§ 1. SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE. Nature and grounds of remedy in general. A vendor of a patent right cannot maintain a suit for specific performance of the contract of sale, as he has an adequate remedy at law. -Anderson v. Olsen (Ill.) 239. An administrator may maintain a bill for specific performance of an agreement by a creditor of the decedent to accept a sum of money in compromise of actions at law against the estate.-Cook v. Richardson (Mass.) 675. § 2. Contracts enforceable. The execution of a written lease as required by an oral contract will be enforced, though an action of specific performance cannot be maintained on the lease.-St. Joseph Hydraulic Co. v. Globe Tissue-Paper Co. (Ind. Sup.) 995. An oral contract for the lease of certain water rights, which is partially performed. is not invalid under Burns' Rev. Št. 1894, § 6629, subd. 4, requiring contracts for the sale of land to be in writing, but is enforceable as a partially performed contract under Burns' Rev. St. 1894, § 6633.-St. Joseph Hydraulic Co. v. Globe Tissue-Paper Co. (Ind. Sup.) 995. Rendition of services under contract within statute of frauds is not such part performance as to entitle plaintiff to specific performance, under 2 Rev. St. (1st Ed.) p. 135, § 10.-Russell v. Briggs (N. Y.) 303. A contract with a mother, by which A. agrees to take the child of the former and maintain him as her own, and at her death to give him her property, may be specifically enforced by the child against the estate of A., though such contract is not enforceable at law.-Winne v. Winne (N. Y.) 832. A specific performance of a contract with a mother, by which A. agrees to take the child of the former and maintain him as her own child, and to give him her property at her death, may be refused by the court, in its dis eretion, if the child fails to lead a worthy life. -Winne v. Winne (N. Y.) 832. 3. Proceedings and relief. Where the defendant in specific performance is unable to convey all the property because a part has been taken for a highway, the plaintiff may recover the damages which the defendant received therefor. Low v. Low (Mass.) 57. -- SPIRITUOUS LIQUORS. See "Intoxicating Liquors." STATEMENT. By witness inconsistent with testimony, see "Witnesses," § 3. Of case or facts for purpose of review, see "Appeal and Error," § 13. Of plaintiff's claim, see "Pleading," § 2. STATES. Courts, see "Courts." over municipal corporation, see "Municipal Corporations," § 1. § 1. Fiscal management, public debt, and securities. Laws 1896, c. 448, requiring the owner of a dog to pay a license fee to a humane society, held unconstitutional as a giving of public money to a private undertaking.-Fox v. Mohawk & H. R. Humane Soc. (N. Y.) 353. The devotion of fees received from the licensing of dogs to the care or destruction of other dogs not licensed held not a governmental purpose, and an unauthorized appropriation of public moneys.-Fox v. Mohawk & H. R. Humane Soc. (N. Y.) 353. STATUTES. Laws impairing obligation of contracts, see "Constitutional Law," § 4. Provisions relating to particular subjects, see "Army and Navy"; "Constitutional Law"; "Descent and Distribution"; "Eminent Domain"; "Intoxicating Liquors"; "Limitation of Actions," § 1; "Mechanics' Liens"; "Railroads," § 5. of." statute of frauds, see "Frauds, Statute Validity of retrospective or ex post facto laws, see "Constitutional Law," § 5. § 1. Enactment, requisites, and validity in general. Burns' Rev. St. 1894, § 2047, making heavy hauling over turnpikes and gravel roads in specified weather an offense, held void for un certainty.-Cook v. State (Ind. App.) 489. St. 1898, c. 452, is not unconstitutional, because in the endeavors which suggested the legislation considerations were presented to the legislature which would not justify the enactment.-Attorney General v. Williams (Mass.) 812. § 2. General and special or local laws. Act April 6, 1900, providing for the creation of a board of park commissioners in certain cities, and Act April 16, 1900, supplementary thereto, held unconstitutional.-State v. Cowles (Ohio) 895. 3. Subjects and titles of acts. The regulation of the rate of fare is germane to the subject of an act entitled "An act to authorize a railroad to extend its rond."--Parker v. Elmira, C. & N. R. Co. (N. Y.) 81. special election conducted in the village of B., Laws 1873. c. 84, confirming and validating a held not repugnant to Const. art. 3, § 16; and the village of B. was entitled to the allowance of police fees as provided by Laws 1897, c. 414, §§ 185, 190.-People v. Sutphin (N. Y.) 770. § 4. Repeal, suspension, expiration, and revival. General railroad law (Laws 1890, c. 565) held not to repeal Laws 1872, c. 594, authorizing a particular railroad to charge four cents per mile.--Parker v. Elmira, C. & N. R. Co. (N. Y.) 81. A water company, having begun a water system under Laws 1875, c. 181, was held entitled to continue thereunder, though a repealing statute was passed.