be
defended at all hazards, but one to be held or surrendered as
investigation may result in declaring it to be tenable or unten-
able. In seeking the law of the case the advocate exercises
functions similar to those of the judge. But his process dif-
fers from that of the judge and the philosopher, for he seeks a
rule that, applied to the facts, will secure a judgment for his
client. This confines his search and colors his reasonings.
But in this work he is not a partisan, or at all events he should
not be a partisan, for he seeks materials that may be used in
the construction of a theory which will bring him success, and
cool, unimpassioned investigation is necessary to keep out un-
sound and unsuitable materials. After the materials have been
gathered and woven into the theory of the case, then he be-
comes a partisan, for no man who earnestly takes up another’s
cause can avoid becoming a partisan. All doubt and hesita-
tion are then at an end, and the position upon which the case
is planted will be maintained with all the vigor and strength
that is at command. While the investigation is in progress
the coolness and impartiality of a judge or philosopher give
strength and certainty; but when that work is finished the
weapons of the advocate are drawn, and the functions of phil-
osopher and judge are displaced by those of the combatant.
The advocate is no longer neutral; thenceforward his work is
not to find some position, but to maintain the one he has found
and occupied.

§ 58. Object of the search for the law.—The law for which
one seeks with a real case before him is the law of that partic-
ular case. It will not avail him to know many rules if he does
not know the rule which governs the case he has in hand. An
§ 59 THE LAW OF THE CASE. 45

advocate with a case before him has actual work to do, not
merely principles or rules to commit to memory. An architect
may be learned in his profession, but if he does not know what
kind of a bridge is required at a particular place on a particular
stream, he can not put the bridge there that is needed. No more
can an advocate, however much he may know of the law, suc-
cessfully conduct the trial of a particular case unless he knows
the law of that case. Books can not tell him what the law of that
case is, although with the aid of books, or of previously acquired
knowledge, he may reason it out; but reason he must, and the
more profound his learning the more certain he will be to reach
a right conclusion. His previous knowledge must, at least, be.
sufficient to enable him to intelligently construct a provisional
hypothesis; for if he is not able to do this he will be unable to
lay out a line of investigation, and much less will he be able
to follow it through the difficult paths it traverses. The man
‘ who has not fitted himself to conduct causes in judicial tri-
bunals by a long course of study of the principles of jurispru-
dence is not an advocate; ‘‘for,’’ to borrow something of the
language and more of the thought of Cicero, ‘‘ to flutter about
the forum, to loiter in courts of justice and at the tribunals of
the pretors, to undertake private suits in matters of the great-
est concern, in which the question is often not about fact but
about equity and law, to swagger in causes heard before the
centumvirt when a man is utterly ignorant ‘of the principles
of jurisprudence,’ is a proof of extraordinary impudence.’’!

§59. Rudimentary principles.—In giving to a man the title
of advocate it is implied that he is learned in the law.? It is
assumed, therefore, that an advocate has a knowledge of the
rudimentary principles of the law and of the rules of plead-
ing, practice, and evidence.*? But one who assumes that his

1 Oratory and Orators,Bk.I,xxxviii. ‘‘if many of our young practitioners
2“ Remember,” says Erskine, ‘that had, like Pythagoras his scholars,
no man can be agreat advocate who kept silence for some years and con-
is no lawyer.” sulted with their books, they would be
’This may not be a safe assumption the better enabled to give the reason
to make in favor of all practitioners. of the law.”
“Whereas,” says Edward Bulstrode, :
46 THE WORK OUT OF COURT § 60

preparatory studies have fully equipped him for the contests
of the forum is sadly deceived. Jurisprudence is ‘‘the col-
lected reason of ages, combining the principles of original jus-
tice with the infinite variety of human concerns.’’+ Cases as
diverse as human concerns are the subjects of study and inves-
tigation in advocacy, and to these various and often diverse
cases, the principles of what Burke calls original justice must
be applied. The science of jurisprudence is, as Judge Story
says, ‘‘of such vast extent and intricacy, of such severe logic
and nice dependencies, that it has always tasked the highest
minds to reach even its ordinary boundaries.’’?

§ 60. The search for the law.—The most learned advocate
has many a weary hunt for the law of his case. His learning
guides him in his search, but it does not always yield him the
support he needs. It points him to the spring and shows him
the road to the fountain, but it seldom does more. The search .
in which his learning is his guide leads him through the de-
cisions of the courts and the works of the great lawyers. These
are the sources from which the law of the case must be ob-
tained.? If a text-book be the work of a philosophic lawyer,
it will discuss the fundamental principles of the law; if the
decision be that of an able judge, it will show the application
of those principles to particular cases. It is, therefore, to be
expected that the clearest knowledge of the principles will be
conveyed by the text-writers, while the clearest conception of
their application will be conveyed by the judicial judgment.
Both the principles and their application ought thus to be
sought and found.

§ 61. Cases and principles.—Jurisprudence is a practical
science. Itis a science of principles. Cases illustrate prin-
ciples, but they do not create them. The law is not a mere
collection of cases strung together upon a slender thread of re-

‘Burke. Reflections on the Revo- = ° “‘ Whoever goes in quest of knowl-
lution in France. edge, let him fish for it where it is to
2Story’s Life and Letters, Vol. III, be found.’’ Montaigne.
145. ‘Paul v. Davis, 100 Ind. 422.
§ 62

\

THE LAW, OF THE CASE. 47

semblances. The learning of the advocate available for prac-
tical use is of principles and their application. Professor
Washburne says: ‘‘The learning of the lawyer does not con-
sist so much of principles as of the relation which these hold
to each other in their general application.’’!. There is much
of truth in this statement, yet there is enough of error to make
it misleading if taken without qualification. It is impossible
to understand the relation of principles to one another without
a thorough knowledge of the principles themselves. This is
the basis of scientific knowledge, without which there will be
little hope of successfully making a way through the thorny
and intricate labyrinths of jurisprudence.

§ 62. Text-books.—The text-books which are to be regarded
as the sources of knowledge are those which discuss principles,
and not those which collect cases without discussing them.
Many of our modern law-books are not scientific treatises, and
can not be accepted as authority, for they are little else than
digests. They may be valuable as indexes, but they are not
the books that should be studied. It is not, however, always
safe to implicitly rely on text-books of the highest character,
for errors in them have often been exposed by the courts.?- On
the other hand, text-writers have detected and corrected the
errors: of the courts. A knowledge of principles, without
capacity to apply them, is of no practical value. Indeed, a
knowledge of principles without a knowledge of their practical
application is almost as likely to result in harm as good.

1 Study and Practice of Law, 64.
2 Shurtleff v. Millard, 12 R. I. 272, 8.

abridgments, for the chief use of them
is as of tables to find the books at

C. 34 Am. Rep. 640; Robinson v.
Weeks, 56 Me. 102; Union Bank v.
Munster, 57 L. J. (N. 8.) 124; House
v. Alexander, 105 Ind. 109, 8. C. 55
Am. Rep. 189; Ram’s Legal Judg-
ments, Chap. XII. Some of the En-
glish judges have censured, but not
justly, as we think, the practice of
citing the works of living writers. 37
Albany L. J. 206. ‘‘Take heed, read-
er,’’ says Chief Justice Coke, ‘‘of all

large, but I exhort every student to
read and rely on the books them-
selves.”” 5 Rep. 25. See, also, preface
to 4 Rep. X.

3 Ram Legal Judgments, 169.

‘Quintilian says that the advocate
“must not merely look to principles,
but must have them in readiness to
act upon them; not asif they had been
taught him, but as if they had been
born him.”
48 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 63

§ 63. General principles—Mr. Warren says that ‘‘It re-
quires the nicest discrimination to ascertain whether a partic-
ular case falls within the general rule, or is governed by some
of its endless limitations and exceptions, and this discrimina-
tion must be the result of calm, leisurely and extensive study
and practical experience. General principles are edge tools in
the hands of the legal tyro, and he must take care how he
handles them.’’! The reported cases bear out Mr. Warren’s
statement that ‘‘ general principles are edge tools,’’ to be care-
fully handled; but, for all that, the workman must have these
tools. His advice to study calmly and leisurely is wise as ap-
plied to the mere student, but it is not safe for the lawyer who
is preparing a case for trial to follow it, for, when the work of
preparation begins, the mind must be aroused to its utmost.
The investigator should not work leisurely or calmly, but de-
terminedly, and with an almost fanatical enthusiasm. His
mind must be concentrated upon the work. He must, as De-
Quincey says, ‘‘ have an eye single to the assault.’’ This earn-
estness and enthusiasm, it is obvious, is not compatible with
a leisurely and calm deliberation. All advocates who have
had long experience know that when the work of determining
the law of the case actually begins there is a warmth and a
glow that arouses the faculties and excites them to energetic
and effective work. ‘There must be a purpose and a determina-
tion in the search strong enough to arouse the mind to active
effort, or it is very likely to be a fruitless quest.

§ 64. Determining weight and influence of decided cases.—
In determining the weight and applicability of a decided case
the first work is to ascertain what points were really decided,
for much that is found in the opinions of the judges is mere
argument and illustration. These arguments and illustrations
merit study, for, while they are not declarations of the law,
yet they contain statements of analogous legal principles, and
often refer to authorities that afford very valuable assistance in
the investigation. When the reasoning of the case is against

1 Warren’s Law Studies, 325.
§ 64 THE LAW OF THE CASE. 49

the view of the investigator he should trim the case down to
the exact points presented and decided, and then test the reason-
ing by comparison with principle. It is never safe, it may be
noted in passing, to rely upon the reporter’s head-notes of a
case. They are not always correct, and. even when correct
they do not conyey that close and distinet perception of the
case which is indispensably essential to a full comprehension
of its force. Sometimes the dicta contained in the opinion will
be of weight because of the learning and*ability of the judge
by whom the opinion was written; but even in such a case they
are not part of the decision of the court.1 What is said by the
judge in the course of the opinion must be confined to the facts
presented by the case in which the opinion was delivered,? and
it is always important to carefully ascertain the points of agree-
ment, and discriminate the points of difference between the
reported case and the one under examination. The greater the
number of decisions that sustain a proposition the more cer-
tain the conclusion that it was correctly decided, for these are
instances of the concurrent judgments of men learned in the
law; but it is not always safe to assume as true a proposition
sustained by a long line of cases, for close investigation may
lead, as has not infrequently happened, to the discovery that
the entire line of cases rests upon a single ill-considered and
wrongly decided case, and that, consequently, all the cases must
be overthrown. Where the cases, like the Swiss troops, fight
on both sides, then the investigator must select such cases as
seem founded on solid principles, and lead to good results. It
is, however, often very difficult to tell which of two lines of
conflicting cases should be followed, and the only safe course
is to find some general principle that will serve as a standard
by which to test the cases opposed to the views of the investi-
gator. This it is sometimes difficult to do, for, it is said, ‘‘the

1Rohrback v. Germania Fire Ins. 2Cohens v. State of Virginia, 6
Co., 62 N. Y. 47, 58; Frantz v. Brown, Wheat. (U. 8.) 399; Carroll v. Lessee,
17 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 287, 292; Bates v. 16 How. (U. 8.) 275, 286.

Taylor, 87 Tenn. 319; Wixson v. De-
vine, 80 Cal. 385. ,
4
50 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 65

comparative weight or credit of authorities where they conflict
is a matter of professional science which is not regulated by
any determinate rule.’’

§ 65. How a decision should be considered.—A decision
must, as we have said, be considered with reference to the
facts out of which the questions of law arose.1 It was said by
Lord Manners that ‘‘It is always unsatisfactory to abstract the
reasoning of the court from the facts to.which that reasoning
is meant to apply. It has a tendency to misrepresent one judge
-and mislead another.’’? The tendency of the reasoning of the
court considered apart from the facts to mislead, is one rea-
son why itis unsafe to rely upon the text-books, for they often
assert as a rule what the court states as an argument. The
danger of being misled is much greater to the advocate engaged
in the investigation or argument of a cause than to a judge
who hears both sides of the question discussed. The only se-
curity for the advocate is in a careful analysis of the facts and
a close comparison of the legal doctrines declared with the fun-
damental principles of law. Itis not an unfrequent occurrence
for an advocate who has not given the cases relied upon by him
a thoughtful study to be humiliated by having them turned
against him. The reports contain many instances where, even
on appeal, cases have been cited which have furnished weapons
to theenemy. It often happens that cases are decided on’ par-
ticular circumstances, and such decisions can only be relied on
where the circumstances in the reported case and in the one
under investigation are the same. It is seldom prudent to
build on cases of this character, for they are seldom well de-
cided. They are, indeed, more frequently so narrow as not to .
be entitled to any rank, even the lowest, as authoritative prec-
edents.

§ 66. Considerations which affect weight of decisions—
Various elements enter into a consideration of the question of
the weight to be assigned a judicial decision. A well reasoned

1 See § 64, ante. ? Revell v. Hussey, 2 Ball & Batty,
286.
§ 67 THE LAW OF THE CASE. 51

and carefully considered case is entitled to more weight than
one not well supported by reason and not thoroughly consid-
ered.t_ Mr. Bishop seems to take ground against any reasoning
by the judges in their opinions, but we can not concur in his
view. The reasoning, if sound and strong, brings strength
and respect; if weak and inconclusive, leads to the detection
of fallacies and errors, and, ultimately, to the final overthrow
of the case. The point of view which Mr. Bishop occupies is
that of a text-writer, and his judgment seems somewhat warped
by his adherence to his peculiar notions of the authority of
text-books. An opinion concurred in by all the judges com-
‘ posing the court is generally, but not always, of more weight
than one delivered by a divided court. The dissenting opinion
of a great judge will sometimes command higher respect than
that of his associates, but the decision of the majority is alone
authoritative.”

§ 67. Judicial decisions not the law itseli—When authority.
—Judicial decisions are not, in a strict sense, authority, except
in the jurisdiction where they are pronounced. Thetext-writers,
and the courts generally, speak of these decisions as authority,
but beyond the court’s jurisdiction they have force only as ar-
guments. They are not authority in the sense of having the
force of absolute law, even in the jurisdiction where the court
pronouncing them is the highest judicial tribunal.? They may
be overruled, and they will be overruled if clearly opposed to

1 But itissaid that a per curiam opin-
ion is one where the court are all of
one mind, and the case is so clear as
not to need an extended discussion,and
that it has the same weight as any
other opinion. Clarke v. Western As-
surance Co., 146 Pa. St. 561, 8. C. 28
Am. St. Rep. 821,

2 For a discussion of this interesting
subject read Chapters xii to xix, Ram
on Legal Judgments; Bishop’s First

Book of the Law, Book IV, Chapter
xxiii; Heard’s Criminal Pleading,
Chapter i.

8 They are only evidence of what the
law is. Swift v. Tyson, 16 Pet. (U.
8.) 18, Per Story, J.; New Orleans .
Water-Works Co. v..Louisiana Sugar,
etc., Co., 125 U. S. 18, &. C. 8 Sup.
Ct. Rep. 741. See, also, Wixson v. De-

‘ vine, 80 Cal. 385.
52 THE WORK OUT OF COURT... § 68

principle,! although courts are always reluctant to change their
decisions.

§ 68. Obtaining principles—Analogical reasoning.—Prin-
ciples for the government of particular cases are in many in-
stances obtained by a process of analogical reasoning. The
resemblance between the cases must be both in the facts and in
the law. ‘‘The argument from analogy is forcible only when
the resemblance is close; if there are marked points of differ-
ence between the conclusion deduced and the examples taken
as leading by analogy to it, the argument fails. ’? In logical
language, the marks of the cases taken as examples and the
marks of the case for which a governing principle is sought
must be the same in essence. It is not, however, always neces-
sary that the forms of the marks be the same, but in essence
they should be as nearly identical as possible. The closer the
resemblance the stronger the argument. Forcible as the argu-
ment from analogy often is, yet it is nevertheless often a source
of error, not only in open discussion, but also in the investi-
gation made in private. ‘‘There is no greater fallacy,’’ says
a learned judge, ‘‘than that of carrying an analogy too far,
and supposing that, because there is a resemblance between
two things in one point, they therefore correspond in every re-
spect.’’® A general likeness may exist between many cases,
and yet upon one point the difference may be so great as to
completely destroy the analogy. The analogue upon which the
reasoner bases his mental process requires examination from
every side, so that its points, or marks, may take a prominent
place in the mind, and not have a place as an indistinct image
perceived only in shadowy outlines. The mental image of the
analogue, and that of the case for which it is supposed to sup-
ply a rule, should take their places in the mind side by side so
clearly that the comparison which the mind makes may bring
fully into light every mark or point. No other course will en-

1 Paul v. Davis, 100 Ind. 422; Rum- ? Goodwin v. State, 96 Ind. 550(573).
sey v. N.Y. & N. E. Ry. Co., 1833 N. ‘Lord Chancellor Cresswell in
Y. 79, S. C. 28 Am. St. Rep. 600. Keats v. Keats, 32 Law Times, 321.

~
§ 69 THE LAW OF THE CASE. 53

able the solitary reasoner to escape error, nor will any other
course put it in his power to convey his judgment to another
mind with clearness and strength.

§ 69. How to search text-books—Tables of cases.—The short-
est and the safest method of searching for the doctrine of the
text-writers upon any particular subject is to look through the
table of cases and find where a leading case is discussed. It
is not always easy to determine under what head a particular
principle which it is desired to examine should be indexed,
and it is often difficult, and sometimes impossible, to discover °
what one is in search of in the index. The work of hunting
through an index is frequently a perplexing and unsatisfac-
tory one; if, however, the title of a leading case is known, it is
short and easy work to find the discussion of the doctrine
which it declares. But there is another important reason for
acquiring and retaining the names of cases, and that is, it en-
ables the investigator to run through the citation of cases in
the reports, digests or tables, and ascertain whether the case
has been denied, distinguished, criticised, or approved. A
case that has not been firmly rooted in the law should not be
relied on without examining the table of cases cited, to ascer-
tain whether it has or has not been subsequently approved,

‘denied, or distinguished. By reading the comments of the
text-writers and judges upon a decided case a clear and dis-
tinct perception of its force is obtained, and a ready and forci-
ble application of its doctrines can be made. So, too, the ex-
amination of subsequent discussions often furnishes important
hints as to the proper limitations of the general doctrine, and
furnishes, also, suggestions as to the change which a differ-
ence in the facts would produce. ,It is, therefore, prudent to
carefully follow such a case in its course through the text-
books and reports. The tables of cases, or the books contain-
ing citations of cases, will show whether the case has been
approved, limited, distinguished, or overruled, and a study of
the comments upon it will bring all its points strongly and
clearly into view. The doctrines of many cases have been éx-
54 THE WORK OUT OF COURT § 70

tended because wise and salutary; the doctrines of others
limited because not meriting extension; cases have been dis-
criminated because, while apparently alike, in reality they
were different; and others have been overruled because they
were wrong in principle. The reasoning of the courts in all
these instances is valuable, because it lights up many dark
places. and brings into view obscure points.

§ 70. Effect of increase in number of reported cases.—The
immense number of reported cases has not, as some suppose,
diminished the work of the lawyer or rendered it less import-
ant for him to think for himself. On the contrary, the in-
crease in the number of decisions has made it all the more im-
portant that he should work out all legal propositions in his
own mind. It can not with safety be assumed that any case,
or the doctrine of any text-writer, can be taken as a precedent.
Among so many thousand cases there must be collision and
conflict, and from this conflict new and juster views emerge.
The wealth of argument and illustration found in the decisions
of the courts is very great, and in cases of conflict it often re-
quires a long continued study and keen mental vision to de-
cide which ‘‘ hath the better reason.’’ It is by no means every
case or every statement of a text-writer that can be elevated to
the dignity of a precedent, and the lawyer must determine for
himself to what rank the decision of the court or the doctrine
of the writer shall be assigned. | It is said that the great num-
ber of decisions ‘‘tends to reduce the value of any one decision
as a fixed element in jurisprudence,’’ and there is much of
truth, but yet something of error, in the observation. It is
true that the great number of decisions brings into the fields of
legal comtemplation new arguments and elements; but while
these may weaken the value of cases not founded on solid
principle, they make more prominent those that are, and add
to their strength: But the increase in the number of decisions
makes it more difficult to determine what shall be considered
precedents, and casts the lawyer upon his own mental re-
sources. There is much truth in the observations of a recent
§ 71 THE LAW OF THE CASE. 55

writer who says: ‘‘There never was a time when an ignorant
and ill-read lawyer was so hard put to it to find on any con-
trovertible point a safe authority on which he could safely rest.
But on the other hand it has never been so easy for an intelli-
gent and well-read lawyer to master any controvertible ques-
tion and prepare to maintain himself with sound reasoning
and acute and proper distinctions. The force of the lawyer,
which used to rest to a considerable extent on oratory with the
jury and a book with the judge, now rests rather on hard facts
with the jury and close logic with the judge. This, much as
those accustomed to old processes may regret it, and painful as
may be the effort of some to adapt themselves to it, is a whole-
some change. It enchances the value of the mental force of
counsel, gives more influence to his actual knowledge of the
law as distinguished from his memory of what is in the books,
and compels competition in reasoning, which thus becomes the
life of the bar.’’! It is, perhaps, true, as the writer asserts,
that -the increase in the number of decisions has rendered the
possession and use of mental force more necessary; but the
lives of the successful advocates prove that they have always
relied less on cases than on principles deduced by their own
thoughts from books and cases. The chief object of the study
of cases has, with really strong men, ever been to obtain a
knowledge of the principles of jurisprudence, and to put it in
form for use.?

§ 71. Generalization of cases—Austin well says: ‘‘If our
experience and observation of particulars were not generalized,
our experience and observation of particulars would seldom
avail us in practice. To review on the spur of the occasion a
host of particulars, and to obtain from those particulars a con-
clusion applicable to the case, were a process too slow and un-
certain to meet the exigencies of our lives. The inferences
suggested to our minds by repeated observation and experience
are, therefore, drawn into principles or compressed into max-
ims. These we carry about us ready for use, and apply to in-

199 Central Law Journal, 264. 2 See 39 Albany Law Journal, 120.
56 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 72

dividual cases promptly or without hesitation, without revert-
ing to the process by which they were obtained, or without re-
calling or arraying before our minds the numerous and intricate
considerations of which they are handy abridgments.’’?

§ 72. Case lawyers.—Lord Abinger, an acute observer, says:
“‘T may observe, what a long course of experience has taught
me, that the lawyérs least to be depended upon are those who
are in constant pursuit of cases in point to govern their judg-
ment, and who, therefore, seldom have sufficient knowledge of
principles to judge for themselves.’’? A man who depends
upon his memory of cases can not successfully make his way
through a contest where the real test of superiority is not so
much what a man has in memory as what he can do with what
he has. A mechanic may have in his shop a great number of
the best tools in the world, but if he has not the skill to use
them they are of little benefit to him; and so with the lawyer.
He may have in memory many cases, but if he has not the-skill
to use them they are of no benefit to him.

§ 73. Exceptions to general rules.—There are very few gen-
eral rules to which there are no exceptions, and the exceptions
are sometimes as important as the general rules themselves.’
Close analysis and keen discrimination are required to discover
under what principle a case rightly falls. Whether a case falls
under a general rule or under some exception to the rule can
not always be determined by a mere reference to books, but
the mental problem is one that must be worked out in the mind
of the lawyer. Legal knowlédge that will avail in the actual
contests of the forum must be something more than rules com-
mitted to memory and precedents conveniently arranged for
reference, for real legal knowledge is the product of the thinker’s
own mind. Locke wisely says: ‘‘ Reading furnishes the mind
only with materials of knowledge; it is thinking makes what
we read ours. Weare of the ruminating kind, and it is not

11 Austin’s Jurisprudence, 118. s“There is no rule but what may
2Memoir of Lord Abinger, 46. fail.’”? Plowden’s Com. 162.
§ 74 THE LAW OF THE CASE. 57

enough that we cram ourselves with a great load of collections;
unless we chew them over again, they will not give us strength
and nourishment.’’! The knowledge of the lawyer will be of
little use to him unless it can be made available at command,
for he must use it, not in the quiet of the study, but in the
bustle and excitement of the forum. However richly his mem-
ory may be stored with rules and precedents, he will be poor
indeed if his resources can not be called into use at a moment’s
warning. No profession requires a wider knowledge than that
of the advocate, and there is none which requires a more de-
cisive and prompt use of knowledge laid up in the mind. With
him knowledge is ‘‘ to be regarded, not as a pure reception and
reflection, but as an inner activity.’’? Clear and distinct ideas
of the principles should be secured and arranged under proper
names, for names enable us to so keep what we acquire as to
reach it at call. As Locke says: ‘‘The sure and only way to
get true knowledge is to form in our minds clear, settled no-
tions of things, with names annexed to those determined
ideas.’’

§ 74. Discrimination.—No one can be a great lawyer uniess
he possesses keen discrimination. Where the power of dis-
crimination is wanting, a blurred and indistinct impression is
produced upon the mind. Such a mental image is much like

+A keen discrimination is essential
to prevent the useless overloading of a

1Conduct of the Understanding, 63.
“Ts Studio a learned man, I make a

distinction. Studio, has, to be sure,
acquired a certain science, but of pro-
found science, science which is broad
and lofty, good and true science, he
has none. Studio reads night and
day, but all that goes into his head is
spoiled there, like a liquid in a
wretched cask. -A troubled brain, an
adulterated judgment, an unlucky
‘memory,—that is Studio.’’ Medita-
tions of a Parish Priest, 56.

2Fundamental Concepts, Professor
Fueken, 16.

3 Conduct of the Understanding, 57.

theory with matters of law or of fact
which obstruct the strong and appro-
priate movement of the trial. Advo-
cates lacking the faculty of discrim-
ination often encumber their case to
its great harm, forgetting Bacon’s say-
ing, that ‘If a man maketh his train
longer he makes his wings shorter.”
Like the White Knight in the fairy
tale, he cumbereth himself with mouse-
traps, bee-hives and such useless im-
pediments,and,in consequence,moves,
when he moves at all, with broken and
halting steps.
58 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 74

that taken by a blundering photographer; it is little else than
a mere blot, having neither features nor expression. ‘‘There
is nothing,’’ says a philosophic writer, ‘‘ that is more character-
istic of the higher intellect as contrasted with the lower than
its greater power of discriminating, 7. e., of seeing points of
difference. It is differentiation that is always the law of prog-
ress. Knowledge begins as a vague blur, which gradually
becomes distinct. Everywhere the specialist’s eye sees finer
shades of difference than are visible to the public, as the shep-
herd knows his sheep. It is incapacity for seeing difference
that lies at the root of all crude, ill-considered generalization,
and therefore at the root of the mental ‘narrowness’ (as it is
usually called) which is ever ready to accept a principle unduly
simple and wide in its asserted sweep, and therefore unduly
rigid in its actual application.’’ Mr. Bain thus expresses the
same general thought: ‘‘Our knowledge of a fact is the dis-
crimination of it from differing facts, and the agreement or
identification of it with agreeing facts.’’? It is, in truth, im-
possible to secure a clear and distinct idea of a physical thing,
unless by a process of discrimination we separate it from things
that resemble it; thus, it is very difficult to obtain an accurate
mental image of a face seen in a great crowd, and it can only
be done by carefully discriminating the difference between the
face sought to be impressed upon the mind and the other faces
in the throng. It is much more difficult to separate resembling
principles than to separate resembling physical things, for in
the case of physical things we have assistance from the organs
of sensation, but in the case of abstract principles it is purely
mental work. One who looks into the table of cases in any of
our digests will be struck with the number of ‘‘cases distin-
guished.’’ In many instances the cases supply examples of
keen discrimination and close analysis, although it must be
owned that in many other instances the attempt to ‘‘distin-
guish’’ is a mere pretext to avoid overruling in direct terms a
decision which is felt to be erroneous, but which a mistaken

! Fallacies, Alfred Sidgwick, 256. ? Logic, 4,
§ 75 THE LAW OF THE CASE. 59

notion of consistency deters the court from boldly overthrow-
ing.

§ 75. Contention is usually as to applicability of general
rule.—The contention falls more frequently upon the question
whether the general rule invoked applies to the particular case
than upon the question as to the existence of the rule itself.!
Few expressions are more often heard in the court-room than,
‘‘T admit the law, but deny its applicability to the case in
hand.’’ There is, as we have already said, much less difficulty
in acquiring a knowledge of general rules than in giving them
just practical application.?, No matter how well stored the ad-
vocate’s mind may be with principles, he will not attain great
eminence nor win success unless he can discriminate differ-
ences and agreements, and accurately decide whether the par-
ticular case falls within the general principle upon which he
plants his case, or within that invoked against him. The law of
contracts, for instance, is quite well settled and understood, yet
there is constant strife as to the practical,application to be made
of that law. So, too, the general principles of the law of wills
are settled, yet controversies concerning their application are
endless. An advocate is not well equipped who knows general
rules but has not been trained to apply them. One may have
the bow of Ulysses, but it will not be a formidable weapon un-
less he can bend it. New cases constantly arise which no set-
tled rule of law will precisely fit. One who should expect a
single rule of law to fit all cases of the same general nature
would be as unwise as a tailor who should attempt to make all
suits cut in a particular pattern fit all men of a particular race
or class. The reason why new cases arise is cleverly given by
DeQuincey in his essay on Casuistry. It is true, as he says,
‘‘that new cases are forever arising to raise new doubts whether
they do or do not fall under the rule of law.’’

1See, for instance, Irvine v. Leyh, Western R. R. Co., 130 Ind. 1, 4, 5;
102 Mo. 200, 209; Dunlap v. Steere, Anderson v. Anderson, 129 Ind. 573,
(Cal.) 16 L. R. A. 361, 363; Frank v. S.C. 28 Am. St. Rep. 211, 212.
Traylor, (Ind.) 16 L. R. A. 115, 119; — ? Mills’ Logie, 208.

City of Noblesville v. Lake Erie and
60 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 76

§ 76. Law periodicals—Leading articles.—Writers of lead-
ing articles in the law periodicals are, for the time, at least,
and in a limited sense, specialists discussing particular sub-
jects with a well defined object in view. If they do their duty
well, they will discuss the particular topic better than an
author of even more ability writing upon a general subject.
Their mental power is concentrated, and they see more clearly
the lights and shades, the agreements and the differences, than
one who takes a broad view of even one branch of jurisprudence.
For this reason a greater benefit from the study of these articles
may be derived than can usually be gained from the study of
the text-books. What has been said can not, of course, apply
in its full force to articles which string together upon a slight
thread of thought the conclusions of text-writers and judges;
but, even from leading articles of this class, assistance may
often be obtained. The criticisms of cases found in our law
periodicals, although not always just, are sources from which
valuable knowledge may be acquired. When, as often happens,
an error is pointed out, it is done so clearly and so strongly
that the converse of the rule adopted by the judge is so dis-
tinctly perceived that there is little room for mistake. On the
other hand, when it happens, as very often it does, that the
critic is wrong, the right appears in all the stronger light, so
that no great mental vigor is required to attain the true knowl-
edge. But not alone for these reasons should the advocate look
to the magazines, for he will often find in them suggestions
that will lead to a train of thought which will clear away doubt
and perplexity, and light up more than one dark corner. We
are not now, it may not be amiss to remark, referring to the
mere reading of the magazines as they come from the press,
for that, we suppose, will be done for the purpose of keeping
in line with the current legal literature and decisions, but we
are speaking of occasions when the advocate, with his mind
aroused to actual work, is searching for the law of his case.
More lawyers than one, veterans in experience and masters in
rank, have received valuable assistance from the law journals.
§ 77 THE LAW OF THE CASE. 61

§ 77. Statutory law.—Where the rule of law which governs
the case is found in the statute, then, of course, reference must
be made to the statute; but even when the rule is a statutory
one, the advocate’s duty is not done by a mere reading of the
statute. The work of construing a statute is often a very diffi-
cult and perplexing one, for, in statutes, as elsewhere, words
are often uncertain, and their meaning difficult to decipher.
Bacon’s saying, that, ‘“Though we think we govern our words,
yet certain it is that words, as a Tartar’s bow, do shoot back
upon the understanding, and do mightily entangle and pervert
the judgment,’’ is true. It was a saying of Daniel O’Connell
that ‘‘he could drive a coach and six through almost any act
of Parliament.’’? Judge Story framed a statute with great care,
spending six months upon its phraseology, and yet, when called
upon, within less than a year, to interpret it, he was, after
hearing two able lawyers argue the question, unable to give it
a construction entirely satisfactory even to himself.

§ 78. Construction of statutes.—The maxim that ‘‘ He who.
considers merely the letter of an instrument goes but skin deep
into its meaning,’’ applies quite as forcibly to statutes as to
deeds, contracts, or the like. Many things are to be taken into
consideration—the purpose for which the statute was enacted,
the evil it was intended to remedy, the condition of the law at
the time, the common law upon the subject, and other matters
of asimilar nature. Nor is a statute to be considered as an
independent rule of law, but it is to be taken as part of one
great system, and into that system it must be placed with as
little jarring and dislocation of parts as possible.’ The Roman
lawyer wisely said: ‘‘To know the law is not to understand
its words, but to understand its import and purpose.’’?
Hobbes says, that ‘‘All laws, written and unwritten, have need

1 Bishop Written Laws, § 242); Hum- ‘‘as the unlettered use written words,
phries v. Davis, 100 Ind. 274. or as cattle use appearances, for the
? Another thinker says of those who use is one thing and understanding
content themselves with superficial another.”
knowledge for mere use that they act
62 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 79

of interpretation,’’ and he acutely marks the difficulties of cor-
rectly interpreting written laws.!

§ 79. Making law of the case available.—To be available the
law of the case should be condensed into compact mental judg-
ments, and in that form woven into the mind, and not simply
stored up in memory. Principles constitute the law; and, as
Mr. Bishop strongly says, ‘‘The real distinction between a
great lawyer and a small one is that the great lawyer looks be-
yond the cases as they appear on the surface of the reports to
the law of the cases; looks, in other words, beyond the cases
into the law precisely as, in the mechanic arts, the great oper-
ator looks beyond the mere motions which he sees going on in
the machinery into those mechanical laws by which the mo-
tions are controlled, and thus understands how to do the new
things which the demands of his calling present to his atten-
tion.’’? But we are not now so much concerned with what
constitutes the law as with the method of preparing it for use
in the actual contest. Pressing Mr. Bishop’s illustration into
further use, we add that the master mechanic binds into prin-
ciples the mechanical laws, and is thus enabled to remember
and use them when occasion requires.

§ 80. Referring to general principles.—The advice which
the attorney-general gave to Mr. Aubrey is sound and judici-
ous: ‘‘Always have an eye to principles.’’ Warren repre-
sents his attorney-general as saying: ‘‘ Referring everything to
it, resolve thoroughly to understand the smallest details; and
it will be a wonderful assistance in fixing them for practical
use in your mind to learn as much as you can of the reasons
and policy in which they originated.’”’? Rufus Choate was
careful to search for principles, for we find him saying of his
own method of study: ‘‘ My first business is obviously to ap-
prehend the exact point of each new case which I study—to

1 Leviathan, Pt. 2, Chapter. xxvi. who does not do his best to find a
71 Criminal Procedure (1 ed.), § principle to guide him in every case.”
1028. London Law Times.

3“ No lawyer is worthy of the name
§ 81 THE LAW OF THE CASE. 63

apprehend and to enunciate it precisely—neither too largely
nor too narrowly—accurately, justly. This necessarily and per-
petually exercises and trains the mind, and prevents inertness,
dullness of edge. This done, I arrange the new truth, or old
truth, or whatever it be, in a system of legal arrangement, for
which purpose I abide by Blackstone, to which I turn daily,
and which I seek more and more indelibly to impress on my
memory. Then I advance to the question of the law of the
new decision—its conformity with standards of legal truth, with
the statute it interprets, the cases on which it reposes, the
principles by which it was defended by the court—the law—
the question of whether the case is law or not. This leads to
a history of the point, a review of the adjudications, a com-
parison of the judgment and argument with the criteria of legal
truth.’’?

§ 81. Mind must act quickly—Dimly outlined conceptions
scattered through the mind in confusion will be of little service,
if, indeed, of any service at all, on the trial. The virtues of
thought in deliberate investigation are, doubtless, as Sir
William Hamilton says, ‘‘clear thinking, distinct thinking,
and connected thinking;’’? but, in the heat of the contest, |
where the movements must be made quickly and unfalteringly,
two other things are requisite—prompt thinking and decisive
thinking. The principles of law must flash into the mind with
lightning-like rapidity, and the application be made without
an instant’s hesitation. There is no time to turn the matter
over in the mind, for the attention must not wander from the

witness.

1Brown’s Life of Choate, 120. The
sentence last quoted is full of mean-
ing. The mere case lawyer cares
nothing for the history of a principle,
and text-writers often speak only of
the value of modern decisions, forget-
ting that decisions are only evidence
of principles. “The ink of science is
more precious than the blood of mar-

It is a far cry from the quiet of the study to the tur-

tyrs,” and that ink runs in an unruf-
fled current through the channels of
centuries. The masters of the law in
former times studied such works as
“Coke upon Littleton,’’ and acquired
a knowledge of principles by going to
the fountain head. Truly, “there
were giants in those days.”’
? Logic, 47.
64 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 82

moil of the trial. Knowledge that will do well in the one
place will do ill in the other. It was said of old: ‘‘ Your
knowledge of many things does not give you reason or wis-
dom.’’?

§ 82. Practical use of knowledge.—This, certainly, is true
of the advocate: He must have knowledge, and be able to make
practical use of it on the spur of the occasion. It is said of
General Grant that he carefully studied a map of the country
over which his army was to move and his battles to be fought,
' but that he studied it once only, and looked at it never again,
for the first study fixed it in his mind. It is this faculty of
imbedding matters in the mind, ready for instant use, that
makes great soldiers and great advocates: This is best done by
getting the things into the mind in orderly array. Locke says
of the mind: ‘‘ To shorten its way to knowledge and make each
perception more comprehensible it binds them into bundles.”’
The process which the great author describes is the only one
that will certainly secure knowledge that can be effectively used
when occasion demands. Binding the propositions of law into
bundles accomplishes a double purpose—that of making them
thoroughly known, and that of laying them up where they can
be made available without effort. These mental bundles should
contain no rubbish, but should be composed of principles
wrought out by previous thought, and freed from unsound‘ or
hurtful doctrines. These propositions should be not merely
things remembered, but things known. This is the knowledge
that gives real power, and makes the advocate strong when in

the thick of the fight he most

1 As Montaigne says: ‘‘The plead-
er’s business compels him to enter the
lists upon all occasions, and the ob-
jections and replies of his adverse
party often jostle him out of his
course and put him upon the instant
to pump for new and extempore an-
swers and defences.”’

? Heraclitus, the Ephesian.

“‘James,’”’ said the father of the

needs strength.’ It is of this

gifted James T. Brady to his son,
“make your learning practical, for a
bookworm is a mere driveler—a gos-
samer.”’

3 “Dr. Chalmers used to say that in
the dynamics of human affairs two
things are essential to greatness—
power and promptitude.”’ Dr. Brown’s
“Spare Hours.””
§ 83. THE LAW OF THE CASE. 65

that. comes that firm resolution which will enable the advocate
to do his work with something of Luther’s spirit when he said,
“«Here I take my stand.”’

§ 83. Fixing legal principles in memory.—‘‘If,’’ says Du-
gald Stewart, ‘‘we wish to fix the particulars of our knowledge
in our memory, the most effective way of doing it is to refer
them to general principles.’’! This doctrine may be extended
to the acquisition of legal propositions for use on the trial of a
cause, for, by laying down in the mind a general principle, or,
if there are many different phases of the case, a series of gen-
eral principles, and arranging the particular propositions under
the principle governing the class to which they belong, a firm.
grasp is obtained of the law of the case. ‘‘Method may be
called in general the art of disposing well of a series of many
thoughts, either for the discovering of truth when we are ig-
norant of it, or for proving it to others.’’? The art of which
Pascal speaks is the art which the advocate must attain if he
‘would do his work effectually, for without it he can neither ac-
quire nor transmit knowledge otherwise than lamely and im-
perfectly. The advice given long ago is as valuable now as
ever: ‘‘Marshal thy notions into a handsome method. One
will carry twice as much weight trussed and packed up in bun-
dles than when it lies untoward, flapping and hanging about
his shoulders.’’ But it is not enough for the advocate to carry
his weight without its ‘‘ flapping and hanging about his shoul-
ders,’’ for he must carry it so that he can use each bundle ef-
fectively and without confusion when the time comes. A mis-
placed bundle may work almost as much injury as the misplaced
leaf in the book of fate. ‘‘Method,’’ says Mr. Lewis, ‘‘is a
path of transit.’’? Whether this path be rugged or smooth,
crooked or straight, will depend upon the art of the advocate.

1Stewart’s Elements of Phil., Chap.
vi, § 12. Warren’s Law Studies, 334.

2Port Royal Logic, 308.

3History of Philosophy, 718.
“Books,” said Bacon, ‘‘can never
teach the use of books.’’ Another

'

thinker says: ‘‘ Every practical man,
whether he be merchant, mechanic,
farmer or lawyer, transmutes his ex-
perience with intelligence until his
will operates with the celerity of in-
stinct.”” One who can not use his
66 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 84

§ 84. The knowledge needed by the advocate.—‘‘ There is no
science,’’ says John Stuart Mill, ‘‘which will enable a man to
bethink him of what will suit his purpose.’’! To no profession
does this more forcibly apply than to that of the advocate. He
must ‘‘bethink him’”’ of what will suit his purpose, and when
he has bethought himself of this he must ‘‘bethink him’’ how
it should be applied. He must know what he needs, where to
find it, and how to use it when he does find it. Knowledge of
the kind attributed to the clergymen by Mr. Tulliver, when he
said, ‘‘My notion o’ the parsons was as they’d got a sort of
learning as lay mostly out 0’ sight,’’ will do the advocate very
little good. The learning which that hard-headed Englishman
wanted his son to have is much more like that which the ad-
vocate needs; for a knowledge ‘‘that will enable him to see
into things quick, and know what things mean, and how to
wrap things up in words,’’? is of practical value to one whose
contests are in the open day, about real things, and against
hostile forces. Knowledge not simply for the sake of knowl-
edge but for actual practical use is the knowledge that equips
the advocate for his work. ‘‘ Professional skill,’’ says Philip
Gilbert Hammerton, ‘‘is knowledge perfected by practical ap-
plication, and, therefore, has a great intellectual value. Pro-
fessional life is to private individuals what active warfare is to
a military state. It brings to light every deficiency and reveals
our truest needs.’’* Professional skill involves more than’ the
knowledge of books and cases, for it requires that knowledge
with the added requisite of power to use it effectively. With
much of truth, yet not without something of error, the author
we have quoted says: ‘‘I may observe that, to be truly pro-.
fessional it ought to be always at command, and, therefore, that

learning is in much the same situation
that Artemus Ward was in when he
said: ‘‘I have the gift of oratory, but
I haven’t got it with me.”

1 Logic, 208.

2 Mill on the Floss, 23. ‘All the
learning in the world,” says Roger
North, ‘will not set a man up in the

bar practice without a faculty of a
ready utterance of it.”

5 Intellectual Life, 408-411.

*“The acquisition of intellectual
power,”’ it has been said, ‘‘is of more
importance than the acquisition of
knowledge.”
§ 85 THE LAW OF THE CASE. 67

the average power of the man’s intellect, not his rare flashes
of highest intellectual illumination, ought to suffice for it.
Professional work ought always to be plain business; work re-
quiring knowledge and skill, but not any effort of genius.’’!

§ 85. Business work.—The work of preparation, whether
done in gathering the facts or in securing the law, is plain
business work; but, for all that, it requires professional skill
of a high order.2, He who knows how to do that work knows
a great deal. ‘‘It is a great mistake,” says Judge Bald-
win, ‘‘to suppose that a lawyer’s strength lies chiefly in his
tongue; it is in, the preparation of his case, in knowing what
makes the case, in stating the case accurately in the papers,
-and getting out and getting up the proofs. Itrequires a good
lawyer to make a fine argument, but he is a better lawyer who
saves the necessity of a fine argument, and prevents the pos-
sibility of his adversary’s making one.’’*

§ 86. Written notes.—Written notes are well enough if not
made the sole repository of the law. There isa better place
for the law of the case than in written memorandums, and that
place'is the mind of the lawyer. Reliance on what is written
will diminish real power. Authorities, however, may profita-
bly be noted at the time the investigation is made, but the
principles, and the method of applying them, are to be taken
up and retained in the mind. Points may without harm ‘be
put in writing; but if too much is committed to writing, too
much dependence will be placed upon it, and the mind will
not work with the requisite energy and power. Compact, terse,
concise propositions, full enough to arouse the required train
of thought, and enable the mind to reproduce its judgments,
are enough; more than this will, in most cases, doharm. Notes
made when the mind is warmed to its work are freshest and

1Tntellectual Life, 408-411. ing on totrial.’’ Letter of N. P. Rogers,
2It is said of Ezekiel Webster that quoted in Harvey’s ‘‘ Reminiscences
“he did not need to speak much, for of Webster,’ 49.
he generally put his cases into sucha * Flush Times in Alabama, 245.
shape that he got them without com-
68 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 86

strongest. Promptness will give them efficacy; delay will di-
minish it. The method, if clear at the first will be clear through-
out. A confused method at the outset will perplex its framer
until the end. Notes methodically made and orderly arranged
will be valuable, but notes huddled together in disorder and
confusion will be worse than valueless. A method settled at
the start and adhered to throughout will give a clear, strong, dis-
tinct, and connected thought. The prudent and skillful worker
will lay down his road in the beginning, survey his line, and
proceed along it in an orderly way; but the careless and clumsy
worker will begin badly and slovenly, and the further he goes
the greater will be his perplexity and bewilderment.
§ 87.
88.
89.
90.
91.
92.

93.
94,

95.
96.

97.

98.
99.

100.
101.
102.
103.
104.
105.
106.
107.
108.

109.
110.

CHAPTER III.

THE THEORY OF THE CASE.

Definite theory must be adopt-

ed.

Cases lost because of a wrong
theory.

Cases gained on asound theory.

Other illustrative cases.

Necessity of a theory.

Contests of forum likened to
battles.

Definition of theory of the case.

Different uses of word
“theory.”

Meaning of word “theory.”

“ Theory’? means more than
“hypothesis.”

Difference between theory and ,

hypothesis.
Hypothesis—Deduction.
Great lawyers skillful in con-
structing hypotheses.
Hypothesis must be probable.
Fanciful hypotheses.
Definition of hypothesis—Com-
mon use.
Examples of hypotheses.
Value of hypotheses.
Hypotheses necessary in com-
-municating facts and ideas.
Use of imagination in forming
theory.
Imagination aids in forming
hypotheses.
Effective work of advocate in
constructing hypotheses.
Working hypotheses.
Verification of provisional hy-
pothesis.

§111.

112.
1138.

114.

115.
116.

117.
118.

119.
120.
121.
122.

1238.

124,
125.

126.

127.
128.

129.
130.
181.
182.
133.

134.

(69)

Importance of provisional hy-
pothesis in investigating law.

Search for signs.

Untenable hypotheses impair
strength of theory.

Improbable hypotheses impair
force of theory.

Arrangement of facts in theory.

Theory should show natural
relation of facts...

Subsidiary facts.

Principal facts supported by
minor facts.

Theory must inspire belief.

How to secure belief.

Illustrative theories.

Consequences to which theory
leads to be considered.

Theory should be consistent
with experience.

Appeal to experience.

Theory should be clear and
logical.

Matters of law and matters of
fact should be kept separate.

Presumptions.

Use and avoidance of presump-
tions.

Presumptions of fact.

Importance of presumptions.

Defective theories.

Theory should be invulnerable.

Contests of forum likened to
naval engagements.

Nature of work in constructing
theory.
70 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 87

§ 135. Preparation and arrangement §139. Importance of verification of

of details. theory.
136. Verification of theory. 140. Trial court theory prevails on
137. Fallacies to be guarded against. appeal.
138. Inconsistent hypotheses to be 141. Limits of the rule that trial
avoided. court theories continue effec-

tive on appeal.

§ 87. Definite theory must be adopted.—“‘ First of all,’’ says
Quintilian, ‘‘let our method of speaking be settled, for no
journey can be attempted before we know to what place and by

what road we have to go;’’ and so it may be said of preparing
a cause for trial after the materials have been secured, first of
all let the method of conducting the cause be settled, for, adopt-
ing and somewhat expanding Quintilian’s illustration, the road
through the courts will be a rough one, leading, most likely, to
misfortune and defeat, unless a method of conducting the case
be settled and fixed in the mind.’ The first step can not be
safely taken in a case without a settled and certain theory. A
case must be put to trial upon a definite theory; that theory the
pleadings must outline, the evidence sustain, and the law
‘support. Not only is it necessary to frame a theory to secure
a knowledge of the case, but it is indispensably necessary that
it should be contained in the pleadings, for the courts will not
permit an advocate to wander aimlessly about, but will keep
him within the lines fixed by his theory. ‘‘It is essential to:
the formation of the issues, and to the intelligent and just trial
of causes, that a complaint should proceed upon a distinct and
definite theory.’’? It is, therefore, not possible to put a case
in proper condition for trial without having constructed a clear
and definite theory of the case, giving due regard and appro-
priate place to the elements of law and fact. This principle is
recognized in the elementary rules of practice, and notably so
in the familiar rule of evidence that the party must recover

1“The real order of experience be- 13 (16); Markover v. Krauss (Ind.),,
gins by setting up a light and then 17 L. R. A. 806; Illinois, etc., Co. v.
shows the road by it, commencing with Slatton, 54 Ill. 133; Michigan, etc.,
a regulated and digested, not a mis- Co. v. McDonough,'21 Mich. 165, 8. C.
placed and vague course.’”’ Bacon. 4 Am. Rep. 466; Lake Shore, etc., Co.
2 Chicago, etc., Co. v. Bills, 104 Ind. v. Perkins, 25 Mich. 329.
§ 88

THE THEORY OF THE CASE.

71

secundum allegata et probata,! and that the evidence must cor-
respond with the allegations, and be confined to the point in

issue.

§ 88. Cases lost because of a wrong theory.—The courts
have, in express and decisive terms, declared that a cause must
proceed upon a definite theory, and have often denied a re-
covery because a wrong theory was adopted. Thus, in a re-
ported case,” the plaintiff’s cause was lost because the theory
adopted was that the plaintiff might recover at law for money
loaned, while the true theory was that the claim was one that

might be enforced in equity.

In another case’ the theory of

the plaintiff was that he had a right to maintain an action for~
the recovery of specific money, but he met defeat because his
theory was unsound, although upon a sound theory he would

have succeeded. The general rule has been thus stated:

Tt

is an established rule of pleading that a complaint must pro-
ceed on some definite theory, and on that theory the plaintiff

must succeed or not succeed at all.

A complaint can not be

made so elastic as to take form with the varying views of coun-

sel.’’4

A theory of the law of the case radically unsound can

not secure a right result; however strong the facts may be, a
wrong theory of the law will bring ultimate defeat.

§ 89. Cases gained ona sound theory.—The same case may
be gained on a sound theory that would be lost on a bad one.

1Rome Exchange Bank v. Eames,
1 Keyes (N. Y.), 588; Morgan v.
Gaar, Scott & Co., 64 Ind. 213; The
Johnston Harvester Co. v. Bartley, 81
Ind. 406; Thomas »v. Dale, 86 Ind. 435;
Mescall v. Tully, 91 Ind. 96; Cottrell
v. Atna Ins. Co., 97 Ind. 311; City of
Logansport v. Uhl, 99 Ind. 531; Cleve-
land, etc., Ry. Co. v. Wynant, 100
Ind.160; Bremmerman v.Jennings,101
Ind. 253; Hannon v. Hilliard, 101 Ind.
310; Snow v. Indiana, B. & W. Ry.
Co., 109 Ind. 422, S. C. 9 N. E. Rep.
702; John G. Lockwood v. John
_ Quackenbush et al., 83 N. Y. 607; Har-

ris v. Hannibal & St. J. R. Co., 37 Mo.
807; Springfield City R. Co. v. De
Camp, 11 Brad. (Ill.) 475; Waldheir
v. Hannibal & St. J. R. Co., 71 Mo.
514.

2 Kniel v. Egleston, 22 Cent. L. J.
133.

3 Sager v. Blain, 44 N. Y. 445.

4Mescall v. Tully, 91 Ind. 96. See,
‘also, Lockwood v. Quackenbush, 83 N.
Y. 607; Judy v. Gilbert, 77 Ind. 96, 8.
C. 40 Am. Rep. 289; Moorman »v.
Wood, 117 Ind. 144 (147); Feder v.
Field, 117 Ind. 386 (391).
72 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 90

One advocate may take the same facts and secure a verdict,
while another will be unable to frame a theory that can be suc-
cessfully maintained. Mr. Bishop supplies an illustration.!
A case is given by him in which goods were brought into this
country in violation of our revenue laws; they passed the cus-
tom-house officers under a permit genuine in form and signa-
ture, but procured by bribery. Counsel to whom the revenue
officers first applied for advice searched the statutes, and, finding
no provision applying to the particular case, advised that no
prosecution could be maintained. Another counsel took up
the case and secured a verdict. His theory was that the case
was the ordinary one of smuggling, and so he put it to trial.
When the permit was offered it went in evidence, but was as-
sailed and overthrown on the ground of fraud. The mistake
of the counsel first consulted was in framing the theory of the
case. In another case counsel brought an action on a promise
and succeeded, although the statute of limitations was pleaded;
while, on the same facts, the first action brought for the recov-
ery of damages for fraudulent representations was defeated by
the plea of the statute of limitations. Here the result was en-
tirely changed by the theory adopted. In still another case an
action was brought on a promissory note. The defendant
pleaded a discharge in bankruptcy; the plaintiff replied the
general denial and failed, although if he had pleaded that the
debt was a fiduciary one he would have succeeded, as many
others did in cases where the facts were precisely the same in
legal effect. In the one case the theory was wrong, in the
others no mistake was made.

§ 90. Other illustrative cases.—Another class of cases sup-
plies an illustration: A man fell into an excavation in a pub-
lic street made by parties licensed by the municipal corpora-
tion. The theory adopted by counsel was that the corporation
was liable for the negligence of its licensees; but the theory
was unsound? and the plaintiff was defeated. The same facts

1 First Book of the Law, §§ 124-125. 2See Elliott on Roads and Streets,
334,468 469.
§ 91 THE THEORY OF THE CASE. 73

were laid before other counsel; they constructed a theory that
the corporation was liable because it was chargeable with notice
of the dangerous condition of the street,’ and on this theory
tried the case and secured a verdict. But it is not necessary
to multiply examples, for enough have been collected to serve
our immediate purpose, which is to suggest to the advocate the
importance of a sound theory of the law of the case.

§ 91. Necessity of a theory.—A mistake in devising a theory
of the facts is not always fatal, but it does, in every instance,
endanger the cause, and in some instances does lead to defeat.
No case can be well tried upon a bad theory of the facts, and
without a theory it can not be conducted as one deserving the
name of advocate would care to conduct a case. Without a
theory of the facts and the law, there can be neither system
nor certainty in the progress of the case through the courts.?
Some cases are so strong that no blunderer can ruin them, but
such cases are very rare. It is only cases that try themselves
by their own inherent strength that can be won without a
theory of the facts as well as of the law, and in such cases no
advocate is needed.

§ 92. Contests of forum likened to battles.—The contests of
the forum are often likened to battles, and terms and sugges-
tions are often borrowed from the art of war. Frequent use is
made of such terms as the plan of ‘‘ the campaign,”’ the “line
of action,” or ‘‘line of defense.’’ Rufus Choate said of the
advocates who defended Professor Webster, ‘‘ that they should
settle on their certain line of defense.’’? The great advocate
displayed, we may say in passing, a just conception of the true
theory of the defense, and a keen perception of the weakness

18ee Elliott on Roads and Streets,
461.

2‘ Facts may sometimes be explain-
ed by one view as well as another, but
without a theory they are unintelligi-
ble and uncommunicable.’’ Professor
Grove. ‘“‘Nor is it a slight benefit to

know what is needed for the proof ‘of
a point, what is wanting in a theory,
how a theory hangs together, and
what will follow if it be admitted.”
Cardinal Newman.

3 Nelson’s Memoirs of Rufus Choate,
18.
74 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 93

in the one adopted. His judgment was that the theory of the
defense should not have been that the remains found in
the furnace in Webster’s laboratory were not those of Dr.
Parkman, but that the theory should have been so constructed
as to require the government to show whether Parkman came
to his death by visitation of God, or whether the killing was
the result of a sudden quarrel, or was done in self-defense.
Returning from this slight digression, we say that the terms
borrowed from military science are not without relevance and
force, but they are, while expressive and forcible, apt to mis-
lead if the ideas they suggest are too closely followed in the
work of preparingand putting acaseto trial. The term ‘‘theory
of the case’’ is generally used by the courts, and is, perhaps,
as expressive and accurate as any general term can be.

§ 93. Definition of theory of the case.—A theory of the case
is a comprehensive and orderly mental arrangement of princi-
ples and facts, conceived and constructed for the purpose of se-
curing a judgment or adecree of a court in favor of a litigant.
The object sought is the judgment of the court, and the theory
is the means to that end. A theory of a case is more than a
provisional fiction, although it may contain many suppositions
or conjectures; it is more than a plan, although it is a sys-
tematic compendium of details; it is more than a system of
conjectures, although it contains many hypotheses. It is a
mental creation, embodying the principles of action, the scheme
of conduct, gaa the methods of procedure. It is more than a
fiction, for it is amental representation of a real case, conceived
for an actual purpose, and such representations are not fictions,
although they are intangible. It is different from a plan, be-
cause it not only marks out what is to be done but also accounts
for many facts, and places a foundation beneath many princi-

1“ A theory takes a multitude of
facts, all disjointed, or, at most, sus-
pected of some interdependency ; these
it takes and places under strict laws of
relation to each other.’”? DeQuincey.
“In its most proper acceptation theory

means the completed result of philo-
sophical induction, and theory of some
sort is the necessary result of know-
ing anything of a subject.” John
Stuart Mill.
§ 94 THE THEORY OF THE CASE.’ 15

ples. The framer of a theory does, in some degree at least, take
upon himself the dual character of architect and philosopher.
In so far as he devises and marks out a plan, his duties are
those of an architect; while in so far as he accounts for facts,
or supplies hypotheses for the support of principles, his duties
are those of a philosopher.*

§ 94. Different uses of the word “theory.”—The word
‘‘theory ’’ is sometimes used as meaning a mere speculative
scheme, either purely visionary, or framed without any view to
practical use. It is in other cases used to denote a philosophical
explanation of some physical phenomenon, as Wells’ ‘‘ Theory
of Dew,’’ or Tyndal’s ‘‘Theory of Light.’’? In other cases it
is used as signifying an explanation of some moral or ethical
subject, as Adam Smith’s ‘‘Theory of Moral Sentiments,’’ or
‘‘The Theory of Ethics.’’ In still different cases it is used as
meaning the exposition of the principles of a science, as the
‘‘ Theory of Thought,’’ ‘‘ The Theory of Music; ’’ and in other
cases it is used to denote the philosophy of a branch of science,
as ‘The Theory of the Common Law.”’ It is evident that no one
of these definitions, taken in itself, conveys an adequate mean-
ing of the term when used as indicating the scheme, or plan,
of an action at law or a suit in equity. A theory of a case
contains all the elements of the various theories described in
these definitions. It is, however, never a mere speculative '
scheme, although many of the principles of law which enter
into its composition are the products of speculative thought..
The speculation which produces, or discovers, these principles
is guided by analogy, is directed to a certain end, and is under-
taken for a real purpose. Many.of these principles are ob-
tained by inductive investigation; others are deduced from
established maxims and axioms. By whatever method these
principles are obtained, they require development and exposi-
tion. The facts are gathered by observation and from evi-
dence, but their existence and effect are to be accounted for and

1One great obstacle to progress the ignorance or contempt of theory

and improvement has been the neglect in mere practical men.”’ Dr. Rees.
of practice in speculative men, and
76 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 95

extended by hypothesis and inference. The facts which we
obtain from testimony or observation supply the basis for an
inference which often leads to results far beyond the immediate
influence or effect of the observed or proved fact itself, and con-
jecture is often necessary in order that the work of inferring
shall take the proper direction. The proved facts, the inferen-
tial results springing from them, as well as the conjectures as
to the manner and reality of their existence, will be ineffective,
if not unintelligible, unless put into an orderly and systematic
form. There is, therefore, in the theory of a case, a collection
of many and different things resulting in the formation of a
mental structure which has in it some of the qualities of a
plan, many of the characteristics of a scheme, many of the
features of a system; and when fully developed, this structure
becomes an exposition of principles and facts.

§ 95. Meaning of word “theory.”—The word ‘theory ’’ is
very frequently used as signifying the foundation of a rule of
law. Thus it is said: ‘‘The theory of prescription rests upon
the presumption of a past grant.’’ Again, it is said that, ‘the
theory of title by limitation is that the repose of society requires
that long continued possession shall not be disturbed.’’ A Mis-
souri case supplies an illustration of the conflict of rival the-
ories of law. It was said in that case: ‘(The two leading
theories are that, as to her separate estate, the wife is a feme
sole; that she may contract debts, as though unmarried, for the
payment of which her property is holden. Upon this-theory
it can not matter whether the debt be evidenced by a written
instrument or not, if it is established to be her debt. The
other theory is that the grant of a separate estate does not give
the wife a credit based upon it.’’! Another case supplies an
illustration of the use of the word as denoting the rule upon
which decisions were based, the court saying: ‘‘These cases
are based upon the theory that the responsibility of the appel-
lant to the appellee was no greater than it would have been had

1 Miller v. Brown, 47 Mo. 504.
§ 96 THE THEORY OF THE CASE. 77

the latter been a stranger instead of a passenger. This theory
is incorrect.’’!

§ 96. “Theory” means more than “hypothesis.”—The word
‘‘theory ’’ is frequently used where ‘‘ hypothesis ’’ would more
clearly and accurately express the idea intended to be con-
veyed. The terms are not synonymous; for theory means
something of a more permanent and complete character than
the thing denoted by the word ‘‘hypothesis.”’? A lawyer who
should say he had framed a theoretical question for an expert

‘ witness would not convey his real meaning; but if he should
say he had framed an hypothetical question there would be no
uncertainty as to the meaning intended to be conveyed. Where
a supposition or conjecture is made for the purpose of explain-
ing or accounting for a fact, an hypothesis is formed, and
when this becomes settled by investigation and proof, a theory
is constructed, which takes the place of the hypothesis. In
general, however, theory means something more than the ex-
planation of an isolated fact.2, Suppose the case to be that of
a man accused of murder, and that blood-stains are found upon
his garments; the hypothesis of the prosecution would be that
the stains were caused by the blood of the murdered man; and
this would form one of the criminative circumstances adduced
against the accused. The counsel for the prisoner would reject
this hypothesis, and endeavor to frame another and, if pos-
sible, more probable one. His first work would be that of
conjecture, his next that of investigation. If, in the course of
his investigation, he should discover something likely to pro-

1Sherley v. Billings, 8 Bush. (Ky.)
147, 8. C. 8 Am. Rep. 451.

Dr. Wharton says: ‘The facts
are meaningless unless they fit to an
hypothesis.’”’ Mazzini says: ‘The
historian must necessarily have some

ruling characteristics.” At another
place he says: ‘‘ How then can a fact
be rightly viewed and narrated other-
wise than from an eminence domina-
ting alike the cause, the fact and the
aim.’’ The advocate must know the

theory of arrangement, perspective
and expression from which, logically,
he will be guided to a theory of causes.
The cause of every fact is an essential
part of that fact and determines its

fact, he must give it proper position,

‘attribute its existence to the actual

cause, and assign to it due influence
upon the object he aims to accomplish.
78 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 97

duce the stains, as, for instance, that his client had been
slaughtering an ox, he would adopt the hypothesis that the
stains were caused by the blood of that animal. The hypoth-
esis would only account for one of many of the facts of the
case, and it is evident that in such a case as that supposed, as,
indeed, in almost all real cases, there would be many other
facts to be explained or accounted for. There are, therefore,
in every complicated case many hypotheses, and these are to be
gathered up and arranged in an orderly and systematic scheme.

§ 97. Difference between theory and hypothesis. — De-’
Quincey has acutely marked the difference between a theory
and an hypothesis, saying: ‘‘A theory, therefore, may be de-
fined: an organic development to the understanding of the re-
lations between the parts of any systematic whole. But ina
hypothesis it is only one relation which is investigated, viz;
that of dependency. A number of phenomena are given, and
perhaps with no want of orderly relation amongst them, but
as yet they exist without apparent basis or support. The ques-
tion, therefore, is concerning a sufficient ground or cause to
account for them. I, therefore, step in and underlay the phe-
nomena with a sub-structure, or sub-position, such as I think
capable of supporting them. This is a hypothesis. Briefly,
then, in a theory I organize what is certain enough already,
but undetermined in its relations; whereas, in a hypothesis I
assign the causality where it was previously unknown.’’ He
concludes his discussion by affirming that ‘‘ Theory is ordin-
ation; hypothesis is subtraction.’’} .

§ 98. Hypotheses—Deduction.—It is no doubt an important
part of the theory of a case to organize into a systematic com-
pendium the principles of law and matters of fact known to
the advocate, but it is not less important that the hypotheses

1De Quincey’s Writings, Vol. IX, and given, the object is to place below
Houghton, Mifflin & Co. ed. 604. He these phenomena a basis capable of
further says: ‘‘That is properly an supporting them and accounting for
hypothesis where the question is about them.”
a cause, certain phenomena are known
§ 99 THE THEORY OF THE CASE. 79

which, in every complicated case, are necessary to account for
the conclusions of fact essential to success, should have placed
under them a ‘‘sub-structure’’ of minor facts that will make
them appear to be true. These conclusions of fact, which are.
the points that in a great measure control cases, must be so
underlaid that their probability will be so strong as to carry
conviction. The advocate must, as De Quincey says, ‘‘step in’”’
and underlay these conclusions, which are in reality hypoth-
eses, with such a sub-structure as will give them support. The
advocate must, in almost every case, advance beyond the facts
directly established by the evidence. He must deduce conclu-
sions from the facts directly proved, and this is done by fram-
ing hypotheses. They are bridges which carry him across gaps
and chasms which would otherwise-be impassable. It is said
by Uberweg that ‘‘The formation of hypotheses is a means to
scientific investigation as justifiable as indispensable,’’! and
that this is true is proved by the course pursued by those who
have made great discoveries in the physical sciences, as well as
by the practice of those who have been great trial lawyers.

§ 99. Great lawyers skillful in constructing hypotheses.—
Choate’s success was owing quite as much to his acuteness in
constructing hypotheses as to his eloquence. Scarlett, ‘‘the
great verdict-getter,’’ was not an orator, but he was a scientific
framer of hypotheses. It will be evident to one who carefully
studies the jury arguments of Erskine that much of his suc- :
cess was owing to the dexterity with which he framed his hy-
potheses, although his wonderful power as a speaker added
greatly to his success. Take, for instance, his grand defense
of Hadfield, and it will be found that, eloquent as his speech
was, it was the dexterity with which he framed his hypotheses,
quite as much as his arguments, that induced Lord Kenyon to
inform the attorney-general, upon the conclusion of the priso-
ner’s evidence, that ‘‘the case should not be proceeded in.”’
Webster’s conduct of the prosecution and defense of causes
exhibits the same great skill in constructing hypotheses, and

1 Logic, 506.
80 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 100

of this his speeches in the prosecution of John F. Knapp, and
in defense of the Kennistons for the robbery of Major Good-
ridge, supply ample proof. Perhaps no hypothesis was ever
more clearly conceived by any advocate, or more vividly placed
before a jury, than that of Webster as to the manner in which
the murder of Joseph White was committed.

§ 100. Hypotheses must be probable.—The study of the
speeches of great advocates becomes much more interesting and
far more profitable if the reader searches for and grasps the hy-
potheses which the speaker has framed before entering upon
his work; for, to borrow something of Southey’s thought and
language, ‘‘as the beams to a house, as the bones to the micro-
cosm of man,’’ so are the: hypotheses to the speech of the ad- -
vocate. It is said by a German thinker that: ‘‘The intelligent
man is not he who avoids hypotheses, but he who asserts the
most probable, and best knows how to estimate their degree of
probability. What is called certainty in a law case is at bot-
tom only the probability of the hypothesis which refuses to ad-
mit the possibility of error in the mind of the judge.’’! It is
certainly true that the intelligent lawyer is not the one who
avoids hypotheses, for he knows that upon them chiefly rests
his hope of success in all intricate cases. Their force depends
in a great degree upon their probability. Jurors will give lit-
tle heed to improbable hypotheses; but it is not always the bold
hypothesis that is improbable. The circumstances may be such
as make a bold hypothesis the most probable that can be framed.
‘‘But to the most ingenious boldness in the invention of hy- —
potheses there must be united the most cautious accuracy in
testing them. Scientific hypotheses are not assertions which
have been floating in the air and are laid hold of; they are the
result of regular reflection on experiences.’’ The test must be
that of probability and the guide that of experience. Only
such hypotheses as are rational, conform to experience, and are
supported by probability, will stand the rough usage they will
receive in the forum.

1 Uberweg Logic, 507.
§ 101 THE THEORY OF THE CASE. 81

§ 101. Fanciful hypotheses.—Strange or unnatural hypoth-
eses are expedient only in extraordinary cases.1_ In the cases
which ordinarily arise strange or fanciful hypotheses are never
to be framed, for an, ordinary case thus decked out would look
so improbable that success would be impossible. But what-
ever the demands of the case, the cardinal rule is to frame
such hypotheses as shall appear probable. Edgar A. Poe was
very dexterous in framing marvelous hypotheses and giving
them an air of probability; nor was he less skillful in detect-
ing an unsound hypothesis than in constructing natural ones,

‘and a study of some of his productions is, for this reason, if
for no other, instructive and profitable? But, whether the
hypothesis be a strange one or an ordinary one, it must not
be improbable. As Uberweg says, ‘‘The hypothesis is the
more improbable in proportion as it must be propped up by
artificial auxiliary hypotheses. It gains in probability by
simplicity and harmony, or identity with other probable or cer-
tain suppositions.’’?

_§ 102. Definition of hypothesis—Common use.—Hypothesis
precedes theory. ‘‘An hypothesis,’’ according to Mill, ‘is
any explanation which we make, either without evidence, or
on evidence avowéedly insufficient, in order to deduce from it
facts which are known to be real.’’ According to Uberweg :
“‘Hypothesis is the preliminary admission of an uncertain

1 That there are cases in which they
are expedient is proved by the effect
of the theory advanced by Rufus
Choate in Furst’s Case. Brown’s Life
of Choate, 179. Strange and unnatural
things are sometimes done by men,
and occurrences described by writers
of fiction and criticised as improbable
have often been duplicated in actual
life. The bursting of the dam in
Charles Reade’s ‘‘ Put Yourself in His
Place,’’ which was at one time sup-
posed to be impossible, has since been
shown to be probable by a similar oc-
currence in Massachusetts and by the

6

Johnstown disaster. There is much
truth in what Mr. Besant represents
his solicitor as saying: ‘‘ Everything
is possible. Let us not argue possi-
bilities. We have certain facts before
us; by the help of these I shall hope
to find out others.”’

2The Murder in the Rue Morgue is
a striking illustration of Poe’s skill
in making a strange theory seem prob-
able, and the Mystery of Marie Roget
isa femiarkable exhibition of his skill

‘in constructing a natural hypothesis.

3’ Uberweg Logic, 506.
82 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 103

premise, which states what is held to be a cause in order to
test it by its consequences.’’ Men in every day life form hy-
potheses, and often in regard to common occurrences. A
wagon is overturned or.a mill stopped, and the first mental act
of one interested is to form some conjecture as to the cause of
the accident. In commercial life the most successful men are
those who are most sagacious in forming hypotheses. Here,
as elsewhere, probabilities are to be measured, and the results
to be accepted as not only accounting for what is past, but as,
in some degree, predicting what will happen in the future. It
is, therefore, a mistake to suppose that only philosophers and
lawyers make use of hypotheses. It may, indeed, be doubted
whether there is any calling in life in which use is not made
of hypotheses. Mr. Mill has depicted the process which men
habitually pursue, oftentimes without being conscious of their
' own mental operations. ‘‘Let any one watch the manner in
which he himself unravels the complicated mass of evidence;
let him observe how, for instance, he elicits the true history of
any occurrence from the involved statements of one, or of
many, witnesses; he will find that he does not take all of the
items into his mind and attempt to weave them together; he
extemporizes from a few of the particulars a first rude theory
of the mode in which the facts took place, and then looks at
the other statements one by one, to try whether they can be
reconciled with that provisional theory, or what alterations or
additions it requires to make it square with the facts.”’

§ 103. Examples of hypotheses—What Quintilian calls a
conjecture is very much the same thing as that which is now
usually denominated an hypothesis. John Locke’s guess is a
crude hypothesis; as is evident from such passages as: ‘‘ This
appearance of theirs in train, though perhaps it may be some-
times faster and sometimes slower, yet, I guess, varies not
much more in a waking man.’’ The truth is, that all guesses
and conjectures are crude hypotheses, and men are engaged in
forming them who are ignorant of the mental operation. They
are formed to account for things happening every day. The
§ 104 83

THE THEORY OF THE CASE.

carter’s wheel flies off the axle of his cart, and his hypothesis
is that the linch-pin has fallen out. The gardener’s seeds are
dug up and he sees the tracks of chickens, and his hypothesis
is that the mischief was done by them.

§ 104. Value of hypotheses.—The faculty of promptly and
accurately framing an hypothesis that will account for an oc-
currence is one of great value, no matter in what pursuit its
possessor is engaged, but to the philosopher, the physician
and the lawyer it is indispensable. No learning, however
great; no study, however assiduous, will supply its place.
This faculty can be strengthened and improved by exercise.
For proof of this, if proof be needed, we need only instance
the readiness and accuracy with which the experienced phy-
sician frames an hypothesis, accounting for the presence of
the symptoms which he observes in his patient, or the prompt-
ness and certainty with which the thinking mechanic ac-
counts for a defect in a complicated machine. It is not too
much to say that no calling of life requires, as a condition of
success, a higher development of this faculty than does the
profession of the advocate. It is impossible to conceive clearly
the principles of law governing a case without an hypothesis,
and it is not less difficult to understand the facts and compre-
hend their relation and effect without one.

§ 105. Hypotheses are necessary in communicating facts
and ideas.—Hypothesis is not only essential to the aequisition
of adequate ideas by the thinker himself, but it is also essential
to an intelligent communication of them to others.’ Professor

1The eloquent Mazziniin hisreview hypotheses, afterward verified by

of Carlyle’s French Revolution in de-
fending what he calis the ‘‘ Schoo! of
Progressive Movement’? says: ‘In
other countries it has been charged
with being the School of Hypothesis.
If they who bring this charge were to
remember that all the greatest discov-
eries of the human intellect in the
various sciences have originated in

study, how this hypothesis of the life
and progress of humanity may be
traced up to Dante, and illumines the
page of Bacon and how fruitful it al-
ready is of life and movement amongst
all the populations of Europe to-day,
they might perhaps be less hearty in
condemnation.”? The influence and
power of well framed hypotheses is
84 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 106

Grove says:
fact without using the language of theory and we fail. Theory
is involved in all our expressions; the knowledge of by-gone
times is imparted into succeeding times by theoretic conceptions.
As the succeeding knowledge of any particular science develops
itself to our view it becomes more simple, hypotheses, or the
introduction of supposititious views, are more and more dis-
pensed with, words become more directly applicable to the
phenomena, and, losing the hypothetic meaning which they
necessarily possessed at their inception, acquire a secondary
sense, which brings more immediately to our minds the facts
of which they are indices. The hypothesis fades away, and a
theory, more independent of supposition, but still full of gaps,
takes its place.’’

§ 106. Use of imagination in forming theory.—In the pro-
cess of forming a theory we exercise, not only the understand-
ing, but also the imagination. It is impossible for an observ-
‘ing or reflecting man to pass one day in the ordinary business
of life without having made some use of the representative fac-
ulty. Imagination is commonly supposed to be opposed to
the useful aud practical; but this, like many other theories, is,
as it is easy to prove, altogether erroneous. We do use the
imagination in the most matter of fact affairs in life, and in
the driest and most abstruse sciences.?
declares that it is essential to the successful cultivation of every
scientific pursuit, and that ‘‘it may well be doubted whether
Aristotle did not possess as powerful an imagination as
Homer.’ Sir Benjamin Brodie says that when controlled by
experience ‘‘it becomes the noblest attribute of man, the source

felt in such great works as Freeman’s called them, is, that they are gifted

‘Let us use our utmost effort to communicate a

Sir William Hamilton.

Comparative Politics, and Taylor’s
Origin and Growth of the English
Constitution, as well as in the inven-
tions and discoveries in the science of
physics and in the mechanical arts.
1We are not unmindful that the
popular view of the lawyers, the ‘‘ sons
of Zeruiah,” as Cromwell’s Puritans

with imaginations entirely too fertile;
but we beg leave to explain that the
imagination which we commend isthe
scientific imagination, which seeks
images of truth, and not their counter:
feit presentment.

? Lectures on Logic, 426.
§ 107 | THE THEORY OF THE CASE. 85

of poetic genius and the instrument of discovery in science.”’
Prof. Tyndal, in his lecture on the ‘‘Scientific Use of the
Imagination,’’ } affirms that it is one of the most important of
all the faculties in the investigation of scientific truths, and
beautifully says: ‘‘In the dim twilight of conjecture the
searcher welcomes every gleam, and seeks to augment his light
by indirect incidences.’’ Professor Washburne, in speaking of
the imagination, says, that by it the lawyer ‘‘is often able to
guess out and anticipate what he has to meet in his adversary’s
case, and thus forestall the effect of what he is to bring against
him by being prepared to counteract it.’’? We think that Pro-
fessor Washburne limits the use and office of the imagination
entirely too much. Itis, it seems to us, as essential in framing
hypotheses to support the advocate’s own case as it is in ascer-
taining what his adversary will likely bring against him. It
supplies the means of advancing from the direct evidence to
the ultimate facts; it supplies the light which discloses the road
that leads to a successful termination of the investigation. But
for this faculty progress would sometimes be impossible. An
investigation pursued in darkness can only result in obscurity
and doubt. If the investigator can vividly imagine the object
he seeks to reach, and the road to it, he is much more likely
to reach it than if he stumbles on without any definite end
in view. ‘‘Be our business in life however prosaic,’’ says
Bulwer, ‘‘we shall not attain any eminent success if we despise
the clairvoyance which imagination alone bestows. No man
can think justly but what he is compelled to imagine; that is,
his thoughts must come before him in images. Every thought
not distinctly imaged is imperfect and abortive.’’ 3

§ 107. Imagination aids in forming hypotheses.—Quintilian
says that, ‘‘In regard, then, to everything that is done, the
question is either why, or when, or in what manner, or by what
means it was done,’’ and these questions are not always an-

' Fragments of Science, 127. 8 Caxtonia, 49.
2 Lectures on the Study and Prac-
tice of Law, 10.
86 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 108

swered by the information which the advocate secures at the com-
mencement of his work. Where there is evidence bearing up-
on all of these questions the answers are there found, but it is
seldom that the direct evidence furnishes answers to all the
material questions that arise in the cause—sometimes indeed,
not to any of them—so that the only course open to the investi-
gator is that of conjecture, and in that process imagination is
a most potent instrument. It advances answers which, if not
always correct, at least open and light the way to an intelligent
investigation. It may be that the understanding will reject
the answers at first suggested by the imagination, but, if so,
repeated attempts will be made until some answer is suggested
that will receive a favorable judgment. If it were not for the
materials presented to the mind by the imagination there would,
in many cases, be nothing upon which the understanding could
work. The imagination presents, it may be, various hypotheses
or conjectures; these the mind tests, rejecting those it judges
untenable, and accepting those it judges reasonable. If it were
not for these conjectures no real progress toward explaining or
accounting for a transaction involved in obscurity or mystery
could be made. The really great advocates employ the imagi-
nation quite as much in the work of securing materials for the
construction of probable hypotheses as in embellishing their
addresses. This is true of the most brilliant and eloquent of
the great trial lawyers, and the study of their addresses is much
more valuable when directed to a discovery of their use of the
imagination in constructing hypotheses than when directed
merely to their graces of diction.

§ 108. Effective work of advocates in constructing hypoth-
eses.—The most effective work done by the advocate is in
constructing hypotheses that will lead to a favorable decision,
for it is true that in by far the greater number of cases it is
not the beauty of diction nor the wealth of imagery that wins
the contest, but the skillfully framed hypotheses. Take, for
example, the brilliant Sargent S. Prentiss and analyze one of
his most ornate addresses, that in behalf of Wilkinson, and it
£

§ 109 THE THEORY OF THE CASE. 87

will be found that he used his imagination quite as much in
framing hypotheses as in ornamenting his address. He out-
lines his principal hypothesis at the outset, and concludes his
discussion of it by saying: ‘‘I have exhibited to you an al-
most countless variety of circumstances, the occurrence of
which, or any great portion of them, is aheolubdly incompati-
ble with any hypothesis other than that of the conspiracy which
at the outset I proposed to prove. Upon that hypothesis all
these circumstances are easily explicable, and in accordance
with the ordinary principles of human action.’’ Take an ad-
vocate of another class, for instances, Charles Phillips. He
was not lacking in imagination, but it was not one valuable to
the lawyer, and his speeches, being destitute of hypotheses,
are little more than: empty words expressing no thoughts.
They seem like a tawdry suit of clothes upon a lifeless body.

§ 109. Working hypotheses.—Provisional or working hy-
-potheses are valuable in prosecuting an investigation ‘In
the course of a research many suppositions are made, and re-
jected or admitted according to the evidence.’ We know, for
instance, that a man was found mangled and dead on a rail-
road track, and that he was seen a few minutes before his
death in a violent altercation with an enemy. If we knew no
more, our provisional hypothesis would be that he entered on
the track and was killed by a passing train; for we would have
no right to presume'that hisenemy slew him. If, however, we
should find that he had been killed by a pistol ball, then our
provisional hypothesis would be that his enemy had killed him.
But if, pressing the investigation further, we should discover
that his money and watch had been taken, and should also find
them in the possession of a stranger who sould give no account
of his possession, our previous provisional hypothesis would
be rejected, and we should conclude that the stranger was the
murderer.

§ 110. Verification of provisional hypothesis —A working
hypothesis can not be allowed to take a place in the theory

a 1 Bain’s Logic, 327.
88 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 111

until it has been tested. It will often happen that many pro-
visional hypotheses will fall before a vigorous test. If the hy-
pothesis does not stand the test it must be rejected, although
it may have been a favorite one. A source of error in all in-
vestigation is the tenacity with which men cling to a theory or
hypothesis of their own construction. The reports furnish
many instances where cases have been lost because counsel
could not, or would not, throw aside a favorite hypothesis.
In a practical science like the law there is little tolerance of
fanciful hypotheses, and only such as will stand the severest
test will be accepted by the courts. It is no doubt painful to
yield an hypothesis born of careful study, but when the facts,
as they develop, disclose its unsoundness it must be cast aside.
It is not wise to attempt to make the facts bend to a provisional
hypothesis, unless it is the only one which will avail. When
this is the case, then the facts must, if possible, be molded to
fit the hypothesis.

§ 111. Importance of provisional hypothesis in investigat-
ing law.—The provisional or working hypothesis is an im-
portant factor in investigating matters of law as well as matters
of fact. Investigation of the law of a case can only be suc-
cessfully prosecuted—except when some lucky accident inter-
venes'—where the mind of the investigator is governed by
some definite purpose and seeks to attain a definite object: If
the searcher, at the outset, frames a provisional hypothesis,
and then sets out to find authority to support it, he will have
a guide throughout his exploration. He will certainly reach
one of two results, for he will discover that his provisional hy-
pothesis is or is not the correct one. Even if he acquires no
other knowledge than that his hypothesis is invalid, this knowl-
edge will have the merit of distinctness, if it has none other.
But it is most likely to point to the true hypothesis. Suppose,
for example, the facts of the case to be these: The defendant
orally promised the plaintiff to indemnify him against loss if

1 Lucky accidents or conjectures are never merely luck—there is always

rare in law suits. ‘‘Depend upon it,’’ some talent in it.”
says Miss Austen, ‘‘a lucky guess is
§ 112 THE THEORY OF THE CASE. 89

he would undertake as surety on the bail bond of John Doe.
Suppose the hypothesis provisionally assumed to be: This ver-
bal contract is within the statute of frauds and is not enforce-
able. In testing the hypothesis it will be found incorrect;! but
an important step of progress has been made, for we have as-
certained that the hypothesis is not sound, and therefore, upon
a plain, logical rule, conclude that the contradictory hypothesis
is the true one. Take another and somewhat more complex
example: The defendant leased to Richard Roe a building.
Roe sub-leased it to John Doe. The building was negligently
suffered to get so much out of repair as to be unsafe, and the
plaintiff, in going to a public entertainment held in the build-
ing, stepped into a hole and was injured. Here the question
of law would be as to the party liable. If the working hy-
pothesis be that the defendant is liable, it would be unsound
because the tenant, and not the landlord, would be liable.? But
although the provisional hypothesis is erroneous, still it is of
great practical benefit, because it brings out into a clear light
one of the great questions in the case, and thus leads to the
discovery of the governing principle, which is the true hy-
pothesis that is to be incorporated in the theory of the case.?
In truth, every proposition of law is at the first a mere un-
proved or provisional hypothesis. It is not always necessary
to refer to books to prove it, for it is proved, and sometimes
without conscious effort, by reference to principles laid away
in the mind. Until verified, it is nevertheless a mere suppo-
sition, not entitled to be placed in the theory of the case. As
long as it stands as a mere unproved assumption it is unsafe
to attempt to advance or to depend upon it.

§ 112. Search for signs.—Hobbes quaintly says: ‘‘The best
prophet is naturally the best guesser, and the best guesser he
that is most versed and studied in the matter he guesses at, for
he hath the most signs to guess by.’ The more signs the in-

1 Wood on Frauds, 289; Anderson v. 3 Quintilian supplies an example of
Spence, 72 Ind. 315. the use of hypothesis. Inst. Bk. V,
2 Ryan v. Wilson, 87 N. Y. 471,8.C. Chap. x.
41 Am. Rep. 384; Cole v. McKey, 66 ‘The Leviathan, Pt. I, p. 11.
Wis. 500, 8. C. 67 Am. Rep. 298.
90 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 113

vestigator discovers the swifter his conjectures, and the sounder
his hypotheses. Not only is this search for signs of great ben-
efit in the preparation of the case, but it is also of great as-
sistance in the trial, for it arouses attention to the points in the
case, and enables the mind to instantly perceive and grasp all
the favorable facts developed in the progress of the trial. One
who has thought intently upon a matter, and has sought dili-
gently for signs to enable him to discover the true solution of
a difficulty, will catch and apply facts that another would pass
almost unnoticed. This is strikingly illustrated in the case of
inventors; they frame some hypothesis, perhaps an erroneous
one, and in the course of their experiments carefully seize and
apply each important fact, which one whose mind had not been
thus prepared would not observe. The Commissioner of Pat-
ents supplies an apt example in his description of Goodyear’s
discovery: ‘‘ In one of those animated conversations so habitual
to him, in reference to his experiments, a piece of India rub-
ber, combined with sulphur, which he held in his hand as the
text of all his discourses, was, by a violent gesture, thrown
into a burning stove near where he was standing. When taken
out, after having been subjected to a high degree of heat, he
saw—what it may be safely affirmed would have escaped the
notice of all others—that a complete transformation, and that
an entirely new product, since so felicitously termed ‘ new
metal ’ was the consequence.”’ .

§ 118. Untenable hypotheses impair strength of theory.—
It greatly impairs the strength of the theory of the case if im-
probable or untenable hypotheses are incorporated in it. The
evil result does not end with the overthrow of the untenable
hypothesis; it extends much further. Jurors are very apt to
imagine that if there is one worthless hypothesis there must be
many more; for men usually conclude that errors, like evil
things, ‘‘do mostly travel in great companies.’’ Logically, the
overthrow of an hypothesis ought not to extend beyond the
point directly affected, but jurors do not always adhere to logical
rules; on the contrary, if they perceive error on one point they
§ 114 THE THEORY OF THE CASE. 91

generally extend it to many. It is much better, therefore, to
have a few natural and probable hypotheses than many prob-
able ones and someimprobable ones. The mind of the investi-
gator himself is likely to be led astray by one improbable hy-
pothesis, although it be in a train with many valid ones, and
for his own safety in preparing his case it is necessary to sep-
arately test and verify each hypothesis. If this is not done
the whole fabric may beimperiled. ‘‘One devious step,’’ says
Richardson, ‘at first setting out frequently leads a person in-
to a wilderness of error.’’

§ 114. Improbable hypotheses impair force of theory.—A
mere fanciful theory of the case, however artfully constructed,
is not a good one, for such a theory will lack the essential ele-
ment of probability. A theory containing many improbable
hypotheses is a bad one. Certainty is not required, but there
must be probability. Lord Mansfield said, in delivering one
of his judgments: ‘‘It is an undoubted truth that judges, in
forming their opinions of events and in deciding upon the
truth or falsehood of controverted facts, must be guided by the
rules of probability; and as mathematical or absolute certainty
is seldom to be attained in human affairs, reason and public
utility require that judges and all mankind in forming their
opinions of the truth of facts should be regulated by the superior
number of probabilities on the one side or the other.’’?

§.115. Arrangement of facts in theory.—The probability of
a theory depends upon the details almost as much as upon its
general frame, for one improbable circumstance may break
down the whole structure. The skillful selection and arrange-
ment of details, so that one shall naturally seem to follow an-
other, and all unite in establishing one central conclusion,
makes a theory impregnable. It is, therefore, of no little im-
portance that the facts be made to follow in natural order; that
is, as if the one naturally resulted from the other without ex-
trinsic aid. In this order they must be lodged in the mind of

1Theory of Presumptive Proof, 62; Burrill’s Circumstantial Ev., 23;
City v. Hudnut, 112 Ind. 542-557.
92 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 116

the advocate, so that when they emerge in the course of the
development of the theory they shall appear to grow out of
each other without the appearance of having been brought to-
gether by a preconceived plan. As the facts come out in evi-
dence so will they find lodgment in the minds of the jurors,
and if they grow out of each other they will take form there as
compact and strong asa ‘‘ Roman legion.’’ If jurors are com-
pelled to collect together disconnected facts and arrange them
in their minds, they will get obscure and confused ideas and
will lose sight of many important facts, as well as entirely fail
to recognize the relation existing between a series of facts.

§ 116. Theory should show natural relation of facts.—It is
scarcely less important that the relation between facts be kept
prominently in view than that the facts themselves. be made
conspicuous, for relation adds strength, and often makes facts
convincing by the probability with which it clothes them. It
is not to be expected that jurors in the swiftly passing hours of
a trial can establish the relation between facts. To do this
work skillfully and well requires careful deliberation and a
disciplined mind. The relation between a series of facts, and
its importance, will be quickly apprehended when pointed out;
but it sometimes requires a keen vision to, clearly note the re-
lation and justly point it out. The probability of a theory is
the great end to be attained, and one of the chief things in
clothing it’with probability is that of clearly and strongly es-
tablishing a natural relation between the facts, and of unfold-
ing them to the jury so that they may perceive that one grows
out of another, as though their development could take place
in no other way.

§117. Subsidiary facts—It is seldom that a case arises in
which the relation between a series of facts is not one of the
most important elements in establishing probability; but there
may be cases where a single fact rules and decides the contro-
versy, and in such a case all that is needed is to make that fact
so conspicuous that it can not be overlooked, so that the simpler
§ 118 THE THEORY OF THE CASE. 93

the theory the better. The instances are few in which there is
no necessity for establishing and developing a relation between
the facts in order to make the theory probable. Error is not
unfrequently committed in assuming that one or two material
facts so fully control the case as to need no aid from subsidiary
facts, and to avoid this error it is necessary to carefully con-
sider the probable effect of these facts as well as the force of
facts that will probably be brought against them. It is natural,
‘for instance, to assume that one seen with a pistol in his hand
near the dead body of a person slain by a pistol shot is the
murderer, and yet it would be hazardous to depend on that cir-
cumstance alone, for it might be explained on many hypoth-
eses; butif to that circumstance be added evidence of previous
threats on the part of the accused, or evidence that he bore a
grudge against the deceased, the guilt would be so probable as
to. render conviction certain. This is a very simple case, de-
void of all complexity, and yet it illustrates (what, indeed, is
so plain as to scarcely need illustration) the importance of se-
curing subsidiary facts, and so, arranging them that their rela-
tion shall clearly appear, that it shall seem the only natural
one, and that it shall so bind the series of facts together that
they will constitute a line leading to the desired conclusion.

§ 118. Principal facts supported by minor facts.—It will be
found that by far the greater number of cases are complex,
' composed of principal facts surrounded by minor ones, and
that the strength of the case depends, not so much upon these
principal facts alone, as upon the support given them by the
probabilities created by establishing and developing the rela-
tion of the minor facts. It is not possible to accurately deter-
mine the relation between facts without looking at them from
opposite sides, for it very often happens that contestants will
claim with plausibility that the relation of the minor fact is
such as to support their respective contentions. It is often
claimed for the defense in criminal trials that the malig-
nity of the homicide shows insanity, while on the part of the
State the same fact is relied on as establishing one of the prin-
94 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. §119 |

cipal elements of the crime, and the fact establishes one or the
other of these hypotheses according to its relation to the other
facts. Thus, if it should appear that the previous relations
between the slayer and the slain were those of love and affec-
tion, the ferocity of the crime would tend in a strong degree to
establish the probability of the hypothesis of the defense; but,
if it should appear that hatred and ill-will existed, then the
ferocity manifested in the manner of committing the homicide
would strongly tend to support the hypothesis of the prosecu-
tion. The illustration given is a simple one, but in practice
few such simple cases are encountered, for, in the great ma-
jority of cases, the facts are complex, the gaps unfilled by pos-
itive testimony are numerous, and the details spread over a
great field, so that no probable theory can be formed without
carefully establishing and developing a natural sequence be-
tween the facts.

~ §119. Theory must inspire belief—The validity and value
of a theory depend upon its power to inspire a belief that it is
true, for what creates a belief of truth is accepted as a satis-
factory solution of the controverted questions of fact in the
contests of the forum. Belief, in matters of law, is conviction,
since demonstration can not be attained. What men thoroughly
believe they accept as true. A theory which so strongly com-
mends itself to the judgment of men as to create a strong be-
lief of its truth is the path to success. Knowledge in all
matters not susceptible of demonstration is, at bottom, belief.
Men think, and not unreasonably, that they have attained
knowledge, when they have, in fact, attained a settled belief.
The child does not doubt its mother’s love, and yet no higher
certainty of its existence can be attained than a belief that it
exists. Dr. McCosh has some very sound observations upon
this subject, and supplies this apt quotation from Goethe: ‘‘I
receive mathematics as the most useful and sublime science as
long as they are applied in their proper place, but I can not
commend the misuse of them in matters which do not belong
to their sphere, and in which, noble science as they are, they
§120 - THE THEORY OF THE CASE. 95

seem to be mere nonsense; as if, forsooth, things only exist
when they can be mathematically demonstrated. It would be
foolish for a man not to believe in his mistress’ love because
she could not prove itto him mathematically. She can mathe-
matically prove her dowry, but not her love.’’!

§ 120: How to secure belief.—If the hypotheses which form
part of the theory, and the evidence on which they rest, are
such as awaken a firm and. decided belief, there is conviction.
To secure this belief in the right and justice of his client’s cause
is the leading purpose of the skillful advocate, and this purpose
leads him to so construct his theory that men will believe it.
This is done by making it appear that the jurors, had they
been in the situation of the witnesses, would have seen what they
saw, would have testified as they testified, and would have
acted as the parties are represented to have acted. ‘‘ As in
water face answereth to face, so the heart of man to man,”’ says
the proverb; and men believe what they suppose it likely they
would themselves have said or done, but reject that which it

seems to them they would not have done had they been situated
’ asthe parties were,and have been of like character and disposition.
If the jurors are convinced that a man is wicked, then they are
ready to believe that he has done a wicked deed; but if they are
convinced that he is good, they are slow to believe evil of him.
This is one great reason why character is so often of importance
to a person accused of crime; and it is for this reason that the
witness whose demeanor shows him to be honest so often carries
conviction to the minds ofthe jurors as against many witnesses.

§ 121. Illustrative theories.—A theory which is unbelieva-
ble is a bad one. Of such a theory, Bacon supplies an apt and
an amusing example in the story of the thief who averred,
‘That passing over several grounds about his lawful occasions,
he was pursued close by a fierce mastiff dog, and so was forced
to save himself by leaping over a hedge, which, being of an
agile body, he effected; and in leaping, a mare standing on the
other side of the hedge, he leaped upon her back, who running

1 Logic, 101.
96 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 121

furiously away with him, he could not by any means. stop her
until the next town, in which town the owner of the mare lived,
and there he was taken and arraigned.’’ The theory framed
by Dickens’ great criminal lawyer, Jaggers, in defense of the
woman who afterward became his housekeeper, is an example
of one that men would readily believe true, because consistent
with experience.! A very ingenious and.well-constructed theory
is that of DeQuincey in behalf of Judas Iscariot. Itis, indeed,
a marvelous exhibition of skill in constructing and maintain-
ing a theory that goes far to secure belief, although based up-
on a very slender foundation of fact.” The theory of the de-
fense in the Webster case is an example of one lacking the
virtue of probability. In that case the principal hypothesis,
and the one which really constituted the theory of the defense,
was, that Dr. Parkman was killed after leaving the medical
college, by some person unknown to the prosecutor or the de-
fendant, and his body carried into the rooms occupied by Web-
ster, and there disposed of and concealed. This was in itself
a highly improbable theory, and when. applied to the facts de:
veloped by the evidence its improbability was greatly increased.
A far more probable theory for the defense was that suggested
by Choate, which we have already stated. The theory adopted
by the prosecution was much more probable, and was simple
and natural in its construction and development. That theory
was that the deceased, between two known hours of a designated
day, entered the lecture rooms of Professor Webster; that there
was an interview between the two men; that Parkman never
left the rooms alive; that the parties never separated; that Park-
man was then and there slain, the remains disposed of by
Webster, and by him kept concealed until their discovery the

1Great Expectations, Chap. xviii.
2 Works of DeQuincey, Vol. VIII, p.

John surprisingly strong. Its rich
vein of humor detracts somewhat, of

223. Another admirable piece of work
is that of Mr. Birrell in his defense of
Falstaff. The essay to which we refer
will bear close study, for its hypotheses
are ingenious, its use of details is adroit
and its array of facts favorable to Sir

course, from its effectiveness as a de-
fense of a man of many infirmities,
but it does not conceal the ingenuity
of the hypotheses, nor the keenness of
the analysis. Obiter Dicta, 200.
§ 122 « THE THEORY OF THE CASE. 97

week after the murder.’ Cicero’s theory of Milo’s defense pos-
sesses in a high degree the virtue of probability, and had it been
‘developed to the judges Milo would most likely have been ac-
quitted. The theory of the defense in the case of Mrs. Wharton,
indicted for the murder, by ‘administering poison, of General
Ketchum, was that he died from the effects of laudanum with
which he secretly dosed himself; and.so probable seemed this
theory to the jury that it did much to secure a verdict of ac-
quittal, although subsequent developments in medical science
tend strongly to show that neither the hypothesis of the prose-
cution nor that of the defense was the correct one, but that
death resulted from a disease then comparatively unknown to
the physicians of that part of the country.

§ 122. Consequences to which theory leads to be consid-
ered.—The consequences to which a theory will lead is a mat-
ter for careful thought, for it is unquestionably true that jurors
-are more often controlled by their judgment of the consequences
to which a course of action will lead than by any other one
thing. Jurors care little for consistency or for logic in com-
parison with consequences which seem to them to be evil, and
they will be slow to follow any line that appears to them to
lead to bad results, but quick to follow one that seems to lead
to good results. They may not always take a just view of con-
sequences; they do, indeed, often go astray in this particular,
but they always keep a keen eye upon the probable conse-
quences of a verdict. Nor do courts refuse to look to conse-
quences. Thus, in one case it was said: ‘‘ Let us test the
principle now involved by a more extreme case than the -one
before us, but which will be expertmentum crucis. If we can
show that a principle logically carried out leads to an absurdity,
it is conclusive against it.’’? Chief Justice Taney, in’ the
course of one of his opinions, uses this language: ‘‘And what
would be the results of this doctrine of implied contracts on the
part of the states, and of property in a line of travel by a cor-

1 Bemis’ Report of Professor .Web- 7? Palairet’s Appeal, 67 Pa. St. 479,
ster’s Trigl, 287, 288. S. C.5 Am. Rep. 450.
98 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 123

poration, if it should now be sanctioned by this court? To

_what results would it lead us?’’! It is, indeed, one of the fun-
damental maxims of jurisprudence that, ‘‘An argument drawn
from inconvenience is forcible in law.’’? Judge Holmes presses
this principle very far, for he says: ‘‘The life of the law has
not been logic, but has been experience.’’? If judges yield so
much to experience, it can not be doubted that it will sway
jurors, who care little for abstract principles and less for pre-
cedents.

§ 123. Theory should be consistent with experience.—Jurors
yield to their own experience rather than to the views of other
men. They will often construct for themselves theories irre-
spective of the law as charged by the court. They will fre-
quently be guided only by their experience in determining
what the result of their verdict is likely to be, and they will
reluctantly follow any other guide, if, indeed, they will follow
it at all. This consideration is.one that should control in no
small degree the construction of the theory upon which counsel
place the cause of their client. If the mental characteristics of
the jurors can be ascertained in advance, it is prudent, as far
as possible, to mold the theory to them; but as this can seldom
be done, it is necessary to secure such a jury as will readily
appreciate and adopt the theory constructed. By the term
‘‘experience’’ we do not mean actual knowledge derived from
things really known to the jury, but knowledge resulting from.
their habits of thought and course of life. Archbishop Whately
says of the word ‘‘experience’’: ‘‘The word, in its strict:
sense, applies to what has occurred within a person’s own
knowledge. Experience in this sense relates to the past alone.
Thus it is that a man knows by experience what sufferings he
has undergone in some disease. More frequently the word is
1Charles River Bridge v. Warren *°*Common Law, 1.
Bridge, 11 Peters, 420; Lake Shore - *‘‘How else,” says Sir Arthur
& Mich. So. Ry. Co. v.Cin., W. & M. Helps, ‘‘is knowledge to be acquired,
Ry. Co., 116 Ind. 578. unless by making men such as gods,

* Broom’s Legal Maxims, 184; Ram’s enabling them to understand without

Legal Judgments, 113; The Illinois, experience?”
etc., Co. v. Fix, 53 Il. 181.
§ 124 THE THEORY OF THE CASE. ‘99

used to denote that judgment which is derived from experience
in the primary sense, by reasoning from that in common with
other data. Thus, a man may assert on the ground of experi-
ence that he was cured of a disorder by such a medicine, that
that medicine is generally beneficial in that disorder. It is in
this sense only that experience can be applied to the future, or,
which comes to the same thing, to any general fact, e. g., when
it is said that we know by experience that water exposed to a
certain temperature will freeze.’’! It is on this experience that
many of the distinctions and many of the rules of law are
founded, and the verdicts of juries almost always based.
Judge Holmes says: ‘‘ The distinctions of the law are founded
on experience, not on logic. It, therefore, does not make the
dealings of men dependent on mathematical certainty.’??

§ 124. Appeal to experience.—lIt is possible that the learned
author carries his doctrines somewhat too far, but it is unde-
niably true that experience is a chief factor in all legal con-
tests. There are, indeed, many cases where the controversy is
left almost entirely to be determined by the experience of the
triers. In matters of law, the experience which is to be ac-
cepted as the rule of conduct can not be that of the individual
judge, but it must be that found in the declarations of the Leg-
islature, the decisions of the courts, and the books of writers
of acknowledged authority. The earlier English judges were
much more under the influence of Aristotle and his followers,
the schoolmen, who narrowed his doctrines and dwarfed his
principles, than the modern judges, and the consequence is
that they often sacrificed substantial rights to subtle and sense-
less distinctions.’ The law has been broadened and liberalized
by the practical thinkers who have been influenced more by the
teachings of experience than by the formal logic of the school-
men. But, after all, the experience which guides judges is,

a Whately’s Logic, Appendix V. of asystem of jurisprudence composed
? Common Law, 312. of particular instances and destitute
3 Holmes Common Law, 56, 147,149, of fixed principles. Ancient Law, 76.
152, 157, 158, 162. 5 De Laudibus Legum Angle, 7, note

‘Mr. Mayne clearly shows the evils of Mr. Amos.
100 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 125

for the most part, that transmitted to them from the past, and it
is well that it is so, since men often imagine that they are taught
by their experience when, in fact, they are influenced by very
different causes. While this is true, yet an appeal to experience
is almost always a strong one in forensic disputes.

§ 125. Theory should be clear and logical.—The theory of a
case should be clear and harmonious, for if there is obscurity
and conflict it can neither be effectively developed nor strongly
presented to the triers of the cause. Clearness is secured by a
just method of arrangement, giving to each particular fact and
principle of law the prominence which its importance merits,
and preventing it from being obscured or hidden by other facts
or principles. Facts must not be jumbled together in disorder,
one left lying over in the way of another; nor must principles
of law be thrown together in a mere huddle. The theory should
be so arranged that the facts and principles may be marshaled
in logical order, and their development be not unlike the march
of.a column of well-disciplined soldiers. <A straggling, dis-
jointed theory is as little likely to prevail as a force of strag-
glers matched against a body of disciplined troops. There are,
as we have already suggested, two principal elements in all
well constructed theories, the law and the facts, and in the con-
struction of the theory these must be kept separate, yet so ar-
ranged as to form parts of one harmonious system. The modes
of trying questions of law and questions of fact are different,
and the mode of presenting them is also essentially different,
so that if they are jumbled together confusion is produced.
Where there is confusion there is almost always weakness, al-
though there are cases where some of the weak places may be
concealed by confusing the surroundings; and there are other
cases where the strong points of an adversary may be parried
by obscuring them. It is, however, the safest general rule to
keep the interdependent parts of law and facts from so blend-
ing as to prevent their clear perception and just use. If this
is not done, the theory will not be a safe one, and diffi-
§ 126 j THE THEORY OF THE CASE. 101

culties will be encountered at every important step in the prog-
ress of the cause.?

§ 126. Matters of law and matters of fact should be kept
separate.—The confusion of matters of law with matters of fact
interferes with the work of arraying and introducing evidence,
makes it difficult to properly prepare instructions, and very
greatly embarrasses the advocate in presenting his case in ar-
gument. Cases, as the books show, are often lost by a failure
to so separate the two elements of law and fact that the one can
be clearly presented to the court, and the other to the jury. It
is, indeed, not always easy to discriminate matters of law from
matters of fact, but it is a work which must be done, and well
done, or no adequate and sound theory can be constructed. —

§ 127. Presumptions.—Presumptions are important factors
in forensic contests, and the theory of the case can not be well
constructed without giving due weight and place to presump-
tions, both of law and of fact. Presumptions of law are, of
course, of much wider sweep than presumptions of fact, and
are, in effect, rules of law requiring that from particular facts
particular inferences shall be made. ‘These presumptions con-
fine the inference to a designated conclusion, and neither the
court nor the jury will be allowed to disregard them.? They
generally have the force and effect of a prima facie case;* but
they will not always supply proof of a substantive fact,‘ and a
presumption can not be based upon a presumption.’

§ 128. Use and avoidance of presumptions.—It is not very
difficult for one who has a full knowledge of the facts, and an
adequate acquaintance with the rules of evidence, to determine,
in preparing his theory of the case, what presumptions of law

1 Darling v. Westmoreland, 52N.H. gomery v. Wasem, 116 Ind. 343, 355;
401, 8. C. 138 Am. Rep. 55, p.63; Gray Cleveland, etc., Ry. Co. v. Newell, 104
v. Jackson, 51 N. H.9, 8. C. 12 Am. Ind. 264.

Rep. 1. * United States v. Ross, 92 U. S. 281.
2 Best’s Principles of Evidence, §§ 42, 5 Manning »v. Ins. Co., 100 U.S. 693,
304; Justice v. Lang, 52 N. Y. 323. 698.

3 Bates v. Pricket, 5 Ind. 22; Mont-
102 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 129

he can employ to sustain his cause, and what may be employed
against him. If the adverse presumption is one that can not
be rebutted, then, if the theory can not be so framed as to avoid
it, the case is hopeless. But many of the conclusive presump-
tions of law may be avoided by a skillfully constructed theory.
If the presumption of law is rebuttable, then the better course
is to make provision for rebutting it. There are, however,
cases, where a rebuttable presumption may be entirely avoided,
and it is sometimes prudent to make provision both for avoid-
ing it and for rebutting it by proving facts that make it ineffect-
ive. But where the combination of the two methods will prob-
ably produce material inconsistency, it is better to adopt a
single method and strictly adhere to it, for inconsistency is an
infirmity that greatly weakens a theory.

§ 129. Presumptions of fact.—Presumptions of fact can not
always be fully anticipated, but, when anticipated, they are
much more easily disposed of than presumptions of law. Pre-
sumptions of fact arise from facts, and are, in reality, mere in-
ferences of fact naturally arising from proved or admitted facts.
‘‘Presumptions of fact,’’ it was said in one case, ‘‘are but in-
ferences from other facts and circumstances, and should be
made upon the common principles of induction.’”’?! In another
case it was said: ‘‘Presumptions of fact are at best but mere
arguments, and are to be judged by the common and received
tests of the truth of propositions and the validity of arguments.’’?
It is evident, therefore, that presumptions of fact can not be
fully perceived at the time the theory of the case is prepared.
But by laying out in the mind the whole case, with its prominent
features and its minute facts, one may be able to conjecture
with a fair degree of certainty what presumptions of fact will
arise, and he who does not do this work with scrupulous care
will find many a jolt and shock, if, indeed, he does not fare '
worse, in developing the case. With the facts, and all the
facts, the principal as well as the minor ones, fully and dis-
tinctly in his mind, one may look along the lines the case must

10’Gara v. Eisenhour, 38 N. Y. 296. ? Lawhorn v. Carter,11 Bush. (Ky.)7.
§ 130 THE THEORY OF THE CASE. 103

traverse, and with much success conjecture what presumption
will arise at this point and what at that; and if this work is
thoroughly done, provision may be made for making good use
of favorable presumptions, and for avoiding, weakening, or
destroying those that are adverse. This work can not be well
done unless the man who undertakes it knows the materials he
has at command, the grounds over which the contest will be
waged, the difficulties he must encounter, and the opposition
he will meet. Some of these things it is his own fault if he
does not fully know. The force of the opposition he can only
conjecture, but conjecture it he must as best he can. If he
must err in this conjecture, the error will seldom do harm if itbe
one attributing too much strength to the enemy, but it may be
a very serious one if the strength of the enemy is underrated.

§ 130. Importance of presumptions.—Presumptions are of
more weight than careless thinkers attribute to them. Hewho .
can make the presumptions fight on his side, even if they are
no more than presumptions of fact, is almost sure to be the
victor. Cases are often-lost and won on presumptions. In-
deed, in many cases the contest is a battle of presumptions.
A theory that provides for creating presumptions, and arrays
them in the strongest positions, is a strong one. It is strong
because it well disposes of the forces at command; since in do-
ing the work he who does it acquires a knowledge of the case,
and knows the points of strength and weakness, knows where
ambushes are to be expected and how they are to be avoided.
In more ways than one is benefit derived from a close study of
the presumptions which will arise as the case is unfolded

§ 131. Defective theories —Thin spun theories will not do;
there must be facts from which the presumptions naturally
arise, as effect follows cause. But it is better to expend in-
genuity in conjecturing what presumptions will arise, even
though the conjectures be unsubstantial, than to construct a
theory without looking along the line and endeavoring to con-

'The Louisville, etc., Co. v. Thompson, 107 Ind. 442.
104 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 131

jecture what inferences may be drawn from the facts as they
emerge from the evidence. It is well, however, not to permit
a favorite hypothesis to become so influential as to exclude
others, stronger and more probable, that come into view as the
case progresses. Men often err in obstinately attempting to es-
tablish a favorite hypothesis.!_ The verification of the theory
is the last work to be done prior to embodying it in the plead-
ings.? This work demands sound judgment and close study.
Every step should, if possible, be verified by an appeal to the
- facts, to the authorities and to reason. The theory will, in the
progress of the trial, be rudely assailed, and if there be a weak
spot in it, whether in the element of fact or of law, it will be
exposed. It is a sound rule, insisted upon by all the writers
upon advocacy or kindred subjects, never to underrate the power
of your adversary. Itis unsafe to leave a single part of the
theory unverified. Things that appear strong at the first in-
spection are often found weak on a second investigation.
Writers on rhetorical subjects inform us that what seems per-
fect when read while the mind is ‘‘ warmed by the act of creat-
ing ’’ seems weak and imperfect when examined after the mind
has cooled. So it is of atheory; when the mind is warmed by
the creative act no imperfections are discovered, but when this
warmth has passed away the cool judgment detects and exposes
many weak spots. Even when the mind has cooled it is not
always easy for it to perceive the weak places in a thing of its
own creation. Men cling to theories of their own invention
long after others have perceived their utter unsoundness

1The ‘‘Country Parson,” in his es-

say on.‘ Screws,” declares that-most

men have ‘‘a twist’”’ in their mental
make up that causes them to cling to
theories of their own construction,
even after their absurdity has been
demonstrated, and Montaigne, in his
essay on ‘‘ Vain Subtleties,” calls at-
tention to the same peculiarity in hu-
man nature.

2 The theory must be given effective

form in the pleadings, since the issue
framed by them determines the scope
of the judicial investigation. A find-
ing or verdict entirely outside of the
issues is valueless when properly as-
sailed. Brenner v. Bigelow, 8 Kan.
496; Mays v. Foster, 26 Kan. 518;
Newby v. Myers, 44 Kan. 477; Thomas
v. Dale, 86 Ind. 435; Boardman v.
Griffin, 52 Ind. 101.
§ 132 THE THEORY OF THE CASE. 105

§ 132. Theory should be invulnerable.—The advocate, of all
men, needs to be careful to leave no vulnerable places; for the
keen eyes of his adversary will leave no weak place undiscov-
ered, and when discovered, then, be sure, a thrust will follow
swift and strong. It is not to be forgotten that the advocate in
constructing his theory is very likely to be deceived. But not
so his adversary. He, least of all men, is likely to be misled,
for he is the enemy of the theory, and all his powers are bent
upon discovering the weak places. His work is that of de-
struction, not of construction.

§ 133. Contests of forum likened to naval engagements.—
Writers have again and again, as we have said, likened the
contests of the forum to those of war. There is, as has been
noted, a close resemblance, and it is not to be wondered that in
the opinions and in the books we find terms taken from the art
of war. Closely as the legal contest resembles those of military
campaigns, it resembles a naval engagement even more closely.
The theory of the case outlined in the pleadings is to the advo-
cate as the ship to the sailors who ‘‘ fight by sea.’’ They may
veer and tack, but they must do their fighting from their ships.
So with the advocate; he must fight within his theory. At the
risk of doing with our illustration what Choate said the con-
stable did with the participle, we press it a little further, and
liken a cranky and feeble theory to a leaky and unseaworthy
craft.

§134 Nature of work in constructing theory.—There are
in complex cases many points to be carried by assault, many
weak places to be defended, and many posts to be fortified.
The task of constructing a theory in such cases is intricate and
difficult. This part of the advocate’s work is very like that oi
a general planning a campaign; but in some respects itiseven
more difficult, for the reason that the theory must account for
many things by showing their origin and developing their
character. Like the general, the advocate must foresee and
provide against the movements of his adversary; for that man
106 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 185

will go far astray who looks alone to his own side and takes no
thought of what his antagonist may do. It is not a contest or
a campaign where only one side moves; nor will it do to take
it for granted that the adverse counsel will pursue some old and
often-tried tactics. One who rests upon such a supposition
will most likely meet the fate which befell the Austrian gener-
als who supposed that, as a matter of course, the young French-
man would fight according to the ancient and well-known
system.

§ 135. Preparation and arrangement of details.—The re-
semblance between the process of planning a campaign and
constructing a theory extends to the work of the preparation and
arrangement of details. Success demands that there should be
‘‘an almost ignominious attention to detail.’’ Little things
often do great mischief; a hole in the bottom of a ship may
bring destruction as surely as if the vessel were torn plank from
plank; the breaking of a diminutive bolt may stop the machin-
ery of a great factory; the displacing of a spike may bring
destruction to a railroad train and death to its passengers.
The omission of a demand, the failure to give a notice, or the
neglect to make some formal proof, may bring irretrievable
disaster. An omitted item, though easily obtained, may be
fatal to success. One who walks through the patent office at
Washington is struck with the great number of rejected models.
Many of them—indeed, almost all of them—are striking
specimens of mechanical skill and inventive genius, and per-
fect in every part except one, but that one ruins all. It is so
of many theories; they are perfect in outline, but defective in
detail. To the mind of the author they seem serviceable for
actual work, but when put to the test they prove defective in
some part. Their framers are not mindful of the rule that no
part of a thing, such as a theory, is stronger than its weakest
part. The fabric may be perfect in every part except one, but
the one imperfection may shatter the whole when the collision
comes. It is of little importance that a fortress be defended at
every point save one, if the undefended point be sufficient to
§ 136 THE THEORY OF THE CASE. 107

let in the assailants. This holds good of a theory of a case;
for, no matter how many strong points it may have, it will
serve no useful purpose if it has one weak place that will let in
the assailants and compel a capitulation. It is the great pur-
pose of the theory to lay out the road to be passed over to suc-
cess, and to provide the means which will insure the victory.
If there are gaps that can not be crossed, or forces that can not
be brought into the conflict at the right time and place, the
theory has not accomplished its purpose. If, as sometimes
happens, the theory contemplates only what may be done after
the conflict has ended, it will be of as little value as the tactics of
the Knight of La Mancha.

§ 136. Verification of theory.—Hostile criticism is, in every
instance, to be expected. Positions must be laid down and
entrenched with the knowledge that the strongest array of force
and the keenest weapons that hostile minds can secure will be
brought against them at every point.1 The work of verifica-
tion, therefore, needs to be thorough and searching. Judge
Cooley, in his introduction to the edition of Blackstone’s Com-
mentaries edited by him, supplies an example of the close
work that must be done in verifying a theory.” In the physical
sciences each step is verified by experiment before a theory is
accepted, and the study of the work of the philosophers who
have devoted their time and talents to the discovery of physical
laws and theories is an excellent discipline for the advocate.’
He can, however, make no actual experiments; all that he can
do is to refer his inferences and hypotheses to the test of what
Cicero calls ‘‘ reason in its intense and primitive purity.”’

§ 137. Fallacies to be guarded against.—The way of a framer
of a theory is so thickly beset with fallacies that nothing but
unremitting care will prevent them from creeping into his

1“Tn determining the theory of the it,’’ and this is the course all advo-
case, Rufus Choate was never satis- cates should follow.
fied until he had met every suppo- 7? Cooley’s Blackstone, xvii.
sition that could be brought against 5 Devey’s Logic, 234; Bain’s Logic,
297; Mill’s Logic, 338.
108 THE WORK OUT OF COURT § 138

mental fabric. One needs a mental microscope to detect them,
and, since that can not be obtained, its place must be supplied
by the power of attention, directed with all the vigor the mind
can master upon the work. The reports abound in examples
of a fact or principle unduly assumed.!’ Examples of the fal-
lacy of non sequitur are numerous.? The point in dispute is
often mistaken.*? The fallacy of confusion not infrequently
leads the advocate astray.‘ Again and again advocates pro-
ceed in a circle, ‘‘and beg the question.’’® A mistake is often
made as to who has the burden of proof on a particular hypoth-
esis or proposition. Assuming that cases are analagous when
they are not is a prolific source of error.’ The investigator,
as, indeed, the reasoner in public, is sometimes misled by as-
suming that the presumption is in his favor when it is against
him; on the other hand, he is often at fault for not availing
himself of a presumption in his favor.2 In some instances the
advocate is deceived by an appearance of similarity in the facts
when there is, in reality, an essential difference. In other
cases he is deceived by an apparent difference where there is
no real one, for, as Dr. Holmes says, ‘‘a great many things,
we say, can be made to appear contradictory simply because
they are partial views of a truth, and may often look unlike at
the first, as the front view of a face and its profile often do.’’®

§ 138. Inconsistent hypotheses to be avoided.—Rival’ and
conflicting hypotheses are sometimes accepted, and seldom with-
out harm. Incomplete and inconclusive hypotheses not only

1 Cincinnati, etc., Co. v. Carper, 112 5 Eaton v. Boston, etc., Co., 51 N.
Ind. 26, 34, 35; Cuff v. Newark, etc., H. 504, S. C. 12 Am. Rep. 147, 157;
Co., 385 N. J. Law,17,8.C.10 Am. Rep. Fallacies, 196; Theory of Thought,
205, 209; Robbins v. Burn, 54 Ill. 48, 282.

S. C. 5 Am. Rep. 75, 80; Cooke v. Mil- — ® Fallacies (Sidgwick), 151; Theory
ard, 65 N. Y. 352, 8. C. 22 Am. Rep. of Thought, 279.

619, 625. "Matter of Washington Avenue, 69
? Commissioners v. Miller, 7 Kan. Pa. St. 352, 8. C. 8 Am. Rep. 255, 261.
479, S. C. 12 Am. Rep. 425, 454. ® Bates v. Prickett, 5 Ind. 22; The

5 Swank v. Hufnagle, 111 Ind. 453, Louisville, etc., Co. v. Thompson, 107
454; Theory of Thought, 276; Sidg- Ind. 442.
wick Fallacies, 189. ®The Professor at the Breakfast
4 Austin’s Jurisprudence, 72. Table, 42.
§ 139 THE THEORY OF THE CASE. 109

destroy the symmetry and harmony of the theory, but they also
make it so confused and obscure that it is not likely to accom-
plish any substantial results. To such theories may be applied
the words of Bunyan: ‘‘They go not uprightly, but all awry
with their feet; one shoe goes inward and another outward, and
their hosen out behind; there a rag and there a rent, to the dis-
paragement of their Lord.’’ It is only the good and perfect
materials that should find entrance into the theory. The con-
struction of a sound theory requires the highest powers of the
human intellect. Mr. Donovan says, with truth and force:
‘«The science of good practice is that art which teaches a builder
to discard bad timber, to prepare what he uses with precise
care, and fit it with precision to the members of the building;
that teaches a mason to make joints before reaching the build-
ing he is erecting. The plan in the brain is the science of it
all..’**

§ 139. Importance of verification of theory.—A theory not
well constructed may deprive its framer of advantages that a
good theory would secure him, and impose upon him burdens
that a good theory would relieve him from carrying. A theory not
radically bad may still be weak, and by its weakness make un-
certain that which by thought and care might be made certain.
Verification will, if skillfully and thoughtfully conducted, ex-
pose the weak places, and enable the worker to strengthen them,
and it will also enable him to make conspicuous the strong
places. The theory, although not radically wrong—that is,
wholly untenable—may still be defective in many respects;
thus, it may be so constructed as to concede what might better
be denied,? or to deny what might better be conceded; or it may
needlessly put the burden of proof upon’ one party where with
advantage it might be placed upon the other; or it may assume
that it is necessary to prove much more than the law requires;
or it may unnecessarily provide for matters of description, and
lead to a fatal failure of proof, where there was no necessity for

122 Central Law Journal, 48. Wachter, 123 Ill. 440, 8. C. 15 N. E.

2 Quinn v. People, 123 Ill. 333, 8. C. Rep. 279, 280.
15 N. E. Rep. 46; Ohio & M. R. Cov. :
110 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 140

particularity of description. These hints are, we assume, suf-
ficient to lead the framer of a theory to carefully work out and
verify his theory before he subjects it to the blows and buffets
of the trial. A verification may prove that, while his theory
is not totally unsound, it is yet infirm, and this consideration
a prudent worker will deem enough to make him push his veri-
fication much further than a mere inquiry as to whether it is
in its general frame and outlines an available one. An advo-
cate, although he may not totally mistake his remedy, may yet
be greatly embarrassed by an infirm or overburdensome theory.
Care and work will be well repaid when bestowed upon the prep-
aration of the theory. Be the theory good or bad, his work on
the trial, and throughout all the case, will be controlled and
limited by it, for the court will hold him to it with a firm hand.

§ 140. Trial court theory prevails on appeal.—The theory
upon which a cause is tried continues until the end, even though
the case goes to the court of last resort.2. This rule is adhered

1 Louisville, etc., Co. v. Wood, 113
Ind. 544; Carver v. Carver, 97 Ind.
497, 516; Graham v. Nowlin, 54 Ind.
389; Quinn v. People, 123 Ill. 333, S.
C. 15 N. E. Rep. 56; Ohio & M. R.
Co. v. Wachter, 123 Ill. 440, 8. C.15N.
E. Rep.-279, 280.

2Tomlinson v. Ellison, 104 Mo. 105,
S.C. 168. W. R.201; La Fayette, etc.,
Co. v. Kleinhoffer, 40 Mo. App. 388;
Trigg v. Taylor, 27 Mo. 245; Bull v.
Coe, 77 Cal. 54; Capital Bank v. Arm-
strong, 62 Mo. 59; Walker v. Owen,
79 Mo. 563; Wheeler v. American,
etc., Co.,6 Mo. App. 285; In re Rey-
der’s Estate, 38 N. Y. St. Rep. 29, S.
C. 59 Hun, 618; South Omaha, etc.,
Bank v. Chase, 30 Neb. 444, 46 N. W.
R. 518; Pullman, etc., Co. v. Central,
etc., Co., 189 U.S. 62; Perry v. Beaupre,
6 Dak. 49; Conklin v. Plant, 3411. App.
264; Senft v. Manhattan, etc., Co., 14
N.Y. Supp. 876; Graham v. Nowlin, 54
Ind. 389; Carver v. Carver, 97 Ind. 497 ;

Lake Erie, etc., Co. v. Acres, 108 Ind.
548; Brink v. Reid, 122 Ind. 257;
Feder v. Field, 117 Ind. 386, S. C. 20
N. E. R. 129; Manifold v. Jones, 117
Ind. 212, 8. C.20 N. E.R.124. Where
parties try a cause upon the theory
that it is a suit in equity they can not
afterwards insist that it was an action
atlaw. Farmers’ Bank v. Butterfield,
100 Ind. 229; Ikerd v. Beavers, 106
Ind. 483; Jarboe v. Severein, 112 Ind.
572; Wallace v. Harris, 32 Mich. 380;
Dunbar v. Locke, 62 N. H. 442; Dav-
idson v. Morrison, 86 Ky. 397, 8. C. 5
S. W. R. 871; Rynes v. Dumont, 136
U. 8. 354. Where a party tries a cause
as an action at law he will not after-
wards be heard to aver that it was a
suit in equity. Brown v. Home Sav-
ings Bank, 5 Mo. App. 1; Adams
County v. Hunter, 78 Iowa, 328, S. GC.
43 N. W. R. 208. Where parties insist
upon a specified construction of a con-
tract in the trial court, they will be
§ 140

THE THEORY OF THE CASE.

111

to with great strictness.’ The rule is necessary in order to se-
cure justice by preventing parties from shifting ground and

from misleading their opponents and the trial court.?

held to iton appeal. Metzler v. James,
12 Col. 322, S. C. 19 Pac. R. 885; Bar-
rett v. Fisch, 76 Iowa, 553. So, where
parties insist in the court of original
jurisdiction that a contract is valid,
they can not successfully impeach it
on appeal. Russell v. Rosenbaum, 24
Neb. 769, S.C. 40 N. W. R. 287. Parties
who sue in contract when they should
have sued in tort must abide by their
original theory. Samuels v. Blanchard,
25 Wis. 329; Salisbury v. Howe, 87 N.
Y. 128; Lockwood v. Quackenbush, 83
N. Y. 607. Asking instructions upon
a specific theory precludes a party
from availing himself of a different
one. Louisville, etc., Co. v. Wood,
118 Ind. 544; Doly v. Gillett, 43 Mich.
202. See, upon the general subject,
Downard v. Hadley, 116 Ind. 131, 8. C.
18 N. E. R. 457; Spickerman v. Mc-
Chesney, 111 N. Y. 686, S. C. 19 N. E.
R. 266; Fry v. State, 81 Ga. 645, 8. C.
8 8. E. R. 308; Withers v. Jack, 79 Cal.
297, S. C. 21 Pac. R. 824; Myers v.
Cronk, 113 N. Y. 608, 8. C. 21N. E.R.
984; Black v. Washington, 65 Miss. 60,
S. C. 3 So. R. 140; Lackey v. Pearson,
101 N. C. 651, 8. C. 88. E. R. 121;
Knowles v. State, 27 Texas App. 503,
8. C. 11 8S. W. R. 522; Schriber v.
Richmond, 73 Wis. 5,8. C. 40 N. W.
R. 644; Hamilton v. Ames, 74 Mich.
298, 8. C. 41 N. W. R. 980; Devecemon
v. Shaw, 70 Md. 219, 8. C. 16 Atl. R.
645; Dorr’s Adm. v. Rohr, 82 Va. 359;
Barr v. Hannibal, etc., Co., 30 Mo.
App. 248; Booth v. Cottingham, 126
Ind. 431, 8. C. 26 N. E. R. 84.

1 Some of the courts have carried the
doctrine so far as to hold that the ques-
tion of the constitutionality of a stat-
ute can not be made on appeal if the
case proceeded upon a different theory

It is

in the trial court. Delaney v. Brett,
51 N. Y. 78; Vose v. Cockcroft, 44 N.
Y. 415. In Powell v. Heisler, 45 Minn.
549, the court held that parties who
advanced the theory that a statute was
unconstitutional, in the course of the
opinion it was said: ‘The plaintiff, in
his complaint, alleged that the legis-
lative act authorizing the issuing of
these bonds was unconstitutional and
void, and that the bonds for that rea-
son were void, and at the trial the
court so in effect instructed the jury.
To this neither party took exception.
It is apparent that the case was tried
upon that theory both by the parties
and the court, but now, on this ap-
peal, the plaintiff contends that the
law was not unconstitutional, and asks
that it be so determined by this court.
The question is not properly involved
in this appeal, and we do not decide
it. The plaintiff must be taken to
have asserted and conceded for the
purposes of this action that the law
was unconstitutional, and the bonds
invalid, and, the court having disposed
of the case upon that theory, the plain-
tiff can not now, and in the same ac-
tion, ask that the opposite view be
adopted.”

2Judge Dillon thus outlines the
doctrine: ‘‘He can not change his
base after an appeal.” Garland v.
Wholebau, 20 Iowa, 271; Laverty v.
Woodward, 16 Iowa, 1. See, also,
Barlow v. Brock, 25 Iowa, 308; Bishop
v. Carter, 29 Iowa, 165; Robinson »v.
Keith, 25 Iowa, 321; Coonrod v. Ben-
son, 2 Greene (Iowa), 179; McGill v.
Wallace, 22 Mo. App. 675; Cooper v.
City of Big Rapids, 67 Mich. 607. And
the same rule applies on petition for
rehearing. Thus, if the argument in
112 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 141

also required to give consistency and harmony to procedure,
and it is, in truth, little more than a logical development or
legitimate extension of the elementary rules that the evidence
must be confined to issues made by the pleadings, and that the
allegations and the evidence must concur. The issue upon
which the cause proceeds from first to last is that evolved from
the pleadings in the trial court, for new issues! can not be made
in the appellate tribunal.? As the pleadings give form to the
theory, and circumscribe the range within which the questions
must arise, they must, it is evident, be so framed that all the
elements of a cause of action on the one side and of a defense
on the other shall be found within the issues tendered by the
parties respectively.

§ 141. Limits of the rule that trial court theories continue
effective on appeal.—tThe rule that parties will be held to trial
court theories by the appellate tribunal does not mean that no
new position may be taken, or that new arguments may not be
adduced; all that it means is that substantive questions inde-
pendent in character and not within the issues or not presented
to the trial court shall not be first made on appeal. Questions
within the issues and before the trial court are before the ap-

the appellate court was made upon
one theory, it can not be departed
from on petition for rehearing after an
adverse decision. Knoth v. Barclay,
8 Col. 305, S. C:7 Pac. Rep. 289; Hig-
gins v. Armstrong, 9 Col. 39, S. C. 10
Pac. Rep. 232; Weil v. Nevitt (Col.), 31
Pac. Rep. 487 (488).

1Nesbit v. Donald, 86 Ga. 26, S. C.
12 S. E. R. 183; Messick v. Midland
R. Co., 128 Ind. 81; O’Leary v. Iskey,
12 Neb. 136; San Marcial Land Co. v.
Stapleton, 4 N. Mex. 33, 8. C. 12 Pac.
R. 621; Ginn v. New England, etc.,
Co., 92 Ala. 185, 8. C.8 So. R. 388;
Sandusky, ete., Co. v. Hooks (Iowa),
49 N. W. R. 61; Ophir, ete., Co. v.
Carpenter, 6 Nev. 393 ; St.Louis Broker-
age Co. v. Bagnell, 76 Mo. 554; Black-

well v. Smith, 8 Mo. App. 48; King v.
Rea, 13 Col. 69; Jennings v. Bank, 13
Col. 417; South Omaha Bank v. Chase,
30 Neb. 444, 8. C. 46 N. W. R. 5138;
Stephens v. Motl, 81 Texas, 115, 8S. C.
16 8. W. R. 731; Gallagher v. Bell,
82 Iowa, 722, 8. C.47 N. W. R. 897;
Spengler v. Kaufman, 43 Mo. App. 5.

? Bonknight v. Brown, 16 So. Car.
155; Lawrence v. Grambling, 18 So.
Car. 120; Chamble v. Tribble, 23 So.
Car. 70; Hickenbottom v. Delaware,
etc., Co. 122 N. Y. 91; Crippen ».
Morss, 49 N. Y. 63; Platner v. Platner,
78 N.Y. 90; Egan v. Menard, 32 Minn.
273; Brown v. Minneapolis, etc., 25
Minn. 461; Spencer v. Levering, 8
Minn. 461.
§ 141 THE THEORY OF THE CASE. 113

pellate court, if duly saved, and new arguments and authori-
ties may, with strict propriety, be brought forward. The rule
is further limited by the doctrine that objections to the juris-
diction of the subject may be made at any time, since such ob-
jections can not be waived, either by express stipulations as-
suming to confer jurisdiction or by conduct.1 The rule is also
limited by the doctrine that where a complaint or declaration
wholly fails to state a cause of action the question of its suf-

ficiency may be successfully made on appeal.

1 Schuylkill County v. Boyer, 125 Pa.
St. 226; Metcalf v. Watertown, 128 U.
S. 586; Cameron v. Hodges, 127 U. 8.
322. Itis an elementary principle that
jurisdiction of the subject comes from
the law and never from the acts or
agreements of the parties. Sampson v.
Welsh, 24 How. (U. 8.) 207; Mills v.
Brown, 16 Peters, 525; Keokuk, etc.,
Co. v. Donnell, 77 Iowa, 221, 8. C. 42

N.W.R. 176; Weeden v. Richmond, 19
R. I. 128; Ware v. Henderson, 25 So.
Car. 385; Damp v. Dane, 29 Wis. 419,
431; Fowler v. Eddy, 110 Pa. St. 117,
8. C. 1 Atl. R. 789; People v. Walters,
68 N. Y. 403, 411; Hardin v. Trimmier,
32 So. Car. 600, 8. C. 9 S. E. R. 342;
Murry v. Burris, 6 Dak. 170; Hall v.
Wadsworth, 30 W. Va. 55; Smith v.
Myers, 109 Ind. 1.
§ 142.
143.
144,
145.
146.
147.
148.
149.
150.
151.
152.

153.
154.

155.
156.
157.
158.
159.
160.

161.
162.

163.
164.

165.
166.

CHAPTER IV

COURTS.

Courts the repository of judi-
cial power.

Courts—Definition.

Source of judicial power.

Power to create courts.

Courts created by the Consti-
tution.

Creation of courts—Constitu-
tional limitations.

Legislative judgment—Collat-
eral attacks.

Appellate tribunals.

Classes of courts—Generally.

Courts of superior and inferior
jurisdiction.

Courts of superior general ju-
risdiction.

Courts of limited jurisdiction.

The test of determining the
rank of a court.
Legislative courts — Influence
of fundamental principles.
Inherent and implied powers
of courts.

Court can not divest itself of
jurisdiction.

Term—When it begins.

Duration of term.

The common law fiction that
the term is as one day.

Terms—Business.

Terms of court—Time of hold-
ing.

Terms of court—Holding at
improper time.

De facto terms.

Place of holding court.

Adjourned terms — General
doctrine.

§ 167.
168.
169.
170.
171.
172.

1738.
174.

175.
176.
177.
178.

179.
180.

181.
182.

183.

184.
185.
186.
187.
188.

189.

(114)

Adjourned terms—Errors and
irregularities.

Order for adjourned term.

Notice of adjourned term.

Adjourned term — Waiver of
objections.

Adjourned term regarded as
continuance of regular term.

Temporary adjournments.

Unauthorized adjournment.

The interim created by ad-
journments in term—Vaca-
tion.

Continuous session.

Special terms—Generally.

Special terms — Authority to
order.

Special terms—Constitutional
questions. ‘

Business of special terms.

Adjournment — Reasons for
need not be assigned.

Adjourned and special.terms
Discretionary power to order.

Terms of court—Judicial no-
tice.

Judgment of the court as to the
regularity of its session—Ef-
fect of.

Presumption as to regularity of
organization.

Relation of courts to other gov-
ernmental departments.

Rules—Definition.

Rules—Power to frame.

Rules — Notice of by other
courts.

Discretionary powers—Nature
and extent of.
§ 142 COURTS. 115
$190. Records. § 198. Officers of court—Power to ap-
19%. Control of records. point.
192. Nunc pro tunc entries. 199. Officers of court—Control of.
193. Control of process—Interfer- 200. Control of court-houses and ap-
ence of other courts. purtenances.
194, Control of property. 201. Allowances out of public funds.
195. Property in custodia legis. 202. Agreements and stipulations of
196. Ministers of the courts. parties.
197. Officers of court. '

§ 142. Courts the repository of judicial power.—All judicial
power is vested in the courts,’ although powers of a judicial
nature, or, as they are often called, quasi judicial powers, may
be conferred upon administrators or ministerial officers.? The
authority to hear and decide controversies involving the rights
of persons and things is strictly judicial, and can only be ex-
ercised by the courts established by law.’ It is laid down as
a fundamental principle that parties can not by agreement

create a judicial tribunal.‘

1 One of the first things to be decid-
ed after determining to bring an action
or suit is to determine in what court
itshall be brought. Mr. Chitty, whose
suggestions are always weighty, says:
“To determine upon the court to’be
preferred it is always necessary to as-
certain the precise nature of the right,
the injury and the remedy; and to
protect a defendant well, to examine
the nature of the defense and whether
it shall be made at law or in equity.”’
The great changes wrought by legisla-
tive enactment in England and in
America render Mr. Chitty’s sugges-
tions less important than they were
when he wrote his treatise on general
practice, but they are still of import-
ance and value.

? Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 12
Peters, 657, 718; Sinking Fund Cases,
99 U. 8. 700; In re Cooper, 22 N. Y.
67, 82, 84; Crane v. Camp, 12 Conn.
463; Betts v. Dimon, 3 Conn. 107;
Mabry v. Baxter, 11 Heisk. 682, 689; In
re Saline County, 45 Mo. 52; Tindal

The doctrine, indeed, is carried

v. Drake, 60 Ala. 170; Shoultz v. Mc-
Pheeters, 79 Ind. 373; Greenough v.
Greenough, 11 Pa. St. 489; Gregory v.
State, 94 Ind. 384; Chandler v. Nash,
5 Mich. 409; Columbus, etc., Co. v.
The Board, etc., 65 Ind. 427; Hawkins
v. The Governor, 1 Ark.570; Speight
v. The People, 87 Ill. 595; Ex parte
Randolph, 2 Brock. (U.S. C. C.) 447;
Campbell v. Board, 118 Ind. 119, 222;
Wight v. Wallbaum, 39 Ill. 554.

* 83 Andrews v. Wheaton, 23 Conn. 112;
Hoagland v. Creed, 81 Ill. 506; Bishop
v. Nelson, 83 Ill. 601; Cobb v. People,
84 Til. 511.

4 Wayne v. Caldwell (8S. Dak.), S.C.
47 N. W. R. 547; Chipman v. Water-
bury, 59 Conn. 496, 8. C. 22 Atl. R.
289; Ohio River, etc., Co. v. Gibbens,

"85 W. Va. 57, 8. C. 12 8. E. R. 1093;

The tribunal must be created by a de
facto government, or it can not be re-
garded asacourt. Williams v. Burfty,
96 U.S. 176; Stevens v. Griffith, 111
U.S. 48; Hickman v. Jones, 9 Wall.
197; Dewing v. Perdicaries,96 U.S.193 ;
116 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 143

somewhat further by some of the courts, for their ruling is that
parties can not agree that a term shall be held at a time differ-
ent from that fixed by law,! but in our judgment some of the
cases go too far inasmuch as they seem to hold that the pro-
ceedings are void if the term is convened or held ata time
not designated by law, although there is color of right to hold
it and the parties are present and proceed without objection.?

§ 143. Courts—Definition.—According to Sir Edward Coke,
a court ‘‘is a place where justice is judicially administered.’’
But this definition, we say with all deference to the great jurist,
is not adequate nor strictly accurate.? Under the American
system, however it may be elsewhere, the central element of a
court is the judicial presence. Our system of government is

Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700; Lockhart
vy. Horn, 1 Woods, 628; Horn v. Lock-
hart, 17 Wall. 570; Nelson v. Boynton,
54 Ala. 368; Van Epps v. Walsh, 1
Woods, 598; The Nueva Anna, 6
Wheat. 193; Norton v. Shelby County,
118 U. 8.425; Hildreth’s Heirs v. Mc-
Intires Devisee, 1 J. J. Marsh. 206, S.
C. 19 Am. Dec. 61.

1 Brumley v. State, 20 Ark. 78;
Wightman v. Karsner, 20 Ala. 446;
Greenwood v. Bradford, 128 Mass. 296.

? Where there is a time definitely
fixed by statute for holding the term
and there is no jurisdictional fact up-
on which the tribunal is required to
give judgment before exercising au-
thority there may be some reason for
adjudging that the time fixed is the
only one at which a valid term can be
held, but where the right to hold the
term is a question to be determined
by the tribunal it is otherwise as we
shall hereafter show.

3The definition of Bacon is more
comprehensive. He says that a court
is: ‘‘ An incorporeal being which re-
quires for its existence the presence of
its judges, or a competent number of
them, and a clerk or prothonotary,

at or during which, and at a place
where it is, by law, authorized to be
held, and the performance of some
publi¢ act indicative of the design to
perform the functions of a court.”
Bacon’s Abr. title ‘‘Court’’ A. See, also,
Lawyers Tax Cases, 8 Heisk. (Tenn.)
650; Hall v. Marks, 34 Ill. 360; Mason
v. Woerner, 18 Mo. 566; Hobart v.
Hobart, 45 Iowa, 501; Henderson v.
Beaton, 52 Texas, 29; Gold v. Ver-
mont Central R. Co., 19 Vt. 478. As
to what is a court of record, see 29
Central Law J. 67; 31 Central Law
Journal, 86; Bellas v. McCarty, 10
Watts, 13; Hahn v. Kelly, 34 Cal. 391,
422; Wheaton v. Doolittle, 23 Wend.
377; Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Metcf. 168;
Davis v. Hudson, 29 Minn. 27; Grig-
non’s Lessee v. Astor, 2 How. (U. 8.)
319.

4 Lewis v. Hoboken, 42 N. J. L. 377.
In the argument of Rothschild v.
United States, 6 Ct. of Cl. 204, 212,
counsel said: ‘‘ The word ‘court,’ when
used in legislation by a body of Amer-
ican legislators, has a well defined
and unmistakable meaning. A
‘court’ signifies a member of the
judiciary, which is one of the co-ordi-
§ 143 COURTS. 117

a distributive one from the foundation upward, and the powers
of sovereignty are distributed to different and independent
governmental departments. The departments are independent
in the true sense of the term and not simply co-ordinate.1 In
many of the States an officer in one of the departments is in-
eligible to office in any one of the other departments. The
element of sovereignty known as the judicial is vested in an
independent department of which the members, whatsoever their
title, are judicial officers. It necessarily results, therefore,
that the judicial presence, whatever be the rank or title of the
officer or officers, is necessary to give the tribunal the character
of a court. Under the common law system the judges repre-
sented the sovereign who was theoretically in court by his
judges,” but under the American system the judges are actually
invested with the elements of sovereignty distributed to them
by the organic law. The principle that one department can
not exercise sovereign functions distributed to another is given
effect in many forms. Thus the legislature can not grant a
new trial,’ nor validate a judgment void because jurisdiction
did not exist.* The effect of the diverging lines of decisions

nate branches of the government.’’
This statement contains much of truth
but something also of error.

1Turner v. Althaus, 6 Neb. 54;
Greenough v. Greenough, 11 Pa. St.
489; Dash v. Van Kleeck, 7 Johns. 477,
489; Wright v. Defrees, 8 Ind. 298;
Perkins v. Corbin, 45 Ala. 103. ‘‘If
there is any one proposition immuta-
bly established,”’ said Sawyer, J., ‘I
had supposed it to be, that the judici-
ary department is absolutely inde-
pendent of the other departments of
government.”’ In re Pacific Ry. Com.,
82 Fed. R. 241, 267; People v. Keeler,
99 N. Y. 463, S. C. 52 Am. R. 49; State
v. Noble, 118 Ind. 350, 355; See, gen-
erally, Decatur v. Paulding, 14 Peters,
497; Hilliard v. Connelly, 7 Ga. 172;
State v. Adams, 44 Mo. 570; Burch v.
Newbury, 10 N. Y. 374; Campbeil v.
The Board, 118 Ind. 119,.122.

? Blackst. Com., Ch. 7; Co. Litt.
260; Withers v. Patterson, 27 Texas,
491; Belcher v. Chambers, 53 Cal. 642;
State v. Noble, 118 Ind. 350; Bran-
son v. Studabaker, 133 Ind. 147, 8. C.
33 N. E. R. 98.

SLane v. Nelson, 79 Pa. St. 407;
Norman v. Heist, 5 W. & 8. 171; Men-
ges -v. Dentler, 9 Casey, 495; Mc-
Daniel v. Correll, 19 Ill. 226; Shonk v.
Brown, 61 Pa. St. 820; Israel v. Arthur,
7 Col. 5; Denny v. Mattoon, 2 Allen,
361; Lewis v. Webb, 3 Me. 326.

4Lewis v. Webb, 3 Me. 326; Stani-
ford v. Barry, 1 Aik. 314; Taylor v.
Place, 4 R. I. 324; Young v. State
Bank, 4 Ind. 301; Mayor v. Horn, 26
Md. 194; Weaver v. Lapsley, 43 Ala.
224; Sydnor v. Palmer, 32 Wis. 406;
People v. Frisbie, 26 Cal. 135; Lawson
«, Jeffries, 47 Miss. 686, 8. C. 12 Am.
R. 342; Forster v. Forster, 129 Mass.
118 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 144

upon the general subject is at last the same, for they meet up-
on the general proposition that the exercise of the judicial ele-
ment of sovereignty must be by courts constituted according
to the law of the land.

§144. Source of judicial power.—The ultimate source of
judicial power is the constitution, since it is the organic law
that creates and vests judicial authority.! The constitutions of
many of the States define the jurisdiction of the courts, and
where the constitution does this the legislature can not divert
or alter the jurisdiction.? But the power to create judicial tri-
bunals is, in general, conferred upon the legislature, and when
courts are created pursuant to such constitutional warrant ju-
dicial powers are vested in them by the constitution.? Where
the courts are created by the constitution, to that instrument
reference must be made to ascertain the nature of the tribunal
and the extent of its jurisdiction. Where the courts are created
by statute, then, of course, a reference is to be made-to the

statute to ascertain their powers and jurisdiction.

§ 145. Power to create courts.—It is, under most American
constitutions, within the general power of the legislative branch

559; Ratcliffe v. Anderson, 31 Gratt.
105, 8. C. 31 Am. R. 716. Judgments
can not be controlled by legislation.
Griffin v. Cunningham, 20 Gratt. 31.

1 Missouri Telegraph Co. v. First Na-
tional Bank, 74 Ill. 217; Kingv. Hun-
ter, 65 N. C. 603, 8. C. 6 Am. R. 754;
People v. Maynard, 14 Til. 419; Hall
. Marks, 34 Ill. 358; People v. Keeler,
99 N. Y. 463, S.C. 52 Am. R. 49; State
v. Noble, 118 Ind. 350; Shugart v.
Miles, 125 Ind. 445,447; Hawkins v.
State, 125 Ind. 570; Kilbourne v.
Thompson, 103 U. §. 168.

? Harris v. Vandeveer, 21 N. J. Equ.
424; In ve Cleveland (N. J.), 8. C.
17 Atl. R. 772; Hutkof v. Demorest,
103 N. Y. 377; State v. Gannaway, 16
Lea. (Tenn.) 124; Landers v. Staten
Island, etc., Co., 53 N. Y. 450. See,

generally, In the Matter of the Appli-
cation of the Senate, 10 Minn. 78;
Alexander v. Bennett, 60 N. Y!204;
Spencer Creek, etc., Co. v. Vallejo, 48
Cal. 70; In the Matter of the Senate,
9 Col. 623; Adams v. Town, 3 Cal. 247;
Willis v. Farley, 24 Cal. 491, 499;
People v. Richmond, 16 Col. 274, 8. C.
26 Pac. R. 929.

3People v. Hunt, 41 Mich. 334;
Covell v. Treasurer, 36 Mich. 332;
Heath v. Kent, etc., 37 Mich.372; State
v. Judge, 14 La. Ann. 187; Ex Parte
Harker, 49 Cal. 469. The power of
the legislature over courts created by
it is very comprehensive. Windsor v.
McVeigh, 93 U.S. 277; McVeigh v.
United States, 11 Wall. 267; Ex parte
Lange, 18 Wall. 163; In re Cahill, 110
Pa. St. 167, S. C. 20 Atl. R. 414.
§ 146 COURTS. 119

of the government to create courts of original jurisdiction.! But
the general power is usually limited either by implication or
by express provision. It has been held that the power to create
a court can not be delegated to the municipalities of the State,”
and this seems to us to be the true doctrine. The creation of
a court of justice is the exercise of a high legislative power,
and such a power is one that must be exercised by the legis-
lature itself.?

§ 146. Courts created by the constitution.—Judicial tri-
bunals created by the constitution are beyond the legislative
power save only as the constitution confers authority, either by
express words or necessary implication, over them. A consti-
tutional tribunal, that is, one created or provided for by the
constitution, is beyond legislative change. Thus, where su-
preme appellate jurisdiction is lodged in a designated tribunal,
the legislature, although it may create inferior courts of appel-
late jurisdiction, can not make them of equal rank with the
constitutional court of last resort. So, where jurisdiction is
vested by the constitution in a designated court, the legislature
can not take the jurisdiction from it, nor can any part of that
jurisdiction be rightfully conferred upon any other tribunal.°
It has been held that where there is no constitutional authority

1 In re Cahill, 110 Pa. St. 167, S.C. * Branson v. Studebaker, 133 Ind.147,
20 Atl. R. 414; Corell v. Treasurer, 36 S.C. 33 N. E. R. 98; People v. Rich-

Mich. 332; State v. Mayor, 12 Rich.
S. C. 480; State v. Helfrid, 2 Nott. &
McC. 233; State v. Young, 3 Kan. 445;
Shafer v. Munma, 17 Md. 331; Hutch-
ings v. Scott, 4 Hals. (N. J.) 218;
Seale v. Mitchell, 5 Cal. 401.

2 In re Cloherty, 2 Wash. 187, S. C.
27 Pac. R. 1064.

5 Smith v. Strother, 68 Cal. 194; In re
School Law Manual, 63.N. H. 574;
Gould v. Raymond, 59 N. H. 260; In
re Pacific Ry. Co., 32 Fed. R. 241; Hu
parte Griffiths, 118 Ind. 83; Smith v.
Rines, 2 Sumn. 338; Doe v. Considine,
6 Wall. 458; Endlich Interp. of Stat-
utes, 22.

mond, 16 Col. 274, 8. C. 26 Pac. R. 929.

5 People v. The Supervisors, 49 Hun,
476; People v. Nichols, 79 N. Y. 582;
Alexander v. Bennett, 60 N. Y. 204;
City v. The Mayor, 25 Hun, 612; Pop-
finger v. Yutte, 102 N. Y. 38; Hutkoff
v. Demorest, 103 N. Y. 377; Mussen v.
Ausable Granite Works, 63 Hun, 367;
Ex parte Ginnochio, 30 Tex. App. 584,
8.C., Ginnochio v. State, 18 8. W. R. 82.
See, gerierally, Jones v. Reed, 3 Wash.
57, 8. 0.27 Pac. R. 1067. See Perkins
v. Corbin, 45 Ala. 103; Bors v. Pres-
ton, 111 U.S. 252; Davis v. Packard, 7
Pet. 275; Ames v. Kansas, 111 U. S.
449,
120 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 147

to establish a court, the persons who claim to be judges of it
are not even judges de facto... These decisions proceed upon
the ground that there must be a de jure office or there can be no

de facto officer, but these decisions are opposed by well reasoned
cases.?

§ 147. Creation of courts—Constitutional limitations.—The
legislative power, comprehensive as it is, is not unlimited.
Courts may be created by the legislature where there is either
express or implied authority conferred by the constitution; but,
as the judicial power is one of the principal elements of sov-
ereignty, it can not, as we believe, be justly held that the leg-
islative departments may create such judicial tribunals as it
pleases. A general grant of power to create courts invests the
legislature with a wide discretion, and where a discretion is
vested in the legislature it is master of that discretion. In
cases where a grant or delegation of power is made to the leg-
islature to establish courts, it may regulate at discretion the ju-
risdiction and procedure in such tribunals, provided, of course,
no constitutional limitation is violated. In many of the States
the constitution prohibits the enactment of special laws regu-
lating the practice in courts of justice, and in those States the
statute must be general and of uniform operation throughout
the State.*

‘Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. Where the legislature has plenary
425; Hildreth’s Heirs v. McIntyre, power over a subject, it is the sole
1 J.J. Marsh. 206, 19 Am. Dec. 61; judge of the modes and means best
People v. Brown, 49 Barb. 9, 12; adapted to accomplish the object
People v. Terry, 5 N. Y. St. 120, 128; sought to be attained. Legal Tender
People v. Toal, 85 Cal. 333, 8. C. 24 Cases, 110 U. S. 421; State v. Kolsem,
Pac. R. 608; Walcott v. Wells (Nev.), 1380 Ind. 434, 442; Jamieson v. Indi-
24 Pac. R. 367, 370, 21 Nev. —. ana Natural Gas Co., 128 Ind. 555,

2 Burt v. Winona, etc., Co.,31 Minn. 561; Carr v. State, 127 Ind. 204, 208;
472, 8. C.18 N. W. R. 285; Comstock Cooley’s Const. Lim. (4th ed.) 129;
v. Tracey, 46 Fed. R. 162, 168; Coyle Ibid, 392.

». Commonwealth, 104 Pa. St. 117. * Chicago, etc., Co. v. Moss, 60 Miss.

3 Legal Tender Cases, 12 Wall. 457, 641; The South, etc., Ry. Co. v. Mor-
561; License Cases, 5 How. (U. 8.) ris, 65 Ala. 193; Madison, etc., Co. v.
504; Hancock v. Yaden, 121 Ind. 366; Whiteneck, 8 Ind. 217; indiana Cen-
State v. Haworth, 122 Ind. 462, 467; tral Ry. Co. v. Gapen, 10 Ind. 292;
Hedderich v. State, 101 Ind. 564. Mitchell v. McCorkle, 69 Ind. 184;
§ 148 COURTS. 121

' §148. Legislative judgment—Collateral attacks.—In close
harmony with the rule that where a discretion is vested in the
legislature it has a choice of modes and means, is the rule that
where the legislature is authorized to determine whether a state
of facts exists authorizing the exercise of power, its judgment
that such a state of facts does exist is conclusive. This doc-
trine is, indeed, nothing more than the just application of the
general principle that where a tribunal must determine that
facts essential to its exercise of authority exist, its decision is
final. It is evident that if any other rule were recognized the
consistency of the law would be destroyed and conflict result,
“ with no power capable of effectively and finally ending it, since
it might often happen that one department would make one de-
cision upon certain facts, and another department make a
radically different decision upon the same facts. Logically the
department upon which is devolved the duty of deciding before
action is taken by it, must necessarily have the power to fully
and finally decide, otherwise the decision would be an idle cer-
emony. In accordance with the general doctrine we have stated,
it has been held that where the legislature has determined that
notice required by the constitution to be given before enacting
a special or local law has been given, the courts will not inter-

Durkee v. City of Janesville, 28 Wis.
464; Bull ». Conroe, 13 Wis. 260;

State v. County Court of New Madrid,
‘51 Mo. 82; Hall v. Bray, 51 Mo. 288;

Holden v. James, 11 Mass. 396; Lewis
v. Webb, 3 Greenl. 326; Budd v. State,
3 Humph. 483; Wally’s Heirs v. Ken-
nedy,2 Yerg.554 ; State Bank v.Cooper,
2 Yerg.599; Tate v. Bell, 4 Yerg. 202;
Officer v. Young, 5 Yerg. 320.

1 This general doctrine is well illus-
trated by the many cases which hold
that where the constitution commits
to the legislature the power of decid-
ing whether an act can be made gen-
eral, its decision is final and unim-
peachable. Edmonds v. Herbrandson,
2 N. Dak. 270, 8. C. 50 N. W. R. 970;
Brown v. City of Denver, 7 Col. 305;
Carpenter v. People,8 Col. 116; State v.
County Court of Boone, 50 Mo. 317;

State v. Hitchcock,1 Kan.178; Beach v.

‘Leahy, 11 Kan. 23; Davis.v.Gaines, 48

Ark. 370; Gentile v. State, 29 Ind. 409;
State v. Hockett, 29 Ind. 302; State v.
Boone, 30 Ind. 225; Longworth v. The
Common Council, etc., 32 Ind. 322;
Clem v. State, 33 Ind. 418; Marks v.
Trustees, 37 Ind. 155; State v. Tucker,
46 Ind. 355; Vickery v. Chase, 50 Ind.
461; Kelly v. State, 92 Ind. 236;
Johnson v. The Board, 107 Ind. 15,
22; City of Evansville v. State, 118
Ind. 426, 483; State v. Kolsem, 130
Ind. 434. The doctrine stated can, of
course, have no application where
there is a prohibition against the en-
actment of special laws.
122

THE WORK OUT OF COURT.

§ 148

fere with that decision, but will regard it as final and conclusive.
The doctrine we have outlined leads, with logical certainty and
precision, to the conclusion that where the legislature deter-
mines, before enacting a law establishing a court, such facts as
are essential to the exercise of the power, its decision can not be

successfully assailed by a collateral attack.

In a recent case the

rule we have stated was given practical effect.?

1 Stockton v. Powell (Fla.),15 Lawy.
R. Anno. 42, 50. In the course of
the opinion the court said:

“The obligation resting upon the
legislative department of the govern-
ment to conform to the requirements
of this provision of the constitution,
and to the statute law enforcing the
same, can not be questioned. No local
or special bill within the purview of
the proviso of this section of the or-
ganic law should be passed except and
until notice of the intention to apply
for the passage of the same has been
given in the manner contemplated by
the constitution and authorized legis-
lation thereunder, nor is it ever to be
presumed that any branch of the leg-
islative department will give its sanc-
tion to any such local or special legis-
lation until legal and satisfactory evi-
dence that such notice has been
published shall be ‘ established in the
legislature.’ This feature of the fun-
damental law is as binding upon the
consciences of those intrusted with
the legislative function of the govern-
ment as is any other part of the con-
stitution, but this truth is by no means
conclusive that power has been given
the judiciary to sit in judgment upon
the performance of the duty thus im-
ppsed upon a co-ordinate branch of
the government. No such power has
been given to the judiciary. To decide
whether or not the notice has been
given, is a-legislative function, not
only in its nature, but as a result of
the provision that ‘the evidence that

such notice has been published shall
be established in the legislature before
the bill shall be passed,’ which pro-
vision, as excluding any inference in
the matter by the judiciary, supple-
ments the inhibition pronounced by
the second article of the constitution
that no person properly belonging to
one of the departments of the govern-
ment shall exercise any powers apper-
taining to either of the others, except
in cases expressly provided for by that
instrument.’”” The court cited in sup-
port of its conclusion the following
cases: Lusher v. Scites,4 W. Va. 11;
Rumsey v. People, 19 N. Y. 41; De
Camp v. Eveland, 19 Barb. 81; Ad-
visory Opinion Matter of Impeach-
ment, 14 Fla. 289; People v. Hulburt,
24 Mich. 44,8. C.9 Am. R. 103; Day
v. Stetson, 8 Me. 365; MeClineh v.
Sturgis, 72 Me. 288.

? In the case of State v. Wiley (Mo.),
19 S. W. R. 197, the court’s decision, as
the reporter’s head-note shows, was
this: ‘‘ Where the legislature, by an
act constitutional on its face, creates a
criminal court for a county, it will be
conclusively presumed, in a collateral
attack upon the constitutionality of
the act, that the county had a popula-
tion of over 50,000 inhabitants, and
that the act did not violate const. art.
6, § 31, prohibiting the legislature from
establishing a criminal court in any
county not having such population.”

In the course of the opinion it was
said: ‘Tt was the duty and right of
the legislature to determine before
§ 149 COURTS. 123

§ 149. Appellate tribunals.——A court of exclusive appellate
jurisdiction is one of review, and its judgments are given up-
on decisions made by subordinate tribunals or trial courts.
The theory is that a ruling or decision has been made by a
tribunal of original jurisdiction, and that the questions pre-
sented are not original ones. It is in general true that appel-
late tribunals proper, that is courts of last resort, act only up-
on the record and decide only questions of law. That there
are exceptions to this general rule we know, but we do not re-
gard it necessary to treat of those exceptions since we do not
propose to do more than give a rough outline of the different

classes of courts.

passing the act, to inquire and ascer-
tain as to number of people in Greene
county. A proper respect for a co-
ordinate branch of the government
compels us to presume that they made
proper examination and found from
the facts that they were not infringing
upon the constitution. The court was
accordingly established, and the prac-
tical question now arises, must this
court and its officers, every time an
indictment is found and a prisoner
put on trial, submit, as a preliminary
question, to an investigation of the
fact of the existence of 50,000 inhab-
itants in Greene county on April 26,
1889? The question was answered in
State v. Rich, 20 Mo. 3938. Judge
Leonard, speaking for the court, said:
‘It would indeed be impracticable to
act upon any such principle. If,
whenever any act done under the au-
thority of the law came in question
collaterally, the constitutionality of
the law could be contested, then the
trial of the main issue must neces-
sarily be delayed until the preliminary
fact upon which the validity of the
contested legislative act depended
should be first tried and determined
upon testimony, which being different
in different cases, might involve the

Original jurisdiction may, where it is not

absurdity of deciding the law consti-
tutional one day and unconstitutional
the next. But we need not press these
things further. The result is manifest.
All such inquiries must be excluded
whenever they come up collaterally,
and the county, its courts and officers,
must be treated as things existing in
fact, the lawfulness of which can not
be questioned unless in a direct pro-
ceeding for that purpose.’

“So, we think it was clearly com-
petent for the legislature to make its
own inquiries as to the population of
Greene county when it enacted the
law creating this court; and until the
State, in some appropriate direct pro-
ceeding, shall question the constitu-
tionality of said act, it will be assumed
that said county had the requisite pop-
ulation, and no such inquiry will be
permitted in these collateral proceed-
ings. State v. Daniels, 66 Mo. 192;
State v. Boone Co. Ct., 50 Mo. 317.”

“1 Story’s Const. Law, § 1761; ‘Auditor
v, Atchison, etc., Co., 6 Kan. 500;
Board v. Newman, 35 Ind. 10; Crane
v. Farmer (Col.), 23 Pac. R. 455; Plan-
ters Ins. Co. v. Cramer, 47 Miss. 200;
Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch, 137;
Weston tv. City Council, 2 Peters, 449;
Benson v. Christian, 129 Ind. 535.
124 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 149

forbidden by the organic law, be given to appellate tribunals
by statute,’ but this can not, it is barely necessary to mention,
be done, where the constitution expressly or impliedly pro-
hibits it.? It is not necessary that the constitution should by
negative words declare that original jurisdiction can not be
conferred upon an appellate tribunal, for where the object in
establishing the court is manifested by the constitution and
that object appears to be the establishment of an appellate
tribunal the legislature can not transform it into a court of
original jurisdiction. So, where the constitution by affirma-
tive words declares what original jurisdiction an appellate
court shall possess, the legislature can not confer any other
upon it.2 The court of last resort established by the constitu-
tion possesses the element of sovereignty known as the judicial
in its highest form, and is the ultimate arbiter in all cases where
the controversy is of a purely judicial nature. It is evident
that in each of the three great departments of government, the
executive, legislative and judicial, there must be some supreme
power, otherwise there would be unending confusion and de-
plorable conflict. Itis, of course, within the power of the people
—the source of all governmental power—to divide the element
of sovereignty distributed to the judicial department, but unless
the words of the constitution clearly indicate a purpose to di-
vide the highest judicial power it must be held that it resides,
unified and solidified, in the supreme judicial tribunal of the
State.

!Osborn v. Bank, 9 Wheat. 738;
Ex parte Henderson, 6 Fla. 279; Hawes
v. People, 124 Ill. 560; Piqua Bank v.
Knoup, 6 Ohio, 342.

2 Hubbell v. McCourt, 44 Wis. 584.

8 Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch, 137.
In speaking of the case referred to,
Judge Curtis said: ‘‘ You will find on
reading that case—it is one of the great
judgments of Chief Justice Marshall,
not upon this point only, but covering
a variety of subjects—you will find

on reading that case, that the court
came to the conclusion that the affirm-
ative words that the Supreme Court
shall possess this jurisdiction naturally
and properly included a negative—
that they should not possess any other,
and the reasoning by which that con-
clusion was arrived at is perfectly sat-
isfactory.’”? Curtis on Jurisdiction of
the United States Courts, 8.

* Branson v. Studebaker, 183 Ind.147,
8. C. 33 N. E. BR. 98. c
,

§ 150 COURTS 125

oh

§ 150. Classes of courts—Generally—In many books and
in many judicial opinions courts of original jurisdiction are
classified as courts of superior general jurisdiction and courts
of limited inferior jurisdiction. But this classification, if one
may judge by the confusion it has produced, is not a logical nor
a scientific one. It is true, in a general sense, that all Ameri-
can courts, Federal and State, are courts of limited jurisdic-
tion, since all have their authority defined, and, in a measure,
limited, by statutes or constitutions, so that it will not do to
say that because of this fact these courts are not superior courts
of general jurisdiction.1 In this country, however it may be
elsewhere, courts do not grow into existence and vigor by cus-
tom or usage, although we turn to the unwritten law to ascer-
tain their incidental and implied powers. On the other hand
courts created by statute with a very narrow jurisdiction are
vested with plenary authority over a designated class of cases.
Thus, in- highway cases, boards of supervisors or commission-
ers are vested with exclusive original jurisdiction, and upon
logical principles it must be assumed that as to such a subject
they are not tribunals of limited jurisdiction. If we proceed log-
ically, and not arbitrarily, we must conclude that a court vested
with exclusive authority over a subject is not a court of special
limited jurisdiction as to that subject, but the weight of author-
ity requires a different conclusion, and we must accept the class-
ification, abitrary and illogical as it is, that the decisions estab-
lish. It is true that there are tribunals which are in the strict
sense special statutory ones, as, for instance, commissioners to
assess benefits and damages in a condemnation case, but such
tribunals are not courts in a just sense. If it were not pre-
sumptuous to deny what so many decisions affirm we should be

1'We say that the powers of a court department. To affirm this conclu-

are in a measure limited and defined
by statutes for the reason that we do
not believe that courts owe all their
powers to written laws. To concede
that they do would lead to the conclu-

sion that all governmental power is

unified and vested in the legislative

sion would involve a denial of the fun-
damental doctrine of free government,
since it would be equivalent to the an-

_nihilation of the doctrine that govern-

mental powers reside in different de-
partments.
126 THE WORK OUT OF COURT.

§ 150

inclined to assert that where exclusive original jurisdiction is
conferred upon a court, no matter what its rank, the court is
as'to the subjects over which it has such authority one of gen-
eral jurisdiction.! It is difficult for us to conceive how a
court with exclusive original jurisdiction can be anything else
than one of general jurisdiction over the subject placed solely
under its authority, since that authority can be shared by no

other tribunal and hence must be general.?

1The doctrine we regard as the cor-
rect one is practically sanctioned, al-
though not explicitly stated, by some
of the courts. Thomas v. Churchill,
84 Me. 446, S.C. 24 Atl. R. 899; Cyr v.
Dufour, 62 Me. 20; Hume v. Conduitt,
76 Ind. 598; Turner v. Conkey, 132
Ind. 248. This doctrine is impliedly
recognized in habeas corpus proceed-
ings. Cortes v. Jacobus, 136 U. S.
830; Stevens v. Fuller, 136 U. 8. 468;
People v. Liscomb, 60 N. Y. 559, 8. C.
19 Am. R. 211; Willis v. Bayles, 105
Ind. 363; Ex parte Miller, 82 Cal. 454,
S. C. 22 Pac. Rep. 1113; People v. St.
Dominick, 34 Hun, 463; Bennac v.
People, 4 Barb. 31. See, generally,
Jackson v. Smith, 120 Ind. 520; Alex-
ander v. Gill, 120 Ind. 485, 8. C. 30 N.
E. R. 525; Chicago, ete., Co. v. Sut-
ton, 130 Ind. 405, 8. C.30 N. E. R. 291;
State v. Wolever, 127 Ind. 306; McCoy
v. Able, 181 Ind. 417; Merriman v.
Morgan, 7 Ore. 68.

2In Hahn v. Kelly, 34 Cal. 391, 8.
C.94 Am. Dec. 742, the court in speak-
ing of courts of inferior and limited
jurisdiction said inter alia: ‘‘The doc-
trine when pushed to its ultimate con-
clusion would abrogate the rule in this
State and dwarf all our courts to the
grade of inferior courts at common
law. The jurisdiction of all our courts
is special and limited, as defined by
the constitution, and they do not pro-
ceed according to the course of the
common law, but according to the

course of the practice act, which pre-
scribes in almost every particular a
course very different from the common
law. Some of its paths are not the
same, but like the common law they
are the exception and not the rule.
Are all our courts, therefore, inferiorin
the sense of the rule in question? If
this is putting it too broadly, do our
courts when they undertake to fore-
close a mechanic’s lien under the stat-
ute which regulates that matter and
which in its purpose and methods is
an entire stranger to the common law,
become inferior courts? When en-
gaged in making partition of lands, as
provided in the practice act, do they
become inferior courts so far as the
proceedings relate to persons not per-
sonally served? Is this also true in
respect to proceedings under the in-
solvent law?

Sometimes in the same action they
proceed according to the rules of com-
mon law, or rules which are like those
of the common law, and also accord-
ing to the statute. Are they, there-
fore, superior courts as to one ques-
tion and inferior courts as to another
in the same action? The federal
courts are peculiarly special and limit-
ed in respect to their jurisdiction.
Are they, therefore, all inferior within
the meaning of the law? Can noth-
ing be presumed in favor of their ju-
risdiction? There can be no two opin-
ions as to how all these questions are
COURTS. 127

§ 151

§ 151. Courts of superior and inferior jurisdiction —When
we come to consider the question of jurisdiction we shall see
that the distinction between courts of superior and courts of
inferior jurisdiction, arbitrary and foundationless as we vent-
ure to say it is under our system, is an important one, and,
because of its importance, it is necessary to keep in the beaten
track and give recognition to the fancied distinction. It is
exceedingly difficult, if, indeed, not impossible, to convey an |
adequate or accurate conception of the difference between
superior and inferior courts, notwithstanding the fact that many
decisions proceed upon the assumption that there is-a radical

difference. It will not do, as
to be answered. Ex parte Watkins, 3
Pet. 198; Coit v. Haven, 30 Conn. 190,
8. C. 79 Am. Dec. 244.

The reason sometimes given for the
classification of courts into superior
and inferior is that the one proceeds
according to the course of the common
law and the other according to the
statute, but this reason is not a valid
one. It is not valid because, as shown
in the text and in the extract taken
from the opinion in Hahn v. Kelly, all
American courts proceed partly under
unwritten laws. It is shown to be in-
valid when it is brought to mind that
all judicial tribunals ranking as courts
proceed in great part according to the
unwritten law established in this age
by judicial decisions which assume to
be founded on the common law..

1A thoughtful and judicious writer
says: ‘‘The use of the words ‘su-
perior’ and ‘inferior,’ however apt they
may have once been, are less so at this
time and place, and their duties in
view of our system and mode of pro-
cedure would be better performed by
the terms ‘ courts of record’ and courts
and tribunals not of record.” Free-
man on Judgments (2d. ed.), § 122.
Judge Van Fleet, after a careful study
of the cases, thus states the modern

is evident from what we have

rule: ‘On principle, it seems to me
to be self-evident that, if the court
has unlimited jurisdiction over a class
of cases, its jurisdiction in such mat-
ters is general; and that when its rec-
ord shows such a case, all presump-
tions are inits favor, and that silence
is conclusive. According to this idea
the proceedings of county courts and
county commissioners or supervisors
in respect to county matters, boards
for the assessment or revision of taxes,
and justices of the peace in actions
between landlord and tenant for the
possession of land, being unlimited
and generally exclusive, should be
classed with those of superior courts,
and all intendments made in their
favor. When any tribunal is given
unlimited power over a matter, that
is a legislative assertion that it is com-
petent to adjudicate upon, and right-
fully settle, all questions that may
arise concerning it. No stronger de-
claration can be made in respect to
any tribunal. When the record shows
that such a matter has been adjudicat-
ed, no court has ever yet attempted
to give any reason why all intend-
ments and presumptions should not
be made in its favor, and I doubt if
any ‘court ever will. I get this idea
128 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 151

said in the preceding paragraph, to characterize all courts which
derive their being and authority from the written laws as courts
of inferior jurisdiction. Such a conclusion, we may add,
would involve the absurdity of declaring that all American
courts are inferior tribunals,! and it would, also, require the
impeachment of many well considered cases.? The confusion
in which the general subject is involved is further manifested
in the difficulty of determining how far a court of any rank,
no matter how exalted, may go without so far transcending its
powers as to render its judgments void. Some of the decisions
go to extreme lengths upon this subject, and hold that where
the rules of procedure are not obeyed the judgment is invalid.
This extreme doctrine we believe to be unsound. We have no
doubt, however, that there may be cases where a judgment is
void because not one that the court had power to render in the

from the cases and not from my own
thoughts.” Collateral Attack, pp. 874,
875.

1 Starting from an erroneous premise
one of the courts of last resort has
held that it is itself a court of inferior
jurisdiction. Linn v. Kyle, 1 Walker,
(Miss.), 315. In that case it was said,
“By a uniform train of decisions in
this tribunal from its earliest estab-
lishment to the present time it has
been held to be a court of limited and
not general jurisdiction.’”” The gen-
eral conclusion reached is thus broadly
stated: ‘‘This, then, is a court of
limited jurisdiction, in no case can its
jurisdiction exist, unless it appear.”
Few will concur in this conclusion
but if the validity of the premises be
granted the deduction is logical and
correct. The only tenable position
is, as it seems to us, to deny the
premises, but that is somewhat haz-
ardous, since it brings one into war
with the adjudged cases. Kempe v.
Kennedy, 5 Cranch, 173; Kennedy v.
Georgia, etc., Bank, 8 How. U.S. 611;
Busteed v. Parsons, 54 Ala. 393,°8. C.

25 Am. R. 688; St. Albans v. Bush, 4
Vt. 58, 8. C. 23 Am. Dec. 246; Vose v.
Morton, 4 Cush. 27, S. C.50 Am. Dec.
750.

?Turner v. Malone, 248. Car. 398;
Angell v. Angell, 14 R. I. 541; Miller v.
United States, 11 Wall. 268; Reed v.
Vaughan, 15 Mo. 187, S. C. 55 Am.
Dec. 133; Musselman’s Appeal, 65 Pa.
St. 480; Lex’s Appeal, 97 Pa. St. 289;
Veach v. Rice, 181 U. 8. 293; Foot v.
Stevens, 17 Wend. 483; Harvey v.
Tyler, 2 Wall. 328; Agricultural Co. v.
Barnard, 96 N. Y. 531; Sims v. Gay,
109 Ind. 501; Powell v. North, 3 Ind.
392; Doe v. Smith, 1 Ind. 451; Braly
v. Breese, 51 Cal. 447; Shroyer »v.
Richmond, 16 Ohio St. 455; Doolittle
v. Holton, 28 Vt. 819, S. C. 67 Am.
Dec. 745; Dayton v. Mintzer, 22 Minn.
393; Osborne ». Graham, 30 Ark. 67;
Apel v. Kelsey, 52 Ark. 341, 8. C. 20
Am. St. R. 183; Johnson v. Beazley,
65 Mo. 250, 8. C. 27 Am. R. 276; Cam-
den v. Plain, 91 Mo. 117; Rowden ».
Brown, 91 Mo.429; Luco v.Commercial
Bank, 70 Cal. 339.
§ 151 COURTS. 129

particular instance.’ We suppose that no one would doubt
that if a court, no matter how broad the field of its power,
should imprison a man where there was nothing more than a
simple action of debt the judgment would be void, but we
suppose it to be equally clear that if a court of any rank, no
matter how low, should render a judgment not authorized by
the rules of procedure its judgment would not be void al-
though it would be erroneous. It seems clear to us that some
of the cases place entirely too much stress upon the doctrine of
limited power and are thus carried into serious error, but, on
the other hand, it is true that there may be cases where the
judgment is so far beyond the authority existing in the partic-
ular instances that it may be void.?, Such cases, however, are

very rare and are of extraordinary character.

But the doctrine

of limited power is one, which, as we believe, can not-be ex-
tended without producing evil and confusion.’

1 Thus in Anthony v. Kasey, 83 Va.
338, 8. C. 5 Am. St. R. 277, it was
held that a judgment rendered against
a surety on a bond ofa purchaser at
a sheriff’s sale is void if rendered
against him upon a rule issued against
him and his principal because of the
latter’s default. In the course of the
opinion, it was said: ‘‘ Now, it is es-
sential to the validity of a judgment
or decree, that the court rendering it
shall have jurisdiction of both the sub-
ject-matter and the parties, nor is this
all, for both of these essentials may
exist and still the judgment or decree
be void, because the judgment was
not such as the court had power to
render, or because the mode of pro-
cedure was such as it might not law-
fully adopt.’’ We venture to suggest
that the language employed is too
broad, although it is substantially bor-
rowed from the opinion in the case of
Windsor v. McVeigh, 93 U.S. 282, 283.
If a departure from rules of procedure
makes the Penne coram non judice

and void, then, a long line of decisions
is erroneous, and the distinction be-
tween collateral and direct attacks un-
substantial and illogical.

2 Windsor v. McVeigh, 93 U. S. 282.
See, also, United States v. Winches-
ter, 99 U. S. 372; Pelham v. Rose, 9
Wall. 103; The confiscation Cases, 20
Wall. 92; Strosser v. City of Fort
Wayne, 100 Ind. 443; Henry v. Car-
son, 96 Ind. 412, 444. In the case
last cited the doctrine is, we think it
safe to say, somewhat too broadly
stated.

5The general question is ably dis-
cussed by Judge Brewer, now Mr.
Justice Brewer, in Cooke v. Bangs,
31 Fed. Rep. 640. The question re-
lated to the authority. of a justice of
the peace, and in speaking of a judg-
ment of that officer it was said: ‘‘If
he assumes to try a man for man-
slaughter, and sentences him to the
penitentiary, he is proceeding in a
direction which is entirely outside of
the scope of his jurisdiction. On the
130 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 152

§ 152. Courts of superior general jurisdiction.—lIt is quite
difficult, if not impossible, to give a definition of a court of
superior general jurisdiction, notwithstanding the fact that the
decided cases assert that there is a distinction between courts
of superior and courts of inferior jurisdiction, and that two
great classes do exist. The distinction is recognized, but there
is no successful attempt to give an accurate definition, so far as
we can discover, of a court of general jurisdiction. Although
many of the courts take it for granted that courts of general
and inferior jurisdiction exist, and that there is a wide differ-
ence between the two classes, no court has given a satisfactory

definition or description of either class.!

other hand, he may have jurisdiction
over assaults and batteries and does
in most States. Suppose he proceeds
to try a man charged with assault and
battery, and suppose, in fact, the as-
sault and battery was committed out-
side of the county over which his ju-
risdiction extends; then, although his
judgment would be erroneous, and in
excess of his jurisdiction, yet, having
jurisdiction of the subject-matter of
assault and battery, and of the person
of the defendant, it lies with him to
determine whether such particular as-
sault and battery comes within his
jurisdiction; and his determination,
though erroneous, ought not to sub-
ject him to an action for damages. He
has jurisdiction of the subject-matter
and it isfor him to determine whether
the case is within his jurisdiction. He
has the right to determine the ques-
tion, and although it may be a case
which does not come within the limi-
tation of his jurisdiction, and although
he may have exceeded his authority,
yet he had the power and the right
to determine whether or no he had
that jurisdiction, and it can not be
said to be a case wherein the entire
subject-matter was outside of his juris-
diction

It is not, perhaps,

1Mr. Wells quotes from the opinion
of the court delivered in the case of
Harvey v. Tyler, 2 Wall. 328, the state-
ment that ‘‘The line between the two
classes of cases may not be very well
defined nor easily ascertained at all
times,’’ and quotes, also, other por-
tions of the opinion, from which it ap-
pears, we venture to say, with all pos-
sible deference for that high tribunal,
that the court was sorely confused and
perplexed. The comment of the au-
thor referred to is this: ‘‘It is a legit-
imate conclusion, from the preceding
quotation, that the same court may be
one of general jurisdiction in regard
to some subjects, and of special in re-
gard to others, or superior or inferior
at once, from the nature of the subject
submitted, and the mode of determin-
ing them respectively.” Wells on Ju-
risdiction, p. 25. We can not concur
in the views of the author, for it seems
to us that if a court has jurisdiction of
a general class of cases, or of a gen-
eral subject, its jurisdiction is general,
and not special. It may be true that
the mode of procedure is a statutory
one, and yet the court may be one
of general jurisdiction, so that it will
not do to fix the rank of the court be-
cause its authority is defined by stat-
ute or its procedure is statutory.
§ 152 131

COURTS

very difficult to conclude that some courts are of general juris-
diction in States where the statute makes their authority a wide
and comprehensive one, but this by no means justifies the con-
clusion that a definition can be framed that will be accurate or
adequate.1 In some of the States there is no great difficulty
in determining that the court of common pleas is one of gen-
eral jurisdiction, as, for instance, in Ohio, or, as in Indiana,
that the circuit court is one of that class, or, as in Iowa, that
the district court is one of general jurisdiction. It will not do
to assert that courts from which appeals lie are inferior, since
that would lower all trial courts to courts of limited inferior
jurisdiction, and no well considered case warrants such a con-

clusion.?

'™Mr. Brown justly notes the diffi-
culty of discriminating between courts
of general jurisdiction and courts of
inferior jurisdiction. In one place he
says: ‘‘A court of general jurisdiction
is one that takes cognizance of all
causes, civil or criminal, of a particu-
lar nature, defined and provided by
law. Absolute,' original, general ju-
risdiction over all subjects out of which
an action or prosecution may arise is
not given to one court.”” Brown on
Jurisdiction, § 19. It seems to us that
this statement requires some qualifi-
cation, for we believe that it is not
necessary to give to a judicial tribunal
the character of a court of general juris-
diction that it should have jurisdiction
“of all causes, civil or criminal, of a
particular nature.”’ We think that the
learned author states the true doctrine
when he says: ‘‘ Where the jurisdic-
tion of the court is general over any
class of actions, it can not be regarded

as having only inferior jurisdiction..

Therefore the rule is that, where a
court is given complete or general ju-
risdiction over any class of actions, if
it be a court of record, it is not a
court of inferior jurisdiction, although
its jurisdiction is limited.”’ bid, § 20.

A court may be one of the widest possible general

In support of the text is cited the case
of Pursley v. Hayes, 22 Iowa, 11,
wherein the court refers to Perrine v.
Farr, 2 Zabr. (N. J.) 356, and other
cases.

?In Kempe v. Kennedy, 5 Cr. 173,
185, Chief Justice Marshall said:
“All courts from which an appeal lies
are inferior courts, in relation to the
superior court before which their judg-
ment may be carried; but they are
not, therefore, inferior courts, in the
technical sense of these words. They
apply to courts of a special limited ju-
risdiction, which are erected on such
principles, that their judgments, taken
alone, are entirely disregarded, and
the proceedings must show their juris-
diction. ‘The courts of the United
States are all of limited jurisdiction,
and their proceedings are erroneous if
jurisdiction be not shown upon them.
Judgments rendered in such cases may
certainly be reversed, but this court is
not prepared to say that they are ab-
solute nullities, which may be totally
disregarded.’”’ It is evident that the
great Chief Justice saw the difficulty
which resulted from the doctrine that
all American courts are courts of lim-
ited jurisdiction, and, while not will-
132 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 153

original jurisdiction, and yet its judgments be subject to re-
view, revision or reversal by the appellate tribunals of the State
or nation.

§ 153. Courts of limited jurisdiction—We think that it may
be safely assumed that all American courts, from the highest to
the lowest, are, in a restricted sense, courts of limited jurisdic-
tion,’ but they are not courts of limited jurisdiction in the
sense in which that term is often used. It is true of courts ex-
isting as creations or growths of the common law, as well as
of courts created by statutes or by constitutions, that there are
limitations upon their jurisdiction. Courts existing without
express statutory or constitutional warrant are bound by rules
and precedents * which have force as great as that of written
laws, and on the other hand, statutory or constitutional courts
have inherent powers. It is by no means necessary that the
powers of any tribunal should be specifically enumerated, for
the creation of a court carries by implication the authority and
duty essential to its existence and necessary to enable it to ac-
complish the objects for which it was created. It can not be
concluded that a court is one of inferior jurisdiction because of
the fact that its jurisdiction and procedure are governed by
ing to deny the doctrine, was unwilling equitable, or to transactions of a spe-

to carry it to its logical consequences. cial character, such as arise on navi-
The later decisions very clearly de- gable waters or relate to the disposi-

clare that the Federal courts are not
inferior courts within the meaning at-
tached to these words by the common
law. McCormick v. Sullivant, 10
Wheat. 192; Hx parte Watkins, 3 Pet.
193; United States Bank v. Moss, 6
How. 31; Kennedy v. Georgia State
Bank, 8 How. 586; Huffv. Hutchinson,
14 How. 586; Galpin v. Page, 18 Wall.
350, 365; Cuddy, Petitioner, 131 U.
S. 280, 285.

1 All courts, even the highest, are
more or less limited in their jurisdic-
tion; they are limited to particular
classes of actions, such as civil or
criminal; or to particular modes of
administering relief, such as legal or

tion of estates, or to the use of partic-
ular process in the enforcement of
their judgments.”” By the court in
Windsor v. McVeigh, 93 U. 8. 274.

* Even courts of chancery with their
judge created jurisdiction and modes
of procedure are courts of limited ju-
risdiction,for rules and precedents con-
trolthem. Geev. Pritchard, 2 Swanst.
402, 414; Cowper v. Cowper, 2 P.

- Williams, 720, 723; Manning v. Man-

ning, 1 Johns. Ch. 530; King v. Bald-
win, 2 Johns. Ch. 527; Shotwell v.
Smith, 20 N. J. Eq. 79; Segar v. Par-
rish, 20 Gratt. 672; Pratt v. Pond, 5
Allen, 59; Cannon v. McNab, 48 Ala.
99,
133

§ 154 COURTS.

law, for the assertion of such a conclusion is an affirmation
that there are no courts of superior jurisdiction. It is, there-
fore, necessary to obtain some other ground'upon which to
base a distinction between inferior-and superior tribunals, and,
for our part, we are at a loss to find any valid ground for the
distinction, notwithstanding the many decisions which impli-
edly recognize its existence. We can plainly see solid ground
upon which to rest a distinction between special statutory trib-
unals and courts, but we can not see a reason for discriminat-
ing between classes of courts established as such, given a per-
manent existence and invested with original or appellate juris-
diction over a general class of cases or over many classes of
cases.

§ 154. The test for determining the rank of a court.—It is
with hesitation that we venture to suggest a test for determin-
ing whether a court is one of general original jurisdiction or
one of inferior and limited jurisdiction, for we know quite well
that the test which seems to us the correct one is not recog-
nized by the majority of the courts. But, while we know that
many cases oppose our opinion, we are sure that the express
decisions in many cases and the reasoning in more, yield
ample support to our views, so that we are not simply assert-
ing our own unsupported conclusions.'. The test we suggest is

1Chicago, etc., Co. v. Sutton, 130
Ind. 405; Jackson v. Smith, 120 Ind.
520; State v. Wolever, 127 Ind. 306;
Turner v. Conkey, 132 Ind. 248, S. C.
31 N. E. R. 777; Alexander v. Gill,
130 Ind. 485, 30 N. E. RB. 525; Otis v.
De Boer, 116 Ind. 531; Tallman v. Mc-
Carty,11 Wis.420; Colton v.Beardsley,
88 Barb. 29; Otis v. Rio Grande, 1
Woods, 279, 282. This doctrine is
asserted, although generally only tac-
itly, in the numerous cases where
courts sustain the judgment of com-
mitting magistrates where attacks, are
made upon them in applications for
habeas corpus. Oteiza v. Jacobus, 136
U. 8. 880; Stevens v. Fuller, 136 U. 8.
468; People v. St. Dominick, 34 Hun,

463; Bennac v. People, 4 Barb. 31;
McLaughlin v. Etchison, 127 Ind. 474,
8. C. 27 N. E. R. 152.

We think it clear that the cases which
hold that where there is jurisdiction
over a general class of cases the court
as to the subject is one of general juris-
diction declare the true rule. State
v. Kansas Court of Appeals, 104
Mo. 419, S. C. 16 S. W. R. 415.
See Posthlewaite v. Ghiselin, 97
Mo. 420. See, generally, McCoy v.
Able, 131 Ind. 417, 8. C. 30 N. E. R.
528; Hume v. Conduitt, 76 Ind. 598;
Brown v. Eaton, 98 Ind. 591; Perkins
v. Haywood, 132 Ind. 95, 8. C. 31 N.
E. R. 670.
134 THE WORK OUT OF COURT.

this: Has the particular tribunal permanent existence, has it
authority over a general subject, is it authorized to keep a rec-
ord and will its judgments support a plea of former adjudica-
tion? If the court has a permanent existence it is in that re-
spect the equal of the highest; if it has original jurisdiction .
over a general subject in that particular its authority is not
more limited than that of other judicial tribunals; if it is au-
thorized to keep a record it is as much a court of record as any
tribunal can be; if its.judgments will support a plea of former
adjudication they are in this regard as powerful and influential
as those of any other court, no matter how high its position or
great its dignity. The judgment of a board of county commis-
sioners will support a plea of former adjudication.1 The judg-
ment of any permanent tribunal upon facts which it is required
to decide upon before assuming jurisdiction is conclusive as
against a collateral attack.? The refusal of a justice of the
peace to grant a change of venue, or a change of justices, does
not, according to the weight of authority, render the subse-
quent proceedings void.* A board of county commissioners or
supervisors does not lose jurisdiction, although it wrongfully
refused to permit the withdrawal of a sufficient number of pe-
titioners from the petition to make the number less than that
requisite to the existence of jurisdiction.‘ In these respects, and
in many other particulars, statutory tribunals are held to: pos-
sess powers equally as great as those of the highest courts of

1State v. Board, 101 Ind. 69; Hillv.
Probst, 120 Ind. 528.

2 Commissioners of Knox County v.
Aspinwall, 21 How. (U.S.) 539; Town
of Coloma v. Eaves, 92U. 8. 484; Com-
missioners v. Bolles, 94 U. 8. 104;
Henline v. People, 81 Ill. 269; Rod-
erigas v. East River, etc., Co., 63 N.
Y. 460, 8. C. 20 Am. R. 555; Porter v.
Purdy, 29 N. Y. 106; Ryan v. Vargas,
37 Iowa, 78; Smith’s Leading Cases
(8th Am. ed.), 1116; Evansville, etc.,
Co. v. The City of Evansville, 15 Ind.
395; Alexander v. Gill, 130 Ind. 485,
Ss. C. 30 N. E. R. 525, 527; McEn-

neney v. Town of Sullivan, 125 Ind.
407, 412; Montgomery v. Wasem, 116
Ind. 343, 351; Ballard v. Thomas, 19
Gratt. 14, 20.

‘Bryant v. Ballance, 66 Ill. 188;
Swan v. Bournes, 47 Iowa, 501; City
of Ottumwa v. Schaub, 52 Iowa, 515;
Barnhart v. Davis, 30 Kan. 520; Tur-
ner v. Conkey, 182 Ind. 248, 8. C. 31
N. E.R. 777,

*Rock Creek v. Strong, 96 U.S. 271;
Orleans v. Platt, 99 U. 8. 676; Lyons
v. Munson, 99 U. 8. 684; Town of
Springport v. Teutonia Bank, 84 N. Y.
403, contra; Hord v. Elliott, 33 Ind. 220.
§ 155 COURTS. 135

original jurisdiction, and hence it seems illogical to hold that
such statutory tribunals, although having wide exclusive orig-
inal jurisdiction and a permanent existence, are courts of lim-
ited inferior jurisdiction. :

§ 155. Legislative courts—Influence of fundamental prin-
ciples.—The fact that the jurisdiction of a court is defined by
statute does not exclude the rules of the common law unless
the exclusion appears by express words or necessary implica-
tion. The legislature may, of course, define the jurisdiction
of a court it has power to create, by designating the classes of
cases or the subjects over which its authority shall extend, but,
in doing this, the whole field of jurisdiction is not covered, for
certain principles of organic unwritten law enter into the stat-
ute as silent factors. These factors, powerful as they are, can
not always control the general subjects and classes, but they do
control as to incidents of such subjects and classes. Thus a
court has authority without any express statute to make nunc
pro tune orders, and to frame the remedy so as to give appro-
priate relief. Fundamental principles can not be violated in
creating courts although such principles are not given direct
and explicit expression in the constitution. Broad as the leg-
islative power is under a general grant of authority to estab-
lish courts, it can not violate principles that form part of the
foundation of the judicial structure. Thus, the legislature can
not make a man a judge in his own case although there may
be no express provision in the constitution forbidding such leg-
islation. The reason for this conclusion is that the principle
that a man shall not be a judge in his own case is part of the
foundation of the judicial system, and was part of it when our
American constitutions were adopted. As this fundamental
principle was part of an organized and existing system, the
constitution must be deemed to so far have recognized and
sanctioned it as to make it binding upon the legislature as well
as upon all the other organs of government. The principle
that written constitutions are to be construed with reference to
136

THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 156

existing and organized institutions of society* really involves
and requires the conclusion we have stated, and it has been di-
rectly asserted by able courts and authors.? There is a spirit
in constitutions more powerful than the words. We constantly
call to mind in considering constitutional questions great his-
torical events and instruments, as the Magna Charta, the Peti-
tion of Right, and the like, and it is the principles of which
great events and great instruments are the expressions and wit-
nesses that give life and vigor to written constitutions. If it
were not for these principles the words of constitutions would
be dead and powerless.* It is, therefore, true that all princi-
ples that undergird and uphold the government are not ex-
pressed in words, but have their life and abiding place in the
spirit of the constitution, so that in determining the authority
of the legislature in creating courts we must often go behind
the words of the constitution to the principles which it sanc-
tions and confirms.

§ 156. Inherent and implied powers of courts.—It is not
necessary that the statute should specifically and in detail
designate the authority or power of acourt. The creation of
a court brings into existence powers and duties essential to the
discharge of judicial authority without any specification of such
powers and duties.* What constitutes judicial power, and what

1 Durham v. State, 117 Ind. 477; Van
Walters v. Board of Children’s Guar-
dians, 132 Ind. 567, 8. C. 32 N. E. 56;
Johnston v. State, 128 Ind. 16, 18;
State v. Noble, 118 Ind. 350, 361.

2Cooley Const. Lim. 510; Ames v.
Port Huron, etc., Co., 11 Mich. 139;
Hall v. Thayer, 105 Mass. 219; State
v. Crane, 36 N.J. L. 394; Cypress, ete.,
Co. v. Hooper, 2 Met. (Ky.) 350;
Scuffletown, etc., Co. v. McAllister, 12
Bush. 312; Reams v. Kearns, 5 Cold.
(Tenn.) 217; Lanfear v. Mayor, 4 La.
97, 8S. C. 23 Am. Dec. 477.

3 Professor Tiedeman, after giving
definitions of a constitution, and con-
stitutional law, says: ‘‘ If these defini-

tions be accepted as true, the conclu-
sion is irresistible that the fundamental
principles which form the State can
not be created by any governmental
or popular edict; they are necessarily
found imbedded in the national char-
acter, and are developed in accordance
with the national growth.’”’? The Un-
written Constitution of the United
States, 16. See State v. Denny, 118
Ind. 382.

‘Smythe v. Boswell, 117 Ind. 365;
Boswell »v. Boswell, 117. Ind. 599;
Nealis v. Dicks, 72 Ind. 874; Ex parte
Robinson, 19 Wall. 505; Ex parte
Terry, 128 U.S. 289; Anderson ».
Dunn, 6 Wheat. 204; Little v. State,
§ 157 137

COURTS.

attributes are incident to judicial tribunals are matters of which
knowledge is taken without any positive statutory specifica-
tions. They are known because they existed before written
constitutions were adopted or statutes enacted, and they are
sanctioned and confirmed by the organic and the statutory law.
Constitutions are to be interpreted as the work of men writing
where organized society exists and with reference to existing
institutions.!

§ 157. Court can not divest itself of jurisdiction—Where
the law invests a court with jurisdiction over a class of cases
and authority over a case belonging to the class is once effec-
tively acquired, it must be exercised. There is no election on
the part of the court. The law conferring jurisdiction is im-
perative, and must be obeyed.? A court can not by its own
voluntary action deprive parties of the rights with which the
law invests them, nor can it escape the duty it owes to the pub-
lic to exercise the functions and duties devolved upon it by
law. The authority to decide and the duty to decide are co-
existent, and where the authority exists there dwells the duty.
The public have an interest in the judicial system of a State or
nation as well as individual litigants or individual judges,
and that interest can not be disregarded.’

