Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

RECORDING.
See Landlord and Tenant, 2; Mortgages, 4.

REHEARING.

See Appeal and Error.
Note.
Remaindermen. See Judgments Against Persons not in Being.

REPLEVIN
1. REPLEVIN–Title in Third Person as a Defense. The rule
that a defendant in replevin may show title in a third person, if
it goes to disprove the plaintiff's claim, does not apply when the
plaintiff claims under a deed from the defendant alone. (Mo.)
Layson v. Cooper, 545.

2. REPLEVIN-A Judgment for the Defendant for Costs, but
Saying Nothing About the Return of the Property to Him in an ac-
tion of replevin in which passession had been taken by a sheriff
does not preclude the plaintiff from maintaining a subsequent action
against the sheriff for the possession of such property. It is optional
with the defendant in an action of replevin whether he will take a
judgment for the return of the property or leave it to the result of
some subsequent action. (Kan.) Johnson v. Boehme, 357.

REPORTS AND INFORMATION.

See Property.

RESCUING LIFE AND PROPERTY.

See Negligence, 3, 9.

RES GESTAE.
See Homicide.

RES JUDICATA.
See Judgments, 12, 13; Parent and Child.
Note.
Res Judicata, habeas corpus proceedings for the custody of children,

effect of decisions in, 403.

REVERSAL OF JUDGMENT.

See Garnishment.

ROBBERY.
ROBBERY--Snatching a Purse from the Hand.--If one, with
an intent to steal, suddenly snatches a purse secured by a chain
around the owner's finger, breaking the chain and injuring the finger,
the offense is robbery, and not larceny from the person. (Ga.)
Emrith v. State, 165.

1

RUNAWAY TEAM.

See Highways

SALARY.
See Master and Servant; Officers.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

SALES. 1. SALES—Warranty.-A manufacturer's printed warranty, remaining pasted on an article when sold by a dealer, who has puro chased from such manufacturer and sold to a third person without any express representation or warranty does not bind such dealer. (Minn.) Pemberton v. Dean, 503.

2. SALE.-A Warranty of Title in a sale of personal property is not negotiable, and does not run with the article sold. (Ga.) Smith v. Williams, 220.

3. SALE—Breach of Warranty of Title.—The Measure of Damages on a breach of warranty of title to personal property, is the purchase money, with interest, and expenses properly incurred by the vendee in attempting to defend his title. (Ga.) Smith v. Williams, 220.

4. SALE—Breach of Warranty of Title.--The Measure of Damages against the original warrantor of the title to personal property cannot be increased by reason of liabilities subsequently incurred by his vendee on account of independent warranties of the same property to later purchasers. (Ga.) Smith v. Williams, 220.

5. SALE—Breach of Warranty of Title.-Attorney's Fees cannot be recovered by a vendee in a suit for a breach of warranty of title, where there is no allegation that the vendor was guilty of fraud or bad faith when he made the sale. (Ga.) Smith v. Williams, 220.

6. CONDITIONAL SALES Erroneous Judgment.--If a contract for the sale of personalty provides that title shall remain in the vendor until notes given for the purchase price are paid, that the vendor may retake the property for default in payment, that payments then made shall be considered as made for use, and that the rental value shall be a certain amount per month, and, in default of any payments on the notes the vendor retakes and sells the property, the consideration for the notes fails, and a judgment for the difference between the amount of the notes and the proceeds of the sale, is erroneous and cannot be sustained. (Mich.) McBryan v. Universal Elevator Co., 453.

See Constitutional Law, 3.

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

SLANDER
See Libel and Slander.

SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE. 1. SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE-Discretion of the Court.-An application for specific performance is addressed to the sound discretion of the court. He who asks it must have shown himself prompt and willing to comply with his contract, and it will not be granted if it would be inequitable and work hardship upon the party against whom it is asked. If, since the contract, the value of the land has greatly increased, and the conditions changed, and the vendee is in a condition where the enforced performance would greatly damage him and especially where the purchaser is chargeable with the delay by reason of the failure to perform, equity will refuse to compel the vendor to convey. (W. Va.) Lowther Oil Co. v. Miller etc. Oil Co., 1027.

2. SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE—Losing Right to by Long Delay and Permitting Adverse Interests to Grow up.—If one holding a contract for the purchase of lands delays for nine years completing payment of the purchase price, during which time he permits the vendor to remain in possession, and rents from him and pays rent for some years, and finally oil is discovered and the lands are greatly increased in value, and leases are made by the vendor for the purpose of permitting and encouraging the development of an oil field, and large expenditures are made thereunder with the knowledge of the purchaser and without his protest, he can no longer maintain suit for specific performance of the contract to convey. (W. Va.) Lowther Oil Co. v. Miller etc. Oil Co., 1027.

3. SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE—Estoppel.–A person who stands by without making known his rights, and encourages and permits an innocent purchaser to negotiate an oil lease with the owner of the property and to thereafter incur great expenditure in the search for and devoloping of oil, is estopped from maintaining a suit against the land owner and such lessee to enforce a contract to purchase the lands entered into before such lease was mrade. (W. Va.) Lowther Oil Co. v. Miller etc. Oil Co., 1027.

4. PAROL GIFT OF REAL PROPERTY—Specific Performance of.-One who, upon the faith of a gift from the owner, enters into the possession of real property and makes improvements of a valu. able and permanent character, becomes entitled to specific performance by the owner. (Tex.) Cauble v. Worsham, 871.

5. SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE will not be Decreed of a Contract Made with Intent to Defraud Creditors. (W. Va.) Lowther Oil Co. v. Miller etc. Oil Co., 1027.

6. SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE-What Will not Defeat.-The specific performance of a contract to furnish evidence and provide for the prosecution of an action in favor of the defendant, in consideration of a part of the judgment recovered, cannot be defeated by'showing that the plaintiff did not strictly comply with its terms in advancing money, when the defendant has received and retains the benefits of at least a substantial performance. (Colo.) Wood V. Casserleigh, 138.

See Assignment, 8.

[ocr errors]
[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

STREETS.
See Dedication; Highways; Municipal Corporations,

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]
[ocr errors][merged small]

TAXATION,
1. TAXATION of Property Belonging to a City.--Waterworks
Owned by a City and operated to supply public buildings and places
and for protection against fire and for furnishing water to the
public at fixed charges, and the rentals of which go into the public
treasury and are expended for public benefit, are not subject to
taxation. (Kan.) Sumner County v. City of Wellington, 396.

2. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-Exemption from Taxation.--- Where
a constitution declares that the legislature shall provide for a uni.
form and equal rate of taxation, and that certain specified classes
of property shall be exempt from taxation, this does not preclude
the legislature from exempting other property. (Kan.) Summer
County v. City of Wellington, 396.

3. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW--Taxation-Retroactive Statute.--A statute attempting to create a personal liability to pay assessments previously made on lanā, where no liability existed when the assess

ments were made, is unconstitutional and void. (Mich.) City of Grand Rapids v. Lake Shore etc. Ry. Co., 473.

Note.
Tax Sales, adjournment of, power of officer to order, 655, 656.

TELEGRAPHS AND TELEPHONES. 1. TELEGRAPH CORPORATIONS-Damages for Mental Anguish, When not Admissible.-In an action against a telegraph corporation for the negligent failure to deliver a message summoning the plaintiff to the bedside of his mother then fatally ill, it is not permissible to prove that she frequently inquired for her son and kept calling his name and asked why he did not come to her. (Tex.) Western Union Tel. Co. v. Waller, 936.

2. TELEGRAPH CORPORATIONS-Conflict of Laws. The fact that damages for mental anguish are not recoverable in a state or country where a telegraph message should have been delivered will not prevent their recovery in an action in the state whence the megsage was sent, if recoverable by its laws. (Tex.) Western Union Tel. Co. v. Waller, 936.

3. TELEPHONE COMPANIES — Negligence—Defense.—It being the duty of a telephone company to remove its wires from a building after the discontinuance of telephone service therein, and negligence per se to fail to do so, it is no defense for it in an action sounding in damages for injury to a third person resulting from such wires being negligently allowed to remain therein, that the company did all that could be done to obviate the danger of their being there. (Ala.) Southern Bell Telephone etc. Co. v. McTyer, 62.

4. TELEPHONE COMPANIES—Negligence-Liability to Third Persons.-If telephone service has been discontinued in, and the instruments removed from, a building in which a mercantile business is carried on, and the telephone company, instead of removing its wires as suggested by the owner of the building, merely cuts them loose from the instrument, twists their ends together and leaves. them dangling in the building, so that atmospheric electricity, striking them somewhere along their course on the outside, will be inducted into the building and there discharged to the peril of persons and property therein, this is negligence per se on the part of the telephone company, and renders it liable in damages for whatever injuries may result to customers, persons and property rightfully on the premises. (Ala.) Southern Bell Telephone etc. Co. v. McTyer, 62.

See Eminent Domain,

TENANCY IN COMMON. 1. JOINT OWNERSHIP by an Individual and a Society. If a lot is conveyed to an individual and a society, the latter being unable to acquire legal title because unincorporated, and a building is erected under an agreement that each shall build and own a certain portion, and thereafter the society holds continuous possession of its part of the building, claiming one-half of the lot, and finally becoming incorporated, a grantee under a deed from the individual alone, which excepts the portion of the building owned by the society, takes with notice of the society's claim. (Iowa) Truth Lodge No. 213 etc. v. Barton, 303.

« ZurückWeiter »