-Village of Champlain v. McCrea (N. Y.) 83. § 5. Construction and operation. Act April 17, 1886, amending Rev. St., § 4812, adding five years to the period for which extra taxes could be levied under the one-mile pike law, is retroactive, and void as to pikes Legislative power, see "Constitutional Law," constructed before its passage.-Miller v. Hix 2. son (Ohio) 749. A street-railway company organized under general laws may construct and operate its road over land, acquired by purchase, which is outside the limits of streets and highways. -Farnum v. Haverhill & A. St. Ry. Co. (Mass.) 755. § 2. Regulation and operation. Though street cars have a superior right of way to the general travel at places other than crossings, to the extent that those traveling by other means must get out of the way of inoving cars, yet the general public have the right to use the entire street, and will not be treated as trespassers in so doing.-North Chicago St. R. Co. v. Smadraff (Ill.) 527. SURETYSHIP. See "Principal and Surety." SURVIVAL. Of cause of action, see "Abatement and Revival," § 2. SUSPENSION. Of benefit insurance, see "Insurance," § 11. SWINDLING. See "False Pretenses." TAXATION. See "Highways," § 2; "Municipal Corporations," § 13. Assessments for municipal improvements, see "Municipal Corporations," $$ 5-8. Constitutional guaranty of equal protection Occupation or privilege taxes, see "Intoxicating § 1. Constitutional requirements and value to be taken as the assessed value held The statute requiring one-fifth of the actual A charge that the jury should consider the fact that a street-car company had a right of way superior to all other persons held mislead-ot void, since it applies equally and uniforming as applied to the issues and evidence.ly between all taxpayers.-City of Chicago v. Fishburn (Ill.) 791. North Chicago St. R. Co. v. Smadraff (Ill.) 527. Evidence in action for injury on track held to justify directing verdict for defendant.-Mathes v. Lowell, L. & H. St. Ry. (Mass.) 77. Facts in suit for damages for the negligence of a street-railway company held sufficient to entitle plaintiff to have the case submitted to the jury-Countryman v. Fonda, J. & G. R. Co. (N. Y.) 822. STREETS. § 2. Liability of persons and property. Under Chicago Theological Seminary Charter. § 5, property belonging to the seminary, but not used in immediate connection with the seminary, is not exempt from taxation, though the income thereof is used solely for school purposes.-Board of Directors of Chicago Theo logical Seminary v. People (Ill.) 977. The fact that the guardian of a ward was appointed within the state and removed therefrom held not to give the state authority to tax the property of the ward outside the state. See "Highways"; "Municipal Corporations," & Maxwell v. People (Ill.) 1098. 12. SUBSCRIPTIONS. To corporate stock, see "Corporations," § 2. SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADING. See "Pleading," § 5. SUPREME COURTS. See "Courts," § 4. Under Revenue Act, § 1, the state cannot tax moneys and credits removed therefrom before the date fixed for the listing of the property by a person who has ceased to be a resident of such state.-Maxwell v. People (Ill) 1101. Under Pub. St. c. 11, § 5, el. 7, the vacant portion of a lot held by a religious society and intended to be used as a site for a permanent church edifice, on which no work has been done, is not exempt from taxation.-All Saints Parish v. Inhabitants of Town of Brookline (Mass.) 1003. Under Laws 1857, c. 456, § 3, a corporation | tion when application was made to the councannot be assessed on surplus earnings not in ty court for judgment.-Maxwell v. People excess of 10 per cent. on the par value of its (Ill.) 1101. stock.-People v. Barker (N. Y.) 137. Fee damages paid by an elevated railroad company to abutting owners are assessable as assets of the company.-People v. Barker (N. Y.) 151. Rental damages paid by an elevated railroad company to abutting property owners should be deducted from its assets in assessing its property for taxation.-People v. Barker (N. Y.) 151. Indebtedness incurred in purchase of franchises cannot be deducted from assets of elevated railway company in assessing its property for taxation, under 1 Rev. St. p. 391, § 9. subd. 4, as amended by Laws 1892, c. 202.People v. Barker (N. Y.) 151. Tax Law, $$ 12, 21, 37, does not authorize the deduction of contingent liabilities from the assessed value of corporate stock.-People v. Feitner (N. Y.) 731. Under Tax Law, §§ 12, 21, 37, a surety company which has not set apart a certain portion of its assets to reinsure its risks is not entitled to deduct a sum from the taxable value of its stock as a reinsurance reserve.-People v. Feitner (N. Y.) 731. 