NEXT FRIEND.
See Infants.
Nor.-negotiable Instruments, assignee of, diligence which must be
assignment of, warranties implied by, 986.
diligence required of assignee of to charge assignor, 989.
indorser is answerable as a maker or guarantor, 985.
indorsement of by a payee, effect of, 988.
indorsement of by one not a party thereto, 985.
indorsement of cannot exist in the legal sense, 985.
indorsement of in blank by a stranger, liability created by, 988.
indorsement of in blank, liability arising from, 987.
indorsement of in blank, what may be written over by the
holder, 987.
indorsement of, legal effect of, 986.
indorsement of, qualified liability held to result from, 986, 987.
indorsement of, warranties implied by, 986.
guarantor of, one who writes his name upon before delivery is,
985.
laches of assignee, when precludes his maintaining an action
against the assignor, 990.
liability of person writing his name on the back of, 985, 986.
statutes of limitation in suits against assignors or indorsers of,
990.
1. NUISANCE, Public Right of Private Citizen to Abate.-A
private individual who alleges upon sufficient facts, that he has
suffered a special injury from a public nuisance which is real and
distinct from that suffered by him in common with the public at
large, and is so continuous in its nature that the legal remedy for
damages is inadequate, is entitled to maintain suit to abate such
nuisance. (Ala.) Roberts v. Mathews, 56.
2. NUISANCE, Public-Abatement by Private Individual—
Remedy at Law.-Although an obstruction constitutes a public nui-
sance causing actionable injury to a private citizen, yet if such ob-
struction is permanent, and the defendant is not insolvent, and a single
action at law for damages will furnish a full remedy for such injury,
a resort to equity by the injured party for the mere purpose of
abating such nuisance is unwarranted. (Ala.) Dennis v. Mobile
etc. Ry. Co., 69.
3. NUISANCE, Public-Abatement by Private Individual. The
jurisdiction of equity to restrain a public nuisance at the suit of
a private individual is exercised only when he has a legal right and
is without other adequate remedy at law for its enforcement.
Hence a
bill filed by a private individual for such purpose must not only show
that the complainant will sustain injury distinct from that which
he will suffer in common with others, such as would furnish the basis
for an action at law, but it must go further, and show that the injury
from the nuisance will be irreparable, or will be such that complete
compensation therefor cannot be obtained in a single action at law.
(Ala.) Dennis v. Mobile etc. Ry. Co., 69.
NUISANCE, Public-Abatement by Private Individual.-In
an action by a private individual to abate a public nuisance, the
injury will be considered irreparable so as to entitle him to relief
when the resulting damage will be incapable of being measured by
a pecuniary standard, and when, without assistance in equity, the
injured party must suffer invasion of his substantial rights without
compensation, or when if reparation were sought in the law court,
the remedy would involve a multiplicity of suits by the same plain-
tiff. (Ala.) Dennis v. Mobile etc. Ry. Co., 69.
5. NUISANCE, Public-Abatement by Private Citizen-Plead-
ing. An averment by a private individual seeking to abate a publie
nuisance, of a mere conclusion as to inadequacy of legal remedy, or as
to the irreparable character of the injury, without an averment of
facts to support the conclusion is insufficient. (Ala.) Dennis v.
Mobile etc. Ry. Co., 69.
See Dedication, 2.
Nuisance, bees, keeping of, whether may be declared to be a, 291.
NUNC PRO TUNC.
See Judgments, 1.
PUBLIC OFFICERS Agreement Disposing of Salary.-An
agreement by a public officer that his salary when earned shall be-
come assets of a partnership of which he is a member is not against
public policy as an assignment of an unearned salary by a public
officer. (Mich.) McGregor v. McGregor, 492.
1. PARENT AND CHILD-Foreign Decree of Divorce Affecting
the Custody of a Child.-A decree of divorce in another state or ter-
ritory in which the custody of the child is awarded to the father is
conclusive as to his right and fitness for such custody at that time,
and in a proceeding by habeas corpus for the possession of the child
evidence will not be heard to show that he was less fit for such cus-
tody than the mother at the time of the entry of the decree. It is
not, however, a bar to a subsequent proceeding to modify it upon
proof that the situation and character of the parties have so
changed as to render it to the interest of the child that it be com-
mitted to the care of its mother. (Tex.) Wilson v. Elliott, 928.
