§ 184 (Ill.) On a trial for larceny, the state | divorce decree.-Guggenheim v. Wahl, 96 N.
held to fail to prove an averment of the in- E. 726.
dictment that a more particular description of
the property stolen was unknown to the grand
jury.-People v. Hunt, 96 N. E. 220.
XI. WAIVER OF DEFECTS AND OB-
JECTIONS, AND AIDER BY
VERDICT.
(B) Property, Conveyances, and Incum-
brances.
§ 48 (Mass.) Equity will enjoin repeated
trespasses, though when taken separately they
may not materially impair the use of the prop-
erty affected.-Boston & M. R. R. v. Hunt, 96
N. E. 140.
rights of another, may be compelled to undo,
as far as possible, the wrong done and to pay
damages therefor.-Kershishian v. Johnson, 96
N. E. 56.
§ 196 (Ind.) One accused of felony while a
§ 49 (Mass.) An owner of real property, ap-
fugitive from justice could not be heard to
test the sufficiency of the indictment or in-propriating or interfering with the property
formation.-Southerland v. State, 96 N. E. 583.
$199 (Ind.) Defense to prosecution for sale
of liquor by druggist that defendant was an
unlicensed druggist should be presented as a
variance between the offense charged and the
offense shown.-State v. Cameron, 96 N. E.
INDORSEMENT.
See Bills and Notes, §§ 253-375, 495.
See Conversion, § 22; Landlord and Tenant, §
169; Municipal Corporations, § 705; Negli-
gence, $$ 85, 136; Parent and Child; Rail-
roads, $387; Rape, §§ 40, 44; Street Rail-
roads, §§ 100, 112, 117, 118; Witnesses, § 40.
§ 59 (N.Y.) While an infant is liable for his
torts, a matter arising ex contractu, though in-
fected with fraud, cannot be changed into a
tort to charge the infant by a change of rem-
edy.-Collins v. Gifford, 96 N. E. 721.
§ 62 (N.Y.) Where a complaint against an
infant for misrepresentations in the sale of a
horse was in fact based on a warranty, a re-
covery could not be supported on the theory
that the infant was liable as for deceit.-Col-
lins v. Gifford, 96 N. E. 721.
§ 50 (Mass.) An owner of land held entitled
to mandatory relief to the extent of requir-
ing the removal of a building which encroach-
ed on his land.-Kershishian v. Johnson, 96
N. E. 56.
§ 57 (Ind.App.) The rule that building con-
tracts will not be enforced in equity held sub-
ject to enumerated exceptions.-Cincinnati, B.
& C. R. R. v. Wall, 96 N. E. 389.
An owner conveying land for a railroad right
of way held entitled to sue to enjoin the com-
pany from erecting an inferior fence.-Id.
Where a railroad company accepts the bene-
fits of a deed of a right of way to its agent,
containing a covenant that the company shall
erect and maintain a lawful fence, the court
may enjoin the company from erecting an in-
ferior fence, though there has been no formal
acceptance of the deed by it.-Id.
A covenant in a deed of a right of way to a
railroad company held sufficiently definite and
certain to be subject to enforcement by en-
joining a breach.-Id.
An injunction restraining a breach of a con-
tract held
thereof, so that the contract must be subject
a negative specific enforcement
to specific performance.-Id.
$59 (Ind.App.) The mere fact that an in-
junction forbidding a party to a contract from
attempting an execution expressly or impliedly
forbidden will not of itself afford complete re-
lief held not to warrant its denial.-Cincinnati,
B. & C. R. R. v. Wall, 96 N. E. 389.
(D) Corporate Franchises, Management,
and Dealings.
§ 67 (Ind.App.) The right to telephone serv-
ice is a legal right, which may be enforced by
mandate.-Mooreland Rural Telephone Co. v.
Mouch, 96 N. E. 193.
(G) Personal Rights and Duties.
§ 99 (Mass.) An employe's rights to labor,
though terminable at will, are entitled to pro-
tection against wanton interference, but the
rights are not so valuable as valid contracts
for continued service for a definite period.—
Minasian v. Osborne, 96 N. E. 1036.
§ 101 (Mass.) A labor union ordering a
strike on the refusal of an employer to dis-
charge an employé, or compel him to cease em-
ploying his father as helper, held guilty of ae-
tionable wrong, unless there was a sufficient
justification for their conduct.—Minasian v. Os-
borne, 96 N. E. 1036.
