« PreviousContinue »
SURETY OF THE PEACE, neighboring county, and on the lin,
of the telegraph, is guilty of gross
In a proceeding for surety of the negligence
peace, the question as to just cause 4. Same.--Penal Statute.- Where 2
of fear relates to the time of the in statute fixes the amount which a tel.
stitution of the proceeding, and not egraph company shall pay as a penal-
to the time of the trial. The State, ty if she fails to comply with its re-
ex rel. Dougherty, v. Sayer.......379 quirements, the company cannot
Same. - If, on the final trial of a change the degree or measure of her
proceeding for surety of the peace,
have no jurisdiction, without the pe tract of land, it is a condition,prece.
tition filed of a majority of all the dent to his right to enforce the con-
resident owners of lots, &c.; and an tract; and in such a case the com-
ordinance passed and contract made plaint must allege a tender of a deed
for the improvement of the sidewalks therefor. Mather v. Scoles.........
of the town without such petition is 2. Specific Performance. -A party
void, Town of Covington et al. v. asking the specific performance of a
.......532 contract must do all in his power to
4. Same.- Parties.- Where the work fulfill the contract upon
in progress under such void proceed-
ing would be of no benefit, but a VENIRE DE NOVO.
damage to the citizens of the town, a
resident tax payer of the town may, See INTERROGATORIES TO JURY.
for himself and others of like inter-
est, enjoin the prosecution of the
See CRIMINAL LAW, 17.
See RAILROAD, 9, 10.
See BASTARDY, I; NEGLIGENCE, 2;
Special Verdict. See INTERROGATORIES
Pleading.-In an action for trespass TO JURY.
quare clausuin fregit, where the only Interrogatories. General Verdict.-
answer is a general denial, the court Where a general verdict is returned
has no authority to find a justifica for the plaintiff, and answers to
tion of the acts of trespass. That special interrogatories are also re-
defense requires a special plea. John turned, and the answers exclude eve-
son v. Cuddington et al............. 43 ry conclusion that will authorize a
recovery for the plaintiff, a judgment
TRUST AND TRUSTEE. should be rendered for the defendant,
notwithstanding the general verdict.
See CHARITABLE USE; CONVEYANCE, Snyder v. Robinson et al...........311
1, 2, 3
Whoever keeps an animal accus.
tomed to attack or bite mankind, with
Sec CHARITABLE USE; CONVEYANCE. knowledge of its dangerous propen-
sities, is prima facie liable to an ac-
tion for damages at the suit of any
person attacked or injured by the
animal, without proof of any negli-
gence or fault in the securing or
See RAILROAD, 2.
taking care of it. The gist of the
action is the keeping of the animal
VENDOR AND PURCHASER. after knowledge of its mischievous
disposition. Partlow v. Haggarty.178
See CONSIDERATION, 2; EXECUTOR | 2. Same'.—Complaint.-Suit to recov.
AND ADMINISTRATOR, 6; FIXTURES; er for injuries received from being
FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE; PAR bitten and otherwise injured by a
TITION, 4; PAYMENT, I; PLEADING, dog. The complaint alleged that the
1, 2; REAL PROPERTY, ALIENATION defendant kept the dog, and negli-
OF; SHELLEY'S CASE; STATUTE OF gently suffered him to go at large,
FRAUDS, i to 4.
and that he attacked and bit the
plaintiff, without her fault, and great-
Condition Precedent.-Where the ly lacerated and injured her, &c.,
grantee of lands agrees to convey, in and that the defendant had knowl.
part payment of purchase-money, a edge of the fact that the dog was ac-
customed to commit such injuries; Contracts made prior to the procla,
mation of August 16th, 1861, were
Held, that the complaint was good.. Ibid. valid; but during the war the debt
and the remedy were suspended, and
did not revive until the restoration of
9. Enemy.-Right to Sue.--During
the existence of war an enemy can.