2. HABEAS CORPUS-Custody of Children-Res Judicata.-Not-
withstanding the determination in a previous proceeding by habeas
corpus of the right to the custody of a child, another court may
make a different order respecting such custody, if satisfied that the
interests of such child so require, though no material change in the
circumstances is shown. (Kan.) In re King, 399.
3. CHILDREN.-The Domicile of a Child is not within this state
if its father has at all times been a citizen and resident of a foreign
country, and has never been within the state, though the child was
born within, and has never been beyond, the state. (Mass.) Stearns
v. Allen, 441.
Parties, chancery rules concerning, 762.
not before the court, when may be bound by the decree, 762.
not in being, when bound by the judgment or decree, 762-768.
PARTITION of Building and Lots by Sale.-If parties own
land jointly and the building thereon severally, a partition of the
property by sale may be decreed. (Iowa) Truth Lodge No. 213
etc. v. Barton, 303.
Partition, effect of judgments in as against persons not in being,
764, 766.
1. PARTNERSHIP.-A Husband and Wife may be Partners under
the statutes of Iowa extending the powers of married women in re-
spect to the making of contracts and the ownership and disposition of
separate property. (Iowa) Hoaglin v. Henderson & Co., 335.
2. PARTNERSHIP FUNDS—Application to Individual Debt.—
Where a partner, without disclosing the fact of partnership, pur-
chases goods for the firm, the vendor cannot apply the money paid
in advance to the satisfaction of a debt owing from the partner in-
dividually. (Iowa) Hoaglin v. Henderson & Co., 335.
3. PARTNERSHIP-Setoff Against.-In an Action by a partner-
ship to recover a partnership claim, the debtor cannot set off a claim
which he holds against an individual member of the firm. (Iowa)
Hoaglin v. Henderson & Co., 335.
4. PARTNERSHIP-Garnishment of Individual Interest.-A
partner's individual interest in a debt due the firm cannot be reached
by garnishment in a court having no power to acquire jurisdiction
of the partnership or determine the interest of each partner. (Iowa)
Hoaglin v. Henderson & Co., 335.
5. PARTNERSHIP-Release of the Firm Without Affecting the
Liability of Its Members as Indorsers.-Where a negotiable note is
executed by a partnership and indorsed by its members and others,
an agreement not to sue the maker, but reserving all rights against
the indorsers releases the firm as maker, but not the individual
members as indorsers. (Mass.) Faneuil Hall Nat. Bank v. Meloon,
416.
PASSENGERS.
See Carriers.
PATENTS.
See Public Lands.
1. PRACTICE OF MEDICINE Christian Science.-A charter to
establish and maintain a place of public worship and to preach the
gospel as found in the Bible and a certain Christian Science text-
book, and to train persons for the treatment of disease simply and
solely by inaudible prayer in the presence of the sick or at a dis-
tance, as taught by such text-book, founded on the theory alone that
all disease of every nature is a mere belief and not a real fact, and
not requiring such persons to have any knowledge of anatomy, physi-
ology, pathology, or hygiene, must be refused on the ground, that
such system of healing disease is opposed to the general policy of
the law, as to the existence, treatment and cure of sickness and
disease. (Pa. St.) First Church of Christ, Scientist, 753.
2. PRACTICE OF MEDICINE Christian Science.-A charter tɔ
enable an association of persons to treat disease solely by Christian
Science, which embraces the theory that disease of every nature can
be cured by prayer alone, must be refused on the ground that it is
opposed to the general policy of the law regarding the existence,
treatment, and cure of disease, and to statutes regulating the quali-
fications of those who shall be allowed to attempt to cure or heal
disease. (Pa. St.) First Church of Christ, Scientist, 753.
See Insurance, 12-14: Witnesses. 2
1. PLEADING-New Cause of Action in the Reply.-An objection
that cause of action is first stated in the reply is waived, if not
raised in the trial court, and the issues are presented and submitted
on their merits. (Neb.) Farmers' etc. Ins. Co. v. Dabney, 624.