A labor union ordering a strike held to have
a sufficient justification, so as not to be sub-
ject to be enjoined on the ground of injuries
to employés discharged in consequence of the
strike.-Id.
III. ACTIONS FOR INJUNCTIONS.
$119 (Ind.App.) Answer to a complaint in
an action to enjoin discriminating charges br
a telephone company on a residence telephone
held not to negative the fact that complainant
was not using his residence phone in the usual
manner.-
r.-Mooreland Rural Telephone Co. v.
Mouch, 96 N. E. 193.
IV. PRELIMINARY AND INTERLOCU-
TORY INJUNCTIONS.
(B) Continuing, Modifying, Vacating, or
Dissolving.
§ 169 (Ill.) Where, on a proceeding in the
nature of a motion to dissolve an injunction
and dismiss the bill, the answer was stipulated
out of the record, a proceeding should be treat-
ed as in the nature of a demurrer to the bill
for want of equity.-Peoria Ry. Co. v. Peoria
Ry. Terminal Co., 96 N. E. 689.
§ 175 (Ill.) A motion to dismiss a bill for
an injunction, heard after a denial of a motion
for a temporary injunction, held not to amount
to a demurrer to the bill.-Leonard v. Garland,
See Evidence, § 220.
INNOCENT PURCHASERS.
I. CONTROL AND REGULATION IN
GENERAL.
§ 4 (Ill.) An act prohibiting discrimination
between life insurants of the same class and
expectation of life held not unconstitutional.-
People v. Hartford Life Ins. Co., 96 N. E. 1049.
§ 12 (Ill.) An act prohibiting discrimination
between life insurants of the same class and
equal expectation of life and providing for the
cancellation of the agent's license held not void
as prescribing a penalty disproportionate_to
the offense.-People v. Hartford Life Ins. Co.,
96 N. E. 1049.
§ 28 (Ill.) A statement of claim under an act
providing a penalty for a discrimination be-
tween life insurants of the same class and equal
expectation of life held sufficient, though it did
People v. Hartford Life Ins. Co., 96 N. E. 1049.
not allege that the discrimination was unjust.-
In an action for a statutory penalty for a
prohibited discrimination between life insur-
ants, proof of a rule against rebating in the
particular agency held properly refused, where
the rule was shown to have been violated with
the consent of the manager.-Id.
See Powers, § 43; Vendor and Purchaser, 8 lation of an act prohibiting discrimination be-
230.
INSANE PERSONS.
See Cancellation of Instruments, § 46; Plead-
ing, 8; Trial, § 296; Wills, §§ 38, 52.
$97 (Ind. App.) In a suit by an incompe-
tent's guardian to set aside a deed for mental
incapacity and undue influence, the complaint
held not objectionable for failure to allege that
the representations charged to have influenced
the grantor were untrue.-Humphrey v. Harris,
96 N. E. 38.
See Fraud, § 64: Master and Servant, § 124;
Statutes, 119.
§2 (Ill.) Under Const. art. 13, § 7, and arti-
cle 4, § 17, and in view of Grain Inspection Law
814, Act July 1, 1911 (Laws 1911, p. 429), pro-
viding for the payment of grain inspection fees
into the state treasury, is constitutional.-
Board of Trade of City of Chicago v. Cowen, 96
N. E. 1084.
Being contrary to Const. art. 4. § 17, the pro-
vision of the grain inspection law, § 14, that
fees charged should be used only to pay ex-
penses, cannnot be supported upon the theory
of contemporaneous legislative construction.-Id.
Act July 1, 1911 (Laws 1911, p. 429), held
not unconstitutional, because failing to appro-
priate sufficient money for an adequate grain
inspection.-Id.
To agent, see Principal and Agent. §§ 116, 150.
To jury, see Criminal Law. §§ 757-829, 1090,
1130, 1137, 1172, 1178; Trial, §§ 191-296.
To servant, see Master and Servant, § 155.
See Constitutional Law, § 89; Contracts, § 127;
Evidence, § 222; Executors and Administra-
tors, § 438; Fraudulent Conveyances, §§ 19,
39; Judgment, § 253; Limitation of Ac-
tions, 43; Pleading, § 106; Witnesses, §
379.