1 Cooley’s Const. Lim. (5th ed.), 73;
Durham v. The State, 117 Ind. 477;

90 Ind. 338; Hawkins v. State, 125
Ind. 570; State v. Morrill, 16 Ark. 384;

People v. Wilson, 64 Ill. 195; Ex parte
Biggs, 64.N. C. 202; Commonwealth v.
Dandridge, 2, Va. Cases, 408; State v.
Matthews, 37 N. H. 450; Arnold v.
Commonwealth, 80 Ky. 300, S. C. 44
Am. R. 480; In re Neagle, 14 Sawyer
U. 8. C. C. 232, 8. C. 5 Lawyers’
Rep. Anno. 78; United States v. Hud-
son, 7 Cranch, 32; In re Neagle, 135
U.§8.1. A very able and instructive
article upon this general subject from

the pen of Mr. Justice Henry B. —

Brown will be found in volume xii of
the reports of the American Bar Asso-
ciation, p. 263. See, also, Belvin v.
Richmond, 85 Va. 574.

Johnston v. State, 128 Ind. 16, 18;
State v. Denny, 118 Ind. 382; Davis
v. State, 119 Ind. 555, 556; Van Walters
v. Board of Children’s Guardians, 132
Ind. 567, 8. C. 32 N. E. R. 56.

2 Arroyo Ditch Co. v. Superior Court,
92 Cal. 47,8. C. 27 Am. St. R.91; State
v. Noble, 118 Ind. 350, 371. An officer
under a duty to decide can not right-
fully escape that duty. O’Brien v.
Moss, 181 Ind. 99, 102.

8 Speaking of the general duty to de-
cide cases within their jurisdiction,
the Court of Appeals of New York
said: ‘‘If this provision were intend-
ed solely for the protection of the court
138 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 158

§ 158. Term—When it begins.—The ‘term of court is gen-
erally held to commence on the day it actually convenes in
session. It is sometimes important to determine when a term
does begin, especially is this so in jurisdictions where the liens
of judgments attach on the first day of the term, although ren-
dered at a later date during the term. The question has arisen
between lien-holders, and the decisions are that the len of a
judgment does not attach until the court is opened."

§ 159. Duration of the term.—The term is the period pre-
scribed by law.? Thus, if the law provides that the term shall
be six weeks, that is the term, in legal contemplation, although
the judge may be absent during part of that period. It has,
indeed, been held that the period prescribed constitutes the
term whether there be any actual session or not.? Where the
duration of a term is definitely fixed the term ends, as a gen-
eral rule, at the time prescribed, but where a trial is in progress
the term may be prolonged so as to conclude the trial.* It has
been held that where the term provided for is required to be-
gin on Monday and continue in session for one week, it will
close, by operation of law, at twelve o’clock of the following

or its judges they might waive it, but
we do not think it was so intended.
It was, in our judgment, intended for
the benefit of the people, and to se-

cure litigants a forum in which they.

might have these controversies ad-
judged. The jurisdiction which the
constitution preserves in the courts
named is inalienable, and carries with
it on the part of those courts to exer-
cise it when called upon in proper
form to do so.’ Alexander v. Ben-
nett, 60 N. Y. 204.

1 Follett v. Hall, 16 Ohio, 111, 8. C.
47 Am. Dec. 365; Davis v. Messenger,
17 Ohio St. 231; Hemminway v. Davis,
24 Ohio St. 150. In the case first cited
it was said: ‘‘At what time, then, does
aterm of court begin? It can not be
said that a term of court commences
before the judges authorized to hold

court have convened. There can be
no term of court unless there is a
court. To fix a time by law to hold
court does not make a court.” ©

? Bush v. Doy, 1 Kan. 86; Horton v.
Miller, 38 Pa. St. 270. See, generally,
Napper v. Noland, 9 Port. (Ala.) 218;
Ex parte Wreford, 40 Ala. 378; People
v. Sanchez, 24 Cal. 17; Moore v. Felkel,
7 Fla. 44; Weatherford v. Shegag, 28
Ga. 194; Wight ». Wallbaum, 39 Il.
554; Addington v. Wilson, 5 Ind. 187;
Seymour v. State, 15 Ind. 288; Red-
wine v. State, 15 Ind. 298; Swails v.
Coverdill, 21Ind.271; Barrett. State,
1 Wis. 175; Revel v. State, 26 Ga. 275.

3 Downey v. Smith, 18 Ill. 671. See,
generally, Norwood v. Kenfield, 34
Cal. 329; McAfee v. State, 31 Ga. 411;
People v. Northrup, 50 Barb. 147.

* State v. Knight, 19 Iowa, 94.
§ 160

COURTS. 139

Saturday night. The length of terms and the right to pro-
long them are so much matters of statutory regulation that
rules can not be laid down, except as to matters where general
principles are of controlling effect.

§ 160. The common law fiction that the term is as one day.
—The common law judges, proceeding upon a fiction of their
own invention, correspondent to that invented by Parliament,
regarded a term of court, no matter how long its duration, as
consisting of a single day.2. Thecourts, acting upon this legal
fiction, referred all acts to the first day of the term.? The fic-
tion gives way before statutory provisions, and where a statute
either expressly or by implication comes into conflict with the
common law doctrine, that doctrine must yield.‘

§ 161. Terms—Business.—Where the law expressly pre-
scribes what business shall be transacted at a particular term,
the court can not, without error, transact any other business
than that prescribed.’ If, however, there is a discretion con-
ferred upon the judge, that discretion can not be controlled;
but should there be an abuse of discretion, resulting in any in-
jury to a party, the appellate courts would undoubtedly grant
proper relief upon seasonable application and a proper presen-
tation of the question. It has been held that a court can not,
by an arbitrary rule, declare what business shall be transacted
at a term in cases where the law provides what business shall

1Favis v. Fish, 1 Greene (Iowa),
406. See, generally, Grable ‘v. State,
2 Greene (Iowa), 559.

7In the case of Newhall v. Sanger,
92.U. 8. 761, 765, the court said:
“The appellee invokes the doctrine
that judgments of a court during a
term are, by relation, considered as
having been rendered on the first day
thereof. There is a fiction of law that
a term consists of but one day; but
such a fiction is tolerated only for the
purposes of justice.”’ Gibson v, Chou-
teau, 13 Wall. 92.

*

5 Richardson v. Beldam, 18 Ill. App.
527; Manchester v. Herrington, 10 N.
Y. 164; Garrard County Court v. Mc-
Kee, 11 Bush. (Ky.) 234; State v.
Martin, 2 Iredeil N. C. 101.

‘Clifton ». Wynne, 81 N. C. 160.

5 Wicks v. Ludwig, 9 Cal. 173; Nor-
wood v. Kenfield, 34 Cal. 329; Ger-
mond v. People, 1 Hill, 343; Mills v.
Commonwealth, 13 Pa. St. 627. See
Ex parte Bennett, 44 Cal. 84; People
v. Wicks & Jones, 20 Cal. 51.
140 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 162

be transacted.’ It is doubtful whether the case to which we
have referred can be sustained, for the regulation of business is
so much a matter of discretion that it is only in very clear
cases and upon a clear showing that the rules or orders of the
trial court arranging the calendar and declaring what causes
shall be tried can be reviewed on appeal. The general rule cer-
tainly is, that the regulation of matters of business rests largely
and almost entirely with the court of original jurisdiction. It
is, of course, conceivable that there may be cases where there
is an arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of power, constitut-
ing an abuse of discretion justifying the interference of a court
of review, but such cases, although conceivable, are very rare.

§ 162. Terms of court—Time of holding.—There is confu-
sion and conflict upon the question of the effect of a judgment
rendered at a term held at a time different from that fixed by
law. Some of the courts lose sight of the important difference
between a direct and a collateral attack, and assert that an er-
roneous decision as to the time for holding a term renders judg-
‘ ments pronounced at such a term absolutely void. Our
opinion is that where there is a question as to the time at which
a session or term may be held that is fairly debatable, so that
there is an actual question for decision, the judgment is not
void although it may be erroneous.” If erroneous a direct at-
tack may prevail, but a collateral one can not. If there is no
question for decision and the term is held in plain violation of

1State v. Posey, 17 La. Ann. 252, S.
C. 87 Am. Dec. 525. It is a wide stretch
of appellate jurisdiction to hold, as
was done in the case referred to, that
an appellate tribunal may substitute
its judgment for that of the nisi prius
court concerning the business that
shall be transacted at a designated
term.

2We do not doubt that it is error
available always on appeal, where the
question is made and saved, to hold a
term at the wrong time, although there
may be fair reason supporting the ac-

tion of the court in holding the term,
but notwithstanding the fact, as ap-
pears from the cases cited in this and
other notes, that the weight of author-
ity is that the action of the court is
totally void, we venture to say that
true principle requires a different con-
clusion. See, however, Smithson v.
Dillon, 16 Ind. 169; Coffinberry »v.
Horrill, 5 Cal.493 ; Bowden v. Hatcher,
83 Ga. 77,5. C. 9 S. E.R. 724; Dal-
ton v. Libby, 9 Nev. 192; Cooper »v.
American, ete., Co., 3 Colo. 318.
§ 162 COURTS. 141

a positive statute, there is reason for declaring that the pro-
ceedings are coram non .judice, but where there is a question
to be determined, whether it be as to the construction of a con-
stitution or of a statute, or some other question of a jurisdic-
tional nature, the decision upon that question may be errone-
ous but it can not be justly said to be absolutely void. If void
it may, of course, be treated without respect and everywhere
disregarded. Where there is a plain, explicit, and positive
statute designating the time at which terms shall be held there
is ground for asserting that there is no question for decision,
and the proceedings may, perhaps, be regarded as utterly des-
titute of force without a violation of principle. But even in
such cases there is reason for doubting whether the proceed-
ings of the tribunal can be declared utterly void, inasmuch as
it may be said with fair show of reason that the tribunal is
called upon, as the first step toward the exercise of authority,
to determine whether there is a plain and explicit statute. It
is, at all events, quite clear that proceedings should not be con-
demned in a collateral attack because the court was held at a
time not authorized by law where there is a debatable question
as to the right to hold it at the time it was actually held. The
consequences of holding judgments void are disastrous and
often work injustice to innocent parties and to ministerial offi-
cers who have acted upon the belief that the courts have not
defied or disobeyed the law by holding an entirely unauthor-
ized session. It is going quite far enough, perhaps too far, to
hold that where a tribunal assumes to sit at a time fixed by law
its judgments are void if the time at which the term was
held was different from that fixed by a plain and unambiguous
statute. It is certainly going far beyond reason or right to
hold that judgments given at a term held at a different time
than that fixed by statute are entirely void although there may
be a question fairly admitting of debate as to the time at which
the term should be held. Many loose expressions in the
cases, and, indeed, many of the decisions, require limitation
and qualification, for the broad doctrine they assert is radically
unsound and in direct conflict with settled principles. One
142. THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 163

who plows through the decisions upon this general subject will
find the confusion deepen as he moves on.

§ 163. Terms of court—Holding at improper time.—The
conflict in the adjudged cases upon the subject of holding courts
at a time other than that prescribed by statute is a stubborn
one, and, as indicated in the preceding paragraph, some of the
courts have gone to great lengths.!_ Those courts have, as it
seems to us, gone beyond principle and have not been mind-
ful of the principle that there may be a de facto tribunal as well
as de facto judges. As we shall show when we come to con-
sider the question of judges, there may be de facto judges al-
though there is nothing more than a bare color of right to hold
the office. The courts, we venture to say, should be slow to
strike down judgments upon collateral attacks, and should never
do so where there is a fairly debatable question as to the right
of the court to hold the session or term. Relief may, of course,
be granted where there has been an injury done to a party be-
cause of a mistake as to the time of holding the term, or where
there is excusable ignorance, but the relief should be granted
upon some other ground than that which assumes and declares
that there was no court. There is, it is obvious, a wide and
plainly marked distinction between cases where the assault is
a direct one and cases where it is purely collateral. Where
the attack is direct and the objection is seasonably made and
the objection properly reserved, there can be no doubt that the

? Garlick v. Dunn, 42 Ala. 404; Dunn 87 Texas, 32. See, generally, Ex parte

v. State, 2 Ark. 229, S.C. 35 Am. Dec.
54; McCool v. State, 7 Ind. 378; Grim-
mett v. Askew, 48 Ark. 151, 8. C. 28.
W.R. 707; Brumley v. State, 20 Ark.
77; Freeman v. Gaither, 76 Ga. 741;
Sellers v. Cheney, 70 Ga. 790; Galusha
». Butterfield, 2 Scam. (Ill.) 227;
Packard v. Packard, 34 Kan. 53; Earls
v. Earls, 27 Kan. 538; McDonald »v.
Bunn, 3 Denio, 45, 49; Hodgesv. Ward,
1 Texas, 244; In re Millington, 24
Kan. 214; Robinson v. Ferguson, 78
Ill. 538, 541; Campbell v. Chandler,

Maney, 38 Tex. 344; Wicks v. Ludwig,
9Cal.173; Norwood v. Kenfield, 34 Cal.
329, 333; Bates v. Gage, 40 Cal. 183;
Domingues v. Domingues, 4 Cal. 186;
State v. Robey, 8 Nev. 239; Ex parte
Roberts, 9 Nev. 44; Haws v. Clark, 37
Towa, 355; Cain v. Goda, 84 Ind. 209;
Batten v. State, 80 Ind. 394. The
distinction between cases where there
is a question to decide and authority
to make a decision is pointed out in
Smurr v. State, 105 Ind. 125, 128.
§ 164 COURTS. 143

proceedings should be adjudged erroneous. So, where the
time at which the term is held is one forbidden by law there is,
in strict reason and by clear authority, no court;! but when
there is no direct prohibition and there is a question for decis-
ion, this doctrine, we say again, ought not to prevail where
there is a. purely collateral attack and no equitable grounds, as
excusable ignorance or mistake, upon which the party is en-
titled to relief.2. The true rule is, as it seems to us, that where
there is general authority to hold a term, and there is a ques-
tion as to the time at which it should be held, there is nothing
more than error, although the term is held at the wrong time.’

§ 164. De facto terms.—Where a term or session of a court
is held by judicial officers having color of authority and color
of right to hold the session or term there is, as we believe, a

de facto term, although there may not be one de jure.

There

may be, and there often is, a de facto court,‘ and if there may

1 Hemmens v. Bentley, 32 Mich. 89;
In re, Circuit Court, 1 New Zealand
Court of Appeals, 329, 331; Estes v.
Mitchell, 14 Allen, 156; Lampe v.
Manning, 38 Wis. 673; Chapman v.
State, 5 Blackf. 111 ; Shearman v. State,
1 Texas App. 215, 8. C.28 Am. R. 402;
Blood v. Bates, 31 Vt. 147.

?Parker v. Kett, 1 Ld. Raymond,
658. i

5 This rule is thus stated in a late
work: ‘‘ Whether or not the pro-
ceedings of a judicial tribunal held at
a time not fixed by law are void col-
laterally, the decisions somewhat con-
flict. The majority in number hold
them void, while asmall minority hold
otherwise. On principle I think the
minority right. It does not seem to
me to be a question of statutory con-
struction or of color of right, but a
question of the de facto organization
of the tribunal. The statute may fix
the time so plainly and unequivocally
that all contention in regard to its
meaning is out of the question. It

may simply be overlooked, and a term
held in violation of it. Yet the tribu-
nal is in existence. The judges and
all the officers are present. They actu-
ally set the judicial wheels in motion,
and have the power of the State at
command to enforce obedience. ‘They
have the reputation of being what
they assume to be, and the power to
enforce their assumption, and that
makes a de facto tribunal under the
best approved definition.’”’. Van Fleet
Collateral Attack, § 30; Venable
v. Curd, 39 Tenn. 582; Cheek v.
Merchants, etc., Bank, 65 Tenn. 489;
Brewer v. State, 74 Tenn. 198, 203;
Smurr v. State, 105 Ind. 125, 182, 8. C.
4N.E. R. 445.

‘In the case of Burt v. The Winona,
etc., Co., 31 Minn. 472, the court, after
referring to the general doctrine of de
facto officers and citing the cases of
State v. Brown, 12 Minn. 490; State v.
Carroll, 38 Conn. 449, 467; State v.
Carr, 5 N. H. 367; People v. May-
nard, 15 Mich. 463; President, etc.,
144

THE WORK OUT OF COURT

§ 164

be ade facto tribunal capable of pronouncing judgments valid as
against collateral attacks there is no reason why there may not

v. Thompson, 20 Ill. 197; Kettering v.
City of Jacksonville, 50 Ill. 39; Town
of Geneva v. Cole, 61 Ill. 397; Kayser
v. Trustees of Bremen, 16 Mo. 88;
State v. Weatherby, 45 Mo. 17; City
of St. Louis v. Shields, 62 Mo. 247,
said:

“In Secombe v. Kittelson, 29 Minn.
505, the court held, in effect, that there
might be a de facto State government.
In the line of these authorities are the
only two cases we have found in which
an attempt was made to contest col-
laterally the legal existence of a court.
Fraser v. Freelon, 53 Cal. 644, was cer-
tiorari to review the proceedings of
the municipal court of appeals of San
Francisco in a private action. An at-
tempt was made to draw in question
the legality of that court. The Su-
preme Court, after referring to the
rule in case of ade facto officer said
(647): ‘‘It is manifest that the ques-
tion whether the office itself, which
was attempted to be created by stat-
ute, has a legal existence, is of vastly
more importance and of greater inter-
est to the public than the question of
the right of the incumbent,” and held
that the question could not be raised
except in an action or proceeding by
the State. State v. Rich, 20 Mo. 393,
was an appeal from a judgment of the
Lawrence County Circuit Court,quash-
ing an indictment found in and re-
moved into it from the Stone County
Circuit Court, on the ground that the
latter county had not been constitu-
tionally established, and consequently
there could be, in point of law, no such
court as the Stone County Circuit
Court where an indictment could law-
fully be found. The Supreme Court
held (397) that ‘‘all such inquiries
must be excluded whenever they come

up collaterally, and the county, its
courts and officers, must be treated as
things existing in fact, the lawfulness
of which can not be questioned, un-
less in a direct proceeding for that
purpose.”? In view of these authori-
ties, and of the reason that underlies
the rule applied to acts of persons in
the actual exercise, under certain cir-
cumstances, of the duties of public
officers, and of the great public mis-
chiefs that might sometimes arise but
for the application of the rule to
courts, we arrive at the conclusion
that there may be de facto courts or
offices, the legality of whose existence
can not be questioned, except in a di-
rect proceeding by the State for that
purpose.

We need not in this case attempt a
definition to cover all instances of a
court or office de facto. It is enough
to determine upon the particular facts
of this case. But we may go so far as
to lay down this proposition, that
where a court or office has been estab-
lished by an act of the legislature ap-

. parently valid and the court has gone

into operation, or the office is filled
and exercised under such act, it is to
be regarded as ade facto court or office
—in other words, that the people shall
not be made to suffer because misled
by the apparent legality of such pub-
lic institutions.”

Asserting a similar doctrine are the
cases of State v. Carroll, 88 Conn. 449,
S.C.9 Am. R. 409; State v. Anone,
2 Nott. & M. 27; Gilliam v. Reddick, 4
Iredell, 368; State v. Porter, 1 Ala.
688; Anderson v. Claman, 123 Ind.
471; White v. Fleming, 114 Ind. 560;
Wilson v. Board, 68 Ind. 507; Mayo
». Stoneum, 2 Ala. 390; Masterton v.
Matthews, 60 Ala. 260; State v. All-
§ 165 COURTS. 145

be a de facto term in which judgments may be rendered against
which collateral attacks can not prevail. The tribunal is greater
than the term, and it is a maxim of logic, as well as of law,
that the right to perform. the greater act implies the right to
do the lesser. Butin order to make the term a de facto one
there must be color of right to hold it, and it must be held by
persons who are not mere usurpers. If there is no law provid-
ing for the office there can, according to the weight of author-
ity, be no de facto officers,’ but where there is a law giving a
colorable right to hold the office or the term there is a jurisdic-
tional question for decision, and,as elsewhere shown, where there
is such a question and a decision upon it, the proceedings can
not be treated as absolute nullities. The question in such cases
is whether there is a colorable right to hold the term and not
whether there is a full and clear legal right. If there is a full
legal right there is no room for the presumption of validity so
often spoken of, nor office for the often asserted rule that a de-
cision upon questions of a jurisdictional nature is conclusive
against a collateral attack.

§ 165. Place of holding court.—The authorities are well
agreed upon the general proposition that it is error to hold a term
of court at the wrong place. Some of the cases go further, and
assert that the law must provide a place for holding the court,
and that a term held at any other than that provided is, in
every instance, absolutely void.2 We think there is confusion
and error in many of the decisions upon this point. Our judg-
ment is that if the parties treat the place as the proper one, and

ing, 12 Ohio, 16; Prezinger v. Har-
ness, 114 Ind. 491, 8. C.16 N. E.R.
495; Prezinger v..Fording, 114 Ind.
599, 16 N. E. R. 499; Keene v. Mc-
Donough,8 Pet.308 ; Meagher v. Storey
Co., 5 Nev. 244; Commonwealth v.
McCombs, 56 Pa. St. 436. But see
Kelly v. Bemis, 4 Gray, 83, 8. C. 64
Am. Dec. 50, and note.

1Im re Allison, 13 Colo. 525, 8. C. 16
Am. St. R. 224; Ex parte Stout, 5 Colo.

509.
10

2 Tenny v. Filer, 8 Wend. 569; King
». King, 1 Rawle P. & W. (Pa.) 15;
Block v. Henderson, 82 Ga. 23, S. C. 8
S. E. R. 877; Capper 2. Sibley, 65
Towa, 754, 8. C.23N. W. R. 153; Glass
v. The Sloop Betsey, 3 Dallas, 6;
Doe v. Whitaker, 5 B. & Ad. 409, 525.
See, generally, Michigan, etc., Co. v.
North Indiana, etc.,Co., 3 Ind. 239 ;Mc-
Clure v. McClurg, 53 Mo. 173; Wight-
man v. Karsner, 20 Ala. 446; Brum-
ley v. State, 20 Ark. 77.
146 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 165

conduct the trial upon that theory, they can not afterwards
successfully assail the proceeding by a collateral attack. Much
of the confusion is due to the failure to discriminate between
void and voidable proceedings. This is a fruitful source of
error.’ If proceedings are absolutely void, no act of the parties
can impart validity to them, but if they are voidable only the
parties may validate them by their acts and conduct. We are
unable to resist the conclusion, notwithstanding the weight of
authority, that the true rule is that where there is a fair ques-
tion as to the place where the court should hold its term, its
decision upon that question is sufficient to give validity to the
proceedings as against a collateral attack.2 As we shall show
at another place, the general rule is that where parties consent
to the holding of a term at a given time or place, and there is
a colorable right to hold the term, the parties will not be al-
lowed even on appeal to overthrow the judgment because the
term was held at the wrong time or place. If the act of the
tribunal in holding a term or session at the wrong time or place
was absolutely void, it could not be given vitality by express
consent, much less by an implied waiver, and, this being true,
it can not be true that the act is absolutely void, for a void act
is one to which validity can not be imparted. While it is error
to hold a term of court at a place other than that designated by
law, the term ‘‘place’’ is not always to be understood as sig-
nifying a particular spot or building.? Where there is a suf-
ficient reason for not holding the term at the particular place

1 Earle v. Earle, 91 Ind. 27; Smith v.
Hess, 91 Ind. 424. In the case last
cited it was said: ‘‘Some confusion
has been brought into the cases by the
use of the terms ‘void’ and ‘void-
able,’ as applied to judgments. Judg-
ments are frequently spoken of as
void, because they may be so declared
in a proper proceeding.”’

?Bouildin v. Ewart, 63 Mo. 330;
Watts v. State, 22 Tex. App.572,8.C.3
S. W. R. 769; State v. Peyton, 32 Mo.
App. 522, 528; In re Allison, 13 Col.
525, 8. C. 16 Am. St. R. 224; Sevier v.

Teal, 16 Texas, 371; Reams v. MecNail,
28 Tenn. 542; Rogers v. Loop, 51 Iowa,
41; Price v. Peters,15 Abb. Pr. R. 197,
200; Gregory v. Bovier, 77 Cal. 121, 19
Pac. R. 233; Jones v. The Church, etc.,
15 Neb. 81,8. C.17 N. W. R. 362; Sew-
all v. Ridlon, 5 Greenl. (Me.) 452;
Cheatham v. Brien, 40 Tenn. 552;
Krueger v. Beckham, 35 Kan. 400, 8.
C. 11 Pac. R. 158; Hudspeth ». State,
55 Ark. 323, 8. C.18 S. W. R. 183.

* Litchfield Bank v. Church,29 Conn.
187; Lee v. State, 56 Ark. 4,5.C.198-
W.R. 16.
§ 166 COURTS. 147

appointed, as, for instance, in the court-house, the court may
be held elsewhere in the same town or city. The judge has
undoubtedly some discretion in such matters, and unless it is
abused to the prejudice of a party he can not successfully com-
plain. The place of holding court is, however, always a mat-
ter of importance. It has, indeed, been held that the legis-
lature itself can not authorize terms of a court of general

. jurisdiction to be held elsewhere than at the county seat.1 It
has also been adjudged that, where a statute requires the judges
to designate the places of holding court, the statutory com-
mand must be obeyed.? The same general principle is declared
in the case which holds that the orders of a judge of a circuit
court made in a county of his circuit other than the county ir in
which the action is pending, is ineffective.’

§166. Adjourned terms—General doctrine——Where there
is a statute positively fixing the duration of a term and giving
no authority to hold an adjourned term, the court can not
order that an adjourned term be held. Many of the cases go
so far as to assert that if there is an adjourned term held, al-
though there is color of authority to hold it, the proceedings
are coram non judice, if the term is held at an unauthorized
time. With this extreme view we can notagree. Our opinion
is that wherever there is color of authority sufficient to call in-
to exercise the judicial judgment, the proceedings are not coram
non judice, although there may be a manifest and palpable error
of judgment. This conclusion rests upon the broad general
principle, which we have already referred to, that where there
is sufficient ground to require the exercise of the judicial judg-
ment, and that judgment is called into exercise, the proceed-
ings are not void. If there is anything to decide there is neces-
sarily some matter for judicial consideration, and if the judi-
cial judgment i is given upon that matter, there is no valid rea-
son for asserting that the judgment is so utterly devoid of force

1 Coulter v. Routt County, 9 Col. 258. 2 Northrup v. People, 37 N. Y. 203.
See Wheelerv. Wheeler, 76 Texas, 489, 5 Gillespie v. See, 72 Iowa, 345, 8. C.
'§. C. 13S. W. R. 305. 33 N. W. R. 676.
148 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 167

as to deprive it of respect. If entitled to respect, and not a
thing to be everywhere disregarded, and by everybody treated
as devoid of force, it can not be justly adjudged void. If there
is an entire absence of authority to consider the matter at all,
or if the court assumes to act without color or appearance of
authority, or without any ground whatever for assuming to de-
cide, it is otherwise. q

§ 167. Adjourned terms—Errors and irregularities.—It is
the duty of a court to follow the law in directing and holding
adjourned terms. If the law is disobeyed in a material partic-
ular; the proceedings may be assailed as erroneous by a party.
who properly objects and duly saves exceptions. But, accord-
ing to what we regard as the better rule, a party who enters
upon a trial, or participates in proceedings, without objection,
can not assail the proceedings upon the ground that the ad-
journed term was irregularly ordered or held. By proceeding
without objection, he waives the right to subsequently assail the
orders or judgments of the court at the adjourned term it as-
sumed to rightfully hold.1. There are, however, decisions de-
claring that proceedings at an adjourned term irregularly held
are absolutely void, and that their invalidity is not waived by
the consent of the parties.? :

§ 168. Order for adjourned term.—Where the statute makes
specific provision for holding adjourned terms there must, in
order to make an adjourned term valid as against a direct attack
appropriately made, be asubstantial compliance with the require-
ment of the statute, and an order which is substantially and ma-

1 Louisville v. Power, 119 Ind. 269, * Nabors v. State, 6 Ala. 200; Galusha
271; Schlungger v. State, 113 Ind. 295; v. Butterfield, 2 Scam. 227; Gregg v.
Ard v. State, 114 Ind. 542; Mannix v. Cooke, 7 Tenn. 82; Davis v. Fish, 1
State, 115 Ind. 245. See State v. G. Greene (Ia.), 406, S. C. 48 Am.
Knight, 19 Iowa, 94; Weaver v. Cool- Dec. 387; Grable v. State, 2G. Greene,
edge, 15 Iowa, 244. The doctrine of the 559.. Where an officer, who has no
text is fully supported by analogous authority to make the order, assumes
cases. Thornton v. Baker, 15 R. I. to order an adjourned term to be held,
553, 8S. C. 2 Am. St. R. 925; Ela v. the order is a mere nullity. Thomas
McConihe, 35 N. H. 279; Railway Co. v. Fogarty, 19 Cal. 644.

v. Ramsey, 22 Wall. 322,
149

§ 168 COURTS.

terially different from that prescribed would not sustain proceed-
ings as against such anattack. Where the court assumes to hold
an adjourned term and there is nothing in the record to show that
it was not held upon a proper order we think it should be pre-
sumed that the order conformed to the statute. This doctrine is
in harmony with the general rule that the proceedings of courts
are presumed to be regular and legal until the contrary is made
to appear,’ and we can see no reason why this general rule should
not be regarded as a sufficient support for the doctrine we have
stated. The presumption always is that where there is gen-
eral jurisdiction the proceedings were regular and legal,® and
this presumption ought, in reason, to be given effect where the.
question is as to the validity of an adjourned term of court. It
is obvious, however, that this presumption can not prevail
where the statute definitely and explicitly fixes the time for
the terms of court and there is an entire denial or absence of
authority to hold adjourned terms. It has been held that
where the legislature fails to designate a time for holding court
special terms may nevertheless be held,‘ but while this doc-

1Tracey v. Altmyer, 46 N. Y. 598;
Kennedy v. MeNichols, 29 Mo.App.11;
Chestnutt v. Pollard, 77 Tex. 86, 8. C.
13 8. W. R. 852; Morisey v. Swinson,
104 N. Car. 555, 8. C. 10 8. E. R. 754;
Sidney, etc., Co. v. Warsaw School
District, 130 Pa. St. 76,8. 0.18 Atl.
R. 604; Walters v. Tefft, 57 Mich. 390,
8. C.24N.W.R.117; Bishop v. Village
of Goshen, 120 N. Y. 337, 8. C. 24 N.
E. R. 720; Prilliman v. Mendenhall,
120 Ind. 279, 8S. C. 22 N. E. R. 247;
Rapp v. Kester, 125 Ind. 79; Welsh v.
State, 126 Ind. 71; Beeler v. Hantsch,
5 Biackf. 594; Maxam v. Wood, 4
Blackf. 297; Reddington v. Hamilton,
8 Blackf. 62.

2In Wood v. Franklin, 97 Ind. 117,
121, it was said: ‘‘And if a suffi-
cient notice be given the adjourned
term will be legal, although the court
made no order as to notice. Conrad
v. Johnson, 20 Ind. 421. The record

not showing to the contrary, the pre-
sumption is that the adjourned term
was lawfully held.’”’ The court cited
the cases of Washer v. Allensville,
etc., Co., 81 Ind. 78; Green v. White,
18 Ind. 317. See, however, Clelland
v. People, 4 Colo. 244.

3Carman v. Pultz, 21 N. Y. 547;
Smith v. Newland, 9 Hun, 553, 554;
Phillip v. Gallant, 62 N. Y. 256, 265;
Tracey v. Altmyer, 46 N.Y. 598, 604;
Swearingen v. Wilson (Tex.Civ.App.),
218. W. R. 74; McDonald v. Dodge,
97 Cal. 333, 31 Pac. R. 909; State v.
Maloney (Mo.), 20 8. W. R. 1064.

*In re Wells, 36 Kan. 341. A very
strict rule upon the general subject
was laid down in the case of Hays v.
State, 39 Ga. 718, although it was there
held, and rightly, as we believe, that
where objection was not properly and
seasonably interposed the parties
could not avail themselves of the error
150 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 168

trine may, perhaps, be upheld under peculiar and liberal stat-
utes it is one that can not be safely extended. Parties must,
it seems to us, have a right to be informed by a public law or
by a proceeding substantially conforming to such a law of the
time at which they are expected to appear or try their causes,
for, if it were otherwise they could have no knowledge of the
time when steps would be taken in causes to which they were
parties. The decisions are generally favorable to the validity
of adjourned terms and the courts are reluctant to overthrow
proceedings at such terms.! But while the rule is liberal in
favor of adjourned terms, yet it is not so liberal as to dispense

orirregularity. In the case referred to
it was said, in substance, that it is the
imperative duty of the judge of supe-
rior courts to hold the courts at the
regular times fixed by law, and he has
no right to adjourn any of said courts
from the regular term to some other
time, by order in vacation, unless it
is, in the language of the statute, ‘‘ not
possible for him to attend the regular
term of said court.’’ And in case the
judge, by order in vacation, adjourns
over the regular term of the court to
any other time, for any other cause
than those expressed by the statute,
no party litigant can be compelled to
try his case before the judge at such
irregular term. But if the parties in
a civil case go to trial without objec-
tion, they will not afterward be heard
to set up irregularity.

1 Where the judge, being absent from
the State, wrote and telegraphed to
the clerk to adjourn the approaching
term of court to a further date, and the
clerk, in accordance with the tele-
gram, publishes a notice of the ad-
journment, and notified parties, ju-
rors and witnesses, but no proclama-
tion of the adjournment was made at
the day for opening the term, and the
written order was not filed nor entry

thereof upon the record made until
after the opening of the term at the
time to which it was so adjourned,
nor until after defendant, who was
held for trial at the regular term un-
der a continuance from a previous
term, had filed his protest against
being tried at such adjourned term,
held, that a nunc pro tunc record of
the order was sufficient, and the trial
of the defendant was properly held
at the adjourned term, no prejudice
being shown. State v. McGuire, 53
Iowa, 165. The adjournment of the
January term of court in one county
to a term subsequent to the holding of
the February term of the court in an-
other court of the same district has
been held valid. In re Hunter’s
Estate (Iowa), 51 N. W. R. 20.
Where the February term of the
district court was continued to the
24th of May next thereafter, and the
court did not conveneon the said 24th
pursuant to adjournment, the court is
legally open until it adjourns sine die or
expires by law. So held in State v.
Bohan, 19 Kan. 28. See, also, Tal-
bert ». Hopper, 42 Cal. 897; Cogswell
v. Schley, 50 Ga. 481; State v. Holmes,

56 Iowa, 588. °
\

\

§ 169 COURTS. , 151

with the requisite order or notice,!althougn as we have elsewhere
shown, when due notice is given, the form of the order is not
regarded as important. It is inferable from the language em-
ployed in some of the cases that if notice is given the absence
of an order will not be fatal, but we regard such a doctrine as
contrary to principle, inasmuch as we believe that the order is
essential to authorize the notice, and without it the notice is
utterly ineffective. We do not mean to be understood as saying
that an adjourned term upon notice only is always coram non ju-
dice, for we incline to the opinion that if notice is given and the
parties appear, or proceed with a trial, without objection, they
can not afterwards successfully question the validity of the
proceedings.

§ 169. Notice of adjourned term.—A liberal rule respecting
notice of the time of holding an adjourned term has been
adopted by the courts that have given the subject careful con-
sideration.” It is generally held that a substantial compliance
with the requirements of the statute is sufficient. Some of the
courts go very far in holding notices of adjourned terms to be
sufficiently full although the notices depart from the provisions
of the statute.

§ 170. Adjourned term—Waiver of objections——Where the
parties are in court when a time for an adjourned term is ap-
pointed, they are bound to take notice, and if no objections are
properly and seasonably interposed they can not afterwards be
heard to object to the sufficiency of the order or notice.? But
a party who has no knowledge of the adjournment, and neither

1Stovall v. Emerson, 20 Mo. App.
322.

2In Wise v. State, 34 Ga. 348, it was
held that the provisions of a statute as

to advertising the adjournment of the

superior court were directory to the
clerk, and. although not complied
with, the court may be held at the
time fixed in the order of adjourn-
ment; and a party not prejudiced by

the omission of the clerk can not com-
plain. The plaintiff in error was not
injured in the present case by such
omission. As to the sufficiency of the
publication of notice, see Board v.
State, 61 Ind. 75. See, generally,
Green v. White, 18 Ind. 317; Cordell
». State, 22 Ind. 1.

§ Louisville, etc., Co. v. Power, 119
Ind. 269, S. C. 21 N. E. R. 751.
152 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 171

impliedly nor expressly acquiesces in the action of the court
can not be regarded as having waived any rights.1_ The gen-
eral rule is that a party does not waive objections to matters of
which he had no knowledge and was not under a duty to take
notice; but as to one who has knowledge, or is bound, in con-
templation of law, to possess knowledge, the rule is essentially
different.2 Where the wrongful action goes so deep as to be-
come a question of power, we suppose it clear that the doctrine
of waiver can not be effectively applied, since parties can not
invest courts with power where the law withholds or denies it.
We make and mark a distinction between the existence of power
and the mode of its exercise or employment.

§ 171. Adjourned term regarded as continuance of regular
term.—It is generally held that an adjourned term is a contin-
uance of the regular term.? It is the generally accepted doc-
trine that business of any kind remaining unfinished at the
regular term may be transacted at the adjourned term held pur-

suant to the order of the court.

1Giles v. Caines, 3 Caines (N. Y.),
107; Newbery v. Furnival, 56 N. Y.
638.

? Ridenhour v. Kansas City,etc., Co.,
102 Mo. 270, 283, S. C. 14 S. W. R.
760; Duigenan v. Claus, 46 Kan. 275,
S. C. 26 Pac. R. 699; Mermory v.
Niepert, 33 Ill. App. 1381; Bradwell v.
Pittsburgh, etc., Co., 189 Pa. St. 404,
20 Atl. R. 1046; Louisville, etc., Co. v.
Rush, 127 Ind. 545, 8. C. 26 N. E. R.
1010; Montana Ry. Co. v. Warren, 137
U.S. 348; Fisk v. Chicago, etc., Co.,
74 Towa, 424, 8. C. 46 N. W. R. 998;
Tibbetts v. Penley, 83 Me. 118, S. C.
21 Atl. R. 838; Williams v. Thomas, 3
New Mex. 324, S. C. 9 Pac. R. 356;
Chicago, etc., Co. v. Greiney, 137 Il.
628, 8. C. 25 N. E. R. 798; Bliley v. Tay-
lor, 86 Ga. 168, S. C. 13 S. E. R. 283;
Connelly v. Shamrock, etc., Society,
43 Mo. App. 283; Clark v.Flint,22 Pick.
231; First Congregational Society v.
Trustees, 23 Pick, 148; Jones v. Keen,

In one case it was held that

115 Mass. 170; Matter of Cooper, 93
N.Y. 507; Baird v. Mayor, 74 N. Y.
382.

’People v. Ah Ying, 42 Cal. 18;
Smith v. Smith, 17 Ind. 75; Leib wv.
Commonwealth, 9 Watts. (Pa.) 200;
Fannon v. Plummer, 30 Mo. App. 25;
Cole County v. Dallmeyer, 101 Mo. 57,
138. W. R. 687; Davis v. Finney, 37
Kan. 165, 8. C. 14 Pac. R. 460. See,
generally, United States v. Hood (D.
C.), 19 Wash. Law R. 21; Johnson v.
Pittsburgh, etc., Co., 47 Ohio St. 318,
8. C. 24 N. E. R. 498; Lowenberg v.
People, 27 N. Y. 336; Northrup »v.
People, 37 N. Y. 203; Mechanics’
Bank v. Withers, 6 Wheat. 106; Van-
dyke v. State, 22 Ala. 57; Keen v.
Queen, 10 Q. B. 927; Higgins v. Rans-
dall, 13 Mo. 205.

‘ Knight v. State, 70 Ind. 375; Green
v. White, 18 Ind. 317; Keith v. State
(Ala.), 10 Lawy. Rep. Anno. 430, 8. C.
88. R. 353.
§ 172 COURTS. 153

an indictment may properly be found at an adjourned term,}
but we suppose that, where there is no statute authorizing en-
tirely new business to be transacted, a grand jury could not
be called together for the first time to consider cases not
pending during the regular term. It has been held that a term
can not be kept alive by an order of adjournment, assuming to
overleap an intervening regular term;? but other cases greatly
limit this general doctrine, if, indeed, they do not entirely
deny it.’

§172. Temporary adjournments.—An adjournment from
one day to another in term is a radically different thing from
appointing a time for holding an adjourned or special term of
court. An adjournment from a day in term to another day in
the same term is nothing more than ordering a recess. Such
an adjournment does not end the term, but, on the contrary,
the term continues, and business may be resumed, without:
special order or notice, when the recess ends. The power to
adjourn from time to time during the term is said to be ‘‘ one
common to all courts,’’ and, it may, as we think, be regarded
as an incidental power residing in all courts unless taken from

1Ulmer »v. State, 14 Ind. 52.

2 Jaques v. Bridgeport, etc., Co., 43
Conn. 34. See State v. Williams, 48
Ark, 227.

3 In re Hunter’s Estate (Iowa), 51
N. W. R. 20; United States v. Hood
(D. C.), 19 Wash. L. R. 21; Munze-
sheimer v. Fairbanks, 82 Texas, 351, S.
C.18 8. W. R. 697.

‘State v. Clark, 30 Iowa, 168; State
v. Knight, 19 Iowa, 84; Bass v. The
State, 17 Fla. 685; Jernigan v. State,
17 Fla. 690; Barber v. State, 13 Fla.
675; Williams v. Moseley, 2 Fla. 304;
Fraser v. Willey, 2 Fla. 116; Davis v.
Fish, 1 G. Greene, 406; but see Mat-
ter of Hunter’s Estate (Iowa), 51 N.
W. R. 20. See, generally, State v.
Euzebe, 42 La. Ann. 727,8.C.7 §.R.784;
State v.Harkins, 100 Mo. 666, S. C.138.
W. R. 830; State v. Boardman, 64 Me.

523; Willis v. Elam, 28 La. Ann. 858;
Harris v. Gest, 4 Ohio St. 469; Adicks
v. Allison, 21 8. Car. 245; De Leon v.
Barrett, 22S. Car. 412; Cole County v.
Dallmeyer, 101 Mo. 57,8. C.138. W.R.
687; Johnson v. Pittsburgh, etc.,Co.,47
Ohio St. 318, 8. C. 24 N. E. R. 493;
State v. Hawkins, 100 Mo. 666, 8. C.
13 S. W. R. 830; People v. Sullivan,
24 N. Y. St.579; Fannon v. Plummer,
80 Mo. App. 25; Jasper v. Schlesinger,
22 Ill. App. 637; Mapstrick v. Ramge,
9 Neb. 390; Hansen v. Bergquist, 9
Neb. 269; Cozine v. Hatch, 17 Neb.
694; State v. Todd, 72 Mo. 288; Miller
v. Wilson, 12 Harris (Pa.), 114; Neal
v. Shinn, 49 Ark. 227,8.C.48. W.R.
771; Wayne Pike Co. v. Hammons,
129 Ind. 368; Pitman v. United States,
45 Fed. R. 159.
154 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 173

them by positive law. The adjournment can not, of course,
be effective where it is prohibited by statute.’

§ 173. Unauthorized adjournment.—An adjournment at a
time or for a period forbidden by law, renders the proceedings
erroneous in cases where there is a direct attack and an objec-
tion is properly interposed and saved. This much is clear, for
to this extent the authorities are harmonious. But when we
get beyond this point there is conflict and confusion. Some
of the courts hold that where there is an unauthorized adjourn-
ment, jurisdiction is lost and subsequent proceedings void.?
Other cases take a different view of the question.? Irregular
adjournments are, in any view of the subject, to be discriminated
from those that are entirely unauthorized, and it seems to us,
that some of the courts have fallen into error because of the
failure to make the proper discrimination. Where there is an
error or mere irregularity, the proceedings ought not, as we
believe, to be held ineffective upon a collateral nor upon a
direct attack, unless the error or irregularity is an influential
one, materially prejudicing the rights of the complaining party.
If the adjournment is unauthorized in the strict sense, that is,
in the sense of being prohibited, there is room for debate as to

‘Ex parte Janeman, 28 Texas App.
486, 8. C.135. W. R. 783; Grimmett v.
Askew, 48 Ark. 151; State v. Williams,
48 Ark. 227, 8.C.2S. W. RB. 843.

? Ruhland v. Supervisors, 55 Wis.
664, 8. C.13 N. W. R. 877; Ruhland
». Jones, 55 Wis. 673, 8. C.13 N. W.
R. 689; White v. Mandeville, 72 Ga.
705, 707. See, however, Taylor v.
Wilkinson, 22 Wis. 40; Lininger v.
Glenn, 33 Neb. 187, 8. C. 49 N. W. R.
1128; Gould v. Loughran, 19 Neb. 392,
8S. C. 27 N. W. R. 397; Crandall v.
Bacon, 20 Wis. 671, 8. C. 91 Am. Dec.
451; Grace v. Mitchell, 31 Wis. 533,
536; Stromberg v. Esterly, 62 Wis.
632, 8. C. 22 N. W. R. 864; Manufac-
turing Co. v. Donahoe, 49 Ark. 318, 8.
C.5S. W. R. 342; Fales ». Goodhue,

25 Me. 423; State v. Castle, 44 Wis.
670, 675; Boller v. Mayer, 8 Jenes &
Spen. (N. Y.) 528, 527; Peck vw.
Andrews, 32 Barb. 445; Grace v. Mit-
chell, 31 Wis. 533.

’Jennerson v. Garvin, 7 Kan. 186,
139; Leach v. Pillsbury, 18 N. H. 525;
Hard v. Shipman, 6 Barb. 621; Hawes
v. Hathaway, 14 Mass. 233; Anderson
v. Gray, 134 Ill. 550, 8. C. 25 N. E. R.
843; Rigney v. Coles, 6 Bosw. (N. Y.
Super.) 479; Smith v. Whittier, 9 N.
H. 464, 466; Barnes v. Badger, 41
Barb. 98; Central Iowa, ete., Co. 9
Piersol, 65 Iowa, 498, 8. C. 22 N. W.
R. 648; In re Edwards, 35 Kan. 99, 8.
C. 10 Pac. R. 539; Ex parte McGehan,
22 Ohio St. 442; McGuire v. Wallace,
109 Ind. 284, S.C. 10 N. E. R. 111.
§ 174

COURTS. 155

whether it is or is not void, and if void, whether consent can
conclude the parties. .

§ 174. The interim created by adjournments in term—Va-
cation.—In some of the decided cases the interim between the
day an adjournment is ordered and the day to which the ad-
journment is made is regarded as a vacation.!. This doctrine
is one of importance, since the general rule is that what is done
by the court as a court must be done in term.” It is true that
some judicial acts may be performed by a judge in vacation,
but in strictness the acts of the court must be performed dur-
ing term, and not in vacation. Where the statute expressly
provides that judgments may be rendered in vacation by con-
sent, judgments so rendered are held to be valid and effective.’
Some of the cases discriminate between ministerial and judicial
acts, and adjudge that ministerial acts may be effectively per-
formed in vacation, but that strictly judicial acts can only be
effective in term time. It is difficult for us to discover any
solid foundation for the distinction the cases make, for-if the
act is really the act of the court it is necessarily judicial, and,
if judicial, must be done in term. We do not, of course, im-

1Conkling v. Ridgely, 112 Ill. 36;
First National Bank v. Daly, 34 II.
App. 173.

? Robinson v. Ferguson, 78 Ill. 538,
541; Campbell v. Chandler, 37 Tex.
32; Ex parte Ireland, 38 Tex. 344;
Wicks v. Ludwig, 9 Cal. 173; Norwood
v. Kenfield, 34 Cal. 329; Domingues v.
Domingues, 4 Cal. 186; McDowell v.
Jones, 58 Ala. 25, 35; Withers v.
Fuller, 30 Gratt.547; State v. Roberts,
8 Nev. 239; Ex parte. Roberts, 9 Nev.
44; Haws». Clark, 37 Iowa, 355; State
National Bank v. Neel, 53 Ark. 110,5S.
C. 22 Am. St. R. 185; Garlick v. Dunn,
42 Ala. 404. See, generally, Kin-
ports v. Rawson, 29 W. Va. 487; Gal-
usha v. Butterfield, 2 Scam. 227; Her-
nandez v. James, 23 La. Ann. 483;
Dixon v. Judge, etc., 26 La. Ann. 119;

Earls v. Earls, 27 Kan. 538; King v.
Green, 2 Stew. 133, S. C. 19 Am. Dec.
46; Davis v. Fish, 1 G. Greene (Iowa),
406, 8. C. 48 Am. Dec. 387; Filley v.
Cody, 4 Col. 109; Francis v. Wells, 4
Col. 274; Bruce v. Doolittle, 81 Til.
103; Laughlin v. Peckham, 66 Iowa,
121; Marshall v. Ravisies, 22 Fla. 583;
Wight v. Wallbaum, 39 Ill. 554; Bates
v. Gage, 40 Cal. 183; Gregg v. Cooke,
1 Peck.(Tenn.) 82; Le Grange v. Ward,
11 Ohio, 257; Herndon v. Hawkins, 65
Mo. 265.

5 Roy v. Horsley, 6 Ore. 382, 8. C. 25
Am. R. 537; Hervey v. Edmunds, 68
N. Car. 243; Morrison v. Citizens’
Bank, 27 La. Ann. 401; Ex parte Ben-
nett, 44 Cal. 84. See, generally, Peo-
ple v. O’Neil, 47 Cal. 109; Phelan v.
Ganebin, 5 Col. 14. ;
156 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 175

pugn the soundness of the doctrine that ministerial acts of
ministerial officers may be performed in vacation as well as in
term, but we can not yield assent to the assumption that the
act of a court is ministerial. It seems to us that when the tri-
bunal takes action, and takes it as a court, it can not be said to
act ministerially. The courts which proceed upon the theory
that some of the acts of a court may be ministerial, hold that
while a judgment can not be given or a decision made in vaca-
tion, the judgment may be entered in vacation.’ If the doc-
trine is confined to the mere act of the clerk in recording or
entering the judgment, no fault can justly be found with it;
but when it is extended so far as to embrace the action of the
court, it merits criticism. It has been held that a judgment
given in term is void if entered in vacation without having been
inspected by the judge.?

§ 175. Continuous session.—As we have shown in a former
paragraph, the common law regarded a term of court as one
day—the first day of the term—and while that doctrine does
not prevail as fully as it did in the past, yet its influence is still
felt. Under the influence of the rule mentioned the courts still
regard a term as continuous although it may be broken by
adjournment from time to time, and a long interval elapse be-
tween the time the order of adjournment is made and tlie con-
vening of the court pursuant to the order of adjournment.
When the term is regularly opened it continues until adjourned,
by operation of law or the order of the judge or judges.? Where
there is an adjourning order a vacation may exist, but upon the
convening of the session pursuant to the order, the term is
open, and rulings or judgments made or given may be modified
or changed as if there had been no interim caused by the ad-
journment.!

1 Tliff v. Arnott, 31 Kan. 672; Sieber See Wilson v. Rodewald, 61 Miss. 228.
v. Frink, 7 Col. 148; Earls v. Earls, 27 5People v. Central City Bank, 53
Kan. 538; Manitowoc County v. Sul- Barb. 412; Jasper v. Schlesinger, 22
livan, 51 Wis. 115. Ill. App. 637,

2 Mitchell v. St. John, 98 Ind. 598. * Eastman v. Concord, 64 N. H. 263.
§ 176 COURTS. 157

§ 176. Special terms—Generally.—A special term is usually
one appointed by the court. It is ordinarily necessary to
give notice of such terms, but where there is general authority
to hold special terms and-the court assumes to hold one, the
presumption is that the proper order was made and the notice
given as the law requires. To hold otherwise would be to
violate the presumption that judges obey the law, and it would,
indeed, be a gross and indefensible violation of the rule that all
official acts are presumed to berightfully performed. Toso hold
would be to assume that the members of the court had usurped
authority and disregarded the law they were appointed or
elected to uphold and enforce. This would be a wide and un-
justifiable departure from principle, far more so than to ad-
judge that ministerial officers had violated the law where no
facts are established which affirmatively show a breach of duty.
This we say for the reason that judicial officers are required to
act with calm deliberation, to give heed to the law with
scrupulous care and obey it in every particular. Where a no-
tice or an order is essential to the regularity or validity of a
special term, and a special term is held, the presumption is that
the precedent acts were duly performed. The principle we
have outlined is elementary and familiar.1 If there is an ab-
solute absence of power to hold special sessions the rule we
have stated does not govern, for the reason that in such a case
the question is one of power, and where there is no power there
can, it is clear enough, be no valid action by any tribunal no

the acts of natural persons. Each af-
fords presumptions, from acts done, of
what must have preceded them, as

1Tn the case of Bank v. Dandridge,
12 Wheat. 64, 70, the court said: ‘‘The
same presumptions are, we think, ap-

plicable to corporations. Persons act-
ing publicly as officers of the corpora-
tion are to be presumed rightfully in
office. “Acts done by the corporation
which presuppose the existence of
other acts to make them legally opera-
tive are presumptive proofs of the lat-
ter.’ In another place in the same
opinion it was said: ‘‘In short, we
think that the acts of artificial per-
sons afford the same presumptions as

matters of right or matters of duty.”
The same general doctrine was assert-
edin the case of Knox County v. Ninth
National Bank, 13 Sup. Ct. R. 267,
where it was said: ‘It is a rule of
very general application that, where
an act is done which can be done
legally only after the performance of
some prior act, proof of the latter car-
ries with it a presumption of the due
performance of the prior act.”’
158 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. §. 176

matter how great its dignity or high its rank. We can not es-
cape the conclusion that some of the courts have swung com-
pletely away from principle in holding, that, although there is
general authority to hold special sessions or terms, the proceed-
ings are void unless the record affirmatively shows that all was
done that the law requires. So far are we from assenting to
this doctrine that we assert that the sound rule is that where
the record is silent the presumption is that the term or session
was in all things regular and legal. We are, indeed, inclined
to believe that the session or term is to be regarded as having
been duly held unless the record affirmatively shows the de-
fects which destroy its regularity. This conclusion is in close
agreement with the general doctrine that a collateral attack can
not prevail against a judgment unless the matter which makes
the judgment void appears upon the face of the record, and, as
we have elsewhere shown, with the far-reaching general rule
that all presumptions and intendments will be made in favor
of the proceedings of judicial tribunals, unless matters appear
of record checking or breaking down the presumption that the
acts of public officers are presumed to be rightfully done until
the contrary is made to appear. !

1 As illustrating and supporting the 388 N. H.314, 317; Baizer v. Lusch, 28
statements of the text, we cite cases Wis. 268, 272; State v. Conoly, 6 Ired.
where presumptions have been em- 243; Galbraith v. Littiech, 73°Ill. 209;
ployed to support the decisions and Beebe v. Scheidt, 18 Ohio St. 406;
rulings of what are commonly called McClelland v. Miller, 28 Ohio St. 488,
inferior courts. Fox v. Hoyt, 12Conn. 500; Jacobs v. Louisville, etc., Co., 10
491, 495, 8. C. 31 Am. Dec. 760; Greg- Bush. 263, 269; Williams v. Morgan, 1
ory v. Bovier, 77 Cal. 121; Fagg v. Litt. (Ky.) 167. Wedo not, of course,
Clements, 16 Cal. 389; Jolley v. Foltz, refer to the cases cited as directly de-
34 Cal. 821; Liss v. Wilcoxen, 2 Colo. claring the doctrine of the text, but
85; Behymer v. Nordloh, 12 Colo. 352; as showing the influence and power
Williams v. Cammack, 27 Miss. 209, of the general presumption. It is, as
S. C.61 Am. Dec. 508; Hendricks v. we believe, inconsistent and illogical
Whittemore, 105 Mass. 28; Barber v. to attempt to divide a general rule,
Kennedy, 18 Minn. 216; Billings v. apply it to one class’and deny it to
Russell, 23 Pa. St. 191, 8. C. 62 Am. another where the classes are in es-
Dec. 330; Kincaid v. Neall, 3 McCord, sence the same. If apresumption will
201; Camp v. Woods, 10 Watts. (Pa.) support one ruling or one decision, it
118; Farr v. Ladd, 37 Vt. 156; Lightsey ought, in reason, to be held to sup-
». Harris, 20 Ala. 409, State v. Weare, portall rulings and decisions wherever
§ 177 COURTS. 159

§ 177. Special terms—Authority to order.—lIt is evident
that where the statute clearly and expressly prescribes the time
for holding court, and, either by express words or necessary
implication, excludes authority to appoint special terms, none —
can be held. As indicated in the preceding paragraph and
elsewhere, there is a plain and radical difference between cases
where there is authority to hold special sessions, and the ques-
tion is as to the mode in which the authority is exercised, and
cases in which there is an entire absence of authority. Where
there is general authority to appoint special sessions the appel-
late courts generally go to great length in upholding such ses-
sions, and will not hold them ineffective although some errors
or irregularities may be shown. The rules sanctioned by most
of the courts are liberal in favor of the parties insisting upon
the validity of proceedings at such sessions and strict as against
those who assail the proceedings. Where, as is generally the
case, the question of the propriety or necessity of appointing
special terms is committed to the discretion of the court, its
judgment will not be disturbed unless there is a flagrant and
prejudicial abuse of discretion.?

§ 178. Special terms—Constitutional questions.—In some
of the cases it has been contended that judges can not be em-
powered to order special terms to be held. The ground upon
which this contention was rested was that giving the judges
such authority was a delegation of legislative power. The court,

there exists general authority to make
such rulings or decisions. In the
case of Hanes v. Worthington, 14 Ind.
320, it was said: ‘‘The contrary not
appearing, we will presume that the
court was regularly held and the cause
properly brought to trial.””. The same
doctrine was declared in Shirts v.
Irons, 28 Ind. 458, 460. Asserting a
similiar doctrine are the cases of
Kenney v. Phillipy, 91 Ind. 511;
Zonker v..Cowan, 84 Ind. 395; Wood
o. Franklin, 97 Ind. 117,120.‘

1 Oshoga v. State, 3 Pinney (Wis.),

56; Oshoga v. State, 3 Chand. (Wis.)
57; Schrier v. Milwaukee, etc., Co.,
65 Wis. 457; Casily v. State, 32 Ind.
62. In Harper v. State, 42 Ind. 405,
410, the court declared that the de-
cision in Casily v. State, supra, in ef-
fect overruled the cases of Shiel v.
Maffett, 17 Ind. 316, and Slaughter v.
Gregory, 16 Ind. 250. See Common-
wealth v. Graves, 18 B. Monr. (Ky.)
34; Scheland v. Erpelding, 6 Oregon,
258; State v. Judge, etc., 11 La. Ann.
66; Hanna v. Phelps, 7 Ind. 21.
160 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. $173

however, denied the validity of the contention and held that there
was no delegation of legislative authority.1. In this the court
was clearly right. Judicial power embraces much more than
the authority to give judgments or render decisions.” It em-
braces all acts relating to matters of procedure and connected
with the administration of justice where such matters are not
ministerial or executive in their character. Courts could not
effectively discharge their duties if their authority were rigidly
confined to the conduct of trials, the hearing of causes and the
rendition of judgments or decrees. Itis manifest that as to
the matter of holding adjourned or special terms it is legiti-
mate and appropriate to confer upon them comprehensive powers,
since the determination of whether such terms shall or
shall not be held is intrinsically a judicial question and the
subject in its general scope a judicial one. Of much more
doubtful soundness is the case which holds that the governor
of the State may appoint special terms of court.? It seems to.
us that in vesting the governor with that authority the funda-
mental principle, which our national and State constitutions
sanction and confirm, that the powers of the government shall
be kept separate and distinct, is violated. The chief executive
officer of a State, in assuming to fix the times for holding
special sessions of the court does, necessarily, determine ques-
tions of a purely judicial nature and does in a great measure
take upon himself to determine what the business of the court
requires. This he can net do without controlling the affairs
of the judicial department, and this, as we believe, he can not
be empowered to do. In our judgment it is only the duly
elected or appointed judges of the courts who can determine
when the business will require a special term or when a special
term can be held without prejudice to the rights of litigants
having business in regular terms. We believe further that if
it be conceded that the power is not a judicial one, it must be

‘Messenger v. Broom, 1 Pinney 67; Striker v. Kelly, 2 Denio, 323;
(Wis.), 630. State v. Noble, 118 Ind. 350, 359.
2In the matter of Cooper, 22 N. Y. 5 State vu. Ketchey, 70 N. Car. 621.
§ 179 COURTS. 161

regarded as legislative, and if legislative that it can not be del-
egated.

§ 179. Business of special terms.—In jurisdictions where
the law makes provision for the business that shall be trans-
acted at a special term and leaves the court no discretion the
court can transact such business only as the statute prescribes.
Thus when a statute provides that a motion shall be made at
a regular term it can not be made at a special term.’ We sup-
pose, however, that if the parties expressly or impliedly agree
that the motion may be made at a special term they would
not be permitted to subsequently aver that it was made at the
wrong term. Where the statute does not restrict the court nor
prescribe what business shall be transacted, the term is to be
regarded as open to all pending business.? It has been held
that a special term is not part of the regular term,’ and that
actions may be brought at such terms,‘ but these matters
are largely matters of statutory regulation. The order may
control the business where the court has authority to direct
what business shall be transacted.®

§ 180. Adjournment—Reasons for need not be assigned.—
It is always presumed in the absence of countervailing facts
that a court acting within the general sphere of its authority
has proceeded legally and regularly, and upon this comprehen-
sive principle rests. the doctrine that a court in ordering an ad-
journment, or in ordering a special or adjourned term, is not
required to assign reasons for its action. It is reasonable to

1 Garner v. Carroll, 7 Yerg. (Tenn.)
365; Stagg v. State, 3 Humph. (Tenn.)
372..

2Hall v. State, 3 Lea (Tenn.) 552;
Hall v. Mount, 3 Cold. (Tenn.) 395.

5 Garner v. Carroll, 7 Yerg. (Tenn.),
365.

4Knight v. Bamberger, 19 Ind. 91.

5 Brown v. Newby, 6 Yerg. (Tenn.)
895. See, generally, Buck v. Beekly,
45 Ill. 100; Murphy v. Barlow, 5 Ind.
230; ee Territory, 1 Oregon,

51; Friar v. State, 3 How.(Miss.) 422;
Sharp v. Pike, 5 B. Monr. (Ky.), 155;
Mattingly v. Darwin, 23 Tl. 56; Le-
win v. Dille, 17 Mo.- 64; Reams v.
Kearns, 5 Cold. (Tenn.) 217; Wise v.
State, 34 Ga. 348; Rawson v. Powell,
86 Ga. 255.

6 Casily v. State, 32 Ind. 62; Harper
v. State, 42 Ind. 405; Shiel v. Maffett,
17 Ind. 316; Cass v. Krimbill, 39 Ind.
357.
162 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 181

assume that the court had sufficient reason for its action. The
absurdity of any other rule is manifest. It is, of course, nec-
essary to assign reasons where a positive statute so commands,
but where there is no such command it need not be done al-
though the statute declares what reasons shall be sufficient to
warrant an adjournment from time to time in term, or to war-
rant the holding of special or adjourned terms. Where the stat-
ute provides what reasons will justify the holding of special
or adjourned terms it is presumed that such reasons existed.

§ 181. Adjourned and special terms—Discretionary power
to order.—Where a court of original jurisdiction is invested
with discretionary power to order the holding of special or ad-
journed terms its exercise of that power is not subject to re-
view. It would require clear and strong words to make a
power to order special or adjourned terms any other than one
of discretion. In the nature of things the court of original ju-
risdiction must be clothed with ample discretion in such mat-
ters, and, presumptively, at least, the legislature must be taken
to have intended to commit to them a wide and comprehensive
discretion. The exercise of a purely discretionary power is not
error in the true sense of the term, although it may not have
been wisely or prudently exercised.1. An abuse of discretion,
when clearly shown, may constitute material error, but ap-
pellate tribunals are reluctant to overthrow the judgments of
nist prius courts upon that ground. It is a doctrine running
through all the law, applicable to ministerial as well as to ju-
dicial officers, that where a discretion is committed to a tribu-

1Lawrence v. Farley, 73 N. Y. 187;
Howell v. Mills, 538 N. Y. 322; Martin
». Windsor Hotel Co., 70 N. Y. 101;
Johnson v. Swayze (Neb.), 52 N. W.
R. 835; Minnoch v. Eureka, etc., Co.
(Mich.), 51 N. W. R. 367; Lake v.
Sweet, 63 Hun, 636, 8.0.18 N.Y.S. 342;
Adamsv. Main, 3 Ind.App. 232, 8. C. 29
N. E. R.792; Gordon v. Reynolds, 114
Tll. 118, S. C. 28 N. E. R. 455; People
v. Wayne Circuit Judge, 41 Mich. 727,

8. C.49 N. W. R. 925; Sinclair v. Hol-
lister, 16 N. Y. S. 529; Schmohl v.
Fusco, 16 N. Y. 8. 862; Matheson v.
Grant, 2 How. (U. 8.) 268, 279; Ma-
rine Ins. Co. v. Hodgson, 6 Cranch.
206; Mellish v. Richardson, 7 B. & C.
819; Ex parte Strong, 20 Pick. 484;
Carpenter v. Bristol, 21 Pick. 258;
Powell’s Appellate Proceedings, 195;
Elliott’s Appellate Procedure, §§ 597,
598, 599, 600.
§ 182 COURTS. 163

nal, no matter what its rank, no other tribunal will assume to
exercise it.! To so do would, it is evident, be a flagrant usurpa-
tion.

§ 182. Terms of court—Judicial notice.—As the times for
holding terms of court are prescribed by law, it is no more than
yielding obedience to familiar and elementary principles to ad-
judge that judicial notice of the times fixed by law will be taken
by other courts of the same jurisdiction. The principle re-
ferred to requires it to be held, as it is, that notice will be taken
ex officio of the beginning and duration of terms.* It is a neces-
sary consequence of the principles stated that it will be deter-
mined by judicial notice whether the acts of the court have or have
not been rightfully done during term. Therules wehavestated .
can readily and easily be applied to regular terms of court, but
they can not be applied, without qualification, to special terms,
or adjourned terms, held pursuant to special orders or notices.
We suppose it to be clear that courts do not ez officio take no-
tice of special orders or notices of other tribunals although
they will, of course, take judicial notice of their authority to
make such orders or issue such notices. When it is ascertained
that authority exists to make such orders or issue such notices,
and convene adjourned or special terms, it will be presumed,
the contrary not appearing, that the adjourned or special term
was held according to law.* The general principle underlying

1Goszler v. Georgetown, 6 Wheat.
598; State v. City of Newark, 48 N. J.
Law, 101; Weaver v. Templin, 113
Ind. 298; City of Richmond v. Davis,
103 Ind. 449; Smith v. Corporation of
Washington, 20 How. (U.8.) 185; Da-
vis v. Mayor, 1 Duer, 451; 2 Dillon’s
Munic. Corp. (3d. ed.), 686; Elliott
on Roads and Streets, pp. 276, 297, 375,
664.

2 Lindsay v. Williams, 17 Ala. 229;
State v. Hammett, 7 Ark. 492; Morgan
v. State, 12 Ind. 448; Gilliland v.
Sellers, 2 Ohio St. 223; Dorman v.
State, 56 Ind. 454; Pugh v. State, 2
Head. (Tenn.) 227; Buckinghouse v.

Gregg, 19 Ind. 401; Williams v. Hub-
bard, 1 Mich. 446; McGinnis v. State,
24 Ind. 500; McCrory v. Anderson, 103
Ind. 12; Carmody v. State, 105 Ind.
546; Clapp v. Bowman, 22 Neb. 198,
S. C. 34 N. W. R. 162.

3 Rodman v.. Rodman, 54 Ind. 444;
McGinnis v. State, 24 Ind. 500; Car-
lisle v. Gaar, 18 Ind. 177; Bethune v.
Hale, 45.Ala. 522; Rodgers v. State,
50 Ala. 102; Simms v. Todd, 72 Mo.
288; Spencer v. Curtis, 57 Ind. 221;
Ellsworth v. Moore, 5 Iowa, 486.

4 Carlisle v. Gaar, 18 Ind. 177; Porter
v. State, 2 Ind. 435. We have else-
where considered the subject touched
164 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 183

the doctrine we have stated goes so far as to make it the duty
of the courts to take judicial notice of the judges and general
officers of courts of the same State, and of their ordinary
duties.1_ We are speaking of what one court will take judicial
notice of concerning the action of another and different court,
and not of what a court will notice ez officio in its own records,”

§ 183. Judgment of the court as to the regularity of its
session—Efiect of—Where a court having a general authority
to hold a session upon its own order, or upon notice, does hold
a session, thus impliedly adjudging that it has the right and
authority to hold such a session, its judgment upon the ques-
tion should be regarded as conclusive against a collateral at-
tack,? This conclusion is supported by the decisions in closely
analogous cases, and is in accordance with principle. There
is, it is evident, a marked difference between cases where there
is no general authority to hold sessions at other times than
those fixed, definitely and certainly, by positive law, and cases

upon in the closing sentence of the
text.

1Grusenmeyer v. City of Logansport,
76 Ind. 549; La Plante v. Lee, 83 Ind.
155.

2 People v. Bloedel, 16 N. Y. Supp.
837; Campbell v. West, 86 Cal. 197, 8.
C. 24 Pac. R. 1000; White v. Rankin,
90 Ala. 541, 8. C.88.R.118; Hancock
v. Worcester, 62 Vt. 106, 8. C:18 Atl. R.
1041; Inre Gorry, 48 Hun, 29,8. C.15
N.Y.St. R.315; Walcott v. Wells(Nev.),
9 Law. Rep. Anno. 59, 8. C. 24 Pac. R.
367; Statev. Barrett, 40 Minn. 65,8. C.
41 N. W.R. 459; United States v. Leh-
man, 39 Fed. R. 49; State v. Wright,
16 R. 1. 518, §.C.17 Atl. R. 998; Up-
ton v. Paxton, 72 Iowa, 295, 8. C. 33
N. W. R. 773; Cannon v. Cannon, 66
Texas, 682; Buell v. State, 72 Ind.
523; Hipes v. State, 73 Ind. 39.

’Van Fleet Collateral Attack; § 1.
The principle we assert was thus stated
in Bouldin v. Ewart, 63- Mo. 330:

“The very fact of holding a court
there necessarily implied an assertion
of the right to hold it. It was ade
facto court, and its proceedings were
not void even if it should be conceded
that its session was at a place unau-
thorized by law.”’ The genetal doc-
trine was applied to a case where a
justice tried a cause in a township
where he had no jurisdiction. Rogers
v. Loop, 51 Iowa, 41. Many other
cases assert a similar doctrine. King
v. Inhabitants, 4 T. R. 596; Jones »v.
The Church, etc., 15 Neb. 81. 5
*See, generally, Venable v. White, 2
Head. (Tenn.) 582; Hensliev. State, 3
Heisk. (Tenn.) 202; Cheek v. Mer-
chants’ Bank, etc., 9 Heisk. 489 ; Smurr
v. State, 105 Ind. 125, 131; Brewer v.
State, 6 Lea, 198, 2083; Walcott v.
Wells (Nev.), 9 Law. R. Anno. 59;
White v. Fleming, 114 Ind. 560; An-
derson v. Claman, 123 Ind. 471.
§ 183 COURTS. 165

where there is a general authority to hold sessions or terms
upon notice, or upon the existence of designated facts. In the
one case there is a question for the judicial consideration and
judgment, in the other there is none. Where there is a ques-
tion to be decided and a decision is given upon it, there is a
judgment upon a matter in its nature jurisdictional, and such
a decision is, according to principle and authority, effective
against a collateral attack. Itis held in all the well considered
cases that where a court, inferior or superior, is required to
ascertain and decide that facts essential to jurisdiction exist,
its decision can not be successfully impeached in a collateral
proceeding.! The principle which these cases establish is the
same as that involved in the question we are considering, and
there is every reason why it should be held to control it, and
_ no valid reason why its application to such a question should
be denied. To break a great principle into fragments, giving
it effect in some cases and denying it in others where the cases

1 Commissioners of Knox County v. »v. Sims, 86 Ala. 102, S. C. 11 Am. St.
Aspinwall, 21 How. (U.S.) 589; Town R. 21; Wyatt v. Rambo, 29 Ala. 510,

of Colona v. Eaves, 92 U. S. 484;
Moran v. Miami County, 2 Black (U.

S.), 722; Mercer County v. Hacket, |

1 Wall. 83; Supervisors v. Schenck, 5
Wall. 772; Meyer v. Muscatine, 1
Wall. 384; Royal British Bank v.
Turquand, 6 Ell. & Bl. 327; Evans-
ville, ete., Co. v. City of Evansville,
15 Ind. 395; Tucker v. Sellers, 130
Ind. 514; Alexander v. Gill, 180 Ind.
485, 30 N. E. R. 525, 527; McEneney v.
Town of Sullivan, 125 Ind. 407, 412;
Montgomery v. Wasem, 116 Ind. 343,
351; Sims v. Gay, 109 Ind. 501, 505;
Commissioners v. Bolles, 94 U.S. 104;
Henline v. People, 81 Ill. 269; Chi-
cago, etc., Co. v. Chamberlain, 84 Ill.
333; Roderigas v. East River, etc., Co.,
63 N. Y. 460, 8. C. 20 Am. R. 555;
_ Miller v. Brinkerhoff, 4 Denio, 118;
Staples v. Fairchild, 3N. Y. 41; Peo-
ple v. Sturtevant, 9 N. Y. 263; Skin-
nion v. Kelley, 18 N. Y. 355; Bum-
stead v. Read, 31 Barb. 661; Goodwin

8. C. 68 Am. Dec. 89; Ela v. Smith, 5
Gray, 121, 8. C. 66 Am. Dec. 356;
Bonsall v. Isett, 14 Iowa, 309; Ryan v.
Varga, 37 Iowa, 78; Koehler v. Hill,
60 Iowa, 543; Martin v. Mott, 12
Wheat. 19: Vanderheyden v. Young,
11 Johns. 150; Wanzer v. Howland,
10 Wis. 8; Angell v. Robbins, 4 R. I.
493; Agry v. Betts, 12 Me. 415; Lowe
v. Dore, 32 Me. 27; Waterhouse v.
Cousins, 40 Me. 333; People v. Hagar,
52 Cal. 171. See, generally, Quayle v.
Missouri, etc., Co., 63 Mo. 465; Van
Steenbergh v. Bigelow, 3 Wend. 42;
Cauldwell v. Curry, 93 Ind. 363; Wood
v. Wilson, 4 Hous. (Dela.) 94; Town
of Cherry Creek v. Becker, 123 N. Y.
161, S. C. 25 N. E. R. 369; Ayres v.
Lawrence, 63 Barb. 454, 456; Quinlan
v. Myers, 29 Ohio St. 500; Collins v.

.Bennett, 46 N. Y. 490; Hallock v.

Dominy, 69 N. Y. 238; Lange v. Ben-
edict, 73 N. Y. 12. ,
166 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 183

are the same in essence, deforms the system of law, produces
confusion and leads to evil results in more ways than one.
Uniformity is a legal virtue and diversity a legal vice. The
foundation principle of the cases to which we have referred is
this: Where there is a general authority over a class of cases
there is power to decide whether the right to proceed exists in
the particular case,! and to decide this, it must also be decided
that the tribunal is authorized to make the decision. It is
necessarily assumed at the very outset that the court is ina
position to entertain the question and give judgment upon it,
since, if it is not in that position it can take no action what-

1JIn the case of Roderigas v. The
East River, etc., Co., 63 N. Y. 460, 8.
C. 20 Am. R. 555, the court said:
“When a statute prescribes that some
fact must exist before jurisdiction can
attach in any court, such fact must
exist before there can be jurisdiction,
and the court can not acquire jurisdic-
tion by erroneously deciding that it ex-
ists, and that it has jurisdiction. But
where general jurisdiction is given to
a court over any subject, and that ju-
risdiction depends in the particular
case, upon facts which must be brought
before the court for its determination
upon evidence, and when it is re-
quired to act upon such evidence, its
decision upon the question of its juris-
diction is conclusive until reversed,
revoked or vacated.’? The same
court said in the case of Porter v.
Purdy, 29N. Y. 106, S.C. 86 Am. Dec.
283: ‘‘ When, in special proceedings
in courts or-before officers of limited
jurisdiction, they are required to as-
certain a particular fact, or to appoint
persons to act in such proceedings,
having particular qualifications or oc-
cupying some peculiar relation to the
parties or subject, such acts, when
done, are in the nature of adjudica-
tions, which, if erroneous, must be
corrected by a direct proceeding for
that purpose; and if not so corrected,

the subsequent proceedings which
rest upon them are not affected, how-
ever erroneous such adjudications may
be.” Ina recent work the principle
underlying the cases to which we have
referred is carried to its legitimate
logical results and a just application of
the general doctrine correctly made.
In the work to which we refer, it is
said: ‘And as no one would think
of holding a judgment of the court of
last resort void if its jurisdiction were
debatable or even colorable, the same
rule must be applied to the judgments
of all judicial tribunals. This is the
true theory of judicial action when
viewed collaterally. If any jurisdic-
tional question is debatable or colora-
ble, the tribunal must decide it; and
an erroneous conclusion can only be
corrected by some proceeding pro-
vided by law for so doing, commonly
called a direct attack.’ Van Fleet
Collateral Attack, §1, p. 2. This
author at another place, speaking of
an assumption that no court can pass
upon its own organization, says: ‘“‘But
that begs the question. Each court
at each step it takes has to decide that
it still has a lawful organization and
the lawful right to proceed.” Jbid,
§ 21, p. 34. See, also, §31, and authori-
ties cited in note.
§ 183 COURTS. 167

ever. The initial step in every instance is the decision of the
right to entertain the particular case, and decide upon facts in
their nature jurisdictional. Whether the decision is expressed
or implied, there is, in every instance, a decision of the right
and authority to hold the term or session in which the particu-
lar matter is litigated. Where there is general authority over
a general class of cases, or a general subject, and a decision is
made in one of the cases of the general class, or in one of the
cases falling within the scope of the general subject, there is
always a judgment by a tribunal having general authority, and
such a judgment is, as we believe, not subject to impeachment

in a collateral proceeding.!

The correctness or soundness of

the judgment of a tribunal upon the question whether facts or

1In Bittain v. Kinnaird, 1 Brod. &
Bing. (Eng. C. P. R.) 482, Dallas, C.
J., said: ‘‘ The magistrate, it is urged,
could not give himself jurisdiction by
finding that to be a fact which did not
exist. But he was bound to inquire
as to the fact, and when he has in-
quired, his conviction is conclusive of
it.’ This is an expression of the
principle we have endeavored to state
and enforce, for our fundamental
proposition is that where there is

general authority to make an inquiry, |

or to ascertain whether certain facts or
certain conditions exist, there is an im-
plied authority to decide, and where
there is a decision it affirms neces-
sarily and conclusively as against a
collateral assault, that the inquiry has
been made and the requisite facts or
conditions found to exist. We concur
in the views of the author so far as they
relate to the point under immediate
mention, from whom we quote, who
thus expresses his opinion:

“By assuming to act at all, or to in-
vestigate any case, the tribunal deter-
mines that a valid, constitutional law
authorizes its own organization, and
that it has been duly organized; that

the judge or judges presiding, and the
other officers present, are the proper
ones, and duly qualified to act, and
that by and through them the cor-
porate tribunal may lawfully act; and
that the timé and place of sitting are
authorized by law. By assuming to
order process for the defendant, or to
pass upon, or to ratify process already
issued, the tribunal determines that a
valid constitutional law gives it juris-
diction over the subject-matter of the
particular case presented, and by as-
suming to call or default the defend-
ant, it determines that process, lawful
in form, has been lawfully served up-
on him by the proper officer or per-
son at the proper time and place. By
allowing an appearance, it determines
that the person so appearing has the
lawful right to do so. All questions
concerning the organization of the
tribunal, the time and place of its sit-
ting, its jurisdiction over the subject-
matter, its right to issue process for
the defendant, the validity of the pro-
cess issued and service made, are
questions of law that must be decided
in each case.’? Van Fleet Collateral
Attack, p. 2.
168 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 183

conditions exist, authorizing it to convene and hold a term or
session is of no importance where the assault is collateral and.
not direct, although it may be very important in the case of a
direct attack. The power to decide necessarily involves the

power to decide wrong as well as right,1 and if there be power

to decide, the nature of the question can not affect the exercise

of the power, for, the power existing, it covers and embraces

all questions, the organization of the tribunal and its right to

hold a particular session or term as well as all others lying
within the sphere of the tribunal’s general authority. The

principle that the decision of a tribunal upon its right and

authority to proceed is conclusive is an old one, older, indeed,

than any American court. Itis essential to the due administra-

tion of justice, to the protection of courts and officers, to the

peace and repose of society, and to the security of titles to prop-

erty. Its wise and salutary practical effect, and its intrinsic

merits are such as to require the courts of justice to extend and

enlarge its operation rather than to limit or restrict its effect

and force.

1Snelson v. State, 16 Ind. 29; Chica-
go, etc., Co. v. Sutton, 180 Ind. 405,

lard v. Thomas, 19 Gratt. 14, 20, was
one wherein the levy of a tax assess-

412; Coleman v. Floyd, 131 Ind. 330,
334; Ely v. Board, 112 Ind. 361, 368;
Young v. Sellers, 106 Ind. 101; Voor-
hees v. Jackson, 10 Pet. 449; Elliott v.
Piersol, 1 Peter, 328, 340; Million v.
Board, 89 Ind. 5; Hunt v. Hunt, 72
N. Y. 217. In a work of acknowledged
authority it is said: ‘There is noth-
ing absurd or illogical in holding that
a body of limited powers may deter-
mine whether the questions which are
brought before it admit of the exercise
of its powers. If limitation of power
necessarily excluded the right of ulti-
mate decision, nothing could be de-
cided finally under governments,
which, like those of this country, are
throughout, and without exception,
limited.” 1 Smith’s Leading Cases
(8th Am, ed.), 1116. The case of Bal-

ment by the county court came in
question, the contention of the appel-
lant being, as it is here, that the mem-
bers of the county court were not
properly summoned. Answering this
contention the court said: ‘‘ When
the court is about to lay the county
levy, the first question to be deter-
mined is, whether the justices have
all been summoned, or, if they have
not been summoned, whether a ma-
jority of them is present. And when
the court proceeds to lay the levy, it
in effect determines these questions,
and decides that the justices have
been summoned, or that a majority of
them is present. The propriety of
that decision can not be called in
question in any collateral proceed-
ing.”
§ 184 COURTS. 169

§ 184. Presumption as to regularity of organization.—
Where a court assumes to proceed in a cause belonging to a
class over which its authority extends, the presumption is that
it rightfully proceeds. This presumption extends to every
question it is necessary to decide, and, hence, extends to the
question of the legality or regularity of the organization as
well as the regularity of the time and place of holding the term
or session.’ Where there is no ground for the presumption it
can not, of course, be indulged. If it affirmatively appears,
from the record, that there was an entire absence of authority
to proceed, or that the term or session was held at a time pro-
' hibited by law, there is no ground upon which a presumption
can be rested. .

§ 185. Relation of courts to other governmental depart-
ments.—The courts, as the repositories of one of the great ele-
ments of sovereignty, constitute an important factor in the sys-
tem of checks and balances which enter so largely and so po-
tently into our governmental structure. It has been said by
some of the courts and writers that the division and distribu-
tion of governmental powers is theoretical rather than actual,
but from this doctrine we altogether dissent. It is true that
the lines which separate the departments are often shadowy and
indistinct, so that it is exceedingly difficult to trace them with
precision or accuracy. But there is a borderland, and, until a cer-
tain line is neared, it is awide one. The fact that it is some-
‘times difficult to determine where one right or one power be-
gins and another right or power ends is very far from proving
that there is no dividing line. There are numerous cases—a
vast majority, indeed—where the difficulty of marking and
establishing differences between resembling things or rights,

whether springing out of contracts or torts, is very great and
exceedingly perplexing, yet there can be no doubt that differ-
ences exist. The strong and wise judgments of the courts, be-
ginning in the early years of the republic, demonstrate the
1 Myers v. Mitchell (8. Dak.), 46 N. cliff v. State, 96 Ind. 369; McCullough

W.R. 245; Cook v. Skelton, 20 Ill. v. Moore, 9 Yerg. (Tenn.) 305.
107; Porter v. State, 2 Ind. 435; Shir-
a
170 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 185

truth of the conclusion that there is an actual separation be-
tween the governmental departments, and the practical effect of
these decisions has been of incalculable good to the country.
Doubts that may have formerly existed as to whether the sepa-
ration between the various departments of government was spec-
ulative and not real are completely dispelled by the decisions
upon the subject, for there is no substantial conflict in the
modern cases upon the general question, the courts, on the one
hand, sturdily asserting their independence,’ and, on the other,
stoutly maintaining that of the executive? and legislative de-
partments.’ Itisno fanciful line which keeps the courts within

District of Columbia v. Hutton, 143
U.S. 18; Lent v. Tillson, 140 U.S. 316;
In re Washington Street, 132 Pa. St.
257, 8. C. 7 Law R. Anno. 193, 19 Atl.
R. 219; Meyer v. Berlandi, 1 Law R.
Anno. 777, 8. C. 40 N. W. R. 513; Re
Application Pacific, etc., Commission,
82 Fed. R.241; Plumer v. The Board,
46 Wis. 163, S. C. 50 N. W. R. 416;
City of St. Joseph v. Farrell (Mo.),17 8.
W.R.497; Wyatt v. People, 16 Colo.252,
28 Pac. R. 961; Clarkson v. Ryan, 17
Canada S. C. 251; Perkins v. Corbin,
45 Ala. 103; In re Pacific, etce., Co., 32
Fed. R. 241, 267; Miller v. Horton,
152 Mass. 540, 8. C. 23 Am. St. R. 850;
State v. Armstrong, 3 Sneed (Tenn.),
634; Greenough v. Greenough, 11 Pa.
St. 489; Turner v. Althaus, 6 Neb.
54; Smythe v. Boswell, 117 Ind. 365;
Smith v. Myers, 109 Ind. 1; Langen-
berg v. Decker, 131 Ind. 471, 8. 0.16
Law R. Anno.,108, 8. C. 31 N. E. R.
190.

2United States v. Blaine, 1389 U. 8.
306; Adams v. Couch (Ok.), 26 Pac.
R. 1009; State v. Abbott, 41 La. Ann.
1096, S. C. 6 So. R. 805; Sioux City,
etc., Co. v. United States, 34 Fed. R.
835; Hope v. Board, 42 La. Ann. 647,
8.C. 7 So. R..706; United States v.
Raum, 135 U. 8. 200; People v. Gov-
ernor, 29 Mich. 320; Bates v. Taylor,

87 Tenn. 319, 8. C. 28 Am. Law Reg.
341; Hawkins v. Governor, 1 Ark. 570;
State v. Governor, 25 N. J. L. 331;
People v. Bissell, 19 Ill. 229; Dennett,
Petitioner, 32 Me. 508; Mauran v.
Smith, 8 R. I. 192; People». Yates, 40
Ill. 126; Pacific Ry.’ Co. v. Governor,
23 Mo. 353; State v. Warmoth, 22 La.
Ann. 1; Rice v. Austin, 19 Minn. 103;
Appeal of Hartranft, 85 Pa. St. 433;
State v. Drew, 17 Fla. 67; People v.
Cullom, 100 Ill. 472. Contra, Cotten v.
Ellis, 7 Jones (N. Car.), 545; Bonner
v. State, 7 Ga. 473; State v. Governor,
5 Ohio St. 528; Martin v. Ingham, 38
Kan. 641, 8. C.17 Pac. R. 162; Hovey
v. State, 127 Ind. 588.

5° State v. Kolsem,130 Ind. 434, S.C.
14 Law R. Anno. 566, 29 N. E. R.
595; Wells v. Missouri, etc. (Mo.),
15 Law R. Anno. 847, 8. C.19 8. W.
R. 530; People v. McFadden, 81 Cal.
489; McGregor v. Baylies, 19 Iowa,43;
Hovey v. Foster, 118 Ind. 502, 8. C. 21
N. E.R. 39; People v. Creiger, 138 Ill.
401, 8. C. 28 N. E. R. 812; Wilson v.
Chicago, etc., 133 Ill. 448; Wichita v.
Burleigh, 36 Kan. 34; Gentile v. State,
29 Ind. 409; Evansville, etc., v. State,
118 Ind. 426, 433, S.C. 4 Law R. Anno.
93; Brown v. Denver, 7 Colo. 305;
Carpenter v. People, 8 Colo. 116; State
v. Boone County, etc., 50 Mo. 317;
§ 186 COURTS.

171

their own domain, nor are the boundaries which separate the
other departments merely imaginary ones. The rights which
have been enforced and protected by the courts upon the prin-

ciple that the powers of government are distributed to inde-
pendent departments were actual rights and not speculative
ones, so that the consequences resulting from the principle are
in the strictest sense real and substantial. The position of the
courts must necessarily be one of independence and not of sub-
ordination or of co-ordination, otherwise they could not, as
they have done time and time again, control the action of the
legislative and executive departments in instances where the
officers of those departments have transcended their constitu-
tional power.

§186. Rules—Definition.—Rules of a court are regulations
of a definite character, and, in a restricted sense, are minor
laws.! They are not laws in the general sense of the term, but
they are laws in the sense of governing the practice of the tri-
bunal that frames and promulgates them. The court is bound
by them as well as the parties.?, Rules are more than orders
of court made with reference to special cases, and not intended
to govern the conduct of the business of the tribunal generally.
Courts can not make laws governing primary rights, but they

State v. New Madrid, etc., 51 Mo. 82; 1Rout v. Ninde, 111 Ind. 597;

Hall v. Bray, 51 Mo. 288; State v.
Hitchcock, 1 Kan. 178, S. ©. 81 Am.
Dec. 508; Beach v. Leahy, 11 Kan. 23;
Davis v. Gaines, 48 Ark. 370; Stock-
ton v. Powell (Fla.), 15 Law R. Anno.
42,8. C. 10.So. R. 688; Edmunds v.
Herbrandson, 2 N. Dak. 270,14 Law R.
Anno. 725, 8. C. 50 N. W. .R. 970;
United States v. Des Moines, etc., Co.,
142 U. 8. 510; Louisville, etce., Co. v.
Jordan, 16 Law R. Anno. 251, 11 So.
R. 111; Territory v. Ah Lim, 1 Wash.
156, S. C.9 Law R. Anno. 395; Will-
jams v. Nashville, 89 Tenn. 487, S. C.
158. W. R. 364; Carter v. State, 42
La. Ann. 927, §. OC. 8 So. R. 836. ~

.

Broom’s Legal Max. *134.

2 Achorn v. Andrews (Me.), 12 Atl.
R. 793; Maloney v. Hunt, 29 Mo. App.
879; Consolidated, etc., Co. v. O’Neil,
25 Ill. App. 318; Lancaster v. Wau-
kegan, etc., Co.,182 Ill. 492, 24N. E.R.
629; David v. Atna Ins. Co., 9 Iowa,
45; Prattv. Pratt (Mass.), 32 N. E.R.
747. If, as the authorities adjudge,
rules have the effect of laws, it must
necessarily result that the court is
bound by its own rules. Courts are
subject to the law as fully as the par-
ties. Even the law-making power
itself is bound by a lawit has enacted
until the law is repealed or abrogated
in some constitutional mode.
172 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 186

may make rules governing matters of procedure. Rules must,
as we believe, operate generally upon all parties and all causes
pending in the tribunal that formulates them, for a court can
not be allowed at the whim or caprice of the judge to arbitrarily
apply a rule to one party or one cause and deny its application
to other causes or parties. We do not mean to be understood,
as asserting that the court has no discretion in enforcing its -
rules; on the contrary, we affirm that it has a very compre-
hensive discretion, but we also affirm that parties have a right
to have the rules applied uniformly, and that where the cases
are the same no purely arbitrary discrimination shall be made.!
Parties have a right to expect that the rules of the court will
be given effect equally to all who stand upon the same footing.

1In the case of Thompson v. Hatch,
3 Pick. 512, it was said: ‘‘ Buta rule
cf court thus authorized and made has
the force of law, and is binding upon
the court as well as upon parties to an
action, and can not be dispensed with
to suit the circumstances of any par-
ticular case. In the case before us
the plea was allowed to be filed on the
fifth day of the term, although the
rule allows but four days for that pur-
pose. The circumstances were such
as would justify that order of the
court, if it had had power to pass it;
but we are satisfied that no one judge
of the court of common pleas or of this
court has authority to dispense with
rules deliberately made and promul-
gated, on account of the hardship of
any particular case, any more than he
would have authority to dispense with
any requisition of the legislature itself.
The courts may rescind or repeal their
rules, without doubt, or, in establish-
ing them, may reserve the exercise of
discretion for particular cases; but the
rule, once made without any such
qualification, must be applied to all
cases which come within it, until it is
repealed by the authority which made

it.’ Stronger language is used in
State v. Edwards, 110 N. Car. 511, S.
U.148. E. R. 741. In Quynn v. Brooke,
22 Md. 288, it was held that where a
rule of court provided that ten days’
notice should be given before taking
testimony, it was not competent for
the court to abridge the time by a
special order. See, also, Wall v. Wall,
2 Harr. & G. (Md.) 79; Burlington,
etc., Co. v. Marchand, 5 Iowa, 468;
David v. Atna Ins. Co., 9 Iowa, 45;
Walker v. Ducros, 18 La. Ann. 703;
Hughes v. Jackson, 12 Md. 450; Tripp
v. Brownell, 2 Gray, 402; Ogden v.
Robertson, 15 N. J. L. 124; Coyote,
etc., Co. v. Ruble, 9 Or. 121. A differ-
ent doctrine is held in New Hamp-
shire. Deming v. Foster, 42 N. H.
165. The doctrine of the case last
cited can not, in our opinion, be sound.
If a rule of court has the effect of a
minor law, the court can not vary it
by a special order at the pleasure of
the judge. Itis held in Consolidated,
ete., Co. v. O'Neil, 25 IN. App. 313,
that parties may assume that the rules
of court will be enforced, and that
they can not be deemed guilty of neg-
ligence in doing so.
§ 187 COURTS. 173

Rules of court should not be retroactive,' for parties can not
take measures to comply with a rule until it is established and
made known. In strictness, rules should be placed of record,
but it has been held that it is sufficient if they are filed in the of-
fice of the clerk,? although in another case a different view is taken
of the subject. The court which makes the rule may repeal
or abrogate it, but it has been held, and, as we believe correctly,
that the judge in vacation can not annul a rule. Rules of
court remain in force although there may be a change in the
court. The courts that frame the rules are considered the best
judges of their meaning and effect, and their construction of
their own rules will be respected on appeal unless palpably
erroneous.®

§ 187. Rules—Power to frame.—It is well settled that courts
possess the inherent power to frame rules for the government
of their business, and that it needs no express statutory decla-
ration to invest them with this power.’ In the very act of cre-

1 Reist v. Hellbrenner, 11 8. & R.
(Pa.) 181; Burlington, etc., Co. v.
Marchand, 5 Iowa, 468.

2State v. Ensley, 10 Iowa, 149. See
Mix v. Chandler, 44 Il. 174.

3 Owens v. Ranstead, 22 Ill. 161.
We think that the rules of the court
should be made of record. They are
more important than special orders or
judgments, and the spirit of the law is
that all matters of a permanent and
important nature should be duly re-
corded. It has often been said that
‘courts speak only by their records,”’
and surely in a matter so important as
that of minor laws they should so
speak. ‘

*Treishel v. McGill, 28 Ill. App. 68.

5Shane v. McNeill, 76 Iowa, 459, 41
N. W. R. 166. .

®Snyder v. Bauchman, 8 S. & R.
(Pa.) 836; Blair v. Hubartt, 139 Pa. St.
96, S. C. 21 Atl. R. 210; Baldwin v.
St. Louis, etc., Co., 75 Iowa, 297, S.
C. 9 Am. St. R. 479.

7 Fullerton v. Bank of United States,
1 Pet.604; Barry v. Randolph, 3 Binn.
(Pa.) 277; Dubois v. Turner, 4 Yeates
(Pa.), 361; Risher v. Thomas, 2 Mo.
98; Kennedy v. Cunningham, 2
Metef. (Ky.) 538; Brooks v. Boswell,
34 Mo. 474; Nutter v. Houston, 42 Mo.
App. 363; Inve Road McCandless Tp.,
110 Pa. St. 605, 5. C. 1 Atl. R. 594; _
Horner v. Horner, 145 Pa. St.'258, 8S.
C. 23-Atl. R. 441; Gist v. Drakely, 2
“Gill. (Md.) 330; Cochran v. Loring, ,
17 Ohio, 409; Harres v. Common-
wealth, 35 Pa. St. 416; Krutz v. How-
ard, 70 Ind. 174; Brooks v. Boswell,
34 Mo. 474; Sellars v. Carpenter, 27

Me. 497; Walker v. Ducros,18La.Ann. |

703; Hill v. Barney, 18 N. H. 607;
Ogden v. Robertson, 15 N. J. L. 124;
Ferguson v. Kays, 21 N. J. L. 481;
Estate of Boyd, 25 Cal. 511; Ollam ».
Shaw, 27 Ind. 388; Fox v. Conway
Fire Ins. Co., 53 Me. 107; Stadler v.
Hertz, 13 Lea (Tenn.), 315; Seymour
v. Phillips, etc., Co., 7 Biss. (C. C.)
174 THE WORK OUT OF COURT § 187

ating a court the power to formulate rules of procedure is
vested in the tribunal, because such a power is incident to its
existence as a court. It is obvious‘that there is no reason for
enumerating all the attributes and powers of a judicial tribunal,
since inherent attributes and powers are present in the concep-
tion of such a tribunal, as part of the thing conceived as cre-
ated or existing. The power to formulate rules, comprehensive
as it is, does not authorize a court to establish a rule that con-
flicts with the law. No rule can be valid which is in conflict
with a general principle of law or the provisions of a statute.’
Where a rule is palpably unreasonable and oppressive it will
not be valid, but it rests upon the party who assails it to make
this affirmatively appear. Thus, a rule which requires a party
to add to an affidavit for a change of venue matters not re-
quired by a statute, which fully provides what the affidavit
shall contain, is not valid.? An excuse for not complying with
a rule may be shown,?® but in order to escape the force of a rule
aclear and strong case must be established.t A party who
seeks to excuse a failure to comply with a rule must show that
he has not been guilty of negligence, and this he should do by
the statement of facts. It is the duty of a party to take notice
of the rules of the court in which his cause is pending, and he
can not be allowed to plead ignorance of them as an excuse for
his failure to yield them obedience. It is the duty of an attor-

460; Texas Land Co. v. Williams, 48
Texas, 602; Fisher v. National Bank
of Commerce, 73 Ill. 34; Wyandotte,
etc., Co. v. Robinson, 84 Mich. 428;
People v. Chew, 6 Cal. 636; De Lorme
v. Pease, 19 Ga. 220.

1 The Brig Hiram,23 Ct.of Cl.431; De
Lorme v. Pease, 19 Ga. 220; People v.
McClellan, 31 Cal. 101; Mitchell v.
Mitchell, 1 Gill. (Md.) 66; Suckley v.
Rotchford, 12 Gratt. (Va.) 60,8. C. 65
Am. Dec. 240; State v. Posey, 17 La.
Ann. 252, 8 C. 87 Am. Dec. 525;
Crotty v. Wyatt, 8 Brad. (Ill. App.)
888, 399.

2 Kurtz v. Griffith, 68 Ind. 444. In
the case cited the power to frame rules

is recognized, but it is held that they
must not contravene the law. The
court cited the cases of Redman v.
State, 28 Ind. 205; Galloway v. State,
29 Ind. 442; Whittem v. State, 36 Ind.
196; Truitt v. Truitt, 38 Ind. 16; Jeffer-
sonville, etc., Co v. Hendricks, 41
Ind. 48; Bennett v. Ford, 47 Ind. 264.
5 Shoemaker v. Smith, 74 Ind. 71;
Galloway v. State, 29 Ind. 442; Hays
v. Morgan, 87 Ind. 231; Burkett v.
Holman} 104 Ind. 6; Bernhamer v.
State, 123 Ind. 577, 580; Moulder v.
Kempff, 115 Ind. 459, 463.
‘Riggenberg v. Hartman, 102 Ind.
537; Witz v. Spencer, 51 Ind. 253.
§ 188 COURTS. 175

ney to acquaint himself with the rules of court, and a failure to
do so is negligence which will make him responsible to his
client in case loss results from his ignorance.

§ 188. Rules—Notice of by other courts.—A rule is special
to the court by which it is adopted, and is not, therefore, taken
notice of by other courts. It is even of a more special charac-
ter than a special statute, and there is the greater reason for
applying the doctrine that it will not be judicially noticed as
amatter of public or general knowledge. Where a rule is
sought to be brought to the notice of a court of original juris-
diction other than the court by which it was adopted it should
be pleaded specially, and where itis sought to be brought to the
attention of an appellate tribunal it should be incorporated in
a bill of exceptions, or in some other authorized mode made
part of the record proper. A rule is not part of the record
proper except, perhaps, as to the court which framed it, so that
it is always necessary when it is desired to bring it before other
tribunals to make it a part of the record.

§ 189. Discretionary powers—Nature and extent of.—We
have elsewhere spoken in a general way of the discretionary
power of judicial tribunals,? but the practical importance of
the subject makes it proper, if not necessary, to treat it more
fully. It would be impossible for a court to conduct business
if it were entirely stripped of all discretionary power. There
is such a vast multitude of matters which courts are required
to consider and decide that it is beyond the power of human
foresight and wisdom to provide general and fixed rules that
shall fit the various phases of cases with which the courts have
to deal. Much must, of necessity, be left to the decision of
the judge in the particular cases that come before him for trial

1 Crotty v. Wyatt, 8 Brad.(Ill. App.), be done by the law of the land must
888, 399; Knarr v. Conaway, 42 Ind. be noticed by another court; but a
260; Rout v. Ninde, 111 Ind. 597. In court of error can not notice the prac-
Sandon ». Proctor, 7 B. & C.800, Hol- tice of another court.”
royd, J .,said: “Anything required to =? Ante, § 181.
176 -THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 189

and judgment.! The field of judicial discretion is a wide one,
but it is not unbounded. Where fixed and settled rules begin
discretion ends. Not that there is no discretion in applying
fixed rules of law, but that where fixed rules of law-govern they
must be given effect.? Judicial discretion is not a mere arbi-
trary power to be exercised as the whims, passions or caprice
of the judge may dictate, for what is manifestly unreasonable
or plainly opposed to common justice no judge has power to
do.2 He may exercise his reason and his judgment, but when
he yields to passion, prejudice or caprice he goes beyond the
limits of discretion. It by no means follows that because there

1It is said by Mr. Wait that ‘‘To
anticipate every conceivable case is
not a possibility, and to establish a
legal rule which shall cover all future
contingencies would be equally im-
practicable. It is a wise rule which
declares that as much shall be done
as is practicable to provide a rule
which shall govern each case in ac-
cordance with legal principles instead
of leaving the decision to the discre-
tion of the judge. For, where there
is a legal rule of decision, every one
knows what that rule is, and he has a
remedy by appeal in case any viola-
tion of the rule occurs to his detri-
ment. But there are many cases in
which no general rule can be applied,
and in which the interests of the par-
ties and of the public will be best sub-
served by leaving the disposition of
particular questions to the discretion
of the judge upon all the facts appear-
ing in the cause. As the law now
stands, there is hardly a general step
in the progress of an action which is
‘not more or less liable to be controlled
by the discretion of the judge.” 1
Wait’s Pr. 463. At another place the
same author says: ‘‘ This discretion is
indispensable to a wise and just ad-
ministration of the law, for, in the
multitudes of instances which occur

in practice, the particular circum-
stances of each case require consid-
eration before a just decision can be
made. And no general rules can be
adopted which would reach each case
and do entire justice.”’

? Every fixed rule of law applicable
to a case must be enforced at the de-
mand of any suitor. When it is said
that something is left to the discretion
of a judge, it signifies that he ought to
decide according to the rules of equity
and the nature of the circumstances
so as to advance the ends of justice.”
Platt v. Monroe, 84 Barb. 291; Piggott
v. Ramey, 1 Scam. (IIl.) 145; Judges,
etc., v. People, 18 Wend. 79.

3 Abbott v. L’Hommedieu, 10 W. Va.
677; Rose ». Brown, 11 W. Va. 122;
Seymour v. Delancy, 3 Cowen, 445,
8. C. 14 Am. Dec. 552; People ». Su-
perior Court, 5 Wend. 114; Moon »v.
Wellford, 84 Va. 34,8. 0. 48. E. R.
572; Rooke’s Case, 5 Coke R. 100a;
Rex v. Wilkes, 4 Burr., 2527; Rex v.
Young,1 Burr. 556,560 ; Dooley v.Bark-
er,2 Mo. App.325,328; Dorman v.State,
34 Ala. 216, 235; Faber v. Bruner, 13
Mo. 541, 543; State v. Cummings, 36
Mo. 263, 279; Tripp v. Cook, 26 Wend.
148, 152; Bailey v. Trafe, 29 Cal. 422;
Stringer v. Davis, 30 Cal. 318; Ex parte
Farmers’ Loan, etc., Co., 129 U.S. 206.
177

§ 189 COURTS.

are no rigid rules a judge may do just what he pleases, for even
where there areno fixed rules marking the course he must pursue
he must keep within the bounds of what an old writer calls
‘‘right reason.’’ Some of the courts have said that there are two
kinds of discretion, limited and absolute,! but this, we say with
deference and respect, can not be true. No judge can have
absolute power, and absolute discretion implies the possession
of that power. It would be a dangerous doctrine to concede to
judges this absolute and unrestrained authority. On the other
hand, it will not do to say that discretion is limited by fixed
rules of law, for where there are fixed rules it can not be accu-
rately said that discretionary power exists. Where the power is
purely discretionary it is beyond review as long as discretion
is not transcended or abused,” but if the judge transcends the
bounds of judicial discretion or abuses it to the prejudice of a
party the appellate court will award relief. In order to secure
the interference of the appellate tribunal a very clear and strong
case of the abuse of discretion must be shown.’ | It is very sel-
dom that the appellate courts will review the action of the
courts of original jurisdiction in matters of discretion, and the
reports abound in cases where the appellate courts declined to
interfere, but contain very few in which the rulings of the trial
court were set aside. A court, upon proper request duly pre-
ferred, is, as a general rule, bound to exercise the discretionary

1 People v. City of Syracuse, 78 N.
Y. 56, 61; Howell v. Mills,~53 N. Y.
322; Anonymous, 59 N, Y. 313.

?McLimans v. City of Lancaster, 57
Wis. 297; Third Great Western, etc.,
Co. v. Loomis, 32 N. Y. 127; Powell
v. Jopling,2 Jones L.(N.C.) 400; Davis
v. State,15 Ohio, 72; Gandolfo v. State,
11 Ohio St. 114; Dobbins »v. State, 14
Ohio St. 493; Holt v. State, 11 Ohio
St. 691; State v. Barrett, 40 Minn. 65,
70, S.C. 41 N. W. R. 459; Welch v.
Wetzell Co., 29 W. Va. 63,8. C. 158.
E. R. 339; State v. Maher, 74 Iowa,
77, 8. C. 37 N. W. R. 2; Black v.
Thomson, 107 Ind. 162; Stephenson
v. State, ae 358; Byne v. Smith,

76 Ga. 101; McBride v. Northern, etc.,
Co., 19 Oregon, 64, 8. C. 23 Pac. R.
814; Grigsby v. Schwarz, 82 Cal. 278, 8.
C. 22 Pac. R. 1041; Albion, etc., Co. v.
Richmond, etc., Co., 19 Nev. 225; Ray
v. Northup, 55 Wis. 396.

5 Seymour v. Board of Supervisors,
40 Wis. 62; Smith v. Smith, 51 Wis.
665, 668; McLaren v. Kehlor, 22 Wis.
297, 300; Churchill ». Welsh, 47 Wis.
39, 54; Tierney v. Union Lumbering
Co., 47 Wis. 248; Gordon v. Spencer, 2
Blackf. 286; Weinecke v. State (Neb.),
51 N. W. R. 307; Dobson v. Cothran,
34 S. Car. 518, 13 8. E. R. 679; Ex
parte Richardson (Ala.), 11 So. R. 316;
Detro v. State, 4 Ind. 200, 202.
178 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 189

power with which it is vested, but it can not be compelled to
exercise it in a particular mode.1 The instances in which trial
courts are adjudged to possess purely discretionary powers are
very numerous. In relation to the amendment and filing of
pleadings, to the examination of witnesses, to the conduct of the
trial, the discretion of the court of original jurisdiction is very

broad and comprehensive.’

1Life Ins. Co. v. Adams, 9 Peters,
573; State v. Laughlin, 75 Mo. 358;
Ex parte Henderson, 6 Fla. 279; Ex
parte Dickson, 64 Ala. 188; Floral
Springs, etc., Co. v. Rives, 14 Nev.
431; State v. Cape Girardeau, etc., 73
Mo. 560; State v. Rising, 15 Nev. 164;
Ex parte Cage, 45 Cal. 248. :

2?'We give some of the very many
cases in which rulings have been held
to be made in the exercise of discre-
tionary power: Amendment and filing
of pleadings.—Donald v. Nelson, 94
Ala. 111, 8. C. 108. R. 317; Emeric v.
Alvarado, 90 Cal. 44, 8. C. 27 Pac. R.
356; Stensgaard v. St. Paul, etc., Co.,
50 Minn. 429, 52 N.W. R.910; Minerv.
Baron, 131 N. Y. 677, 8. C. 30N. E.
R.481; People v. Wayne, etc., 41 Mich.
727, S. C. 49 N. W. R. 925; Saint v.
Guerrerio, 17 Colo. 448, 30 Pac. R. 335;
Johnson v. Swayze (Neb.), 52 N.W.R.
835; Moore v. Garner, 109 N. Car. 157,
8S. C. 138. E. R. 768; Thompson v.
Thompson, 6 Hous. (Del.).225; Pincus
v. Dowd, 11 Mont. 88, S. C. 27 Pac. R.
393; Jenne v. Burt, 121 Ind. 275;
Reeder v. Sayre, 70 N. Y. 180, 189.
Denying leave to amend.—Chicago, etc.,
v. Jones, 103 Ind. 386; Brauns v.
Stearns, 1 Or. 367; Smith v. Gould, 61
Wis. 31; Hexter v. Schneider, 14 Ore.
184; Holliday v. Elliott, 3 Ore. 340;
Weed, etc., Co. v. Philbrick, 70 Mo.
646, 648. Impaneling the jury.—Hud-
son v. State, 1 Blackf. 317; State v.
Mann, 83 Mo. 589; Burt v. Panjaud,
99 U. S. 180; Pickens v. Hobbs, 42

Ind. 270; DePew v. Robinson, 95 Ind.
109, 111; Hopt v. Utah, 120 U. S.
430, 488; Bibb v. Reid, 3 Ala. 88;
People v. Arceo, 32 Cal. 40; Grand
Rapids, etc., Co. v. Jarvis, 30 Mich.
308; United States v. Neverson, 1
Mackey, 152. But the discretion of
the court in the matter of selecting
jurors does not go to the extent of per-
mitting it to disregard settled rules
regarding the qualifications of per-
sons called as jurymen. Mode of trial.
—Fitz Gerald v. Hayward, 50 Mo. 516;
Martin v. Hall, 26 Mo. 386; Dooley v.
Barker, 2 Mo.App. 325; Young v. Led-
rick, 14 Kan. 92. The discretion as to
the mode of trial is a limited one, for
the right to try by jury or by the court
can not be denied where the law fixes
the right. In chancery cases the court
may, in its discretion, submit matters
of fact to a jury but itis not bound to
do so. Conduct of the trial.—Crotty v.
Wyatt, 3 Brad. (Ill. App.) 888, 389;
Wartena v. State, 105 Ind. 445, 447;
Brooks v. Perry, 23 Ark. 32; Weaver
v. State, 24 Ohio St. 584; State v. Col-
lins, 72 N. Car. 144; Sullivan v. State,
46 N. J. L. 446; People v. Keenan, 13
Cal. 581; White v. People, 90 Ill. 117;
Dille v. State, 34 Ohio St. 617; Hunt
v. State, 49 Ga. 255; Baldwin v. Bur-
rows, 95 Ind. 81; Trice v. Hannibal,
etc., Co., 35 Mo. 416; Dobbins v. Os-
walt, 20 Ark. 619, 624; Burson »v.
Mahoney, 6 Baxt. 304, 307; Freligh
v. Ames, 31 Mo. 253; Hart v. State, 14
Neb. 572; People v. Kelly, 94 N. Y.
§ 190

COURTS.

179

§ 190.. Records.—We are here concerned only with judicial
records, and our discussion will be confined to records of that

526; Williams v.. Commonwealth, 82
Ky. 640; Brooks v. Perry, 23 Ark.
32; State v. Jefferson, 43 La. Ann.
995, 8S. C. 10 S. R. 199; Felt v.
Cleghorn (Colo. App.), 29 Pac. R. 813;
State v. Ulrich (Mo.),19 S. W. R. 656;
Milliken v. Mannheimer (Minn.), 52
N.W. R. 189. Consolidation of actions or
suits.—City of Springfield v. Sleeper,
115 Mass. 587; Kimball v. Thompson,
4 Cush. 441; Commonwealth v. James,
99 Mass. 4388; Commonwealth v.
Powers, 109 Mass. 353. Control of the
sittings of the court.—McGowen v.
Campbell, 28 Kan. 25, 30. Intercourse
between the bench and the bar.—Long.
v. State, 12 Ga. 303, 330. Competency
of witnesses.—Chateaugay, etc., Co. v.
Blake, 144 U. 8. 476; Maughan v.
Burns (Vt.), 23 Atl. R. 583; Lake
Erie, etc., Co. v. Mugg, 132 Ind. 168,
S.C. 31 N. E. R. 564. Separation of

witness and incidental matters.—John- ~

son v. State, 14 Ga. 55; State v. Zel-
lers, 2 Halst. (N. J.) 220; Southey ».
Nash,7 Car. & P. 632; Hanvey v. State,
68 Ga. 612; State v. Brookshire, 2 Ala.
803; Sartorious v. State, 24 Miss. 602;
State v. Fitzsimmons, 30 Mo. 236;
Laughlin v. State, 18 Ohio, 99; Rex v.
Cook, 13 How. St. Tr. 348; State v.
Sparrow, 3 Murph. (N. Car.) 487;
Bulliner v. People, 95 Ill. 394; People
v. Boscovitch, 20 Cal. 436; Hubbard v.
Hubbard, 7 Ore. 42; Smith v. State, 4
Lea (Tenn.), 428; Parker v. State, 67
Md. 329, 8. C. 1 Am. St. R. 387; Davis
v. Byrd, 94 Ind. 525; Burk v. Andis,
98 Ind. 59; State v. Thomas, 111 Ind.
515, S. C. 60 Am. R. 720; Laughlin
v. State, 18 Ohio, 99, S. C. 51 Am.
Dec. 444; Keith v. Wilson, 6 Mo. 435,
S. CO. 35 Am. Dec. 443; Cook v. State,
30 Tex.App. 607, 185.W. R. 412; Carl-
ton v. Commonwealth (Ky.), 18 8.

W. R. 535. But the court has no right
to exclude parties from the court room
although they may be witnesses.—
Schneider v. Haas, 14 Ore. 174, 8. C.
58 Am. R. 296; Tift: v. Jones, 52 Ga.
538; Crowe v. Peters, 63 Mo. 429;
Larue v. Russell, 26 Ind. 386; Ryan
v. Couch,66 Ala.244; Chester v. Bower,
55 Cal. 46; Watts v. Holland, 56 Texas,
54. Delivery of evidence.—McCleneghan
v. Reid, 34 Neb. —, 51 N. W. RB. 1087;
State v. Howard, 35 S. Car. 197, S.
C. 14S. E. R. 481; Sandwich v. Dolan
(Ill.), 31 N. E. R. 416; Dobson »v.
Cothran, 34 S. Car. 518, S. C. 13 S. E.
R. 679; Scoland v. Scoland, 4 Wash.
118, 29 Pac. R. 930; People v. Durfee,62
Mich. 487; Walker v. Walker, 14 Ga.
242; Goodman v. Kennedy, 10 Neb.
270; Agate v. Morrison, 84 N. Y. 672;
Blake v. Powell, 26 Kan. 320; Western
Union Tel. Co. v. Buskirk, 107 Ind.
549; Noblesville, etc., Co. v. Gause, 76
Ind. 142; McKinney v. Jones, 55 Wis.
89; Caldwell v. New Jersey, etc., Co.,
47 N. Y. 282; Johnson v. Mason, 27
Mo. 511; Larman »v. Huey, 13 B.
Monr. 436; Commonwealth v. Richet-
son, 5 Metcf. (Mass.) 412; Darland v.
Rosencrans, 56 Iowa, 122; McDowell
v. Crawford, 11 Gratt. 377, 408;
Beaulien v. Parsons, 2 Minn. 37;
Nixon v. Beard, 111 Ind. 137; Girault
v. Adams, 61 Md. 1, 9; Riley v. State,
88 Ala. 1938, 8. C.7 S.R. 149; Testard
v. State, 26 Texas App. 260, 8. C. 95S.
W.R. 888; State v. Powell, 40 La.Ann.
241; Fogarty v. State, 80 Ga. 450, 8.
C. 5. 8. E. R. 782; Hornsby v. South
Carolina, etc., Co., 26 8. Car. 187, 8. C.
1S. E. R. 594. Examination of wit-
nesses.—Lockwood v. Rose, 125 Ind.
588, 595; Ferguson v. Rutherford, 7
Nev. 385; Kalk v. Fielding, 50 Wis.
339; Bowers v. Mayo, 32 Minn. 241;
180 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 190

general class. We mean by judicial records those wherein the
proceedings of courts or judicial tribunals ‘are recorded or reg-
istered. The term ‘‘record’’ often means a complete history
of the rulings,! orders and transactions of the court in a spe-
cial case, and it is frequently employed as signifying the book
or books containing the entries of orders, rulings and judgment
in all cases. In appellate procedure the term ‘‘ record ”’ usually
means the papers and instruments properly before the court on

Schuster v. Stout, 30 Kan. 529; Wal-
lace v. Taunton, etc., Co., 119 Mass.
91; Kellogg v. Nelson, 5 Wis. 125, 131;
Moody v. Rowell,17 Pick.490,498 ; State
v.Lull, 37 Me. 246; Farmers, etc.,Co. v.
Groff, 87 Pa. St. 124; Hopkinson v.
Steel, 12 Vt. 582; Donnell v. Jones, 13
Ala. 490; Whiting v. Mississippi, etc.,
Co., 76 Wis. 592, S. C. 45 N. W. R.
672; Obernalte v. Edgar, 28 Neb. 70,
S. C. 44 N. W. R. 82; Parker »v.
Georgia, etc., Co., 83 Ga. 539, 8. C. 10
8. E. R. 233; Smith v. Hays, 23 Il.
App. 244; Lawson v. Glass, 6 Colo.
134; Pennsylvania Co. v. Newmeyer,
129 Ind. 401, 8. C. 28 N. E. R. 860;
Springfield v. Dalbey, 139 Ill. 134, S.C.
29 N. E.R. 860; Willitts v. Schuyler,
3Ind. App. 118, 29N. E. R.273; Sanger
v. Flow, 48 Fed. R. 152; Drexel v.

Pease, 129 N. Y. 96, S.C. 29N. E.R.

241. Appointment of receivers.—Buena-
vista, etc., Co. v. Chattanooga, etc.,
Co., 87 Ga. 689, 8. C. 18 8. E. R. 684;
Nimocks v. Cape Fear, etc., Co., 110
N. Car. 230, 8. C. 148. E. R. 622;
Allen v. Nussbaum, 87 Ga. 470, 8. C.
13 S.E. R. 635; Texas Trunk, etc., Co.
»v. Hogg, 83 Texas, 1,188. W. R. 199.
Granting a new trial.—Hudson v. Hud-
son,87.Ga.678,8.C.13 8.E.R.583; Vick-
ery v. Central, etc., Co., 89 Ga. 365, 15
8S. E. R. 464; Denver v. Jacobson, 17
Colo.497,30 Pac.R.246; Grant v. Grant,
109 N. Car. 710, 8. C.148. E. R. 90;
Edsall v. Ayers, 15 Ind. 286; White v.
Poorman, 24 Iowa, 108; Chapman ».

Wilkinson, 22 Iowa, 541; Stork v.
Judge, etc., 41 Mich. 5; Alderman v.
Montcalm, 41 Mich, 550. See au-
thorities cited Elliott’s App. Pro.,
§516. Discharge of jury before ver-
dict.—Winsor v. The Queen, 6 B. & 8.
148; Queen v. Charlesworth, 1 B. &
8. 460; State v. Walker, 26 Ind. 346.

1In Sayles v. Briggs, 4. Metcf.
(Mass.) 421, the court said: ‘‘A rec-
ord is a memorial or history of the
judicial proceedings in a case, com-
mencing with the writ or complaint,
and terminating with the judgment;
and the design is, not merely to set-
tle the particular question in differ-
ence between the parties, or the gov-
ernment and the subject, but to furnish
fixed and determinate rules and prec-
edents for all future like cases.” A
record, therefore, must be precise and
clear, containing proof within itself
of every important fact upon which
the judgment rests.’”? Greene County
v. Wilhite, 35 Mo. App. 39. See Mon-
tana Ry. Co. v. Warren, 1387 U.S. 348,
8. C. 12 Pac. R. 641; Watts v. Over-
street, 78 Tex. 571, 8. C. 14 S. W. R.
704; Newellv. Meyendorff,9 Mont.254,
23 Pac. R. 333; Spangler v. San Fran-
cisco, 84 Cal. 12,8. C. 18 Am. St. R.
158; Davidson v. Murphy, 18 Conn.
213, 217; Hahn v. Kelley, 34 Cal. 391,
422; Murfree v. Carmack, 4 Yerg.
(Tenn.) 269; Matter of Christein, 11
Jones & Spen. (N. Y.) 523.
§ 190 COURTS. 181

appeal, and so it does where the reference of court or counsel
is made to the record in a particular case. As is true of nearly
all the words in our language, the meaning of the word “ rec-
ord’”’ is to be determined by a consideration of the words with
which it is associated. It is important -to note a distinction
between’ what may be called the record proper or the intrinsic
record, and what may be called the special record. We mean
by the ‘‘ intrinsic record,”’ or ‘‘the record proper,’”’ that which
it is the duty of the court to order without special acts or re-
quests from the parties. By ‘special record’’ we mean a rec-
ord to which additions are made in the particular case at the
request of a party. To illustrate by familiar examples, a judg-
ment, a ruling on demurrer, or the like, are parts of the rec-
ord proper, but testimony, collateral motions, affidavits, or the
like, are not, and to become matters of record they must be
brought in by a bill of exceptions or in some other specific
mode. "What a special record contains is of record when the
special matters are properly brought in, but matters that are
directly a part of the business of the court, and immediately
connected with its rulings and decisions, are, without special
action, part of the record proper.1 This distinction is one of
2 Wash. 541, 27 Pac. R. 477; Whidby
Land, etc., Co. v. Nye, 5 Wash. 301, 31
Pac. R. 752; Elliott’s App. Procedure,
§§ 190, 191. See Bill of Exceptions.

‘The summons is not, ordinarily, a neces-
sary part of record where there is an ap-

1 Pleadings are part of the record
proper.—Gibbs v. Dickson,33 Ark.107;
State v. Godwin, 5 Ire. (N.C.) 401, 8S.
C. 44 Am. Dec. 42; Washington Ice
Co. v. Lay, 103 Ind. 48; Burntrager v.
McDonald, 34 Ind. 277; Board »v.

Montgomery, 109 Ind. 69; State v.
Earl, 183 Ind. 389, 8. C. 32 N. E. RB,
1126; Stimson v. Higgins, 9 How. Pr.
86; Vail v. Iglehart, 69 Ill. 332; Stevi-
son v. Earnest, 80 Ill. 513; Emery v.
Whitwell, 6 Mich. 486; Clark v. De
Pew, 25 Pa. St. 509, 8. C. 64 Am. Dec.
717. Direct motions are part of the rec-
ord proper, but collateral motions are
not.—Hauser v. Roth, 37 Ind. 89; Sid-
ener v. Davis, 87 Ind. 342; Pratt v.
Rice, 7 Nev, 128; United States v.
Parrott, McAll. (U.8.) 447; Freshour
v. Logansport, etc., Co., 104 Ind. 463;
Curry v. City of Spokane Falls,

pearance, but where there is a default it
is otherwise. McCoy v. Trucks, 121
Ind. 292; Shewalter v. Bergman, 123
Ind. 155. Judgments and decrees
must be entered in the proper record.
Hall v. Hudson, 20 Ala. 284; New-
comb’s Lessee v. Smith, 5 Ohio, 447,
451; Raymond v. Smith, 1 Metef.
(Ky.) 65, 8. C.71 Am. Dec. 458. There
is, of course, an essential difference
in cases where the question arises in
direct proceedings and cases where it
arises in a collateral attack. Roberts
v. Burrell, 3 Thomp. & Cook, 30;
Houston v. Walcott, 1 Iowa, 86. See,
‘
182 § 190

THE WORK OUT OF COURT.

practical importance, especially where cases are prepared for
appellate courts or carried up on appeal. To make an entry
part of the record proper it must be authorized by law or by
the order of the court. The statements written in the book or
books wherein the proceedings of the court are kept by a min-
isterial officer are not part of the record unless they are put
there by order of the court or in the performance of official
duty.!. The minute book of the clerk is the record for many
purposes, but it is not ordinarily the final or authentic record,
since, as a general rule, it is supplanted by the regular and
formal record made up as the law requires.” In strictness the
judge, or the proper judicial officer, should sign the record but
his omission to do so does not render the judgment void, nor,
as we believe, does it constitute such material error as will

authorize a reversal of the judgment.’

generally, Gunn v. Plant, 94 U. 8.
664; Hollister v. Giddings, 24 Mich.
501; Kambieskey v. State, 26 Ind. 225.

‘Young v. Martin, 8 Wall. 354;
State v. Acker, 52 N. J. L. 259, 8. C.
19 Atl. R. 258; People v. Beaver, 83
Cal. 419, 8. C. 23 Pac. R. 321; Ten-
nessee Co. v. Alabama Co., 81 Ala. 94;
Clarke v. Kane, 37 Mo. App. 258;
Vandekarr v. State, 51 Ind. 91; Board
v. Slatter, 52 Ind. 171; Lewis v. God-
man, 129 Ind. 359, §. C. 27 N. E. R.
563; Louisville, etc., Co. v. Shanks,
132 Ind. 395, 8. C. 31 N. E. R. 1111;
Fisher v. United States (Okl.), 31 Pac.
R. 195; Swearingen v. Wilson (Texas
Civ. App.), 218. W. R. 74; Sutherland
v. Putnam (Ariz.), 24 Pac. R. 320;
Baker v. Swift, 87 Ala. 530, 8. C.6 So.
R. 153; People v. O’Brien, 78 Cal. 41,
8S. C. 20 Pac. R. 359; Thompson v.
Ridelsperger, 144 Pa. St. 416, 8. C. 22
Atl. R. 826; Gould v. Howe, 127 Ill.
251; Chicago, etc., Co. v. Yando, 127
Ill. 214; Bowen v. Fox, 99 N. C. 127,
8S. C. 58. E. R. 487; Watson v. Com-
monwealth, 85 Va. 867, 8. C. 98. E.
R. 418. Entries on the judge’s docket

‘proper.

It is probably true that

are held not to be part of the record
McCormick v. Wheeler, 36
Ill. 114, 8. C. 85 Am. Dec. 388; Lewis
v. May, 22 Iowa, 599; Rogers v. Mor-
ton, 51 Iowa, 709; Case v. Plato, 54
Iowa, 64; Stark v. Billings, 15 Fla.
318; Miller v. Wolf, 63 Iowa, 233;
Young v. Buckingham, 5 Ohio, 485;
Burney v. Boyett, 1 How. (Miss.) 39;
State v. Manley, 63 Iowa, 344; Towle
v. Leacox, 59 Iowa, 42. But the én-
tries of the judge may be used asa
memorial for a nune pro tunc order.
McCormick v. Wheeler, supra.

? Barnes v. Lee, 1 Cranch (U.S. C.
C.), 430; Willard ». Whitney, 49 Me.
235; Taylor v. Commonwealth, 44 Pa.
St. 181.

’ Fontaine v. Hudson, 93 Mo. 62, 8.
C.3 Am. St. R. 515; Platte County v.
Marshall, 10 Mo. 346; Childs v. Mc-
Chesney, 20 Iowa, 431, S. C. 89 Am.
Dec. 545; Cannon v. Hemphill, 7
Texas, 184; Crim v. Kessing, 89 Cal.
478; Baker v. Baker, 51 Wis. 538;
Traer v. Whitman, 56 Iowa, 443;
Clapp v. Hawley, 97 N. Y. 610; Gunn
v. Tackett, 67 Ga. 725; Keener v.
§ 190 COURTS. 183

where the statute in clear and imperative terms makes it es-
sential to the effectiveness or validity of the proceedings that
the record should be signed by the proper officer the rule
_ would be different, but where there is no such imperative re-
quirement the omission to sign the record is not necessarily
fatal. A judgment entered in the wrong book of records is
not void as between the parties,! but if an innocent third per-
son should be misled to his prejudice we suppose it quite clear
that he would be entitled to relief if he was himself free from
fault, and not lacking in diligence or care. There must, of
course, be some written memorial or entry of a judgment or
decree, or else it can not be said to have a legal existence,” but

no particular form is required.*

Goodson, 89 N. Car. 273; French v.
Pease, 10 Kan. 51; Cathcart v. Peck,
11 Minn. 45; State v. Bliss, 21 Minn.
458, 462; Slocomb, Richards, etc., Hx
parte, 9 Ark. (4 Eng.) 375; Rollins v.
Henry, 78 N. Car. 342, 346; Keener v.
Goodson, 89 N. Car. 273, 277; East-
man v. Harteau, 12 Wis. 267, 275.
Contra, Ferguson v. Chastant, 35 La.
Ann. 485; Saloy v. Collins, 30 La.
Ann. 68; State v. Jumel, 30 La. Ann.
421; Galbraith v. Sidener, 28 Ind. 142;
Raymond »v. Smith, 1 Metcf. (Ky.) 65,
8. C. 71 Am. Dec. 458. See, generally,
Ringle v. Weston, 23 Ind. 588; State
v. Wanee, 4 Ind. App. 1, 8. C. 30
N. E..R. 161; Kambieskey v. State, 26
Ind. 225; Hollister v. Giddings, 24
Mich. 501.

18prigg v. Stump, 8 Fed. R. 207,
212; Hopper v. Lucas, 86 Ind. 43, 50;
Bond v. Citizens,etc., Bank,65 Md.498 ;
Thompson v. Rickford, 19 Minn. 17.

2Jones v. Walker, 5 Texas, 427;
Davidson v. Murphy, 13 Conn. 213;
Meeker v. Van Rensselaer, 15 Wend.
397; Boker v. Bronson, 5 Blatchf. 5;
Knapp v. Roache, 82 N. Y. 366;
Witter v. Dudley, 42 Ala. 616; Strom-
burg v. Earick, 6 B. Monr. 578;
Benaway v. Bond, 2 Pinney (Wis.),

This general statement is a

449, S. C. 54 Am. Dec. 147. See,
generally, Mudge v. Yaples, 58 Mich.
307, S. C. 25 N. W. R. 297; Post v.
Harper, 61 Mich. 434, 8. C. 28 N. W.
R. 161; Reed v. Gage, 33 Mich. 179;
Mayhew v. Snell, 33 Mich. 182; Fish
v. Emerson, 44 N. Y. 376; Wright v.
Fletcher, 12 Vt. 431; Strong v. Bradly,
13 Vt. 9; Nye v. Kellam, 18 Vt. 594;
Ellsworth v. Learned, 21 Vt.535 ; Rock-
wood v. Davenport, 37 Minn. 533;
Eastham v. Sallis, 60 Texas, 576; Hall
v. Hudson, 20 Ala. 284.

§ Little, etc., Co. v. Little, etc., Co.,
11 Colo. 223, 8. C.7 Am. St. R. 226;
Terry v. Berry, 13 Nev. 514; Kase v.
Best, 15 Pa. St. 101, 8. C. 53 Am. Dec.
573; Elliott v. Jordan, 7 Baxt. 376;
Clark v. Melton, 19 S. Car. 498; Bank
of the Old Dominion v. McVeigh, 32
Gratt. 530; Church v. Crossman, 41
Iowa, 373; Potter v. Eaton, 26 Wis.
382; McNamara v. Cabon, 21 Neb.
589; Flack v. Andrew, 86 Ala. 395;
Spence v. Simmons, 16 Ala. 828. See,
generally ,Ollis v. Kirkpatrick (Idaho),
28 Pac. R. 485; Bode v. Investment
Co., 1 N. D. 121; ‘Crim v. Kessing, 89
Cal. 478, S. C. 26 Pac. R. 1074; Bode
v. Investment Co., 6 Dak. 499; Jeffries
v. McNamara, 49 Ind. 142; Burge v.
184 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 191

correct expression of the general rule, but it is to oe under-
stood that the entry of record is not the judgment. The entry
of the judgment is evidence, the decision of the court is the
judgment or decree. This distinction is sometimes important
since there may in some cases be process taken out upon the
judgment or other action based upon it, prior to its formal en-
try of record.! The safe practice, however, is to have the
judgment entered before attempting to put it into execution.

§ 191. Control of record.—It is an old and firmly settled
rule that a court during term may correct errors or mistakes
in its records. In every court resides the general right and
power to make ‘‘its records speak the truth,”’ but, as will be
developed when we come to consider the doctrine of making
entries ‘‘now for then,’’ there is an essential difference in
practice between the right to correct records during term and
the right to correct them after the close of the term. It is,
perhaps, not quite accurate to assert that the principle is dif-
ferent in the two classes of cases, for the actual difference is
rather as to the mode of exercising the right than as to the
nature of the right itself. As long as the proceedings are in
fieri the control of the record is in a sense more complete and
approaches near the absolute; but, after the term ends, the
right is somewhat abridged and limited, but it is by no means
extinct. During the term the proceedings, as has been often
said, ‘‘remain in the breast of the judge,’’ and he may alter
or amend ‘‘according to the truth and right.’’? The court has

Shirk, 10 Ind. 396; Needham v. Gil-
laspy, 49 Ind. 245; Duerison v. Bel-
lows, 1 Blackf. 217; Wernwag v.
Brown, 8 Blackf. 457. As shown in
some of the cases cited, the entry
should identify the parties named in
the pleadings, but an error in this re-
spect is not always fatal. Haynes v.
Backman (Cal.), 31 Pac. R. 746.

1 Ex parte Raye, 63 Cal. 491; Davis v.
Shaver, 1 Phill. (N. Car.) 18, 8. C. 91
Am. Dec. 92; Los Angeles County
Bank v. Raynor, 61 Cal. 145; Estate

.

of Cook, 77 Cal. 220, 8. C. 11 Am. St.
R. 267; Schuster v. Rader, 13 Colo.
829; Estate of Newman, 75 Cal. 213,
8. C.7. Am. St. R. 146; Matthews v.
Houghton, 11 Me. 377; Fish v. Emer-
son, 44 N. Y. 376; Crim v. Kessing,
89 Cal. 478; Conwell v. Kuykendall,
29 Kan. 707.

73 Black. Com. 407 ; Saunders v. Cof-
fin, 16 Ala. 421; Amory ». Reilly, 9
Ind. 490, 494; Layman v. Graybill, 14
Ind. 166; Hansen v. Schlesinger, 125
Ml. 230; Memphis v. Brown, 94 U. 8.
§ 191 COURTS. 185

power, we think it well to suggest in oraer to avoid misunder-
standing, to change rulings made by it prior to final judgment
during term, and this power, as is obvious, is quite different
from the power to alter or amend a record. The power to
change a ruling or decision is more limited than the power to
make changes in the record. After a final decision or final
judgment we think it quite doubtful whether the power to make,
of its own volition, another decision or give another judgment
exists In any court.1. We do not doubt that a court may grant
a motion, as for a new trial or the like, and thus vacate its
judgment, but we very much doubt whether it can without a
new hearing or new trial, effectively and completely recall a
final judgment it has announced. In many of the States the
right to voluntarily dismiss an action ceases as soon as the
court announces its finding or judgment, and in those States
the announcement can not be withdrawn so as to permit the
plaintiff to dismiss his action. Where rights in their nature
final are concluded by a decision or judgment, and there is a
specific mode of review or of making a change in the decision

or judgment, we suppose the

715; Robinson v., Commissioners, 12
Md. 182; Lane v. Ellinger, 32 Texas,
369; Green v. Pittsburgh, etc., Co., 11
W. Va. 685; Brown v. Brown, 53 Wis.
29; De Castro v. Richardson, 25 Cal.
49; Stahl v. Webster, 11 Ill. 511;
Moore v. Taylor, 1 Idaho (N. 8.), 630;
United States v. Harminson,3 Saw.(U.
S.C. C.) 556; Morgan v. Eggers,127 U.
S. 68; State v. Dougherty, 70 Iowa,
439; Barrell v. Tilton, 119 U.S. 6387;
Goddard v. Ordway, 101 U. 8. 745;
Wolmerstadt v. Jacobs, 61 Iowa, 372;
Alabama, etc., Co. v. Nichols, 109 U.
S. 232; Obenchain v. Comegys, 15 Ind.
496; Sexton v. Bennett, 63 Hun, 624.
See, generally, Brusie v. Peck, 62 Hun,
248, 8. C. 16 N. Y. Supp. 645; Hall v.
Merrill, 47 Minn. 260, S. C. 49 N. W.
R. 280; Nell v. Dayton, 47 Minn. 257,
8. C. 49 N. W. R. 981; Township of
Hiawatha v.School Craft,etc., 90 Mich.

mode prescribed must be fol-

270, 8. C. 51 N. W. R..282; Quigley v.
Birdseye, 11 Mont. 439, S. C. 28 Pac.
R. 741; State v. Tate, 109 Mo. 265, 8.
C. 18 8. W. R. 1088; Day v. Argus,
etc., Co., 47 N. J. Eq. 594, 8. C. 22 Atl.
R. 1056.

1 Owen v. Bankhead, 82 Ala. 399, S.
C. 3 So. R. 97; Wray v. Hill, 85 Ind.
546; Levy v. Chittenden, 120 Ind. 37;
Hartlepp v. Whiteley, 129 Ind? 576;
Clark v. State, 125 Ind.1; Hartlepp v.
Whitely et al., 131 Ind. 543. See Cowles
v. Curry, 96 N. Car. 331, where it is
held that if a judge substitutes a judg-
ment for one previously given, that
the question must be first made in the
trial court or it will not be available
on appeal. See, generally, Snowden
v. Preston, 73 Md. 261, 8. C. 20 Atl.
R.910; Radclyffe v. Barton, 154 Mass.
157, 8. C. 28. N. E. R. 148.
186 THE WORK OUT OF COURT.

§ 192
lowed; but decisions, or orders, in their nature intermediate or
interlocutory, may be changed at any time before the final judg-
ment. A court may at any time before a final judgment has
been pronounced change its ruling on ordinary motions or on
demurrers. There is, as we have substantially said, a plenary
right existing in the court to correct its mistakes in rulings
upon the pleadings; but this right, comprehensive as it is, does
not extend so far as to permit a change in such rulings after a
final judgment has been announced and entered. The court
may, of course, set aside or vacate the judgment in the regular
mode, and after this is done correct errors in the intermediate
rulings. :

§ 192. Nune pro tune entries.—There is a diversity of opin-
ion as to the source of the power to make nune pro tune entries.
Some of the courts regard the statute of Henry VI as the source
of the power of the courts to cause entries to be made now for
then,” but we incline strongly to the opinion that the power is

an inherent one.?

It seems clear to us that every court must

have power to make its records conform to the truth, and ac-

1 Warren v. Williams, 25 Mo. App.
22; United States, etc., v. Jordan, 21
Abbott N. C. 330; Brown v. United
States, etc., Association, 90 Ky. —, 8.
C.138. W. R. 1085.

? Makepeace v. Lukens, 27 Ind. 435;
Jenkins v. Long, 23 Ind. 460.

3 Clarion Nat’] Bank v. Breneman,
114 Pa. St. 315, 8. C. 5 Cent. R. 478;
Conklin v. New York, etc., Co., 13 N.
Y.§. 782. See, generally, Chissom v.
Barbour, 100 Ind. 1; Fuller v. Stebbin,
49 Iowa, 876. In the case of Crim v.
Kessing, 89 Cal. 478, 8. C. 23 Am. St.
R. 491, the court said: ‘All courts of
record have the inherent power to cor-
rect their records so that they shall
conform to the actual facts, and speak
the truth of the case; and such cor-
rection may be made at any time either
upon the motion of the court itself, or
at the instance of any party interested,

in the matter. Ordinarily, a court
would require notice of the motion to
be given to all parties interested, but
it has the power to make the correc-
tion without notice. When made} the
record so corrected, as well as the
order making the correction, is con-
clusive upon any other court in which
the record is offered in evidence. Balch
v. Shaw, 7 Cush. 282. It appears by
the order made in the present case
that proof was made to the satisfac-
tion of the court that at the trial of
the cause, March 20, 1882, such order
of substitution was in fact made, but
had not been entered by the clerk.
That court was the sole judge of the
sufficiency of the proofs offered in
support of the motion, and its action
is conclusive, except in direct proceed-
ings to vacate the order.”
§ 192 COURTS. 187

curately express it. Courts of justice can not, without violat-
ing the principles they are organized to administer and enforce,
permit their record to speak falsely, and if, by mistake or in-
advertence, the record does not speak the truth, the court, as
an inherent attribute of its existence, must possess, as we be-
lieve, the power to make it do so. We are immediately con-
cerned with the question of practice, for we are speaking of the
general power and not of its exercise. Of its exercise we shall
presently speak. As a judicial record imports absolute verity it
ought, upon principle, to be within the power of a court, either
in term, or after the term, to make true in fact what is so in
theory. But whatever doubts there may be as to the origin,
source or nature of the power there can be none as to its ex-
istence. Upon this subject there is a vast wealth of authority,
and a multitude of cases might be collected with little labor.!
It is to be kept in mind that the power to make nune pro tune
orders and entries does not embrace the authority to make an
entirely new decision or judgment. The theory upon which
the right to make such orders or entries is that the decision or
judgment was actually given by the court, so that a new and

‘ Adams v. ReQua, 22 Fla. 250, 8. C.
1 Am. St. R. 191; Stillwell v. Carpen-
ter, 62 N. Y. 639; Shand v. Hanley,
71 N. Y. 319; Snead v. Coleman, 7
Gratt. 300, 8. C. 56 Am. Dec. 112;
Sanders v. Williams, 75 Ga. 283; Will-
iams v. Hayes, 68 Wis. 248, 8. C. 32 N.
W.R. 44; Tucker v. New Brunswick,
etc., Co., L. R. 44 Ch. Div. 249; Far-
ley v..Cammann, 43 Mo. App. 168;
Mitchell v. Overman, 103 U. 8. 62;
Ellis v. Ewbank, 3 Scam. 190; Reid v.
Morton, 119 Ill. 118, S.C. 6 N. E. R.
424; Chichester v. Cande, 3 Cowen, 50,
S.C. 15 Am. Dec. 238; Close v. Gil-
lespey,3 Jobns. 526; Bramblett v. Pick-
ett, 2 A. K. Mar. 10,8. C.12 Am. Dec.
. 850; Sexton v. Bennett, 63 Hun, 624,
S. C.17N. Y. Supp. 437; Southern
Kansas Co. v. Brown, 44 Kan. 681, 8.
C. 24 Pac. R. 1100; Jenkins v. Davis,

141 Pa. 266, S. C. 21 Atl. R. 592; Man-
nion v. Broadway, etc., Co., 13 N. Y.
8. 759 ; Winston v. Mitchell, 93 Ala. 554,
8. 0. 9 So. R. 551; Corn Exchange
Bank v. Blye, 119 N. Y. 414, 8. C. 23
N.E. R. 805; Barber v. Briscoe, 9
Mont. 341, 8. C. 23 Pac. R. 726; Clev-
enger v. Hansen, 44 Kan. 182, 8. C. 24
Pac. R. 61; Brownlee v. Davidson, 28
Neb. 785,8. C.45 N. W. R. 51; Keene
v. Welch, 8 Mont. 305, 8. C. 21 Pac.
R. 25; Gay v. Hebert, 44 La. Ann.
801, S. C. 10 So. R. 775; Becker v.
Simons, 33 Neb. 680, S. C. 50 N. W.
R. 1129; Hiawatha Tp. v. School-

craft, 90 Mich. 270,8. C. 51 N. W. R.

282; McClure v. Bruck, 43 Minn. 305,
8.C.45 N. W. R. 438; Brooks v. Steph-
ens, 100 N. C. 297, S.C. 68. E. R.81;
Ex parte Henderson, 84 Ala. 36, 8. C.
4 So. R. 284.
188 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 192

independent ruling or decision can not be created now for
then.’ If the entry expresses the decision, or judgment rendered
or correctly states the ruling made, it can not be changed by a
nune pro tune entry, for a revision or review of a judgment or
decision can not be secured in that mode.” The decisions re--
ferred to in the notes to this paragraph illustrate the applica-
tion of the general rule, and indicate its extent and practical
operation. It has been applied to cases of almost every con-
ceivable character. It has been liberally applied to uphold deeds
executed under the order of courts and has been wisely made
the instrument of supporting titles and preventing hardship
and injustice. Inthe class of cases just referred to the lapse
of time is a far less important factor than it is in ordinary

cases, for the courts have allowed entries to be made confirm-

ing deeds after the lapse of many years.

mistake in criminal cases may

1In Martin v. St. Louis, etc., Co.,
58 Ark. 250, 8. C. 138. W. R. 765, the
court said: ‘‘It is not the office of
an.amendment to create or originate
something new, but only to perfect
that which is imperfectly done.” A
similar doctrine is asserted in Kirby
v. Bowland, 69 Ind. 290, where it was
said: ‘A court may record a fact
nunc pro tunc, that is, if the fact exist-
ed then it may be recorded now, but
it can not record a fact now which did
not exist then, and there must be
some record, note, entry, or minute
of some kind on which to base it, con-
necting it with the case.”? To a simi-
lar effect is the case of Bramlett v.
Pickett, 2 A. K. Marsh. 10, 8. C. 12
Am. Dec. 350. In the case of Hick-
man v. City of Fort Scott, 141 U. 8.
415, it was said: ‘‘ Nothing was omit-
ted from the record of the original
action which the court intended to
make a matter of record. The case,
therefore, does not come within the
rule that a court, after the expiration

Recitals omitted by
be supplied by entries now for

of the term, may, by an order nunc pro
tunc, amend the record by inserting
what had been omitted by the act of
the clerk or of the court.” In re
Wright, 134 U. 8. 1386; Fowler v. Trust
Co., 12 Sup. Ct. R. 1; Galloway v. Me-
Keithen, 5 Ire. 12; Hyde v. Curling,
10 Mo. 359.

* Garrison v. People, 6 Neh. 274;
Moore v. State, 63 Ga. 165; Adams v.
Higgins, 23 Fla. 13, S. C. 18. R. 321;
Hyde v. Curling, 10 Mo. 359; Strange
v. Tyler, 95 Ind. 396; Bole v. New-
berger, 81 Ind. 274; Gray v. Brignar-
dello, 1 Wall. 627; Whitwell »v.
Emory, 3 Mich. 84, S. C. 59 Am. Dec.
227; Smith v. Hood, 25 Pa. St. 218;
In re Inhabitants of Limerick, Peti-
tioners, 18 Me. 183; Harris v. Tomlin-
son, 180 Ind. 426.

5 Inre Harvey, 16 Ill. 127; Morgan’s
Appeal, 110 Pa. St. 271, 8. C. 4 Atl.
R. 506; Camden v. Plain, 91 Mo. 117,
S.C. 48. W. R. 86; Moody v. Butler,
63 Texas, 210, 212.
§ 192

COURTS. 189

then.’ Where the delay in entering judgment arises from the
act of the court it may be entered as of the date on which it
ought to have been placed of record.? This rule rests upon the
fundamental principle that the act of a judge shall prejudice
no man. The class of cases under immediate mention may be
regarded as in some measure different from the ordinary case
of an omission to properly record or register what was actually
done by the court. The courts of law in establishing and ap-
plying the doctrine we are here considering proceed upon a
principle closely akin to that‘of equity expressed in the maxim,
that equity regards that as done which ought to have been
done. The implied, though not expressed, assumption is that
the court ought to have entered the judgment of record ata
time when it would protect the interests of the parties and pre-
vent injustice. The principal class of cases in which this
doctrine is applied is that wherein one of the parties to the
suit dies before the formal entry of judgment.*? It is well
settled, however, that the doctrine of formally entering a judg-
ment now for then does not authorize an entry in any case at
a stage earlier than that at which the parties were rightfully
entitled to judgment. The proceeding must have so far pro-
gressed as to entitle the applicant for a nune pro tune entry to

1x parte Beard, 41 Texas, 234;
Smith v. State, 1 Texas App. 408; ‘£x
parte Jones, 61 Ala. 399; Benedict v.
State, 44 Ohio St. 679.

2Gray v. Brignardello, 1 Wall. 627;
Mitchell v.' Overman, 103 U. 8. 65;
‘&tna Ins. Co. v. Boon, 95 U. 8. 117;
Heathcote v. Wing, 11 Exch. 355;
Freeman v. Tranah, 12 Com. B. 406;
Fishmongers Co. v. Robertson, 3 Com.
B. 970; Wilson v. Myers, 4 Hawks,
73, S. C. 15 Am. Dec. 510; McLean v.
State, 8 Heisk. 22; Campbell v.
Meseir, 4 Johns. Ch. 335, 8. C. 8 Am.
Dec. 570; Mitchell v. Schoonover, 16
Or. 211, 8. C.8 Am. St. R. 282; Jar-
rett’s Estate, 42 Ohio St. 199; Wood
v. Keyes, 6 Paige, 478; Hess v. Cole,

23 N. J. L, 116; Perry v. Wilson, 7
Mass. 393.

’ Citizens’ Bank v. Brooks, 23 Fed.
R. 21; Richardson v. Green, 130 U. 8.
104; Snow v. Carpenter, 54 Vt. 17;
Skidaway, etc., Co. v. Brooks, 77 Ga.
136; Page’s Estate, 50 Cal.40; Witten
v. Robison, 31 Mo. App. 525; Goddard
v. Bolster, 6 Me. 427, 8.C. 20 Am. Dec.
820; Tapley v. Goodsell, 122 Mass. 176; :
Long v. Stafford, 103 N. Y. 275; Spald-
ing v. Congdon, 18 Wend. 543; Dial
». Holter, 6 Ohio St. 228; Den v. Tom-

‘lin, 18 N. J. L. 14, 8. C. 35 Am. Dee.

525; Currier v. Lowell, 16 Pick. 170;
Bridges v. Smyth, 8 Bing. 29; Miles
v. Williams, 9 Q. B. 47; Tapley v.
Martin, 116 Mass. 275; Blaisdell v.
Harris, 52 N. H. 191.
190 § 192

THE WORK OUT OF COURT.

a final judgment, otherwise no such entry can be made al-
though steps may have been taken, which if properly pursued
would eventually authorize a final judgment. In short the
case must have been in such a condition as to make a final
judgment proper in due course.1. Where the rights of innocent
third parties have intervened, and it would be productive of in-
justice to them to make a nunc pro tunc order or entry, it will
not be made, for the rights of such persons are paramount to
those of the parties to the action or suit.2_ It is only where jus-
tice requires it, or, at least, sanctions it, that nune pro tunc
orders or entries will be made; and where equity requires it
the court will make such orders and prescribe such terms as
will prevent the order or entry from working injustice.* It is
generally held that a nunc pro tunc order can not be made at
the instance of a stranger to the record. The general rule is
that formal pleadings are not necessary, but that an informal
motion properly suggesting the correction or entry desired, and
the reasons therefor, is sufficient. There is some diversity of
opinion as to whether an order now for then can be made after

the close of the term without notice.®

1 Jennings v. Ashley, 5 Pike (Ark.),
128; Hall v. Brown, 59 N. H. 198;
Hazard v. Durant, 14 R. I. 25; Per-
kins v. Dunlavy, 61 Texas, 241.

2 Ninde v. Clark, 62 Mich. 124, 8. C.
4 Am. St. R. 823; Bank of Newburgh
». Seymour, 14 Johns. 219; Smith v.
Hood, 25 Pa. St. 218, 8. C. 64 Am. Dec.
692; Miller v. Wolf, 63 Iowa, 233;
Galpin v. Fishburne, 3 McCord, 22 8.
C. 15 Am. Dec. 614.

8Graham v. Linn, 4 B. Mon. 17, §.
C. 39 Am. Dec. 4983; McCormick v.
Wheeler, 36 Ill. 114; Hays v. Miller,
1 Wash. Ter. 163; Jordan v. Petty, 5
Fla. 326. See, generally, Leonard v.
Broughton, 120 Ind. 536, §. C.16 Am.
St. R. 347.

Runnels v. Kaylor et al., 95 Ind.
503, 507; Rogers v. Abbott, 37 Ind.
138; Miller v. Kolb,47 Ind. 220; Lewis
v. Owen, 64 Ind. 446; Angle v. Speer,

We believe that notice

66 Ind. 488; Conyers v. Mericles, 75
Ind. 443; Keepfer v. Force, 86 Ind.
81; Cassel v. Case, 14 Ind. 393.

5Gray v. Robinson, 90 Ind. 527;
Sherman v. Nixon,37 Ind.153; Hughes
v. Hinds, 69 Ind. 93; Miller v. Royce,
60 Ind. 189; Urbanski v. Manns, 87
Ind. 585.

6 Berthold v. Fox, 21 Minn. 51; King
v. Burnham, 129 Mass. 598; Hill v.
Hoover, 5 Wis. 386; Weed v. Weed,
25 Conn. 337; Alexander v. Stewart,
23 Ark. 18; Cook v. Wood, 24 Ill. 295;
Means v. Means, 42 Ill. 50; Wallis v.
Thomas, 7 Vesey, Jr., 292; Rockland
Water Co. v. Pillsbery, 60 Me. 425;
Weed v. Weed, 25 Conn. 337; Wooster
v. Glover, 37 Conn. 315; Poole v. Mc-
Leod, 1 Sm. & Mar. 391; McNairy v.
Castleberry, 6 Texas, 286; Wheeler v.
Goffe, 24 Texas, 660; Smith v. Myers,
5 Blackf. 223; Bales v. Brown, 57 Ind.
§ 192 COURTS. 191

, n

is required, and we believe also that the better and safer prac-
tice is to require notice where the order is a material one, and
is made after the final judgment although made in term. It
seems to us that when final judgment is entered parties have a
right to act upon the theory that the particular case is at an
end, and that they are not under a duty to remain in attend-
ance or take notice of the proceedings. There is reason for
holding, as some of the courts have held, that where the mo-
tion relates to mere matters of form, and is made during the
term, no notice is required;! but this is, as we believe, going
quite farenough. Parties have a right, within reasonable lim-
its, to rely upon the record, and it should not be changed without
notice, since a change may materially affect the rights of parties,
and exert an important influence upon their conduct. A rea-
sonable notice is all that is required, and, as the proceedings
are of a summary character, a notice of a very few days may
be regarded as sufficient. There is a stubborn conflict in the
authorities as to whether parol evidence is competent, some of
the cases holding it competent but not of itself sufficient, while
other cases adjudge it to be totally inadmissible, and still others
hold it competent and sufficient. A motion for a nunc pro tune

189; Rugg v. Parker, 7 Gray, 172;
Jacobs v. Burgwyn, 63 N. Car. 193;

282; Burnside v. Ennis, 43 Ind. 411;
Swift v. Allen, 55 Ill. 303; Martin v.

Bank, 20 Ark. 636. Contra, Mays v.
Hassell, 4 Stew. & Port. (Ala.) 222, 8.
C.24 Am. Dec. 750; Bentley v. Wright,
8 Ala. 607; Allen v. Bradford, 3 Ala.
281; Nabers v. Meredith, 67 Ala. 333;
Long v. Stafford, 103 N. Y. 247, 8. C.8
N. E. R. 522. See, generally, Fugua v.
Carriel, 1 Miner, 170, 8. C. 12 Am.
Dec. 46; Estate of Cook, 77 Cal. 220,
8. C. 11 Am. St. R. 267; Emery v.
Whitwell, 6 Mich. 491; People v.
McCutchen, 40 Mich. 244.

' Balch v. Shaw, 7 Cush. 282.

2 Latta v. Griffith, 57 Ind. 329.

8 Mitchell v. Lincoln, 78 Ind. 531;
Jenkins v. Long, 23 Ind. 460; Brown-
lee v. Board, 101 Ind. 4013 Frink v.
Frink, 43 N. H. 508, 8. C. 80 Am. Dec.

Aydelotte v. Brittain, 29 Kan. 98;
Boyd v. Blaisdell, 15 Ind. 73; In re
Wight, 134 U. 8. 186; Fay v. Wen-
zell, 8 Cush. 315; Rugg v. Parker, 7
Gray, 172; Adams v. ReQua, 22 Fla.
250; Draughan v. Bank, 1 Stew. 66, 8.
C.18 Am. Dec. 38; Hudson v. Hud-
son, 20 Ala. 364, 8. C. 56 Am. Dec.
200; Lilly v. Larkin, 66 Ala. 122;
Shackleford v. Levy, 63 Miss. 125;
Raymond v. Smith, 1 Met. (Ky.) 65,
8. C. 71 Am. Dec. 458; Hegeler v.
Henckell, 27 Cal. 491; Blize v. Castlio,
8 Mo. App. 290; Atkinson v. Railroad,
81 Mo. 50; Ludlow v. Johnson, 3 Ohio,
558, S. C. 17 Am. Dec. 609; Coughran
». Gutcheus, 18 Ill. 390; Gibson v.
Chouteau, 45 Mo. 171, S. C. 100 Am.
192 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 193

entry has been held to be part of the principal case, and that
as part of the principal case it may be regarded and considered
on appeal;! but this doctrine is limited in its scope, and can
not be so extended as to embrace a distinct and independent
proceeding. It has been held that where the application is an
independent one, and not auxiliary to a principal case, an ap-
peal will lie directly from the decision on the application for a
nune pro tune order or entry.? It must, as we suppose, be true
that there are cases in which the only question in the proceed-
ing is as to the right to make such an order or entry, and where
this is so, the decision is an independent one, and so far final

in its character as to entitle a party to appeal from it.

§ 193. Control of process—Interference of other courts.—

The rule is that every court controls its own process.

If it

were otherwise confusion and conflict would necessarily result.
But while the rule is as we have stated it, there are exceptions

Dec. 366; Means v. Means, 42 Il. 50;
Clark v. Lamb, 8 Pick. 415, 8. C. 19
Am. Dec. 332; Frink v. Frink, 43 N.
H. 508, S. C. 80 Am. Dec. 189; Hol-
lister v. The Judges, 8 Ohio St. 201, 8.
C. 70 Am. Dec. 100; Stockdale v.
Johnson, 14 Iowa, 178; Galloway v.
McKeithen, 5 Iredell, 12,8. C.42 Am.
Dec. 153; State v. King, 5 Iredell, 203 ;
Doane v. Glenn, 1 Col. 417; Dickson
v. Hoff, 3 How. (Miss.) 165;° Boon v.
Boon, 8 Sm. & Mar. 318; Saxton v.
Smith, 50 Mo. 490; State v. Clark, 18
Mo. 482; Solomon v. Fuller, 14 Nev.
63; Giddings v. Giddings, 70 Iowa,
486.

1 Harris v. Tomlinson, 130 Ind. 426,
429; Hamilton v. Burch, 28 Ind. 233;
Seig v. Long, 72 Ind. 18; Hannah v.
Dorrell, 73 Ind. 465; Tomlinson v.
Harris, 130 Ind. 339.,

2 Walker v. State, 102 Ind. 502;
Tomlinson v. Harris, 130 Ind. 339. As
to the practice in presenting questions
on appeal, see Blizzard v. Blizzard, 40
Ind. 344; Runnels v. Kaylor, 95 Ind.

503; Jenkins v. Long, 23 Ind. 460;
Corwin v. Thomas, 83 Ind. 110; Ellis
v. Keller, 82 Ind. 524; Conway v. Day,
79 Ind. 318; Chissom v. Barbour, 100
Ind. 1; Wilcox v. Majors, 88 Ind..
203. Whether sufficient cause is
shown to justify an entry of a nunc
pro tune order is held to be an issue of
fact in Brown v. West, 65 N. H, 187,
8. C. 18 Atl. R. 233. A judge in office
may correct a clerical error of his
predecessor by a nunc pro tunc entry.
Henlein v. Graham, 32 S. Car. 303, S.
C.108. E. R. 1012.

§ Grant v. Quick, 5 Sandf. 612; Ben-
nett v. LeRoy, 5 Abb. Pr. R. 55; The
Indiana, etc., Co. v. Williams, 22 Ind.
198; Gregory v. Purdue, 29 Ind. 66;
Coleman v. Barnes, 33 Ind. 93; Wiley
v. Pavey, 61 Ind. 457; Plunkett ».
Black, 117 Ind. 14, 18; Mallory v.
Dauber, 83 Ky. 239. See, generally,
Crawell v. Littlefield, 2 Rich. (S. Car.)
17; Pickett v. Filer, etc., Co., 40 Fed.
R. 313; Tefft v. Sternberg, 40 Fed. 2;
Gray v. Garnsey, 32 Me. 180.
§ 194 COURTS. 193

to it as there are to almost all general rules. Equity will con-
‘trol the execution of the process where equitable grounds exist
authorizing equitable interference, and the court issuing the
process has no power to award adequate relief.

§ 194. Control of property.—Courts of equity jurisdiction
may control property directly as well as parties. Every court
of general jurisdiction may control property indirectly through
its process, but courts of equity will take direct and im-
mediate control of property through the medium of their
agents or officers. Courts of law in some cases and for
some purposes assume control of property as, for instance,
in cases where it is seized under a writ of replevin, or where a
fund is paid into court for distribution to heirs, devisees or
legatees. But the powers of courts of equity are much broader
and more comprehensive than those of the law courts. In
case of insolvent’s estates, and the like, the fund brought into
court by payment to an agent or officer of the court is under
the court’s control. The strongest exercise of the power to con-
trol property is that of the appointment of receivers, for in
such cases the dominion of the owner is wrested from him and
vested in an officer or-agent of the court. Property of every
description may be placed in the hands of a receiver, and kept
there as long as the interests of parties and creditors require.
Under this high power courts have often seized extensive rail-
way systems and placed them under the exclusive control of
receivers, and, through the medium of those officers, operated
railways for long periods of time. We do not intend to treat
at length of the appointment, powers, duties and liabilities of
receivers; for all that our present purpose requires, all, indeed,
that would be here appropriate, is a bare outline of the leading
principles bearing upon the general subject of receivers. A
receiver isa part-of the machinery of the court, and is appointed
to preserve and protect the rights of all the parties in interest.’

Merritt v. Lyon, 16 Wend. 421; Waters v. Carroll, 9 Yerg. 102;
Coleman v.Ormond, 60 Ala. 328; Booth Keeney v. Home Ins. Co., 71 N. Y.
v. Clark, 17 How. U. 8.321; Devendorf 396, 8. C. 27 Am. R. 60.

v. a 21 How. Pr. R. 275;
194 THE WORK OUT OF COURT § 194

A receiver is an agent of the court deriving his powers in the
particular instance from the court appointing him and is under
a duty to obey its orders. He is not the agent or representa-
tive of the parties, but is an impartial officer of the court hold-
ing his position and exercising his functions for the common
good of all.! A receiver is sometimes said to be the ‘‘ hand of
the court,’’? and this statement aptly denotes his office. Asa
receiver owes his position and is under a duty to the tribunal
which appoints him, he can not transfer the property or fund
placed in his custody to the control of any other court. In
strictness a person having an interest in the property or fund
in controversy or in the result of the suit is not competent to
hold the position of a reciver,‘ but the matter is in some meas-
ure one resting in the discretion of the court, and parties may
waive objection because of interest.? A leading purpose in the
appointment of a receiver is to protect and preserve the property
or.fund® and distribute it equitably to the parties entitled to
it.” The power of appointing a receiver is a high one, and in
the strictest sense of the term an exercise of extraordinary

1Curtis v. Leavitt, 1 Abb. Pr. 274;
Corey v. Long, 43 How. Pr. 492; Meier
». Kansas Pacific Ry. Co., 5 Dill. (U.
8. C. C.) 476; Osborn v. Heyer, 2
Paige, 342; Kaiser v. Kellar, 21 Iowa,
95; Hooper v. Urmston, 24 Ill. 353;
Davis v. Duke of Marlborough, 2
Swans, 118; Williamson v. Wilson, 1
Bland (Md.), 418; Ellicott ». Warford,
4 Md. 80.

2 Ellicott v. Warford, 4 Md. 80. See,
generally, Runyon v. Farmers, etc.,
Bank, 3 Green. Ch. 480; Van Rens-
selaer v. Emery, 9 How. Pr. 135;
Williamson v. Wilson, 1 Bland (Md.),
418.

3 Reynolds v. Stockton, 43 N. J. Eq.
211, S. C. 3 Am. St. R. 305.

‘Fripp v. Chard, etc., Co., 21 Eng.
Law and Equ. 53; Atkins v. Wabash,
etc., Co., 29 Fed. R. 161; Meier v.
Kansas Pacific Ry.Co., 5 Dill. (U.8.C.
C.) 476; Inre Lloyd, L. R., 12 Ch. Div.

447; Benneson v. Bill, 62 Ill. 408;
Taylor v. Life Association, 3 Fed. R.
465; Young v. Rollins, 85 N. Car. 485,
S. C. 12 Am. and Eng. Ry. Cases, 455.

5Finance Co. of Pennsylvania v.
Charleston, etc., Co., 45 Fed. R. 436;
Shannon v. Hanks (Va.), 18 8. E. R.
487.

® Battle v. ‘Davis, 66 N. Car. 252;
Mays v. Rose, 1 Freeman’s Ch.
(Miss.) 703; Chase’s Case, 1 Bland
Ch. (Md.) 206, 8. C. 17 Am. Dee. 277;
Taylor v. Philadelphia, etc., Co., 7
Fed. R. 381; Ellis v. Boston, etc., Co.,
107 Mass. 1; Latham v. Chafee, 7
Fed. R. 525.

™New Haven Wire Company Cases,’
57 Conn. 352, 8. C. 5 Law R. Anno.
300. See, also, Hanover, etc., Co. v.
Germania, etc., Co., 83 Hun, 539;
Benneson v. Bill, 62 Ill. 408; Bolles v.
Duff, 54 Barb. 215.
§ 194

COURTS. 195

jurisdiction. It is, therefore, reasonable and just to require a
petitioner for a receiver to make a very strong case.1 Courts
are reluctant to. appoint receivers upon ex parte petitions, and
notice is required unless it clearly appears that to give notice
would greatly imperil the interests of the parties. We think
it may be safely affirmed that a receiver will not be appointed
without notice unless an emergency is shown requiring im-
mediate action to preserve rights of the parties.? It is gen-
erally held that a receiver can not be appointed. until a suit
has been commenced.* The order appointing a receiver is not
decisive of the merits of the case, nor, indeed, of any other
questions in it save the right to a receiver. The court which
first acquires jurisdiction and appoints a receiver takes control,
through the medium of its ae or officer, of all the property

involved in the controversy.®

1Blondheim v. Moore, 11 Md. 365;
Clark v. Ridgely, 1 Md. Ch. 70; First
National Bank v. Gage, 79 Ill. 207;
Hyde Park, etc., Co. v. Kerber, 5 Ill.
App. 132; Thompson v. Diffendoffer,
1 Md. Ch. 489; Walker v. House, 4
Md. Ch. 39; Speights v. Peters, 9 Gill
(Md.), 472; Bill v. New Albany, etc.,
Co., 2 Biss. 390; Whitehead v. Wooten,
43 Miss. 523; Latham v. Chafee, 7 Fed.
R. 525; Chicago, etc., Co. v. United
States, etc., Co., 57 Pa. St. 83; Pull-
man v. Cincinnati, etc., Co., 4 Biss. 35.

? Grandin v. LaBar, 2 N. Dak. 206,
8. C.50 N. W. R. 151; Fredenheim »v.
Rohr, 87 Va. 764, 13 8. E. R. 193;
Wabash, etc.,Co. v. Dykeman,133 Ind.
56, 32N. E. R. 823; Chicago, etc., Co. v.
Carson, 133 Ind. 49, 32 N. E. R. 827;
State v. New Orleans, 43 La. Ann. 829,
8. C. 9 8. R. 643; Verplanck v. In-
surance Co., 2 Paige, 438; People v.
Albany, etc., Co., 55 Barb. 344, 369;
French v. Gifford, 30 Iowa, 148, 160;
Bisson v. Curry, 35 Iowa, 72; Howe v.
Jones, 57 Iowa, 130, 8. C.8 N. W. R.
451; Railway Co. v. Jewel, 37 Ohio St.
649; Briarfield, etc., Co. v. Foster, 54

Ala. 622; Word v. Word, 90 Ala. 81,
8. C.78. R. 412; Moritz v. Miller, 87
Ala. 331; 8. C.6 S. R. 269; Martin v.
Tarver, 43 Miss. 517; Turnbull v. The
Lumber Co.,.55 Mich. 387, S. C. 21 N.
W. R. 375; Jones v. Schall, 45 Mich.
879; Ruffner v. Mairs, 83 W. Va. 655;
Moyers v. Coiner, 22 Fla. 422; Fricker
v. Peters, 21 Fla. 254; Nusbaum v.
Stein, 12 Md. 315; Johns v. Johns, 23
Ga. 31; Turgeau v. Brady, 24 La. Ann.
349; Weems. Lathrop, 42 Texas, 207;
Crowder v. Moone, 52 Ala. 221; People
». Norton, 1 Paige, 17; Devoe v.
Ithaca, etc.,.Co., 5 Paige, 521.

3Gold Hunter, etc., Co. v. Holle-
man (Idaho), 27 ae R. 413; Guy v.
Doak, 47 Kan. 236, 8. C. 27 Pac. R.
968 ; Baker ». Bee 32 Ill. 79;
Merchants, etc., Bank v. Kent, 43
Mich. 292; Jones v. Schall, 45 Mich.
879; Hardy v. McClellan, 53 Miss. 507.

* Hottenstein v. Conrad, 9 Kan. 438;
Fellows v. Heermans, 13 Abb. Pr. N.
8.1; McCarthy v. Peake, 18 How. Pr.
188; In re Cohen, 5 Cal. 494.

5 Sedgwick v. Mench, 6 Blatchf. 156;
Storm v. Waddell, 2 Sandf. Ch. 491;
196 § 195

THE WORK OUT OF COURT.

§ 195. Property in custodia legis.— Property taken under an
order of court or by virtue of the process of the court author-
izing the seizure of the property by an officer is said to be in
custodia legis! Where property comes into the hands of an
officer or agent of the court, and is there subject to the control
of the court, itis in the strictest sense in the custody of the
law. The most familiar application of the rule is to cases
where property or funds are in the hands of receivers. In such
cases the property or fund is in legal custody, and is subject to
the exclusive control of the tribunal that appointed the receiver
and authorized him to take possession of the property.? There
is much conflict in the cases as to when money or property in
the hands of a ministeral officer can be regarded as in custodia
legis. It has been held that where property is replevied and in
the hands of the officer by virtue of the writ of replevin, it is
in the custody of the law. In another case it was held that
where a delivery bond was given to the sheriff, the property
was not taken out of the custody of the law, as the bond did
not operate to withdraw the property from the officer acting un-
der the process of the court.5 The Court of Appeals of New
York held in a comparatively recent case, that where a party

Watkins v. Pinkney, 3 Edw. Ch. 533;
Spinning v. Ohio, etc., Co., 2 Disney
(Ohio), 336; Hutchinson v.Green, 6
Fed. R. 833; May v. Printup, 59 Ga.
129.

' Gilman v. Williams, 7 Wis. 287.

2 Adams v. Haskell, 6 Cal. 113.

3 In re Merchants’ Ins. Co., 3 Biss.
(U.S. C. C.) 162; Angel v. Smith, 9
Ves. Jr. 335; Mays v. Rose, Freeman
(Miss.), 708; Robinson v* Atlantic,
etc., Co., 66 Pa. St. 160; Skinner v.
Maxwell, 68 N. Car. 400; De Verser v.
Blackstone, 6 Blatch. 235; In re But-
ler’s Estate, 13 Ir. Ch. R. 456. As to
when the title of a receiver attaches,
see Rutter v.Tallis,5 Sandf.(N.Y.) 610;
Steele v. Sturgis, 5 Abb. Pr. R. 442;
Maynard v. Bond,67 Mo.315; Artisans’
Bank v. Treadwell, 34 Barb. 553; Cook

v. Cole, 55 Iowa,70; Phillips v. Smoot,
1 Mackey, 478.

* Pipher v. Fordyce, 88 Ind. 436, cit-
ing Stout v. La Follette, 64 Ind. 365;
Hagan v. Lucas, 10 Pet. 400; Rhines
v. Phelps, 3 Gilm. (Ill.) 455; Acker v.
White,25 Wend.614; Selleck v.Phelps,
11 Wis. 380. See, generally, Wilder
v. Bailey, 3 Mass. 289; Jones, etc., v.
Case, 26 Kan. 299, S.C. 40 Am. R. 310;
Brown v. Clarke, 4 How. 4; Freeman
v. Howe, 24 How. (U. 8.) 450; Turner
v. Fendall, 1 Cranch, 117; Baker v.
Kenworthy, 41 N. Y. 215; Wilder v.
Bailey, 3 Mass. 289; Goodheart v.
Bowen, 2 Bradw. (Ill. App.) 578.

5 Wright v. Manns, 111 Ind. 422,
citing Lusk v. Ramsey, 3 Munf. 417;
Doremus ». Walker, 8 Ala. 194; Hagan
v. Lucas, 10 Peters, 400.
§ 195 COURTS. 197

x

deposited money with the clerk in lieu of an appeal bond, that
the money was not in custodia legis, and was subject to attach-
ment.' There are many cases holding that money or property
in the hands of asheriff, received by him under a writ or pro-
cess of the court, is in the custody of the law;? but, it is to be
observed, where the money or property ceases to be in the pos-
session of the officer by virtue of an order of court, or under
and pursuant to its process, it is no longer in the custody of the
law in such a sense as to be free from a writ of attachment or
execution.*? A peculiar phase of the subject is exhibited by a
case wherein it was held that land seized under a writ of at-
tachment was in the custody of the law, and that a party who
assumed to take a mortgage upon it was bound by the orders.
It is well settled that where property is in the custody of the
law, it can not be reached by the process of any other court
than that which has control of it. The decided weight of au-
thority is that personal property in the hands of the sheriff un-

1Duniop v. Patterson, 74 N. Y. 145.
The court cited and commented upon
the cases of Chealy v. Brewer, 7
Mass. 259; Bulkley v. Eckert, 3 Pa. St.
868; Coppel v. Smith, 4 T. R. 312;
Pierce v.Charleton,12 111.358 ; Lightner
». Steinagel, 33 111.510; Ross v. Clark,
1 Dallas (Pa.), 354; Crane v. Freese,
1 Harrison (N. J.), 305.

2 Farrv. Newman,4T.R.621; Turner

v. Fendall, 1 Cranch, 117; Sharp v.
Clark, 2 Mass. 91; Penniman v. Rug-
gles, 6 Mass. 166. See, generally,
‘Staples v. Staples, 4 Greenl. 532;
Farmers’ Bank v. Beaston, 7 Gill. &
J. 421; Overton v. Hill, 1 Murph. (N.
Car.) 47; Blair v. Cantey, 2 Spear (S.
Car.), 34; Jones v. Jones, 1 Bland Ch.
(Md.) 443; Burrill v. Letson, 2 Spear
(S. Car.), 878; Zurcher v. Magee, 2
Ala, 253 ; Drane v. McGavock, 7 Hump.
132; Clymer v. Willis, 3 Cal. 363; Hill
v. La Crosse, ete., Co., 14 Wis. 291;
Reddick v. Smith,3 Scam. 451; Handy
v. Dobbin, 12 Johns. 220.

5 Robertson v. Beall,10 Md. 125; Cole
». Wooster, 2 Conn. 203; Pierce v,
Charleton, 12 Ill. 358; Dickison v.
Palmer, 2 Rich. Eq. (S. Car.) 407;
Wheeler v. Smith, 11 Barb. 345; Wat-
son v. Todd, 5 Mass. 271; King v.
Moore, 6 Ala. 160; Jaquett v. Palmer,
2 Harr. (Del.) 144; Hearn v. Crutcher,
4 Yerg. 461; Tucker v. Atkinson, 1
Hump. 300; New Haven, etc., Co. v.
Fowler, 28 Conn. 103. See, as to the
right of sheriff to apply money,
Thompson v. Brown, 17 Pick. 462;
Dawson v. Holcombe, 1 Ohio, 275;
Muscott v. Woodworth, 14 How. Pr.
R. 477; Prentiss v. Bliss, 4 Vt. 513, 8.
C. 24 Am. Dec. 631; Winton v. State,
4 Ind. 321.

‘Fort Wayne, etc., Co. v. Mellett, 92
Ind. 535; Wiswell v. Sampson, 14
How. (U. 8.) 52; Pipher v. Johnson,
108 Ind. 401. The authorities we have
cited in the notes to this paragraph all
sustain this general doctrine.
198 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 195

der a levy made upon execution is in custodia legis, and can not.
be seized upon other writs of a similar character.1 Where
money is in the possession of a master in chancery subject to
the control of the court, and not directed to be paid to the par-
ties, it is in the custody of the law; but where there is an order
directing payment to the parties, it is held that the money
ceases to be held by the master as the officer of the court, and
hence is not in the custody of the law.? The rule that prop-
erty or money in the hands of an officer or agent of the court
is in custodia legis, is far reaching, and embraces almost every
conceivable case wherein possession is held pursuant to an
order of court. It embraces trustees, assignees, and all officers
of like character in the attachment proceedings.*? Money or
property in the hands of a clerk,* justice of the peace,® com-
missioner, or of any other officer or agent of the court, and
subject to the control of the court, or held in a strictly official
character, or in the character of the representative or instru-
ment of the court, is always regarded as in custodia legis.6 The

1 Armistead v. Philpot, 1 Doug. 231;
Fieldhouse v. Croft, 4 East. 510; Jones
». Jones, 1 Bland Ch. 443, §. C.18 Am.
Dec. 827; Vinton v. Bradford, 13 Mass.
114,8.C.7 Am. Dec. 119; Bagley v.
White, 4 Pick. 395; Draper v. Arnold,
12 Mass. 449; Robinson v. Ensign, 6
Gray, 300; Harbison v. McCartney, 1
Grant, 172; Oldham v. Scrivener, 3B.
Monr. 579; Moore v. Graves, 3 N. H.
408; Burroughs v. Wright, 16 Vt. 619;
Odiorne v. Colley, 2 N. H. 66, S. C. 9
Am. Dec. 39. Contra, Benson v. Berry,
55 Barb. 620; Dolby v. Mullins, 3
Hump. (Tenn.) 437, 8. C. 89 Am. Dec.
180.

2 Weaver v. Davis, 47 Ill. 235; Mc-
Kenzie v. Noble, 13 Rich. (8. Car.)
147. See, generally, Daley v. Cun-
ningham, 3 La. Ann. 35; Gaither v.
Ballew, 4 Jones, 488.

3 Fee v. Moore, 74 Ind. 319.

* Alston v. Clay, 2 Hayw. (N. Car.)
171; Sibert v. Humphries, 4 Ind. 481;

Murrell v. Johnson, 3 Hill. (S. Car.)
12; Bowden v. Schatzell, Bailey Equ.
(S. Car.) 360; Overton v.Hill,1 Murph.
47; Hunt v. Stevens, 3 Ired. 365; Ross
v. Clarke, 1 Dall. 354; Hanna v. Bry,
5 La. Ann. 651.

5 Hooks v. York, 4 Ind. 636; Corbyn
v. Bollman, 4W. & 8.342. See Clark

‘0. Boggs, 6 Ala. 809.

®Croman’s Case, 11 Pa. Co. Ct. R.
44; Thayer v. Tyler, 5 Allen,94; Bent-
ley v. Shrieve, 4 Md. Ch. Dec. 412;
Cockey v. Leister, 12 Md. 124; Colby
v. Coates, 6 Cush. 558; Dewing v.
Wentworth, 11 Cush. 499; Oliver v.
Smith, 5 Mass. 183; Farmers’ Bank v.
Beaston, 7 Gill. & J. 421; Brooks v.
Cook, 8 Mass. 246; Marvel v. Huston,
2 Harr. (Del.) 349; Thorn v. Wood-
ruff, 5 Ark. 55; Fowlerv. McClelland,
5 Ark. 188; Hancock v. Titus, 39 Miss.
224; Gee v. Warrick, 2 Hay. (N. Car.)
354; Hartle v. Long, 5 Pa. St. 491;
Bivens v. Harper, 59 Ill. 21; Conway

'
§ 196 COURTS. 199

rule we are considering is necessary to prevent conflict between
the courts, and to enable the tribunal having in charge the
fund or property to dispose of it without interference. It is,
also, essential to the independence of the court, since its inde-
pendence would be practically destroyed if another tribunal
could control or interfere with its agents or officers. .The rule
is one of great practical value, and rests upon sound princi-
ples, so that itis one to be enlarged in its operation rather than
restricted.

§ 196. Ministers of the court.—According to Francis Bacon
the officers who are appointed to assist judges and chancellors
in their judicial duties are ‘‘ministers of the court.’’ They
are not judges in the true sense of the term, although they ex-
ercise duties of a judicial nature. They do not possess the
power of ultimate decision, for that power must reside in the
duly appointed or duly elected judge or chancellor. Judicial
duties can not be delegated, and the power of giving the ulti-
mate decision or judgment must reside in the officers compos-
ing the courts of justice, since only courts can speak the final
-and authoritative words of the law which determine the rights
of litigants. Proceedings before ministers of the court, such
as masters in chancery,and master commissioners, are ancillary,
and not final, since the final decision must be pronounced by
the court, and not by its officers or assistants. Officers and as-
sistants may convey information to the court either upon mat-
ters of fact or of law, but even this they can not do in matters
which require the direct investigation and decision of the duly

v. Armington, 11 R.I.116; Winchell 137; Carney v. Dewing, 10 Cush. 498;

v. Allen, 1 Conn. 885; Beckwith v.
Baxter, 3 N. H. 67; Woodward v.
Woodward, 4 Halst. (N. J.) 115;
Gassett v. Grout, 4 Met. 486; Davis v.
Drew, 6 N. H. 399; Vierheller wv.
Brutto, 6 Ill. App. 95. See, generally,
Mann v. Kelsey, 71 Texas, 609, 8. C.
128. W. R. 48; Parler v. Johnson, 81
Ga. 254; McPherson v. Snowden, 19
Md. 197; Groome »v. Lewis, 23 Md.

Massachusetts, etc., Bank v. Bullock,
120 Mass. 86; Schlueter v. Raymond,
7 Neb. 281; Todd v. Buckman, 11 Me.
41; Leeds v. Sayward, 6 N. H. 83;

_Copeland v. Weld, 8 Me. 411; Strat-

ton v. Ham, 8 Ind. 84; Godbold v.
Bass, 12 Rich. (S. Car.) 202; Hansen
v. Butler, 48 Me. 81; Shewell v. Keen,
2 Whart. (Pa.) 332; Perry v. Thorn-
ton, 7 R. I. 15.
200 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 196

appointed or elected judge. As the judiciary is a separate and
independent department of the government, vested with an
element of sovereign power, it is not, in our opinion, compe-
tent for any other department to determine who its ministers
shall be. No court can be independent that is compelled to
accept as its ministers persons appointed by some other depart-
ment. The right to choose its own assistants is essential to
the independence of the judiciary, and the denial of this right
involves the assertion that other governmental departments are
the rulers of the judiciary in its own domain. We are aware
that there is some diversity of opinion upon the subject of the
right of a court to appoint its ministers, but we can not avoid
the conclusion that to yield to other departments the right to
choose the ministers of the courts is a complete. and indefen-
sible surrender of judicial independence. Among the minis-
ters of the court masters in chancery are the oldest. Masters
in chancery were appointed by the English courts of equity in
the early years of their existence. It was comparatively a short
time after the chancellors of England established the court of
chancery that masters in chancery were appointed to assist the
court. A master in chancery or a master commissioner should
be free from bias or prejudice, and an interest in the suit or ac-
tion will disqualify a person from assuming the functions of a
master.’ Ministers of court to whom matters are referred are
controlled by the order of the court in the particular case,? and
where the order requires a report of the evidence, it is the duty
of the master to report it; but where the order does not require
a report of the evidence, it is, as a general rule, sufficient to
report the facts. Where there is a general order referring a
matter to a master, the facts should be reported so that the

1 Brown v. Byrne, Walker’s Ch. 453. C.) 538; Blauvelt ». Ackerman, 20 N.
An officer of the court prohibited by J. Eq. 141; Hays v. Hays, 64 N. Car.
statute or by rule of the court is in- 59. See, generally, Emerson v. At-
competent to act asa master. Fisher water, 12 Mich.314; Howe v. Russell,
v. Hayes, 22 Blatchf. 505. 36 Me. 115; Mason v. New York, etc.,

2Simmons v. Jacobs, 52 Me. 147; Co., 52 Me. 82; Cary v., Herrin, 62
McNaught v. McAllister, 93-Ind. 114; Me.16; Arnold v. Slaughter, 36 W.Va.

Updike v. Doyle, 7 R. I. 446, 458; 589, 8. C.15 8. E. R. 250; Lee v. State,
Lonsdale v. Moies, 2 Cliff. (U. 8. C. 88 Ind. 256.
§ 197 COURTS. 201
court may give the ultimate decision upon them.! The sub-
stantive facts should be stated, and not simply the master’s de-
ductions from them, inasmuch as the judgment of the court
must rest upon the facts, and not upon the mere conclusions
of the master.2 The master’s duty, in the absence of specific
directions in the order, is to ascertain and state the controlling
matters of fact and of law, for the information of the court.*
The report of a master is regarded in many respects as the ver-
dict of 4 jury, and rules applicable to verdicts are applied to re-
ports of masters. Objections to references to masters are re-
quired to be promptly made, and if the disqualification of the
person named as a master is known the objection must be op-
portunely interposed.® In order to make objections available
on appeal, they must be appropriately presented to the trial
court; thus, for instance, an objection that no order of refer-
ence was made will not avail on appeal unless it appears that

it was presented to the trial court at the proper time.®

§ 197. Officers of court.—Courts are usually provided with
ministerial officers, and if all courts were presided over by of-

1Skinner v. Conant, 2 Vt. 453, §. C.
21 Am. Dec. 554. See Phillip’s Ap-
peal, 68 Pa. St. 180; Clark’s Appeal,
62 Pa. St. 447; Backus’ Appeal, 58 Pa.
St. 186, 192; Tilghman v. Proctor, 125
U.S. 186; Hurdle v. Leath, 63 N.C.
366. See, generally, Gage v. Arndt,
121 111.491; Field v.Holland,6 Cranch.
8; McAlister v. Olmstead, 1 Hump.
(Tenn.) 210.

? De Treville v. Ellis, 1 Bailey Equ.
(S. Car.) 35, 8. C. 21 Am. Dec. 518;
Clark’s Appeal, 62 Pa. St. 447; Parker
v. Nickerson, 187 Mass. 487; Nims v.
Nims, 20 Fla. 204; Frazier v. Swain,
386N.J.Eq. 156. See, generally, Trigg v.
Trigg (Texas), 18 8. W. R. 313;
Evans v. Evans, 2 Cold. (Tenn.) 143;
Herrick v. Belknap, 27 Vt. 673.

3 Furrer v. Ferris, 145 U. S. 182.

‘Izard v. Bodine, 9 N. J. Eq. 309;
Sproull’s Appeal, 71 Pa. St. 137. See,
generally, White v. Hampton, 10 Iowa,

238; Stimson v. Green, 13 Allen, 326;
Pierce v. Faunce, 53 Me. 351; State v.
McIntyre, 53 Me. 214.

5Green v. Richmond, 155 Mass. 188,
8. C. 29 N. E. R. 770; Starke v. Rich-
mond, 155 Mass. 188, 8. C. 29 N. E. R.
770; Baird v. Mayor, 74 N. Y. 382;
Trenholm v. Morgan, 28 8. Car. 268,
8.C.5 8. E. R. 721; Grant v. Reese,
82 N. Car. 72; Harris v. Schaffer, 92
N. C. 30. See, generally, Allis v. Day,
14 Minn. 516; Strong v. Willey, 104
U. S. 512; Rhodes v. Russell, 32 8.
Car. 585, S. C.108. E. R. 828; Houser
v. Roth, 37 Ind. 89.

®In Spencer v. Levering, 8 Minn.
461, 467, the court said: ‘‘The other
point made by the plaintiff in error,
to wit, that the record does not show
an order referring the cause to a ref-
eree for trial, should have been urged
in the court below, it can not be made
here for-the first time.’
202 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 197

ficers who are, in strictness, judges, it would be impossible to
conceive of a court having no ministerial officers, since, under
our system of government, judges can not perform purely min-
isterial duties. If the theory of our governmental system were
adhered to with rigid strictness, the officers invested with ju-
dicial functions could not perform ministerial or executive
duties. But long usage has given an exposition to our consti-
tutions which can not be disregarded, for contemporaneous ex-
position has, in many instances, the force of positive law.1 This
long continued and uniform usage has given to such officers as
county commissioners, members of the board of supervisors,
and the like, the character of judges in a qualified and limited
degree. In nearly all, if not in all, of the States, boards of
supervisors, boards of county commissioners, and the like, have
been recognized as courts. But, while this is true, it is also
true that such officers are charged with purely ministerial du-
ties, and invested with functions belonging only to ministerial
or administrative offices. Such officers have a dual character,
for, in one capacity they act ministerially and in another ju-

dicially. They have, indeed, many characters.?

1 Rogers v. Goodwin, 2 Mass. 475;
Bruce v. Schuyler, 4 Gilm. (Ill.) 221;
Ogden v. Saunders, 12 Wheat. 213,
290; Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall.
162; State v. Parkinson, 5 Nev. 15;
Pike v. Megoun, 44 Mo. 491; People
v. Board, 100 Ill. 495; State v. French,
2 Pinn. (Wis.) 181; Martin v. Hunter,
1 Wheat. 804; Cohens v. Virginia, 6
Wheat. 264; Stuart v. Laird, 1 Cranch.
299; Board, etc., v. Bunting, 111 Ind.
143; Weaver v. Templin, 113 Ind. 298,
301; Hovey v. State, 119 Ind. 386.

2State v. Ormsby County, 7 Nev.
392; Andrews v. Pratt, 44 Cal. 309;
Supervisors v. South Ottawa, 12 Ill.
480; State v. Saline County, 18 Neb.
422; Jackson v. Hartwell, 8 Johns.
(N. Y.) 422; ‘Miller v. Supervisors, 25
Cal. 93; People v. Schenectady, 35
Barb. 408; Sterling v. Parish, 26 La.
Ann. 59; Hawkins v. Carroll, 50 Miss.

Courts of a

735; West v. Burke, 60 Texas, 51;
Douglass v. County of Baker, 23 Fla.
419, S. C. 2 So. R. 776; Brewer v.
Railroad Co., 113 Mass. 52; Argo v.
Barthand, 80 Ind. 63; Town of Cicero
v. Williamson, 91 Ind. 541; Blanchard
v. Bissell, 11 Ohio St. 96; La Pointe
Supervisors v. O’Malley, 47 Wis. 332;
People v. Carpenter, 24 N. Y. 86;
People v. Supervisors, 65 N. Y. 222;
People v. Hagadorn, 104 N. Y. 516;
Board v. Montgomery, 106 Ind. 517;
Weir v. State, 96 Ind. 811. The cases
to which we have referred, and a
raultitude more which might easily be
added, show that county boards act in
legislative, judicial and ministerial ca-
pacities,and yet when they act judicial-
ly, that is,as courts, their judgments can
not be collaterally impeached, and that
they will sustain a plea of former ad-
judications. Such tribunals. are pe-
§ 198

COURTS 203

higher rank than boards of county commissioners, county su-
pervisors, or the like, could not perform their duties nor ac-
complish the object for which they were created without the aid
of ministerial officers, for without such officers they would be
unable to carry into effect their judgments or decrees, or to
serve or execute their process. Even such subordinate courts
as those composed of county supervisors, county commission-
ers, or the like, are aided and served by officers whose duties
are purely ministerial. It is true of courts generally, that they
are in part composed of ministerial officers, but the important
part of all courts is the judicial officer, for without that officer
the court could not exist. 8

§ 198. Officers of court—Power to appoint.—It is undoubt-
edly true that the power to appoint to office is in its nature an
executive power,” but it is by no means purely executive. It
can not be doubted that the legislature may appoint such offi-
cers as are required to enable itto perform its duties and trans-
act its business, as, for instance, secretaries, clerks, sergeants-
at-arms, and the like, although the general appointing power
may be lodged in the chief executive by the constitution of the
State.? This is so, for the reason that each department of the

culiar organizations, and possess man-
ifold and diverse powers, such as could
not be combined in any other tribu-
nals.

1Many of the subordinate officers
of courts are known by different titles
in different jurisdictions, but the titles
‘sheriff’? and ‘‘constable”’ are al-
most universally used in England and
in the United States. The officers
usually forming a part of the court are
those named and clerks, prothonota-
ries, or registrars, bailiffs, criers and
tipstaves. Attorneys, counselors, so-
licitors and barristers are officers of
the court, but the relation they sus-
tain to the court is quite different from
that of the officers we have named.

2Taylor v. Commonwealth, 3 J. J.

Marsh. 401; State v. Barbour, 53 Conn.
76; Ackley’s Case, 4 Abbott’s Pr. R. 35.

5 Unless the constitution does invest
the chief executive of the State with
the appointing power or place it else-
where, the legislature may, according
to the overwhelming weight of author-
ity, exercise it. Hovey v. Carson, 119
Ind. 395; Collins v. State, 8 Ind. 344;
State ». Harrison, 113 Ind. 434; Ho-
vey v. Riley, 119 Ind. 386; People »v.
Langdon, 8Cal.1; People v. Hurlbut,
24 Mich. 44; Field v. People, 2 Scam.
79; State v. Irwin, 5 Ney. 111; State v.
Swift, 11 Nev. 128; Biggs v. Mc-
Bride, 17 Ore. 640, 8. C. 21 Pac.
R. 878; Mayor v. State, 15 Md. 376;
State v. Lusk, 18 Mo. 333; Bridges
v. Shallcross, 6 W. Va. .562; Walker
204 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 199

government must, in order to maintain its independence and
discharge its duties, have the right to choose its own immediate
ministers and agents. The principle applies to the judicial as
well as to the other departments of the government. It seems
clear to us that the court may appoint its own immediate min-
isters or agents. So it has been held,' and so it must be held
or the judiciary will cease to be independent. We do not mean
to be understood as asserting that courts may, as of inherent
right, appoint the ministerial officers that register their rulings
and decisions, or those that execute their process and judgments;
what we mean is that the courts may appoint such agents or
ministers as are immediately connected with the conduct of the
business of the court, and act directly under the control and
supervision of the judge. These agents or ministers of the
court are in a sense officers, but they are not officers in the same
sense that sheriffs and clerks are; they are, however, officers in
a restricted sense, as are attorneys, counselors and solicitors.

§ 199. Officers of court—Control of.—aA court has control of
its officers? in so far as their duties relate to the business of the
court and are directly therewith connected;* but a court can
not, of its own motion, control the action of officers in the
performance of independent duties prescribed by law. It may,
of course, compel a proper discharge of any duty when a proper
suit or action calls into exercise the power of the court, and
requires a judgment or decree against the officer. Where the
acts of the officer are such as the court has a right of its own

v. City of Cincinnati, 21 Ohio St. 14; 5 Mo. App. 427. But see State v.
State v. Harmon, 31 Ohio St. 250; Smith, 82 Mo. 51.
Baker v. Kirk, 33 Ind. 517; Webster’s > We are not referring to officers ap-
Speech on the Presidential Protest, pointed by the court and subject to
contra, State v. Hyde, 121 Ind. 20. removal at the pleasure of the court,
The case of State v. Kennon, 7 Ohio St. but of officers elected or appointed to
546, is founded upon a constitutional offices established by law by the peo-
provision expressly prohibiting the ple or by other officers than the judge
legislature from exercising the ap- or judges, such officers, for instance,
pointing power. as sheriff’s clerk, registrars or pro-
1 In re Janitor, 35 Wis. 410; State v. thonotaries.
Smith, 15 Mo. App.412; Statev.Smith, King of Spain v. Oliver, 2 Wash.
(U.S. C. C.) 429.
§200 COURTS. 205

volition to control, it may deal with the officer in a summary
mode, and need not issue any formal writ or process.!

§ 200. Control of court-houses and appurtenances. — As
courts are invested with an element of sovereignty, and are
parts of an independent and distinct department of govern-
ment, they have, as of inherent right, powers of considerable
extent over court-houses and buildings in which the business
of the court is transacted. It is difficult, in the present state of
the authorities, to accurately determine the extent of this au-
thority. We think it safe to affirm that where it is necessary
to enable the court to transact its business it may, within lim-
its, make provision for rooms in which to hold its sessions, and
may provide for their maintenance in proper repair. It seems
to us, although we advance an opinion with some hesitation,
that, as it is the duty of courts to administer justice, they
must have some power to make provision for securing and
keeping in proper condition places where the terms or sessions
can be held. It can hardly be possible that courts must cease
business and leave litigants utterly without relief because of
the lack of a suitable place in which to hold their terms or
sessions. This power can not probably go so far as to enable
courts to order the construction of an entirely new, permanent
and costly structure; but we think it does go far enough to
enable them to make provision for procuring temporary quarters
where there is a necessity for so doing.”

§ 201. Allowances out of public funds.—Courts may, in
many cases, make allowances, payable out of the public treas-
ury. They have no general authority to make such allowances,
for their authority is limited and restricted. They may make
allowance to pay counsel in prosecuting the pleas of the State

1 Wright v. Huron County Clerk, 48 ever, Los Angeles Co. v. Superior
Mich. 642; Moore v. Muse, 47 Texas, Court, 93 Cal. 380, 8. C. 28 Pac. R.
210. 1062. See, generally, Hudspeth ».

? Board v.Thompson,7 Ind.265; Nash State, 55 Ark. 323, 8S. C.18 S. W. R.
v. State, 7 Ind. 666; Commissioners v. 183.