1. Constitritional Law.--Power to De not sue in any of the courts of the
clare War.-Congress alone has hostile belligerent power......... Ibid.
power to declare war; and the Pres- 10. Same. -Status of Inhabitant of
ident of the United States has no Louisiana during the War.-An in-
power to declare war or conclude habitant of the State of Louisiana
peace, except as empowered by Con during the war of the rebellion was
gress. Perkins v. Rogers ......... 124 an enemy of all the inhabitants of
2. Same.-Existence of Peace or Iar. the State of Indiana, and could not
Ilow Ascertained.---The existence of maintain an action against any citi-
war and the restoration of peace are zen of this State, in any of the courts
to be determined by the political de of the United States... ..Ibid,
partment of the government; and 11. Same.- Judical Notice.— The
such determination is conclusive up courts will take judicial notice that
on the judiciary..... ......... Ibid. all the inhabitants of the State of
3. Same.--- Judicial Notice. The Louisiana were in insurrection, but
courts will take judicial notice of the they will not take judicial notice that
existence of war or the restoration of any of such inhabitants maintained a
peace, when proclaimed by the Pres loyal adherence to the United States,
Ibid. or that any part of said state was oc-
4. llar of the Rebellion.—When it cupied by the military forces of the
became a Civil War:--The late in United States, or that any person had
surrection of the Southern states a license or permit from the Presi-
did not become a civil war, and was dent........
not governed by the rules of war, 12. Occupation of New Orleans.—The
until after the proclamation of Presi. legal effect of the occupation of the
dent Lincoln, issued August 16th, city of New Orleans was to permit
1861, pursuant to an act of Congress commercial intercourse between the
of July 13th, 1861...... Ibid. citizens of that city and such citizens
5. Civil War:- Rules of:-A civil of the United States as were licenseri
war is governed by the same rules by the President under the Act of
as a foreign war.....
.. Ibid. Congress of July 13th, 1861...... Ibid.
6. Same.-Effect upon Inhabitants of 13. Statute of Limitations.-Between
States in Rivolt. The proclamation Citizens of Different Bclligerent Pow.
of August 16th, 1861, placed all the ers.--The statute of limitations does
inhabitants of Louisiana in a state of not run, during the existence of war,
insurrection, and they became the en between the citizens of different bel-
emies of the United States, and all ligerent powers.....
commercial intercourse between the 14. Same.-- Restoration of Peace.--
citizens of that state and those of the Upon the restoration of peace, the
loyal states during the continuance statute of limitations begins to run;
of the war was unlawful, except such for both the debt and remedy, which
as was specially permitted by the Pres. have been suspended during the war,
7. Contracts.-Between Citizens of Bel-15. Same.-Although actual hostilities
ligerent Powers.-All contracts made ceased in April, 1865, yet peace was
between the citizens of the rebellious not legally restored until the 20th of
states, on the one hand, and of the loy August, 1866, when the rebellion
al states, on the other, during the war, was declared completely suppressed,
and not licensed by the President, and peace restored, by the proclama-
Ibid. tion of the President....... ..Ibid.
8. Same.- Mlade Prior to the War.-16. Same.- Period Excluded from
Operation of Statuto.-In an action
instituted by a citizen of Louisiana
against a citizen of Indiana, the time 1. City:-Right of City to Construct.
that intervened between the 16th of Cities have power
August, 1861, and the 20th of August, wharves and collect wharfage. City
1866, is to be excluded, in determin of Jeffersonville v. Ferryboat John
ing whether the action is barred by Shallcross et al .....
the statute of limitations......... Ibid. 2. Same. — Repair.— The voluntary
17. Same.- New Promise.—A letter expenditure of money by a stranger
written during the existence of the in repairing the wharf of a city will
war of the rebellion, by a citizen of not create a liability against the city.
Indiana to a citizen of Louisiana,
cannot take a case out of the opera- 3. Same.—Duty of City to Repair.-
tion of the statute of limitations.Ibid. A city can be compelled to repair
18. Review of Judgment.-Want of her wharves, and may be liable in
Jurisdiction of Courts over Suits be damages for failure to do so...... lbid.
tween Citizens of States at War:-An 4. Same.-Liability of Parties who
action was brought by a citizen of the Use the hardes. - A party who
State of Virginia against a citizen of uses the wharves of a city cannot dlc.
the State of Indiana, in a state court, feat the city's claim for wharsage by
on the 14th day of May, 1861, for showing that the wharves are out of
an accounting of a long standing repair ....
trust for the sale of a large quantity 5. Jurisdiction.-Claims for Wharf.
of lands, for setting aside contracts age.—The State courts have jurisdic-
and conveyances for fraud, recover tion to enforce the collection of
ing money alleged to be due, enforc-
claims for wharfage ....... Ibid.
ing liens, &c., and judgment was 6. Same.- A claim for wharsage
rendered on the 21st day of August, against a domestic vessel is not of
1863, and a suit was brought by the admiralty jurisdiction........ ..Toid.