In an action for a statutory penalty for a vio-
tween life insurants, certain evidence held in-
admissible.-Id.
IV. INSURABLE INTEREST.
§ 115 (Mass.) The owner of the fee, though
having contracted to convey the same and re-
ceived the price, held before conveyance to have
an insurable interest in the property.-Adams
v. North American Ins. Co., 96 N. E. 1094.
V. THE CONTRACT IN GENERAL.
(A) Nature, Requisites, and Validity.
§ 138 (Mass.) Validity of a policy of life in-
surance, payable to insured's wife and child,
does not depend on their consent to the pro-
vision for their benefit, when originally made.-
York v. Flaherty, 96 N. E. 53.
§ 141 (N.Y.) Delivery of a bond executed by
a surety company for indemnification against
loss from dishonesty of an employé held to
waive a requirement of the bond that it be
signed by the employé, where accompanied by
a statement that it was "duly executed."-Gen-
eral Ry. Signal Co. v. Title Guaranty & Sure-
ty Co., 96 N. E. 734.
The execution of a separate indemnity by an
employé held to waive a condition of a bond
executed by a surety company requiring the
signature of the employé to the bond.-Id.
XII. RISKS AND CAUSES OF LOSS.
(B) Insurance of Property and Titles.
$ 421 (N.Y.) A fire policy held not to exempt
a company from liability for damage caused by
an explosion caused by the fire.-Wheeler v.
Phenix Ins. Co. of Brooklyn, 96 N. E. 452.
XIII. EXTENT OF LOSS AND LIABIL-
ITY OF INSURER.
§ 523 (Ill.) A policy, authorizing the deduc-
tion of any indebtedness due the insurer in any
settlement, held not to authorize the deduction
of an indebtedness growing out of transactions
with insured as the insurer's agent.-Anson v.
New York Life Ins. Co., 96 N. Ě. 846.
XVI. RIGHT TO PROCEEDS.
§ 587 (Mass.) Alteration of a policy so as to
make it payable to other beneficiaries held a
sufficient transfer, though unknown to them un-
til after insured's death.-York v. Flaherty, 96
N. E. 53.
For cases in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Indexes see same topic and section (§) NUMBER
$590 (Mass.) Beneficiary of a policy on | ciety, there can be no forfeiture on the ground
which insured had paid premiums in fraud of of nonpayment, unless_notice is given.-Su-
creditors and had obtained a loan held not en- preme Council Catholic Benev. Legion v. Grove.
titled to deduct the loan from the proceeds of 96 N. E. 159.
the policy, which creditors were entitled to sub-
ject to the extent of the premiums so paid,
under Rev. Laws, c. 118, § 73.-York v. Fla-
herty, 96 N. E. 53.
Representations and assurances made by as-
sured to some of his creditors held no ground
to avoid transfer of a life policy to his wife.
-Id.
XVII. PAYMENT OR DISCHARGE,
CONTRIBUTION, AND SUB-
$ 598 (Mass.) Insurance company having re-
tained part of the proceeds of a policy, because
of a demand of creditors, held not for that
reason liable for interest.-York v. Flaherty,
96 N. E. 53.
§ 601 (Mass.) Plaintiff held entitled to re-
cover a fire loss paid to defendant in an action
for deceit on proof that defendant in her ver-
ified proofs of loss knowingly misrepresented
material facts.-Palatine Ins. Co. of London v.
Kehoe, 96 N. E. 1099.
In an action by insurer to recover back mon-
ey paid on an insurance loss because of alleged
misrepresentations, a rider authorizing removal
attached to the proof of loss held admissible.
-Id.
§ 606 (Ind.) Where an insurance company
pays insured a loss caused by the negligence
of a railroad company, the insurer is subrogat-
ed to the rights of the insured to the extent of
the amount so paid.-New York, C. & St. L.
Ry. Co. v. Roper, 96 N. E. 468.
§ 606 (N.Y.) The right of subrogation which a
surety company has to any action of an employ-
er against a defaulting employé whom it bonded
held to waive a right to insist on the avoidance
of the bond because of a failure of the employé
to sign it.-General Ry. Signal Co. v. Title
Guaranty & Surety Co., 96 N. E. 734.