Hall, 7 Watts (Pa-), 290. See, how-
206 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 202

as well as to compensate counsel for defending those who de-
fend forma pauperis... Where there is a principal power, such
as exists in cases of the classes to which we have referred, there
is, also, the incidental authority necessary to the proper execu-
tion of the principal power. The general principle we have
stated authorizes the conclusion that there are many instances
in which a court may make allowances to be paid out of the
public funds, but the power is necessarily limited and circum-
scribed, inasmuch as the general power to make appropriations
of public funds resides in other departments of the govern-
ment.

§ 202. Agreements and stipulations of parties. — Agree-
ments and stipulations of parties made and brought to the no-
tice of the court, as its rules require, often exert an important
influence upon the procedure in a cause as well as upon the
substantive rights of the parties. A stipulation can not, of
course, confer jurisdiction upon a tribunal, nor can it author-
ize a judge to perform an official act at a time or place forbid-
den by law. Counsel may make agreements respecting matters
of procedure and similar matters that will bind their clients.?
As a general rule, attorneys can not sell or assign the claims of
their clients, since such acts are beyond the scope of their au-
thority. Where there is time and opportunity to consult the
client there is no authority to compromise a claim; but where

1 Board v. Wood, 35 Ind. 70; Gor-
don v. Board, 44 Ind. 475; Board v.
Courtney, 105 Ind. 311; State v. Mil-
ler, 107 Ind. 39; Stout v. State, 90 Ind.
1; State v. Wallace, 41 Ind. 445; Keyes
v. State, 122 Ind. 527; Commissioners
v. Hall, 7 Watts (Pa.), 290.

2 Devenbaugh v. Nifer, 3 Ind. App.
879, 8. C. 29 N. E. R. 923; Hudson »v.
Allison, 54 Ind. 215; Thompson »v.
Pershing, 86 Ind. 303; Garrigan v.
Dickey, 1 Ind. App. 421; Re Heath’s
Will, 83 Iowa, 215, 8. C. 48 N. W. R.
1037.

3 Lewis v. Blue, 110 N. Car. 420, 8.
C. 15S. E. R. 196.

4 Miller v. Edmonston, 8 Blackf. 291;
Jones v. Ransom, 3 Ind. 327; Wake-
man v. Jones, 1 Ind. 517; McCormick
v. Walter A. Wood Co., 72 Ind. 518;
Repp v. Wiles, 3 Ind. App. 167, 8. C.
29 N. E. R. 441;. Martin v. Capital
Ins. Co. (Iowa), 52 N. W. R. 534;
Willard v. A. Siegel Gas Co., 47
Mo. App. 1. See, generally, Watt
v. Brookover, 35 W. Va. 323, 8. C. 29
Am. St. R. 811; Holker v. Parker, 7
Cranch, 436; Preston v. Hill, 50 Cal.
43,8. C.19 Am. R. 647; De Louis v.
Meek, 2 G. Greene, 55, 8S. C. 50 Am.
Dec. 491; Granger v. Batchelder, 54 Vt.
248, 8. C. 41 Am. R. 846; Town of
§ 202 COURTS. 207

there is an emergency, requiring prompt action, and the in-
terests of the client would be sacrificed if action were delayed,
the attorney may rightfully compromise the claim.’ A stipula-
tion that a decision in one of a series of cases shall govern
others of the same series is valid and effective.? It is compe-
tent to agree upon the facts in a case, and such an agreement
is sufficient to dispense with evidence where it covers the mat-
ters in issue. Parties may make an agreement for the pur-
poses of a trial, and where an agreement or stipulation is lim-
ited to a particular trial, it is not effective in any other. No-
tices, pleadings, and the like, may be dispensed with or waived
by a stipulation, and so may almost any matter of procedure
except such as affect the jurisdiction of the subject. —

Whitehall v. Keller, 100 Pa. St. 105, Co., 125 N. Y. 7, 8. C. 21 Am. St. 716;
8. C. 45 Am. R. 361. Townsend v. Masterton, 15 N. Y. 587.
1 Whipple v. Whitman, 13 R. I. 512, 3 Witz v. Dale, 129 Ind. 120, S. C. 27
8. C. 48 Am. R. 42; Granger v. Batch- N. E. R. 498; Zellar v. City of Craw-
elder, 54 Vt. 248, 8. C. 41 Am. R. 846; fordsville, 90 Ind. 262; Pennsylvania
Kirk’s Appeal, 87 Pa. St. 243, S. C.30 Co. v. Niblack, 99 Ind. 149; Citizens’
Am. R. 357; Holker v. Parker, 7 Ins. Co. v. Harris, 108 Ind. 392, 8. C.
Cranch, 436; Union Mutual, etc., Co. 9 N. E. R. 299; Western Union Tel.
v. Buchanan, 100 Ind. 63, 78. Co. v. Frank, 85 Ind. 480; Slessman
2 Riggs v. Commercial, etc., Ins. v. Crozier, 80 Ind. 487.
CHAPTER V.

JUDGES AND JUDICIAL OFFICERS.

§ 203. Definition.
204. Duties of a judge—Generally.
205. Judicial duties and functions.
206. Only judicial duties can be im-
posed on judges.

Duties of a judge can not be
delegated.

De facto judges—Generally.

What constitutes a judge de
facto. .

No man shall be a judge in his
own cause.

Disqualification of judges by
interest.

The degree of interest that dis-
qualifies.

Collateral attacks on the right
of a judge to hear and decide
a case.

214. Questioning on appeal the
right of a judge to act.

Attack by appeal not collateral.

207.

208.
209.

210.

211.

212.

2138.

2165.

§ 216. Disqualification because of re-
lationship.
217. Various statutory disqualifica-
tions.
218. Necessity may compel disquali-
fied judge to act.
219. Change of judge.
220. Power to appoint special
judges—Generally.
221. “Special judges.
222. Who appoints judges pro tem-
pore.
223. Determination of necessity of
appointing special judge.
Mode of appointing special
judges.
225. Procedure respecting appoint-
ment of special judges.
226. Objections-to special judges.
227. Presumption of regularity in
appointment.
228. Authority of special judges.

224.

§ 203. Definition—The terms ‘‘court’’ and “Judge” are
often used interchangeably, but the words are not synonymous.
A judge is a judicial officer in the strictest sense of the term,!
and he is an indispensable part of the court, but, in strictness,

he is not the court.

1“You are to know moreover, that
the judge so created is not to make
any solemn entertainment, or be at
any extraordinary expense upon his
accession to his office and dignity, be-
cause it is no degree in law, but only
an office and a branch of magistracy.”’
—Sir John Fortescue.
by Fortescue that ‘‘the judges do not
sit in the King’s courts above three

It is also said.

A judge may perform judicial acts in va-

hours in the day, that is from eight in
the morning till eleven,” and he also
says that ‘‘the judges when they have
taken their refreshment spend the
rest of the day in the study of the
Holy Scriptures and other innocent
amusements at their pleasure; it
seems rather a life of contemplation
than of much action.”

(208)
§ 204 JUDGES AND JUDICIAL OFFICERS. 209

cation, but a court, strictly speaking, can act only in term and
at authorized times and places. It is said that a judge isa
public officer appointed to decide litigated questions according
to law,’ but this definition is too narrow, for a judge’s duty is
not confined to giving decisions, although that is the great and
important part of his duty. A judge controls the business of
a court or courts, orders that acts be done or not done in causes
or matters pending in court, appoints and removes ministers

. of the court, such as master commissioners, referees, receivers
and the like, and renders judgments and decrees. The term
‘court’? means more than the term ‘‘judge’’ for the judge
alone does not constitute the court although there can be no
court without the judicial presence.? A statute employing the
term ‘‘judge’’ usually means by that term the person who fills
the office of judge, but the term sometimes refers to the court
and not to the individual who fills the office of judge. The
term ‘‘judge’’ sometimes signifies officers of a lower grade than
that of judge, as, for instance, justices of the peace.?

§ 204. Duties of a judge—Generally.—The duties of a judge
are exclusively judicial,‘ but, as we have elsewhere said, judicial
duty is not confined solely to the hearing and decision of causes.
Many other duties rest upon a judge, but they. are all of a ju-
dicial nature, and connected in some form with the adminis-
tration of justice. He may appoint ministers and officers of
the court over which he presides, he may appoint receivers,

1 Bouvier’s Law Dict. Grand Junction Canal, 3H. L. Cases,

‘2? There may be judicial presence al-

though there is no officer present who

is in strictness a judge. Thus, there
may be a court of county commission-
ers, or of county supervisors, or of
quarter sessions or of justices of the
peace; yet there is no person in any
-of these tribunals that can with pro-
priety or accuracy be denominated a
' judge. a
5 Regina v. Aberdale Canal Co., 14
Ad. & Ellis (N. 8.), 854; Dimes ».

14

759; Carrington v. Andrews, 12 Abb.
Pr. R. 348; Baldwin v. McArthur, 17
Barb. 414, 423; Edwards v. Russell, 21
Wend. 63; Foot». Morgan, 1 Hill, 654.

4Edmund Burke says: ‘‘A judge is
not placed in that high position merely
as a passive instrument of parties.
He has a duty of his own independ-
ent of them, and that duty is to in-
vestigate the truth.’’ Burke’s Work
(Bohn’s ed.), Vol. VI, 496.
210° THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 204

trustees and administrators, he may admit to the bar of his
court counselors and attorneys, and may perform various other
acts which partake of the nature of executive functions. It is
true practically, but denied theoretically, that he exercises
functions in their nature legislative, although he does not, in
the strict sense of the term, exercise legislative powers. When
he creates what Austin calls ‘“‘judge made law,”’ he acts sub-
stantially as a legislator, and yet it is an approved saying that
‘judicial legislation is odious.’’! A judge who does his duty
does not exercise strictly legislative powers, although he may
create new rules. He does not, as the legislature may do,
arbitrarily establish new laws, but he does construct new rules;
constructing them, however, out of materials existing in the
decisions or the statutes. It is nevertheless true, as matter of
fact, that much of our common law is judge made, and it is
due to truth to say that it is usually the soundest and best law
we have.? In theory, law is not originally created by judges,
for they act upon established principles or statutes and by a
process of reasoning extend these principles to new instances.
There is, therefore, a creative process constantly going on and
sometimes this process results in the establishment of essen-
tially new rules. There is, also, a spirit of reconstruction al-
most constantly at work, inseench as old doctrines give way
to new. While there is a high respect for precedent and a
strong disposition to give the rule stare decisis full play there
is no servile homage paid to precedent nor blind obedience
yielded to the rule stare decisis. Many doctrines that a few
years ago were considered as unalterably established have been

1 “The judges are to declare the law, of the legislature framing new pro-
not to make the law.” visions as occasion has required, 1t

It is true, beyond controversy, that has been left to able judges to in-
equity jurisprudence is almostentirely vade its province and arrogate to
the creation of chancellors, and, cer- themselves the lofty privileges of cor-
tainly, of all legal systems ‘‘it is the recting abuses and introducing im-
fairest and wisest.’’ Dwarris says: provements. The rules are thus left
“Obsolete or unsuitable laws instead in the hearts of the judges instead of
of being removed from the statute being put upon a right footing by leg-
book, have been made to bend to islative enactment.’? Dwarris Stat.
modern usages and feelings. Instead 792.
§ 205 JUDGES AND JUDICIAL OFFICERS. 211

overthrown. In many instances rules have been changed by
a silent refusal to yield to precedent, in other instances earlier
cases have been directly overruled. Principles of justice which
are in their nature primary and fundamental remain un-
changed, but their application is not infrequently changed and
their scope extended or limited. It is, therefore, a mistake to
suppose that the judges always tread in the dim footsteps of
antiquity and that no progress is made by judicial action. It
is true, of course, that great and radical changes are usually
made by legislation, but it is not true that the courts make no
progress. '

§ 205. Judicial duties and functions.—Judicial duty some-
times embraces acts that if not connected with the business
and affairs of the court would be purely ministerial or execu-
tive. There can be no doubt as to the power to appoint min-
isters of court, as master commissioners, trustees, receivers,
administrators and the like, and yet, the abstract power of ap-
pointment is essentially an executive one. Whether an act
ministerial or executive in its intrinsic nature is or is not a
judicial one depends upon whether it is or is not connected
with the business or affairs of the court. It is essential to ju-
dicial independence as well as to the proper and effective ad-
ministration of justice that judges should possess powers not,
in the strict sense, of a purely judicial character. It will, in-
deed, be found that all the great elements of gqvernment are,
in a limited degree, blended-in each department. Thus, a
sheriff who levies upon property acts in a quasi judicial capac-
ity in determining whether the property he seizes is subject to
execution, but, nevertheless, he is a ministerial and not a ju-
dicial officer. So, too, the legislature in determining whether
a law can be made general acts judicially, yet it is quite cer-
tain that the legislature has no part of the judicial power of
the commonwealth it represents. An officer is not a judicial
one in the true sense of the term merely because he performs

duties of a judicial nature. If it were otherwise it would be
almost impossible to conceive of an office not judicial, inas-
212 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 206

much as all officers, whatever their class or rank, are required
to exercise functions and perform duties which in their nature
are judicial! On the other hand, a judicial officer does not
‘become a ministerial or executive officer because some of the
duties or acts he is required to perform are, abstractly con-
sidered, executive or ministerial. The truth is, that no official
duty or function is to be considered in the abstract, but, as the
logicians say, must ‘‘be dealt with in the concrete.’’ Thus
dealing with an act, duty, or function—and it is the only sensi-
ble mode in which to deal with them—there is no difficulty in
holding that an act constituting a part of the machinery for
the administration of justice is a judicial act no matter what
may be its intrinsic or abstract nature. Whatever is part of
that machinery or essential to the proper and effective dis-
charge of the duties and functions of a judge is judicial.

§ 206. Only judicial duties can be imposed on judges.—The
fundamental principle of separate and independent depart-
ments of government prohibits the law-making branch of gov-
ernment from imposing upon judges duties or functions that
are not of a judicial nature. Judges can not be invested with
powers that belong to some other branch of government, since
to permit this would result in a complete subversion of the
great principle we have mentioned. While it is sometimes
difficult to clearly mark the line that separates judicial from
non-judicial powers, there is no doubt as to the existence of
the general doctrine stated.2 As we have elsewhere shown, a

1 Kastman v. State, 109 Ind. 278, 281;
Wilkins v. State, 113 Ind. 514, 518;
Maynes v. Moore, 16 Ind. 116; Pen-
nington v. Streight, 54 Ind. 376; Crane
v. Camp, 12 Conn. 463; Flournoy v.
City of Jeffersonville, 17 Ind. 169.
See, generally, Elmore v. Overton, 104
Ind. 548, 8. C. 54 Am. R. 343; State
v. Johnson, 105 Ind. 463, 467; Betts v.
Dimon, 3 Conn. 107; State v. Doyle,
40 Wis. 175.

2 Hayburn’s Case, 2 Dallas, 409,note ;
United States v. Ferreira, 13 How. (U.

8.) 40, note; Auditor». Atchison, etc.,
Co.,6 Kan. 500; Supervisors of Elec-
tions, 114 Mass. 247; Rees v. City of
Watertown, 19 Wall. 107; Heine »v.
Levee Commissioners, 19 Wall. 655;
£x parte Gans, 17 Fed. R. 471; Grif-
fiths, ex parte, 118 Ind. 83; Griffin v.
State, 119 Ind. 520; Smith v. Strother,
68 Cal. 194; Burgoyne v. Supervisors,
5 Cal. 9; People v. Town of Nevada, 6
Cal. 143; Hardenburgh »v. Kidd, 10
Cal. 402; McLean County Precinct v.
Deposit Bank, 81 Ky. 254; State v.
§ 207 JUDGES AND JUDICIAL OFFICERS. 213

judicial duty or function is not confined to the mere duty or
function of hearing and deciding cases, but extends to all mat-
ters legitimately connected with the administration of justice.

§ 207. Duties of a judge can not be delegated.—It is an an-
cient rule that judicial duties or powers can not be delegated.!
The duties of a judge are personal, and no other person can
perform them. ‘‘It is only the appointed judge who can speak
the authoritative words of the law.’ The general principle
has been applied in various modes and in many cases, thus the
reception of a verdict is a judicial function that can not be

Young, 29 Minn. 474; Shephard v.
City of Wheeling, 48. E. R. 635. Judge
Cooley thus states the rule: ‘‘Upon
judges, as such, no functions can be
imposed except those of a judicial na-
ture.” Principles of Constitutional
Law, 53. Some of the courts have
trenched upon the rule stated in the
text, and, in doing so, have, as we
believe, departed from sound prin-
ciple. State v. Brown, 35 Kan. 167;
In re Johnson, 12 Kan. 102; Young v.
Ledrick, 14 Kan. 92; State v. Majors,
16 Kan. 440; Intoxicating Liquor
Cases, 25 Kan. 751; Kirkpatrick v.
State,5 Kan.673; Miller v.State,2 Kan.
174; Rice v.State,3 Kan.141; Sherry v.
Sampson, 11 Kan. 611; Winfield Town
Co. v. Maris, 11 Kan.128; McTaggart v.
Harrison, 12 Kan. 62; Caviel v. Cole-
man,72 Tex. 550; State v. Tolle, 71 Mo.
645. It seems to us that to hold that
ministerial or executive duties may be
imposed upon judges is to disregard
a fundamental principle of constitu-
tional law, for the plain meaning of
the constitution is that judges shall
be charged exclusively with judicial
duties. The doctrine that ministerial
duties may be imposed on judges leads
to the reductio ad absurdum, for, if the
power be affirmed, it must also be
affirmed that any duty whatsoever

may be imposed, since, if it be granted
that the power exists, its exercise can
not be restricted or limited. Conced-
ing the existence of the powerinvolves
the further concession that the matter
is one of legislative discretion, and,
therefore, one limited only by’ the
legislative will or pleasure. We
think it clear that the question is one
of power or no power, and that no
such power exists.

? Hards v. Burton, 79 Ill. 504; Van-
dercook v. Williams, 106 Ind. 345;
Wilkins v. State, 113 Ind 514; Camp
bell v. Board, 118 Ind. 119; State v.
Noble, 118 Ind. 350. Chancellor Kent
rsays: “The general rule is that judi-
cial offices must be exercised in per-
son, and that a judge can not delegate
his authority to another. I do not
know of any exception to this rule with
us.”? 3 Com. (12th ed.) 457; 2 Bacon’s
Abridg. 620; Broom’s Legal Maxims,
841.

?Per Ryan, C. J., in Van Slyke v.

‘Trempealeau, etc., Co., 39Wis. 390. It

is not to be understood, however, that
special judges may not be appointed
where the constitution permits, for,
as we shall presently show, special
judges may be appointed, and, when
duly appointed, may ‘“‘speak the au-
thoritative words of the law.’
214 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 208

delegated.1 But while it is true that a judge can not delegate
his powers or functions, yet he may, where the law so provides,
call a special judge to discharge his duties.?

§ 208. De facto judges—Generally.—It is often said that
only the duly elected or appointed judge can speak the au-
thoritative words of the law,? and ina general sense this is
true, but yet one who takes this statement unreservedly and
without qualification will fall into error. The decided weight
of authority is that the acts of ade facto judge are valid. There
is much diversity of opinion as to what is necessary to invest
one exercising judicial functions with the character of a judge
de facto, but there is substantial agreement upon the proposi-
tion that the acts of one actually exercising the functions of a

judge de facto are not void.*

1 Britton v. Fox, 39 Ind. 369; Mc-
Clure v. State, 77 Ind. 287; State v.
Jefferson, 66 N.C. 309.

? This subject is fully considered in
a subsequent paragraph under the title
of special judges.

5 Case of the Marshelsea, 10 Coke,
76; Winchester v. Ayres, 4 Greene,
104; Ex parte, Williams, 4 Yerger,
579; Dodson v. Scroggs, 47 Mo. 285;
Dimes v. Grand Canal, etc., Co., 3 H.
L. Cases, 794; North Bloomfield, etc.,
Co. v. Keyser, 58 Cal. 315; City of
Kansas v. Knotts, 78 Mo. 356, 359;
Livermore v. Brundage, 64 Cal. 299;
Insurance Co. v. Price, 1 Hopk. Ch.
2;-Sigourney v. Sibly, 21 Pick. 105;
Kennedy v. Giles, 25 Mich. 83.

‘Blackburn v. State, 3 Head. 690;
Case v. State, 5 Ind. 1; In re Boyle, 9
Wis. 264; State v. Bloom, 17 Wis. 521;
People v. Mellon, 40 Cal. 648; Ex
parte Strahl, 16 Iowa, 369; Turney v.
Dibrell, 3 Baxter,235 ; People v. Staton,
73 N. Car. 546, 8. C. 21 Am. R. 479;
Ex parte Johnson, 15 Neb. 512, 8. C.
19 N. W. R. 594; Littleton v. Smith,
119 Ind. 230, S. C. 21 N. E. R. 886;

It does not always follow, how-

Walcott v. Wells, 21 Nev. —, 8. C.9
Lawyers’ Rep. Anno. 59; Taylor v.
Skrine, 3 Bre. 516; State v. Carroll,
388 Conn. 449; Norton »v. Shelby
County, 118 U. S. 425; State v. Mc-
Martin, 42 Minn. 30, S. C.43 N. W. RB.
572; Cromer v. Boinest, 27 S. Car. 436,
8. C.38. E. R. 849; Gallup v. Smith,
59 Conn. 354, 8. C. 22 Atl. R. 334;
Jameson v. Hudson, 82 Va. 279; State
v. Lewis, 107 N. C. 967, S. C. 11 Law-
yers’ Rep. Anno. 105; Ball v. United
States, 140 U.S. 118; Angell v. Steere,
16 R. I. 200, §. C. 14 Atl. R. 81; Inre
Burke, 76 Wis. 357, S. C. 45 N. W. R.
24; Inre Manning, 76 Wis. 365, 8. C.
45N.W.R. 26; Baker v. State, 80 Wis.
416, S.C. 50 N.W. R. 518; United States
v. Alexander, 46 Fed. R. 728; Manning
v. Weeks, 139 U.S. 504, S.C. 11 Sup. Ct.
R. 624. See, generally, Rives v. Petit,
4 Ark. 582; In re Ah Lee, 6 Sawy.
(U.S.C. C.) 410; Campbell v. Com-
monwealth, 96 Pa. St. 344; Brown v.
Lunt, 37 Me. 423; In re Parks, 3 Mont.
426; Fitchburg, etc., Co. v. Grand
Junction, etc., Co., 1 Allen, 552; Peter-
silea v. Stone, 119 Mass. 467; Clark v.
§ 209 JUDGES AND JUDICIAL OFFICERS. 215

ever, that because the acts of a judge de facto are not void that
he is exonerated from personal liability. The acts of such an
officer are upheld for the benefit of the public, and not for that
of the officer, so that there may be a personal liability where
there is legal wrong and injury, although the acts of the de
facto officer may be sustained in favor of the public or third
persons.! We are inclined to the opinion that the rule as de-
clared and enforced by some of the courts is not sustained by
principle. Our judgment is that where there is color of right,
and the person assuming to act as a judge acts in good faith
and in the honest belief that he is the rightful occupant of the
office, he simply makes an erroneous decision and is not a
mere naked usurper or intruder, and is not personally liable
for the consequences of his mistake. We believe that where
the claim to the office is not entirely groundless or colorless
the officer who honestly decides upon his own title is not liable,
inasmuch as he does no more than judicially declare his judg-
ment upon the question. If an officer should erroneously de-
cide against his own title he certainly would not be liable for
his error, and we can see no reason for declaring a different
rule where there is color of right, good faith and a mere error
of judgment, although the decision is favorable to the title of
the person who gives the decision.

§ 209. What constitutes a judge de facto.—A consideration
of the question of what constitutes a judge de facto carries us.
into a field of stubborn conflict. The cases fight sturdily on
both sides of the general question, and many and various
shades of opinion are exhibited in the decisions. So great is
the confusion that it is unsafe to say what is essential to make

Easton, 146 Mass. 43; Hamlin v. Kas-
safer, 15 Ore. 458; McCraw v. Will-
iams, 33 Gratt. 510; State v. Gleason,
12 Fla, 190; Brown v. Lunt, 37 Me.
423 ; Pepin v. Lachenmeyer, 45 N.Y.27.

1 Grace v. Teague, 81 Me. 559, S. C.
18 Atl. Rep. 289; Newman v. Tiernan,

87 Barb. 159, 165; Courser v. Powers,
84 Vt. 517. The case last cited carries
the doctrine to a very great length,
and, with deference to the very able
court which pronounced the judgment,
we confess our inability to yield as-
sent.
216 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 209

one who assumes to exercise judicial functions a judge de facto.1
The best that can be done is to refer to some of the principal
cases and extract the doctrines they declare. Some of the courts
hold that although the office is created by an unconstitutional
statute, yet one who enters it and exercises its functions may
be, as to the public and third person, an officer de facto,? but
other courts declare an essentially different doctrine. It is de-
clared by some of the courts that if the judge has been of coun-
sel in the case his acts are void,* but by other courts a different
doctrine is affirmed.> An unauthorized appointment is held by
some of the courts not to constitute the appointee a judge de

1In the case of Walcott v. Wells, 21
Nev. —, 8. C.9 Lawyers’ Rep. Anno.
59, and State v. Blossom, 19 Nev. 312,
the court accept as sound the follow-
ing statement of the Supreme Court of
Connecticut in State v. Carroll, 38
Conn. 449: ‘‘An officer de facto is one
whose acts, though not those of a law-
ful officer, the law, upon principles of
policy and justice, will hold valid so
far as they involve the interests of the
public and third persons, where the
duties of the office were exercised:
First. Without a known appointment
or election, but under such circum-
stances of reputation or acquiescence

as were calculated to induce people, .

without inquiry, to submit to or in-
voke his action, supposing him to be
the officer he assumed to be. Second.
Under color of a known and valid ap-
pointment or election, but where the
officer had failed to conform to some
precedent, requirement or condition,
as to take an oath, give a bond or the
like. Third. Under color of a known
election or appointment, void because
the officer was not eligible, or because
there was a want of power in the elec-
ting or appointing body, or by reason
of some defect or irregularity in its
exercise; such ineligibility, want of

power or defect being unknown to the
public. Fourth. Under color of an
election or appointment by or pursu-
ant to a public unconstitutional law,
before the same is adjudged to be
such.”” See, also, Mallett v. Uncle
Sam, etc., Co., 1 Nev. 188; Meagher v.

Storey County, 5 Nev. 244; State v.

Curtis, 9 Nev. 325; Commonwealth v.
Taber, 123 Mass. 253.

2?Leach v. People, 122 Ill. 420;
Creighton v. Piper, 14 Ind. 182, 184;
Taylor v. Skrine, 3 Brev. 516; Smurr
v. State, 105 Ind. 125, 188, S.C. 4 N.
E.R. 445; Ex parte Strang, 21 Ohio
St. 610; Inve Ah Lee, 5 Fed..R. 899,
912; Case v. State, 5 Ind. 1; State v.
Williams, 35 La. Ann. 742; State v.
Douglass, 50 Mo. 593; Brown v. O’Con-
nell, 36 Conn. 432; People v. White,
24 Wend. 520; Morris v. People, 3
Denio, 381; Sheehan’s Cases, 122
Mass. 445, S. C. 23 Am. R. 374; Clark
v. Commonwealth, 29 Pa. St. 129;
Blackburn v. State, 40 Tenn. 689.

’'Van Slyke v. Trempealean, etc., 39
Wis. 390, 8.C.20 Am. R.50; Rodman
v. Harcourt, 4 B. Monr. 224, 230; Peo-
ple v. Albertson, 8 How. Pr. 363.

*Newcome v. Light, 58 Texas, 141,
8. C. 44 Am. R. 604.

5 Holmes v, Eason, 76 Tenn. 754, 760.
§ 209 JUDGES AND JUDICIAL OFFICERS. 217

facto,’ but by other courts a different doctrine is maintained.?
There is no substantial disagreement upon the proposition that
where a judge once rightfully in office holds over after the ex-
piration of his term of office, he is, nevertheless, a judge de
facto, and his acts are valid. It has been held that where the
office has been abolished, it can not have a de facto incumbent.!
In opposition to the cases cited in a preceding note, it has been
held that where the appointment was wholly unauthorized, there
can be no judge de facto.® Some of the decisions declare that a
judge disqualified by the common law may be a judge de facto,®
but not if the disqualification is by positive statute, while other
cases refuse to recognize any such distinction.’ There is much
conflict upon the question whether the action of a judge dis-
qualified by interest is void, but at common law the rule is that
the acts of such a judge are not void, although they may, if

1Gresham v. Ewell, 84 Va. 784, 8.
_C.68. E. R. 700; People v. Carter, 29
Barb. 208, 211.

2 Littleton v. Smith, 119 Ind. 230, S.
C. 21 N. E. R. 886; State v. Bloom, 17
Wis. 521; Town of Lewiston v. Proc-
tor, 23 Ill. 483; Baker v. State, 69
Wis. 32, 8. C. 33 N. W. R. 52; Baker
v. Wambaugh, 99 Ind. 312, 316; Pow-
ell v. Powell, 104 Ind. 18, 29, 8. C.3
N. E. R. 639; State v. Murdock, 86
Ind. 124; Cocke v. Halsey, 16 Pet. 71;
Commonwealth v. McCombs, 56 Pa.
St. 436; Carleton v. People, 10 Mich.
250; Hunter v. Ferguson, 13 Kan. 462.

3 Read v. City of Buffalo, 4 Abb. App.
Dec. 22; Hamlin v. Kassafer, 15 Ore-
gon, 456, 8. C. 15 Pac. R. 778; Morton
». Lee, 28 Kan. 286; Carli v. Rhener,
27 Minn. 292, 8. C. 7 N. W. R. 139;
Stevenson v. Miller, 2 Litt. (Ky.) 306;
State v. Pertsdorf, 33 La. Ann. 1411;
Guthrie v. Guthrie, 71 Iowa, 744, 8. C.

_ 80 N. W. BR. 779; Babcock ». Wolf, 70
Iowa, 676. A singular case is that of
Coolidge v. Brigham, 1 Allen, 333. In
that case the governor intended to

appoint to office one William Barnes,
who was known to him, and mailed
to that William Barnes a commission,
but the William Barnes the governor
intended to appoint had died, another
William Barnes received the commis-
sion and qualified, and the court held
that he became an officer de facto.
‘In re Hinkle, 31 Kan. 712, 715.
5Hyllis v. State, 45 Ark. 478. See
Brown v. Fleming, 3 Ark. 284; Hoag-
land v. Creed, 81 Ill. 506; Andrews v.
Beck, 23 Texas, 455. See Dabney v.
Hudson, 68 Miss. 292, 8. C.8 So. R. 545.
® Heydenfeldt v. Towns, 27 Ala. 423;
Frevert v. Swift, 19 Nev. 363, S.C. 11
Pac. R. 273; Fechheimer v. Washing-
ton, 77 Ind. 366; Cottle, Appellant, 5
Pick. 483; Coffin v. Cottle, 9 Pick. 287;
Sigourney v. Sibley, 21 Pick. 101, S.C.
382 Am. Dec. 248; Gay v. Minot, 3
Cush. 352; State v. Castleberry, 23
Ala. 85.
7Floyd County v. Cheney, 57 Iowa,
160; Koger v. Franklin, 79 Ala. 505;
Plowman v. Henderson, 59 Ala. 559.
218 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 210
properly and opportunely: challenged, be avoided for error;!
where, however, there is a peremptory statute disqualifying the
person assuming to act as judge, the weight of authority is that
his acts can not be supported as those of a judge de facto.?
Other cases assert a different doctrine, and affirm that the acts
of a disqualified judge are voidable, but not void.? Cases of
the latter class hold that if no objection is made in the trial

court none can be successfully made on appeal.

§ 210. No man shall be a judge in his own cause.—The
common law rule that no man shall be a judge in his own
cause! is the expression of a principle of natural justice, and
so firmly interwoven into the governmental system of our
English ancestry that it is regarded as a part of our organic

1Gorrill v. Whittier, 3 N. H. 268;
MeMillan v. Nichols, 62 Ga.36; Rhea’s
Succession, 31 La. Ann. 323; Stearns
v. Wright, 51 N. H. 600; Trawick v.
Trawick, 67 Ala. 271; Fowler v. Brooks,
64 N. H. 423, 8. C. 10 Am. St. R. 425;
Rogers v. Felker, 77 Ga. 46; Beall v.
Sinquefield, 73 Ga. 48; Dimes v. Grand
Junction, etc., Co., 16 Eng. Law and
Eq. 63. See, generally, Moses v. Jul-
ian, 45 N. H. 52, 8. C. 84 Am. Dec.
114; Shropshire 0. State, 12 Ark. 190;
Ellsworth v. Moore, 5 Iowa, 486; Bald-
win v. Calkins, 10 Wend. 167.

? Horton v. Howard, 79 Mich. 642,
S. C. 19 Am. St. R. 198; Oakley v.
Aspinwall, 3 N. Y. 547; Andrews v.
Beck, 23 Texas, 455; Chase v. Weston,
75 Iowa, 159, 8. C. 39 N. W. R. 246;
Hall v. Thayer, 105 Mass. 219, 8. C. 7
Am. R. 513; Templeton v. Giddings
(Tex.),128.W.R.851 ; Reams v. Kearns,
5 Cold. 217; Converse v. McArthur,
17 Barb. 410; Estate of White, 37 Cal.
190; Chambers v. Hodges, 23 Texas,
104; People v. De la Guerra, 24 Cal.
73; Chicago, etc., Co. v. Summers,
113 Ind. 10, 8S. C. 3 Am. St. R.
616; Newcome v. Light, 58 Texas,

141, 8. C. 44 Am. R. 604; Ochus v.

“Sheldon, 12 Fla. 188. See, generally,

Dawson v. Dawson, 29 Mo. App. 521;
State v. Sachs, 3 Wash. 691, 8. C. 29
Pac. R. 446; Dawson v. Wells, 3 Ind.
398; Howell v. Budd, 91 Cal. 342, 8. C.
27 Pac. R. 747; Wroe v. Greer, 2 Swan.
172; Crozier v. Goodwin, 1 Lea, 125.

5 Hine v. Hussey, 45 Ala. 496; Fow-
ler v. Brooks, 64 N. H. 423, S. C. 13
Atl. R. 417; Posey v. Eaton, 9 Lea, 500,
503; State v. Voorhies, 41 La. Ann. 567,
S.C. 658. R. 826; Ellsworth v. Moore,
5 Iowa, 486; Stone v. Marion County,
78 Iowa, 14,8.C.42N.W.R.570. See
Phillips v. Eyre, 6 Q. B. 1; Eastwood
v. Buel, 1 Ind. 434; Rogers v. Felker, 77
Ga. 46; Koger v. Franklin, 79 Ala. 505;
Plowman v. Henderson, 59 Ala. 559.

* Chief Justice Coke declared that
“even an act of Parliament made
against natural equity, as to make a
man judge in his own cause, is void in
itself.’’ Coke Litt., § 212. In this age
of British history Coke’s statement
can hardly be accepted as correct,
wise as it is, forthe supremacy of Par-
liament is now so complete that it is
almost all-powerful.
§ 211

JUDGES AND JUDICIAL OFFICERS. 219

law.1 By force of the great principle that written constitu-
tions are deemed to be framed by men living in organized so-
ciety and with reference to existing fundamental principles,
the rule stated is held to form part of our American constitu-
tions, although no written words give it expression.2, Where
a man decides‘ upon his own rights as against’ opposing claims
of others, there is no exercise of judicial power, since an in-
trinsic and irreparable attribute of that power is freedom from
the influence of self-interest. ' Judicial power is not a legisla-
tive creation and the legislature can no more create judicial
power than it can create natural justice, hence any attempt to
lodge judicial power where it can not possibly exist must, in
all constitutional governments, be utterly abortive.

§ 211. Disqualification of judges by interest.—There can be
no doubt, as is evident from what we have said in the preced-
ing paragraph, that when a judge has an actual and material
interest in the suit or action he is disqualified, although
there may be no positive statute declaring that interest dis-
qualifies. The only question is as to the character or degree
of interest that is sufficient to disqualify a judge from sitting’
in the particular case. It has been held that the interest which
will disqualify a judge is a property interest in contradiction
to an interest of feeling or sympathy. When the term inter-

1 Judge Cooley says: ‘‘A legislative
act which should undertake to make
a judge the arbiter in his own contro-
versies would be void, because though
in form a provision for the exercise of.
judicial power, in substance it would
be the creation of an arbitrary and
irresponsible authority, neither leg-
islative, executive or judicial, and
wholly unknown to constitutional
government.” Cooley Const. Lim. 175.

2 Ante, § 155, 4 Coke’s R. 118; Insur-
ance Oo. v. Price, 1 Hopk. Ch. 1;
Sigourney v. Sibley, 21 Pick. 101; Ken-
nedy v. Giles, 25 Mich. 84; Livermore
v. Brundage, 64 Cal. 299; City of Kan-

sas v. Knotts, 78 Mo. 356, 359; North
Bloomfield, etc., v. Keyser, 58 Cal. 315.

5 Sauls v. Freeman, 24 Fla. 209, 8. C.
12 Am. St. R. 190, 4 So. R. 525. In
the course of the opinion the court
said: ‘‘The interest meant by the
statute is property interest. In In-
habitants of Northampton v. Smith,
11 Met. 395, it is said that the interest
must be a pecuniary or proprietary in-
terest, a relation by which, as debtor
or creditor, or heir or legatee, or other-
wise, the judge will gain or lose some-
thing by the result of the proceedings,
in contradistinction to an interest of
feeling or sympathy or bias that would
220 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 212:

est is employed in a statute it is safe to assume, as a general
rule, that a pecuniary or property interest is meant, but this
meaning may, of course, be altered by the context.

§ 212. The degree of interest that disqualifies.—It is, as we
have said, clear that a direct substantial interest constitutes a
disqualification, but it is not every interest, although of a pe-
cuniary or property nature, that will be regarded as a disquali-
fication. A possible remote or contingent interest does not
ordinarily incapacitate a judge from hearing and determining
the case. Asanexample ofa real and material interest sufficient
to disqualify may be given that. of a stockholder in a private
corporation.?, Examples of interest that does not disqualify
will be found in the cases which hold that a judge is not dis-
qualified by the fact that he is a tax-payer of a governmental
corporation interested as a party to the litigation. Where the
judge’s interest as stockholder in a private corporation has

terminated he is not disqualified.‘

disqualify a juror. See, also, Sjoberg
». Nordin, 26 Minn. 501. If the na-
‘ture of the suit is such that no indi-
vidual property interest of the judge
or juror is involved in it, there can be
no disqualification of either on the
ground of interest.”

1 Ellis v. Smith, 42 Ala. 349; Peck
v. Essex Freeholders, Spencer (N.J.),
457; Gaines v. Harvin, 19 Ala. 491;
Day v. Savadge, Hob. 87; Gains v.
Barr, 60 Texas, 676. See Moses v.
Julian, 45 N. H. 52, and cases on note
84 Am. Dec. 114.

2 Gregory v. Cleveland, etc., Co., 4
Ohio St. 675; Stuart v. Mechanics’,
etc., Bank, 9 John. 496; Bank of North
America v. Fitzsimons, 2 Binn. (Pa.)
454. See, generally, Limerick v. Mur-
latt, 43 Kan. 318; Patrick v. Crowe, 15
Colo. 543.

3 State v. Severance (Me.), 2 New
Eng. R. 425; In re Guendar, 69 Cal.
88. But see, Peck wv. Freeholders,

The mere fact that the

21 N. J. L. 656; Commonwealth v.
Fletcher, 157 Mass. 14, 8. C.31 N. E.
R. 687. In State v. Craig (Me.), 13
Atl. R. 129, it was held that a magis-
trate is not disqualified because a
moiety of the penalty sued for goes to
the municipality of which he is a tax-
payer. See, upon the general subject,
Davis v. State, 44 Texas, 523; Russell
v. Perry, 16 N. H. 100; Hancock’s
Wili, 91. N. Y. 284; Hodde v. Susan,
58 Texas, 389; People v. Edmonds, 15
Barb. 529; McFaddin v. Preston, 54
Texas, 403; Trustees v. Bailey, 10 Fla.
213; Buckingham v. Davis, 9 Md. 324;
Pearce v. Atwood, 13 Mass. 324; Hills
v. Wells, 6 Pick. 104; Grigsby v. May
(Texas), 19S. W. R. 843; Succession
of Jan, 43 La. Ann. 924, 8.0.10 8S.
R. 6.

* Palmer v. Lawrence, 5 N. Y. 389;
Nicholson v. Showalter (Texas), 18S.
W. R. 326,
§ 213 JUDGES AND JUDICIAL OFFICERS. 221

judge belongs to an organization formed for the purpose of
suppressing thieving does not disqualify him from mye a
person arrested for larceny.

§ 213. Collateral attacks on the right of a judge to hear
and decide a case.—It seems to us that many of the cases
which hold that the judgment of a judge pronounced in a case
where he is disqualified by statute may be treated as a nullity
go entirely too far. We know that the doctrine we venture to
condemn is asserted by able courts, but we can not believe
their premises sound or their reasoning valid. We believe
that principle requires that such a judgment should be sub-
ject to collateral impeachment only where the disqualification
appears of record. It is now settled beyond fair debate that a
collateral attack avails only in cases where the defect that
makes the judgment void appears on the face of the record.
If extrinsic evidence is required to prove facts establishing the
invalidity. of the judgment, a collateral attack will fail.? The
doctrine we are criticising opposes the fundamental principle
we have stated, inasmuch as it affirms that the facts creating
the disqualification may. be established by evidence dehors the
record. The departure from the principle stated brings a long
train of evils, for it destroys faith in records and judgments,
unsettles adjudications and puts ministerial officers in peril.
A ministerial officer ought not, in fairness and in justice, to
be required to look beyond the face of the record, nor is he re-
quired to do so, as a general rule. The exception to the gen-
eral rule, embodied in the doctrine we are considering, is an
arbitrary one, deforming the law and breaking in upon its con-
sistency, and it isan exception having no foundation in reason
or justice. Where the disqualifying fact appears of record it
is otherwise, for in such a case the record imparts full infor-

1 People v. Mahoney, 18 Cal. 180. R. 289; Scott v, Crews, 72 Mo. 261;

2Harmon v. Moore, 112 Ind. 221; Byram v. McDowell, 83 Tenn. 581;
Newcomb v. Newcomb, 13 Bush. 544, Beech v.. Rich, 13 Vt.595; Ex parte
8. C. 26 Am. R. 222; Stackhouse v. Bergman, 3 Wyo. 396, 8. C. 26 Pac. R.
Zuntz, 36 La. Ann. 529, 533; Hughes 914; Wellborn v. People, 76 Ill. 516.
v. Cummings, 7 Colo. 203, 8. . 2 Pac.
222 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 214

mation, and no prudent person need be misled or deceived.
The rule we favor does not run counter to the constitutional
principle that no man can be a judge in his own cause, for if
the cause is in the full and true sense that of the judge, the
record will so disclose. A judge may be in some degree inter-
ested, and still the cause not be his own in the strict sense.
But it is held, as we have seen, by the decided weight of au-
thority, that a judge who acts under an unconstitutional statute
is an officer de facto and his judgments not void, so that even
if the judge violates the unwritten constitutional rule for-
bidding a man from acting as a judge in his own cause, he is no
less a judge de facto than one who acts under an unconstitu-
tional statute. The salutary considerations of public policy and
the sound reasons which support the rule that the judge is
an officer de facto although he acts under an absolutely void
statute, support the view that so, also, is the judge who vio-
lates the unwritten constitutional prohibition. Another rea-
son for our view is this: Where there is a question as to
whether the judge is or is not disqualified, a judicial question is
presented for decision, and the decision, although errone-
ous, ought to prevail against a collateral assault. This con-
clusion is fortified by analogous cases, and rests on general
principles of unquestionable soundness. It is supported by -
the cases which hold that when a court determines that: facts
essential to its jurisdiction exist, its judgment can not be col-
laterally impeached, and so it is by the cases which adjudge
that the decision of a court upon its own organization can only
be annulled by a direct attack.

§ 214. Questioning, on appeal, the right of a judge to act.—
It is consistent with principle and in harmony with the doc-
trine of the adjudged cases to affirm that the right of a judge
to hear and determine a particular eause may be questioned on
appeal, provided the proper objection is made in the court of
original jurisdiction, and provided the title of the officer is not
brought into question. There is an essential difference be-
tween cases where the question is whether there is a disqualify-
§ 215 JUDGES AND JUDICIAL OFFICERS. 223

ing interest and cases where the question is as to the legality
or regularity of the election or appointment of the judge. The
title to the office where there is-color of title can not be tried,
even on a direct appeal; but the question whether the judge
has correctly or erroneously decided the question of his quali-
fication to try the particular case may be determined on appeal.
Where the title to the office is brought in question, all cases
and all parties in the court are affected, and so, also, is the
public; but where the question is one of qualification to try a
particular case, only the parties to that case are affected. In
the one class of cases the right involved is a general one,
whereas in the other class only particular persons are interested,

and no public or general rights are involved. So, too, where
it is sought to question the title of the judge, his right to the
. office is assailed; but where the objection is as to his qualification
to sit in a particular case, nothing moreis done than to challenge
his right to act in that one case. His official character is not
putin issue. All that is done is to question his right to act
in a specific matter, so that his right to the office is not only
not challenged, but conceded. The effect of the objection is to
concede that he is rightfully in office, but that for reasons pecu-
liar to the particular case he is not qualified to exercise the
powers and functions of his office.

§ 215. Attack by appeal not collateral.—The qualification
of a judge to sit in a particular case is a matter for his decision
in that case, and hence his decision on the question is a ruling
in the case. As itis aruling in the case, it is reviewable on
appeal or writ of error. In presenting the ruling for review,
no collateral attack is made upon the title to the office of the
judge. No such question can arise, for, as we have seen, the
objection to his qualification to sit in the particular case im-
pliedly and necessarily affirms that he is the judge de jure. One '
who objects upon a specific ground concedes that no other
_ grounds of objection exist.

§ 216. Disqualification because of relationship—At com-
224 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 217

mon law relationship was not, of itself, a disqualification, but
it is generally made a cause of disqualification by statute.’ The
degree-of kinship or relationship which will disqualify is so
much a matter of statutory regulation that no general rule can
be stated. We refer to the decided cases upon the subject
without comment.’

§ 217. Various statutory disqualifications—Many of the
State statutes prohibit one who has been of counsel from sit-
ting as judge, and where such statutes exist the objection, sea-
sonably made, properly presented on appeal and well founded,
is fatal to the right of the judge to proceed in the case. In
other States the statutes provide that bias or prejudice shall -
constitute a disqualification. But the statutes, while in sub-

1 Commonwealth v.Reed,1Gray, 472;
Commonwealth v. Ryan, 5 Mass. 90.
But see Ames v. The Port Huron, etc.,
Co., 11 Mich. 149; State v. Crane, 36 N.
J. L. 394; Lanfear v. Mayor, 4 La. 97,
S.C. 23 Am. Dec. 477; Place v. Manu-
facturing, etc.,Co., 28 Barb.503 ; Pierce
v. Sheldon, 13 Johns. 491.

2 Fowler v. Byers, 16 Ark. 196; Un-
derhill v. Dennis, 9 Paige, 202; Ald-
rich Appellant, 110 Mass. 189; Ed-
wards v. Russell, 21 Wend. 64; Foot
». Morgan, 1 Hill, 654; Reed v. New-
comb, 62 Vt. 75, 19 Atl. R. 367; Inve
Marston, 79 Me. 25,3 N. E.601; Guerra
v. Burton, 23 Cal. 592; Sanborn v. Fel-
lows, 22 N. H. 473; Lines v. Darden,
6 Fla. 37; Winchester v. Hinsdale, 12
Conn. 88; Bayard ¥. McLane, 3 Harr.
(Del.) 189; Higbe v. Leonard, 1 Denio,
186 ; Schultze v. McLeary, 73 Texas, 92,
§.C.118. W. R.924; Horton v. How-
ard, 79 Mich, 642,44 N. W. R. 1112;
Patrick v. Crowe, 15 Colo. 548, 8. C. 25
Pac. R. 985; Salm v. State, 89 Ala. 56,
8. C. 8S. R. 66.

8 Littrell v. Wilcox, 11 Mont. 77,8. C.
27 Pac. R. 394; Tampa, etc., v. Tampa
Co. (Fla.), 17 Law. R. Anno. 681;

Owings v. Gibson, 2 A. K. Marsh
(Ky.), 517; Bryan v. Austin, 10 La.
Ann. 612; Denn v. Tatem, 1 N. J. L.
164; State v. Collins, 5 Wis. 339;
Jewett v. Miller, 12 Iowa, 85; Nugent
v. Stark, 34 La. 628; Slaven v. Wheeler,
58 Tex. 23; Carrington v. Andrews,
12 Abb. Pr. 348; Chambers v. Hodges,
23 Texas, 104; Curtis v. Wilcox, 74
Mich. 69, 41 N. W. R. 863; East Rome
Town v. Cothran, 81 Ga. 359; Darling
v. Pierce, 15 Hun, 543; Deadrick ».
Watkins, 8 Hump. (Tenn.) 520;
Reams v. Kearns, 5 Cold. (Tenn.), 217.
See, generally, King v. Sapp, 66 Tex.
519,8.C.2S. W. R.573; Wilks». State, |
27 Texas App. 381, 8. C. 11 S. W. R.
415; Hobbs v. Campbell, 79 Texas,
360, S. C. 15 S. W. R. 282; State v.
Burks, 82 Texas, 584, S. C. 18 §. W.
R. 662; Woodfolk v. State, 85 Ga. 69,
S.C. 118. E. R. 814; Carr v. Fife, 44
Fed. R. 713.

‘ Barnes v. McMullins, 78 Mo. 260;
Turner v. Commonwealth, 2 Metcf.
(Ky.) 619; State v. Shipman, 93 Mo.
147,8.C.6S. W.R.97; State v. Chap-
man (8. Dak.),47 N. W. R. 411; State
v. Rodway (S. Dak.), 47 N. W. R.
§ 218 JUDGES AND JUDICIAL OFFICERS. 225

stance very similar, differ so much in detail and phraseology
that we shall not attempt to consider the subject at length. It
may be said generally that the fact that a judge has presided
- at a former trial, or has, in the course of the proceedings, ex-
pressed an opinion, does not authorize the conclusion that bias
or prejudice exists in his mind.!

§ 218. Necessity may compel disqualified judge to act.—
In accordance with the principle which rules in many depart-
ments of jurisprudence, necessity may compel a disqualified
judge to hear and decide a cause. All rules, statutory or com-
mon law, yield to necessity. Where no other judge can be
obtained, the disqualified judge must act, no matter how un-
pleasant the duty may be.?

§ 219. Change of judge.—Where the statute so provides, it
is the imperative duty of a judge to call in another judge, pro-
vided the objections to his competency are properly and oppor-
tunely made. In some of the States the specific facts constitut-
ing the objections must be stated; in others, itis sufficient to
state the ground of objection in the general language of the
statute. It is enough for our present purpose to say that the
statutory requirements must be substantially complied with, as
we have elsewhere considered this phase of the subject.*

§ 220. Power to appoint special judges—Generally.—The
rule that judicial power can not be delegated is not violated by
the appointment of a special judge, for in such a case there is
no delegation of authority. The special judge is substituted
for the regular judge, and for the occasion or case occupies the
position of a judge in all that the term implies.‘ There can,

1061; McCauley v. Weller, 12 Cal.500; Cases, 429; Commonwealth v. Ryan,
_ Russell v. Russell (Ky.), 12 8. W. R. 5 Mass. 90; Matter of Ryers, 72 N.
709; Cooper v. Brewster, 1 Minn. 94; Y.1, S. C. 28 Am. R. 88. See, gen-
People v. Williams, 24 Cal. 31. erally, Bessett v. Governor, 11 Ga.
1 Pearson v. Hopkins, 2N.J. L.194; 207; Commonwealth v. Brown, 147
Fry v. Bennett, 28 N. Y. 324; Mc- Mass. 585, 8.C.9 Am. St. R. 736.
Dowell v. Van Deusen, 12 Johns. 356; 3 Post, Change of Venue.
Bank of North America v. Fitzsim- ‘Bush v. Lisle, 86 Ky. 504,8.C. 68.
ons, 2 Binn. (Pa.) 454. W. R. 330; State v. Sneed (Mo.), 48.
?Thellusson v. Rendlesham,7 H.L. W. R. 888.

15
226 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 220

however, be no special judge effectively appointed unless au-
thorized by a valid statute. A judge has no inherent power to
appoint a substitute, but he may be authorized to do so by con-
stitutional legislation. A special judge is one who takes the
place of the regular judge under a temporary appointment, and
it is necessary to give validity to his acts, as against an attack
seasonably and appropriately made, that he should be appointed
in the mode prescribed by law, but if there is power to appoint,
the acts of a special judge can not, it is well agreed, be success-
fully questioned by a collateral attack.1 Where there is an
absolute lack of power to appoint a special or substitute judge,
that is, where there is no law authorizing, or assuming to au-
thorize,? the appointment of such a judge, there is reason for
holding void the proceedings conducted by him.’ In such a
case the record affirmatively shows (if it is made to speak the
truth ) that the person who assumed to act as judge was a mere
usurper or a naked intruder, so that it carries on its face evi-
dence of its own invalidity. The question, in such a case, is
really one of power or no power, and it is to be determined

1 Hunter v. Ferguson, 13 Kan. 462,
465; Guilbeau v. Cormier, 32 La. Ann.
930; State v. Murdock, 86 Ind. 124;
Adams v. Gowan, 89 Ind. 358; Cargar
v. Fee, 119 Ind. 5386. See ante, §§ 208,
213. See, also, upon the general sub-
ject, Alabama, etc., Co. v. Burkett, 42
Ala, 83; Holly . Carson, 39 Ala. 345;

State v. Lewis, 107 N. C. 967, 8. C. 12:

8. E. R. 457; Grinstead v. Buckley, 32
Miss. 148; Henderson v. Pope, 39 Ga.
861; People v. Petty, 32 Hun, 448;
State v. Williams, 14 W.Va. 851; Bear
v. Cohen, 65 N.C.511; Clark v. Rugg,
20 Fla. 861; People v. Gallagher, 75
Mich. 512; Williams v. Benet, 35 8S. C.
150, S. C. 14 Lawy. Rep. Anno. 825, 14
S. E. R. 311; Granite Mountain, etc.,
Co. v. Durfee, 11 Mont.222, S.C. 27 Pac.
R. 919.

* We use the term ‘ assuming to au-
thorize’’ because we incline to the

opinion that although the act of the
legislature may be unconstitutional,
still there may be a judge de facto, and
if there is such a judge the proceed-
ings are not void but, at most, are only
voidable. Thus, for example, if the

‘legislature should attempt to authorize

the appointment of special judges, and
the act should be void because of some
defect in its title, one who acted as
special judge pursuant to an appoint-
ment under the unconstitutional stat-
ute would be a judge de facto.

§ Hoagland v. Creed,81 111.506; State
v. Fritz, 27 La. Ann. 689. See Baisley
v. Baisley, 15 Ore. 183, 8. C. 13 Pac. R.
888; Winchester v. Ayres, 4 Greene
(Iowa), 104; Brown v. Buzan, 24 Ind.
194; Harper v. Jacobs, 51 Mo. 296;
Smith v. Haworth, 53 Mo. 88; Ex parte
Amos, 51 Ala. 57,
§ 221 JUDGES AND JUDICIAL OFFICERS. 227

upon the law and the record without resort to extrinsic evi-
dence. No principle is violated in holding that the acts of one
who assumes to be a special judge may be collaterally im-
peached, where, as matter of law, it is impossible that there
can be a special or substitute judge, for, if it is impossible that
there can be such a judicial officer there can be no court. But
where there is a law assuming to grant power to create or ap-
point special judges, it can not be said that it is impossible that
a person exercising the functions of special judge may not be.
acting rightfully and lawfully, and, as the presumption is in
favor of the validity and rightfulness of his acts,! a collateral
assault upon them must be unavailing.

§ 221. Special judges.—As indicated in the preceding sec-
tion, a special judge is one who, for the time, takes the place
of the regularly appointed or elected judge, and, while acting
under the appointment, is a judge with all the powers of the
regular judge.” A special judge does not fill a vacancy in the
office of judge, nor is he a judge except for the time and occa-
sion embraced in his appointment.? A special judge may be
appointed to hold special, adjourned, or even general, terms
of court, or he may be called in to try a special case or partic-
ular cases. A special judge may, where the statute so pro-
vides, be appointed by the regular judge upon his own volition,
but the appointment is usually made upon the application of a
party to the suit or action. To give full effectiveness and force
to the appointment of a special judge the provisions of the law
should be substantially followed. Where a statute enacted

1 Post, § 227.

7 Post, § 228.
_ *It necessarily follows that a special
judge is not a duplicate judge; he is a
temporary officer, occupying the place
of the permanent judge. Where a
special judge is called, ‘the regular
judge can not act with him, for the
whole theory of the appointment of
special judges is that of substitution.
For the time and the occasion the reg-

ular judge goes out when the special
judge comes in. Some of the cases
press this general doctrine very far.
State, ex rel., v. Beattie, 38 La. Ann.
452; Cox v. State, 30 Kan. 202; In re
Millington, 24 Kan. 214; Tarpenning
v. Cannon, 28 Kans 665; Haverly, ete.,
Co. v. Howcutt, 6 Colo. 574; Clark v.
Rugg, 20 Fla. 861; Bear v. Cohen, 65
N. C. 511.
228 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 221
under constitutional warrant provides for the appointment of
a special judge, or judge pro tempore, such an appointment is
valid, and irregularities in the appointment do not render such
appointment void, although if objections are seasonably inter-
posed, such irregularities may, if material, constitute such
error as would require a reversal upon appeal.! The courts,
however, generally incline to the doctrine that even upon a
direct attack irregularities will be disregarded unless they are
_of a material and influential character, and it is generally held

_ that objections must be promptly interposed or they will be
deemed waived.? Where, however, there is no constitutional
authority to enact statutes providing for the appointment of
special judges, there can, as we have said, be no court held by
one who assumes the functions of a special judge, since there
can be no color or claim of right to the office.* We think there
is a difference between an entire lack of legislative authority
and an ineffective effort to exercise authority. We believe that
the acts of a special judge would not be void if there was gen-
eral legislative authority to enact the statute, although the
statute might be invalid because of a violation of some provis-

1 Holden v. Haserodt (8. D.), 8. C.
49N.W.R.97; Munzesheimer v. Fair-
banks, 82 Tex. 351, 8. C.18 S. W. R.
697.

2State v. Sachs, 3 Wash. 496, 8. C.
29 Pac. R. 446; State v. Gamble, 108
Mo. 500, 8. C.18 8. W.R.1111; State
v. Gilmore, 110 Mo. 1,8. C. 198. W.
R. 218. See, generally, Haley v. Jump
River, etc., Co., 81 Wis. 412, 8. C. 51
N.W. BR. 321; State v. Sanders, 106 Mo.
188, 8. C.17 8. W. R. 223.

3 Lillie v. Trentman, 130 Ind. 16, 8.
C. 29 N. E. R. 405.

4It is held in some of the cases that
where there is no right to appoint,
consent of parties will not validate the
acts of the person who assumes to ex-
ercise the functions of a special judge.
Haverly Mining Co. v. Howcutt, 6
Colo. 574; Wright v. Boon, 2 Greene

(Iowa), 458; Hyllis v. State, 45 Ark.
478; Herbster v. State, 80 Ind. 484;

‘McClure v. State, 77-Ind. 287; Cobb

v. People, 84 Ill. 511; Bishop v. Nel-
son, 83 Ill. 601. But see Kennedy ».
Commonwealth, 78 Ky. 447; Smith v.
Trisbie, 7 Iowa, 486. Some of the cases
cited, as we believe, go much beyond
the true line, for they affirm that an
irregular or defective exercise of the
power to appoint renders the appoint-
ment void. This, we venture to say,
is a radical error, for, if the general
power of appointment exists, error in
the mode of exercising it may render
the appointment voidable, but it does
not make it a nullity. The acts of a
special judge, where there is general
power to appoint, must, on principle,
be secure against a collateral attack.
°

§ 222 JUDGES AND JUDICIAL OFFICERS. 229

ion regarding the enactment of laws, as, for instance, a viola-
tion of the provision inhibiting the enactment of special laws.
We have no doubt that the acts of a special judge who assumed
to act under an unconstitutional statute would be voidable,
and, because voidable, set aside on appeal; but we do not be-
lieve they would be absolutely void. It seems to us that some
of the courts have not been mindful of the difference between
void and voidable acts, and have fallen into error.

§ 222. Who appoints judges pro tempore.—The general
practice is for the regularly elected judge to make the appoint-
ment of the special judge, but some of the State statutes make
different provisions, and, of course, such provisions are of con-
trolling force. Where the regular judge is disqualified he may,
although objection is made because of his disqualification, select
the judge pro tempore. Where there is no constitution or stat-
utory provision to the contrary, the regular judge is the proper
person to name the special judge, and enter such orders as are
necessary to procure his attendance.!

§ 223. Determination of the necessity for appointing special
judge.—The statutes of many of the States provide that when
a judge is unable because of illness or the like to hold court,
he may call in a special judge, and some of them provide that
in case the judge is incapacitated or disqualified he may ap-
point a special judge to try a particular case or cases. It is
clear that in all such jurisdictions a comprehensive discretion
is conferred upon the judge; and his decision in appointing a
substitute is not subject to review.? The statutes to which we
refer are those which leave the matter to the judge himself and
require no application from the parties. Where the law gives
the party a right to a change upon prescribed terms, quite a

1Granite, etc., Co. v. Durfee, 11 Ind. 395; Firgel v. State, 85 Ind. 580;
Mont. 222, 8. C. 27 Pac. R. 919. State v. Judge, 38 La. Ann. 452;
2 State v. Gilmore, 110 Mo. 1,8. C.19 Schultze v. McLeary, 73 Texas, 92, 8S.
S.W. B. 218; State v. Murdock, 86Ind. C. 118. W. R. 924; Walters v. Walt-
124, 128 ; Fassinow v. State, 89 Ind. 235. ers, 117 Ind. 247.
See, generally, Zonker v. Cowan, 84
»

230 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 224

different question is presented, tor a compliance with the stat-
ute makes it the imperative duty of the judge to grant the.
change.1. If the power to order a change is entirely discre-
tionary, there is no reason why the causes which influenced
the judge in ordering the change should appear of record.?
We know that in some of the cases a different doctrine is de-
clared,® but we are persuaded that these cases are not well de-
cided. As the matter is one of discretion there can be no review
or revision, so that there can not be said to be material error,
and if there can be no error, there is no reason why the record
should show upon what grounds the judge acted in calling in a
substitute. The presumption is that all acts are lawfully and
regularly done,‘ and this familiar doctrine requires it to be held
that sufficient reasons existed for appointing a special judge.

§ 224. Mode of appointing special judges.—It is not neces-
sary to do more than say that where the law prescribes the
mode in which special judges shall be appointed the law must
be obeyed or the appointment will not stand against a direct
attack properly and opportunely made.® We have already
spoken of the difference between cases where the question. is
as to the existence of the power to appoint and cases where the
question is as to the mode of exercising that power, and we
shall not go over that ground again but content ourselves with
a bare reference to the difference between the two classes of

1 State v. Bacon, 107 Mo. 627, 8. C.
18 §.W. R.19; Hamilton v. Territory,
1 Wyo. Ter. 131; Shoemaker v. Smith,
74 Ind. 71; Burkett v. Holman, 104
Ind. 6; Krutz v. Griffith, 68 Ind. 444;
Heshion v. Pressley, 80 Ind. 490; Cor-
penny v. City of Sedalia, 57 Mo. 88;,
Barnes v. McMullins, 78 Mo. 260. In
order to make the duty to call in a
special judge imperative the statute
must be obeyed with reasonable ex-
actness. German Ins. Co. v. Landram,
88 Ky. 433, S.C. 118.W. R. 367; State
v. Chantlain, 42 La. Ann. 718, 8. C.7
So. R. 669.

?Leonard v. Blair, 59 Ind. 510;
Rogers v. Beauchamp, 102 Ind: 33.

* Roberts v. State, 27 Fla. 244, §.C.9
So. R. 246.

* Post, § 227.

° State v. Phillips, 27 La. Ann. 663;
State v. Frank, 27 La. Ann. 689; State
v. Judge, 9 La. Ann. 62; Hayes v.
Hayes, 8 La. Ann. 468; Peter v. State,
6 How. (Miss.), 326. See, generally,
Texas, etc., Co. v. Douglass, 69 Texas,
694, 8. C. 78. W.R.77; Nichols, ete.,
Co. v. Metzger, 43 Mo. App. 607; State
v. Beattie, 38 La. Ann. 452; Drawdy
v. Littlefield, 75 Ga. 215.
§ 225 JUDGES AND JUDICIAL OFFICERS. 231

cases. While it is true, as we have said, that the law respect-
ing the mode of appointing ‘special judges must be obeyed, it
is, nevertheless, sufficient if there is a substantial compliance
with the requirements of the-law. Some of the courts declare
a very rigid and technical doctrine, but the weight of modern
authority and the influence of reason is against that doctrine.
There is no valid reason for allowing a departure from the
statute to overthrow the judgment where the departure is not
important or does not prejudice the substantial rights of the
complaining party. It is now generally held that a harmless
error, no matter what may be its. character in other respects,
will not avail to reverse a judgment, and there is no reason
why this general doctrine should not apply to the appointment
of a special judge. The courts have, as a general rule, given
a very liberal construction to the power conferred upon legis-
latures to provide for the appointment of special judges, and
have almost gone to the extent of holding that the legislature
may make any provision it chooses respecting the mode of ap-
pointing judges. 3

§ 225. Procedure respecting appointment of special judges.
—The form of the application and the facts which must be
stated in order to entitle a party to compel a change of judges
are so much a matter of statutory regulation that we shall not
attempt to give in detail rules upon the subject. It may,
however, be said, in general terms, that it is necessary to make
such an application as the statute requires and file it within
the time prescribed by the statute or the rules of the court.
Where the court on its own motion directs a change of judge,
the record, in order to be strictly accurate, should show affirm-
atively the reasons which influenced the court in ordering the
change, but we do not regard a failure to show such reasons as
fatal to the change. Some of the'cases hold that the record
must affirmatively show the reasons for the change or the order

1§mith ». Blakeman, 8 Bush (Ky.), Kennedy v. Commonwealth, 78 Ky.
476; Ligan v. State, 3 Heisk. (Tenn.), 447; Rudd v. Woolfolk, 4 Bush (Ky.),
159; State v. Williams, 14 W.Va. 851; 555.

‘
232 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 226

directing it will be deemed erroneous,} but this doctrine we
believe to be contrary to principle and opposed to rules de-
clared and enforced again and again in analogous cases. We
regard the cases which hold a liberal doctrine as the safer and
sounder precedents.” It is held by some of the courts that the
special judge must have a written certificate of his appointment,’
and there is reason for this rule, but we think that where the par-
ties appear without interposing any objection, and the special
judge tries the case, the failure to appoint in writing does not
invalidate the proceedings. The better doctrine is that all irreg-
ularities not going to the merits are disregarded, but where they
affect the merits they are available on appeal when proper ob-
jections are interposed.‘

§ 226. Objections to special judges.— Where the record proper
does not show the objections to a special judge, the rules of
practice require that the objections should be specific and be
put in writing. The slovenly and unsafe practice of making

1In many of the cases a very strict
rule is declared and adhered to; much
stricter, in our judgment, than the law
authorizes. Thompson v. State, 9Tex.
App. 301; Worsham v. Murchison, 66
Ga. 715; In re Lynch, 9 Abb. N. Cases,
69; In re Application of Judges, 64 Pa.
St. 33; Rudd v. Woolfolk,4 Bush(Ky.),
555. See, generally, Slone v. Slone, 2
Met. (Ky.), 339.

2 Wyers v. State, 21 Texas App. 448;
Hughes v. Commonwealth, 89 Ky. 227,
S. C.128.W. RB. 269; State v. Gamble,
108 Mo. 500, S. C. 18 S. W. R. 1111;
Wood v. Franklin, 97 Ind. 117. See,
generally, Taylor v. Bosworth, 1 Ind.
App. 54; Board v. Courtney, 105 Ind.
311; Rubush v. State, 112 Ind. 107;
Powell v. Powell, 104 Ind. 18, 29; Van-
dever v. Vandever, 3 Met. (Ky.), 187;
Salter v. Salter, 6 Bush (Ky.), 624;
Evans v. State, 56 Ind. 459; Fawcett v.
State, 71 Ind. 590.

8 Kennedy v. State, 53 Ind. 542, 544;

Thompson v. State, 9 Texas App. 301.
See authorities cited. Elliott’s Ap-
pellate Procedure, §§ 770, 782.

* Denning v. Norris, 2 Lev. 243; An-

.drews v. Linton, 2 Ld. Raymond, 884;

Weeks v. Ellis, 2 Barb. 320; Grant ».
Holmes, 75 Mo. 109; Caskey v. City
of Greensburgh, 78 Ind. 233; Pepie v.
Lachenmeyer, 45 N. Y. 27.

5 Where the record does not show,
or is not made to show, the specific
objections to a special judge, no ques-
tion is presented for consideration on
appeal. Good practice requires that
objections should be specific since this
is necessary to fully inform the trial
court of the nature of the questions
presented and also to prevent parties
from presenting one question in the
court of original jurisdiction and an-
other question on appeal. Where the
case is one in which there is an ab-
solute absence of power to appoint a
special judge, the question of his com-
§ 226 JUDGES AND JUDICIAL OFFICERS. 233

objections orally is not one to be encouraged in any part of a
judicial proceeding, except in the course of the trial, where
necessity excuses, and is certainly not allowable where objec-
tions are made to one who occupies the position of a judge.
Objections to the competency of a special judge should be
promptly made. If not made with reasonable promptness they
are regarded as waived.1 The rules we have just stated are
sustained by the well considered cases, but there are cases,
which seem to us not well decided, which declare a different
doctrine. The principle that objections not made at the earliest
practicable opportunity are deemed waived is recognized almost
everywhere throughout the law, and we can see no reason for
denying its application to such matters as the appointment and
qualification of special judges, but, on the contrary, there ap-
pears to us to be stronger reasons for applying the principle to
such matters than there is for applying it to matters of ordi-
nary procedure. The true rule is to require objections to be
made before entering upon the trial.?_ If the objections are not
then known and could not have been discovered by the exer-
cise of reasonable care and diligence the party may, upon a
proper showing, be excused for delaying his objections; but
where no cause for delay is shown principle requires it to be

petency may be made at any time,
since, as we have elsewhere shown,
the question is one of law purely.
‘Stearns v. Wright, 51 N. H. 600;
Peebles v. Rand, 43 N. H. 337; Moses |
v. Julian, 45 N. H. 52; State v. Whit-
ney, 7 Ore. 386; State v. Voorhies, 41
La. Ann. 567, S.C.6 So. R. 826; Bow-
en v. Swander, 121 Ind. 164; Hayes v.
Sykes, 120 Ind. 180; Smurr »v. State,
105 Ind. 125; Schlungger v. State, 113
Ind. 295; Greenwood v. State, 116
Ind. 485, S. C. 19 N. E. R. 333; State
v. Sachs, 3 Wash. 691, S. C. 29 Pac. R.
446; Miller v. Burger, 2 Ind. 337;
Grant v. Holmes, 75 Mo. 109; Harper
v. Jacobs, 51 Mo. 296. See, generally,

Kentucky, etc., v. Kenney, 82 Ky.
154; Tucker v. Allen, 47 Mo. 488. In
the case of Radford, etc., Co. v. East
Tennessee, etc., Co. (Tenn.), 21 S.W.
R. 329, the court holds that where a
person acts as judge by consent of
parties, his decision is not void be-
cause he did not act in the capacity of
ajudge. This we think is a ruling of
doubtful soundness. If a person is
called in as a special judge he acts as
a judge and not as an arbitrator. His
judgments are those of a court from
which writs of error will lie or ap-
peals may be prosecuted.

2 Dolan v. Church, 1 Wyo. 187; State
»v. Greenwade, 72 Mo. 298.
234 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 227

held that delay until after the trial begins is a complete and
effective waiver.

§ 227. Presumption of regularity in appointment.—The gen-
eral rule is that all reasonable presumptions will be made in
favor of the regularity of the proceedings of courts of general
jurisdiction. There is sound reason for this rule. The gen-
eral doctrine is that all official acts are presumed to be right-
fully performed, and the force of this doctrine is intensified
when applied to judges, for they are chosen because of their
learning and fitness, they hear argument, are assisted by coun-
sel, act impartially and after due deliberation. It is, therefore,
safe to affirm, notwithstanding the intimations in some of the
cases to the contrary,? that where there is a general power to
appoint special judges, the presumption is that the appoint-
ment is valid and the appointee competent.? Any other con-
clusion would require it to be affirmed that the judge who calls

1TIn the case of Tracey v. Altmyer,
46 N. Y. 598, the court stated the rule
in these words: ‘“‘It is incumbent up-
on a party seeking the reversal of a
judgment or order to show that an er-
ror was committed to his prejudice.
It is not sufficient to show that it may
have been committed. The latter will
not overcome the presumption that all
things have been transacted correctly,
until the contrary appears.’’ This is,
perhaps, a stronger statement of the
general doctrine than the cases war-
rant, but it is not, at all events, much
too strong, for the decisions go to great
lengths. Bishop v.Village of Goshen,
120 N. Y. 337, S. C. 24.N. E. R. 720;
Walters v. Tefft, 57 Mich. 829, 8. C. 24
N.W. RB. 117; Sidney, etc., v. Warsaw
School District, 180 Pa. St. 76, 8. C. 18
Atl. R. 604; Morisey v. Swinson, 104
N. C. 555, S. C. 10 8. E. R. 754; Ken-
nedy v. McNichols, 29 Mo. App. 11;
Pool v. Gramling, 88 Ga. 653, 8. C. 16
8. E. R. 52.

? Worsham v. Murchison, 66 Ga. 715;
In re Application of Judges, 64 Pa. St.
33; Brown v. Buzan, 24 Ind. 194.

3 Harper v. Jacobs, 51 Mo. 296; Hess
v. Dean, 66 Texas, 663; Henning v.
State, 106 Ind. 386, S. C. 55 Am. R.
756; People v. Woodside, 72 Ill. 407;
Empire, etc., Co. v. Engley,»14 Colo.
289, 8. C. 23 Pac. R. 452; Reed v. Bag-
ley, 24 Neb. 332; State v. Hosmer, 85
Mo. 553; Wood v. Franklin, 97 Ind.
117; Bates v. Sabin (Vt.), 24 Atl. R.
‘1013; Bowen’v. Swander, 121 Ind. 164;
Cargar v. Fee, 119 Ind. 536; Fassinow
v. State, 89 Ind. 235; Hutts v. Hutts,
51 Ind. 581, 584. See, generally, Bow-
en v. Preston, 48 Ind. 367; Myers »v.
Mitchell (S$. Dak.), 46 N. W. R. 245;
Indiana, etc., Co. v. Bird, 116 Ind.
217, 8. C. 18 N. E. R. 837; McCray ».
Humes, 116 Ind. 103, S. 0.18 N. E.R.
500; Cass v. Krimbill, 39 Ind. 357;
Hanes v. Worthington, 14 Ind. 320.
§ 228 JUDGES AND JUDICIAL OFFICERS. 235

in a special judge, as well as the person who acts as special
judge, violated the law, and this would beunreasonable. The
reasonable presumption is that there is neither error-nor irreg-
_ ularity in the appointment nor lack of fitness in the person ap-
pointed, and this being true, the assailant who challenges the
validity of the appointment or the competency of the person
chosen must overthrow this presumption by an affirmative
showing, containing matters of weight and importance, for
only matters of weight and importance are entitled to consid-
eration. The presumption should prevail unless satisfactorily
overthrown by matters of record, since to hold otherwise is to
assume that the person who acted as special judge was an in-
truder or usurper, and this can never be assumed without do-
ing violence to settled principles, unless the facts authorizing
the assumption are clearly exhibited by the record. The bet-
ter considered cases adjudge that where there is a general power
to appoint special judges, neither the regularity of the appoint-
ment nor the competency of the appointee can be successfully
assailed in a collateral proceeding."

§ 228. Authority of special judges.—The necessary conclu-
sion from the principle that a special judge is for the time and

1 Higby v. Ayres, 14 Kan. 331; Lan- 210; Campbell v. Commonwealth, 96

don v. Comet, 62 Mich. 80, S. C. 28 N.
W. R. 788; Myers’v. State, 92 Ind.
390, 396; Holmes v. Eason, 76 Tenn.
754, 760; Griffin’s Case, Chase’s Dec.,
861; Matter of Griffin, 25 Texas (Sup-
_ plement) ,623; State v.Choute, 11 Ohio,
511; Littleton v. Smith, 119 Ind. 230, S.
C. 21 N. E.R.886; State v. Miller(Mo.),
208.W.R. 243. See, generally, Warren
v. Glynn, 37 N. H. 340; Fancher v.
Stearns, 61 Vt. 616, S. C. 18 Atl. R.
455; Blackburn v. State, 3 Head. 689;
Keeler v. Stead, 56 Conn. 501; Gallup
v. Smith, 59 Conn. 354, 8. C. 12 L. R.
Anno. 353, 22 Atl. R. 334; In re Man-
ning, 189 U. S. 504; In re Manning
(Wis.), 45 N. W. R. 26; Inve Burke,
76 Wis. 357; Dukes v. Rowley, 24 Ill.

Pa. St. 344; Rex v. Carlile, 4C. & P.
415. But see, as holding a somewhat
different doctrine, Tampa St. Ry. Co.
v. Tampa, etc., Co. (Fla.), 11 So. R.
562; Abram v. State, 31 Tex. Cr. App.
449, 20S. W. R. 987; United States v.
Alexander, 46 Fed. R. 728; Hynds v.
Imboden, 5 Ark. 885; Ferguson v. Crit-
tenden County, 6 Ark. 479; Fitzhugh
v. Custer, 4 Texas, 391, 8. C. 51 Am.
Dec. 728, 734; Blackmore v. Bank of
the State, 3 Ark. 309; Stone v. Carter,
18 Gray, 575; Spradling v. State, 17
Ala. 440; Morgan v. Hammett, 23 Wis.
30, 40; Clark v. Lamb, 2 Allen, 396;
Fenelon v. Butts, 49 Wis. 342, 8. C.5
N. W. R. 784.
2386 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 228

occasion for which he is appointed invested with all the powers
and functions of a judge, is that he may perform all such acts
as the regular appointed or chosen judge might do if he were
acting.1 There is no division of authority as to the powers of the
substitute judge over special matter given in charge of the special
judge or the specific occasion for which he is appointed. He does
not act as an arbitrator or referee. When the special judge is pres-
ent and presiding, there isacourtin all that the term implies, and
this there could not beif the judicial presence were wanting. The
rulings and decisions of a special judge are judicial rulings
and decisions from which appeals will lie, and the records made
by him are judicial records. His judgments constitute estop-
pels, and the process issued for their enforcement has all the
force of writs issued upon judgments rendered by the duly
elected or appointed judge. Itis true that where the special
judge fails or refuses to act, the case, for the purpose of ap-
pointing another special judge, falls back to the regular judge,”
but this does not oppose the conclusion we have just stated,
for, where the special judge will not or can not act, there is
only one judge, and that is the regular judge. There is, as is
sufficiently obvious without discussion, an essential difference
between cases where the special judge will not or can not act
and cases where he assumes the duties and functions imposed
upon him by his appointment. As the special judge is so
fully invested with judicial power, it is reasonable and logical
to conclude, as many of the courts do, that for the occasion or
the specific matter his authority is as ample as that of the reg-
ular judge. He possesses authority to perform all incidental
acts pertaining to the principal act he is authorized to perform.

1 Morriss v. VirginiaIns. Co., 85 Va. 8. C. 2 So. R. 595; Little Rock, etc.,

588, S.C.8S. E. R. 383; Keith v. State,
49 Ark. 4389, 446; Henderson v. Pope,
39 Ga. 361; Vischer v. Talbotton, etc.,
Co., 34 Ga. 586; Alabama, etc., Co. v.
Burkett, 42 Ala. 83. See, also, Taylor
v. Smith, 4Ga.133; Walton v. Bethune,
37 Ga. 319; Cox v. State, 30 Kan. 202.

? State v. Millsops, 39 La. Ann. 7938,

Co. v. Barker, 39 Ark. 491; Cargar v.
Fee, 119 Ind. 536. See, generally, Sin-
gleton v. Pidgeon, 21 Ind. 118; Arnold
v. Norton, 42 Ind. 248; Hutts v. Hutts,
51 Ind. 581; Stinson v. State, 32 Ind.
124; Glenn v. State,46 Ind.368; Green-
up v. Crooks, 50 Ind. 410.
§ 228 JUDGES AND JUDICIAL OFFICERS. 237

This is but applying the familiar general rule that the grant of
@ principal power carries with it all the incidental powers nec-
essary to its effective exercise. Under the doctrine we have
stated it is rightly held that he may sign a bill of exceptions,!
and so, too, it is correctly adjudged that the authority of the
special judge continues until the whole controversy has been
fully and finally determined.? Nor do we believe that the court
which holds that a special judge may hear and decide an ap-
plication to vacate a judgment rendered by him unduly extends
the general doctrine.? The doctrine we have stated fully au-
‘thorizes the conclusion that a special judge may appoint re-
ceivers, master commissioners and other ministers of court in
the particular matter or case over which his authority extends,‘
and it also authorizes the conclusion that orders of adjourn-

ment and the like may be made by him.’ |

1 Holliday v. Mansker, 44 Mo. App.
465; Shugart v. Miles, 125 Ind. 445;
Bacon v. State, 22 Fla. 46; Cowall v.
Altchul, 40 Ark. 172; Watkins v. State,
37 Ark. 370; Lerch v. Emmett, 44 Ind.
331; Matthews v. Superior Court, 68
Cal. 638. It must necessarily follow
that where there is authority to try
and decide a case as special judge,
there is the incidental authority to se-
cure parties their rights by making a
full and complete record inasmuch as
one of the chief duties of a judge is to
protect and enforce the rights of par-
ties litigant, and this he could not do
if he were denied the power of making
a complete record.

2 Nebraska, etc., Co. v. Maxon, 23

Neb. 224, 8. C. 36 N. W. R. 492; Daw-

son v. Dawson, 29 Mo. App. 521; State
». Sneed, 91 Mo. 552, 8. C.48. W. R.
411.

3 Harris v. Musgrave, 72 Tex. 18, 8.
C. 9. S.W.R. 90. See, generally, Noff-
zieger v. Reed, 98 Mo. 87,8.C.118.W.
R. 315; Bowden v. Wilson, 21 Fla. 165;
Corbin v. Berry, 83 N. C. 27; Scherer
v. Ingerman, 110 Ind. 428; Magruder
». Swann, 25 Md. 173; Nugent». Stark,
34 La. Ann. 628; State v. Judge, 33
La. Ann. 1293; Staser v. Hogan, 120
Ind. 207.

‘ Bush v. Lisle, 86 Ky. 504,8. 0.68.
W. R. 330. ‘

5 Perkins v. Hayward, 124 Ind. 445;
Wilson v. Piper, 77 Ind. 437; Cincin- ©
nati, etc., Co. v. Rowe, 17 Ind. 568.
§ 229.
230.

231,
232.

233.
234.
235,
236.
237.
238.
239.

240.

241,
242.
248.
244,
245.

246.

247.
248.

CHAPTER VI.

JURISDICTION.

Determining the court in which
to sue. .

Jurisdiction of courts—Defini-
tion.

Elements of jurisdiction.

Source of jurisdiction over legal
controversies.

Exercise of jurisdiction— In-
strumentalities.

Classification.

Appellate jurisdiction.

Original jurisdiction.

Exclusive jurisdiction — Con-
current jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction of the general sub-
ject.

Jurisdiction of the particular
subject.

Distinction between jurisdic-
tion of a general subject and
jurisdiction of a particular
subject.

Equity jurisdiction.

Law jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction in rem.

Jurisdiction in personam.

Status of persons — Authority
to determine.

Status of children— Authority
to adjudge.

Incidental jurisdiction.

Acquisition of jurisdiction —
Conflict of authority.

§ 249.
250.
251.
252.
253.
254,
255.
256.
257.
258.

259.

260.

261.

262.
263.

264.
265.
266.
267.
268.

Retaining jurisdiction once ac-
quired.

Authority of sovereignty over
property within its territory.

Territorial jurisdiction of
courts.

Local actions.

Transitory actions.

Domicile as affecting jurisdic-
tion.

Presumption of jurisdiction—
Superior courts.

Presumption of jurisdiction—
Inferior tribunals.

Averment of jurisdictional
facts.

Judgment by default—Pre-
sumptions. '

Effect of assuming jurisdiction
—Implied decision asserting
jurisdiction.

Decision that jurisdictional
facts exist — Conclusiveness
of.

Recitals of jurisdictional facts
or matters.

Collateral proceedings.

Judicial proceedings are void,
voidable and regular.

Objections to jurisdiction.

Loss of jurisdiction.

Exceeding jurisdiction.

Estoppel to deny jurisdiction.

Transfer of jurisdiction.

§ 229. Determining the court in which to sue.—The suit or
(238)
§ 229 JURISDICTION. 239

action must be brought in a court of competent jurisdiction,!
that is, a court having authority over both the particular case
and the general class of cases of which the particular case is a
member. If there is authority over the general class of cases
there is jurisdiction of the general subject,” so that if no objec-
tion is interposed an effective judgment may be rendered, but
if there is no jurisdiction of the general subject, then a judgment
is an absolute nullity.2 We make a distinction between juris-
diction of a general class of cases and jurisdiction of the subject
of a particular case. To illustrate, a court of equity may have
authority over a particular subject, yet a judgment rendered by

acourt of law may be valid. We dono more at this place than

1“After having determined which wassaid: ‘‘The answer admitted the
court has jurisdiction of the case, next. authority of the chosen forum to de-

follow these two inquiries, first, how
is the jurisdiction of the court brought
into action? second, by what princi-
ples is that action governed?”

2 State v. Kansas City Court, 105 Mo.
299,S.C.168.W. R. 415; Posthlewaite
v. Ghiselin, 97 Mo. 420, 8. C. 108. W.
R. 482; Turner v. Conkey, 132 Ind.
248, S. C. 31 N. E. R. 777.

8 Lawrence v. Wilcock, 11 Ad. &
Ell. 941; In re Aylmer, L. R., 20 Q. B.
Div. 258; Nazro v. Cragin, 3 Dill. (U.
8. C. C.) 474; Taliferro v. Bassett, 3
Ala. 670; Jacks v. Moore, 33 Ark. 31;
Lindsay v. McClelland, 1 Bibb. (Ky.)
262; Banks v. Fowler, 3 Litt. (Ky.)
332; Vose v. Morton, 4 Cush. 27; Dod-
son v. Scroggs, 47 Mo. 285; Wheelock
v. Lee, 74 N. Y. 495; Gladden »v. El-
kins, 2 Tyler (Vt.), 218; Randolph v.
Kinney, 3 Rand(Va.), 394; Cottrell v.
Thompson, 3 Green (N. J.) 344; Foley
v. People, Breese (Ill.), 57; Wheeler
v. State, 24 Wis. 52.

4In cases of the class alluded to in
the text. there must be a timely objec-
tion or there will bea waiver. In the
case of the Town of Mentz v. Cook,
108 N. Y. 504, S. C. 15 N. E. R. 541, it

‘termine the issues presented and made

no efforts to withdraw them from that
tribunal. It appears to be settled by
a very general concurrence of author-
ity that a defendant can not when sued
in equity avail himself of the defense
that an adequate remedy at law ex-
ists, unless he plead it in his an-
swer. Grandinv. Le Roy, 2 Paige, 509;
Le Roy v. Platt, 4 Paige, 77; Druscott
v. King, 6 N. Y. 147; Cox v. James,
45 N.Y.557; Green v. Milbank, 3 Abb.
New Cases, 188; Pam v. Vilmar, 54
How. Pr. 235. The rule proceeds up-
on the basis that parties may by their
mutual assent litigate their differences
in a court of equity, where the assent
of the defendant, if withheld, might
induce the court to refrain from the
exercise of its jurisdiction.”’ In all
such cases as that from which we have
quoted the jurisdiction concerns the
subject and not the person, so that the
decisions in those cases do affirm that
jurisdiction of the subject, that is, of
the particular subject, may be want-
ing, and yet, if no objection is inter-
posed, the judgment will be valid. It
seems to us that there are two kinds
240 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 230

direct attention to the distinction as we shall presently consider
itatsomelength. But whether the judgment that may be ren-
dered will be void or voidable, the lawyer who does his duty
will be careful to bring his suit or action in the proper court,
for he will assume that his opponent will interpose a timely and
effective objection to the jurisdiction where such an objection is «
tenable. Other considerations, as we have elsewhere shown,
enter into the question of the choice of the forum, but the first
consideration always is that of jurisdiction, for where there is no
jurisdiction no progress can be made. It is necessary not only
to invoke the aid of a competent tribunal but toinvoke it in the
mode prescribed by law, since the subject of the controversy
and, as a general rule, the parties interested in it must be
brought before the court, for, as Bacon says, ‘“The court has
nothing to do with what is not before it.’’,

§ 230. Jurisdiction of courts—Definition.—It is difficult to
define with strict accuracy the meaning of the term ‘‘jurisdic-
tion.’? Ina comprehensive sense it is true that where there
is authority there is jurisdiction, but to define jurisdiction sim-
ply as authority would be too general, inasmuch as it would
give the term a looser and wider meaning than can properly
be assigned it, for authority is not always jurisdiction in the
strict sense. It is sometimes said that ‘‘jurisdiction means to
pronounce the law,’’ but this definition is inadequate, and,
indeed, inaccurate. The power to decide is jurisdiction.! If
the power to decide exists there is jurisdiction, for the existence
of jurisdiction does not at all depend upon the correctness of
the decision, for the power to decide implies the power to de-
cide wrong as well as right. A decision, no matter how erro-

of jurisdiction of the subject, namely,
jurisdiction of the general subject and
jurisdiction of the subject of the par-
ticular suit or action. Thus there may
be jurisdiction generally to try actions
involving the title to land, but that
jurisdiction may be confined to lands
lying in the county where the court is
held.

Tucker v. Sellers, 130 Ind. 514, 519.

? Hunt v. Hunt, 72. N. Y. 217; Cole-
man v. Floyd, 131 Ind. 330, 334; Snel-
son v. State, 16 Ind. 29; Chicago, etc.,
Co. v. Sutton, 180 Ind. 405, 418; Jack-
son v. Smith, 120 Ind. 520, 522; Yates
v. Lancing, 5 Johns. 282. See Voor-
hees v. Jackson, 10 Peters, 449; El-
liott v. Peirsol, 1 Pet. 328; Ely, v.
§ 230 JURISDICTION. 241

neous, is not evidence of the absence of jurisdiction. Whether
a complaint does or does not state a cause of action,! is, so far
as concerns the question of jurisdiction, of no importance;
for, if the complaint states a case belonging to a general
class over which the authority of the court extends, there is
jurisdiction, and the court has power to decide whether the
pleading is good or bad. Power, in the sense in which we
here employ the word, means rightful authority, for where
there is a naked, autocratic assertion of authority, or a clear
usurpation of authority there is, in a just sense, no power.
Two elements must exist, namely, authority and right. But
this does not imply that the authority shall be rightfully exer-
cised, for if power, as here defined, exists, there is jurisdiction
although the power may be wrongfully exercised. For the rea-
sons we have given we can not accept as correct the definition
that, ‘jurisdiction is a power constitutionally conferred upon
a court, single judge or magistrate, to take cognizance of and
decide cases according to law, and to carry their sentence into
execution.’’? This definition would be more nearly accurate
if it simply declared that jurisdiction is the power to take cog-
nizance of a case or controversy. It has been often said that
jurisdiction is the power to hear and determine a case, and this
is the generally accepted definition.? The presence of authority

Board, 112 Ind. 361, 368; Million v. Abbott (U.S. C.) 94. See, generally,

Board, 89 Ind. 5; Young v. Sellers,
106 Ind. 101. f

1Trumble v. Williams, 18 Neb. 144;
Taylor v. Coots, 32 Neb. 30, 8S. C. 29
Am. St. R. 426; Hunt v. Hunt, 72 N.
Y. 217; Groenvelt v. Burwell, 1 Ld.
Raym. 454, 467.

?Vance on Jurisdiction, 2. The ju-
risdiction of a court does not, in any
instance, depend upon the merits of
the controversy, nor upon the court’s
decision one way or the other, but it
depends upon the right to hear and de-
termine. Le Roy v. Clayton, 2 Saw-
yer, 493; Kendall v. United States, 12
Peters, 524; Pullan v. Kinsinger, 2

16

Wright v. Ware, 50 Ala. 549; Good-
man v. Winter, 64 Ala. 410; Shroyer
v. Richmond, 16 Ohio St. 455; Nood-
riff v. Stewart, 63 Ala. 206; Lamar v.
Gunter, 39 Ala. 324.

5 United States v. Arredondo, 6 Pet.
691; Rhode Island v. Massachusetts,
12 Peters, 657; Grignon v. Astor, 2
How. (U. 8.) 318; In re Bogart 2 Saw-
yer, 396; Smith v. Adams, 180 U. §8.
167; Riggs v. Johnson County, 6 Wall.
166, 187; Holmes v. Oregon, etc., Co.,
7 Saw. 380. See, generally, Heckman
v. O’Neal, 10 Cal. 292; Central, etc.,
Co. v. Placer, 43 Cal. 365; Browns-
ville v. Basse, 43 Texas, 440; Hopkins
242 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 230

to proceed in the particular case or controversy is necessarily
jurisdiction,’ since such authority can not be present unless
the power to take cognizance of the case resides in the tribunal
which assumes control over it. Any movement in a case where
the authority to proceed is present, is the assumption and ex-
ercise of jurisdiction, the proceedings are coram judice, and,
although they may be erroneous, they are not void.’ But,
while it is true in a general sense, that the power to decide or
determine is jurisdiction, tt is not safe to accept this general
legal truth without some qualification. If a man should be
sued in assumpsit there would, obviously, be no power to de-
cide that he be imprisoned, for such a decision would clearly
be void. The reason for this conclusion is that although the
general power to hear and determine may exist, there is no
rightful authority to adjudge imprisonment since the power of
the court in the general class of cases extends only to the ren-
dition of a money judgment. Where the power of the court
over a general class of cases is measured and defined by settled
rules of law, it is only within the limits of that power that the
court can hear and determine. The phrase ‘‘the power to hear
and determine,’’ does not mean, when rightly interpreted, the
authority to adjudge what settled law declares can not be de-
cided in any one of the general class of cases of which the case
before the court is amember. Where the general authority
ends jurisdiction ceases, but as long as the general authority
exists, jurisdiction continues. If, therefore, the court having
authority over a general class of cases should err in its judg-

v. Commonwealth, 3 Met.(Mass.)460; 1 Turner v. Conkey, 132 Ind. 248, 8.
Sheldon v. Newton, 3 Ohio St. 494; C.17 Lawyers’ R. Anno. 509, 31 N. E.
Curry v. Miller, 42 Ind. 320; Quarl v. R. 777.

Abbett, 102 Ind. 233; Ex parte Ben- ?* Dequindrev. Williams, 31 Ind. 444;
nett, 44 Cal. 84; Lampson v. Platt, 1 Board v. Markle, 46 Ind. 96, 110, cit-
Towa, 556; Perry v. Morse, 57 Vt.509; ing, among other cases, Cooper v. Sun-
Vaughn v. Congdon, 56 Vt. 111; Ho- derland, 3 Iowa, 114; Little v. Sin-
bart v. Hobart, 45 Iowa, 501; Shum- nett, 7 Iowa, 324; Sheldon v. Wright,
way v. Stillman, 6 Wend. 447; Bissell 1Seld. (N. Y. App.) 497; Jackson v.
v. Briggs, 9 Mass. 462; Ferguson v. Robinson, 4 Wend. 436; Jackson v.
Mahon, 11 Adolp. & Ell. 179, 182; Crawfords, 12 Wend. 538.

Kinning v. Buchanan, 8 C. B. 271.
§ 231 JURISDICTION. 243

ment in a particular case, the judgment is not void, for juris-
diction is not lost. Where, however, the judgment is entirely
beyond and outside of the kind or species of judgments proper
in the general class of cases, there is no force in it, but if at
all within the class of judgments that may be rendered in the
general class of cases, it is effective as against all collateral as-
saults.!_ If, in other words, it appears from the record that the
judgment rendered is one which can not possibly be properly
pronounced in any member of the general class to which the
particular case belongs it may be logically affirmed that the
judgment is one beyond the court’s jurisdiction, but if there
must be resort to extrinsic evidence to make this appear, or if
the judgment is one that might be rendered in any one of the
cases belonging to the general class over which the court has
authority, it can not be held that the judgment is void because
of the absence of jurisdiction, no matter how much of error the
record may contain.?

§ 231. Elements of jurisdiction —The right to hear and de-
termine judicial controversies, as we have elsewhere shown,
resides solely in judicial tribunals, so that an element of juris-
diction is the existence of a tribunal, possessing in some meas-
ure, at least, part of the governmental power distributed by

1See, Post, § 268; ‘Ex parte Gordan, often loosely employed in legislative

92 Cal. 478, S. C. 27 Am. St. R. 154;
People v. Liscomb, 60 N. Y. 559; Ex
parte Page, 49 Mo. 291; Windsor v. Mc-
Veigh, 93 U. S. 274; Cornett v. Will-
iams, 20 Wall. 226; Ex parte Lange,
11 Wall. 163; £x parte Yarbrough,
120 U.S. 651; Rosenbaum v. Bauer, 7
Sup. Ct. R. 633; In re Pierce, 44 Wis.
411; In re Bond, 9 So. Car. 80, 8. C.
30 Am. R. 20; Spoors v. Coen, 44 Ohio
St. 497, S.C. 9 N. E. R. 182.

?The word ‘‘jurisdiction,” as is true
of almost all other words, when used
in a statute may have its meaning
fixed or controlled by the words with
which it is associated. The word is

enactments, and to give it a strict
meaning would in many cases unset-
tle titles and work injustice. See, as
touching the general subject, Mann v.
Martin, 14 Bush, 763, 767; Thornton
v. McGrath, 1 Duvall (Ky.), 349, 351;
Hoffman v. Harrington, 28 Mich. 90;
Boyles v. Boyles, 37 Iowa, 592; Good
v. Norley, 28 Iowa, 188; Forbes v.
Halsey, 26 N.Y. 53, 65; Terwilliger v.
Brown, 44 N. Y. 237; Banta v, Rey-
nolds, 3 B. Mon. 80; Terrill v. Auch-
auer, 14 Ohio St. 80; Beach v. Atkin-
son, 87 Ga. 288, 8. C. 138. E. R. 591;
Suydam v. Palmer, 63 Ga. 546,
244 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 231

the constitution to the judiciary. It is not necessary that the
tribunal should be one de jure,' but there must be at least a
de facto tribunal. Where no tribunal can by any legal possi-
bility have an existence there can be no jurisdiction. The tri-
bunal must be one having authority over the general class of
cases to which the particular case belongs. We may take a suit
to foreclose a mortgage prosecuted in a court having only ju-
risdiction in criminal cases, as an illustration of the doctrine
that where there is no jurisdiction of the general class the pro-
ceedings are coram non judice, for it is obvious that as to suits
to foreclose a mortgage a court of exclusive criminal jurisdic-
tion is as no court. Authority over the general subject, that
is, of the general class of cases, constitutes unimpeachable ju-
risdiction so far as the subject-matter is concerned, and if au-
thority over a particular case is rightfully acquired there can
be no successful attack in any form upon the jurisdiction, no
matter whether objections are or are not interposed. Where
there is authority over a general class of cases but none over a
particular member of the class, then, a timely objection may
be fatal to the exercise of jurisdiction in the particular instance.
Thus, if the circuit court or district court has general jurisdic-
tion of all actions to recover possession of lands, but that juris-
diction is confined to land situate in the county wherein the
court sits, we believe that if the parties appear and make no
objection a judgment would not be void, although the land in-
volved in the particular case may be situated in a county dif-
ferent from that in which the court is held.? It is undoubtedly
true that authority over the person is essential to the existence
of plenary jurisdiction, but it is to be borne in mind that juris-
diction to render decrees or judgment affecting property may
exist, although, in the strict sense, there is no complete juris-
diction of the person. It will lead to error to give too wide a
meaning to the statement so often made by text-writers and
judges that two indispensable elements of jurisdiction are au-
thority over the subject-matter and over the person.* One of

1 Ante, § 164, note 4. 3In the case of Hope v. Blair, 105

2 Post, § 240 and authorities cited in Mo. 85, 8. C. 24 Am. St. 366, the court
note. said: ‘The subject-matter of a suit,
§ 231 JURISDICTION. 245

the elements of jurisdiction is said to be ‘‘that the matter is
within the issues.’’! We can not assent to the broad doctrine
that where a matter is not within the issues there is no jurisdic-
tion. Itseems to us that the courts which unqualifiedly declare
that the question of jurisdiction depends upon whether a matter
is or is not within the issues, are in error, and we trust we may
be pardoned for saying that the error is due, in the main, to the
fact that they confuse the doctrine of res judicate with that of
collateral attack and lose sight of the distinction between void
and voidable proceedings. Whether a matter is or is not within
the jurisdiction of the court must, in most cases, depend upon
whether it is or is not germane to a particular case belonging to a

class over which the authority of the tribunal extends.’
sarily in proceeding with a case,

when reference is made to questions
of jurisdiction, is defined to mean ‘the
nature of the cause of action and the
relief sought.’ ’’? Cooper ». Reynolds,
10 Wall. 308. This we believe to be
entirely correct, but when it is added,
as is done in the case from which we
have quoted, that, “‘A court may be
said to have jurisdiction of the subject-
matter of a suit when it has a right to
determine the controversy or question
in issue between the parties or grant
the relief prayed,”’ we think, we say
with deference, that the rule is not
correctly stated. Whether there is
authority to grant the relief prayed or
not, does not necessarily affect the
question of jurisdiction, nor is the
question affected by the consideration
of what is or is not within the issues.
In the case from which the above ex-
tract is taken were cited the following
cases: Adams v. Cowles, 95 Mo. 501,
S.C.6Am. St. R. 74; Brown v. Woody,
64 Mo. 547 Higgins v. Peltzer, 49 Mo.
152.

1 The statement which follows, taken
from the opinion in the case of Mun-
day v. Vail, 34.N. J. L. 418, is subject
to the criticism that it makes it an el-

Neces-
or, in hearing and determining

ement of jurisdiction that the matter
be within theissues. ‘‘Turisdiction,”
said the court, ‘‘may be defined to be
the right to adjudicate concerning the
subject-matter in a given case. To
constitute this there are three essen-
tials: The court must have cognizance
of the class of cases to which the one
adjudged belongs; 2, the proper par-
ties must be present; and, 3, the point
decided must be, in substance and ef-
fect, within the issues.’’ See, also,
Jones v. Davenport, 45 N. J. Eq. 77,
8. C.17 Atl. R. 570.

2 Lewis v. Morrow, 89 Mo. 174,58. C.
18. W. R. 93; Fletcher v. Holmes, 25
Ind. 458; Allie v. Schmitz, 17 Wis. 169;
Board, etc., v. Mineral Point, etc., Co.,
24 Wis. 93; Tolman v. Jones, 114 Ill.
147; Real Estate, etc., Inst. v. Collo-
nious, 63 Mo. 290; O’Reilly v. Nich-
olson, 45 Mo. 160; McCrillis v. Harri-
son County, 63 Iowa, 592, 8. C. 19 N.
W. R. 679; Davenport, etc., Ass’n v.
Schmidt, 15 Iowa, 213. See, general-
ly, Chase v. Christianson, 41 Cal. 253;
Buice v. Lowman, etc., Co., 64 Ga.
769; Ketchum v. White, 72 Iowa, 193,
S. C. 83 N. W. R. 627; Chaffee v.
Hooper, 54 Vt..513; Kendall v. Math-
246 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 231

it, the court must decide what is or is not within the issues, so
that while there may be error there can not be an entire absence
of power. If any principle in the branch of the law we are dis-
cussing can be regarded as too firmly settled to be shaken, it is,
that jurisdiction of the subject can not be conferred by consent,
and, certainly, consent that the court may decide a matter not
within the issues would preclude the party from assailing the
decision on appeal, and, surely, if it be unassailable on appeal
it can not be void. Issues are framed by the parties while ju-
risdiction is conferred by law, and it seems to us that consent,
tacit or express, may give authority to decide any question
arising in a case belonging to a class over which the law has
given the tribunal authority. If a defendant in an action
should consent that judgment should go upon two promissory
notes where one only was declared on, the judgment would not
be erroneous, much less void, yet, if jurisdiction depends upon
whether a matter is within the issues, consent, in such a case
as that supposed, would go for nothing. It is a familiar rule
.that a ministerial officer is protected by process issued upon a
judgment within the general jurisdiction of the court, but if it
be true that jurisdiction depends upon whether a matter adju-
dicated is or is not within the issues, this rule is practically
without force. We can not believe that a ministerial officer is
bound, at his peril, to ascertain and determine whether a mat-
ter is within the issues, and, yet, this he must do if it be true
that jurisdiction depends upon whether a judgment or decree
is within the issues joined by the parties. We are fully per-
suaded, notwithstanding the strong array of authority, that
‘‘the state of being within the issues’’ is not always an element
of jurisdiction.

er, 48 Tex. 585; Smith v. Keen, 26
Me. 411. But, see, contra, Blachlock
uv. Stewart, 2 Bay (So.Car.), 363 ; Spoors
v. Coen, 44 Ohio St. 497, 8. C. 9 N.
E. R. 132; Silsbe v. Lucas, 36 Ill. 462;
Strobe v. Downer, 13 Wis. 11; Water-
man v. Laurence, 19 Cal. 210, 217; City
of Peru v. Bearss, 55 Ind. 576; Rey-
nolds v. Stockton, 140 U.S. 254. At
the risk of being thought presumptuous

we venture to say that the course of
reasoning pursued and the authorities
cited in the case last named show that
the high tribunal that decided the case,
acted upon a mistaken theory, for itis
clear that the court treated the case
as one governed by the doctrine of res
adjudicate, whereas the central ques-
tion was whether the decree in contro-
versy was absolutely void.
§ 232 » JURISDICTION. 247

§ 232. Source of jurisdiction over legal controversies.—
Traced back to its ultimate source the power to hear and de-
termine controversies concerning the rights of persons or
things will be found to come from the people. The people, by
virtue of their sovereign right, create departments of govern-
ment and distribute the various elements of governmental sov-
ereignty. This they do directly by the constitution framed by
them, or by delegating, either expressly or impliedly, the
power to the legislature. _ The general theory is that the legis-
lature possesses the law-making power except as limited by the
constitution, but this theory can not be so extended as to make
the legislative authority unbounded, since that would imply
power to subvert the fundamental principle of distributive pow-
ers by a unification of the governmental departments. Ina
broad sense the jurisdiction of the courts is derived from the law
of the land.? Courts can not be created by parties, nor can par-
ties by agreement invest tribunals with jurisdiction ovér mat-
ters which require judicial investigation and determination.
But the law of the land is not found exclusively in written
constitutions or statutes, for there is an immense body of law
that, in a legal sense, remains unwritten. To this unwritten
law it is often necessary to appeal in order-to fully ascertain
and accurately mark the jurisdiction of our courts. The un-
written law yields, of course, to the written law embodied in
constitutions and statutes, but constitutions and statutes have
not entirely displaced it; on the contrary, the unwritten law
of the land is not shorn of much of its vigor or power. It
is, therefore, true that the jurisdiction of courts, employing the
term jurisdiction in a broad and comprehensive sense, is de-
rived in part from the unwritten law. Somewhere in the law
must be found a rule or provision conferring jurisdiction of
the general subject or no such jurisdiction can exist. There is
diversity of opinion upon the question as to what constitutes

1 Ante, §§ 144, 145, 147. N. Car. 369; Perkins v. Corbin, 45
2 Missouri, etc., Co. v. National Ala. 103; Withers v. Patterson, 27
‘Bank, 74 Ill. 217; Martin v. Hunter’s Texas, 491; Belcher v. Chambers, 53

Lessee,.1 Wheat. 304; Houston v. Cal. 635.
Moore, 5 Wheat. 1; State v. Smith, 65
248 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 233

the general subject, but none upon the proposition that con-
sent can not confer such jurisdiction.! If a suit or action is
commenced in a tribunal where there is an absolute want of
jurisdiction, subsequent legislation, will not, it has been held,
give validity to the proceedings.? The better rule is that a
party can not do by indirection what he may not do directly,
so that when the amount in controversy is the test of jurisdic-
tion, a party can not create jurisdiction by giving a fictitious
ceredit.2 This general principle is illustrated in the cases
which declare that over feigned or fictitious cases there is no
jurisdiction,* but we suppose that where the record does not,
on its face, reveal the true character of the case, a collateral
attack would not be successful, inasmuch as the rule is that
extrinsic evidence can not be resorted to for the purpose of
showing a judgment to be void.

§ 233. Exercise of jurisdiction—Instrumentalities.— W here
there is power any movement in a cause is the exercise of ju-

1 Weeden v. Richmond, 9 R. I. 128,
S.C. 98 Am. Dec. 373; Muldrow v.
Norris, 2 Cal. 74, 8. C. 56 Am. Dec.
313; Hawkins v. Hughes, 87 N. Car.
115; Michaels v. Hine, 3 Green(Iowa),
470; Andrews v. Wheaton,23Conn.112;
Central Bank v. Gibson, 11 Ga. 453;
Damp v. Dane, 29 Wis. 419; State v.
Judge, 21 La. Ann. 258; Cottrell v.
Den, 15 N. J. L. 345; Abat v. Songy,
7 Mart. (La.) 274; Bent v. Graves, 3
McCord, 280; Green v. Collins, 6 Ire-
dell, 189; State v. Bonney, 34 Me. 223;
State v. Tolleston, 53 Fed. R. 18; Crane
v. Farmer, 14 Colo. 294, 8. C. 23 Pac. R.
455; Planters’ Ins. Co. v. Cramer, 47
Miss. 200; Marbury v. Madison, 1
Cranch, 137; Board v. Newman, 35
Ind. 10; Smith v. Myers, 109 Ind. 1;
Trotter v. Neal, 50 Ark. 340, 8. C.7
S. W. R. 384; State v. Richmond, 6
Fost. (N. H.) 232; Baker v. Chisholm,
3 Texas, 157; Chapman v. Morgan, 2
Greene (Iowa), 374; Tilus v. Relyea,

8 Abb. Pr. R. 177; Burns v. Nash, 32
Ill. App. 552; Inve Radde, 9N.Y. Supp.
812, 2 Connoly, 293; Fields v. Walker,
23 Ala. 155; McCall v. Peachy, 1 Call.
(Va.) 55; Dicks v. Hatch, 10 Iowa, 380;
Dodson v. Scroggs,47 Mo.285; Georgia,
etc., Assn. v. McGowan, 59 Ga.:811.

? Morn v. Kuzac, 21 La. Ann. 754.

3 Bent v. Graves, 3 McCord, 280, 8.
C.15 Am. Dec. 632; .Simpson v. Me-
Million, 1 Nott. & McC.192; St. Amand
v. Gerry, 2 Nott. & McC. 486; Horton
v. Sawyer, 59 Ind. 587; Gage v. Clark,
22 Ind. 163; Thompson v. Kerr, 17
Ind. 288; James v. Stokes, 77 Va. 225,
227.

* Cleveland v. Chamberlain, 1 Black
(U.8.), 419; Brewington v. Lowe, 1
Ind. 21; Hotchkiss v. Jones, 4 Ind.
260; Smith v. Junction, ete., Co., 29
Ind. 546; Lord v. Veazie, 8 How. (U.
8S.) 250, 254; Plainfield v. Plainfield,
67 Wis. 525 ‘
§ 233 JURISDICTION. 249

risdiction whether there is or is not an explicit assertion that
jurisdiction exists. There is always and of necessity authority
to decide upon the question of jurisdiction, for a decision that
jurisdiction does not exist is made where the court refuses to
entertain authority over the case, so that in every instance
there is some exercise of authority, whether jurisdiction be as-
sumed or declined. When a cause in which there is authority
to proceed is presented to a tribunal it must evidence its de-
cision upon its own jurisdiction by an order of dismissal or
some other appropriate order. Jurisdiction is exercised in
every instance where a decision is made, no matter what may
be the character of the decision. Ifa party who invokes
the jurisdiction of the court believes that a decision refusing
to entertain jurisdiction is erroneous he certainly has a right
of appeal, provided, of course, the decision is given in a class
of cases that are appealable. There is, therefore, some exer-
cise of jurisdiction in every case presented for the consideration
of a judicial tribunal, and the cases which hold that where
there is no jurisdiction there can not be an order of dismissal
are wrong and those which hold that there may be such an or-
der are right.2, An appellate tribunal necessarily exercises its
powers in many respects in a different mode from that pursued
by a court of original jurisdiction, but it is here necessary to note
only one particular wherein the mode differs. Where a trial
court has no jurisdiction to proceed it can do no more than
direct a dismissal, but where the trial court assumes juris-
diction where it has none and enters a decree or judgment,
and the case is appealed, the appellate tribunal may prop-
erly order a dismissal, for if it simply declined to entertain
jurisdiction parties would be embarrassed by the judgment
rendered in the nis? prius court.’ In the case referred to in

1 King v. Poole, 36 Barb. 242. but a different rule necessarily pre-
2 Robertson v. State, 109 Ind. 79. | vails in an appellate court in cases
8 United States v. Huckabee,16 Wall. where the subordinate court was with-
414, 485. The court in the course of out jurisdiction and has given judg-
the opinion said: ‘Usually where a ment or decree for the plaintiff or im-
court has no jurisdiction of a case, the properly decreed affirmative relief to
correct practice is to dismiss the suit, aclaimant. In such a case the judg-
250 § 233

THE WORK OUT OF COURT.

the note, the doctrine is, we venture to say with deference
to the great court by which the decision was. given, too
strongly stated, for, if the judgment of the trial court was ren-
dered without jurisdiction, it would do no more than annoy or
embarrass the parties, since it would be, if coram non judice, a
mere nullity. Jurisdiction of a general class of cases may ex-
ist and yet a judgment be void. This is true where there is
nothing to call the jurisdiction into exercise, for we suppose that
where there is nothing at all to invoke jurisdiction there can
be no exercise of it and hence no valid decision. If, for ex-
ample, an action can only be commenced by a complaint or
declaration and there is absolutely nothing assuming to be
such a pleading, there is no foundation for the exercise of ju-
risdiction and if no foundation no right to exercise authority.
But we are far from asserting that there must be a sufficient
complaint or declaration, for, no matter how full of defects the
pleading may be, yet jurisdiction may, as we have elsewhere
shown,” be assumed and exercised. In order to give full val-
idity to judicial proceedings and impress upon them strict
regularity, jurisdiction must be exercised in the mode pre-
scribed by law, but the failure to so exercise it when it has
once attached does not make the proceedings coram non judice.
Such a failure may constitute error available on appeal but
it does not affect the question of the existence of jurisdietion
nor the question of the mode of its exercise in such a sense as
to make the proceedings void. As all judicial power resides
in courts it follows that such power must be exercised by ju-

dicial tribunals.

ment or decree in the court below
must be reversed, else the party which
prevailed there would have the benefit
of such judgment or decree, though
rendered by a court which had no au-
thority to hear and determine the
matter in controversy.”

1Tt is true that such cases are very
rare, and that in actual practice they
are seldom encountered, but there may

Judges or judicial officers are the instru-

be such cases. We do not refer to
such cases so much for the purpose of
calling attention to their existence as
for the purpose of enforcing the
proposition that it is not always true
that where there is jurisdiction of the
general subject and process served the
proceedings can not be void.
2 Ante, § 230.
,

§ 233 JURISDICTION. 251

mentalities for the exercise of judicial power. If the record
shows that the person who assumes to be a judge can by no
legal possibility be such there is no court and consequently no
jurisdiction nor valid exercise of jurisdiction. So, if it ap-
pears that a ministerial or executive officer has arrogated to
himself powers or functions of a judge and has assumed to de-
cide controversies requiring judicial investigation and deter-
mination the attempt to exercise jurisdiction is abortive and all
proceedings are void. Such an usurper can not rightfully take
a single step for his proceedings are destitute of the faintest
tint of right. It is sometimes said that the courts have no ju-
risdiction over the constitutional acts of the executive or legis-
lative departments. This statement is misleading. We be-
lieve the better doctrine to be that a court can not control ¢
separate department of government as, for instance, the execu-
tive,! but we do not believe that there is an utter absence of
jurisdiction. In such cases there is a general jurisdiction and
if a judgment is given in the exercise of that jurisdiction it
may be erroneous but it is not void. If not void there is ju-
risdiction, for to assert that a judgment is not void is to affirm
that jurisdiction exists. If the jurisdiction exists but is wrong-
fully exercised there may be error in the proceedings render-
ing the judgment voidable, but there is not. such an absenee of
authority as authorizes the judgment to be treated as an abso-
lute nullity. There is, it is evident, a difference between the
exercise of jurisdiction and the existence of jurisdiction. In the

1 Bates v. Taylor, 87 Tenn. 319, 8. C.
28 Am. L. Reg. 341; Sutherland v.
Governor, 29 Mich. 320, 8. C. 18 Am,
R. 89; Hovey v. State, 127 Ind. 588;
Hawkins v. Governor, 1 Ark. 570;
State v. Governor, 25 N. J. L. 331;
People v. Bissell, 19 Tl. 229; Maman
v. Smith, 8 R. I. 192; Rice v. Austin,
19 Minn. 103; Appeal of Hartranft,
85 Pa. St. 438. See, generally, De-
catur v. Paulding, 14 Pet. 497; Bras-
hear v. Mason, 6 How. (U. 8.) 92;
United States v. Guthrie, 17 How. (U.

S.) 284; March v. State, 44 Texas, 64;
State v. Cahen, 28 La. Ann. 645; COra-
gin v. Powell, 128 U.S. 691; Steel v.
Smelting Co., 106 U. 8. 447; United
States v. Throckmorton, 98 U.'S. 61;
Gazzam v. Phillips, 20 How. (U. 8.)
372; Niswanger v. Saunders, 1 Wall.
424; Belcher v. Linn, 24 How. (U.S.)°
508; United States v. Seaman, 17 How.
(U. 8.) 225; Pacific, etc., Co. v. Gov-
ernor, 23 Mo. 353; Smith v. Myers,
109 Ind. 1.
252 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 234

one class of cases the proceedings’may be void but ordinarily
they are only voidable, while in the other class, that in which
there is an entire absence of jurisdiction, they are invariably
void.

§ 234. Classification.—Jurisdiction as respects the tribunal
may be classified as: 1. Appellate jurisdiction. 2. Original
jurisdiction. A further and minor division of jurisdiction
considered with reference. to the tribunal is this: 1. Exclu-
sive jurisdiction. 2. Concurrent jurisdiction. A classifica-
tion of jurisdiction with reference to the general authority of
courts gives us this division: 1. Jurisdiction of the general
subject. 2. Jurisdiction of the particular subject. Another
division made necessary, or, at least, proper, by the difference
between the two great systems of jurisprudence, equity and
law is this: 1. Equity jurisdiction. 2. Law jurisdiction.
As regards the person there is but one great branch and that
is: Jurisdiction of the person. There is a species of jurisdic-
tion called, jurisdiction in rem, but this is really a subdivision
of the division of jurisdiction of the subject, or as it is often
called jurisdiction of the subject-matter. Another division of
jurisdiction is denominated, territorial jurisdiction, and this is
little else than a subdivision of the division called the jurisdic-
tion of the general subject. A division with respect to the
character of the authority possessed by courts isthis: 1. Civil.
2. Criminal. Other divisions are given as ecclesiastical and
military, but these divisions we simply mention as it is not
our purpose to treat of them, nor do we think it necessary to
consider the division civil and criminal jurisdiction, since
what is said upon other divisions necessarily applies to that
division which is a mere cross-division of a class sufficiently
well divided. It is almost impossible to make a strictly logical
classification without departing from the accepted legal termi-
nology, and greater confusion would be produced by such a
departure than is warranted even though a departure might
insure a better classification.

§ 235. Appellate jurisdiction —The authority to review, re-
§ 235 JURISDICTION. 253

vise, reverse or adjudicate upon matters passed upon by a
court of original jurisdiction constitutes appellate jurisdiction.!
Appellate jurisdiction exists only where there is a judgment.
or decision of- another tribunal to be reviewed,? and is essen-
tially one of review. It is always implied that there is a re-
moval from one tribunal to another and, generally, from an
inferior to a superior tribunal. When the jurisdiction of the
appellate court attaches that of the court from which the
appeal? is taken is ousted, since one case can not be in two
tribunals, where the grades are different at the same time.‘

1 Judge Story says: ‘‘The essential
criterion of appellate jurisdiction is
that it revises and corrects the pro-
ceedings in a cause already instituted,
and does not create that cause. In
reference to judicial tribunals, an ap-
pellate jurisdiction, therefore, neces-
sarily implies that the subject-matter
has already been instituted in and
acted upon by some other court, whose
judgment or proceedings are to be re-
vised. This appellate jurisdiction may
be exercised in a variety of forms, and,
indeed, in any form which the legis-
lature may choose to prescribe, but
still the substance must exist before
the form can be applied to it.’’ 2 Sto-
ry Const., § 1761; Elliott’s Appellate
Procedure, §§ 16, 17.

2 Tn Piqua Bank v. Knoup, 6 Ohio St.
342, the court said: ‘‘Appellate juris-
diction is the cognizance which a su-
perior court takes of a case removed
to it by appeal or writ of error from
the decision of an inferior tribunal.
The power of the appellate court nec-
essarily includes the power not only
to reverse the judgment, but also to
control and direct the subsequent ac-
tion of the subordinate court. Appel-
late jurisdiction, therefore, always im-
plies the existence of subordinate
courts in the same judicial organiza-
tion over which the court in which it

is vested exercises a supervising or
correcting control.”

3 We use the term appeal in a gen-
eric sense, and as meaning the remov-
al of a case to a court of review or a
court for the correction of errors. A
case may be carried from the court of
original jurisdiction to the appellate
tribunal by a writ of error or by ap-
peal, but, so far as concerns the ques-
tion of jurisdiction here under discus-
sion, the mode of removal is not im-
portant, although it is important where
the question is whether the appeal has
been properly taken or the writ of er-
ror duly sued out and prosecuted. See
Elliott’s Appellate Procedure, §§ 16 to
24 inclusive; Curtis’ Jurisdiction of
Courts of the United States,61; Vande-
veer v. Holcomb, 17 N. J. Eq. 547.. The
right of appeal is statutory. Ex parte
McCardle, 7 Wall. 506; Kundinger v.
Saginaw, 59 Mich. 355, 8. C..26 N. W.
R. 634.

* Allen v. Allen, 80 Ala. 154; Boyn-
ton v. Foster, 7 Metcf. 415; Bryan v.
Berry, 8 Cal. 180; Baggs v. Smith, 53.
Cal. 88; Burgess v.O’ Donoghue, 90 Mo.
299,25. W.R. 303; Elgin Lumber Co.
v.Langman, 23 Ill. App. 250; State v.
Duffel, 41 La. Ann. 958; Stephens v.
Koonce, 106 N. C. 222, 8. C. 10S. E.
R. 996; Kimberly v. Arms, 40 Fed. R.
548; Ensminger v. Powers, 108 U. 8S.
254 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. '§ 235

The principle involved in the cases to which we refer in the
note requires that cases should not be appealed piecemeal but
should go to the appellate tribunal as an entirety.1 There
are, however, exceptions to this general rule and in most, if
not in all, of the States provision is made for appeals from in-
terlocutory orders. As a general rule—and the rule is one of
wide sweep—appeals lie only from final judgments or decrees.”
It is the prerogative of the court of last resort to determine for
itself its own jurisdiction, and hence no other tribunal can de-
termine conclusively whether a case is or is not appealable.’
As the appeal deprives the trial court of jurisdiction and lodges
the case in the appellate tribunal, the trial court can not take

292; Mitchell v. United States, 9 Pet. v. Davie, 52 Ark. 221, 8. C. 20 Am. St.
711; Saltmarsh v, Tuthill, 12 How. U. R.170; In re Davis Est., 11 Mont. 1, 27

8S. 387; Bronson v. La Crosse, etc.,
Co., 1 Wall. 405; Stewart v. Stringer,
41 Mo. 400, S. C. 97 Am. Dec. 278;
Helm v. Boone, 6J. J. Marsh. 351, 8.
C. 22 Am. Dec. 75; Planters Bank »v.
Neely, 7 How. (Miss.) 80, S. C. 40
Am. Dec. 51; State v. Kolsem, 130
Ind. 484; Elliott’s Appellate Proced-
ure, § 541.

1Pittman v. Wakefield, 90 Ky. 171, 13
8. W. R. 525; Feder v. Field, 117 Ind.
886; Clowes v. Dickenson, 8 Cowen,
828; Kelsey v. Western, 2 N. Y. 500,
505; Norbury v. Meade, 3 Bligh, 261;
Parker v. Morrell, 2 Ph. Ch. 453, 461; 2
Daniels Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 1467; El-
liott’s Appellate Procedure, § 18.

?Dale v. Copple, 53 Mo. 321; Jones
». Snodgrass, 54 Mo. 597; Western
Union Tel. Co. v. Locke, 107 Ind. 9;
Miller v. State, 8 Ind. 325; Walser v.
Haley, 61 Mo. 445; Guardians, etc.,
Bank v. Reilly, 8 Mo. App. 544; State
v. Sutterfield, 54 Mo. 391; Hawkins v.
Massie, 62 Mo. 552; McCollum v. Ea-
ger, 2 How. (U. 8.) 61; Walker v.
Spencer, 86 N. Y. 162; Piedmont, etc.,
Co. v. Buxton, 105 N. C. 74, 8.C. 118.
E. R. 264; Home for Inebriates v. Kap-
lan, 84 Cal. 486, 24 Pac. R. 119; Davie

Pac. R. 342. As to what may or may
not be considered a final judgment
from which an appeal will lie, see
Farrell v. State, 7 Ind. 345; Johnson
v. Northern, etc.,,Co., 39 Minn. 30, 8S.
C. 38 N.W. R. 804; Kirchner v.Wood,
48 Mich. 199; Griffeev. Mann, 62 Md.
248; Rubey v. Shain, 51 Mo. 116; Na-
tional Banking, etc., Co. v. Knaup, 55
Mo. 154; Lamon v. McKee, 7 Mackey,
447; In re Ohm’s Estate, 82 Cal. 160,
8. C. 22 Pac. R. 927; Logan v. Penn-
sylvania Co., 132 Pa. St. 403, 8. C. 19
Atl. R. 187; Forbes v. Porter, 23 Fla.

47, 8. C.1S0. R. 836; Snavely v. Ab-

bott Buggy Co., 36 Kan. 106, 12 Pac.
R. 522; Simpson v. Kirchbaum, 43
Kan. 36, 8. C. 22 Pac. R. 1018; Dun-
can v. Forgey, 25 Mo. App. 310; Que-
bec Bank v. Carroll (So. Dak.), 44 -N.
W. R.723; Red River Bank v. Free-
man (N. Dak.), 46 N.W. R. 36; School
District of Adams County v. Cooper,
29 Neb. 433, 8. C. 45 N.W. R.618. See,
for a full collection of authorities, El-
liott’s Appellate Procedure, Chap. V.

5 Hungerford v. Cushing, 8 Wis. 320;
Benson v. Christian, 129 Ind. 535;
Branson v. Studabaker, 133 Ind. 147,
8. C. 33 N. E. R. 98.
§ 235 JURISDICTION. 255

any action in the case proper,’ although it may act upon purely
collateral or supplemental matters.2 Appellate jurisdiction of
the general subject must come from the law, for parties can
not confer it by consent.? The general rule is said to be this:
Where the trial court has no jurisdiction of the general sub-
ject the appellate tribunal acquires none.* But it is evident
that this statement requires qualification, for there must, of
necessity, be authority in the appellate tribunal to ascertain
and decide whether the trial court had jurisdiction and to the
extent that there is authority to investigate and decide, to that
extent there is jurisdiction. The jurisdiction in cases of the
character under immediate mention is, it is obvious, of the
narrowest and most limited nature. No appellate court, no
matter how exalted its rank, can do more in such cases than
inquire into the question of jurisdiction and make an order
disposing of the appeal. Where there is no jurisdiction of the

1 Beal v. Chase, 81 Mich. 490; Levi
o. Karrick, 15 Iowa, 444; McGlaughlin
». O'Rourke, 12 Iowa, 459; Turner v.
First National Bank, 26 Iowa, 562.
See, generally, Townsend v. Town-
send, 60 Mo. 246; State v. Musick, 71
. Mo. 401; Lewis v. Lewis, 20 Mo. App.
546; Cralle v. Cralle, 81 Va.773; Spears
v. Mathews, 66 N. Y. 127; Pasour v.
Lineberger,’ 90 N. C. 159; Western,
etc., Co. v. State, 69 Ga. 524; Skinner
v. Bland, 87 N. C. 168; Keyser v. Farr,
105 U. S. 265; Whaley v. Charleston,
8 So. Car. 344; Harrison v. Trader, 29
Ark. 85; Stewart v. Taylor, 68 Cal. 5;
State v. Hamill, 6 La. Ann. 257.

2 State v. Houston, 35 La. Ann. 236;
State v. Clark, 33 La. Ann. 422; Baugh-
man v. Calveras, 72 Cal. 512; Moore
v. Jordan, 65 Texas, 395; Goddard v.
Ordway, 94 U. S. 672; Hinson v, Ad-
rian, 91 N. C. 372; Spring v. South
Carolina Ins. Co., 6 Wheat. 519; Board
». Newman, 35 Ind. 10.

8Mathie v. McIntosh, 40 Wis. 120;
Kelsey v. Forsythe, 21 How. (U.8.)

85; Merrill v. Petty, 16 Wall. 338;
Benford v. Daniels, 20 Ala. 445; Ham-
ilton v. Buxton, 5 Ark. 400; People v.
Royal, 1 Scam. (Ill.) 557; Peak v. Peo-
ple, 71 Ill. 278; Smith v. Brown, 136
Mass. 416; Tippack v. Briant, 63 Mo.
580; Phillips v. Welch, 11 Nev. 187;
McFee v. Harris, 25 Pa. St. 102; Whit-
man v. Weller, 39 Ind. 515; Board v.
Newman, 35 Ind. 10.

* Mays». Dooley, 59 Ind. 287 ; Pritch-
ard v. Bartholomew,45 Ind. 219; Boggs
v. Near, 20 Ind. 395; Miller v. Beal,
26 Ind. 234; Horton v. Sawyer, 59 Ind.
587. See, generally, Ames v. Boland,
1 Minn. 365; Ginn v. Rogers, 4 Gil.
(Ill.) 181; Dicks ». Hatch, 10 Iowa,
380; Smiths v. Dubuque County, 1 Ia.
492; O’Hagen v. O’Hagen, 14 Ia. 264;
Cerro Gordo County v.Wright County,
59 Ia. 485; Groves v. Richmond, 53
Towa, 570; Knox. Beirne, 4 Ark. 460;
Osgood v. Thurston, 23 Pick. 110.

5’ United States v. Huckabee,16 Wall.
414, See, generally, Hx parte Terry,
128 U. S. 289; Ex parte Lange, 18
§ 236

256 THE WORK OUT OF COURT.

general subject a judgment is absolutely void and as a void
thing is as nothing, it must follow that all that the appellate
tribunal can do is to ascertain and decide that there is no ju-
risdiction, for, where there is a void proceeding, there is noth-
ing upon which jurisdiction can fasten.

§ 236. Original jurisdiction—Where jurisdiction is in the
first instance bestowed upon a court or class of courts, it is
original. Asarule, original jurisdiction is conferred upon trial
courts and not upon appellate tribunals or courts for the cor-
rection of errors, so that, when the term ‘‘courts of original
jurisdiction’? is employed reference is usually made to trial
courts, but—no constitutional provision forbidding—appellate
tribunals may be invested with some original jurisdiction.
The two classes, appellate jurisdiction and original jurisdic.
tion, are so essentially different that they can not, without con-
fusion and evil, be blended and their exercise be committed
to one tribunal.! Where the constitution gives only appellate
jurisdiction to a court the legislature can not confer upon it
original jurisdiction.? It is to be observed, however, that all
judicial tribunals of a high rank possess, as an inherent, or
incidental power, jurisdiction that is in its nature original,
but this does not make such tribunals courts of original juris-

Wall. 163; Hx parte Parks, 93U.S. 18;
Ex parte Siebold, 100 U. 8. 371; Ex
parte Fisk, 113 U. 8. 713.

1 Commonwealth v. Smith, 4 Binney,
117; State v. Stewart, 32 Mo. 379; Ex
parte Logan Branch, etc., Bank, 1
Ohio.St. 432; Merrill v. Lake, 16 Ohio,
373; Campbell v. Campbell, 22 Ill. 664;
Bryant v. People, 71 Ill. 32. The
courts, perceiving the evil of blending
appellate and original jurisdiction,

have done what they could to prevent.

such an amalgamation,and even where
there was constitutional power to
blend the two jurisdictions have given
statutes a very strict construction.
State v. Lawrence, 38 Mo. 535; State
v. Vail, 53 Mo. 97,107; Foster v. State,

41 Mo. 61; Vail v. Dinning, 44 Mo. 210.
See, generally, Attorney General v.
Blossom, 1 Wis. 277; Attorney Gen-
eral v. City of Eau Claire, 87 Wis. 400,
443.

?Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264;
Inre Metger, 5 How.(U.8.)176, 191; In
re Kaine, 14 How. (U. 8.) 103; Caul-
field v. Hudson, 3 Cal. 390; Herman-
nes v. Simons, 2 Cal. 464; Parsons v.
Thorlume, ete., Co., 5 Cal. 44; Town-
send v. Brooks, 5 Cal. 53; Hodgson v.
Bowerbank, 5 Cranch, 303; Steamer
St. Lawrence, 1 Black (U. 8.), 522;
The Lottawanna, 21 Wall. 558; People
v. Turner, 1 Cal. 148, S. ©. 52 Am.
Dec. 295.
§ 237 JURISDICTION. 257

diction. The jurisdiction of appellate tribunals which is orig-
inal in its nature is auxiliary and exists for the reason that
without it such tribunals could not effectively exercise their
principal powers.’ This ancillary jurisdiction enables appellate
tribunals to issue writs of injunction, of mandamus and other
writs in aid of their appellate jurisdiction.?

§ 237. Exclusive jurisdiction — Concurrent jurisdiction. —
Where a court is invested with authority over a general class
of cases and the authority of other courts is denied, either ex-
pressly or by implication, the jurisdiction is exclusive. A grant
of jurisdiction by the constitution in affirmative words will,

1This doctrine is asserted in a very
strong opinion by Thurman, J., de-
livered in the case of Kent v. Mahaffy,
2 Ohio St. 498. We quote from that
opinion the following: ‘That we can
not allow an injunction, in a case
pending in this court, upon an appeal
is very clear. A decree may be the
very object of the suit—the final de-
cree sought—and so a provisional in-
junction, during the pendency of the
suit, may be necessary for the pur-
poses of justice. The power to allow
these is a part of. the appellate juris-
diction, the grant of which is author-
ized by the constitution, and has been
made by the law. But to allow an in-
junction in a suit pending in another
court would be an exercise of original
and not of appellate jurisdiction. Now,
the original jurisdiction conferred up-
on this court by the constitution is
limited to quo warranto, mandamus,
habeas corpus and procedendo, Art. IV,
§ 2. This is the only original juris-
diction granted by that instrument,
and it would be wholly inconsistent
with and, in a great measure, destruc-
tive of the judicial system it ordains,
to suppose that this original jurisdic-
tion can be enlarged by law. It is

17

true there is no express prohibition
against it, but none was necessary.
We can exercise only such powers as
the constitution itself confers, or au-
thorizes the legislature to grant. We
can derive no power elsewhere. It
follows that, to negative the existence
of a power it is not necessary to show
that it is forbidden by the constitution.
It is sufficient that that instrument
neither directly nor indirectly confers
it.’”’? Much to the same effect is the
language of the court in Campbell v.
Campbell, 22 Til. 664, where it was
said: ‘‘Now, unless it can be shown
that original applications for injunc-
tion is an exercise of the appellate ju-
risdiction of this court, we can not act.
That it is not such an exercise no one
will deny. Emphatically this is an
appellate court only, having original
jurisdiction in a few specified cases.”

2 Sheeks v. Fillion, 29 N. E. R. 448;
Leech v. State, 78 Ind. 570, 579; Fish
». Weatherwax, 2 Johns. Cases, 215;
Ex parte Parker, 181 U.S. 221; State
v. Kansas City Court, 97 Mo. 331, S.
C. 10 8. W. R. 855. See authorities
cited in Elliott’s Appellate Procedure,
§ 512. But see, contra, Hicks v. Mi-
chael, 15 Cal. 107, 114.
258 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 237

although there are no negative restraining words, create exclu-
sive jurisdiction, for the rule in such cases is, that the express
mention of one thing implies the exclusion of all others.1. The
same doctrine applies where the jurisdiction is defined by stat-
ute, but not, perhaps, with quite so much force.? Where there
is a grant of exclusive jurisdiction over a general class of cases
to a permanent judicial tribunal, it would seem to follow that
as to the general class of cases the jurisdiction is so far gen-
eral as to be of a superior nature, but, as we have elsewhere
said, the overwhelming weight of authority is that the scope
or extent of the jurisdiction is not the test, for that is the
rank or dignity of the court. Where, however, exclusive ju-
risdiction is conferred upon a court, no matter what its rank,
no other tribunal, however high its position, can share in that
jurisdiction.? Concurrent jurisdiction exists where jurisdiction
over a general subject or general class of cases is vested in two
or more tribunals, so that with reference to that class or sub-
ject their authority is substantially the same. As the author-
ity of courts possessing concurrent jurisdiction is of equal dig-
nity, one of such courts can not control the other, nor interfere
with the execution of its process. Courts of concurrent juris-
diction are tribunals of co-ordinate powers, and, although as
courts, each has a separate and distinct existence, they possess
a common jurisdiction; that is, their general jurisdiction is in
common but their particular jurisdiction, that is, jurisdiction

1 Page v. Allen, 58 Pa. St. 338, S. C.
98 Am. Dec. 272; State v. Yancey, 121
Ind. 20; City of Evansville v. Blend,
118 Ind. 426.

2Macklot v. Davenport, 17 Ia. 379;
Riggs v. Johnson County, 6 Wall. 166;
Rossett v. State, 17 Ala. 496; Rex v.
Robinson, 2 Burr, 799; Camden v.
Allen, 26 N.J.L.398; Peoplev. Kelly,
38 Cal. 148, 151; United States v. Cor-
nell, 2 Mason, 91; Smith v. Lockwood,
13 Barb. 209; Miller v. Miller, 44 Pa.
St. 170,172; Smith v. Stevens, 10 Wall.
321; New Haven v. Whitney, 36 Conn.

373; Aldrich v. Hawkins, 6 Blkf. 125;
Chandler v. Hanna, 73 Ala. 390; Dod-
son v. Scroggs, 47 Mo. 285; Randle v.
Williams, 18 Ark. 380. See, general-
ly, Greene v. Mumford, 4 R. I. 313;
Kimber v. Schuylkill County, 20 Pa.
St. 866; Town of Ottawa v. Walker, 21
Ill. 605; State v. Danser, 3 Zabr. (N.
J.) 552; Little v. Greenleaf, 7 Mass.
236.

5 Wilson v. Mason, 3 Ark. 494; Ari-
zona v. Mix, 1 Ariz. 52.

* Ante, § 1938. Post, § 248.
§ 238 JURISDICTION. ° 259

of particular instances or cases, is distributed. When juris-
diction over a particular case or matter is once fully acquired,
that jurisdiction is complete and exclusive, and covers the en-
tire case or controversy as completely as if there were no courts
‘of co-ordinate jurisdiction.

§ 238. Jurisdiction of the general subject.—We have in a
great measure anticipated a discussion of the topic to which
this paragraph is devoted, but this seemed unavoidable, and
may, perhaps, be excused for the reason that there is almost
impenetrable confusion and obscurity in the adjudged cases.
‘The importance of the subject and the difficulty it presents
make its consideration a perplexing task. The term ‘‘juris-
diction of the subject-matter of the action’’ is frequently em-
ployed, and it is often asserted that it means the subject of the
particular instance or case.1_ We think the term ‘‘subject-mat-
ter’’ has a wider meaning than that usually assigned to it, and
we also think that the term itself is not well chosen. We pre-
fer the term ‘‘the general subject,’’ inasmuch as it has a more
comprehensive meaning than the term ‘‘the subject-matter.”’
The term ‘‘the general subject’? implies that it stands for
a class or division, while the term ‘‘subject-matter’’ im-
plies that there is only a single case or instance. The term
‘‘subject-matter’’ also implies that to constitute jurisdiction
in the general sense there must be a concrete matter or case,
whereas jurisdiction of the general subject is in the nature of
an abstract right or power.? The subject, or general subject,

1Goodman v. Winter, 64 Ala. 410;
Bell v. Craig, 52 Ala. 215; Pickens v.
Yarbrough, 30 Ala. 408; Williamson v.
Ross, 33 Ala. 509; McCorkle v. Rhea,
75 Ala. 218; Brownfield v. Weicht 9
Ind.394; Franklin v, Satterfield(Del.),
19 Atl. R. 898; Ponce v. Underwood,
55 Ga. 601; Swiggart v. Harber, 4 Scam.
(Ill.) 364, S.C. 39 Am. Dec. 418; Bev-
erly v. Burke, 9 Ga. 440, 8. C. 54 Am.
Dec. 351; Eaton v. Badger, 33 N. H.
228; Wamsley v. Robinson, 28 La.

Ann. 793; Gilliland v. Sellers, 2 Ohio
St. 223; Block v. Henderson, 82 Ga.
23, 8. C. 14. Am. St. R. 188; Burnley v.
Cook, 18 Tex. 586, 8. C. 65 Am. Dec.
79.

2In Yates v. Lansing, 5 Johns. 282,
the court said: ‘By subject-matter is
meant the abstract thing and not the
particular case.’’ The subject was well
discussed in Holmes v. Holmes,4 Lans.
388 ; it was held that jurisdiction of the
subject-matter is not confined within
260 THE ‘WORK OUT OF COURT. § 239

is the field over which the authority of the court extends, and
while the court keeps within that field, it neither usurps au-
thority nor does a thing it is without rightful power to do.
Jurisdiction of the subject-matter is not confined to spots within
the jurisdictional field, nor to parts of that field, but it extends
to the whole field, however wide it may be. The court may,
it is true, so exercise its authority as to render its proceedings
erroneous, but so long as it keeps within the scope of its au-
thority it acts within its jurisdiction. Jurisdiction of the gen-
eral subject is authority over a general class of cases, no mat-
ter how numerous its members may be.' If it be found that
the individual case before the court for judgment is a member
of the class, then that case is within the jurisdiction of the
general subject. There may, of course, be grounds for deny-
ing the right to proceed to judgment in such a case, or for
affirming that the proceedings are void, but neither the denial
nor the affirmation can be rested upon the ground that there is
no jurisdiction of the general subject.

§ 239. Jurisdiction of the particular subject.—It is some-
times essential to the regularity and validity of a judgment that
there should be jurisdiction of the particular thing or subject,
but we do not believe that jurisdiction of the particular subject
is always essential to the existence of jurisdiction of the general

the particular facts which must be
shown before a court or judge to make

?Mr. Timothy Brown says: ‘‘Juris-
diction over the subject-matter is the

out a specific and immediate cause of
action. It is as extensive as the gen-
eral or abstract question which falls
within the power of the officer or tri-
bunal to act concerning it. See, also,
People v. Baker; 76 N.Y. 78; People, ex
rel.,v. Hall, 80 N.Y. 117; Lange v. Ben-
edict, 73 N. Y. 12; Groenvelt v. Bur-
well, 1 La. Rayn. 466, 467; State v.
Wolever, 127 Ind. 306; Chicago, etc.,
Co. v. Sutton, 130 Ind. 405, 410; Jack-
son v. Smith, 120 Ind. 520; Perkins v.
Hayward, 132 Ind. 95, 104; MoCoy »
Able, 131 Ind. 417.

right of the court to exercise judicial
power over that class of cases; not
the particular case before it, but rather
the abstract power to try a case of the
kind or character of the case pending,
and not whether the particular case is
one that presents a cause of action, or
under the particular facts is triable by
the court in which it is pending, be-
cause of some inherent facts which ex-
ist and may be developed during the
trial.” Brown on Jurisdiction, § 1a.
§ 239 JURISDICTION. 261

subject. For the purpose of making our meaning clear, it is
necessary to repeat the familiar rule that jurisdiction of the
general subject can not be waived, inasmuch as it enables us
to prove that jurisdiction of the particular subject is not the
same thing as jurisdiction of the general subject, or, to employ
the old phrase, the subject-matter. It is held by all the well-
considered cases that jurisdiction of the particular subject may
be waived. Thus, where there is general jurisdiction of actions
of replevin, but it is required that the property in controversy
should be in the county where the action is brought, a judg-
ment is not void although rendered in a county different from
that in which the property was when the action was commenced
and judgment rendered.!. Where the locality of the cause of
action determines the jurisdiction the objection to jurisdiction,
if not seasonably interposed, is deemed waived.? In the class
of cases heretofore referred to, that is, where parties proceed
in equity where the jurisdiction is in the law courts, a failure
to seasonably and appropriately object is a waiver. The En-

1 Robinson v. Shatzley, 75 Ind. 461;
Grand Rapids, etc., Co. v. Gray, 38
Mich. 461; Gott v. Brigham, 45 Mich.
424,

2 Indianapolis, etc., Co. v. Solomon,
23 Ind. 534. In the case cited it was
said: ‘But the want of jurisdiction
because the action is local, and has
been brought in the wrong county, and
the want of jurisdiction because the
court has no power and authority to
adjudicate upon the subject involved
in the action, are two very dif-
ferent things. In the latter case it
was always and necessarily the rule of
law that the consent of parties could
not confer jurisdiction, for the reason
that in any event the court was not by
law deemed competent to be intrusted
with the question, and therefore its
proceedings were coram non judice, and
utterly void, and the parties could not
by agreement give faculties to the court
which the law had withheld. But

where the court was by law competent
to entertain the question involved and
was only deprived of jurisdiction be-
cause the action was local, and re-
quired to be brought in another coun-
ty, it was always held that the objec-
tion could be waived. Tidd, 9th ed.,
606; Co. Lit. 125 b, 126a, note 1. Our
code (§ 54), providing that the objec-
tion to the jurisdiction shall be deemed
waived, unless taken by demurrer or
answer, except where the court has
no jurisdiction over the subject, was
adopted in view of the common law,
and changes the rule previously exist-
ing, which required the waiver of ob-
jection to the jurisdiction, on account
of the venue, to appear of record af-
firmatively. 1 Chit. Pl. 268.”

3 Grandin v. Le Roy, 2 Paige Ch. 509;
Le Roy v.Plate,4 Paige Ch.77 ; Truscott
v. King, 6 N.Y. 147; Cox v. James, 45
N. Y. 557; Green v. Milbank, 3 Abb.
New Cases, 188; Pam v. Vilmar, 54
262 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 240 ©

glish courts, enforcing the distinction between jurisdiction of the
particular subject and jurisdiction of the general subject, hold
that consent may give jurisdiction in actions to recover possession
of land brought in a county different from that in which the land
lies. In other cases it has been held that where there is general
jurisdiction to order the sale of lands, but the jurisdiction is de-
clared to be in the county where the land is situated, orders made
by a court not sitting in such a county are notvoid.? Jurisdic-
tion of the particular subject is authority in the concrete, whereas
jurisdiction of the general subject is authority in the abstract, and
jurisdiction in the abstract may exist although in the concrete
particular facts may show that it can not be exercised. The con-
tention that there is a concrete jurisdiction of a general nature
asserts much the same fallacious doctrine as did the advocates
of the doctrine of realism in their contests with the nominalists.
It seems to us that jurisdiction in the abstract is essentially dif-
ferent from jurisdiction in the concrete, and if this be granted
it must follow that there are two divisions of jurisdiction in
which the subject is concerned, and that one of those divisions
is jurisdiction of the particular subject.

§ 240. Distinction between jurisdiction of a general subject

How. Pr. 235; Buffalo, etc., Co. v.
Delaware,etc.,Co.,180 N.Y.152, 29N.E.
R. 121; Amis v. Myers, 16 How. (U.
S.), 492, 493; Bank of Utica v. Merse-
reau, 3 Barb. Ch. 528; Cummings »v.
Mayor, 11 Paige, 596; Creely v. Bay
State, etc., Co., 103 Mass. 514; Sexton
v,. Pike, 18 Ark. 193; Parker v. Win-
ipicogee Co., 2 Black (U.8.), 545, 551;
Hipp v. Babin, 19 How. 271, 277, 278.
Ante, § 229.

1 Furnival v. Stringer, 1 Bing. N. C.
68; Andrewes v. Elliott, 6E. & B. 338;
Tyerman v. Smith, 6 E. & B. 719, 724;
Lawrence v. Wilcock, 11 A. & E. 941;
Vansittart v. Taylor, 4 E. & B. 910;
Fineux v. Hovenden, Cro. Eliz. 664;
Crow v. Edwards, Hobart [5b]. But
this doctrine is opposed by many cases.
New Albany, etc., Co. v. Huff, 19 Ind.

444; Loeb v. Mathis, 37 Ind. 306;
Ham v. Rogers, 6 Blckf. 559.

*Stark v. Ratcliff, 111 Ill. 75, 81;
Ryan v. Jackson, 11 Tex. 391; Pinck-
ney v. Hagerman, 4 Lans. 374; Black-
mar v. Van Inwagen, 5 How. Pr. 367;
Geller v. Hoyt, 7 How. Pr. 265. See,
generally, Regina v. Bolton, 1 Ad. &
E. (N.S.) 66, 72; Robinson v. Epping,
24 Fla. 237, 8. C. 4 So. R. 812, 822;
Arnold v. Arnold, 62 Ga. 627, 636;
Murphy v. Creighton, 45 Iowa, 179;
Gilchrist v. Williams, 1 B. Mon. 133;
O’Conner v. Huggins, 113 N. Y. 511, 8.
C. 21 N. E. R. 184; Sullivan v. Fos-
dick, 10 Hun, 173, 180. But see, con-
tra, Hopkins v. Meir (N. J. Eq.), 19
Atl. R. 264; Spencer v. Jennings, 114
Pa. St. 618, S. C. 8 Atl. R. 2.
§ 240 JURISDICTION. 263

and jurisdiction of the particular subject.—In the preceding
paragraph we have endeavored to show that one species of ju-
risdiction is jurisdiction of the particular subject, and we shall
now attempt to show the distinction between that species and
the species we have ventured to call jurisdiction of the general
subject. We suppose that jurisdiction of the general subject
is so essentially different from jurisdiction of the person that
at present we need do no more than barely advert to that dif-
ference, but it is important that we here allude to it, for the
reason that it enables us to direct attention to the fact that
where there is general jurisdiction of the subject and jurisdic-
tion of the person there exists authority to adjudicate as to the
jurisdiction of the particular subject. These two elements be-
ing present the court has rightful authority to proceed, and if
it has such authority there is jurisdiction, so that incidental or
minor matters may, in the absence of objections, be adjudicated.
Thus, in the class of cases cited in the note to the preceding
paragraph the court having jurisdiction over the general sub-
ject has authority to decide whether there are assets of the
estate in the county, for the existence of assets is the particular
subject and the matter of decedents’ estates the general sub-
ject.t An objection that there is no jurisdiction of the general
subject goes to the competency of the court to act at all and
denies its authority to proceed in the cause, whereas, an objec-
tion that there is no jurisdiction of the particular subject only

1The general doctrine of the text is
asserted in the cases which hold that
jurisdiction to determine whether
there are assets in the county is so far
jurisdiction that the proceedings can
not be assailed in a collateral pro-
ceeding. Calloway v. Cooley (Kan.),
32 Pac. R. 372, citing, Stanly v. Morse,
26 Iowa, 454; Roberts v. Flannagan,
21 Neb. 503, 32 N. W. R. 563; Lor-
ing v. Arnold, 15 R. I. 428, 8 Atl.
335; In re Shoenberger’s Est., 139
Pa. St. 132,20 Atl. R. 1050; Gold-
tree v. McAllister, 68 Cal. 93, 23 Pac.
R. 207; Dickey v. Vann, 81 Ala.

425, 8 So. R. 195; Holmes v. Rail-
road Company, 9 Fed. R. 229; How-
bert v. Heyle, 47 Kan. 58, 8. C. 27
Pac. R. 116; Higgins v. Reed, 48 Kan.
272, S. C. 29 Pac. R. 389. See, gen-
erally, Broderick’s Will, 21 Wall. 503;
State v. McGlynn, 20 Cal. 233, 268;
Hegarty’s Appeal, 75 Pa. St. 503, 513;
Hilliard v. Binford, 10 Ala. 977, 983;
Winslow v. Donnelly, 119 Ind. 565;
Robertson v. Pickrell, 109 U. 8. 608;
Harris v. Harris, 61 Ind. 117; In re
Matter of the Will of Warfield, 22 Cal.
51, 8. OC. 83 Am. Dec. 49.
264 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 240

challenges the authority of the tribunal to assume control over
the particular subject of the special case or controversy. In
the one class, the denial is general and sweeping inasmuch as
it is an assertion that there is no authority over the general
class of cases to which the particular case belongs, whereas a
denial of jurisdiction of a particular subject impliedly concedes
the existence of jurisdiction of the general class, but asserts
that for some cause peculiar to the special instance there is no
jurisdiction of the particular subject. It can not be justly af-
firmed that there is no court where there is jurisdiction of a
general class of cases, but this may be justly affirmed where
there is no such jurisdiction, for as to a matter over which
there is an entire absence of authority it is as if there were no
court. It is strictly correct, therefore, to affirm that where
there is no authority over the general class of cases the pro-
ceedings are coram non judice. Where, however, there is such
authority it can not be justly asserted, since there is a court in
all that the term implies, but as to the particular subject the
court is not authorized to act. As illustrating the difference
between jurisdiction of a general subject and jurisdiction of a
particular subject, reference may be had to those cases wherein
it is adjudged that the grant of letters of administration to a
person not eligible to appointment is not void, for in all such

1 Fisher v. Bassett, 9 Leigh. 119, 8.
C. 33 Am. Dec. 227; Burnley’s Repre-
sentative v. Duke, 2 Rob. (Va.) 102;
Carter’s Heirs v. Cutting, 8 Cranch,
251; Schultz v. Schultz, 10 ‘Gratt. 358,

S. C. 60 Am. Dec. 335. In Fisher v. .

Bassett, Judge Tucker said: ‘‘But
where the court has jurisdiction of
cases, ejusdem generis, its judgment
in any case is not void, because its
validity can not appear without an in-
quiry into the facts, an inquiry which
the court itself must be presumed to
have made, and which will not be
permitted to be reviewed collaterally.”
The learned judge cites as sustaining
his views the case of Prigg v. Adams,

4
2 Salk. 674. Judges Parker and Allen
also gave opinions in Fisher v. Bas-
sett, and it was said by the former:
“The distinction between the acts of
a court having jurisdiction over the
subject-matter under some circum-
stances, and those of one which, in no
possible state of things, can take juris-
diction over the subject, is a sound
and sufficiently intelligible one to
guide our judgments in the present
case. If under any circumstances the
hustings court could grant administra-
tion to Scott, it had jurisdiction of the
subject, and must judge of those cir-
cumstances. If it erred in determin-
ing that the facts upon which its power
§ 240 JURISDICTION. 265

cases the principle upon which the distinction rests is declared
and enforced. The principle enforced is that where there is
authority to make a judicial inquiry there is jurisdiction, and
it is evident that this authority exists wherever there is power
over a general class of cases. The authority exercised in de-
termining whether a person can be an administrator in a State
where certain persons are absolutely forbidden from acting in
that capacity is not, in principle or essence, different from an
inquiry into the right of the court to assume authority over a
thing or subject involved in a particular case having the gen-
eral characteristics or features of a member of a general class
of cases. The object of investing courts with jurisdiction of a
general class is to enable them to investigate and determine
all controversies arising in cases of the class, and to accom-
plish this object it is necessary that the court should have
power to inquire whether the particular subject is such as may
be considered as appertaining to any case of the general class.
‘‘Where the end is conceded, the means of arriving at it are
granted,’’ and it must be conceded that where there is juris-
diction of a general subject there is authority to inquire as to
whether a particular subject falls within the general range of the

to grant administration in the partic-
ular case depended were proved, it
was an error to be corrected by some
competent authority ; but until so cor-
rected, it conferred upon Scott all the
powers of a rightful administrator.”
The latter said: ‘‘Whether the par-
ticular state of facts existed which
would have authorized the court to
grant administration originally, was a
matter to be inquired into and decided
by the court, and the decision, if er-
roneous, would be voidable only, and
not void.”” Much to the same effect is
the language of the court in Schultz v.
Schultz, supra, where it was said by
the court: ‘‘And as the court had a
general jurisdiction over cases ejusdem
generis, under certain circumstances,

it must be taken for granted that the
court did make inquiry and did judge
of those circumstances, so that the
question of jurisdiction entered into
and became an essential part of the
judgment of the court, and if it erred.
in its judgment in this respect or oth-
erwise, the error was one which must
be corrected by some competent au-
thority upon aproper proceeding. The
judgment can not be held void ipso
facto, because an inquiry is necessary
to ascertain its invalidity; and this
inquiry will not be permitted to be
made collaterally ; and being voidable
only and not void, it must remain in
full force and effect as evidence or oth-
erwise until reversed or in some way
annulled by a proper proceeding.”’
266 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 240

major subject.1_ Another class of cases is illustrative of the
general doctrine and that is the class in which upon a change
of venue the case is sent to a court different from the one to
which the statute directs the case to be sent, for, if there is
general jurisdiction of the subject and jurisdiction is assumed,
the judgment of the court to which the case is transmitted is
not void.? The doctrine which we advocate is not opposed to
those cases which hold that where a court can not make a rec-
ord there is no jurisdiction,® for where there is authority over
a general class of cases a record may be made, although it may
be an erroneous one. But we do not believe the doctrine so
broadly asserted by some of the cases is sound.‘ The authority
to make a record in any one of a general class may, perhaps,
be regarded as a test of jurisdiction, but we do not believe that
authority to make a record in a special or particular member of a
general class isa test. If, to illustrate, a court having only
criminal jurisdiction should assume by an assertion of power,
to make a record in a civil case, then the record no matter
what it contained would be entirely destitute of force for the
reason that it was one that the court could not make in any
case belonging to the general class of cases called civil, since

1Mr. Brown suggests the distinction
we are here attempting to point out.
He says: ‘‘But the subject-matter of
the controversy does not relate to the
particular case before the court, but
whether the court has power to try an
issue involving the same subject, asin
an indictment for murder alleged to
have been committed in ‘A’ county,
the court having general criminal ju-
risdiction to try it; and if the evidence
showed the crime was committed in
‘B’ county, this would be a failure of
proof of the allegation of venue, but
not a question that could be raised by
habeas corpus before the trial or after,
but should be raised on appeal.”
Brown on Jurisdiction, § 10.

2 Coleman v. Floyd, 131 Ind. 330

5 Starbuck v. Murray, 5 Wend. 148.

* Roberts v. Caldwell, 5 Dana, 512;
Eitel v. Foote, 39 Cal. 489; Harnish v.
Bramer,71 Cal. 155, 8.C. 11 Pac. R. 888;
Bridgeport Savings Bank v. Eldredge,
28 Conn. 556,562, §.C. 73 Am. Dec. 688;
Osgood v. Blackmore, 59 Ill. 261; Rum-
felt v. O’Brien, 57 Mo. 569; Lingo v.
Binford (Mo.), 18 S.W. R. 1081; Har-
ris v. McClanahan, 79 Tenn. (11 Lea),
181; Letney v. Marshall, 79 Tex. 518, 8.
C.158.W. R.586; Marrow v. Brinkley,
85 Va. 55, 8. C. 6 S. E. R. 605; Doe
v. State Bank, 4 McLean (U.S.C.C.),
339; Colt v. Colt, 48 Fed. R. 385. But
see, Adams v. Saratoga, etc., Co., 10
N. Y. 328; Ferguson v. Crawford, 70
N.Y. 253; Pollard v.Wagener, 13 Wis.
569, 573; Goudy v. Hall, 30 Ill. 109.
§ 241 JURISDICTION. 267

of no one of such cases could it possibly have jurisdiction. If
a court having general jurisdiction of a class of actions should
make a record in any one of that class the record could not be
justly said to be made without power although it might be true
that there was a wrongful exercise of authority in the particu-
lar instance.1 The assertion of authority need not be regular
or its exercise rightful in order to give jurisdiction and warrant
the making of an effective record in the particular instance,
but it is sufficient if there is authority to move in the general
class of cases, for, if there is authority, no matter how irregu-
lar the movement or how erroneous the procedure, there is
such jurisdiction as will render a judgment effective as against
a collateral assault. In other words the judgment will not be
void although it may be voidable. If, for instance, the court
has authority to determine all matters relating to the sale of
decedents’ land, but can order a sale only where there are no
personal assets, its judgment is not void, although there were
in fact personal assets.?, In such a case, as in others already
cited, the jurisdiction of the general class gives authority to
decide whether it can be exercised over the particular subject.

§ 241. Equity jurisdiction.— Equity jurisdiction may be

1Tt may not be amiss to here repeat
what was said in the opening of this
paragraph. We assumein our discus-
sion that there is jurisdiction of the
person, for, if there is not jurisdiction

of the person, and that fact appears,

much that we have said would not be
correct. But upon the assumption that
there is jurisdiction of the person we
think it clear that it is not necessary
as a general rule that the record
should show jurisdiction of the par-
ticular subject.

2 Atkins v. Kinnan, 20 Wend. 241,
8. C. 82 Am. Dec. 5384; Jackson v.
Robinson, 4 Wend. 436; Jackson v.
Crawfords, 12 Wend. 533; Brown v.
Cocking, L. R., 3 Q. B. 672, 675. We
venture to say that one great cause of
error is the confounding of a right de-

ciston on a jurisdictional question with
the right to decide. If there is author-
ity to decide then, no matter what the
character of the decision may be, there
is jurisdiction. <A right to decide is all
that is essential to jurisdiction, but a
right decision is essential to the valid-
ity of the proceedings when appropri-
ately assailed by a direct attack.
Given a right or opportunity to defend
and authority over a general class,
there is always jurisdiction of a par-
ticular member of the class, but that
jurisdiction may be so exercised as to
make the proceedings voidable. This
doctrine may, doubtless, be modified
by an explicit and positive statute, but
in the absence of a statute we think it
is the only doctrine that can be sus-
tained on principle.
268 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 241

roughly defined to be the field over which the authority of the
courts of equity extends.! This definition, although it makes
no pretensions to strict accuracy or exactness, is sufficient for
our purpose. All courts, whether of law or equity, act within
general or specific limitations, and these limitations are, it
may not be too bold to say, the fences which enclose or mark
the boundaries of their jurisdictional domain. As is true of
law jurisdiction, the jurisdiction of equity is determined by a
decision of the question whether the particular case in which
the court is asked to pronounce a decree is a member of a gen-
eral class over which the courts of equity have authority.
Whether relief shall be granted or denied in a particular in-
stance is not the test of jurisdiction.? Thus, if a bill is filed
asking the foreclosure of a mortgage the equitable jurisdiction
is invoked and js not affected by any consideration relating
solely to the merits of the particular controversy. In the pre-
ceding paragraph we cited many cases asserting that where
equity assumes jurisdiction, although wrongfully, the decree
is not void.? If objection is properly pressed such a decree
may be avoided on appeal, but it.is not vulnerable upon a col-
lateral attack. This rule applies even where the bill on its

1The term ‘‘equity jurisdiction’”’ is
used as signifying the authority of
courts of equity, and is generally em-
ployed for the purpose of distinguish-
ing the general authority of such courts
from that conferred upon courts of
law.

? Prof. Tiedeman says: ‘“‘If a party
applies to a court of equity for-a spe-
cific performance of a contract, or its
cancellation or rescission, the fact that
the party asks for that peculiar kind
of relief, which can be granted by a
court of equity alone, at once deter-
mines the fact that the case falls within
the jurisdiction of the court of equity.
But whether the relief shall be granted
in that particular case or not is not a
question involved in the inquiry into

the equity jurisdiction, but it is a ques-
tion of equity jurisprudence, and the
court may conclude in that particular
ease that the relief shall be denied
because the facts of the case do not
come within the limitations of the
principles of equity which control the
extent to which the relief asked for
shall be granted, without, at the same
time, reaching the conclusion that the
case does not come within the juris-
diction of the court of equity.”’ Tiede-
man Eq. Jur., § 7. See, also, 1 Pom-
eroy Eq. Jur., § 129. _

5See, also, Mellen v. Moline Iron
Works, 131 U. 8. 352, 367; Kilbourn
v. Sunderland, 130 U.S. 505, 514; Rey-
nes v. Dumont, 180 U. S. 354.
’

§ 241 JURISDICTION. 269
face shows that there is an adequate remedy at law.1 Where
the jurisdiction is in equity a decree is as effective as is a judg-
ment of a law tribunal in a matter of which it has jurisdiction.”
In those States in which the statute blends the law and equity
jurisdiction and provides for one form of action to be prose-
cuted in one court or one class of courts the question of whether
the cause is of law or equity cognizance can not, so far as con-
cerns the question of jurisdiction or no jurisdiction, be of much,
if any, practical importance. We do not mean to affirm that
even in those States the difference between matters of equitable
and matters of legal cognizance is unimportant; on the con-
trary, we believe that the distinction is one of importance. It
is not important because it materially affects the question of
jurisdiction, but because it affects the remedy.? If a party
mistakes his remedy, as, for example, sues for injunction where
his whole right rests upon a breach of contract caused by a
simple failure to perform, he will fail, if objection is oppor-
tunely made.* His failure to recover will not, however, be for

1Goodman v. Winter, 64 Ala. 410,
432.

?Faught v. Faught, 98 Ind. 470; Sib-
bald’s Case, 12 Pet. 492; White v. Bank
of United States, 6 Ohio, 529; Magwire
v. Tyler, 40 Mo. 406; McDonald 'v.
Mobile, etc., Co., 65 Ala. 358; Denver
v Lobenstein, 8 Colo. 216; Baldwin
v. McCrea, 38 Ga. 650; Western, etc.,
Co. v. Virginia, etc., Co., 10 W.Va. 250;
Moody v. Harper, 38 Miss. 599; Cowan
». Wheeler, 25 Me. 267, 8. C. 43 Am.
Dec. 283; McCampbell v. McCamp-
bell, 5 Litt. 92, S. C. 15 Am. Dec. 48.

3In Meyers v. Field, 37 Mo. 434, 441,
it wassaid: ‘‘The distinction between
law and equity has not been abolished
by the new code of practice. Equita-
ble rights are still to be determined
according to the doctrine of equity ju-
risprudence and in the peculiar modes
which are sometimes required in such
cases, and legal rights are to be ascer-
tained and adjudged upon principles

\

of law; and the rules of proceeding at
law are in many respects very differ-
ent from those which are applied to
equity cases. Pleadings should be
drawn up with reference to these dis-
tinctions, though in the form prescrib-
ed by statute. Where the petition is
framed for legal redress, the plaintiff
can not be allowed to. prove his equi-

- table rights, though the facts be stated

to some extent in his petition. If he
seeks equitable relief the facts must
be stated in such manner as to show
that he is entitled to the relief prayed
for under the former practice; if he
claims redress at law the essential el-
ements of his cause of action must be
stated with reasonable certainty and
clearness.” See Neiser v. Thomas, 99
Mo. 224.

4Bass v. City of Fort Wayne, 121
Ind. 389; Smith v. Goodknight, 121
Ind. 312; Miller v. City of Indianap-
olis, 123 Ind. 196; Kyle v. Frost, 29
270 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 242

the reason that the court has no jurisdiction, but for the reason
that the remedy selected is not the appropriate one. In some
of the cases there is a confounding of a mistake of the remedy
with an absence of jurisdiction. It is true, of course, that
where the law expressly gives to a court, or class of courts, ju-
risdiction of equitable cases only, it can not take jurisdiction
of a case belonging to a class of an entirely and radically
different character, as, for example, of an action to enforce a
penal statute.

§ 242. Law jurisdiction.—The jurisdiction of the courts of
chancery was anciently regarded as ‘‘the extraordinary juris-
diction,’’ and that of the courts of law as the ordinary juris-
diction. It is still true that the courts of law are those of ordi-
nary jurisdiction and that where a right is created and no pro-
vision made for its enforcement, jurisdiction will fall to the
courts of law unless the case is one legitimately belonging to
the courts of equity jurisdiction. But the jurisdiction of courts
of equity is now so well defined by precedent and practice
that where a right is created requiring for its enforcement the
machinery of a court of equity it will be held that the case is
one of equity cognizance, but where there is no equitable fea-
ture impressed upon the case by the statute by which it was
created it will fall to the court of ordinary jurisdiction.’
Where, as is well known, a new right is created and a specific
remedy provided for its enforcement that remedy must be pur-
sued.

§ 243. Jurisdiction in rem.—A judicial proceeding against
property or against a thing is a proceeding in rem, but there
are proceedings in rem which are not in the true sense pro-

Ind. 382; Dixon v. Caldwell, 15 Ohio 8. C. C.), 568, 577; Clark v. Smith, 13
St. 412, 415. Pet. 195; Holland ». Challen, 110 U.
1 Fitch v. Creighton, 24 How. (U.8.) §. 15; Reynolds v. Crawfordsville,
159; Cummings v. National Bank, 101 etc., Bank, 112 U. S. 405; Orvis v.
U.S. 153, 157; Neves v. Scott, 13 How. Powell, 98U.8. 176,178; Brine v. Ins.
(U. 8.) 268, 271; Gaines v. Fuentes, Co., 96 U. 8.627; Borland v. Haven,
92 U. 8.10; Ellis v. Davis, 109 U.S. 37 Fed. R. 394,
485; Lorman v.Clarke,2 McLean (U. °.
§ 243

JURISDICTION.

271

ceedings against the res.’ It is true that such proceedings af-

1Tn the case of Cross v. Armstrong,
44 Ohio St.613, the court thus described
a proceeding in rem: ‘In rem is un-
derstood to be a technical term taken
from the Roman law, and there used
to distinguish an action against the
thing from one against the person, the
terms in rem and in personam always
being the opposite, one of the other;
an act in personam being one done or
directed against a specific person,
while an act in rem was one done with
reference to no specific person, but
against or with reference to a specific
thing, and so against whom it might
concern, or ‘all the world’; a proceed-
ing brought to determine the status of
the thing itself, the particular thing,
and which is confined to the subject-
matter in specie, is in rem, the judg-
ment being intended to determine the
state or condition, and ipso facto, to
render the thing what the judgment
declares it to be; while a proceeding
which seeks the recovery of a personal
judgment is in personam. In the for-
‘mer, process may be served on the
thing itself, and by such service and
making proclamation the court is au-
thorized to decide upon it without
other notice to persons, all the world
being parties; while in the latter, in
order to give the court power to ad-
judge, there must be service upon those
whose rights are sought to be affected.
As regards rights, the terms signify
the antithesis of ‘available against a
particular person,’ and ‘available
against the world at large.’ Thus,
jura in personam are rights primarily
available against specific persons, jura
in rem rights only available against
the world at large. Beyond this, a
judgment or decree is in rem, or in the
nature of a judgment in rem, when it
binds third persons—such as the sen-

tence of acourt of admiralty on a ques-
tion of prize, ora decree of other courts
upon the personal status or relation of
the party, such as dissolution of mar-
riage contract, bastardy, etc., a decree
in probate court admitting a will to
probate and record, granting adminis-
tration, etc., or a decree of a court of
a foreign country as to the status of a
person domiciled there.””? Mr. Free-
man says: ‘‘But perhaps the most
correct as well as the most concise
definition anywhere given of a judg-
ment in rem is that to be found in
Smith’s Leading Cases, viz.: that, ‘it
is an adjudication upon the status of
some particular subject-matter, by a
tribunal having competent authority
for that purpose,’ depending for its
effect on this principle, that it is ‘a
solemn declaration proceeding from
an accredited quarter concerning the
status of the thing adjudicated upon,
which very declaration operates accord-
ingly upon the status of the thing adju-
dicated upon, and ipso facto renders it
such as it is thereby declared to be.’ ”’
Freeman on Judgments, § 606. The
author refers to the following author-
ities: 2Smith’s Lead.Cas. 585, 586 (6th
Am. ed.), 660; State v. Central Pac.
R. R. Co., 10 Ney. 47; Lord v. Chad-
bourne, 42 Me. 429, S. C. 66 Am. Dec.
290. See, also, McLaughlin v. Mc-
Crory, 55 Ark. 442, 8. C. 29 Am. St.
56; The Palmyra, 12 Wheat.1; United
States v. Brig Malek Adhel, 2 How.
210; Freeman v. Alderson, 119 U. 8.
185; Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714;
Grignon’s Lessee v. Astor, 2 How. (U.
8.) 319; Brigham v. Fayerweather,
140 Mass. 413, 414; Arndt v. Griggs,
134 U. S. 316; Jones v. Fletcher, 42
Ark. 422. See, generally, Carpenter
». Strange, 141 U.S. 87; Davis v. Head-
ly, 22 N.J. Eq. 115; Cooley v. Scarlett,
272 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 243

fect the status of persons as well as of things, but it will not be
safe to say, as is sometimes done, that proceedings in rem are
proceedings affecting the status of persons and things, since
such a definition would be entirely too comprehensive inas-
much as it would include all classes of suits and actions, for
the judgment or decree of a court necessarily affects the status of
persons. Thus, for example, a judgment in an ordinary action
of assumpsit adjudges that the status of the one party is that
of creditor and of the other that of debtor, but no one would
think of calling such an action a proceeding in rem. <A promi-
nent characteristic of a proceeding in rem is that it is effective
as against all persons, or as was said by the Supreme Court of
the United States in an early case, it is effective against all the
world. This is true of all classes of proceedings in rem, as well
of those called quasi proceedings in rem as of those which. are
strictly in rem. A proceeding in attachment is generally re-
garded as a quasi proceeding in rem, but it is quite difficult
under the present condition of the authorities, to affirm that
this statutory proceeding is in rem, for in many respects it is
a proceeding in personam. It certainly can not be regarded as
strictly in rem, for the rights of the person are often involved,
and it is, at most, an ancillary proceeding, but withal, a pro-
ceeding in which the adjudication settles the status of the prop-
- erty seized under the writ. Where the debtor is a non-resi-
dent of the State it is the seizure of the property that gives
jurisdiction and constructive notice is sufficient, but such
notice will not authorize a personal judgment.! A proceeding
in attachment differs essentially from a strict proceeding in
rem inasmuch as in such a proceeding there is no personal de-
fendant, whereas in an attachment proceeding if there is actual
service of notice or an appearance a personal judgment may be
rendered although it may be far in excess of the value of the

38 Ill. 316, S. C. 87 Am. Dec. 298; Robinson v. National Bank of New,

Burnley v. Stevenson, 24 Ohio St. 474, berne, 81 N. Y. 385; People v. Baker,

§. 0.15 Am. R.621; Quarls v. Abbett, 76N. Y.78; Casey v. Adams, 102 U.

102 Ind. 233. 8.66; Kilbourn v.Woodworth, 5 Johns,
1 Cooper v. Reynolds, 10 Wall. 308; 37; Gates v. Bennett, 33 Ark. 475.
§ 243 JURISDICTION. 273

property seized.1. Where there is actual service-or an appear-
ance a proceeding in attachment would seem to be a double
one, that is, in personam as well as in rem, but where there is
neither an appearance nor actual service it seems that the pro-
ceeding is in rem and the extent of the jurisdiction dependent
upon the property seized. In so far as concerns the attach-
ment proceedings the seizure of the property is the essential
requisite to jurisdiction, but it is held by some of the courts
that seizure is not of itself sufficient to confer jurisdiction;
this doctrine is, however, not accepted by the Supreme Court
of the United States.2, We can see no reason for doubting the
soundness of the conclusion reached by that great court, for
the seizure of the property gives authority to adjudicate as to
that property and there is, therefore, jurisdicton of the par-
ticular subject as well as of the general class of cases, so that

there is not such an absence of

1 Under the decision of the court in
Bardwell v. Collins, 44 Minn. 97, S.
C. 20 Am. St. R. 547, granting the
soundness of that decision, it is doubt-
ful whether proceedings would be valid
where there is no service of notice up-
on a resident of the State, even though
a statute assumed to dispense with
notice. It seems to follow, as a ne-
cessity, from the reasoning in that
case, that wherever the defendant is
a resident there must be actual legal
notice although property may be the
subject of the suit or action.

2In Cooper v. Reynolds, 10 Wall.
808, 319, the court said: ‘“‘Now, in this
class of cases on what does the juris-
diction ofthe courtdepend? Itseems
to us that the seizure of the property,
or that which in this case is the same
in effect, the levy of the writ of attach-
ment on it,is the one essential requisite
to jurisdiction, as it unquestionably
is in proceedings purely in rem. With-
out this the court can proceed no fur-

18

jurisdiction as makes the pro-

ther; with it the court can proceed to
subject that property to the demand
of the plaintiff. If the writ of attach-
ment is the lawful writ of the court,
issued in proper form under the seal
of the court, and if it is by the proper
officer levied upon property liable to
the attachment, when such writ is re-
turned into court, the power of the
court over the res is established.”’ In
reference to the publication of notice
the court said: ‘‘So, also, of the pub-
lication of notice. It is the duty of
the court to order such publication,
and to see that it has been properly
made, and undoubtedly, if there has
been no such publication, a court of
errors might reverse the judgment.
But when the writ has been issued,
the property seized, and that property
been condemned and sold, we can not
hold that the ceurt had no jurisdiction
for want of a sufficient publication of
notice.”

.
274 § 243

THE WORK OUT OF COURT.

ceedings utterly void. Another class of cases, and a very large
one, in which jurisdiction is quasi in rem, is that usually de-
nominated ‘‘probate matters.’’ In probate matters the estate
is regarded as the res, and the proceedings are, therefore, in
the nature of proceedings in rem. For the reason that they
partake of the nature of proceedings in rem they are usually
held to be effective against all persons. Where a sale is or-
dered of real property by a court of competent jurisdiction in
the exercise of its probate authority the proceedings are re-
garded by some of the courts as in rem,? but by other courts a
different view is taken.* If the proceeding is in rem then
under the doctrine of the court in the case from which we have
quoted,‘ it would seem to follow that a sale is not void although
notice may not have been given, but upon this question the
authorities are in sharp conflict.° There is another class of

1 Gaines v. Firentes, 92 U.S.10; En-
nis v. Smith, 14 How. 400; Archer v.
Mosse, 2 Vern. 8; Holliday v. Ward,
19 Pa. St. 485; Schultz v. Schultz, 10
Gratt. 358, 8S. C. 60 Am. Dec. 335; Nor-
vell v. Lessueur, 33 Gratt. 222; Steele
v. Renn, 50 Texas, 467, S. C. 32 Am.
Rep. 605; Moore v. Tanner, 5 T. B.
Monroe, 42, 8. C. 17 Am. Dec. 35; Ce-
cil v. Cecil, 19 Md. 72, S. C. 81 Am.
Dec. 626; Patton v. Allison, 7 Humph.
3820; Brown v. Brown, 86 Tenn. 277;
Miller v. Foster, 76 Texas, 479; Van-
derpoell v. Van Valkenburg, 6 N. Y.
190; Cotton v. Ross, 2 Paige, 396, S.
C. 22 Am. Dec. 648; State v. McGlynn,
20 Cal. 233, 8. C. 81 Am. Dec. 118;
Whicker v. Hume, 7 H. L. Cases, 124.

2 Smith v. Smith, 13 Gray, 209; Hood
v. Hood, 110 Mass. 463; Perry v. Med-
dowcroft, 10 Beav. 122; Bunting’s
Case, 4 Coke, 29; Kenn’s Case, 7
Coke, 138; Smith’s Leading Cases(6th
Am. ed.), 670.

3 See note 5.

4 Cooper v. Reynolds, 10 Wall. 308.

5In the case of Good v. Norley, 28

Iowa, 188, Judge Dillon gave the gen-
eral subject a very able and careful
consideration. He indicated that his
opinion was that lack of notice did
not render the proceedings void. In
the subsequent cases of Washburn »v.
Carmichael, 32 Iowa, 487; Boyles v.
Boyles, 37 Iowa, 592, and Shawhan ».
Loffer, 24 Iowa, 217, the court repudi-
ated the views of Judge Dillon. That
able judge, in support of his position,
cited Grignon’s Lessee v. Astor, 2 How.
(U. §.) 819; McPherson v. Cunliff, 11
8. &R. (Pa.) 422; Saltonstall v. Riley,
28 Ala. 164; Wilkinson v. Leland, 2
Pet. 627; Sheldon v. Newton, 3 Ohio
St. 494; Benson v. Cilley, 8 Ohio St.
604; Howard v. Moore, 2 Mich. 226;
Coon v. Fry, 6 Mich. 506; Doe v. Har-
vey, 5 Blackf. 487; Thompson v. Doe,
8 Blackf.336 ; Norton v. Norton,5 Cush.
524. As opposing his view he cited:
Babbitt v. Doe, 4 Ind. 355; Doe v. An-
derson, 5 Ind. 33; Doe v. Bowen, 8
Ind. 197; Gibbs v. Shaw, 17 Wis. 197;
French v. Hoyt, 6 N. H. 370.
§ 243 JURISDICTION. 275

cases, and its members are very numerous, which are usually
considered as quas? proceedings in rem. We refer to the class
of cases wherein the relief sought is the enforcement of a lien
against property. Such proceedings are said to be against a
thing indebted. A proceeding against a thing indebted gen-
erally rests upon a lien, and, for our present purpose, it is suf-
ficient to say that a lien is the right in a thing correspondent
to the amount of the debt due from the owner of the thing to
the creditor. To the extent of the lien the creditor has a sort
of limited estate in the property so that the right asserted in
seeking an enforcement of the lien is against the property or
thing. A proceeding to enforce a lien, while it is in the nature
of a proceeding tn rem, is not strictly such a proceeding, for in
such a case there must be some notice to the person. The
States have very comprehensive powers respecting the enforce-
ment of liens upon property within their borders,' but it is the
better opinion that such a lien can not be enforced without
actual or constructive notice to the property owners. The fore-
closure of liens is the exercise of equity jurisdiction inasmuch
as equity acts specifically and not by way of compensation, so

1TIn the case of Arndt v. Griggs, 134
U.S. 316, 8. C. 10 Sup. Ct. R. 557, the
court exhaustively reviewed the au-
thorities upon the general question,
and, among other things, said: ‘‘These
various decisions of this court estab-
lish that, in its judgment, a State has
power by statute to provide for the
adjudication of titles to real estate
within its limits as against non-resi-
dents who are brought into court only
by publication; and that is all that is
necessary to sustain the validity of
the decree in question in this case.”
The court, as sustaining its view, cited
the following authorities: Holland v.
Challen, 110 U. S. 15; Hart v. San-
som, 110 U. 8. 151; United States v.
Fox, 94 U. S. 315, 320; McCormick v.
Sullivant, 10 Wheat. 192; Beauregard
v. New Orleans, 18 How. 497; Suydam

». Williamson, 24 How. 427; Christian
Union v. Yount, 101 U. §. 352; Lath-
rop v. Bank, 8 Dana, 114; Cloyd v.
Trotter, 118 I11.391; Adams v. Cowles,
95 Mo. 501; Wunstel v. Landry, 39
La. Ann. 312; Essig v. Lower, 120 Ind.”
239, S. C. 21 N. E. R. 1090; Dillon v.
Heller, 39 Kan. 599; Beebe v. Doster,
36 Kan. 666, 675, S. C. 14 Pac. Rep. 150;
Gillespie v. Thomas, 23 Kan. 138; Walk-
enhorst v. Lewis, 24 Kan. 420; Rowe v.
Palmer,29 Kan. 337; Venable v. Dutch,
37 Kan. 515, 519, S. C. 15 Pac. Rep.
520; Boswell’s Lessee v. Otis, 9 How.
836; Parker v. Overman, 18 How. 137;
Clark v. Smith, 13 Pet. 195; Pennoyer
v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714; Huling v. Rail-
way Co., 180 U. S. 559, S. C. 9 Sup.
Ct. Rep. 603; Mellen v. Iron Works,
181 U.S. 352, 8. C. 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 781.
276 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 248

that it would seem that where jurisdiction is asserted against
property indebted and there is no actual or manual seizure,
there must be some notice, either actual or constructive. The
well known maxim that equity acts upon the person requires that
notice should be given since without notice there is no personal
defendant in court. This rule can not, however, apply where
the jurisdiction is purely in rem, for, as we shall presently see,
such proceedings are directly against the thing and hence it is
not necessary that there should be any personal defendant
present. It has been held by a very able court that a statute
assuming to confer jurisdiction to decree the foreclosure of
mortgages in suits against residents of the State upon notice
by publication is unconstitutional. There is, as we have al-
ready indicated, conflict upon the question whether seizure is
of itself sufficient notice; some of the cases declare that an ef-
fective seizure is notice,? and this it seems to us is the sound
doctrine where there is an actual and complete seizure of the
thing, for such an act is notice as full and effective as can well
be given, but where there is no actual seizure it seems to us.
that the rule must be otherwise. We are not now referring to
cases where the statute authorizing proceedings in rem or quasi

1 Bardwell v. Collins, 44 Minn. 97,
8.C. 29 Am. St. R.547. In the course
of the opinion in that case the court
said: ‘‘Itis, in our judgment, beyond
the power of the legislature to disre-
gard so fundamental and long-estab-
lished a principle of our jurispru-
dence. Service by publication, under
such circumstances, is not due process
of law, and therefore any statute as-
suming to authorize it is unconstitu-
tional. It would be of little use to
cite authorities upon a subject which
has been so much and so often dis-
cussed in its many phases, as each
case must be determined upon its own
facts, and hence the decided cases
would ordinarily be in point only by
way ofanalogy.’’ See Burnam v. Com-

monwealth, 1 Duv. 210; Henderson
v. Staniford, 105 Mass. 504; Morrison
v. Underwood, 5 Cush. 52; Hurlbut
v. Thomas, 55 Conn. 181, 8. C.3 Am.
St. R. 43; Happy v. Mosher, 48 N. Y.
313; Rockwell v. Nearing, 35 N.Y. 302;
Beard v. Beard, 21 Ind. 321; Orcutt v.
Ranney, 10 Cush. 183.

? New Orleans v. Hemphill, 35 Miss.
17; Stewart v. Board, etc., 25 Miss.
479; Hollingsworth v. Barbour, 4 Pet.
466; Kealing v. Spink, 3 Ohio St. 105;
Thompson v. Steamboat Morton, 2
Ohio St. 26; Bradstreet v. The Nep-
tune Co., 3 Sumn. 600; Schooner
Bolina, ete., 1 Gal. (U. 8. CO. C.) 75;
The Mary, 9 Cranch, 126; Nations v.
Johnson, 24 How. 195; Gray v. Kim-
ball, 42 Me. 299, 307.
§ 248 JURISDICTION. 277

proceedings in rem expressly requires notice and makes it ju-
risdictional, but to cases where the question is not affected or
controlled by statute, for we think that there is an essential
difference between cases where there is a statute expressly
making notice by publication or by personal service essential
to jurisdiction and cases where there is no statute bearing upon
the subject. Notice by publication is not sufficient to confer
jurisdiction of the person, for, theoretically at least, there are
no personal defendants to proceedings strictly in rem. Where
the proceedings are against the property, that is, are proceed-
ings in rem in the narrow and strict sense of the term, posses-
sion actual or constructive is essential to the existence of juris-
diction.? If jurisdiction is once fully acquired a removal would
not, it is held, divert it, although the removal was made under
color.of authority,? but a seizure voluntarily abandoned by the
government or by a party having authority to abandon puts an
end to the authority over the property seized.* If a substitute
for the property is provided jurisdiction remains, as, for ex-
ample, where a bond is executed which secures the release of
the property from the actual or constructive possession of the
court.2 It is manifest that if a party could oust jurisdiction
by executing a bond great injustice would result, especially in
attachment proceedings, or other quasi proceedings in rem.
The doctrine of the responsibility of things is founded in great
part on a pure legal fiction,® and proceeding on this fiction
there are said to be three classes of things: 1. Things guilty.
2. Things hostile. 3. Things indebted. It is obvious that

1 Belcher v. Chamber, 53 Cal. 635;
Billings v. Kothe, 49 Iowa, 34; Walker
v. Day, 8 Baxter, 77; Mercantile Trust
Co. v. Railroad, 16 Blatchf. 324.

2 United States v. Eighty-four Boxes
of Sugar, 7 Peters, 453; Two Hundred
Chests of Tea, 9 Wheat. 430; MclIl-
vaine v. Coxe, 4 Cranch, 209; Markle
v, Akron, 14 Ohio, 509, 591; The Pal-
myra, 12 Wheat. 1; The Whiskey
Cases, 99 U. 8. 594; Dobbins’ Distil-

lery, 96 U.S. 395; Three Tons of Coal,
6 Biss. 379.

3 The Rio Grande, 19 Wall. 178.

*The Josepha, etc., 10 Wheat. 312. |

5 The Blanche Page, 16 Blatchf. 1;
The C. T. Ackerman, 14 Blatchf. 360;
Cargo of Schooner North Carolina, 15
Peters, 40.

®United States v. La Vengeance, 3
Dall. 297; Schooner Little Charles, 1
Brock, 354, 374; The Palmyra, 12
Wheat. 1.
278 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 244

the foundation for the two classes first mentioned is purely fic-
titious without the semblance of fact in its composition, and
the third class has little more of fact in its foundation although
there is some reason for asserting that a thing may be in fact
indebted, as, for instance, where a watch or a wagon is in-
creased in value by repairs or improvements placed upon it.
There is, however, little practical use for resorting to fiction
for the doctrine may well be placed upon a solid basis of fact.
Where there is money due as compensation for a loss actually
suffered or where there is a right to damages or a necessity for
inflicting a punishment by way of penalty and the property is
within the jurisdiction of the court there is no reason why it
may not, without inventing any fiction, be seized and sold.
It is well settled that where the property is within the terri-
torial jurisdiction of the court proceedings against it in a prop-
er mode constitute due process of law.t Proceedings in rem
are civil and not criminal, no matter what may be the ground
upon which the seizure is made.?

*

§ 244. Jurisdiction in personam.—A fundamental requisite
to jurisdiction of the person is that of notice. No judgment,
it is safe to say, can be valid as against a person unless he has
notice according to the law of the land.2 We do not mean to
be understood as saying that no judgment affecting the rights
of persons in some degree may not be valid without notice, for
it is almost impossible to conceive of a case wherein the rights
of persons are not in some measure affected by a judgment or
‘decree. Even in judgments purely in rem the rights of persons
are affected and in most cases very materially. Thus, in a
proceeding to condemn property seized for a violation of law
and under the legal fiction that the property is the offender,
the rights of the owners, or of those having an interest in it,

'The Confiscation Cases, 20 Wall. ?Barnacoat v. Gunpowder, 1 Met.
92; La Vengeance, 3 Dall. 297, 301; 230; State v. Barrels of Liquor, 47
Whelan v. United States, 7 Cranch, N. H. 369; Anonymous, 1 Gal. 22;
112; The Betsey and Charlotte, 4 United States v. Gundy, 3 Cranch, 337.
Cranch, 446; Fisher v. McGin, 1 5 See Process.

Gray, 1.
§ 244 JURISDICTION. 279

are involved. But such actions, as we have seen, are not in
personam:! In suits which are of a mixed nature, such, for
instance, as a suit to foreclose a mortgage on real estate, the
rights of the mortgagor and of lienholders are very materially
affected, inasmuch as the decree of foreclosure sweeps away the
equity of redemption. In such suits, however, substituted or
constructive notice is sufficient to confer jurisdiction if the
parties are not residents of the State in which the land is situ-
ated. The land is really the principal thing, and as the prin-
cipal thing or element determines the jurisdiction, so that a
suit to foreclose the lien can not be regarded as a purely per-
sonal action or suit. If, however, a judgment against the per-
son is also sought, then as to that element the suit is personal.
We think, therefore, that it may be justly assumed that there
is a class of actions which may be appropriately denominated
‘‘mixed,’’ inasmuch as they blend the elements of actions in
personam and actions in rem, and while partaking of the na-
ture of the two classes, can not be justly assigned to either of
them. In these mixed actions or suits there must, as we be-
lieve, be some notice, although it need not necessarily and in-
variably be actual notice.2 If, however, a personal judgment

1 Personal actions are usually said to
be those brought for the recovery of
specific personal property, for injuries
to person or personal property. <Ac-
tions for the recovery of real estate
are not personal actions in the strict
sense of the term although they may
sometimes partake of the nature of
such actions as where damages are re-
coverable. In personal actions the
judgment is for the recovery of dam-
ages or of chattels. But the term
“personal judgment,” is usually con-
fined to cases where the action is a
personal one in the strict sense. We,
however, think it must have a wider
signification where, as here, the gen-
eral subject of jurisdiction is under
discussion. There are judgments, us-
ing the term ‘‘judgments”’ in a com-

prehensive sense, which are personal
although they neither concern per-
sonal property nor award damages.
Thus, a decree of a court of equity di-
recting specific performance of a con-
tract concerning land directly affects
the person, as does a decree for the
cancellation of a deed, or a decree di-
recting the rescission of a contract.
Where the person is acted upon by a
judgment or deeree the proceeding is
in personam, although real estate may
be involved.

2 We think that in the case of Dorr
v. Rohr, 82 Va. 359, 8. C. 3 Am. St. R.
106, the court states the doctrine too
broadly and that the error is attribut-
able to the fact that it lost sight of the
distinction between actions purely in
rem and quasi proceedings in rem. As
280 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 244

is sought there must be notice other than by publication.1. An
action purely in personam is an adversary proceeding requiring
the presence of the defendant, or, such notice to him as the
law requires, or else a waiver of notice. Where the defendant
has been given notice, or has waived it, and the judgment or
decree sought is purely personal, jurisdiction to award the
judgment or decree exists, although it may affect property in
another State. A purely personal action may be maintained,
no matter where property ultimately or indirectly affected by it
may be situated. This doctrine was long since declared by
the court of chancery.?, The doctrine that equity acts in per-
sonam and not in rem impresses upon equity jurisdiction a pe-
culiar characteristic and that is this: Where the person is
subject ‘to its authority a decree may be entered in a proceed-
ing of a purely equitable nature, although the property involved

we have shown seizure is notice where
the proceeding is purely in rem, that
is against a hostile or guilty thing. In
the cases of Windsor v. McVeigh, 93
U.S. 274, there was no complete seiz-
ure of the res,and in McVeigh v.
United States, 11 Wall. 259, the ques-
tion was as to the right of one asserted
to be an alien enemy to appear and
defend. In Dean v. Nelson, 10 Wall.
158, the proceeding was a mixed one,
for it was a proceeding to establish
the liability of a thing indebted, and
this is true of Lasere v. Rochereau, 17
Wall. 487, and of Earle v. McVeigh,
91 U. S. 503. The cases of Galpin v.
Page, 18 Wall. 350, and Ex parte
Lange, 18 Wall. 163, do little more
than assert the general principle re-
garding notice.

1Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. 8.714; St.
Clair v. Cox, 106 U. S. 350; Smith v.
Eaton, 36 Me. 298, 8. C. 58 Am. Dec.
746; Mattingly v. Corbit, 7 B. Monr.
376; Austin v. Bodley, 4T. B. Monr.
434; Collinson v. Teal, 4 Sawy. 241;
Parrott v. Alabama, etc., Co., 5 Fed.

R. 391; Clayton v. Clayton, 4 Colo.
410; Dearing v. Bank of Charleston, 5
Ga. 497, 8. C. 48 Am. Dec. 300; King
v.Vance, 46 Ind. 246; Lutz v. Kelly, 47
Iowa, 307; Eaton v. Badger, 33 N. H.
228; Bartlett v. Spicer, 75 N. Y. 528;
Miller v. Miller, 1 Bailey, 242; Bos-
well’s Lessee v. Otis, 9 How. (U.S.)
336; Picquet v. Swan, 5 Mason, 35.

?Penn v. Lord Baltimore, 1 Vesey
Sen. 444, 2 Leading Cases in Equity,
1806. The rule declared in the case
cited has been enforced in a long line
of decisions and has been applied in
a great diversity of cases. Brown v.
Desmond, 100 Mass. 267; Davis v.
Parker, 14 Allen, 94; Pingree v. Cof-
fin, 12 Gray, 288; Gardner v. Ogden,
22.N. Y. 332, 339; Bailey v. Ryder, 10
N. Y. 363; Newton v. Bronson, 13 N.
Y. 587; Sutphen v. Fowler, 9 Paige,
280; Hawley v. James, 7 Paige, 213;
Mead v. Merritt, 2 Paige, 402; Wat-
kins v. Holman, 16 Pet. 25; Caldwell
v. Carrington, 9 Pet. 86; Moore »v.
Jaeger, 2 McArthur, 465,
§ 244 JURISDICTION. 281

may be in a foreign country. Here, again, we encounter the
class of cases we denominated mixed, for while it is the pre-
rogative of courts of equity to decree the foreclosure of liens
upon real estate, yet, as we suppose, a court in New York could
not decree the foreclosure of a mortgage executed upon land
situated in Connecticut or any other State,! but the courts of
the State in which the land lies could upon notice, either actual
or constructive, decree a foreclosure, no matter where the par-
ties resided. As we have elsewhere said, a case such as that
just instanced partakes of the elements of personal and real
actions so largely that the proceedings in it can not, with strict
accuracy, be denominated actions in personam nor can they
be denominated proceedings in rem. In theory the decrees of
equity act only upon the conscience of the party, but practic-
ally they do act upon the property. Thus, in the great class
of cases where decrees enforcing the specific performance of
contracts concerning land are granted, the decree necessarily
and vitally affects the question of title, and yet it is firmly set-
tled that a suit to enforce such a contract is a proceeding in
personam and not in rem, and.may be maintained where there
is jurisdiction of the person, although the land involved in the
controversy may be situated in another State.? Injunctions
may be issued, where the defendant is within the jurisdiction

1 Farmers’ Loan, etc., Co. v. Postal
Tel. Co., 55 Conn. 334, 8. C. 3 Am. St.

2? Watkins v. Holman, 16 Pet. 25;
Mitchell v. Bunch, 2 Paige, 606; Cleve-

R. 53. See Wimer v. Wimer, 82 Va.
890, 8. C. 3 Am. St. 126; Blanchard v.
Burrell, 13 Mass. 4, 8. C.7 Am. Dec.
106; Dickinson v. Hoomes, 8 Gratt.
353; Barger v. Buckland, 28 Gratt. 850;
Poindexter v. Burwell, 82 Va. 507;
Piedmont Coal Co. v. Green, 3 W. Va.
54, S.C. 98 Am. Dec. 799; Cooley »v.
Scarlett, 38 Ill. 316, 8. C. 87 Am. Dec.
298; City Insurance Co. v, Commer-
cial Bank, 68 Ill. 348; Johnson »v.
Kimbro, 3 Head. 551, 8. C. 75 Am. Dec.
781; Molyneux v. Seymour, 30 Ga.
440, 8. C. 76 Am. Dec. 662; Sturgis v.
Fay, 16 Ind. 429, 8. C. 79 Am. Dec. 440.

land v. Burrill, 25 Barb. 532; Neuborn
v. Bronson, 13 N. Y. 587; Massie v.
Watts, 6 Cranch, 148; Shattuck v.
Cassidy, 3 Ed. Ch. R. 152; Monnett v.
Turpie, 132 Ind. 484, 486; Bethell v.
Bethell, 92 Ind. 318, 322; Morgan v.
Bell (Wash.), S. C. 16 Lawy. Rep.
Anno. 614; Blanchard v. Russell, 13
Mass. 1,8. C. 7 Am. Dec. 106; Davis
». Headly, 22 N. J. Eq. 115; Hayden
v. Yale (La.), 12 So. R. 633; McQuerry
v. Gilliland, 89 Ky. 434; Ward v.
Arredondo, 1 Hopk. Ch. 213; Sutphen
v. Fowler, 9 Paige, 280.
282 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 244

of the court, prohibiting the performance of acts in another
State! In all such cases as‘those in which specific perform-
ance of contracts concerning lands is enforced, the underly-
ing theory is that the decree operates upon the conscience of
the party and not upon the property, and this is essential to a
successful maintenance of the doctrine, for otherwise it would
come into conflict with the settled rule that the courts of one
State can not determine the title to property in another State.
To avoid the conflict between the two great rules under men-
tion the courts hold that the decree directing performance
operates upon the person and that it is the conveyance executed

pursuant to it that operates upon the title.?