2. PLEADING INCONSISTENT DEFENSES.-The defendant
has the right to plead inconsistent defenses. If in one part of his
answer he denies a fact and in another part alleges its existence,
the answer cannot be taken as an admission of such fact. (Tex.)
Houston etc. Ry. Co. v. De Walt, 877.
3. PLEADING Conclusions, Effect of Admitting by Demurrer.—
An allegation that certain drafts or bills of lading were indorsed in
blank and were transferred to a purchaser by a defendant banking
company, whereby it became the owner of such drafts and bills of
lading and the cotton represented thereby, and undertook and prom-
ised to carry out the contract made between plaintiff and the ship-
per, states a mere conclusion of the pleader, and a demurrer to the
complaint does not admit that the transaction was other than an
ordinary purchase of a draft accompanied by a bill of lading.
(Tex.) S. Blaisdell, Jr., Co. v. Citizens' Nat. Bank etc., 944.
Pleading, demurrer to complaint, what admitted by, 833.
COLLATERAL SECURITY-Failure to Present for Payment
and Give Notice of Dishonor.-Though the holder of a negotiable in-
strument taken as collateral security for a debt fails to present it
for payment when due or to give notice of dishonor, this does not
entitle the pledgor to treat it as a payment for its face value.
(Mass.) Coleman v. Lewis, 450.
See Landlord and Tenant, 1.
POLICE POWER.
See Constitutional Law, 2.
POWER OF ATTORNEY.
See Husband and Wife, 7.
1. POWERS OF SALE-Special, How Must be Pursued.-Where
a special power of sale is given, to be exercised only on the happen-
ing of a certain event, it can be executed only in the mode, at the
time, and upon the conditions prescribed in the instrument creating
it, and the purchaser must, at his peril, ascertain whether the con-
tingency upon which the sale is authorized existed. This rule ap-
plies only where the condition upon which the power is to be ex-
ercised is upon the happening of a certain event or independent fact,
which may be ascertained by anyone with equal certainty. (Tenn.)
Matthews v. Capshaw, 854.
2. POWERS OF SALE.-Where the condition upon which a
power of sale is to be exercised is such that the determination,
whether it has been fulfilled or not, requires the exercise of judg
ment and discretion, as to which there may be an honest difference
of opinion, the decision of the donee of the power, in good faith and
without notice to an innocent purchaser, will not be set aside, though
it may afterward appear that his judgment was erroneous. (Tenn.)
Matthews v. Capshaw, 854.
3. IF A POWER of Sale is to be Exercised if a Necessity for
so Doing Arises, the judgment of the donee of the power as to the
necessity is conclusive in the absence of fraud. (Tenn.) Matthews
v. Capshaw, 854.
4. POWER OF SALE. Though a Power of Sale is not Exer-
cised in Good Faith, the title of the purchaser is not thereby affected,
unless collusion or guilty knowledge can be traced to him. (Tenn.)
Matthews v. Capshaw, 854.
5. POWERS OF SALES Given in Wills Should Receive a Liberal
Construction in order to carry out the purpose and intent of the tes-
tator. (Tenn.) Matthews v. Capshaw, 854.
6. POWER OF SALE-Conveyance, When Deemed to be in Exe-
cution of. Where the owner of a life estate is vested with a power
of sale and executes a conveyance purporting to convey in fee, but
without referring to the power, its exercise will nevertheless be
presumed. No express recital of the power is required. (Tenn.)
Matthews v. Capshaw, 854.
PRACTICE OF MEDICINE.
See Physicians and Surgeons.
1. AGENCY-Fraud of Agent-Duty to Disclose Facts.-An agent
authorized by his principal to sell property on certain terms and
for a specified price, who learns before sale is made that other
and more advantageous terms and prices can be obtained, is bound to
communicate such facts to his principal before making the sale, and
his failure to do so is a fraud for which the principal is entitled to
recover of him whatever loss he actually suffers through such failure.
(Minn.) Holmes v. Cathcart, 513.
|