XVIII. ACTIONS ON POLICIES.
$ 621 (N.Y.) Recovery on a disability policy
under provision for payment on paralysis con-
tinuing for one year held not proper in a suit
brought before expiration of that time.-Miles
v. Casualty Co. of America, 96 N. E. 744.
§ 668 (N.Y.) Evidence in an action on a fire
policy held to make it a jury question whether
a fire in the insured building caused the explo-
sion which wrecked it.-Wheeler v. Phenix Ins.
Co. of Brooklyn, 96 N. E. 452.
XX. MUTUAL BENEFIT INSURANCE.
(A) Corporations and Associations.
§ 691 (Ill.) The courts may control the pay-
ment of funds collected by a fraternal benefit
association in accordance with the rules of law.
-Royal League v. Shields, 96 N. E. 45.
![[blocks in formation]](https://books.google.cl/books/content?id=OS88AAAAIAAJ&output=html_text&pg=PA1186&img=1&zoom=3&hl=en&q=deed&cds=1&sig=ACfU3U0z-Q1IJG8L16wgaXgrQ4o-WcOxag&edge=0&edge=stretch&ci=65,1194,475,320)
Custom of mutual benefit association of giv-
ing notice of regular assessments held a waiver
of the right of forfeiture of nonpayment with-
out such notice being given.-Id.
§ 756 (Ind.) The provision of a by-law of a
mutual benefit society that the failure to pay
an assessment when due shall suspend a mem-
ber and his rights under the benefit certificate
is a valid agreement and self-operative.-Su-
preme Council Catholic Benev. Legion v. Grove,
96 N. E. 159.
(E) Beneficiaries and Benefits.
§ 770 (Ill.) Dependence within Hurd's Rev.
St. 1909. c. 73. § 258, defined.-Royal League
v. Shields, 96 N. E. 45.
One held not dependent on a member of a
fraternal benefit association within Hurd's Rev.
St. 1909, c. 73, § 258, so that she could not
recover on the certificate.-Id.
777 (Ill.) A fraternal benefit association
organized to issue certificates as authorized by
Hurd's Rev. St. 1909, c. 73, § 258, held not au-
thorized to collect funds for the benefit of a
person not within the classes enumerated.-
Royal League v. Shields, 96 N. E. 45.
§ 780 (Ill.) An original certificate issued by
a fraternal benefit association held to stand un-
less the person named in the new certificate is
competent to take.-Royal League v. Shields.
96 N. E. 45.
§ 787 (Ind.) Under Burns' Ann. St. 1908, §
7852, 7853, member of mutual benefit associa-
tion held destitute of means of support within
terms of certificate, although his wife had prop-
erty.-Supreme Council Catholic Benev. Legion
V. Grove, 96 N. E. 159.
$ 791 (Ind.) Provisions in constitution and
laws of mutual benefit association as to pay-
ment of permanent disability benefit held man-
datory.-Supreme Council Catholic Benev. Le-
gion v. Grove, 96 N. E. 159.
§ 792 (Ind.) Mutual benefit association held
not entitled to defend action for permanent
disability benefit on the ground of failure to
surrender certificate, where it refuses payment
on another ground.-Supreme Council Catholic
Benev. Legion v. Grove, 96 N. E. 159.
(F) Actions for Benefits.
of a mutual benefit association provided for the
$805 (Ind.) Where the constitution and laws
determination of a claim for a permanent dis-
ability benefit by tribunals within the order.
the procedure prescribed must be followed as a
condition precedent to an appeal to the courts.
-Supreme Council Catholic Benev. Legion v.
Grove, 96 N. E. 159.
and laws of mutual benefit association, member
§ 817 (Ind.) Under provisions of constitution
suing for permanent disability benefit held not
bound to show number of members.-Supreme
Council Catholic Benev. Legion v. Grove, 96
N. E. 159.
§ 818 (Ind.) Evidence of construction of
terms in constitution and laws of mutual bene-
fit association of usages by president and su-
preme council and as to result of adverse bold-
ing held inadmissible, in absence of showing
that members had knowledge thereof.-Supreme
Council Catholic Benev. Legion v. Grove, 96 N.