1 Cole v. Cunningham, 133 U.S. 107,
8. C. 10 Sup. Ct. R. 269. In the case
cited the subject is ably considered
and the authorities exhaustively re-
viewed. The opinion demonstrates
the soundness of the general doctrine
that equity will prevent parties within
one State from taking proceedings in
another for the purpose of evading the
exemption laws of the State where the
parties reside. The court quoted with
approval Lord Chancellor Brougham’s
statement of the rule in the case of
Lord Portarlington v. Soulby, 3 Mylne
& K. 104, where the chancellor de-
clared ‘‘Nothing can be more un-
founded than the doubts of the juris-
diction. That is grounded like all
other jurisdiction of the court, not
upon any pretension to the exercise
of judicial and administrative rights
abroad but on the circumstance of the
person of the party on whom this or-
der is made being within the power of
the court.’’ The court also quotes ap-
provingly the statement of Mr. Justice
Swayne in Phelps v. McDonald, 99 U.
S. 298, 308, that ‘‘Where the necessary
parties are before a court of equity, it
is immaterial that the res of the con-
troversy, whether it be real or personal

It is not easy to

property, is beyond the territorial ju-
risdiction of the tribunal. It has the
power to compel the defendant to do
all things necessary, according to the
lex loci ret site, which he could do
voluntarily, to give full effect to the de-
cree against him. Without regard to
the situation of the subject-matter,
such courts consider the equities be-
tween the parties and decree in per-
sonam according to those equities, and
enforce obedience to their decrees by
process in personam.”’ See, generally,
Snook v. Snetzer, 25 Ohio St. 516 ;, Rail-
road Co. v. Thompson, 31 Kan. 180,
8. C. 1 Pac. R. 622; Keyser v. Rice, 47
Md. 203; Zimmerman v. Franke, 34
Kan. 650, 8. C. 9 Pac. R. 747; Wilson
v. Joseph, 107 Ind. 490, S. C. 8 N. E.
R. 616; Chaffee v. Quidnick Co., 13 R.
I. 442, 449; Manufacturing Co. v. Wors-
ter, 23 N. H. 462; Pickett v. Ferguson,
45 Ark.177; Dinsmore v. Neresheimer,
32 Hun, 204; Erie Ry. Co. v. Ramsey,
45 N. Y. 687. p ,
?This question received considera-
tion in Lindley v. O’Reilly, 50 N.J. L.
636, 8. C. 7 Am. St. R. 802. In the
opinion given in that case it was said:
“Ever since Penn v. Lord Baltimore,
1 Ves. Sr. 444, it has been established
§ 244

JURISDICTION.

283

draw with exact accuracy the line between a personal judgment
in the strict sense, and judgments of a different nature, so that

law that in cases of contract, trust, or
fraud, the equity courts of one State or
country having jurisdiction of the par-
ties are competent to entertain a suit
for specific performance, or to estab-
lish a trust, or for a conveyance, al-
though the contract, trust, or fraudu-
lent title pertains to lands in another
State or country. The principle upon
which this jurisdiction rests is, that
chancery, acting in personam, and
not in rem, holds the conscience of the
parties bound without regard to the
situs of the property. It is a jurisdic-
tion which arises when a special equity
can be shown which forms a ground
for compelling a party to convey or
release, or for restraining him from
asserting a title or right in lands so
situated, and is strictly limited to those
cases in which the relief decreed can
be obtained through the party’s per-
sonal obedience. If it went beyond
that, the assumption of jurisdiction
would not only be presumptuous, but
ineffectual. Westlake on Interna-
tional Law, 57, 58. The decree in a
suit of this aspect imposes a mere per-
sonal obligation, enforceable by in-
junction, attachment, or like process,
against the person, and can not oper-
ate ex proprio vigore upon lands in an-
other jurisdiction to create, transfer,
or vest a title. The cases on this sub-
ject are numerous. They are collected
in the note to Penn v. Lord Baltimore,
2 Lead. Cas. Eq. 1806 (923); Ewing v.
Orr Ewing, L. R., 9 App. C. 34,
Brett’s Lead. Cas. Eq. 234; Norris v.
Chambres, 29 Beay. 246; Massie v.
Watts, 6 Cranch, 148; Wood v. War-
ner, 15 N. J. Eq. 81; Vaughan v. Bar-
clay, 6 Whart. 392. In Davis v. Head-
ley, 22 N. J. Eq. 115, the complainant
obtained a decree in the circuit court

of Kentucky against Headley that a
conveyance of lands in New Jersey,
made by the complainant, should be
rescinded and set aside, the possession
restored, and the defendant enjoined
from setting up the conveyance. He
then filed a bill in the court of chan-
cery of this State to enforce the de-
cree. The jurisdiction of the parties
and of the subject-matter of that suit
was undisputed. The bill to enforce
the decree was, nevertheless, dis-
missed. Chancellor Zabriskie, in dis-
missing the bill declared that it was a
well settled principle of law in the de-
cisions of England and of this country,
and acquiesced in by the jurists of all
civilized nations, that immovable
property is exclusively subject to the
laws and jurisdiction of the courts of
the State or nation in which it is lo-
cated, and that no other laws or courts
could affect it. He added, ‘I find no
case in which a statute, judgment, or
proceeding in one country has been
held to affect such property in another
country, or beyond the jurisdiction of
the sovereign or court making the
statute or decree.’ After referring to
Penn v. Lord Baltimore, supra, and
the cases in which decrees for specific
performance of contracts relating to
lands without their jurisdiction were
made, the learned chancellor said:
‘But in these cases it is admitted, as
it was by Lord Hardwicke, that these
decrees could not affect the land, but
could only be enforced where the
court had jurisdiction of the person of
the defendant, and thus compel him
to execute the conveyance. In such
cases, it is the conveyance, and not
the decree, that has the effect.’ A
similar precedent in the federal courts
enforced the same view. Watts v.
284 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 244

perhaps the best that can be done is to refer to some of the ad-
judged cases. It has been held that a decree cancelling a ne-
gotiable instrument is personal, and for its effectiveness re-
quires jurisdiction of the person,! and so of a policy of insur-
ance.” Going somewhat farther in the same general direction
are those cases which hold that an order discharging a debtor
under a State insolvent statute is personal, and is not suffi-
ciently supported as against a creditor who has only construct-

ive or substituted notice.®

Waddle, 1 McLean, 200, 8. C. 6 Pet.
389. Lands situate in Ohio were cov-
ered by two patents, one issued to
Powell and the other to Watts. To
remove this cloud upon his title, Watts
commenced a suit against Powell’s
heirs in the circuit court for the dis-
trict of Kentucky and obtained a de-
cree sustaining his title. The court
had jurisdiction of the parties. By
the decree, the defendants were re-
quired to convey the premises to the
complainant. A statute of Kentucky
authorized the court, in case the de-
fendant in such a suit failed to convey,
to appoint a commissioner to make
conveyance. By the decree, a com-
missioner was appointed, and no con-
veyance having been made by the
parties, a deed was executed by the
commissioner. <A suit afterwards
brought in the federal circuit court of
Ohio brought in question the effect of
the decree of the Kentucky court, and
of the commissioner’s deed in execu-
tion of it, upon the title to the lands.
The court held that neither the decree
nor the commissioner’s deed vested
the legal title in the complainant. In
the opinion in the Supreme Court, Mr.
Justice McLean said: ‘The most de-
cisive objection to the decree against
Powell’s heirs is, that it does not vest
the legal title in Watts. A decree can
not operate beyond the State in which
the jurisdiction is exercised. It is not

Where a stock subscription is in

in the power of one State to prescribe
the mode by which real property shall
be conveyed in another. This princi-
ple is too clear to admit of doubt.’
These cases rest upon the rule which
is firmly established, that the courts
of one State or country are without
jurisdiction over title to lands in an-
other State or country. The clause of
the Federal Constitution which re-
quires full faith and credit to be given
in each State to the records and ju-
dicial proceedings of every other State
is subordinate to this rule, and applies
to the records and proceedings of the
courts only so far as they have juris-
diction. Public Works v. Columbia
College, 17 Wall. 521; Watts v. Wad-
dle, 6 Pet. 389; Brine v. Insurance Co.,
96 U. S&S. 627, 635; Davis v. Headley,
22 N. J. Eq. 115, 121; Nelson v. Pot-
ter, 50 N. J. L. 324.”

1 Pana v. Bowler, 107 U. 8.529, S.C.
2 Sup. Ct. R. 704; Empire v. Darling-
ton, 101 U. 8. 529; Brooklyn v. Insur-
ance Co., 99 U. 8. 362, 370.

? Insurance Co. v. Bangs, 103 U.S.
435.

5 Baldwin v. Hale, 1 Wall. 223; Haw-
ly v. Hunt, 27 Iowa, 303, 8. C. 1 Am.
R. 278; Chase v. Flagg, 48 Me. 182;
Felch v. Bugbee, 48 Me. 9; Guernsey
v. Wood, 130 Mass. 503; Gardner v.
Oliver Lee Bank, 11 Barb. 558; In re
Waite, 99 N. Y. 433; Kelley v. Drury,
9 Allen, 27; Pratt’v. Chase, 44 N.Y.
§ 245 JURISDICTION. : 285

part unpaid and the subscriber is notified to pay the balance
_due a judgment for that balance is a personal judgment.! A
wide stretch of the doctrine requiring actual notice was made
in a case wherein it was held that a provision in a decree of
divorce rendered upon constructive notice, prohibiting the de-
fendant from marrying was void.” It was held in another case
that, where stock held in the name of a South Carolina bank
in a Georgia bank, was sold upon execution, a suit against
the South Carolina bank to enjoin it from asserting title to the
stock, was in personam and could not be maintained in Georgia
upon constructive notice. Where a judgment is for damages,
and it is enforceable by an ordinary writ of execution, the pro-
ceeding is in personam. The general and far-reaching rule is
that where a decree or judgment creates a personal duty or ob-
ligation, or declares a personal charge, the proceedings are in-
effective unless there is actual notice, that is, notice by sum-

mons or subpoena.

It is understood, of course, that notice may

always be waived by the person entitled to it under the law.

§ 245. Status of persons—Authority to determine—There
is a species of jurisdiction to which it is difficult to assign a

597; Soule v. Chase, 39 N. Y. 342;
Easterly v. Goodwin, 35 Conn. 279, 8.
C. 95 Am. Dec. 237. See, generally,
Ogden v. Saunders, 12 Wheat. 213;
Norton v. Cook, 9 Conn. 314, 8. C. 23
Am. Dec. 342; Poe v. Duck, 5 Md. 1;
Donnelly v. Corbett, 7 N. Y. 500;
Whitney v. Whiting, 35 N. H. 457;
Gilman v. Lockwood, 4 Wall. 409.
But see, May v. Breed, 7 Cush. 15, 8.
C. 54 Am. Dec. 700. If the creditor
appears and accepts a dividend we
suppose he would be bound. Phelps
v. Borland, 103 N.Y. 406, S.C. 57 Am.
R. 755; Clay v. Smith, 3 Pet. 411. The
court having ‘acquired complete juris-
diction of the estate could, as to the
property in custody of its ministers or
officers, make an order binding upon
all creditors having constructive no-
tice to the extent of the property.

1 Wilson v. St. Louis, etc., Co., 108
Mo. 588, 8. C. 18 So. W. R. 286; Wil-
son v. Seligman, 36 Fed. R. 154. See
same case on appeal, 144 U.S. 41.

2Van Stoach v. Griffin, 71 Pa. St.
240. If the case cited is to be under-
stood as holding that the part of the
decree dissolving the marital relation
was valid, but the prohibitory clause
void, its soundness may well be doubt-
ed inasmuch as jurisdiction of the
principal matter was sufficient to sus-
tain the incidental order.

3 Dearing v. Bank of Charleston, 5
Ga. 497, 8. C. 48 Am. Dec. 300. It
seems to us that as the stock was ac-
tually seized there was jurisdiction of
the res, and that constructive notice
authorized an injunction. This would
seem to follow from the doctrine re-
specting proceedings in attachment.
286 * THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 245

place under the accepted classifications of the general subject
of jurisdiction, and that species is, jurisdiction to determine or
declare the status of persons resident or domiciled within a
State. This jurisdiction is generally assigned a place as a sub-
division of jurisdiction in rem, and while the status may, in a
certain sense, be regarded as the res, yet it is not easy to give
a satisfactory reason for regarding jurisdiction to declare the
status of persons as a division of the general subject of juris-
diction in rem. It seems to us that the jurisdiction exercised
in declaring the status of persons is a division of itself, for there
is great difficulty in establishing the affinity of such jurisdic-
tion to that which is invoked in rem against things hostile,
things guilty or things indebted. Adjudging that a marriage
is dissolved is a very different thing from adjudging that fifty
barrels of whisky shall be sold because of the violation of a
revenue law. The difference is inherent and radical in almost
every aspect in which the question can be viewed. Between a
case declaring the position or relationship of an adopted child
and a case subjecting property to sale because it is a guilty
thing, there is, as every one can see, a wide and intrinsic dif-
ference. Treating jurisdiction of the status of persons as a
member of the class, jurisdiction in rem, serves to breed confu-
sion, since it confounds persons and things in a way that pro-
duces obscurity. There is, it is true, this element common to
both classes, namely, that a judgment or decree is operative
against all persons whatsoever. Thus, if a decree of divorce
is validly pronounced it settles the status of the parties as to
all the world, and so also does a decree declaring a child duly
adopted. But this common element does not, by any means,
justify the conclusion that the two species are not essentially
different, for all cognate species of a great general class must
have some elements in common else they could not be consid-
ered members of one class. The marital relation is a status
since marriage is something more than a mere civil contract,
so that a decree or judgment dissolving this relation is a decree
—§ 245 JURISDICTION. 287

or judgment affecting the status of the parties.1 As the decree
of divorce operates to fix the status of the parties, it is obvious
that at least one of the parties must be a resident of the State
in which the divorce is granted, for it is not within the power
of any governmental department of one State to establish by a
statute, decree or judgment the status of the residents of another
State.2 It is upon this principle that it is held by many of the
courts that a decree rendered by default upon constructive
service where neither of the parties are residents of the State is
void because there is no jurisdiction,? but upon this general

subject there is much diversity of opinion.‘

! Watkins v. Watkins, 125 Ind. 163;
Hood v. State, 56 Ind. 263, 8. C. 26
Am. R. 21; Tolen v. Tolen, 2 Blackf.
407; Hoffman v. Hoffman, 46 N. Y.
80; Kerr v. Kerr, 41 N.Y. 272; Dutch-
er v. Dutcher, 39 Wis. 651; Davis v.
Commonwealth, 13 Bush. 318; State
v. Armington, 25 Minn. 29; Reed v.
Reed, 52 Mich. 117; Strait v. Strait,
3 McArthur, 415; Sewall v. Sewall,
122 Mass. 156; Van Fossen v. State, 37
Ohio St. 317; Whitcomb v.Whitcomb,
46 Iowa, 437; Litowich v. Litowich,
19 Kan. 451.

2 Strader v. Graham, 10 How. (U.
8.) 82.

5 People v. Dawell, 25 Mich. 247, S.
C.12 Am. R. 260; Hood v. State, 56
Ind. 263, 8. C. 26 Am. R.21; Watkins
». Watkins, 125 Ind. 163; Williams v.
Williams, 180 N. Y. 198; O’Dea »v.
O’Dea, 101 N. Y. 23; Jones v. Jones,
108 N. Y. 415; De Meli v. De Meli,
120 N. Y. 485, 495; People v. Baker,
76 N. Y. 78, 84; Cross v. Cross, 108 N.
Y. 628, 8. C. 15 N. E. R. 333; State v.
Fleak, 54 Iowa, 429; Burlen v. Shan-
non, 99 Mass. 200, S. C. 96 Am. Dec.
733; Chaney v. Bryan, 15 Lea, 589;
State v. Armington, 25 Minn. 29;
Smith v. Smith, 19 Neb. 706; Van Fos-
sen v. State, 37 Ohio, 317, 8. C. 41 Am.
R. 507; Gregory v. Gregory, 76 Me. 535,
8. C. 57 Am. R. 792; Reed v. Reed, 52

It seems to us

Mich. 117, 8. C. 50 Am. R. 247; Gettys
v. Gettys, 3 Lea, 260, 8. C. 31 Am. R.
637; Neff v. Beauchamp, 74 Iowa, 92;
Leith v. Leith, 39 N. H. 20; Holmes
v. Holmes, 4 Lans. 388; Colvin v.
Reed, 55 Pa. St. 375; Doughty ».
Doughty, 27 N.J. Eq. 315, 321; Flower
v. Flower, 42 N. J. Eq. 152, 8. C.7
Atl. R. 669; Irby.v. Wilson, 1 Dev. &
Bat. Eq. 568; Zerfass’ Appeal, 135 Pa.
St. 522, 8. CO. 19 Atl. R. 1056; Cook v.
Cook, 56 Wis. 195, 8. C. 43 Am. R. 706,
14. N. W. R. 33; Murray v. Murray, 6
Ore. 17, 24; Colliss v. Hector, L. R.
19 Eq. 334, 340.

‘Smith v. Smith, 43 La. Ann. 1140,
§.C.10 So. R. 248; Glaude v. Peat,
43 La. Ann. 161, 8. C. 8 So. R. 884;
Van Orsdal v.Van Orsdal, 67 Iowa, 35,
8. C. 24 N. W. R.579; Gould v. Crow,
57 Mo. 200, 204; Cox v. Cox, 19 Ohio
St. 502; Holmes v. Holmes, 57 Barb.
805, 307; Hull v. Hull, 2 Strob. Eq.
174; Manley v. Manley, 4 Chandl. 96;
Arrington v. Arrington, 102 N. C.
491,8.C.9 8. E. R. 200; Hubbell v.
Hubbell, 3 Wis. 662, 8. C.62 Am. Dec.
702; Mansfield v. McIntyre, 10 Ohio,
28; Ditson v. Ditson, 4 R. 1.87; Har-
rison v. Harrison, 19 Ala. 499; Hard-
ing v. Alden, 9 Greenl. 146, 8. C. 23
Am. Dec. 549; Estate of Newman, 75
Cal, 213, 8S. C. 7 Am. St. R. 146.
288 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 245

that where one of the parties is a bona fide resident of the State
the courts of that State have jurisdiction to determine upon
constructive notice, the status of the parties... The cases make
a distinction, and with reason, between decrees affecting only
the status and those which assume to determine, upon mere
constructive notice, rights affecting property in another State,
or which create a personal charge against one of the parties
personally. There is, it is evident, a difference of an essential
character between the status of persons and rights which are
purely of a personal or property nature, so that there is reason
for holding that a judgment for alimony can not be rendered

upon constructive notice.?

1This view is asserted by Judge
Cooley, and it has been substantially
approved by the Supreme Court of the
United States, in Cheely v. Clayton,
110 U.S. 701, 8. C. 4 Sup. Ct. R. 328.
In the case cited it was said: ‘‘The
courts of the State of the domicile of
the parties doubtless have jurisdiction
to decree a divorce, in accordance with
its laws, for any cause allowed by those
laws, without regard to the place of
the marriage, or to that of the com-
mission of the offense for which the
divorce is granted; and a divorce so
obtained is valid everywhere. Story
Confl. Laws, § 230a; Cheever v. Wil-
son, 9 Wall. 108; Harvey v. Farnie, 8
App. Cas. 43. Ifa wife is living apart
from her husband without sufficient
cause his domicile is in law her domi-
cile; and, in the absence of any proof
of fraud or misconduct on his part, a
divorce obtained by him in the State
of his domicile, after reasonable no-
tice to her, either by personal service
or by publication, in accordance with
its laws, is valid, although she never
in fact resided in that State. Burlen
v. Shannon, 115 Mass. 438; Hunt v.
Hunt, 72 N. Y. 217. But in order to
make the divorce valid, either in the
State in which it is granted or in an-

Such a judgment, if valid, creates

other State, there must, unless the de-
fendant appeared in the suit, have
been such notice to her as the law ‘of
the first State requires.’’? Much to the
same effect is the decision in Maynard
v. Hill, 125 U. 8. 190, 8. C. 8 Sup. Ct.
R. 723, where the court considered the
status of marriage and said, among
other things, that, ‘‘One of the parties,
the husband, was a resident within
the territory, and, as he acted soon
afterwards upon the dissolution and
married again, we may conclude that
the act was passed upon his petition.
If the assembly possessed the power
to grant a divorce in any case, its ju-
risdiction to legislate upon his status,
he being a resident of the territory, is
undoubted, unless the marriage was a
contract within the prohibition of the
federal constitution against its impair-
ment by legislation, or within the
terms of the ordinance of 1787, the
privileges of which were secured to
the inhabitants of Oregon by their
organic act,—questions which we will
presently consider.’’ See,also,Cooley’s
Const. Lim., 400; Wharton Conflict of
Laws, § 224-229; Cheever v. Wilson, 9
Wall. 108.

? Prosser v. Warner, 47 Vt. 667, 8. C.
19 Am, R. 182; Lytle v. Lytle, 48 Ind.
§ 245 JURISDICTION. 289

an obligation that is essentially a personal charge. The doc-
trine stated is rested by some of the courts upon the principle
that the jurisdiction extends only to the status and that the
status does not draw to it any incidents of such a character as
will confer extra territorial jurisdiction to impose a personal
charge or determine property rights. It is probably true that
when there is property within the State where the suit is pros-
ecuted, that is seized under attachment, or other process au-
thorizing a seizure, there may be a valid adjudication as to that
property, but not as to property beyond the limits of the State.
An inquest of lunacy determines the status of the person, and it
is held that a failure to give notice to the person whose insanity
is adjudged does not render the proceeding void,! but there are
cases declaring a different doctrine.? Courts of equity, although
they act only in personam, take charge of the estates of infants
and of the estates of persons non compos mentis, but this they
.do through ministers or agents as guardians, trustees and the

like.

rem, for equity does not act upon property.

200; Gould v. Crow, 57 Mo. 200; Jack-
son v. Jackson, 1 Johns. 424; Cranev.

Meginnis, 1 Gill. & J. 463, S. C. 19°

Am. Dec. 237; Townsend v. Griffin, 4

Harr. (Del.) 440; Kline v. Kline, 57°

Iowa, 386; Beard v. Beard, 21 Ind.
821; Sanford v. Sanford, 5 Day, 353;
Turner v. Turner, 44 Ala. 437. See,
generally, Webster v. Reid, 11 How.
(U. 8.) 487; Boswell v. Otis, 9 How.
(U. 8.) 336; Montgomery v. Samory,
99 U. 8.482; Middleworth v. McDow-
ell, 49 Ind. 386; Phelps v. Baker, 60
Barb. 107, 110; City of Philadelphia
v. Wetherby, 15 Phila. 403; Colvin v.
Reed, 55 Pa. St. 375, 380; Reel v. El-
der, 62 Pa. St. 308; Van Cleaf v. Burns,
133 N. Y. 540, S. C. 80 N. E. R. 661;
Roth v. Roth, 104 II. 35, 48.

1 Dodge v. Cole, 97 Ill. 338, S. C. 37
Am. R. 111; Dutcher v. Hill, 29 Mo.

19

In such cases the proceeding can not be said to be in

Indeed, in many

271, 273; Bethea v. McLennon, 1 Ired.
L. 523, 527; McKim v. Doane, 137
Mass. 195; Medlock v. Cogburn, 1
Rich. Eq. 477.

2 Wait v. Maxwell, 5 Pick. 217,8.C.
16 Am. Dec. 391; Chase v. Hathway,
14 Mass. 222; Conkey v. Kingman, 24
Pick.115; Smith v. Burlingame, 4 Ma-
son, 121; McCurry v. Hooper, 12 Ala.
823, S. C. 46 Am. Dec. 280; Eslava v.
Lepretre, 21 Ala. 504, 8. C. 56 Am,
Dec. 266; Lance v. McCoy, 34 W. Va.
416, S. C.12S. E. R. 728. See, Coolidge
v. Allen, 82 Me. 23, 8. C. 19 Atl. R.
89; Commonwealth v. Kirkbride, 7
Phila. 8; Hutts v. Hutts, 62 Ind. 214;
Tracy’s Case, 1 Paige, 580; Vanauk-
en’s Case, 2 Stock.(N. J.) 186; White- .
nack’s Case, 2 Green Ch. 252; Nyce v.
Hamilton, 90 Ind. 417; Rogers v.
Walker, 6 Pa. St. 371.
290 COURT.

THE WORK OUT OF § 246

instances the personal welfare of the infant will invoke the
exercise of the equitable jurisdiction.! It is, therefore, the
status of the person that is in all such cases the essential ele-
ment of jurisdiction.

§ 246. Status of children—Authority to adjudge—In as-
suming, as courts of equity have done for almost time out of
mind, jurisdiction over infant children,’ the status of the chil-
dren is necessarily involved and adjudicated. The status of an
adopted child is fixed by the proceedings of the court which

1 Cowles v. Cowles, 3 Gil. (Ill.) 435;
Maguire v. Maguire,7 Dana,181; John-
stone v. Beattie, 10 Cl. & Fin. 42. See,
generally, Hutson v.Townsend,6 Rich.
Eq. 249; Striplin v. Ware, 36 Ala. 87;
Goodman v. Winter, 64 Ala. 410;
Garner v. Gordon, 41 Ind. 92; Wood
v. Wood, 5 Paige, 596; State v. Baird,
18 N. J. Eq. 194; Matter of Hubbard,
82 N. Y. 90.

2? An able vindication of the juris-
diction of equity is that of Lord Eldon
in Wellesley v. The Duke of Beaufort,
2 Russ. 1, and in De Manneville v.
De Manneville, 10 Vesey, Jr.52. See,
also, Wellesley v. Wellesley, 1 Dow.
N.S. 152; Aymar v. Roff, 3 John. Ch.
49; State v. Stigall, 2 Zab. (N. J.) 286,
289; State v. Baird, 18 N. J. Eq. 194;
Downin v. Sprecher, 35 Md. 474; Arm-
strong v. Stone, 9 Gratt. 102, 106;
Williamson v. Berry, 8 How. (U. 8.)
495; Gardenhire v. Hinds, 1 Head.402;
Wood v. Wood, 5 Paige, 596; Wilcox
». Wilcox, 14 N. Y. 575; Succession of
Landry, 11 La. Ann. 85. In the case
of State v. Saunders (N. H.), 18 Lawy.
Rep. Ann. 646, the court quoted from
one of the earlier cases the following
statement: ‘‘Equity, asa great branch
of the law of their native country, was
brought over by the colonists and has
always existed as a part of the com-
mon law, in its broadest sense, in

New Hampshire.’”’ The court cited
the cases of Wells v. Peirce, 27 N. H.
503; Copp v. Hanniker, 55 N. H. 179,
210, 8. C. 20 Am. R.194; Penhallow
v. Kimball, 61 N. H. 596; Carroll v.
McCullough, 63 N. H.95; Eckstein v.
Downing, 64 N. H. 248. The state-
ment quoted unquestionably expresses
the true doctrine, for our American
courts have general equity powers,
and these powers exist unless ex-
pressly taken away by statute. Nealis
v. Dicks, 72 Ind. 374; Ratliffv. Stretch,
180 Ind. 282, 284. The general doc-
trine upon the subject of the power of
courts of equity to fix the status of
children is thus stated in a recent
work: ‘In the exercise of this juris-
diction the court may permanently
fix the status of infants even in disre-
gard of the legal rights of parents,
when the welfare of the infant requires
it.” Beach, Modern Eq., $1022. The
author cites, among others the follow-
ing cases: Richards v. Collins, 45 N.
J. Eq. 283, S.C.14 Am. St. 726; State
v. Baird, 18 N. J. Eq. 194; Neider v.
Reuff, 29 W. Va. 751, 8. C.6 Am. St:
R. 676; Merritt v. Swimley, 82 Va.
433, 8. C. 3 Am. St. R. 115; Stetson v.
Stetson, 80 Me. 483; Umlauf v. Um-
lauf, 128 Ill. 378; Farrar v. Farrar, 75
Towa, 125.
§ 246 JURISDICTION. 291

establishes its relationship to its adoptive parent or parents,
and the status as fixed will be regarded as the true one by the
courts of other States. The establishment of the status at the
place of the domicile is such an adjudication as determines the
general right of inheritance.1_ The status of a child where the
question is as to its legitimacy may, in our. opinion, be con-
clusively settled by a judgment of a court of competent juris-

diction.

1In the case of Ross v. Ross, 129
Mass. 243, S. C. 37 Am. R. 321, the
subject was discussed with signal
ability and the opinion is rich in au-
thorities. In the course of the opin-
ion it was said: “It is a general
principle, that the status or condition
of a person, the relation in which he
stands to another person, and by
-which he is qualified or made capable
to take certain rights in that other’s
property, is fixed by the law of the
domicile; and that this status and ca-
pacity are to be recognized and up-

held in every other State, so far as-

they are not inconsistent with its own
laws and policy. Subject to this limi-
tation, upon the death of any man,
the status of those who claim succes-
sion or inheritance in his estate is to
be ascertained by the law under which
that status was acquired; his personal
property is indeed to be distributed
according to the law of his domicile
at the time of his death, and his real
estate descends according to the law
of the place in which it is situated;
but in either case, it is according to
those provisions of that law which
regulate the succession or the inherit-
ance of persons having such a status.”
In concluding the court said: ‘‘We
are not aware of any case, in England
or America, in which a change of
status in the country of the domicile,
with the formalities prescribed by its

We do not refer to cases where the question is as to

laws, has not been allowed full effect,
as to the capacity thereby created of
succeeding to and inheriting property,
real as well as personal, in any other
country, the laws of which allow a
like change of status in a like manner
with a like effect under like circum-
stances. We are therefore of opinion
that the legal status of child of the in-
testate, once acquired by the demand-
ant under a statute and by a judicial
decree of the State of Pennsylvania.
While the parties were domiciled
there, continued after their removal
into this commonwealth, and that by
virtue thereof the demandant is en-
titled to maintain this action.’’ Con-
tra Keegan v. Geraghty, 101 Ill. 26.
The decision in Markover v. Krauss,
132 Ind. 294, is we think a sound one,
but it is possible that some of the rea-
soning is not valid; asthe proceedings
for the adoption of the child whose
interests were involved in that case
fixed its status the conclusion of the
court is right. See Vidal v. Comma-
gere, 13 La. Ann. 516. But see Mor-
rison v. Estate of Sessions, 70 Mich.
297, S. C. 14 Am. St. R. 500; Reinders
v. Koppelman, 94 Mo. 344; Eyer v.
Beck, 70 Mich. 179. See, generally,
Estate of Newman, 75 Cal. 213, 8. C,7
Am. St. R. 146; Furgeson v. Jones,
17 Ore. 204, 8. C. 11 Am. St. R. 808;
Estate of Wardell, 57 Cal. 484.
292 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 246

the effect of a statute! declaring what shall be sufficient to
‘ make a child legitimate in legal contemplation, but to cases
where the child and those directly interested are within the
jurisdiction of the court. There is, it is obvious, a distinction
of a very essential character between cases where the question
of the legitimacy of the child is adjudicated and its status fixed
and cases where the question is as to the effect of a statute. If
the status of a child is fixed by an effective adjudication at the
place of domicile that status is, as we believe, unalterably es-
tablished.? It is held that where the children of the parties to
a suit or action for divorce are not in the State where the de-
cree or judgment is rendered an order consigning them to the
custody of one or the other of the parties is void,? but if the
children are within the territorial jurisdiction of the court and
there is jurisdiction of the particular proceeding a judgment
determining to whose custody the children shall be awarded is
valid although rendered upon constructive notice. Where a
judgment or decree is sought creating a personal charge against
an infant child or affecting directly its property rights notice
must be served upon it,* for without some notice there is no

1 As to the extra territorial effect of Needham, 16 Mass. 157; West Cam-

such a statute, see Smith v. Kelly, 23
Miss. 167, S. C. 55 Am. Dec. 87; Scott
vu. Key, 11 La. Ann. 232; Harvey v.
Ball, 32 Ind.98; Miller v. Miller, 91 N.
Y.315, S. C. 43 Am. R. 669; VanVorhis
v. Brintnall, 86 N. Y. 18, 8. C. 40 Am.
R. 505. It is held by some of the
courts that a statute declaring who
shall be considered children can have
no extra territorial effect. Barnum v.
Barnum, 42 Md. 251; Smith v. Derr,
34 Pa. St. 126, S. C. 75 Am. Dec. 641;
Lingen v. Lingen, 45 Ala. 410. See,
generally, Shaw v. Gould, L. R., 3 H.
L. C. 55; Fenton v. Livingstone, 3
Macqu. 497; Shedden v. Patrick, 1
Macqu. 835; Birtwhistle v. Vardill, 2
Clark & F. 571.

2? Greenwood »v. Curtis, 6 Mass. 358,
377, §. C. 4 Am. Dec. 145; Medway v.

bridge v. Lexington, 1 Pick. 506, 8. C.
11 Am. Dec. 231; Putnam v. Putnam,
8 Pick. 433; Commonwealth v.‘ Lane,
118 Mass. 458, 8S. C.18 Am. R. 509;
Bullock v. Bullock, 122 Mass. 3; Milli-
kin v. Pratt, 125 Mass. 380, 381, 8. C.
28 Am. R. 241.

§ Woodworth v. Spring, 4 Allen, 321;
Van Orsdal v. Van Orsdal, 67 Iowa,
35; Kline v. Kline, 57 Iowa, 386, S.C.
10 N. W. R. 825.

“Probably this would not be strictly
true in proceedings purely in rem, but
in a general sense it is true. Galpin
v. Page, 18 Wall. 350; Kremer v.
Haynie, 67 Texas, 450; Coleman v.
Coleman, 3 Dana, 398, 8. C. 28 Am.
Dec. 86; Allsmiller v. Freutchenicht,
86 Ky. 198; Young v. Young, 91 N.
Car. 359; Ingersoll v. Mangam, 84 N.
§ 246 JURISDICTION. 293

jurisdiction in such cases. But in cases where the status of
the child is the only subject of judicial investigation the pro-
ceeding is so far in the nature of a proceeding in rem that no-
tice to the infant is not essential to the existence of jurisdiction.
This conclusion is supported by the uniform practice of ap-
pointing guardians for children without giving notice to the
child or children.? Our conclusion finds support in the long
settled rule that equity has general authority over infants and
that notice to them is not indispensably necessary where the

only decision that can be given relates to their status.’

Y. 622; McCloskey v. Sweeney, 66
Cal. 58; Insurance Co. v. Bangs, 103
U. S. 435; Chambers v. Jones, 72 Ill.
275; Moore v. Starks, 1 Ohio St. 369;
Good v. Norley, 28 Iowa, 188; Roy v.
Rowe, 90 Ind. 54. As to the validity
of proceedings against infants see,
generally, Joyce v. McAvoy, 31 Cal.
2738, S. C. 89 Am. Dec. 172; English v.
Savage, 5 Ore. 518; Wilhite v. Wil-
hite, 124 Ind. 226; Sites v. Eldredge,
45. N. J. Eq. 632, 8. C.14 Am. St. R.
769; Burgess v. Kirby, 94.N. Car. 575;
Sumner v. Sessoms, 94 N. Car. 371;
Lawson v. Moorman, 85 Va. 880.

1 As to whether a general guardian
can waive notice, see Smith v. Mc-
Donald, 42 Cal. 485; Gronfier v. Puy-
mirol, 19 Cal.629. Regularly a guard-
ian ad litem for the infant.should be
appointed, but the weight of authority
is that the failure to appoint a guard-
ian does not make the proceedings
void. McBride v. State, 130 Ind. 525,
8. C. 30 N. E. R. 699; Cohee v. Baer
(Ind.), 32 N. E. R. 920; Coffey v.
Proctor, etc., Co. (Ky.), 20 8. W. R.
286; Drake v. Hanshaw, 47 Iowa, 291;
Myers v. Davis, 47 Iowa, 325; Sim-
mons v. McKay, 5 Bush, 25. But see
Whitney v. Porter, 23 Ill. 445. It
seems clear to us that the failure to
appoint a guardian ad litem is not a
jurisdictional defect, but is an error

But

in a proceeding of which the court has
jurisdiction. This is clearly shown in
the case of Hoover v. Kinsey, etc.,
Co., 55 Iowa, 668. In that case the
court cited among others the following
cases, Bloom v. Burdick, 1 Hill, 130;
Timmons v. Timmons, 6 Ind.8; Knapp
v. Crosby, 1 Mass. 479; Miles v. Boy-
den, 3 Pick. 213; Starbird v. Moore,
21 Vt. 529; Randalls v. Wilson, 24
Mo. 76; Barber v. Graves, 18: Vt. 290.
? Whether the age is such, provided
there is non-age, as authorizes the ap-
pointment of a guardian is a question
regarding the res, and a decision of
that question while it may be errone-
ous is not void. For this reason we
think the decisions in such cases as
Lessee of Perry v. Brainard, 11 Ohio,
442; Lewis v. Allred, 57 Ala. 628; Pal-
mer v.Oakley,2 Doug. ( Mich.) 433, 8.C.
47 Am. Dec.41,are wrong. As the age of
the infant is the thing to be judicially
investigated and determined the decis-
ion goes to a jurisdictional question,
and, as against a collateral attack is
conclusive. It seems very clear that
extrinsic evidence would not be ad-
missible to impeach the record.
Thompson v.,Tolmie, 2 Pet. 16, 157.
3Tt is held in some of the cases that
even in proceedings respecting prop-
erty rights as such notice is not essen-
tial. Sheldon’s Lessee v. Newton, 3
294 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 246

there are express decisions upon the question fully sustaining
our conclusion, and affirming that the rule that notice is not
essential to jurisdiction has never been authoritatively denied.’
The status of a child is a matter of public concern, for the pub-
lic have an interest of an important nature in the education
and training of those who are to take upon themselves the du-
ties of citizenship.2 This public interest demands that the
courts determine the status of parents and of children so far as
that status affects the welfare of the public or of the children
themselves, so that there is a right to judicially investigate the
res, and where this right exists notice is not always a pre-
requisite to the existence of jurisdiction. Where the consid-
eration of the public welfare is the paramount one the question
concerns the political status? of the child, insomuch as the

Ohio St. 494; Heroman v. Louisiana
Inst., 834 La. Ann. 805; Robb v. Irwin,
15 Ohio, 689; Preston v. Dunn, 25
Ala. 507; McAnear v. Epperson, 54
Texas, 220, 8S. C. 38 Am. R. 625.
1Kurts v. St. Paul, etc. (Minn.), 51
N. W. R. 221; Appeal of Gibson, 154
Mass. 378, S.C. 28 N. E. R. 296; Board
of Children’s Guardians v. Shutter
(Ind.), 34N. E. R. 665. In the first of
the cases cited Mitchell, J., speaking
for the court, said: ‘‘Notice to the in-
fants is not the important or essential
thing, for the very necessity for ap-
pointing a guardian for them arises out
of the fact that they are incapable of
managing their own estate, or of de-
termining for themselves what is for
their own interest. If they are of
very tender years, and strictly non sui
juris, notice to them would be an idle
ceremony and utterly useless. Hence
we conclude that the notice contem-
plated by statute does not necessarily
require or include notice to the infants
themselves, but that it is left to the
sound discretion of the probate judge
to order such notice to persons inter-
ested as natural guardians and next

of kin as he shall deem most likely to
inform them of the application, and
thus, through their attendance, advise
him of the extent and condition of the
infant’s estate, and of the expediency
prayed for.”’

? Board of Children’s Guardians v.,
Shutter (Ind.), 34 N. E. R. 665; Van
Walters v. Board of Children’s Guard-
ians, 132 Ind. 567, S. C. 32 N. E. R.
568; Whalen v. Olmstead, 61 Conn.
263, 8. C. 15 Lawy. Rep. Anné. 593;
Prime v. Foote, 63 N. H. 52; Farn-
ham v. Pierce, 141 Mass. 203; Milwau-
kee School, etc., v. Milwaukee, 40
Wis. 328; Ex parte Crouse, 4 Whart.
(Pa.) 9; Jarrard v. State, 116 Ind. 98;
In re Diss Debar, 3 N. Y. Supp. 667;
In re Donohue, 52 How. Pr. 251; House
of Refuge v. Ryan, 37 Ohio St. 197;
Roth v. House of Refuge, 31 Md. 329;
Reynolds v. Howe, 51 Conn. 472; In
re Ferrier, 103 Ill. 367, S.C. 42 Am. R.
10; McClean v. Humphreys, 104 Ill.
378. But, see, People v. Turner, 55
Ill. 280.

s“The status of an individual, used
as a legal term, means the legal posi-
tion of the individual in or with re-
295

§ 246 JURISDICTION.

thing to be determined is what will be the result of its training
and surroundings upon its future relations to society; if evil,
there must be a power to remove it from those surroundings,
since society is entitled to protection, and if such a power ex-
ists the infant can in no wise control its exercise, so that notice
to it would be vain and fruitless. It is, of course, not every
case by any means, in which a judicial decision is necessary to
fix the status of a person; on the contrary, as every one knows,
such a decision is very seldom required, but when there is
such a decision by a court we think that it is in essence and
effect, a judicial judgment. If it be granted that such a de-
cision is a judicial judgment, then, it must follow that as to
the res within the authority of the court, whatever the nature
of that res may be, the judgment is conclusive as against a
collateral attack from any quarter.1 A judgment establishing
the legitimacy of a child, or decreeing the adoption of a child,
rendered upon due process of law, is, as we believe, everywhere
throughout the United States entitled to ‘‘full faith and credit.”’
Where a court is empowered to investigate the law or the facts
of a particular matter respecting the status of a person, or of a
thing, it necessarily acts in a judicial capacity and its judgment
or decree is the product of judicial power. In determining
the status of a person, where by law it is required to investi-

or considered. Even the public has
no interest as against hisinterest. He
has no adversary.”’ We regard this
reasoning as fallacious. Where there
is a res before the court and upon that

gard to the rest of a community.”
By Brett, L. J.,in Niboyet v. Niboyet,
L. R., 4 P.D. 1, 11.

1This conclusion is, we know, op-
posed to the decision in Brown v.

Wheelock, 75 Texas, 385, 8.0.12 S.W.
R. 111, but we respectfully deny the
soundness of that decision. The court
said, in speaking of the decree, ‘‘It
acts merely upon the status of the ap-
plicant, enlarges his capacity as a free
agent, and, as to all matters not po-
litical, places him upon the plane of
persons who have attained their ma-
jority.” It is further said: ‘The
proceeding is ex parte and the interest
of the applicant alone is to be affected

res judgment of the court is to be
given, there is in the giving of that
decision a judgment of a judicial tri-
bunal. Ifa judgment it is conclusive
if there was jurisdiction to pronounce
it. This doctrine is exemplified in
probate matters in the appointment
of guardians and the like. We think
our conclusion is supported by prin-
ciple and by the great class of cases of
which The Matter of the Graduates,
11 Abb. Pr. 301, is a type.
296 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 247

gate and determine that question, the court exercises judicial
functions, and hence its decision is a judgment or decree when
entered of record. Under the settled rule that courts can only
exercise judicial functions the conclusion must be either that
there is no authority to proceed at all, or, that its judgment
is not void. Granted the authority to proceed the necessary
sequence is that the court proceeds judicially, that is, proceeds
as acourt. If it does so proceed, its judgment is entitled to
respect. With the res before it, the capacity to proceed, and a
right or duty to decide, the decision must, certainly, be some-
thing more than an impotent declaration or a mere collection
of meaningless words. The denial that there is power ina
decision in such a matter is an affirmation that the court’s
proceeding is idle,—in truth a mere shallow pretense—but the

concession that there is vitality in it is an affirmation that it is

entitled to faith and credit as the adjudication of a court.

§ 247. Incidental jurisdiction.—It is not necessary that the
jurisdiction of a court should be given in detail in any statute
nor explicitly and minutely expressed in any rule or precedent.
Annexed to a principal jurisdiction there is, of necessity, in-
cidental authority, for without such authority courts could do
little if anything where there was no express statutory direc-
tion or no precedent closely fitting the precise case in hand.
The old maxim that ‘‘It is the duty of a court to amplify its
jurisdiction,’’ is, at bottom, little else than a declaration of the
doctrine that to the principal jurisdiction incidental authority
attaches.1_ Where there is express power to perform an act,
whether that power comes from the statute or the common law,

11t is not meant, of course, that a
court can create a new jurisdiction for
itself; that no court can do. Attor-
ney General v. Sillem, 10 H. L. Cases,
704; United States v. Boisdore’s Heirs,
8 How. (U. §.) 113; Schooner Consti-
tution v. Woodworth, 1 Scam. (IIl.)
611; Edwards v. Vandemack, 13 IIl.
633; Street v. Francis, 3 Ohio, 277;
Grover v. Coon, 1N. Y. 536; McNulty

v. Batty,10 How.(U.S.)72; Humphrey
v, Chamberlain, 11 N. Y. 274. But
while a court can not create a new ju-
risdiction it may exercise authority
over incidental matters appertaining
to cases over which the law extends
its authority. A court can not, of
course, supply casus omissus. In re
Election of Executive Officers, 31 Neb.
262, 8. C. 10 Lawyer’s R. Anno. 803.
§ 247 JURISDICTION. 297

there is, as an incident of that power, rightful authority to do
such acts as are necessary to carry the power into execution.’
What is called ancillary or auxiliary jurisdiction is often a
species of incidental jurisdiction, but, of course, not always so.?
A right to issue an order of injunction is often incident to ap-
pellate jurisdiction, as is the right of a trial court to entertain
authority over such an ancillary proceeding as an attachment
against the property of a debtor. So aright to appoint a re-
ceiver may exist as an incident of the principal jurisdiction.
Appellate courts often exercise jurisdiction that is intrinsically
original in its nature, but is properly exercised because an in-
cident of the principal jurisdiction of the tribunal.? It is to
be.observed that where the court is one of inferior jurisdiction,
or where special statutory powers are conferred on a court of
superior jurisdiction, the rule, according to the great weight
of authority, is that the statute shall be strictly construed and
the grant of power not extended by implication.‘ In some of
the cases this doctrine is extended to an unreasonable length, but
in many of them it is the dicta that are extravagant rather than
the decision. Some of the courts in their rigid adherence to
the prevailing doctrine respecting special powers of superior
courts and the character of the jurisdiction of inferior tribunals
utterly disregard the fundamental principle that wherever a
power is given all that is necessary to make it effectual is con-

‘A court may, however, by analogy de-
cide upon new questions and extend
principles to new instances.

1Dreyfus v. Mayer, 69 Miss. 282, S.
C. 12 So. R. 267.

2We do not refer to such jurisdic-
tion as one court may exercise in aid

‘of another, such, for instance as that
which 2 court of equity may exercise
in aid of a court of law, but we refer
to such jurisdiction of an incidental
nature as pertains to a principal juris-
diction residing in one tribunal.

8 Mitcheson v. Foster, 3 Metcf.(Ky.)

324; Brown v. Caraway, 47 Miss. 668;
Planters Ins. Co. v. Cramer, 47 Miss.

200, 206; Belew v. Jones, 56 Miss. 592.
Ante, § 235.

4 State v. Woodson, 41 Mo. 227; Buck
v. Dowley, 16 Gray, 555; Morse v.
Presby, 25 N. H. 299; Given v. Simp-
son, 5 Me. 303; Risewick v. Davis, 19
Md. 82; Wright v. Warner, 1 Doug.
(Mich.) 384; Thatcher v. Powell, 6
Wheat. 119; People v. Whitney’s
Point, 102 N. Y. 81; Earthman ».
Jones, 2 Yerg. 484; Shivers v. Wilson,
5 Har. & J. 180; Platt v. Stewart, 10
Mich. 260, 265; Boyd v. Lowry, 53
Miss. 352; Scogins v. Perry, 46 Tex.
111; Ball ». Lastinger, 71 Ga. 678;
Annegs v. Providence, 18 R. 1.17; Wil-
298 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 247

ferred by implication.! There are, however, well reasoned
cases by able courts declaring that this fundamental principle
will be given effect where the question concerns the jurisdic-
tion of inferior tribunals.? It is true of courts of superior
‘general jurisdiction at least, that jurisdiction may be conferred
by implication,® and, for our part, we can see no reason why
this may not be true of any court, meaning by the term ‘‘court’’
a judicial tribunal, having authority over a general class of
cases, a record and a permanent existence. In some of the
cases a distinction is made between the existence of jurisdiction
and the mode of its exercise,® but the prevailing doctrine is dif-
ferent. There are cases declaring, in effect, that there is no
incidental jurisdiction over persons either artificial or natural
in cases where a mode of securing jurisdiction different from
that of the common law is prescribed by statute, and that a
rigid and exact compliance with the statute is indispensably

necessary to the existence of jurisdiction.®

lard v. Fralick, 31 Mich. 431; Weller
v, Weyand, 2 Grant’s Cas. 103.

1 This general principle is illustrated
by such cases as People v. Briggs, 50
N. Y. 553; Odell v. De Witt, 53 N. Y.
648; Stref v. Hart, 1 N. Y. 20; Mitch-
ell v. Maxwell, 2 Fla. 594; In re Nea-
gle, 39 Fed. R. 833, S. C. 185 U. 8.1;
Witherspoon v. Dunlap, 1 McCord,
346; Commonwealth v. Conyngham,
66 Pa. St. 99; Mayor, etc., v. Sands,
105 N. Y. 210, 218.

2People v. Commissioners, 3 Hill,
599; Martin, Fx parte, L. R. 4 Q. B.
Div. 212; People v. Hicks, 15 Barb.
153; Baltimore, etc., Co. v. Wilson, 2
W.Va. 528, 556; United States 1. Wyn-
gall, 5 Hill, 16; Matter of Oath Before
Justices, 12 Coke, 130; Ellingham v.
Mount, 43 N. J. L. 470. See, generally,
Anderson v. Levely, 58 Md. 192; Han-
dy v. Hopkins, 59 Md. 157; People v.
Chapin, 105 N. Y. 309; Carpenter’s
Case, 14 Pa. St. 486; Matter of Canal
and Walker Streets, 12 N. Y. 406;
Walker v. Ducros, 18 La. Ann. 703.

3 State v. Miller, 23 Wis. 634.

4 Ante, § 154.

5 Barrett v. Chitwood, 2 Bibb. 431;
Russell v. Wheeler, Hempst. 3. See,
generally, Pittsburg v. Walter, 69 Pa.
St. 365; Pensacola v. Reese, 20 Fla.
437; Norwegian Street, 81 Pa. St. 349;
Chollar, etc., Co. v. Wilson, 66 Cal.
374; Seymour v. Judd, 2 N. Y. 464;
Childs v. Smith, 55 Barb. 45; People
v. Gates, 57 Barb. 291; Bank of Mon-
roe v. Widner, 11 Paige, 529; Ricard
v. Smith, 37 Miss. 644; Dyson v. West,
1 Harr. & J. 567.

®Sayre v. Elyton, etc., Co., 73 Ala.
85; Bradley v. Jamison, 46 Iowa, 68;-
Scorpion, etc., Co. v. Marsano, 10
Nev. 370; Pollard v. Wegener, 13
Wis. 569; Stewart v. Stringer, 41 Mo.
400; Brown v. Tucker, 7 Colo. 30;
Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Owen, 30
Mich. 441; Jordan v. Giblin, 12 Cal.
100; Ricketson v. Richardson, 26 Cal.
149; Gray v. Larimore, 2 Abb. (U.S.)
542; Granger v. Judge, 44 Mich. 384.
Other courts have declared a more
§ 248 JURISDICTION. 299

§ 248. Acquisition of jurisdiction—Conflict of authority —
In accordance with the rule stated elsewhere,! that one court
will not interfere with the proceedings or process of another,
the doctrine is settled that where there is concurrent jurisdic-
tion the court which first acquires jurisdiction will retain it to
the exclusion of all other tribunals.? This general doctrine
does not, of course, prevent courts of equity from interfering
in cases where there is an equitable right to be enforced by
means of an equitable remedy, for the doctrine applies only
where the courts are of co-ordinate jurisdiction.? A suit or
action is not always ended when a judgment is entered, for the
authority of the court still continues, to the exclusion of other
tribunals, until all incidental matters connected with the issu-
ing and execution of process are finally disposed of in due

course of law.

liberal rule as in favor of the action of
the court, as Goodell v. Starr, 127 Ind.
198; Essig v. Lower, 120 Ind. 239;
Quarl v. Abbett, 102 Ind. 233, S. C. 52
Am. R. 662; Field v. Malone, 102 Ind.
251; Fahs v. Darling, 82 Ill. 142, 145;
Lessee of Boswell, 15 Ohio, 447, 467;
Hahn v. Kelley, 34 Cal. 391, 8. C. 94
Am. Dec. 742; Jones v. Driskill, 94
Mo. 190, 8. C. 78. W. R. 111. We
can see no reason for holding proceed-
ings absolutely void where there is an
affidavit and publication made al-
though there may be errors and de-
fects both in the affidavit and the no-
tice. If there is a sufficient affidavit
and notice to require the court to in-
vestigate and decide, its decision ought
upon principle and authority to pro-
tect the proceedings against a collat-
eral attack. See ante, § 183, post, § 262.

1 Ante, § 198.

? Chapin v. James, 11 R. I. 86, 8. C.
23 Am. R. 412; Wethers v. Denmead,
22 Md. 148, 145; Mapes v. People, 60
Tl. 523; Tylor v. Taintor, 16 Wall. 370;
Western U. Tel. Co. v. Phillips, 21 8.
W. R. 638; Insurance Co. v. Univers-

It is true, of course, that jurisdiction of the

ity, 6 Fed. R. 443; Insurance Co. v.
Howell, 24 N. J. E. 238; Sharon v.
Terry, 36 Fed. R. 337; Stearns v.
Stearns, 16 Mass. 167; Powers v. City
Councils, etc., 116 Mass. 84; Seibel v.
Simeon, 62 Mo. 255; Thompson v.
Hill, 3 Yerg. 167; Payne v. Drewe, 4
East, 523.

5 Gould v. Hayes, 19 Ala. 438; Uhl-
felder v. Levy, 9 Cal. 607.

*For many purposes a case is con-
sidered as pending as long as there
may be necessity for process, or for
judicial action although there may
have been a -decree or judgment.
Wegman v. Childs, 41 N.Y. 159; Mann
v. Blount, 65 N. Car. 99, 101; Howell
v. Bowers, 2 Cromp. Mees. & R. 621;
Spann v. Spann, 2 Hill’s Ch. 152. See,
generally, O’Malley v. Reese, 1 Barb.
648; Dresser v. Van Pelt, 15 How. Pr. °
R.19; Bank of Genesee v. Spencer, 15
How. Pr. R. 412; Gould v. Torrance,
19 How. Pr. R. 560. In Wayman v.
Southard, 10 Wheat. 1, it was said by
Chief Justice Marshall that, ‘‘The ju-
risdiction of a court is not exhausted
by the rendition of a judgment, but
300 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 249

person and of the subject must be acquired substantially in the
mode prescribed by law, but in asserting that jurisdiction must
be thus acquired, there is no affirmation that jurisdiction may
not in many instances be conferred by express or implied agree-
ment. Where it is competent to confer jurisdiction by con-
sent, there may be a waiver of all jurisdictional objections.
Where there is an effective agreement, either express or im-
plied, giving jurisdiction, then the acquisition is in the mode
the law prescribes. Consent can not confer jurisdiction of the
general subject, but facts may be admitted which enable the
court to rightfully assume jurisdiction.?

§ 249. Retaining jurisdiction once acquired.— Where a court
once acquires jurisdiction it will retain it although it’ may be-
come necessary to decide questions which in strictness belong
to another court or to grant relief that can be more appropri-
ately granted by courts of a different class.2_ This rule is nec-
essary in order to prevent the dissection of causes into frag-
ments and the distribution of one part to one court and another
part to another court. The policy of the law is to avoid the

continues until that judgment shall be
satisfied. Many questions arise on
the process subsequent to the judg-
ment, in which jurisdiction is to be
exercised.””?” See Hawes v. Orr, 10
Bush (Ky.), 431; Anthony v. Dunlap,
8 Cal. 26.

1“Consent of parties,’ it was said
in Railway Co. v. Ramsey, 22 Wall.
322, 327, ‘‘can not give the courts of
the United States jurisdiction, but
parties may admit the existence of
facts which show jurisdiction, and the
court may act judicially upon such ad-
mission.’’ See, also, Thornton v.
Baker, 15 R. I. 553, 8. C. 2 Am. St. R.
925; Ela v. McConihe, 35 N. H. 279;
Hines v. Mullins, 25 Ga. 696; Brown
v. Haines, 12 Ohio, 1; Mandeville v.
Mandeville, 35 Ga. 243; Harbin »v.
Beli, 54 Ala. 389; Turner v. Billagram,
2 Cal. 520; Maltimore v. Maltimore,

40 Pa. St. 151; Potter v. Adams Ex.,
24 Mo. 159; Lovelady. v. Davis, 33
Miss. 577.

? What was said in Barton v. Saund-
ers, 16 Ore. 51, 8. C. 8 Am. St. R. 261,
although not addressed to the phase
of the subject here under immediate
discussion, is a good statement of the
general doctrine. ‘It is an element-
ary principle,” said the court, ‘that
where a court of justice acquires juris-
diction over the subject-matter and
the person, it becomes its right and
duty to determine every question
which may arise in the cause without
interference from any other tribunal.”

5 Henderson v. Henderson, 3 Hare’s
Ch. 100, 115; Indiana, etc., 0. Koons,
105 Ind. 507. See, generally, Thomas
v. Joslin, 36 Minn. 1, S.C. 1 Am. St.
R. 624; Hentig v. Redden, 46 Kan.
231, S.C. 26 Am. R. 91; Parnell v.
301

§ 250 JURISDICTION.

splitting of demands as well as the dissection of cases into
parts.1_ It is obvious that the trial of cases piecemeal would
result in great evil for it might happen that one part of a con-
troversy would be in one tribunal and another part in another
court, so that there might be diverse decisions in the same
case. The most familiar, and, perhaps, the most distinct
“enunciation of the general doctrine is that of the courts of
equity, for the rule has often been enforced by those courts.”

§ 250. Authority of sovereignty over property within its
territory.—The basis upon which ultimately rests the jurisdic-
tion of the courts of a State or nation over property within its
territorial limit is that of the power of the sovereign over the
property. The source of judicial power is, it is evident, not

Hahn, 61 Cal. 131; Phelan v. Gardi-
ner, 43 Cal. 306; Minor v. Hill, 58
Ind. 176, 8. C. 26 Am. R. 71; Colton
v. Onderdonk, 69 Cal. 155; Denegre
v. Denegre, 33 La. Ann. 689; Jen-
kins v. Nolan, 79 Ga. 295; Fouche v.
Harrison, 78 Ga. 359; Stewart v. Mont-
gomery, 23 Pa. St. 401.
1Guernsey v. Carver, 8 Wend. 492,
8. C. 24 Am. Dec. 60; Brannenberg v.
Indianapolis, etc., 18 Ind. 103; In-
graham v. Hall, 11 Serg. & R. 78;
Turner v. Plowden, 2 Gill. & J. 455, S.
C. 23 Am. Dec. 596; Dutton v. Shaw,
85 Mich. 431; Marsh »v. Pier, 4 Rawle,
273, 8. C. 26 Am. Dec. 131; Warren v.
Comings, 6 Cush. 103; Wittick v.
_ Traum, 27 Ala. 562, 8. C. 62 Am. Dec.
778. But the rule against splitting
demands does not, of course, apply
where there are distinct and inde-
pendent claims. Whittier v. Collins,
15 R. I. 90,8. C. 2 Am. St. R. 879;
Byrnes v. Byrnes, 102 N. Y. 4; Gil-
man, etc., v. Foote, 22 Iowa, 560.
_ ?Mr. Pomeroy thus states the rule:
‘Where a court of equity has obtained
jurisdiction of some portion or feature
of a controversy it may, and will in

general, proceed to decide the whole
case, and to award complete relief, al-
though the rights of the party are
strictly legal, and the final relief
granted is of the kind which might be
conferred by a court of law.’’ 1 Pome-
roy Eq., § 231. At another place he
says: ‘‘A suit in equity must include
the entire transaction, the plaintiff
can not divide it and sue in equity
for a part and at law for a part.”
Ibid, § 181, note. The cases sustain-
ing the general doctrine are very
numerous, among them are Feder v.
Field, 117 Ind. 386; Notama, etc., Co.
v. Clarkin, 14 Cal. 544; More v.
Massini, 32 Cal. 590; Oelrichs v. Spain,
15 Wall. 211; Hamilton v. Cummings,
1 Johns. Ch. 517; Crane v. Bunnell,
10 Paige, 333; Billups v. Sears, 5 Gratt.
31; Corporation of Carlisle v. Wilson,
13 Vesey, 276; Martin v. Tidwell, 36
Ga. 332, 345; Franklin Ins. Co. v. Mc-
Crea, 4 Greene (Iowa), 229; Corly v.
Bean, 44 Mo. 379; People v. Chicago,
58 Ill. 424; Carlisle v. Cooper, 21 N.
J. Eq. 576; Sanborn v. Kittredge, 20
Vt. 632.
302 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 251

greater in any respect than the government of which it consti-
tutes one of the departments. That the sovereign power may
regulate the transfer and use of real property within the do-
main over which the power extends is clear and undoubted.
No other power can control that property.’| Personal property
within the dominion of the sovereignty is subject to its laws,
and, therefore, bound by the judgments and decrees of its ju-
dicial tribunals.? A legal fiction is in some cases recognized
which gives the situs of the owner as that of the property, but
this fiction yields where justice demands,’ and is not finding
favor with the courts. The many cases in which it has been
adjudged that property of a non-resident may be seized under
a writ of attachment issued by the court of the State in which
the property is situated show of how little practical value the
legal fiction is, and what a slender effect it has in legal pro-
ceedings.*

§ 251. Territorial jurisdiction of courts.—The territorial
jurisdiction exercised by the American courts is prescribed by
written laws and these laws define the geographical limits
within which the courts may rightfully act. It is, however, a
fundamental rule that no State court can have jurisdiction

1Story on Conflict of Laws, § 552.
See, also, Watts v. Waddle, 6 Pet. 389;
French v. Hay, 22 Wall. 231; McBride
v. Harn, 48 Iowa, 151.

2 Clark v. Tarbell, 58 N. H.88; Milne
». Moreton, 6 Binney, 353; Bissell v.
Briggs, 9 Mass. 462; Stringer v. Insur-
ance Co., L. R., 4 Q. B. 676; Street v.
Insurance Co., 12 Rich (So. Car.), 13.

3A mes Iron Works v. Warren, 76 Ind.
512,8.C.40 Am. R. 258; New v. Walker,
108 Ind. 365, 368; Tod v. Wick, 36 Ohio
St. 370; Haskell v. Jones, 86 Pa. St.
173; Green v. Van Buskirk, 7 Wall.
139; Hardaway v. Semmes, 38 Ala. 657.
See, generally, Castrique v. Imrie, L.
R., 4H. L. 414.

4 Molyneux v. Seymour, etc., Co., 30

Ga. 440, 8. C. 76 Am. Dec. 662, note.
Dr.Wharton says of the fiction that it
is ‘gradually vanishing from the field
of practical jurisprudence.” See, upon
the general subject, Herver v. Rhode
Island, etc., Works, 93 U. 8S. 664; Ex
parte Dickinson, 29 S. Car. 453, 8. C.
13 Am. St. R. 749; Warner v. Jaffray,
96 N. Y. 248; Pierce v. O’Brien, 129
Mass. 314, S. C. 37 Am. R. 360; Paine
v. Lester, 44 Conn. 196, S. C. 26 Am.
R. 442; Moore v. Church, 70 Iowa, 208,
8. C. 59 Am. R. 489; Stricker v. Tink-
ham, 35 Ga. 176, 8. C. 89 Am. Dec. 280;
Mason ». Stricker, 37 Ga. 262; Butler
v. Wendell, 57 Mich. 62, S. C. 58 Am.
R. 329; Hibernia Bank v. Lacombe,
84. N. Y. 367, S. C. 88 Am. R. 518.
§ 251 JURISDICTION. 303

beyond the limits of the State of its creation.! The Federal
trial courts have their districts prescribed by written laws and
their authority must be exercised within the territory over
which they are given authority. But while the territorial ju-
risdiction of the courts is fixed by positive laws, still there are
rules of the common law which are called to the aid of such
statutes. The jurisdiction of the State courts of general juris-
diction is often limited to counties, and where so limited no
trial can be rightfully conducted beyond the limited territory.”
There may be courts of concurrent jurisdiction within the same
territorial limits, and there may be courts of different sover-
eignties, as, for instance, the Federal and State courts exercis-
ing powers and functions within the same territory. Where
the jurisdiction of a court is limited to a designated county, it
can not, as we have said, rightfully conduct a trial in any

other county, and, according

1 Booth v. Clark, 17 How.(U. 8.) 321;
Watkins v. Holman, 16 Pet. 25; Phelps
v. Brewer, 9 Cush. 390, 8. C. 57 Am.
Dec. 56; Lovejoy v. Albee, 33 Me. 414,
S. C. 54 Am. Dec. 630; McVicker v.
Beedy, 31 Me. 314, S. C. 50 Am. Dec.
666; Dearing v. Bank, 5 Ga. 497, 8. C.
48 Am. Dec. 300; Welch v. Sykes, 3
Gil. 197, 8. C. 44 Am. Dec. 689; De
Witt v. Burnett, 3 Barb. 89; Gilbreath
». Bunce, 65 Mo. 350; Wimer v.
Wimer, 82 Va. 890, 8. C. 3 Am. St. R.
126.

2 We restrict our statement to trials
for the reason that in most of the
States provision is made for the exe-
cution of final process beyond the
limits of the territorial jurisdiction of
the court. It is true of State trial
courts, as a general rule, that their
territorial limits are laid off into cir-
cuits, districts, or the like, and that
these circuits or districts are usually
composed of geographical divisions
called counties, but, as a rule, provis-
ion is made for holding terms of court

to some of the cases, a trial

in each county of the circuit or dis-
trict, and where this is done trials
must be conducted in the designated
county and not elsewhere in the cir-
cuit or district.

3 While the Federal courts exercise
powers and functions within the same
territory, the jurisdictions are inde-
pendent and distinct, for the tribunals
are, in legal contemplation, the crea-
tions of different sovereignties. United
States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. 8. 542;
Tarble Cases, 13 Wall. 397; Ableman
v. Booth, 21 How. (U.8.) 506; License
Cases, 5 How. (U.S.) 504. There are
some cases, of course, in which the
jurisdiction of the Federal tribunal is
exclusive, as patent cases proper,
copyright cases, and other cases where
the questions are, in the strict sense,
Federal questions. Armstrong v. Et-
tlesohn, 36 Fed. R. 209; Ames v. Ha-
ger, 36 Fed. R. 129. See, generally,
In re Loney, 184 U. 8. 872; Clark v.
Bever, 189 U. 8. 96. As to matters
affecting interests in patents, as suits
304 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 252
in any county other than that designated is a nullity.}
There is, as it seems to us, much reason for holding that a
trial in the wrong county is never void where there is jurisdic-
tion of the general class of cases and jurisdiction of the person,
but the weight of authority is different, for it is generally held,
as we have elsewhere shown,? that there must be jurisdiction

of the particular subject.

§ 252. Local actions.—The general rule is that actions af-
fecting the title to land, to recover possession thereof and to
recover for injuries thereto must be brought in the county in
which the land lies. These actions are local and the venue is
to be laid in the county where the land is situated. The tend-
ency of the decisions is to enlarge the rule that prevailed at
common law and place in the class of local actions all actions
that in any wise concern the possession of land, the estate

therein or injuries thereto.

This is shown by many of the

cases to which we have referred in the note, and is shown by

decisions in other cases.

for specific performance and the like,
see Marsh v. Nichols, 140 U.S. 344;
Dale Tile Co. v. Hyatt, 125 U.S. 46;
Felix v. Scharnweber, 125 U. 8. 54;
Reeves v. Corning, 51 Fed. R. 774;
New v. Walker, 108 Ind. 365.

1 Ex parte Gibson, 89 Ala. 174, 8. C.
78. R. 8383; Hill v. Taylor, 50 Mich.
549, S. C.15 N. W. R. 899; Ew parte
McGrew, 40 Texas, 472, 474; Chap-
man v. Morgan, 2 G. Greene, 374;
Boyer v. Moore, 42 Iowa, 544; Mc-
Means v. Cameron, 51 Iowa, 691. See,
generally, Carroll v. Langan, 18 N. Y.
Supp. 290; Jn re Kamaha, 2 Hawaiian,
444; Hx parte Edgington, 10 Nev. 215,
217; Pearce v. Atwood, 13 Mass. 324;
Gates v. Wagner, 46 Iowa, 355.

2 §§ 238, 239,

3 Thompson v. Locke, 66 Texas, 383 ;
Bent v. Maxwell, 3 New Mex. 158, 8.
C. 3 Pac.R.721; Kipp v. Cook, 46 Minn.
535, 8. C. 49 N. W. R. 257; Thorn v.

Thus actions for injuries to land

Maurer, 85 Mich. 569, 8. C. 48 N. W.
R. 640; Urton v: Woolsey, 87 Cal. 38, S.
C. 25 Pac. R. 154; Norce v. Richmond,
etc., Co., 33 Fed. R. 469; Atkins v.
Wabash, etc., Co., 29 Fed. R.161; Or-
cutt v. Hanson, 71 Iowa, 514, S. C. 32
N. W. R. 482; Coryell v. Linthecum
(Texas), 118.W. R. 1092; Freeman »v.
Thomson, 50 Hun, 340; Drinkhouse v.
Spring Valley, etc., Co., 80 Cal. 308, 8.
C. 22 Pac. R. 252; Horne v. Buffalo,
etc., Co., 49 Hun, 76; Marcum v. Pow-
ers(Ky.),9S.W. R. 255; Bakerv. Fire-
man’s Fund,73 Cal. 182, 8. C.14 Pac. R.
686; Meehan v. Edwards (Ky.), 18 8.
W.R.519; McLaughlin v. McCrory, 55
Ark. 442, 8. C. 188. W. R. 762; Fritts
v. Camp, 94 Cal. 393, S. C. 29 Pac. R.
867; Norfolk, etc., Co. v. Postal, etc.,.
Co., 88 Va. 920, 929, 8. C. 14 8. E. R.
689, 690, 691; Cox v. Little Rock, ete.,
Co., 55 Ark. 454, 8.C.18 8. W. RB. 630;
Bennett v. McIntire, 121 Ind. 231.
§ 252 JURISDICTION. 805

from fires communicated by locomotives are held to be local.?
So, as it has been held, an action to collect a drainage assess-
ment is local and must be brought in the county where the
land assessed is located.? In another case it was held that
where a trustee sought relief on the ground that the judgments
assailed wrongfully preferred creditors and were apparent liens
upon land, the jurisdiction was in the county where the land was
located.? Where a suit involves the existence of a resulting
trust in land the action is regarded as local. The general doc-
trine is carried very far by many of the cases, for it is held that
if a local action is brought in the wrong county all the pro-
ceedings are void, no matter what the defendant may do. We
can not yield to the extreme view asserted by many of the
courts. We do not doubt that where objection is seasonably
and properly made the error in bringing the action in the
wrong county will be fatal, nor do we doubt, that, if there is
no opportunity to defend, the proceedings will be void. We
do, however, believe that where there is jurisdiction of the
general class of cases, as, for instance, of actions for injuries
to real estate, and the defendant appears and contests the claim

_ of the plaintiff without making any objection to the jurisdic-

tion, the judgment rendered in the particular case is not void.
If a railway company sued in the wrong county for injuries to
land by fire communicated by its locomotives appears and con-
tests the case on its merits it certainly can not, on principle,
be permitted to subsequently aver that the judgment is a mere
nullity. So, if a land owner brings an action for overflowing
his land against a mill owner in the county where the latter
resides and not in the county where the land is situated, the
judgment rendered would not, in our opinion, be assailable in a

1Indiana, etc., Co. v. Foster, 107 Spalding v. Kelly, 66 Mich. 693; State

Ind. 430. v. Crevier, 50 N. J. L. 351; Tillotson
2 Dowden ». State, 106 Ind. 157. v. Pritchard, 60 Vt. 94; New Home,
3 Sweetser v. Smith, 22 Abbott N.C. etc., Co. v. Wray, 28 8. Car. 86; Terri-
819, 8. C.5 N. Y. Supp. 378. tory v. Judge, 5 Dak. 275; Sloss v. De

4 Appeal of Hays, 123 Pa. St. 110, S. Toro, 77 Cal. 129; Franklin v. Dutton,
C. 16 Atl. R. 600. See, generally, 79 Cal. 605, 8. C. 21 Pac. R. 964.

20
306 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 252

collateral proceeding. In the cases we have adduced by way
of illustration we think the right to object to the jurisdiction
of the particular subject may be waived. If a plaintiff invokes
the jurisdiction of a court in one of a general class of cases
over which it has jurisdiction plain principles of equity would
estop him from averring that in the particular instance there
was no jurisdiction, and, as the principle of estoppel is recip-
rocal, we can see no reason why a defendant who consents to
try the case on its merits, although in the wrong county, may
not be held to have waived all objections to the jurisdiction.
Here, again, we come to what the writers conceive to be an
error in the generally accepted classification of the different
kinds of jurisdiction and that error, as we have elsewhere
endeavored to show, is in blending in one division the two
species, jurisdiction of the general subject, and jurisdiction of
the particular subject. We believe that in the one species
there can be no waiver and in the other that there may be a
waiver by agreement. Our position is not in the least weak-
ened by the well established doctrine that the courts of one State
can not give judgment for possession of lands in another State, or
for damages arising from injuries to such lands.! The doctrine to
which we have just referred does not conflict with our views,
for the reason that no State or its instrumentalities can have
power within the domains of another sovereign. Within the
territorial limits of its own State a court may unquestionably
exercise jurisdiction by agreement of parties in many particu-
lar instances where if objection be made a different proceeding
than that adopted by the agreement of the parties must be pur-
sued. We do not, of course, assert that where there is no ju-
risdiction of the general class of cases, consent may confer it;
on the contrary, we assume as the basis of our position that
there is jurisdiction of the general class. This leaves only the

1 Allin v, Connecticut, etc., Co., 150 American, etc., Co. v. Middleton, 80
Mass. 560, 8. C.6 Lawy. Rep. Anno. N. Y. 408; Cragin v. Lovell, 88 N. Y.
416; Eachus v. Trustees, 17 Ill. 534; 258; McKenna v. Fisk, 1 How. (U.8.?
Du Breuil v. Pennsylvania Co.,130Ind. 241; Champion v. Doughty, 18 N. J.
187; Dodge v. Colby, 108 N. Y. 445; L.3. |
§ 252 JURISDICTION. 307

question of the right to exercise that general jurisdiction in a
particular instance where the parties agree that it may be ex-
ercised. In penal actions and criminal prosecutions jurisdic-
tion depends in a great degree upon locality, and, as a rule,
such actions and prosecutions must be conducted in the county
where the penal act was performed or the crime committed.!
Each State has exclusive power to punish offenders for a vio-
lation of its penal or criminal laws, and prosecutions are nec-
essarily local, since such laws have no extra-territorial effect,?
but it is stated by some of the authorities that a crime against a
nation may be punished although not committed within its
territory.? The general doctrine is that where a nation’s flag
is the emblem and representative of authority the nation has
power to prosecute and punish offenders against itslaws. This
rule confers a right to prosecute and convict the violators of
law in cases where the crime is committed upon the high seas.*
While it is true as a general rule that each government must
enforce its own criminal laws yet it is held that a State may in-
flict punishment for a crime defined by its own laws and also

Mass. 515; Chase v. Blodgett, 10 N. H.
22; State v. Chandler, 3 Hawks, 393;

1State v. Howard, 31 Vt. 414, 415;
State v. Hatch, 91 Mo. 568, 8. C.48.

W.R. 502; State v. Knapp, 40 Kan.
148, S. C. 19 Pac. R. 728; Landa v.
State, 26 Texas App. 580, 8. C. 10S.
W. R. 218; State v. McCoy, 42 La.
Ann, 228, 8. C. 7 S. R. 330; Nichols
v. State, 28 Texas App. 105, 8S. C. 12
S. W. R. 500; Fisher v. Ballard, 109
N. Car. 574, 8. C. 18 S. E. R. 799;
Conner v. State, 29 Fla. 455, 8. C. 108.
R. 891; Watt v. People, 126 Tl. 9,8. C.
1 Lawy. Rep. Ann. 403; Sims », State,
28 Texas App. 447, 8. C. 13S. W. R.
653; State v. Rider, 46 Kan. 332, §. C.
26 Pac. R. 745.

2 National Bank v. Price, 33 Md. 487;
Bettys v. Railway Co., 37 Wis. 323.
See, generally, Warrander v. Warren-
der, 9 Bligh, 89; Sims v. Sims, 75 N.
Y. 466; Commonwealth v. Green, 17

People v. Kelley, 38 Cal. 138, 140;
Corfield v. Coryell, 4 Wash. C. C. 371,
382; United States v. Bevans, 3 Wheat.
336; United States v. Grush, 5 Mason,
290; United States v. Wiltberger, 5
Wheat. 76; State v. Carter, 3 Dutch.
499.

51 Wharton’s Crim. Law, § 1862, cit-
ing Bollman ex parte, 4 Cranch, 75;
United States v. Magill, 1 Wash. C. C.
463; United States v. Thompson, 1
Sumn. 168.

*The Marianna Flora, 11 Wheat. 1;
United States v. Pirates, 5 Wheat. 194;
Rex v. Allen, 1 Moody, C. C. 494; Rex
v. Allen, 7 Car. & P. 664; United States
». Gordon, 5 Blatch. 18; United States
v. Ross, 1 Gall, 624; United States »v.
Stevens, 4 Wash. 547.
308 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 252

by those of the United States.1. A familiar illustration of this
doctrine is supplied by the cases which hold that the States
may enact laws for the punishment of persons who counterfeit
the coin of the national government. Where the offense is de-
fined exclusively by the Federal laws and is not defined by
State laws the jurisdiction to punish is in the Federal courts.?
The rule that territorial jurisdiction of a penal action ora
criminal prosecution is in the county where the offense was
committed does not require that the entire transaction or acts
constituting the offense should be committed in one county;
on the contrary, jurisdiction may exist in a county where one
of the constituent parts of the offense was committed although
parts of the same offense were committed in some other county,

or, indeed, even in some other State.’

‘Hancock v. Yaden, 121 Ind. 366,
374; Sizemore v. State, 3 Head. 26;
People v. White, 34 Cal. 183; Fox v.
State, 5 How. 410; United States v.
Field, 16 Fed. R. 778; Chess v. State,
1 Blackf. 198; Snoddy v. Howard, 51
Ind. 411. See, generally, State v. Mc-
Pherson, 9 Iowa, 53; Moore v. People,
14 How. 17, 18; State v. Brown, 2 Ore.
221; Commonwealth v. Tenney, 97
Mass. 50; Jett’s Case, 18 Gratt. 933.
It is to be observed that in the class
of cases under immediate considera-
tion the State does not assume to en-
force the laws of the nation, for it does
no more than enforce its own laws.
The laws are cumulative in a certain
sense, but they are, nevertheless, the
laws of separate sovereignties. See,
upon the general subject, Common-
wealth v. Felton, 101 Mass. 204; Com-
monwealth v. Tenney, 97 Mass. 50;
Commonwealth v. Barry, 116 Mass. 1;
State v. Tuller, 34 Conn. 280; Ely v.
Peck, 7 Conn. 239; Commonwealth v.
Carpenter, 100 Mass. 204.

2 Bridges, er parte, 2 Woods, 428;
Brown v. United States, 14 Am. Law
Reg. (N. 8.) 566; State v. Shelley, 11

It has been held that in

Lea. 594; People v. Sweetman, 3
Parker, C. R. 358; State v. Adams, 4
Blackf. 146; State v. Kirkpatrick, 32
Ark. 117.

3 Archer v. State, 106 Ind. 426; Green
v. State, 66 Ala. 40, S.C. 41 Am. R.
744; Commonwealth v. Holder, 9 Gray,
7; Tipping v. State, 14 Ga. 422; Tyler
v. People, 8 Mich. 320; People v. Dim-
ick, 107 N. Y. 18; Mack v. People, 82
N. Y. 235; Commonwealth v. White,
123 Mass. 430; People v. William8, 24
Mich. 156, 8. C.9 Am. R. 119; State
v. Pauley, 12 Wis. 537; Commonwealth
v. Costley, 118 Mass. 16, 26; State v.
Ward, 49 Conn. 429; Beal v. State, 15
Ind. 378; State v. Bartlett, 11 Vt. 650;
Massie v. Commonwealth, 90 Ky. 485,
8. C.148. W. R. 419; In re Kelly, 46
Fed. R. 653; State v. Underwood, 49
Me.181; Steerman v. State, 10 Mo. 503;
State v. Kreichbaum, 81 Iowa, 633, S.
C.47 N. W. R. 872. See, generally,
‘“‘Crimes—Their jurisdiction as affect-
ed by county lines,’ 24 Cent. ©. J. 7;
Jurisdiction in Guiteau’s Case, 2 Crim.
Law Mag. 804; Lancaster v. State, 91
Tenn. 267, S. C. 188. W. R. 777; State
v. Denton, 6 Cold. (Tenn.), 539; Stan-

 
§ 253 JURISDICTION. 309

actions to enforce penalties given by statute there is no constitu-
tional right to a trial by jury in the county where the offense
was committed, and that the legislature may, therefore, right-
fully provide for a trial in some other county,! but this does
not imply that an action to recover a penalty inflicted by way
of punishment is not in its nature local, for all that is decided
is that the territorial jurisdiction may be designated by the
legislature inasmuch as there is no constitutional provision in-
terdicting the exercise of that power by the legislative depart-
ment. The boundaries of a county so far at least as concerns
the jurisdiction to punish for crime may extend to the middle
thread of a river forming the boundary line between two States.”
Where the place at which a crime is committed is not within
a State but is within the United States the jurisdiction is in
the Federal courts.? In civil proceedings, as is evident from
what has been said and the authorities to which reference has
been made, the jurisdiction considered upon its territorial side
is, to a great degree, determined by locality of the property in
controversy, but as respects personal property the rule is es-
sentially different from that which prevails where the subject
of the dispute is land, for actions regarding personal property
are, as a rule, not local but transitory.

§ 253. Transitory actions—An action is usually regarded

ley v. State, 24 Ohio St. 166, S. C. 15
Am. R. 604; Hutchinson v, State, 62
Ind. 556; State v. McGraw, 87 Mo. 161;
State v. Moore, 26 N. H. 448, S. C. 59
Am. Dec. 354.

1 People v. Rouse, 15 N.Y. Supp. 414.
An action to recover a penalty is re-
garded as a civil action and not a
criminal prosecution. Durham v.State,
117 Ind. 477; United States v. Hos-
kins, 5 Mackey (D.C.), 478; 1 Bishop
Crim. Law, § 956.

2 Dugan v. State, 125 Ind. 180, §. C.
9 Lawy. R. Anno. 321; Welsh v. State,
126 Ind. 71, 75; Carlisle v. State, 32
Ind. 55.

8 Cook v. United States, 1388 U.S.
157, 8. C. 11 Sup. Ct. R. 268. In the
case cited the court quoted with ap-
proval from the opinion in United
States v. Jackalow, 1 Black, 484, the
following: ‘‘Crimes committed against
the laws of the United States out of
the limits of a State are not local, but
may be tried at such place as congress
shall designate by law, but are local
if committed within the State. They
must then be tried in the district in
which the offense was committed.”
See, also, United States v. Dawson, 15
How. (U. 8.) 467; Jones v. United
States, 137 U. S. 202.
310 = THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 253

as transitory when the transaction out of which it grows or the
occurrence upon which it is founded is one that might have
taken place anywhere.!' The nature of the relief, however, ex-
erts an important influence upon the character of the suit or
action, for,as many of the authorities cited in the preceding
paragraph show, where the right to land or to some interest
therein is the relief sought the suit or action is local and not
transitory. It is evident that the class denominated transitory
actions is a very large one inasmuch as almost all personal ac-
tions are members of the class. Actions to enforce contracts,
to recover damages for a breach of contract, and almost all ac-
tions concerning personal property are transitory. Whether
an action is local or transitory depends to a very great extent
upon the statutes of the different States. In some of the States
an action of replevin is made a local action, in others it is

_ transitory.

made local, and so are many other actions.

In some of the States actions on official bonds are

Where there is no

constitutional provision limiting the legislative power, actions

1Mostyn v. Fabrigas, 1 Cowp. 161,
S.C. 1 Smith’s Lead. Cases, 652. In
a note to this case Mr. Smith says:
“There is a formal and substantial
distinction as to the locality of trials.
I state them as different things. The
substantial distinction is where the
proceeding is in rem, and where
‘the effect of the judgment can
not be had if it is laid in a wrong
place. That is the case of all eject-
ments where the possession is to be
delivered by the sheriff of the county,
and, as trials in England are in par-
ticular counties, the officers are county
officers, therefore the judgment could
not have effect if the action was not
laid in the proper county.”

2 Tt is not necessary to give many of
the vast number of cases upon this
subject and we cite only a few illus-
trative cases. Austin v. Cameron, 83
Tex. 351, 8.C.18S. W. R. 437; Focke
v. Blum, 82 Tex. 436, 8. 0.178. W. R.

770; Commercial Bank v. Davidson,
18 Ore. 57, 8. C. 22 Pac. R. 517; Carlisle
»v. Cowan, 85 Tenn. 165, 8. C.28. W.
R. 26; Newell v. Giggey, 13 Colo. 16,
S.C. 21 Pac. R. 904; Lipscomb v. Tan-
ner, 318. Car. 49, 8. C. 98. E. R. 738;
Flynn v. Central, etc., Co., 27 Abb. N.
Cases, 31; Essenwine v. Pennsylvania
Co., 25 W. L. Bull. 396; Nonce v. Rich-
mond, etc., Co., 33 Fed. R. 429; Hous-
ton v. Vicksburg, etc., Co., 39 La. Ann.
796, S.C. 28. R.562; Jones v. Pember-
ton, 7 N. J. L. 350; Glen v. Hodges,
9 Johns. 67; Gardiner v. Thomas, 14
Johns. 134; Shaver v. White, 6 Munf.
110; Lienow v. Ellis, 6 Mass. 331; Bir-
ney v. Haim, 2 Litt. (Ky.) 263; North-
ern, etc., Co. v. Scholl, 16 Md. 331;
Redgrave v. Jones, 1 Har. & M. 195;
Williams v. Burnett, 6 T. B. Monr.
322; Lewis v. Morton, 5 T. B. Monr.
1; Livingston v. Jefferson, 1 Brock,
203; Illinois, etc., Co. v. Swearingen,
33 Ill. 289.
§ 254 JURISDICTION. 311

may be made local or transitory at the pleasure of the legisla-

ture. In the absence of statutory rules those of the common

law, so far as applicable to our system of procedure, are fol-

lowed, and in the interpretation of statutes the common law is

influential. Statutes respecting the venue are regarded as

remedial, and when intended to promote the convenience of
_ suitors and parties are liberally construed.’

§ 254. Domicile as affecting jurisdiction—The domicile of
a person is often an influential factor in matters of jurisdiction.
The law of the domicile of a party governs the jurisdiction of
the courts as to him when a party to a suit or action in a court
of the State of his domicile. As to such persons the legislature
may, within constitutional limits, prescribe the mode of service
of notice and the like.?- But where a party is domiciled in an-
other State a different rule applies.? In actions or suits in the
Federal courts the question of domicile is often a very import-
ant one, for in a large class of cases, as is well known, the juris-
diction depends upon the fact that.there is a diversity of citi-

zenship.*

1Quinn v. Fidelity Association, 100
Pa. St. 382. See, generally, Hoguet
w. Wallace, 28 N. J. L. 523; Guffin v.
Leslie, 20 Md. 15; Mitchell v. Mitchell,
1 Gill, 66; Smith v. Moffatt, 1-Barb.
65; Simonton v. Barrell, 21 Wend. 362;
Sprowl v. Lawrence, 33 Ala. 674;
Holmes v. Carley, 31 N. Y. 289.

2 Mr. Freeman says: ‘“The position,
however, which seems to be best sus-
tained, both by reason and by prece-
dents, is, that each State has the au-
thority to provide the means by which
its own citizens-may be brought be-
fore its courts; that the courts of other
States have no authority to disregard
the means thus provided ; and, finally,
that every judgment or decree ob-
tained in a State against some of its cit-
izens, by virtue of a lawful, though
constructive service of process, should

c

As we have seen, residence or domicile is the basis of

be as obligatory upon such citizen in
every other State as it is in the State
whence it is taken. Nor is it destruc-
tive of the extra-territorial effect of a
judgment based on constructive serv-
ice that the defendant, being a citizen
of the State, was temporarily absent
therefrom. It is sufficient that he
was, at the time, subject to the laws
of the State and to the territorial au-
thority of the court.’’ Freeman on
Judgments (4th ed.), § 570.

3'We refer, we may say, by way of
explanation, to cases different and
distinct from those in which a resident
of one jurisdiction comes into another.
. Barber v. Barber, 21 How. (U. 8.)
582; Prentiss v. Barton, 1 Brock, 389;
Catlin v.Gladding,4 Mason,308 ; Briggs
v. French, 2 Sumn. 251; Butler v.
Farnsworth, 4 Wash.C. C.101; Kemna
312 6-254

THE WORK OUT OF COURT.

jurisdiction in divorce proceedings. It is often a controlling
factor in problems growing out of the assertion of authority of
the courts of the State wherein the party is domiciled. In
contemplation of law every person must have a domicile some-
where,! and, as it is generally held, until a domicile is else-
where acquired a party retains that of his origin.? The words
‘‘domicile’’ and ‘‘residence’’ are usually regarded as synony-
mous terms,? so that when a statute employs the term ‘‘resi-
dence’’ it is ordinarily understood as meaning the place of
residence. ‘The question of the change of domicile is, in the
main, one of fact, but with matters of fact mingle matters of
law, so that the question is ordinarily one of mixed law and
fact. The presumption is against a change of domicile, so that
the party who avers that there has been a change has the bur-
den.‘ This presumption, it may, perhaps, be well enough to
suggest, is not a conclusive one but one that may be overthrown
by evidence. In most of the States actions of a transitory na-
ture are required to be brought in the county in which the de-

v. Brockhaus, 10 Biss. 128; Shelton v.
Tiffin, 6 How. (U. 8.) 163, 165; In re
Walker, 1 Lowell’s Dec. 237; Petri v.
Commercial Nat. Bank, 142 U.S. 644;
Shaw v. Quincy, etc., Co., 145 U. 8. 444.

1The principle is well settled that
for the purposes of jurisdiction and
judicial administration a person must
have a domicile somewhere, and that
he can have but one, and therefore a
domicile once existing continues until
another is acquired elsewhere. Ayer
v. Weeks, 65 N. H. 248, 8. C. 23 Am.
St. R. 87. See, also,, Gilman v, Gil-
man, 52 Me. 165, S.C. 83 Am. Dec.
502; Cobb v. Rice, 180 Mass. 2381, 234.

2 De Meli v. De Meli, 120 N. Y. 485,
8.0.17 Am. St. R. 652; Allgood »v.
Williams, 92 Ala. 551, 8. C. 88. R. 722;
Harvard College v. Gore, 5 Pick. 370;
Cole v. Cheshire, 1 Gray, 441; State v.
Steele, 33 La. Ann. 910; Littlefield v.
Brooks, 50 Me. 475; Abington v. North
Bridgewater, 23 Pick. 170. See, gen-

erally, Behrensmeyer v. Kreitz,135 Ill.
591, 8. C.26N. E.R. 704; Anderson v.
Watt, 188 U. 8. 694; Briscoe v. South-
ern, etc., Co., 40 Fed. R. 273.

3 Langdon v. Doud, 6 Allen, 423, S.
C. 83 Am. Dec. 641; Pellsv. Snell, 180
Ill. 379. See, generally, Pullen ».
Monk, 82 Me. 412; Frost v. Brisbin,
19 Wend. 11, 8. C. 32 Am. Dec. 423;
Tipton v. Tipton, 87 Ky. 243; Larquie
v. Wife, 40 La. Ann. 450; White v..
Tennant, 31 W. Va. 790, S. C. 13 Am.
St. R. 896, 903; Shepard v. Wright, 113
N.Y. 582. |

‘Tanner v. King, 11 La. R. 175;
Bangs v. Brewster, 111 Mass. 382;
Cross v. Everts, 28 Texas, 523. See,
generally, Kilburn v. Bennett, 3 Metcf.
199; Anderson v. Anderson,42 Vt. 350;
Kirkland v. Whately, 4 Allen, 462;
Abington v. North Bridgewater, 23
Pick. 170; Wayne v. Greene, 21 Me.
357.
§ 254 JURISDICTION. 313

fendant resides, or, where there are several defendants, in the
county in which some one or more of the defendants reside.
This requirement fixes the jurisdiction of the court, and if not
complied with the proceedings will be erroneous. But if a
party is sued in the wrong county he may waive the error and
submit to the jurisdiction of the court; if he does this, the pro-
ceedings are valid and effective, for the right to object is a per-
sonal one that may be waived.? As a rule the county is taken
as the geographical subdivision over which jurisdiction is
given, but this, of course, is a matter largely regulated by
statute. The limitation of jurisdiction to the county does not
apply to non-residents, for a non-resident may be sued in any
county in which process can be served upon him.* In probate
matters the question of residence or domicile very often be-
comes one of controlling importance, and so it does in matters
of guardianship and the like. There can be no doubt that
where the question as to whether the action of the court in
such matters was taken in the proper county is properly pre-
sented in a direct attack a proceeding in the wrong county
would be held erroneous and a judgment annulling it be di-
rected. But whether proceedings in such matters conducted
in the wrong county are or are not void is a question upon

which there is a stiff and stubborn conflict.!

1 Coffman v. Brandhoefer, 33 Neb.
279, S.C.50 N.W. R.6; Gandy ». Jolly
(Neb.), 52 N. W. R. 376; Knott v. Du-
buque, etc., Co. (Iowa), 51 N. W. R.
57; Smith v. Smith, 88 Cal. 572, S. C.
26 Pac. R. 356; Collins v. Bown, 45
Minn. 186, 8. C. 47N.W.R. 719; Cob-
bey v. Wright (Neb.),45N.W. R. 460;
Hilliard v. Wilson, 76 Texas, 180, S.
C.13 8. W. R. 25; Rankin v. Roths-
child, 78 Mich. 10, S. C. 43 N. W. R.
1077; Schloss v. Joslyn, 61 Mich. 267,
S.C. 28 N. W. R. 96; Bruil v. North-
western, etc., Co., 72 Wis. 430, 8. C.
39 N.W. R. 529; Caswell v. Bunch, 77
Ga. 504; Carlisle v. Cowan, 85 Tenn.
165, 8. C.28. W. R. 26; Dunham v.

We can not yield

Schindler, 17 Ore. 256, 8. C. 20 Pac. R.
326.

2 Betzoldt v. American Ins. Co., 47
Fed. R. 705; St. Louis, etc., Co. v. Mc-
Bride, 141 U. §. 127; Donnelly v.
Woolsey, 59 Hun, 618; McLemore v.
Scales, 68 Miss. 47, 8. C. 8S. R. 844.

5’ Bryant v. McClure, 44 Mo. App.
553; Bohart v. Republic, etc., Co., 49
Kan. 94, S. C. 30 Pac. R. 180; Singleton
v. O’Blenis, 125 Ind. 151, 8. C. 25N. E.
R. 154; Rice v. Brown, 81 Me. 56, 8.
C. 16 Atl. R. 334.

‘Affirming that such proceedings
are not void are the cases of Barclift
». Treece, 77 Ala. 528, 531; Coltart v.
Allen, 40 Ala. 155; Irwin v. Scriber, 18
314 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 254

to the reasoning of the courts which declare such proceedings
to be nullities which no one is bound to respect, for we are per-
suaded that the reasoning is from false premises. The assump-
tion upon which the entire reasoning is founded is am illicit
one. Whether the deceased person at his death resided in the
county is a- jurisdictional ‘fact to be determined by the court
having authority over the general class of cases, and, although

such'a decision may be erroneous, it is not void.

Cal. 499; Griffith’s Estate, 84 Cal. 107,
S.C. 23 Pac. R. 528; Corrigan v. Jones,
14 Col.811, 8.C. 23 Pac. R. 913; Thomas
v. Morrisett, 76 Ga. 384; Tant v. Wig-
fall, 65 Ga. 412; Bostwick v. Skinner,
80 Til. 147; Wight v. Wallbaum, 39
Ill. 554; Succession of Gorrisson, 15
La. Ann. 27; Matter of Estate of Al-
temus, 32 La. Ann. 364, 368; Duson v.
Dupre, 32 La. Ann. 896; Raborg v.
Hammond, 2 Harr. & G. 42, 49; John-
son v. Beazley, 65 Mo. 250, 8. C. 27
Am. R. 276; Dequindre v. Williams,
81 Ind. 444; Bumstead v. Read, 31
Barb. 661; Bolton v. Brewster, 32
Barb. 389; Monell v. Dennison, 17
How. Pr. 422; Lewis v. Dutton, 8
How. Pr. 99; Field v. McVickar, 9
Johns. 130; Williams v. Harrington,
11 Ired. 616; Rollins v. Henry, 84 N.
Car. 569; Walker v. Goldsmith, 14
Ore. 125, 8. C. 12 Pac. R. 537; East
Tenn., etc., Co. v. Mahoney, 89 Tenn.
311, S. C. 15 8S. W. R. 652; Eller v.
Richardson, 89 Tenn. 575, 8. C. 15 8.
W. R. 650; Burdett v. Silsbee, 15
Texas, 604; Murchison v. White, 54
Texas, 78; Giddings v. Steele, 28
Texas, 732,8. C.91 Am. Dec. 336, 341;
Driggs v. Abbott, 27 Vt. 580, S. C. 65
Am. Dec. 214; Abbott v. Coburn, 28
Vt. 663, 8. C. 67 Am. Dec. 735; Clapp
v. Beardsley, 1 Vt. 151; Fisher v. Bas-
sett, 9 Leigh, 119, 8. C. 33 Am. Dec.
227; Andrews v. Avory, 14 Gratt. 229,
8. C. 73 Am. Dec. 355; Doe v. Lither-
berry, 4 McLean, 442; Holmes v. Ore-

Such a case

gon, etc., Co., 9 Fed. R. 229. Assert-
ing that such proceedings are void if
conducted in the wrong county, are
the cases of Sears v. Terry, 26 Conn.
273; Olmstead’s Appeal, 43 Conn. 110;
First National Bank v. Balcom, 35
Conn. 351; Culver’s Appeal, 48 Conn.
165; Boyd v. Glass, 34 Ga. 253, 8. C.
89 Am. Dec. 252; Lessee of Griffith v.
Wright, 18 Ga. 173; Pawling v. Speed,
5T. B. Monr.580; Burnett v. Meadows,
7 B. Monr. 277, 8. C. 46 Am. Dec. 517;
Miller v. Swan, 91 Ky. 36,8. 0.148.W.

‘R. 964; Collins v. Powell (Ky.), 19 8.

W.R.578; Succession of Williamson,
3 La. Ann. 261; Clemens v. Comfort,
26 La. Ann. 269; Moore v. Philbrick,
32 Me. 102, 8.C. 52 Am. Dec.642; Beck-
ett v. Selover, 7 Cal. 215, S.C. 68 Am.
Dec. 237; Cutts v. Haskins, 9 Mass.
543; Holyoke v. Haskins, 5 Pick. 20,8.
C. 16 Am. Dec. 372; Strouse v. Dren-
nan, 41 Mo. 289; Brooks v. Duckworth,
59 Mo. 48; Lucy v. Williams, 27 Mo.
280; Duke v. State, 57 Miss. 229; Bol-
ton v. Jacks, 29 N. Y. Sup. Ct. 166;
Johnson v. Corpenning, 4 Ired. Eq.
216, 8. C. 44 Am. Dec. 106; People’s
Bank v. Wilcox, 15 R. I. 258; Thornton
v. Baker, 15 R. I. 558, 8. C. 10 Atl. R.
617; Munson v. Newson, 9 Texas, 109;
Paul v. Willis, 69 Texas, 261, 8.C.78.
W. R. 357; Reynolds v. Schmidt, 20
Wis. 374, 380; Thompson v. Whitman,
18 Wall. 457; Nettleton v. Mosier, 3

Fed. R. 887; Drexel v. Berney, 122 U.
S. 241.
§ 255 JURISDICTION. 315
is a member of the general class over which the court has ju-
risdiction, and the decision that jurisdiction exists in the par-
ticular instance can not be void although it may be erroneous.
The decisions to which we have referred show that the later
cases, and, as we think, the better reasoned cases, take a dif-

ferent view from that asserted in the earlier cases.

§ 255. Presumption of jurisdiction—Superior Courts.—It
has long been established law that a court of general superior
jurisdiction is presumed to be competent to give the judgment
it pronounces.? It is a familiar saying that ‘‘nothing shall be

1It is probably true that to some ex-
tent the decision in Drexel v. Berney,
122 U.S. 241, opposes the general doc-
trine of the text, but we do not think
the decision in that case can be re-
garded as holding that where it is ad-
judicated that a person is a resident
of a county of the State in which the
proceeding is conducted the adjudica-
tion may be successfully assailed col-
laterally. If it can be, then, it is cer-
tainly in conflict with the many cases
of which Commissioners of Knox
County v. Aspinwall, 21 How. (U.S.)
539, is a type wherein it is held that
where a court decides that jurisdic-
tional facts exist its decision is con-
clusive. If given the broad meaning
sometimes ascribed to it the decision
* in Drexel v. Berney is in conflict with
the general doctrine declared in such
cases as Des Moines Navigation Co. v.
Iowa, etc., Co., 123 U. 8. 552; Erwin
v. Lowry, 7 How. (U.S.) 172; Mat-
tocks v. Baker, 2 Fed. R. 455; Skinner
v. Moore, 2 Dev. & Batt. Law, 138, 8.
C. 30 Am. Dec. 155. There is, possi-
bly, some reason for discriminating
between cases where the proceedings
are had in the proper State but in the
wrong county and cases where the
proceedings are in the wrong State or
nation. Where the proceedings are

had in the same State and the mistake
is only as to the county there is un-
questionably jurisdiction of the gen-
eral class of cases, and the utmost
that can be said is that there was er-
ror in exercising that jurisdiction in
the particular instance, but whether
the jurisdiction was properly or im-
properly exercised depends upon facts
which it was the duty of the court to
ascertain, and having ascertained the
facts, it was its duty to apply the law
to them, so that the proceedings can
not be said to be void.

2 Galpin v. Page, 18 Wall. 350; Black
v. Epperson,40 Texas, 162, 178; Slocum
v. Providence, etc., Co., 10 R. I. 112;
Pennington v. Gibson, 16 How.(U.S.)
65; Nations v. Johnson, 24 How. (U.
8.) 195; Turner v. Jenkins, 79 111. 228;
Hopper v. Fisher, 2 Head. (Tenn.)
253; Bass Foundry Co. v. The Board,
115 Ind. 234; Shewalter v. Bergman,
123 Ind. 155; Kelsey v.Wyley, 10 Ga.
871; Boker v. Chapline, 12 Iowa, 204;
Huntington v. Charlotte, 15 Vt. 46;
Pope v. Harrison, 16 Lea. (Tenn.) 82;
Brownfield v. Weicht, 9 Ind. 394; Rog-
ers v. Burns, 27 Pa. St. 525; Grignon’s
Lessees v. Astor, 2 How. (U. 8.) 319,
340; Nunn »v. Sturges, 22 Ark. 389;
Housh v. People, 66 Ill. 178.
316 § 256

THE WORK OUT OF COURT.

intended to be out of the jurisdiction of a superior court but
that which specially appears to be so.’’! This general pre-
sumption should, as we believe, sustain the judgment of a
court of general jurisdiction in all classes of cases, but this
conclusion is probably not in accordance with the weight of
authority, for the majority of the cases make a distinction be-
tween special authority and general jurisdiction. We can per-
ceive no reason for this distinction, and are persuaded that, on
principle, the cases which affirm that such a distinction exists
are wrong. If the rank of the tribunal is such as to entitle it
to the benefit of the presumption there is no reason why the
exercise of one power rather than another should either broaden
or narrow the rule. The presumption is founded on the prin-
ciple that the court will follow the law, do its duty and do it
properly, and, certainly, the nature of the power exercised,
whether special or general, can not exert any influence upon
the question. We can see no more reason for asserting that in
rendering a judgment in an action of assumpsit the presump-
tion is that there was jurisdiction, than there is for so assert-
ing where the court appoints a receiver under statutory au-
thority.

§ 256. Presumption of jurisdiction—Inferior tribunals.—
The rule is that no presumptions or intendments are made in
favor of the jurisdiction of inferior tribunals.?, Some of the

1Peacock v. Bell, 1 Saunders, 73;
Howard v. Gosset, 10 Q. B. 359; Guil-
ford v. Love, 49 Texas, 715; Goar v.
Maranda, 57 Ind. 339; Holmes v.
Campbell, 12 Minn. 221; Butcher v.
Bank, 2 Kan. 70; Reynolds v. Stans-
berry, 20 Ohio, 344, 8. C. 55 Am. Dec.
459; Wells v. Waterhouse, 22 Me. 131;
Ely v. Tallman, 14 Wis. 28; Potter v.
Merchants’ Bank, 28 N. Y. 641, 656;
Davis v. Hudson, 29 Minn. 27; Reed
v. Vaughan, 15 Mo. 137; State v. Lewis,
22 N. J. L. 564; Adams v. Jeffries, 12
Ohio, 253, 8. C. 40 Am. Dec. 477; Ad-

ams v. Cowles, 95 Mo. 501, 8. C.6 Am.
St. R. 74.

?Hanna v. Morrow, 43 Ark. 107;
Victor, etc., Co. v. The Justice, etc.,
Co., 18 Ney. 21; Tompert v. Lithgow,
1 Bush. (Ky.) 176; Thatcher v. Pow-
ell, 6 Wheat. 119; Palmer v. Oakley,
2 Doug. 433, 8. C. 47 Am. Dec. 41;
Goulding v. Clark,34.N. H.148; Tucker
v. Harris, 13 Ga. 1, 8. C. 58 Am. Dee.
488; Lowry v. Erwin, 6 Rob. (La.) 192,
8. C. 39 Am. Dec. 556; Harvey v. Ty-
ler, 2 Wall. 328; Dick v. Wilson, 10
Ore. 490; Smith v. Finley, 52 Ark. 373;
§ 256 JURISDICTION. 317
courts declare that ‘‘nothing is within the jurisdiction of an
inferior court except that which specially appears to be so,’’
but this we regard as an extravagant statement of the general
rule, for we believe that if from the whole record it appears
generally that there is jurisdiction the proceedings can not be
deemed void.1 There is little diversity of opinion as to the gen-
eral rule stated in the opening sentence of this paragraph, but
there is a wide diversity of opinion as to what shall be consid-
ered an inferior tribunal.? Where jurisdiction once attaches
the same presumptions attend the proceedings of a court of in-
ferior jurisdiction as those which prevail in regard to courts of

superior jurisdiction.’

Granite Bank v. Treat, 18 Me. 340;
Wight v. Warner, 1 Dougl. (Mich.)
384; Spear v. Carter, 1 Mich. 19; Bar-
rett v. Crane, 16 Vt. 246; Ohio, etc.,
Co. v. Schultz, 31 Ind. 150; Perkins v.
Attaway, 14 Ga. 27; New Jersey, etc.,
Co. v. Suydam, 17 N. J. L. 25; Kane
». Desmond, 63 Cal. 464; Keybers v.
McComber, 67 Cal. 395. See, gener-
ally, Mallett v. Uncle Sam, etc., Co.,
1 Nev. 188; Gallatian v. Cunningham,
8 Cowen, 361; Rowley v. Howard, 23
Cal. 401; Gilbert v. York, 111 N. Y.
544.

1 Karnes v. Alexander, 92 Mo. 660,
8.C.48. W. R. 518.

2 Ante, §§ 151, 152, 153, 154; Gamble
v. Central, etc., Co., 80 Ga. 595, S. C.
12 Am. St. R. 276; Pursley v. Hayes,
22 Iowa, 11. In Wall v. Wall, 123 Pa.
545, 8. C. 10 Am. St. 549, the doctrine
that judgments of inferior courts may
be collaterally assailed is carried very
far, for in that case it was held that
although the register of wills acts as a
judicial officer, still, if he admits to
probate as a will an instrument that
is not a will, his proceedings are void.
As supporting this doctrine the court
cited Bowlby v. Thunder, 105 Pa. St.
173. It seems to us that if there was
general jurisdiction of the subject the

The proceedings of a court of inferior

decision that an instrument was a will
when in fact it was not a will, did not
make the proceedings void for want of
jurisdiction. . If the register had’ de-
cided correctly no one would doubt
that his decision could not be assailed,
but, as the power to decide is the
power to decide right as well as wrong,
a wrong decision does not make the
proceeding a mere nullity.

3In the case of Comstock v. Craw-
ford, 3 Wall. 396, 403, the general doc-
trine was thus stated: ‘‘It is well set-
tled that when the jurisdiction of a
court of limited and special jurisdic-
tion appears upon the face of its pro-
ceedings, its action can not be attacked
for mere error or irregularity. The
jurisdiction appearing, the same pre-
sumption of law arises that it was
rightfully exercised as that which pre-
vails with reference to the action of a
court of superior and general author-
ity.’ Board v. Markle, 46 Ind. 96;
Levy v. Furguson, etc., Co., 51 Ark.
317, S.C. 11 8. W. R. 284; Visart v.
Bush, 46 Ark. 153; Chicago, etc., v.
Chamberlain, 84 Ill. 333; State v.
Hinchman, 27 Pa. St. 479; Little v.
Sinnett, 7 Iowa, 324; Pursley v. Hayes,
22 Iowa, 11; Perrine v. Farr, 2 Zab.
(N.J.) 356; Bell v. Raymond, i8 Conn.
318 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 257

jurisdiction are no more vulnerable to collateral attacks than
are those of the highest court if it affirmatively appears that it
has rightfully acquired jurisdiction of the case. The difference,
in this respect, between the two classes of courts is as to the
presumption of jurisdiction, not as to the mode of procedure.

§ 257. Averment of jurisdictional facts.—The general rule
that everything is intended to be within the jurisdiction of a
superior court renders it unnecessary to plead facts conferring
jurisdiction in cases brought in that class of courts.1 This
general doctrine goes so far as to enable an action to be main-
tained upon a judgment of a court of the class designated with-
out averring facts showing the existence of jurisdiction in the
tribunal.? The presumption supplies the place of averments.
In some of the probate cases it is held that-all material facts
must be specifically averred, as, for instance, in petitions to
sell the real estate of a decedent, that the personal property is
insufficient to pay debts,? but, other cases deny, and with rea-
son, that such averments are essential to jurisdiction.‘ It
seers to us that if there is enough in the petition to show that
the case belongs to the class of which the court has jurisdiction
the sufficiency of the petition in the’ particular instance is a

91; Shoemaker v. Brown,10 Kan. 383;
Bernal v. Lynch, 36 Cal. 135; Sheldon
v. Wright, 5 N. Y.497; Reid v. Spoon,
66 N. Car. 415; Traer v. Whitman, 56
Iowa, 443; Moore v. Jeffers, 53 Iowa,
202.

1 Board v. Leggett, 115 Ind. 544;
Bass, ete., Works v. Board, 115 Ind.
234; Kinnaman v. Kinnaman, 71 Ind.
417; Brownfield v. Weicht, 9 Ind. 394.

2 Campe v. Lassen, 67 Cal. 139. See,
generally, Ex parte Cuddy, 181 U. 8.
280, S. C. 9 Sup. Ct. R. 703; Mahoney
v. Middleton, 41 Cal. 41; Weaver v.
Brown, 87 Ala. 533; Cavanaugh ».
Smith, 84 Ind. 380; Mickel v. Hicks,
19 Kan. 578; Taggart. Muse, 60 Miss.
870; McAnear v. Epperson, 54 Texas,
220; Ferguson v. Teel, 82 Va. 690.

5Sermon v. Black, 79 Ala. 507;
Wright v. Edwards, 10 Ore. 298; Wil-
bun v. McCally, 63 Ala. 486; Ackley
v. Dygert, 33 Barb. 176; Needham v.
Salt Lake, etc., 7 Utah, 319, S. C. 26
Pac. R. 920.

*McKeeover v. Ball, 71 Ind. 398;
Read v. Howe, 39 Iowa, 553; Todd v.
Flournoy’s Heirs, 56 Ala. 99, S. C. 28
Am: R. 758; Kleinecke v. Woodward,
42 Texas, 311; Gillenwaters v. Scott,
62 Texas, 670, 673; Nichols v. Lee, 10
Mich. 526. See, generally, Coolman
v. Fleming, 82 Ind.117; May v. Board,
30 Fed. R. 250; Valderes v. Bird, 10
Rob. (La.) 896; Camden »v., Plain, 91
Mo. 117, 8. C. 4.8. W. R. 86; Showers
v. Robinson, 43 Mich. 502, 8. C.5 N.
W. R. 988.
§ 258 JURISDICTION. 319

question for the ‘lecision of the court and that its decision, al-
though erroneous, is not void. Where it is essential to the ex-
ercise of jurisdiction over a general class of cases then the facts
showing the particular case to be a member of the class should
be alleged, but we do not think it necessary to the existence of
jurisdiction that all the facts essential to the existence of a
cause of action are required to be averred in order to give ju-
risdiction. The existence of a cause of action and the exist-
ence of jurisdiction are very different things. The rule in the
Federal courts is that the facts on which the jurisdiction of the
court depends must appear, and hence, in order to give juris-
diction in cases where jurisdiction depends upon citizenship,
the diverse citizenship must be averred.!

§ 258. Judgment by default—Presumptions.— Where a judg-
ment is rendered by default in a suit or action prosecuted in a
court of competent general jurisdiction the presumption, in the
absence of anything in the record, showing that it was not
properly rendered, is in favor of its validity where the attack
is a collateral one.2 Where, however, there is a direct appeal
it has been held that when the record is silent there is no pre-
sumption of jurisdiction of the person.? In collateral proceed-
ings the silence of the record of courts of general jurisdiction
upon the subject of process and its service is not available for
the overthrow of the judgment. But where the record affirma-

1 Continental, etc., v. Rhoads, 119
U.S. 237, and cases cited. Amory v.
Amory, 95 U. §. 186.

? Evans v. Young, 10 Colo. 316, 8.0.3
Am. St. R. 583; Fogg v. Gibbs, 8 Baxt.
464. See, generally, First National
Bank v. Geneseo, etc., Co. (Kan.),
82 Pac. R. 902. But, see, Farris v.
Walter, 2 Colo. App. 450, S. C. 31 Pac.
R. 281; Seeley v. Taylor, 17 Colo. 70,
S. C. 28 Pac. R. 723.

3 Schloss v. White, 16 Cal. 65; Joyce
v. Joyce, 5 Cal. 449; State v. Wood-
lief, 2 Cal. 241; Porter v. Herman, 8
Cal. 619; Winslow v. Lambard, 57 Me.

856; Hudson v. Breeding, 7 Ark. 445;
Elligood v. Cannon, 4 Harr. 176; Con-
noly v. Railroad, 29 Ala. 373; Eltzroth
». Voris, 74Ind. 459; Schissel v. Dick-
son, 129 Ind. 139, 8. C. 28 N. E. R. 540.

*Sims v. Gay, 109 Ind. 501; Waltz
v. Borroway, 25 Ind. 380; Dwiggins v.
Cook, 71 Ind. 579; Coit v. Haven, 30
Conn. 190; Lawler v. White, 27 Texas,
250; Swearingen v. Gulick, 67 Ill. 208;
Evans v. Young, 10 Colo. 316, S. C. 15
Pac. R. 424; Messenger v. Kintner, 4
Binn. 97; Fogg v. Gibbs, 8 Baxt. 464;
Herrick v. Butler, 30 Minn. 156, S. C.
14N. W. R. 794; Sharp v. Brunnings,
320 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 258
tively shows that there was no notice, or one entirely destitute
of force, jurisdiction is shown not to exist, the presumption
in favor of the action of the court is overthrown and the pro-
ceedings are void.t_ But mere defects or irregularities will not
render a judgment by default vulnerable to a collateral attack.?
Defects or irregularities are supplied by the presumption that
prevails in favor of the jurisdiction of courts of general juris-
diction. It was held in one case that where the papers were
lost it would be presumed that the case was one in which judg-
ment by default was authorized.’ Incomplete and defective
recitals indicating that there was an appearance will sustain

the presumption.*

35 Cal. 528; McClanahan v. West, 100
Mo. 309; Williams v. Haynes, 77 Tex.
283,5.C.19 Am. St. R. 752; Wilkerson
v. Schoonmaker, 77 Texas, 615, 8. C.
19 Am. St. R. 803; Crim v. Kessing,
89 Cal. 478. See, generally, Crank v.
Flowers, + Heisk. 629; Welsh v. Childs,
17 Ohio St. 319; Sloan v. McKinstry, 18
Pa. St. 120; Baldridge v. Penland, 68
Texas, 441,8.C.48.W.R.565; Credit,
etc., v. Rogers, 10 Neb. 184, 8. C.4.N.
W.R. 1012: Woodhouse v. Fillbates,
77 Va. 317; Ray v. Rowley, 1 Hun,
614; Slicer v. Bank of Pittsburgh, 16
How. (U. 8.) 570.

1 Read v, French, 28 N.Y. 285; Wat-
son v. Miller, 69 Texas, 175, 8. C. 558.
W. R. 680; Great West, etc., Co. v.
Woodmas, etc., Min. Co., 12 Colo. 46,
8. C. 20 Pac. R. 771; McMahon v.
Turney, 45 Mo. App. 103; Renier v.
Hurlbut, 81 Wis. 24,8. C. 14 Lawy.
Rep. Anno. 562; Dennison v. Taylor,
142 Ill. 45, 8. C. 31N. E.R. 148; Joyce
v. Joyce, 5 Cal. 449. See, generally,
Hobson v. Peake, 44 La. Ann. 383, S.
C.10S8o0. R. 762; Taylor v. Ohio River,
etc., Co., 35 W. Va. 328, 8. C. 138. E.
R. 1009; Higgins v. Beckwith, 102 Mo.
456, S. C.148.W. R. 931; Schmidt v.
Thomas, 3311]. App. 109; Cory v. Den-
nis, 93 Ala. 440, 8. C. 9 So. R. 302.

Where the record refers to an agreement

2 Anderson v. Gray, 134 Ill. 550, 8.
C0. 25 N. E.R. 843; McAlpine v. Sweet-
ser, 76 Ind. 78; Morrow v. Weed, 4
Jowa, 77; Bonsall v. Isett, 14 Iowa,
309; Ballinger v. Tarbell, 16 Iowa, 491;
Hendrick v. Whittemore, 105 Mass. 23;
Cook v. Darling, 18 Pick. 893; Finne-
ran v. Leonard, 7 Allen, 54; Wright
v. Marsh, 2 Greene (Iowa), 94; Paine
v. Moreland, 15 Ohio, 485; Borden v.
State, 6 Eng. (Ark.) 519; Sheldon v.
Wright, 5 N.Y. 497; Delaney v. Gault,
30 Pa. St.63; Callen v. Ellison, 13 Ohio
St. 446; People v. Hagar, 52 Cal. 171;
Betts v. Baxter, 58 Miss. 329. Sed, gen-
erally, Frankfurth v. Anderson, 61
Wis. 107; Genobles v. West, 23 So.
Car. 154; McPherson v. Beatrice, 12
Neb. 202; Yentzer v. Thayer, 10 Colo.
63, 8. C. 3 Am. St. R. 563.

3 Foge v. Gibbs, 8 Baxt. 464; Her-
rick v. Butler, 30 Minn. 156, 14 N. W.
Rep. 794. :

‘Crank v. Flowers, 4 Heisk. 629;
Welsh v. Childs, 17 Ohio St. 319. See,
generally, Sloan v. McKinstry, 18 Pa.
St. 120; Baldridge v. Penland, 68 Tex.
441, 8. C. 4S. W. Rep. 565; Credit
Foncier v. Rogers, 10 Neb. 184, S. C. 4
N. W. Rep. 1012; Woodhouse ». Fill-
bates, 77 Va. 317; Ray v. Rowley, 1
Hun, 614; Slicer v. Bank of Pittsburgh,
§ 258 821

but does not set it out, the presumption is that it authorized
the decree.1_ Where the filing of an affidavit is a prerequisite
to jurisdiction the silence of the record warrants the presump-
tion that the affidavit was filed.2 It has also been held that
the failure of the record to show that the proper preliminary
steps were taken to authorize a judgment by confession did not
-impair the validity of the judgment inasmuch as it would be
presumed that all was done that the law required.* It is im-
portant to bear in mind that presumptions available on appeal,
are not, by any means, always available in a collateral attack.
The failure to observe this distinction has led some of the
courts into error and caused them to characterize as void that
which is merely voidable. In the cases we have referred to
this difference is illustrated as it is in very many others. A
striking illustration of the distinction of which we are speak-
ing is supplied by the cases wherein the sufficiency of a com-
plaint is in question. The rule is that defects in the statement
of the cause of action will not be sufficient to authorize a col-
lateral attack,‘ but that such defects, if material, will avail on

JURISDICTION.

16 How. (U.S.) 570; Morrow v. Weed,
4 Iowa, 77.

1 Collins v. Loyal, 56 Ala. 403; Hearn
v. State, 62 Ala. 218.

2 Dean v. Thatcher, 3 Vroom. (N.J.)
470; Newcomb v. Newcomb, 13 Bush.
544. See, as to the effect of defective
notice, Paine v. Moreland, 15 Ohio,
485; Beech v. Abbott, 6 Vt. 586; Glo-
ver v. Holman, 3 Heisk. 519; West v.
Williamson, 1 Swan, 277; Moomey v.
Maas, 22 Iowa, 380; Peck v. Strauss,
33 Cal. 678; Town of Lyons v. Cool-
edge, 89 Ill. 529; Sacramento Savings
Bank v. Spencer, 53 Cal. 737; King-
man v. Paulson, 126 Ind. 507; Lantz
v. Maftatt, 102 Ind. 23.

8 Caley v. Morgan, 114 Ind. 350. We
are not unmindful of the fact that there
is a radical difference between a col-

21

lateral attack upon a judgment and a
direct attack by appeal, nor are we
unmindful of the fact that in many
cases cited the decisions referred es-
pecially to a collateral attack. But
the principle to which the cases are
cited is that which asserts that the si-
lence of the record does not overcome
the presumption that the proceedings
of the court were regular and legal,
for that presumption exists even in
the case of appeal where there is no
averment or no fact opposing it. There
must, indeed, be objection, exception,
and a due reservation of a ruling for
review, and, of course, a silent or in-
complete record can not accomplish
what only objections and exceptions
can accomplish.
4 Old v. Mohler, 122 Ind. 594, 599.
322

.

THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 259

appeal even where the defendant made default in the trial
court.}

§ 259. Effect of assuming jurisdiction—Implied decision as-
serting jurisdiction Where a court of superior jurisdiction
assumes authority over a case belonging to a class over which
its jurisdiction extends, there is an implied judgment that ju-
risdiction exists.” The exercise of jurisdiction creates a pre-
sumption that the question of authority has been considered
and a judgment pronounced upon it. It is not necessary that
there should be any formal declaration or entry of a decision
upon the subject of jurisdiction, for a decision on that subject
is a necessary inference from the act of proceeding in the cause.?*
This is a reasonable and logical rule, and, notwithstanding the
great weight of authority to the contrary, we think it should
apply to all courts having a permanent existence and authority
over a general class or classes of actions. It isthe presumption,
even where there is no official character and no sworn duty to
perform, that all acts are rightfully performed, and there is no
valid reason why the presumption should not apply to all
grades of courts. The contrary doctrine rests upon the basal

1 Abbe v. Marr, 14 Cal. 210; Strock
». Commonwealth, 90 Pa. St. 272; Col-
lins v. Gibbs, 2 Burr. 899. As we have
elsewhere said, jurisdiction does not
depend upon whether facts are well
pleaded, but upon whether the facts
stated, however incompletely or de-
fectively, are sufficient to show that
the particular case belongs to a gen-
eral class over which the authority of
that court is extended by law. Pre-
sumptively there is jurisdiction of
every individual member of the gen-
eral class..

2 Clary v. Hoagland, 6 Cal. 685; State
»v.Waupaca County Bank, 20 Wis. 640;
Thornton v. Baker, 15 R. I. 553, 8. C.
10 Atl. Rep. 617; Ney v. Swinny, 36
Ind. 454; Doe v. Smith, 1 Ind. 451, 457;
English v.Wordman, 40 Kan. 752, 8. C.

21 Pac. R. 283; McGregor v. Morrow,
40 Kan. 730, S. C. 21 Pac. R. 157. See,
generally, Branwell v. Penneck, 7 B.
& C. 536; Bunbury v. Fuller, 9 Exch.
111; Wells v. Brackett, 30 Me. 61;
Otis v. DeBoer, 116 Ind. 531; Ballard
v. Thomas, 19 Gratt. 14, 20. See, also,
post, § 260; ante, §§ 183, 184.
2Osborn v. Sutton, 108 Ind. 443;
Jackson v. State, 104 Ind. 516, 8. C.3
N. E. R. 863; Florentine v. Barton, 2
Wall. 210; Updegraff v. Palmer, 107
Ind. 181; Landon v. Comet, 62 Mich.
80, S. C. 28 N. W. R. 788, 793; Young
v. Wells, 97 Ind. 410; Adams v. Har-
rington, 114 Ind. 66, 71; Plummer v.
Waterville, 32. Me. 566; Humboldt
County v. Dinsmore, 75 Cal. 604, 8. C.
17 Pac. R. 710; Wyatt v. Steele, 26 Ala.
639; Vosler v. Brock, 84 Mo. 574, 578.
§ 260 “JURISDICTION. 323

proposition that inferior judicial. officers are presumed to do
wrong instead of right, and this is a flagrant violation of every
principle of reason and logic. No matter what the rank of a
court may be, it necessarily adjudges that it has authority to
proceed whenever it takes a step in the case, and it should be
presumed that this decision was not wrongful, since to do oth-
erwise is to assume that the court violated the law and usurped
authority.

§ 260. Decision that jurisdictional facts exist—Conclusive-
ness of.—Where there is authority over a general class of cases
and the court is required to ascertain and decide whether the
facts essential to jurisdiction in the particular instance exist,
its decision can not be collaterally impeached. This rule does
not mean that any judicial tribunal, high or low, can create
jurisdiction for itself, for that no court can do, but it does
mean that the court may ascertain and conclusively decide as
against a collateral.attack, whether jurisdictional facts exist in
a particular instance authorizing it to proceed. The court does
not, in doing this, create jurisdiction of the general subject,
but it simply inquires and decides whether in the particular
case such facts exist as authorize it to proceed to judgment.
If, for instance, a justice of the peace has jurisdiction ofa gen-
eral class of misdemeanors and it becomes necessary for him to
decide whether that jurisdiction shall be exercised in a partic-
ular instance, and his right to exercise jurisdiction depends

1 The general rule to which we refer
was thus tersely stated in The Evans-
ville, etc., Co. v. City of Evansville, 15
Ind. 895, 421: “It is a well settled
principle, that where the jurisdiction
of an inferior court depends upon a
fact which such court is required to
ascertain and settle, by its decision,
such decision is conclusive.”” The
court cited the following cases: Brit-
tain v. Kinnaird, 1 Brod. & Bing.
432; Betts v. Bagley, 12 Pick. 572;
Martin v. Mott, 12 Wheat. 19; Van-
derheyden v. Young, 11 John. 150;

vide, also, Birdsall v. Phillips,17 Wend.
464; Ex parte Watkins, 3 Pet. R. 193;
People v. City of Rochester, 21 Barb.
656. See, also, Wanzer v. Howland,
10 Wis. 8; Angell v. Robbins, 4 R. I.
498; Dyckman v. Mayor, 5 N. Y. 484;
Agry v. Betts, 12 Me. 415;- Lowe v.

‘Dore, 32 Me. 27; Waterhouse v. Cous-

ins, 40 Me. 333; People v. Hagar, 52
Cal. 171; Bonsall v. Isetté, 14 Iowa, 309;
Wyatt ». Rambo, 29 Ala. 510, 8. C. 68
Am. Dec. 89; Goodwin. Sims, 86 Ala.
102, 8. C. 11 Am. St. R. 21.
324 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 260

upon the existence of certain facts, his decision that such facts
exist is conclusive as against a collateral attack in a case where
there is a complaint, affidavit or the like, calling into exercise his
general jurisdiction. The rule we have stated is an old one, and it
has been applied in a great variety of cases. It has been applied by
the Supreme Court of the United States to cases where an in-
ferior tribunal prior to issuing bonds must ascertain whether
the petition is signed by the requisite number of persons.}
Other courts have in numerous instances applied the rule to
cases of a similar character.?, The doctrine has been asserted
and enforced in probate matters and in cases of that general

nature.?

1 The Commissioners of Knox Coun-
ty v. Aspinwall, 21 How. (U. 8.) 539;
Town of Coloma v. Eaves, 92 U. S.
484; Commissioners, etc., v. Bolles, 94
U. 8.104; Venice v. Murdock, 92 U.S.
494; Bissell v. Jeffersonville, 24 How.
(U. 8.) 287. See, generally, Bank v.
Dandridge, 12 Wheat. 64, 70; Knox
County v. Ninth National Bank(U.S8.),
13 Sup. Ct. R. 267. It seems to us that
the general doctrine of the court is as-
serted in McNitt v. Turner, 16 Wall.
852; Simmons v. Saul, 138 U.S. 489, S.
C.11 Sup. Ct. R. 369. In the case last
cited the court said: ‘‘The following
authorities are strong in support of the
general proposition under considera-
tion: Thomson v. Tolmie, 2 Pet. 157;
Mohr v. Manierre, 101 U.8. 417; Flor-
entine v. Barton, 2 Wall. 210; Thaw
v. Ritchie, 136 U. 8. 519.”

2 Ryan v. Varga, 37 Iowa, 78; Koeh-
ler v. Hill, 60 Iowa, 543; Spaulding v.
Homestead Association, 87 Cal. 40;
Ela v. Smith, 5 Gray, 121, 8. C. 66 Am.
Dec. 356; Alexander v. Gill, 180 Ind.
485, S. C. 30 N. E. R. 525; Tucker v.
Sellers, 130 Ind. 514, 517; McEneney
». Town of Sullivan, 125 Ind. 407, 412;
State v. Nelson, 21 Neb. 572, 8. C. 32
N. W. R. 589; State v. Weatherly, 45
Mo. 17; Ely v. Board of Commission-

There is a difference,

and a very important one, be-

ers, 112 Ind.361, 8.C. 14 N. E. R. 236;
City of Camden v. Mulford, 26 N. J.
L. 49, 59; Martin v. Carron, 26 N. J.
L. 228, 231; Ayres v. Lawrence, 63
Barb. 454; Quinlan v. Myers, 29 Ohio
St. 500; Argo v. Barthand, 80 Ind. 63;
Calhoun v. Delhi, ete., Co., 64 How.
Pr. 291; Town of Cherry Creek »v.
Becker, 123 N.Y. 161; Henlinev. Peo-
ple, 81 Ill. 269; Chicago, etc., Co. v.
Chamberlain, 84 Ill. 333. But see,
Hovey v. Barker, 45 Kan. 699, S. C. 26
Pac. R.591; Mulligan v. Smith, 59 Cal.
206; Town of Duanesburg v. Jenkins,
40 Barb. 574; Kungle v. Fasnatht, 29
Kan. 559; Oliphant v. Atchison Co.,
18 Kan. 386; Wilson v. Town of Cane-
adea, 15 Hun, 218; Town of Mentz v.
Cook, 108 N. Y. 504, 8.C.15 N. E.R.
541.

3 Porter v. Purdy, 29 N. Y.106,8. C.
86 Am. Dec. 283; Lewis v. Dutton, 8
How. Pr.99; Roderigas v. East River,
ete., Institution, 76 N. Y. 316, S. C. 32
Am. R. 809; Landford v. Dunklin, 71
Ala. 594; May v. Marks, 74 Ala. 249;
Clancy v. Stephens, 92 Ala. 577, 8. C.
9'So. R. 522; Goodwin v. Sims, 86 Ala.
102, 8.C.11 Am. St. R. 21. See au-
thorities cited in note 1, ante page 165,
§ 183. See, generally, United States
v. Walker, 109 U. S. 258; Kellogg v.
325

§ 261 JURISDICTION.

tween a direct attack and a collateral assault, for upon a direct
‘attack, made as the law provides, all rulings and decisions may
be questioned, whereas upon collateral attack the only question
open to investigation is that of jurisdiction, so that rulings as
to jurisdictional facts may be often questioned on appeal, al-
though in collateral proceedings not open to investigation.

§ 261. Recitals of jurisdictional facts or matters.—Where a
court has jurisdiction of a general class of cases, is a permanent
judicial tribunal and is authorized by law to keep a record of
‘its proceedings, and that record is always open to the public,
recitals in the record made by it in a case belonging to the
general class over which it has jurisdiction are conclusive as
against a collateral attack. We know that there is much con-
flict upon the general doctrine which our proposition embodies,

Johnson, 38 Conn. 269; Bouldin v.
Ewart, 63 Mo. 330; Quayle v. Missouri,
etc., Co.,63 Mo. 465; Van Steenbergh
v. Bigelow, 3 Wend. 42; Cauldwell v.
Curry, 93 Ind. 363; Goodwin v. In-
habitants, 12 Me. 271; Hunter v. Hat-
ton, 4 Gill. 115, 8. C. 45 Am. Dee. 117;
Stevenson v. Superior Court, 62 Cal.
60,8. C. 47 Am. R. 465; Thomas v.
People, 107 Ill. 517, 8. ©. 47 Am. R.
458; Devlin v. Commonwealth, 101
Pa. St. 273, S. OC. 47 Am. R. 710;
D’Arusment v. Jones, 4 Lea, 251, S. C.
40 Am. R. 12. The. three cases last
named were cases in which letters of
administration were granted where
the supposed decedent was living,
and the reasoning to some extent
seems to conflict with the statements
of the text. In Porter v. Purdy, 29N.
Y. 106, it was said: ‘‘When, in spe-
cial proceedings in courts or before
officers of limited jurisdiction, they
are required to ascertain a particular
fact, or to appoint persons to act in
such proceedings, having particular
qualifications or occupying some pe-

culiar relation to the parties or sub-
ject, such acts, when done, are in the
nature of adjudications, which, if er-
roneous, must be corrected by a direct
proceeding for that purpose; and if
not so corrected, the subsequent pro-
ceedings which rest upon them are
not affected, however erroneous such
adjudications may be.’”? In Grignon’s
Lessee v. Astor, 2 How. (U. 8S.) 319,
where, by a law of Michigan, the
county courts have power, under cer-
tain circumstances, to order the sale
of the real estate of a deceased person
for the payment of debts and legacies,
it was held that it was for the court to
decide upon the existence of the facts
which gave jurisdiction. In Brittain
v. Kinnaird, 1 Brod. & Bing. 482, Dal-
las, Ch. J., said: ‘“The magistrate, it
is urged, could not give himself juris-
diction by finding that to be a fact
which did not exist. But he was
bound to inquire as to the fact, and
when he has inquired his conviction
is conclusive of it.”
326 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 261

or, rather, outlines, and that the broad statement we have made
is probably not in accordance with the weight of authority, but
we believe that it is sustained by principle, and is the only just
doctrine that can be practically enforced. We do not affirm
that any court can give itself jurisdiction of the general subject
by reciting in its record that it has jurisdiction, and our prop-
osition is not intended to convey any such meaning, nor, prop-
erly interpreted, does it do so. We assume that it is indis-
pensably requisite to the authority to impress validity upon
any record that the particular case should belong to a class
over which the court has general jurisdiction, and upon this
assumption we affirm that a record in a particular case of the
class ‘‘imports absolute verity.”” We do not mean to be un-
derstood as asserting that where the record is contradictory or
‘so entirely defective as to. be manifestly imperfect and in-
complete, its recitals are to be taken as true, but where the
record is fair, intelligible and clear it ought to be so taken.
If a court attempts to make a record in a case belonging to a
class over which it has no jurisdiction its attempt will be abor-
tive and the recitals utterly valueless. If, for instance, a justice
of the peace should assume to issue a writ of mandamus or to
decide that a public officer shall receive a salary, he could
make no legal record, for over the general class-of cases he has
no power. The doctrine declared in some of the cases is, as
we believe, entirely correct if applied to cases where there is
no jurisdiction of the general subject,’ but not correct where
there is jurisdiction of the general subject. If there is juris-
diction of the general subject there is power to make a record,
and a record made under a lawful power by a permanent ju-
dicial tribunal must be held to state the truth until the con-
trary appears, and as intrinsic evidence is not competent to

1 Starbuck v. Murray, 5 Wend. 148,58.
©. 21 Am. Dec. 172; Putnam v. Man,
3 Wend. 202, 8. C. 20 Am. Dec. 686;
Noyes v. Butler, 6 Barb. 613. As bear-
ing upon this phase of the general sub-
ject, reference may be made to Fitz-
hugh v. Custer, 4 Texas, 391, 8. C. 51

Am. Dec. 728; Smith v. Tupper, 4 Sm.
& Mar. 261, S.C. 43 Am. Dec. 483;
Mastin v. Gray, 19 Kan. 458, S. C. 27
Am. Rep. 149. In Ferguson v. Craw-
ford, 70 N. Y. 258, S. C. 26 Am. R.
589, will be found an exhaustive re-
view of the cases.
§ 261 JURISDICTION. 327

sustain a collateral attack it is not legally possible to treat
the recitals of the record of such a court as untrue. The au-
thorities support the doctrine we are endeavoring to maintain
so far as courts of general superior jurisdiction are concerned,
at least so far as domestic judgments are involved, but deny
that it applies to what are termed ‘‘courts of inferior limited
jurisdiction,’’ so that, after all, the principal contest falls on
the question of the character or rank of the tribunal rather
than on the general effect of record recitals made by judicial
tribunals. Silence of the record as to jurisdictional facts does
not authorize any inference or intendment against the proceed-
ings,! and certainly, where there is a recital that the jurisdic-
tional facts do exist there can be nothing upon which a collat-
eral attack can be founded. The whole record is to be inspect-
ed, and if upon inspection it affirmatively and clearly appears
that the recitals showing jurisdiction are untrue the collateral
attack, other necessary factors being present, may prevail.’

1In Dequindre v. Williams, 31 Ind.
444, the court said: ‘‘It is not to be
denied that a court of superior juris-
diction may so make a record in acase
where it has no jurisdiction that the
validity of the judgment can not be
questioned collaterally.”’ The general
subject received very careful conside-
ration in Coit v. Haven, 30 Conn. 190,
8. C. 79 Am. Dec. 244, and the reasons
supporting the general doctrine were
well stated. The cases upon the gen-
eral subject are very numerous; among
them are, Lessee of Fowler v. White-
man, 2 Ohio St. 270; Callen v. Ellison,
13 Ohio St. 446, S. C. 82 Am. Dec. 448;
Harman v. Moore, 112 Ind. 221; Segee
v, Thomas, 3 Blatchf. 11; Hotchkiss
v. Cutting, 14 Minn. 537; Penobscott,
etc., Co. v. Weeks, 52 Me. 456; Ault-
man v. McLean, 27 Iowa, 129; East-
man v. Waterman, 26 Vt. 494; Pugh

v. McCue, 86 Va. 475; Starns v. Had-,

not, 42 La. Ann. 366; People v. Har-

rison, 84 Cal. 607; Riggs v. Collins, 2
Biss. 268; Wright v. Weisinger, 5 Sm.
& M. 210; Delaney v. Gault, 30 Pa. St.
63; Swift v. Myers, 37 Fed. R. 37;
Rigby v. Lefevre, 58 Miss. 639; Riley
v. Waugh, 8 Cush. 220; Borden v. State,
11 Ark. 519; Westerwelt v. Lewis, 2
McLean, 511. A distinction is made
by some of the cases between domestic
and foreign judgments. Ante, § 258.
See, also, Evans v. Young, 10 Colo. 316,
S.C. 3 Am. St. R. 583; Luco v. Com-
mercial Bank, 70 Cal. 339; Benefield
v. Albert, 182 Ill. 665; Yaple v. Titus,
41 Pa. St. 195; Cook v. Darling, 18
Pick. 393; Stephenson v. Newcomb,
5 Harr. (Del.) 150; Crafts v. Dexter,
8 Ala. 767, 8. C. 42 Am. Dec. 666. See,
generally, Cox v. Thomas, 9 Gratt.
323; Finneran v. Leonard, 7 Allen, 54,
S. C.83 Am. Dec.665; Blythe v. Rich-
ards, 10 Serg. & R. 260, 8. C. 13 Am.
Dec. 672.

2 Adams v. Cowles, 95 Mo. 501, 8. C.
328 ‘THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 261

We suppose, however, as the presumption is in favor of ju-
risdiction, that where the court is one of superior jurisdiction
the record must not only affirmatively show that none exists in
the particular instance but must show it so clearly and satis-
factorily as to completely overthrow the inference that juris-
diction existed. As indicated in a note to a preceding part of
this paragraph a distinction is made between foreign and do-
mestic judgments.?, Upon the question whether extrinsic evi-
dence is admissible to show that jurisdiction did not exist there
is a conflict of authority. We are unable to perceive on what
principle such evidence is admissible. If jurisdictional mat-
ters are not to be determined from the record then it necessa-
rily results that parol evidence is competent to contradict the
most solemn record that can be made, and a farther result is
that the rule that a judgment is only voidable, never void,
where the thing relied upon as impairing its validity is not ap-
parent from an inspection of the record is completely over-
thrown. There can not be a division of a judgment; if it is
conclusive as to one matter it is so as to all. A judgment af-
firms that the proceedings from the initial step in the contro-
versy until the last are valid in every respect, and there is as
little reason for allowing oral evidence against one part of the
judgment as against another. To affirm that oral evidence may
be given as to jurisdictional matters is to assert that no judgment
is conclusive and that judicial records are of no more value than
the declarations of individuals embodied in written records. We
confess that we can see no solid ground upon which it can be

6 Am. St. R. 74; Crow v. Meyersieck, ing note, unmindful of this rule, con-

88 Mo. 411; Cloud v. Inhabitants, 86
Mo. 357; Milner v. Shipley, 94 Mo.
106; Brown v. Woody, 64 Mo. 547;
Howard v. Thornton, 50 Mo. 291;
Blodgett v. Schaffer, 94 Mo. 652;
Washington, etc., Co. v. Alexandria,
etc., Co., 19 Gratt. 592, 8. C. 100 Am.
Dec. 710; Aspinwall v. Sabin, 22 Neb.
73,8. C..3 Am. St. R. 258.

1Tallman v. Ely, 6 Wis. 244, 259.
Some of the cases cited in the preced-

tain incorrect statements.

?Thompson v. Whitman, 18 Wall.
457; Knowles v. Gaslight, etc., Co.,
19 Wall. 58. The reasoning of the
court in the first of the cases cited
would perhaps carry the doctrine far-
ther, but the question for decision did
not require an extension of the doc-
trine beyond that stated in the text.
It is not easy to reconcile the cases
cited with those of Croudson v. Leon-
§ 261 JURISDICTION. 329

held that oral evidence may be employed to contradict a judi-
cial record, and we fully assent to the views of the authors and
judges who deny the doctrine.!_ In some of the cases it is held
that where a court of general superior jurisdiction exercises a
special statutory jurisdiction the recitals of its record are not
even prima facie sufficient to sustain jurisdiction. We regard
this doctrine as radically unsound. If the courtis one of gen-
eral jurisdiction its exercise of power is presumed to be right-
ful and its decisions secure against collateral assaults, no mat-
ter what is the nature of the authority exercised in a particular
case belonging to a class of which it has general jurisdiction.?

ard, 4 Cranch, 434; Hudson v. Gues-
tier, 6 Cranch, 281, 284.

1 Freeman on Judgments, §§ 133, 134,
and cases cited; Van Fleet on Collat-
eral Attack, p. 612; Morrill v. Mor-

rill, 20 Ore. 96, S. C. 23 Am. St. R. 955,

Ex parte Davis (Ala.), 11 So. R. 308;
Martin v. Burns, 80 Texas, 676, S. C.
168. W. R. 1072; Lyne v. Sanford, 82
Texas, 58, S. C. 19 8S. W. R. 847;
Townsley, etc., Co. v. Fuller(Ark.), 22
S. W. R. 564; Williams v. Haynes, 77
Texas, 283, S. C. 19 Am. St. R. 752;
Goodwin v. Sims, 86 Ala. 102, S. C.
11 Am. St. R. 21; Cully v. Shirk, 131
Ind. 76,8. C.31 Am. St. R. 414; Hardy
v. Beaty, 84 Texas, 562, 8. C. 31 Am.
St. R. 80. It is not easy to reconcile
the broad doctrine of Thompson v.
Whitman, 18 Wall. 457, with the gen-
eral principle declared in such cases
as Lacassagne v. Chapuis, 144 U. 8.
119, 8. C. 12 Sup. Ct. R. 659.
2In Potter v. Merchants’ Bank, 28
N. Y. 641, 653, the court said: ‘‘If re-
citals are evidence of the performance
of acts necessary to be done to create
jurisdiction in one court and for one
‘ purpose, they must be for all. There
can not be one rule of evidence for
the superior and another for inferior
courts.’? The court cited Bangs v.

Duckenfield, 18 N. Y. 592; Barber v.
Winslow, 12 Wend. 102; Jenks v.
Stebbins, 11 Johns. 224; Shumway v.
Stillwell, 4 Cowen, 292; Borden v.
Fitch, 15 Johns. 121; Mills v. Duryea,
and McElmoyle v. Cohen, 2 Am. Lead.
Cases, 597, 603. Judge Seldon also de-
livered an opinion asserting the same
general doctrine and citing People v.
Nevins, 1 Hill, 154; Foot v. Stevens,
17 Wend. 483. If recitals have the
effect thus attributed to them it must
be true, as it seems to us, that whether
the authority exercised is derived from
the common law or from the statute,
can make no difference. Where the
court is one of superior general juris-
diction, however it may be as to other
courts, the source of the authority is
not of controlling importance, for
it is the rank of the court that gives
its records their force and effect.
This is shown by the reasoning in
the old case of Peacock v. Bell, 1
Saund. 73. The courts which assume
that there is a difference between stat-
utory and common law powers would,
if their doctrine were carried to its
logical conclusion, dwarf all American
courts to special tribunals, since all
American courts owe their jurisdiction
for the most part to statutes.
330 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 262

§ 262. Collateral proceedings.—Our purpose does not re-
quire a very full definition of the term ‘‘collateral proceed-
ings,’’ nor any extended discussion of the general subject, but
we have so frequently referred to such proceedings and so often
used the term ‘‘collateral attack,’’ that it seems necessary to
give at least a rough definition of the terms we have employed.
It is sufficient for our purpose to define a collateral attack as
_ an attempt to avoid a judgment in an indirect mode and not in
a proceeding prescribed by law, instituted for the purpose of
vacating, reversing, reviewing or annulling the judgment.!
As a rule a collateral attack is unavailing where there is juris-
diction,? for where jurisdiction exists the proceedings are not
void, although erroneous. As indicated in the preceding par-
agraph and elsewhere, our opinion is that whether a judgment
is or is not void because jurisdiction is lacking is to be deter-
mined from an examination of the record, and that extrinsic
evidence can not be resorted to for the purpose of establishing

the invalidity of a judicial proceeding.’

1In a late work this definition is
given:. ‘‘A collateral attack on a judi-
cial proceeding is an attempt to avoid,
defeat, or evade it, or to deny its force
and effect in some manner not provid-
ed by law.” It is alsosaid: ‘‘Any
proceeding provided by law for the
purpose of avoiding or correcting a
judgment is a direct attack which will
be successful upon showing the error,
while the attempt to do the same thing
in any other way is a collateral attack
which will be successful only upon
showing a want of power.”’ Van Fleet
Collateral Attack, §3. The Supreme
Court of Oregon, in Morrill v. Morrill,
20 Ore. 96, S. C. 23 Am. St. 95, says
that a collateral attack is ‘‘An attempt
to impeach the decree in a proceeding
not instituted for the express purpose
of annulling, correcting, or modifying
the decree or enjoining its execution.”
See, also, 12 Am. & Eng. Encye. of
Law, § 147.

2 Some of the cases hold that where
there is some jurisdiction but not so
much as is assumed to be exercised,
the proceedings may be assailed col-
laterally. We have elsewhere consid-
ered this question. Post, § 266.

5 To the authorities heretofone cited
may be added Newcomb v. Newcomb,
13 Bush. 544, 8. C. 26 Am. R. 222;
Harmon v. Moore, 112 Ind. 221. See,
also, Mr. Freeman’s note to Morrill v.
Morrill(20 Ore. 95), 23 Am. St. R. 108.
As we have already said, the doctrine
as to foreign judgments is regarded as
different from that which prevails
where the judgment is a domestic one,
and that the reasoning in Thompson
v. Whitman, 18 Wall. 457, seems to
favor the competency of extrinsic evi-
dence in all cases. But as we have
endeavored to show, sound reason is
against the general doctrine; the cases
we have cited and the authors we have
referred to show that as yet the weight
§ 263 JURISDICTION. 331

§ 263. Judicial proceedings are void, voidable and regular.
—wWe have already directed attention to the confusion that has
arisen from confounding void proceedings with such proceed-
ings as are only voidable, and it is not necessary to do more
at this place than refer to some of the essential points in which
such proceedings differ. A void judgment may be successfully
assailed collaterally, but a voidable judgment can only be an-
nulled or vacated in a direct proceeding. A voidable judg-
ment is effective until vacated or reversed, but ‘‘a void judg-
ment can not be regarded as having any legal existence in any
court for any purpose.’ Proceedings are regular when con-
ducted in conformity to law, irregular when there is a depart-
ure from some legal rule or principle.2 Where the departure
from a rule is harmful to a party and constitutes material
error the proceeding may be avoided in the mode prescribed
by law, but an irregularity does not render a judgment void,
nor, as is implied in what we have said, is a judgment ordi-
narily rendered voidable by a mere irregularity in the pro-
ceedings. The English courts give a different shade of mean-
ing to the word ‘‘irregularity’’ from that usually assigned to
it by the American courts, for they generally employ it as mean-
ing what our courts would ordinarily denominate ‘‘a material
error,’’ ‘‘a harmful error,’’ or ‘‘a prejudicial error.’”

of authority is decidedly against that
doctrine.

1 Quoted from Mr. Freeman’s note to
Hull v. Hull (35 W. Va. 155), 29 Am.
St. R. 800, 810, and by him attributed
to the opinion in White v. Foote, etc.,
Co., 29 W. Va. 385, 8. C. 6 Am. St. R.
650. See, upon the general subject of
void and voidable proceedings, Taylor
v. Coots, 82 Neb. 30, S. C. 29 Am. St.
R. 426; Cheatham v. Whitman, 86
Ky. 614; Essig v. Lower, 120 Ind. 239,
See, also, Mr. Freeman’s note to Hahn
v. Kelly, 94 Am. Dec. 762.

2 “Tt has been laid down that an ir-
regularity is either the omission’'to do
something necessary for the due and

orderly conducting of a legal proceed-
ing, or doing it at unseasonable time or
in an improper manner.” Tidd’s Pr.
512. Ofcourse all wrong rulings are
in a general sense irregular, no matter
how important they may be, but, as a
rule, an irregularity is not such a
wrong ruling as will make a proceed-
ing voidable, for ordinarily the term
‘irregularity’? denotes a mistake of
an immaterial character.

3In Holmes v. Russell, 9 Dowl. 487;
Coleridge, J., said: “It is difficult
sometimes to distinguish between an
irregularity and a nullity, but I think
the safest rule to determine what is an
irregularity and what is a nullity is to
332 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 264

§ 264. Objections to jurisdiction Objections to the juris-
diction of the general subject may be made at any stage of the
proceedings.! Such objections may be made on appeal, for
they can not be waived. This conclusion necessarily results
from the principle that consent can not give jurisdiction of the
general subject inasmuch as that can only be given by law.
Waiver never operates in cases where there is no jurisdiction
of the general subject, but, as indicated elsewhere, we think
that where there is jurisdiction of the general subject, that is
of the general class of cases, there may be an effective waiver
of objections to jurisdiction of the particular subject.? If, for
instance, a court of general jurisdiction has authority over

see whether a party can waive the ob-
jection. If he can waive it, it amounts
to an irregularity; if he can not it is
a nullity.’ Inour courts, and so gen-
erally in the English, a party may
waive almost any objection except
such as goes to the subject-matter.
Sage v. Railroad Company, 96 U. 8.
712; Jones v. Andrews, 10 Wall. 327;
Pearson v. Manufacturing Co., 14 Neb.
211; McCormick v. Pennsylvania, etc.,
Co., 49 N.Y. 303; Trenholm v. Morgan,
28 So. Car. 268, S.C.58. E. R. 721;
Strong v. Willey, 104U. 8.512; Rhodes
». Russell, 32 So. Car. 585, 8. C. 108.
E. R. 828; Stearns v. Wright, 51 N.
H. 600; Matter of New York, etc., Co.,
85 Hun, 575. See, Elliott’s Appellate
Procedure, Chapter vi.

1 New Orleans v. Scalzo, 41 La. Ann.
1141; Robinson v. Oceanic, etc., Co.,
112 N. Y. 815; United States v. Yates,
6 How. (U. 8.) 606; Doctor v. Hart-
man, 74 Ind. 221; Parker v. Morrill,
106U.8.1; Hartv. Burch, 31 Ill. App.
22, 8S. C. 22 N. E. R. 831; Rohn »v.
Harris, 31 Ill. App. 26, 8. C. 22 N.
E. R. 587; Douglass v. Neguelona, 88
Tenn. 769, 8S. C. 14 8. W. R. 283;
Hoover v. York, 33 La. Ann. 652;
Crawford v. Carothers, 66 Texas, 199,

8. C.18 8. W. R. 500; Fitzgerald v.
Evans, 53 Texas, 461; United States
v. Phillips, 6 Pet. 76.

?7Cameron v. Hodges, 127 U. S. 322;
Hegler v. Faulkner, 127 U. 8. 482;
Boys v. Simmons, 72 Ind. 593; Schuyl-
kill County v. Boyer, 125 Pa. St. 226;
Robertson v. Smith, 104 Ind. 79;
Weeden v. Richmond, 9 R. I. 128;
Commissioners Court v. Thompson, 18
Ala. 694; Damp v. Dane, 29 Wis. 419,
431; Chapman. Barney, 129 U. 8.677;
Fowler v. Eddy, 110 Pa. St. 117, S.C.
1 Atl. R. 789; Ware v. Henderson, 25
So. Car. 385; People v. Walter, 68 N.
Y. 403; Willins v. Wheeler, 17 How.
Pr. 93; Tiffany v. Gilbert, 4 Barb. 320;
Fitch v. Devlin 15 Barb. 47; Hardin
v. Trimmier, 30 So. Car. 391,8.C. 98.
E. R. 342; Randleman, etc., Co. v.
Simmons, 97 N. C. 89, 8S. C.18.E. R.
923; Murry v. Burris, 6 Dak. 170, 8.
C. 42 N.W.R. 25; Hall v. Wadsworth,
30 W.Va. 55,8. C. 3S. E. R. 29; Keo-
kuk, etc., Co. v. Donnell, 77 Iowa, 221,
8. C. 42 N. W. R. 176; Wilcox v. Wil-
cox, 63 Vt. 187, 8. C. 21 Atl. R. 423;
Laidley v. Kline, 21 W. Va. 21; Bacas
v. Smith, 33 La. Ann. 139.

* Ante, §§ 238, 239, 240.
§ 264 JURISDICTION. 333

actions to recover real estate, but the venue of such actions is
in the county where the land is situated, parties may by agree-
ment submit a case for trial to a court sitting in a county other
than that in which the particular parcel of land lies. Juris-
diction of the person may be waived by express agreement or.
by conduct, and the wide general rule is that where a party
voluntarily appears and submits to the jurisdiction of the court
“it acquires authority over his person. The rule, indeed, is that
a party who desires to object to the service of process or the
like must present his objections at the earliest opportunity or
his objection will be deemed waived.!. Where a party is sued
in the wrong county an appearance and submission for trial
will waive his right to object.? Some of the courts hold that
where a defendant is sued out of the county of his domicile be-
fore a justice of the peace he can not give the justice jurisdic-
tion even by express agreement, because, as the cases say, ju-
risdiction can not be conferred by consent,’ but it seems to us
that these cases are not well decided. The jurisdiction con-
ferred by consent in such cases as those under immediate men-
tion is not jurisdiction of the general subject, for the agreement
does not bear upon the question of the authority of the justice

1See, post, Process, Appearance. For
a somewhat peculiar application of the
general rule, see Crabb v. Orth (Ind.),
32 N. E. R. 711, and Quinn v. People
(Ill.), 834 N. E. R. 148. An appear-
ance, properly made, for the purpose
of presenting jurisdictional questions,
is not a waiver of the right to object.
Foote v. Richmond, 42 Cal. 489; Ault-
man v. Steinan, 8 Neb. 109; Bank of
theValley v. Bank of Berkeley,3W.Va.
386; Coad v. Coad, 41 Wis. 23; Hark-
ness v. Hyde, 98 U. S. 476; Tower v.
Moore, 52 Mo. 118. The Court of Ap-
peals of New York says: “It is very
well settled that a party may waive a
statutory and even a constitutional
provision made for his own benefit,
and having once done so he can not
afterwards ask for its protection.” In

re Cooper, 93 N. Y. 507, citing Lee v.
Tillotson, 24 Wend. 337; Embury v.
Conner, 3 N. Y. 511. See, generally,
Polk County v. Hierb, 37 Iowa, 361.

2 Ohio Southern, etc., Co. v. Morey,
47 Ohio St. 207, 8. C. 7 Lawy. R. Anno.
701; Harrington v. Heath, 15 Ohio,
483, 487; Elliott v. Lawhead, 43 Ohio
St.171; O’Neal v. Blessing, 34 Ohio St.
33; Thomas v. Pennrich, 28 Ohio St.
55; Fitzgerald v. Cross, 30 Ohio St. 444.
See, generally, Kitchen v. Williamson,
4 Wash. C. C. 84; Gracie v. Palmer, 8
Wheat. 699; Raney v. McRea, 14 Ga.
589; Campbell v. Wilson, 6 Texas, 379;
State v. Judge, 21 La. Ann. 258.

8 Chapman v. Morgan, 2 G.Greene
(Iowa), 374; Boyer v. Moore, 42 Iowa,
544; McMeans v. Cameron, 51 Iowa,
691.
334 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 265

over the general class of cases, but goes to the question of the
defendant’s privilege to insist upon his right to be sued in the
geographical subdivision in which he resides. We think the
better reason is clearly with the courts which assert a different
doctrine.

§ 265. Loss of jurisdiction—The general rule is that if a
court once rightfully acquires jurisdiction it continues until
the final disposition of the controversy unaffected by interven-
ing errors or irregularities. As we have elsewhere said, juris-
diction extends beyond the judgment to the control of process
and remains in the court which first acquires it.1 A court may
exhaust its jurisdiction in a particular instance by doing all
that the law empowers it to do, but, ordinarily, jurisdiction is
not entirely exhausted when a judgment is entered. Itis true
that having rendered and recorded one final judgment it can
not render another in the same case, except, of course, where
the first is vacated, or annulled, but the entry of judgment
does not terminate the jurisdiction altogether, since there re-
mains the right and power to control process. The decisions
which seem to adjudge that jurisdiction is exhausted by the
giving and registering of a judgment,” must, as we suppose, be
understood as meaning no more than that a second final judg-
ment can not be rendered in the same case. There may, it is
evident, be cases where the giving of a final judgment or the
making of a final order completely terminates the jurisdiction
of the tribunal, for there are cases in which judgments are
self-executing and there is no process to be issued.? Some of
the cases go very far; thus it has been held that where an order
is made appointing an administrator, the jurisdiction of the

1 Ante, §§ 247, 248.

28tate v. Railroad Co., 16 Fla. 708;
Fossett v. McMahan, 74 Texas, 546.
We think there is a difference between
eases wherein jurisdiction is lost and
cases in which it is exhausted by ex-
ercise. In the one class of cases ju-
risdiction is taken away by law, or

’

ceases to exist because of some act of
the tribunal, while in the other the
authority is taken up and its existence
in the particular case terminated by
its exercise in that case.

SElliott’s Appellate Procedure, §§
392, 393.
§ 265 JURISDICTION. 835

court as to that particular matter is at an end,! and, for similar
reasons, it has been adjudged that if there be a judgment de-
claring that an estate has been fully administered and the order
is consummated by distribution to the heirs the jurisdiction in
the specific matter is exhausted.” It is at least questionable
whether the cases just referred to do not carry the doctrine too
far in declaring, as they do, that the proceedings were void, since
whether there was a prior administrator duly appointed would
seem to be a question for the court to decide in the particular
instance, and if so it is difficult to perceive how its decision
could, at most, be anything more than erroneous. If, in such
case, an issue had been framed by the one party affirming and
the other denying that there was an administrator in office, a
wrong judgment on that issue would not, it is quite certain,
render the appointment of a second administrator void. It is
difficult, in the class of cases now under discussion, to mark
the line between proceedings that are void and those that are
only voidable, but, as it seems to us, a proceeding is not void
where there is jurisdiction of the general class of cases, and
nothing more than a wrongful exercise of authority in a par-
ticular case either because of a mistake of fact or of law, for
the court having authority over the general class of cases must,
as a general rule, have jurisdiction to determine whether or
not that authority has been lost or exhausted. The doctrine
that a court may lose jurisdiction of a cause so that its pro-
ceedings become absolute nullities is carried to a very great
length in acase wherein it was held that the extinguishment of

1Griffith v. Frazier, 8 Cranch, 9; Texas, 626; Croxton v. Renner, 103
Springs v. Erwin,6 Ired. Law,27; Ryno Ind. 223, 8. C. 2 N. E. R. 601; Boyd
v. Ryno, 27 N. J. E. 522. See Mr. ». Swing, 38 Miss. 182, 196. As indi-
Freeman’s Note to Morrill v. Morrill, cating a somewhat different doctrine
23 Am. St. R. 116. from that declared in Fisk v. Norvel,

? Fisk v. Norvel, 9 Texas, 13, 8. C. 58 supra, see Shephard v. Rhodes, 60 Ill.
Am. Dec. 128. See, also, Francis v. 301; Kittredge v. Folsom, 8 N. H. 98;
Hall, 13 Texas, 193; Giddings. Steele, Peeblesv.Watts, 9 Dana, 102; Brough-
28 Texas, 750. Upon the general sub- tonv. Bradley, 34 Ala. 694, S. C.73 Am.
ject, see cases of Smith v. Woolfolk, Dec. 474; Jackson v. Reeve, 44 Ark.
115 U.S. 148; Lindsay v. Jaffrav, 55 496.
336 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 265
the cause of action terminated the proceeding and rendered the
judgment void.t In our opinion, the doctrine referred to is
opposed to principle and authority. The general rule, as de
clared and enforced in many cases is, that jurisdiction, once
vested, continues, and that whether it attaches depends upon
the facts existing at the time jurisdiction is first asserted and ac-
quired, not upon subsequent events. While the general rule
is that jurisdiction is not lost because of mistakes of law or of
fact made in the progress of a case, yet, according to some of
the decisions, when an order is made which denies a party a
right to be heard and the order defeats the provisions of the or-
ganic law giving a party his day in court, there is a loss of juris-
diction.* This doctrine carefully applied may not be wrong, but

1Two Rivers, etc., Co. v: Beyer, 74
Wis. 210, S. C. 17 Am. St. R. 131, cit-
ing In re Pierce, 44 Wis. 411; In re
Crow, 60 Wis. 349. We can not dis-
cover that the cases cited give support
to the doctrine of the able court, for
they belong to an essentially different
class of cases. The court certainly had
jurisdiction at the outstart, and an ex-
tinguishment of the cause of action
could not, as we believe, make the
proceedings coram non judice.

2? We regard Mr. Freeman’s criticism
of the case as just. See 17 Am. St. R.
143. See, generally, Bateman v. Mil-
ler, 118 Ind. 345, 8. C. 21 N. E.R. 292.

3 Morgan’s Heirs v. Morgan, 2Wheat.
290; United States v. Dawson, 15 How.
(U. 8.) 467; Culver v. Woodruff, etc.,
Co., 5 Dill. (U. 8.) 392; Conolly »v.
Taylor, 2 Pet.556; Mullen v. Torrance,
9 Wheat. 537; Ex parte Phillips, 57
Miss. 357; Stuart v. Allen, 16 Cal. 473,
8.C.76 Am. Dec. 551; Gilmer v. Grand
Rapids, etc.,16 Fed. R. 708; Raymond
v. Butterworth, 139 Mass. 471; Tapley
v. Martin, 116 Mass. 275. See, gen-
erally, Boyer v. Berryman, 123 Ind.
451, 8. OC. 24 N. E. R. 249; Stanley v.
Barker, 25 Vt. 507; Spafford v. Rich-

ardson, 13 Vt. 224; Clarke v. Mat-
hewson, 15 Pet. 164; Trigg v. Con-
way (Hemp.), U. §.711;Uptonv. New
Jersey, etc., Co., 25 N. J. E. 372; Bates
v. McConnell, 32 Kan. 1, 8. C. 3 Pac.
R. 515; Hooks v. Mores, 8 Ired. Law.
88, 90; Egerton v. Hart, 8 Vt. 207.

* Windsor v. McVeigh, 93 U.S. 277;
Lindsay v. Jaffray, 55 Texas, 626; Un-
derwood v. McVeigh, 23 Gratt. 409;
Henry v. Carson, 96 Ind. 412. See,
generally, Dean v. Nelson, 10 Wall.
158; Lasere v. Rochereau, 17 Wall.
437; Dorr v. Rohr, 82 Va. 359, 8. C. 3
Am. St. R. 106. See, generally, Pen-
nywit v. Foote, 27 Ohio St. 600, S. C.
22 Am. R. 340; Blackwell v. Willard,
65 N. C. 555; Cuyler v. Ferrill, 1 Abb.
(U. 8.) 169; Van Epps v. Walsh, 1
Woods, 598; Dorr »v. Gibbony, 3
Hughes, 382. The case of Windsor v.
MeVeigh, is often referred to as sus-
taining the doctrine that judgments
in excess of the court’s jurisdiction
are void. In Henry v. Carson, supra,
there was an evident misunderstand-
ing and misapplication of the rule de-
clared in Windsor v. McVeigh, Caro-
lan v. Carolan, 4 Ark. 511. We have
considered Windsor v. McVeigh upon
§ 265 JURISDICTION. 337

certainly it is one to be.rigidly limited and applied with scru-
pulous caution, for if it be unduly extended there will be an
end to the doctrine that judgments import absolute verity. Titles
will be made insecure and litigation greatly increased if the old
rule is much restricted, and these are evils that the old courts
and writers thought it of the highest importance to prevent.
Innovations upon the long settled rules, we, for our part, look
upon as not conducive to good results nor consistent with sound
principle, and we can not but think some of the courts have
gone too far in the direction of encouraging collateral attacks
upon the ground of loss of jurisdiction. The legislature may
take away jurisdiction that it has conferred, but jurisdiction
conferred by the constitution it can not divest.1 The general
rule is that the jurisdiction of courts having a permanent ex-
istence, a record, and jurisdiction of a general class of cases
can not be taken away by the legislature except by express
words or necessary implication.? It is very generally held that
where jurisdiction existing in one tribunal is also conferred upon
another that of the first is not divested, but the two tribunals
become courts of concurrent jurisdiction.*? The accepted doc-

another phase of the subject in the v. Rocdale Land Co., 6 Eng. L. & Eq.
paragraph which follows and also in 241; Gould v. Hayes, 19 Ala. 438;

a preceding paragraph.

1 Jones v. Smith, 14 Mich. 334; Cal-
lahan v. Judd, 23 Wis. 343; Dillard v.
Noel, 2 Ark. 449; Commonwealth v.
Commissioners, 37 Pa. St. 237; Meyer
v. Kalkmann, 6 Cal. 582; Landers v.
Staten Island, etc., 14 Abb. Pr. (N.S.)
346; Connors v. Gory, 32 Wis. 518;
State v. Mace, 5 Md. 337; State ».
Northern, etc., Co., 18 Md. 193; Vail
v. Dinning, 44 Mo. 210; Averell v.
Perrott, 74 Mich. 296, 8. C. 41 N. W.
R. 929; ante, §§ 145, 146, 147:

2 In re Twenty-eighth Street, 102 Pa.
St. 140; Richards v. Dyke, 3 Q. B. 256;
Reeves v. White, 17 Q. B. 995; Cates
v. Knight, 3 T. R. 442; Rex v. Mayor
of London, 9.B. & C. 1; Common-
wealth v. Hudson, 11 Gray, 64; King

22

State v. Moore, 19 Ala. 514; State v.
Bell,5 Port.( Ala.) 365 ;Commonwealth
v. McClosky, 2 Rawle(Pa.),369; Tack-
ett v. Vogler, 85 Mo. 480; Dick’s Ap-
peal, 106 Pa. St. 589; Fidelity, etc.,
Co. v. Gill, etc., Co., 25 Fed. R. 737;
Barnawell v. Threadgill, 5 Ired. Eq.
86; Berkowitz v. Lester, 121 Ill. 99;
Taylor v. Williams, 78 Va. 422; Hurth
v. Bower, 30 Hun, 151; Jenkins »v.
Crevier, 50 N. J. L.151; In re Creigh-
ton, 12 Neb. 280; Catlin v. Wheeler,
49 Wis. 507. °

5 Haysv. McNealy, 16 Fla. 409; Bed-
well v. Jones, 9 Lea (Tenn.), 168. See,
generally, Thompson v. Morton,2 Ohio
St. 26; Claflin v. Houseman, 93 U. 8.
130; James v. Belding, 33 Ark. 536;
Wente v. Young, 12 Hun, 220.
338 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 266

\

trine is that where jurisdiction is taken away from a court by
a statute containing no reserving clause saving pending suits
or actions jurisdiction as to such suits or actions is lost.1 But
the destruction of jurisdiction does not affect judgments ren-
dered prior to the enactment of the statute which destroys it.
Jurisdiction may be lost by a transfer of the case from one tri-
bunal to another according to law.

§ 266. Exceeding jurisdiction—Where a court exceeds its
jurisdiction by entering a judgment beyond and outside of the
general subject over which the law gives it jurisdiction, or
gives a judgment which it can not possibly have power to render,
the judgment is void. There are cases which warrant,—in-
deed, require,—a broader statement than that made by us,’

1 Hollingsworth v. Virginia, 3 Dall.
378; Merchants Ins. Co. v. Ritchie, 5
Wall. 541; Grantv. Grant, 12 So. Car.
29, S.C. 82 Am. R. 506; Phillips v.
Hopwood, 10 B. & C. 39; Rex v. Jus-
tices, 3 Burr. 1456; Road in Hatfield
Township, 4 Yeates, 392; Veatsv. Dan-
bury,37 Conn. 412; Gilleland v. Schuy-
ler, 9 Kan. 569; Church v. Rhodes, 6
How. Pr. 281; Smith v. Arrapahoe,etc.,
4 Colo. 235; State v. Brookover, 22 W.
Va. 214; New London, etc., Co. v.
Boston, etc., Co., 102 Mass. 386; South
Carolina v. Gaillard, 101 U. S. 433;
Commonwealth v. Standard Oil Co.,
101 Pa. St. 119; Holmes v. French, 68
Me. 525; McNulty v. Batty, 10 How.
72; Assessors v. Osbornes, 9 Wall. 567 ;
United States v. Tynen, 11 Wall. 88;
Baltimore, etc., Co. v. Grant, 98 U. 8.
398; Rice v. Wright, 46 Miss. 679;
Lamb v. Schottler, 54 Cal. 319; Wade
v. St. Mary, etc., School, 43 Md. 178;
Saco v. Gurney, 34 Me. 14; Kruse v.
Wilson, 79 Ill. 233; Carson v. Com-
missioners, 64 N. C. 566; Hunt v. Jen-
nings, 5 Blackf. 195.

? Where the court gives a judgment
which it is not possible for it to give,

d

it goes beyond its authority over the
general subject, insomuch as it does
what it has no color of right or sem-
blance of power to do.

3The decision in Windsor v. Mc-
Veigh, 93 U. S. 274, is usually con-
sidered as declaring the broad doc-
trine that a judgment in excess of
jurisdiction in the particular case is.
void, although the case may be a
member of a general class of which
the court has jurisdiction. Itis,.how-
ever, contended by some of the au-
thorities that the case decides no more
than that where the right to appear
and be heard is denied the judgment
is void because there is not due pro-
cess of law. Van Fleet Collateral At-
tack, § 386. We think the decision
under immediate mention is justly sub-
ject to the criticism given it by Mr.
Freeman, and that on principle it can
not be upheld. Freeman on Judg-
ments, § 118. The opinion is not sat-
isfactory in its reasoning, and in our
opinion the dissenting justices, Miller,
Bradley and Harlan, wereright. But
the decision has received approval.
United States v. Walker, 109 U. S. 258,
§ 266 JURISDICTION. 339

but we can not, as we have elsewhere indicated, believe that
the cases which so widely extend the rule are well decided. It
seems to us that so long as the court confines its decision to
the general subject in acase where it has jurisdiction of the
person, its judgment, although erroneous, is not a mere nullity
which may be everywhere disregarded. If the court has, un-
der any circumstances, authority to render the judgment it
gives, the judgment is not absolutely void, although it may be
erroneous.! As was shown in the preceding paragraph, the
general rule (and it is one long since established and one that
for many years has stood unquestioned) is that jurisdiction
depends upon the facts existing at the time the suit or action
is begun, and not upon subsequent events, and this being true,
it is difficult, if not impossible, to perceive how a judgment
can be void so long as the court does not travel outside of the
general authority with which it is entrusted. In every erro-
neous judgment there is a departure from the law, but not every
erroneous judgment is void. If it be once assumed that a judg-
ment is void because the court has not obeyed the law or 'be-
cause the court has not kept within the limits of the law in the
particular instance, or has not given the proper judgment,
then the line between void and voidable proceedings ceases to
exist and there is no rule by which courts can be guided, so
that, whether a proceeding is or is not void becomes a matter
of uncertainty dependent upon the arbitrary decision of a par-
ticular tribunal. We 'do not question the soundness of the
doctrine that when the court undertakes to render a judgment
in a case where it has no possible power to render such a judg-
ment as it does render, the judgment is void; on the con-
trary, we assert that this doctrine is perfectly sound, but we
also affirm that where there is general jurisdiction of the sub-

8. C.3 Sup. Ct. R. 277, 283; Dorr v. language: .‘““Had the court or tribunal
Rohr, 82 Va. 359,S.C.3 Am.St.R.106; power, under any circumstances, to
Henry v. Carson, 96 Ind. 412. See, make the order or perform the act?
Lasere v. Rochereau, 17 Wall. 437; If this be answered in the affirmative,
Earle v. McVeigh, 91 U. §. 503. then its decision upon those circum-

1In the case of Tallman v. McCarty, stances becomes final and conclusive.”
11 Wis. 401, the court employed this
§ 266

340 THE WORK OUT OF COURT.

ject the judgment is not void although it may not be such as
the law requires, if it is one which the court has authority to
render under any circumstances. If a court of criminal juris-
diction should render a civil judgment that judgment would,
of course, be void, since it would be entirely outside of and
beyond the jurisdiction of the tribunal, but if a court having
general civil jurisdiction should award damages and also pos-
session of land where only damages were recoverable the judg-
ment would not be void, although it might be radically erro-
neous. When the tribunal is expressly or impliedly prohibited
from making allowances or giving judgments in a class of
cases, its judgments are void, since the interdiction deprives it
of jurisdiction of the general class. If, for instance, a court
has authority to award compensation to individuals but is de-
nied the power to award fees or salaries to public officers, its
judgment in awarding fees or salaries would be a mere nullity,
for such a judgment would be outside of its general jurisdic-
tion.’ Where the record affirmatively makes it appear that the
particular judgment is one that the court can not render be-
cause of lack of power to render it, there is no violation of
principle in holding the proceedings void,? since the power
which supports judgments is absent, but it is otherwise where
there is power to render a judgment of the same nature and
class as that rendered. If the judgment is of the same class
and nature as that which is proper in the general class of cases
it is not void, because it is not such a judgment as the law re-

1 Bridges v. Clay County Supervisors,
57 Miss. 252. See Bigelow v. Forrest,
9 Wall. 839, where, as said in United
States v. Walker, 109 U.S. 258, 8. C.
3 Sup. Ct. R. 277, it is held that the
court could not do what an act of Con-
gress forbids. This is in accordance
with the cases which adjudge that a
court can not adjudge land to be sold
where the statute forbids asale. El-
liott v. Frakes, 71 Ind. 412; Pepper v.
Zahnsinger, 94Ind. 88; Hutchinson v.
Lemceke, 107 Ind. 121,8. C.8 N. E. R.

71; Seamster v. Blackstock, 83 Va. 282,
8. C. 5 Am. St. R. 262; Anthony v.
Kasey, 83 Va. 338, S. C. 5 Am. St. R.
277; Wade v. Hancock, 76 Va. 620.

2 In re Permstick, 3 Wash. 672, S. C.
28 Am. St. R. 80, citing People v. Lis-
comb, 60 N. Y. 559, S.C. 19 Am. R.
211; Inre Rafferty, 1 Wash. 382. See,
also, Cornett v. Williams, 20 Wall.
226; Eu parte Lange, 18 Wall. 163;
Little v. Evans, 41 Kan. 578; In re
Mills, 185 U. 8. 263, S. C. 10 Sup. Ct.
R. 762.
§ 266 JURISDICTION. 841

quires. If, in other words, there is a mistake of law or fact,
no matter how radical, the judgment is not void if it is one
which, under any circumstances reasonably conceivable, it was
within the power of the court to render. Where, as we have
suggested in the note to the first sentence of this paragraph,
the court gives a judgment which it can not under any circum-
stances have authority to pronounce, it, in effect, goes outside
of the subject over which it is given authority, since it is not
invested with authority to render a judgment of an essentially
different kind or nature from that which is proper in the par-
ticular case before it for adjudication. There is substantial
agreement upon the proposition that a judgment which the
court can not possibly pronounce is void,! but as to what
judgments are within the rule there is a wide diversity of opin-
ion. Some of the cases so much extend the doctrine as to
practically break down the partition between void and voidable
proceedings. To us it seems that unless it is manifest from
an inspection of the record, unaided by extrinsic evidence, that
the judgment is clearly and unmistakably of a kind or nature
which the court could not render under any circumstances
reasonably conceivable, the proceedings are not void although
they may be voidable.2? As we have elsewhere substantially

1Houser v. McKennon, 60 Tenn. Schen, 74 N. C. 607; In re Kaminsky,

287; Jones v. Jones, 3 Dev. Law. 360;
Griswold v. Sheldon, 4 N. Y. 580;
United States v. Labette County, 7
Fed. R. 318; Lane v. Crosby, 42 Me.
327; Berry v. Makepeace, 3 Ind. 154.

2 Gillitt v.Truax, 27 Minn. 528; Chaf-
fee v. Hooper, 54 Vt. 513; Turpin v.
Dennis, 139 Ill. 274, S. C. 28 N. E. R.
1065; Holderman v. Thompson, 105
Ind. 112,8.C.5N.E.R.175; Delafield
v. Brady, 108 N. Y. 524; Swiggert v.
Harber, 5 Ill. 864, 8.C.39 Am. Dev.418;
Rockwell v. Jones, 21 Ill. 279; Ogden
v. Walters, 12 Kan. 282; Maloney v.
Dewey, 127 Ill. 395, S. C.19 N. E. R.
848; Moore v. Jeffers, 53 Iowa, 202, S.
C. 4 N. W. R. 1084; People v. Cav-
anagh, 2 Park. Cr. R. 650; In re

70 Mich. 653, 8. C. 38 N. W. R. 659,
Sennott’s Case, 146 Mass. 489, S. C.
16 N. E. R. 448; Crandall, Petition
of, 34 Wis. 177; Inre Graham, 74 Wis.
450, S. C. 48 N. W. R. 148; Ex parte
Bond, 9 So. Car. 80, S. C. 30 Am.'R.
20; Miller v. Finkle, 1 Park. Cr. R.
374; In re Petty, 22 Kan. 477, 484;
Ex parte McGill, 6 Texas App. 498;
Bernstein v. Hobelman, 70 Md. 29, S.
C. 16 Atl. R. 374; Austin v. Charles-
town, 8 Metcf. (Mass.) 196, S. C. 41
Am. Dec. 497. Holding the strict doc-
trine are the following cases: Fithian
v. Monks, 43 Mo. 502; Reynolds »,
Stockton, 43 N. J. Eq.211,8.C.3 Am.
St. R. 305; Atwood v. Frost, 51 Mich.
360, 8. C. 16 N. W. R. 685; Robinson
342 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 267

said, where a judgment is clearly and unmistakably beyond
and outside of the range or‘scope of the issues, it may be void,
but it is only in rare and extreme cases that a judgment can be
said to be a nullity, because outside of the issues. If within
the range of the issues there is no such excess of jurisdiction
as will make the proceedings absolutely void.!. We think this
general doctrine applies where parties waive formal pleadings,
as well as where formal pleadings are filed.”

§ 267. Estoppel to deny jurisdiction.— As consent can
neither create a judicial tribunal nor confer upon one created
by law jurisdiction of the general subject, it is only in rare
cases that a party is estopped from denying that the court has
jurisdiction of the general subject or from assailing the exist-
ence of a tribunal not created by law. As a general rule, sub-
ject to very few exceptions, there is always open to the parties
the right to object to the jurisdiction of a court over the sub-

ject-matter.®

A party may appeal from a void judgment and

thus effectively remove its apparent force,* but he is not bound

v. Redman, 2 Duvall (Ky.), 82; Feel-
ey’s Case, 12 Cush. 598; Merkee v.
City of Rochester, 13 Hun, 157; Ken-
dall v. Powers, 4 Metcf. 553; People
v. Kelly, 97 N. Y. 212; Ex parte Page,
49 Mo. 291; Peckham v. Tomlinson, 6
Barb. 253; Ex parte Erdmann, 88 Cal.
579, S. C. 26 Pac. R. 372; Ex parte
Arras, 78 Cal. 304, 8. C. 20 Pac. R. 683;
State v. Gray, 37 N. J. L. 368; In re
Price, 6 New South Wales, 140; Zu
parte Martin, 46 Fed. R. 482; Corwithe
v. Griffing, 21 Barb. 9.

1 O’Reilly v. Nicholson, 45 Mo. 160;
Board of Supervisors v. Mineral Point,
etc., Co., 24 Wis. 93; Tolman v. Jones,
114 Ill. 147, 154; Davenport, etc., Co.
v. Schmidt, 15 Iowa, 213; Baizer v.
Lasch, 28 Wis. 268. But see, Rey-
nolds v. Stockton, 140 U.S. 254; Wat-
erman v. Lawrence, 19 Cal. 210.

2¥Fletcher v. Holmes, 25 Ind. 458,
463; Indianapolis, etc., Ry. Co. v.

Sands, 133 Ind. 433, 8. C. 32 N. E. R.
722.

3 Ante, §§ 238, 264; Wildman v. Ri-
der, 23 Conn. 172; Western Union,
etc., Co. v. Taylor, 84 Ga. 408, 8. C.8
Lawy. R. Anno. 189; Roy v. Horsley,
6 Ore. 382, S. C. 25 Am. R. 537; Bent
v. Graves, 3 McCord, 280, 8.C.15 Am.
Dec. 632; Block v. Henderson, 82 Ga.
23, 8. C..14 Am. St. R. 138.

*Trullenger v. Todd, 5 Oregon, 36;
Smith v. Ellendale Co., 4 Oregon, 70;
Coffey v. Wilson, 2 Ala. 701; Evans
v. Adams, 3 Green(N. J.),373; People
». Ferris, 35 N. Y. 125; Cain v. Goda,
84 Ind. 209; Brown v. Goble, 97 Ind.
86; Louisville, etc., Co. v. Lockridge,
93 Ind. 191; United States v. Hucka-
bee, 16 Wall. 414. See, generally,
Mansfield, etc., Co. v. Swan, 111 U.S.
379; Capron v.Van Noorden, 2 Cranch,
126. There is nothing illogical or in-
consistent in allowing an appeal from
§ 267 JURISDICTION. 343

to do so, for a suit or action in a court having no jurisdiction
of the general subject is itself a nullity and may be so treated
everywhere. The party by whom the jurisdiction of the court
is invoked may deny it unless he has by his own acts or con-
duct created an estoppel precluding him from denying the
right of the court to exercise authority, but an estoppel is not
created by the mere act of bringing suit.1_ Where, however, a
plaintiff has invoked the exercise of jurisdiction, has caused
process to issue and has enforced payment of the judgment by
the sale of the defendant’s property, he will not be heard to
object that the court did.not have jurisdiction of the subject.?
The same general principle is enforced in the case which holds
that one who uses a judgment as a defense is estopped to aver
that the court which rendered it had no jurisdiction.? The
doctrine of estoppel was carried very far in a case wherein it
was held that a prosecution before a tribunal, having no juris-
diction barred a second prosecution where the judgment in the
first was acquiesced in by the defendant. The case to which
we have just referred is not entirely unsupported by reason, for
it is not very different, if different at all in principle, from
those cases which hold that a party who accepts a benefit under
an unconstitutional legislative enactment is estopped to ques-
tion its validity.>5 There are many cases adjudging that a party
who receives and retains money or property under a void sale

a void judgment, for the judgment be- 449. Contra, Wilbur v. Abbott, 60 N.

ing a matter of record may cloud titles
or embarrass parties, and they have a
clear right to cause condemnation to
bé pronounced upon it. They are not,
of course, bound to appeal, but they
lave a right to appeal, if they so elect,
and secure a judgment clearing the
record of all clouds and shadows.

1 Bell v. Fludd, 28 So. Car. 318;
Block v. Henderson, 82 Ga. 23, 8. C.
14 Am. St. R. 138.

2 Reichert v. Voss, 78 Ga. 54,

3 District Township v. Independent
District, 69 Iowa, 88, 8. C. 28N.W.R.

.

H. 40.

*McGinnis v. State, 9 Humph. 43,
8. C. 49 Am. Dec. 697.

5 Daniels v. Tearney, 102 U.S. 415;
Vickery v. Blair (Ind.), 32 N. E. R.
880; Ferguson v. Landram, 1 Bush.
548; State v. Mitchell, 31 Ohio St. 592;
Embury v. Conner, 3 N. Y. 511, 8. C.
538 Am. Dec. 325; Van Hook v. Whit-
lock, 26 Wend. 43; Burlington, etc.,
Co. v. Stewart, 39 Iowa, 267; Perry-
man v. Greenville, 51 Ala. 507; Treas-
urer, etc., v. Martin (Ohio), 33 N. E.
R. 1112; Elliott on Roads and Streets,
p. 422. : :
344 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. -§ 267

can not successfully prosecute an action to annul it, and so
there are cases adjudging that void proceedings conducted by
guardians or administrators can not be avoided by persons
who knowingly receive and retain benefits derived from such
proceedings.1 We think it may be safely said that an affirma-
tion of a proceeding will estop a party from assailing the juris-
diction of the tribunal in which it was conducted where the
facts are such as to make it against equity and good conscience
to permit him to retreat from his position and thereby entail
loss upon another who is without fault. This doctrine does
not, by any means, imply that consent may confer jurisdiction;
it simply asserts that the party is concluded from making any
question as to jurisdiction and holds him bound by his acts or
conduct subsequent to the judgment or decree of the court.
There is, therefore, no collision with the general rule that ju-
risdiction of the general subject can not be conferred by agree-
ment. The rule respecting jurisdiction of the person is, as we
have elsewhere said, radically different from that respecting
jurisdiction of the subject. Jurisdiction of the person is al-
ways waived by a failure to object where an opportunity for
objecting is presented, so that it is never essential that facts
sufficient to create an estoppel should exist. There is, however,
a class of cases presenting a peculiar phase of the subject.
The class we refer to is composed of those cases in which.a
party alleges a cause of action or defense in a proceeding
wherein such a cause of action or defense could not be adjudi-
cated had not the party himself asked an adjudication. In

1 Upon the general subject, see Den-
ver, etc., Water Co. v. Middaugh, 12
Col. 4384, 8. C. 18 Am. St. Rep. 234;
Hartwell v. Mutual, etc., Co.,50 Hun,
497; Edel v. McCone, 31N. Y.S8. Rep.
553; Lathrop v. Doty, 82 Iowa, 272, S.
C. 47N. W. R. 1089; Fries v. Fries, 34
Ill. App. 142; Koch v. Losch, 31 Neb.
625, 8. C.48 N. W. R. 471; Carrigan v.
Drake, 36 So. Car. 354,8.C.15 8. E. R.
339; Brown v. Peters, 94 Ala. 459, S.C.
10 So. R. 261; Fox v. Minor, 32 Cal.

111; McLean v. Hugarin, 18 John.
184; Duff v. Wynkoop, 74 Pa. St. 300;
Woodstock Iron Co. v, Fullenwider,
87 Ala. 584; Kile v. Town of Yellow-
head, 80 Ill. 208. In Arthur v. Isreal,
15 Colo. 147, S. C.22 Am. St. Rep. 381,
a woman was held estopped by her
acts from denying the validity of a di-
vorce as against the heirs of her de-
ceased husband, although it was void
for want of jurisdiction.
§ 267 JURISDICTION.

345

such cases there is an estoppel, or at all events, such an acqui-
escence as cuts off a right to’ object after decree or judgment.!
Much the same in principle as the class of cases just referred
to are those in which it is held that a party who secures the
removal of a case from a state court to a Federal court can not
after trial and judgment or decree be heard to aver that the
court to which the case was removed had no jurisdiction.?
Cases of the character of those just referred to rest, as we be-
lieve, upon the doctrine of estoppel. There is much more than
a mere waiver, there is the representation of facts, and whether
the representation is express or implied the party may not
withdraw it after it has been acted upon by his adversary and
the court. We are unable to perceive any reason why the
doctrine should not apply to all cases where there is a repre-
sentation of such facts as confer jurisdiction, since it is the
facts as stated and not the mere consent that must control.? It
is bad enough to permit a party who, by suing, asserts that the
court in which he sues has jurisdiction to subsequently deny
that jurisdiction existed, since he vexes his adversary and puts

1Lounsbury v. Catron, 8 Neb. 469;
Shellenbarger v. Biser, 5 Neb. 195;
Bollong v. Schuyler National Bank, 26
Neb. 281, 8. C. 3 Lawy. Rep. Anno.
142. The doctrine of the cases to which
we refer is essentially the same in
principle as that asserted by the courts
which hold that although jurisdiction
is properly in equity, a judgment by a
court of law is not void, although if ob-
jection had been made the error would
have been fatal on appeal. Amis v.
Myers, 16 How.(U. S.) 492, 493; Town
of Wentz v. Cook, 108 N. Y. 504, 8. C.
15N.E. R. 541; Crissfield v. Murdock,
127 N.Y. 315; Chesapeake, etc., Co. v.
Mackenzie, 74 Md. 36, S.C. 21 Atl. R.
690. Ante, §§ 238, 239. Elliott’s Appel-
late Procedure, § 658, notes 3, 4, § 766,
notes 1, 4.

2In Bushnell v. Kennedy, 9 Wall.
887, the court said: ‘The first act of

the defendant, indeed, under the 12th
section, is something more than con-
sent, something more than a waiver of
objection to jurisdiction, His a prayer
for the privilege of resorting to federal
jurisdiction, and he can not ‘be per-
mitted afterwards to question it.’’
Much to the same effect is the decision
in Sayles v. Northwestern Ins. Co., 2
Curtis, 212.

5 Railway Co. v. Ramsey, 22 Wall.
822; Thornton v. Baker, 15 R. 1. 553,
S.C. 2 Am. St. R. 925, citing Ela v.
McConihe, 35 N. H. 279; Hines v.
Mullins, 25 Ga. 696; Brown v. Haines,
12 Ohio, 1; Mandeville v. Mandeville,
85 Ga. 243; Harbin v. Bell, 54 Ala.
889; Turner v. Billagram, 2 Cal. 520;
Miltimore v. Miltimore, 40 Pa. St.
151; Potter v. Adams Ex. et al., 24
Mo. 159; Lovelady v. Davis, 33 Miss.
577. ’
346 § 267

THE WORK OUT OF COURT.

him to expense, and the rule which permits this ought not to
be extended. There is much reason for limiting it and none
for extending. Where there are any affirmative acts asserting
the validity of the judgment the party who by his voluntary
.act secured it should be held estopped to deny the existence of
jurisdiction, even though such acts might notin ordinary cases
constitute an estoppel. The cases which restrict the rule are
supported by reason and entitled to favor.1 The doctrine of
the cases which adjudge that a bond given in a suit for injunc-
tion or in attachment proceedings and like cases is void if
there is no jurisdiction,’ we regard as unsound, and those that
assert the contrary as sound.? It seems quite clear that one
who chooses his forum and executes a bond in the proceedings
he voluntarily institutes, is liable on that bond to the extent of
the injury inflicted upon the person against whom he proceeds
without regard to the question of jurisdiction or no jurisdic-
tion. The question of jurisdiction may rightfully have some
influence upon the measure of damages, since the extent of the
loss or injury may depend upon how far the case proceeds, but
it can have none upon the question of the right to recover for
the loss actually suffered or the injury inflicted. It is but poor
comfort to one in whose favor a plaintiff executes a bond to be
told, that, although the plaintiff wrongfully dragged you into

1 Wells v. Scott, 4 Mich. 347; Tower
v. Lamb, 6 Mich. 362; Randolph Coun-
ty v. Ralls, 18 Ill. 29; Montgomery ».
Heilman, 96 Pa. St. 44; Bellandes’
Succession, 42 La. Ann. 241; Cross v.
Levy, 57 Miss. 634.

2 Caffrey v. Dudgeon, 38 Ind. 512, S.
C. 10 Am. R. 126; Olds v. State, 6
Blackf. 91; Wilson v. Hamer, 1 M.
& S. 120; Commonwealth v. Jackson,
L Leigh. 485; Benedict v. Bray, 2 Cal.
251, S. C.56 Am. Dec. 332; Sheeley v.
Wiggs, 32 Mo. 398, 405; Garnet v.
Rodgers, 52 Mo. 145; Hessey v. Heit-
kamp, 9 Mo. App. 36.

3 Stevenson v. Miller, 2 Lit. (Ky.)
306, 8S. C. 13 Am. Dec. 271; Gudtner

v. Kilpatrick, 14 Neb. 347; Robertson
v. Smith, 129 Ind. 422; Memmler v.
Roberts, 81 Ga. 659; Cunningham
v. Jacobs, 120 Ind. 306; Fahnestock v.
Gilham, 77 Ill. 637; Bates v. Williams,
43 Ill. 494; Hanna v. McKenzie, 5 B.
Monr. 314, 8. C. 43 Am. Dec. 122;
Cumberland, etc., Co. ». Hoffman,
etc., Co., 39 Barb. 16; Adams». Olive,
57 Ala. 249; Walton v. Develing, 61
Til. 201; People v. Falconer, 2 Sandf.
81; Harbaugh v. Albertson, 102 Ind.
69, S. C. 1 N. E. R. 298; Fenton v.
Harred, 17 Pa. St. 158; Hoy v. Rogers,
4 Monr. 225; Elliott’s Appellate Pro-
cedure, § 357.
§ 268 JURISDICTION. 347

litigation you have no right of action because the plaintiff in-
stituted his action in the wrong court. If the defendant is
free from wrong and the plaintiff does him a wrong resulting
in loss or injury, the plainest principles of natural justice re-
quire that the plaintiff be estopped from asserting that the
court of his own choice had no jurisdiction. The argument
that as there was no jurisdiction all things are nullities is falla-
cious for it assumes the point in dispute, namely, that the
plaintiff-is concluded from denying what he has previously
asserted.?

§ 268. Transfer of jurisdiction.—The policy of the law is to
keep a case in one court and not distribute it piecemeal be-
tween different tribunals, so that the general rule is that when
a case goes by due course of law from one tribunal to another
it goes as an entirety. As we have said when a case goes by
writ of error or appeal from an inferior to a superior tribunal
the case in all its parts is transferred to the higher court.? But
a mere attempt to appeal, or an appeal so entirely ineffective
as not to get the case into the appellate tribunal can not oper-
ate to transfer jurisdiction.? Where a petition and bond are
filed according to law for the removal] of a case from a State to
a Federal court, jurisdiction is transferred. A case may be
transferred from one court to another by law, and as there is
no vested right in a tribunal the legislature may, in the absence
of constitutional restrictions, provide by statute for such transfer

1 There is, of course, no difficulty in
applying the doctrine of estoppel
where there is jurisdiction of the gen-
eral subject, for where such jurisdic-
tion exists an affirmance of the valid-
ity of the judgment, as by accepting
benefits or the like, may preclude the
party from assailing the judgment in
any mode. Trickey v. Schladder, 52
Ill. 78; Freeman v. Weeks, 45 Mich.
385; Cornwall v. Davis, 38 Fed. R.
878; Murphy v. United States, 104 U.
S. 464; Neal v. Field, 68 Ga. 534;
Paine v. Woolley, 80 Ky. 568.