plaintiff to review the proceedings
and judgment on the 19th day of
IIcld, that the courts must take judicial See CHARITABLE USES; EXECUTOR AND
notice of the fact that before, at, and ADMINISTRATOR, 5.
after, the rendition of the judgment
sought to be reviewed, Virginia, one 1. Rule in Shelley's Case.-A. made
of the Confederate States, was at his will, as follows: “And it is my
war with Indiana, one of the adher will that my son John shall have that
ing or loyal states of the Union; land as follows: the south-west quar-
and that it was error of law to ren ter of section twenty-two, in town
der the judgment in the proceeding twenty-two, north of range one west,
which had been commenced in the to be for his use his life, and then to
state court, no jurisdiction remain fall to his heirs."
ing in said court for that purpose ; Told, that this gave to the devisee the
and the plaintiff was therefore enti fee simple, according to the rule in
tled to a review of the judgment. Shelley's case. McCray et al. v.
Brooke et al. v. Filer et al.........402 Lippet al....
Evidence. Where the law fixes
tion to each other, so as, if possible, the testator was to secure his widow
to form one consistent whole; and a competency, and if it was neces-
that words and limitations may be sary that she should sell the land,
transposed, supplied, or rejected, she might do so; but the balance of
where warranted by the immediate the estate unconsuined at her deatlı
context or the general scheme of the she could not devise.
will, but not merely on conjectural Hild, also, that the word heirs, as used
hypothesis of the testator's intention, in the clause of the will which gave
however reasonable, in opposition the estate, except one thousand dol-
to the plain and obvious sense of the lars, to the heirs of his daughter S.,
language of the instrument; and meant children.
such a construction should be placed | Held, also, that real estate purchased
upon the will as to sustain and up with the proceeds of the sale of the
hold it in all its parts, is this can be real estate devised by the will to the
done consistently with the established wise for her life, after the death of
rules of law and construction. the wife and the payment of the one
Grimes' Ex'rs v. Harmon et al...198 thousand dollars to the daughter S.,
4. Same.- Parol Evidence. --Mistake. belonged to the children of S. Rapp
Ambiguity. — The general rule is, et al. v. Matthias............ ·332
that parol evidence of the intention
of a testator is inadmissible for the
purpose of explaining, contradicting,
or adding to ihe contents of a will, 1. Impeachment.-A party whose wit-
but that its language must be inter nesses are impeached by evidence of
preted according to its proper signi. bad character, or by evidence that
fication, or with as near an approach they have made statements contrary
thereto as the body of the instrument to the testimony given upon the wit-
and the state of circumstances 'exist. ness stand, may sustain them by evi-
ing at the time of its execution will dence of their general good charac-
admit of. The doctrine in reference ter for truth und veracity. Seeger v.
to mistakes in wills is, that courts of Pfeifer
equity have jurisdiction to correct 2. Action by Heir.-In an action
them when they are apparent upon
brought by a widow as the heir of
the face of the will; but they must her hushand, where she claims that
be so apparent, and must be such as under and by virtue of a contract
may be made by a proper construc made with her husband by the de-
tion of the terms of the will; other fendant, her husband became the
wise there can be no relief. Parol owner of certain property in contro-
evidence, or evidence dehors the will, versy, and that she, as the heir of her
is not adınissible to vary and control husband, has the right to compel the
the terms of the will, although it is defendant to charge himself with the
admissible to move a latent ambi. property as administrator of the hus-
Ibid. band, neither the plaintiff nor dc-
5. Same. — Bequest for Life.--Heirs. fendant is, by the last exception of
Children.-A testator bequeathed all
the second section of the act defining
his real and personal property to his who shall be competent witnesses,
wife, “ for her use and benefit during competent to testify as a witness as
her natural life,'' and after her death to any matter that occurred prior to
all that remained unconsumed was the death of the husband, unless re-
to be sold, and one thousand dollars quired by the opposite party or by
paid to his daughter S., and the the court. Pea v. Pea.............. 387
balance was to be divided among 3. Husband and Wife.-On the trial
the heirs of his daughter S., share of an action by husband and wife for
and share alike; the wife to have injury to the wise, the husband is in-
the right to sell and dispose of said competent to be a witness. Now-
property, both real and personal, as house v. Miller et ux..
4. Expert.--Insanity.—Physicians who
Hild, that the wife took only a life are engaged in practice, and have
given the subject of medical juris-
Hold, also, that the evident intention of prudence some attention, by reading