E. 159.
See Chattel Mortgages; Compromise and Set-
tlement, 24; Constitutional Law, § 48:
Contracts, § 123; Conversion, § 15; Evi-
dence, § 461; False Pretenses; Food; Land-
lord and Tenant, § 323; Partition, § 21; Pow-
ers, § 37; Sales, §§ 120, 168, 199; Stat-
utes. § 183; Wills, §§ 440, 464, 487.
See Damages, § 69; Gifts, § 49; Insurance,
$$ 115, 598; Life Estates, & 1; Partnership,
255; Specific Performance, § 126: Tres-
pass, 57; Witnesses, §§ 94, 372, 374.
INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENT.
See Appeal and Error, §§ 74-83.
INTERPRETATION.
failing to charge that accused was a licensed
druggist.-State v. Cobe, 96 N. E. 152.
§ 236 (Ind.) Evidence held to sustain a con-
viction of druggist for unlawfully selling whis-
ky.-Hawks v. State, 96 N. E. 593.
INVITATION.
See Appeal and Error, § 882.
ISSUES.
See Charities, 36; Contracts, 88 147-190, See Appeal and Error, §§ 171, 173; Pleading,
244; Deeds, §§ 90-177; Gifts, & 15; Sales,
$$ 71, 72, 277; Statutes, §§ 183-267; Trial,
$$ 295, 296; Wills, §§ 88, 440-704, 820.
Of lease, see Landlord and Tenant, § 39.
Of ordinances, see Municipal Corporations, §
120.
INTERROGATORIES.
See Trial, §§ 350-359.
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.
See Principal and Agent, § 137.
INTOXICATING LIQUORS.
See Indictment and Information, §§ 61, 199.
IV. LICENSES AND TAXES.
§ 46 (Ill.) The ordinance of a village, speci-
fying the conditions on which applications
for dramshop licenses may be granted, held not
repealed by a subsequent ordinance limiting
the number of licenses.-People v. Mohr, 96
N. E. 893.
An ordinance of a village, limiting the num-
ber of dramshop licenses, and a section subse-
quently added to the ordinance held conflicting,
so that both cannot stand.-Id.
A section added to a village ordinance, limit-
ing the number of dramshop licenses, held in-
valid.-Id.
$75 (Ind.) Effect of appeal from decision
in proceedings to procure a license, as to the
licensee's rights pending appeal, and as to the
determination of the case, stated.-Martin v.
Koppitz-Melcher Brewing Co., 96 N. E. 4.
152 (Ind.) Under Burns' Ann. St. 1908, 88
8351, 9734, unlicensed druggists held not per-
mitted to sell liquor in any quantity.-State v.
Cameron, 96 N. E. 150.
$154 (Ind.) Under Burns' Ann. St. 1908, §
8352, the sale of intoxicants by druggist held
unlawful where made upon an application writ-
ten by the druggist, and not signed by the buy-
er's full name.-Hawks v. State, 96 N. E. 593.
$ 155 (Ind.) Under Burns' Ann. St. 1908, §§
8351, 8352, 9734, licensed druggists held per-
mitted to sell liquor under restrictions pre-
scribed by section 8352.-State v. Cameron, 96
N. E. 150.
VIII. CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS.
§ 20 (Ind.) A charge for sale of intoxicating
liquors by an unlicensed druggist should be
made under Burns' Ann. St. 1908, § 8351.-
State v. Cameron, 96 N. E. 150.
Indictment for sale of liquor by a druggist,
without written prescription, application, or or-
der as required by Burns' Ann. St. 1908, §
8352, held not required to charge that the drug-
gist is a licensed druggist.-Id.
§ 201 (Ind.) An indictment for selling whis-
ky, as a druggist, without complying with
Burns' Ann. St. 1908. § 8352, is not bad for
See Criminal Law, §§ 1932, 292.
See Action, §§ 42, 46; Indictment and Infor-
mation, §§ 128, 132; Parties.
See Husband and Wife, §§ 9, 14; Partition,
98.
§ (Ind.App.) Requisites of an estate in
joint tenancy stated.-Sharp v. Baker, 96 N.
E. 627.
§3 (Ind.App.) To create an estate in joint
tenancy, the tenants must have the same inter-
est. Sharp v. Baker, 96 N. E. 627.
An estate in joint tenancy can only be created
by purchase.-Id.
See Continuance; Exceptions, Bill of, § 44;
Justices of the Peace; Statutes, § 143.