2 Ante, §§ 235, 265; McKinney v.
Jones, 57 Wis. 301; Ex parte Sibbald,
12 Pet. 488; McClannahan’s Heirs v.
Henderson, 1 T. B. Monr. 261; Mc-
Arthur v. Dane, 61 Ala. 539; Boynton
v. Foster, 7 Met. 415; Marysville v.
Buchanan, 3 Cal. 212; McMillan v.
Richards, 12 Cal. 467.

8 State v. Kolsem, 130 Ind. 434;
Brady v. Burke, 90 Cal. 1.

4 Railroad Co. v. Koontz, 104 U. S.
5; Steamship v. Tugman, 106 U.S. 118.
348 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 268

as to pending cases.! There is much conflict of authority upon
the question whether the filing of an affidavit for a change of
venue of itself transfers jurisdiction; our opinion is that it
does not. There is also conflict upon the question whether
the filing of an affidavit so operates as to terminate the juris-
diction of the court in which it is filed, and this question must,

as we believe, be answered in the negative.

* Branson v. Studebaker, 133 Ind.147,
8. C. 33 N. E. R.98. The doctrine of
the power of the legislature over rem-
edies is discussed by Judge Cooley
with vigor and ability, and one of his
statements is, that, ‘‘It may abolish
one class of courts and create another.”’
Cooley’s Const. Lim. (6th ed.)442. Itis
true that, comprehensive as the power
of the legislature is over remedies, it
can not deny entirely a right to some
remedy, but it may essentially change

the remedy. Sturges v. Crowninshield,
4 Wheat. 122; Tennessee v. Sneed, 96
U. 8. 69; Edwards v. Kearzey, 96 U.
8. 595; Louisiana v. New Orleans, 102
U. 8. 203; White v. Hart, 13 Wall.
646; Terry v. Anderson, 95 U. S. 628.
In Brown v. Buck, 75 Mich. 488, S. C.
13 Am. St. R. 438, the court held a
statute providing for a jury trial in
suits in equity to be unconstitutional,
but this seems to be out of line with
the authorities.
CHAPTER VII.
CHOOSING THE FORUM, REMEDY AND MODE OF TRIAL.

§ 269. Election to try by court or jury. § 277. Right to jury trial.
270. Effect of mistake in choice of 278. When to try by jury —Sym-

remedy. ; pathy.

271. Facts differently pleaded may 279..When to try by court.
bring different result. 280. Considerations which deter-

272. Election to sue in tort or on mine whether to try by court
implied contract. or jury. ;

273. Nature of relief may determine 281. Jury will generally award lib-
choice of remedy. / eral damages.

274, Election of remedy in case of 282. Instructions where trial is by
fraudulent purchase. jury.

275. Election as against trustee. 283. Judgment of jurors on facts oft-

276. General rule— Election bars en better than that of judge.
inconsistent remedy. 284. Delay and partiality of judge.

§ 269. Election to try by court or jury.—The advocate can
not always choose the forum for the trial of his case, but he
may often so construct his theory and frame his pleadings as
to determine whether the case shall be tried by the court or by
the jury. In most jurisdictions a suit in equity is heard by
the court without a jury,! and almost all actions at law may be
tried either by the court or by the jury, as the parties may
elect. An advocate who determines that it is expedient to try
by the court, and avoid a jury trial, will, whenever it is prac-
. ticable, so frame his pleadings as to constitute his cause one of
equity jurisdiction. Itis, as all lawyers know, not possible to

1 For examples of equity suits or de- v. Childs, 82 Wis. 460, 8. C.52 N. W.
fenses not triable by jury, see Lynch Rep. 600; Leeper v. Taylor, 111 Mo.
v. Met. Elev. R. Co., 129 N. Y. 274, 8. 312, 8. C. 195. W. Rep. 955; Weil v.
C. 15 L. R. A. 287; Coleman v. Cole- Kume, 49 Mo.158; Wynkoop v. Cooch,
man (Ind.), 31 N. E. Rep. 75; Shep- 89 Pa. St. 450; Lake v. Tolles, 8 Nev.
pard v. Steele, 43 N. Y.52; Stono v. 285; Stilwell v. Kellogg, 14 Wis. 461;
Weiller, 128 N. Y. 655, 8. C.28N.E. Miller». City of Indianapolis, 123 Ind.
Rep. 635; North Hudson B. & L. Ass’n 196.

(349)
§ 270

350 THE WORK OUT OF COURT.

do this in every case; nor, indeed, in many cases; but it may
be done in some. And the fact that equity may have jurisdic-
tion does not prevent the maintenance of an action at law.’
Thus, it often happens that a plaintiff may elect to bring an
action for damages for a breach of contract, or he may institute
a suit for specific performance.? Notwithstanding the changes
made by the codes of civil procedure adopted in many of the
States, there is in most of them still an election between rem-
edies. An advocate may very often elect which remedy he will
pursue, and when he does elect, he will, of course, make the
theory and the pleadings conform to the rules which govern
the class of cases in which he has elected to place the case in-
trusted to him.

§ 270. Effect of mistake in choice of remedy.—A mistake in
the choice of remedies may, in some instances, bring certain
defeat, and in all it is very apt to endanger success. The se-
lection of a radically wrong remedy insures defeat, and even
if a remedy is chosen that is not radically wrong it may, if the
best is not chosen, seriously embarrass and impede the advo-
cate in his work. The choice of remedies is not, therefore,
governed solely by the consideration of whether it is a proper
one, for the question whether it is the best one, must also be
considered. The same facts may bring suceess under one form
of procedure, or in one forum, and defeat in another. Thus,
a suit for injunction will failif brought to enjoin the defendant
from committing a fugitive trespass, but an action at law will
lie.2 An action to recover damages for a breach of contract
may lie where an action for a breach of warranty would fail.
An action for damages for trespass to land brought in one

1 Duffield v. Rosenzweig, 144 Pa. St.
520, 8. C. 23 Atl.R.4; Reynolds v. Hen-
nessey, 17 R. I. 169, S. C. 23 Atl. R. 639.
But, as a general rule, subject to many
exceptions, when an adequate remedy
at law exists, equity will refuse relief.

2 Graves v. White, 87 N. Y. 463, 465;
Smyth v. Sturges, 108 N. Y.495; Snod-

grass v. Snodgrass, 32 Ind. 406; Dot-
ron v. Bailey, 76 Ind. 434.

5 Bolster v. Catterlin, 10 Ind. 117;
Minnig’s Appeal, 82 Pa. St.373; Frink
v. Stewart, 94 N. Car. 484; Smith v.
Gardner, 12 Ore. 221, S. C. 58 Am. R.
342, and note.
§ 271 CHOOSING THE FORUM. 351

county may fail, but succeed if brought in another. An action
may be maintained in one court, but, although the facts may
be the same, not in another; for one court may have jurisdic-
tion and the others not. There may sometimes be concurrent
jurisdiction, and one judge may be preferable toanother. So,
too, it is sometimes possible to select the venue for trial by a
judicious naming of parties, or a selection of the form of the
remedy. There are many cases where much depends upon the
form of the remedy, the court, and the place of trial, and these
are matters not to be lightly disregarded.

§ 271. Facts differently pleaded may bring different result.
—The same facts differently pleaded may lead to different re-
sults. Thus, a suit to foreclose may be maintained on a deed
absolute on its face but executed to secure a debt, for it may
be treated as a mortgage; but it would not support an action
of ejectment nor a suit to quiet title. In a reported case the
facts, shortly stated, were these: The defendants were the
owners of a sow which went upon the plaintiff’s land and in-
jured his cow. The plaintiff, instead of laying as his cause of
action, as he might have done, the trespass of the sow, and
charging the injury to the cow in aggravation of damages,
sued for the injury done by the sow and lost his case, because
he did not prove that the defendants had knowledge of the
vicious propensities of the sow. In another case the defendant,
an infant, hired a horse, and so ill-treated it that it died, and
the plaintiff, instead of declaring on the tort, sued to recover
damages for a breach of the implied contract to take reasonable
care of the horse, and was defeated .?

§ 272. Election to sue in tort or on implied contract. —
Even in those jurisdictions where the code practice prevails
there may be an action on the tort or on the implied contract,
at the election of the plaintiff.? It is sometimes difficult to de-

1'Van Leuven v, Lyke, 1 N. Y. 515. 3 Adams v. Sage, 28 N. Y. 103; Mol-
2 Campbell v. Stakes, 2 Wend. 137. ler v. Tuska, 87 N. Y. 166; Wilmot ».
See, also, McLaughlin v. Dunn, 45 Mo. Richardson, 2 Keyes (N.Y.),519; Bix-
App. 645. bie v. Wood, 24 N. Y. 607; Union
852 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 273

termine whether it is expedient to waive the tort and sue on
the contract, or to ground the action on the tort, for the elec-
tion may, in a great degree, control the method of trial, and
materially affect the rights of the parties under the judgment
recovered.’ A wrong decision of this question may lead to evil
results, and once made the party can not retrace his steps, but
must abide by his decision. It is clear that, in general, an ac-
tion on the contract will be simpler and require less evidence,
but the damages may not be so great nor the judgment so ef-
fective. It is sometimes easier to secure a verdict in an action
for fraudulent representations than in an action on the implied
contract, for evidence of fraud will sometimes strongly influ-
ence the jury against the defendant. A complaint charging
fraud will, as is well known, often let in much evidence that
would not be relevant in an action on the implied contract.
On the other hand, it is sometimes more difficult to obtain a
verdict where it can only be gained by attributing to the un-
successful party a moral wrong than it is where he is simply
charged with having failed to perform his contract. What
course is expedient in such a case can only be determined from
a careful survey and study of the facts, and a consideration of
the character of the party against whom fraud is alleged. If
a man’s character is bad, jurors will not be slow to believe
him guilty of fraud; if eo they will be extremely negra
to impute dishonesty to him.

§ 273. Nature of relief may determine choice of remedy.—
In other cases the nature of the relief will exert an important
influence upon the choice of the form of the remedy. For ex-
ample, personal property is sold upon the condition that it
shall be paid for in cash, and possession is obtained without a
performance of the condition. There is in sucha case a choice
of remedies, for the seller may either sue for the value of the
property, or he may bring an action to recover possession of

Bank v. Mott, 27 N. Y. 633; Nowling eye v. Clark, 90 Mich, 432, S.C. 51 N.
v. McIntosh, 89 Ind. 593, 595; Patter- W. Rep. 528; Pomeroy’s Remedies,
son v. Prior, 18 Ind. 440; Tp. of Buck- §§ 568, 569.
§ 274 CHOOSING THE FORUM. 353

it. If the sale is an advantageous one, and the purchaser
solvent, it would probably be expedient to sue for the value of
the property; but if heis insolvent, then the better course would
be not to sue on the implied contract, but to recover the prop-
erty. In the one instance it would be much easier to make
out the case, but the judgment when obtained might be of no
practical value. It is evident that the matter of the election
of remedies is one requiring care and judgment; but it is
further evident that, after all, the question runs back to the
formation of the theory, for the theory necessarily determines
the form of the action, and what is here said does little more
than show the application of the rules heretofore stated to par-
ticular instances. It is not our purpose, nor is it within the
scope of our work, to fully discuss the rules which govern the
election of remedies, or the methods of procedure, for all that
our purpose requires is a mere suggestion of the necessity of
studying with care, and deciding with caution, upon the choice
of remedies; but a few additional illustrations may be of sery-
ice, and they are given in the following sections.

§ 274. Election of remedy in case of fraudulent purchase.—
It has been held that an action to enforce a contract procured
by fraud is not necessarily a bar to a subsequent action for the
fraud where both actions proceed upon the theory of an affirm-
ance of the contract,’ but it is a bar to a subsequent action
which attacks the contract and seeks to recover the property.’
So, an action to enforce a contract, after discovery of the fraud,
is an election which will defeat a subsequent action to rescind
it.on the ground of fraud. And, on the other hand, an ac-

1Morris v. Rexford, 18 N. Y. 552; 443, 8. C. 8 S. Rep. 870; Seavey v.
Moore v. Baker, 4 Ind. App. 115, 8.C. Potter, 121 Mass. 297; O’Donald »,.
30 N. E. Rep. 629; Bensinger Self- Constant, 82 Ind. 212; Bank v. Beale,
Adding, etc., Co. v. Cain (Tex.), 188. 34 N.Y.473; Kennedy v. Thorp, 51 N.
W. Rep. 136. Y. 174.

Union Cent. Life Ins. Co. v. Schid- ‘Acer v. Hotchkiss, 97 N. Y. 395;
ler, 180 Ind. 214, 8. C.15 L. R. A. 89; Bryan & B. Shoe Co. v. Block, 52 Ark.
Bowen v. Mandeville, 95 N. Y. 237; 458; Bulkley v. Morgan, 46 Conn. 393;
Whittier v. Collins, 15 R. I. 90. Stevens v. Pierce, 151 Mass. 207. An

8Lehman v, Van Winkle, 92 Ala. attachment to enforce a contract isa

23

s
354 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 275

tion to recover the property upon the ground of fraud will de-
feat a subsequent action to enforce the contract.’

§ 275. Election as against trustees.—One who receives
money to be paid by him to another, or to be applied by him
to a particular purpose, is a trustee and may be sued either in
equity for breach of the trust or at law for money had and re-
ceived.2, And an election may be made to follow misapplied
funds or to hold the trustee. So, one who is entitled to a de-
posit in a savings bank, which has been paid, without author-
ity, to another, may sue the latter for money had and received
or he may elect to sue the bank for the deposit, but his elec-
tion of one of these remedies will prevent a subsequent resort
to the other.*

§ 276. General rule—Election bars inconsistent remedy.—
The importance of selecting the best remedy in the first in-
stance is clearly seen when we consider the general rule de-
duced from the foregoing and other authorities. It is this:
Where a party has the choice of inconsistent remedies the se-
lection of one, with full knowledge of the facts, is a bar to the
other. But the rule is otherwise where the remedies are con-
current and not inconsistent. In such a case the pursuit of
one is not necessarily a bar to the other. And the mere fact
that a party mistakes his remedy, believing he has two or

conclusive election to affirm it. Con- v. Jacob, 93 Mo. 331; Becker v. Wal-

row v. Little, 115 N. Y. 387, 8.C.5 L.
R. A. 693; Sickman v. Abernathy, 14
Col. 174.

1 Moller v. Tuska, 87 N. Y. 166; Mor-
ris v. Rexford, 18 N. Y. 552.

2 Taylor v. Benham, 5 How. (U. 8.)
233. :

3 Hodges v. Bullock, 15 R. I. 592.

Fowler v. Bowery Sav. Bank, 113
N. Y. 450, 8. C. 4 L. R. A. 145, 8. C.
10 Am. St. Rep. 479.

5 Boots v. Ferguson, 46 Hun (N.Y.),
129; Fields v. Bland, 81 N. Y. 239;
Bank v. Beale, 34 N. Y. 473; Nanson

worth, 45 Ohio St. 169; Curtis v. Will-
jiamson, L. R., 10 Q. B. 57; Sears v.
Carrier, 4 Allen (Mass.), 339; O’Bryan
v. Glenn, 91 Tenn. 106, S. C. 30 Am.
St. Rep. 862; Ewing v. Cook, 85 Tenn.
332, 8. C. 4 Am. St. Rep. 765; Thomp-
son v. Howard, 31 Mich. 309; Farwell
v. Myers, 59 Mich. 179; Crompton v.
Beach (Conn.), 18 L. R. A. 187.

®Shaw v. Beers, 25 Ala. 449; Mce-
Bean v. Fox, 1 Ill. App. 177; Gold-
berg v. Dougherty, 7 Jones & S. (N.
Y.) 189; Connihan v. Thompson, 111
Mass. 270.
§ 277 : CHOOSING THE FORUM. 355

more remedies when he has not, and pursues the wrong one,
will not of itself prevent him from subsequently obtaining re-
dress by the proper remedy.!

§ 277. Right to jury trial—Where the action is at law,
then, as a general rule, either party may of right demand a
jury.2 Of the existence of this right there is seldom doubt,
but as to when it is expedient to exercise it there is much
doubt. It is not easy for the advocate, with the case fully be-
fore him, to decide whether a jury shall come or not, and it is
more difficult to' give advice upon the abstract question.
Some general rules, proved by the experience of great advo-
cates, may, however, be given, and from these the thinker will
deduce the conclusion as to what it is expedient to do in his
own particular case.

§ 278. When to try by jury—Sympathy.— Where the case
is one not strong in its facts, but appealing to the sympathies
of men, then let a jury come.* Judges are much less apt to
yield to sympathy, for, although they may be moved, yet duty
holds sympathy in check. Jurors, not bound by a stern sense
of duty, yield, where there is a fair appearance of excuse, to
their emotions. They will, indeed, search for an excuse, and
it will go hard with them if they do not find one. As jurors
are liable to err on the one side, judges are liable to err on the
other side, through fear of sacrificing duty to sympathy. It
is unnecessary to specify the cases which fall under this rule,
for they will readily occur to every one who gives the subject
any thought.

§ 279. When to try by court.—lIf the case is really a strong
one, although somewhat obscured, it should be tried by the
court by all means,‘ unless some countervailing facts make a

1 Bunch v. Grave, 111 Ind. 351; But- Rep. 251; Taylor v. Ford, 92 Cal. 419,
ler v. Hildreth, 5 Metc. (Mass.) 49,52; S.C. 28 Pac. Rep. 441.
Peters v. Ballistier, 3 Pick. (Mass. )495. 331 Alb. L. J. 504.

2?Flint River Steamboat Co. v. Rob- 4“Tf,”’ says a writer in the American
erts, 2 Fla. 102, 8. C.48 Am. Dec.178, Law Record, ‘‘the lawyer thinks the
and note; Eshelman v. Chicago, B. & cause good in law and justice, he will
Q. R. R. Co., 67 Ia. 296, 8. C. 25 N.W. prefer to have it tried by the judge.”
356 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 280

different course expedient. A judge will brush aside obscuri-
ties that would perplex jurors, and he will trim down all im-
material matters and go at once to the strong points. Where
the case relates to matters generally known to jurors because
of their business or associations in life, then a jury trial is ex-
pedient, unless the knowledge or the prejudices of the jurors will
probably be adverse to the client the advocate represents. In
many matters the knowledge of jurors is better and more prac-
tical than that of the judge, and that knowledge should be
made available whenever possible. Jurors are less restricted
by rules than judges are, and will often render a verdict in ac-
cordance with what they esteem justice, while the judge, bound
by duty, would deal out the stern law. Jurors love what they
call justice, and although it is often ‘‘a wild kind of justice,’’
still it is a kind that may be frequently pressed into service.

§ 280. Considerations which determine whether to try by
court or jury.—lIf a really strong advocate is on the other side,
or one who has great influence with the jury, whether that in-
fluence be attributable to ability, or to some other cause, a jury
trial should, if possible, be avoided. If the case is one where the
technical rules are one way, and operate with seeming harsh-
ness, then, as any one will see, a jury is wanted by the one
side but not by the other. A party who has a bad witness on
his. side that he must call is safer in the hands of the court
than in the hands of the jury, for the trained mind of the judge
will enable him to see that a bad witness does not taint the
others, whereas a jury is almost sure to judge the other wit-
nesses by the company they are found in.

§ 281. Jury will generally award liberal damages.— Where
liberal damages are wanted and expected a jury is needed.
Judges are likely to award damages as compensation, or in the
nature of compensation, whereas juries are almost sure to give
liberal compensation, and to add something for sympathy, and
still more by way of punishment. There are many cases where
there is no definite rule for measuring damages, and in such
§ 282

CHOOSING THE FORUM. 357

cases, if sympathy is aroused, jurors will deal out compensa-
tion unsparingly, and will not stop with that. Especially will
they liberally award damages where one side is powerful and
the other weak. A weak woman is almost sure to be dealt
with very liberally if a man be the adverse party. Every one,
lawyer or layman, knows how great corporations fare.

§ 282. Instructions where trial is by jury.— Where the pol-
icy of the party is to compel the judge to fully state the law, it
is well to take a jury and ask the judge to instruct in writing.
This course is expedient where there has been an adverse rul-
ing on the pleadings, and an appeal is in view. But, while it
is always advisable to save questions, the true course is to fight
to win in the trial court. That should be the chief purpose,
although it is prudent to prepare for an appeal by saving ques-
tions. This purpose, however, should, we may say at the ex-
pense of a slight digression, be veiled and not revealed to the
jury.

§ 283. Judgment of jurors on facts often better than that
of judge.—Jurors come to the consideration of a case with fresh
and unoccupied minds, and the case placed before them is heard’
with eager interest; whereas, the judge almost always has many
other cases in his mind, and the new case can not receive his
undivided attention. Nor is he called to do work novel or
strange; but, on the contrary, the work is commonplace and
familiar, unless, indeed, the case is a peculiar and striking
one. For these reasons the judgment of twelve jurors on a
question of fact is often really better than that of the judge.’
This, however, is true only where the jurors are men of average

.

1 “Ag for responsibility, a judge, be-
ing a permanent officer, especially a
judge sitting alone, is more responsible
to public opinion than any individual
juryman, who is one of a body assem-
bled only once and immediately dis-
solved. But I believe that the feeling
of moral responsibility is much strong-
er in the case of the juryman, to whom

the situation is new, whose attention
is excited, who for the first time in
his life is called upon to exercise pub-
lic functions in the face of all his
neighbors, than in that of a judge who
is, perhaps, doing to-day what be has
been doing every day for ten years
before.”—Sir W. Erle.
358 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 284

intelligence, who have not tried many cases, for of all bad triers
professional jurors are the worst. The things we have sug-
gested merit consideration by one who is deliberating upon the
question whether he will try his case by the court or by the

jury.

§ 284. Delay and partiality of judge—Another matter that
deserves attention is this: A prompt decision is generally ob-
tained from a jury, while many judges delay their decisions.
Two evils result from these delays; one is that the case is often
postponed until the facts are forgotten or indistinctly remem-
bered, and the case is decided on blurred and indistinct im-
pressions; the other is that long delay makes it very difficult
to secure a full and accurate bill of exceptions. Another rea-
son for trying by the jury is that there are, it must with reluc-
tance be owned, some trial judges who so strongly adhere to
what they have decided that they will do injustice by denying
a fair bill of exceptions in order to prevent their decisions from
being overthrown on appeal. There are, happily, very few
such judges, but the advocate who is so unfortunate as to be
-compelled to practice before such a judge will do well to trust
the jury. It is said by an eminent man, and, indeed, it is.
said by more than one man, that some judges are influenced
by particular advocates. Where this is true, of course the ad-
vocate who opposes one who controls the judge will try by the
jury and not by the court.

1 Sir W, Erle,
CHAPTER VIII.

TIME OF BRINGING THE ACTION.

§ 285. Effect of lapse of time to be § 296. Nuisance.
considered before bringing 297. Real property.

action. 298. Trusts.
286. When cause of action accrues 299. What law governs.
—General rules. 300. Election of remedy.
287. Accounts. 301. Set-off.
288. Agents and fiduciaries. 302. Equity—Laches.
289. Contracts generally. 303. When action is begun.
290. Contribution. 304. Computation of time.
291. Conversion. 305. Effect of disability.
292. Corporations. 306. New promise or acknowledg-
293. Fraud—Concealment. ment.
294. Judgments. ; 807. Special limitations.
295. Negligence. 308. Presumptions.

§ 285. Effect of lapse of time to be considered before bring-
ing action.—Before an action of any kind should be brought,
and in order to determine what remedy and forum should be
chosen, where the right of election exists, the effect of lapse of
time since the cause of action arose must be considered. It
may be that the statute of limitations has barred all remedies,
or it may be that, although one particular remedy is barred by
the statute, another is not. So, it may be that there has been
such laches on the part of the plaintiff as to prevent him from
obtaining relief in a court of equity; and there may be pre-
sumptions, arising from lapse of time, of such a nature as to
defeat an action. All these matters should be carefully con-
sidered before the action is brought.

§ 286. When cause of action accrues—General rules.—In
order to determine the effect of lapse of time it is first neces-
sary to know when the right of action accrued. Ordinarily,
in cases of contract the time when the cause of action accrues
may be determined from the terms of the contract, and in cases

(359 )
360 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 286

of tort it may be fixed by the: time of the commission of the
wrongful act; but there are many cases in which the question
is one that it is very difficult to determine. It may be said,
generally, however, that where a right or claim depends upon
some condition or contingency, the statute does not begin to
run until the happening of the contingency or fulfillment of

the condition.!

So, where a demand is necessary to perfect

the cause of action, the general rule is that the statute does not

begin to run until the demand is made.’

1 Judge v. Everts, 64 Wis. 372; Dam-
ron v. Penn. Co., 99 Ind. 478; Miller
v. Miller, 7 Pick. (Mass.) 183; Hall v.
Felton, 105 Mass. 516; Arnold v.
United States, 9 Cranch, 104; Fenton
v. Emblers, 3 Burr. 1278; Rhodes v.
Smethurst, 4 M. & W. 42; Goodnow
. v. Stryker, 62 Ia. 221; Bowles v. El-
more, 7 Gratt. (Va.) 385; Atkinson v.
Bradford, etc., Soc., L. R., 25 Q. B.
Div. 377; Savage v. Aldren, 2 Stark.
206.

?Bank of B. N. A. v. Merchants’
Nat. Bank, 91 N. Y. 106; Bruce v.
Tilson, 25 N.Y. 194; Dorland v. Dor-
land, 66 Cal. 189; Brewster v. Hobart,
15 Pick. (Mass.) 302; Girard Bank v.
Bank of Penn Tp., 39 Pa. St. 92; Fink-
bone’s Appeal, 86 Pa. St. 368; Mc-
Gough v. Jamison, 107 Pa. St. 336;
Hawkins v. Glenn, 131 U. §. 319, 334;
Gutch v. Fosdick, 48 N. J. Eq. 353, S.
C. 22 Atl. Rep. 590; Cole v. Wright,
70 Ind. 179; Atherton v. Williams, 19
Ind. 105; Lynch v. Jennings, 43 Ind.
276; Emerick v. Chesrown, 90 Ind.
47. If made prior to the time when
it should be made, so that the party
upon whom it is made is under no
obligation to comply therewith, it will
not set the statute in motion. Langs-
dale v. Woollen, 99 Ind. 575. Buta
note payablé on demand is due imme-
diately and the statute runs from its
date. McMullen v. Rafferty, 89 N. Y.
456, 459; Wenman v. Mohawk Ins.

And a cause of ac-

Co., 13 Wend. 267, S. C. 28 Am. Dec.
464, and note; Kimball v. Kimball, 16
Mich. 211; Kraft v. Thomas, 123 Ind.
513; Mills v. Davis, 113 N. Y. 248, 8.
C.3L. R. A, 394; Norton v. Elam, 2
M. & W. 461. Failure to make a de-
mand within a reasonable time may
set the statute to running, and, accord-
ing to some authorities, if not made
within the statutory period, will de-
feat the action. Codman v. Rogers, 10
Pick. (Mass.) 112; Palmer v. Palmer,
86 Mich. 487, S. C. 24 Am. Rep. 605;
Jameson v. Jameson, 72 Mo. 640;
Reizenstein v. Marquardt, 75 Ia. 294,
8. C.9 Am. St. Rep. 477; High v.
Board, 92 Ind. 580; Newsom »v. Board,
103 Ind. 526; Kraft v. Thomas, 123
Ind.513. Compare Keithler v. Foster,
22 Ohio St.27 ; Thrall v.Mead,40Vt.540;
Daugherty v. Wheeler, 125 Ind.421,426 ;
Smith v. Smith, 91 Mich. 7, S. C. 51
N. W. Rep. 694, which show that it is
unreasonable in some cases to hold
the action completely barred at the
end of the statutory period by mere
failure to make a demand. The fol-
lowing rules have been laid down by
the Supreme Court of Indiana for de-
termining when a demand is neces-
sary: ‘1, When the time and place
of payment are fixed in the contract
no demand is necessary before suit.
2. When the time of payment is fixed
and the place is left undetermined by
the contract no demand is necessary.
§ 287 TIME OF BRINGING THE ACTION. 361

tion does not accrue in favor of a remainderman until the termi-
nation of the prior estate.1_ Under the rule that the statute of
limitations begins to run from the time the cause of action ac-
crued, the phrase ‘‘cause of action’’ implies not only right of
action but also power of action.?, In other words, there must
be some one who can sue and some one who can be sued.®

§ 287. Accounts.—The statute begins to run in case of an
open, mutual and current account from the date of the last
item. Where the account is for work and labor performed
under an entire contract and no time is specified as to when it
shall be completed or payment made, the statute does not begin
to run until the work is completed.® So, it has been held that
the statute will not begin to run on an open and unsettled ac-
count between an attorney and client until the termination of

3. If the contract be to pay on de-
mand, a special demand before suit is
necessary, though on a contract to pay
money such demand is not necessary.
4. When the place of payment is fixed
by the contract, but the time is left
undetermined, a demand before suit
is necessary. 5. When both the time
and place of payment are left .unde-
termined by the contract a demand
before suit is necessary.’’ Frazee v.
McChord, 1 Ind. 224.

' Fleming v. Burnham, 100 N. Y. 1;
Luntz v. Greve, 102 Ind. 173; Kellar v.
Stanley, 86 Ky. 240; Dugan »v. Follett,
100 111.581; Lindley v. Groff, 37 Minn.
338; Bradley v. Mo. Pac. R. R. Co., 91
Mo. 493; Pinckney v. Burrage, 31 N.
J. L.21; Burns v. Headerick, 85 Tenn.
102; Orthwein v. Thomas, 127 Ill. 554,
8.C.11 Am. St. Rep. 159, and note;
Allen v. De Groodt, 98 Mo. 159, 8. C.
14 Am. St. Rep. 626, and note.

?Baker v. Barclift, 76 Ala. 414;
Swann v. Lindsey, 70 Ala. 507; Sor-
rels v. Trantham, 48 Ark. 386.

3Sorrels v. Trantham,, 48 Ark. 386;
Murray v. The East India Co., 5 B. &

Ald. 204; Reilly v. Chouquette, 18 Mo.
220; Brenner v. Quick, 88 Ind. 546,
555; Hobart v. Conn. Turnp. Co., 15
Conn. 145; Granger’s Administrator v.
Granger, 6 Ohio, 35.

*Frankoviz v. Smith, 34 Minn. 403;
Skyrme v. Occidental, etc., Co., 8 Nev.
219; Schmeiding v. Ewing, 57 Mo.
78; O’Leary v. Burns, 53 Miss. 171;
Coster v. Murray, 5 Johns. Ch. (N.Y.)
522; Cogswell v. Dolliver, 2 Mass. 217;
Bass v. Bass, 6 Pick. 362; Sanders v.
Sanders, 48 Ind. 84; Harper v. Harper,
57 Ind. 547; Van Swearingen v. Har-
ris, 1 Watts & S. (Pa.) 356. As to
what are mutual accounts within this
rule, see Norton v. Larco, 30 Cal. 127,
S. C. 89 Am. Dec. 70, and note. The
theory is ‘‘that the credits are mutual
and that the account is permitted to
run with the view of ultimate adjust-
ment by a settlement and payment of
the balance.’”’ Per Earl, J., in Green
v. Disbrow, 79 N. Y. 1, 9.

5 Knight v. Knight (Ind. App. Ct.),
380 N. E. Rep. 421; McKinney v.
Springer, 3 Ind. 59; Wright v. Miller,
63 Ind. 220.
362 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 288

their relation assuch.!' But, where an account is ‘‘one-sided,’’
and not an open mutual account, the statute runs against each
item from its date.2 And in case of a stated account, the stat-
ute runs against the balance from the time it is stated.’

§ 288. Agents and fiduciaries.—The statute of limitations
runs as to causes of action against agents and fiduciaries gen-
erally from the time of making demand upon the one hand *
or conversion or disavowal of the agency or liability upon the
other. This is not, however, an invariable rule.6 Where an
agent is wrongfully discharged his cause of action for the
breach of contract accrues immediately,’ and this is true, even
though the time for the agent to enter upon the performance
of his duties has not arrived, if the principal repudiates the
contract and informs the agent that it is no longer binding.®
Executors are technically trustees of the personal property of
their decedent, and can not, therefore, as against the benefici-

1McCain v. Peart, 145 Pa. St. 516;
Johnston v. McCain, 145 Pa. St. 531,
S. C. 22 Atl. Rep. 979; Walker ».
Goodrich, 16 Ill. 341; Noble v. Bel-
lows, 53 Vt. 527; Bathgate v. Haskin,
59 N. Y.533; Eliot v. Lawton,7 Allen
(Mass.), 274.

2Todd v. Todd, 15 Ala. 743; Buntin
v. Lagow, 1 Blackf. 373; Reeves v.
Herr, 59 Ill. 81; Harrison v. Hall, 8
Mo. App. 167; Bennett v. Davis, 1 N.
H. 19; Kimball v. Brown, 7 Wend.
822; Fitzpatrick v. Phelan’s Estate,
58 Wis. 250; Perrill v. Nichols, 89
Ind. 444.

3Union Bank »v. Knapp, 3 Pick.
(Mass.) 96, S. C. 15 Am. Dec. 181;
Schall v. Eisner, 59 Ga. 190; Wood on
Limitations, § 280. So, where the
question of the balance is submitted
to a referee, the statute runs from the
referee’s finding. Moorev. Greene Co.
Comrs., 87 N. Car. 209.

‘Judah v. Dyott, 3 Blackf. 324, S.C.

25 Am. Dec. 112; Jones v. Gregg, 71
Ind. 84; Dodds v. Vannoy, 61 Ind. 89;
Langsdale v. Woollen, 99 Ind. 575;
Rathbun v. Ingals, 7 Wend. 320; Tay-
lor v. Bates, 5 Cow. 376; Krause v. Dor-
rance, 10 Pa. St. 462, 8. C.51 Am. Dec.
496; Whitehead v. Wells, 29 Ark. 99;
Mandeville v. Welch, 5 Wheat.(U. 8.)
277.

Spencer v. Morgan, 5 Ind. 146;
Ferguson v. Dunn, 28 Ind. 58; Love
v. Hoss, 62 Ind. 255; Ward v. Harvey,
111 Ind. 471; Cunningham v. Mc-
Kindley, 22 Ind. 149; Gisborn v.
Charter Oak Life Ins.Co., 142 U. 8. 326.

®See Mechem on Agency, § 533;
Clark v. Moody, 17 Mass. 145; Jett v.
Hempstead, 25 Ark. 462.

™Mechem on Agency, § 624.

®’ Howard v. Daly, 61 N. Y. 362, S.
C. 19 Am. Rep. 285; Dugan v. Ander-
son, 36 Md. 567, S.C. 11 Am. Rep.
509; Danube’ & Black Sea R’y Co. v.
Xenos, 13 Com. B. (N. 8.) 825.
§ 289 TIME OF BRINGING THE ACTION. 363

aries, set up the statute of limitations in bar of the latter’s
claims, so long as such relation exists.1 So, a guardian stands
in the relation of trustee to the ward and the statute does not
begin to run as to guardianship accounts until that relation is
terminated.?

§ 289. Contracts generally.—A cause of action for breach of
a contract accrues at the time the contract is broken.? When
no time is fixed for the termination of services or the payment
for such services, but the work is all done under one contract,
the statute of limitations will not begin to run until the work
is ended;* but where personal property is sold and nothing is
said as to the time and manner of payment, the law implies a
cash payment at the time of delivery, and the statute com-
mences to run at that time.® A contract partly in writing and
partly in parol is regarded as a parol contract, and the action
must be brought within the time limited for bringing actions
upon parol contracts. On contracts of indemnity the general
rule is that the statute begins to run from the time the obligee
or promisee actually pays the money or damages, and not from
the date of the contract.?’ But much will depend upon the
terms of the obligation.’ A cause of action upon an implied
9 Gray (Mass.),60. Compare Davis v.
Gorton, 16 N. Y. 255.

5 Rous v. Walden, 82 Ind. 238; Ben-
jamin on Sales, §§ 617, 706.

®Hackleman v. Board, 94 Ind. 36;
Board v. Shipley, 77 Ind. 553.

7Colvin v. Buckle, 8 M. & W. 680;

Collinge v. Haywood, 1P. & D. 502;
Jones v. Trimble, 3 Rawle (Pa.), 381;

‘Norris’ Appeal, 71 Pa. St. 106;
Ward v. Reeder, 2H. & M.(Md.) 145;
Arden v. Arden, 1 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.)
314.

? Taylor v. Kilgore, 33 Ala. 214; Al-
ston v. Alston, 34 Ala. 15; Kimball v.
Ives, 17 Vt. 480; Mathes v. Bennett,
21 N. H. 204; Nunnery v. Day, 64
Miss. 457.

5 Arnold v. Blabon, 147 Pa. St. 372,
S. C. 23 Atl. R. 575; Middletown v.
Newport Hospital, 16 R. I. 319, 8. C.
1L.R. A. 191.

‘Graves v. Pemberton, 3 Ind. App.
Ct. 71, S. C. 29 N. E. R. 177; O’Brien
v. Sexton, 140 Ill. 517, 8. C. 30 N. E.
R. 461; Jones v. Lewis, 11 Tex. 359.
See, also, Wilkinson v. Johnston, 83
Texas, 392, 18S. W. R. 746; Schock v.
Garrett, 69 Pa. St. 144; Hall». Wood,

Platt v. Smith, 14 Johns. (N. Y.) 368;
Rodman v. Hedden, 10 Wend. (N.Y.)
498; Hall v. Thayer, 12 Metc. (Mass.)
180.

8 See Kirby v. Studebaker, 15 Ind.45;
Anderson v. Washabaugh, 43 Pa. St.
115; Roberts v. Riddle, 79 Pa. St. 468 ;
Vanderkemp v. Shelton, 11 Paige (N.
Y.), 28; Thomas v. Croft, 2 Rich. (So.
Car.) 113; Bank of South Carolina v.
Knotts, 10 Rich. (So. Car.) 543.
364 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 290

,

contract for money had and received, as where there is an over-
payment by mistake, generally accrues immediately upon the
payment and receipt of the money.! But where money is paid
upon a contract incapable of enforcement under the statute of
frauds because not in writing, the statute of limitations does
not begin to run, as against an action to recover it, until the
other party refuses to perform his part of the contract, or does
some act clearly evincing an intention to rescind it.?

§ 290. Contribution.—As a general rule, the right of a surety
to contribution from a co-surety accrues when the amount
necessary to discharge the joint liability is paid and not at the
time the obligation was entered into or the principal became
liable;? but it has been held that where the surety makes par-
tial payments upon the debt secured, the statute begins to run
on each payment after he has paid more than his proportion
of the debt from the time such payment is made.‘ Where a
partner has paid a debt of the firm out of his individual means,
the statute does not begin to run against his claim for contri-
bution until a settlement between the partners.®

§ 291. Conversion.—In an action for the conversion of
property the statute begins to run at the time of the conver-

1 Bank v. Daniel, 12 Pet. (U.S.) 32; 8’ Werborn v. Kahn, 93 Ala. 201, S.
Leather Man’f’rs Bank v. Merchants’ C.9 So. Rep. 729; Scott v. Nichols, 27

“Bank, 128 U. S. 26, 8. C. 9 Sup. Ct. R.
3; Schultz v. Board, 95 Ind. 323; Ware
v. State, 74 Ind. 181; Shelburn v. Rob-
inson, 8 Il. 597; Sturgis v. Preston, 134
Mass. 372; Campbell v. Roe, 32 Neb.
345, 8S. C. 49 N. W. R. 452; Clarke v.
Dutcher, 9 Cow. (N. Y.) 674; St. John
». Coates, 63 Hun (N. Y.), 460. Com-
pare Merchants’ Bank v. First Nat.
Bank, 4 Hughes (U.S8.), 1; Sharkey
v. Mansfield, 90 N. Y. 227; Glasscock
v. Rosengrant, 55 Ark. 376, 8. C. 188.
W. RB. 379; Johnson v. Rutherford, 10
Pa. St. 455.

2 Collins v. Thayer, 74 Ill. 138; Cairo,
etc., R. R. Co. v. Parks, 32 Ark. 131.

Miss. 94, 8. C. 61 Am. Dec. 508, and
note; Camp v. Bostwick, 20 Ohio St.
337; Preslar v. Stallworth, 37 Ala. 402;
Conn v. Coburn, 7 N. H. 368, S. C. 26
Am. Dec. 746; May v. Vann, 15 Fla.
553; Norton v. Hall, 41 Vt. 471; Ben-
nett v. Cobb, 45 N. Y. 268; Singleton
v. Townsend, 45 Mo. 879; Crosby ».
Wyatt, 23 Me. 156.

* Bushnell v. Bushnell, 77 Wis. 435,
8. C.9 L. R. A. 411. See, also, Bul-
lock v. Campbell, 9 Gill, 182; Butler

.e. Wright, 20 Johns. (N. Y.) 367; Da- .

vies v. Humphreys, 6 M. & W. 153:
5 McDonald v. Holmes, 22 Ore. 212,
8. C. 29 Pac. Rep. 735.
§ 291

TIME OF BRINGING THE ACTION. 365

sion. It is sometimes difficult, however, to determine just
when the conversion took place. Where the original taking
is wrongful the cause of action accrues at once and the statute
begins to run immediately;! but when the possession of the
defendant is rightful the statute does not begin to run until
demand and refusal or some other act sufficient to constitute a
conversion.” Thus, where wine was not of the quality ordered
and the buyer refused to accept it but took it from the carrier
and stored it in his cellar, subject to the order of the vendor,
and, some time after the death of the buyer, his successor in
business sold the wine, thus converting it to his own use, it
was held that the statute did not begin to run until the time
of the conversion by the sale.? So, where the owner of bowlders
had deposited them upon his own lot, and, by reason of a
change of grade by the city they were covered up, it was held,
in an action for conversion after he had sought to remove them
and had been forbidden to do so by the city officials, that his
cause of action accrued when he was forbidden to remove them
and the statute did not begin to run until that time. But
actual demand or refusal is not always necessary even when
the original taking’ was rightful. An unlawful sale or disposi-
tion of property rightfully in possession may of itself consti-
tute a conversion, and when such is the case the statute will
run from the time of the unlawful act.°

1 Harpending v. Meyer, 55 Cal. 555;
Read v. Markle, 3 Johns. (N. Y.) 523;
Waller v. Bowling, 108 N. Car. 289, S.
C.12L. R. A. 261; Brashier v. Tolleth,
31 Neb. 622, 8S. C. 48 N. W. Rep. 398;
Rosum v. Hodges (8. Dak.), 9 L. R.
A. 817; Velsian v. Lewis, 15 Ore. 539;
Armacost v. Lindley, 116 Ind. 295;
Baker v. Lothrop, 155 Mass. 376, 8. C.
29 N. E. Rep. 648; Clink v. Gunn, 90
Mich. 185, 8. C. 51 N. W. Rep. 193.

7Giles v. Merritt, 59 N. H. 325;
Wilton v. Girdlestone, 5 B. & A. 847;
Spackman v. Foster, 31 W. R. 548;
Waldron v. Alexander, 35 Ill. App.
319; Torian v. McClure, 83 Ind. 310;

Slaymaker v. Wilson, 1 R., P. & W.
(Pa.) 216.

3 Bishplinghoff v. Bauer, 52 Ind. 519.

4City of Elgin v. Goff, 38 Ill. App.
362.

5Dench v. Walker, 14 Mass. 500;
Melville v. Brown, 15 Mass. 82; Coffey
v. Wilkerson, 1 Metc. (Ky.) 101, See,
also, Branch v. Planters’ L. & §. Bank,
75 Ga. 342; Gordon v. Stockdale, 89
Ind. 240; Hollins v. Fowler, L. R., 7
H. L. 757; Jeffersonville R. R. v.
White, 6 Bush (Ky.), 251; Lane v.
Cameron, 38 Wis. 603; Ray v. Tubbs,
50 Vt. 688; Freeman v. Boland, 14 R.
I. 39.
366 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 292

§ 292. Corporations.—The statute of limitations generally
applies to private corporations the same as to natural persons.
It also applies to municipal corporations in what may be termed
their private capacity;! but it does not apply to such corpora-
tions, according to the weight of authority and reason, in their
sovereign or public capacity.? Thus it has been held that an
individual can not acquire title to a city street by mere adverse
possession,® and where there is no special statute limiting the
time for enforcing an assessment the general statute does not
apply. But a municipality is entitled to the benefit of the
statute the same as an individual.®

§ 293. Fraud—Concealment.—The general rule in equity is
that in case of fraud the statute of limitations does not begin
to run until it is discovered or might have been discovered by
the exercise of reasonable diligence. There are statutory pro-

1 Burlington v. R. R. Co., 41 Ia. 1384;
Koshkonong v. Burton, 104 U. 8. 668;
Mowry v. Providence, 10 R.I.52; May
v. School Dist., 22 Neb. 205, 8. C.3
Am. St. R. 266; Gaines v. Hot Springs
Co., 39 Ark. 262; Western Lunatic
Asylum v. Miller, 29 W. Va. 326, 8. C.
6 Am. St. R. 644; Forsyth v. Wheel-
ing, 19 W. Va. 318; Cincinnati v. Ev-
ans, 5 Ohio St. 594; Cooper v. Detroit,
42 Mich. 584.

2 Sims v. City of Frankfort, 79 Ind.
446; City of Visalia v. Jacob, 65 Cal.
434, S. C. 6 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas.
115; Reed v. Mayor, 92 Ala. 339, 8. C.
33 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 469; Vicks-
burg v. Marshall, 59 Miss. 563; Driggs
v. Phillips, 103 N. Y. 77; Coleman »v.
Thurmond, 56 Texas, 514; Jersey City
v. State, 30 N. J. L.521; Philadelphia
v. Phila., etc., R. R. Co., 58 Pa. St. 253 ;
Simplot v. Chicago, ete., R. R. Co., 16
Fed. R. 350; Sims v. Chattanooga, 2
Lea (Tenn.), 694. Contra, City of

Wheeling v. Campbell, 12 W. Va. 36;
City of Ft. Smith v. McKibbin, 41 Ark. ~

45; Beardslee v. French, 7 Conn. 125;

Cincinnati v. Evans, 5 Ohio St. 594;
Pella v. Scholte, 24 Ia. 283; Dudley v.
Frankfort, 12 B. Mon. (Ky.) 610; City
of Richmond v. Poe, 24 Gratt. (Va.)
149; City of Galveston v. Menard, 23
Texas, 349.

5 Moose v. Carson, 104 N. Car. 431,
8S. C. 17 Am. St. R. 681; Hoadley v.
San Francisco, 50 Cal. 265; Sims v.
City of Frankfort, 79 Ind. 446; Cheek
v. City, 92 Ind. 107; Com. v. Moore-
head, 118 Pa. St. 344, 8. C.4 Am. St.
R. 599; Elliott on Roads and Streets,
666, 669.

* Dist. of Columbia v. Washington &
G. R. R. Co., 1 Mackey, 361; Magee
v. Com., 46 Pa. St. 358; Eschbach v.
Pitts, 6 Md. 71; Pease v. Howard, 14
Johns. (N. Y.) 479; State Bank v.
Brown, 1 Scam. (Ill.) 106.

5 Lancaster County v. Brenthall, 29
Pa. St.38; Gaines v. Hot Springs Co.,
39 Ark. 262; Arapahoe Village v. Al-
bee, 24 Neb. 242, S. C. 8 Am. St. R.
202; Clark v. Iowa City, 20 Wall. 583.

6 “Tn suits in equity,” says Mr. Jus-
tice Miller, in Bailey v. Glover, 21
§ 293 TIME OF BRINGING THE ACTION. 367

visions to the same effect in many of the States, making the
rule at law the same as in equity,! although in some of the
States the cause of action must be concealed in order to postpone
the running of the statute until discovery.?_ In the absence of
any statute changing the rule, a majority of the courts have
applied the rule in equity to actions at law, at least where there
has been a fraudulent concealment of the cause of action by

the defendant.?

Wall.(U. 8.) 342, 347, ‘‘where relief is
sought on the ground of fraud, the au-
thorities are without conflict in sup-
port of the doctrine that where the
ignorance of the fraud has been pro-
duced by affirmative acts of the guilty
party in concealing the facts from the
other, the statute will not bar relief,
provided suit is brought within proper
time after the discovery of the fraud.
We also think that in suits in equity
the decided weight of authority is in
favor of the proposition that where
the party injured by the fraud remains
in ignorance of it without any fault or
want of diligence orcare on his part,the
bar of the statute does not begin to run
until the fraud is discovered, though
there be no special circumstances or
efforts on the part of the party com-
mitting the fraud to conceal it from
the knowledge of the other party.’’
To the same effect are Booth v. Lord
Warrington, 1 Brown’s Parl. Cas. 445;
Hovenden v. Lord Aimesley, 2 Sch. &
Lef. 629; Stearns v. Page, 7 How. (U.
8.) 819; Snodgrass v. Bank of Deca-
tur, 25 Ala. 161,8.C.60 Am. Dec. 505;
Quimby v. Blackey, 63 N. H. 77; 2
Pom. Eq.; § 917, note 3; Gillett v. Wi-
ley, 126 Il]. 310, 8. C.9 Am. St. R. 587;
Peck v. Bank, 16 R.1.710,8.C. 19 Atl.
R, 369. ;

‘See Manufacturers’ Bank v. Perry,
144 Mass. 313; 13 Am. & Eng. Ency.
of Law, 728, note 2.

Churchman ». City of Indianapolis,

110 Ind. 259; Jackson v. Buchanan, 59
Ind. 390; Ware v. State, 74 Ind. 181;
Wynne v. Cornelison, 52 Ind. 312.
As to what is sufficient evidence of
concealment under such a statute,
see Smith v. Blair, 183 Ind. 367, S. C.
32 N. E. R. 1123; State v. Furlong, 60
Miss. 839. See, also, Boomer v. French,
40 Iowa, 601; Hudson v. Wheeler, 34
Texas, 356; Purdon v. Seligman, 78
Mich. 132, 8. C. 43 N. W.R. 1045; At-
lantic Bank v. Harris, 118 Mass. 147;
Nudd v. Hamblin, 8 Allen(Mass.), 130.
The last two cases from the same court
are especially valuable upon this point,
for in the former it was held that there
was a fraudulent concealment, and in
the latter that there was not, the facts,
of course, being different.

3 First Mass. Turnp. Co. v. Field, 3
Mass. 201, S.C.3 Am. Dec. 124; Welles
». Fish, 3 Pick.(Mass.) 74; Farnam v.
Brooks, 9 Pick. (Mass.) 212; Duffitt v.
Tuhan, 28 Kan. 292; Yniestrav. Tarle-
ton, 67 Ala. 126; Cole v. McGlathry,
9 Me. 131; Douglas v. Elkins, 28 N.
H. 26; Harrisburg v. Forster, 8 Watts
(Pa.), 12; Morgan v. Tener, 83 Pa. St.
305; Jones v. Conoway, 4 Yeates(Pa.),
109; Campbell v. Vining, 23 Ill. 525;
Raymond v, Simonson, 4 Blackf. 85;
Andrews v. Smithwick, 34 Texas, 544;
McAlpine v. Hedges, 21 Fed. R. 689;
Traer v. Clews, 115 U. 8. 528, S. C. 6
Sup. Ct. Rep. 155 ; Snodgrass v. Branch
Bank, 25 Ala. 161, 8. C. 60 Am. Dec.
505, and note. Contra, Troup v. Smith,
368 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 295

§ 294. Judgments.—In the case of a judgment the statute of
limitations ordinarily begins to run at the time the judgment is
rendered, and it has been held that where there is a nunc pro
tunc entry the statute runs from the date of the actual rendition
of the judgment and not from the date as of which it is ren-
dered.? Under some statutes a judgment is considered as ren-
dered only when it is entered of record.’ .

§ 295. Negligence.—In cases of negligence where the cause of
action is the breach of duty and resulting damage or injury, and
not the mere breach of duty, it does not accrue, and the statute
does not begin to run until the time of the injury or damage.
Thus, in an action for damages for personal injuries caused by
a falling bridge, it was held that the mere negligent act of
constructing an unsafe bridge, committed thirteen years be-
fore, gave no cause of action, and that the statute did not be-
gin to run until the injury was received.> But in cases of torts

20 Johns. (N.Y.) 33; Callis v. Waddy,
2 Munf. (Va.) 511; Miles v. Berry, 1
Hill (So. Car.), 296 (but see Harrell
v. Kelly, 2 McCord, 426); York v.
Bright, 4 Humph. (Tenn.) 312; Ellis
v. Kelso, 18 B. Mon. (Ky.) 296. ‘“We
are of the opinion,’’ says Mr. Justice
Miller, in Bailey v. Glover, 21 Wall.
(U. 8.) 342, 349, ‘that the weight of
judicial authority, both in this country
and in England, is in the application
of the rule to suits at law, as well as
to suits in equity. And we are also
of the opinion that this is founded in
a sound and philosophical view of the
principles of the statutes of limita-
tion.” =

1 Dieffenbach v. Roch, 112 N.Y. 621;
Mawhinney v. Doane, 40 Kan. 676;
Dabney v. Shelton, 82 Va. 349.

2 Borer v. Chapman, 119 U. S. 587,
8. C. 7 Sup. Ct. R. 342. See, also, Tap-
ley v. Goodsell, 122 Mass. 176; An-
derson v. Mitchell, 58 Ind. 592; Gray
v. Palmer, 28 Cal. 416; Genellav. Rel-

yea, 32 Cal. 159. Compare Trenouth
v. Farrington, 54 Cal. 273; Coon v.
Grand Lodge, 76 Cal. 354, 8. C. 18 Pac.
R. 384; Credit Co. v. Arkansas, etc.,
Co., 128 U. 8. 258.

5 Crim v. Kessing, 89 Cal. 478, 8. C.
23 Am. St. R. 491; Condee v. Barton,
62 Cal. 1; Atna L. Ins. Co, v. Hesser,
77 Towa, 381, S. C. 14 Am. St. R. 297;
Whitwell & Hoover v. Emory, 3 Mich.
84, 8. C. 59 Am. Dec. 220, 222. :

‘ Whitehouse v. Fellowes, 9C. B. (N.
8.) 901; Jones v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co.,
74 Me. 356; Backhouse v. Bonomi, 9
H. of L. Cas. 503; Goff v. Pawtucket,
13 R. I. 471.

’Board of Com’rs v. Pearson, 120
Ind. 426,8.C.16 Am. St. R.325. Two
things must, as a general rule, concur
to give a complete right of action; 1,
a breach of duty owing to the plaintiff;
2, damage to the plaintiff. City of
North Vernon v. Voegler, 103 Ind. 314;
Diebold v. Penna., etc., Co., 50 N. J.
L. 478; Manning v. Chesapeake, etc.,
§ 296 TIME OF BRINGING THE ACTION. 369

quasi ex contractu, where the gist of the action is the negligent
breach of duty and not the injury resulting therefrom, the
statute begins to run from the time of the negligent breach of
-duty.!. Thus, where the defendant had agreed to remove his
goods from a warehouse, but negligently failed to do so, and
by reason thereof the plaintiff, several years afterwards, was
compelled to pay damages to one to whom he had sold the
warehouse, it was held that the cause of action accrued when
the defendant neglected to remove the goods, and not when the
plaintiff had to pay the damages.”

§ 296. Nuisance.—Each day’s continuance of a public nui-
sance is an indictable offense, and no right to maintain it can
be acquired by prescription.* But an action for damages caused
by a private nuisance is within the statute, and when the nui-
sance is permanent and is at its creation. productive of all the
damage that can ever result from it, all damages must be re-
covered in one action, and the statute of limitations begins to
run as soon as it is created.* On the other hand, if the nui-

Co. (W. Va.), 16 Lawy. R. Anno. 271;
Redigan v. Boston, etc., Co., 155 Mass.
: 44,8. C. 28 N. E. R. 1133; Reardon v.
Thompson, 149 Mass. 267; Parker v.
Publishing Co., 69 Me. 173; Plummer
v. Dill, 156 Mass. 426, 8. C. 31 N. E.
R.128; Larmorev. Iron Co., 101 N.Y.
891; Woolrine’s Adm’r v. Chesapeake,
etc., Co., 36 W. Va. 329, 8. C. 15 8. E.
R. 81; Gillis v. Penna. Co., 59 Pa. St.

129; Schmidt v. Bauer, 80 Cal. 565; .

Nicholson v. Erie, etc., Co., 41 N. Y.
525; State, ex rel. Travelers Ins. Co., v.
Harris, 89 Ind. 363, 366; Cooley on
Torts, 660; Elliott on Roads and
Streets, 503; 1 Sutherland on Dam-
‘ages, § 3.

‘! Northrop v. Hill, 61 Barb. (N. Y.)
136; Northrop v. Hill, 57 N. Y. 351;
Ellis v. Kelso, 18 B. Mon. (Ky.) 296;
Gustin v. Jefferson County, 15 Iowa,
158; Lathrop v. Snellbaker, 6 Ohio St.
.276; Brown v. Howard, 4 Moore, 508;

24

Howell v. Young, 5 B. & C. 259; Cook
v. Rives, 13 8. & M. 328; Raynor v.
Mintzer, 72 Cal. 585.

2M’ Kerras v. Gardner, 3 Johns. (N.
Y.) 187.

3 State v. Berdetta, 73 Ind. 185; Peo-
ple v. Cunningham, 1 Denio (N. Y.),
524; Com. v. Upton, 6 Gray (Mass.),
473; Queen v. Brewster, 8 Upper Can.
C. P. 208; Cross v. Mayor, 18 N. J.
Eq. 305.

* Chicago, etc., R. R. Co. v. McAuley,
121 Ill. 160; Chicago, ete., Ry. Co. v.
Loeb, 118 Il]. 203; Troy v. Cheshire R.
R. Co., 23 N. H. 83, 8. C. 55.Am. Dec.
177; Powersv. Council Bluffs, 45 Iowa,
652, 8S. C. 24 Am. R. 792; Bizer v. Ot-
tumwa Hydraulic, etc., Co., 70 Iowa,
145; Krueger v. Grand Rapids, etc.,
R. R. Co., 51 Mich. 142; Little Rock,
etc., Ry. Co. v. Chapman, 39 Ark. 463,
S. C. 43 Am. R. 280; St. Louis, etc.,
Ry. Co. v.,Morris, 35 Ark. 622; Kan-
370 § 297

THE WORK OUT OF COUR?.

sance is transient in its character or permanent but not neces-
sarily injurious in such a way that damages can be recovered
once for all, that is to say, if its continuance gives rise to a
new cause of-action from time to time, the statute begins to
run as to each successive new cause of action from the time it
accrues, and not necessarily from the date of the creation of
the original nuisance. The distinction above stated is sup-
ported by the authorities, but the line is not very clearly de-
fined and in the application of the law to particular facts the
authorities are not altogether harmonious.?

§ 297. Real property.—It is well settled that, in the absence
of actual adverse possession, the possession of real property
follows the title,? and the rightful owner of land is therefore
deemed to be in possession until he is disseized or ousted there-
from. Hence, it follows that mere lapse of time, in the ab-
sence of adverse possession or circumstances constituting an

estoppel, will not bar an action by the true owner.

sas Pac. Ry. Co. v. Mihlman, 17 Kan.
224; City of Lafayette v. Nagle, 113
Ind. 425.

1McConnel v. Kibbe, 29 Ill. 483;
Fell v. Bennett, 110 Pa. St. 181; Stad-
ler v. Grieben, 61-Wis. 500; Athens
Mfg. Co. v. Rucker, 80 Ga. 291; Har-
back v. Des Moines, etc., Ry.'Co., 80
Iowa, 593; Miller v. Keokuk, etc., Ry.
Co., 63 Iowa, 680; Valley Ry. Co. v.
Franz, 43 Ohio St. 623; Inhabitants of
New Salem v. Eagle Mill Co., 138 Mass.
8; Culver v. Chicago, etc., Ry. Co., 38
Mo. App. 180; Colrick ». Swinburne,
105 N. Y. 503; Reed v. State, 108N. Y.
407; Reid v. City of Atlanta, 73 Ga.
523; Werges v. St. Louis, etc., R. R.
Co., 35 La. Ann. 641; St. Louis, etc.,
Ry. Co. v. Biggs, 52 Ark. 240, S. C. 20
Am. St. R.174. 0 |

?See and compare City of North
Vernon v. Voegler, 103 Ind. 314, and
Uline v. N. Y. OC. & H. RB. RB. Co., 101
N, Y. 98; 1 Sutherland on Damages,

The statute

§§ 114, 116, and Mr. Starr’s article on
Prospective Damages, in 26 Am. L.
Reg. (N. 8.) 281, 345.

5 Bradley v. West, 60 Mo. 33; Rob-
inson v. Lake, 14 Iowa, 421, 424;
Chance v. Branch, 58 Texas, 490; La
Frombois v. Jackson, 8 Cow. (N. Y.)
589; United States »v. Arredondo, 6
Peters (U. 8.), 691; McIver v. Kyger,
3 Wheat. (U. 8.) 53.

‘Norton v. Sanders, 1 Dana (Ky.),
14; Smith v. McCall, 2 Humph.(Tenn.)
163; Davis v. Young,.36 La. Ann. 374;
Cholmondeley v. Clinton, 2 Jac. & W.
1; Sedgw. & Wait on Tr. of Tit. to
Land, § 730; Buswell on Lim. and
Ady. Possession, § 227. But where
the statute of limitations expressly re-
quires the action to be brought within
twenty, years after the cause of action
accrued, it has been held that twenty
years’ possession is sufficient to bar
the action, although not adverse nor
under claim of title. Vanduyn v. Hep-
§ 297 - TIME OF BRINGING THE ACTION. 371

begins to run at the time of the ouster of the true owner.’ It
runs from the accrual of a right of entry, and the action to re-
cover possession of the land must be brought within the stat-
utory period after the right of entry accrued.? Adverse pos-
session, continuous and uninterrupted, for the statutory period
is not only a good defense to an action for the recovery of the
land,’ but, in most jurisdictions, it also gives the claimant a
good title, sufficient to support ejectment even as against the
holder of the paper title who has entered upon the land and
ousted the claimant after the expiration of the statutory period
of adverse possession by the latter.‘ Although the adverse
possession must be continuous and uninterrupted, it is imma-
terial whether it be held for the entire period by one person or
by several persons in succession, provided there is a ‘‘unity of
possessions,’’ or, in other words, a privity of estate or title.®

ner, 45 Ind. 589, 595, citing Nepean v.
Doe, 2 M: & W. 894, 910; Culley v.
Doe, 11 A. & E. 1008, 1015.

1 Robinson v. Lake, 14 Iowa, 421,
424; Sedgw. & Wait on Tr. of Tit. to
Land, § 730. :

? Hogan v. Kurtz, 94 U.S. 773, 775;
Henderson’. Griffin, 5 Peters (U.S.),
151; Dugan v. Follett, 100 Ill. 581;
Wright v. Tichenor, 104 Ind. 185.

-§ Herndon v. Wood, 2 A. K. Marsh.
(Ky.) 44; Hogan v. Kurtz, 94 U.S.
773; Yard v. Ocean Beach Ass’n, 49 N.
J. Eq, 306, 8. C. 24 Atl. R. 729; Greene
v. Couse, 18 L. R. A. 206, and note;
Frakes v. Elliott, 102 Ind. 47, and au-
thorities cited in following note.

‘Cincinnati v. White, 6 Peters (U.
$.), 481; Devacht v. Newsam, 3 Ohio,
57; Jackson v. Olitz, 8 Wend. (N. Y.)
440; Jackson v. Rightmyre, 16 Johns.
(N. Y.) 314; Gibson v. Bailey, 9N. H.
168; Jackson v. Dieffendorf, 3 Johns.
(N. Y.) 269; Hughes v. Graves, 39 Vt.
359; Phillips v. Kent, 23 N. J. L. 155;
Riverside Co. v. Townshend, 120111. 9,
20; Roots v. Beck, 109 Ind. 472; Bow-
env. Swander, 121 Ind. 164; Irey v.

Mater (Ind.), 31 N. E. R. 69; Sharon
v. Tucker, 144 U.S. 533, S. C. 12 Sup.
Ct. R. 720.

5 Riggs v. Fuller, 54 Ala. 141; Ben-
son v. Stewart, 30 Miss. 49; Schrack
v. Zubler, 34 Pa. St. 38; Coogler v.
Rogers, 25 Fla. 853, 8. C.7 So. R. 391;
Haynes v. Boardman, 119 Mass. 414;
Reformed Church v. Schoolcraft, 65 N.
Y.134; Faloon v. Simshauser, 130 Ill.
649; Weber v. Anderson, 73 Ill. 439;
Sherin v. Brackett, 36 Minn. 152; Jar-
rett v. Stevens, 36 W.Va. 445, S. C. 15
8. E. R.177; Vance v. Wood, 22 Ore.
77, 8. C. 29 Pac. R. 73; Landon ».
Townshend, 129 N. Y. 166, 8. C. 29N.
E. R. 71; Whipple v. Earick (Ky.), 19
S.W. R. 237; Tiedeman on Real Prop.,
§ 714. Where there is no privity so
that the successive possessions are not
under the same right and can not all
be referred to the original entry, the
requisite continuity of possession is
wanting. San Francisco v. Fulde, 37
Cal. 353; Louisville & N. R. R. Co. v.
Philyaw, 88 Ala. 264, S. C.6So. R. 837;
Melvin v. Proprietors of Locks, 5 Mete.
(Mass.) 15; Smith v. Chapin, 31 Conn.
372

THE WORK OUT OF COURT. ~ § 298

§ 298. Trusts.—As between the trustee and beneficiary, the
statute of limitations does not run against express continuing
trusts, so long as the trustee does not disavow the trust;! but
resulting or implied trusts may be barred by lapse of time.”
And even in the case of a direct continuing trust the statute of
limitations or laches may bar relief if the trustee has repudiated
the trust, or held adverse possession, with the knowledge of the
beneficiary.* Nor does the general rule apply as between the
trustee or beneficiary and a stranger. As said by Lord Hard-
wicke: ‘‘The rule that the statute of limitations does not bar a
trust estate holds only between cestud que trust and trustee, not
as between cestut que trust and trustee on one side and strangers
on the other; for that would make the statute of no force at
all, because there is hardly any estate of consequence without
such trust, and so the act would never take place. Therefore,
where the cestud que trust and his trustee are both out of pos-

530; Edmunds». Griffin, 41 N.H. 529;
Austin v. Rutland R. R. Co., 45Vt. 215;
American Bank Note Co. v. New York
Elevated R. R. Co., 129 N. Y. 252;
Jarrett v. Stevens, 36 W. Va. 445, S.
C.15S. E.R. 177. Compare Davis v.
McArthur, 78 N. Car. 357; Scales v.
Cockrill, 3 Head (Tenn.), 432.
1Gisborn v. Charter Oak Life Ins.
Co., 142 U. S. 326, S. C. 12 Sup. Ct. R.
277; Riddle v. Whitehill, 135 U. 8. 621,
S.C. 10 Sup. Ct. R. 924; Luco v. De
Toro, 91 Cal. 405, S. C. 27 Pac. R. 1082;
Cone v. Dunham, 59 Conn. 145, 8. C.
8 L. R. A. 647; Nobles v. Hogg, 36 So.
Car. 322, 8. C.15 8. E.R. 359; Mullen
v. Doyle, 147 Pa. St. 512, S. C. 23 Atl.
R. 807; Ellis v. Ward (Ill.), 25 N. E.R.
5380; Hileman v. Hileman, 85 Ind. 1;
Parks v. Satterthwaite, 132 Ind. 411,
S. C. 32N. E. R.82; Gordon v. Small,
53 Md. 550; Wilson v. Green, 49 Iowa,
251; Clay v. Clay, 7 Bush. (Ky.) 95;
Bostwick v. Dickson, 65 Wis. 593;
Miles v, Thorne, 38 Cal. 335, 8. C. 99
Am. Dec. 384, and authorities cited in

note to that case ; ‘‘Effect of Limitation
on Trusts,’ 15 Fed. R. 758, 761; ‘‘Effect.
of Limitations on Trustees,’? 19 Am.
Jur. 349.

? Reynolds‘v. Sumner, 126 I11. 58,8.C.
1L. R. A. 327; Parks v. Satterthwaite,
132 Ind. 411, 8. C. 32 N. E. R. 82; Spei-
del v. Henrici, 120 U. 8. 377, 8. C. 7
Sup. Ct. R. 610; Logan Co. v. Lincoln,
81 Ill. 156; Kane v. Bloodgood,7 Johns.
Ch. (N. Y.) 90, 8. C. 11 Am. Dee. 417;
Price v. Mulford, 107 N.Y. 303; Cooper
v. Cooper, 61 Miss. 676; Harlow v.
Dehon, 111 Mass. 195; Kennedy v.
Kennedy, 25 Kan. 151; Landis »v.
Saxton, 105 Mo. 486, 8S. C. 24 Am. St.
R. 403.

5 Speidel v. Henrici, 120U. 8. 377, 8.
C. 7 Sup. Ct. R. 610; Hubbell v. Med-
bury, 53 N.Y.98; Murdock v. Hughes,
15 Miss. 219; Thomas v. Merry, 113
Ind. 83; Ward v. Harvey, 111 Ind.
471; Davis v. Coburn, 128 Mass.
877; Merriam v. Hassam, 14 Allen
(Mass.), 516; Otto v. Schlapkahl, 57 -
Iowa, 226; Neel v. McElhenny, 69 Pa.
§ 299

TIME OF BRINGING THE ACTION. 373

session for the time limited, the party in possession has a good
bar against them both.’’!

§ 299. What law governs.—Where, as in most cases, the
statute of limitations merely affects the remedy and does not
extinguish the right of action itself, the law of the forum gov-
erns;? but it is provided by statute in many of the States that
if the cause of action accrued in another State in which the de-
fendant resided, and is fully barred by the laws of that State,
such bar shall constitute a good defense in the State in which
the action is tried.? So, where the lex loci contractus gives title
by adverse possession and completely extinguishes the right
itself, it will constitute a bar to the action wherever it is
brought.‘ The same principle has also been applied to cases
in which a statutory right is given, which was unknown to

the common law.

St. 300; Curtis v. Daniel, 23 Ark. 362;
Hunter v. Hubbard, 26 Texas, 537;
Helm’s Ex’rs v. Rogers, 81 Ky. 568;
Chicago & Eastern Illinois R. R. Co.
». Hay, 119 Ill. 493.

‘Lewellin 7. Mackworth, 2 Atk. 40,
S.C. Barn. 445. See, also, to same
effect, Collins v. McCarty, 68 Texas,
150, 8. C. 2 Am. St. R. 475, and note;
Clark v. Miller, 89 Pa. St. 242; Love
v. Love, 65 Ala. 554; Chase v. Cart-
right, 53 Ark. 358, 8. C. 22 Am. St.
R. 207; Watkins v. Specht, 7 Coldw.
(Tenn.) 585; Martin v. Martin, 118
Ind. 227; Potter v. Smith, 36 Ind. 231;
Felix v. Patrick, 145 U. S. 317; Ham-
mond v. Hopkins, 143 U. S. 224.

2 Nonce v. Richmond, etc., R. R. Co.,
33 Fed. R. 429; Johnson v. Anderson,
76 Va. 766; Hawse v. Burgmire, 4 Col.
313; Stirling v. Winter, 80 Mo. 141;
Goodwin »v. Morris, 9 Ore. 322; Sawyer
v. McCaulay, 18 S. Car. 543; Thomp-
son v. Reed, 75 Me. 404; Waterman v.
Sprague Mfg. Co., 55 Conn. 554; Walsh
v. Mayer, 111 U. S. 31; Townsend v.

It is held that such a right can be enforced

Jemison, 9 How. (U. 8.) 407; Krogg
oR. R. Co., 77 Ga. 202, 8S. C. 4 Am.
St. R.79; Paine v. Drew, 44 N. H. 306;
Bulger v. Roche, 11 Pick. (Mass.) 36,
8. C. 22 Am. Dec. 359, and note.

3’ Mechanics’ Build. Ass’n v. Whit-
acre, 92 Ind. 547; Wood ». Bissell, 108
Ind. 229; Wright v. Strauss, 73 Ala.
227; Stewart v. Spaulding, 72 Cal. 264;
Labatt v. Smith, 83 Ky. 599; Bacon v.
Rives, 106 U. S. 99; Harrison v. Union
Bank, 12 Neb. 499; Luce v. Clarke,
49 Minn. 356, S. C. 51 N. W. R. 1162.

‘ Beckford v. Wade, 17 Ves. 87; Lin-
coln v. Battelle, 6 Wend. (N. Y.) 475;
Shelby v. Guy, 11 Wheat. (U.8.) 361;
Cobb v. Thompson, 1 A. K. Marsh.
(Ky.) 507; McArthur v. Goddin, 12
Bush (Ky.), 274; McMerty v. Morri-
son, 62 Mo. 140; Finnell v. So. Kan.
R. R. Co., 33 Fed. R. 427; Perkins v.
Guy, 55 Miss. 153; Fletcher v. Spauld-
ing, 9 Minn. 64; Jones v. Jones, 18
Ala. 248. See, also, note to Bulger v.
Roche, 22 Am. Dec. 359, 363.
374 THE WORK OUT OF COURT

§ 300

only under the limitations and upon the conditions prescribed
in the statute by which it is created.’

§ 300. Election of remedy.—There are many cases in which
the plaintiff may have an election of remedies. Thus, where
personal property has been obtained by means of a fraudulent
sale, the owner may sue for the price under the contract,” or
he may rescind the contract and sue in tort.? So, as a general
rule, wherever there is a breach both of contract and of duty
imposed by law, as in case of loss by the negligence of a com-
mon carrier, the plaintiff may sue either in contract or in tort,
at his election. ‘‘From certain acts or omissions of a party
creating a liability to make compensation in damages, the law
implies a promise to pay such compensation. Whenever this
is so, and the acts or omissions are at the same time tortious,
the two-fold aspect of the single liability at once follows, and
the injured party may treat it as arising from the tort, and en-
force it by an action setting forth the tortious acts or defaults;
or may treat it as arising from an implied contract, and enforce
it by an action setting forth the facts from which the promise
is inferred by the law.’”> This doctrine of election is a very
important one, and in determining what remedy to pursue the
effect of the statute of limitations should be carefully consid-
ered. The statutory period of hmitations governing actions
on contracts is generally different from that applicable to ac-
tions for torts, and it may constitute a bar to one form of ac-
tion but not to the other. Thus, where the plaintiff had erected
a bridge under a contract with the highway commissioners,

1 Halsey v.McLean,12 Allen(Mass.),
438; Eastwood v. Kennedy, 44 Md.
563; Battle v. McArthur, 49 Fed. R.
715; Pittsburgh, C. & St. L. R. R. Co.
v. Hine, 25 Ohio St. 629; Boyd v.
Clark, 8 Fed. R. 849, S. C. 24 Alb. L.
J. 508; Glenn v. Williams, 60 Md. 93.
Compare Dennick v. Railroad Co., 103
U.S. 11.

2 Moller v. Tuska, 87 N. Y. 166; Pat-
‘terson v. Prior, 18 Ind. 440; MceCul-
lough v. McCullough, 14 Pa. St. 295.

.

5 Kline v. Baker, 99 Mass. 253; Pren-
tiss v. Russ, 16 Me. 30.

‘Miss. Cent. R. R. Co. v. Fort, 44
Miss. 423; Whittenton Mfg. Co. v. M.
& O. Packet Co., 21 Fed. R. 896; Pom.
Rem. & Remed. Rts., § 570; Bliss on
Code Pleading, § 14.

>Pom. Rem. & Remed. Rts., § 568.
For additional illustrations, see Vasse
v. Smith, 6 Cranch (U.8.), 226; Leach
v. Leach, 58 N. Y. 630; Goodenow v.
Snyder, 3 Greene (Ia.), 599; Halleck
§ 301 TIME OF BRINGING THE ACTION.

375

and the commissioners tore it down and converted it to their
own use, it was held that the plaintiff, having brought an ac-
tion to recover the contract price, which was defeated on a
plea of the statute of limitations, had made an election of rem-
edies and could not afterwards sue in tort for the conversion.!
So, it may be stated generally that where a party has an election
between trover and assumpsit, the fact that one remedy is
barred by the statute will not defeat the other so long as the
statute has not also run against that remedy.”

§ 301. Set-off—In the absence of statutory permission, a
demand or claim barred by the statute of limitations can not,
ordinarily, be used as a set-off any more than it can be made
the basis of an original action;? but there is an exception to
this rule where the demand arises out of the same transaction
as the plaintiff’s debt, and, in some of the States there are
statutes permitting a set-off notwithstanding the claim is barred
by the statute of limitations.® So, if the set-off was not barred
at the time of the bringing of the original suit the defendant
may plead it, notwithstanding the statutory period has since
elapsed, for the entire proceeding is regarded as one suit, and
the institution of the suit by the plaintiff suspends the opera-
tion of the statute upon the set-off.6 This is also placed upon
the ground that one who has a valid set-off at the time a suit is

v, Mixer, 16 Cal. 574; Sanders v. Ham-
ilton, 3 Dana (Ky.), 550.

1 Boots v. Ferguson, 46 Hun (N.Y.),
129. :

2Ivey v. Owens, 28 Ala. 641. See,
also, Outhouse v. Outhouse, 13 Hun
(N. Y.), 180; Lamb v. Clark, 5 Pick.
(Mass.) 193; Morton v. Chandler, 8
Me.9; Hony v. Hony, 1 Sim. & Stu.
568.

5 Hicks v. Hicks, 3 East; 16; Rug-
gles v. Keeler, 3 Johns. (N. Y.) 263;
Reed v. Marshall, 90 Pa. St. 345;
Hinkley v. Walters, 8 Watts (Pa.), 260;
Harwell v. Steel, 17 Ala. 372; Trimyer
v. Pollard, 5 Gratt. (Va.) 460.

‘Ord v. Ruspini, 2 Esp. 569; Mann
v. Palmer, 3 Abb. Dec. (N. Y.) 162;
Evans v. Yongue, 8 Rich. 113; Riddle
v. Kreinbiehl, 12 La. Ann. 297; Gu-
lick v. Turnpike Co., 14 N. J. L. 545;
Hayes v. Goodwin, 4 Mete. (Ky.) 80.
In other words, the exception applies
where the claim or demand is in the
nature of a counter-claim rather than
a set-off.

5 Warring v. Hill, 89 Ind. 497; Ren-
nick v. Chandler, 59 Ind. 354; Steere
v. Brownell, 124 Ill. 27.

6 Brumble v. Brown, 71 N. Car. 513;
Harwell v. Steel, 17 Ala. 372; Patrick
v. Petty, 83 Ala. 420; Dunn v. Bell, 85
376 § 302

THE WORK OUT OF COURT.

begun ought not to be compelled to institute an independent
action during the pendency of such suit.’

§ 302. Equity—Laches.—In courts of equity, laches has al-
ways been discountenanced, even in the absence of any statute
of limitations,? and since the adoption of such statutes, al-
though they may not expressly apply to suits in equity, wher-
ever concurrent jurisdiction exists, equity will follow the law.’
This is also true, as a general rule, even where the jurisdiction
in equity is exclusive;* but, while a court of equity will gen-
erally apply the statutory limitation by way of analogy, in
such a case, it is not bound to do so.° It may, when its juris-
diction is exclusive, and the circumstances of the case require
it in order to bring about a just and equitable result, either re-

Tenn. 581; Stillwell v. Bertrand, 22
Ark. 375; Belleau v. Thompson, 33
Cal. 495; Folsom v. Winch, 63 Ia. 477;
Walker v. Clements, 15 Q. B. (N. 8.)
-1046.

1 Eve v. Louis, 91 Ind. 457, 470.

2 Cholmondeley v. Clinton, 2 Jac. &
W.1; Smith v. Clay, Ambler, 645;
Blake v. Gale, L. R., 31 Ch. Div. 196,
209; McKnight v. Taylor, 1 How. (U.
8.) 161; Speidel v. Henrici, 120 U. 8.
877, 387; United States v. Beebee, 17
Fed. R. 36; Matter of Neilley, 95 N.Y.
390; Catlin v. Green, 120 N. Y. 441;
Bell v. Hudson, 73 Cal. 285, 8. C. 2
Am. St. R. 791; 1 Beach on Modern
Equity, §17; 12 Am. & Eng. Encye.
of Law, 533.

3 Smith v. Wood, 42 N. J. Eq. 563;
Breckenridge v. Churchill, 3 J. J.
Marsh. (Ky.) 11; Tiernan v. Rescan-
iere, 10G. & J. (Md.) 217; People v.
Everest, 4 Hill (N. Y.),71; Hovenden
». Annesley, 2 Sch. & Lef. 607; Elm-
endorf v. Taylor, 10 Wheat. (U. S.)

152; Agens v. Agens (N. J.), 25 Atl.
R. 707; Richardson v. Gregory, 126 Il.
166, 8. C.18 N. E. R. 777; Reynolds ».
Sumner, 126 Ill. 58, 8. C.9 Am. St. R.
523; Calhoun v: Millard, 121 N.Y. 69;
Ela v. Ela (Mass.), 32 N. E. R. 957. See,
also, ‘“‘Legal and Equitable Limita-
tions,’ 7 Va. L. J. 385; ‘“‘Limitations of
Actions at Law and Suits in Equity,”
6 Am. Jur. 62.

* Arnett v. Finney, 41 N.J. Eq. 147;
Switzer v. Noffsinger, 82 Va.518; City
of Wheeling v. Campbell, 12 W. Va.
36, 46; Smith v. Wheeler, 58 Ia. 659;
Askew v. Hooper, 28 Ala. 634; Han-
cock v. Harper, 86 Ill. 445.

° Sullivan v. Portland, etc., R.R. Co.,
94 U. 8. 807; Kline v. Vogel, 90 Mo.
239; Sterndale v. Hankinson, 1 Sim.
393; University v. State Nat. Bank, 96
N. Car. 280, 288; Marsh ». Oliver, 14
N. J. Eq. 259; Atty. General v.. Pur-
mort, 5 Paige (N. Y.), 620; Rockwell
v. Servant, 54 Ill. 251; Penna. RB. R.
Co.’s Appeal, 125 Pa. St. 189.
§ 303 TIME OF BRINGING THE ACTION. 377

fuse relief before the statute has run, or give relief long after
the bar of the statute is complete.?

§ 303. When action is begun.—As a general rule, the action
is regarded as begun, so as to satisfy the statute of limitations,
at the time of suing out the process and delivering it to a proper
officer for service. Under this rule, the mere filing of the ©
complaint is not sufficient; there must be both the filing of a
complaint and the issuing of a summons.‘ In some States the
summons is not regarded as issued until it is placed in the
hands of the officer for service,® while in others the mere mak-
ing out of the writ is sufficient, if it be duly served thereafter.®
In California, Maryland, and Texas it has been held that the
action is commenced by filing the complaint, although no

1Spaulding v. Farwell, 70 Me. 17;
Pusey v. Gardner, 21 W. Va. 469;
Walker v. Ray, 111 Ill. 315, 322; Hag-
erty v. Mann, 56 Md. 522; McKnight
v. Taylor, 1 How. (U.8.) 161; Helm
v. Yerger, 61 Miss. 44; Kane v. Blood-
good, 7 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 90; Coster
v. Murray, 5 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 522;
Goode v. Gaines, 145 U.S. 141, 8. C.
12 Sup. Ct. R. 839; Daniell v. East
Boston Ferry Co., 8. C. Whittemore,

Petitioner, 157 Mass. 46,8.C.31 N.E..

R. 711; Lawrence v. Rokes, 61 Me. 38;
Harrison v. Gibson, 23 Gratt. (Va.)
212. ,

?Union Bank v. Stafford, 12 How.
(U. 8.) 327; Preston v.'Preston, 95 U.
§. 200; Bancroft v. Andrews, 6 Cush.
(Mass.) 493; Locke v. Caldwell, 91
Ill. 417; Lawrence v. Rokes, 61 Me.
38; Miner v. Beekman, 50 N. Y. 337;
Schoener v. Lissauer, 107 N. Y. 111;
Powell v. Murray, 10 Paige (N. Y.),
256; Pitzer v. Burns, 7 W. Va. 63.

3’ Lowry v. Lawrence, 1 Caines (N.
Y.), 69; Beekman v. Satterlee, 5 Cow.
(N. Y.) 519; Cheetham v. Lewis, 3
Johns. (N. Y.) 42; Carpenter v. But-
terfield, 3 Johns. Cas. (N. Y.) 145;

Hail v. Spencer, 1 R.I.17; Kinney v.
Lee, 10 Tex. 155; Harris v. Dennis, 1
Serg. & R. (Pa.) 236; Bracken v. Mc-
Alvey, 83 Iowa, 421, 8. C. 49 N.W. R.
1022.

*Ramsey v. Foy, 10 Ind. 493; Nib-
lack v. Goodman, 67 Ind. 174; Charles-
town School Tp. v. Hay, 74 Ind. 127.

Evans v. Galloway, 20 Ind. 479;
Hancock »v. Ritchie, 11 Ind. 48; Harsh-
man v. Armstrong, 43 Ind. 126; Jack-
son v. Brooks, 14 Wend. (N. Y.) 649;
Hekla Ins. Co. v. Schroeder, 9 Ill.
App. 472; Schroeder v. Merchants’, ©
etc., Ins. Co., 104 Ill. 71; Sandford v.
Dick, 17 Conn. 218; Howell v. Shep-
ard, 48 Mich. 472. In Indiana where
notice is given by publication the ac-
tion is not commenced until the first
publication. Wood v. Bissell, 108 Ind,
229.

6 Gardner v. Webber,17 Pick. (Mass.)
407; Bunker v. Shed, 8 Metc. (Mass.)
150; Chapman v. Goodrich, 55 Vt. 354;
Allen v. Mann, 1 Chip. (Vt.) 94. See,
also, State Bank v. Cason, 5 Eng.
(Ark.) 479; Flournoy v. Lyon, 70 Ala.
308; Satterley v. Morgan, 33 La. Ann.
846.
378 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 303

summons is issued at the time.!| A mere purpose or attempt.
upon the part of the defendant to evade the service of process.
is no excuse for not bringing the action within the statutory
period, unless the statute so provides,’ and the failure to get
service, due to the negligence of the plaintiff in mailing the
summons, is no excuse.* The issuing of a new summons af-
ter defective service of a former one,‘ or the filing of a supple-
mental complaint,® or amendment of the pleading,® without.
stating a new cause of action, where good faith exists, is gen-
erally regarded as a continuance of the original action and not.
a new and independent action. But where a new party de-
fendant is brought in after the statutory period has elapsed,’ or
a writ issued against two is served upon only one,® the statute

may constitute a bar as to the party not served in time.

1 Sharp v. Maguire, 19 Cal. 577; Pim-
ental v. San Francisco, 21 Cal. 351;
Bank of U. 8. v. Lyles, 10 Gill & J.
326; Tribby v. Wokee, 74 Texas, 142,
S.C. 118.W. R. 1089. So, it is held
in Tennessee, that a suit in equity is
begun when the bill is filed and costs
are secured, without the issuing of pro-
cess. Collins v. North British, etc.,
Ins. Co., 91 Tenn. 432, 8. C.19 S. W.
R. 525. See, also, Morris v. Ellis, 7
Jur. 413.

Amy v. City of Watertown, 130 U.
S. 320, 8. 0.98. Ct. R. 537.

3 Jewett v. Greene, 8 Me. 447. But
inevitable accident was held a suffi-
cient excuse in Bullock v. Dean, 12
Mete. (Mass.) 15. See, also, Mich.
Ins. Bank v. Eldred, 130 U. S. 693.

‘Isaacs v. Price, 2 Dill. (C. C.) 347;
Burton v. Buckeye Ins. Co., 26 Ohio
St. 467. But, see, Etheridge v. Wood-
ley, 83 N. Car. 11.

5 Evans v. Cleveland, 72 N. Y. 486,
488.

6 Chicago, etc., R. R. Co. v. Bills, 118
Ind. 221; Rowland v. Murphy, 66 Tex.
534; Blanchard v. Lake Shore, etc.,
R’y Co., 126M. 416, 8. C. 18 N. E. R.

799; Penna. Co. v. Sloan, 125 Ill. 72;
Sublett v. Hodges, 88 Ala. 491; Van-
derslice v. Matthews, 79 Cal. 273;
Wolf v. Bauereis, 72 Md. 481, 8S. C. 19:
Atl. R. 1045. .

‘Leatherman v. Times Co., 88 Ky.
291, 8. C. 21 Am. St. R. 342; Rucker
v. Dailey, 66 Tex. 284; Meara v. Hol-
brook, 20 Ohio St. 137, 150; Thomp-
son v. School Dist., 71 Mo. 495; Brown
v. Goolsby, 34 Miss. 437. Compare
Bradford v. Andrews, 20 Ohio St. 208.
The statute generally ceases to run at
the time the new party is brought in
by amendment. Bell’s Appeal, 115
Pa, St. 88, S.C.2 Am. St. R. 532, But
the amendment in such case does not
cause the statute to run against the.
original defendant, where no new
cause of action is stated against him..
Lewis v. Adams, 70 Cal. 403, 8. C. 11
Pac. R. 833. See, also, Lilly v. Tob-
bein (Mo.), 18 S.W. Rep. 1060, where
it was held that the substitution of
trustees related back to the commence-
ment of the action.

®’Magaw v. Clark, 6 Watts (Pa.),
528; Wann »v. Pattengale, 14 Pa. St.
313.
§ 304 TIME OF BRINGING THE ACTION. 379

§ 304. Computation of time.—Although there was at one
time considerable conflict among the authorities as to whether
in determining the statutory period, the day on which the
cause of action accrued was to be included or excluded, the
modern rule is that it should be excluded.!' The word ‘‘year,’’
when used in a statute or contract is construed to mean a year
according to the Christian calendar,’ unless the context indi-
cates a different construction.? The construction of the word
‘“‘month’’ is generally regulated by statute, and in some States
it is to be taken as a lunar month, while in many others it is
to be construed as meaning a calendar month. A ‘‘day’’
ordinarily means twenty-four hours.® The law generally pays
no attention to fractions of a day,® but where it is necessary in
order to do right and accomplish justice the truth in point of

time may be averred and proved.’

1 Seward v. Hayden, 150 Mass. 158,
S. C. 22 N. E. R. 629; Paul v. Stone,
112 Mass. 27; Cornell v. Moulton, 3
Denio (N.Y.),12; Fairbanks v.Wood,
17 Wend. (N. Y.) 329; Weeks v. Hull,
19 Conn. 376; Blackman v. Nearing,
43 Conn. 56; Sheets v. Selden, 2 Wall.
(U.8.) 177, 190; Savage v. State, 18
Fla. 970; Warren v. Slade, 23 Mich. 1;
The Mary Blane v. Beehler, 12 Mo.
477; Kimm v. Osgood, 19 Mo. 60;
Smith v. Cassity, 9B. Mon. (Ky.) 192;
Menges v. Frick, 73 Pa. St. 187; Hicks
v. Blanchard, 60 Vt. 673; Williams v.
Burgess, 12 Ad. & El. 635; Hardy v.
Ryle, 9 Barn. & Cres. 603. See, also,
Vogel v. State, 107 Ind. 374; Wright
v. Manns, 111 Ind. 422. But, see,
contra Norris v. Gawtry, Hob. R.
139; Arnold v. United States, 9 Cranch
(U.8.), 103; Castle v. Burditt, 3T. R.
623; King v. Adderley, Doug. 463.

2Thornton v. Boyd, 25 Miss. 598;
Engleman v. State, 2 Ind. 91; Elliott’s
Appellate Proc., § 126.

3 Knode v. Baldridge, 73 Ind. 54.

‘Calendar in Indiana, Massachu-
setts, New York, Pennsylvania and

Virginia. See Elliott’s App. Proc.,
§ 126; Buswell on Limitations, § 34.
And this is the general rule in this
country. 15 Am. & Eng. Encyc. of
Law, 712.

5Benson v. Adams, 69 Ind. 353.
See 5 Am. & Eng. Encye. of Law, 81.

§Matter of Welman, 20 Vt. 653;
Jones v. Planters’ Bank, 5 Humph.
(Tenn.) 619; Duffy v. Ogden, 64 Pa.
St. 240; Arnold v. United States, 9
Cranch (U.8.), 103; Small v. McChes-
ney, 3 Cow. (N. Y.) 19; Blydenburgh
v. Cotheal, 4 N. Y. 418; Lester v. Gar-
land, 15 Ves. 248; Portland Bank v,
Maine Bank, 11 Mass. 204.

T Louisville v. Sav. Bank, 104 U.S.
469; Grosvenor v. Magill, 37 Ill. 239;
Bigelow v. Wilson, 1 Pick. (Mass.)
485; Westbrook Mfg. Co. v. Grant, 60
Me. 88; Gibson v. Keyes, 112 Ind. 568.
“T am aware,’ said Judge Story, in
the case of Matter of Richardson, 2
Story (U. 8. C. C.), 571, “that it is
often laid down thatin law there is no
fraction of a day. But this doctrine
is true only sub modo, and in a lim-
ited sense, where it will promote the
380 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 305

§ 305. Effect of disability.—It is a general rule that when
the statute of limitations has once begun to run nothing will
interrupt it; but provision is usually made permitting persons
under disabilities when the cause of action accrued to bring
the action within a certain time after their disabilities are re-
moved. Such provisions are strictly construed.? In order to
toll the statute, the disability must have existed at the time
the cause of action accrued,’ and one disability can not be
tacked to another. But where two or more disabilities co-ex-
ist at the time the cause of action accrues, the party resting
under them isnot obliged to act before the last one has been

right and justice of the case. Itisa
mere legal fiction, and, therefore, like
all other fictions, is never allowed to
operate against the right and justice
of the case. On the contrary, the
very truth and facts, in point of time,
may always be averred and proved in
furtherance of the right and justice of
the case.”

1 Piper v. Hoard, 107 N. Y. 67, 8. C.
1 Am. St. R. 785, and note; Doyle v.
Wade, 23 Fla. 90, S. C. 11 Am. St. R.
334, and note; Johnson v. Schumacher,
72 Tex. 334, 8. C. 12 S. W. R. 207;
Johnson v. Johnson, 80 Ga. 260; Miller
v. Texas, etc., R. R. Co., 132 U.S. 662,
8. C. 10 Sup. Ct. R. 206; Conover »v.
Wright, 6N. J. Eq.613; Daniel v. Day,
51 Ala. 431; Kistler v. Hereth, 75 Ind.
177; Meeks v. Vassault, 3 Saw. (C.
©.) 206, and see authorities cited in
following notes.

? Beckford v. Wade, 17 Ves. 87; Hall
v. Bumstead, 20 Pick. (Mass.) 2; Dar-
nall v. Adams, 13 B. Mon. (Ky.) 273;
Sparks v. Roberts, 65 Ga. 571; Sacia
%. De Graaf, 1 Cow. (N.Y.) 356; Buck-
lin v. Ford, 5 Barb. (N. Y.) 393; Amy
v. Watertown, 130 U.S. 320; Vance v.
Vance, 108 U.S. 514; Chemical Nat.

Bank v. Kissane, 32 Fed. R. 429; De
Moss v. Newton, 31 Ind. 219,

3’ McDonald v. Hovey, 110 U.S. 619;
Hogan v. Kurtz, 94 U.S. 773; Lewis
v. Marshall, 5 Pet. (U.S.) 469; Daniel
v. Day, 51 Ala. 431; Dowell v. Tucker,
46 Ark. 438; McLeran v. Benton, 73
Cal. 329; Doyle v. Wade, 23 Fla. 90;
Kistler v. Hereth, 75 Ind. 177; Lin-
coln v. Norton, 36 Vt. 679. Except,
under most statutes, where it is ab-
sence from the State., In that case, if
the absence occurs after the cause of
action has accrued but before the stat-
ute has run, the effect is to add the
time of absence to the statutory petiod,
or, in other words, not to count it’as
any part of the statutory period.

‘Millington v. Hill, 47 Ark. 301;
Martin v. Letty, 18 B. Mon. (Ky.) 573;
Clark v. Trail, 1 Mete. (Ky.) 35;
Bunce v. Wolcott, 2 Conn. 27; White
v. Clawson, 79 Ind. 188; Walker v.
Hill, 111 Ind. 223; Bensell v. Chan-
cellor, 3 Whart. (Pa.) 371; Butler v.
How. 13 Me. 397; Mercer v. Selden, 1
How. (U.8.) 37; Becker v. Van Valk-
enburgh, 29 Barb. (N. Y.) 319; Eager
v. Commonwealth, 4 Mass. 182; Dem-
arest v. Wynkoop, 3 Johns. Ch. (N.
Y.) 129.
§ 306 TIME OF BRINGING THE ACTION. 381

removed.’ The ordinary disabilities are coverture,? infancy,*
insanity or ‘‘unsound mind,’’* imprisonment® and absence
from the State or United States,® and all these are included in
the phrase ‘‘under legal disabilities.’’7 An exception may
also arise by necessity, as in case of war preventing the bring-

ing of an action.®

§ 306. New promise or acknowledgment.—A new promise

to pay a debt will take it

1Sims v. Everhardt, 102 U.S. 300;
Sims v. Bardoner, 86 Ind. 87,96; But-
ler v. Howe, 13 Me. 397; North v.
James, 61 Miss. 761; Blackwell v.
Bragg, 78 Va. 529; Keeton v. Keeton,
20 Mo. 5380; Bunce v. Wolcott, 2 Conn
27; Demarest v. Wynkoop, 3 Johns.
Ch. (N. Y.) 129.

See In re Lady Hastings, L. R., 35
Ch. Div. 94; Wood v. Riker, 1 Paige,
Ch. (N. Y.) 616; Beloit, etc., Bank v.
Merrill, etc., Works, 81 Wis. 142, S.C.
50 N. W. R. 505; Stephens v. McCor-
mick, 5 Bush (Ky.), 181; Michan v.
Wyatt, 21 Ala. 813; Norwood v. Gon-
zales Co., 79 Tex. 218, and see note to
Moore v. Armstrong, 36 Am. Dec. 63,
69. But this disability has been re-
moved in many States by the ‘Married
Women’s Acts.” See Acker v. Acker,
81 N. Y. 148; City of Indianapolis v.
Patterson, 112 Ind. 344; Geisen v.
Heiderich, 104 111. 537; Garland Co. v.
Gaines, 47 Ark. 558; Perkins v. Comp-
ton, 69 Ga. 736; Wilson v. Wilson, 36
Cal. 447,

8 See Poullain v.Poullain, 72 Ga. 412;
Tippin v. Coleman, 59 Miss. 641; War-
ren v. Hearne, 82 Ala. 554; Bozeman
v. Browning, 31 Ark. 364; Jackson v.
Moore, 13 Johns. (N. Y.) 513, 8. C. 7
Am. Dec. 398; and see note to Moore
v. Armstrong, 36 Am. Dec. 63, 68.
But, see, Herff v. Griggs, 121 Ind. 471,
8. C. 23 N. E. R. 279.

4See Sasser v. Davis, 27 Tex. 656;

out of the statute and start
Oliver v. Berry, 53 Me. 206; Thurman
v. Shelton, 10 Yerg. (Tenn.) 388; An-
derson v. Layton, 3 Bush (Ky.), 87.

° See Downs v. Allen,10 Lea (Tenn.),
652; Matilda v. Crenshaw, 4 Yerg.
Tenn.) 299; Piggott v. Rush, 4 Ad. &

_El. 912; McDonald v. Hovey, 110 U.

8. 619.

® Absence from the United States is
sometimes required. Smith v. Bryan,
74 Ind. 515; Harris v. Harris, 71 N.
Car. 174; Mason v. Johnson, 24 Ill.
159, 8. C. 76 Am. Dec. 740; Keeton vr.
Keeton, 20 Mo. 530; Gonder v. Esta-
brook, 33 Pa. St. 374. But in other
jurisdictions absence from the State is
sufficient. Murray v. Baker, 3 Wheat.
(U.8.) 541; Smith v. Bartram, 11 Ohio
St. 690; Stephenson v. Doe, 8 Blackf.
508, 8S. C. 46 Am. Dec. 489; Derham
v. Holeman, 26 Ga. 182, 8. C. 71 Am.
Dec. 198; Keech v. Enriquez, 28 Fla.
597, 8. C. 10 So. R. 91. As to meaning
and effect of absence from State, see
Stanley v. Stanley, 47 Ohio St. 225, 8.
C. 21 Am. St. R. 806, and note; Mc-
Cann v. Randall, 147 Mass. 81, 8. C.9
Am. St. R. 666, and note; Langdon v.
Doud, 6 Allen (Mass.), 423, S. C. 83
Am. Dec. 641, and note; Moore v.
Armstrong, 36 Am. Dec. 63, 72, note.

7™Bauman v. Grubbs, 26 Ind. 419;
Hawkins v. Hawkins, 28 Ind. 66.

8Perkins v. Rogers, 35 Ind. 124;
Levy v. Stewart, 11 Wall. (U. 8S.) 244;
Hanger v. Abbott, 6 Wall. (U.8.) 532;
382 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 306

the statute afresh. So, an acknowledgment of indebtedness,
if of such a character as to give rise to the implication of a
new promise, will take the case out of the-statute.2 And part
payment is generally a sufficient acknowledgment of the ex-
istence of a present debt, from which a new promise may be
implied.? But the acknowledgment may be so qualified as to
prevent the implication of a new promise,‘ and if the promise
is conditional it must be proved that the condition has been
fulfilled.© The law upon this subject is well and concisely
stated in a leading case by Lord Justice Mellish, as follows:
“‘There must be one of these three things to take the case out

Hodges v. Taylor (Ark.), 18S. W. R.
129; Coleman v. Holmes, 44 Ala. 124.
See, also, Greenwald v. Appell, 17
Fed. R. 140; Hill v. Phillips, 14 R.
I. 93.

1 Le Roy v. Crowninshield, 2 Mason
(C. C.), 151; Austin v. Bostwick, 9
Conn. 496; Mastin v. Branham, 86
Mo. 643; Engmann v. Estate of Im-
mel, 59 Wis. 249; Ayers v. Richards,
1211]. 146; Krueger v. Krueger,76 Tex.
178; Pickering v. Frink, 62 N. H. 342;
Tuggle v. Minor, 76 Cal. 96. And see
authorities cited in following notes:

2 Yost v. Grim, 116 Pa. St.527; Shaef-
fer v. Hoffman, 113 Pa. St. 1; Shep-
herd v. Thompson, 122 U. S. 281;
Moore v. Clark, 40 N. J. Eq. 152; Bell
v. Morrison, 1 Pet. (U. 8.) 351; Holt
v. Gage, 60 N. H. 536; Henry v. Root,
33 N. Y. 526; Qlvey v. Jackson, 106
Ind. 286; Custy v. Donlan (Mass.), 34
N. E. R. 360; Foster v. Smith, 52 Conn.
449; Stewart v. Garrett, 65 Md. 392.
It should be clear and definite. Mor-
rell v. Frith, 3 M. & W. 403; Weston
v. Hodgkins, 1386 Mass. 326; Switzer
v. Noffsinger, 82 Va. 518; Allen v.
Webster, 15 Wend. (N.Y.) 284; Whit-
ney v. Bigelow, 4 Pick. (Mass.) 110;
Landis v. Roth, 109 Pa. St. 621, 8. C.
58 Am. R. 747, and note; Miller v.

t

Baschore, 83 Pa. St. 356; Fletcher v.
Gillan, 62 Miss. 8.

3 Barclay’s Appeal, 64 Pa. St. 69;
Wesner v. Stein, 97 Pa. St. 322; Hew-
lett v. Schenck, 82 N. Car. 234; Miner
v. Lorman, 56 Mich. 212; Creighton v.
Vincent, 10 Ore. 56; Conwell v. Bu-
chanan, 7 Blackf. 537; Day v. Mayo,
154 Mass. 472, S. C. 28 N. E. R. 898;
Manson v. Lancey, 84 Me. 380, 8. C.
24 Atl. R. 880; Crockett v. Mitchell, 88
Ga. 166, 8. C. 148. E. R. 118; United
States v. Wilder, 13 Wall. (U. 8.) 254;
Bank of Utica v. Ballou, 49 N. Y. 155;
Whipple v. Stevens, 22 N. H. 219,

* A’Court v. Cross, 3 Bing. 329; Tan-
ner! v. Smart, 6 Barn. & Cres. 603;
Krebs v. Olmstead, 137 Mass. 504;
Marshall v. Dalliber, 5 Conn. 480;
Currier v. Lockwood, 40 Conn. 349;
Curtis v. Sacramento, 70 Cal. 412;
Sands v. Gelston, 15 Johns.(N.Y.) 511;
Adams v. Cameron (Ala.), 10 So. R.
506; Lester v. Thompson, 91 Mich. 245,
S.C. 51 N. W. R. 893; Keener v. Zart-
man, 144 Pa. St. 179, S.C. 22 Atl. R.
889; Linderman v. Pomeroy, 142 Pa.
St. 168, S. C. 24 Am. St. R. 494.

5 Davies v. Smith, 4 Esp. 36; Bethell
v. Bethell, L. R., 34 Ch. Div. 561;
Stowell v. Fowler, 59 N. H. 585; Rob-
bins v. Otis, 1 Pick, (Mass.)368; Boyn-
§ 306 TIME OF BRINGING THE ACTION. 383

of the statute. Either there must be an acknowledgment of
the debt, from which a promise to pay is to be implied, or,
secondly, there must be an unconditional promise to pay the
debt; or, thirdly, there must be a conditional’ promise to pay
the debt, and evidence that the condition has been performed.’”!
In most of the States the new promise or acknowledgment is
required by statute to be in writing,? and in most jurisdic-
tions the rules above stated in. regard to the effect of an ac-
knowledgment apply only to cases in which the action rests
upon a contract or promise.* Thus, after the statute has barred
an action for a tort, an acknowledgment will not avoid the
statute. The acknowledgment or promise must be made to
the creditor or his agent,® or if to a stranger it must be made
with the intention that it should be communicated to the cred-
itor. An acknowledgment of a debt made to a stranger, and
not intended to be communicated to the creditor will not re-

move the bar of the statute.”

ton v. Moulton (Mass.), 34 N. E. R.
* 361; Richardson v. Bricker, 7 Colo.
58; Mattocks v. Chadwick, 71 Me. 313;
Shepherd v. Thompson, 122 U. 8. 231;
Shown v. Hawkins, 85 Tenn. 214.

1 Mitchell’s Claim, L. R.,6Ch. App.
822.

2 Ketcham v. Hill, 42 Ind. 64; Kis-
ler v, Sanders, 40 Ind. 78; Pierce v.
Seymour, 52 Wis. 272, S.C. 38 Am. R.
737; Wood on Limitation of Actions,
§ 83. But these statutes do not change
the effect of part payment, except in
Nevada. Wilcox v. Williams, 5 Nev.
206.

5 Oothout v. Thompson, 20 Johns.
(N.Y.) 277; Goodwyn v. Goodwyn, 16
Ga. 114; Ott v. Whitworth, 8 Humph.
(Tenn.) 494; Niblack v. Goodman, 67
Ind.174; McAleer v. Clay Co., 38 Fed.
R. 707; Taylor v. Spivey, 11 Ired. (N.
Car.) 427; Crawford v. Childress, 1
Ala. 482. But see Armstrong v. Le-
van, 109 Pa. St. 177.)

*Galligher v. Hullingsworth, 3 H. &

And, to be effective, it must be

McH.(Md.) 122; Oothout v. Thomp-
son, 20 Johns. (N. Y.) 277; Hurst v
Parker, 1 B. & Ald. 92.

5 Biddel v. Brizzolara, 64 Cal. 354;
Gillingham v. Gillingham, 17 Pa. St.
302; McKinney.v. Snyder, 78 Pa. St.
497; Croman v. Stull, 119 Pa. St. 91;
Ringo v. Brooks, 26 Ark. 540; Trous-
dale v. Anderson, 9 Bush. (Ky.) 276;
Kisler v. Sanders, 40 Ind. 78; Niblack
». Goodman, 67 Ind. 174; Sibert v.
Wilder, 16 Kan. 176, 8. C. 22 Am. R.
280; City of Houston v. Jankowskie,
76 Texas, 368, 8. C. 13S. W. R. 269.

® De Freest v. Warner, 98 N. Y. 217,
221; Wakeman v. Sherman, 9N.Y.85;
Bachman v. Roller, 9 Baxt. (Tenn.)
409. See, also, ‘Allen v. Collier, 70
Mo. 138, 8. C. 35 Am. R. 416, and note.

1 Parker v. Remington, 15 R. I. 300,
S.C. 2 Am. St. R. 897; Matter of Ken-
drick, 107 N.Y. 104; Spangler v. Span-
gler, 122 Pa. St. 358, 8. C. 9 Am. St.
R. 114.
384 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 307

made by the debtor, or for him by his authorized agent.’ Par-
tial payment by one joint debtor does not defeat the operation
of the statute as to the others.?_ But it is said that ‘‘at common
law, and in those States where the common law rule prevails,
a distinction is made between those cases in which a part pay-
ment is made by one of several promisors of a note before the
statute of limitations has attached and those in which the pay-
ment is made after the completion of the bar of the statute; it
being held in the former that the debt or demand is kept alive
as to all, and in the latter that it isrevived only as to the party
making the payment.’ A new promise or an unequivocal
acknowledgment by a partner, while the partnership relation ©
continues, will bind the firm.‘

§ 307. Special limitations——There are special limitations
created by statute or contract, independent of the general stat-
ute of limitations, which may not only bar the remedy, but
extinguish the right itself. They may be made conclusive
even upon persons under disabilities,’ and, if valid at the place

1 McMullen v. Rafferty, 89 N.Y. 456,
4605 Wilmer v. Gaither, 68 Md. 342;
Ryal v. Morris, 68 Ga. 834; Ringo v.
Brooks, 26 Ark. 540; Lord v. Morris,
18 Cal. 482; City of Houston v. Jank-
ouskie, 76 Texas, 868, S. C.13S. W.
Rep. 269; Fort Scott v. Hickman, 112
U.S. 150, 8. C. 5 Sup. Ct, Rep. 56.

2 Bottles v. Miller, 112 Ind. 584;
Bell v. Morrison, 1 Pet. (U. 8.) 351;
Van Keuren v. Parmelee, 2 N. Y. 523;
Shoemaker v. Benedict, 11 N. Y. 176;
McMullen v. Rafferty, 89 N. Y. 456,
459; Steele v. Souder, 20 Kan. 39;
Knight v. Clements, 45 Ala. 89; Schin-
del v. Gates, 46 Md.'604; Mayberry v.
Willoughby, 5 Neb. 368; Willoughby
v. Irish, 35 Minn. 63; Walters v. Kraft,
23 So. Car. 578; Palmer v. Dodge, 4
Ohio St. 21; Bush v. Stowell, 71 Pa.
St. 208. Contra, Whitcomb v. Whit-
ing, Doug. 652; Bound v. Lathrop, 4
Conn. 336; Campbell v. Brown, 86 N.

Car. 376; Casebolt v. Ackerman, 46 N.
J. L. 169; Shepley v. Waterhouse, 22
Me. 497; Bridge v. Gray, 14 Pick.
(Mass.) 55; Hollister v. York, 59 Vt. 1.

5 Per Lamar, J., in Cross v. Allen,
141 U. S. 528, 8. C. 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 67.
It was held in this case that payments
made by the principal before the stat-
ute had run against the note kept the
debt alive as to the surety.

‘Sears v. Starbird, 78 Cal. 225; Tate
v. Clements, 16 Fla. 339, 854; Tappan
v. Kimball, 30 N. H. 186; Wood v.
Barber, 90 N. Car. 76; Faulkner v.
Bailey, 123 Mass. 588; Abrahams v.
Myers, 40 Md. 499. As to its effect, if
made after dissolution of the partner-
ship, the authorities are conflicting.
They are reviewed in the note to Char-
don v. Oliphant, 6 Am. Dec. 572. See,
also, 13 Am. & Eng. Hney, of Law,
761, 762.

°Cochran v. Young, 104 Pa. St. 333;
§ 308 TIME OF BRINGING THE ACTION. ~* 385

of contract, are valid everywhere.! Thus, in many insurance
policies, it is provided that no action can be maintained thereon
unless brought within a certain time, and it is held that if
valid at the place of contract, such provision is valid every-
where.? So, telegraph companies may stipulate that claims
for damages for failure to deliver messages must be presented
within a reasonable time.*? An insurance company may, how-
ever, estop itself from insisting upon a provision in the policy
limiting the timé for bringing suit by engaging in negotiations
with the insured and holding out reasonable hopes of an ad-
justment, thus deterring him from suing until after the expira-
tion of the period of limitation.‘

§ 308. Presumptions.—It was a rule of the common law as
well as of equity that payment would be presumed after twenty
years. ‘This presumption, prima facie, obliterates the debt,
and the onus of proof is upon the creditor, not to establish a
new contract, as is the case when the debt is barred by the
statute of limitations, but to show that payment of the debt.
has not been made.’’® So, it may be presumed that an account

Taylor v. Cranberry Iron Co., 94 N.
Car. 525.

1 Hudson v. Bishop, 35 Fed. R. 820;
Eastwood v, Kennedy, 44 Md. 563;
Boker v. Stonebraker, 36 Mo. 338.

2 Hudson v. Bishop, 32 Fed. R. 519.
See, also, Riddlesbarger v. Hartford
Ins. Co., 7 Wall. (U. 8.) 386; Carter
v. Humboldt Ins. Co., 12 Ia. 287. As
to when the statute begins to run, see
Murdock v. Franklin Ins. Co., 33 W.
Va. 407, S.C. 10 8. E. R. 777, 8. 0.1
Lewis’ Am. R.R. & Corp. Cases 24, and
authorities there cited ; Wood on Ins.,
§ 443; May on Ins., § 479; German
Ins. Co. v. Fairbank (Neb.), 5 Lewis’
‘Am. R. RB. & Corp. Cases, 90; Case v.
Ins. Co., 83 Cal. 473, 8. C. 23 Pac. R.
534.

3 Western Union Co. v. Meredith, 95

25

Ind. 93; Western Un.Tel.Co. v. Scircle,
103 Ind. 227; Western Un. Tel. Co. wv.
Culberson, 79 Tex. 65, S.C. 15 S. W.
Rep. 219.

4 Allemania Fire Ins. Co. v. Peck, 133
Tl. 220, 24 N. E. R. 538, 8. C. 2 Lewis’
Am. R. R. & Corp. R. 488; Ins. Co. v.
Whitehill, 25 Ill. 466; Ins. Co. v. Myer,
93 Ill. 271; Martin v. Ins. Co., 44 N.
J. L. 485; Barnum. v. Ins. Co., 97 N.
Y. 188; Ins. Co. v. Hall, 12 Mich. 202;
Mickey »v. Ins. Co., 35 Ia. 174.

5Bean v. Tonnele, 94 N. Y. 381;
Black v. Pratt, ete., Co., 85 Ala. 504;
Lash v. Von Neida, 109 Pa. St. 207;
Bass v. Bass, 8 Pick. (Mass.) 187;
Criss v. Criss, 28 W. Va. 388, 397;
Gregory v. Commonwealth, 121 Pa. St.
611; Best on Presumptions, 188.

6 Bentley’s Appeal, 99 Pa. St. 504;
386

THE WORK OUT OF COURT.

§ 308

has been settled after twenty years,' or that a mortgage has

been satisfied .?

The existence and the force and effect of such

presumptions as well as the effect of laches and the statute of
limitations are matters to be carefully considered by counsel
for the plaintiff before bringing suit and by counsel for the de-
fendant.in determining and preparing his defense.

Gregory v. Commonwealth, 121 Pa. St.
611; Campbell v. Brown, 86 N. Car.
376. See, also, Walker v. Robinson,
136 Mass. 280. It may also arise from
the lapse of a shorter period coupled
with other circumstances. Husky v.
Maples, 2 Coldw. (Tenn.), 25, S. C. 88
Am. Dec. 588, and note; Hughes v.
Eughes, 54 Pa. St. 240; Briggs’ Ap-
peal, 93 Pa. St. 485; Bander v. Snyder,
5 Barb. (N. Y.) 63; Walker v. Emer-
son, 20 Tex. 706; Perkins v. Hawkins,
9Gratt. (Va.) 649; Garnier v. Renner,
51 Ind. 372, But, compare, Daby v,

Ericsson, 45 N. Y. 786; Sadler v. Ken-
nedy, 11 W. Va. 187; Thomas v. Hun-
nicutt, 54 Ga. 337.

' Hancock v.Cook,18 Pick. (Mass. )30.

? Trash v. White, 3 Brown’s Ch. 289;
Giles v. Baremore, 5 Johns. Ch. (N.Y.)
545; Hughes v. Edward, 9 Wheat. (U,
8.) 489. Or that a defendant was
properly served, although the record
fails to show service. Wilson v. Holt,
83 Ala. 528, 8. C.3 Am. St. R. 768;
Best v. Vanhook (Ky.), 13 8. W. R.
119.
CHAPTER IX.

PRECAUTIONARY STEPS AND INCIDENTAL MATTERS. :

§ 309. Cause of action must be com- § 326. Taking possession—Completing

plete. evidence of title or right.
310. Requisites of a complete cause 327. Notice.
of action. 328. Notice for inspection of docu-
311. Damages essential to a com- ments.
plete cause of action. 829. Effect of neglecting to take pre-
$12. Exceptions to the rule that cautionary measures.
damages must be shown. 330. Arrangements for trial—Depo-
313. Demand—When necessary. sitions.
314. Demand—How made. 331. Witnesses and subpeenas.
315. Admissions in demand. 332. Ascertaining particulars of
316. Demand— When waived or ex- claim. ’
cused. 333. Setting forth particulars of
317. Tender—When necessary. claim. :
* 318. Implied admissions by tender. 334. Final consultation with client.
319. Tender—How made. 835. Notes of evidence.
320. Tender—Effect of. 336. Trial briefs.
821. Tender to be kept good. 337. Development of the theory.
322. Equitable tender. 338. Witnesses should be present—
823. Waiver of tender. Depositions.
324. Offer to perform. 339. Care required in taking precau-
325. Architects’ certificate—E n gi- tionary measures.

neer’s estimates.

§ 309. Cause of action must be complete.—No recovery is
legally possible unless the cause of action is complete at the
time the appeal to the judicial tribunal to enforce it is made
by the party injured. Mr. Broom says: ‘‘In the first place,
then, the party proposing to sue should satisfy himself that he
has a cause of action against the defendant; for, at the trial,
he will have to prove that a right of action was vested in him
before he commenced his suit.’’! Acts performed after the
action is commenced may be available as evidence, but they

1 Broom’s Com.,111; WesternUnion N. E. R. 694; People v. Holladay, 93
Telegraph Co. v. Yopst, 118 Ind. 248; Cal. 241, 8. C. 27 Am. St. R. 186.
Brickey v. Irwin, 122 Ind. 51, 8. 0. 23

(387)
388 ‘ THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 310

can not constitute elements of the cause of action. The right
of the plaintiff and the wrong of the defendant arise out cf
facts in existence at the time the action was begun. Whether
the facts which constitute the right of which the plaintiff de-
mands a vindication be of great or little importance, they must
exist at the time the complaint or declaration on which issue
is joined is filed.t. The great facts which constitute the cause
of action, no effort of the advocate can bring into existence,
and he would dishonor himself and his profession by attempt-
ing to fabri¢ate or procure evidence which should make it ap-
pear that they did exist. But there are minor facts, essential
to a complete cause of action, which it is his duty to bring into
existence. This duty he may justly perform by directing and
advising his client, although he can not always with strict
propriety perform the acts himself. For the most part these
subordinate facts are such as are necessary to put the plaintiff
entirely in the right and the defendant wholly in the wrong.«
Although these facts are minor ones, and merely supplement
the main facts, yet unless they are brought into existence the
advocate will be humiliated by an utter discomfiture, even
though the principal facts of his client’s cause of action are
strong enough to repel all assaults.

§ 310. Requisites of a complete cause of action.—It may be
said in a general way that the cause of action is complete

1 Dean v. Metropolitan, etc., Co., 119
N. Y. 540, 8. C. 23 N. E. R. 1054;
Kaley v. Musgrave, 26 Ill. App. 509;
Kahn v. Cook, 22 Ill. App. 559; Boat-
men’s Savings Bank v. McMenamy, 35
Mo. App. 198; Gulf, etc., Co. v. Sette-
gast, 79 Texas, 256, S. C. 158. W. R.
228; Henderson v. Three Hundred
Tons of Iron Ore, 38 Fed. R. 36. In
illustration of the rule stated in the
text we may instance cases in which
itis held that full performance of a
condition precedent pending the ac-
tion will not be sufficient. Read v. Buf-
fum, 79 Cal. 77, 21 Pac. R. 555; Baker

v. Tillman, 84 Ga. 401, 8. C.11 8. E. R.
355; Holmes, etc., Co. v. Holmes, etc.,
53 Hun, 52. As illustrating the doc-
trine of the text in a peculiar form
may be cited the case of Bynum »v.
Burke County, 101 N. Car. 412,8.C.8
S. E. R. 136, wherein it was held that
a suit was prematurely brought to con-
test the validity of an election because
the result of the election had not been
declared by the proper officers. See,
as to necessity of disaffirming contract
before suing, Lange v. Dammier, 119
Ind. 567, 8. C. 21 N. E. R. 749.
§ 310 PRECAUTIONARY STEPS. 389

when the plaintiff has done what his contract requires or the
law exacts, and the defendant has not done what his contract
required of him, or has violated some duty imposed upon him
by law, and by his breach of contract or violation of duty has
caused legal harm or loss to the plaintiff. If there is wrong-
ful default on the part of the defendant and no fault or breach
of duty on the plaintiff’s- part, the latter may, in many in-
stances, recover money immediately although if the defendant
had performed his part of the contract the right to sue would
be postponed, or the right to recover be limited to the recovery
of property. Thus, on the tender of a deed by the vendor of
land and the refusal of the vendee to execute promissory notes
as provided in the contract of sale the vendor may maintain
an action for the contract price of the land, but if the defend-
ant in such a case tenders the notes and mortgage no action
could be maintained until the maturity of the notes.1 So, ifa
vendor of land refuses to convey land he has agreed to convey
the vendee may upon tender of the purchase-money unpaid
elect to treat the contract as rescinded and sue the vendor for
the purchase-money paid to him.? The cases to which we
have referred are in reality but instances of the application of
the wide-reaching general principle that if a party repudiates
his contract or refuses when duly requested to perform his part

1 Russell v. Englehardt, 24 Mo. App.
36; -Dunsworth v. Walter A. Wood
Machine Co., 29 Ill. App. 23. The
rule is, of course, the same with re-

Gillet. v. Maynard, 5 Johns. 85; Van
Van Benthuysen v. Crapser, 8 Johns.
259; Frost v. Smith,7 Bosw.108. In the
case first named it was said: ‘‘Where

spect to personal property. Stephen-
son v. Repp, 47 Ohio St. 551, 8. C. 25
N. E. R. 803; Trowbridge v. Holcomb,
4 Ohio St. 38, 44; Newman v. .Mc-
Gregor, 5 Ohio, 349; Sperry v. John-
son, 11 Ohio, 452, 454; Mettler v.
Moore, 1 Blackf. 342; Baker v. Mair,
12 Mass. 121; Brooks v. Hubbard, 3
Conn.58; Finney v. Gleason, 5 Wend.
393; Perry v. Smith, 22 Vt. 301; Smith
». Smith, 2 Johns. 235; Mussen v.
Price, 4 East, 147.
* Chatfield v. Williams, 85 Cal. 518;

the vendor under such contract, on
tender of the balance of the purchase-
price, refuses or neglects to convey,
his default authorizes the vendee to
treat the contract as at an end, and to
recover the money which has been
paid.” See, generally, Camp v. Morse,
5 Denio, 161; Jenners v. Spraker, 2
Ind. App. Ct. 100, 8. 0.27 N. E.R.
117; Taylor v. Hodges, 105 N. C. 344,
8. C. 118. E. R. 156; Fields v. Baum,
35 Mo. App. 511.
390

THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 311

of the contract the adverse party may sue for an entire breach
of the contract.

§ 311. Damages essential to a complete cause of action.—
The general rule is that actual damages must be shown or there
is no cause of action. This general rule is strikingly illustrated
by the cases which decide that fraud without damages does not
entitle a party to relief at law or in equity.? It is not, how-
ever, sufficient that damages be shown, since in order to con-
stitute a complete cause of action a wrongful injury must also
be shown.’ The principle we have just stated finds expression
in the familiar maxim: ‘‘Damnum absque injuria.”’* Under
the general rule we have stated, it often becomes necessary for
the advocate to secure the performance of such acts as will en-
able him to produce evidence establishing a right to damages.
It is sometimes necessary to exercise care in securing credible
and competent expert witnesses to show the extent of the loss
sustained, as in cases of injuries to the person; in other cases
it is necessary to provide for evidence of facts which will en-

1 Sullivan v. McMillan, 26 Fla. 543, 8
So. R. 450; Price v. Vanstone, 40 Mo.
App. 207; Moore v. Garner, 101 N.C.
374, 8.C.7 8. E. R. 732; Fenton v.
Alsip, 79 Cal. 402, S. C. 21 Pac. R. 839;
Davenport v. Ladd, 38 Minn. 545, 8.
C. 38 N. W. R. 622; Bogle v. Gordon,
39 Kan. 31, 8. C. 17 Pac. R. 857; Dut-
ton v. Solomonson, 3 Bos. & P. 582;
Hoskins v. Duperoy, 9 East, 498;
Hutchinson v. Reid, 3 Campb. 329;
Niland v. Murphy, 73 Wis. 326, S. C.
41 N. W. R. 335.

2 Wiley v. Howard, 15 Ind. 169;
Janesville v. Carpenter, 77 Wis. 288, 8
Law.R.Anno. 805, 8. C. 46 N.W.R.128;
National Copper Co. v. Minnesota
Mining Co., 57 Mich. 83, 8. C. 58 Am.
R. 333, 8. C. 23 N. W. R. 781. In
Pasley v. Freeman, 3 T. R. 51, it was
said by Butler, J., that: ‘(Fraud with-
out damage, or damage without fraud,

gives no cause of action; but where
these two concur an action lies.”
This general rule of the text is illus-
trated by the cases which hold that
a judgment will not be reversed fdr a
failure to award merely nominal dam-
ages. Norman v. Winch, 65 Iowa, 263;
Case Threshing Machine Co.v. Haven,
65 Ia. 8359; Wimberg v. Schwegeman,
97 Ind. 528; Mahoney v. Robbins, 49
Ind. 146; Watson v. Van Meter, 43
Ia. 76; Black v. Coan, 48 Ind. 385;
Patton v. Hamilton, 12 Ind. 256; Tate
v. Booe, 9 Ind. 18.

3 City of North Vernon v. Voegler,
103 Ind. 314, 318; Cooley on Torts,
62, 81.

* Broom’s Legal Maxims,195; Weeks
Damnum Absque Injuria, 7; Broom’s
Com. (4th ed.) 75, 621; Cooley on
Torts, 81.
391

§ 312 PRECAUTIONARY STEPS.

hance or augment the amount of recovery, as in cases where
interest is sought to be recovered upon a claim or where a re-
covery of a penalty annexed by contract or by law to a breach
of contract or violation of duty is sought. In such cases, and
in those of a kindred character, the proper precautionary meas-
ures must be taken or there is danger of complete defeat or of
a serious reduction of the amount of recovery.

§ 312. Exceptions to the rule that damages must be shown.
—There is, it is obvious, a class of cases where a right of ac-
tion may exist, although the complainant may have no prop-
erty right or pecuniary interest in the relief he seeks. Thus,
an elector of the State may have a right to the writ of manda-
mus to compel public officers to discharge imperative duties
imposed upon them by law, although he may not ‘have a direct
money.or property interest in the performance of such duties.
But cases of the kind referred to are extraordinary ones, and
are not governed by the rules which control actions or suits
concerning ordinary controversies relative to the rights of per-
sons or things. Thereis, however, an important class of cases,
wherein the rights of property are involved, in which a suit
may be maintained, although at the time it was brought no.
actual damages had accrued. The class of cases to which we
refer are those wherein the failure of a property-owner to vin-
dicate his right may result in its loss to him by lapse of time.?
This doctrine was applied to the case of a mill owner who pros-
ecuted an action against another owner for the wrongful diver-
sion of a watercourse, and it was held that the action would
lie although no actual damages had accrued.?. The rule has

1See Cooley on Torts, 63-66.

2 Webb v. The Portland Manufac-
turing Co., 3 Sumn. (U. 6. C. C.) 189.
In the case cited the old cases were
very fully reviewed by Judge Story,
and he stated some propositions which
it is probable the modern cases would
hardly sustain. In the course of his
opinion the learned judge said: ‘‘Up-
on the whole without going farther

into an examination of this subject,
moy judgment is, that whenever there
is a clear violation of a right it is not
necessary in an action of this sort to
show actual damage, and if no other
be proved the plaintiff is entitled to a
verdict for nominal damages. And,
a fortiori, that this doctrine applies
whenever the act done is of such a
nature as that by its repetition or con-
392 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. '§ 313

been applied to cases in which encroachments upon easements
and upon public ways have been resisted by adjoining land-
owners having an interest in the incorporeal hereditament as
well as to the cases where land-owners have sought to prevent
an implied dedication of a highway from being inferred from
long continued use by the public.’

§ 318. Demand—When necessary.—There are many cases
in which a demand is essential to the existence of a cause of
action, and where it is necessary it must be considered as one
of the minor facts of the case to be brought into existence be-
fore the action is commenced. Thus, a demand is necessary
in a case where personal property is purchased by the defend-
ant in good faith from an agent or bailee;? so it is necessary in
some actions for a breach of contract, and the failure to deliver
goods or pay money;? again, it is necessary in actions to evict
tenants;* and so, too, it is necessary in an action by a principal
against an agent for a failure to pay over money collected by

the latter.®

Asa general rule where money is due on a contract

the suit itself constitutes a sufficient demand,® although there

tinuance it may become the founda-
tion or evidence of an adverse right.”
See, to a similar effect, Mason v. Hill,
8 Barn. & Ad. 304, 8.C. 5 Barn. &
Ad. 1.

1 Attorney General v.Tarr, 148 Mass.
309, 8. C. 2 Lawy. R. Anno. 87, 19 N.
E. R. 358; Ross v. Thompson, 78 Ind.
90, 97; Faust v. City of Huntington, 91
Ind. 498, 496; Kyle v. Board of Com-
missioners, 94 Ind. 115, 118.

Amos v. Sinnot, 4 Scam. (Ill.) 440;
Thompson v. Shirley, 1 Esp. N. P. C.
31.

3 Frazee v. McChord, 1 Ind. 224;
High v. Board, 92 Ind. 580; Davis v.
Doherty, 69 Ind. 11.

4Doev.Wandlars, 7T. R.117; Jones
v. Temple, 87 Va. 210, 12 8. E. R. 404.

5 Jones v. Gregg, 17 Ind. 84; Honv.
Hon, 70 Ind. 185; Heddens v. Young-

love, 46Ind. 212. Butademand is un-
necessary where the agent denies his
liability, so that a demand would be
fruitless. Hammett v. Brown, 60 Ala.
498.

®Olvey v. Jackson, 106 Ind. 286;
Frazee v. McChord, 1 Ind. 224; Prince-
ton v. Gébhart, 61 Ind. 187; Bradfield
v. McCormick, 3 Blackf. 161; Ross v.
Lafayette, etc., R. R. Co., 6 Ind. 297;
Ferguson v. State, 90 Ind. 38; Kraft
v. Thomas, 123 Ind. 513; Brackett v.
Evans, 1 Cush. 79; Andrews v. Frye,
104 Mass. 234; Niemeyer v. Brooks,

.44 Ml. 77; Union Cent. Life Ins. Co.
v. Curtis, 35 Ohio St. 357.

See, gen-
erally, Watt v. Pittman, 125 Ind. 168,
8. C. 25 N. E. R. 191; Stevens Point,
etc., Bank v. Kickbush, 78 Wis. 218,
8. C. 47 N. W. R. 267.
§ 313

PRECAUTIONARY STEPS. 3893

are cases in which the nature and wording of the contract may
be such as to render a demand necessary in order to maintain
an action thereon for the payment of money.! Where a con-
tract is payable in goods on demand or at no definite time or
place a demand is necessary to complete the cause of action.”
So, as a general rule, demand and notice are necessary to sup-
port an action upon a collateral undertaking.* But where the
law makes it the duty of a public officer or a person acting in
a trust capacity to pay over money at a stated time, no demand
is necessary in order to maintain a suit on his bond.+ The
holder of a bill or note, in order to charge the drawer or in-
dorser, must demand payment of the drawee or maker and give
reasonable notice of the latter’s failure to pay, unless some
good excuse is shown for failing to do so.2 A demand may
also be necessary to support an action ex delicto.® Where the
defendant is in the rightful possession of personal property,
not claiming it as his own, and ready to surrender it to the
true owner, or in any case where his original taking was not
wrongful and there has been no conversion, a demand is nec-
essary before an action of replevin or trover can be maintained
against him.” But where there has been an actual conversion

1 Bolles v. Stearns, 11 Cush. 320;
Sweetland v. Barrett, 4 Mont. 217.

2 Bradley v. Farrington, 4 Ark. 532;
Frazee v. McChord, 1 Ind. 224; Mar-
tin v, Chauvin, 7 Mo. 277; State v.
Mooney, 65 Mo. 494; Widner v. Walsh,
3 Colo. 548; Norris v. Milwaukee Dock
Co., 21 Wis. 180; Wyatt v. Bailey, 1
Morr. (Iowa) 396.

3 January v. Duncan, 3 McLean, C.
©. 19; Rhodes v. Morgan, 1 Baxt.
(Tenn.) 360.

‘Higgins v. State, 87 Ind. 282;
Moore »v. State, 55 Ind. 360; Hudson
v. State, 54 Ind. 378.

5 Wood v. Surrells, 89 Ill. 107;. Gal-
pin v. Hard, 3 McCord (So. Car.), 394,
S. C. 15 Am. Dec. 640; Green v. Lou-
thain, 49 Ind. 189; De Pauw v. Bank,
126 Ind. 553; Knickerbocker Life Ins.

Co. v. Pendleton, 112 U.S. 696; Union
Bank v. Willis, 8 Metc. (Mass.) 504, S.
C. 41 Am. Dec. 541; Tiedeman on
Commercial Paper, § 310.

6 Griswold .v. Burroughs, 15 N.Y.
Supp. 314, 8. C. 67 Hun, 558; Nunn
». Home Insurance Co., 31 Neb. 39,
8. C. 47 N. W. R. 467; Lonsdale v.
Nelson, 2 Barn. & Cress. 302; Pen-
ruddock’s Case, 5 Co. 101; Ehle
v. Deitz, 32 Tl. App. 547; Ashcroft v.
Bertles, 6 T. R. 652; Hx parte Lands-
down, 5 East, 38.

7Sturgis v. Preston, 184 Mass. 372;
Metcalf v. McLaughlin, 122 Mass. 84;
Campbell v. Jones, 38 Cal.507; Sherry
». Picken, 10 Ind. 375; Lewis v. Mas-
ters, 8 Blackf. 244; Roberts v. Norris,
67 Ind. 386; Torian v. McClure, 83
Ind. 310; Chapin v. Siger, 4 McLean
§ 313

394 THE WORK OUT OF COURT.

by the defendant, or where his original taking was wrongful,
no demand is necessary.! In an action for the settlement of
partnership accounts a demand should be made before suit.?
So, a demand for a deed should precede a suit on a contract for
the conveyance of land, unless the defendant denies his liabil-
ity on the contract, or unless there is some other good excuse
for not making a demand.’ There are also cases in which it
is important to make a demand on account of its effect upon
the amount of recovery. Thus, in the absence of some agree-
ment, express or implied, interest can not be recovered on an
unliquidated claim until after a demand has been made.* And

there are many other cases of a similar nature.®

C. C. 378; Hardy v. Keeler, 56 Ill. 152;
Witherspoon v. Blewett, 47 Miss. 570;
Tripp v. Pulver, 2 Hun (N. Y.), 511;
Gillett v. Roberts, 57N. Y.28; Adams
v. Wood, 51 Mich. 411; Becker v.Van-
dercook, 54 Mich. 114.

1 La Fayette, etc., Bank v. Metcalf,
40 Mo. App. 494; Hayes v. The Mass-
achusetts, etc., Co., 125 Ill. 626, 8. C.
1 Lawy. R. Anno. 303; Waller v.
Bowling, 108 N. C. 289, 8. C.12 Lawy.
R. Anno. 261; Hamilton v. Browning,
94 Ind. 242; Robinson v. Shatzley, 75
Ind. 461; Whitlock v. Heard, 13 Ala.
776, 8. C. 48 Am. Dec. 73; Magee v.
Scott, 9 Cush. 148, 8. C. 55 Am. Dec.
49; Perkins v. Barnes, 3 Nev. 557;
Gilmore v. Newton, 9 Allen, 171; Bal-
lou v. O’Brien, 20 Mich. 304; Moriarty
v. Stofferan, 89 Ill. 528; Galvin v. Ba-
con, 11 Me. 28, 8. C. 25 Am. Dec. 258;
Pease v. Smith, 61 N. Y. 477; Haas
v. Taylor, 80 Ala. 459; Hake v. Buell,
50 Mich. 89; Guthrie v.Olson, 44 Minn.
404,8.C.46N.W. RB. 853. No demand
is necessary before bringing an action
by an assignee for the benefit of cred-
itors in a case where a creditor fraud-
ulently purchased the debtor’s prop-
erty and wrongfully applied it to the
payment of hisown debt. Crampton

v. Valido Marble Co., 60 Vt. 291, 8. C.
1 Lawy. R. Anno. 120. Where the
trustees of a corporation misapply
funds a precedent demand is not es-
sential to complete the cause of action.
Ashton v. Dashaway Association, 84
Cal. 61, 62. j

? Skillen v. Jones, 44 Ind. 136; Krutz
v. Craig, 53 Ind. 561.

3 Carpenter v. Lockhart, 1 Ind. 434;
Harshman v. Mitchell, 117 Ind. 312;
Mather v. Scoles, 35 Ind. 1; Law ».
Henry, 39 Ind. 414.

‘Taft v. Stoddard, 142 Mass. 545, S.
C. 8 N. E. BR. 586; Barnard v. Bar-

tholomew, 22 Pick. 291; Feeter v.

Heath, 11 Wend. 479; White v. Miller,
78 N. Y. 393; Amee v. Wilson, 22 Me.
116; note to Selleck v. French, 6 Am.
Dec. 188; Gammell v. Skinner, 2 Gall.
(U. 8.) 45; Whereatt v. Ellis, 68 Wis.
61; Hall v. Farmers’, etc., Bank, 55
Towa, 612.

5 Rayner v. Bryson, 29 Md. 473;
Ford v. Tirrell, 9 Gray, 401, S. C. 69
Am. Dec. 297; Butler v. Austin, 64
Cal. 3; Cruikshank v. Comyns, 24 Ill.
602; Pierce v. Life Ins. Co., 188 Mass.
151; Walker v. Bradley, 3 Pick. 261;
Simons v. Walter, 1 McCord (So. Car.),
97; Scudder v. Morris, 3 N. J. L. 18,
§ 314 PRECAUTIONARY STEPS. 395

§ 314. Demand—How made.—The advocate is required in
many cases to direct when, where, how and of whom demand
shall be made, for it must be made of the proper person,! at
the right time and place,? and in a correct form.? Thus, it
must be made upon the party whose duty it is to perform the
contract or do the act, or upon his agent, attorney or other
representative duly authorized to act in the premises.‘ But a
demand upon one partner or upon one of two persons jointly
liable is generally sufficient. If an agent dies indebted to his
principal, demand should be made upon his administrator.®
It must be made at a reasonable time and place, but where one
resting under a duty to make a demand upon a certain day
was prevented by a restraining order procured by the defend-
ant, it was held that he might make it immediately after the
restraining order was dissolved,’ and a demand made on the
defendant after sunset and about five hours before suit was
brought was held reasonable in another instance under the
peculiar circumstances of the case. The office, or the house of
the defendant if he has no office, is an appropriate place to

make a demand.?

S. C. 4 Am. Dec. 382. Where a mort-
gage is given to secure an agreement
to support the mortgagee during life a
demand is essential to give a complete
cause of action. Coleman v. Whitney,
62 Vt. 123, 8S. C.9 Lawy. R. Anno. 517.

1 Goodwin v. Wertheimer, 99 N. Y.
149; Whitsell v. Wells, 24 Pick. (Mass. )
25; Lill v. Russell, 22 Wis. 178.

2 Bacon v. Western, etc., Co., 53 Ind.
229.

3Van Rensselaer v. Jewett, 2N. Y.
141.

4 Goodwin v. Wertheimer, 99 N. Y.
149; Mount v. Derick, 5 Hill (N. Y.),
455; White v. Demary, 2 N. H. 546;
Bridgeport Bank v. New York, etc.,
Co., 30 Conn. 231. A demand upona
clerk or a writing left with the servant
of the defendant may be sufficient

So, a demand made in the street, if not ob-

where the defendant is absent or too
ill to be seen. Morgan v. Gregg, 46
Barb. (N.Y.) 183;. Saunders v. Payne,
12 N. Y. S. 735; Cass v. New York,
etc., R. R. Co., 1 E. D. Smith (N. Y.),
522; Buxton v. Baughan, 6 C. & P. 674.

5 Holbrook v. Holbrook, 15 Me. 9;
Ball v. Larkin, 3 E. D. Smith (N. Y.),
555. After the partnership is dissolved,
however, a demand must generally be
made upon each of the partners. Keith
v. Sturges, 51 Ill. 142; Pattee v. Gil-
more, 18 N. H. 460, 8. C.45 Am. Dec.
385.

6 Judah v. Dyott, 3 Blackf. 324.

Pay v. Shanks, 56 Ind. 554.

8 Richardson v. Learned,10 Pick.261.

9 Morse v. Aldrich, 1 Metc. (Mass.)
544; Spencer v. Storrs, 38 Vt. 156.
396 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 315

jected to, may be sufficient.!_ It has been held that a demand
accompanied by abuse and insults is not a proper demand, but
a subsequent demand made in the proper manner can not be
ignored by the defendant on the ground of misconduct of the
plaintiff in making the former demand.? No stereotyped form
of words need be used,’ but in order to be on the safe side the
demand should be unequivocal and should clearly indicate
what is demanded and the authority of the person making it.
Where, however, the amount to which the plaintiff is entitled
upon a breach of a contract is clear the fact that he has de-
manded too much will not defeat his action. Where the de-
mand is required to be of a specific character, it is better to
prepare a form in writing, and not to trust to oral evidence.
It is not often that anything more than a demand expressed
in general terms is required, but there are cases where it must
be of a specific character. Where the contract prescribes, either
in direct terms or by implication, what the demand shall be,
it is safest to make it in writing.” Where there is doubt as to
whether a formal demand is necessary, or as to whether it
should be in writing, the advocate should take no risks, but
should cause the demand to be specifically made in writing.

§ 315. Admissions in demand.—Mr. Chitty cautions the at-
torney against. making any admission in a demand, or other
communication to the adverse party, and this caution should
not go unheeded. Although it is a little aside from the

‘Heard v. Lodge, 20 Pick. 53, 8. C.
82 Arm. Dec. 197.

2 Boyden v. Burke, 14 How. (U. 8.)
575.

3Henry v. Harbison, 23 Ark. 25;
Merriam v. Lynch, 53 Wis. 82; Apple-
ton v. Barrett, 29 Wis. 221; Kiefer v.
Carrier, 53 Wis. 404; Buel v. Pum-
phrey, 2 Md. 261, 8. C. 56 Am. Dec.
714; Peoples’, etc., Co. v. Clark, 12
Gray, 165.

“Colby v. Reed, 99 U. 8. 560. See,
also, Gragg v. Hull, 41 Vt. 217, 222;
Marine Bank v. Fiske, 71 N. Y. 353.

See Woodward v. Davis, 127 Ind. 172,
8. C. 26 N. E. R. 687; Fort Scott, etc.,
Co. v. Holman, 45 Kan. 167, 8. C. 25
Pac. R. 585.

> But, in the absence of a stipulation
in the contract or some statutory re-
quirement, the demand need not nec-
essarily be in writing. Colby v. Reed,
99 U.S. 560, The statute may require
it to be in writing in certain cases.
Seem v. McLees, 24 Ill. 192.

61 Chitty’s Gen. Practice, 441; 2
Chitty’s Gen. Practice, 56.
§ 316 PRECAUTIONARY STEPS. 397

subject now under immediate consideration, yet it may not be
inappropriate to add a caution upon a kindred topic. Ad-
missions should be sparingly made, and only after calm delib-
eration. It is unsafe to make them, no matter what their
character, otherwise than in writing. Experienced attorneys
strongly advise against making any except upon matters of
minor importance,! but this advice hardly goes far enough,
for, even though the matter has apparently little influence
upon the merits of the case or the conduct of the trial, no ad-
mission should be made without full consideration; and when
made should, if practicable, be written out in full.

§ 316. Demand—When waived or excused.—The law does
not require any man to do a vain and fruitless thing, and
where a formal demand would be unavailing it is generally
unnecessary. The conduct of the defendant in denying the
plaintiff’s claim in toto, or in expressly refusing performance
in advance will operate as a waiver of a formal demand.? So,
a specific objection or reason for not complying with a demand
waives all other objections to the demand,’ and an offer to pay ~
operates as a waiver of objections to the form of the demand!
Where the defendant is concealed or is a non-resident so that
the plaintiff is unable to make a demand upon him, it will be
excused.© So, if the defendant is an infant of tender years,

1 Warren’s Duties of Att’ys, 190; 3
Chitty’s Gen. Practice, 838. ‘‘Admis-
sions are mostly made by those who
do not know their importance.’’ Scin-
tillae Juris., 77. ‘‘He who concedes
anything is to be considered as con-
ceding that without which his conces-
sion would be idle, without which the
thing itself could not exist.”’ 11 Coke,
52. See, also, Troup v. Hulburt, 10
Barb. 854; People v. Hicks, 15 Barb.
153.

2 Abels v. Glover, 15 La. Ann. 247;
Toney v. Toney, 73 Ind. 34; Harsh-
man v. Mitchell, 117 Ind. 312; Hawes
v. Coombs, 34 Ind. 455; Bartlett v.

Adams, 43 Ind. 447; Heard v. Lodge,
20 Pick. 53, 8. C. 32 Am. Dec. 197;
Benjamin v. Zell, 100 Pa. St. 33; Remy
v. Olds, 88 Cal. 537, S. C. 26 Pac. R.
355.

3 Bartlett v. Adams, 43 Ind. 447;
Weymouth v. Gorham, 22 Me. 385;
Baxter v. McKinlay, 16 Cal. 76 ; Spence:
v. Mitchell, 9 Ala. 744; Thompson v.
Rose, 16 Conn. 71, 8. C. 41 Am. Dec.
121.

‘Bank v. Wister, 2 Peters (U. S.),
318.

5 Jenks v. School Dist., 18 Kan. 356;
Beckett v. Bledsoe, 4 Ind. 256; West
». Chase, 3 Ind. 301.
398 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 317

and there is no one representing him upon whom a demand
would be availing, it may be excused.’ And if a party to a
contract, before the time fixed for performance, renders it im-
possible for him to perform his part of the contract, no demand
is necessary.2- So, one who is brought into court by another
may be excused from making a demand that he might have
been required to make if he had been the moving party.’

§ 317. Tender—When necessary.—A tender of money or.
goods is often required to make complete the cause of action, or
make perfect the grounds of defense. Itis a fundamental maxim
that he who asks equity must do equity, and under the opera-
tion of this rule a tender is very often necessary to complete
the cause of action. Thus, where a tax sale is invalid, but
the defendant has paid taxes chargeable against the property,
the right of action is not complete until a tender has been
made.‘ A tender is required in cases where a rescission of a
contract is sought.’ A suit for specific performance will fail
in many cases unless a tender has preceded the suit.6 In many
cases there must be a tender of money in order to maintain an
action for a breach of contract. The contract may sometimes
require a tender where, but for the language of the instrument,
none would be exacted.” A tender or offer of performance is
often essential to a successful defense. It is sometimes avail-
able for the purpose of reducing the damages, and then may
be made after the action is brought. Where, however, it is re-
lied on to defeat the claim for damages and costs it should be
made before the plaintiff commences his suit.

§ 318. Implied admissions by tender.—The effect of a valid

1Indiana, etc., R. R. Co. v. Oakes, dianapolis v. Gilmore, 30 Ind. 414.

20 Ind. 9. But see Hanscom v. Hinman, 30 Mich.
2 Boyle v. Guysinger, 12 Ind. 273; 419.
Wilstach v. Hawkins, 14 Ind. 541. 5 Cain v. Guthrie, 8 Blackf. 409.
5 Stix v. Sadler, 109 Ind. 254; Harsh- ¢2 Pomeroy’s Eq. Juris., § 1407.
man v. Mitchell, 117 Ind. 312. ™McCulloch v. Dawson, 1 Ind. 413;

*Lombard v. Hatch, 60 Wis. 459; Wagers v. Dickey, 17 Ohio, 439, 8. C.
Belz v. Bird, 31 Kan. 139; City’of In- 49 Am. Dec. 467.
§ 319 PRECAUTIONARY STEPS

399

tender is to admit a liability to the extent of the sum tendered,!
but it has been held that such an admission is not conclusive
where too much has been tendered.” It is, however, the gen-
eral rule that an effective tender concedes the amount tendered
to be due. The admission is so far effective as to impose upon
the party making it the burden of explaining the implied ad-
mission. |

§ 319. Tender—How made.—The tender may be made by
the debtor or hisagent. Itis essential that the tender be made
by the proper party, inasmuch as the creditor is not bound to
receive money from other persons than his debtor. Thus, it is
held that a tender by two persons in a suit to redeem from a
sale made for taxes is insufficient if only one of them is enti-
tled to redeem.® It seems to us that where two persons join in
making a tender in an equitable proceeding, if it is valid
as to one, the court might, upon proper explanation, relieve
from the consequences of the mistake upon just terms as to
costs or the like. The tender may be made either to the cred- ,
itor or any one who is authorized to receive it for him.® It
may be made to an attorney in whose hands the claim has been

!Monroe v. Chaldeck, 78 Ill. 429;
Martin v. Whisler, 62 Ia. 416; Latham
». Hartford, 27 Kan. 249; Schnur v.
Hickcox, 45 Wis. 200; Simpson v. Car-
son, 11 Ore. 361; Jones v. Hoar, 5
Pick. (Mass.) 285; Frink v. Coe, 4 G.
Greene (Iowa), 555, 8. C.61 Am. Dec.
141; Burrough v. Skinner, 5 Burr.
2639; Cox v. Parry, 1 Term Rep. 464.
The general rule is that money ten-
dered and paid into court can not be
withdrawn. Kansas City Transfer Co.
v. Neiswanger, 27 Mo. App. 356. It also
admits, as a general rule, the contract
declared on. Yate v. Willan, 2 East,
128; Stoveldv. Brewin, 2 Barn. & Ald.
116. And may render proof of the
contract unnecessary. Gutteridge v.
Smith, 2 H. B. 374; Israel v. Benja-

min, 3 Campb. 40. It also admits the
right of the plaintiff to sue in the char-
acter in which he sues. Miller v.Wil-
liams,5 Esp. 19; Lipscombe v. Holmes,
2 Campb. 441. But, although part of
a demand is paid into court, the de-
fendant may plead the statute of lim-
itations as to the remainder. Long v.
Greville, 4D. & R. 632.

* Abel v. Opel, 24 Ind. 250.

3 Rhodes v. Andrews (Ark.), 13 S.
W. R. 422.

4 Kincaid v. School Dist., 11 Me. 188;
Brown v. Dysinger, 1 Rawle (Pa.), 408.

5 Bender v. Bean, 52 Ark. 132, 8. C.
128. W. R. 141.

6 King v. Finch, 60 Ind. 420; Horn-
by v. Cramer, 12 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 490.
400 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 319

placed for collection,! to a clerk authorized to receive it,? to a
husband as agent for his wife,* or to one of several joint cred-
itors.4 There are many things which must concur to make a
tender good. As a general rule it must be unconditional.°
Where it is on a money demand it must be made in gold and
silver, or in bills made by positive law a legal tender.® It
should be of the correct amount,’ but a tender of a larger sum
than is actually due is not necessarily bad if the creditor can

1 Jackson v. Crafts, 18 Johns. (N.Y.)
110; MclIniffe v. Wheelock, 1 Gray
(Mass.), 600.

?Oatman v. Walker, 33 Me. 67; Hoyt
v. Byrnes, 11 Me. 475. But not to an
ordinary servant in the absence of the
master. Jewett v. Earle, 53 N. Y. Su-
perior Ct. 349.

5 Conrad v. Druids Grand Grove, 64
Wis. 258.

‘Prescott v. Everts, 4 Wis. 314;
Douglas v. Patrick, 3 Term Rep. 683.

5 Bevans v. Rees, 5 M. & W. 306;
Buffum v. Buffum, 11 N. H. 451; Storey
v. Krewson, 55 Ind. 397, 8. C. 23 Am.
R. 668; Sanford v. Bulkley, 30 Conn.
344; Wood v. Hitchcock, 20 Wend.
(N. Y) 47; Odum v. Rutledge & J. R.
R. Co., 94 Ala. 488, §. C. 10 So. R.
222; Rose v. Duncan, 49 Ind. 269;
Elderkin v. Fellows, 60 Wis. 339;
Henderson v. Cass Co., 107 Mo. 50,
8. C. 18 S. W. R. 992; Latham v.
Hartford, 27 Kan. 249. See, also,
for many other authorities, the notes
to Brown v. Gilmore, 22 Am. Dec. 223;
Behaly v. Hatch, 12 Am. Dec. 570;
Moynahan v. Moore, 77 Am. Dec. 468,
476. But there are cases in which a
tender may be conditional. Wheel-
ock v. Tanner, 39 N. Y. 481; Lough-
borough v. MeNevin, 74 Cal. 250, 8. C.
5 Am. St. R. 435; Strafford v. Welch,
59 N. H. 46; Cass v. Higenbotam, 100
N. Y. 248.

6 Collier v. White, 67 Miss. 133, 8. C.
6 So. R. 618; Summerson v. Hicks, 134

Pa. St. 566; Boyd v. Olvey, 82 Ind.
294; Cornell v. Green, 10 Serg. & R.
(Pa.) 14; Jones v. Mullinix, 25 Iowa,
98; Bowen v. Clark, 46 Ind. 405; Peo-
ple v. Cook, 44 Cal. 638; Knox v. Lee,
12 Wall.(U.8.) 457; McGoon v. Shirk,
54 Ill. 408, S. C. 5 Am. R. 122; Mc-
Clarin v, Nesbit, 2 Nott & McC. (So.
Car.) 519; Dubuque». Miller, 11 Iowa,
583. And there are cases in which
the contract may expressly require the
tender to be made in a certain kind of
money. The entire subject is discussed
and the authorities are reviewed in an
article in 17 Am. L. Reg. (N. 8.) 745,
entitled ‘“‘The Requisites of a Valid
Tender.’”’ In Sanders v. Bryer, 152
Mass. 141, 8.C.9 Lawy. R. Anno. 255,
25 N. E. R. 86, the party tendered the
money due upon an executory coritract
for the purchase of land and demand-
edadeed. After making the tender
and demand he deposited the money
in bank and it was held that he was
bound to pay interest on the sum due
and could not have specific perform-
ance without paying or tendering the
interest.

Robinson v. Cook, 6 Taunt. 336;
Betterbee v. Davis, 3 Camp. 70; Dixon
v. Clark, 5 Com. B. 365; Fridge ».
State, 3 Gill. & J. (Md.) 103, 8. C. 20
Am. Dec. 463; Brandt v. R. R. Co., 26
Towa, 114; Helphrey ». R. R. Co., 29
Iowa, 480. If in goods or chattels the
articles must be separated and pointed
out from others of the same kind. Wy-
§ 320 PRECAUTIONARY STEPS. 401

make the change and does not object to the amount.! It must _
be made at. the proper time and place,’ and the person to whom
it is made must be given an opportunity for inspecting it.
. There must also be an actual offer to pay at the time and place,
and the money or article tendered must be actually produced,‘
unless the creditor, either expressly or impliedly, waives its
production.» But the tender of a large sum of money in purses
or bags has been held good.®

§ 320. Tender—Effect of—In some jurisdictions a tender
properly made and pleaded has the same effect as actual per-
formance and is a complete answer to an action for the debt;’
but the debtor must continue ready and willing to pay on de-
mand, and the benefit of the tender is lost by a subsequent de-

mand and refusal.®

man v. Winslow, 11 Me. 398, 8 C. 26,
Am. Dec. 542; Barney v. Bliss, 1 D.
Chip. Vt. 399, S. C. 12 Am. Dec. 696,
and note.

' Douglas v. Patrick, 3 Term Rep.683 ;
Bevans v. Rees, 5 Mees. & W. 306.

22 Wharton on Contracts, § 990;
Powe v. Powe, 42 Ala. 113; Hall v.
Whittier, 10R. 1.530; Wiggin v. Wig-
gin, 48 N. H. 561,8. C. 80 Am. Dec.
192; Slingerland v. Morse, 8 Johns. (N.
Y.) 474; Larimore v. Hornbaker, 21
Ind. 430; Bates v. Bates, 1 Miss. 401,
8. C.12 Am. Dec. 572, and note; Moyn-
aban v. Moore, 77 Am. Dec. 468, and
note; ‘‘Requisites of a Valid Tender,”’
17 Am. L. Reg. (U. 8.) 745.

5 Startup v. Macdonald, 6 Man. & G.
593, 624; Croninger v. Crocker, 62 N.
Y. 151; Potts v. Plaisted, 30 Mich. 149.

4 Bakeman v. Pooler, 15 Wend. (N.
Y.) 637; Camp v. Simon, 34 Ala. 126;
Brown v. Gilmore, 8 Greenl.(Me.)107,
8. C, 22 Am. Dec. 223; Barney v. Bliss,
1 D. Chip. (Vt.) 399, 8. C. 12 Am. Dec.
‘696, and note; Bowen v. Holly, 38 Vt.
574; Ladd v. Patten, 1 Cranch C. C.
263; Breed v. Hurd, 6 Pick. (Mass.)

26

The tender of chattels at the proper time

356; Bacon v. Smith, 2 La. Ann. 441,
8. C. 46 Am. Dec. 549.

5 Hazard v. Loring, 10 Cush. (Mass.)
267; Guthman v. Kearn, 8 Neb. 502;
Holmes v. Holmes, 12 Barb. (N. Y.)
137; Appleton v. Donaldson, 3 Pa. St.
381; Rudulph v. Wagner, 36 Ala. 698.

6 Behaly v. Hatch, Walker (Miss.),
369, S. CO. 12 Am. Dee. 570; Wade’s
Case, 5 Coke, 114 a.

™See note to Moynahan v. Moore, 77
Am. Dec. 468, 488, where the author-
ities upon both sides of this question
are collected.

8 Bank of Benson v. Hove, 45 Minn.
40,8. C. 47 N. W. R. 449; Manny »v.
Harris, 2 Johns. (N. Y.) 24, 8. C. 3
Am. Dec. 386; Dixon v. Clark, 5 Com.
B. 365; Pulsifer v. Shepard, 36 Ill.
512; Cary v. Bancroft, 14 Pick.(Mass.)
815, 8. C. 25 Am. Dec. 393; Rose v.
Brown, Kirby, 293, S. C. 1 Am. Dee. 22;
Burlock v. Cross, 16 Colo. 162, 26 Pac.
R. 142. In McCalley v. Otey, 90 Ala.
302, 8. C. 8 So. R. 157, it is held that
after a refusal itis unnecessary to keep
the identical money in readiness. See,
generally, Blain v. Foster, 33 Ill. App..
402

THE WORK OUT OF COURT.

§ 321

and pu.ace vests the title in the creditor,! and he loses his right

to sue upon the contract.?

So, a tender after suit may stop the

running of interest from that time,® and it prevents the recov-

ery of costs which subsequently accrue.*

It is held that where

the tender is made after the action is commenced it is insuffi-
cient unless it embraces interest and accrued costs.®

§ 321. Tender to be kept good.—The tender must be kept
good,® and, in order that this may be done, it is generally nec-

essary to bring the money into court.”

has been held insufficient.®

Payment to a referee

If money which has been properly

paid into court to keep a tender good is afterward withdrawn
by order of the court, the validity of the tender will not be af-

fected by such withdrawal.

297; Werner v. Tuch, 127 N. Y. 217,
S.C. 27N. E. R. 845.

1 Dewey v. Washburn, 12 Vt. 580;
Barney v. Bliss, 1 D. Chip. (Vt.) 399, S.
C. 12 Am. Dec. 696; Lamb v. Lathrop,
13 Wend. (N.Y.) 95,8. C. 27 Am. Dec.
174; Des Artes v. Leggett, 16 N. Y.
582; Bradshaw v. Davis, 12 Tex. 336.
Contra, Stowell v. Read, 16 N. H. 20,
8. C.41 Am. Dec. 714; McJilton »v.
Smizer, 18 Mo. 111. :

2 Mitchell v. Merrill, 2 Blackf. 87, S.
C. 18 Am. Dec. 128.

3Raymond v. Bearnard, 12 Johns.
(N. Y.) 274, S. C. 7 Am. Dec. 317;
Riley v. McNamara, 83 Tex. 11, 185.W.
Rep. 141; Haynes v. Thom, 28 N. H.
386; Cornell v. Green, 10 Serg. & R.
(Pa.)14; Woodruff v. Trapnall, 12 Ark.
640; Dent v. Dunn, 3 Camp. 296.

4Murray v. Windley, 7 Ired. (N.
Car.) 201, 8. C.47 Am. Dec. 324; Hills
». Place, 48 N. Y. 520; Carpenter v.
Welch, 40 Vt. 251.

_ > Francis v. Deming, 59 Conn. 108, 8.
C. 21 Atl. R. 1006.

®Tompkins v. Batie, 11 Neb. 147, 8.
C. 38 Am. Rep. 361; Tuthill v. Morris,
81 N. Y. 94; Stow v. Russell, 36 Ill.

But a tender kept good by bring-

“18; Crain v. McGoon, 86 Ill. 431, S.C.

29 Am. Rep. 37, and note; Aulger v.
Clay, 109 Ill. 487; Miller v. McGehee,
60 Miss. 903; Rose v. Brown, Kirby
(Conn.), 293, 8. C. 1 Am. Dee. 22, and
note; ‘‘Requisites of a Valid Tender,”
17 Am. L. Reg. (N. 8.) 745.

7 Foster v. Fraser, Montreal Law R.
6 Q. B. 405; Allen v. Cheever, 61 N.
H. 32; Halpin v. Phenix Ins. Co., 118:
N. Y. 165; Sanders v. Peck, 131 Ill.
407; Goss v. Bowen, 104 Ind. 207;
Clark v. Mullenix, 11 Ind. 532; Ben-
ton v. Shreeve, 4 Ind. 66; Morrison v.
Jacoby, 114 Ind. 84; Park v. Wiley, 67
Ala. 310; Matthews v. Lindsay, 20
Fla. 962; Hoffman v. Van Dieman, 62
Wis. 362; Brooklyn Bank v. DeGrauw,
23 Wend. (N. Y.) 342, S.C. 35 Am.
Dec. 569; note to Moynahan v. Moore,
77 Am. Dec. 468, 482. Asto the proper
form of a judgment where money is
in court but tender not sufficient in’
amount, see Goldstein v. Stern, 9 N.
Y. Supp. 274.

* Becker v. Boon, 61N. Y.317; Wing
v. Hurlburt, 15 Vt. 607.

* Wright v. Young, 6 Wis. 127, 8. C.
70 Am. Dec. 453.
e

§ 322

PRECAUTIONARY STEPS.

403

ing the money into court is generally regarded as a payment,
which can not be withdrawn by the defendant.

§ 322. Equitable tender.—In equity the rules in regard to
tender are not quite so strict as in law, and it is generally suf-
ficient to offer in the complaint or petition to pay the money
into court or perform the necessary acts to keep the tender

good.”

There is, however, a class of cases in which equity

courts, acting upon the maxim that ‘‘He who asks equity must

do equity,’’ wilh require a strict tender.

It is difficult to form--

ulate with exact accuracy general rules upon this subject, but
we think it safe to state the following: First. Where the duty
to pay or perform is a clear one, the duty imperative and the
sum due admitted or clearly evident, there’ must be a strict

tender of payment or performance.’

Second. Where the sum

is not admitted or clearly evident but remains to be ascertained
upon the hearing an offer of performance accompanied by a
statement of ability, readiness and willingness to perform is

sufficient.4

Reed v. Armstrong, 18 Ind. 446;
Barnes v. Bates, 28 Ind. 15. Even if
the plaintiff is non-suited he is, if is
held, nevertheless entitled to the
money paid into court. Stevenson v.
Yorke, 4 Term Rep. 10; Burstall v.
Homer, 7 Term Rep. 368; Elliott v.
Callow, 2 Salk. 597. Money paid into
court in a case in which such payment
is not proper is at the risk of the party
who pays it; he must bear the loss if
it is converted by the clerk to his own
use. Sowle v. Holdridge, 25 Ind. 119.
If fraud is practiced upon the defend-
ant he may recover the money which
he has paid into court. Cox v. Brain,
3 Taunt. 95.

2 Fall v. Hazelrigg, 45 Ind. 576, 8. C.
15 Am. Rep. 278; Ruckle v. Barbour,
48 Ind. 271; Hunter v. Bales, 24 Ind.
299; Lynch v. Jennings, 43 Ind. 276;
Board v. Henneberry, 41111. 179; Hay-
ward v. Munger, 14Iowa,516; Whelan

It is probably true that equity will not allow a

v. Reilly, 61 Mo. 565;' Breitenbach v.
Turner, 18 Wis.140; Kortright v. Cady,
21 N. Y. 343, 8. C. 78 Am. Dec. 145;
Moore v. Norman, 43 Minn. 428, 8. C.
19 Am. St. R. 247.

5 Taylor v. Reed, 5 T. B. Monr. 36;
Daughdrill v. Sweeney, 41 Ala. 310;
Morrison v. Jacoby, 114 Ind. 84, 95;
Bailey v. Atlantic, etc.,Co., 1 Cent.L.J.
418; Werner v.Tuch, 127 N.Y. 217,8.C.
24 Am. St. R. 443; Hagaman v. Com-
missioners, 19 Kan. 394; Harrison v.
Haas, 25 Ind. 281; State Railroad Tax
Cases, 92 U.S. 575, 616; City of South
Bend v. University of Notre Dame, 69
Ind. 344; Conwell v. Claypool, 8
Blackf. 124; Hewett v. Fenstamaker, .
128 Ind. 315; Montgomery v. Trumh,
126 Ind. 331; Jackson v. Smith, 120
Ind. 520, 524.

*Freeson v. Bissell, 63 N. Y. 168;
Bruce v. Tilson, 25 N.Y. 194; St. Paul,
etc., Co. v. Brown, 9 Minn. 157; Mor-
404 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 323

mere mistake in a case where the liability is not clear and def-
inite to defeat a suit, but we suppose it to be otherwise where
the mistake is without reason or excuse.

§ 323. Waiver of tender—A tender may be waived either
expressly or impliedly by conduct or words.t Thus, if the
creditor states that there is nothing due him or that he will not
accept any tender that may be made, this will amount to a
waiver.” So, where a party intentionally absents himself for
the purpose of evading a tender and the debtor is ready and
prepared to make a proper tender, but can not do so on account
of such evasion, an actual tender will be excused.? A specific
objection made at the time of the tender precludes all other
known objections and operates as a waiver of defects known to
the creditor at the time and not objected to by him.* But it
has been held that a waiver can not be established by requir-
ing the defendant to state on the trial whether or not he would

ris v. Hoyt, 11 Mich. 9; Seely v. How-
ard, 13 Wis. 336; Winton v. Sherman,
20 Iowa, 295; Hills v. New York Ex-
change Bank, 105 U. 8. 319, 321; Tacey
v. Irwin, 18 Wall. 549.

' Thorne v. Mosher, 20 N.J. Eq. 257;
Holmes v. Holmes, 9 N. Y. 525; Has-
kell v. Brewer, 11 Me. 258; House v.
Alexander, 105Ind.109. The general
rule is that if a party by his words or
conduct renders it evident that a ten-
der would be vain or fruitless none
need be made. Chinn v. Bretches, 42
Kan. 316, 8. C. 22 Pac. R. 426; Me-
Donald v. Wolff, 40 Mo. App. 302;
Ware v. Berlin, 43 La. Ann. 534, 8. C.
9 So. R. 490; Hall v. Norwalk Ins.
Co., 57 Conn. 105, S. C.17 Atl. R. 356;
Soell v. Hadden, 85 Tex. 182, 19 8. W.
R. 1087.

2 Lacy v. Wilson, 24 Mich. 479; Ter-
rell v. Walker, 65°'N. Car. 91; Brewer
v. Fleming, 51 Pa. St. 102; Hazard v.
Loring, 10 Cush.(Mass.) 267; Wesling
v. Noonan, 31 Miss. 599; Bellinger v.

Kitts, 6 Barb. (N. Y.) 273; Mathis v.
Thomas, 101 Ind. 119; Turner v. Parry,
27 Ind. 163; Root v. Johnson (Ala.)
10 So. R. 293; Odum v. Rutledge, 94
Ala. 488, 10 So. Rep. 222.

5Sharp v. Todd, 38 N. J. Eq. 324;
Noyes v. Clark, 7 Paige (N. Y.), 179,
8. C. 382 Am. Dec. 620; Southworth v.
Smith, 7 Cush. (Mass.) 391; Hall v.
Whittier, 10 R. I. 530.

* Moynahan v. Moore, 9 Mich. 8, 8.C.
77 Am. Dec. 468, and note; Thayer v.
Meeker, 86 Ill. 470; Platter v. Board,
103 Ind. 360; House v. Alexander, 105
Ind. 109; Adams v. Helm, 55 Mo.
468; Wheelan v. Reilly, 61 Mo. 565;
Jennings v. Mendenhall, 7 Ohio St.
257; Gould v. Banks, 8 Wend.(N. Y.)
562, S. C. 24 Am. Dec. 90; Wood v.
Babb, 16 So. Car. 427; Walsh »v. St.
Louis, etc., Ass’n, 101 Mo. 534, 8. C.

‘148. W. R. 722; Larsen v. Breene, 12

Colo. 480, 21 Pac. R. 498; Gradle v.
Warner, 140 Ill. 1283, 29 N. E. R. 1118.
§ 324 PRECAUTIONARY STEPS. 405

have accepted the tender if it had been made.! To establish
an effective waiver of a tender it must, as it has been held} ap-
pear that there was capacity to perform.? Where, however,
there is a direct and explicit repudiation of the contract or an
unqualified refusal to accept a tender, in order to show that
there was no waiver there must, as we believe, be affirmative
evidence showing lack of capacity, but this evidence may, of
course, come from the party who claims the waiver as well as
from his adversary. It may, indeed, be deduced or inferred
from the circumstances disclosed by the evidence, no matter
from which party the evidence may come.

§ 324. Offer to perform.—Akin to the tender of money or
goods is the offer to perform on the part of the plaintiff. Thus,
where one seeks the specific performance of a contract he must
show ‘‘that he has done or offered to do, or is then ready and
willing to do, all the essential and material acts required of
him by the agreement.’ And there are many other cases in
which the plaintiff must perform or offer to perform all the
material conditions of a contract on his part before he can re-
cover under the contract.

§ 325. Architect’s certificates— Engineer’s estimates.—In
many cases, as in building contracts, and in contracts for the
construction of public works, such as railroads, highways,
canals, public buildings and the like, a condition precedent to
the right of recovery is the certificate of an architect or the es-
timate of an engineer. The certificate or estimate must be se-
cured before action is commenced, unless some valid excuse for

1 Bluntzer v. Dewees, 79 Texas, 272,
§.C. 158. W. R. 29; Tarbell v. Farm-
er’s, etc., Co., 44 Minn. 471, S. C. 47
N. W. R. 152.

2 Eddy v. Davis, 116 N. Y. 247, 8. C.
22 N. E. R. 362. In the case referred
to the court cited the cases of Nelson
v. Plimpton Elevating Co., 55 N. Y.
484; Lawrence v. Miller, 86 N.Y. 131;
Rigler v. Morgan, 77 N. Y. 318, and

said: ‘A tender imports not only
readiness and ability to perform, but
actual production of the thing to be
delivered. The formal requisites of a
tender may be waived, but to estab-
lish a waiver there must be an exist-
ing ability to perform.”

32 Wharton on Contracts, 970.

43 Pom. Eq. Jur., § 1407.
x

406 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 325

not securing it can be shown, for without it the cause of action
is not complete.! The safe course is to secure a written certifi-
cate or estimate, although the decisions seem to authorize the
conclusion that a written certificate is not necessary unless the
contract so requires.? It is, however, held that there must be
a certificate or estimate, and that a mere approval of the ac-
count will not be sufficient. Some of the. courts hold that an
action will lie for the reasonable value of work and materials,
although the certificate of the architect or engineer has not
been obtained,‘ but this seems to us to be a questionable doc-
trine, inasmuch as it would often operate to deprive parties of
the benefit of the judgment of men skilled in a particular pro-
fession and thus materially affect the rights of the parties un-

der their contract. An architect or engineer has no right to
arbitrarily and corruptly refuse a certificate, and if this be
shown a recovery will be allowed.® It is evident, it may be

1United States v. Robeson, 9 Peters,
319; Butler v. Tucker, 24 Wend. 447;
Scott v. Liverpool, etc., Co., 1 Giff. 216,
8. C. 27 L. J. Ch. 641; De Worms v.
Mellier, L. R. 16 Equ. 554; Sharpe v.
San Paulo, etc., Co., -L. R. 8 Ch.
597; Packard v. Van Schoick, 58
Ill. 72; Mills v. Weeks, 21 IIl.
568; Sweet v. Morrison, 116 N. Y.
19, S. C. 22 N. E. R. 276; Coey »v.
Lebman, 79 Ill. 173; Downey v.
O’Donnell, 86 111.49; Walsh v. Walsh,
11 Bradw. (Ill. App.) 199. See, gen-
erally, Doyn v. Ebbesen, 72 Wis. 284,
8. C. 39 N. W. R. 535; Cushman v.
Somers, 60 Vt. 613, S. C. 15 Atl. R.
315; Sullivan v. Susong, 30 So. Car.
305, S.C. 9 S. E. R. 156; Bailey v.
Albany, etc., Co., 112 N. Y. 30, 8. C.
19 N. E. R. 508. In Barney v. Giles,
120 Ill. 154, it is held that the rule is
the same in equity as at law.

2 Roberts v. Watkins, 14 C. B. N. 8.
592. Butin view of the questions that
may arise as to what constitutes a cer-
tificate or estimate and of the doubt
whether modern usage does not re-

-quire that certificates and estimates be

written the only safe course is to have
them put in writing in all cases.

3 Morgan v. Birnie, 9 Bing. 672; The
Northern Gas Light Co. v. Parnell, 15
C. B. 630.

* Rude v. Mitchell, 97 Mo. 365, cit-
ing Neenan v. Donoghue, 50 Mo. 493;
Dinsmore v. Livingston County, 60
Mo. 241; Yeats v. Ballentine, 56 Mo.
530.

5 Bentley v. Davidson, 74 Wis. 420.
In the case cited the court said: ‘‘The
plaintiff failed to obtain the certificates
of the architects that they had per-
formed their contract or of the value
of the extra work, or the deduction
which should be made from their
claim on account of the change of
specifications. The contract makes the
obtaining of such certificates a condi-
tion precedent to the liability of the
defendants. The cases on this subject,
many of them decided by this court,
hold this a valid and binding agree-
ment, and that the builder has no right

of action under such contract for his
§ 825 PRECAUTIONARY STEPS. , fe 407

well to say, that the refusal of the architect will materially in-
fluence the theory of the case for the reason that it will require
the case to proceed upon a different ground from that of the
performance of a condition precedent.’ It is generally held
that the corrupt or culpably wrongful refusal to issue the proper
certificate will not defeat the plaintiff, but that it is incumbent
upon him to clearly show inexcusable wrong on the part of the
architect or fraudulent conduct.? Where the plaintiff seeks to
excuse the failure to obtain the certificate or estimate it is es-
sential that the theory of the case be so framed and the plead-
ings so drawn as to make the excuse available as by providing
for evidence of fraud, collusion, mistake or the like. It is
quite well agreed that where the contract does not make the
judgment and certificate of the architect or engineer conclusive,
it does not have the force and effect of an award, but is prima
facie evidence of performance,’ so that in such cases the theory

material and labor until he obtains
such certificates, unless they are with-
held dishonestly and arbitrarily. If
so withheld, all the cases agree that
he may recover by showing the fact,
_and showing that he has performed
the contract according to its terms.”

! Milner v. Field, 5 Exch. 829; Bat-
terbury v. Vyse,2 H.& C. 42,32 L. J.
Exch. 177; Clarke v. Watson, 18 C. B.
N.S. 278; Macintosh v. Great West-
ern, etc., Co., 2 Mac. & G. 74.

«7 Kihlberg v. United States, 97 U. 8.
398; Sweeney v. United States, 109 U.
S. 618; Martinsburg, etc., R. Co. v.
March, 114 U. 8. 549; Perkins v. Giles,
50 N.Y. 228; Byron v. Low, 109 N.
Y. 291; Delaware, etc., Co. v. Penn-
sylvania, etc., Co.,50 N. Y. 250; Kirt-
land v. Moore, 40N. J. Eq. 106; Clarke
v. Watson, 18-C. B. N.S. 278; Baasen
v. Baehr, 7 Wis. 516; Hudson wv. Mc-
Cartney, 33 Wis. 331; Forristal v. Mil-
waukee, 57 Wis. 628; Oakwood, etc.,
Ass’n v. Rathborne, 65 Wis. 177; Tetz
v. Butterfield, 54 Wis. 242; Bliss v.
Smith, 34 Beav. 508; Scott ». Liver-

pool, ete., Co., 3 De G. & J. 334.
Fraud on the part of the architect vi-
tiates his certificate. Phillips v. Fox-

all, L. RB. Q. B. 666. So, of course,

does fraud on the part of one of the
parties. Kimberley v. Dick, L. R. 13
Eq. 1; Foster v. Charles, 7 Bing. 105.
See, generally, Stevenson v. Watson,
L. R. 4 C. P. D. 148; Fowler v. Deak-
man, 84 [11]. 130; Badger v. Kerber, 61
Til. 328. It has been held that where
the owner fails to comply with his
contract the production of the certifi-
cate is excused. Hall v. Bennett (N.
Y.),16J.& 8.302. But this doctrine is
one of limited application and can
prevail only in peculiar cases.

5 Northampton, etc., Co. v. Parnell,
15 C. B. 630, S.C. 24 L. J. C. P. 60;
Kirk v. Bromly Union, 2 Phill. 640;
Hartupee v. Pittsburgh, etc., Co., 97
Pa. 107; McCoy v. Able, 131 Ind. 417,
S.C. 30 N. E. R. 528; Van Sickle v.
Belknap, 129 Ind. 558; Linville v.
State, 180 Ind. 210, S. C. 29 N. E. R.
1129.
408 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 325

must be so constructed as to treat the estimate or certificate as
showing the performance of a condition precedent and not as
dispensing with averments of performance of the contract on
the part of the party seeking affirmative relief. There isa sharp
conflict upon the question whether parties can in advance of any
controversy completely oust the jurisdiction of the courts by
binding themselves not to appeal to the courts but to abide the
decision of architects, engineers or other persons selected by
them to decide questions that may arise concerning future
transactions or acts... There is an essential difference, as we
believe, in submitting a matter to arbitration after a contro-
versy has arisen and the parties know its nature and extent
and providing in advance of any dispute for a conclusive de-
cision of a controversy that may possibly arise. It may not
be amiss to remark that even the cases which carry to the ut-
most length the doctrine of the conclusiveness of the certificate
of an architect or the estimate of an engineer do not deny that
fraud or mistake may always be shown. One of the courts
which has gone to a great length (not without some contra-
diction of its own decisions, it may be noted by the way), has
held that it may be shown that an engineer made a mistake in
a matter confided by the contract to his judgment.

‘Kistler v. Indianapolis, etc., Co.,
88 Ind. 460; Bauer v. Sampson Lodge,
102 Ind. 262, 269, 8. C.1 N. E. R.571;
Supreme Council, etc., v. Garrigus,
104 Ind. 133, 8.C.54 Am. R. 298; The
Louisville, etc., Co.v. Donnegan et al.,
111 Ind. 179, 8. C.12 N. E. R. 153;
Dugan v. Thomas, 79 Me. 221,58. C.
9 Atl. R. 354; Insurance Co. v. Morse,
20 Wall. 445; Scott v. Avery, 5 H. L.
Cases, 811; Thompson v. Charnock, 8
Term R. 1389; Reed v. Insurance Co.,
138 Mass. 572; Stephenson »v. Pisca-
taqua, etc., Co., 54 Me. 55; Starkey v.
De Graff, 22 Minn. 481; McMahon »v.
New York, etc., Co., 20 N. Y. 463, 467;
Van Courtlandt v. Underhill, 17 Johns.
405, 410,420; Wilsonv. Y.&L. M. R’y

Co., 11 Gill. & J. 58; Alton, ete., Co.
v. Northcott, 15 Ill. 49; M. & S. R.
Co. v. Veeder, 17 Ohio, 385; N. L. R.
Co. v. MeGrann, 38 Pa. St. 580; Bow-
ery Bank v. Mayor, etc., 63 N. Y. 336;
Thomas v, Fleury, 26 N. Y. 26; Butler
v. Tucker, 24 Wend. 447; Smith v.
Braggs, 3 Denio, 73; Smith v. Brady,
17 N. Y. 173; Corning v. Corning, 6
N.Y. 97; Pharis v. Geer, 31 Hun, 448;
Schultz v. T. N. R. Co., 89 N. Y. 242;
O'Reilly v. Kerns, 52 Pa. St. 214; Van-
dervecker v. Vermont Central R. Co.,
27 Vt. 180; Ranger v. Great Western,
etc., Co., 5 H. L. Cases, 72; Fudickar
v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 62 N. Y. 392;
Kidwell v. Baltimore, etc., Co., 11
Gratt. 676.
§ 326 PRECAUTIONARY STEPS. 409

§ 326. Taking possession—Completing evidence of title or
right.—It sometimes occurs that, in order to make a com-
plete cause of action, the chose in action or the property
should be taken into possession. One who sues for the vin-
dication of a right founded upon a chose in action or upon a
claim to property must ordinarily show a complete title. At
common law an assignee of many demands could not sue at
law, but it is now almost everywhere different because made
so by positive statute. But even where an assignee may sue
the ordinary rule is that he must have possession of the chose
in action upon which he founds his complaint or declaration.
It is true that in most of the States a party not in possession
‘may take steps to complete his right to the demand upon which
he sues by proceeding against the person who wrongfully with-
holds it from him before suing the debtor or promisor, or by
making him a party where the statute permits that course to
be pursued. The title which must rest in the plaintiff at the
time he begins his action is such a title as will give hima
right to recover. The theory of the case should be constructed
with this rule in view and the development of the theory be
made effective by competent evidence establishing such a title.
Where the plaintiff sues in a representative capacity it is nec-
essary that such steps be taken as show a right in him in that
capacity. A person may have aright to act in a representa-
tive capacity and yet no complete cause of action. This is
well illustrated by the cases in which it is held that a receiver
can not sue unless invested with authority to prosecute actions
and suits.?. The general rule is that a suit can not. be main-

1 Stephens’ Pleading, 304; Carter v. Neuborough, 3 Bro. C. C. 88; Green
Carter, 82 Va. 624; Republic Iron Co. v. Winter, 1 Johns. Ch. 60; In re Mer-:
v. Jones, 37 Fed. R. 721; Wright v. ritt, 5 Paige, 125; Merritt ». Lyon, 16
McCampbell, 75 Texas, 644, 8. C. 13 Wend. 405, 410; Reynolds v. Petty-
S.W. R. 293; Keyser v. Renner, 87 Va. john, 79 Va. 327; Battle v. Davis, 66
249, S.C. 12 8. E.R. 406; Lemon v. N. Car. 252; Screven v. Clark, 48 Ga.
Temple, 7 Ind. 556; Rowellv. Klein, 41; Manlove v. Burger, 38 Ind. 211;
44 Ind. 290; Hill v. Shalter, 73 Ind. Garver v. Kent, 70 Ind. 428. See,
459; Richardson v. Snider, 72 Ind. 425. generally, Kehr v. Hall, 117 Ind. 405;

2Sawyer v. Harrison, 43 Minn. 297, State v. Sullivan, 120 Ind. 197; Catlin
§. 0.45 N. W. R. 484; Wynn v. Lord v. Wilcox, 123 Ind. 477; Griesel v.
410 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 826

tained against a receiver without first obtaining leave of the
court that appointed him.! In suits or actions by the assignees
of an insolvent debtor it is often necessary to take steps to fully
complete the right to sue by perfecting the title to property by
causing the deed of assignment or the like to be recorded as the
statute requires.? In some jurisdictions it is necessary for the
assignee, in order to complete his right or title, to take posses-
sion of the property assigned. We have gone into the spe-
cific subject as far as it is necessary since we have shown that
in many cases subsidiary facts must be brought into existence
by the advocate by securing the performance of acts essential
to a complete cause of action, but we have barely touched upon
the general subject, believing that such hints as we have given.
will be sufficient to remind the advocate of the necessity of

taking the proper precautionary measures.

Schmal, 55 Ind. 475; Keen v. Breck-
enridge, 96 Ind. 69. There is a con-
flict of opinion as to whether a re-
ceiver may sue in the court which ap-
pointed him without an order author-
izing it. Affirming that he can, Till-
inghast v. Champlin, 4 R. I. 173.
Contra, Wilkinson v. Rutherford, 49
N.J.L. 241, 8.C.8 Atl. R. 507; Glenn
v. Dodge (Dist. of Col.), 3 Cent. R.
283, 285. It has been held that the
rule denying the recéiver a right to
sue in cases where he is not author-
ized to bring suits by the court that

appointed him does not apply to cases:

where the suit is upon a contract made
with him in his representative capac-
ity. Pouder v. Catterson, 127 Ind. 434,
S. C. 26 N. E. R. 66.

1 Wiswell v. Sampson, 14 How. (U.
S.) 52; Express Co. v. Railroad Co.,
99 U.S. 191, 198; Davis v. Gray, 16
Wall. 203, 218; Barton v. Barbour, 104
U.S. 126; Reed v. Axtell, 84 Va. 231;
Jones v. Brouse, 32 W. Va. 444, 8. C.
9 8S. E. R. 873; Thompson »v. Scott, 4
Dill, 508; Kennedy v. Indianapolis,

etc., Co., 3 Fed. R. 97; Little v. Du-
senberry, 46 N. J. L. 614, 8.C.50 Am.
R. 445; De Graffenried v. Brunswick,
etc., Co., 57 Ga, 22; Keen v. Brecken-
ridge, 96 Ind. 69; Meredith Savings
Bank v. Simpson, 22 Kan. 414; Melen-
dy v. Barbour, 78 Va. 544; Payne v.
Baxter, 2 Tenn. Ch. 517; Hills v. Par-
ker, 111 Mass. 508; Heath v. Missouri,
etc., Co., 83 Mo. 617, 623. In the case
of Kortjohn v. Seimers, 29 Mo. App.
271, it was held that an answer in the
nature of a cross-bill can not be filed
against a receiver unless leave is first
obtained. The decision in Brown v.
Rauch, 1 Wash. 498, S. C. 20 Pac. R.
785, carries the general doctrine very
far,—too far as it seems to us,—for it
is that leave to sue is a jurisdictional
‘fact which may be raised at any stage
of the proceedings.

? Wheeler v. Hawkins, 101 Ind. 486;
Foster v. Brown, 65 Ind. 234.

5 Hudson v. Maze, 3 Scam. 578; Ball
v. Loomis, 29 N. Y. 412; Smith ».
Leavitts, 2 Ala. 175; Connah v. Sedg-
wick, 1 Barb. 10.
§ 327 PRECAUTIONARY STEPS. 411

§ 327. Notice. —There are cases in which a notice constitutes
one of the minor facts essential to the existence of a complete
cause of action. In some cases a guarantor is entitled to notice
of the default of the principal.’ Notice to a municipal corpo-
ration of a defect in astreet, caused by the act of a wrong-doer,
may be required to fix a right of recovery.2 In the important
class of cases involving the rights of landlord and tenant, no-
tice is often an indispensable fact.? In this class of cases the
notice should be in writing and in proper form.* It must be
given by the proper person to the person entitled to receive it.
It must be given at the proper time, and its service must be
such as the law requires’. It is often the duty of the lawyer
to advise his client to give notice in order to secure for him
rights in a future action that he has reason to expect will be
instituted. Thus, itis expedient for the counsel of a municipal
corporation to give notice of the action brought against it for
injuries caused by an obstruction in a street to the person who

1 Russell v.Clark, 7 Cranch, 69; Con-
ner v. Higginson, 1 Mason, 323; Allen
v. Pike, 3 Cush. 238. So, notice of the
dishonor of a bill or note is generally
necessary in order to hold the drawer
or indorser. Disborough v. Vanness,
3 Halstead (N. J. L.), 231; Treadway
v. Nicks, 3 McCord (So. Car.), 195;
Musson v. Lake, 4 How. (U. 8.) 262;
Ogden v. Saunders, 12 Whéat. (U. 8.)
213; Webber v. Matthews, 101 Mass.
481; Tiedeman on Commercial Paper,
§§ 234, 236.

2 Requa v. City, 45 N. Y. 129; Bas-
sett v. City, 53 Mo. 290; S.C. 14 Am.
R. 446; Elliott on Roads and Streets,
475. ;

2Taylor on Landlord and Tenant,
§ 466; King v. Connolly, 44 Cal. 236.

4 Johnston v. Hudlestone, 4B. &C.
922. But, as a general rule, no par-
ticular form is required. Doyle v.
Teas, 5 Ill. 202; Tillinghast v. Champ-
lin, 4 R. I. 178, S. C. 67 Am. Dec. 510.

5 Comstock v.Cavanach, 17 R. I. 233,

8. C. 21 Atl. R. 498; Connell v. Cham-
bers, 22 Neb. 302, 8. C. 34N. W. R.
636; Thomas v. Black (Del.), 18 Atl.
R. 771; Rosenblat v. Perkins, 18 Ore.
156, 8. OC. 22 Pac. R. 598; Johnson v.
Donaldson, 17 R. I. 107, S. C. 20 Atl.
R. 242; Williams v. Shelden, 61 Mich.
311. See, generally, Beiler v. Dovoll,
40 Mo. App. 251; Hunter v. Frost, 47
Minn. 1, 8. C.49 N.W. RB. 327; Swope
v. Hopkins, 119 Ind. 125, 8S. ©. 21N.
E. R. 462; Freeman v. Wilson, 16 R. I.
524, 8. C.17 Atl. R.921; Adams v. Co-
hoes, 53 Hun, 260; Drey v. Doyle, 28
Mo. App. 249; Scott v. Willis, 122 Ind.
1. Where the title of the landlord is
denied no notice to quit is necessary.
Bodwell Granite Co. v. Lane, 83 Me.
168, 8. C. 21 Atl. R. 829; Amrick v.
Brubaker, 101 Mo. 473, 8. C.14 8. W.
R. 627; Appleton v. Ames, 150 Mass.
34, S. C. 22 N. E. R. 69; Wade on No-
tice, §§ 615-626; Taylor on Landlord
and Tenant, § 481.

6Jones v. Marsh, 4 Term R. 464;
412 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 327

placed it there. Substantial benefit may be secured by a
grantee who holds under a deed with covenants of warranty by
giving notice to his grantor of an action brought to evict him
from the land. Where there is no statute prescribing a form
of notice, it is, in general, sufficient if the notice is fairly and
reasonably specific, but where there is a statute prescribing the
form of the notice the essential requirements of the statute
must be obeyed.? In cases where a party has assumed an ob-
ligation which continues in force until revoked it is often neces-
sary in order to complete the cause of defense to give notice of re-
vocation. Where a party is given an option to make or declare
an entire debt due upon a partial default notice is often requi-
site to an effective exercise of the right. There is, however,
conflict in the authorities as to whether notice is necessary in
cases where the contract does not expressly or impliedly pro-
vide for notice of the election to declare to treat the entire debt
as due, many of the courts holding that the bringing of the

suit is sufficient notice of an election by the creditor.®

Walker v. Sharpe, 103 Mass. 154; 1
Chitty Gen. Prac., 483.

1 Westfield v. Mayo, 122 Mass. 100.
See, generally, as to notice as essen-
tial to a cause of action or defense,
Heimann v. Western Union Tel. Co., 57
Wis. 562; Young v. Western Union
Tel. Co., 65 N. Y. 163; Cole v. West-
ern Union Tel. Co., 33 Minn. 227;
Wolf v. Western Union Tel. Co., 62
Pa. St. 83; Western Union Tel. Co. v.
McKinny, 2 Texas Ct. of App. Civil
Cases, 644. ;

2 Morgan v. Muldoon, 82 Ind. 347;
Miner v. Clark, 15 Wend. 425.

3 Allen v. Strickland, 100 N. Car. 225,
8. C. 68. E.R. 780; Bollinger ». Man-
ning, 79 Cal. 7, S. C. 21 Pac. R. 375.

*Tischler v. Hofheimer, 83 Va. 35,
8.C.458. E. R. 370; Offord v. Davies,
12 C. B. N. 8S. 748; Grant v. Camp-
bell, 6 Dow, 239.

5 Harper v. Ely, 56 Ill. 179; Johnson

There

v. Van Velsor, 43 Mich. 208; English
v. Carney, 25 Mich. 178; Lowenstein
v. Phelan, 17 Neb. 429; Hoodless ».
Reid, 112 Ill. 105; Heath v. Hall, 60
Ill. 344; Morgan, etc., Co. v. Texas,
etc., Co., 137 U. 8. 171; Buchanan v.
Berkshire Life Ins. Co., 96 Ind. 510.
Contra, Basse v. Gallegger, 7 Wis. 442;
Marine Bank v. International Bank,
9 Wis. 57. See Redman v. Purrington,
65 Cal. 271; Dean v. Applegarth, 65
Cal. 391; Leonard v. Tyler, 60 Cal. 299;
Swett v. Stark, 31 Fed. R. 858; Wilson
v. Winter, 6 Fed. R. 16; Bosseel v.
Jarvis, 15 Wis. 571; Monroe v. Fohl,
72 Cal. 568, 8. C.14 Pac. R.514; Dean
v. Ridgeway, 82 Iowa, 757, 8. C. 48 N.
W.R. 923; Meier v. Meier, 105 Mo.
411, 8. C. 16 8. W. R. 223; Hewett v.
Dean, 91 Cal. 5, 8S. C. 27 Pac. R. 423;
Campbell v. West, 86 Cal. 197, 8. C. 24
Pac. R. 1000.
/
§ 328 PRECAUTIONARY STEPS. 413
are cases under the law governing contracts of guaranty in
which notice of acceptance or of default is essential to a com-
plete right of action,’ but a notice is not essential, by any
means, in all cases of guaranty.2. In many jurisdictions a
surety may secure important rights by giving the creditor no-
tice to sue, and it is generally held that to obtain the benefit
of the statute the notice must contain positive directions to

suc.3

§ 328. Notice for inspection of documents.—Notices are of-
ten required in order to prepare for trial by securing an in-
spection of documents in the hands of the adverse party. In
order to secure this right the course prescribed by law must be
carefully pursued.* It is never to be forgotten that, ‘‘If a case
can not be made out by legal evidence it can not be made out
at all.’’> It must be kept in mind, too, that courts will receive
only the best evidence, unless a foundation has been properly

laid for the introduction of secondary evidence.

'Ruffner v. Love, 33 Ill. App. 601;
Edmondston v. Drake, 5 Peters, 624;
Adams v. Jones, 12 Peters, 207; Law-
ton v. Maner, 9 Rich. (So. Car.)°335;
‘Sollee v. Meugy, 1 Bailey Law (So.

Car.), 620; Claflin v. Briant, 58 Ga..

414; Taylor v. McClung, 2 Houston
(Del.), 24; Kellogg v. Stockton, 29 Pa.
St. 460; Menard v. Scudder, 7 La. Ann.
385; Cooke v. Orne, 37 Ill. 186; Mus-
sey v. Rayner, 22 Pick. 223; Peck v.
Barney, 13 Vt. 93; Milroy v. Quinn, 69
Ind, 406; Taylor v. Shouse, 73 Mo.
361; Beakes v. Du Cunha, 126 N. Y.
293; Hasselman v. Japanese, etc., Co.,
2 Ind. App. 180, 8. C, 27 N. E. R. 718.
As to requjsites and form of notice, see
Powell v. Chicago, etc., Co., 22 Il.
App. 409.

2? Fisk v. Stone, 6 Dak. 35; Obermann
Brewing Co. v. Ohlerking, 33 Ill. App.
26; Wright v. Griffith, 121 Ind. 478,
8. C. 6 Lawy. R. Anno. 639; Dover
Stamping Co. v. Noyes, 151 Mass. 342,

The efforts

8.C. 24 N.E. R. 53; Mathews v.
Phelp, 61 Mich. 327, 8S. C. 1 Am. St.
R. 581; Loomis Institute ». Hurd, 57
Conn. 435, 8. C. 18 Atl. R. 669; Car-
roll County Savings Bank v. Strother,
28 So. Car. 504, 8. C. 6 S. E. R. 318;
Nading v. McGregor, 121 Ind. 465, S.
C. 6 Lawy. R. Anno. 686; Hess v.
Powell, 29 Mo. App. 411; Klosterman.
v. Olcott, 25 Neb. 382, 8. C. 41 N. W.
R. 251; Hungerford v. O’Brien, 37
Minn. 306, S. C. 34 N. W. R. 161.
3Barnes v. Mowry, 129 Ind. 568;
Harris v. Newell, 42 Wis. 687; Kauf-
man v. Wilson, 29 Ind. 504; Rice ».
Simpson, 9 Heisk. 809; Baker v. Kel-
logg, 29 Ohio St. 663; Bates v. State
Bank, 2 Eng. (Ark.) 394; Savage v.
Carleton, 33 Ala. 443; Bethune v. Do-
zier, 10 Ga. 235; Harriman v. Egbert,
36 Iowa, 270; Christy v. Horne, 24 Mo.
242; Lawson v. Buckley, 49 Hun, 329.
‘3 Chitty Gen. Pr., 434. /
5 Pulling on Attorneys, 191.
414 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 329

of counsel should, therefore, always be directed to obtaining
the best evidence that the case in its nature affords; and, as
all written instruments speak for themselves, they constitute
the best evidence. When these documents are in the hands
of the adverse party, notice to produce them must be given in
order to let in secondary evidence.! The notice must be framed
with care, and should inform the party to whom it is addressed
as to what is required, and, for this reason, the document
should be accurately described.? If the documents are in the
possession of a third person a subpoena duces tecwm should be
seasonably issued. If the documents are lost, then proof of a
diligent and an unsuccessful search in the proper place must
be made in order to open the way for the introduction of sec-
ondary evidence.? .