3. Place of taxation. A citizen of Indiana cannot be taxed in Iilinois for credits due him in the latter state. where he has no residence or resident agent therein, and keeps all his notes and papers at his home. Hayward v. Board of Review of Christian County (Ill.) 601. § 4. Levy and assessment. Objection that proceedings of board of review were irregular, in not taking sworn testimony and in using information as to complainant's commercial rating, held no ground for enjoining the collection of the tax.-Pratt v. Raymond (Ill.) 16. Under Revenue Act 1898, § 35, par. 2, the fact that a board of review, in raising an assessment, acted on information obtained from persons not present at the hearing given the property owner held not to invalidate its action.-Earl v. Raymond (Ill.) 19. Under Revenue Act 1898, § 35, par. 2, the fact that the hearing before a board of review to revise an assessment was had before only one member of the board held not to invalidate the entire board's action in raising the assessment.-Earl v. Raymond (Ill.) 19. A taxpayer appearing before the board of review held not entitled to complain that his assessment was afterwards increased without his knowledge.-American Exp. Co. v. Raymond (III.) 528. Where a taxpayer failed to make a complaint to the board of assessors and board of review | that his property was over-assessed, as required by Revenue Law 1898, §§ 23, 35, the courts have no power, in the absence of fraud, to change the assessment.-Hulbert V. People (Ill.) 567. The board of review can acquire no jurisdiction to tax property not in the state and belonging to a nonresident.-Maxwell v. People (III.) 1101. The word "exempt." as used in Revenue Act 1898, § 35, par. 4. held to apply to property not subject to taxation because not within the state.-Maxwell v. People (Ill.) 1101. Revenue Act 1898, § 35, par. 4, providing a method of bringing a decision of the board of review that property claimed to be exempt is liable to taxation before the supreme court, is cumulative to Revenue Act 1872, § 191, and not exclusive of it, and the taxpayer may elect between them.-Maxwell v. People (Ill.) 1101. If property claimed to be exempt from taxation is assessed, and part is taxable, the owner's remedy is by an application to abate the tax.-All Saints Parish v. Inhabitants of Town of Brookline (Mass.) 1003. A petition, under Pub. St. c. 11, §§ 69-71, for the abatement of taxes on the real estate and machinery of a corporation, will not be denied because the tax commissioner, in determining its franchise tax, had taken the valuation sought to be abated as the value to be deducted, under Pub. St. c. 13, § 40.-Tremont & Suffolk Mills v. City of Lowell (Mass.) 1007. Presumption that capital of corporation is unimpaired, because dividends are paid, may should be the basis of assessment of the corbe rebutted by evidence of indebtedness which porate property.-People v. Barker (N. Y.) 151. On certiorari to review assessment of corDorate property, it was error for the appellate division to vacate the assessment on appeal from an order confirming such assessment: but it should have been remanded for readjustment. People v. Barker (N. Y.) 151. 94 Ohio Laws, 246, known as the "Hendley Law," in so far as it relates to boards of revision, held not in conflict with 94 Ohio Laws, 336, known as the "Royer Law."-State v. Morris (Ohio) 226. 94 Ohio Laws, 246, known as the "Hendley Law," relating to boards of revision, is a valid act, except as to the dates of completing the work of equalization by the decennial county and city boards.-State v. Morris (Ohio) 226. § 5. Payment and refunding or recovery of tax paid. In a suit by a property owner to recover taxes paid under protest, on the ground that the property is exempt, the burden is on him to show the exemption.-All Saints Parish v. In. habitants of Brookline (Mass.) 1003. § 6. Collection and enforcement against persons or personal property. Injunction will not lie to restrain the collection of a tax based on an overvaluation of property, on the ground that the board of review refused to consider an objection filed thereto.-Coxe Bros. & Co. v. Salomon (Ill.) 422. Omission of the assessment record to show the increased value of the different kinds of property as made by the board of review is not sufficient to sustain a bill to enjoin the collection of the tax.-American Exp. Co. v. Raymond (Ill.) 528. § 7. Sale of land for nonpayment of tax. Under Revenue Law 1898, §§ 23, 27, 35, evidence that defendant went frequently to the board of assessors to secure information as to the valuation of his property, without applying to the chief clerk for a copy of his assessment, held not sufficient to sustain an objection that defendant was unable to procure the information in time to present objections to the board of review.-Hulbert v. People (Ill.) Under Revenue Act 1898. § 35, par. 4, held that, where the auditor refused to present the case of objection to taxation to the supreme court, the party aggrieved was not limited to his remedy by mandamus to compel the audi- The board of review having sustained an obtor to do so, but could himself raise the objec-jection and held that the property was not 567. |