I. APPOINTMENT, QUALIFICATION,
AND TENURE.
§ 8 (N.Y.) Const. art. 6, § 17, relative to the
length of holding of one elected to fill a vacan-
cy occurring before expiration of a full term,
held, in view of article 12, § 3, as to when
terms of city officers, including judicial officers
of inferior courts, shall expire, to apply to a
justice of the Municipal Court of New York
City, so that such provisions of the Constitu-
tion are contravened by Laws 1907, c. 603, §
3, amending Greater New York City Charter,
§ 1357.-In re Markland, 96 N. E. 427.
The office of justice of the Municipal Court
of the City of New York held to be within
Const. art. 10, § 5, as to filling vacancies in
office, and the time one appointed to fill a va-
cancy in an elective office may hold; so that
Laws 1907, c. 603, § 3, amending Greater New
York City Charter, § 1357, contravenes such
provision of the Constitution, by postponing
too long an election to fill a vacancy in such
office, and extending too long the time an ap-
pointee to a vacancy may hold.-Id.
III. RIGHTS, POWERS, DUTIES, AND
LIABILITIES.
§ 22 (Ind.) Burns' Ann. St. 1908, § 1656, re-
lating to compensation of judges, held repealed
by Burns' Ann. St. 1908, § 1651.-State v. Bill-
heimer, 96 N. E. 801.
See Abatement and Revival; Adverse Posses-
sion, $$ 74, 80; Appeal and Error; Attach-
ment, 217; Bankruptcy, §§ 425, 426; Can-
cellation of Instruments, § 46; Constitutional
Law, § 42; Criminal Law, §§ 974, 996; Di-
vorce, $$ 172, 326; Equity, § 415; Execu-
tion, 311; Executors and Administrators,
§§ 335, 437; Guardian and Ward, § 105; Ha-
beas Corpus; Infants, § 89; Judicial Sales;
Municipal Corporations, § 510; Partition,
109; Payment, § 9; Principal and Surety,
162; Taxation, § 642.
VI. ON TRIAL OF ISSUES.
(A) Rendition, Form, and Requisites in
General.
$199 (Ind.App.) The court, in passing on a
motion for judgment on the special verdict
notwithstanding the general verdict, must look
solely to the general verdict, the special ver-
dict, and the facts provable under the issues.-
Chicago & E. R. Co. v. Hamerick, 96 N. E. 649.
$ 200 (Ind.App.) A motion for judgment,
notwithstanding the finding, based upon the
written opinion of the court, which must be
disregarded, being treated as a general finding,
is properly overruled.-Cooley v. Kelley, 96 N.
E. 638.
$219 (N.Y.) A judgment should not contain
provision for execution against the person, nor
extracts from the instructions.-Curtiss
V.
Jebb, 96 N. E. 120.
(C) Conformity to Process, Pleadings,
Proofs, and Verdict or Findings.
$251 (Ind.App.) Judgment on a cross-com-
plaint held not void, because involving issues
not germane to the main action.-Bradford v.
McBride, 96 N. E. 508.
$253 (N.Y.) Suit on a disability policy fail-
ing under one provision on account of prema-
turity held sustainable as a claim under anoth-
er provision. Miles v. Casualty Co. of Amer-
ica, 96 N. E. 744.
(B) Jurisdiction and Proceedings.
§ 456 (Ill.) A bill to set aside a decree for
fraud held not to show absence of laches.-
French v. Thomas, 96 N. E. 564.
fraud must be brought stated.-Id.
Time within which bill to impeach decree for
§ 460 (Ill.) Allegations of a bill to set aside
a decree as obtained by fraud, and as consti-
tuting a cloud on complainant's title, consid-
ered, and held insufficient.-French v. Thomas,
96 N. E. 564.
held bound to show by her bill reasons for de-
Complainant, in a bill to set aside a decree,
lay in bringing suit.-Id.
Requisites of a bill to set aside a decree for
fraud stated.-Id.
$ 461 (Ill.) In a suit to set aside a judgment,
held, that lack of jurisdiction might be shown
by extrinsic evidence.-French v. Thomas, 96
N. E. 564.
XI. COLLATERAL ATTACK.
(A) Judgments Impeachable Collaterally,
§ 470 (Ill.) A judgment rendered by a court
having jurisdiction of the parties and the sub-
ject-matter held not subject to collateral at-
tack.-Miller v. Rowan, 96 N. E. 285.