§ 329. Effect of neglecting to take precautionary measures.
—The matters referred to are plain enough when mentioned, but
they can not be overlooked without involving the lawyer and his
client in difficulties that can not be surmounted. A neglect
in performing the duty of ascertaining the facts, and the evi-
dence by which they may be legally proved, will subject the
advocate, not only to severe censure, but may cost him dam-
ages. It has more than once happened that words of stinging
rebuke have fallen from great judges upon attorneys who have
failed in their duty.* But it is not the fear of censure or of
pecuniary loss that should influence the advocate; he should
be moved by far higher motives to do his duty.

§ 330. Arrangements for trial — Depositions. — Arrange-
ments for trial involve the performance of various duties.
These duties need not be performed by the advocate himself,

1Grimes v. Fall, 15 Cal. 63; Ander- *Kearney v. The Mayor, 92 N. Y.
son Bridge Co. v. Applegate, 13 Ind. 617; Simpson v. Dall, 3 Wall. (U. 8.)
339; Whitman v. Weller, 39 Ind.515; 460,475; Anglo-Am., etc., Co. v. Can-
Farmers’, etc., Bank v. Lonergan, 21 non, 31 Fed. R. 313; Thompson 2,
Mo. 46; Potier v. Barclay, 15 Ala. 439; Thompson, 9 Ind. 323.

United States v. Winchester, 2 Mc- ‘Thwaites v. Mackerson, 3 C. & P.
Lean (U.S.), 135. 841; 2 Chitty Gen. Pr., 22, note.

23 Chitty Gen: Pr., 834; Ex parte

Jaynes, 70 Cal. 638.
§ 331 PRECAUTIONARY STEPS. 415

but it is his duty to direct and control their performance. The
time for trial must be fixed so that reasonable notice can be
given parties and witnesses. If the personal attendance of
witnesses can not be enforced by the process of the court,
depositions must be taken, and notices to take them must be
prepared and served as the law requires. The advocate should
see to it that the proper method of examination is pursued in
taking the testimony of the absent witnesses, and he can not
safely intrust the examination to a strange and uninstructed
counsel. It is often necessary to examine in advance deposi-
tions taken by the adverse party, for the purpose of ascertain-
ing whether there are valid objections to them, and it is always
prudent to examine them for the purpose of gaining informa-
tion of the adversary’s line of action. If, from any cause,
there is reason to fear that the testimony of a witness may be
lost, his deposition, de bene esse, should be promptly secured.

§ 331. Witnesses and subpoenas.—Directions to issue sub-
peenas for witnesses should be given in time to secure due serv-
ice. There is one safe rule on this point, and that is, give
the directions in writing in every instance. Issue subpoenas
in every case, and do not trust to the oral promises of witnesses
that they will be in attendance. Provide the means of com-
pelling attendance by causing proper process to be served, and
the tender of fees to be made in cases where it is required.
Where documents or papers in the hands of a witness are
needed, it is well to be sure that the subpcena fairly describes
them. Write in full the names and residences of witnesses.
Ascertain at the very earliest practicable moment what wit-
nesses the adverse party will call, and obtain a knowledge of
their business, their reputation and their character. If their
reputation is vulnerable, prepare to assail it by witnesses; but,
although this advice is somewhat aside from the present topic,
keep in mind this one thing: Do not make an assault upon the
reputation of any witness unless it is deserved, and your as-
sault is strong enough to make a decided impression.
416 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 3382

§ 332. Ascertaining particulars of adversary’s claim.—
There are very few cases in which it is not important to ascer-
tain the particulars of the claim against which the advocate is
required to defend.1 Whether the claim is asserted by com-
plaint or declaration, or by way of answer or counter-claim, it
can be encountered with better hope of success if the particu-
lars of it are known. A pleading dealing only in general
terms may contain hidden places that, like the thickets of the
forest, may serve as places of ambush. Where there is doubt
or uncertainty the safe course is to clear the way by compell-
ing; whenever it can be done, a display of all the particulars
of the claim. This brings them into full view, and the con-
test is waged against a known force upon an open plain, and
not in places. where ambushes may be laid and new forces
called into action. A fabricated claim will not often stand the
test of specification. It is a sort of dissection that clears away
the coloring and reveals the rottenness of the skeleton. If the
statements of an adversary’s pleading are vague and uncertain,
the true course is to move to make them certain and specific.
If the claim is one which can be particularized there should
be a demand for a bill of particulars.

§ 333. Setting forth particulars of claim.—In setting forth
the particulars of a claim it is impolitic to place too great a
value upon the items. Cases have been laughed out of court
by claims so large as to seem ridiculous. <A fair and just esti-
mate of the value of each item gives an honest appearance to
the claim; while an extravagant estimate gives it an appear-
ance of a fraudulent fabrication. Of course, the value may
somewhat exceed the amount likely to be proved, but the ex-
cess should not be very great. An honest claim, based on
substantial facts, is not, as the jury will quickly see, likely to
be an extravagant one. If the evidence falls far short of prov-
ing the amount claimed the jury will not be slow to conclude
that the client who asks the enforcement of an exaggerated
claim is, if not positively dishonest, so unscrupulous as to be

TAll light is valuable on a dark path.” De Quincey.
§ 334 PRECAUTIONARY STEPS. 417

entitled to scant favor. An exaggerated claim arouses a feel-
ing of distrust that needs but a little thing to enlarge it into a
feeling of resentment.

§ 334. Final consultation with client—When the time for
trial is close at hand listen again to your client’s story. Listen
with patience, that no fact may escape you. Quintilian truly
says: ‘‘There is not so much inconvenience in listening to
superfluous matters as to be ignorant of such things as are
necessary.’’! Patience was esteemed by the ancients as a nec-
essary quality in an advocate. ‘‘And, indeed,’’ as the French
advocates teach, ‘‘why should not a person who sees his fortune
or his honor in peril have a right to be heard in detail, so that
nothing may be forgotten in the instructions?’’? The veteran
English attorney, Joseph Chitty, viewing the question with
less of sentiment and more of cold business sagacity than the
French and Roman advocates, insists, with almost equal ear-
nestness, upon a consultation with the client when the time
for trial closely approaches. This final consultation will, if
the advocate is mindful of his duty, do more than refresh his
memory. It will quicken his interest in his client’s cause,
and arouse his mental powers. If he be of the stuff of which
great advocates are made, the near approach of the conflict will
put a spirit into him that will give him strength to quit him-
self as a man, if it does not:insure success. If, with the battle
not ‘‘afar off,’’ he hears his client’s story coldly and with in-
difference, he is not well equipped for the encounter. Doubt-
less, the keen thrusts of the conflict will excite him to deter-
mined. action, but, nevertheless, he will not be so strong as he

1 Quintilian Inst., Book XII., Chap.
viii. ‘‘He not only hears but exam-
ines his client and pinchecks the cause
where he fears it is foundered.’’ Bish-
op Collyer. In all consultations with
the client allowance is to be made for
the influence of passions or of self in-
terest upon his judgment. Said the
Puritan Solicitor,General John Cooke,

27

“The client I look upon as asick man,
distempered, passionate, willful, and —
extremely in love with his own cause
whatever it be, and many times the
best advice to a resolute client is but
as a good lesson to a lute out of tune—
the affections pre-engaged draw away
the judgment.”
2 History of the French Bar, 160.
418 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 335

would be if he had with zeal and spirit taken up arms for his
client before the contest opened.

§ 335. Notes of evidence—It is while the mind is warmed
with the client’s story, and stirred by the thought of the con-
test so soon to be fought in the forum, that the notes needed
for the conduct of the trial should be put on paper. ‘“There
is,’’ says M. Bautain, speaking of a kindred subject, ‘‘always
life in this first rush, and care should be taken not to check
its impetus or cool its ardor.’’! It is neither necessary nor
expedient, however, to put down in full all the facts, much
less the evidence; that work ought to be done at an earlier
stage of the case. What is needed for use in the course of the
trial is a collection of hints or suggestions. Too much com-
mitted to writing will do harm. No man can go through a
contest where every step must be watched with vigilance, every
advantage seized and every danger guarded, with credit to
himself or justice to his client, if he follows the written pages
previously prepared. One who is embarrassed by his notes
can not thrust or parry like one whose mind is bent upon the
movements of the contest. The paper needed for the purpose
of conducting the trial is a mere skeleton. It is what M. Bau-
tain calls ‘‘a dry bone frame.’’ Each sentence must have a
meaning, and must convey it quick as the flash of thought to
its author. He must know without conscious effort what each
proposition means. He must be able to determine the length
and breadth of every statement even more rapidly and uner-
ringly than the mind determines the size and distance of ob-
jects perceived by the eyes. The effort expended in catching
the import of words contained in the skeleton of a brief is lost
to the actual work of the contest.

§ 336. Trial briefs.—It will not do to take as models for the
purpose of which we are speaking the briefs of English attor-
neys prepared for English barristers. It is wise to prepare
such a brief after the preliminary examination, and in the

1 Art of Extempore Speaking, 197.
§ 337 . PRECAUTIONARY STEPS. 419

preparation of such briefs the English authors are excellent
instructors. Much valuable advice is given by Mr. Chitty and
Mr. Warren which the tyro can study with profit and the ex-
perienced advocate recur to with benefit.1. But the brief pre-
pared immediately after the preliminary examination should
be laid aside when the trial opens. The brief needed for the
trial, as compared to such.as goes into the hands of the bar-
risters, is as a fleshless skeleton to a body clothed in full
flesh. The skeleton brief should contain the name of each
witness, with a statement annexed to it suggesting in the short-
est possible way the subject on which he will give testimony,
and a statement, as short as it can be made and yet be intelligi-
ble, of the leading points of the case. It should be a condensa-
tion of the first brief, trimming it down to the very bones.

§ 337. Development of the theory.—The trial is the deyelop-
ment of the theory. The facts should move before the jury in
an orderly and an unbroken procession; not in a crowded and
straggling mass. The line of movement should be such as to
make it appear that facts follow facts and inferences emerge
from inferences as if they were the natural sequence of what
had gone before. Naturalness is secured by the art of the ad-
vocate in making each step follow in succession as the steps
follow in the processes of nature. The work of the advocate
resembles that of the artist who puts on canvas the pictures
of a panorama. The canvas as it is unrolled exhibits the pic-
tures which dwelt in the brain of the painter before his brush
gave them visible form; so the theory of the advocate, as it is
unfolded before the jury, gives visible form to the preconceived
images of his brain. Their work is not unlike, differing chiefly
in this: The. painter’s brush places his images before the
physical vision, the advocate’s work places them before the
mental vision. Thus differing, they closely resemble in this:
A deviation from naturalness blemishes and disfigures the
work of both. The closer the line of natural movement can

13 Chitty’s Gen. Pr., 847; Warren’s Duties‘of Attorneys, 178.
420 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 338.

be followed, the stronger the presentation of the case. What
enables the advocate to keep to this line is of benefit; what
carries him from it is hurtful. If the written guide prepared
for the trial is overloaded with particulars, branching from
the main line into by-ways, it will do harm. If, however, it
follows the line without confusion, and points out the way, it
will do good. The great purpose af the skeleton brief is to
keep the mind of the advocate to the line his theory has marked
out as the way through the case. If the figure be not too bold,
it may be said that his skeleton should be a chart to steer by,
not a compendium of rules on navigation.

§ 338. Witnesses should be present — Depositions. — The
testimony of a witness present in court, all other things being
equal, unquestionably makes a much stronger impression than
does testimony communicated in the form of a deposition.
Sight and hearing combine, and the attention is much more
thoroughly aroused than it is when the testimony is read from
a paper. It is only where the attendance of an important wit-
ness can not possibly be secured that his deposition should be
substituted for his oral testimony. Testimony in the form of
a deposition is competent in a proper case, and it would prob-
ably be error to instruct, as matter of law, that such testimony
is of less weight than that delivered from the witness-stand by
the witness himself; but, nevertheless, testimony in the form
of a deposition, as experience abundantly proves, will not go
so deep in the mind, nor remain so firmly in memory, as that
which is given by the witness in the sight and hearing of the
jury... In proof of this, if proof be needed, it is only necessary
to instance the drama, for no one can doubt that the sight of
the actors, as the play is developed on the stage,-intensifies
the power of the words they speak. Another reason why
depositions should not be used when the presence of the wit-

1Carver v. Louthain, 38 Ind. 530; Law, Chap. 8; Ram on Facts, 38.
Millner v. Eglin, 64 Ind. 197; Stark- ‘‘Things seen are mightier than things
ie’s Ev. (Sharswood’s ed.), 767; 3 Ba- heard.’”? Tennyson.
con’s Abridg., 560; Institutes of Hindu
§ 339 PRECAUTIONARY STEPS. 421

ness can be secured is that many things are brought to mind,
as the contest warms the mental powers to increased activity,
and are seen to be important, which were either not thought
of, or the importance of which was not perceived, when pre-
paring interrogatories in the quiet of the office.

§ 339. Care required in taking precautionary measures.—
Resources ought not only to be known, but to be at command,
before the fight is on.!. A long look ahead, as long as sagacity
and study will enable one to take, and a careful estimate of
what is to be done and what is required to do it, are precau-
tions which the prudent advocate never omits. The man who
does not begin to be in earnest in his work until the trial is at
hand will owe more to fortune than to merit if he is not
soundly whipped. No great result can surely be accomplished
if precautionary measures are not taken in good season. As
much care is required in precautionary measures, although
neither so much ability nor so much work is required, as in
conducting the trial. The advocate must be both quartermas-
ter and general, for he must secure the materials of forensic

warfare as well as make them weapons of attack or of defense.
If he has guns without Deesnsssn caps he might as well have
none at all. ,

1“Above all, a perfect understand- inous, should be most anxiously sought

ing of these points, in regard to which after.’”’ Law Magazine.
a false step taken in court may be ru-
CHAPTER X.

BRINGING THE ACTION—PROCESS.

§ 340. The ancient practice. § 359. Service on corporations.
341. The modern practice. 360. Service on partners.
842. Necessity for notice—Due pro- 361. Service on infants.
cess of law. 362. Service by publication.

343. Writ or notice must be author- 363. Statute must be strictly fol-

ized by law. lowed.
344. Power oflegislatureto prescribe 364. Affidavit for publication.

what the notice shall be. 865. Order and notice.
345. Defective process. 366. Requisites as to newspaper in
346. Direct and collateral attacks. which publication is made.
347. How action is brought. 367. Time of publication.
348. Style of process. 368. Proof of publication.
849. Name and title of court. 369. Mailing and posting notice.
350. Name of plaintiff. 370. Objections.
351. Name of defendant. 371. Waiver.
852. Nature and extent of plaintiff’s 372. Return and proof of service.

‘claim. 873. Privilege—Exemption from
353. Date of summons and return. service of process. ©
354. Signature and seal. 874. Capias ad respondendum.
355. Amendments. 375. Process on cross-bill and sup-
856. Service—By whom. ; plemental complaint.
357. Personal service. _ 876. Alias and pluries writs.
358. Service by leaving copy at place

of residence. ‘

§ 340. The ancient practice.—The old common law mode of
commencing an action at law was by suing out what was called
an original writ. This writ closely resembled the writ known
in modern procedure as the alternative writ of mandamus. In
form it was a duly authenticated letter addressed to the sheriff
commanding him to make due service upon the defendant, and
containing a concise statement of the nature of the plaintiff’s
demand. Considerable strictness-was required in stating the
claim. Deviations from the rule prescribing the requisites of
the writ that courts would now regard as utterly immaterial
were in the early years of the law held fatal to the plaintiff’s
case, and a variance between the writ and the declaration was

(422)
§ 341 BRINGING THE ACTION—PROCESS. 423

sufficient to put the plaintiff out of court. Prior to the statute
enacted during the reign of Queen Anne suits in equity were
commenced by suing out of the court of chancery a subpena,
but from that time until the change to the present system the
practice was to file the bill, and upon the filing of the bill, and
in some jurisdictions a precipe for a writ, the subpcena issued.

§ 341. The modern practice.—The original writ of the com-
mon law and the subpeena of chancery have in modern prac-
tice been superseded by a writ of summons, although the
term ‘‘subpeena’’ is still applied to the writ issued by a court
of chancery. Under the system which prevails in almost all .
of the States, as well as in the English dominions, the writ
which brings a defendant into court is a summons requiring
him to appear to the complaint, petition, declaration or bill of
the plaintiff.2 The strictness of the early decisions has given
way to liberal rules and the courts are slow to sustain an attack
upon asummons. As we shall hereafter see, a summons will
be held sufficient unless the defect is a very material one.

§ 342. Necessity for notice—Due process of law.—The right
to notice is a constitutional one. Where there is no notice
there can be no valid judgment unless the party entitled to
notice has expressly or impliedly waived his right. It is the
notice that gives the defendant ‘‘his day in court.’’ That he

1Lloyd v. Williams, 2 Blk. R. 722;
The Weavers Co. v. Forrest, 2 Str.
1232; Canning v. Davis, 4 Burr. 2417;
Duvall v. Craig, 2 Wheat. 45; Cole v.
Peniwell, 5 Blackf. 175.

2The term “process” is often ap-
plied to all writs, original, mesne and
final, but some of the courts hold that
the term does not embrace asummons
or the writ which brings the defend-
ant into court. Gowdy v. Sanders,
88 Ky. 346, 11S. W. R. 82; Sprague v.
Birchard, 1 Wis. 457; Comet Consol-
idated Mining Co.v. Frost, 15 Colo.310,
25 Pac. R. 506; Fitzpatrick v. New Or-

,

leans, 27 La. Ann. 457; Hannav. Rus-
sell, 12 Minn. 80; Gilmer v. Bird, 15
Fla. 410; Bailey v. Williams, 6 Ore.
71; Whitney v. Blackburn, 17 Ore.
564, S. C.11 Am. St. R. 857. See,
generally, State v. Ferguson, 31 N. J.
L. 283; Arnold v. Chapman, 13 R. I.
586; Dwight v. Merritt, 18 Blatchf.
305; Taylor v. Henry, 2 Pick. 397;
Kennard »v. Louisiana, 92 U. 8. 480;
Falvey v. Jones, 80 Ga. 130; Drexel v.
Miller, 49 Pa. St. 246; People v. Nev-
ins, 1 Hill, 154; Wilson v. St. Louis,
etc., R’y Co., 108 Mo. 588, 8. C. 32 Am.
St. Rep. 624.

 
424 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 343

should have such a day the common law requires,' and the
Federal and State constitutions have placed it beyond the power
of the legislative department to take away this common law
right.2, The true doctrine is that where there is no notice and
no waiver by express agreement or by conduct there is not due
process of law, and where there is not due process of law there
can be no valid judgment.’

§ 343. Writ or notice must be authorized by law.—The
writ or notice which brings a defendant into court and gives
the tribunal jurisdiction of the person must be authorized by

law.

If there is no law authorizing or providing for notice

and no appearance or waiver the proceedings will be absolutely

1“Tt is obviously a principle of nat-
ural justice,’ says Mr. Chitty, ‘‘and it
is consequently a maxim in our mu-
nicipal law, that no one should be
condemned unheard, and hence the
necessity for process to be in general
actually served on a defendant, there-
by summoning him or warning or com-
pelling him to appear in court to hear
the complaint against him. And to
such an extent was this maxim carried
in our ancient law, that a plaintiff
could not declare or proceed in an ac-
tion before the defendant had actually
appeared in court to answer the plaint-
iff.”’ 3 Chitty’s Gen. Prac., 141. The
learned author advises the student to
read the opinion of Bayley, J., in Will-
iams v. Lord Bagot, 3 B & C. 772.
This principle was long ago embodied
in the old maxim that ‘‘no man’s cause
should be heard where he is not given
notice, nor any man condemned un-
heard and unsummoned.”’ Coke says
that ‘che who decides anything, one
party being unheard, though he decide
rightly, does wrong.”’ See, generally,
Eskridge v.Jones, 1 Smed. & M.( Miss.)
595; Flowers v. Foreman, 23 How.(U.
8.) 182. 5

2 Stuart v. Palmer, 74 N.Y. 183; Peo-

ple v. O’Brien, 111 N. Y. 1, 8. C.2
Lawyers’ R. Anno. 255; Campbell v.
Campbell, 63 Ill. 462; Happy v. Mosh-
er, 48N.Y.313; Kennard v. Louisiana,
92 U. 8. 480; Rowan v. State, 30 Wis.
129; Ziegler v. South. & North. Ala.
R. R. Co., 58 Ala. 494; Johnson v. Jo-
liet, 23 Ill. 202; State v. Fond du Lac,
42 Wis. 287; Seifert v. Brooks, 34 Wis.
443; Whiteford Tp. v. Probate Judge,
53 Mich. 180; Kuntz v. Sumption, 117
Ind. 1; Kingston v.'Towle, 48 N. H.
57; Holliday v. Swailes, 1 Scam. (IIl.)
515; Bissell v. Briggs, 9 Mass. 462.

3 Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. 8.714; In re
Hatch, 43 N. Y. Sup. Ct. 89; South
Platte, etc., Co. v. Buffalo, 7 Neb. 253;
Hutson v. Woodbridge, etc., 79 Cal. 90,
16 Pac.R.549; Pryor v. Downey, 50 Cal.
388; Springer v. United States, 102 U,
8. 586; County of San Mateo v. South-
ern Pacific Co., 8 Am. & Eng. R. R.
Cases, 1; Brown v. Board, ’ete., 50
Miss. 468; Westervelt v. Gregg, 12 N.
Y.202; Camp v. Rogers, 44 Conn. 291;
Bartlett v. Wilson, 59 Vt. 28, S.C. 8
Atl. R.321; Davidson v. New Orleans,
96 U. 8. 97; Campbell v. Dwiggins, 83
Ind. 473; Bertholf v. O’Reilly, 74 N.Y.
59; Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335;
Ex parte Robinson, 19 Wall. 505.
§ 344 BRINGING THE ACTION—PROCESS. 425
void.’ A statute conferring upon a tribunal power to take or
finally dispose of the property of an individual without notice
or some provision giving him an opportunity to be heard is
unconstitutional.? And the fact that the party actually has

notice of the proceeding will not cure the defect in the statute.*

§ 344. Power of the legislature to prescribe what the notice
shall be.—The legislature has a wide discretion in regard to
what the notice of a suit or action shall be and how and by
whom the notice shall be served. While it is well agreed that
there must be some notice, yet it is not easy to extract from
the decisions any rule for determining the limits of the legis-
lative power over this subject. It seems safe to say that the
form of the notice and the time and manner of service are
questions for legislative determination, subject only to the
limitation that the notice must be of such a nature and so
timely served as to give the defendant a reasonable opportunity
‘to be heard. We suppose that a statute providing for a notice
or summons so clearly insufficient as to deprive the defendant
of the opportunity to be heard in due course of law would be
adjudged void because antagonistic to the fundamental rule

which secures to every citizen his day in court.®

1See authorities cited in the next
two notes below. In acase in which
unauthorized publication of notice

was made, the Supreme Court of the

United States said: ‘There is an ob-
vious distinction in reason between
this case and the case where there
has been personal service of irregular
or erroneous process. In that case
the party has notice in part, and may,
if he will, appear and object to or
waive the irregularity; inthis, the
publication being unauthorized, is not
even constructive notice; and, unless
the proceedings are considered as void,
the injured party may be remediless.”’
Hollingsworth v. Barbour, 4 Peters (U.
S.), 466, 476.

?Stuart v. Palmer, 74 N. Y. 183;

Garvin v. Daussman, 114 Ind. 429;
Campbell v. Dwiggins, 83 Ind. 473;
Whiteford Tp. v. Probate Judge, 53
Mich. 130; Brown v. City of Denver,
7 Col. 305; City of Philadelphia v.
Miller,49 Pa. St. 440; Overing v. Foote,
65 N. Y. 263; Johnson v. Joliet, etc.,
R. BR. Co., 23 Ill. 124; Santa Clara v.
So. Pac. R. R. Co., 18 Am. & Eng. R.
R. Cas. 182. ‘

3 Kuntz v. Sumption, 117 Ind. 1.

* Walker v. Boston, etc., Co., 3 Cush.
1; Salem v. Eastern, etc., Co., 98 Mass.
431; Mason v. Messenger, 17 Iowa,
261; Matter of the Village of Middle-
town, 82 N. Y. 196.

5 The essential elements of a writ of
summons, as given by Mr. Chitty, are
in substance these: 1. That it should
426 THE WORK OUT OF COURT.

1

§ 345. Defective process.—If there is a writ issued under a
law authorizing it the judgment will not be void although the
defect may be so serious as to render the writ ineffective as
against a direct and seasonable attack. It requires, according
to the rule which prevails in nearly all of the States, errors or
omissions of a material nature to overthrow a summons, and er-
rors which would be fatal in a direct attack made at the proper
time may be entirely destitute of force in a collateral assault.
There is an essential difference between overthrowing judg-
ments by a collateral proceeding and reversing them on appeal
or annulling them by some other direct proceeding.

§ 345

§ 346. Direct and collateral attacks.—The reports contain
cases wherein it appears that attorneys were led into serious
error by the failure to discriminate between direct and collat-
eral attacks upon judgments so that it seems appropriate, if
not necessary, to refer to the difference between direct and col-
lateral attacks.1 If there is any notice or process purporting
to be issued pursuant to law and there is a law authorizing
such notice or process the judgment will repel a collateral as-
sault although the process may be defective.? The cases go
very far in sustaining judgments against collateral attacks,
and a writ or notice, if it professes to conform to the law and
does in some measure do what it professes, will uphold a judg-
ment as against a collateral attack, although it might be radi-
cally defective upon a direct attack. ‘‘The objects to be ac-

X

explicitly inform the defendant in
what court or office he should enter
his appearance or putinbail. 2. That
it should be served upon him a suffi-
cient time to enable him without in-
convenient hurry to so appear, or, ac-
cording to modern practice, to secure
an attorney. 38. That it should give
the defendant reasonable information
of the nature and extent of the plaint-
iff’s claim. 3 Chitty Gen. Prac., 143.

1See note to Morrill v. Morrill, 23
Am. St. R. 95, 104, 8. C.12 Am. & Eng.

Encyc. of Law, 147], et seq.; note to
Hahn v. Kelly, 94 Am. Dec. 742, 762.

?Van Fleet’s Collateral Attack, § 329.
There is a clear and well defined dis-
tinction between a defective notice
and an absolute want of notice.

3 Jackson v. State, 104 Ind. 516;
Essig v. Lower, 120 Ind. 239; Quarl
». Abbett, 102 Ind. 233; Brown v.
Goble, 97 Ind. 86; Muncey v. Joest,
74 Ind. 409; Hume v. Conduitt, 76
Ind. 598; Kleyla v. Haskett, 112 Ind.
515, S. C.14.N. E. R. 387; Hackett v.
§ 346 BRINGING THE ACTION—PROCESS. 427

complished by a process,’’ says Mr. Freeman, ‘‘are to advise
the defendant that an action has been commenced against him
by plaintiff, and warn him that. he must appear within a time
and at a place named and make such defense as he has, and in
default of his so doing, that judgment against him will be ap-
plied for or taken in a sum designated, or for relief specified.
If the summons actually issued accomplishes these purposes,
it should be held sufficient to confer jurisdiction, though it
may be irregular in not containing other statements required
by the statute.’"! Thisis, perhaps, as correct a statement of
the general rule as can be made; yet, as will hereafter be
shown, a summons defective in some of these particulars, may
be sufficient to support a judgment as against a collateral at-
tack. Where a court has jurisdiction of the subject-matter
and it is necessary to determine whether facts essential to ju-
risdiction exist, a judgment that they do exist is generally
conclusive as against a collateral attack.?. The conclusion of
the court upon a matter which, by law, it was authorized to

determine, may be erroneous, but it can not be void.’

State, 113 Ind. 532, S.C. 15 N. E.R.
799; Bonsell v. Isett, 14 Iowa, 309;
Betts v. Baxter, 58 Miss. 334; Isaacs
v. Price, 2 Dill, 8347; Hendrick v. Whit-
temore, 105 Mass. 23; Cook v. Darling,
18 Pick. (Mass.) 393; McLain v. Dun-
can, 57 Ark. 49,8. C.208. W. RB. 597;
Paine v. Mooreland, 15 Ohio, 435 ; Den-
manv. McGuire, 101 N.Y.161; Sheldon
v. Wright, 5N.Y.497; Hobson v. Ewan,
62 Ill. 146; Delaney v. Gault, 30 Pa.
St. 63; People v. Hagar, 52 Cal. 171.
“Tf there be a notice or publication,
or whatever the law requires in refer-
ence to persons or other matters, its
sufficiency can not be questioned col-
laterally.”” Morrow v. Weed, 4 Iowa,
77. See, also, Ballinger v. Tarbell, 16
Iowa, 491, 8S. C. 85 Am. Dec. 527;
Shawhan v. Loffer, 24 Iowa, 217.

1] Freeman on Judgments, 215,
§ 126.

Cooper v. Sunderland, 3 Clarke

It fol-

(Iowa), 114; Riley v. Waugh, 8 Cush.
220; Henderson v. Brown, 1 Caines
(N. Y.), 92; Vail v. Owen, 19 Barb.
(N. Y.) 22; Sheldon v. Wright, 5 N.
Y. 497; Youngman v. Elmira, etc., R.
R. Co., 65 Pa. St. 278; Grignon’s
Lessee v. Astor, 2 How. (U.S.) 319;
Evansville, etc., R. R. Co. v. City of ’
Evansville, 15 Ind. 395; Forsythe v.
Kreuter, 100 Ind. 27; Million v. Board,
89 Ind. 5, 14; Fischer v. Holmes, 123
Ind. 525; Young v. Wells, 97 Ind. 410;
Morrill v. Morrill, 20 Ore. 96, 8. C. 23
Am. St. R. 95, and note; Wilkerson
v. Schoonmaker, 77 Texas, 615, 8. C.19
Am. St. R. 803, and note; Ela v. Smith,
5 Gray, 121, 8. C. 66 Am. Dec. 356;
Coloma v. Eaves, 92 U.S. 484; Spauld-
ing v. Homestead Ass’n, 87 Cal. 40;
Goodwin v. Sims, 86 Ala. 102, 8. C. 11
“Am. St. R. 21,
Ss] Freeman on Judgments, § 126.
428 | THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 347

lows, therefore, that the judgment of the court, in such a case,
even though erroneous, is conclusive, upon collateral attack,
as to the sufficiency of the process. But a personal judgment,
in proceedings in personam, is absolutely void and subject to a
collateral attack, where the record shows that there was a
total failure of notice and the defendant did not appear.! And
this is true where a personal judgment is rendered against a
non-resident and the only notice is by publication.?

§ 347. How action is brought.—The ordinary method of
bringing an action is to file a complaint or petition with the
clerk of the proper court and to cause a summons to be issued
thereon. It is a maxim of jurisprudence as well as a consti-
tutional provision that every one is entitled to his day in court,
and that no one shall be condemned unheard.*? Hence, the
necessity for process notifying and summoning the defendant
to appear in court to answer the complaint.against him. The
essential requisites of the summons and the manner and proof

of its service are considered in the following sections.

§ 348. Style of process.—It is provided, either by constitu-

1Shaefer v. Gates, 2 B. Mon. (Ky.)
453, S. C. 38 Am. Dec. 164; Anderson
v. Miller, 4 Blackf. 417; Allen v. Chad-
sey, 1 Ind. 399; Horner v. Doe, 1
Ind. 180, S. C. 48 Am. Dec. 355, and
note; Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. 8. 714;
St. Clair v. Cox, 106 U. 8. 350; Hol-
lingsworth v. Barbour, 4 Pet. 466;
Freeman v. Alderson, 119 U. 8. 185;
Eliot v. McCormack, 144 Mass. 10;
Capehart v. Cunningham, 12 W. Va.

750; Anderson v. Hawhe, 115 Il. 33;.

Tyler v. Peatt, 30 Mich. 63; Outh-
wite v. Porter, 13 Mich. 533; Ander-
son v. Brown, 9 Mo. 646; Hawley v.
Heyman, 28 La. Ann. 347; North v.
Moore, 8 Kan. 143; Moore v. Watkins,
1 Ark. 268; Great West. Min. Co. v.
Woodman Min. Co., 12 Colo. 46, 8. C.
20 Pac. R.771; Duncan v. Gerdine, 59
Miss. 550.

2 Renier v. Hurlbut, 81 Wis. 24, 8. C.
29 Am. St. R. 850, and note; Fowler
». Lewis, 36 W. Va. 112, S.C. 148. E.
R. 447; De Meli v. De Meli; 120 N. Y.
485, S. C. 17 Am. St. R. 652. See
post, §362. In Hardy v. Beaty, 84
Texas, 562, S. C. 31 Am. St. R.
80, it was held that an action of
trespass to try title to an undivided
interest in land was a proceeding in
rem, but that a judgment in personam
in such a proceeding against a non-
resident defendant, served only by
publication, for costs, was void and
therefore subject to a collateral attack.

’ Williams v. Lord Bagot, 3 B. & C.
772, 786; Eskridge v. Jones, 1 Smed.
& M.(Miss.) 595; Holliday v. Swailes,
2Tll. 515; Bissel v. Briggs, 9 Mass. 462;
Bradley v. Fisher, 18 Wall.(U.S.) 385.
§ 349 BRINGING THE ACTION—PROCESS. 429

tion or statute, in many of the States, that all process shall run
in the name of ‘‘The State’’ or ‘‘The People.”’ But a defect or
irregularity in this respect will not, according to the better
reason and the weight of authority, make the proceedings ab-
solutely void.! In an Arkansas case the process did not run
in the name of any one, and it was held amendable after plea
in abatement.? Some courts, however, have held that the fail-
ure of process to run in the name of the people, as required by
the constitution, will prevent jurisdiction from attaching and
‘render the proceedings void.?

§ 349. Name and title of court.—The summons should in-
form the defendant in what court or office he is required to
appear. But a misnomer of the court is not a material defect.
where there is but one court that could have been intended and
the defendant could not have been misled thereby.> And where
summons was served by leaving a copy at the last and usual
place of residence of the defendant, it was held that the fact
that the court was named as the ‘‘Common Pleas Court,’’ in-
stead of the ‘‘Court of Common Pleas,’’ and that the seal was.
not copied did not render the summons insufficient even upon
motion to quash it and set aside the service.®

§ 350. Name of plaintiffi—The defendant has a right to
know at whose suit he is required to come into court, and the
name of the plaintiff should, therefore, be stated in the sum-
mons. The character in which he sues, whether in person or
in a representative capacity, should also be stated. And it

'Kahn v. Kuhn, 44 Ark. 404; Brew-
ster v. Ludekins, 19 Cal. 162, 171;
Hansford v. Hansford, 34 Mo. App.
262, 272; Carson v. Sheldon, 51 Mo.
436; Livingston v. Coe, 4 Neb. 379;
Iisley v. Harris, 10 Wis. 95; Mabbett
v. Vick, 53 Wis. 158.

2 Mitchell v. Conley, 13 Ark. 414.

5 Wallahan v. Ingersoll, 117 Til. 123,
8.C. 7N.E. R.519; Yeager v. Groves,
78 Ky. 278. See, also, Forbes v. Dar-

ling, 94 Mich. 621, 8.C.54 N. W.R.
385.

*3 Chitty’s Gen. Pr., 143; Kitzmiller
v. Kitchen, 24 Iowa, 163.

5New Eng. Mfg. Co. v. Starin, 60
Conn. 369, 8. C. 22 Atl. R. 953; Ralph
v. Lomer, 3 Wash. 401, S. C. 28 Pac.
R. 760. See, also, Goudy v. Hall, 36.
Ill. 313, 8. C. 87 Am. Dec. 217; Bond
v. Epley, 48 Iowa, 600; Hollingsworth
». State, 111 Ind. 289.

® Hughes v. Osborn, 42 Ind. 450.
430 THE .WORK OUT OF COURT. § 351

was held at common law that if a writ names one plaintiff and
the declaration two, the proceedings might be set aside for ir-
regularity.1 But a misnomer of the plaintiff, even when a cor-
poration aggregate, has been held not to be a sufficient ground
for nonsuit;? and under the liberal rules and statutes in most
of the States, a defect in any of these particulars could doubt-
less be remedied by amendment, and would not make the writ
absolutely void.®

§ 351. Name of defendant.—The name of the defendant and
the character in which he is sued should also be stated in the
summons.* It has been held that where the wrong name is
stated in the summons the court has no jurisdiction unless the
defendant appears;°® but it is otherwise if the names are idem
sonans,® and where the defendant is actually served a misnomer
ought not to vitiate the summons and proceedings, at least as

against a collateral attack.”

1 Rogers v. Jenkins, 1 Bos. & P. 383;
Lewin v. Smith, 4 East,589. So,where
the writ is at the suit of a husband and
the declaration is by the husband and
wife. Reeks v. Robins, Barnes, 337.

2 Mayor v. Bolton, 1 Bos. & P. 40;
Boughton v. Frere, 3 Camp. 29; Gard-
ner v. Walker, 3 Aust. 935.

5 The judgment, in such a case, would
not necessarily be void as against a
collateral attack by the defendant.
Kronski v. Mo. Pac. R.R. Co., 77 Mo.
362; McGaughey v. Woods, 106 Ind.
330,88. C. 7 N. E. R.7. Contra, Ex
parte Cheatham, 1 Eng. (Ark.) 531,
8. C. 44 Am. Dec. 525.

*3 Chitty’s Gen. Pr., 166, 181, 256.

5 Barnett v.Tayler, 30 Tex.453 ; Moul-

ton v. de ma Carty, 6 Rob. (N.Y. Sup.):

470; Fanning v. Krapfl, 61 Iowa, 417.
See, also, Bendy v. Boyce, 37 Tex. 443;
Anderson v. Brown, 16 Texas, 554;
Bates v. State Bank, 7 Ark. 394, 8. C.
46 Am. Dec. 293; Clark v. Gilmer, 28
Ala. 265.

®Miller v. Brenham, 68 N. Y. 83;

If the name of the defendant is

Buchanan v. Roy, 2 Ohio St. 251; Rob-
ertson v. Winchester, 85 Tenn. 171, 8.
C.18. W. R. 781. But see Kennedy
v. Merriam, 70 Ill. 228.

‘La Fayette Ins. Co. v. French, 18
How. (U. 8.) 404; Bloomfield R. R.
Co. v. Burress, 82 Ind. 83; Parry »v.
Woodson, 33 Mo. 347, 8. C. 84 Am.
Dec. 51; Hoffield v. Board, 33 Kan.
644, 8.C.7 Pac. R. 216; Lewis v. Grace,
44 Ala. 307; Burton v. Buckeye Ins.
Co., 26 Ohio St. 467; Welch v. Hull, 73
Mich. 47, 40 N. W. R. 797. An alias
summons against one of several de-
fendants need not name those already
served. Reed v. Boyd, 84 Ill. 66. A
summons against ‘‘S., trustee of B.
civil township” is not a writ against
the township, and it is not bound to
take notice of it. Vogelv. Brown Tp.,
112 Ind, 299. But a summons against
“trustee C. school township” is against
the trustee in his official capacity, and
the township must take notice. Cicero
School Twp. v. The Chicago Nat. Bank,
127 Ind. 79.
§ 352 - BRINGING THE ACTION—PROCESS. 431

' unknown, that fact should be stated in the summons and he
may be otherwise identified therein, or, under some statutes, a
fictitious name may be used and the real name inserted when
discovered.!

§ 352. Nature and extent of plaintifi’s claim.—lIt is proper
that information of the nature and extent of the plaintiff’s claim
should be given in the summons, or by indorsement thereon.?
But ‘‘where a defendant is served with summons it is his duty
to appear and ascertain the nature of the cause of action alleged
against him, and he can not escape the consequences of his
neglect to do this, upon the ground that the recital in the
summons did not fully inform him of the nature of the cause
of action, or correctly describe the relief sought.’’? So, where
the statute provided that in a proceeding to establish a drain
“notice of the pendency and prayer of the petition’’ should be
given, it was held that ‘‘notice stating that the report of the

viewers has been filed and will be heard,’’ was sufficient as

against a collateral attack.‘

1 Kellam v. Toms, 38 Wis. 592; Bu-
chanan v. Roy, 2 Ohio St. 251; Bates
on Pleading, 80. It has been held in
Kentucky that a summons against
“the unknown children’’ of a certain
person is not a valid summons. Kel-
lar.v. Stanley, 86 Ky. 240, 8. 0.5 5S.
W. R. 477. See, also, Sandford v.
White,56 N. Y.359. In Fitzgerald v. Sal-
entine, 10 Met. (Mass.) 436, it was said
that a fictitious name might be used
and that amisnomer would not render
the proceeding void where there was
service on the right party, but as the
defendant had not been served at all,
the judgment was held subject to col-
lateral attack.

?Chitty’s Gen. Pr. 143. And this
may be necessary under a particular
_ Statute or rule of court. Sawyer v.
Robertson, 11 Mont. 416, 8. C. 28 Pac.
Rep. 456; Schuttler v. King, 12 Mont.
149, 30 Pac.R. 25; Williamson v. Ward-

a

law, 40 Ga. 702; Leathers v. Morris,
101 N. Car. 184; United States v. Tur-

ner, 50 Fed. R. 734; Watson v. Me-

Cartney, 1 Neb. 1381; Kinney’s Pl. &
Pr. (Iowa), §§ 147, 148; Mood v. Tay-
lor, 12 Iowa, 71. | But, although this
is required in Nebraska, it is held that
the failure to indorse the amount of
plaintiff's demand on the summons is
of no consequence unless the defend-
ant fails to appear. Crowell v. Gallo-
way, 3 Neb. 219.

3 Freeman v. Paul, 105 Ind. 451, 452.
See, also, Higley v. Pollock (Nev.), 27
Pac. R. 895; Behlow v. Shorb, 91 Cal.
141, 8. C. 27 Pac. R. 546; Gulf, C. &
S.F. BR. R. Co. v. James, 48 Fed. R.
148; Ritterv. Offutt, 40 Md. 207; Ches-
ter & T. Coal & R. R. Co. v. Lickiss,
72 Ill. 521; Messervey v. Beckwith, 41
Ill. 452; Blair v. Wolf, 72 Iowa, 246,
8. C. 33 N. W. R. 669.

*Montgomery v. Wasem, 116 Ind.
432 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 353

§ 353. Date of summons and return.—The defendant is en-
titled to know at what time he is required to appear, and the
date at which the summons is returnable should, therefore, be
stated therein.’ If the writ is made returnable beyond the first
term of court after it is issued it will be absolutely void,? and
this has also been held to be the rule where the writ is made
returnable to an impossible term of court.? But the fact that
a wrong day in the term is named will not invalidate the sum-
mons where the statute makes all such writs returnable on the
first day of the term, regardless of the time fixed in the writ.‘
So, where a summons was dated by mistake May 21, and made
returnable April 21, after judgment, which was rendered May
4, it was held that it was not void as against a collateral attack.®
And a similar ruling was made in another case, where the writ

343, S. C. 15 N. E. R. 795, and 19 N.
E. R. 184.

Lyon v. Vanatta, 35 Iowa, 521;
Kitsmiller v. Kitchen, 24 Iowa, 163;
Phinney v. Donahue, 67 Iowa, 192.

*Shirley v. Hagar, 3 Blackf. 225;
Crocker v. Dunkin, 6 Blackf. 535;
Carey v. Butler, 11 Ind. 391; Briggs
». Sneghan, 45 Ind. 14; Burk v. Bar-
nard, 4 Johns. (N. Y.) 309; Atkinson
v. Taylor, 2 Wils. 117; Reubel v.Pres-
ton, 5 East, 291; Shirley v. Wright,
Salk. 700; Calhoun v. Webster, 2 Scam.
(Ill.) 221; Hildreth v. Hough, 20 Il.
331; Hocklander v. Hocklander, 73
Ill. 618; Kelly v. Gilman, 29 N. H.
385, S. C. 61 Am. Dec. 648; McAlpine
». Smith, 68 Me. 423. This was the
rule at common law, and it is still the
general rule in the absence of any
statute to the contrary. In some of
the States it is provided by statute
that, although the summons would
otherwise be returnable on the first
day of the next term, it may be made
returnable after a certain number of
days, in the same term at which it is
issued, by plaintiff’s counsel indors-
ing the time upon the complaint.

3 Lowrey v. Richmond & D.R.R. Co.,
83 Ga. 504, 10 S. E. R. 123; Hoxie »v.
Payne, 41 Conn. 539; Holliday ».
Cooper, 3 Mo. 286; Brown v. Simpson,
3 Stew. (Ala.) 331. But it has been
held in Indiana that a summons is not
void merely because itis made return-
able in vacation. Ross v. Glass, 70
Ind. 391. Compare, however, Leigh
v. Alpaugh, 24N.J.L.629. As tothe
rule where the day fixed for the return
is dies non, see Gould v. Spencer, 5
Paige (N. Y.), 541; Kinney v. Emery,
37 N. J. Eq. 339; Ostertag v. Galbraith,
23 Neb. 730, and compare Kenworthy
v. Peffiat, 4 B. & A. 288; Bellv. Austin,
13 Pick.(Mass.) 90; Sanders v. Rains,
10 Mo. 770.

*Riggsbee v. Bowler, 17 Ind. 167;
Morgan v. Woods, 33 Ind. 23. See,
also, Whitewater, etc., Canal Co. v.
Henderson, 3 Ind. 3; Johnson v.Clark,
18 Kan. 157; Cross v. Wilson, 52 Ark.
312, 8. C. 128. W. R. 576; De Tar ».
Boone Co., 34 Iowa, 488; Hare v. Ni-
blo, 4 Leigh. (Va.) 359.

5 Chicago Dock and Canal Co. v.
Kinzie, 93 Ill. 415, 431; Irions v. Key-
stone Mfg. Co., 61 Iowa, 406. Com-
§ 354 BRINGING THE ACTION—PROCESS. 433

was dated before the action was commenced.! So, where a
judgment was rendered upon notice by publication before the
notice had run for the full statutory period, it was held that
the judgment, although erroneous, was not void, and that it
was not subject to collateral attack.?

§ 354. Signature and seal.—The fact that a summons is
signed, sealed and delivered in blank by the clerk to the plaint-
iff’s attorney, who afterwards inserts the names of the parties,
nature and extent of the claim, and date of issue and return,
will not invalidate it. At common law the writ was required
to be tested by the chief justice or chief baron of the court from
which it issued,‘ and in most of the States it must be signed
by the clerk and issued under seal of the court.? Under a
statute requiring the name of the plaintiff or his attorney to
be subscribed to the summons, any signature which they may
adopt, whether written, printed or lithographed, is sufficient.®
‘And the fact that the summons, except the signature of the
clerk, is in the writing of the plaintiff’s attorney, will not ren-

pare Rice v. American National Bank
(Col.), 31 Pac. R. 1024.

1 Woodman v. Smith, 37 Me. 21;
Fort v. Milligan, 21 N. Y. 8. 145.

2 Essig v. Lower, 120 Ind. 239. See,
also, Hoose v. Sherrill, 16 Wend. (N.
Y.) 33. But compare Brownfield v.
Dyer, 7 Bush. (Ky.) 505; Bird v. Nor-
quist, 46 Minn. 318, 8. C. 48 N. W. R.
1132.

5 Potter v. John Hutchinson Mfg.
Co., 87 Mich. 59, S. C. 49 N. W.R.
517; Jewett v. Garrett, 47 Fed. R. 625;
Miller v. Hall, 1 Spears, 1. So, where
a constable or other person fills the
blank. Hafner v. Irwin, 4 Ired. L.
529, 533; Baker v. Holmes, 27 Me.
153; Haskell v. Haven, 3 Pick. (Mass.)
404, Compare Adm’r of Whitcomb v.
Cook, 39 Vt. 585; Ross v. Fuller, 12
Vt. 265, 270.

43 Chitty’s Gen. Pr. 202, 257. See,

28

also, 1 Sherin’s P]. & Pr.(Mich.) 3531 ;
Howerter v. Kelly, 23 Mich. 337; Ma-
son’s Mass. Pr., § 25.

5 See Dwight v. Merritt, 18 Blatchf.
(U. 8.) 305; 2 Poe’s Pl. & Pr. 560;
Mason’s Mass. Pr., § 25. But in Col-
orado, Iowa and some other States, it
need not be under seai, and may be
signed by the plaintiff’s attorney.
Rand v. Pantagraph Stationery Co., 1
Col. App. 270, S. C. 28 Pac. R. 661;
Kinney’s Pl. & Pr. (Iowa), § 147. See,
also, Whitney v. Blackburn, 17 Ore.
564, S. C..11 Am. St. R. 857; Porter v.
Vandercook, 11 Wis. 70.

® Herrick v. Morrill, 37 Minn. 250,
S. C. 5 Am. State R. 841. -See, also,
Barnard v. Heydrick, 49 Barb. (N.Y.)
62; Mezchen v. More, 54 Wis. 214;
Ligare v. California S. R. R. Co., 76
Cal. 610, S. C. 18 Pac. Rep. 777.
434 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 855

der it invalid.! Nor will the omission of a seal or the use of a
wrong seal render it void as against a collateral attack.?

§ 355. Amendments.—There are many cases in which de-
fects in a writ or return may be cured by amendment. Thus
where the Christian name of the plaintiff is erroneously stated
in the summons, the writ may be amended so as to state the
name correctly as it appears in the complaint.? So, where the
defendant is erroneously named, but has been properly served.!
Defects and clerical mistakes in the teste of the writ,’ in dates
therein,® and various other irregularities of a similar nature’
are amendable under the liberal rules and statutes in force in
most jurisdictions. Indeed, it may be stated as a general rule,
that a summons may be amended whenever no injury can re-

sult to any one from such amendment.®

1 Jewett v. Garrett, 47 Fed. R. 625.

2Strong v. Catlin, 3 Pinney, 121;
Crane v. Blum, 56 Texas, 325; State
v. Davis, 73 Ind. 359; Joyce v. Whit-
ney, 57 Ind. 550; State v. Ennis, 74
Ind. 17; Krug v. Davis, 85 Ind. 309.
See, also, Talcott v. Rozenberg, 3 Daly,
203, 207; Dominick v. Eacker, 3 Barb.
17; Gray v. Douglass, 81 Me. 427, 8.
C. 17 Atl. R. 320; Heighway v. Pen-
dleton, 15 Ohio, 735; Rose v. Railroad
Co., 47 Iowa. 420. But compare State
v. Worley, 11 Ired. L. (N. Car.) 242.

3 Haines v. Bottorff, 17 Ind. 348;
State v. Hood, 6 Blackf. 260; Thurber-
Whyland Co. v. Klittner,16 N.Y. Supp.
828, S.C. 42 N. Y.S. R. 157. But it
has been held that it can not be so
amended as to substitute an entirely
different plaintiff.. Woodward v.
Wons, 18 Ind. 296. Compare Gulf,
CG. & S. F. R. R. Co. v. James, 4 U.S.
App. 19; Scudder v. Massengill, 88 Ga.
245, 8. C. 148. E. R. 571, in which an
entire change of name was permitted.
See,also, Waterman v. Dockray, 79 Me.
149, 8. C. 8 Atl. R. 685.

But where there is no

‘Weaver v. Jackson, 8 Blackf. 5;
Johnson v. Patterson, 59 Ind. 237;
Shackman v. Little, 87 Ind.181. See,
also, Indigo Co. v. Ogilvy (Eng. Rep.),
2Ch. Div.(1891) 31; Welch». Hull, 73
Mich. 47, 8. C.40 N. W.R. 797; Frost
v. Paine, 12 Me. 111; Cleveland v. Pol-
lard, 87 Ala. 556; Phillips v. Evans, 64
Mo. 17.

5United States v. Turner, 50 Fed.
R. 734. :

§Richmond & D. R. R. Co. v. Ben-
son, 86 Ga, 203, 8. CO. 12S. E. R. 857;
Kelly v. Harrison, 69 Miss. 856, 8. C.
12 So. R. 261. Orin the date of the
return. Kidd v. Daugherty, 59 Mich.
240; Snyderv. Schram, 59 How. Pr. (N.
Y.) 404; Fisher v. Collins, 25 Ark. 97.

‘Telford v. Coggins, 76 Ga. 683;
Prentice v. Stefan, 72 Wis. 151, 8S. C.
39 N. W. R. 364; Jewett v. Garrett, 47
Fed. R. 625; Boyd v. Fitch, 71 Ind.-
306; Hunter v. Burnsville Turnp. Co.,
56 Ind. 213; State v. Davis, 73 Ind.
359; Jn re Soule, 46 Hun (N. Y.), 661;
Messervey v. Beckwith, 41 Ill. 452.

§ See Chamberlain v. Bittersohn, 48
§ 355 BRINGING THE ACTION—PROCESS. 485

process at all, no service and no waiver, there can, of course,
be no amendment.’ An officer may amend his return, so as to
make it speak the truth, at any time before it is filed.? After
it is filed, however, it becomes a record of the court,? and the
officer can not amend it without the sanction of the court;
but the court may, and should, upon proper. application and
notice, permit it to be amended so as to speak the truth, espe-
cially where such amendment is necessary to support proceed-
ings based upon the return.> In some cases it is held that no-
tice to the defendant is unnecessary,® but. the weight of au-
thority seems to be in favor of the rule requiring notice.’
Whether an amendment should be permitted or refused is
largely a matter of discretion with the court. And an officer

Fed. R. 42; Simcoke v. Frederick, 1
Ind. 54. In Glidden v. Philbrick, 56
Me. 222, it was held that an officer
should not be permitted to amend his
return where it would destroy the
rights of a bona fide purchaser. See,
also, Briggs v. Hogdon, 78 Me. 514.

1 McGhee v. Gainesville, 78 Ga. 790,
8. C. 38. E. R. 670.

2 Watson v. Toms, 42 Mich. 561;
Welsh v. Joy, 13 Pick. (Mass.) 477;
Bates v. Willard, 10 Metc. (Mass.) 62;
State v. Melton, 8 Mo. 417; Spoor v.
Holland, 8 Wend. (N. Y.) 445; Mur-
free on Sheriffs, §§ 875-878.

5 Rickards v. Ladd, 4 Pac. C. L. J.
52; Watkins v. Gayle, 4 Ala. 153.

‘Watkins v. Gayle, 4 Ala. 153; Wil-
cox v. Moudy, 89 Ind. 232; Morrill v.
Fitzgerald, 36 Texas, 275.

*5Shenandoah Valley R. R. Co. ».
Ashby, 86 Va. 232, 8.C.19 Am. St. R.
898; Mills v. Howland, 2 N. Dak. 30,
S. C. 49 N.W. R. 413; Malone v. Sam-
uel, 3 A. K. Marsh. (Ky.) 350, 8. C. 18
Am. Dec: 172, and note, where many
authorities are collected upon this en-
‘tire subject. Bogue v. Prentis, 47 Mich.
124; De Armond v. Adams, 25 Ind.455 ;
New Albany & 8. R. R.Co. v. Grooms, 9

Ind. 248; National Ins. Co. v. Chamber
of Commerce, 69 Ill. 22; Kirkwood v.
Reedy, 10 Kan. 453; Hart v. Adams,
7 Gray (Mass.), 581; Corby v. Burns,
36 Mo. 194. Compare Reinhart v.
Lugo, 86 Cal. 395, and the well mer-
ited criticism of Mr. Freeman thereon,
in the note to said case as reported in
21 Am. St. BR. 52, 56.

6Morris v. Trustees, 15 Ill. 266;
Kitchen v. Reinsky, 42 Mo. 427; Rick-
ards v. Ladd, 4 Pac. C. L. J. 52..

7O’Connor v. Wilson, 57 Ill. 226;
Barlow v. Standford, 82 Ill. 298; Coop-
wood v. Morgan, 34 Miss. 368; Will-
jams v. Doe, 18. & M. 559; Freeman
on Executions, § 358. See, also, Blodg-
ett v. Schaffer, 94 Mo. 652, 7 S. W. R.
436.

® Jeffries v. Rudloff, 73 Iowa, 60, 8.
C.5 Am. St. R. 654; Allison v. Thomas,
72 Cal. 562, 8. C. 1 Am. St. R. 89; Shu-
feldt v. Barlass, 33 Neb. 785, 51 N. W.
R. 134; Austin v. Jordan, 5 Texas, 130;
Johnson v. Day, 17 Pick. (Mass.) 106;
Sawyer v. Harmon, 136 Mass. 414;
Foreman v. Carter, 9 Kan. 674; Pierce
v. Strickland, 2 Story, 292; Scruggs v.
Scruggs, 46 Mo. 271. Compare Jack-
son v. Ohio, etc., R. R. Co., 15 Ind. 192.
436 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 356

may be permitted to amend his return even after the expira-
tion of his official term.!| The return as amended, ordinarily
at least, relates back to and takes the place of the original re-
turn.?

§ 356. Service—By whom.—A summons, being directed to
a certain officer, usually a sheriff, constable or marshal, should
be served by such officer or his deputy, unless the statute makes
provision for service by some one else.? It is frequently pro-
vided by statute, however, that a third person may serve the
summons and make proof of the service by affidavit.‘ But
service of original process by a party to a suit upon his adver-
sary is objectionable, as the law does not authorize a party to
execute process in his own favor.’ And where it is made by

1Dwiggins v. Cook, 71 Ind. 579;
Jeffries v. Rudloff, 73 Iowa, 60, 8.C.5
Am. St. R. 654; Adams v. Robinson,
1 Pick. (Mass.) 461; Lake’s Petition,
15 R. 1.628, 8. C. 10 Atl. R. 653; John-
son v. Donnell, 15 Ill. 97; Miles v.
Davis, 19 Mo. 408; Keen v. Briggs, 46
Me. 467; Bean v. Thompson, 19 N. H.
290; Palmer v. Thayer, 28 Conn. 237.
Contra, Armstrong v. Easton, 1 B.
Mon. (Ky.) 66; Jessup v. Gragg, 12
Ga. 261. But not without the order of
the court. Beutell v. Oliver, 89 Ga. 246,
158.E.R. 307. See, also, Thatcher v.
Miller, 18 Mass. 270; O’Conner v.
Wilson, 57 Ill. 226, where the court
refused to allow the amendment be-
cause of lapse of time. But, compare
Gilman v. Stetson, 16 Me. 124; O’Brien
v. Gaslin, 20 Neb. 347; Shenandoah
Valley R. R. Co. v. Ashby, 86 Va. 232.

?Lake, Petitioner, 15 R. I. 628;
Capehart v. Cunningham, 12 W. Va.
750; People v. Ames, 35 N. Y. 482, S.
C. 91 Am. Dec. 64; Hill v. Cunning-
ham, 25 Texas, 25.

8 Schwabacker v. Reilly, 2 Dill. 127;
Kyle v. Kyle, 55 Ind. 387; Grantier v.
Rosecrance, 27 Wis. 488; Callaway v.

Harrold, 61 Ga. 111; Rudd v. Thomp-
son, 22 Ark. 363; Hickey v. Forristal,
49 Ill. 255. Anda summons directed
to a sheriff of one county can not, it.
has been held, be served by the dep-
uty sheriff of another county. Bran-
ner v. Chapman, 11 Kan. 118. As to
service by de facto officer, see Fowler
v. Bebee, 9 Mass. 231, and compare
Putnam v. Man, 3 Wend. (N. Y.) 202,
8. C. 20 Am. Dec. 686.

*See New Albany & Salem R. R. Co.
v. Grooms, 9 Ind. 248; Proctor v.Walk-
er, 12 Ind. 660; Rev. St. Ind. 81, § 481;
Coffee v. Gates, 28 Ark. 43; Peck v.
Strauss, 33 Cal. 678; Myers v. Over-
ton, 2 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 344. And it
has been held that where the writ is.
directed to the wrong officer but served
by the right one, the proceedings based
thereon are not necessarily void. Ware
v. Todd, 1 Ala. 199; Sawyer v. Price,
6 Ala. 285.

5 Snydacker v. Brosse, 51 Ill. 357, 8.
C.99 Am. Dec.551; Hemmer v. Wolfer,
124 Tl. 435, S.C. 11N. E. R. 885; Boy-
kin v. Edwards, 21 Ala. 261; Morton
v. Crane, 89 Mich. 526; Clark v. Pat-:
terson, 58 Vt. 676.
§ 357 BRINGING THE ACTION—PROCESS. 437

an officer it should, of course, be by the proper officer of the
county in which it is made,! unless otherwise provided by statute.

§ 357. Personal service.—In the absence of any express
statutory provision as to the manner and mode of service, per-
sonal service is generally essential.? So, if it appears from a
reasonable construction of the statute that personal service is
contemplated, no other can be substituted over the objection
of the defendant properly made.* Strictly, personal service is
service by reading and delivering the original or a copy of the
summons, or by merely delivering such copy, to the defendant
by the proper officer or person authorized to serve the writ,
and showing the original, if demanded.‘ Inarecent Nebraska
case it was held that delivery by the sheriff of two copies of a
summons against husband and wife to the husband alone, and
the delivery of one of them by the husband to the wife, in the
sight of the sheriff, did not constitute. personal service on the
wife.© But where a man, in order to avoid service of sum-
mons, dressed in his wife’s clothes, and refused to take the
writ in his hands, laying the summons on his shoulder was
held a good and sufficient personal service.6 Where, how-
ever, the person to be served was too drunk or too ill to un-
derstand what was done the service was held invalid.’

§ 358. Service by leaving copy at place of residence.—It is

1 Wirtz v. Henry, 59 Ill. 109; First
Nat. Bank v. Dwight, 85 Mich. 509;
Ford v. Adams, 54 Ark. 137; Lillard
v. Brannin (Ky.), 16 S. W. R. 349;
Cresswell v. McCaig, 11 Neb. 222.

2 Read v. French, 28 N.Y. 285; Rath-
burn v. Acker, 18 Barb. 393; Brydolf
v. Wolf, 32 Iowa, 509; Wilson v. City
of Trenton (N. J.), 16 L. R. A. 200,
and note; Chicago & A. R. R. Co. v.
Smith, 78 Ill. 96; St. Louis ». Goebel,
32 Mo. 295; Sleeper v. Free Baptist
Ass’n, 58 N. H. 27.

8 Bond v, Whitfield, 28 Ga. 537.

«See Simmons v. Gardiner, 6 R. I.
255; Smith v. Kerr, 49 Hun (N. Y.),

29; Goggs v. Huntingtower, 12 Mees.
& W. 503; Hart v. Gray, 3 Sumn. (U.
8.) 339; Wilson v. City of Trenton
(N. J.), 16 L. R. A. 200, and note.
Reading alone has been held sufficient
under the Wisconsin statute. Green
v. State, 56 Wis. 583.

5 Holliday v. Brown, 50 N. W. R.
1042. To same effect is Williams v.
Van Valkenburg, 16 How. Pr. (N. Y.)
144,

® Martin v, Raffin, 21 N. Y. 8. 1043.
See, also, Borden v. Borden, 63 Wis.
374; People v. Bernal, 43 Cal. 385.

™Murphy v. Loos, 104 Ill. 514; Peo-
ple v. Judge, 38 Mich. 310.
438 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 358

frequently provided that a summons may also be served by
leaving a copy at the last or usual abode, or place of residence
of the defendant. This is usually called substituted service,
although it is sometimes called personal service as distinguished
from service by publication.? Under such a statute it is not
sufficient to leave a copy at the defendant’s place of business.’
The phrase, ‘‘last or usual place of residence’’ has been con-
strued as meaning the residence into which the defendant,
while still a resident of the State, has moved in the State, last
before the service of process.‘ If the defendant has established
himself in business in another State and become a citizen
thereof, with the intention of making such place his perma-
nent residence and removing his family there when conven-
ient, leaving a copy of a summons with a member of his family
at his old residence is not a good service upon him, under a
statute providing that a copy may be left with a member of
the defendant’s family at his usual place of residence.’ It is
sometimes provided that this kind of service can be resorted
to only when the party to be served can not be found, so that
personal service would be impracticable,* and in such cases the

return should show that he could not be found.’

1 Chittenden v. Hobbs, 9 Iowa, 417.

2Dunkle v. Elston, 71 Ind. 585.

3 Lambert v. Sample, 25 Ohio St. 336 ;
Winchester v. Cox, 3 Green (Iowa),
575; McConkey v. McCraney, 71 Wis.
576; Hewitt v. Weatherby, 57 Mo. 276.
See, also, Arnault v. St. Julien, 21 La.
Ann. 630; Adams v. Abram, 38 Mich.
302; Kibbe v. Benson, 17 Wall. (U.
S.) 624.

‘Sturgis v. Fay, 16 Ind. 429. Al-
though a person has disappeared from
his home, but without expressing any
intention not to return, process left
with his wife at his usual place of
abode, nine days after his disappear-
ance, is sufficient to give the court ju-
risdiction. Botna Valley State Bank
v. Silver City Bank (Iowa), 54 N. W.
R. 472. As to boarding-house being

In a case de-

place of abode, see Lee v. Macfee, 45
Minn. 33, and compare White »v.
Primm, 36 Ill. 416. See, generally,
Earl v. McVeigh, 91 U.8.503; Hyslop
v. Hoppock, 5 Ben. (U. 8.) 447; Har-
rison v. Farrington, 35 N. J. Eq. 4;
Succession of McCalop, 10 La. Ann.
224; Laney v. Garbee, 105 Mo. 355.

5Schlawig v. De Peyster, 83 Ia. 323,
§.C. 13 L. R. A. 785, 8. C. 49 N. W. R.
843. See, also, Earl v. McVeigh, 91 U.
8. 503; Piggott v. Snell, 59 Ill. 106;
Wolff v. Shenandoah National Bank
(Iowa), 50 N. W. R. 561.

® Davis v. Burt, 7 Iowa, 56; Chitten-
den v. Hobbs, 9 Iowa, 417; Trullenger
v. Todd, 5 Ore. 36.

™Matteson v. Smith, 37 Wis. 333;
Settlemier v. Sullivan, 97 U. S. 444.
439

§ 358 _BRINGING THE ACTION—PROCESS.

cided by the Supreme Court of the United States the sheriff’s
return showed that the summons was served by delivering it
to the wife of the defendant at his usual place of abode, but
contained no statement that he could not be found. Judgment
was rendered against him at the next term, reciting that ‘‘the
defendant, although duly served with process, came not, but
made default.’’ A majority of the court held that no jurisdic-
tion was acquired by such service, and that the judgment was
void.1 We are of the opinion, however, that this decision is
unsound and contrary to the general rule governing collateral
attacks.? Of course, if there is no provision made for any such
service, and it is wholly unauthorized, a different rule would
apply from that for which we here contend. In such a case
there is not merely an irregularity in the service; there is no
service at all, and, if the record shows that fact, it may well
be held that a judgment based thereon is void and subject to
collateral attack.? Many of the statutes not only provide that
the summons shall be left at the defendant’s last and usual
place of residence or abode, but also that it must be left with
some member of his family or some suitable person over a
specified age. Such provisions should be carefully complied ©
with, and the return should show all the necessary facts.*

See

1Settlemier v. Sullivan, 97 U. 8. 444.

2 This was a collateral attack upon a
judgment and the lower court had ex-
pressly found that process was duly
served. The only irregularity was
that the return of the sheriff failed to
show that the defendant could not be
found. The presumption, even in the
absence of an express finding, was
that all necessary steps had been
taken in order to acquire jurisdiction.
It did not necessarily follow because
the return was silent as to some of the
steps that they had not been taken,
and the court expressly found that
they had been taken. It seems clear
to us that the three dissenting judges
were undoubtedly right in holding
that there could be no sucgessful col-

lateral attack in such a case.
Taylor v.Webb, 54 Miss. 36; Bonsall v.
Isett, 14 Iowa, 309; Freeman v. Karr,
34 Ill. App. 646; Steinam v. Strauss,
18 N.Y. Supp. 48; Hemmerv. Wolfer,
124 Ill. 435; Ford v. Delta, ete., Co.,
43 Fed. R. 181.

3 Hobby v. Bunch, 83 Ga. 1, S. C. 20
Am. St. R. 301, 305.

* Mack v. Brown, 73 Ill. 295; Mullins
v. Sparks, 43 Miss. 129; Cole v. Hocha,
21 La. Ann. 613; Von Roy v. Black-
man, 3 Woods (U.S8.), 98; Hammond
v. Olive, 44 Miss. 543; Wilkinson v.
Bayley, 71 Wis. 131; Wheeler v. Wil-
kins, 19 Mich. 78. Of course the ser-
vice can not be made upon the plaint-
iff himself, although he is a member
of the defendant’s family. Hemmer
440 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 359

§ 359. Serviee on corporations.—At common law service on
the officers of a domestic corporation was held to be service on
the corporation,’ but jurisdiction over a foreign corporation
could not be thus acquired.?_ The entire subject of service on
corporations, whether foreign or domestic, is now regulated
largely by statute. Legislative enactments providing that if a
foreign corporation does business in the State service may be
had upon its managing agent or head officer in the State in the
same manner as in case of a domestic corporation are consti-
tutional.? The service should be made upon the agent desig-
nated by the statute, and the return should show his official
position in such a manner as to make it clear that the service
was upon the officer or agent designated by the statute, and
that he was served in his official or representative character.*
So it has been held that where the statute permits service upon
a subordinate officer only when the president or highest officer
is absent or a non-resident, the return of service upon the sub-
ordinate officer should show the absence or non-residence of

v. Wolfer, 124 Ill. 4385, S.C. 11 N. E.
R. 885.

1Merriwether v. Bank, Dud. (S.
Car.) 36; McQueen v. Middletown
Mfg. Co., 16 Johns. (N. Y.) 5; Hart-
ford City Fire Ins. Co. v. Carrugi, 41
Ga. 660; Heltzell v. Chicago, etc., R.
R. Co., 77 Mo. 815; 1 Tidd’s Pr., 121.

2 Barnett v. Chicago, etc., R. R. Co.,
4 Hun (N.Y.),114; Peckham v. North
Parish, 16 Pick. (Mass.) 274. See,
also, Middough v. St. Joseph, etc., R.
R. Co., 51 Mo. 520.

5 Moulin v. Ins. Co., 24 N. J. L. 222;
Nat. Bank of Commerce v. Hunting-
ton, 129 Mass. 444; Gibson v. Manu-
facturers, etc., Co., 144 Mass. 81; Rail-
road Co. v. Harris, 12 Wall. (U. 8.)
65, 81; Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. (U.
S.) 168; Lafayette Ins. Co. v. French,
18 How. (U. 8.) 404; Hagerman »v.
Empire State Co., 97 Pa. St. 5384; Mce-
Nichol v. United States Mercantile
Rep. Agency, 74 Mo. 457; Mineral

Point R. R. Co. v. Keep, 22 Ill. 9, 8.
C. 74 Am. Dec. 124; Hannibal, etc.,
R. R. v. Crane, 102 Ill. 249. And, as
held in many of the cases just cited,
the legislature may require the ap-
pointment of a resident agent to ac-
cept service as a condition pre¢edent
to transacting business in the State.
*Jones v. Hartford Ins. Co., 88 N.
Car. 499; Powder Co. v. Oakdale, etc.,
Co., 14 Phila. (Pa.) 166; Oxford Iron
Co. v. Spradley, 42 Ala. 24; O’Brien
v. Shaw’s Flat, 10 Cal. 343; Great
West. Mining Co. v. Woodmas, etc.,
Co., 12 Col. 46, S.C. 18 Am. St. R.
204; Lake Shore, etc., R’y Co. v. Hunt,
39 Mich. 469; Dickerson v. Burling-
ton, etc., R. R. Co., 43 Kan. 702, S.C.
23 Pac. R. 936; Plemmons v. So. Imp.
Co., 108 N. Car. 614, 8. C. 13 8. E. R.
188; Amy v. Watertown, 130 U.S. 301,
8. C.9 Sup. Ct. R. 530. In a recent
case it was held that service upon the
deputy secretary of State was insufli-
§ 359 BRINGING THE ACTION—PROCESS. 441
the president.1 It is usually provided that service shall be
made upon the ‘‘general managing agent”’ or ‘‘head officer’’
in the State, and it is sometimes difficult to determine who is
such ‘‘managing agent’’ or ‘‘head officer.’’ A general super-
intendent of‘a railroad company has been held to be its man-
aging agent under such a statute.?, So has a local express
agent* and an insurance agent having full charge of the com-
pany’s business;* but ticket sellers,° baggage-masters,® and
agents to solicit insurance, without authority to consummate
it,’ have been held not to be general managing agents. Much

depends upon the circumstances of each particular case, and

“the only general rule that can

cient under a statute providing for
service upon the secretary of State as
agent of foreign corporations. Lonkey
v. Keyes Silver Mining Co. (Nev.), 17
L. R. A. 351.

1St. Louis, Alton & T. H. R. R. Co.
v. Dorsey, 47 Ill. 288; Miller v. Nor-
folk, ete., R. R. Co., 41 Fed. R. 431;
Toledo, W. & W. R’y Co. v. Owen, 43
Ind. 405; Hoen v. Atlantic, etc., R.
R. Co., 64 Mo. 561. Compare Comet
Consolidated Min. Co. v. Frost, 15
Col. 810, S. C. 25 Pac. R. 506; Kansas
' City, ete., R. R. Co. v. Daughtry, 138
U.S. 298, S. C. 11 Sup. Ct. R. 306.

?Commerce Bank v. Rutland, etc.,
R. R. Co., 10 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 1.
has a general passenger agent. Tuch-
band v. Chicago, etc., R. R. Co., 115
N. Y. 487. But compare Maxwell v.
Atchison, etc., R. R. Co., 34 Fed. R.
286.

5 Adams Express Oo. v. St. John, 17
Ohio St. 641.

4 Bain v. Globe Ins. Co., 9 How. Pr.
(N. Y.) 448.

5 Doty v. Mich. Cent. R. R. Co., 8
Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 427; Mackereth v.
Glasgow, etc., R. R. Co., L. R., 8 Exch.
149. See, however, Smith v. Chicago,
etc., R. R. Co., 60 Iowa, 512; Missouri
Pac. R. R. Co. v. Collier, 62 Texas, 318.

So.

be laid down upon the subject

Flynn v. Hudson River R. R. Co.»
6 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 308.

™Parke v. Com. Ins. Co., 44 Pa. St.
422; Connors v. Prudential Ins. Co.,
11 Pa. Co. Ct. 50.

8 Other cases showing who are and
who are not regarded as managing
agents, are cited and reviewed in the
note to Hampson v. Weare, 66 Am.
Dec. 116, 120. See, also, Eddy v. La-
fayette, 49 Fed. R. 807; Goltschalk Co.
v. Distilling, etc., Co., 50 Fed. R. 681;
Burgess v. Aultman, 80 Wis. 292; Chi-
cago, B. & Q. R. R. Co. v. Manning,
23 Neb. 552, §. C. 37 N. W. R. 462;
Dillard v. Central Va. Iron Co., 82 Va.
734, 8. C.18. E. R. 124; Berlin Iron
Bridge Co. v. Norton, 51 N. J. L. 442,
§. 0.17 Atl. R. 1079; New Albany &
8. R. R. Co. v. Grooms, 9 Ind. 243;
‘Rehm v. German Ins. etc., Co., 125
Ind. 135, 8. C. 25 N. E. R. 173; Win-
slow v. Staten Island, etc., Co., 21 N.
Y.S. R. 87; Taylor v. Granite, etc.,
Ass’n, 136 N. Y. 343, 8. C. 32 N. E. R.
992; Southwestern Mut. Ben. Ass’n v.
Swenson, 49 Kan. 449, 8. C. 30 Pac. R.
405; Winney v. Sandwich, etc., Co., 84
Iowa, —, 8. C. 50 N-W.R. 565; Van
Dresser v. Oregon, etc., Co., 48 Fed.
R. 202; Wilson v. Martin-Wilson, etc.,
Co., 149 Mass. 24.
442

THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 360

is that service, under such statutes, must be made upon a head
officer or agent who has general supervision of the affairs of
the corporation, and whose knowledge is that of the corpora-
tion.!. Service can not be had upon an officer or agent of a
foreign corporation which has no office and transacts no busi-
ness within the State, while such officer is casually in the
State upon his own private business.?

§ 360. Service on partners.—Where partners are sued, ser-
vice should be had upon all the partners, if possible, in order
to obtain a personal judgment enforceable against their indi-
vidual property; but the legislature may authorize judgment
to be entered against a partnership upon service on any one or
more of the partners, enforceable against the partnership prop-
erty and the individual property of the partners who are prop-
erly served.? It is doubtful, however, if a personal judgment
can be rendered against a non-resident partner, who is not
served and who does not appear, so as to be enforceable against
his individual property, and the weight of authority seems to
be to the effect that statutes attempting to authorize a personal

1Newby v. Colt’s Pat., etc., Co., L. §. 350, 8. C.1 Sup. Ct. R. 354; Phillips

R., 7 Q. B. 293; Weight v. Liverpool,
etc., Ins. Co., 30 La. Ann. 1186;
Upper Miss. Transp. Co. v. Whittaker,
16 Wis. 220; Emerson v. Auburn, 13
Hun (N. Y.), 150; Waco v. Wheeler,
59 Texas, 554; Blanc v. Paymaster
Mining Co., 95 Cal. 524, 8. C. 29 Am.
St. R. 149 (service on clerk insuffi-
cient); Great West Mining Co. v.
Woodmas, etc., Co., 12 Col. 46, 8. C.
13 Am. St. R. 204 (service on foreman
insufficient) ; Barrett v. Am. Tel., etc.,
Co. (N. Y.), 84 N. E. R. 289 (service
on general superintendent sufficient) ;
Taylor v. Granite, etc., Ass’n, 136 N.
Y. 343, 8S. C. 32 N. E. R. 992 (service
on attorney insufficient).

2 Fitzgerald & Mallory Const. Co. v.
Fitzgerald, 187 U. 8. 98, 8. C. 11 Sup.
Ct. R. 36, 89; St. Clair v. Cox, 106 U.

v. Library Co., 141 Pa. St. 462, S.C. 21
Atl. R. 640; Galveston City R. R. Co.
v. Hook, 40 Ill. App. 547. Compare
Klopp v. Creston City, etc., Co.(Neb.),
52 N. W. R. 819; Shickle, etc., Iron
Co. v. Wiley Construction OCo., 61
Mich. 226, 8. C. 1 Am. St. R. 571.

3 Sugg v. Thornton, 132 U.S. 524, 8.
C. 10 Supt. Ct. R. 163; Patten v. Cun-
nington, 63 Texas, 666; Burnett v.
Sullivan, 58 Texas, 535; Johnson v.
Lough, 22 Minn. 203; Harker v. Brink,
24.N. J. L. 333; Winters v. Means, 25
Neb. 241, S. C. 13 Am. St. R. 489;
Gunzberg v. Miller, 39 Mich. 80. See,
also, Parker v. Danforth, 16 Mass. 299;
Nixon v. Downey,42 Iowa, 78; Demoss
v. Brewster, 12 Miss. 661; Anderson
v. Arnette, 27 La. Ann. 287.
§ 361 BRINGING THE ACTION—PROCESS. 443

judgment and execution against such a partner and his indi-
vidual property are unconstitutional.!

§ 361. Service on infants.—Except where otherwise pro-
vided, personal service should be made upon infants in the
same manner as upon adults.2- An infant is not bound by a
waiver of such service either by himself or his guardian. In
some States it is also provided that the father, mother, or
guardian of the infant must also be served with process.‘
Where there has been no personal service upon an infant a
judgment as against him is generally considered voidable,® al-
though there are some authorities which hold it absolutely

void.®

1 Tay v. Hawley, 39 Cal. 93; Bruen
v. Bokee, 4 Denio (N. Y.), 56, S. C. 47
Am. Dec. 239; Wood v. Watkinson,
17 Conn. 500, 8. C. 44 Am. Dee. 562,
and note; Mason v. Eldred, 6 Wall.
(U. 8.) 231; United States v. Ameri-
can Bell Telephone Co., 29 Fed. R.
17; Oakley v. Aspinwall, 4 N. Y. 514;
Public Works v. Columbia College, 17
Wall. (U. 8.)'527. Compare Whit-
more v. Shiverick, 3 Nev. 288; Gui-
mond v. Nast, 44 Texas, 114; Kidd v.
Brown, 2 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 20; Swift
v. Stark, 2 Ore. 97.

2 Abdil v. Abdil, 26 Ind. 287; Hough
». Canby, 8 Blackf. (Ind.) 301; Cole-
man v. Coleman, 3 Dana (Ky.), 398,
8. C. 28 Am. Dec. 86; Larkins v. Bul-
lard, 88 N. Car. 35; Helms v. Chad-
bourne, 45 Wis. 60; Hickenbotham v.
Blackledge, 54111. 316; Galpin v. Page,
18 Wall. (U. 8.) 350; Johnston v. San
Francisco Savings Ass’n, 63 Cal. 554;
Baumgartner v. Guessfield, 38 Mo. 36.

5 Robbins v. Robbins, 2 Ind. 74; De
La ‘Hunt v. Holderbaugh, 58 Ind. 285;
Ingersoll v. Mangam, 84 N. Y. 622;
Wheeler'v. Ahrenbeak, 54 Texas, 535;
Genobles v. West, 23 So. Car. 154;
Clark v. Thompson, 47 Ill. 25, 8. C. 95

Am. Dec, 457, and note; Donlin v.
Hettinger, 57 111.348; Bonnell v. Holt,
89 Ill. 71; Hawes on Juris., § 321.

* Ingersoll v. Ingersoll, 42 Miss. 155;
Johnson v. McCabe, 42 Miss. 255;
Billups v. Brander, 56 Miss. 495; Bel-
lamy v. Guhl, 62 How. Pr.(N. Y.) 460;
Cox v. Story, 80 Ky. 64; McDermott
v. Thompson, 29 Fla. 299, S. C. 10 So.
R. 584; Moulton v. Moulton, 47 Hun
(N. Y.), 606; Dohms v. Mann, 76 Ia.
723; Stearns v. Wallace, 58 N. H. 228;
Faust v. Faust, 31 So. Car. 576; Gay
v. Grant, 101 N. Car. 206.

5 Robb v. Lessee of Irwin, 15 Ohio,
689; McAnear v. Epperson, 54 Texas,
220, 8. C. 38 Am. R. 625; Preston v.
Dunn, 25 Ala. 507; Larkins v. Bullard,
88 N. Car. 35; Gronfier v. Puymirol,
19 Cal. 629; Bernecker v. Miller, 44
Mo. 102; Frierson v. Travis, 39 Ala.
150. See, also, 10 Am. & Eng. Ency.
of Law, 690, note.

® Insurance Co. v. Bangs, 103 U. S.
435; Whitney v. Porter, 23 Ill. 445;
Piercy v. Piercy, 5 W. Va. 199; Me-
Daniel v. Correll, 19 Ill. 226, S. C. 68
Am. Dec. 587; Allsmiller v. Freutch-
enicht, 86 Ky. 198, 8. C.58.W. R. 746.
444 ~ THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 362

§ 362. Service by publication.—It is provided by statute in
most, if not all, of the States, that in certain classes of cases
notice of the pendency of an action may be given by publica-
tion in a newspaper. Service of process in this mode is called
constructive service. It is generally authorized where the de-
fendant has property within the jurisdiction of the court, as in
cases of attachment, and suits to foreclose mortgages, or to de-
termine and quiet title to land within the State, and the de-
fendant is a non-resident or has absconded, making it impos-
sible to get personal service upon him.! It is also used exten-
sively in divorce proceedings.? Statutes providing for service
by publication, in all such cases have been held constitutional.®
But a strictly personal judgment can not be rendered upon
such service.* And in a recent case, it was expressly held
that a statute assuming to authorize service by publication
upon resident defendants in actions strictly in personam, is

unconstitutional.®

1 See Sexton v. Rhames, 13 Wis. 99;
Bobb v. Woodward, 42 Mo. 482; Peo-
ple v. Huber, 20 Cal. 81; Lawrence v.
State, 30 Ark. 719; Lovejoy v. Lunt,
48 Me. 877; Cook v. Farren, 34 Barb.
(N. Y.) 95.

2 See Pomeroy v. Betts, 31 Mo. 419;
Jarvis v. Barrett, 14 Wis. 591; Wilson
v. Ladd, 49 Me. 73; Estate of Newman,
75 Cal. 213, 8. C. 7 Am. St. R. 146, and
note.

J Arndt v. Griggs, 134 U.S. 316, S.
C. 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 557; Angell v. An-
gell, 14 R. I. 541; Mason v. Messen-
ger, 17 Iowa, 261; Palmer v. McCor-
mick, 28 Fed. R. 541; Shepherd v.
_Ware, 46 Minn. 174, 8. C. 24 Am. St.
R. 212; Perkins v. Wakeham, 86 Cal.
580, S. C. 21 Am. St. Rep. 67; Hogle
v. Mott, 62 Vt. 255, 8. C. 22 Am. St.
Rep. 106; Wunstel v. Landry, 39 La.
Ann. 312, 8. C. 1So0. Rep. 893; Dillon
v. Heller, 89 Kan. 599, 8. C. 18 Pac. R.
693; Essig v. Lower, 120 Ind. 239, S,
C. 21 N. E. R. 1090; Mellen v. Iron

Works, 131 U. 8. 352, 8. C. 9 Sup. Ct.
Rep. 781; Watson v. Ulbrich, 18 Neb.
186, 8. C. 24 N. W. R. 732. Perhaps
it would be better to say that they are
not necessarily unconstitutional.

*Sowders v. Edmunds, 76 Ind. 123;
Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. 8. 714; Cloyd
v. Trotter, 118 Tl. 391; Lydiard ».
Chute, 45 Minn. 277; Bank v. Carter,
88 Tenn. 279; Belcher v. Chambers,
53 Cal. 635; Dillon v. Heller, 39 Kan.
599; Augusta Savings Bank v. Stelling,
31 So. Car. 360; York v. State, 73 Tex.
651; Cooper v. Smith, 25 Iowa, 269;
Bartlett v. Spicer, 75 N. Y. 528; Hart
v. Sansom, 110 U. 8. 151; Denny v.
Ashley, 12 Col. 165; Dearing v. Bank,
5 Ga. 497, 8. C.48 Am. Dec. 300, and
note to Flint River Steamboat Co. »v.
Foster, 48 Am. Dec. 248, 273.

5 Bardwell v. Collins, 44 Minn. 97,
S.C. 20 Am. St. R. 547. This was a
suit to foreclose a mortgage, yet it was
held a proceeding in personam.
445

§ 363 BRINGING THE ACTION—PROCESS.

§ 363. Statute must be strictly followed.—As service by
publication is a statutory mode of service, the provisions and
requirements of the statute must be strictly complied with.!
But defects that might be fatal upon a direct attack will not
always render a judgment based upon such service absolutely
void when attacked collaterally.2, Thus it has been held that
a judgment is not subject to collateral attack because the affi-
davit for publication omitted the name of the plaintiff and the
usual caption, when properly filed in the cause. So, where
the affidavit simply alleged non-residence and failed to ex-
pressly state that the defendant was a necessary party.4 So,
too, where the affidavit states facts showing the existence of
the statutory grounds for publication, and not mere opinions or
conclusions of law, but states them too generally.6 But in
other cases, many of which can not easily be distinguished
from some of those just cited, the defects or omissions in the
affidavit were held sufficient to make the judgment void and

subject to collateral attack.®
}

1 Likens v. McCormick, 39 Wis. 313;
Scorpion, etc., Co. v. Marsano, 10 Nev.
870; Allen v. Bankston, 33 Ark. 740;
Hartley v. Boynton, 17 Fed. R. 873;
Beckett v. Cuenin, 15 Col. 281, 8. C. 22
Am. St. R. 399, and note; Byrnes v.
Sampson, 74 Texas, 79; Cassidy v.
Woodward, 77 Iowa, 354. But see
Quarl v. Abbett, 102 Ind. 233; 3 Blk.
Com. 283, 444.

2See Ogden v. Walters, 12 Kan. 282;
Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. 8. 714; Bel-
mont v. Cornen, 82 N. Y. 256; Lawson
v. Moorman, 85 Va. 880; Hardy »v.
Beaty, 84 Texas, 562, 8. C. 31 Am. St.
R. 80, and cases cited in the following
notes. ;

3 Harris v. Lester, 80 Ill. 307, 311;
Palmer v. McCormick, 30 Fed. R. 82.

‘Carrico v. Tarwater, 103 Ind. 86.
See, also, Dowell v. Lahr, 97 Ind. 146,
151; Essig v. Lower, 120 Ind. 239, 241,
§. C. 21 N. E. R. 1090.

The same conflict exists among

> Britton v. Larson, 23 Neb. 806, 8S.
C. 37 N. W. R. 681; Little v. Cham-
bers, 27 Iowa, 522, 526; Howe Machine
Co. v. Pettibone, 74 N. Y. 68; Harri-
son v. Beard, 30 Kan. 532; Barton v.
Sanders, 16 Ore. 51, 8S. C. 16 Pac. R.
921; Ogden v. Walters, 12 Kan. 282,
293; Shippen v. Kimball, 47 Kan. 173,
8. C. 27 Pac. R. 813; Carr’s Adm’r v.
Carr (Ky.), 18S. W. R. 453.

Nelson v. Ronntree, 23 Wis. 367;
Harris v. Claflin, 36 Kan. 543, §. 0.13
Pac. R. 830; Atkins v. Atkins, 9 Neb.
191; Harrington v. Loomis, 10 Minn.
3866; Alderson v. Marshall, 7 Mont.
288, S. C. 16 Pac. R. 576; Drysdale v.
Biloxi Canning Co., 67 Miss. 534, S.
C. 7 So. R. 541; Charles v. Morrow, 99
Mo. 638, 8. C. 12 S. W. R. 903; Ste-
gall v. Huff, 54 Tex. 193; Hull v. Hull,
85 W. Va. 155, S. C. 29 Am. St. R.
800.
446 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 364

the authorities as to the effect of errors, and omissions in the
order for publication! and in the notice itself.?

§ 364. Affidavit for publication.—It is generally provided
that an affidavit should first be filed as an essential requisite
to a valid notice by publication, stating the facts required by
statute to authorize service by publication.? Thus, it has been
held that it should show the existence and nature of the cause
of action,‘ that the defendant is a non-resident,® and, under
some statutes, that, although the plaintiff had used due dili-
gence in attempting to find him, he could not be found within
the State,® that he has property within the State,’ and all other

1 Cases in which the error or defect
was held not to be fatal on collateral
attack: Cason v. Cason, 31 Miss.
578; Ward v. Lowndes, 96 N. Car. 367;
Anderson v. Goff, 72 Cal. 65; Blight’s
Heirs v. Banks, 6 T. B. Mon. (Ky.)
192, S. C. 17 Am. Dec. 136; Kane v.
McCown, 55 Mo. 181 (but compare
Otis v. Epperson, 88 Mo. 131); Will-
jams v. Williams, 125 Ind. 156, S. C.
25 N. E. R. 176. Cases in which the
error or defect was held to render the
judgment absolutely void: Eastman
v. Linn, 26 Minn, 215; Brown v. Cor-
bin, 40 Minn. 508, 8. C. 42 N. W. R.
481; Russell v. Gilson, 36 Minn. 366,
8. C. 31 N. W. R. 692; Bardsley »v,
Hines, 33 Ia. 157; Royer v. Foster, 62
Towa, 321, S. C. 17 N.W.R.516; Odell
v. Campbell, 9 Ore. 298.

2 Held not fatal on collateral attack
in Woodbury v. Maguire, 42 Iowa, 339;
Dahms v. Alston, 72 Iowa, 411, 8. C.
34.N. W. R. 182; Lane v. Innes, 43
Minn. 187, 8. C. 45 N. W. R. 4; Mc-
Mullen v. State, 105 Ind. 334, 8. C. 4
N. E. R. 908; Morgan v. Woods, 33
Ind. 23; Loring v. Binney, 38 Hun
(N. Y.), 152;Johnson v. Gage, 57 Mo.
160; Moore v. Neil, 39 Ill. 256, S. C.
89 Am. Dec. 303; Jasper Co. v. Wad-
low, 82 Mo. 172. Held fatal upon col-

lateral attack in Wescott v. Archer, 12
Neb. 345, S. C. 11 N. W. R. 491; Stew-
art v. Anderson, 70 Texas, 588, S. C. 8
S.W. R. 295; Frazier v. Miles, 10 Neb.
109, 8. C.4.N. W. BR. 930; Brownfield
v. Dyer, 7 Bush. (Ky.) 505; Bird v.
Norquist, 46 Minn. 318, 8. C. 48N. W.
R. 1132.

5 See Schell v. Leland, 45 Mo. 289;
Bardsley v. Hines, 33 Iowa, 157; Mer-
rill v. Montgomery, 25 Mich. 73; Beck-
ett v. Cuenin, 15 Col. 281,8.C. 22 Am.
St. R. 399.

*Claypool v. Houston, 12 Kan. 324;
Fontaine v. Houston, 58 Ind. 316; At-
kins v. Atkins, 9 Neb. 191; Slocum v.
Slocum, 17 Wis. 150; Forbes v. Hyde,
31 Cal. 342.

5 Fontaine v. Houston, 58 Ind. 316;
Bixby v. Smith, 49 How. Pr.(N.Y.)50.

®Easterbrook v. Easterbrook, 64
Barb.(N.Y.) 421; McCracken v. Flan-
agan, 127 N. Y. 493, 8. C. 24 Am. St.
R. 481; Bixby v. Smith, 49 How. Pr.
(N.Y.)50; Mackubin v. Smith, 5 Minn.
367; Chase v. Kaynor, 78 Iowa, 449, 8S.
C. 43 N. W. Rep. 269; McDonald ».
Cooper, 32 Fed. R. 745.

TSpiers v. Halstead, 71 N. Car. 209;
Manning v. Heady, 64 Wis. 630, 8. C.
25 N. W. R. 1.

«
§ 365 BRINGING THE ACTION—PROCESS. 447

jurisdictional facts required by statute.!_ But, as already stated,
merely formal defects or irregularities will not necessarily ren-
der the affidavit subject to collateral attack;? and it has been
held that where a collateral attack is made upon a domestic
judgment of a court of general jurisdiction it will be presumed,
_in the absence of anything to the contrary, that a proper affi-
davit was made, although none is found in the record.®

§ 365. Order and notice.—A valid order is necessary to sup-
port service by publication as against a direct attack. It must
comply with the statutory requirements in all material respects.®
Thus, where the statute requires the order to be made by the
court, the order of the clerk is insufficient, and will not, it has
been held, support a judgment by default even as against a
collateral attack. But, under a statute providing that the
order must direct service by publication for a specified time,
‘for, at the option of the plaintiff, by service of the summons,
and of a copy of the complaint and order, without the State,
upon the defendant personally,’’ it was held that the order need
not direct both modes of service. The court said that, while
the order might properly direct both modes of service, it might
just as properly direct either mode alone, and if followed by
due service in that manner the service would be good.’ The
order and notice should be harmonious,® and it is customary to

1See Braly v. Seaman, 30 Cal. 610; 5 Fetes v. Volmer, 8 N. Y. Supp. 294;

Drake v. Hale, 38 Mo. 346; Riley v.
Nichols, 1 Heisk. (Tenn.) 16; Cissell
v. Pulaski Co., 10 Fed. R. 891.

2See § 363, ante. (Statute must be
strictly followed.)

3 Hardy v. Beaty, 84 Texas, 562, 8.
C. 31 Am. St. R. 80, 84. See, also,
Williams v. Haynes, 77 Texas, 283, 8.
C.19 Am. St. R. 752, and note; post,
§ 368. (Proof of publication.)

‘Frisk v. Reigelman, 75 Wis. 499,
8. C. 43 N. W. R. 1117; Beaupre v.
Brigham, 79 Wis. 436, 8. C. 48 N. W.
R. 596; New York Baptist Union v.
Atwell, 95 Mich. 239, 8. C. 54 N. W.
R. 760.

Odell v. Campbell, 9 Ore. 298.

® Bardsley v. Hines, 33 Iowa, 157;
Royer v. Foster, 62 Iowa, 321, 8. C.17
N.W. R. 516; Townsend v. Tallant, 33
Cal. 45. But these decisions are of
questionable soundness in so far as
they hold the proceedings subject to
collateral attack. See Williams v.
Williams, 125 Ind. 156, 8. C. 25 N. E.
R. 176.

™ Matter of Field, 181 N.Y. 184, over-
ruling Ritten v. Griffith, 16 Hun, 454.

8 See Pomeroy v. Betts, 31 Mo. 419;
Elee v. Wait, 28 Il. 70. But compare
Loring v. Binney, 88 Hun, 152, 8. C.
affirmed in 101 N. Y. 623.
448 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 366

recite in the order the jurisdictional matters on which it is
founded.1. The notice should properly name the defendant,
and if the wrong party is named it will be insufficient, even, it
_ seems, as against a collateral attack.2? But merely formal de-
fects will not prevent jurisdiction from attaching.* The re-
quirements as to the notice are, in the main, the same as in the
case of an ordinary summons, and the effect of failing to com-
ply with them is generally the same. As these subjects have
already been treated by us,‘ it is sufficient at this place to call
attention to a few additional authorities showing what is re-
quired in certain specific cases.°

§ 366. Requisites as to newspaper in which publication is
made.— Where notice is given by publication it is generally re-
quired that it shall be published in some local newspaper of
general circulation. Where the particular newspaper is desig-
nated in the order, or the kind of newspaper is specified in the
statute, the publication must be made in the kind of a paper
specified and in the particular paper designated in the order.®
But, in the absence of any such requirement, it has been held
that the publication may be made in any public newspaper,
published in the English language, whether it be a scientific,

1 Newman v.Cincinnati, 18 Ohio, 323. §.C.19N. E.R. 317 (suit to enforce

2 Troyer v. Wood, 96 Mo. 478, 8. C.
10S. W. R. 42; Chamberlain v. Blod-
gett, 96 Mo. 482, 8. C. 10S. W. R. 44;
Freeman v. Hawkins, 77 Texas, 498,
S.C. 148. W. R. 364; Colton v. Ru-
pert, 60 Mich. 318, 8. C. 27 N. W. R.
520; Schissel v. Dickson, 129 Ind. 139,
S. C. 28 N. E. R. 540; Weaver v. Car-
penter, 42 Ia. 343; Entrekin v. Cham-
bers, 11 Kan. 368.

5 Lane v. Innes, 43 Minn. 187, 8. C.
45 N.W. R. 4; Voelzv. Voelz, 80 Wis.
504, S.C. 50 N. W. R. 398.

‘See §§ 348-355, ante.

5 See Streeter v. Penobscot Lumber,
etc., Co., 74 Mich. 128, S. C. 41 N. W.
R. 883; Otis v. De Boer, 116 Ind. 531,

lien of drainage assessment) * Allen v.
Ray, 96 Mo. 542, S. C. 10 8. W. R. 153
(tax suit) ; Elee v. Wait, 28 Ill. 70 (re-
turn day should be fixed) ; Wescott v.
Archer, 12 Neb. 345, 8. C. 11 N. W.R.
491 (attachment, property should be
described) ; Feller v. Clark, 36 Minn.
338, 8. C. 31 N. W. R. 175; Kipp v.
Fernhold, 37 Minn. 182, S. C.33N.W.
R. 697; Pickering v. Lomax, 120 III.
289, 8. OC. 11 N. E. R. 175 (tax cases,
insufficient description in notice).

®Townsend v. Tallant, 33 Cal. 45, 8.
C. 91 Am. Dec. 617; Otis v. Epperson,
88 Mo. 131; Hafern v. Davis, 10 Wis.
501; Russell v. Gilson, 36 Minn. 366,
S.C. 31 N. W. R. 692.
i

§ 367 449

BRINGING THE ACTION—PROCESS.

legal, commercial, religious or political newspaper.' It should,
however, in the absence of any provision to the contrary, be a
paper published in the English language.? Publication in the
supplement of a paper is sufficient ® where it is co-extensive in
circulation with the paper itself.‘ And the fact that a local
paper has a ‘‘patent inside,’’ printed in another State, will not
invalidate a notice published in such paper, although the stat-
ute requires the publication to be made in a paper printed in
the county.> Nor will a slight discrepancy in the name of the
paper invalidate the proceedings where it is in reality the same
paper designated in the order. But, under the ‘‘Sunday
Laws” in force in most of the States, publication on Sunday,
in a Sunday newspaper, is ineffective.”

‘

§ 867. Time of publication.—The notice should be published
for the statutory period,® but the fact that publication is made
for a longer period than that required by statute will not in-
validate the notice.? Where the publication is not made for
the statutory period, that is, where the constructive service is
not for a sufficient length of time, some courts hold that a
judgment based thereon is absolutely void, but others hold

1 Kellogg v. Carrico, 47 Mo. 157;
Kerr v. Hitt, 75 Ill. 51. But in other
cases it is held that the paper must be
a secular paper of general circulation.
Beecher v. Stephens, 25 Minn. 146;
Railton v. Lauder, 26 Ill. App. 655.

2Graham v. King, 50 Mo. 22,8. C.
11 Am. R. 401; Cincinnati v. Bickett,
26 Ohio St. 49.

3 Supervisors v. Horton, 75 Iowa, 271.

*Tully v. Bauer, 52 Cal. 487; Zahr-
adnicek v. Selby, 15 Neb. 579.

5 Palmer v. McCormick,30 Fed. R. 82.

® Soule v. Chase, 1 Rob. (N. Y.) 222;
Frisk v. Reigelman, 75 Wis. 499, S.C. 43
N.W.R.1117. Compare Russell v. Gil-
son, 36 Minn. 366,8.C.31 N. W. R.692.

Shaw v. Williams, 87 Ind. 158, 8.
C. 44 Am. R. 756; Scammon v. Chi-
cago, 40 Ill. 146; Smith v. Wilcox, 24

29

N. Y.353; McLaughlin v. Wheeler (S.
Dak.), 50 N. W. R. 834.

® Guaranty Trust, etc., Co. v. Bud-
dington, 27 Fla. 215, 233, §. C. 12 L.
k. A. 770; Hill v. Faison, 27 Texas,
428; Grewell v. Henderson, 5 Cal.
465, and authorities cited in the fol-
lowing notes.

®*Taylor v. Coots, 32 Neb. 30, 8. C.
29 Am. St. R. 426.

10 Curran v. Board, 47 Minn. 313,S8. C.

50 N.W.R. 237; West v. St. Paul, etc.,
‘'R’y Co., 40 Minn. 189, 8.C.41 N.W.R.

1081; Fladland v. Delaplaine, 19 Wis.
459; Mohr». Tulip, 40 Wis. 66,76; Da-
vis v. Reaves, 75 Tenn. 585; Northcutt
v. Lemery, 8 Ore. 316; Palmer v. Mc-
Master, 8 Mont. 186, S. C. 19 Pac. R.
585; Hull v. Chicago, ete., R. R. Co.,
21 Neb. 871, 8. C. 32 N. W. R. 162.
450 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 367

that it is not void and can not be successfully attacked collater-
wally.1 Where the statute provides that publication shall be
made for a certain number of months, it is generally held
that it should be construed to mean calendar months, in the
absence of any provision to the contrary.? In computing the
number of days for which publication is required to be made,
the first day, according to the modern rule, should be excluded
and the last included. Where the notice is required to be
published once each week for a certain number of weeks, the
full number of days necessary to constitute the requisite num-
ber of weeks must, according to the weight of authority, elapse
between the date of the first publication and the return day.‘
So, it has been held that a statutory provision requiring pub-
lication for ‘‘three successive weeks’’ means that twenty-one
days must elapse between the first publication and the return
day, and not simply three insertions in a weekly newspaper

covering only fifteen days.®

1 Jackson v. State, 104 Ind. 516, §. C.
3 N. E. R. 863; Muncey v. Joest, 74
Ind. 409; Essig v. Lower, 120 Ind. 239,
8. C. 21 N. E. R. 1090; Ballinger v.
Tarbell, 16 Ia. 491; Smith v. Dubuque
Co., 1 Ia. 492; In re Newman’s Estate
75 Cal. 218, 8. C. 16 Pac. R. 887; Hav-
ens v. Drake, 43 Kan. 484, 8. C. 23 Pac.
R. 621; Arnett v. Bailey, 60 Ala. 435;
Hering v. Chambers, 103 Pa. St. 172;
MecGlawhorn v. Worthington, 98 N.
Car. 199, 8. C.38. E. R. 633; Berrian
x. Rogers, 43 Fed. R. 467.

*Guaranty Trust, etc., Co. v. Bud-
dington, 27 Fla. 215, 233,8.C.12 L. R.
A.770, and note; Guaranty Trust, etc.,
Co. v. Green Cove Spring, etc., Co., 139
U.S.187,8. C.11 Sup. Ct. R. 512. See,
also, Chapter VIII, § 304. Contra,
Stackhouse v. Halsey, 3 Johns. Ch.
73; Jackson v. Clark, 7 Johns. 217.

8 Kane v. City of Brooklyn, 114 N.
Y. 586, 594; Forsyth v. Warren, 62
Ill. 68; Mitchell v. Woodson, 37 Miss.
567; Savings, etc., Society v. Thomp-

Other cases have gone still

son, 82 Cal. 347; Hagerman v. Ohio

Building, etc., Ass’n, 25 Ohio St. 186.

‘Bacon v. Kennedy, 56 Mich. 329;
Williams v. Sacramento Co., 58 Cal.
237; Boyd v. McFarlin, 58 Ga. 208;
McDonald v. Cooper, 32 Fed. R. 735;
Bank v. Pac. Nat. Bank, 89 N. Y. 397;
Dillard v. Krise, 86 Va. 410, §.C.108.
E. R. 430. Contra Knowles v. Sum-
mey, 52 Miss. 377; Lowenstine v. Gil-
lespie, 6 Lea (Tenn.), 641; Gilmore v.
Sapp, 100 Ill. 297.

5 Loughridge v. City of Huntington,
56 Ind. 253; Security Co. v. Arbuckle,
123 Ind. 518, 8. C. 24 N. E. R. 329.
See, also, Gibson v. Roll, 30 Ill. 172;
Davis v. Robinson, 70 Tex. 394. Con-
tra, Swett v. Sprague, 55 Me. 190. And,
compare, Haywood v. Russell, 44 Mo.
252; Bennett v. Hetherington, 41 Ia.
142; Cox v. North Wisconsin Lumber
Co., 82 Wis. 141, S. C. 51 N. W. R.
1130; Calvert v. Calvert, 15 Col. 390,
8. C. 24 Pac. R. 1043. °
451

§ 368 BRINGING THE ACTION—PROCESS.

further, holding that where publication is required for a cer-
tain time before thé return day, or the happening of some
event, the publication must be complete that length of time
before the event. A longer notice than that raqiired will not |
necessarily vitiate the proceedings.”

§ 368. Proof of publication.—Publication of notice is gen-
erally proved by the affidavit of the editor or publisher of the
paper, or by his foreman or clerk, with a copy of the printed
notice annexed.? It has been held, however, that although
there is no affidavit in the record, a recital in the judgment or
decree showing due service of process is at least prima facie,
if not conclusive, evidence of such service, and that it can not
be collaterally attacked in the courts of the State in which the
judgment was rendered.* But where the return or proof shows
that there was no service it has been held that the judgment is
void, notwithstanding a recital of service in the record.

'Mowry v. Blandin, 64 N. H. 3;
Bussey v. Leavitt, 12 Me. 378. In Se-
curity Co. v. Arbuckle, 123 Ind. 518, S.
C. 24N. E. R. 329, it was held suffi-
cient, however, under a statute requir-
ing publication for three’ weeks suc-
cessively, thirty days before the return
day, where three full weeks elapsed
between the date of the first publica-
tion and the thirty days, or, in other
words, fifty-two (fifty-one) days be-
tween the first publication and the re-
turn day. So, in Horn v. Indianapolis
Nat. Bank, 125 Ind. 381, 8S. C.9 L. R.
A. 676.

? Taylor v. Reid, 103 Ill. 349; Tooke
w. Newman, 75 Ill. 215; Kipp v. Col-
lins, 33 Minn. 394; Beal v. Blair, 33
Ia. 318; Taylor v. Coots, 32 Neb. 30,
8. C. 48 N. W. RB. 964.

3 Bolin v. Francis, 72 Ia. 619; Kay
v. Watson, 17 Ohio, 27; Cissell v. Pul-
aski Co., 3 McCrary (U.S8.), 446; Sharp
». Daugney, 33 Cal. 505; Pennoyer
v, Neff, 95 U.S. 714. But, in Wilkin-

son v. Conaty, 65 Mich. 614, 8. C. 32
N.W. R. 841, it was held unnecessary
to attach the notice cut from the pa-
per.

* Robertson v. Winchester, 1 Pick.
(Tenn.) 171, 8. C. 1 8. W. R. 781;
Sidwell v. Worthington’s Heirs, 8
Dana (Ky.), 74,77; Andrews v. Bern-
hardi, 87 Ill. 365; Dowell v. Lahr, 97
Ind. 146; Beattie v. Wilkinson, 36
Fed. R. 646; Prout v. People, 83 Ill.
154; Sargeant v. State Bank, 12 How.
(U.S.) 371, 384; Treadway v. East-
burn, 57 Tex: 209, 213; Hardy v. Beaty,
84 Tex. 562, 8. C. 31 Am. St. R. 80;
Fowler v. Whiteman, 2 Ohio St. 270;
English v. Woodman, 40 Kan. 412, 8.
C. 20 Pac. R. 262. Compare Hunter
v. Spotswood, 1 Wash. (Va.) 145.

5Coan v. Clow, 83 Ind. 417, 419;
Hawkins v. Hawkins, 28 Ind. 66;
Mickel v. Hicks, 19 Kan. 578, S. C. 27
Am. R. 161; Barber v. Morris, 37
Minn. 194, 8.C. 5 Am, St. R. 836, 838;
Dogan v. Brown, 44 Miss. 235; Hobby
452 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 369

Where service has in fact been made and the record fails to
show it or the affidavit of publication is defective, the court
may permit the affidavit to be amended or filed nunc pro tunc.1
The affidavit should show that all the requirements of the stat-
ute have been complied with.? Thus, it should show that the
publication was made in the proper paper,’ that it was made
for the requisite period,‘ and that the affiant is a person au-
thorized by statute to make the affidavit.®

§ 369. Mailing and posting notice.—It is frequently provided
that, in addition to publishing notice in a newspaper, a copy
of the paper or the notice shall be mailed to the defendant,® if
his address be known, or that a copy of the notice shall be
posted in some public place.*. The notice should be mailed at
the proper place,® and properly addressed.? The affidavit

». Bunch, 83 Ga. 1, 8. C. 20 Am. St. R.
801; Laney v. Garbee, 105 Mo. 358, S.
C.16 S. W. R. 831; Fowler v. Simp-
son, 79 Tex. 611; Sibley v. Waffle, 16
N. Y. 180. See, also, Adams v. Cow-
les, 95 Mo. 501, S. C. 6 Am. St. R.
74; Settlemier v. Sullivan, 97 U. 8.
444, And where the judgment is di-
rectly attacked by appeal, the absence
of proof of publication has been held
fatal, notwithstanding a recital of ser-
vice in the judgment. Weeks v. Gari-
baldi, etc., Co., 73 Cal. 599, 8. C. 15
Pac. R. 302.

1 Britton v. Larson, 23 Neb. 806, 8. C.
87 N. W. R. 681; Cullum v. Batre, 2
Ala. 415; Burr v. Seymour, 43 Minn.
401,8. C. 45 N..W. R. 715; Frisk v.
Reigelman, 75 Wis. 499, 8. C. 43 N.W.
R. 1117; Hackett v. Lathrop, 36 Kan.
661, S. C. 14 Pac. R. 220; Weaver v.
Roberts, 84 N. Car. 493; Estate of
Newman, 75 Cal. 213, S. C. 7 Am. St.
R. 146.

2Gibney v. Crawford, 51 Ark. 34;
Coster v. Bank, 24 Ala. 37; Settlemier
v. Sullivan, 97 U. S. 444; Payne v.
Young, 8 N.Y. 158; Fitch v. Pinckard,

5 111. 69; Steinbach v. Leese, 27 Cal.
295.

§ See § 366, ante.

4 Passmore’v. Moore, 1 J. J. Marsh.
(Ky.) 591; Godfrey v. Valentine, 39
Minn. 336; Ramsey v. Hommel, 68
Wis. 12; Lawlins v. Lackey, 6 Monr.
(Ky.)70. Compare Feustmann v. Gott,
65 Mich. 592; Wood v. Knapp, 100 N.
Y. 109; Lane v. Innes, 43 Minn. 137,
8. C. 45 N. W. R. 4.

5 Farmers’ Nat. Bank v. Fonda, 65
Mich. 533; Hidl v. Hoover, 5 Wis. 354;
Cross v. Wilson, 52 Ark. 312, S. C. 12
8. W. R. 576; Brown v. Mahan, 4 J.
J. Marsh. (Ky.) 59; Haywood v. Col-
lins, 60 Ill. 328.

®See Cullum v. Branch Bank, 23 Ala.
797; Scorpion Silver Min. Co. v. Mar-
sano, 10 Nev. 370.

TBatre v. Auze, 5 Ala. 173; Myricv.
Adams, 4 Munf. (Va.) 366; McKey v.
Cobb, 33 Miss. 533.

®Thompson v. Brannan, 76 Cal. 618,
8. C. 18 Pac. R. 783; Mudge v. Stein-
hart, 78 Cal. 34, S. C. 20 Pac. R. 147;
Van Aernam v. Winslow, 37 Minn. 514.

§ Likens v. McCormick, 39 Wis. 313;
§ 370 BRINGING THE ACTION—PROCESS. 453

should show these facts, together with the date of mailing and
any other facts required by statute to be therein stated.

Where the notice is required to be posted in a public place it

becomes important to determine what is meant by the phrase

‘‘public place.”’ Itisa relative term, and does not necessarily

have the same meaning in a statute providing for notice as it

has in a criminal statute, requiring an act to be done in a pub-

lic place in order to make it a crime.? Thus, it has been held

that posting a notice on a court-house, although not on the

front of it, is a sufficient compliance with a statute requiring
the notice to be posted in a public place;? and a school-house,

a church and a railroad depot have been held to be public

places within the meaning of such a statute. But it has been

held that a shoemaker’s shop is not a public place.®

§ 370. Objections.—Objections on account of irregularities
or defects in the process or service should be made at the ear-
liest opportunity. The ordinary mode is to move to quash the
writ or set aside the service, and a special appearance should
be entered for that purpose.’ If the return is defective a mo-

Beaupre v. Brigham, 79 Wis. 436, S.
C. 48 N. W. R. 596; Smith v. Wells,
69 N. Y. 600; Paulling v. Creagh, 63
Ala. 398; Foley v. Connelly, 9 Iowa,
240; Aldige v. Knox, 16 La. Ann. 180.
And postage prepaid. 4 Wait’s Pr.,
619, 620.

1 Briggs v. Finn, 10 Iowa, 590; Trask
v. Key, 4 Greene (Iowa), 372; Clark
v. Adams, 33 Mich. 159; Rogers v.
Rogers, 18 N. J. Eq. 445. The affida-
vit of the attorney for the plaintiff
that he deposited a copy of the sum-
mons and complaint in the post-office
is competent evidence thereof. Ander-
son v. Goff, 72 Cal. 65, 8. C. 1 Am. St.
R. 34.

2? Cahoon v. Coe, 57 N. H. 556. ‘‘A
public place’ is a relative term. What
is a public place for one purpose is not
for another. That is a public and
proper place for setting up notices

which is likely to give information to
those interested and who may possi-
bly become bidders at thesale.’’ Cum-
mins v. Little, 16 N. J. Eq. 48. ~

3 Campbell v. Wheeler, 69 Iowa, 588.

‘Wilson v. Bucknam, 71 Me. 545;
Scammon v. Scammon, 28 N. H. 419;
Russell v. Dyer, 40 N. H. 173; Terri-
tory v. Lannon, 9 Mont. 1. See, also,
Goss v. Cardell, 53 Vt. 447; Austin
v. Soule, 36 Vt. 645. We suppose a
telegraph or telephone pole or the like
on a much traveled street might also
be a public place within the meaning
of such a statute.

5 Tidd v. Smith, 3 N. H. 178.

6 Lawrence v. Jones, 15 Abb. Pr.(N.
Y.) 110; Treftz v. Stahl (Ill. App.),
18 L. R. A. 500, 502; Elliott’s App.
Proc., §§ 182, 328, 329.

"Hust v. Conn, 12 Ind. 257; Cincin-
nati, H. & D. R. R. Co. v. Street, 50
454 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 3871

tion to set aside the return should be made, stating the objec-
tions thereto.! A joint motion by several defendants to quash
a summons is not well taken if it is good as to any of them.?
Objections to process or service should specifically point out
the defects complained of.* If the objection is founded upon
extrinsic facts it should be raised by plea in abatement.‘

§ 871. Waiver.—Jurisdiction of the person may be given by
consent,®° and objection to the process, or service on account
of irregularities or defects may be waived by appearing and
pleading to the merits or going to trial. Objections not spe-
cifically made will be regarded as waived, notwithstanding the

fact that other objections may have been duly stated.’

Ind. 225; Smith v. Hackley, 44 Mo.
App. 614; McCulloch v. Ellis, 28 Til.
App. 439; Detroit First Nat. Bank v.
Burch, 76 Mich. 608, 8. C. 43 N.W. R.
453; Foster v. Markland, 37 Kan. 32,
8. C. 14 Pac. R. 452.

1 Hutchins ». Latimer, 5 Ind. 67;
Campbell v. Swasey, 12 Ind. 70; Jef-
fersonville, M. & I. R. R. Co. v. Dun-
lap, 29 Ind. 426.

? Mansfield v. Shipp, 128 Ind. 55, 8.
C. 27.N. E. R. 427.

5 Brown v. Goodyear, 29 Neb. 376, 8.
C. 45 N. W. R. 618; Kankakee Drain-
age Dist. v. Lake Fork Spec. Drainage
Dist., 29 Tl]. App. 86 (Reversed on other
points in 130 Ill. 261) ; Hadley v. Gut-
ridge, 58 Ind. 302.

4 Greer v. Young, 120 I. 184, 8. C.
11 N. E. R. 167; Cooke v. Gibbs, 3
Mass. 193; Guild v. Richardson, 6
Pick. 364; Duvall v. Craig, 2 Wheat.
(U. 8.) 55; Liliard’s Ex’r v. Liliard’s
Ex’rs, 5 B. Mon. (Ky.) 340. This is
the practice where the common law
remains unchanged.

5 Fields v. Walker, 23 Ala. 155;
Hawkins v. Hughes, 87 N. Car. 115;
Dicks v. Hatch, 10 Ia. 380; Andrews
v. Wheaton, 23 Conn. 112; Cottrell v.
Thompson, 15 N. J. L. 344; Elliott v.

Illus-

Lawhead, 43 Ohio St. 171, S.C.1N.
E. R. 577; Union Pac. R’y Co. v. De
Busk, 12 Col. 294, 8. C. 13 Am. St. R.
221; Whyte v. Gibbes, 20 How. (U.8.)
5641; Grimmett v. Askew, 48 Ark. 151;
Brown v. Webber, 6 Cush. (Mass.)
560; McCormick v. Penna. Cent. R. R.
Co., 49 N. Y. 303; Cofrode v. Gartner
(Mich.), 7 L. R. A. 511.

6 Fitzgerald & Mallory Constr. Co. v.
Fitzgerald, 187 U. S. 98, 8. C. 11 Sup.
Ct. R. 36; Aultman v. Steinan, 8 Neb.
112; Meixell v. Kirkpatrick, 29 Kan.
679; Butts v. Screws, 95 N. Car. 215;
People v. Haughton, 41 Hun (N. Y.),
558; Sears v. Starbird, 78 Cal. 225, 8.
C. 20 Pac. R. 547; Palmer v. Sanders
(N. J.), 17 Atl. R. 1084; Meinhard v.
Youngblood (8. Car.), 15 S. E. R. 950;
McCormick Harvesting Mach. Co. »v.
Schneider (Neb.), 54 N. W. R. 257;
Briggs v. Sneghan, 45 Ind. 14; Ryan
v. Driscoll, 83 Ill. 415. So, by written
acknowledgment of service. Earbee
v. Ware, 9 Port. (Ala.) 291; Ayres v.
Hill, 82 Ala. 401; Carter v. Penn, 79
Ga. 747; Jewett v. Miller, 19 Tex. 290;
State v. Cohen, 13 8. Car. 198; Cheney
v. Harding, 21 Neb. 68.

7Feibleman v. Edmonds, 69 Tex.
334, 8. C.68. W. R. 417.
§ 372 BRINGING THE ACTION—PROCESS. 455

trations of the rule, and instances of defects and irregularities
deemed to have been waived will be found in another chapter.!

§ 372. Return and proof of service.—There is a sharp con-
flict among the authorities as to how far the return of an of-
ficer is conclusive; but the weight of authority seems to be to
the effect that as between third persons and in favor of the of-
ficer, where he is a party, it is simply prima facie evidence of
the service,” while as between the parties to the action and
their privies it is generally regarded as conclusive and can not
be collaterally impeached.? But, as already shown, a return
may be amended, in a proper case,‘ and it is the fact of service
and not merely the proof thereof that gives jurisdiction.» And
there are cases in which it is held that the sheriff’s return may
be contradicted,® especially where fraud is shown.’ So, in a
recent case, it is held by the Supremé Court of Michigan that

'See Vol. 2, Ch. I.

?Chadbourne v. Sumner, 16 N. H.
129, S. C. 41 Am. Dec. 720; Nichols v.
Patten, 18 Me. 231, 8. C. 36 Am. Dec.
713; Bruce v. Holden, 21 Pick. (Mass.)
187; Sias v. Badger, 6 N. H. 393; Gyf-
ford v. Woodgate, 11 East, 297; Hens-
ley v. Rose, 76 Ala. 373.

3McGeorge v. Harrison, etc., Co.,
141 Pa. St. 575, S.C. 21 Atl. R. 671;
Green v. Kindy, 43 Mich. 279; Stewart
v. Griswold, 134 Mass. 391; Chad-
bourne v. Sumner, 16 N. H. 129, S. C.
41 Am. Dec. 720; Nichols v. Nichols, 96
Ind. 483; Splabn v. Gillespie, 48 Ind.
397; Cully v. Shirk, 131 Ind. 76, 8. C.
30 N. E. R. 882; Rowell v. Klein, 44
Ind. 290; Bennethum v. Bowers, 133
Pa. St. 832, 8.0.19 Atl. R. 361; John-
son v, Jones, 2 Neb. 126; Rader v. Ad-
amson, 37 W. Va. 582, 8. C. 16 S. E.
R. 808; Thomas. Ireland, 88 Ky. 581,
8. C. 21 Am. St. R. 356; Studebaker
v. Johnson, 41 Kan. 326, §. C. 18 Am.
St. R. 287, and note. So, it is conclu-
sive against the officer. Splahn v. Gil-
lespie, 48 Ind. 397; Blue v. Common-

i
wealth, 2 J.J. Marsh. (Ky.) 26; Hen-
sley v. Rose, 76 Ala. 373; Duncan v.

‘Gerdine, 59 Miss. 550; Winnebago Co.

v. Brones, 68 Iowa, 682. Compare
Decker v. Armstrong, 87 Mo. 316. _

4 Ante, § 355; 1 Freeman on Judg-
ments, § 895; Murfree on Sheriffs,
§ 868.

5 See White v. Hinton, 3 Wyo. 753,
8. C.17 L. R. A. 66, 70, and criticism
of Mr. Freeman on the opinion in the
case of Reinhart v. Lugo, 21 Am. St.
R. 52, 56.

6 Gadwin v. Monds, 106 N. Car. 448,
S.C. 108. E. R. 1044; Wilson v. Ship-
man, 34 Neb. 573, 8. C.52 N.W. R. 576;
Forrest v. Union Pac. R. R. Co., 47 Fed.
R.1; Wheeler & W. Mfg. Co. v. Mc-
Laughlin, 28 N. Y. 8. R. 372; Pollard
v. Wegener, 13 Wis. 572, 578; Dasher
¢.Dasher, 47 Ga. 320; Bond v. Wilson,
8 Kan. 228; Knowles v. Gaslight, etc.,
Co., 19 Wall. (U. 8.) 58.

™ Dobbins v. McNamara, 113 Ind. 54,
S. C. 14 N. E. R. 887; Nietert v. Trent-
man, 104 Ind, 390, 8.C. 4 N. E. R. 306.
456

THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 872

a return of personal service by a private person is open to con-
tradiction.!_ The return should be in writing, but where it has
been lost proof of the service may be made by parol evidence,”
and it has.also been held that where it is defective it may be
aided, in order to prevent a failure of justice, by other proof of
the service. The return should be signed by the officer mak-
ing it, and if by deputy, he should sign it in the name of his
principal by himself as deputy.* It should state the facts
showing the person served and the time and manner of service,
together with any other matters required by statute.© Where
the court appoints a special deputy or elisor to serve the pro-
cess, he makes the return in his own name.* In some juris-
dictions service and proof thereof may also be made by private
persons, not acting in any official capacity. In such case the
return should be verified by the affidavit of the person who
made the service.?. Itis also provided by statute in some of

1Detroit Free Press Co. v. Bagg, 78
Mich. 650, S. C. 44 N. W. R. 149.

2 Bridges v. Arnold, 37 Ia. 221.

5Kipp v. Fullerton, 4.Minn. 473;
Smith v. Pattison, 45 Miss. 619.

*Rowley v. Howard, 23 Cal. 401;
Reinhart v. Lugo, 86 Cal. 395, 8. C. 24
Pac. R. 1089; Bolard v. Mason, 66 Pa.
St. 188; Glencoe v. People, 78 Ill. 382;
Murfree on Sheriffs, § 836. See Mar-
tin v. Aultman, 80 Wis. 150, 8. C. 49
N. W. R. 749; Johnson v. Johnson, 23
Fla. 413, S. C. 2 So. R. 834; Gibbens
v. Pickett, 31 Fla. 147, 8. C..12 So. R.
17; Martin v. Gray, 142 U.S. 236.

5 Hodges v. Brett, 4 Green (Ia.), 345;
Bendy v. Boyce, 37 Tex. 443 ; Williams
v. Downes, 30 Tex. 51; Fisher v. Fred-
ericks, 33 Mo. 612; Smith v. Rollins,
25 Mo. 408; Botsford v. O’Connor, 57
Tll. 72; Hochlander v. Hochlander, 73
Ill. 618; Dawson »v. State Bank, 3
Ark. 505; Merritt v. White, 37 Miss.
438; Woodliffe v. Connor, 45 Miss. 552 ;
Sayles v. Davis, 20 Wis. 302; Pollard
v. Wegener, 13 Wis. 569; Richmond v.
Brookings, 48 Fed. R. 241; Ruther-

ford v. Davenport, Texas Ct. of App.,
C.C., 417, 8.C.16 S.W.R.110; Laney
v. Garbee, 105 Mo. 355, §. C. 16S. W.
R. 831; Robbins v. Clemmens, 41 Ohio
St. 285; Crisman v. Swisher, 28'N. J.
L.149; Perry v. Dover, 12 Pick. (Mass. )
206. But if it shows that the statute
has been complied with in all material
respects, it ought not to be held bad on
amere technicality, such as the fail-
ure to use the exact language of the
statute, or-the like. Collins v. Wall-
ing, 6 La. Ann. 702; Presley v. Ander-
son, 42 Miss. 274; Holsinger v. Dun-
ham, 11 Ind. 346; Rees v. Rees, 7
Ore. 78; Foster v. Berry, 14 R. 1.601;
Betts v. Boyd, 31 Neb. 815; Murfree
on Sheriffs, § 846. |

® Glencoe v. People, 78 Ill. 382. In
Nebraska, return by special deputy
must be made under oath. Forbes v.
Bringe, 82 Neb. 757,8. C. 49 N. W. R.
720.

™ Coffee v. Gates, 28 Ark. 43; State
Bank v. Marsh, 10 Ark. 129; Estate of
Robinson, 6 Mich. 137; Forbes v.
Bringe, 32 Neb. 757, 8. C. 49 N. W. R.
§ 373 BRINGING THE ACTION—PROCESS. 457

the States that a written acknowledgment of the defendant on
the back of the summons shall be sufficient proof of service.!
Other matters relating to the return and proof of service are
sufficiently considered elsewhere.”

§ 373. Privilege—Exemption from service of process.—At
common law a witness or suitor while attending court and dur-
ing a reasonable time in going and returning is privileged
from arrest in ordinary cases,? and, while the authorities are
conflicting as to the existence and extent of their privilege
from service of process at common law, the rule now estab-
lished in most jurisdictions, either by statute or judicial de-
cision is that a non-resident, at least, who comes into a State
as a witness or party to a suit is exempt from the service of
process while attending court and while traveling to and from
the court, so long as there is no unreasonable delay upon his
part.‘ Even if jurisdiction can, in any sense, be obtained by

720; German Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v.
Decker, 74 Wis. 556, 8. C. 43 N. W. R.
500; Yolo County v. Knight, 70 Cal.
431.

1McCormack'v. First Nat. Bank, 53
Ind. 466, 470; Cheney v. Harding, 21
Neb. 65; Hendrix v. Cawthorn, 71 Ga.
742; Montgomery v. Tutt, 11 Cal. 307;
Segars v. Segars, 76 Me. 96; Jewett v.
Miller, 19 Tex. 290.

2 See, in regard to amending the re-
turns in regard to proof of service by
publication, § 368; and as to return
day, § 353.

33 Blk. Com. (Cooley’s ed.) § 289,
and note; Jn re Healey, 38 Am. R. 713,
and note; Jones v. Knauss, 31 N. J.
Eq. 211, and note; Wilson v. Donald-
son, 117 Ind. 356, S.C. 3 L. R. A. 266,
and note. Many other authorities
might be cited in support of this prop-
osition, but, as most of them are col-
lected and reviewed in each of the
cases and notes above referred to, it
would be useless to repeat them here.

‘In re Healey, 53 Vt. 694, 8. C. 38

Am. R. 713; Parker v. Marco, 136 N.
Y. 585 (containing an elaborate review
of the authorities) ; Halsey v. Stewart,
4N. J. L. 366; Massey v. Colville, 45
N. J. L. 119, 8. ©. 46 Am. R. 754;
Bolgiano v. Gilbert Lock Co., 73 Md.
132, 8. C. 20 Atl. R. 788, S.C. 25 Am.
St. R. 582; Mulbearn v. Press Pub.
Co., 53 N. J. L. 158, 8. C. 11 L. R. A.
101; Wilson v. Donaldson, 117 Ind.
856, 8.0.3 L. R. A. 266, and note;
Sherman v. Gundlach, 37 Minn. 118;
Shaver v. Letherby, 73 Mich. 500, S.C.
41 N.W. R.677; Andrews v. Lembeck,
46 Ohio St. 38, 8. C. 18 N. E. R. 483;
Thompson’s Case, 122 Mass. 428;
Thornton v. Am. Writing Mach. Co.,
83 Ga. 288, §. C. 20 Am. St. R. 320;
Kauffman v. Kennedy, 25 Fed. R. 785.
But, see Christian v. Williams, 111
Mo. 429, 8. C. 20 S. W. R. 96. In
Greer v. Young, 120 Ill. 184, it is held
that one who goes into another juris-
diction merely to take depositions is
notexempt. Compare, however, Finch
v. Galligher, 12 N. Y. Sup. 487.
458 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 375
service of summons upon such a person in a civil action, the
service will at least be set aside on application. So, where

service is obtained by abuse of criminal process or fraud.”

§ 374. Capias ad respondendum.—At common law the writ
of capias ad respondendum, whereby the appearance of the de-
fendant was enforced by ‘‘arrest of his person,’’ was first used
merely as mesne process after the defendant had failed to ap-
pear in response to the original writ, but it soon became the
original writ by which civil actions were begun whenever the
right to arrest the defendant existed.? Since imprisonment for
debt was abolished it has been little used. In some of the
States, however, it is still used in cases where the defendant is
a fraudulent debtor or is attempting to defraud the plaintiff,
to whom he is indebted, by leaving the State and taking his
property with him. An affidavit stating the facts is usually
required before the writ will issue. 4 As the right and manner
of instituting an action in this way are regulated by statute,
which should be strictly followed, and as it is seldom resorted
to, no further consideration of the subject is necessary in this
connection.

§ 375. Process on cross-bill and supplemental complaint.—
As a general rule, a new summons must be issued and service
thereof duly made where a cross-bill or complaint is filed stat-

1 Fitzgerald & Mallory Constr. Co. v.
Fitzgerald, 187 U. 8. 98, 8. C. 11 Sup.
Ct. R. 36, 388; Bolgiano v. Gilbert Lock
Co., 73 Md. 132, S.C. 25 Am. St. R.
582; Mitchell v. Huron Circuit Judge,
53 Mich. 541.

? Christian v. Williams, 111 Mo. 429,
8.C.208.W. R.96; Van Horn v. Great
Western Mfg. Co., 37 Kan. 523; Byler
v. Jones, 22 Mo. App. 623; Chubbuck
v. Cleveland, 37 Minn. 466, 8.C.5 Am.
St. R. 864; Townsend v. Smith, 47
Wis. 623, S. C. 32 Am. R. 793; Steele
v. Bates, 2 Aik. (Vt.) 338, 8. C.16 Am.
Dec. 720, and note; Williams v. Reed,

29N. J. L. 385; Palmer v. Rowan, 21
Neb. 452, 8. C.59 Am. R. 844; Ben-
ninghoff v. Oswell, 37 How. Pr. (N.Y.)
235; Compton v. Wilder, 40 Ohio St.
180; Wood v. Wood, 78 Ky. 624; Baker
v. Wales, 45 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 187;
Duringer v. Moschino, 93 Ind. 495.

5See Steph. Pl. 22; 2 Am. & Eng.
Encyc. Law, 724.

* See Gates v. Bloom, 149 Pa. St. 107,
8.C. 24 Atl. R. 184; Burrichter v. Cline,
3 Wash. 135, 8. C. 28 Pac. R. 367; Re
Vinich, 86 Cal. 70, S. C. 26 Pac. R. 528; .
Paul v. Ward, 21 Ind. 211.
x

§ 376 BRINGING THE ACTION—PROCESS. 459

ing a new cause of action,’ and the same rule holds good as to
new parties where a supplemental complaint is filed.?’ So,
where the supplemental complaint alleges that one of the orig-
inal defendants has acquired a new interest since the filing of
the original complaint, it has been held that a new summons
must be issued and served on such defendant in order to bind
his after-acquired interest;? but this decision was rendered by
a divided court, and its soundness may well be doubted. Un-
der the Illinois statute the cross-bill is regarded as a mere ad-
junct or continuation of the original suit and new process is
held to be unnecessary.*

§ 376. Alias and pluries writs—Where process is returned
without service for the reason that the defendant can not be
found in the bailiwick of the officer to whom it is issued,
and the plaintiff has reason to believe that by a second or
other writ to the same or a different county he will be able to
obtain service upon the defendant, an alias or pluries writ may
be obtained and issued for that purpose. The second writ is
called an alias writ and any others of the same kind thereafter
issued are called pluries writs. In some jurisdictions the
plaintiff is entitled to an alias writ as a matter of right, and
the clerk issues it as a matter of course;> but in other States
the clerk has no authority to issue alias or pluries writs with-
out leave of court, and it is safer in all cases to obtain an order

1 Boyd v. Fitch, 71 Ind. 306; Hunter
v. Burnsville Turnp. Co., 56 Ind. 213;
Ballance v. Underhill, 3 Scam. (IIl.)
458, 461; Swift v. Brumfield, 76 Ind.
472; Fletcher v. Holmes, 25 Ind. 458.
See, also, Lowenstein v. Glidewell, 5
Dill (U. 8.), 325, 328; Heath v. Erie
R’y Co., 9 Blatchf. (U. S.) 316. Not

necessary where the original com-.

plaint fully discloses the claim set up
in the cross-complaint. Bevier v.
“Kahn, 111 Ind. 200.
78ee Shaw v. Bill, 95 U. 8. 10, 14;
Morgan v. Morgan, 10 Ga. 297; Dan-
iell’s Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.), 1680. See,

also, Kentucky Eclectic Inst. v. Gaines
(Ky.), 18. W. R. 444; Rigney v. Rig-
ney, 127 N. Y. 408, S. C. 24 Am. St. R.
462.

8 Martin v. Noble, 29 Ind. 216. This
is certainly not the law where the new
interest is acquired by purchase pen-
dente lite. See Shaw v. Bill, 95 U.8. 10.

4 Fleece v. Russell, 13 Ill. 31; Kings-
bury v. Buckner, 134 U.S. 650, S. C.
10 Sup. Ct. R. 638.

5 Cherry v. Mississippi Ins. Co., 16

-Lea (Tenn.), 292; Gilmour v. Ford

(Tex.), 19 8. W. RB. 442.
460 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 376

of court for the issuance of the writ.1 An alias writ is unnec-
essary where a complaint is amended after service, but no new
cause of action is stated,” although the contrary has been held
where the complaint as amended stated a new cause of action.’
Where the original summons correctly states the amount of
the plaintiff’s claim a clerical error in the alias in stating the
amount will not render the proceedings subject to collateral
attack.*

1 Peck v. La Roche, 86 Ga. 314,8.C. Kentucky Eclectic Inst. ®. Gaines
12S. E. R. 638. (Ky.), 18. W. R. 444.

* Schuyler Nat. Bank v. Bollong, 28 *Richmond & D. R. R. Co. v. Rudd,
Neb. 684, 8. C. 45 N. W. R. 164. 88 Va. 648, 8S. C. 1458. E. R. 361.
CHAPTER XI.

AUXILIARY PROCEEDINGS.

§ 377. Kinds and purpose. § 389. Ne exeat.

378. Attachment—Generally. 390. Injunction—Generally.
379. When attachment will lie. 391. When injunction lies.
380. Grounds of attachment. 392. Injunction—Procedure.
381. Procedure in attachment. 393. Receivers—Generally.
382. Filing under attachment. 394. When appointed.

' 383. Property subject toattachment. 395. Procedureinobtaining receiver.
384. Lien of attachment. 396. Lis pendens—Notice.
385. Dissolution of attachment. | 397. Notice—Statutory.
386. Garnishment—Generally. 398. Doctrine of relation:
387. Procedure in garnishment. 399. Continuance of notice.

388. Duty and liability of garnishee. ;

§ 377. Kinds and purpose.—It frequently happens that an
ordinary action instituted by filing a complaint and issuing
summons would be ineffective without the aid of some further
proceeding. The defendant may be a non-resident, or he may
be removing from the State; he may fraudulently secrete or
dispose of his property if some step is not immediately taken
to prevent him from so doing; it may be necessary to place the
property in custodia legis in order to preserve it during litiga-
tion; it may be necessary to enjoin or restrain the defendant
from doing some act that would prevent the plaintiff from ob-
taining redress in an action at law; it may be necessary to give
notice of the pendency of the action in order to prevent inno-
cent third persons from acquiring rights which might other-
wise be superior to those of the plaintiff, or the like; and in
many such cases something more than the ordinary process of
the court is essential in order to secure complete justice to the
plaintiff. This end is usually accomplished by certain pro-
ceedings or writs fitted to the particular case, which are, in
their nature, auxiliary or ancillary to the main action. The
most important are attachment and garnishment, the writs of

( 461 )
462 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 378

capias and ne exeat, injunctions, proceedings for the appointment
of a receiver and lis pendens notices.

§ 378. Attachment—Generally.—Attachment is a statutory
remedy or proceeding,’ and, as the statutes in the different
States differ greatly in regard to details the advocate must con-
sult the statute and decisions of his own State in order to de-
termine the specific grounds for attachment and the proper
procedure, but the general principles underlying the proceeding
and the general method of procedure are substantially the same
in nearly all jurisdictions. It has been defined as ‘‘a provis-
ional remedy whereby a debtor’s property, real or personal,
or any interest therein capable of being taken under a levy and
execution, is placed in the custody of the law to secure the in-
terests of the creditor pending the determination of the cause.’”
It partakes largely of the elements of proceedings in rem as
well as of those of actions in personam and is sometimes called
a proceeding in the nature of anaction inrem. Itis, however,
personal in form and is usually preceded or accompanied by a
summons, but it is auxiliary or ancillary to the main action
and binds only the property attached, although a personal
judgment may be taken in the main action, where the defend-
ant has been personally served. If, in such a case, no prop-
erty is found, the action may proceed as a personal action,’
and so it may be stated generally that where the defendant has
been personally served the attachment proceeding may be dis-
missed and the personal action prosecuted to judgment, not-
withstanding such dismissal. But if the defendant is a non-
resident and does not appear no valid and effective personal
judgment can be rendered against him,® and neither can a

'The statute should be strictly con- ?1Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, 894.
strued and is not to be extended by See, also, Lowry v. Cady, 4 Vt. 504, 8S.
implication. May v. Baker, 15I11.89; OC. 24 Am. Dec. 628.

Johnson v. Johnson, 31 Fed. R. 700; 5 Drake on Attachment, § 5.
Ketchin v. Landecker, 32 So. Car. 155; ‘Erwin v. Heath, 50 Miss. 795; Mil-
Denegre v. Milne, 10 La. Ann. 324; ler v. Ewing, 8Sm. & M. 421; Hen-
Caldwell v. Haley, 3 Texas, 317; drix v. Cawthorn, 71 Ga. 742.

Pool v. Webster, 3 Metc. (Ky.) 278; 5 Kastman v. Wadleigh, 65 Me. 251,
Wade on Attachment, §§ 2, 3. S.C. 20 Am. Rep. 695; Eliot v. Me-
§ 379 AUXILIARY PROCEEDINGS. 463

judgment for the sale of the property attached be rendered
where the cause of action is one in which an attachment is not
authorized.'| So far as the property itself is concerned, how-
ever, jurisdiction is generally obtained, in case of a non-resi-
dent, by complying with the statute and giving notice by pub-
lication.? But if no property is found, and no personal service
is had, no judgment can be rendered against a non-resident de-
fendant who does not appear.’

§ 379. When attachment will lie—As a general rule attach-
ment will not lie in actions ex delicto,* and this is true although
the tort might have been waived and an action brought for
breach of contract.5 But the mere fact that a tort is committed
in connection with a breach of contract will not necessarily

‘prevent an action for the breach of contract and an attachment
in aid thereof. If the tort is waived and an action is properly
brought for breach of the contract, express or implied, a writ
of attachment will issue upon a proper showing and compli-
ance with the statute. In some jurisdictions attachment will
not lie unless the action is for liquidated damages arising from
breach of contract, and the debt must be an actually subsisting

Cormick, 144 Mass.10; Kingv. Vance,
46 Ind. 246; Banta v. Wood, 32 Iowa,
469; Webster v. Reid, 11 How. 487;
Robinson v. Ward, 8 Johns. (N. Y.)
86, 8. C.5 Am. Dec. 327; Eastman v.
Dearborn, 63 N. H. 364; Wade on At-
tachment, § 267; ante, § 243.

» Mudge v. Steinhart, 78 Cal. 34, 8.
C. 12 Am. St. R. 17.

? King v. Vance, 46 Ind. 246; note

- to Cousins v. Alworth, 10 L. R. A. 504;
Wade on Attachment, § 267, et seq.;
ante, § 243.

3 Cooper v. Reynolds, 10 Wall. 308;
Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714; Bruce
v. Cloutman, 45 N. H. 37; Abbott v.
Sheppard, 44 Mo. 278; Clymore v.
Williams, 77 Ill. 618; Cooper v. Smith,
25 Iowa, 269.

‘Griswold v. Sharpe, 2 Cal. 17;

Mudge »v. Steinhart, 78 Cal. 34, 'S. C.
12 Am. St. R. 17; Babcock v. Briggs,
52 Cal. 502; Ferris v. Ferris, 25 Vt.
100; Crossman v. Lindsley, 42 How.
Pr. (N. Y.) 107; Porter v. Hildebrand,
14 Pa. St. 129; Raver v. Webster, 3 Ia.
502; Hynson v. Taylor, 3 Ark. 552;
Stanley v. Sutherland, 54 Ind. 339;
Drake on Attachment, §10. But, un-
der some of the statutes, it seems that
the writ may issue in an action ex de-
licto. Sturdevant v. Tuttle, 22 Ohio
St. 111; Creasser v. Young, 31 Ohio
St. 57; Tahoe v. Mining Co., 14 Fed.
R. 636,

®’ Wade on Attachment, § 12; At-
lantic, etc., Ins. Co. v. MeLoon, 48
Barb. (N. Y.) 27.

*Fuel Co. v. Tuck, 58 Cal. 304;
Hunt v. Norris, 4 Mart. (La.) 517;
464 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 380

debt and not a mere contingent and uncertain liability.’ It is
sometimes provided, however, that the debt need not be actu-
ally due at the time of the application for a writ of attachment.”

§ 380. Grounds of attachment.—Mere insolvency or inabil- -
ity of a debtor to pay his debts is not sufficient to authorize
the attachment of his property.? Asa general rule it is au-
thorized only where ordinary process is ineffective, and some
one or more of the statutory causes must exist. It is usually
authorized where a debtor absents himself‘ or absconds from
the State,®° where he conceals himself,® where he is a non-resi-
dent,’ where he is removing, or about to remove, his property
from the State,* where he is fraudulently disposing of his pro-

Penna. R. R. Co. v. Peoples, 31
Ohio St. 5837; Wade on Attachment,
§ 22.

1 Taylor v. Drane, 13 La.62; Harrod
4. Burgess, 5, Rob. (La.) 449; Benson
v. Campbell, 6 Port. (Ala.) 455. See,
also, Tignor v. Bradley, 32 Ark. 781;
Henderson v. Thornton, 37 Miss. 448,
8. C. 75 Am. Dec. 70.

?Drake on Attachment, § 31, e¢ seq.

3 Parmer v. Keith, 16 Neb. 91.

‘This does not mean a mere tem-
porary absence, but it must be such as
prevents the service of process or oth-
erwise shows an intention to delay or
injure the creditor. Fuller v. Bryan,
20 Pa. St. 144; Morgan v. Avery, 7
Barb. (N. Y.) 656; Kingsland’ »v.
Worsham, 15 Mo. 657; Watson v.
Pierpoint, 7 Mart. (La.) 413; Mandel
v. Peet, 18 Ark. 236.

5 As to who is an absconding debtor,
see Bennett v. Avant, 2 Sneed (Tenn.),
152; Stouffer v. Niple, 40 Md. 477;
Ives v. Curtiss, 2 Root, 133; Boardman
v. Bickford, 2 Aik. (Vt.) 345.

® As to what is concealment within
the meaning of the statute, see Young
v. Nelson, 25 Ill. 565; Evans v. Saul,
8 Mart. N. 8. (La.) 247; North v. Mc-

Donald, 1 Biss, 57; Wolcott v. Hen-
drick, 6 Tex. 406; Winkler v. Barthel,
6 Bradw. (Ill.) 111.

7 As to who are non-residents within
the meaning of the statute, see In re
Wrigley, 8 Wend.(N. Y.) 184; Brown
v. Ashbough, 40 How. Pr. (N. Y.)
260; Moore'v. Holt, 10 Gratt. (Va.)
284; Morgan v. Nunes, 54 Miss. 308 ;
Haggart v. Morgan, 5 N. Y. 422, 8. C.
55 Am. Dec. 350; Wheeler v. Cobb, 75
N. Car. 21; Carden v. Carden, 107 N.
Car. 214, 8. ©. 22 Am. St. R. 876, and
note; Hanson v. Graham, 82 Cal. 631,
8.C.7L. R. A. 127; note to Cousins
v. Alworth, 10 L. R. A. 504; Munroe
v, Williams, 19 L. R. A. 665, and note;
Wallace v. Castle, 68 N.Y. 370; Per-
rine v. Evans, 35 N. J. L. 221; Rayne
v. Taylor, 10 La. Ann. 726. But ‘“‘resi-
dence’ and ‘‘domicile” are not syn-
onymous, and if the debtor has a resi-
dence in the jurisdiction so that he
can be served with process, his prop-
erty can not be attached on the ground
of non-residence. Stout v. Leonard,
37 N. J. L. 492; Wells v. People, 44
Ill. 40; Waples on Attachment, 36;
Drake on Attachment, § 58.

*See Warder». Thrilkeld, 52 Ia. 134;
te % RD

§ 381 AUXILIARY PROCEEDINGS.

465

perty, or about to do so,’ and, in some States, where the debt
has been fraudulently contracted.?

§ 381. Procedure in attachment.—It is a universal require-
ment that before a writ of attachment shall be issued the
plaintiff must show by affidavit the existence of one or more
of the statutory grounds. This is generally held to be juris-
dictional.? But it has been held that a verified complaint con-
taining all that would be required in an affidavit may be so
drawn as to serve the purposes both of a complaint and an af-
fidavit.4 And an affidavit which is defective in some respects
may, nevertheless, be sufficient to support the proceedings as
against a collateral] attack. The requisites of the affidavit are
usually prescribed by statute, and it is not necessary to attempt
to consider them here. It is sufficient to say that the affidavit
should comply with the statutory requirements. In addition

Rice v. Pertuis, 40 Ark. 157; Russell
v. Wilson, 18 La. 367; White v. Wilson,
10 Ill. 21; Friedlander v. Pollock, 5
Cold. (Tenn.) 490; Hunter v. Soward,
15 Neb, 215; Durr v. Hervey, 44 Ark.
301, S.C. 51 Am. R. 594; Myers v.
Farrell, 47 Miss, 281; Simon v. Sevier
Co., etc., Ass’n (Ark.), 14 S. W. R.
1101; Lowenstein v. Bew, 68 Miss.
265,-S. C. 24 Am. St. R. 269, and note.

1See Spencer v. Deagle, 34 Mo. 455;
Chouteau v. Sherman, 11 Mo. 385;
Taylor v. Kuhuke, 26 Kan. 132; Rosen-
feld ». Howard, 15 Barb. (N. Y.) 546;
Donnell v. Jones, 17 Ala. 689, 8. C. 52
Am. Dec. 194; Bullene v. Smith, 73
Mo. 151; Hernsheim v. Levy, 32 La.
Ann. 340; Robinson Notion Co. v.
Ormsby, 33 Neb. 655, 8. C.50 N. W. R.
952; Orr, etc., Shoe Co. v. Harris, 82
Tex. 273, 8. C.18S. W. R. 308; Crow

-v. Lemon, etc., Co., 69 Miss. 799, 11

So. R. 110.

2 Marqueze v. Sontheimer, 59 Miss.
430; Wachter v. Famachon, 62 Wis.
117; Rosenthal v. Wehe, 58 Wis. 621;

30

Young v. Cooper, 12 Neb. 610; Sturde-
vant v. Tuttle, 22 Ohio St.111; Ellison
v. Bernstein, 60 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 145;
Mackey v. Hyatt, 42 Mo. App. 443.

3 Earl v. Camp, 16 Wend. (N. Y.)
562; Staples v. Fairchild, 3 N. Y. 41;
Hargadine v. Van Horn, 72 Mo. 370;
Matthews v. Densmore; 43 Mich. 461.

‘Dunn v. Crocker, 22 Ind. 324;
Miller v. Chandler, 29 La. Ann. 88.
See, also, Fremont v. Fulton, 103 Ind.
893; Eudel v. Leibrock, 33 Ohio St.
254; Scott v. Doneghy, 17 B. Mon.
(Ky.) 821; Shaffer v: Sandwall, 33
Ta. 579.

5 Weber v. Weitling, 3 (C. E. Green),
N. J. Eq. 441; Russell v. Work, 35 N.
J.L.316; Moresi v. Swift, 15 Nev. 215;
Hardin v. Lee, 51 Mo. 241; Crowell v.
Johnson, 2 Neb. 146; Boothe v. Estes,
16 Ark. 104.

® Shockley v. Bulloch, 18 Ga. 283;
Lamkin v. Douglass, 27 Hun (N. Y.),
517; Miller v. Brinkerhoff, 4 Denio
(N. Y.), 118, 8. C.47 Am. Dec. 242;
Emmitt v. Yeigh, 12 Ohio St. 335; Rey-
466 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 382

to the affidavit the plaintiff is generally required to execute a
bond as a preliminary to the issuance of the writ, and it has
been held that a deposit of money can not be made in lieu of
the statutory bond.!' The bond is ordinarily required to be
conditioned that the plaintiff shall prosecute the suit to effect
and pay all costs and damages occasioned by the wrongful su-
ing out of the attachment; but whatever the form may be it
should, at least, substantially follow the statute. In some
States an agent or attorney may execute the bond and affidavit,
in others they must be executed by the plaintiff. The sureties
should reside within the jurisdiction of the court which grants
the writ. In some jurisdictions the bond should be made to
the State as obligee, but in most jurisdictions the defendant is
the obligee. The amount of the bond is regulated by statute,
and a greater amount than that prescribed will do no harm,‘ .
but a less sum may be fatal.© The statutory preliminaries
having been complied with, the writ issues.

§ 382. Filing under. attachment.—It is sometimes provided
that any creditor, upon filing his affidavit and bond, as re-
quired of the attaching creditor, may, at any time before final
judgment, make himself a party and become entitled to share
in the proceeds by also filing his complaint and proving his
claim. And when this has been done it has been held that.
the dismissal of the original proceeding will not affect the claim
filed thereunder.” It has also been held that no additional

burn v. Brackett, 2 Kan. 227, 8. C. 83
Am. Dec. 457; McCollem v. White, 23
Ind. 43; Delaplain v. Armstrong, 21
W. Va. 211; Biddle v. Black, 99 Pa.
St. 380.

1 Bate v. McDowell, 48 N. Y. Sup.
Ct. 219.

2Bank v. Fitzpatrick, 4 Humph.
(Tenn.) 311; Love v. Fairfield, 10 Ill.
308; Wade on Attachment, § 103, e¢
seq.

3 Wade on Attachment, §§ 105, 106;
Best v. Johnson, 12 Am. St. R. 41, and
note.

‘Fellows v. Miller, 8 Blackf. (Ind:)
231; Bourne v. Hocher, 11 B. Mon.
(Ky.) 23; Shockley v. Davis, 17 Ga.
177, 8. C. 63 Am. Dec. 2338.

5Marnine v. Murphy, 8 Ind. 272;
Martin v. Thompson, 3 Bibb. (Ky.) 252.

6 As to what is required, and the
sufficiency of the pleading, see, gen-
erally, Gilly v. Breckenridge, 2 Blackf.
(Ind.) 100; Sturgis v. Rogers, 26 Ind.
1; Cooper v. Metzger, 74 Ind. 544.

TRyan v. Burkam, 42 Ind. 507;
State v. Baldwin, 10 Biss. C. C. 165.
§ 383 AUXILIARY PROCEEDINGS. 467
summons or writ of attachment need be issued on such claim.}
The lien of the claim so filed relates back to the time of the
lien of the original attachment,” and the proceeds of the sale of
the property are distributed pro rata among the creditors whose
claims have been allowed.* But, in the absence of such a
statute, attaching creditors take rank and are entitled to satis-
faction according to the dates of the service of their attach-
ments,‘ and where the first attachment has been levied the
goods in the custody of the officer can not be seized by another

officer upon a subsequent writ.®

§ 383. Property subject to attachment.—As a general rule
any property subject to execution may be attached.6 This, of
course, includes real estate’ as well as personal property. But
in either case the attachment only operates upon the interest
of the debtor at the time of the attachment. So, it has been
held, where property is perishable or of such a nature that an
attachment would result in producing a great sacrifice and in-
jury to the debtor without any corresponding benefit to the
creditor the writ should be refused.? And property already in
custodia legis can not be attached.”

1Schmidt v. Colley, 29 Ind. 120;
Taylor v. Elliott, 51 Ind. 375.

2 Fee v. Moore, 74 Ind. 319; Ryan v.
Burkam, 42 Ind. 507.

?Compton v. Crone, 58 Ind. 106;
Lexington, etc., Co. v. Ford Plate
Glass Co., 84 Ind. 516.

‘Tappan v. Harrison, 2 Humph.
(Tenn.) 172; Murray v. Gibson, 2 La.
Ann. 3811; Ginsberg v. Pohl, 35 Md.
505; De Wolf v. Murphy, 11 R. I. 630;
Hagan v. Lucas, 10 Pet. (U. 8.) 400;
Altas Bank v. Nahant Bank, 23 Pick.
480; Patterson v. Stephenson, 77 Mo.
329,

5 Vinton v. Bradford, 18 Mass. 114,
S.C. 7 Am. Dec. 119; Beers v. Place,
86 Conn. 578; Corning v. Dreyfur, 20
Fed. R. 426.

‘Drake on Attachment, §§ 2, 232,
263; Wade on Attachment, §§ 249, 261;
Roby v. Labuzan, 21 Ala. 60, 8. C. 56

Am. Dec. 237. Property exempt from
execution can not be attached. Em-
erson v. Bacon, 58 Mich. 526. But
property not exempt when attached
can not be rendered so by the debtor’s
subsequently disposing of his other
property. Kilpatrick, etc., Co. v. Cal-
lender (Neb.), 52 N. W. R. 403.

TIsham v. Downer, 8 Conn. 282;
Munroe v. Luke, 19 Pick. (Mass.) 39;
Argyle v. Dwinel, 29 Me. 29.

® Drake on Attachment, § 245; Wade
on Attachment, § 264; Crocker v.
Pierce, 31 Me.177; Handley v. Pfister,
39 Cal. 283, 8. C.2 Am. R. 449. -

® Wallace v. Barker, 8 Vt. 440; Oy-
stead v. Shed, 12 Mass. 506; Bradford
v. Gillespie, 8 Dana (Ky.), 67; Norris
v. Watson, 2 Foster (N. H.), 364;
Bond v. Ward, 7 Mass. 123.

Taylor v. Carryl, 24 Pa. St. 259;
Drake on Attachment, § 281. Com-
468 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 384

§ 384. Lien of attachment.—Although the attachment is,
in a sense at least, merely provisional and contingent upon the
recovery of judgment in the main action, yet, according to the
weight of authority, a lien may be acquired before judgment.
In order to secure it, however, it is not sufficient that a writ.
of attachment shall have been issued or even placed in the
hands of the proper officer; the writ must be actually levied
upon the property of the debtor.?, Where property is attached
and sold under a judgment the title of the purchaser relates to
the date of the attachment.? When the lien has once been ac-
quired it can be lost or destroyed only by dissolution of the at-
tachment.t This is the rule, at least, as against the defendant;
but it has been held that subsequent purchasers in good faith,
and, it seems, other creditors, may obtain rights where pos-
session of the property is abandoned by the officer and it is.
left in the hands of the defendant.» It is generally provided,
however, that the officer may leave the property with the de-
fendant upon receiving from the latter a forthcoming or deliv-

pare Conover v. Ruckman, 33 N. J.
Eq. 303; Wehle v. Conner, 83 N. Y.
231.

1 Jackson v. Ramsey, 15 Am. Dec.
242, and note. Contra, Ex parte Fos-
ter, 2 Story, 131.

7 Kuhn v. Graves, 9 Iowa, 303; Zieg-
enhager v. Doe, 1 Ind. 296; Gates v.
Bushnell, 9 Conn. 530; Taffts v. Man-
love, 14 Cal. 47; Lynch v. Crary, 52
N. Y. 181; Learned v. Vandenburgh,
8 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 77; Tomlinson v.
Stiles, 4 Dutch. (N. J.) 201; Pond v.
Griffin, 1 Ala. 678; note to Franklin
Bank v. Bachelder, 39 Am. Dec. 601,
607. But under some statutes it is
made a lien from the time it is placed
in the hands of the officer. Shirk v.
Wilson, 13 Ind. 129; Moore v. Fitz, 15
Ind. 43; Fee v. Moore, 74 Ind. 319.

3 Tyrell v. Roundtree, 7 Pet. (U. 8.)
464; Brown v. Williams, 31 Me. 403;
Rodgers v. Bonner, 45 N.Y.379; Han-
nahs v. Felt, 15 Iowa, 141; Lackey v.

Seibert, 23 Mo. 85; Oldham ». Schriv-
ener, 3 B. Mon. (Ky.) 579; Porter v.
Pico, 55 Cal. 165; Cockey v. Milne, 16
Md. 200; note to Franklin Bank ».
Bachelder, 39 Am. Dec. 601, 607.

*Franklin Bank v. Bachelder, 23.
Me. 60, 8. C. 39 Am. Dec. 601, and
note; Davenport v. Lacon, 17 Conn.
278; Smith v. Bradstreet, 16 Pick.
(Mass.) 264; Franklin Fire Ins. Co.
v. West, 8 Watts & S. (Pa.) 350; Mur-
ray v.Gibson, 2 La. Ann.311; Hervey
v. Champion, 11 Humph. (Tenn.) 569;
Harrison v. Trader, 29 Ark.85; Grigg
v. Banks, 59 Ala. 311; Ward v. Mc-
Kenzie, 33 Texas, 297, 8. C..7 Am. R.
261.

5Gower v. Stevens, 19 Maine, 92;
Thompson v. Baker, 74 Me. 48; Chad-
bourne v. Sumner, 16 N. H. 129; San-
ford v. Boring, 12 Cal. 539; Gordon v.
Jenney, 16 Mass. 465; Taintor v. Will-
iams, 7 Conn. 271; Boynton v. War-
ren, 99 Mass. 172.
§ 885 AUXILIARY PROCEEDINGS. 469

ery bond for the return of the property in case judgment is
rendered against him, and this does not dissolve the attach-
ment or affect: the lien.1 -By giving such a bond the defend-
ant, it seems, estops himself from denying that the property is
subject to attachment or the levy valid,” but it has been held
that he may afterwards move to set aside the attachment.

§ 385. Dissolution of attachment.—The attachment is dis-
solved by final judgment for the defendant in the main action,’
even though it be a judgment of non-suit.’ So, defects and
irregularities in the proceedings may be cause for dissolving
the attachment upon motion. And, in most of the States, it
may also be dissolved by the defendant giving a bond, with
surety, for the payment of any judgment that may be recovered
against him in the action.’ So, the defendant may obtain a
dissolution of the attachment by showing that the alleged
grounds therefor do not exist. It has also been held that the
death of the defendant and abatement of the suit will dissolve

Hale v. Cummings, 3 Ala.398; Wheeler
v. Nichols, 32 Me. 233.

Gass v. Williams, 46 Ind. 253; Ty-
Jer v. Safford, 24 Kan. 580. In some

jurisdictions a mere receipt is given.
Perry v. Somerby, 57 Me. 552; Lewis
v. Webber, 116 Mass. 450; Cornell v.
Dakin, 38 N. Y. 253.

2 Morgan v. Furst, 4 Mart. N.S. (La.)
116, 8. C. 16 Am. Dec. 166; Bowley v.
Angire, 49 Vt. 41; People v. Reeder,
25 N. Y. 302; Scanlan v. O’Brien, 21
Minn. 434; Haggart v. Morgan, 5 N.
Y, 422, 8. C. 55 Am. Dec. 350.

5 Garbutt v. Hanff, 15 Abb. Pr. (N.
Y.) 189. Compare Morrison v. Al-
phin, 23 Ark. 186; Paddock v. Mat-
thews, 3 Mich. 18.

‘Suydam v. Huggerford, 23 Pick.

-(Mass.) 465; Clapp v. Bell, 4 Mass.
99; Ouzts v. Seabrook, 47 Ga. 359;

5 Brown v. Harris, 2 G. Greene, 505,
S.C. 52 Am. Dec. 535; Danforth v.
Carter, 4 Ia. 230.

® Bruce v. Conyers, 54 Ga. 678; Clark
v. Roberts, 1 Ill. 285.

TCole v. Parker, 7 Ia. 167, S. C. 71
Am. Dec. 439; Winter v. Kinney, 1N.
Y. 365; Shirley v. Byrnes, 34 Tex. 625;
Barry v. Foyles, 1 Pet. (U.S.) 311;
Hills v. Moore, 40 Mich. 210; Payne
v. Snell, 3 Mo. 409; McCombs». Allen,
82 N. Y. 114; Eddy v. Moore, 23 Kan.
113; Brenner v. Moyer, 98 Pa. St. 274;
Hill v. Harding, 93 Il]. 77; Dunn v.
Crocker, 22 Ind. 324.

8 Lovier v. Gilpin, 6 Dana (Ky.),
321; Drake on Attachment, § 399;
Shulenberg ¥. Farwell, 84 Ill. 400.
470 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 386
the attachment.?
not dissolve it.?

§ 386. Garnishment—Generally.—Garnishment is, in effect,
the attachment of property of the defendant in the hands of a
stranger. Like attachment proper it is a creature of statute,
and the statute should be carefully followed.* It is auxiliary
or ancillary to the principal case and furnishes a more effectual
means for the recovery of debts or claims by notifying or warn-
ing one who is indebted to the defendant or has property be-
longing to him to appear and make answer as to such indebt-
edness or as to the possession of such property, and not to pay
such indebtedness or surrender the property until further or-
‘der of the court. It is usually permitted only in cases in
which an attachment would be authorized,‘ and binds the
garnishee as to the debt or property in his hands from the date
of the service of the writ.° Many of the statutes provide that
any person being indebted to the defendant or having money
or other property of the defendant in his possession or under
his control may be garnished, and this provision would seem
to be broad enough to include agents and fiduciaries gener-
ally,® as well as others, but it has not always been so construed,

But mere bankruptcy of the defendant will

1Upbham v. Dodge, 11 R. I. 621;
Collins v. Duffy, 7 La. Ann. 39; Dav-
enport v. Tilton, 10 Metc. (Mass.) 320;
Hensley v. Morgan, 47 Cal. 622; Row-
her v. Hill, 60 Me. 172; Sweringen v.
Eberius, 7 Mo. 421, 8. C. 38 Am. Dec.
463. Contra, Smith v. Warden, 35 N.
J. L. 346; Moore v. Thayer, 10 Barb.
(N. Y.) 258; Lord v. Allen, 34 Ia. 281.

?Franklin Bank v. Bachelder, 23
Me. 60, 8. C. 39 Am. Dec. 601, and
note; Batchelder v. Putnam, 54 N. H.
84, S.C. 20 Am. R. 115; Munson »v.
Railroad Co., 120 Mass. 81, S. C. 21
Am. R. 499. Contra, Foster’s Case, 2
Story, 131.

5 Gibbon v. Bryan, 3 Ill. App. 298;
Black v. Brisbin, 3 Minn. 360, S. C.
74 Am. Dec. 762; Ferris v. Ferris, 25
Vt. 100; Ford v. Detroit, etc., Co., 50

Mich. 358; Schindler v. Smith, 18 La.
Ann. 476; Wolf v. Tappan, 5 Dana
(Ky.), 361. In some States, however,
it is held that such statutes should be
liberally construed for the advance-
ment.ofthe remedy. Bacon Academy
v. Dewolf, 26 Conn. 602; Treadway v.
Andrews, 20 Conn. 384; Hannibal,
etc., R. R. Co. v. Crane, 102 Ill. 249;
Mansfield ». New England, etc., Co.,
58 Me. 35, 38; Fisher v. Hervey, 6
Col. 16.

4See Hill v. Whitney, 16 Vt. 461;
ante, §§ 879, 380.

5 First Nat. Bank v. Armstrong, 101
Ind. 244; Simpson ». Potter, 18 Ind.
429; Brashear v. West, 7 Pet. (U. 8S.)
608; Emanuel v. Bridger, L. R., 9 Q.
B. 286; Holmes v. Tutton, 5 El. & B. 65.

®See Halbert v. Stinson, 6 Blackf.
§ 386 AUXILIARY PROCEEDINGS. 471

and, in the absence of such a provision, executors, adminis-
trators, guardians, and the like, can not be garnished,! nor can.
a mere agent of the defendant for money held by him for his
principal? So, sheriffs and public officers are usually exempt
from garnishment as to property in custodia legis or held by
the officer in his official capacity.’ Private corporations may
be garnished,‘ and in many States provision is made for reach-
ing the shares of corporate stock belonging to the defendant;
but it is generally held that a city or other municipal corpora-
tion can not be garnished.® So, in the absence of any statu-

(Ind.) 398; Simonds v. Harris, 92 Ind. v. Baker, 39 N. J. L. 49; Averill v.

505; Norton v. Norton, 43 Ohio St. 509;
Lyman v. Wood, 42 Vt. 113; Coble v.
Nonemaker, 78 Pa. St. 501; Hoyt v.
Christie, 51 Vt. 48.

1 Brooks». Cook, 8 Mass.246; Barnes
v. Treat, 7 Mass. 271; Nickerson v.
Chase, 122 Mass. 296; Norton v. Clark,
18 Nev. 247; Whitehead v. Coleman,
81 Gratt. (Va.) 784; Hansen v. But-
ler, 48 Me. 81; Conway v. Arming-
ton, 11 R. I. 116; Case, ete., Co. v.
Miracle, 54 Wis. 295. See, also, Hoag
v. Hoag, 55N. H.172; Knight v. Clyde,
12 R.1I.119; Belknap v. Gibbens, 13
Metc. (Mass.) 471. So, as a general
rule, trust funds are not subject to
garnishment. Keyser v. Mitchell, 67
Pa. St. 473; White v. Jenkins, 16 Mass.
62; White v. White, 30 Vt. 338; Mor-
rill v. Raymond, 28 Kan. 415, 8. C. 42
Am. R. 167; Hurd v. Trust Co., 63
How. Pr. (N. Y.) 314.

21McDonald v. Gillett, 69 Me. 271;
Hall v. Filter Mfg. Co., 10 Phila. (Pa.)
370; Flanagan v. Wood, 33 Vt. 332;
First Nat. Bank v. Railroad Co., 45
Ja. 120; Neuer v. O’Fallon, 18 Mo. 277,
S. C. 59 Am. Dec. 313.

8 Pollard v. Ross, 5 Mass. 319; Hill
». Railroad Co., 14 Wis. 291, 8. C. 80
Am. Dec. 783; Waite v. Osborne, 11
Me. 185; Glenn v. Gill, 2 Md. 1;
Tremper v. Brooks,40 Mich. 333 ; Lodor

Tucker, 2 Cranch C. C. 544. Com-
pare Hurlburt v. Hicks, 17 Vt. 193, 8.
C. 44 Am. Dec. 329; Gaither v. Ballew,
4 Jones (N. Car.), 488, 8. C. 69 Am.
Dec. 763. Anattorney may, however,
be subject to garnishment. Hancock
v. Colyer, 99 Mass. 187, 8. C. 96 Am.
Dec. 730; Ayer v. Brown,-77 Me. 195;
Mann v. Buford, 3 Ala. 312, S. C. 37
Am. Dec. 691.

*Knox v. Protection Ins. Co., 9
Conn. 480, 8. C. 25 Am. Dec. 33; Balti-
more, etc., R. R. Co. v. Gallahue, 12
Gratt. 655, 8. C.65 Am. Dec. 254; Boyd
v. Chesapeake Canal Co., 17 Md. 195;
Taylor v. Burlington, etc., R. R. Co.,
5 Iowa, 114; St. Louis, etc., Co. v. Co-
hen, 9 Mo. 421; Hughes v. Oregonian
R’y Co., 11 Ore. 158. Compare Mich-
igan Cent. R. R. Co. v. Chicago, etc.,
R. R. Co., 1 Ill. App. 399; Holland v.
Leslie, 2 Harr. (Del.) 306. Asto when
foreign corporations may be, see Neu-
felder v. German-American Ins. Co.
(Wash.), 33 Pac. R. 870; German Bank
v. Am. Fire Ins. Co., 83 Iowa, 491, S.
C. 32 Am. St. R.316, and note; Folger
v. Columbian Ins. Co., 99 Mass. 267,
S. C. 96 Am. Dec. 747, and note.

5 Erie v. Knapp, 29 Pa. St. 173; Mer-
rell v. Campbell, 49 Wis. 535, 8. C. 35
Am. BR. 785; Memphis v. Laski, 9
Heisk. (Tenn.) 511, 8. C. 24 Am. R.
472 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 387

tory provision upon the subject, real estate is not subject to
garnishment.

§ 387. Procedure in garnishment.—In some of the States
the writ of attachment itself authorizes the officer not only to
levy on the property of the defendant subject to actual seizure
in his own hands, but also to reach that in the hands of a
third person by summoning him as a garnishee. In others,
however, an affidavit must be filed in garnishment before the
writ will be issued against the garnishee,? and in some juris-
dictions a special bond must also be given.? Upon compliance
with the statutory requirements a writ issues commanding the
garnishee to appear and answer. The garnishee is usually re-
quired to appear in court in person and submit to an examina-
tion as to his alleged indebtedness to the defendant or posses-
sion of the latter’s property.*| In many jurisdictions, instead
of an oral examination, the same purpose is accomplished by
filing interrogatories which the garnishee is required to an-
swer.> Corporations answer under their corporate seal or by

327; Walker v. Cook, 129 Mass. 577; v. Heenan, 5 Minn. 341; Farwell v.

Hawthorn v. St. Louis, 11 Mo. 59, 8.
C. 47 Am. Dec. 141; Spencer v. School
District, 11 R. I. 5387; City of Denver
». Brown, 11 Colo. 387, 8. C.18 Pac. R.
214; Commissioners v. Bond, 3 Col.
411; Wallace v. Lawyer, 54 Ind. 501, 8.
C. 23 Am. R. 661. But, see Wales v.
Muscatine, 4 Iowa, 302; Rodman v.
Musselman, 12 Bush (Ky.), 354, 8. C.
23 Am. R. 724; Mayor». Horton, 38N.
J. L. 88; Jenks v. Osceola Township,
45 Iowa, 554; City of Newark v. Funk,
15 Ohio St. 462.

! How v. Field, 5 Mass. 390; Bissell
v. Strong, 9 Pick. 562; Stedman v.
Vickery, 42 Me. 132; Risley v. Welles,
5 Conn. 481; Hunter v. Case, 20 Vt.
195; Wright v. Bosworth, 7 N. H.590;
National Union Bank v. Brainerd
(Vt.), 26 Atl. R. 723.

? As to requisites of the affidavit, see
Steen v. Norton, 45 Wis. 412; Prince

Chambers, 62 Mich. 316; Ordway v.
Remington, 12 R. I. 319, S. C. 34 Am.
R. 646; Corbin v. Goddard, 94 Ind.
419; Sun Mut. Ins. Co. v. Seeligson,
59 Tex. 3. ‘

+ Rothermel v. Marr, 98 Pa. St. 285;
Citizens’ Bank v. Payne, 21 La. Ann.
380; Pounds v. Hammer, 57 Ala. 342;
Hays v. Anderson, 57 Ala. 374.

* Brainard v. Simmons, 58 Ia. 464;
Thompson v. Silvers, 59 Ia. 670;:
Wright v. Swanson, 46 Ala. 708; Curry
v. Woodward, 53 Ala. 371; Roberts v.
Landecker, 9 Cal. 262, 266. See, also,
Cornell v. Payne, 115 Ill. 63, 68.

5 Waples on Attachment, § 348;
Nutter v. Railroad Co., 1381 Mass. 231;
Parker v. Page, 38 Cal. 522; Crossman
v. Crossman, 21 Pick. 21; Roquest v.
Steamer, 13 La. Ann. 210; Richardson
v. White, 19 Ark. 241; Roberts v.
Barry, 42 Miss. 260.
§ 387 AUXILIARY PROCEEDINGS. 473

their proper officers or agents.1_ In some States the sworn an-
swer of the garnishee is conclusive,” but in most jurisdictions
the garnishee’s liability may be shown by the plaintiff by evi-
dence aliunde, notwithstanding the answer of the garnishee.’
Where this is the case, issue is taken on the answer, in some
States by affidavit or further pleadings and trial,‘ and in oth-
ers by oral examination and evidence of parties and witnesses
without any further pleading.® When the liability of the gar-
nishee is not clearly shown he will be discharged,® and so if
the plaintiff fails to obtain judgment against the defendant.’
As against the garnishee the plaintiff stands in the defendant’s
shoes and can acquire no greater right, in the absence of fraud
or collusion, than the defendant. had at the time of the gar-
nishment,® and he should be properly protected by the judg-

1 Baltimore, etc., R. R. Co. v. Galla-
shue, 12 Gratt. (Va.) 655, S. C. 65
Am. Dec. 254; Chicago, etc., R. R.
Co. v. Mason, 11 Ill. App. 525; Udall
v. School District, 48 Vt. 588; (Head
v. Merrill, 34 Me. 586; Planters’, etc.,
Bank v. Leavans, 4 Ala. 753.

? Raymond v. Narragansett, etc., Co.,
14R.I. 310; Moore v. Green, 4 Humph.
(Tenn.) 299; Chiidress v. Dickins, 8
Yerg. (Tenn.) 113.

3 Fearey v. Cummings, 41 Mich. 376;
Bebb v. Preston, 1 Ia. 460; National
Bank v. Lake Shore, etc., R. R. Co., 21
Ohio St. 221; Kelley v. Weymouth, 68
Me. 197; Davis v. Knapp, 8 Mo. 657;
Rippen v. Schoen, 92 Ill. 229; Britt v.
Bradshaw, 18 Ark. 580, and authori-
ties cited in following notes.

‘ Ellison v. Tuttle, 26 Tex. 283; My-
att v. Lockhart, 9 Ala. 91; Faulks v.
Heard, 31 Ala. 516; Williams v. Jones,
42 Miss. 270; Lindsay v. Morris (Ala.),
18 So. R. 619.

5 Corbin v. Goddard, 94 Ind. 419.

® Hurst v. Home Ins. Co., 81 Ala.
174; Field v. Malone, 102 Ind. 251;

Seward v. Arms, 145 Mass. 195; Pad-
den v. Moore, 58 Ia. 703; Meadowcroft
v. Agnew, 89 Ill. 469; Pierce v. Carle-
ton, 12 Ill. 358; Nashville v. Potomac
Ins. Co., 58 Tenn. 296.

™Case v. Moore, 21 Ala. 758; Rose v.
Whaley, 14 La. Ann. 374; Kellogg v.
Freeman, 50 Miss. 127; Washburn v.
New York, etc., Co., 41 Vt. 50; Row-
lett v. Lane, 43 Tex. 274; Emanuel v.
Smith, 38 Ga. 602; Collins v. Friend,
21 La. Ann. 7; Bostwick v. Beach, 18
Ala. 80; Laidlaw v. Morrow, 44 Mich.
547; Withers v. Fuller, 30 Gratt.
(Va.) 547.

8 Noble v. Thompson Oil Co., 79 Pa.
St. 354, S.C. 21 Am. R. 66; Myer v.
Liverpool Ins. Co.,40 Md. 595; Harris
»v. Phenix Ins. Co., 35 Conn. 310;
Samuel v. Agnew, 80 II]. 553; Mathis
v. Clark, 2 Mill (8. Car.), 456, 8. C.12
Am. Dec. 688; Whipple v. Robbins, 97
Mass. 107; Secor v. Witter, 39 Ohio
St. 218; Oregon, etc., Co. v. Gates, 10
Ore. 514; Burlington, etc., Co. v.
Thompson, 31 Kan. 180.
474 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 388

ment.’ If he is duly served and does not appear and answer
judgment may be taken against him by default.?

§ 388. Duty and liability of garnishee—The garnishee,
when properly served, should appear and answer, disclosing
the facts, or if the defendant has not been personally served
and does not appear the garnishee must question the jurisdic-
tion of the court if it has none.? It has also been held that
he must present the question of the defendant’s right to ex-
emption where he has knowledge that such a right exists,‘
but as the right to exemption is generally considered a
mere personal privilege, it would seem that, upon prin-
ciple, the garnishee can neither insist upon such a defense,
where the principal defendant waives it, nor be held liable fur

1See 8 Am. & Eng. Encyc. of Law,
1244.

? Abell v. Simson, 49 Md. 318; Penn
v. Pelan, 52 Ia. 585; Drake on Attach-
ment, § 636. But proof should be
made. Lewis v. Faul, 29 Ark. 470.
And, in some States, at least, the
judgment is conditional. Horat v.
Jackel, 59 Il]. 189. As he can only be
held in case the plaintiff recovers
against the defendant it would seem
that no absolute final judgment can
be rendered against him upon default
in the absence of a judgment against
the defendant. See Bryan v. Dean,
63 Ga. 317; Johnson v. Johnson, 26
Ind. 441; Whorley v. Memphis, etc.,
R. R. Co., 72 Ala. 20; Withers v.
' Fuller, 30 Gratt. (Va.) 547.

3 Debs v. Dalton (Ind.), 34 N. E.
R. 236; Emery v. Royal, 117 Ind. 299,
8S. C. 20 N. E. R. 150; Andrews wv.
Powell, 27 Ind. 303; Pierce v. Carle-
ton, 12 Ill. 358, §. C. 54 Am. Dee. 405;
Laidlaw v. Morrow, 44 Mich. 547;
Kellogg v. Freeman, 50 Miss. 127;
Stone v. Magruder, 10 Gill & J. 383,
8. C. 32 Am. Dec. 177; Thayer v. Ty-
ler, 10 Gray, 164; Cota v. Ross, 66 Me.

161; Woodfolk v.Whitworth, 5 Coldw.
(Tenn.) 561; Drake on Attachment,
§ 965. It is otherwise, however, where
the defendant is personally served or
appears. Washburn v. New York, etc.,
Co., 41 Vt.50; Harmon v. Birchard, 8
Blackf. (Ind.) 418; Newman v. Man-
ning, 89 Ind. 422. So as to mere itreg-
ularities or technical errors that the

., principal defendant might have taken

advantage of, but which do not go to
the jurisdiction. Whitehead v. Hen-
derson, 4 Smed. & M. (Miss.) 704;
Gunn v. Howell, 35 Ala. 144, S. C.
73 Am. Dec. 484; Reynolds v. Collins,
78 Ala. 94; Empire, etc., Co. v. Macey,
115 Ill. 390; Earl». Matheney, 60 Ind.
202; Baltimore, etc., Co. v. Taylor, 81
Ind. 24; Henny, etc., Co. v. Patt, 73
Iowa, 485.

* Mineral Point R. R. Co. v. Barron,
83 Ill. 365; Pierce v. Railroad Co., 36
Wis. 283; Chicago & A. R. R. Co. v.
Ragland, 84 Ill. 375; Clark v. Averill,
81 Vt. 512, 8. C. 76 Am. Dec. 181; Mull
v, Jones,33 Kan.112; Terre Haute,etc.,
Co.v. Baker,122 Ind.433 ; Parker v. Wil-
son, 61 Vt.116; Davis v. Meredith, 48
Mo. 263; Smith v. Dickson, 58 Ia. 444.
§ 388 AUXILIARY PROCEEDINGS. 475

not making it.' The garnishee may generally set up any de-
fense he might have had if sued by the defendant, such as the
statute of limitations,’ set-off’ or the like; and if he has been

_ garnished in a prior proceeding for the same matter he should

set up or disclose that fact. A prior settlement between the
principal defendant and the garnishee extinguishing the debt,
or payment in good faith made by the garnishee to such de-

‘fendant, before the service of the writ, may discharge the gar-

nishee from liability; but such settlement or payment after
the service of the writ will not discharge him.” He may also
be discharged, under some statutes, by the payment of the
money into court or delivery of the property to the officer,® but
if the money is not paid over or the property delivered he
should retain it until the final adjustment of the suit.? If
judgment is rendered in favor of the garnishee he is entitled

’ In several of the cases cited, however,

wages were garnished which were ex-
empted by special statute.

1See Osborn v. Schutt, 67 Mo. 712;
Moore v. Railroad Co., 43 Iowa, 385;
Chilcote v. Conley, 36 Ohio St. 545.
Where wages are expressly made ex-
empt from garnishment by special
statute, a different principle ought to
apply, but where the garnishee has
simply failed to plead that the defend-
ant is entitled to an exemption of a
certain amount of property from exe-
cution under the general statute, we
think he ought not to be held liable to
the defendant on that account, espe-
cially if the defendant appears or is
personally served.

?Hazen v. Emerson, 9 Pick. 144;
Crossman v. Crossman, 21 Pick. 21,
24; Benton v. Lindell, 10 Mo. 557.

5 Pennell v. Grubb, 13 Pa. St. 552;
Dyer v. McHenry, 13 Iowa,527; Cox
v. Russell, 44 Iowa, 556, 562; Wheeler
v. Emerson, 45 N. H. 526; St. Louis v.
Regenfuss, 28 Wis. 144.

‘Myers v. Baltzell, 37 Pa. St. 491;
Firebaugh v. Stone, 36 Mo. 111; Ed-
son v. Sprout, 33 Vt. 77; Baker v. Eg-
lin, 11 Ore. 333; Sauer v. Nevadaville,
14 Colo. 54; Schuler v. Israel, 120 U.
S. 506.

5 Houston v. Walcott, 7 Iowa, 173;
Royer v. Fleming, 58 Mo. 488; Bullard
v. Hicks, 17 Vt. 198; Everdell v. She-
boygan, etc., Co., 41 Wis. 395; Wade
on Attachment, § 382.

° Huntington v. Risdon, 43 Iowa,517;
Lieberman v. Hoffman, 102 Pa. St. 590;
Getchell v. Chase, 124 Mass. 366; Cen-
ter v. McQuesten, 24 Kan. 480.

™Cleneay v. Junction R. R. Co., 26
Ind. 375; Stevens v. Dillman, 86 IIl.
233; Johann v. Rufener, 32 Wis. 195;
Arnold v. Linaweaver, 3 Head(Tenn.),
51; Loyless v. Hodges, 44 Ga. 647;
Leslie v. Merrill, 58 Ala. 322; Ellis v.
Goodnow, 40 Vt. 237; West v. Platt,
116 Mass. 308; Hughes v. Monty, 24
Iowa, 499.

® Ryan v. Burkam, 42 Ind. 507.

® Ryan v. Burkam, 42 Ind. 507.
476 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 389

to his costs,’ unless incurred through his own fault or neglect.?
They are usually taxed against the losing party,’ but if the
garnishee is unsuccessful and has sufficient property of the de-
fendant out of which he can be reimbursed the costs of the
garnishment may be taxed against him.*

§ 389. Ne exeat.—Constitutional provisions in various States
have rendered the writ of ne exeat practically obsolete where
they exist, and it is seldom resorted to in any State; but in
some jurisdictions and in some States it is a very effective
means of reaching a defendant who has sequestered his prop-
erty and is about to leave the country.® Originally it was a
high prerogative writ, issued for political purposes, forbidding
a subject to leave the realm; but it has since come into general
use in equity in aid of remedial justice. It is, in effect, a
writ for equitable bail,® and is usually granted only in cases of
equitable demands” which are certain ® and presently payable,®
where the defendant is about to leave the country to avoid

their payment.”

! Jarvis v. Mitchell, 99 Mass. 530.

?Wearne v. Haynes, 13 Nev. 103;
Randolph v. Little, 62 Ala, 396; Han-
son v. Butler, 48 Me. 81.

3 Hannibal, etc., Co. v. Crane, 102
Til. 249; Sulter v. Brooks, 74 Ga. 401.

* Holbrook v. Waters, 19 Pick, 354;
Baltimore, etc., Co. v. Taylor, 81 Ind.
24; Baker v. Lancashire Ins. Co., 52
Wis. 193; Whitney v. Kelley, 67 Me.
877; Strong v. Hollon, 39 Mich. 411.

>For cases in which it has been
used, see People v. Barton, 16 Col. 75,
26 Pac. R. 149; Denton v. Denton, 1
Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 364; Coglar v.
Coglar, 1 Ves. Jr. 94; Jones v. Al-
ephsin, 16 Ves. 470; Mitchell v.
Bunch, 2 Paige (N. Y.), 606, S. C. 22
Am. Dec. 669; Shainwald v. Lewis,
46 Fed. R. 839; Old Hickory, etc., Co.
v. Bleyer, 74 Ga. 201; Johnson v.
Clendenin, 5 Gill & J. 463; 2 Beach
Modern Eq., §§ 1010, 1011; note to
Moore v. Valda, 7 L. R. A. 396.

It is most commonly issued from a Federal

®Cable v. Alvord, 27 Ohio St. 666;
Gresham v. Peterson, 25 Ark. 377;
Mitchell v. Bunch, 2 Paige (N. Y.),
606, 8. C. 22 Am. Dec. 669} 2 Story’s
Eq., §§ 1469, 1470; Adams’ Eq., 360.

™Hannahan v. Nicholis, 17 Ga. 77;
Lucas v. Hickman, 2 Stew. (Ala.) 11,8.
C.19 Am. Dec.44; 2Story’s Eq. Jur., §
1470; 2 Beach Modern Kq., § 1011;
Adams’ Kq., 360, 861; note to Moore
v. Valda, 7 L. R. A. 396.

8 Graham v. Stucken, 4 Blatchf. 50;
Sherman v. Sherman, 2 Bro. C. C.(Per-
kins’ ed. note) 370; Mattocks v. Tre-
main, 3 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 75;, Me-
Donough v. Gaynor, 18 N. J. Eq. 249.

*Seymour v. Hazard, 1 Johns. Ch.
(N. Y.) 1; Rhodes v. Cousins, 6 Rand
(Va.), 188, 8. C. 18 Am. Dec. 715;
Whitehouse v. Partridge, 3 Swanst.
365.

10 Graham v. Stucken, 4 Blatchf. 50;
Mitchell v. Bunch, 2 Paige (N.Y.), 606,
8. C. 22 Am. Dec. 669; Fitzgerald v.
§ 390 AUXILIARY PROCEEDINGS. ATT

court of equity. The writ should be prayed for in the bill,!
but may be granted at any time after the bill is filed even
though it contains no prayer for a ne exeat,? and the applica-
tion may be made ez parte?) When not prayed for in the bill
it is usually granted upon a motion or petition supported by
affidavit. The writ may issue against a foreigner within the
jurisdiction of the court as well as against a citizen.6 The
writ may be discharged upon motion made within a reasonable
time,* for good cause, or by giving security,’ or paying the
amount of the plaintiff’s claim into court.®

§ 390. Injunction—Generally.—An injunction is very often
an important auxiliary remedy, but it is not always an aux-
iliary proceeding; on the contrary, an injunction is in many
instances the principal relief required.? It is not our purpose

Gray, 59 Ind. 254; Dean v. Smith, 23
Wis. 483, 8. C. 99 Am. Dec. 198.

1U. &. Eq., Rule, 21; Adams’ Eq.,
361. ,

2 Collinson’s Case, 18 Ves. Jr. 353;
Lewis v. Shainwald, 7 Saw. 403, 417;
note to Moore v. Valda, 7 L. R. A.
396. It may be granted after final de-
cree and will continue in force until
dissolved by court or satisfaction of
the decree. Lewis v. Shainwald, 48
Fed. R. 492.

3Collinson’s Case, 18 Ves. Jr. 353;
Samuel v. Wiley, 50 N. H.353; Elliott
v. Sinclair, Jacob, 545; McGhee v.
McGhee, 8 Ga. 295, S. C. 52 Am. Dec.
407.

‘Cable v. Alvord, 27 Ohio St. 654;
Clayton v. Mitchell, 1 Del. Ch. 32;
Mattocks v. Tremain, 3 Johns. Ch.
(N. Y.) 75; Rico v. Ganltier, 3 Atk.
501; Adams’ Eq., 361; note to Moore
v. Valda, 7 L. R. A. 396.

5 Flack v. Holm, 1 J. & W. 405; Mc-
Namara v. Dwyer,’7 Paige (N. Y.),
239, S. G. 82 Am. Dec. 627; Mitchell
v. Bunch, 2 Paige (N. Y.), 606, 8. C.
22 Am. Dec. 669. It has been held

that it will not issue against a married
woman. Moore v. Valda, 151 Mass.
363, 8. C. 23 N. E. R. 1102; Adams v.
Whitcomb, 46 Vt. 708. But, compare
Moore v. Hudson, 6 Mad. 188.

6 Gernon v. Boecaline, 2 Wash. C. C.
130; Grant v. Grant, 3 Russ. 598, 602;
West v. Walker, 6 Blackf. (Ind.) 420;
Harris v. Hardy, 3 Hill (N. Y.), 393;
Miller v. Miller, 1 N. J. Eq. 386. See
Cary v. Cary, 39 N. J. Eq. 20.

TRoddam v. Hetherington, 5 Ves.
91; Baker v. Dumaresque, 2 Atk. 66;
Georgia Lumber Co. v. Bissell, 9 Paige
(N. Y.), 225; Bleyer v. Blum, 70 Ga.
558; Parker v. Parker, 12 N. J. Eq.
105.

8 Evans v. Evans, 1 Ves. Jr. 96; Gil-
bert v. Colt, Hopk. Ch. (N. Y.) 562.

9 An injunction is an order or writ
requiring a party to door refrain from
doing a particular act or particular
acts. Equity in employing the rem-
edy of injunction usually restrains or
prevents, but it also issues what is
called a mandatory injunction and by
such an order or writ commands that
acts shall be done. Chicago, etc., Co.
478. THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 390

to treat at length of the subject of injunctions since that would ,
be outside of the scope of our work; all that we propose to do
is to treat of the order or writ as an auxiliary remedy, but in
doing this we must necessarily speak of the general features of
the writ or order of injunction whether it constitutes an aux-
iliary remedy or is the principal or exclusive remedy in the
suit. Whether issued asa principal remedy or as an auxiliary
one an injunction is one of the most powerful and efficacious
instruments of preventive justice. Where the two systems,
law and equity, are separate and the courts adhere to old doc-
trines the remedy is much restricted, much more, as it seems

v. St. Jo, etc., Co., 38 Fed. R. 58; Mar-
tyr v. Lawrence, 2 DeG. J. &S. 261;
Murdock’s Case, 2 Bland’s Ch. 461, 8.
C. 20 Am. Dec. 381; Toledo, etc., Co.
v. Penna.Co.,54 Fed.R.730, 19 Lawy.R.
Anno. 387; Gardner v. Stroever, 81 Cal.
148, 6 Lawy.R.Anno. 90; Mastin v. Hal-
ley, 61 Mo. 196; Atchison, etc., Co. v.
Long, 46 Kan. 701; Pensacola, etc.;
Co. v. Spratt, 12 Fla. 26,8. C. 91 Am.
Dec. 747; Brown v. Haff, 5 Paige, 235,
S.C.28 Am. Dec. 425; Bailey v. Schnit-
zins, 45 N. J. Eq. 178; Andrews v.
McLeod, 66 Miss. 348; Whitecar v.
Michenor, 37 N. J. Eq. 6; Hodge v.
Giese, 43 N. J. Eq. 342; Shivers v.
Shivers, 32 N. J. Eq. 578; Sullivan v.
Graffert, 53 Ia. 581; Danenhauer v.
Devine, 51 Tex. 480; Denny v. Denny,
113 Ind. 22; Allen v. Hanks, 136 U.
8.300; Kilbourn v. Sunderland, 130 U.
8. 505; Gormley v. Clark, 134 U.S.
338. A mandatory injunction may be
awarded upon a preliminary hearing.
Toledo, etc., Co. v. Penna. Co., supra.
It is a settled principle of equity juris-

prudence that an injunction will not

be granted where there is an adequate
remedy at law, but to exclude relief
by injunction the legal remedy must
be equally as prompt, full and effica-
cious as that of equity. Watson v.
Sutherland, 5 Wall. 74; Buzard v.

Houston, 119 U. 8. 347; Boyce’s Ex.
v. Gundy, 3 Pet. 210; Hower v. Weiss,
55 Fed. R. 356; Beadel v. Perry, L. R.,
3 Eq. 465; Coe v. Louisville, etc., Co.,
3 Fed. R. 775; Payne v. Kansas, etc.,
Co., 46 Fed. R.546; Re Sloan (N.M.),
25 Pac. R. 930. See, generally, United
Lines, etc., Co.v. Grant, 187 N. Y.7, 32
N.E. R. 1005; Lowenbein v. Fuld-
ner, 21 N. Y. 8.615; Hagan v. Blin-
dell, 56 Fed. R. 696; Proprietors, etc.,
». Proprietors, 85 Me. 175, 8. C. 27
Atl. R. 93. The code does not en-
tirely change the rule. Neiser v.
Thomas, 99 Mo. 224; Bass v. City of
Fort Wayne, 121 Ind. 389;, Smith ».
Goodknight, 121 Ind. 312, 8. C. 23 N.
E. R. 148. The reason for this rule is
not that the relief is equitable, since
under the code there is no substantial
difference between legal and equitable
relief. The true reason for the rule is,
as we believe, that the one remedy is
ordinary and the other extraordinary.
The codes of the different States have
undoubtedly greatly extended the
remedy by injunction. In those States
where there is only one action, de-
nominated a civil action, all relief,
equitable and legal, may be obtained
in a single action. Pomeroy’s Reme-
dies and Remedial Rights, 95; Feder
v. Field, 117 Ind. 386; Field v. Holz-
§'390 AUXILIARY PROCEEDINGS. 479

to us, than is reasonable or just. The tendency of modern ad-
judications is to widen the field of preventive justice and to
employ the chief of all the preventive remedies with a free
hand. In the code States the remedy of injunction is more
often employed than in jurisdictions where the old system pre-
vails, for in the code States all relief, equitable or legal, may
be obtained in a civil action, whereas in States where the old
system still exists relief by injunction can only be secured
from a court of equity, so that to secure an injunction as an
auxiliary aid to the enforcement of a legal cause of action the
jurisdiction of two courts must be invoked, that of the one be-
ing necessary to supply relief at law, and that of the other to
furnish equitable relief. Considered with reference to their
duration injunctions may be thus classified: 1. Restraining
orders. 2. Temporary injunctions. 3. Perpetual injunctions.
A restraining order is one issued by the court upon proper ap-
plication to continue until a time fixed for the hearing of the

motion for a temporary injunction.?

man, 93 Ind. 205; Richwine v. Pres-
‘byterian Church (Ind.), 34 N. E. R.
737, 738.

1Champ v. Kendrick, 180 Ind. 549,
citing Erwin v. Fulk, 94 Ind. 235;
Bishop v. Moorman, 98Ind.1. In the
case first cited, the court quoted with
approval from 3 Pomeroy’s Equity,
§ 357, the following: ‘“That aremedy
which prevents a threatened wrong is
in its essential nature better than a
remedy which permits the wrong to
be done, and then attempts to pay for
it by the pecuniary damages which a
jury may assess.’’ It seems, to us that
in the jurisdictions where there is only
one action there is every reason for
extending the field of preventive jus-
tice, and none for narrowing it. The
unreasonable strife which so long pre-
vailed between the courts of law and
the courts of chancery led to a restric-
tion of preventive rémedies to the det-
riment of justice. There is no just

A restraining order is

reason why the old ill-working, ill-do-
ing rules should not be swept away.
The precedents of the past are, how-
ever, yet adhered to, although they
have ceased to have any adequate
support in reason or principle. If by
preventing a wrong justice is pro-
moted, the wrong ought to be pre-
vented. It is infinitely more import-
ant that adequate justice be done than
that precedents be observed. Espe-
cially is this true where precedents
have outworn their usefulness, and
the changes wrought by a liberal and
enlightened view of jurisprudence
have taken from them their usefulness
and their office. Where, as in the
code States, one court in one action
administers all relief, the only con-
sideration should be what remedy will
most promptly, effectively and fairly
yield justice to the litigants.