§ 489 (Ill.) A judgment rendered by a court
having no jurisdiction of the parties and the
subject-matter held subject to collateral at-
tack.-Miller v. Rowan, 96 N. E. 285.
§ 263 (Ind.App.) A motion in arrest of judg-ceedings to confirm an assessment under the
ment addressed to a complaint, containing
more than one paragraph, is properly over-
ruled, unless all the paragraphs are so bad as
not to be cured by the verdict.-Bousher v.
Andrews, 96 N. E. 483.
A motion in arrest of judgment founded on
a paragraph of the complaint sufficient as
against a demurrer must be overruled, regard-
less of the sufficiency of other paragraphs of
the complaint.-Id.
§ 263 (Ind.App.) A complaint good as
against a demurrer is good as against a mo-
tion in arrest of judgment.-Kupfrian Park Co.
v. Runcie, 96 N. E. 626.
VII. ENTRY, RECORD, AND DOCK-
ETING.
$288 (Ill.) Beneficiary under trust held
chargeable with constructive notice of a trus-
tee's sale, by reason of proceedings for an ac-
counting, so as to require prompt action in
attacking the sale to avoid laches.-Oehmich
v. Hedstrom, 96 N. E. 256.
VIII. AMENDMENT, CORRECTION,
AND REVIEW IN SAME COURT.
§ 303 (Ind.App.) The motion to modify a
judgment must be addressed to its form, and
may not question its validity.-Cooley v. Kel-
ley, 96 N. E. 638.
§ 323 (Ind.App.) Motion to modify a judg-
ment on a cross-complaint, rendered at the
preceding term, did not lie, in the absence of
notice to all the parties affected.-Bradford v.
McBride, 96 N. E. 508.
X. EQUITABLE RELIEF.
(A) Nature of Remedy and Grounds.
8411 (Ill.) A mistaken belief that a stipula-
tion settling litigation on which a decree was
entered would not divest a person of title will
not be considered a ground to set it aside.-
Paine v. Doughty, 96 N. E. 212.
§ 443 (Ill.) A court of chancery has power
to look into a judgment of any court and to
cancel the same if it was obtained by fraud.-
French v. Thomas, 96 N. E. 564.
§ 497 (Ill.) A finding that the court, in pro-
local improvement act, has jurisdiction, is over-
diction.-People v. Sargent, 96 N. E. 847.
come by the record disclosing want of juris-
§ 502 (Ill.) A judgment held voidable only,
and not subject to collateral attack.-Pyatt v.
Riley, 96 N. E. 570.
§ 51 (Ill.) A decree held void, and subject
to collateral attack.-French v. Thomas, 96 N.
E. 564.
XIII. MERGER AND BAR OF CAUSES
OF ACTION AND DEFENSES.
(B) Causes of Action and Defenses Merg-
ed, Barred, or Concluded.
8617 (Mass.) A judgment for damages in an
action for fraudulent representation held to
preclude the setting up of the representation as
a defense in a later action on a promissory
note.-Townsend v. Niles, 96 N. E. 1035.
XIV. CONCLUSIVENESS OF ADJUDI-
(A) Judgments Conclusive in General.
§ 654 (Ill.) A decree dismissing a cross-bill
by defendant in a suit to quiet title rendered on
dismissing the original bill held not to settle
any question between the parties.-Chicago Ter-
minal Transfer R. Co. v. Barrett, 96 N. E. 794.
(B) Persons Concluded.
$ 691 (Ind.App.) Acestui que trust being a
privy to his trustee, a judgment affecting the
res is binding upon the cestui without notice,
where the trustee is in court, and the court has
jurisdiction of the res.-Cooley v. Kelley, 96 N.
E. 638.
(C) Matters Concluded.
$715 (Ill.) To give application to the doctrine
of res judicata, it must appear that the adju
dication in the former suit was on the same
question presented in the subsequent_suit.-
Chicago Terminal Transfer R. Co. v. Barrett,
96 N. E. 794.
§ 715 (Mass.) Acts amounting to condona-
tion of marital wrongs held but evidence of a
ratification by a wife of a deed executed by her
to her husband, through a third person, pro-
|