'? Wallace v. McVey, 6 Ind. 300, 303;
Dexter v.Ohlander,95-Ala.467,10 So.R.
480 THE WORK OUT

OF COURT. § 391

substantially the same thing as a preliminary injunction, and
its essential characteristic is that it is granted until notice can
be given. A restraining order corresponds to what is some-
times called a ‘‘provisional injunction’’ or an interlocutory in-
junction. Where an emergency is shown the order of injunc-
tion may issue in term or vacation without notice.’ A tem-
porary injunction is one granted to continue in force until a
time designated by the court. In granting a temporary in-
junction the court does not decide the merits of the suit.2 A
temporary injunction, a preliminary injunction, or a provis-
ional injunction is an interlocutory decretal order and is not
in any instance final. A perpetual injunction is, it is hardly
necessary to say, a final decree commanding a party to do or
refrain from doing a particular act, and remains in force until
reversed or annulled in due course of law.

§ 391. When an injunction lies—We have spoken of the
rule that equity will not assume jurisdiction where there is an
adequate remedy at law, and have suggested that the rule still
prevails even in those States where the statute declares that

the distinction between law and equity is abolished.’

The

courts still cling to the old doctrine, but the modern cases have

essentially modified it.

527; Savannah, etc., Co. v. Savannah,
etc., Co., 87 Ga. 261, 8. C. 138. E. R.
512.

1Temple v. Bank of England, 6
Ves. 770; Cranford v. Ross, 39 Ga.
44; Pendleton v. Dalton, 64 N. Car.
829; Wing v. Fairhaven, 8 Cush. 363;
Perry v. Parker, 1 Wood & M. 280;
New York, etc., Co. v. Fitch, 1 Paige,
97; Ogden v. Kip, 6 John. Ch. 160;
Murdock’s Case, 2 Bland. Ch. 461;
Chilton v. Campbell, 20 Beav. 531;
Lloyd v. Adams, 4K. &J.467; Mayor,
etc., v. Curtiss, 1 Clarke, 336; Haynes
v. Hazelrigg, 1 Tenn. 242; Rutherford
v. Metcalf, 5 Hayw. 58; Flippin v.
Knaffle, 2 Tenn. Ch. 243; Fanshawe
v. Tracy, 4 Biss. 490; United States v.
Duluth, 1 Dill, 469; Shoemaker v.

The prevailing rule now is that to ex-

National Bank, 2 Abb. 416; Holmes
v. Davenport, 27 Abb. N. Cases, 75.
See, generally, Meroney v. Atlanta,
etc., Ass’n, 112 N. Car. 842,17 S. E.
R. 637; Harrell v. Americus Refrig-
erator Co. (Ga.), 17 S. E. R. 623;
Cornwall »v. Sachs, 23 N. Y. S.
500; Hagan v. Blindell, 54 Fed. R.
40, 8S. C. on appeal, 56 Fed. R. 696;
Birmingham, etc., v. City of Bessemer
(Ala.), 13 So. R. 487.

*Forsaith, etc., Co. v. Hope Mills
Co., 109 N. Car. 576, 8. C. 13S. E. R.
869; Andenried v. Philadelphia, etc.,
Co., 68 Pa. St. 370; Peck v. Goodber-
lett, 109 N. Y. 180; Preston v. Luck,
L. R., 27 Ch. Div. 497; Helm ». Gil-
roy, 20 Ore. 517, 8. C. 26 Pac. R. 851.

8 Ante, § 390, authorities in note.
481

§ 391 AUXILIARY PROCEEDINGS.

clude the equitable remedy that of the law must be as prompt,
adequate and efficient as that of equity.1. The test of the right
to an equitable remedy is, therefore, not merely whether there
is some remedy at law, but whether the law remedy equals in
its essential elements the equitable one. It does not follow,
however, that an injunction will lie even if the case is one
within the jurisdiction of equity, for an injunction is not al-
ways an appropriate remedy in suits in the equity courts. The
remedy by injunction is an extraordinary one in every sense
of the term, and to invoke the exercise of such a remedy aclear
and strong case must be made. It is often said that an in-
junction is the ‘‘strong arm of equity, and is to be extended
only in cases where the strongest measures are required.’’ But
this statement is not to be taken entirely without qualification,
for there are cases to which it is not altogether applicable. An
injunction awarded after final hearing, as in suits to quiet title
or the like, is of a somewhat different nature from one awarded
upon a preliminary application, for in cases of the former class
it is simply made part of the decree for the purpose of prevent-
ing interference with the order quieting title, while in the lat-
ter class of cases movement of the party against whom the in-
junction is directed is stopped. It is, therefore, with reason
that it is held that an injunction will not issue in such cases
unless a clear and strong case is made by the complainant.
The cases in which injunction is an appropriate remedy are
very numerous, and we can not do more than refer to a few of
the many cases in which it may be appropriately employed. It

1 Watson v. Sutherland, 5 Wall. 74;
Clark v. Jeffersonville, etc., Co., 44
Ind. 248; Thatcher v. Humble, 67 Ind.
444, 448; Bishop v. Moorman, 98 Ind.
1; Spicer v. Hoop, 51 Ind. 365; En-
glish v. Smock, 34 Ind. 115; Morse »v.
Morse, 44 Vt. 84; McAfee v. Reynolds,
130 Ind. 33, 36. In the case of Gorm-
ley v. Clark, 184 U. 8. 338, the court
said: ‘The jurisdiction in equity at-
taches, unless the legal remedy, both
in respect to the final relief and the

mode of obtainingit,is as efficient asthe
remedy which equity would afford un-
der the same circumstances.’’ Much to
thesame effect is the language of the Su-
preme Court of Connecticut in Hodges
v. Kowing, 58 Conn. 12, where it was
said: ‘It is not sufficient that there
is a remedy, but it must be as prompt,
complete and beneficial as the remedy
in equity.’”’ See, also, Irwin v. Lewis,
50 Miss. 363; Sherman v. Clark, 4
Nev. 138.
482 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 391

is often employed in order to prevent a multiplicity of actions;*
and the weight of authority and the soundest reason justify its
employment at the suit of the State or its representative against
corporations that abuse their corporate powers to the injury of
the public interests or public safety, or to the subversion of
public policy.? The remedy is appropriate where conspiracies
are formed and acts are done in execution of it by employees

to the injury of employers.’

‘Smith v. Bivens, 56 Fed. R. 352;
Hagan v. Blindell, 56 Fed. R. 696;
Foster’s Fed. Proc., § 209; 2 Beach
Mod. Eq., § 644.

? This general doctrine is vindicated
in an opinion strong in reasoning and
rich in authority in the case of Attor-
ney General v. The Railroads, 35 Wis.
425. The authorities are there collected
and ably reviewed. See, also, Stockton
v. Central, etc., Co., 50N. J. Eg.—, 8.
C.17 Lawy. R. Anno. 97, 103; Attorney
General v. Delaware, etc., Co., 27 N.
J. Eq. 631, 633; Ware v. Regents Canal
Co., 8 De Gex & J. 212, 228; Fifh-
mongers v. East India Co., 1 Dickens,
163; Blakemore v. Glamorganshire Ca-
nal Co., 1 Mylne & K. 154; Attorney
General v. Cambridge Gas Co., 4 Ch.
App. Cases, 71; Attorney General v.
Great North, etc., Co., 4 DeGe. & 8.75;
State v. Saline Co., 51 Mo. 350; State
v. Crawford, 28 Kan. 726; People v.
City of St. Louis, 5 Gil.(Ill.) 351; At-
torney General v. Hunter, 1 Dev. Eq.
(N. C.) 12. In the case of People v.
City of St. Louis, supra, the court said:
“Independent of any statutory power,
the State, as a political corporation,
has a right to institute suit in any of
her courts, whether it be required by
her pecuniary interests or the general
public welfare demands it.’’ It was
also'said: ‘‘The jurisdiction of the
court over the subject-matter was also
undoubted. The court of chancery
may grant preventive as well as re-

It is an effective and proper rem-

medial relief, and this may be done
where the act threatened may be pun-
ishable under the criminal laws.’’ To
much the same effect is the language
of the court in Littleton v. Fritz, 65
Iowa, 488, 8. C. 54 Am. R. 19, where
it was said: ‘‘There are many ad-
judged cases aside from those above
cited whichexpressly hold that the fact
that a nuisance is a crime and pun-
ishable as such does not deprive equity
of its jurisdiction to restrain and abate
it.’ The court after citing the cases
proceeds thus: ‘“‘And this rule applies
to actions by private individuals and
to suits for the benefit and in behalf
of the State.’’ The opinion in the case
of State v. Saunders(N. H.), 18 Lawy.
R. Anno. 646, is a very able one, and
exhaustively reviews the authorities.
It asserts in strong terms the’ right of
the State to invoke equitable aid, and
demonstrates the right to equitable
relief where the acts are criminal. See,
also, Peoples Gas Co. v. Tyner, 131
Ind. 277, 283.

5 Toledo, etc., Co. v. Pennsylvania
Co., 54 Fed. R. 730, 8. C. 19 Lawy. R.
Anno. 387; Hagan v. Blindell, 56 Fed.
R. 696 ; Casey v. Cincinnati, etc.,Co.,45
Fed. R. 135, 8. C. 12 Lawy. R. Anno.
193. In the case last cited the court
said: ‘‘No case has been cited where
upon a proper showing of facts an un-
successful appeal has been made to
a court of chancery to restrain a boy-
cott.”” Among the cases cited are:
§ 391 AUXILIARY PROCEEDINGS. 483

edy against nuisances, the rule being that against private nui-
sances it may be successfully invoked by an individual, who
suffers injury,’ that against public nuisances it may be ob-
tained only by an individual when he suffers a special in-
jury,? and in other cases, that is, cases where the injury is to
the public, the remedy must be invoked by the State or the
officer designated as its representative.* An injunction will
lie at the suit of a tax-payer to restrain a municipal corpora-
tion from issuing bonds of the municipality for an illegal pur-
pose.* So it will for an unlawful invasion of an easement.’
It is often employed to prevent the collection of illegal taxes,§
but mere irregularity in assessing the tax is not sufficient

Brace v. Evans (Pa.),3 R. R. &Corp. C.128. E. R. 490; Winn v. Shaw, 87

L. J. 561; Emach v. Kane, 34 Fed. R.
46; State v. Glidden, 55 Conn. 46; Old

~ Dominion, etc., Co. v. McKenna, 30
Fed. R. 48. See, also, Mogul, etc.,
Co. v. McGregor, L. R., 23 Q. B. Div.
598, 624; Buffalo, etc., Co. v. Standard
Oil Co., 106 N. Y¥. 669.

'Ross v. Butler, 19 N. J. Eq. 294;
Maine Wharf v. Proprietors, 85 Me.
175, S. C. 27 Atl. R. 93; Gardner v.
Newburgh, 2 Johns. Ch. 161, 8. C. 7
Am. Dec. 526; Catlin, etc., Co. v.
Valentine, 9 Paige, 575, 8S. C. 38 Am.
Dec. 567; Woods on Nuisance, § 887.

2 Canton, etc., Co. v. Potts, 69 Miss. 3,
§. C.10So. R. 448; Shed v. Hawthorne,
3 Neb. 179; Sparhawk v. Union, etc.,
Co.,54 Pa. St.401; Doolittle v. Broome,
18 N. Y. 155; Johnson v. Maxwell, 2
Wash. 482, 8. C. 27 Pac. R. 1071;
O’Brien v. Norwich, etc., Co., 17 Conn.
372; Barnes v. Racine, 4 Wis. 454;
Adams v. Ohio Falls Co., 131 Ind. 375,
8. C. 31 N. E. R. 57.

3 Coosac, etc., Co. v. South Carolina,
144 U. S. 550. See authorities cited,
ante, note.

‘Laughlin v. Santa Fe Co., 3 N.
M. 264, S. C. 5 Pac. R. 817; Wood
County v. Boreman, 34 W. Va.'362, 8.

Cal. 631, 8. C. 25 Pac. R. 968; Hanson
v. W. A. Hunter, etc., Co. (Iowa), 34
Am. & Eng. Corp. Cases, 83, S. C. 48
N. W. R. 1005; 2 Dillon Municipal
Corp. 776; Fowler v. City of Superior
(Wis.), 54 N. W. R. 800.

5 Trwin v. Dixion, 9 How.(U.S.) 10;
Tapling v. Jones, 11 H. L. Cases, 290;
Hackett v. Baiss, L. R. 20 Eq. 494;
Smith v. Smith, L. R. 20 Eq. 500;
Ross v. Thompson, 78 Ind. 90; Olm-
stead v. Loomis, 9 N. Y. 423; Jacobs
v. Allard, 42 Vt. 303; Bull v. Valley
Falls, 8 R. I. 42; Wilcox v. Wheeler,
47 N. H. 488; Sanderson v. Penna.
Coal Co., 86 Pa. St. 401; Sheboygan v.
Sheboygan, etc., Co., 21 Wis. 667.

® Small v. Lawrenceburgh, 128 Ind.
231, 8. C. 27N. E. R. 500; Pacific, ete.,
Co. v. Seibert, 44 Fed. R. 310; Ma-
gruderv. Augusta, S.C. 86 Ga. 220,12 8.
E. R. 587; Allen v. Pullman, etc.,Co.139
U.S. 658; Topeka, etc., Co. v. Roberts,
45 Kan. 360, 8. C. 25 Pac. R. 854. See,
generally, Hoey v. Coleman, 46 Fed. R.
221; Cook v. Beatrice, 32 Neb. 80,8. C.
48N.W.R.828; Lawrence v. Traner, 136
Ill. 474, 8. C. 27 N. E. R. 197; Sun v.
Boone (Tex.), 188. W. R. 142; Califor-
nia, etc., Co. v. Gowen, 48 Fed. R. 771.
484 | THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 391

ground for an injunction.’ It will lie to prevent the enforce-
ment of illegal assessments for street improvements where there
is no adequate remedy at law,” but if there is an adequate rem-
edy by appeal or certiorari, injunction will not lie. Injunction
lies to prevent the wrongful interference with the right of lat-
eral support.’ It lies to prevent injuries to real estate where
there is no adequate remedy at law, but as an ordinary fugitive
trespass is remediable at law injunction will not lie.* If, how-
ever, the trespass is a continuous one, likely to produce great.
injury, an injunction will be awarded.» In some of the States.
a distinction is made between a trespass upon real estate com-
mitted under color of authority from a judicial tribunal and
a mere naked trespass. Injunction will lie to prevent the
clouding of an owner’s title by the assertion of an unfounded

claim,’ but some of the courts hold that if the claim is void

1 Reynolds v. Milk Grove, etc., 134
Ill. 268, 8. C. 25 N. E. R. 516; Goff v.
McGee, 128 Ind. 394, 27 N. E. R. 754;
Wisconsin, etc., Co. v. Ashland Coun-
ty,81 Wis.1, 8.C.50 N. W.R.937; Hixon
v. Oneida Co., 82 Wis. 515, 8.C.52 N.W.
R. 445; Tucker v. Sellers, 130 Ind. 514,
8.0.30 N.E.R.1085 ; United States Tel.,
etc., v. Grant, 187 N. Y.7,8.C.32N. E.
R. 1005.

2Lodor v. McGovern, 48 N. J. Eq.
275, 8.C.22 Atl. R. 199. See Murdock v.
Cincinnati, etc., Co.,44 Fed. R. 726;
Albrueque v. Zegler (N. M.), 27 Pac. R.
515; Elliott on Roads & Sts., 440, 441.

3Guest v. Reynolds, 68 Ill. 478;
Phillips v. Bordman, 4 Allen, 147;
Humphries v. Brogden, 12 Q. B. 739;
Rowbotham v. Wilson, 8 H. L. Cases,
348.

‘Indianapolis, etc., Co. v. City of
Indianapolis, 29 Ind. 245; Thomas v.
James, 382 Ala. 723; Stevens v. Beek-
man, 1 Johns. Ch. 318; Frink v. Stew-
art, 94 N. C. 484; Waldron v. Marsh,
5 Cal. 119; Cowles v. Shaw, 2 Iowa,
496; Thorn v. Sweeney, 12 Nev. 251;
Davidson v. Floyd, 15 Fla. 667; An-

thony v. Sturgis, 86 Ind. 479; Thorn-
ton v. Roll, 118 Ill. 350.

5 Graham v. Dahlonega, etc., Co., 71
Ga. 296; Doughty v. Somerville, etc.,
33 N. J. Eq. 1; McPike v. West, 71
Mo. 199; Griffith v. Hilliard, 64 Vt.
648, S. C. 25 Atl. R. 427; Stetson v.
Stevens, 64 Vt. 649, S. C. 25 Atl. R. 429.

6 Erwin v. Fulk, 94 Ind. 235; Shimer
v. Morris, etc., Co., 27 N. J. Eq. 364;
Kyle v. Board, 94 Ind. 115; City of New
Albany v. White, 100 Ind. 206; Flood ».
Van Wormer, 24 N. Y. S. 460. In-
junction will lie to prevent a munici-
pal corporation from interfering with
property rights under claim that the
property is within the corporate limits
where the annexation proceedings are
void. City of Delphi v. Startzman,
104 Ind. 343; Strosser v. City of Fort
Wayne, 100 Ind. 443; City of Logans-
port v. La Rose, 99 Ind. 117.

‘Bishop v. Moorman, 98 Ind. 1;
Thomas v. Simmons, 103 Ind. 538;
Shanklin v. Sims, 110 Ind. 143; Petry
v. Ambrosher, 100 Ind. 510; Scobey
v. Walker, 114 Ind. 254; Central, etc.,
Co. v. State, 110 Ind. 208.
§ 391 AUXILIARY PROCEEDINGS. 485

on its face an injunction will not be granted. It seems to us
that the true rule is that if there be color of right an injunction
will lie, for an owner has a right to remove all clouds from his
title. The commission of waste may be prevented by injunc-
tion.’ Infringement of patents,? copyrights’? and trade-marks
will be enjoined.* The exposure of trade secrets will be en-
joined where a proper case is made.’ Equity will in excep-
tional cases award injunctions to stay proceedings in actions at
law,® but in such cases equity is reluctant to interfere, so that
one who asks its aid must present a strong and clear case.
Equity will enjoin the enforcement of illegal contracts where
there is no adequate legal remedy. Injunction will lie at the
suit of one who has executed a negotiable instrument in a case
where there is a valid defense to prevent its transfer to an in-
nocent third person, for to permit the transfer would be to

defeat the defense.”

1Smith v. Rock, 59 Vt. 232; Stout.
Curry, 110 Ind. 514; National, etc.,
Co. v. Clarkin, 14 Cal. 544; De La
Croix v. Villere, 11 La. Ann. 39;
Tainter v. Mayor, 19 N. J. Eq. 46;
Smith v. City Council, etc., 19 Ga. 89;
Markham v. Howell, 33 Ga. 508; Sil-
via v. Garcia, 65 Cal. 591; Lanier v.
Alison, 31 Fed. R. 100; Kane v. Van-
derburgh, 1 Johns. Ch. 11; Fleming
v. Collins, 2 Del. Ch. 230; Allen v.
Dunlap (Ore.), 33 Pac. R. 675. It was
held in Marshall v. Turnbull, 32 Fed.
R. 124, that a defendant within the
jurisdiction of the court may be en-
joined from cutting timber in another
State. This decision proceeds upon
the doctrine referred to in the closing
sentence of this section, that, ‘Equity
acts in personam.”’

*?Goodyear v. Day, 2 Wall. Jr. (U.
§.) 283; Buchanan v. Howland, 5
Blatchf. 151.

5 Drone on Copyright, 496; Dudley
v. Mayhew, 3 N. Y.9; Hogg v. Kirby,
8 Vesey, 215; Baker v. Taylor, 2
Blatchf. 82.

Injunction is sometimes employed as an

* Hostetter v. Vowinkle, 1 Dill. 329;
Filley v. Fassett, 44 Mo. 68, 8. C. 8 Am.
L. Reg. (N. 8.) 402, note. :

5Hastman Co. v. Reichenback, 20
N. Y. 8. 110; Morison v. Moat, 9
Hare, 241; Peabody v. Norfolk, 98
Mass. 452.

_§ Haynes v. Union, etc., Co., 35 Neb.
766, 8. C. 53 N. W. R. 979; Haynes v.
Aultman, etc., Co. (Neb.), 54.N. W.
R. 511; Boyd v. Weaver (Ind.), 33.N.
E. R. 1027; Allen v. Buchanan(Ala.),
11 So. R. 777. Injunction is often em-
ployed to restrain the sale of land on
execution. Bishop v. Moorman, 98
Ind. 1. See, generally, Seaside Hotel
Co. v. Hazelhuro (N. J.), 25 Atl. R.
201; Dudley v. Hurst, 67 Md. 44,8.C.
1 Am. St. R. 368; Tucker v. Kenniston,
47 N. H. 267,8.C.93 Am. Dec. 425;
Parks v. People’s Bank, 97 Mo. 130, S.
C.10 Am. St. R. 295; Weed v. Bow-
man, 82 Iowa, 762, 8. C. 48 N. W. R.
808.

7Metler v. Metler, 18 N. J. Eq. 270;
Ferguson v. Fisk, 28 Conn. 501; Hough
». Chaffin, 4 Sneed (Tenn.), 238; Bell
486

THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 392

auxiliary remedy where the case has been carried by appeal to
an appellate tribunal.! We have given instances sufficient to
convey, in outline at least, a fair conception of the remedy by
injunction and that is all that our purpose requires. It may
not be amiss, however, to say in conclusion that the remedy
of injunction, like all purely equitable remedies, acts upon the
person, so that if the person is within the jurisdiction of the
court, equity may enjoin the performance of acts beyond the
territorial limits of the State or Nation.?

§ 392. Injunctions—Procedure.—As an injunction is an ex-
traordinary remedy it does not issue as of course, but the alle-
gations of the bill or complaint must state facts from which the
court can infer, as matter of law, that the case is not one re-
mediable in an ordinary civil action. This is especially true
where an injunction is asked at the time the suit is commenced
or is asked prior to the final decree. The general rule is that
a bill or complaint for an injunction must be verified or sup-
ported by an affidavit, and some of the cases lay down a very
strict rule upon this subject, requiring the verification to be

positive and direct.’

v. Gamble, 9 Humph. (Tenn.) 117;
Burns v. Wesner (Ind.), 34N.E. R. 10.

leech v. State, 78 Ind. 570, 579;
Sheeks v. Fillion, 3 Ind. App. 262, 8.
C. 29 N. E. R. 443; Kent v. Mahaffy,
2 Ohio St. 498; Elliott’s Appellate
Procedure, § 512.

2In Cole v. Cunningham, 133 U. 8.
107, 116, there is an elaborate discus-
sion of this subject. See, also, Wilson
v. Joseph, 107 Ind. 490; Carson v.
Dunham, 149 Mass. 52; Sercomb v.
Catlin, 128 Ill. 556, and the old case
of Sir William Penn v. Lord Balti-
more, 1 Vesey, Senior, 444. Under
this rule injunctions may issue, al-
though they concern property situated
in a jurisdiction different from that
over which the court has authority.
Allen v. Buchanan (Ala.), 11 So. R.
777.

Where a temporary restraining order, or

8 Ballard v. Eckman, 20 Fla. 661;
Landes v. Globe, etc., Co., 73 Ga. 176;
Gilroy’s Appeal, 100 Pa. St. 5; Re-
boul’s Heirs v. Behrens, 5 La. 79;
Youngblood v. Schamp, 15 N. J. Eq.
42; Southern Plank Road Co. v.Hixon,
5 Ind. 165, 168; Bailey v. Bailey (Ga.),
16S. E. R. 90; Boykin v. Epstein, 87
Ga. 25, S.C. 138 8S. E.R. 15; Ross v.
Crews, 33 Ind. 120; Wills Point Bank
v. Bates, 76 Tex. 329, 8.C.13 8. W. R.
309; Davis v. Leo, 6 Ves. 784; Smith
v. Schwed, 6 Fed. R. 455; Lord By-
ron v. Johnston, 2 Merv. 29; Brooks
v. O’Hara, 8 Fed. R. 529. See, gen-
erally, State v. Pierce (Kan.), 32 Pac.
R. 924; Wing v. Fairhaven, 8 Cush.
863; Schemerhorn v. L’ Espenasse, 2
Dall. 360; Calvert v. Gray, 2 Cooper’s
Ch. 171, note; Wilson v. Stolley, 4
McLean, 272; French v. Maguire, 55
§ 392 AUXILIARY PROCEEDINGS. 487

provisional injunction, is sought without notice it should be
prayed for in the complaint or bill, and an emergency should
be shown properly requiring the issuing of the order or in-
junction at once.2~ Where a case is made by the bill or com-
plaint for an interlocutory injunction of any sort, it may be
awarded by a judge in vacation or the court in term.* In the
Federal courts, and, indeed, in many other courts, averments
of facts showing that irreparable injury will be inflicted upon
the plaintiff entitle him to an immediate order of injunction.‘
The facts, as a rule, must show the urgency for immediate in-
tervention by the court, but it is customary, and in some ju-
risdictions necessary, to state in explicit terms that an emer-
gency exists for the immediate issuance of an injunction.®

How. Pr. R. 471; Ewing v. Duncan,
81 Tex. 230, S. C. 16S.W. R. 1000; St.
James’ Church v. Arrington, 36 Ala.
546; Rhodes v. Dunbar, 57 Pa. St. 274;
Fort v. Groves, 29 Md. 188; Indian,
etc., Co. v. East, etc., Co., 28 Fla. 387,
\. §. C. 10So. R. 480; Clark v. Lawrence,

6 Jones’ Eq. (N. Car.) 83; Attorney
General v. Steward, 21 N. J. Eq. 340;
Savannah, etc., R. Co. v. Lancaster, 62
Ala, 555. i

1Wood v. Beadell, 3 Sim. 273. See

Rule 21, U. S. Sup. Ct.; Shainwald v.
Lewis, 6 Fed. R. 766; ‘Leforge v. West,
2 Ind. 514; Southern Plank Road Co.
». Hixon, 5 Ind. 165; Lewiston, etc.,
Co. v. Franklin Co., 54 Me. 402; Col-
lege Co. v. Moss, 77 Ind. 139. It is,
however, held that at the final hear-
ing an injunction may be awarded,
although there is no special prayer for
it. African Church v. Conover, 12 C:
E. Green, 157; Walker v. Devereaux,
4 Paige, 229, 248. The better and
safer practice is to specially pray for
aninjunction. —

2 Androvette v. Bowne, 4 Abb. Pr.
(N. Y.) 440; Wallace v. McVey, 6 Ind.
300; Andrews v. Powell, 27 Ind. 303.
See, generally, Yuengeling v. Johnson,
1 Hughes, 607.

3’ Temple v, Bank of England, 6 Ves.
770; Crawford v. Ross, 39 Ga. 44; Pen-
dleton v. Dalton, 64 N. Car. 329; Bron-
enberg v. Board, 41 Ind. 502.

* Payne v. Kansas, etc., Co., 46 Fed.
R. 546; Chicago, etc., Co. v. Burling-
ton, etc., Co., 34 Fed. R. 481. The term
“irreparable injury’? is frequently,
and, indeed, usually employed, but it
is not to be taken in its literal mean-
ing. If the threatened injury is of a
very serious nature an injunction will
issue, and it is not necessary that it
should be such as is impossible to
make reparation for, but it must be
such as can not be justly compensated
in damages. Some of the courts have
issued injunctions where the amount
in controversy is inconsiderable, but
this seems to us a departure from prin-
ciple. Itis to be noted that it is gener-
ally where no damages are obtainable,
that an injunction may issue, as, for
instance, in cases where there is a
clear equitable right which in good
conscience ought to be vindicated.
Clowes v. Staffordshire, etc., Co., L.R.,
8 Ch. App. 125; Wood v. Sutcliffe, 2:
Sim. (N. 8.) 163.

5 Hale v. Point Pleasant, etc., Co., 25
W. Va. 454; Poyer v. Village of Des-
488 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 392

Where there is time to give notice the general rule is that
notice of the application must be given,' so that cause excus-
ing the giving of notice must be shown by proper averments;
otherwise notice must be given of the application. The urgency
of immediate assistance from the court may, of course, be
shown by the facts pleaded, and this, in strictness, is the
proper mode of showing it, since the bare allegation of the exist-
ence of an emergency would in the absence of supporting facts
be a mere conclusion of law.? General allegations of what a
party defendant intends to do in the future are not in them-
selves sufficient to entitle a plaintiff to a restraining order or
temporary injunction, but, if there are supporting facts, threats
will supply grounds for interference by injunction in a proper
case.* The supporting facts may exist in previous prepara-
tion, prior acts, or in the conduct of the defendant. To en-
title a plaintiff to an injunction the allegations of the bill or
complaint should be clear and positive.* There must be a
proper bill or complaint, for an injunction will not issue upon

mere afiidavits.®

If the bill or complaint makes a prima facie

case for an injunction, the writ should issue.* In a preceding

plaines, 124 Ill. 310, S.C. 15 N. E. R.
768; Farland v. Wood, 35 W. Va. 458,
8.C.148. E. R.140; Portland v. Baker,
8 Ore. 356; Leitham v. Cusick, 1 Utah
Ty. 242; Davis v. Reed, 14 Md. 152.

1Flage v. Sloan, 16 Ind. 482; Wal-
lace v. McVey, 6 Ind. 300; Toledo,
etc., Co. v. Detroit, etc., Co., 61 Mich.
9, 8. C. 27 N. W. R. 715; Androvette
». Bowne, 4 Abb. Pr. R. 440; Christie
v. Bogardus, 1 Barb. Ch. 167; Atchi-
son, etc., Co. v. Fletcher, 35 Kan. 236;
Real del Monte, etc., Co. v. Pond, etc.,
Co., 23 Cal. 82; Grant v. Edwards, 90
N. Car. 31; Trexler v. Newson, 88 N.
Car. 18; Hirsh v. Whitehead, 65 N.
Car. 516.

2 Maloney v. Finnegan, 38 Minn. 70,
S. C. 36 N. W. R. 723; Davis v. Reed,
14 Md. 152; St. Louis v. Knapp, 104
U.S. 658; Adams’ Eq., 355, 356.

5 Diedrichs v. Northwestern,etc.,Co.,
33 Wis. 219; Chesapeake, etc., Co. v.
Patton, 5 W. Va. 234; American, etc.,
Co. v. Southern, etc., 34 Fed. R. 803;
St. Louis, etc., v. Knapp, 104 U. S. 658.

*Blodheim v. Moore, 12 Md. 365;
Patterson v. Bangs, 9 Paige, 627; Per-
kins v. Collins, 3N.J. Eq. 482; Catlett
v. McDonald, 18 La. 44; Jones v. Ma-
con, etc., Co., 39 Ga. 138; Armstrong
v. Sanford, 7 Minn. 49; Crocker v.
Baker, 3 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 182; Camp-
bell v. Morrison, 7 Paige, 157.

>People v. New York, 3 Abb. Pr.
(N. Y.) 181; Badger v. Wagstaff, 11
How. Pr. 562.

®Corning v. Troy, etc., Factory, 6
How. Pr. 89; Ward v. Dewey, 7 How.
Pr. 17; Hulce v. Thompson, 8 How.
Pr. 475; International Tooth Co. ».
Mills, 22 Fed. R.659; Gentil v. Arnand,
§ 392 AUXILIARY PROCEEDINGS. 489

section we stated that in granting a restraining order or tem-
porary injunction the merits of the case were not decided,! and
it has been held that it will not be granted where the effect of
granting it would be to give the plaintiff all the relief he would
be entitled to upon a final hearing,” but this doctrine, if sound
at all, must be taken with qualification, since if it be true that
a plaintiff is entitled to the relief at the time he files his bill
or complaint the fact that he may secure. relief on the final
hearing does not deprive him of his right to immediate assist-
ance. The facts essential to the right to an injunction must
be stated in the bill or complaint and the pleading can not be
aided by an affidavit. As in other suits, the issue for trial
must be properly tendered by the bill or complaint and not by
collateral instruments. The notice of an application must be
served on the party against whom the injunction is asked and
the general rule is that it is not sufficient to serve it upon the
attorney of the party.‘ But we think there may be cases where
notice of an application for an injunction may be served upon
the attorney, as, for instance, where the cause is pending in
the court where the application is made and the party is a non-
resident.» Where an order of injunction is granted to continue
in force until a designated time the plaintiff must obtain a con-
tinuance of the order or it will cease to be operative at that
time. Where a time is fixed and notice is given of the appli-
cation the defendant may move to dissolve without notice or
he may oppose the plaintiff’s motion for a continuance of the
order. The defendant may move to dissolve prior to the time
fixed, but he must give notice of the motion. The rule is that
in cases where the defendant moves to dismiss at any other time

38 How. Pr. 94. See, generally, Peo-
ple’s Gas Co. v. Tyner, 131 Ind. 408, S.
C. 31 N. E. R. 59; Greenfield Gas Co.
v. People’s Co., 131 Ind. 599, 8. C. 31
N. E.R. 61; Akin v. Davis, 14 Kan.
143; Olmstead v. Koester, 14 Kan.
463.

1See, also, Spicer ». Hoop, 51 Ind.
365.

2? Vanveghten v. Howland, 12 Abb.
Pr. (N.S.) 461.

3 Leo v. Union, etc., Co., 17 Fed. R.
273. See Gilroy’s Appeal, 100 Pa. St.
5; Badger v. Wagstaff, 11 How. Pr:
(N. Y.) 562.

‘Death v. Bank of Pittsburgh, 1 Ia.
882. See, generally, Swift v. Brum-
field, 76 Ind. 472.

5 Sawyer v. Gill, 3 Wood & M. 97.

a
490 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 892

than that fixed in the order, he should give notice,! but there
are exceptions to this general rule. If it appears that great
injury will be inflicted upon the defendant by a continuance of
the injunction it will be dissolved without notice to the plaint-
iff. Motions to modify may be made and such motions may
be interposed at any time before final decree, and, indeed,
where an injunction is embodied in the final decree a motion
to modify is proper. Where the decree is too broad or in other
respects is not a proper one, the appropriate mode of objecting
in many of the States is a motion to modify, but in others the
appropriate procedure is to except to the parts of the decree
believed to be erroneous. The practice in most jurisdictions is
to hear a motion to dissolve or to continue an injunction upon
affidavits. The general rule is that where all the material al-
legations of the complaint or bill are positively denied by the
answer the injunction will be dissolved, but the rule upon this
subject is not the same in all of the States.? A motion to dis-
solve may, of course, be based upon the insufficiency of the
bill or complaint. In many of the States an undertaking or
bond is required to be filed before an order of injunction will
issue,* and where a bond is required, the failure to file one
may be cause for dissolving the injunction. But the failure
to file a bond does not affect the right of the plaintiff to an in-
junction upon a final hearing as the relief, or part of the relief,
awarded by the final decree, for a bond is only required, as a
general rule, where the plaintiff asks and obtains an interlocu-
tory order of injunction. In many of the cases it is said that

1 Newton Man. Co. v. White, 47 Ga.
400; Gravais v. Falgoust, 34 La. Ann.
391; Peck v. Yorks, 41 Barb. 547. Of
course notice may be waived. Chi-
cago, etc., Co. v. Estes, 71 Ia. 603, 8.
C. 33 N. W. R. 124. It is held by

_some of the courts that a motion to
dissolve should specify the grounds
upon which it proteeds. Morris, etc.,
Co. v. Bartlett, 3 N. J. Eq. 9; Brown
v. Winans, 11 N. J. Eq. 267; Miller v.
Traphagen, 6 N. J. Eq. 200.

7Gere v. New York, etc., Co., 38
Hun, 231. See; generally, Sledge v.
Blum, 63 N. Car. 374; Conover v.
Ruckman, 33 N. J. Eq. 3083; Kemper
v. Campbell, 45 Kan. 529, 8. C. 26 Pac.
R. 53.

5 We refer to the interlocutory hear-
ing, not the final hearing. 2 Spelling
Ex. Remedies, §1056; Adams’ Eq.,
356; Maxwell on Code Pleading, 199.

* Adams’ Eq., 356, note; Myers v.
Block, 120 U. 8. 206.
§ 392 AUXILIARY PROCEEDINGS. 491

it is within the discretion of the court to grant or deny a re-
straining order or a preliminary injunction,! but we suppose
that this doctrine can not obtain in any jurisdiction where a
right of appeal is given from the order granting or refusing a
restraining order or preliminary injunction. It may be doubted
whether the rule fully prevails in any jurisdiction, for it seems
to us that it would be error to grant an interlocutory order
where no cause at all was shown, and, on the other hand, that
it would be error to refuse one where good cause is clearly
shown. If the ultimate decree gives the plaintiff, or the de-
fendant, as the case may be, all the relief he is entitled to re-
ceive, an error in granting or refusing a restraining order or
preliminary injunction may be harmless, since the general rule
is that where the ultimate judgment or dente is right inter-
vening errors are not harmful.? If the ruling is right at the
time it is made subsequent changes can not make it wrong,’
so that if the facts existing at the time the bill or complaint is
‘filed show a right to a restraining order or preliminary injunc-
tion the ruling granting it can not be erroneous, although there
may subsequently be material changes in the facts. A per-
petual injunction can not be awarded until a final hearing, and

when awarded itis part of the final decree.*

1¥Foster’s Federal Practice, § 233;
Adams’ Eq., 356, note; Young v.
Campbell, 75 N. Y. 525; Olmstead v.
Koester, 14 Kan. 463.

? Elliott’s Appellate Procedure, § 590.

3 Reeder v. Maranda, 66 Ind. 485;
Cincinnati, etc., Co. v. Smith, 127 Ind.
461; Indianapolis, etc., Co. v. City of
' Lawrenceburgh, 37 Ind. 489. See, also,
Bonsell v. Zigler, 19 Ohio, 362; El-
liott’s Appellate Procedure, § 589.

*1 Daniell’s Ch. Pr. (2 Am. ed.) 1903;
Adams v. Crittenden, 17 Fed. R. 42.
It is not necessary that a preliminary
or provisional injunction should be
obtained in order to entitle a party to
a perpetual injunction. Daniell’s Ch.
Pr. (2 Am. ed.) 1900; Baily v. Taylor,
1 R. & M. 73. The refusal of a pre-

It is held by some

liminary injunction does not deprive
a party of a right to a perpetual in-
junction by final decree. Bacon v.
Spottiswoode, 1 Beayv. 382; Bacon v.
Jones, 4M. & C. 433; Tucker v. Car-
penter, Hempst. 440. As equity may
so mold its decrees as to fit the partic-
ular case and award complete relief,
the court may impose terms upon the
parties in granting or refusing injunc-
tions. Southern, etc., Co. v. St. Louis,
etc., Co., 10 Fed. R. 210, 8. C. 10 Fed.
R. 289; McCrary v. Pennsylvania, etc.,
Co., 5 Fed. R. 367; Brown v. Deere,
etc., Co., 6 Fed. R. 487. See, gener-
ally, Hayes v. Leton, 5 Fed. R. 521;
Ewing v. Filley, 43 Pa. St. 384; Eno
v. Metropolitan, etc., Co., 8N. Y. 58.
197.
492 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 392

of the courts that the court granting an injunction may sus-
pend it until an appeal can be taken,’ but in other jurisdic-
tions the practice is to appeal at once and obtain relief from
the appellate tribunal. An appeal from an order dissolving
an injunction does not continue the injunction in force, since
the effect of an appeal in such cases is not to annul or vacate
the order or decree of the court of original jurisdiction.? An
appeal from a final decree or judgment removes the cause from
the court of original jurisdiction to the appellate tribunal, and
thus deprives the former court of jurisdiction,* so that no steps
can be taken by it in vacating or modifying the injunction.
To deprive the trial court of jurisdiction the appeal must be
actually taken; taking steps looking to an appeal but not con-
stituting an appeal will not remove the cause from the jurisdic-
tion of the trial court.2 Where the appeal is from an interloc-
utory order awarding an injunction the whole case is not, of
course, carried to the appellate tribunal; hence that tribunal

may proceed in the case in so far as it is unaffected by the

1 Munson v. Mayor, 19 Fed. R. 318;
Brown v. Deere, 6 Fed. R. 487.

2Sixth Avenue, etc., Co. v. Gilbert,
71 N. Y. 480; Graves v. Maguire, 6
Paige, 379; Robertson v. Davidson, 14
Minn. 554; Heinlen v. Cross, 63 Cal.
44; Hawkins v. State, 126 Ind. 294;
Central Union, etc., Co. v. State, 110
Ind. 203; State v. Chase, 41.Ind. 356;
State v. Dillon, 96 Mo. 56, 8. C. 8 S.
W. R. 781; Burr v. Burr, 10 Paige,
166; First National Bank v. Rogers, 13
Minn. 407; Cookv. Dickerson, 1 Duer,
679; Burrall v. Vanderbilt, 1 Bosw.
637; Ortman v. Dixon, 9 Cal. 23.

3 Allen v. Allen, 80 Ala. 154; Boyn-
ton v. Foster, 7 Metcf. 415; Bryan v.
Berry, 8 Cal. 130; Boggs v. Smith, 53
Cal. 88; Livermore v. Campbell, 52
Cal. 75; Elgin Lumber Co. v. Lang-
man, 23 Ill. App. 250; State v. Duffel,
41 La. Ann. 958; Stephens v. Koonce,
106 N. C. 222, 8. C. 108. BE. R. 996;

ap-
548 ;
292;

Kimberly v. Arms, 40 Fed. R.
Ensminger v. Powers, 108 U. S.
Pierson v. McCahill, 23 Cal. 249;
Mitchell v. United States, 9 Pet. 711;
Saltmarsh v. Tuthill, 12 How. (U. 8.)
387; Bronson v. La Crosse, ete., Co.,
1 Wall. 405; Stewart v. Stringer, 41 |
Mo. 400, 8. C. 97 Am. Dec. 278; Helm
v. Boone, 6 J. J. Marsh. 851, 8. C. 22
Am. Dec. 75; Planters’ Bank v.
Neely, 7 How. (Miss.) 80, 8. C. 40 Am.
Dec. 51; McLaughlin v. Janney, 6
Gratt. 609; McClaughlin v. O’Rourke,
12 Iowa, 459; Ladd v. Couzins, 35 Mo.
5138. See, also, Elliott’s Appellate Pro-
cedure, § 541.

‘Fellows v. Heermans, 13 Abb. Pr.
(N.:8.) 1. See, generally, Marble ».
McKenney, 60 Me. 332; Central, etc.,
Co. v. Standard, etc. Co., 33 N. J. Eq.
372; Doughty v. Somerville, etc., Co.,
7N. J. Eq. 629.

5 State v. Kolsem, 130 Ind. 434.
§ 393 AUXILIARY PROCEEDINGS. 493

peal,’ but can not, it is obvious, proceed in the matter fully
covered by the appeal, since that part of the case is in the
higher court.

§ 393. Receivers—Generally.—A receiver is a person ap-
pointed by the court to take charge of property pending litiga-
tion.? The appointment of a receiver is an auxiliary equitable
remedy, devised, on account of the inadequacy of any remedy
at law, to prevent loss or injury to property in litigation and
preserve it, pendente lite, for the sake of all interested, to be
finally disposed of as the court may decree.? A receiver stands
indifferent between the parties, and occupies a fiduciary rela-
tion to all the creditors. He is, ina sense, an officer of the
court, and the court will protect the property in his hands.®
In the absence of a statute authorizing it he can not be sued,
ordinarily at least, without permission of the court by whom
he was appointed. So hecan only bring suit in his own name
when authorized by statute or by the court.”. Asa general rule
he derives his title from the debtor, and can only maintain

suit where the debtor could have done so.

1 Miller v. Pine, etc., Co. (Idaho), 32
Pac. R. 207.

? High on Receivers, §1; Devendorf
v. Dickinson, 21 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 275;
Merritt v. Merritt, 16 Wend. (N. Y.)
405; Baker v. Backus, 32 Ill. 79; Fos-
ter’s Fed. Prac., § 239.

5 Stitwell v. Williams, 6 Madd. 38;
Bank of Mississippi v. Duncan, 52
Miss. 740; Folsom v. Evans, 5 Minn.

418; Myers v. Estell, 48 Miss. 372.

There are, however, cases where a re-
ceiver finally disposes of property as,
for instance, under statutes authoriz-
ing a receiver to wind up the affairs
of a corporation.

*Porter v. Williams, 9 N. Y. 142;
Davis v. Gray, 16 Wall. 203, 217.

58 Pom. Eq. Jur., §1336; Davis v.
Gray, 16 Wall. 203, 218; Walling v.
Miller, 108 N. Y. 173, S.C. 2 Am. St.
R. 409.

6 Barton v. Barbour, 104 U.S. 126;

But there are ex-

Keen v. Breckenridge, 96 Ind. 69;
Wayne Pike Oo. v. State, ex rel. Whit-
aker (Ind.), 34 N. E.R. 440; De Graf-
fenried v. Brunswick, etc., Co.,57 Ga.
22; Davis v. Creamery Co., 128 Ini.
222, 8. C.27N.E. R. 494; Re Chris-
tian Jensen Co., 128 N. Y. 550. See,
however, Foster’s Fed. Prac., § 251,
for recent act of Congress authorizing
suit in some cases, and Kinney v.
Crocker, 18 Wis. 74; Allen v. Central
R. R. Co., 42 Iowa, 683; Lyman v.
Central, etc., R. R. Co., 59 Vt. 167.

7 Garver v. Kent, 70 Ind. 428; Green
v. Winter, 1 Johns. Ch. (N.Y.) 60; Wil-
son v. Welch, 157 Mass. 77,31 N. E. R.
712. See, also, Pendleton v. Russell,
144 U. S. 640, S. C. 12 Sup. Ct. Rep.
743. As to when the rule does not
apply, see Pouder v. Catterson, 127
Ind. 434, 8. C. 26 N. E. R. 66.

§ Jacobson v. Allen, 12 Fed. R. 454,
457; La Follett v. Akin, 36 Ind. 1;
494 § 394

THE WORK OUT OF COURT.

ceptions to this general rule, for a receiver may. sometimes
bring suits which the debtor could not maintain. The para-
mount duty of a receiver is to secure assets for the payment of
the debtor’s liabilities, and he may for that purpose bring and
sustain suits, such as a suit to set aside a fraudulent convey-
ance made by the debtor, that' the latter could not successfully
prosecute.?

§ 394. When appointed.—The appointment of receivers is
regulated largely by statute, and provisions are found in the
statutes of nearly all the states authorizing the appointment: of
receivers in certain cases; but courts of equity possess the in-
herent power to appoint receivers in aid of their jurisdiction in
order to accomplish complete justice, and it has been held that
a statute providing for the appointment of a receiver in certain
designated cases does not abridge or take away this power.’ It
is frequently said that the appointment of a receiver is within
the sound discretion of the court,? but this does not mean that
the court can, without error, arbitrarily appoint a receiver
where such appointment is unauthorized and wholly uncalled
for, or refuse the appointment where there is a clear, fixed and
definite right to have a receiver appointed.‘ It is only in clear
cases, however, that the power will be exercised, and, as a gen-
eral rule at least, there must be a suit pending.® .A collection
of authorities showing in what cases receivers have been ap-

Republic, etc., Co. v. Swigert, 135 Ill.
150, 8. C. 12 L. R. A. 328.

1Graham Button Co. v. Spielmann
(N. J.), 24 Atl. R. 571.

2 Bitting v. Ten Eyck, 85 Ind. 357.
But see Fellows v. Heermans, 1
Abb. Pr. N. 8S. (N. Y.) 7; Colwell
v. Garfield Nat. Bank, 119 N. Y. 408.

3 Verplank v. Caines, 1 Johns. Ch.
(N. Y.) 57; Ex parte Walker, 25 Ala.
81; Owen v. Homan, 4 H. L. Cas. 997,
1032; Oakley v. Paterson Bank, 2 N.
J. Eq. 173; Simmons Hardware Co. v.
Waible, 11 L. R. A. 267, 8.C. 47 N. W.
R. 814.

‘Orphan Asylum v. McCartee, 1
Hopk. Ch. (N. Y.) 423; Milwaukee
R. R. Co. v. Soutter, 2 Wall. 510. The
action of the trial court is subject to
review on appeal. Tysen v. Wabash
R. R. Co., 8 Biss. 247; Societe Fran-
caise v. District Court, 53 Cal. 495.

® Pressly v. Harrison, 102 Ind. 14;
Pressly v. Lamb, 105 Ind. 171; Anon,
1 Atl. 578; Crowder v. Moone, 52 Ala,
220; National Bank v. Kent, 43 Mich.
292; Jonesv. Bank, 10 Colo. 464; Gold
Hunter, etc., Co. v. Holleman,2 Idaho,
839, 27 Pac, R. 413.
$895,

AUXILIARY PROCEEDINGS.

495

pointed will be found in the note below. Mr. Pomeroy clas-
sifies the cases upon the subject and states that a receiver may
generally be appointed to hold and take charge of property in-
volved in litigation ‘‘either where there is no person entitled
competent to thus hold it—as for example, in the case of an
-infant, or in the interval before an executor or administrator
of a deceased owner is appointed; or where two or more liti-
gants are equally entitled, but it is not just and proper that
either of them should retain it under his control—as, for ex-
ample, in some suits between partners; or where a person is
legally entitled, but there is danger of his misapplying or mis-
using it, as, for example, in some suits against an executor or
_administrator, or under some particular circumstances, in suits
for the enforcement of a mortgage; or he is appointed in like
mauner and under like circumstances, for the purpose of car-
rying into effect a decree of the court concerning the property,
as, for example, a decree for the winding up and settlement of

a corporation, or the decree in a creditor’s suit.

292

§ 395. Procedure in obtaining receiver.—The appointment

1See the elaborate note to Cortleyeu
v. Hathaway, 64 Am. Dec. 482, et seq.
As to when receivers of corporate
property will be appointed, see Law-
rence v. Greenwich, etc., Co., 1 Paige
(N. Y.), 587; Cowdrey v. Galveston,
etc., R. R. Co., 93 U. 8. 352; Ohio,
etc., R. R. Co. v. Davis, 23 Ind. 553;
Meyer v. Johnston, 53 Ala. 237; New-
ell v. Smith, 49 Vt. 255; People v.
Northern R. R. Co., 42 N. Y. 217.
Over partnership property, see Saylor
v. Mockbie, 9 Iowa, 209; Allen v.
Hawley, 63 Am. Dec. 198; Miller v.
Jones, 39 Ill. 54; Walker v. House, 4
Md. Ch. 39; Bard v. Bingham, 54 Ala.
463; Van Alstyne v. Cook, 25 N. Y.
489. In foreclosure suits, see Rider v.
Bagley, 84. N.Y. 461; Connelly v. Dick-
son, 76 Ind. 440; Syracuse Bank v.
Tallman, 31 Barb. (N. Y.) 201; Mc-
Lean v. Presley, 56 Ala. 211; Grant v.

Pheenix, etc., Co., 121 U.8.105; First
Nat. Bank v. Gage, 79 Ill. 207; Chase’s
Case, 17 Am. Dec. 277; Main v. Gint-
hert, 92 Ind. 180; Schrieber v. Carey,
48 Wis. 208; White v. Griggs, 54 Ia.
650; Mercantile, etc., Co. v. Missouri,
etc., Co.,1 L. R. A. 397, and note.
Over trust property, see Jenkins v.
Jenkins, 1 Paige (N. Y.), 243; Haines
v. Carpenter, 1 Woods, 262; Johns v.
Johns, 23 Ga. 31. Over infants’ estates,
see Ex parte Mountfort, 15 Ves. 445;
Hardy v. McClellan, 53 Miss. 507;
Skinner v. Maxwell, 66 N. Car. 45.
Over lunatics’ estates, Hx parte Whit-
field, 2 Atk. 315; Baker v. Backus, 32
Ill. 79; Mitchell v. Barnes, 22 Hun
(N. Y.), 194. See, generally, Foster’s
Fed. Prac., § 240; Beach on Receiv-
ers, Ch. IV.

23 Pom. Eq. Jur., § 1830. See, also,
Kerr on Receivers, 1, 2.
496 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 395

should generally be prayed for in the original bill,’ but a re-
ceiver may be appointed after decree, although not prayed for
in the original bill.2 He may be appointed upon motion, sup-
ported by affidavits, for the purpose of preserving the property,
without an inquiry into the merits of the principal case.? This
may be done even before answer‘ or appearance,° but a strong
case must be made for the appointment before answer, or it
will be refused. Notice must generally be given to the oppo-
site party, and opportunity for a hearing,’ but notice may be
dispensed with and the appointment made ex parte in extreme
cases where delay would defeat justice or result in irreparable
loss or injury.® Affidavits may be read in opposition to the
motion,’ and a verified answer may be treated as an affidavit
for this purpose.” As a general rule the answer is to be taken
as true in so far as it is responsive to the bill," in the absence

1U.8. Eq., Rule 21.

? Connelly v. Dickinson, 76 Ind. 440.
See, also, Cooke v. Gwyn, 3 Atk. 689;
Bowman v. Bell, 14 Simons, 392; Mer-

ritt v. Gibson, 129 Ind. 155, 8.C. 15 L. .

R. A. 277; Shannon v. Hanks, 88 Va.
338, 8. C. 138. E. R. 487.

3 Bitting v. Ten Eyck, 85 Ind. 357,
360; High on Receivers, 62-79; Blak-
eney v. Dufaur, 15 Beav. 40, 42; Cooke
v. Gwyn, 3 Atk. 689; Hottenstein v.
Conrad, 9 Kan. 435.

#Vann v. Barnett, 2 Bro. Ch. 158;
Williams v. Jenkins, 11 Ga. 595; Johns
». Johns, 23 Ga. 31; Whitehead v.
Wooten, 43 Miss. 523; Beach on Re-
ceivers, § 110.

5 Fairfield v. Irvine, 2 Russ. 149.

6 Latham v. Chafee, 7 Fed. R. 525;
Turnbull v. Prentiss Lumber Co., 55
Mich. 387; Clark v. Ridgely, 1 Md.
Ch. 71. /

TTibbals v. Sargeant, 14 N. J. Eq.
449; Turgeau v. Brady, 24 La. Ann.
348; Jones v. Schall, 45 Mich. 379;
Whitehead v. Wooten, 48 Miss. 523;
Field v. Ripley, 20 How. Pr. (N. Y.)
26; Ruffner v. Mairs, 33 W. Va. 655;

“a

State v. New Orleans, 43 La. Ann. 829,
8. C. 9 So. R. 643; Fredenheim v.
Rohr, 87 Va. 764,8.C.13S. E. R. 193.

® Crowder v. Moone, 52 Ala. 220:
Moritz v. Miller, 87 Ala. 331; Cleve-
land, etc., R. R. Co. v. Jewett, 37 Ohio
St. 649; Sandford v. Sinclair, 8 Paige
(N. Y.), 373; Miltenberger v. Logans-
port, etc., R. R. Co., 106 U. S. 286, S.
C. 1 Sup. Ct. Rep. 140, 158; French v.
Gifford, 30 Iowa, 148.

9 Kean v. Colt, 5 N. J. Eq. 365; Mi-
cau v. Moses, 72 Ala. 4389.

10 Rankin v. Rothschild, 78 Mich. 10.
In this case counter affidavits were al-
so allowed to be filed by the complain-
ant. See, also, Goodman v. Whitcomb,
1J. & W. 591; Kershaw v. Mathews,
1 Russ. 362; Ladd v. Harvey, 21 N.
H. 514; Sobernheimer v. Wheeler, 45
N. J. Eq. 614; Allen v. Dallas, etc.,
R. R. Co., 3 Woods, 316, 332.

"Thompsen v. Diffenderfer, 1 Md.
Ch. 489; Simmons v. Henderson, 1
Freem.(Miss.) 493; Buchanan v. Com-
stock, 57 Barb. (N. Y.) 568; Callanan
v. Shaw, 19 Iowa, 183.
497

§ 395 AUXILIARY PROCEEDINGS.

of proof to the contrary.!. The order of appointment should
clearly designate the property over which the receiver is ap-
pointed,” and the court may embody such directions and impose
such conditions therein asare justand proper.? A receiver may
be removed upon motion‘ or upon the application of the receiver
himself,° for good cause shown, or the court may remove him of
its own motion for misconduct, for insufficient security, or the
like.6 The entire matter, however, is within the sound dis-
cretion of the court.’ A receiver may also be discharged and
the receivership terminated, in a proper case, upon the appli-
cation of a third person as well as upon that of either of the
parties or the receiver himself. Where the object of the re-
ceivership has been fully accomplished the receiver will be
discharged,® and so, generally, when he has been improperly
appointed,” or, by some subsequent change in the condition of
affairs, it is for the best interest of all the parties that he should

be discharged.”

1 Under the present practice affida-
vits may generally be read in opposi-
tion to the answer. 2 Dan. Chanc.
Pl. & Pr. 1736; Rankin v. Rothschild,
78 Mich. 10. /

2 Crow v. Wood, 13 Beav. 271; O’Ma-
honey v. Belmont, 62 N. Y. 183; 2
Dan. Chane. Pl. & Pr. 1737.

8United States Trust Co. v. New
York, etc., R. R. Co., 25 Fed. R. 800;
Central Trust Co. v. St. Louis, etc., R.
R. Co., 41 Fed. R. 551; West v. Chas-
ten, 12 Fla. 315; Lewis v. Lord Zouche,
2 Sim. 388, 393.

Davis v. Michelbacher (Wis.), 31
N. W. R. 160; 2 Dan. Chance. ia &
Pr. 1765.

5 Richardson v. Ward, 6 Madd. 266.
But he must show a good reason or
excuse for not serving, or the court
will refuse to remove him on his own
application after he has once accepted
the appointment. 2 Dan. Chance. Pl.
& Pr. 1765.

6 Beach on Receivers, § 783; Sage v.

32

The application for the removal or discharge

Memphis, etc., R. R. Co., 18 Fed. R.
571; Shackelford’s Adm’r v. Shackel-
ford, 32 Gratt. (Va.) 481; Handy v.
Cleveland, etc., R. R. Co., 81 Fed. R.

689.

™ Beach on Receivers, § 776.

§ Thomas v. Brigstocke, 4 Russ. 64;
Grenfell v. Dean, 2 Beav. 544; Crook
v. Findley, 60 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 375;
Foster’s Fed. Prac., § 260; Beach on
Receivers, § 793.

*Langdon v. Vermont, etc., R. R.
Co., 53 Vt. 228; In re Colvin, 3 Md.
Ch. 278; In re Long Branch, etc., R.
R. Co., 24 N. J. Eq. 398; Tempest v.
Ord. 1 Madd. 59.

10 Lavender v. Lavender, Ir. Rep., 9
Eq. 593; Walters v. Anglo-Am., etc.,
Co.,50 Fed.R. 316; Popper v. Scheider,
7 Abb. Pr. N.S. (N. Y.) 56; Copper
Hill, etc., Co. v. Spencer, 25. Cal. 11;
Sage v. Memphis, ete. .. R. R. Co., 18.
Fed. R. 571, S. C. 125 U. S. 361.

1 Ferry v. Bank, 15 How. Pr.(N.Y.)
445; Davy v. Gronow, 14 L. J. (N. 8.)
498 § 396

THE WORK OUT OF COURT.

of a receiver is usually made by motion, and notice thereof
should be given both to the parties! and to the receiver.”

§ 396. Lis pendens notice.—It is often important to file with
the bill, complaint or declaration, what is commonly called a
lis pendens notice. This is required in many States in order
to make the suit or action operate as notice to persons who ac-
quire an interest in the property involved in the litigation sub-
sequent to the commencement of the suit or action. We do
not here employ the term lis pendens in the sense, often at-
tributed to it, of a step essential to giving jurisdiction over
property or of keeping property within the jurisdiction of the
court.’ The fundamental rule is that notice lis pendens applies
only to the property involved in the litigation.‘ There is no
notice lis pendens where the suit or action only incidentally
concerns specific property or where the title is only collaterally
involved. It is obvious that it is only in the classes of actions
ordinarily denominated real or mixed that notice lis pendens is
usually effective, for in actions purely in personam, the only

relief obtainable is a judgment for a money recovery.®

Ch. 134; Bainbrigge v. Blair, 3 Beav.
421.

'Davis v. Duke of Marlborough, 2
Swanst. 113; Bainbrigge v. Blair,
3 Beav.421; Attrillv. Rockaway Beach
Imp. Co., 25 Hun (N. Y.), 376. Com-
pare Coburn v. Ames, 57 Cal. 201;
New York, etc., Co. v. Jewett, 115 N.
Y. 166.

2? Dougherty v.. Jones, 37 Ga. 348;
Smith v. Trenton, etc., Co., 4 N. J. Eq.
505;- Burns v. Stewart Mfg. Co., 31
Hun (N. Y.), 195; Att’y General v.
Haberdashers’ Society, 2 Jur. 915.
But, compare Howard v. Lowell Ma-
chine Works, 75 Ga. 325; L’Engle v.
Florida Cent. R. R. Co., 14 Fla. 266;
Herman v. Dunbar, 23 Beav. 312.

3 Newman v. Chapman,2 Rand.(Va.)
93; Murray v. Ballou, 1 Johns. Ch.
566.

*Feighley v. Feighley, 7 Md. 537;

In the

Houston v. Timmerman, 17 Ore. 499,
8. C. 11 Am. St. R. 848, 8.0.4 L. R.
A. 716; Jones v. McNarrin, 68 Me.
341; Murray v. Finster, 2 Johns. Ch.
(N. Y.) 155; Green v. Rick, 121 Pa.
St. 130, S. C. 6 Am. St. R. 760.

5 Briscoe v. Branough, 1 Tex. 326;
Gardner v. Peckham, 13 R. I. 102; St.
Joseph Mfg. Co. v. Daggett, 84 Tl. 556.
See, also, McLaurine v. Monroe, 30 Mo.
462; Chase v. Searles, 45 N. H. 511;
Winston v. Westfeldt, 22 Ala. 760, S.
C.58 Am. Dec. 278; County of Warren
v. Marey, 97 U. 8S. 96; Murray v.
Lylburn, 2 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 441.
But, compare Diamond v. Lawrence
Co., 387 Pa. St. 353, S. C. 78 Am. Dec.
429; Kellogg v. Fancher, 23 Wis. 21,
S.C. 99 Am. Dec. 96; Mims v. West,
38 Ga. 18, S. C. 95 Am. Dec. 879; Mc-
Cutchen v. Miller, 31 Miss. 65.
§ 397 AUXILIARY PROCEEDINGS. 499

latter class of cases there is no res to be directly affected by the
judgment so that there is nothing upon which notice can «oper-
ate. Where, however, either real or personal property is di-
rectly involved in the action there may be notice lis pendens.!
The filing of a proper complaint or declaration containing a
sufficient description of the property, accompanied by service
of the subpcena or summons, is, under the old common law
and equity systems, notice to subsequent purchasers, but by
statute in many of the States this is not enough, for the plead-
ing must be supplemented by a written notice registered or re-
corded in the proper office.2, Where the old rule prevails the
accepted doctrine is that the initial point of notice lis pendens
is the service of the subpcena or summons.?

§ 397. Notice—Statutory.—It is, of course, essential to con-
form to the statutory requirements as to the form, filing and
registry of notice in those States where the statute requires
that the complaint or declaration be supplemented by what is
called a lis pendens notice. An important part of the notice is
the description of the property which it is the object of the
proceeding to reach and subject to a lien, or to which it is
sought to establish title. If the description is defective in a
material particular the notice will be insufficient.*

There can, of course, be no ques-
‘tion as to the general doctrine of lis
pendens where the controversy di-

‘rectly concerns real property, and

some of the authorities declare that
where the right to personal property

is in issue, the doctrine is the same, .

but this is denied in others. Scudder
».Van Amburgh, 4 Edw. Ch. 29; Taylor
v.Jones, 2 Atk.600; Hadden v.Sprader,
20 Johns. 554; Leitch v. Wells, 48 N.
Y. 585; Farnham v. Campbell, 10
Paige, 598; Thoms v. Southard, 2
Dana, 475; Buford v. Keokuk, etc.,
Co., 3 Mo. App. 159; Carr v. Lewis,
15 Mo. App. 551. See Carr v. Lewis, 96
Mo. 149, 8S. W. BR. 907; Miles v. Lefi,
60 Ia. 168. It, applies where real es-

tate is attached. Bell v. Gaylord (N.
Mex.), 27 Pac. R. 494. ,

Smith v. Gale, 144 U.S. 509, 8. C.
12 Sup. Ct. R. 674; Jones v. Smith,
40 Fed. R. 314; Bennett on Lis Pen-
dens,-349; 18 Am. & Eng. Encyc. of
Law, 894; Joneson Mortgages, § 1409.

’ Walker v. Goldsmith, 14 Ore. 125;
Hayden v. Bucklin, 9 Paige (N. Y.),
512; Allen v. Mandaville, 26 Miss. 397;
Rothchild v. Kohn (Ky.), 19S. W. R.
180; Hayden v. Thrasher, 28 Fla. 162, 9
So.R. 855; Lincoln Rapid Transit Co.v.
Rundle (Neb.), 52 N. W. R. 563; 2
Pom. Eq. Jur., 74; note to Newman

‘y. Chapman, 14 Am. Dec. 774.

*Houston v. Timmerman, 17 Ore.
499, 8. C. 11 Am. St. R. 848; 2 Pom.
500 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 398

§ 398. Doctrine of relation—Where a notice is sufficient
and is duly filed and registered or recorded it relates to the
commencement of the suit or action, at least in cases where it
is filed with the complaint or declaration.1 This is in accord:
ance with the general principles governing the doctrine of re-
lation. The notice when given in proper form and manner is
in contemplation of law part of the procedure in the case, and
takes effect, unless the statute otherwise provides, when the
suit or action is commenced, but in this respect much depends
upon the provisions of the statute in the particular jurisdiction.
It is important to properly designate the suit or action to which
the notice refers, since it is the suit or action which really
constitutes the lis pendens. The notice of itself is not sufficient
to affect title, for title is the subject of the suit or action and
depends upon the judgment given therein.

§ 399. Continuance of the notice—The notice lis pendens
continues from the time it takes effect until final judgment in
the court of original jurisdiction.2? Some of the cases hold
that it extends beyond the judgment in the trial court and cov-
ers the time allowed for appeal.? It seems to us that the true
rule is that it ceases to be effective with the final judgment
unless steps are immediately taken to appeal and the record is
made to fully disclose the proceedings.

Eq. Jur., 76; Freeman on Judgments, 168; Debell v. Foxworthy, 9 B. Mon.

§§ 196, 197; Badger v. Daniel, 77 N. (Ky.) 228; Herrington v. McCollum,

Car. 251; Miller v. Sherry, 2 Wall. 73 Ill. 476; Page v. Waring, 76 N. Y.

237; Ray v. Roe, 2 Blackf. (Ind.) 258. 463; Ludlow’s Heirs v. Kidd’s Exr.,3
1Sherman v. Bemis, 58 Wis. 343; Ohio, 541.

Stern v. O’Connell, 35 N. Y. 104. $Gilman v. Hamilton, 16 Ill. 225;
2 Ashley v. Cunningham, 16 Ark. Krug v. Davis, 101 Ind. 75.
CHAPTER XII.
THE INSTRUMENTS OF EVIDENCE.

§ 400. Proper instruments must bese- § 411. Motion to suppress.

lected. 412. Use of depositions.

401. General suggestions. 413. Waiver of objections.

402. Primary and secondary evi- 414. Discovery—Examination of
dence. party before trial.

403. General rule—Best evidence 415. Choice of instruments of evi-
must be produced. dence.

404, Exceptions to rule—When sec- 416. Competency should be ascer-

‘ondary evidence is admis- tained before trial.

sible. 417. Tendency of modern legisla-

405. Laying the foundation for sec- tion.
ondary evidence. 418. Competency to be determined

406. Notice to produce documents. by court—How.

* 407. Depositions. , 419, Objections to competency.

408. Rules governing the taking of 420. Incompetency—Grounds of ob-
depositions. jection.

409. Certificate—What it should 421. Notice to witness—Subpona—
show. ‘Attachment.

410. Return and publication. 422. Real evidence.

§ 400. Proper instruments must be selected.mWhere issues
of fact are joined between opposing parties, evidence is required.
This evidence must be placed before the court and jury by
proper instruments, and in accordance with the rules of law.
One might as well be without evidence as without the instru-
ments or means of presenting it to the tribunal which it is
hoped to convince or persuade. Not only, therefore, must the
advocate be prepared with evidence, but he must also be pre-
pared with the instruments! for conveying it to the triers of
his cause, and the rules governing such instruments and their
application to the particular case, should be known and deter-
mined in advance of the trial in order that the advocate may
properly present the facts to the jury.”

1 This includes witnesses, for ‘“‘awit- *“‘An advocate is expected to come
ness is a means or instrument of evi- prepared with a knowledge of all the

dence.” Rapalje’s Law of Witnesses, rules and principles of evidence.” E.
§1. W. Cox.

(501)
502 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 401

§ 401. General suggestions.—In many instances there is no
choice; the very best instruments attainable must be employed.
Thus, where the contract of the parties has been reduced to
writing, the instrument, and the only instrument which can
be employed, to communicate the evidence to the court, is the
writing itself. The operation of this rule: may in many cases
be avoided, as, for instance, where the instrument has been
lost or destroyed, or is in the hands of the adverse party, or in
the hands of a person beyond the reach of the court. If the
instrument can not be obtained, then it is necessary to proceed,
as the law provides, to substitute some other instrument of ev-
idence. It is not to be forgotten that the best instrument must
be obtained and used, if care and diligence can secure it, and
that it is only where the best can not be secured by care and
diligence that an inferior instrument will be accepted. This
care and diligence consists in doing, at the proper time and in
the proper method, what the law requires. He who proposes
to employ an inferior instrument will do well to make sure
that he is prepared to show that nothing more could reasonably
be done to secure the best.

§ 402. Primary and secondary evidence.—Primary evidence
is the best of which the case will in its nature admit; ‘all other
evidence is secondary, and of secondary eviderice there are no
degrees.? Written documents are the best evidence of their
contents and must speak for themselves.? Telegrams are writ-

Jordan, 62 Me. 480; Illinois Land, etc.,
Co. v. Bonner, 75 Ill. 315.

1 “Evidence, in order to be receiva-
ble, should come through proper in-

struments, and be in general original
and proximate.”

2Tayloe ». Riggs, 1 Peters (U.&.),
591; Richardson v. Milburn, 17 Md.
67; Brown v. Woodman, 6 C. & P.
206; Goodrich v. Weston, 102 Mass.
362, S. C. 3 Am. R. 469; Eslow v.
Mitchell, 26 Mich. 500; Carpenter v.
Dame, 10 Ind. 125. Compare Cornett
v. Williams, 20 Wall. (U.S.) 226; Hig-
gins v. Reed, 8 Iowa, 298; Nason v.

5 Williams v. Jones, 12 Ind. 561;
Sebree v. Dorr, 9 Wheat. (U. S.) 558;
Perrin v. State, 81 Wis. 135, S. C. 50
N. W. Rep. 516; Louisville, etc., R’y
Co. v. Orr, 94 Ala. 602, S. C. 10 So. R.
167; Atwood v. Cobb, 16 Pick. (Mass.)
227, 8. C. 26 Am. Dec. 657; Schwass
v. Hershey, 125 Ill. 623; note to Fer-
guson v. Rafferty,6 L.R. A.33; Mem-
phis, etc., R. R. Co. v. Benson, 85 Tenn.
627, 8. C. 4 Am. St. R. 776. Other
§ 403 THE INSTRUMENTS OF EVIDENCE. 503

ten instruments within the meaning of this rule;! and so are
maps, letters, and hand bills.?- Instruments signed in dupli-
cate are both original;*? but letter-press copies are not.‘

§ 403. General rule—Best evidence must be produced.—It
is a general rule that the best evidence of which the case is
susceptible must be produced.® ' This rule is adopted for the
prevention of fraud, and is essential to the pure administration
of justice. It does not demand the greatest amount nor the
strongest possible evidence, but only requires that such evi-
dence as is introduced shall be primary evidence, that is, the
best of which the case in its nature admits.®

§ 404. Exceptions to rule—Where secondary evidence is ad-
missible-—As the law does not require impossibilities and as
statutory provisions, public policy and even convenience may
determine how far a general rule is applicable to particular
cases, it will be found that the general rule stated in the last
section, like most others, is subject to exceptions, of which the
following are the most important: 1. Where one is acting as
a public officer it is generally unnecessary to produce the cer-

tificate of his election or appointment.”

authorities are cited in the following
notes. :

1Matteson v. Noyes,
United States v. Babcock, 3 Dill. C.
Ct. 571; Anglo-American, etc., Co. v.
Cannon, 31 Fed. R.313; Smith v. Eas-
ton, 54 Md. 138; Howley v. Whipple,
48 N. H. 487:

? Pool v. Myers, 21 Miss. 466; Guer-
in v. Hunt, 6 Minn. 375; Hanson v.
Armstrong, 22 Ill. 442. And ballots
are the best evidence of the intention
and choice of the voters. Hartmanv.
Young, 17 Ore. 150,8.C.2 L. R. A. 596.

8 Totten v. Bucy, 57 Md. 446. ,

* Anglo-American, etc., Co. v. Can-
non, 31 Fed. R. 313; Foot v. Bentley,
44.N. Y. 166; Marsh v. Hand, 35 Md.
123. For this reason, and because
there are no degrees of secondary evi-
dence, it has been held that where a

25 Till. 591;,

2. Certified copies of

letter is shown to have been lost a
verified copy of the letter-press copy
is competent evidence the same as the
letter-press copy itself, and that the
latter need not, therefore, be produced.

‘Goodrich v. Weston, 102 Mass. 362, S.

C.3 Am. R. 469.

5 Clifton v. United Bieta How.
242;, Comer v. Hart, 79 Ala. 389; Mor-
ton v.White, 16 Me.53; Wellsv. Jack-
son, etc., Co., 48 N. H. 491; Bassett v.
Marshall, 9 Mass. 312; Holliday v.
Harvey, 39 Texas, 670; Clowv. Brown
(Ind.), 81 N. E. R. 361.

® United States v. Reyburn, 6 Peters,
852; St. Louis, etc., as v. Chapman,
38 Kan. 307. |

" United States v. Reyburn, 6 Peters,
852; Wilcox v. Smith, 5 Wend. (N.Y.)
231; Fowler v. Bebee, 9 Mass. 231; 1
Rice on Ev., 150.

,
504 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 404

public records are admissible where the law authorizes the rec-
ord to be kept and the instrument to be recorded.1 3. Where
the items of an account are very numerous and intricate or
documents are very voluminous and all that is essential is a
summary or calculation, a qualified witness may make it and
give parol evidence thereof.?, 4. Inscriptions on tombstones,
walls, buildings, or other immovables, may be proved by oral
evidence.? 5. Where a writing is not within the jurisdiction
of the court and can not be reached by its process parol evi-
dence may be given of its contents.* 6. Whereits production
is physically impossible, as in case of its loss, or is in the
highest degree inconvenient, parol evidence of its contents may
be admitted upon a proper showing.» 7. Where it is in the
hands of the opposite party, who fails, after due notice, to pro-
duce it, parol evidence of its contents is also admissible.* 8.
And the same is true where it is in the hands of a stranger
who can not be compelled by legal authority to produce it, and
who declines, after service of proper process, to produce it.’

1 Wells, Fargo, etc., Co. v. Davis, 105
N. Y. 670, 8. C. 12 N. E. R. 42; Hunt
v. Order of Chosen Friends, 64 Mich.
671, 8. C. 31 N. W. R. 576; Blanchard
v. Young, 11 Cush. (Mass.) 341; Ham-
mond v. Johnston, 93 Mo. 198, 8. C. 6
8S. W. R. 83; Pepoon v. Jenkins, 2
Johns. Cas. 119; 1 Rice on Ev., 150.
Compare Russell v. Glasser, 93 Mo.
353, 6S. W. R. 362.

2 Meyer v. Sefton, 2 Starkie, 244;
Burton v. Driggs, 20 Wall. 125; Home
Ins. Co. v. Baltimore, etc., Co., 93 U.
8. 527; Von Sachs v. Kretz, 72 N. Y.
548; Culver v. Marks, 122 Ind. 554,
566; Stephen’s Ev., Art. 71; 1Greenl.
Ey., § 93; Taylor’s Ev., § 432.

’ Bartholomew v. Stephens, 8 C. &
P. 728; 1 Greenl. Ev., § 94.

_ ‘Smith v. Traders’ Nat. Bank, 82
Texas, 368,8.C.17 8. W. R..779; Bur-
ton v. Driggs, 20 Wall. 125, 134; Otto
v. Trump, 115 Pa. St. 425, 8. C. 8 Atl.
R. 786; Shepard v. Giddings, 22 Conn.
282; Rex v. Johnson, 7 East, 65.

5 Rex v. Hunt, 3B. & Ald. 566; Mor-
timer v. McCallam,6 M. & W. 58; Seb-
ree v. Dorr, 9 Wheat. (U. 8.) 558; De
Lane v. Moore, 14 How. (U.8.) 2538;
Stebbins v. Duncan, 108 U.S. 32; Me-
Nutt ». McNutt, 116 Ind. 545, S.C. 2
L. R. A. 372; Western Union Tel. Co.
v. Collins (Kan.), 10 L. R. A. 515;
Smith v. Arthur, 110 N. Car. 400, S. C.
158. E. R. 197; Roehl v. Haumesser,
114 Ind. 311.

®State v. Lockwood, 5 Blackf. (Ind.)
144; United States ». Winchester, 2
McLean, 135; Portier v. Barclay, 15
Ala. 439; Winslow »v. State, 92 Ala.
78, 8. C. 9 So. R. 728; Morse v. Wood-
worth, 155 Mass. 233, 8. C. 29N. E.R.
525; Keagle v. Pessell, 91 Mich. 618,
S. C.52 N. W. R. 58; Cahen »v. Con-
tinental Life Ins. Co.,69 N. Y. 300.

™Roscoe’s Crim. Ev., 11; Taylor’s
Ev., 407; Mills v. Oddy, 6 C. & P. 728;
Hervey v. Edens, 69 Tex. 420, 8. C. @*
S.W. R. 306; Otto v. Trump, 115 Pa.

‘St. 425. See, also, Jackson v. Burtis, 14
Ȥ 405 THE INSTRUMENTS OF EVIDENCE. ' 505

9. So where the document is first brought to notice on the ex-
amination of a witness on his voir dire the court may admit
parol evidence of its contents.!

§ 405. Laying the foundation for secondary evidence.—As
already shown, there are cases in which secondary evidence
may be admissible because primary evidence can not be
obtained. But in order to render such evidence admissible
a foundation must first be laid for its introduction. Thus,
where a written instrument is the best evidence, but can not
be procured because the instrument is lost, parol evidence
of its contents is not admissible until the fact of its loss is
proved and diligent search for it is shown to have been made.?
So, where the instrument is out of the jurisdiction of the court,
in the hands of a stranger, or in the possession of the opposite
party, and, indeed, in all cases in which secondary evidence is
sought to be introduced upon the ground that primary evidence
could not be obtained, the facts justifying its introduction must
be shown before it will be admitted.

§ 406. Notice to produce documents.— Where the writing is
in the possession or control of the adverse party, notice to pro-
duce it should be served upon him, or his attorney, a reason-
able time before trial, in order to let in secondary evidence of

Dec. 456; Simpson v. Dall, 3 Wall. (U.
8.) 460; Perrin v. State, 81 Wis. 135,

Johns.(N.Y.) 391; Peoplev. Benjamin,
9 How. Pr. (N.Y.) 419; Durkee v. Le-

land, 4 Vt. 612; Thompson-Houston
Electric Co. v. Palmer (Minn.), 53 N.
W. R. 1187.

' Rex v. Gisburn, 15 East, 57; Butch-
er’s Co. v. Jones, 1 Esp. 160; Miller v.
Mariners’ Church, 7 Me. 51.

2 Anglo-American, etc., Co. v. Can-
non, 31 Fed. R. 313; Gordon v. State,
48N.J.L. 611, S.C. 7 Atl. R. 476, and
note; Myers v. Bealer, 30 Neb. 280, 8.
C. 46 N. W. R. 479; Berdel v. Egan,
125 Ill. 298; Kearney v. New York, 92
N. Y. 617; Trammell v. Hudmon, 86
Ala. 472; Low v. Tandy, 70 Tex. 745;
note to Martin v. Williams, 97 Am.

8. C. 50 N. W. R. 516; Yavapai Co. v.
O’Neil (Ariz.), 29 Pac. R. 480; Collar
v. Collar, 86 Mich. 507, S.C. 13 L. R.
A. 621. As to what is sufficient dili-
gence, see Daly v. Bernstein(N. Mex.),
28 Pac. R. 764; Waggoner v. Alvord,
81 Texas, 365, 8. C. 168. W. R. 1083;
Gray v. Thomas, 83 Texas, 246, 8. C.
188. W. R. 721; Darrow v. Pierce, 91
Mich.63, S. C. 51 N. W. R. 813; Bu-
chanan v. Wise (Neb.), 52 N. W. R.
163; Hotchkiss v. Mosher, 48 N. Y.
478; Bascom v. Toner, 5 Ind. App. 229,
S. C. 81N. E. R. 856.
506 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 406

its contents in case it is not produced.1 If there is reason to
believe that it is in the hands of the opposite party, it is safest
to give notice to produce it even though he-has denied having
it. It is also safest to give the notice in writing,’ but a verbal
‘notice has been held sufficient in the absence of a statute re-
quiring it to be in writing. The notice should contain a par-
ticular description of the book or document called for and must
be reasonably certain and explicit.° What is a reasonable no-
tice,.as to time, depends largely upon the circumstances of each
particular case, such as the distance of the document from the
court or the like.6 Notice given to produce a paper at the trial
is sufficient although the case is not tried until a subsequent
term,’ and it will even be good at any subsequent trial, with-
out a second notice.’ The effect of a proper notice is to render
secondary evidence of the contents of the document admissible

1 Jefford v. Ringgold,6 Ala.544; Cody
v. Hough, 20 Ill. 43; Durkee v. Leland,
4 Vt. 612; Grimes v. Fall, 15 Cal. 63;
Muller v. Hoyt, 14 Tex. 49; Farmers’,
etc., Bank v. Lonergan, 21 Mo. 46;
Anderson Bridge Co. v. Applegate, 13
Ind. 339; Rogers v. Van Hoesen, 12
Johns. (N. Y.) 221; Shreve v. Dulany,
1 Cranch. (U. 8.) 499; Roberts v.
Dixon, 50 Kan. 4386, 8. C. 31 Pac. R.

1083; Pitt v. Emmons, 92 Mich. 542,
8. C.52 N.W. R.1004. But there are
cases in which it has been held that
service of notice to produce is unnec-
essary, as where it is alleged in a plead-
ing that the adverse party has posses-
sion of the document. Hardin v. Kret-
singer, 17 Johns. (N. Y.) 293; For-
ward v. Harris, 30 Barb. (N. Y.) 338;
Nealley v. Greenough, 25 N. H. 325;
How »v. Hall, 14 East, 273; Scott v.
Jones, 4 Taunt. 865. Or has obtained
possession of it by force or fraud.
Scott v. Pentz, 5 Sandf. (N. Y.) 572;
Leeds v. Cook, 4 Esp. 256; Morgan v.
Jones, 24 Ga. 155.

2Grimm v. Hamel, 2 Hilt. (N. Y.)
434/

3 Cummings v. McKinney, 5 III. 57.

*Houseman v. Roberts, 5 C. & P.
394; Cates v. Winter, 3 Term R. 306;
Kerr v. McGuire, 28 N. Y. 446.

* Bogart v. Brown, 5 Pick. (Mass.)
18; France v. Lucy, Ry. & M. 341;
United States v. Duff, 6 Fed. Rep. 45;
Stalker v. Gaunt, 12 N. Y. Leg. Obs.
124; Taylor’s Ev., § 418; 1 Wharton’s
Ev. (3d ed.) 154, note. It shouid also
be entitled in the cause, but this is not.
material if the party is not misled.
Lawrence v. Clark, 14 Mees. & W. 250.
See, also, Frank v. Manny, 2 Daly (N.
Y.), 92.

® Utica Ins. Co. v. Caldwell, 3 Wend.
(N. Y.) 296; McPherson v. Rathbone,
7 Wend. (N. Y.) 216; Littleton v.
Clayton, 77 Ala. 571; Dewitt v. Pres-
cott, 51 Mich. 298; Shreve v. Dulany,
1 Cranch. (U. §.) 499.

‘Jackson v. Shearman, 6 Johns. (N.
Y.) 19.

® Hope v. Beadon, 17 Q. B. 509; Raw-
son v. Knight, 73 Me. 340.
§ 407 THE INSTRUMENTS OF EVIDENCE. 507

in case itis not produced.! The instrument must, however,
be shown by competent evidence to be in the possession or con-
trol of the opposite party,? Where the document is-in the pos-
session of a third person it may generally be brought into court
by means of a subpena duces tecum,® but where he is not within
the jurisdiction of the court, it has been held that secondary »
evidence of the contents of the instrument will be admitted
without a notice to produce it. As a stranger might volun-
tarily bring it into court, however, although he could not be
compelled to, it seems to us that the party desiring to introduce
secondary evidence in such a case should show that he had
made reasonable efforts to obtain the original document.

§ 407. Depositions.—It is better, as we have elsewhere shown,
to bring the witnesses into the presence of the jury, but this
can not always bedone. It is often necessary to take the testi-
mony of witnesses in the form of depositions. When deposi-
tions of material witnesses are to be taken the prudent course
is, where practicable and not forbidden, for the advocate to at-
tend the examination in person, or to secure the attendance of
counsel fully informed as to the issues, the material points of
the case, and the facts of which the witness is supposed to
have knowledge. It is not always easy to frame a series of
questions that will fully elicit the facts, nor, indeed, is it easy
to prepare questions that are not liable to mislead or confuse
the witness. If an examining counsel is present errors may
be corrected, obscurities removed, plain questions substituted
for obscure ones, and the testimony be brought out with much
more force and clearness than by written questions.

§ 408. Rules governing the taking of depositions—The

1McKellip v. McIlhenny, 4 Watts. ? Birkbeck v. Tucker, 2 Hall (N.Y.),
(Pa.) 317,8. C. 28 Am. Dec. 711; Com. 121; Reilly v. Lee, 16 N. Y. Supp. 313.
v. Goldstein, 114 Mass. 272; Augur But slight evidence has been held suf-
Steel, etc., Co. v. Whittier, 117 Mass. ficient. Robb v. Starkey, 2 Car. & K.
451; Life and Fire Ins. Co.v.Mechan- 143; Norton v. Heywood, 20 Me. 359.
ics’, etc., Co., 7 Wend. (N. Y.) 31; 3 Thomp. Tr., § 175.

Pangborn v. Continental Insurance ‘Shepard v. Giddings, 22 Conn. 282.
Co. (Mich.), 29 N. W. R. 475.
508 § 408

THE WORK OUT OF COURT.

rules of practice to be observed in taking depositions are those
provided by the statute of the State or country from which the
commission or dedimus issues, and not those obtaining in the
jurisdiction where the witness is found, unless they are the
same.' A commissioner appointed to take testimony -can not
delegate his authority.? Notice must be given of the time and
place of taking the deposition. Where the time for which
notice is required to be given is not specifically fixed by stat-
ute, a reasonable notice should be given,’ and in determining
its sufficiency the courts will take judicial notice of distances,
and facilities for travel. The notice must describe the place
of taking the deposition with reasonable certainty. When
necessary, the officer may continue the taking from day to day
until it is completed. Although not required in all jurisdic-
tions, it is safest to have the witness sworn before the exam-

ination.’

1 City Bank v. Young, 43 N. H. 457;
Bostwick v. Lewis, 1 Day’s Cases, 33;
Thompson v. Wilson, 34 Ind. 94. So
the act of Congress governs in the tak-
ing of depositions to be used in the
United States courts. Randall v.Ven-
able, 17 Fed. R. 162. Compare McClas-
key v. Barr, 47 Fed. R. 154. The stat-
ute should be followed in all material
respects. Gulf, etc., Co. v. Evansich,
61 Tex. 3; Simpson v. Carleton, 1 Allen
(Mass.), 109; Simpson v. Dix, 131
Mass. 179; Johnson v. Perry, 54 Vt.
459; Baxter v. Payne, 1 Pinn. 501.

? Cappeau v. Middleton, 1 Har. & G.
154; Urquhart v. Burleson, 6 Tex. 502.
But it seems that where the officer be-
fore whom the deposition is to be taken
is not required to be specified in the
notice, naming a particular officer
therein will not render the deposition
invalid because it is taken before an-
other officer. Harvey v. Osborn, 55
Ind. 535. The only mode by which a
deposition can be taken in a foreign
country isunderacommission. Stein
v. Bowman, 13 Peters (U. 8.), 209.

Where the deposition is taken in the ordinary, man-

3 Henthorn v. Doe, 1 Blackf. 157;
Cefret v. Burch, 1 Blackf. 400; Att-
wood v. Fricot, 17 Cal. 37, S.C. 76 Am.
Dec. 567.

*Hipes v. Cochran, 13 Ind. 175;
Manning v. Gasharie, 27 Ind. 399;
Carlisle v. Tuttle, 30 Ala. 613.

§ Rodman v. Kelly, 13 Ind. 377; Har-
ris v. Hill, 7 Ark. 452. But defects in
the notice may be waived by,an ap-
pearance at the taking of the deposi-
tion without objection. Prather v.
Pritchard, 26 Ind. 65; Doe v. Brown,
8 Blackf. 443; George v. Nichols, 32
Me. 179. And achange in the place
named without objection will not be
cause for suppressing the deposition.
Gartside Coal Co. v. Maxwell, 20 Fed.
R. 187. As to what the notice should
contain, and for the usual form, see
Weeks on Depositions, Ch. VII.

* Ulmer v. Austill, 9 Port.( Ala.) 157;
King v. State, 15 Ind. 64. But the
time to which an adjournment is made
should be stated. Bennett v. Bennett,
37 W. Va. 396, S. C. 16S. E. R. 638.

"Stonebreaker v. Short, 8 Pa. St. 155;
§ 408 THE INSTRUMENTS OF EVIDENCE. 509

ner, and not by interrogatories previously prepared, the party
against whom it is to be used has a right to cross-examine the
witness.’ Objections to the form of a question, as leading or
the like, or as to the manner of taking the deposition, should,
as a rule, be made at the time.? In some jurisdictions objec-
tions to the competency of the witness must be made before
trial; in others they may be made at or during the trial.*
Provision is also generally made for taking depositions by in-
terrogatories previously prepared, and, in such case, no cross-
examination is allowed, except by cross-interrogatories, and
the mere presence of the attorney of either party at the taking
has been held sufficient cause for rejecting a deposition.‘ All
pertinent and proper interrogatories and cross-interrogatories
must be answered.5 Where depositions are taken under a com-
mission, they should be subscribed by the witness, although _
it has been held sufficient by some of the courts if the fact that
the witness was duly sworn appears from the certificate;® and
the signature of the commissioner seems to be absolutely nec-
essary.’ Exhibits should be referred to in the body of the
deposition and marked and annexed thereto, or otherwise
clearly identified.®

Thieband v. Sebastian, 10 Ind. 454;
Fisk v. Tank, 12 Wis. 276, 8. C. 78 Am.
Dec. 737. But, see Tooker v. Thomp-
son, 3 McLean, 92; Barron v. Peter,
18 Vt. 385.

1Dannefelser v. Weigel, 27 Mo. 45;
Stille v. Layton, 2 Harr. (Del.) 149;
Laidley v. Rogers, 22 N. Y. Supp. 468.

2 Croft v. Rains, 10 Tex. 520; Crow-
ell v. Bank, 3 Ohio St. 406; Chambers
v. Hunt, 22 N. J. L. 552; Donnell v.
Jones, 13 Ala. 490, 8.C. 48 Am. Dec. 59.

5See authorities cited in ‘‘Rules of
Practice on Taking Depositions,’’ 22
Cent. L. J. 581, 585. Unless the prac-
tice is clearly settled, however, it is
safest to make the objection at the
earliest opportunity, and, if necessary,
it can be repeated at the trial.

‘ Hollister v. Hollister, 6 Pa. St. 449.

5Nicholson v. Desobry, 14 La. Ann.
81; Kimball v. Davis, 19 Wend. (N.
Y.) 487. But portions not responsive
to the interrogatories will be excluded
on motion. McCarver v. Nealey, 1
Greene (Ia.), 360; Lee v. Stowe, 57
Tex. 444.

8 See 22 Cent. L. J. 581, 584, and au-
thorities. cited. See, also, Celluloid
Mfg. Co. v. Arlington, etc., Co., 47
Fed. R. 4.

™Price v. Emerson, 16 La. Ann. 95.

8 Brumskill v. James, 11 N. Y. 294;
Dailey v. Green, 15 Pa. St. 118; Weid-
ner v. Conner, 9 Pa. St. 78; Dodge v.
Israel, 4 Wash. C. C. 323; Mobley v.
Leophart, 51 Ala. 587; Gimbel v. Huf-
ford, 46 Ind. 125; Huston v. Roots, 30
Ind. 461; Toby v. Oregon Pac. R. R.
Co. (Cal.), 33 Pac. R. 550.
510 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 409

§ 409. Certificate—What it should show.—The statutes of
the various States usually prescribe what the certificate should
show, and where they do not it is safest, though held unneces-
sary in some cases, to show that all the statutory steps have,
been taken.! Where the certificate is informal or defective it
may be amended by the officer on leave of court.2, When a
commission is addressed to a resident of another State by name,
no proof of his official character or signature is necessary; but
where the officer has no seal, and is not named in the commis-
sion, his certificate is generally required to be authenticated
under the seal of a court of record.

§ 410. Return and publication.— After the deposition is
duly taken and authenticated it should be placed in an envel-
ope, properly sealed, and returned with the commission to the
court from which it issued. The provisions of the statute
should be followed and the names of the parties and witnesses
should be indorsed on the envelope, which should then be ad-
dressed and mailed to the clerk of the court in which the ac-
tion is pending. In a recent case it was held, under a statute
providing that the deposition should be delivered by the officer
taking it, with his own hand, into the court for which it was
taken, or by him sealed up and forwarded to such court either
by mail or express, and remain under his seal until opened in
court, that a deposition sent by mail in a sealed envelope was
not admissible where the envelope was neither sealed with wax
bearing an impression of the notary’s seal nor indorsed by the

1See 22 Cent. L. J. 581, 585, and au-
thorities cited. Also, Madison, I. &
P. R. RB. Co. v. Whitesel, 11 Ind. 55;
Thieband v. Sebastian, 10 Ind. 454;
Simpson v. Carleton, 1 Allen, 109, S.
C. 79 Am. Dec. 707, and note 716;
Western Union Tel. Co. v. Collins, 45
Kan. 88, 8. C. 25 Pac. R. 187, 8. C. 10
L. R. A. 515.

?Donahue v. Roberts, 19 Fed. R..
863; Gartside Coal Co. v. Maxwell, 20
Fed. R. 187; Wolfe v. Underwood
(Ala.), 12 So. R. 234; Conger v. Cot-

ton, 37 Ark. 286; Oatman v. Andrew,
43 Vt. 466; Jenkins v. Anderson (Pa.),
11 Atl. R. 558; Eller v. Richardson,
89 Tenn. 575, S.C. 15 S. W. R. 650.
Compare Galveston, etc., R. R. Co. v.
Matula, 79 Tex. 577, 8. 0.15 S. W.R.
573.

3 Bradford v. Cooper, 1 La. Ann. 325;
Kendall v. Limberg, 69 Ill. 355.

*Baber v. Rickhart, 52 Ind. 594;
Jenkins v. Tobin, 31 Ark. 306; Wheeler
v. Shields, 2 Scam. (Ill.) 348:
§ 411 THE INSTRUMENTS OF EVIDENCE. bli

notary.!_ But this seems to us to be an exceedingly strict con-
struction of the statute, and the general rule is that a substan-
tial compliance with the statutory requirements is sufficient.?
After the deposition is returned it should be filed and pub-
lished. The publication may be made upon the motion of
either party.®

§ 411. Motion to suppress.—Where a deposition is fatally
defective because of the failure to comply with some statutory
requirement, it is proper to move to suppress it before the
trial; but objections to particular questions or answers are
generally made in the same manner as upon the examination
of a witness in court. A motion to strike out improper an-
swers may also be resorted to. Objections to the validity or
admissibility of depositions by motion to suppress, or otherwise,
must be specific,® and the order suppressing the deposition, or
any part of it, must be definite and certain.®

§ 412. Use of depositions.—The provisions of the statute
will, of course, determine under what circumstances deposi-
tions may be taken and used; but they are usually permitted
to be taken where a witness is out of the jurisdiction, aged and
infirm, sick, or going abroad, to be used in the event of his
inability to attend the trial.’ Under many of the statutes sat-

1Travers v. Jennings (S. Car.), 17 a matter of course, while in others an

S. E. R. 849.

2 Goodyear v. Vosburg, 41 How. Pr.
(N. Y.) 421; Hall v. Barton, 25 Barb.
(N. Y.) 274; Egbert v. Citizens’ Ins.
Co., 7 Fed. R. 47; Whittaker v. Voor-
hees, 38 Kan. 71, S. C. 15 Pac. R. 874;
Killian v. Augusta, etc., R. R. Co., 78
Ga. 749, 8. OC. 3S. E. R. 621; Weeks
on Depositions, §§ 348, 862. The ob-
jection that the names of the witnesses
are not indorsed upon the envelope
must precede the publication. Lin-

- genfelser v. Simon, 49 Ind. 82.

’The practice varies somewhat in
different States. In some the deposi-
tions may be published or opened as

order of court is necessary. Weeks
on Depositions, § 448.

* Weeks on Depositions, §§ 365, 378.
See, also, Bibb v. Allen, 149 U. 8. 481,
8. OC. 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 950. Holding
that a motion to suppress came too
late when made upon the day for
which the trial was set.

5 Hunt v. Bailey, 4 Ind. 630; Petti-
grew v. Barnum, 11 Md. 434, 8. C. 69
Am. Dec. 212; Maggart v. Freeman,
27 Ind. 531 ; Commercial Bank v. Union.
Bank, 11 N. Y. 203; Whittaker v. Sig-
ler, 44 Iowa, 419.

§ Hays v. Hynds, 28 Ind. 531.

"Norris v. Norris, 3 Ind. App. 500,
512 THE WORK OUT OF CouRT. § 412

isfactory proof of the inability of the witness to attend or of
the impossibility of procuring or compelling his attendance
must be made before the deposition can be used upon the trial,’
but in Illinois it has been held that the deposition of a witness
may be read although he is present in court,? and in Indiana
it has been held that when the deposition of a witness who
does not reside in the county of the ‘trial, or in an adjoining
county, has been taken by one party, the fact that the other
party has procured his attendance and examined him during
' the trial, will not prevent the party who took the deposition
from reading it if the witness has been discharged and is not
in court at the time the deposition is offered.? A deposition
taken at the instance of one party, and not used by him, may
be read in evidence by the opposite party.‘ The deposition of
a witness taken in another action relating to the same subject-
matter and between the same parties in interest may also be
read in evidence, where the witness has died in the meantime.

8. C.283N. E. RB. 1014; Hunsinger v.
Hofer, 110 Ind. 390; Pollard v. Lively,

2 Gratt. (Va.) 216; Commercial Bank

v. Whitehead, 4 Ala. 637; Goodwyn v.
Lloyd, 8 Port. (Ala.) 237.

1 Emlaw v. Emlaw, 20 Mich. 11; Chi-
cago, etc., R. R. Co. v. Brown, 44 Kan.
384, 24 Pac. R. 497; Whitford v. County
of Clark (U.S.),7 Sup. Ct.R. 306; Mem-
phis, etc., Co. v. Maples, 63 Ala. 601;
Jackson v. Rice, 3 Wend. (N. Y.) 180;
Park v. Willis, 1 Cranch, C. C. 357; Sax
v. Davis, 71 Ia. 406, 32 N. W. R. 403;
Everett v. Tidball (Neb.), 52N.W.R.
816; Weeks on Depositions, § 476. The
reasons for using the deposition must
exist at the time of the trial. Stockton
v. Graves, 10 Ind. 294; Haun v. Wil-
son, 28 Ind. 296; Indianapolis, etc.,
R. R. Co. v. Stout, 53 Ind. 143. See,
also, Hewlett v. George, 68 Miss. 708,
8. C.13 L. R. A. 682.

? Bradley v. Geiselman, 17 Ill. 571.

*Shirts v. Irons, 37 Ind. 98. See,
also, Ables v. Miller, 12 Texas, 109;

Phenix v. Baldwin, 14 Wend. (N. Y.)
62; Barton v. Trent, 3 Head. (Tenn.)
167.

* Citizens’ Bank v. Rhutasel, 67 Ia.
316; Adams v. Russell, 85 Ill. 284;.
Woodruff v. Garner, 39 Ind. 246; Byers
v. Orensstein, 42 Minn.386, 44 N.W. R.
129; Rucker v. Reid, 36 Kan. 468;
Chase v. Springvale Mills, 75 Me. 156;
Dana v. Underwood, 19 Pick. (Mass.)
99; Fountain v. Ware, 56 Ala. 558;
McClintock v. Curd, 32 Mo. 411. But
it has been held that where this is
done the party at whose instance it
was taken may object to improper in-
terrogatories propounded by himself.
Hatch v. Brown, 63 Me. 410. See,
also, Gilpins v. Consequa, Pet. C. C.
85. See, generally, Weeks on Depo-
sitions, § 465, et seq.

° Philadelphia, etc., Co. v. Howard,
13 How. (U.S8.) 307; Goodrich v. Han-
son, 33 Ill. 498; Leviston v. French, 45
N.H. 21; Berney v. Mitchell, 34 N. J.
L. 337; Adams v. Raigner, 69 Mo. 363;
§ 413 513

THE INSTRUMENTS OF EVIDENCK.

But depositions taken in one suit can not be used in another
against a person who was not a party to the former suit and
had no opportunity to cross-examine the witness.1_ Depositions
read at the trial of a cause may be used upon a new trial of the
same cause.’ Aud a deposition read without objection can not
afterwards be excluded because of any known defect existing
at the time it was read;? but it has been held that an agreement
that a deposition may be used upon all trials of the same cause
does not render an objectionable portion of it admissible where
the objection is seasonably made.*

§ 413. Waiver of objections.—It is a safe rule to make ob-
jections at the earliest opportunity. Appearing and taking
part in the examination may constitute a waiver of many ob-
jections,® and, as a general rule, all formal objections such as
might be remedied by amendment or retaking the deposition

should be made before the trial.®

Earl v. Hurd, 5 Blackf. (Ind.) 248;
Eckman v. Eckman, 68 Pa. St. 460.
But see Sewall v. Robbins, 1389 Mass.
164, in which the subject-matter was
different. So, it may be used if the
witness is beyond the jurisdiction of
the court. Weeks on Depositions, § 470.

1 Rutherford v. Geddes, 4 Wall. (U.
8.) 220; Tappan v. Beardsley, 10 Wall.
(U. 8.) 427; Earl v. Hurd, 5 Blackt.
(Ind.) 248; Borders v. Barber, 81 Mo.
636; Turnley v. Hanna (Ala.), 2 So.
R. 483 ; Cookson v. Richardson, 69 Ill.
137; Bartelott v. International Bank,
119 Ill. 259. ‘‘Identity of subject-
matter in whole or in part, and iden-
tity of parties in interest must unite
to render a deposition in one case ad-
missible in another.”’ Fearn v. West
Jersey Ferry Co., 143 Pa. St. 122, 18
L. R. A. 366, 369.

7Spence v. Smith, 18 N. H. 587;
Pulaski v. Ward, 2 Rich. (So. Car.)
119; Walton v. Walton, 63 Vt. 513, 8.
C. 22 Atl. R. 617. So held where they

33

But objections that go to

had been read by consent upon the
first trial. Vattier v. Hinde, 7 Peters
(U.8.), 252; Edmondson v. Barrell,
2 Cranch C. C. 228, 282.

3 Evans v. Hettich, 7 Wheat. (U. 8.)
453; Brackett v. Nikirk, 20 Il]. App.
525.

‘ Bridgham’s Appeal, 82 Me. 323.

5 Barnhardt v. Smith, 86 N. Car. 473;
Shutte v. Thompson, 15 Wall. 151;
Long v. Straus, 124 Ind. 84; Doe v.
Brown, 8 Blackf. (Ind.) 443; Waldron
v. St. Paul, 33 Minn. 87; Goodfellow
v. Landis, 36 Mo. 168; Weil v. Silver-
stone, 6 Bush. (Ky.) 698; Milton v.
Rowland, 11 Ala. 732; Nevanv. Roup,
8 Iowa, 207; Quadras v. Webster, 11
La. Ann. 203; Cameron v. Cameron,.
15 Wis. 1; Weeks on Depositions,
§§ 276, 277, 424, et seg. Contra, where
a party’s attorney is merely present.
and takes no part. Harris v. Wall, 7
How. (U.8.) 692; Beasley v. Downey,
10 Ired. (N. Car.) 284.

® Holman v. Bachus, 73 Mo. 49;
514 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 414

the substance, such as the competency and relevancy of the
evidence, if they are unknown and not disclosed by the depo-
sition, may generally be made upon the trial. So, the taking

of a deposition to break the force of the deposition of the same |

witness previously taken by the other party has been held not
to be a waiver of objections to the competency of the witness.”
Notwithstanding an objection or a motion to suppress a depo-
sition is made in the trial court, if it does not appear to have
been ruled on, it will be deemed, on appeal, to have been
waived.?.

§ 414. Discovery—Examination of party before trial_—In
former times the manner of obtaining a discovery in aid of an
action at law was usually by filing a bill of discovery in a court
of equity, but this practice has been largely superseded, under
modern statutes, by filing interrogatories with the pleadings,
to be answered by the opposite party,‘ or by examining him
outside of court in much the same way as depositions are taken.®

Memphis, etc., R. R. Co. v. Maples,
63 Ala. 601; Truman v. Scott, 72 Ind.
258; Doane v. Glenn, 21 Wall. 33;
Claxton v. Adams, 1 McArthur, 496;
Bell v. Jamison, 102 Mo.71; Uhle v.
Burnham, 44 Fed. Rep. 729; Stull v.
Howard, 26 Ind. 456; Glenn v. Clore,
42 Ind. 60; Wright v. Cabot, 89 N. Y.
570; Sheldon v. Burry, 39 Ill. App.
(154; Delisle v. McGillivary, 24 Mo.
App. 680; Akers v. Demond, 103 Mass.
818; Rowe »v. Godfrey, 16 Me. 128;
Newton v. Porter, 69 N. Y. 183; Greg-
ory v. Dodge, 14 Wend. (N. Y.) 593;
Weeks on Depositions, §§ 392, 440.

' Memphis, etc., R. R. Co. v. Maples,
63 Ala.601; Robinius v. Lister, 30 Ind.
142; Tays v. Carr, 37 Kan. 141, 14 Pac.
R. 456; Leavitt v. Baker, 82 Me. 26,
S.C. 19 Atl. R. 86; Smithwick v. An-
derson, 2 Swan (Tenn.), 573; Tallot
v. Clark, 8 Pick. (Mass.) 51; Corgan
v. Anderson, 30I11.95; Swift v. Castle,
23 Ill. 209; Adams v. Wadleigh, 10

Gray (Mass.), 360; Pittsburgh, etc.,
R. R. Co. v. Theobald, 51 Ind. 246;
Myers v. Murphy, 60 Ind. 282.

2 Mitna Life Ins. Co. v. Deming, 123
Ind. 384.

5 Hanks v. Van Garder, 59 Ia. 179;
Graydon v. Gaddis, 20 Ind. 515; Mc-
Ginnis v. Gabe, 78 Ind. 457; Garvin v.
Luttrell, 10 Humph. (Tenn.) 16; Cam-
eron v. Cameron, 15 Wis. 1; Fant v.
Miller, 17 Gratt. (Va.) 187; Corn v.
Sims, 3 Met. (Ky.) 391; Weeks on
Depositions, § 441. This is, indeed,
the general rule in all cases. The ob-
jection should be duly made, a ruling
obtained, and an‘ exception taken to
the ruling.

*11 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, 526,
534; Fels v. Raymond, 189 Mass. 98;
Tillinghast v. Nourse, 14 Ga. 641; Cates
v. Thayer, 93 Ind. 156, 157; Sherman
v. Hogland, 73 Ind. 472; Hill v. Nisbet,
100 Ind. 341; Rice v. Derby, 7 Ind. 649.

> Barnard v. Flinn, 8 Ind. 204; Ma-

ST /??
§ 415 THE INSTRUMENTS OF EVIDENCE. 515

It has been held that one who has complied with an order to
answer interrogatories may also be compelled to testify as a
witness,! and this seems to us to be the true rule, but in New
York it seems that the examination of a party before trial pre-
cludes a further examination, in regard to the same subject-
matter, upon the trial.? A party will not be compelled .to
answer an interrogatory which tends to criminate himself or
expose him to fines, penalties and forfeitures? —-

§ 415. Choice of instruments of evidence—There is some-
times a choice between the instruments of evidence. Thus,
where several persons have seen an occurrence, and of the sev-
eral some are good and some bad, choice may be made of the
good to the.exclusion of the bad. A few good witnesses, in-
telligent, frank, well-mannered, and of good repute, are better
than many, if of the many a considerable number are bad. In
proving reputation, itis of great importance that the best wit-
nesses at command be obtained, and this is true where reputation
is assailed. But the instance we have given is by no means the
only one in which it is of importance to secure the best wit-
nesses, although, perhaps, in cases which it represents the im-

portance of securing the very best witnesses is greater in de-
gree than in ordinary cases.

§ 416. Competency should be ascertained before trial.
Whether a person can be used as an instrument of evidence
depends upon whether he is a competent witness in the par-
ticular case. If he is not competent in that case, then he is

son v. Weston, 29 Ind. 561; Helms v.
Green, 105 N. Car. 251, 8. C. 18 Am. St.
R. 893, 898; McVickar v. Greenleaf, 4
Rob. (N. Y.) 657; Havemeyer v. In-
gersoll, 12 Abb. Pr. (N. 8.) 301; Jack-
sonville, etc., Co. v. Peninsular Land,
etc., Co. (Fla.), 9 So. R. 661. He can
simply be required to answer as to his
own knowledge, however, and not as
to who his witnesses are and what they
told him. Wabash, etc., R’y Co. v Mor-
gan, 132 Ind. 430, 31 N. E. R. 661, 663.

1 Smith v. Rosenham, 19 Ind. 256.

2? Wilmont v. Meserole, 8 J. & S.
321. But see Clark v.Vorce, 15 Wend.
(N. Y.) 198; Helms v. Green, 105 N.
Car. 251, 8. C. 18 Am. St. R. 893.

8 French v. Venneman, 14 Ind. 282;
Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616,.
8. C. 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 524, 533; Thorn-'
ton v. Adkins, 19 Ga. 464; 11 Am. &
Eng. Encyc. of Law, 533; Adams’ Eq.,
2; 1 Pom. Eq. Jur., § 202.
516

THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 417

not an instrument of evidence. A person may be unworthy
of credit and yet be competent; in that event he is an instru-
ment of evidence, although not an effective one. It is neces-
sary, therefore, to ascertain in advance of the trial whether the
witness is, or is not, competent; for, if he is not, he can not
be employed as a means of communicating facts to the court,

and a careful advocate would search elsewhere for an effective
instrument.

§ 417. Tendency of modern legislation—The tendency of
modern legislation has been for years towards a practical
emancipation of witnesses from the strict rules of the common
law disqualifying them on account of interest, relationship, or
the like, so that competency is now the rule and incompetency
the exception. In some States, however, the legislature has
gone further than in others, and counsel should, therefore,
consult the statutes of his own State. For this reason and for
the further reason that this subject is more properly within
the domain of a treatise on the law of evidence than it is within
the scope of a book upon general practice, we shall not treat it
in detail, but shall content ourselves with a statement of the
general rules, and a brief consideration of the most important
phases of the subject that counsel ought to keep in mind in

securing evidence and preparing his case for trial upon the
facts. .

§ 418. Competency to be determined by court— How.—
The competency of a witness is for the court to determine,! and
his credibility is for the jury.2. Incompetency of a witness
will not be presumed, and where a witness is objected to as in-

1City of Ft. Wayne v. Coombs, 107 v. Moore, 91 Ind. 522; Moore »v. State,

Ind. 75; Duncan v. Welty, 20 Ind. 44;
Davis v. State, 35 Ind. 496; Commer-
cial Bank v. Hughes, 17 Wend. (N.Y.)
94; Reynolds v. Lounsbury, 6 Hill
(N. Y.), 534; Tucker v. Welsh, 17
Mass. 160; Cook v. Mix, 11 Conn. 432;
Chouteau v. Searcy, 8 Mo. 733.

2 Nelson v. Vorce, 55 Ind. 455; Dodd

68 Ala. 360; Bowers v. People, 74 Ill.
418; Mechelke v. Bramer, 59 Wis. 57;
Worthington v. Mencer (Ala.), 11 So.
R. 72; Springfield v. State (Ala.), 11
So. R. 250; Nat. Bank v. Mills, 99 N.
Y. 656, 8. C.2N. E. R. 27; Sharp v.
State, 14 Am, St. R. 27, and note.
§ 419 THS INSTRUMENTS OF EVIDENCE. 517

competent, if the facts on which the objection is based are dis-
puted, the judge must determine his competency; and that this
may be done intelligently the witness may be examined on his
voir dire, and other evidence may be heard by the judge to
contradict him and show his incompetency.!

§ 419. Objections to competency.—The party objecting has
the right to begin the preliminary examination as to compe-—
tency, and the other party may cross-examine. Objection to
the competency of a witness should, if the grounds of the ob-
jection are known, be made before the commencement of his
examination in chief.2, Where the incompetency of a witness
is discovered after he has been sworn and has given part of his
evidence objection’ may then be made and such evidence should
be withdrawn, and the jury instructed to disregard it.? Ifa
party calls a witness, incompetent as against himself, to testify
on any point, or knowingly permits him to be examined with-
out objection at the earliest opportunity, he is presumed to
have waived all objection on that ground, and the witness may
be examined at large.* A waiver of objection to the compe-
tency of a witness operates upon all his testimony, and stands

throughout the entire trial.®

1 Best’s Ev., § 133; Rapalje’s Law of
Witnesses, §§ 171, 174; Bartlett v.
Smith, 11 M. & W. 483; Nave v. Will-
jams, 22 Ind. 368; 1 Greenl. Ev., § 425.
In cases of doubt, however, it seems
that courts are disposed to receive the
witness and let the jury judge of his
credibility. 1 Best’s Ev., § 133, Ib., §
144, And on principle, and, perhaps,
upon authority, when a party who ob-
jects to a witness as incompetent
chooses to examine him upon his voir
dire, he can not, as a matter of right,
contradict him by other evidence.
See Stebbins v. Sackett, 5 Conn. 258,
261; 1 Greenl. Ev., § 423; Rapalje’s
Law of Witnesses, § 175.

2Lewis v. Morse, 20 Conn. 211;
Kingsbury v. Buchanan, 11 Iowa, 387 ;

A party who once objects, and

Stuart v. Lake, 33 Me. 87; Groshom
v. Thomas, 20 Md. 234; Inglebright v.
Hammond, 19 Ohio, 337; Jackson v.
Jackson, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 173; Patter-
son v. Wallace, 44 Pa. St. 88; Donel-
son v. Taylor, 8 Pick. (Mass.) 390.

3 Jacobs v. Layborn, 11 M. & W. 685;
Brockbank v. Anderson, 7 Man. & Gr.
295; Stout v. Wood, 1 Blackf. 71;
Fisher v. Willard, 18 Mass. 379; 1
Greenl. Ev., § 421; Rapalje’s Law of
Witnesses, § 173.

‘Varick v. Jackson, 2 Wend. 166, 8.
C.19 Am. Dec. 571, and note, 579; 1
Green]. Ev., §421; Donelson v. Tay-
lor, 8 Pick. 390, 392; Stockton v. De-
muth, 7 Watts, 39, S. C. 82 Am. Dec.
735; Seip v. Torch, 52 Pa. St. 210.

5 Choteau v. Thompson, 3 Ohio St.
518 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 420

preserves his objection, does not lose the benefit of it by sub-
sequently introducing evidence to contradict the testimony of
the witness, nor does he lose the benefit by cross-examining
the witness.1_ Objections to the competency of a witness should
be specifically stated.2 To make an objection to the compe-
tency of a witness available on appeal, the record should show
the specific objections stated to the trial court and the reason
of his incompetency, as well as the ruling and exception.’

§ 420. Incompetency—Grounds of objection.—We are here
dealing with the question of the competency of the witness and
not with the question of the admissibility of some particular
portion of his evidence, and in such a case the objection should,
of course, be based upon some ground of incompetency. Un-
der the modern statutes,* insanity of the witness at the time
his testimony is offered and infancy are the chief grounds of
incompetency. It is also commonly provided that neither
party shall be competent to testify as to a transaction with a
person since deceased where the evidence would be inimical to

the estate.®

424; Beall v. Lynn, 6 Harr. & Johns.
(Md.) 336.

' Boylan v. Meeker, 4 Dutch. (N.J.)
274; Carpenter v. Ginder, 1 Wis. 243.

?Bunker v. Gilmore, 40 Me. 88;
White Water Valley Co. v. Dow, 1
Ind. 141; Pegg v. Warford, 7 Md. 582;
Brown v. State, 24 Ark. 620; State v.
Levy, 5 La. Ann. 64.

’ Emory v. Owings, 3 Md. 178; Grant
v. Levan, 4 Pa. St. 898; Bates v. Bar-
ber, 4 Cush. 107; Rapalje’s Law of
Witnesses, § 179.

*See Rapalje’s Law of Witnesses,
Ch. VIII, where the provisions of the
various statutes upon this subject are
quoted in full.

5In the following recent cases evi-
dence was held inadmissible under
the statute: Mills v. Davis, 113 N.Y.
243, 8.C.3L. R. A. 394; Holcomb v.

In some of the statutes the provision upon this

Holcomb, 95 N. Y. 316; Consolidated
Ice Co. v. Keifer, 184 Ill. 481, 8. C. 10
L. R. A. 696; Harris v. Bank, 22 Fla.
501, 8. C. 1 Am. St. R. 201; Emmel v.
Hayes, 102 Mo. 186, 8. C. 22 Am. St. R.
769; Blood v. Fairbanks, 50 Cal. 420;
Taylor v. Duesterberg, 109 Ind. 165;
Ketcham v. Hill, 42 Ind. 64; Clift v.
Shockley, 77 Ind. 297; Randall’s
Adm’r v. Randall, 64 Vt. 419, S. C. 24
Atl. R. 1011; Bressler v. Baum, 42 Ill.
App. 190; Mersmier v. McCrary (Mo.),
218.W.R.17; Ewing v. White, 8 Utah,
250, S. C. 30 Pac. R. 984; Joss v. Mohn
(N. J.), 26 Atl. R. 987; Bowie v. Bowie
(Md.), 26 Atl. R. 405; Hurry v. Kline
(Ky.),208.W. R. 277. Held competent
and admissible in the following cases, .
as not within the prohibition of the
statute: Hess v. Lowrey, 122 Ind. 225,
8.C.7L. R. A. 90; South Baltimore,
4

§ 420 THE INSTRUMENTS OF EVIDENCE. 519

subject is much broader than in others. Provisions are also
found in most of them to the effect that attorneys, physicians,
clergymen and husband or wife shall not be competent to
testify as to confidential communications, without the consent
of the party making them.t Where the objection is upon the
ground of the insanity of the witness his competency depends
upon the extent of the insanity. An idiot can under no cir-
cumstances be a competent witness; but a lunatic may be com-
petent during a lucid interval,” and it may be stated generally
that a witness, otherwise competent, is not rendered incompe-
tent by insanity or unsoundness of mind if he has sufficient
understanding to apprehend the obligation of an oath and is
capable of giving a correct account of what he has seen or
heard in reference to the question at issue.? In the absence of
a statute fixing the time at which an infant shall be deemed
competent or incompetent to testify as a witness, his compe-
tency depends upon his intelligence, understanding and ca-
pacity or ability to comprehend the nature and effect of an
oath.4 Few, if any, of the statutes have attempted to fix the
age at which the testimony of an infant shall be excluded in
all cases, but many of them provide that children under ten

etc., Co. v. Muhlbach, 69 Md. 395, S. .
C.1L. R.A. 507, and authorities cited
in note; Larsen v. Johnson, 78 Wis.
300, 8. C. 23 Am. St. R. 404; Estate of
McCausland, 52 Cal. 568; Mason v.
Prendergast, 120 N. Y. 536; Darwin ».
Keigher, 45 Minn. 64; Moore v. Trim-
mier, 328.Car. 511; Eisenlord v. Clum,
126 N. Y. 552; Wiseman v. Wiseman,
73 Ind. 112; Lamb v. Lamb, 105 Ind.
456; Staser v. Hogan, 120 Ind. 207;
Durham v. Shannon, 116 Ind. 403;
Walker v. Steele, 121 Ind. 436; Wither-
spoon v. Blewett, 47 Miss. 570; Sheib-
ley v. Hill, 57 Ga. 232.

1See 19 Am. & Eng. Encyc. of Law,
121; note to Johnson’ v. Boice, 40 La.
Ann. 273, 8. C. 8 Am. St. Rep. 528;
note to Birmingham, etc., R’y Co. v.
Hale, 24 Am. St. Rep. 752; note to

Thompson v. Ish, 17 Am. St. R. 565;
De Farges 0. Ryland, 24 Am. St. Rep.
659, and note. See, also, as to hus-
band and wife, Labaree v. Wood, 54
Vt. 452; Bierly’s Estate, 81 Pa. St. 419;
Reynolds v. Schaffer, 91 Mich. 494;
Johnson v. Boice, 40 La. Ann. 278;
Schnabel v. Betts, 23 Fla. 178; Shaw
v. Schoonover, 130 Ill. 448; Thornton
v. Gaar, 87 Va. 315; Auchampaugh v.
Schmidt, 77 Ia. 18; Louisville, etc.,
Co. v. Thompson, 107 Ind. 442.

? Evans v. Hettich, 7 Wheat. (U.8.)
453, 470; Campbell v. State, 23 Ala. 44. -

3 District of Columbia v. Armes, 107
U.S. 519, S.C. 2 Sup. Ct. R. 840; Cole-
manv. Commonwealth, 25 Gratt. (Va.)
865; Reg v. Hill, 5 Cox Crim. Cas. 259.

‘McGuff v. State, 88 Ala. 147, 8. C.
16 Am. St. R. 25; Flanagin v. State,
4

520 § 420

THE WORK OUT OF COURT.

years of age shall be incompetent unless capable of understand- ,
ing the nature and obligation of an oath, while others provide
that children shall be competent—so far as the question of in-
fancy is concerned—unless they are under ten years of age
and appear incapable of receiving just impressions of the facts
respecting which they are examined, or of relating them truly.
The difference in the language of these statutes may affect the
presumption that should be indulged as to the competency of
the infant witness, but if there is any doubt as to his capacity
an examination as to mental qualifications and understanding
would doubtless be permitted in any case. At common law a
party to an action was not permitted to testify! and this was
the general rule as to all persons interested in the event of the
suit even though they were not parties to the record;? but the
interest, in order to disqualify, was required to be a certain -
and direct interest of such a character that the record could be
used for or against him in another action or that he would
gain or lose by the judgment in the cause.* Mere interest in
the question involved and not in the event of the suit did not
render him incompetent. Where the interest of the witness
was exactly balanced, that is, where it was such that he would
neither gain nor lose by the operation or use of the judgment
or record, he was allowed to testify,® and so where his interest

25 Ark. 92; Moore v. State, 79 Ga. 498; v. Wolfe, 4 McLean, 549; Coghill v

State v. Severson, 78 Ia. 653; Hughes
v. Detroit, ete., R’y Co., 65 Mich. 10;
Holst v. State, 23 Tex. App. 1, 8. C.59
Am. R. 770; State v. Richie, 28 La.
Ann. 327; Draper v. Draper, 68 Ill. 17.

1 Bridges v. Armour, 5 How. (U.8.)
91; Wooten v. Nall, 18 Ga. 609.

23 Blk. Com. *369; Bean v. Pearsall,
12 Ala.592; Evansv. Hettick, 7 Wheat.
(U. 8S.) 453; Gould v. James, 6 Cow.
(N. Y.) 369; Spears v. Burton, 31
Miss. 547; Bliss v. Thompson, 4 Mass.
488.

3 Eaton v. Gentle, 1 Chand. (Wis.)
10; Coltart v. Laughinghouse, 38 Ala.
190; Linsee v. State, 5 Blackf. (Ind.)
601; Ely v. Forward, 7 Mass. 25; Baird

Boring, 15 Cal. 213. See, also, Bow-
ers v. Schuler (Minn.),55 N.W. RB. 817.

* Rollins v. Taber, 25 Me. 144; Baker
v. Corey, 19 Pick. 496; Mull v. Martin,
85 N. Car. 406; McMurray’s Appeal,
101 Pa. St. 421; Evans v. Eaton, 7
Wheat. (U. 8.) 356, 423; Rowley v.
Bigelow, 12 Pick. 307, S. C. 23 Am.
Dec. 607.

Cutter v. Copeland, 18 Me. 127;
Nute v. Bryant, 31 Me. 553; Garner v.
Bridges, 38 Ala. 276; Montague v.
Mitchell, 28 Ill. 481; Elgin ». Hill, 27
Cal. 372; Kingsbury v. Buchanan, 11
Ia. 887; Hidell v. Dwinell, 89 Ga. 532,
S.C. 168. E. R. 79.
§ 421 THE INSTRUMENTS OF EVIDENCE. 521

was against the party calling him.' Other rules might also
be given, but it would be unprofitable to extend the discussion
of this subject, for, as already stated, interest no longer ren-
ders a witness incompetent, under the modern statutes, and
objections on account of interest now go to the credibility of
the witness rather than to his competency.

§ 421. Notice to witness—Subpena—Attachment.—Dr.
Wharton says: ‘‘A witness in a civil case (the practice being
otherwise in criminal) is entitled to have due notice in order
to refresh his memory and arrange his business so as to enable
him to testify; and hence, if called upon without notice upon
his happening to be in the court, he is ordinarily entitled to
decline on the ground that he was not served with a subpeena.’”
Without stopping to inquire whether the statement made by
the learned author is strictly correct, and risking a departure
from a strict logical method, we commend it as worthy of at-
tention for the suggestion it contains, and that is, that the
memory of the witness should have time to fully recall the
event or occurrence of which he is expected to give testimony.
As the witness is the instrument in the hands of the advocate,
it is obvious that the better he is fitted for the purpose for
which he is to be used the more effective will be the work he
will enable the advacate to accomplish. If the advocate does
not give timely notice as the law requires, he will be in fault,
and can censure only himself if his fault mars his work in
court. He should see that a subpena is duly issued,’ and it
may be necessary in some cases also to prepay or tender fees
and traveling expenses-of the witness, but this is usually
regulated by statute or rule of court. If the witness, after

'Nooe v. Higdon, 4 Blackf. (Ind.) Barber v. Wood, 2 Moo. & R. 172;
184; LeClair v. Peterson, 4 Blackf. Woodward v. Purdy, 20 Ala. 379;
273; Turner v. Davis, 1 B. Mon. (Ky.) Stumer v. Pitchman, 124 Ill. 250, 8. C.
151; Pool v. Myers, 21 Miss. 466; 15 .N. E. R. 757; Educational Ass’n v.
Darling v. March, 22 Me. 184; Stokes Hitchcock, 4 Kan. 36; People v. Lamp-
a». Kane, 5 Ill. 167. son, 70 Cal. 204, S. C. 11 Pac. R. 593;

2 Wharton’s Ev.( 3d ed.), § 377. Chalmers v. Melville, 1 E. D. Smith

3 Hammond v. Stuart, 1 Str. 510; (N. Y.), 502.
522 THE WORK OUT OF COURT.

§ 422
being duly subpenaed, fails to attend, the court, upon the ap-
plication of the party by whom he was subpenaed, will issue
an attachment, under which he may be brought into court and
compelled to testify in a proper case.! An attachment is gen-
erally issued under such circumstances as of course and as a
matter of right,? but some courts have held that the granting
or refusal of an attachment is a matter of discretion and will
not be reviewed upon appeal.’

§ 422. Real evidence.—The instruments of evidence are
sometimes real things, as models, machines, apparel, weapons
and the like.4 These are the instruments of ‘‘real evidence,’’
and they are very serviceable if the advocate so thoroughly un-
derstands their nature and use as to be able to clearly and
strongly instruct and inform the jury. But for the fact that
we have more than once seen these instruments of evidence
turned with telling force against the advocate who brought
them into court, we should deem it needless to caution one
who employs such instruments to be sure that he thoroughly
understands their construction and their use. ‘‘Real evidence”’
is, it is obvious, of the highest probative force when skillfully
used, but in the hands of a blunderer it is oftentimes a very
dangerous species of evidence. Many of the ablest advocates
have given days of study to instruments of real evidence, and

1 Wilson v. State, 57 Ind. 71; Burn-
ham v. Morrissey, 14 Gray (Mass.),
226; Stepherd v. People, 19 N. Y. 537;
Mitchell v. Maxwell, 2 Fla. 594; Rap-
alje’s Law of Witnesses, § 302.

2 Green v. State, 17 Fla. 669.

3 West v. State, 1 Wis. 209; State v.
Archer, 48 Iowa, 310; State v. Benja-
min, 7 La Ann. 47; People v. Comm’rs,
7 Col. 190.

*In a late edition of the autobiogra-
phy of Roger North, a case is referred
to in which there appeared in court as
part of the “real evidence’’ several
specimens of brandy, and among those

present was a barrister, of enormous
bulk and much given to drink, named
Saunders. ‘‘The judges tasted, the
jury tasted, and Saunders, seeing the
vials moving, took one and set it to
his mouth and drank it all off. The
court, observing a pause and some mer-
riment at the bar about Mr. Saunders,
called to Jeffries (one of the counsel
in the case) to go on with his evidence.
‘My Lord,’ said he, ‘we are ata full
stop and can go no further.’ ‘What's
the matter? said the chief. Jeffries
replied: ‘Mr. Saunders has drank up
all our evidence.’’”’ In Hale’s Pleas
§ 422 ; THE INSTRUMENTS OF EVIDENCE. 523

no prudent man will make use of this kind of evidence unless
he knows that he can secure good from it without the risk of
harm.

of the Crown, § 635, will be found a bative value and force of real evi-
case strikingly illustrative of the pro- dence,
CHAPTER XIII.

QUESTIONS OF LAW AND FACT.

§ 423. Province of court and jury.
424, Mixed questions of law and fact.
425. Conclusions of law.

426. Agency.
427. Alteration of written instru-
ments.

Boundary and location.

Cause and effect.

Confidential and other rela-
tions.

Construction of written instru-
ments.

Construction of unwritten con-
tracts and language.

428.
429.
430.
431.

432.

§ 433. Fraud and good faith.
434. Identity.
435. Intent—Malice.
436. Laws and ordinances.
437. Negligence.
438. Notice and knowledge.
439. Payment.
440. Possession and ownership.
441. Probable cause.
442. Reasonable time.
443. Waiver and abandonment.
444, Miscellaneous questions.

§ 423. Province of court and jury.—Questions of law are

for the judge and questions of fact are generally for the jury to
determine in actions at law,’ although there are certain pre-
liminary questions of fact which it is the province and duty of
the court to decide, such as those relating to the competency of
witnesses and the admissibility of evidence. The province of
the court is separate and distinct from that of the jury, and if
the court wrongfully invades the province of the jury the error

is usually fatal.*

1Co. Litt., 155, 156; Thomp. Tr.,
$1017. The entire subject of the pro-
vince of court and jury is elaborately
treated by Judge Thompson.

2 Bartlett v. Smith, 11 M. & W. 483;
Doe v. Davies, L. R. 10 Q. B. 315;
Brown v. State, 71 Ind. 470; City of
Ft. Wayne v. Coombs, 107 Ind. 75;
Chouteau v. Searcy, 8 Mo. 733; Mc-
Ewen v. Bigelow, 40 Mich. 215; Dole
». Johnson, 50 N. H.452; Chandlerv.
Von Roeder, 24 How. (U. 8.) 224;

For this reason it is important to know what

Jewell v. Parr, L. R. 13 C. B. 909;
Robinson v. Ferry, 11 Conn. 460;
Scott v. Coxe, 20 Ala. 294; Gorton v.
Hadsell, 9 Cush. (Mass.) 508; Carrico
v. McGee, 1 Dana (Ky.), 6; Carter v.
Bennett, 6 Fla. 214; Flynt v. Boden-
hamer, 80 N.Car. 205 ; State v. Michael,
87 W. Va. 565, 8. C. 16 S. E. R. 803;
De France v. De France, 34 Pa. St. 385;
State v. Banister, 35 So. Car. 290, S.
C. 148. E. R. 678.

5 Barker v. State, 48 Ind. 168; Wes-

(524)
§ 424 QUESTIONS OF LAW AND FACT. 525

are questions of law and what are questions of fact. In order
that the case may be properly presented counsel should know
in advance of the trial what questions are involved, and should
be prepared to present them to the proper tribunal. He should
be ready to prove his facts and to sustain his propositions of
law by reason and authority. The choice of the mode of trial
also frequently depends upon the advocate’s decision as to
whether his client’s case should be presented upon issues of
fact or upon issues of law, and the pleadings should be pre-
pared accordingly. As a general rule if the plaintiff’s counsel
elects to put the case to the court upon the law he should plead
all the facts, but if he hopes to go to the jury and trusts largely
to inferences he should plead only such facts as are indispen-
‘sable to his cause of action.

§ 424. Mixed questions of law and fact.—There are many
cases in which the jury must determine the facts and the court
must instruct them as to the law upon such facts,! or, where a
special verdict is returned, pronounce the law upon the facts
found by the jury.” In cases of this kind, where the facts are
disputed or more than one reasonable inference can be drawn,
the question is often called a mixed question of law and fact.?
But this expression has been criticised, and it is, perhaps, of
little value, for, in one sense at least, the ultimate question in

sels v. Beeman, 87 Mich. 481, 8. C. 49
N. W. R. 483; Thomas v. Thomas, 15
B. Mon. (Ky-) 178; Hickey v. Ryan,
15 Mo. 62; Chappell v. Allen, 38 Mo.
218; Scott v. People, 141 Ill. 195, 8. C.
30 N. E. R. 329; Curry v. Curry, 114
Pa. St. 867; State v. Huffman, 16 Ore.
15, S.C. 16 Pac. R. 640; New Jersey
Steamboat Co. v. New York, 109 N. Y.
621; Sibley v. Ratliffe, 50 Ark. 477, 8.
C.858. W. R. 686.

1 Marshall v. Schricker, 63 Mo. 308;
Pittsburgh, C. & St. L. R’y Co. v. Spen-
cer, 98 Ind. 186; Rogers v. Leyden,
127 Ind. 50; City of Franklin v. Har-
ter, 127 Ind. 446.

2 Toledo & Wabash R’y Co. v. God-
dard, 25 Ind. 185; Pittsburgh, C. & St.
L. R’y Co. v. Spencer, 98 Ind. 186;
Bannen v. Kokomo, etc., Co., 115 Ind.
115; Conner v. Citizens’ St. R’y Co.,
105 Ind. 62. .

3 See Fourth Nat. Bank v. Heuschen,
52 Mo. 207, 209; Burke v. Adams, 80
Mo. 504, S. C. 50 Am. R. 510; Hurl-
burt v. Wheeler, 40 N. H. 73; Gatling
v. Newell, 9 Ind. 572, 577; Roth v.
Buffalo, etc., R. R. Co., 34 N. Y. 548,
8. C.90 Am. Dec. 736; Chicago & East-
ern Ill. R. R. Co. v. Ostrander, 116
Ind. 259, 264; Toledo & Wabash R’y
Co. v. Goddard, 25 Ind. 185, 192.
526 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 425

almost every case is a mixed question of law and fact. The
jury no more decide the law in such a case than in any other.
They may decide the ultimate question in issue, although it
involves a matter of law, but in so doing they do not decide
the law, for they are bound, at least in civil cases, to take the
law as itis given to them by the court.?

§ 425. Conclusions of law.—It is a well established rule
that pleadings should state facts and not mere conclusions of
law;? and it is also the rule that special verdicts should find
the ultimate facts.? Mere conclusions of law will add nothing
to the force of a special verdict, and will be disregarded by the
court in determining the sufficiency of the verdict.* For these

1St. Louis Nat. Stock Yards v. Wig-
gins Ferry Co., 102 Ill. 514; Smith v.
Carrington, 4Cranch (U.8.),62; Tay-
lor v. Hillyer, 3 Blackf. (Ind.) 433;
Indianapolis & St. L. R’y Co. v. Wat-
son, 114 Ind. 20; Chapman v. McCor-
mick, 86 N. Y. 479; State v. Wilner,
40 Wis. 304; Sailer v. Barnousky, 60
Wis. 169; Coffin v. Coffin, 4' Mass. 1;
Washington v. State, 63 Ala. 135, S.
C. 35 Am. R. 8; 1 Greenl. Ev., § 49.
Given the law, which constitutes the
major premise, and the facts found by
the jury, which constitute the minor
premise, the conclusion necessarily
follows according to the rules of logic,
so that the jury, in applying to the
facts the law as it is given to them
by the court and drawing the conclu-
sion do not determine the law any
more than the court determines the
facts by applying the law and render-
ing judgment upon the facts found by
the jury in a special verdict.

2 Green v. Palmer, 15 Cal. 411, S. C.
76 Am. Dec. 492, and note; Spahr v.
Tartt, 23 Tl. App. 420; Smith v. Mc-
Lean, 22 Ill. App. 451; Crane v. Lar-
sen, 15 Ore. 345, S. O. 15 Pac. R. 326;
Jackson v. Farlow, 75 Ind. 118; Peo-

ple v. Commissioners, 54 N. Y. 276,
279; Alabama v. Burr, 115 U.S. 413,
8. C. 6 Sup. Ct. R. 81, 87; Gould on.
Pleading, 53, 406; Bliss Code PIl., §
210; Pom. Rem. & Remed. Rts., § 530;
Maxwell on Code P1., 106.

5 Locke v. Merchants’ Nat. Bank, 66
Ind. 353 ; Hoosier Stone Co. v. McCain,
133 Ind. 231, 8. C. 31 N. E. R. 956; Con-
lan v. Grace, 36 Minn. 276; Grand Rap-
ids & I. R. R. Co. v. Ellison, 117 Ind.
234, 8. C. 20 N. E. R. 185; Hankey v.
Downey, 3 Ind. App. 325, 8. C. 29 N.
E. R. 606; Brown v. Aurora, ‘109 Ill.
165; Rogers v. Chicago, etc., R. R. Co.,
117 Tl. 115; note to Hayes v. Mass.
Mutual Life. Ins. Co., 1 L. R. A. 303;
Raimond v. Terrebonne Parish, 132 U.
S. 192, S. C. 10 Sup. Ct. R. 57. See,
also, Hillv. Covell,1 N. Y. 522; Lang-
ley v. Warner, 3 N. Y. 327; Graham
v. Bayne, 18 How. (U.8.) 60; Tyler
v. Waddingham, 58 Conn. 375, S. C. 8
L. R. A. 657; Smith v. Mohn, 87 Cal.
489, S. C. 25 Pac. R. 696.

*Dixon v. Duke, 85 Ind. 434; Pitts-
burgh, etc., R’y Co. v. Adams, 105
Ind. 151; Chicago, etc., R. R. Co. v.
Burger, 124 Ind. 275, 8. C. 24 N. E.R.
981; Reeves v. Grottendick, 131 Ind.
§ 425 QUESTIONS OF LAW AND FACT. 527

reasons it is important to know what are mere conclusions of
law. Upon this subject there is much apparent conflict among
the authorities, and no definite rule can be laid down.! It
would seem, however, that in the main the same test should
be applied as in determining what questions are peculiarly
within the province of the court as questions of law, and that
an allegation or finding of a conclusion in regard to such a
question should be treated as a mere conclusion of law. But,
as already stated, there seems to be no test or rule that will
hold good in all cases. The following have been held to be
mere conclusions of law in pleadings: That it was the ‘‘duty”’
of a party to do a certain act;? that under a certain statute an
estate passed to the heirs at law;? that parties were legally
constituted as a board of commissioners;‘ that a party was
guilty of a ‘‘gross breach of trust’’;> that a certain act was
‘“‘duly’’ performed;® that a guardian ‘‘ratified’’ a conveyance

107, S.C, 30 N. E. R. 889; Indianapolis,

P. & C. R’y Co. v. Bush, 101 Ind. 582.
See, also, Atwood v. Welton, 57 Conn.
514, S.C. 18 Atl. R. 322; Ward v. Clay,
82 Cal. 502, 511, S. C. 23 Pac. R. 50.

‘In Hatch v. Peet, 23 Barb. (N. Y.)
575, 583, it is said that a conclusion ot
law is ‘‘an allegation which gives no
facts, but matters of law only.” This
definition, however, is of little assist-
ance, for it does not define ‘‘matters
of law”’ or ‘‘fact,’’ and these terms are
as difficult to define as the term ‘‘con-
clusion of law’’ itself.

? Atwood v. Welton, 57 Conn. 514,S.
C. 18 Atl. R. 8322; McCune v. Norwich
Gas Co., 30 Conn. 521, S.C. 79 Am.
Dec. 278; Breeze v. Trenton Horse
Co., 52 N. J. L. 250, 8. C.19 Atl. R.
204; Newark v. Stout, 52 N. J. L. 35,
8. C. 18 Atl. R. 948; Clark Co. ».
Brod, 3 Ind. App. 585, S.C. 29 N. E.R.
430; Baltimore, etc., Railroad v. Wil-
son, 31 Ohio St. 555; City of. Buffalo
v. Holloway, 7 N. Y. 493.

’Temple v. Brittan (Ky.), 128. W.
R. 306. See, also, Montgomery v.

White (Ky.), 11.8. W.R.10; Quin-
ney v. Stockbridge, 33 Wis. 505; Liles
». Ratchford, 88 Ala. 397, S.C.6 So. R.
914. Compare McCarty v. Tarr, 83
Ind. 444.

* Woodruff v. N. Y., ete., R. R. Co., 59
Conn. 63,8. C.20 Atl.R.17. See, also,
Spaulding v. Wesson, 84 Cal. 141. So,
generally, where the terms ‘‘lawful’’
or “unlawful,” or the like, are used
without stating the facts. Tompkins v.
Augusta, ete., R.R. Co., 33 So. Car. 216,
118. E. R. 692; Sac Co. v. Hobbs, 72
Ta. 69, 8. C. 33 N. W. R. 368; Hain v.
North West Gravel Road Co., 41 Ind.
196; Webb v. Bidwell, 15 Minn. 479;
Bowers v. Smith, 111 Mo. 45, 20S.W.R.
101; People v. Supervisors, 27 Cal. 655;
People v. Commissioners, 11 How. Pr.
(N. Y.) 89; People v. Lothrop, 3 Col.
428. But compare People v. Clayton,
4 Utah, 421, S. OC. 11 Pac. R. 206;
Plympton v. Sapp, 55 Ta. 195.

5 Whitney v. New Haven, 58 Conn.
450, S. C. 20 Atl. R. 666.

6 Am. Mut. Aid Soc. v. Helburn, 85
Ky.1,8.C. 7 Am. St. R.571. But see
528 THE WORK OUT OF COURT.

§ 425
by his ward;! that the law has or has not been complied with;?
that the petitioner ‘‘was detained and imprisoned in violation
of the constitution and laws of the United States, and that the
district court had no jurisdiction or authority to try and sen-
tence him;’’? that the plaintiff is ‘‘entitled’’ to recover,‘ and
the like.’ Epithets can not be made to take the place of direct

‘averments of facts, and the use of such words as ‘‘wrongfully,’’
‘“unlawfully,’’ or ‘‘fraudulently,’’ will, as a rule at least, add
nothing to the force and effect of a pleading,® although it is
customary to use them in connection with distinct allegations
of fact upon which issue can be joined. On the other hand,
the following have been held to be allegations of facts: That
a notice was not posted in three of the most public places in
the town;’ that an additional assessment was made without
notice;® that the demand upon which an attachment was based

High v. Bank, 95 Cal. 386, 8. C. 30 Pac.
R.556; Jewett v. Perrette, 127 Ind. 97,
8. C. 26 N. E. R. 685.

1Funk v. Rentchler (Ind.), 33 N. E.
R. 364. on

2 Ducie v. Ford, 8 Mont. 233, 8. C.19
Pac. R. 414; Gull River Lumber Co.
v. Keefe, 6 Dak. 160, 41 N. W. R. 748;
Trow City Directory Co. v. Curtin, 36
Fed. R. 829.

3 Ex parte Cuddy, 131 U.S. 280, S. C.
9 Sup. Ct. R. 703.

*Drake v. Cockroft, 10 How. Pr.
(N. Y.) 877; Sheridan v. Jackson, 72
N. Y.170; Laffey v. Chapman, 9 Col.
304.

5 Daggitt v. Mensch, 141 I]. 395, 31 N.
‘E. R. 153; Central Baptist Church v.
Manchester, 17 R. I. 492, 23 Atl. R. 30;
Reed v. Bott, 100 Mo. 62,8. C. 1258.
W. R. 347; Deans v. Wilcoxon, 25
Fla. 980, 8. C. 7 So. R. 163; Lockwood
v. Reese, 76 Wis. 404, 45 N. W. R. 313;
Farmers’ High Line Canal v. South-
worth, 13 Col. 111, 21 Pac. R. 1028, S.C.
4L.R. A. 767; Talbott v. Padgett, 308.
Car. 167, 8. C.88. E. R. 845; McKinney
v, Snider, 116 Ind. 160,8.C.18 N. E. R.

526; Leland v. Goodfellow, 84 Mich.
857, S. C. 47 N. W. R. 591.

®Clodfelter v. Hulett, 72 Ind. 137,
144; Bodkin v. Merit, 102 Ind. 293;
Lafayette Co. v. Neely, 21 Fed. R. 738;
Scofield v. Whitelegge, 49 N. Y. 259;
Connor v. Saunders, 81 Tex. 638, S. C.
17 8. W.R. 236; Thompson v. State, 3
Ind. App. 371, 8. C.28N. E. R.996, 998;
Hedgesv. Dam, 72 Cal. 520, 8.C. 14 Pac.
R. 183; Clark v. Dayton, 6 Neb. 192;
Humphreys v. Mattoon, 48 Ia. 556;
Kraus v. Thompson, 30 Minn. 64;
Pearce v. Watkins, 68 Md. 534. But,
in some jurisdictions at least, it is
sufficient in ejectment and a few other
cases to aver the ‘‘wrongful and un-
lawful’ detention or withholding of
possession.

™MecVichiev. Knight,82Wis.137,8.C.
51 N.W.R.1094. See,also, Davisv.Lake
Shore, etc., R’y Co., 114 Ind. 364, 369.

8 Board v. Gruver, 115 Ind. 224, 8.
C.17 N. E. R. 290. Compare Stokes
v. Geddes, 46 Cal. 17. An allegation
that there was ‘‘no proper or legal no-
tice,’”’ is a mere conclusion of law.
Harris v. Ross, 112 Ind. 314.
§ 425 QUESTIONS OF LAW AND FACT. 529

was ‘‘simulated;’’! that a bond was ‘‘wrongfully extorted,’’?
and that a person was of unsound mind.? Ownership‘ and
negligence® are also considered ultimate facts and may usually
be averred in general terms. Indebtedness has been held to
be a conclusion of law,® but there are many cases in Indiana
in which an averment of indebtedness, or that money is due
and unpaid, has been held sufficient.” In special verdicts and
findings the following have been held to be mere conclusions
of law: That an alleged street was dedicated to the public,
where the question depended upon the construction of a writ-
ing;® that the defendant ‘‘took and converted the property in
controversy to its own use;’’® that the plaintiff ‘‘had a right
to replevy the mill;’’ and that the defendant is indebted to

' Cartwright v. Bamberger, 90 Ala.
405, 8. C. 8 So. R. 264.

2Zimmerman v. Kinkle, 108 N. Y.
282, 288, S.C. 15 N. E. R. 407. This,
however, would seem, to be question-
able.

3 Riggs v. Am.Tract Soc., 84 N.Y. 330.

4 Bliss Code Pl., §210; Sedgwick &
Wait Tr. Tit. to Land, §435; Stanley
v. Holliday, 130 Ind.464, 30 N.E.R. 634;
Maus v. Bome, 123 Ind. 522, 8. C. 24
N. E. R. 345; Arneson v. Spawn (8.
Dak.), 49 N. W. R. 1066; Pierce »v.
Langdon, 2 Idaho, 878, 28 Pac. R. 401;
Commissioners v. Young, 18 Kan. 440;
Woolley v. Newcombe, 58 How. Pr.
(N. Y.) 480. But compare Holbrook
v. Sims, 39 Minn. 122, 8. C. 39 N. W.
R. 74; Turner v. White, 73 Cal. 299,
S. OC. 14 Pac. R. 794; McCloskey v.
Barr, 38 Fed. R. 165.

5Rolseth v. Smith, 38 Minn. 14, 8.
C. 35 N. W. R. 565; Grinde v. Mil-
waukee & St. Paul R. R. Co., 42 Ia.
376; Gulf, C.&S. F. R. BR. Co. v. Wash-

ington, 49 Fed. R. 347; Cleveland, C.,.

C. & St. L. R’y Co.,v. Wynant,, 100
Ind. 160; Indianapolis, P. & C. R. R.
Co. v. Keely, 23 Ind. 133; Louisville,

‘ 34

N. A. & C. R’y Co. v. Cauley, 119 Ind.
142; Garner v. Hannibal, etc., R. R.
Co., 34 Mo. 235; Oldfield v. N.Y., etc.,
R. R. Co., 14 N. Y. 310; Bliss Code
PL, §211.

® Doyle v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 44 Cal.
264; Brown v. Buckingham, 11 Abb,
Pr. (N. Y.) 387; Haggard v. Hays’
Admr., 13 B. Mon. (Ky.) 175; Frazier
v. Williams, 15 Minn. 288; Roberts v.
Treadwell, 50 Cal. 520; Rolling Stock
Co. v. Atlantic, etc., Co., 34 Ohio St.
450, 467; Powér v. Gum, 6 Mont. 5;
Morton v. Coffin, 29 Ia. 235; Maxwell
Code PI., 17.

™Mayes v. Goldsmith, 58 Ind. 94;
Jaqua v. Cordesman, etc., Co., 106
Ind. 141; Douthit v. Mohr, 116 Ind.
482. Probably because originally con-
tained in a short form authorized by
the legislature. See Johnson v. Kil-
gore, 39 Ind. 147.

® City of Indianapolis v. Kingsbury,
101 Ind. 200, 222.

® Louisville, N. A. & C. R’y Co. v.
Balch, 105 Ind. 98, 100. See, also,
Burt v. Decker, 64 Ia. 106.

10 Keller v. Boatman, 49 Ind. 104.
530 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 425

the plaintiff.1_ Contrary to the rule in regard to pleading neg-
ligence, it has also been held that a finding in general terms
that a party was guilty of negligence or that an injury was
caused by the carelessness and negligence of the defendant is
a mere conclusion and is insufficient in the absence of facts
from which the court can deduce negligence as matter of law.?
So, a general finding of ownership of personal property has
been held to be a mere conclusion which could not prevail over
findings of specific facts.? But whether a partnership existed ©
between two defendants was held by the Supreme Court of IIli-
nois in a recent case, to be a question of fact, and the court re-

1Kennedy v. Derrickson, 5 Wash.
289, S.C. 31 Pac. R. 766.

* Indianapolis, P. & C. R’y Co. ».
Bush, 101 Ind. 582; Chicago, St. L. &
P. R’y Co. v. Burger, 124 Ind. 275,
279, and cases there cited; Pittsburgh,
etc., R. R. Co. v. Evans, 53 Pa. St. 250;
Toledo, etc., R’y Co. v. Goddard, 25
Ind. 185; Evansville & T. H. R. R.
Co. v. Taft, 2 Ind. App. Ct. R. 237,
248; Pittsburgh, C. & St. L. R. R. Co.
v. Spencer, 98 Ind. 186. In the last
case just cited it is said: ‘‘The jury
have nothing at all to do with the law
in cases where they return a special
verdict, but they must state the facts
so fully that the court can, in a case
like this, declare that the law is, that
such facts constitute actionable negli-
gence. It is not sufficient to state
facts not in themselves constituting
negligence, and then by an epithet or
conclusion of law characterize them
as negligent, but the facts must be so
stated as to afford the court grounds
for adjudging that the law is that they
do constitute negligence. * * * *
Conclusions of law in a special verdict
are without force, and a general state-
ment that an act was negligently done
is but a conclusion of law. The facts
showing how the act was done are es-
sential, for without them the court

can not ascertain or pronounce the
law. All the authorities agree that
the law is exclusively for the court in
cases where special verdicts are re-
turned, but if it be held that a general
statement of negligence is good, then
nothing at all is left to the court, for
the jury have determined both the
law and the facts. Toallow this would
be to permit the jury to usurp the func-
tions of the court and decide the whole
case. * * * Where a general ver-
dict is sought, the court instructs the
jury as to the law of negligence, and
thus pronounces the law of the case;
but in cases where a special verdict is
asked, the law is pronounced,‘not in
instructions to the jury, but upon the
facts stated by the jury. If the jury
for themselves state the law, then the
court is a mere passive spectator, at
most a mere moderator. In general
verdicts the law enters as a factor, be-
cause the jury are required to decide
the case according to the law and the
evidence; but in special verdicts they
simply state the facts. It is clear
that unless all the material facts are
stated in the special verdict, the court
can not declare the law, and the result
is that the law is not declared at all,
or is declared by the jury.”
’ Dixon v. Duke, 85 Ind. 484, 441.
§ 426 QUESTIONS OF LAW AND FACT. 531

fused to review a finding to that effect on the ground that, un-
der the statute of that State, they were not at liberty to review
the facts.}

§ 426. Agency.—The existence and extent of an alleged
agency are questions of fact for the jury to determine from the
evidence? where the facts are disputed, although it is certainly
proper for the court to determine and instruct the jury what is
necessary in law to constitute an agent. Whether the agency
is proved or not is a question for the jury where the facts are
in dispute,? but where there is no dispute as to the facts, the
court may determine whether or not an agency exists. The
question as to whether or not an act is within the authority of
the person performing it for another is for the jury to determine
from the evidence,® where the facts are in dispute; but where
the facts are undisputed® or the authority is conferred by a
writing’ the scope of such authority is generally a question. of

1 Field v. Crawford, 34 N. E. R. 481.

2 Buist v. Guice (Ala.), 11 So. R. 280;
Patten v. Pancoast, 109 N. Y. 625;
Schoelkop v. Leonard, 8 Colo. 159;
Robinson v. Walton,58 Mo.380; O’Con-
nor v. Le Roux, 78 Mich. 48, 8. C. 43
N. W. R. 1084; Brown v. Thomson, 31
So. Car. 486, S.C. 108. E. R. 95; Ger-
mania Fire Ins. Co. v. Klewer, 129 Il].
599, S.C. 22 N.E. R. 489; Black River
Lumber Co. v. Warner, 93 Mo. 374, S.
C.658. W. R. 210.

3’ Mechanics Bank v. Nat. Bank, 36
Md. 5; Whitman v. Bolling, 47 Ga.
125; Nichols v. Hail, 4 Neb. 210; Lamb
v. Irwin, 69 Pa. St. 486; Bradstreet
Co. v. Gill, 72 Tex. 115, 98. W. R. 753,
8. C.2L.R. A. 405.

4 South Bend Toy Co. v. Dakota, etc.,
Co. (8. Dak.), 52 N. W. R. 866.

5Loucheim v. Davies, 148 Pa. 499,
8. C. 24 Atl. R. 72; Luckie v. Johnson,
89 Ga. $21, 8. C. 15 8. E. R. 459;
Moore v. Murrell, 56 Ark. 375, 8. C.
19 S. W. RB. 973; McClung’s Ex’rs v.

Spottswood, 19 Ala. 165,170; Bickford
v. Menier, 36 Hun (N. Y.), 446; Gil-
patrick v. Biddeford, 51 Me. 182;
Thayer v. Boston, 19 Pick. (Mass.)
511; Wood v. Chicago, etc., R. R. Co.,
59 Iowa, 196; Hoover v. Tibbits, 13
Wis. 79; Van Vranken v. Union News
Co., 78 Mich. 217, 8. 0.44 N. W. R.
337; Missouri Pac. R. R. Co. v. Car-

- penter, 44 Kan. 257,8.C. 24 Pac. R. 462.

6 Mobile, etc., R. R. Co. v. Thomas,
42 Ala. 672; Ludwig v. Gorsuch, 154
Pa. St. 418, S. C. 26 Atl. R. 434.

TNofsinger v. Ring, 4 Mo. App. 576;
Loudon Sav. Fund Soc. v. Hagerstown
Savings Bank, 36 Pa. St. 498, 502. So,
where the question of the scope of an
officer’s duty or employment is to be
determined by the construction of a
statute or ordinance it is a question of
law for.the court. Denverv. Dean, 10
Colo. 375, S. C. 16 Pac. R. 80; Geiser
v. Northampton Co. (Pa.), 11 Atl. R.
507.
532 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 427

law for the court. So, where the ordinary duties of the agent
are so well and generally understood that the court will take
judicial notice of them, as in case of a bank cashier, the extent
of his general authority is a question of law for the court.!
Ratification of the unauthorized acts of an agent is generally a
question of fact for the jury,” but where the acts relied on to
show ratification are undisputed and unequivocal, the question
may become one of law for the court.’

§ 427. Alteration of written instruments.—Where there is
a dispute as to whether an alteration has been made in a writ-
ten instrument, the question is one of fact for the jury to de-
termine, and so also are the questions as to when and by whom
it was made.‘ It has been held, however, that where there are
no suspicious circumstances on the face of the instrument the
law will presume that the alteration was made before or at the

time of the execution of the instrument.®

The question as to

the authority to make alterations or fill blanks is also one of

fact for the jury.®
question of law for the court.’

'Farmers’ Bank v. Troy City Bank,
1 Doug. (Mich.) 457; Peninsular Bank
v. Hanmer, 14 Mich. 208. See, also,
United States v. City Bank, 21 How.
(U. S.) 356, 364; United States v. Ba-
deau, 31 Fed. R. 697. _

2Fisher v. Stevens, 16 Ill. 397;
Middleton v. Kansas City, etc., R. R.
Co., 62 Mo. 579; Iron Mountain Bank
v. Murdock, 62 Mo. 70,77; Hurtonsv.
Townes, 6 Leigh (Va.),47; Van Vran-
ken v. Union News Co., 78 Mich. 217,
S.C. 44. N. W. R. 3387. ;

3 Crooker v. Appleton, 25 Me. 131;
Bryant 7. Moore, 26 Me. 84.

4 Belfast Nat. Bank v. Harriman, 68
Me. 522; Stahl v. Berger, 10 Serg. &
R. (Pa.) 170, 8. C. 13 Am. Dec. 666;
Stephens v. Graham, 7 Serg. & R. 505,
8. C. 10 Am. Dec. 485; Paramore v.
Lindsey, 63 Mo. 63; Crabtree v. Clark,
20 Me. 337; Haynes v. Haynes, 33
Ohio St. 598; Ramsey v. McCue, 21

But the materiality of the alteration is a

Gratt. (Va.) 349; Palmer v. Largent,
5 Neb. 223, 8. C. 25 Am. R. 479; Rog-
ers v. Vosburgh, 87 N. Y. 228; Jones
v. Alley, 4 Greene (Ia.),181; Huston
v. Plato, 3 Colo. 402; Miller v. Stark,
148 Pa. St. 164, 8. C. 23 Atl. R. 1058.

5 Holton v. Kemp, 81 Mo. 661; Mat-
thews v. Coalter, 9 Mo. 705; Bailey v.
Taylor, 11 Conn. 531; Neil v. Case, 25
Kan. 510, 8. C. 87 Am. R. 259; Cox v.
Palmer, 1 McCrary (U.S8.), 431; Stoner
v. Ellis, 6 Ind.. 152. But there is an
apparent conflict of authority upon
this question, due in some measure to
the different circumstances of each
particular case, and the rule is stricter
in regard to negotiable paper than in
other cases. The different views are
stated and the authorities collected in
1Am.& Eng. Encyc. of Law, 512, et seg.

® State v. Dean, 40 Mo. 465; Awdev.
Dixon, 6 Exch. 869.

"Wood »v. Steele, 6 Wall. (U. 8.) 80:
§ 428 QUESTIONS OF LAW AND FACT. 533

§ 428. Boundary and location.—It is ordinarily a question
of fact as to whether a particular locality is within the limits
of a city,’ and this rule was applied in a case where the plaintiff
sought to recover taxes paid by him upon land which he mis-
takenly supposed was within the city limits. It was held that
the mistake was one of fact and not of law.? So, the limits of
a place, not a public corporation, which is merely described
by name, can only be determined by the jury from the evi-
dence.* It is for the court to determine the boundaries of a
State or county fixed by law,‘ but the application of evidence
in ascertaining and settling the boundary is for the jury, under
proper instructions.» So, generally, while it is the duty of the
court to construe a deed or other writing, it is for the jury to
apply it, as construed by the court, to the subject-matter, and
thus determine whether or not the land or place in dispute is
that described in the instrument.®

§ 429. Cause and effect.—Where the evidence is conflicting
- as to whether or not one act, condition or thing is the cause of
another, the question is one of fact for the jury.’ So, even

Overton v. Matthews, 85 Ark. 146;
State v. Dean, 40 Mo. 464; Hunt v.
Adams, 6 Mass. 519; Miller v. Gille-
land, 19 Pa. St. 119.

‘ Grusenmeyer v. City of Logansport,
76 Ind. 549; City of Indianapolis v.

McAvoy, 86 Ind. 587; Hecker v. Ster-'

ling, 36 Pa. St. 423, 428.

? City of Indianapolis v. McAvoy, 86
Ind. 587.

5 Blanding v. Sargent, 33 N. H. 239.

‘Johns v. Davidson, 16 Pa. St. 512;
United States v. Jackalow, 1 Black
(U. S.), 484. See, also, Kime v. Polen
(Pa.), 8 Atl. R. 783.

5 United States v. Jackalow, 1 Black
(U. S.), 484, 487. See, also, Pinkerton
v. Ledoux, 129 U. S. 346. ‘

6 Opdyke v. Stephens, 28 N. J. L. 83,
90; Greely v. Weaver (Me.), 13 Atl.
R. 575; Abbott v. Abbott, 51 Me. 575;
Robinson v. White, 42 Me. 209; St.

Louis v. Meyer, 13 Mo. App. 367, 382;
Ott v. Soulard, 9 Mo. 581; Tasker v.
Cilley, 59 N. H.575; Herpel v. Malone,
56 Mich. 199; Wilmarth v. Woodcock,
66 Mich. 331, 33 N.W. R. 400; Brownv.
Willey, 42 Pa. St. 205; Kaiser v. Bee-
mer (Pa.), 13 Atl. R. 909; Williston v.
Morse, 10 Metc. (Mass.) 17; Clare-
mont v. Carlton, 2 N. H. 369; White
». Hermann, 51 Ill. 243; Ferris v.
Coover, 10 Cal. 589; White v. Burn-
ley, 20 How. (U. 8.) 235; Ayers v.
Watson, 113 U. 8. 594; Hawkins v.
Nye, 59 Texas, 97; Murray v. Spencer,
88 N. Car. 357. ‘‘What are the boun-
daries is a matter of law, but where
they are is a matter of fact.”’ White
v. Spreckels, 75 Cal. 610, S. C. 17 Pac.
R. 715; Redmond v. Stepp, 100 N. Car.
212, 8. C.68. E. R. 727.

TCarr v. Schafer, 15 Colo. 48, S. C.
24 Pac. R. 878; Schlacker v. Ashland
q

534 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 429

where the facts are undisputed, if more than one reasonable
inference can be drawn.! But where only one reasonable in-
ference can be drawn from the undisputed facts, even if the
question is one of proximate cause, the court may determine it
as matter of law.2- In accordance with the general rule that
the question should be left to the jury it has been held that the
question as to whether a fall was the cause of a certain physical
condition was properly left to the jury;? that whether a wife
was so treated by her husband as to seriously injure her health
and endanger her reason is a question of fact for the jury;* and
that whether excessive speed,® intoxicating liquor,® the absence
of a guard or fence,’ or the like,’ was the proximate cause of a
person’s death or injury is also a question of fact for the jury.

Iron Min. Co., 89 Mich. 253, 8. C. 50
N. W. R. 839; Chicago, St. L. & P. R.
R. Co. v. Fenn, 3 Ind. App. 250, S. C.
29 N. E.R.790; Hartvig v. N. P. Lum-
ber Co., 19 Ore. 522, 8. C..25 Pac. R.
358 ; Gram v. Northern Pacific R.R.Co.,
1N. Dak. 252, S.C. 46 N. W. Rep. 972;
Adams v. Missouri Pacific R. R. Co.
100. Mo. 555, S. C. 13 8. W. R. 509;
Giger v. Chicago & N. W. R. R. Co.,
80 Ia. 492, 45 N. W. R. 906; Moakler v.
Willamette, etc., R. R. Co., 18 Ore. 189,
S.C. 22 Pac. R. 948; Estill v. New
York, etc., R. R. Co., 41 Fed. R. 849;
Northwestern Life Ins. Co. v. Muske-
gon Bank, 122 U.S. 501; U.S. Mut.
Acc. Ass’n v. Barry, 181 U.S. 100.

1 See post, § 437.

2 Henry v. St. Louis, etc., R. R. Co.,
76 Mo. 288, 293; West Mahanoy Twp.
v. Watson, 112 Pa. St. 574, 8. C. 3 Atl.
R. 866; Holman v. Chicago, etc., R.
R. Co., 62 Mo. 562; Pike v. Grand
Trunk, etc., R. R. Co., 39 Fed. R. 255;
Bunting v. Hogsett, 189 Pa. St. 363, 8.
C.12 L. R. A. 268; Trapnell v. Red
Oak Junction, 76 Iowa, 744, 8. C. 39
N. W. R. 884.

3 Keane v. Waterford, 130 N. Y. 188,
8. C. 29 N. E. R. 180.

* Robinson v. Robinson (N. H.), 23
Atl. R. 362, 8. C. 15 L. R. A. 121;
Jones v. Jones, 62 N. H. 463.

5 Tobin v. Missouri Pacific R. R. Co.
(Mo.), 188. W. R. 996; Louisville, N.
O. & T. R. R. Co. v. Caster (Miss.), 5
So. R. 388.

®Davies v. McKnight, 146 Pa. St.
610, 8. C. 23 Atl. R. 320.

7 Ewing v. North Versailles Tp., 146
Pa. St. 309, S. C. 23 Atl. R. 338; Mal-
loy v. Walker Tp., 77 Mich. 448, 8. C.
6L.R. A. 695; Alexander v. Chicago,
etc.. R. R. Co., 41 Minn. 515, 8. CG. 43
N. W.R. 481. ;

§ Patten v. Chicago, etc., R. R. Co.,
32 Wis. 524; Pielke v. Chicago, etc.,
R. R. Co., 5 Dak. 444, S. C.41 N. W.
R. 669; Saxton v. Bacon, 31 Vt. 540;
Scott v. Hunter, 46 Pa. St. 192; Willey
v. Belfast, 61 Me. 569; Stark v. Lan-
caster, 57 N. H. 88; Milwaukee, etc.,
R. R. Co. v. Kellogg, 94 U. 8. 469;
Sheridan v. Brooklyn City, etc., R. R.
Co., 36 N. Y. 39; Chicago, etc., R. R.
Co. v. Pennell, 110 Ill.435; Kreuziger
v. Chicago, etc., R. R. Co., 73 Wis.
158; Fairbanks v. Kerr, 70 Pa. St. 86,
S.C. 10 Am. R. 664; Denver, T. & G.
R. R. Co. v. Robbins, 2 Colo. Ct. of
§ 430 QUESTIONS OF LAW AND FACT. 535

§ 430. Confidential and other relations.—The question as to
whether confidential relations existed between the parties is
usually one of fact for the jury,? although there are some cases
in which the question must be one of law for the court, as, for
instance, where the relation of trustee and cestud que trust, guard-
ian and ward, or attorney and client exists. Whether the fam-
ily relation or that of master and servant existed between a niece
and her aunt is a question for the jury to determine, under
proper instructions, in a suit by the niece against the estate of
her aunt, with whom she lived and for whom she cared without
any express contract for compensation.? And this is the gen-
eral rule where the facts are disputed and the question is as to
whether the relation of master and servant exists.2 So when
the question as to whether a partnership exists is disputed and
is a matter of doubt dependent upon conflicting evidence or
inferences to be drawn from all the evidence, it is one of fact
or mixed law and fact for the jury.*| Where the facts are un-

App. 318, S. C. 30 Pac. R. 261; Louis-
ville, N. A. & C. R’y Oo. v. Nitsche,
126 Ind. 229, S. C.9 L. R. A. 750;
Hayes v. Michigan Central R. R. Co.,
111 U. 8. 228.

1 Chandler v. Jost (Ala.), 11 So. RB.
636, citing Eastis v. Montgomery, 93
Ala. 293, S. C. 9 So. R. 311; Snider v.
Burks, 84 Ala. 53, S. 0. 4 So. R. 225.
In the first case cited in this note, the
court said of friendly relations exist-
ing between a beneficiary under a will
and the testator, and the condition of
the testator: ‘We are not to be un-
derstood as indicating that all these
together would have constituted such
a confidential relationship. That isa
question of fact for the jury.”’

2James v. Gillen, 3 Ind. App. 472,
8. C. 30 N. E. R. 7, 8. C. 34 Cent. L.
Jour. 389, and note. ©

Brophy v. Bartlett, 108 N. Y. 632,
S.C. 15 N. E. R. 368; State v. Hayes,
59 N. H. 450; Northwestern, etc.,
Packet Co. v. McCue, 17 Wall. (U. 8.)

508; Kimball ». Cushman, 103 Mass.
194. See, also, Dwinelle v. New York,
etc., R. R. Co., 120 N. Y. 117, §. C. 24
N. E. R. 319, 8. C.8 L.R. A. 224.
(Jury to determine whether servant
acting in scope of authority.) Hussey
v. Norfolk, etc., R. R. Co., 98 N. Car.
84, 8. C. 2 Am. St. R. 312 (same ques-
tion). :

*Seabury v. Bolles, 51 N. J. L. 103,
8. C. 21 Atl. R. 952, S.C. 11 L. R. A.
136. See, also, Fletcher v. Pullen, 70:
Md. 205, 8S. C. 16 Atl. R. 887; Hall-
stead v. Coleman, 143 Pa. St. 352, 8. C.
22 Atl. R. 977, S.C. 138 L. R. A. 370;
McDonald v. Matney, 82 Mo. 358;
Kahn v. Central Smelting Co., 2 Utah,
871; Doggett v. Jordan, 2 Fla. 541.
But what is necessary to constitute a
partnership in law is for the court, and
the jury should be instructed upon the
point. Dulany v. Elford, 22 S. Car.
804; Cumpston v. McNair, 1 Wend.
(N. Y.) 457. Whether a debt is a
firm or an individual debt, has been
536 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 431

disputed it 1s for the court to determine as matter of law
whether one servant bears to another the relation of fellow-
servant,’ but in other cases the question is usually one for the

jury to determine, under proper instructions.? So, it has been
held a question for the jury to determine whether one person
is the tenant of another,*? and whether the relation of bailor
and bailee exists‘ where the facts are in dispute.

§ 431. Construction of written instruments.—The construc-
tion or interpretation of a written instrument is generally a
question of law for the court.6 This rule includes not only
contracts, deeds, wills and letters but also judicial and other
public records. The legal effect of the writing is for the court

held a question for the jury. ‘Warri-
ner v. Mitchell, 128 Pa. St. 153, S. C.
18 Atl. R. 337.

1 Dube v. Lewiston, 83 Me. 211, S.
C. 22 Atl. R.112; Yates v. McCullough
Iron Co., 69 Md. 870, 8. C. 16 Atl. R.
280; McGinty v. Athol Reservoir Co.,
155 Mass. 183, 8. C. 29 N. E. R. 510;
Quebec Steamship Co. v. Merchant, 133
U.S. 375, S.C. 10 Sup. Ct. R. 397; Stone
v. Penna. R. R. Co., 132 Pa. St. 206, 8.
C.19 Atl. R. 67. See, also, Miller v.
So. Pac. R. R. Co., 20 Ore. 285, 8. C. 4
Lewis’ Am. R. R. & Corp. Cas., 1, and
note. as

? Chicago, B. & Q. R. R. Co. v. Fitz-
gerald, 40 Ill. App. 476; Lake Erie,
etc., R. R. Co. v. Middleton, 142 111.550,
8. C.32 N. E. R.453; Joliet Steel Co. v.
Shields, 32 Ill. App. 598; Babcock v.
Old Colony R. R. Co., 150 Mass. 467,
8. C. 23 N. E. R. 325; Chicago & A.
R. R. Co. v. Kelly, 127 Ill. 637, 8. C.
21 N. E.R. 203; Baltimore & Ohio R.
R. Co. v. McKenzie, 81 Va. 71.

5 Bowe v. Hyland, 44 Minn. 88,8. C.
46 N. W.R. 142; State v. Hayes, 59
N. H. 450; Neppach v. Jordan, 15 Ore.
308, S. C. 14 Pac. R. 353.

*Holohan v. Mix, 134 Pa. St. 88, S.
C. 19 Atl. R. 496.

5 Davis v. Badders, 95 Ala.348, S.C.
10 So. R.422; Edwards v. Smith, 63 Mo.
119; Willard v. A. Siegel Gas Co., 17
Mo. App. 1; Lapeer Ins. Co. v. Doyie,
80 Mich. 159; McKenzie v. Sykes, 47
Mich. 294; Streeter v. Streeter, 48 Il.
155; Bailey v. Ferguson, 39 Il. App.
91; Drew v. Towle, 30 N. H. 531;
Williams v. Waters, 36 Ga. 454; Dumn
v. Rothermel, 112 Pa. St. 272; Roth v.
Miller, 15 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 100; Shep-
herd v. White, 11 Tex. 346; Thomas
v. Thomas, 15 B. Mon. (Ky.) 178;
Nash v. Drisco, 51 Me. 417; Rogers v.
Colt, 21 N. J. L. 704; Eddy v. Chace,
140 Mass. 471; Higgins v. McCrea, 116
U.S. 671; Grady v. Cassidy, 104 N. Y.
147; Warner v. Thompson, 35 Kan.
27; Friend v. Friend, 64 Md. 321;
Burke v, Lee, 76 Va. 386; Union Bank
v. Heyward, 15 8. Car. 296; Bedford
v. Flowers, 11 Humph. (Tenn.) 242;
Van Eman v. Stanchfield, 8 Minn. 518;
Dixon v. Duke, 85 Ind. 434; Spence v.
Board, 117 Ind. 573; Russell v. Merri-
field, 131 Ind. 148, S. C. 30 N. E. Rep.
957; Reagan v. Sheets, 130 Ind. 185,
8. C.29 N. E. R.1065; Neilson v. Har-
ford, 8 Mees. & W. 823; Parker v. Ib-
betson, 4 C. B. (N. S.) 345.

6 Wyatt v. Steele, 26 Ala. 639; Shook
§ 431 QUESTIONS OF LAW AND FACT. 5387

to determine.’ So, the question as to its validity upon its
face, as whether it appears to be duly executed or the like, is a
question of law for the court.2, Where the terms of a writing
are ambiguous and uncertain parol evidence of the circum-
stances, situation and acts of the parties may sometimes be re-
sorted to in order to discover the true intention and the inter-
pretation given to it by the parties themselves. In such a case
the question usually becomes one of fact for the jury to deter-
mine.* And, generally, where it is necessary to resort to oral
evidence of custom, usage, or other collateral facts and circum-
stances in order to discover the true intention of the parties,
the question becomes one of fact for the jury to determine? un-

v. Blount, 67 Ala. 301; Sims v. Boyn-
ton, 32 Ala. 353; State v. Anderson,
30 La. Ann. 557; Reagan v. Sheets, 130
Ind. 185, S. C. 29N. E. R. 1065; State
v. Robbins (Me.), 13 Atl. R. 584; Har-
vey v. Cummings, 68 Texas, 599, 8. C.
58. W. R. 518.

1 Keith v. Sands, etc., Co., 88 Mich.
172, 8. C.50 N. W. R. 183; Dumn v.
Rothermel, 112 Pa. St. 272; Luckhart
v. Ogden, 30 Cal. 547; Levy v. Gadsby,
8 Cranch (U. §8.), 180; Arctic Fire

_ Ins. Co. v. Austin, 69 N. Y. 470, S. C.
25 Am.R. 221; Cottrell v. Cottrell, 126
Ind. 181, S.C. 25 N. E. R. 905; Bell
v. Keepers, 37 Kan. 64; Solary v.
Stultz, 22 Fla. 263; Robbins v. Spencer,
121 Ind. 594; Hughes v. Dundee Mort-
gage, etc., Co., 140 U.S. 98, S. C. 11
Sup. Ct. R. 727.

* Bullock v. Narrott, 49 Ill. 62; Roe
v. Taylor, 45 Ill. 485; Riley v. Riley,
86 Ala. 496; Garner v. Lansford, 12
Smed. & M. (Miss.) 558; Snyder v.
Kurtz, 61 Ia. 593; Pierce v. Randolph,
12 Tex. 290 (question of invalidity
against public policy). °

*Reissner v. Oxley, 80 Ind. 580;
Brown v. McGrau, 14 Pet. (U.S.) 493;
Weil v. Schwartz, 21 Mo. App. 372, 380;
Darling v. Dodge, 36 Me. 370; Wil-
coxen v. Bowles, 1 La. Ann. 230;

Williamson v. McClure, 37 Pa. St. 402;
Watson v. Blaine, 12 Serg. & R. (Pa.)
181 ; School Dist. v. Lynch,33 Conn.380.

* Blair v. Lynch, 105 N. Y. 636; Pit-
ney v. Glens Falls Ins. Co., 65 N.Y. 6;
First Nat. Bank v. Dana, 79 N.Y. 108;
Home B. & L. Ass’n v. Kilpatrick, 140
Pa. St. 405, 8. C. 21 Atl. R. 397; Ed-
wards v. Goldsmith, 16 Pa. St. 43;
Foster v. Berg, 104 Pa. St. 324; Vernor
v. Henry, 3 Watts (Pa.), 385; Hopson
v. Brunwankel, 24 Tex. 607; Haney v.
Caldwell, 59 Ark. 156; Etting v. Bank,
11 Wheat. (U.S.) 59; Barreda v. Sils-
bee, 21 How.(U.S.) 146; Bell v. Wood-
ward, 46N.H. 315; Philibert v. Burch,
4 Mo. App. 470; McNichol v. Pacific
Express Co., 12 Mo. App.407; Prather
v. Ross, 17 Ind. 495; Holman v. Crane,
16 Ala. 570, 580; Bedard v. Bonville,

‘57 Wis. 270; Bradford v.8. Car. R. R.

Co.,7 Rich. L. 201; Coupland v. Housa-
tonic R. R. Co., 61 Conn. 531, 8. C.15
L. R. A. 534, 8. C. 23 Atl. R. 870;
Smith v. Worn, 93 Cal. 206, S. C. 28
Pac. R. 944; Dahlstrom v. St. Louis,
etc., R. R. Co. (Mo.), 18 8. W. R. 919.
Compare Begg v. Forbes, 30 Eng. L. &
Eq. 508 ;. Milbank v. Dennistoun, 21 N.
Y. 386; McAvoy v. Long, 13 Ill. 147,
150; Louisville, etc., R. R. Co. v. Me-
Kenna, 13 Lea (Tenn.), 280, 288.
538 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 431

der proper instructions from the court.! So it has been held
that whether a term used in a tariff act has a trade meaning,
and whether a certain article is included therein, should be
left to the jury to determine.2- In some cases a modified view
is taken, and it is held that, although the meaning of a doubt-
ful term may be left to the jury, the final interpretation of the
instrument is for the court, giving to the ambiguous term the
meaning declared by the jury.* Where a writing is illegible
it would seem, upon principle, to be within the province of
the jury to decipher it and determine the words or figures in-
tended to be used as a matter of fact, and to this effect is the
weight of authority,‘ although there are several decisions to
the contrary. There is a similar conflict of authority as to
whether the court or jury should determine the intention and
meaning where blanks have been left unfilled in a written in-
strument, but it is generally held to be a question for the jury.®
So, ‘‘where the effect of a written instrument collaterally in-
troduced in evidence depends not merely on its construction
and meaning, but also upon extrinsic facts and circumstances,

1 Williams v. Woods, 16 Md. 220;
Deutmann »v. Kilpatrick, 46 Mo. App.
624; Smith v. Faulkner, 12 Gray
(Mass.), 251; Simpson v. Pegram, 112
N. Car. 541, §.C.17 8. E. R. 480; Ken-
yon v. Knights Templars’, etc., Ass’n,
122 N.Y. 247; Eaton v. Smith, 20 Pick.
(Mass.) 150; Houghton v. Watertown
Fire Ins. Co., 181 Mass. 300; Fowle v.
Bigelow, 10 Mass. 379; Curtis v. Martz,
14 Mich. 506; Taylor v. McNutt, 58
Tex. 71; Farwell v. Tillson, 76 Me.
227. In other words, as some of these
authorities say, the entire matter may
be considered as a mixed question of
law and fact.

? Baumgarten, v. Magone, 50 Fed.
R. 69.

5 Edwards v. Smith, 63 Mo. 119, 127;
Edelman v. Yeakel, 27 Pa. St. 26;
Neilson v. Harford, 8 Mees. & W. 806,
823; Hutchinson v. Bowker, 5 Mees. &

W. 535. See, also, Morrell v. Frith, 3
M. & W. 402; March v. Allabough,
103 Pa. St. 335; Adams, etc., Co. v.
Cook, 16 Bradw. (Ill.) 161.

‘Armstrong v. Burrows, 6 Watts.
(Pa.), 266; Cabarga v. Seeger,,17 Pa.
St. 514; Paine v. Ringold, 48 Mich.
841; Fenderson v. Owen, 54 Me. 372;
Burnham v. Allen, 1 Gray (Mass.),
496; Arthur v. Roberts, 60- Barb.
(N. Y.) 580; Jefferson Co. v. Savory,
2 Greene (Ia.), 238; Norman v. Mor-
rell, 4 Ves. 769; Jones on Constr. of
Com. & Trade Contracts, § 17.

5 Riley v. Dickens, 19 Ill. 29; Com-
monwealth v. Riggs, 14 Gray (Mass.),.
376; Rex v. Hucks, 1 Stark, N. P., 424.
In Partridge v. Patterson, 6 Ia. 514, it
was held discretionary with the court
to submit the question to the jury.

®Conner v. Routh, 7 How. (Miss.)
176; Boyd v. Brotherson, 10 Wend.
§ 432 QUESTIONS OF LAW AND FACT. 539
the inferences to be drawn from it are inferences of fact and

not of law.’’!

§ 432. Construction of unwritten contracts and language.
—Questions as to what words were used by the parties, their
intention and the meaning of the words as matters of fact are
for the jury to determine,’ but when these facts are ascertained
their legal effect is for the court.? This rule applies in cases
of slander as well as in cases of contract, and if the words used
are equivocal and susceptible of more than one construction
their meaning as used and understood isa question of fact for
the jury. In such a case the court should instruct the jury
as to what is necessary to constitute slander, and then leave it

(N. Y.) 93; Dobson v. Finley, 8 Jones,
L. (N. Car.), 495; Bell v. Woodward,
46 N. H. 315. _Contra Coolbroth v.
Purinton, 29 Me. 469; Kincannon v.
Carroll, 9 Yerg. (Tenn.) 11; Langdon
v. Goole, 3 Lev. 21.

'Per Clifford, J., in West v. Smith,
101 U. S. 263. To the same effect are

- Reynolds v. Richards, 14 Pa. St. 205;
Barreda v. Silsbee, 21 How. (U. 8.)
146, 167; Primm v. Haren, 27 Mo. 205;
Conover v. Inhabitants of Middletown,
42 N. J. L. 382.

2 Copeland v. Hall, 29 Me. 93; Kuns
v. Young, 34 Pa. St. 60; Broward v.
Doggett, 2 Fla.49; Dodge v. Janvrin,
59 N. H. 16; Folsom v. Plumer, 43
N. H. 469; Wagner v. Egleston, 49
Mich. 218; Mastin v. Pac. R. R. Co.,
83 Mo. 634; Watson v. Stromberg, 46
Mo. App. 630; Keesey v. Old, 82 Tex.
22, 8.C.17 8. W. R. 928; Burritt v.
Villenuve, 92 Mich. 282, 8.C.52 N.W.
R. 614. See, also, Adams v. Davis, 16
Ala. 748; Cunningham v. Cambridge
Sav. Bank, 1388 Mass. 480; St. Louis
Nat. Stock Yards v. Wiggins, 102 Ill.
514; Deming v. Foster, 42 N. H. 165;
Codding v. Wood, 112 Pa. St. 371; Bru-
baker v. Okeson, 36 Pa. St. 519. So,
where the evidence is conflicting it has

been held a question for the jury to
determine whether the contract is in
writing or parol. Jenness v. Berry, 17
N. H. 549; Roberts v. Bonaparte, 73
Md. 191, 8. C.10 L. R. A. 689; Mc-
Laughlin v. Wheeler (S. Dak.), 47 N.
W.R. 816; Collins v. Houston, 138 Pa.
St. 481.

3 Globe Works v. Wright, 106 Mass.
207; Estes v. Boothe, 20 Ark. 583;
Warnick v. Grosholz, 3 Grant Cas.
(Pa.) 234; Islay v. Stewart, 4 Dev. &
B. (N. Car.) 160; Smalley v. Hen-
drickson, 29 N. J. L. 371; Judge v.
Leclaire, 31 Mo. 127; Diefenback v.
Stark, 56 Wis. 462; Terry v. Shively,
64 Ind. 106.

*Hays v. Hays, 1 Humph. (Tenn.)
402; Twombly v. Monroe, 136 Mass.
464; Thompson v. Powning, 15 Nev.
195; Blakeman v. Blakeman, 31 Minn.
396; McLaughlin v. Bascom, 38 Ia.
660; Ex parte Baily, 2 Cow. (N. Y.)
479; Sanderson v. Caldwell, 45 N. Y.
398; Van Vactor v. Walkup, 46 Cal.
124; Mosier v. Stoll, 119 Ind. 244, 8.
C. 20 N. E. R. 752; Roe v. Chitwood,
36 Ark. 210; Haley v. State, 63 Ala.
89; Park v. Piedmont Ins. Co., 51 Ga.
510; Odgers on Libel and Slander, 95.
540 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 483

to them to determine whether the words charged were used by
the defendant and whether the circumstances and the meaning
of the words were such as to bring the case within the defini-
tion.! But where the words are unequivocal and clearly de-
famatory or actionable per se the court should so instruct the
jury as matter of law.?

§ 433. Fraud and good faith.—The question of fraud, at
least where it depends upon intent, is usually for the jury un-
der proper instructions from the court.* But it is said that
where fraud is ‘‘self-evident’’ the court should decide the ques-
tion without submitting it to the jury,* and it is undoubtedly
within the province of the court to decide the matter as one of
law where the facts are undisputed and but one reasonable in-

‘State v. Goold, 62 Me. 509; Shat-
tuck v. Allen, 4 Gray (Mass.), 540;
In re Noyes’ Will, 61 Vt. 14, 8. C. 17
Atl. R. 743; Parmiter v. Coupland, 6
Mees. & W. 105.

?Gottbehuet v. Hubachek, 36 Wis.
515; Smith v. Stewart, 41 Minn. 7, S.
C. 42 N. W. R. 595; Thompson v.
Grimes, 5 Ind. 385; Waughv. Waugh,
47 Ind. 580; Gabe v. McGinnis, 68 Ind.
538; Pugh v. McCarty, 44 Ga. 383;
Bourreseau v. Detroit Evening News,
63 Mich. 425, §. C. 30 N. W. R. 376;
Lewis v. Chapman, 16N. Y.369; Sny-
der v. Andrews, 6 Barb. (N. Y.) 48;
Pittock v.O’Niell, 63 Pa.St. 253 ; Haight
v. Cornell, 15 Conn. 74; Negley v. Far-
pow, 60 Md. 158, 8S. C. 45 Am. R. 715.

3 Griel v. Lomax, 86 Ala. 182, 8. C.
5 So. R. 325; Bulger v. Rosa, 119 N.Y.
459; Michelstetter v. Weiner, 82 Wis.
298, 8. C.52 N. W. R. 435; Morgan v.
Hecker, 74 Cal. 540, 8. 0. 16 Pac. Rep.
317; Weaver v. Owens, 16 Ore. 301, S.
C. 18 Pac. R. 579; Riley v. Melquist,
23 Neb. 474, S. C. 36 N. W. Rep. 657;
Weaver v. Nugent, 72 Texas, 272, 8.
C. 10 8S. W. Rep. 458; Buckley v.
Artcher, 21 Barb. (N. Y.) 585; Hanna

v. Phillips, 1 Grant Cas. (Pa.) 253;
Woodruff v. Bowles, 104 N. Car. 197,
8. C. 10 S. E. R. 482; Renninger v.
Spatz, 128 Pa, St. 524, 8. C. 18 Atl. R.
405; Woolenslagle v. Runals, 76 Mich.
545, 8. C. 43 N. W. R. 454; Haven ».
Neal, 43 Minn. 315, 8. C. 45 N. W. R.
612; Wolf v. Kohr, 133 Pa. St. 13, 8.
C. 19 Atl. R. 284; Marsh v. Cramer, 16
Colo. 831, 8. C. 27 Pac. R. 169; Gaines
v. White (S. Dak.), 47 N. W. Rep.
524; Rosenthal v. Vernon, 79 Wis. 245,
§. C. 48 N. W. Rep. 485; Dennison ».
Grove, 52 N. J. L. 144, 8. C. 19 Atl.
Rep. 186; Jewell v. Knight, 123 U.
8. 426; Warner v. Norton, 20 How.
(U.8.) 448; Leasure v. Coburn, 57 Ind.
274; Goff v. Rogers, 71 Ind. 459; Pow-
ell v. Stickney, 88 Ind. 310; Phelps v.
Smith, 116 Ind. 387; Brown v. Mitch-
ell, 102 N. Car. 347, S. C. 11 Am. St.
R. 748, and note.

‘Hardy v. Simpson, 13 Ired. L. (N.
Car.) 182; Williams v. Hartshorn, 30
Ala. 211; Bigelow on Fraud, 468. See,
also, Sturtevant v. Ballard, 9 Johns.
(N. Y.) 8837; Worseley v. De Mattos,
1 Burr. 467, 474.
§ 434 QUESTIONS OF LAW AND FACT. 541

ference can be drawn from them.! The question of gooa faith,
like that of fraud, is also for the jury upon conflicting evidence
or inference.?- Thus, where money was paid by the plaintiff to
the defendant, who had a matrimonial bureau and carried on
a marriage brokerage business, under an agreement to furnish
the plaintiff with a husband, or return the money, it was held
in an action to recover the money, that, although the contract
was illegal and there was no evidence of undue influence or over-
persuasion, the inferences to be drawn from the facts.as to the
equality of guilt or the parties being in pari delicto were for the
jury.? So, the good faith of an occupying claimant in making

improvements is a question of fact for the jury.*

§ 434. Identity—The question of identity, like questions in
regard to boundaries and location, is ordinarily one of fact for
the jury;® but it has been held a question for the court, and

1 Huggins Cracker, etc., Co. v. Ellis,
45 Mo. App. 585; Prentiss Tool Co. v.
‘Schirmer, 45N. Y.8.R. 20, 8. C.17N.
Y. Supp. 662; Upson v. Raiford, 29
Ala. 188; Gage v. Parker, 25 Barb. (N.
Y.) 141; Erwin v. Voorhees, 26 Barb.
127; Beasley v. Bray, 98 N. Car. 266, 8.
C. 3 So. R. 497; Pettibone v. Stevens,
15 Conn. 19, 8. C. 388 Am. Dec. 57;
Dodd v. McCraw, 8 Ark. 83, 8. C. 46
Am. Dec. 301.

2 Maverick v. Maury, 79 Texas, 435,
S. C. 15 8. W. Rep. 686; Louder v.
Schluter, 78 Texas, 103, S. C. 148. W.
R. 205; Parke v. Franco-Am. Trading
Co., 120 N. Y. 51,8. C.23 N. E. R. 996;
Parker v. State, 88 Ala. 4, 8. C. 7 So.
R. 98; Wright v. Lothrop, 149 Mass.
385, S, C..21 N. E. R. 968; Burroughs
v. Ploof, 73 Mich. 607, 8. C. 41 N. W.
Rep. 704 (question as to bona fides of

holder of note); Roth v. Colvin, 32

Vt. 125 (same question); Gall v. Gall,
114. N. Y. 109, 8. C. 21 N. E. Rep. 106;
State v. Huff, 76 Iowa, 200, 8. C. 40 N.
W. Rep. 720; State v. Eckler, 106 Mo.
585, 8S. C. 17 8S. W. R. 814; Fisher v.

Bennehoff, 121 Ill. 426, S. C. 13 N. E.
R. 150.

3 Duval v. Wellman, 124 N. Y. 156,
S. C. 26 N. E. R. 348.

‘Merrill v. Hilliard, 59 N. H. 481;
Johnson v. Schumacher, 72 Texas, 334,
8. C. 12 8. W. R. 207; Sedgwick &
Wait.on Tr. of Tit. to Land, § 694.

5TIdentity of persons: Swicard v.
Hooks, 85 Ga. 580, 8. C. 11 8. E. R.
863; People v. Fick, 89 Cal. 144, 8. C.
26 Pac. R. 759; Begg v. Begg, 56 Wis.
534; Prentiss v. Blake, 34 Vt. 460;
McDuffie v. Clark, 39 Hun (N.Y.), 166;
Com. v. Caponi, 155 Mass. 534, S. C. 30
N.E.R.82; Durfeev. Abbott, 61 Mich. -
471, 8. C. 28 N. W. R. 521. Identity
of property: State v. Babb, 76 Mo. 501;
Com. v. Cunningham, 104 Mass. 545;
Weber v. Illing, 66 Wis. 79; Scott v.
Sheakly, 3 Watts (Pa.),50; Sawyer v.
Middlesborough Town Co. (Ky.),178.
W. R. 444. See, generally, Miller v.
Marks, 20 Mo. App. 369; State v. Chee
Gong, 17 Ore. 635, 8. C. 21 Pac. R. 882;
Brown v. McCollum, 76 Towa, 479, S.
C.41N. W. R. 197; Link v. Page, 72
542 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 435

not for the jury, to determine whether the matters involved in
an action are the same as those in issue in a former action
within the rule as to a former adjudication. Where an article
is used for several purposes and its classification, under the
tariff laws, depends upon the preponderance of use, or where
such classification depends upon the trade name of the article,
and evidence is necessary to determine it, the question is one
for the jury.2- So, where an action at law was brought to re-
cover damages for the infringement of a patent and the evi-
dence was conflicting, it was held that the question as to
whether the specifications in the patent and the publication
and drawings introduced to show prior use of the same device
as a defense described the same thing or differed materially,
was one for the jury under proper instructions, and not for the
court to determine as matter of law.?

§ 435. Intent—Malice.—Intent, purpose, or design is a ques-
tion of fact for the jury,‘ except where, as stated in another
section, the court can determine it from the language or terms
used in a writing,’ and except where the law conclusively pre-
sumes a certain intent from the doing of a certain act.6 Thus,

Texas, 592,8.C. 10 S. W. Rep. 699;
Com. v. Buckley, 147 Mass. 581, 8. C.
18 N. E. R. 571; ante, §§ 37, 38. ©

 Nickless v. Pearson, 126 Ind. 477,
S. C. 26 N. E. R. 478; Tutt v. Price, 7
Mo. App. 194. But it has also been
held that the question should be left
to the jury where extrinsic parol evi-
dence is necessary to determine what
issues were in fact involved in the
prior action. Packet Co. v. Sickels, 5
Wall. (U. 8.) 580; Tuttv. Price, 7 Mo.
App. 194.

2 Robertson v. Oelschlaeger, 137 U.
8. 436, 8. C.11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 148; Rob-
ertson v. Solomon, 144 U. 8S. 608, S.C.
12 Sup. Ct. R. 752.

3 Keyes v. Grant, 118 U.S. 25, 8. C.
6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 974. See, also, Battin
v. Taggert, 17 How. (U. 8.) 74, 85.

*Coxe v. Wolcott, 27 Pa. St. 154;
Dumn v. Rothermel, 112 Pa. St. 272,

283; Cross v. Barnett, 65 Wis. 431;
Beedy v. Macomber, 47 Me. 451; West
v, White, 56 Mich. 126; Knightv. New
England, etc., Co., 2 Cush. (Mass.)
271; Shepherd v. Cassiday, 20 Texas,
24; Hine v. Bowe, 114 N. Y. 350,8.C.
21 N. E. R. 733; Copas v. Anglo-Am.
Provision Go. (Mich.), 14 N. W. R.

‘690; Neisier v. Harris, 115 Ind. 560.

5 See § 431, ante. See, also, Beasley
v. Bray, 98 N. Car. 266.

®See 1 Bish. Cr. L. 314; Flinn ».
State, 24 Ind. 286; Achey v. State, 64
Ind. 59; Shover v. State, 10 Ark. 259;
Com. v. Hersey, 2 Allen (Mass.), 173;
Com. v.Webster, 5 Cush. (Mass.), 295;
Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.8. 145;
People v. Petheram, 64 Mich. 252;
State v. Lautenschlager, 22 Minn. 514;
United States v. Harper,33 Fed. R. 471;
State v. Smith, 93 N. Car. 516.
§ 485 QUESTIONS OF LAW AND FACT. 543

the question of the intent with which a person accused of bur-
glary entered the house is for the jury;! so is the intent of one
charged with conspiracy,” obtaining money by false pretenses*
or.the like.* The rule is the same in civil actions. Thus,
questions of domicile,° of the revocation of a will,® and of ded-
ication” are usually questions of fact, or mixed questions of
law and fact to be determined by the jury; and so are

questions of intent to abandon a homestead,® to evict a

1 People v. Winters, 93 Cal. 277, S.
C. 28 Pac. R. 946; People». Griffin, 77
Mich. 585, 8. C. 43 N. W. R. 1061.

2 People v. Flack, 125 N. Y. 324, S.
C.11L. R. A. 807. See, also, Russell
v. Post, 188 U.S. 425.

5 People v. Baker, 96 N. Y. 340.

*See the following criminal cases:
Burke v. State, 71 Ala. 377; People v.
Griffin, 77 Mich. 585; Carter v. State,
22 Fla. 553; People v. Kelly, 113 N.
. Y. 647; McKenna v. People, 81 N. Y.
360; Buckner v. Com., 14 Bush. (Ky.)
603 ; State v. Swayze, 30 La. Ann. 1325;
Russell v. State, 68 Ga. 785; Money v.
State, 89 Ala. 110.

> Pennsylvania v. Ravenel, 21 How.
(U.8.) 103; Tiller ». Abernathy, 37
Mo. 196; State v. Palmer, 65 N. H. 9,
8.C.17 Atl. R.977; Foss v. Foss, 58 N.
H. 283; Potts v. Davenport, 79 Il]. 455 ;
Cochrane v. Boston, 4 Allen (Mass.),
177; Lyman »v. Fiske, 17 Pick. (Mass. )
231; Fulham v. Howe, 62 Vt. 386, S.
C. 20 Atl. Rep. 101. See, also, Chicago,
etc., R. R. Co. v. Ohle, 117 U.S. 123.

®Lawyer v. Smith, 8 Mich. 411;
Burns v. Burns, 4 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 295.
See, also, Law v. Law, 83 Ala. 482, S.
C. 3 So. R. 752. ;

TNixon v. Town of Biloxi (Miss.), 5
So. R. 621; Eastland v. Fogo, 58 Wis.
274; Gardiner v. Tisdale, 2 Wis. 153;
Harding v. Jasper, 14 Cal. 642; People
v. Reed, 81 Cal. 70; Elgin v. Beckwith,
119 Ill. 367, 10 N? E. R.558; McKey »v,
Hyde Park, 134 U.S. 84; Wood v.Hurd,

34.N. J. L. 87; Casey v. Tama Co., 75
Iowa, 655, S. C. 37 N. W. R. 188; El-
liott on Roads and Streets, 120. ‘‘There
may be cases where the facts are un-
disputed and where they admit of but
one legal interpretation, or can lead
to oné conclusion only, and in all such
cases the question is purely one of law
(citing White v. Bradley, 66 Me. 254;
State v. Schwin, 65 Wis. 207, 26N.W.R.
568; Kennedy v. Mayor, 65 Md. 514),
but in general the elements of law and
fact are intermingled, and in all such
cases the court directs the jury as to
the law and commits to their decision
the question of the existence of the
facts alleged to exist as well as the ques-
tion of the inferences to be drawn from
them.” Elliott on Roads and Streets,
121. Where the question depends up-
on the construction and effect of a stat-
ute or a map or other written instru-
ment it is generally a matter for the
court to decide as a question of law.
Miller v. City of Indianapolis, 123 Ind.
196; State v. Schwin, 26 N. W. R. 568,
§. C. 65 Wis. 207.

® Carter Lumber Co. v. Clay (Texas),
10 S8.W. R. 293; Craddock v. Edwards,
81 Texas, 609, 8. C.17 S. W. R. 228;
Locke v. Rowell, 47 N. H. 46; Fyffe.
Beers, 18 Iowa, 4; Brennan». Wallace,
25 Cal. 108. So, generally, the ques-
tion of abandonment is usually for the
jury. Marshall v. Harney Peak, etc.,
Co. (S- Dak.), 47 N. W. R. 290; Brown
v. McCormick, 23 Mo. App. 181; Par-
544 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 435

tenant,' and the like. Intention is a fact to be proved as any
other fact,? and where parties are competent witnesses they
may testify directly as to their own intent. Malice in fact, or
actual malice, such as is required in actions for malicious pros-
ecutions, is also a question of fact for the jury;> but where the
law conclusively presumes malice from certain acts and those
acts are undisputed the question is, of course, one of law for

the court.§

kins v. Dunham, 3 Strob. L. (So. Car.)
224; Taylor v. Middleton, 67 Cal. 656.
But where the intention does not gov-
ern the question is one of law for the
court. Brentlinger v. Hutchinson, 1
Watts (Pa.),46; Watson v. Gilday, 11
Serg. & R. (Pa.) 337; McDonald v.
Mulhollan, 5 Watts (Pa.), 173; Jacobs
v. Figard, 25 Pa. St.45; State v. Seay,
64 Mo. 89, 97.

' Henderson v.. Mears, 1 Fost. & F.
636; Upton v. Townsend, 33 Eng. L.
& Eq. 212; Lynch v. Baldwin, 69 Ill.
210.

2 Herron v.Dibrell,87 Va. 289, 128.E.
R. 674 (intent in making representa-
tions of quality of article at time of
sale); Lee v. Burnham, 82 Wis. 209,
8S. C. 52 N. W. R. 255; Barnes v.
Brown, 69 N. Car. 439 (payment) ;
Brouwer v. Hill, 1 Sandf. (N. Y.)
629; Cross v. Barnett, 65 Wis. 431
(whether conveyance was intended
for father or son); Smiley v. An-
derson (Neb.), 44N.W. R. 86 (whether
services were voluntary or not) ; West-
ern Union Tel. Co. v. Stevenson, 128
Pa. St. 442,8.C.5 L. R. A.515; Rus-
sell v. Post, 188 U. 8. 425 (intent of
defendant charged in civil action with
conspiracy to defraud).

’ Edgington v. Fitzmaurice, 55 Law
Jour. Rep. (Ch.) 650; 11 Am. & Eng.
Ency. of Law, 376.

‘Kerrains v. People, 60 N. Y. 221;
Kennedy v. Ryall, 67 N. Y. 379; Bid-
inger v. Bishop, 76 Ind. 244; McKee

v. Perchement, 69 Pa. St. 342; Dan-
forth v. Carter, 4 Iowa, 230; Stearns
v. Gosselin, 58 Vt. 38; Over v. Schif-
fling, 102 Ind. 191; Heap v. Parrish,
104 Ind. 36; Delano v. Goodwin, 48
N. H. 203; ‘‘Evidence of Intent,’ 22
Cent. L. Jour. 271. Compare Brown
v. Stark, 83 Cal. 636; Cake v. Potts-
ville Bank, 116 Pa. St. 264; Browne v.
Hickie, 68 Iowa, 330.

5 Newell v. Downs, 8 Blackf. (Ind.)
523; Strickler v. Greer, 95 Ind. 596;

_ Center v. Spring, 2 Iowa, 393; Ritchey

v. Davis, 11 lowa, 124; Potter v. Seale,
8 Cal. 217; Humphries v. Parker, 52
Me. 502; Page v. Cushing, 38 Me. 523;
Moody v. Deutsch, 85 Mo. 237; Von
Latham ». Libby, 38 Barb. (N. Y.) 339;
Schofield v. Ferrers, 47 Pa. St. 194;
Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v. Connell,
127 Ill. 419, 8, C. 20 N. E. R.89; Glas-
gow v. Owen, 69 Texas, 167, 8. C.68.
W.R. 527; Jones v.Fruin, 26 Neb. 76, 42
N.W. R. 283; Wagstaff v. Schippel,
27 Kan. 450; Gee v. Culver, 12 Ore.
228.

®Swan v. Tappan, 5 Cush. (Mass.)
104; Negley v. Farrow, 60 Md. 158, 8.
C. 45 Am. Rep. 715 (libel and slander
cases); Jenkins v. State, 82 Ala. 25,

‘S.C. 2 So. R. 150; Kemp »v. State, 13

Texas App. 561; Sweeney v. State, 35
Ark, 585; State v. Brown, 12 Minn.
538; Beauchamp v. State, 6 Blackf.
(Ind.) 299; McDermott v. State, 89
Ind. 187; Henning v. State, 106 Ind.
386 (malice implied from use of dead-
§ 436 QUESTIONS OF LAW AND FACT. 545

§ 436. Laws and ordinances.—The existence and validity
of domestic laws and ordinances are questions for the court to
determine,! although the existence of any particular foreign
law is generally held to be a matter of fact to be proved and
submitted to the jury.?, The interpretation of statutes and
other written laws and ordinances is also a matter for the
court.? As the court must determine the validity of laws and
ordinances, it necessarily follows that questions as to their
passage‘ and as to the reasonableness of an ordinance? are also

for the court.

ly weapon). See, also, notes to White-
ford v. Com., 18 Am. Dec. 771, and
Spies v. People, 3 Am. St. R. 320.

1See Gardiner v. Collector, 6 Wall.
(U.S.) 499; Post v. Supervisors, 105
U.S. 667; South Ottawa v. Perkins,
94 U. S. 260; Roulo v. Valcour, 58 N.
H. 347 (existence of ordinance) ;
Sutherland on Stat. Constr., § 181;
Cooley’s Const. Lim., 159, et seqg.; 37
Alb. Law Jour., 428, 449.

2Holman v. King, 7 Metc. (Mass.)
384; Ufford v. Spaulding, 156 Mass. 65,

30 N.E.R. 360; Haven v. Foster,9 Pick. |

(Mass.) 112; Alexander v. Penna. Co.,
48 Ohio St. 623; Charlotte v. Choteau,
83 Me. 194; Cobb v. Griffith, etc., Co.,
87 Mo. 90; Hooper v. Moore, 5 Jones
L. (N. Car.) 180; Moore v. Gwynn, 5
Ired. L. (N. Car.) 187; Brackett v.
Norton, 4 Conn. 517; Francis v. Ocean
Ins. Co., 6 Cow. (N. Y.) 404; Robin-
son v. Dauchy, 3 Barb. (N. Y.) 20;
1 Taylor’s Ev., §§5, 48. Contra Fer-
guson v. Clifford, 37 N. H. 86; 1
Greenl. Ey., § 486; Story on Conflict
of Laws, §638. See, also, Munroe v.
Douglass, 5 N. Y. 447.

3 Barnes v. Mayor, 19 Ala. 707; Inge
v. Murphy, 10 Ala. 897; Fairbanks v.
Woodhouse, 6 Cal. 483; Denver, etc.,
R. R. Co. v. Olsen, 4 Col. 239; Ely v.
James, 123 Mass. 36; Gibson v. Man-
ufacturers’ Ins. Co., 144 Mass. 81;
Maltus v. Shields, 2 Mete. (Ky.) 553;

So, the reasonableness® and validity” of the

Penna.Co.v.Frana,13Il.App.91; Allen
v. Duffie, 43 Mich.1; Carleton v. Peo-
ple, 10 Mich. 250; Harris v. Doe, 4
Blackf. (Ind.) 369; Large v. Orvis, 20
Wis. 696; Ennis v. Smith, 14 How.
(U.S.) 399. Compare Montgomery v.
Townsend, 84 Ala. 478, 2 So. R. 155;
Mueller v. State, 76 Ind. 310; Smith v.
Boston, etc., R. R. Co., 120 Mass. 490;
Holman v. King, 7 Metc. (Mass.) 384;
Gallatin Turnpike Co. v. State, 16 Lea
(Tenn.), 36.

* South Ottawa v. Perkins,94 U.S.260.

5 City of Lake View v. Tate, 130 III.
247,8.C.6L.R. A. 268; Green v. City
of Indianapolis, 22 Ind. 192; Mayor .
of Hudson v. Thorne, 7 Paige Ch. (N. °
Y.) 261; Brooklyn v. Breslin, 57 N.Y.
591; 1 Beach on Pub. Corp., § 512;
1 Dillon Munic. Corp., §327; 17 Am.
& Eng. Encyc. of Law, 248.

6 Fertich v. Michener, 111 Ind. 472,
S.C. 11 N. E. R. 605; Chicago, ete.,
R. R. Co. v. McLallen, 84 Ill. 109;
Evison v. Chicago, St. Paul, etc., R. R.
Co., 45 Minn. 370, 8. C. 11 L. R. A.
434; Commonwealth v. Worcester, 3
Pick. (Mass.) 462; Memphis, etc., R.
R. Co.v. Graham, 94 Ala. 545, 10 So. R.
283; Paxson v. Sweet, 13 N. J. L. 196;
Angell & Ames on Corporations, § 357.
Compare State v. Overton, 24.N. J. L.
435; Morris, etc., R. R. Co. v. Ayres,
29N. J. L. 393.

™Neier v. Missouri Pac. R. R. Co.,
546

THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 437

regulations and by-laws of a corporation are questions for the
court.

§ 487. Negligence.—Negligence is usually considered to be
a mixed question of law and fact.1_ In other words, the exist-
ence or non-existence of negligence in any particular case
where the facts are in dispute or more than one reasonable in-
ference can be drawn is a question for the jury to determine
under proper instructions from the court.? There can be no
actionable negligence unless there is some legal duty which
the defendant owed to the plaintiff, and whether there is such
a duty in any particular case or not is generally a question of
law for the court,® while it is usually for the jury to determine
from the facts and circumstances of the case whether or not

12 Mo. App. 25; State v. Overton, 24
N. J. L. 485, S.C. 61 Am. Dec. 671; Hi-
bernia Fire,etc.,Co.v. Commonwealth,

93 Pa. St. 264; Vedder v. Fellows, 20 N..

Y. 126; Queen v. Sadlers Co., 10 H. of
L. Cas. 404, and authorities cited in
last note, supra.

1Trow v. Vermont Cent. R. R. Co.,
24 Vt. 487, S. C. 58 Am. Dec. 191;
Wright v, Malden, etc., R. R. Co., 4
Allen (Mass.), 283; Cleveland, etc.,
"R. R. Co. v. Terry, 8 Ohio St. 570;
Toledo & Wabash R’y Co. v. Goddard,
24 Ind. 185; Chicago & Eastern Il. R.
R. Co. v. Ostrander, 116 Ind. 259;
Baltimore, etc., R. R. Co. v. Walborn,
127 Ind. 142; 1 Shearm. & Redf. Neg.,
§52; Bishop Non-Cont. Law, § 442.

2 Baltimore, etc., R. R. Co. v. State,
36 Md. 366; Railroad Co. v. Maugans,
61 Md.53; Detroit, etc., R.R.Co.v.Van
Steinburg, 17 Mich. 99; Indiana Car
Co. v. Parker, 100 Ind. 181; Evans v.
Adams Express Co., 122 Ind. 362;
Beach on Contrib. Neg., § 161; Wool-
ery, Adm’r, v. Louisville, N. A. & C.
R’y Co., 107 Ind. 381; Trow v. Ver-
mont-Cent. R. R. Co., 24 Vt. 487, 8. C.
58 Am. Dec. 191; Purvis v. Coleman,
4 Bosw. 321; Huntv. Salem, 121 Mass.

294; Eureka Co. v. Bass, 81 Ala. 200;
Gratiot v. Mo. Pac. R. R. Co. (Mo.),
16 L. R. A. 189; Wood v. Bridgeport,
143 Pa. St. 167, 8. C. 22 Atl. R. 752;
Chicago v. Moore, 139 Ill. 201, 8. C.
28 N. E. R. 1071; Davis v. Kan. City
Belt R.R. Co.,46 Mo. App. 180; Terre
Haute & I. R. R. Co. v. Voelker, 129
T11. 540, 8. C.22N. E. R. 20, 23; Hepfel
v.8t. Paul, etc., R. R. Co., 49 Minn. 263,
51 N. W. R. 1049; Anderson v. North,
etc., Co., 21 Ore. 281, S. C. 28 Pac.
R.5; Blanton v. Dold (Mo.),18 8S. W.
R. 1149; Ala., ete., R. R. Co. v..Sum-
mers, 68 Miss. 566, 8. C. 10 So. R. 63;
Kummel v. Germania Say. Bank, 127
N. Y. 488, 8. C. 13 L. R. A. 786; Ault-
man v. Falkum, 47 Minn. 414, 8. C. 50
N.W.R. 471; Washington, etc., R. R.
Co. v. McDade, 185 U. 8. 554.

3Sutton v. N. Y., etc., R. R. Co., 66
N. Y. 243; Coppins v. N. Y. Cent.,
etc., R. R. Co., 43 Hun (N. Y.), 26;
Nolan v. N. Y., etce., R. R. Co., 53
Conn. 461, 8. C. 25 Am. & Eng. R. R.
Cas. 842; Tarwater v. Hannibal R. R.
Co., 42 Mo. 193; Philadelphia, etc.,
R. R. Co. v. Fronk, 67 Md. 339; Met-
ropolitan R’y Co. v. Jackson, L. R., 3
App. Cas. 193.
§ 487 QUESTIONS OF LAW AND FACT. 547

there has been a breach of the duty proximately resulting in
damage to the plaintiff.1 It is-held, however, that where both
the duty and the extent of performance are to be ascertained
as facts, the jury should be left to determine what reasonable
and ordinary care is required under the circumstances as well
as the question of the defendant’s failure to exercise such care;
or, in other words, that it is for them to determine in such a
case what is negligence as well as whether it has been proved.?
But where the duty is defined, the failure to perform it is negli-
gence and may be so declared by the court.*? So, where there is

'Gerke v. California, etc., Co., 9 R. R. Co., 183 N. Y. 583; Connolly
Cal. 251, 8. C. 70 Am. Dec. 650; Lilly »v. Waltham, 156 Mass. 368, S.C. 31
wv. N. Y. Cent., etc., R. R. Co., 107 N. N. E.R. 302; Fisher v. Cambridge,

Y. 566; Sloan v. Cent. Ia. R. R. Co.,
62 Ia. 728; East Tennessee, etc., R. R.
Co. v. Bayliss, 74 Ala. 150, 8. C. 19
Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 480; Tabler v.
Hannibal, etc., R. R. Co., 93 Mo. 79;
Milwaukee, etc., R. R. Co. v. Kellogg,
94 U. 8. 469; White v. Missouri Pac.
R. R. Co., 31 Kan. 280; Ferren v. Old
Colony, etc., R. R. Co., 143 Mass. 197,
8. C. 9 N. E. R. 608; Grand Trunk,
etc., R. R. Co. v. Ives, 144 U.S. 408,
S.C. 12 Sup. Ct. R. 679; Shoner v.
Penna. Co., 130 Ind. 170, 8S. C. 28 N.
E. R. 616; Ashman v. Flint & P. M.
R. R. Co., 90 Mich. 567, 51 N. W. R.
645; Osborne v. Detroit, 32 Fed. R. 36.

2McCully v. Clarke, 40 Pa. St. 399,
S. OC. 80 Am. Dec. 584; Penna: R. R.
Co. v. Barnett, 59 Pa. St. 259; Phila.
City Pass. R’y Co. v. Hassard, 75 Pa.
St. 376, 377; Penna. R. RB: Co. v. Hen-
sil, 70 Ind. 569, 575; Simms v. So. Car.
R. R. Co., 27 S. Car. 268, 8. C. 30 Am.
& Eng. R. R. Cas.571. See, also, Ohio
& Miss. R’y Co. v. Collarn, 73 Ind. 261;
Penna. R. R. Co. v. Frana, 112 Ill. 398;
Railroad Co. v. Stout, 17 Wall. (U.S.)
657; Worthington v. Cent. Vt. R. R.
Co., 64 Vt. 107, 8. C. 23 Atl. R. 590;
Omaha v. Ayer, 82 Neb. 375, 8. C. 49
N.W-R.445; Schneider v. Second Ave.

183 N. Y. 527; Griffin v. Auburn, 58
N. H. 121. And, see particularly,
Gratiot v. Missouri Pac. R. R. Co.
(Mo.), 16 L. R. A. 189, 195, et seg.,
opinion of Thomas, J., on petition for
rehearing, where the entire subject is
elaborately considered and forcibly
presented.

5’Empire Transp. Co. v. Wamsutta
Oil Co., 63 Pa. St.14; Schum v. Penna.
R. R. Co., 107 Pa. St. 8; Hoag v.
Lake Shore, etc., R. R. Co., 85 Pa. St.
293; Clements v. -La. Electric Light
Co.,44 La. Ann.692, 16 L.R.A.43; Karle
v. Kan.City,etc., R. R. Co., 55 Mo. 476;
Delaware, L. & W. R. R. Co. v. Con-
verse (U.8.), 4 Lewis’ Am. R. R. &
Corp. Cas. 434; Grand Trunk, etc.,
R’y Co. v. Ives (U.8.), 6 Lewis’ Am.
R. R. & Corp. Cas. 130, and note; _
Terre Haute & I. R. RB. Co. v. Voelker,
129 Ill. 540, 8. C. 22 N. E. R. 20, 24;
Chicago & Eastern Ill. R. R. Co. v.
Boggs, 101 Ind. 522, 8. C. 51 Am. R.
761. In North Carolina, it is said in
general terms, that ‘‘what amounts to
negligence is a question of law.”
Hessing v.Wilmington,etc.,R.R.Co.,10
Tred.L.402, 8.C. 51 Am.Dec.395 ; Brock
v. King, 3 Jones (N. Car. L.), 45; Emry
v. Raleigh, etc., Co., 109 N. Car. 589,.8.
548 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 438

no evidence from which negligence can reasonably be inferred,
or where the facts are undisputed and but one reasonable in-
ference can be drawn from them, the question becomes one
of law for the court and should be taken from the jury.!| And
where a special verdict is returned, it is for the court to deter-
mine as matter of law upon the facts specially found by the
jury, whether there is actionable negligence or not.?

§ 488. Notice and knowledge.—Whether a person or cor-
poration has actual notice or knowledge of a certain fact is a
question for the jury to determine from the evidence;* and so,

C. 148. E. R. 352. It is, of course, to
be understood that it is not actionable
negligence unless it is also the proxi-
mate cause of the injury complained
of. For this reason it is sometimes
said to be merely evidence of negli-
gence, and there doubtless are pecul-
iar cases in which the circumstances
may be such as to excuse the perform-
ance of a statutory duty or make the
question one for the jury to determine
under proper instructions.

‘Purcell v. English, 86 Ind. 34;
Faris v. Hoberg (Ind.), 33 N. E. R.
1028; Indianapolis & St. Louis, R’y
Co. v. Watson, 114 Ind. 20; Rush v.
Coal Bluff Mining Co., 131 Ind. 135;
Koons v. Western Un. Tel.-Co., 102
Pa. St. 164; Brower v. Edson, 47 Mich.
91; Barton v. St. Louis, etc., R. R.
Co., 52 Mo. 253; Penna. R. R. Co. v.
Righter, 42 N. J. L. 180; Moore v.
Westervelt, 21 N. Y. 103; Beisiegel v.
N. Y. Cent. R. R..Co., 40 N.Y. 9;
Dahl v. Milwaukee City R. R. Co., 62
Wis. 652; Abbett v. Chicago, etc., R.
R. Co., 30 Minn. 482; Hathaway v.
East Tenn. R. R. Co., 29 Fed. R. 489;
Chaffee v. Old Colony, etc., R. R. Co.,
17 R. I. 658, 8. C. 24 Atl. R. 141;
Holland v. West End. St. R’y Co.,
155 Mass. 387, 8. C. 29 N.E. R. 622;
Houston v. Culver, 88 Ga. 34, 8. C.
138. E. R. 953; Borden v. Delaware,
etc., R. R. Co., 131 N. Y. 671, S. C. 30
N. E. R. 586; Chicago, etc.. R. R.

Co. v. Landauer (Neb.), 54 N. W. R.
976; Grand Trunk R’y Co. v. Ives (U.
8.), 6 Lewis’ Am. R. R. & Corp. Cas.,
130, and note.

? Pittsburgh, C. & St. L. R.R. Co. v.
Spencer, 98 Ind. 186; Pittsburgh, C.
& St. L. R’y Co. v. Adams, 105 Ind.
151; Bellefontaine R’y Co. v. Hunter,
83 Ind. 335; Conner v. Citizens’ St.

_R’y Co., 105 Ind. 62; Louisville, N. A.

& C. R’y Co. v. Eves, 1 Ind. App. 224;
Sprinkle v. Taylor, 1 Ind. App. 74. But
where more than one reasonable in-
ference can be drawn as to freedom
from contributory negligence the jury
must find it asa fact. Cleveland, etc., *
R’y Co. v. Granier (Ind.), 34 N.E. R.
714. ; :

3Saltmarsh v. Bower, 22 Ala. 221;
Muldrow v. Robinson, 58 Mo. 331;
Walworth v. Seaver, 30 Vt. 728; Fran-
cis v. Kansas City, etc., R. R. Co., 110
Mo. 387, 8. C.19 8. W. R.935; Troxel
v. Vinton, 77 Ia. 90, S.C. 41 N. W.R.
580; Wheeler v. McGuire, 86 Ala. 398,
8. C. 2 L. R. A. 808; State v. White,
101 N. Car. 770, 8. C. 7 S. E. R. 715,
S.C. 11 Crim. L. Mag., 231; Reilly v.
Hannibal, ete., R. R. Co., 94 Mo. 600,
8.C.7 S.W. R. 407; Snyder v. Gor-
den, 46 Hun (N. Y.), 588; Van Hook
v. Walton, 28 Tex. 59; Rhines v. Baird,
41 Pa. St. 256; Brown v. Eastern R.R.
Co., 11 Cush. (Mass.) 97; Berkshire
Woollen Co.v. Proctor,7 Cush. (Mass. )
417.
§ 438

QUESTIONS OF LAW AND FACT. 549

ordinarily, is the question of the existence of such facts and
circumstances as should charge him or it with constructive or
implied notice.’ But the court should instruct the jury as to
what is necessary to constitute constructive notice, and, where
the facts are undisputed, the case may be so clear and the in-
ference so strong that the court can determine the question as
one of law.?. The question often arises in actions against cities
for defects in their streets, and it is generally held that it is
for the jury to determine whether the facts and circumstances
are such as to charge the city with either actual or constructive
notice,? although the court may determine the question where
the facts and inferences are clear and unequivocal.‘ So, it
has been held that whether or not an employe had notice of a
rule or regulation of his employer,® and whether or not he had
knowledge of the dangers of his employment® are questions of

Newport v. Miller (Ky.), 188. W.
R. 835; Ft. Wayne v. Patterson, 3
Ind. App. 34, 8. C. 29 N. E. R. 167;
City of Aurora v. Bitner, 100 Ind. 396;
Nute v. Nute, 41 N. H. 60; Chiles v.
Conley, 2 Dana (Ky.), 21; Schutt v.
Large, 6 Barb. (N. Y.) 373.

2 Railroad Co. v. Stout, 17 Wall. (U.
8.) 657; City of Warsaw v. Dunlap,
112 Ind. 576; Appel v. Buffalo, etc., R.
R. Co., 111 N. Y. 550, 8. C.19 N. E.R.
93; Birdsall v. Russell, 29 N. Y. 220;
Page v. Waring, 76 N. Y. 463; Pollak
v. Davidson, 87 Ala.551. Constructive
notice in the strict sense of the term,
as distinguished from implied notice,
is said to be a question or presump-
tion of law which can not be rebutted.
Drey v. Doyle, 99 Mo. 459; Plumb v.
Fluitt, 2 Anstr. 428; Kennedy v.
Green, 3 Mylne & K. 699; Townsend
v. Little, 109 U.S. 504, 8. C.3 Sup.
Ct. R. 357, 357.

3 Hoey v.Natick,153 Mass.528, 8.C. 27
N. E. R. 595; Turner v. City of New-
burgh, 109 N. Y. 301, 306;- Kunz v.
City of Troy, 104 N. Y. 344; Fi.

Worth v. Johnson, 84 Texas, 187, S.
C. 19 8. W. R. 361; Colley v. West-
brook, 57 Me. 181, 8S. C. 2 Am. R.
30; City of Aurora v. Bitner, 100
Ind. 396; Woolsey v. Ellenville, 15 N.
Y. Supp. 647; Kunkel v. Chicago, 37
Ill. App. 325; Nesbitt v. City of Green-
ville, 69 Miss: 22, 8. C. 30 Am. St. R.
521, and note. See, also, Elliott on
Roads and Streets, 461.

4 City of Warsaw v. Dunlap, 112 Ind.
576. See, also, Chapman v. Mayor, 55
Ga. 566; Klatt v. Milwaukee, 53 Wis.
196; City of Chicago v. McCarthy, 75
Tl. 602; Elliott on Roads and Streets,
461. ;

5 Louisville & N. R. R. Co. v. Wat-
son, 90 Ala. 68, S.C. 8 So. R. 249;
Francis v. Kansas City, etc., R. R. Co.,
110 Mo. 387, 8. C. 19 8. W. R. 935.

®McDermott v. N. Y., etc., R. R.
Co., 18 N. Y. Supp. 4385. So as to the
extent of his knowledge of machinery.
Ingerman v. Moore, 90 Cal. 410, 8. C.
25 Am. St. R. 138. See, also, Chicago
& St. L. R’y Co. v. Ashling, 34 Il.
App. 99; Magee v. North. Pac. R. R.
550 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 439

fact for the jury. And whether or not the absence of a flag-
man from a railroad crossing at which he was stationed is no-
tice to a street-car driver that it is safe to cross, so as to excuse
him from looking out for trains, has also been held a ques-
tion of fact for the jury.?

§ 439. Payment.—The question of payment is generally one
of intent and is therefore a question of fact, or a mixed ques-
tion of law and fact, for the jury.2, Thus, whether a note, bill
or check was taken as an absolute and unconditional payment
or not is a question for the jury to determine.’ So, it is for
the jury to determine upon which of two bills or debts a pay-
ment was intended to be made, where the evidence upon the
subject is conflicting.* So, whether a payment was made by a
surety for the benefit of an individual or for the benefit of the
firm of which the latter was a member has been held a question
of fact for the jury,® and the character in which one to whom
money is paid receives it has also been held to be a question
of fact. The rules in regard to accord and satisfaction, so far
at least as the question of intent is concerned, are substantially

the same.’

Co., 78 Cal. 480, S. C. 21 Pac. R. 114.
Compare Appel v. Buffalo, etc., R. R.
Co., 111 N. Y. 550, S. 0.19 N. E. RB. 93.

1 Richmond v. Chicago, etc., R. R.
Co., 87 Mich. 874, S.C. 49 N. W.R.
621. See and compare Elliott on Roads
and Streets, 605, 608.

2? Hess v. Frankenfield, 106 Pa. St.
440; Germania Ins. Co. v. Davenport
(Pa.),9 Atl. R.517; Briggs v. Holmes,
118 Pa. St. 283, S. C.4 Am. St. R. 597;
Barnes v. Brown, 69 N. Car. 489; Ben-
ton v. Toler, 109 N. Car. 238, S.C. 18
8. E. R. 763; Smith’s Appeal, 52 Mich.
415; Lyon v. Guild, 5 Heisk. (Tenn.)
175; Waters v. Waters, 1 Mete. (Ky.)
519; Grantham v. Canaan, 38 N. H.
268; Ewing v. Peck, 26 Ala. 413; Dean
v. Toppin, 180 Mass. 517; Wood v.
Guarantee, etc., Co., 128 U. S. 416, S.
C. 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 131.

8 Craddock v. Dwight,‘85 Mich. 587,
8. C.48N. W. R. 644; Lyman v. Bank,
12 How. (U.8.) 225, 243, 244; Johnson
v. Weed, 9 Johns. (N. Y.) 310, 8. C. 6
Am. Dec. 279; Sellers v. Jones, 22 Pa.
St. 423; Schilling v. Durst, 42 Pa. St.
126; Segrist v. Crabtree, 131 U. 8. 287,
8. C. 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 687.

*'Yerkes v. Norris, 90 Mich. 234, 8.
C.51 N. W. R. 366; Phillips ». Mc-
Guire, 73 Ga. 517; Blair v. Lynch,
105 N. Y. 636, 8. C. 11 N. E. R. 947.

5 Welch v. Zerger, 29 Tl. App. 348.
See, also, McCloskey v. McCloskey
(Pa.), 16 Atl. R. 30.

®Dore v. Billings, 26 Maine, 56; 1
Thomp. Tr., § 1256.

‘Frick v. Algeier, 87 Ind. 255; Stone
v. Miller, 16 Pa. St. 450; Hardman v.
Bellhouse, 9 Mees. & W. 596; Hall v.
Flockton, 16 Ad. & El. (N. 8.) 1039.
§ 440 QUESTIONS OF LAW AND FACT. 551

§ 440. Possession and ownership.—Questions of possession
and ownership are usually mixed questions of law and fact,
that is, they are for the jury to determine under proper instruc-
tions from the court. It is for the court to decide what is
necessary to constitute or establish it and for the jury to de-
cide, under the court’s instructions, whether or not it has been
established by the evidence in the particular case.2, But where
the facts and inferences to be drawn therefrom are undisputed
the question is one of law for the court.? So, what constitutes
color of title is a question of law,* but where it depends upon
good faith and that fact is in controversy it is for the jury to

determine whether the evidence shows good faith or not.®

See, also, Keerl v. Bridgers, 10 Sm. &
M. (Miss.) 612; Willard v. Germer, 1
Sandf. (N. Y.) 50; Wilson v. Hanson,
20 N. H. 375.

1Paxson v. Bailey, 17 Ga. 600;
O’Hara v. Richardson, 46 Pa. St. 385;
Farnum v. Ewell, 59 Vt. 327, S.C. 10
Atl.R.527 ; Sovern v. Yoran, 15 Ore.644,
S.C. 15 Pac. R. 395; Logan v. Fried-
line (Pa.),14 Atl. Rep. 343; Miller v.
Beck, 68 Mich. 76, 8. C. 35 N. W. R.
899; Hacker v. Horlemus, 69 Wis. 280,
S.C. 34 N. W. R. 125; Thomas v. En-
gland, 71 Cal. 456, S. C. 12 Pac. R. 491;
Angle v Bilby, 25 Neb. 595, 8. C. 41
N. W. R. 397; Siedenbach v. Riley,
lll N. Y. 560, S.C.19N. E. R. 275;
Empire State Type Co. v. Grant, 114
N.Y.40, S.C. 21N. E. R. 49; Lobdell v.
Horton, 71 Mich. 681, 8.C.40N. W. R.
28; Street v. Griffiths, 50 N. J. L. 656,
8. C. 14 Atl. R. 898; Wheeler v. Laird,
147 Mass. 421, 8. OC. 18 N. E. R. 212;
Woods v. Montovallo, etc., Co., 84
Ala. 560, 8.C.5 Am. St. R. 393; Slattery
v. Donnelly,1 N.Dak. 264,8.C.47N.W.
R. 375; Peet v. Dakota, etc., Co. (8.
Dak.),47 N. W. R. 532; Wood on Lim-
itations, § 258. Compare De Graw v.
Prior, 60 Mo. 56; Turner v. Baker, 64
Mo. 218; Bowie v. Brahe, 3 Duer (N.
Y.), 35. Ouster is a question for the

It

jury. Taylor v, Hill, 10 Leigh (Va.),
457; Cummings v. Wyman, 10 Mass.
464; Clark v. Crego, 47 Barb. (N. Y.)
599; Harmon v. James, 7 Sm. & M.
(Miss.) 111; Robidoux v. Cassilegi, 10
Mo. App. 516; Carpentier v. Menden-
hall, 28 Cal. 484. Compare Newmar-
ket Mfg. Co. v. Pendergast, 24 N. H.
54.

2? Johnson v. Turner (Md.), 22 Atl.
Rep. 1103; Lyles v. Roach, 30 So. Car.
291,85. C. 9S. E. R. 334; Magee v.
Magee, 37 Miss. 188; Blackman +.
Welsh, 44 Mo. 41; Carbrey v. Willis,
7 Allen (Mass.), 864; Eaton v. Jacobs,
52 Me. 445; Wiggins v. Holley, 11 Ind.
2; Steffy v. Carpenter, 37 Pa. St. 41;
State v. Cardelli, 19 Nev. 319, 8. C. 10
Pac. R. 433; Deerfield v. Conn. River
R. R. Co., 144 Mass. 325, 8. C. 11 N.
E. R. 105; Ivey v. Williams, 78 Tex.
685, 8. C. 158. W. R. 163.

* Argotsinger v. Vines, 82 N. Y. 308;
Nearhoff v. Addleman, 31 Pa. St. 279;
Cornelius v. Giberson, 25 N. J. L. 1,
31. See, also, Kitts v. Wilson, 130
Ind. 492, 8S. C. 29 N. E. R. 401.

4Woodward v. Blanchard, 16 Ill.
424; Shackelford v. Bailey, 35 Ill. 387 ;
Turner v. Hall, 60 Mo. 271.

5 Gaines v. Saunders, 87 Mo. 557;
Woodward v. Blanchard, 16 Ill. 424.
552 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 441

has also been held that the question as to whether a title is
good and free from material defects is a question of law.!

§ 441. Probable cause-—The question of probable cause is
often called a question of law, and it is properly so called where
the facts are ascertained or undisputed,” but, generally, it is,
perhaps, more properly denominated a mixed question of law
and fact. Although some courts use one of these terms and
some the other, they do not differ materially as to the law.
The difference is one of expression or nomenclature rather than
substance. Where there is a controversy as to the facts, it is

for the jury to determine what facts are proved by the evidence
and for the court to instruct them as to what is necessary in
law to constitute probable cause, which is usually done by hy-
pothetical instructions upon the state of facts claimed by each
party within the evidence, the court stating whether, if proved,

they do or do not constitute or show probable cause.®

See, also, Merrill v. Hilliard, 59 N. H.
481; Powell v. Davis, 19 Tex. 380.

™Mead v. Altgeld, 136 Ill. 298, 8. C.
26 N. E. R. 388; Parmly v. Head, 33
Tll. App. 134.

2 Gilbertson v. Fuller, 40 Minn. 413,
S. C. 42 N. W. Rep. 203; Moore v.
Northern Pac., etc., Co., 37 Minn.
147, 8. C. 83 N. W. Rep. 334; Stone
v. Crocker, 24 Pick. (Mass.) 81; Mc-
Donald v. Atlantic & Pacific R. R. Co.
(Ariz.), 21 Pac. Rep. 338; Grant v.
Moore, 29 Cal. 644; Gurley v. Tomkins,
17 Colo. 487, 8S. C. 30 Pac. Rep. 344;
Besson v. Southard, 10 N. Y. 236; Far-
rell v. Friedlander, 63 Hun (N. Y.),
254; Cottrell v. Cottrell, 126 Ind. 181,
S. C. 25 N. E. BR. 905; McNulty »v.
Walker, 64 Miss. 198, 8. C. 180. R.
55; Donnelly v. Daggett, 145 Mass.
314, S. C. 14N.E.R.161; Moak’s Un-
derhill on Torts, 166; Prof. Jury Trials,
§ 271. ,

’ Pennsylvania Co. v. Weddle, 100
Ind. 138; Stewart v. Sonneborn, 98 U.

In afew

8. 187; Besson v. Southard, 10 N. Y.
236; Masten v. Deyo, 2 Wend. (N. Y.)
424; Bulkeley v. Smith, 2 Duer (N.Y.),
261; Pangburn v. Bull, 1 Wend.(N.Y.)
845; Sweeney v. Perney, 40 Kan. 102,
8. C.19 Pac. R. 328; Bell v. Matthews,
87 Kan. 686; Glasgow v. Owen, 69
Texas, 167, 8. C.68. W. R. 527; Cole
v. Curtis, 16 Minn. 182; Potter v. Seale,
8 Cal. 217; Grant v. Moore, 29 Cal.
644; Meysenberg v. Engelke, 18 Mo.
App. 346; Israel v. Brooks, 23 Tl. 526;
Driggs v. Burton, 44 Vt. 124; John-
stone v. Sutton, 1 T. R. 545; Caldwell
v. Bennett, 22 So. Car. 1; Johnson v.
Miller, 82 Iowa, 693,.8. C. 47N. W.R.
903; Hooper v. Vernon, 74 Md. 186, 8.
C. 21 Atl. R. 556; Joiner v. Ocean
Steamship Co., 86 Ga. 238, 8.C.128.E.
R. 361; Lytton v. Baird, 95 Ind. 349;
Humphries v. Parker, 52 Me. 502;
Pullen v. Glidden, 68 Me. 559; Blach-
ford v. Dod, 2 B. & Ad. 179; Panton
v. Williams, 1G. & D. 504.
553

§ 442 QUESTIONS OF LAW AND FACT.

cases, however, some of the courts have left the entire question
to the jury upon general instructions.!

§ 442. Reasonable time.—The term ‘‘reasonable time’’ is a
relative one, and what constitutes reasonable time for doing an
act in any particular case must depend largely upon the nature
and peculiar circumstances of that case. For this reason, per-
‘haps, there is much conflict among the authorities as to
when it is a question of law? for the court and when it is a
question of fact? or a mixed question of law and fact‘ for the
jury. So far as it is practicable to formulate any general
rule upon the subject, the correct rule, as it seems to us, may
be stated as follows: Where the facts are undisputed and dif-
ferent inferences can not reasonably be drawn from them, the
question is one of law for the court;® but if the facts are dis-
puted, especially where they are numerous and complicated,
or if more than one reasonable inference may be drawn from
them, and there is no fixed rule established by custom or law
by which the judge can determine the question without relying

1See Anderson v. Keller, 67 Ga. 58;
Cochran v. Toher, 14 Minn. 385, 391;
Green v. Cochran, 43 Ia. 544; Calla-
han v. Caffarata, 39 Mo. 186; Heyne
v. Blair, 62 N. Y. 19; Beckwith v.
Philby, 6 Barn. & Cres. 635. _

2 See Lockwood v. Thorne, 11 N. Y.
170; Sice v. Cunningham, 1 Cow. (N.
Y.) 397; Reilly v. Dodge, 131 N. Y.
153, 8. C.29 N. E. R. 1011; Bennett
v. Lyconing, etc., Ins. Co., 67 N. Y.
274; Chicago, etc., R. R. Co. v. Boyce,
73 Ill. 510; Greene v. Dingley, 24 Me.
181; Howe v. Huntington, 15 Me. 350;
Ellis v. Paige, 1 Pick. (Mass.) 43;
Wiggins v. Burkham, 10 Wall. (U.S.)
129; Toland v. Sprague, 12 Pet. (U.S.)
300; Hoskin v. Fisher, 125 U. 8. 217;
Hughes »v. Pipkin, Phill. L. (N. Car.)
» 4; Doe »v. Spence, 6 East, 120; Doe v.
Snowdon, 2 W. Bl. 1224; Startup v.
MacDonald, 6 Man. & G.593; Schei-
bel v. Fairbain, 1 Bos. & Pul. 388.

3 See Joy v. Sears, 9 Pick. (Mass.) 4;
Gilhooly v. N. Y., etc., Navigation Co.,
1 Daly (N. Y.), 197; Derosia v. Win-
ona, etc., R. R. Co., 18 Minn. 133;
Kennedy v. Gibbs, 15 Ill. 406; Turner
», City of Newburgh, 109 N. Y. 301, 306.

*See Bacon v. Harris, 15 R. I. 599,
S.C. 10 Atl. R. 647; Roth v. Buffalo,
etc., R. R. Co., 34 N. Y. 548, 8. C. 90
Am. Dec. 736; Bassenhorst v. Wilby,
45 Ohio St. 333; Field v. Nickerson,
13 Mass. 131; Chamberlin v. Fuller,
59 Vt. 247, S.C.9 Atl. R. 832; Wig-
gins v. Burkham, 10 Wall. (U.S.) 129;
Davis v. Capper, 10 B. & C. 28.

5 Wright v. Bank of Metropolis, 110
N. Y. 237, 8.C.6 Am. St. R. 356; Colt
v. Owens, 90 N. Y. 368; Hedges v.
Hudson River R. R. Co., 49 N. Y. 223;
Aymar v. Beers, 7 Cow. (N. Y.) 705,
8. C.17 Am. Dec. 538, and note; Cook-
ingham v. Dusa, 41 Kan. 229, S. C. 21
Pac. R. 95.
554 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 442

merely on his individual notions, it is one of fact, or mixed
law and fact for the jury to determine.! In accordance with
the first proposition in the rule just stated it has been held
that, where the facts are undisputed, what is a reasonable time
within which the consignee must remove goods consigned to
him in order to prevent the liability of the carrier from becom-
ing that of a warehouseman instead of an insurer is a question
of law for the court, and that three days is an unreasonable
time.2. So, where an obstruction was placed in a street by a
wrong-doer at night and an injury was received by a traveler
in falling over it an hour and three-quarters afterwards, it was
held that a reasonable time had not elapsed to charge the city
with constructive notice, and the judgment against the city
was reversed by the Supreme Court on the ground that the ver-
dict was not sustained by the evidence.? And in many other
cases in which the facts were so clearly proved and the time so
long or so short that but one reasonable inference could be
drawn the court decided the matter as one of law.’ So, where
the facts are undisputed, what is a reasonable time for giving
notice of the dishonor of a negotiable instrument is fixed by
the law merchant and is, therefore, as a general rule, a ques-
tion of law for the court.© The same has been held in regard

' Luckhart v. Ogden, 30 Cal. 548, 558 ;
Cochran v. Toher, 14 Minn. 385, 389;

Y. Cent. R. R. Co., 45 N. Y. 184, 187;
Weed v. Barney, 45 N. Y. 344, 347;

Magee v. Carmack, 13 Ill. 289, 291;
Du Laurans v. St. Paul, ete., R. R. Co.,
15 Minn. 49; Sproull v. Seay, 76 Ga.
27; Hoxie v. Iiams, 26 Neb. 616, S. C.
42 N. W. R.711; State v. Hall, 45 Mo.
App. 298; Thompson v. Douglass, 35
W. Va. 337, S.C. 188. E. Rep. 1015;
Searcy v. Hunter, 81 Texas, 644, S. C.
26 Am. St. R. 837; Sullivan v. N. Y.,
etc., Co., 119 N. Y. 348, 8. C. 23 N. EB.
R. 820; Mead v. Parker, 111 N. Y. 259,
262; note to Aymar v. Beers, 17 Am.
Dec. 538.

2Columbus & W. R. R.Co. v. Ludden,
89 Ala. 612, S. C.7 So. R. 471, 8. C. 31
Cent. L. J. 89. See, also, Roth v. Rail-
road Co., 34 N. Y. 548; Burnell v. N.

Hutch. Carr., §376. Compare*Scheu
v. Benedict, 116 N. Y. 510, S. C. 22 N.
E. R. 1073.

3 City of Warsaw v. Dunlap, 112 Ind.
576.

*See Cookingham v. Dusa, 41 Kan.
229, 8. C. 21 Pac. Rep. 95; Green v.
Wright, 36 Mo. App. 298; Druse v.
Wheeler, 26 Mich. 189; Lamb v. Cam-
den, 2 Daly (N.Y.), 454, 474;. Nudd v.
Wells, 11 Wis. 407; Lancaster Bank
». Woodward, 18 Pa. St. 357; Nunez
v. Dautel, 19 Wall. (U. 8.) 560, 563.

5 Bank of Columbia v. Lawrence, 1
Pet. (U. 8.) 578; Peabody Ins. Co. v.
Wilson, 29 W. Va. 528, S.C. 28. E. R.
888; Hussey v. Freeman, 10 Mass. 84;
§ 442 QUESTIONS OF LAW AND FACT. 555

to presenting a check, draft or note for acceptance or payment,
but the contrary has also been held.? In accordance with the
second proposition stated in our general rule, it has been held
that whether delay in receiving logs delivered at a certain place
to be loaded on the cars was reasonable is a question for the
jury;? that whether delay in giving notice of defects in ma-
chinery was unreasonable is a question for the jury;‘ and that
what is a reasonable time for the owner of lands to perfect his
title, so as to make it marketable and entitle a broker to com-
mission, is likewise one of fact for the jury to determine under
all the circumstances in evidence.® It has also been held that
what is a reasonable time for making proof of loss of insured
property where the facts are not clearly established,® for mak-
ing and delivering a schedule by one claiming an exemption,’
for remedying defects in machinery by an employer who has
promised his employe to remedy them,® for returning a horse

Brenzer v. Wightman, 7 Watts & 8.
(Pa.) 264; Hadduck v. Murray, 1 N.
H. 140, 8. C. 8 Am. Dec. 43; Marks v.
Boone, 24 Fla. 177, 8. C. 4 So. R. 532;
Tindal v. Brown, 1 T. R. 167; Carrol
v. Upton, 3 N. Y. 272; Bryden v. Bry-
den, 11 Johns. (N. Y.) 187; Tiedeman
on Commerc. Paper, § 337; Chitty on
Bills, 366. Compare Bank of Com-
merce v. Chambers, 14 Mo. App. 152;
Hopes v. Alder, 6 East, 16.

1 Parker v. Reddick, 65 Miss. 242, 8.
C.7 Am. St. R. 646; Baskerville v. Har-
ris, 41 Miss. 585; Mohawk Bank v.
Broderick, 10 Wend. (N. Y.) 304;
Aymar v. Beers, 7 Cow. (N. Y.) 705,
S. C.17 Am. Dec. 538, and note; Dyas
v. Hanson, 14 Mo. App. 363; Prescott
Bank v. Caverly, 7 Gray (Mass.), 217;
Boyles on Bills, 163; Hadduck v. Mur-
ray, 1 N. H. 140, 8. C. 8 Am. Dec. 43;
Durnell v. Sowden, 5 Utah, 216, 8. C.
14 Pac. R. 334.

2Mellish v. Rawdon, 9 Bing. 416;
Muilman v. D’Eguino, 2 H. BI. 565;
Mullick v. Radakissen, 28 Eng. L. &

_ Eq. 86; Wallace v. Agry, 4 Mason (U.

8.), 336; Phcenix Ins. Co. v. Allen, 11
Mich. 501. The rule seems to be that
when the facts are plain, simple and
undisputed the quéstion is one of law
for the court, but where they are con-
tradictory and complicated it is for
the jury. Tiedeman on Commercial
Paper, § 216; 1 Parson on Notes and
‘Bills, 340; 1 Dan. Negot. Instr., § 466;
Bassenhorst v. Wilby, 45 Ohio St. 333.

5 Boyington v. Sweeney,77 Wis. 55, 8.
C.45 N. W.R. 938. See, also, Wilder v.
Sprague, 50 Me, 354; Roberts v. Ma-
zeppa Mill Co., 30 Minn. 413; Kipp v.
Wiles, 3 Sandf. (N. Y.) 585; Cocker
v. Franklin, etc., Co.,3 Sumn. (U.S8.)
530.

* Fearl v. Hanna, 129 Pa. St. 588, 8.
C. 18 Atl. R. 556.

5 Dent v. Powell, 80 Ia. 456, 8. C. 45
N. W. R. 772.

6 Springfield F. & M. Ins. Co. v.
Brown, 128 Pa. St. 392, 8. C. 18 Atl.
R. 396.

T Johnston v. Willey, 21 Ill. App. 354.

8 Stephenson v. Duncan, 73 Wis. 404,
8. 0. 41 N. W. R. 337.
556 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 443

discovered. to be unsound,! for the disaffirmance of a contract
by an infant after coming of age,’ for the disaffirmance of the
unauthorized acts of an agent,? for the return of counterfeit
money or forged paper,‘ for completing repairs by a Jandlord,®
and for testing a machine,® should be left to the jury to deter-
mine under the circumstances of each case. It has been held
to be a question of law for the court to determine what is a rea-
sonable time in which to object to an account rendered so as
to prevent it from becoming an account stated, where the facts
are undisputed,’ but in other cases it has been held to bea
question of fact:®

§ 443. Waiver and abandonment.—Waiver is often a ques-
tion of intent, and where such is the case it is generally a
question of fact, or a mixed question of law and fact for the
jury.° Thus, whether a telegraph company by orally receiv-

1 Gridley v. Globe Tobacco Co., 71
Mich.528,8.C.39 N.W.R.754. But it has
been held that the time during which a
vendee retains a chattel may beso long
that, if the delay is unexplained, the
court can pronounce it unreasonable
as matter of law, so that he would not
be entitled to rescind the contract of
sale for breach of warranty. Johnson
»v. Whitman, etc., Co., 20 Mo. App. 100;
Cookingham v. Dusa, 41 Kan. 229, 8.C.

21 Pac. R. 95. In sucha case there can .

be but one reasonable inference, and it
therefore falls within our rule, mak-
ing it a question for the court. See,
also, and compare Gatling v. Newell,
9 Ind. 572; Holbrook v. Burt, 22 Pick.
(Mass.) 546; Kingsley v. Wallis, 14
Me. 57; Parker v. Palmer, 4 Barn. &
Ald. 387.

2Scott v. Buchanan, 11 Humph.
(Tenn.) 468; Wiley v. Wilson, 77 Ind.
596. See, also, Searcy v. Hunter, 81
Tex. 644, S. C. 26 Am. St. R. 837.

3 Porter v. Patterson, 15 Pa. St. 229;
Minor v. Mechanics’ Bank, 1 Pet. (U.
S.) 46; Minnesota Linseed Oil Co. v.

Montague, 59 Ia. 448; Parkhill v. Im-

lay, 15 Wend. (N. Y.) 431; Lanfear v.
Sumner, 17 Mass. 110.

*Union Nat. Bank v. Baldenwick,
45 Ill. 375; Boyd v. Mexico So. Bank,
67 Mo. 537 ; Burrill v. Watertown Bank,
51 Barb. (N. Y.) 105.

* Young v. Burhans, 80 Wis. 438, S.
C. 50 N. W. R. 343.

® Cook v. Tavener, 41 Ill. App. 642.

™Fleischner v. Kubli, 20 Ore. 328, S.
C. 25 Pac. R. 1086; Oil Co. v. Van Et-
ten, 107 U.S. 325; Lockwood v.Thorne,
11 N. Y. 170, and compare Lockwood
v. Thorne, 18 N. Y. 285.

§ Austin v. Ricker, 61 N. H.97; Peter
v. Thickstun, 51 Mich. 590.

® Traynor v.Johnson,1 Head.(Tenn.)
51; Fitch v. Woodruff Iron Works, 29
Conn. 82; Young v. Arntze, 86 Ala.116,
8.C.5 So. R. 253; Strain v. Pauley Jail,
etc.,Co.,80 Tex. 622, $.C.165.W.R.625;
Wing v. Thompson, 78 Wis. 256, S. C.
47N. W.R. 606; Goldenberg v. Blake,
145 Mass. 354, S.C. 14 N. E. R. 171;
Eagle & P. Mfg. Co. v. Belcher, 89 Ga.
218, 5.C.15S. E. R. 482; International
§ 443 ‘QUESTIONS OF LAW AND FACT. 557

ing and delivering market quotations, where the exigencies of
business do not give time to write them, intends to waive
stipulations in its printed blanks is a question for the jury.!
‘So, it is for the jury to determine, where the evidence and in-
ferences are conflicting, whether conditions in an insurance
policy have been waived.? And it is generally for the jury to
determine in such cases whether there is a waiver of perform-
ance of any of the conditions of any contract.? But where
there is no dispute as to the facts and inference the question
is one of law for the court.* So, whether a party has waived
defects, in a notice or summons by appearing and contesting
the case on its merits,® or has waived objections by failing to
make them at the proper time,® or by his admissions and con-
duct in court has waived rights upon which he might other-

Fair, etc., Ass’n v. Walker, 88 Mich. 62,
S.C. 49 N. W.R. 1086; Martin v. Cali-
fornia, etc., R. R. Co., 94 Cal. 326, S.
C. 29 Pac. R. 645; North Chicago St.
R’y Co. v. Williams, 140 Ill. 275, 8. C.
,29 N. E. R. 672; Sweesey v. Durnall,
23 Neb. 531, 8. C. 37 N. W. R. 459.

1 Western Un. Tel. Co. v. Stevenson,
128 Pa. St. 442,58. C.5 L. R. A.515, 8.
C. 18 Atl. R. 441.

2 Peoples’ Fire Ins. Co. v. Pulver,
127 Ill. 246, S.C.20 N.E. R.18; Drake
v. Farmers’, etc., Co., 3 Grant Cas.
(Pa.) 325; Franklin Ins. Co. v. Upde-
graff, 43 Pa. St. 350; Coursin v. Penna.
Ins. Co., 46 Pa. St. 323; Buckley »v.
Garrett, 47 Pa. St. 204; Phoenix Ins.
Co. v. Munday, 5 Coldw. (Tenn.) 547;
Bishop v. Agricultural Ins. Co., 130
N. Y. 488, S.C. 29 N. E.R. 844. Com-
pare Ripley v. tna Ins. Co., 30 N.Y.
136.

5 Rice v. Brown, 81 Me. 56, 8. C. 16
Atl. R. 334; Chapman v. Colby, 47
Mich.46; Spaulding v. Hallenbeck, 39
Barb. (N. Y.) 79 (under proper in-
structions); Moore v. Carter, 146 Pa.
St. 492, S. C. 23 Atl. R. 243.

‘New Orleans Ins. Ass’n v. Mat-

thews, 65 Miss. 301, S. C. 4 So. R. 62;
Spring Garden, etc., Ins. Co. v. Evans,
9Md.1; Mowry v. Wood, 12 Wis. 414;
Lee v. Hassett, 39 Mo. App. 67.

> Knox v. Summers, 3 Cranch (U.
S.), 496; Graciev. Palmer,8 Wheat.(U.
S.) 699; Brayton v. Freese, 1 Ind. 121;
Walker v.City of Aurora, 140 Ill. 402, 8.
C. 29 N. E. R. 741; Murphy v. City of
Peoria, 119 Ill. 509, 8. C.9 N. E.R.
895; McLaurin v. Baum (Miss.), 12 So.
R. 594. See Appearance, Vol. LI,
Ch.1.

6 Warren v. Glynn, 37 N. H. 340;
Stanley v. Bank, 23 Ala. 652; Tarbell
v. Royal Exchange, etc., Co., 110 N.
Y. 170, 8. C. 6 Am. St. R. 350; Power
». Bowdle (N. Dak.), 54 N. W. R. 404;
Andrews v. Birmingham, etc., Co.
(Ala.), 12 So. R. 432; Perine v. For-
bush, 97 Cal. 305, 8. C. 32 Pac. R. 226;
Scott v. People, 142 Ill. 291, 8. C. 33
N.E. R. 180; Evanston v. Gunn, 99 U.
S. 660; Indianapolis, D. & W. R’y Co.
v. Sands, 183 Ind. 433, 8. C. 32 N. E.
R. 722, and illustrations given in opin-
ion on page 723; Dolan v. State, 122
Ind. 141; Dockerty v. Hutson,’ 125
Ind. 102. And see Elliott’s Appellate
558 THE WORK OUT OF COURT.

§ 444
wise insist, are generally questions of law for the court.!. Upon
undisputed facts and inferences the question of abandonment
is also for the court,” but in other cases it is a question for the
jury to determine as one of intention. Thus, it has been held
that where an officer is suspended, but not removed, it should
be left to the jury to determine as a matter of fact whether his
acceptance of other employment and compensation therefor
amounts to an abandonment of the office and a waiver of the
salary to which he would otherwise be entitled during the
period of suspension.

§ 444. Miscellaneous questions—The following questions
have been held questions of fact, or mixed questions of law and
fact for the jury: Whether a person accused of murder was
so drunk as to be incapable of forming a design or intent;°
whether a testator had sufficient mental capacity to make a
will;® whether a person was insane or not;’? whether a person
who killed another had reason to believe he was in imminent
danger of death or great bodily harm;? whether due diligence
was used by railroad employes in extinguishing a fire;? whether

Proc., § 674, et seg., where many other
authorities are cited.

' Long v. Valleau (Ia.), 55 N.W.R.
31; Bolling v. Pace (Ala.), 12 So. R.
796; Webber v. Houston, 6 Yerg.
(Tenn.) 314; Preston v. Simons, 1
Rich. L. (S. Car.) 262; Hartz v. Com-
monwealth, 1 Grant Cas. (Pa.) 359;
Kern v. Wyatt (Va.), 17 N. E. R. 549;
Eckert v. Binkley (Ind.), 33 N. E. R.
619; Milbank v. Jones, 22 N-Y.8. 525;
Dale v. Radcliffe, 25 Barb. (N.Y.) 333;

- Belknap v. Godfrey, 22 Vt. 288; Hig-

ley v. Lant, 3 Mich. 612; Pulling v.
Supervisors, 3 Wis. 337; Ransom v.
City of New York, 20 How. (U. 8.) 581.

? Henry v. Bassett, 75 Mo. 89; White
v. Wright, 16 Mo. App. 551; Chouteau
v. Jupiter Iron Works, 83 Mo. 73;
Dula v. Cowles, 7 Jones L. (N. Car.),
290; Thornburgh v. Mastin, 93 N. Car.
258; Mims v. Lockett, 23 Ga. 237.

3 Marshall v. Harney Peak, etc., Co.

(S. Dak.), 47 N. W. R. 290; Parkins
v. Dunham, 3 Strobh. L. (8. Car.) 224;
Avery v. Clemons, 18 Conn. 306; Tay-
lor v. Middleton, 67 Cal. 656. See,
also, § 435, ante.

‘Wardlaw v. Mayor, 187 N. Y. 194.
Compare State v. Seay, 64 Mo. 89.

5 King v. State, 90 Ala. 612, 8. C.8
So. R. 856.

®Trezevant v. Rains, 85 Texas, 329,
8. C. 19 8. W. Rep. 567; Chrisman v.
Chrisman, 16 Ore. 127, 8. C. 18 Pac. R.
6; Bestv. Best (Ky.), 118. W. R. 810.

7Fisher v. State, 30 Tex. App. 502,
§.C.188. W. R. 90.

8 State v. Scheele, 57 Conn. 3807, 8.
C. 18 Atl. R. 256.

® Missouri Pac. R. R. Co. v. Platzer,
23 Tex. 117, S. C. 11 8S. W. R. 160, 8.
C.3L.R. A. 639. See, also, Delaware
& H. Canal Co. v. Goldstein, 125 Pa.

‘St.246, 8. 0.17 Atl R. 442; Kelly v.

Duffy (Pa.), 11 Atl. R. 244.
§ 444 QUESTIONS OF LAW AND FACT. 559

the use of water from a spring, which is alleged to have diverted
it from its channel,’ or by an upper mill owner, alleged to have
obstructed its natural flow to a lower mill,? is reasonable or
not; questions of value,? and questions of the amount of dam-
ages.* The following questions have been held to be questions
of law for the court: Whether delay in applying for the re-
issue of a patent has been reasonable;> whether what was said
by the parties constituted a contract or not, where there was
no dispute as to the facts and inferences;* whether, where the
facts were undisputed, there was sufficient evidence of delivery
and acceptance to take the contract out of the statute of frauds;7

1Colrick v. Swinburne, 105 N. Y.
508, 8. C. 12 N. E. R. 427.

2 Caldwell v. Sanderson, 69 Wis. 52,
8. 0.28N.W. R. 232. See, also, Hazel-
tine v. Case, 46 Wis. 391; Kemmerer
v, Edelman, 23 Pa. St. 143.

3Sergeant v. Dwyer, 44 Minn. 309,
§.C.46N.W. R. 444; Becker v.Hecker,
9 Ind. 497; Keystone Brewing Co. v.
Walker (Pa.), 11 Atl. R. 650; Boody
v. Watson, 64 N. H. 162, 8.C.9 Atl.
R. 794, 812.

* Louisville, N. O. & T. R. R. Co. v.
Mask, 64 Miss. 738, S. C. 2 So. R. 360;
Schlitz Brewing Co. v. McCann, 118
Pa. St. 314, 8. C. 12 Atl. R. 445; Par-
sons v. Missouri Pac. R. R. Co., 94 Mo.
286, 8.0.6 8S. W. R. 464; Haldeman
v. Berry, 74 Mich. 424, 8. C. 42 N. W.
R. 57; Brunswig v. White, 70 Texas,
504, S.C. 8S. W. R. 85. So, whether
any damage resulted from an act. Mc-
Gregor-v. Board, 107 N. Y. 511, S. C.
14N. E. R. 420; Centralia & C. R. R.
Co. v. Brake 125 Ill. 393, 8.C.17 N. E.
R. 820; Montgomery v. Townsend, 84
Ala. 478, 8. C. 4 So. R. 780; Brown v.
Western Un. Tel. Co., 6 Utah, 219, S.
C. 21 Pac. R. 988. But the measure of
. damages, that is, the rule for deter-
mining the amount, is for the court.
Mansfield v. N. Y., etc., R. R. Co., 114
N. Y. 331, S.C. 21 N. E. R. 735; Chris-

tin v. Erwin, 125 Il. 619, 8. C.17 N.
E. R. 707; Wilburn v. St. Louis, etc.,
R. R. Co., 86 Mo. App. 208.

5 Hoskin v. Fisher, 125 U. S. 217.

® Royal Ins. Co. v. Beatty, 119 Pa. St.
6,8. C. 12 Atl. R. 607. Especially is
this true where writings are to be con-
strued. Eyser v.Weissgerber, 2 Iowa,
463; Leav. Henry, 56 Ia. 662; Ranney
v. Higby, 5 Wis. 62; Falls Wire Mfg.
Co. v. Broderick, 12 Mo. App. 378;
Goddard v. Foster, 17 Wall. (U. 8.)
123. But, generally, the existence of
a particular verbal contract is, of
course, a question for the jury. 1
Thomp. Tr., §1114; 19 Am. & Eng.
Encyc. of Law, 636; Patten v. Pan-
coast, 109 N. Y. 625, 8. C. 15 N. E. R.
893; Chadron School Dist. v. Foster,
81 Neb. 501, 8. C. 48 N. W. Rep. 267;
Roberts v. Bonaparte, 73 Md. 191, 8.
C.10 L. R. A. 689.

7Hinchman v. Lincoln, 124 U.S. 38;
Davis v. Moore, 13 Me. 424. See, also,
Fuller v. Bean, 34 N. H. 290; Terry v.
Wheeler, 25 N. Y.520. But when the
facts are disputed, especially if the
question turns upon the intent of the
parties, the question of delivery and
acceptance sufficient to satisfy the
statute of frauds, or constitute a com-
pleted sale and pass the title are for
the jury under proper instructions.
560

THE WORK OUT OF COURT.

§ 444

whether an alleged custom is reasonable and valid;! and whether
a purpresture or permanent structure in a street is a nuisance

per se.”

Riddle v. Varnum, 20 Pick. (Mass.)
280; Smith v. Dennie, 6 Pick. (Mass.)
262; Houdlette v. Tallman, 14 Me.
400; Glass v. Gelvin, 80 Mo. 297;
Fuller v. Bean, 34 N. H. 290; Draper
v. Jones, 11 Barb. (N. Y.) 263; De
Ridder v. McKnight, 13 Johns. (N.Y.)
294; Weld v. Came, 98 Mass. 152;
Kelsea v. Haines, 41 N. H. 246; Rhea
v. Riner, 21 Ill. 526; Chaplin v. Rog-
ers, 1 East, 192; Benj. on Sales (8d
ed.), §309. So, whether or nota deed
has been delivered is a question for
the jury, upon disputed facts, under
proper instructions. Hibberd v.Smith,

67 Cal. 547; Dearmond v. Dearmond,
10 Ind. 191; Burke v. Adams, 80 Mo.
504; Hurlburt v. Wheeler, 40 N. H.
73; Hannah v. Swarner, 8 Watts (Pa.),
9, S. C. 34 Am. Dec. 442; Roll v. Rea,
50 N. J. L. 264, 8. C. 12 Atl. R. 905.

1 Chicago Packing, etc., Co. v. Tilton,
87 Ill. 547; Bourke v. James, 4 Mich.
336. 5

2State v. Berdetta, 73 Ind. 185;
Pettis v. Johnson, 56 Ind. 1389. But
generally the question as to whether
or not an obstruction constitutes a
nuisance isfor the jury. Blanc v.
Klumpke, 29 Cal. 156.
CHAPTER XIV.

SETTLING CONTROVERSIES OUT OF COURT BY COMPROMISE.

§ 445. Advising a compromise. § 449. Consideration.
446. Matters to be considered in ad- 450. Negotiating a compromise.
vising a compromise. 451. Effect of a compromise.
447, Authority to compromise. 452. Abandonment and rescission.

448. Offer to compromise.

§ 445. Advising a compromise.—The topic which we here
consider is one closely allied in some respects to legal ethics,
but it is not our purpose to consider it from the ethical side,
although it can not be considered without touching that side.
It is often expedient as well as just to advise a compromise
and thus prevent litigation, or, as the case may be, put an end
to it. In many instances a fair compromise is preferable to a
contest. There are many cases where other things than pe-
cuniary loss or gain should receive consideration and be given
controlling influence. Where the peace of families is likely to
be imperilled a compromise should be brought about if it can
be done without a sacrifice greater than justice will permit.
Nor is the probability of a strife leading to violence to be left
unconsidered. The interests of the client are always and
everywhere the chief consideration, and the conscientious ad-
vocate will not sacrifice or yield them to promote his own in-
terests. He will not, on the one hand, allow the hope of dis-
tinguishing himself in court to influence his course, nor, on
the other hand, will he permit a desire to secure the reputation
of a lawyer, ‘‘who better loves peace and compromises than
glory,’’ to impel him to advise a client to yield what in justice

-ought not to be yielded. While it is true that a lawyer’s first
duty is to his client yet it is not wrong for him to secure, if he
can do so without a breach of duty or a betrayal of trust, the
reputation of ‘‘a maker of compromises.’’ It carries us but a
little aside from our direct path to say that it brings business

(561)
562 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 446

toa lawyer to have it known that he advises compromises
rather than provokes or encourages litigation, for such a law-
yer gets credit for honest dealing that those lawyers who never
effect compromises do not obtain. But the interests of the
client overshadow all other considerations, and the lawyer
who advises the acceptance or rejection of a proposal of com-
promise must know his client’s case in all its details, and care-
fully weigh the probabilities of success or defeat. It has been
said, that ‘‘the rights of society are so strong that no forensic
contest should be waged, until at least one effort to compro-
mise has been honestly made,’’ but this is true only in a lim-
ited sense, if true at all. The rights of society can not extend
so far as to require the sacrifice of private rights where justice
underlies those rights. Itis no doubt expedient as well as
just, to make an effort to compromise in many cases before en-
tering into the contest, but it is not so in all. It is well
enough always to act upon Shakespeare’s admonition to ‘‘beware
of an entrance into a quarrel,’’ but it is not always necessary to
seek a compromise before taking action. It has been said that
“there never was a just compromise,’’! and this, although
somewhat extravagant, in a sense is true, for the term itself
implies that one of the parties at least surrenders some part of
his claim or something to which he is justly entitled; yet the
advice given long ago still remains good in many cases:
‘‘Agree with thine adversary quickly while thou art'in the
way with him.’’ Litigation is expensive, and it is often ad-
visable to give up something of that to which we think we are
justly entitled rather than to incur the danger of losing it all
or having the better part of it eaten up, by litigation. This is
especially true where the question at issue is a doubtful one,
or the amount involved is small and no great principle is at
stake.

§ 446. Matters to be considered in advising a compromise.
—Where there is certainty of success the advocate can seldom
1On the other hand it is an old say- represent extreme views and as ‘is

ing: ‘‘A bad compromise is better usually the case both views are
than a good lawsuit.’’ These sayings wrong.
§ 446 SETTLING CONTROVERSIES OUT OF COURT. 563

rightfully advise a compromise, although, for ethical reasons,
he may sometimes justly do so; but it is not often in litigated
cases that the advocate can be assured of the certainty of suc-
cess. He may meet unexpected difficulties, and unforeseen
disasters may come upon him. He must rely upon the testi-
mony of men and women and upon the judgments of jurors or
judges who are, as every one knows, very far from being in-
fallible. Comparatively few cases can be said to be free from
doubt. In determining whether it is prudent to compromise
a case and yield more than seems fair, it is wise to consider
what effect prejudice may have upon the result, for prejudice
is a potent factor in forensic contests and sometimes prevails
against the law and the evidence. Powerful corporations are
always at.a disadvantage, for prejudice, often senseless and
unreasoning, leads jurors to decide against them, and, it is
due truth to say, judges are sometimes controlled by preju-
dice. A rich man opposed to a poor man is likewise at a dis-
advantage, and it is often prudent for him to yield what in
strict justice he ought not to yield in order to settle the con-
troversy. Prejudice may, it is hardly necessary to suggest,
arise from many causes; a party’s business may arouse bitter
prejudice; his religious or political. tenets may do so in some
communities, and so may his manner of life. These are a few
only of the matters to be considered in determining what in-
fluence prejudice is likely to exert, but as each case passes in
mental review the thoughtful lawyer will not fail to discover
the sources of prejudice and the influence it is likely to exert.
The difficulty of procuring evidence and the like are also mat-
ters not to be overlooked in determining the advisability of
making overtures fora compromise. It is important to keep
in mind that the party who is compelled to rely on depositions
is not so strong, other things being equal, as the one who
can bring his witnesses into the presence of the jury. The
fact that one party wages the fight in his own county against
one who resides elsewhere is a matter of importance in some
instances, since the ‘‘man at home,’’ if of good repute, is ordi-
narily in a better situation than the ‘‘man from abroad,”’ even
564 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 447

though the ‘‘man from abroad’’ may, come from no great dis-
tance. In some cases a matter for consideration is the age
and health of a client, for death may end the action or else
deprive the advocate of the client’s aid. The probability of
enforcing a judgment is also to be considered, since, it is
hardly necessary to suggest, it is much better to be sure of
collecting a judgment, than to take the chances of a return to
an execution of nulla bona. The hints we have given are suf-
ficient to suggest the matters the advocate should consider,
and are quite enough for our purpose, and probably more
than many may think needful.!

§ 447. Authority to compromise.—An attorney, merely by
virtue of his employment as such, has no implied power or au-
thority to compromise a claim or action which he is employed
to prosecute or defend.? But it has been held that if an at-
torney assumes the right to compromise and does enter into a
compromise for the benefit of his client the court will not pre-
sume that he did so without lawful authority, and slight evi-

1JTt may not be amiss, however, to
add the following advice given by Mr.
Warren: ‘‘Consider well the oppo-
nent with whom you have to deal. * * *
If your client be not present, and re-

? Granger v. Batchelder, 54 Vt. 248,
S.C. 41 Am. R. 846; Whipple v. Whit-
man, 13 R. I. 512, 8. C. 43 Am. R. 42;
East Line, etc., R. R. Co. v. Scott, 72
Texas, 70, S. C. 13 Am. St. R. 758;

ally approving of what you are doing,
you undertake a grave responsibility
in consenting to make humiliating
acknowledgments or concessions in his
name and on his behalf, and may open
upon yourself a stream of perpetual
bitterness and recrimination hereaf-
ter. You should also, on such oc-
casions, consider well the nature of
the dispute, which exists, with refer-
ence to the admission or acknowledg-
ment insisted on—whether it be, or be
not, such an one as warrants such a
course, or admits of its being adopted
without seriously compromising im-
portant and permanent interests or
character.” Warren’s Duties of At-
torneys, 206.

Township of North Whitehall v. Kel-
ler, 100 Pa. St. 105, S. C. 45 Am. Rep.
861; Eaton v. Knowles, 61 Mich. 625;
Repp v. Wiles, 3 Ind. App. 167, S. C.
29N. E.R. 441; Preston v. Hill, 50 Cal.
43, S.C. 19 Am. R. 647; Wadhams v.
‘Gay, 73 Ill. 415; Robinson v. Murphy,
69 Ala. 548, and note to Clark v. Ran-
dall, 76 Am. Dec. 252, 261, where the
earlier cases are collected. The En-
glish rule seems to give the attorney
more powers. See note to Clark v.
Randall, supra. See, also, Wieland v.
White, 109 Mass. 392; Potter v. Par-
sons, 14 Iowa, 286; Bonney v. Morrill,
57 Me. 368; Jeffries v. New York, etc.,.
Co., 110 U. S. 305.
§ 448 SETTLING CONTROVERSIES OUT OF COURT. 565

dence may be sufficient to authorize the inference that he was
clothed with all the power that he assumed to exercise.! So,
in another recent case it was held that a fair and judicious
compromise made by the attorney for the plaintiff with the as-
sent of the real party in interest, although without the knowl-
edge of the plaintiff of record, would not be disturbed. And
there may be unusual cases in which the circumstances are
such that authority to compromise will be’ presumed or im-
plied.? An unauthorized compromise may, of course, be rat-
ified by the client in the same manner as that in which the
unauthorized act of any agent may be ratified by his principal.*

§ 448. Offer to compromise.—A mere offer to compromise,
unaccepted by the other party, is not binding,® and the fact
that the plaintiff, before suit, offered to accept a certain sum in
payment of his claim if the defendant would settle it without
difficulty or trouble, will not prevent him from claiming and
recovering a larger sum in an action therefor.6 But where a
defendant used a written statement of the terms of a compro-

1 East Line, etc., R. R. Co. v. Scott,
72 Texas, 70, S.C. 13 Am. St. R. 758.
See, also, Holker v. Parker, 7 Cranch
(U.S8.) 486, 452; Roller v. Wooldridge,
» 46 Texas, 485; People v. Quick, 92 Ill,
580; Trope v. Kerns, 83 Cal. 553.

2 Whipple v. Whitman, 13 R. I. 512,
§.C.43 Am. R. 42. See, also, Will-
iams v. Nolan, 58 Tex. 708, 713; Black
v. Rogers, 75 Mo. 441, 448; Holker v.
Parker, 7 Cranch (U. 8.) 486, 452.

3 Union Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Bu-
chanan, 100 Ind. 63. See, also, Brock-
ley v. Brockley, 122 Pa. St. 1; In re
Heath’s Will, 83 Ia. 215, 48 N. W. R.
1037. So, of course, express authority
may be given, and where the attorney
was told to do the best he could and
the client, who had been vouched to
defend an action in ejectment, would
repay whatever the principal defend-
ant had to pay, it was held that the
attorney had authority to compromise.

Freeman v. Brehm (Ind.), 31 N.-E.
R. 545.

4 Filby v. Miller, 25 Pa. St. 264; Cul-
verhouse v. Marx, 39 La. Ann. 809;
Mayer v. Foulkrod, 4 Wash. C. C. 503.
See, also, Taylor v. Sutton, 6 La. Ann.
709; Vose v. Treat, 58 Me. 378; Mar-
shall v. Moore, 36 Ill. 321; King v.
Pope, 28 Ala. 601; Repp v. Wiles, 3
Ind. App. 167, 8. C. 29 N. E. R. 441.

5 Clark v. Pope, 29 Fla. 238, 8. C. 10
So. R. 586. See, also, White v. Corlies,
46N.Y.467; Strasburg, etc., R. R. Co.,
v. Echternacht, 21 Pa. St. 220, 8. C. 60
Am. Dec. 49; Stitt v. Huidekopers, 17
Wall. (U. 8.) 384; McCallion v. Hiber-
nia, etc., Ass’n, 70 Cal. 163; Malby v.
Osborne, 35 Minn. 387; Indiana, etc.,
R. R. Co. v. Adams, 112 Ind. 302, 8. C.
14N. E. R. 80.

® Perkins v. Hasbrouck, 155 Pa. St.

494, 8. C. 26 Atl. R. 695. See, Miller

v. Beale, 26 Ind. 234.
566

THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 449

mise, signed only by the plaintiff, to have the case dismissed,
it was held that he was as much bound thereby as if he had
signed it himself.!. An offer of compromise which has once
been declined can not afterwards be accepted so as to bind the
person who made it, unless renewed, by him or left open for
further consideration.? But if a debtor tenders part of a dis-
puted debt or claim in full satisfaction thereof and the creditor
accepts it the latter is bound by its terms, for he can not accept
the tender and at the same time refuse to abide by the terms
upon which it is made.’

§ 449. Consideration.—An agreement to accept in full satis-
faction and discharge of a liquidated debt a smaller amount
than that acknowledged to be due can not be enforced in the
absence of any consideration for such agreement.4 But where
there is a colorable claim, or a doubtful right, a compromise
in order to prevent litigation is based upon a sufficient consid-
eration.®> So, it has been held that a note voluntarily given in
renewal of another note procured by fraud, in order to prevent
litigation, was based upon a valid consideration. And a good

' Bonner v. Beard, 48 La. Ann. 1036,
S. C. 10 So. R. 373.

2 Richardson v. Lenhard, 48 Kan.
629, S. C. 29 Pac. R. 1076. It was also
held in this case that eight days’ delay
after receiving the offer was too long
to expect it to remain open, and that
it could not be made binding by an
acceptance at the end of that period.

3Deutman v. Kilpatrick, 46 Mo.
App. 624,

4The authorities are collected and
reviewed by Mr. Greenhood in 17 Cent.
Law Jour. 302, who reaches the con-
clusion that this is the rule in En-
gland and in every State except Penn-
sylvania and Maine. See, also, Don-
obue v. Woodbury, 6 Cush. 148, 8. C.
52 Am. Dec. 777, and note; Davis v.

Stout, 126 Ind. 12; Lathrop v. Page, .

129 Mass. 19; Geiser v. Kershner, 4
Gill & J. 305, 8. C. 28 Am. Dec. 566,

and note; Deland v. Hiett, 27 Cal. 611,
8. C. 87 Am. Dec. 102, and note. For
many exceptions to the rule, see the
leading article in 17 Cent. Law Jour.
802, referred to, supra. .

5 Bement v. May (Ind.), 34 N. E.R.
827; Shaw v. Chicago, etc., R. R. Co.
82 Ia. 199, 47 N. W. R. 1004; Swem v.
Green, 9 Col. 358; Bellows v. Sowles,
55 Vt. 391, S.C. 45 Am. R. 621; United
States Bank v. Homestead, 18 N. Y.
Supp. 758; Battle v. McArthur, 49 Fed.
R. 715; Hennessy v. Bacon, 137 U.S.
78; Smith v. Farra, 21 Ore. 395, 8. C.
20 L. R. A. 115; White v. Hoyt, 73 N.
Y. 505; Brooks v. Hall, 36 Kan. 697;
Griswold v. Wright, 61 Wis. 195; Flan-
nagan v. Kilcome, 58 N. H. 443; note
to Morgan v. Hodges, 15 L. R. A. 438.

® Clough v. Holden (Mo.), 20 8S. W.
R. 695.
§ 449 SETTLING CONTROVERSIES OUT OF COURT. 567

faith composition with creditors whereby each creditor gives
up part of his claim and agrees to withhold or withdraw suit
and release the debtor upon the payment of a certain other
part is valid, as the agreement of the several creditors is a suf-
ficient consideration for that of each of the others.!_ So, where
a city was insolvent it was held that a compromise agreement,
whereby one who had obtained a judgment against the city as-
signed her judgment to a trustee for such city, in consideration
of which the latter agreed to pay certain costs incurred by the
judgment plaintiff in addition to a small sum of money, was
based upon a sufficient consideration and was valid, although
the amount paid to the plaintiff was less than the face of the
judgment.? But where the legal rights of the parties are clear
and the claim is not made in good faith it is generally held
that a promise made in order to obtain a settlement can not be
legally enforced,’ although the mere existence of a controversy
is held sufficient by some of the courts.‘ If the claim is un-
liquidated and there is a dispute simply as to the amount, a
promise to pay a certain sum by way of compromise is clearly

based upon a sufficient consideration.®

1Eaton v. Lincoln, 13 Mass. 424;
Perkins v. Lockwood, 100 Mass. 249;
Farrington v. Hodgdon, 119 Mass. 453;
White v. Kuntz, 107 N. Y. 518, 8. C.1
Am. St. R. 886; Way v. Langley, 15
Ohio St. 392; Henry v. Patterson, 57
Pa. St. 346; Steinman v. Magnus, 11
East, 390. See, also, ‘“‘Compositions
with Creditors,’”’ 17 Cent. Law Jour.
302, 304. But fraud, concealment and
misrepresentation by the debtor may
avoid thecomposition. Sevingv. Gale,
28 Ind. 486; Hefter v. Cahn, 73 IIl.
296; Jackson v. Hodges, 24 Md. 468;
O’Shea v. White Lead Co., 42 Mo. 397;
8. C. 97 Am. Dec. 332, and note; Dol-
son v. Arnold, 10 How. Pr. (N. Y.)
528; Stafford v. Bacon, 1 Hill (N. Y.),
532, 8. C. 37 Am. Dec. 366; Hunting-
ton v. Clark, 39 Conn. 540.

? Larned v. City of Dubuque (Iowa),
53 N. W. R. 105.

§Moon v. Martin, 122 Ind. 211;
United States Mfg. Co. v. Henderson,
111 Ind. 24; Sherman v. Barnard, 19
Barb. (N.Y.) 291, 302; Pitkin v. Noyes,
48 N. H. 294; Sullivan v. Collins, 18
Iowa, 228; Foster v. Metts, 55 Miss.

77,8. C. 30 Am. R. 504; Anthony »v.

Boyd, 15 R. I. 495; Fire Ins. Ass’n v.
Wickham, 141 U. S. 564, 577.

'4The authorities upon both sides of
this question are collected in the ex-
haustive note to Morgan v. Hodges, 15
L. R. A. 438.

5 Fire Ins. Ass’n v. Wickham, 141
U. 8S. 564, 8S. C. 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 84;
Stimpson v. Poole, 141 Mass. 502.
568 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 450

§ 450. Negotiating a compromise.—‘‘As to compromises,’’
says Mr. Chitty, ‘‘they may be made and invited by the attor-
neys on each side; and if made either impliedly, and still more
if expressly, without prejudice, they can not be taken advant-
age of injuriously by either party.’’1 At another place, he
says: ‘In negotiations between solicitors of known integrity
and honor, there will be no danger from an interchange of
candor and liberality; but, unhappily, there is too frequently
great risk of the want of reciprocity in candor, and, conse-
quently, unless the honor of the opponent be well known, no
communication of facts should be made that could be ungen-
erously taken advantage of injuriously to the client, even
though expressed to be made without prejudice.’’? The cus-
tomary practice of addressing all communications upon the
subject of compromise ‘‘without prejudice’’ is severely criti-
cised by another English author, and he agrees with Mr.
‘Chitty in advising the utmost care in negotiating a compro-
mise. ‘‘A plaintiff’s or defendant’s solicitor,’’ he says,
“should never make an offer or a suggestion to the other side,
which, if known, would even tend to prejudice the interests of
his client.’’* Admissions are always dangerous. It is safest
to carry on the negotiations in writing, and then there can be
no dispute as to the terms of the compromise. They should
generally be carried on between the attorneys, and not between
an attorney upon one side and the client of another attorney
upon the other, although there may be exceptional cases in
which this would be proper. No honorable attorney will seek
to compromise a case with the client of another secretly where
the latter is acting in good faith, and even if such conduct
were honorable it would not, ordinarily, be advisable, as it
might afterwards be claimed that undue advantage was taken
of the inexperienced client. Asa general rule an unaccepted
offer or admission by way of compromise is not binding, but
care should be taken to have it understood that the offer or ad-
mission is confidential and by way of compromise, and not an

'2 Chitty’s Gen. Pr., 58. 5 Harris’ Before and at Trial, 28.
+2 Chitty’s Gen. Pr., 24.
t

§ 451 SETTLING CONTROVERSIES OUT OF COURT. 569

admission of liability, or, better still, as already suggested, no
injurious or unqualified admission should be made. It was
held many years ago by the English courts that an offer to
settle for a certain sum, not made in confidence or stated to be
without prejudice, is admissible in evidence,! and it has re-
cently been held by the New York Court of Appeals that evi-
dence of a conversation between the plaintiff and defendant,
brought about by the latter without reservation, wherein the
defendant offered a certain sum as compensation for injuries
inflicted upon the plaintiff was admissible as tending to show
an acknowledgment of liability upon the part of the defendant.”

§ 451. Effect of compromise.—Compromises are favored by
the law,? and, as we have already seen, a valid compromise is
binding upon the parties. It is regarded as finally adjusting
all matters growing out of the transaction to which it relates,
unless it clearly appears that it is merely conditional or that
part of the transaction was not intended to be included in the
settlement.4 Thus, it has even been held that a settlement of
all damages sustained. by the goring of a horse by a bull isa
bar to an action for the subsequent death of the horse from
such injury, although the possibility that the injury might re-
sult in his death was not considered when the compromise was
made.® So, where a voluntary settlement of accounts is made
it will be presumed that all proper items were included, and, in
the absence of fraud or mistake of some kind, this presump-
tion is generally conclusive.6 And a final settlement and re-

1 Wallace v. Small, 1 Moody & M.
446; Thomson v. Austen, 2 Dowl. &
R. 358. Compare White v. Old Do-
minion Co., 102 N. Y. 660.

2 Brice v. Bauer, 108 N. Y. 428, 8. C.
2 Am. St. R. 454. See, also, Hatcher
v. Bowen, 74 Ga. 840.

8 Shank v. Shoemaker, 18 N. Y. 489;

Wells v. Neff, 14 Ore. 66; Steele v.

White, 2 Paige (N. Y.), 478; Cornell
». Masten, 35 Barb. (N. Y.) 157; Penn
». Baltimore, 1 Ves. Sr. 444; Royal

Society v. Campbell, 13 L. R. A. 601,
and note.

*Caperton v. Caperton, 36 W. Va.
635, 8. C.15 8. E. R. 149. See, also,
Mateer v. Missouri Pacific R. R. Co.,
105 Mo. 320, 8. C. 16 S. W. R. 839;
Howland v. Rooke, 158 Mass. 590, 8.
C. 33 N. E, R. 652.

5 Currier v. Bilger, 149 Pa, St. 109,
8. C. 24 Atl. R. 168.

6 Linville v. State, 180 Ind. 210, 8. C.
29 N. E. R. 1129. :
‘

570 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 452

lease may preclude a recovery upon the claim against the
party with whom the compromise was made, although the
person who executed it may have mistakenly supposed that he
could hold some one else upon the claim,! or may afterwards
have obtained no benefit from that which he received in settle-
ment because of something entirely outside of any matter in
dispute and not within the control of either party.? A settle-
ment pending litigation has also been held a sufficient consid-
eration for an agreement to be performed in the future relating
to the subject-matter of the litigation.? But it has been held
that the mere fact of a settlement between a debtor and cred-
itor, which may have included the amount of a secured claim,
will not justify a finding that such claim was satisfied and dis-
charged.* So, an agreement reciting that all claims ‘‘pertain-
ing to the taking of certain corn’’ were settled in full was held
not to include a judgment in an action for malicious prosecu-
tion obtained by one of the parties against the other who had
charged him with the larceny of such corn. And where an
action in which a counter-claim had been filed was discontin-
ued by agreement and no reference was. made to the counter-
claim it was held that the latter was not discharged by the
settlement of, the plaintiff’s cause of action.®

§ 452. Abandonment and rescission.—It has been held that
an abandonment of a compromise will be presumed where the
debtor delays for an unreasonable time to comply with the
terms of the settlement and does acts in conflict with his agree-
ment.’ So, it may be abandoned by agreement of both parties,
or one of the parties may rescind it for fraud,® and, in some

' Battle v. McArthur, 49 Fed. R. 715. 5 Yates v. Kinney, 33 Neb. 853, 8. C.
See, also, Coffee v. Emigh, 15 Col. 184, 51 N. W. R. 230.

8. C.10 L. R. A. 125. 6 Clancey v. Losey, 65 Hun (N. Y.),
2? Mackall v. Casilear, 187 U.S. 556, 625.

S. C. 11 Sup. Ct. R. 178. TCitizens’ Bank v. Jorda’s Heirs, 45
3 Robson v. Mississippi, etc., Co.,43 La. Ann. 184, 8. C. 11 So. R. 876.

Fed. R. 364. 8 Town v. Waldo, 62 Vt. 118, 8. C. 20

4Coleman v. Whitney, 62 Vt. 123, S. Atl. R. 325; Berry v. American, etc.,
C.9L.R.A.517. See,also, Hermann Ins. Co., 182 N. Y. 49; Davis v. Gur-
v. Orcutt, 152 Mass. 405, 8.C.25N.E. ney, 38 Ill. App. 520; Anthony ».
R. 735. Boyd, 15 R. I. 495; Home Ins. Co. ».
§ 452 SETTLING CONTROVERSIES OUT OF COURT. 571

cases,on account of mistake.1 But, ‘‘he who seeks equity
must do equity,’’ and if the party seeking to rescind the agree-
ment has received anything thereunder he must return or ten-
der it back. He must also use due diligence after discovering
the fraud. These rules are in accordance with the general

principles governing the doctrine of rescission.*
é

Howard, 111 Ind. 544; S.C. 18 N. E. C.35N. W. R. 814; Hart v. Gould, 62

R. 103. Mich. 262, 8. C. 28 N.W. R. 831. Com-
1Epes v. Williams (Va.), 17 S. E. pare Michigan, etc., Co. v. Naugle, 130
R. 235. Ind. 79, S.C. 29 N. E. R.393; Reddick

2Town v. Waldo, 62 Vt. 118, 8. OC. v. Keesling, 129 Ind. 128.
20 Atl. R. 325; Henderson v. Under- 5 Lewless v. Detroit, etc., R. R. Co.,
writers Ass’n, 65 L. T. (N.8.) 732; 62 Mich. 292.
Wells v. Neff, 14 Ore. 66; Pangborn v. *See 21 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law,
Continental Ins. Co. 67 Mich. 683, 8. 24.
CHAPTER XV.

ARBITRATION AND AWARD.

§ 453.
454,
455.

Definition.

Classes of submission.

Importance of discriminating
between a general and a par-
tial submission.

Statutory and common law sub-
missions.

When arbitration is advisable.

When arbitration is inexpe-
dient.

Who may submit.

What may be submitted.

Revocation of submission.

456.

457.
458.

459.
460.
461.

§ 462. Ratification of submission.
463. Specific performance of agree-
ment to submit.

Effect of agreement upon right
to sue.

Who may be arbitrators.

Arbitrators must act together.

Procedure.

The award.

Effect of award.

Enforcement of award.

Impeaching and setting aside
the award.

464,

465.
466.
467.
468.
469.
470.
471.

§ 453. Definition—One of the modes of adjusting a contro-
versy without going into court is by a submission to arbitra-

tion.

According to the common law rule civil controversies

respecting the rights of persons and things may be by mutual’
agreement submitted for investigation to persons chosen by the

parties.!

The agreement by which parties refer a matter in

dispute to a designated person or persons is usually called a
submission,? the person to whom it is referred is called an ar-
bitrator and the decision is called an award.’

1 Finley v. Funk, 35 Kan. 668, S.C.
12 Pac. Rep. 15; Chicago, etc., Co. v.
Stewart, 19 Fed. R. 5; Cox v. Jagger,
2 Cowen, 638; Green v. Ford, 17 Ark.
586; McCracken v. Clarke, 31 Pa. St.
498; Austin v. Snow’s Lessee, 2 Dall.
157; Knight v. Burton, 6 Mod. 231;
Hunter v. Rice, 15 East, 100; Downs
». Cooper, 2 Q. B. 256; Penniman v.
Rodman, 13 Metc. 382; Carey v. Wil-
cox, 6N.H. 177; Akely v. Akely, 16
Vt. 450; Page v. Foster, 7 N. H. 392;
McNear v. Bailey, 18 Me. 251. Crim-
inal cases can not be submitted to ar-

bitration. Hall v. Kimmer, 61 Mich.
269, S. C. 1 Am. St. R. 575; Harring-
ton v. Brown, 9 Allen, 579. Pure ques-
tions of law may be submitted. Ching
v. Ching, 6 Vesey, 282; Wilkinson v.
Page, 1 Hare, 276; Price v. Hollis, 1M.
& 8.105; Steff v. Andrews, 2 Madd. 6.

>In one of the old books, quaint in _
style almost as Izaak Walton’s, it is
said: ‘The submission is the power
given the arbitrators to pronounce
sentence between the parties.’”” The
“Compleat Arbitrator,’’ Section II.

5’ Kyd on Awards, 6. An arbitrator

( 572)
§ 454 ARBITRATION AND AWARD. 573

§ 454. Classes of submission.—According to the old books
a submission may be general, covering the entire matters in
dispute between the parties, or it may be conditional, limiting
the authority of the arbitrators to specific matters; so, too, it
may be absolute and thus confer upon the person selected gen-
eral authority as to methods and the like, or it may be condi-
tional, requiring him to pursue a designated course or act in
a prescribed mode. It seems to us that a better classification
than absolute and conditional is general and partial. A gen-
eral submission may be regarded as one wherein an entire con-
troversy is submitted for decision embracing all incidental
questions, whether such questions be questions of law or of
fact,’ and a partial submission may be deemed to be one in

is clothed with functions of a judicial
nature, since he is empowered to hear
and decide. ‘The first element of a
submission to arbitration is, that it
should show an intention of the par-
ties to be concluded by the decision
of the arbitrator. But a mere agree-
ment between two persons to be con-
cluded by the decision of a third would
not itself constitute that third person
an arbitrator. To give him that char-
acter there must be a difference be-
tween the parties, or his duties must
involve the performance of judicial
functions. Thus, where it is left to a
person to whom the matter is referred
to put a value upon something which
the parties have already agreed shall
be paid for, this is not an arbitration
in the proper sense of the term, but in
reality an appraisement which pre-
vents differences and does not settle
any which have arisen.’””?’ Redman’s
Law of Arbitration, 1. Wethink that
the author from whom we have quoted
conveys a somewhat erroneous impres-
sion' by the illustration he employs.
It is no doubt true that in.a strict sense
a person selected to make a mere val-
uation or appraisement is not an arbi-

trator. He is usually a mere valuer
or appraiser. Garred v. Macey, 10 Mo.
161; Curry v. Lacky, 35 Mo. 389; Ma-
son v. Bridge, 14 Me. 468; McKinney
v. Page, 32 Me. 513; Collins v. Collins,
28 L. J. Ch. 184, S. C. 26 Beav. 306;
Bos v. Helsham, L. R. 2 Exch. 72;
Turner v. Goulden, L. R. 9 C. P. 57;
Garr v. Gomez, 9 Wend. 649; Leeds v.
Burrows, 12 East, 1; Jenkins v. Be-
tham, 15 C. B. 168; Wadsworth v.
Smith, 40 L. J. Q. B. 118, L. R.6Q.
B. 332; Efner v. Shaw, 2 Wend. 567;
Rochester v. Whitehouse, 15 N. H.
468. (But see, Smith v. Boston, etc.,
Co., 36 N. H. 458; Leonard v. House,
15 Ga. 473.) Where, however, there
is an existing controversy and it only
concerns value then, as we believe, the
person chosen to decide the contro-
versy by hearing evidence and mak-
ing a decision isan arbitrator. In re
Hopper, 2 L. R. Q. B. 367; Inve Evans,
22 L. T. 501.

1De Long v. Stanton, 9 Johns. 38;
Barker v. Belknap, 39 Vt. 168; Mer-
ritt v. Merritt, 11 Ill. 565; Indiana,
etc., Co. v. Bradly, 7 Ind. 49; Munro
v. Alaire, 2 Caines, 320; Byers v. Van
Deusen, 5 Wend. 268; Sellick v. Ad-
574 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 455

which specific questions are submitted or parts of a contro-
versy referred to arbitration. It is evident that the division
into absolute and conditional is not a logical one, inasmuch as
it does not exhaust the subject to be partitioned and admits of
confusing cross divisions. This is obvious when it is brought
to mind that what the old books call a conditional submission
may be either a conditional general submission or a conditional
partial one, and so, too, a general or a partial submission may
be an absolute one. As the name implies, a conditional sub-
mission is one upon condition or one upon which the award is
to be effective only in the event of the performance of a des-
ignated condition or the happening of a specified contingency.!
Whether a submission is general or partial depends, it is barely
necessary to suggest, upon the terms of the agreement provid-
ing for the arbitration.

§ 455. Importance of discriminating between a general and
a partial submission.—A general submission carries to the ar-
bitrators the principal matter of the controversy submitted and
all necessary incidental questions. A partial submission car-
ries to the persons selected to decide the matters in dispute
only such questions or matters as are designated in the agree-
ment of the parties.? It is important to discriminate between

ams, 15 Johns. 197; Woods »v. Page, 37
Vt. 252; Thrasher v. Haynes, 2 N. H.
429.

1Spence v. Eastern, etc., Co., 7
Dowl. 697; Inhabitants of Boston v.
Brazer, 11 Mass. 447; Merritt v.
Thompson, 27 N. Y. 225.

2 Wyatt v. Lynchburgh, etc., Co., 110
N. Car. 245, 8S. C. 14 8. E. Rep. 683;
Fowler v. Jackson, 86 Ga, 337, 8. C.
12 S. E. R. 811; Simons v. Mills, 80
Cal. 118, S. C. 22 Pac. R. 25; Bryan
v. Jeffreys, 104 N. Car. 242, 8. C.10S.
E. R. 167; Ivesv. Ashelby, 26 Ill. App.
244; New York, etc., Co. v. Schneider,
119 N. Y. 475, 8. C. 24 N. E. Rep. 4;
Adams v. Great North, etc., Co., —
H. of L. Cases, 1891, A. C. 31. See,

generally, Terre Haute, etc., Co. v.
Harris, 126 Ind. 7; Walters v. Hutch-
ins, 29 Ind. 186; Armstrong v. Mas-
ten, 11 Johns. 189; Jessiman v. Havy-
erhill, etc., Co., 1 N. H. 68; Masury
v. Whiton, 111 N. Y. 679, S. C. 18 N.
E. R. 638; Dhrew v. Altoona, 121 Pa.
St. 401, 8. C. 15 Atl. R. 636; Phillips’
Estate, 48 Phila. Legal Int. 232.

5 Dodds v. Hakes, 114 N. Y. 260, S.
C. 21 N. E. R.398; Turnock v. Sartoris,
L. R. 43 Ch. D. 150; Cooke v. Odd
Fellows, etc., Union, 49 Hun, 23, S.
C.17 N. Y.S. R. 490; Knickerbocker,
etc., Co. v. Smith, 147 Pa. St. 248, 8.
C. 23 Atl. R. 563; Doane College v.
Lanham, 26 Neb. 421, S. C. 42 N.
W. R. 405; Leslie v. Leslie (N. J.),
§ 456 ‘ARBITRATION AND AWARD. 575

the two classes of submission for the reason that it is frequently
advisable to reserve questions of law for the court, and for the
further reason that it is often expedient to submit-some of the
specific questions in the case to the regular tribunals of the
law. When we come to consider the effect of an award we
shall show other reasons why discrimination is of importance.
Parties may stipulate what matters shall be submitted and thus
limit the authority of the arbitrators in all cases where the
matter or question is susceptible of division,’ so that it is im-
portant to limit where it is the purpose to place before the
arbitrators a part only of a controversy. Wecan see no reason
why parties may not by agreement submit. independent specific
questions to arbitration in cases where severance can be effected,
since the severance is by contract, and in the first instance dis-
tinct and independent contracts might have been made in cases

where the subject was one of a divisible character.?

§ 456. ‘Statutory and common law submissions.—In many
of the States the statute provides what cases may be submitted

8.C.24 Atl. R. 1029; King Iron Bridge
Co. v. St. Louis, 43 Fed. R. 768.

1 Hurst v. Litchfield, 39 N. Y. 377;
Hamilton v. Home Ins. Co., 187 U. §.
870. But see, as to effect of a statu-
tory provision, Thygerson v. Whitbeck,
5 Utah, 406, S. C. 16 Pac. R. 403. See,
also, as indicating a different view
from that taken in the text, the article
entitled-“‘Arbitration and Award as a
Condition Precedent,’’ 16 Albany Law
J., 464.

2In Johnson v. Noble, 13 N. H.. 286,
S. C. 38 Am. Dec. 485, the court said:
“And it is a necessary result from the
power to submit generally, that they
have also the power and right to limit
the authority conferred, and its exer-
cise, in such manner as may be deemed
expedient. If, however, no reserva-
tion is made in the agreement of sub-
mission the parties are presumed to
agree that every consideration, both

of law and fact, which can affect the
final and ultimate decision of the
cause, is included in the authority of
the referees and is matter proper for
their determination. 2 Story’s Eq.,
section 1454; Kleine v. Catara, 2 Gall.
61; Walker v. Sanborn, 3,Greenl. 288.
Under a general submission, ‘there-
fore—by which I mean a submission
containing no express reservation or
limitation upon the authority con-
ferred—both the law and fact are sub-
mitted to the judgment of the arbitra-
tors, or referees, for their considera-
tion and decision. Anditis very well
settled that, in such case, arbitrators
are not restricted by the submission to
decide according to strict principles of
law, but their decision will be in con-

‘formity with the submission, although

it may be made in disregard of the law
and contrary thereto.”
576 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 456

to arbitration and prescribes the mode of procedure, and in
some of the States the submission to arbitration is almost en-
tirely statutory. As itis not our purpose to consider specific
statutes upon any subject, and as we propose to give only a
general outline of the subject of arbitration and award, we shall
not do more than refer in a general way to the statutes and
their effect. It is held by many of the courts that where the
statute does not expressly or by necessary implication forbid
resort to the common law mode of arbitration and award it
may be pursued and the statutory proceeding will be regarded
as merely cumulative. Where the two systems are recognized
the parties may elect under which of the two they will proceed.
If a party seeks the benefit of the statutory arbitration he should
proceed under the statute, for a common law award is not en-
forceable as a statutory one.” If the submission is valid under
the common law rule it may be upheld even though the parties
undertook to proceed under the statute but failed because of a

neglect to comply with its requirements.*

'Titus v. Scantling, 4 Blackf. 89;
Carson v. Earlywine, 14 Ind. 256;
Miller v. Goodwine, 29 Ind. 46; For-
queron v. Van Meter, 9 Ind. 270;
Hawes v. Combs, 34 Ind. 455; Smith
v. Kirkpatrick, 58 Ind. 254; Byard v.
Harkrider, 108 Ind. 376; Kelley v. Ad-
ams, 120 Ind. 340; Wells v. Lain, 15
Wend. 99; Logsdon v. Roberts, 3
Monr. 255; Cverly v. Overly, 1 Mete.
(Ky.) 117; Byrd v. Odem, 9 Ala. 755;
Lamar v. Nicholson, 7 Porter (Ala.),
158; Conger v. Dean, 3 Clarke (Iowa),
463; Fink v. Fink, 8 Clarke (Iowa),
' 818; Howard v. Sexton, 4 N. Y. 157;

Diedrick v. Richley, 2 Hill, 271, note;
Inre Kreiss (Cal.), 8. C. 28 Pac. R.
- 808; Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Bon-
ner, etc., Co.,44 Fed. R. 151. The de-
cisions of the New York Court of Ap-
peals are in apparent conflict upon this

question. Bulson v. Lohnes, 29 N.Y.

291; Burnside v. Whitney, 21 N.Y. 148.

See, generally, Brown v. Kincaid,

Where the statute

Wright (Ohio), 37; Wilkes v. Cotter,
28 Ark. 519; Eisenmeyer v. Sauter, 77
Til. 515.

? Conger v. Dean, 3 Clarke (Iowa),
463; Foust v. Hastings, 66 Iowa, 522;
Fink v. Fink, 8 Iowa, 313; Love v.
Burns, 35 Ia. 150; Deerfield v. Arms,
20 Pick. 480, 8. C. 832 Am. Dec. 228;
Pierce v. Kirby, 21 Wis. 124; Williams
v. Walton, 9 Cal. 142; Barney v.
Flower, 27 Minn. 403; Davis v. Ber-
ger, 54 Mich. 652; Hamilton v Ham-
ilton, 27 Ill. 158; Price v. Byne, 57
Ga. 176; Boots v. Canine, 94 Ind. 408;
Francis v. Ames, 14 Ind. 251; Estep
v. Larsh, 16 Ind. 82; Healy v. Isaacs,
73 Ind. 226; Hawes v. Combs, 34 Ind.
455; Boots v. Canine, 58 Ind. 450;
Wright v. Raddin, 100 Mass. 319;
Smith v. Pollock, 2 Cal. 92; Hold-
ridge v. Stowell, 39 Minn. 360, 8. C.
40 N. W. R. 259.

3 Thornton v. McCormick, 75 Ia. 285;
McKinnis v. Freeman, 38 Iowa, 364;
O77

§ 457 AND AWARD.

ARBITRATION

provides an exclusive mode of procedure or provides what
matters may be submitted to arbitration, and in so providing
abrogates the common law, there can, of course, be only a
statutory system, and only such matters can be submitted as
the statute prescribes.!

§ 457. When arbitration is advisable—Most controversies
are better and more justly settled by a court or jury than by
persons selected by the parties. It is the experience of most
lawyers that arbitration is generally an unsatisfactory mode of
settling legal controversies. There are, however, cases where
arbitration is expedient and satisfactory. Where the opposing
parties are intelligent and active business men and the dispute
concerns purely business matters it is often expedient to sub-
mit to arbitration provided always that intelligent men actively
engaged in business can be secured as arbitrators. Cases
where the controversy involves long and complicated accounts
are better considered and determined by a competent arbitrator
than by a jury or by a busy judge,” but in such cases one com-
petent referee or arbitrator is usually better than two or more.
Corporations as a rule profit by a submission to arbitration
since jurors are ordinarily impressed with the belief that they
are more powerful than individuals, and in most cases are
prejudiced against them. There is, too, a feeling,—and one
very frequently manifested,—that a corporation is a sort of
unreal organization and that in punishing it or in mulcting it
in damages a private individual may be benefited without
harm to any natural person. One who believes that justice
will entitle him to succeed but fears that a harsh statutory pro-

Burroughs v. David, 7 Iowa, 154; Gal- ‘I was once,’’ he writes, ‘‘in the Court

loway v. Gibson, 51 Mich. 135; Wil-
lingham v. Harrell, 36 Ala. 583; Tyler
». Dyer, 13 Me. 41; Tynan ». Tate, 3
Neb. 388; Low'v. Nolte, 16 Ill. 475;
Myers v. Easterwood, 60 Texas, 107;
Lusk v. Clayton, 70 N. Car. 184.

1 McClendon v. Kemp, 18 La. Ann.
162.

2 Hawkshead gives us this anecdote,

37

of King’s Bench, when one of the
counsel was making a motion upon
an affidavit filled with matters of ac-
count and calculation of figures which
he was detailing to the judges who
rose, and one of them said (interrupt-
ing him), ‘This court does not sit here
as accountants,’ and they retired.”’
Essay on Wills, 335.
578 THE WORK OUT .OF COURT. § 457

vision or strict rule of law may operate against him is wise to
secure, if he can, a submission to arbitration, for arbitrators
are inclined to be governed by what they consider the broad
principles of natural justice, rather than abstract rules of law.
The law recognizes the right of arbitrators to act, within lim-
its, upon their conceptions of justice and excuses a departure
from rigid technical or arbitrary rules... Where the contro-
versy concerns an article of property, as a house or a patented
machine, and the dispute turns upon the question whether in
constructing it the contract has been complied with, it is often
expedient to submit to arbitration, provided competent persons,
skilled in the particular trade which the controversy concerns,
can be procured to act as arbitrators, since such persons upon
view can form a more accurate and just judgment than judges
or jurors can form upon the testimony of witnesses. It has been
said, however, that ‘‘in building contracts the owner generally
profits and the mechanic loses by arbitration, for jurors are for
giving the workman his hire.’’ It is true, as every one will
readily conclude on reflection, that much depends upon the
situation of the parties and that in the majority of cases where
arbitration is expedient for the one party it is inexpedient for
the other, but there are, nevertheless, cases where it is better
for both parties to call in arbitrators to settle their dispute.”

1“And it is expected of arbitrators
that they will frame their decision of
matters submitted to them on broad
views of justice which may sometimes
deviate from the strict rules of law.”
Brush v. Fisher, 70 Mich. 469, 8. C.14
Am. St. R.510. See, generally, John-
son v. Noble, 13 N. H. 286, S. C. 38
Am. Dec. 485; Bigelow v. Newell, 10
Pick. 848; Greenough v. Rolfe, 4 N.
H. 357; Brown v. Clay, 31 Me. 518;
Spear v. Stacy, 26 Vt. 61; Price v.
Brown, 98 N.Y. 388; Sabin v. Angell,
44 Vt. 523; Ruckman v. Ransom, 23
N. J. Eq. 118; Burchell v. Marsh, 17
How. (U. S.) 344; Adams v. Ringo, 79
Ky.211; Memphis, etc.,Co. v. Scruggs,

50 Miss. 284; Mathews v. Miller, 25
W. Va. 817.

? Mr. Chitty, whose advice is always
valuable, says, ‘‘Other cases fit to be
referred, are frequently. those where
it would be impracticable or difficult
to collect or keep together several
witnesses, so as to attend upon a fixed
day at nist prius; or of disputes be-
tween neighbors, respecting supposed
nuisances by building or otherwise, to
ancient rights or water-courses, ways
or other property, where not only
the rights of the parties may be re-
ferred, and the damages, but also the
question whether, upon any and what
terms, and subject to what modifica-
§ 458 ARBITRATION AND AWARD. 579

§ 458. When arbitration is inexpedient.—As we said in the
preceding paragraph, what is expedient for the one party is
generally inexpedient for his adversary. Thus, if the one
party fears that his witnesses because of timidity, or by reason
of other causes, will not acquit themselves well in open court
where all is public, he will prefer arbitration, since the pro-
ceedings are more privately and quietly conducted; on the
other hand, the party who believes that a rigid cross-examina-
tion will break down the witnesses of his adversary and not
impair the testimony of his own will prefer a trial in open
court. Ifa party desires that the rules of evidence be strictly
observed he will not submit his case to arbitration, for arbi-
trators are not bound to strictly obey the rules of evidence,!
and that they are generally quick to disregard them every
lawyer of experience knows. It is possible that theoretically
it may be true that the arbitrators are under a duty to adhere
generally, although not strictly, to the rules of evidence, but
practically they are at liberty to do what they choose,” provided

tions, the alleged nuisance shall or not
be continued. So, as an award upon
a title to land is binding on all the
parties, it would be proper in questions
of right to small property to refer the
matter to some competent person.
So, subjects of delicacy, unfit to be ex-
posed to public investigation, espe-
cially between near relations, should
be referred, unless some injury to
character has been occasioned.’ 2
Chitty’s General Practice, 75.

1 Some of the cases carry the doctrine
to great and unreasonable lengths.
Thus, in one case it was said: ‘‘We
think there is no doubt that the refer-
ees might receive the testimony of a
legally incompetent. witness if in their
judgment the justice of the case re-
quired it.” fuller v. Wheelock, 10
Pick. 135. ‘This is, perhaps, a stronger
statement of the abstract rule than
the authorities warrant, but the de-
cided cases go very far in the same

direction. Boston Water Power Co.
v. Gray, 6 Metc. (Mass.) 181; Hooper
v. Taylor, 39 Me. 224; Maynard v.
Frederick, 7 Cush. 247; Eyre’s Execu-
tor, v. Fennimore, 2 Penning. 932;
Campbell v. Western, 3 Paige, 124;
Pike v..Gage, 9 Foster (N. H.), 461;
Bassett v. Cunningham, 9 Gratt. 684;
McCrae v. Robeson, 2 Murph. (N.
Car.) 127;° Chesley v. Chesley, 10 N.
H. 827; Shaifer v, Baker, 38 Ga. 135;
Hollingsworth v. Leiper, 1 Dall. 161;
Askew v. Kennedy, 1 Baily (S. Car.),
46; Fennimore v. Childs, 1 Halst. (N.
J.) 386.

2An English author says: ‘‘Ques-
tions relating to the admissibility of
evidence continually arise in the
course of the proceedings in the refer-
ence and call for the arbitrator’s de-
cision. In determining these he is
not at liberty to follow any arbitrary
principle of his own, but he is bound
by the same rules of evidence as gov-
580 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 458

that their conduct in ruling on the evidence is not so outra-
geous or so flagrantly wrong as to authorize the conclusion that
they acted corruptly or were unduly influenced by bias or
prejudice.1 Our reason for saying that practically they can
do as they please, is, that if they err, be it ever so grievously,
there is, even under the English rule quoted from the author
referred to in the note, no power of review.” It is evident
from what has been said that it would be a mistake for a party who
desires to make errors in the admission or exclusion of evidence
available to agree to an ordinary submission to arbitration.
The rule that arbitrators may decide according to their own
broad views of justice without due regard to the strict rules of
law makes it inexpedient and impolitic for a party who expects
to stand upon a strict legal right to leave to arbitrators the de-
cision of his case. Thus, one who expects to stand upon the
statute of frauds where the equities press strongly against him
would be unwise to refer the case to arbitrators, and so, too,
would a party who, under like circumstances, relies upon the
statute of limitations. Where a party desires to have ques-
tions of law fully presented for review it is always safer to try
by the court or jury and secure a direct ruling upon each ma-
terial question by special findings, instructions, special ver-
dicts or the like, and this is especially true in cases where a
forfeiture, a hard bargain, or similar matters are relied upon
as the cause of action or defense. It is injudicious to refer to
arbitration where the rights of sureties, replevin bail, or per-
sons standing in similar positions, are involved unless such

ern the superior courts.’’ Russell on
the Power and Duty of an Arbitrator
(7th Eng. ed.), 199. This is a correct
statement of what an arbitrator ought
to do, at least as arule, but it is doubt-
ful if it is a corréct statement of what
he is bound to do even under the En-
glish rule. Hagger v. Baker, 14M. &
W. 9.

1 As we have elsewhere said we are
speaking of common law arbitrations,
not of statutory ones, and we may add

that we speak of arbitrations so far
only as it is necessary in considering
matters of general practice. We have
treated at another place of impeaching
awards. ;

+Eastern, etc., Co. v. Robertson, 6
Man. & G.38; Armstrong. Marshall,
4 Dowl. 593; Perriman v. Steggall, 9
Bing. 679; Campbell v. Twemlow, 1
Price, 81; Musselbrook v. Dunkin, 9
Bing. 605; Slowman v. Wiggins, 6 C.
B. A. 276.
ARBITRATION AND AWARD.

t
persons fully consent or agree to the submission or are parties
to it.

§ 459 58L

§ 459. Who may submit.—As a general rule, any person of
legal capacity to contract may submit to arbitration; but he
must have such control over the subject-matter or his relations
thereto must be such that he can carry out the award when
made. The rule applies to corporations as well as natural
persons.” The submission by an infant of a controversy to
arbitration is generally regarded as voidable,? although it is
sometimes said to be void. Within the limitation stated in
our general rule attorneys and agents generally may submit a
matter to arbitration so as to bind their principal when they
have either express or implied authority so to do;* but, ordi-
narily, no such authority will be implied from the mere exis-
tence of ageneralagency.’ In the case of an attorney, however,
the submission of a pénding controversy to arbitration may well
be presumed to be within the scope of his employment to pros-

1Bean v. Farnam, 6 Pick. (Mass.) CO. 4 Am. Dec. 88; Jones v. Phoenix

272; Brady v. Mayor, 1’Barb. (N. Y.)
584; Wyatt v. Benson, 23 Barb. (N.
Y.) 327.

2 Brady v. Mayor, 1 Barb. (N. Y.)
584; Alexandria Canal Co. v. Swann,
5 How. (U. 8.) 83; Madison Ins. Co.
v. Griffin, 3 Ind. 277; Wood v. Au-
burn, etc., R. R. Co.,8 N. Y. 160;
Proprietors v. Frye, 5 Greenl. (Me.)
38; City of Shawneetown v. Baker, 85
Ill. 563; Tuscaloosa Bridge v. Jemi-
son, 33 Ala. 476; Kane v. Fond du
Lac, 40 Wis. 495; Dix v. Town, 19 Vt.
262; Remington v. Harrison Co., 12
Bush. (Ky.) 148; District Tp. v. Ran-
kin, 70 Ia. 65, 29 N. W. R. 806; State
v. Ward, 9 Heisk. (Tenn.) 100; Mem-
phis, etc., R. R. Co. v. Scruggs, 50
Miss. 284. Compare City of Somer-
ville v. Dickerman, 127 Mass. 272;
McCann v.-Com’rs, 9 Neb. 324.

3 Britton v. Williams, 6 Munf. (Va.)
453; Baker v. Lovett, 6 Mass. 78, S.

Bank, 8N. Y. 228; Barnaby v. Bar-
naby, 1 Pick. (Mass.) 221. See and
compare Godfrey v. Wade, 6 Moore,
488; Evans v. Cogan, 2 P. Wms. 450;
Handy v. Cobb, 44 Miss. 699. It has
been held that those who have capac-
ity can not object that the submission
was not binding because some of the
parties were infants. Fortune v. Kil-
lebrew (Texas), 21S. W. R. 986.

* Buckland v. Conway, 16 Mass. 396;
Schoff v. Bloomfield, 8 Vt. 472; Wilks
v. Back, 2 East, 142; Henley v. Sofer,
8 Barn. & C. 16; Sargeant v. Clark,
108 Pa. St. 588; McElreath v. Middle-
ton, 89 Ga. 83, 8. C. 148. E. R. 906.

5 Huber v. Zimmerman, 21 Ala. 488,
S. C. 56 Am. Dec. 255; Michigan Cen-
tral R. R. Co. v. Gougar, 55 Tl. 503;
Trout v. Emmons, 29 Il]. 433, 8. C. 81
Am. Dec. 326; McPherson v. Cox, 86
N. Y. 472; Cox v. Fay, 54 Vt. 446.

,
582 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 459

ecute or defend the action in any legal and customary mode,
and it is therefore generally held that the right to submit a
pending action to arbitration, at least in open court, will be
implied from his employment.! But he can not change the
terms of a submission made by his client without the latter’s
consent.” Guardians*® and executors or administrators’ gen-
erally have the power by virtue of their office to submit matters
respecting the estate to arbitration. So have trustees, in some
cases.° And it has also been held that the common council of
a city or the selectmen of a town or county have. the same
power.® One partner has no authority to bind his co-partners
by the submission of a partnership matter to arbitration, with-
out their consent.’ But the consent of the other partners may

1 McElreath v. Middleton, 89 Ga. 83,
8. C.14 8. E. Rep. 906; Buckland v.
Conway, 16 Mass. 396; Morris v.
Grier, 76 N. Car. 410; Bingham »v.
Guthrie, 19 Pa. St. 418; Brooks v. New
Durham, 55 N. H. 559; Jones v. Hor-
sey, 4 Md. 306, S. C.59 Am. Dec. 81;
Lee v. Grimes, 4 Col. 185; Beverly v.
Stephens, 17 Ala. 701; Smith v. Bos-
sard, 2 McCord’s Ch. (So. Car.) 406;
Holker v. Parker, 7 Cranch (U. §.),
436; Smith v. Troup, 7 Com. B. 757;
Banfill v. Leigh, 8T.R. 571. But the
right to make such a submission in
pais, outside of court, is denied by
some of the courts. McGinnis». Cur-
ry, 13 W. Va. 29; Daniels v. City of
New London, 58 Conn. 156, 8. C. 7 L.
R. A. 563; Markley v. Amos, 8 Rich.
L. (So. Car.) 468; Scarborough v. Rey-
nolds, 12 Ala. 252.

2 Daniels v. City of New London, 58
Conn. 156, 8. C.7L. R. A. 563; Jen-
kins v. Gillespie, 10 Smed. & M.
(Miss.) 31, 8. C. 48 Am. Dec. 732.

5 Weed v. Ellis, 3 Caines (N. Y.),
253; Strong v. Beroujon, 18 Ala. 168;
Weston v. Stuart, 11 Me. 326; Hutch-
ins v. Johnson, 12 Conn. 376, 8. C. 30
Am. Dec. 622; McComb »v. Turner, 14
Smed. & M. 119; Smith v. Kirkpat-

rick, 58 Ind. 254. But not a mere
guardian ad litem. Fort v. Battle, 13
Smedes & M. 133; Hannum v. Wal-
lace, 9 Humph. (Tenn.) 129.

*Wood v. Tunnicliff, 74 N. Y. 38;
Kendall v. Bates, 35 Me. 357; Alling
v. Munson, 2 Conn. 691; Yarborough
v. Leggett, 14 Texas, 677; Jones v.
Deyer, 16 Ala. 221; Chadbourn v.
Chadbourn, 9 Allen (Mass.), 173;
Bailey v. Dillworth, 10 Smed. & M.
404, 8. C. 48 Am. Dec. 760. Contra,
Clark v. Hogle, 52 Ill. 427.

° Brower v. Osterhout, 7 Watts. &S.
(Pa.) 344; Isaacs v. Beth Hamedash
Soc., 1 Hilt. 469; Davies v. Ridge, 3
Esp. 101. Compare Thomas v. Leach,
2 Mass. 152.

6 Campbell v. Upton, 113 Mass. 67;
Buckland v. Conway, 16 Mass. 396;
Dix v. Town, 19 Vt. 262; People v.
Supérvisors, 24 Hun (N. Y.), 413;
Hine v. Stephens, 33 Conn. 497, 8. C.
89 Am. Dec. 217. Compare Mann v.
Richardson, 66 Ill. 481; -Furbish v.
Hall, 8 Greenl. (Me.) 315; Town of
Griswold v. North Stonington, 5 Conn.
367.

TTillinghast v. Gilmore, 17 R. I. 418,
22 Atl. R. 942; Buchanan v. Curry, 19
Johns. (N. Y.) 187, 8. C. 10 Am. Dec.
§ 460 ARBITRATION AMD AWARD. 583

be implied from circumstances. One of several joint owners,
or persons jointly interested, can not, ordinarily, bind the others
by a submission to arbitration without special authority. As
to the effect of submissions by married women, or by husband
and wife, much depends upon the statute of the particular ju-
risdiction. Mr. Morse states the general rules upon the subject
as follows: ‘‘The wife may bind herself by her own sole sub-
mission in respect of any property in regard to which she has
the absolute power of disposal and conveyance by her own in-
dependent and individual action; but she may not bind her-
self otherwise than in respect of such property. ‘The husband
may bind the wife to any undertaking, provided that he has
the power to carry out the possible terms of the award without
her joinder or acquiescence; or provided that the law would
enforce such joinder or acquiescence, if it were legally indis-
pensable to the due performance of the award.’’? This state-
ment furnishes a general rule upon the subject, but, as is read-
ily seen, in order to determine the law in any particular juris-
diction, it must be supplemented by a consideration of the local
statute, as the relations of husband and wife and the right of
the wife to enter into contracts have been greatly changed by
legislative enactments of a recent date.

§ 460. What may be submitted.—A claim which is illegal
and absolutely forbidden by statute can not lawfully be made
the subject of arbitration.* It is not necessary, however, that

Y.) 285; Davis v. Berger, 54 Mich.

200; Davis v. Berger, 54 Mich. 652;
652; Russell on Arb., 20.

Jones v. Bailey, 5 Cal. 345; Martin v.

Thrasher, 40 Vt. 460; Karthaus v.
Ferrer, 1 Pet. (U. 8.) 222; Backus v.
Coyne, 35 Mich. 5; Stead v. Salt, 3
Bing. 101. In several States, however,
it is held that one partner may make
a parol submission which will bind
all. Taylor v. Coryell, 12 Serg. & R.
(Pa.) 248; Southard v. Steele, 3 T. B.
. Mon. {Ky.) 435; Hallack v. March, 25
Tll. 48; Wilcox v. Singletary, Wright

- (Ohio), 420.
1 Mackay v. Bloodgood, 9 Johns. (N.

x

? Eastman v. Burleigh, 2 N. H. 484;
Smith v. Smith, 4 Rand. 95; Boyd v.
Magruder, 2 Rob. (Va.) 761. :

3 Morse on Arb. and Award, 26. See,
also, Palmer v. Davis, 28 N. Y. 242;
McComb v. Turner, 14 Smed. & M.
(Miss.) 119; Weston v. Stuart, 11 Me.
826; Miller v. Moore, 7 Serg. & R.
(Pa.) 164; Taylor v. Smith, 93 Mich.
160, 8. C. 52 N. W. R. 1118; Kyd on
Awards, 46, 47.

* Hall v. Kimmer, 61 Mich. 269, 8.
584 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 460

a good cause of action should exist! or that any suit should
actually be pending between the parties.? It is sufficient that
the claim or matter submitted to arbitration is in doubt and
that it is or may become the subject of a controversy between
the parties interested.? Within these limitations almost any
claim or matter in dispute may be submitted to arbitration.
At one time controversies concerning real estate could not be
submitted to arbitration, but even this exception no longer ex-

ists.®

C.1 Am. 8t.R.575; Wyatt v. Benson,
23 Barb. (N. Y.) 327; Harrington v.
Brown, 9 Allen (Mass.), 579.

1Mayo v. Gardner, 4 Jones, 359;
Findly v. Ray, 5 Jones, 125; O’Keson
v. Barclay, 2 Penr. & W. 531; Dilks v.
' Hammond, 86 Ind. 563.

? Titus v. Scantling, 4 Blackf. (Ind.)
89; Brown v. Wheeler, 17 Conn. 345,
S. C. 44 Am. Dec. 550; Robbins v.
Clark, 129 Mass. 145; Lauman 2.
Young, 381 Pa. St. 306.

3 Robbins v. Clark, 129 Mass. 145;
Lauman v. Young, 31 Pa. St. 306;
Findly v. Ray, 5 Jones, 125. But the
matter should be in doubt. Garr v.
Gomez, 9 Wend. (N. Y.) 649; Thayer
v. Bacon, 3 Allen (Mass.), 163, S. C.
80 Am. Dec. 59; Cothran v. Knox, 13
8. Car. 496; Stose v. Heissler, 120 Tl.
433, S. C. 60 Am. R. 563; Atkinson v.
Dailey, 107 Ind. 117; Hale v. Handy,
26 N. H. 206; Kelly v. Crawford, 5
Wall. (U. S.) 785.

‘Davenport v. Fulkerson, 70 Mo.
417; Jones v. Binns, 27 Miss, 373;
Richards v. Holt, 61 Ia. 529 (whether
a place was a nuisance and should be
abated); Cox v. Jagger, 2 Cow. (N.
Y.) 638, 8. C. 14 Am. Dec. 522 (dower
claim); Stout v. Woodward, 71 N. Y.
90; Jones v. Boston Mill Corp., 65
Pick. (Mass.) 148; Page v. Foster, 7
N. H. 892 (questions as to boundary
lines in last three preceding cases) ;

Bowden v. Crow, 2 Texas Civil App.
591, 8. C. 218. W. Rep. 612 (amount
due for improving land); Enright v.
Montauk Fire Ins. Co., 61 Hun (N.
Y.), 625 (amount due on insurance
policy); Fulmore v. McGeorge, 91
Cal. 611, 8. C. 28 Pac. Rep. 92 (part-
nership matters and accounts); Fow-
ler v. Jackson, 86 Ga. 337, 8. C. 12 S.
E.R. 811, and Fitch v. Constantine
Hydraulic Co., 44 Mich. 74 (damages
for overflowing land); McCracken v.
Clark, 31 Pa. St. 498 ; Johnson v. Noble,
13 N. H. 286, 8. C. 38 Am. Dec. 485
(question of law) ; Knoche v. Railroad
Co., 34 Fed. R. 471; McBride v. Ha-
gan, 1 Wend. (N. Y.) 326.

5 Cox v. Jagger, 2 Cow. (N. Y.) 638,
8. C. 14 Am. Dec. 522; Blair v. Wal-
lace, 21 Cal. 317; Penniman v. Rod-
man, 13 Metc. (Mass.) 382; Munro v.
Allaire, 2 Caines (N. Y.), 320; Shack-
elford v. Purket, 2 A. K. Marsh (Ky.),
435, S. C. 12 Am. Dec. 422; Davis v.
Havard, 15 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 165, 8.C.
16 Am. Dec. 537. See, however, as to
oral agreement to arbitrate concern-
ing real estate. Fort v. Allen, 110 N.
Car. 183, 8. C. 14 S. E. R. 685; Stark
v. Cannady, 3 Litt. (Ky.) 399, 8. C. 14
Am. Dec. 76. The title to land can
not be determined by arbitration un-
der the Michigan statute. Lang v.
Salliotte, 7 L. R. A. 720.
§ 461 ARBITRATION AND AWARD. 585

§ 461. Revocation of submission.—A voluntary submission,
not under a statute or rule of court, may be revoked by either
party at any time before the award is made.! This, it seems,
is true even where it is expressly stipulated in the agreement
to submit to arbitration that it shall be irrevocable.2 And
where no final award had been rendered, it was held in a re-
cent case that either party might revoke the submission, al-
though an interlocutory determination as to some of the items
submitted to the arbitrators had already been made.* But af-
ter notice of a final award it is too late to revoke the submis-
sion. No particular form of revocation is necessary, but it
must be absolute and unconditional.? It should conform to
the submission and be of the same character, that is, if the
submission is under seal or in writing the revocation should
also be under seal or in writing, but if the submission is verbal

the revocation may also be oral.®

1 Jones v. Harris, 59 Miss. 214; Cole-
man v. Grubb, 23 Pa. St. 393; People
v. Nash, 111 N. Y. 310, 8. C.7 Am. St.
R. 747; Dilks v. Hammond, 86 Ind.

563; Seely v. Pelton, 63 Ill. 101; Davis’

». Maxwell, 27 Ga. 368; Marsh v.
Packer, 20 Vt. 198; Tyson v. Robin-
son, 3 Ired. (N. Car.) 333; Peters v.
Craig, 6 Dana (Ky.), 307; Keyes v.
Fulton, 42 Vt. 159. Compare McGee-
hen v. Duffield, 5 Pa. St. 497; Williams
v. Danziger, 91 Pa. St. 232; Bank v.
Widner, 11 Paige (N. Y.), 529, 8. C.
43 Am. Dec. 768. Where several on
one side make a joint submission it
seems that the revocation must be by
all. Robertson v. McNiel, 12 Wend.
(N. Y.) 578; Brown v. Leavitt, 26 Me.
251; Greason v. Keteltas, 17 N. Y. 491.

2 Tobey v. County of Bristol, 3 Story
(U. S.), 800; Power v. Power, 7 Watts
(Pa.), 205; Vynior’s Case, 8 Coke,
162.° That which is revocable in its
nature can not be made irrevocable
by an executory agreement. People
v. Nash, 111 N. Y. 310, 8. C. 7 Am. St.
R. 747. But a submission forming

Notice of the revocation

part of an agreement containing other
terms was held irrevocable in a recent
case after such terms had been com-
plied with and executed. McKenna
v. Lyle, 155 Pa. St. 599, S.C. 26 Atl.
R. 777. An agreement that if either
party fails to appear the arbitration
may proceed ex parte does not render
the submission irrevocable. Boston,
etc., Corp. v. Nashua, etc., Corp., 139
Mass. 463, 8. C. 31 N. E. R. 751.

3 Boston, etc., Corp. v. Nashua, etc.,
Corp., 139 Mass. 463, S. C. 31 N. E.R.
751. i

*Coon v. Allen, 156 Mass. 113, S.C.
80 N. E. R. 88; Clement v. Hadlock,
13 N. H.185; Marsh v. Packer, 20 Vt.
198; Tobey v. County of Bristol, 3
Story, 800.

5 Goodwine v. Miller, 32 Ind. 419;
Steere v. Brownell, 113 Ill. 415. It is
sufficient, however, where a written
revocation shows an intention to re-
voke. Frets v. Frets, 1 Cow. (N. Y.)
335. :

® Shroyer v. Bash, 57 Ind. 349; Mc-
Farlane v..Cushman, 21 Wis. 401;
586 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 462

must be given to the arbitrators.|_ Even where there is no ex-
press revocation, it may be implied,” or the law itself may so
operate as to revoke the submission.? Notwithstanding the
fact that a voluntary submission is revocable, one who revokes
it against the consent of the other party is liable in damages
for breach of the contract.‘ Thus far we have been consider-
ing the revocation of voluntary submissions outside of court.
A reference under a rule of court is irrevocable without the
consent of the court,® and in many States a statutory submis-

sion is also irrevocable.®

§ 462. Ratification of submission—An unauthorized sub-
mission may be ratified. Thus, where an agent enters into a

Evans v. Cheek, 3 Hayw. (Tenn.) 42;
Relyea v. Ramsay, 2 Wend. (N. Y.)
602; Van Antwerp v. Stewart, 8 Johns.
(N. Y.) 125; Sutton v. Tyrrell, 10 Vt.
91; Wallis v. Carpenter, 13 Allen
(Mass.), 19.

1 Allen v. Watson, 16 Johns. (N.Y.)
205; Brown v. Leavitt, 26 Me. 251;
Buckwalter v. Russell, 119 Pa. St. 495.

2 Peters v. Craig, 6 Dana (Ky.), 307;
Rollins v. Townsend, 118 Mass. 224;
Allen v. Galpin, 9 Barb. (N. Y.) 246;
Kimball v. Gilman, 60 N. H.54; Paul-
sen v. Manske, 24 Ill. App. 95. Com-
pare Knaus v. Jenkins, 40 N. J. L.
288, S. C. 29 Am. R. 237; Bray v. En-
glish, 1 Conn. 498.

8’Thus, death of one of the parties
may revoke the submission. Mar-
seilles v. Kenton, 17 Pa. St. 238; Dex-
ter v. Young, 40 N. H. 130; Whitfield
v. Whitfield, 8 Ired. L. (N. Car.) 163,
8. C. 47 Am. Dec. 350; McIntire v.
Morris, 14 Wend. (N. Y.) 90. And
so may the death of an arbitrator.
Sutton v. Tyrrell, 10 Vt. 91; Potter v.
Sterrett, 24 Pa. St. 411. But death of
a party or an arbitrator after the
award will not operate as a revoca-
tion. Bash v. Christian, 77 Ind. 290;
Cartledge v. Cutliff, 21 Ga. 1. Insan-

ity of a party may operate as a revoca-
tion. Morse on Arb. and Award, 235.
So may the marriage of a party who is
a feme sole. Sutton v. Tyrrell, 10 Vt.
91; Abbott v. Keith, 11 Vt. 525; Bailey
v. Stewart, 3 Watts. & 8. (Pa.) 560, S.
C. 39 Am. Dec. 50. Or the refusal of
the arbitrator to act. Chapman v.
Seccomb, 36 Me. 102; Brown v.
Welcker, 1 Cold.197; Wilson v. Cross,
7 Watts (Pa.), 495; Crofoot v. Allen,
2 Wend. (N. Y.) 494.

+ *Dexter v. Young, 40 N. H. 130;
Blaisdell v. Blaisdell, 14 N. H. 78;
Brown v. Leavitt, 26 Me. 251; Call v.
Hagar, 69 Me. 521; Pond v. Harris,
118 Mass. 114; Hawley v. Hodge, 7
Vt. 237; Miller v. Junction Canal Co.,
53 Barb. (N. Y.) 590.

5 Haskell v. Whitney, 12 Mass. 47;
Masterson v. Kidwell, 2 Cranch C. C.
669; Tyson v. Robinson, 3 Ired. L. (N.
Car.) 333; Cumberland v. North Yar-
mouth, 4 Greenl. (Me.) 459; Bray v.
English, 1 Conn. 498; Frets v. Frets,
1 Cow. (N. Y.) 335; Dexter v. Young,
40 N. H. 130.

6 Shroyer v. Bash, 57 Ind. 349;. Bash
v. Christian, 84 Ind. 180; Bloomer: v.
Sherman, 5 Paige (N. Y.), 575; Mont-
gomery Co. v. Carey, 1 Ohio St. 463.
§ 463 ARBITRATION AND AWARD. 587

submission without authority, the principal may bind himself
by a subsequent ratification. Appearing before the arbitrators
and taking part in the proceedings without objection will
amount to a ratification.? So, the acceptance of payment or
other fruit of the award will amount to a ratification and estop
the principal from denying that the submission was authorized .*
But it has been held that the principal can not ratify an unau-
thorized submission, after an award in his favor, so as to en-
able him to enforce it against the other party, forto permit him
to do so would give him the right to take all the chances of
success without danger of loss in case of defeat by adopting the
award if in his favor and repudiating it if adverse.*

§ 463. Specific performance of agreement to submit—The
general rule is well settled that specific performance of an agree-
ment to submit to arbitration will not be enforced.® As already
seen, the party refusing to carry out the agreement may be
held liable for damages in an action at law as for breach of
contract,® and this is usually the only remedy of the party ag-
grieved. There are, however, exceptional cases in which equity
will afford relief.?/ Thus, where a lease provided that the lessee
should have the privilege of erecting a house upon the leased
land, and that, atthe end of the term, the lessor should elect

3 Story, 800; Milnes v. Gery, 14-Ves.
Jr. 400; note to Kinney v. Baltimore,

1 Detroit v. Jackson, 1 Doug. (Mich.)
106; Lowenstein v. McIntosh, 37 Barb.

(N. Y.) 251; Isaacs v. Beth Hamedash
Soc., 1 Hilt. 469; Smith v. Sweeny, 35
N.Y. 291.

2 Memphis, etc., R. R. Co. v. Scruggs,
50 Miss. 284. See, also, Seely v. Pel-
ton, 63 Til. 101.

3Furber v. Chamberlain, 29 N. H.
405; Perry v. Mulligan, 58 Ga. 479.

‘Eastman v. Burleigh, 2 N. H. 484.

5 Greason v. Keteltas, 17 N. Y: 491;
Noyes v. Marsh, 123 Mass. 286; St.
Louis v. St. Louis Gas Co., 70 Mo. 69;
‘King v. Howard, 27 Mo. 21; Copper v.
Wells, 1 N. J.Eq.10; Hopkins ». Gil-
man, 22 Wis. 476; Corbin v. Adams,
76 Va. 58; Tobey v. County of Bristol,

etc., Ass’n, 35 W. Va. 385, 8. C. 15 L.
R. A. 142.

6 Ante, § 461. See, also, Livingston’
». Ralli, 5 El. & Bl. 182; Haggart v.
Morgan, 5 N. Y. 422, S.C. 55 Am. Dec.
350; Corbin v. Adams, 76 Va. 58; Ore-
gon, etc., Bank v. American Mortg.
Co., 35 Fed. R. 22.

™Tscheider v. Biddle, 4 Dill. 55;
Orne v. Sullivan, 3 How. (Miss.) 161,
8. C.34 Am. Dec. 74; Black v. Rogers,
75 Mo. 441; Pomeroy Spec. Perform.,
§§ 148-152; Waterman Spec. Perform.,
§ 44; Wood’s Landlord and Tenant,
673.
588 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 464

to renew the lease, or buy the building, or sell the lot at a price
to be fixed by disinterested appraisers, it was held that, the
lessor having failed to elect, the lessee might elect to purchase
the lot, and, upon the refusal of the lessor to join in the refer-
ence to fix the price, the lessee was entitled to equitable relief.’

§ 464. Effect of agreement upon right to sue-—A mere ex-
ecutory agreement to submit a controversy or matter in dispute
to arbitration is not a bar to an action or suit in court.2 A
stipulation in an insurance policy or other contract to submit
any controversy which may arise thereunder to arbitration
will not oust the jurisdiction of the courts.2 But a submission
to arbitration, in order to determine the amount of the loss or
the like, may be made a condition precedent to the institution

1 Coles v. Peck, 96 Ind. 333. To the
same effect, and similar in its facts, is
the case of Tscheider v. Biddle, 4 Dill.
55.

?Laflin v. Railroad Co., 34 Fed. R.
859, and authorities cited in the fol-
lowing notes. The Pennsylvania doc-
trine, as will be seen from an examina-
tion of the case of Commercial Un.,
etc., Co. v. Hocking, 2 Am. St. R. 562,
and other decisions there referred to,
is peculiar.

5 Kinney v. Baltimore, etc., Ass’n,
15 L. R. A. 142, and note; Hamilton
v. Home Ins. Co., 137 U.S. 370, 8. C.
11 Sup. Ct. R. 183; note to Boyd v.
Vanderbilt Ins. Co., 5 Lewis’ Am. R.
R. & Corp. R.6; The Excelsior, 123
U.S. 40; Robinson v. George’s Ins.
Co., 17 Me. 131, 8. C.35 Am. Dec. 239;
Nurney v. Firemen’s Ins. Co., 63
Mich. 633; Leach v. Republic Ins.
Co., 58 N. H. 245; Louisville, etc., R.
R. Co. v. Donnegan, 111 Ind. 179;
Haggart v. Morgan, 5 N. Y. 422, 8. C.
55 Am. Dec. 350; notes to Allegre v.

Maryland Ins. Co., 14 Am. Dec. 296;

Nettleton v. Gridley, 56 Am. Dec. 384,
and Commercial Un. Assurance Co. v.
Hocking, 2 Am. St. R. 562, 566, in all

of which the authorities are collected

_and reviewed. So it is generally held

that mutual benefit societies and the
like can not make their own tribunals
final judges of the claims of benefici-
aries and thus prevent an appeal to
the courts. Bauer v. Sampson Lodge,
102 Ind. 262; Supreme Council v. For.
singer, 125 Ind. 52, S.C. 21 Am. St.
R. 196; Supreme Council v. Garrigus,
104 Ind. 133; Dolan v. Court of Good
Samaritan, 128 Mass. 437; Whitney v.
Nat. Masonic Acc. Ass’n (Minn.), 54
N.W.R. 184; Poultney v. Backman,
10 Abb. N. Cas. (N. Y.) 252; Stephen-
son v. Ins. Co., 54 Me. 70; Home Ins.
Co. v. Morse, 20 Wall. (U. S.) 445.
But compare Anacosta Tribe v. Mur-
back, 13 Md. 91; Osceola Tribe v.
Schmidt, 57 Md. 98; Fritz v. Muck, 62
How. Pr. (N. Y.) 70; Foram v. How-
ard Ben. Ass’n, 4 Pa. St. 519; Van
Poucke v. Netherland, etc., Society
(Mich.), 29 N. W. R. 863. A provis-
ion attempting to entirely oust the
jurisdiction of the courts is said to be
void. German Am. Ins. Co. v. Ether-
ton, 25 Neb. 505; Wood v. Humphrey,
114 Mass. 185; Kistler v. Indianapolis,
etc., R. R. Co., 88 Ind. 460.
§ 464 ARBITRATION AND AWARD. 589

4

of a suit, and where such is the case neither party can success-
fully maintain an action or suit until he has performed the
condition on his part. Such a provision may, however, be
waived by the act of the party otherwise entitled to the benefit
thereof.2~ And where an insurance policy provided for arbi-
tration as to the amount of the loss and gave the company the
right to take the property at the value fixed by the arbitrators,
it was held that the assured, by revoking the submission, to
which he had agreed, and selling the property, forfeited the
policy. As to the effects of the submission of a pending ac-
tion or suit to arbitration, there is a sharp conflict among the
authorities. By some it is held that a general submission op-
erates as a discontinuance of the action, while in others the
contrary is held. The authorities upon both sides of the ques-
tion are collected and reviewed by Mr. Freeman, in a note to

one of the leading cases, in the American Decisions.

1 Delaware, etc.,Canal Co. v. Penna.,
etc., Coal Co., 50 N. Y. 250; Seward
v. Rochester, 109 N. Y. 164; Hamilton
v. Home Ins. Co., 137 U. 8.370; Hutch-
inson v. Liverpool, etc., Ass’n (Mass.),
10 L. R. A. 558; Holmes ». Ricket, 56
Cal. 307, S. C. 38 Am. R.54; Birming-
ham, etc., Ins. Co. v. Pulver, 126 Ill.
329; Gere v. Council Bluffs Ins. Co.,
67 Ia. 272; Chippewa Lumber Co. v.
Pheenix Ins. Co., 80 Mich. 116; note
to German Ins. Co. v. Gray, 2 Lewis’
Am. R. R. & Corp. Cas. 459, 471; note
to Kinney v. Baltimore, etc., Ass’n, 15
L. RB. A. 142, 148; Hood v. Hartshorn,
100 Mass. 119, 8. C.1 Am. St. R. 89;
Berry v. Carter, 19 Kan. 135; Avery
v. Scott, 5 H. L. Cas. 811; Dawson v.
Fitzgerald, L. R.,1 Ex. Div. 257, 8.
C. 3 Cent. L. Jour. 477; Babbage v.
Coulbourn, L. R., 9 Q. B. Div. 235,
237, note. Many other authorities are
collected and reviewed in the elabor-
ate note to Commercial Un., etc., Co.
». Hocking, 2 Am. St. R. 562, 569.
See, also, Lafond v. Deems, 81 N. Y.

508; Chamberlain v. Lincoln, 129
Mass. 70; Harrington v. Working-
men’s Ben. Ass’n, 70 Ga. 340; Mc-
Alees v. Supreme Sitting (Pa.), 13
Atl. R. 755; Supreme Council v. For-
singer, 125 Ind. 52, S.C. 21 Am. St.
R. 196.

? Farnum v. Phenix Ins. Co., 83 Cal.
246, S. C. 2 Lewis’ Am. R. R. & Corp.
R. 72; Bailey v. Aitna Ins. Co., 77
Wis. 336, 8. C.46 N. W.R. 440; Mentz

-v. Armenia Ins. Co., 79 Pa. St. 478, S.

C. 21 Am. R. 80; Smith v. Alker, 102
N. Y. 87; Hutchinson v. Liverpool,
etc., Ins. Co. (Mass.), 10 L. R. A.
558, and note.

3 Morley v. Liverpool, etc., Ins. Co.,
85 Mich. 210, 8. C. 48 N. W. R. 502.

* Nettleton v. Gridley, 56 Am. Dec.
878, 381. See, also, Callinan v. Port
Huron, ete., Ry. Co., 61 Mich. 15, 8.
C. 27 N. W. R. 718; Boyden v. Lamb,
152 Mass. 416, 8. C.‘25 N. E. R. 609;
Draghicevich v. Vulicevich, 76 Cal.
378, S. C. 18 Pac. R. 406.
590 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 465

§ 465. Who may be arbitrators.—It has been said in gen--
eral terms that any person may be an arbitrator, and that
neither natural nor legal disabilities will necessarily dis-
qualify him if he is chosen by the parties with full knowl-
edge of his disability. Arbitrators should, however, be dis-
interested and impartial. If the person chosen as arbitrator
is personally interested in the matter in controversy, related to
one of the parties, or prejudiced in his favor, and this is un-
known to the other party, the latter may object to him as in-
competent as soon as he discovers such fact.2- The objection
should be made at the earliest opportunity. Parties may, if
they choose, select an interested or prejudiced person or a rela-
tive,‘ and if, with knowledge of all the facts, a party fails to
object at the proper time, he will be deemed to have waived
all objections to the competency of the arbitrator.6 A remote
or trifling interest not likely to influence the arbitrator in any

way will not disqualify him.®

1See Evans v. Ives, 15 Phila. (Pa.)
635; Galloway v.Webb, Hardin (Ky.),
318; Russell on Arb., 115; Morse on
Arb. & Award, 99. ;

7 Brown v. Leavitt, 26 Me. 251; Pool
v. Hennessy, 39 Ia. 192, 8. C. 18 Am.
R. 44; Baltimore, etc., Co. v. Canton
Co., 70 Md. 405, 8. 0.17 Atl. R. 394;
Rand v. Redington, 13 N. H. 72;
Stephenson v. Oatman, 3 Lea (Tenn.),
462; Leonard v. Mulry, 93 N. Y. 392;
Baird v. Mayor, 74 N. Y. 382; Connor
». Simpson, 104 Pa. St. 440, 8. C. 7
Atl. R. 161 (partner); Spearman v.
Wilson, 44 Ga. 473; Beattie v. Hilli-
ard, 55 N. H. 428; Bowen »v. Steere, 6
R. I. 251; Wheeling Gas Co. v. City
of Wheeling, 5 W.Va. 448; In re Bliss,
39 Hun (N. Y.), 594; Bash v. Chris-
tian, 77 Ind. 290; In re Baring Broth-
ers & Co., 61 L. J. Q. B. 704.

3 Robb v. Brachman, 38 Ohio St.
423; Combs v. Wyckoff, 1 Caines (N.
Y.), 147.

‘Strong v. Strong, 9 Cush. (Mass.)

560; Howard v. Pensacola, etc., R. R.
Co., 24 Fla. 560, S. C.5 So. R. 356;
Morgan v. Birnie,9 Bing.672 ; Johnston
v. Cheape, 5 Dow P.C. 247; Williams
v. Chicago, etc., R. R. Co., 112 Mo. 463,
8. C. 208. W. R. 631; 2 Chitty’s Gen.
Pr. 83. ‘

°Fox v. Hazelton, 10 Pick. (Mass.)
275; Bell v. Vernooy, 18 Hun (N.Y.),
125; Wheeling Gas Co. v. City of
Wheeling, 5 W. Va. 448; Dougherty
v. McWhorter, 7 Yerg. (Tenn.) 239;
Monongahela, etc., Co. v. Fenlon, 4
Watts & S. (Pa.) 205; Davis v. For-
shee, 34 Ala. 107; Perry v. Moore, 2
E. D. Smith (N. Y.), 32 (knowledge
of attorney held knowledge of party).

®Fisher v. Towner, 14 Conn. 26;
Wallis v. Carpenter, 13 Allen (Mass.),
19; Bullman v. North British, etc., Co.,
159 Mass.118, 8.C. 34N. E. R. 169; Leo-
minster v. Fitchburg, etc., R. R. Co., 7
Allen (Mass.), 38; Goodrich v. Hul-
bert, 123 Mass. 190, S. C. 25 Am.
R. 60; Cheney v. Martin, 127 Mass.
§ 466

ARBITRATION AND AWARD. 591

§ 466. Arbitrators must act together—Unless it is other-
wise provided all the arbitrators to whom a private controversy
is submitted must act together.1. No arbitrator has any au-
thority to delegate his power and duty as such or appoint a
substitute; he must act in person.? But merely ministerial
duties may generally be delegated.* And the substitution of
an arbitrator, in case one of those first chosen refuses to act,
may be provided for in the submission. The arbitrators
should act together throughout all the proceedings, but if they
all agree upon the final award the fact that they were not
unanimous in their opinions upon every incidental question

that arose prior to the award is immaterial.5

If the award is

silent as to whether they all met and acted together throughout
the proceedings it will nevertheless be presumed that they did

so.§

304; Kane v. Fond du Lac, 40 Wis.
495 ; Chicago, etc., R. R. Co. v. Hughes,
28 Mich. 186. But see Woodworth v.
McGovern, 52 Vt. 318; Beddow v.
Beddow, L. R., 9 Ch. Div. 89.
Green v. Miller, 6 Johns. (N. Y.)
39, S.C. 5 Am. Dec. 184; Moore v.
Ewing, Coxe (N. J.), 144, 8.C.1 Am.
Dec. 195; Hoffman v. Hoffman, 26 N.
J. L. 175; Patterson v. Leavitt, 4
Conn. 50, 8. C. 10 Am. Dec. 98; Net-
tleton v. Gridley, 21 Conn. 531, 8. C.
56 Am. Dec. 378; Vessel Owners’,
etc., Co. v. Taylor, 126 Ill. 250, 8. C.
18 N. E. R. 663; Smith v. Smith, 28
Ill. 56; McCrary v. Harrison, 36 Ala.
577; Byard v. Harkrider, 108 Ind. 376;
Jeffersonville, etc., Co. v. Mounts, 7
Ind. 669; Franklin, etc., Co. v. Pratt,
101 Mass. 359; Doherty v. Doherty,
148 Mass. 367, 8. C.19 N. E. R. 352;
Hills v. Home Ins. Co., 129 Mass. 345;
Leavitt v. Windsor Land, etc., Co., 54
Fed. R. 489; Godfrey v. Knodle, 44 Ill.

An award by a majority may be provided for in the sub-

App. 638; Oakley v. Anderson, 93 N.
Car. 108; Kent v. French, 76 Ia. 187,
8. C. 40 N. W. R. 713.

? Little v. Newton, 9 Dowl. P. C. 487;
Kingston v. Kincaid, 1 Wash. (U. 8.)
448; Tomlin v. Fordwich, 5 Ad. & E.
147; Lingood v. Eade, 2 Atk. 501.
See, also, Brown v. Bellows, 4 Pick.
(Mass.) 179.

3Thorp v. Cole, 2 C. M. & R. 367;
Harvey v. Shelton, 7 Beav. 455; Moore -
v. Barnett, 17 Ind. 349.

* Binsse v. Wood, 37 N. Y. 526; Pot-
ter v. Sterrett, 24 Pa. St. 411 (choice
to be made by parties).

5 Bean v. Wendell, 22 N. H. 582;
Campbell v. Western, 3 Paige (N. Y.),
124; Jackson v. Gager, 5 Cow. (N.Y.)
383. ‘

® Yates v. Russell, 17 Johns. (N. Y.)
461; Maynard v. Frederick, 7 Cush. '
(Mass.) 247; Ackley v. Finch, 7 Cow.
(N. Y.) 290. Compare Blin v. Hay, 2
Tyler (Vt.), 304, S.C. 4 Am. Dec. 738,
592 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 467

mission or by statute,’ and it is generally held that in matters
of public concern such an award is sufficient.?

§ 467. Procedure.—At common law it is not necessary that
the arbitrators should be sworn; but in many of the States
this is required by statute. In some of them it is compulsory,‘
in others it may be waived by the parties.° Each party is en.
titled to be present at the hearing,® and he should, therefore,
be given reasonable notice of the time and place,’ but notice

1 Spencer v. Curtis, 57 Ind. 221, 231;
Buxton v. Howard, 38 Ind. 109; Stir-
inger v. Toy, 33 W. Va. 86, 8. C. 108.
E. R. 26; Gas Co. v. Wheeling, 8 W.
Va. 320. Even in such a case, how-
ever, it seems that they must meet and
consult or act together. Moore v. Ew-
ing, Coxe (N.J.), 144, 8. C.1 Am. Dec.
195 and note; Henderson v. Buckley,
14 B. Mon. (Ky.) 292; Tuscaloosa
Bridge Co. v. Jemison, 33 Ala. 476;
Plews v. Middleton, 6 Q. B. 845; Bat-
tey v. Button, 13 Johns. (N. Y.) 187.

2Grindley v. Barker, 1 Bos. & P.
229; King v. Beeston, 3 T. R. 592;
Patterson v. Leavitt, 4 Conn. 50, 8. C.
10 Am. Dec. 98; Co. Litt., 181d. All,
however, should meet and consult or
act together. People v. Coghill, 47
Cal. 361; Lee v. Parry, 4 Denio (N.
Y.), 125; Keeler v. Frost, 22 Barb.
(N. Y.) 400; Crocker v. Crane, 21
Wend. (N. Y.) 211; People v. Batch-
elor, 22 N. Y.128. But where a ma-
jority have authority. to make the
award, and one, after due notice, fails
or refuses to attend or take part, the
majority may proceed without him.
Crofoot v. Allen, 2 Wend. (N. Y.) 494;
Bulson v. Lohnes, 29 N. Y. 291; Dodge
v. Brennan, 59 N. H. 138; Cumber-
land v. North Yarmouth, 4 Greenl.
(Me.) 459; Short v. Pratt, 6 Mass.
496; Carpenter v. Wood, 1 Metc.
(Mass.) 409.

3 Bradstreet v. Erskine, 50 Me. 407;

Daggy v. Cronnelly, 20 Ind. 474; Dick-
erson v. Hays, 4 Blackf. (Ind.) 44;
Howard v. Sexton, 4 N. Y. 157; Payne
v. Crawford (Ala.),10S0. R.911. See,
also, Ogden v. Forney, 33 Iowa, 205.

*Inslee v. Flagg, 26 N. J. L. 368, S.
C. 69 Am. Dec. 580; Ford v. Potts, 6
N. J. L. 388; Overton v. Alpha, 13 La.
Ann. 558; Walt v. Huse, 38 Mo. 210;
French v. Moseley, 1 Litt. (Ky.) 247;
Deputy v. Betts, 4 Harr. (Del.) 352;
Hepburn v. Jones, 4 Colo. 98; Tom-
linson v. Hammond, 8 Iowa, 40.

5 Newcomb v. Wood, 97 U. 8. 581;
Browning v. Wheeler, 24 Wend. (N.
Y.) 258, S. C. 35 Am. Dec. 617; Day
v. Hammond, 57 N. Y. 479, 8. CG. 15
Am. R. 522; Tucker v. Allen, 47 Mo.
488; Hill v. Taylor, 15 Wis. 190; Mil-
waukee County Supervisors v. Ehlers,
45 Wis. 281; Woodrow v. O’Conner,
28 Vt. 776. ;

® Hollingsworth ». Leiper, 1 Dall.
(U. 8.) 161; Tate v. Vance, 27 Gratt.
(Va.) 571; Cleland v. Hedly, 5 R. I.
163; Conrad v. Massasoit Ins. Co., 4
Allen (Mass.) 20; Semple v. Goeh-
ringer (Minn.), 54N. W. R. 481; Al-
exander v. Cunningham, 111 Ill. 511;
Graham v. Woodall, 86 Ala. 318, 8. C.
5 So. R. 687. \

‘Lutz v. Linthicum, 8 Pet. (U. 8.)
165; Passmore v. Pettit, 4 Dall. (U.S.)
271; Hagner v. Musgrove, 1 Dall. (U.
8.) 83; Linde v. Republic, etc., Co.,
18 J.&8. (N. Y.) 362; Elmendorf v,
§ 467 ARBITRATION AND AWARD. 593

may be waived by either party,! and if he does not attend after
reasonable notice, the arbitrators may proceed with the hearing
in his absence.2~ The manner of conducting the hearing is
largely in the discretion of the arbitrators. Evidence should
be heard and witnesses examined in the presence of the parties.‘
But the arbitrators, where the submission is general, are judges
of both the law and the facts® and may decide according to
what they believe to be right and just, without strictly follow-
ing all the technical rules of law.6 They must not, however,

Harris, 23 Wend. (N. Y.) 628, S. C. 35
Am. Dec. 587; Curtis v. Sacramento, 64
Cal. 102; Young v. Reynolds,4 Md. 375;
McKinney v. Page, 32 Me. 513; Drey-
fous v. Hart, 36 La. Ann.929; Goodall».
Cooley, 29N.H.48; Dormsy v. Know-
er, 55 Iowa, 722; Billings v. Billings,
110 Mass. 225; Wood v. Helme, 14 R.
I. 325; Warren v. Tinsley, 53 Fed. R.
689. But notice, after a hearing, of
the meeting to formulate the award or
to perform merely ministerial acts is
unnecessary. Zell v. Johnston, 76 N.
Car. 302; Roloson v. Carson, 8 Md.
208; Straw v. Truesdale, 59 N. H. 109;
James v. Schroeder, 61 Mich. 28, 8. C.
27 N. W. R. 850.

1 Pike v. Stallings, 71 Ga. 860; Kane
v.. Fond du Lac, 40 Wis. 495; Dicker-
son v. Hays, 4 Blackf. (Ind.). 44;
Hubbard v. Hubbard, 61 Ill. 228;
Duckworth v. Diggles, 139 Mass. 51;
Shockey v. Glasford, 6 Dana (Ky.),
9; Whitlock v. Ledford, 82 Ky. 390;
Weberly v. Matthews, 91 N. Y. 648;
Graham v. Graham, 9 Pa. St. 254, S.
C. 49 Am. Dee. 557. So, proceeding
with a hearing before two arbitrators,
without objection, is a waiver of the
right under the submission to have a
third arbitrator called in. Badders v.
Davis, 88 Ala. 367, S. C. 6 So. R. 834.

2 Brown v. Leavitt, 26 Me. 251; Bray
v. English, 1 Conn. 498; Scott v. Van
Sandau, 6 Q. B. 287.

38

3 Morse on Arb. and Award, 115;
Bray v. English, 1 Conn. 498; Tillam
v. Copp, 5 C. B. 211; Blodgett v. Prince,
109 Mass. 44; Sizer v. Burt, 4 Denio
(N. Y.), 426; Williams v. Hayes, 20
N. Y. 58; Sweeney v. Vaudry, 2 Mo.
App. 352.

‘Hollingsworth v. Leiper, 1 Dall.
(U. 8.) 161; Peters v. Newkirk, 6 Cow.
(N. Y.) 103; Halstead v. Seaman, 82
N. Y. 27; Shipman v. Fletcher, 82 Va.
601; Hart v. Kennedy, 47 N. J. Eq. 51,
8. C.20 Atl. R. 29; Milner v. Noel, 43
Ind. 324; Braddick v. Thompson, 8
East, 344; Phipps v. Ingram, 3 Dowl.
669; Cameron v. Castleberry, 29 Ga.
495; Emery v. Owings, 7 Gill. (Md.)
488, S.C. 48 Am. Dec. 580.

5 Johnson v. Noble, 13 N. H. 286, S.
C. 88 Am. Dec. 485; Memphis, etc.,
R. R. Co. v. Scruggs, 50 Miss. 284;
Fudichar v. Guardian, etc., Co., 62 N.
Y. 392; Price v. Brown, 98 N. Y. 388;
Maynard v. Frederick, 7 Cush. (Mass. )
247; Spear v. Stacy, 26 Vt. 61; Kirten
». Spears, 44 Ark. 166; Burchell v.
Marsh, 17 How. (U.S.) 344.

®Cobb v. Dolphin Mfg. Co., 108 N.
Y. 463; Campbell v. Western, 3 Paige
(N. Y.) 124; Robbins v. Killebrew, 95
N. Car. 19; Maynard v. Frederick, 7
Cush. ( Mass.) 247; Greenough v. Rolfe,
4N. H. 357; Hazeltine v. Smith, 3 Vt.
585; Jocelyn v. Donnel, Peck, 274, 8.
C. 14 Am. Dec. 753; Hooper v. Tay-
594 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 468

exceed their authority, which is to be determined from the stat-
ute, rule of court, or submission under which they act."

§ 468. The award.—Where no particular form is required
by the submission or by statute, no technical expressions or
introductory recitals are necessary, and any form of words
amounting to a decision of the questions submitted will con-
stitute a good award so far as the form is concerned.” Unless
a written award is required by the submission or by statute, a
verbal award will suffice,’ except where it affects the title to

real estate.!

lor, 39 Me. 224; Fennimore v. Childs,
‘1 Halst. (N. J. L.) 886; Ruckman v.
Ransom, 23 N. J. Eq. 118; Bassett v.
Cunningham, 9 Gratt. (Va.) 684; Ed-
rington v. League, 1 Texas, 64; Brush
v. Fisher, 70 Mich. 469, 8. C. 14 Am.
St. R. 510.

1 Cook v. Carpenter, 34 Vt. 121,8.C.
80 Am. Dec. 670, and note; Richard-
son v. Huggins, 23 N. H. 106; Mayor
v. Butler, 1 Barb. (N. Y.) 325; Butler
v. Mayor, 7 Hill (N. Y.), 329; Blakely
v. Frazier, 11 8. Car. 122; Palmer v.
Van Wyck (Tenn.), 21 8. W. R. 761;
Garrow v. Nicolai (Ore.), 82 Pac. R.
1036; Herbst v. Hagenaers, 137 N. Y.
290, S. C. 33 N. E. R. 315; Luther v.
Medbury (R. I.), 26 Atl. R.37; King,
etc., Co. v. City of St. Louis, 43 Fed.
R. 768, S.C. 10 L. R. A. 826; Leslie
v. Leslie (N. J.), 24 Atl. R. 319; Jop-
lin v. Postlethwaite, 61 L. T. R. 629.

2Ott v. Schroeppel, 5 N. Y. 482;
Platt v. Smith, 14 Jobns. (N. Y.) 368;
Caldwell v. Dickinson, 13 Gray
(Mass.), 365; Miller v. Goodwine, 29
Ind. 46; Gulley v. Macy, 89 N. Car.
343; Myers v. York, etc., R. R. Co., 2
Curt. (U. S. C. C.) 28; Rogers v. Ta-
tum, 25 N. J. L. 281; Hanson v. Web-
ber, 40 Me. 194; Lamphire v. Cowan,
39 Vt. 420; Lock v. Vulliamy, 5 B. &
Ad. 600; Matson v. Trower, Ryan &

So, in the absence of such a requirement, it need
not be under seal,® nor witnessed.®

But where the submission

M.17; Smith v. Hartley, 10 Com. B.
800; Upshaw v. Hargrove, 14 Miss. 286 ;
Rigden v. Martin, 6 Har. & J. (Md.)
403;' Rixford v. Nye, 20 Vt. 182;
Houghton v. Burroughs, 18 N. H. 499;
Davies v. Pratt, 17 Com. B. 183; Clan-
ton v. Price, 90 N. Car. 96; Payne v.
Crawford, 11 So. R. 725; Vaughan
». Smith, 69 Ala. 92; Negley v. Stew-
art, 10 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 207; Knight
v. Holden, 104 N. Car. 107, 8. C. 10
8. E. R. 90; George v. Lousley, 8
East, 13.
3Gay v. Waltman, 89 Pa. St. 453;
Marsh v. Packer, 20 Vt. 198; Goodell
v. Raymond, 27 Vt. 241; Valentine v.
Valentine, 2 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.)* 430;
Phelps v. Dolan, 75 Ill. 90; Sawyer v.
Fellows, 6 N. H. 107, 8. C. 25 Am.
Dec. 452; White v. Fox, 29 Conn. 570;
Shelton v. Alcox, 11 Conn. 240; Kelley
». Adams, 120 Ind. 340, 8. C. 22 N. E.
R. 317, i
‘Philbrick v. Preble, 18 Me. 255, 8.
C. 36. Am. Dec. 718, and note; Jones
v. Dewey, 17 N. H. 596; Byam v. Rob-
bins, 6 Allen (Mass.), 63; Buker v.
Bowden, 83 Me. 67,8. C. 21 Atl. R. 748.
5 McAdams ¥. Stilwell, 13 Pa. St. 90;
Owen v. Boerum, 23 Barb. (N.Y.) 187.
6 Hedrick v. Judy, 23 Ind. 548; Car-
son v. Earlywine, 14 Ind. 256; Valle
v. Railroad Co., 37 Mo. 445.
§ 468 ARBITRATION AND AWARD. 595

requires that the award be under seal,! or in writing,? the’ fail-
ure to comply with such requirement will vitiate the award.
It should, however, be co-extensive with the submission and
dispose of the entire subject-matter submitted.’ It should also
be final,* possible® and at least reasonably certain;® but it need
not pass upon each of several matters submitted separately,’
‘unless either expressly or impliedly required by the submis-
sion.® Finally, the award should be mutual, but the meaning
of this requirement is simply that ‘‘the award must be so con-

structed as not to leave him who is to pay liable to be sued for

1 Price v. Thomas, 4 Md. 514; Reav.
Gibbons, 7 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 204; Stan-
ton v. Henry, 11 Johns. (N. Y.) 133.
Compare Mathews v. Miller, 25 W.
Va. 817.

2Tudor v. Scovell, 20 N. H. 174;
State v. Gurnee, 14 Kan. 111.

3 Bean v. Bean, 25 W.Va. 604; Ham-
ilton v. Hart, 125 Pa. St. 142; S. C. 17
Atl. R. 226; Jones v. Welwood,
71 N. Y. 208; Jackson v. Ambler, 14
Johns. (N. Y.) 96; Boston, etc., RR.
Co. v. Nashua, etc., R. R. Co., 139
Mass. 463; Edwards v. Stevens, 3 Al-
len (Mass.), 315; McGregor, etc., R.
R. Co. v. Sioux City, etc., R. R. Co.,
49 Iowa, 604; Dogge v. Northwestern,
etc., Co., 49 Wis. 501; Porter v. Scott,
7 Cal. 312; Carnochan v. Christie, 11
Wheat. (U. 8S.) 446; Waller v. Shan-
non, 44 Conn. 480; Varney v. Brew-
ster, 14 N. H. 49; Gooch v. McKnight,
10 Humph. (Tenn.) 229; Scott v.
Barnes, 7 Pa. St. 134. Compare Pearce
v. McIntyre, 29 Mo. 423; Lynch »v. Nu-
gent, 80 Ia. 422, 8. C. 46 N. W. R. 61;
Moore v. Gherkin, Busb. L.(N.Car.)73;
Smith v. Demarest, 8 N. J. L. 195;
‘McCullough v. McCullough, 12Ind.487.

Colcord v. Fletcher, 50 Me. 398;
Waite v. Barry, 12 Wend. (N.Y.) 377;
Lincoln v. Whittenton Mills, 12 Metce.
(Mass.) 31; McKeen v. Oliphant, 18N.
J. L. 442; Patton v. Baird, 7 Ired. Eq.

(N. Car.) 255; Coghill v. Hord, 1 Dana
(Ky.), 350, 8. C. 25 Am. Dec. 148;
Byars v. Thompson, 12 Leigh (Va.),
550, S. C. 37 Am. Dec. 680.

5 Martin v. Williams, 13 Johns. (N.
Y.) 264; Yeamans v. Yeamans, 99
Mass. 585; Ourd v. Wallace, 7 Dana ,
(Ky.), 190, 8. C. 82 Am. Dec. 85;
Thirsley v. Helbot, 3 Mod. 272; Ad-
ams v, Staley, 2 Show. 61.

® Banks v. Adams, 23 Me. 259; Ent-
nier v. Shope, 43 Pa. St. 110; Parker
». Eggleston, 5 Blackf. (Ind.) 128;
Whitcher v. Whitcher, 49 N. H. 176,
8.0.6 Am. R. 486; Alfred v. Kanka-
kee, etc., R. R. Co., 92 Ill. 609; Lyle
v. Rodgers, 5 Wheat. (U. 8.) 394;
Crawford v. Orr, 84 N. Car. 246;
Schuyler v. Van Der Veer, 2 Caines (N.
Y.), 235; Ingraham v. Whitmore, 75
Ill. 24; Harris v. Social Mfg. Co.,9 R.
I. 99, 8. C. 11 Am. R. 224,

™Lamphire v. Cowan, 39 Vt. 420;
Sides v. Brendlinger, 14 Neb. 491;
Strong v. Strong, 9 Cush. (Mass.) 560;
Blackwell v. Goss, 116 Mass. 394;
Stearns v. Cope, 109 Ill. 340; Vannah
v. Carney, 69 Me. 221.

8 Houston v. Pollard, 9 Metc. ( Mass.)
164.

*Matter of Williams, 4 Denio (N.
Y.), 194; Furbish v. Hall, 8 Me. 315;
Onion v. Robinson, 15 Vt. 510; Miller
v. Moore, 7 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 164.
596 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 468

the same cause.’’! In other words, ‘‘this mutuality is noth-
ing more than that the thing awarded to be done should be a
final discharge of all future claim by the party in whose favor
the award is made against the other for the causes submitted.’”
Awards are liberally construed and will be given effect by the
courts, when consistent with legal principles, in accordance
with the intent of the arbitrators.? All reasonable presump-
tions will be indulged in their favor. When the submission or
the statute requires the award to be delivered or published actual
delivery or publication is essential to render it effective;° but,
in the absence of such a provision, delivery is unnecessary.®

1 Blackledge v. Simpson, 2 Hayw.
(N. Car.) 30, §. C. 2 Am. Dec. 614.

? Munro v. Alaire, 2 Caines (N. Y.),
320. See, also, Hanson v. Webber, 40
Me. 194; Cox v. Jagger, 2 Cow. (N.
Y.) 638, S. C. 14 Am. Dec. 522; Borrets
v. Patterson, Taylor (N. Car.), 37, S.
C. 1 Am. Dec. 576; McKeen vw. Oli-
phant, 18 N. J. L. 442; Gibson v. Pow-
ell, 13 Miss. 712; Karthaus v. Ferrer,
1 Pet. (U. 8.) 222.

5 Kendall v. Bates, 35 Me. 357; Han-
son v. Webber, 40 Me. 194; Grier v.
Grier, 1 Dall. (U. 8.) 173; Rogers v.
Carrothers, 26 W.Va. 238; Sheffield »v.
Clark, 73 Ga. 92; Archer v. William-
son, 2 Har. &G. (Md.) 62; Jackson v.
Ambler, 14 Johns. (N. Y.) 96; Ross v.
Watt, 16 Ill. 99; Richardson v. Hug-
gins, 23 N. H. 106; Burns v. Hendrix,
54 Ala. 78; Spear v. Hooper, 22 Pick.
(Mass.) 144; Skillings v. Coolidge, 14
Mass. 43; Robbins v. Killebrew, 95 N.
Car. 19.

‘Merritt v. Merritt, 11 Ill. 565; Mc-
Millan v. James, 105 Ill. 194; Strong
v. Strong, 9 Cush. (Mass.) 560; Kar-
thaus v. Ferrer, 1 Pet. (U. 8.) 222;
Phipps v. Tompkins, 50 Ga. 641;
Young v. Kinney, 48 Vt. 22; Pol-
lock v. Sutherlin, 25 Gratt. (Va.)
78; Liverpool, etc., Co. v. Goehring,
99 Pa. St. 13; Warner v. Collins, 135

Mass. 26; McDowell v. Thomas, 4 Neb.
542; Wood v. Treleven, 74 Wis. 577,
8.C. 43 N. W. R. 488; New York, etc.,
Co. v. Schnieder, 119 N. Y. 475, S. C.
24.N.E. BR. 4; Leslie v. Leslie (N. J.),
24 Atl. R. 319; Callv. Ballard, 65 Wis.
187; Neib v. Hinderer, 42 Mich. 451;
Smith v. Minor, 1 N. J. L. 16; Green
v. Ford, 17 Ark. 586.

5 Parsons v. Aldrich, 6 N. H. 264;
Denman »v. Bayless, 22 Il]. 300; Sellick
v. Adams, 15 Johns. (N. Y.) 197; Gid-
ley v. Gidley, 65 N. Y. 169; Kingsley
v. Bill, 9 Mass. 198; Buck v. Wads-
worth, 1 Hill (N. Y.), 321. Publica-
tion, in this connection, simply means
notice to the parties. Knowlton ».
Homer, 30 Me. 552; Pancoast v. Cur-
tis, 6N. J. L. 415; Jones v. Dewey, 17
N. H. 596; Francis v. Ames, 14 Ind.
251; Rundell v. La Fleur, 6 Allen
(Mass.), 480. But see, under the Wis-
consin statute, Russell v. Clark, 60
Wis. 284.

®Crawford v. Orr, 84 N. Car. 246;
Rundell v. La Fleur, 6 Allen (Mass.),
480; Owen v. Boerum, 23 Barb. (N.
Y.) 187; Willard v. Bickford, 39 N. H.
536; Houghton v. Burroughs, 18N. H.
499. And it may be waived. Coulter
v. Coulter, 81 Ind. 542; Perkins v.
Wing, 10 Johns. (N. Y.) 143; Marsh
v, Curtis, 71 Ind. 377.
§ 469 ARBITRATION AND AWARD. 597

“In legal contemplation the award takes effect when ready for
delivery and the parties have been notified to that effect. That
the arbitrators may hold it as security for the payment of their
charges, etc., unless the agreement stipulates to the contrary,
does not at all affect the force or effect of their award.’’!

§ 469. Effect of award.—A valid award is a bar to any ac-
tion upon the demands or claims therein determined,? and in
some States no action can be maintained upon any matter
within the scope of the submission, although not passed upon
by the arbitrators.? It has the effect of a judgment, in which
the original claim is merged, but it may contain a condition
requiring the performance of certain acts before it can be made

available.

And if the award is void or fails it will not ex-
tinguish the original cause of action.®

An unconditional

award of chattels vests the property immediately in the party

' Per Gray, J., in New York, etc.,
Co. v. Schnieder, 119 N. Y. 475. See,
also, Ott v. Schroeppel, 3 Barb. (N.
Y.) 56.

? Morse v. Bishop, 55 Vt. 231; Gird-
ler v. Carter, 47 N. H. 305; Ford v.
Burleigh, 60 N. H. 278; Coleman ».
Wade, 6 N. Y. 44; Wiberly v. Mat-
thews, 91 N. Y. 648; Groat v. Pracht,
81 Kan. 656; Curley v. Dean, 4 Conn.
259, S. C. 10 Am. Dec. 140; Hadaway
v. Kelly, 78 Ill. 286; Rogers v. Hol-
den, 13 Ill. 293; Handy v. Cobb, 44
Miss. 699; Anding v. Levy, 60 Miss.
487; Leonard v. Wading, etc., Co.,
113 Mass. 235; Cook v. Gardner, 130
Mass. 313; Speer v. McChesney, 2
Watts & S. (Pa.) 233; Day v. Bonnin,
3 Bing. (N. C.) 219; Terre Haute,
etc., R. R. Co. v. Harris, 126 Ind. 7,
S. C. 25 N. E. R. 831; Baltes v. Bass

. Foundry, etc., 129 Ind. 185, 8. C. 28 N.
E.R. 319. Compare Garrow v. Nicolai
(Ore.), 82 Pac. R. 1036; Keeler v.
Harding, 23 Ark. 697; Howett v.
Monical, 25 Il. 122.

3 Wheeler v. Van Houten, 12 Johns.
(N.Y.) 311; Brazill v. Isham, 12N. Y.
9; Stipp v. Washington Hall Co., 5
Blackf.(Ind.) 473; Robinson v. Morse,
26 Vt. 392; Shackelford v. Purket, 2
A. K. Marsh. (Ky.) 485, 8. C. 12 Am.
Dec. 432; Seely v. Pelton, 63 Ill. 101;
McJimsey v. Traverse, 1 Stew. (Ala.)
244, 8. C. 18 Am. Dec. 43. Contra,
Webster v. Lee, 5 Mass. 334; King v.
Savory, 8 Cush. (Mass.) 312; Mt.
Desert v. Tremont, 75 Me. 252; Whit-
temore v. Whittemore, 2 N. H. 26;
Hopson v. Doolittle, 13 Conn. 236;
Keaton v. Mulligan, 43 Ga. 308; Lee
v. Dolan, 39 N. J. Eq. 193; Hewitt v.
Furman, 16 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 135.

*Commonwealth v. Pejepscut Pro-
prietors, 7 Mass. 399.

5 Mayor v. Butler, 1 Barb. (N. Y.)
325; Haggart v. Morgan, 5N. Y. 422,
S. C. 55 Am. Dec. 350; Sartwell v.
Horton, 28 Vt. 370; Logsdon v. Rob-
erts, 3 T. B. Mon. (Ky.) 255; Canfield
v. Watertown Ins. Co., 55 Wis. 419;
Smith v. Holcomb, 99 Mass. 552.
598 THE WORK OUT OF COURT.

to whom they are awarded,! but. an award of land simply oper-
ates as an estoppel and does not vest the title without a con-
veyance.? An award, ordinarily, has no effect as against
strangers,’ but one who is not directly a party to the submis-
sion may, by his acts, or agreement, become bound by the
award.

§ 470. Enforcement of award.—A valid award may be en-
forced by an action at law,° or, if no adequate remedy at law
exists, equity will compel its specific performance.* But if
certain acts are required by the award to be done by one party
as a condition precedent, or the like, he must show that he has
performed or offered to perform them before he can ‘maintain
a suit upon the award.’ When the submission is made under
arule of court, or, in many jurisdictions, under the statute,
judgment is usually entered upon the award much in the same

§ 470.

1Girdler v. Carter, 47 N. H. 305.
But an award fixing the amount of a
claim secured by chattel mortgage
does not of itself divest the legal title
to the mortgaged property. Collier v.
White (Ala.), 12 So. R.385. See, also,
Gray v. Reed, 65 Vt. 178, 8. C. 26 Atl.
R. 526.

2 Jackson v. Gager, 5 Cow. (N. Y.)
383; Shepard v. Ryers, 15 Johns. (N.
Y.) 497; Shelton v. Alcox, 11 Conn.
240; Gray v. Berry, 9 N. H. 473;
Goodridge v. Dustin, 5 Metc. (Mass.)
363; Doe v. Rosser, 3 East, 15; Hun-
ter v. Rice, 15 East, 100.

3 Woody v. Pickard, 8 Blackf. (Ind.)
55; Martin v. Williams, 13 Johns. (N.

“Y.) 264; Collins v. Freas; 77 Pa. St.
493; Dale v. Mottram, 2 Barn. 291.

‘Humphreys v. Gardner, 11 Johns.
(N. Y.) 61; George v. Johnson, 45 N.
H. 456; Macon v. Crump, 1 Call, 575;
Schultz v. Lempert, 55 Texas, 273;
Sears v. Vincent, 8 Allen (Mass.), 507.

5 Dickerson v.Tyner, 4 Blackf.(Ind.)
258; Scearce v. Scearce, 7 Ind. 286;
Stevens v. Record, 56 Me. 488; Burn-

side v. Whitney, 24 Barb. (N. Y.) 632,
S.C. 21 N. Y. 148; Rank v. Hill, 2
Watts & 8. (Pa.) 56, 8. C.37 Am. Dec.
483; Bayne v. Morris, 1 Wall. (U. 8.)
97; Bates v. Curtis, 21 Pick. (Mass.)
247; Blanchard v. Murray, 15 Vt. 548;
Webb v. Zeller, 70 Ind. 408.

6 Jones v. Boston Mill Corporation,
4 Pick. 507, S. C. 16 Am. Dec. 358;
Davis v. Havard, 15 Serg. & R.,(Pa.)
165, 8. C. 16 Am. Dec. 587; Brown v.

Burkenmeyer, 9 Dana (Ky.), 159, S..

C. 33 Am. Dec. 541; McNeil v. Magee,
5 Mason (U. §.), 244; Whitney v.
Stone, 23 Cal. 275; Maury v. Post, 55
Hun (N. Y.), 454; Kirksey v. Fike,
27 Ala. 383, 8. C. 62 Am. Dec. 768;
Blackett v. Bates, L. R., 1 Ch. App.
117; Norton v. Mascall, 2 Vern. 24.
TJesse v. Cater, 28 Ala. 475; Huy
v. Brown, 12 Wend. (N. Y.) 591;
Shearer v. Handy, 22 Pick. (Mass.)
417; Hugg v. Collins, 18 N. J. L. 294;

» Leitch v. Beaty, 23 Ill. 642; Lincoln v.

Cook, 3 Ill. 61; Smith v. Stewart, 5
Ind, 220; Hoffman v. Hoffman, 26 N.
J. L. 175.
599

§ 471 ARBITRATION AND AWARD.

manner as upon the verdict of a jury,! although a rule to show
cause why judgment should not be rendered thereon is gener-
ally required to be taken and served upon the other party be-
fore the rendition of the judgment.?

§ 471. Impeaching and setting aside the award.—It is said
that the power of the court to set aside an award or .to enter
judgment thereon is, in many respects, analogous to the power
exercised by the court in granting or refusing a new trial after
verdict. But, as a general rule, mere error in judgment,
where the arbitrators act in good faith and there is neither
fraud nor misconduct, will not be a sufficient cause for setting
aside the award. And where the award recites that the arbi-
trators have disposed of all the matters embraced in the sub-
mission, in accordance therewith, it seems that parol evidence
of one of the arbitrators is not admissible to impeach the award
and its recitals. It is, indeed, a general rule, subject to few
exceptions,® that an arbitrator can not impeach his own award,’

1 Merritt v. Thompson, 27 N. Y. 225;
Crook v. Chambers, 40 Ala. 239;
Whitis v. Culver, 25 Ia. 30; Sargent
v. Hampden, 32 Me. 78; Schriver v.
State, 9 Gill & J. (Md.) 1; Duer v.
Boyd, 1 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 203; Thorpe
v. Starr, 17 Ill. 199; Carsley v. Lind-
say, 14 Cal. 390.

2 Healy v. Isaacs,73 Ind.226 ; Shroyer
v. Bash, 57 Ind. 349; Anderson v.
Anderson, 65 Ind. 196. See, also,
Shores v. Bowen, 44 Mo. 396. But,
compare Kelly v. Morse, 3 Neb. 224.

3 Buckwalter v. Russell, 119 Pa. St.
495.

4 Hall v. Norwalk, etc., Co., 57 Conn.
105; Brush v. Fisher, 70 Mich. 469, S.
C. 14 Am. St. R. 510; Masury v.
Whiton, 111 N. Y. 679; Turnbull v.
Martin, 37 How. Pr. 20; Goddard v.
King, 40 Minn. 164; Baltimore, etc.,
R. BR. Co. v. Canton Co., 70 Md. 405;
Burchell v. Marsh, 17 How. (U. 8.)
344; Bean v. Wendell, 22 N. H. 582;

Moore v. Barnett, 17 Ind. 349; Carter
v. Carter, 109 Mass. 306; Portsmouth
v. Norfolk Co., 31 Gratt. (Va.) 727;
Jenkins v. Meagher, 46 Miss. 84; Mc-
Cullough v. Mitchell, 42 Ga. 495; Bur-
roughs v. David, 7 Ia. 154; Davis v.
Henry, 121 Mass. 150; York, etc., R.
R. Co. v. Myers, 18 How. (U.S.) 246;
Lester v. Callaway, 73 Ga. 730; Ap-
peal of Morgan, 110 Pa. St. 271, 8. C.
4 Atl. R.506. But, compare Williams
v. Paschall, 4 Dall. (U.S.) 284; Harts-
horne v. Cuttrell, 2 N. J. Eq. 297;
Cleaveland v. Dixon, 4 J. J. Marsh.
(Ky.) 226; Sumpter v. Murrell, 2
Bay. 450.

5 Schmidt v. Glade, 126 Ill. 485.

®See, for exceptions, Robertson v.
MecNiel, 12 Wend. (N. Y.) 578; Pul-
liam v. Pensoneau, 33 Ill. 375; Hunts-

‘man v. Nichols, 116 Mass. 521; Gay-

lord v. Norton, 130 Mass. 74; Osborne.
». Colvert, 86 N. Car. 170.
™Tucker v. Page, 69 Ill. 179; Stone
600 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 471

and that an award, final and valid on its face, can not be im-
peached by extrinsic evidence where there is no charge of
fraud or misconduct.! There is great conflict among the au-
thorities upon this subject, but there are certain grounds recog-
nized by most of the courts, upon which an award may be set
aside. Some of these may be regarded as exceptions to the
general rules already stated, while others are entirely inde-
pendent, being ‘‘a law unto themselves.’? They are thus
enumerated and explained by the Missouri Court of Appeals: ?
“There are five grounds, and only five, upon which the courts
will set aside an award. These are: 1. The insufficiency of
the award. That means that it is not certain, final, or mutual;
that it does not embrace all matters submitted to the arbitra-
tors; or that it does embrace matters not submitted to arbitra-

tion.?
award.

v. Atwood, 28 Ill. 30; Bigelow v. May-
nard, 4 Cush. (Mass.) 317; Withing-
ton v. Warren, 10 Metc. (Mass.) 431;
King v. Jemison, 33 Ala. 499; Ald-
rich v. Jessiman, 8 N. H. 516.

1Valle v. North M. R. R. Co., 37 Mo.
445; Bissell v. Morgan, 56 Barb. (N.
Y.) 869; Sweet v. Morrison, 116 N. Y.
19; Todd v. Barlow, 2 Johns. Ch. (N.
Y.) 551; Brown v. Green, 7 Conn. 536;
Ebert v. Ebert, 5 Md. 353; Jocelyn v.
Donnel, Peck (Tenn.), 274, 8. C. 14
Am. Dec. 753; Wheatley v. Martin, 6
Leigh (Va.), 62; Cobb v. Dortch, 52
Ga. 548; May v. Miller, 59 Vt. 577;
Cochran v. Bartle, 91 Mo. 636; Bum-
pass v. Webb, 4 Port. (Ala.) 65, 8. C.
29 Am. Dec. 274; Deford v. Deford,
116 Ind. 523; Baggalay v. Borthwick,
10C. B. N.S. 61. But, compare Bar-
rows v. Sweet, 143 Mass. 316; Hall v.
Hinds, 2M. & G. 847; Fain v. Head-
erick, 4 Caldw. (Tenn.) 327; Moore v:
Luckess, 23 Gratt. (Va.) 160; Dodds v.
Hakes, 114 N. Y. 260.

2 Mitchell v. Curran, 1 Mo. App. 463.

2. A mistake of fact or law apparent on the face of the
3. Irregularity of the arbitrators in their proceedings;

5See, ante, § 468. See, also, Rich-
ardson v. Payne, 55 Ga. 167; Collins
v. Freas, 77 Pa. St. 493; Porter v.
Scott, 7 Cal. 312; Blackledge v. Simp-
son, 2 Hayw. (N. Car.) 30,8. C.2 Am.
Dec. 614; Herbst v. Hagenaers, 137 N.
Y. 290, 8. C. 33 N. E.R. 315; Palmer v.
Van Wyck (Tenn.), 218.W.R. 761. In
McCall v. McCall, 368. Car. 80, S. 0.15
8. E. R. 348, it was held that whee the
award exceeded the terms of the sub-
mission the court might rectify the er-
ror. See, also, Smith v. Paris, 70 Mo.
615. But, compare Carnochan v.
Christie, 11 Wheat. (U.8.) 446; Com-
monwealth v. Pejepscut Proprietors, 7
Mass. 399; Smith v. Cutler, 10 Wend.
(N. Y.) 589, S. C. 25 Am. Dec. 580.

*Nance v. Thompson, 1 Sneed.
(Tenn.) 320; Jocelyn v. Donnel, Peck
(Tenn.), 274, 8. C. 14 Am. Dec. 753
and note; Boston, etc., Co. v. Gray, 6
Metc. (Mass.) 181; Smith v. Railroad
Co., 16 Gray (Mass.), 521; Greenough
v. Rolfe, 4 N. H. 357; Allen v. Miles,
4 Harr. (Del.) 234; Smith v. Cutler,
§ 471

ARBITRATION

AND AWARD. 601

as‘a refusal or neglect to examine witnesses, or in not giving

notice of the proceedings.’
the arbitrators.”

10 Wend. (N. Y.) 589, S.C. 25 Am.
Dec. 580; Prescott v. Fellows, 41N.H.
9,8.C.77 Am.Dec.752; Powell». Riley,
15 Lea (Tenn.), 153; Garvey v. Carey,
7 Robt. (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) 286. But the
general rule, as already stated, is that
mere error in judgment will not ordi-
narily be cause for setting aside an
award, and that where there is a mis-
take either as to law or facts it must
be apparent upon the face of the
award in order to cause it to be set
aside. In most of the cases above cited
there was something to show that the
arbitrators had exceeded their power,
or made an award different from what
they intended and would have made
if there had been no mistake; or that
the submission required them to fol-
low the law in the particular case, or
provided that the award should be
approved or reviewed by the court.
1See ante,§ 467. See, also, Lutz v.
Linthicum, 8 Pet. (U. 8.) 165; Dick-
inson v. R. R. Co., 7 W. Va. 390; El-
mendorff v. Harris, 23 Wend. (N. Y.)
628; Van Cortlandt v. Underhill, 17
Johns. (N. Y.) 405; Halstead v. Sea-
man, 82 N. Y. 27; Milner v. Noel, 43
Ind. 324; Graham v. Woodall, 86 Ala.
313; Vessell, etc., Co. v. Taylor, 126
Ill. 250; Hurdle v. Stallings, 109 N.
Car. 6, S. C. 138 S. E. R. 720; Phipps
v. Ingram, 3 Dowl. 669; Pepper »v.
Gorham, 4 Moore, 148; In re Maunder,
49 L.T. R. 535; Gladwin v. Chilcote, 9
Dowl. 550; Samuel v. Cooper, 2 A. &
E. 752. Where the erroneous rejec-
tion of evidence is the. ground of at-
tack, the evidence rejected should be
set forth. Leslie v. Leslie (N. J.), 24
Atl. R. 319; Fowler v. Jackson, 86 Ga.

4, Corruption or misbehavior of
5. Fraud or concealment of the evidence by

337, 8. C. 128. E. R. 811. Irregulari-
ties in the proceedings may be waived
by appearing and taking part without
objection, or by ratifying the award.
Graham v. Graham, 12 Pa. St. 128;
Deering v. Saco, 68 Me. 322; Woods».
Page, 37 Vt. 252; Duckworth v. Dig-
gles, 1389 Mass. 51, S. C. 29N. E. R.
221; Maynard v. Frederick, 7 Cush.
(Mass.) 247; Madison Ins. Co. v. Grif-
fin, 3 Ind. 277; Shockey v. Glasford,
6 Dana (Ky.),9; Miller v. Brumbaugh,
7 Kan. 343; Hoogs v. Morse, 31 Cal.
128; McShane v. Gray, 13 Iowa, 504;
Reynolds v. Roebuck, 37 Ala. 408. The
last four cases just cited were cases of
ratification.

? Hyeronimusv. Allison, 52 Mo. 102;
Hartford, etc., Co. v. Bonner, etc., Co.,
44 Fed. R. 151, 8. C. 11 L. R. A. 623;
Boston, etc., Co. v. Gray, 6 Metc.
(Mass.) 1381; Sisk v. Garey, 27 Md.
401; Moshier v. Shear, 102 Ill. 169, S.
C. 40 Am. R. 573; Smith v. Smith, 28
Ill. 56; Burrows v. Dickinson, 35 Hun
(N. Y.), 492; Smith v. Cooley, 5 Daly
(N. Y.), 401; Bash v. Christian, 77
Ind. 290; Robinson v. Shanks, 118
Ind. 125; Shipman v. Fletcher, 82 Va.
601; Chism v. Schipper, 51 N. J. L. 1,
8.C.2L. R. A. 544. But in the fol-
lowing cases the irregularity or mis-
conduct was held to be so slight as
not to be sufficient cause for setting
aside the award. Simons v. Mills, 80
Cal. 118; Cutter v. Carter, 29 Vt. 72;
Flatter v. McDermitt, 25 Ind. 326;
Noyes v. Gould, 57 N. H. 20; Rheem
v. Allison, 2 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 113;
Plummer v. Sanders, 55 N. H. 23; An-
derson v. Burchett, 48 Kan. 153, S. C.
29 Pac. R. 315.
602 THE WORK OUT OF COURT. § 471

the parties obtaining the award.’’! Where there is no ade-
quate remedy at law equity will set it aside or grant relief upon
the ground of fraud, accident or mistake,? but, ordinarily,
where the objections to the award can be taken advantage of
as a defense to a suit thereon, equity will not interfere.? In
many of the States, where the statute so provides or the sub-
mission is under arule of court, the award may be vacated,

for a sufficient cause, upon motion.

1 Catlett v. Dougherty, 114 Ill. 568;
Chambers v. Crook, 42 Ala. 171, 8. C.
94 Am. Dec. 637; Baird v. Crutchfield,
6 Humph. (Tenn.) 171; Spurck ».
Crook, 19 Ill. 415; Strong v. Strong, 9
Cush. (Mass.) 560; Beam v. Macom-
ber, 83 Mich. 127; Mathews v. Math-
ews, 1 Heisk. (Tenn.) 669; McFarland
v. Mathis, 10 Ark. 560; Russell on
Powers of an Arbitrator, etc., 672, 673.

2 Baltimore, etc., R. R. Co. v. Polly,
14 Gratt. (Va.) 447; Eisenmeyer v.
Sauter, 77 Ill. 515; Craft v. Thompson,
51 N. H. 5386; Thrasher v. Overby, 51
Ga. 91; Rand, Adm’r, v. Redington,
13 N. H. 72, S. C. 88 Am. Dec. 475;
Wood v. Chicago, etc., R. R. Co., 39
Fed. R. 52; 2Story’s Eq., 675; 2 Pom.
Eq., §§ 871, 919; 2 Beach Mod. Eq.,
§ 60; Russell on Powers of an Arbi-
trator, etc., 697; Adams’ Eq., 192, 193.
In a bill to set aside an award upon
the ground of fraud, partiality or mis-
take, the facts and objections should
be specifically stated; mere general
allegations are insufficient. Bowden

». Crow, 2 Tex. Civ. App. 591, 8. C. 21

‘8. W. R. 612; Hart v. Kennedy (N.
J.), 20 Atl. R. 29; Tittenson v. Peat,
3 Atk. 529.

3 Emerson v. Udall, 13 Vt. 477, 8. C.
37 Am. Dec. 604; Bean v. Farnam, 6
Pick. (Mass.) 269; Elliott v. Adams, 8
Blackf. (Ind.) 103; Home Ins. Co. of
N. Y. v. Stanchfield, 1 ‘Dill. (U. 8.)
425.

4 Muldrow v. Norris, 2 Cal. 74, 8. C.
56 Am. Dec. 313; United States v.
Farragut, 22 Wall. (U.S.) 406, 414;
Wiley v. Platter, 17 Ill. 538; Aubel v.
Ealer, 2 Binn. 582, note; 2 Chitty’s
Gen. Pr. 121; Russell on Powers of
an Arbitrator, etc., 652, et seqg.; Morse
on Arb. and Award, 612. Where it is
good as a common law award, but the
judgment is invalid under the statute,
it has been held proper to merely stay
the judgment and proceedings there-
under and to refuse to set the award
aside. Kreiss v. Hotaling, 96 Cal. 617,
S. C. 31 Pac. R. 740.

END OF VOLUME I.